"Study Islam" - what does it mean?

[crystalpc]

The one thing I am grateful for the scriptures is, is that it doesn't take a scholar to know what Jesus meant and what the New Testament says. All it takes is the eyes of a child..

 

[rahma]

And again I get the book recommendations. Rahma, I assume you cannot adequately defend Muhammad for having a helpess slave girl put to death for 'mocking him.' I guess we can just leave it at that.

It wasn't mocking, it was slander. Slander, throughout most of history, has been a crime punishable by death. Slander is a major sin in most religions

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Libel

In most early systems of law verbal injuries were treated as a criminal or quasi-criminal offence, the essence of the injury lying not in pecuniary loss, which may be compensated by damages, but in the personal insult which must be atoned for: a vindictive penalty coming in the place of personal revenge. By the law of the Twelve Tables (the foundation of roman law), the composition of scurrilous songs and gross noisy public affronts were punished by death. Minor offences of the same class seem to have found their place under the general conception of injuria, which included ultimately every form of direct personal aggression which involved abuse or insult.


And in Jewish Law:

http://members.aol.com/eylevine/5764metzorah.htm

Chazal tell us the tzaraas comes upon a person as a punishment for slander. Slander is grave sin and is considered nothing less then evil. Indeed, the Hebrew term used to describe slander is lashon harah which is literally translated as “evil speech.” Furthermore, the Midrash writes that one who speaks slander has committed a crime that is akin to murder. It is as if he has killed three people, himself the listener and the subject of the slander. The posuk says “Death and life are in the hand of the tongue” (Proverbs 18:21).

tzaraas by the way, is Leporasy.

http://www.torah.org/learning/rabbis-notebook/5764/tazria.html

Slander is an insidious, cowardly, and craven way to harm someone else. Hiding behind a veil of self-righteousness, concern, and friendship the perpetrator launches his or her sneak attack. The attack leaves no visible damage on the body of the victim and the intended victim usually never knows where the attack came from. Almost always the damage to the victim includes some degree of social ostracization and humiliation.

(Note that this was the exact crime of the Nachash - Serpent in response to the crime of Lashon Harah, G-d designed the perfect punishment. The criminal would be afflicted externally with a Tzaraas blemish. The blemish could not be hidden and had to be shown to a Kohain (priest). If the Kohain determined the blemish to be Tzaraas the individual was forced to leave the community and was temporarily branded as a Metzora - a leper.

All the same, I'll take liberty to discuss Islam without being a noted scholar on the subject, so any more sarcastic comments in regards to that will be reported. Please refrain from such. Thank you.

Do as you will, but at least do us the courtesy of doing it properly, looking at all the evidence and then coming to your conclusion.

Rahma, that is... well, silly. You can take words out of context, but you can't take Muhammad's action at Mecca out of context. I read more than just that one lil' bit. The fact that you cannot counter this, but instead try to obfuscate the issue by erroneously drawing a correlation with NT scripture tells me, again, that you are unable to defend Muhammad's actions.

Oh, but I say you do take his actions out of context. Why does your bible get the benefit of the doubt while my scriptures get none?

 

[crystalpc]

It wasn't mocking, it was slander. Slander, throughout most of history, has been a crime punishable by death. Slander is a major sin in most religions

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Libel

In most early systems of law verbal injuries were treated as a criminal or quasi-criminal offence, the essence of the injury lying not in pecuniary loss, which may be compensated by damages, but in the personal insult which must be atoned for: a vindictive penalty coming in the place of personal revenge. By the law of the Twelve Tables (the foundation of roman law), the composition of scurrilous songs and gross noisy public affronts were punished by death. Minor offences of the same class seem to have found their place under the general conception of injuria, which included ultimately every form of direct personal aggression which involved abuse or insult.


And in Jewish Law:

http://members.aol.com/eylevine/5764metzorah.htm

Chazal tell us the tzaraas comes upon a person as a punishment for slander. Slander is grave sin and is considered nothing less then evil. Indeed, the Hebrew term used to describe slander is lashon harah which is literally translated as “evil speech.” Furthermore, the Midrash writes that one who speaks slander has committed a crime that is akin to murder. It is as if he has killed three people, himself the listener and the subject of the slander. The posuk says “Death and life are in the hand of the tongue” (Proverbs 18:21).

tzaraas by the way, is Leporasy.

http://www.torah.org/learning/rabbis-notebook/5764/tazria.html

Slander is an insidious, cowardly, and craven way to harm someone else. Hiding behind a veil of self-righteousness, concern, and friendship the perpetrator launches his or her sneak attack. The attack leaves no visible damage on the body of the victim and the intended victim usually never knows where the attack came from. Almost always the damage to the victim includes some degree of social ostracization and humiliation.

