You do know despite being people of the book the Christians and Jews are still to be treated as Mushrikun. So the last statement is in no violation of Islam. Here’s a few articles written on Ibn Taymiyyah by one of the most popular Sunni websites on the internet:He is respected by the Neo-Kharijites who differ traditional Sunnis in the following ways:
- They believe the gate of ijtihad (interpretation) remains open unlike most Sunnis who believe it was closed in the 9th century.
- The believe in something called *takfir wa hijr.* This means they hold it impermissible for a Muslim to live in a country not governed by Islamic law without seeking to overthrow and make it Islamic. Otherwise they should immigrate to a place which is truly Muslim.
- They hold that any nominally Muslim government which does not abide by the shariah (Islamic law) is therefore really apostate. Such a government should be overthrown and its leaders killed. For this reason, hitherto, most of the violence of Islamist groups was aimed at other Muslims. This position, I might add, is basically the same one held by the Kharijites in early Islam. The Kharijites were the faction responsible for assassinating the Imam Ali and have been considered dangerous heretics by both Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims alike.
- They insist in regarding Christians and Jews as infidels rather than people of the book.
I’m not plagiarizing as I don’t pass it off as my work. Here’s another answer to your already answered question:And all this time I thought chorizo was a spicy sausage. Yes, I get that you think "well, he pushed me away" is sufficient grounds for divorce in Christianity. But I Corinthians doesn't say that. It says if the non-believer divorces then the Christian is not bound. It says nothing about who causes the separation, so no, that is not the key question. You really should stop plagiarizing this lady's article. The story about Saul and David is entirely irrelevant. They weren't married to each other.
I don’t do that, the anti Christ is only one person, a group of people can’t be the anti christ.
You do know despite being people of the book the Christians and Jews are still to be treated as Mushrikun. So the last statement is in no violation of Islam. Here’s a few articles written on Ibn Taymiyyah by one of the most popular Sunni websites on the internet:
https://islamqa.info/en/96323
https://islamqa.info/en/89671
Yeah and your point is...? Anti christ is used here to reffer to deceiver it’s not making refference to the real anti christ.Pity you don't know the Bible:
1 John 2
18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
2 John 7
For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
Sorry, Wahhabism doesn’t exist.As I said earlier, Ibn Taymiyya is the darling of the Neo-Kharijites. But the Hanbali sect to which he and later Wahhabis belong is hardly normative for Sunni Islam. In fact it is the smallest one, until the Saudis started throwing their money around.
I’m not plagiarizing as I don’t pass it off as my work.
Here’s another answer to your already answered question:
Yeah, we’re definitely done here. The Church Fathers don’t work like Tafsir, they interpret doctrines only not dietary laws, marriage laws, or criminal laws.If you don't put quotation marks around it you are passing it off as your work.
You are sounding like a broken record. 1 Corinthians doesn't say that. Earlier you mentioned Church Fathers. Go ahead and find me a single Early Church Father whose interpretation of that verse matches your author's namely that if the spouse is abusive, that is grounds for divorce.
Yeah and your point is...? Anti christ is used here to reffer to deceiver it’s not making refference to the real anti christ.
And...? The term doesn’t matter, the Beast is mentioned to come in the end of days and we know that he is the Anti Christ, many Christians in history mistook the Beast who is the Anti Christ for figures like Nero, Hitler, or Stalin.Those epistles are the only place in the Bible where the term anti-christ is mentioned. Check your concordance.
Anything done by the messengers of Allah is to be repeated by his followers and is ideal and Mohammed practiced polygamy.
If we read 1 Kings 11:3-4 we see that Polygamy is not ideal at all and frowned upon in the eyes of God.
And...? The term doesn’t matter
Bible doesn't say that.the Beast is mentioned to come in the end of days and we know that he is the Anti Christ
Sure they do. Christianity has no dietary laws but the church fathers were insistent that women should wear veils. As for marriage laws, Augustine, prohibited remarriage under any circumstances, and others, such as Chrysostom, allowed for it when a spouse was the victim of adultery. As for criminal law, St. Ambrose persuaded the Emperor to shut down the pagan temples, and St. Augustine argued that heretics should be forced back into the church on the basis of the verse "compel them to come in." (Luke 14:23)Yeah, we’re definitely done here. The Church Fathers don’t work like Tafsir, they interpret doctrines only not dietary laws, marriage laws, or criminal laws.
Mohammed had no power until he actually went to Medina. In general multiple marriages in the Bible isn’t ideal as the wives tend to turn their husband into their needs which makes it difficult to focus on God. Which is why Paul said it was preferable to avoid marriage if one plans to devote his life to God.Muhammad was monogamous until his first wife died. Afterwards like other rulers, he had more but no Muslim would presume to follow him in the number of wives.
1 Kings 11 also gives the reason for this: "that his wives turned his heart after other gods." The issue was not so much his 700 wives as the fact they were introducing foreign gods.
No the term doesn’t necessarily matter. The book of Daniel describes the Anti Christ:Oh, indeed it does.
Bible doesn't say that.
St Ambrose shut down pagan temples in fear that the pagans would start to cause riots and start political trouble, it wasn’t out of biblical criminal law. As Christianity has no criminal law. Church Fathers obliged women to cover and use head covers, I’m not sure what you mean by veil, if you em an To veil the body then your right, but the Church Fathers never advocated the covering of the face. St Augustine isn’t one of the Church Fathers in the Orthodox Church, we respect his devotion to God, but many of his teachings on theology such as guilt being passed on from Adam to his descendants making us responsible for Adams sin, or his instance that unbaptized infants go to hell. We regard the majority of his teachings especially on theology as deviant.Sure they do. Christianity has no dietary laws but the church fathers were insistent that women should wear veils. As for marriage laws, Augustine, prohibited remarriage under any circumstances, and others, such as Chrysostom, allowed for it when a spouse was the victim of adultery. As for criminal law, St. Ambrose persuaded the Emperor to shut down the pagan temples, and St. Augustine argued that heretics should be forced back into the church on the basis of the verse "compel them to come in." (Luke 14:23)
You don't need power to have multiple marriages, you need money. Muhammad's subsequent wives were women who would have otherwise been left unprotected.Mohammed had no power until he actually went to Medina.
In general multiple marriages in the Bible isn’t ideal as the wives tend to turn their husband into their needs which makes it difficult to focus on God. Which is why Paul said it was preferable to avoid marriage if one plans to devote his life to God.
One of Mohammed’s wives was left unprotected after he murdered her husband in battle, so... Multiple marriages aren’t ideal in any situation. Nor were Biblical prophets right in their taking of multiple wives.You don't need power to have multiple marriages, you need money. Muhammad's subsequent wives were women who would have otherwise been left unprotected.
Multiple marriages are not ideal in Islam either, but not for this reason. They are not ideal because it is difficult to be just to more than one wife.
No the term doesn’t necessarily matter. The book of Daniel describes the Anti Christ:
