Mike Huckabee recently criticized two Protestant churches that allowed Muslims to worship in their facilities by saying that Islam “is the antithesis of the gospel of Christ.”
Naturally, the mainstream media thought that was an outrageous remark.
My Eastern Orthodox friend John Mark Reynolds comes to the defense of the Southern Baptist governor by pointing out the obvious:
Mike Huckabee thinks Islam is wrong and evidently the chattering classes think this is a serious issue.
The Christians of Constantinople cannot use one of the ancient churches of Christendom, because Islamic rulers will not allow it, but Mike Huckabee said something harsh about Islam so he must be rebuked.
The spiritual leader of the world’s Orthodox Christians, the Ecumenical Patriarch, cannot open a seminary, because the Muslim rulers of his nation will not condone it, but a Fox news commentator said something that offends Muslims so we must attend.
There is no land where Muslims are the majority and Christians are not second-class citizens, but a former Baptist minister publically disagrees with Islam and we must ponder the pain Huckabee may have caused Muslims.
I have friends doing humanitarian work in nations where Islamic tribes enslave Christians, but a former governor of Arkansas was politically incorrect, so Americans must discuss Christian tolerance of Islam.
This year Christians have been martyred all over the Islamic world, whether they were from families that have been Christian for centuries or were recent converts to Christianity, but Mike Huckabee may not understand Islamic history well so we should educate him.
Forgetting the Christians, God help Jewish people dwelling in majority Islamic lands.
Southern Baptists like Mike Huckabee are fighting in nations all over the world and have liberated millions of Islamic people from the tyranny of Islamic rulers. Southern Baptists like Mike Huckabee may not fully understand Islam, but no mainstream American Baptist, including Mike Huckabee, would deny the right to vote or hold office to Muslims.
Millions of Baptists voted for a man named Barack Hussein Obama and millions of Baptists who did not, including Mike Huckabee, loyally follow our Christian President. There is no majority Muslim land where a Muslim with a Christian name will be elected to lead anything, but we worry that Baptists, and Mike Huckabee, may be bigoted.
Read the rest. It’s the best (and most temperate) rant I’ve read in a long, long time.
February 25th, 2011 | 4:15 pm
Really? The “antithesis”? Reynolds tries to make Huckabee’s remarks into an obvious point about real differences, but if the existence of real differences between Islam and Christianity justifies the claim that Islam is the antithesis of Christianity, then Judaism is also the antithesis of Christianity, and so is Mormonism, and so is capitalism, and nationalism, and liberalism, and Marxism, and on and on. So many antitheses!
Moreover, a pejorative reference to the objections of “the chattering classes” without a single quote or link is a tendentious way to set up a rant. Maybe some really stupid criticisms of Huckabee’s point have been offered—it’s to be noted that Reynolds also criticizes some of what Huckabee has said about Islam, so he must be in agreement with at least some of critics. But we can’t possibly know exactly who Reynolds is objecting to, because while Huckabee is quoted twice, his critics aren’t quoted at all. And while Reynolds finds Huckabee half right, that’s only because he’s not thinking very carefully about the “antithesis” claim.
Muslims believe in a sovereign God, that this God has spoken authoritatively, that we humans are His creatures, that we owe God our obedience and worship. Many, many additional things could be said about Muslim belief and practice that resonate with what Christians believe about God, creation, and even faith and devotion. Of course, many things could be listed to hi-lite our differences, which are indeed very real.
But “antithesis” is simply not a helpful way of clarifying the relationship.
February 25th, 2011 | 4:30 pm
How are “Jesus saves” and “Jesus does not save” not antithesis?
February 25th, 2011 | 4:36 pm
Pentamom,
Like I said, that sort of logic makes everything but Christianity antithetical to Christianity.
February 25th, 2011 | 4:43 pm
Dear pentamom
You really dont know what you are talking about.
If you ask a Muslim they will AGREE that Christianity is totally in contradiction to Islam!
They believe in different Gods and different ways to those Gods.
It’s like saying those who believe the earth is flat and those who believe its round are the same!
February 25th, 2011 | 4:45 pm
No, it is not a tenet of “everything other than Christianity” that Jesus does not save. You can be a Christian and a capitalist, or a liberal, or a nationalist, because none of those beliefs have the tenet “Jesus does not save” as intrinsic to their system. (Whether any of those are a good fit with Christianity is another question.)
But it is in the nature of Islam to teach that Jesus Christ is not the Savior of the World, and it is the central tenet of Christianity that He is. Therefore, antithesis.
February 25th, 2011 | 4:47 pm
Graham? I agree with you. Did you not see the last “not” in my post?
