Showing posts with label christianity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label christianity. Show all posts
Tuesday, 9 May 2023
Sunday, 14 February 2021
Logical fallacies of missionaries when they discuss with Muslims
Fallacies time-stamp
23:30 fallacy of appeal to irrelevent authority
31:08 fallacy of equivocation
31:54 fallacy of cherry picking
36:10 appeal to emotion
38:00 hammer wood reference 🤣
49:43 moving the goal post
1:14:42 faulty analogy
1:28:58 circular reasoning
1:42:00 fallacy of equivocation (extended)
1:48:00 ad populum
:57:05 appeal to mystery
2:03:58 hasty generalization
2:08:56 Q&A begins
2:09:06 1st guest - mathematics and physics
2:46:07 2nd guest - chevalier du christ
3:10:14 3rd guest - david
3:41:04 4th guest - george kefaloukos
4:00:00 5th guest - Adam F.
4:12:22 6th guest- H
4:20:18 7th guest - dragon
4:26:35 8th guest - kevin
4:32:59 9th guest - kais
4:52:33 10th, 11th & 12th guest -waqas ahmad, ONE DAWAH & Mohammad Rashid
Friday, 24 May 2019
THE CANNIBALISM AND BLOODBATHS OF THE CRUSADES (1095-1291)
By: Dr. Abdullah Mohammad Sindi*
(Ph.D. International Relations)
(Ph.D. International Relations)
I. Introduction
It is in these lawless and dangerous times when Prophet Mohammad is
being viciously attacked as a “terrorist” in Western caricatures, and
when Arabs and Muslims are being reviled throughout the West as
“terrorists”, “fanatics”, “fascists”, and “intolerant”, that it becomes
necessary (lest we forget) to recall the past Western Christian
terrorism of the Crusades against the Arabs. This well-documented record
of the cannibalistic and barbaric Crusaders, which is well known in the
Arab world, is rather obscure to most Westerners because it is either
conveniently concealed or deeply buried in some unnoticed specialized
books.
When US President George W. Bush (who speaks to God) said in 2001 - in response to the terrorist attacks of 9-11 - that the US was waging a “Crusade” on Arab and Muslim “terrorism”, he was actually conjuring up the old nightmarish horrors of the Western terrorist Crusades against the Arabs. However, because of widespread angry reactions across the Arab and Muslim worlds to Bush’s use of the word “Crusade”, the American Government was forced to replace it with the word “war”. Regardless, the current American illegal and brutal wars on Afghanistan and Iraq are indeed very similar to the past Western terrorist Crusades. Apparently when it comes to Western dealings with Arabs and Muslims the old saying still stands: the more things change, the more they remain the same.
When US President George W. Bush (who speaks to God) said in 2001 - in response to the terrorist attacks of 9-11 - that the US was waging a “Crusade” on Arab and Muslim “terrorism”, he was actually conjuring up the old nightmarish horrors of the Western terrorist Crusades against the Arabs. However, because of widespread angry reactions across the Arab and Muslim worlds to Bush’s use of the word “Crusade”, the American Government was forced to replace it with the word “war”. Regardless, the current American illegal and brutal wars on Afghanistan and Iraq are indeed very similar to the past Western terrorist Crusades. Apparently when it comes to Western dealings with Arabs and Muslims the old saying still stands: the more things change, the more they remain the same.
II. The Crusades: A General Overview
Of all the religious wars in human history waged by any religion, at any
place, and at any time, none have been bloodier, more genocidal, more
barbaric, and more protracted than the 200-year "holy wars" by the
Western Crusades against the Arabs and Islam. The Western Crusaders
horrifically soaked Asia Minor and the Eastern Arab Mediterranean coast
with Arab blood (both Muslim and Jewish). The objective of the Crusades
was simple, to destroy the Arabs (whether Muslim or Jew) in the Holy
Land of Palestine and its environs "…on the ground that they had no
right to inhabit their part of the earth, while for a Christian the
whole world is his country." [1]
Unlike Muslims (Arab and non-Arab) who have always tolerated Christians and Jews (Arab and non-Arab), married into them, and lived and worked with them side by side in peace as "People of the Book" in all Arab and Muslim lands as well as in old Arab Andalusia (Spain and Portugal), the Christian West has had no desire to coexist with Islam and the Arabs. Also, unlike Muslims who revere Moses and Jesus as God’s prophets, most Christians and Jews in the “tolerant” West have no respect for Prophet Mohammad and are rudely contemptuous of him and Islam. In fact ever since its birth and its subsequent widespread expansion, Islam has been looked upon in the West as a mortal danger, both moral and military, to be strongly opposed or even destroyed. In his classic exposé of Christian violence worldwide, A History of Christianity, the Western Christian scholar Paul Johnson rejects the Western propaganda about Islam’s “violent” expansion by stating that: "The success of Islam sprang essentially from the failure of Christian theologians to solve the problem of the Trinity and Christ's nature." [2]
Nevertheless, the Western Crusades' insane bloodbaths against the Arabs were triggered by the decisive defeat of the Byzantine army in 1071 at the hands of the Turkish Seljuk (Abbasid) army. Fearing that all of Asia Minor would be quickly overrun by the Abbasids, the defeated Byzantine emperor, Alexius I, quickly appealed to his Christian rivals and opponents in Western Europe, i.e., Pope Urban II and his other "fellow" Christian rulers, to come to the aid of Constantinople by undertaking a "pilgrimage" or Crusade to "free" Jerusalem and the rest of Palestine from Arab and Muslim rule.
