842727 Responseshttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.kabobfest.com%2F2010%2F08%2Fguest-post-who-said-the-quran-preaches-aggression.htmlGuest+Post%3A+Who+Said+the+Quran+Preaches+Aggression%3F2010-08-05+02%3A09%3A37Willhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.kabobfest.com%2F%3Fp%3D8427 to “Guest Post: Who Said the Quran Preaches Aggression?”

1. 

   While your interpretation is to be commended, and while I agree that nothing in the Qur'an comes close to the genocidal nature of the OT, you're still painting a pretty picture that is not accurate. Upon his entry to Mecca, Muhammad did order a number of people executed for past offenses against himself. He also did accept to execute all the male members of a tribe in an act of collective punishment. I wouldn't say Islam is entirely violent or genocidal, but it's not "peaceful" either. The same is true for most other religions, but the cake definitely goes to the OT, which has things in it that make Ibn Laden look like a hippie.

   Posted by Arab atheist | August 5, 2010, 11:16 am
   Reply to this comment
   • 

     Did Muslims commit atrocities? Sure. But the discussion is whether the "Quran" approves of aggression. And it absolutely doesn't. When someone argues that Bin Laden gets his world view from the Quran, it should be easily pointed out that it is a fallacy, and a great misinterpretation that could have only begotten from a Wahhabi backward view. My argument is basically this: When someone accuses Quran of preaching violence, the response should not be "oh, all religions do that." The correct response, rather, should be "that is not true, the Quran does not preach aggression and violence just because someone is not a Muslim." Finding verses in the Old Testament that speak of genocidal mania is not a response to false accusations, but a separate topic.

     Posted by Sarakenos | August 5, 2010, 10:48 pm
     Reply to this comment
     • 

       Sarakenos,

       My argument wasn't about the Qur'an, it was about Muhammad (the hadeeth). If you are one to say that the Qur'an is your only source, or that you disregard those parts of the hadeeth that don't suit your interpretation, that's fine, but it's not mainstream Islam. Mainstream Islam accepts that Muhammad carried out things such as the collective punishment referred to above, and the execution of people for personal offenses. It also accepts that people were killed for changing their religion. All of which are not in the Qur'an, but all of which are part of orthodox Islam. Muslims need to deal with this issue by seriously revisiting the status of those traditions, and not just hide behind "it's not in the Qur'an".

       Posted by Arab atheist | August 6, 2010, 6:39 am
       Reply to this comment
       • 

         I know your argument wasn't about the Quran. That's what I've been trying to point out to you. I was specifically discussing the Quran's content. Hadeeth and Muhammad's actions are a separate topic, that would go under the title "Who said ISLAM preaches aggression?"

         Posted by Sarakenos | August 6, 2010, 9:05 am
         Reply to this comment
       • 

         1. They jews of Bani Quraizah were guilty of breaking the treaty of cooperation with the Muslims during any war wrt to Madinah. ie. the Muslims will protect the Jews and the Jews will protect the Muslims during any war/siege threatening any one of the parties concerned . Something like the Allies, Axis, Central Powers, and NATO. So confident was Muhammad(pbuh) with the integrity of the Bani Quraizah, that he didn't bother allotting any of his Muslims soldiers for defense on their(Jews) southern line; whilst concentrating his forces to withstand the Meccan confederacy to the north. However the treachery of the Bani Quraizah threatened not only the Muslim women and children holed up in their fortress, but also to bring about the wholesale annihilation of Medina.

         2.After the sahabas, who were sent to collect intelligence on the intentions of the Bani Quraizah, found them to have openly renounced the pact , they threatened them with the same consequences the Jews of Nader and Qaynuqa faced for their treachery; expelled from Medinah. However the Bani Quraizah were adamant in their attitude to betray the pact made with the Muslims.

         3.Only with Muhammad's(pbuh) acumen for diplomacy, stratagem and God's will did the Muslims come out successful. However the Bani Quraizah must be punished for their treachery. If they had asked for forgiveness the Prophet(pbuh) would have granted it, but they opted for a confrontation. The Muslims laid siege to their fortress and in 25 days they surrendered on condition that a Muslim of their choice, Sa‘d ibn Mu’adh, was to judge their case.

         4. Sa'd, who was versed in the Torah, delivered judgment according to their Law of the Torah. The tribe accused of treachery shall have all their men killed and their women and children shall be enslaved.

         Posted by OooKhalid | August 8, 2010, 11:42 pm
         Reply to this comment
         • 

           you're not talking to someone who doesn't know Islam, I was a Muslim, and I know the story and the excuses very well. Putting the entire "history" aside, you seem to have conveniently missed the point of "collective punishment". Your excuse is no better than Israel claiming that Hamas fires rockets on civilians, so therefore every last Gazan must die. Regardless of what the leaders of the Bani Quraytha did, that by no means justifies killing every adult male and enslaving the women and children. Moreover, the point about who the Jews chose to issue their verdict is irrelevant; any truly moral person would stop something immoral from happening, and if he has the means to do so (as Muhammad clearly did) and yet fails to even object, then he is morally responsible as well.

           This is really but one incident which clearly demonstrates my point: you'll do yourself well if you stop saying "Islam is peace" and recognize the fact that there are things in the hadeeth that are utterly unacceptable by any moral standard, and deal with the status of those traditions in Islam.

           Posted by Arab atheist | August 10, 2010, 6:27 am
         • 

           Who are you to dictate what is just and what is not. An atheist will scream for gay rights when it seems to boost their luck with the ladies, and then turn around and commit genocide as easy as eating lunch.
           http://www.ukemonde.com/genocide/margolisholocaus…

           If the accused feels the punishment to be just; who are you to come in with ur pretense of a 'superior' sense of morality and lecture us on Morality 101.
           The Jews' last wish was to be judged according to their Holy Books. That was the conditions imposed on Muhammad(pbuh), and he(pbuh) gave them his word. To back-tract would be to not only disappoint the Jews but also to prevent justice, which is worse then crime.

           Posted by OooKhalid | August 10, 2010, 11:58 am
         • 

           "An atheist will scream for gay rights when it seems to boost their luck with the ladies, and then turn around and commit genocide as easy as eating lunch".

           You lost any rational points right about here. Atheists, like religious people, can be good or bad. they can commit genocide just like Hitler (a catholic), Massacre hundreds of thousands like Saddam…etc. Let's not count, because if we take the crimes of the church, the crusades, the Islamic conquests and all the things religion brought us, there would hardly be a comparison. But let me say, that you would never find any logical pathway from atheism to murder. There is nothing in atheism – essentially the rejection of an assertion – that advocates anything except rational thinking and skepticism. Those are more than sufficient for the realization that murder, collective punishment, stoning, religious wars….etc. are all wrong. As the now famous saying goes "left to themselves bad people would do bad thing and good people would do good things, but for good people to do bad things….that takes religion".

           As for your assertion that the accused were "happy" with the verdict, that can only be the figment of a troubled imagination. Nothing in the tradition even remotely suggests that (and even if it did, it would only be a testament to how ridiculous the tradition is). The Jews selected Sa'd because he was closest to them, and hoped that this would earn them some mercy, not because they were happy to die.

           As for labeling the collective murder of people and enslavement of their women and children "justice", I think it's the perfect demonstration of what religion can do to an otherwise healthy mind.

           Posted by Arab atheist | August 10, 2010, 3:23 pm
         • 

           You know at least religious people have a list, which instruct them what is moral and what is not; no matter how faulty it may sometimes seem. That is why we can say to a religious person~ "hey, don't steal, its against ur religion." Whether he wishes to listen, is entirely his personal freedom.

           But for an atehist, what is morality? you tell him~ "hey, don't steal." he'll just turn to logic and tell you that God doesn't exist, what we do in this world stays in this world, "i need a keg for my booze party and i'm short of cash. Whaaaatt?? u goin to tell da cops? i'mma keiiilllll u 2 beeyaaacchhh!"
           So, my naive friend, what is morality?

           Have you read, Republic of Plato? well basically it's a dialogue b2n Socrates and a dude who tells him that injustice is good. In the end Socrates is unable to convince anyone, with his advanced branch of logic that justice is good, or for that matter even define justice; so finally in the last chapter he tell a story of a prophet who visited Hell and Heaven, and who might hold the answer to the question of morality.

           Posted by OooKhalid | August 12, 2010, 11:58 am
         • 

           "So, my naive friend, what is morality?"

           Morality is the concern for the suffering of other human beings which emanates from the fact that we – humans – have evolved something called empathy. Other closely related primates show similar behavior toward members of their groups, and they don't need to holy books or gods for them to do so. That empathy, combined with an invention called rationality, which enables us to see how are actions impact others, is the sole source of morality in any secular society, and is the reason why we did such things as abolish slavery, grant equal rights for individuals, invented democracy….etc.