February 25th, 2011 | 5:00 pm
Who actually criticized Huckabee? I didn’t notice any quotes or references. Was it a public official speaking in an official capacity or just a cable news talking head? You can always find ignorant people if you look, but why trouble yourself like that?
February 25th, 2011 | 5:09 pm
I followed the link to Reynold’s blog hoping to find something other than “Muslims have done bad things and Christians have suffered for it”, perhaps something that defended Huckabee’s statement that Islam is the “antithesis” of Christianity, but was unable to find it. Has that defense been taken down?
Reynolds writes that Islam denies the incarnation and does not recognize the divine nature of Christ, but this doesn’t add up to a defense the “antithesis” claim.
February 25th, 2011 | 5:19 pm
Fabulous rant. I’m glad someone said it frankly. Well done John Mark Reynolds!
February 25th, 2011 | 5:41 pm
Pentamom,
So then Judaism is the antithesis of Christianity? And so is any tradition that explicitly rejects the claims of orthodox Christianity when it comes to Jesus?
This is sophistry, for many reasons, not the least of which is the resulting loss of any ability to distinguish degrees of difference—a loss that follows from painting Muslims into the corner of “opposite to” and “totally other than” Christianity.
Muslims believe that only God saves. Christians agree, as do Jews. Muslims sit uncomfortably vis a vis the extreme modern views of the self as autonomous and its own authority. As do Jews and Christians. Muslims believe obedience to God is more important than life itself, as do Jews and Christians.
Philosophical liberals come perilously close to making the autonomous self that which “saves.” Capitalists do the same with “the market,” and nationalists the nation. Naturally, many liberals, capitalists, and nationalists think they can be idolaters and followers of Jesus too, but that doesn’t make it so. And just so, these ways of rejecting or replacing the saving significance of Christ might actually be more at odds with Christianity than are Islam and Judaism, which are quite serious in their prohibition of idols and in their commitment to the claim that God alone saves.
Here’s something from a devout and orthodox Christian who was in an above-average position to know something about Muslim belief and practice. Indeed, he gave his life so that others might avoid these sorts of reductive portrayals of Islam: http://www.monasticdialog.com/a.php?id=497
February 25th, 2011 | 6:19 pm
To say that two things are in antithesis is not to say that there might be commonalities, if you’re talking about real world ideas and not strict logical propositions.
To say that Christianity, which centrally teaches that Jesus will save you and faithfully following the pillars of Islam gives you no hope, is to contradict the teaching of a religion that says that your only hope of shot at salvation is to follow the pillars of Islam and that putting your trust in Jesus alone won’t do you a lick of good.
However, since religious systems contain more than one idea, calling the central ideas behind two religions antithetical does not mean that we have to deny that there are *any* commonalities — just that they stand in contradiction on their *central* ideas.
And yes, that means that any tradition that explicitly rejects Christianity is antithetical to it. But that does not mean that we have to say that every single aspect of those traditions is wrong, just their core meaning. Why would that be controversial?
February 25th, 2011 | 6:21 pm
“Many” liberals, capitalists, are idolaters, yes. But a belief that capitalism does not *entail* idolatry in the way that belief in the teachings of Mohammad does, if one does not hold those beliefs in an idolatrous *fashion.* So the antithesis is not necessary, but it is possible, in those cases. With Islam, it is necessary, because one simply can’t be a Muslim in any reasonable sense of the word, and confess Christian faith in any reasonable sense.
February 25th, 2011 | 6:21 pm
/a belief that capitalism is a valid and desirable economic system/
February 25th, 2011 | 6:21 pm
The fundamantal diffrence between Islam and Christianity would seem to be the denial of the divinity of our Lord and His Passion having a role in our own redemption – being able to unite our sufferings with that of our Lord and His Mother , thus their presence and compassion and oneness with us esp. in the midst of sufferings , that when we choose to do so , we do get ‘saved’ or set free from bitterness , fear and hatred towards those who can be seen as the reason for the sufferings and also see its merits in and through our risen Lord !
It would be pertinent to note that it is when St.Peter tried to prevent our Lord from The Passion that he is told- ‘satan , get behind me .’
Thus ,when the quest for an earthly kingdom with unjust means to establish same gets the sanction from persons who have become adept at using the fallen nature of fear and hatred for those who are in disagreement as approved principles , it is easy to see what sort of outcomes can be !
in JudeoChristian faith , the truth can guide one to overcome these fallen traits , thus for those who go astray , they can be led back !
In Islam , seems the more ardent one gets , the level of hatred and lust for power can become more !
The chasm in the understanding and value of suffering possibly the major factor here !
Sadly though , many in the Christian faith too have become ‘practical Moslems ‘ by their own refusal , to bear with some pain and inconveniances for sake of our calling and faithfulness !
The rates of abortion and immorality bear witness to this !
Even then, seems we are not so afraid of our faith being challenged or being lost if there is a convert or somone who speaks truth about our leaders etc : in our midst !
A group who has death penalty as a part of accepted rule for any convert – real mystery is why more is not done to deal with such injustice !
Is it from our own fear of suffering !
Moslems respect Bl.Mother too ; may many more of all of us get to contemplate our Lord’s sufferings through the eyes and heart of The Mother – she has offered same ( esp. in her appearance at Kibeho ) as the remedy for much that afflict us – arrogance, selfishness and so on !
February 25th, 2011 | 6:42 pm
Oddly, those who have criticized Huckabee believe he is wrong in his theological judgments. So, apparently those that think Huckabee is wrong are in precisely the same position as him in relation to Islam. Huckabee’s critics believe that he is wrong in relation to their views on religious epistemology, and Huckabee believes that Islam is wrong in relation to Christianity.
As the immortal Frank Sinatra once put it, “That’s Life.”
If saying someone is wrong is so wrong, then Huckabee’s critics should remain silent.
The idiocy of this posture is stunning. It’s almost as if the enemies of faith believe that it is okay to say all religions are wrong but it is wrong to say that all religions are wrong except one. In that case, they are asking for an epistemological privilege they do not deserve.
February 25th, 2011 | 10:44 pm
a loss that follows from painting Muslims into the corner of “opposite to” and “totally other than” Christianity.
As far as I can tell, finding something to be opposed as utterly unacceptable and condemned unequivocally is what a lot of conservative Christians live for. “If they’re unrighteous and we oppose them, that makes us . . . ?
Charge!”
February 25th, 2011 | 11:39 pm
I understan there is a group of citizens in California running a signature drive to put a constitutional ban on using the ten commandment in the court.
February 26th, 2011 | 12:53 am
While Christians alone believe that Jesus Christ is the Incarnate Son of God Who died and rose to save us, other religions save one do not outright deny it.
Judaism does not have a ‘teaching’ concerning the Person, identity and mission of Jesus Christ. Granted that they do not believe He is either the Son of God nor the Messiah, but they do not have an actual doctrine that He is not the Son of God and Messiah.
Islam outright denies that Jesus is the Son of God, also outright denying the mystery of the Blessed Trinity. It is a ‘doctrine’ of their faith.
One might want to discuss whether the phrase ‘antithesis of Christianity’ is appropriate, but the clear ‘doctrinal position of Islam cannot be disputed. To dispute this would really offend Moslems.
As Christians I believe we are faced with a two-fold task: to begin to really enter into positive dialogue with Islam [although the various factions of Islam and lack of clear authority makes that difficult] a dialogue which could be modeled on the dialogue we established with Judaism son forty years ago.
Also as Christians to no longer brush over history [on our side or theirs-for example the Crusades on our side] but also the making of Christians second class citizens in their own homelands [on Islam's side]. Certainly in the present not to ignore the almost daily ‘martyrdoms of Christians’ that are taking place within certain portions of the Islamic world, and no longer accepting this second class citizenship
For the future Islam needs to come to grips with two fundamental realities:
1) the coupling of faith and reason
2) the ‘separation of Mosque and state’ which would ensure freedom of religion for all.
February 26th, 2011 | 3:07 am
I would like to echo Charlie Collier’s point: It simply makes no sense to argue that, Islam is the antithesis, to Christianity. Islam considers Jesus to be an essential prophet, and to be revered. This statement is hardly warranted, logically, and also pragmatically, when we’re trying to formulate good relations, with our Islamic friends. Charlie’s point that, if Islam is the antithesis to Christianity, then Judaism, is also the antithesis to Christianity, is a good one. Does anyone want to advocate that one? I sure hope not.
Dr. Beckwith, is trying to argue that, those who criticize Huckabee, disagree with him, theologically, cannot consistently accuse him of being wrong for pointing out the erroneous nature of Islam. Of course, everyone has a right to disagree, as long as they provide good, valid arguments, for their positions. Huckabee, as far as I can see, has not done so. He’s asserted that, Islam is the “antithesis” to Christianity, but considering that, both religions are monotheistic, and Islam considers Jesus to be an important prophet, it’s hardly reasonable, assuming a normal definition of “antithesis”, to apply this word, with any logical consistency, to the relation between Christianity and Islam.
