Month: July 2016

Is Dan Barker Self Loathing?, part 2 of 2

We now continue and conclude considering Dan Barker’s hypocrisy and contradictions as he seeks to condemn in others those very characteristics which he, himself, displays.

We continue considering his statements as he identifies one of the Unitarian Universalism’s (UU) primary dogmas. The previous segment ended by noting that Barker stating that the UU is “a truly creedless religion.” Yet, that they are a “creedless religion” is their dogmatic creed and you cannot be in good standing with the UU if you contradict that creed. Thus, he is utterly wrong in stating that they de-emphasized polarization, as they polarize the pseudo-creedless from the creedful. UU is like any church in that they “open the gates and let everyone in” but just as with any other church you cannot remain inside forever if you disagree with their dogmas and in doing so they most certainly “lock the doors and keep the evil ones out.”

This brought about an interesting point as the interviewer states:

Here are two questions about the controversy surrounding “the language of reverence,” which swirls within Unitarian Universalism. As you know, Rev. William Sinkford, President of the UUA, complained that the Principles and Purposes of the UUA were bereft of religious language. He then encouraged UU’s to “reclaim” that vocabulary, while mentioning his own strong belief in God.
Your organization, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, wrote to Sinkford: “Your proposal flies in the face of the UUA motto to affirm ‘the inherent worth and dignity of every person’ by slamming the door in the face of some of the nation’s most thoughtful and peace-loving citizens–those who reject belief in the supernatural.”

This is why the politically correct concepts de jour about tolerance are fallacious; they amount to I will only tolerate that with which I agree. Did you catch it?

The President of the UUA—and who is he to make any recommendations to the UUA, right?—urges reclamation of “the language of reverence.” Now, to atheists such as Dan Barker, who recognize no being higher than themselves, everything is about them, every expression of religion is a personal affront, every religious display is actually aimed at them as they are meant to offend—will the day soon come when an believer gets sued because they said “God bless you” after an atheist sneezed?
Note how instantly Barker takes the issue to an extreme; urging the “the language of reverence” (note how generic and non-theistic that is) amounts to no longer affirming “the inherent worth and dignity of every person” (a dignity which Barker does not seem to recognize). But how? It is “by slamming the door in the face of some of the nation’s most thoughtful and peace-loving citizens.” But what does a generic “the language of reverence” have to do with the supernatural? As is quite apparent from his lectures and books, Barker prefers the “the language of irreverence” and I am not merely attempting to be clever; this is the very point.

Again, Barker seeks to merely turn the tables whereby he will put in place the very same standards but merely redirect them in his favor. Understand that there are UU members who do not “reject belief in the supernatural” and they feel as if they are being neglected by the loss of “the language of reverence” and they may very well state,

by neglecting “the language of reverence” you are slamming the door in the face of some of the nation’s most thoughtful and peace-loving citizens—those who reject atheism.

You see the problem? One side feels neglected and thus “the language of reverence” should be restored and the other side feels neglected and thus, “the language of reverence” should be removed. Either some perfect medium will have to be found or else both sides will have to actually practice the tolerance upon which the UU is supposed to be based.

Dan Barker stated,

The United States of America, for example, is a proudly rebellious nation. We fought a Revolutionary War kicking out the king, dictator, lord. There is value in not bowing to traditions that imply subservience to a Master–we are not slaves. Yet most religious language suggests the opposite: we must worship that which is above us and adore or obey the Father/Mother/Creator who guides our lives. [emphasis in original]

Being an atheist, Dan Barker is a self made man and the problem with a self made man is that he worships his creator. Barker states that “Darwin has bequeathed what is good” i.e., he is our authority, Barker states that you are free to choose actions “within the limits of humanistic morality” which he, himself determines for you, the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s Annie Laurie Gaylor wrote, in In Defense of “Godlessness”,

The only “higher power” we can truly invoke lies in our own minds and our own intelligence.

Atheism is not about ridding oneself of God, it is about replacing the supernatural God with natural gods. Atheists console themselves with delusions of absolute autonomy and lack of ultimate accountability. If God is then God surely deserves our worship and if God is not then we end up, essentially, worshipping ourselves and each other (professor of philosophy Daniel Dennett argues that the atheist Joseph Stalin was a theist).

God states, “You shall have no other gods before me,” atheists state, “I shall have no other gods besides me.”

Incidentally, it is commonly misconceived that the Bible contains a commandment against making images in general; it does not. It commands that no image be made of God since no image can capture that which is God. The commandment which many mistake to be against making images is misunderstood because people do not read it in context. Generally what is quoted is,

You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth

Yet, this is part of a statement that represents a complete thought,

You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve (see Exodus 20:4-5, 23 & Deuteronomy 5:8-9)

Here is where the restriction lays; in how we treat them. It is not merely do not make them but do not make them to serve them. I elucidated this point and considered various images in my essay “On the Treatment of Images,” part 1, part 2. Interestingly, Philippians 3:19 refers to those, “whose god is their belly” they worship that which they most serve. Also, Luke 16:13 states, “You cannot serve God and mammon [riches, treasure, money],” you can have both but only serve one as “No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other.”

danbarkerfreedomfromreligionfoundationatheism-9971019

Dan Barker further stated:

About twelve years ago I performed a concert at a Unitarian fellowship in the midwest where the minister is an open atheist. She told me that her board had cautioned her to downplay her atheism and criticism of religion before the congregation because they need to keep people in the pews.
They had just remodeled part of the sanctuary and had a hefty mortgage to pay off and did not want to scare off any new young families who might be using Unitarianism as a transition out of a stricter more conservative religion. She felt muzzled, complaining that she thought Unitarianism was supposed to improve the world, not keep it ignorant. [emphasis in original]

We are back to pleasing one side and angering the other in a pseudo-tolerant catch 22. Note that this atheist was smart enough to become a “minister” in order to promulgate militant atheism to a congregation week after week after week. Her messages consisted of attempting to intolerantly convert the “ignorant”—those not well informed enough to be atheists—and thereby improve the world; all hail atheism!

Dan Barker retells,

Carl Sagan was once asked by a college student after a lecture: “If there is no God, then how do we find a meaning for life?” Carl looked at the student and simply said, “Do something meaningful.”

Yet, this was just begging the question. Incidentally, I argue that “If there is no God” there is purpose in the universe but not meaning. “If there is no God” can lead to absolutely anything at all; what if I find violence meaningful? What if I find slaughtering millions of people meaningful?

