Dr. Caner's commentary (link to article) is marred by things like the by-line calling him, "Ergun Mehmet Caner, PhD," although he does not have a Ph.D. But leaving aside the issues swirling around Dr. Caner and his autobiography, Dr. Caner correctly enunciates the issue that Dearborn is facing then and now again: Dearborn, MI is about 1/3 Muslim, and Islam does not support religious freedom, only a lower option of religious toleration.
I will leave my Muslim readers to correct any misstatements over the details of Dr. Caner's post (one should not assume that Dr. Caner is an expert in this area), but the high level point that Dr. Caner is making is an important one for people to recognize.
Those men and women who seek to bring the light of God's saving truth to Muslims in places where there is a significant Muslim population are going to find opposition. In places like Dearborn, the result may be that one is arrested. In other parts of the world, the result may be much more extreme.
I don't share Dr. Caner's views on religious freedom or his view that the only options should be for Muslims to accept the current American system or leave ("Either my kinsmen learn this distinction, or they need to leave."), but people do need to see that now, today, is the day when you need to go and find your Muslim neighbors and help them see that Jesus is the way, truth and life. Don't wait until you live in a Dearborn, Michigan. For most of my readers, God has placed you in a situation where you can evangelize Muslims without being fired and without being arrested. Seize the day!
To my Muslim readers who live in non-Islamic countries, now too is your chance. Recall what your Koran says was told to Mohammed:
Surah 10:94 If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee: the Truth hath indeed come to thee from thy Lord: so be in no wise of those in doubt.
Arabic:
فَإِن كُنتَ فِى شَكٍّۢ مِّمَّآ أَنزَلْنَآ إِلَيْكَ فَسْـَٔلِ ٱلَّذِينَ يَقْرَءُونَ ٱلْكِتَبَ مِن قَبْلِكَ ۚ لَقَدْ جَآءَكَ ٱلْحَقُّ مِن رَّبِّكَ فَلَا تَكُونَنَّ مِنَ ٱلْمُمْتَرِينَWe have that book that existed before Mohammed, and it testifies to the one Lord, Jesus Christ the righteous. While your book purports to confirm ours (see Surah 10:35), there are unresolvable contradictions between them. Since it is impossible for God to contradict himself, can you not see that the Koran cannot be the Word of God?
Don't be among those who reject the self-revelation of God in the Holy Scriptures!
-TurretinFan
27 comments:
He doesn't believe in religious freedom in this country? I'm confused by what you mean (well, by what he is saying). Is he one of those people who think this is a Christian nation or something?
TF,
The claim you make on Surah 10:94 is an old missionary claim; Copleston made this many years ago in England
I have wrote a book refutation on his work and I will append an excerpt related to your claim. Before I do so I would like to stress the Quran does in no way shape or form ask us to consider what you have today as 100% inspired
The Quran is al-Furqan(the Criterion) thus it is used to confirm what parts of your book is correct and which parts are incorrect. So whatever agrees with the Quran from your book then we know this material within your books is correct.
A relevant excerpt:
The Truth hath indeed come to thee from thy Lord: so be in no wise of those in doubt. (10:94). God is telling us that this is the Truth from God (the Quran is described as the TRUTH here) and it instructs NOT to doubt it and thus by the way of implication is telling us there is no need to ask anybody else. The last part of the verse (which is not quoted by the missionary) teaches that the Quran is the Truth and it should NOT be doubted and thus the first part of the verse (quoted by the missionary) is shown in a way to be a rhetorical challenge/statement and does not mean that Muslims must go and ask anybody
Their claim makes even less sense considering that the Quran mentions that previous Scripture has been distorted! It must be said that the Christian missionaries who use this tactic of partial quoting of a verse are not only trying to only deceive Muslims but Christians too. I would ask the missionaries to reconsider their tactics and even ask themselves why they use dishonesty to evangelise their faith to Muslims. Also to pour further refutation on the missionary claims we must ask ourselves; who is the Quran referring to by stating in “then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee”? Does this actually refer to Christians or does it refer to Scholars of the Scriptures who had converted to Islam (i.e. Abdullah bin Salam)? Where do we get our answers from, well we look at commentary from a companion of the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) concerning this verse in the form of Tafsir ibn Abbas, the commentary states:
“(then question those who read the Scripture) i.e. the Torah ((that was) before you) 'Abdullah Ibn Salam and his followers. The Prophet (pbuh) did not ask nor was he ever in doubt about the Qur'an” (3). To further inform the reader I will tell you that Abdullah ibn Salam was knowledgeable in Scripture and a former Jew who converted to Islam.