So, although Dr, Beckwith is right, that many who criticise Huckabee, disagree with Christianity, perhaps with the same rigor as Huckabee does with Islam, and may be inconsistent, it’s beside the point. The point is, Huckabee, when saying Islam is the antithesis, of Christianity, is mistaken, in my opinion.
February 26th, 2011 | 3:19 am
Last time I checked, Huckabee is, well, a politician. Therefore, it would be reasonable to ask, what, if any, political motivation he has, for making such a comment? Perhaps he made the statement, merely because he believes it’s true, and wanted to honestly express it. but it’s also possible that, he’s trying to obtain some political advantage, from it. It would be interesting to find out what factors, contributed to his decision, to make this erroneous comparision.
Of course, there are real distinctions, between Christianity and Islam, but also remarkable common ground. The beauty of philosophical analysis, is with it, one can attempt, as in this case, to truly understand, the differences, and similarities, between the two religions. And, based on sound philosophical analysis, it simply makes no sense to say that, Islam is the antithesis to Christianity.
February 26th, 2011 | 3:37 am
I would like to correct one thing, I wrote, in the previous comments. I said, at the bottom of my first paragraph: “It would be interesting, to find out what factors, contributed, to his decision, to make this erroneous comparision”. I want to revise it, to say: it would be interesting, to find out what factors, contributed, to his decision, to come to this erroneous conclusion that, Islam is the antithesis to Christianity. Thank you.
February 26th, 2011 | 6:16 am
Neither Christianity nor Islam are philosophical schools to be defined by their tenets.
Christians are those who have been baptized into, and remain in visible communion with, a body founded by Christ and known as the Church, ruled by the successors of the apostles first appointed by him.
Muslims are members of the Ummah, conceived as a society or polity, a body which claims jurisdiction over its members and has a highly-developed jurisprudence, both criminal and civil.
For each, membership of these respective bodies is a condition of salvation and membership of one is incompatible with membership of the other.
Here we have a clear antithesis, whereas, no Jew believes that membership of the people of Israel is necessary to salvation.
February 26th, 2011 | 7:24 am
“Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!”
February 26th, 2011 | 8:41 am
Charlie, Judaism is opposed to it, actually. That’s why Paul spoke against circumcision. The Law in Christian theology is intended as a signpost to Christ and the need for a sacrifice. Trying to follow the law as a means to justify oneself before God is the antithesis of Christian Salvation. It’s like seeing the rope is too short by 500 feet and thinking if you keep jumping you’ll reach it.
In that sense, any religion that preaches salvation first by works is its antithesis. There’s an argument about after: how works relate to salvation, but all Christians really believe that salvation come through God’s forgiveness and not through our own good moral standing with him.
Most Christians softpedal this with Judaism specifically, but most of paul’s works clearly state that following the Jewish law to achieve right standing with God is a dead end for people.
February 26th, 2011 | 9:25 am
What some seem to be missing is that what Huckabee said is not that Islam is antithetical to “Christianity,” but that Islam is anithetical to “the gospel.”
The gospel is the proposition that Jesus, and only Jesus, saves. There is no aspect of Islam that can coexist logically with that proposition.
February 26th, 2011 | 10:31 am
It would be interesting to hear from a Muslim to find out if he or she thinks that Christianity is opposed to Islam.
February 26th, 2011 | 11:52 am
A number of commenters have described the purported affirmation of Jesus in Islam. This affirmation is illusory. The essential mistake is a theological equivocation: it confuses the Jesus Christ of Christianity (Lord, Son of God, etc.) with the “‘Isa” of the Qur’an.
These are two fundamentally different beings. “Jesus Christ” (hereafter specifically defined as the Lord and Son of God as defined in Christian dogma) belongs to Christianity. Jesus Christ is a supernatural being, simultaneously defined as “crucified under Pontius Pilate” and yet “God of God, light of light, very God of very God.” The “prophet” Jesus doesn’t exist for Christianity. It is a non-entity. It no more exists than the Buddha exists in nirvana.
‘Isa is a prophet of Islam. Just as the “‘prophet’ Jesus” doesn’t exist for Christianity, “Jesus Christ” doesn’t exist for Islam. It is a non-entity, a surd. ‘Isa exists for one reason: to expropriate Christian teaching and the authority of Jesus Christ for Islam. But a Jesus Christ who is neither crucified nor risen is nothing to Christians.