Emperor Alexius' appeal provided Pope Urban II with his lifetime opportunity to gain more recognition and power for the papal authority and for its role in legitimizing the temporal actions of the West European kings. Presiding over an urgent Church Council meeting, at Piacenza, Italy, in March 1095, Pope Urban II - with the Byzantine ambassador sitting next to him - called upon all the Western European followers of Christ to do "God's will” by carrying arms to "liberate the Holy Land" and cleanse it from the desecration of the Arab and Muslim "infidels." The Pope's call to fight the Arabs was ironic because, as scholar Francis Peters observed "God may indeed have wished it, but there is certainly no evidence that the Christians of Jerusalem did, or that anything extraordinary was occurring to pilgrims there to prompt such a response at that moment in history." [3] Although Christian and Jewish pilgrims (Arab and non-Arab) were burdened by taxes; they were never barred or even restricted from their religious shrines in Jerusalem either by Muslim Arab or Turkish authorities, even during the few severe sporadic civil disturbances in Palestine. In fact, Arabs (Muslims, Jews, and Christians) as well as non-Arabs (also Muslims, Jews, and Christians) have all lived together in Palestine in peace under Islamic rule since the dawn of Islam.
In reality, however, the veritable rationale behind launching the Crusades went beyond religious impulses, which were mostly the concern of the common people. Western kings, knights, feudal lords, and merchants were driven primarily by political, military, and commercial ambitions as well as by the prospects of new lands and riches that would accompany the establishment of European colonies in the Arab world.
Nevertheless, to start a new general European massive movement, like the Crusades, the leadership of a central figure was needed. Pope Urban II was the only central figure at the time in the entire West with an authority that transcended all of Western Europe's national boundaries. On November 25, 1095, Pope Urban II delivered in Clermont, France, what was perhaps the single most effective speech in Western history - one that has influenced the West up to the present time. Not only did the Pope appeal to the Western masses through religious motives, but he also used what came to be known as the typical Western ideological argument in support of a colonialist and imperialist policy that eventually led Europe in later generations to brutally colonize the entire non-European world. In this historic speech, Pope Urban II reminded the Europeans that their lands were suffering from widespread economic problems:
"For this land which you inhabit, shut in on all sides by the seas and surrounded by the mountain peaks, is too narrow for your large population; nor does it abound in wealth, and it furnishes scarcely food enough for its cultivators. Hence it is that you murder and devour one another, that you wage war, and that very many among you perish in civil strife." [4]
The Pope then quickly pointed out that the Arab land of Palestine to which they would be going for their Crusade "floweth with milk and honey ... like another paradise of delights." [5] Pope Urban II then passionately exhorted the faithful Westerners: "Set out on the road to the Holy Sepulcher, take that land from the wicked people and make it your own!" [6] After the Pope ended his fiery speech, the entire large European crowd responded jubilantly with a loud roar: "Dieu le veult!" (God wills it!).
In fact, the Western Crusaders were the first great wave of European colonialism since the fall of the Roman Empire in 476. The Crusades took the form of a series of brutal military invasions in the name of "Christianity" to the heart of Arab and Muslim lands in order to brutally colonize Arab Palestine and kill its people. There were at least nine major Western Crusades and many smaller ones launched against the Arabs between 1095 and 1290: The First (1095-1099); the Second (1147-1149); the Third (1189-1192); the Fourth (1198-1204); the Children's Crusade (1212); the Fifth (1217-1221); the Sixth (1228-1229); the Seventh (1248-1254); the Eighth (1270); and the Ninth (1290). Other ill-starred Western military expeditions against the Arabs continued up to the 15th century. Actually, Europe's hatred and fear of Arab and Muslim power were so intense that the idea of the Crusade persisted well into the 17th century, and the conviction that war might be just and legitimate has since become more deeply engraved in the conscience of the West.
Unlike Muslims (Arab and non-Arab) who have always tolerated Christians and Jews (Arab and non-Arab), married into them, and lived and worked with them side by side in peace as "People of the Book" in all Arab and Muslim lands as well as in old Arab Andalusia (Spain and Portugal), the Christian West has had no desire to coexist with Islam and the Arabs. Also, unlike Muslims who revere Moses and Jesus as God’s prophets, most Christians and Jews in the “tolerant” West have no respect for Prophet Mohammad and are rudely contemptuous of him and Islam. In fact ever since its birth and its subsequent widespread expansion, Islam has been looked upon in the West as a mortal danger, both moral and military, to be strongly opposed or even destroyed. In his classic exposé of Christian violence worldwide, A History of Christianity, the Western Christian scholar Paul Johnson rejects the Western propaganda about Islam’s “violent” expansion by stating that: "The success of Islam sprang essentially from the failure of Christian theologians to solve the problem of the Trinity and Christ's nature." [2]
Nevertheless, the Western Crusades' insane bloodbaths against the Arabs were triggered by the decisive defeat of the Byzantine army in 1071 at the hands of the Turkish Seljuk (Abbasid) army. Fearing that all of Asia Minor would be quickly overrun by the Abbasids, the defeated Byzantine emperor, Alexius I, quickly appealed to his Christian rivals and opponents in Western Europe, i.e., Pope Urban II and his other "fellow" Christian rulers, to come to the aid of Constantinople by undertaking a "pilgrimage" or Crusade to "free" Jerusalem and the rest of Palestine from Arab and Muslim rule.
