Watch This …(Updated)

sharia.pngHere’s a woman of remarkable courage and clarity. It’s a fascinating dialogue between a secularist critic of Islam, an interviewer, and, I assume, an Islamic teacher.

Update: A friend of a friend writes to say, “Al Jazeera TV station had the program that included Wafa Sultan and the Muslim scholar. Memri took it from there and it has been circulating for the last two years.”

Posted by R. Scott Clark | Wednesday, March 19, 2008 | Categorized Civil Life | Tagged Bookmark the permalink.

About R. Scott Clark

R. Scott Clark is the President of the Heidelberg Reformation Association, the author and editor of, and contributor to several books and the author of many articles. He has taught church history and historical theology since 1997 at Westminster Seminary California. He has also taught at Wheaton College, Reformed Theological Seminary, and Concordia University. Read more» He has hosted the Heidelblog since 2007.

12 comments

  1. Interesting stuff, but my take on this “clash” is not that it’s between the civilized (us) and the animals (them). There are NO good guys in this debacle, and just because we have stars and stripes on our flag doesn’t mean we confessionalists have a real stake in who wins this debate. It’s all Babylon, even if the uniforms vary.

  2. Nevertheless, the Muslims started the fights, even in the Middle Ages before the Crusades. The Crusades started as Europe’s pure and simple defense against the invasion of the Muslims.

  3. Hi Lane,

    I agree that the crusades were, in part a response to the the initial Muslim Jihad and it’s certain that European (and church) history would have been much different in the absence of the continual pressure from Muslim forces, the crusades were motivated by other interests as well.

  4. Now Scott, if the Crusades were motivated by “other interests” beyond defense, that might open the door to the possibility that the same is true of our present crusade against the evildoers in the Middle East. You’re on thin ice, my good man….

  5. Why would the video be removed?

    I believe it is on the Al Jezeera website.

    Now Scott, if the Crusades were motivated by “other interests” beyond defense, that might open the door to the possibility that the same is true of our present crusade against the evildoers in the Middle East. You’re on thin ice, my good man….

    God uses sinful men and sometimes the ends, although not justifying the means, are preferable to what would have otherwise been had no means been employed.

    I think God has much more to be mad about in America than the Iraq war.

  6. JJS,

    Let’s see, if you were six I’d’ve been about, what, ten when I tried that defense as well. Your mother and mine must have read the same manual on natural law. Let’s have them get together and write a note to…somebody somewhere.

    Daniel,

    Where’d you get your crystal ball? My Ouji board done gave out ever since I stamped Dt. 29:29 on it. Seriously, careful, speaking on behalf of the Most High is a serious thing. I’d stick to what He has made known and not what is contained in the, as Calvin put it, “labyrinth from which there is no hope of return.”

    Zrim

  7. The crusades were motivated by a complex set of desires. Defending “Christendom” against “the Turk” was one of them.

    By this post I’m not taking a position on the war, but only alerting readers to an interesting discussion. It’s unusual to see this sort of discussion with this sort of frankness.

    You’ll note that I updated the post. When I first got the link it was in the context of “this probably won’t stay up long….”

  8. I believe I prefaced my statement with “I think” and that I made absolutely no presumption about speaking for God. I’m sorry I’m not as exact in my language as all the Dr.’s here with advanced theology degrees, but, I am but a humble high school droupout.

    My point was simply that the Iraq war isn’t the ultimate repository of everything unholy.

    Secondly, psychologizing about the motives of Crusaders is in fact trying to gaze into the very crystal ball you claim to have given up.

    Thanks for being so welcoming here in response to my very first post.

  9. Dr. Clark,

    This was very interesting indeed. I like the frankness she had to point out the barbarism found within the Islamic world today.

    However, I have a question for you that occurred to me while listening (or reading) to her. She said she believed in nothing supernatural. So I was wondering why anybody should take her opinions seriously. You know, the whole presuppositional thing. How can she back up her claims to what “ought” to be done?

    Thanks,

    kazoo

  10. Of course without any transcendent source for ethics, “ought” is virtually meaningless. As CVT would tell us, she has to rely on what she denies.

    There’s nothing about presuppositionalism that says we’re entitled to ignore someone who doesn’t share our presuppositons or who doesn’t acknowledge her own indebtedness to what she denies. If we do that then we become that Mullah who could only pronounce curses on her. As I listened to/read what she said I thought how a good Christian apologist could use what she said to and show her a clear difference between Christianity and Islam in just this situation.

  11. Dr. Clark,

    Agreed. That’s a good point. This is something good to keep in mind for any of us with Muslim friends. It might be a tool the Lord would use through a “good Christian apologist” for such people.

    Blessings,

    kazoo

Comments are closed.