“There is no god but Allah; Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.”
Longer versions are common, especially those beginning with “I bear witness” or “I testify,” e.g.:
“I bear witness that there is no god but Allah, and I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.”
A person becomes a Muslim by reciting the Shahada with a sincere heart in Arabic.
The first part of the Shahada predates Islam. A monotheistic Arabian group called the Sabians recited “La ilaha illallah” (“There is no god but Allah”) as their confession of faith. Hence, Muhammad simply added “Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah” to a creed that was already familiar in Arabia.
Indeed, Muhammad and his followers were sometimes confused with the Sabians because of the Shahada. As the eighth-century Islamic scholar Abd al-Rahman Ibn Zayd wrote:
The polytheists used to say of the prophet and his companions, “These are the Sabians,” comparing them to them, because the Sabians who live Jaziartal-Mawsil (i.e., Iraq) would say “La ilaha ila Allah.”
The Islamic Creed is related to Jihad, for Muhammad claimed that he was commanded to fight people until they submit to Islam by reciting the Shahada:
Sahih al-Bukhari 6924—Allah’s Messenger said, “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: La ilaha illallah (There is no god but Allah), and whoever said La ilaha illahllah, Allah will save his property and his life from me.”
Sahih Muslim 33—The Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer, and pay Zakat and if they do it, their blood and property are guaranteed protection on my behalf except when justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah.
For more introductory material on Islam, visit our “Islam” page.
313 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 313 of 313At any rate, even if he DID mean that Chrisitans should obey all the old testiment levitical laws (which seems to contradict everything he taught when he railed against the Phrarracies strict obedience of the law, rtather than the spirit of it, which is obedience to God) there is no way this is comprable to a command to slay unbelievers! So, either way this argument is a false one! Here is an article with more infromation about this misconception: http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/fulfilled.htm
You said I was biased, implying I am biased against Islam (i.e. you implied I am a islamaphobe). I'm not "talking politics"! (again, this is a meaningless red herring. How was I "talking politics"? You're just using this to brush aside what I said!)
I am only pointing out why I am not a muslim, and why I beleive it is a danger, because there are evidently Muslims in the US who do not believe in the moderate version of Islam (that you claim is true Islam). I notice you didn't answer my question: Wouldn't it be more worthwile to convince those violent muslims who are doing evil in the name of Islam, rather than us non-muslims who are distrustful of Islam? If not why not? If so, then why are you unwilling to do so?
Like I said, I wait for your explination for how Islam could be true while claiming Jesus as a prophet, when the written scriptures that predate Mohammad contradict the Quoran. Perhaps you will actually present evidence this time (though I'm not holding my breath).
I don't think it's really all that crazy that I'm skeptical that Paul could be an invotator (when it is the gospels that deify Christ), or how the Ebionites (or another sect) matter if the scriptures still contradict what Mohammad claims (why don't they agree with the written records that predate Islam?), though perhaps you can clear up these seemingly impossible questions. I'm not sure what you mean abut mark 5, since I don't think that hasn't been mentioned yet. I guess I'll see!
The correct meaning of Mathew 5:17-20
"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets.
I DID NOT COME TO DESTROY BUT TO FULFIL. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled."
These verses refer to Christ himself fulfilling the Law and the Prophets on our behalf (since we as sinners are incapable of this) and then through his death and resurrection defeating sin and death and the devil on our behalf.
This is why Jesus says that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees or Bishop, Pope, Cleric, Imam or Shiek, who are sinners and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23), we will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.
Our own righteousness is inadequate...
But we are like an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses [good deeds/works] are like filthy rags. Isaiah 64:6
If we say we have no sin, we decieve ourselves and the truth is not in us. 1John 1:8
...so God, through Christ, imparts his own righteousness on to us...
"And their righteousness is from me" says the Lord. Isaiah 54:17
...otherwise nobody would get to heaven.
This is also stated in Ephesians 2:8, 9...
For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, NOT OF WORKS, lest anyone should boast.
...and 2Timothy 1:9
who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began.
The verses in Mat 5:17-20 are sometimes misinterpreted by Islamists in trying to justify Islamic law.
"I'm not an apologetic."
I don't think you understand what this word means. An apologetic is not someone who Apologetic, but explains. For example, David Wood would be called a Christian Apologetic. just as you would be called a Muslim Apollogist.
Erm that is, not someone who apologizes I mean.
I also noticed I wrote "sun of God" when I course meant "son of God" apologizes for these typos and any others I may have missed.
Jamal you siad ,
Oh and you obviously have not read the Quran. It's "Muhaymin," meaning it includes the parts of the Torah and Gospel that are true, and leaves out the man-made garbage. It makes all the pieces of the puzzle come together.
Can you tell us what is the man made stuff, when was it put in, by whom and can u provide evidence.
Galatians 3:17-23
17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant
previously established by God and thus do away with the promise.
18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise;
but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.
19 Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of
transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had
come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator.
20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one.
21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a
law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by
the law.
22 But Scripture has locked up
everything under the control of sin, so that what was promised,
being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.
23 Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed.
OK, so then theft AND expulsion and torture justifies killing?
"Exactly my point brother! There is no command to slay ubelieviers just like that. "
I pointed out verses that say "slay the unbeliever" (those exact words are in the Quoran even!), and whether or not they are being misunderstood, my point is Jesus NEVER said anything REMOTELY like this! (thus, there can be no confusion in Christianity about whether or not we should slay non-beleivers, we shouldn't)! You don't answer this at all. but repeat the same claims without showing anything solid WHY surrah 9 should be read non-violently!
And the title of the chapter is hardly reassuring, since one could see this as having to do with brining repentence (forcably) on non-beleivers. (why not call the chapter "defgensive war" or the like?) Again, you don't address my concerns about how when I read chapter 9 from start to finish (as I pointed out in my last post) it seems to present a picture where the non-beleiver is to not be made alliances with, and those who are not have allainces are to be either subjegated, converted or killed. You havn't shown conclusively how these options ONLY apply to to those who actively attack Muslims. You say you keep asking for examples, but you still havne't answered on Surrah 9 yet. Again, you imply I'm being hypocritical, when I'm not. You imply Jesus WOULD be just as violent as Mohammad, and I ask you to provive words OR deeds. I point ot the words of mohammad (which you havn't adoquitely explained), and you ask me to ALSO provide deeds (which I'm in the process of doing from proper sources). See the difference?
We're going in circles again. You made the claim that the verse "none will pass away" verse means Jesus meant we have to follow the OT law. I showed how Christ taught that he FULFILLED the law, and how this interpritation is wrong from a biblical perspective, and looking at the CONTEXT it doesn't mean this. But you don't even refute this! in fact, you say you agree with the article! So does this mean you agree that Jesus DIDN'T mean Christians had to follow OT laws when he said "none will pass away" and you retract this as evidence of Jesus' supposed equilvelence to Mohammad? (I doubt it, because again, you are still YET to admit to being wrong about any of your faulty arguments! As I said before, some humillity would be refreshing!)
You're using the Quoran to prove the Quoran again! The Quoran makes it clear that Islam is the straight path,because the Quoran says the Quoran says that Islam is the striaght path...
This is circular reasoning! You do nothing to solve the problem of contradiction! "We're not trying to ridicule and just reject for no reason." But you are, and you just did it again! The Quoran CLAIMS that Jesus was a prophet of Islam, and that he didn't claim divinity, and Momammad points to the written scripture, which existed 200 years before he was born, and is what he have today! How did the scripture magically change to what Moahhmad hads (Which is the "true form" according to muslims) and then back again to what we have 200 years prior? This argument makes no sense! You say you'll talk more on Paul later, so maybe FINALLY you can bring some proof! And you wonder why people here are so frustrated!!
You mentioned how Paul made up Jesus preaching forgiveness of sins and his divinity, but I pointed how this ALSO makes no sense since those things were written prior to Paul by the disciples. You don't say you have proof to show I'm wrong, or admit you might be wrong, you tell me you're going to do "unbiased research" (try to find proof of your argument that you made since you didn't have any when you first made the argument) and get back to me! Again, this is why I think you are "silly"!
That video is hilarious! It is nothing but more silly arguments! You really want to put this forth as "evidence?"! This is pathetic!
Why do you not believe Jesus became a man? Because it's inconceivable for a man to think that great God could become a man! Why do you not believe the bible, because there are so many contradictions(but the Quoran claims to be a fulfillment of the bible, and points to it as evidence, which is the same bible we have today! So this is of course a contradiction!) Ha!
The meaning of Mathew 7:21.
"Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my father in heaven."
The will of the Father is:
"'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is first and great commandment" [Deuteronomy 6:5] Mat 22:37
"And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbour as yourself.'" [Leviticus 19:18] Mat 22:39
These two commands are the foundation of all other laws, as stated in verse 40
"On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets"
The Koran has taken some of the the sins and misdemeanors of the men of God and the prophets in the Old Testament (the old covenant. The New Testament is the new covenant) and tried to turn them into virtues e.g. David and Solomon's multiple wives.
The point missed by many when reading the Scriptures is that not everything that is in the Bible is condoned by the Bible, but is necassarily included in order to be able to relate the story.
No story about life would be realistic or valid if it did not have the the good, the bad and the ugly included in it.
All the people in history that were "pre-Jesus" were covered by the PROMISE of salvation in Genesis 3:5...
And I will put enmity, and between your seed and her Seed (Christ: God was manifested in the flesh. 1Tim 3:16)
...and continued through Abraham...
Then he brought him outside and said, "Look now towards the heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them." And he said to him, "So shall your descendants be."
And he believed the Lord, and he accounted it to him for righteousness.Gen 15:5, 6
...and is summerized in Revelation 13:8
of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
The event concerning Abraham occured 430 years before the law was given which means the promise of salvation is by grace through faith, not works of the law, as clearly explained by Paul.
If anyone tries to rely on works of the law for salvation they will fail, because, for example, to even 'look at woman is adultery.' The statement by Jesus is meant to convey how sinful human nature is and how far short of the glory of God we fall (Romans 3:23).
This is why the Koran invented its own version of Jesus because it misinterpreted what he was saying as rules that were too difficult to follow rather than as the intended meaning of God's undeserving grace towards us.
Fair enough.. But if someone is qouting a passage and then turns around and says the scripture has been corrupted, then the burden of proof Falls on the one Who has made that claim..Show, that the scripture being used has been corrupted..
We to can claim that Gods word is proven to be real by science, miracles, sign and prophecies...so it goes both ways.
@bob
Great post, if I may allow me to add this verse, regarding Gods will
John 6
40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."
@Bob you said to'look at woman is adultery.' I agree, but that does not mean faith will magically cure it. How about you offer a solution that can be applied? This is the difference between Christianity and Islam. Islam has the other half while Christianity just dismisses it all in the name of faith. Despite Jesus saying the Law is not abolished and you cannot leave out the least of it. Offer a solution. Like this:
"Tell the believing men to lower their gaze and guard their private parts. That is purer for them. Indeed, Allah is Acquainted with what they do." (24:30)
I'm going to look at the muslim sources on those stories and get back to you.
It's not apples to Oranges. Mohammad points to Jesus, and claims to be a fulfilment of Jesus' work. It's entirely reasonable to point out that what Mohammad did was nothing like what Jesus did!
"The fact is I do not know what he would have done, and neither do you. "
True. I've been basing on what Jesus DID do, and my point still stands that Jesus is a superior model in what he taught and did to Mohammad! As I said, not one troubling verse thing Jesus said or did!
Yes, it must my bias! You don't address my concern that I brought up, how that same passage commands to not make any new pacts with non-beleivers (what you quote only applies to those who muslims have a pact, how can it apply if Muslims REFUSE TO MAKE A PACT?) in verses 7-8! I notice you even skip over verse 7! Why did you do that? If one doesn't have a pact, then 9:29 would LOGICALLY APPLY TO THEM! You're cherry-picking your own scriptures!
"There is no command to subjugate even if they turn away"
But 9:129 doesn't disprove that! It doesn't say "leave them alone" in that verse. It just says that Allah is suffienct (to do what?) and that Mohammad relies on him (to do what?). And 9:29, even if it is interpreted wrong does indeed say that. (as I've noted Chrisitanity doesn't bave an even remotely comprable verse that could be interpreted this way). You STILL havn't really shown how this doesn't apply to those who turn away, instead you're quoting unrelated verses as proof! Even if I'm wrong, and 9:29 does have a peaceful context (which you are yet to show) it's INSANE to pretend that it's crazy that I could get the idea that 9:29 isn't peaceful! You seem incapable of seeing this from the other person's perspective, and yet *I* am the one who's biased!
Also, could you please givbe me the refrence to that verse you quoted (or it seems paraphrased) before that's supposedly from 9? "Will you not fight those who wronged you."?
I'm honestly pointing out my concerns about Surrah 9 that I feel you are not adiquitely answering, pointing to verses that are actually in the Quoran and looking at the surrounding verses. Couldn't it be you also have an equal bias towards believing in Islam? Also, your accusation of Bias and ignorance is INCREDIBLY HYPOCRITICAL considering how (apologetically) you've used logical fallacies and statements about Christianity (Mary's age, Paul making up salvation, deifying Christ, being rejected by the early Christians, these last 3 all are shown FALSE by the testimony of the disciples)!
You mention Mohammad being tortured by the Quareshi, could you please provide verses that record this happening?
Also, could you point me to sources on the raids, particularly the story of Mohammad paying blood money? The only sources I can find are unreliable Ibn Ishaq and Tabari.
Also, could you explain the context of Banu Mustaliq? "The Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives" (Bukhari 46:717)". This seems like the attack was unprovoked.
Also, this command, coming from the end of Mohammad's life seems to further put forward the idea of warfare against the unbeliever:
"The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: If you come to a township (which has surrendered without a formal war) and stay therein, you have a share (that will be in the form of an award) in (the properties obtained from) it. If a township disobeys Allah and His Messenger (and actually fights against the Muslims) one-fifth of the booty seized therefrom is for Allah and His Apostle and the rest is for you. (Sahih Muslim 4346)"
I've made reference to this before, but never quoted it. You haven't really addressed it.
"Allah's Messenger called Ali [and said]: “Proceed on and do not look about until Allah grants you victory,” and Ali went a bit and then halted and did not look about and then said in a loud voice: “Allah's Messenger, on what issue should I fight with the people?” Thereupon he (the Prophet) said: ”Fight with them until they bear testimony to the fact that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger…” (Sahih Muslim 5917)"
What issue? Until they stop fighting? No! Until they are Muslim!
I found the story, and I've been reading it(It's bukhari 52) and I see no reference to Mohammad doing any more than "disproving" of some women and children's deaths). I notice he commands his followers to burn to death two people in the same passage (Vol 4: Book 52:259) and says that there should be no penalty for killing an infidel (v 283)! Oops, I'm being biased again, thinking Muslims follow their own sources! Perhaps you can explain the context for the justification for burning people to death(even if they deserved death, that's pretty gruesome! Jesus didn't do any such thing!), or explain the context of how it is only infidels who are fighting against Mohammad that have no penalty for being killed!
@Jamal
"Lowering your gaze and guarding your private parts" does not change what is in a man's heart and imagination.
"For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these things come from within and defile a man." Mark 7:21-23
"The [human] heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?
I, the Lord, search the heart, I test the mind, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings." Jer 7:9-10
God's concern is with what is going on in a man's heart.
Hats, robes and buildings and outward show mean nothing to God in comparison with what goes on within a man.
The solution is a change of heart which can only be wrought by the Creator of the heart which is Christ Jesus.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God.
He was in the beginning with God.
All things were made through him, and without him nothing was made that was made.
In him was life, and the life was the light of men.
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us... John 1:1-4, 14
Jesus was given the chance at power (they wanted to make him king) but he refused it. He said to be the greatest, one should be the least. I don't this is at all that Mohammad taught.
"Show me one troubling verse or thing Muhammad said or did during his time in Makkah"
SO, now that I've shown troubling things Mohammad did and said, it has to be from the Mekka era? why? It sounds like your adding needless restrictions on me! If he said or did troubling things at all, those should be explained why they are not troubling!
Yes, it describes a certin people who muslims can make a treaty. "Except those". You're misrepresenting your own scriptures again! It quite clearly says muslims should not make new alliances. And so, for the rest 9:29's command of kill, subjgate or convert applies! You still havn't shown how this is not so!
I was only pointing out the hypocracy of saying I'm being biased (and ignoring why I might be concerned) when you've been making a number of false things. Up to now you havn't admitted you were wrong. It is good to see you are finally taking responsiblity for those words.
Re Isaq: You commented that that Christians tend to quote Shaaq, and that it was unreliable. You didn't say some of the stories they quote are unreliable, so I got the impression I shouldn't quote from him. I misunderstood you from this. What specicily is the criteria of whether or not a story (and the details) are true or untrue? If other stories don't contradict it, then it should be accepted? (That seems to be what you're saying)
If they were mobilizing to attack mohammad, why were they unready for a counter attack? Where were their armies? Surely they would have seen them coming and mobilized if they were ready for war, instead of tending their feilds? You are merely taking their word for it that it was provoked, but this seems unlikely considering how unready they were. You mention the non-muslim sources collaberate this, but don't mention what they are. Could you please provide it?
Ok, so they are about war, but the issue I have is, when is war justified? You still havn't shown anything convincing that shows that war should only be in self defense. if war could be initiated at any time because of disbeleif, then whether or not the hadiths are "about war" is a meaningless defense!
Also, Hahaha! Thank you, you're just proving my point more! "UMTIL THEY EMBRACE ISLAM". It cannot be any more clear. You are commanded to fight the unbeleiver, UNTIL THEY EMBRACE ISLAM! What if people don't want to become muslims? What happened to freedom of religion in Islam?
Re: Burning. More nonsense. Mohammad specificly ORDRED two people to be burned to death, whether they did or not is quite obivously irrelevant. Jesus never ordered for anyone to be killed, much less burned to death. (Again, a silly, pointless defense!)
It doesn't say that? Do you really think I'm that stupid? I POINTED TO THE VERSE THAT SAYS IT! so, if it is a juriprudence issue, why should killing an infadel be any different than killing a muslim if muslims and infadel are seen as equals? Again, in the bible murder is murder. There is nothing that says killing a certin people should have a different penalty than someone else!
Also, I notice you use the word "dimmi" a dimi is an infadel, but a infidel isn't always a dimmi! A dimmi is someone who is specificly "felt subdued" under one of the three options of Q. 9:29 and is paying the tax, it might be understandable that some scholars are not aproving of killing a source of income!
"The challenge stands". You still havn't explained away Mohammad commanding people to be burned to death, the dubious justification for raiding caravans (in fact, Ibn Ishaq/Hasham 335 seems to indicate that Mohammad's goods were intact! In fact, 426 of the same collection says that being simply driven from the mosque and unbeleif is more serious than killing them in retaliation!), nor the battle of the cattle herders (i.e. outside sources that say they were planning on attacking).
I'm looking into more on what you said about the "torture" of mohmmad. (I'm having trouble finding an online copy of Tafheem-ul-Qur'an. Could you point me to one?)
"The Quoran is error free". Except the parts where they claim (and there is no historical basis) that the Jews say Ezra is the Son of God, or that Mary is believed to be part of the trinity! yep, error free!
Also, I notice you didnd't respond again to my question: Do you beleive it not worthwhile to convince your muslim brothers, here in the west (I'm assuming you're in the US), since it is obvious many are understanding the Quoran and hadiths the way we are? If you could convince your muslim bretheren with facts from the Quoran and Hadiths, that would go a long way in easing my mind that Islam is actually peaceful!
@Jamal
What's wrong with Paul? He was himself chosen by Jesus to be a servant and preach the gospel.
If Paul is inspired by God then my version of Jesus is already answering you.
Jesus is the foundation of my religion, a righteous man who never sinned. Well Muhammed on the other hand has no credibility at all. All those alleged problems of Paul was already addressed by answering-islam.org and answer-islam.org respectively. These so called problems is only a contention in the muslim mind.
With regards to the law you seem to be all over the place. The people where given the Law of Moses as a means to make atonement for transgressing the Moral law. There are TWO laws here, you seemed to have missed that.
Now according to you there is now no Law, how insane.
The Law of Moses (ceremonial) is no longer applicable as we are no longer to use animals for atonement. As you can see, in the New testament there is still sin and a means of making atonement directly through Jesus Christ.
Annihilated, where does that fit in?
Matth 5 is so beautifully explained by James Arlandson on www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/fulfilled.htm
Salvation is by faith alone and not works.
"For by grace you have been saved through faith and not of yourselves. It is a GIFT of God not works." Eph 2:18
"Without faith it is impossible to please God...." Heb 11:6
Good works will never be able to please God. Our good works is merely an intrinsic part of christianity.
Even islam doesn't believe you.
According to Bukhari 7:70:577 allah clearly states that you as a muslim will not enter paradise by your good works UNLESS allah bestows his favour and mercy on you. See also bukhari 8:76:474.
In islam salvation is very cheap. A muslim can go to paradise by merely memorising the 99 names of allah. Sahih muslim 35:6476
In Christ,by Christ,for Christ
murtadd.wordpress.com
"I thought that Jesus wanted to become king and that was why he was 'killed?'"
Hahahahaha! I'm misunderstanding Islam, and being terribly dishonest (according to you), but it's obvious you don't understand the VERY BASICS of Christ's teachings. He was said his kingdom was not of this world. He came to save us and fulfil the requirements of the law. When his disciples talked of overthrowing Rome he said he wasn't here for that. You're being a hypocrite! Jesus never came for power! He had many followers, but he NEVER used it to harm those who harmed him!
"Could you please make more of an effort to understand what I’m saying?"
He says right after misrepresenting Jesus! Of couse I am making an effort to understand you (and saying this is just attacking me, and pretending to know my motives), and I'm also pointing out when you are making silly arguments.
Again, you're trying to restrict from where I get examples of Mohammad's example. Of course Mohammad would be peaceful in Mecca when he didn't have followers or power. The question is, did Mohammad then when he DID have followers and power misuse this? The question isn't whether he fought or not, but whether he actually did do so offensively or defensively. As I said, Jesus REJECTED having power, he wasn't after power at all. This whole "apples to oranges" argument is silly distractions, and makes no sense. I'm looking at the entire life of Mohmmad and Jesus and comparing them. Mohammad was either peaceful his entire life (and only fought in self-defense) or he wasn't.
"It’s our generosity that we even accept you comparing Muhammad to Jesus."
Well, it's so good to hear YOU are being generous and paitent with ME!
So then, this applies to ALL non-believers? Think about this very carefully. So you're saying that it should be presumed that non-believers will break treaties, therefore no treaties should be made? Where does it say "make no new treaties with those who broke treaties"? It says "make no treaties with non-beleivers", You say it is clear, but you don't quote any verse that shows it only applies to those who break treaties! I'm going to do research on those treaties you mentioned.
RE: Sir William Muir: He says that rumors reached him. It doesn't say they were, and doesn't cite any source non-muslim source where he gets this information anyway (for all we know, he could be taking from the Hadiths). Do you have any actual historical sources with citations that show that they were planning on attacking Mohmmad?
"When I point out all of the later treaties he made, what do you do? Just reject them and say they were strategic moves?"
Which pacts are this that you say I ignored? The ones you just posted above that I didn't yet have time to respond to? Maybe I missed them, but I don't remember you mentioning any pacts after surrah 9 was revealed.
At any rate, so Mohammad said the non-beleivers were breaking pacts and that no more pacts should be made (because, it's presumed that all non-beleivers will break pacts!), but he made pacts anyway?
My point is Jesus would never command someone to be horribly killed in the first place! It is good that he changed his mind, but that still brings a little doubt in my mind that he is a perfect example!
I already gave the refrence. it's bukhari 52:283. And reading the context I see nothing that says Ali's words are wrong. (The next verse goes to another story). Again, if Islam treats everyone (muslim and non-muslim) there should be no commands or laws that gives different penalties for killing one group than another. (the word used is "non-beleiver", not "enemy combatant". Whether there should be a penalty for killing an enemy combatant would be a no-brainer anyway!)
"It’s Uzayr, not Ezra." As if that explains anything! Who was Uzayr, and which Jews were saying he is the Son of God?
"As for trinity, if you could please point out a single verse in the Quran stating that Mary is part of the trinity. The verse says that they took Jesu AND Mary as Gods. There is no mention of trinity in the verse. The Quran never generalizes like that. It refers to specific people" Ok, so not a part of the trinity, but it is obviously false to say that Christians take Mary as a God!
Yes, you can quote pleanty of earlier peaceful verses from when Mohammad was powerless in Mecca, but Islam has the concept of abrogation, so if these later verses say to convert, subdue or kill non-beleivers, wouldn't these, rather than using these earlier verses to "moderate" these more violent versses actually rather be superceded? You seem to be assuming these earlier verses make these seemingly violent verses not as violent (restricting to self-defense) but looking at your own doctrines (not ignoring abrogation) this makes no sense! You are so desperate, you have to rely on outside verses revealed BEFORE surrah 9! I've already shown how you can't logically use 9:23 (fighting for "all time" doesn't mean "contenously" and could have breaks), or can you use 9:129 (It says Allah is sufficent and Mohammad relies on Allah, but says nothing about not nbot subjegating, which would contradict 9:29 anyway)!
"As for your last question, I do not know any Muslims in the west with such ideas. If I come across them, I will correct them"
I already showed there are there in that study (do you not beleive the study? can you show how it is false?) and most likely there are Muslims in your area who beleive this. Again, do you not beleive it would be worthwile to find these muslims and tell THEM they are wrong? After all, my concern as a non-muslim is mainly because there are violent muslims. Surely you could find a website with muslims who are teaching these doctrines, and surely it would be more worthwhile to tell THEM why they are wrong then telling US!
It was an accusation, just because someone ACCUSES someone of something doesn't mean he actually did it! Read the context of this, and you see the accusation was false (from what Jesus taught. Pilate wasn't even convinced of this (See, vv 4, 14). He said he has "no basis for the charge!" other gospels mentiuon that the accusations against Jesus was false! Why are you not using the same methodlogy for the New Testiment that you demand we use for the Quoran? (I'm reading both the Quoran and the New Testiment the same way)! Again, you are being a hypocrite (whether you are trying to be one or not)
"Doesn’t Messiah mean anointed one? What’s the responsibility of the Messiah? How will Jesus rid the world of his enemies when he returns?"
Yes it means anoited one. the responsability was to redeem Isreal, and all humans on earth for thier sins, covering for the requirements of the Law.
I hope you're not seriously going to try to us the argument that Christians beleive that Jesus will come in judgement as a way of comparing it to the life of Mohammad. Not only is this logically a false argument, the muslims ALSO believe that Jesus will come in judgement. It doesn't let Mohammad off the hook in the least!
But accoridng to Islam, "polytheists" include Christians, doesn't it? And anyway, what does that matter? I'm not being "picky", I'm asking you to prove what you say. It's up to YOU to prove what you are saying (so you complaining about it is just silly). Also more hypocracy, I could just as easily say you are not doing any research on the basics of Christianity! Why is it you ask that I manutely document what I say, but I should take your word for it that whether Paul made up Jesus' divinity is disputed, that the Banu Mustaliq were preparing for war, or that surrah 9 dosn't apply to all non-beleivers!
I'm pointing out how 9:29 applies to those who no treaty has been made, and 9:8 says to not make new treaties (it says with idoloters, not "those who have already had a treaty and broken it"). again you are pointing to a verse that does nothing for your arguments. What does 9:1 say? "Freedom from obligation (is proclaimed) from Allah and His messenger toward those of the idolaters with whom ye made a treaty." So, freedom from obligation for THOSE WHO HAVE A TREATY. But There's STILL the problem that 9:7 forbids new treaties! Again we go in a circle! You aren't making arguments at all!
"What do you mean by historical sources? Non-Muslim historical sources are few when referring to Islam. Obviously William Muir got it from somewhere. I gave you my sources. " I mean historians, or ancient documents. He doesn't cite any sources himself from where he got it from (as I said, he could be merely taking it from the Hadiths). You're saying I should seriously just take this one guy's word for it when he doesn't cite sources? What happended to the line of transmission? In other words when you say you have non-muslim sources that say they were planning on attacking, you have nothing!
You tell me it has been confirmed, by every scholar, but you only cite ONE PERSON who doesn't give citations. It should be on YOU to prove it! doing research I find NO non-muslim source that indicate that they were preparing to go to war. Perhaps you could cite other historians who agree with Weir?
So then, is there a verse that says if the action is justified in killing a muslim the person will not be put to death? Why is there
So in other words, you're just going to dismiss it when I point out there is no evidence that Jews worshiped this "Uzayr" as a son of God, nor Chrisitans Mary as a God! How honest! Also, evne if it doesn't mean all Christians or Jews, it's evident that the Quoran's teachings does not in the slightest match what Chritianity teaches (The quoran teaches that Christ wasn't crucified and wasn't the son of God, and yet points to the bible, written 200 years prior to Mohmmad as being true! if it was "corrupted", and had parts removed or added, it would have been already done by then!)
"I think it is clear from Surah 9 who to fight." Again, you might THINK it is, (actually, I agree, it's clear it's the non-beleiver, but I know that's not what you mean), but you havn't brought forth any new evidence to show it (I'vbe already refuted 9:23 & 9:129). Once again, you're prematurely claiming victory. According to abrogation it is the earlier ones that are abrogated by the later ones that contradict (not really complicated). 2 was revealed before 9, thus "no compulsion" would be abrogated by "fight the unbeleiver". it makes no absolutely NO sense to ignore abrogation completely and tell me that 2 somehow limits 9, show me how it DOESN'T abrogate it!
"There are plenty of hadiths which would also easily refute you." Then why aren't you quoting them? Telling me there is evidence is not presenting evidence!
"Don’t forget we’re arguing about military aspects. This is what you’ve been reduced to in desperation to reject Islam. If only you knew the other 95% of Muhammad’s life. Obviously the battles are going to appear violent"
Yes, you've said this before, and I've already said why this argument isn't a convincing one (so why are you repeating this?). My problem is, there isn't a convincing restriction to warefare to only defensive. You STILL havn't really shown it.
"The challenge still stands friend. One event in which for no reason Muhammad invaded and subjugated etc for no reason."
Well, it would be nice if you'd show that the Banu Mustaliq were preparing for war. You didn't answer my quesiton about what Mohamamd was stealing back, since he seemed to be able to secure his goods via a reletive who stayed behind (Ibn Ishaq/Hasham 335).
@Jamal
"so how would these evil thoughts be dispelled from us humans?"
Therefore, if anyone is in christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. 2Corinthians 5:17
Does not the Koran rather help to cultivate and enslave men with evil thoughts and sins rather than escape them?
Does following Mohammad's example do the opposite of freeing men from their sins and works of the flesh...
Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanliness, licentiuosness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissentions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkeness, revels and the like; ...those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. Gal 5:19-21
...and only ensnare them more?
This may called faith but it is not the same faith that is in Christ, which frees men from the slavery and bondage to sin and the devil.
If Islam is a complete religion then it must also have a means of salvation.
Can salvation really be obtained from a Righteous, Holy Creator and Almighty Judge by following the teachings of the Koran and following Mohammad's example?
@Jamal,
Sahih bukhari 8:76:450
Muhammad said Gabriel told him that whoever worships allah EVEN if he's a thief or sexual offender will go to paradise.
Let me guess, muslims shouldn't take this verse literally.
Paul has already been addressed, you have clearly not read the websites I qouted.
Anyway, the most important factor of a prophet is to convey exactly what God commands and not to lie about his revelations.
Since muhammed is the ONLY witness to HIS revelations he should be far beyond credible. NO ONE else can corroborate that his "revelations" were in fact true.
According to Tabari 6:111 Muhammed confessed to fabricating some of allah's words thus putting questions on the infallibity of the quran. Tabari 6:111 "I have fabricated things against God and have imputed to him words which he has not spoken".
Let me guess again, this particular writing of Tabari is not accepted.
In bukhari 7:71:591 muhammed said that black cumin is the cure for ALL disease except death.
Mohammed LIED, because there is still some disease around and death is not a disease.
In bukhari 4:55:546
In reply to Abdullah bin salam question mohammed LIED and said that a child resembles his parents dependant on who ejaculates first. He even states that GABRIEL has just now TOLD me.
How could allah(muhammad) not know that this depends on genetics?
Muhammed is a liar and cannot be considered a credible person let alone a prophet.
The Old testament law is the moral law and the ceremonial law. Sometimes only reffered to as law of moses. These laws governed both civil and religious matters.
In Matth 5:17 Jesus confirms he is the fulfilment of these laws. The law and prophets pointed to Jesus the "Seed" of Abraham. See also John 1:45.
NO, people were annihilated for transgressing God's law and some of them persecuted God's people. Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed by God for their wickedness. The offer of repentance was on the table for them.
We can see the Christian God's mercy when people repent. Jonah was sent to Niniveh and all the people repented and was saved from God's wrath. So there was a way out for the "annihilated" people. And Yes, God has the divine right to punish evildoers.
Gal 2:21
I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law,
Christ died for nothing!"
In Christ, for Christ, by Christ
murtadd.wordpress.com
"So why was Jesus 'killed?'"
Because they hated his message that upset the status quo of the pharasiees, and that he didn't come as a conqouring king as they thought he was. That is the reason the people killed him. Jesus came to be, and allowed himself to be killed (he perdicted his own death and explained it a few times) to be the salvation for our sins (Matt 16:21, Rom 3:23).
"You know what you’re the one bringing me these silly accusations"
Hahahha! So you're saying you're not saying logical fallacies (attacking what people WOULD have said), making straw man attacks (attacking sources without answering), bringinikng up red herrings (including 9:23, 9:129 and others), insisiting that I listen to a single source that doesn't cite his information (would you allow me to do the same?), mnaking silly complaints about me pointing out your logical fallacies (and trying to pass that off as me being dishonest), and complaining when I ask you to provide facts to back up what you're saying? What are my "silly arguments?"? I'm willing to admit things I've said have been wrong, but you seem to keep (except for one little bit of humility) seem to keep ignoring the false arguments you are making!
"You pointed out a hadith that says Banu Mustaliq were caught by surprise. I gave you my evidence that they were mobilizing to attack the Muslims. But no, you want non-Muslim sources now even though this fact of Banu Mustaliq has never been challenged. And then you turn around and go off about me using non-Canonical sources about Mary’s age. Give me a break."
Hahahahaha! You're try to paint me as being inconsistant, but I'm not, and I'll show how. There is no historical evidence (Christian or non-Christian) that Mary is 12. There are books that are ancclopedias that say she MAY have been 12, but do not give any strong historical evidence she was.
However, from what we read in the Quoran it apears the Banu were not attacking Mohammad and were peaceful from that fact that they were grazing cattle when he aproached. YOU made the claim that it was agreed on by non-muslim scholars, and you could only cite ONE HISTORIAN who simply says it doesn't even cite where he got it from (for all we know, he could be taking it from the Hadiths itself)! It was weak evidence, and you know it, and now you're accusing me of not accepting it!
See? It's NOT INCONSISTANT AT ALL!
Are you saying I can cite single non-muslim historicans who say things without citing sources to prove what they are saying? Don't you see how inconsistant and dishonest you're being?
If the meaning of 9:7 is only about those who broke the treaties, then why doesn't it say so? Why does it mention "those at the unavoidable place"? It doesn't say "save those who honor their treaties" but "save those with whom ye made a treaty at the Inviolable Place of Worship ?" Again, why not be perfectly clear (as muslims claim the Quoran is) and say it right here?
Your use of Surrah 2 to try to prove that Surrah 9 is not violent is still extremely questionable. If Abrogation (which is mentioned a number of times in the Quroan) is only for a few verses,how do we know which verses are abrogated? It seems to me (though I may be wrong) the most clear reading of a verse that says "there is no compulsion" and "fight the UNBELIEVER wherever you find him" if that these verses contradict, and that abrogation would apply. Perhaps you can show me how I'm wrong (rather than telling me it's on ME to prove it doesn't work this way, though I am doing research as well).
I see some problems with this claim anyway. For one thing, many Muslim schoalrs, and early followers of Mohammad would disagree with you. Ibn Kathir disagrees. on verse 5 he says in "Tasfir of Ibn Kathir"
"Abu Bakr As-Siddiq used this and other honorable Ayat [verse or passage] as proof for fighting those who refrained from paying the Zakah. These Ayat allowed fighting people unless, and until, they embrace Islam and implement its ruling and obligations." He didn't interpret it peacefully!
Here is commentary on the passage from, Ibn Ishaq: (pp. 617-619):
"A discharge came down, permitting the breaking of the agreement between the apostle and the polytheists that none should be kept back from the temple when he came to it, and that none need fear during the sacred months. That there was a general agreement between him and the polytheists; meanwhile there were particular agreements between the apostle and the Arab tribes for specified terms. And there came down about it and about the disaffected who held back from him in the raid on Tabuk, and about what they said (revelations) in which God uncovered the secret thoughts of people who were dissembling. We know the names of some of them, of others we do not. He said [1] "A discharge from God and His apostle towards those polytheists with whom you made a treaty," i.e. those polytheists with whom you made a general agreement. "So travel through the land for four months and know that you cannot escape God and that God will put the unbelievers to shame. And a proclamation from God and His apostle to men on the day of the greater pilgrimage that God and His apostle are free from obligation to the polytheists," i.e., after this pilgrimage. So if you repent it will be better for you; and if you turn back know that you cannot escape God. Inform those who disbelieve, about a painful punishment except those polytheists with whom you have made a treaty," i.e. the special treaty for a specified term, "Since they have not come short in anything in regard to you and have not helped anyone against you. So fulfill your treaty with them to their allotted time. God loves the pious. And when the sacred months are passed, He means the four which he fixed as their time, "then kill the polytheists wherever you find them, and seize them and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush. But if they repent and perform prayer and pay the poor-tax, then let them go their way. God is forgiving, merciful. If one of the polytheists, i.e. one of those whom I have ordered you to kill, asks your protection, give it him so that he may hear the word of God; then convey him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know."
The other problem is the definitions of words like "opression" (which muslims interpret to mean having a goverment that doesn't follow Allah, see John Kelsay, Islam and War, Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993, p. 35) or "mischief" which is given as a justification in Surrah 2 for warefare.
"They are the hypocrites. As for, ...
<"Do not make mischief on the earth">, that is DISBELIEF AND ACTS OF DISOBEDIENCE." Abu Ja`far said that Ar-Rabi` bin Anas said that Abu Al-`Aliyah said that Allah's statement, ...
, means, "Do not commit acts of disobedience on the earth. Their mischief is DISOBEYING Allah, because whoever disobeys Allah on the earth, OR COMMANDS THAT ALLAH BE DISOBEYED, he has committed mischief on the earth. Peace on both the earth and in the heavens is ensured (and earned) through obedience (to Allah)." Ar-Rabi` bin Anas and Qatadah said similarly. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged) Volume 1, Parts 1 and 2 (Surat Al-Fatihah to Verse 252 of Surat Al-Baqarah), abridged by a group of scholars under the supervision of Shaykh Safiur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, Riyadh, Houston, New York, Lahore; First Edition: January 2000], pp. 131-132; online edition; capital emphasis added)
So, mischief is disbelief, thus still Surrah 2 commands to fight the unbelievers!
Proof of what? That they hated him? it's recorded a number of times in the New Testiment (12:14) That they saw him as conqouror? It is also recorded a few times in the new testiment. I really don't understand the point of this question.
"you don’t produce A SHRED OF EVIDENCE saying Banu Mustaliq were not planning to attack."
well, except the fact that from the Hadith's testimony they were GRAZING CATTLE and that, and that makes me think they were not! The fact is, you cannot show that they were (besides that Mohammad heard rumors that they were), and the testimony tends to show they were not. Either way, there is nothing that shows they were or wern't attacking. You made the claim that there is no question thtat Banu Mustaliq were attacking, but you can only point to ONE scholar who doesn't give any proof of his assertions. (Again, I have to ask, would you then say if I can point to a single scholar (a muslim scholar or non-muslim historian) who says something without citations, and no one says the opposite, then it should be accepted as fact?)
"Yes its not clear to you, because you do not want it to be clear. "
More ad honim. How do you know my motivations? I pointed out WHY it is unclear. 1.)You said it means that treaties shouldn't be made with those who break treaties, You are the one reading the verse not as it's written. It doesn't say that. It says "save those with whom ye made a treaty at the Inviolable Place of Worship ?".
And 2, you have said this before, and I asked you to show which new treaties he made. You didn't show any.
"You want everything in front of you like arrogant people." Yes. I like to have proof, so that makes me arrogant (rather than a person who demands others beleives something without proof)! Ha!
And telling me how wrong I am, and quoting from the Quoran verses that say non-beleivers are wrrong (this is agains circular reasoning!Q) is not answering with proof, it's babbling!
I was mistaken, I had thought it was mentioned more than once.
You keep making this claim over and over, but it stil doesn't make sense! So, Surrah 9 is about a specific people, then WHERE in surrah 9 does it explain it is about a specific people (who attacked muslims)? You still havn't shown it! You claimed it was specificly about the byzantines, but when I asked you for proof that it meeans the byzantnies, couldn't show it! I've already refuted why v 23 doesn't make it defensive (since "leaving" doesn't at all logically exclude going off on offenseve raids for a time), nor does v 12 (it includes "taunting for ones faith", meaning mocking is justification for war!)! But it must be my arrogance and that's why I'm not convinced!
"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief(fasadan) in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement, S. 5:33 Shakir"
Again you accuse me of "throwing things at you", like you said I was "throwing" falalcies at you and "beating around the bush" because I was pointing out YOUR dishonest arguments! (but that's not dishonest... somehow.)
The surrah quoted in the block of text is 2:11-12, along with the interpretation by the Islamic schoalr As-Suddi, who said that Ibn `Abbas and Ibn Mas`ud commented it.
The word "mischief" is defined as "acts of disobedience". What the punishment for Mischief? It's in Quoran 5:33: " The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;"
How are you doing with telling these things to your muslim brothers? Did you find a good muslim website that have the same interpretations if Islam as I'm saying? How did they react?
Also, could you please reply to the people's questions on this thread: http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6590312557191237519&postID=4373080786862120534
@ Jamal
Matters of the soul is no idle talk.
I agree with your points 1 - 4. This is exactly how christianity works. But you muslims conveniently overlook this when you say that christians can now sin and be immoral because Jesus already died for their sins.
Anyway, in islam, if a woman commits adultery and she sincerely repents will she still be stoned by the hands of other sinners?
Its beyond me how muslims can say some of the writings of Tabari is accepted and the others not. What is the criteria for the chain of transmission?
Anything that puts muhammad in a bad light is da'eef and anything that lifts him up as an example for mankind is authentic. Beats me.
In christianity we reject such heretical writings outright, we don't use the bits that agrees with christianity.
Some hadith were revelations to muhammad. In actual fact the same hadith as discussed, allah revealed via gabriel to muhammad the "answer" since angels have no free will.
The hadith is obvious and means what it says. Now what is this? You need to know arabic to understand the hadith, questionable indeed.
You so proudly say that because muhammad so "convincingly" answered Salaam he became a muslim. Who's fooling who?
How did Salaam know that muhammad's answers were correct seeing that only a "prophet" would know the answers. Was Salaam a prophet?, he was barely a muslim at that time. Someone here was taken for a ride.
Let's level the playing field here, the bible is very comprehensive and contains both the words of God and also the sayings and doings of third parties.
So the bible is the equivalent of the quran, hadiths and sunnah of islam. So when I raise questions on the hadith, that is quite fair, since you muslims attack the bible in totality.
You claim the quran to be error/contradiction free. The quran is not even complete.
Let's start at the beginning. Do you believe that your quran is the exact revelations that Muhammad preached? Will reply on this.
Matth 5:17 - let's ask Jesus what law he is referring to.
In the Law of Moses it was said an eye for an eye etc ( Ex 21:24) and in Lev 20:10/Deut 22:22 an adulterer should be put to death.
In Matth 5:38 Jesus replies to Ex 21:24 and says do not repay evil with evil.
In John 8:3-11 Jesus prevents and adultress from being put to death.
So clearly Jesus did not mean to uphold the Law of Moses till heaven and earth pass away.
So what is Jesus referring to then? This is clearly God's law that will not pass away.
The christian God doesn't need good works for our salvation as we will never be able to please our God.
2 Tim 3:16
All scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking and training in righteousness.
In Christ, by Christ, for Christ
murtadd.wordpress.com
The difference between the Law and Grace and their individual purpose
The purpose of the Law (commandments), besides obeying it, is to bring to light our thoughts and intentions.
For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intentions of the heart. Heb 4:12
In this respect it is the job of the law in God's word to corner us with no means of escape; it is there to apprehend us. It is the heavy handed arresting officer, severe judge and merciless jailer all rolled into one. It is there to get our attention and shine a light on what we are doing wrong and to reveal our sinful condition and to us, while at the same time executing judgement on all our excuses.
"The [human] heart is decietful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?" Jer 17:9
BUT THEN GRACE - which works in partnership with the law, is the next step in the process (via heart felt remorse and repentence) that follows after we have been convicted by the law - will come and bail us out, and begin to CHANGE US FROM WITHIN, through the work of the Holy Spirit.
This is what is meant by 'born again,' that is, becoming a new and changed person.
Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. 2Cor 5:17
The pot cannot remodel itself; only the Potter has this power. The patient cannot operate on their own heart; that work belongs to the Surgeon, and so everything happens at God's pace and timing, since he alone knows what is going on with each individual...
"I, the Lord, search the heart, I test the mind." Jer 17:10
...and how to affect repairs and change in them. We just need to allow the Physican do his work.
"Those who are well have no need of a physican, but those who are sick [do] ." Mark 2:17
Continued next comment
Understanding the difference between the Law and Grace and their individual purpose - and that the law (commandments) must come first to convict us and to alert us to our condition...
I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, "You shall not covet." [Exodus 20:17; Deut 5:21] Romans 7:7
...so that Grace can then rescue us - is the biggest and most important key to understanding the whole purpose for God's word and how it works.
This is the main sticking point that the world has when trying to grasp the real meaning of and the overall reason for the Bible's message, that being:
A Righteous and Holy Creator and Judge, an infinite God of justice, cannot but require and overall account of and reckoning for sin and crime.
BUT, he has provided a means of escape from this reckoning and punishment through sacrificing himself in our place. The price of redemption, which is infinitely beyond our means, could only have been paid by an infinite God with infinite means (which again, exposes the folly of trying to gain salvation through works as decreed by the Koran 23:102)
The laws job is to drive us to despair (by exposing our burden of sin) and cause us to flee to the peace and tranquillity of his grace.
"Come to me all you who labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." Mat 11:28
But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter. Romans 7:6
Continued next comment...
To anatomise further
A common confusion is in the distinction between faith, grace and works.
Faith, grace and works are separate institutions with separate functions but which all work in God's service.
FAITH is brought in and established within us by hearing God's word...
faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Romans 10:17
...and is the means by which we obtain grace, and is also from then on the trust in God by which we live.
And the just shall live by faith. Gal 3:11
GRACE, which was generated on the Cross, is the mechanism by which God forgives our sins and reconciles us back to him; and is received by means of faith. Once received, grace continues to work in us for the rest of our lives, and it needs to, because while we are in this body we cannot be perfect.
O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Romans 7:24
WORKS/DEEDS OF THE LAW (commandments)
Since fallen human nature detests following the commandments and only does so outwardly and against its will (not willingly done from the heart but done in procrastination to avoid punishment and/or to gain favour), any works that are done will be tainted in some way (inwardly having some bitterness, resentment or hatred towards the commandments and would be an offence to God; sinful nature being at odds with God's commands) and would therefore be worthless as atonement for sin. In fact they are actually a LIABILITY in this regard, and demonstrate how far short we fall.
And the commandment which was to bring life, I found to bring death. Romans 7:10
So we can conclude:
Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? No, but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by fath apart from the deeds of the law. Romans 3:27, 28
GOOD DEEDS IN GENERAL are for the benefit of others, advertising God's kingdom and grace...
"Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven." mat 5:16
...and for strengthening our relationship with God as we are working in partnership with him; and they also help to keep us humble, by demonstrating our weakness in our inability to do the right thing ALL the time (our conscience also bearing witness to this).
And overall, they also help to keep us occupied and focused on the journey while traveling on the King's Highway.
A highway shall be there, and a road, and it shall be called the Highway of Holiness. The unclean shall not pass over it, but it shall be for others. Whoever walks the road, although a fool, shall not go astray. Isaiah 35:8
To summarize
Everything we do is corrupted to some degree (other than when God's own righteousness is working in and through us; so the credit still goes to him) despite our efforts to the contrary, but grace, which is apprehended by faith, continually operates within us all our lives to compensate for this problem and to get us over the line.
Even the best saints stil only stumble and bumble their way into heaven (the source of some of the criticism of Christianity is caused by the focus on its fallible followers and/or false Christians rather than its infallible founder - Christ)
"If the righteous one is scarcely saved, where wil the ungodly and the sinner appear?" 1Peter 4:18
An example of this:
Now Joshua was clothed in filthy garments, and was standing before the Angel [the Son, Christ] of the Lord. Zech 3:3
And since we have no righteousness of our own before God, he, through grace, gives us some of HIS righteousness.
Then he answered and spoke to those before him, saying, "Take away the filthy garments from him."
And to him he said, "See, I have removed your iniquity from you, and I will cloth you in rich robes." Zech 3:4, 5
The verses are precise and true when they state:
"For by grace you have been saved throug faith, and not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast." Ephesians 2:8, 9
"And their righteousness is from me," says the Lord. Isaiah 54:17
Conclusion
The law is an enormous mountain about to fall on our heads, accompanied by the thunder and lightning of God's anger and judgement.
Now Mount Sinai was completely in smoke, because the Lord descended on it in fire. Its smoke ascended like the smoke of a furnace, and the whoe mountain quaked greatly... Now all the people witnessed the thundering's, the lightning flashes, the sound of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking. Exodus 19:18; 20:18
But grace through faith in the son is the calm spring meadow of God's favour and kindness.
The commandments, or law, point out our sins/crimes and prove the need for grace, so the law and grace are two separate institutions which have separate functions but which work together in God's service for our good.
"The Law was given, in order that we might seek after grace. Grace was given, in order that we might fulfil the Law. It was not the fault of the Law that it was not fulfilled, but the fault was man's carnal mind. This guilt the Law must make manifest, in order that we may be healed by divine grace." St. Augustine
Again, I really don't understand this line of questions.
In Matt 12 (specifically 12:1-13) we have the story of how Jesus healed a man on the Sabbath, and because of their strict reliance on the law (rather than helping others) they condemned him for it, and then in v. 14 it says " But the Pharisees went out and plotted how they might kill Jesus.". Jesus also had some pretty harsh words for the Pharasiees in Matt 23, so it's not surprising they wanted to kill him!
Also, you might want to read the story of the triumphal entry (Matt 21). The Jews at the time believe the messiah would be the one to overthrow Rome, and thus why they are accepting of him here, and then crying out "crucifying him!" (Matt 27:23).The reason why the people wanted Jesus is quite clear from the scripture.
Yes, I believe, from the HISTORICAL EVIDENCE he would have contenued to live as he did the first 33 years of his life. You say what I have is also conjecture of what Jesus would have done, but I have the example of the pattern he followed for the first 33 years of his life, and so it is FAR more reasonable to think Jesus would have followed the same pattern than break it. To say, after I point out that Jesus WOULD have been violent is pure conjecture to then say that he WOULDN'T is incredibly silly, but again, it's only ME who's being dishonest here!
But of course, that was never the plan. Jesus made it quite clear to his disciples why he came, a number of times. That he would die as a perfect sacrifice for mankind, and on the third day raise again. There is still the undressed problem (that you promised you'd get to) of how Mohammad can claim Jesus as a prophet of Islam when he contradicts what was already written by his followers that he did and said.
Could you provide online texts of those hadiths? I can't find them searching anywhere. You're moving the goalposts anyway. You are the one who made the claim that non-muslim scholars agree, and you cited ONE SINGLE academic from around the 18th century, and who doesn't even cite where he gets this from (for all we know, he could be taking from the muslim sources!).
Annoying? Actually, I agree, this is annoying! I'm not ignoring that part at all. I'm saying it is saying non-beleivers don't follow the pact anyway. It's giving a reasoning behind not taking any more pacts, not restricting to those non-beleivers who keep pacts (otherwise it would say something like "except those who keep their word" or the like. IT DOESN'T SAY THAT!
I will look it up, but I should point out this is the first time you are actually providing this evidence (in your last post you told me it was, but didn't give any). Looking it, it sure looks like the second option (pay the tax and be subdued.) He "generously" offers peace at the price of 2.000 hullas (125 pounds) of harvest and gold every year! I find it interesting that one of the very companions of Allah, Omar disobeyed this command and ordered them forcable expelled (though it seems this perhaps wasn't completely carried out).
Also, you didn't answer my quesiton; how is it going with speaking with your breethern, and convincing them of all these things? I would like to know some of their reactions. I hope it is going well.
You still haven't shown how the Jews worshiped someone named Uzayr, or Christians Mary during Mohammad's time. You're saying "I don't know" is frankly troubling. If the Quoran contradicts the bible,then shouldn't that put SOME doubt in your mind? Don't you only want to follow what is true?
Also, I noticed it does indeed mention Mary as part of the trinity, so I was too quick to take your word and apologize. It mentions specifically "say not three!" (Q. 4:171). If, as Mohammad claims that Christians believe in the "third of three" (5:73) (which is a misrepresenstion of Christianity, this is called "tritheism" and is rejected in mainstream biblical Christianity), and Mary is worshiped as a "God", then why would it be unfair to say that Mohammad believed that Christians worshiped Mary as part of the trinity? The early scholars seemed to think this what these verses meant (Ibn Ishaq, and the midievil commentator al-Zamakhshari) . Are you saying you know more than the early scholars?
Here is more analysis of Mohammad's mistakes about the teachigns of Christianity:
http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/quran_trinity.htm
I find your claim about the use of "and" here odd. for one thing, the word "or" is used in the previous paragraph (" 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.")
Notice he says it's either manslaughter OR mischief, so it could be just one that justifies killing.
So saying "and" must mean it has to be both waging war AND mischief contradicts this previous statement.
But there is more, and even more confusing. If we take your interpretation then waging war against Allah is NOT ENOUGH JUSTIFICATION for death! One has to BOTH wage war, and make mischief! So, whichever way you look at this verse your interpretation makes NO SENSE! You are once again commiting shirk!
It would be FAR more logical to take this AND as meaning taking in general the non-beleivers do include waging war AND disbelief.
If I said "people who kill AND rape should revive the death penalty" (though it is an example, I am not saying I am saying such a thing) , of course I don't mean they have to have killed AND raped to revive the death penalty.
Yes I agree with you that there is absolutely moral decay in this modern age. People have become lovers of themselves instead of of love for God.
In almost all religions its the fear and/or love for their respective deities that keeps them from sinning and worshipping said deity. This is not just in islam.
It's rather a shallow statement to assume that "taqwa" God conciousness is intrinsic to islam.
Most religions have the God consciousness that is why they worship their deity in the first place. Therefore, you cannot use taqwa as a yardstick for islam.
I'm also not a scholar but merely a layman.
You have failed to answer me. If an adulterer sincerely repents and allah forgives them, will they still be stoned?
Also, do you believe that black cumin is the cure for all disease?
Its rather presumptuous to say islam is the only religion with these standards. The stoning of adulterers was practiced under Moses. These were already done away with 600 years before islam. So your islamic "standards" are nothing new.
Why would a muslim need the hadith in the first place if the quran is so complete? Then the hadith and their sciences would not be necessary.
Yes the foundation of your quran and hadith are in arabic. Do you muslims raise your objections against the greek/hebrew version of the bible?
Can you see how silly its sounds that only the arabic quran and hadith should be approach by so called anti-islamist.
What about people who do not understand arabic? Will they be doomed because allah's message is lost in translation in the English versions of the quran and hadith.?
The quran just happen to be in arabic because muhammad grew up in a culture that conversed in arabic. The quraysh pagan worshippers even spoke this "divine" language long before muhammad. If he was born in china guess what "divine" language the quran would be in.
This is a no brainer.
No I'm not all over the place with regards to Salaam. Its very simple. Salaam could not verify if mohammad answered truthfully because only a "prophet" supposedly knew the answers. Salaam was not a "prophet" and had no way to know if muhammad answered correctly. Simple as that.
Continue....
You clearly did not understand what I meant by levelling the playing field. It will get clearer as we progress.
Yes the bible is the complete word of God.
No, the quran is not complete. Where in the quran does it say a muslim must be circumcised?
Wow, after all my postings you have not understood what I conveyed about the laws. The law of Moses governed both civil and religious matters.
Under the civil laws was the regulations for divorce, compensation for damages etc.
Although I mention two laws all of the regulations etc are incapsulated under them. Jesus already addressed the criteria for divorce.
You keep gnawing at Paul, anyway the following is an extract from an article. This might clear up your contentious cough about women being "silent" in church.
http://www.gci.org/church/ministry/women9
In 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, Paul wrote: “As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in
submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church” (vv. 33-35).
If we take this literally, it would mean that women are not allowed to sing in church nor
respond when the pastor asks for comments or questions from the audience. Moreover, it
would contradict what Paul said in chapter 11, where he said that women could pray and prophesy in church if they had the appropriate attire.
To read the entire article I've provided a link above.
Should woman wear a covering on their heads or is their hair also considered a covering?
1 Corinthians 11:14-15
14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace
to him,
15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a
covering.
A muslim recently told me that I should not take some of their literature "literally". Can this christian verse be taken literally?
In Christ,for Christ,by Christ
murtadd.wordpress.com
Why are you quoting in circles? YES WE KNOW, those who have treaties are exepted from the commands of 9:29. I'm not debating this! That doesn't AT ALL address how 9:7 seems to forbid making new treaties, and that 9:8 doesn't clearify this to mean to make treaties with people (as you calimed it did), it just says non-beleivers tend to break treaties! It doesn't say anywhere something like "seek out treaties with those who will keep them", Instead of addressing this you're quoting an unrelated verse!
"As for Umar, are you deliberately ignoring the reason why they were expelled?" Not at all. From what I can find they were expelled because they "they resisted the preachings of Islam". It seems Umar saw it that reigions of Hijaz should be muslim only.
"An-Nawawi said, 'This narration demonstrates that the Prophet, peace be upon him, intended to expel the Jews and Christians from only a part of the Arabian peninsula, specifically the region of Hijaz. This is because Tayma is on the Arabian peninsula but it is not a part of the region of Hijaz. Allah knows best.'" -Sahih Muslim, Book 10, Number 3673
"Don't be arrogant" I'm not being aroogant, I'm only pointing out things that seem to be misrepresentations in the Quoran. This is hypocracy since you've aqsked the same sorts of questions about Christanity, so I suppose you are saying you are arrogant too? Why is it only arrogant when I ask about what I see are contradictions in the Quroan, but when you openly state there are errors in the Bible this is not arrogant? Isn't making logical fallacies and not apollogizing not arrogant (saying I don't understand because I'm not trying to understand)? Once again I get the feeling that you are acting like Muslims are better than others and should not be held to the same standards as non-beleivers! (But it must be me being a biased Kuffir!)
"And then you give me two "scholars." Ibn Ishaq? He was a historian, not a muffasir (quran scholar). And then Zamakhsari? Seriously? He belonged to the Muʿtazilah group who deviated and did not consider the Quran fully divine. "
Oh, I see how it is. You give one scholar (what was his quallifications?) and I'm expected to accept what he says, even if he doesn't cite his sources, and yhou can't cite any others who agree with him, and when I ask for more verification you treat me like I'm being unreasonable! But when I cite TWO sources you reject them both!
At it says that Christians beleive in "the three", and thaqt Mary is worshiped as a God, thus she would be one of the three.
I'm reading the Quoran the same way I wouold the bible. Yes, perhaps I'm reading it simply, because books should be read as it is written. The bible is clear, and if I misunderstand the Quoran, it is because it is UNCLEAR in where subjects break off. You don't show me how my understanding of the "and" is wrong, or how your use of "and" here makes any sense (as I pointed out, this would mean then that one has to BOTH wage war AND make mischief to warrent death, and contradicts the "or" in the previous paragraph.) Instead of answering, you insult me! Then why does it say "make mischief"? Again, if the Quoran is the word of God, WHY. IS. IT. NOT. CLEAR? I'm not reading too much into it, I'm reading it as it is written. It says that "making mischief" is justification for killing.
I guess I'll never hear what you have to say about Paul then, (pity,
I was curuous to hear how Paul forged the eye witness tesrtimony of Jesus' accepting of praise and preaching of salvation, or aboutthe Christian time travelers!) because you frankly haven't answered any of my concerns. You've made no effort to show how 9:29 isn't an open ended comamndd to subjegate non-beleivers (since that is what it apears to be). You havn't shown how this applys only to byzantines, nor how staying at home (for a time) would perclude this, nor how keeping treaties one already has, nor how 9:8 doesn't forbid making new treaties!
"Christianity cannot reform society's moral standards. It's over. The religion failed"
Yes, and Islam has sure showed us how people's behaviors are being reformed!
I notice you keep ignoring my questions about how things are going with your discussions with muslims. should I take it that it's not going well then? Did you get a fatwa on your head? Did they call you a Kuffir and accuse you of commiting shirk? How did they respond to your interpretation of the Quoran and Hadiths? Did they point out any flaws in your reasoning?
I'm of course being charitable and using you would go and speak with your breveren. After all, it is the MUSLIMS who are misunderstanding the Quoran who are the ones doing violence, not the non-muslims who are misunderstanding, so I wouldn't imagine you'd waste your time here if you weren't doing the more important work of speaking with Muslims too! I'm also assuming you say what you mean, and you truly do beleive Islam is peaceful and that you're not simply telling us Kuffir it's peaceful to cover for your violent bretheren.
@ Jamal,
So much for repentance in islam. allah deemed it necessary to give the mandate to sinners to punish sinners.
My Lord explained this so beautifully, He said,let he who has no sin cast the first stone.
Is that really the best defence you can come up with, not to question muhammad. Can his "opinions" not stand the test of scrutiny?
What do you mean by Moses had the 4 witness standard?
Can you bring 4 witness that can testify that muhammad indeed got his revelations from allah? Better yet, only one?
No Sir, you have made a common blunder. You say that the quran is complete and infallible yet you refer us to get the answer from the hadith by virtue of OBEYING THE MESSENGER (5:92). You proven the quran to be absolutely inferior. The higher source(quran) refers you to a lower source( hadith) to find the answer. Is the infallable quran referring you to a source subject to men's error? Its an illusion to believe the quran to be infallable.
Your reasoning about the dress code is very flawed. You claim God is everywhere and we are committing shirk. Is it not also then idolatery for muslims to have sex, go to the toilet, be naked as allah is everywhere? What utter nonsense.
With regards to veiling,It is also known that during the time of the early church women who did not cover their heads were considered loose, like prostitutes, and therefore the stipulation is referring to a
specific cultural issue, which is not universal. Note that a woman is never commanded to cover to be modest, but rather to be seen as a ‘godly woman’, which at that time would mean a
head-covering.
Women in christianity are required to dress modest. The veil however is not their dress code.
In what sense did christianity fail? Because we don't have the moral police to beat you with a broomstick if you don't wear hijab. Because we don't stone adulteres or kill apostates.
In christianity there's a free will to accept or reject God by your own conviction.
Once again, your reasoning is questionable. If people don't care about God anymore, how is the islamic god any better.
People reject God because their lust after the flesh supercedes their spiritual nature.
No. I don't need good luck, I live by faith in Jesus Christ.
In Christ,by Christ,for Christ
murtadd.wordpress.com
""9:7 seems to forbid new treaties." Seems? What is this conjecture?"
Again we're going in cirlces. You already said this! It doesn't say 9as I've already pointed out) "how can there be treaties with those who break treaties" it says "how can there be treaties with polytheists."
""hey resisted the preachings of Islam." That is a most generous account about what they did. Do I have to spell out what they did to earn expulsion or can I for once trust you to do your own research?""
I did my own research (again you are making the assumption that I'm being dishonest!) What sources show say it was something else than disbelief? I notice you give no evidence here for otehrwise. You asked me what the motivation was, and I told you what I could find. If it is otherwise then show it (rather than just saying I'm wrong!).
"I do not think non-Muslims were there in the first place."
So you doubt your quoran? It says there were non-believers in Mecca and Medina. Are you saying kicking people out of their homes becvause of their beleif is just? Three cities are comparble to a temple now? Non-Jews were allowed into Jewish cities, and even the outer courts, just not the inner courts (again you are misrepresenting the bible!).
"I'm not being arrogant. The Bible has errors. Every Bible scholar knows this. The Bible is not like the Quran. It does not turn your eyes to the world around you and challenge you. It does not point out any nations who rejected jesus as son and therefore got punished. It does not challenge its readers to disprove it. It is a book of mostly stories. The real theology was developed by Paul. But again, no Paul until you either answer my challenge or concede." Hahahahahhahaha!
Ok. We're done. YOU ARE being a HYPOCRITAE, and ARROGANT!I'm not allowed to critisize what I see as errors in the Quoran (asking you to show how I'm, wrong), and if I do it's it's arrogance and you simply push aside by saying "I don't know, Allah knows best". But I'm willing to listen to your challanges of the bible and respond to them (I give reasons why you are wrong about Paul, Mary etc) and you tell me that the bible is absolutely wrong! You say I'm biased agianst the Quoran, but how is your saying that the bible is absolutely wrong not JUST AS ARROGANT?!
Don't you see the problem of your attitude? it is not humble.
See how you are treating me different than youself (because you are muslim and I am not) This is not "moderate", and can be called "Islamnics Supremiscism"!
Again it's clear you don't want to listen to me. I already showed how they are by citing that study. 51% of Mosques IN THE US preach violence! saying it's not happening doesn't make it so, and your citing ONE or TWO videos is silly, and a logical fallacy (as I pointed out when you first mentioned them). The fact that to say he didn't IN THAT VIDEO point to 9:29 doesn't mean he, or other muslims didn't elsewhere! I notice in this letter http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver
OBL calls for American to embrace sharia law, and cites it as a main reason (the "corruption") for his war against us!
""The Quran obliges every able Muslim to participate in jihad and fight in the way of Allah those who fight you, and kill them wherever you find them ... an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth."
-- Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Underwear Bomber
"There are hundreds of other [Koranic] psalms and hadiths urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.'" --The Ayatollah Khomeini
""When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off the fingertip of them" --Literature from the Jama'at al-Tawhid wa'l-Jihad Salafi group in Gaza quoting from the Quran to justify sending rockets haphazardly into Israeli population centers.
Your comment about the KKK is more tu quo que nonsense, and again shows how you're not at all being honest! Perhaps you could tell me about the hundreds of attacks by the KKK in the last 11 years and tell me how many people have died? In the meantime there have been over 100,000 dead and thousands of attacks by muslims, but according to you the problem is non-muslims who are seeing muslims as violent! Ha! So you're saying then that there is no problem that they are misunderstanding the Quoran and commiting violence?!
There obviously are muslims who point to the Quoran as what they are following, and stil commit vilolence (such as killing children and civilians). If the Quoran clearly forbid it, they wouldn't be doing it, or if they are misunderstanding it, you should be able to convince them! That you refuse to says a lot about you, and frankly makes me think you don't actually care that muslims are commiting violence at all!
And it's not nonsense. My argument is the logical clear understanding of "and" would mean a person beloinging to either group muderers or group rapists or both. I don't think people who heardm me say this think I mean the person would have to BOTH rape and murder. This is the point I was making. Also, as I said, even if it meant this, this contradicts the "or" of the previous paragraph!
Are you saying that if someone just wages war then they shouldn't be killed? How does this make sense if "make mischief" also means make war then? If "make mischief" means that, then are you saying the chain of "Abu Ja`far said that Ar-Rabi` bin Anas said that Abu Al-`Aliyah said that Allah's statement, ..." are wrong when they say it means "disbelief" here?
The main problem with the Koran is that it drives men to the works of the law and at the same time, to works of the flesh.
By these means it robs men of their souls.
That it drives men to works of the flesh is easily seen in its idea of paradise (its ultimate reward to its faithfull followers) which goes against God's commands concerning fornication and adultery.
...adultery, fornication... Those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. Gal 5:19-22
If these things are forbiden on earth, then why would they be allowed in heaven?
Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Mat 6:10
As if God, our Righteous and Holy Creator, would want to sit around all day watching this kind of thing when he has plainly stated that such things are an abomination to him.
The Islamic idea of paradise is nothing more than a mad pagan fantasy.
For Islamists to stone someone for adultery when their own ideology has adultery in its foundations and then at the same time to accuse other cultures of corrupt behaviour is hypocricy of the highest order and goes against Jesus' (God was manifested in the flesh. 1Tim 3:16) wisdom when he said:
"He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first." John 8:7
(The conscience of the oldest prodded them into leaving first, because their tally of sins/crimes was higher, since they had been alive for longer).
In other words they have no business criticising anyone when they are full of holes themselves.
Who else could be the author of the Koran but the devil himself?
Again, I really honestly don't see it saying it the way you see it. You're trying to tell me that 9:7 says to do NOT one thing (not make treaties with non-beleivers), but 9:8 is another negetive that makes 9:7 a possative (you say it means "make treaties with those who keep treaties") but it doesn't explicitly say that, or really clearly imply that even. 9:8 looks a lot to me as a description of non-beleivers that they don't keep their word (I've already said this I believe even). This is a lot like how you're tyring to use Surrah 2 to soften what 9:29 says. It just doesn't make sense to me. It's not arrogance, it just doesn't. Also, you're playing semantic games with "seems". what I mean is, I perceive it as it not being clear, when I honestly read the entire chapter. You can't show how it is clear to say what you claim it says, instead you're attack a word I'm using. (?!)
"Ok excellent you claim to have done research"
Again, I should beleive everything you say (even if you don't cite sources), but if I say I did something I'm probibly lying. No inequallity here!!
I googled "why were the Narjan expelled?".
"The classical Arabic historians tell us that in the year 20 of the Muslim era, corresponding to 641 C.E., the Caliph `Umar decreed that the Jews and Christians should be removed from all but the southern and eastern fringes of Arabia, in fulfillment of an injunction of the Prophet uttered on his deathbed: 'Let there not be two religions in Arabia.'" - Benard Lewis, The Crisis of Islam, p. xxix-xxx
If you can provide counter evidence it would be ON YOU to show it, not me.
Well, you are asking me to prove something differnt than what you just said. You made the silly claim that there were no non-muslims in Medina or Mecca. This is obviously false since it's quite clearly recorded he had conflicts with non-believers in Mecca. This is called moving the goal posts. (Again, it's just ME who's being dishonest though!) I notice there a few times when I point out your false arguments you go completely silent on them (like your arguments about 9:24, about 9:1 (only applies to those who have a treaty), your silly argument about the use of the word "and", your ad honim attacks on my motives, and on and on). If you're being honest, then why is that?
But I will prove this too.
"I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim." -Sahih Muslim 4366.
I know you'll say this only applies to those Jews who fought against Mohammad (mentioned in 4364) but why then mention the christians, and why not say "the christians and Jews who broke their promise?" Also, see the expulsion mentioned in Ibn Ishaq/Hashim 920-923. Perticularly of note is 9:22 which says
"the polytheists who had broken the agreement as well as those who had a general agreement after the four months which had been given them as a fixed time", so not only those who broke the oath, but also those others after the fixed time of four months were given notice!
I didn't say theere were errors, I'm saying you were critising the bible and I was willing to answer you, but when I critisize the Quoran and point out my problems with your answers (9:29 does not clearly state it is about defense only) YOU CALL ME ARROGANT! It is about your attitude in how you answer me and how I answer you. You say things like "everyone agrees with me", which is arrogant and untrue (just one person disagreeing ruins this!).
You are SUCH a hypocrite! these are scienfifically proven, but it's not scientfiicilly proven that the bible existed 200 years before mohmamd was born, and would be the document he claimed to be fulfilling? You're just giving yourself and out and trying to conveintlty not let me use the same false reasoning! it's pathetic!
Anyway, I will answer your "errors".
1.)Genesis 1:1-9: http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Shabir-Ally/science03.htm
Mohammad said that night and day came after plants, so you are condemning Mohammad too as being in error! At any rate,
2.)So you know for a FACT there were poisonous plants then, that possibly poisonous plants were the result of the fall? What sources do you have for making this assertion? Is there scientific evidence?
3.)Seems like a hypocritical critisizing considering Mohammad suggested Camel urine as a cure! (I'm not saying it makes the lev. verse scientific, that would be Tu Quo Que, only pointing out the hypocracy). Honestly I don't know, but I'm going to look into this some more. (See? no "YWH knows best" answer!)
This is off-topic though. To answer the claim that the Quoran has errors with "the bible has errors too!" is Tu Quo Que (once again, a logical fallacy!). it doesn't disprove errors in the bible, and in fact PROVES ALL THE MORE that the Quoran is in eerror since it points to the bible (again, existed 200 years before Mohammad), and thus errors you point out in the bible just disproves Islam! But my point anway was how when I point out how the verse dones't obviously say what you say it clearly says, you tell me I'm arrogant, but I'm expected to beleive you when you say things like "every scholar beleives this or that). Can you not see the differnence?
"As I said, if I come across such people I will correct their views." Ok, but why are you seeking out non-christians to correct THEIR views? Why is it more important to educate non-beleivers who will do no violence (and simply point out the violence done), than the ones doing violence? Is the truth that you really don't care when your co-religionists commit violence?
1.)Genesis 1:1-9: http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Shabir-Ally/science03.htm
Mohammad said that night and day came after plants, so you are condemning Mohammad too as being in error! At any rate,
2.)So you know for a FACT there were poisonous plants then, that possibly poisonous plants were the result of the fall? What sources do you have for making this assertion? Is there scientific evidence?
3.)Seems like a hypocritical critisizing considering Mohammad suggested Camel urine as a cure! (I'm not saying it makes the lev. verse scientific, that would be Tu Quo Que, only pointing out the hypocracy). Honestly I don't know, but I'm going to look into this some more. (See? no "YWH knows best" answer!)
This is off-topic though. To answer the claim that the Quoran has errors with "the bible has errors too!" is Tu Quo Que (once again, a logical fallacy!). it doesn't disprove errors in the bible, and in fact PROVES ALL THE MORE that the Quoran is in eerror since it points to the bible (again, existed 200 years before Mohammad), and thus errors you point out in the bible just disproves Islam! But my point anway was how when I point out how the verse dones't obviously say what you say it clearly says, you tell me I'm arrogant, but I'm expected to beleive you when you say things like "every scholar beleives this or that). Can you not see the differnence?
"As I said, if I come across such people I will correct their views." Ok, but why are you seeking out non-christians to correct THEIR views? Why is it more important to educate non-beleivers who will do no violence (and simply point out the violence done), than the ones doing violence? Is the truth that you really don't care when your co-religionists commit violence?
Another question: What is the criteria for a good Hadith with a good chain? Is there a resource I can use to determine what is reliable or not? This will save me time in posting from Hadith that are unreliable. (Though I should point out, this concept of unreliable Haidths makes Islam all the more unclear since they are collected together. Christians either accept or reject an entire book.)
You're still using silly fallacies (Tu Quo Que, Ad Honim), havn't shown how Surrah 9 is only defensive and are dodging my questions about why you are so intent on proving to Christians why Islam is peaceful instead of more importantly your co-religioinists.
"Ok. Well it’s good that you are honestly confused and not simply biased and in search of avenues to reject Islam"
So then, this means you are going to stop calling me "biased" and presuming my motives? Or was this sarcastic?
"It becomes clear. There cannot remain a treaty with such people."
So are you saying what I was saying all along, that 9:8 is a reasoning behind 9:7. and not an exception to it, and that
9:7 says that treaties can only be made with those at Masjid-al-Haram (some say "the unavoidable place")? Why say "make no treaty with anyone except the Masjid-al-Haram" if they mean "only make treaties with those who keep their treaties". these aren't the same things. 9:8 seems to be saying EVERYONE (all non-beleivers) except the Masjid-al-Haram break their proimises, so don't make treaties with them. I've already said this, so we're going in cirlces again.
Interesting is 9:12. "and defame your religion", so apparently talking bad about Islam is justification for war!
Again you're claiming victory for youself saying "I think it's clear" but the only thing that's clear is that one is not to fight those you have a treaty with (9:1), but you are not to make treaties with anyone new unless you have to (9:7) because unbeleivers WILL (not did, but WILL) break their oaths (9:8). Once again we complete the circut!
"The Quran does not have any errors. The Bible does. It’s just a fact."
No it is not, but as I said, it is beside the point of the discussion. I'm not really interested right now in discussing the errors in the Quoran or the Bible. My point was to say in answer to someone saying "the Quoran has errors" to also say "well the bible has errors" is foolishness and dishonest (though to be fair, I don't know how this error conversation started, so I'm not saying you did this). Also, as I pointed out and you don't mentioned, to say the bible is in error also says the Quoran is in error, since (i'm going to say it AGAIN) the bible as we have today existed 200 years before the Quoran, and so if Mohammad pointed to the bible, it would be this one, that I have in my hand in the moment! You still havn't explained this.
"There are errors in the Bible, so lets run to the Quran."
No, I did no such thing. I pointed out how it might be hypocritical for a mulsim to point to certin errors since the Hadith or Quoran seems to teach simular things. (Points 1 & 2).
"Oh we cannot find any real errors in the Quran, lets run to Hadith. "
Again, I did no such thing. Hadiths are either accepted as true or not, and so I'm pointing out what I see as problems in the hadith. You're presuming my motives again, the reason why I was getting fed up, and I thought from the start of this post you were going to stop. Was I wrong?
Sorry point 1 got garbled. Take a look at the articvle I linked that gives a refutation. I still need to do research on #3.
"It’s a whole science. I cannot explain I’m not a scholar. You can look it up though."
I'm going to look more into this. As I pointed out though, the bible has no such concept as "weak verses", and we believe the entirety of the bible is true. it is a bit confusing that these verses are included in the same book as accepted verses.
The Koran [600 A.D.] cannot be "The actual Word of God" since it completely fails the following test:
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
By this you know the spirit of God; every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world. 1John 4:1-3 [85-95 A.D.]