Emperor Alexius' appeal provided Pope Urban II with his lifetime opportunity to gain more recognition and power for the papal authority and for its role in legitimizing the temporal actions of the West European kings. Presiding over an urgent Church Council meeting, at Piacenza, Italy, in March 1095, Pope Urban II - with the Byzantine ambassador sitting next to him - called upon all the Western European followers of Christ to do "God's will” by carrying arms to "liberate the Holy Land" and cleanse it from the desecration of the Arab and Muslim "infidels." The Pope's call to fight the Arabs was ironic because, as scholar Francis Peters observed "God may indeed have wished it, but there is certainly no evidence that the Christians of Jerusalem did, or that anything extraordinary was occurring to pilgrims there to prompt such a response at that moment in history." [3] Although Christian and Jewish pilgrims (Arab and non-Arab) were burdened by taxes; they were never barred or even restricted from their religious shrines in Jerusalem either by Muslim Arab or Turkish authorities, even during the few severe sporadic civil disturbances in Palestine. In fact, Arabs (Muslims, Jews, and Christians) as well as non-Arabs (also Muslims, Jews, and Christians) have all lived together in Palestine in peace under Islamic rule since the dawn of Islam.
In reality, however, the veritable rationale behind launching the Crusades went beyond religious impulses, which were mostly the concern of the common people. Western kings, knights, feudal lords, and merchants were driven primarily by political, military, and commercial ambitions as well as by the prospects of new lands and riches that would accompany the establishment of European colonies in the Arab world.
Nevertheless, to start a new general European massive movement, like the Crusades, the leadership of a central figure was needed. Pope Urban II was the only central figure at the time in the entire West with an authority that transcended all of Western Europe's national boundaries. On November 25, 1095, Pope Urban II delivered in Clermont, France, what was perhaps the single most effective speech in Western history - one that has influenced the West up to the present time. Not only did the Pope appeal to the Western masses through religious motives, but he also used what came to be known as the typical Western ideological argument in support of a colonialist and imperialist policy that eventually led Europe in later generations to brutally colonize the entire non-European world. In this historic speech, Pope Urban II reminded the Europeans that their lands were suffering from widespread economic problems:
"For this land which you inhabit, shut in on all sides by the seas and surrounded by the mountain peaks, is too narrow for your large population; nor does it abound in wealth, and it furnishes scarcely food enough for its cultivators. Hence it is that you murder and devour one another, that you wage war, and that very many among you perish in civil strife." [4]
The Pope then quickly pointed out that the Arab land of Palestine to which they would be going for their Crusade "floweth with milk and honey ... like another paradise of delights." [5] Pope Urban II then passionately exhorted the faithful Westerners: "Set out on the road to the Holy Sepulcher, take that land from the wicked people and make it your own!" [6] After the Pope ended his fiery speech, the entire large European crowd responded jubilantly with a loud roar: "Dieu le veult!" (God wills it!).
In fact, the Western Crusaders were the first great wave of European colonialism since the fall of the Roman Empire in 476. The Crusades took the form of a series of brutal military invasions in the name of "Christianity" to the heart of Arab and Muslim lands in order to brutally colonize Arab Palestine and kill its people. There were at least nine major Western Crusades and many smaller ones launched against the Arabs between 1095 and 1290: The First (1095-1099); the Second (1147-1149); the Third (1189-1192); the Fourth (1198-1204); the Children's Crusade (1212); the Fifth (1217-1221); the Sixth (1228-1229); the Seventh (1248-1254); the Eighth (1270); and the Ninth (1290). Other ill-starred Western military expeditions against the Arabs continued up to the 15th century. Actually, Europe's hatred and fear of Arab and Muslim power were so intense that the idea of the Crusade persisted well into the 17th century, and the conviction that war might be just and legitimate has since become more deeply engraved in the conscience of the West.
Wednesday, 25 January 2017
The Incoherence of William Lane Craig
By karkooshy
Introduction
William Lane Craig is without a doubt one of the top representatives for Christianity alive today. With countless debates against renowned opponents, he does a very good job thrashing the atheists who debate him. Dr.Craig’s primary argument against atheists for the existence of God is what he calls the “Kalam Cosmological Argument” (KCA for short from now onwards).
The KCA in Dr.Craig's words:
P1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.
P2. The universe began to exist.
C1. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.
In this topic I will attempt to show why the KCA is incompatible with the Christian conception of God. This is because the KCA reaches conclusions that fundamentally contradict the Christian faith. Most significantly the conclusion that God is changeless.
The KCA and the Changelessness of God
One of the conclusions that follows from the KCA is that God is changeless. This is mainly because the KCA depends on the fact that the world changes in order to prove that the world began to exist (which is the second premise of the argument). Three reasons for the emergence of all changes will be briefly listed below:
-1- “Change” necessitates a new beginning. For a being that exists, "change" means a transition from one state (state-1) to another (state-2). When state-1 terminates, state-2 emerges. According to the first premise of the KCA, everything that emerges into existence is created. And since state-2 began to exist, state-2 is created. Thus to claim that God changes, is to claim that God is attributed with states that come and go. Those emerging states would be (according to the KCA) created. For the claimant, this means that God is at least in part created.
