Catholics preach strict interpretation that they are taught.
What? I dissagree.
No point in arguments. The way I see it we would both be wrong.
Consider, by just saying Muhammad is not forerold in the Bible, does not make it so either. Whereas sound logical argument is available to show Islam was part of what Christ offered humanity as a whole.
Regards Tony
Certainty Muslims had no problem justifying their conquests of the Holy land and a good portion of Christian, Zoroastrian and pagan world on the basis of their Jihad. You even suggested earlier that the conquest and control of Jerusalem was proof God was on the Muslim's side and evidence of Muhamamd's divine authority. How is ISIS radically different from early Islam? Nothing they do is forbidden by Muhammad or Islam, conquest, Sex slaves, Punishing unbelievers.
Valid point and the argument I speak of should be clarified, ad it is continuing past strong disagreement. It is then better to agree to dissagree.
Certainly Christians also can be seen as justifying their conquests. The Bible does not go into blow for blow description as to how it will happen, it says it will happen that the Gospel will be preached throughout all Nations and gives a few signs for us to ponder.
The issue you will face today is unraveling centuries of properganda against Islam and also understanding what Muhammad is teaching. If one wants to find what the intent was, one must look for it in Peaceful Islam, as that is where one will find more balanced explanations.
Regards Tony
Also, I will note that it wasn't due to the peace of Islam that they were able to dominate North Africa, Turkey, Syria, India, Central Asia and the steppes.
The wisdom of this is found in this passsage;
Revelation 11:2 to 12
It is Islam that this is talking about, the 2 Witnesses are Muhamad and Ali, the Dead bodies laying in the street is Islam that becomes the beast, the Umayyad Caliphate who corrupted Islam. All this would last to the year 1260, which is 1844.
Modern day ISIS feeds off this beast.
Regards Tony
Is it your opinion the Rashidun Caliphate was justified in it's conquest of Egypt, Libya, Israel, Syria, Persia and and Afghanistan? ISIS doesn't seem to be doing anything the Rashidun Caliphate didn't and aside from the change of Dynasty, what did the Ummayids do that was substantially different than the previous Islamic regime which was never peaceful or purely benevolent?
Couldn't one argue that the expansion of the Islamic world under the Ummayyids meant that God was with the new Dynasty? They also held Jerusalem which you said meant Islam was by God.
I see ISIS is a manifestation of self motivated greed in all its worst forms. One of the worst being the thought that paradise awaits a tyrant.
I also see it has naught to do what I think as it is God that knows the Beginning and the End. I think it will takes decades to unravel the Truth and only after the Faiths embrace each other as a path to our same God.
Thus to me It has all to do with our given free will. Gods knows all if mans decisions and thus guides with His chosen Messengers, no person has been without the guidance of God, or covered by God's Mercy, Bounty and Compassion.
God allows us to pursue our hearts desires, no matter how dark they are. In understansing that we know there is a bounty, mercy and justice we are yet to fathom.
Regards Tony
Christianity-proper has to be what Christ teach in alignment with God as in the Gospels.A Christocentric hemeneutic is not essential to all forms of Christianity. Both Catholics and Protestants have believed, at times, in a more theonomist type approach, not completely unlike Salafism in Islam. Today in the US, in fact, there are some Christians that still uphold the notion that being a Christian is synomymous with upholding social and legal sanctions against people not living in accordance with their understandings of the Bible.
Note what the Muslims of IS did are in >90 in accordance to what is presented in the 6236 verses of the Quran - the core constitution of Islam.I see ISIS is a manifestation of self motivated greed in all its worst forms. One of the worst being the thought that paradise awaits a tyrant.
I also see it has naught to do what I think as it is God that knows the Beginning and the End. I think it will takes decades to unravel the Truth and only after the Faiths embrace each other as a path to our same God.
Thus to me It has all to do with our given free will. Gods knows all if mans decisions and thus guides with His chosen Messengers, no person has been without the guidance of God, or covered by God's Mercy, Bounty and Compassion.
God allows us to pursue our hearts desires, no matter how dark they are. In understansing that we know there is a bounty, mercy and justice we are yet to fathom.
Regards Tony
I have already stated many times,This is what Islamic extremists teach, not the religion of Islam. Suicide and killing innocent people are forbidden in Islam, so suicide attacks can't possibly be acceptable.
