Understanding Islam

[dcalling]

You have a bible good sir. Go have a gander yourself.

I actually found one by google:

But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars--their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death." rev:21:8

Anyone want to disagree on that?

 

[gord44]

Yikes. I am glad I stopped practicing magical arts a while back.

 

[Zeek]

I don't think it is vital to understand the very nature of the idea of 'perishing'...suffice it to say the language and information of the Bible make it clear that our objective should be to avoid it at all costs.

The Tenakh touches upon a place for the departed souls that sounds like a dreary shadowy half existence..but the impression is of a holding place for the dead and is generally referred to as Sheol.

The New Covenant writings give a more explicit explanation of the possible and final destinies of every individual because they go beyond 'Sheol' and talk about final judgment that sorts out where people go and why. There isn't really any conflict between the two, just a fuller understanding of the why's and wherefore's.

 

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

So Muhammad approved it anyway.

God did.

They didn't attack anyone, they surrendered, it is still called unrepentant.

1.) They broke the covenant. Then they held out for a few weeks before they surrendered. They never sought the Prophet's forgiveness for betraying the Muslims. They allied with tribes that had also broken the treaty and were exiled (not executed). It seems that exiling was not effective in those cases since they attacked the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). So perhaps a more drastic punishment was needed.

2.) Islaam does not say that surrendering makes people who break their treaties innocent of their crimes.

Do you think a murderer holding hostages who surrenders to the police after a long stand-off will be let go just because he surrendered?

In Islaam, even after their betrayal people can be forgiven and pardoned if they accept Islaam. They can also be pardoned and released if the leader deems fit (or he can have them executed (in the case of adult male prisoners-of-war), enslaved, or ransomed).

3.) This was not very different from the OT verse about offering peace (in the Prophet's case, this was the covenant) and then the consequences if they reject it (in this case, they broke the agreement), is it? Well, at least most of the punishment isn't.

According to wiki all male are killed, but of course sources differ.

All males definitely were not killed since boys under the age of puberty were not among those executed. According to various ahadeeth Sa'ad, when giving the judgement, said to "kill their warriors/fighters" so this gives the indication that only those who fought were executed.

They are mobilizing against the Muslims yet they are heedless.

....Yes. Mobilizing doesn't mean that they're active at all times and are doing nothing else besides preparing for war. They were heedless because it was an ambush/a surprise attack.

Let's assume they did that, how about the following passage?

Sahih Muslim 5917:
Allah's Messenger called Ali: "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 said: ”Fight with them until they bear testimony to the fact that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger…"

There is no issue to fight the people other than to bear testimony. That is in violation of the Quran verse about "to you your religion and to me mine".

The Prophet and the four rightly guided caliphs, may Allaah be pleased with them, seem to have a different understanding than what you appear to have. The Prophet had treaties with non-Muslims until his death as did the four caliphs after him. They conquered land after the Prophet's death and did not force the indigenous populations to convert to Islaam (nor did they fight them ceaselessly).

 

[LoAmmi]

I obviously don't believe Islam is correct, but the story described isn't that different from numerous ones in the Torah. I mean, the only standing order to kill in the Torah is the Amalekites who attacked the weakest of the Israelites when they were fleeing Egypt. So, behaving cowardly and betraying others was met with severe consequences in the Torah.

Do you think Moses would have dealt nicely with people who broke a treaty with Israel?

Also, aren't these the same people who are said to claim Ezra is the Son of G-d? They would hardly be practicing Judaism at that point.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I don't think it is vital to understand the very nature of the idea of 'perishing'...suffice it to say the language and information of the Bible make it clear that our objective should be to avoid it at all costs.

The Tenakh touches upon a place for the departed souls that sounds like a dreary shadowy half existence..but the impression is of a holding place for the dead and is generally referred to as Sheol.

The New Covenant writings give a more explicit explanation of the possible and final destinies of every individual because they go beyond 'Sheol' and talk about final judgment that sorts out where people go and why. There isn't really any conflict between the two, just a fuller understanding of the why's and wherefore's.

This covnenantle parable in the Christian NT concerning the Jews, it shows a man in "hades" tormented by a flame . Every read it?

Lazarus and the Rich Man - Here a little, there a little - Commentary
ABRAHAM'S BOSOM

LUKE 16:
22 "So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died and was buried."
23 "And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom."

