Violence in Islam and Christianity: A Comparison
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Scholarly Pursuits
Forum Name: Philosophy and Theology
Forum Discription: Topics relating to philosophy
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=24017
Printed Date: 28-Apr-2024 at 05:58
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Violence in Islam and Christianity: A Comparison
Posted By: Akolouthos
Subject: Violence in Islam and Christianity: A Comparison
Date Posted: 03-Apr-2008 at 04:45
|
So I got the idea to start this thread after writing an atypically long response to an article posted by Zagros. I felt that some of the issues raised by the article, as well as polemical tendencies by both Christians and Muslims, merited a deeper discussion and a more thourough comparison. It is my hope that we can all handle a difficult topic like this with maturity and erudition. Anyway, here are my thoughts on the article, which may be found here:
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=23989 - http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=23989
Agreed, but as we shall see the issue of "inherency", which the author of the article has raised, complicates matters. The article, itself, is analogous to much of the polemical nonsense written against Islam in the West -- a fact which we have both acknowledged. The fact that these attacks, themselves, are polemical nonsense does not mean, however, that there aren't legitimate questions to be raised about the different ways in which separate religions contextualize, interpret, and sometimes justify acts of violence. This article is of value for two reasons: 1) it provides us with an example of an anti-Christian, pro-Muslim polemic; and 2) it raises, through the author's unsuccessful effort to establish a satisfactory principle of inherency (within a proper historical context), a list of peripheral questions surrounding the interpretation and comparison of Christianity and Islam. For the purposes of brevity and clarity I shall treat these broader questions incidentally, in the context of this article. That said, I shall, undoubtedly, have to add one more topic to the innumerable list of threads I have been planning.
 Anyway, the two chief recurrent problems with this article are the misrepresentation of aspects of the Christian faith -- either deliberate or from ignorance -- and the taking of both Christianity and Islam out of the context of history -- which I believe is deliberate, but that, of course, would depend upon the education and intellectual ability/character of the author (at certain points I had to wonder if he didn't intend a bit of satire, but the tone and the interspersion of certain legitimate points led me to believe otherwise). Both of these flaws, once again, are part of the traditional religious polemic. Upon deeper examination, however, these flaws are easily exposed and the proper context becomes more apparent. I think the best place to start in debunking this article would be to address the exegesis -- or rather the lack of exegesis -- displayed by the author in citing and interpreting the quotes he presents. After this, we shall briefly examine the historical context of both Christianity and Islam. Finally, we shall address some of the legitimate points this article makes regarding the historical distortions of the inherently peaceful Christian faith.
I should note, at this point, that I am well aware that the purpose of posting this thread was to provide "a good example of how pretty much any religion can be denigrated by out of context quotations and select historical events"; I think it serves this purpose well. My contention is that a deeper dialogue will establish real differences which are of great significance in any attempted comparison between Christianity and Islam.
Exegetical Drivel:
Any quotation, Scriptural or otherwise, requires interpretation. No textual fact is so self-evident that someone who is convinced of his own rightness -- or bent on sowing discord -- will not eventually find some way to dispute it. It is our interpretation of a text which lends it its meaning -- or, rather, which extracts its meaning. So what should be our benchmark for the way in which either Christianity or Islam understand various passages of Scripture? Why the narrative of history, of course.
 When I say that we must look to the "narrative of history" in determining how the Christian and Muslim Scriptures may be authentically interpreted, I include two very separate -- but equally important -- types of history: 1) the history of exegesis, or how the scholars of each faith interpreted the holy texts; and 2) the history of practical events, or how the interpretations of these scholars have been applied. With regard to the Christian faith, I am somewhat capable of establishing both historical contexts; I am less qualified to discuss the first of these historical categories with regard to Islam. Still, since Muhammad took an active part in the practical application of Muslim doctrine, I feel that we may justly combine both historical categories in the case of Islam. That said, if anyone is up to the task, I would be interested to know how the faith was interpreted by Muslim scholars in the century or so immediately following the life of Muhammad. Anyway, let's to the texts.
This is a blatant distortion of the Christian message, and relies upon a fundamental misunderstanding of the history of revelation, as well as the difference between the Old and New Covenants. It should always be remembered that the history of salvation before the Incarnation bears both a practical and an instructional dimension. The Law is always a tutor to lead us to Christ; consequently, Christ is the only lense through which we may hope to interpret the significance of the events of the Old Testament for Christians under the New Covenant. We shall see this in the following quotations:
This verse (Ex 32: 27) is an account of the events immediately after the Israelites worshiped the golden calf while Moses was on Mt. Sinai. Moses commanded the sons of Levi to purge the Israelite camp of those who had betrayed the Lord. Since the Israelites were the chosen people of God, through which the New Covenant was to be delivered to all mankind, their preservation -- both physically and spiritually -- was necessary. It is in this context that the Fathers interpreted this punishment as mercy. Caesarius of Arles states:
Behold true and perfect charity: he ordered the death of a few people in order to save six hundred thousand, with the women and children accepted. If he had not been aroused with zeal for God to punish a few men, God's justice would have destroyed them all. [Sermon, 40.1]
Gregory the Dialogist sees an instructive message, which could be adapted to a modern context:
To put the sword on the thigh is to prefer the zeal for preaching to the pleasures of the flesh, so that when one is zealous for speaking of holy matters, he must be careful to overcome forbidden temptations. To go from gate to gate is to hasten with rebuke from vice to vice, whereby death enters the soul. To pass through the midst of the host is to live with such perfect impartiality within the church as to rebuke the faults of sinners and not turn aside to favor anyone. Therefore it is properly added: "Let every man kill his brother and friend and neighbor"; that is, a man kills his brother and friend and neighbor when, discovering what should be punished, he does not refrain from using the sword of reproof, even in the case of those whom he loves for his kinship with them. [Pastoral Care, 3.25]
As we can see, the practical message of the text (the preservation of the nation of Israel, through which God would become incarnate) is accompanied by an instructional message. The author may dispute the moral implications of the event itself, but he does so out of context. He may not attribute any inherent violence to Christianity on this point.
This passage (Num 31: 17) refers to the aftermath of the war between the Israelite's and the Midianites. Again the issue is the preservation of the nation of Israel, and again there is an instructional message that we derive. Ambrose of Milan sums up both nicely:
How great a thing justice is can be gathered from the fact that there is no place, nor person, nor time, with which it has nothing to do. It must even be preserved in all dealings with enemies. For instance, if the day or the spot for a battle has been agreed upon with them, it would be considered an act against justice to occupy the spot beforehand, or to anticipate the time. For there is some difference whether one is overcome in some battle by a severe engagement, or by superior skill, or by a mere chance. But a deeper vengeance is taken on fiercer foes, and on those that are false as well as on those who have done greater wrongs, as was the case with the Midianites. For they had made many of the Jewish people to sin through their women; for which reason the anger of the Lord was poured out upon the people of our fathers. Thus it came about that Moses when victorious allowed none of them to live. On the other hand, Joshua did not attack the Gibeonites, who had tried the people of our fathers with guile rather than with war, but punished them by laying on them a law of bondage. Elisha again would not allow the king of Israel to slay the Syrians when he wished to do so. He had brought them into the city, when they were besieging him, after he had struck them with instantaneous blindness, so that they could not see where they were going, For he said: "Thou shall not smite those whom thou hast not taken captive with thy spear and with thy sword. Set before them bread and water, that they may eat and drink and return and go to their own home." Incited by their kind treatment they should show forth to the world the kindness they had received. "Thus" (we read) "there came no more the bands of Syria into the land of Israel." [Duties of the Clergy, 1.29.139]
In other words, the preservation of the nation of Israel and the immediate practical ramifications are coupled with the need for justice in war as well as in other dealings under the New Covenant. Once again, Islam has many passages dealing with the preservation of the followers of the prophet. What it is missing is the dispensation that occurs under the New Covenant. Islam is, in effect, still operating according to the Old Covenant -- and that, outside of the context of authentic revelatory tradition.
Ok, so this verse (Ex 15: 3) comes from the Song of Moses, which poetically praises God for delivering the Israelites from Egypt. I feel that the proper interpretation of this particular text is best expressed in the Septuagint. The author is using the traditional English derived from the Masoretic, which was a compilation of various earlier Hebrew manuscripts which didn't exert any substantial influence on Christianity until the fourth century -- when they did so, very gradually and only in the West, through the work of St. Jerome. The Septuagint was the version of the Old Testament used by the early Christian Church. In my translation, derived from the Septuagint, I have it thus:
"The Lord brings wars to nothing; the Lord is his name." [Ex 15: 3]
So I decided to take a stab at this -- even though my Greek leaves something to be desired -- with the aid of a lexicon. The original Greek, from the Septuagint is "kurios suntribōn polemous kurios onoma autō", which is indeed more literally translated in the Septuagint quotation above. The word "suntribōn", in the passage, refers to overcoming or bringing something to nothing. The point of the excerpt, thus, is that war is no obstacle to the Lord, that despite seemingly overwhelming odds the people of the Lord have triumphed. I am confident of the context thus established, but if anyone with a better knowledge of Greek would care to explain further, I'd love to read it. Anyway, there are certainly a plethora of examples in the Koran where Allah is said to fight with, for, and through those who serve him, so I don't think this particular quotation serves the author's stated point.
Quite a silly conclusion to draw, and I'm sure everyone can see why. There is no command incumbent upon Christians living under the New Covenant to exact retribution according to the Old. Anyway, this excerpt (Ex 22: 20) is part of a great number of laws which are no longer applicable under the New Covenant. We shall deal with the author's misunderstanding as to the purpose of the law, as well as his mistaken belief that it is still applicable below.
This excerpt (Pslam 9: 6) is a record of God's support of the people of Israel. The Psalm itself is well worth reading, for it is a prophecy of the eventual reign of the Son. It didn't really serve the author's point -- it is a simple record, with no command either explicit or implicit -- so there was no need to clarify anything. Still, I thought it would be neat to put it in context anyway.
At this point we have addressed the essence of the author's misunderstanding and distortion of the Old Testament. The other quotes from the Old Testament may be dismissed for the reasons cited above. Now, let us examine his even more problematic failure to understand the quotes he cited from the New Testament:
What an absurd conclusion to draw -- and one that demonstrates that the author did not examine in any great depth the quote that he, himself, cited (Matt 5: 17). Christ came to fulfill the law. Having done that, we may achieve fulfillment, through communion with him, of that which we could not fulfill if left to our own devices. Once again, the Law is a tutor to lead us to Christ. All of the early Christian writers support this interpretation of the Law.
This fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of Christian exegesis is the heart of the author's untenable conclusions. More interestingly, this fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the relation between the Old Covenant and the New is at the heart of the foundation of Islam, but more on this below.
The mention of a "sword" in Matt 10: 34 may be understood in two ways, neither of which even begin to suggest that Christians should commit violence. It may be understood 1) as an acknowledgment that there is evil in the world and that the Incarnation of God within the world necessitates a battle with that evil; and 2) as a warning to the disciples that they will be met with violence in the preaching of the Gospel. Once again, all the early Christians are in agreement on this point.
Well, first we should note that this passage (Luke 14: 26) doesn't even appear to sanction violence, and so does not serve the author's stated purpose.
Still, this passage is oft misunderstood, so a linguistic analysis is merited. The greek word "misei" in this passage is often translated into English as "hate", but this does not do justice to the actual meaning of the term. The definition "to be disinclined to, disfavor, disregard" is much more reflective of the usage of the term in Christ's era. Thus, the message of the passage is that we are not to incline ourselves toward anything above Christ -- we are to disregard those worldly bonds that would incline us away from service to him.
Anyway, on to the author's final statement regarding the New Testament:
Of course the New Testament "does not have any specific commands to commit massacres," but we have also shown that there is nothing from the Old Testament that would make it incumbent upon Christians to do violence. Thus, we may dismiss the author's criticism of Christianity's supposed "inherent violence." That so-called Christians have, themselves, distorted the Christian message and done violence, supposedly in the name of Christ, is true. It is as essential that all Christian's acknowledge and oppose this violence as it is that Muslims do the same within their religious tradition. That said, let us examine the author's claim that Islam is inherently more inclined toward peace than Christianity:
Ah, but there are also other quotes, which both reflect the very same view of violence that is present in the Old Covenant, and also provide a series of troubling implications for the modern interpretation of Islam as a religion that is inherently peaceful. We shall present a few of these excerpts along with a brief commentary -- simply to demonstrate the untenable and hypocritical nature of the article -- and then analyze one in depth in order to demonstrate the key difference between the understandings of violence which exist in Christianity and Islam.
Fighting is enjoined on you, though it is disliked by you; and it may be that you dislike a thing while it is good for you, and it may be that you love a thing while it is evil for you; and Allah knows while you know not. [2: 216]
So, fighting is commanded by Allah, though the Muslims to whom this verse is addressed are reluctant.
And Allah certainly made good His promise to you when you slew them by His permission, until you became weak-hearted and disputed about the affair and disobeyed after He had shown you that which you loved. Of you were some who desired this world, and of you were some who desired the Hereafter. Then he turned you away from them that He might try you; and He has indeed pardoned you. And Allah is Gracious to the believers. [3: 152]
Here Muslims -- specifically Archers at Uhud -- were commanded to maintain their position and destroy their enemies, but they turned aside, out of a desire for earthly pleasure or fear, and were rebuked.
Fight then in Allah's way -- thou art not responsible except for thyself; and urge on the believers. It may be that Allah will restrain the fighting of those who disbelieve. And Allah is stronger in prowess and stronger to give exemplary punishment. [4: 84]
Once again, Muslims are encouraged to fight for Allah.
So when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters, wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush. But if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free. Surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. [9: 5]
So idolaters -- specifically those who have repudiated a previous agreement with the Muslims -- are to be slain unless they repent and return to the fold.
Fight those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, nor follow the Religion of Truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgement of superiority and they are in a state of subjection. [9: 29]
So, according to the Koran, until they acknowledge their submission, Jews and Christians are to be slain.
Though the passages above completely refute the author's nonsense, we have still not completely discerned where the difference between interpretations of violence in Islam and Christianity lies. For this purpose, we shall address the necessity of reading these texts in context, and we shall provide a brief historical analysis; the following verse provides us with the perfect opportunity:
When thy Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, so make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. So smite above the necks and smite every finger-tip of them. This is because they opposed Allah and His Messenger. And whoever opposes Allah and His Messenger -- then surely Allah is severe in requiting. [8: 12-13]
Maulana Muhammad Ali, who translated the text and provided apologetic notes designed for a western audience writes:
The last sentence is apparently addressed to the fighting believers. Smiting above the necks is either the same as smiting the necks, or it signifies the striking of the heads, because what is above the neck is the head. And the striking of the finger-tips indicates the stiking of hands which held weapons to kill the Muslims. The two phrases respectively signify the killing of the enemy and disabling him so as to render him unfit for taking further part in the fighting.
This is particularly damning to the author's case that Islam is inherently more peaceful than either Christianity or the Old Covenant Judaism which he mistakenly identifies as Christianity. The Koran goes on to state:
So you slew them not but Allah slew them, and thou smotest not when thou didst smite (the enemy), but Allah smote (him), and that He might confer upon the believers a benefit from Himself. Surely Allah is Hearing, Knowing. [8: 17]
One is reminded of the author's revulsion with the quote "The Lord is a man of war."
Still, these writings dealt with the specific aftermath of the battle of Badr, and must be read in the context of the necessites of war, much like the references to practices which the Hebrews carried out in order to preserve their nation. The difference for the purposes of understanding the article, however, is that the Muslim interpretation of the Koran was taking place in medias res, whereas the Christian interpretation of the Scriptures delivered under the Old Covenant was developed by interpreting the Old Testament within the context established by the Incarnation of the theanthropos, and the fulfillment of the Covenant.
A Brief Contextual Summary:
The violence recorded in the Old Testament, in addition to its immediate and practical significance, acquired an instructional quality which became apparent after the Incarnation of Christ. Thus, it is impossible to ascribe any Old Testament commands to commit violence to Christianity. Christianity takes the Old Testament as a shadow of the revelation that is Christ. Once Christ became incarnate, everything revealed yet understood imperfectly under the Old Covenant became clear, and deriving real truth from the revelations of the Old Covenant became possible due to the establishment of the proper context. Christians are required to read the Old Covenant as a prelude to the New, and thus the actions of the Old Covenant are interpreted according to the new dispensation. The Koran purports to be the final revelation, and thus the commands to subdue the nonbelievers lend themselves to modern, violent interpretations. Koranic interpretations of violence -- developed out of practical necessity and without the promise of a new dispensation -- must be examined simply at face value. In essence, then, Islam is a throwback to an Old Covenant mindset -- the preservation of a chosen people -- which is carried out outside of the context of the authentic "Abrahamic" revelatory tradition. In this sense it reflects the contentious atmosphere of the sixth century, in which it was born, far more than it represents any timeless revelatory truths.
Some Final Historical Thoughts and a Comparison
While Christianity has often been distorted by those who sought to do violence in the name of Christ, this violence is not inherent in the religion itself -- that is to say, at least, that it has not been there since the beginning. Christians are repeatedly told to bear the burdens and trials of the world with longsuffering and charity. It is not until a couple of centuries after the death of Christ that violence worked its way into Christianity in any institutional sense. When it finally did, it was a response -- and an unjustified response, at that -- to the depredations of the pagan persecutions. Anyone who reads the account of Stephen the Protomartyr's defense in Acts, the letters of the Apostle Paul and Ignatius of Antioch, or any other number of early Christian sources is struck by their resignation to accepting martyrdom peacefully in the name of Christ. There was never any talk of fighting back against the oppressors in any worldly sense, precisely because the world is ephemeral.
This is not the case with Islam. Because of the violent atmosphere in which it was incubated, as well as the close proximity of its early adherents to the semi-religious conflict that came to be known as the last Romano-Persian War, it adopted a very practical and warlike course. Muhammad, himself, adopted warlike practices which had been unheard of on the Arab peninsula before the birth of Islam. Because the early Muslims were so outnumbered, the adoption of some concept of "holy war" -- probably adapted from the conflict then raging to the North -- became a necessity to ensure the survival of Islam. After the Battle of Badr, for example, Muhammad actually executed a number of Meccan captives, which was not common practice in Arab warfare to that point. The point is that though the Muslims adopted these practices to ensure their survival -- like the Hebrews under the Old Covenant -- there is no promise of a new covenant to mediate the old; there is only a set of general rules for the practice of warfare.
The Old Testament accounts of the violence practiced by the Jews to ensure their survival serve a modern purpose in three ways: 1) they provide a record of the survival of the nation of Israel against seemingly overwhelming odds; 2) they foreshadow the New Covenant, and the Incarnation of Christ; and 3) they provide, allegorically, a broad spectrum of general catechetical symbolism. Accounts of and commands to commit violence in the Koran may be justified under the first of the above principles -- that is, they provide a historical record of the attempts of the self-proclaimed followers of God to survive. Beyond this, however, they find no justification, or at least they cannot be reconciled with the portrayal of Islam as a religion that is inherently more peaceful than Christianity -- the very first Muslims certainly did not feel that their religion was inherently peaceful. It should always be remembered that the meteoric rise of Islam was a direct result of the "lesser jihad", as well as the repressive policies Muslims are instructed to undertake to "enlighten" the world. Furthermore, if we are to read the Koran as a book with significance for the modern era, as well as a historical record, I do not believe it can be reconciled with the image of Islam as a religion that is inherently peaceful. At very best, it is a religion which is no more or less warlike than the world as it was before Islam. We have seen, however, that Christianity is inherently peaceful, in an almost otherworldly way.
Anyway, food for thought. I'm interested to see what kind of reaction I get here. Although the topic, itself, is somewhat incendiary, there is no particular reason that it cannot be discussed rationally. I have striven to do so, as I trust you will see, and eagerly await a response in kind.
-Akolouthos |
Replies:
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 03-Apr-2008 at 06:19
|
Fight those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, nor follow the Religion of Truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgement of superiority and they are in a state of subjection. [9: 29]
So, according to the Koran, until they acknowledge their submission, Jews and Christians are to be slain. With all respect Ako that is a misqoute. The Qu'ran allows for war in the defensive sense, not in the offensive You have to actually post the qoute in context of the whole surah which allows for defense not offense Permission is given to those who fight because they have been wronged, and God is indeed able to give them victory; those who have been driven from their homes unjustly only because they said, "Our Lord is God"-for had it not been for God's repelling some men by means of others, monasteries, churches, synagogues and mosques, in which the name of God is much mentioned, would certainly have been destroyed. Verily God helps those that help Him - lo! God is Strong, Almighty - those who, if they are given power in the land, establish worship and pay the poor-due and enjoin what is good and forbid iniquity. Quran 22:39-41 Fight in the way of God those who fight against you, but do not transgress. God does not love the transgressor. Quran 2:190 And if they incline to peace, do so and put your trust in God. Even if they intend to deceive you, remember that God is sufficient for you. Quran 8:61-2 Co-operate in what is good and pious and do not co-operate in what is sinful and aggression. Quran 5:2 ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 03-Apr-2008 at 06:21
|
Here is further context on that verse.
2.190. Fight against those who fight against you in the way of Allah, but do not transgress, for Allah does not love transgressors. 2.191. Kill them whenever you confront them and drive them out from where they drove you out. (For though killing is sinful) wrongful persecution is even worse than killing. Do not fight against them near the Holy Mosque unless they fight against you; but if they fight against you kill them, for that is the reward of such unbelievers. http://www.islamicity.com/articles/articles.asp?ref=IV0603-2947&p=1 Further commentary on this. ------------- |
Posted By: Super Goat (^_^)
Date Posted: 03-Apr-2008 at 07:19
I thought one of the uniqe aspects of Badr is that maccan captives were spared? |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 03-Apr-2008 at 13:56
|
Oh man, you;ve gone and done it now Ako. I am already in the middle of one thesis without having to reply to this... ------------- |
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 03-Apr-2008 at 16:42
I know exactly how you feel. Yesterday, I sat helplessly at my keyboard while my reply to the original article grew, and grew, and grew. After realizing that it merited it's own thread, I made the fateful decision to start this topic which will, undoubtedly, take up a great deal of my time. Shall we never be free from this time-devouring forum?
 That said, at least this promises to expand my understanding of the Koran, so there is something worthwhile to be gained.
Hm. I have one source which states that many captive Meccans were executed in contravention of traditional policies of warfare in the Arabian peninsula. It does seem to be the case that Muhammad desecrated a well by burying dead Meccan soldiers in it, but these had been killed in battle, not taken prisoner. Maulana Muhammad Ali states that this was not the case, and that ayah 8: 67 is proof of this. If anyone is willing to sort this out, I would appreciate it. It is peripheral to the issue, but interesting nonetheless.
I certainly believe in eatablishing context, as noted above. The surah deals with the triumph of Islam in Arabia, and an introduction to the expansion of the war into surrounding territories. My contention is that "war in the defensive sense" is so ill defined, so broadly understood, that it loses all meaning. Muhammad, himself, interpreted the term rather broadly, and his successors were to do the same. The Muslims may, on account of the killing of their envoy, find some justification for the use of the term "defensive war" in speaking of their attack on the Ghassanids (a Christian Byzantine client tribe), although their envoy had -- as had so many early Muslim envoys -- been sent deliberately for the purposes of provocation (by demanding that the Ghassanids reject Christianity and submit to Islam). How are they to find justification for the use of the same term in their wars against the Roman Empire or Sassanid Persia, both of which were sparked by Muslim raids? If we are to use the term "defensive war" in any meaningful sense, we must conclude that either a) Abu Bakr was disobeying the commands to practice only defensive warfare found in the Koran, or b) the commands to practice only defensive warfare laid out in the Koran were laid out for specific circumstances, and were no longer applicable during the Byzantine and Persian conquests (thus undermining these parts of the Koran in terms of their ability to convey a timeless message). I fail to see any other possibility.
And as for ayah 9: 29, whether the Muslims were acting defensively or not this does represent compulsion in matters of religion. The verse refers to the Jews and the Roman Empire, but even if it referred to an aggressive power, it advocates repressive measures taken out against a conquered people who refuse to follow a faith. Once again, if we are to understand the term "compulsion" in any meaningful sense, this is it.
My broader point runs thus: Islam, unlike Christianity, easily lends itself to violence, even if it is not inherently violent. Though the early Muslims undoubtedly fought wars of aggression, these could be dismissed -- and, indeed, must be dismissed if one wishes to uphold the integrity of the Koran's injunction against aggressive war -- as transgressions against the Koran and Islam. Still, there are certain advantages to the whole system, which were exploited by Muhammad and his successors. By taking provocative actions short of open war, which were designed to goad their enemies into war -- such as the sending of envoys demanding submission -- the early Muslims attempted to portray themselves as the aggrieved party in their early wars of conquest. That this is hardly an inclination towards an inherently peaceful doctrine is borne out by the history of the period.
The establishment of the Dar al-Islam was achieved through wars of conquest, quite in contrast to the establishment of the Kingdom of God that is His Church. The meteoric rise of Islam was a product of force of arms, while the meteoric rise of Christianity across the Roman Empire was due to the forebearance of the early Christian martyrs. Violence did not even creep into Christianity in any pervasive sense until a couple centuries after the death of the Apostles, and only after it had been established as the religion of the state was war ever used -- and unjustly, at that -- to spread Christianity. Whereas most of the soldier-martyrs of Islam died in the battles by which she gained mastery over much of the world, most of the great soldier-martyrs of Christianity went peacefully to their deaths at the hands of their Roman persecutors, and their blood, peacefully shed, provided the sacred substrate out of which the Christian Church was to emerge.
The basic tenets of Christianity can, in no way, be read as anything other than a condemnation of the violence and evil that exists in the world. Islam, however, contains a very worldly set of precepts for the undertaking of war that is reminiscent of the techniques practiced by the Jews of the Old Covenant. Thus, while neither religion may be said to be "inherently violent", Christianity is certainly more inherently peaceful.
-Akolouthos
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 03-Apr-2008 at 16:50
|
Cleric condemns suicide attacks
Some groups such as Hamas use suicide bombings as a tactic One of the world's most influential Islamic leaders has condemned all attacks by suicide bombers at an international conference for Islamic scholars. Grand Sheikh Mohammed Sayed Tantawi of the Al-Azhar mosque of Cairo - which is seen as the highest authority in Sunni Islam - said groups which carried out suicide bombings were the enemies of Islam. Speaking at the conference in the Malaysian capital, Kuala Lumpur, Sheikh Tantawi said extremist Islamic groups had appropriated Islam and its notion of jihad, or holy struggle, for their own ends. He called on Muslim nations to open themselves to dialogue with the West saying Islamic nations should "wholeheartedly open our arms to the people who want peace with us". The difference between jihad in Islam and extremism is like the earth and the sky Sheikh Tantawi Scholars debate future of Islam "I do not subscribe to the idea of a clash among civilizations. People of different beliefs should co-operate and not get into senseless conflicts and animosity," he added. Sheikh Tantawi was addressing a gathering of nearly 800 scholars and representatives from various non-governmental organisations. "Extremism is the enemy of Islam. Whereas, jihad is allowed in Islam to defend one's land, to help the oppressed. The difference between jihad in Islam and extremism is like the earth and the sky," Sheikh Tantawi said. Book ban Sheikh Tantawi said Muslim suicide attacks, including those against Israelis, were wrong and could not be justified. His comments echoed those by Malaysian Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohammed who said, at the opening of the conference on Thursday, that salvation could not be achieved through the killing of innocent people. Worried that Islam's image is being damaged by terrorists who have hijacked the religion for their own ends, delegates also considered banning books which fuel extremism. "We have to block them from channels that are meant to spread Islam," Sheik Husam Qaraqirah, head of an Islamic charity association in Lebanon, said. "Their books must be banned and lifted off the shelves of mosques, schools, universities and libraries," he added. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3059365.stm ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 03-Apr-2008 at 16:57
|
I think your logic is flawed, its rather a "my religion is more peaceful than yours" logic.
Compulsion within islam is a nonentity. If you are to force a person to accept Islam, that conversion is nullified, as is your intent, and your deed is a sin that you have to answer for. The only conversion that is authentic when a person takes upon conversion for himself. The Qu'ran states that the Prophet himself can preach Islam, or God's Word to all, but those who reject he should leave alone and accept their noninterest. Its funny to me how the ones that "misinterpret" Christianity are credible "misinterpretators" because Christianity is anti-violence, but the extremists in Islam are not "misinterpreting" but rather the Qu'ran allows them to commit violence. Ako you don't seem like you have spent enough time reading up on this issue, but googled up a few examples. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 03-Apr-2008 at 16:59
|
Memo to Osama bin Laden
"I would rather live in America under Ashcroft and Bush at their worst, than in any “Islamic state” established by ignorant, intolerant and murderous punks like you and Mullah Omar at their best." A thought-provoking, controversial, pre-war article by Muqtedar Khan, Ph.D., February 12, 2003 This is an American Muslim’s response to the Tape recorded message dated February 11th, 2003 by fugitive-terrorist Osama Bin Laden. Mr. Binladen, In the name of Allah, The Most Merciful, the Most Benevolent. I begin by reciting some important principles of Islam to remind you that there is more to Islam than just a call to arms. 1. Islam was sent as mercy to humanity (Quran 4:79). 2. Do not make mischief on the earth (Quran 29:36). 3. People, We have created you from a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes that you might know one another. The noblest of you before God is the most righteous of you. (49:13) 4. There are among the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) upstanding nations that recite the message of God and worship throughout the night, who believe in God, who order honor and forbid dishonor and race in good works. These are the righteous. (3:113-114). I am writing this to make it clear that there are Muslims in America and in the world who despise and condemn extremists and have nothing to do with Bin Laden and those like him for whom killing constitutes worship. Islam was sent as mercy to humanity and not as an ideology of terror or hatred. It advocates plurality and moral equality of all faiths (Quran 2:62, 5:69). To use Islam, as a justification to declare an Armageddon against all non-Muslims is inherently un-Islamic – it is a despicable distortion of a faith of peace. One of Allah’s 99 names in the Quran is “Al Salam” which means Peace. Thus in a way Muslims are the only people who actually worship peace. Today this claim sounds so empty, thanks to people like you, Mr. Bin Laden. You and those like you are dedicated to killing and bringing misery to people wherever they are. God blessed you with the capacity to lead and also endowed you with enormous resources. You could have used your influence in Afghanistan to develop it, to bring it out of poverty and underdevelopment and show the world what Islam can do for those who believe in it. You chose to provoke and bring war to a people who had already been devastated by wars. Yes many innocent people lost their lives in America’s war on Afghanistan and many more might lose their lives in Iraq. This is indeed regrettable. But we must never forget as to how the West is divided over this and how nations and people within nations are agonizing in Europe and in America over this decision to go to war in Iraq. While many Americans and Europeans oppose the war, Muslim nations have already agreed to cooperate in this war. No Muslim leader has tried to play the role of a statesman on this issue. It is a tragedy that there is not a single Ted Kennedy, Jimmy Carter or Nelson Mandela in the entire Muslim world who would stand up and speak for justice! Before we rush to condemn America we must remember that even today millions of poor and miserable people all across the world are lining up outside US embassies eager to come to America, not just to live here but to become an American. No Muslim country today, can claim that people of other nations and other faiths see it as a promise of hope, equality, dignity and prosperity. Yes, we American Muslims will continue to challenge the Bush administrations’ proposal to wage war against Iraq. We think a regime change in Washington is as necessary as a regime change in Baghdad, but that is an intramural affair. Once the war is declared, make no mistake Mr. Saddam Hussein and Mr. Bin Laden, We are with America. We will fight with America and we will fight for America. We have a covenant with this nation, we see it as a divine commitment and we will not disobey the Quran (9:4) – we will fulfill our obligations as citizens to the land that opened its doors to us and promised us equality and dignity even though we have a different faith. I am sure Mr. Bin Laden, you can neither understand nor appreciate this willingness to accept and welcome the other. Sure at this moment out of anger, frustration and fear, some in America have momentarily forgotten their own values. I am confident that, God willing, this moment of shock and insecurity will pass and America will once again become the beacon of freedom, tolerance and acceptance that it was before September 11th. On that day Mr. Bin Laden, you not only killed 3000 innocent Americans, many of whom were also Muslims, but you signed the death warrants of many innocent people who will die in this war on terror and many more who will live but will suffer the consequences, the pain and the misery of war. Before September 11th, the US was giving aid to Afghanistan and was content to wait for the Iraqi people to free themselves and the rest of the world from their dictator. On that day you changed the rules of the game and Muslims in many places are suffering as a direct consequence. When the Prophet Muhammad (saw) and his companions fought in the name of Islam, Allah made them victorious and glorified them in this world. They made Islam the currency of human civilization for over a millennium. You and your men on the other hand face nothing but defeat, global ridicule and contempt and run and hide like rats in caves and dungeons. You live in the dark. Your faith neither enlightens you nor enables you to live in the light and you have made Islam the currency of hate and violence. Let me tell you that I would rather live in America under Ashcroft and Bush at their worst, than in any “Islamic state” established by ignorant, intolerant and murderous punks like you and Mullah Omar at their best. The US, Patriot Act not withstanding, is still a more Islamic (just and tolerant) state than Afghanistan ever was under the Taliban. Remember this: Muslims from all over the world who wished to live better lives migrated to America and Muslims who only wished to take lives migrated to Afghanistan to join you. We will not follow the desires of people (like you) who went astray and led many astray from the Straight Path. (Quran 5:77). I conclude by calling upon you Mr. Bin Laden and your Al Qaeda colleagues and Mr. Saddam Hussein to surrender to International Courts and take responsibility for your actions and protect thousands of other innocent Muslims from becoming the victims of the wars you bring upon them. Muqtedar Khan, Ph.D. Director of International Studies, Adrian College, MI Association of Muslim Social Scientists Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy. http://www.islamfortoday.com/khan09.htm ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 03-Apr-2008 at 17:02
|
Do not equate Islam with the Caliphate. The Caliphate is a state that existed in a time and place with precepts and prerogatives, it was inspired by Islam, the vast majority within Arabia were Muslim, most participants were Muslim, however many were NOT MUslim. The conquest was a tribal affair of a rising Empire, where Christian members of the Arab tribes pursued the same policy with their Muslim and Jewish, etc tribesmen. ------------- |
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 03-Apr-2008 at 17:10
Hm. I see the accusation that I have not "spent enought time reading up on this issue, but googled up a few examples"; I see the blanket dismissal of the compulsive examples of Islam; what I do not see is any response to any of the specific historical and textual issues raised. Care to have another go at it?
Well, what should we equate Islam with? The actions of the armies of Muhammad? The actions of his immediate successors? If we are to establish the context which you profess to desire, how are we to do this? I still await an answer.
As for your examples of Muslims calling for peace, I welcome them, but they are peripheral to the issue at hand. My point, once again, is not that Islam is inherently violent, nor that all Muslims approve of violence. My point is that Islam, since its inception, has had a specific code that deals with "defensive war" in a way so broadly defined as to justify a wide range of justifications for war. I really would appreciate it if you responded to my last post; after all, I did spend a fair amount of time writing it.
-Akolouthos
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 03-Apr-2008 at 17:13
|
Sure, then we will equate the Crusades as the army of the Christian Jesus I guess. I did provide you enough detail actually. ------------- |
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 03-Apr-2008 at 17:19
Item: I have already addressed the issue of later violence in Christianity. I would suggest that you go back and read my first post, as well as my second. Whereas Christianity was peaceful in its early years and was only later distorted by those who sought to do violence, violence has been a part of Islam from its inception. If you would like to address this distinction, feel free to do so. Please do not simply repeat popular criticisms which have already been addressed.
Item: You did not provide me enough detail, actually.
 The first item contains a perfect example of why this is not the case.-Akolouthos
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 03-Apr-2008 at 17:36
|
2:256 There is no compulsion in religion, for the right way is clearly from the wrong way. Whoever therefore rejects the forces of evil and believes in God, he has taken hold of a support most unfailing, which shall never give way, for God is All Hearing and Knowing.
16:82 But if they turn away from you, (O Prophet remember that) your only duty is a clear delivery of the Message (entrusted to you). 6:107 Yet if God had so willed, they would not have ascribed Divinity to aught besides him; hence, We have not made you their keeper, nor are you (of your own choice) a guardian over them. 4:79, 80 (Say to everyone of them,) 'Whatever good betides you is from God and whatever evil betides you is from your own self and that We have (O Prophet) sent you to mankind only as a messenger and all sufficing is God as witness. Whoso obeys the Messenger, he indeed obeys God. And for those who turn away, We have not sent you as a keeper." 11:28 (Noah to his people) He (Noah) said "O my people! think over it! If 1 act upon a clear direction from my Lord who has bestowed on me from Himself the Merciful talent of seeing the right way, a way which you cannot see for yourself, does it follow that we can force you to take the right path when you definitely decline to take it?° 17:53, 54 And tell my servants that they should speak in a most kindly manner (unto those who do not share their beliefs). Verily, Satan is always ready to stir up discord between men; for verily; Satan is mans foe .... Hence, We have not sent you (Unto men O Prophet) with power to determine their Faith. 21:107 to 109 (O Prophet?) 'We have not sent you except to be a mercy to all mankind:" Declare, "Verily, what is revealed to me is this, your God is the only One God, so is it not up to you to bow down to Him?' But if they turn away then say, "I have delivered the Truth in a manner clear to one and all, and I know not whether the promised hour (of Judgment) is near or far." 22:67 To every people have We appointed ceremonial rites (of prayer) which they observe; therefore, let them not wrangle over this matter with you, but bid them to turn to your Lord (since that is the main objective of religion). You indeed are rightly guided. But if they still dispute you in this matter, (then say,) `God best knows (the value of) what you do." 88:21, 22; also see 24:54 And so, (O Prophet!) exhort them your task is only to exhort; you cannot compel them to believe. 48:28 He it is Who has sent forth His Messenger with the (task of spreading) Guidance and the Religion of Truth, to the end that tie make it prevail over every (false) religion, and none can bear witness to the Truth as God does. 36:16, 17 (Three Messengers to their people)Said (the Messengers), "Our Sustainer knows that we have indeed been sent unto you, but we are not bound to more than clearly deliver the Message entrusted to us.' 39:41 Assuredly, We have sent down the Book to you in right form for the good of man. Whoso guided himself by it does so to his own advantage, and whoso turns away from it does so at his own loss. You certainly are not their keeper. 42:6, 48 And whoso takes for patrons others besides God, over them does God keep a watch. Mark, you are not a keeper over them. But if they turn aside from you (do not get disheartened), for We have not sent you to be a keeper over them; your task is but to preach .... 64:12 Obey God then and obey the Messenger, but if you turn away (no blame shall attach to our Messenger), for the duty of Our Messenger is just to deliver the message. 67:25, 26 And they ask, "When shall the promise be fulfilled if you speak the Truth?" Say, "The knowledge of it is verily with God alone, and verily I am but a plain warner." 60:8 Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just. 60:9 Allah only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) Faith, and drive you out of your homes, and support (others) in driving you out, from turning to them (for friendship and protection). It is such as turn to them (in these circumstances), that do wrong. ------------- |
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 04-Apr-2008 at 19:39
|
es.bih,
Closer.
I'm beginning to see that part -- a large part, in fact -- of the reason your responses are not what I had envisioned is because I didn't precisely lay out what I envisioned for this thread. Mea culpa, mea culpa.
The quotes from the Koran which you have cited do, themselves, speak to the point at issue. There are certainly a variety of quotes in the Koran some of which deal with living in peace with neighbors, some of which advocate -- or at least appear to advocate -- the subjugation of nonbelieving neighbors. What I am looking for is not so much a litany of quotes dealing with the issue of war. What I am looking for is an analysis of the historical context of each, as well as a detailed explanation of the view of Islam with regard to violence against unbelievers.
Specifically I would like you to address issues such as the apparent inconsistency between the ayah which states that "There is no compulsion in religion," and the one that advocates repressive measures against people of the book who refuse to submit. I would also be interested to see a bit of historical and exegetical analysis of the various quotes in the Koran dealing with violence -- look to my analysis of the Bible quotes from the article as an example.
If you get the chance, you may want to reread my original post, as well as the post that followed now that you have read my belated explanation, and respond to some of my questions in the context set out here. Once again, I am sorry for being unclear at the beginning of the thread, the which has gotten us a bit off-topic; it was such a long post, and I failed to properly establish a context. Anyway, I look forward to reading your reply.
-Akolouthos
|
Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 05-Apr-2008 at 03:41
|
Muslims undoubtedly fought wars of aggression
While today many Muslims are peaceful their origins are not unviolent. Currents events also demonstrates this amongst the Islamacist. THE CRUSADES IN CONTEXT Paul Stenhouse PhD CURRENT WISDOM would have it that ‘five centuries of peaceful co-existence’ between Muslims and Christians were brought to an end by ‘political events and an imperial-papal power play, ’that was to lead to á ‘centuries-long series of so-called “holy-wars” that pitted Christendom against Islam, and left an enduring legacy of misunderstanding and mistrust’.1 A school textbook, Humanities Alive,2 for Year 8 students in the Australian State of Victoria, carries the anti-Christian/anti Western argument further: 'Those who destroyed the World Trade Centre are regarded as terrorists... Might it be fair to say that the Crusaders who attacked the Muslim inhabitants of Jerusalem were also terrorists?'3 Muhammad died in Medina on June 8, 632 AD. The first of the eight Crusades to free the Holy Places in Palestine from Muslim control, and offer safe passage to the Holy Land for Christian pilgrims, was called only in 1095. At the risk of sounding pedantic, the period in question is not ‘five centuries,’ but fourhundred and sixty-three years; and those years were not characterized by ‘peaceful coexistence’. For the Christian states bordering the Mediterranean, it was a four-hundred and sixty-three year period of regular, disorganized [and occasionally organized] bloody incursions by Muslim–mainly Arab and Berber-land and sea forces. These came intent on booty-gold, silver, precious stones and slaves-on destroying churches, convents and shrines of the ‘infidels,’ and on the spread of politico-religious Islam throughout Europe from their bases in the Mediterranean and the Adriatic. At the time of Muhammad’s death there were flourishing Christian and Jewish communities in Arabia, and throughout the major centres of the Persian Empire. The whole of the Mediterranean world on its European, Asian and African sides, was predominantly Christian. It had taken only a few years for Muslim tribesmen from Arabia, inspired by Muhammad’s revelations and example, to invade the Eastern Roman or Byzantine Empire whose emperors devoted more time to religious disputation than to defending their empire. In 633 Mesopotamia fell. After a few years the entire Persian Empire fell to the marauding Arab tribesmen who drove the young Persian emperor Yazdagird into the farthest reaches of his empire, to Sogdiana [Uzbekistan], where he was eventually murdered by his Tartar bodyguard in a miller’s hut. One thousand years of Hellenic civilization ends. Damascus fell in 635, and Jerusalem capitulated five years after Muhammad died, in February 638. The fall of Alexandria in 643 sounded the death knell of more than thousand years of Hellenic civilization that once enriched the whole of the Near East with its scholarship and culture. Henri Daniel-Rops claims that from the point of view of the history of civilization, Alexandria’s fall was as significant as the fall of Constantinople to the Turks eight-hundred years later.3 Cyprus fell in 648-9 and Rhodes in 653. By 698 the whole of North Africa was lost. Less than eighty years after Muhammad’s death, in 711, Muslims from Tangiers poured across the 13 km-wide strait of Gibraltar into Spain. By 721 this motley Arab-Berber horde had overthrown the ruling Catholic Visigoths and, with the fall of Saragossa, set their sights on southern France. By 720 Narbonne had fallen. Bordeaux was stormed and its churches burnt down by ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn ‘Abdullah al-Ghafiqi in early spring 732. A basilica outside the walls of Poitiers was razed, and ‘Abd al-Rahman headed for Tours which held the body of St Martin [who died in 397] apostle and patron saint of the Franks. He was to be defeated and killed by Charles Martel and his Frankish army on a Saturday in October, 732, one hundred years after Muhammad’s death, on the road from Poitiers to Tours – a defeat that was hailed by Gibbon and others as decisive in turning back the Muslim tide from Europe. Attacks on France, however, continued, and in 734 Avignon was captured by an Arab force. Lyons was sacked in 743. It wasn’t until 759 that the Arabs were driven out of Narbonne. Marseilles was plundered by them in 838. Muslim incursions into Italy had been a feature of life from the early 800s. The islands of Ponza [off Gaeta] and Ischia [off Naples] had been plundered, and then, in 813 Civitavecchia, the port of Rome, whose harbour had been constructed by Trajan, was sacked by the Arabs. In 826 the island of Crete fell to Muslim forces which retained it as their base until 961. From around 827 they then began nibbling at Sicily. They captured Messina and controlled the Strait of Messina by 842, and finally took the whole island in 859, after Enna fell to them. In 836 the Neapolitans self-interestedly invited the Muslim forces to help them against the Lombards and set the stage for more than a century of Muslims raids along the Adriatic, involving the destruction of Ancona, and Muslim progress as far as the mouth of the Po. ‘Saracen Towers’ south of Naples, built in the ninth century to warn locals of the approach of Arab fleets from Sicily and Africa still charm visitors to the Neapolitan coast. Bari, now home to the relics of St Nicholas of Myra, the original ‘Father Christmas,’ fell to Khalfun, a Berber chieftan, by another act of treachery in 840. From 853-871 the notorious Muslim brigand al-Mufarraj bin Sallam, and his successor, another Berber named Sawdan, controlled all the coast from Bari down to Reggio Calabria, and terrorized Southern Italy. They even plundered the Abbey of St Michael on Mt Gargano. They claimed the title of Emir, and independence of the Emir in Palermo. Naples herself had to beat off a Muslim attack in 837. But in 846 Rome was not to be so fortunate. On August 23rd 846, Arab squadrons from Africa arrived at Ostia, at the Tiber’s mouth. There were 73 ships. The Saracen force numbered 11,000 warriors, with 500 horses.4 The most revered Christian shrines outside the Holy Land, the tombs of Sts Peter and Paul, were desecrated and their respective Basilicas were sacked, as was the Lateran Basilica along with numerous other churches and public buildings. The very altar over the body of St Peter was smashed to pieces, and the great door of St Peter’s Basilica was stripped of its silver plates. Romans were desolated and Christendom was shocked at the barbarism of the Muslim forces. Three years later Pope Leo IV [847-855] formed an alliance with Naples, Amalfi and Gaeta, and when a Saracen fleet again appeared at the mouth of the Tiber in 849, the Papal fleet joined forces with its allies and they repelled the Muslim fleet which turned, and ran into a violent wind-storm that destroyed it, like Pharaoh’s army long before Survivors were brought to Rome and put to work helping to build the Leonine Wall around the Vatican. Twelve feet thick, nearly forty feet in height and defended by fortyfour towers, most of this wall, and two of the round towers, can be seen still by visitors to the Vatican. These defensive walls were finished and blessed by Pope Leo IV in 852. Taranto in Apulia was conquered by Arab forces in 846. They held it until 880. In 870 Malta was captured by the Muslims. In 871 Bari, the Saracens’ capital on mainland Italy, was recaptured from the Muslims by Emperor Louis II, who in 872 was to defeat a Saracen fleet off Capua.6 At this point in our examination of the ‘peaceful coexistence,’ which is made much of by Muslim apologists, we are still two-hundred and twenty-three years away from the calling of the first Crusade. Perhaps readers may better understand, now, why Emperor Louis II, grandson of Charlemagne was absolutely convinced, in the ninth century, of the need for a Crusade. ‘He quite sure that Islam must be driven right out of Europe.’5 But still there was no call for a Crusade. I haven’t spoken of Muslim attacks against the Byzantine Empire even though these, too, played a part in setting the stage for the Crusades. The much vaunted military might and political power of the Eastern Roman Empire carried with it responsibility for protecting the West from Muslim invaders. This it generally failed to do. Constantinople had been attacked in 673, and then for the next five years Arab armies and fleets attempted unsuccessfully to break through the Byzantine defences. ‘Greek Fire,’ that mysterious substance that burned on water, destroyed the Muslim fleets and won the day for the defenders. Then, in 717, the Muslims returned to the attack, emboldened by their successes in Spain. Fate intervened, and like Charles Martel and his Franks at Poitiers in 732, emperor Leo the Isaurian [717-740] turned back the Muslim tide. Constantinople was saved – for a time. Leo, for all his military skills, was a usurper, and an iconoclast. Despite defeating the Muslims, his policies ultimately further weakened both the Western and Eastern Roman Empires. In 870, when Bernard the Wise from Brittany wanted to visit Palestine he had to obtain a laissez-passer from Muslim authorities in Bari, on the Adriatic Coast.6 In 873 the Muslim forces devastated Calabria in southern Italy to the point that it was reduced to the state ‘in which it had been left by the Great Flood’ and the Saracens expressed their intention of destroying Rome, the city of the ‘Petrulus senex,’ ‘the ineffective old man, Peter’.7 In 874 Pope John VIII did all he could to dissuade Amalfi, Naples, Benevento, Capua, Salerno, and Spoleto from forming a pragmatic alliance with the Saracens. Amalfi, Capua and Salerno alone heeded his pleas for Christian solidarity. From the close of 876 Pope John VIII had been sending letters in all directions to obtain help against the Arab forces which were devastating southern Italy and even threatening Rome itself. He sought the aid of Duke Bosone of Milan whom Emperor Charles the Bald had appointed his legate in Northern Italy – to no avail. He wrote for cavalry horses to Alfonso III, king of Galicia in Spain; and for warships to the Byzantines, and from 876 until May 877 he sent numerous letters to the Frankish Emperor begging him to aid the Catholics in Italy. The Emperor proved to be a frail reed, and in 879, upon his death, the Duke of Spoleto turned on the Pope. John VIII, unable to cope with both Saracens and Spoleto, at once, had to pay tribute of 25,000 mancuses annually to the Arabs. A silver mancus was worth roughly AUD$25. This situation lasted for two years. In 881 the Muslim allies of the Neapolitans captured the fortress on the Garigliano [the ancent Liris] 14 km east of Gaeta close to Anzio, just north of Naples, and plundered the surrounding countryside with impunity for forty years. Returning from a synod at Ravenna [February 882] Pope John VIII found, as he put it, that ‘the Saracens are as much at home in Fundi [close to Rome, in Latium] and Terracina’ [80 km SE of Rome] as in Africa. ‘Though we were seriously unwell,’ wrote the Pope, ‘we went forth to battle with our forces, captured eighteen of the enemy’s ships, and slew a great many of their men’.8 Six hundred captives of the Saracens were liberated. Syracuse fell to the Muslims in 878 after a nine-month siege from which few escaped alive. The Byzantine city was pillaged and destroyed. Its collapse freed-up more numerous bands of marauding Muslims to harry the Italian towns and cities. 