Remembering Servetus–Past and Present
Biblical scholar professor James Tabor wrote yesterday, ‘Michael Servetus is surely one of the most remarkable men of history, though he is largely unknown in general circles. He was born in Spain in 1511 and died in 1553, at age 42, burnt at the stake as a heretic by John Calvin’s Geneva Council. He was a brilliant scientist and his field was primarily medicine, but it was his theological views that led to his universal condemnation by both Catholics and Protestants. Servetus rejected the doctrine of the Trinity, and although he maintained belief in the virgin birth, he denied that Jesus was God. He was fluent in Greek, Hebrew, and Latin, and in his primary work, De trinitatis erroribus (”On the Errors of the Trinity”), he ably argued that the Bible itself, in neither Old Testament nor New Testament, supported the subsequent Trinitarian notion of Jesus as God.
There is a bit of buzz on the Internet these days, among Christian evangelical circles, regarding a modern writer who calls himself “Servetus the Evangelical,” who has penned a new book titled The Restitution of Jesus Christ. The author, who has chosen to remain anonymous, is apparently a well-known Evangelical Christian. He plans to divulge his true identity on September 29, 2011, the 500th anniversary of Servetus’ birth.
You can visit his website at servetustheevangelical.com, where you can read excerpts of the book, purchase the whole, or try your hand at guessing the author’s identity based on clues posted on the first of each month.
I obtained a copy of the book and I have to say I am much impressed. It runs 600 pages, is thoroughly researched and documented, and fully in touch with the massive amount of scholarly discussion currently available on the “Christology of the New Testament.”
Whoever the author is, he has surely done his homework, and given his staunchly conservative stance on the inspiration of the New Testament documents, his attempts might well end up having quite an impact on the growing “biblical unitarian” or “One God” movement that is making significant inroads within a variety of evangelical Christian circles.’
Christians Fasting this Ramadan
In this year’s month of fasting, Rev Dr Brian D. McLaren’s observance of Ramadan with Muslims is a wonderful testimony to the spirit of Ramadan. Brian D. McLaren is an author, speaker, pastor, and networker among evangelical Christian leaders and thinkers. He is a popular author of a number of books including: The Secret Message of Jesus, A New Kind of Christian, Finding Our Way Again.
He writes in his blog:
Ramadan is the Muslim holy month of fasting for spiritual renewal and purification. It commemorates the month during which Muslims believe Muhammed received the Quran through divine revelation, and it calls Muslims to self-control, sacrificial generosity and solidarity with the poor, diligent reading of the Quran, and intensified prayer.
This year, I, along with a few Christian friends (and perhaps others currently unknown to us will want to join in) will be joining Muslim friends in the fast which begins August 21. We are not doing so in order to become Muslims: we are deeply committed Christians. But as Christians, we want to come close to our Muslim neighbors and to share this important part of life with them. Just as Jesus, a devout Jew, overcame religious prejudice and learned from a Syrophonecian woman and was inspired by her faith two thousand years ago (Matthew 15:21 ff, Mark 7:24 ff), we seek to learn from our Muslim sisters and brothers today.
Muslims observe Ramadan in the same basic way world-wide: they fast from food, water, sex, etc., from dawn to dusk. We Christians who are joining in the fast will share these four common commitments:
We, as Christians, humbly seek to join Muslims in this observance of Ramadan as a God-honoring expression of peace, fellowship, and neighborliness. Each of us will have at least one Muslim friend who will serve as our partner in the fast. These friends welcome us in the same spirit of peace, fellowship, and neighborliness.
We will seek to avoid being disrespectful or unfaithful to our own faith tradition in our desire to be respectful to the faith tradition of our friends. For example, since the Bible teaches us the importance of fasting and being generous to the poor, we can participate as Christians in fidelity to the Bible as our Muslim friends do so in fidelity to the Quran.
Among the core values of Ramadan are self control, expressing kindness, and resolving conflicts. For this reason, if we are criticized or misunderstood by Christians, Muslims, or others for this endeavor, we will avoid defending ourselves or engaging in arguments. Instead, we will seek to explain ourselves humbly, simply, and briefly when necessary, connecting with empathy to the needs and feelings of others as we express our own.