This was the very fallacy in Carl Sagan’s atheist propaganda disguised as “science” known as “Cosmos.” Therein he promulgates the idea that we humans live on a little pale blue dot in the backwaters of the universe, etc. therefore, we should get along. But this begs the question as it does not necessarily follow. What if I conclude that since I am a mere accidental organism on a cosmically insignificant planet in the universe’s backwater I will do whatever I please, whenever I please, as much as I please and to whomever I please?

That a man of science as brilliant as Carl Sagan was forced into such non-sequiturs by adherence to his atheism is one thing and that Dan Barker would approvingly quote such an illogical and meaningless statement is quite another. In fact, when Barker made the comment likening himself to broccoli because “nothing cares and nobody cares….No one’s gonna care” he duck-taped a statement about getting along at the end of it but it does not necessarily follow and from that premise you can justify, logically, absolutely anything at all. If I find it meaningful to beat up my neighbors pets then I have fulfilled the Saganic/Barkerian great commission.

Lastly, let us note that Barker stated:

There is no purpose of life: there is purpose in life. If there were a purpose of life, then that would cheapen life: it would make us slaves or tools of some “higher plan.” As long as there are problems to solve, facts to find, beauty to create, then there will be plenty of purpose in life.

Note that he shifted from Sagan’s “meaning” to his own “purpose” which I point out in order to note that this is very common, to obfuscate the terms, but I think that they are very different.

Herein we also got another taste of Barker’s odd sort of logic, arbitrary standards and rebellion against God. If there was a “higher plan”—read as “God”—this would make us slaves; how? I do not know. When I play softball there is a “higher plan,” the team captain’s plan, but I am not a slave because 1) I joined the team willingly, via freewill, 2) I work with a team, 3) we set out to better ourselves, tightening up our game thereby, 4) we solve problems and 5) have a blast.

Note that, of course, Barker and Sagan are pushing one of atheism’s consoling delusions: the delusion of subjective meaning in an objectively meaningless universe. Note that being part of a “higher plan” would equate slavery or make us tools, and while with God—this is bad with evolution—this is good; with Barker’s “strict determinism” whereby we lack “libertarian freewill” —it is good; with the atheist “minister” who seeks to improve the world by converting theists/deists to atheist—it is good; with the “higher” goals of the Freedom From Religion Foundation—it is good, etc.

The point is that it is Dan Barker who, for whatever reason and in whatever way, determines for himself and for you, by the way, that “there will be plenty of purpose in life” “As long as there are problems to solve, facts to find, beauty to create.” The point is not even that these are not agreeable measures of purpose but that Dan Barker invented them and now doeth bequeath them arbitrarily.

For example, perhaps a certain man takes the generic search for “purpose in life” to heart and seek to find “problems to solve”—Adolf Hitler propose his final solution to the Jewish problem. Hitler sought “facts to find”—about how they were genetically corrupt and how to do away with them. Hitler found “beauty to create” by restoring the purity and beauty of the Aryans and the German nation. This is merely a point about how such arbitrary statements can be taken in any direction whatsoever.

Let us conclude by quoting a statement which I have quoted on a number of occasions. Bill Vallicella, the Maverick Philosopher, offered a very interesting and succinct observation in his post Are Atheists Evil? Bad Reasoning in Sam Harris:

Imagine a situation in which A is in a position to impose his will on B (by raping and murdering her, say) and that A will “get away with it.” (No one cares about B, they are far off in the wild, etc. We may imagine that A will die in a month from cancer.)In this situation, does A have a reason not to rape and murder B, a reason to not gratify himself? If there is no God, and no surivival [sic] of physical death, what reason could A have? Because it is wrong in the abstract for A to rape and murder? That will strike A as a joke.“You are going to oppose to my real and furious lust an abstract moral demand that hangs in the air with no way of being enforced??” This is one way to focus the question that people like Harris and Shermer apparaently [sic] don’t grasp.

Overall, it does not seem that Dan Barker nor his interviewer were able to recognize his continuous contradictions and the fact that he exhibits the very characteristic which he so condemns in others.

‹ Is Dan Barker Self Loathing?, part 1 of 2 up

Islam / Muslim : Who Was Abraham Told to Sacrifice, Isaac or Ishmael?

abrahamsacrificeofishmael-4663215

“A miniature from Zubdat al-Tawarikhby Luqman-i-Ashuri, Turkey, c. 1583.The lower register shows Abraham about to sacrifice Ishmael,and underneath is a genealogy of the children of Ishmael…Dublin, Chester Beatty Library, ms. 414, fol. 68v.”

–Encyclopedia Judaica

In Islam’s Qur’an at Surah 37:100-107 it is arguably stated that Abraham was told by Allah to sacrifice Ishmael. This is in contradiction to the earlier Judeo-Christian Bible at Genesis 22:2, which tells that Abraham was told to sacrifice Isaac. The issue as to which of his son’s Abraham was told to sacrifice is answered conclusively not merely by two religions claiming infallible divine inspiration, but according to historical evidence.

Genesis 22:2, “Then He said, ‘Take now your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.”

Surah 37:100-103; Abraham said, “‘O my Lord! grant me a righteous (son)!’ So We gave him the good news of a boy ready to suffer and forbear. Then, when (the son) reached (the age of) (serious) work with him, he said: ‘O my son! I see in vision that I offer you in sacrifice: now see what is your view!’ (The son) said: ‘O my father! Do as you are commanded: you will find me, if Allah so wills, one practicing patience and constancy!'”

qur27anandkoranandislamandmuslimandmuhammadandallah-9928387
In this essay we present forty three ancient texts that clearly indicating that Isaac was chosen. We have focused only on texts that predate Islam. This means that Islam cannot claim that either Jews or Christians purposely corrupted their own texts in order to contend with the Qur’an since these texts were written before this was an issue of contention.

On the side of Judeo-Christianity we have Jewish religious writings, Christian religious writings and the works of historians. On the other hand, Islam has no proof of the authenticity of their point of view; no manuscript that are older than the Jewish or the Christian that shows that they were later corrupted, or anything of the sort. All they have is a claim to a more exalted revelation. But lack of proof is not proof and the evidence is clear.

We suppose that there are two basic assumptions as to why Muslims claim that Muhammad said that it was Ishmael instead of Isaac. It may be that, as is obvious from the Qur’an, Muhammad simply did not know what the Old Testament said as he often betrays in his incorrect retelling of chronology, genealogy and doctrine of both the Old and New Testaments. Both Isaac and Ishmael were Abraham’s sons, Isaac through his wife Sarah and Ishmael through their maidservant Hagar. After the episode when Abraham is told to offer up Isaac we learn that Ishmael will be blessed and become a nation. It is through Isaac that God would make a covenant and raise another nation; God’s chosen people, the Jews. Muhammad may have been attempting to switch the two in order that, by logical conclusion, it would appear as if Ishmael and therefore the Arabs were God’s chosen. This may be one of the starting points of the legend of the Arab’s descent from Ishmael, which is unknown in pre-Islamic history.

Following I will present forty-three ancient documents that predate Islam and show that Isaac was chosen. Please note that I am merely counting the works themselves and not the number of manuscripts behind them. Counting the manuscript for each work would far exceed the count of forty-three:

The Septuagint or LXX, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament translated the first half of the third century BC renders Genesis 22:2 as:

“καὶ ειπεν Λαβὲ τὸν υιόν σου τὸν αγαπητόν, ὸν ηγάπησας, τὸν Ισαακ, καὶ πορεύθητι εις τὴν γην τὴν υψηλὴν καὶ ανένεγκον αυτὸν εκει εις ολοκάρπωσιν εφ’ ὲν των ορέων, ων άν σοι είπω.”

The Dead Sea Scrolls from the Jewish Essene community which thrived from the late second century BC until 68 AD include a scroll that contains Genesis 22:2, known as 4Q225, it reads:

“And [G]od said [to Abra]ham, ‘Take your son, Isaac, [your] only one […] [whom] you [love] and offer him up to [Me] as a burnt offering upon one of the [high] mountains [which I will point out] to you.'”1

The New Testament composed before 70 AD with the possible exception of “Revelation” which may date to 90 AD:

“Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?” (James 2:21).
“By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, of whom it was said, ‘In Isaac your seed shall be called'” (Hebrews 11:17-18).

Talmud–Sanhedrin 89b composed circa 500 AD:

“‘and the boy grew up and was weaned, and Abraham made a great banquet on the day that Isaac was weaned’ (Gen. 21:8). At that time Satan said to God: ‘Master of the Universe! You have blessed this old man at the age of one hundred years with offspring. Yet amidst all [the bounty of] this banquet that he prepared, was there not one pigeon or fowl for him to sacrifice before You?’ He replied: ‘All that he did he did only for the sake of his son. Still, were I to say to him, ‘Sacrifice your son before Me,’ he would sacrifice him at once.’ Hence it says thereafter, ‘And [after these words] God tested Abraham.'”

Targums/Targumim, Aramaic translations/paraphrases of the Hebrew Old Testament written between about 200 BC-200 AD but were transmitted orally from about 200 BC to the time of Jesus.

Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, “the Word of the Lord at once tried Abraham, and said to him, Abraham! And he said, Behold me. [JERUSALEM. And it was after these things that the Lord tried Abraham with the tenth trial, and said to him, Abraham! And he said, Behold me.] And He said, Take now thy son, thy only one whom thou lovest, Izhak, and go into the land of worship, and offer him there, a whole burnt offering, upon one of the mountains that I will tell thee.”2

Targum Onkelos, “And it was after these things that the Lord tempted Abraham; and He said to him, Abraham! And he said, Behold, I am. And He said, Take now thy son, thy only, whom thou lovest, Izhak, and go into the land of worship, and offer him before Me there, a burnt offering, upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee.”3

Flavius Josephus a historian active circa 93 AD wrote in Antiquities of the Jews 1.13.1:

“Now Abraham greatly loved Isaac…Abraham…obtained by the will of God: who being desirous to make an experiment of Abraham’s religious disposition towards himself, appeared to him, and enumerated all the blessings he had bestowed on him; how he had made him superior to his enemies; and that his son Isaac, who was the principal part of his present happiness, was derived from him; and he said that he required this son of his as a sacrifice and holy oblation. Accordingly he commanded him to carry him to the mountain Moriah, and to build an altar, and offer him for a burnt-offering upon it for that this would best manifest his religious disposition towards him, if he preferred what was pleasing to God, before the preservation of his own son.”

Midrash Rabbah is a Rabbinic collection of biblical exegesis and homilies. Genesis Rabbah, which we quote here, dates from 425 AD:

Midrash Rabbah-Genesis XXXIX:9, “Take now thy son (ib. XXII, 2)-‘which one?’ ‘Thine only son.’ ‘Each is the only one of his mother?’ ‘Whom thou lovest.’ ‘I love them both: are there limits to one’s emotions?’ Said He to him: ‘Even Isaac.'”

Midrash Rabbah-Genesis LVI:10, “R. Bibi Rabbah said in R. Johanan’s name: He said to Him: ‘Sovereign of the Universe! When Thou didst order me, ‘Take now thy son, thine only son’ (ib. 2), I could have answered, ‘Yesterday Thou didst promise me, For in Isaac shall seed be called to thee (ib. XXI, 12), and now Thou sayest, ‘Take now thy son,’ etc.’ Yet Heaven forfend! I did not do this, but suppressed my feelings of compassion in order to do Thy will.'”

Book of Judith 8:25-26 (2nd century BC):

“In spite of everything let us give thanks to the Lord our God, who is putting us to the test as he did our ancestors. Remember what he did with Abraham, and how he tested Isaac.”4

4th Book of Maccabees 7:12-14, 13:12, 16:19-20 (circa 63 BC-70 AD):

“Eleazar, though being consumed by fire, remained unmoved in his reason…and by reason like that of Isaac, he rendered the many- headed rack ineffective….the father by whose hand Isaac would have submitted to being slain for the sake of religion….you ought to endure any suffering for the sake of God. For his sake also our father Abraham was zealous to sacrifice his son Isaac, the ancestor of our nation; and when Isaac saw his father’s hand wielding a knife and descending upon him, he did not cower.”

Book of Jubilees 17:16 (circa 135-105 BC):

“Then the [Satan-like] angel Mastema came and said before God, ‘Behold, Abraham loves Isaac his son, and he delights in him above all else. Tell him to offer him as a sacrifice on the altar. Then You will see if he will carry out this command, and You will know if he is faithful in everything through which You test him.'”

Epistle of Barnabas 7:2-3 (circa 80-120 AD):

“Moreover, when [Jesus was] fixed to the cross, He had given Him to drink vinegar and gall. Hearken how the priests of the people gave previous indications of this. His commandment having been written, the Lord enjoined, that whosoever did not keep the fast should be put to death, because He also Himself was to offer in sacrifice for our sins the vessel of the Spirit, in order that the type established in Isaac when he was offered upon the altar might be fully accomplished.”

1st Clement 31:2-3 (circa 90-100 AD):

“On what account was our father Abraham blessed? Was it not that he wrought righteousness and truth through faith? Isaac, with confidence, knowing the future, willingly became a sacrifice.”

Quadratus, Bishop of Athens, Remains of the Second and Third Centuries, V. From the Catena on Genesis:

“In place of Isaac the just, a ram appeared for slaughter, in order that Isaac might be liberated from his bonds. The slaughter of this animal redeemed Isaac from death. In like manner, the Lord, being slain, saved us; being bound, He loosed us; being sacrificed, He redeemed us. For the Lord was a lamb, like the ram which Abraham saw caught in the bush…was led up to the hill to be slain, as was Isaac by his father.”

Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenaeus (130-202 AD), LIII-LIV:

“With regard to Christ, the law and the prophets and the evangelists have proclaimed that [it was] He…who guided Abraham; who was bound along with Isaac …He guided Abraham; was bound along with Isaac.”

Melito of Sardis (written between 165-175 AD), From the Catena on Genesis Ch. V. :

“In place of Isaac the just, a ram appeared for slaughter, in order that Isaac might be liberated from his bonds. The slaughter of this animal redeemed Isaac from death…[Jesus] carried the cross on His shoulders when He was led up to the hill to be slain, as was Isaac by his father…Accordingly there lies Isaac before us, with his feet bound like a ram, his father standing by, with the knife all bare in his hand, not shrinking from shedding the blood of his son.”

Clement of Alexandria (wrote between 192-202 AD), The Stromata, or Miscellanies, Book II, Ch. V.:

“Isaac, God in a figure selected for Himself as a consecrated sacrifice, to be a type to us of the economy of salvation.”

Irenaeus of Lyons (wrote between 175-185 AD), Against Heresies / Adversus Haereses, Book IV, Ch. V:4:

“Righteously also do we, possessing the same faith as Abraham, and taking up the cross as Isaac did the wood follow Him…For Abraham, according to his faith, followed the command of the Word of God, and with a ready mind delivered up, as a sacrifice to God.”

Tertullian (150-220 AD):

Against Marcion, Book III, Ch. 18:
“Isaac, when he was given up by his father as an offering, himself carried the wood for his own death. By this act he even then was setting forth the death of Christ, who was destined by His Father as a sacrifice, and carried the cross whereon He suffered.”
An Answer to the Jews, Ch. 1:
“before this temporal sabbath, there was withal an eternal sabbath foreshown and foretold…Abraham, in observance of the sabbath, offered Isaac his son…. Isaac, when led by his father as a victim, and himself bearing his own ‘wood,’ was even at that early period pointing to Christ’s death; conceded, as He was, as a victim by the Father; carrying, as He did, the ‘wood’ of His own passion….This ‘wood,’ again, Isaac the son of Abraham personally carried for his own sacrifice, when God had enjoined that he should be made a victim to Himself.”

Philo of Alexandria On Abraham 32-36 (§§167-207) (20 BC-50 AD):

“So Isaac was saved, since God returned the gift of him and used the offering which piety rendered to Him to repay the offerer, while for Abraham the action, though not followed by the intended ending, was complete and perfect, and the record of it as such stands graven not only in the sacred books but in the minds of the readers.”

Augustine (354-430 AD):

City of God 16:32:
“Abraham was tested through [the incident of] the offering up of his beloved son Isaac to prove his pious obedience and so make it known to the world, not to God… It says ‘Now I know’ for ‘Now I have made known’-for certainly God was not ignorant [of this] previously.”
On the Trinity, Book III, 25:
“What of the fact, that even in respect to Abraham an angel is not left unmentioned? For when his son was ordered to be offered up as a sacrifice, we read thus: ‘And it came to pass after these things that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am. And He said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt-offering upon one of the mountains that I will tell thee of.'”

Ambrose Bishop of Milan (340-397 AD):

On the Duties of the Clergy:
Book I. Chapter I. 66, “Isaac feared the Lord, as was indeed but natural in the son of Abraham; being subject also to his father to such an extent that he would not avoid death in opposition to his father’s will.”
Book III. Chapter I. 79, “In the case of Isaac we have an example, for the Lord appointed a ram to be offered up instead of him.”Concerning Virgins, to Marcellina, His Sister

Book I. Chapter I, “Isaac went to the altar of God as a victim of his father’s piety.”

Aphrahat/Aphraates (280-367 AD), Demonstration XXI-Of Persecution, 5:

“Abraham built the altar, when he bound upon it Isaac his son.”

Athanasius (296-373 AD):
Four Discourses Against the Arians-Discourse I, 443:

“the Word, with a view of conveying to Abraham the idea of ‘Only-begotten,’ says, ‘Offer thy son thy well-beloved;’ but it is plain to any one that Isaac was the only son from Sara.”
The Festal Letters, and Their Index-Chronicon Athanasianum, I. Festal Letters, Letter I., 522, 8-9:

“For thus the patriarch Abraham rejoiced not to see his own day, but that of the Lord ; and thus looking forward ‘he saw it, and was glad.’ And when he was tried, by faith he offered up Isaac, and sacrificed his
only-be-gotten son…The patriarch was tried, through Isaac, not however that he was sacrificed, but He who was pointed out in Isaiah; ‘He shall be led as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers he shall be speechless’…For the sacrifice was not properly the setting to rights of Isaac, but of Abraham who also offered, and by that was tried.”

Basil the Great (329-379 AD), De Spiritu Sancto, Chapter I:

32. “Abraham did not spare his own son; then even the passion of the Lord would not be glorious, because a sheep typified the offering instead of Isaac.”

Clement of Alexandria (150-215 AD), The Paedagogus-The Instructor, Book I., Chapter I:

“The King, then, who is Christ…is Isaac (for the narrative may be interpreted otherwise), who is a type of the Lord, a child as a son; for he was the son of Abraham, as Christ the Son of God, and a sacrifice as the Lord, but he was not immolated as the Lord. Isaac only bore the wood of the sacrifice, as the Lord the wood of the cross.”

Clement of Rome (circa 30-100 AD), Letter to the Corinthians, Chapter 31:

“For what reason was our father Abraham blessed? Was it not because he wrought righteousness and truth through faith? Isaac, with perfect confidence, as if knowing what was to happen, cheerfully yielded himself as a sacrifice.”

Cyprian of Carthage (200-258 AD):

The Treatises of Cyprian, Treatise I, 10 & 15:
“Abraham, believing God, and first of all instituting the root and foundation of faith, when tried in respect of his son, does not hesitate nor delay, but obeys the commands of God with all the patience of devotion. And Isaac, prefigured as the likeness of the Lord’s victim, when he is presented by his father for immolation, is found patient….That men are tried by God for this purpose, that they may be proved. In Genesis: ‘And God, tempted Abraham, and said to him, Take thy only son whom thou lovest, Isaac, and go into the high land, and offer him there as a burnt-offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell thee.'”
Treatises Attributed to Cyprian on Questionable Authority-On the Public Shows, 29:
“If thou art righteous, and believest in God, why fearest thou to shed thy blood for Him whom thou knowest to have so often suffered for thee? In Isaiah He was sawn asunder, in Abel He was slain, in Isaac He was offered up, in Joseph He was sold into slavery, in man He was crucified.”

Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386 AD), Catechetical Lectures, Lecture V., Of Faith, 5 (commenting on Hebrews 11:1-2):

“At present let us be content with Abraham only, as one of the examples from the Old Testament, seeing that we have been made his sons through faith. He was justified not only by works, but also by faith…after he had gained his son, he was commanded to offer him up, although he had heard the word, In Isaac shall thy seed be called, he proceeded to offer up his son, his only son, to God, believing that God is able to raise up even from the dead.”

Ephraim the Syrian (306-373 AD):

Hymns on the Nativity:
“Sarah had lulled Isaac, who as a slave bare the Image of the King his Master on his shoulders, even the sign of His Cross; yea, on his hands were bandages and sufferings, a type of the nails.”
Hymns on the Nativity XIII, 29 and Hymns for the Feast of Epiphany II, 29:
“In the twenty-fifth year, let Isaac praise the Son, for by His goodness he was rescued upon the Mount from the knife, and in his stead there was the victim, the type of the Lamb for the slaughter. The mortal escaped, and He that quickens all died. Blessed be His offering!”

Theodoret (393-458 AD), “Eranistes” or “Polymorphus,” Dialogue III, The Impossible, Orthodoxus and Eranistes:

“When then you hear God saying to Abraham ‘Because thou hast not withheld thy son thy only son,’ do you allege that Isaac was slain?”

Gregory Nazianzen (329-374 AD), Oration 45, The Second Oration of Easter, XXII:

“Who would not receive even Isaac, when he was being offered by his Father, but changed the sacrifice, putting a ram in the place of the human victim?”

John Chrysostom (347-407 AD):

Homily 25 on Hebrews xi. 17-19:
“By faith [Abraham], when he was tried, offered up Isaac; and he that had received the promises offered up his only-begotten son, of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: accounting that God was able to raise him up even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.”
Homily on “Father, if it be possible…”:
“For the sacrifice of Isaac also signified the cross to us: wherefore also Christ said ‘Abraham your father rejoiced to see my glory and he saw it and was glad.'”

Sulpitius Severus (363-420 AD):

Dubious Letters, Letter I:
“faithful Abraham will say in opposition to them, ‘I, Lord, about the mid-time of the age of the world, laid the foundation of the faith by which the human race should believe in thee; I was chosen as the father of the nations, that they might follow my example; I did not hesitate, Lord, to offer Isaac, while yet a youth, as a sacrifice to thee, that they might understand that there is nothing which ought not to be presented to the Lord, when they perceived that I did not spare even my only son.'”
Sacred History (Book I), Ch. I:
“God tried the faith of Abraham, and required that his son Isaac should be sacrificed to him by his father.”

Thus, it is alleged that Ishmael is said to be the one offered by Abraham according to the Qur’an, which dates from the 7th century. Note carefully that as Muslim Qur’an translator Abdullah Yusuf Ali states,
“The boy thus born was, according to Muslim tradition, (which however is not unanimous on this point), the first-born of Abraham, viz. Ismail.”5Thus, we learn that

“there was a debate between Muslim scholars whether the sacrificed was Isaac(P) or Ishmael(P)”6

Also, The Concise Encyclopaedia of Islam states,
“in Islam, Ishmael is considered to be the son Abraham was about to sacrifice although great commentators who hold the opinion that it was Isaac can also be found.”7

isl0001-8831449
The other place where it is said that it was Ishmael instead of Isaac is the apocryphal Gospel of Barnabas not to be confused with another apocryphal work the Epistle of Barnabas (circa 70-90 AD) nor with the Apocryphal Acts of Barnabas (circa 478 AD). The Gospel of Barnabas is not cited by any church leader or teacher of the church, nor for that matter by any Muslim writer, before the 15th or 16th century AD which is, for many reasons, when it is dated.

The Baha’i Faith (who trace their spiritual lineage to Islam8) has a simple way to deal with this issue; they simply make a dogmatic proclamation. Their fonder, Baha’u’llah, and the Qur’an contradict the Bible but without regard to hermeneutics, manuscript reliability, history or archeology. Instead, the Baha’i utilize their concept of progressive revelation. This is done because they believe that the Bible is to submit to the Qur’an and the Qur’an is to submit to Baha’u’llah since one revelation is said to be subordinate to the next.

The Baha’i teach:

“in connection with Baha’u’llah’s statement in the Gleanings concerning the sacrifice of Ishmael; although His statement does not agree with that made in the Bible, Genesis 12:9, the friends should unhesitatingly, and for reasons that are only too obvious, give precedence to the sayings of Baha’u’llah which, it would be pointed out, is fully corroborated by the Qur’an, which book is more authentic than the Bible, including both the New and Old Testaments. The Bible is not wholly authentic, and in this respect not to be compared with the Qur’an, and should be wholly subordinated to the authentic Sayings of Baha’u’llah”9 [Bold mine]

This all comes down to the fact that on one side of the argument we have historic documentation and on the other we have religious dogmatism.

Some Polemics:
Genesis 22:2 states, “…Take now your son, your only son…” Islam claims that since Ishmael was born before Isaac, Ishmael was at one time the only son but since Isaac was second born he could never have been rightfully referred to as only son.

The Jewish and Christian understanding of the term only son in this case is that God had promised that Abraham and Sarah would have a son but after some time Abraham took it upon himself to have a son with Hagar. Therefore, the only son that God recognizes is the one He promised, namely Isaac.

Furthermore, Christianity sees in the reference to Isaac as only son symbolism of the future coming of Jesus Christ God’s only son. However, we also know that at the time of this event Ishmael and his mother Hagar had been sent away, due to the conflict between Hagar and Sarah. Thus Abraham was left with Isaac as his only son and this also is what was meant by the Biblical passage.

Moreover, through whom God would apply His covenant is made exceedingly clear. Abraham had concern for Ishmael and prayed for his provision:

“And Abraham said to God, Oh that Ishmael might live before You! And God said, Sarah your wife shall bear you a son indeed. And you shall call his name Isaac. And I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him. And as for Ishmael, I have heard you. Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly. He shall father twelve chiefs, and I will make him a great nation. But I will establish My covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this set time in the next year” (Genesis 17:18-22).

Ishmael would indeed be blessed but the covenant would be established with Isaac.

Abraham loved Isaac and gave him as a sacrifice. They travel for three days to the mountain where the sacrifice was to take place. For three days in Abraham’s mind his son was dead (yet, he trusted in God’s promise of making him the father of great nations). Isaac caries the wood on which he is to die on his back. When Isaac asks where the sacrifice is, Abraham answers that God will provide Himself a sacrifice. Abraham is stopped from sacrificing Isaac yet, a sacrifice is made. They find a ram caught by his horns in the thicket. Abraham calls the place Adonai Yir’eh, Adonai will see to it or Adonai provides. On the mountain of the LORD it shall be provided or it shall be seen (Genesis 22:14).

qur27anandkoranandislamandmuslimandmuhammadandallah-4505829
God loves His son. Jesus was dead for three days. He carried the instrument of his death, the wooden cross, on his back. God provided the sacrifice, in the case of Abraham and Isaac God did not call off the idea of sacrifice at all, instead He required that there be a substitute provided by God Himself, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son…” (John 3:16) Jesus was crowned with thorns (thicket). The crucifixion took place on the very same mountain, in the land of Moriah, where centuries earlier Abraham said that God provided, and would provide, the sacrifice.

Both were loved by their father, both offered themselves willingly, both carried wood up the hill for their sacrifice, both events took place on the same hill, both were delivered from death on the third day.
Jesus referred to this incident as prophetic when he said, “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it and was glad” (John 8:56).

As Henry H. Halley put it:

“A Father Offering His Son: the Son, for Three Days, in the Father’s Mind, as good as Dead (22:4): a Substituary Sacrifice (22:13): and it was on Mount Moriah (22:2), same mount on which Jesus was Crucified, same place where Abraham had paid tithes to Melchizedek (14:18), Salem being on Mount Moriah. As Melchizedek seems to have been a primeval Shadow, in Abraham’s Life, of the PERSON Abraham’s Nation would bring into the world, so here seems to be a Shadow of the EVENT in the Coming Person’s Life by which He would do His work. What an apt Picture of the Death and Resurrection.”10

This event involving Abraham and Isaac is called the aqedah. Jewish author Philip Sigal writes:

“Two concepts of Judaic theology emerge from the story of the aqedah: vicarious atonement and the suffering of the righteous. Both are impenetrable mysteries, and both are illustrated by the prophetic portion of the Bible that speaks of a suffering servant of Yhwh (Isa. 53).”11

Note that he ties the aqedah with the suffering servant of Isaiah 53.

Some Jewish Comments and Symbolism: Midrash Rabbah Genesis LVI:3 commenting of Genesis 22:6, “AND ABRAHAM TOOK THE WOOD OF THE BURNT-OFFERING (XXII, 6)-like one who carries his stake on his shoulder.”

Footnote: “The stake on which he is to be executed.”

Pesikta Rabbati 40:6, “What is meant by Moriah? R. Simeon ben Yohai said: It is the Land which, if it were an arrow, would shoot up through the heavens directly to the heavenly altar. Here the world is derived from the stem shot through (yrh) (Exod. 19:13).

Midrash Rabbah-Genesis LVI: 3 commenting of Genesis 22:6, “AND ABRAHAM TOOK THE WOOD OF THE BURNT-OFFERING (XXII, 6)-like one who carries his stake on his shoulder.”
Footnote: “The stake on which he is to be executed.”

Concerning the suffering servant of Isaiah 42, 49, 50, 52, 53, Raphael Patai; Noted anthropologist and Biblical scholar who taught Hebrew at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem writes: “The Aggada, the Talmudic legend, unhesitatingly identifies him with the Messiah, and understands especially the descriptions of his sufferings as referring to Messiah ben Joseph.”12
The Torah: A Modern Commentary, “There was…a remarkable tradition that insisted that Abraham completed the sacrifice and that afterward Isaac was miraculously revived…According to this haggadah, Abraham slew his son, burnt his victim, and the ashes remain as a stored-up merit and atonement for Israel in all generations.”13

Encyclopedia Judaica 2:482, “Ibn Ezra (commentary on Gen. 22:19) also quotes an opinion that Abraham actually did kill Isaac…and he was later resurrected from the dead. Ibn Ezra rejects this as completely contrary to the biblical text. Shalom Spiegel has demonstrated, however, that such views enjoyed a wide circulation and occasionally found expression in medieval writings.”
Ultimately, we find that the historical evidence is that at least forty-three documents that predate Islam make reference to Isaac rather than Ishmael. We find that the reference to Isaac as the only son of Abraham is reasonable. Lastly, we find that there are strong symbolic ties between the event in question and the crucifixion of the Messiah Jesus.

On the “Atheism just is” approach: aAnother Atheist gives up the ghost:

For some time now a certain sect of Atheists have grown increasingly, and refreshingly, tired of the New Atheism prompted definition of Atheism as a “lack of belief in god(s).” Some come right out and affirm a positive affirmation of God’s non-existence and yet, they instantly grow tired of being asked that troublesome question, “Where is your evidence? Please prove it.”

One of very many promulgations by the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s Atheism bus ads/billboards that reads:

“Atheist ads target valley residents at Christmas Las Vegas, NV – Atheism has launched a Christmas ad campaign and it’s raising eyebrows Clear Channel owns the billboards and removed that Santa version after just a few days, citing too many complaints. But two other ads, ‘Reason’s Greetings’ and ‘Heathen’s Greetings,’ have been allowed to stay.”

I posted a comment stating:

“How long will the FFRF go on positively affirming God’s non-existence without evidence? Is this not what they condemn as “faith”? They are doing it this year and they did it last year:

http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/dan-barker-and-neo-pagan-Atheism [to which there is now an addendum].”

The response was:

“And.. we will continue to speak out, becoming more publicly and more vehemently opposed to this ridiculous delusion that serves only to erode rational thought, personal responsibility and the peace and security of all citizens. A more correct term is anti-theist. There is no theism involved. There is no faith involved. There was no historical figure named Jesus nor is there an invisible man living in the sky. This does not require faith to understand, only rational thought.”

44d1a006f6f7243ccbe0391e26ca1a24-2236299

Agreeing (to some extent) I wrote:

“Let us pray that Atheists will continue speaking out as loudly and often as possible as nothing discredits Atheism like having Atheists express themselves. Gone are the days of shying away from claiming that God does not exist because that would require proof. Now it is simply left to ‘I believe that God does not exist, so it must be true.’

Keep up the good work of self-refuting Atheism.”

More affirmation of just believe it-ism came about:

“You are right, but for the wrong reasons. As you say ‘Gone are the days of shying away from claiming that God does not exist’. This is true. The tyranny of the irrational can no longer be tolerated. The burden of proof rests with those making the claim. There is no more proof for the existence of a god than there is that I am the reincarnation of Mahandas Gandhi. I cannot prove it and you cannot disprove it. It’s a silly assertion with an easy and hollow defense designed to confuse the gullible. The fact that something is so unrealistic that it defies proof, both positive and negative, serves only to prove that it is unrealistic.”

So I noted:

“Pardon my delay as the holy days kept me happily busy and this new year is doing likewise. Interesting to learn that the neo-Atheist position is that Atheism is excluded from the realm of making an argument in its favor. I suppose that for evidence I would begin considering this parsed essay which considers the Invisible Pink Unicorns, the Flying Spaghetti Monster and God.
http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/flying-spaghetti-monster-invisible-pink-unicorns-et-al-part-1-4”

Well, that was the end of it and a good example of the approach that asserts the “logic” that if you presuppose positive Atheism then positive Atheism must be true.

New Muslim Cool – Hamaz Perez

I have long noted that in the USA today and other places worldwide the new cool is either being a Muslim or an Atheist. The “New Muslim Cool” is a documentary being shown on PBS directed by Jennifer Maytorena Taylor and starring Hamza Perez.

Both Muslims and Atheists play upon the underdog victimhood status and lay eggshells in their path for others to tread upon.

In the case of the “New Muslim Cool” Hamza Perez certainly fits the bill: a handsome, hip, ex-drug dealer and Muslim who preaches via his rap music and on the streets.

I actually just wanted to make one main point about this documentary as you can find high praises for it virtually anywhere online such as, “Bottom line on ‘New Muslim Cool’: If you care about religious diversity in American-do not miss this 80-minute film!”

Hamza Perez and brother Suliman Perez explain that they do not shy away from the term “Jihad” since, in typical PR form popular since 9/11, it may be interpreted not as the holy war enjoined in the Qur’an1 but as a personal/spiritual struggle.

newmuslimcoolmuslimislampbsjennifermaytorenataylorhamzaperez-3366814

The story is meant to be a positive one: two brothers reject their Roman Catholic upbringing, embrace Islam and become Muslim rappers-what could be cooler than that?

Interestingly, in the documentary Hamza Perez “emphasizes Islam’s respect for Jews and Christians and, drawing on his Catholic background, becomes both a Bible and Quran teacher at the county jail.”

Interesting because while Roman Catholicism affirms that Muslims can be saved even whilst not embracing the biblical Jesus for salvation the Qur’an condemns all Trinitarians, such as Roman Catholics, to hell for committing the worse sin that Islam can envisage: shirk-the joining of partners with Allah. The only hope of salvation for Trinitarians/Roman Catholics is conversion to Islam.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church # 841 states,

The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

That the Catechism does not state “in the first place amongst whom are the Jews” is surely grotesque-yet, for our purposes, this affirms the Roman Catholic Church’s relationship with the Muslims-they can remain Muslims, reject the biblical Jesus and reject the Roman Catholic Church’s dogmas and be saved.

On the other hand, of Trinitarians such as Roman Catholics the Qur’an states the following at Surah 5:72-73, 80-81,

They do blaspheme who say: “Allah is Christ the son of Mary.” But said Christ: “O Children of Israel! worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.”

Whoever joins other gods with Allah,- Allah will forbid him the garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help.

They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them_

Thou seest many of them turning in friendship to the Unbelievers. Evil indeed are (the works) which their souls have sent forward before them (with the result), that Allah’s wrath is on them, and in torment will they abide

If only they had believed in Allah, in the Prophet, and in what hath been revealed to him, never would they have taken them for friends and protectors, but most of them are rebellious wrong-doers.

Thus, the “religious diversity” appears to be strictly one sided.

One of the most troubling parts of the documentary is when Hamza Perez hits the streets in order to preach Islam and sell his CDs. He actually discourages gang-bangers from turning the other cheek. He states that he would not do like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. but would fight those who seek to fight with him.

newmuslimcoolmuslimislampbsjennifermaytorenataylorhamzaperez-5567618
As if gang-bangers need someone encouraging them to fight – what a shame. So much for the politically correct definition of Jihad.

Overall, this documentary is very typical of PBS. Just about the only accurate and balanced shows on PBS are the Saturday morning cooking shows. Otherwise, if you are a conservative Christian, for example, PBS has specifically targeted you and specifically tailored their programming to besmirch everything you believe-politically, socially and religiously-and glorifies all that which contradicts your points of view. The “New Muslim Cool” certainly played into their propaganda agenda.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.

Twitter: #Islam, #Muslim, #HamazPerez
Facebook: #Islam, #Muslim, #HamazPerez

Do More Christians Than Muslims Blow Up People Every Single Day? Tavis Smiley Weighs In

Do More Christians Than Muslims Blow Up People Every Single Day? Tavis Smiley Weighs In

Indeed, Tavis Smiley has weighed in and have been found wanting.

Whilst in Israel for two months, I recall sitting around telling Jewish jokes with some friends and a Mormon woman who was with us could not believe we were doing so but we said, “Hey, we’re Jewish, we can tell them.”
Well, jokes are one thing but just because Tavis Smiley is a Christian does not mean that he can make such shockingly jejune statements and not get called out on it.