           If you truly believe that the only reason you don't steal is because there is hell in another life, I can only feel sorry for you.

           Posted by Arab atheist | August 13, 2010, 2:42 pm
         • 

           Just as empathy and rationalism are innate human characteristics, so are GREED and EGOCENTRICITY. You might like to paint a rosy picture of man's natural tendency to do good, but i beg to differ. Evil has attracted humans far more successfully, then Good ever has.

           Muslims, compared to atheists, are more likely to do good then evil. Why? Because we are accountable for every second of our lives. This is why our empathy and rationality, triumphs over our greed and egocentricity.

           Posted by OooKhalid | August 14, 2010, 5:12 am
         • 

           Even if greed is indeed innate just like empathy, rationality is there. Rationality is what helps us discern what characteristics of ourselves to encourage in societies and which to avoid. No rational argument can ever be constructed to legitimize greed or jealousy in a society; those are emotions. Plenty of arguments can be made against stealing or murder…etc.

           But kindly that your assessment that greed is "innate" is not supported. When I speak about empathy, I'm speaking about a scientifically tangible thing, observed in other primates and its neurological basis (so-called mirror neurons) we're beginning to understand. Your statement is supported based on anecdotal historical evidence, which I would argue religion and religion-like ideologies play a big part in; evil has attracted far more humans than good, just look at religions which promote authoritarian tendencies, imperial conquest, expansionist ideologies…etc.

           Finally, your assessment that Muslims are more likely to do good is simply false. As an example, atheists are so extremely rare in prison populations that they are almost non-existent as a percentage, while Muslims and Christians are majorities. All studies point that the further away societies move from religion, the more peaceful and prosperous they are. Many Muslims in Islamic countries practice honour killings, genital mutilation, forced marriages and a whole host of practices that are not only morally unacceptable to an atheist, but to any person with a semblance of humanity in them. The fact that those people think they are "accountable" means nothing when their morality is based on desert text-books. I'd much prefer an accountability that we erect ourselves based on rational discourse and argument rather than myth and superstition.

           Posted by Arab atheist | August 14, 2010, 7:05 am
         • 

           You forget that one of the fundamental nature of man is self-preservation. Which, without the use of rationality, self-preservation descends to Greed and Egocentricity.

           What is rationality? Of course, it is partially the ability to use empathy. But studies have shown that empathy in itself does not lead to better behaviour. Some research suggests that people are more able and willing to empathize with those most similar to themselves. In particular, empathy increases with similarities in culture and living conditions. Empathy is more likely to occur between individuals whose interaction is more frequent. There are concerns that the empathiser's own emotional background may affect or distort what emotions they perceive in others. Ickes and his colleagues have developed a video-based method to measure empathic accuracy and have used this method to study the empathic inaccuracy of maritally aggressive and abusive spouses, among other topics.

           So you see, without the teaching of Islam, rationality cannot be harnessed to its maximum effect for morality to take root.

           And you statement of lower atheist prison population is false. http://thoughtfulfaith.wordpress.com/2010/03/12/a…

           Atheism doesn't bring progress, but it is the other way round. Progress, induces atheism to take root in the Western world. Your statement is supported based on anecdotal historical evidence. The fact that a minority of Muslims will practice female genital mutilation, honour killings and forced marriage, even tough Islam strictly prohibits such acts, just goes to show that when man is left to his own whims, he will descend to barbarity. Just like my atheist friends, who practice free sex, booze parties, and public nudity.

           It has been shown that when nations who follow atheistic ideologies like nationalism, secularism, socialism, communism, capitalism, will all descend to barbarism at one point or the other.
           Atartuk(nationalism):Armenian genocide
           Saddam(nationalism):Kurd n Shite ethnic cleansing
           Hitler(nationalism):Holocaust
           America(capitalism):Hiroshima/Nagasaki
           Allies(capitalism/socialism): Dresden
           Soviet(communism):7 million dead in various genocides.
           Israel(nationalism): Naqba
           China(communism): Tian'amen

           Just counting those murdered by atheists in the 20th century alone, beats all the men killed by Muslims in legitimate wars, illegitimate wars, in famines and droughts, in the past 1400 years.