(Note that this was the exact crime of the Nachash - Serpent in response to the crime of Lashon Harah, G-d designed the perfect punishment. The criminal would be afflicted externally with a Tzaraas blemish. The blemish could not be hidden and had to be shown to a Kohain (priest). If the Kohain determined the blemish to be Tzaraas the individual was forced to leave the community and was temporarily branded as a Metzora - a leper.







Do as you will, but at least do us the courtesy of doing it properly, looking at all the evidence and then coming to your conclusion.






Oh, but I say you do take his actions out of context. Why does your bible get the benefit of the doubt while my scriptures get none?

Because there is no place, none in the New Testament that tellls us to take up arms to help bring in God's kingdom, or to defend Christianity. In fact it is the exact opposite, of the Koran on the subject, and the two lifes of the founders were in even starker contrast.

 

[rahma]

Because there is no place, none in the New Testament that tellls us to take up arms to help bring in God's kingdom, or to defend Christianity. In fact it is the exact opposite, of the Koran on the subject, and the two lifes of the founders were in even starker contrast.

Then why aren't all christians pacifist? Why are there wars started and being faught by christians? Everyone must defend their homes and their lands and their religious breathern. That is the kind of war the Qur'an allows. At least our scripture is honest in that it allows for self defense.

 

[crystalpc]

Then why aren't all christians pacifist? Why are there wars started and being faught by christians? Everyone must defend their homes and their lands and their religious breathern. That is the kind of war the Qur'an allows. At least our scripture is honest in that it allows for self defense.

Because all christians are citizens of countrys, christians don't wage war country's do.

 

[rahma]

Because all christians are citizens of countrys, christians don't wage war country's do.

I suppose this is where it differs, as for Islam, religion transcends country. The Ummah, the muslim nation is above modern nationstate boundaries.

I would also posit that this would make Islamic rules of war and instances of violence better comparable with the history of nations, governments and countries, as opposed to other religions.

Additionally, the modern concept of a nation state is a mere few hundred years old. Prior to that, it was quite common for people to band together based on ethnicity or religion and defend their breatheren.

If christianity does not allow defense of itself, but allows countries to do so for it in it's stead, how is that any different? A christian will still defend himself, which is all Islam is asking of it's followers

 

[crystalpc]

I suppose this is where it differs, as for Islam, religion transcends country. The Ummah, the muslim nation is above modern nationstate boundaries.

I would also posit that this would make Islamic rules of war and instances of violence better comparable with the history of nations, governments and countries, as opposed to other religions.

Additionally, the modern concept of a nation state is a mere few hundred years old. Prior to that, it was quite common for people to band together based on ethnicity or religion and defend their breatheren.

If christianity does not allow defense of itself, but allows countries to do so for it in it's stead, how is that any different? A christian will still defend himself, which is all Islam is asking of it's followers

No Jesus said he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword.

 

[jameseb]

It wasn't mocking, it was slander. Slander, throughout most of history, has been a crime punishable by death. Slander is a major sin in most religions

But in the civilized world, its not punishable by death. Muhammad hints at cowardice that he did not have her killed before, but then again, he didn't have an army to back him at that time in Mecca.

Oh, but I say you do take his actions out of context. Why does your bible get the benefit of the doubt while my scriptures get none?

Where does Christianity get the benefit of the doubt? Where did Christ endorse warfare? Where did Christ endorse lying to your enemy? There's NOTHING taken out of context for what Muhammad did to that girl and the others in Mecca once he conquered it. Since its inception under Muhammad, it has been nothing but religion by the sword and a religion of hate and bloodshed.

 

[jameseb]

Then why aren't all christians pacifist? Why are there wars started and being faught by christians? Everyone must defend their homes and their lands and their religious breathern. That is the kind of war the Qur'an allows. At least our scripture is honest in that it allows for self defense.