-2- It’s impossible for an infinity to come to an end, and the past ends with the present moment. From this we can know that the number of events (or changes) in the past is finite. As such there was a “first event” that emerged into existence. According to the first premise of the KCA, this first event would be in need of a Creator since it began to exist. If this creator was another event then it would not solve the problems of contingency, but would only push the goalposts back a step and extend the problem (this creator-event would itself be contingent upon a prior creator since it began to exist). Therefore the true Creator cannot be an event.
-3- Because a changing being accepts a multiplicity of states (either state-1 or state-2… etc.) then those states do not exist necessarily in of themselves. The first state terminated (it is succeeded by its non-existence) and the second began to exist (it is preceded by its non-existence). Therefore to claim that God changes, is to claim that He is attributed with states that do not exist necessarily. This by extension means God Himself does not exist necessarily. What follows from such a claim is that God is created.
In short, it would be hypocritical to claim that the world is emergent because it changes, but to then turn around and maintain that God is both eternal and changing. For this reason, one of the most fundamental conclusions of the KCA is that God is changeless.
The Incompatibility of Christianity
Dr.Craig understands that the KCA necessitates a changeless Creator, so the above is not the point of contention.
We find Dr.Craig writing in his article on the KCA: “Now the cause of the universe is permanently there, since it is timeless”
And in the same article he writes: "But one way to think about it is to envision God existing alone without the universe as changeless and timeless"
concluding his article with: “Ghazali’s cosmological argument thus gives us powerful grounds for believing in the existence of a beginningless, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, changeless, immaterial, enormously powerful, Personal Creator of the universe.”
However, the changelessness of God is very problematic for Christianity since Christians believe in an incarnation. So despite Dr.Craig’s admission that God is changeless, we find him preaching that the changeless Creator changed into a man, who walked and talked with the humans on earth, ate, slept, died and was resurrected.
How does Dr.Craig resolve this obvious contradiction between the KCA and Christianity? He does this by proposing that the changeless Creator entered time after creating time, and could since then change. Dr.Craig says in 1:07 of this video: “God is timeless without creation, and He is temporal since the moment of creation. So the decision to create on God’s part, is a decision to enter into time…”
And in the article he claims: “His free act of creation is a temporal event simultaneous with the universe’s coming into being. Therefore, God enters into time when He creates the universe. God is thus timeless without the universe and in time with the universe.”
Unfortunately Dr.Craig’s response does not solve anything. Dr.Craig argues that God must enter into time for God to change. However, this “entry into time” (which is supposedly the prerequisite to change) is itself an emergent temporal event. After all, a transition from timelessness to temporality is a change. So you’re still left with the exact same problem; the changing changeless Creator. In other words, since “entry to time” is a change, what Dr.Craig’s response boils down to is that “the changeless God must change before He can change” and that’s begging the question if anything at all.
Conclusion
The only way to maintain the KCA, is to believe that God is absolutely changeless. This is impossible on the Christian worldview, since Christians believe in the incarnation. So if Dr. William Lane Craig is consistent, he would either abandon the KCA or abandon his Christianity.
William Lane Craig is without a doubt one of the top representatives for Christianity alive today. With countless debates against renowned opponents, he does a very good job thrashing the atheists who debate him. Dr.Craig’s primary argument against atheists for the existence of God is what he calls the “Kalam Cosmological Argument” (KCA for short from now onwards).
The KCA in Dr.Craig's words:
P1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.
P2. The universe began to exist.
C1. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.
In this topic I will attempt to show why the KCA is incompatible with the Christian conception of God. This is because the KCA reaches conclusions that fundamentally contradict the Christian faith. Most significantly the conclusion that God is changeless.
The KCA and the Changelessness of God
One of the conclusions that follows from the KCA is that God is changeless. This is mainly because the KCA depends on the fact that the world changes in order to prove that the world began to exist (which is the second premise of the argument). Three reasons for the emergence of all changes will be briefly listed below:
-1- “Change” necessitates a new beginning. For a being that exists, "change" means a transition from one state (state-1) to another (state-2). When state-1 terminates, state-2 emerges. According to the first premise of the KCA, everything that emerges into existence is created. And since state-2 began to exist, state-2 is created. Thus to claim that God changes, is to claim that God is attributed with states that come and go. Those emerging states would be (according to the KCA) created. For the claimant, this means that God is at least in part created.
-2- It’s impossible for an infinity to come to an end, and the past ends with the present moment. From this we can know that the number of events (or changes) in the past is finite. As such there was a “first event” that emerged into existence. According to the first premise of the KCA, this first event would be in need of a Creator since it began to exist. If this creator was another event then it would not solve the problems of contingency, but would only push the goalposts back a step and extend the problem (this creator-event would itself be contingent upon a prior creator since it began to exist). Therefore the true Creator cannot be an event.
-3- Because a changing being accepts a multiplicity of states (either state-1 or state-2… etc.) then those states do not exist necessarily in of themselves. The first state terminated (it is succeeded by its non-existence) and the second began to exist (it is preceded by its non-existence). Therefore to claim that God changes, is to claim that He is attributed with states that do not exist necessarily. This by extension means God Himself does not exist necessarily. What follows from such a claim is that God is created.