I agree again, general lying in ordinary circumstance is wrong. Note in the particular case, it was more of "pretending" rather than deliberately telling a lie.There is only one circumstance and that circumstance is well defined in the Qur'an as to when a lie is permissible.
Below is the ONLY verse found in the Qur'an that suggests that lying is acceptable and even then it is better to choose death rather than to lie as the hadith below it states:
"As for anyone who denies God after having once attained to faith - and this, to be sure, does not apply to one who does it under duress, the while his heart remains true to his faith, but only, to him who willingly opens up his heart to a denial of the truth upon all such falls God's condemnation, and tremendous suffering awaits them" (Qur'an 16:106)
"There is a consensus that whomsoever is forced into apostasy and chooses death has a greater reward than a person who takes the license to deny one's faith under duress, but if a person is being forced to eat pork or drink wine, then they should do that instead of choosing death." (Sahih al-Bukhari)
Again, WHO ARE YOU, me or anyone who can judge their interpretation is wrong.The verses aren't the problem, it's the individuals who alter them from their original course or meaning that are the problem. Christian extremists also twist and distort the scriptures to justify committing atrocities.
There are not many verses in the Gospels that are 'grey' in terms of evil and violence.Do you feel that I should also be condemning the Bible verses that extremists or Christian terrorist organizations have used their actions?
What impossible standards.You mean I haven't countered the above to your impossible standards.
When you bring the historical context, then it become very subjective, contentious and flimsy.The Qur'an was written 1,400 years ago. What you are reading in the Qur'an are verses that were supposedly revealed at different times in Muhammad’s life. Some verses answered specific questions at a specific time or during a specific historical event such as a battle. Many verses have specific messages intended for specific people, while others give general guidelines to be used for future generations. So when you read the Qur’an it's important to understand what was happening at the time that resulted in a particular verse to be revealed to Muhammad.
The Bible is similar in the fact that each book was written to a specific audience, who were facing specific circumstances, at a specific point in time. The Bible wasn't written to Christians living in the year 2019, but it was written for us in 2019.
Historical context means everything when trying to understand and properly interpret religious texts. You are obviously having a difficult time in doing this in regards to the Qur'an, and this is why I suggested you take some courses in Islamic Studies in the other thread.
What I meant is the Quran is perfected by Allah as claimed in 5:3.Here is Qur'an 5:3 in full context:
Prohibited for you are carrion, blood, the flesh of swine, and animals dedicated to other than God; also the flesh of animals strangled, killed violently, killed by a fall, gored to death, mangled by wild animals—except what you rescue, and animals sacrificed on altars; and the practice of drawing lots. For it is immoral. Today, those who disbelieve have despaired of your religion, so do not fear them, but fear Me. Today I have perfected your religion for you, and have completed My favor upon you, and have approved Islam as a religion for you. But whoever is compelled by hunger, with no intent of wrongdoing—God is Forgiving and Merciful.
It's ironic that you would use this verse to defend your position that the the Qur'an is saying that disbelievers are a threat to Islam.
This verse was supposedly revealed to Muhammad when Islam had finally developed into a complete way of life for Muslims and is referred to as the Ikmal al-Din or "perfection of the religion" in English. This verse says that non-Muslims had now reached a point of no hope in destroying Islam and it tells Muslims that they no longer needed to fear non-Muslims; they should only fear God. This verse is considered by most Muslims to be the final verse revealed to Muhammad and in essence it tells Muslims that non-Muslims are no longer a treat to them which is the exact opposite of what you believe it's saying.
Which brings us to this:
Nope, 5:3 is not the final revelation. It is just a report and in any case the Allah already had the perfected religion beside his 'throne'.Since Qur'an 5:3 is considered to be the final revelation to Muhammad, using your own theory of abrogation and how the verses revealed later in Muhammad's life override previous ones, the war between Muslims and non-Muslims is over. That verse tells Muslims that non-Muslims have lost hope in the fight against Islam and that Muslims no longer need to fear them.
As long at the perfected and immutable Quran and Islam exists there is no way you can do anything effectively to change the minds of the 320 million evil prone Muslims, especially when what is at stake is salvation for eternal life in paradise. They are like drowning people grabbing at straws or anything to save themselves.Do you believe we should ignore them? Why shouldn't we judge extremists and point out how they are morally wrong in their interpretations? Should we just allow their perverted ideologies spread without consequence?
So it is the same with those stories of wars committed by Muhammad against the innocent Jews, Christian and infidels.In Islam these stories are important in telling how the Muslim faith came into existence.