So it is quite clear that the commentary is confirming that the verse of the Quran is confirming that the Quran is not telling us to ask Christians!
At-Tabari (early commentator) also echoes the same view by stating that people such as Abdullah bin Salam (experts in Scripture who had converted to Islam) should be asked. At-Tabari goes further and states “do not ask those who are dishonest or are unbelievers”
The Christians are unelievers...thus we are not meant to be asking people like TF (all due respect to TF:)) or God forbid James white!!!
White was recently caught lying about a Quranic verse
I would like to invite TF to Islam.TF Have a read of the verbatim Word of God (the Quran)
Thnak you...peace and love...have a nice weekend
This comment follows along the lines of Dr. Caner and the announcement link provided with this thread.
From the link provided and the published announcement by Liberty of their findings after an investigation of Dr. Caner, I somehow got linked to SBC Today where the full text of the announcement was published, prefaced with an unusual comment by some editor of SBC Today, that, in effect, Dr. Caner was "exonerated" because he was hired to be a Liberty professor for the 2010-11 season even though his contract to be Dean of the Seminary will not be renewed after it ends June 30th, 2010.
Hmmmmmmm, is this the tip of the iceberg that will emerge from beneath the surface of what is really going on within that camp?
Will Dr. Caner come out and publicly correct his own record now?
Or will he hide behind this sort of spin being spun by SBC Today today?
I am puzzled now by the unfolding of that characterization, "exonerated", that followed Liberty's announcement, prefaced by SBC Today?
I would want someone to help me understand just how the findings "exonerate" Dr. Caner when his position as Dean of their seminary after June 30th will not exist??
So, is this what is being spun? "Dr. Caner", [and those following this investigation], "you can no longer guide the Seminary, as her Dean and President, in Truth because of your self-contradictory statements of true facts about yourself, ah, and, but, so what that you falsified them, however, you can still teach students at the Seminary!"
Based on what, now, then, will Dr. Caner proceed to lecture at Liberty? Will it be based on findings of personal truths or findings of personal falsehoods??
Will Liberty students have the liberty to not take his courses of study offered in the fall; or, will his courses be a prerequisite for their further studies to earn their degrees of accomplishment?
I am now wondering what his curriculum will be this fall semester?
I posted this comment over at Facebook and would like anyone who wishes to respond, please do:
This is the statement from LU that kills me:
"However, the committee found no evidence to suggest that Dr. Caner was not a Muslim who converted to Christianity as a teenager, but, instead, found discrepancies related to matters such as dates, names and places of residence."
Please correct me if I'm wrong, and some of you may have been following this more closely than I. Was it ever in question that Caner was a Muslim that converted to Christianity? Did anyone ever question that? I thought the question was whether he was ever a radical jihadist Muslim that converted to Christianity?
Red herring alert: someone help me out here...
This just occurred to me too, and I posted at Facebook:
Regarding my question above, does anyone know--did the Muslim YouTube guy Mohammed Khan (spelling?) call Caner a "fake ex-Muslim?" And by that did he mean that Caner was never at any time a Muslim, much less a radical jihadist?
How can the God of Islam be independent of his creation? Before creating any angel or human, he was alone. As Dr. Ravi Zacharias points out, that is not good. How could this God speak, since there was no one there for him to speak with? How could this God love, since there was no one there to love? How could this God have a relationship, since there was no one there to have a relationship with? How could this God know diversity? How could this God know community? How could this God know unity among diverse persons in a community together? How could it be eternally true: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you? He was alone, therefore ultimately, morality is relative, if he were actually God. And, he is entirely dependent on his creation to know the aforementioned realities.
The Holy Trinity, of course, is independent of creation to know these realities.
Yahya Snow wrote:
Before I do so I would like to stress the Quran does in no way shape or form ask us to consider what you have today as 100% inspired.
Since the Bibles we have today are essentially the same;(Dr. White has adequately shown in debates with Bart Ehrman and Shabir Ally and others that the honesty and openness we have about the history of the text and the textual variants do not affect any major doctrines and are a very small percentage and that is an issue of scribal errors, not affecting the doctrines of inspiration or inerrancy.) - they are essentially the same (doubts about Mark 16:9-20 and a few other minor passages do not affect any major doctrine of the Bible) as those long before Muhammad's time, (many Manuscripts from 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th centuries - all before Muhammad; and "there is no changing of God's word" (Qur'an 10:65; 6:116; 18:27; 6:34); and "ask the people reading the book before you" means both the Torat (OT) and the Injeel (NT); you are therefore wrong.
These articles below show that Muhammad did doubt a lot in the Meccan period after Warqa died - the Islamic sources show this.
They also show that it means the Scriptures before the Qur'an including both OT (Torat) and NT ( Injeel) and that the Qur'an and the Muslim sources did not believe that the texts of the previous Scriptures had been altered.
Surah 10, Yunis (Jonah) was revealed in the Meccan period, Pickthall says in the last 4 years of the Meccan period before the Hegira. (The Meaning of the Glorious Koran, Mohammad Marmaduke Pickthall, p. 157)
Surah 10:94 is talking to Muhammad. It was a encouragement for him to stop doubting. He is to ask the people reading the book that was revealed before the Qur'an. ( Includes both Torah and the Injeel. - both OT and NT)
These articles show that "no one can change the word of Allah" and since our Bible today is the same as in 600-700 AD; it has not been corrupted; never was. The articles show that the commentaries say that the "Christians and Jews distort the meanings of the words", but it never accuses them of changing the text itself.
They also use famous Muslim commentators like Ibn Kathir and Ibn Abbas; and Hadith of Al Bukhari and other Muslim sources.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/zawadi_s10_94.htm
http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/zawadi_q10_94.htm
http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Bible/ibnabbas.html#ibnkathir
qm: I think his views about religious freedom are pretty much the mainline Christian views. Mine are more theocratic. I think that the government must honor God.
-TurretinFan
Yahya Snow wrote:
“The Quran is al-Furqan(the Criterion) thus it is used to confirm what parts of your book is correct and which parts are incorrect. “
The Bible is also called “Al Furqan” (the Criterion) الفرقان
(Surah 2:53; 21:48)
It is also called a light
And a Reminder - ذ کر
21:49
And in Surah 21:7 - it says that the OT was inspired (وحی)
And to go ask the follower of the Reminder “if you know not”.
So, these passages confirm that our understanding of Surah 10:94 is correct. Muhammed is instructed to not doubt the previous revelations, because no one can change the word of God; and they were true, inspired, perfect, guidance, light, criterion, and reminder of the true path and give wisdom for salvation. ( 2 Timothy 3:15-17)
So whatever agrees with the Quran from your book then we know this material within your books is correct.
It is the opposite, whatever comes later (the Qur’an) and does not agree with the previous revelation, the Bible, the later supposed revelation is proved to be the false revelation. (Galatians 1:8-9; Jude 3, Revelation 22:18 and the Qur’an also teaches this in Surah 2:79 – “Woe to those who write Scripture with their hands and then say, “This is from Allah” . . . I realize this, according to the Qur'an, is not applied to Muhammad and his revelation, but the principle is correct. If the Bible is true, OT and NT, then the Qur’an is false. Only what agrees with the previous Scriptures is correct.
Yahya Snow wrote:
“At-Tabari goes further and states “do not ask those who are dishonest or are unbelievers”
Problem with that is the Qur’an calls the Christians honest, full of integrity and the disciples of Jesus as believers, followers of Allah, helpers of Allah, and full of integrity.
(Surah 61:14; 5:111 (the disciples of Jesus are believers and helpers of Allah); 5:68-69 (the Christians believe in the Scriptures, Allah as One (Mark 12:29; Deut. 6:5; I Timothy 2:5-6); and believe in judgment day, and seek to do the right things); 5:82 (the monks who are not proud). It also calls some of the Christians and Jews dishonest and unbelievers – and those who believe God has a physical son with a wife as unbelievers – Surah 6:101; 112 – this is true; since no true Christians have ever believed this; nor that there are three gods, nor that Mary was a part of the Trinity (Surah 5:110); it proves the Qur’an mis-understood what Christianity was all about; and the true Christians are vindicated in history; and Allah did indeed cause them to be the uppermost, victorious (Surah 61:14) in history. The history of the church of the first 4 Centuries shows that the Christians won the Roman Empire by evangelism in love and good deeds under persecution and torture.
All Christians and all history shows Jesus died on the cross and rose from the dead. So, the victory of the Christians is the victory of the gospel of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. This was the message that won the Roman Empire and all subsequent western history. Much of the Middle East and N. Africa also held to this message until Islam forced by the sword and wiped out the churches in N. Africa and most of the Middle East.
According to the Qur'an, Allah deceived the Jews and Christians and everyone else to believe that Jesus was killed on the cross - Surah 3:54-55; 4:157-158.
Allah is the best of deceivers. (kheir ol makkareen- الله خیر المکارین
Qur'an 3:54
But the living and true God cannot lie (Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:18) and God cannot sin (1 John 1:5; Habakkuk 1:13).
This is a big contradiction in the Qur'an, because the "uppermost" and victorious group was the Christians who believed in the death of Christ on the cross and the resurrection and the Deity of Christ and the Trinity.
Surah 3:55 says that the true believers would be the victorious ones until the day of resurrection.
History shows that the Allah of the Qur'an failed; because where are those "Muslim" believers in the first century? There is no evidence of their existence. This shows the Qur'an is wrong.
Anonymous: I've removed your comment.
-TurretinFan
qm:
I see you've withdrawn your comment. There are certainly some comparisons to be made between the two groups. I'll leave it at that for now.
-TurretinFan
Thank you Yahya Snow.
There are so many times that I have been approached by those who should know better, yet are miserly to the truth of the Koran. After understanding what "apologetics" meant I was shocked that anyone even engaged in such things without further knowledge and criticized my beliefs.
I also know from my husband's family how far their "Christianity" is understood and how repulsive their ideas are to Muslims.These are the same people who seek to "minister" while not caring for their own father who I have been taking care of for the last six years after his stroke!
Yet, they are "born again".
I have sent my children to their churches so they could see with their own eyes the hypocricy, and they have.
TF, a person who seeks to "evangelize" me has no right since that person is in fact bothering me as much as anyone attacking me verbally. As I would not be seeking to convert anyone else, what gives them the right to try to "convert" me?
It is a matter of coming to God in our own way, each and everyone.
I will get someone arrested if they are harrassing me because I have that right.
When friend's kids came to me because they wished to convert, I always told them to go talk to their parents and seek their permission because such things cause breakdowns in the family, and in Islam the family is above all a cohesive unit that cannot be broken by such actions.
I still stand by what I said about Ergun Caner, that the mother and grandmother were the instigators of the family breakdown that ended up as his and his brother's mania about Islam and its teachings.
And this is coming from someone who does not pray, fast, etc., yet in my heart there is only one true religion, and it will always be Islam.
"TF, a person who seeks to "evangelize" me has no right since that person is in fact bothering me as much as anyone attacking me verbally."
Rights are a matter of law, I suppose. Some places give one set of rights, another place gives other rights. I won't argue who has what "rights" with you. But I will distinguish "right" from "duty."
It is our duty to evangelize you: a duty born out of our love for God and our love for you, our neighbor. It is our duty to that in places where have the right to do so, and to do so in places where it is illegal for us to do so.
-TurretinFan
TF, your "duty" stops at my rights to be left alone.
I do not recognize your "duty" to be above my rights to be free from harrassment for any reason you cite as "duty".
No amount of your "love for Christ and neighbor" can be above my right not to be accosted by anyone who considers it a "duty" to accost me.
If that was the case, then we would not have stalking laws.
As far as Muslims are concerned your "duty" has bounds and you should understand those boundaries or the law makes you understand.
Let me give you an example:
My oldest daughter had to stand up for her friend Raj (a Hindu)in HS because she was being accosted by a boy with similar beliefs as you.
Raj was terrified to be in school because of this boy. My daughter, who was a wrestler on the school team and a national scholar, took it upon herself to remedy the situation by having a talk with the boy.The boy voluntarily realized that he could not accost the little Hindu girl because he had a "duty", he apologized and left her alone.
She did what his parents should have done, taught him boundaries exist and everyone is restricted by these, no matter what you perceive to be your "duty".
"I do not recognize your "duty" to be above my rights to be free from harrassment for any reason you cite as "duty"."
Christians are duty bound by God to preach the gospel of the grace of God to all the lost world. You are incorrectly equate being preached to with harrassment which is a false conclusion. Telling one of the Lord Jesus Christ and the way of salvation is not harrassment. Not unless one is doing forced conversions by means of threat of physical force. But that is not the means of what Christians are commanded to by Scripture. You can't run off to the other extreme by supressing of our rights of religion in telling others of it.
gypsyrose,
I would add that the Scriptures do not command us to hound an individual who has asked us not to discuss the gospel with them. I think your high school example may be more a function of immaturity on the young man's part. Although he may be trying to be faithful to his understanding of his duty, we are not commanded to harass and hound people once they have insisted on being left alone.
