The United Church of Canada: Marching Towards Hudaybiyya

Earlier this week, I was able to sit in for a workshop between some Canadian Muslims (represented by Dr. Zijad Delic, formerly of the Canadian Islamic Congress) and Rev. Dr. Bruce Gregersen of the United Church of Canada. It wasn't a large workshop, as there were only 14 people in attendance. The topic of discussion at that workshop was a pair of documents: A Common Word Between Us and You, a document written by several Muslim leaders addressed to Christian leaders, and That We May Know Each Other, the UCC's official statement regarding their relations with the Muslim community. The workshop lasted for about two hours, and it was basically a mass of ecumenicism on both side, but especially on the United Church's side, since that has been their modus operandi for quite a while now. Aside from the rehashing of the UCC's repudiation of the "exclusivism" of traditional Christianity (which they are quite proud of, since it is the main mark of their "Progressivism"), one of the main things that stuck out for me was in the handout that they were giving out. In it was an excerpt from pages 32-33 of the UCC document, where they ask, "Can Christians Affirm Muhammad as a Prophet?" The answer,which should surprise nobody who is familiar with the UCC, is in the affirmative:

We believe that in this later context there certainly should be no difficulty in affirming Muhammad as a prophet. Any reading of his life reveals the extent to which he sought to overcome injustice and oppression and called people to obedience (and submission) to God. Christians should readily affirm Muhammad as a prophet of justice and obedience to God. It is, however, the former definition of a prophet as an “immediately-inspired spokesperson for God” that is the most challenging and perhaps the most difficult for Christians to address.

A number of well-known theologians have argued that it is possible for Christians to accept this understanding of the prophethood of Muhammad. Roman Catholic scholar Hans Küng suggests that Muhammad’s prophetic role originated not in his own mind but in divine revelation coming from God. He argues that New Testament scripture is open to the expectation of prophets after Jesus, provided their teaching is in basic agreement with his. The Qur’an, he suggests, recapitulates an original understanding of Jesus’ message lost in the early Hellenistic development of the Christian community. The church therefore needs to embrace Muhammad’s insights as a way of recovering this obscured history.

Protestant scholar Montgomery Watt considers Muhammad truly a prophet and that Christians should recognize this, since throughout history there have been many upright and saintly Muslims. Watt emphasizes primarily ethical principles in determining that Islam provides a satisfactory quality of life for individuals and communities and, therefore, as Islam can be judged “true,” so also can Muhammad be seen to be a prophet of God.

Of course, anybody who really takes the time to examine the teachings of Islam compared to Christianity knows that this is absurd on so many levels. If Muhammad's revelations spring from the same source as the biblical prophets, how are we to explain the fact that Sura 9:30 curses Christians for calling Jesus the son of God, when Matthew 16:15-17 states that Jesus called Simon Peter blessed for that very same confession? Besides, an examination of Muhammad's life shows that he was anything but spiritually reliable, and certainly no messenger of peace and justice. But hey, we shouldn't let the facts get in the way of ecumenical dialogue, right?

Aside from that, there were also various talking points that were brought up by both speakers.

Rev. Bruce Gregersen:

• Pointed out that the United Church is the first denomination to ever affirm that "the Spirit of God is at work in many different faith communities." And no, that doesn't mean God is leading them to Christ, since they also state that "difference is everywhere around us and, we believe, a great cause for celebration" (Because the fact that billions of people around the world are stuck in spiritual darkness and lack Christ in their lives is a cause of celebration).
• Has stated things like "Muslims and Christians worship the same God," and that "we can benefit from what Islam and Muslims have to say to us." You mean like the Pact of Umar?
• Made reference to the Western Standard's printing of the Muhammad Cartoons, as well as the UCC's apology to the Canadian Islamic Congress, stating that "it was profoundly disrespectful to publish those cartoons," that the publishing of those cartoons was "an expression of hatred," and that the publishing of these cartoons "has huge implications in a world in which Muslims are being seen as an enemy."
• Pointed out that the UCC document was the first study on the doctrine of the Trinity that the UCC has undertaken in thirty years. That just goes to show you how much importance this denomination places on doctrinal soundness. While they pay lip service to the Trinity, their understanding of the doctrine is shown in That We May Know Each Other to be less than solid (hint: They use it as a way of excusing their pluralism).

Dr. Zijad Delic:

• Mentioned quite a bit about "love" and "peace." Of course, don't expect much of an attempt to link this back to what the Qur'an and Sunnah actually teach.
• Hopes to "bridge the gap of misunderstanding... and show that I have no hidden agenda." Uh-huh.
• Quotes a hadith that purportedly states that "Diversity is a mercy." Of course, let's not discuss the fact that the hadith in question is da'if (weak) and does not even talk about diversity among religions.
• Says that he intends to send a copy of A Common Word and That We May Know Each Other to various mosques that will hopefully study them and draft similar statements. In doing so, he notes that since Islam has no centralized hierarchy, these documents do not have widespread influence. Of course... it'll be very hard to convince Muslims in more conservative parts of the Islamic world such as Saudi Arabia to embrace the statements contained in these documents, for obvious reasons.
• Has stated that "Canada is more Islamic than any Muslim country, because it provides an atmosphere for growth and freedom." Those are Islamic values?

Aside from these talking points, I was able to dig up some interesting facts on our two speakers. Rev. Gregersen, it would seem, has spoken in favour of the idea of Israel being an occupying state (among other things). Also, Dr. Delic was, up until March 2011, a member of the Canadian Islamic Congress, which has a long history of promoting censorhip and extremism. He has even advocated the CIC's attempts to silence critics of Islam such as Mark Steyn on Maclean's via the (badly misnomered) Canadian Human Rights Commissions. I would say that the information herein should give everybody a pretty good idea of what exactly is going on here: The United Church of Canada has already signed its treaty of Hudaybiyya, and is well on its way to dhimmitude. Adding this to the UCC's long history of compromise and abandonment of the Gospel, Bible-believing Canadian Christians should be wary of this denomination and seek to avoid the kind of mistakes that have brought it to where it is now.

Finally, with regards to A Common Word, I would strongly advise everybody to read Sam Solomon's response to this document, as he carefully lays out its deceitful nature, as well as what its implications are for Christians. Islam seeks to exalt itself over every other religion (cf. Sura 9:33), and its adherents will use whatever means they have at their disposal to achieve that end, including cleverly disguised attempts at diplomacy.

Response to a Muslim on Sura 1:7

NOTE: I recently emailed the quotes that I mentioned in Who are those Mentioned in Sura 1:7? to a bunch of friends, both Christian and Muslim as part of my effort to contribute to the movement against the implementation of Friday prayers in a middle school in the Toronto District School Board (click here for the news story). So far, I have had only one of the Muslims attempt a response, and it wasn't really all that substantial. Here are her comments and my rebuttal to them:

Every group should be allowed their right to the freedom of belief and religious practice.

I agree. However, there is a vast difference between giving freedom of belief and religious practice, and giving special privileges to one group that normally isn't given to anyone else. This is a clear case of the latter. I have Christian colleagues who have been denied when they requested to form a prayer group at their high schools. Not only that, but there have been a lot of concerns about the implementation of prayers in school causing students to miss classes. Not only that, but there are also concerns about non-Muslims being denied washroom access during these prayer times, and these same students also face intimidation from the majority of Muslim students. There is nothing equal here; TDSB is displaying an obvious case of favouritism.

As you have already quoted below, you can see that there are differences in understanding the verses of the Surah Fatihah.

I'm not sure if you actually read the quotes I gave you. I noted that the classical Sunni Muslim scholars are unanimously agreed on the interpretation of Sura 1:7 as a curse upon the Jews and Christians. It has only been in the past few decades that Muslims here in the west have been attempting to downplay--if not outright deny--the classical interpretation.

Because an understanding of the last verses of Surah Fatihah is disliked by some people, is not a reason to ban prayers in Schools.

I am sorry, but this is not a meaningful reply at all. First of all, it is not just "an understanding," but is the interpretation that virtually all Muslim scholars up until recent decades have agreed upon. Go back to the quotes I gave from Ibn Abbas, Ibn Kathir and the two Jalals. If one simply takes the ijma of the ulema on the interpretation of Sura 1:7, then there is no doubt at all that it is directed against Jews and Christians. It's not a simple matter of one "disliking" an understanding, but of two major world religions being singled out for condemnation in a verse that is recited by every Muslim who recites al Fatihah in their salat prayers.

If you don't want to acknowledge that this is what it means everytime you ask Allah not to make you like the al-maghdub or the al-daleen, then that is not my problem, because denying reality isn't going to make reality go away. The facts are there. I didn't make them up; you can confirm them yourself from Islamic websites such as the ones I linked to. If you care at all about the truth, then I would urge you to look these things up for yourself rather than just hastily dismissing the evidence because they don't match up with what you find comfortable.

May Jehovah God's blessings and mercy be upon you.

Fisher.

Who are those Mentioned in Sura 1:7?

Just to clear up this issue once and for all, I present three classical Sunni Muslim commentators who make it absolutely clear that Sura 1:7 is a reference to the Jews and Christians:

This is why they were led astray. We should also mention that both the Christians and the Jews have earned the anger and are led astray, but the anger is one of the attributes more particular of the Jews Allah said about the Jews, (Those (Jews) who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath) (5:60). The attribute that the Christians deserve most is that of being led astray, just as Allah said about them, (Who went astray before and who misled many, and strayed (themselves) from the right path) (5:77). (Tafsir Ibn Kathir. Commentary on Sura 1:7.)

(The path of those whom Thou hast favoured), the Religion of those whom You have blessed with the Religion and who are the followers of Moses, before the blessings of Allah deserted them, in that He shaded them with a white cloud and sent down on them honey and quails when they were in the wilderness. It is also said that (the path of those whom Thou hast favoured) refers to the prophets. (Not of those who earn Thine anger), not the religion of the Jews who earned Your anger, whom You forsook and whose hearts You did not protect until they became complaisant. (Nor of those who go astray), nor the religion of the Christians who erred from Islam. Amen: thus shall be its custodians; it is also said that Amen means let it be so. It is also said that it means: O our Lord! Do with us as we have requested You. And Allah knows best'. (Tafsir Ibn Abbas. Commentary on Sura 1:7.)

the path of those whom You have favoured, with guidance (from alladhīna together with its relative clause is substituted by [ghayri l-maghdūbi ‘alayhim]) not [the path] of those against whom there is wrath, namely, the Jews, and nor of those who are astray, namely, the Christians. The subtle meaning implied by this substitution is that the guided ones are neither the Jews nor the Christians. But God knows best what is right, and to Him is the Return and the [final] Resort. May God bless our lord Muhammad (s), his Family and Companions and grant them everlasting peace. Sufficient is God for us; an excellent Guardian is He. There is no power and no strength save in God, the High, the Tremendous. (Tafsir Al Jalalayn. Commentary on Sura 1:7.)

Ian Clary Reviews Michael Coren's "Why Catholics Are Right"

Michael Coren is an important voice for conservatives in Canada. He has been a talk-radio host, a columnist for a number of major Canadian newspapers and is the face of the popular The Michael Coren Show on television. Opinions that he shares on any subject are sure to get a wide hearing. Originally from England, Coren has written a number of biographies of his literary countrymen including C. S. Lewis, J. R. R. Tolkien, G. K. Chesterton and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Though he was not raised to be devoutly religious, Coren converted to Roman Catholicism while living in England. After his arrival in Canada he grew disenfranchised with certain aspects of the Roman Church and spent a number of years exploring evangelical options. Around eight years ago he was received back into the Catholic fold. His recent book Why Catholics Are Right is written to help “Catholics who want to defend their beliefs but need a little help” (7).

This is the introduction to the book review done by my colleague and brother in Christ Ian Clary of the Hope's Reason apologetics journal to the book Why Catholics Are Right, which was written by popular Canadian political commentator (and convert to Roman Catholicism) Michael Coren. The book is aimed at addressing popular critiques of the Roman Catholic Church, and provide some kind of justification for believing that it is the true Church. I had been meaning to do a review of this book myself, but have so far been unable to procure a copy of the book. Be that as it may, I am glad that bro. Clary has done the job, and I would like to encourage readers to check out his review of the book. See the book itself as well to see for yourself how well its arguments stand.

• Ian Clary - Why Catholics are Right (Book Review)

David Wilkerson - A Call to Anguish

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's Scientific Errors

If there is one thing that distinguishes the Ahmadiyya from mainstream Islam (other than the fact that they believe in a prophet who came after Muhammad), it is their emphasis upon what they consider to be the rational and scientific. This tendency towards rationalism will sometimes cause Ahmadis to become much less inclined towards supernatural explanations than orthodox Muslims (as seen for example by their attempts to naturalize the virgin birth, among other miracles). It is somewhat ironic then that as I was reading Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's The Philosophy of the Teachings of Islam, I noticed that he makes some rather glaring scientific errors in the first chapter of the book. For example, he makes the following statement regarding the effect of one's diet on one's disposition:

Experience also shows that different types of food affect the intellect and the mind in different ways. For instance, careful observation would disclose that people who refrain altogether from eating meat gradually suffer a decline of the faculty of bravery; they lose courage and thus suffer the loss of a divinely bestowed praiseworthy faculty. This is reinforced by the evidence of the divine law of nature that the herbivorous animals do not possess the same degree of courage as do carnivorous ones. The same applies to birds. Thus there is no doubt that morals are affected by food. Conversely those who are given to a diet consisting mainly of meat and eat very little of greens suffer a decline of meekness or humility. Those who adopt the middle course develop both types of moral qualities.[1]

Now, this is an obviously false assertion that is regularly proved by those who run into vegetarians who possess plenty of bravery and/or lack humility. I don't think any dietician or physiologist would ever accept a statement such as this as having any kind of scientific validity. In addition to this, we find another glaring scientific error two and a half pages later, where Mirza Ghulam Ahmad attempts to base his belief in the development of the soul inside the body on the theory of spontaneous generation. Here, we read:

The Book of God does not mean that the soul descends from heaven as a separate entity or falls upon the earth from the atmosphere and then by chance gets mixed with the sperm and enters the womb with it. There is no basis for such a notion. The law of nature rejects it. We observe daily that thousands of insects infect impure and stale foods and are generated in unwashed wounds. Dirty linen secretes hundreds of lice and all sorts of worms are generated inside a person's stomach. It cannot be said that all these come from outside or can be observed as descending from heaven. The truth is that the soul is developed in the body and this also proves that it is created and is not self-existent.[2]

While I would certainly agree that God creates the human soul in the body and does not zap it into the body from heaven, I do not base such a belief on an outdated scientific concept. French chemist Louis Pasteur already laid the theory of spontaneous generation to rest back in 1859.[3] That is nearly four decades before Mirza Ghulam Ahmad wrote down the essay in question. Glaring factual errors such as these serve to show that the Ahmadiyya's brightest minds aren't nearly as rational and scientific as they make themselves out to be.

End Notes

1. Ahmad, Mirza Ghulam. The Philosophy of the Teachings of Islam. Tilford: Islam International Publications, Ltd., 1996. p. 5.
2. Ibid., pp. 7-8.
3. Evers, Chris and Russell Levine. "The Slow Death of Spontaneous Generation (1668-1859)." The National Health Museum. http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/BC/Spontaneous_Generation.php.

Critique of Islamic Jesus Movie

Back in 2008, an Iranian director named Nader Talebzadeh directed a movie depicting the life of Jesus from the Islamic perspective, officially called The Messiah. It is touted as "an Islamic answer to Western productions like Mel Gibson's 2004 blockbuster 'The Passion of the Christ,' which which he [Nader] praised as admirable but quite simply 'wrong'" (link). It is surprising to know that such a production exists since Muslims normally shun the making of any kind of representation of the prophets (pictorial or otherwise).

Be that as it may, I recently came across an eleven minute excerpt of the film, courtesy of none other than Sam Shamoun of Answering Islam (with whom I am friends on Facebook). For those who want to see the clip, here it is:

Here are some of my thoughts on the video:

1. In the first place, why is Jesus portrayed as having blond hair? It's bad enough that many westerners depict Jesus as a blond-haired Caucasian, but I'm surprised that our Iranian Muslim colleagues made the same error. I mean seriously, the hair colour just looks plain bad, and it would've been best if they stuck to dark brown hair.
   
   
2. The first four minutes or so of the video are allegedly based on the Christian Narrative (i.e. the New Testament). Yet, we find that there are many obvious errors. For example, Jesus (Judas?) is depicted as being arrested in a house, even though we know from the Gospels that He was actually arrested in the garden of Gethsemane. A lot of the costumes don't look quite right either; one wonders if they bothered consulting any historians or biblical scholars for accuracy on these matters, although I highly doubt it.
   
   
3. More important than what the film gets wrong is what it omits entirely. There is no mention, for example, of how the disciples attempted to rescue Jesus, and how Jesus rebuked them by saying,
   

   Do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels? How then will the Scriptures be fulfilled, which say that it must happen this way?" (Matthew 26:53-54).

   These verses are very important as they contradict the Islamic claim that Jesus was unwilling to die on the cross and wanted to be rescued from it, so it is not surprising at all that the ones who made this film chose to omit it. I guess they only want to take those parts of the "Christian narrative" that they can twist into their own viewpoint, whilst throwing out everything else.
   
   
4. In addition, no mention is ever made of what crime Jesus is being accused of. When one looks at the account as recorded by Mark, the reason becomes obvious why:

   But he remained silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" And Jesus said, "I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven." And the high priest tore his garments and said, "What further witnesses do we need? You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?" And they all condemned him as deserving death. And some began to spit on him and to cover his face and to strike him, saying to him, "Prophesy!" And the guards received him with blows (Mark 14:61-65, ESV).
   

