In a similar way, we could ask, how can a person be with God and go to heaven? There is only one correct answer to this question. Jesus Christ said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6). Many people say there are other ways to get to God. Some say through meditation. Others say through the teachings of Muhammad (muh-HAH-mud). Still others say by following rules in books written by councils instead of following Jesus’ words in the Bible. No matter what people say, the only way to God is through Jesus Christ.

In this issue of Discovery we are learning about the religion of Islam. One of the main reasons we know it is not from God is because it denies that Jesus is God’s Son. Islam is a religion that was started by a man named Muhammad. He claimed to receive messages from God that he wrote down in a book called the Quran (coo-RON). When we look at these messages, however, we can know that they are not from God, because they deny that Jesus is God’s Son. In one place, the Quran says: “Praise be to Allah [this is the word the Quran uses for God] Who has revealed the Scripture unto His slave…to give warning of stern punishment from Him…and to warn those who say: Allah has chosen a son, a thing whereof they have no knowledge, nor had their fathers. Dreadful is the word that comes out of their mouths. They speak nothing but a lie” (Surah 18:1-5; a Surah is a division of the Quran, somewhat like the Bible is divided into books).

Notice that the Quran says that God does not have a Son, and anyone who says He does have a Son is lying. When we look into the Bible, however, we find that Jesus often taught that He is God’s Son. In Matthew 16, Jesus asked His disciples who they thought He was. Peter spoke up and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (16:16). Jesus responded by saying, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven” (16:17). Notice that Jesus said that God had revealed to Peter that Jesus is God’s Son. That is the exact opposite of what the Quran teaches.

Many other places in the Bible teach that Jesus is God’s Son. In 1 John 2:22-23 we read, “Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ. He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.” Jesus is the Son of God. One very important part of coming to God and being saved is believing that Jesus is God’s Son and being willing to confess that belief (Romans 10:9-10). Sadly, the Quran teaches the exact opposite.

There are many religions in the world that teach different things. But the only way to be right with God and go to heaven is to admit that Jesus is God’s Son and confess that belief. The Quran teaches that Jesus cannot be God’s Son. The Quran and Islam are wrong! Jesus Himself once said, “Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins, for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins” (John 8:24). It is our prayer that all people in the world will believe that Jesus is God’s Son and obey His commandments so that they can be with God in heaven someday.

[Jesus is the Son of God: Luke 1:35, John 1:34, John 1:49, John 11:27, Matthew 27:54, John 10:36, Matthew 8:29, Matthew 16:16, John 2:22-23]

The post Islam and Jesus Christ appeared first on Apologetics Press.

At the age of 25, Muhammad married a 40-year-old, wealthy widow named Khadijah (cha-DEE-juh). Muhammad was able to retreat from the hustle and bustle of city life one month a year to a cave in Mt. Hira, a desert hill a few miles north of Mecca. The month was Ramadan, the month of heat. It was at this location in A.D. 610 at the age of 40 that Muhammad claimed he received a revelation from Allah. The messenger of Allah who supposedly brought him the revelation was the angel Gabriel. Muhammad claimed that over the next 23 years Gabriel brought him 114 revelations. These messages (called surahs) from Allah were eventually recorded in a book named the Quran, which means “the reading” or “the recitation.”

Within Muhammad’s hometown of Mecca is the Ka‘bah (KA-buh), a cube-shaped building that Arabs believe was built by Abraham and Ishmael. Muslims believe that an angel brought a celestial stone to Abraham, and that Abraham and Ishmael placed it into the eastern corner of the Ka‘bah. Allah then told Abraham to make a pilgrimage to Mecca. Over time, however, the Arabs grew idolatrous and used the building as a shrine dedicated to many pagan gods. Muhammad’s tribesmen were the guardians of the Ka‘bah, and hosted an annual pilgrimage made by Arabs from all over the country.

Muhammad claimed that one night as he was sleeping, Gabriel awakened him and told him to climb onto Buraq—a heavenly horse. The two of them then flew to Jerusalem—to the site of what is now the Muslim mosque Dome of the Rock. Then they flew up through the “seven heavens” into the presence of Allah. Here Muhammad claims to have received the instruction for Muslims to offer prayer five times per day.

Muhammad soon found himself in direct conflict with the people of his mother tribe, the Quraysh (coo-RY-ish). As the ruling tribe of Mecca, the Quraysh were the guardians of the Ka‘bah and its pagan religion. Since Muhammad rejected their religion, they began to persecute him. He eventually had to flee his hometown to avoid being killed by the city leaders. In A.D. 622, he fled from Mecca to Medina. This migration is referred to by Muslims as the Hijra (HEEJ-ruh) and marks the beginning of the Islamic Calendar.

As Muhammad’s military strength began to grow, the Muslims fought their first battle with non-Muslims in the Battle of Badr. Though outnumbered, the Muslims were victorious, and reported that Allah had sent angels to fight alongside them. That same year, Muhammad claimed to receive a revelation ordering him to change the direction that Muslims face during prayer—from Jerusalem to Mecca. All Muslim mosques today have a prayer-niche called a Mihrab (MEER-uhb) that points the direction of Mecca.

 Throughout these years, Muhammad and his army engaged in many battles. He also added many wives to his harem. He led a final pilgrimage from Medina to Mecca at the age of 63. In June of A.D. 632, he died of an unknown illness.

Muhammad was succeeded by Caliphs (rulers) who continued his efforts to spread Islam. During these years, a major disagreement among the Muslims resulted in a split. Some believed Muhammad’s successors should be family descendants of Muhammad. These became known as the Shi‘ites (SHEE-ites). Those who thought the Caliph could be chosen by the community became known as Sunnis.

In the meantime, Islamic armies invaded Syria and Iraq, Jerusalem, Egypt, Persia, North Africa, and Spain. In A.D. 732, Islamic forces crossed the Pyrennes Mountains and entered France. Armies that claimed to be Christian, led by Charles Martel, managed to halt the Islamic advance into Europe at the Battle of Tours. Islamic forces also pushed to the east of Arabia into India and to the edge of China, conquering Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as parts of Asia. Eventually, various tribes from Turkey became the major force in Islam. They established the Ottoman Empire around 1453 with its capitol at Istanbul (formerly Constantinople), finally declining by World War I. Today, the false religion of Islam is reasserting its influence in the world—largely through immigration and terrorism.

The post Who Was Muhammad? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Of course, this claim is unfounded and indefensible—for at least two reasons. While misunderstanding and misinterpretation certainly can occur, all linguists know that the accurate transference of meaning from one language to another is achievable. Millions of people who speak differing languages are able to communicate with each other every day. The United Nations and governments around the world regularly engage in political and economic interaction, fully capable of grasping each other’s intended meanings. The fact that misunderstanding sometimes occurs does not negate the fact that correct meanings may be conferred from one language to another, and that the participants can know that they have understood each other correctly. Was God incapable of providing the world with His Word in such a way that its meaning can be transferred into the thousands of human languages that exist? Of course, He could. If we can understand each other by overcoming language barriers—surely the originator of human language can communicate His message through multiple human languages! The claim that the Quran cannot be fully comprehended unless one reads it in Arabic is a claim that demonstrates ignorance of linguistics and the science of translation.

Additionally, the claim stands in conflict with the nature of God. The one true God would not insist that His Word remain in one language—let alone Arabic. He would not require the whole world to learn Arabic.⁶ In fact, this claim stands in contradiction to the Quran itself. Since it speaks favorably of the Bible, the Quran implicitly endorses the fact that God previously conveyed His will in three languages (i.e., Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek).⁷ Yet, no Greek-speaking person was required to learn Hebrew or Aramaic, and no one whose native language was Hebrew was required to learn Greek. Jesus, Himself a Jew, often quoted from the Greek translation of the Old Testament. Indeed, the Septuagint translation–though imperfect–was, in fact, the primary translation of the Old Testament used by the apostles and the early church.

What’s more, the first century phenomenon of tongue-speaking in the New Testament church demonstrates that God does not favor one particular human language or expect His communication to be confined to a single language. On the day of Pentecost, Jewish Arabs were present in Jerusalem who spoke Arabic (Acts 2:11). The apostles did not expect those gathered to give priority to the Arabic language but, in fact, accommodated the wide variety of languages spoken by the pilgrims (vs. 8).⁸ In the church at Corinth, both the miraculous ability to speak a foreign language as well as the gift of interpretation of other languages is implicitly endorsed by God (1 Corinthians 11-14).

The very nature of God’s communicative activities militates against the notion that He would suddenly lock His Word into one language and then require everyone to learn how to understand and read that fourth language. In fact, the fixation—even obsession—that the Quran manifests toward “Arabic” (Surah 12:2; 13:37; 16:103; 20:113; 26:195; 39:28; 41:3; 42:7; 43:3; 46:12; cf. 41:44) implies a human author—one who was overly influenced by, enamored with, and subject to his restricted, limited linguistic environment.⁹

EndnotES

The post The Quran, Arabic, and Translations appeared first on Apologetics Press.

“You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention.”¹

“While we are zealously performing the duties of good Citizens and soldiers we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of Religion. To the distinguished Character of Patriot, it should be our highest Glory to add the more distinguished Character of Christian.”²

Thomas Jefferson and John Adams

“We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the grounds of their pretentions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our Friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners; and that every Musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”³

John Quincy Adams

“In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar, the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle…. [H]e declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind…. The precept of the koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God.”⁴

Barack Obama

“Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism—it is an important part of promoting peace.”⁵

Endnotes

¹ George Washington (1779), “Speech to the Delaware Chiefs,” in The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources 1745-1799, ed. John C. Fitzpatrick, 15:55, emp. added, http://preview.tinyurl.com/Washington-G-1779. The author assumes that Washington’s belief in the priority of the Christian religion would apply to the Muslim as well as the Native American.

² George Washington (1778), “General Orders, May 2, 1778,” George Washington Papers at the Library of Congress, emp. added, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=mgw3&fileName=mgw3g/gwpage003.db&recNum=181. Again, it is assumed that, if Washington considered being a Christian a person’s highest glory, being a Muslim would not be so considered.

³ “American Peace Commissioners to John Jay” (1786), The Thomas Jefferson Papers Series 1. General Correspondence. 1651-1827, Library of Congress, March 28, http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.mss/mtj.mtjbib001849. The letter refers to Jefferson and Adam’s meeting with the Ambassador from the Muslim country of Tripoli.

⁴ Joseph Blunt (1830), The American Annual Register for the Years 1827-8-9 (New York: E. & G.W. Blunt), 29:269, emp. added, http://www.archive.org/stream/p1americanannual29blunuoft.

⁵ Barack Obama (2009), “Remarks by the President on a New Beginning,” The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt, June 4, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-cairo-university-6-04-09.

The post U.S. Presidents on Islam appeared first on Apologetics Press.

To suggest that the Bible is not to be taken literally is nonsensical. True, the Bible contains much figurative language, i.e., it includes figures of speech (e.g., simile, metaphor, hyperbole, metonymy, synecdoche, etc.)—just like our own English language (e.g., “quit cold turkey,” “stretch my legs,” “died laughing”). But figurative language still communicates meaning that can be comprehended. Do those who allege that the Bible is not to be literalized want us to interpret their allegation literally? Of course. Even if a few metaphors are “thrown” into the discussion, can we “grasp” what is being communicated? Yes, even as that question can be understood, though it contains two figurative expressions. Likewise the Bible may also be understood. It communicates literal truth. Any diligent student can ascertain the original intent of the divinely guided writers.

Though its divine origin has been decisively disputed,² the same may be said of the Quran. It was written with a view to being understood. The host of passages that advocate violent jihad are unquestionably conveyed in contexts that demonstrate their literality. No figurative language alters the very plain meanings evident in the admonitions pertaining to physical warfare. For example, Surah 3 alludes to two literal battles fought by Muslim armies—the battle of Badr and the battle of Uhud. Consider Surah 47 in Mohammed Pickthall’s celebrated Muslim translation—

Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks…. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain. He will guide them and improve their state, and bring them in unto the Garden [Paradise—DM] which He hath made known to them (Surah 47:4-6, emp. added).³

No Muslim would deny that “those who disbelieve,” “actions,” and “Garden” (i.e., Paradise) are literal. Likewise, no true Quran-made Muslim would deny that “battle,” “slain,” and “smiting of the necks” are literal as well. This Surah is calling for Muslims to engage in literal violent warfare with unbelievers (i.e., those who do not accept Islam) by severing their heads. The sooner the politically correct, multicultural mindset faces reality, the sooner the threat posed by terrorists can be addressed in a meaningful manner.

Endnotes

1   Kyle Butt (2007), Behold! The Word of God (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press); Jackson, Wayne (1982), “The Holy Scriptures—Verbally Inspired,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/holyscri.pdf.

2   See Dave Miller (2005), The Quran Unveiled (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

3   Mohammed Pickthall (no date), The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (New York: Mentor).

The post Should the Quran be Taken Literally? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Perhaps at some point, the politically correct crowd reconsider their flawed notion that “Islam is a religion of peace, and such behavior does not represent true Islam.” This naïve, inaccurate depiction is inexcusable and unbelievably bizarre in view of the 1,400-year-long history of Islam throughout the world. It is fashionable to refer to the terrorists as “extremists” and “radicalized”—implying that they do not represent true Islam and the Quran. They are characterized as being guilty of embracing a “literalist” interpretation of the Quran. But this allegation fails to face the fact that the Quranic texts that advocate violence and killing to advance Islam are clearly literal and have been so taken by the vast majority of Islamic scholars for the last 1,400 years.³ Setting aside the Hadith which forthrightly promote violence, the Quran itself is riddled with admonitions for Muslims to commit precisely the violent actions and bloodshed being committed by the Islamic terrorists.

Read Surah 47:4 from the celebrated translation by Muslim scholar Mohammed Pickthall:

Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens. That (is the ordinance). And if Allah willed He could have punished them (without you) but (thus it is ordained) that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain (Surah 47:4, emp. added).⁴

No one should be perplexed or surprised by the incessant practice of beheadings by ISIS and all terrorists, who are in a perpetual war with Christendom. The admonition to behead others comes straight from the Quran (cf. Surah 8:12). Abdullah Yusuf Ali makes the following comment on this passage in his widely reputable Muslim translation:

When once the fight (Jihad) is entered upon, carry it out with the utmost vigour, and strike home your blows at the most vital points (smite at their necks), both literally and figuratively. You cannot wage war with kid gloves (italics and parenthetical items in orig.).⁵

Many other verses in the Quran forthrightly endorse armed conflict and war to advance Islam (e.g., Surah 2:190ff.; 8:39ff.; 9:1-5,29; 22:39; 61:4; 4:101-104). Muslim historical sources themselves report the background details of those armed conflicts that have characterized Islam from its inception—including Muhammad’s own warring tendencies involving personal participation in and endorsement of military campaigns.⁶ Muslim scholar Pickthall’s own summary of Muhammad’s war record is an eye-opener: “The number of the campaigns which he led in person during the last ten years of his life is twenty-seven, in nine of which there was hard fighting. The number of the expeditions which he planned and sent out under other leaders is thirty-eight.”⁷

Islam stands in stark contrast to the religion of Jesus—Who never once took up the sword or encouraged anyone else to do so. The one time that one of His close followers took it upon himself to do so, the disciple was soundly reprimanded and ordered to put the sword away, with the added warning: “all who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matthew 26:52). Indeed, when Pilate quizzed Jesus regarding His intentions, He responded: “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here” (John 18:36)—the very opposite of Islamic teaching and practice. Whereas the Quran boldly declares, “And one who attacks you, attack him in like manner as he attacked you” (Surah 2:194; cf. 22:60), Jesus counters, “But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also” and “love your enemies” (Matthew 5:39,44). Indeed, New Testament Christianity enjoins love for enemies (Matthew 5:44-46; Luke 6:27-36), returning good for evil, and overcoming evil with good (Romans 12:14,17-21).

So why does the politically correct crowd seem intent on ignoring 1,400 years of historical reality and unmistakable declarations within the Quran itself? It would appear that such blatant disregard is rooted in a single reason: an irrational regard for pluralism and bitter disdain for Christianity’s moral principles.

Endnotes

¹ Annie Gowen, Shaiq Hussain, and Erin Cunningham (2016), “Death Toll in Pakistan Bombing Climbs Past 70,” The Washington Post, March 28, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/death-toll-in-pakistan-easter-suicide-attack-rises-to-72-authorities-vow-to-hunt-down-perpetrators/2016/03/28/037a2e18-f46a-11e5-958d-d038dac6e718_story.html.

² Ibid.

³ Nabeel Qureshi (2016), “The Quran’s Deadly Role in Inspiring Belgian Slaughter: Column,” USA Today, March 22, http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/03/22/radicalization-isil-islam-sacred-texts-literal-interpretation-column/81808560/.

⁴ Mohammed Pickthall (no date), The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (New York: Mentor).

⁵ Abdullah Yusuf Ali (1934), The Meaning of the Holy Quran (Beltsville, MD: Amana Publications), 2002 reprint, p. 1315.

⁶ cf. Martin Lings (1983), Muhammad (Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions International), pp. 86,111.

⁷ p. xxvi.

Suggested Resources

The post The Quran and the Muslim Bomb Blast In Pakistan appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Read Surah 47:4 from the celebrated translation by Muslim scholar Mohammed Pickthall:

Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens. That (is the ordinance). And if Allah willed He could have punished them (without you) but (thus it is ordained) that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain (Surah 47:4, emp. added).³

No one should be perplexed or surprised by the incessant practice of beheadings by ISIS and all terrorists, who are in a perpetual war with Christendom. The admonition to behead others comes straight from the Quran (cf. Surah 8:12). Abdullah Yusuf Ali makes the following comment on this passage in his widely reputable Muslim translation:

When once the fight (Jihad) is entered upon, carry it out with the utmost vigour, and strike home your blows at the most vital points (smite at their necks), both literally and figuratively. You cannot wage war with kid gloves (italics and parenthetical items in orig.).⁴

Many other verses in the Quran forthrightly endorse armed conflict and war to advance Islam (e.g., Surah 2:190ff.; 8:39ff.; 9:1-5,29; 22:39; 61:4; 4:101-104). Muslim historical sources themselves report the background details of those armed conflicts that have characterized Islam from its inception—including Muhammad’s own warring tendencies involving personal participation in and endorsement of military campaigns.⁵ Muslim scholar Pickthall’s own summary of Muhammad’s war record is an eye-opener: “The number of the campaigns which he led in person during the last ten years of his life is twenty-seven, in nine of which there was hard fighting. The number of the expeditions which he planned and sent out under other leaders is thirty-eight.”⁶

Islam stands in stark contrast to the religion of Jesus—Who never once took up the sword or encouraged anyone else to do so. The one time that one of His close followers took it upon himself to do so, the disciple was soundly reprimanded and ordered to put the sword away, with the added warning: “all who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matthew 26:52). Indeed, when Pilate quizzed Jesus regarding His intentions, He responded: “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here” (John 18:36)—the very opposite of Islamic teaching and practice. Whereas the Quran boldly declares, “And one who attacks you, attack him in like manner as he attacked you” (Surah 2:194; cf. 22:60), Jesus counters, “But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also” and “love your enemies” (Matthew 5:39,44). Indeed, New Testament Christianity enjoins love for enemies (Matthew 5:44-46; Luke 6:27-36), returning good for evil, and overcoming evil with good (Romans 12:14,17-21).

So why does the politically correct crowd seem intent on ignoring 1,400 years of historical reality and unmistakable declarations within the Quran itself? It would appear that such blatant disregard is rooted in a single reason: an irrational regard for pluralism and bitter disdain for Christianity’s moral principles.

Endnotes

¹ CNBC.com Staff (2016), “The Belgium Terror Attacks: Complete Coverage,” CNBC, http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/22/the-belgium-terror-attacks-complete-coverage.html.

² Nabeel Qureshi (2016), “The Quran’s Deadly Role in Inspiring Belgian Slaughter: Column,” USA Today, March 22, http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/03/22/radicalization-isil-islam-sacred-texts-literal-interpretation-column/81808560/.

³ Mohammed Pickthall (no date), The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (New York: Mentor).

⁴ Abdullah Yusuf Ali (1934), The Meaning of the Holy Quran (Beltsville, MD: Amana Publications), 2002 reprint, p. 1315.

⁵ cf. Martin Lings (1983), Muhammad (Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions International), pp. 86,111.

⁶ p. xxvi.

Suggested Resources

The post Belgium Blasts and the Quran appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Yet, ironically, the social liberal, who disdains Christian morality, gives a “free pass” to Islam on some of the very issues for which it has viciously opposed the Christian moorings of American society. The “women’s lib” movement of the 1960s is a glaring example. The fight for “women’s rights” and the equal status of women in the home and on the job has been a hallmark of the liberal establishment. And yet, incredibly, the Islamic world has been known since its inception to consign women to an inferior status and to exert a degrading influence on them. How many female advocates of “women’s lib” would be willing to wear what Muslim women are required to wear around the world? How many “liberated women” in America would be willing to be subjected to a polygamous husband who relegates her to one among several other of his wives? And how many American women would be in favor of implementing the Quran’s teaching regarding the right of the husband to beat his wife? Read it for yourself in Mohammed Pickthall’s celebrated Muslim translation:

Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High Exalted, Great (Surah 4:34, emp. added; cf. 4:11; 2:223,228,282; 38:45; 16:58-59; see also Brooks, 1995; Trifkovic, 2002, pp. 153-167).

A host of Islamic translations confirm this translation. The words in bold above are rendered in Abdullah Yusuf Ali’s translation: “refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly).” Ahmed Raza Khan’s translation reads: “do not cohabit with them, and (lastly) beat them.” Abul A’la Maududi has “remain apart from them in beds, and beat them.” Wahiduddin Khan “refuse to share their beds, and finally hit them.” Muhamad Abib Shakir has “leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them.” Shaykh Muhammad Sarwar reads: “do not sleep with them and beat them.” The Saheeh International translation reads: “forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them.” Hassan Qaribullah and Ahmed Darwish have: “desert them in the bed and smack them (without harshness).” Ali Quli Qarai’s rendering reads: “keep away from them in the bed, and [as the last resort] beat them” (Tanzil Project, 2007-2014).

As if these instructions were not enough to awaken the sensibilities of the political/moral left, consider further the penalty enjoined by the Quran for the adulterer, keeping in mind that the practice of adultery is commonplace among the anti-Christian establishment of our nation (Bonewell, 2012).

The adulterer and the adulteress, scourge ye each one of them (with) a hundred stripes. And let not pity for the twain withhold you from obedience to Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of believers witness their punishment…. And those who accuse honourable women but bring not four witnesses, scourge them (with) eighty stripes and never (afterward) accept their testimony—They indeed are evildoers (Surah 24:2,4, emp. added).

Are those who believe Islam ought to be accommodated and encouraged to participate fully in the political and educational framework of the nation willing to allow Sharia law to become the law of the country?

REFERENCES

Ali, Abdullah Yusuf (1934), The Meaning of the Holy Quran (Beltsville, MD: Amana Publications), 2002 reprint.

Bonewell, Kelly (2012), “Adultery: Just the Statistics,” The End of All Our Exploring, http://www.kellybonewell.com/psychology/adultery-just-the-statistics/.

Brooks, Geraldine (1995), Nine Parts of Desire (New York, NY: Anchor Books).

Tanzil Project (2007-2014), http://tanzil.net/#4:34.

Trifkovic, Serge (2002), The Sword of the Prophet (Boston, MA: Regina Orthodox Press).

The post Islam Says a Husband May Beat His Wife appeared first on Apologetics Press.

 “How significant is birthrate among Muslims to the spread of Islam?”

A:

Studies show that the Muslim population is growing at a faster rate than all other groups combined. In the U.S. alone, Muslims will go from less than 1% of the nation, to 1.7% in 2030—an increase from 2.6 million in 2010 to 6.2 million. Though 64.5% of U.S. Muslims today were born outside the United States, that percentage will fall to 55% in 2030 as more Muslims are born in the U.S. (Grossman, 2011; “The Future…,” 2011; cf. “The Future…,” 2015).

The significance of these facts is that the Founders of our great Republic set up the country so that the people govern themselves, i.e., they select their political leaders. The Republic they envisioned depends on the majority of the people believing in and being self-governed by the moral and spiritual principles of Christianity. [For example, examine the 15 proclamations the Continental Congress issued to the entire country during the Revolutionary War, in which they repeatedly reiterated the essentiality of Christianity to the perpetuation of the Republic, including these remarks given on October 20, 1779, thanking God in that “he hath diffused the glorious light of the gospel, whereby, through the merits of our gracious Redeemer, we may become the heirs of his eternal glory” and beseeching Him to “grant to his church the plentiful effusions of divine grace, and pour out his holy spirit on all ministers of the gospel…and spread the light of Christian knowledge through the remotest corners of the earth;…that he would in mercy look down upon us, pardon our sins and receive us into his favor, and finally, that he would establish the independence of these United States upon the basis of religion and virtue” (Miller, 2009, p. 36, emp. added). They insisted that the establishment of American independence as a new nation was based on Christianity.]

Observe that, with the origin of America being dependent on this national foundation, if a non-Christian group were to become sufficiently numerous that they were able to exert political control over the civil and educational institutions of the country, they obviously would alter the country’s way of life—including her religious institutions. In the case of Islamic domination, American constitutional law would be supplanted by Sharia law.

The Founders feared this very scenario, but felt hopeful that Americans would never allow such to happen. Contrary to the claim in recent years that the Founding Fathers of America advocated “pluralism” and equal acceptance of all religions, ideologies, and philosophies, the truth is that they feared for the future of the nation should its Christian foundation ever be compromised. Founding Father and Supreme Court Justice James Iredell, who was appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court by President George Washington, reflected this concern in the debates over the wording of the U.S. Constitution in 1788. He felt reassured that Islam would never be allowed to infiltrate America: “But it is objected that the people of America may perhaps choose representatives who have no religion at all, and that pagans and Mahometans may be admitted into offices…. But it is never to be supposed that the people of America will trust their dearest rights to persons who have no religion at all, or a religion materially different from their own” (Elliott, 1836, 4:194).

While America generally has welcomed all nationalities of people to her shores regardless of their personal beliefs, alternative ideologies and religions never were intended to be given credence or encouragement and allowed to transform her into either an irreligious or non-Christian society. Nor was it intended that American civilization be adjusted to accommodate religious principles that contradict the original foundations of the nation. America welcomes people to live in freedom within her borders—as long as they do so peaceably (see Miller, 2013, 33[3]:32). But to adjust social parameters in public life to accommodate divergent religions will weaken, not strengthen, the ability of America to sustain herself.

Founding Father Noah Webster articulated this indisputable fact in a letter to James Madison on October 29, 1829: “[T]he Christian religion, in its purity, is the basis, or rather the source of all genuine freedom in government…. and I am persuaded that no civil government of a republican form can exist and be durable in which the principles of that religion have not a controlling influence” (as quoted in Snyder, 1990, p. 253). The “Father of American Geography” Jedidiah Morse succinctly stated: “Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government, and all the blessings which flow from them, must fall with them” (1799, p. 9, emp. added). And Declaration of Independence signer John Witherspoon declared: “[H]e is the best friend to American liberty, who is most sincere and active in promoting true and undefiled religion [i.e., Christianity—James 1:27], and who sets himself with the greatest firmness to bear down profanity and immorality of every kind” (1777, pp. 16,33, emp. added).

It would seem self-evident that if Muslims succeed in transforming America into an Islamic nation, America will be no different from, and will look exactly like, all the other Islamic nations on Earth. What true-hearted American (or Christian) has a desire to move to such a nation?

REFERENCES

Elliott, Jonathan (1836), The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution (Washington, D.C.: Jonathan Elliot).

“The Future of the Global Muslim Population” (2011), Pew Research Center, January 27, http://www.pewforum.org/2011/01/27/the-future-of-the-global-muslim-population/.

“The Future of World Religions: Population Growth Projections, 2010-2050” (2015), Pew Research Center, April 2, http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/.

Grossman, Cathy (2011), “Number of U.S. Muslims to Double,” USA TODAY, January 27, http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2011-01-27-1Amuslim27_ST_N.htm.

Miller, Dave (2009), Christ and the Continental Congress (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Miller, Dave (2013), “Were the Founding Fathers ‘Tolerant’ of Islam? [Part I],” Reason & Revelation, 33[3]:26-28,32-35, March.

Morse, Jedidiah (1799), A Sermon, Exhibiting the Present Dangers and Consequent Duties of the Citizens of the United States of America (Hartford, CT: Hudson and Goodwin), http://www.archive.org/details/sermonexhibiting00morsrich.

Snyder, K. Alan (1990), Defining Noah Webster: Mind and Morals in the Early Republic (New York: University Press of America).

Witherspoon, John (1777), The Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men (Philadelphia, PA: Town & Country), http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Dominion_of_Providence_Over_the_Pass.html?id=HpRIAAAAYAAJ.

The post A Question About Muslim Birthrates appeared first on Apologetics Press.

“There are 1.3 billion Muslims in the world. Islam can’t be all bad. What good things can you say about Islam?”

A:

Truth is not determined by the number of people that accept or reject it. Nor is any religion, ideology, or philosophy totally evil, false, or bad. No doubt Satan himself has some attributes that some may consider “good.” But this observation misses the point. If a religion is false, it must be rejected—even if it possesses some positive qualities. If the central thrust of an ideology is out of harmony with what both the Bible and the American Founders called “true religion” (i.e., Christianity), then ultimately it will be harmful and counterproductive to American civilization. Philosophies and religions impact life and society. If America loses its Christian moorings, dire consequences will follow—consequences that we are even now seeing in the form of increased crime, the breakdown of the home, and the dumbing down of our educational institutions. Christian principles are responsible for elevating America to the envy of the nations of the world. Remove or replace the Christian platform on which the Republic is poised and disastrous results will follow.

Is there some good in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam? Certainly. But that is a superfluous observation. The real question is: what has been the impact of those ideologies on the countries where their influence has prevailed? Answer: Poverty is rampant (except where the Western Christian nations have given assistance and technology—such as drilling oil wells), women are abused and mistreated, children are treated as chattel, the lower classes are treated with contempt, etc. Simply look at one of the premiere atheistic nations of the last century—Russia. Look at the most prominent Hindu nation on Earth—India. Consider the Buddhist countries of the world, from Thailand to Cambodia to Vietnam. Examine the premiere Socialist nations from Cuba to Central and South America. Look at the major Islamic nations of the world, from the Middle East to North Africa to Indonesia. Even a cursory examination of the societal conditions that prevail in all these nations causes the traditional American to shrink with horror and disgust, shocked at the extent of man’s inhumanity to man.

In stark contrast, what has been the result of Christianity’s influence on America? Christian influence has been responsible for the abolition of slavery, and the construction of hospitals, children homes, and the benevolent societies of our nation. Christian influence has created an environment that is conducive to human progress. Hence, America excels other nations in a host of categories of human endeavor. Indeed, where else in all of human history has a greater percentage of a nation’s citizenry achieved a higher standard of living? (Most “poor” in America do not even begin to compare with the poor of other nations and history.) America has orchestrated an unprecedented amount of progress—achieving what one author styled a “5,000 year leap” of technological advancement and progress in just 200 years (Skousen, 2006). Only one explanation exists for this extreme disparity: God has blessed America (Psalm 33:12).

Please give sober consideration to the words of Founding  Father, Jedidiah Morse (father of Samuel Morse who invented the Morse Code), who cogently articulated the thinking of the Founders and most early Americans regarding the importance of Christianity to America’s survival:

To the kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil freedom, and political and social happiness which mankind now enjoy. In proportion as the genuine effects of Christianity are diminished in any nation, either through unbelief, or the corruption of its doctrines, or the neglect of its institutions; in the same proportion will the people of that nation recede from the blessings of genuine freedom, and approximate the miseries of complete despotism (1799, p. 14, emp. added).

Whatever “good” might be acknowledged concerning Islam and all other non-Christian religions is, in fact, irrelevant and diverts attention away from the real issue: Is it true, i.e., of divine origin, and if not, what fruit will it produce in a nation? Abundant evidence exists to know the answers to these questions. [NOTE: See the author’s book The Quran Unveiled at apologeticspress.org].

References

Morse, Jedidiah (1799), A Sermon, Exhibiting the Present Dangers and Consequent Duties of the Citizens of the United States of America (Hartford, CT: Hudson and Goodwin), http://www.archive.org/details/sermonexhibiting00morsrich.

Skousen, W.C. (2006), The 5000 Year Leap (Malta, ID: National Center for Constitutional Studies).

The post What Good Things Can You Say About Islam? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Strangely, the effort to silence the traditional Christian values that have characterized America from the beginning has been accompanied by inconsistent and self-contradictory accommodation of Islam. Immediately after 9-11, the forces of political correctness sought to minimize the obvious connection between Islam and the attack by insisting that Islam is a peaceful religion, and by promoting Islam in public schools and encouraging the construction of Mosques throughout the country. Even as Christmas cards, Christian prayer, and allusions to Christianity in American history were being challenged across the country, an elementary school in Texas permitted a girl to present an overview and show a video about her Muslim religion to her classmates; a public middle school in San Luis Obispo, California had its students pretend to be warriors fighting for Islam; and a school near Oakland, California encouraged 125 seventh-grade students to dress up in Muslim robes for a three-week course on Islam. Consider the attack by Islamic gunmen that killed 12 people at the offices of a French satirical newspaper in Paris. The event evoked reactions that sought to lay blame on “disrespect for religion on the part of irresponsible cartoonists” and “violent extremists unrelated to Islam,” rather than placing blame on Sharia law, Islam, and the Quran (McCarthy, 2015; Packer, 2015; Kristof, 2015; “All in With…,” 2015; Tuttle, 2015).

The open promotion of Islam across the country has become widespread as footbaths are being installed in universities and other public facilities, traffic in New York City is disrupted by Muslims performing prayer rituals in the streets, public school classrooms and extracurricular activities are altered to accommodate Ramadan and daily prayer rituals, and the capitol lawn is given over to a Muslim prayer service involving hundreds. Any who dare even to question these proceedings are instantly pummeled and castigated as intolerant and “Islamophobic.”

As an example, consider the nationwide brouhaha that surrounded the construction of a mosque near ground zero. Despite what the left alleged, participating in a public rally to voice opposition to the construction of a mosque was not “bashing Islam” or being intolerant and “Islamophobic.” In 1941, the World War 2 generation was not being “Japophobic” when they went to war with Japan because Japanese aircraft bombed Pearl Harbor, killing some 2,400 of our young men, and wounding a 1,000 more. Nor were they “Naziphobic” when they sought to deter Germany from its attempted conquest of Europe and eventually America. Even to suggest such is ludicrous. They were merely facing reality—an ability today’s social liberals seem to lack, coupled with their complete naiveté regarding the sinister threat posed by Islam. What if Japanese living in America had sought to erect a Buddhist temple or Shinto shrine over the wreckage of the USS Arizona?

Make no mistake, true Christians do not hate Muslims, nor harbor prejudice or ill will against them. Rather, informed Christians and Americans simply recognize the fundamental threat that Islam poses to the freedom to practice one’s Christian beliefs without fear of reprisal. Indeed, taking steps to minimize the spread of Islam is itself the exercise of First Amendment rights. It is a sincere attempt to discourage the spread of religious views that are antithetical to liberty and the Christian principles on which America was founded—and on which her perpetuation depends. The American Founders recognized this fact.

the founders on islam

Father of American Jurisprudence and New York State Supreme Court Chief Justice James Kent noted that “we are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply ingrafted [sic] upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those imposters”—referring to “Mahomet and the Grand Lama” (The People…, 1811, emp. added). Did you catch that? The moral fabric of America is “deeply engrafted” on Christianity—not the false religion of Islam. Labeling founders of false religions “imposters” is not “hate speech;” it is simply describing reality.

James Iredell, appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court by George Washington, felt sure that Americans would never elect Muslims, pagans, or atheists to political office when he demurred, “But it is never to be supposed that the people of America will trust their dearest rights to persons who have no religion at all, or a religion materially different from their own” (1836, 4:194, emp. added). Father of American Geography, Jedediah Morse, explained the intimate connection between America’s freedom and the Christian religion:

The foundations which support the interests of Christianity, are also necessary to support a free and equal government like our own. In all those countries where there is little or no religion, or a very gross and corrupt one, as in Mahometan and Pagan countries, there you will find, with scarcely a single exception, arbitrary and tyrannical governments, gross ignorance and wickedness, and deplorable wretchedness among the people. To the kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil freedom, and political and social happiness which mankind now enjoy (1799, p. 14, emp. added).

Here is an extremely wise, insightful, and sobering admonition—if we will listen and learn. The portrait that Morse painted has not changed in the intervening 200⁺ years. Muslim nations across the world are still “very gross and corrupt,” with “tyrannical governments” and “deplorable wretchedness among the people.” Is that what Americans desire for their own lifestyle? Does even the politically correct crowd wish to live in such a country? They do not. Yet, they foolishly hasten the deleterious transformation of our country.

In his masterful refutation of Thomas Paine’s Age of Reason, Elias Boudinot, who served as one of the Presidents of the Continental Congress, offered a blistering assessment of Islam in its contradistinction to Christianity:

Did not Moses and Christ show their divine mission, not only by the nature and effects of their doctrines and precepts,…but also by doing good, in the presence of all the people, works, that no other men ever did…? But Mahomet aimed to establishhis pretensions to divine authority, by the power of the sword and the terrors of his government; while he carefully avoided any attempts at miracles in the presence of his followers, and all pretences [sic] to foretell things to come…. [The laws] of Mahomet and other impostors have generally been compiled by degrees, according to the exigencies of the states, the prevalence of particular factions, or the authority who governed the people at his own will. Mahomet made his laws, not to curb, but humor the genius of the people; they were therefore altered and repealed from the same causes…. [W]here is the comparison between the supposed prophet of Mecca, and the Son of God; or with what propriety ought they to be named together? The difference between these characters is so great, that the facts need not be further applied (1801, pp. 36-39, emp. added).

Ethan Allen exposed a fallacy of Islam in his discussion of the fact that the providence of the God of the Bible “does not interfere with the agency of man,” whereas

Mahomet taught his army that the “term of every man’s life was fixed by God, and that none could shorten it, by any hazard that he might seem to be exposed to in battle or otherwise,” but that it should be introduced into peaceable and civil life, and be patronized by any teachers of religion, is quite strange, as it subverts religion in general, and renders the teaching of it unnecessary… (1854, p. 21, emp. added).

He also warned against being “imposed upon by imposters, or by ignorant and insidious teachers, whose interest it may be to obtrude their own systems on the world for infallible truth, as in the instance of Mahomet” (p. 55, emp. added).

When Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were appointed and authorized by Congress to negotiate a treaty with the Muslim terrorists who continually raided American ships off the coast of North Africa, they met in London in 1786 with the Ambassador from Tripoli. On March 28, they penned the following words to John Jay, then serving as Secretary for Foreign Affairs, reporting their conversation with the ambassador:

We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the grounds of their pretentions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our Friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners; and that every Musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise. That it was a law that the first who boards an enemy’s vessel should have one slave more than his share with the rest, which operated as an incentive to the most desperate valour and enterprize [sic], that it was the practice of their corsairs to bear down upon a ship, for each sailor to take a dagger, in each hand, and another in his mouth, and leap on board, which so terrified their enemies that very few ever stood against them, that he verily believed that the Devil assisted his countrymen, for they were almost always successful (“Letter from the…,” emp. added).

While the Founders were supportive of “freedom of religion,” they were not for encouraging false religions (i.e., all non-Christian religions) to spread in America, or to be given “equal time” with Christianity, or allowed to infiltrate civil institutions (see Miller, 2013). Consider U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story who was appointed to the Court by President James Madison in 1811, and is considered the founder of Harvard Law School and one of two men who have been considered the Fathers of American Jurisprudence. In his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, Story clarified the meaning of the First Amendment as it relates to religious toleration and Islam:

The real object of the [First—DM] [A]mendment was not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy [of one denomination—DM] the exclusive patronage of the national government (1833, 3:728.1871, emp. added).

Samuel Johnston, Governor of North Carolina and Member of the Constitution ratifying convention in 1788, attempted to allay fears that anti-Christian ideologies may infiltrate our elected officials:

It is apprehended that Jews, Mahometans, pagans, &c., may be elected to high offices under the government of the United States. Those who are Mahometans, or any others who are not professors of the Christian religion, can never be elected to the office of President or other high office, but in one of two cases. First, if the people of America lay aside the Christian religion altogether, it may happen. Should this unfortunately take place, the people will choose such men as think as they do themselves (as quoted in Elliot, 1836, 4:198, emp. added).

John Quincy Adams, son of John Adams and distinguished for his significant contributions to the Founding era and thereafter, summarized the attitude of most Americans and Founders toward Islam in his brilliant “Essays on the Russo-Turkish War” written in 1827. In these essays, we see a cogent, informed portrait of the threat that Islam has posed throughout world history:

In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar, the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust, by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE. Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. That war is yet flagrant; nor can it cease but by the extinction of that imposture, which has been permitted by Providence to prolong the degeneracy of man. While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men. The hand of Ishmael will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him [Genesis 16:12—DM]. It is, indeed, amongst the mysterious dealings of God, that this delusion should have been suffered for so many ages, and during so many generations of human kind, to prevail over the doctrines of the meek and peaceful and benevolent Jesus (1830, 29:269, capitals in orig., emp. added).

Observe that Adams not only documents the violent nature of Islam, in contrast with the peaceful and benevolent thrust of Christianity, he further exposes the mistreatment of women inherent in Islamic doctrine, including the degrading practice of polygamy. A few pages later, Adams again spotlights the coercive, violent nature of Islam, as well as the Muslim’s right to lie and deceive to advance Islam:

The precept of the koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force (29:274).

No Christian would deny that many Christians in history have violated the precepts of Christ by mistreating others and even committing atrocities in the name of Christ. However, Adams rightly observes that one must go against Christian doctrine to do so. Not so with Islam—since violence is sanctioned:

The fundamental doctrine of the Christian religion, is the extirpation of hatred from the human heart. It forbids the exercise of it, even towards enemies. There is no denomination of Christians, which denies or misunderstands this doctrine. All understand it alike—all acknowledge its obligations; and however imperfectly, in the purposes of Divine Providence, its efficacy has been shown in the practice of Christians, it has not been wholly inoperative upon them. Its effect has been upon the manners of nations. It has mitigated the horrors of war—it has softened the features of slavery—it has humanized the intercourse of social life. The unqualified acknowledgement of a duty does not, indeed, suffice to insure its performance. Hatred is yet a passion, but too powerful upon the hearts of Christians. Yet they cannot indulge it, except by the sacrifice of their principles, and the conscious violation of their duties. No state paper from a Christian hand, could, without trampling the precepts of its Lord and Master, have commenced by an open proclamation of hatred to any portion of the human race. The Ottoman lays it down as the foundation of his discourse (29:300, emp. added; see Miller, 2005).

These observations by a cross-section of the Founders of the American Republic represent the prevailing viewpoint in America for nearly 200 years. Only with the onslaught of “political correctness” have so many Americans blinded themselves to the sinister threat posed to their freedom and way of life.

When General George S. Patton was waging war against the Nazis in North Africa during World War 2, he had the opportunity to observe what Islam does for a nation, particularly the female population. In his monumental volume War As I Knew It, writing from Casablanca on June 9, 1943, Patton mused:

One cannot but ponder the question: What if the Arabs had been Christians? To me it seems certain that the fatalistic teachings of Mohammed and the utter degradation of women is the outstanding cause for the arrested development of the Arab. He is exactly as he was around the year 700, while we have kept on developing. Here, I think, is a text for some eloquent sermon on the virtues of Christianity (1947, p. 49, emp. added).

