Today I came across a blog by J. Shaw, on matters related to Islam. I noticed that he discussed an article by our own writer, Rev. Bassam Madany. Have a look here how he discussed Madany's article on the The Church Facing the Global Challenge of Islam, published on StFrancisMagazine. By the way, Shaw is a double masters student at the University of Texas at Austin (USA). He is on staff at his local church, The Austin Stone Community Church.
Interesting to see one other contributor to StFrancisMagazine, Abu Daoud, interact with Shaw on his criticism. A small world indeed :-) If you have not looked at Abu Daoud's blog Islam and Christianity, do so now. Looking at the number of postings of Abu Daoud, you would think he has a full time blogging ministry. The man is married and has kids. Does his wife never complain? Can you teach me the trick?
Showing posts with label evangelism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label evangelism. Show all posts
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Pat Robertson on Islam: Religion or Ideology?
700 Club's Pat Robertson this week: 'Islam is not a religion, it is a political system ... bent on world domination'.
I hear this so often, that Islam is not a religion but a political system. There is some truth in the statement, but also some untruth. Who decides how to define the word 'religion'? Islam calls itself diin we dunya, and stresses that it is both a system for the true worship of God and a system for organizing society. As Christians, is our view of our religion really that different? Why did Pat Robertson, some years ago, try to become the president of the USA?
Is our Christian faith for the heart only, or do we also have a message for society? I have the impression that if people are so adamant that Islam is not a religion but a political ideology, they actually mean to say that they do not like the political views of Islam and they prefer their own Christian view of society more. Fair enough, I wholly agree with this, but let us not pollute our discussions about Islam by statements that are unfair and untrue.
On 8 April, Christian Broadcasting Network's The 700 Club aired a report featuring an interview with Bernard Lewis, Princeton University professor of Near Eastern studies, which focused on, in CBN correspondent Chris Mitchell's words, "the struggle ... between Islam and Christendom, two worldviews that contend that theirs is the one true faith." Commenting on the report, co-host Pat Robertson said of Islam:
I hear this so often, that Islam is not a religion but a political system. There is some truth in the statement, but also some untruth. Who decides how to define the word 'religion'? Islam calls itself diin we dunya, and stresses that it is both a system for the true worship of God and a system for organizing society. As Christians, is our view of our religion really that different? Why did Pat Robertson, some years ago, try to become the president of the USA?
Is our Christian faith for the heart only, or do we also have a message for society? I have the impression that if people are so adamant that Islam is not a religion but a political ideology, they actually mean to say that they do not like the political views of Islam and they prefer their own Christian view of society more. Fair enough, I wholly agree with this, but let us not pollute our discussions about Islam by statements that are unfair and untrue.
On 8 April, Christian Broadcasting Network's The 700 Club aired a report featuring an interview with Bernard Lewis, Princeton University professor of Near Eastern studies, which focused on, in CBN correspondent Chris Mitchell's words, "the struggle ... between Islam and Christendom, two worldviews that contend that theirs is the one true faith." Commenting on the report, co-host Pat Robertson said of Islam:
I want to say it again, and again, and again: Islam is not a religion, it is a political system meant on -- bent on world domination, not a religion. It masquerades as a religion, but the religion covers a worldwide attempt to exercise power and to subjugate the world to their way of thinking. They want a caliphate as they had once before; they want all people to be subjected to Sharia and to live under their rules and their domination. It is every bit as insidious as communism, perhaps more so. But to say, 'Well, it's a religion, and you should leave a religion alone,' that's just not the way it works."During the 12 June 2007 edition of The 700 Club, Robertson stated:
Ladies and gentlemen, we have to recognize that Islam is not a religion. It is a worldwide political movement meant on domination of the world. And it is meant to subjugate all people under Islamic law. Muslims want to take over and we want to impose Sharia on you. And before long, ladies are going to be dressed in burqas and whatever garments they would put on them, and next thing you know, men are going to be allowed to have wife-beating and you'll be beheading adulterers and so on and so forth.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Negotiations for a Church in Saudi Arabia
Panta Rei... The world is in flux. If Saudi Arabia allows churches on its soil, all things are possible! Will the praises of the Tri-une God and the Lord Jesus Christ soon be publicly sung in Islam's holiest land?