Instead, the Koran blasphemously says:
Surely they are kafirs who say, "Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary." 5:17
People of the Book [Christians]! Do not overstep the boundaries of your religion and speak only what is true about Allah. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, is only Allah's messenger and his word which he sent into Mary was a spirit from him. Therefore, believe in Allah and his messengers and do not say, "Trinity." Hold back and it will be better for you. Allah is only one god. Far be it for Allah to have a son! All the heavens and earth are his. Allah is the sufficient as a protector. The Messiah does not condescend to be Allah's servant, nor do his favoured angels. Those who disdain service to him, are filled with arrogance, Allah will gather them all together before him. 4:171
They surely blaspheme who say, Allah is the third of the three [The Trinity], for there is no god but Allah, and if they do not refrain from what they say, a grievous penalty will fall on those who disbelieve. 5:72
Jesus Christ's [God] coming in the flesh was foretold in Isaiah [700-690 B.C]
For unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given... And his name will be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Isaiah 9:6
"Thus says the lord, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer [The Son, Christ], the Lord of hosts; 'I am the first and the last; besides me there is no God." Isaiah 44:6 (repeated by Christ in Revelation 1:11 [70-95 A.D])
For by him [the Son] all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth... And he is before all things, and in him all things consist. Colossians 1:16, 17 [61 A.D]
You're going in circles once again. I've already pointed out why v. 4 doesn't help (it excepts those you made treaties and those who don't break the treaties only). But you havn't shown how the context does make it clear. I've already demonstrated why you're arguments havn't shown this (v. 24, 129, 4 all don't help ). " But there is no case for attacking people who have fulfilled their end of the treaty. That is not disputable." Ok, but you still havn't shown how v. 7 allows for treaties with non-beleivers, you keep just quoting verses that don't give any sort of explination! 9:7 implies one should not make treatiesd with anyone except for those at the "unavoidable place" (again, it says not "save for those who break their promises" but "with whom ye made a treaty at the Inviolable Place of Worship ". You still havn't explained this, you quote verse about KEEPING PROMISES MADE as if this HAS ANYTHING to do with resrtrictions on making pacts in the first place!!
"Can we stop nonsense like this. You’re going to take 4 words and make such statements? Would you like me to apply these same standards to the Bible? "
Ok, yes. Please show me a verse in the New Testiment that says something like 9:12, that something should be done to people who "defame" anyone. I'll be waiting.
"So if what you are saying is true, the Muslims were no longer allowed to make treaties with polytheists who broke the treaty."
Except it doesn't say anything about breaking treaties. It says making treaties with polytheists at the unavoidable place. Even if this doesn't include me as a polythiest, this doesn't seem very tollerant for say Hindus since the only alternative to a pact is 9:29!
"Firstly, cite me all references where Muhammad pointed to the Bible please. Also, I thought that the Arab Christians were 'heretical' and they fled to Arabia. The Greco-Roman Christians were at odds with them. Do we have any evidence that the same Bible the Arabs had (which Muhammad supposedly pointed to) is the same Bible that modern Christians read? Not Greco-Roman manuscripts, are there any Arabic manuscripts or Bibles that were used by Christians around Muhammad?"
I have to admit, I'm confused by this line of questioning. You'll have to explain what you mean.
We have the MAIN bilbical manuscripts that make up our modern bible that are 200 years before Mohammad's time. Mohammad claimed Jesus as a Islamic prophet (surely you don't dispute this?). If the chriwstians around the Arab penensula were at odds with Christ's teachings, as told by the eyewitnesses (the apostles) this would make them hetetics, and not teaching the message of Christainity. I geleive that is how Mohamamd got his information about Islam, through heretics (i.e what they said contradicts the orthadox teaching of Christianity).
It's pretty simple 1.)Mohammad claimed his work was a contenuation of Christ's. 2.)Christ's words were recorded 200 years before Mohmmad was born 3.)The words contradict in many ways what Mohammad taught (salvation, Christ's divinity, Cruxifiction and resurection) 4.)Therefore the bible (as it existed 200 years before mohammad was born) and the Quoran cannot both be true. 5.)The bible came first, and so it is more logical to see it as more reliable of the two.
"They are not in the same book. They are two separate entirely different books. It's what separates Islam from other religions. We have The Book. The actual Word of God." Seperate books? I'm talking about hadiths in a single book, collected by a single author. Aren't all the verses by say Ibn Ishaq collected together? If some are unreliable, then why are they included in the hadith books by muslim scholars?
"There are examples of Bible verses which scholars later deemed as forgeries" This should be good. Which ones? Which scholars?
"That is besides the point. There are no weak verses in the Quran" I wasn't talking about the Quoran. Of course I know this, I mean the Hadith, since you keep telling me hadith I cite are weak.
And a clearifcation on Benard Lewis. the only reason I cited him was because you insisted that I let Weir stand. There is no good reason to accept one and reject the other (and ask for his citations that the other does not give) except for hypocracy! I will gladly allow that Lewis is a bad source if you also accept that Weir is just as bad.
Again, no repsonse to why it is so important to seek out and tell us non-muslims about how wrong we are about Islam, but you will only explain it to a muslim (who is potentioally violent because of their misunderstanding) if you find one!
Addendum:
"how mohammad got his information about CHRISTIANITY" is of course what I meant.
I should note, I'm not saying that hadiths are included because they are actually reliable, but pointing out the confusion of having reliable and unreliable hadiths together. As I said, we have just the bible and don't consider any "unreliable", except maybe a very few "footnote" verses (which, at least in my bible are clear they are missing from the earliest manuscripts), which I'm fairly certain none of them call for, or record Jesus approving of murdering non-believers.
"There is no place where making new treaties is forbidden. Period. I do not want to keep repeating myself just because you repeatedly want to twist a verse and draw wrong conclusions."
There's no need to repeat yourself, just present new evience! YOU are the one repeating yourself (as you did with talking about v. 4) without answering my arguments! I've already pointed to why I beleive 9:7 does forbid it.
you then explained why I was wrong in various ways, but you havn't answered my objections to these explinations!
You cited v. 4 but ignored my objection that it just says war is excepted from those you already have treaties (and doesn't say anything in that verse about whether or not one should make new treaties)! you also used v. 8, but that just says that one shouldn't make treaties with those who Mohammad beleives will break treaties in the future!
You need to show how I'm "twisting" this verse! The fact is, YOU are the one twisting the verse! You are trying to make "save those with whom ye made a treaty at the Inviolable Place of Worship" to mean "save those who will keep thier oaths" but (again!) IT DOESN'T SAY THAT! There are two clauses: Don't make oaths with polythiests ("how can there be?", v. 7) and don't make treaties with oath breakers (v. 8). You need to explain HOW v. 8 somehow softens v. 7, meaning there should be treaties with unbeleivers outside the unavoidable place if they will keep their oaths!
Instead you once again tell me you are right, that it is undebatable etc. You notice I'm not the one making these sorts of statements?
"So earlier = true?"
No, you misunderstand. I'm saying the Quoran is built apon the bible, and if both contradict each other, I will take the one that doesn't rely on the other.
"1 John 5:7 is not in most bibles today because it was later deemed a forgery. This has been agreed upon. I’m sure you know this."
I notice you don't cite any scholars who hold this view, as I asked. It is not "agreed apon" but is debated, but you once again declare that your view is the only accepted one! (and yet it is *I* who is arrogant!). You have a really annoying habit of doing this.
Here are some arguments for the authenticity of the Comma Johanneum:
http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/1john5n7.html
And there is evidence of early church fathers as far back as 300 AD who apear to be quoting this verse! It may well be a forgary, but it is not, by any stretch of the imagination "agreed upon".
You gave another non-muslim source beside Muir? I don't remember you doing that, but maybe I missed it.
Again, how is it going with your equal outreach to the misunderstanding Muslims who are misunderstanding the Quoran and hadiths the same way we non-Muslims are, since after all telling them would be more important. Or are you going to keep ignoring the question and acknowledge you refuse to act to educate your violent brethren?
Also, Mohammad had a good motivation for keeping peace with the Narjan since they were giving him stuff (i.e. the "subdued" choice of 9:29). Was there a treaty he made after 9:29 was revealed where this didn't happen?
Jesus is not God, Jesus followed God's word and lived though God, not once in the bible did Jesus ever say that he was God that's were I think Christians get it confused there is no other God but Allah, la illah ill allah mohamed rasolu ah, don't be so close minded, and don't bash on my religion and why do you keep deleting Mr Hasan's comment, you probably don't want people to know the real truth
Erin,
You said that nowhere in the Bible does Jesus say he's God. Obviously, you haven't read the Bible, since Jesus says it over and over and over.
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2011/06/where-did-jesus-say-i-am-god-worship-me.html
@ Erin,
Do yourself a favour and look up the term "hypostatic union". Also read John1:1-14 for some perspective.
Also could you please give us ONE witness that can confirm that your muhammed indeed got his revelations from your allah?
In Christ, for Christ, by Christ
murtadd.wordpress.com
to reconnaissance, it is wrong to mock, to bob, the Koran does not plagiarize, it came to complete the unfinished
All u pepl hatin on Islam can hate but if someone is gonna stand up for what he believes in let him n callin him ignorant is descriminative. And instead of reading books to dissuade pepl go get a life.
Too few Americans understand the fact that when Barack Hussein Obama "recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent", he recited the Shahada in Arabic. Therefore, regardless of what he truly believes, the Muslim world views him as a Muslim.
You guys are lost. Worshipping creation of God instead of God himself and also trying to proof the last and final word of God wrong while the bible has so many fabrications itself. It has been changed by man. Its a fact. Stop following wrong things and turn to God alone. God promised there would be 1 final scripture that would not be changed. Guess what guys, just recently in birningham, they found fragments of original Quranic scripture that dates back 1370 years using radiocarbon. GG.
Why care about what men have written? What can you do today to live 'Godly' - how do you think 'He' would like you to live? 'He' already expects mistakes from man. The word of God is best taken directly. Otherwise it is up to interpretation, and I prefer to think (for myself anyway), that how you live among others, whom God has created, means more then how much you write about, or pray to, God. Too many people mask their own evil behind the 'words of God' by the way they interpret them.
I understand the commentary from so many that are so knowledgeable about the word of God, from whatever text you prefer to quote. I don't have that expertise. I only think about how I should try to act, on a daily basis. Sometimes I lapse. I am human.
This extremely simple 2 sentence statement of belief is being used to lure and bind the young without their parents knowledge in many parts of the world. IT IS AN EXTREMELY DANGEROUS statement to make in the presence of Muslims, especially in Islamic nations. Legally, you are now Muslim, and legally, you will be subject to the Shariah laws - and once in, you cannot get out. This means - your property, your spouse, your kids will all be trapped.
Parents - especially be watchful. I'm writing this after first hand experiencing this event unfold this week on a dead family in Christ.
MUHAMMAD IS A FOOL ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE.
Read the Bible first:
Psalm 14:1 The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good.
NOW MUHAMMAD IS SAYING THERE IS NO GOD BUT ALLAH.
“I bear witness that there is no god but Allah, and I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.”
Sahih al-Bukhari 6924—Allah’s Messenger said, “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: La ilaha illallah (There is no god but Allah), and whoever said La ilaha illahllah, Allah will save his property and his life from me.”
MUHAMMAD AND ALL MUHAMMADANS ARE FOOLS
MUHAMMAD IS A FOOL ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE.
Read the Bible first:
Psalm 14:1 The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good.
NOW MUHAMMAD IS SAYING THERE IS NO GOD BUT ALLAH.
“I bear witness that there is no god but Allah, and I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.”
Sahih al-Bukhari 6924—Allah’s Messenger said, “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: La ilaha illallah (There is no god but Allah), and whoever said La ilaha illahllah, Allah will save his property and his life from me.”
MUHAMMAD AND ALL MUHAMMADANS ARE FOOLS
Where can I locate SAHADA in the Qur'an?
Post a Comment