(17 votes, average: 4.94 out of 5)
Loading...While I”m on the issue of Islam… Here is a post of a question I still get at times, to my amazement.
******************************
READER COMMENT:
I received a message on Facebook a couple of weeks ago from a person who has been proselytizing to me about the Muslim faith. This has happened a few times with others on your FB page. I guess that’s what they do. Anyway, the other day I asked him if he was on your blog. He responded with a yes. Then he said that we (the members) were going to get a surprise from you soon. I asked him how so, and he said that you would be reverting to the Muslim faith. Apparently, reverting is something like converting according to him. I asked him how he knew this information, and he said a friend of his (a friend that he only knows through FB) that is a neighbor of yours said you were very impressed with the Quran and that you haven’t made it public about reverting, but you would be soon. It took me a couple of days to find out the name of this person who is supposedly your friend, and he sent me a link to a YouTube video. A man by the name of Yusha Evans was on there. I’ve never heard of this person before, and have no clue if you know him or not, but I thought I would pass the information along to you.
RESPONSE:
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
I’m a former Muslim and current agnostic. The reason why Muslims sometimes use the word “revert” instead of “covert” is because the Prophet Muhammad said everyone is born a Muslim and their parents change their religion. So when you grow up and accept Islam, you’re going back to Islam. Just in case anyone was wondering about that.
Before 2009, Chinese in Shanghai said I was returning to China. When they denied me any part of that kingdom [U are not Chinese] & they also knew I was born abroad.
Geez Bart, you could of played it up for a day or two just to see what happens.
Or a year and retire early on it!
Take this from someone raised in a secular Muslim household in an orthodox Christian neighborhood who attended an evangelical Baptist middle and high school who learnt humanities from fundamentalist atheist professors and became agnostic for 2 years at age19
We learn wisdom everywhere
Controversy is an incentive for more reading, interestingly the first word and command in the Quran
Life is a journey of maturity
Irrespective of our belief(s), religious or otherwise, reading and understanding the other mature our beliefs, modify them or change them
Intolerance is antithetical to natural/God’s freedom
Bart is a formidable scholar. His research may sometimes agree with Islam,
More importantly, he positively stimulates believer and atheist brains
Bart’s personal beliefs are not Muslim’s business:
“Let there be no compulsion in ‘deen’ (meaning allegiance in faith and way of life)” Q2:256
and that includes verbal compulsion
The Quran commands Muhammad and the faithful:
“We have not appointed you a watchman over them, and you are not their guardian” Q6:107
“Whoever wants to believe let him/ her believe and whoever wants to reject let them do so” Q6:29
“You are simply a reminder, You are not to have control over them” Q88:22
“You do not guide anyone you wish, God will guide whoever He deems fit!” (Q28:56)
My husband is a Muslim who came from Christianity and I became an agnostic after becoming enthralled in your work & research. While him and I disagree , it still blows my mind to see Muslims or Christian’s alike claiming to be so accepting but you can always tell there is some “disappointment” when you make the choice to not be apart of their faith.
Makes me even more secure in my decision.
They should admit then to being tolerant and not accepting. We do not have to accept anyone’s belief but we do have to tolerate it. Example: I don’t accept homosexuality but I tolerate it. Tolerating means to willfully put myself into discomfort to listen to someone else or be around someone else that I disagree with. I have been able to learn more from people due to learning to be more tolerant. And many people and their ways, I have come to accept and adopt for myself 🙂
For them, eternity is at stake!
Just as the Bible is famous and popular in the minds of people who have never read it, you are also popular in the minds of many people who have never read your works 😆
I wouldn’t expect that you’d announce it in a book. You’ll announce it on a late-night talk show, right? 😉
Call in the camera crews!
The subject of apostasy in Islam is interesting!