Now, knowing pop culture and the sorts of atheist who define “atheism” as “anti-Christianity” the real problem is not that he is stunningly mistaken but how many people will come to his defense and besmirch Christianity.

I previously posted Richard Dawkins – Rare Moment of Clarity, wherein I quoted him as having stated:

There are no Christians, as far as I know, blowing up buildings. I am not aware of any Christian suicide bombers. I am not aware of any major Christian denomination that believes the penalty for apostasy is death.

I have mixed feelings about the decline of Christianity, in so far as Christianity might be a bulwark against something worse.1

Someone commented stating, “US bombers over Falluja and Baghdad blew up a lot of buildings. Most of the chain of command, going all the way up to the president, were Christians.”
Yet, this is missing the point in that it is uncontextual as the US military does not do that which it does because they are Christians and not due to Christian doctrine.

Now, Tavis Smiley mentions Columbine and yet, there is no indication in the least bit that Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were Christians and very much evidence that they were not.

On the day of the massacre Harris wore a t-shirt which read, “Natural Selection” and this was no mere t-shit but indicative of their atheistic/Darwinian worldview. Eric Harris wrote, “YOU KNOW WHAT I LOVE??? Natural SELECTION! It’s the best thing that ever happened to the earth. Getting rid of all of the stupid and weak organisms.” Dylan Klebold wrote the following in reference to a football player, “He doesn’t deserve the jaw evolution gave him. Look for his jaw. It won’t be on his body.”

It is also reported that Harris described how he and Dylan Klebold “would enforce natural selection in their school” and Harris wrote that they would “kick natural selection up a few notches…Show them who is god.”

Also, note that these—according to Tavis Smiley—Christians, entered the Columbine High School library and asked “Does anyone here have a faith in Christ?” They specifically asked Cassie Bernall, “Do you believe in God?” and she answered “Yes, I believe in Jesus.” They then asked her “Why?” but they murdered her before she could respond.

For details and more likewise examples see Atheism on Meaning and Purpose

Some people, such as Dan Barker, have asked questions such as, “Why is no one calling the Oklahoma City bombing suspects ‘Christian terrorists’?” he asked this because of his assertion that Timothy McVeigh was “a God believing Catholic.” Well, I do not know why except, perhaps, that McVeigh was an agnostic—see Was Timothy McVeigh a God Believing Catholic and a “Christian Terrorists”? – Part 1 of Dan Barker and the Alien Rape Voyeurs. As per usual, Dan Barker ends up discrediting himself.

Lastly, it appears that a lot of people reporting on this do not realize that he was interviewing Ayaan Hirsi Ali who knows Islam from the inside and out and who has been persecuted variously. For example, she wrote the script for Theo Van Gogh’s movie “Submission” which brought attention to the plight of Muslim women a movie for which Van Gogh paid with his life as he was stabbed to death by a Muslim.
Info on the Qur’an and women is found at this link.

FACT: Cat Stevens / Yusuf Islam supported murdering Salman Rushdie

Take a wild guess as to what happened when I pointed out that the fact that Cat Stevens / Yusuf Islam—who was featured in Jon Stewarts “Rally to Restore Sanity”—supported murdering Salman Rushdie for blasphemy?

Any guesses?

Anyone?

Well, excuses were made for Cat Stevens / Yusuf Islam supporting murdering Salman Rushdie for blasphemy and instead, I was besmirched.

What a time to be alive!

I had posted Jon Stewart’s Rally to Restore Sanity and to glorify death for blasphemy supporter Cat Stephens aka Yusuf Islam and on a website that I care not mention someone took me to task and not Cat Stevens / Yusuf Islam.

Here is my basic response; the substance of the besmirchment will be evident:

[name withheld] may want to consider reading a story for what it says and ensure that his personal, political, social, etc. views are set aside for a moment. catstephensandyusufislam-5135867

Note that not a single word is said in condemnation of Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam who supported the plans to murder Salman Rushdie. Instead, I am besmirched and then [name withheld] relies on his suppositions, inferences and guesses at what I may have meant in stating, “He tries to cast the singer’s views as violent, and therefore as representative of Islam.”

Yet, as any unbiased read can discern; my comments were specific to Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam—which is why I quoted him four times—and to read implications of application of his malicious views as being representative of Islam is to fall victim to the politically correct movement.
In fact, by stating that “when I was asked about, you know, the actual principle of blasphemy and capital punishment” and concluding that “yeah, its there in the Qur’an. I couldn’t deny that” it is Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam who cast his own views as violent and also made them representative of Islam.

yusufislamandcatstephens-7317005

Another instance of guess work passing as a review is this, “this guy just wants you to think” and “This guy just wants to scare his readers with the word ‘fatwa.’” Yet, again it was Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam who used the word in denying that he supported it (while he clearly did). The historical context of his statements were the fatwa and my pointing out that fact should not be condemned; the fatwa should be condemned.

Lastly, note [name withheld]’s ad hominems as he recommends putting “effort into figuring out who this guy is and why he writes what he writes”: again, attack the source while ignoring the malicious encouragement of murder for thought crimes. Also, “his loose concepts of grammar and punctuation”: must it be pointed out that facts are not overturned if they are presented via poor grammar. But note that the statement was “his loose concepts of grammar and punctuation give him away.” Does this mean that only certain people employ “loose concepts of grammar and punctuation”? Perhaps they are like me whose second language is English and who are dyslexics (and who, therefore, prefer empathy over ridicule).

Yet, the example of “loose concepts of grammar and punctuation” is a claim to a “misspelling of the word ‘man’ with too many A’s.” I do not know if Jon knows anything about the 1960’s era, when Cat Stevens was popular, but people used to pronounce the word “man” as “maaaaaan.”

Please re-read Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam’s own statements and see if you can find it within yourself to condemn them rather than excusing them. It is as shocking as it is revealing and embarrassing when someone’s views are so very twisted around the politically-correct-pop-culture-de-jour that they actually excuse supporting murdering Salman Rushdie for blasphemy and condemn the person pointing out the facts of the matter.

Long live the messenger!!!

—————————-

For more about the Salman Rushdie fracas, see:

A comparison between Dan Brown and “The Da Vinci Code” and Salman Rushdie and “The Satanic Verses”

Satanic Verses Versus Satanic Actions

Cat’s Got Your Tongue? No, But He Wishes He Did

And an addendum: Cat Stephens / Yusuf Islam