God, Five more policemen were killed today. Several high-profile militants were killed this week. And to avoid adding their number to the roll, Egypt’s churches canceled summer activities for the next three weeks. The intelligence services are finding material – warning the Christians and raiding the hideouts. Yet extremist elements are finding recruits – threatening Christians and targeting checkpoints. God, the cycle must end somewhere. May it be with the least blood. Criminals must be found, God. But give them justice greater than death. To the degree possible, help raids end in capture. Peace must be established, God. But give Egypt justice greater than security. To the degree possible, help rights end in responsibility. Death comes for all, God, when you will it. But in Egypt the past several years, it has come too soon for too many. In eternity you cancel death. May Egypt live as if you canceled it now. Amen.
Showing posts with label coptic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label coptic. Show all posts
Friday, July 14, 2017
A Prayer for Egypt
Thursday, August 15, 2013
Friday, September 02, 2011
Zakaria Boutros: 'Islam is not just a religion, it's a state.'
Islam is not just a religion; this is a misunderstanding in the West. You think that Islam is like Judaism or Buddhism, so we give Islam lots of opportunities to grow in the West. No, Islam is a State, and religion is a factor to establish this state. It is a Kingdom, the Kingdom of Islam. Non-Muslims in their country are invaders. The invaders brought missionaries with them.
From Bob Blincoe's interview with Father (Abouna) Zakaria Boutros (or Botros), my favorite Coptic priest out there :-) This is from the third post on Blincoe's blog containing his interview.
I have written about Fr Boutros HERE and HERE, if you care to learn more about this impressive man. The second link there is one of the most commented-on posts I've ever have, if I'm not mistaken. Also, I develop a similar concept to what Fr Boutros said HERE: Islam, Religion Plus.
Pray for facility in travel for me and my family, please. --AD
From Bob Blincoe's interview with Father (Abouna) Zakaria Boutros (or Botros), my favorite Coptic priest out there :-) This is from the third post on Blincoe's blog containing his interview.
I have written about Fr Boutros HERE and HERE, if you care to learn more about this impressive man. The second link there is one of the most commented-on posts I've ever have, if I'm not mistaken. Also, I develop a similar concept to what Fr Boutros said HERE: Islam, Religion Plus.
Pray for facility in travel for me and my family, please. --AD
Sunday, July 03, 2011
Al-Azhar's Grand Imam declares support for a constitutional, democratic state
Al-Azhar's Grand Imam declares support for a constitutional, democratic state
From Ahram.org:
The document stressed its support for universal democratic rights such as free and democratic elections where the citizens as a whole constitute the sole and legitimate source of legislation.
The Grand Imam said that striving towards social justice needs to be a basic component in any future economic arrangement in Egypt. He stressed that affordable and decent education and health care services must become a right for all citizens.
The document was explicit in its support for freedom of expression in the arts and literary fields within the accepted boundaries of Islamic philosophy and moral guidelines. It highlighted the need for expanded scientific and popular campaigns to combat illiteracy and advance economic progress.
“We need a serious commitment to universal human rights, the rights of women and children,” El-Tayeb said.
In a clear reference to the status of religious minorities especially Copts, the Grand Imam stated that citizenship must be the sole criterion by which both rights and responsibilities are administered in society.
And now, why this is not good news for the Copts: Egypt is, by a large majority, Muslim. That Muslim majority will never allow Copts to have the same rights and the freedoms that Muslims have. So the Copts have citizenship, but they don't have numbers, and thus they will not have the same rights as Muslims.
From Ahram.org:
The document stressed its support for universal democratic rights such as free and democratic elections where the citizens as a whole constitute the sole and legitimate source of legislation.
The Grand Imam said that striving towards social justice needs to be a basic component in any future economic arrangement in Egypt. He stressed that affordable and decent education and health care services must become a right for all citizens.
The document was explicit in its support for freedom of expression in the arts and literary fields within the accepted boundaries of Islamic philosophy and moral guidelines. It highlighted the need for expanded scientific and popular campaigns to combat illiteracy and advance economic progress.
“We need a serious commitment to universal human rights, the rights of women and children,” El-Tayeb said.
In a clear reference to the status of religious minorities especially Copts, the Grand Imam stated that citizenship must be the sole criterion by which both rights and responsibilities are administered in society.
And now, why this is not good news for the Copts: Egypt is, by a large majority, Muslim. That Muslim majority will never allow Copts to have the same rights and the freedoms that Muslims have. So the Copts have citizenship, but they don't have numbers, and thus they will not have the same rights as Muslims.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Free Copts: Building churches in Egypt almost impossible
A Christian "dreaming" of building a church in Egypt must adhere to the ten stringent conditions laid by the Ezaby Pasha along the Hamayouni decree(Ottoman Empire-laid rules for building Churches), and may even have to seek the consent of the street stall radish seller in the vicinity !!
Simply put, [the] building of churches in Egypt is almost impossible.
Ah, where is all that wonderful Islamic tolerance we hear about? Read it all HERE.
Simply put, [the] building of churches in Egypt is almost impossible.
Ah, where is all that wonderful Islamic tolerance we hear about? Read it all HERE.
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
Abu Daoud on Zakaria Botros
I have recently published in St Francis Magazine a short article/book review on Abouna Zakaria Botros. Here is an excerpt:
I believe that Botros is an example of contextualized ministry
par excellence. This might sound like a strange thing to say today
when contextualization and a non-polemical approach are seen as
inseparable. Au contraire. Contextual witness does not mean be-
ing nice, and it certainly does not mean refraining from criticism of
the Prophet of Islam or its book. What contextualization means is
that you are asking the questions to which people want to know an-
swers. A basic example of this is the now commonplace insight
that Arabs are more moved by honor-shame questions than inno-
cence-guilt ones. That is context. And Abouna does this very
well: Muslims want to know about Muhammad, the shari’a, the
ahadiith, and so on. They want to know how Islam can (or cannot)
be al haal, the solution, as other great Egyptians have argued (Al
Banna? Qutb?). And Botros is uniquely prepared to address these
questions: for one, his Arabic is excellent, which might not mean a
lot to people who have not studied the language, but understand
that classical Arabic and common Egyptian Arabic are about as
close to each other as Latin and modern Italian. (OK, maybe that’s
a little bit of a stretch, but not much.) His skills in Arabic permit
him to delve into the copious volumes of traditions about the life of
the Prophet and Islamic shari’a. Egypt asks Zakaria: in what way
can Islam be the solution? Zakaria responds: this is the life of the
Prophet and the law of Islam; you make your own decision.
Read it all at SFM:
Abu Daoud, 'Observations on Abuna Zakaria Botros (and a Book Review)' in St Francis Magazine, Vol 5:5, Oct 2009, pp 93-8.