People of the Book, go not beyond the bounds / in your religion, and say not as to God / but the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, / was only the Messenger of God, / and His Word that He committed to Mary, / and a Spirit from / Him. … …God suffices for a guardian. / The Messiah will not disdain to be a servant of God, …. Whosoever disdains to serve Him, and waxes / proud, … He will chastise with a painful chastisement, … (surah 4: 171, 172, 173, Arberry translation)
The Messiah submitted to God, and Christians must submit to the emergent Islamic order.
Granted, some of the problem here is theological imprecision. Islam is not so much the antithesis of Christianity as it is the contradiction and replacement. It annuls the essential truths of Christianity—the divinity and Lordship of Jesus Christ, his presence in the Eucharist, salvation by grace through faith—and wants Christians (and Jews) to submit to (do “muslim”) Islam, the social and political order of the Muslim community.
On the attempted analogy to Judaism: there are a number of important differences. Firstly, Judaism has no teaching or doctrine about the identity of Jesus Christ. Nor does it have a doctrine of “salvation.” A Jew is not “saved” by obeying Torah. He has already been “saved” through the covenant into which he is elected. And we have the declaration of Christian scripture that this election is eternal, and will be eschatologically fulfilled (Romans 11, esp. vv. 25, 26, 29). Thus, Judaism is not an “antithesis,” of Christianity nor a “contradiction.”
Secondly, a Christian must affirm the truth of Judaism, in the way that he is not obligated to Islam. If God’s promises to Judaism are false, then Jesus Christ did not fulfill those promises. If Jesus Christ did not fulfill those promise–if there are no promises to be fulfilled–then Christianity is groundless. In contrast, the truth of Christianity does not depend in any way on the truth of Islam. To the contrary, Christianity can only be true if Islam is false.
In that sense, Christianity and Islam are indeed antitheses.
February 26th, 2011 | 12:09 pm
Bret writes:
“Of course, everyone has a right to disagree, as long as they provide good, valid arguments, for their positions. Huckabee, as far as I can see, has not done so.”
First, if rights were contingent upon having good, valid arguments, there were would be precious few rights.
Second, you’re missing my point, entirely. The sort of judgment issued against Huckabee is rooted in the idea that on matters of religion rational deliberation is pernicious since religion by its very nature is a personal, private sort of thing. If Huckabee had said that socialism is the antithesis of capitalism, do you really believe he would be receiving this vitriol? There would, of course, be some folks, like you, correctly pointing out that Huckabee’s use of the word “antithesis” is technically incorrect. Unless, of course, he meant it metaphorically, like “The show `Lost’ is the antithesis of `Gilligan’s Island.’” I think that’s the spirit in which Huckabee offered his comment, and in that sense he is completely correct. Consider these points:
1. God may have a Son
God may not have a Son
2. God is Triune and One
God is One and not Triune
3. Scripture is entirely God’s word yet written by men in their own styles and idiosyncrasies
Scripture is dictated by God to one person, and thus is entirely God’s word without human cooperation.
4. Theology develops
Theology remains the same
5. We are saved by grace
We are saved by works
6. Images may assist the believer in worship
Images are idolatrous
Of course, there are commonalities between Christianity and Islam, and this is why the Catechism calls Muslims “children of Abraham.” Perhaps “antithesis” was too strong a term, but it is not indefensible when certain doctrines are assessed and if Huckabee meant it in the metaphorical sense I employed above. However, I think it was unwise to use it.
February 26th, 2011 | 1:11 pm
John Mark Reynolds’ rant is a small-minded indulgence of religious ideology.
Obviously Islam is antithetical to the Gospel on fully reasonable interpretations each. However, and for very good reasons, there are more restrictions on what it is appropriate for a potential presidential candidate to so publicly express. And so, while there are plenty of grounds for such a person to criticize the illiberal aspects of political Islam and Islamic nations (addressing the very grievances that JMR lists), there are ways of advancing these concerns that are not only more forceful and compelling, but that also pose far less of a danger of inciting a war that is bilaterally-religious. The liberalism of Christian nations today is the hard won lesson of such wars. Let’s not forget it.
February 26th, 2011 | 2:34 pm
Jesus Himself said….”I am the Way and the Truth and the Life….no one comes to the Father except through Me”. John 14:6
Those are the words….Jesus’ own words, mind you….on which Mike Huckabee’s assertions hold rock solid. That does not require a PHD in theology to figure out.
So Huckabee comes under attack for his stand against churches offering space for Muslim gatherings for his very understandable viewpoint that a sanctuary of Christian worship should not be used for the teaching of a belief system that….any way you want to slice it…..relegates Jesus’ self-proclaimed and Bibilcally validated identity as the Son of God and resurrected Savior.
Whether one believes that or not….I agree 100% with Mike Huckabee on his assertion.