On the other hand, this is quite a different thing than mandating by law that no Christian has a right to preach the gospel in public. If there were such a law, I would be duty-bound to break it and bear the consequences of my actions.
PA
Pilgrimsarbour, I agree with you. Unfortunately, too many people consider it their duty to harrass others even when told to stop and desist.These are . the same people who would be very angry if a Muslim did this to them or their children
The reason I commented on this is because I have personal experience in this and have seen the covert malice in it.
I really have a hard time understanding the "duty" of such people. I think it can be categorized as mania and protected against by utilizing the law.
gypsyrose,
I understand what you're saying. But when we begin talking about enacting laws against free speech, we're in for a world of hurt. After all, harassment can be a very subjective thing, even when somewhat defined by law.
What if I approached you and asked if I could talk to you about Christ? Would that mean that you would call the police on me and have me arrested just for even mentioning it? There are many in this country today who are so easily offended and so thin-skinned that they are just looking for a reason to be a victim of someone since victimhood is the path to power in our day; power over what other individuals think, what they say, and what they do, all backed by official government sanction. Any approach to someone can be subjectively declared as "harassment." Even if the law disagrees, you would have put me through the ringer merely for trying to talk to you. Does that seem right to you? Is that what our founding fathers and the many generations that followed fought and died for, that they wouldn't have to hear the gospel preached in public?
"TF, your "duty" stops at my rights to be left alone."
No, it does not.
Now, there is a difference between evangelizing in general and "hounding" or "harassing" people. But, as you know, in Sharia-following countries, Christians are not given the right to evangelize their Muslim neighbors.
Nevertheless, Christians have a duty to evangelize their neighbors, and that duty supercedes the laws of the land where they are.
-TurretinFan
Pilgrims... said:
After all, harassment can be a very subjective thing, even when somewhat defined by law.
----Agreed
What if I approached you and asked if I could talk to you about Christ? Would that mean that you would call the police on me and have me arrested just for even mentioning it?
---no, I wouldn't, but I would ask you to not continue if I sensed you were intruding upon my space
Any approach to someone can be subjectively declared as "harassment".
---exactly
Even if the law disagrees, you would have put me through the ringer merely for trying to talk to you. Does that seem right to you?
---it is my right not to talk to you, very simple.
Is that what our founding fathers and the many generations that followed fought and died for, that they wouldn't have to hear the gospel preached in public?
---I would suggest a good reading of the Federalist Papers for the ideas of the founding fathers and their dialectic on matters of religion.
---TF, again, it is my choice to want to be spoken to, whether I am in a bar, on the street, the gym or attending a church with a friend.
I do not have to be on the receiving end of anyone's "duty" as much as a woman has a right to say no or it becomes a rape.
I have said no to Muslims, about hearing why they do not consider me a "good Muslim", I have no compunctions saying no to someone who sees his "duty" to convert me. I believe the matter is closed.
Comparing evangelism to rape is needlessly inflammatory.
Our duty to evangelize is something commanded by God. Who are you to argue against it?
Turretinfan said:
Our duty to evangelize is something commanded by God. Who are you to argue against it?
I do not "argue" over it, the law does. I agree with the law of the USA.
I say the same for anyone who considers it his/her "duty" to speak to anyone about anything regardless if it be God, the Great Spirit, Obama, the Great Turtle who holds the Earth on its Back or even Allah.
All is the same in the eyes of the law, regardless of religion or lack of. In short, my rights transcend anything anyone else considers his "duty".
"I do not 'argue' over it, the law does."
a) Men's laws can never supercede God's laws.
b) Thanks be to God who is rich in mercy, the laws of the U.S. do not prohibit evangelism, in fact they protect it.
c) But in places where that is not the case, it is still the duty of Christians to evangelize.
d) A better analogy than you have proposed is the analogy of a doctor who has the duty to save the life of his patients, or the duty of parents to stop their children from harming themselves. The children's or patients' wills or imagined "rights" do not supersede the duties of the parents and doctors. Likewise, we have a duty to, out of love for you our neighbor, show you the way, truth, and life: Christ Jesus the righteous as he is taught in the Word of God contained in the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments.
- TurretinFan
I don't want to get involved in the argument, but I had seen gypsyrose say something that I wanted to add to.
The Apostle Paul, when speaking on the subject of widows an the elderly, says
"If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever" - 1 Timothy 4:8
If your husband's family is really not caring for their father as you say, then they aren't merely be hypocrites, but are going so far as to deny the faith.
Love in Christ,
JL
Post a Comment