In contrast to Lazarus, the rich man was buried in Hades. An understanding of the original meaning of the Greek word hades is necessary to grasp the message of the parable. Regarding the possible etymology of this word, the The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology states that hades ". . . comes from idein (to see) with the negative prefix, a-, and so would mean the invisible . . . In the LXX hades occurs more than 100 times, in the majority of instances to translate Heb. she'ol, the underworld which receives all the dead. It is the land of darkness . . ." (p. 206, vol. 2).

Most likely, hades originally meant "unseen." Later, it came to refer to the hidden state of those buried in the earth. Symbolically, this parable shows that a point would come when the House of Judah would become "unseen" by God, out of favor because of their unbelief. There would come a time when the Jews as a whole would no longer be God's favored nation. God would harden their hearts, leading them to reject their Messiah (John 1:11).




.

 

[simplegifts]

*sigh* Addressed the same exact points here and here.

Part of what I said:

Try reading other things that al-Hafidh ibn Katheer wrote in his tafseer (of 2:190):

(...those who fight you) applies only to fighting the enemies who are engaged in fighting Islam and its people. So the Ayah means, `Fight those who fight you'....

Ibn Katheer is the most trusted scholar and I in disagreeing with you could be considered fighting you.

 

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

Ibn Katheer is the most trusted scholar

The most trusted? He is certainly trusted, but there are lots of other scholars whom we trust.
al-Hafidh ibn Katheer wrote in his tafseer (of 2:190):

(...those who fight you) applies only to fighting the enemies who are engaged in fighting Islam and its people. So the Ayah means, `Fight those who fight you'....

Ibn al Qayyim, a scholar Ibn Katheer respected, said,

"Killing is only obligatory when facing warfare and armed combat not when facing kufr. For this reason, neither women are to be killed nor children, or the elderly, nor the blind nor those worshippers who do not fight, rather we fight against those who fight us. This was the way of the Messenger of Allaah in dealing with the people of the earth, he used to fight those who fought against him until they either entered into the deen, make an agreement or treaty with him or came under his authority via paying the jizya. This is what he used to instruct his armies if they fought against their enemies, as has preceded from the Hadeeth of Buraydah". ["Ahkaam Al Udh-Dhimmah", Vol 1, Page 17]

and I in disagreeing with you could be considered fighting you.

lol.

 

[Zeek]

This covnenantle parable in the Christian NT concerning the Jews, it shows a man in "hades" tormented by a flame . Every read it?

Lazarus and the Rich Man - Here a little, there a little - Commentary
ABRAHAM'S BOSOM

LUKE 16:
22 "So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died and was buried."
23 "And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom."

In contrast to Lazarus, the rich man was buried in Hades. An understanding of the original meaning of the Greek word hades is necessary to grasp the message of the parable. Regarding the possible etymology of this word, the The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology states that hades ". . . comes from idein (to see) with the negative prefix, a-, and so would mean the invisible . . . In the LXX hades occurs more than 100 times, in the majority of instances to translate Heb. she'ol, the underworld which receives all the dead. It is the land of darkness . . ." (p. 206, vol. 2).

Most likely, hades originally meant "unseen." Later, it came to refer to the hidden state of those buried in the earth. Symbolically, this parable shows that a point would come when the House of Judah would become "unseen" by God, out of favor because of their unbelief. There would come a time when the Jews as a whole would no longer be God's favored nation. God would harden their hearts, leading them to reject their Messiah (John 1:11).

Hi Lamb...never heard such a thing and I don't agree with the conclusion.

The idea that Israel is G-d's favoured nation gives a wrong impression, and smacks of some sort of favouritism. They are His chosen people, and He was, is and always will be faithful to them, even when they have been far from Him, even when they have been unfaithful, hard-Hearted and stubborn....and even when they have desperately wished He would have chosen another people to show the world the ways of G-d.

John 1:11 actually says...11 He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him.

I think the context of the Greek allows the word 'receive' to be expressed as they 'neither recognized Him or welcomed Him'...it says later of His crucifixion that if they had known who He was they would not have crucified the L-rd of Glory. (1 Cor 2:8) John 1:11 is not commentating or judging, it is recording.

Also many people don't seem to realize that it is estimated tens of thousands of Jews believed Jesus was Messiah in the 1st century and that they comprised of the 3rd largest faith group after the Pharisees and Saducees.

 

[dcalling]

I obviously don't believe Islam is correct, but the story described isn't that different from numerous ones in the Torah. I mean, the only standing order to kill in the Torah is the Amalekites who attacked the weakest of the Israelites when they were fleeing Egypt. So, behaving cowardly and betraying others was met with severe consequences in the Torah.

Do you think Moses would have dealt nicely with people who broke a treaty with Israel?

Also, aren't these the same people who are said to claim Ezra is the Son of G-d? They would hardly be practicing Judaism at that point.

If Muhammad is a Jew than that point holds. However unlike Judaism Islam also believe Yeshua as the Messiah, and Muhammad said he is here to confirm the Torah and Gospel. As we all know Gospel's direction is much different, no more violence for the people. With this Muhammad's actions are no longer in according to God (yes Christians does not follow Gospel fully either, but things should be different for God's messenger).

 

[WoodrowX2]

Ibn Katheer is the most trusted scholar and I in disagreeing with you could be considered fighting you.

While Kathir is a highly respected Scholar, he is not considered any more trustworthy than other Scholars. We alone carry the responsibility of verifying the truth of what any Scholar says,

 

[dcalling]

The Prophet and the four rightly guided caliphs, may Allaah be pleased with them, seem to have a different understanding than what you appear to have.

So you agree that "To You Your Religion and To Me Mine" doesn't guaranty no forced conversions/attacks? After all from the other Haidth Muhammad attacked for the only reason of bear testimony. (and I think before the battle Muhammad actually lived there for the night, attacked when he didn't hear the call to prayer).

The Prophet had treaties with non-Muslims until his death as did the four caliphs after him. They conquered land after the Prophet's death and did not force the indigenous populations to convert to Islaam (nor did they fight them ceaselessly).

I can understand the four caliphs conquering (they are generals), and not force conversion (so they are follow the Quran). Not Muhammad, but of course you can claim the verse "To You Your Religion and To Me Mine" got subtitled by someone better, or abrogated.

Think about it, Isa (Jesus or Yeshua) come and summarized OT/NT as "Love your neighbor as yourself", "Love your enemy", and yet Muhammad come and claim he is here to complete (or got something better, or judge), and give a book that is suitable for warfare, isn't that strange?

 

[LoAmmi]

If Muhammad is a Jew than that point holds. However unlike Judaism Islam also believe Yeshua as the Messiah, and Muhammad said he is here to confirm the Torah and Gospel. As we all know Gospel's direction is much different, no more violence for the people. With this Muhammad's actions are no longer in according to God (yes Christians does not follow Gospel fully either, but things should be different for God's messenger).

You believe it was some kind of violence free-for-all in Judaism? We were not authorized to random violence. If you believe that, you aren't paying enough attention when reading the Tanach.

The New Testament describes wars that will happen when Jesus returns, so it isn't like violence is completely missing.

 

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

So you agree that "To You Your Religion and To Me Mine" doesn't guaranty no forced conversions/attacks?

"To your religion, and to me mine" is similar to this verse:

And if they belie you, say: "For me are my deeds and for you are your deeds! You are innocent of what I do, and I am innocent of what you do!" (Yunus 10:41)

I think you're referring to the verse that says there is no compulsion in religion? Some scholars do say that it was abrogated, but none of the scholars took this to mean that there was no option for the jizyah to the best of my knowledge. If the Muslims conquered a non-Muslim land, they were not allowed to force the people to become Muslims. Instead, the able-bodied adult men from the non-Muslims were to pay jizyah.

As for the hadeeth you quoted,

The term “people” here is not referring to all humanity. Ibn Taymiyah says: “It refers to fighting those who are waging war, whom Allah has permitted us to fight. It does not refer to those who have a covenant with us with whom Allah commands us to fulfill our covenant.” [Majmû` al-Fatâwâ (19/20)]

“Let there be no compulsion in religion.” | IslamToday - English

Think about it, Isa (Jesus or Yeshua) come and summarized OT/NT as "Love your neighbor as yourself", "Love your enemy", and yet Muhammad come and claim he is here to complete (or got something better, or judge), and give a book that is suitable for warfare, isn't that strange?

Jesus was sent by the same Lord Who sent Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon them both) as the final Messenger.

Anyway, I thank God that Islaam is a way of life. It gives guidelines for a variety of life situations including war. Perhaps it would have served the Christians in the past (and present) well to have such guidelines because, as we can see, pacifism was not practical for them for sustained periods of time and many of them went to the polar opposite of pacifism.