In a very loose way, yes, those people were identified as Christian.Christian extremists alter verses from the Bible from their original course or meaning to justify their actions, therefore; Christian extremism is inconceivable without reference to Christianity.
Mythical??This mythical pool of yours is very weak. Since the inception of Islam, less than 1% of Muslims have participated in violent jihad. Today fewer than 1/10th of 1% of Muslims are doing so and there is no evidence that this number is presently increasing. If there are 320 million evil prone Muslims, why aren't there more of them acting out violently towards non-Muslims since this is what you believe the Qur'an commands Muslims to do? There isn't even 1% of your mythical 320 million doing this.
I think you are having the problem due to confirmation bias.You seem to have difficulty comprehending what is being said in that article.
Until Western intelligence, military, and law enforcement personnel are provided with accurate information about the history and core religious doctrines of Islam and the intrinsically extremist nature of Islamism, and until they are taught how to distinguish between Muslim moderates and Islamist extremists (including those who are posing as moderates) and learn how to recognise the many telltale signs of Islamist ideological radicalisation, they will generally be unable to identify prospective jihadist terrorists in advance.
The above is talking about people like you who can't differentiate between the religion of Islam and what it teaches and the extremist ideology and what it teaches. Until you can can make a distinction between the religion of Islam and extremism, you will continue to be in error.
It should also go without saying that relying on Islamist activists for “advice” about how to deal with the threat posed by Islamism is not only preposterous but utterly self-defeating.
You are waving silly excuses.Once again, the above is talking about people like you. The sources you have been using and relying on to support your position in these threads have been coming from extremists and anti-Islamic propagandists.
Dr. Bale differentiates between the religion of Islam and Islamism (Extremism) in his articles. Your failure to do this is what leads you to have a misunderstanding of what Islam teaches.
I am not legitimizing extremists' acts of violence.I will get back to the friend issue, but you have repeatedly made the claim that Islam doesn't teach Muslims to love others, and especially their enemies, but this verse shows this not to be true. In this verse it clearly shows that the Muslims do love others, even those who hate them and want to do them harm. Where would they have learned this?
O you who believe! Do not befriend outsiders who never cease to wish you harm.They love to see you suffer. Hatred has already appeared from their mouths, but what their hearts conceal is worse. We have made the messages clear for you, if you understand. There you are, you love them, but they do not love you, and you believe in the entire scripture. And when they meet you, they say, “We believe;” but when they are alone, they bite their fingers in rage at you. Say, “Die in your rage; God knows what is within the hearts.” (qur'an 3:118-119)
I also gave you some supporting Islamic texts to show where Muslims are taught to love others, but you discounted it. Here is is again:
Now back to the friend issue:
If you read chapter 60 in it's entirety, that is only talking about some non-Muslims. Those who are fighting against Islam.
Perhaps God will plant affection between you and those of them you consider enemies. God is Capable. God is Forgiving and Merciful.
As for those who have not fought against you for your religion, nor expelled you from your homes, God does not prohibit you from dealing with them kindly and equitably. God loves the equitable.
But God prohibits you from befriending those who fought against you over your religion, and expelled you from your homes, and aided in your expulsion. Whoever takes them for friends—these are the wrongdoers. (Quran 60:7-9)
The non-believers that are considered enemies in verse 1 are only those who are fighting against Islam and persecuting Muslims. There is no condition that they someday become believers. Once they stop fighting against Islam and Muslims, they are no longer considered enemies.
Here you are once again using the point of view of an extremist to support your position.
Muhammad Al-Munajjid, [A Saudi Arabian Whahhabist Cleric] -- "Follows Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab movement." He is the founder of IslamQA.info and oversees the fatwas issued on the website. He follows the Hanbali jurisprudence and uses the basis of the salafi movement to answer questions on the website.
Salafis, and especially those who follow the Hanbali school of thought, follow a very strict literal interpretation of the Qur'an. They are much like the Fundamental Independent Baptists in Christianity and their numbers are very small.
The Hanbali school was founded by Ahmad ibn Hanbal in the 9th century. It is primarily found in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and has some presence in the countries surrounding the KSA, such as Qatar, UAE, Bahrain, Yemen, and Oman. It is the smallest Sunni school by far, estimated to contain fewer than 5% of the world’s Muslims as adherents, but as they are concentrated in areas of great wealth and power it has a stronger influence on global Islamic thought than might be expected.
Here are some examples of the extreme teachings found at that site you inked to:
Women who drive are prostitutes, women being "weak, defeated and dazzled" if they take part in politics, women being intellectually inferior to men, women who work as broadcasters will lead to illegitimate children, needing to divorce women who don't wear the hijab, needing to leave work if there are women working there too, polygamy being necessary for all Muslim males, women who do not marry will become prostitutes and the illegitimacy of the children will be reflected in their behavior, a muslim male being sinful for getting to know a girl for the sake of marriage, being sinful to live in non-Muslim countries (and needing to hate non-muslims if one does live in a non-muslim country), and not being allowed to appreciate the skills of non-muslim football players, because they are non-muslim.
Needless to say, the above are not a part of the teachings of the religion of Islam, nor do very many Muslims believe that way.
Yes, martyrdom is honored in Islam, but the above has nothing to do with suicide attacks or terrorism in general.
Yes, you cherry pick verses and have a problem comprehending what you are reading. I have already addressed some of these verses already for you in other threads. If you read the surrounding context and have an understanding of the historical context in which these verses are written, it will become clear to you that these verse do not tell Muslims that they can't befriend non-Muslims.
Whether you realize it or not, you are legitimizing extremists and their perverted teachings by equating extremism with the religion of Islam. I hope you will take a pause and enroll in some courses on Islamic Studies so you will have a better understanding of what Islam actually teaches. What you have been posting here comes straight from the mouths of Islamic extremists and anti-Islamic propagandists and it's counter productive in fighting against Islamic extremism. This was the entire point of Dr. Bale's article you linked to.
Again, who are you, me or any one to judge they are wrong?Here you are once again using the point of view of an extremist to support your position.
This is a contradiction. Either arguments can be made for or against propositions or they cannot. The subject of the thread isn't particularly about Muhammad being a fulfillment of the bible so I dismiss it with a comment. If you want to make a thread demonstrating this, by all means do it and we can talk about it there. But here it deserves only a comment.
You seem content with just your opinion, which is fine though it is shallow. Especially in the context of Islam and whether or not ISIS are related. I would maintain based on the nature of early Islam that ISIS is bares more a resemblance to the early Muslims than many modernist interpretations.
Certainty Muslims had no problem justifying their conquests of the Holy land and a good portion of Christian, Zoroastrian and pagan world on the basis of their Jihad. You even suggested earlier that the conquest and control of Jerusalem was proof God was on the Muslim's side and evidence of Muhamamd's divine authority. How is ISIS radically different from early Islam? Nothing they do is forbidden by Muhammad or Islam, conquest, Sex slaves, Punishing unbelievers.
Isis is radically different because it's applied in a completely different culture and context to early Islam, without Muhammad..
I agree with your last statement, but note this correction:Isis is radically different because it's applied in a completely different culture and context to early Islam, without Muhammad.
I find it disturbing that it can be applied to current times by Isis members but then I'm disturbed by a president declaring a war on terror using the word God in his justification of that war, yes a Christian God. Islam and Christianity are uniquely different, but both subject to scrutiny both past and present but only with an unbiased eye. It doesn't happen. Both these religions do not serve us currently in our global overlapping, so I hope they both reduce in size to a tiny flicker and allow the rest of us to live peacefully.
I agree with your last statement, but note this correction:
What IS.IS practiced is not the culture and context without [I presume you meant before?] Muhammad.
In fact, the Meccan people before Muhammad were living harmoniously in Mecca practicing different religions.
Islam was from Allah where its core of 6236 verses of the Quran were revealed via Muhammad through angel Gabriel.
A Muslim of Islam is one who had entered into a covenant [a divine contract] with Allah to comply with the covenanted terms within the 6236 verses [to the best of their ability] in exchange for salvation in paradise with eternal life.
Note IS members comply with >90% of the 6236 verses of the Quran thus they are correspondingly >90% Islamic.
The so-called moderate Muslims at most comply with <60% of the 6236 verses of the Quran - the core constitution of Islam.
The ex-President who went to war with reference to the Christian God was wrong. Such a claim cannot be attributed to Christianity itself, because Christianity per se has an overriding pacifist maxim of love all -even enemies, thus cannot be calling Christians to war against enemies.
Christians who went to war. commit various evil and violent acts did such acts on their own free will for various reasons [e.g. the greater good or personal] and they have sinned, thus will have to face God justice of Judgment Day.[
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?