The reason why executing apostates has always been well-ensconced in Islamic law is that there is an indisputable record of Muhammad and his companions doing exactly that according to the reliable Hadith. According to verse4:80 of the Quran: "Whoso obeyeth the Messenger obeyeth Allah."
Bukhari (52:260) - "...The Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' " Note that there is no distinction as to how that Muslim came to be a Muslim.
Bukhari (83:37) - "Allah's Apostle never killed anyone except in one of the following three situations: (1) A person who killed somebody unjustly, was killed (in Qisas,) (2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse and (3) a man who fought against Allah and His Apostle and deserted Islam and became an apostate."
Bukhari (84:58) - "There was a fettered man beside Abu Muisa. Mu'adh asked, 'Who is this (man)?' Abu Muisa said, 'He was a Jew and became a Muslim and then reverted back to Judaism.' Then Abu Muisa requested Mu'adh to sit down but Mu'adh said, 'I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and His Apostle (for such cases) and repeated it thrice.' Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed. Abu Musa added, 'Then we discussed the night prayers'"
Bukhari (84:64-65) - "Allah's Apostle: 'During the last days there will appear some young foolish people who will say the best words but their faith will not go beyond their throats (i.e. they will have no faith) and will go out from (leave) their religion as an arrow goes out of the game. So, wherever you find them, kill them, for whoever kills them shall have reward on the Day of Resurrection.'"
Abu Dawud (4346) - "Was not there a wise man among you who would stand up to him when he saw that I had withheld my hand from accepting his allegiance, and kill him?" Muhammad is chastising his companions for allowing an apostate to "repent" under duress. (The person in question was Muhammad's former scribe who left him after doubting the authenticity of divine "revelations" upon finding out that he could suggest grammatical changes. He was brought back to Muhammad after having been captured in Medina).
Reliance of the Traveller (Islamic Law) o8.1 - "When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed." (o8.4 affirms that there is no penalty for killing an apostate).
There is also a consensus by all four schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence (i.e., Maliki, Hanbali, Hanafi, and Shafii), as well as classical Shiite jurists, that apostates from Islam must be put to death. The process of declaring a person to be an apostate is known as takfir and the disbeliever is called a murtad.
Averroes (d. 1198), the renowned philosopher and scholar of the natural sciences, who was also an important Maliki jurist, provided this typical Muslim legal opinion on the punishment for apostasy: "An apostate...is to be executed by agreement in the case of a man, because of the words of the Prophet, 'Slay those who change their din [religion]'...Asking the apostate to repent was stipulated as a condition...prior to his execution."
The contemporary (i.e., 1991) Al-Azhar (Cairo) Islamic Research Academy endorsed manual of Islamic Law, Umdat al-Salik (pp. 595-96) states: "Leaving Islam is the ugliest form of unbelief (kufr) and the worst.... When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostasizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed. In such a case, it is obligatory...to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed."
The equivalent, gravely negative implications of the OIC's Sharia-based Cairo Declaration are most apparent in its transparent rejection of freedom of conscience in Article 10, which proclaims: "Islam is the religion of unspoiled nature. It is prohibited to exercise any form of compulsion on man or to exploit his poverty or ignorance in order to convert him to another religion, or to atheism." Ominously, articles 19 and 22 reiterate a principle stated elsewhere throughout the document, which clearly applies to the "punishment" of so-called "apostates" from Islam: "[19d] There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Sharia.; [22a] Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Sharia.; [22b] Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Sharia.; [22c] Information is a vital necessity to society. It may not be exploited or misused in such a way as may violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets, undermine moral and ethical values or disintegrate, corrupt or harm society or weaken its faith."
wkk5159 posted on 8-12-2013 06:41 AM
Questionoes Islam prescribe the death penalty for Muslims who wish to embrace another religion?
...