 

[simplegifts]

While Kathir is a highly respected Scholar, he is not considered any more trustworthy than other Scholars. We alone carry the responsibility of verifying the truth of what any Scholar says,

It is so sad that more and more Muslims are caving into the evil -
http://online.wsj.com/articles/jihadists-on-u-k-passports-1409861288

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by ValleyGal

I was reading in the current events forum and a post triggered some questions about Islam. I did not want to hijack the thread, so I'm posting them here.

I know absolutely nothing about Islam or Muslims. I don't even know where they all live (or are they everywhere?). But from the sounds of your post, it seems like Islam is a religion that has different "denominations" or different [maybe political] ideologies kind of like the difference between ultra-conservative Christians versus ultra-liberal Christians. Is that right?

If that's the case, isn't the war a holy war that is intra-Islam that only involves Christians from the point of being in the wrong place (where the radicals live) at the wrong time?
​

Muslims get into 'holy war' against each other - and with outsiders as the opportunity arises. That interview on Fox News was instructive.

Great American History Civil War Religious Revivals

In the link you quote - the issue is not that the Christians argue that other Christians are demons - the issue is that the Christians in each army are being told that they themselves are sinners, need to repent, need to make themselves right with God.

This is not what we see in Islam armies fighting brother islamists over strictly religious views. For that poor behavior among Christians you must go back to the dark ages when Papal armies fought rival papal armies.

Certainly we can condemn those dark-ages practices of some Christian groups. Now why can't Islam manage to also leave the dark ages - just as Catholics finally did?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

They broke the treaty between the tribe and the Prophet & committed high treason. That's why their warriors (the adult men and one woman) were executed.

The Expulsion of Banu al-Qurayzah

Or this?

"However, if it does not make peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it. "When the LORD your God gives it into your hand, you shall strike all the men in it with the edge of the sword. "Only the women and the children and the animals and all that is in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourself; and you shall use the spoil of your enemies which the LORD your God has given you.… (Deuteronomy 20:12-14)

Going back to the OT does not work for Islam any more than it does for Christianity - because neither is in a true theocracy as Israel was in the OT.

What is more - appealing to the right of Israel to wipe out its neighbors is a self-defeating argument for Islam.

Just saying.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

All things have to be read in order to understand the Message. You would not be able to teach Christianity with the OT alone.

Same with Islam. One needs to read all of the Qur'an and at least some of the Ahadith in order to comprehend the Sunnah.

Parts of the Ahadith many non-Muslims refuse to see

40 Hadith Qudsi

ISIS claims to be doing that.

Are they correct in their statements on the Qur'an?

They don't get much public push back from Muslims outraged at their doctrine. What we see more "in public" is Muslims world wide trying to join ISIS.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[WoodrowX2]

ISIS claims to be doing that.

Are they correct in their statements on the Qur'an?

They don't get much public push back from Muslims outraged at their doctrine. What we see more "in public" is Muslims world wide trying to join ISIS.

in Christ,

Bob

Have you not seen any of these?

HERE

HERE

HERE

HERE

HERE

HERE

HERE

HERE

Why are most of the supporters for ISIS coming from non-Islamic Nations? Because the people in the Islamic Nations are aware ISIS is anti-Islamic and is an enemy of Muslims.

ISIS is recruiting from the UK, Europe, Australia and Australia because there they find the people that believe the media portrayal of Islam as violent. ISIS finds those who have little knowledge of Islam and believe the media lies. They are violent people who converted because the media has told them Islam supports violence. They are converting for the wrong reasons and seek only to commit acts of violence.

ISIS is not recruiting Muslims, it is recruiting violent people who think using the name Muslim makes them Muslim.

It is also possible the huge wealth of ISIS is a strong bait for recruiting ignorant, but violent, people.

Evil doers will use any name to gain their desires.

 

[BobRyan]

I like this link you posted -

World's top Muslim leaders condemn attacks on Iraqi Christians Vatican Radio

however are these statesmen or clerics?

Are these Islamic religious leaders world wide condemning ISIS or is this a group of government officials and is the picture in response to ISIS or just a group picture without an ISIS purpose at the time?

If there was a runaway Christian group wrecking havoc in some Christian country beheading Muslims - would Christians around the world be "waiting" for Islamic nations to 'fix it' while taking pictures of themselves as if in protest of the wacko Christian group?

I don't think so.

if there are 1 Billion Muslims and 2 Billion Christians why is it that for every one muslim incident of capturing someone and then chopping their head off on video -- we don't have two Christians doing the same thing?

===========================

My point is -- it does not appear like 6 of one and half-dozen of the other.

in Christ,

Bob