880 saw victory over Saracen forces at Naples by Byzantine Commanders and also the arrival in waters off Rome of warships sent by the emperor Basil to give the Pope the means of defending ‘the territory of St Peter’.9 Meanwhile, the Saracens had turned their attention again to southern France and northern Italy. They had taken Avignon in 734 and Marseilles in 838 and they were ravaging Provence and North Italy from their bases in the Alps. The most important of these bases was Fraxineto or Fréjus, not far from Toulon, which they captured in 889. They were displaced temporarily from their base in 942 by Hugh of Arles who had a Byzantine fleet harry them from the sea, while he attacked from land. Horace Mann comments10 that it is symptomatic of the kind of pragmatic leaders who controlled the destiny of Europe at that time, that instead of wiping out this bloodthirsty band of Muslim invaders, Hugh allowed them to stay where they were on condition that they did all they could to prevent his rival as ‘king of Italy,’ Berengerius Marquis of Ivrea, from returning to Italy. The latter managed to return from Germany to Italy in 945, and the Muslims were not to be expelled completely from their lair until 972 – almost one-hundred years after capturing Fraxineto – by a league of Italian and Provençal princes. In the meantime they infested the passes of the Alps, robbing and murdering pilgrims on their way to Rome. In 921 a large band of Englishmen, on pilgrimage to the tombs of the Apostles in Rome, were crushed to death under rocks rolled down on them by Saracens in the passes of the Alps.11 At this point in the alleged peaceful co-existence between Muslims and Christians, we are still one-hundred and seventy-four years away from the calling of the first Crusade to free the Holy Places. Meanwhile, Muslim fleets sacked and destroyed Demetrias in Thessaly, Central Greece, in 902, and Thessalonica the second city of the Byzantine Empire fell to them in 904. Muslim armies took Hysela in Carsiana in 887, and Amasia, the metropolitan city of Pontus in Asia Minor. The bishop of Amasia named Malecenus wanted to ransom those of his people who had been captured but knew that the Byzantine Emperor Leo VI would not help; so he appealed to Pope Benedict IV in Rome. The Pope received him kindly, and gave him an encyclical letter addressed to all bishops, abbots, counts and judges and to all orthodox professors of the Christian faith asking them to show Malacenus every consideration, and to see him safely from one city to the next. In 905 Pope Sergius III helped Bishop Hildebrand of Silva Candida restore some of the damage done to his See by the ravaging Saracens who had devastated the Church of Silva Candida in the neighbourhood of Rome. In 915 Pope John X successfully created a Christian League with the help of Byzantine Admiral Picingli and his fleet. Even the bickering princes of southern Italy joined forces against the Saracens, along with King Berengarius and his armies from North Italy. The enemy were holed-up in their fortresses on the Garigliano near Gaeta, north of Naples. After three months of blockade, they tried to fight their way out only to be repelled by a victorious Christian force. In 934 the Fatimid imam al-Ka’im planned an audacious invasion of Liguria led by Ya‘kub bin Ishaq. The latter attacked Genoa that year, and took it in 935. It wasn’t until 972 that Duke William of Provence succeeded in driving the Saracens finally from the fastnesses of Faxineto. In 976 the Fatimid Caliphs of Egypt had sent fresh Muslim expeditions into southern Italy. Initially the German emperor Otho II, who had set up his headquarters in Rome, successfully defeated these Saracen forces, but in July 982 he was ambushed and his army was almost cut to pieces. In 977 Sergius, Archbishop of Damascus, was expelled from his See by the Muslims. Pope Benedict VII gave him the ancient church of St Alexius on Rome’s Aventine hill, and he founded a monastery there and placed it under Benedictine rule, with himself its first abbot. The pontificate of Pope John XVIII [1003-1009] was marred by famine and plague and by marauding bands of Saracens who plundered the Italian coast from Pisa to Rome from bases on Sardinia. By 1010 they had seized Cosenza in southern Italy. Then Sardinia fell to the Arabs in 1015, led by a certain Abu Hosein Mogehid [thus the Latin Chronicles]. I take this person to be Mujahid bin ‘Abd Allah whom Arab sources credit with the invasion. The Saracen force based on Sardinia, over the next few years, torched Pisa, seized Luna in northern Tuscany, and ravaged the land. Pope Benedict VIII managed to assemble a fleet and challenged the Saracen chief who turned tail and fled to Sardinia, leaving his fleet at the mercy of the papal force which was victorious. Mujahid bin ‘Abd Allah then sent the Pope a bag of chestnuts and a message that he would arrive in the following summer with as many soldiers as there were nuts in the bag. Benedict accepted the chestnuts and sent back a bag of rice: ‘If your master,’ he said to the astonished messenger, ‘ísn’t satisfied with the damage he has done to the dowry of the Apostle, let him come again and he will find an armed warrior for every grain of rice’. The Pope did not wait for an answer but carried the war into the enemy’s territory. He coopted the combined fleets of Pisa and Genoa and they sailed for Sardinia in 1017 only to find Mujahid in the act of crucifying Christians on Sardinia. The Muslim leader fled to Africa, and Sardinia was occupied by the Pisans. Mujahid kept trying to re-take Sardinia until 1050 when he was captured by the Pisans and the island was made over to them by the Pope. Muslims from Spain sacked Antibes in 1003. They sacked Pisa in 1005 and 1016, and Narbonne in 1020. Sometime around 1025 Pope John XIX granted the pallium [sign of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction] to Archbishop Peter of Gerona in northeast Spain, on condition that he redeemed Christian captives of the Saracens as he had promised the Pope when he had come on his ‘ad limina’ visit. The four-hundred and sixty-three years that elapsed between Muhammad’s death in 632 and the calling of a Crusade to free the Holy Places in 1095 was not a time of ‘peaceful co-existence’ between Muslims and European or Byzantine Christians. Nor was it, for Christians living in Muslim-occupied territories. They enjoyed ‘peace’ only by keeping the lowest possible profile, paying the jizya, or head-tax, and accepting non-person status in lands that had been Christian before the Muslim invaders arrived. The new millennium saw the situation go from bad to worse. In 1009 the Fatimid Caliph of Egypt, abu-‘Ali Mansur al-Hakim, ordered the destruction of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. The edict of destruction was signed by his Christian secretary ibn-‘Abdun. The Muslims destroyed the Tomb of Jesus, the Dome and the upper parts of the Church until their demolition was halted by the great mound of debris at their feet. For eleven years Christians were forbidden even to visit the rubble or to pray in the ruins. Shocked by the destruction of Christendom’s holiest Shrine, Pope Sergius IV appealed for help to go to Palestine to rebuild it. His appeal fell on deaf ears. At the beginning of the fifth century, two hundred years before Muhammad appeared, there were seven-hundred Catholic bishops in Africa.12 Two-hundred of them attended the Council of Carthage in 535 AD. By the middle of the 900s there were forty left. By 1050, as a result of ‘peaceful coexistence,’ there were only five left. In 1076 there were two. We learn this from a letter that Pope Gregory VII, ‘Hildebrand,’ wrote to Cyriacus, Archbishop of Carthage in June 1076. As three bishops are needed for the valid consecration of another bishop Gregory asked him to send a suitable priest to Rome who could be consecrated assistant bishop, so that he [Cyriacus] and Servandus, bishop of Buzea in Mauritania, and the new bishop could consecrate other bishops for the African Catholics.13 Gregory VII, on his deathbed in 1085, dreamt of forming a Christian League against Islam and said, ‘I would rather risk my life to deliver the Holy Places, than govern the Universe’.14 It seems to have been the Seljuk Turkish capture of Jerusalem in 1076 that finally swung the balance, exhausted the patience of the European Christians, and fulfilled Gregory’s wish. Pilgrimage to the Holy Places had became more difficult; a poll-tax was imposed on visitors. Those who dared journey there were harassed, robbed and some even enslaved. At the Council of Piacenza summoned by Pope Urban II and held in March 1095, Byzantine delegates emphasized the danger facing Christendom from Muslim expansion, and the hardship facing Eastern Christians until the infidel be driven back.15 They repeated an appeal made by Emperor Alexius to Robert of Flanders asking him to return to the East with some knights to assist the Byzantines in their struggle with the Muslims. Towards the end of that same year, Urban II, at another Council held at Claremont in France, took up the suggestion, and urged Europe’s Christians to ‘Take the road to the Holy Sepulchre… let each one deny himself and take up the Cross’. The Assembly rose to its feet and shouted ‘God wills it’. Muhammad died on June 8, 632 AD. It had taken four hundred and sixty-three years for Europe’s Christians to combine their forces and rise up in defence of themselves and of their Faith. *Reproduced by kind permission of the Reverend Paul Stenhouse NOTES 1 John Esposito, Islam: the Straight Path, 3rd ed. OUP, 1998, p.58. 2See ‘Civilizing influence of previous wars fought between East and West,’ The Weekend Australian, March 18-19, 2006. 3 The Church in the Dark Ages, J.M.Dent and Sons, London, 1959, p.336. 4 Letter from Adelbert, Marquis of Tuscany and protector of the Papal territory of Corsica, to Pope Sergius II in Liber Pontificalis, n.xliv, ed. Farnesiana. 5 Henri Daniel-Rops, The Church in the Dark Ages, J.M.Dent and Sons, London, 1959, p.472. 6 Quoted Runciman, A History of the Crusades, Cambridge University Press, 1951, vol.i, p.43. 7 See Horace Mann, The Lives of the Popes in the Early Middle Ages, 12 vols Kegan Paul, London, 1906, vol. iii, p.321. 8 Epistle 334 – fragment of a letter to the Emperor. 9 Epistle 296 to the Byzantine Emperor Basil, August 12, 880 AD. 10 Op.cit. vol.4, p.10 11 Flodoard [894-966] Chronique de France 919-966, entry for 921. 12 ‘H. Daniel-Rops, The Church in the Dark Ages, J,M,Dent and Sons, London, 1959, pp.340, 344. 13 Register of Gregory VII, III, 19. 14H. Daniel-Rops, Cathedral and Crusade, J.M.Dent and Sons, London, 1957, p.434. 15Steven Runciman, A History of the Crusades, Cambridge University Press, 1951, vol.i, p.105. ------------- Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι Ďυμπολίτες και οι ĎĎ„Ďατιώτες, να θυμάĎτε αυτό ĎŽĎτε μνημόĎυνο Ďας, φήμη και ελευθεĎία Ďας θα ε |
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 05-May-2008 at 05:34
|
Interesting, eaglecap, but not precisely what I am looking for in this thread -- I really need to work on my clarity, eh? Both Christianity and Islam have histories laced with violence and peace. My question -- and consequently the dialogue I wish to start -- centers around a comparative contextual exegetical analysis of the Bible and the Koran. I would like those interested in participating to cite quotes specifically dealing with violence -- not quotes dealing with peace -- and then I would like them to analyze these quotes in a historical and theological context. Sorry for the confusion; sometimes I am absolutely terrible at making myself understood. Comes with being so scatterbrained, I suppose.
-Akolouthos
|
Posted By: Cezar
Date Posted: 05-May-2008 at 07:14
What about those who don't have faith?
|
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 05-May-2008 at 07:20
Let's try not to get further off-topic than we already are.
-Akolouthos
|
Posted By: Cezar
Date Posted: 05-May-2008 at 14:04
|
OK, Ako. But I must tell you that it seems like religion textbooks and what religion supporters do look like lawyers in a court. Everybody is making an interpretation of the text while nobody can deliver a clear picture of what the Law is. It's an interpretation festival when studying the holy writings.
Regarding violence, I think both religions are similar. None of the books is like a nazi manifest yet they are both confuse, so they can be used to instigate people to violence. Therefore the danger lies in what people make of the religious texts, not in the texts themselves.
|
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 05-May-2008 at 14:21
That's actually a wonderful analogy. I do believe that there are authentic and inauthentic interpretations, but you are certainly right about people striving to interpret without being able to deliver a clear picture of what the law is.
I agree, to a certain extent. I think any holy text -- or any text, for that matter -- can be interpreted or misinterpreted in an almost infinite number of conflicting ways. This is the reason I would like to examine the texts themselves within the context of historical exegesis -- and specifically the interpretations of noted scholars of the early era of the respective faiths. Even if this doesn't provide us with anything all that concrete, I think it will be a productive and novel exercise.
 -Akolouthos
|
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 06-May-2008 at 19:26
|
Here's a skeptics page dedicated to Cruelty in the Bible and Quran.
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html - http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/cruelty/long.html - http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/cruelty/long.html ------------- |
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 06-May-2008 at 19:41
A perfect starting point for the current discussion. Thanks Seko.
Let us look at these verses (and any others that may be relevant), examining their context, seeking out their underlying messages (both historical and theological), and attempting to explain there relevance to modern Christians and Muslims.
-Akolouthos
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 16-Jun-2008 at 18:23
2:216 Warfare has been decreed for you while you hate it; and perhaps you may hate something while it is good for you, and perhaps you may love something while it is bad for you; God knows while you do not know. 2:217 They ask you about fighting in the restricted month. Say, "Fighting in it is great offense," yet repelling from the path of God and not appreciating Him and the Restricted Temple, driving its inhabitants out is far greater with God. Persecution is worse than being killed." They still will fight you until they turn you back from your system if they are able. Whoever of you turns back from his system, and dies as ingrates, then these have nullified their work in this life and the next; these are the people of the fire; there they will abide eternally! This is from Edip Yuksel's new English translation that actually was made to be an English translation rather than just copying over from one language to another. Either way. The next verse established context. The context is DEFENSIVE. If you are being attacked it is only common sense that you will defend your own life. The Muslims in this verse are reluctant because fighting, warfare, and death are not to be sought after in an ideal faith based life. It is not the Muslims that are just choosing this out of whim, but it is the theology in here that is implied with it too to not be fond of violence. However, defensive violence may be a necessity once in a while, thus if you are being invaded and in direct confrontation with another person/entity/army that is in the process of attacking you without cause your natural reaction is defensive. God only chooses not to punish you for something that is common sense.
This verse does not contain any specific requisite for violence to be committed. Again within the larger context this is within a battle. The Muslims were fighting for their existance in this time period and their belief in God is one of the accredited strenghts for their preserverance in battle - through humiliation - etc etc etc. This happens to be an example of what follows by maintaining hope and faith in God - similar to the story of Muhammad being verbaly and physically abused on a daily basis while preaching the Qu'ran. Again a bit more context to the verse: The Battle of Uhud 3:152 God has fulfilled His promise to you, that you would overwhelm them by His leave; but then you failed and disputed in the matter and disobeyed after He showed you what you had sought. Some of you want this world, and some of you want the Hereafter. Then He let you retreat from them that He may test you; and He has pardoned you. God is with great favor over those who have acknowledged. 3:153 For you were climbing the hill and would not even glance towards anyone, and the messenger was calling you from behind. Therefore, He gave you worry to replace your worry, so that you would not have sadness by what has passed you, or for what afflicted you, and God is Ever-aware of what you do. 3:154 Then after the worry, He sent down to you sanctity in sleepiness, overtaking a group of you; while another group was worried about themselves; they were thinking about God other than the truth, the thoughts of the days of ignorance. They say, "Why are we involved in this affair?" Say, "The entire affair is up to God." They hide in their persons what they do not show to you; they say, "If we had a say in this affair then none of us would have been killed here." Say, "If you were inside your own homes, then the ones who have been marked for death would have gone forth to their resting place." God will test what is in your chests and bring out what is in your hearts. God is Knowledgeable as to what is in the chests. 3:155 The day the two armies met, the devil caused some of you to turn away, because of what they had gained. God has pardoned them, for God is Forgiver, Compassionate. 3:156 O you who acknowledge do not be like those who rejected and said to their brothers when they were marching in the land or on the offensive: "If they were here with us they would not have died nor been killed." God will make this a source of grief in their hearts, and God grants life and death, and God is watching over what you do. 3:157 If you are killed in the cause of God or die, then forgiveness from God and mercy is far greater than all they can put together. 3:158 If you die or are killed, then to God you will be gathered. The Good Example of the Messenger: Caring, Tolerant, Consulting People, and Trusting in God 3:159 It was a mercy from God that you were soft towards them; had you been harsh and mean hearted, they would have dispersed from you; so pardon them and ask forgiveness for them, and consult them in the matter; but when you are convinced, then put your trust in God; God loves those who trust.* 3:160 If God grants you victory then none can defeat you, and if He abandons you then who can grant you victory after Him? In God, those who acknowledge should put their trust.* * commentary 003:160 A similar rule is also mentioned in the Old Testament. For instance, see Deuteronomy chapter 28; 2 Chronicles 24:23-25.
4:83 If any matter regarding security, or fear, comes to them they make it publicly known, but if they had referred it to the messenger and to those entrusted from them then it would have been known by those who studied it from them. Had it not been for God's grace upon you and His mercy, you would have followed the devil, except for a few. 4:84 So fight in the cause of God. You are not responsible except for yourself. Enjoin those who acknowledge, "Perhaps God will put a stop to the might of those who are ingrates." God is far Mightier and far more Punishing. 4:85 Whoever intercedes with a good intercession, he will have a reward of it; and whoever intercedes with an evil intercession, he will receive a share of it. God has control over all things. Promote Friendship and Peace 4:86 If you are greeted with a greeting, then return an even better greeting or return the same. God is Reckoning over all things. 4:92 Those who acknowledge cannot kill another who has also acknowledged except by accident. Whoever kills one who acknowledged by accident, then he shall set free an acknowledging slave, and give compensation to the family; except if they remit it. If he was from a people who are enemies to you, and he had acknowledged, then you shall set free an acknowledging slave. If he was from a people between whom you had a covenant, then compensation to his family, and set free an acknowledging slave. Whoever does not find, then the fasting of two months sequentially as repentance from God; God is Knowledgeable, Wise.* 4:94 O you who acknowledge, if you mobilize in the cause of God then make a clear declaration, and do not say to those who greet you with peace, "You are not a acknowledger!" You are seeking the vanity of this world; but with God are many riches. That is how you were before, but God favored you, so make a clear declaration. God is Everaware of what you do. 4:95 Except the disabled, not equal are those who stayed behind from those who acknowledge with those who strived in the cause of God with their money and lives. God has preferred those who strive with their money and lives over those who stayed behind by a grade; and to both God has promised goodness; and God has preferred the strivers to those who stay by a great reward.* 4:96 Grades from Him, forgiveness, and a mercy. God is Forgiving, This seems more acknowledging that self defense is a viable option if all else fails rather than implying that Muslims are specified to fight by God. They are enabled the ability to a self defensive fight for sure - but that is not the same as agression. 004:095 War is permitted only for self-defense. See 60:7-9. 60:7 Perhaps God will grant compassion between you and those you consider enemies; and God is Omnipotent. God is Forgiving, Compassionate.* 60:8 God does not forbid you from those who have not fought you because of your system, nor drove you out of your homes, that you deal kindly and equitably with them. For God loves the equitable. 60:9 But God does forbid you regarding those who fought you because of your system, and drove you out of your homes, and helped to drive you out. You shall not ally with them. Those who ally with them, then such are the transgressors. Again 9 - 5 deals with peace treaties - and breaking a peace treaty i.e. committing war - a retaliation to that is allowed - i.e. once again self defensive action rather than God "encouraging" fighting. 9:4 Except for those with whom you had a treaty from among those who have set up partners if they did not reduce anything from it nor did they plan to attack you; you shall fulfill their terms until they expire. God loves the righteous. 9:5 So when the restricted months have passed, then you may kill those who have set up partners wherever you find them, take them, surround them, and stand against them at every point. If they repent, hold the contact prayer, and contribute towards betterment, then you shall leave them alone. God is Forgiving, Compassionate. 9:6 If any of those who have set up partners seeks your protection, then you may protect him so that he may hear the words of God, then let him reach his sanctuary. This is because they are a people who do not know. 9:7 How can those who have set up partners have a pledge with God and with His messenger? Except for those with whom you made a pledge near the Restricted Temple, as long as they are upright with you, then you are upright with them. God loves the righteous. 9:8 How is it that when they come upon you they disregard all ties, either that of kinship or of pledge. They seek to please you with their words, but their hearts deny, and most of them are wicked. commentary 009:003-029 The verse 9:5 does not encourage muslims to attack those who associate partners to God, but to attack those who have violated the peace treaty and killed and terrorized people because of their belief and way of life. According to verses 9:5 and 9:11, the aggressive party has two ways to stop the war: reinstate the treaty for peace (silm), which is limited in scope; or accept the system of peace and submission to God (islam), which is comprehensive in scope; it includes observation of sala and purification through sharing one's blessings. These two verses refer to the second alternative. When, accepting islam (system of peace and submission) as the second equally acceptable alternative and when the first alternative involves only making a temporary peace, then none can argue for coercion in promoting the Din. The Quran does not promote war, but encourages us to stand against aggressors on the side of peace and justice. War is permitted only in self-defense (See 2:190,192,193,256; 4:91; 5:32; 8:19; 60:7-9). We are encouraged to work hard to establish peace (47:35; 8:56-61; 2:208). The Quranic precept promoting peace and justice is so fundamental that a peace treaty with the enemy is preferred to religious ties (8:72). Please note that the context of the verse is about the War of Hunain, which was provoked by the enemy. The verse 9:29 is mistranslated by almost every translator. Furthermore, note that we suggest "reparation," which is the legal word for compensation for damages done by the aggressing party during the war, instead of the Arabic word jizya. The meaning of jizya has been distorted as a perpetual tax on non- Muslims, which was invented long after Muhammad to further the imperialistic agenda of Sultans or Kings. The origin of the word that we translated as Compensation is JaZaYa, which simply means compensation, not tax. Because of their aggression and initiation of a war against muslims and their allies, after the war, the allied community should require their enemies to compensate for the damage 161 they inflicted on the peaceful community. Various derivatives of this word are used in the Quran frequently, and they are translated as "compensation" for a particular deed. Unfortunately, the distortion in the meaning of the verse above and the practice of collecting a special tax from Christians and Jews, contradicts the basic principle of the Quran that there should not be compulsion in religion and that there should be freedom of belief and expression (2:256; 4:90; 4:140; 10:99; 18:29; 88:21,22). Since taxation based on religion creates financial duress on people to convert to the privileged religion, it violates this important Quranic principle. Dividing a population that is united under a social contract (constitution) into privileged groups based on their religion contradicts many principles of the Quran, including justice, peace, and brotherhood/sisterhood of all humanity. See 2:256. For a comparative discussion of this verse, see the Sample Comparisons section in the Introduction. 8:12 Your Lord inspired to the angels: "I am with you so keep firm those who acknowledge. I will cast fear into the hearts of those who have rejected; so strike above the necks, and strike every finger."* 8:13 That is because they have aggressed against God and His messenger. Whoever aggresses against God and His messenger, then God is severe in retribution. 8:14 This is for you to sample, and for the ingrates will be retribution of fire. 8:15 O you who acknowledge; when you encounter those who have rejected on the battlefield, do not flee from them. 008:012-16 Wars are subject to the general principles spelled out in 60:8-9. Also, see 9:29. ------------- |
Posted By: Cezar
Date Posted: 18-Jun-2008 at 09:33
|
es_bih, you might quote the whole Quran, but:
- people are getting killed by muslims (not al muslims, I don't think you killled to many infidels till now
) on the basis of faith, though most of the victims didn't even bother about islam or christianity. So that makes the Quran ineffective. Also, since there is no clear statement against killing for the sake of Allah, it is used to perpetrate hate and violence- people are being killed by christians (we should ask parnell about his quota of protestants
). Yet when asked, mosts christians state that all their religion is about love. Unfortunately for too many times it turnes into love to hate, basically for the same reason as Islam.So, whatever the Bible and the Quran are, they are also instruments of manipulation and violence. Both have been use to kill more people than the two atomic bombs together. Unfortunately, unlike the nuclear arsenal, which is under control , these two weapons are available to anyone.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 18-Jun-2008 at 14:58
|
I can as well pick up a work of fiction, lets say Dune, say that Frank
Herbert approves of violence and slaughter and kill off half the human
race conquer earth and make it in the name of Herbert, while in the end
it is really I who commits these atrocities and enjoys the privileges
of the conquest. Herbert gets his name mentioned once or twice and
bears a burden of "inciting" for the next generation to come. That is asinine. There is a difference between a religious doctrine preaching
peace and love and one individual taking a whole different radical
approach to its interpretation. It is not the fault of the document
because a loony decides that sporting a M 16 in all out shooting spree
is the supreme equivalency of love.
------------- |
Posted By: Cezar
Date Posted: 18-Jun-2008 at 15:49
| So, every written work that is somehow violent is the equivalent of Mein Kampf? BTW, how many dune terrorists do you know? |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 18-Jun-2008 at 17:45
|
Maybe if you cannonize it as a philosohical or theological movement you will
------------- |
Posted By: fascinated
Date Posted: 20-Jun-2008 at 03:32
OK!
“Allah does not forbid you with regard to those who do not fight you over (your) Deen, nor drive you out of your home land, from dealing kindly and being righteous to them, for Allah loves those who are righteous. Do not ally and be good to those who fight you for your belief and throw you from your home land and those who assist them. Allah forbids you from doing that” [Qur'an 60:8-9]
“O you who believe, fight in the way of Allah those who fight you, and do not transgress. Allah does not like transgressors” [Qur'an 2:190]
As far as anyone can see there is not ambiguity or "broad definition" that could lead any misunderstanding here.
However, Christianity, being inherently not violant does not prevent Christians of today and the past remain non violant. If unprovoked attack is a reason to respond violanltly, the Christians of today and the past (crusades one of them actually crusade is a term invented just to persuade Christians to kill Muslims while jihad means struggle in the way of establishing the justice) did many violance without being provoked.
Crusades were rationalized by stopping Muslims who are converting people into Islam by sword. However Christians tried it themselves on Muslims and Jews with infamous inqusition they could not convert just one Jews or Muslim into Christianity by FORCE. So it is self evident that neither Muslims nor anyone could convert someone into his own belief system by force.
So this being fact, there is another fact that no culture is assimilated under Muslim rule. Christians remained as they were, Jews remained as they were even the idolators remianed as they were UNLESS they did not fight against Muslims.
That make sense beacuse if you fight with someone due his beliefs it literally means that "You either accept my belief or I will kill you" For that Qur'an allows Muslims defend themselves and say "If you oppress me and intend to kill me for beliefs then I will fight against you untill you accept mine" EYE FOR AN EYE.
If this sounds to you as violance believe me it sounds like that only because it is a given right to Muslims by their own source ...Qur'an and being a Christian you have no choice but to accept that rule in your actions and deny with your speech.
Just for the record Islam also states a fact that so called Christian way of peace is not practicible because today's Christian keep saying that Christianity expanded without making wars is a false statment. Christianity could not even have the chance to expand due to the immense oppression. That's why the original manuscripts of the new testament are not original at all. The Christinity according to Qur'an was a declaration of a Creator who did not have a son or multiple personalities etc. in the same fashion of the Old Testament. The message was lost. That's why Christians today eat pork, for example, or give their God forms in contrast to second commandment. What ever expanded in the name of Christianity in europe was not the Christianity of Jesus afterall. An adultrated version of Roman polytheism was that at all. That is why came the crusades, that is why came the inqusition, that is why came the dictatorship of the church and the clergy. Hence Christianity of Romans (or europeans) failed from the start to become the religion of peace since it is oppressive inherently. Wherever it took peace it assimilated the local culture and belief by all means force if necessary. Any opposition was and is countered extereme prjudice and annihilation by ALL MEANS killing if necessary (of course in case of chinese they killed missionaries before they could kill them or they could bring those who would kill them that is why they are BAD).
So as the saying goes "I wouldn't mind if the one who is calling me bald had hair on his head" Christians by simply looking at the history are not the people who could talk about Muslims being violant or Qur'an provoking or leaving an open door to violance etc.
Instead of trying to prove Islam is violant why aren't you try to prove that OIL COMPANIES ARE VIOLANT or MULTI NATIONAL COMPANIES ARE MANIPULATING GOVERNMENTS etc. Because as long as people like you does not want to remove the horse blinds people will continue to kill in the name of God without knowing that they serve for the purpose of the one's who worship the money (OIL SHEIKS OR VATICAN AT BEST).
|
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 20-Jun-2008 at 05:11
Well, every now and then something forces me to spend more time than I have on a thread: congratulations, your fascinatingness. (I will respond to the relevant discussion in this thread as soon as I get the chance. Sorry for the delay, es_bih.)
Perhaps you missed the point of this thread -- I can only infer as much from your post. I would suggest that you review the opening post. We are, here, looking at an exegetical and historical comparison between Christianity and Islam, in which popular polemics will, hopefully, be minimized. Any criticisms will, hopefully, be supported, especially when they deal with the underlying nature of the relevant holy texts.
Ok, so "you too" is your response? We are, here, trying to deal with the underlying nature of the respective theological traditions. I will also note that there is little to no historical context here. I had hoped this discussion would lead to something more substantive than simple, unsupported accusations. It is the responsibility of everyone in this thread to analyze his/her own revelatory texts and history to explain any references to violence. These explanations will not always satisfy, but they are the essence of a discussion of this nature. Still waiting for your explanation of how this does not lead to a "broad understanding" of "defensive" struggle.
Care to offer some analysis to shore up this series of statements with some contextual validity?
It would be nice if there were something other than rehashed polemical nonsense here, but... well, there isn't. If you wish to open a thread about the so-called "distortion" of Scripture by the Christians, I would be happy to discuss it -- for, indeed, you will find yourself without a leg to stand on. If you wish to discuss the why Christians do not observe the dietary laws of the Old Covenant, we could discuss that in an existing thread, once I respond to my dear friend Constantine. If you simply wish to rant and rave about how Christianity is a distortion, you will forgive me if I ignore you. And if you wish to discuss which religion was more peaceful in its infancy, you will find me eager to do so. Anyway, your post indicates that you could have much to offer to this forum, if only you would seek to participate in discussions in context. I hope to see it in the future. -Akolouthos |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 20-Jun-2008 at 06:02
No problem bro I understand time constraints perfectly well. 
------------- |
Posted By: fascinated
Date Posted: 20-Jun-2008 at 09:21
That's fine.
However I am yet to see a Christian to live up to what he/she says so far. wheather loving the enemy or practicing inner and outer peace. You seem no different because your style has the familiar Christian arrogance that lacks crtitcal information about the subject that you are trying to talk about.
Now I say these not to bash or insult or etc. I say this simply to make the point that just like many Christians you think that the theology or religion could be and should be understood the way you understand. Otherwise the result will be false.
I will answer to your first post. The post above was just in a nutshell repsonse. That's why I am not suprised that you could nto make the necessary connections and avoided the give a straight answer.
Here is another one for you ... simple. And I will explain this time the reasoning line as well.
You ask me to varify my statments with some information wheather it would be historical record or some quote from a known personality etc.
Now would that be wrong for me to ask you that you should varify that New Testament is a valid document for the teachings of Jesus? Further more could you prove that there was a "person" who was called Jesus as you try to present him by using the New testament?
Now I know you will say that this is another topic of discussion. Yet If you want to compare two thing even by one aspect if you compare one thing that is not valid with something that is the discussion is false from the start. Does this sound illogical to you?
WHy Martians are green while Terrans are pinkish?
Is there a point to discuss this while there are no Martians after all?
If you want to go on over your comparison assiming that Christianity has a proven stand and Islam could be called as violant according to that hence the comparison is a done deal I suggest you think again.
However I will write about your first post and will show you how false your arguments and conclusions are. With all due respect it is a long post and I will cut it into pieces so that you do not lose track of it.
lastly, your response as "So, you too" implying that I was saying So you are violant too tells me how far you are away from catching my point.
The point was Qur'an allows Mulims to defend themselves as a reality of life. While Christians even though they claim to be peacefull and trun their other cheeks when they are slapped while rationalizing self defense You should not crticise the Qur'an being discerete about this. Because unlike a Christian to kill not to be killed does not leave a guilty feeling in a Mulims' conscious. does this sound so violant? So do not defend yourself then? However Islam being the natural religion of humanity includes this aspect to the message. Cutting short No matter what you call yourself you live and will be living according to the princippals of Islam especially about the subject you call violance when it comes to self defense. And this is regardless to how people use or manipulate Islam for their selfish purposes.
So you too is not because your are Christian or etc. You too because not to defend one's self is not natural and your Christianity while preaching something allows you to practice Islam and force interperet the scriptures.
Got it now?
|
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 21-Jun-2008 at 04:05
Of course I do, but my opinions are based upon research -- both my own, and the work of others down through the ages. And I have yet to meet a man who holds an opinion without considering it the result of sound analysis of data. As for "familiar arrogance" and a "lack of critical information", I would take such criticism from you more seriously if you had any idea what you were talking about. Let's see... Item: You have no idea what my field of study is, nor are you aware to what degree I have studied it. Item: You obviously didn't read -- or perhaps understand -- my first post; indeed, my whole problem with your first two gems is that you are not even attempting precisely the sort of critical analysis which occasioned this thread. Item: You have yet to address the issue at hand. Your desire to criticize would be better received if you made an attempt to support them. Perhaps you should take some time to familiarize yourself with this forum, and the way we address topics here at AE.
I think the problem is that you failed to establish the connections, which made it impossible for me to perceive them. And I certainly can't be expected to give a straight answer to every unfounded and unsupported off-topic comment I run across. I eagerly await your response to my first post, although I would suggest that you familiarize yourself with AE and do a bit of research on the topic first.
That would not be at all unreasonable; in fact, it is an interesting topic for a thread (and one that has not, to my knowledge, been addressed). And yes, it is a new topic. Think of it this way: this conversation is taking place under the assumption that certain underlying presuppositions held by both Christians and Muslims are valid -- if we did not do this, we would digress from the topic. This is why threads generally focus on fairly narrow topics.
Well obviously the lack of a source of beta-carotene on Mars, coupled with a different phenotypic profile. I thought everyone knew that.
The purpose of this thread is to discuss this very issue by comparing, contrasting, and discussing these religions in a historical-exegetical context. Members of both groups are encouraged to participate within the context of the thread. Once again: re-read the first post. If you have anything of value to contribute, feel free.
I eagerly await the moment when you finally understand the purpose of this discussion and address my first post. Feel free to cut it any way you like, and never fear: if you write something clearly and it addresses the topic at hand, it will catch my attention. If it follows the trend of your previous posts... well, I do generally tend to tune out background noise.
You have to throw it before I can catch it, my dear fascinated.
Expand upon this in the context of what has been discussed thus far. Include scriptural citations -- look to the link Seko posted above. This could have merit if developed.
So far there's nothing to get. Ask me again once you have remedied this. -Akolouthos |
Posted By: fascinated
Date Posted: 21-Jun-2008 at 16:30
Of course I do, but my opinions are based upon research -- both my own, and the work of others down through the ages. And I have yet to meet a man who holds an opinion without considering it the result of sound analysis of data. Well, I am sure you know that modern Christian reasoning rely on two main characters effected the rest; St. Augustine and Thomas D'aquinas. And I am sure your research about this subject resulted as these two are effected by two main other characters; Thomas D'aquinas from Averrois, St. Augustine from ..... Now can you tell me who is this Averrois? And can you tell me who inspired St. Augustine?
As for "familiar arrogance" and a "lack of critical information", I would take such criticism from you more seriously if you had any idea what you were talking about. Let's see... Item: You have no idea what my field of study is, nor are you aware to what degree I have studied it. So if I knew these then you could have taken my words seriously? Interseting that you do not know my backgorund and my "field of study" and more importantly you have no idea how old I am and how much time I dedicated to find the truth. Also, you have no idea how many stereo typical approaches I encountered through my life about "open mindedness" "reasoning" and "ethics".
When I say you are no different this should, at least, tell you that I have something to compare your thoughts with.
So, your field of study or to what degree you studied it is irrelevant when it comes to find about the truth. However what counts is that the nature of your information (wheather it is correct or not) and your eithical inclination what to do with it. So save your degrees for your academic advancment, because if you bring them as your credibility be ready for not to rely on them with a very frustrated ego.
funny I tell these and no one listens in the beginning and they become so agitated and angry with me later on. But, hey, you go for it. Remember though you have only few chances to lose the initial respect I have for you being an human. I do not mind your insults but I measure your level ability to reason and how much honesty in you. Just like your commenct about ignoring me under s specific condition I will ignore you if I can not see these in you. Fair enough?
Item: You obviously didn't read -- or perhaps understand -- my first post; indeed, my whole problem with your first two gems is that you are not even attempting precisely the sort of critical analysis which occasioned this thread. Well, If you are aware my first two gems was not a respond to your first jewel of the century. You obviously can not see that INHERENCY refers to a very broad area. If you like we can simply count how many were killed by Christian and Muslims so far and coclude by deciding who ever killed more are the more violant? (this for your histrical pratices criteria) Or we can simply count how many times the texts mention the word"kill" and colcude that way. No need any exegesis at all.
Item: You have yet to address the issue at hand. Your desire to criticize would be better received if you made an attempt to support them. Perhaps you should take some time to familiarize yourself with this forum, and the way we address topics here at AE. Here is a suggestion then? Open up a thread in which we alone could write to each other and we can talk free from the "First posts." This way, I hope, you may see that my responses are quite relevant to the "First post" of this thread. However the decision is yours what so ever.
I think the problem is that you failed to establish the connections, which made it impossible for me to perceive them. And I certainly can't be expected to give a straight answer to every unfounded and unsupported off-topic comment I run across. I eagerly await your response to my first post, although I would suggest that you familiarize yourself with AE and do a bit of research on the topic first.If you have said "You could not answer the examples that are given in by referring to single events." I could have thought you might have an idea and read my post seriously enough. How this exprsssion is the first clues for me that you are alread way above your head in this topic.
That would not be at all unreasonable; in fact, it is an interesting topic for a thread (and one that has not, to my knowledge, been addressed). And yes, it is a new topic. Think of it this way: this conversation is taking place under the assumption that certain underlying presuppositions held by both Christians and Muslims are valid -- if we did not do this, we would digress from the topic. This is why threads generally focus on fairly narrow topics. We have narrow topics so that we should not stray from it? Even you tried to define what "violance is" before getting into comparioson Islam and Christianity that would be a topic broad enough to stray.
The logic behind this is wrong. I understand it, but it is wrong. you do not chose narrow topics for such purposes, you do it to connect every usable information to clarify a certain issue i.e. the topic.
I guess I am really not familiar the AE way of discussion.
Well obviously the lack of a source of beta-carotene on Mars, coupled with a different phenotypic profile. I thought everyone knew that. Well, you are wrong actually... Martians are green not because lack of Bet-carotene but because they carry chlorophil in their blood streams and produce the necessary Oxygen within their systems since their outer skin is air tight they can produce and use the oxygen with "zero loss. Of course that hsould explain why they do nto have lungs and their osaphagus is not well developed
The purpose of this thread is to discuss this very issue by comparing, contrasting, and discussing these religions in a historical-exegetical context. Members of both groups are encouraged to participate within the context of the thread. Once again: re-read the first post. If you have anything of value to contribute, feel free. The expression you replied was a comment about your attitude it was a suggestion for you to in person that as long as you do not change this attititude you will eventually apply unethical methods since you will not try to change your perspective. The topic other than its contents is irrelevant for such a thing to happen.
I eagerly await the moment when you finally understand the purpose of this discussion and address my first post. Feel free to cut it any way you like, and never fear: if you write something clearly and it addresses the topic at hand, it will catch my attention. If it follows the trend of your previous posts... well, I do generally tend to tune out background noise. Well, background noise or not, my tendancy is to answer every possible issue as much as I can the only thing I tune out would be the person since those who can not take the responsibility of what they say and begin to cry out that the topic is being personal do not worth to respect of mine and the information that i could possible learn about the truth from them would the simply "what truth is not about' kind of information. So do what do you think is necessary. As a truth seeker my time is valuable If you do not want to learn and share about the truth I do not have any obligation to persuade you and I certainly does not like such kind of threats. But again arrogance issue the bigger they are harder they fall. When you first start to think that you should perhaps kick me out this forum this means I already proved my point in your conscious. Because as a habit I do not insult and fight without being provoked.
You have to throw it before I can catch it, my dear fascinated. That smily .. are you loughing or is it an involuntary muscle movement after something touched your face? Something thrown ... or Aren't you aware?
Expand upon this in the context of what has been discussed thus far. Include scriptural citations -- look to the link Seko posted above. This could have merit if developed.
So far there's nothing to get. Ask me again once you have remedied this. Alright !!! one more effort and strike three ...
How do you define violance? Is self defense physically or with a weapon should be called as violance?
If you say yes ... Then I am to expect you exactly practice this and I will accept that Christianity is more peaceful than Islam. The moment you get out of this practice I will expect you accept that you are wrong and self defense is natural not violance and Islam teaches that.
If you say no ... I want you to prove that in which context the Qur'an suggests to attack without being in a self defense situation... When you can not find any I will expect you to accept that you are wrong and Islam is not inherently violant.
Actually, as you SEE (or you can can catch easily if you prefer) the expression you keep on calling out of topic with no basis is just one of many points that could conclude the discussion for good.
Item#4 This approach gives me some idea about your level of conscious and willing to communicate.
O.K. I am in a good mood if ... you look closely there is a, what I call "gambit" here your only way out is to define violance in a way that you can call Islam as violant. the moment you do that given the principals of Islamic practice you will prove that Christianity is in far better situation.
Actually even if you don't do that it is treubut that is for another post. I want you to show your true self first.
-Akolouthos |
Posted By: fascinated
Date Posted: 21-Jun-2008 at 19:09
Posted By: Richard XIII
Date Posted: 21-Jun-2008 at 19:26
|
I like your sources
------------- "I want to know God's thoughts... ...the rest are details." Albert Einstein |
Posted By: Vorian
Date Posted: 21-Jun-2008 at 20:31
|
Both religions are to blame for many wars but they is a great significance in how they bring violence. a)Christianity. At its core a peaceful religion, preaching love and tolerance etc but responsible for Crusades, burning witches tortures etc. The reason why these happened were not because of what the religion preaches but because of the way it was used by authority. a)In the east, Christianity was under direct control of the Emperor who used it to bind a multi-national empire together and add prestige to his face with the famous saying "One emperor in heaven, one on earth". Eastern Christianity is responsible for less crimes than the Western simply because its faithful were more controlled and heresies were battles by the state in the form of displacements, taxations and other measures. Emperors couldn't have massacres that disrupted trade and security in the empire. b)In the West, Christianity took another course with the Pope away from the emperor's power and free to propagate in Western Europe where civilisation had declined greatly and new pagan rulers were seeking legitimization from Rome which they regarded in an almost mystical way, as the capital of the old empire, whose riches were known to them by stories of their grandparents. The Pope managed to make himself an absolute authority above lords and kings and countries. However the people were more savage and the land less rich than the east and the Popes had to deal with strong-willed kings. Heresies like the Cathars were dealed with war because in this way, the Popes could use the greedy nobles that cared more for riches than religion. In the same way, the Crusades were just a tool to achieve many goals simultaneously. Subjucating the Eastern church, get rid of the landless nobles that squabbled among each other and bring riches back to Europe. As for witch hunts, they were just the result of what lack of education does to people. Now the Inquisition was created in order to avoid any more Louthirs appear and bring more Christians out of the Pope's grasp. A cruel and violent instrument but only the Rome's quest for power is to blame, not Christianity. 2)On the other hand ,we have Islam, a religion that openly preaches war against unbelievers. What many modern Muslims ignore or choose to do so, is that by unbelievers, Muhammad originally meant the pagans and not the "people of the Bible", whom he considered believing in the same God but had not understood his message. What needs to be understood is that Islam was created for a warlioke nation and had o be made to appeal to them or it wouldn't succeed. It did so, by promising the paradise to fallen soldiers, staying simple and asking little, only three prayers a day, some fasting now and then and a trip to Mecca. Islam however also preaches help to the poor, hospitality and (yes it's unbelievable) even elevated women somewhat. Arabs pro-Islam would often kill their first child if it was a daughter but after they had the right to have property and manage it even after marriage. So, Islam's violence especially modern, is because of false interpretations (much like Christianity) and cause the people are at large poor and uneducated, easily influenced by priests. Islam is not responsible for the way Middle East is today, it didn't prevented the Moors or the Caliphate of Baghdat to be centers of culture and science. Just my 2 cents. |
Posted By: fascinated
Date Posted: 21-Jun-2008 at 22:06
|
2)On the other hand ,we have Islam, a religion that openly preaches war against unbelievers.
I will answer only to this;
Islam openly preaches to wage war against those who try to fight against Muslims for their religion.
For that matter, one should ask when a war ends?
Apperantly until one of the sides could not make war.
In case of pagans Qur'an does not say if and when pagans or anyone wanted a truce Muslims should not accept it. To the contrary as long as the war continues Muslims would fight but when other side gives up Muslims can not even look for a cause to continue the war.
|
Posted By: Scorpius
Date Posted: 21-Jun-2008 at 23:39
| There is no violance in Islam or Christianity (I am talking about the message not the actions of some people in the name of their religions). Simply put, there are violent people constantly searching excuses for their actions. |
Posted By: fascinated
Date Posted: 22-Jun-2008 at 00:07
That I agree completely. Actually if you follow my posts you will see that even such a discussion i.e. which is more violant Christianity or Islam is irrelevant at all.
|
Posted By: fascinated
Date Posted: 22-Jun-2008 at 00:28
|
Continued ...
This passage (Num 31: 17) refers to the aftermath of the war between the Israelite's and the Midianites. Again the issue is the preservation of the nation of How great a thing justice is can be gathered from the fact that there is no place, nor person, nor time, with which it has nothing to do. It must even be preserved in all dealings with enemies. For instance, if the day or the spot for a battle has been agreed upon with them, it would be considered an act against justice to occupy the spot beforehand, or to anticipate the time. For there is some difference whether one is overcome in some battle by a severe engagement, or by superior skill, or by a mere chance. But a deeper vengeance is taken on fiercer foes, and on those that are false as well as on those who have done greater wrongs, as was the case with the Midianites. For they had made many of the Jewish people to sin through their women; for which reason the anger of the Lord was poured out upon the people of our fathers. Thus it came about that Moses when victorious allowed none of them to live. On the other hand, Joshua did not attack the Gibeonites, who had tried the people of our fathers with guile rather than with war, but punished them by laying on them a law of bondage. Elisha again would not allow the king of In other words, the preservation of the nation of So, Israelites killed the Midinites by a command from God. This is a fact. The second event related to Elisha is a “practice” of a leader rather than practicing a principal. If, that is the case, in the Qur’an so many times Allah is mentioned as the Forgiver in many degrees. Forgiving, as a practice, is not forbidden I quoted one verse before. Some other ones: “O ye who believe! Truly, among your wives and your children are (some that are) enemies to yourselves: so beware of them! But if ye forgive and overlook, and cover up (their faults), verily Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” (64;14) Qur’An. “If you punish, then punish with the like of that wherewith you were afflicted. But if you endure patiently, indeed it is better for the patient. Endure you patiently. Your patience is not except through the help of Allah” (al-Nahl 16:126-127) As a trait of true believers; “Those who avoid major sins and acts of indecencies and when they are angry they forgive.” (al-Shura 42:37) “The reward of the evil is the evil thereof, but whosoever forgives and makes amends, his reward is upon Allah.” (al-Shura 42:40) “If you punish, then punish with the like of that wherewith you were afflicted. But if you endure patiently, indeed it is better for the patient. Endure you patiently. Your patience is not except through the help of Allah” (al-Nahl 16:126-127) Again, what Ambrose of Milan tries to interpret from a text is written in Qur’An clearly. Simply put “If you retaliate you have the right to do so, If you forgive this is a better trait since Allah forgives as well.” Again, which text is clearer (in case of a violent action is mentioned)?
Ok, so this verse (Ex 15: 3) comes from the Song of Moses, which poetically praises God for delivering the Israelites from "The Lord brings wars to nothing; the Lord is his name." [Ex 15: 3] So I decided to take a stab at this -- even though my Greek leaves something to be desired -- with the aid of a lexicon. The original Greek, from the Septuagint is "kurios suntribōn polemous kurios onoma autō", which is indeed more literally translated in the Septuagint quotation above. The word "suntribōn", in the passage, refers to overcoming or bringing something to nothing. The point of the excerpt, thus, is that war is no obstacle to the Lord, that despite seemingly overwhelming odds the people of the Lord have triumphed. I am confident of the context thus established, but if anyone with a better knowledge of Greek would care to explain further, I'd love to read it. Anyway, there are certainly a plethora of examples in the Koran where Allah is said to fight with, for, and through those who serve him, so I don't think this particular quotation serves the author's stated point. Now hold here, as long as there is an original text which is in Hebrew why take a translation of it? The Hebrew word for “Of war” is MILCHAMAH (Milkhamah) strangely the same expression passes in Exodus 32:17 to describe the noise "OF WAR.” So your explanation by using the Septuagint is a fatal error. Your effort to interpret the word Milkhamah as “Brings war to nothing” is a very good example for what we said earlier about the basic principal of interpretation; you can’t bring a “4” out of a “T.” At this point you should be aware that you gave me a very serious clue about your ethical inclination. You implied that you are very knowledgeable about this issue and made a lot of research. So I should assume that you knew this and deliberately used Septuagint to make your point. However, I will give you another chance to be more careful to get involved in an honest discussion. Manipulation is a killer of sincerity. Now, I want you to rethink which is more important; accepting the truth or win a debate? Apparently you are trying to do a debate instead of discussion and I will try to pull you in a discussion since I hate debates since they go no where. Yet, it is your call. I will not try it forever. This is a fatal error because even without the Hebrew there is no reason to interpret the verse as “God brings war to nothing”. If we look up to later verses you may have tried to interpret it as “God brings the enemies to nothing” since it describes how the pharaoh was defeated. Yet still you could not have made your point about the violence issue. By the way, after checking the Hebrew meaning of the word I did not even look it up in the Septuagint, since I find it unnecessary. For you to make some research about it the Hebrew of that verse is “Yahweh iysh milkhamah Yahweh shem.” |
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 22-Jun-2008 at 04:48
Fantastic! This is precisely the sort of thing I've been waiting for! Fascinating.  This is exactly where I envisioned the thread going when I began it. I will have to beg your pardon for another week or so; to truly do the topic justice, I will need a bit more time than I happen to have at present. That said, you have my gratitude. One brief note: You will find that many, if not most of the individuals on this forum are interested in honest discussion as well as debate -- and one certainly doesn't preclude the other. We are all, on some level, convinced of the truth of those beliefs to which we hold, but I would hope that we are also willing to continually square them against our research and experiences. I'd also like to take this moment to alleviate your concern regarding my use of the Septuagint. As an Orthodox Christian, I recognize the Septuagint as the canonical text of the Old Testament. It is the version most frequently quoted by the authors of the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers, and its canonicity was recognized by the early Church. Thus, in matters exegetical, I turn to the Septuagint as the authoritative version of the Old Testament. Thus, it was not a desire to make a point that caused me to cite the Septuagint, but rather a desire to seek out the meaning of the passage within a textual tradition that I hold as canonical. -Akolouthos |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 22-Jun-2008 at 08:11
Amen to that brother! Open mindedness in my experience is equivilent to "Why aren't you listening to me?!" I know Ako you asked me to reply to contribute to this thread ages ago and I never got around to doing it (or maybe I am now), however every time I can to think about this thread I was befuddled by one problem. Either I do not know what the question is, or I can answer it in a single sentence. Perhaps this is a lack of historical exegensis on my behalf, but is there really anything more to add? In Islam, violence is permitted iff it will bring about justice. Is there anything more to add or discuss? Do the opinions of medieval scholars matter at all? Either to the medieval masses or to the religion itself? Not really I think. Good scholars I bet will say the same thing. I have read all of the Quran more than once, but only parts of the bible. Yet I can talk alot more and longer about the bible than about the Quran. I'm pretty sure this is because the Quran is not a complicated document. Any questions about it can usually be answered in fairly short sentences. The bible on the other hand really doesn't make any sense at all unless you know what your looking for, and having not being born into a Christian tradition I usually don't. You have to know what the document is before you can understand it. Fascinated I think has nailed it. What is said in an essay in Christianity can be said in a sentence in Islam ------------- |
Posted By: Scorpius
Date Posted: 22-Jun-2008 at 16:42
I know what you mean by justice but I beleive that the concept of justice is a subjective matter (it is different for you, it is different for me, it is different in terms of law that the communities follow, governments put in action).
Islam follows the Newton's third law when it comes to topic on hand, for every action force (in our case violent) there is an equal in size and opposite in direction, a reaction force to encounter it ( to defend yourself). But on the contrary to the third law, this reaction force can be smaller than the original action force, but the 3 rd law still holds, your reaction cannot exceed the action force in terms of size and direction.
|
Posted By: fascinated
Date Posted: 22-Jun-2008 at 17:59
|
Justice is a subjective matter perhaps but it is also something we need for "peace" on earth. That's why there is such a thing as criminal law. Wheather secular or religious state is there criminal law is there as well.
Also, If you say that justice is subjective to the extent that a particular faith can not decide about you also say that you are quite ambiguous about so called basic human rights.
In case of the Qur'an It is again quite clear stealing, tresspasing, transgressing, opressing, forcing etc. these are limits. If you do not have clear definition for these then there is a problem.
In the last analysis regardless to justice ebing subjective or not, striving for it and trying to uphold it fairly is another test for us. A Muslim before thinking about how justful others are thinks how unjustful himself is.
Funny though when Qur'An warns people about the consequences of this, people start to cry out loud that Islam is tryin scare them. Hell "punishment" could be the result of it and yet people are tend to wish for not to be afraid of making mistakes than asking forgiveness from Allah for what they have done.
Just like you said every action has a reaction and that reaction might be faced in the hereafter. Islam (actually Christianity and Judaism as well being Abrahamic paths) tries to prevent the believers to face their actions' reactions in the hereafter.
|
Posted By: Richard XIII
Date Posted: 22-Jun-2008 at 19:34
|
Something about adultery, homosexuality, nudity, blasphemy? Or about my right to go to hell without listen to your advices (from Bible or Quran)?
------------- "I want to know God's thoughts... ...the rest are details." Albert Einstein |
Posted By: fascinated
Date Posted: 22-Jun-2008 at 20:12
I understand I have my own time restrictions as well that is why I wanted to cut your post into pieces actually. So no problem there.
I also understand your explanation about why you picked Septuagint. As I said I am not in a rush to make up my mind about you. That's why I suggested more carefullness. If you are honest there is no problem there also however it is a little disturbing point. You know everyone makes mistakes and as long as we want to communicate no lingering on mistakes but rather focus on the essentials for the sake of healthy communication. I am not infallible either I already might have made mistakes however when I am told you will be surprised how quick I accept and move on after correcting it.
Anyway I will continue posting my reply in pieces keep following them please.
|
Posted By: fascinated
Date Posted: 22-Jun-2008 at 20:21
Quite a silly conclusion to draw, and I'm sure everyone can see why. There is no command incumbent upon Christians living under the New Covenant to exact retribution according to the Old. Anyway, this excerpt (Ex 22: 20) is part of a great number of laws which are no longer applicable under the New Covenant. We shall deal with the author's misunderstanding as to the purpose of the law, as well as his mistaken belief that it is still applicable below. Actually as far as I can understand Exodus 22:20 refers to something different but no less significant. It mentions about killing the animals to be sacrificed which also I think leads to the concept of kosherizing a meat. The Qur’An : [6:121] Do not eat from that upon which the name of GOD has not been mentioned, for it is an abomination. The devils inspire their allies to argue with you; if you obey them, you will be idol worshipers. This I do not understand why Christians give up to practice.
This excerpt (Pslam 9: 6) is a record of God's support of the people of Here I have to ask can you tell us what are those three personalities in Trinity? At this point we have addressed the essence of the author's misunderstanding and distortion of the Old Testament. The other quotes from the Old Testament may be dismissed for the reasons cited above. Now, let us examine his even more problematic failure to understand the quotes he cited from the New Testament:
What an absurd conclusion to draw -- and one that demonstrates that the author did not examine in any great depth the quote that he, himself, cited (Matt 5: 17). Christ came to fulfill the law. Having done that, we may achieve fulfillment, through communion with him, of that which we could not fulfill if left to our own devices. Once again, the Law is a tutor to lead us to Christ. All of the early Christian writers support this interpretation of the Law. This fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of Christian exegesis is the heart of the author's untenable conclusions. More interestingly, this fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the relation between the Old Covenant and the New is at the heart of the foundation of Islam, Actually, it is interesting that it is Qur’An’s claim that the misunderstanding is on the side of the Judeo-Christian side. I know this requires a different topic yet we should touch this subject as well here. 1_ The earlier messages were corrupted hence Allah kept sending them successive messenger prophets to straighten those people out. 2_ Due to the tenacious efforts of them to play with words of the message for the earthly gains they started to claim false attributes and actions to God, such Him having a son, or Him putting only them in heaven but not the others etc. 3_ Their love for this world and the things in it, is more than their love for God. When we look at the reaction of the Jews to Jesus we can easily see why … They were the first one’s to reject his message since the “authentic revelatory context” was/is not clear after all. They were expecting a super hero rather than a messenger/prophet. Why? If the original messages were not corrupted and the concepts not had been changed this would not have happened. Now having said that I believe the original message is still there in the Bible somewhere, however, the metaphorical, allegorical, literal etc. are all jumbled up and no one knows how to clean them. This especially is so apparent in the term YHWH. Just because they wanted to show respect for the Creator they forgot how to pronounce this word correctly because when it comes to recite this word they simply passed it with a silence note (this kind of practice is called as going excess in practice (ifraad)). So between the practices excessive and less (ifraad and tafreed) and by putting these practices and amalgamating with the original texts they lost many things. Pronunciation of YHWH being the most significant since it is used grammatically as the name of God, for those who ask the term “Yachyd” gen 22:2. Jews say that this word means “Beloved” The translaters of Septuagint translated it as “the one and only.” Jews claim that the original word is not Yachyd but Yadid referring that Isaac was loved over Ishmael who was Abraham’s other son from Hagar. This Yachyd issue is very significant because Jews and Christians wrote a history over Abraham’s sacrifice of his son and they explained the conflict today’s Arab-Israeli conflict over it defaming Arabs as the descendants of the un-beloved son. Now while this issue is a thing related to the violent conflict between Arabs and the Isrealites Qur’an narrates whole different story which resolves this issue quite interstingly; According to this Isaac was given to Abraham AFTER the sacrifice henceforth the son was Ishmael henceforth the word was yachyd.
Now either Jew should back up about their claim that the word was yadid or the Christians should accept the son was Ishmael and the scriptures were distorted in accordance to the desires of the Jewish writers of the manuscripts. Qur’An says;
This is the miracle of Qur’An. For those who seeks answers sincerely and honestly the answers are there clearly simply.
Also you should know that Sacrificing a ram was a tradition among Arabs long before Qur’An’s revelation. If the son would have been Isaac why Israelites did not keep this as a sacrificial tradition is a mystery. |
Posted By: Scorpius
Date Posted: 22-Jun-2008 at 21:16
I agree with you. I am not questioning the need, I am questioning the people's understanding of the concept and their level of accepting actions as justified. It is all different. But once again that doesnt change the fact that we need justice in some form, that form differs here and there for everybody, but the fact is we are going to have it as it is.
What I am saying is Quran has a clear definition with a universally justified boundary set, which also the nature itself follows, which again makes it universal. The third law of Newtonian Physics :)
Look at the word transgress, it alone is enough to make somebody understand that no reaction in terms of magnitude, in terms of direction, can exceed the original force that was in action.
Yeap!
|
Posted By: arch.buff
Date Posted: 22-Jun-2008 at 21:38
Ya know, I cant completely disagree with you here Omar.
One possible way in which we may view the two religions can be placed in their infancy. For instance, can the actions of Muhammed be reconciled with Christian theology?
The way in which Islam spread runs counter to the way in which Christianity spread; which is a question of historical fact. While I am certain I am simplifying some aspects of Muhammed's cause(for which I apologize), Im sure that his cause, in Muslim eyes, was one that glorified God. And herein lies the differences. To the early christian, his/her death(martyrdom) far more glorified God then killing another, even if in defense of one's own self. Now, this outlook which is seen on a "personal" level, must also be strived for on a "community" level as well.
Allow me to shortly create a level of differences; if I in anyway distort Islam, feel free to correct me. Regrettably, Islamic theology is not my specialty, to say the least.
Now, although admittedly I am no Islamic scholar, it would seem that the action of killing, for Muhammed, seemed essential for the spreading of his message (Here I am not speaking of forced conversion). This, in the strictest sense of the word, would be foreign to early christian thought. However inadvertent, however regrettable, killing was an essential part of Islam if it was to flourish and not die out(ie.-Muhammed and his followers not die) [Ako has given a superb analysis with the Israelites in the OP]. Now conversely, after Christ's death, the Apostles had neither text(just OT not NT) nor sword. The Islamic cause had both and used them superbly. Christianity had only its message and the blood of its martyrs to wage its case, thus spreading her community.
Just a very simple analysis, which hopefully can be expanded upon.
------------- Be a servant to all, that is a quality of a King. |
Posted By: Richard XIII
Date Posted: 22-Jun-2008 at 21:46
|
The difference between love and justice is irreconcilable. Which is correct is far away from us, will see in the next life or never. And fascinated answer the questions please, what do you think about blasphemy.
------------- "I want to know God's thoughts... ...the rest are details." Albert Einstein |
Posted By: fascinated
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2008 at 00:21
|
arch.buff
You have to consider one fact; Jesus was sent to Israelites.
In other words He was preaching to a people who was aware of the previous messengers.
Islam on the other hand was sent among those whose fore fathers was not warned.
This should mean waht was sent to Israelites was sent as a whole and its completenes to a people who was vaugely familiar with the previous messages. They had go thorugh what Jews and Christians went thorugh at the same time in a very small period. The early Muslims tried to exist similar to Christians for about a ten years of period. They were bashed boyckoted and ambargoed and beaten sometimes to death. Hence came the difference between the Mekkan and Madinean verses. Until then Muslims were not defending themselves by force.
So actually Muslims experienced both Christian way and the Jewish way in one single generation.
More to that, if Jews had listened to Jesus there would not even be a Christianity today i.e. as if it is a different teaching that is.
|
Posted By: fascinated
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2008 at 01:17
|
The difference between love and justice is irreconcilable.
LOVE ... what does it mean really?
Actually, there would not be a concept as justice if there would not be love. So that forgiveness should have a value.
Which is correct is far away from us,
Not really, the opposite of live is loneliness due to incapable of doing anything, not hate nor anything else.
will see in the next life or never
. And fascinated answer the questions please, what do you think about blasphemy. Actually I do not think anything about it. What ever you do if you are sincerely seeking for the truth Allah will lead you ... what ever you do if you have ultarior motives or some motives other than finding the truth, you will be chasing your own tail.
You see!!! sincerity is the key. If you do all the wrong things in the world in the end you will understand the truth by knowing the false. However, this way is a very rough road, not for everyone after all.
|
Posted By: fascinated
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2008 at 01:22
"Oo! believers avoid from the fire that was prepared for the idolators"
That's what Qur'An says. So even being a believer without trying to avoid is not enough to save one from the fire.
|
Posted By: Richard XIII
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2008 at 01:52
|
Man you quote yourself! Love? A thing you don't understand, it is a pillar of western civilization. Sincerity? My own tail? All you do is to believe what you read, I'm sorry to tell you. Life and truth are more complicated. You are beautiful, you really believe what you think, how about the truth, about the crimes (christian or muslim) in the name of religion? About the differences, the necessity to accept each other. (For example, discriminatory rule: christian - with small c is correct; muslim with small m - incorrect), USA discriminates you in a positive way and you think is normal; isn't. Some danish stupid paper draw a joke about islam and you overreacted, some people are dead (muslim) and some embassies are burn. You kill yourself in Iraq in an unimaginable way and of course USA is quilty. We are guilty for everything, you are just victims, I don't think so, you choose your position and you must accept the situation and change it. And don't quote from Quoran, the western world doesn't believe in Bible, Quoran is nothing. ------------- "I want to know God's thoughts... ...the rest are details." Albert Einstein |
Posted By: arch.buff
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2008 at 04:01
True, Christ was sent as a Jew, but he was sent to Jew and Gentile alike. However, I understand what you're trying to convey. From what I know, the persecution of Muslims pretty much ended by the time of Muhammed's death. There was nothing to hinder Islam in her expansion, and it would appear Islam clearly acknowledged this. Islam was really a unifying tool for the Arabs. So, as history would tell us, Islam went on the warpath. Maybe this is a harsh word that should not be employed when one seeks to create a friendly dialogue; however, the raiding Arabs did not show up on the doorstep of the Middle-East and North Africa cupcakes in hand. Conversely, in many areas the Arabs were accepted with open arms for much of the Egyptian christians and christians in the broader area were not looked upon kindly by their Nicene brethren. Although this can not be equated to any sort of norm for all the other would be conquered areas. What should be of significant note here is the way in which both christian and muslim view those who would deny their very beliefs. Here, I am thinking specifically of a quote from the Quran:
'Say: "Obey Allah and His Messenger": But if they turn back, Allah loveth not those who reject Faith.' (Quran 3:32)
The NT, on the other hand, nowhere states that God does not love those of no faith. Christ even went on to teach that the rule that it be permitted to hate the enemies of God, was no longer valid. It would seem that both viewpoints from christians and muslims to the "infidel" would be a helpful tool to more properly analyze both violence manifest, and the harboring of notions from each side that could set in motion the acts that in most cases is condemned by both faiths.
As to your last point, I was under the assumption that this thread was intended for the discussion of comparative analysis of the world's two main religions as goes violence, not their validity. If that had been the case, I would have refered you to a few scholarly examples that treat the heretical sect that grew just outside of the sphere of Christianity, but not without its influences, and would in turn grow into what we today call, Islam. ------------- Be a servant to all, that is a quality of a King. |
Posted By: fascinated
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2008 at 04:09
|
Wow! here we go first indications of getting difficulty to digest my posts.
I am not familiar with the word processor of this forum. Also I do not have a computer I am writing in rush so be easy about it, will you?
Let’s see, To usurp cultures, to usurp natural resources of others, to start wars world wide, To bring concepts into humanity such as genocide, crusade etc. Ritchie this must be some pillar what you are talking about. You, as Europeans, loved Bosnians so much and from the intensity of your love you killed and watched them to be killed, right? You hunted to women as withes through centuries from your respect and love for them and when your love subsided a little you began to make them act in x rated movies so that you can get off, right? You killed scientists from your unstoppable love, right? Any how I believe you do “know” what love is. So tell us and we will be enlightened
Sincerity? My own tail? What should I believe or accept? Things that I do not read? Things that I have no idea or knowledge about? What do you believe other than you read in the tabloid magazine?
Life and truth are more complicated. At least you know that much !!!
You are beautiful, you really believe what you think, You just said I believe what I read … Now I am confused … I do not know what to believe … things that I think or things that I read
how about the truth, about the crimes (christian or muslim) in the name of religion? The religion does not belong to me, who owns it would do what is necessary. I am only on a path that I call deen (you translate it as religion).
About the differences, the necessity to accept each other. No one needs to accept any other just should learn existing together.
(For example, discriminatory rule: christian - with small c is correct; muslim with small m - incorrect), O.K. How about Christian but cussing after that… Do not get carried away by the superficial i.e. don’t chase your own tail grammar rules are only for deciding a from not meaning.
Than it is not called discrimination it is called favoring when there is favoring there is a benefit when there is a benefit it is a trade so both sides are happy.
Some danish stupid paper draw a joke about islam and you overreacted, some people are dead (muslim) and some embassies are burn. Why did danish paper do that? You are not asking and focusing on this but you are focusing on the reaction to it. For that matter just because, say Christians do not mind that does not mean making jokes about Jesus is O.K. And if it was for me Muslims should give same reaction when a stupid danish paper make jokes about Jesus as well or even about a “love guru.” No has the right to make fun others faith. Well there is verse in relation to this subject in the Qur’an but you do not want me to quote it so be it
You kill yourself in Like how unimaginative? (Even though I do not remember saying or even implying such a thing)
We are guilty for everything, you are just victims, Who doe you mean by “we?”
I don't think so, you choose your position and you must accept the situation and change it. How? I “we” say that you should stop what you are doing will you?
And don't quote from Quoran, the western world doesn't believe in Bible, Quoran is nothing. You have to calm down … It looks like you lost the coordination between your fingers and your brain. When you calm down and want to talk seriously then come again. |
Posted By: fascinated
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2008 at 04:38
OK, I would recomnmand you to read Karen Armstrong. She was a former Catholic nun and wrote a lot about interfaith issues. I do not have to go through all the details of how Islam spread. However, I will tell this; Economical expansion and ideological expansion are two different things. Beyond Jerusalem the expansion was made during the time of Fifth Khalif who was namde as Muawiyah. And those times when Islam went through a big change inside and out.
Jesus was sent to Israelites according to Bible and The Qur'An, not for the gentiles or to all humanity. I remeber that I quoted this before.
As for the validity issue I meant that Christianity becoming a different religion than Juadism was merely due to Jews reaction to Jesus' message. Gentile repsonded even though they were not responsible from the message.
No you can not define Islam a heretical sect of Christianity since Islam is unique on its message because of the Qur'an. The only religion that its name is mentioned in its source Is Islam, for example. If you bring a verse that God called the teaching of Jesus as Christianity or teaching of Moses as Judaism then you could have done that how ever the only religion on the face of the earth its name is mentioned in its source is Islam
"...Today I compeleted my favor upon you and I chose Islam for you as a religion"5:3 Qur'An
Just because Qur'an accepts the previous messangers is not enough to bring it close to become a sect of either Judaism or Christianity. Islam is Islam. No scholarly appraoch can change this. Again interpretation vs. clear expression.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2008 at 05:54
|
Read up on Hodgson if you want a historical account of the expansion. Again that would rather be called Arab expansion than "Islamic" expansion. Considering that Jewish and Christian tribes participated in the conquest alongside the Muslim, I would rather agree with fascinated in calling it economic expansion. 3:31 Say, "If you love God then follow me so God will love you and forgive your sins." God is Forgiver, Compassionate. 77 3:32 Say, "Obey God and the messenger." But if they turn away, then God does not like the ingrates. This deals with a clear rejection by people who have been explained the Word. However. If you had read on a little further you would have seen that the following verses back up the preceding. Again nitpicking doesn't bring much context in the Qu'ran. 3:113 They are not all the same, from the people of the book are an upright nation; they recite God's signs during parts of the night and they prostrate. 3:114 They acknowledge God and the Last day, promote recognized norms and deter from evil, and they hasten in goodness; these are of the reformed ones. 3:115 What they do of good will not be turned back, and God is aware of the conscientious. Clearly accepting Islam is not a perrogative, nor does God abandon everyone on account of it. 3:199 Among the people of the book are those who acknowledge God, what was sent down to you and what was sent down to them. They revere God and they do not purchase with God's signs a cheap price. These will have their reward with their Lord. God is quick in computation. ------------- |
Posted By: fascinated
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2008 at 08:29
|
A correction;
I said
Because QTL NFS (Waqtulu wanfusikum) is an idiom to tame one’s animal or lowly side (nafs). It does not mean commit suicide because that would be (MWT Mawta and the command form Yumitoo So literal meaning would be Yumitoon anfisikum which would mean take your own lives). Here I made a mistake MWT in command form “Mattawa” and the expression should be “Wamattawa anfisukum” Omar Hisham you must have noticed that Why didn't you say anything. I am trying to think in three languages here .. madhi, mudhari, amr all mixed up |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2008 at 11:44
|
Islam and Christianity are religions with the intent of benefiting humanity, violence is not encouraged, the virtues of peace, love and tolerance are encouraged as descent moral human behaviour.
The problem is not religion, its us humans. For example just look at this thread, indirectly its about, "my religion is more peaceful than yours", another superiority complex and a total neglect of the essence of religion.
------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: arch.buff
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2008 at 18:03
Thank you es_bih for all of your words, I do not wish to take quotes out of context, which is why I read quite a bit of the Third Chapter. I am somewhat familiar with how Muslims view other people of the Book, but maybe you missed the direction of my last post. I was refering to how Christians and Muslims view those that have no faith. The passsages you have quoted refer to only those 'people of the Book'. Also, the interpretation I have states "love", and the interpretation you have offered states "like". Any idea of what interpretation is more closer to the original Arabic?
Here, I will refer you back to a fragment of the post in question:
"It would seem that both viewpoints from christians and muslims to the "infidel" would be a helpful tool to more properly analyze both violence manifest, and the harboring of notions from each side that could set in motion the acts that in most cases is condemned by both faiths." -arch.buff
You see, I understand that Islam isnt inherently violent, but does it leave voids as to interpret violent actions to those unbelievers that do not acknowledge God?
------------- Be a servant to all, that is a quality of a King. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2008 at 20:17
|
Its Yuksels recent translation in accordance with two other scholars. Its the closest to Arabic for the most part. Seko has a link to it, they also ofoff a pdf bversion.er ------------- |
Posted By: fascinated
Date Posted: 24-Jun-2008 at 04:20
|
Akolouthos; The more I think about this the less I became sure of that I got the grammar right. So disregard the taking one’s own life issue with the verb MWT. Just keep that in mind that QTL NFS in the quoted verse means get rid of the earthly desires of one’s self.
My apologies for the mistake and just like the way I suggested you I all be more CAREFUL not to touch things I have enough knowledge about. I will not quote without being sure. |
Posted By: arch.buff
Date Posted: 24-Jun-2008 at 15:57
You see, this is the confusing part, for me at least. How can the expansion be seperated from Islam? In almost all the treatments Ive read it clearly expresses that the Arabs were filled with the zeal of Islam; truly, this was their rally call. A motivational source for all, if you will. How can that be seperated from their expansion? It is historically intertwined. ------------- Be a servant to all, that is a quality of a King. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 24-Jun-2008 at 16:54
|
Were the Christian and Jewish tribes also filled with zeal of Islam? You must separate connotations from facts sometimes. Even when dealing with early sources; a lot of times you will get one message if it is written after some time has passed. Here is an example - the Ottoman official annals in the 1600s were very Islamically oriented, whereas the reality of the 1400s actually had the Ottoman state as a multi-ethnic and multi-religious state whose conquests and expansion was based upon marriages - politics - diplomacy - and and more imperial based conquest. I think Finkel explains that well in her book Osman's dream. The sultans married into the Christian royal houses and into the Islamic/Turkic. Once the Empire stabilized and especially once they gained the Caliphate do we see a more Islamic outlook taking form, mostly in order to legitimize the royal history and their perrogatives to rule. Such a case can be applied to the early Islamic conquests, too. It is far too easy to credit Islam as the source of zeal - even by relative conmeporaries who looked back two generations and saw victories of generals such as Khalid ibn Walid as something astounding and God-given. Even by contemporaries he was called the Sword of God/Allah. For us however we tend to look at history more objectively and without a preset mission. History had been written in much a different way in antiquity than now - objectivity was rare - oft as Islam was gaining hegemony by the 9th ct a writer could attribute much to it - etc. In a sense they are ideologoes. Hodgson has a good book on it - and I believe Esposito, too. ------------- |
Posted By: fascinated
Date Posted: 25-Jun-2008 at 11:57
|
You have to consider one fact; Jesus was sent to Israelites. In other words He was preaching to a people who was aware of the previous messengers. Islam on the other hand was sent among those whose fore fathers was not warned. This should mean waht was sent to Israelites was sent as a whole and its completenes to a people who was vaugely familiar with the previous messages. They had go thorugh what Jews and Christians went thorugh at the same time in a very small period. The early Muslims tried to exist similar to Christians for about a ten years of period. They were bashed boyckoted and ambargoed and beaten sometimes to death. Hence came the difference between the Mekkan and Madinean verses. Until then Muslims were not defending themselves by force. So actually Muslims experienced both Christian way and the Jewish way in one single generation. More to that, if Jews had listened to Jesus there would not even be a Christianity today i.e. as if it is a different teaching that is. True, Christ was sent as a Jew, but he was sent to Jew and Gentile alike. However, I understand what you're trying to convey. From what I know, the persecution of Muslims pretty much ended by the time of Muhammed's death. There was nothing to hinder Islam in her expansion, and it would appear Islam clearly acknowledged this. Islam was really a unifying tool for the Arabs. So, as history would tell us, Islam went on the warpath. Maybe this is a harsh word that should not be employed when one seeks to create a friendly dialogue; however, the raiding Arabs did not show up on the doorstep of the Middle-East and 'Say: "Obey Allah and His Messenger": But if they turn back, Allah loveth not those who reject Faith.' (Quran 3:32) The NT, on the other hand, nowhere states that God does not love those of no faith. Christ even went on to teach that the rule that it be permitted to hate the enemies of God, was no longer valid. It would seem that both viewpoints from christians and muslims to the "infidel" would be a helpful tool to more properly analyze both violence manifest, and the harboring of notions from each side that could set in motion the acts that in most cases is condemned by both faiths. As to your last point, I was under the assumption that this thread was intended for the discussion of comparative analysis of the world's two main religions as goes violence, not their validity. If that had been the case, I would have refered you to a few scholarly examples that treat the heretical sect that grew just outside of the sphere of Christianity, but not without its influences, and would in turn grow into what we today call, Islam. OK, I would recomnmand you to read Karen Armstrong. She was a former Catholic nun and wrote a lot about interfaith issues. I do not have to go through all the details of how Islam spread. However, I will tell this; Economical expansion and ideological expansion are two different things. Beyond Jesus was sent to Israelites according to Bible and The Qur'An, not for the gentiles or to all humanity. I remeber that I quoted this before. As for the validity issue I meant that Christianity becoming a different religion than Juadism was merely due to Jews reaction to Jesus' message. Gentile repsonded even though they were not responsible from the message. No you can not define Islam a heretical sect of Christianity since Islam is unique on its message because of the Qur'an. The only religion that its name is mentioned in its source Is Islam, for example. If you bring a verse that God called the teaching of Jesus as Christianity or teaching of Moses as Judaism then you could have done that how ever the only religion on the face of the earth its name is mentioned in its source is Islam "...Today I compeleted my favor upon you and I chose Islam for you as a religion"5:3 Qur'An Just because Qur'an accepts the previous messangers is not enough to bring it close to become a sect of either Judaism or Christianity. Islam is Islam. No scholarly appraoch can change this. Again interpretation vs. clear expression. You see, this is the confusing part, for me at least. How can the expansion be seperated from Islam? In almost all the treatments Ive read it clearly expresses that the Arabs were filled with the zeal of Islam; truly, this was their rally call. A motivational source for all, if you will. How can that be seperated from their expansion? It is historically intertwined. As long as those who spread were/are Muslims you can not separate it from Islam. But than it is the same for Christianity. As long as those who spread you can not separate it from Christianity. Similarly, today’s western culture comes to its technological level even though Christianity. Christians claim this advancement or even though freedom of speech came to this popularity today even though Christian church Christians claim this. More to that, these happened in So, regardless whether Christianity is peaceful or not the presence of it or survival of it depends on others who take action that would result spreading the Christianity, even if it is a bloody conflict. For that matter we can easily say that Christianity could spread only in an opportunistic manner more than being peaceful. Here is a scenario for you the world’s economical system is based on usury right now. Christian faith is against usury as well as Muslim faith. If Muslims fight to get rid of this system and succeed to topple over it and bring a system that does no depend on usury Christian should embrace it. However, in case of Islam, if you try to evangelize Muslims by trying to claim that Christianity is more peaceful than Islam, Muslims have all the right in world and in the here after to tell you that “If it wasn’t for Muslims and Islam you would not be enjoying the results of the non-usury based economy, your faith might be peaceful but apparently was not enough to make necessary changes by taking necessary actions. So we do not accept your faith since if we fall into such a situation again we will not be able to get out of it especially when it comes to fight against the power holder of the time.” You see being just and being violent are too different things. And that’s why if it wasn’t for Constantine Christianity could have never went in to When I said Christianity never had the chance to spread at all the reason was so called being peaceful or rather being pacifist. Amish being the most pacifists of all were not even considered as true Christians at all. Their home land, today’s Switzerland has everything to do with money issues involved in wars etc. i.e. making money out of violence but they do not want to involve in any war is not enough not make them peaceful or non-violent at all. So, Yes those who spread to the world conquering etc. were Muslims and that was the time when the strength of a nation, Muslim or not, was related to how big a land they occupy. Hence came the Crusades since the Pop Urban felt that his reigning area was getting smaller and that meant less income to the church. However, Christians regardless how non-violent they may be spread or try to spread into the So it is like this if Muslims did spread even though they did it for capturing land due to economical, strategic or simply become powerful they did not close people to the message of Islam at the same time. If this is violent, though, Christians who are inherently peaceful did the same thing which should bring a bigger question mark in means being violent. However I am not sure what we are discussing here Islam spread out the world via violence? Or Muslims spread out the world via violence? In both case the argument is wrong, although we know that forcing someone into a faith is impossible.
|
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 25-Aug-2008 at 08:00
|
Dear fascinated, Please forgive me for my delay in responding to you. I assure you that my time was occupied. The response below is quite disorganized and tries to address the body of accusations and arguments you have raised in a comprehensive sense, which may or may not be of assistance to you. Anyway, here we go:
I chose this quote to begin this post because I feel it indicates a real problem. If you do not feel capable of carrying on a dialog with me, that is one thing. If you feel I am misrepresenting myself, it is quite another. You may feel free to continue doing so, but I will simply reaffirm that I strive to speak honestly and openly on this forum always.
Hm. I think you may be failing to pick up on the fact that I am an Orthodox Christian. That is to say that Aquinas, for all his philosophical mettle, is not a philosopher I feel personally obliged to contend based solely on his authority. As for Averroes, despite all of his faults he is one of my favorite philosophers.
I couldn't agree more. I would say, however, that my field of study is quite relevant to a historical understanding of the context in which the Truth developed. That said, this is certainly, as you have implied, a secondary concern; we agree -- at least to some degree -- here.
Frankly, I'm not concerned with whether or not you respect me. Nor am I concerned with your posturing (attempting falsely to assert that I insulted you). What I am concerned with is the dialog you claim to be concerned with; if you really wish to have it, please drop the pretenses.
In fact, the fact that inherency refers to a very broad area is precisely the point I was trying to make. And the question of inherency, in this situation, deals with whether or not a violent act is inherently justifiable within the broader exegetical context -- which is, indeed, necessary -- of the respective faiths.
You may feel free to PM me. That is the way what you propose is carried out on this forum.
You will not that I informed the readers that I was "above my head" in the topic of Muslim exegesis. That is precisely why I wanted Muslims to participate in this thread: to fill the void and grant a broader context. The purpose of threads on this forum is to generate discussion on substantive issues. You would do better to drop the polemical style of discourse you adopted earlier in this thread and continue discussing issues based on the merits of particular arguments, as you have done recently.
You will become familiar with time; never fear.
A much more clever and humorous solution than mine; that will I grant.
First, I never suggested that you should be kicked out of this forum. I think if you ask around you will find that I am always in favour of giving people as many chances as possible. That said, my advice was simply meant to help you acclimate to the manner of discussion on this forum. Your accusations of insults and attempted suppression are baseless; I was simply trying to help you. As for your addrssing points, you had not done anything of the sort by the time this post was completed. That said, I seem to recall that you did begin addressing the argument below. Anyway, I'll read on, and respond as the Spirit leads me.
I'm not sure exactly what point you are trying to make here. Could you outline it a bit more clearly? I certainly don't follow your conclusion that "God is not in control of events," at least not from a Christian theological perspective.
So is your argument that there is no such thing as exegesis? Please clarify.
This is no proof of the falseness of my statement (that Scripture requires interpretation, explanation, or whatever you wish to call it). Rather it is simply a statement that my assertion was wrong. You may feel free to venture such groundless assertions, but I am certainly under no obligation to respond to them.
I am familiar with the Christian differentiation betweent dying to the flesh and dying in the more commonly understood sense. Is this what you are speaking of? If so, please clarify and expand. As for the authority of Gregory the Dialogist, I feel you may benefit from a brief crash course in Orthodox theology. We hold to the consensus patrum -- the consensus of the fathers. While all of the fathers are a part of this, any one father may be individually mistaken. IT is a very organic system, and it is often criticized as impractical. That said, it has survived for two-thousand years. Since you have not demonstrated anything regarding Gregory the Dialogist as of yet, I really don't have any more work to do on this topic. If you wish to begin a discussiong, please expand and clarify.
Care to offer an exegetical or historical analysis here, the which was the point of the thread? If you mean to prove that texts speak for themselves, I believe you have a good deal of work to do -- but no more than a modern evangelical Christian. It is an absurd position, but one that has a few simplistic arguments to its credit. Anyway, I certainly can't respond until you present your evidence.
Could you please give a citation? I don't doubt it, but analyzing the texts is precisely the purpose of this thread.
Here is where you come into your own, and begin to fulfill the purpose of this thread. Keep them coming. This is something I will need time to look at to respond to, and I have no idea what form my response will take, or whether we will agree or disagree here.
Once again, I think you need a crash course in Orthodoxy. We use the Septuagint, as did the early Church. If you wish to understand why, you have but to google the subject, or look on wikipedia. Anyway, the text of the Septuagint is our canonical text, and, as an Orthodox Christian, I could hardly use anything else. You should really research the matter, if you wish to understand my perspective on the Holy Scriptures.
Everything here could also be said of the other Abrahamic faiths, as noted. That said, the purpose of this thread is neither to provide a critique of Islam, nor is it to provide an apologia; the purpose is to examine a specific issue in a comparative sense.
Doing my best. Glad you understand my time constraints -- you have my thanks.
Because it is mentioned in our Scriptures: The next day, as they went on their journey and drew near the city, Peter went up on the housetop to pray, about the sixth hour. Then he became very hungry and wanted to eat; but while they made ready he fell into a trance and saw heavens opened and an object like a great sheet bound at the four corners, descending to all kinds of four-footed beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air. And a voice came to him, "Rise, Peter; kill and eat." But Peter said, "Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean." And a voice spoke to him again the second time, "What God has cleansed you must not call common." This was done three times. And the object was taken up into heaven again. [Acts 10: 9-15] I am well aware of the arguments against the Christian --and oldest -- interpretation of the passage. I am also aware of the fact that they are based upon -- surprise -- exegesis! If you wish to discuss this matter, you may start a thread; I think it would be a wonderful topic, and we certainly don't have one on the subject thus far.
Why, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. I thought you knew that. Seriously though, this would also make another good topic. Feel free to start a thread. Honestly, if you pursue all of your good ideas in the proper format -- by starting new threads for specific topics -- I doubt I'll get any sleep in the near future.
A wonderful, and I suspect erudite analysis. You should post it in a thread dealing with the concept, and I will respond as soon as I get the chance.
I think you may be laboring under the assumption that any who do not agree with you are not as sincere as you in their search for the truth. You may designate them as mistaken -- indeed, if you have an alternate belief system it is only natural. That said, not everyone is going to agree with you, and the fact that they do not does not mean that they are any less zealous and sincere than you.
If you want, I can explain how to quote. PM me.
I'm sure you're not defending or minimizing the disproportionate reaction in the Muslim world to the Danish cartoons. I willingly condemn violence committed by Christians -- indeed, it is my duty; I expect the same from you, at least if you are defending Islam as a religion of peace. fascinated, you certainly have a great deal of potential, and I look forward to discussing many topics with you in the future. That said, you need to learn to stick to the topic. You also, I hope, will post new threads on some of the topics you have raised -- the forum could really benefit from your knowledge. Anyway, PM me if you want to learn how to quote, and I am looking forward to keeping in touch in the future. -Akolouthos |
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 25-Aug-2008 at 09:58
|
The Islam is the creation of Muhammad, a man who ordered the killing oh hundreds people and torture of many prisoners, who attacked and robbed cities and caravans, who enslaved thousands, who raped his female slaves, who allowed sex with pre-puberal children and frottage with children as young as one year.
So how can the religion instituted by him be peaceful? Even if its precepts would be peaceful, knowing the life of the founder will lead to the wish of emulating him. Muslims are beheading people because Muhammad beheaded, they are lying because Muhammad lied, they consider the non-Muslims their slaves because Muhammad considered this. But even the precepts of Islam are violent. The punishment for male apostasy is death and in the original Quran death was also the punishment for adulter. The punishment for blasphemy is death, the punishment for stealing is mutilation. -------------  |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 25-Aug-2008 at 17:09
|
Hello Menu
Well, could you prove what you said because you just offended alot of people here. What ever the prophet did one must remember, it was the 7th century AD not the 21st century. Also, Biblical prophets did much much worse than what anything is claimed by the prophet So who is better?
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 25-Aug-2008 at 17:41
Those are your opinions, but you rarely recollect facts or back up your opinions with credible evidence. There are other bashing topics that you could engage in, I believe Ako started this for a more serious comparison. ------------- |
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 25-Aug-2008 at 18:08
I can prove, everything is from Qur'an and Ahadeeth. But it will take some time (few days). I tried to explain the reason of the violent behaviour of the Muslims. Your arggument has not ground as spiritual leaders that preceded Muhammad, Buddha and Jesus, haven't preached anything violent. ------------- |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 25-Aug-2008 at 18:13
|
Al-Jassas and es_bih, you get my praise for keeping your cool from the likes of Menumorut. But you don't really have to take him seriously. Afterall this is the same guy who believes his mental capacity will help him reach immortality. ------------- |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 25-Aug-2008 at 18:16
|
Ako, good work with this thread. You get my praise for handling the needless incriminations from the member who calls himself 'fascinated'. ------------- |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 25-Aug-2008 at 18:16
|
Hello Menu
You tried to explain nothing in your post earlier. It was just a pack of insults that if not proven you must apologize. Jesus didn't preach violence but his words were used to justify it, the bible is full of horrefic tales of violence and its justification and the Bible, old testiment that is, is accepted by all Christian dominations as the true word of God and that Christians must follow it. So who is better?
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 25-Aug-2008 at 19:37
|
As I said, those things are in Qur'an and Ahadeeth. Why should I apologize?
I will collect those verses and ahadeeth and put them here. As for what Seko said, this is a real insult. Anyway, is a funny thing also because we are on a religious topic about two religions that both support the belief in immortality. ------------- |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 25-Aug-2008 at 20:08
|
Can't wait for your post Menu, just can't wait
Al-Jassas |
Posted By: fascinated
Date Posted: 25-Aug-2008 at 20:44
|
Incrimination: to charge with or show evidence or proof of involvement in a crime or fault.
Dear Seko, if you are not aware I brought some arguments in a way that is called "factual."
You also say "needless" however ...
Islam. This name comes from the root SLM that happens to be same root for the word Salaam meaning, peace. Just because of the preconditioning of your minds you easily attached the concept of violance to Islam, similar the way you do it with the word terrorism.
Needless ... Incrimination ... I wonder sometimes the mechanism that you guys use for reasoning. I can not say that it is logic because if that would be the case you would not be blurting out such arguments this easily.
Just for you think about assuming that you are Christian you believe that Jesus died on cross for your sins, right? This you call as the ultimate sacrifice, right?
From a neutral point of view a heedless, senselss murder of God in flesh provides you your salvation. Sacrifice, by looking at this act is not even an option because from many angles sacrifice means to give up something without expecting a gain. So at best Jesus was a ransom not a sacrifice.
Beyond this your sole salvation relies on an act that is called violant murder by any standard. You need violance to legitimize your salvation. Not only that you redefine everything to legitimize a murder for that.
Then you redefine back violance and call Islam inherently violant.
No... Christianity is inherently violant since there blood, pain, suffering, torture sensless murder on its base. Without it you can not define yourself as Christian.
However, the Bible is not inherently violant.
If you wanted incrimination, you got it.
If you can not prove that Death of Jesus Christ (according to your belief) was not violant and your salvation does not depend on it mere wishful thinking is not going to cut the deal.
If you want to insult someone and try to hide behind esxpressions that appear to be factual, or informative etc. gives more clues about someone than simply insulting directly. Being unethical is worse than being sincere but not to be able control one's temper.
Now, I deliberately used such kind of style in this post. Can you go beyond my style and come up with a meaningful explanation about this violance issue. I expect you to prove;
1_ Jesus death on cross was not a violant act
2_ Jesus death was a sacrifice because those who wanted to kill Jesus was aware of this.
3_ If you understand a scaricice from the Jesus point of you and try to define a sensless murder as a sacrifice again by saying that;
"greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:13).
How can you blame those Palestinians who sacrifice their own lives for their fellow men (I am not using the term suicide bomber if you notice). Well I ask you, anyone can try to answer.
|
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 25-Aug-2008 at 21:48
|
fascinated, continue with your comparative inquiry. The topic at hand should be the focus, not other members or your defensive attitude.
Menu, obviously you did not like my analogy. I made it with a purpose in mind. One of the reasons is to show that facts are portrayed in various ways. One way is to present them with references and without persoanal bias. Another way to observe them is through a filter as shown by the presenter. You chose to show us your bias and I chose to do the same about you. My words are even more factual than yours since what I did say about you is recorded in your own writing. No apology from me. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 26-Aug-2008 at 00:46
|
------------- |
Posted By: fascinated
Date Posted: 26-Aug-2008 at 02:50
Then, don't post offensive comments. FYI even my defensive attitude is related to the topic, very closely related. I am expecting an answer if you have one.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 26-Aug-2008 at 02:56
|
I think he asked you to refrain from those very posts you are initiating in now. This thread is all about the topic at hand, and references and research of course. Not rants, quirky commentary, or personal opinions. ------------- |
Posted By: fascinated
Date Posted: 26-Aug-2008 at 07:46
I think you respond without reading.
|
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 26-Aug-2008 at 08:44
|
The amount of verses in Qur'an describing Allah cursing and condemning the disbelievers is enormous. You can have an image by surfing the Suras from the http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm - Skeptic's Annotated Quran , where the violent and intolerant (also other categories of verses considered innoportune) verses are higlighted in diferent colours and explained there where they are not clear. The legend of is in the upper-right part of each page. You can click on those categories in the upper-right corner and will be listed all the verses from that category. For example: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/int/long.html - Intolerance http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/cruelty/long.html - Cruelty and Violence Also, on pages, at some verses are links to some pages dedicated to some themes. The ones who refer to violence are: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/topics/doom.html - Doom in Quran http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/topics/fire.html - The Fire I think that is useful to put together some verses that presents some themes that are predominat in Qur'an, if not by quantity, by their impact onto reader's mind. VERSES THAT PRESENT THE DISBELIEVERS AS HATED BY GOD 2:10 In their hearts is a disease, and Allah increaseth their disease. A painful doom is theirs because they lie. 2:17 Their likeness is as the likeness of one who kindleth fire, and when it sheddeth its light around him Allah taketh away their light and leaveth them in darkness, where they cannot see, 2:18 Deaf, dumb and blind; and they return not. 2:20 The lightning almost snatcheth away their sight from them. As often as it flasheth forth for them they walk therein, and when it darkeneth against them they stand still. If Allah willed, He could destroy their hearing and their sight. Lo! Allah is able to do all things. 3:151 We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve because they ascribe unto Allah partners, for which no warrant hath been revealed. Their habitation is the Fire, and hapless the abode of the wrong-doers. 4:47 O ye unto whom the Scripture hath been given! Believe in what We have revealed confirming that which ye possess, before We destroy countenances so as to confound them, or curse them as We cursed the Sabbath-breakers (of old time). The commandment of Allah is always executed.(Christians and Jews must believe what Allah has revealed to Muhammad or Allah will disfigure their faces or turn them into apes, as he did the Sabbath-breakers) 7:4 How many a township have We destroyed! As a raid by night, or while they slept at noon, Our terror came unto them. 7:5 No plea had they, when Our terror came unto them, save that they said: Lo! We were wrong-doers. 7:72 And We saved him and those with him by a mercy from Us, and We cut the root of those who denied Our revelations and were not believers. 7:166 So when they took pride in that which they had been forbidden, We said unto them: Be ye apes despised and loathed (Allah turns Jews into apes) 8:22 Lo! the worst of beasts in Allah's sight are the deaf, the dumb, who have no sense.(the non-Muslims) 17:16 And when We would destroy a township We send commandment to its folk who live at ease, and afterward they commit abomination therein, and so the Word (of doom) hath effect for it, and we annihilate it with complete annihilation. 17:17 How many generations have We destroyed since Noah! And Allah sufficeth as Knower and Beholder of the sins of His slaves. 54:51 And verily We have destroyed your fellows; but is there any that remembereth ? JIHAD (THE CAUSE OF ALLAH IN THE SENSE OF THE HOLY WAR) 2:190 Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors. (Is true that this verse seems to discourage the agression but the general context is rather offensive than defensive) 2:191 And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. 3:157 And what though ye be slain in Allah's way or die therein ? Surely pardon from Allah and mercy are better than all that they amass. 4:76 Those who believe do battle for the cause of Allah; and those who disbelieve do battle for the cause of idols. So fight the minions of the devil. Lo! the devil's strategy is ever weak. 4:91 Ye will find others who desire that they should have security from you, and security from their own folk. So often as they are returned to hostility they are plunged therein. If they keep not aloof from you nor offer you peace nor hold their hands, then take them and kill them wherever ye find them. Against such We have given you clear warrant. 47:4 Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens. 5:32 For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty), but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth.(this verse is apparently good but the next one is extremely cruel) 5:33 The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom; 8:12 When thy Lord inspired the angels, (saying): I am with you. So make those who believe stand firm. I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Then smite the necks and smite of them each finger. 8:13 That is because they opposed Allah and His messenger. Whoso opposeth Allah and His messenger, (for him) lo! Allah is severe in punishment. 8:17 Ye (Muslims) slew them not, but Allah slew them. And thou (Muhammad) threwest not when thou didst throw, but Allah threw, that He might test the believers by a fair test from Him. Lo! Allah is Hearer, Knower.(Those that the Muslims killed were not really killed by them. It was Allah who did the killing) 8:30 And when those who disbelieve plot against thee (O Muhammad) to wound thee fatally, or to kill thee or to drive thee forth; they plot, but Allah (also) plotteth; and Allah is the best of plotters.(Allah is the best of plotters) 8:50 If thou couldst see how the angels receive those who disbelieve, smiting faces and their backs and (saying): Taste the punishment of burning! 8:59 And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah's Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. 8:61 And if they incline to peace, incline thou also to it, and trust in Allah. Lo! He, even He, is the Hearer, the Knower. 9:5 Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. 9:111 Lo! Allah hath bought from the believers their lives and their wealth because the Garden will be theirs: they shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain. It is a promise which is binding on Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur'an. Who fulfilleth His covenant better than Allah ? Rejoice then in your bargain that ye have made, for that is the supreme triumph. 9:123 O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him). 22:15 Whoso is wont to think (through envy) that Allah will not give him (Muhammad) victory in the world and the Hereafter (and is enraged at the thought of his victory), let him stretch a rope up to the roof (of his dwelling), and let him hang himself. (Whoever thinks that Allah will not give Muhammad victory should go hang himself.) 33:61 Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter. 86:16 And I plot a plot (against them). (Allah plots against non-Muslims) SLAVERY, RAPE, MUTILATION, PLUNDERING 4:24 And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess. It is a decree of Allah for you. {You can't have sex with married women, unless they are slaves obtained in war, with whom you may rape or do whatever you like} 5:38 As for the thief, both male and female, cut off their hands. It is the reward of their own deeds, an exemplary punishment from Allah. Allah is Mighty, Wise. 8:1 They ask thee (O Muhammad) of the spoils of war. Say: The spoils of war belong to Allah and the messenger, so keep your duty to Allah, and adjust the matter of your difference, and obey Allah and His messenger, if ye are (true) believers. 8:41 And know that whatever ye take as spoils of war, lo! a fifth thereof is for Allah, and for the messenger and for the kinsman (who hath need) and orphans and the needy and the wayfarer, if ye believe in Allah and that which We revealed unto Our slave on the Day of Discrimination, the day when the two armies met. And Allah is Able to do all things. (Allah, Muhammad, and "the kinsman" (Muhammad's relatives?) each get a one-fifth cut of the "spoils of war") 8:70 O Prophet! Say unto those captives who are in your hands: If Allah knoweth any good in your hearts He will give you better than that which hath been taken from you, and will forgive you. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. (Allah gave Muhammad slaves as war booty) 30:28 He coineth for you a similitude of yourselves. Have ye, from among those whom your right hands possess, partners in the wealth We have bestowed upon you, equal with you in respect thereof, so that ye fear them as ye fear each other (that ye ascribe unto Us partners out of that which We created) ?(It's OK to own slaves) 65:4 And for such of your women as despair of menstruation, if ye doubt, their period (of waiting) shall be three months, along with those who have it not. And for those with child, their period shall be till they bring forth their burden. And whosoever keepeth his duty to Allah, He maketh his course easy for him. (Allah's rules for divorcing wives that have not yet reached puberty) 70:29 And those who preserve their chastity 70:30 Save with their wives and those whom their right hands possess, for thus they are not blameworthy; (You don't have to be chaste around your wives or your slave girls) APARTHEID 4:92 It is not for a believer to kill a believer unless (it be) by mistake. He who hath killed a believer by mistake must set free a believing slave, and pay the blood- money to the family of the slain, unless they remit it as a charity. If he (the victim) be of a people hostile unto you, and he is a believer, then (the penance is) to set free a believing slave. 4:93 Whoso slayeth a believer of set purpose, his reward is hell for ever. Allah is wroth against him and He hath cursed him and prepared for him an awful doom. 4:144 O ye who believe! Choose not disbelievers for (your) friends in place of believers. Would ye give Allah a clear warrant against you ? 5:51 O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk. 5:60 Shall I tell thee of a worse (case) than theirs for retribution with Allah ? (Worse is the case of him) whom Allah hath cursed, him on whom His wrath hath fallen and of whose sort Allah hath turned some to apes and swine, and who serveth idols.(Allah has turned some Christians and Jews into apes and swine) 8:73 And those who disbelieve are protectors one of another - If ye do not so, there will be confusion in the land, and great corruption. ( Disbelievers cause confusion and "corruption in the land") The nexts are some Ahadeeth that present murdering, plunderring, raping, the genocide as God's will. These are only from the Ahadeeth which can be found online. There are many others accounts about I found information from second sources. The site is http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/searchhadith.html - MSA-USC Hadith Database I put them in the order they are on the site, so not thematic. I didn't copied them but described with my words (for the economy of space): Sahih Bukhari http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/008.sbt.html#001.008.367 - 8 Prayers (Salat) : 367 - The conquest of the Khaibar clan. The Muslims took the captives. The Prophet allows one of his men to choose a slave-girl, but the man choose Safiya bint Huyai who was the most beautiful among some clans. So the Prophet is changing his mind and gives another girl to his man and then "marry" Safiya, consuming the marriage in that night http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/046.sbt.html - 46 Manumission of Slaves : 717 - The extermination of the males of Banu Mustaliq clan and enslavement of females and children 718 - The rape of the women of Banu Mustaliq my the Muslim men with the approval of the Prophet http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/047.sbt.html - 47 Gifts : 765 - The Prophet says about a freed slave-girl that she would better been gived to an uncle of the owner than to be freed http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html - 52 Fighting for the Cause of Allah (Jihaad) : 73 - The Prophet says "Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords" 175 - The Prophet promises the Paradise to those of his followers who will undertake a naval expedition against the Constantinople 177 - "Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him"" 256 - Before attacking a pagan settlement, the companions ask the Prophet if is not wrong to put the women and children in danger. He say no, because they too are pagan 260 - The Prophet says that the apostates to be killed 283 - A Muslim should not be put to death if he kills an infidel http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/053.sbt.html - 53 One-fifth of Booty to the Cause of Allah (Khumus) : 369 - At the Battle of Mecca two boys kill Abu Jahl, a Meccan adversary of the Prophet. He rewards them with the spoils of the deceased http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/059.sbt.html - 59 Military Expeditions led by the Prophet (pbuh) (Al-Maghaazi) : 287 - Attack of the caravans of Quraish 314 - The Prophet reproves the corpses of the killed adversaries 362 - The expeling Jewish clans Bani An-Nadir, Bani Qainuqa, the tribe of 'Abdullah bin Salam, Bani Haritha from their lands 369 - The assassination of the poet Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf, who criticized the Prophet in his poems. The murder team deceived the poet that they want to borrow money from him 448 -The extermination of the Banu Quraiza men and the enslaving of the women and children 637-The Prophet says about one of his companions that deserves more than having sex with a slave-girl 641 - The Prophet send an expedition against a Yemenite pagan center. The riders are killing whoever they found there and are blessed by the Prophet for this http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/082.sbt.html - 82 Punishment of Disbelievers at War with Allah and His Apostle : 805-806 - The Prophet commands the stoning of an adulterer 808 - "The Prophet said, "The boy is for (the owner of) the bed and the stone is for the person who commits illegal sexual intercourse.'" 809 - The Prophet commands the stoning of two adulterous Jews in accordance with the Torah 815 -another case of stoning, with a strange process 839 -another case Sahih Muslim http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/019.smt.html - 19 The Book of Jihad and Expedition (Kitab Al-Jihad wa'l-Siyar) : 4322 - The Prophet answers positive when questioned if the children of the polytheists should be killed during night raids 4292 - Raid made by the Prophet upon the Banu Mustaliq clan. Some are killed, some took as prisoners Sunan Abu-Dawud http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/abudawud/014.sat.html - 14 Jihad (Kitab Al-Jihad) : 2495 - Before attacking the Banu Hawazin clan, the Prophet says that the women and cattle of this clan will be their booty if Allah wills 2664 - The Prophet says to kill the old polytheist men 2678 - On the day of conquest of Mecca, a singing girl is killed because it was disgraced by the Prophet 2716 - The Prophet gives to one of his companions the sword of an enemy killed by that man http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/abudawud/019.sat.html - 19 Tribute, Spoils, and Rulership (Kitab Al-Kharaj, Wal-Fai' Wal-Imarah) : 2996 - At the instigation of the Prophet to kill any Jew, a Jewish merchant is assassinated http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/abudawud/038.sat.html - 38 Prescribed Punishments (Kitab Al-Hudud) : 4390 - The famous genocide of the Banu Qurayza tribe. Those males who had begun to grow puberal hair are killed And now something about a well-known verse that have been used as an argument for the non-constrictive character of the Islam: "Let there be no compulsion in religion." Many (most?) of the Islamic scholars consider this verse abrogated: Still, no verse is more frequently cited by contemporary Muslims preachers and analysts to depict Islam as peaceful and compassionate as 2:256, "Let there be no compulsion in religion." For Sheikh Abdur Rahman, the chief justice of Pakistan, this verse is one of the most important, containing a charter of freedom of conscience unparalleled in the religious annals of mankind.[65] Muhammad offered this verse in his first year of residence in Medina when he needed the Jews' support. Nahhas, with the authority of Ibn â€Abbas, said: "Scholars differed concerning 2:256. Some said it has been abrogated by 9:73 for the Prophet compelled the Arabs to embrace Islam and fight those that had no alternative but to surrender to Islam. Other scholars said that 2:256 had not been abrogated concerning the People of the Book. It is only the infidels who are compelled to embrace Islam."[66] Suyuti does not see 2:256 abrogated by 9:73 but rather interprets 9:73 as a case of postponing the fight until Muslims become strong. He argues that when Muslims were weak, God commanded them to be patient. http://www.meforum.org/article/1754 - http://www.meforum.org/article/1754 http://thequran.com/Abrogations.aspx?t=2&r=1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,41,46,51,66,71 - List of abrogated verses
I don't know if comes from the same root but anyway, what Muslims understand by peace is different by what other people understand. The Islamic peace is when all the world has become Muslim. Untill then there is Jihad, in the sense of Holy War for the instauration of Islam as the unique religion of humankind. Every Muslim, moderate or not, thinks like this. They don't accept the existence of other religions.
I think one should not consider a book as the ultimate horizont. If God is alive, He is present and He enlight and inspire me directly. The books are dead and what I read in the gospels from historical and theological point of view doesn't move me in any way. In fact I'm not sure if the Incarnation took place or not. But the moral-issued words from the New Testament are very powerful, is a sort of morals much superior to the common ethics, as a priest-father said, you feel that the commands are a projection of the divine way of being in our plan of existence as creatures.
This argument is artificialy build. The teachings of Jesus are absolute passive, there is nothing dynamic or violent. Is the same philosofy as the Buddhism, even more, it says to make an exagerate effort to become the servant of the one who agress you. The pain is not an objective (auto-flagelation is a deviation).
The Old Testament is very violent and I think the Islam is much indebted to it.
1. The death on cross was violent, but from the side of the ones who killed Him. 2-3. It surely was the death of an innocent and peaceful man, so can be called a sacrifice. For the sense of Reedemption I don't know what to say.
I don't know the situation of Palestinians, what exactly they want and what is their condition but I know that they are terrorizing the Christians from their territories, there are pogroms and the percent dropped dramatically due to emigration. Nazareth was a majoritary Christian town fw decades ago, now is majoritary Muslim. Christians are (today at least) peacefuly people, like the Buddhist too, but they are persecuted in ALL the majoritary Muslim countries. There are horros about people in the West or elsewhere doesn't know. There is a site that informs about these: http://www.persecution.com/ - http://www.persecution.com/ ------------- |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 26-Aug-2008 at 10:44
|
Hello Menu
Well you have gone to lengths to bring all these verses and hadiths but unfortunately for you, to no avail.
So, what is wrong with God threatening those who refuse Isalm with Hell? The site is full with Biblical verses from both testiments about it. Every religion in the world thinks that way as well so what did you think the Quran will say about people who insult God, they will go to the Firdous?
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html - http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html
And actually for your knowledge, Islam differes from these religion because many ofthe scholars believe that all the people in Hell will eventually go back to Paradise after being in Hell for a long time because As the caliph Omar said "God's mercy will save even those in Hell from being there for eternity". Shaikh Omar Al-Ashqar's book on Aqidah quoting other sources I will bring on later.
About Jihad, well you quoted the same verse that distroyed your own argumen and is the corner stone of Jihad rulings:
2:190 Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.
then when you found that your entire argument about Jihad is up in flames you began to put in your own thoughts which you have no right to do so.
As for slavery, well first we are talking about the 7th century not the 21st. Last time Ichecked slavery was legal all over the world and all churches and religions accepted it. Also, go to islamic jurispudence books and read about slavery. Only POWs are eligible for being slaves, this means that originally they are not, they are treated as free men and are free men unless otherwise their status is turned into slavery. The decision is given to the ruler of the Islamic nation that takes these POWs either to free them, exchange them, make them slaves or keep them as such. Slavery isn't a must in the islamic world and there has been many instants when slavery was banned early on. Now because of international agreements it is forbidden to take slaves and this is perfectly legal in Islam, not taking slaves that is because Freedom is the natural right of every human, that is if a none muslim claimed a child as his son and a muslim claimed him as his slave, with no other proofs, the child is given to the none muslim because the freedom is naturally assumed to be superior to any claim of slavery.
As for "raping" slaves well this wasn't rape, it was the natural laws of that period. When a none married woman is taken into slavery than she is a concubine and the rightful ownership of her master. She can buy herself if she wants to and her master cannot forbid that. All other laws of slavery in all the countries that did accept slavery never considered this as rape. If the concubine gives birth to a child she becomes automatically free. However if the slave girl was married to a slave and their master took that woman then that is rape and it is punishable. Anyway the bible also has several verses about rape and concubines as you put it ans done by respectable biblical prophets:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/inj/long.html - http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/inj/long.html
About the Apatheid verses, I suggest you first read the verses in original Arabic, since this is a mistranslation due to the fact the dear translated isn't up to the knowledge about Qurani arabic, then read the explanation for these verses that contradict about 100 other verses to know what is meant by them, these verses came because a certain event. Read about it.
About the Hadiths. Well I already adress many things about the subjects of most hadiths so I will concentrate on what was not adressed.
About the military expeditions of the prophets which you mentioned, well sorry man but Quraish started those hostilities by 13 years of oppression culminating in the confiscation, murder and attmped assasination against the prophet. They started the war and they paid for it.
About what the prophet did to the bodies of the killed, he buried them in a dried up well, what is wrong about it? The humane Americans left Iraqi corpses lying in the heat of summer for dogs to eat them and forbade people from their burial till they were fully rot. The Jews signed a pact with the prophet when he came. They broke it, he gave them a choice, war, and they had more men and money than the prophet at that time, or exile and keep their goods. They left voluntarily.
What happened to Bani Quraidhah was an unfortunate business and most of the sahaba refused the order. Why did he kill them? Because it was customary in those days. These guys signed another pact after the first two jewish tribes betrayed theirs and they agreed to help the prophet militarily against his enemies. What happened is that they opened a second front against the prophet inside Madinah which was besieged by Quraish and Ghatafan, my tribe by the way. What did you expect after this betreyal, through roses? It was high treason and it was customary that when people sign such a pact and betray it to be killed so they were killed, all those who Participated. Those who didn't participate in the conspiracy were set free with their families. By the way it wasn't the prophet who judged on them with death, it was their "Haleef" Saad ibn Muadh who was killed by a poised arrow from them.
About putting women and children in danger hadith this is the first time I heard about such a Hadith and I read much of Bukhari and all of Muslim and all the hadiths prohibit harming none fighters. As for the naval expedition to Constantinople this really needs a laugh. But even though the Prophet was in a state of war with the Byzantines so what is wrong about dreaming about Constantinople?
About Abu jahl, well I had my doubts about the translator of these Hadiths and now I know for certain he knows not a didlysquatt about Bukhari or Muslim. Abu Jahl was killed in Badr, 6 years before Mecca. By the way one fifth of all bootey goes for many things, charity, emancipation of slaves and for certain people who are prohibited from obtaining Zakat.
Finally about the abrogated verses, well let us see for our selves shall we: Nisibis which had pagans worshipping greek gods was conquered, never heard of its population being massacred or forced out of their religion. Zoroastrians were not "people of the book" not were Buddhists and early muslims knew about them yet not heard about them being massacred or killed. The Overwhelming majority of scholars of Islam, both quranic scholars, scholars of Hadith and jurists agree that the verse 2:256 "لا ŘĄŮراه ŮŮŠ الدين" is a fundamental corner stone of Islam and that it is not abrogated for a variety of reasons. This is what ibn Si'di, a stauch Wahhabist and a great scholar who was the teacher for many of today's jihadist scholars, said that and he said that any one who says otherwise is wrong and his proofs are weak. So enough said. By the way Abrogated verses, and the word abrogate is the worng word, are an entire quranic discipline with hundreds of verses about them. You just can't say this verse is abrogated and that is that. There are many rulings based on this and abrogation doesn't mean never to use it.
Hope I have suffeciently responded to your points and hope your read what I say carefully especially the 7th century note above.
AL-Jassas
|
Posted By: Cezar
Date Posted: 26-Aug-2008 at 12:07
Al Jassas, I think Menumorut has made a point regarding the Quran being instigatory. I'll take from his post the part regarding Jihad:
Pretty nice, isn't it? Now, is there a definition of what a hostile act is? Can you point a verse in the Quran that marks the point when non-muslim attitude is consisdered hostility? Just to be sure that muslims do not turn into agressors.
Well, that looks pretty bad. It seems that whatever hostile act the non believers did it results in total war. Okay, it looks like muslim should only do it on their own teritory.
So it's OK to sacrifice oneself for the muslim cause. No problem here, sacrifice is OK in many cultures.
Hey, does that mean that agnostics and atheists are not to be considered disbelievers? AFAIK those two categories have no idols to fight for, yet they might still fight for a cause. Maybe this verse should be a little more specific.
It looks like a severe warning. Whatever one does against muslims it's total war he gets back. Gee, I really need to know what a hostile act is in Allah's opinion.
Now that's more likely. It seems that pragmatism is not forbidden. That's a good thing. What if the dsibeliever is poor?
That really looks very bad. Not only those who act hostile are to be zapped but the "corrupters" too? Now it really looks important to know what this "strive after corruption" means.
OK, moral backup. No problem here. Except the final disposition that is quite cruel. Wouldn't a good spanking do the job? Also why doesn't the big guy do the whole job? If he throws fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve why doesn't he scare them to death and make them panic so they won't be able to put up a fight, therefore no more need for bloodshed? Round them up, pack their things, send them back where they camme from and let the rot in hell. More time for prayers too.
I've already got it: it's bad for my health to fight against Allah and the Prophen, not to mention the believers.
Does this argument rules out a court of law? Maybe the big mistake of Hitler was that he didn't made the 3rd Reich an Islamic nation.
Moral support, again. Maybe He should scramble the guidance of the Tomahawks instead.
Not a very funny perspective for the afterlife of non-believers. Is this thing going to happen to all non muslims or to only those who were agressors of Islam?
This looks quite OK. It seems that peaceful intentions should be considered. I like it.
I really don't get it. So only if they "repent and establish worship and pay the poor due" the fight ends? This is inconsistent with the previous verses. What is going on here?
I think this is the advertising for the suicide bombers recruitment agencies. Not good!
Hey, that's instigation to a very unfriendly attitude. Bad manners!
Hitler's ambition was a 1000 years Reich. I guess he wasn't the prophet.
That's a very general and sweeping statement. And quite instigative. Maybe Allah should have been a little more specific. We humans are not very smart and this verse taken literally is quite violent.
Then why don't you do the whole damn job?
Al Jassas, you and other muslims may think of the Quran as being peaceful. I think that it holds too much inconsistency to be taken literally. Unfortunately, too many of the believers are mislead by people using the Quran. So, violence is present in all textbooks, especially in abrahamic religions. The problem is not with the religion itself it's the religious people that are prone to violence. Unfortunately, the Quran has plenty of verses that can be considered instigatory. Fortunately, most muslims do take the best out of their belief.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 26-Aug-2008 at 14:28
|
This is also an older English translation that is not exactly the same as the original Quranic Arabic. And additionally, what is done here is selective quoting, you cannot get a novel without reading it, or at least reading its parts in context, not out of context as here. ------------- |
Posted By: Cezar
Date Posted: 26-Aug-2008 at 14:39
|
The context is irrelevant in this case es_bih. I do know very well that those verses are not representative of your religion. In fact, I'm sure that most muslims take these as some kind of guidelines and do not build their faith on selected pieces of the Quran. The point is that there are verses that support violence. Christianity has it's parts as well. Both religions are based on texbooks that contain a lot of such instigatory passages. And these are used by some nutcases to raccolate adepts. And that leads to violent acts from the part of muslims or christians.
Let's focus on a problem I've raised: what is a hostile act, according to Quran?
|
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 26-Aug-2008 at 15:02
|
Hello Cezar I think your questions are perfectly lawful and the next is going to be the answers that I hope will clear things up: First: The Quran like any other sacred text should not be disected and its words taken out of context like our friends the sceptics did to the sacred books. They should be looked at as a whole and when such contraditions that might arise, because the Quran was transmitted through a period of 23 years and many verses were just for one occasion while others were of general meaning. Now since this fact was established I don't see any contradictions and it is quite plain. Agression is well known to anybody and I doubt that people need to explain the word. But in any given case this word means in the quran what is considered by every party as an aggression. For example, killing messengers is agression that calls for war. the Ghassanids killed a meesenger of the prophet and refused not only to apologize but even started hostilities, so the conquests began. Same thing goes to other incidents. Mongolian invasions to Khwarizmian lands isn't considered an agression, it was a perfectly lawful act since it was the shah who broke the customes of the day and killed the Mongolian messengers. It was considered an agression later on because it went too farbut the initial action wasn't so. As for the verse that followed the agression verse, well you should know the context and the meaning of this verse first especially that you will be perplexed that the prophet did nothing of what the verse said about the people it was trasmitted for. Second, for the rest of the verses, most of these are just encouragement during fighting, several, especially in sura 8, were transmitted during the battle of Badr when muslims were a third of Quraish and had only two horsemen compared with some 70 amongst Quraish, so these were to encourage them nothing more. These have little legal value, that is "God slew them...", because it is for encouragement. Also all these verses should not be taken out of context. Their meaning is linked to when they were transmitted. Third, you, like many others before you quoted the famous verses of Al-Toubah surah which are collectively known as the Jihad verses or the fighting verses. These verses were transmitted during one of the most dire periods of early Islam. There was a confrontation with the Ghassanids on the way, several tribes became apostate and threatened Islam's existance and there was talk about a unified front against the prophet. People were afraid but these verses came to calm them and instruct them on what to do if such wars ever come. Oh by the way, the prophet made NOT a single campaign after these verses came down till his death nearly two years afterwards. Which means that the correct interpretation of these verses is to interpret them on the light of other verses which these contradict. Fundamentalists love these verses and regularly quote them, muslims use them to recruit for Al-Qaeda and none muslims to recruit the world against muslims. The correct interpretation is hidden because neither cause is served by it. Fourth, about the plot verse, well here it is in Arabic "انهم ŮŠŮŮŠŘŻŮن Ůيدا-ŮاŮŮŠŘŻ Ůيدا". Now, this is why I say as I said before that this site doesn't know the first thing about the Quran of Arabic. The mistranslation above is akin to blasphamy although with obvious good intentions. God doesn't "plot" against people as any one who knows Islamic theology knows. The meaning is I fail the plots of the enemies of Islam in a manner like theirs but the guy interpreted it as plotting which is wrong.
Finally, I totally agree with most of what you say Cezar in your last paragraph. That is why religion should be taken from experts, people who spent a lifetime reading, studying, comparing and interpreting these books and not to rouge people who don't even know the original language these books came in and go on lecturing about muder and interpreting verses as they see fit. The last thing most of these people like televangilists and flase Imams is the well being of their "flock" which is what they consider those poor multitudes of people who follow them, just sheep for them to rip off and control. Osama bin Laden keeps his family safely tucked away across the globe, he is up the mountains in a hole somewhere and the poor Saudis blow themselves up for nothing. Televagilists live in hge mansions, most are exactly opposite what they preach to the people and only 10% of the funds actually go somewhere where people can benifit.
It was nice having this civilised conversation is the goal of this forum.
AL-Jassas
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 26-Aug-2008 at 17:31
When someone is trying to kill you, and threatens your well being you have the right to defend yourself. And that is only if attacked. Aside from that provoking attacks also is not allowed. ------------- |
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 26-Aug-2008 at 18:00
So the Islamic conquest of Middle East and North Africa was a sin. I agree.
The Islamic jurisprudence is supposed to be of divine origin. Are the divine percepts changing with time? Is the Prophet the model of life for the Muslims or not?
Were the Prophet and the Muslims following 'natual' laws or divine laws?
That is condemnable.
Obviously I cann't read in Arabic. But I have read some of the verses in three languages and are the same. If those verses have come for certain events, then which verses are general regulations for the Muslims?
Were the Quraish oppresing other tribes or people too?
Do you have any proofs from the hadiths that the Quraidhah broken the treaty? Anyway, if such a treaty would be broken, wasn't better to leave them alive? And if they constituted a danger, why didn't Muhammad moved to another place? One who accept such a massacre as justified is losing the respect for the human beings.
Well, is an authentic hadith. You can check.
Two things are wrong: 1 This proves that Muhammad's attacks were not innocent responses at oppression and agressions (as you stated above). 2. This shows that Muhammad was linking the plundering attacks (so, the injustice and violence) and the war with going to Paradise.
The translator is Muhsin Khan (see http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/ - this page}, the most renowed translator of the Bukhari and Qur'an from our time. Charity means nothing if someone is dispossesed by force, if we speak about morallity. Even more if he's killed. Emancipation of slaves? Wasn't simpler to freed them all? As for Zakat, it is only for the believers (Muslims), so it couldn't be considered something else than another way of propagating the Islam, not an act of charity.
Thenon-Muslims were all forced to conversion by being forced to pay Jizya. This was the main reason for people conveeting to Islam in North Africa, Spain etc. Also, massacres, persecutions and destructions were characteristic for all Muslim-dominated lands of disbelievers. I give just the example of Hindus with this link: http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/index.html - http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/index.html
It that website is said that the 2: 256 is abrogated by 9:05: 9:5 Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. The 9:05 advocates compulsion in religion and is later than 2: 256 (this is the reason a verse abrogates other one in is contradicting it). I believe that the reality is that in today Muslim world 2: 256 is considered abrogated, because freedom of conscience is against the Sharia law and Islamic jurisprudence that advocates the killing of blasphemiators and apostates, as two most proeminent scholars from our time, Ahmed Deedat and Zakir Naik explains: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=deedat+should+rushdie+die&search_type=&aq=f - Should Rushdie die? Islamic verdict, Ahmed Deedat http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRl5c-xPVA0 - Death Penalty For Apostates - Zakir Naik http://islamicvoice.com/April2006/QuestionHour-DrZakirNaik/ - Ruling for Blasphemy in Islam - Zakir Naik ------------- |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 26-Aug-2008 at 19:30
|
Hello Menu
Well I explained earlier what instigated the conquests but since you haven't been reading carefully I will explain again.
In the year 628, a messenger was sent to the Ghassanids called Al-Harith ibn Umair. This messenger came in peace asking the king, Shurahbeel ibn Amr ibn Jiblah, to allow preaching of Islam. The Ghassanids were as every one knows the clients of the Byzantines. The king ordered the murder of Al-Harith. The prophet hearing this was extremely angry and sent an expedition to the Ghassanids NOT the Byzantines, the Byzantines chose willfully to side with the aggressor so they chose war with the muslims. They chose to interfer between the Arabs and they paid for it. Tough luck.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mutah - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mu%27tah
Second, Islamic jurispudence is too complex to be discussed here, the sources of rulings are wide and diverse and neither the Quran nor the Sunnah ever claimed to contain all the ruling for humanity. Ijtihad was open for new circumstances that can arise. Customs, international treaties and others can be a source for jurispudence that is why all Islamic nations signed the UN treaty and the Taliban, who no one doubt their fundamentalism, wanted to sign it and join the party. There is a major rule in Islam that allowed slavery early on and forbade it afterwards. This rule says as follows "Rulings can change as times go on", that is something might be totally lawful for one generation and totally illegal for the next one and slavery was one such instance.
Third, the prophet only raided Quraish caravans and its confederates, he never raided other caravans unless he was in war with them. He didn't start hostilities toward Quraish, infact when one of the prophets confederates (Thumamah ibn Uthal) made an embargo on Quraish the prophet forbade him because it will harm the none combatants, unlike what the current civilised countries did to Iraq.
Fourth, about the Banu Quraidhah question, I justified nothing, I said this was the custom of the time and he followed it to the letter. Collective responsibility and Collective punishments were and to this day are accepted. Millions of Germans, Japanese and Brits were bombed from this earth based on collective reponsibility, which is a corner stone of Jewish law by the way, allies of course were angels and Germans/ Japanese were the devils.
Also, very few Islamic scholars actually accept collective punishment in Islam most notable of them is Al-Shafei who has extremist views about jihad anyway. They consider what happened to the jews as an exceptional event and the extreme conditions where the treason happened lead to this extraordinary act.
Anyway here is an article about the incident, which a long incident by the way that spanned nearly 3 months:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_trench - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_trench
Fifth, the hadith of women and children, I still couldn't find this Hadith although there is a similar hadith like it but it is Dhaeef or weak which means no legal consequence comes from this hadith. There are many Hadiths in Bukhari and Muslims that contradict this Hadith and the unanimous ruling by scholars is that none combatants should not be deliberatly harmed. The incident of Thumamah above also proves that.
Sixth, Zakah can go to none muslims:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zakat#Causes_.26_Beneficiaries - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zakat#Causes_.26_Beneficiaries
As for the fifth mentioned above, it is known as Khums and I am talkinghere about the Sunni view, read more here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khoms - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khoms
Seventh, about Jizyah, well you need to separate here the real Islamic teachings about Jizyah and the swindling in the name of Islam that came later, from about 800 AD onwards. Jizyah correct meaning as Ibn Qudama said in Al-Mughni "A tax by which the Islamic government guarantees the dhimmis livelihoods, security and freedom to practise religion. If the Islamic country fails to do any of these three then it is forbidden to take jizyah from dhimmis". Many people didn't pay jizyah in the beginning of Islam, border land peoples, most copts, Jarajimah and Arab christian tribes. Only later they were forced to pay by regimes that knew nothing from Islam other than its name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizyah - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizyah
Finally, let your site say what it wants to say, I documented for you the opinion of Ibn Saadi, sorry for the misspelling earlier and he is an authority on Quran and a stauch Wahhabi:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abd_ar-Rahman_as-Saadi - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abd_ar-Rahman_as-Saa%27di
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 27-Aug-2008 at 02:31
< ="-" ="text/; =utf-8">< name="ProgId" ="Word.">< name="Generator" ="Microsoft Word 12">< name="Originator" ="Microsoft Word 12">
Now this is the entire set of ayas associated with this selected qoute
above:
Those Who
Acknowledge; Those Who Do Not
Appreciate;
And The Hypocrites
2:3 Those
who acknowledge the unseen, and
observe
the contact prayer (sala), and
from Our
provisions to them, they
spend.*
2:4 Those
who acknowledge what was sent
down to
you, and what was sent down
before
you, and regarding the Hereafter
they are
certain.*
2:5 These
are the ones guided by their Lord,
and these
are the winners.
2:6 As for
those who do not appreciate,
whether
you warn them or do not warn
them, they
will not acknowledge.*
2:7 God
has sealed their hearts and their
ears; and
over their eyes are covers.
They will
incur a great retribution.
2:8 Among
the people are those who say,
"We
acknowledge God and the Last
day,"
but they do not acknowledge.
2:9 They
seek to deceive God and those who
acknowledge,
but they only deceive
themselves
without noticing.
2:10 In
their hearts is a disease, so God
increases
their disease, and they will
have a
painful retribution for what they
have
denied.
2:11 If
they are told "Do not make evil in the
land,"
they say, "But we are the
reformers!"
2:12 No,
they are the evildoers, but they do
not
perceive.
2:13 If
they are told, "acknowledge as the
people
have acknowledged," they say,
"Shall
we acknowledge as the fools have
acknowledged?"
No, they are the fools
but they
do not know.
2:14 If
they come across those who have
acknowledged,
they say, "We
acknowledge,"
and when they are alone
with their
devils they say, "We are with
you, we
were only mocking."
2:15 God
mocks them, and leaves them
prolonged
in their transgression.
42
2:16 These
are those who have purchased
straying
for guidance; their trade did not
profit
them, nor were they guided.
2:17 Their
example is like one who lights a
fire, so
when it illuminates what is
around
him, God takes away his light
and leaves
him in the darkness not
seeing.
2:18 Deaf,
dumb, and blind, they will not
revert.
2:19 Or
like a storm from the sky, in it are
darkness,
thunder, and lightning. They
place
their fingers in their ears from
stunning
noises out of fear of death; and
God is
aware of the ingrates.
2:20 The
lightning nearly snatches away their
sight,
whenever it lights the path, they
walk in
it, and when it becomes dark for
them, they
stand. Had God willed, He
would have
taken away their hearing and
their
sight. God is capable of all things.
2:21 O people,
serve your Lord who has
created
you and those before you that
you may be
conscientious.
2:22 The
One who made the land a habitat,
and the
sky a structure, and He sent
down from
the sky water with which He
brought
out fruit as a provision for you.
So do not
make any equals with God
while you now know
This shows a bit more context
then one out of place phrase. God, or any divinity in all holy books i know off
asks the people to believe – and non believing “can” bring negative effects. As
this whole sereies of ayat points out it is the evil doers, or those who cause
mischief that are going to pay, and other qoutes in the Qu’ran point out that
people no matter the religion if they fulfill certain prerequisites will be
saved (good life, deeds, etc.)..
They Did
Not Waver Nor Did They Lose Hope
3:146 Many
a prophet had a large number of
devotees
fighting with him. They did not
waver by
what afflicted them in the
cause of
God, nor did they become
weak, nor
did they become discouraged;
and God
loves the steadfast.
3:147 They
said nothing but: "Our Lord,
forgive us
our sins and our shortcomings
in our
responsibility, and make firm our
foothold,
and grant us victory over the
ingrates."
3:148 So
God gave them the reward of this
world and
the best reward of the
Hereafter;
and God loves the good
doers.
3:149 O
you who acknowledge, if you obey
those who
have rejected, then they will
turn you
back on your heels and you will
turn back
as losers.
3:150 It is
God who is your Patron, and He is
the best
victor.*
3:151 We
will cast fear in the hearts of those
who
rejected, because of what they have
set up
besides God while He never sent
down any
authority to do so, and their
destiny is
the fire. Miserable is the abode
of the wicked.
Obviously this series of aya
are in line with Abrahamic revelation.
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 27-Aug-2008 at 02:34
004:048 Before death, one may reform from associating partners to God (4:18; 40:66). A majority of the so-called Muslims, like a majority of Christians, have fallen into the trap of Shirk (associating other partners with God) by following the sectarian teachings concocted by their clergymen and scholars (9:31; 12:40; 42:21; 6:145-150). There is no contradiction between 4:48 and 4:153. The Quran contains numerous verses regarding polytheists or mushriks accepting the message of islam (42:25). Most of the supporters and companions of messengers and prophets were associating partners with God before they repented and accepted the message. For instance, the Quran informs us that even Muhammad was an idolater before he received revelation, and obviously, after his acknowledgement of the truth, he repented from his ignorance and God forgave him (40:66; 42:52; 93:7; 48:2). Commentary on the ayat preceding the one in question and concluding it. By Edip Yuksel in his translation of the Qu'ran in English. Obviously it is not Christians and Jews but people in general that are held countenable for their acts in life. The "muslims" are also accountable. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 27-Aug-2008 at 02:42
7:0 In the name of God, the Gracious, the Compassionate. 7:1 A1L30M40S90* 7:2 A book that has been sent down to you, so let there not be any burden in your chest from it, that you may warn with it; and a reminder to those who acknowledge. Do Not Follow Any Other Source Besides God 7:3 Follow what was sent down to you all from your Lord, and do not follow besides Him any supporters. Little do you remember! 7:4 How many a town have We destroyed; for Our punishment came to them while sleeping, or while resting. 7:5 Then their only saying when Our punishment came to them was: "We were wicked!" 7:6 We will ask those who received the message, and We will ask the messengers. 7:7 We will narrate to them with knowledge; We were not absent. 7:8 The scales on that day will be the truth. Whoever has heavy scales, these are the successful ones. 7:9 Whoever has light scales, these are the ones who lost themselves for they wrongfully treated Our signs.* < ="-" ="text/; =utf-8">< name="ProgId" ="Word.">< name="Generator" ="Microsoft Word 12">< name="Originator" ="Microsoft Word 12"> Now obviously once read in context and once you acknowledge that this is an Abrahamic religion, and then acknowledge the Abrahamic religious context you would have deduced by now that these are the plagues and punishments beset on Biblical peoples in the Old Testament for their various sins. Nothing new here once you are immersed in the Abrahamic tradition. This is just confirmation of previous revelations. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 27-Aug-2008 at 02:51
< ="-" ="text/; =utf-8">< name="ProgId" ="Word.">< name="Generator" ="Microsoft Word 12">< name="Originator" ="Microsoft Word 12"> Hud 7:65 To
Aad We sent their brother Hud, he said,
"My people, serve God, you have no god
besides Him. Will you not be aware?" 7:66 The
leaders who rejected from among his people
said, "We see you in foolishness,
and we think you are one of the
liars" 139 7:67 He
said, "My people, there is no foolishness
in me, but I am a messenger from the
Lord of the worlds." 7:68
"To deliver to you my Lord's messages, and to you
I am a trustworthy advisor." 7:69
"Are you surprised that a reminder has come to
you from your Lord through a man from
amongst you to warn you? Recall
that he made you successors after the people
of Noah, and He increased you in
status. So recall God's blessings that you
may succeed."* 7:70 They
said, "Have you come to us to serve God
alone and abandon what our fathers
had served? Bring us what you promise if
you are of the truthful ones!" 7:71 He
said, "An affliction and wrath shall befall you
from your Lord. Do you argue with me
over names which you and your fathers
have created with no authority being sent
down by God? Wait then, and I will
wait with you."* 7:72 We
saved him and those with him by a mercy from
Us, and We destroyed the remnant of
those who rejected Our signs and did not acknowledge. This is about Prophet Hud, in Islam all Prophets who received relevation (including the Biblical ones starting with Adam) are Prophets of God, as one could argue was Buddha, etc… This is an example from a time before the Qu’ran had been revealed. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 27-Aug-2008 at 03:23
7:161 When they were told: "Reside in this town and eat from it as you please, talk amicably and enter the passage by prostrating, We will then forgive for you your wrong doings. We will increase for the good doers." 7:162 Those who were wicked amongst them altered what was said to them with something different; so We sent to them a pestilence from the sky because they were wicked. 7:163 Ask them about the town which was by the sea, after they had transgressed the Sabbath; their fish would come to them openly on the day of their Sabbath, and when they were not in Sabbath, they would not come to them! It is such that We afflicted them for what they corrupted. 7:164 A nation from amongst them said, "Why do you preach to a people whom God will destroy or punish a painful retribution?" They said, "To fulfill our duty to your Lord, and perhaps they may become aware." 7:165 So when they forgot what they were reminded of, We saved those who desisted from evil, and We took those who transgressed with a grievous retribution for what they were corrupting. 7:166 When they persisted in what they had been forbidden from, We said to them: "Be despicable apes!"* This again is a Biblical reference about the Children of Israel in particular. The Qu'ran mentions repeated acts of sinning after being forgiven by God, and had you took the time to read the qoute in context you would have red aya 162, which, clearly states it was the transgressers who were punished not the Jews as a monolith, but members of the conglomerate who transgressed that is a big misconception you thought up. 2:65 You have come to know who it was amongst you that transgressed the Sabbath, We said to them, "Be despicable apes!"* This is in Surah 2 Menu. Which precedes and is connected to this. 002:065 Turning to monkeys and swine is most likely a metaphor indicating their spiritual and intellectual regression since verse 5:60 adds another phrase, “Servants of the aggressor”, which does not depict a physiological transformation. Also see 7:166. Jesus likens his own people figuratively to swine and dogs (Matthew 7:6; 2 Peter 2:22). Swine was regarded as the most filthy and the most abhorred of all animals (Leviticus 11:7; Isaiah 65:4; 66:3, 17; Luke 15:15-16). See 5:60; 7:166). And commentary again from the aforesaid translator and version of the Qu'ran in English. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 27-Aug-2008 at 03:38
8:20 O you who acknowledge, obey God and His messenger, and do not turn away from him while you have heard. 8:21 Do not be like those who have said, "We hear," but they do not hear. 8:22 The worst creatures with God are the deaf and dumb who do not reason. 8:23 If God had found any good in them, then He would have made them listen. But if He makes them listen, they would still turn away, averse. So God does not like ones who are unreasonable and that is offensive how? Reason and reasonable behavior and modes of thinking are sought after in Islam, and in the Qu'ran there are many references of reason. It is a corner stone of Islamic thought. Hence the vast advances in science, medicine, and philosophy. ------------- |
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 27-Aug-2008 at 03:43
|
I would just like to thank everyone, from the bottom of my heart, for returning to the topic and carrying on an intelligent discussion. The posts from today are what I had hoped for in beginning this thread; it has honestly been quite a pleasure to read and reflect on them. Once I get the chance, I may even participate. Anyway, thank you guys for your research and open, honest discussion. And special thanks go out to my fellow moderators and beloved friends Seko and es_bih for helping people get back on track. -Akolouthos |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 27-Aug-2008 at 03:46
|
------------- |