I believe that Botros is an example of contextualized ministry
par excellence. This might sound like a strange thing to say today
when contextualization and a non-polemical approach are seen as
inseparable. Au contraire. Contextual witness does not mean be-
ing nice, and it certainly does not mean refraining from criticism of
the Prophet of Islam or its book. What contextualization means is
that you are asking the questions to which people want to know an-
swers. A basic example of this is the now commonplace insight
that Arabs are more moved by honor-shame questions than inno-
cence-guilt ones. That is context. And Abouna does this very
well: Muslims want to know about Muhammad, the shari’a, the
ahadiith, and so on. They want to know how Islam can (or cannot)
be al haal, the solution, as other great Egyptians have argued (Al
Banna? Qutb?). And Botros is uniquely prepared to address these
questions: for one, his Arabic is excellent, which might not mean a
lot to people who have not studied the language, but understand
that classical Arabic and common Egyptian Arabic are about as
close to each other as Latin and modern Italian. (OK, maybe that’s
a little bit of a stretch, but not much.) His skills in Arabic permit
him to delve into the copious volumes of traditions about the life of
the Prophet and Islamic shari’a. Egypt asks Zakaria: in what way
can Islam be the solution? Zakaria responds: this is the life of the
Prophet and the law of Islam; you make your own decision.
Read it all at SFM:
Abu Daoud, 'Observations on Abuna Zakaria Botros (and a Book Review)' in St Francis Magazine, Vol 5:5, Oct 2009, pp 93-8.
A list of all my SFM publications can be found on the right-hand side of the screen, FYI.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Exorcism in the Coptic Church as a motive for conversion from Islam
Great quote here:
Some of the priests, like Father Samaan of Cairo, have acquired such a reputation for their ability to exorcise demonsand evil spirits that I once witnessed the arrival of a Muslim woman, with her mentally disturbed daughter, who had traveled all the way from Syria to seek his aid.
Ch. 14, Sana Hasan, Christians versus Muslims in Modern Egypt: The Century-long Struggle for Coptic Equality. (Oxford 2003)
Some of the priests, like Father Samaan of Cairo, have acquired such a reputation for their ability to exorcise demonsand evil spirits that I once witnessed the arrival of a Muslim woman, with her mentally disturbed daughter, who had traveled all the way from Syria to seek his aid.
Ch. 14, Sana Hasan, Christians versus Muslims in Modern Egypt: The Century-long Struggle for Coptic Equality. (Oxford 2003)
Monday, April 20, 2009
Full Works (English) of Abouna Zakaria Botros
Here is the complete list of the works of Abouna Zakaria Botros, the great apologist and polemicist. A splendid man whom I have been honored to meet.
Here are all his works, well, the ones that have been translated into English at least.
http://www.fatherzakaria.net/
Here are all his works, well, the ones that have been translated into English at least.
http://www.fatherzakaria.net/
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Orthodox website for Muslims
Those of you who read this blog often will know that I frequently lament the lack of witness by Catholics and Orthodox to Muslims. The exception is the Coptic Church, at least in some places. Here is a website that answers Muslims' questions from an Orthodox point of view on everything from the Holy Scripture to Theotokos to the nature of miracles. It is, thankfully, not snarky and stuck-up like so many Orthodox theology sites run by Americans.
The Awakening
It is, thankfully, also in Arabic, which is quite nice if you have an Arab Muslim friend who is perhaps not excellent with the English language.
The Awakening
It is, thankfully, also in Arabic, which is quite nice if you have an Arab Muslim friend who is perhaps not excellent with the English language.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Zakaria Botros: Fight Fire with Fire
In my discussion with Sherry (below) I mentioned this priest, whom I have met personally, as a good example of fruitful and excellent witness to Muslims that is confrontational and antagonistic. Like I said, ninceness is not a virtue. Courage is.
Islam’s ‘Public Enemy #1’
Coptic priest Zakaria Botros fights fire with fire.
By Raymond Ibrahim
Though he is little known in the West, Coptic priest Zakaria Botros — named Islam’s “Public Enemy #1” by the Arabic newspaper, al-Insan al-Jadid — has been making waves in the Islamic world. Along with fellow missionaries — mostly Muslim converts — he appears frequently on the Arabic channel al-Hayat (i.e., “Life TV”). There, he addresses controversial topics of theological significance — free from the censorship imposed by Islamic authorities or self-imposed through fear of the zealous mobs who fulminated against the infamous cartoons of Mohammed. Botros’s excurses on little-known but embarrassing aspects of Islamic law and tradition have become a thorn in the side of Islamic leaders throughout the Middle East.
Botros is an unusual figure onscreen: robed, with a huge cross around his neck, he sits with both the Koran and the Bible in easy reach. Egypt’s Copts — members of one of the oldest Christian communities in the Middle East — have in many respects come to personify the demeaning Islamic institution of “dhimmitude” (which demands submissiveness from non-Muslims, in accordance with Koran 9:29). But the fiery Botros does not submit, and minces no words. He has famously made of Islam “ten demands,” whose radical nature he uses to highlight Islam’s own radical demands on non-Muslims.
The result? Mass conversions to Christianity — if clandestine ones. The very public conversion of high-profile Italian journalist Magdi Allam — who was baptized by Pope Benedict in Rome on Saturday — is only the tip of the iceberg. Indeed, Islamic cleric Ahmad al-Qatani stated on al-Jazeera TV a while back that some six million Muslims convert to Christianity annually, many of them persuaded by Botros’s public ministry. More recently, al-Jazeera noted Life TV’s “unprecedented evangelical raid” on the Muslim world. Several factors account for the Botros phenomenon.
First, the new media — particularly satellite TV and the Internet (the main conduits for Life TV) — have made it possible for questions about Islam to be made public without fear of reprisal. It is unprecedented to hear Muslims from around the Islamic world — even from Saudi Arabia, where imported Bibles are confiscated and burned — call into the show to argue with Botros and his colleagues, and sometimes, to accept Christ.
Secondly, Botros’s broadcasts are in Arabic — the language of some 200 million people, most of them Muslim. While several Western writers have published persuasive critiques of Islam, their arguments go largely unnoticed in the Islamic world. Botros’s mastery of classical Arabic not only allows him to reach a broader audience, it enables him to delve deeply into the voluminous Arabic literature — much of it untapped by Western writers who rely on translations — and so report to the average Muslim on the discrepancies and affronts to moral common sense found within this vast corpus.
A third reason for Botros’s success is that his polemical technique has proven irrefutable. Each of his episodes has a theme — from the pressing to the esoteric — often expressed as a question (e.g., “Is jihad an obligation for all Muslims?”; “Are women inferior to men in Islam?”; “Did Mohammed say that adulterous female monkeys should be stoned?” “Is drinking the urine of prophets salutary according to sharia?”). To answer the question, Botros meticulously quotes — always careful to give sources and reference numbers — from authoritative Islamic texts on the subject, starting from the Koran; then from the canonical sayings of the prophet — the Hadith; and finally from the words of prominent Muslim theologians past and present — the illustrious ulema.
Typically, Botros’s presentation of the Islamic material is sufficiently detailed that the controversial topic is shown to be an airtight aspect of Islam. Yet, however convincing his proofs, Botros does not flatly conclude that, say, universal jihad or female inferiority are basic tenets of Islam. He treats the question as still open — and humbly invites the ulema, the revered articulators of sharia law, to respond and show the error in his methodology. He does demand, however, that their response be based on “al-dalil we al-burhan,” — “evidence and proof,” one of his frequent refrains — not shout-downs or sophistry.
More often than not, the response from the ulema is deafening silence — which has only made Botros and Life TV more enticing to Muslim viewers. The ulema who have publicly addressed Botros’s conclusions often find themselves forced to agree with him — which has led to some amusing (and embarrassing) moments on live Arabic TV.
Botros spent three years bringing to broad public attention a scandalous — and authentic — hadith stating that women should “breastfeed” strange men with whom they must spend any amount of time. A leading hadith scholar, Abd al-Muhdi, was confronted with this issue on the live talk show of popular Arabic host Hala Sirhan. Opting to be truthful, al-Muhdi confirmed that going through the motions of breastfeeding adult males is, according to sharia, a legitimate way of making married women “forbidden” to the men with whom they are forced into contact — the logic being that, by being “breastfed,” the men become like “sons” to the women and therefore can no longer have sexual designs on them.
To make matters worse, Ezzat Atiyya, head of the Hadith department at al-Azhar University — Sunni Islam’s most authoritative institution — went so far as to issue a fatwa legitimatizing “Rida’ al-Kibir” (sharia’s term for “breastfeeding the adult”), which prompted such outrage in the Islamic world that it was subsequently recanted.
Botros played the key role in exposing this obscure and embarrassing issue and forcing the ulema to respond. Another guest on Hala Sirhan’s show, Abd al-Fatah, slyly indicated that the entire controversy was instigated by Botros: “I know you all [fellow panelists] watch that channel and that priest and that none of you [pointing at Abd al-Muhdi] can ever respond to him, since he always documents his sources!”
Incapable of rebutting Botros, the only strategy left to the ulema (aside from a rumored $5-million bounty on his head) is to ignore him. When his name is brought up, they dismiss him as a troublemaking liar who is backed by — who else? — international “Jewry.” They could easily refute his points, they insist, but will not deign to do so. That strategy may satisfy some Muslims, but others are demanding straightforward responses from the ulema.
The most dramatic example of this occurred on another famous show on the international station, Iqra. The host, Basma — a conservative Muslim woman in full hijab — asked two prominent ulema, including Sheikh Gamal Qutb, one-time grand mufti of al-Azhar University, to explain the legality of the Koranic verse (4:24) that permits men to freely copulate with captive women. She repeatedly asked: “According to sharia, is slave-sex still applicable?” The two ulema would give no clear answer — dissembling here, going off on tangents there. Basma remained adamant: Muslim youth were confused, and needed a response, since “there is a certain channel and a certain man who has discussed this issue over twenty times and has received no response from you.”
The flustered Sheikh Qutb roared, “low-life people like that must be totally ignored!” and stormed off the set. He later returned, but refused to admit that Islam indeed permits sex-slaves, spending his time attacking Botros instead. When Basma said “Ninety percent of Muslims, including myself, do not understand the issue of concubinage in Islam and are having a hard time swallowing it,” the sheikh responded, “You don’t need to understand.” As for Muslims who watch and are influenced by Botros, he barked, “Too bad for them! If my son is sick and chooses to visit a mechanic, not a doctor — that’s his problem!”
But the ultimate reason for Botros’s success is that — unlike his Western counterparts who criticize Islam from a political standpoint — his primary interest is the salvation of souls. He often begins and concludes his programs by stating that he loves all Muslims as fellow humans and wants to steer them away from falsehood to Truth. To that end, he doesn’t just expose troubling aspects of Islam. Before concluding every program, he quotes pertinent biblical verses and invites all his viewers to come to Christ.
Botros’s motive is not to incite the West against Islam, promote “Israeli interests,” or “demonize” Muslims, but to draw Muslims away from the dead legalism of sharia to the spirituality of Christianity. Many Western critics fail to appreciate that, to disempower radical Islam, something theocentric and spiritually satisfying — not secularism, democracy, capitalism, materialism, feminism, etc. — must be offered in its place. The truths of one religion can only be challenged and supplanted by the truths of another. And so Father Zakaria Botros has been fighting fire with fire.
Islam’s ‘Public Enemy #1’
Coptic priest Zakaria Botros fights fire with fire.
By Raymond Ibrahim
Though he is little known in the West, Coptic priest Zakaria Botros — named Islam’s “Public Enemy #1” by the Arabic newspaper, al-Insan al-Jadid — has been making waves in the Islamic world. Along with fellow missionaries — mostly Muslim converts — he appears frequently on the Arabic channel al-Hayat (i.e., “Life TV”). There, he addresses controversial topics of theological significance — free from the censorship imposed by Islamic authorities or self-imposed through fear of the zealous mobs who fulminated against the infamous cartoons of Mohammed. Botros’s excurses on little-known but embarrassing aspects of Islamic law and tradition have become a thorn in the side of Islamic leaders throughout the Middle East.
Botros is an unusual figure onscreen: robed, with a huge cross around his neck, he sits with both the Koran and the Bible in easy reach. Egypt’s Copts — members of one of the oldest Christian communities in the Middle East — have in many respects come to personify the demeaning Islamic institution of “dhimmitude” (which demands submissiveness from non-Muslims, in accordance with Koran 9:29). But the fiery Botros does not submit, and minces no words. He has famously made of Islam “ten demands,” whose radical nature he uses to highlight Islam’s own radical demands on non-Muslims.
The result? Mass conversions to Christianity — if clandestine ones. The very public conversion of high-profile Italian journalist Magdi Allam — who was baptized by Pope Benedict in Rome on Saturday — is only the tip of the iceberg. Indeed, Islamic cleric Ahmad al-Qatani stated on al-Jazeera TV a while back that some six million Muslims convert to Christianity annually, many of them persuaded by Botros’s public ministry. More recently, al-Jazeera noted Life TV’s “unprecedented evangelical raid” on the Muslim world. Several factors account for the Botros phenomenon.
First, the new media — particularly satellite TV and the Internet (the main conduits for Life TV) — have made it possible for questions about Islam to be made public without fear of reprisal. It is unprecedented to hear Muslims from around the Islamic world — even from Saudi Arabia, where imported Bibles are confiscated and burned — call into the show to argue with Botros and his colleagues, and sometimes, to accept Christ.
Secondly, Botros’s broadcasts are in Arabic — the language of some 200 million people, most of them Muslim. While several Western writers have published persuasive critiques of Islam, their arguments go largely unnoticed in the Islamic world. Botros’s mastery of classical Arabic not only allows him to reach a broader audience, it enables him to delve deeply into the voluminous Arabic literature — much of it untapped by Western writers who rely on translations — and so report to the average Muslim on the discrepancies and affronts to moral common sense found within this vast corpus.
A third reason for Botros’s success is that his polemical technique has proven irrefutable. Each of his episodes has a theme — from the pressing to the esoteric — often expressed as a question (e.g., “Is jihad an obligation for all Muslims?”; “Are women inferior to men in Islam?”; “Did Mohammed say that adulterous female monkeys should be stoned?” “Is drinking the urine of prophets salutary according to sharia?”). To answer the question, Botros meticulously quotes — always careful to give sources and reference numbers — from authoritative Islamic texts on the subject, starting from the Koran; then from the canonical sayings of the prophet — the Hadith; and finally from the words of prominent Muslim theologians past and present — the illustrious ulema.
Typically, Botros’s presentation of the Islamic material is sufficiently detailed that the controversial topic is shown to be an airtight aspect of Islam. Yet, however convincing his proofs, Botros does not flatly conclude that, say, universal jihad or female inferiority are basic tenets of Islam. He treats the question as still open — and humbly invites the ulema, the revered articulators of sharia law, to respond and show the error in his methodology. He does demand, however, that their response be based on “al-dalil we al-burhan,” — “evidence and proof,” one of his frequent refrains — not shout-downs or sophistry.
More often than not, the response from the ulema is deafening silence — which has only made Botros and Life TV more enticing to Muslim viewers. The ulema who have publicly addressed Botros’s conclusions often find themselves forced to agree with him — which has led to some amusing (and embarrassing) moments on live Arabic TV.
Botros spent three years bringing to broad public attention a scandalous — and authentic — hadith stating that women should “breastfeed” strange men with whom they must spend any amount of time. A leading hadith scholar, Abd al-Muhdi, was confronted with this issue on the live talk show of popular Arabic host Hala Sirhan. Opting to be truthful, al-Muhdi confirmed that going through the motions of breastfeeding adult males is, according to sharia, a legitimate way of making married women “forbidden” to the men with whom they are forced into contact — the logic being that, by being “breastfed,” the men become like “sons” to the women and therefore can no longer have sexual designs on them.
To make matters worse, Ezzat Atiyya, head of the Hadith department at al-Azhar University — Sunni Islam’s most authoritative institution — went so far as to issue a fatwa legitimatizing “Rida’ al-Kibir” (sharia’s term for “breastfeeding the adult”), which prompted such outrage in the Islamic world that it was subsequently recanted.
Botros played the key role in exposing this obscure and embarrassing issue and forcing the ulema to respond. Another guest on Hala Sirhan’s show, Abd al-Fatah, slyly indicated that the entire controversy was instigated by Botros: “I know you all [fellow panelists] watch that channel and that priest and that none of you [pointing at Abd al-Muhdi] can ever respond to him, since he always documents his sources!”
Incapable of rebutting Botros, the only strategy left to the ulema (aside from a rumored $5-million bounty on his head) is to ignore him. When his name is brought up, they dismiss him as a troublemaking liar who is backed by — who else? — international “Jewry.” They could easily refute his points, they insist, but will not deign to do so. That strategy may satisfy some Muslims, but others are demanding straightforward responses from the ulema.
The most dramatic example of this occurred on another famous show on the international station, Iqra. The host, Basma — a conservative Muslim woman in full hijab — asked two prominent ulema, including Sheikh Gamal Qutb, one-time grand mufti of al-Azhar University, to explain the legality of the Koranic verse (4:24) that permits men to freely copulate with captive women. She repeatedly asked: “According to sharia, is slave-sex still applicable?” The two ulema would give no clear answer — dissembling here, going off on tangents there. Basma remained adamant: Muslim youth were confused, and needed a response, since “there is a certain channel and a certain man who has discussed this issue over twenty times and has received no response from you.”
The flustered Sheikh Qutb roared, “low-life people like that must be totally ignored!” and stormed off the set. He later returned, but refused to admit that Islam indeed permits sex-slaves, spending his time attacking Botros instead. When Basma said “Ninety percent of Muslims, including myself, do not understand the issue of concubinage in Islam and are having a hard time swallowing it,” the sheikh responded, “You don’t need to understand.” As for Muslims who watch and are influenced by Botros, he barked, “Too bad for them! If my son is sick and chooses to visit a mechanic, not a doctor — that’s his problem!”
But the ultimate reason for Botros’s success is that — unlike his Western counterparts who criticize Islam from a political standpoint — his primary interest is the salvation of souls. He often begins and concludes his programs by stating that he loves all Muslims as fellow humans and wants to steer them away from falsehood to Truth. To that end, he doesn’t just expose troubling aspects of Islam. Before concluding every program, he quotes pertinent biblical verses and invites all his viewers to come to Christ.
Botros’s motive is not to incite the West against Islam, promote “Israeli interests,” or “demonize” Muslims, but to draw Muslims away from the dead legalism of sharia to the spirituality of Christianity. Many Western critics fail to appreciate that, to disempower radical Islam, something theocentric and spiritually satisfying — not secularism, democracy, capitalism, materialism, feminism, etc. — must be offered in its place. The truths of one religion can only be challenged and supplanted by the truths of another. And so Father Zakaria Botros has been fighting fire with fire.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Muhammad and the sons of apes and pigs
A tantalizing new blog here, which some might find offensive. But I think it is very important because it is an anti-Islamic blog founded by Copts. The Copts are the ethnic group from Egypt prior to its Islamization and Arabization under the infleunce of Sword of Islam (which I have written about HERE). The pharoahs for example were of that people group.
Here is a taste of what they are serving, but judge for yourself:
In the Ten commandments Jehova God commanded Mohamed in:
Exodus 20: 3, 5 " Thou shalt have no other gods before me.Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them" ...
Mohamed broke God's commandment by worshiping allah the moon god, the crescent, the god of the ka'aba stone and the black stone. (One of the title of the Saudi king is :the servant of the ka'aba)
Exodus 20:7 "Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain." ...
Mohamed broke God's commandment by spreading lies, deceptions, hate, promiscuity, immoralities, and false teachings in the name of God
Exodus 20:9 "Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work" ...
Mohamed and his followers broke God's commandment by sleeping for a whole month of ramadan as was practised by the pagans, while living off the charities of other countries and being a burden on the civilized producing world .
Exodus 20:13 "Thou shalt not kill." ...
Mohamed broke God's commandment by attacking and killing peaceful people and countries, and commanded his followers to keep killing until the whole world surrender and profess that no God but allah and Mohamed is his prophet.
Exodus 20:14 "Thou shalt not commit adultery." ...
Mohamed broke God's commandment by committing adultery, and was caught by his wife Hafsa committing the act in her bed and in her house with his maid Mary the Copt.
Exodus 20:15 "Thou shalt not steal." ...
Mohamed broke God's commandment by robing caravan and looting people, and declaring "my earning is under the shadow of my sword"
Exodus 20:16 "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." ...
Mohamed broke God's commandment by bearing false witnessing against God himself and teaching his followers to lie and deceive others for the benefit of Muslims and Islam.
Exodus 20:17 "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's." ...
Mohamed broke God's commandment by coveting the wife of any man. Any women that Mohamed lay his eyes on, her husband should divorce her and give her to Mohamed. He even forced his adoptive son to divorce his wife so he can marry her.
Mohamed and his followers, not only broke every commandment of the God of the Bible, but defiled Him by claiming he is the same "allah" of the stone ka'aba. Sadly, some Christians and Jews, either by ignorance, hypocrisy or for vain gain support this deception and risk the wrath of the God Who said: "Exodus 20: 5 for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me."
Here is a taste of what they are serving, but judge for yourself:
In the Ten commandments Jehova God commanded Mohamed in:
Exodus 20: 3, 5 " Thou shalt have no other gods before me.Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them" ...
Mohamed broke God's commandment by worshiping allah the moon god, the crescent, the god of the ka'aba stone and the black stone. (One of the title of the Saudi king is :the servant of the ka'aba)
Exodus 20:7 "Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain." ...
Mohamed broke God's commandment by spreading lies, deceptions, hate, promiscuity, immoralities, and false teachings in the name of God
Exodus 20:9 "Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work" ...
Mohamed and his followers broke God's commandment by sleeping for a whole month of ramadan as was practised by the pagans, while living off the charities of other countries and being a burden on the civilized producing world .
Exodus 20:13 "Thou shalt not kill." ...
Mohamed broke God's commandment by attacking and killing peaceful people and countries, and commanded his followers to keep killing until the whole world surrender and profess that no God but allah and Mohamed is his prophet.
Exodus 20:14 "Thou shalt not commit adultery." ...
Mohamed broke God's commandment by committing adultery, and was caught by his wife Hafsa committing the act in her bed and in her house with his maid Mary the Copt.
Exodus 20:15 "Thou shalt not steal." ...
Mohamed broke God's commandment by robing caravan and looting people, and declaring "my earning is under the shadow of my sword"
Exodus 20:16 "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." ...
Mohamed broke God's commandment by bearing false witnessing against God himself and teaching his followers to lie and deceive others for the benefit of Muslims and Islam.
Exodus 20:17 "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's." ...
Mohamed broke God's commandment by coveting the wife of any man. Any women that Mohamed lay his eyes on, her husband should divorce her and give her to Mohamed. He even forced his adoptive son to divorce his wife so he can marry her.
Mohamed and his followers, not only broke every commandment of the God of the Bible, but defiled Him by claiming he is the same "allah" of the stone ka'aba. Sadly, some Christians and Jews, either by ignorance, hypocrisy or for vain gain support this deception and risk the wrath of the God Who said: "Exodus 20: 5 for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me."
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Spirit of Islam = Spirit of Antichrist?
So claims one Egyptian pastor:
Egyptian Pastor and Advocate for Persecuted Seeks to Expose 'Spirit of Islam'
EL CAJON, Calif., Oct. 29 /Christian Newswire/ -- Native-born Egyptian David Joseph, of El Cajon, Calif., in "Let My People Go So They Can Worship Me," shares his vision that Christians "prepare the highway of the Lord" between Egypt, Israel and Assyria (Isaiah 19), by exposing the spirit of Islam, and praying for Muslims in order to win them to Christ.
In his autobiography, Joseph, now a U.S. citizen, also details the founding of his ministry to youth in Egypt in 1981, the difficulties he faced as a pastor harassed by Egyptian police, and how God led him to the U.S. in 1991, where he established an international ministry reaching Muslims for Christ.
"The spirit of Islam is a spirit of antichrist. Islam says Jesus is not the Son of God, is not God, and was not crucified. It's also a spirit of depression, control, and violence," Joseph said. "Christians will help prepare the highway in the Middle East for the return of the Lord Jesus by praying against this demonic spirit, and by helping to remove the stones of misunderstandings that keep Muslims from knowing who Jesus is."
...
"Christians are the largest religious minority in Egypt, and they are deprived of basic human rights," said Joseph. "The U.S. State Department released the 'International Religious Freedom Report' in September stating respect for religious freedom in Egypt has declined.
"The right of free speech and the right to express ideas have never been worse in Egypt than it is currently. The world community needs to give more attention to what is going on in Egypt and the other Arabic countries in the Middle East," he said.
Egyptian Pastor and Advocate for Persecuted Seeks to Expose 'Spirit of Islam'
EL CAJON, Calif., Oct. 29 /Christian Newswire/ -- Native-born Egyptian David Joseph, of El Cajon, Calif., in "Let My People Go So They Can Worship Me," shares his vision that Christians "prepare the highway of the Lord" between Egypt, Israel and Assyria (Isaiah 19), by exposing the spirit of Islam, and praying for Muslims in order to win them to Christ.
In his autobiography, Joseph, now a U.S. citizen, also details the founding of his ministry to youth in Egypt in 1981, the difficulties he faced as a pastor harassed by Egyptian police, and how God led him to the U.S. in 1991, where he established an international ministry reaching Muslims for Christ.
"The spirit of Islam is a spirit of antichrist. Islam says Jesus is not the Son of God, is not God, and was not crucified. It's also a spirit of depression, control, and violence," Joseph said. "Christians will help prepare the highway in the Middle East for the return of the Lord Jesus by praying against this demonic spirit, and by helping to remove the stones of misunderstandings that keep Muslims from knowing who Jesus is."
...
"Christians are the largest religious minority in Egypt, and they are deprived of basic human rights," said Joseph. "The U.S. State Department released the 'International Religious Freedom Report' in September stating respect for religious freedom in Egypt has declined.
"The right of free speech and the right to express ideas have never been worse in Egypt than it is currently. The world community needs to give more attention to what is going on in Egypt and the other Arabic countries in the Middle East," he said.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Shari'a and church buildings
Am now in the process of finishing up a very helpful book called The Spirit of the Islamic Law. (Full info is below.) I hope over the next week or two to include some quotes from this book on the blog. Here is the first one, on what the Islamic state looks like when it follows the Sharii3a (Shari'a):
Churches, synagogues, and other non-Muslim places of worship were restricted to locations outside the central public areas of the city. Usually they were located in the residential quarters where those who frequented them lived. The law placed restrictions on the building of new non-Muslim places of worship, even though these restrictions were not always enforced. In principle, non-Muslim communities remained constant, while only the community of Muslims was free to grow by way of proselytization. New mosques could therefore be built as needed, but non-Muslim places of worship could for the most part be only repaired or replaced.
The Spirit of the Islamic Law p. 149
Bernard G. Weiss
The University of Georgia Press 1998
Churches, synagogues, and other non-Muslim places of worship were restricted to locations outside the central public areas of the city. Usually they were located in the residential quarters where those who frequented them lived. The law placed restrictions on the building of new non-Muslim places of worship, even though these restrictions were not always enforced. In principle, non-Muslim communities remained constant, while only the community of Muslims was free to grow by way of proselytization. New mosques could therefore be built as needed, but non-Muslim places of worship could for the most part be only repaired or replaced.
The Spirit of the Islamic Law p. 149
Bernard G. Weiss
The University of Georgia Press 1998
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Section XIV: Islam and Tahriif
Section XIV: Islam and the "Corruption" of the Bible
The Arabic word referring to this corruption is "tahriif", and the teaching is that the Christian (and thus Jewish) Scriptures are profoundly flawed and are thus not reliable indications of God's will, commandments, prophets, or of the history of his people. (Note: I am particularly occupied with questions regarding Jesus' teaching--the injiil--in this article.)
Tahriif is a very wide-spread belief among Muslims today, though it is not universal. It places Muslims in a very powerful position regarding the Bible because for anything they agree with already they can say, "This is from Allah, do you see that we believe in the Prophets? Why do you not accept Allah's final prophet (Muhammad) as well?" But if they are confronted with anything that challenges Islam or the Qur'an, they can say, "Clearly the text has been corrupted, for Jesus would never have said such a thing and this goes against the Qur'an."
So how can a Christian react to this? There are several paths that come to mind, all of which have been used with some degree of success in the past, I will outline three of them for you and indicate which one I generally prefer:
a) Historical Weakness of Tahriif: The traditional doctrine of tahriif tells the following story: Prophets like Jesus and Moses received genuine verbatim revelations from God like Muhammad. But perfidious Jews and Christians later corrupted these texts to suit their purposes. Now this story is found nowhere in the Qur'an, which most Muslims don't know, but it is based on certain hadiith and most Muslims simply don't know the Qur'an very well. This story is problematic from an historical point of view and prompts raises more questions than it answers:
• The New Testament took form on three different continents (Asia, Africa, and Europe), how were Christians able to collect all the valid versions of the injiil (the book Jesus received from God) given that it was recorded and spread over such a broad area?
• Languages: Sections of the NT had been translated from Greek into Latin, Syriac , Hebrew, and probably Amharic and Coptic by the end of the 2nd Century. Did the tahriif of the injiil take place before or after the translations? If before, then it must have been in the 1st Century, but there were still people alive then who had known and listened to Jesus personally, which means that there would be some record of people objecting to this corruption of the injiil. If the tahriif occurred after the translations, then we would have to believe that EVERY COPY of the true injiil which was present in three continents in (at least) half a dozen languages was destroyed.
b) Motive of Corrupters: The Gospels as we have them today give a rather unflattering picture of the Apostles. They are often foolish, proud, and faithless. It is thus unlikely that they would have "corrupted" the injiil without revising the many events which make them look foolish and weak.
It is also unlikely that one would corrupt a text without removing all the promises of persecution and familial strife, and the advocacy of poverty--hardly the kinds of things you put in a religious message if you want it to be popular. Rather, one thinks that a religious message crafted to gain popularity would include the promise of riches, women, and power--promises we do find explicitly in the Qur'an.
Moreover all the Apostles minus John were martyred for their faith. If they had corrupted the injiil and knew it to be a false message, it is inconceivable that they would all die rather than denounce it's validity. Who then corrupted the injiil? People will not die for a message they know to be corrupted. By the end of the Apostolic era the texts of the four Gospels were too wide spread and and existed in too many languages for a unified and viable tahriif to be possible.
But historical reasoning and evidence will generally get you nowhere at all with most Muslims because in Islamic culture the entire discipline of history has largely been subsumed as a sort of devotional exercise to prove the Qur'an is correct. Trying to argue from historical evidence that the Qur'an is not true is like me trying to convince you from the hymnal that the Bible is false.
c) Corruption in your Heart: This is by far my preferred apologetic. I like this approach because in many ways it mirrors Jesus' Sermon on the Mount and the interiority of the Kingdom of God. Fasting is not about letting other people know you are fasting, it is about God knowing you are fasting, for example. Similarly, I start by explaining that tahriif is very real and it is a significant problem. We say that God knows the heart of all men, and that he is all powerful--no Muslim will disagree. Then I explain that when the Jew knows the Torah and its commands, and he disobeys it, he has corrupted the Torah in his heart. Likewise the Christian who knows the commands of the injiil and disobeys it has corrupted the injiil. And finally, the Muslim who knows the commands of the Qur'an and disobeys it, is it not true that he has corrupted the Qur'an? The answer, in my experience, is always yes. Muslims are very aware that most Muslims aren't very strict in their obedience.
In conclusion I usually ask, "Is Allah powerful or weak?" Powerful! "Is Allah wise or foolish?" Wise, the answer comes. "Yes my friend, and Allah is more powerful than the Jews and the Christians, and no one is capable of corrupting God's words to his prophets! If anyone says that his words corrupted IN THE TEXT of the Torah and Gospel, he is a man who believes that God is neither wise nor powerful. But you see that corruption is in our hearts."
This is not simply a play on words. It does accommodate the Muslim who already believes in tahriif. All you have done is to reformulate the doctrine of tahriif in a way that is very much based on Jesus' teaching. But this apologetic also gets to a very foundational weakness in the Islamic view of God. God is always connected with power in Islam--Allahu Akbar! God is the greatest. Yet the Islamic narrative proposes that Jesus was not crucified, for God would not let than happen to a prophet of his. Yet we are also told that the word God gave to this prophet was not preserved? To preserve the true injiil would have been easy for God. Why did he not do it? Why did he allow 600 years of humanity to operate under the assumption that this corrupted injiil was in fact valid and accurate? And given that even from the beginning Christianity was riven with heresies and fanatics, how is that not even one copy of the real injiil was preserved by a dissenter.
All good questions. But they are not to be used to as a weapon to assault a Muslim. Whether the tone is light and conversational, or adversarial--which is sometimes necessary--we must always speak the truth in love. It is a sign of God's love to us that his true Word is in fact his Son who came to live with us, hunger with us, eat with us, cry with us, and suffer for us. His Word is not some book that one can close and place a shelf, but one who is alive and whom death could not hold down. Because of his life we have hope for eternal life: "And this is everlasting life, to know you the one true God and Jesus Christ whom you have sent."
The Arabic word referring to this corruption is "tahriif", and the teaching is that the Christian (and thus Jewish) Scriptures are profoundly flawed and are thus not reliable indications of God's will, commandments, prophets, or of the history of his people. (Note: I am particularly occupied with questions regarding Jesus' teaching--the injiil--in this article.)
Tahriif is a very wide-spread belief among Muslims today, though it is not universal. It places Muslims in a very powerful position regarding the Bible because for anything they agree with already they can say, "This is from Allah, do you see that we believe in the Prophets? Why do you not accept Allah's final prophet (Muhammad) as well?" But if they are confronted with anything that challenges Islam or the Qur'an, they can say, "Clearly the text has been corrupted, for Jesus would never have said such a thing and this goes against the Qur'an."
So how can a Christian react to this? There are several paths that come to mind, all of which have been used with some degree of success in the past, I will outline three of them for you and indicate which one I generally prefer:
a) Historical Weakness of Tahriif: The traditional doctrine of tahriif tells the following story: Prophets like Jesus and Moses received genuine verbatim revelations from God like Muhammad. But perfidious Jews and Christians later corrupted these texts to suit their purposes. Now this story is found nowhere in the Qur'an, which most Muslims don't know, but it is based on certain hadiith and most Muslims simply don't know the Qur'an very well. This story is problematic from an historical point of view and prompts raises more questions than it answers:
• The New Testament took form on three different continents (Asia, Africa, and Europe), how were Christians able to collect all the valid versions of the injiil (the book Jesus received from God) given that it was recorded and spread over such a broad area?
• Languages: Sections of the NT had been translated from Greek into Latin, Syriac , Hebrew, and probably Amharic and Coptic by the end of the 2nd Century. Did the tahriif of the injiil take place before or after the translations? If before, then it must have been in the 1st Century, but there were still people alive then who had known and listened to Jesus personally, which means that there would be some record of people objecting to this corruption of the injiil. If the tahriif occurred after the translations, then we would have to believe that EVERY COPY of the true injiil which was present in three continents in (at least) half a dozen languages was destroyed.
b) Motive of Corrupters: The Gospels as we have them today give a rather unflattering picture of the Apostles. They are often foolish, proud, and faithless. It is thus unlikely that they would have "corrupted" the injiil without revising the many events which make them look foolish and weak.