The Quran was very clear on forbidding any compulsion in matters of faith (see my previous comment)
Mohammd never recommended or ordered the killing of an apostate! There was one particular harsh apostate who even wrote poetry against Islam and Muhammad (Equivalent of social media at that time) yet he did not order his killing either. When he was killed in a battle launched by the polytheists in Mecca against the Muslims in Medina as they were fighting for survival, Muhammad commented that this man got the fate he deserved!
The larger scholars ruled against apostasy in association with military defection.
Beyond that, most Muslims with minor exceptions did not believe in hurting an apostate. Historically, some Muslims converted to Christianity/Atheism with no repercussions!
It was well-known that Abu Hanifa, a prominent Muslim Scholar of the eighth century debated atheists openly! These atheists were raised Muslim!
Hundreds of Muslim families in Mount Lebanon, some descendants of Muhammad (e.g. Hashem family) converted to Christianity with no repercussions in the 18th century to avoid kids being drafted to the military, preferring paying a minor tax, as Christians had a choice and Muslims did not.
I agree that it’s most likely this is a game of telephone as opposed to an intentional lie. The development of the rumor could have gone something like this:
Bart Ehrman has started posting about the Quran. I don’t recall him doing that before.
-> What’s with Ehrman’s sudden interest in the Quran? Is he considering converting to Islam?
-> I hear Ehrman’s converting to Islam.
Ah, this was a post from years ago! But no, I usually don’t deal with the Quran because it’s not my field of expertise.
Do scholars run any personal risk if they voice any historical criticisms of the Quran? In other words, could doing such be dangerous?
I should think so. Just as it’s dangerous in some parts of the world to criticize the Bible (the last two times I was lecturing in Florida the organizers of each event provided off-duty police security!)
Who started that silly rumor? Hmmm… Was it SATAN???
Regarding the necessity of false information being corrected by contemporaries, how ludicrous to think incorrect information will be overcome with correct information. This has NEVER been true. The Trump era has absolutely confirmed that false information can reign supreme even if there is a mountain of correct information around it. Amazing how I swallowed these old arguments for decades as a pastor – that the accounts would have been corrected by contemporaries. How foolish I was.
I suppose it’s been true with most of our governments, and almost always with high-level rationalizations that ends justify the means…
This is interesting, and on topic.
I have listened with interest to Paul Williams, on the “blogging theology” site for a few years.
He started out like I did (and Bart did), raised a fundamentalist, pursued study of the Bible after high school in a Bible College (Toronto Bible College)…took 3 years of Greek and 2 years of Hebrew. But, I have since lost my faith.
However, I continue with my Greek and Hebrew studies, and the Bible…just out of general interest and respect for the ancient texts that have influenced Western society.
To get back to Paul Williams…he did about the same.
Then, to my surprise, about a year or so ago, he converted to Islam
He continues to run his blog, and continues to interview people of different faiths, but he more or less actively promotes Islam.
I absolutely don’t understand what happened to him.
I have written to him and asked how he deals with Islamic intolerance (such as the death fatwa on Salman Rushdie). Also, there is the thing in Islam, that anyone who converts from Islam to another religion, or simply renounces Islam, should be executed. I haven’t received any answer.
It should be noted that the fatwa against Rushdie was always controversial within the Muslim world and that Khomeni, nor anyone else, represents the views of all Muslims. Not even close. It has been widely ridiculed and condemned by countless Muslim scholars and communities.
Second, the killing of apostates was a later development during the expansion of the Islamic empire. It was done to match the existing laws of the sassanids and byzantine empires. Sadly it has remained within conservative thought and implemented in places like SA, Pakistan and elsewhere. But it’s important to note that it doesn’t go back to Muhammad himself. The Quran actually talks of people entering, leaving, entering, and leaving the faith and in no place does it call for their execution. Rather the matter is simply left to be resolved by God on judgment day.
I agree with RizwanAhmed about Salman, But I don’t agree with him about the law regarding the x-Muslims. However, this is really a very complex subject.
Let us temporary name the law of executing x-Muslims as the x-law.
Now … the x-law is not from the Quran, but it is based on trusted narratives from the Prophet and his companions, and this law was supported by all ancient Muslim Scholars.
But lately, there has been legitimate arguments for freezing the x-law as it is not a must-do law but an optional, and it might have only been needed at the start of the state. Their arguments came from a well-known incident where Ibn-Ubayy committed a very serious blasphemy, but the Prophet didn’t execute him. Also, there is a trusted narrative that Omar (the-second-ruler) was in favor of replacing the x-law with imprisonment. Therefore, the law here is not a must-do by the court, but it is optional.
I truly do think that these arguments are legitimate, but I also need to acknowledge that the traditional dominant view is also legitimate. It should be noted that the text could have different legitimate interpretations, but only one is probably the right.
——>
—–>
Now… Jews and Christians have “No” right to criticize the x-law; as it is immoral and a double standard to respect a book [the Torah] which includes this law, and in the same time, condemning others for the same exact law.
But the “Humanitarian” Atheists would seriously criticize this law. Therefore, we have here two opposing “common senses”: The Muslims: {this is a legitimate law}, and the Atheists: {how on earth are you accepting this law!}. And we don’t have an agreed logical reference to settle this down.
However, Muslims can approach this matter by proving that the belief in God and the prophethood of Muhammad are both legitimate and rational, and then demonstrating that the x-law is based on legitimate interpretations.
So, it is not about proving the existence of God (which would require hard debates) but it is about proving that the existence of God is a rational belief (regardless if others accepted this belief or not), which is a simpler approach.
But still, this approach is long, and probably it might be more convenient for the Muslims just to give the Atheists a point in this subject and to move on to the next subject.
If you as muslim wants to get a broader picture of this, you need to read the Quran itself, and not only the Hadiths. There are a whole lot of surahs which advocate violence, kiling, torture against disbelievers and certain sinners:
Look at surahs :
Quran 3:90
Quran 9:66
Quran 16:106
Quran 2:217
Quran 5:54
Quran 4:137
Quran 2:108
Quran 88:22–24
Quran 9:11–12
Quran 4:89
So, with certain sinners and disbelievers, the Quran clearly advocate to “Capture, beseige, slay, terrorise, make war, behead/strike their neck, cruzifie, kill, cut of hands etc
Se surahs
Quran 5:33
Quran 8:39
Quran 8:60
Quran 9:5
Quran 9:29
Quran 47:1,2,3,4
I didn’t look at yours examples as I have clarified in post-Aug-9-2023 in comment-Aug-28: You have presented there more than 15 claims, and I did answer every single one of them, but then I told you that I won’t be investigating any future claims from you because you were not making any fact-checking/Home-Work before presenting them.
There are many unscholarly websites that are able to present 100 illogical and un-factual claims in just 10 minutes, and it will be unfair to spend time to investigate them, specially that these claims have already been explained in many Islamic websites. If these claims were from recognized Scholars or came after fact-checking, then this is different.
However, The Quran cannot be properly interpreted without taking into consideration the background culture and the related clarification from the trusted hadith.
Also, I think that the conduct-of-war of the Muslims in their “first-century” was mostly highly noble. And I think that the conduct-of-war for the Muslims from the second century upward was more noble compared to conduct-of-war for the Western world, specially that many of us today can see vividly the horrible hypocrisy of the Western system regarding the current war in the middle-east.
I generally don’t rely on unscholarly websites; instead, I try to consider your perspective directly from the Quran itself.
However, even though I personally agree with you, I think some Muslims might disagree with the notion that you must consider the background culture to read and understand the quranic texts. Here’s why:
1) The Quran is believed by Muslims, particularly Sunnis and some Islamic scholars, to be eternal, not created—it is considered the literal, eternal word of Allah. It existed before any creation and any cultural circumstances, as indicated in Quran 85:21-22.
2) Muslims believe that the Quran is unaltered and protected by Allah, as stated in Quran 15:9.
3) The Quran is intended for global use, as shown in Quran 12:104 and 21:107.
4) It uses inclusive language, as suggested in Quran 34:28.
So, iti is my opinion that these points should point to the the premise that Quran transcends cultural contexts and supposedly should remains relevant across different times and places.
It seems to me that your 15+ claims were taken from unscholarly-websites, and I assume if you did your homework, then you probably wouldn’t presented them.
For-1# There are Muslims that regard the Quran to be eternal, but there are also Muslims that regard it to be the words of God and they don’t know/care more than that. This is appropriate because this issue is not legal or historical, but ideological that was never clarified in the scripture (Quran & Hadith).
For this lack-of-clarification and for its non-significance on life, therefore, Many Muslims regard the Quran to be the words of God, they acknowledge its descriptions in the Quran, but they don’t know and they don’t care more than that}.
This problem (the Quran created or eternal, which started in 9cAD) has the same philosophical trap of the Greeks, which I have discussed in an article […Duo of Philo…] here in the blog, dated June 30, 2023.
In a nutshell, this problem about the Quran will never have a solution because the problem involves a being (God) that is outside our universe, and the logic in a closed system (our universe) might not be applicable in the external system.
—–>
—–>
Therefore, any deduction that involves the external system would highly end up with extreme contradictions. Therefore, logical deductions related to the external system are very problematic; not because of any limitation of our mind, but because of our lack of tools to penetrate the external system, which is something that probably isn’t going to change any time soon.
####
Your points in 2,3,4 has nothing to do with using the background data (the cultural, trusted hadith, ancient Arabian rhetoric styles, etc.) in interpreting the Quran; which is the view of the main-stream Muslims (past & present).
However, there is a view for Liberal Muslims to interpret the Quran without the background data, and this is ironic: To understand the Quran, you need to study Arabic, and by studying it, you start absorbing some of the background data.
Nonetheless, Liberal Muslims have never gained momentum within the general Muslim populace, not in the past or present.
###
Regarding the verses that you have cited:
# No “eternity” in Quran 85:21-22.
# Quran 34:28 says that the Prophet is for all, but nothing about “inclusive language”.
# Your interpretations for Quran 12:104, 15:9, and 21:107 are ok, although they were not the direct interpretations.
You seems to alway claim I take it from non-scholar sourses. I use the Quran, I use the Hadiths, and I always tries to get an idea what the Tafsirs says, and I even tries to compare them. Most muslims does not claim these are non scholar sources .
So, the idea that the Quran is eternal is indeed supported by respected Islamic scholars and apologists. Scholars such as Ibn Kathir, al-Jalalayn, al-Tabari, al-Qurtubi, and al-Razi have all interpreted the Quran in ways that support this view in their own ways. Read them for yourself!
Regarding inclusivity, Surah 34:28 does indeed address this concept. Again, referring to the Tafsirs I mentioned above (again, I’ll advise you to read all of the islamic scholars/(appologists) to get the idea how your highest regarded muslim scholars consider it “inclusive”. I will say you’ll find a common agreement that the Prophet Muhammad is linked to the Quran and that his message has a universal character.
Check Quran 36:14 which speaks about three prophets.
Ibn-Katheer presented an opinion from a commentator that the third prophet was Paul [of Tarsus].
Now … Quranic commentators would bring many opinions and interpretations about the verse. But it is clear that Ibn-Katheer didn’t know much about the early Christian history, and there is no trusted hadith related to the identity of these prophets.
If Simon (for example) read Ibn-Katheer and said: the Quran says that Paul is a Prophet, then Simon is “dishonest”; because the Quran didn’t say that, it was unsupported opinion that was presented in Ibn-Katheer. This is basic-common-sense,, not just for the Quran, but for any book and any author.
Quran 34:28 (Quran.com): {We have sent you ˹O Prophet˺ only as a deliverer of good news and a warner to all of humanity, but most people do not know}.
There is no “inclusive language” here. The verse-content is different than the verse-interpretation. As there is no “Paul” in 36:14, there is no “inclusive language” in 34:28.
There “might” be “an” opinion of “a” commentator regarding this “language”, but this would be “an” interpretation, and should be “identified” as such.
The same for “eternal”, it is not in Quran 85:21-22.
I really wanted to comment about Paul Williams many days ago, but I was restricted by the 2-comments-daily rule.
I am truly surprised that Paul was an atheist; because the probability for an atheist to convert to Islam is much lower than the probability for a devoted Christian. Also, the probability for a current Westerner to convert to Islam is generally low.
Let us discuss this:
Besides the Westerners’ standard arguments against Islam and its laws, still, there are 3 elements that would make a thick subconscious layer of rejection against Islam: pork, alcohol and the Westerns’ new legalization for some social-relationships.
1# Pork is the most delicious meat for the Westerners since the ancient times, If Christianity couldn’t allow this meat then the Westerners would probably never converted to Christianity. If this was the case, then this would be a major reason for the Westerners’ rejection to Islam.
2# Current Westerners are less-disciplined and more addicted to alcohol than a 2 centuries ago. Probably most of the social life today in the Western world involve alcohol. So, I can imagine that a Westerner who truly enjoy drinking would probably never consider Islam.
——>
——>
3# The Westerners have legalized some social-relationships (i.e. LGBT) that Islam regard it to be a “very-grave-sin”, and this is a serious reason for Westerners to reject Islam. Note that this legalization is only active in the Western world as these relationships are illegal in the Muslim-World, China, India, Russia, etc. Furthermore, it is regarded as a “grave sin” by the devoted Muslims in the Diaspora, and the Conservative Christians.
###
Now … these 3 elements would probably be more evident in Atheists than in Conservative Christians, and this the background for the probability that I have mentioned before. Therefore, I am surprised that Paul Williams was an atheist before converting to Islam.
But there is a backdoor in the model I have presented here: Atheism doesn’t have spirituality. However, this is not a serious problem for Atheists as they are able to substitute spirituality with philosophical enlightenment and humanitarian works. But some Atheists might still feel some void due to the lack of spirituality, and this might soften the mind and make it more open for considering other alternatives.
This is still a theoretical analysis as I don’t have sufficient statistics. But I think it is an interesting subject.
Another MAJOR stumbling block for most Westerners in considering converting to Islam is the acceptance of polygamy in Islam. Speaking for myself, I could never even consider converting to a religion that permits one man to have four wives but requires women to be entirely monogamous — from my standpoint, that fact alone disqualifies this religion from serious consideration.
Giving up pork would be easy; I almost never eat it anyway. Giving up alcohol would be a bit of a wrench, but I could do it if I considered it necessary. But giving up my certainty of the inherent absolute equality of men and women, including their equality in the sexual sphere, would be impossible for me.
Another way of putting that is that any description of ‘God’ that claims God approves of polygamy for males but requires complete sexual fidelity to only one spouse for females strikes me as absurd; whatever ‘God’ is (if such an entity exists), it can’t be that.
No. Polygamy is not part of the core rejection of the Westerners.
Polygamy is a natural practice in many mammals including most apes. Also, it was a normal practice for the ancient civilizations of the middle-east, India and Africa. Also, it was a common practice in ancient Judaism.
Furthermore, marriage in Islam is by choice, not by force, and both (the husband and wife) have the right to end it.
Now… the main argument:
# The Westerners have “legalized” the LGBT relationships, which is something that has never been done before. The Westerners logic is that this should be a free choice for “consenting adults”.
# Playboy, the pornographic industry and most strip clubs are using many women for targeting and entertaining their main customers (i.e. men), and many Westerners have no moral issue with this as long as it is done by “consenting adults”.
# The Westerners have ‘legalized’ sadomasochism, wherein many women were ‘conditioned’ to become masochists for the pleasure of men, and many Westerners have no moral issue with this practice/relationship as long as it is done by “consenting adults”.
The Forty-Shades-of-Grey is a cosmetic (in-my-opinion) to cover-up the most cruel and horrible legalized relationships in the Western world today.
——>
——>
# Polygamy is not 3some, and many Westerners have no moral issue with 3some as long as it is done by “consenting adults”.
# And this can be carried on-and-on: Swinging, bestiality, Incest, sexual parties (, etc.) and many Westerners have no moral issue with these practices as long as it is done by “consenting adults”.
########
So, if Westerners have no moral issues with the above practices/relationships then how on earth, they would give themselves the moral right to criticize Polygamy!!!
If a group of Westerners are approving one or more of the above practices/relationships, then it is a clear and vivid hypocrisy for them to criticize Polygamy or to consider it immoral.
#######
No. Polygamy is not part of the core rejection/repulsion. The intimate-relationship-before-marriage is a core rejection, but this can be included within the “Western legalization for some social-relationships”.
But polygamy is a standard and casual criticism by Westerners against Islam. The same case for women-dress-codes, fasting, 5 prayers, etc.
I do still think that the Westerners core rejection comes from one or more of the following Islamic prohibited three elements: pork, alcohol and some relationships.
“No. Polygamy is not part of the core rejection of the Westerners.”
Well, we’re going to have to disagree about that. I can tell you without equivocation or any doubt whatsoever that polygamy is an absolute reason why I myself could never consider converting to Islam (or to Mormonism) and that this is true for most Western women and many Western men whom I know as well. Giving up pork and alcohol would be easy; accepting that God has commanded inequality between the sexes would be impossible.
And polygamy does without question presume an inequality between the sexes. Men get to have more than one spouse, while women must have only one spouse. It is that inequality which makes it an unacceptable practice for many Westerners — not the fact of having sexual relations with more than one person, but the fact that in polygamy *only men* are allowed to have sexual relations with more than one person, while women are very severely punished if they are not entirely faithful to their one husband. That is, to us, intolerably unjust.
Your last comment here is not different than your previous one, therefore, my comment here should not be different than my previous one.
But I will add that I didn’t discuss here the concept of equality: not the partial equality, relative equality, differential equality with equal sums (taegeuk equality), or the straight-line clear-cut equality. I just didn’t discuss the concept of equality in social life.
But I did discuss the attitude of Westerners to put the outcome of “consenting adults” over their own views of equality. And I clarified this attitude by the many practices/relationships that the Westerners have legalized, in which many women are conditioned and used for the pleasure of men. And many Westerners have no moral issues with these practices as long as they were done by “consenting adults”.
So, regardless if this issue was related to the laws (“only men”) or to the Westerners legalized practices (“mostly men”), still, I clearly think that Westerners have no moral right to criticize polygamy, and it would be hypocrisy for them to do so.
So, yes, we’re going to have to disagree.
Well,,,,,,,,,,when it comes to alcohol, that was even according to the (eternal?) Quran a developing process until it descied it should be prohibited. About the 3 stages, read for yourself:
Surah Al-Baqarah (2:219)
Surah An-Nisa (4:43):
Surah Al-Ma’idah (5:90-91):
And, I will also advise you to see the Hadiths about this, and not at least the Tafsirs to find what muslim scholars thought abuot it.
When it comes to “moral”, there are a whole lot of references which most “westerners” would have a hard time to reconcile with current moral standards. Read for yourself a few examples of the hadiths:
https://sunnah.com/nasai:4991
https://sunnah.com/shamail:51
https://sunnah.com/shamail:59
https://sunnah.com/adab:600
https://sunnah.com/bukhari:695
https://sunnah.com/ibnmajah:4337
https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi:2732
In these few hadiths, the muslims describe their prophets where nakedness occures in relationship to other men, touching other men under the skirt, kissing naked mens bodies, sitting close with a man, holding hands on their knees, using womans cloths and use eyeliner. Beside that, muslims describe muslim men in lasting sexual group sex intercourses with women who have “desirable front passages”, together with a sex boys with eternal erection.
You can read them yourself, and find out what muslims write and think about these matters. It might broaden your perspective.
Kt, let me remind you again. In Dr. Shoemaker post (dated Aug-9-2023), you presented me with 15+ claims, with a tone that is not different than the tone of your claims above. I did spend many hours and answered every single one of them, and I did this to gain the “moral-base” to tell you directly that I will never investigate any of your claims again.
Check my comments in that post. I told that you didn’t do proper homework, you didn’t do any fact-checking, and it is really unfair that you can collect these claims from unscholarly/ill-intentioned websites in 10 minutes which would take me many hours to answer … this is totally unfair.
If you have done little homework, then you would have found by yourself the false in these 15+ claims, specially that there are so many Islamic websites/channels that confront these unscholarly groups, for example: “Farid Responds” in YouTube (and many others).
The direction to the north is one, but the direction to the “not-north” is infinite. The unscholarly groups can easily generate infinite number of illogical un-factual claims.
So, why should I bother!
—–>
—–>
Now …
You can put words in the Quran ,,, and no one will prevent you.
You can take “an” opinion of “a” commentator and say: This is the Quran ,,, and no one will prevent you.
You can highlight an untrusted/rejected hadith and say: This is Islam [and you have done this in many of your 15+ claims] ,,, and no one will prevent you.
You can do all that and still say that your views about Islam are objective and impartial … and no one will prevent you.
Many people are doing this in their “unscholarly” groups, and many people have done this through the centuries.
So, why should I bother!
I did like some of our discussions, specially the topics that were partially neutral ,,, but these other topics that I am confident that they are unfair, that you presented them without fact-checking, and which I assume they came from those websites,, then I truly lost interest, and I would probably just move-on. And I do have a valid “moral-base” for this approach, as I did pay for it, in-full and up-front, with many hours of work.
Regarding Paul Williams, I’ve followed him quite a bit. I have a strong sense that he sells the product “smart white dude validating islam”. I don’t think he believes in islam, I think its audience capture where he found empirically what increased his revenue stream as he pursued his hobby. I don’t really like being this cynical, and of course, I may be completely wrong, but anyway.
This was a fun post to read, and EXACTLY what I would expect someone preparing to revert to the Muslim faith to express.
My guess is that the rumor is based upon the announcement of the course “The Bible and Quran” that you were to hold, and held last weekend, together with Javad Hashmi. Someone heard of the announcement and misunderstood it and/or thought wishfully about it…
Dr. Ehrman, I have a question. Have you heard some where that the name Jesus comes from, “Hail Zeus”? If so, where does that come from?
No, I don’t think it can. In Greek the names are completely different and not related even if they sound a bit alike in English
Understood.
Omar Robb, almost all non-Muslim Westerners very strongly object to bestiality and incest because both these practices are abusive/exploitative.
Sorry AngeloB, I have just noticed your comment. As your comment wasn’t a reply to my comments, therefore, I didn’t receive any email notification. Sorry for that.
Now … I am assuming that most humans will feel revolted by the idea of bestiality and incest. Every one of them would probably have a different reason, but I can summarize these reasons in two lines: it is very anomalous, and it does contradict with the “common natural biological instinct” of most mammals.
However, saying that most Westerns strongly object to incest because it is abusive/exploitative, then why they don’t object strongly to other legalized abusive/exploitative practices (as in the pornographic industry)!
Still, this strong objection is just an emotion, not a moral-stand, otherwise, this moral-stand would have presented a pressure for a legal-stand, but to my understanding, incest is not illegal in most of the Western world.
Also, saying that “almost all Western strongly object to incest” is not very accurate: Here is a clip for Richard Dawkins (and others) about this subject:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVOvLe3MjwA&t=9s
This is another clip for Richard Dawkins supporting an opinion about this subject:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DdMZKl-3AI
So, it is not very accurate to say: “almost all Westerns …”.