In short, it would be hypocritical to claim that the world is emergent because it changes, but to then turn around and maintain that God is both eternal and changing. For this reason, one of the most fundamental conclusions of the KCA is that God is changeless.
The Incompatibility of Christianity
Dr.Craig understands that the KCA necessitates a changeless Creator, so the above is not the point of contention.
We find Dr.Craig writing in his article on the KCA: “Now the cause of the universe is permanently there, since it is timeless”
And in the same article he writes: "But one way to think about it is to envision God existing alone without the universe as changeless and timeless"
concluding his article with: “Ghazali’s cosmological argument thus gives us powerful grounds for believing in the existence of a beginningless, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, changeless, immaterial, enormously powerful, Personal Creator of the universe.”
However, the changelessness of God is very problematic for Christianity since Christians believe in an incarnation. So despite Dr.Craig’s admission that God is changeless, we find him preaching that the changeless Creator changed into a man, who walked and talked with the humans on earth, ate, slept, died and was resurrected.
How does Dr.Craig resolve this obvious contradiction between the KCA and Christianity? He does this by proposing that the changeless Creator entered time after creating time, and could since then change. Dr.Craig says in 1:07 of this video: “God is timeless without creation, and He is temporal since the moment of creation. So the decision to create on God’s part, is a decision to enter into time…”
And in the article he claims: “His free act of creation is a temporal event simultaneous with the universe’s coming into being. Therefore, God enters into time when He creates the universe. God is thus timeless without the universe and in time with the universe.”
Unfortunately Dr.Craig’s response does not solve anything. Dr.Craig argues that God must enter into time for God to change. However, this “entry into time” (which is supposedly the prerequisite to change) is itself an emergent temporal event. After all, a transition from timelessness to temporality is a change. So you’re still left with the exact same problem; the changing changeless Creator. In other words, since “entry to time” is a change, what Dr.Craig’s response boils down to is that “the changeless God must change before He can change” and that’s begging the question if anything at all.
Conclusion
The only way to maintain the KCA, is to believe that God is absolutely changeless. This is impossible on the Christian worldview, since Christians believe in the incarnation. So if Dr. William Lane Craig is consistent, he would either abandon the KCA or abandon his Christianity.
Wednesday, 21 December 2016
Polygamy in Christianity !
Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)s polygamy has been an attack from Anti-Islamic Christian as well as Atheist/Secularist for a long time dating back to the Crusades. However it is not the purpose of this paper to give the reasons why Prophet Muhammad was polygamous. Rather it is the purpose of this paper is to note that polygamy had already been established in the Bible, and Prophet Jesus, as will be seen had come from Prophets Abraham and David who were polygamous. In fact there are 40 polygamists in the Bible! Both the Old and New Testaments say nothing about forbidding polygamy and in fact the Old Testament even allows it and sets laws regarding it. The following is a list of Prophets, Kings of Israel and Judges who all were polygamous in the Bible.
Prophet Abraham had three wives, Sarah, Hagar and Keturah and had several concubines (Genesis 16:1-4, 25:1 and 25:6). Prophet Abrahams brother, Nahor, had both a wife and concubine. (Genesis 22:20-24). Prophet Jacob had two wives, Rachel and Leah and used their two female slaves as concubines (Genesis 29:21-30:22, 31:17). Esau, the brother of Prophet Jacob was polygamous, having at least three wives (Genesis 26:34; 28:6-9). Eliphaz had two wives in Genesis 36:11-12. Prophet Moses had two wives, Zipporah and an unnamed Ethopian woman (Exodus 2:15-16, 21, 18:1-6, Numbers 12:1).
Ashur, from the tribe of Judah had two wives (1 Chronicles 4:5). Shaharaim, from the lineage of Benjamin who was a son of Prophet Jacob, had two wives (1 Chronicles 8:8). Even the so-called Mosaic Law of Judaism set rules for a polygamous marriages (Exodus 21:10, Deuteronomy 21:15). Prophet Moses also had set instructions to his men about their wives implying the children of Israel were polygamous (Exodus 19:15). Gideon, a judge in Israel had multiple wives and at least one concubine (Judges 8:30-31). Other Judges appear to be polygamous as Jair the Gileadite had 30 sons (Judges 10:3-4), Ibzan of Bethlehem had 30 sons and 30 daughters because of his multiple marriages (Judges 12:8-9) and Abdon had 40 sons (Judges 12:13-14). Elkanah, the Bibles father of Prophet Samuel, had two wives (1 Samuel 1:1-2).
Polygamy
was also practiced with kings of Israel, Prophets and other leaders.
King Saul had multiple wives which were later given to Prophet David (II
Samuel 12:7-8). Prophet David had 8 wives and 10 concubines (1 Samuel
25:39-44, II Samuel 5:13-16 and 1 Chronicles 3:1-9 and 14:3). Prophet
Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:1-3). Benhadad, a
king of Syria had several wives in 1 Kings 20:3. Heman had many wives by
implication of the number of sons he had in (1 Chronicles 25:4).
Rehoboam, the son of Prophet Solomon and a King of Judah, had 18 wives
and 60 concubines (II Chronicles 11:18-21). Abijah had 14 wives (II
Chronicles 13:21). Jehoiada had two wives (II Chronicles 24:3). Jehoram,
another king of Judah, had multiple wives (II Chronicles 24:1-3). King
Ahab also had multiple wives (1 Kings 20:1-7). Jehoiachin, King of
Judah, had multiple wives (II Kings 24:15). King Zedekiah of Judah also
had many wives (Jeremiah 38:14-24). Hosea had two wives (Hosea 1:3,
3:1).Belshazzar, a king of Babylon had many wives and concubines (Daniel
5:2). Ahasuerus was polygamous because of the women in his royal house
in Esther 1:9.
Further in the Bible, polygamy is regonized by various people and even God in Israel. For example God is offended when Israelites take forgien wives in Ezra 9:2. God Prophetically has many wives in Ezekiel 23, Jeremiah 3, Ezekiel 23:4, Jeremiah 3:6-14, Jeremiah 31:31-34. Further Prophet Ezra reconizes polygamous marriages with his people in Ezra 10:2-3,10-11. Nehemiah rebukes the men for marrying their "strange wives" in Nehemiah 13:25-27. Also as seen before and as read in John 5:46-47, Jesus upheld the so-called Mosaic law, and by doing so he santionced polygamy and concubinage since those things have already been established in Exodus 21:10, Deuteronomy 21:15. Moreover in 1 Timothy 3:2, a Bishop can have only wife however it seems okay that a layman can have more than one, implying the anonymous author of 1 Timothy implies it is okay for polygamy. Titus 1:6 also states a bishop only is required one wife, stating nothing about laymen (common men). So this also implies that polygamy is allowed, as the passages says nothing forbidding laymen to have several wives. As said earlier Prophet Jesus also came from Prophets Abraham and David (Matthew 1:1). If Polygamy had been so offensive to God, why would he allow Jesus to come from two polygamists? More importanantly Prophet Jesus never spoke out against polygamy in the entire New Testament. So one can see that the Bible has no rescritions or criticisms over polygamous marriages.
Many Biblical figures have been polygamous, including important figures in Judaism and Christianity such as Prophets Abraham and David. Further nowhere in the Bible is it forbidden to be polygamous. In Judaism, there was a continuation of polygamy throughout Israel as Josephus in the first century witnessed this and wrote about it, along with Justin Martyr an early Christian apologetic in the 2nd century. Additonally the Talmud allowed a man to have up to 4 wives and for a king up to 18 wives.
What about Matthew 19:3-9? Jesus is not speaking about polygamy. Rather, He is only answering a question about divorce. Indeed, the entire passage is about divorce, not polygamy.
In early Christian churches polygamy was practiced as well as bishops and such were able to have more than one wife is desired. An Early Church father, Augustine, the bishop of Hippo, supported polygamy in his writings and even today polygamy is practiced in two Christian dominations of Africa: the Legion of Mary Church and the African Orthodox Autonomous Church South of the Sahara. Martin Luther admitted that there was no scriptural prohibition against polygamy in the New Testament. Finally this author leaves the reader with a quote from Father Hillman. As Father Hillman states:
Further in the Bible, polygamy is regonized by various people and even God in Israel. For example God is offended when Israelites take forgien wives in Ezra 9:2. God Prophetically has many wives in Ezekiel 23, Jeremiah 3, Ezekiel 23:4, Jeremiah 3:6-14, Jeremiah 31:31-34. Further Prophet Ezra reconizes polygamous marriages with his people in Ezra 10:2-3,10-11. Nehemiah rebukes the men for marrying their "strange wives" in Nehemiah 13:25-27. Also as seen before and as read in John 5:46-47, Jesus upheld the so-called Mosaic law, and by doing so he santionced polygamy and concubinage since those things have already been established in Exodus 21:10, Deuteronomy 21:15. Moreover in 1 Timothy 3:2, a Bishop can have only wife however it seems okay that a layman can have more than one, implying the anonymous author of 1 Timothy implies it is okay for polygamy. Titus 1:6 also states a bishop only is required one wife, stating nothing about laymen (common men). So this also implies that polygamy is allowed, as the passages says nothing forbidding laymen to have several wives. As said earlier Prophet Jesus also came from Prophets Abraham and David (Matthew 1:1). If Polygamy had been so offensive to God, why would he allow Jesus to come from two polygamists? More importanantly Prophet Jesus never spoke out against polygamy in the entire New Testament. So one can see that the Bible has no rescritions or criticisms over polygamous marriages.
Many Biblical figures have been polygamous, including important figures in Judaism and Christianity such as Prophets Abraham and David. Further nowhere in the Bible is it forbidden to be polygamous. In Judaism, there was a continuation of polygamy throughout Israel as Josephus in the first century witnessed this and wrote about it, along with Justin Martyr an early Christian apologetic in the 2nd century. Additonally the Talmud allowed a man to have up to 4 wives and for a king up to 18 wives.
What about Matthew 19:3-9? Jesus is not speaking about polygamy. Rather, He is only answering a question about divorce. Indeed, the entire passage is about divorce, not polygamy.
In early Christian churches polygamy was practiced as well as bishops and such were able to have more than one wife is desired. An Early Church father, Augustine, the bishop of Hippo, supported polygamy in his writings and even today polygamy is practiced in two Christian dominations of Africa: the Legion of Mary Church and the African Orthodox Autonomous Church South of the Sahara. Martin Luther admitted that there was no scriptural prohibition against polygamy in the New Testament. Finally this author leaves the reader with a quote from Father Hillman. As Father Hillman states:
Nowhere in the New Testament is there any explicit commandment that marriage should be monogamous or any explicit commandment forbidding polygamy. [1]
Don't Ignore the Old Testament
It is commonly said that Jesus Jesus was the lamb to clear away the Old Testament and it's rules. Well, that's not true. It fact The New Testament tells readers to obey the Old Testament! We can find this fact all over the New Testament:
For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV) Clearly the Old Testament is to be abided by until the end of human existence itself. None other then Jesus said so.