Lame answer - copy paste without critical thinking again. This is from a non muslim site that exercise critical thinking :
So how do reform-minded Muslims contextualize the Hadith in question (i.e. “whoever changes his religion, kill him.”)? First of all, they point out that these are not the words of the Islamic prophet Muhammad to begin with; rather, these are the the words of a man named Ibn Abbas who was paraphrasing the words of the Islamic prophet. The full text of that particular Hadith is as follows:
Some Zanadiqa were brought to Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn Abbas who said, “If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah’s Apostle forbade it, saying: Do not punish anybody with Allah’s punishment (fire). I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah’s Apostle: Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.” (Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 9, Book 84, Number 57)
If this was a paraphrase, what were the actual words of the Islamic prophet Muhammad? We find one such Hadith which says:
“The blood of a Muslim, who confesses that there is no God but God and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: (1) In penalty for murder, (2) a married person who commits adultery and (3) the one who reverts from Islam (apostates) and leaves the community.” (Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 12, Book ad-Diyat, Number 6878, p.209)
Based on this, reformists say that a person cannot be given capital punishment except for three offenses: (1) murder, (2) adultery, and (3) apostasy combined with “leav[ing] the community.” Such Muslims say that apostasy is not punished except for when it is combined with “leav[ing] the community,” which they say refers to high treason against the Islamic state. What is meant specifically by “leaving the community” is of leaving the community to join the enemy forces. To bolster this claim, reformists point to another similarly narrated Hadith, which reads:
“The blood of a Muslim, who confesses that none has the right to be worshiped but God and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: (1) a married person who commits adultery; he is to be stoned and (2) a man who went out fighting against God and His Messenger; he is to be killed or crucified or exiled from the land and (3) a man who murders another person; he is to be killed on account of it.” (Sunan Abu Dawud, Vol. 4, Number 4353, p. 126)
In other words, we have the exact same three instances in which a person may be put to death: (1) murder, (2) adultery, and (3) “a man who went out fighting against God and His Messenger.” Reform-minded Muslims reason that since the Islamic prophet restricted capital punishment to three classes of people, the third instance must be referring to the same group. In other words “leav[ing] the community” refers to “a man who went out fighting against God and His Messenger.” Reform-minded Muslims tie these Hadiths to the following Quranic verse:
“The punishment of those who wage war against God and His Apostle, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: this is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter.” (Quran, 5:33)
Notice how similar the above verse is to the Hadith mentioned in Sunan Abu Dawud (above). The Hadith mentions the one “who went out fighting against God and His Messenger” whilst the Quran says “those who wage war against God and His Apostle,” and the punishment for such is also the same in both: “killed or crucified or exiled from the land.” Reformists point out that the opinion of the ultraconservative Muslims–that peaceful apostates are to be killed–does not jive with the above, since that would mean that a person is to be killed for other than the three reasons, even though the Islamic prophet limited it to only three reasons, not four.
And even if we say that the Hadiths do not limit capital punishment to only three reasons, argue reformists, the issue is that the two Hadiths (as found in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sunan Abu Dawood) both mention three sins–murder, adultery, and apostasy/waging war. It is abundantly clear then that the third sin (other than murder and adultery) is in reference to the same thing in both narrations, due to the congruency of the two Hadiths–which firmly establishes the linkage so the linking of apostasy to treason is firmly established by the congruency of the two Hadiths. This argument stands alone in itself and is not dependent on limiting capital punishment to three sins.
***********************************
The biblical action against apostacy :
13:6 If–your brother, the son of your mother, or your son, or your daughter, or the wife of your bosom, or your friend, which is as your own soul–entice you secretly, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods,” which you have not known–not you, nor your fathers;
13:7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, near to you, or far off from you, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;
13:8 You shall not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall your eye pity him, neither shall you spare, neither shall you conceal him:
13:9 But you must surely kill him; your hand must be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
13:10 And you must stone him with stones, that he die; because he has sought to thrust you away from the LORD your God.
Well, that’s pretty damning evidence right there. That sounds a lot like “honor” killing: “If your brother…or your son or your daughter….entice you secretly, saying, ‘Let us go and worship other gods’…You must kill him…you must stone him with stones, that he die.” Well, if that’s in the Quran, then we better ban all Muslim immigration to America!
But before we call Homeland Security, I hope you don’t mind if I check the Quran to verify if those verses exist.
[Flipping through pages of Quran]
Hmmm, can’t seem to find it.
Oh wait, *smacks forehead*, I remember now where those verses are from. Ahh yes, they are from the Bible (Deuteronomy, 13:6-10). There are of course many other Biblical verses in the same vein, such as 2 Chronicles 15:13 which reads: “All who would not seek the LORD, the God of Israel, were to be put to death, whether small or great, man or woman.”