February 26th, 2011 | 5:55 pm
Bret,
Thank you very much for your very level headed and sound analysis.
I think you summed it up best when you said:
“Of course, there are real distinctions, between Christianity and Islam, but also remarkable common ground.”
Craig,
You asked to hear from a Muslim. I am here to fulfill your request. I’m a devout Muslim, who I might say with some humility, is a well read lay person in my faith. I also have interests in philosophy.
My personal opinion is that Islam and Christianity have a great deal in common, much more than Christianity has with secular humanism, for instance, though of course there are important differences that should not be swept aside or overlooked. The bottom line is that I think the similarity between the two religious traditions is sufficient for the vast majority of Muslims and Christians to be on friendly terms, and to engage in fruitful dialogue and find areas of common concern upon which we can work together, respectfully.
I think also in the realm of values theres a large overlap: family values, pro-life, concern for the poor, defense against attacks on religion.
There is a reason why I visit this site and follow the work of Christian philosophers and theologians (Alasdair MacIntyre, Charles Taylor, Stanley Hauerwas, Bill Cavnaugh, R.R. Reno, Alvin Plantinga, Ken Myers, Roger Scruton and many others). I find their work helpful for me as a Muslim, this despite some of the aforementioned’s hostility towards Islam (I might single out Scruton in this respect). I think the fact that I find the work Christians helpful for me in understanding my faith as a Muslim is evidence of the overlap between the two faiths.
hope this helps. I encourage all at this website not to believe the hype about Islam. I’m always surprised by the extent to which lay Christians express animosity towards the faith of lay Muslims. You’ll find as a general rule of thumb much more respect for Christianity among average lay Muslim than vice versa. Much of what is mentioned on website like this about Muslim hatred for Christians, is political, and against missionaries who are perceived as being an extention of Western imperialism and domination. Its important to keep this distinction in mind. Most Muslims would like too see the West retain its Christian heritage not lose it to secular culture.
February 26th, 2011 | 9:32 pm
The Islamic view of Christians is that we are deluded idiots who falsified our scriptures via the delusion of the first Christians.
The Islamic view of Jews is worse, it is that the Jews deliberately and maliciously changed the scriptures that were given to them and opposed and killed the prophets that were sent to them.
February 26th, 2011 | 10:20 pm
John 3:16
John 4:6
February 26th, 2011 | 10:28 pm
Ed: Thank you for your kind words. Muslims and Christians have a lot of common ground, and can work together, to this a better world. Huckabee needs to apologize, for his comments.
February 26th, 2011 | 10:37 pm
Jay proved the point a Muslim made about animosity expressed by masses toward Muslims and islam. Why continue to bring yourself to such a low level!
February 26th, 2011 | 10:41 pm
Dear Ed Abd Al-Ghafur: Thank you for your response.
I have been thinking about the subject(s) of this thread and have come up with a formulation satisfying to me. As you point out, Islam and Christianity (and Judaism) have a great deal of overlap–much more so than with, as you again mention, secular humanism. To that extent, they are not opposed.
However, although we cannot ignore the commonalities, we also cannot ignore the differences. I would put it this way: Even though there is a great deal in common between the two, what makes Christianity Christianity and what makes Islam Islam are in opposition.
Just for example:
Jesus is the Son of God and God the Son, God manifest as a human.
He rose from the dead and lives eternally now as Lord of all creation and Judge of all humanity, including Muhammad.
He is the Savior of the world. His message is the Word of God and cannot be superseded by any other message, including the message of Islam.
I do not think an observant, devout Muslim could accept any of these statements, although he or she may make common cause with Christians in other areas. To the extent that these statements are at the core of Christianity, yet rejected by Islam, the two religions would be in opposition.
Mr. Huckabee’s statement might be overly broad, but it points to something logical and even obvious. It is Christianity’s specifics which Islam rejects.
February 27th, 2011 | 12:21 am
Dr. Beckwith: Thank you, for clarifying your position. When I said everyone has a “right”, to a position, as long as it is supported by valid arguments, I meant that, in an epistemological sense, not, pragmatically. Anyone can express any view, they wish, obviously, regardless of whether it’s valid, or not, but they’re not justified, if it’s not valid.
You make a good point, about the critics, of Huckabee, being inconsistent. You rightly state that, many claim that religion is private, and is immune to rational confirmation, or disconfirmation. Therefore, one cannot make theological judgments, because the latter, by their very nature, are neither “true” or “false”. But, these same critics, argue that, Huckabee’s theological conclusion (i.e., that Islam is the antithesis of Christianity) is incorrect! This is a very good point. (I did misinterpret your point;I incorrectly concluded that, you were arguing that, those who criticize Huckabee, disagree with Huckabee’s theology, but then argue that Huckabee is wrong in his conclusion about Islam, thereby being inconsistent with their own principle, of being tolerant other other religions, as manifested properly in not criticizing other religious beliefs. this may be true, as well!).
But even though I misinterpreted the specifics of your claim (you were claiming that, the critics of Hukabee claim that, religion can be neither true or false, but then, inconsistently, argue that Huckabee’s religious assertion is false, not that the critics of Huckabee disagree with Huckabee’s brand of Christianity, but then argue, inconsistently that, Huckabee has no right to criticize Muslim beliefs), the principle that, it’s beside the point, still stands, if the point, is whether Huckabee is correct in his claim, which was my point.
However, I should have been clear that, you, Dr.Beckwith, were not claiming that your claim somehow makes Huckabee “right”, or immune to criticism. I know you were not claiming that. but I should have been more clear.
If I understand you, correctly, you don’t dispute that, Huckabee’s assertion is either right or wrong, and should be judged as such, you were only making the additional point that, the critics are inconsistent, and I wholly agree with you.
And you may be right that Huckabee was speaking “metaphorically”.
But, as I think you agree, Islam is deserving of great respect. And, it also is similar, to Christianity, in many ways.
Huckabee, if he’s to be president, as I’m sure you agree, is president of ALL people, in the US, and therefore must have respect, understanding, and empathy for ALL faiths. The Christians who rented out their church, were in no way denying any distinctions, between Christianity, and Islam, but, showing compassion, charity, and decency, to a religion that, shares with Christianity, a common Abrahamic heritage, as I’m sure you agree.
February 27th, 2011 | 12:37 am
A half full glass is also half empty. One can take the side of either argument, be correct but never worry about what the argument is for.
February 27th, 2011 | 1:28 pm
By their fruits you will know them.
That says everything one needs to know about Islam and Christianity. The difference is huge and fundamental.
February 27th, 2011 | 6:35 pm
Of course Islam and Christianity are related. It is the relation of a caricature to the original.
February 27th, 2011 | 9:55 pm
Rev. Mark Durie’s op-ed in The Washington Times is apropos this tread.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/feb/23/stop-opening-churches-to-muslims/?page=1
February 27th, 2011 | 11:28 pm
Ed Abd Al-Ghafur wrote:
I encourage all at this website not to believe the hype about Islam.
To which I ask, what hype would that be?
February 28th, 2011 | 12:30 am
I would like to point out that only a Christian, or someone spontaneously assuming that Christianity is a good thing (such as the tepidly religious Americans) would feel offended (for the sake of some abstract Muslims) by such a remark. I bet there are plenty of Muslims that agree with Huckabee. This being said, it is none of Huckabee’s business what those churches did. I wish politicians (as well as movie stars) were prohibited from pronouncing on any matters but those directly related to their job.
February 28th, 2011 | 5:36 am
“Muslims and Christians have a lot of common ground, and can work together, to this a better world. Huckabee needs to apologize, for his comments.”
Rrright!
Truth must not be an excuse for comment if it stands in the way of making a better world!
And all of you who ask “in what way better?” are strongly advised not to give even cursory look at the endless misery, oppression, murderous brutality and stupidity exemplified by civilizational pathology of dar-al-Islam.
Remember, if truth was not good for Muhamad in his efforts to make a better world, how much worse it must be for you!
February 28th, 2011 | 7:55 am
I’m surprised no one has said anything about the fallacious implications of Reynolds’ argument. He juxtaposes certain Muslims’ inhibition and persecution of Christians with instances of “political correctness” in the States. Presumably he is suggesting that it makes no sense to be respectful to people with whom we (Christians) profoundly disagree, simply because some of “them” refuse to be respectful to us. But last I heard, our ethical responsibilities are not altered by the behavior of our fellow-people.
Sure, it’s a rant, but it doesn’t really have anything to do with Huckabee’s comment.
February 28th, 2011 | 10:05 am
Why do some many Orthodox insist on referring to Istanbul as Constantinople? I know about the history of the city and some about the eastern church, but it strikes me as unnecessarily provocative – especially in the minds of Turks and Muslims. It’s been a Turkish city for more than 500 years – it ain’t going back.
February 28th, 2011 | 10:31 am
To CNS:
What are our ethical responsibilities to people who have a fundamentally different religious, moral and cultural “worldview”? In what sense, or on what grounds is “respect an ethical responsibility? Does the fact that one group sees another as a fundamental threat to its own religious, moral, cultural “worldview” in any way alter–require some adjustment in–those alleged responsibilities?