All of the vicious Old Testament laws will be binding forever. "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)
Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets Jesus says "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)
Furthermore The author of 2 Timothy has this to say: "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness..." (2 Timothy 3:16 NAB)
And finally Jesus says: Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law" (John 7:19) and For the law was given by Moses,..." (John 1:17).
So we already see that there were 40 polygamists in the Old Testament. Moreover as we've seen there is no limit as to how many wives a man can marry in the so-called Mosaic Law.
What about Paul?
Paul
did not say, "It is better for a single person to marry than to burn."
Moreover, Paul did not say "it is better to commit adultery than to
burn" which is what would occur if a woman were to be taken by more than
her one and only living husband according to the laws of the Torah
which he knew so well. He wrote the letter in which this was found to
the all the Christians at Corinth which included all of the men in
Corinth, not just the single men. In most cases, there is nothing
lacking in the first wives of men that have a need for additional wives.
Moreover according to one Christian website there seems to be a command in the New Testament that allows a man to have more than one wife:
"There absolutely is an example in the Bible, where God actually does command a situation of polygamy ---in the New Testament, even.
1 Corinthians 7:10-11 & 27-28. In 1 Corinthians 7, the Apostle Paul differentiates when he is making his own "recommendation" (in verses 6, 12, and 25) and when he is expressing the "commandment of the Lord" (verses 10-11). Indeed, in verses 10-11, Paul clarifies that the instruction in those two verses is the "commandment of the Lord". (It should therefore also be noted that the other areas in which he clarifies as being only his "recommendation" can NOT be used to otherwise and incorrectly assert that God Himself is creating some sin or doctrine. After all, Paul's ultimate "recommendation" therein is celibacy!)
With that realized, it is clear for readers of the Bible that Paul makes it emphatically clear that verses 10-11 are different. Namely, verses 10-11, in the exact way in which thay are actually written, are the "commandment of God"."And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife." 1 Corinthians 7:10-11.
Paul further specifies that that above "commandment of the Lord" was only addressed to believers-married-to-believers. In the next verses (i.e, 12-16), he clarifies that he is subsequently addressing believers-married-to-unbelievers, and that that subsequent instuction is not the Lord's words, but his own again.
Verses 10-11 show that, if a believer WIFE leaves her believer HUSBAND, the believer WIFE is commanded of God to either: remain unmarried, or be reconciled back to her husband believer HUSBAND is commanded of God to: not put away any wife, and to let any departed wife return back to him
The key point is that the HUSBAND is NOT given the same commandments of instruction. Only the WIFE is commanded to remain unmarried, but the HUSBAND is not given that commandment. He is commanded of God to let her be married to him, either way!
Accordingly, the HUSBAND is of course, still free to marry another wife. That fact is further proved by the later verses of 27-28d.
"Art thou bound unto a wife?seek not to be loosed.Art thou loosed from a wife?seek not a wife.But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned;and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned." 1 Corinthians 7:27-28.
The Greek text of verse 27 is clearly only addressing married men --whether or not the wife has departed.
As such, the married man whose wife is still with him does not sin when he marries another wife (who is not another's wife). And likewise, the married man, whose wife has departed from him, he also does not sin when he marries another wife (who is not another's wife).
And herein comes the "commandment of the Lord", of polygamy, as in the following situation.A believer WIFE departs from her believer HUSBAND. She is commanded of God to remain unmarried, per verses 10-11. Her HUSBAND, however, then subsequently marries another wife (who is not another man's wife). The HUSBAND and the new wife have not sinned, per verses 27-28. The departed WIFE then seeks to be reconciled back to her HUSBAND.In that situation, verses 10-11 show the following instruction as the "commandment of the Lord". The HUSBAND is commanded of God to let the departed wife be reconciled back to him. AND.... he is commanded of God to not put away a wife, including the new wife.As such, verses 10-11 show that it is an outright "commandment of the Lord" of polygamy for the family in that situation.1 Corinthians 7:10-11 is indeed a Commandment of God --- in the New Testament --- that, when a previously-departed believer wife returns, her believer husband and his new (believer) wife (from verse 27c-28d) MUST let the previous wife be reconciled to her husband.
Moreover according to one Christian website there seems to be a command in the New Testament that allows a man to have more than one wife:
"There absolutely is an example in the Bible, where God actually does command a situation of polygamy ---in the New Testament, even.
1 Corinthians 7:10-11 & 27-28. In 1 Corinthians 7, the Apostle Paul differentiates when he is making his own "recommendation" (in verses 6, 12, and 25) and when he is expressing the "commandment of the Lord" (verses 10-11). Indeed, in verses 10-11, Paul clarifies that the instruction in those two verses is the "commandment of the Lord". (It should therefore also be noted that the other areas in which he clarifies as being only his "recommendation" can NOT be used to otherwise and incorrectly assert that God Himself is creating some sin or doctrine. After all, Paul's ultimate "recommendation" therein is celibacy!)