Your Scripture is 'honest' while ours isn't? You're ex-Lutheran American for the record, right? Regardless, your 'scriptrue' is riddled with malice and hate. And where does Christ's message advocate war? I'll tell you... it doesn't. To say Christianity backs warfare because some Christians go to war is absurd as nothing in the Gospels--and I do mean nothing--suggest warfare, regardless of its purpose, is good. Of course in Islam we see the 'human error' creeing in to supposedly God-inspired text.

 

[rahma]

Your Scripture is 'honest' while ours isn't?

Ours is honest because it discusses that war is a reality and gives us rules to follow. If we follow Jesus in the NT, then Christians would turn the other cheek and never defend themselves, and yet we have christians in the army, going off to war. Isn't that hypocritical?

You're ex-Lutheran American for the record, right?

Read my profile

Regardless, your 'scriptrue' is riddled with malice and hate.

No, when read thematically, as it should be, it shows proper restraint while allowing muslims the chance to defend themselves. And in any case, no more violent or hateful or malice then the OT.

And where does Christ's message advocate war? I'll tell you... it doesn't. To say Christianity backs warfare because some Christians go to war is absurd as nothing in the Gospels--and I do mean nothing--suggest warfare, regardless of its purpose, is good. Of course in Islam we see the 'human error' creeing in to supposedly God-inspired text.

Then how do christians justify war? If there is nothing in the gospels about it, why do christians fight? If it is against their religion and they all fight, then they are hypocrites. If you scripture talks nothing about it, of which you are so proud, then what does a christian do in a war?

 

[rahma]

No Jesus said he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword.

Then christians who fight in the army are hypocrites?

 

[jameseb]

Then christians who fight in the army are hypocrites?

They're sinners, rahma..... or are peaceful Moslems who don't spill blood hypocrties too then?

 

[rahma]

snip

Shall we agree to disagree, I'm getting sick of this. Nothing you say convinces me and nothing I say convinces you. It's the same old same old and it's getting rather boring, especially when you bring up the same argument on every single thread

109:1 Say : O ye that reject Faith!
109:2 I worship not that which ye worship,
109:3 Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
109:4 And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship,
109:5 Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
109:6 To you be your Way, and to me mine.


3:69 It is the wish of a section of the People of the Book to lead you astray. But they shall lead astray (Not you), but themselves, and they do not perceive!

 

[jameseb]

Ours is honest because it discusses that war is a reality and gives us rules to follow. If we follow Jesus in the NT, then Christians would turn the other cheek and never defend themselves, and yet we have christians in the army, going off to war. Isn't that hypocritical?

Sin is a reality too, but that doesn't mean the Gospels aren't 'honest' because they don't endore it either, rahma. If that's hypocritical, than every Moslem not fighting against the Jewish state or American forces in a Moslem country are hypocrites.

No, when read thematically, as it should be, it shows proper restraint while allowing muslims the chance to defend themselves. And in any case, no more violent or hateful or malice then the OT.

"Proper restraint?" Let me get this straight, for the record... you think its okay to kill someone because of satirical songs? I'll be waiting for the answer. Perhaps only a Christian 'scholar' could say, but the NT established a new covenant with man... and God has not ordered us to go to war with anyone since the days of the OT, but then, you would put God and Muhammad in the same credible decision to decide war?

Then how do christians justify war? If there is nothing in the gospels about it, why do christians fight? If it is against their religion and they all fight, then they are hypocrites. If you scripture talks nothing about it, of which you are so proud, then what does a christian do in a war?

Christians don't find based on Gospel, rahma...besides, you're an American so I can't believe the answer is so completely lost on you..

I already mentioned that Moslems must be hypocrites too for not murdering Jews and Christians in Iraq and Israel if your point holds true.

 

[rahma]

They're sinners, rahma..... or are peaceful Moslems who don't spill blood hypocrties too then?

Then why don't you loudly condemn those christians as much as you go around condemning islam?

The sunnah of the Prophet includes war and peace. Those of us who follow the middle path find the way easy and peaceful.

 

[jameseb]

Shall we agree to disagree, I'm getting sick of this. Nothing you say convinces me and nothing I say convinces you. It's the same old same old and it's getting rather boring, especially when you bring up the same argument on every single thread

109:1 Say : O ye that reject Faith!
109:2 I worship not that which ye worship,
109:3 Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
109:4 And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship,
109:5 Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
109:6 To you be your Way, and to me mine.


3:69 It is the wish of a section of the People of the Book to lead you astray. But they shall lead astray (Not you), but themselves, and they do not perceive!

How uncanny that such Scripture should be quoted. Amazing that in the light of Muhammad's slaying of a slave girl for her poetry you cannot look upon the man for what he is... just a man, not a servant of any god. You turn a blind eye to his crime .... at least that is clear as day to me, and always, just my opinion.

 

[jameseb]

Then why don't you loudly condemn those christians as much as you go around condemning islam?

The sunnah of the Prophet includes war and peace. Those of us who follow the middle path find the way easy and peaceful.

Why didn't you show any respect to the Israelis when you referred to them as "no-name Israelies noone's heard of?" I do condemn all people, regardless of their faith, for actions they take that are wrong. Its a shame what our country did in Serbia for one.... not that any of those insane Muslim terrorists could admit that we actually came to the aid of Muslims. Oh dear.... what should they ever think about that!?

 

[rahma]

Sin is a reality too, but that doesn't mean the Gospels aren't 'honest' because they don't endore it either, rahma. If that's hypocritical, than every Moslem not fighting against the Jewish state or American forces in a Moslem country are hypocrites.

There is nothing in the Qur'an that says Muslims must fight christians and jews, mearly that they must defend their fellow muslims when attacked. If worse comes to worse and America continues it's conquest of the ME, you can bet more muslims will rush to their brothers' aid.

"Proper restraint?" Let me get this straight, for the record... you think its okay to kill someone because of satirical songs? I'll be waiting for the answer. Perhaps only a Christian 'scholar' could say, but the NT established a new covenant with man... and God has not ordered us to go to war with anyone since the days of the OT, but then, you would put God and Muhammad in the same credible decision to decide war?

Please see my above post. I am sick of this topic

Christians don't find based on Gospel, rahma...besides, you're an American so I can't believe the answer is so completely lost on you..

What boggles my mind is that we have christians trying to prove that they are so much holier and better then muslims when their actions are equally despicable. If the NT doesn't justify war, then why aren't all these christians out there condemning christian soldiers?

I already mentioned that Moslems must be hypocrites too for not murdering Jews and Christians in Iraq and Israel if your point holds true.

Murder is never justifiable in Islam. War is justifiable, trial and punishment are justifiable, but murder never is

5:32 On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.

 

[rahma]

Why didn't you show any respect to the Israelis when you referred to them as "no-name Israelies noone's heard of?" I do condemn all people, regardless of their faith, for actions they take that are wrong. Its a shame what our country did in Serbia for one.... :

Because my friend was in trouble and no one cared, but when an Israeli is in trouble, the threads are pages long. Before you judge me on Israel, read this link:

http://nswas.com/

I'm an american friend (ie promoter and sponsor) of a village in Israel, Jewish, Muslim and Christian, that works for peace. Don't take my words out of context, that's cheap.

not that any of those insane Muslim terrorists could admit that we actually came to the aid of Muslims. Oh dear.... what should they ever think about that!? :eek

Plenty of Muslims are thankful for that, if you would bother to find out rather then make assumptions

 

[jameseb]

There is nothing in the Qur'an that says Muslims must fight christians and jews, mearly that they must defend their fellow muslims when attacked. If worse comes to worse and America continues it's conquest of the ME, you can bet more muslims will rush to their brothers' aid.

Really? Perhaps you should review the rules of warfare as dictated by Muhammad that you referred to me in a link. Its not hard at all to interpret those words as an endorsement of violence against the more powerful Christian nations. They represent a direct threat to Islam in their freedom of religion, their economical and military might.

What boggles my mind is that we have christians trying to prove that they are so much holier and better then muslims when their actions are equally despicable. If the NT doesn't justify war, then why aren't all these christians out there condemning christian soldiers?

Okay, this is the third time in 30 minutes I've addressed this point to you. NT doesn't endores warfare...and in case modern news has escaped you, there's a LOT of Christians protesting against the war...inculding many, many churches. The RC do not endorse it either.

Murder is never justifiable in Islam. War is justifiable, trial and punishment are justifiable, but murder never is

Than Muhammad plays with words. He 'murdered' the slave girl.... you can call it 'trial and punishemt' or even 'war' on a girl, but nevertheless, she was a prisoner taken in the conquest of Mecca and then exectued.... contradicting his own rules of warfare.

5:32 On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.

And Muhammad was right there with them doing just that. Again, his words apparently make him out to be a hypocrite.