By Debi Brand
As Islam bumps Christianity
“Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;
who for the joy that was set before him
endured the cross,
despising the shame,
and is set down
at the right hand of the throne of God.”
Amen…
(Hebrews 12:2, New Testament, King James Version)
As Islam bumps Christianity, on the stage, as it were, of the seat of power in this nation; there, aiming to have all Americans accept the “fact” that it has the right to have the tenets of its faith-system shape the laws/freedoms of our nation; as Christians, it is fair, to say the least, we object.
Given, as Christians, we are adherents to the faith this nation was founded on. Given, between the two faiths – Islam and Christianity – there are profound differences.
Most know of the recent alleged “offensive” prayer of Representative Stephanie Borowicz. Given we now have a number of adherents to the Islamic faith serving in Lawmaking capacity, and from those ranks, as well as from many other members of the Islamic faith, are public declarations that that prayer to them was offensive; it is wise we understand just why “that prayer” was/is so offensive to the Muslim.
Offensive enough, from the Muslim perspective, that, according to an interview Representative Movita Johnson-Harrell gave to Philly metro columnist, JeniceArmstrong,the prayer counts as blasphemy.
Most know, in that high-profile prayer, Borowicz called Jesus, Lord, “King of Kings, Lord of Lords,” “the Great I Am, the One who is coming back again, the one who came, died and rose again.”
In the words and “statements” in her prayer, clearly, Representative Borowicz clearly shows she rejects what was allegedly revealed to the alleged “Prophet of Islam.”
Therefore, from the Islamic perspective, because the prayer was rife with statements countering the teaching of Qur’an, thus, it was rife with “the word of disbelief” spoken of in Surah At-Tawbah, verse 74.
That “word” spoken, as the verse is rendered in other translations is clearly called “‘uttered blasphemy.’” (as the verse is rendered, in al-Waqidi, Kitab al-Maghazi, Section: A Record of What was Revealed of the Qur’an About the Raid of Tabuk; Routledge, 2011, First Edition, P. 523 [Q. 9:74.])
Bearing that in mind, we note, the Qur’an teaches, “The Messiah, the son of Maryam, was only a Messenger, before whom Messengers came and went. [In other words, he was like the other Messengers, not a god as the Christians claimed.]” (Surat al-Ma’ ida : 72, al-Jalalayn, Dar Al Taqwa Ltd., Bewley.)
What’s more, Borowicz stated, Jesus was “the Great I am.” But the Qur’an declares, according to the revelation allegedly received by the alleged “Messenger of Allah,” Muhammad, “Say, ‘Call those whom you assume (to be gods) besides Him [“Allah”] … they have no power …. ‘” (Surah Bani Isra’il: 56.)
Tafsir al-Jalalayn renders the verse this way: “ ‘Call on those you make claims [of divinity] far apart from Him [“Allah”] [–such as the angels and the Prophets ‘Isa and ‘Uzayr]. They possess no power….”
What’s more, Borowicz in her “offensive” prayer declared, Jesus was the one who came, who died, who rose again, but the Qur’an declares, of “ ‘Isa, son of Maryam …. They did not kill him and they did not crucify him but it was made to seem so to them. [The person killed and crucified was a companion of ‘Isa who was made to look like him so that they thought it was him.]” (Surat an-Nisa: 157, al-Jalalayn.)
Thus, according to Qur’anic “revelation,” “’Isa” [Jesus], untouched by death, “Allah raised him up to Himself. Allah is Almighty.” (Ibid, 4:158.)
Thus, we see, very clearly, Stephanie Borowicz’s prayer was teeming with tacit declarations of her rejection of Islam. Tacit declarations, Borowicz stands in opposition to the creed of Islam. Seems clear, had she lived in the alleged time of “the Prophet of Islam,” him and his religion, Borowicz would have opposed.
Moreover, in her statements in her prayer, though tacitly done, nonetheless, she declared Muhammad imperfect in his “revelations.” His din falsehood when compared to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. She clearly, thus, found faulty both the alleged “Messenger of Allah” and the din he brought. Moreover, she made that clear publicly.
Doing so, uttering such words of unbelief so brazenly, as cited above — the spoken word of unbelief in the Qur’an and in “Allah’s Messenger” — is, by Qur’anic measures, “uttered blasphemy.”
To cure the possibility of any reoccurrence of such an “offence,” in a recent interview featured on CNN, Movita Johnson-Harrel, states, we need to do one of two things. Those two options, she states are, “eliminating the prayer altogether or if there is going to be a prayer, we need to include everybody to participate in that prayer, even non-believers.”
With all due respect, Movita, that is rich.
In other words, to not offend Muslims, Jews, non-believers, or, etc., the “prayer of the day” needs to tailor his/her prayer to make sure, in that prayer, he/she steps on no toes. Ruffles no feathers. Makes certain, nothing said will possibly offend one of another faith, or one of no faith.
In other words, if it is a Christian praying, then they must make certain, nothing in their prayer suggest they believe in a God who has a name. An identity. One who hears prayer. Answers prayer. One who offers to have a personal relationship with all who would so desire. Moreover, One who took great, and grave, measures to serve that end.