With that realized, it is clear for readers of the Bible that Paul makes it emphatically clear that verses 10-11 are different. Namely, verses 10-11, in the exact way in which thay are actually written, are the "commandment of God"."And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife." 1 Corinthians 7:10-11.
Paul further specifies that that above "commandment of the Lord" was only addressed to believers-married-to-believers. In the next verses (i.e, 12-16), he clarifies that he is subsequently addressing believers-married-to-unbelievers, and that that subsequent instuction is not the Lord's words, but his own again.
Verses 10-11 show that, if a believer WIFE leaves her believer HUSBAND, the believer WIFE is commanded of God to either: remain unmarried, or be reconciled back to her husband believer HUSBAND is commanded of God to: not put away any wife, and to let any departed wife return back to him
The key point is that the HUSBAND is NOT given the same commandments of instruction. Only the WIFE is commanded to remain unmarried, but the HUSBAND is not given that commandment. He is commanded of God to let her be married to him, either way!
Accordingly, the HUSBAND is of course, still free to marry another wife. That fact is further proved by the later verses of 27-28d.
"Art thou bound unto a wife?seek not to be loosed.Art thou loosed from a wife?seek not a wife.But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned;and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned." 1 Corinthians 7:27-28.
The Greek text of verse 27 is clearly only addressing married men --whether or not the wife has departed.
As such, the married man whose wife is still with him does not sin when he marries another wife (who is not another's wife). And likewise, the married man, whose wife has departed from him, he also does not sin when he marries another wife (who is not another's wife).
And herein comes the "commandment of the Lord", of polygamy, as in the following situation.A believer WIFE departs from her believer HUSBAND. She is commanded of God to remain unmarried, per verses 10-11. Her HUSBAND, however, then subsequently marries another wife (who is not another man's wife). The HUSBAND and the new wife have not sinned, per verses 27-28. The departed WIFE then seeks to be reconciled back to her HUSBAND.In that situation, verses 10-11 show the following instruction as the "commandment of the Lord". The HUSBAND is commanded of God to let the departed wife be reconciled back to him. AND.... he is commanded of God to not put away a wife, including the new wife.As such, verses 10-11 show that it is an outright "commandment of the Lord" of polygamy for the family in that situation.1 Corinthians 7:10-11 is indeed a Commandment of God --- in the New Testament --- that, when a previously-departed believer wife returns, her believer husband and his new (believer) wife (from verse 27c-28d) MUST let the previous wife be reconciled to her husband.
There truly IS a
"commandment of the Lord" for a situation of polygamy to be found in the
Bible ---and it's in the New Testament Scriptures, as well!" (Source)
So we can see there is NO injunction in the Bible for the husband to have one wife.
So we can see there is NO injunction in the Bible for the husband to have one wife.
Polygamy in Islam
Before I begin we must examine Arabia. In Pre-Islamic Arabia, many men were polygamous. All Shaykhs (The leader of a tribe or clan) in Arabia had mutliple wives and/or multiple concubines. [2] Polygamy was widely practiced among Arabs of Pre-Islamic Arabia and Jews not only of Israel, but among the Jews of Arabia was well.
The Quran accepts polygamy and allows a man to have up to four wives. However, although the Quran, like the Bible, allows polygamy, it puts rescritions on it, something the Bible failed to do. As a matter of fact the Quran is the only Religious book in the world that says its best to marry only one woman, and not four. Having up to four wives is an option however if a man cant maintain justice between these four then he has to marry only one, this way men will be prevented from doing injustice.Of quick note, polygamy is quite rare in the Muslim world very few Muslim men have more than one wife. The following two Quranic verse demonstrates that monogamy (marrying only one woman) is preferred and not polygamy.
If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice. (Quran 4:3)
Ye are never able to be fair and just as between women, even if it is your ardent desire: But turn not away (from a woman) altogether, so as to leave her (as it were) hanging (in the air). If ye come to a friendly understanding, and practise self-restraint, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. (Quran 4:129)
The last verse you are never able to be fair and just between women, even of it is your ardent desire proves that polygamy is something that not every man can do. It would be very hard for a man to divide his time between wives if he is polygamous, and as I have stated before, polygamy in modern times, really doesnt work. It might have worked during Prophets Abraham to Prophet Solomons time (2166-1991 to 930 BCE) during the early days of Christianity (as will be seen) from the 1st to the 7th centuries and during the rise of Islam during Prophet Muhammads ministry in Arabia (late 5th century to the 6th century) however it just doesnt work in modern times.Mnay men in Pre-Islamic Arabia had many wives however when Islam came it put a limit to how many wives a man can marry. This is why the Quran tells Muslims to marry only one woman and that a man just cant be fair and just between more than just one woman. Clearly polygamy is discouraged in Islam and monogamy is preferred unless a man has strong reasons for marrying more than one woman (economic reasons, etc.)
Notes and Bibliography
[1] Hillman, Eugene: Polygamy Reconsidered: African Plural Marriage and the Christian Churches,. Orbis Books, 1975 pg. 140.
[2] Aslan, Reza: No god but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam, Random House, 2006 pg.62-64.
[2] Aslan, Reza: No god but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam, Random House, 2006 pg.62-64.
Further Reading
Evangelical Christian sites that support Polygamy and even prove it from the New Testament:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)