For those not paying attention, yesterday was “Everyone Draw Mohammad Day”, where a number of bloggers and websites (most notably a Facebook page, taken down late in the day by FB) purposely collected and posted drawings of the prophet of Islam, Mohammad.
I already touched on this issue a bit a couple of weeks ago (though it seemed to have gotten lost on the discussion of Arizona’s affirmation of the enforcement of federal immigration law), but here’s the basic skinny:
- A few years ago, a Danish newspaper published some political cartoons which depicted the prophet Mohammad. Somewhat predictably, because they believe it is a sin to even draw the image of big Mo, radical Islamists rioted, instituted death threats, and created a great deal of chaos around the globe. In the course of these events, it is reported that about 100 people were killed. One of the cartoonists, Kurt Westergaard, has since had two attempts made on his life by radical Islamists.
- In the aftermath of the Danish cartoon controversy, again predictably, the response from the establishment media was to blame the Danish newspaper – rather than the radical Islamists – for the violence (noting that the cartoons were far from blasphemous). Also, predictably, this was a rather obvious double-standard, since these same condemners had no problem with similar treatment of Jesus – primarily since there is almost zero likelihood of a Christian issuing a death sentence against a secular cartoonist.
- Dutch Film Director, Theo Van Gogh, was gunned down by a radical Islamist on the streets of Amsterdam for his 10-minute film, Submission, a documentary which criticized the abuse of women in Islam.
- In 2009, Yale University published a book about the Danish incident, The Cartoons that Shook the World. In an act that can only be accurately described as ‘cowardice’, Yale chose not to publish the actual cartoons the book was about! In fact, Yale University Press decided to expunge all images of Mohammad from the book – even the historical works of art that depict him. Lest this be spun as a nod to tolerance or respect, the Press editor who made the decision to expunge the images stated about his decision ““when it came between [standing on principle] and blood on my hands, there was no question.” [It should be noted that all of the images were later published by a Duke professor, much to the consternation of the University leadership, in "Muhammad: The Banned Images".]
- Earlier this year, the cartoon South Park depicted the prophet Mohammad in a bear suit (so that his image was not actually ever drawn, underscoring their point), which led to the suggestion of a death threat against the cartoonists and South Park’s owning entity, Viacom (who, incidentally, had an explosives-laden car parked in front of its Times Square headquarters a few weeks later). Comedy Central, South Park’s network, did the brave thing with the follow-up episode and censored it, caving in to the implied threat.
- As a response, Molly Norris, a cartoonist/blogger, suggested “Everybody Draw Mohammad Day” on May 20, 2010, as a way to have a large number of people draw images of the prophet – not as a statement against Islam, but to create a group too large to be intimidated by radical Islamists. However, when her suggestion went viral, she disavowed the suggestion – in fear for her personal safety (a response which, ironically, was what her idea was to combat!).
- In the meantime, another Mohammad cartoonist, Lars Vilks of Sweden, was forced to go into hiding after attempts were made on his life by radical Islamists.
- Yesterday – May 20 – there were a number of sites which hosted EDMD images, even without Norris on board. The primary Facebook page, in the face of International boycotts (!?!) was deleted by Facebook late in the day (though this one and this one are still there). The best ones, though, in my opinion were published by Reason magazine (none of which, incidentally, actually had pictures of Mohammad drawn on them
) and by one of my favorite cartoonists, iMaksim, who drew three cartoons, none of which were statements about the Muslim faith.
Reason magazine writer, Nick Gillespie, in summing up the ‘need’ for Everybody Draw Mohammad Day, noted that we, in America, define freedom of expression as a right granted by God and that:
no one should be beaten or killed or imprisoned simply for speaking their mind or praying to one god as opposed to the other or none at all or getting on with the small business of living their life in peaceful fashion. If we cannot or will not defend that principle with a full throat, then we deserve to choke on whatever jihadists of all stripes can force down our throats.
