Shari'a is Inconsistent with the Truth of the Holy Bible - Denial of the Need for Jesus Christ and His Love is the Basis of Islam

Submitted by M. Tovey (United States), Sep 23, 2009 at 13:36

As this exchange ranges on the examination of why shari'a should not be imposed in the realm of western societies, the question has been bounced back and forth by adherents of Islamic law as to the supposed merits of submitting to a universal application of Quranic morals, but with the appeal of such a situation confined to those of a Muslim mindset of sensibilities. Now, one may wonder, why is that? And why do we find that for some, resistance to such a thing is necessary in a world environment that seems to struggle with the fervor of those for whom Islam is the bread of life. We read further that some of the adherents of Islam adopt a more 'moderate' approach to their belief system, especially those whose exposure to the cultural differences afforded in a western societal setting compel a tolerance to things questionable by Quranic standards, but accede to them for the advantages to be gained.

There is no sense to arguing the differences of being Muslim versus being non-Muslim, unless one understands why the differences exist in the first place, and why the antipathies generated for centuries have been the cause for continuing hostilities. For starters, Islam was not the first religion (contrary to much of the contention made by some of its supremacy), so to approach any discussion as to the merits of shari'a requires a true analysis of its founding principles and how they may be applied universally when its source was exclusionary from its inception. Others in this post will make that point more specifically in their contention to make Islam universal, while others would, for the moment, assert tolerance for another belief system.

We continue to see the debate range from civil discourses to exchanges of epithets, with the apparently obligatory need to reference the excesses of various civilizations, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, as evidence that one type of society is more civilized than the other. In this, we see the greatest misconception of history perpetuated, that there was ever a fully just society in all of humanity, that in the terms of mankind's ability to govern itself, all the world's civilizations have failed, some more miserably than others. There is only one place to gain some insight as to why this is, and by so investigating, determine where to go from here. Of all the books of philosophy, of all the tenets of religion that purport to teach mankind how to live with each other (or dispose of those not willing to conform), only one source is willing to tell the full truth, that mankind is not capable of governing itself; that, if left to its own devises, mankind would self destruct and not leave a trace. It is the Hebrew Holy Bible. In it, a Holy Almighty God Created the universe as a means to reveal to a created humanity who He is, who we are, and why we need Him so desperately in order to have eternal life in His peace.

Now why would He, Who needs nothing from humanity to enjoy His realm peacefully without all the interference of a rebellious mankind, entertain mankind in the first place? We read that He desires a relationship of love, in which He is able to extend His grace and mercy to beings that are willing to respond in that same love and fellowship. That He did so through the nation of Israel, through whom we read that His Son Jesus Christ is the Person from which salvation is received by believing that He died on the cross for our sins and was raised for our justification of believing in Him in faith. Trying to follow the Quran for that truth is impossible, especially under the cover of shari'a, for the Islamic Prophet denies the power of Jesus Christ, and attempts to limit the real need for Jesus Christ in His love as the blood sacrifice for the payment of our sin debt. That denial is the basis for the contention against acceptance of shari'a.

For the moment, then, the debate continues, but not for too much longer. Islam continues to assert its influence and the western societies continue to consort with hostile governments for the sake of the underlying necessities, such as energy resources. What would happen if the various global economies were cut off from their oil supplies, suppliers and recipients alike? Likely, it will never be proven they were ever really needed; for before the inventions of industrialized civilizations, wasn't the only problem for existence based on when the next rain came, something that mankind has not conquered yet? Isn't that still true? Were it not for the revealed WORD of the LORD in the Hebrew Holy Bible, mankind would never get a clue any more than finding rain in the desert.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".