           Posted by OooKhalid | August 15, 2010, 4:12 am
         • 

           First of all, I did state clearly that empathy found in other primates is usually between group members. What you don't seem to be capable of understanding is that through our rationality we – humans – have the ability to extend that to larger groups, because we understand that our differences are nothing compared to what we share; our humanity. You seem to be incapable of understanding the simple formula:

           Morality = Empathy (motivation to do good) + rationality (knowing what is good).

           It's not rocket science, and the fact we have transcended the barbaric instructions of slavery, genocide, female genital mutilation (which was accepted by Muhammad in the hadeeth explicitly) are all evidence that it's the above formula that guides our moral sense, not some ancient book. If I told you now that Islam allowed the rape of Sabaya (female prisoners) would you be revolted? Would you run to the hadeeth to check in order to verify that this isn't the case? Of course you would. But if you morality is just what is written in a text, why then be alarmed? After all, if God ordered it, it must be good! You are alarmed because you understand that such an action can never be moral, and you understand this without having to reference a single hadeeth or verse, because there is nothing about rape in either. Incidentally, the Hadeeth does seem to allow it:

           Imam Ahmad recorded that Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri said, "We captured some women from the area of Awtas who were already married, and we disliked having sexual relations with them because they already had husbands. So, we asked the Prophet about this matter, and this Ayah was revealed…

           <Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess>.

           Consequently, WE HAD SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH THESE WOMEN"

           That's Sahih Muslim for you. Now of course you will attempt to desperately excuse it, but why? Could it be because you are really a moral person without having to reference any claimed divine texts?

           Posted by Arab atheist | August 16, 2010, 5:34 pm
         • 

           As for the number of atheists in prison, the very link you posted is a refutation:

           "According to the March 2000 report, Religion in Prisons, 31.9% of inmates claimed to have “no religion”, of whom 0.2% who specifically answered that they were “atheists” and 0.1% who answered that they were “agnostic”."

           In other words: no religion does not equal atheist. A person can be a deist and have no religion, he can believe in Jesus, and still follow no organized religious order. Atheism is explicit denial of a god/gods/God.

           This is not to mention the fact the the faith census used is a joke: the 2001 faith census puts "no religion" at 27%.

           finally, here is the American prison population: http://www.skepticfiles.org/american/prison.htm, and let's not go into the rest of the world because frankly you have no case when it comes to examples such as Japan or Scandinavian countries.

           "Atheism doesn't bring progress".

           Nobody said it does, what I said is that there is a correlation between the two, that's true by your own admission. As far as barbarity, your idea of equivalence is that booze and parties are somehow comparable to honour killings and genital mutilation. Well, I have news for you, they're not, the first list is mostly harmless fun and the second is barbaric.

           Finally, all the ideologies you listed have nothing to do with atheism, in fact they are more or less inspired by the unquestioning nature of religion. Ataturk described himself as a Muslim, as did Saddam. Hitler was a Catholic, and even openly admired the Islamic faith and considered it more suitable. America is one of the most religious countries in the Western world, Israel is a country built on religious nationalism…etc. Even disregarding those men, most of their armies, officers, the people who committed the atrocities by their own hands were undoubtedly religious.

           What most of those ideologies have in common is that they promoted absolute faith, unquestioning loyalty, heavenly purpose…etc. they were like religion in every possible way, except in that they didn't declare themselves to be religions, and they are precisely why they can never meet eye-to-eye with an atheist, and why an atheism considers all forms of irrational faith like a disease.

           Posted by Arab atheist | August 16, 2010, 5:34 pm
         • 

           I think i made it very clear that empathy is not something compulsive in humans., like for example hunger. Empathy exists; but it depends on the said person whether s/he wishes to use it, and also how effectively one wishes to use it.

           But you keep hitting me with that same trash over and over again like some Hindu mantra. You would put any religious fundamentalist to shame with the zealotry with which you wish to establish your preconceived, unsubstantiated dogma on us, the general mass. Who is you Guru? And what 'Holy Book' has you so brainwashed that you are unable to register and comprehend the simple facts i toss at you?
           Please do tell me; so i can understand your religion as much as you do mine.