Oopsie doopsie!
Islamic apostasy laws — a big disgrace in the 21st Century
Posted: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 13:08 by Nahla Mahmoud
It is absolutely ridiculous in the twenty-first century to have laws where one could be criminalised and punished for thinking differently or expressing an opinion. Just this year, Kuwait jailed Abdel Aziz Mohamed Albaz for criticizing Islam, Tunisian artist Nadia Jelassi is facing prison for her 'un-Islamic' artistic pieces, Moroccan activist Imad Alhabibi was arrested for being an ex-Muslim, and Saudi activist Raif Albadawi was sentenced last week to seven years and 600 lashings for airing his liberal views. These were in addition to the many others whom I blogged about earlier this year.
In Islam, apostasy is commonly defined as the rejection in words or action of one's religion by a person who was previously a Muslim. As simple as this might sound, the definition is quite broad and could include not only renouncing Islam, but also criticising or defaming the religion and 'attempting' to lead others away from it. It is also broad enough to include liberal and progressive Muslims who challenge traditional Islamic thoughts. Cases such as that of the late Egyptian thinker Nasr Hamid Abu-zaidwho fled the country after being charged with apostasy for his critical Islamic writings and Sudanese theologian Mahmoud M. Taha who was hanged in the centre of Khartoum for expressing his progressive Islamic thoughts are just two examples among many others. Terms such as Kafir/a, Murtad/a and Zendeeg/a are specifically designed to label individuals who challenge Islam and to encourage action to be taken towards them. Ebn Warraqspells this out in his book 'Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak out'.
As I am speaking now, more than 19 Islamic states and Muslim-majority countries consider apostasy to be illegal and to merit a form of punishment. Many of these, including Iran, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE, Somalia, Afghanistan, Qatar, Yemen and Mauritania have a death penalty for those who renounce or criticize Islam. Other countries like Malaysia, Morocco, Jordan and Oman consider it illegal and have in place other forms of punishments, such as fines, imprisonment, flogging and exclusion from civic or family rights like child custody.
Through the trial process, apostates are usually given a chance to publicly repent. They have to declare their guilt and vow never to repeat this act. The cases of Saudi Arabian journalist Hamza Alkashgari and the 129 Sudanese in south Khartoum are among those reported to have been forced to publicly repent to avoid the death penalty. If those charged insist upon apostasy, the court will then implement a punishment. This could be a fine, a prison term or a number of lashings. Failure of the authorities to take action means that groups and individuals can take it upon themselves to carry out a sentence. Random apostasy Fatwas by Imams and attacks by organised groups such as the 'El-Shabab' movement in Somalia, 'Amr blmaroof w nahy an Elmonkr' in Saudi Arabia and 'Buku Haram' in Nigeria are usually accepted and not questioned by local authorities.
As for the UK, a worrying pattern of aggressive attitudes toward 'apostates' has appeared recently. A survey by Policy Exchange investigated the perception of a number of Muslim communities toward the death penalty for apostates. Thirty-four percent aged 16-24 believe that apostates deserve a death penalty. This goes along with the recent documented cases of Islamic threats of violence. Among these were the threats directed towards the spokesperson for One Law for All campaign, Anne Marie, in a lecture where she was debating Sharia law and human rights; threats made against Tom Holland after broadcasting his documentary 'The Untold Story About Islam'; threats made against the Atheist, Secularists and Humanist Society at UCL for posting a 'Jesus and Mo' picture on their Facebook page; and intimidatory remarks towards 17-year-old Rhys Morgan for his "offensive" 'Jesus and Mo' drawing at school. I myself have received death threats after an interview on Sharia law implementation in the UK broadcast on Channel 4 earlier this year.
To conclude, calling people apostates and 'kofar' while it is jailable and punishable by death in most Islamic states is not freedom of speech. It is shameful enough still having such laws in practise in an era of enlightenment, let alone having apologetic lefties and pro-Islamism liberals who justify this behaviour. We are indeed facing a long battle against religious dogma and discrimination until these disgraceful laws are dismissed and attitudes are changed. But let's ensure that in the meantime authorities, groups and individuals who use these labels as weapons to silence others or to justify their existence are also challenged and embarrassed in public. There is no gray area here — you either condemn apostasy or you don't.
Nahla Mahmoudis an environmentalist and human rights activist. This article was originally posted in Left Foot Forwardand is reproduced with the author's permission. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the NSS.
Another briliant article by an ex-muslim..........
Farhan Qureshi Renounces Islam
Farhan Qureshi was raised as an Ahmadi Muslim, but later became an orthodox Muslim. (Ahmadis believe in all five pillars and all six articles of faith of Sunni Islam, but they have some different beliefs about end times. Unfortunately, their unorthodox eschatological views have led to worldwide persecution at the hands of their more orthodox counterparts.)
Sam, Nabeel, James, and I have had a number of public debates with Farhan on the Deity of Christ, the inspiration of the Qur'an, the prophethood of Muhammad, and other topics (click here to watch some of our debates with Farhan). Farhan was once a member of the infamous Muslim Debate Initiative (which seems to be crumbling). The general consensus of those of us who knew Farhan was this: "It's only a matter of time before Farhan leaves Islam. He's too good a guy to keep defending these teachings."
Recently, Farhan circulated a letter declaring his apostasy. I didn't post the letter or announce his decision, since I wasn't sure he wanted this information to go public. However, Farhan has now quite publicly proclaimed his apostasy. Here's the announcement posted on Faith Freedom:
After years of having been involved in think tanks, advocacy groups, da’wah (invitation or propagation) initiatives and academic apologetics as a Muslim, I have I decided to evolve my perspective of reality and existence as knowledge has reached me and renounce my faith in Islam. This was a thought out decision that took months of prayer, consideration, evaluation and knowledge-seeking on my part. Every bit as it has been a search for meaning and truth is has been a grieving process for me to realize that what I have been attached to all of these years is in fact not the ultimate reality behind our existence. Nevertheless it is simultaneously liberation and continued enlightenment that brings about serenity and peace of mind for me as well.
My apostasy has not been based on disliking Islam or its requirements rather it was based on a realization that Islam is in direct contradiction with contemporary knowledge involving and including science, philosophy, ethics, anthropology, and the field which I am most interested in, educated in and practice as my line of work, namely, psychology: the science and study of human behavior.
In the coming months I plan to contribute articles to FFI which explore the behavior and psyche of the different types of Muslims out there: the western Muslim, the mystic (Sufi), the purist (Salafi), and the politically driven (Hizb/Ikhwan) are among the many colors of the Ummah, each having its own set of advocates with unique behaviors and mentality. I have spent time and energy studying and experiencing the different denominations and sub-cultures within the Ummah. Having experienced their spirituality and religiosity first hand, having studied with their scholars and preachers, and having read books, articles and arguments from them, I believe that I have a grasp of where they stand psychologically and I plan to explore this more in-depth in the near future as I publish articles.
I realized that 1400 years worth of consistent Islamiyya theology is not what I believed was the ultimate truth, rather I realized that it was a primitive attempt at understanding and implementing social, spiritual, religious and ethical standards. These seventh century standards might give slight insight into how humanity, and in this case, Arab civilization was evolving and progressing from its previous ‘jahiliyya’ or ignorance, and yet effectively became stagnant with its own set of conservative traditionalism that would not allow Arab civilization to move forward. The only attempts at progression were the rationalist Mu’tazilites of the eight century which gave rise to what many observe as the Golden Age of Islam. Yet these rationalists were viewed as heretics and apostates themselves and would become extinct by the thirteenth century. Instead dogmatic traditionalism or Sunnah would thrive in the Muslim world and the European Renaissance with its progressive attitude would pick up where the all but extinct Middle Eastern rationalists left off.
Perhaps the most important realization I have come to is that I would receive the death penalty under Shariah law for simply coming to these conclusions or realizations. This disturbs me to the core and demonstrates how the Ummah uses fear tactics under its Shariah system in order to preserve and strengthen their theological and political agenda. What I am grateful for however is the opportunity to witness the evolution of humanity where we no longer are restricted by primitive forms of theology and law and yet we continue to strive for integrity, honesty, humility, character development, and moral stability. There is a promising future for our species and not a dark one as theologians are attempting to brainwash their adherents with.
As a Muslim apologist I remember debating at numerous types of venues including Mosques, Churches, Universities, Convention Halls and Libraries. Having engaged with notable Christian apologists such as Dr. James White, Dr. Tony Costa and Professor David Wood I learned that the purpose of apologetics was not confrontation rather to come to an understanding of truth even if it meant evolving one’s own perspective. The idea of receiving an apparent truth is to embrace it, not fight it. The moment we try to fight an apparent truth or reality we begin to dwell in hypocrisy: understanding that something is apparently true and yet denying it for selfish reasons or attachment to preconceived notions. I want to thank Ali Sina for giving me the platform to explore Islam and to expose its primitive nature as incompatible with contemporary reality unless and until Muslims choose to reform it.
Here's the typical respond from muslims on Farhan's apostacy......
and of course some honest responds from good Samaritan......
Maaz Khansaid...As a Qadiani/Ahmadi, Farhan stood for teachings which are in contradiction to the core beliefs of Islam, contrary to Islam's core book, the Qur'an itself. He was never a Muslim. As for his apostasy, I believe atheism is incredibly ignorant, but Farhan merely moved from one form of darkness to another form, never having experienced the light of Islam.
If you wish to celebrate the "conversion" of a "Muslim," please be aware that this is a straw man victory.
Peace be upon all sincere seekers of truth and may God guide us all. October 29, 2012 at 12:52 AMDavid Wood said...You need to check your facts. Farhan was raised as an Ahmadi, but he renounced the Ahmadi movement and converted to orthodox Islam. Then he spent several years debating non-Muslims. He eventually left Islam altogether. I know you want to live in the "no one ever leaves Islam" fantasy land, but you're just being silly.
1- I contacted brother Farhan via email and he replied back to me also via email. He assured me that he is a Muslim. The brother is currently healing.
2- Even prior to this and till now, I've been having very comforting feelings that I can't describe deep inside my body and heart when everytime I think of David Wood that David Wood will embrace Islam someday. David, keep researching Islam and you will realize one day that everything you're doing here against Allah Almighty is of no good for you and those whom you influence my friend. I hope my feelings about David Wood are genuine. It's been coming to me a lot. Honestly. Seriously, everytime I think about the guy, I get these very comforting feelings that he will live and die a Muslim. The same strange comforting feelings had been coming to me about Ali Sina and Sam Shamoun as well. I really pity all of you. You speak what you wouldn't normally speak because you're too blinded with hatered towards Islam. You are too far deep in darkness and ignorance.
"You speak what you wouldn't normally speak because you're too blinded with hatred towards Islam."
It is interesting that you assume that all rejection of Islam is based on hatred. Hence the fast-and-loose accusations, by Islam, of "Islamophobia", bigotry, racism . . . etal - ad infinitum - ad nauseum, in a feeble attempt to shame opposing viewpoints from manifesting themselves against the teachings of Islam. These tactics are typical of a last failed attempt to validate, as rational, the pervasive conflicts within Islam by ridiculing the messenger rather than dealing with the message. YOUR Quran says that the next step is to kill 'em all.
Let’s talk frankly. Almost never do non-Muslims study Islam until they have first exhausted the religions of their exposure. Only after they have grown dissatisfied with the religions familiar to them, meaning Judaism, Christianity and all the fashionable “-isms”—Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism (and, as my young daughter once added, “tourism”)—do they consider Islam.
Perhaps other religions do not answer the big questions of life, such as “Who made us?” and “Why are we here?” Perhaps other religions do not reconcile the injustices of life with a fair and just Creator. Perhaps we find hypocrisy in the clergy, untenable tenets of faith in the canon, or corruption in the scripture. Whatever the reason, we perceive shortcomings in the religions of our exposure, and look elsewhere. And the ultimate “elsewhere” is Islam.
Now, Muslims would not like to hear me say that Islam is the “ultimate elsewhere.” But it is. Despite the fact that Muslims comprise one-fourth to one-fifth of the world’s population, non-Muslim media smears Islam with such horrible slanders that few non-Muslims view the religion in a positive light. Hence, it is normally the last religion seekers investigate.
Golden quote; The general consensus of those of us who knew Farhan was this: "It's only a matter of time before Farhan leaves Islam. He's too good a guy to keep defending these teachings."
Well said ! So, we know what kind of human beings those valiant hardcore defenders of Islam are in this forum....
wkk5159 posted on 9-12-2013 11:17 AM
Golden quote; The general consensus of those of us who knew Farhan was this: "It's only a matter of time before Farhan leaves Islam. He's too good a guy to keep defending these teachings."
Well said ! So, we know what kind of human beings those valiant hardcore defenders of Islam are in this forum....
This is really funny. Farhan did not convert to Christianity. Where is it that Christianity gained?
Farhan is still looking for God and he is now a tourist in religion. Did he looked into Christianity? No , so why are you , a Christian bigot making so much noise? Farhan wouldn't touch Christianity with a 10 ft pole.
wkk5159 posted on 9-12-2013 12:03 PM
A desperate muslim here in this forum is quoting a stupid naive quote by an ophthalmic surgeon, Dr Laurence Brown.....
Who is a nobody ophthalmic surgeon by the name of Dr Laurence Brown ? He is just a dumb American ex-atheist who embraced Islam in 1994.
The benign earthlings with conscience sure won't miss a nobody like Dr Laurence Brown, just like we don't miss Cat Steven....
Does the uncle Sam new convert on the left look dumb to you all ???
Hmmm , lets see
Dr Laurence Brown : an ophthalmic surgeon (you are just a rusty GP)
Farhan Qureshi (your hero) : a nobody
I would say we muslims are in better stead. What say you?
Who said Farhan converted to Christianity ah ??? Even the article i quoted also did not mention about Farhan conversion to other faith.....why this paranoiac muslim so scare of Christianity and asyik pick on Christianity ah ??? For those of you who have slight knowledge in psychology, you know the answer lah....
The latest information i got is that he has became a Buddhist and of course i don't know how reliable is the news......
wkk5159 posted on 9-12-2013 01:01 PM
Who said Farhan converted to Christianity ah ??? Even the article i quoted also did not mention about Farhan conversion to other faith.....why this paranoiac muslim so scare of Christianity and asyik pick on Christianity ah ??? For those of you who have slight knowledge in psychology, you know the answer lah....
The latest information i got is that he has became a Buddhist and of course i don't know how reliable is the news......
That is basically my point. What has Christianity got to gain with Farhan Qureshi leaving Islam? He did not convert to Christianity nor does he want to touch Christianity with a 10 ft pole. This is evidence of the desperation of Christians like you. You have exposed your inner fears. Why should we muslims fear anything? Facts and figures show that muslims would be a strong political force in the future.
Me scared of Christianity? Ha ha , almost all of my arguments cannot be refuted by you , 'truth.8' , 'nightlord'. The best you can do is to try to divert the issue. A good example - diverting the issue of Farhan Qureshi leaving Islam. Christians are crying 'hallelujah' but not realising that he does not want to have anything to do with Christianity. This is just desperation.
Both Ehrman and Wallace agree, for example, that disputed passages in the traditional text like the comma johanneum (John 7:53-8:11) and the so-called longer ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20) were not part of the authentic, original text of the New Testament. So, Ehrman says John 7:53-8:11 “was not originally in the Bible” (p. 24) and that Mark 16:9-20 was added by later scribes (p. 25). Wallace, likewise, says that the woman caught in adultery is his “favorite passage that’s not in the Bible,” and he agrees with Ehrman that the traditional ending of Mark “is not part of the original text of the Bible” (p. 29).
In the end, their agreement even seems to extend to the matter of the reliability of the New Testament. Ehrman concludes his opening remarks as follows:
"Is the text of the New Testament reliable? The reality is there is no way to know. If we had the originals, we could tell you. If we had the first copies, we could tell you. If we had copies of the copies, we could tell you. We don’t have copies in many instances for hundreds of years after the originals. There are places where scholars continue to debate what the original text said, and there are places where we will probably never know" (p. 27).
Wallace draws a strikingly similar conclusion:
"So, is what we have now what they wrote then? Exactly? No. But in all essentials? Yes" (p. 46).
Thus, both agree that it is impossible to reconstruct the original text of Scripture with absolute certainty.
Both scholars agree that the bible is not relaible. There you are ..... your holy scripture
Author
Post time 8-12-2013 10:53 AM
