Though it professes to be the authoritative revelation of the one true God, the Qur’an includes a number of historically and theologically inaccurate accounts of biblical figures. For instance, the Qur’an teaches that Abraham offered up Ishmael rather than Isaac. The Qur’an also teaches that Isa ibn Maryam (Jesus, the son of Mary) was merely a miracle-working prophet of Allah. Additionally, the Qur’an denies the deity and atoning death of Jesus.

What is Islam?
Islam is the second-largest religion in the world. Today, an estimated 1.3 billion people profess to be Muslims—that is, followers of the religion of Islam. Of these, nearly 1 billion reside in the Middle East, North Africa, and Southeast Asia. Islam is a monotheistic religion, requiring submission to the one God, Allah, and to everything Allah revealed through the prophet Muhammad. The two major authoritative texts in Islam are the Qur’an and the hadith. The Qur’an is claimed to be the revelation of Allah to Muhammad. The hadith are the oral traditions of Muhammad’s teaching and practice as passed down in the Muslim community and set to writing a few centuries later. The Five Pillars of Islam structure the essence of Islamic belief and practice. There are two major branches of Islam: the Sunnis and the Shiites, and there is also a large mystical tradition, the Sufis. The Nation of Islam, an African American political and religious movement, has brought an awareness of Islam to many Americans. However, this movement is a modern Western ethnocentric religion that is not recognized by orthodox Muslims as an authentic Islamic tradition.
When did it begin?
Muhammad is the founder of Islam. He was born in AD 570 in Mecca (a city in the western Arabian Peninsula).1 His father died before his birth. His mother died when he was six. Muhammad went to live with his grandfather Abd al-Muttalib. When he was eight, Muhammad’s grandfather died. Muhammad then went to live with his uncle Abu Talib, a caravan tradesman. Abu Talib took Muhammad on many of his travels.
At age twenty-five, Muhammad married Khadija, a wealthy traveling merchant. Khadija had been raised by Ebionite Christians. The Ebionites were a mystical Jewish sect of Christianity that denied the deity of Christ. Scholars believe that Muhammad learned his inaccurate versions of biblical accounts on his travels with Abu Talib and Khadija.
Muhammad said the angel Gabriel visited him in Mecca in 610, which began a twenty-three-year period during which Muhammad claimed to receive the revelation of the Qur’an. Traditionally, eighty-six suras (chapters) of the Qur’an are said to have been revealed while Muhammad lived in Mecca, while the remaining twenty-eight were revealed in the city of Medina.
The first two people to accept Muhammad’s message were his wife, Khadija, and his cousin, Ali ibn Abi Talib. The first convert outside of Muhammad’s family was Abu Bakr, a traveling merchant. During his stay in Mecca, Muhammad began calling the polytheistic citizens to repent and submit to Allah, the one true God. After years of rejection, persecution, and warfare, Muhammad journeyed to Medina (then known as Yathrib) in 622. This event, called the Hijrah, marks the beginning of the Islamic calendar. The message of Islam found greater acceptance in Medina; the Muslim community there grew, and Muhammad became the leader of the city. Eventually, Muhammad was able to amass an army large enough to capture Mecca, which he purged of polytheism. Mecca is today one of the holiest cities in Islam. Upon Muhammad’s death in 632, Abu Bakr became the first caliph (the religious and political leader of the Islamic state), although many Muslims believed the caliph should have been a relative of Muhammad, specifically his cousin Ali. Abu Bakr carried on the Islamic religion until his death. Caliphs Umar Ibn al-Khattab, Uthman ibn Affan, and Muhammad’s cousin Ali succeeded Abu Bakr, in that order. After Ali’s death, disagreements within the Muslim community over who could be caliph continued to grow, with the Shiites eventually breaking with the majority of Muslims—the Sunnis—over the Shiite belief that the caliph had to be from Muhammad’s family.
Who are the key figures?
Over its long history, Islam has produced a multitude of influential rulers, scholars, philosophers, authors, athletes, businessmen, scientists, and teachers. Muslim mathematicians and philosophers have played important roles in the development of disciplines such as algebra and in the recovery of Aristotle’s thought in the West during the late medieval period. Islamic empires conquered much of the Christian East.
Today, the most well-known Islamic political figures are King Abdullah of Jordan; King Salman of Saudi Arabia; Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader of Iran; and Mohammed VI, king of Morocco.
Before becoming a Sunni Muslim, Malcom X helped raise awareness of the Nation of Islam in American culture. Louis Farrakhan is currently the leader of the Nation of Islam, a ethnocentric sect viewed as heretical by orthodox Muslims.
Muhammad Ali, Mike Tyson, and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar are among the famous Muslim athletes of recent decades.
What are the main beliefs?

Revelation and interpretation. Although all Muslims profess belief in the Qur’an, considerable diversity of belief and practice exists among the various branches of Islam. Sunni Muslims, who make up the vast majority of the worldwide Muslim community, rely heavily on legal scholars to settle disputes over the teaching of the Qur’an. These lawyers, in the development of Islamic law or sharia, seek to reconcile the differences between the teaching of the Qur’an and the hadith by means of consensus and analogy. Shiite Muslims, who make up the second-largest group of Muslims worldwide, believe that the true successor to Muhammad as leader of all Muslims comes from the family of Ali. (Sunnis believe that Muhammad’s successor can come from the broader Islamic community.) The Shiites also have their own collections of hadith, consisting only of traditions that they trace back to Ali. Disputes within Shiite Islam are settled by appointed imams whose decisions are considered binding. The Sufis believe in a spiritual, nonliteral interpretation of the Qur’an and engage in mystical practices.

Read More
Related Posts:

Item 1 passes the presbyteries and the 51st General Assembly, the most radical changes in churches may just be more clear labels of who is a “Youth Pastor” (and is ordained) and who is a “Youth Director/Coordinator” (and is unordained staff); or, who is in the ordained diaconate as distinguished from those who should properly be called deacons’ assistants or other titles under BCO 9-7.[4] While such changes seem small and – perhaps to some – pedantic, they ought to be considered as helpfully didactic in that they teach something.[5]

While all of the proposed amendments to the Book of Church Order (BCO) received about three-fourths (or more) support at the 50th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCAGA50), Item 1 (i.e., Overture 26), is most likely to receive a measure of debate and discussion in the presbyteries. The context of the debate leading up to PCAGA50, in Overtures Committee and on the Assembly floor, however, can help us to understand the proposal and why it takes the current narrow form that it does.First, the language of the proposed amendment to BCO 7-3 regards titling of unordained people by the simple addition of a sentence (which is underlined):BCO 7-3. No one who holds office in the Church ought to usurp authority therein, or receive official titles of spiritual preeminence, except such as are employed in the Scripture. Furthermore, unordained people shall not be referred to as, or given the titles of, the ordained offices of pastor/elder, or deacon.
The Need for Item 1
The Reformed Tradition has long placed a high value on polity and ordination. Confessional Presbyterians also place a high value on words and what they convey about ordained officers in our churches. Those who support the proposed amendment share a duplex concern that the doctrine of ordination has been downplayed as of late, and that there is a consequent confusion and disorder around the offices of elder and deacon in the PCA. Some of this downplaying is evidently unintentional (e.g., in the use of the words “pastor” and “minister” to describe unordained ministry staff), but perhaps some is intentional (e.g., in the case of the diaconate).Members of our congregations visit or transfer to other PCA churches and find unordained people listed as “pastors” and “deacons.” Some of these well-meaning staffers and volunteers could not be properly ordained in our polity. In such cases, unordained persons are occasionally listed on church websites and weekly bulletins as “youth pastor” or “women’s pastor.” More frequently, we find egalitarian lists of “deacons” which include both men (either ordained or not) and women (not ordained) who function together as a board of deacons for their church. These confusing practices cause many onlookers and visitors to question the practical weight, then, of ordination when the difference between an “ordained deacon” and an “unordained deacon” may be reduced to a mere asterisk in the bulletin.
The Overtures Committee Debate
In Overtures Committee, the argument for the original overture 26 was presented as making explicit what was already implicit in our Standards, giving greater clarity to the proper titling of our ordained officers. Leading up to the 50th General Assembly, some leveled an objection to this overture that it is already implicit in our Standards that only those who are ordained should use these titles. They appropriately asked, “Wouldn’t this be mere redundancy in our BCO if we all already understand this principle?”During the debate in the Overtures Committee, however, one man spoke against the overture saying that churches should be able to use these titles how they wish, especially if an unordained woman was in charge of women’s ministry. In such a case, he argued, she should be able to be titled: “Women’s Pastor.” This argument against the overture seemed to have the opposite effect of that which the speaker intended, evidently convincing some commissioners that making that which is implicit in our Standards more explicit in order to counteract the apparent confusion over how some churches use ordained titles for unordained persons.
Read More
Related Posts:

For the sake of argument, even if we grant that the lower court’s procedure should mirror that of the higher court, this amendment misses the mark.  Instead of adding a filing deadline, chapter 43 of the BCO ought to be upended and rewritten, particularly adding the complainant’s right to appear and present an argument to the court.  However, requiring the 10-day filing deadline does not provide any additional formal deliberation opportunity. 

Amendments to the Book of Church Order are currently being debated by Presbyteries.  Item 12 is an amendment to BCO 43 that would require complaints be filed 10 days before a meeting of the court alleged to be in error, otherwise the complaint need not be considered at that meeting and must wait before being taken to the higher court.  There is no such time requirement currently.[1]
While this proposed amendment may sound reasonable on the surface, its true effect would impede the work of our courts and delay a hearing for anyone raising a complaint.  This proposed amendment is based on a faulty understanding of the nature of the complaint process, fails to solve the supposed problem, and creates additional delay in our judicial process.  Therefore, this amendment ought not be approved by our Presbyteries and the 50th GA in 2023.
A Faulty Premise
The amendment is based on the rationale that “Sessions have the same, analogous opportunities for due deliberation [of complaints] as the higher courts.”  But this assertion is not correct under our BCO, as the lower court process of “considering” a complaint is fundamentally different from the higher court’s “hearing” process for complaints.  Let’s look at this briefly.
The first step in the complaint process—the lower court’s considering—has minimal procedural requirements and limits how the court can handle the complaint (BCO 43-2).  The person alleging error does not have a right to appear or to make arguments.  The matter may not be referred to a study committee or postponed for additional deliberations.  The BCO gives the lower court one meeting to think about and decide if it wants to reverse action—nothing more, and nothing less.  If the lower court doesn’t remedy the situation to the satisfaction of the complainant, he can take his complaint to the next higher court (BCO 43-3).
The second step in the complaint process—the higher court’s hearing—has considerable procedural requirements (BCO 43-3–43-10).  Notably, the complainant has a constitutional right to appear and be heard (BCO 43-8).  A formal process is followed for the hearing of the arguments and the court coming to a decision (BCO 43-9).[3]  There are no time constraints on the higher court fully deliberating and considering all parts of the case.  In all, this higher court “hearing” process is the core of the complaint mechanism in Presbyterian polity.  This hearing—and not the lower’s court’s considering—constitutes the complainant’s day in court to present his case for adjudication.
This asymmetric process—the lower court’s considering and the higher court’s hearing—is intentional.  [4]  This review by the higher court is essential to the well-being of the church because church courts “may err; and many have erred” (WCF 31.3).  Assuming the lower court’s process is “the same” as the higher court’s radically departs from the logic of our current rules.
Adding this 10-day filing requirement hinders the primary goal of the complaint and is unnecessary to ensure judicial integrity in the PCA.  This attempt to flatten the process is not helpful to our overall structure and misunderstands the main goal of the complaint.
The Supposed Problem Unresolved
For the sake of argument, even if we grant that the lower court’s procedure should mirror that of the higher court, this amendment misses the mark.  Instead of adding a filing deadline, chapter 43 of the BCO ought to be upended and rewritten, particularly adding the complainant’s right to appear and present an argument to the court.  However, requiring the 10-day filing deadline does not provide any additional formal deliberation opportunity.  In the proposed amendment, the lower court must still reverse itself at that first meeting, otherwise the complaint may be elevated.  Broader changes to the BCO must be made to achieve the drafter’s stated goal of making the lower court’s deliberations the same as the higher court’s.
Additional Delay
We all know the judicial process in our church courts takes a long time.  This new requirement would routinely add weeks of delay to the complaint process, sometimes leading to even lengthier delays at the Presbytery level.  In Presbyteries like mine that meet only three times a year, missing your Session’s April meeting means that the complaint won’t get to the Presbytery’s May meeting and that a complainant has to wait until October for the next stated meeting.  Adding this ten-day requirement gums up an already protracted process.
In all, there is no benefit to this amendment if we understand a complaint the right way.  In fact, it will only hurt complainants.  For the well-being of the church, this amendment ought not be ratified by Presbyteries so that complainants can continue to have a route to the higher court’s review without this additional encumbrance.
Postscript
Despite all of this, I can agree with the drafters of the amendment that there is a potential weakness with the current complaint process.  Specifically, someone could file a complaint with the lower court (especially those doing so in bad faith) moments before the meeting to catch the members flat footed and to force them to deal with the complaint then and there.  However, this is less an issue of substantively considering a complaint, and more of an administrative issue of distribution and individual preparation.  To remedy this narrow concern, I see merit to two better solutions:

Remove the lower court consideration step altogether, like the RPCNA, and like the PCA prior to 1984. Let a complaint be a mechanism purely to take the issue to the higher court.  Sessions and Presbyteries are no longer asked to reverse themselves as a necessary prerequisite to filing with the higher court.  Instead, just file the complaint with the higher court.
Set an administrative deadline for filing a complaint with the lower court. This deadline is to provide opportunity to circulate the complaint and provide the members of the court the customary opportunity to prepare.  The General Assembly, Presbyteries, and many Sessions have rules that require communications to the court to be filed so many days in advance of the meeting so it can be docketed, distributed, and reviewed by individuals before coming together in a deliberative body.  The deadline for filing complaints ought to be this administrative deadline the court has already established.  If no such rule exists, complaints must be filed 24 hours prior to the court’s meeting.

Even if neither of these alternatives to Item 12 are ever presented or passed, the system we have is not fundamentally flawed.  Even if a complaint is filed two minutes prior to a Session meeting and the Session feels unable to handle the matter right then and there, there is no harm in taking no action and letting the matter go to the higher court.  That’s the point of a complaint, after all.  So while it’s possible to improve our system, let’s make sure we do it in such a way that is consistent with the principles that we have preserved in our polity.
Jason Piland is a Minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is Associate Pastor of Redeemer Church PCA in Hudson, Ohio.

[1] See the full Item 12 amendment, available at https://www.pcaac.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/BCO-Amendments-Sent-Down-REVISED-9-27-22.pdf.
[2] Overture from the Northwest Georgia Presbytery to the 49th General Assembly, April 5, 2022, p. 1, ll. 31–32, available at https://pcaga.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Overture-21-NW-GA-BCO-43-23-4-12-22-REV.-TITLE.pdf.
[3] Many other procedural requirements are included in the BCO.  The lower court appoints a representative to argue its case (BCO 43-5).  The lower court has to send up all papers related to the case (BCO 43-6).  Parties may file written briefs if they so desire (BCO 43-8).  The complainant has a constitutional right to appear and be heard (BCO 43-8).  A full hearing is scheduled at the reasonable accommodation of the parties (BCO 43-8).  Both parties appear and argue their case (BCO 43-9).  The higher court sits in judgment and renders a decision (BCO 43-9).  The higher court has significant latitude to order amends if the lower court is found to have erred (BCO 43-10).  The process can become so complex that an entire Appendix to the BCO was inserted to assist Presbyteries in establishing a procedure for handling these matters (BCO Appendix H).
[4] Complaints in the PCA went straight to the higher court until the BCO was amended in 1984.  Before then, only our sections 43-1, -4, -5, and -10 were included in the BCO, meaning that the complaint was not considered by the lower court before being heard by the higher court.  To this day, the RPCNA still does not require a complaint to be presented to the lower court for consideration (RPCNA Book of Discipline II.4.3, .4), and neither does the EPC (EPC Book of Discipline 14).

Related Posts: