No Compusion?

[smaneck]

Umm...that's a horrible post. A person dies and you want to get into the details for political or religous points?

I didn't see any evidence that he had died. That's my point.

 

[WoodrowX2]

Nearly all Muslims would have a problem if they tried to establish a Caliphate for the simple reason they would never agree as to who the Caliph should be.

True.

Many of us do not expect another Caliphate until the return of Jesus(as)

 

[ContraMundum]

I didn't see any evidence that he had died. That's my point.

Oh goodness. You don't know how to use Google? There's been more than one person murdered and slapped on a Cross in Syria this fortnight!

Why do you want to make this political again? What's with everything being reduced to political point making? Can you not direct your answers to the questions asked?

 

[smaneck]

Oh goodness. You don't know how to use Google? There's been more than one person murdered and slapped on a Cross in Syria this fortnight!

I'm just looking at the evidence you presented which is not very persuasive. But are you saying they are killed before they are put on a cross? That would explain it. I thought you were accusing them of killing Christians by crucifixion.

I did do some googling after you complained, however, and I found that this person was indeed executed and afterwards placed on a cross, but not for being a Christian. The banner behind him (which I could not read previously) read "This man fought against Muslims and set off an explosive device here."

That is a very different scenario than the one you presented.

Why do you want to make this political again?

Do you think that what is going on in Syria is not political?

 

[ContraMundum]

I'm just looking at the evidence you presented which is not very persuasive. But are you saying they are killed before they are put on a cross? That would explain it. I thought you were accusing them of killing Christians by crucifixion.

I did do some googling after you complained, however, and I found that this person was indeed executed and afterwards placed on a cross, but not for being a Christian. The banner behind him (which I could not read previously) read "This man fought against Muslims and set off an explosive device here."

That is a very different scenario than the one you presented.

There's been a few different incidents now.

The religion of the man wasn't the question I was asking. My point is the significance, or message that the killers were trying to make by slapping someone on a Cross. Christian or not- if you kill someone and display them on a Cross...what is your message?

Do you think that what is going on in Syria is not political?

I think denying it happened or arguing over the grisly details is done by those with a political agenda.

 

[smaneck]

There's been a few different incidents now.

The religion of the man wasn't the question I was asking. My point is the significance, or message that the killers were trying to make by slapping someone on a Cross. Christian or not- if you kill someone and display them on a Cross...what is your message?

It doesn't mean the same to them as it does to you. Crucifixion stopped in Christendom because it would be considered sacrilegious for anyone to be subjected to what Christ suffered. Since most Muslims don't believe Jesus was ever crucified they don't have the same aversion. They aren't even thinking about how Christians might react or what message it might send other than serving as a deterrent. Generally speaking however, this appears to be a way of displaying bodies, not executing people.

I think denying it happened or arguing over the grisly details is done by those with a political agenda.

It certainly looked to me like you were painting a picture of Muslims going around crucifying Christians, which is not at all what was happening. In any case, the act does not carry the same meaning for them as it does for you.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

With acts like this being propagated by Islamist factions in Syria, it's not really surprising that Syrian Christians overwhelmingly support Assad. Assad is a butcherer, sure, but you'd be out of your mind to support the other side when they're like to crucify you and stop you pracitising your religion.

Unfortunately, it's a situation akin to "The enemy of my enemy is my friend...not my enemy" - even though an enemy of an enemy doesn't automatically make him a friend.

And in both cases, although one choice may lead to better treatment on one level, the Syrian Christians lose.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

LBaM,

Christians in Muslims countries always downplay their plight publically. They are intimidated- this is well known. Go over the to the Oriental Orthodox forum and you will soon find out for yourself that organised churches are afraid to speak up in a Muslim country for fear of retribution. When in a free country, they speak up. This is why the nun in question could only speak up when she is out of Syria. And if you are objective, her story isn't that much of a tall tale considering the news coming out of Syria from just about every other source.
.

If I may say...

Although I see where you're coming from...from an Oriental Orthodox perspective, there are many who note their situation/plight quite honestly when in the public - and they stand against it nonetheless. In the Oriental Orthodox forum, this has been brought up before and other places as well. Bishop Angaelos is one of the people who comes immediately to mind, for example, when it comes to the situation of Egypt.

Bishop Angaelos: The Future of Christianity in Egypt and the World Today - YouTube
Christian/Muslim polarisation in the Middle East - divide and conquer? - YouTube
General Synod Address regarding Egypt by His Grace Bishop Angaelos - YouTube

 

[ContraMundum]

It doesn't mean the same to them as it does to you. Crucifixion stopped in Christendom because it would be considered sacrilegious for anyone to be subjected to what Christ suffered. Since most Muslims don't believe Jesus was ever crucified they don't have the same aversion. They aren't even thinking about how Christians might react or what message it might send other than serving as a deterrent. Generally speaking however, this appears to be a way of displaying bodies, not executing people.

I knew you would downplay it.

Politics again.

I think there is a meaning here perhaps too ugly for you to look at.

It certainly looked to me like you were painting a picture of Muslims going around crucifying Christians, which is not at all what was happening. In any case, the act does not carry the same meaning for them as it does for you.

Which is it then? a) "not happening" or b) it's happening but it has X meaning?

 

[Dialogues]

True.

Many of us do not expect another Caliphate until the return of Jesus(as)

Yes, the Qur'an places correct faith and righteous deeds as conditions for the divine promise of Caliphate to be fulfilled:

Allah has promised to those among you who believe and act righteously, that He will surely make them Successors (khalifas) in the earth, as He made Successors from among those who were before them; and that He will surely establish for them their religion, which He has chosen for them; and that He will surely grant them security and peace in place of their fear. (24:55)

And the correct level of faith and righteous deeds would not be restored until the prophethood of the Messiah a.s. is established, as prophecied:

Prophethood shall remain among you as long as God wills. Then khilafat on the pattern of prophethood will commence and remain as long as He wills. A corrupt monarchy shall then follow and it shall remain as long as God wills. There shall then be a tyrannical despotism which shall remain as long as God wills. Then once again khilafat will emerge on the precept of prophethood. [Masnad-[bless and do not curse]Ahmad, Mishkat, Chapter Al-Anzar Wal Tahzir].

It is also correct to say that the Ahmadiyya Jama'at is the only group in the world today to have a chain of Khilafat following Prophethood, thus completely fulfilling the prophecy of the Prophet Muhammad s.a. quoted above, as per the divine promise.

Peace.

 

[smaneck]

I knew you would downplay it.
Politics again.

Whereas you want to make it about what?

Which is it then? a) "not happening" or b) it's happening but it has X meaning?

Depends on what we are talking about.

a) I see no evidence that Syrian rebels are executing Christians or anyone else by means of crucifixion.

b) There is evidence that some people deemed guilty of acts of terrorism were executed and afterwards their bodies were displayed on a cross.

 

[simplegifts]

Outta control in Syria.

As usual.

Typically.

...umm...who's in charge of Muslims? Who keeps them in line according to their religion? Who rules on who gets executed and how?

Here is how violent Muslims view this -

002.256 Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.
002.257 Allah is the Protector of those who have faith: from the depths of darkness He will lead them forth into light. Of those who reject faith the patrons are the evil ones: from light they will lead them forth into the depths of darkness. They will be companions of the fire, to dwell therein (For ever).

And what do the violent Muslims to do with the evil ones?

008.038 Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them).
Literal:Say to those who disbelieved: "If they terminate/stop, (it) will be forgiven for them what had preceded/passed , and if they return, so the first's/beginners'' law/manner had passed/expired ."

008.039 And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do.
Literal:And fight/kill them until (there) be no misguidance/betrayal , and the religion, all of it be to God, so if they ended/stopped , so that God (is) seeing/knowing with what they make/do

009.029 Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

My thoughts on this - Mohammad realized that you can not change what a person believes - a person can not be coerced to change their faith, they either believe something or not which = no compulsion. This verse was not an order to carry out but an observation.

 

[smaneck]

Here is how violent Muslims view this -

You don't think there are enough Muslims on this forum that can speak for themselves?