To MWT:
What is the line between merely “provocative” and “unnecessarily provocative”? What are your grounds for believing that “provocative”–”unnecessarily” or not–is less than moral/ethical?
February 28th, 2011 | 1:06 pm
I don’t know what to make of all this. I have no problem that people disagree with Huckabee and Reynolds. That is, quite literally in this country, their right. But then, that is also the right of Huckabee and Reynolds.
Whence these calls for Huckabee to apologize or be silent on these issues, one even calling for laws to be enforced for public figures? What Huckabee said, may not be good for his presidential aspirations but then, the electorate will decide that, not a pundit, let alone you or me.
I’d rather have a discussion on what he said and attempt to make sense of it. I find Beckwith’s comments most helpful here. I find the ad hominems of calling Reynolds, e.g., “small minded” empty. Demonizing those who disagree with you, on truth or style, only grants them the same privilege. And that doesn’t lead anywhere useful, though it is very human.
February 28th, 2011 | 5:39 pm
Does anybody else have a clue as to what hype about Islam of which Ed Abd Al-Ghafur is speaking?
March 1st, 2011 | 7:28 am
Islam considers Jesus to be an essential prophet, and to be revered.<<<
And yet the practitioners of Islam persecute Christians. Ain't that a kick in the head.
March 1st, 2011 | 9:15 am
I’m surprised nobody has asked the obvious question of Ed Abd Al-Ghafur. @ Ed(?): would you have problems letting, say, Catholics hold a Mass in your mosque?
Having asked that, know that either answer is fine with me. I am not Moslem and believe Moslems get to decide what their religion means.
March 1st, 2011 | 10:49 am
“Islam considers Jesus to be an essential prophet, and to be revered.<<<
And yet the practitioners of Islam persecute Christians."
Dear Kerry L.: It's because Christians do not think of Jesus as merely an essential prophet. I go back to a previous comment: "Even though there is a great deal in common between the two, what makes Christianity Christianity and what makes Islam Islam are in opposition."
If we were speaking merely of theism, yes, both Christianity and Islam are theistic. But both religions speak of a great deal more than that.
March 1st, 2011 | 2:45 pm
DavidWL wrote, “What are our ethical responsibilities to people…”
Here’s the radical, Christian balance sheet,
“For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became as[f] weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. Now this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I may be partaker of it with you.”
March 1st, 2011 | 10:10 pm
Mr. Cummins:
Your quotation from Paul assumes a social and religious context where conversion is a real possibility: he is ready to be Jewish to convert a Jew, and act as a Gentile to convert a Gentile.
But I asked, “what is my “responsibility to people who have a fundamentally different religious, moral and cultural “worldview”? I was assuming that religious difference is real and remains incorrigible.
So your response doesn’t answer my question. It might address, e.g., the situation where a Muslim might be ready to convert, but needs clarity on what it means to say that Jesus Christ is God’s son. In such a case I might need to reflect on what it means place myself under his religious prejudices–to “become a Muslim”??–so as to bring about his conversion. But it doesn’t answer the question, what if conversion is not a live possibility?
March 4th, 2011 | 3:42 am
DavidWL,
‘In such a case I might need to reflect on what it means place myself under his religious prejudices–to “become a Muslim”??’
Do you think Paul reflected on what it meant to place himself under the religious prejudices of a Gentile and then work in the gospel? (As if the Jews hadn’t beaten him up enough.) Should this scripture now be abrogated, post-Mohamed?
Did Paul’s Gentiles have “a fundamentally different religious, moral and cultural ‘worldview’ “? (Why do you feel the word worldview needs quotation marks?)
How do you know when “conversion is not a live possibility”? What is a “live possibility”? If you are a follower of Jesus, does it cover conversions dependent upon your death?
Something (natural, human bigotry?) compels you to cavil your way out of the gospel’s mandates. Paul’s approach was fundamentally different from yours: “When I came to you, I did not come with eloquence or human wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. I came to you in weakness with great fear and trembling. My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power.”
God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son for all except those without his own religious, moral and cultural “worldview”, right? Actually, this could be demonstrated with scripture, the scriptures that seem to speak of those who believe being intrinsically so disposed–care to try? Then that could be refuted by showing how those same scriptures indicate a decision on the part of those who believe. But then that can be refuted by scriptures that seeming to state that all is willed by God. This is one of the chief reasons why Paul, for all his learning, words and great brain, depended on the Spirit, as above. If you don’t do likewise, you’ve scant chance of catching a Mooselum.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact