Posted on 07/09/2002 9:18:28 PM PDT by kattracks
This summer, as many Americans head to oceans white with foam, some atypical reading is finding its way into beach bags alongside torrid romance novels and cool detective stories. Books about Islam are hot, and new ones are pouring off the presses.
The most lucid of the recent arrivals is Bernard Lewis' "What Went Wrong? Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response" (Oxford University Press, 2002). Princeton professor emeritus Lewis explains why Muslims of the Middle East, who once possessed the highest civilization and the top armies in the world, are on a five-century losing streak. He shows how Islam messed up by setting up obstacles to freedom, science and economic development. Essentially, Muslim collectivists did not trust individuals to think for themselves or go out on their own. Westerners were willing to live in Islamic countries and learn from them, but Imams never said, "Go west, young Muslim."
Another short book, Ravi Zacharias' "Light in the Shadow of Jihad" (Multnomah, 2002), shows how faulty theology leads to political and social dictatorship, and notes what happens to Muslim scholars who ask hard questions. Egyptian journalist Farag Foda: assassinated. Ali Dashti of Iran: disappeared during the revolution there. Professor Nasr Abu Zaid of Egypt: had to flee the country. Given that record of intolerance, it's childish to say that Muslims and Westerners can all get along if we just talk with each other.
For a tougher but deeply provocative read, try "Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide" (Fairleigh Dickinson Univ. Press, 2002), by Bat Ye'or, an Egypt-born Jewish-French historian. She shows why the nature of Islam dictates against any pluralistic peace with Christians and Jews, and notes that "human rights" is a meaningless term within Islam: Muslims have rights but others (historically) are "dhimmi," members of conquered minorities allowed to live in Islamic society if they pay extra taxes, and put up with enormous scorn and abuse.
For a radical challenge to conventional views of Muhammad and Islamic scriptures, read Ibn Warraq's "What the Koran Really Says" (Prometheus, 2002). It's the fourth in a series of books by a Muslim-raised scholar who risks his life to argue that the Quran was not formulated until two centuries after Muhammad's death. This new book is the most technical of the four; "The Quest for the Historical Muhammad" (2000) is a better starting point for most readers. The general thrust is that many of Islam's elements were confused responses to cultural pressures, and that the real Muhammad was probably nothing like the myth.
Another new book, Chawkat Moucarry's "The Prophet & the Messiah: An Arab Christian's Perspective on Islam & Christianity" (InterVarsity Press, 2002), also goes right at the reliability of the Quran. Given that its earliest known fragments date from the second century of the Islamic era, textual critics would long ago have taken it apart if the Muslim world had any intellectual freedom. Moucarry also compares key Christian and Muslim doctrines and provides a handy appendix listing Muslim theologians and mystics.
In one pre-Sept. 11 book, "Muslims and Christians at the Table" (P&R Publishing, 1999), authors Bruce McDowell and Anees Zaka provide solid and readable sections on Muslim history and theology, and also show how to apply that knowledge as evangelistic opportunities arise. Practical reminders include never sit cross-legged with Muslims (showing the sole of your foot is considered offensive and an indication of disrespect, especially to elders) and never shake hands with a Muslim after petting a dog (dogs are considered unclean, but since Muhammad had cats, felines are OK).
The overall message of these six books is sobering. Since last fall many Americans have wanted to believe that Islam is naturally a peaceful religion, and if we forcibly remove a few bad apples we won't be pecked to death. We should pray that this is true, but we should take into account the scholarship that shows how and why Islam requires unending war -- with tactically useful truces -- between dar al-Islam (END ITAL) (Muslim territory) and dar al-harb (everything else).
Marvin Olasky is Editor of WORLD magazine, a TownHall.com member group.
©2002 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
IMO, These creatures that bred with women spawned an evil line that had to be destroyed or mankind would be lost to GOD forever. No redemption.
I am sure you are 100% right on that, and IMO, these evil creatures who bred with women, were none other than fallen angels, as the term Sons of God always referred to angelic beings in the OT. What do you think?
When Jesus said as in the days of Noah, so shall it be when His return is near, do you think He meant it would simply be a time of great evil, or did He mean it would be a time when this same thing will happen again, where fallen angels will again breed another race of Nephilim? I do not quite know, but I was wondering what you think about it?
Not hardly. That would be a relativistic view like the Masons have - God is whatever you picture Him in your mind to be.
That would make "God" dependent on what I thought of Him, or, in actuality, no God at all.
Ain't no thang. :o)
Good Points - but also remember that Christ taught that in turning the other cheek you were telling a citizen in Roman society that if they were to hit you again, it would be as an * equal *.
In Christ's day, Romans struck a person on the face with the * back * of their hand as a sign of being master. (We use the same idea today). Christ's audience understood that to turn the face again, required the person to hit you with the open hand, something only done among equals.
Thus, one would say "Yes you may hit me again, but understand that it is as an equal - in God's eyes there are no differences between us". A very radical idea - displaying God's grace and your own subservience while taking back one's personal dignity.
This makes sense to me b/c "those fallen angels" and their offspring were taken care of by the flood. I don't think GOD would allow that to happen again, he stated he would not destroy the earth again in that manner. Hence the rainbow covenent with Noah. Just my thoughts. However, Fire maybe another story and another scenerio.
LOL, you took the words right out of my mouth. I suspect we will all watch it from above, as the elements melt with fervant heat.
The "fallen ones" sought to merge with the bloodline of Adam, because of the promise to send a redeemer through Adam's kinsman. The Hebrew says that the Sons of God saw that the women were a fit "extension", for they sought to extend themselves into this realm from the spirit realm, as well as to extend themselves into the "children of the promise" the lineage of Adam. Satan tried to prevent the eventual birth, in the distant future, of the Messiah.
The Bible uses other names to describe these degraded fallen angels and their descendents in addition to the word Nephilim, they are. . . .
Rephaim - from the root rapha = spirits, shades Gen. 14:5
Anakim - Race of Giants Num. 13:33
Descendents of Nephilim Emim - the proud deserters, terrors, race of giants Gen. 14:5
Zuzim - the evil ones, roaming things Gen. 14:5
Zazummims - the evil plotters, Deut. 2:20
Zophim - watchers, angels who descended Num. 23, distinct from 'Holy Watchers' aligned with God
Sepherim - the many. . . .
Give me a link to the web site. I used to have about 10, but deleted them. I wonder if it is one of the ones I used to have bookmarked? BTW, wasn't Goliath one of these descendants? I think the Bible says they had six fingers and six toes, and their spears were like a weavers beam.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.