Archbishop Paul-Mounged El-Hachem, the papal envoy to some countries on the Arabian peninsula like Kuwait and Qatar, confirms that talks are under way to establish formal diplomatic relations between the Vatican and Saudi Arabia, and to eventually allow for Catholic churches to be built there. Pope Benedict XVI is believed to have personally appealed to King Abdullah on the topic during the Saudi monarch's first ever visit to the Vatican in November 2007.
Top Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi said that a Catholic parish in this key Islamic country would be "a historic achievement" in the push to expand religious freedom and foster a positive interfaith rapport. Under Benedict, the Catholic hierarchy has stepped up calls from its Muslim counterparts for "reciprocity," demanding that the same religious freedom enjoyed by Muslims in the West should be granted to Christian minorities in the Islamic world. They note that Europe's biggest mosque, built with Saudi funds, was opened in 1995 in Rome, just across the river from the Vatican.More in the Guardian of 18 March 2008
Archbishop Paul-Mounged El-Hachem, the papal envoy to some countries on the Arabian peninsula like Kuwait and Qatar, confirms that talks are under way to establish formal diplomatic relations between the Vatican and Saudi Arabia, and to eventually allow for Catholic churches to be built there. Pope Benedict XVI is believed to have personally appealed to King Abdullah on the topic during the Saudi monarch's first ever visit to the Vatican in November 2007.
Top Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi said that a Catholic parish in this key Islamic country would be "a historic achievement" in the push to expand religious freedom and foster a positive interfaith rapport. Under Benedict, the Catholic hierarchy has stepped up calls from its Muslim counterparts for "reciprocity," demanding that the same religious freedom enjoyed by Muslims in the West should be granted to Christian minorities in the Islamic world. They note that Europe's biggest mosque, built with Saudi funds, was opened in 1995 in Rome, just across the river from the Vatican.More in the Guardian of 18 March 2008
Monday, April 7, 2008
10 Management Lessons from Muhammad
Yes indeed, our Muslims friends are now following the Western management gurus; we already knew that management by the principles of Jesus leads to success, but I came across the 10 'principles of success' that we can learn from Muhammad who 'has shown us the way of achieving supreme success in this world'. Here you you read it all.
To me it seems that examples like this, signify major shifts in Islamic thinking; 50 years ago, no Muslim would write about the prophet in terms of business success. Is this a westernized version of Islam? Contextualization? Or the 'Christianization of Islam'?
To me it seems that examples like this, signify major shifts in Islamic thinking; 50 years ago, no Muslim would write about the prophet in terms of business success. Is this a westernized version of Islam? Contextualization? Or the 'Christianization of Islam'?
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Colin Chapman explains why he signed....
The controversy over the Islamic initiative to dialogue ('A Common Word') and the response of a group of Christian theologians ('A Christian Reponse') continues unabated. For details of the debates, have a look at www.stfrancismagazine.info in its March 2008 issue.
The Rev Colin Chapman wrote an article that we'll publish on the StFrancisMagazine in June, defending why he signed the controversial 'A Christian Response'. Here some parts of that article to make you want more!
Rev Colin Chapman:
Let me begin by explaining why I felt positive about ACW when it first appeared and why I signed the Yale Response. I will then summarise the main arguments developed in several recent Christian statements which have been critical of both ACW itself and the Yale Letter (e.g. by Patrick Sookhdeo of the Barnabas Fund and Mark Durie, www.acommonword.blogspot.com). Finally I will explain why I disagree with these cautious and critical responses.
Reasons for a positive response
- The signatories represent many different kinds of Islam, and include leaders and scholars from many different countries. Never before has such a wide cross-section of Muslim leaders come together to issue an appeal of this kind.
- Since ACW is an invitation to Christians to engage in further dialogue, we either accept the invitation, decline it or ignore it. Declining or ignoring an invitation as serious as this sends a very unhelpful message to the Muslim world.
- It recognises the seriousness of the political issues dividing the world, suggesting that ‘our common future is at stake. The very survival of the world itself is perhaps at stake.’ This is no exercise in detached, philosophical or theological dialogue.
- In emphasising ‘the primacy of total love and devotion to God’ and ‘all-embracing constant and active love of God’, it uses Jewish and Christian scripture to sum up ideas which are seen as fundamental also in Islam. It is extraordinary that Muslims are attempting to summarise some of their key beliefs not in traditional Islamic language but in language drawn from Jewish and Christian scriptures.
- It avoids polemical approaches by recognising the common ground as well as differences between the two faiths, and expresses the hope that ‘this common ground be the basis of all future interfaith dialogue between us …’
- It recognises the importance of human rights issues, saying that ‘justice and freedom of religion are a crucial part of love of the neighbour’.
- By suggesting that ‘the Unity of God, the necessity of love for Him, and the necessity of love of the neighbour is … the common ground between Christianity and Islam’, it seems to recognise that Christians acknowledge the oneness of God and might be genuine monotheists.
- It also seems to recognise that Christian beliefs about Jesus may not amount to the cardinal sin of shirk (association, i.e. putting a created being on the level of the Creator). ‘Taking other lords beside God’ is interpreted to mean that ‘Muslims, Christians and Jews should be free to each follow what God has commanded them, and not have “to prostrate before kings and the like” …’
Reasons for cautious or critical responses
- The interpretation of several Qur’anic verses in ACW is significantly different from traditional interpretations. For example the key verse from which the title, A Common Word, is taken, (‘O People of the Scripture! Come to a common word between us and you: that we shall worship none but God …’ 3:64), in its original context is not an invitation to an open-ended dialogue, but rather a plea for Jews and Christians to accept an Islamic formula about the oneness of God.
- The letter is an example of taqiyya (usually translated ‘dissimulation’), the principle which, in the words of Patrick Sookhdeo, ‘allows Muslims to practise deception in certain circumstance. Mark Durie speaks of the Letter’s ‘indirectness’, implying that it is not entirely honest in its presentation and intentions.
- Far from being an invitation to genuine dialogue, it amounts to a missionary call, inviting Christians to accept an Islamic understanding of the oneness of God as the basis for dialogue. In the words of Mark Durie, ‘Christians are being asked to accept Islamic monotheism as the foundation for interfaith dialogue and peaceful relationships’. Similarly, Patrick Sookhdeo writes: ‘Although presented as interfaith dialogue, the letter can equally be viewed as a classical example of Islamic da‘wa (mission). It is a call to accept the Muslim concept of the unity of God (tawhid) and therefore to reject the incompatible Christian views of the Trinity and the deity of Christ… The message is that if Christians will accept Islam’s concept of the unity of God (thus denying the basic doctrines of the Trinity and deity of Christ), Muslims will accept the Christian values of love for God and neighbour as central to Islam. Thus a radical revolutionary change in Christianity is demanded in exchange for a superficial change of emphasis in Islamic perceptions.’
- There are so many things that are not mentioned in ACW. There is no reference, for example, to the militant verses in the Qur’an, no acknowledgement of God’s love for humankind as a whole, no recognition of human rights abuses against Christians in Islamic countries, and no apology for the crimes of Muslims against non-Muslims.
- Positive responses to ACW from Christians will have a harmful effect on Christians living in Islamic countries. Mark Durie believes that ‘the tone adopted in the Yale Response will come across as capitulation, and it will signal abandonment of the cause of their persecuted brother and sisters in Christ.’
For the full article, read www.stfrancismagazine.info in June 2008!
The Rev Colin Chapman wrote an article that we'll publish on the StFrancisMagazine in June, defending why he signed the controversial 'A Christian Response'. Here some parts of that article to make you want more!
Rev Colin Chapman:
Let me begin by explaining why I felt positive about ACW when it first appeared and why I signed the Yale Response. I will then summarise the main arguments developed in several recent Christian statements which have been critical of both ACW itself and the Yale Letter (e.g. by Patrick Sookhdeo of the Barnabas Fund and Mark Durie, www.acommonword.blogspot.com). Finally I will explain why I disagree with these cautious and critical responses.
Reasons for a positive response
- The signatories represent many different kinds of Islam, and include leaders and scholars from many different countries. Never before has such a wide cross-section of Muslim leaders come together to issue an appeal of this kind.
- Since ACW is an invitation to Christians to engage in further dialogue, we either accept the invitation, decline it or ignore it. Declining or ignoring an invitation as serious as this sends a very unhelpful message to the Muslim world.
- It recognises the seriousness of the political issues dividing the world, suggesting that ‘our common future is at stake. The very survival of the world itself is perhaps at stake.’ This is no exercise in detached, philosophical or theological dialogue.
- In emphasising ‘the primacy of total love and devotion to God’ and ‘all-embracing constant and active love of God’, it uses Jewish and Christian scripture to sum up ideas which are seen as fundamental also in Islam. It is extraordinary that Muslims are attempting to summarise some of their key beliefs not in traditional Islamic language but in language drawn from Jewish and Christian scriptures.
- It avoids polemical approaches by recognising the common ground as well as differences between the two faiths, and expresses the hope that ‘this common ground be the basis of all future interfaith dialogue between us …’
- It recognises the importance of human rights issues, saying that ‘justice and freedom of religion are a crucial part of love of the neighbour’.
- By suggesting that ‘the Unity of God, the necessity of love for Him, and the necessity of love of the neighbour is … the common ground between Christianity and Islam’, it seems to recognise that Christians acknowledge the oneness of God and might be genuine monotheists.
- It also seems to recognise that Christian beliefs about Jesus may not amount to the cardinal sin of shirk (association, i.e. putting a created being on the level of the Creator). ‘Taking other lords beside God’ is interpreted to mean that ‘Muslims, Christians and Jews should be free to each follow what God has commanded them, and not have “to prostrate before kings and the like” …’
Reasons for cautious or critical responses
- The interpretation of several Qur’anic verses in ACW is significantly different from traditional interpretations. For example the key verse from which the title, A Common Word, is taken, (‘O People of the Scripture! Come to a common word between us and you: that we shall worship none but God …’ 3:64), in its original context is not an invitation to an open-ended dialogue, but rather a plea for Jews and Christians to accept an Islamic formula about the oneness of God.
- The letter is an example of taqiyya (usually translated ‘dissimulation’), the principle which, in the words of Patrick Sookhdeo, ‘allows Muslims to practise deception in certain circumstance. Mark Durie speaks of the Letter’s ‘indirectness’, implying that it is not entirely honest in its presentation and intentions.
- Far from being an invitation to genuine dialogue, it amounts to a missionary call, inviting Christians to accept an Islamic understanding of the oneness of God as the basis for dialogue. In the words of Mark Durie, ‘Christians are being asked to accept Islamic monotheism as the foundation for interfaith dialogue and peaceful relationships’. Similarly, Patrick Sookhdeo writes: ‘Although presented as interfaith dialogue, the letter can equally be viewed as a classical example of Islamic da‘wa (mission). It is a call to accept the Muslim concept of the unity of God (tawhid) and therefore to reject the incompatible Christian views of the Trinity and the deity of Christ… The message is that if Christians will accept Islam’s concept of the unity of God (thus denying the basic doctrines of the Trinity and deity of Christ), Muslims will accept the Christian values of love for God and neighbour as central to Islam. Thus a radical revolutionary change in Christianity is demanded in exchange for a superficial change of emphasis in Islamic perceptions.’