   Islam denies that Jesus is the divine Son of God or that He ever claimed to be such (cf. Suras 6:101, 9:30, 19:88-92, etc.). Yet as shown in the Gospels, that is precisely the claim for which Jesus was arrested and sentenced to death. To paraphrase David Wood, the Jews would have had no problem with Jesus if all He said was that they should believe in God and obey the Torah. After all, they were already doing that! Rather, Jesus must have been teaching something that was so radically offensive to the Jews that they would accuse Him of blasphemy. Claiming to be the divine Son of God is precisely that claim, and it continues to offend both Jews and Muslims to this very day.
   
   
5. About four minutes into the video, we find the following caption: "Continuation of the events according to Islamic sources and the Gospel of Barnabas..." Should we really be surprised that the Gospel of Barnabas is now being touted as a source at this point? That document is constantly being touted as the staple piece of anti-Christian Islamic propaganda despite the fact that it has already been debunked as a forgery numerous times. As Islamic scholar Cyril Glassé points out:
   

   As regards the "Gospel of Barnabas" itself, there is no question that it is a medieval forgery. A complete Italian manuscript exists which appears to be a translation from a Spanish original (which exists in part), written to curry favor with Muslims of the time. It contains anachronisms which can date only from the Middle Ages and not before, and shows a garbled comprehension of Islamic doctrines, calling the Prophet "the Messiah", which Islam does not claim for him. Besides its farcical notion of sacred history, stylistically it is a mediocre parody of the Gospels, as the writings of Baha'Allah are of the Koran. (link)

6. By far the most ridiculous portion of the video is the part where Judas is miraculously transformed into a look-alike of Jesus. Okay, so if everything that is attributed to Jesus from the time He is arrested to the time He is crucified was actually Judas, riddle me this:
   

   a. Why did Judas never correct the Jewish and Roman authorities by saying that it was actually him?
   
   b. How could Judas betray "Jesus" by leading the temple guards to Him if the one he is leading them to is actually himself?
   
   c. Where did the story of Judas hanging himself in Matthew 27:3-10 come from?
   
   d. Where did the stories of Jesus saying that He is the Son of Man of Daniel 7:13-14 and that He has a kingdom that is not of this world come from?
   
   e. Who was it really that appeared to the disciples after three days and why was he claiming to be the resurrected Jesus?

   Those who accept the version of events that is recounted in the Islamic Jesus movie must answer these questions, although they would be hard pressed to provide answers that will make any sense of the facts as they really are.
   

To cap it off, it must be said that the Islamic perspective on the crucifixion of Jesus does not make any sense, either historically or logically. It does not make sense historically because all the earliest sources (not only the Gospels but even secular sources such as Josephus, Tacitus, etc.) that talk about Jesus agree unanimously that He was put to death under Pontius Pilate. Somehow, we are supposed to believe on the authority of a text that came six centuries later that it never really happened but that it was only made to appear so. It also does not make sense logically because it would make God out to be a deceiver. To drive that point home, let us look at the one passage in the Qur'an that talks about the crucifixion:

That they [the Jews] rejected Faith; that they uttered against Mary a grave false charge; That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Apostle of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:- Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise (Sura 4:156-168).

First of all, it puts into the Jews' mouth the affirmation of Jesus as the Messiah (or Christ) and as Allah's messenger, yet they never accepted Jesus' claim to hold these two titles. Also, when the Qur'an says "it was made to appear to them," who is being referred to here? Is it only the Jews who rejected Jesus? If so, then we are at a loss as to why Jesus' true followers (who are allegedly guided by God, cf. Suras 3:52-55 and 61:14) ended up believing that He was killed as well.

On the other hand, if they were also included among those to whom it was made to appear so, then that means Allah failed to fulfill the promise made in the aforementioned Qur'anic passages to guide Jesus' disciples and make them victorious until the day of Resurrection, since they fell into kufr. The upshot of this is that Allah is the true founder of Christianity, since Christianity's premise is that Jesus died and rose again after three days (which, if we are to take Sura 4:156-158 at face value, is what Allah made it seem to have happened). The problem posed by this is quite glaring.

Thus, I must conclude that the only reasonable explanation that can be accepted is the one given to us by Jesus' apostles: That He truly did die on the cross, and He truly did rise again after three days. In the words of the apostle Peter:

He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls (1 Peter 2:22-25, ESV).

And Allah knows best. ;)