In others words, Christian, gut your prayer.
Maybe, simply bow your head and say … oh, something … nice, neutral, non-religious; like, say, maybe, just say “Good day” – how could anyone be offended at that?
Whether or not Johnson-Harrel is a Muslim who follows the traditional orthodox Islam of the alleged Arabian Prophet or if she subscribes to a Moorish vein of Islam, or something other, following here are basic tenets of the Islamic faith.
Because, concerning such offenses as those shown above, in Islam, from such offences stem specific rules and guidelines. Rules and guidelines such as these spoken to in ibn Taymiyyah citing the work of Al Qadi Iyad:
And Ishaq bin Rahaway said:
The Muslims have a consensus that whoever insults Allah or insults His Messenger or rejects anything from what has been revealed by Allah, or kills a Prophet, then such a person is a disbeliever, even if he affirms everything that what was revealed by Allah.
(Shaykh Al-Islam, Ibn Taymiyyah, The Summary of THE UNSHEATHED SWORD Against the One who Insults the Messenger, 1st Edition, 5 Pillars Publication, London, 2013, P. P. 14)
On that ibn Taymiyyah further provides, “Al-Khattabi said: ‘I do not know anyone who differed concerning the obligation of killing such a person.” (Ibid.)
Thus, we see, according to the guidance of the Qur’an and traditions of the alleged “Prophet,” doing what Borowicz did in her prayer, making such grave “offences,” as stated, as cited above, is a serious offense to Islam. An offence earning the offender no less than the payment of death.
As is further shown in my hard copy of Qadi Iyad’s “Ash-Shifa”:
“Know that all who curse Muhammad, may Allah bless and grant him peace, or blame him or attribute imperfection to him in his person, his linage, his deen or any of his qualities, or alludes to that or its like by any means whatsoever, whether in the form of a curse or contempt or belittling him or detracting from him or finding fault with him or maligning him, the judgment regarding such a person is the same as the judgment against anyone who curses him. He is killed.
(Iyad, Qadi Iyad ‘Ibn Musa al-Yasubi, Muhammad Messenger of Allah, Ash-Shifa, Bewley, Medinah Press, Seventh print, 2008, P. 373.)
Buttressing that established Islamic precept focused on above, the same affirm, “This is the consensus of the ulama and the imams of fatwa from the time of the Companions until today.” (Ibid.)
As touched on above, those obligations are based on and get their legitimacy from Qur’anic verses, such as, “he who opposes God and His apostle (will find) God severe in punishment.” (Surah Al-Anfal :12.) So too, numerous examples provided of “Allah’s apostle” permitting the blood of those who, in some way, opposed or harmed him.
Speaking to that, Ibn Taymiyyah likewise cites, “But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and attack your religion with disapproval and criticism then fight the leaders of disbelief for surely their oaths are nothing to them.” (Surah At Tawbah: 12)
Then, providing sunna-sources of the precept, citing the acts of the alleged “Messenger of Allah,” Ibn Taymiyyah states, “as for those who criticize the religion or something from it, then indeed it is prescribed that they are to be fought.” And that,” he affirms, “is the way (sunnah) of the Messenger of Allah that he would spill the blood of whoever harmed Allah and His Messenger and criticized the religion or something from it.” (Ibid, P. 21)
‘ just basic Islam.
And for such reasons, the above cited consensus of the ulama. Therein – in the agreement of Qur’an, Sunnah, and thus, consensus of the ulama — we see the safety-net for the Muslim: the surefire means by which one knows, what flies in Islam, what dives in it.
Thus we see the offence, the reason for it; so too, the offended and the offender. What remains unclear is this: will the freedom to so offend remain so in this nation?
Or, is it more likely, are we on the verge — as more and more adherents to the way of the alleged “Messenger of Allah” assume authority in the ranks of our Lawmakers — of first censuring that freedom, thus, tempering it, thus, infringing on it, and then, altogether eliminating it?
Because if we go with the suggestions made by Lawmaker Johnson-Harrel, that freedom to so “offend” will be outlawed. And prayer, if allowed at all, be “prayer” purged of identifying with any particular faith. So too, of any suggested “deity.”
As is spoken to in the clip below, when we review the facts declared by the forefathers of our nation –a nation founded on Judaeo-Christian principles — such was, by no stretch of the imagination, what they intended for this nation.
Because, as Jake MacAulay provides, as in shown in the clip below, as “Supreme Court Justice James Iredell, who was nominated to the Court by President Washington, stated, ‘….it is never to be supposed that the people of America will trust their dearest rights to persons who have no religion at all, or a religion materially different from their own.’”
That, said of a people, of a nation founded on Christianity. A nation, whose founders, when they spoke of “ The Lord,” that “Lord” was none other then Jesus, the author and the finisher of the Christian’s faith.
The One spoken of in the Book of Revelations. The One who declared of Himself, “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending….”
The One “which is, and which was, and,” as Representative Stephanie Borowicz mentioned in her alleged “indignant” prayer, the One “which is to come, the Almighty.” (The Revelation of Saint John, Chapter 1: 8, KJV.)
(Courtesy of Barbwire)