So, there are two questions that spring to my mind: 1) What should the Christian response be to radical Islam, specifically in this matter of “drawing Mohammad”; and, similarly 2) Should Christians be supportive of “Everybody Draws Mohammad Day”?
Drawing Mohammad
As a Christian, we have a number of principles to balance in our dealings with people of other religious faiths, who worship other gods. In the face of extreme proselytism, Elijah’s response was to mock the false Ba’al and his prophets (which is sometimes the correct response), particularly if it can deliver a death-blow to the gods in question. Conversely, Paul’s response to Artemis, in a society that demanded respect of the her, was defended by a city official as having not blasphemed her, even though he (Paul) taught that man-made gods were no gods at all.
The challenge we face is – how do we deny the false gods of the world – Islam, Joseph Smith, the state, etc. – without so turning off their followers toward Christ that they refuse to listen?
So one question, in this instance is – actually how offensive is it to Islam to “draw Mohammad”?
Moderate Muslims will note that there is a rich history within Islam which includes the artistic depiction of the prophet, and that the prohibition on making images of him is similar to the Judeo-Christian prohibition of graven images – the creation of physical idols to be worshiped. As such, it is only the fundamentalist branch which takes the literalist view, sometimes issuing fatwas against artists for insulting Islam via drawing Mohammad.
With this in mind, in addition to the recent history of intimidation on the part of radical Islamists, it becomes apparent that what is at hand is more than simple respect towards other with different beliefs.
Everybody Draw
In the case of Everybody Draw Mohammad Day, I think Christians – particularly those in the West – have a thin line to tread.
We can take an in-your-face approach which is completely disrespectful and offensive to all Muslims (for example, by encouraging that Mohammad be drawn as a pig) – one that seeks to brand all Muslims as fanatical extremists.
Or, we could take an equal-but-opposite, limp-wristed and myopic approach which says “what is Christ-like about promoting or doing things that seek to do nothing but offend”? In doing so, we basically bow to extremist elements of a proselytizing, anti-Christian force, which seeks to squash not just anti-Muslim speech, but ultimately subjugation of all to Islam.
I think, though, that we can find a middle ground in the matter which says that we, as Christians, will not stand for the violent coercion of anyone on behalf of religion – our own, or anyone else’s. As such, I think that we could support EDMD from the standpoint that if we all draw pictures of Mohammad (in a respectful manner, as in the Reason drawings), the fringe elements of Islam cannot single out and target the few who are (currently) willing to speak out against them. At the same time, we should not support those who would create images that are truly sacrilegious – of any faith.
It’s a delicate path to tread – to be neither an equal-opportunity-offender or a spineless appeaser. In one way lies driving others away from Christ, and in the other lies an invitation to oppression of all – Christian and non-Christian, alike.
64 Comments(+Add)
You have accurately outlined the offenses by some Muslims I guess as partial justification for inciting them. Elijah confronted the false god Baal along with an open display of the power of Jehovah. What would be our display of the power of Jesus?
Perhaps it would be uncommon and unmerited love. There is nothing wrong with humbly and boldly confronting any false god, but it is unseemly to participate in an organized campaign to incite those who we supposedly are attempting to reach. Even moderate Muslims would find this behavior as provocative.
Let us desecrate the ancestors of the Shintos, slaughter cows in front of Hindus, and do everything we can to provoke people of other religions so we cann satify our relentless craving for superiority at the expense of redemption.
The message is clear: Muslims are our enemy. And the “do unto others” phrase? Just another joke found in an irrelevant piece of literature.
Rick,
The message that you choose to read is that Muslims are our enemy. Chris is offering a different explanation, a message that intimidation and forceful coercion on the part of one religion to another is not acceptable. You have chosen simply to disregard that message and assign motives and intent as you see fit. Since I don’t think you’s like others to assign motives and intent to your words in contradiction to what you have said, perhaps you should “do unto others”, unless that is just another nice instruction for others to follow. You’ve assigned motives here in the same way you continuously assign nationalistic motives to anyone who expresses a political opinion that you don’t agree with.
Not motives…just methods. This has probably hindered missions to Muslims. I will ask some of my friends who live in Muslim nations and have hazarded their lives in order to reach them for Jesus.
Redemption must always be our motive.
On a related note, I’ve always found it interesting that some Fundamentalist Christians cite the same sort of restriction of creating images of God when objecting to things like imaginative prayer – that having an image of Christ in our mind while praying or using icons is akin to idolatry. Of course, those Christians don’t usually resort to death threats against people who do, but I just think it’s interesting that when it comes down to the attributes of God, there seems to be some agreement on how these groups envision and portray God.
Rick,
Using “do unto others” as the underlying principle: I would have no problems with political cartoonists using (non-blasphemous) images of Jesus condemning those who claim to follow him, yet also choose to blow up abortion clinics. In fact, if I were out proselytizing by the sword, I would hope that my neighbor would shame me into recognizing the error in my ways.
In this particular case, I do not advocate truly blasphemous renderings of the prophet Mohammad in any form. Rather, I see no problem with standing up to those who would – in the name of their religion – threaten, cajole, coerce and kill anyone who would not follow the practices of that religion. A Muslim friend of mine, earlier this week, talking about EDMD told me that the radical/fundamentalist Islamists who have taken over the public perception of Islam do not follow the Koran in this matter, because non-Muslims are not bound to follow Islam (in not making images of the prophet), and moderate Islam does not have the strict prohibition on depictions of the prophet in non-idolizing, non-blasphemous usage.
His feeling is that the radicals have already cowed the moderates via the same means – coercion, threats and murder – and many of the moderates would really like to see the radicals uprooted.
The issue here isn’t Christianity vs. Islam. The issue is Radical Islam vs. all non-Muslims. Their directive that non-Muslims must follow Islamic law does not stop with drawing the prophet. That is simply Step #1. At what point must we finally stop obeying Islamic sensibilities? Witnessing to a Muslim is a capital offense in a strict reading of the Koran, as is converting from Islam to another religion.
In this particular case, we have three sets of “neighbors” to consider: Radical Islamists, non-Radical Muslims, and non-Muslims. Sorry if you disagree, but my reading of Jesus’ teaching would lead me to side first with the most innocent party – the non-Muslims – and then with the non-Radical Muslims. As such, I’m going to side with the folks who do not want to be part of Islam, but who are being dictated to how they must act – under threat of death – by radical members of that religion. Next, I’m going to side with the non-radicals, by supporting only those artists who do not create blasphemous images (with “blasphemous” defined by reasonable public standards).
Isn’t it by mocking (drawing Mohammad? Hardly “mocking”) that the artists end up exposing Islam for what it really is at its core in the Quran? Violent?
There are plenty of violent Christians, but those who are hardcore Christians are loving to no end. There are plenty of loving Muslims but those who are hardcore Muslims are typically…violent.
“big Mo”?
At least I have learned something new. The word “neighbor” can be dissected into at least three categories, with the least savory receiving the least “love thy neighbor” consideration. And we treat lost people based upon their “most innocent” status.
Interesting.
It is one thing to resist and/or oppose Islamic sensabilities when they are in direct opposition to biblical truth and/or commands. It is another to openly provoke a Muslim on an issue that is tangential and easily avoided.
I suppose I would agree if forced to “take sides.” That said, I see no benefit to the church, the kingdom, or the cause of Christ when we take sides between radical fundamentalists and secular journalists.
Rick, you’ll like this…
I had lunch today with a man who represents Arab led ministries in the Middle East. We talked about how much damage is being done by well meaning evangelical pastors in America (People whose ministries we’d all agree were good and balanced and biblical) because they recorded their services, added arabic subtitles and/or dubbing, then beam the vidio feed into the ME.
What they see and hear is a Westerner standing in front of an American flag asking God to bless the troops of the USA? The he preaches the Gosepl…
#10 – Isn’t it worthwhile to attempt to see things as do others? Redemption, people, redemption.
Thanks, Neil.
It’s called “judging fairly”, Rick – or “using equal measures” (as taught multiple times in the Bible).
The LORD abhors dishonest scales, but accurate weights are his delight.
And in this particular case, you have a dispute where your response to groups with varying degrees requires different responses.
In the case of a criminal beating a woman to death in the street, I would hope that one would first secure the safety of the woman being beaten, rather than that of the criminal.
Although I fall short of this, I suggest our “response” should be redemptive. I have also found that I can much more easily ridicule and demean lost people when I am not interceeding for them in prayer.
It is impossible to intecede and demean simultaneously. I have tested that “theory”.
The Muslims operate out of the law as they see it. We must operate out of God’s love and grace. The Old Testament templates such as Elijah are no longer our example.
Our example is Jesus. We should be willing to give our very lives for the vilest of sinners. We also should not wait to “respond” to these deceptions; we should continue to share and live the Lord Jesus as well as pray for them.
Love covers a multitude of sins. Confronting a religious deception by maligning it by purposely committing a sacriledge (as they see it)is counter productive and brings the battle into the arena of carnality.
Missionaries would never use that “tactic” when they attempt to reach lost and sometimes violent tribes. I recommend the book “Through the Gates of Splendor” and her wriings after her husband was murdered by violent sinners.
Her “response” was to “seek and to save” them, and many Alcus came to faith in Jesus Christ.
And so this is – of those oppressed by the threats and the real violence done by a radical and vocal minority of Muslims.
Look at filmmaker Theo Van Gogh: He produced a 10-minute documentary film that was hardly mean or incendiary, but was critical of Islamic treatment of women. He had numerous death threats made against him, and one morning was shot outside of his workplace. He was hit with eight bullets to the chest, after which the Islamist killer took a note explaining that the assassination was in response to Van Gogh’s film and attached it to his chest by burying a knife into it.
This is but one successful threat carried out against a singular critic of Islam.
The basic defense of censoring those who would criticize Islam is out of fear for the safety for those who make or print the criticisms. The beauty of EDMD was that it was a Rosa-Parks-esque peaceful protest against an unelected, but self-proclaimed group of tyrants, by saying “you can’t single out someone to threaten and kill if all of us stand up to you at once”. That is certainly a better response than a violent one directed against Muslims, or a quisling one what sits back and does nothing while innocents are bullied, beaten and killed.
I happen to love those neighbors who are being attacked…
The Apostle Paul taught that we have freedom in Christ to do many things, but that it requires wisdom to know when to do them and when not to. In this particular case, I would say that we have freedom in Christ to be critical of radical Islam – and to defy it by drawing political cartoons of its false prophet. 99.9% of the time, it would be wise to not do so. But in this case, the 0.01% rule applies, because it is done so in defense of others and in defiance of a radical branch of a religion that has beaten down its own “moderates” through fear and intimidation.
Failing to do anything in response to this type of tyranny is little more than quisling.
All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing – Edmund Burke
You can pray.
I will pray and act.
The fight of radical Islam is not uniquely against Christianity – it is against all who are not of Islam. Acting the part of a martyr in its face brings no unique glory to Christ, but simply stands as a monument – atheist, Christian, Mormon, Jewish, Hindu – against its depravity.
We are called on to protect the weak and those who are unjustly abused.
Converting from Islam to anything else is “maligning it” and “purposely committing a sacrilege” – even in the eyes of “moderate” Islam. And the whole “carnality” dog doesn’t hunt – it’s just gnostic rubbish.
In the case of creating an image of Mohammad (in case you didn’t read the OP), this is not a sacrilege across all of Islam – just to its more fundamentalist elements. None of the Danish cartoons, nor most of the “winning” EDMD images were “sacrilegious”.
Apples and watermelons.
You and I have profoundly different views of redemptive Christianity and how we should live in a fallen world.
Chris L.
Once again you show your hand. You have little to no knowledge of Islam if your views, as represented here, are anywhere close to your whole knowledge.
I’ll pray for, and support the oppressed, while you piss and moan about hurting the feelings of the oppressors, and we’ll both sleep well at night, Rick.
I’m racking my brain trying to figure out how to say this.
I think I’d be willing to offend many to save somebody’s life. And we aren’t just talking “what if’s” as people have been attacked and at least one killed over this.
This is a very difficult thing. I read the testimony of a young woman in a Muslim country (the testimony was from last year) on how she came to believe in Jesus and how difficult that was as having a Bible, proselytizing, denying Mohammed, and even converting are illegal. This young lady was ostracized and kicked out of her home. Others have experienced worse. Others are experiencing worse.
It is one thing to live in a society of persecution where there is little you can do to protect yourself or others physically. It is very different when some small action can keep others from experiencing such persecution.
Pastorboy,
Tonight I heard a prof from Spring Arbor University talking about what God is doing in the Arab world reaching Muslims for himself – but he used the Arabic “Isa” when referring to Jesus.
ISA!?!?!?!
Clearly this man is a crypto-Muslim heretic who cannot be trusted since he obviously chooses to worship the false Jesus of the Arabs!
I stormed out in protest!
(OK the last parts of that are not exactly true…)
#19 – Another in an ongoing series which reveal someone’s true heart. It is very sad.
#21 Allah is a false god, actually an idol, with its roots in the same moon god of Ur that Abram worshiped before he came to faith in Yahweh.
Isa is a prophet who taught truth and did great things, yet he did not die on the cross for our sins, though he was pulled up into paradise with Allah. He is not the true Jesus either.
You can keep bringing this up, Neil, but in my ministry to Muslims, It is extremely difficult for them to differentiate between the true Jesus of the Bible and the isa that they have been taught about without differentiating with the right term EL MASI.
#22 – Rick, my true heart is for justice and mercy. In this particular instance, peaceful protest is a legitimate response to threats, coercion and violence. The prohibition against drawing Mohammad is part of sharia law, which is not an expectation of unbelievers. It is only a pretext for an intention which already exists in radical Islam, which is to expand itself through violence and thuggery. Now, there are three potential responses that the victims of thuggery (or their supporters) could have to it:
A) Do nothing, gnostically/sanctimoniously praying that something will change while simultaneously decrying any other response as “carnal”.
B) Support peaceful protest against the thugs in a way that makes their methods ineffective and somewhat ridiculous
C) Support a response to threats and violence with threats and violence.
You have chosen A, and I have chosen B. I happen to believe that A accomplishes nothing but support the oppressors over the oppressed, to Christian’s point in #20. This isn’t a theoretical exercise. People are already being singled out and beaten/killed for “insulting” Islam – and the number isn’t “at least one”. It’s already in the hundreds, if we just want to only include those killed in response to artistic expression.
So, yes, my “true heart” is with the victims, not the oppressors. I happen to see that as being in line with Christ’s teaching.
#23 – PB – To Neil’s point, while some (like you) might use Isa in the way you have described, this name is not universally treated in that manner. As such, there was absolutely nothing in the context of Warren’s usage of Isa to suggest that he was ascribing your usage, in which case the proper Christian response is to assume the best, rather than the worst.
You know, I’m not so sure that Rick is Rick.
allah can be used as the name of a false god.
allah is also arabic for god.
isa can be used as the name of the inaccurate prophet according to islam.
isa is also arabic for jesus.
you can keep trying to pour nefarious meanings into this but it’s simple linguistics. why do you insist of ignoring the distinction?
so the prof is a heretic or at least wrong to use isa?
i’ll choose the word of arabic believers over your agenda driven logic.
i wonder if pastorboy would have the nerve to tell arabic speaking christians that the way they use their own language is wrong?
it reminds me of well-meaning, but misguided missionaries who used to tell native americans that thier language was evil and that they must worship in english.
it kind scares me that you teach this to unbelievers… why not just correct their errors of isa? it’s the same person they refer to, they just have wrong knowledge about him. they do not need to acknowledge a whole different person with a whole different name. just correct their erroneous beliefs.
it’s exactly the same in english. all sorts of people have wrong beliefs about jesus. what do we do? we correct their false beliefs.
i wonder what damage you may be causing by saddling muslms with the burden you create.
and i’ll keep bringing it up when it’s relevant. not to defend warren or the prof in question – that is not my point. my point is to illustrate ethnocentrism applied to cross-cultural missions.
I know Arabic and Pakistani (they actually live in different Muslim dominated countries) Christians PERSONALLY who use the term EL MASI to specifically make a distinctive between the (false) ISA of Islam- because that is the distinctive that sets him apart. He is not Isa the prophet, He is EL MASI- the Messiah. It would offend them that we here in America would make that compromise that they are willing to die for.
Still wrong, Neil. And who brought up Rick Warren? Not I.
PB – the problem with this statement is that it is NOT universal. It would be more accurate to say “some Christians…”, because it is not true across the board. Your slander against Warren is unfounded (yet again)
pastorboy,
you are correct, the isa of islam is false.
just as the jesus of the mormons an jehova’s witnesses is false.
you are also correct that – well it’s al masih, not el masi… but you were probably transliterating… – al masih means the messiah.
and the believers you know have made a choice that is perfectly fine. just like some in english choose to refer to jesus as messiah, or call themselves christ-followers not christians. it is just easier for them.
what is wrong is your insistence that that is how it MUST be done – by everyone. that we and they CANNOT refer to jesus the true messiah by the simple arabic – isa.
jesus is lord and messiah, the risen savior.
isa (jesus) is lord and masih (messiah), the risen savior.
that some deny this of jesus… that some deny this of isa… that many have false impressions of jesus/isa is of no consequence to the truthfulness of the same.
jesus the messiah!
isa al masih!
OK – we all agree this is not about warren. it’s about making personal preferences universal norms.
where have we seen that before?
While I realize this is not a perfect example of the difference between localized and universalized meaning, this illustrates the point Neil is making:
In most Western circles, if you say “St. Nicholas”, people assume that you are referring to Santa Claus, because they are synonymous. However, in some circles (particular w/ those of the Eastern Orthodox branch of Christianity), these names are not synonymous. So, the analogous argument you are making is in stating that “Santa Claus” cannot be “Saint Nicholas” because “Christians” you know (EO’s) are careful to distinguish between the two.
In the same way, in many circles “Isa” and “Isa Al Massi” are synonymous. However, to a subset of Arabic Christians, they make the distinctive between the two. Just because one group you know of makes this distinctive does not make it universal.
further, we would never say that because the mormons and jw’s have a false jesus that we we cannot use the name correctly.
“isa” is a simple name like “luke.” it has NO meaning in and of itself.
I never made this about Warren, but since yall did:
I cannot tell his motives, but I believe he was making a nod to Muslims by saying Isa. This is because of his massive ecumenical work, specifically in his PEACE program.
Just sayin’
#34 and #33
We will just have to agree to disagree on this one.
I am not trying to make it universal, I am saying as Christians let us be as specific as possible in the world where the term god can mean just about anything to anybody.
We wouldn’t be talking about it if you hadn’t made it about Warren.
Seeing how he said Jesus name in several languages, your skills of deduction suck.
In your criticisms of Warren’s prayer your entire argument has been that it is universal.
FYI: For where you made it about Warren, you can begin w/ this post right after the 2009 Inauguration…
i will not agree to disagree. this would be to acquiesce that it is just a difference of opinion. you are doing much more than calling for specificity. i am all for specificity.
you cannot refute anything i said in #32. and you are as wrong when you say that any reference to isa is a reference to a false jesus (cf. 23) as you would be to say any use of allah must mean the false god of islam.
isa al masih!
jesus is messiah!
re 37 – is this your way of saying you were wrong in 23?
i reread the comments in that thread (cf. 39) and was struck by how pastorboy referred to the name jesus in other languages as “add ons” – WOW!
Rick Warren was trying to be ecumenical and he succeeded. He was tipping his hat to Muslims and he succeeded.
Isa is the name of a false Jesus. He was not crucified. He was not resurrected. He is only a prophet, like Mohammad. He is not god.
That is how the Muslims portray Jesus/Isa. That is the point. Especially for a guy like Warren who cow-tows to other religions, he needs to be especially careful to speak about Jesus VERY SPECIFICALLY or people might get confused that the muslim ISA and the Christian JESUS are one and the same. THEY ARE NOT.
You are a complete lying slanderer, PB. I wonder when you’ll wake up and finally quit.
Warren said “Yeshua”, as well, instead of “Yeshua hamashiach” , so he could have been talking about Simon bar Yeshua or one of several other Yeshua’s in this history of the Hebrew people.
Warren also said “Jesus”, as well, instead of “Jesus Christ”, so he could have been talking about Jesus Castillo (since Warren is from Los Angeles).
Your argument boils down to nothing by hate, PB.
Repent
The original King James was good enough for the Apostle Paul, so it should be good enough for us…
and “jesus” is the name of a false jesus. he is not eternally god, he is a created being. that is how the jehaovah’s witnesses portray jesus. people might get confused that the jw jesus and the christian JESUS are one and the same.
THEY ARE NOT THE SAME!!!!!
again i say – there is nothing in comment #32 that pastorboy can deny or refute. therefore we get this “i know what warren REALLY meant because i have the adm decoder ring” slop.
finally, how is not pure racism to say that the name jesus as translated by other languages and peoples is a troubling “add on” and must not be used.
isa al masih! can you DIG it!!!!
# 49 As long as it’s only the picture of the blue eyed Jesus……
#32 Again I will say that the Arabic and Pakistani Christians I know personally call Jesus Isa el Masi. They are very specific because they are not ashamed even if it brings persecution.
(as a side bar, Chris L. My friend in Pakistan called me today and stated that he could not contact me on facebook because it is shut down in Pakistan due to EDMD)
As to Chris L, You brought up Warren on this thread. I brought it up on the past thread, yes. I stand by my assessment, not just based on Warren leading up to the inaugural prayer, but the inaugural prayer itself and all the ecumenical/syncrenistic events he has attended and spoken at since. I am convinced he believes that Allah and the God of the Bible are one and the same. Allah is the false pagan moon deity. God is elohim, three in one, exactly as presented in the Bible. I am not hating. I am stating an observation.
Here’s the actual transcript of the prayer:
So, we either have:
A) Someone praying and invoking Jesus’ name in four languages (Hebrew, Arabic, Spanish, English), and then quoting him (The Lord’s Prayer).
OR
B) Someone praying and invoking Jesus’ name in three languages (Hebrew, Spanish, English), citing a non-Jesus Jesus in a fourth language in the middle of the list (Arabic), and then quoting only three of the four Jesus’ giving the Lord’s Prayer
Whether you call it the “charitable view” or Occam’s Razor, the only reasonable choice (unless you’re purposely out to slander Warren) is (A). [As for adding "al Masi", I heard this morning that Yasu would be more appropriate as a direct translation of the Christian Jesus to Arabic, because "al Masi" is "the Messiah", which is not a direct translation. So, we could argue nefarious meanings until the cows come home, or we can look at Warren's contextual usage, and say, pretty confidently, that he was not referring to the Muslim "Isa".]
As for Allah, I’ve had a number of Arabic-speaking friends explain to me that they believe the Allah of Islam and the God of Judaism/Christianity are two different entities, but that “Allah” (the title) is the only appropriate word in Arabic to describe Him (which makes it difficult in conversation, if you don’t consider context).
Well, you believe a lot of other falsehoods, as well, so why not add one more to the mix?
again – this is fine. But it negates nothing I have said to this point.
English/Arabic
Jesus/Isa
the/al
Messiah/Masih
therefore, a christian praying in the name of isa is as acceptable as one praying in the name of jesus.
why would a pakistani refer to jesus as “isa al masih?”
scotty, just avoid confusion, please do not refer to “jesus” – we may think you mean the false jesus of the jehovah’s witnesses or mormons. AND THEY ARE NOT THE SAME!
henceforth all references must include a) reference to his deity, b) his atoning death (preferably psa) and c) his resurrection (though this should not be used to talk about restoring the earth).
what a convoluted web you weave.
and funny you should say “god is elohim” since god is the english equivalent of allah.
allah (pronoun) is the false god is islam
allah (noun) is also the arabic word for god.
therefore, allah is a false god… yet, allah is the triune god, creator of the universe.
actually, i pretty much guaranteed warren would come up when i pointed out how silly i would be if i applied pastorboy’s logic to the prof i heard the other night.
again, how is not pure racism to say that the name jesus as translated by other languages and peoples is a troubling “add on” and must not be used?
I don’t know that I can handle that kind of pressure, Neil!! (grins)
#49–ain’t that the truth.
I prefer to call Jesus Joshua or Yeshua.
Sometimes I call him Alpha or Omega.
Sometimes I call him Beginning or End.
Sometimes I call him Bright Morning Star.
Good morning, Resurrection and the Life!
Good evening Living Water!
Sometimes I call him the Way, the Truth or the Life.
Good night, Jehovah Jireh!
Keep us safe Bread of Life!
I guess my point is that Jesus, frankly, goes by a lot of different names if you really think about it. I’ll leave it up to the Arabic Scholars to sort of the best way for people of Arabic descent to call upon him…frankly, I don’t care…as long as it is Him they are calling upon.
Leave it up to John to make the name of Jesus a test of faith. Good work John. Good work.
jerry,
the only one i would disagree with is referring to jesus as “jehova jireh.” that would be confusing the persons of the trinity. that pickiness aside – you opitn is well made.
to the op. i am torn on the whole edmd thing… from a purely secular view i understand it. from a chrsitian pov i understand standing up for the safety of others, but is that the best way to do it?
That’s a good question.
As I look at the sermon on the mount, particularly the sections on “peacemaking”, each of the items suggested by Jesus (turning the other cheek, carrying the load another mile, giving the tunic and the cloak) are all non-violent solutions which also create a specifically embarrassing situation for the aggressor. In the case of EDMD, the solution they chose was non-violent (good) and created an embarrassing situation for the aggressors (they can no longer single out an individual – or a very small group – to intimidate) – which is also good.
I think that where it could cross the line was if (and when – because there were some) the images drawn were truly blasphemous and/or outright sacrilegious to all Muslims. The most creative ones I saw were on the Reason site – the Pipe (”this is not a Pipe” – based on the classic artwork “The Treachery of Images”), Where’s Mohammad? (based on “where’s Waldo?”) and Connect-the-Dots (which would only have a picture of the prophet if the reader connected the dots, thus “everyone” drawing Mohammad). Many of the others, which were simply pictures of a man in a turban or spoofs on famous artwork (like the Norman Rockwell spoof above), fit this mold, as well.
The set-up, itself, is not an affront to all Muslims, because much of Islam does not consider a drawing of the prophet to be ontologically a sin. Or – for Muslims who prefer to follow sharia, but who are not radical, there is no expectations that non-Muslims must follow sharia.
So – in terms of a creative, non-violent solution to try and stop violence, I thought that EDMD was actually a better idea than ones I’ve seen to date…
Can we just call Jesus, son of the Most High God (I almost put Joseph, the Carpenter) “friend”?