Our main purpose for participating will be our own spiritual growth, health, learning, and maturity, but we also hope that our experience will inspire others to pray and work for peace and the common good, together with people of other faith traditions.
May God bless all people, and teach us to love God and love one another, and so fulfill our calling as human beings.
I’ll share my personal story about deciding to join in the fast in the next few days, and I’ll also share regular updates and reflections here on this blog (brianmclaren.net) leading up to, during, and after Ramadan.
Time to boycott Israel
Neve Gordon
guardian.co.uk, Friday 21 August 2009
Israeli newspapers this summer are filled with angry articles about the push for an international boycott of Israel. Films have been withdrawn from Israeli film festivals, Leonard Cohen is under fire around the world for his decision to perform in Tel Aviv and Oxfam has severed ties with a celebrity spokeswoman, an actress who also endorses cosmetics produced in the occupied territories. Clearly, the campaign to use the kind of tactics that helped put an end to the practice of apartheid in South Africa is gaining many followers around the world.
Not surprisingly, many Israelis – even peaceniks – aren’t signing on. A global boycott can’t help but contain echoes of antisemitism. It also brings up questions of a double standard (why not boycott China for its egregious violations of human rights?) and the seemingly contradictory position of approving a boycott of one’s own nation.
It is indeed not a simple matter for me as an Israeli citizen to call on foreign governments, regional authorities, international social movements, faith-based organisations, unions and citizens to suspend co-operation with Israel. But today, as I watch my two boys playing in the yard, I am convinced that it is the only way that Israel can be saved from itself.
I say this because Israel has reached a historic crossroads, and times of crisis call for dramatic measures. I say this as a Jew who has chosen to raise his children in Israel, who has been a member of the Israeli peace camp for almost 30 years and who is deeply anxious about the country’s future.
The most accurate way to describe Israel today is as an apartheid state. For more than 42 years, Israel has controlled the land between the Jordan Valley and the Mediterranean sea. Within this region about 6 million Jews and close to 5 million Palestinians reside. Out of this population, 3.5 million Palestinians and almost half a million Jews live in the areas Israel occupied in 1967, and yet while these two groups live in the same area, they are subjected to totally different legal systems. The Palestinians are stateless and lack many of the most basic human rights. By sharp contrast, all Jews – whether they live in the occupied territories or in Israel – are citizens of the state of Israel.
The question that keeps me up at night, both as a parent and as a citizen, is how to ensure that my two children as well as the children of my Palestinian neighbours do not grow up in an apartheid regime.
There are only two moral ways of achieving this goal.
The first is the one-state solution: offering citizenship to all Palestinians and thus establishing a binational democracy within the entire area controlled by Israel. Given the demographics, this would amount to the demise of Israel as a Jewish state; for most Israeli Jews, it is anathema.
The second means of ending our apartheid is through the two-state solution, which entails Israel’s withdrawal to the pre-1967 borders (with possible one-for-one land swaps), the division of Jerusalem and a recognition of the Palestinian right of return with the stipulation that only a limited number of the 4.5 million Palestinian refugees would be allowed to return to Israel, while the rest could return to the new Palestinian state.
Geographically, the one-state solution appears much more feasible because Jews and Palestinians are already totally enmeshed; indeed, “on the ground,” the one-state solution (in an apartheid manifestation) is a reality. Ideologically, the two-state solution is more realistic because fewer than 1% of Jews and only a minority of Palestinians support binationalism.
For now, despite the concrete difficulties, it makes more sense to alter the geographic realities than the ideological ones. If at some future date the two peoples decide to share a state, they can do so, but currently this is not something they want.
So if the two-state solution is the way to stop the apartheid state, then how does one achieve this goal?
I am convinced that outside pressure is the only answer. Over the last three decades, Jewish settlers in the occupied territories have dramatically increased their numbers. The myth of the united Jerusalem has led to the creation of an apartheid city where Palestinians aren’t citizens and lack basic services. The Israeli peace camp has gradually dwindled so that today it is almost nonexistent, and Israeli politics is moving more and more to the extreme right.
It is therefore clear to me that the only way to counter the apartheid trend in Israel is through massive international pressure. The words and condemnations from the Obama administration and the European Union have yielded no results, not even a settlement freeze, let alone a decision to withdraw from the occupied territories.
I consequently have decided to support the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement that was launched by Palestinian activists in July 2005 and has since garnered widespread support around the globe. The objective is to ensure that Israel respects its obligations under international law and that Palestinians are granted the right to self-determination.
In Bilbao, Spain, in 2008, a coalition of organisations from all over the world formulated the 10-point campaign meant to pressure Israel in a “gradual, sustainable manner that is sensitive to context and capacity”. For example, the effort begins with sanctions on and divestment from Israeli firms operating in the occupied territories, followed by actions against those that help sustain and reinforce the occupation in a visible manner. Along similar lines, artists who come to Israel to draw attention to the occupation are welcome, while those who just want to perform are not.
Nothing else has worked. Putting massive international pressure on Israel is the only way to guarantee that the next generation of Israelis and Palestinians – my two boys included – does not grow up in an apartheid regime.
The Islamist
There are Christians of my acquaintance who I have the upmost respect for: because they are intelligent and have an unusual appreciation of Islam and Muslims. One such is Father Frank, a Priest in the Church of England. He sent me his latest thoughts today, and I want to share them with you:
FATHER FRANK’S RANTS
16 August 2009
The Islamist
Once the priest stood outside a West London mosque, enjoying a bit of a spat with a moon-faced, zestful young man. All about his notion of a resurgent Islamic caliphate. ‘Pie in the sky’ I told him, insensitively. ‘Just as likely as bringing back Byzantium.’ After calling me a ‘kafir’ he turned away, to harangue someone else. ‘Go with God’, I wished him, and quickly forgot the meeting. Until one day in April 2003 when I recognised the boy’s chubby face in the papers. His name was Asif Hanif. He had blown himself up in a bar in Israel. Huh! I thought. ‘I have met Britain’s very first suicide bomber. Fancy that.’ I even felt impelled to write a letter to The Times, reflecting on the boy’s motivation. It got me a few irate messages from readers who thought the poor priest was condoning suicide bombing. Wot! Me? Too much of a pussycat for anything remotely resembling that, believe you me.
Now once again I have been reminded of wretched Asif. Thanks to Ed Husain’s The Islamist, purchased second-hand in a Chiswick Oxfam bookshop. A book rather fascinating for me to peruse, as I happen to know quite a few of the characters in it, Asif being one of them. (I myself am conspicuous by my absence: dommage!) It is a critique of radical Islamic & Islamist bodies in Britain and elsewhere. Hizb UtTahrir – the party of liberation – being the chief among them. A story based on the writer’s personal experience. Meaty stuff. And not without its entertaining bits, like the one about the fiery Muslim activist who boasts of his preference for Balkan blonde concubines. Anyway, I trust the author means well. Still, I have a bone to pick with him.
‘This book is a protest against political Islam’, the preface boldly states. Which immediately caused me to wonder what Ayatollah Khomeini would have thought. You see, while visiting Iran recently I learnt of an instructive anecdote about the father of the Islamic revolution there. Many years before the Shah’s overthrow, the head of Savak, the feared secret police, had paid Khomeini a visit. Aware of the Imam’s high religious status, as well as of his influence with the masses, in order to deter him from attacking the regime, the shrewd Savak boss tried an unusually insidious argument. ‘You are a man of God. A spiritual person. Why do you want to soil yourself by meddling into politics? Politics is dirty. Politics is devious. Politics is corrupt. Politics is mendacity. Lies. Badness. Imam, leave politics to us. We can dirty our hands. But you should keep yourself clean from political filth. So, it is best for you if you leave politics to us.’
Khomeini’s terse response however was not quite what the secret policeman expected: ‘All of Islam is politics.’ Indeed, in another context Khomeini noted how the Qur’an contains a hundred times more verses concerned with social and economic matters than with matters of ritual, prayer, diet and so on. And that cannot be gainsaid. Of course, tafsir, interpretation, is the next, obligatory step when it comes to sacred texts. Whether the meaning of any contentious verse can be explained away is another matter. But Khomeini’s general point seems irrefutable.
Whilst roundly rejecting political Islam, Ed Husain embraces the more inward, Sufi tradition, which he personally finds congenial. No doubt such approach has won him a good number of friends in Britain. Although we have a state church and a state religion, the influence of Christianity in the public realm is virtually nil. That delights our rulers. Jesus Christ, who triumphantly rose from the grave and redeemed the whole world, is strictly confined to the one hour slot on Sunday morning, followed by coffee and chat with the vicar. They love ‘Churchianity’, an exclusively private, harmless, emasculated and frankly useless type of religion. Islam too will be quite acceptable, providing it turns itself into the Friday, mosque equivalent of the Church of England. In sum, good Muslims are those who underwrite the secularist paradigm – religion as a private affair. Bad Muslims, all the others. Diggit?
Our Ed wields Sufism as a kind of stick to beat Islamists with. However, not all Sufis have been and are quite as quietist and as apolitical as he assumes. In 1453 Sufi dervishes egged on the Turkish armies to conquer Constantinople and the Mevlevi order in Ottoman times took full part in the Turkish military campaigns in Europe. The famed Safavid dynasty in Iran took its name from a Sufi brotherhood which captured Tabriz in 1501. In Sudan, Somalia and Libya Senussi Sufis fought against French and Italian colonialists. In such fraternities, you cannot easily distinguish between religious and political affiliations. Which rather drives a four coach and horses through Ed’s argument. I am glad he found his peace through ‘nice’, spiritual Sufis but he might as well have joined more combative ones.
I shouldn’t be too tough on the author of The Islamist. He strikes me as a decent, civilised and courageous kind of human being. One not afraid of telling the truth about Arab racism, for example, as he found himself in Saudi Arabia seen ‘as an inferior hindi, or Indian. In the racist Arab psyche, hindi is as pejorative as kuffar. In countless gatherings I silently sat and listened to racist caricatures of a billion people by Saudi bigots’, he writes. Having myself lived in the neighbouring, putatively happy state of Qatar, I can aver Ed is right. Racism towards brown-skinned people from the Indian subcontinent and other third world people is rampant in the Gulf. Of course, that is not the teaching of Islam. Just another example how neither Christianity, nor Communism nor Islam can change what I would call fallen human nature.
Shabab is a word Islamists apparently use about themselves. It’s Arabic for ‘the young’. In this case, the lads. Lads who, forgive me, are intrinsically silly, as all youth. Lads who in other times would have found an outlet for their ardours in the Foreign Legion or in monasteries or the Army. Today, in the moral and spiritual wasteland which is present-day Britain, Islamic radicalism, sometimes of the violent variety, offers itself as maybe the main opportunity for silly shabab to inject some daring meaning into their lives.
The solution? Honestly, only philosopher Benedetto Croce’s advice comes to mind: ‘Ya shabab! O youth! Grow older as quickly as you can.’
Revd Frank Julian Gelli
Why we need to be very careful what we say…
Introducing the atheist’s nightmare: the humble banana. Yes, argues Kirk Cameron, the banana and hand are perfectly made, one for the other. Proof positive of a creator behind the universe. Watch the video reply below…
Should Apostates Be Executed?
I’ve been mulling over this issue recently, and though I’m no scholar, I would like to outline the arguments that traditionally Christians and Muslims have used for and against the execution of apostates in an attempt to clarify some of the arguments involved.
Historically, Muslims and the Christian Church have attempted to justified this punishment and I have noticed that their respective theological arguments are remarkably similar. So I’ll discuss this remarkable convergence of views and also show why I think Jesus (in the light of his reported teaching in Matthew 5:17-19; 15:3-7; 23:1-3) would have defended the capital punishment of Jewish apostates.
comments, as always, will be welcome.
I’ll post it here when I’m done…
UPDATE: I’ve had to commit time to other projects and so I can’t complete my research into this hot issue. So in lieu of this I’m posting a piece by Tim Winter that I broadly agree with. Its taken from Age of Jahiliyah
HOW DOES ISLAM DEFINE APOSTASY? IS IT PERMISSIBLE FOR A MUSLIM TO CONVERT TO ANOTHER FAITH? HOW CAN LAWS AGAINST APOSTASY AND BLASPHEMY BE RECONCILED WITH THE KORANIC INJUNCTION OF “NO COMPULSION IN RELIGION”?
Traditional human communities believe that truth leads to salvation, and error to damnation. It is probable that very many religious people in a variety of denominations still believe this. Historically, religiously-faithful princes have therefore seen it as necessary to use the coercive power of the state to forbid apostasy. One of the most powerful and persistent manifestations of this understanding in history was the Inquisition, which was definitively abolished in 1834. Protestant countries also respected this drastic principle; in fact, the first converts to Islam in Britain were impaled on stakes. In a Hindu context, ‘apostasy’ was often classified as violation of caste rules and boundaries, and similarly drastic consequences could follow. After the Mongol sack of Baghdad in 1253, Buddhists who converted to Islam were routinely put to death.
The four canonical schools of Sunni Islamic law, and also most pre-modern Shi’a jurists, recommend similarly drastic penalties, although the judge is enjoined to ‘look for ambiguities’ in order to avert the death penalty wherever possible.
The Ottoman Caliphate, the supreme representative of Sunni Islam, formally abolished this penalty in the aftermath of the so-called Tanzimat reforms launched in 1839. The Shaykh al-Islam, the supreme head of the religious courts and colleges, ratified this major shift in traditional legal doctrine. It was pointed out that there is no verse in the Qur’an that lays down a punishment for apostasy (although chapter 5 verse 54 and chapter 2 verse 217 predict a punishment in the next world). It was also pointed out that the ambiguities in the hadith (the sayings of the Prophet) suggest that apostasy is only an offense when combined with the crime of treason. These ambiguities led some medieval Muslims, long before the advent of modernisation, to reject the majority view. Prominent among them one may name al-Nakha’i (d.713), al-Thawri (d.772), al-Sarakhsi (d. 1090), al-Baji (d. 1081), and al-Sha’rani (d.1565). The debate triggered by the Ottoman reform was continued when al-Azhar University in Cairo, the supreme religious authority in the Arab world, delivered a formal fatwa (religious edict) in 1958, which confirmed the abolition of the classical law in this area.
Among radical Salafis and Wahhabis who do not accept the verdicts of the Ottoman or the Azhar scholars, it is generally believed that the majority medieval view should still be enforced.
The best discussion of the controversy is the book by Mohammed Hashim Kamali, “Freedom of Expression in Islam” (Cambridge, 1997).
© Paul Williams 2009
Sufism-lite or classical Sufism?
Zaytoon88, a regular and valued contributer to this blog, wrote a comment on my post Islam: Religion or Ideology. He makes such a good point about Sufism that I wanted to share it. He writes:
Salam Paul,
I have found an interesting article on Imam Shamil, a Sufi leader from the Caucases, written by Abdur Raheem Green. Here is the part that is most relevent to this post:
“The second reason I chose the Imam was in no small part because he was a Sufi from the Naqshabandi tariqa. In these days when Jihad has become synonymous with terrorism, Wahabism and Salafist some Sufi’s have unashamedly used this atmosphere of confusion and fear to lay all the blame at the Wahabist door and to portray the Sufi path as entirely peaceful and pacifist, and the internal and spiritual Jihad espoused by themselves as the only authentic and valid Jihad. It seemed a perfect opportunity to remind them, ourselves and others how short sighted, shameless and ultimately false such sectarian opportunism is. It certainly hasn’t fooled Robert Spencer of Jihad watch. Most of the great Mujahids resisting European Imperialism were Sufis. Sheikh Abdul Qadir Al Jeziri, who actually met Imam Shamyl on hajj, and discussed guerrilla warfare tactics together. Sheikh Abdul Qair fought the French for ten years, until the sheer brutality of the French army massacring civilians forced him to give in. Shah Waliullah in India,and of course in the last century Omar Mukhtar in Lybia. All could be described as Sufis.
Differences, I suspect, we will always have, but these should kept between us. Whatever differences we have as Muslims, we can and must present to those who are ready to destroy us a united front.
‘Verily, Allah loves those who fight in His Cause in rows (ranks), as if they were a solid structure.’ Surat-as-Saff (61), ayah 4)”
I posted this excerpt from Sheikh Green not because I am a Salafi . I am not. As a matter of fact I have great respect for Sheikh Nuh Ha Mim Keller and am currently trying to apply my fiqh based on his masterpieces of translation ‘Al-Maqasid’ and ‘Reliance of the Traveller’. I am merely illustrating that the historical revision of certain orginizations and think tanks in their portrayal of Sufism as a somehow Secular liberal Western-friendly “version” of Islam is sorely mistaken. The great Sufi sheikhs of the classical Islamic era were among the staunchest supporters of the Khilafah and the defense of Muslim lands and we must salute their courage.
Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité?
A French woman who converted to Islam has been banned from wearing a “burkini” in a swimming pool outside Paris
Today’s Daily Telegraph says:
The woman, named only as Carole, 35, was told that the garment, a swimsuit that covers most of the body, was “inappropriate” clothing for a public baths.
Pool staff said her three-piece Islamic swimsuit she bought in Dubai – consisting of a headscarf, tunic and trousers – was against pool regulations and unhygienic.
They had “reminded her of the rules that apply in all [public] swimming pools which forbid swimming while clothed,” said Daniel Guillaume, a manager at the pool in the suburb of Emerainville.
The ban was imposed as President Nicolas Sarkozy’s government is considering an outright ban on all Islamic dress, such as the head-to-toe burka or niqab, that it considers a “sign of subservience” and “not welcome” in France.
“Burkini” is derived from the words bikini and burka.
Carole, who converted to Islam aged 17, said that one lifeguard had initially given her permission to wear the garment.
She said: “When I bought it I was told it would afford me the pleasure of swimming without revealing my body, which is what Islam recommends.
“I called three swimming pools in my area and a lifeguard of one at Emerainville asked me to come and put my burkini on so he could make up his mind.
“He saw no problem with it, but warned me he alone would not have the final decision.”
She bought a season ticket for the pool for herself and her children and was initially allowed to swim several times.
But on Aug 1, she was suddenly banned from wearing the burkini because it was against hygiene regulations.
Yannick Decompois, the district swimming pools director, said: “This has nothing to do with secularism, but is a simply a hygiene problem. For the same reasons men are also banned from wearing shorts.”
“The error was to have let her through in the first place,” he said.
Carole, however, said she was “made to understand it was a political problem”.
“For me, it’s segregation and I am going to fight to try and change things,” she said.
Earlier this year Mr Sarkozy invoked the wrath of radical Muslims in France and abroad by saying burkas “debased women” and were not welcome in France.
“We cannot accept to have in our country women who are prisoners behind netting, cut off from all social life, deprived of identity,” he added.
André Gérin, a Communist MP, who is heading a parliamentary commission looking at whether to ban the burka, yesterday said the burkini was “militant provocation” and should be banned.
“There is a political and militant project behind this outfit – perhaps even gurus who are whispering to her to play the victim and publicise her complaint,” he told Le Parisien.
Some swimming pools had already caved into women-only sessions, he said, but this was apparently “not sufficient for fundamentalists”.
“What they want is a world of burkas,” he warned.
France is home to Europe’s largest five million Muslim population. In 2004, it passed a law banning students from wearing veils and other religious symbols in schools.
===============================================
Just to demonstrate that not all European countries espouse secularist fundamentalism, Sweden apparently follows a more enlightened path:
‘Swedish public pool to rent out burkinis. In a nod to women not wishing to reveal too much, an indoor public swimming pool in Sweden has begun renting out burkinis, full-body swimsuits that cover everything but the face, hands, and feet.’
Righting wrongs…
The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said:
“God will definitely enforce the settlement of all the dues to those entitled to receive them on the Day of Judgment, even the wrong done to a hornless goat by a horned goat will be addressed.” [Sahih Muslim, #6252]
A word from George Bernard Shaw…
“I have always held the religion of Muhammad in high estimation because of its wonderful vitality. It is the only religion which appears to me to possess that assimilating capacity to the changing phase of existence which can make itself appeal to every age. I have studied him – the wonderful man and in my opinion far from being an anti-Christ, he must be called the Savior of Humanity.”
- George Bernard Shaw
A word from H.G. Wells…
“The Islamic teachings have left great traditions for equitable and gentle dealings and behavior, and inspire people with nobility and tolerance. These are human teachings of the highest order and at the same time practicable. These teachings brought into existence a society in which hard-heartedness and collective oppression and injustice were the least as compared with all other societies preceding it….Islam is replete with gentleness, courtesy, and fraternity.”
- H.G. Wells
The Islamification of Europe?
Before I confronted my own Islamophobia I was very worked up about the alleged Islamification of Europe. This is a very common anxiety amongst Europe’s ‘indigenous’ population, and has been fuelled by a utube video that has had over 10 million hits. This video makes some startling predictions about the Islamification of Europe over the next few decades. Some Christians like our good friend Jay Smith 
(and others at Acts 17 ministeries) have made much out of this scaremongering to frighten people about Islam and Muslims.
Fortunately the BBC has done some research into the video’s predictions which exposes the truth about these claims:
A big YouTube hit makes startling predictions about the Islamification of Europe over the next few decades and has been viewed more than 10 million times!
But can you believe what it says?
This seven-and-a-half minute video “Muslim Demographics” uses slick graphics, punctuated with dramatic music, to make some surprising claims, asserting that much of Europe will be majority Muslim in just a few decades. It says that in the past two decades, 90% of all population growth in Europe has been Muslim immigration.
In France, it says 30% of those aged 20 and younger are Muslim, with the birth rate for Muslim families massively exceeding that across all families. It says France will be an Islamic Republic within 39 years.
In the UK it says the Muslim population has risen 30-fold since the beginning of the 1980s.
But are any of the video’s statistics true?
Of the video’s claims that 90% of Europe’s population growth since 1990 is due Islamic immigration, only a fragment is true. Immigration is the main driver of population growth according to EU statistics and in some exceptional years, 90% of population growth has been down to net inward migration.
But that includes all immigrants coming into the EU, not just Muslims.
It is the claims made about individual countries that are most striking. The video says that a typical French family has 1.8 children but that French Muslim families have 8.1 children.
No source is given for this information and the French government doesn’t collect statistics by religion. So it is impossible to say what the precise fertility rates among different religious groups in France are.
But no country on earth has such a high fertility rate and in Algeria and Morocco, the two nations which send the largest numbers of Muslim immigrants to France, the fertility rate is 2.38, according to the UN’s 2008 figures.
In the Netherlands, according to the video, half of all newborns are Muslim, and in 15 years half the population will be Muslim.
But the Dutch office of statistics estimates that Muslims make up only 5% of the population. For Dutch Muslim women to produce half the nation’s babies, they would have to be giving birth at at least 14 times the rate of their non-Muslim neighbours.
Is 25% of the Belgian population Muslim, as the video asserts? No. The Belgian office of statistics points to a 2008 study which suggests the real figure is just 6%.
The video also states that the Muslim population of the UK has grown 30-fold in the past 30 years. They get the figure by estimating that the British Muslim population has risen from 82,000 to 2.5 million.
The firm data is in the 2001 census, which counted close to 1.6 million Muslims in England and Wales. That number will have risen since 2001 so 2.5 million is not impossible. The 2011 census will be looked to for clarification.
However, according to Dr Andrew Hinde, a demographer at Southampton University, the 82,000 figure is a gross under-estimate. “If you take the 1981 census there was no question asked on religious belief,” he says, “but if you take those born in Pakistan and Bangladesh as a minimum estimate of the number of Muslims in 1981, it’s about 300,000.”
That would mean the growth rate has been significantly slower than the video suggests.
But the video doesn’t just rely on statistics, it also uses an official Government statement. It quotes it as saying: “The fall in German population can no longer be stopped. Its downward spiral is no longer reversible. It will be a Muslim state by the year 2050.”
The statement in question was made by then vice-president of the Federal Statistics Office, Walter Radermacher, who is now chief statistician of the European Union. He says that while it is true he said Germany’s population was in decline, the last part of the quote [in italics] is just an invention. He said nothing about Germany becoming a Muslim state.
“The quotation which reads as if the German government believed that Germany will become a Muslim state is simply not true,” he says. “There is no source which can be quoted that the German government has published such an expression or opinion.”
Inexact science
The video also claims the German government believes the number of Muslims in Europe will double to 104 million.
Mr Radermacher adds: “That is not true. The German government does not believe that the Muslim population will double in the next 40 or 50 years. There are no reliable sources that give a proof for that assumption.”
Population projection is an inexact science. No-one knows how many Muslims will be living in Europe or anywhere else by 2050. The current trends suggest that by 2050 Europe will have a bigger proportion of Muslims, although nothing like the level suggested in the video.
But the big assumption here is current trends. Levels of immigration and fertility change over time.
It is certainly true that immigrant communities often have higher fertility rates but over time these usually fall into line with the indigenous population. This might not happen with Muslim immigrants. But nobody can know and that’s why, according to Dr Hinde, it is so hard to guess the future.
“In the 1930s there were population projections made of the UK that by the end of the century the UK population would be 20 million. Well, it turned out to be 50 million.
“That’s how far out you can get when you’re moving 40 or 50 years down the line and not taking into account the uncertainty.”
see also this important study Disproving the Muslim Demographics sums
Has the Qur’an Been Perfectly Preserved? Bassam Zawadi vs. Nabeel Qureshi
Answering Muslims have posted the debate on the Qur’an between Bassam Zawadi and Nabeel Qureshi on their site.
Nabeel writes this comment on his debate:
‘As I post this video, I have to say this: simply debating this topic was a victory. Never, at least to my knowledge, had the Quran’s preservation been challenged in the forum of public debate. As a result, most Muslims I know make statements like “There has never been a Quranic variant!” or “There’s only ever been one version of the Qur’an!” or “No verse or chapter of the Qur’an has ever been in dispute!”
Because of this debate, Muslims everywhere will now know none of these claims are true. Bassam has tried to defend the Qur’an by saying “Hey, it’s okay if none of those statements are true – God planned it that way.” As you will see me say in the debate, it’s fine with me if you want to give a theological reason explaining the basic problems with the Qur’an – at least you’re acknowledging them! This is a far cry from the average Muslim’s position.’
———————–
I had the privilege of moderating this fascinating debate. Objectively, I felt that Bassam had a better grasp of the primary sources. This is due in part because he can actually read them in Arabic whereas Nabeel has confessed (in his debate with me) that he cannot understand the language.
But Nabeel’s triumphant and slightly arrogant tone in the passage above mars what was in fact a superior and erudite debate between the two speakers. I learnt a great deal from both protagonists. In my view it was the best debate in the MDI series.
One final point: an old cliché has it that people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones, and Nabeel threw lots of them.
True, many (or even most?) Muslims know nothing about the Quranic variants, but all the Muslims of my aquantance knew about this fact.
But Nabeel in his gleeful criticism of Muslim ignorance overlooks a similar problem in his own backyard: I would guess that the vast majority of evangelicals know nothing of the research done by biblical scholars over the past 150 years, which has demonstrated the following:
that the four gospels are not written by eyewitnesses, but by unknown figures many years after Jesus’ ascension
that the New Testament is now believed to contain forgeries such as II Peter and the pastoral epistles (I & II Tim and Titus)
that close study of the Pentateuch in Hebrew suggests that Moses was not the author of the first 5 books of the Bible
that the gospels contain material that was added to the original texts by unknown scribes, which are therefore not part of the original gospels: for example the story of the woman caught in adultery in John 8 and the resurrection narrative at the end of Mark’s gospel. There are other corruptions/additions to the NT text that are well known to scholars.
But priests, pastors and ministers who are trained in seminaries and institutions of higher learning know about these things but for some reason fail to pass on this knowledge to their Christian congregations.
So Nabeels crowing over the Muslims is quite distasteful in the light of the massive ignorance of his own evangelical church about the textual realities of the Bible.
Therefore I conclude: that people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones!
leave a comment