The Bible and Society

How God’s Word is True

Saudi Intellectual: Western Civilization Has Liberated Mankind

Posted by Mats on 30/05/2009

by sheikyermami on April 29, 2009

MEMRI

 Western Civilization Has Liberated Mankind, not “Arab inventions”. But appropriating Western achievements and calling them their own is a rather common claim by Muslims and Arabs, who have little, if anything to show in the advancement of humanity.

t_clip_1174It is refreshing to see that Ibrahim Al-Buleihi is one exception to the pathetic headbangers who keep  making absurd claims about Arab inventions and Islamic supremacy. 

Exceptional [Arab] Individuals Were Not the Product of Arab Culture, But Rather Greek Culture… We Don’t Deserve to Take Pride In Them, Since We Rejected Them and Fought Their Ideas”

 

 

In an interview published April 23, 2009 in the Saudi Daily ‘Okaz, reformist thinker Ibrahim Al-Buleihi expressed his admiration for Western civilization. The interview was posted on the same day on the Elaph website.  Al-Buleihi calls on the Arabs to acknowledge the greatness of Western civilization, and to admit the deficiencies of their own culture. He states that such self-criticism is a precondition to any change for the better. Ibrahim Al-Buleihi is a member of the Saudi Shura Council. 

Following are excerpts from the interview:

“If It Were Not for the Accomplishments of the West, Our Lives Would Have Been Barren”

‘Okaz: “I begin with the crucial issue which distinguishes your thought and which your opponents always raise against you – namely, your being completely dazzled by the West, while you completely belittle Arabic thought. Truly, this is the most outstanding feature of your writings. There is also extreme self-flagellation which many see [in your writings]. What is the cause of this?”

Buleihi: “My attitude towards Western civilization is an attitude based on obvious facts and great accomplishments; here is a reality full of wonderful and amazing things. [Recognizing] this doesn’t mean that I am blindly fascinated. This is the very opposite of the attitude of those who deny and ignore the bright lights of Western civilization. Just look around… and you will notice that everything beautiful in our life has been produced by Western civilization: even the pen that you are holding in your hand, the recording instrument in front of you, the light in this room, and the journal in which you work, and many innumerable amenities, which are like miracles for the ancient civilizations.… If it were not for the accomplishments of the West, our lives would have been barren. I only look objectively and value justly what I see and express it honestly. Whoever does not admire great beauty is a person who lacks sensitivity, taste, and observation. Western civilization has reached the summit of science and technology. It has achieved knowledge, skills, and new discoveries, as no previous civilization before it. The accomplishments of Western civilization cover all areas of life: methods of organization, politics, ethics, economics, and human rights. It is our obligation to acknowledge its amazing excellence. Indeed, this is a civilization that deserves admiration. … The horrible backwardness in which some nations live is the inevitable result of their refusal to accept this [abundance of Western ideas and visions] while taking refuge in denial and arrogance.”

 

‘Okaz: “Sir, you can admire this civilization as much as you want, but not at the expense of others, especially our own civilization.”

Buleihi: “My admiration for the West is not at the expense of others; rather, it is an invitation to those others to acknowledge their illusions and go beyond their inferiority and liberate themselves from backwardness. [Those others] should admit their shortcomings, and make an effort to overcome them; they should stop denying the truth and closing their eyes to the multitude of wonderful achievements. They should be fair towards those nations that achieved prosperity for themselves but did not monopolize it for themselves and instead allowed the whole world to share the results of this progress, so that other nations of the whole world now enjoy these achievements. Furthermore, Western civilization has given to the world knowledge and skills which made it possible for them, the non-Western nations, to compete with it in production and share markets with it. Criticizing one’s own deficiencies is a precondition to inducing oneself to change for the better. Conversely, to glorify one’s backward apathetic self is to establish and fortify backwardness, to strengthen the shackles of apathy, and to eradicate the capabilities of excellence. Backwardness is a shameful reality, which we should resent and from which we must liberate ourselves.”

 

“Western Civilization is the Only Civilization that Liberated Man From His Illusions and Shackles; It Recognized His Individuality and Provided Him With Capabilities and Opportunities to Cultivate Himself and Realize His Aspirations”

‘Okaz: “This may be so, and I’m with you in this demand but, sir, would you summarize for us the reason for your admiration of Western culture, so that we can have a basis for discussion?”

Buleihi: “There is no one reason, there are a thousand reasons, which all induce me to admire the West and emphasize its absolute excellence in all matters of life. Western civilization is the only civilization that liberated man from his illusions and shackles; it recognized his individuality and provided him with capabilities and opportunities to cultivate himself and realize his aspirations. [Western civilization] humanized political authority and established mechanisms to guarantee relative equality and relative justice and to prevent injustice and to alleviate aggression. This does not mean that this is a flawless civilization; indeed, it is full of deficiencies. Yet it is the greatest which man has achieved throughout history. [Before the advent of Western civilization,] humanity was in the shackles of tyranny, impotence, poverty, injustice, disease, and wretchedness.

“It is an extraordinary civilization, and it is not an extension of any ancient civilization, with the exception of Greek civilization, which is the source of contemporary civilization. I have completed a book on this great extraordinary civilizational leap, titledThe Qualitative Changes in Human Civilization. Western civilization is its own product and it is not indebted to any previous civilization except for the Greek one … It has revived the Greek achievements in the fields of philosophy, science, literature, politics, society, human dignity, and veneration of reason, while recognizing its shortcomings and illusions and stressing its continuous need for criticism, review and correction.”

 

‘Okaz: “In your words here, you completely wipe out all the endeavors and creativity of previous civilizations such as the Islamic one, by stating that the West not indebted to it.”

Buleihi: “Indeed, it is not, nor is it indebted to any other previous civilization. Western civilization has its foundation in Greece in the sixth and fifth centuries BC; then it stopped in the Middle Ages, but resumed its progress in modern times, when its benefits have come to include all nations. It is really extraordinary in every meaning of the word – excellence, uniqueness, and novelty… It has components and qualities which distinguish it from all previous and subsequent civilizations. It is the product of philosophical thinking invented by the Greeks. The Europeans have based themselves on this kind of thinking, especially on its critical aspect, which developed the capability of producing objective knowledge that is always open to review, correction and progress…”

 

‘Okaz: “Some Western thinkers wrote that Western civilization is an extension of previous civilizations. How can you, a Muslim Arab, deny this?”

Buleihi: “When we review the names of Muslim philosophers and scholars whose contribution to the West is pointed out by Western writers, such as Ibn Rushd, Ibn Al-Haitham, Ibn Sina, Al-Farbi, Al-Razi, Al-Khwarizmi, and their likes, we find that all of them were disciples of the Greek culture and they were individuals who were outside the [Islamic] mainstream. They were and continue to be unrecognized in our culture. We even burned their books, harassed them, [and] warned against them, and we continue to look at them with suspicion and aversion. How can we then take pride in people from whom we kept our distance and whose thought we rejected?…

“As for the question of cultural development, there are two approaches. According to one approach, civilization is the product of a cumulative process. However, this approach is contradicted by the facts of history. According to the other approach, a quantitative change does not become a qualitative one, except through an extraordinary leap. This is the correct compelling approach, which I adopt. Quantity cannot possibly turn into quality spontaneously. …

“The only civilization which possesses the ingredients of perpetual progress is Western civilization, with its Greek foundation and its amazing contemporary formation. … Western civilization believes that it is impossible to possess absolute truth and that human perfection is impossible, so man must strive to achieve it while recognizing that it is impossible to reach. Thus it is the only civilization which is constantly growing and constantly reviewing and correcting itself and achieving continuous discoveries. …”

 

“Humanity Lived Thousands of Years Ruminating on the Same Ideas and Living in the Same Conditions, Using the Same Tools… It Could Have Continued Forever In This Way If It Were Not For the Emergence of Philosophical Thinking in Greece

‘Okaz: “Let me ask you about your complete fascination with Western civilization.”

Buleihi: “The light of this civilization is very bright and only a blind person can be oblivious to its brightness. Anyone who is capable of sight and insight is inevitably fascinated by it… We should give credit where credit is due. Has any previous civilization dreamt of the astounding revelations and exact silences and complex technologies [achieved by Western civilization]? Have previous generations imagined the possibility of opening the human chest or head and conducting intricate surgeries on the heart and brain? Could they imagine the deep understanding of the living cell and the way it is formed…. Did they imagine airplanes, cars, telephones, and innumerable accomplishments of this civilization? Would you want us to go back to writing on parchment and papyrus and using wooden sticks for pens, and riding donkeys? …

 

‘Okaz: “Sorry, no one has asked you to return to the era of donkeys, but it is necessary to pass historical judgment in a fair and balanced way. You are saying that you want ‘to give credit where credit is due,’ but, in fact, you deny any credit to whatever existed before Western civilization, and while everybody recognizes that human achievements are cumulative in nature, you negate that axiomatic rule when you speak about Western accomplishments.”

Buleihi: “Humanity lived thousands of years ruminating on the same ideas and living in the same conditions, using the same tools and instruments. It could have continued forever in this way if it were not for the emergence of philosophical thinking in Greece in the sixth and fifth centuries BC. Civilizational progress at its current level cannot be achieved by accumulation; rather, it is the outcome of great revolutions in the fields of thought, science, politics, society, and labor. …

“What pushes man out of his routine is the struggle of ideas, the freedom of choice, and equal opportunity. The best proof of this is that many peoples today live in the depth of backwardness, despite the availability of science, technology, and ideas. They witness the examples of prosperity, and despite this, these backwards peoples are unable to abandon their trenches and free themselves from their shackles. In other words, they are unable to emulate those who are prosperous and they are completely unable to invent and initiate.”

 

‘Okaz: “There is a crucial question in our debate: do you understand by civilization only its material aspect?”

Buleihi: ”The most important achievement of Western civilization is the humanization of political authority, dividing it into separate powers, and establishing and keeping a balance between the separate powers. Western civilization has given priority to the individual and subordinated its institutions, laws, and procedures to this principle, whereas in the old civilizations the individual was a cog in a machine.”

 

 

 

 

 

“Ever Since the End of the Period of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs, Man’s Individuality Was Eradicated in Arab History, And His Value Has Been Linked to His Political, Religious, Regional, or Tribal Affiliation”

‘Okaz: “A cog in a machine? Do you believe that this is true also of Islamic civilization?”

Buleihi: “We sharply distinguish between Islam in itself and what people do in its name. The great principles of Islam and its sublime doctrines that emphasize and uphold human value and dignity have not had a chance throughout history to establish themselves. Ever since the end of the period of the rightly-guided Caliphs, man’s individuality was eradicated in Arab history and his value has been linked to his political, religious, regional, or tribal affiliation… The only civilization which acknowledges and respects man as an individual is Western civilization… Behavior in any field is not the outcome of teachings, as such, but rather of practice and actual experience….”

 

‘Okaz: “Has this been the case throughout all of Arab history, in your opinion?”

Buleihi: ”Yes, all of Arab history can be characterized in this gloomy way, except for the period of the rightly-guided Caliphs and discrete periods such as the reign of Omar ibn ‘Abd Al-’Aziz. One should not confuse the sublime principles and doctrines of Islam with its history, which is full of mistakes, transgression, and tragedies. When the Abbasids overcame the Umayyads, they covered the bodies of the dead with rugs and held a feast over the bodies in a display of vengeance. When [Caliph] Al-Ma’mun defeated his brother Al-Amin, he flayed him like a lamb. This scene recurs throughout our history. Political power is the pivotal value in Arab culture. In our age, there have been recurrent military coups in the Arab world, in a struggle for power, but not in an attempt to bring about a change for the better. Each successive regime is worse than its predecessor.”

 

‘Okaz: “Mr. Buleihi, haven’t you read in the history of your people about hundreds of scholars who had significance and impact and whose lives are studied to this day, even though they possessed no power, tribe, or religious affiliation, and who are valued for their scholarship?”

Buleihi: “This is a general statement which is not backed by fact. Arab history, with the exception of the period of the rightly-guided Caliphs, was dominated by politics. When the Fatimids took over Egypt and North Africa, these areas became Shiite, and when Salah Al-Din Al-Ayyubi [i.e. Saladin] put an end to the Fatimids, he drove out everything that had any relation to Shiism. The same happened when the Safavids converted Iran to Shiism, which then led the Ottomans to act the same way [in imposing Sunnism]. Thus Arab history, or Islamic history, in the wider sense, is the outcome of political ups and downs….”

 

“Those Exceptional [Arab] Individuals Were Not the Product of Arab Culture, But Rather Greek Culture… We Don’t Deserve to Take Pride In Them, Since We Rejected Them and Fought Their Ideas”

‘Okaz: “Let me pause here for a moment. You are reducing Islamic history just to political history. Even Islamic political history for all its tragedies, is not as bad as you described it. You also overlook the scientific and cultural aspects of Islamic history, which created a great civilization even while Europe suffered under the rule of feudalism, the Church, ignorance, and backwardness.”

Buleihi: “We have inherited certain clichés about our history and the history of other nations without reading our history critically and without reading the history of others fairly and objectively. The luminous Greek civilization emerged in the sixth century BC and reached the peak of its flourishing in the fifth century BC. In other words, Greek civilization emerged many generations before the Islamic one, and Greek philosophy was the source from which Muslim philosophers derived their philosophy. Those individuals in whom we sometimes take pride, such as Ibn Rushd, Ibn Al-Haytham, Al-Razi, Al-Qindi, Al-Khawarizmi, and Al-Farabi were all pupils of Greek thought. As for our civilization, it is a religious one, concerned with religious law, totally absorbed in the details of what Muslims should do and shouldn’t do in his relations with Allah and in his relations with others. This is a huge task worthy of admiration, because religion is the pivot of life. We must however recognize that our achievements are all confined to this great area. Let us not claim then that the West has borrowed from us its secular lights. Our culture has been and continues to be absorbed with questions of the forbidden and the permitted and belief and disbelief, because it is a religious civilization…

 

‘Okaz: “They [the Muslims] learned from the Greek civilization and this is not a fault, this is the way young civilizations are, they learn from previous civilizations and build upon them. Is it expected that they should have abolished the achievements of the Greeks and started from zero?”

Buleihi: “I am not against learning [from others]. What I wanted to clarify is that these [achievements] are not of our own making, and those exceptional individuals were not the product of Arab culture, but rather Greek culture. They are outside our cultural mainstream and we treated them as though they were foreign elements. Therefore we don’t deserve to take pride in them, since we rejected them and fought their ideas. Conversely, when Europe learned from them it benefited from a body of knowledge which was originally its own because they were an extension of Greek culture, which is the source of the whole of Western civilization.”

<!– –>

{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }

theresaj April 30, 2009 at 1:10 am

Amazing…how long will he be allowed to air his wiews??

Mimi April 30, 2009 at 1:18 am

A Law professor in Qatar stated too, that it was tiem for them to change. Qatar now allowing Christian churches to be build. I was surprised that Saudi Arabia did not object to that.
Religions still causing problems under Christians too.
I prefer to stay away from the Religeous groups all together.

An infidel! April 30, 2009 at 2:50 am

With you on that Mimi, but this guy will be snuffed out. How dare he tell the truth.

kaw April 30, 2009 at 3:45 am

Change is happening – the question is how quickly this positive change (for all) can be sustained.

Ed April 30, 2009 at 11:26 am

The Kingdom is producing many intellectuals like Mr.Buleihi, provably changes is forthcoming.

eloivsdiablo April 30, 2009 at 2:58 pm

This is a hudna of sorts, not that they need to with an usurper President in the White House. Ten steps forward one step back…

Mats April 30, 2009 at 6:57 pm

The man is right in almost everything, except one. He overlooks the influence of the judeo-christian worldview in western civilization. All those values that he lists (freedom, persuit of happyness, individuality, etc) are logical outcomes of the belief in a Rational Creator as manifested in the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures. If you take away the judeo-christian item from western civilization, there wouldn’t be any western civilization. Europe would have fallen to the Arabs in Poiters, and we’d bell “arabs”.

I would go even futher and say this: western civilization owes its sucess to One Single Jewish Man: Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Take Him away from History, and it becomes unexplainable.

Advertisements

15 Responses to “Saudi Intellectual: Western Civilization Has Liberated Mankind”

  1. Abdullah said

    I am sure that many in the west will latch on to this man’s words as a proof and evidence for their own righteousness. However, this man is speaking from an extremely ignorant position. I am a product of the west and I know better.

  2. Mats said

    I am sure that many in the west will latch on to this man’s words as a proof and evidence for their own righteousness.

    Not righteoussness, but superior worldview.

    However, this man is speaking from an extremely ignorant position. I am a product of the west and I know better

    He is a product of islam, and he knows better.
    In who should we trust when it comes to this point: in a man who grew up in islamic lands, and knows how useless it is, or a man who has benefited from the superior western civilization, and yet claims that believing that the civilization that has given him everything is better is an “ignorant position”?

  3. Abdullah said

    His ignorance stems from not actually being part of that ‘superior civilization’. I say that because I have lived in the West all of my life and there is not a lot of truth in what he says.

    In the course my work as an Islamic missionary I come across many people. Some that are religiously or spiritually motivated and others that are politically motivated in their world views. A common area of concern for both these groups is the moral and social decline of western society.

    Carry on and hold tight to your belief. It is the self-deluded that will bring it to its certain end.

  4. Mats said

    His ignorance stems from not actually being part of that ’superior civilization’. I say that because I have lived in the West all of my life and there is not a lot of truth in what he says.

    He has lived all (or most) of his life in islamic lands, and so I would say that he knows what he says when he says that the western civilization is superior then islamic one.

    In the course my work as an Islamic missionary I come across many people. Some that are religiously or spiritually motivated and others that are politically motivated in their world views. A common area of concern for both these groups is the moral and social decline of western society.

    The “decline” of western society doesn’t mean that when it was not “declining” it was not better than the islamic one.
    Declining or not, western society is still the place where millions of muslims would rather live, rather than living among their fellow co-religionists.
    Secondly, this declining western society is also the one which is changing its historical view on islam, not anymore as a threat to our society, but a “religion” like christianity or judaism. So while the west declines, it accepts islam. Do you think both are related?

    Carry on and hold tight to your belief. It is the self-deluded that will bring it to its certain end.

    The facts speak otherwise. Western civilization, built upon the teachings of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, is superior thna islamic civilization.
    Those are facts and not “beliefs”.

  5. Abdullah said

    Yes, he is ignorant of Western society because he has not lived it. Therefore, he is speaking about a subject that he has no real knowledge. Hence, he speaks from a very ignorant position.

    I would argue that even at the brief high point of western civilization, it still was wanting when compared to the Islamic civilization and many other civilizations.

    So while the west declines, it accepts islam. Do you think both are related?

    I think that is extremely irrational, an abandonment of intellect, reason and reality.

    The facts speak otherwise. Western civilization, built upon the teachings of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, is superior thna islamic civilization.
    Those are facts and not “beliefs”.

    Western civilization was not built upon Biblical teachings. It has it roots in the rational thought of Greek philosophers. Christianity was added much later and quickly went into decline. Moreover, as a former Christian I know full well that a coherent civilization could never be built upon Biblical scripture.

    Also as a Christian you should be aware that everything has its appointed term, Western civilization has to come to an end because everything has an end except God. So the facts point towards this inevitable end.

    Let’s discuss this constructively. Please respond with one thing, in your view, that makes Western civilization superior to the Islamic civilization.

  6. Mats said

    Yes, he is ignorant of Western society because he has not lived it. Therefore, he is speaking about a subject that he has no real knowledge. Hence, he speaks from a very ignorant position.

    What about the things he says about islamic “civilization”? Are they based on knowledge?

    I would argue that even at the brief high point of western civilization, it still was wanting when compared to the Islamic civilization and many other civilizations.

    Not factual. The superiority of the western civilization is on pretty much all levels, and not in just “brief high point”.

    So while the west declines, it accepts islam. Do you think both are related?

    I think that is extremely irrational, an abandonment of intellect, reason and reality.

    You didn’t answer my question. The western world is, in your words, declining, but at the same time, accepting islam as a “normal religion”. Do you think both are related?

    The facts speak otherwise. Western civilization, built upon the teachings of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, is superior thna islamic civilization. Those are facts and not “beliefs”.

    Western civilization was not built upon Biblical teachings. It has it roots in the rational thought of Greek philosophers.

    Of course, Greece had it’s influence in western thought, but… not as much as the judeo-Christian worldview. The freedoms, the morality, the laws, the science are the outcome of the judeo-christian worldview. Greece was long dead when Christianity apeared, and the things they used to do in greek culture would be abhorent for many.

    Christianity was added much later and quickly went into decline.

    Your definition of “quickly” must be distinct from mine. Christianity still holds the souls of many people in the West, and it is growing fast in islamic lands, asia and africa.

    Moreover, as a former Christian I know full well that a coherent civilization could never be built upon Biblical scripture.

    The fact that you are a “former christian” prooves my point. How many former muslims you know who can speak so vocaly about their previous faith while living in islamic lands? What hapens when someone leaves islam? What happened when you “left Christianity”, even though, accodring to the Bible those who leave where never part of the Faith? (1 2 John 19)
    Did you parents try to kill you? Did the police harass you and tortured you, like it happens wich many ex-muslims in the so called “superior islamic civilization”?

    You are a glaring example of the things the muslim man is saying. YOu enjoy the benefits of OUR civilization, but then reject that our civilization is better than yours.

    Also as a Christian you should be aware that everything has its appointed term, Western civilization has to come to an end because everything has an end except God. So the facts point towards this inevitable end.

    Western civilization will end because it is rejecting it’s Biblical roots, and accepting other inferior worldviews like islam, paganism, homosexualism, abortionism, evolutionism, etc, etc..

    Let’s discuss this constructively. Please respond with one thing, in your view, that makes Western civilization superior to the Islamic civilization.

    Freedom of religion. In the west, I can pick the religion I want to follow freely, and I am still accepted as equal in the eyes of the law. In islam, I am inferior if I am a Christian, and if I leave islam, my own family can kill me and be comended by the society.
    Muhammd made sure of that

  7. Abdullah said

    Ok, I am going to ignore most of what you wrote only because it is obvious that personal prejudice is standing in the way of honest discourse. I do however recommend ‘The Fall and Decline of the Roman Empire’ as a good source of information regarding the Christianising of Europe.

    Let’s talk about freedom of religion according to Islam and Christianity.

    The Quran is quite clear on the individual’s right to believe how he or she chooses. In the second chapter verse 256 it reads:

    Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.

    That quite simply means that no one can force someone to believe any way and if you were to force someone they still would not be real believers because faith has three dimensions, heart, tongue and actions.

    That is what our Book says but is that the reality? Yes! Today there is a very large population of Jews living in Morocco. They arrived there fleeing Christians who were force converting Jews and Muslims during the Spanish inquisition. They ran quickly to the embrace of the Islamic state that not only allowed them to live there while they remained Jews but also allowed them to flourish.

    That verse is about original disbelievers. The situation is different for those who accepted Islam and then later abandon it. The state is allowed to sentence them to death only after certain conditions are met, such as discussing with the person and correcting his erroneous conceptions of Islam and giving him or her time to reflect. The family is not allowed to kill him, there must be a judge’s order and he must also take into all specific circumstances.

    I make no apologies for that. The day I announced my intention to become a Muslim one man told me that if I ever left then I should be killed. I said, if I leave it then I should be killed because it is the Truth from our Lord.

    However, if you are going to criticise Islam for that then you must first criticise Christianity and Judaism. Quoting from Deuteronomy 13 6-9

    If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;

    Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;

    Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:

    But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

    Moreover, killing ‘traitors’ was very common in Western civilization and even today the West kills, imprisons, tortures and rapes its enemies.

    So its quite clear that freedom of religion is not something that the West can claim as a proof for their supposed superiority. They most likely learned what they do have from the Muslims who controlled Spain.

  8. Mats said

    Abdullah
    Let’s make the long story short. Did Muhammad say to kill those who leave islam or not?

  9. Abdullah said

    Mats Does the Bible demand the death of one who entices disbelief?

    It seems that you want to criticises Islam for something but you do not have the courage to criticise Christianity or West civilization for similar ‘crimes’.

    By the way, I answered your question in comment number 7.

  10. Mats said

    The state is allowed to sentence them to death only after certain conditions are met, such as discussing with the person and correcting his erroneous conceptions of Islam and giving him or her time to reflect. The family is not allowed to kill him, there must be a judge’s order and he must also take into all specific circumstances.

    So Muhammd said that i’s ok to kill anyone who leaves Islam?

    Does the Bible demand the death of one who entices disbelief?

    “Enticing disbelief” is diferent from “not being a believer. In Islam,EVEN if you don’t “entice disbelief”, your prophet orders him to be killed.
    In the civil law in the priestly kingdom of Israel anyone who advocated the worship of others gods was to be put to death. Notice that this is in the *civil* law present in the *First Covenant*.

    Secondly notice that in Islam, even if you become a Christian, you are, according to islamic theology,worshipping the Same God. But even so, the islamic prophet Muhammad orders his death.

    So in Jewish civil law, you were to be killed if you taught others to worship other gods.
    In Islamic law, even if you worship the Same God and don’t entice anyone, if you leave islam, you must be killed.

    In western civilization, mostly based on the moral law present in the Ten Commandments and in the New Testament, there is freedom of religion.

    So which one you think it’s better? Islam, who says kill those who worship the Same God in diferent way, the Jewish civil law (not binding to Christians) who say that those who entice others to worship false gods must be killed, or the western civilization whic teaches that you can follow any religion you want?

    Which one is superior?

  11. Abdullah said

    I am aware that Christians throw ‘The Law’ behind their backs, however, you cannot simply disregard this verse as a Jewish because you must admit that between the time that it was written and Jesus’ supposed crucifixion that it was a law demanded by God and to be fulfilled. Therefore, you must either reject the verses I quoted above or you must accept them. There is no middle path as an innocent observer.

    Secondly notice that in Islam, even if you become a Christian, you are, according to islamic theology,worshipping the Same God.

    This is a very curious statement and I would like your proof for it.

    In Islam we have what’s called rejection and affirmation. To be a true believer in God, you must first reject all false gods and then you must affirm your belief in God. Both Jews and Christians fail in the first part and therefore you cannot say they are worshiping the same God but in a slightly different way. They are worshiping partners that they put along side of God. They are called mushrikeen in Islamic theology, which means pagans or polytheists. From our Islamic viewpoint there is little difference between a Hindu and a Christian.

    Which one is superior?

    Thank you for this wonderful question. Lets look to answer it in an honest sincere way, with full knowledge that God, Almighty, is watching our keyboards and knows what we conceal in our hearts.

    Does Islam demand the death of every apostate? The short answer is, no. There are preconditions and each individual situation must be examined. Proof for this is in the lifetime of the prophet Muhammad, salallahu alayhi wa sallam, a man got addicted to alcohol and left Islam for Christianity and even tried unsuccessfully to convert his wife. He was never killed, nor was there any threat of killing him. And that is not the only case of apostates not being killed for apostasy. Moreover, even if an apostasy case came before an Islamic judge he must go through many steps, including discussing with the accused before he can pass any judgement.

    Is killing someone for enticing disbelief morally different from killing an apostate? First, I would argue that every apostate entices disbelief because he speaks openly about presumed faults, he writes books, creates Web sites and so on. An example of an apostate enticing disbelief could be me. I left Christianity 13 years ago and since then I have helped a number of people abandon it, I have given public talks, created a Web site, I blog about it regularly and I am currently writing a book, which I may entitle ‘Why I’m not a Christian and Why You Shouldn’t Be Either’. Therefore, I am guilty of enticing disbelief in Jesus as God or part of the God-head. Morally is there a difference? No, you are still killing because that person is working against what you see as right and just.