The Founders of the American republic were hardly “Islamophobic.” Rather, they wisely recognized the fundamental threat posed by the teachings of the Quran to the American way of life. As pursuers of truth, they believed Islam to be a false religion that should no more be encouraged to thrive in society than belief in Peter Pan’s Neverland. They viewed Christianity as the one true religion (see Miller, 2010). Indeed, mark it down, if Islam is given free course to alter the laws and public institutions of America, it logically follows that America will become just like the Islamic nations of the world. It is naïve and foolish to think that Islam can eventually become widespread in America and America remain the same country she has been. It is only logical and obvious to conclude that when America’s institutions are altered to accommodate Muslims, Islamic influence will, in time, dominate the nation. Then how will Christians be treated? The answer is self-evident. Look at how Christians are treated even now in Muslim countries around the world. Ask yourself this question: “Is there any Muslim country on Earth where I would choose to live?”

When clear thinking Americans examine Islam’s doctrines, and assess the behavior of its adherents over the centuries, they are merely doing what any rational person does every day with respect to a host of ideas. The honest heart naturally desires truth. Truth has nothing to fear. The God of the Bible wants truth contrasted with error so that all sincere persons can discern the truth and distinguish truth from falsehood (1 Kings 18:21; Acts 17:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:21). Christianity is inherently a religion of truth, reason, and logic (John 8:32; cf. Miller, 2011).

conclusion

“Islamophobia” is an irrelevant, concocted notion. It is a prejudicial, “red flag” word created by the left to stifle any hint of an inherent threat posed by Islam to the American way of life. In the words, again, of Agustin Blasquez: “It’s one thing to be educated, considerate, polite and have good manners, and another to be forced to self-censor and say things that are totally incorrect in order to comply with the arbitrary dictums of a deceiving and fanatical far-left agenda” (2002). As the deterioration and complete breakdown of traditional American (Christian) values climax, the destructive perpetrator—the left—is strangely eager to enable Islam to trample underfoot any Christian vestiges that remain. [NOTE: Ironically, if Islam were to take over America, many of the pluralistic ideologies championed by the left would be the first to be eliminated—from feminism to homosexuality.] To borrow the title of James Burnham’s book (1964), the suicide of the west is nearly complete. Or as D.T. Devareaux’s disturbing political cartoon depicts, Islam is happy to serve as the hammer finger on the weapon of Liberalism used by Uncle Sam (who upholds Western Civilization) to terminate his own existence (“The Art of…,” n.d.).

REFERENCES

Adams, John Quincy (1830), “Essays on Russo-Turkish War,” in The American Annual Register, ed. Joseph Blunt (New York: E. & G.W. Blunt), 29:267-402, http://www.archive.org/stream/p1americanannual29blunuoft.

Allen, Ethan (1854), Reason, the Only Oracle of Man (Boston, MA: J.P. Mendum).

“All In With Chris Hayes” (2015), “Terror Attack in Paris,” MSNBC, January 7, http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/terror-attack-in-paris-381379651841.

“The Art of D.T. Devareaux” (no date), http://plancksconstant.org/es/blog1/2009/06/the_art_of_dt_devareaux.html. See “The Study of Revenge: The Polemical Artwork of D. T. Devareaux,” http://plancksconstant.org/es/blog1/2008/02/devareax.html.

Blazquez, Agustin (2002), “Political Correctness: The Scourge of Our Times,” NewsMax.com, April 8, http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/4/4/121115.shtml/.

Boudinot, Elias (1801), The Age of Revelation (Philadelphia, PA: Asbury Dickens).

Burnham, James (1964), Suicide of the West (New York: John Day Company).

Elliot, Jonathan, ed. (1836), Debates in the Convention of the State of North Carolina, On the Adoption of the Federal Constitution (Washington, D.C.: Taylor & Maury), second edition, http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwed.html.

Iredell, James (1836), The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, ed. Jonathan Elliot (Washington, D.C.: Jonathan Elliot).

Kristof, Nicholas (2015), “Is Islam to Blame for the Shooting at Charlie Hebdo in Paris?” The New York Times, January 7, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/08/opinion/nicholas-kristof-lessons-from-the-charlie-hebdo-shooting-in-paris.html?_r=0.

“Letter from the American Peace Commissioners (Thomas Jefferson & John Adams) to John Jay March 28, 1786” (1786), The Thomas Jefferson Papers Series 1. General Correspondence. 1651-1827, http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.mss/mtj.mtjbib001849.

McCarthy, Andrew (2015), “Don’t Blame the Charlie Hebdo Mass Murder on ‘Extremism,’” National Review, January 7, http://www.nationalreview.com/article/395876/dont-blame-charlie-hebdo-mass-murder-extremism-andrew-c-mccarthy.

Miller, Dave (2005), “Violence and the Quran,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=8&article=1491&topic=44.

Miller, Dave (2010), Christ and the Continental Congress (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Miller, Dave (2011), “Is Christianity Logical?” Reason & Revelation, 31[6]:50-59, June, http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=977.

Miller, Dave (2013), “Were the Founding Fathers ‘Tolerant’ of Islam?” Reason & Revelation, 33[3]:26-28,32-35, http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1116&article=2128.

Morse, Jedidiah (1799), A Sermon, Exhibiting the Present Dangers and Consequent Duties of the Citizens of the United States of America (Hartford, CT: Hudson and Goodwin), http://www.archive.org/details/sermonexhibiting00morsrich.

Packer, George (2015), “The Blame for the Charlie Hebdo Murders,” The New Yorker, January 7, http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/blame-for-charlie-hebdo-murders.

Patton, George (1947), War As I Knew It (New York: Houghton Mifflin).

The People v. Ruggles (1811), 8 Johns 290 (Sup. Ct. NY.), N.Y. Lexis 124.

Story, Joseph (1833), Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (Boston, MA: Hilliard, Gray, & Co.).

Tuttle, Ian (2015), “The Rush to Blame the Victims in the Charlie Hebdo Massacre,” National Review Online, January 7, http://www.nationalreview.com/article/395912/rush-blame-victims-charlie-hebdo-massacre-ian-tuttle.

The post “Islamophobia”? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

For example, within months of the Hijrah, Muhammad claimed to receive a revelation that amply clarifies the issue (Pickthall’s translation):

Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens. That (is the ordinance). And if Allah willed He could have punished them (without you) but (thus it is ordained) that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain (Surah 47:4, emp. added).

In his popular translation of the Quran, Muslim scholar Abdullah Yusuf Ali offered the following comment on this verse: “When once the fight (Jihad) is entered upon, carry it out with the utmost vigour, and strike home your blows at the most vital points (smite at their necks), both literally and figuratively. You cannot wage war with kid gloves” (1934, p. 1315, parentheses and italics in orig.). ISIS Muslims are simply following the teaching of the Quran regarding both their practice of beheading their enemies as well as their warfare.

In a section dealing with, among other subjects, jihad, the Quran is equally forthright in its sanction and promotion of violence:

Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors. And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrongdoers. The forbidden month for the forbidden month, and forbidden things in retaliation. And one who attacketh you, attack him in like manner as he attacked you. Observe your duty to Allah, and know that Allah is with those who ward off (evil) (Surah 2:190-194, emp. added).

Later in the same surah, Muhammad is chided by Allah for not fully embracing the necessity of warfare:

Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not. They question thee (O Muhammad) with regard to warfare in the sacred month. Say: Warfare therein is a great (transgression), but to turn (men) from the way of Allah, and to disbelieve in Him and in the Inviolable Place of Worship, and to expel his people thence, is a greater with Allah; for persecution is worse than killing. And they will not cease from fighting against you till they have made you renegades from your religion, if they can (Surah 2:216-217, emp. added).

These, and several additional verses (see Miller, 2005), from the Quran verify that the ISIS militants are merely following their reading of the Quran. Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi even called upon ISIS followers to unleash “volcanoes of jihad” (Cunningham, 2014). In view of such facts, and in light of the fact that Islamic armies over the centuries conquered nations across North Africa, into Europe, east to India, Southeast Asia, and Indonesia, north to Turkey, and northeast deep into Asia and Russia, one must engage in considerable theological and hermeneutical gymnastics in order to whitewash Islam as a “religion of peace.” [NOTE: We are not implying that everyone who calls himself a Muslim is a terrorist. In reality, there are many kind, peaceful people around the world who consider themselves Muslims. However, peaceful Muslims are not following the Quran faithfully, because the Quran teaches its adherents to take up the sword and fight and kill non-Muslims.]

NOTE: For more on Islam and the Quran, see our book titled The Quran Unveiled.

REFERENCES

Ali, Abdullah Yusuf (1934), The Meaning of the Holy Quran (Beltsville, MD: Amana Publications), 2002 reprint.

Cunningham, Erin (2014), “Islamic State Leader Al-Baghdadi Calls on Followers to Unleash ‘Volcanoes of Jihad,’” The Washington Post, November 13, http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/defiant-message-from-islamic-state-leader-but-silence-over-airstrike-injury-reports/2014/11/13/a19f4d9e-6b54-11e4-9fb4-a622dae742a2_story.html.

Miller, Dave (2005), “Violence and the Quran,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=8&article=1491&topic=47.

Pickthall, Mohammed M. (no date), The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (New York: Mentor).

“Video Purports to Show ISIS Militants Beheading Christian Hostages” (2015), Fox News, February 16, http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/02/16/video-purports-to-show-isis-militants-beheading-christian-hostages/.

The post Does ISIS Represent True Islam? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

One cannot but ponder the question: What if the Arabs had been Christians? To me it seems certain that the fatalistic teachings of Mohammed and the utter degradation of women is the outstanding cause for the arrested development of the Arab. He is exactly as he was around the year 700, while we have kept on developing. Here, I think, is a text for some eloquent sermon on the virtues of Christianity (1947, p. 43, emp. added).

No doubt 7^th and 8^th century Arabian culture contributed to Muhammad’s view of women. However, the Quran stands on its own for its advocacy of female inferiority. For example, in Mohammed Pickthall’s translation of the Quran, Surah 4:34 reads:

Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great (emp. added).

A host of Islamic translations confirm this translation. The words in bold in Abdullah Yusuf Ali’s translation are rendered: “refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly).” Ahmed Raza Khan’s translation reads: “sleep apart from them, and beat them (lightly).” Maududi has “remain apart from them in beds, and beat them.” Wahiduddin Khan “refuse to share their beds, and finally hit them.” Shakir has “leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them.” Sarwar reads: “do not sleep with them and beat them.” Saheeh International reads: “forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them.” Qaribullah and Darwish have: “desert them in the bed and smack them (without harshness).” Qarai reads: “keep away from them in the bed, and [as the last resort] beat them” (Tanzil Project, 2007-2014).

Observe two startling realizations from this passage:

(1) The Quran explicitly gives sanction to Muslim men to beat their wives. Some translators try to soften the directive by inserting qualifiers like “lightly” (Ali, Raza Kahn) and “without harshness” (Qaribullah and Darwish), but the Arabic text is unqualified. In stark contrast, the Bible, while assigning differing roles and responsibilities based on gender, nowhere suggests that men have a right to inflict physical punishment on women. The intimidating, overbearing role of men in Islam is proof that the religion was invented by a male.

(2) The command to banish a wife to a separate bed implies at least three concepts that cast Islam and the Quran in an unfavorable light.

First, the Bible and the Quran contradict each other on this point. Paul instructed the Corinthian Christians:

Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control (1 Corinthians 7:2-5, emp. added).

The Quran says a man may sexually banish his wife, without her consent, as punishment for displeasing him. Yet Paul said a married couple is not to refrain from sexual relations except by mutual consent, and then only for a brief period. One cannot take the position that the Quran and the Bible are both from God. They contradict each other on many matters. Insisting that these differences are due to the Bible having being corrupted is an untenable and unsubstantiated explanation (Miller, 2005, p. 89; Miller, 2013).

Second, when one weighs both the Bible and the Quran’s portraits of deity, it quickly becomes self-evident to the unbiased observer which of the two books portrays the inspired view of women. The Bible contains the fair, compassionate, majestic perspective in taking into account both marriage partners as equals. As Peter stated so eloquently: “Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered” (1 Peter 3:7). Both male and female were made in God’s image (Genesis 1:27).

Third, observe further how the Quran exposes its human origin, demonstrating that it came from man, not God. Women are “wired” differently from men. They have one-tenth the testosterone of men (“Testosterone,” 2011). To suggest that a man could punish his wife by the cessation of sexual relations with her is undoubtedly written from the perspective of a man, and not from the vantage point of most women.

Comparing the Bible with the Quran is a useful exercise. The process calls the inspiration of the Quran into question. At the same time, the Bible’s superiority is reinforced.

REFERENCES

Austen, Ian (2012), “Afghan Family, Led by Father Who Called Girls a Disgrace, Is Guilty of Murder,” The New York Times, January 29, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/30/world/americas/afghan-family-members-convicted-in-honor-killings.html?_r=0.

“Father of Slain Teen Girls Upset That Daughter Dated Non-Muslim, Police Records Show” (2008), Associated Press, January 9, http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/01/09/father-slain-teen-girls-upset-that-daughter-dated-non-muslim-police-records/.

Kotz, Pete (2009), “Faleh Almaleki Runs Over Daughter in Attempted ‘Honor Killing,’” True Crime Report, October 30, http://www.truecrimereport.com/2009/10/faleh_almaleki_runs_over_daugh.php.

“Melbourne Islamic Cleric Says its OK to Rape Your Wife,” (2009), Herald Sun, January 21, http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/rudd-condemns-rape-in-marriage-cleric/story-e6freol3-1111118630585.

Miller, Dave (2005), “Is Mark 16:9-20 Inspired?” Reason & Revelation, 25[12]:89-95, http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=572&article=433.

Miller, Dave (2013), “Has the Bible Been Corrupted?” Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=4649.

“Missouri Couple Sentenced to Die In Murder of Their Daughter, 16” (1991), The New York Times, December 20, http://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/20/us/missouri-couple-sentenced-to-die-in-murder-of-their-daughter-16.html.

Patton, George S. (1947), War As I Knew It (New York: The Great Commanders, 1994 edition).

“Raped ‘for reading Holy Bible’” (2007), News.com.au, April 17, http://www.news.com.au/national/raped-for-reading-holy-bible/story-e6frfkp9-1111113353497.

Schoetz, David (2008), “Daughter Rejects Marriage, Ends Up Dead,” ABC News, July 7, http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=5322587&page=1.

Tanzil Project (2007-2014), http://tanzil.net/#4:34.

“Testosterone” (2011), Lab Tests Online, American Association for Clinical Chemistry, http://labtestsonline.org/understanding/analytes/testosterone/tab/faq.

Thompson, Carolyn (2011), “Jury Convicts Muslim TV Exec of Beheading Wife,” Associated Press, February 9, http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/02/07/closing-arguments-begin-new-york-beheading-murder-trial/.

The post Husband and Wife in the Quran appeared first on Apologetics Press.

In English, the verse reads: “His mouth is most sweet, yes, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem!” (NKJV). A phonetic transliteration of the underlying Hebrew text reads: Kheeco mahm-tah-keem vuh-coollo ma-kha-madeem zeh dodee veh-tseh ray-ee beh-note yerushalayim. Muslims claim that the bolded word, though translated “altogether lovely,” is the name of Muhammad (Naik, n.d.). Consider six linguistic evidences that dispute Naik’s claim:

1. The second syllable (kha) utilizes the Hebrew letter heth which has a hard initial sound like the “ch” in the Scottish word “loch.” It is to be distinguished from the Hebrew letter he which is the same as the English letter “h.” If Muhammad was being referred to, the simple “h” would have been more linguistically appropriate.
2. Muslims claim that the eem (or im) in ma-kha-madeem in the Hebrew language was “added for respect” (Naik). This claim is untrue and unsubstantiated. The letters constitute the standard form for changing a singular to a plural—like adding “s” or “es” in English (cf. Weingreen, 1959, pp. 35ff.). As the eminent Emil Rödiger (who was professor for oriental languages at the University of Halle and the student of the well-known German Orientalist, H.F.W. Gesenius) noted in his editorial comment in the prestigious Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar: “The use of the plural as a form of respectful address is quite foreign to Hebrew” (Gesenius, 1898, p. 418).
3. The meaning of the Hebrew ma-kha-madeem is different from the meaning of the word “Muhammad” in Arabic. According to Sheikh Abd al-Azîz, Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, the word “Muhammad” is derived from the Arabic root word hamd meaning “praise.” It is the emphatic passive participle of that root and can be translated as “the Oft-Praised One” (n.d.). However, the Hebrew term (makh-mahd) in the passage under consideration has a completely different meaning. It refers to “grace, beauty” (Gesenius, 1847, p. 464), “a desirable thing, delightfulness” (Brown, et al., 1906, pp. 326-327), “a pleasant thing” (Payne, 1980, 1:295), or “precious” (Holladay, 1988, p. 190). English translations render the term “altogether lovely” (NKJV, NIV), “wholly desirable” (NASB), and “altogether desirable” (ESV, RSV). No reputable English translation would render the underlying Hebrew as “praised one,” let alone as “Muhammad.” All Muslims have done is happen upon a Hebrew word that phonetically sounds somewhat like “Muhammad” and have erroneously concluded the word must be referring to him. Such handling of linguistic data is irresponsible—if not deceptive.
4. Further, the claim that Muhammad is intended in the verse completely disregards the context and message of the book of Song of Solomon. The book consists of a dialogue between Solomon, his Shulamite bride-to-be, and the “daughters of Jerusalem,” with perhaps even God interjecting His comment (5:1b), as well as the Shulamite’s brothers (8:8-9). The term used in 5:16 that Muslims claim refers to Muhammad is also used in 2:3 to refer to the Shulamite’s beloved—“Like an apple tree among the trees of the woods, so is my beloved among the sons. I sat down in his shade with great delight.” “Great delight” is the Hebrew word also used in 5:16; in both cases the words of the Shulamite refer to her beloved—not Muhammad.
5. Forms of the same Hebrew word are used elsewhere in the Old Testament, yet Muslims do not claim that those passages refer to Muhammad. Rightly so, since those verses cannot be forced to fit the notion that Muhammad is under consideration. For example, Isaiah 64:11 mourns the destruction of Jerusalem: “Our holy and beautiful temple, where our fathers praised You, is burned up with fire; and all our pleasant things are laid waste.” “Pleasant things” is a form of the same word in Song of Solomon 5:16. Would the Muslim contend that Muhammad was “laid waste” in Jerusalem? Additional occurrences of the same word—which dispel the misuse of the term by Muslims—are seen in 1 Kings 20:6; 2 Chronicles 36:19; Lamentations 1:10,11; Ezekiel 24:16,21,25; Hosea 9:9,16; Joel 3:5; et al. (Wigram, 1890, p. 687).
6. Even if the Hebrew word “lovely/desirable” in Song of Solomon were the Hebrew equivalent of the Arabic word “praised one” (which it is not), it still would not follow that Muhammad is being referred to in the Bible. Instead, it would simply be an indication that the underlying word stands on its own as a term used for other applications. For example, the Hebrew word for “bitter” is mah-rah. It is used throughout the Old Testament to refer to the concept of bitter. Yet, due to her unpleasant circumstances in life, Naomi (whose name means “pleasant”) requested that her name be changed to “bitter” (mah-rah) to reflect her bitter predicament. It does not follow, however, that when the Hebrew word “bitter” appears in the Old Testament, it refers to Naomi. If parents today were to name their child John, it would not follow that they intended to reflect an association with others in history who have worn the name John—nor would references to John in the Bible constitute prophecies pointing to their son. Muslims have the cart before the horse. Their claim is equivalent to parents naming their child “wonderful” or “special”—and then claiming that an ancient writer had their child in mind when the writer used the word “wonderful” or “special” in referring to another person contemporary to the writer.

The truth of the matter is that the Bible nowhere refers to Muhammad. All other biblical passages purported to do so may likewise be shown to be misinterpreted and misapplied (Miller, 2003). The Bible contains within itself evidence that all non-Christian religions are false and contrary to the will of the God of the Universe (for more, see Miller, 2005).

REFERENCES

Al-Azîz, Sheikh Abd (no date), “The Meaning of the Prophet’s names ‘Muhammad’ and ‘Ahmad,’” Islam Today, http://en.islamtoday.net/quesshow-14-738.htm.

Brown, Francis, S.R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs (1906), The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2000 reprint).

Gesenius, William (1847), Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1979 reprint).

Gesenius, William (1898), Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch (Oxford: Clarendon Press).

Holladay, William (1988), A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Miller, Dave (2003), “Is Muhammad Mentioned in the Bible?” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=8&article=88&topic=46.

Miller, Dave (2005), The Quran Unveiled (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Naik, Zakir (no date), “Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) in the Bible,” Islam 101, http://www.islam101.com/religions/christianity/mBible.htm.

Payne, J. Barton (1980), hamad in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, ed. R. Laird Harris, Gleason Archer, Jr. and Bruce Waltke (Chicago, IL: Moody).

Weingreen, J. (1959), A Practical Grammar for Classical Hebrew (Oxford: Clarenden Press), second edition.

Wigram, George W. (1890), The Englishman’s Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1980 reprint).

The post Does Song of Solomon Mention Muhammad? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

One area wherein “political correctness” has made encroachments into the thinking of Christians is seen in their reluctance and hesitation to be specific in identifying religious and moral error and those who promulgate it. A general feeling seems to exist that, while one may not agree with a particular behavior or viewpoint, nevertheless, it is inappropriate to publicly speak against the behavior or identify those who espouse the viewpoint or behavior. To do so is deemed unkind and uncompassionate.

It is ever the case that error and falsehood are self-contradictory, and typically guilty of the same malady it imagines in others. Observe that those who express their disdain for “bashing” do not hesitate to bash the ones they accuse of bashing, and to do so publicly. They openly express to others (people who have no real connection to the matter) their rejection of and dislike for specific persons and groups who have had the unmitigated gall to express disapproval of a false religion or an immoral action (e.g., New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn’s letter to the president of New York University, claiming that “the President of Chik-fil-A continues to make statements and support causes that are clear messages of extreme intolerance and homophobia and a belief that Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender [LGBT] Americans are less than others,” adding, “I do not want establishments in my city that hold such discriminatory views”—see Editorial, 2012). The “bashing” measuring stick is inherently hypocritical, self-contradictory, and frankly, absurd.