It is also unlikely that one would corrupt a text without removing all the promises of persecution and familial strife, and the advocacy of poverty--hardly the kinds of things you put in a religious message if you want it to be popular. Rather, one thinks that a religious message crafted to gain popularity would include the promise of riches, women, and power--promises we do find explicitly in the Qur'an.
Moreover all the Apostles minus John were martyred for their faith. If they had corrupted the injiil and knew it to be a false message, it is inconceivable that they would all die rather than denounce it's validity. Who then corrupted the injiil? People will not die for a message they know to be corrupted. By the end of the Apostolic era the texts of the four Gospels were too wide spread and and existed in too many languages for a unified and viable tahriif to be possible.
But historical reasoning and evidence will generally get you nowhere at all with most Muslims because in Islamic culture the entire discipline of history has largely been subsumed as a sort of devotional exercise to prove the Qur'an is correct. Trying to argue from historical evidence that the Qur'an is not true is like me trying to convince you from the hymnal that the Bible is false.
c) Corruption in your Heart: This is by far my preferred apologetic. I like this approach because in many ways it mirrors Jesus' Sermon on the Mount and the interiority of the Kingdom of God. Fasting is not about letting other people know you are fasting, it is about God knowing you are fasting, for example. Similarly, I start by explaining that tahriif is very real and it is a significant problem. We say that God knows the heart of all men, and that he is all powerful--no Muslim will disagree. Then I explain that when the Jew knows the Torah and its commands, and he disobeys it, he has corrupted the Torah in his heart. Likewise the Christian who knows the commands of the injiil and disobeys it has corrupted the injiil. And finally, the Muslim who knows the commands of the Qur'an and disobeys it, is it not true that he has corrupted the Qur'an? The answer, in my experience, is always yes. Muslims are very aware that most Muslims aren't very strict in their obedience.
In conclusion I usually ask, "Is Allah powerful or weak?" Powerful! "Is Allah wise or foolish?" Wise, the answer comes. "Yes my friend, and Allah is more powerful than the Jews and the Christians, and no one is capable of corrupting God's words to his prophets! If anyone says that his words corrupted IN THE TEXT of the Torah and Gospel, he is a man who believes that God is neither wise nor powerful. But you see that corruption is in our hearts."
This is not simply a play on words. It does accommodate the Muslim who already believes in tahriif. All you have done is to reformulate the doctrine of tahriif in a way that is very much based on Jesus' teaching. But this apologetic also gets to a very foundational weakness in the Islamic view of God. God is always connected with power in Islam--Allahu Akbar! God is the greatest. Yet the Islamic narrative proposes that Jesus was not crucified, for God would not let than happen to a prophet of his. Yet we are also told that the word God gave to this prophet was not preserved? To preserve the true injiil would have been easy for God. Why did he not do it? Why did he allow 600 years of humanity to operate under the assumption that this corrupted injiil was in fact valid and accurate? And given that even from the beginning Christianity was riven with heresies and fanatics, how is that not even one copy of the real injiil was preserved by a dissenter.
All good questions. But they are not to be used to as a weapon to assault a Muslim. Whether the tone is light and conversational, or adversarial--which is sometimes necessary--we must always speak the truth in love. It is a sign of God's love to us that his true Word is in fact his Son who came to live with us, hunger with us, eat with us, cry with us, and suffer for us. His Word is not some book that one can close and place a shelf, but one who is alive and whom death could not hold down. Because of his life we have hope for eternal life: "And this is everlasting life, to know you the one true God and Jesus Christ whom you have sent."
Friday, August 17, 2007
Of Fish and Sharks
Here is a nice example of how Islam is really lacking in self-confidence. I saw this a lot back in the ME. I guess it goes back to the desire for honor. Since Islam can not earn honor and respect the old-fashioned way by establishing just, prosperous, and fruitful societies, it resorts to...bumber stickers, among other things:
In my new book Religion of Peace?, I tell the story of a bumper-sticker war that broke out in Cairo a few years ago. When Coptic Christians began putting the Christian fish symbol, long popular with American evangelicals, on their cars, Muslims responded with their own bumper stickers depicting sharks. An Egyptian Muslim explained: "The Christians had the fish so we responded with the shark. If they want to portray themselves as weak fishes, okay. We are the strongest.”
--Robert Spencer
In my new book Religion of Peace?, I tell the story of a bumper-sticker war that broke out in Cairo a few years ago. When Coptic Christians began putting the Christian fish symbol, long popular with American evangelicals, on their cars, Muslims responded with their own bumper stickers depicting sharks. An Egyptian Muslim explained: "The Christians had the fish so we responded with the shark. If they want to portray themselves as weak fishes, okay. We are the strongest.”
--Robert Spencer
Friday, July 20, 2007
Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox?!?!
Yes, there are two families of Eastern Churches: Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox. And what is the difference? Pretty straightforward: the Eastern Orthodox, like the Catholic and Reformed churches, accepts the Definition of Chalcedon.
Ah, so that doeesn't help much? Well the Definition of Chalcedon, promulgated in 451, stipulates not so much the explanation, but the mystery of the incarnation: That Jesus Christ is at once fully God and fully man. Not a mixture of the two, nor did his divinity consume his humanity. He was both at the same time. 100% human. 100% divine. Wrap your mind around that. But some churches did not accept it, those are what we call the Oriental Orthodox churches. The largest of which are three:
Aremnian Apostolic Church
Ethiopian Orthodox Church
Coptic Orthodox Church
They are each based in their respective countries (Copts in Egypt of course). So here is a statement of "unity of faith" betweeen two of those three churches (though there are other such churches).
Before leaving for the mission field I recall well visiting a Coptic church in my home city. Now I would feel much at home, having been familiarized with that form of worship. But then it was very...different.
In any case, here is the definition of Chalcedon, from a Reformed website no less. We must not forget that this is a profoundly Reformed text, while at the same time being Catholic and Orthodox:
Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D)
Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.
***
And finally, here is part of the text of accordance between the two Oriental Orthodox Churches:
We rejoice with the heartening developments in the lives of these historic Oriental Orthodox Churches, deeply rooted since the beginning of Christian history among the people of Africa. Their theological, spiritual and liturgical heritage, as well as their centuries-long witness to the Gospel, constitute a valuable source of inspiration for many other member churches of the WCC fellowship.
We rejoice with this promising news that extends far beyond bilateral relations by confirming that true reconciliation among churches is possible. We are grateful to each of you, the heads of churches, for the tangible witness you have offered in dealing successfully with church-dividing matters.
We recognize that all the protagonists in this process of healing and reconciliation are well known to the WCC fellowship of member churches as outstanding ecumenical leaders. His Holiness Pope Shenouda III served as one of the presidents of the WCC from 1991–1998. His Holiness Abune Paulos currently serves as one of the presidents of the WCC, having been elected in 2006. His Holiness Catholicos Aram I served as the moderator of the WCC Central Committee for two terms from 1991 – 2006. We congratulate you and offer our thanks to God for this historic achievement.
Ah, so that doeesn't help much? Well the Definition of Chalcedon, promulgated in 451, stipulates not so much the explanation, but the mystery of the incarnation: That Jesus Christ is at once fully God and fully man. Not a mixture of the two, nor did his divinity consume his humanity. He was both at the same time. 100% human. 100% divine. Wrap your mind around that. But some churches did not accept it, those are what we call the Oriental Orthodox churches. The largest of which are three:
Aremnian Apostolic Church
Ethiopian Orthodox Church
Coptic Orthodox Church
They are each based in their respective countries (Copts in Egypt of course). So here is a statement of "unity of faith" betweeen two of those three churches (though there are other such churches).
Before leaving for the mission field I recall well visiting a Coptic church in my home city. Now I would feel much at home, having been familiarized with that form of worship. But then it was very...different.
In any case, here is the definition of Chalcedon, from a Reformed website no less. We must not forget that this is a profoundly Reformed text, while at the same time being Catholic and Orthodox:
Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D)
Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.
***
And finally, here is part of the text of accordance between the two Oriental Orthodox Churches:
We rejoice with the heartening developments in the lives of these historic Oriental Orthodox Churches, deeply rooted since the beginning of Christian history among the people of Africa. Their theological, spiritual and liturgical heritage, as well as their centuries-long witness to the Gospel, constitute a valuable source of inspiration for many other member churches of the WCC fellowship.
We rejoice with this promising news that extends far beyond bilateral relations by confirming that true reconciliation among churches is possible. We are grateful to each of you, the heads of churches, for the tangible witness you have offered in dealing successfully with church-dividing matters.
We recognize that all the protagonists in this process of healing and reconciliation are well known to the WCC fellowship of member churches as outstanding ecumenical leaders. His Holiness Pope Shenouda III served as one of the presidents of the WCC from 1991–1998. His Holiness Abune Paulos currently serves as one of the presidents of the WCC, having been elected in 2006. His Holiness Catholicos Aram I served as the moderator of the WCC Central Committee for two terms from 1991 – 2006. We congratulate you and offer our thanks to God for this historic achievement.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Coptic Christians Attacked in Egypt
I have mentioned before my deep respect for the Coptic Christians of Egypt. Father Zakarias is one of the best evangelists of Muslims in the world, and he is Coptic. It is still the largest church in the Middle East/North Africa. The Copts are not Arabs, they are the original Egyptians who are the descendants of the Pharoahs and pre-Islamic inhabitants of the land. There are Coptic churches through the USA and Europe, perhaps you might think of visiting one in your area and saying HI and letting them know you care about them. Some information on recent persecution:
EGYPT Christians Attacked - VOM Sources
On May 11, a mob of Muslims attacked Christians in Bahma village south of Cairo after hearing rumors that a church was to be built in the village without government permission. Muslims left their Friday prayers and attacked the homes and shops of Christians, setting the buildings on fire. At least 10 Coptic Christians were injured in the attack. People from both faiths took up sticks and hatchets and began hurling bricks and firebombs at each other. At least 27 houses and shops were damaged by fire. At last report, 59 Muslims have been arrested on charges of arson and spreading sectarian strife. Pray these Christians will be encouraged to worship together, despite opposition. Pray they will demonstrate love to their neighbors. 1 Corinthians 13
From persecution.com
EGYPT Christians Attacked - VOM Sources
On May 11, a mob of Muslims attacked Christians in Bahma village south of Cairo after hearing rumors that a church was to be built in the village without government permission. Muslims left their Friday prayers and attacked the homes and shops of Christians, setting the buildings on fire. At least 10 Coptic Christians were injured in the attack. People from both faiths took up sticks and hatchets and began hurling bricks and firebombs at each other. At least 27 houses and shops were damaged by fire. At last report, 59 Muslims have been arrested on charges of arson and spreading sectarian strife. Pray these Christians will be encouraged to worship together, despite opposition. Pray they will demonstrate love to their neighbors. 1 Corinthians 13
From persecution.com
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Orthodoxy, Abouna Zacarias, and the Trinity
Folks in the West don't usually think about the Orthodox churches' missions to Islam very much. In fact, most Western Christians don't know the first thing about Eastern Orthodoxy.
One of various Orthodox churches is the Coptic Orthodox Church. For those of you who knows something about church history, they are one of the non-Chalcedonian churches. That is, they did not accept the Definition of Chalcedon (451 AD) wherein the Church said that Christ had two natures, one human, and one divine. He did not have some mixture of natures, nor was one eliminated or subsumed into the other.
The Coptic Orthodox Church is based out of Egypt, and they are by far the largest of the existing churches in the lands of Islamdom.
Now there is one Coptic priest named Abouna Zacarias. (Abouna is simply Arabic for 'our father' and is the title used for a priest here.) He is a brilliant scholar of Islam and is hands down the best-known apologist for Christianity in the entire region.
If you would like to read some of his work here is a link. He is here tackling what is probably the single hardest issue one could think of: The Doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Need I say that, technically speaking, the majority of Western Christians (Roman Catholic and Protestant) are probably heretics? I mean that if you keep asking questions about the Trinity and about the divinity of the Son you will generally run into a heresy. That is not because they want to be heretics of course, they simply have not read the early definitions and creeds on the matter. And the pastors who are responsible for teaching them? Unfortunately, the evangelical distaste for Catholicism led to a distaste for church history, and well, if you don't know where you come from you simply don't know who you are. So many of the pastors are ignorant of Trinitarian theology, even at a basic level.
Want to test your knowledge? Try this: name five heresies related to the divinity of Christ or the Trinity.
In any case, kudos to Abouna Zacarias for addressing these questions in an intelligent and direct way. He does not skirt around the fact that he is not a Muslim or that he does not believe in the Quran or Muhammad, as do many Western Christians when they discuss these questions. God bless him and his ministry
One of various Orthodox churches is the Coptic Orthodox Church. For those of you who knows something about church history, they are one of the non-Chalcedonian churches. That is, they did not accept the Definition of Chalcedon (451 AD) wherein the Church said that Christ had two natures, one human, and one divine. He did not have some mixture of natures, nor was one eliminated or subsumed into the other.
The Coptic Orthodox Church is based out of Egypt, and they are by far the largest of the existing churches in the lands of Islamdom.
Now there is one Coptic priest named Abouna Zacarias. (Abouna is simply Arabic for 'our father' and is the title used for a priest here.) He is a brilliant scholar of Islam and is hands down the best-known apologist for Christianity in the entire region.
If you would like to read some of his work here is a link. He is here tackling what is probably the single hardest issue one could think of: The Doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Need I say that, technically speaking, the majority of Western Christians (Roman Catholic and Protestant) are probably heretics? I mean that if you keep asking questions about the Trinity and about the divinity of the Son you will generally run into a heresy. That is not because they want to be heretics of course, they simply have not read the early definitions and creeds on the matter. And the pastors who are responsible for teaching them? Unfortunately, the evangelical distaste for Catholicism led to a distaste for church history, and well, if you don't know where you come from you simply don't know who you are. So many of the pastors are ignorant of Trinitarian theology, even at a basic level.
Want to test your knowledge? Try this: name five heresies related to the divinity of Christ or the Trinity.
In any case, kudos to Abouna Zacarias for addressing these questions in an intelligent and direct way. He does not skirt around the fact that he is not a Muslim or that he does not believe in the Quran or Muhammad, as do many Western Christians when they discuss these questions. God bless him and his ministry
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)