- There are so many things that are not mentioned in ACW. There is no reference, for example, to the militant verses in the Qur’an, no acknowledgement of God’s love for humankind as a whole, no recognition of human rights abuses against Christians in Islamic countries, and no apology for the crimes of Muslims against non-Muslims.
- Positive responses to ACW from Christians will have a harmful effect on Christians living in Islamic countries. Mark Durie believes that ‘the tone adopted in the Yale Response will come across as capitulation, and it will signal abandonment of the cause of their persecuted brother and sisters in Christ.’
For the full article, read www.stfrancismagazine.info in June 2008!
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Jordanian campaign against evangelism
On 21 February, Jordanian parliament slammed media reports that the country has increased pressure on expatriate Christians. ‘We categorically condemn and reject the false report which is aimed at damaging Muslim-Christian relations in Jordan’, the 110-member lower house of parliament said.
This statement of parliament came a day after Jordan’s foreign minister explained that he had eight expatriate Christians expelled for proselytizing activities under the cover of humanitarian aid operations. He explained that 'some foreigners arrive in the kingdom under the pretext of charitable activities, but break the law and carry out missionary activities'.
In the previous week, the Council of Churches in Jordan, which represents most Churches in the country, warned of the presence of about '40 sects'. It is likely that the Council of Churches distanced itself publicly from these groups fearing that the present government campaign against Christians may also hurt them. They condemned the actions of these movements, saying that they 'create discord within Christianity itself and with the Muslims'.
For the Council of Churches to distance itself from the actions of other Christians is divisive and unwise; it strengthens the government's campaign against churches and missionaries in Jordan. For independent mission agencies to ignore the views of the major local churches is also divisive and unwise. It obviously puts the local churches in a difficult position in relationship to the authorities.
On 6 February, the Free Evangelical Church in Aqaba was closed by the Jordanian authorities. The same church had had a series of problems at the hands of the authorities during the past year. On 29 April 2007, its Pastor Mazhar Izzat Bishay, an Egyptian national and long-time resident of Aqaba, was deported to Egypt after being questioned. No reason for his deportation was given. A few months earlier, Wajeeh Besharah, Ibrahim Atta, Raja Welson, and Imad Waheeb, four Egyptians living in Aqaba, were also deported, after being questioned about their affiliation with the church.
This statement of parliament came a day after Jordan’s foreign minister explained that he had eight expatriate Christians expelled for proselytizing activities under the cover of humanitarian aid operations. He explained that 'some foreigners arrive in the kingdom under the pretext of charitable activities, but break the law and carry out missionary activities'.
In the previous week, the Council of Churches in Jordan, which represents most Churches in the country, warned of the presence of about '40 sects'. It is likely that the Council of Churches distanced itself publicly from these groups fearing that the present government campaign against Christians may also hurt them. They condemned the actions of these movements, saying that they 'create discord within Christianity itself and with the Muslims'.
For the Council of Churches to distance itself from the actions of other Christians is divisive and unwise; it strengthens the government's campaign against churches and missionaries in Jordan. For independent mission agencies to ignore the views of the major local churches is also divisive and unwise. It obviously puts the local churches in a difficult position in relationship to the authorities.
On 6 February, the Free Evangelical Church in Aqaba was closed by the Jordanian authorities. The same church had had a series of problems at the hands of the authorities during the past year. On 29 April 2007, its Pastor Mazhar Izzat Bishay, an Egyptian national and long-time resident of Aqaba, was deported to Egypt after being questioned. No reason for his deportation was given. A few months earlier, Wajeeh Besharah, Ibrahim Atta, Raja Welson, and Imad Waheeb, four Egyptians living in Aqaba, were also deported, after being questioned about their affiliation with the church.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
