Jay Smith vs Abdullah Al Andalusi. Wich is the religion of Peace for today ?

Ännu en debatt mellan Jay Smith och Abdullah Al Andalusi. Abdullah gör väldigt bra ifrån sig i denna och är väldigt bra på att argumentera för sin sak.

Här är en nice video med Jay där han pratar om Koranens bland annat Talmudiska urkunder ( Mishnah Sanhedrin  och Koranens saga om Kain och Abel)

Bernard Lewis – The Crisis of Islam [Gratis Ljudbok]

Bernard Lewis – The Crisis of Islam. Holy War and Unholy Terrorr. [Gratis Ljudbok]

Läste den efter jag läste What went Wrong och denna är riktigt bra verkligen.

Wiki:

The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror is a book written byBernard Lewis. The nucleus of the book was an article published in The New Yorker in November 2001.

According to the author, the Islamic world is locked in an internal struggle over how best to address and ultimately solve the problems endemic to many of its societies: namely, widespread poverty, extreme economic inequality, the prevalence of government by despotic rulers, and the inability to keep pace with emerging economies. The crisis concerns the choice the Islamic world faces between two diametrically opposed solutions. In this work he stresses that nuclear bombs throughout the Middle East are the biggest crisis.

Opposing those within Islam who argue for the continued and peaceful spread of economic and political freedoms as a means to solve these problems are the various Muslim fundamentalist movements, most notably Wahhabism, which blame all of these ills on whatever modernization and Western influence the Islamic world has already embraced, and advocate an unreserved rejection of the West. This rejection includes violence against Western countries and interests, and most especially violence against ”impious” Muslim rulers who have adopted ”Western” ways. The fundamentalists seek the establishment of states and societies based on Islamic Law and traditional mores.

The author warns that the resolution of this struggle between Western and anti-Western influences within the Islamic world will determine whether the Islamic world takes its place alongside other countries in a global community, or whether it will regress into backwardness and intractable conflict with non-Muslim nations.

 

What Went Wrong ? The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East [Gratis Ljudbok]

Bernard Lewis. What went wrong ? The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East. Gratis Ljudbok.

Otroligt bra bok, Bernard Lewis är en otrolig historiker och måste nog kallas legend – trots hans syn på det armeniska folkmordet(eller rättare benämnt utplånandet av de kristna i anatolien).

Den här boken fick stor uppmärksamhet när den släpptes och är väldigt välskriven och intressant. Vill du lära dig något nytt så borde du läsa Bernard Lewis.

Betyg: 10 av 10

Recension:

Bernard Lewis, 85 year old professor emeritus at Princeton University, is the universally acknowledged dean of Middle East studies in the West, so it is only fitting and proper that we turn to him to tell us ”what went wrong” in the Islamic world to breed the hatred and violence that was so horrifically brought home to the United States on September 11th.  The fascinating case he makes here is that the early success of Islam has actually been a bane rather than a blessing, retarding the development of the Muslim Middle East and resulting in a particularly anxious reaction to the rise to world dominance of the West.

Mr. Lewis begins, as he is always careful to do, by calling our attention to the preeminence that the Islamic world once enjoyed.  He pays homage to the civilization they created and justifies the enormous pride they took in their achievements.

In its simplest terms, Mr. Lewis’s argument is that the success of Muhammad in establishing not merely the Muslim religion, but also a state dominated by that faith, served to create a society that is totalitarian by its very nature, bound by rules and strictures that make it too static to adapt and compete with a West where Christianity, in contrast, does not demand control over the political and economic spheres.  The problem is to be found at the very foundations of the respective faiths :

Karl Heinz Ohlig – Muhammad as a Christological Honorific Title [Läs detta]

Intervju med Professor Emiritus av Religious Studies Karl Heinz Ohlig om en huvudtes i Inarah Institutets senaste bok om ”Islams” första århundraden. Mer kommer.

Har deras senaste bok hemma som minst sagt är revolutionerande, främst på grund av de arkeologiska bevisen.

”In his book ”The Hidden Origins of Islam: New Research into Its Early History,” the theologian Karl-Heinz Ohlig has come to the conclusion that Islam was not originally conceived as an independent religion. Alfred Hackensberger has talked with the author

According to Karl-Heinz Ohlig, ”the term muhammad was originally a Christological honorific title”Your book bears the title ”The Hidden Origins.” What is hidden about the origins of Islam?Karl-Heinz Ohlig: All the information we posses on the origins of Islam is taken from later texts – ”biographies” that were written in the 9th and 10th centuries. One of these texts, the Annals of at-Tabari (10th century), is also the source of further histories. As such, we lack any corroborating contemporary texts for the first two centuries.

Can these later documents still be regarded as accurate? From a scholarly point of view, are they not something akin to falsifications?

Ohlig: To categorize these texts, or similarly the books of Moses or the Romulus and Remus tale, as falsifications would be entirely wrong, as one has to take into consideration this specific literary genre. Religious-political foundation myths are not history texts and nor were they meant to be.

You advocate the thesis that Islam was not conceived as an independent religion. What proof do you have for this claim?

Ohlig: According to the evidence of Christian literature under Arab rule from the 7th and 8th centuries, as well as from Arab coinage and inscriptions from this period, such as that on the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, the new rulers adhered to a Syrian-Persian form of Christianity that rejected the decisions of the Council of Nicaea. Instead, it regarded Jesus as the messenger, the prophet, the servant of God, but not the physical son of God, who is a strictly unitary being not ”adjoined” to any person. The fathers of the Church, for instance, regarded John of Damascus (d. around 750) as a heretic, because his Greek understanding of Christianity did not correspond to their views. There is no mention of a new, independent religion of the Arabs before the 9th century.

Does this mean that Islam was only made into an independent religion at a later date?

Ohlig: This formulation sounds somewhat arbitrary or like a conscious decision. It is much more the case that religions often arise in that a new assessment is made of the inherited religious conceptions of a tradition. These are then interpreted differently, solidified, and systematized in a specific manner.

You have also engaged in historical-critical research with respect to the Prophet Mohammed. What can be said about his person?

Ohlig: It has been established that the earliest coinage with the motto MHMT appeared in eastern Mesopotamia around 660, made their way westward, and there bilingual coins were stamped with MHMT in the center and muhammad in Arabic script at the edge. These coins bear a Christian iconography, i.e. always with crosses, so that the name muhammad is clearly to be understood as a predicate of Jesus, as in the Sanctus of the mass (”praise be to he that comes…”).

”Western Islamic studies remains preoccupied with philology without employing the established methods of historical scholarship,” says OhligHere, muhammad means ”revered” and ”praiseworthy” or ”He who is revered” and ”He who is praised.” This also corresponds to the inscribed text on the Dome of the Rock, where the title muhammad refers to the Messiah, Jesus, the Son of Mary, and the servant of God. It also fits in with the polemics of John of Damascus against statements he considered heretical.

Later, it seems as if this Christological predicate lost its reference, so that it appears in the Koran as a frequently mentioned, nameless prophet, which could then be historicized into the form of an Arab prophet. The earliest source of this historicization is to be found in writings of John of Damascus, who speaks of the pseudo-prophet Mamed. Only later could the wealth of stories of this Mohammed fill out the historical deficit.

So what you are saying is that the term muhammad could possibly be referring to Christ?

Ohlig: It is entirely possible – even when previously historically improvable – that an important preacher was present at the beginning or at another point in the history of the Koran movement. However, according to the evidence of Arab coins and the inscription in the Dome of the Rock, it must be assumed that the term muhammad, the revered or the praiseworthy, was originally a Christological honorific title.

Why is it that these links haven’t previously been made?

Ohlig: Such inquiries are forbidden in Muslim theology, which hasn’t yet passed through its Enlightenment. Western Islamic studies remains preoccupied with philology without employing the established methods of historical scholarship. Similarly, there is little religious-historical or Christian theological investigation into the extremely varied cultural traditions of the Middle East. As such, the roots and motives of these traditions are not recognized.

In your book ”Early Islam,” you write that you do not wish to harm this religion. Many Muslims will see the exact opposite in your work.

Ohlig: Since the 18th century, many Christians, even to this day, regard the Enlightenment as an attack and an attempt to destroy their religion. In reality, however, it has allowed Christianity to survive in the modern world and also be applicable to the lives of modern man. This is a phase that Islam still has to go through, but it is unavoidable if it doesn’t want to exist in the future only in ghetto-like, closed communities.

Alfred Hackensberger”

Adnan Rashid & Abdul Hamza Tzortzis vs Jay Smith. What is more relevant for England in the 21th century

Det här är från den protestantiska radio showen Unbelievable från stationen premier. Ett interreligiöst debatt program från ett kristet perspektiv. Adnan Rashid är ofta med och är en väldigt artig och kunnig apologist och har diskuterat med den inte alltid så artige Jay Smith flera gånger. Dem har även haft offentliga debatter i en park i London som finns på youtube. Jay Smith är en evangelikal apologist född i Indien.

Unbelievable Podcast. Här finns alla avsnitt.

Peter Kreeft vs Robert Spencer. The only good muslim is a bad muslim ?

Även fast topiken är väldigt brysk och kontroversiell så är detta ändå en väldigt djup diskussion. Robert Spencer är en känd islam kritiker och står bakom motionen och Peter Kreeft är en av världens mest kända katolska filosofer och har författat över 40 böcker – Peter Kreeft är emot motionen.

Basicaly, Spencer argumenterar för att Islam är en religion som i princip uppmanar sina anhängare till hemskheter medans Kreefts resonemang är att saken är mer nyanserad.

Ahmed Deedat vs Anis Shorrosh. Is Jesus God ?

Abdullah Al Andalusi vs James White. The Big Trinity Debate

Här är en debatt som presenteras av The Muslim Debate Initiative och mer från dem kommer. Debatten är ganska jämn men James White är ju som sagt väldigt kunnig så för mig iaf är han vinnaren. Al Andalusi är även han väldigt bra och har även han deltagit i många debatter, jag gillade hans statement om Treenigheten: Monoteistisk Polyteism =)

Shabir Ally vs Rev. Bill Mask. Why I am a muslim/christian.

Muhammad Debate. Robert Spencer vs Imam Moustafa Zayed

Denna debatt är väldigt intressant då dessa deltagare verkligen inte tycker om varandra. Robert Spencer är författaren till den kritiska boken The Truth About Muhammad och Imam Moustafa Zayed är författaren till boken The Lies About Muhammad, som är ett svar till Roberts bok.