    Is one of the two any better, more just? In the Bible it tells us not to pity or spare him. We are being told not to have any mercy, kill them with our own hands and not to spare them. Give them no chance, no day in court, kill them and then others must kill them. The Bible believer is made into judge and executioner. Whereas in Islamic law, killing someone like that would be a crime itself. He must have his day in court, he must have a chance to speak, he must be evaluated. His death is not a foregone conclusion.

    Clearly, Judea-Christian scriptures are not morally or otherwise superior to Islamic scriptures but you also wanted to throw Western civilization into this discussion. So, is it any better? Yes it is true that today we are pretty much free to believe how we want, although this is not entirely true, especially in the USA. However, that freedom does not stem from Christianity. Christianity spread by the sword and forced conversion. Religious monarch regularly killed anyone deemed a heretic. European history is soaked in the blood of people on the wrong side of religious debate. It wasn’t until Christian political influence began to dwindle that people were granted more freedom to choose their belief. In the modern secular state, God is no longer sacrosanct. The nation-state itself replaced God as the object of devotion. The state stoped caring about what you believed and moved on to how loyal you are to the state. There are extremely stiff penalties for ‘betraying’ the state and these have included death, long prison sentences, and heavy financial fines.

    Again, we see that Western civilization is not superior to the Islamic or the Biblical scriptures.

    There is little difference between, treason and converting to another religion. Both require you to change sides and Western civilization is not going accept it, neither is Judea-Christian scriptures and neither is Islam.

    You see the Muslim killing the apostate as uncivilized only because you see Islam as false, but you are not looking at it with unprejudiced eyes. There are many things we can debate but what is clear, Western and Judea-Christian civilization is not superior to Islamic civilization in terms of freedom of religion.

    Remember Islam gives you the right to believe how you want, Quran 2:256:

    Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.

  12. Mats said

    Secondly notice that in Islam, even if you become a Christian, you are, according to islamic theology,worshipping the Same God.

    This is a very curious statement and I would like your proof for it.

    29.46 And dispute ye not with the People of the Book, except in the best way, unless it be with those of them who do wrong: but say, “We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you. Our God and your God is One; and it is to Him we submit (in Islám).” Notice that “In Islam” part is not in the original.
    Seems to me that your prophet trully believed that his god and the judeo-Christian God was the Same. This proves my point. Even if one leaves islam and accepts the Lord Jesus, or becomes a follower of judaism, according to islam, yo are still worshipping the same God. HOWEVER, islam tells you to kill that person because Muhammd said so.

    Both Jews and Christians fail in the first part and therefore you cannot say they are worshiping the same God but in a slightly different way. They are worshiping partners that they put along side of God.

    what “partners” do the jews worship beside God?

    They are called mushrikeen in Islamic theology, which means pagans or polytheists. From our Islamic viewpoint there is little difference between a Hindu and a Christian.

    It must be a new “islamic viewpoint”, since the islamic prophet Muhammd said that his god and Our God was the same. Are you contradicting your own prophet?

  13. Mats said

    Does Islam demand the death of every apostate? The short answer is, no.

    Short and obviously wrong. The islamic prophet said “Whoever changes his religion, kill him”. Do you deny this?

    Moreover, even if an apostasy case came before an Islamic judge he must go through many steps, including discussing with the accused before he can pass any judgement.

    What “discussion” can there be with someone who doesn’t want to follow muhammd? This is coercing and intimidation.

    Is killing someone for enticing disbelief morally different from killing an apostate?

    Yes, it is. An unbeliever can become one and not entice others to his unbelief. In islam, he should be killed anyway. In the civili jewish law, he could become an enbeliever as long as he did not entice other to follow pagan gods. In islam even if you “entice” muslims to worship the Father of the Lord Jesus, Who you say you worship, you are to be killed anyhow,

    First, I would argue that every apostate entices disbelief because he speaks openly about presumed faults, he writes books, creates Web sites and so on.

    Do ALL unbelievers do this?

    An example of an apostate enticing disbelief could be me. I left Christianity 13 years ago and since then I have helped a number of people abandon it, I have given public talks, created a Web site, I blog about it regularly and I am currently writing a book, which I may entitle ‘Why I’m not a Christian and Why You Shouldn’t Be Either’. Therefore, I am guilty of enticing disbelief in Jesus as God or part of the God-head. Morally is there a difference? No, you are still killing because that person is working against what you see as right and just.

    And how many christian fatwas have you received so far? How many times has anyone sent you threatening letters.
    Reverse the situation. How long would you last if you had been a muslim, and were an active Christian preaching the Gospel of God in a islamic nation to other muslims?
    But anyway, your question assumes that EVERY unbeliever will act as you did. There are plenty of ex-muslims IN EUROPE who haven’t done that, but who, even so, are to be killed according to your prophet.

    Is one of the two any better, more just? In the Bible it tells us not to pity or spare him. We are being told not to have any mercy, kill them with our own hands and not to spare them. Give them no chance, no day in court, kill them and then others must kill them. The Bible believer is made into judge and executioner. Whereas in Islamic law, killing someone like that would be a crime itself.