           Because you took the pains to quote the said hadith, i will try to shed some light on the matter.
           You understood wrongly. The permissibility actually does not extend to the prisoners; but only to the female slaves. Keeping a slave has rules and regulations in the Sariah, which is more humane and civilized then the manner in which the godless men of the West treat their free women. For in the West, the proverb is "fuck 'em, n leave 'em". Leave the women to deal with her pregnancy, by herself. Leave the women to tend her baby, by herself. Leave the women to raise her kids, by herself. Leave the women to work 9 to 5 (maybe overtime too) so she can put food on the table everyday for her kids, BY HERSELF.
           While the men are off, having more 'harmless fun' (as you put it). Sowing their wild oats. Producing another generation of bastards.

           This is not morality. Where is empathy, to make everything all right?

           Posted by OooKhalid | August 20, 2010, 12:23 pm
         • 

           ~Those who claim to have no religion, have the same philosophy on morality as atheists. The report shows what men would do, if they all had this sense of morality, ie. both atheists and non-religious ppl. Higher crime rate, bud!

           ~FYI, all these idiotic European ideologies have one thing in common. They all evolved out of the revolution for the separation of church and state. The Renaissance. my-main-man.

           ~Saddam and Atartuk may have professed their religious roots, to placate their population. But i prefer to measure the religiosity of a 'Muslim', by the political ideology s/he professes.

           PS. sorry for the late reply. had stuffs to take care of

           Posted by OooKhalid | August 20, 2010, 12:36 pm
         • 

           Empathy is indeed not "compulsive" in every human in terms of behaviour, but it does have a universal neurological basis, much the same way we all have a mental capacity to do arithmetic. The fact that not all human choose to exercise empathy, is no more relevant to the establishment of objective laws in society than the fact that not all of us are good at arithmetic means there is no objective basis for number theory. You say that I keep throwing the same thing at you, but that's only because you seem to be incapable of understanding the simple non-controversial statement: that empathy is merely motivation. Even if one is unmotivated to do good, that by no means gives him a right to do evil; he/she can still rationally and objectively understand the distinction.

           Trash and Hindu mantra? Sounds funny from a guy who thinks books written in the iron age are a guide to modern human society, go pick up a book on morality and the mind and learn something, before you descend into further nonsensical ad hominems.

           What rules and what regulation are you rambling about? The hadeeth shows your prophet giving permission for sex-starved men to rape married women! Hooray for the rule of law! Your trashy stereotypes about the West notwithstanding, by every social measure available, women have a better standard of eduction, living, employment, equality…etc. in non-Islamic countries. And who said the "West" is pinnacle of human morality? Did you see me dogmatically defending some of the nonsense that goes on in those societies as you do defending rape?! No, see I subscribe to the fact that while what humanity has achieved despite of religion is not perfect, it's still miles better than your medieval ideology.

           Posted by Arab atheist | August 20, 2010, 5:03 pm
         • 

           "Those who claim to have no religion, have the same philosophy on morality as atheists."

           Really, so a Deist who believes in God has the same philosophy as an atheist? A scientologist – not officially a religion in many parts of the world – is like an atheism? what exactly do you smoke? Atheism is the explicit denial of an divine entity and anything supernatural, and if it were the "same philosophy" the study wouldn't point out the difference in numbers.

           "FYI, all these idiotic European ideologies have one thing in common. They all evolved out of the revolution for the separation of church and state."

           Which is a fallacy. Just because two things follow temporally, doesn't mean one is the cause. Find me one logical pathway between the separation of church and state (so that religions don't oppress one another) and genocide. The separation was developed precisely because religious potheads were about to wipe each other out in Europe, and judging by the fact that this has ended, I'd say it was a pretty much successful enterprise. Now the fact that some decided to enact state-religions along the way, is only enforces the notion that states need to stay out of religion, not invalidates it.

           "Saddam and Atartuk may have professed their religious roots, to placate their population. But i prefer to measure the religiosity of a 'Muslim', by the political ideology s/he professes."

           Which is a no true Scotsman fallacy. "Muslim" is not a label you choose to endow based on whatever floats your boat, it's a pretty well defined term.

           Posted by Arab atheist | August 20, 2010, 5:04 pm
         • 

           *sigh* i'm fatigued, having this argument with you ~ for we seem to be going in circles.
           You tell me empathy is purely motivational ~ which i agree with you 100%.
           But, i'm telling you that empathy does NOT always occur!!
           comprande?

           Posted by OooKhalid | September 2, 2010, 8:17 am
2. 

   The Quran takes a much more realistic stance towards violence than the Christian Bible. It allows violence in very limited cases, all of which constitute either self-defense or retribution in kind. "In kind" would be "an eye for an eye," something that is looked down upon by delusional, self-righteous people, but in fact is a limitation and the only workable solution for situations where people have been wrongfully harmed. The Quran's position on it is that you have a right for equal retribution, but it is much better to be compassionate and forgive.

   The Bible on the other hand takes the OT position of encouraging genocide, something that you have to wonder about when you look at the religious aspects of Zionism. The NT takes the impossible position of disallowing violence even in self-defense. It's probably a good idea in a imaginary, Utopian world, but in today's world, it's completely unworkable. The just society of the NT may be attainable, but it certainly doesn't exist today. Christians in general certainly don't follow the advice of the NT. That goes without saying.

   Posted by Jamal | August 5, 2010, 1:32 pm
   Reply to this comment
   • 

     I agree with everything you said, but I have a slightly different view on the "NT takes the impossible position of disallowing violence even in self-defense." The New Testament is clearly based on the Old Testament and considered a fulfillment to it. Jesus never said "abolish the law," but he did offer a clearer interpretation.

     "17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

     From that last verse you can tell that Jesus had no problem with the Old Testament (the only Bible they had during his time), but with the way the Pharisees and teachers of the law interpreted it.

     As far as the "turn the other cheek" approach, it is not canceling the law of eye for an eye, but simply offering an alternative to it (in response to those strict interpreters of the Law who always want to punish and kill only because the Law allows them. Certainly the actions of Jesus at the Temple do not reflect "turn the other cheek" for every situation has its own conditions and circumstances.

     Most importantly, remember that Jesus died too soon. I think if he managed to survive as long as Muhammad did, he would have put together something much more similar to the Quran. Compare the content of the Quran in the first year only, to the content of the first four Gospels of Jesus, and you'll find the Quran to be even more pacifist than the New Testament.

     Posted by Sarakenos | August 5, 2010, 11:13 pm
     Reply to this comment
     • 

       It's interesting the comparison between Jesus and Muhammad based on their age. I've pondered the different ages of these prophets and how they might have effected their messages. Jesus was definitely more idealistic IMO.

       As you have said, on a certain level the messages are effectively the same, but I believe they differ in practical senses in the world today. I think that Jesus's version is an sort of "end game" message in that it's the ultimate solution, which I believe is one of the reasons there are so many apocalyptic interpretations of Christianity.

       As for the texts. Jesus pretty much refutes an eye for an eye.

       Matthew 5:

       38“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’g 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

       However the Quran clarifies it.

       5:45

       And We prescribed for them therein: The life for the life, and the eye for the eye, and the nose for the nose, and the ear for the ear, and the tooth for the tooth, and for wounds retaliation. But whoso forgoeth it (in the way of charity) it shall be expiation for him. Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah hath revealed: such are wrong-doers.

       Posted by Jamal | August 6, 2010, 2:34 pm
       Reply to this comment
3. 

   I have been struggling for a couple days whether or not to respond to this post. I am a Christian who often fails to fulfill what Jesus requires of me, but failure doesn't keep me from trying.

   First of all, I want to thank you for trying to go a step farther than most Muslims I have read in applying context to the scriptures.

   Yet, I would like to encourage you to go a step further. When you quote my Lord concerning abolishing the law, is He saying that all the commands of the OT are in full effect? Is there still a sacrificial system for atonement? No, He was the sacrifice. Is there a need for a high priest to go between God and His people? No. He said that the whole of the law of the prophets was summed up in two commands "Love the Lord your God with all your heart (etc) and love your neighbor as yourself". Period.

   Is He saying one has permission to recreate every battle recorded in the OT? No. He says those who live by the sword will die by the sword.

   The OT slaughter of the Canaanites is a dark period, but one that was never to be repeated. Once the Jews failed to route the people of the land, they were not given permission to keep on killing, they had to deal with the consequences of their disobedience. Why did call the Jews to annihilate the whole group? Because their sin was a repulsive stench. They sacrificed their children to their gods, were steadfast animists and their brutality and spiritual darkness would defile the people God chose to carry His revelation at the time.

   The verses you quote are in no way an carte blanche from Jesus to go slaughter any animists or wickedness one happens to find.

   Jesus was not killed before His time. He gave His life at just the right time, as the prophets before Him and He himself preached. As Jamal said, His was the end-game.

   Thanks for taking another look. There is much more.

   Posted by kinzi | August 8, 2010, 10:03 pm
   Reply to this comment
   • 

     The meaning of "fulfilling the Law" means explaining the law in full, I believe. This is the only way you avoid contradiction. His battle was with those Pharisees (the literalist interpreters of the OT) who have selected the verses that served their purposes and twisted others (just like people of all religions still do today). Jesus repeated many times that he has been especially sent to the lost sheep of Israel, because of their many sins. Read the "seven woes" in Matthew 23 for full reference. You have to keep these facts in mind to understand the true message of Jesus. The pharisees and teachers of the law were using laws like the Holy Sabbath and lamb sacrificial rituals to control the people and take their money. Jesus, thus, fulfilled the Law by changing the forms of worship, while keeping the content intact.

     The best example of this is when he saved Mary Magdalene from certain death. The pharisees wanted to stone her to death for committing adultery. Jesus told them to show compassion and forgive (which was allowed in the OT and was considered a higher-order deed), but the pharisees insisted on using their full rights, in accordance with the Law, to stone her to death. Jesus did not change the Law, he simply said: "Ok then, let the one who never sinned cast the first stone." No one was first, and thus she was forgiven. This was his way of teaching people not to judge others, and let God be the judge in the afterlife.

     Where Christians (followers of Christ) saw love and compassion from Jesus, the disbelievers among the Jews saw treachery and cunning. They saw him as a trouble-maker, playing with the OT and reinterpreting it in seemingly convincing ways, to take away their power by showing people the truth. Muhammad did the same thing. He addressed the people of Mecca, of all faiths, by referring to their old Scriptures, and what seemed to be a reinterpretation in ways that benefited Muhammad and pulled the carpet of power from underneath the non-believers. Eventually, they decided to kill him.

     The difference is that with Jesus, they managed to get him killed. With Muhammad, he managed to escape death on several occasions, including the second battle of Uhud when so many people really believed that he was killed and withdrew from the battle, thinking it was all over. Muhammad's reaction (and the Quran's reaction 3:144) was: "So what if I died? so many prophets have been killed before me. Would you abandon your faith if I get killed?"

     Of course when you look at it in retrospect, you can confidently say that Jesus died when he was supposed died. It was inevitable. And Muhammad managed to live longer, and died in bed from a fever. That was inevitable too. But that still doesn't mean that we can't imagine how things could have been different had Jesus lived longer, or Muhammad died sooner.

     I believe that, had Jesus lived longer, he would have eventually assembled an army and not only took over the Jewish leadership, but also overthrown the Roman Occupiers of Palestine. And had Muhammad lived shorter, the Quran would not have included that chapter 9, calling for an all-out war. The Quran would have been so much shorter, and remained concerned with general philosophy of life (as the early verses were, looking much closer to David's Psalms). And Muslims would today be preaching that Muhammad "gave his life at just the right time."

     As for the reconciliation between the Christian view of Jesus being the end-game, and Muhammad coming after Jesus, there is a very simple and logical way out of this:

     For Christians: remember that after Jesus was resurrected and about to ascend to heaven, his disciples asked him to stay, but he said to them: "But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you…. he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you." (see full: John 6:5-15). The Muslims believe that Jesus was actually describing Muhammad, and that the description fits him logically.

     For Muslims: It is said in the Quran that Jesus is the Christ, and that all that is written in the first four Gospels is the truth. Thus, Christ will return at the end, and he is the end-game, not Muhammad.

     Posted by Sarakenos | August 11, 2010, 12:54 am
     Reply to this comment
4. 

   Those who refuse to acknowledge the use of force prescribed in the Quran, are likely to be Ahmadiyyah and/or Zionist lackeys.
   The refusal of using force to expel tyranny and enforce justice is akin to leaving:
   The Palestinians with their dicks in their hands against Israeli tanks.
   The Kashmiris with their dicks in their hands against Indian trigger happy paramilitaries.
   The Chechens with their dicks in their hands against Russian MIGs.
   The Bosnians with their dicks in their hands against Serb mortars.
   The Afgans and Iraqis with their dicks in their hands against American drones.
   And the rest of the Muslims with their dicks in their hands against their own puppet regime's repressions.

   Posted by OooKhalid | August 9, 2010, 12:03 am
   Reply to this comment
5. 

   "It is true that the Quran calls for jihad (to fight), but only to eliminate injustice."

   and yet so much injustice is done in the name of Islam.

   Posted by Iraqi Mojo | August 10, 2010, 11:07 am
   Reply to this comment

Post a comment