The only solution to moral chaos, religious confusion, and sexual anarchy is to return to the reasonable perspective that absolute truth exists, as does an objective standard of morality to which all humans are amenable. As Founding Father Thomas Jefferson observed in a letter from Paris addressed to James Madison and dated August 28, 1789: “I know but one code of morality for men whether acting singly or collectively” (1789). That code of morality derives from the Creator of the Universe—whom the Founders identified as “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” (Declaration…, 1776).

Religious truth and morality must not be determined by our feelings, subjective inclinations, or personal preferences. In the grand scheme of things, human opinions simply do not matter. Rather, all humans are obligated to go to the only objective standard of right and wrong that transcends human opinion: the Bible. We must allow the only supernatural book in the world to shape our thinking. Only by turning to God’s Word can we achieve proper perspective and arrive at the only legitimate viewpoint. We must place each and every idea under the light of God’s Word before jumping to conclusions and finalizing personal opinions. “Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path” (Psalm 119:105).

Defining Terms

Does the Bible teach that it is unkind, sinful, or inappropriate to name individuals or express a negative evaluation of specific persons, religions, or behaviors publicly? Is doing so to be guilty of “bashing” them? In order to answer these questions, consider the following observations.

First, we must define terms to make certain that we pinpoint the issue. Various dictionaries define “bashing” as “to engage in harsh, accusatory, threatening criticism”; “a harsh, gratuitous, prejudicial attack on a person, group or subject. Literally, bashing is a term meaning to hit or assault, but when it is used as a suffix, or in conjunction with a noun indicating the subject being attacked, it is normally used to imply that the act is motivated by bigotry.”

When we turn to the Bible, we find that God desires that Christians “[l]et all bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, and evil speaking be put away from you, with all malice. And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, just as God in Christ forgave you” (Ephesians 4:31-32; cf. Colossians 3:12). Christians are to let their “speech always be with grace, seasoned with salt” (Colossians 4:6), “speaking the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15), “in a spirit of gentleness” (Galatians 6:1), “in humility correcting those who are in opposition” (2 Timothy 2:25), “having compassion for one another” (1 Peter 3:8). Christians are to love everyone—even their enemies (Matthew 5:44). They are to treat others the way they themselves desire to be treated (Matthew 7:12). If such is the case, does it not logically follow that we should refrain from speaking against purveyors of religious or moral error, since doing so would be unkind, malicious, and certainly not something we would want done to us? The biblical answer to that question is an unequivocal “no.”

To interpret the above verses in such a manner would result in a conclusion that is diametrically opposed to a host of other verses. We must “handle aright the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15, ASV), making certain that our understanding of one passage or concept does not conflict with other passages and principles. It is true that those who hold the truth on a particular doctrine can be guilty of mistreating and being unkind to those who embrace error; but it does not follow that the mere act of identifying error publicly is inherently unkind, insensitive, or intolerant. Why?

The Bible clearly teaches that evaluating the legitimacy of a viewpoint or practice, and then identifying those who promote that erroneous belief or practice, are not only appropriate actions, but they are expected and required of the faithful. False religion flourishes first and foremost by means of the failure of the proponents of truth to step forth and confront the error. Irish statesman Edmund Burke is often credited with the idea that: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” One of the great tragedies of our day, with the decline of American civilization and the Christian religion in America, is that error has become so predominant that the advocates of truth have been bullied into sheepish silence. America is literally being inundated with immorality and destructive religious and political philosophies due, in large part, to the mistaken notion that fatal error should not be openly confronted, exposed, and condemned.

Consider this parallel: when a child engages in behavior that is disobedient, or even dangerous to his own physical safety, a parent is called upon to discipline the child. A variety of forms of discipline might be used in the process, including instruction, verbal reprimands, removal of privileges, physical restraint, and even corporal punishment (in harmony with Proverbs 13:24; 22:15; et al.; cf. Miller, 2003). What child in such a predicament does not think the parents are being unkind, harsh, insensitive, accusatory, and intolerant? The child would likely view the parents’ actions as violent. If the parent raises his or her voice in the process, the parent could easily be perceived as mean or out of control. Yet, the child’s perception reflects immaturity, as well as a lack of spiritual development and the cultivation of “the peaceable fruit of righteousness” in one’s heart and life (cf. Hebrews 12:11). Observe, then, that those who raise the specter of “bashing,” immediately dismissing anyone who speaks against a religion or behavior, are actually spiritually immature individuals who have not yet grasped the mind of Christ.

The Only Standard

Does the Bible provide instances in which God, Christ, or their approved representatives called names or criticized specific persons, groups, doctrines, and behaviors? Did Jesus or the apostles ever mention people by name and identify the error being espoused? Did God’s emissaries ever speak out publicly against specific persons and viewpoints? As a matter of fact, the Bible is replete with such instances. Consider the following few from both Old and New Testaments which illustrate and confirm this ongoing feature of God’s nature.

Old Testament Examples

(1) Numbers 16: Moses confronted Korah, Dathan, and Abiram publicly— in the presence of their families and even the entire nation.

(2) Numbers 25: The names of Zimri and Cozbi are forever publicly emblazoned in Scripture for their evil deeds. They were fatally confronted by the courageous Phinehas. God Himself issued to the entire congregation of Israel His own assessment of their sexually immoral behavior and the valiant response by Phinehas.

(3) Deuteronomy 13: Three scenarios in Israelite society are set forth in which the death penalty was to be invoked. All three concerned the attempt to introduce idolatry into society, whether by a prophet, a family member, or an entire city. In all three cases, the responsible individuals were to be dealt with publicly, with the entire community (“the hand of all the people”) participating in the executions. No concern for privacy was shown to the perpetrators who sought to subvert people from the right ways of God.

(4) Joshua 7: After a glorious victory over Jericho, the nation was plunged into despair by the military defeat at Ai—a fiasco that resulted in the deaths of 36 men and caused the entire population to degenerate into a state of frightful panic. When Joshua tore his clothes, fell on his face before God, whining about their predicament, he asked God why He allowed such to happen. God snapped him back to reality rather quickly with these words: “Get up! Why do you lie thus on your face? Israel has sinned, and they have also transgressed My covenant which I commanded them” (Joshua 7:10-11). God identified the transgression as theft and deceit, but did not specify who in the nation was responsible. Instead, he instructed Joshua to call the nation together the next day and to ascertain the guilty ones (by casting lots—1 Samuel 14:41-42; cf. 1 Samuel 10:19-21; Jonah 1:7; Proverbs 16:33; NOTE: observe the triple use of an expression that further indicates the method was casting lots: “which the LORD takes” [vs. 14]). Joshua was to bring forward the tribal groups, and then work down through the family clans, the households, and finally, the individual men in each household. The process commenced the next morning, culminating with Achan being pinpointed as the culprit. Once the ill-gotten items which he had illegally confiscated from Jericho were recovered from his tent, Joshua urged Achan to confess his sin. Having done so, he was taken to the Valley of Achor and executed. These events were done publicly, as indicated by the expressions “all the children of Israel” (vs. 23), “all Israel with him” (vs. 24), and “all Israel” (vs. 25). Question: Were God and Joshua’s actions “motivated by bigotry”? Were their actions “a harsh, gratuitous, prejudicial attack” on Achan and his family? Did they “engage in harsh, accusatory, threatening criticism”? Were they guilty of violating the Golden Rule, or bashing?

(5) 1 Kings 18: Elijah engaged in a public disputation with those who promoted an erroneous religion. He even “mocked” (vs. 27) the false prophets as the day wore on and their public humiliation increased. When a courageous spokesman for truth and morality stands up publicly and con-fronts people, or admonishes or rebukes them, he is merely emulating the same behavior Elijah exhibited—who even ordered the false teachers to be seized and executed (vs. 40).

(6) Psalms: Among the 150 psalms in the book of Psalms are a number that are classified as “imprecatory” psalms (e.g., 7,35,55,58,59,69,79,109,137,139). In these psalms, the inspired writer invokes severe denunciations and curses on the enemies of God. Expressions like, “Let destruction come upon him unexpectedly” (35:8), and “Let them go down alive into hell (sheol)” (55:15), would, to the “politically correct” mindset of many in America today, be viewed as “bashing” people. But this assessment would be premature, immature, and unspiritual. The imprecatory psalms serve several noble purposes, including (1) encouraging the wicked to turn to God, (2) confirming God’s righteous judgment against the wicked, and even (3) comforting the righteous and stimulating them to praise God (7:17). Such piercing expressions can actually indicate possession of a depth of righteous regard for what is right and pure that imitates God Himself (cf. the phrase “zealous with My zeal” in Numbers 25:11; also Miller, 2013). We must nurture and shape our own spiritual sensibilities to mirror God’s.

New Testament Examples

Moving to the New Testament, Jesus was the Master example of defending the Faith in public to the point of openly rebuking those who championed error.

(1) Matthew 23 constitutes a scathing denunciation of the Pharisees. This obviously harsh rebuke (cf. Proverbs 15:10) was done publicly in the presence of both His disciples as well as a “multitude” (vs. 1) of people—with the Pharisees apparently present as well, whom Jesus addressed directly (vss. 13ff.). While this forceful, direct condemnation was not typical of Jesus’ interactions, it was nevertheless appropriate and exemplary. Observe closely some of the expressions Jesus used to identify the scribes and Pharisees: “hypocrites,” “blind guides,” “fools,” and “brood of vipers.” He used several penetrating, abrasive words to identify their behaviors. Yet, we know Jesus never said or did anything that was unChristlike, unkind, or inappropriate. By today’s skewed sensibilities, there’s no question that Jesus “bashed” the scribes and Pharisees. But call it what you will, He did nothing wrong. Hence, identifying immoral behavior and false religion today is not inherently wrong. [NOTE: While religious liberals typically identify the moral and religious conservative as “pharisaical” (or “the radical right”), the fact is, quite ironically, the exact opposite is true. Those who are lax in the strictures of the Bible and Christian morality are the spiritual heirs of pharisaism. As Jesus declared in Matthew 15: “These people draw near to Me with their mouth, and honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men” (Matthew 15:8-9). They are the ones who are “blind leaders of the blind” (Matthew 15:14).]

(2) John 2: When Jesus cleansed the temple (twice), driving the moneychangers and their animals out of the temple, pouring out their monies, and overturning their tables (Matthew 21:12; John 2:15), He must have appeared to be incredibly abrasive, harsh, mean-spirited, intolerant, fanatical, unkind, and bigoted. He certainly would be perceived today as “bashing.” Yet, again, we know that the holy Son of God did nothing wrong. The carnally minded person may well have difficulty comprehending such actions, but the “spiritually minded” (Romans 8:6) person grasps the gravity of the situation and understands the necessity of firm action. The eternal destiny of precious human souls is at stake!

(3) Acts 5: The names of Ananias and his wife, Sapphira, are recorded publicly for all time, even as Peter’s confrontation of their actions was public. The events caused awareness of their deeds to spread throughout the area (vs. 11).

(4) Acts 18: Apollos engaged in public refutation of those Jews who conflicted with the truth: “for he vigorously refuted the Jews publicly, showing from the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ” (Acts 18:28).

(5) 1 Corinthians 5: One of the members of the church in Corinth was guilty of fornication. Fornication in New Testament (Koine) Greek is a broad term that includes illicit sexual intercourse of every kind—including homosexuality, bestiality, bisexuality, and pedophilia (Reisser, 1975, 1:497-500). Yet, Paul enshrined in an inspired document for all time a public condemnation of the wayward member, and insisted that the church take public action against him: “when you are gathered together…deliver such a one to Satan” (vs. 4, emp. added). They were to “purge out the old leaven” (vs. 7) and “put away from yourselves the evil person” (vs. 13). All these instructions entail public identification and declaration of a single individual’s spiritual infractions. Immoral behavior (e.g., homosexuality), political principles (e.g., socialism, Marxism, atheistic communism), and religious ideologies (e.g., Islam) that undermine Christian civilization, the core concepts on which America was founded, must be exposed and refuted publicly—even as they are flaunting themselves in the public sector. Organizations, politicians, and individuals who foment the moral and religious corruption of society—in government, education, and beyond—must be confronted.

(6) Galatians 2: Paul included inspired, public remarks concerning the misconduct of even a fellow apostle:

Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?” (Galatians 2:11-14, emp. added).

The phrase “before them all” is rendered “in front of them all” in the NIV, and “in the presence of all” in the NASB. The action was done publicly. Was Paul guilty of being unkind? Was he guilty of “bashing” Peter, or failing to treat Peter the way he, himself, wanted to be treated? To ask is to answer.

(7) 1 Timothy 5: Paul informed Timothy that for elders who sin, he should “rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear” (1 Timothy 5:20). Observe: not only are there situations in which even the leaders of a church are to be publicly reprimanded, but a critical and extremely significant purpose is served: “that the rest also may fear.” Public confrontation of those who dispense moral or doctrinal error is one important means by which the spread of that or similar misconduct may be checked and discouraged (cf. 1 Corinthians 5:6; Deuteronomy 13:11; 17:13; 19:20; 21:21). Public identification of error, and those who espouse and spread it, is a very valuable aid in helping people to sort through the issues and keep themselves on the straight and narrow. It is also a powerful stimulus to avoid misconduct, since we typically wish to avoid being shamed publicly (2 Thessalonians 3:14). One of the tragic features of America’s spiral into moral degradation has been the failure of society to maintain public disapproval of misbehavior—from punishing school children in the classroom with paddling and other forms of public shame, the shame that ought to be associated with adultery, boys and girls having pre-marital relations and producing children out-of-wedlock, public condemnation of sexual perversion, the brazen panhandling by able-bodied beggars that disgraces the streets of our cities, and a host of other actions that aid in keeping a civilization from rushing toward moral depravity and eventual destruction. Once evil was allowed to “come out of the closet” and be “tolerated” without culture-wide expressions of disapproval, a landslide of corruption has been the inevitable result in our society. The propaganda of “tolerance” and “bashing” is fomenting and hastening America’s moral and spiritual downfall.

(8) 1 Timothy 1: Consider Paul’s admonition to the young preacher Timothy:

This charge I commit to you, son Timothy, according to the prophecies previously made concerning you, that by them you may wage the good warfare, having faith and a good conscience, which some having rejected, concerning the faith have suffered shipwreck, of whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme (1 Timothy 1:18-20, emp. added).

Observe that Paul not only enshrined publicly the names of two people for the entire world for all time, he also instructed Timothy as an evangelist to wage spiritual warfare (2 Timothy 2:3ff.) by standing up to those who manifest faulty faith and seared consciences. Paul’s comments to Timothy about these wayward individuals were public, and not even directly addressed to Hymenaeus and Alexander. The remarks were an admonition to Timothy about them, in precisely the same way that concerned citizens today warn about the threat of false religion and sexual perversion to the spiritual health of the nation. Thus, to mention names in this way cannot be construed as gossip or slander. In fact, Paul made clear that Christians are to turn such impenitent people over to Satan in hopes of teaching them a lesson. [NOTE: To “turn over to Satan” was an expression that meant to acknowledge publicly that the individual had abandoned God’s truth and thus removed himself from the kingdom and placed himself back under the influence of Satan (cf. 1 Corinthians 5:4).] And notice that “fighting the good fight” (1 Timothy 6:12), and the fact that “we wrestle…against spiritual hosts of wickedness” (Ephesians 6:12), and “the weapons of our warfare are not carnal” (2 Corinthians 10:4) are admonitions that must inevitably entail public confrontation of spiritual adversaries. The presentation of the precepts of the Gospel inevitably includes “rebuke” (2 Timothy 4:2). To suggest that we cannot or should not name names or speak out against immoral behavior is to hamper the accomplishment of the very task God has assigned to Christians in their spiritual warfare.

(9) 2 Timothy 1/2: Paul made similar remarks in his second letter to Timothy:

This you know, that all those in Asia have turned away from me, among whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes…. But shun profane and idle babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness. And their message will spread like cancer. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort, who have strayed concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past; and they overthrow the faith of some (2 Timothy 1:15; 2:16-18, emp. added).

Once again, calling specific people’s names and the moral error they promote is fully scriptural and Christlike. Notice also that these comments were made to Timothy, not directly to the individuals to whom Paul was referring. Observe further that doing so may help other people’s moral and spiritual condition from being overthrown.

(10) 2 Timothy 3: Some 1,500 years after-the-fact, by divine inspiration, Paul recorded the names of what appear to be the Egyptian magicians that withstood Moses and Aaron in their efforts to convince Pharaoh of God’s truth: “Now as Jannes and Jambres resisted Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, disapproved concerning the faith” (2 Timothy 3:8). This public name-calling was issued in the context of those who were contemporary with Timothy who were guilty of the same behavior as the Egyptians of old.

(11) 2 Timothy 4: Paul’s final inspired instructions to Timothy include the following:

[F]or Demas has forsaken me, having loved this present world, and has departed for Thessalonica—Crescens for Galatia, Titus for Dalmatia. Only Luke is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, for he is useful to me for ministry. And Tychicus I have sent to Ephesus. Bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas when you come—and the books, especially the parchments. Alexander the coppersmith did me much harm. May the Lord repay him according to his works. You also must beware of him, for he has greatly resisted our words (2 Timothy 4:10-15, emp. added).

Observe that if it is right and proper to name the names of those who do right and remain faithful, it is just as scriptural to name the names of those who do not.

(12) Titus 1: Paul issued comparable instructions to the evangelist Titus in his work on the Island of Crete. These instructions included the inevitability of public debate to silence purveyors of error and to prevent them from subverting whole households (1:10ff.). Again, public identification of those who promote morally harmful or spiritually destructive ideas and behaviors is indispensable to inhibiting the spread of damaging influences.

Summary

Think of it: Korah, Dathan, Abiram, Zimri, Cozbi, Achan, Ananias, Sapphira, Phygellus, Hermogenes, Hymenaeus, Alexander, Philetus, Jannes, Jambre, Demas—names forever ensconced in the annals of inspired writ, along with many others (e.g., Judas). Is the Author of the Bible a “basher”? Was He unkind, unloving, rude, or “intolerant” for calling such names? For those who still have respect for the Bible as the Word of God, the answer is obvious. A host of additional examples are found in the pages of Holy Writ. The Bible clearly teaches that naming names and identifying specific individuals, religions, and groups with regard to their beliefs and practice is not inherently wrong. Indeed, if the Bible were being authored today, the Holy Spirit would certainly include the names of those who promote moral depravity and false religion, even as He did in the first century (e.g., Revelation 2:6,14-15,20; 3:16). Such action is, in fact, required by God of those who wish to be counted faithful to Him. Indeed, the concept of public confrontation of sin is an extremely prominent doctrine—a feature that coincides with and emanates from the very nature of God.

The above instances, and a host just like them, demonstrate that part of the nature of God is to address fatal error openly and publicly. After all, “[o]pen rebuke is better than love carefully concealed” (Proverbs 27:5). Hence, those who perpetuate the “bashing” myth in our society, to be consistent, must pronounce God Himself to be harsh, unloving, and guilty of bashing people. They must view themselves as more loving than deity. Such is the conundrum into which a person places himself when he buys into the liberal agenda. But God is perfect, unable to sin, and the very essence of love (1 John 4:7-8). He endorses naming specific people and groups. Hence, the “politically correct” segment of society, including religious liberals, are simply misguided by the arrogant claim to be more loving and understanding than God and everyone else.

Observe that anytime a person makes a negative comment publicly regarding the actions of any present or past historical figure (e.g., Barack Obama, George Bush, Hitler, Osama Bin Laden, Napoleon, Nero, George Washington, Charles Manson, Bonnie and Clyde, etc.), that person is logically engaging in the same behavior that this article defends. If it is wrong to make verbal, public assessments of politicians and historical personages, then history books are sinful if they include any remarks of a negative nature—pointing out mistakes or even evil actions performed by those individuals (e.g., murder, bank robbery, conquering nations). Indeed, the Bible itself records the sinful actions committed by hundreds of individuals throughout the centuries. The person who condemns public confrontation of error, while reading and accepting the Bible, is guilty of duplicitous conduct.

The issue, then, is not whether error and misbehavior should be identified publicly, but rather how it is identified, i.e., in what manner and with what spirit and attitude. God loves the sinner but hates the sinner’s sin (Romans 12:9; Jude 22-23). But this love cannot necessarily be seen in the outward acts that God manifests in dealing with false religion and immorality, since many of His confrontations throughout Bible history have appeared on the surface, to the unspiritual mindset, to be rather harsh. Hence, when a human confronts error, observers must take care that they do not assume that the confronter’s motive is insincere or unloving. There may well be external indicators that would lead one to conclude that the accuser is unloving and unconcerned for the souls of those he may challenge. But one must not assume anything merely on account of the act of pinpointing error.

Is Public Rebuke Ever Inappropriate?

Born of Animosity

The Bible most certainly indicates that there are limitations and restrictions with regard to public rebuke. Some examples would include occasions in which the speaker shows an unmistakable attitude of contempt for those he criticizes. He may smirk disrespectfully or use snide words that are demeaning, even crude. He may presume to know the motives and make judgments about a person’s heart. He may say things that are clearly personal attacks, rather than remaining focused on the specific doctrinal or moral issue under consideration. He might even convey to his hearers a personal dislike for the person he criticizes, rather than manifesting a genuine love and desire that the wayward be reclaimed and his soul be saved (Proverbs 10:18).

False Accusation

Another case where public rebuke is wrong is when the one doing the rebuking does not have his facts correct. In doing so, he fails to speak the truth. He becomes guilty of unrighteous judgment and making illegitimate assessments without sufficient evidence—thus judging according to the “appearance” of things (John 7:24). He is guilty of false accusation (Exodus 20:16; Deuteronomy 19:18-19; Luke 3:14), and perhaps even slander (Proverbs 10:18; 2 Timothy 3:3). Further, there is the situation in which the accuser is guilty of the very thing he condemns in others (Romans 2:1; John 8:1-11). In addition to his hypocrisy, he is guilty of discrediting the legitimacy of the cause he advocates. Jesus articulated the antidote for such a one: “First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother’s eye” (Matthew 7:5).

Handle Privately

There are also clear situations in which a wayward person should first receive private instruction rather than being confronted publicly with his infractions (e.g., Matthew 18:15; Acts 18:26). Yet such instances do not imply that all public rebuke is wrong, or must be preceded by private contact. When “ravenous wolves” in “sheep’s clothing,” who have an ongoing history of promoting moral evil and subverting many people, are devouring the flock—be it the church, the court, or the country—time is of the essence, and a response in kind, i.e., as public and direct as his own tactics, is called for. He should be publicly identified (see Matthew 7:15, Acts 20:29, and Romans 16:17 with regard to God’s warnings about false teachers). Satan wants the truth to be stifled so that he can make unimpeded progress. Being silent and avoiding direct confrontation leaves people spiritually vulnerable.

One must also take into consideration the audience in front of whom the public rebuke occurs. We ought to be careful about carte blanche “airing of dirty laundry” in the presence of those who do not need to hear the information. Genuine love for the kingdom of Christ and the souls involved will cause one to use discretion as to how far and wide the matter is repeated. Creating a Web site for the whole world to see, in order to broadcast the alleged misdeeds of a fellow Christian far beyond the relevant audience, is hardly wise, judicious, circumspect, kind, or useful.

Gossip

We must also recognize the difference between appropriate public rebuke and the sin of gossip. We humans seem to gravitate toward tidbits of information that expose the failings of others. Without going into the detail that such a subject merits (since the Bible has a great deal to say about the sins of gossip, slander, backbiting, whispering, tale-bearing, reviling, and the like: Romans 1:30; 2 Corinthians 12:20; 1 Timothy 3:11; 5:13; Titus 2:3; 1 Peter 2:1; James 4:11; et al.), let it be said that public rebuke of persons who promote error cannot inherently be gossip—since, as amply noted above, God did it and requires the faithful to do it. The intent of the heart of the confronter, the purpose of the rebuke, and the nature and certainty of the error being identified are a few of the criteria that serve to distinguish between gossip and legitimate public confrontation.

An Objection

Consider one objection that has been offered in response to the thesis of this article: “Just because God or His inspired emissaries called names and pinpointed false religion and immoral persons publicly, it does not follow that we are qualified or authorized to do so—we’re not God and we’re not inspired.” This quibble fails to recognize that if God called names and specified purveyors of error publicly (and endorsed others who did so), such behavior cannot be taboo. If speaking against immorality and false religion is inherently wrong and unloving, then God would not have engaged in such behavior. God Himself and the emissaries He endorsed would be guilty of sin. On the contrary, it is evident from the ongoing application of this principle that God authorizes—and even requires—its use by all persons, when done correctly and accurately. Further, since this behavior is obviously part of the very nature of God, and since our constant desire should be to want to be like God, we should emulate Him in our revulsion of the destructive error promoted by individuals and groups that will result in the loss of souls (cf. Numbers 25:11,13). Indeed, to confront error is Christlike. The sober warning of the apostle Peter sounds eerily apropos to America today:

But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed. By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words (2 Peter 2:1-3).

What would God have us to do under such circumstances? “[E]xhort and convict those who contradict” and “rebuke them sharply” (Titus 1:9,13). “For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard” (Acts 4:20). “[E]ven so we speak, not as pleasing men, but God who tests our hearts” (1 Thessalonians 2:4).

A Word of Caution

Two cautionary considerations: First, there are those who claim to be Christian who have a reputation for conducting themselves like rabid dogs that bite, tear, and devour those who disagree with them (cf. Galatians 5:15). They resort to unchristian behavior and tactics under the guise that they are contending for the faith. As Paul explained to the Philippian Christians: “Some indeed preach Christ even from envy and strife, and some also from good will: The former preach Christ from selfish ambition, not sincerely” (vss. 15-16, emp. added). Such persons are self-condemned, and do more harm to the cause than good. Their behavior is certainly not the action that this article advocates, and we do not endorse such wicked behavior. But, in our haste to refrain from emulating such individuals, we must not allow ourselves to go to the other extreme and fail to oppose that which God expects to be publicly opposed.

Second, not every difference of opinion on a particular matter merits public confrontation. In fact, sadly, much ungodly, unnecessary division has been foisted upon society, doing untold damage to the cause of Christ and the tranquility of the church, by those who relish contention, strife, and wrangling with others on matters of opinion. Christians are permitted by God to hold differing opinions on a host of matters that have no eternal consequence, and that do not affect a person’s spiritual standing before God. Christians must grow to the point that they are able to distinguish between matters of option and matters of obligation, and make certain that any public disturbances are necessitated by the latter, not the former (cf. Hebrews 5:14).

May we strive in our study of the Bible to become acquainted with the God of the Bible, and to seek to be like Him (to the extent that we frail human beings are able to do so). May God bless us with unwavering determination to “have the mind of Christ” (1 Corinthians 2:16). May we rise up in the midst of a civilization that is in the throes of a moral and spiritual freefall and, “speaking the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15), articulate the will of the Creator for all people.

REFERENCES

Bloom, Allan (1987), The Closing of the American Mind (New York: Simon and Schuster).

Bork, Robert (1996), Slouching Towards Gomorrah (New York: ReganBooks).

Declaration of Independence (1776), National Archives, http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html.

Editorial (2012), “The Chick-fil-A Business,” New York Times, July 30, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/31/opinion/the-chick-fil-a-business.html.

Jefferson, Thomas (1789), “Letter to James Madison,” The Works of Thomas Jefferson in Twelve Volumes, ed. Paul Leicester Ford, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mtj:@field(DOCID+@lit (tj050135)).

Miller, Dave (2003), “Children and the Rod of Correction,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=7&article=1255.

Miller, Dave (2013), “The Imprecatory Psalms,” Reason & Revelation, 33[8]:86-88,92-94, August, http://www.apologeticspress.org/APPubPage.aspx?pub=1#.

Reisser, Horst (1975), Porneuo, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

The post Political Correctness and “Bashing” appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[Editor’s Note: This article is the second installment of a two-part critique of an article written by James Hutson, Library of Congress Manuscript Division Chief, on the Founding Fathers’ attitudes toward Islam. Part I appeared in the March issue. Part II follows below and continues, without introductory comments, where the first article ended.]

Hutson observes that in their 1780 state constitution, “[o]fficials in Massachusetts afforded the most ample liberty of conscience…to Deists, Mahometans, Jews and Christians” (2002)—an allusion to Samuel West’s discussion of tax assessments for the support of the public teaching of religion and morality. This observation is accurate as long as one clearly understands that “liberty of conscience” specifically meant no governmental intrusion, but did not extend to the encouragement or promotion of Islam in public life. Proof of this contention is seen in the Third Article of the 1780 constitution itself, in which the legislature was authorized “to make suitable provision…for the institution of the public worship of God and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion, and morality in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.” The constitution also stated that “every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law; and no subordination of any sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law” (Constitution of…, 1780, I.III, emp. added). Hutson fails to divulge that the constitution stipulated that the governor was required to “declare himself to be of the Christian religion” (Constitution of…, II.II.I.II, emp. added), and that any who wished to serve as governor, lieutenant governor, counselor, senator, or representative were required to take an oath of office which included: “I…do declare that I believe the Christian religion, and have a firm persuasion of its truth” (Constitution of…, II.II.V.I, emp. added). Notice that these stipulations inherently excluded Muslims holding office in that state—proof that the Founders’ definition of “tolerance” differs significantly from Hutson’s characterization.

Samuel West, himself, was a strong advocate of the teaching of Christian morality and virtue by the state. He believed that the promotion of Christianity by the state did not interfere with the right of a Muslim to worship as he chooses—“till he disturbs the public or bothers others in their religious worship” (as quoted in Green, 2010, p. 50). But he most certainly did not countenance, and would not have countenanced, equal promotion of Islam in society. Hutson’s allusion to Massachusetts Supreme Court Chief Justice Parsons’ “resounding” affirmation of religious liberty in 1810 is equally misleading. The reference is to the opinion of the court in Barnes vs. Falmouth, penned by Parsons, which centered on the constitutionality of the Third Article of the Constitution of Massachusetts quoted above. Parsons clarified the meaning of “liberty of conscience” as the right of the “Protestant or Catholick [sic], Jew, Mahometan, or Pagan” to have his own “religious opinion and worship,” free from governmental persecution or coercion. Yet the Massachusetts constitution made provision for the “publick [sic] teaching of the precepts and maxims of the religion of protestant christians to all the people”—the very thing Parsons and the court defended and insisted was not antithetical to religious liberty for those who do not profess Christianity. What’s more, Parsons brought his masterful opinion to a grand conclusion that further verifies that the essentiality and priority of Christianity was assumed:

[T]he people are to be applauded, as well for their benevolence as for their wisdom, that in selecting a religion [Christianity—DM], whose precepts and sanctions might supply the defects in civil government, necessarily limited in its power, and supported only by temporal penalties, they adopted a religion founded in truth; which in its tendency will protect our property here, and may secure to us an inheritance in another and a better country (“Defence of the…,” 1820, p. 7, emp. added).

Once again, the sanitized version of America’s history confuses religious tolerance with endorsement, promotion, and accommodation, and fails to discern the distinction made by the Founders between religious tolerance on the one hand, and their firm belief in the priority of the Christian religion on the other.

Hutson cites Ezra Stiles (Yale College president from 1778-1795) as supporting the notion that Muslim morals are “far superior to the Christian.” This claim is a preposterous misrepresentation of the facts. Stiles’ comments came in a sermon preached before the governor and legislature of Connecticut in 1783. In extolling the glory of America with its purest form of Christianity in the world, Stiles alluded to the fact that “Sir William Temple, Sale, and other learned deists, fond of depreciating Christian virtue by comparisons, have extolled and celebrated the Mohammedan, Chinese, and other Oriental morals, as far superior to the Christian” (1783). But Stiles disagreed with their assessment. He insisted that, in contrast to all other religions, “the more Christianity prevails in a country, civil society will be more advanced, ferocious manners will give way to the more mild, liberal, just, and amiable manners of the gospel.” He stated his belief that “[a] time will come when six hundred millions of the human race shall be ready to drop their idolatry and all false religion, when Christianity shall triumph over superstition, as well as Deism, and Gentilism, and Mohammedanism.” Ezra Stiles provides no support for the encouragement of Islam in America. He believed it to be “false religion,” along with superstition, deism, and paganism.

In discussing the religious beliefs of people as those beliefs relate to citizenship in a republic, the Founders clearly believed that Christianity is the one religion that most fully coincides with the republican principles they espoused. They considered Christianity the “one true religion.” [NOTE: The Continental Congress repeatedly referred to Christianity as “true religion” in their proclamations to the American public; see the June 1775, March 1779, and October 1782 proclamations in Miller, 2009 and Miller, 2012.] Benjamin Franklin stated pointedly: “History will also afford frequent Opportunities of showing the Necessity of a Public Religion, from its Usefulness to the Public; the Advantage of a Religious Character among private Persons; the Mischiefs of Superstition, &c. and the Excellency of the Christian Religion above all others ancient or modern” (1840, 1:573, emp. added). Since adherents of other religions would wish to be included in the grand American experiment, the Founders naturally gave some consideration to the ability of professors of non-Christian religion to fit into the American political and social framework. It is in this context that the Founders acknowledged Islam’s belief in afterlife. Due to their conviction that no one was a fit citizen in a Republic if he did not believe in a future state of rewards and punishments, i.e., heaven and hell, as sufficient motivation to tell the truth and refrain from licentious behavior, as noted earlier, they banned atheists from serving as witnesses in court. They recognized, however, that though Islam contained many objectionable and absurd beliefs (including the notion that the faithful Muslim will be rewarded with virgins in paradise—a point noted by Hutson from the Boston newspaper), at least it indoctrinated its adherents with a firm belief in punishment and reward in the afterlife.

But observe that such an acknowledgement hardly constitutes proof of their approval of the bulk of Islam’s tenets, or their desire to leave the impression that Islam ought to be welcomed with open arms and held up in America as a credible religion on a par with Christianity. Even Hutson’s allusion to the comment made by Declaration signer Dr. Benjamin Rush is taken wholly out of context when he notes that Rush stated he had “rather see the opinions of Confucius or Mohammed inculcated upon our youth than see them grow up wholly devoid of a system of religious principles.” Rush obviously considered “the opinions of Confucius or Mohammed” as merely the lesser of two evils, i.e., better some religion than no religion. He would be shocked to think that anyone today would take his remark as supportive or even friendly toward either Confucius or Mohammed. Examine the statement in its original context in the essay Dr. Rush penned titled, “Of the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic,” in which he described the mode of education that should be adopted “so as to secure to the state all the advantages to be derived from the proper instruction of youth.” He specifically stressed the importance of instruction in the Christian religion:

[T]he only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in Religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.

Such is my veneration for every religion that reveals the attributes of the Deity, or a future state of rewards and punishments, that I had rather see the opinions of Confucius or Mahomed inculcated upon our youth, than see them grow up wholly devoid of a system of religious principles. But the religion I mean to recommend in this place, is that of the New Testament (1798, p. 8, emp. added).

Dr. Rush then proceeded to declare the superiority and priority of Christianity in a republic, even clarifying, “I wish to be excused for repeating here, that if the bible did not convey a single direction for the attainment of future happiness, it should be read in our schools in preference to all other books” (p. 100, emp. added). No provision whatsoever was made by him or any other Founder for the use of the Quran in our schools or courts.

Hutson’s mention of the petition from the group of citizens from Chesterfield County, Virginia calling for religious liberty for “Jews, Mehometans and Christians” must also be understood in its historical setting. Patrick Henry had proposed a bill “establishing a provision for the teachers of the Christian religion” in which the teachers would receive financial remuneration from the state (1784). The fact is that the citizens behind the Chesterfield County petition were concerned that the bill was detrimental to “the true interests of Christianity” (Virginia General Assembly, 1828, p. 36, emp. added). Their concern was that government support of religion tends to corrupt it by showing partiality to one Christian sect over others and interfering with the rights of Christian conscience, thereby violating civil and natural rights. Neither side in the debate intended to leave the impression that Islam is a true religion, nor did they intend to promote Islam in Virginia as equally authentic or deserving of a place of equal status with Christianity.

James Madison’s rebuttal to Henry’s bill, Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, demonstrates that all parties concerned were not interested in offering sanction to Islam. Notice Madison’s 12^th reason for opposing the bill:

Because the policy of the Bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity. The first wish of those who enjoy this precious gift ought to be that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind. Compare the number of those who have as yet received it with the number still remaining under the dominion of false Religions (1785, emp. added).

According to Madison, all religions except Christianity are “false Religions” that need the enlightenment that Christianity provides. He believed that Henry’s bill would interfere with imparting Christianity to the whole world. The Chesterfield petition may be juxtaposed with the one presented by the citizens of Surrey County, which insisted that the bill was, in fact, “consistent with the principles of equal liberty, tending to promote the great interests of religion, and founded on the experience and practice of all Christian nations” (Virginia…, p. 36, emp. added). So those who opposed the bill were concerned that, by intruding into the realm of religion, the government might eventually usurp its role, overstep its power, and interfere with the free exercise of the Christian religion by the varying sects.

To repeat, it is imperative that the discussion of religious freedom in America in the 21^st century be framed and shaped by the Founders’ insistence that (1) all non-Christian religions are to be tolerated—as long as they do not advocate violence or immorality, and (2) the existence of the Republic, and all the features of the American way of life that are the envy of the world, depend on a majority of Americans maintaining their belief in and practice of the general principles of the Christian religion. In the words of prominent Founder, Noah Webster, regarding the indispensable nature of Christianity to the existence of our Republic:

[O]ur citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament or the Christian religion…. [T]he religion which has introduced civil liberty, is the religion of Christ and his apostles, which enjoins humility, piety, and benevolence; which acknowledged in every person a brother, or a sister, and a citizen with equal rights. This is genuine Christianity, and to this we owe our free constitutions of government…. [T]he Christian religion ought to be received, and maintained with firm and cordial support. It is the real source of all genuine republican principles…. The religion of Christ and his apostles, in its primitive simplicity and purity, unencumbered with the trappings of power and the pomp of ceremonies, is the surest basis of a republican government…. [T]hose who destroy the influence and authority of the Christian religion, sap the foundations of public order, of liberty, and of republican government… (1832, pp. v,247,310-311, emp. added).

The United States commenced their existence under circumstances wholly novel and unexampled in the history of nations. They commenced with civilization, with learning, with science, with constitutions of free government, and with that best gift of God to man, the Christian religion (as quoted in Scudder, 1881, p. 242, emp. added).

Conclusion

Let it be repeated once again that, having a Christian mindset, the vast majority of the Founders were for religious tolerance, meaning that they were willing for those who embraced non-Christian religions to come to the country and not be persecuted. However, under no circumstances should such tolerance be misconstrued to mean that the Founders intended to convey credibility to such religions, implying that those beliefs would be beneficial to America’s way of life if incorporated into its public institutions. Even the Founders’ consistent depiction of Muslims as “Mahometans” (a term offensive to Muslims) demonstrates their antipathy towards Islam, since they regarded the religion as the concocted invention of Muhammad—not the God of the Bible.

Indeed, a number of the Founders went on record explicitly denigrating the religion of Islam. One “Father of American Jurisprudence,” the brilliant New York State Supreme Court Chief Justice James Kent, labeled “Mahomet” as an “impostor” (The People v…, 1811). Son of John Adams and 6^th President John Quincy Adams insisted that Muhammad possessed “the fraudulent spirit of an impostor,” and the notion that he was a prophet and apostle of God was an “audacious falsehood” (Blunt, 1830, 29:269). In his masterful refutation of Thomas Paine’s Age of Reason, one time president of the Continental Congress, Elias Boudinot, also labeled Muhammad an “impostor” (1801, p. 37) and insightfully observed that

Mahomet aimed to establish his pretensions to divine authority, by the power of the sword and the terrors of his government; while he carefully avoided any attempts at miracles in the presence of his followers, and all pretences to foretell things to come. His acknowledging the divine mission of Moses and Christ confirms their authority as far as his influence will go while their doctrines entirely destroy all his pretensions to the like authority…. And now, where is the comparison between the supposed prophet of Mecca, and the Son of God; or with what propriety ought they to be named together?…The difference between these characters is so great, that the facts need not be further applied (pp. 36,39, emp. added).

This premiere Founder merely expressed the sentiments of the bulk of the Founders as well as the rank and file of American citizens.

American Revolutionary War patriot and hero, best known for the capture of Fort Ticonderoga, Ethan Allen, likewise considered “Mahomet” an “impostor.” In his Reason, The Only Oracle of Man, Allen stated:

Mahomet taught his army that the “term of every man’s life was fixed by God, and that none could shorten it, by any hazard that he might seem to be exposed to in battle or otherwise,” but that it should be introduced into peacable [sic] and civil life, and be patronized by any teachers of religion, is quite strange, as it subverts religion in general, and renders the teaching of it unnecessary…. [We] are liable to be imposed upon by impostors, or by ignorant and insidious teachers,whose interest it may be to obtrude their own systems on the world for infallible truth,as in the instance of Mahomet (1854, pp. 17,35-36, emp. added).

[NOTE: Sadly, in later life, Allen broke with the majority of the country and Founders in his published rejection of Christianity and the Bible.] The Father of American Geography, Jedidiah Morse, cogently articulated the rationale of the Founders and most early Americans when he explained:

The foundations which support the interest of Christianity, are also necessary to support a free and equal government like our own. In all those countries where there is little or no religion, or a very gross and corrupt one, as in Mahometan and Pagan countries, there you will find, with scarcely a single exception, arbitrary and tyrannical governments, gross ignorance and wickedness, and deplorable wretchedness among the people. To the kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil freedom, and political and social happiness which mankind now enjoy. In proportion as the genuine effects of Christianity are diminished in any nation, either through unbelief, or the corruption of its doctrines, or the neglect of its institutions; in the same proportion will the people of that nation recede from the blessings of genuine freedom, and approximate the miseries of complete despotism (1799, emp. added).

One final thought: Due to the widespread expulsion of God, the Bible, and Christianity from America’s social and political life, fomented by the liberal forces of “political correctness, diversity, and tolerance,” the encroachments of anti-Christian ideologies (like Islam) must inevitably hasten the demise of the American Republic as she has existed for over two centuries. To suggest that America can assimilate Islam and Sharia law into its national life and remain free and prosperous is naiveté in the extreme (cf. “McDonald’s Settles…,” 2013). As General George S. Patton observed, having witnessed the impact of Islam on the countries of North Africa,

One cannot but ponder the question: What if the Arabs had been Christians? To me it seems certain that the fatalistic teachings of Mohammed and the utter degradation of women is the outstanding cause for the arrested development of the Arab. He is exactly as he was around the year 700, while we have kept on developing. Here, I think, is a text for some eloquent sermon on the virtues of Christianity (1947, p. 43, emp. added).

To echo the words of Jedidiah Morse, the “tyrannical governments” and “deplorable wretchedness” that continues to characterize Islamic countries around the world will necessarily characterize America if and when Islam is allowed to permeate the nation’s institutions.

[NOTE: For a discussion of the legitimacy of Islam and the Quran, see Miller, 2005.]

REFERENCES

Allen, Ethan (1854), Reason, The Only Oracle of Man (Boston, MA: J.P. Mendum, Cornhill), http://tinyurl.com/Allen-Ethan-1854-Reason.

Blunt, Joseph (1830), The American Annual Register for the Years 1827-8-9 (New York: E. & G.W. Blunt), 29:267-402, http://www.archive.org/stream/p1americanannual29blunuoft.

Boudinot, Elias (1801), The Age of Revelation, http://books.google.com/books?id=XpcPAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=mahomet&f=false.

Constitution of Massachusetts, 1780, http://www.nhinet.org/ccs/docs/ma-1780.htm.

“Defence of the Third Article of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights; as delivered by Chief Justice Parsons, as the Opinion of the Supreme Judicial Court, in the case of Barnes vs. Falmouth” (1820), (Worcester: Manning & Trumbull), http://books.google.com/books?id=cCYwAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false.

Green, Steven (2010), The Second Disestablishment (New York: Oxford University Press).

Franklin, Benjamin (1840), The Works of Benjamin Franklin, ed. Jared Sparks (Boston, MA: Hilliard Gray & Company), http://books.google.com/books?id=Op5YAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA158& dq=Proposals+Relating+to+the+Education+of+Youth+in+Pennsylvania&hl=en&sa=X&ei =fxnCUPC5Coju9ASxvIGgAw&ved=0CFMQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=public k%20religion&f=false.

Henry, Patrick (1784), “A Bill Establishing a Provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion,” Virginia House of Delegates, December 24, 1784.

Hutson, James (2002), “The Founding Fathers and Islam: Library Papers Show Early Tolerance for Muslim Faith,” Information Bulletin, Library of Congress, May, http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/0205/tolerance.html.

Madison, James (1785), Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, Bill of Rights Institute, http://billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/primary-source-documents/memorial-and-remonstrance/.

“McDonalds Settles 700,000 Suit Over Islamic Diet in US” (2013), Associated Press, January 22, http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/22/mcdonald-settles-700000-suit-over-islamic-diet-in-us/.

Miller, Dave (2005), The Quran Unveiled (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Miller, Dave (2009), Christ and the Continental Congress (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Miller, Dave, ed. (2012), Continental Congress Proclamation Packet (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Morse, Jedidiah (1799), A Sermon, Exhibiting the Present Dangers and Consequent Duties of the Citizens of the United States of America (Hartford, CT: Hudson and Goodwin), http://www.archive.org/details/sermonexhibiting00morsrich.

Patton, George S. (1947), War As I Knew It (New York: The Great Commanders, 1994 edition).

The People v. Ruggles (1811), 8 Johns 290 (Sup. Ct. NY.), N.Y. Lexis 124.

Rush, Benjamin (1798), Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical (Philadelphia, PA: Thomas and Samuel Bradford).

Scudder, Horace (1881), Noah Webster (Boston, MA: Houghton, Mifflin, & Co.).

Stiles, Ezra (1783), “The United States Elevated to Glory and Honor. A Sermon, Preached before His Excellency Jonathan Trumbull, Governor and Commander in Chief, and the Honorable General Assembly of the State of Connecticut, Convened at Hartford, at the Anniversary Election, May 8th, 1783,” (New Haven: Thomas & Samuel Green), http://www.belcherfoundation.org/united_states_elevated.htm.

Virginia General Assembly (1828), Monday, November 14, 1785, Journal of the House of Delegates of the Commonwealth of Virginia Begun and Held in the City of Richmond, in the County of Henrico, on Monday the Seventeenth Day of October, in the Year of Our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty-Five (Richmond, VA: Thomas W. White), http://books.google.com/books?id=QcGTdl0n0YEC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false.

Webster, Noah (1832), History of the United States (New Haven, CT: Durrie & Peck).

The post Were the Founding Fathers “Tolerant” of Islam? [Part II] appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[Editor’s Note: This article is the first installment of a two-part critique of an article written by James Hutson, Library of Congress Manuscript Division Chief, on the Founding Fathers’ attitude toward Islam.]

One prominent misconception pertaining to the liberty envisioned by the Founding Fathers of America concerns their intentions with regard to non-Christian religions. Case in point: Manuscript Division Chief of the Library of Congress, James Hutson, wrote an article, titled “The Founding Fathers and Islam” (which routinely receives sanction on Muslim Web sites and blogs [e.g., Amanullah, 2007; Shadia, 2012; “How Did the U.S…?” 2011; Pakistanis…, 2011; Nuha, 2012; The Islam Factor, 2008; Islamic News Updates, 2011]), in which he suggests that

it is clear that the Founding Fathers thought about the relationship of Islam to the new nation and were prepared to make a place for it in the republic…. The Founders of this nation explicitly included Islam in their vision of the future of the republic…[and] would have incorporated it into the fabric of American life (2002, emp. added).

Such expressions as “prepared to make a place for it,” “explicitly included,” and “would have incorporated it” are ambiguous and vague at the least, and misleading at worst. They leave the impression that the Founders were pluralistic and welcomed Islam as a viable, authentic religion that ought to receive society’s equal encouragement and acceptance along with Christianity, further implying that other non-Christian religions, and even the irreligious and atheist, should be given the same consideration. It is disconcerting that such a prominent person in a governmental organization as influential as the Library of Congress would propagate the myth of political correctness to the detriment of the nation and the disparagement of our nation’s Founders. The pervasive propaganda of political correctness has so colored the average American’s perspective that it is commonplace to superimpose current conceptions back onto the Founding era. Nevertheless, the documentary evidence clearly demonstrates that the Founders did not share this “politically correct,” sanitized version of history.

The Founders would not have favored integrating Islam into our schools, government, and other civil institutions. Far from it. In his discussion of freedom of religion in his monumental Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, Father of American Jurisprudence Joseph Story clarified the meaning of the First Amendment with regard to the priority of Christianity:

[I]t is impossible for those, who believe in the truth of Christianity, as a divine revelation, to doubt, that it is the especial duty of government to foster, and encourage it among all the citizens and subjects….

Indeed, in a republic, there would seem to be a peculiar propriety in viewing the Christian religion, as the great basis, on which it must rest for its support and permanence, if it be, what it has ever been deemed by its truest friends to be, the religion of liberty.

Probably at the time of the adoption of the constitution, and of the amendment to it, now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation (1833, 44.723-726.3.3.1865-1868, emp. added).

Indeed, the First Amendment was never intended to “level all religions” (and Islam can hardly be stylized “the religion of liberty”). Story further explained that

the real object of the [First] amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government(1833, 3:728, emp. added).

It is imperative that we not misconstrue the Founders’ strong emphasis on religious freedom and tolerance as an indication that they viewed all religion as legitimate or conducive to the principles of the Republic. Their central concern was “disestablishment,” i.e., preventing the federal government from establishing one Christian sect as the state religion. Their idea of “freedom of religion” was first and foremost freedom to pursue the Christian religion unhindered by the federal government, and only secondarily freedom to practice non-Christian religion. This truth is verified by the discussions surrounding the wording of the First Amendment. George Mason—who has gone down in American history as the Father of the Bill of Rights—proposed the following wording: “All men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others” (as quoted in Rowland, 1892, 1:244, emp. added). While Mason’s proposal did not make the final cut, it nevertheless establishes the historical context of the Founders’ discussion, demonstrating that their concern was first and foremost for the free exercise of the Christian religion. Using similar terminology, Mason had previously crafted The Virginia Declaration of Rights—the very document which influenced both Thomas Jefferson’s wording of the Declaration of Independence as well as James Madison’s draft of the Bill of Rights that was added to the federal Constitution. Article XVI reads:

That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence, and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practise Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other (Mason, 1776, emp. added).

To the Founders, “tolerance” was not to be equated with approval or agreement, let alone encouragement that would imply an equal place should be made for non-Christian religion in government, schools, etc. The Founders were no more willing to encourage Islam than they were interested in encouraging the spread of atheism, paganism, or Native American religion. [NOTE: Atheists, though few in number at the time in America, were not allowed to serve as witnesses in court—see Story, 1851, 2:8-9; Swift, 1796, 2:238.] For example, the Father of our country, George Washington, delivered a speech to the Delaware Indian chiefs on May 12, 1779: “You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention” (15:55, emp. added). Far from encouraging the superstitious idolatry of much of Native American religion, the Founders (including the Congress!) urged Indians to convert to Christianity. The same may be said for all other non-Christian ideologies—including the inherently godless economic philosophies of socialism, Marxism, fascism, and atheistic communism. Indeed, their words and actions denigrate such thought systems. They believed that non-Christian philosophies and religions were false and ultimately detrimental to genuine liberty.

James Iredell, a U.S. Supreme Court judge appointed by George Washington, articulated this point succinctly in 1788 in the debates on the wording of the Constitution:

But it is objected that the people of America may perhaps choose representatives who have no religion at all, and that pagans and Mahometans may be admitted into offices…. But it is never to be supposed that the people of America will trust their dearest rights to persons who have no religion at all, or a religion materially different from their own (Elliot, 1836, 4:194, emp. added).

Samuel Johnston, governor of North Carolina and member of the Constitution ratifying convention in 1788, likewise felt confident that Muslims should not, and hopefully would not, be allowed to become mainstream in American politics and public institutions—except in only two cases:

By Alexisrael – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=31345949

It is apprehended that Jews, Mahometans, pagans, &c., may be elected to high offices under the government of the United States. Those who are Mahometans, or any others who are not professors of the Christian religion, can never be elected to the office of President or other high office, but in one of two cases. First, if the people of America lay aside the Christian religion altogether, it may happen. Should this unfortunately take place, the people will choose such men as think as they do themselves. Another case is, if any persons of such descriptions should, notwithstanding their religion, acquire the confidence and esteem of the people of America by their good conduct and practice of virtue, they may be chosen. I leave it to gentlemen’s candor to judge what probability there is of the people’s choosing men of different sentiments from themselves (Elliot, 4:198-199, emp. added).

Constitution signer Richard Dobbs Spaight echoed the same prevailing sentiment:

As to the subject of religion…[n]o power is given to the general government to interfere with it at all…. No [Christian—DM] sect is preferred to another. Every man has a right to worship the Supreme Being in the manner he thinks proper. No test is required. All men of equal capacity and integrity are equally eligible to offices…. I do not suppose an infidel, or any such person, will ever be chosen to any office unless the people themselves be of the same opinion (Elliot, 1836, 4:208, emp. added).

Implicit in all three of these Founders’ observations is the fact that Christianity was the underlying belief system on which the Republic was poised. The Founders were unanimous in their desire that the Constitution provide no pretext for governmental interference in the free exercise of the Christian religion by the citizenry. So the only way that atheism or Islam could ever make headway in America’s social and civil institutions is if the people themselves abandon their Christian values. Tragically, their words were prophetic.

WHAT THEY MEANT BY “RELIGOUS FREEDOM”

The Founders’ idea of religious freedom was actually quite simple and sensible—in contrast with the self-contradictory and inconsistent view of today’s vacuous notions of tolerance and political correctness. The facts show that the mass of the Founders, with few exceptions, believed that the Christian worldview and Christian principles must be the foundation of the Republic (see, for example, the 15 proclamations issued by the Continental Congress from 1775 to 1783 in Miller, 2009). Consequently, their view of religious freedom and tolerance amounted essentially to the prevention of religious persecution. Those who practiced no religion or a non-Christian religion could come to America and not be persecuted for the simple reason that the bulk of the Founders and the mass of American citizens embraced Christian principles that forbid persecuting one’s fellowman (e.g., Matthew 5:38-47; Luke 6:27-36).

The Founders had felt the sting of persecution in their disagreement with the state religion (i.e., the Church of England). They were well familiar with their mother country’s long history of religious oppression, depending on whether a Catholic or a Protestant monarch was on the throne. The Founders’ “forefathers” were the pilgrims who fled England specifically on account of religious persecution. Hence, the Founders and Framers wanted the new Republic to dispense with such coercion—in complete harmony with the nature of God Himself, who created humans to be freewill agents who make their own decisions with regard to their eternal destiny. Further, because the Founders had grown up in an environment that promulgated Christian principles, they understood and embraced Jesus’ admonition to treat others the way they themselves wished to be treated (Matthew 7:12). Thomas Jefferson’s query posed to the ambassador of Tripoli reflects this principle: “We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the grounds of their pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our Friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation” (“Letter from the…,” 1786, emp. added). To the Founders, permitting non-Christian peoples to live in our country without persecution was not tantamount to “celebrating diversity” or endorsing what they considered to be false religion. Rather, doing so was first and foremost an affirmation of their desire that all peoples be allowed to pursue happiness without governmental intrusion or coercion.

TWO CRITICAL EXCEPTIONS

However, we must hasten to emphasize that the Founders placed two important qualifications on religious tolerance. First, religious toleration extended only so far as the religion in question did not engage in a practice that is deemed by Christian standards to be immoral. For example, in a case that went all the way to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in 1815, The Commonwealth v. Sharpless, the defendant was convicted for displaying in his home an obscene painting of a man and woman in an “indecent posture”—an offense against Christian morality (1815). Likewise, in a number of Supreme Court cases, instances of Mormon polygamy were prosecuted as violations of Christian morality—though the defense argued that the practice was justifiable on the grounds of freedom of religion (e.g., Reynolds v. United States, 1879; Murphy v. Ramsey, 1885; Davis v. Beason, 1890). The Founders never envisioned the First Amendment providing sanction for any behavior that is deemed by Christian standards to be immoral or “licentious.” Yet, now that Islam is making significant encroachments into American society, with its brazen advocacy of polygamy (Surah 4:3; cf. 4:24-25,129; 23:6; 30:21; 70:30), the erosion of Christian morality and the appalling ignorance of the founding principles among the population will inevitably sanction such immorality under the guise of tolerance and “religious freedom.”

A second exception that clarifies the notion of religious freedom is seen in the Founders’ insistence that religious freedom did not extend to any action that would bring physical harm to self or other citizens. Actions like Buddhist priests setting themselves on fire in the street, or temple priestesses providing sexual services to devotees, or brothels, or businesses that peddle pornography would not have been tolerated by the Founders under the guise of “freedom of religion” (Commonwealth v. Nesbit, 1859). That means that Islam’s fifteen hundred yearlong historical propensity for engaging in street violence, suicide bombing, and the execution of those who refuse to submit to Allah—actions that are endemic to Islam and the Quran (e.g., Surah 47:4)—are not to be tolerated as protected religious practice. The number of incidents in America of Islamic “honor killings” is mounting (“Missouri Couple…,” 1991; Schoetz, 2008; Thompson, 2011; Tang, 2011; Myers, 2011; Daily Mail…, 2012)—a natural by-product of political correctness, a misunderstanding of the principle of religious freedom, and the loss of the average American’s commitment to Christian morality. Religious freedom notwithstanding, the Founders were wary of any infiltration of the nation’s institutions by “Mahometans” in light of their religious inclinations toward physical violence (cf. Miller, 2005).

TOLERANCE?

With these observations in mind, what is one to make of Hutson’s allusions to incidents in which the Founders seemingly manifested “inclusive” sentiments? Consider the following point-by-point examination of each document cited by Hutson as proof of his claim regarding the Founders. First, the importation of Muslim slaves into the colonies offers no support whatsoever to the idea that the Founders were “prepared to make a place” for Islam in the Republic—any more than they sought to accommodate the pagan animism of African slaves or the polytheism of Native Americans. Hutson admits as much when he concedes that “there is no evidence that the Founders were aware of the religious convictions of their bondsmen.”

Second, the toleration proposed by John Locke in his A Letter Concerning Toleration has, as its context, first and foremost, the toleration that ought to be extended by Christian sects to each other. While he certainly advocates that the same civil rights be extended to Jews, pagans, and “Mahometans”—he articulates several very clearly defined exceptions. Specifically, in a section dealing with those whom the civil magistrate cannot tolerate, he pinpoints:

1. Those whose religious opinions are contrary to “those moral rules which are necessary to the preservation of civil society” (1796, p. 53);
2. The religion that “teaches expressly and openly, that men are not obliged to keep their promise” (p. 54);
3. “[T]hose that will not own and teach the duty of tolerating all men in matters of mere religion…and that they only ask leave to be tolerated by the magistrate so long, until they find themselves strong enough to [seize the government]” (p. 55);
4. All those who see themselves as having allegiance to another civil authority (p. 56). Specifically, Locke gives the example of the Muslim who lives among Christians and would have difficulty submitting to the government of a “Christian nation” when he comes from a Muslim country where the civil magistrate was also the religious authority. Locke notes that such a person would have grave difficulty serving as a soldier in his adopted nation (cf. the 2009 Fort Hood shooting spree by a Muslim soldier who shouted, “Allahu Akbar” as he opened fire, killing 13 and wounding 32; see Stewart, 2010).
5. “[T]hose are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God” (p. 56).

Four of these five exceptions inarguably describe Muslim behavior across the world since the inception of Islam. Indeed, what Hutson fails to divulge is that much of Locke’s discussion of religious intolerance (manifested primarily by Catholicism during periods of English history) resembles the very intolerance that typically characterizes Islamic countries around the world.

Hutson further alleges that Thomas Jefferson adopted Locke’s view of toleration (which, as just noted, was not an endorsement or encouragement of Islam), “in demanding recognition of the religious rights of the ‘Mahamdan.’” While it is true that Jefferson championed religious rights for all men, he did so with the same reservations and exceptions set forth by Locke. Evidence of his view of Islamic aggression is seen in his revulsion of the Muslim terrorism that characterized the Barbary States leading up to and during his presidency. His “intolerant” response was to send the U.S. Marines against them (Miller, 1997). It is true that, in his autobiography, Jefferson stated that the Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom was “meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination” (1821, p. 40). Yet, even that document verifies the clearly Christian orientation of the assemblage of Founders who passed it, and the distinction they made between religious toleration versus incorporating non-Christian religion into the fabric of America’s civil institutions. The statute begins:

An Act for establishing religious Freedom.

Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free; That all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and therefore are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being Lord, both of body and mind yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do… (Jefferson, 1786, emp. added).

Pray tell, to whom was Jefferson and his colleagues referring when they referred to “the holy author of our religion”? Unquestionably, they were referring to Jesus Christ, the Author of the Christian religion (see Miller, 2008). This statute once again simply underscores the fact that, while the Founders advocated toleration of non-Christian religions, they themselves recognized the reality and priority of the Christian religion and would not have endorsed any statute that would have relegated Christianity to a position of equal validity with other ideologies. They would not have wanted their pronouncements to be misconstrued to promote the inculcation of false religious systems or “infidelity” into the civil institutions of the United States—including all levels of government, our courts, and our schools.

Hutson’s citation of Richard Henry Lee as corroboration of pluralism or political correctness is contextually dispelled by the fact that, though opposed to the establishment of a state religion, he, along with Patrick Henry, “were advocates of a proposition to make every man contribute something to the support of the Christian religion, as the only sure basis of private and public morality” (Lee, 1825, 1:237, emp. added). The very letter from whence Hutson drew his quotation, written by Lee to James Madison on November 26, 1784, articulates the point that Lee favored citizen support of the Christian religion by means of a tax, noting that religion is “the guardian of morals” (Lee, 1914, 2:304-305; Nelson, 2001, p. 297). Further, throughout his life he avowed belief in the divine origin of the Christian religion and considered its morality to be the necessary foundation of the Republic (Lee, 1914, 1:248).

Appointed by Congress to a committee (along with Samuel Adams and Daniel Roberdeau) to prepare a proclamation to thank God for America’s military victories, Lee is believed to be the penman of the proclamation that was issued by the Continental Congress on November 1, 1777. The proclamation requested that God forgive Americans of their sins “through the merits of Jesus Christ” and that He would “prosper the Means of Religion, for the promotion and enlargement of that Kingdom, which consisteth ‘in Righteousness, Peace and Joy in the Holy Ghost’” (Journals of…, 9:854-851). The quotation within the proclamation is taken from Romans 14:17. This is also the man who, in a letter to Continental Congress president Henry Laurens on October 15, 1779, noted that “our holy religion teaches us to pray ‘Lead us not into temptation’”—a reference to Christianity and Matthew 6:13 (Lee, 1914, 2:162). Such organic utterances serve to clarify, define, and limit the Founders’ view of liberty and “tolerance.”

Look, once again, at the Virginia Act (p. 33). Extending religious tolerance to non-Christian religions is juxtaposed with “temporal punishments,” “civil incapacitations,” and “coercions.” This fact, again, proves that “religious freedom”—as envisioned by the Founders—referred to freedom from interference and persecution by human government. And, again, ironically, Islam’s history verifies its intolerance of non-Islamic religions. The only rational conclusion to be drawn from these facts is that the Founders, if they were living today, would see the encroachments of Islam into America as a fundamental and insidious danger to the religious liberty they championed.

Hutson points to George Washington’s suggestion that Muslims be exempted from a Virginia bill that provided for taxes for Christian worship—a move that certainly indicates toleration, but hardly implies “inclusion” or “incorporation” into the fabric of American life. Likewise, Washington’s welcoming “Mahometans” as workers on his Mount Vernon estate says nothing about his views regarding whether Islam should be encouraged or promoted in tandem with Christianity. In fact, in the letter Hutson cites, in which Washington was looking to hire a “House Joiner and Bricklayer” for his estate from a group of Palatine (German) tradesmen, in addition to “Mahometans,” he specifically included “Jews or Christians of any Sect, or they may be Atheists” (Washington, 1784). His inclusion of Jews, Muslims, and atheists proves he did not intend to make a statement about “tolerance” or who are fit citizens in a Republic. A more accurate assessment of Washington’s sentiments in that regard is seen in the General Orders he

issued to the Continental Army from Headquarters at Valley Forge on Saturday, May 2, 1778:

While we are zealously performing the duties of good Citizens and soldiers we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of Religion. To the distinguished Character of Patriot, it should be our highest Glory to add the more distinguished Character of Christian (1778, emp. added).

[to be continued]

REFERENCES

Amanullah, Shahed (2007), “Muslims in Government: The Founding Fathers and Islam,” Altmuslim.com, January 3, http://www.patheos.com/blogs/altmuslim/2007/01/the_founding_fathers_and_islam/.

Commonwealth v. Nesbit (1859), Pa. 398; 1859 Pa. LEXIS 240.

The Commonwealth v. Sharpless (1815), 2 Serg. & Rawle 91; 1815 Pa. LEXIS 81.

Daily Mail Reporter (2012), “Man Who Murdered His Daughters in Shocking Muslim ‘Honour Killing’ is Working as a New York City Cab Driver,” May 30, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2152369/Yaser-Said-Man-murdered-daughters-shocking-Muslim-honour-killing-working-New-York-City-cab-driver.html.

Davis v. Beason (1890), 133 U.S. 333; 10 S. Ct. 299; 33 L. Ed. 637; 1890 U.S. LEXIS 1915.

Elliot, Jonathan, ed. (1836), Debates in the Convention of the State of North Carolina, On the Adoption of the Federal Constitution (Washington, D.C.: Taylor & Maury), second edition, http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwed.html.

Green, Steven (2010), The Second Disestablishment (New York: Oxford University Press).

“How Did the U.S. Founding Fathers View Islam?” (2011), IslamiCity.com, Article Ref: IC1103-4605, April 6, http://www.islamicity.com/articles/Articles.asp?ref=IC1103-4605.

Hutson, James (2002), “The Founding Fathers and Islam: Library Papers Show Early Tolerance for Muslim Faith,” Information Bulletin, Library of Congress, May, http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/0205/tolerance.html.

The Islam Factor (2008), November 2, http://islamfactor.org/index.php?showtopic=3354.

Islamic News Updates (2011), April 6, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IslamicNewsUpdates/message/9254.

Jefferson, Thomas (1786), Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, http://www.virginiamemory.com/online_classroom/shaping_the_constitution/doc/religious_freedom.

Jefferson, Thomas (1821), Autobiography (New York: Library of America), http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=JefAuto.xml&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=all.

Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 (1904-1937), ed. Worthington C. Ford, et al. (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office), Library of Congress, http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwjc.html.

Lee, Richard Henry (1914), Letters of Richard Henry Lee, ed. James Ballagh (New York: Macmillan).

Lee, Richard (1825), Memoir of the Life of Richard Henry Lee (Philadelphia, PA: H.C. Carey & I. Lea).

“Letter from the American Peace Commissioners (Thomas Jefferson & John Adams) to John Jay” (1786), The Thomas Jefferson Papers Series 1. General Correspondence. 1651-1827, Library of Congress, March 28, http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.mss/mtj.mtjbib001849.

Locke, John (1796), A Letter Concerning Toleration (Huddersfield, England: J. Brook), http://tinyurl.com/Locke-John-google.

Mason, George (1776), The Virginia Declaration of Rights, Library of Congress, http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/trt006.html.

Miller, Dave (2005), “Violence and the Quran,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=8&article=1491.

Miller, Dave (2008), The Silencing of God (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Miller, Dave (2009), Christ and the Continental Congress (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Miller, Nathan (1997), The U.S. Navy, A History (Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press), third edition.

“Missouri Couple Sentenced to Die in Murder of Their Daughter, 16” (1991), The New York Times, December 20, http://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/20/us/missouri-couple-sentenced-to-die-in-murder-of-their-daughter-16.html.

Murphy v. Ramsey (1885), 114 U.S. 15; 5 S. Ct. 747; 29 L. Ed. 47; 1885 U.S. LEXIS 1732.

Myers, Amanda (2011), “Arizona ‘Honor Killing’: Iraqi Immigrant Sentenced to 34½ Years in Prison for Running Over, Killing Daughter,” The Huffington Post, April 15, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/15/arizona-honor-killing-iraqi-immigrant-sentenced_n_849999.html.

Nelson, John (2001), A Blessed Company (Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press).

Nuha (2012), http://nuha38317.blogspot.com/2012_01_01_archive.html.

Pakistanis for Peace (2011), https://pakistanisforpeace.wordpress.com/tag/george-washington/.

Reynolds v. United States (1879), 98 U.S. 145; 25 L. Ed. 244; 1878 U.S. LEXIS 1374; 8 Otto 145.

Rowland, Kate Mason (1892), The Life of George Mason, 1725–1792 (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons), http://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/270/.

Schoetz, David (2008), “Daughter Rejects Marriage, Ends Up Dead,” ABC News, July 7, http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=5322587&page=1.

Shadia, Mona (2012), “Islam’s Influence on the Founding Fathers,” Muslim Council of America Foundation, http://muslimcouncilofamerica.org/islams-influence-on-the-founding-fathers/.

Stewart, Phil (2010), “Fort Hood Shooting Was Terrorism, U.S. Says,” Reuters, January 15, http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/01/15/us-usa-shooting-pentagon-idUSTRE60E5TA20100115.

Story, Joseph (1833), Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (Boston, MA: Hilliard, Gray, & Co.).

Story, Joseph (1851), Life and Letters of Joseph Story, ed. William Story (Boston, MA: Charles Little & James Brown).

Swift, Zephaniah (1796), A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut (Windham, CT: John Byrne).

Tang, Terry (2011), “Faleh Hassan Almaleki Guilty: Jury Convicts Iraqi Immigrant For ‘Honor Killing’,” The Huffington Post, February 22, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/22/iraqi-immigrant-guilty-honor-killing_n_826840.html.

Thompson, Carolyn (2011), “Jury Convicts New York TV Executive of Beheading Wife,” Associated Press, February 8, http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/02/07/closing-arguments-begin-new-york-beheading-murder-trial/#ixzz28kCe5EYz

Washington, George (1778), “General Orders, May 2, 1778,” George Washington Papers at the Library of Congress, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=mgw3&fileName=mgw3g/gwpage003.db&recNum=181.

Washington, George (1779), “Speech to the Delaware Chiefs,” in The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources 1745-1799, ed. John C. Fitzpatrick, http://preview.tinyurl.com/Washington-G-1779.

Washington, George (1784), “George Washington to Tench Tilghman, March 24, 1784,” George Washington Papers at the Library of Congress, http://tinyurl.com/George-Washington-Islam.

The post Were the Founding Fathers “Tolerant” of Islam? [Part I] appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Mahomet aimed to establish his pretensions to divine authority, by the power of the sword and the terrors of his government; while he carefully avoided any attempts at miracles in the presence of his followers, and all pretences to foretell things to come. His acknowledging the divine mission of Moses and Christ confirms their authority as far as his influence will go while their doctrines entirely destroy all his pretensions to the like authority…. And now, where is the comparison between the supposed prophet of Mecca, and the Son of God; or with what propriety ought they to be named together?…The difference between these characters is so great, that the facts need not be further applied (1801, pp. 36-39, emp. added).

This premiere Founder merely expressed the sentiments of the bulk of the Founders as well as the rank and file of American citizens. The political correctness that now characterizes western civilization has desensitized citizens and left the country vulnerable to the sinister infiltration of an ideology that is antithetical to the principles of the American Republic.

REFERENCES

Boudinot, Elias (1801), The Age of Revelation, http://books.google.com/books?id=XpcPAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=mahomet&f=false.

The post Founding Father Elias Boudinot on Islam appeared first on Apologetics Press.

THE ATHEIST’S CONTENTION

This state of affairs manifests itself in the matter of the origins of the Republic. Atheists and skeptics, as well as social and political liberals, of the last half century have made it one of their missions in life to indoctrinate the public with the notion that America was not intended to be a “Christian nation,” and that the Founders were deists who advocated religious pluralism and political correctness (see Miller, 2005). They have spouted the party line that our founding documents, especially the Constitution, are strictly secular in nature, and that the God of the Bible and the Christian religion were not formative influences on the Founders’ thinking. One would think that these critics are parroting Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf with its recommendation that “in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation…more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie…. [B]y an able and persistent use of propaganda heaven itself can be presented to the people as if it were hell and, vice versa” (1939, 1.10:185,216).

For example, in an article titled “Our Godless Constitution,” Brooke Allen states: “Our nation was founded not on Christian principles but on Enlightenment ones. God only entered the picture as a very minor player, and Jesus Christ was conspicuously absent…. The Founding Fathers were not religious men” (2005; cf. Kramnick and Moore, 1996). Such brazen exclamations, though common and widespread, are outrageous, inexcusable, and completely untrue. Such shameless claims might be forgiven if the allusions to Christianity by the Founders were rare, scattered, ambiguous, or subject to alternative interpretations—but they are not.

The Founders’ commitment to the God of the Bible and Christian principles was so pervasive and endemic that indications literally permeate the mass of organic utterances from the founding era. These expressions repeatedly articulate their conviction that Christianity lies at the foundation of the Republic. One simple, but decisive, example is the fact that during the eight tumultuous years of the Revolutionary War (1775-1783), the Continental Congress, representing more than 200 quintessential Founders of the Republic, issued 15 proclamations to the American population. Those proclamations are literally replete with allusions to God, Christ, Christianity, and the Bible (see Miller, 2009). They provide intimate insight into the very religious character of the vast majority of the Founders, and their absolutely unhesitating willingness to weave their religious convictions into their political expressions. Lest the reader doubt this bold contention, consider a portion of just one of those proclamations, issued by the entire Continental Congress to the American people on March 19, 1782:

Continental Congress Proclamation March 19, 1782

The goodness of the Supreme Being to all his rational creatures, demands their acknowledgments of gratitude and love; his absolute government of this world dictates, that it is the interest of every nation and people ardently to supplicate his favor and implore his protection…. The United States in Congress assembled, therefore, taking into consideration our present situation, our multiplied transgressions of the holy laws of our God, and his acts of kindness and goodness towards us, which we ought to record with the liveliest gratitude, think it their indispensable duty to call upon the several states, to set apart the last Thursday in April next, as a day of fasting, humiliation and prayer, that our joint supplications may then ascend to the throne of the Ruler of the Universe, beseeching Him to diffuse a spirit of universal reformation among all ranks and degrees of our citizens; and make us a holy, that so we may be an happy people…that He would incline the hearts of all men to peace, and fill them with universal charity and benevolence, and that the religion of our Divine Redeemer, with all its benign influences, may cover the earth as the waters cover the seas (Journals of…, 22:137-138, emp. added).

This one official organic utterance by the supreme political body of the United States is sufficient to refute and completely dispel the popular contention of atheists that the Founders were not religious men, or that they did not couple their political pronouncements with their religious beliefs.

Hence, the allegations of skeptics (who seek to expunge the Founders’ clearly Christian orientation by floating isolated allusions that seemingly discount this orientation), logically, cannot be interpreted as carte blanche dismissals of the role of Christianity in the founding of America. Indeed, they must be viewed as isolated and exceptional in contrast with the myriad declarations to the contrary (see Miller, 2008). And, to be fair, an honest attempt ought to be made to harmonize the exceptional with the typical.

THE 1796 TREATY OF TRIPOLI

Despite the fact that transparent expressions of religious attachment by the mass of the Founders are legion, a battery of revisionist historians, liberal educators, skeptics, and atheists have been working feverishly for over half a century to perpetuate their unconscionable allegation that the bulk of the Founders were irreligious men. One, if not the most, prominent ploy used to propagate the secularist’s propaganda is the Treaty of Tripoli. Atheists and skeptics, using their Web sites and books, routinely seek justification for their denial of America’s Christian roots by decontextualizing the words of this political document (e.g., Harding, 2011; Walker, 1997; Allen, 2005; Buckner, 1997; Buckner and Buckner, 1993). For example, in his book The God Delusion, British atheist Richard Dawkins declares:

The religious views of the Founding Fathers are of great interest to propagandists of today’s American right, anxious to push their version of history. Contrary to their view, the fact that the United States was not founded as a Christian nation was early stated in the terms of a treaty with Tripoli (2006, p. 40, emp. added).

In an article on Dawkins’ Web site, titled “The Enigma of America’s Secular Roots” (Haselby, 2011), Sam Haselby parrots the same sentiment. He attempts to paint as irreligious the American envoy who negotiated and signed the treaty, Joel Barlow, on the basis of Barlow’s book Advice to the Privileged Orders (1793). [NOTE: As President Washington’s appointed envoy (in 1793) to negotiate treaties with Algeria, Tripoli, and Tunis, Colonel David Humphreys ultimately delegated his responsibilities to junior agents, including Joel Barlow as well as Joseph Donaldson (Irwin, 1931, p. 84; “Treaty of Peace…,” 1846a, 8:156).]

Joel Barlow American Consul at Algiers 1795-1797

Regardless of Barlow’s personal religious sentiments, Haselby unquestionably misrepresents Barlow’s writing. He fails to recognize that Barlow was not condemning human religion carte blanche, let alone espousing the atheistic viewpoint—as do Dawkins and his fellow atheists. Rather, he was decrying false religion, as well as perversions and abuses of Christianity (e.g., Catholicism—pp. 60,62,69, et al.). More particularly, he condemned the “state-establishment of religion…[w]hen the Christian religion was perverted and pressed into the service of Government, under the name of the Christian Church” (pp. 61,68, italics in orig., emp. added). In the commencement of his denunciation of “The Church,” Barlow included a footnote to eliminate the very misunderstanding that atheists seek to perpetrate on others. He explained:

From that association of ideas, that usually connects the church with religion, I may run the risque [sic] of being misunderstood by some readers, unless I advertise them, that I consider no connection as existing between these two subjects; and that where I speak of church indefinitely, I mean the government of a state, assuming the name of God, to govern by divine authority; or in other words, darkening the consciences of men, in order to oppress them. In the United States of America, there is, strictly speaking, no such thing as a Church; and yet in no country are the people more religious… (pp. 53-54, italics in orig., emp. added)

Though America has always been filled with Christian churches, yet, as a nation, Barlow insisted that we have no church? How so? He meant that we have no one Christian sect assuming the role of a state church—the very malady that afflicted Britain. Yet, Christianity has been the singularly supreme religion that has always characterized the vast majority of Americans—including the vast majority of the Founders. In referring to Christianity in America, Barlow added: “they have ministers of religion, but no priests” (p. 54, italics in orig.). So according to Barlow, the problem is not religion; rather, problems arise when a corrupted form of Christianity is given the power of the federal government to persecute opposing Christian sects. He specifically affirmed that the bulk of the population of the country—including the Founders—were religious. Indeed, according to Barlow, Americans were unsurpassed in the world for their commitment to religion.

Barlow, therefore, did not use the word “church” as a blanket condemnation of the Christian church or religion. In fact, after providing an initial definition of his specialized use of the term, he repeatedly went out of his way to reiterate that definition’s very restricted meaning: “By church I mean any mode of worship declared to be national, or declared to have any preference in the eye of the law” (p. 61, italics in orig., emp. added; cf. “as I have before defined it”—p. 70). After citing the history of the Roman Catholic Church as exemplary of the kind of coercive religion that he condemned, he observes that such cruelty “has given rise to an opinion, that nations are cruel in proportion as they are religious” (p. 66). Ironically, Barlow’s observation represents the opinion of today’s atheist. However, Barlow disagreed with that opinion. In contrast, he stated: “But the observation ought to stand thus, That nations are cruel in proportion as they are guided by priests”—again accentuating the distinction between the positive and rightful influence of Christianity on society, and the unchristian cruelties inflicted by Catholic priests who are handed the reins of government (pp. 66-67, italics in orig.).

Barlow then concluded his chapter on the church by explicitly restating his specialized use of the term “church”:

In the United States of America there is no church; and this is one of the principal circumstances which distinguish that government from all others that ever existed; it ensures the un-embarrassed exercise of religion, the continuation of public instruction in the science of liberty and happiness, and promises a long duration to a representative government (pp. 75-76, emp. added).

Observe that when Barlow made his remarks, America, then as now, was saturated with churches from one end of the country to the other. Hence, his declaration that in America “there is no church” meant that there is no state religion, there is no religion (specifically, any one Christian denomination) that has been elevated by the federal government to the status of the state church. Observe further that Barlow listed as one of the positive, distinguishing characteristics of America the guarantee of “the unembarrassed exercise of religion”—the very thing that Dawkins, Haselby, and their atheistic associates constantly seek to expunge from society.

What Barlow and the Founders sought to communicate to the world was the fact that the newly established federal government had no direct religious ties to any one Christian sect; it did not establish a state church, as did England and other European countries. As Supreme Court Justice and Father of American Jurisprudence, Joseph Story, succinctly explained in his comments on the wording of the First Amendment to the Constitution:

The real object of the amendment was, not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government. It thus cut off the means of religious persecution (1833, 3.44.728.1871, emp. added).

This premiere Founder and expounder of the original intent of the Constitution fully recognized what the mass of the Founders believed—that Christianity fits “hand-in-glove” with the Republic they established, and its perpetuation throughout the nation was indispensable to the survival of the Republic:

[I]n a republic, there would seem to be a peculiar propriety in viewing the Christian religion, as the great basis, on which it must rest for its support and permanence, if it be, what it has ever been deemed by its truest friends to be, the religion of liberty…. Probably at the time of the adoption of the constitution, and of the amendment to it, now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation (3.44.724-726. 1867-1868, emp. added).

John Adams’ letter to Thomas Jefferson June 28, 1813

Even John Adams, under whose presidency the Treaty of Tripoli was finalized and sanctioned by Congress, and then signed by Adams himself, forthrightly affirmed the role of Christianity in the founding of the Republic. In a letter he wrote to Thomas Jefferson, dated June 28, 1813, he explained that the great foundation of the nation is Christianity:

The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence, were the only principles in which that beautiful assembly of young men could unite…. And what were these general principles? I answer, the general principles of Christianity, in which all those sects were united, and the general principles of English and American liberty, in which all those young men united, and which had united all parties in America, in majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her independence. Now I will avow, that I then believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God (“John Adams to…,” n.d., emp. added).

While serving in his official capacity as President of the United States, John Adams issued a proclamation to the entire nation that sets forth his indisputable views regarding Christianity and the nation:

John Adams’ Presidential Proclamation March 6, 1799

I do hereby recommend accordingly, that Thursday, the 25th day of April next, be observed throughout the United States of America as a day of solemn humiliation, fasting, and prayer; that the citizens on that day abstain as far as may be from their secular occupations, devote the time to the sacred duties of religion in public and in private; that they call to mind our numerous offenses against the Most High God, confess them before Him with the sincerest penitence, implore His pardoning mercy, through the Great Mediator and Redeemer, for our past transgressions, and that through the grace of His Holy Spirit we may be disposed and enabled to yield a more suitable obedience to His righteous requisitions in time to come…and that he would extend the blessings of knowledge, of true liberty, and of pure and undefiled religion throughout the world (Adams, 1799, emp. added).

Such admonitions concerning Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the Christian religion (i.e., Adams’ allusion to James 1:27) did not come from an irreligious man who rejected any connection between Christianity and the nation.

To summarize, while the Founders strenuously opposed the formation of a state-sponsored religion, i.e., the elevation of one Christian denomination above another, they firmly believed that the general principles of Christianity were part and parcel of the fabric of America, including her political and social institutions. This realization is indisputable and undeniable. We know that the Founders did not interpret the phrase in the Treaty of Tripoli the way skeptics and liberals do today, since we have a host of explicit declarations, statements, and affirmations to the contrary from the Founders themselves (Miller, 2008). But how, then, do we account for the apparent denial of this broad-based fact in the Treaty of Tripoli? Let us see.

The Wording of the Treaty Itself

Having dispelled the attempt to characterize the Treaty of Tripoli as a patent denial of the Christian character of America, we now turn to the Treaty itself in an effort to understand its originally intended meaning. The treaty is dated November 4, 1796. The disputed portion of the treaty is Article 11, which reads in full:

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries (“Treaty of Peace…,” 1846a, 8:155, emp. added).

At first glance, the initial declaration is startling and seemingly straightforward. How does one harmonize the mountain of evidence of America’s religious moorings with this treaty’s bold declaration that “the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion”? The answer lies in an objective consideration of the rest of the article, recognizing that the subsequent phrases clarify, define, and explain the true intent of the initial declaration.

Observe, first, that the Treaty of Tripoli in general, and Article 11 in particular, pertains specifically and exclusively to the federal government—not to the state governments or the rest of America’s social or political institutions (cf. Barton, 2000). The Founders’ discussions of the First Amendment make it very clear that the federal government was not to meddle in religious affairs, i.e., it was never to be allowed to interfere with the free exercise of the Christian religion. The Father of the Bill of Rights, George Mason, confirms this appraisal of the historical context when he offered the following wording of the First Amendment:

[A]ll men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others (as quoted in Rowland, 1892, 1:244, emp. added).

While Mason’s wording did not make the final cut, it nevertheless demonstrates the historical setting of the discussions, and the specific variables with which the Founders were grappling. The point is that the treaty was assuring the Tripolitan Muslim warlord that the government of the United States would never show hostility toward his country based on America’s intimate affiliation with Christianity.

Second, notice that while the punctuation found throughout the article varies in the published forms that have come down through history, nevertheless, none place a period after “the Christian Religion.” The article clearly intends for the reader to gain clarification regarding the import of the first clause by including the subsequent clauses. The rest of the article, in fact, elaborates and expounds on the wording in the first clause. The rest of the article answers the question: In what way or ways is the government of the U.S. not founded in any sense on the Christian religion? Answer: (1) It has no disposition to show hatred toward Muslims, their laws, religion, or peaceful status; (2) The U.S. has never waged war against a Muslim nation; and (3) Therefore, it is clear that the U.S. would never attack a Muslim country solely on the grounds of religion, i.e., the differences that exist between Christianity and Islam.

The average Muslim, even today, has difficulty reconciling America’s worldwide reputation as a “Christian nation” with her concomitant refusal to forcibly impose its religious orientation on the rest of the world—as Muslim countries, themselves, have consistently sought to do throughout history. The Bey of Tripoli, along with the pashas of the other Barbary States, unquestionably viewed American ships as fair game—legitimate objects of their attacks on the high seas—for the simple and obvious reason that America was a Christian nation. No Muslim country would have accepted as true such a sweeping repudiation of America’s intimate affiliation with Christianity. If such were the intent and meaning of Article 11, the Bey would have instantly dismissed the validity of the treaty, and such a claim would be seen as a laughable and ludicrous denial of what was obviously the case, i.e., that America was inhabited by a population of people, the vast majority of whom openly professed Christianity, and manifested that profession in all its civil and social institutions. [NOTE: The term “Bey” is a title of Turkish origin that refers to a tribal chieftain, equivalent to the English term “lord.” The similar term “Dey” was used specifically to refer to the rulers of Algiers and Tripoli. “Pasha” or “bashaw” was a comparable title of rank in the Ottoman Empire.]

