Islam Islam Influence

[Geralt]

so why would a muslim still persist (and simply not leave) in his religion given the reality of its influence? a tree is always known by its fruit.

THIS IS WHAT YOU CAN ALWAYS EXPECT WITH MUSLIMS
The Shoe Bomber was a Muslim
The Beltway Snipers were Muslims
The Fort Hood Shooter was a Muslim
The underwear Bomber was a Muslim
The U-S.S. Cole Bombers were Muslims
The Madrid Train Bombers were Muslims
The Bali Nightclub Bombers were Muslims
The London Subway Bombers were Muslims
The Moscow Theatre Attackers were Muslims
The Boston Marathon Bombers were Muslims
The Pan-Am flight #93 Bombers were Muslims
The Air France Entebbe Hijackers were Muslims
The Iranian Embassy Takeover, was by Muslims
The Beirut U.S. Embassy bombers were Muslims
The Libyan U.S. Embassy Attack was by Muslims
The Buenos Aires Suicide Bombers were Muslims
The Israeli Olympic Team Attackers were Muslims
The Kenyan U.S, Embassy Bombers were Muslims
The Saudi, Khobar Towers Bombers were Muslims
The Beirut Marine Barracks bombers were Muslims
The Besian Russian School Attackers were Muslims
The first World Trade Center Bombers were Muslims
The Bombay & Mumbai India Attackers were Muslims
The Achille Lauro Cruise Ship Hijackers were Muslims
The September 11th 2001 Airline Hijackers were Muslims'
Robert Kennedy was killed by a Muslim
Al-Qaida terrorists attack African hotel popular with westerners
At least 27 dead after Islamists seize luxury hotel in Mali's capital
And the list continues to grow!
Think of it:
Buddhists living with Hindus = No Problem
Hindus living with Christians = No Problem
Hindus living with Jews = No Problem
Christians living with Shintos = No Problem
Shintos living with Confucians = No Problem
Confucians living with Baha'is = No Problem
Baha'is living with Jews = No Problem
Jews living with Atheists = No Problem
Atheists living with Buddhists = No Problem
Buddhists living with Sikhs = No Problem
Sikhs living with Hindus = No Problem
Hindus living with Baha'is = No Problem
Baha'is living with Christians = No Problem
Christians living with Jews = No Problem
Jews living with Buddhists = No Problem
Buddhists living with Shintos = No Problem
Shintos living with Atheists = No Problem
Atheists living with Confucians = No Problem
Confucians living with Hindus = No Problem
Muslims living with Hindus = Problem
Muslims living with Buddhists = Problem
Muslims living with Christians = Problem
Muslims living with Jews = Problem
Muslims living with Sikhs = Problem
Muslims living with Baha'is = Problem
Muslims living with Shintos = Problem
Muslims living with Atheists = Problem
MUSLIMS LIVING WITH MUSLIMS = BIG PROBLEM
**********SO THIS LEAD TO *****************
They’re not happy in Gaza
They're not happy in Egypt
They're not happy in Libya
They're not happy in Morocco
They're not happy in Iran
They're not happy in Iraq
They're not happy in Yemen
They're not happy in Afghanistan
They're not happy in Pakistan
They're not happy in Syria
They're not happy in Lebanon
They're not happy in Nigeria
They're not happy in Kenya
They're not happy in Sudan
******** So, where are they happy? **********
They're happy in Australia
They're happy in England
They're happy in Belgium
They're happy in France
They're happy in Italy
They're happy in Germany
They're happy in Sweden
They're happy in the USA & Canada
They're happy in Norway & India
They're happy in almost every country that is not Islamic! And who do they blame? Not Islam... Not their leadership... Not themselves... THEY BLAME THE COUNTRIES THEY ARE HAPPY IN!! And they want to change the countries they're happy in, to be like the countries they came from where they were unhappy and finally they will be get hammered
!!!!
Islamic Jihad: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
ISIS: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Al-Qaeda: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Taliban: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Hamas: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Hezbollah: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Boko Haram: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Al-Nusra: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Abu Sayyaf: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Al-Badr: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Muslim Brotherhood: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Lashkar-e-Taiba: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Palestine Liberation Front: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Ansaru: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Jemaah Islamiyah: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Abdullah Azzam Brigades: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
AND A LOT MORE!!!!!!!
Think about it........ frown emoticon 20 signs that psychopath Muslims do:
1] Kill anyone who insults Islam or Mohamed-mad. (Koran.33; 57-61).
2) Kill all Muslims who leave Islam. (Koran.2;217/4;89/Bukhari.9;84-57).
3) Koran cannot be doubted. (Koran.2; 1).
4) Islam is the only acceptable religion. (Koran.3; 85).
5) Muslims must fight (jihad) to non-Muslims, even if they don't want to. (Koran.2; 216).
6) We the non-Muslims are pigs and apes. (Koran. 2;62-65/Koran.5;59-60/Koran.7;166).
7) We the non-Muslims cannot be friends with Muslims. (Koran.5; 51).
?? We the non-Muslims sworn enemies of Muslims and Islam. (Koran.4; 101).
9) We the non-Muslims can be raped as sex slave. (Koran.4; 3 & 24/5; 89/23; 5/33; 50/58; 3/70; 30).
10) We the non-Muslims the vilest of creatures deserving no mercy. (Koran.98; 6).
11) Muslim must terrorized us (non-Muslims). (Koran.8; 12 &59-60/ Bukhari.4; 52; 220).
12) Muslims must strike terror into non-Muslims hearts. (Koran.8; 60).
13) Muslims must lie to us (non-Muslims) to strengthen and spread Islam. (Koran.3; 28? 16; 106).
14) Muslims are allowed to behead us (non_Muslims) (Koran.47; 4).
15) Muslims are guaranteed to go to heaven if they kill us (non-Muslims). (Koran.9; 111).
16) Marrying and divorcing pre-pubescent children is OK. (Koran.65; 4).
17) Wife beating is OK. (Koran.4; 34).
18) Raping wives is OK. (Koran.2; 223).
19) Proving rape requires 4 (four) male Muslim witnesses. (Koran.24; 13).
20) Muslims are allowed to crucify and amputate us (non-Muslims). Koran.8; 12/47; 4).

 

[Daniel9v9]

Quick super unimportant question - why is Norway & India listed together? Nothing wrong with it! Just found it peculiar - especially going from "...Sweden, USA & Canada, Norway & India", considering Sweden and Norway are both neighboring Scandinavian countries

Also, while I think there's some truth to all this, I don't think it's healthy or fair to generalize. I don't think all Muslims are happy in the UK for example. At the same time it's good to take note of that UK and Scandinavia, for example, are generally speaking pretty friendly towards muslims. There are parts of London that are more or less entirely muslim.

Furthermore - not that I'm by any means defending the Quran - but I think we need to be very careful about taking verses or quotes out of contexts, because this is what people do with the Bible; distorting and making claims about things they don't understand. I'd be surprised if we were to ask an imam about whether or not raping is OK and he said yes. Then again, I really have no idea what they're up to in their religion and it's not really my concern - my only concern is the Gospel and the one true God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

 

[sdowney717]

Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

Acts 4:9-12New King James Version (NKJV)
9 If we this day are judged for a good deed done to a helpless man, by what means he has been made well, 10 let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole. 11 This is the ‘stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.’ 12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

 

[Geralt]

i suppose you would not simply describe 'happy' as having a smiling face.

im in the UK and i have to tell you our Health Service (for free) is burdened by patients mostly muslims. lots of 'health tourists' getting free health service they cannot get for free in their own countries. lots of sick muslims (old people) and wives (who grow fat and sick at home because they are not allowed to work) getting cared for as well.

that is i believe what makes them 'happy', the "convenience of the west" they are enjoying. and yet when a local imam comes in preaching hate promoting dissent towards the government who welcomed them, they line up and join the mob.

with regards to getting text out of context, you really dont need to spend time studying the quran but just the personality and life of their alleged prophet Mohammad whom they emulate. the striking resemblance to their social attitudes, mannerisms and beliefs cannot be overlooked.​

Quick super unimportant question - why is Norway & India listed together? Nothing wrong with it! Just found it peculiar - especially going from "...Sweden, USA & Canada, Norway & India", considering Sweden and Norway are both neighboring Scandinavian countries

Also, while I think there's some truth to all this, I don't think it's healthy or fair to generalize. I don't think all Muslims are happy in the UK for example. At the same time it's good to take note of that UK and Scandinavia, for example, are generally speaking pretty friendly towards muslims. There are parts of London that are more or less entirely muslim.

Furthermore - not that I'm by any means defending the Quran - but I think we need to be very careful about taking verses or quotes out of contexts, because this is what people do with the Bible; distorting and making claims about things they don't understand. I'd be surprised if we were to ask an imam about whether or not raping is OK and he said yes. Then again, I really have no idea what they're up to in their religion and it's not really my concern - my only concern is the Gospel and the one true God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

 

[Niblo]

Also, while I think there's some truth to all this, I don't think it's healthy or fair to generalize. I don't think all Muslims are happy in the UK for example. At the same time it's good to take note of that UK and Scandinavia, for example, are generally speaking pretty friendly towards muslims. There are parts of London that are more or less entirely muslim.

Furthermore - not that I'm by any means defending the Quran - but I think we need to be very careful about taking verses or quotes out of contexts, because this is what people do with the Bible; distorting and making claims about things they don't understand. I'd be surprised if we were to ask an imam about whether or not raping is OK and he said yes. Then again, I really have no idea what they're up to in their religion and it's not really my concern - my only concern is the Gospel and the one true God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Thank you for your fair, and just, words. You are a credit to your Faith.

‘The jurists of Islam spoke about the criminal who targets the defenseless and weak, who attacks unexpectedly and indiscriminately, and who uses terror as the primary method for achieving his ends. They called him the muharib. Such a criminal was declared to be most vile and deserving of no reprieve. The jurist Ibn Rushd, the grandfather (d. 520/1126), ruled that a criminal who terrorizes people in their homes is a muharib, and Ibn al-‘Arabi (d. 543/1148), the Maliki jurist, declared that a rapist is a muharib as well.

‘A criminal who targets civilians, and attacks suddenly and indiscriminately, is particularly vile. Those who induce terror as a primary method of communication are despicable. But it is not only violent terrorists who induce fear as a means of communication. Intellectual terrorists are equally vile. Intellectual terrorists are emotional extortionists. These terrorists, who are often racists, sexists, classists, or religious bigots, employ the language of fear. They generalize and essentialize a people, reducing them to a phenomenon.’ (‘The Search for Beauty in Islam: A Conference of the Books’; Khaled Abou El Fadl).

What we see in the first post of this thread is an attempt, a despicable attempt, to reduce 1.6 billion people to a phenomenon; to demonise all Muslims – and their religion – because of the vile acts of few.

It has been demonstrated (repeatedly) in another thread that Islam condemns, absolutely, the murderous activities of these few. At the time of writing – and to their shame – not one of the Christians participating in that thread has had the decency to admit this.

Any Christian who bears hatred in his heart for another person would do well to remember this:

‘You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment. But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, 'Raca,' is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.' (Matthew 5: 21-22).

‘The Jewish teachers had taught, that nothing except actual murder was forbidden by the sixth commandment. Thus they explained away its spiritual meaning. Christ showed the full meaning of this commandment; according to which we must be judged hereafter, and therefore ought to be ruled now. All rash anger is heart murder. By our brother, here, we are to understand any person, though ever so much below us, for we are all made of one blood. Raca, is a scornful word, and comes from pride: Thou fool, is a spiteful word, and comes from hatred. Malicious slanders and censures are poison that kills secretly and slowly. Christ told them that how light soever they made of these sins, they would certainly be called into judgment for them. We ought carefully to preserve Christian love and peace with all our brethren; and if at any time there is a quarrel, we should confess our fault, humble ourselves to our brother, making or offering satisfaction for wrong done in word or deed: and we should do this quickly; because, till this is done, we are unfit for communion with God in holy ordinances. And when we are preparing for any religious exercises, it is good for us to make that an occasion of serious reflection and self-examination. What is here said is very applicable to our being reconciled to God through Christ. While we are alive, we are in the way to his judgement-seat; after death, it will be too late. When we consider the importance of the case, and the uncertainty of life, how needful it is to seek peace with God, without delay!’ (Matthew Henry Commentary).

May God reward you for your integrity, and for your example.

 

[outlawState]

Any Christian who bears hatred in his heart for another person would do well to remember this:

Muslims do not qualify for respect from Christians because Islam is conspiracy against Christ himself, through denying that he is the son of God and that salvation is by him. Islam is a conspiracy against the truth and the Koran is a criminal code for maintaining honour amongst thieves - in this case theft of the truth. I would not see anything against Christ in criminalizing Islam. Don't bother imagining that anything that Christ said applies to protect Islam, because the Old Testament law was that a false prophet be put to death, as to which, Mahomet was one.

 

[Niblo]

Muslims do not qualify for respect from Christians because Islam is conspiracy against Christ himself, through denying that he is the son of God and that salvation is by him. Islam is a conspiracy against the truth and the Koran is a criminal code for maintaining honour amongst thieves - in this case theft of the truth. I would not see anything against Christ in criminalizing Islam. Don't bother imagining that anything that Christ said applies to protect Islam, because the Old Testament law was that a false prophet be put to death, as to which, Mahomet was one.

Allow me to tell a brief story:

I was raised as a Baptist in the Rhondda, South Wales. In the 1920’s a number of Italian families moved into Glamorgan and set up shops and cafes. One of these families settled in my home town. When Italy declared war, and joined with Germany, the UK government issued an internment order against those it deemed to be 'enemy civilians'. This included the Italian family in my town. The husband was taken away, but his wife and children were allowed to remain.

One day, my grandfather returned from work to discover a mob hurling abuse (and stones) at the Italian family and their home; at people they had recently called friends. My grandfather told the mob (most of whom were Chapel-folk) to stop, and they did. Many years later the family’s eldest daughter (Maria) was accepted into the Carmelite Order, and my grandfather and grandmother were invited to attend the ceremony. A great honour.

My grandfather was an Elder at one of the local Welsh Baptist Chapels. The Elders employed the Minister.

When I was a teenager, one Minister came to my grandfather’s house. He was treated like royalty. My grandfather called him ‘Sir’. Later, I asked my grandfather why he had called this man ‘Sir’ after all, he was the Minister’s boss! My grandfather smiled, and said: ‘I’m just an Elder. The Minister speaks the Word!’

When my grandfather died, several hundred men – of all ages – attended his funeral (women did not do so in those days). They filled the chapel, and many were weeping openly.

My grandfather was able to calm a howling mob – and move the hearts of many – not because of any legal authority (he had none), but because of his character; because of the person he was. He lived his Faith as it was meant to be lived. A Christian would say that he reflected the love of Jesus; and that it was this that made him a beacon, and a magnet, for others. I would say that he reflected the love of God. He led by example rather than by accusation.

Although I can no longer share my grandfather’s theology he remains, by far, the finest man I ever met.

 

[outlawState]

Allow me to tell a brief story.

Well then, you seem to be denying your grandfather's faith. I can have no idea what motivates you to prefer the pseudo-ba'alist legalistic self-contradictory dross that is the Koran, for the reality of faith taught by Christ, unless political supremacy is what really motivates you. As Christ said, what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world but forfeits his soul? That applies to political Islam as much as anyone else.

 

[Niblo]

Well then, you seem to be denying your grandfather's faith. I can have no idea what motivates you to prefer the pseudo-ba'alist legalistic self-contradictory dross that is the Koran, for the reality of faith taught by Christ, unless political supremacy is what really motivates you. As Christ said, what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world but forfeits his soul? That applies to political Islam as much as anyone else.

I've made it perfectly clear that I can no longer share certain of my grandfather's beliefs. That is not his fault, of course; nor the fault of Christianity itself (of course). There was a slow, and difficult, parting of the ways; a gradual realisation that I was no longer able to accept notions I had once held as true; notions I had once taught and defended. The idea that I am - or have ever been - motivated by 'political supremacy' is risable; and not worthy of further comment. Could I ever revert to being a Christian? No....because I can no longer accept that Yeshua (as) was anything other than a man. A prophet, for sure. The Messiah, for sure. But just a man for all that. As soon as I realised this....as soon as this became the reality for me.....it was time to leave. My grandfather would not have agreed with me....not in the slightest. But he would have respected my decision; he would have respected the honesty that underpins it; above all, he would have continued to respect me. He was, after all - and above all - a lover of Christ...and he knew me better than you do!

 

[PloverWing]

Muslims do not qualify for respect from Christians because Islam is conspiracy against Christ himself, through denying that he is the son of God and that salvation is by him. Islam is a conspiracy against the truth and the Koran is a criminal code for maintaining honour amongst thieves - in this case theft of the truth. I would not see anything against Christ in criminalizing Islam. Don't bother imagining that anything that Christ said applies to protect Islam, because the Old Testament law was that a false prophet be put to death, as to which, Mahomet was one.

Please, stop.

Muslims qualify for respect from Christians because they are human beings created in the image of God. They are people whom God loves and for whom Christ died.

Muslims are our neighbors. You know what Jesus said about how we are to treat our neighbors. Are Muslims our enemies? I don't think so, but if they are -- Jesus talked about our enemies, too.

Express your disagreement, yes. Islam and Christianity disagree on some important theological points. But please, no criminalization, and no disrespect.

 

[outlawState]

Please, stop.

No. Political correctness does not usurp devotion to Christ.

Muslims qualify for respect from Christians because they are human beings created in the image of God. They are people whom God loves and for whom Christ died.

No. You're mutating the issue from "respect" to human rights. Just because you don't respect someone does not mean they are not entitled to human rights. That is why criminals are entitled to a trial. Whilst muslims may be entitled to human rights, e.g. right to a fair trial etc, on account of their humanity, they do not qualify for respect for their views, which are derived from propaganda and brainwashing.

Muslims are our neighbors. You know what Jesus said about how we are to treat our neighbors. Are Muslims our enemies? I don't think so, but if they are -- Jesus talked about our enemies, too.

Neighbours per Christ are not those seeking to destroy you or undermine your faith. Those who seek to destroy faith are enemies of the gospel. My impression from what you are saying is that you would rather 1000 people did not ever come to know Christ, than that just one muslim be disallowed to practise his "faith."

The goal of Islam is the destruction of Christianity. Therefore all muslims are my enemies in principle, but some in fact more than others. They may be your friends, but wishy washy Anglicanism I also find deplorable. I attended Anglican churches for near on 10 years during my childhood and was taught little about faith. It offered to me no intellectual basis, no rationale. Neither do your arguments saying that Islam is entitled to respect.

Express your disagreement, yes. Islam and Christianity disagree on some important theological points. But please, no criminalization, and no disrespect.

Islam and Christianity do not disagree on "important" theological points. They are at enmity on nearly every single issue to do with life and politics, including even the right to which legal system to live under.

 

[Niblo]

What follows are extracts from a book by Khaled M. Abou El Fadl.

What the author has to say about moderate Muslims (the vast majority of the Ummah):

‘The relationship of moderates with the West is multifaceted. An anecdotal story sheds light upon the various facets of this relationship. At the beginning of the twentieth century, the Egyptian moderate scholar Rafa’a al-Tahtawi visited Paris, and he was extremely impressed by the city. He noticed that the city was clean, well-organized, and beautiful, and that Parisians were hardworking, punctual, well-educated, and productive. Upon returning to Egypt, Tahtawi made a comment that became well remembered but controversial. Tahtawi said: “In Paris, I saw Islam but there were no Muslims, but in Egypt, I see Muslims but there is no Islam.” The statement is clearly an exaggeration, but what Tahtawi meant to say is that Parisians unwittingly accomplished the moral values of Islam although they were not Muslims. In Egypt, on the other hand, people were Muslim, but the moral values of Islam remained unfulfilled. For Tahtawi, the ideal Muslims would be hardworking, punctual, educated, and advanced. To be backward, ill-informed, and undisciplined is inconsistent with the Islamic ideal."

‘Building upon the Islamic tradition, moderates argue that at a minimum all human beings have a right to dignity and liberty. The moderates’ belief in democracy and human rights begins with the premise that oppression is a great offense against God and human beings. The Qur’an describes oppressors as corrupters of the earth and also describes oppression as an offense against God. In moderate thinking, it is recognized that all human beings are entitled to dignity.

‘In a well-known Islamic tradition, ‘Umar, the second caliph and the close Companion of the Prophet, declared that humans are created free. ‘Umar instructed one of his governors that injustice could be a form of enslavement and subjugation, and he rhetorically asked his governor: Who has the right to oppress people when God has created them free? Moderates usually cite this tradition and others in arguing that liberty is a natural right for all human beings, and that robbing people of their liberty is equivalent to subjugating and enslaving them. Submission to God can only be meaningful if human beings are free to submit or not to submit. Without freedom of choice, obedience and submission to God become entirely meaningless. Choice (liberty) is a Divine gift, and this gift is part and parcel of the ability to submit to God, and hence, the freedom to pursue Godliness or to refuse to do so. Being enslaved or subjugated by a human being is fundamentally inconsistent with the duty to submit oneself without reservation to God.

‘In the classical Islamic tradition, justice is a core and fundamental value. The classical scholars emphasized justice as an Islamic obligation to the point that some of them argued that in the eyes of God, a just non-Muslim society is superior to an unjust Muslim society. Other classical scholars argued that true submission to God is impossible if injustice prevails in society. If injustice is prevalent within a society, moderates like Abd al-Rahman al-Kawakibi and others argued, this leads to the spread of traits and characteristics that are inconsistent with the ability of submission to God. Those traits include fear, apprehension, and lack of tranquility as people live in fear of injury; dishonesty and hypocrisy as people have to lie and dissimulate their true beliefs and convictions in order to survive; insecurity and opportunism as people learn that there is no correlation between acts and results; and suffering as people are ultimately robbed of their rights. In essence, the existence of injustice means the absence of Godliness, while justice means the presence of Godliness.

‘The Qur’an and the Prophet Muhammad’s traditions make clear that human beings have a right to certain entitlements and safeguards in life. In the Islamic jurisprudential tradition, the classical scholars constructed a scheme of human rights based on what they called the “protected interests” of human beings. The classical scholars identified five protected interests: life, intellect, lineage, reputation, and property. According to this theory, protected interests are interests that the political and legal systems are duty-bound to safeguard, honor, and promote. Therefore, the Islamic political and legal systems must protect and promote the lives of people (life); the ability of people to think and reflect (intellect); their right to marry, procreate, and raise their children (lineage); their right not to be slandered, defamed, or maligned (reputation); and their right to own property and not to have their property taken without fair and just compensation (property). Some classical scholars argued that lineage and reputation implied a right to privacy.

‘The classical scholars did not believe that the five protected interests (rights) constituted a full and complete list of all that is due to human beings. The five interests or rights represented the basic, but not the exhaustive, entitlements that ought to be recognized as belonging to human beings.

‘In order to enhance the protections afforded the five interests, the classical scholars created a three-part categorization, arguing that issues relating to all of the protected interests can be divided into necessities, needs, and luxuries: Necessities consist of the things that are basic and essential for the sustenance and protection of the interests or rights in question. Necessities are the kind of things that if not provided the interest or right in question cannot be protected at all. Needs are less critical. Needs are the kind of things that are very important for the protection of the interest or right in question, but they are not of pivotal importance. Unlike a necessity, if a need is not supplied, the interest or right can still be protected, but it is greatly undermined. Luxuries are things that are neither critical nor very important for the protection of an interest or right. Rather, a luxury, if supplied, would perfect the enjoyment of an interest or right. An example will help clarify this three-part categorization. As noted above, life is one of the protected interests or rights in Islamic law. A prohibition against killing is a necessity in order to protect the right to life. Furthermore, welfare laws that ensure that a human being has enough to eat and drink, and also has shelter or a place to live is a necessity for the preservation of life. Providing adequate health care, primary and college education, clothing, or employment could be considered a need. Providing a means for graduate education, transportation, personal psychological counseling, or paid vacations could be considered luxuries. The classical scholars did not define what exactly qualifies as a necessity, need, or luxury. However, in principle, they sought to differentiate between things that must be guaranteed to people because they are essential for a healthy, respectable, and dignified life, and things that are less important or essential. The classical scholars contended that it falls upon each generation of Muslims to explore and define in accordance with the shifting demands of the circumstances and changing times what ought to be defined as the necessities, needs, and luxuries. Therefore, it was considered unwise to set out a specific list of inflexible necessities, needs, and luxuries that are constant and unchanging.

‘Since the duty of human beings is to manage human law, and not eternal law, human beings are free to legislate as long as the legislation attempts to achieve Godliness on earth (that is, attempts to fulfill the eternal law). If the legislation fails the test of trying to achieve Godliness on earth, such a law must be declared unconstitutional. Another view offered by moderates is that the people are sovereign because the affairs of God are left to God, and the affairs of the state are left to the people. This last approach comes the closest to being an outright secular position.

‘It is not that moderate Muslims believe that Divine guidance is not necessary or helpful for human beings. They do. But they believe that God speaks to the hearts of people, not to their institutions. Once institutions pretend to represent God, they offend God and abuse human beings. Divinity is too awesome and immutable to be represented by human institutions or a single individual. In addition, moderate Muslims argue that the jurists who study and search the Divine law should continue to play their historical role as advisers and teachers of the people. In Islamic history, jurists never assumed power directly but were always a part of civic society. Their real power base was not the position given to them by the state, but their popularity and ability to appeal to the hearts and minds of the people through reason and knowledge, and a solid grounding in jurisprudence. In a Muslim country, jurists may be able to convince the majority of the citizens to pass one law or another. But when a law is passed by the legislature, it is a human law and not a Divine law. It is passed as law because the representatives of the people believe the law to be good, desirable, and in the best interests of their constituency. Those representatives are also free to change the law if that is the will of their constituency. Importantly, moderates believe that Godliness cannot be achieved by a state commanding it to be so. Thus, when the state plays the role of an enforcer for God, the state ends up replacing God altogether, and in this is an absolute absence of Godliness.’

What the author has to say about puritan Muslims (a small minority in the Ummah):

‘Puritans rely on Divine commandments ordering Muslims not to follow Jews and Christians blindly, and they also rely on some isolated traditions attributed to the Prophet Muhammad advising Muslims to distinguish themselves in appearance from non-Muslims. But as to the Divine commandments, puritans misunderstand their purpose. The commandments were intended to advise Muslims to be discerning and reflective as they choose their course in life. As to the isolated traditions, they are too historically contingent and too unreliable to serve as a basis for determining what and how God wants Muslims to be.

‘I must say that in my opinion the truly sad reality is that the puritan ideology of the state will only lead to considerable bloodshed without the puritans ever finding their utopia with its just despot. As some of the classical jurists used to say, justice and despotism are two opposites, and the two will never meet without one killing the other. After much suffering, the puritans are bound to wake up and realize that while they dreamed in clouds of their utopia, on this earth they only managed to create a nightmare.’ (‘The Great Theft: Wrestling Islam from the Extremists’: by Khaled M. Abou El Fadl).

 

[outlawState]

I can no longer accept that Yeshua (as) was anything other than a man.

That's what I accept, that he was a man. That's what Christ himself taught, that he was a man (son of man) with a God, his Father, just like any other man. Jesus the man is what was preached by the apostles.
Heb 2:9, Heb 2:17, Act 2:22, Rom 5:15

To say that Jesus was "God" is I believe wrong, because God has a throne and a position of ultimate power that Jesus the man did not occupy on earth. But it is true from an identity/origin perspective, as to where Jesus came from. He himself was very clear that he came from God.

Within Christianity there are many who deny the strong "two-natures of Christ" Trinitarianism formulated by the early "orthodox" councils. Deniers include the coptic and oriental churches, who assert that Christ had but one nature, and the Nestorian churches who asserted effectively that Christ's "divine nature " so-termed or divine power was an aspect of the indwelling Holy Spirit in him, which can hardly be denied. Yet in addition there has always existed a Christianity in Europe quite separately from the "orthodox/Roman Catholic" line, being a non-conformist line noy widely appreciated. You seldom hear of this from the "orthodox" churches because they have no interest in such people e.g. bogomils etc in Bulgaria and offshoots everywhere; for they are maligned everywhere as "heretics" by the orthodox. Yet as far as persecution goes, it is the non-conformists who have born the brunt of martyrdom for faith since the Roman Empire era.

I would recommend the works (e.g. de trinitatis erroribus, christianismi restitutio) of Michael Servetus to you, which I have studied. He too was convinced of the error of Roman Catholic Trinitarianism and sought to reconcile the Jewish/Islamic conceptions of God with Christianity. Many English people have not accepted the Trinity as given out by Romanism, including Sir Isaac Newton, a scientist of great repute, who viewed the strong Trinity as essentially an imposition on faith by Athanasius.

I have to be mindful of the limited departure from Trinitarianism I infer however. It does not mean that Jesus was not the son of God, or the Word made flesh, or "from above." It simply means that God remains in heaven, and does not translate himself to earth like some Herculean figure. That is God is God and man is man, and to confound the two is an error. I don't see why sticking to that principle requires acceptance of Islam?

 

[Kevin Ambrose]

Islam and Christianity do not disagree on "important" theological points. They are at enmity on nearly every single issue to do with life and politics, including even the right to which legal system to live under.

This is put masterfully and I hope people really take it to heart. Islam is a heretical faith that believes that Christ was not the son of God but a "slave to Allah." This is in line with the Islamic approach to most historical figures in that if they can't magically make them "Muslim" then they erase all written record. Many of them even believe Alexander the Great was a Muslim.

Just as Adam was a Muslim.

And Abraham.

And David.

This extends to Christ who they attempt to brand a prophet not out of respect for His works but because His legacy was too large to destroy, therefore it had to be assimilated.

We are commanded to love our neighbors, this is true. But the way it seems to be playing out in Europe right now open borders to the islamic world is just putting their actual neighbors at risk.

 

[Niblo]

That's what I accept, that he was a man. That's what Christ himself taught, that he was a man (son of man) with a God, his Father, just like any other man. Jesus the man is what was preached by the apostles.
Heb 2:9, Heb 2:17, Act 2:22, Rom 5:15

To say that Jesus was "God" is I believe wrong, because God has a throne and a position of ultimate power that Jesus the man did not occupy on earth. But it is true from an identity/origin perspective, as to where Jesus came from. He himself was very clear that he came from God.

Within Christianity there are many who deny the strong "two-natures of Christ" Trinitarianism formulated by the early "orthodox" councils. Deniers include the coptic and oriental churches, who assert that Christ had but one nature, and the Nestorian churches who asserted effectively that Christ's "divine nature " so-termed or divine power was an aspect of the indwelling Holy Spirit in him, which can hardly be denied. Yet in addition there has always existed a Christianity in Europe quite separately from the "orthodox/Roman Catholic" line, being a non-conformist line noy widely appreciated. You seldom hear of this from the "orthodox" churches because they have no interest in such people e.g. bogomils etc in Bulgaria and offshoots everywhere; for they are maligned everywhere as "heretics" by the orthodox. Yet as far as persecution goes, it is the non-conformists who have born the brunt of martyrdom for faith since the Roman Empire era.

I would recommend the works (e.g. de trinitatis erroribus, christianismi restitutio) of Michael Servetus to you, which I have studied. He too was convinced of the error of Roman Catholic Trinitarianism and sought to reconcile the Jewish/Islamic conceptions of God with Christianity. Many English people have not accepted the Trinity as given out by Romanism, including Sir Isaac Newton, a scientist of great repute, who viewed the strong Trinity as essentially an imposition on faith by Athanasius.

I have to be mindful of the limited departure from Trinitarianism I infer however. It does not mean that Jesus was not the son of God, or the Word made flesh, or "from above." It simply means that God remains in heaven, and does not translate himself to earth like some Herculean figure. That is God is God and man is man, and to confound the two is an error. I don't see why sticking to that principle requires acceptance of Islam?

Hello.

You wrote:

‘That's what I accept, that he was a man. That's what Christ himself taught, that he was a man (son of man) with a God, his Father, just like any other man. Jesus the man is what was preached by the apostles.’

We are agreed on this.

You wrote:

‘To say that Jesus was "God" is I believe wrong, because God has a throne and a position of ultimate power that Jesus the man did not occupy on earth. But it is true from an identity/origin perspective, as to where Jesus came from. He himself was very clear that he came from God.’

I agree that Yeshua (radi Allahu ‘anhu) is not God; however the majority Christian belief (as you know) is that he is ‘Wholly God and Wholly Man. The fact that this is a majority opinion does not make it true, of course.

Many years ago (I was a Catholic then, looking to pursue a vocation within the Carmelite or Cistercian Orders) I became friends with an older Biblical Unitarian. We had many discussions concerning the doctrine of the Trinity (and other stuff). One day, I became so frustrated at his refusal to accept my point of view that I stood before him, Bible in hand, and said (rather loudly): ‘This is my Book, what’s yours?’

Very calmly, he removed the Bible from my hand and said (with a smile): ‘This!’

I was stunned! How could this man read the same verses I read, and yet reach very different conclusions? That is when I realised that Scripture (all Scripture) is persuasive and not coercive. The Almighty (Subḥānahu ūta'āla) persuades, He does not compel. The man and I remained friends for many years; without ever agreeing on the Trinity!

I know of Michael Servetus (and would once have called him a heretic!). I respect his courage; and believe that his killers will answer for his murder. In šāʾ Allāh I will try and obtain some of his works.

Thank you for this. May God bless you for your trouble.

 

[Sammy-San]

This is put masterfully and I hope people really take it to heart. Islam is a heretical faith that believes that Christ was not the son of God but a "slave to Allah." This is in line with the Islamic approach to most historical figures in that if they can't magically make them "Muslim" then they erase all written record. Many of them even believe Alexander the Great was a Muslim.

Just as Adam was a Muslim.

And Abraham.

And David.

This extends to Christ who they attempt to brand a prophet not out of respect for His works but because His legacy was too large to destroy, therefore it had to be assimilated.

We are commanded to love our neighbors, this is true. But the way it seems to be playing out in Europe right now open borders to the islamic world is just putting their actual neighbors at risk.

What do they mean by Muslim? How could they believe in Mohammad before he was alive?

 

[Kevin Ambrose]

What do they mean by Muslim? How could they believe in Mohammad before he was alive?

They believe Mohammad was just one of many prophets of their god. They believe his teachings are the purest and final teachings of Islam.

 

[Sammy-San]

They believe Mohammad was just one of many prophets of their god. They believe his teachings are the purest and final teachings of Islam.

By Muslim, did they mean those people had Islamic religious characteristics?

 

[Kevin Ambrose]

Yes. They mean they worshipped Allah.

 

[Sammy-San]

Yes. They mean they worshipped Allah.

What difference does the translation make?