 

[Dialogues]

Here is how violent Muslims view this -

002.256 Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.
002.257 Allah is the Protector of those who have faith: from the depths of darkness He will lead them forth into light. Of those who reject faith the patrons are the evil ones: from light they will lead them forth into the depths of darkness. They will be companions of the fire, to dwell therein (For ever).

And what do the violent Muslims to do with the evil ones?

The word in Arabic is Taaghut, which can mean the devil, the idols, or those who transgress and exceed proper bounds, such as tyrants, or the powers of evil who turn and lead others to evil.

The verses you refer to below are about disbeliever who wage war against the believers so as to make them turn away from their faith.

008.038 Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them).
Literal:Say to those who disbelieved: "If they terminate/stop, (it) will be forgiven for them what had preceded/passed , and if they return, so the first's/beginners'' law/manner had passed/expired ."

It is not desisting from unbelief, but desisting from waging an aggressive war against believers which is being referred to. The verse is saying if they desist from such aggression, their past aggression will be forgiven them because Allah is Forgiving Merciful. But if they return to aggressive warfare, then the example of God's punishment for those who oppose His prophets and their followers is an example for them, i.e. God will punish them.

008.039 And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do.
Literal:And fight/kill them until (there) be no misguidance/betrayal , and the religion, all of it be to God, so if they ended/stopped , so that God (is) seeing/knowing with what they make/do

The Arabic word used is fitnah, i.e. the trial of persecution which they inflict the believers with because of their faith, so as to make them leave it. Believers are told to fight the aggressive persecutors who initiated the fighting until they are able to practice religion for the sake of God without such persecution. Religion between a matter between God and the individual, no one should deprive people of their God-given free-will in this matter.

009.029 Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

This verse applies to those non-Muslims living under the Muslim rule. They are to pay tax to the state as all citizens are required to do. It may also apply to those non-Muslims who initiate fighting against Muslims, and Muslims are to fight back against them (as the Qur'an does not permit Muslims to be the initiators of fighting [2:190]), and when Muslims gain power over them, they are expected to pay tax to the Muslim state. There is nothing objectionable about the citizens of a state being made to pay tax to the authorities. Jesus himself commanded 'give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar'.

My thoughts on this - Mohammad realized that you can not change what a person believes - a person can not be coerced to change their faith, they either believe something or not which = no compulsion.

Why did not Yahweh or Jesus or any of the Biblical prophets state such a 'realisation'?

This verse was not an order to carry out but an observation.

The context of the verse shows that it is an instruction. To understand this properly, you will need to read the surrounding verses. The preceeding verse [2:255] states that there is no God other than Allah, and He has authority over all in the universe. No one has the right to take the place of Allah, Who has given free-will to all people.

Even further before this, the Qur'an mentions Gideon leading Israelites to fight [2:249], and David slaying Goliath [2:251]. Further to this, it states in [2:256] that there is no compulsion in religion, i.e. fighting is not done to compel others to believe, but to prevent such compulsion. Infact, this verse against compulsion in religion follows a number of verses on the subject of the rules and regulations of fighting. And [2:258] condemns the King of the time of Abraham who persecuted Abraham because of his faith in the One God. Then [2:272] states that it is not your responsibility to make people follow the right path, but Allah Himself guides whomsoever He pleases. There is more I could state to illustrate the context further, along with verses from other chapters which reinforce the teaching of no compulsion in religion, but this should suffice for the moment.

The problem is you are relying on questionable translations to formulate an idea about the Qur'an, and besides this, you are not reflecting over the context of the verses. Still, at least you were willing to state that Prophet Muhammad s.a. did 'realise' something which no one else seems to have done before him.

Peace.

 

[simplegifts]

You don't think there are enough Muslims on this forum that can speak for themselves?

Which Muslim on this forum is a violent Muslim?

 

[smaneck]

Which Muslim on this forum is a violent Muslim?

You edited it. Initially your first paragraph merely said Muslim not "violent Muslim"

 

[simplegifts]

The word in Arabic is Taaghut, which can mean the devil, the idols, or those who transgress and exceed proper bounds, such as tyrants, or the powers of evil who turn and lead others to evil.

The verses you refer to below are about disbeliever who wage war against the believers so as to make them turn away from their faith.

It is not desisting from unbelief, but desisting from waging an aggressive war against believers which is being referred to. The verse is saying if they desist from such aggression, their past aggression will be forgiven them because Allah is Forgiving Merciful. But if they return to aggressive warfare, then the example of God's punishment for those who oppose His prophets and their followers is an example for them, i.e. God will punish them.

The Arabic word used is fitnah, i.e. the trial of persecution which they inflict the believers with because of their faith, so as to make them leave it. Believers are told to fight the aggressive persecutors who initiated the fighting until they are able to practice religion for the sake of God without such persecution. Religion between a matter between God and the individual, no one should deprive people of their God-given free-will in this matter.

This verse applies to those non-Muslims living under the Muslim rule. They are to pay tax to the state as all citizens are required to do. It may also apply to those non-Muslims who initiate fighting against Muslims, and Muslims are to fight back against them (as the Qur'an does not permit Muslims to be the initiators of fighting [2:190]), and when Muslims gain power over them, they are expected to pay tax to the Muslim state. There is nothing objectionable about the citizens of a state being made to pay tax to the authorities. Jesus himself commanded 'give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar'.

Why did not Yahweh or Jesus or any of the Biblical prophets state such a 'realisation'?

The context of the verse shows that it is an instruction. To understand this properly, you will need to read the surrounding verses. The preceeding verse [2:255] states that there is no God other than Allah, and He has authority over all in the universe. No one has the right to take the place of Allah, Who has given free-will to all people.

Even further before this, the Qur'an mentions Gideon leading Israelites to fight [2:249], and David slaying Goliath [2:251]. Further to this, it states in [2:256] that there is no compulsion in religion, i.e. fighting is not done to compel others to believe, but to prevent such compulsion. Infact, this verse against compulsion in religion follows a number of verses on the subject of the rules and regulations of fighting. And [2:258] condemns the King of the time of Abraham who persecuted Abraham because of his faith in the One God. Then [2:272] states that it is not your responsibility to make people follow the right path, but Allah Himself guides whomsoever He pleases. There is more I could state to illustrate the context further, along with verses from other chapters which reinforce the teaching of no compulsion in religion, but this should suffice for the moment.

The problem is you are relying on questionable translations to formulate an idea about the Qur'an, and besides this, you are not reflecting over the context of the verses. Still, at least you were willing to state that Prophet Muhammad s.a. did 'realise' something which no one else seems to have done before him.

Peace.

My interpretation of the compulsion verse is from my understanding of the God of the Bible.

Other comments are from violent Muslims.

 

[simplegifts]

You don't think there are enough Muslims on this forum that can speak for themselves?

nt

 

[simplegifts]

You edited it. Initially your first paragraph merely said Muslim not "violent Muslim"

Please reference so I can see what you are referring to.

 

[Dialogues]

My interpretation of the compulsion verse is from my understanding of the God of the Bible.

There is a rule of Qur'anic interpretation which states that verses of the Qur'an are interpreted by references to other verses of the Qur'an itself. There is an abundance of other verses speaking against forcing others to believe. Here is just one example:

"And if your Lord had enforced His will, surely all who are in the earth would have believed together. Will you then force people to become believers? [10:99]

The Qur'an contradicts and corrects the Bible on a number of issues, though it is in agreement on some matters. However, it is not standard practice to look to the Bible to interpret the Qur'an. It is something which is to be done with utmost caution, as the Bible is not considered wholly trustworthy.

Other comments are from violent Muslims.

Just as it is wrong to interpret the Qur'anic verses prohibiting wine according to the whims and fancies of those who drink wine, it is wrong to interpret Qur'anic verses on fighting and it's regulations according to the whims and fancies of those who love violence.

However, I can understand that those who wish to attack the Qur'an out of enmity towards it would like to misinterpret the Qur'an in the manner of those who violate it's teachings.

Peace.