From firstname.lastname@example.org (Jeremiah McAuliffe) Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam,alt.religion.islam Subject: Geisler-Saleeb Anti-Islam Book, Part 1 (3/3) Date: 1996/8/31 Message-Id: <email@example.com> He writes that in Islam God is not essentially just or loving. Odd. Two of God's names in the Qur'an are "The Just" (Al-Adl) and "The Loving" (Al-Wudud). Geisler's ignorance? Or his dishonesty? (One must wonder here if Geisler ever read the Old Testament with its portrayal of God as angry and vengeful. Hardly the saccharine portrayal of God pushed by some Christians today: God as "my big buddy".) Why does he make this false claim regarding Muslim belief? Because of (6:12) "He hath inscribed for Himself Mercy". Geisler makes a big deal of God's putting restrictions upon Himself. A pointless deal, but a big one just the same. He attempts to produce a moral relativity in our understanding of God because of this: "had he chosen to be otherwise he would not be merciful". Here, Geisler is making human concepts the measure of God's mercy and justice-- when it is God Himself who defines mercy and justice for us. Even in Christian theology this is a blasphemy. Great from a dean of a seminary. In addition, it would really get him in trouble given his belief in the theology of Jesus' painful death as a blood sacrifice for the sins of others. Whose concepts of justice and mercy is that all about? The death of an innocent for the guilty?
Geisler continues his argument based upon the false premise that Islam states that "God is Will". Interestingly, he switches from attributing to us that God's essence is unknowable, to our supposedly saying that God does not have an essence at all: "For if God is Will, without any real essence..." Well, what is one supposed to say to a move like that? Not much. Clearly, saying that the Godhead is unknowable (i.e. "in its essence") is not the same that there is nothing there at all. Geisler makes these types of leaps quite frequently, thus again meriting a grade of "F". He continues to judge God by a human set of standards: "...he does not do things because they are right; rather, they are right because he does them. In short, God is arbitrary about what is right and wrong." (Why doesn't Geisler capitalize personal pronouns for God? Real strange for an Evangelical.) Y'see, it is *Geisler* who is deciding the definition for "right", not God. How he gets to the idea that a Muslim conception of God is that God is arbitrary in morality (man! what a blasphemous statement) is beyond me. I guess it is because in Islam it is indeed God who defines right and wrong-- not humanity-which is indeed the proper moral hierarchy for any believer, regardless of tradition. Funny, its the same in Christianity. Isn't it? Didn't Jesus say that before we said an eye for an eye, but now he teaches us that God is saying do good to those who persecute you? That is morality coming from God-a morality that is counter-intuitive to what humans may think is right or wrong. Geisler violates his own tradition. He goes on with his blasphemy (even by Christian standards). He quotes the Qur'an "Had it been Our Will, We could have sent a warner to every centre of Population" (25:51) and claims this "smacks of arbitrariness". That is, that God warns some, but not others, thus implying that those not warned are in trouble with God. But, ignorantly (or is it disingenuously?) fails to mention passages such as "Nor do we punish a nation until We have sent forth an apostle to forewarn them." and "Never have We destroyed a nation whom We did not warn and admonish beforehand. We are never unjust". Frankly, Geisler, even at this early point in his "refutation" of Islam is making me sick-- as he should any person with a modicum of intellectual integrity... which he is quite obviously lacking, imho. (What does the Qur'an say about those who tell lies about God?) Ok, one little bit more for now. He calls us agnostics. But actually, he doesn't even seem to know what the word means. We are still only on page 137. Geisler bases this subsection on the twisted idea that in Islam "God had no essence"-- the twisting of the idea (even as discussed in Christian theology) of the Godhead-- and writes: "...the Islamic view of God involves a form of agnosticism... the heart of Islam is not to *know* God but to obey him. It is not to *meditate* on his essence, but to *submit* to his will." Quoting someone named Phander he continues: "...they find themselves absolutely unable to know God... Thus Islam leads to Agnosticism." Do we find ourselves "absolutely unable to know God"? First I heard of it. But even then, note how he has twisted the meaning of agnosticism. Agnosticism is the state of not knowing whether or not God exists. At the very least, Muslims know that God exists because of the miracle of the Qur'an. See the (rather crass) manipulation? And of course, from the Qur'an, our agnosticism evaporates in view of God's signs in creation, in history and in ourselves which we are directed to meditate upon. Whew! I'm tired, so that does it for now even though this does not complete our surface analysis of this first section, but this is already so very long for usenet. So, insha Allah, keep your eyes open for Part II of "Geisler-Saleeb Anti-Islam Book" Allahu akbar! Allahu akbar! Allahu akbar! There is no god but God and Muhammad is indeed a messenger from God.... Jeremiah McAuliffefirstname.lastname@example.org *************************************** Visit Dr. Jihad's! Page 'O Heavy Issues http://www.city-net.com/~alimhaq/miaha.html *************************************** WOW! Major Upgrade Comin' Soon!
Overview on the debate between Jeremiah and Abdul
Answering Islam Home Page