Abundant historical evidence verifies this understanding. Ten years earlier, authorized by Congress to negotiate with the Barbary pirates, who continually raided American ships off the coast of North Africa, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson met in London in 1786 with the Ambassador from Tripoli. On March 28, they wrote the following letter to John Jay, who was serving as the U.S. Secretary of Foreign Affairs, reporting their conversation with the ambassador.

American Peace Commissioners’ letter to John Jay March 28, 1786

We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the grounds of their pretentions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our Friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners; and that every Musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise (“American Peace…,” 1786).

The Tripoli ambassador clearly reflected the attitude of the Bey and his fellow citizens toward non-Muslim countries, an attitude that must be taken into account as the backdrop of the wording of Article 11 in the treaty a decade later. [NOTE: Interestingly, the only known surviving Arabic copy of the Treaty of Tripoli lacks the allusion to America not being a Christian nation.]

The Other Treaty of Tripoli

Even more telling proof that the phrase in Article 11 is misconstrued by atheists is seen in Article 14 of the subsequent treaty made with Tripoli on June 4, 1805, which reads in full:

Art. 14th. As the government of the United States of America has, in itself, no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility of Musselmen, and as the said states never have entered into any voluntary war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, except in the defence of their just rights to freely navigate the high seas, it is declared by the contracting parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two nations. And the consuls and agents of both nations respectively, shall have liberty to exercise his religion in his own house. All slaves of the same religion shall not be impeded in going to said consul’s house at hours of prayer. The consuls shall have liberty and personal security given them, to travel within the territories of each other both by land and sea, and shall not be prevented from going on board any vessel that they may think proper to visit. They shall have likewise the liberty to appoint their own drogerman and brokers (“Treaty of Peace…,” 1846b, 8:216, emp. added).

The first two clauses are taken verbatim from the 1796 treaty—to the exclusion of the clause regarding America not being a Christian nation. Consequently, they do precisely what the Christian nation clause was intended to do in the earlier treaty: assure the Muslim pasha that America’s Christian orientation would not be the cause of hostilities directed against him. Tripolines were obligated not to attack Americans on account of America’s Christian connections, and the U.S. was not to attack Tripolines on account of their Islamic beliefs.

Article 14 even expresses concern that “consuls and agents of both nations” be permitted to practice their religion in their own homes. In other words, a consul or agent of Tripoli should not be hindered from engaging in Islamic worship in the diplomatic residence he occupies while in America. Similarly, any American consul or government agent living in Tripoli was not to be hindered from practicing his religion while residing in Tripoli. Pray tell—what religion would that be? Certainly not Islam, since he would hardly be hindered from practicing Islam in an Islamic nation. Obviously, both parties to the treaty automatically understood that American consuls and government agents would naturally practice Christianity.

Treaties with the Other Barbary States

This conclusion is verified further by the comparable treaties that were made with the Muslim rulers of the other Barbary States—

• Two with Tunis, on August 17, 1797 and March 26, 1799 (“Treaty of Peace…,” 1846e, 8:157-161), as well as the “Altered Articles” on February 24, 1824 (1846, 8:298-300).
• Two with Morocco, on January 1787 (“Treaty of Peace…,” 1846c, 8:100-108) and September 16, 1836 (“Treaty with Morocco…,” 1846, 8:484-487).
• Two with Algiers, on September 5, 1795 (“Treaty of Peace…,” 1846d, 8:133-137) and June 30 and July 6, 1815 (1846f, 8:224-247), as well as a “Renewed Treaty” on December 22-23, 1816 (1846g, 8:244-248).

Not one of these treaties contains the reference to America not being a Christian nation. All omit altogether any reference to the Islamic-Christian tension that naturally existed between the two nations—with one exception. Article 15 of the June 30 and July 6, 1815 treaty with Algiers addresses the issue in the following words:

As the government of the United States has, in itself, no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of any nation, and as the said States have never entered into any voluntary war, or act of hostility, except in defence of their just rights on the high seas, it is declared, by the contracting parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony between the two nations; and the Consuls and Agents of both nations shall have liberty to celebrate the rites of their respective religions in their own houses (“Treaty of Peace…,” 1846f, 8:224-247, emp. added).

This article paraphrases the previous two treaties with Tripoli. Like the second treaty with Tripoli, it omits the “not a Christian nation” clause. Once again, observe that the agreement inherently presupposes that the religion of Algiers is Islam and the religion of America is Christianity. But the treaty intends to reassure the Dey that America’s Christian orientation will never be the cause of hostilities on the part of America. Indeed, America’s history proves that her wars have typically been reactive and defensive, and they have pertained to non-religious matters.

The Other Treaties Include Religion

Even more historical confirmation is seen in the fact that not only do all the other treaties that were made with the Barbary States omit the allusion to America not being a Christian nation—including the other Tripoli treaty—they actually contain allusions to Christianity. For example, the January 1787 treaty with Morocco (“Treaty of Peace…,” 1846c, 8:100-108) contains the following references: “In the Name of Almighty God” and “trusting in God” (p. 100). It also refers to “the Christian powers” (in Article X, p. 102), “any Christian power” (in Article XI, p. 102), “the other Christian nations” (in Article XVII, p. 103), and “any of the Christian powers” (in Article XXIV, p. 104)—the last two references clearly implying that America is among them. Article XXV states: “This treaty shall continue in full force, with the help of God, for fifty years” (p. 104, emp. added). Several times the treaty alludes to “Moors”—the term used to refer to “a Muslim people of mixed Berber and Arab descent” in northwest Africa (American Heritage…, 2000, p. 1142)—in Article VI (p. 101), Article XI (p. 102), and Article XXI (p. 103). Article XI places “Moors” in juxtaposition to “Christians” (Article XI, p. 104), and the “Additional Article” contrasts “Moorish” with “Christian Powers” (p. 104). The September 16, 1836 treaty with Morocco contains essentially the same contrasts.

The September 5, 1795 treaty with Algiers—made just 14 months before the 1796 treaty with Tripoli that contains the “not a Christian nation” expression—includes in Article XVII assurance that the “consul of the United States of North-America…shall have liberty to exercise his religion in his own house” (“Treaty of Peace…,” 1846d, 8:135). This treaty was authorized by the same President who initiated the 1796 treaty with Tripoli—George Washington. In addition to the evidence provided by Article 15 of the June 30 and July 6, 1815 treaty with Algiers mentioned above, Article 14 of the same treaty secures the right of captive Christians in Algiers, who are able to escape and make their way to any U.S. ships, to remain on board unscathed, and no remuneration must be paid “for the said Christians” (“Treaty of Peace…,” 1846f, 8:246).

The August 17, 1797 treaty with Tunis begins with the words “God is infinite” and refers to “the most distinguished and honored President of the Congress of the United States of America, the most distinguished among those who profess the religion of the Messiah” (“Treaty of Peace…,” 1846e, 8:157). This unmistakable declaration of commitment to the religion of Christ refers to President John Adams—the very President whose act of signing the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, the skeptics claim proves that he and the Congress repudiated Christianity! Article IX of the same treaty states: “If by accident and by the permission of God, a vessel of one of the contracting parties shall be cast by tempest upon the coasts of the other…” (p. 158, emp. added). The treaty concludes with an affirmation that the two contracting parties shall observe the terms of the treaty “with the will of the Most High” (p. 161—an expression used in both the Quran and the Bible), and the treaty is dated in both Islamic and Christian reckoning: “in the present month of Rebia Elul, of the Hegira one thousand two hundred and twelve, corresponding with the month of August of the Christian year one thousand seven hundred and ninety-seven,” followed by the signatures and seals of the Muslim leaders (p. 161). The accompanying verification by the American representatives, William Eaton and James Cathcart, claims authority for their actions on the basis of President John Adams, and closes with these words: “Done in Tunis, the twenty-sixth day of March, in the year of the Christian era one thousand seven hundred and ninety-nine, and of American independence the twenty-third” (p. 161, emp. added).

To summarize, the treaties made with the Barbary States are literally riddled with religious allusions and transparent indications of the Christian orientation of the United States in contradistinction to the Islamic orientation of the Barbary States. This fact alone proves that no treaty ever ratified by the United States would deny the Christian connections that have characterized the nation from its birth. The very idea is absurd—and such a declaration would be an outright falsehood. Those who so construe the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli are guilty of shoddy historical investigation at the very least, and outright dishonesty and flagrant bias at the very worst.

CONCLUSION

It is sad when any people become so biased in their belief system that they will latch onto a handful of misleading incidents and exploit them in an effort to legitimize that belief system. Atheists are guilty of the very malady they insist Christians suffer from—an irrational, prejudicial, mindless commitment to discredited ideas. The evidence is mammoth and decisive: the God of the Bible exists, and the Christian religion (in its pure, New Testament form) is the only belief system that He has authored for people living today (see www.apologeticspress.org). The Founders of the American Republic, with few exceptions, understood these facts and embraced them. As John Quincy Adams, son of John Adams and 6^th President, declared:

From the day of the Declaration, the people of the North American Union and of its constituent States, were associated bodies of civilized men and Christians, in a state of nature; but not of Anarchy. They were bound by the laws of God, which they all, and by the laws of the Gospel, which they nearly all, acknowledged as the rules of their conduct (1821, p. 26, emp. added).

With this Christian worldview firmly fixed in their minds, they launched what indisputably has become the greatest nation in human history.

REFERENCES

Adams, John (1799), “By the President of the United States of America. A Proclamation,” Library of Congress, http://tinyurl.com/Adams1799.

Adams, John Quincy (1821), Address Delivered at the request of a Committee of the Citizens of Washington on the Occasion of Reading the Declaration of Independence on the 4th of July, 1821 (Washington: Davis & Force), http://digital.library.umsystem.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?sid=b80c023f0 007f89b5b95e4be026fa267;c=jul;idno=jul000087.

Allen, Brooke (2005), “Our Godless Constitution,” The Nation, February 3, http://www.thenation.com/article/our-godless-constitution.

“Altered Articles of the Treaty of Peace and Friendship, Between the United States and the Bashaw Bey of Tunis, February 24, 1824” (1846), The Public Statutes at Large of the United States, ed. Richard Peters (Boston, MA: Charles C. Little and James Brown).

American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (2000), (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin), fourth edition.

“American Peace Commissioners to John Jay” (1786), The Thomas Jefferson Papers Series 1. General Correspondence. 1651-1827, Library of Congress, March 28, http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.mss/mtj.mtjbib001849.

Barlow, Joel (1793), Advice to the Privileged Orders (London: J. Johnston), third edition, http://tinyurl.com/Barlow1793.

Barton, David (2000), “Treaty of Tripoli,” Wallbuilders, http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=125.

Buckner, Ed (1997), “Does the 1796-97 Treaty with Tripoli Matter to Church/State Separation?” http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/buckner_tripoli.html.

Buckner, Ed and Michael (1993), “Quotations that Support the Separation of State and Church,” Internet Infidels, http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ed_buckner/quotations.html#I.

Dawkins, Richard (2006), The God Delusion (London: Bantam Press).

Harding, Ken (2011), “Our Founding Fathers Were Not Christians,” BibleTrash.com, July 5, http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html.

Haselby, Sam (2011), “The Enigma of America’s Secular Roots,” The Guardian, January 3, http://richarddawkins.net/articles/572948-the-enigma-of-america-s-secular-roots; http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/jan/03/america-secular-roots-treaty-tripoli.

Hitler, Adolf (1939), Mein Kampf, Project Gutenberg, http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200601.txt.

Irwin, Ray (1931), The Diplomatic Relations of the United States with the Barbary Powers (Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press).

“John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, June 28, 1813” (no date), The Thomas Jefferson Papers Series 1. General Correspondence, 1651-1827, Library of Congress, http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.mss/mtj.mtjbib021451.

Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 (1904-1937), ed. Worthington C. Ford, et al. (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office), Library of Congress, http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwjc.html.

Kramnick, Isaac and R. Laurence Moore (1996), The Godless Constitution: The Case Against Religious Correctness (New York: W.W. Horton).

Miller, Dave (2005), “Deism, Atheism, and the Founders,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1654&topic=31.

Miller, Dave (2008), The Silencing of God (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), http://www.apologeticspress.org/store/Product.aspx?pid=51.

Miller, Dave (2009), Christ and the Continental Congress (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), http://www.apologeticspress.org/store/Product.aspx?pid=45.

Miller, Dave (2011), “Is Christianity Logical? (Part I),” Reason & Revelation, 31[6]:50-59, June 3, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=977&article=1499.

Rowland, Kate (1892), The Life of George Mason (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons).

Story, Joseph (1833), Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (Boston, MA: Hilliard, Gray, & Co.), http://www.constitution.org/js/js_344.htm.

“Treaty of Peace and Friendship Between the United States of America, and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary, November 4, 1796” (1846a),The Public Statutes at Large of the United States, ed. Richard Peters (Boston, MA: Charles C. Little and James Brown), http://tinyurl.com/TreatyTripoli1846a.

“Treaty of Peace and Amity, Between the United States of America, and the Bashaw, Bey, and Subjects of Tripoli, in Barbary, June 4, 1805” (1846b), The Public Statutes at Large of the United States, ed. Richard Peters (Boston, MA: Charles C. Little and James Brown).

“Treaty of Peace and Friendship Between the United States of America and His Imperial Majesty, the Emperor of Morocco, January, 1787” (1846c), The Public Statutes at Large of the United States, ed. Richard Peters (Boston, MA: Charles C. Little and James Brown).

“Treaty of Peace and Amity Between the Dey of Algiers and the United States of America, September 5, 1795” (1846d), The Public Statutes at Large of the United States, ed. Richard Peters (Boston, MA: Charles C. Little and James Brown).

“Treaty of Peace and Friendship, Between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Tunis, August, 1797, March 26, 1799” (1846e), The Public Statutes at Large of the United States, ed. Richard Peters (Boston, MA: Charles C. Little and James Brown).

“Treaty of Peace and Amity, Concluded Between the United States of America and His Highness Omar Bashaw, Dey of Algiers, June 30, and July 6, 1815” (1846f), The Public Statutes at Large of the United States, ed. Richard Peters (Boston, MA: Charles C. Little and James Brown).

“Treaty of Peace and Amity, Concluded Between the United States of America and the Dey and Regency of Algiers, December 23 and 24, 1816” (1846g), The Public Statutes at Large of the United States, ed. Richard Peters (Boston, MA: Charles C. Little and James Brown).

“Treaty with Morocco, September 16, 1836” (1846), The Public Statutes at Large of the United States, ed. Richard Peters (Boston, MA: Charles C. Little and James Brown).

Walker, Jim (1997), “The Government of the United States of America is Not, in Any Sense Founded on the Christian Religion,” NoBeliefs.com, April 11, http://www.nobeliefs.com/Tripoli.htm.

Warren, Thomas B. (1982), Logic & the Bible (Ramer, TN: National Christian Press).

The post The Treaty of Tripoli and America's Founders appeared first on Apologetics Press.

And it was inspired in Noah, (saying): No one of thy folk will believe save him who hath believed already. Be not distressed because of what they do. Build the ship under Our Eyes and by Our inspiration, and speak not unto Me on behalf of those who do wrong. Lo! they will be drowned. And he was building the ship, and every time that chieftains of his people passed him, they made mock of him. He said: Though ye make mock of us, yet we mock at you even as ye mock; And ye shall know to whom a punishment that will confound him cometh, and upon whom a lasting doom will fall. (Thus it was) till, when Our commandment came to pass and the oven gushed forth water (Surah 11:36-40, emp. added).

This peculiar allusion to the waters of the Flood coming from an oven is repeated in Surah 23:

And We verily sent Noah unto his folk, and he said: O my people! Serve Allah. Ye have no other god save Him. Will ye not ward off (evil)? But the chieftains of his folk, who disbelieved, said: This is only a mortal like you who would make himself superior to you. Had Allah willed, He surely could have sent down angels. We heard not of this in the case of our fathers of old. He is only a man in whom is a madness, so watch him for a while. He said: My Lord! Help me because they deny me. Then We inspired in him, saying: Make the ship under Our eyes and Our inspiration. Then, when Our command cometh and the oven gusheth water, introduce therein of every (kind) two spouses, and thy household save him thereof against whom the Word hath already gone forth. And plead not with Me on behalf of those who have done wrong. Lo! they will be drowned. And when thou art on board the ship, thou and who so is with thee, then say: Praise be to Allah Who hath saved us from the wrongdoing folk! (Surah 23:23-28, emp. added).

The above renderings of the Quran are taken from the celebrated translation by Muslim scholar Muhammad Pickthall. In contrast to Pickthall’s rendering, Abdullah Yusuf Ali translated the phrase “the oven gusheth water” with the words “the fountains of the earth gushed forth.” Observe that these two renderings are significantly different translations of the Arabic. Ali offers the following explanation for his rendering: “Far al tannur. Two interpretations have been given: (1) the fountains or the springs on the surface of the earth bubbled over or gushed forth; or (2) the oven (of Allah’s Wrath) boiled over. The former has the weight of the best authority behind it and I prefer it” (2001, p. 520). But this “explanation” offers no rationale for accepting his preference, and it fails to provide linguistic proof to justify the preference.

In stark contrast, consider the discussion posed by Sayyid Abul A’la Maududi, Sunni Pakistani Muslim scholar, revivalist leader, political philosopher, and prominent 20^th century Islamist thinker. His ancestry on his paternal side was traced back to Muhammad. In 1974, the title of Imam-ul-Muslimeen was bestowed upon him in the annual meeting of Raabta-e-Aalam-e-Islami in Saudi Arabia (“Sayyid Abul…,” 2009). From 1942-1972, Maududi produced the Tafhim-ul-Quran (تفہيم القرآن‎)—a six-volume translation and explanation of the Quran. Here is a Muslim scholar, well-qualified to provide assistance in making sense of the text of the Quran. In his insightful discussion of Surah 11:40, Maududi explained:

Commentators on the Qur’an have offered different explanations of this incident. In our view, the place from which the Flood began was a particular oven. It is from beneath it that a spring of water burst forth. This was followed by both a heavy downpour and by a very large number of springs which gushed forth. Surah al-Qamar provides relevant information in some detail: So We opened the gates of the heaven, with water intermittently pouring forth, and We caused the earth to be cleaved and the springs to flow out everywhere. Then the water (from both the sources—the heaven and the earth) converged to bring about that which had been decreed (al-Qamar, 54: 11-12).

In the present verse, the word tannur has been preceded by the article al: According to Arabic grammar, this indicates that the reference is to a particular tannur (oven). Thus, it is evident that God had determined that the Flood should commence from a particular oven. As soon as the appointed moment came, and as soon as God so ordained, water burst forth from that oven. Subsequently, it became known as the Flood-Oven. The fact that God had earmarked a certain oven to serve as the starting-point of the Flood is borne out by al-Mu’minun 23:27 (n.d., endnote 42, emp. added).

In his commentary on the parallel passage in Surah 23:27, Maududi further explained:

In view of the context, we see no reason why one should take a farfetched figurative meaning of a clear word of the Qur’an. It appears that a particular oven (tannur) had been ear-marked for the deluge to start from, which was to all appearances an unexpected origin of the doom of the wretched people (n.d., endnote 29, emp. added).

Of course, the Bible makes no reference to any oven or the temperature of the Flood waters. However, Jewish legends codified in the Talmud do. Jewish rabbinical sources (Midrash Tanchuma 5; Rosh Hashanah 12a; Sanhedrin 108b; Zebahim 113b; Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 10,29b; et al.) provide the basis for the Quran’s allusion:

The crowd of sinners tried to take the entrance to the ark by storm, but the wild beasts keeping watch around the ark set upon them, and many were slain, while the rest escaped, only to meet death in the waters of the flood. The water alone could not have made an end of them, for they were giants in stature and strength. When Noah threatened them with the scourge of God, they would make reply: “If the waters of the flood come from above, they will never reach up to our necks; and if they come from below, the soles of our feet are large enough to dam up the springs.” But God bade each drop pass through Gehenna before it fell to earth, and the hot rain scalded the skin of the sinners. The punishment that overtook them was befitting their crime. As their sensual desires had made them hot, and inflamed them to immoral excesses, so they were chastised by means of heated water (Ginzberg, 1909, 1:106, emp. added).

Keep in mind that these Jewish legends are just that—legends. The rabbis that formulated them recognized that their renditions were not to be confused with actual Scripture. The brand of Judaism to which the author of the Quran was exposed, like Christianity at the time, was a corrupt one. Literally centuries of legend, myth, and fanciful folklore had accumulated among the Jews, reported in the Talmud, the Midrash, and the Targumim. These three Jewish sources were replete with rabbinical commentary and speculation—admitted to be uninspired. These tales and fables would have existed in Arabia in oral form as they were told and retold at Bedouin campfires, among the traveling trade caravans that crisscrossed the desert, and in the towns, villages, and centers of social interaction from Yemen in the southern Arabian Peninsula, to Abyssinia to the west, and Palestine, Syria, and Persia to the north. The allegedly hot waters of the Flood are one example among many of the Quran’s reliance on uninspired Jewish sources. Indeed, the Quran is literally riddled with such allusions. The evidence that the Quran contains a considerable amount of borrowed material from uninspired Talmudic sources, rabbinical oral traditions, and Jewish legends—stories that abound in puerile, apocryphal, absurd, outlandish pablum—is self-evident and unmistakable. [For more discussion on this point, see Miller, 2005, pp. 73ff.]

REFERENCES

Ali, Abdullah Yusuf (2001), The Meaning of the Holy Quran (Beltsville, MD: Amana Productions), tenth edition.

Ginzberg, Louis (1909), The Legends of the Jews (Charleston, SC: Forgotten Books, 2008 reprint).

Maududi, Sayyid Abul Ala (no date), Tafhim al-Qur’an (The Meaning of the Qur’an), englishtafsir.com.

Miller, Dave (2005), The Quran Unveiled (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Pickthall, Mohammed M. (no date), The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (New York: Mentor).

“Sayyid Abul A’la Maududi” (2009), English Islam Times, May 16, http://www.islamtimes.org/vdca.onyk49nomgt14.html.

The post The Quran and the Flood appeared first on Apologetics Press.