 |
| Yesterday: On a warm sunny day, Maple Ridge rivals California? |
I am referencing some previous entries, as again, I do not believe in reinventing the wheel.
May 26, 2017
September 20, 2014
September 6, 2014
Methodology and academic worldview
I am not an Islamic scholar; my academic specialties (PhD, Wales) within a Reformed Christian worldview are theodicy, the problem of evil, free will, determinism and the nature of God. I am Reformed and evangelical. I do not consider myself a fundamentalist, but a moderate conservative, attempting to interpret the originally divinely inspired and inherent Scripture through copies and translations of Scripture in context, in regard to plain literal or figurative literal meanings.
I have made friends with persons of other worldviews, including Islam. Obviously, from my writings, I am opposed to radical Islam, and any violent, radical worldview. I certainly do not hold to Islam, in any form, as being essentially true as a religion and worldview.
As a very brief, non-exhaustive, explanation, I reject Islam because it is chronologically later (claimed) revelation than the New Testament and Hebrew Bible. It is originally from Arabia, not Israel and Europe and not within the traditions of the Hebrew Bible and New Testament. Islamic doctrine rejects essential New Testament doctrine, such the trinity and deity of Jesus Christ, the atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ.
In contrast, the new covenant of the New Testament replaces and amplifies the old covenant of the Hebrew Bible. If it replaced with outright contradiction, illogic, it would be void. The New Testament is viewed as progressive revelation from the Old Testament. The Bible is not 'flat', but neither would outright contradiction be intellectually tenable.
Yet, Islam, in part claims the divine validity of the Hebrew Bible and New Testament, while denying and contradicting certain biblical essentials. This is fatal contradiction. The importance of this should not be overlooked. Being an Abrahamic, monotheistic faith in no way counters this fatal objection. The New Testament, for example, having thousands of manuscripts in whole or in part for support which would be contradicted outright by later Islamic rejection of the trinity and salvific work of Jesus Christ.
For me the popularity of Islam is irrelevant as a truth claim. I would place more credibility in a supposed, hypothetical, religious worldview which presented something new and denied the divine inspiration of the previous biblical revelation which it contradicts in regard to certain essential theology.
Does Islam hold to Jihad?
Today, the radical, militant Islamists that are very much opposed to toleration of others and democracy and have the theological concept of convert to Islam or die in regard to all other groups, including other Muslims that they find objectionable.
Other notable exceptions that would be opposed to toleration and democracy, not stating this is an exhaustive list, but these philosophical views are not prevalent in the West presently, would be those supporting Communism, certainly as in anything resembling that of the Marxist-Leninist, Soviet Union and those supporting Fascism as in anything resembling Nazism.
I use two world religions texts as sources:
Lewis M. Hopfe admits that one of the most controversial aspects of Islam is 'Jihad' (Holy War). Hopfe (1987: 419). Pagans he writes may have been forced to convert but Jews and Christians and others were free to worship and they chose. Hopfe (1987: 419). It is admitted by Hopfe that there is a Muslim doctrine that one must do battle for God. Hopfe (1987: 419).
This is contrasted by Christ as the Kingdom of God is not of this world.
New American Standard Bible
Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm." (John 18: 36). Instead of Kingdom of God is eventually established as in fully culminated in Revelation 21-22 by God, and not by the military acts of the Church, Christians, Jews or people of God.
The Holy Roman Empire and other European church-state Kingdoms and nations, would be politicized versions of Christianity which I would not consider primarily Biblically based.
In addition to attempt to force any type of conversion is to miss the point that God converts persons as in God chooses (Ephesians 1-2) and molds one for works by faith through grace through the atoning and resurrection work of Christ. One is born again by an act of God in John 3, not by an act of the sword.
Doubtless, there would be many documented cases found today where radical Islamists have attempted to coerce and force Christians, Jews and persons of all types of religions and views to their type of Islamic views. Some at the threat of death.
S.A. Nigosian states the goal of Jihad is not so much conversion but for Islam to gain 'political control over societies'. Nigosian (1994: 448). This is done in order to rule them under Islam. Nigosian (1994: 448).
Perhaps a more literal, fundamentalist interpretation of the Qur'an and Islam embraces Jihad and Holy War, and the so-called 'religion of peace' is a watered-down, westernized version of Islam?
Perhaps western liberalized Islam in a sense, parallels western liberalized Christianity, which also tends to reinterpret the bible and New Testament within a religiously watered-down, modern, secular worldview?
HOPFE, LEWIS M. (1991) Religions of the World, New York, Macmillan Publishing Company.
NIGOSIAN, S.A. (1994) World Faiths, New York, St. Martin’s Press.