    Nonsense.
    First of all, as I have said, in islam, even if you leave it and become a Christian, you are still worshipping the Same God. Your prophet said so.
    Secondly, a muslim would not be condemned for killing an apostate BECAUSE that’s in agreement with his prophet.

    Thirdly, you are STILL confusing the jewish civil law God gave FOR THEM as something normative for us Christians. We don’t live in a priestly kingdom like they did. But even so, the model God gave to the Jews is much better than the islamic model.

    Yes it is true that today we are pretty much free to believe how we want, although this is not entirely true, especially in the USA.

    Really? You can’t worship any deity you want in the western civlization? Which God is forced upon everyone in here? You are the eviddence that the western civlization is superior than the islamic one.

    However, that freedom does not stem from Christianity.

    Sure it does.

    Christianity spread by the sword and forced conversion.

    Islamic projecton alert. You are projecting what you know happened in your religion into Christian. How many nations did the Disciples of the Lord conquered, enslaved, raped and stole? Now try to remember how many people the “rightly Guided Caliphas” murdered, raped, stole and invaded in the space of 50 years.
    You are, once again, projecting into the Christians the deeds of your own religion. You are embaressed by what they did,aren’t you?

    When you tell others about islam, do you speak everything or just the things you know won’t cause people disgust?

    Religious monarch regularly killed anyone deemed a heretic.

    Ah, religious monarchy. Funny you have to fly in time to, at least, 500 hundred years AFTER the Disciples of the Lord had been dead. The diference, of course, is that while the Lod Jesus never taught anyone to force His Message to anyone, Muhammd did.

    So when a “christian” forces christianity into someone, he acts against the Bible. However, when a muslim does it, he is acting in full agreement with muhammd’s wishes.

    European history is soaked in the blood of people on the wrong side of religious debate.

    You mean, like Shias versus sunnis? Stuff like that? Or perhaps Aisha versus Ali?

    There are extremely stiff penalties for ‘betraying’ the state and these have included death, long prison sentences, and heavy financial fines.

    There are extremely stiff penalties for mearly ripping one page of the Qur’an in an islamic land. Are you sure you want to act all moral against the west?

    Again, we see that Western civilization is not superior to the Islamic or the Biblical scriptures.

    I think that a culture that allows you to speak evil of itself, while enjoying the medical, social, political, scientific benefits of it, is superior than the culture who has nothing to offer to mankid except death, violence, uncontroled lusty behaviour and statutory rape in the form of “marriage”. Would you like to raise your daughters in Saudi Arabia or Germany?

    There is little difference between, treason and converting to another religion. Both require you to change sides and Western civilization is not going accept it, neither is Judea-Christian scriptures and neither is Islam.

    Actually, Christianity does accept it. That is why the Lord Jesus never ordered the death of those who left Him. In islam, however, since muhammad had no ideia who was the spirit talking to him, he ordered to kill those who left islam.

    That’s the diference between a True Leader and an insecure man.

    You see the Muslim killing the apostate as uncivilized only because you see Islam as false, but you are not looking at it with unprejudiced eyes. There are many things we can debate but what is clear, Western and Judea-Christian civilization is not superior to Islamic civilization in terms of freedom of religion.

    Your existence proves otherwise. If you had been an ex-muslim, you would never be allowed ro roam freely among muslims to preach to them. However, in the west, dominated by non-muslims, you can do that.
    I repeat. which one is superior?

    Remember Islam gives you the right to believe how you want, Quran 2:256:

    Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.

    That has been abrogated by the sword verses in surah 9, as you know very well. That kind of taqqiyya may work with others ignorant ofislam, but it doesn’t work with me, friend.

  14. Abdullah said

    That has been abrogated by the sword verses in surah 9, as you know very well. That kind of taqqiyya may work with others ignorant ofislam, but it doesn’t work with me, friend.

    Most of your two comments are complete nonsense and that is a shame. But I will comment on this quote because it exposes your prejudice.

    No, it was not abrogated. The verse of the sword in chapter 9 has nothing to do with this. Moreover, Taqqiyya or lying is not something Sunni Muslims are allowed to do.

    You are one of the most ignorant people I have met regarding Islam. Your defence of Christian and Western barbarisms while decrying Islam is nothing short of hypocrisy.

    May God guide you or dump you in Hell.

  15. Mats said

    No, it was not abrogated. The verse of the sword in chapter 9 has nothing to do with this.

    I know it has nothing to do with this. The point is that the “peaceful” Meccan verses have been abrogated by the jihad verses from Medina, as muslim scholars will confirm it to you.

    Moreover, Taqqiyya or lying is not something Sunni Muslims are allowed to do.

    Even if it is defended by the islamic schools of jurisprudence?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: