War?

[OttomanScribe]

As for Christians having liberty in Muslim states...? Go to Wikipedia and type : Christianity in Saudi Arabia (im sure this is a good start for any neutral observer) There is much more, but this should satisfy..

Why should it satisfy? Considering I just said that Saudi is not representative of an Islamic state... To contrast, how many pagan religions remain in Europe, as in the faiths of those before Christianity? Now look at how many Christians and Jews live in the Muslim world. We are far better at not annihilating our minorities than Christianity has been.

Also look up the history of, for example, the Teutons before anyone tries to argue that this was a purely peaceful process... and that isn't even to begin on how many Nuahtl are left with the old religion...

Do you really think he speaks for God and Christianity?

According to your logic he does. At the time he was the highest religious authority and Western Christendom, and authoritative at that. He certainly has more legitimacy in showing a Christian view than your sources 'things you have seen on the news' and 'things Muslims apparently said to you'!

I do however see your point of how I view Islam and Christianity differently. But I suppose I am no different from OttomanScribe or anyone else.

Where I have double standards, I retract them. I have long emphasised that I don't hold Christianity in general to account for the things that can not be considered the majority consensus and/or fundamental to the faith. While I will listen to the opinions of various Christians about what Christianity is, I will never take any as the only true source.

Really? That's a strange use of the word "apostasy". Apostasy in English means claiming to be God.

That may be an early definition, but dictionary.com defined it as: 'a total desertion of or departure from one's religion, principles, party, cause, etc.'

So, let's try to get to the bottom here. The Quran puts down no punishment for people leaving Islam. Since the Shariah "holds various positions", what are those positions? If there is a conflict between Shariah and Quran, which of these is "Islam"?

If there is a conflict between an individuals conception of Sha'riah with the Qu'ran, then their conception is not Sha'riah. Sha'riah is an Arabic word whose roots lie with the paths that led through the desert to water, so in language terms it means 'a way back'. The Sha'riah is the way a Muslim achieves 'Islam', a state of wilful acceptance of God's will.

The Sha'riah is seen differently by different legal authorities, different methods of reason are applied to the sources, and thus different answers are given. This is where the four schools (madhabs) of Sunni law come from. They draw their answers not just from the Qu'ran (which itself is about 4% legal rulings) but also from the Sunnah (the way of the Prophet(sws), transmitted through the hadith, parables for lack of a better word). In a sense no one, even the greatest legal authority is in a position to define Islam as anything other than 'what the Prophet (sws) and the believers have'. Simply being a Muslim does not mean one practices 'Islam'.

Sorry if that is an overly complex explanation. If one is forced to say that something is 'of Islam', one will naturally have to go to the majority consensus. The majority consensus is that of the four madhabs of the Sunnis. Their position is that apostasy is treason and is ONLY defined as apostasy when it becomes as such (ie. someone acting against the community).

So the simple answer is "no", they are not the teaching of Islam.

It is the Shia version, not the Sunni. Also of note is that many Shia authorities have publicly said that they would retract the fatwa about Salman Rushdie, however it is impossible as Ayatollah Khomeini died before it could be done. In Shia law a jurist can't retract a fatwa(legal ruling) made by another jurist.

Thank you.

My pleasure

Again, ideas are separate from the people who hold them. It's not about "consensus", because occasionally the group can get it wrong. It's about what was stated originally in the founding ideas of the faith. You are starting to make a good argument that Islam is not the jihadists.

Indeed my point is that the consensus itself is against them. Here is another video for emphasis:
YouTube - Curing Extremism by Zaid Shakir, Hamza Yusuf & Abdal Hakim Murad

'Those to whom the people said 'They have ganged up on you', and yet it only increased them in Iman(faith) and they said 'Allah is sufficient for us, and a wonderful, perfect guardian' (Allah defining a believer in such circumstances as today, from the Qu'ran).

Don't you still have an obligation to try?

Indeed and I do, but we (the Muslims) are blamed for the misguidance of our brothers, for our lack of success in reforming them..

Excuse me, but aren't the rulers of Saudi also fighting against the terrorists? In fact, didn't the terrorists perform terrorist acts in Saudi?

I guess this is part of the complexity of the whole thing. The 'terrorists' are not monolithic. Al Qaeda is not some super group with OBL at its head, in fact before 9/11 in any real sense it did not exist. The media discussion of Al Qaeda led to the creation of various 'affiliated groups' that had no real links to OBL. For example in Iraq, 'Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia' in many cases acted against OBL's wishes, because they were not a subset, but rather an entirely different organisation sharing the same name.

Osama Bin Laden was against the United States to a large extent before Saudi took in the armies of the non-Muslims. He speaks about how in Lebanon he watched Israeli artillery shells hit a civilian apartement block, watching them crumble to the ground he decided that he wanted to do the same to those who supplied Israel with the shells. The Wahhabi movement has become a prism for extremism, they are not necessarily one with the Saudi state. In America and the West there was a need for a distancing between 'Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia' and the ideology of Osama and his ilk. In reality however they are both the same in their differences from traditionalist Islamic thought. Primarily their purely literalist interpretation of the Qu'ran, their making permissible takfir upon those who do not institute Sha'riah (basically making any ruler who does not institute their version of the law is a non-Muslim to them), and most radically the idea that 'eye for an eye warfare' is permissible.

In Algeria the French bombed several civilian markets. This acted as a turning point for Salafist (Wahhabi) ideology. They decided that this made it permissible upon them to do the same, leading to similar attacks on civilians in Algiers. This led to a carry on effect. Their actions do not stem from Islam, they stem from imitation of the Khuffar. The suicide vests, the videos wearing bandannas, all come from the Tamil Tigers, a Hindu revolutionary group. Their disrespect for civilian casualties came from the actions of colonial powers, and more broadly the way war is fought by modern European style nation states.

They look at Hiroshima (the absolute destruction of a civilian city in order to stop a war) and think why can't we do the same?

Sorry, but neither the Egyptian nor Jordanian governments are either committing nor supporting the terrorists. So I need to know how you got the idea that this "schizmatic Sunni sect" is the same as the Saudi, Egyptian, and Jordanian rulers. Also, the group that we are told is supporting terrorists are Shia, not Sunni.

While not the support, they are the breeding ground. Their oppression of Muslims and Islam, their co-opting of the ulema (scholars) and torturing of resistance leads to rebellion and anger by Muslims which is often directed at the West, whom back such governments. Though of course Saudi was the main way that the US supplied the Taliban.

The Shia do not back groups like al-Qaeda, who consider them non-Muslims.

Did we know at the time that Al Qaeda was going to attack anyone besides agressors in Afghanistan? Also, didn't Bin Laden only turn on the USA after US forces were based in Saudi during the First Gulf War?

So it is only a wrong action when it leads to attacks upon the US? The US government knew the Taliban were likely to persecute and murder their opposition, but they chose them in replacement of the Traditionalists, whom were too 'moderate' for them, and therefore less likely to brutally repress calls for reform that (they thought) might lead to communism.

Hope that is all of use

 

[OttomanScribe]

wow...gross generalization there....

Please read the whole thing, this is not my position, but theirs, and I do not agree with it.

 

[berachah]

LOL! You don't know any missionaries? Christians for centuries have dedicated their life to serving "their God" and expanding their faith around the world. They are called missionaries.

Funny guy.... Actually I meant with the same zeal and commitment of the Muslims I had contact with. I have been in ongoing missionary work myself and we have many 'tourist missionaries' here - mostly from the USA.

You weren't talking about any particular Muslim. You were stating Islam based on the behavior of some Muslims. So, the glass house means that we can say the same about Christianity based on the behavior of some Christians. And the Lord knows there are enough historical examples of Christians being bloodthirsty in the name of God and Christianity. Examples where Christians really did, and still do, "rejoice in Muslim suffering".

Neither myself nor the Christian faith ( as with any other religion) can be held accountable for something some person did a 1000 years ago. And I am certainly not aware of some tele-evangelist who makes rediculous statements somewhere in the backwaters of the USA. That is something for American Christians like yourself to deal with by exercising the basic steps of reprimand and exclusion from the Body of Christ. If Christians do not act, they effectively support such utterances and say to the world "this is what we as Christians believe and stand for." Much like the Muslim or any other faith.

But what takes place here in this life, in my community, in my life is relevant. When people in my town rejoice at the death of innocent people under the name of Islam and not one leader to my knowledge (in Cape Town) stands up and renounces the behaviour (but rather a united front - even through the silence of those that disagree- is presented) that is the Muslim faith speaking.

When Pagad (a local Muslim group) start setting off bombs and killing people without condemnation from Muslims that speaks for the faith as well. That is what is relevant to me and every other person deciding on the way to eternal life. Not on why the faith was established 1500 years ago. Maybe for the intellectual with the internet at his call, but those facts are all irrelevant to the everyday man. (For that reason children to not listen to what they are told, but what they observe)

We all want to know is how will this faith impact my life today. "by this you shall know them......", not by the history of the faith or what Muslims believe in rural Pakistan (if they have purest form of Islam) nor by what Pope Urban did. We are meant to be the light to this world now, not historians. (And we are all the light of our faith's, whether active or not)

But yet you think Bin Laden speaks for Islam, don't you? You think the people on the news celebrating 9/11 speak for Islam. Can't you see the double standard and hypocrisy of that? Like I said: "You assess Islam according to the adherents, but you only assess the adherents of Christianity. "

Please dont speak for me.. Would you suppose we should all go and read the Koran to prove Bin Laden contrary to the Muslim faith? I waited for the response of Muslims around the world, I spoke to Muslims, I communicated on forums and I assessed the possibility of such a man surviving without extensive Muslim support across many countries.......and my opinion was made. If the Muslim community felt that strongly against 9/11 that voice would have been heard everywhere...even in Cape Town, South Africa. (Bottom line - even from moderates - was a general feeling that the USA had it coming and it was a good leson to them....teach them not to mess around with Islam) So go scroll the internet for another 1000 tracts and utterances from 650AD on but it is all irrelevant at this time.

That wasn't the point. You apply different standards to Christianity and Islam. You insist a few Muslims be all of Islam, and condemn the religion because of that. But you refuse to allow a few Christians to stand for Christianity. You insist that they be viewed as individuals and won't let Christianity be condemned.

I do no such thing. What I do find rediculous is that every Christian must be kept paralysed and held accountable for the actions of others for the past 2000 years - which is always the reference for Christian violence. (Yet we know those same leaders killed many Christian believers as well)

I am interested in the now and where possible we are commanded to correct, rebuke and disciple each other now, just as I would expect it of the Muslim faith. Go to other pages on this forum and find comments and criticisms (from Christians) about Christian leaders doing things contrary to the Word of God. That is what this faith is about and this is what happens throughout the Body of Christ. There are always those that shy away from this stance and it does the Christian faith no good. Maybe the Pope would be happy, but the Word of God is says otherwise and that is one of the principles of the our faith.

If the Muslim faith feels the same about violence and the treating of other faiths as inferior, or the murdering of those that turn to Christianity, (things that arev prevalent at this time) let that voice rise up and judge those that do not adhere to it. Let them speak boldy and decisively using the Koran, and let the rest of the world know what the Koran says. That is the 1st step. It is not for us to go pour over history and thousands of utternaces to prove them wrong or more right than the Pope. Perhaps you have the time.....but that is a rare priviledge.

 

[OttomanScribe]

I am posting something short while my wife gets ready for a wedding tonight so this is not my proper reply

Basically I have some questions for you Berachah: considering the numerous contemporary denouncements of 9/11 that I linked to you, that essentially made up every major Sunni authority in the world, can you really say that you have been listening to Muslims? Was there a point where you thought 'I will see if this is okay by Islam' and then went online to see what Muslim authorities actually said? Because I can see from my own research that even a cursory search would have answered your query a resounding 'no'.

I will be blunt here and, forgive me for it, but should we really be held accountable for your wilful ignorance?

 

[berachah]

I am posting something short while my wife gets ready for a wedding tonight so this is not my proper reply

Have a blessed wedding...

Basically I have some questions for you Berachah: considering the numerous contemporary denouncements of 9/11 that I linked to you, that essentially made up every major Sunni authority in the world, can you really say that you have been listening to Muslims? Was there a point where you thought 'I will see if this is okay by Islam' and then went online to see what Muslim authorities actually said? Because I can see from my own research that even a cursory search would have answered your query a resounding 'no'.

The fact that a number of manily western based moderate Muslim voices have sprung up since 9/11 is encouraging but is it not more to do with the siege position Islam now faces in those countries? (and pro west countries) And the commentary/response is not as one sided as you suggest. Many even years later some even drawing Israel into the matter so as to make their denouncement irrelevant.

Were there not yet another another attack on Christians, (by Muslims) this time in Nigeria, without so much as a peep, were it not so for the numerous attacks initiated by Muslims in other parts of Africa and against Israel, etc, then perhaps the references you give would have more weight.

It is not I that has the problem O OttomanScribe, but rather Islam. And perhaps more energy should go into changing this perception than, say, ensuring every item of meat sold in South Africa is Halaal....for eg (for our 3% Muslim population)

The Muslim faith needs to deal and denounce these atrocities in such a manner as totally marginalize or eliminate these groups or they can continually encourage their existence through funding, luke warm responses and silent acceptance.

Meanwhile I will ponder why it is O' OttomanScribe that I cannot freely evangelize in most Middle East Muslim countries? You seem to have no such problem in Christian based Australia and I have been the recipient of some earnest Muslim evangelism in South Africa. Enjoy your Muslim wedding in Australia and appreciate the same liberty your faith often denies in other countries.

When the peaceful nature of the Muslim faith begins to filter into all societies around the world and we see this witness face to face, then perhaps the message of peace will be heard.

And not every one in Africa had the internet at 9/11 (and many even now) and until then we will have to rely on the living witness we have from Muslims.

I will be blunt here and, forgive me for it, but should we really be held accountable for your wilful ignorance?

No, but probably for you arrogance and judgment of me, the same which I have not done to your person...... The pattern is the same, push a few buttons back and the rage inside surfaces soon enough.......thats my experience with Islam and you haven't disappointed.

 

[OttomanScribe]

Neither myself nor the Christian faith ( as with any other religion) can be held accountable for something some person did a 1000 years ago. And I am certainly not aware of some tele-evangelist who makes rediculous statements somewhere in the backwaters of the USA. That is something for American Christians like yourself to deal with by exercising the basic steps of reprimand and exclusion from the Body of Christ. If Christians do not act, they effectively support such utterances and say to the world "this is what we as Christians believe and stand for." Much like the Muslim or any other faith.

The people I quoted included George Bush, who referred to the War on Terror as a 'Crusade' (Christian Holy War). It included soldiers in Iraq who wrote on the sides of their tank 'Jesus Killed Muhammed' (peace be upon them both). George Bush defined himself as a 'born again Christian', yet he was responsible for a war that involved countless civilian casualties and, in all honestly was only really about Oil. We are not talking about the Crusades 1000 years ago, we seem to be talking about them now!

Why have not Christians denounced him as a War Criminal? (which the use of cluster munitions on civilian areas constitutes)

Why do Christians not tell him that he doesn't speak on behalf of Christianity as a whole?

But what takes place here in this life, in my community, in my life is relevant. When people in my town rejoice at the death of innocent people under the name of Islam and not one leader to my knowledge (in Cape Town) stands up and renounces the behaviour (but rather a united front - even through the silence of those that disagree- is presented) that is the Muslim faith speaking.

The Muslim community in South Africa is predominantly made up of traditionalists. I know many brothers and sisters from the country, including South Africa, and my personal experience is the opposite. Unless you present anything more than anecdotes, it becomes very hard for me to take you seriously on this point. Especially since, speaking to me and seeing the voices against such things, you should now have a far broader and nuanced opinion of Muslims more generally. Simply through me and what I have shown you, you no longer have the excuse of ignorance.

When Pagad (a local Muslim group) start setting off bombs and killing people without condemnation from Muslims that speaks for the faith as well. That is what is relevant to me and every other person deciding on the way to eternal life. Not on why the faith was established 1500 years ago. Maybe for the intellectual with the internet at his call, but those facts are all irrelevant to the everyday man. (For that reason children to not listen to what they are told, but what they observe)

'People against Gangsterism and Drugs' are hardly a representative organisation of the Muslim community, especially considering that many of their attacks (apart from those against drug dealers) were against other Muslims who disagreed with their methods! The Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda are famous for using Machetes on civilians in Uganda in order to save ammunition. They are classified as a terrorist organisation and involved in everything from sex slavery to mutilation. Are they representative of Christians in Uganda and Southern Sudan?

Why have not the Christians of the regions denounced them as not following the Ten Commandments that they wish to enforce?

We all want to know is how will this faith impact my life today. "by this you shall know them......", not by the history of the faith or what Muslims believe in rural Pakistan (if they have purest form of Islam) nor by what Pope Urban did. We are meant to be the light to this world now, not historians. (And we are all the light of our faith's, whether active or not)

So essentially the Christianity that you want me to judge is not that practised by those who reconquered Spain and burned the mosques and killed the Jews. Not the Christianity practised by those forced the Indios into conversion and debt slavery. Not the Christianity that was practised by those who allowed 19 million to starve in what was termed the 'Late Victorian Holocaust', who thought that grain would be better served feeding England rather than those who starved to death on the docks.

Not the Christianity justified the burning of 100s of thousands of witches. Not the Christianity that was used to justify slavery in Americas south. Or the Christianity that justified the indiscriminate bombing of Baghdad and Kabul. Not the Christianity behind the rhetoric of the French who killed civilians in Algeria. Not the Christianity brought with Pashtun bibles and guns by Blackwater into Afghanistan. Not the Christianity of those who bomb abortion clinics or murder doctors....

But rather the Christianity that you present to me, which is the only valid kind. Not mentioning that it therefore makes the vast historical community of Christians non-believers. Is that really fair? Especially considering the only 'type' of Islam you accept as being the real one is the one who's understanding you get from your own anecdotal experience, even when contradicted by our scholars and leaders.....

Please dont speak for me.. Would you suppose we should all go and read the Koran to prove Bin Laden contrary to the Muslim faith? I waited for the response of Muslims around the world, I spoke to Muslims, I communicated on forums and I assessed the possibility of such a man surviving without extensive Muslim support across many countries.......and my opinion was made. If the Muslim community felt that strongly against 9/11 that voice would have been heard everywhere...even in Cape Town, South Africa. (Bottom line - even from moderates - was a general feeling that the USA had it coming and it was a good leson to them....teach them not to mess around with Islam) So go scroll the internet for another 1000 tracts and utterances from 650AD on but it is all irrelevant at this time.

I think I wasn't clear enough. Here is a few quotes from the Qu'ran and Hadith about the matter, followed by fatwas (legal rulings) and finally a few of the organisations which denounced 9/11.

It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces to the East and the West; but righteous is he who believeth in Allah and the Last Day and the angels and the Scripture and the prophets; and giveth wealth, for love of Him, to kinsfolk and to orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and to those who ask, and to set slaves free; and observeth proper worship and payeth the poor-due. And those who keep their treaty when they make one, and the patient in tribulation and adversity and time of stress. Such are they who are sincere. Such are the God-fearing. 2:177

Fight in the path of God those who fight you, but do not aggress. Surely God does not love the aggressors. And fight them where you come upon them, and send them out from where they have sent you out, for persecution is a worse thing than fighting. And do not fight them at the Sacred Mosque (in Mecca) unless they fight you there, but if they fight you, then fight them back. That is the reward of the rejectors. Then if they cease, so God is All-Forgiving, Gentle. And fight them until there is no more persecution and the religion is for God. But if they cease, so let there be no hostility except against wrongdoers. - Qur’an 2:190-193

Let there be no compulsion (or coercion) in the religion (Islam). The right direction is distinctly clear from error. (2:256)

O you who believe! Do not eat up your wealth in vanities among yourselves. But let there be among yourselves trade conducted in mutual good will. Nor kill or destroy yourselves, for God has been most merciful to you. If any do that in rancor and injustice, soon shall we cast them into the fire, and that is easy for God. If you but avoid the most heinous of the things which are forbidden to do, we shall expel out of you all the evil in you and admit you to a gate of great honor. (4:29-31)

“We ordained therein for them: “Life for life, eye for eye, Nose for nose, ear of ear, Tooth for tooth, and wounds Equal for equal.” But if any one remits the retaliation By way of charity, it is an act of atonement for himself.” Qur’an 4:45

Whosoever kills an innocent human being, it shall be as if he has killed all mankind, and whosoever saves the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. (5:32)

” . . . and you will find the nearest in love to the believers (Muslims) those who say: ‘We are Christians.’ That is because amongst them are priests and monks, and they are not proud.” Qur’an 5:82

The worshippers of the All-Merciful are they who tread gently upon the earth, and when the ignorant address them, they reply, “Peace!“ Qur’an 25:63

Indeed, whoever (intentionally) kills himself, then certainly he will be punished in the Fire of Hell, wherein he shall dwell forever)), [Bukhaaree (5778) and Muslim (109 and 110)].

It is narrated by Ibn ‘Umar that a woman was found killed in one of these battles; so the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) forbade the killing of women and children. (Book 019, Number 4320)

Numerous scholars, across the Muslim world have issued fatwas denouncing Osama Bin Laden, including one by Afghan scholars saying that he should be executed, other scholars in Syria, Yemen, Egypt and on and on and on...

Just the surface of thousands of such statements. These fatwas are not simply hot air, but binding to any whom hears them and has not heard anything contradictory from a legitimate Scholar. The only Fatwa I have read that justifies such things, is the one from OBL, who himself acknowledges his very ability to issue a fatwa at all!

Then we have conferences and organisations in Dubai, Bangladesh, India, Turkey, New Zealand, Jordan, Sri Lanka, Spain, Russia, Pakistan, etc. etc. etc. etc. all denouncing and campaigning against such things, even extremist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood issued statements denouncing 9/11. Now even were the entirety of South African Muslims rabid terrorist supporters, something I doubt considering my interactions with South African Muslims, that would only be 2% of the population of your country, something minuscule in comparison to Sunni Islam, which is ahead of Roman Catholicism as the largest faith in the world.

How then could 'your experiences' ever constitute a legitimate source for the rejection of an entire religion as one of terrorists? How, considering the weight of evidence, could your position be described as other than the wilful and deliberate maintenance of a state of ignorance?

 

[OttomanScribe]

I do no such thing. What I do find ridiculous is that every Muslim must be kept paralysed and held accountable for the actions of others for the past 30 years - which is always the reference for Muslim violence. (Yet we know those same leaders killed many Muslim believers as well, indeed far more than they did non-Muslim)

I am interested in the now and where possible I am commanded to correct, rebuke and disciple each other now, when all the rebukes and corrections made by Muslims and Muslim organisations are paid no heed either by those schizmatic groups who do such acts, or by Christians like yourself. Go to any of the references I have provided, or indeed almost any Mosque outside of Saudi and South Waziristan and find comments and criticisms (from Muslims) about Muslim schizmatic minorities doing things contrary to the Word of God. That is not, however what this faith is about (this faith is about worshipping God as he deservers), however it still happens throughout the Muslim world. There are always those that shy away from their religion and it does the Muslim faith and community no good. Maybe Osama Bin Laden is happy with his sin, but the Word of God is says otherwise and that is one of the principles of our faith.

If the Christian faith feels the same about violence and the treating of other faiths as inferior, or the murdering of those that turn to any other religion, or simply happen to be born outside the West, let that voice rise up and judge those that do not adhere to it. Let them speak boldy and decisively using the Bible, and let the rest of the world know what the Bible says. That is the 1st step. It is not for us to go pour over history and thousands of utternaces to prove them wrong or more right than Osama Bin Laden. Perhaps you have the time.....but that is a rare priviledge.

In the above I changed parts of your reply to reflect to some extent what I have been saying throughout this discussion.. and to show that you are essentially arguing the same thing as me (albeit with less sources), yet arguing that what I am saying is wrong, but what you are saying is right.

Just to be thorough I will also address your most recent reply.

Have a blessed wedding...

Thankyou it was beautiful, mash'Allah, truly marriage is a glorious thing!

The fact that a number of manily western based moderate Muslim voices have sprung up since 9/11 is encouraging but is it not more to do with the siege position Islam now faces in those countries? (and pro west countries) And the commentary/response is not as one sided as you suggest. Many even years later some even drawing Israel into the matter so as to make their denouncement irrelevant.

The voices have come from all over the Muslim world, from Egypt to Pakistan to Indonesia. While many countries may be pro-Western, their Ulema (scholars) will not be tainted by that in their legal arguments. If it has not been permissible for the last 1400 years, it is obviously the radicals who change to suit the times, not the Ulema.

Were there not yet another another attack on Christians, (by Muslims) this time in Nigeria, without so much as a peep, were it not so for the numerous attacks initiated by Muslims in other parts of Africa and against Israel, etc, then perhaps the references you give would have more weight.

There is a civil war in Nigeria, both sides killing each other with equal brutality. Christian militia went from house to house in Jos, pulling out Muslims and shooting them in the back of the head. In Jos Christian militias burnt houses with women and people inside. I watched a video where a Christian soldier told his brother to 'shoot him in the back, I want his hat', before the man used an AK-47 to kill 4 people while it was videotaped. The man got the hat.
YouTube - Nigerian's claim religious massacre
Where is your acknowledgement or denunciation of these killings? So one-sided...

It is not I that has the problem O OttomanScribe, but rather Islam. And perhaps more energy should go into changing this perception than, say, ensuring every item of meat sold in South Africa is Halaal....for eg (for our 3% Muslim population)

What is this a reference to? The South African Halaal Authority certainly does not have that in its mission statement.

The Muslim faith needs to deal and denounce these atrocities in such a manner as totally marginalize or eliminate these groups or they can continually encourage their existence through funding, luke warm responses and silent acceptance.

The funding doesn't come from us, it comes from America... I doubt the Afghan Sheikhs that declared Osama Bin Laden should be executed expected their fatwa to be described as a 'luke warm response'... or Al Azhar (the highest Sunni Authority)'s declaration that terrorism is fundamentally against Islam that their fatwa was 'silent acceptance'.

Meanwhile I will ponder why it is O' OttomanScribe that I cannot freely evangelize in most Middle East Muslim countries? You seem to have no such problem in Christian based Australia and I have been the recipient of some earnest Muslim evangelism in South Africa. Enjoy your Muslim wedding in Australia and appreciate the same liberty your faith often denies in other countries.

It is not permissible to evangelise as a Muslim, it is not our job to spread the faith. Similarly it should not be yours either. Truth stands clear without preaching. Preaching to unbelievers is pride and deception, if one's religion is correct, it should show in one's character and action, not in words or sermons.

That said, I have said on several occasions that no modern state is ruled by the Sha'riah. So any apparent discrimination has nothing to do with Sha'riah enacted by a state and more to do with secularism being pushed on Muslim countries.

When the peaceful nature of the Muslim faith begins to filter into all societies around the world and we see this witness face to face, then perhaps the message of peace will be heard.

If someone comes to us saying 'peace' we will reply with 'wa'Alaykum'. But there are few calls for peace from America or Europe. There are no Muslim armies in LA, no Muslim armies in London. There have been European and American armies in the Middle East and the rest of the Muslim world since Napoleon and Richard of England! How can we call for peace when we are given none? America can get its armies out of our countries, then people can talk peace!

It is like a bully flushing a kids head in the toilet, while asking 'why aren't you nice to me!?'

No, but probably for you arrogance and judgment of me, the same which I have not done to your person...... The pattern is the same, push a few buttons back and the rage inside surfaces soon enough.......thats my experience with Islam and you haven't disappointed.

I am not my religion. If I fall to the sins of anger and arrogance then I seek God's forgiveness for that. I pray that when proven wrong I will renounce my pride and acknowledge it. Similarly I pray never to lie, for Allah commands against it.

I testify there is nothing worthy of worship save God, and I testify that Mohammed was his final slave and messenger. Verily Allah is sufficient for me and the best of guardians.

Peace!

and amazement at anyone who read all that!

 

[OttomanScribe]

Neither myself nor the Christian faith ( as with any other religion) can be held accountable for something some person did a 1000 years ago. And I am certainly not aware of some tele-evangelist who makes rediculous statements somewhere in the backwaters of the USA. That is something for American Christians like yourself to deal with by exercising the basic steps of reprimand and exclusion from the Body of Christ. If Christians do not act, they effectively support such utterances and say to the world "this is what we as Christians believe and stand for." Much like the Muslim or any other faith.
​

The people I quoted included George Bush, who referred to the War on Terror as a 'Crusade' (Christian Holy War). It included soldiers in Iraq who wrote on the sides of their tank 'Jesus Killed Muhammed' (peace be upon them both). George Bush defined himself as a 'born again Christian', yet he was responsible for a war that involved countless civilian casualties and, in all honestly was only really about Oil. We are not talking about the Crusades 1000 years ago, we seem to be talking about them now!

Why have not Christians denounced him as a War Criminal? (which the use of cluster munitions on civilian areas constitutes)

Why do Christians not tell him that he doesn't speak on behalf of Christianity as a whole?

But what takes place here in this life, in my community, in my life is relevant. When people in my town rejoice at the death of innocent people under the name of Islam and not one leader to my knowledge (in Cape Town) stands up and renounces the behaviour (but rather a united front - even through the silence of those that disagree- is presented) that is the Muslim faith speaking.
​

The Muslim community in South Africa is predominantly made up of traditionalists. I know many brothers and sisters from the country, including South Africa, and my personal experience is the opposite. Unless you present anything more than anecdotes, it becomes very hard for me to take you seriously on this point. Especially since, speaking to me and seeing the voices against such things, you should now have a far broader and nuanced opinion of Muslims more generally. Simply through me and what I have shown you, you no longer have the excuse of ignorance.

When Pagad (a local Muslim group) start setting off bombs and killing people without condemnation from Muslims that speaks for the faith as well. That is what is relevant to me and every other person deciding on the way to eternal life. Not on why the faith was established 1500 years ago. Maybe for the intellectual with the internet at his call, but those facts are all irrelevant to the everyday man. (For that reason children to not listen to what they are told, but what they observe)
​

'People against Gangsterism and Drugs' are hardly a representative organisation of the Muslim community, especially considering that many of their attacks (apart from those against drug dealers) were against other Muslims who disagreed with their methods! The Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda are famous for using Machetes on civilians in Uganda in order to save ammunition. They are classified as a terrorist organisation and involved in everything from sex slavery to mutilation. Are they representative of Christians in Uganda and Southern Sudan?

Why have not the Christians of the regions denounced them as not following the Ten Commandments that they wish to enforce?

We all want to know is how will this faith impact my life today. "by this you shall know them......", not by the history of the faith or what Muslims believe in rural Pakistan (if they have purest form of Islam) nor by what Pope Urban did. We are meant to be the light to this world now, not historians. (And we are all the light of our faith's, whether active or not)
​

So essentially the Christianity that you want me to judge is not that practised by those who reconquered Spain and burned the mosques and killed the Jews. Not the Christianity practised by those forced the Indios into conversion and debt slavery. Not the Christianity that was practised by those who allowed 19 million to starve in what was termed the 'Late Victorian Holocaust', who thought that grain would be better served feeding England rather than those who starved to death on the docks.

Not the Christianity justified the burning of 100s of thousands of witches. Not the Christianity that was used to justify slavery in Americas south. Or the Christianity that justified the indiscriminate bombing of Baghdad and Kabul. Not the Christianity behind the rhetoric of the French who killed civilians in Algeria. Not the Christianity brought with Pashtun bibles and guns by Blackwater into Afghanistan. Not the Christianity of those who bomb abortion clinics or murder doctors....

But rather the Christianity that you present to me, which is the only valid kind. Not mentioning that it therefore makes the vast historical community of Christians non-believers. Is that really fair? Especially considering the only 'type' of Islam you accept as being the real one is the one who's understanding you get from your own anecdotal experience, even when contradicted by our scholars and leaders.....

Please dont speak for me.. Would you suppose we should all go and read the Koran to prove Bin Laden contrary to the Muslim faith? I waited for the response of Muslims around the world, I spoke to Muslims, I communicated on forums and I assessed the possibility of such a man surviving without extensive Muslim support across many countries.......and my opinion was made. If the Muslim community felt that strongly against 9/11 that voice would have been heard everywhere...even in Cape Town, South Africa. (Bottom line - even from moderates - was a general feeling that the USA had it coming and it was a good leson to them....teach them not to mess around with Islam) So go scroll the internet for another 1000 tracts and utterances from 650AD on but it is all irrelevant at this time.
​

I think I wasn't clear enough. Here is a few quotes from the Qu'ran and Hadith about the matter, followed by fatwas (legal rulings) and finally a few of the organisations which denounced 9/11.

It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces to the East and the West; but righteous is he who believeth in Allah and the Last Day and the angels and the Scripture and the prophets; and giveth wealth, for love of Him, to kinsfolk and to orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and to those who ask, and to set slaves free; and observeth proper worship and payeth the poor-due. And those who keep their treaty when they make one, and the patient in tribulation and adversity and time of stress. Such are they who are sincere. Such are the God-fearing. 2:177
​

Fight in the path of God those who fight you, but do not aggress. Surely God does not love the aggressors. And fight them where you come upon them, and send them out from where they have sent you out, for persecution is a worse thing than fighting. And do not fight them at the Sacred Mosque (in Mecca) unless they fight you there, but if they fight you, then fight them back. That is the reward of the rejectors. Then if they cease, so God is All-Forgiving, Gentle. And fight them until there is no more persecution and the religion is for God. But if they cease, so let there be no hostility except against wrongdoers. - Qur’an 2:190-193
​

Let there be no compulsion (or coercion) in the religion (Islam). The right direction is distinctly clear from error. (2:256)
​

O you who believe! Do not eat up your wealth in vanities among yourselves. But let there be among yourselves trade conducted in mutual good will. Nor kill or destroy yourselves, for God has been most merciful to you. If any do that in rancor and injustice, soon shall we cast them into the fire, and that is easy for God. If you but avoid the most heinous of the things which are forbidden to do, we shall expel out of you all the evil in you and admit you to a gate of great honor. (4:29-31)
​

“We ordained therein for them: “Life for life, eye for eye, Nose for nose, ear of ear, Tooth for tooth, and wounds Equal for equal.” But if any one remits the retaliation By way of charity, it is an act of atonement for himself.” Qur’an 4:45
​

Whosoever kills an innocent human being, it shall be as if he has killed all mankind, and whosoever saves the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. (5:32)
​

” . . . and you will find the nearest in love to the believers (Muslims) those who say: ‘We are Christians.’ That is because amongst them are priests and monks, and they are not proud.” Qur’an 5:82
​

The worshippers of the All-Merciful are they who tread gently upon the earth, and when the ignorant address them, they reply, “Peace!“ Qur’an 25:63
​

Indeed, whoever (intentionally) kills himself, then certainly he will be punished in the Fire of Hell, wherein he shall dwell forever)), [Bukhaaree (5778) and Muslim (109 and 110)].
​

It is narrated by Ibn ‘Umar that a woman was found killed in one of these battles; so the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) forbade the killing of women and children. (Book 019, Number 4320)
​

Numerous scholars, across the Muslim world have issued fatwas denouncing Osama Bin Laden, including one by Afghan scholars saying that he should be executed, other scholars in Syria, Yemen, Egypt and on and on and on...

Just the surface of thousands of such statements. These fatwas are not simply hot air, but binding to any whom hears them and has not heard anything contradictory from a legitimate Scholar. The only Fatwa I have read that justifies such things, is the one from OBL, who himself acknowledges his very ability to issue a fatwa at all!

Then we have conferences and organisations in Dubai, Bangladesh, India, Turkey, New Zealand, Jordan, Sri Lanka, Spain, Russia, Pakistan, etc. etc. etc. etc. all denouncing and campaigning against such things, even extremist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood issued statements denouncing 9/11. Now even were the entirety of South African Muslims rabid terrorist supporters, something I doubt considering my interactions with South African Muslims, that would only be 2% of the population of your country, something minuscule in comparison to Sunni Islam, which is ahead of Roman Catholicism as the largest faith in the world.

How then could 'your experiences' ever constitute a legitimate source for the rejection of an entire religion as one of terrorists? How, considering the weight of evidence, could your position be described as other than the wilful and deliberate maintenance of a state of ignorance?

 

[OttomanScribe]

I posted a reply before this one, yet it came up as 'moderated', possibly due to the number of sources I cited. Could anyone tell me if this is the case? Thanks

 

[berachah]

This post has run its course for me. Perhaps we chat on another.

 

[OttomanScribe]

This post has run its course for me. Perhaps we chat on another.

If this is your will. God guide us both to certainty and rightness. I pray that God reveals to both of us whom is correct in this.

 

[98cwitr]

I was in church this morning and told that Muslims cannot see Jesus as the Son of God because they believe that there is no glory nor honor in suffering.

This also stands to reason that Muslims believe that if someone strikes you, you must 'honor' yourself and strike them back. Is this true?

 

[OttomanScribe]

I was in church this morning and told that Muslims cannot see Jesus as the Son of God because they believe that there is no glory nor honor in suffering.

In regards to suffering, one of the primary reasons we do not see our beloved Prophet Jesus (as) as 100% man and 100% God is because God is incapable of suffering. A God that is the source of all things, all powerful and magnificent is incapable of loss, therefore the idea of suffering (which implies loss), is incongruous with such an understanding of God.

For a month every year, Muslims do not not eat or drink between dawn and sunset. This suffering is to humble us and remind us of the struggle of those whom not eating or drinking is a normal state of affairs. We believe that 'the blessing is in the struggle', while one should not necessarily seek out hardship (apart from fasting), one should not shy away from it, for it may keep one humble.

So from a traditional perspective, I think that you should question deeply anyone who would misrepresent others in this way. There is 'honour' (or more accurately benefit) in suffering, though it is not the be all and end all of worship.

This also stands to reason that Muslims believe that if someone strikes you, you must 'honor' yourself and strike them back. Is this true?

A culture obsessed with honour is a culture of jahiliyyah (ignorance). The Prophet (sws) came to the Arabs to remove from them such obsessions with honour and pride. Such things however, due to the nature of humanity, unfortunately linger. They are not however 'Islamic'.

In traditional Islamic legal theory, the victim of, for example, a violent harmful assault, may decide upon the punishment of their attacker within certain bounds. They may choose to have the person harmed in turn, demand compensation, or forgive the individual. For one to forgive the person who harmed them is by far the best thing for them. One who is Merciful is loved by the One who is Most Merciful! However they may not feel able to do this, in which case, if it will make them feel better, the person may be attacked in turn.

An example of this in practice was a sister in Iran who was attacked on her wedding day by a man she rejected. He threw acid in her face and blinded her. The Sha'riah dictated that she had a choice, have him blinded in turn, have him pay her a sum of money, or forgive him. Forgiving him would have been a great act of worship. However, she understandably was not okay with doing thus and he was blinded in turn, acid being put into his eyes with an eye dropper.

While this may seem harsh, I would argue that one would need to be blinded on their wedding day to understand how she felt.

So again, Islam is not a religion obsessed with 'honour', the only honour one can do for oneself is worshipping God as He deserves. People's opinion of one means nothing, any form of honour based upon humanity or cultural expectations is inherently of jahiliyyah.


Thank you for asking me these things, many accept such things unquestioningly. When my Sheikh was studying with his teacher, his teacher went to step into the mosque with his left foot (something not impermissible but it is better to enter with the right), his teacher pulled his foot back, turned to my Sheikh and said 'if you ever see me leave a sunnah (something praiseworthy but not compulsory), leave me as your teacher'. Have high standards! I am sure enough of my Sheikh (teacher)'s character that I would never expect him to lie. If your teacher is lying from the pulpit, leave them.

I hope this finds you in the best of health and happiness. I feel that were my entire life devoted to prayer I could still not embody an inch of the miles of gratitude I owe to God. Know that as Christians, atheists never feel such a thing, and be thankful for this believe in God that we share.

Sorry, in a good mood is all.

 

[98cwitr]

God is incapable of nothing, sir. That would include experiencing suffering first hand. To say God is incapable of something is a direct contradiction to your plight that "God that is the source of all things, all powerful and magnificent is..." How can you say God has limits and is incapable of anything? He is capable of everything!...thus being all powerful of course

P.S. just because our understanding implies something does not make it absolute, fact, or absolute fact.

 

[OttomanScribe]

God is incapable of nothing, sir. That would include experiencing suffering first hand. To say God is incapable of something is a direct contradiction to your plight that "God that is the source of all things, all powerful and magnificent is..." How can you say God has limits and is incapable of anything? He is capable of everything!...thus being all powerful of course

God is incapable of contradiction. Being thus incapable does not negate His status as all-powerful. To be all-powerful is by definition to be incapable of loss. While all understandings of God are limited, we know that some are more wrong than others. Confining God to creation is one of these things. God is not a duck, is not a jackal headed man... His not being these things do not negate His nature.

just because our understanding implies something does not make it absolute, fact, or absolute fact.

It would be my assumption that one should always err on the side of glorifying God, regardless of one's understanding. To place God within His creation is to create contradiction in our conceptualisation of the divine.

 

[98cwitr]

Right...

Genesis 1:2 "2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."

Genesis 3:8 "8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the LORD God called to the man, "Where are you?"" He being God (singular).


Genesis 32:21-32 " So Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him till daybreak. 25 When the man saw that he could not overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob's hip so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with the man. 26 Then the man said, "Let me go, for it is daybreak."
But Jacob replied, "I will not let you go unless you bless me."
27 The man asked him, "What is your name?"
"Jacob," he answered.

28 Then the man said, "Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, [a] because you have struggled with God and with men and have overcome."

29 Jacob said, "Please tell me your name."
But he replied, "Why do you ask my name?" Then he blessed him there.

30 So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, "It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.""

^^^OT God (God as you perceive Him, right?) within His creation.


I don't believe God is incapable of anything, I think He choses not to contradict Himself.

 

[OttomanScribe]

^^^OT God (God as you perceive Him, right?) within His creation.


I don't believe God is incapable of anything, I think He choses not to contradict Himself.

While we share many similarities with the theology of the Jews, and therefore with that in the Old Testament, some things we do not share. Our God does not rest, and He certainly does not take a form and then almost lose a wrestling match with a Prophet (as).

God is incapable of being a contradiction. He is separate from that which He has created, because it exists as a manifestation of His glory. 'The Most Merciful does not need a son to give Mercy'. One cannot locate God in a specific place, any more than one can measure Him. To do so is to deliberately throw off His grandeur in our conceptions. God is, by nature, so Greater than what we perceive as to be almost beyond definition. Any understanding we have of Him will always be limited by our own feeble minds. Thus rather than place undue and unrealistic emphasis upon what He 'is' we must understand what He is not, namely, creation.

God is defined as the One thing that has the attribute 'creates, uncreated', He is the giant exception to the rule that we live by. Anything that contradicts those attributes, in that it gives Him the attributes of created things, is to contradict those things that He is not. He is Eternal, Absolute, and there is none like unto Him.

 

[98cwitr]

Jesus said it best:


The Parable of the Tenants

33"Listen to another parable: There was a landowner who planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a winepress in it and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and went away on a journey. 34When the harvest time approached, he sent his servants to the tenants to collect his fruit.


35"The tenants seized his servants; they beat one, killed another, and stoned a third. 36Then he sent other servants to them, more than the first time, and the tenants treated them the same way. 37Last of all, he sent his son to them. 'They will respect my son,' he said.

38"But when the tenants saw the son, they said to each other, 'This is the heir. Come, let's kill him and take his inheritance.' 39So they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.

40"Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?"

41"He will bring those wretches to a wretched end," they replied, "and he will rent the vineyard to other tenants, who will give him his share of the crop at harvest time."

42Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the Scriptures:
" 'The stone the builders rejected
has become the capstone[h];
the Lord has done this,
and it is marvelous in our eyes'?

43"Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit. 44He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed."[j]

45When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard Jesus' parables, they knew he was talking about them. 46They looked for a way to arrest him, but they were afraid of the crowd because the people held that he was a prophet.


If a vast number of God's people no longer respect God, should God destroy them? This happened in Noah's day, but Jesus came to save the world from total destruction. If is this not the display of mercy of only a divine power I don't know what is.

*****************************************************************************
Here's my BIG point about the Quran...if this passage is true:

""ALLAH is HE besides Whom there is none worthy of worship, the Living, the Self-Subsisting and All-Sustaining. HE has sent down to thee the Book containing the truth and fulfilling that which precedes it; and HE has sent down the Torah (Law of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guidance to the people; and HE has sent down the Discrimination (judgement between right and wrong)."—Qur'an, Surah 3:3-4"


then it stands to reason that the perfect God did not send down any false documentation, so everything that you just said you deny is a complete contradiction to the book you claim to follow.


The Qur'an also claims Jesus to be the Messiah "[003:045] And (remember) when the angels said, “Oh Mary, Allah gives you the good news of ‘the word’ from Him. His name shall be Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, held in high honor in this world and the hereafter; and he will be one of those nearest (to Allah).”"

 

[OttomanScribe]

If a vast number of God's people no longer respect God, should God destroy them? This happened in Noah's day, but Jesus came to save the world from total destruction. If is this not the display of mercy of only a divine power I don't know what is.

All crimes are punished in the end, be it in this life or the next. 'Any who do an atom's weight of good, will feel it, any who do an atom's weight of bad, will be punished for it'. I personally would rather my own destruction and the destruction of my works in this life than in the afterlife. Respect for God is highest amongst the Muslims and the Jews. The Jews speak not His name, the Muslims speak little but.

'and thou wilt surely find that, of all people,they who say, "Behold, we are Christians," come closest to feeling affection for those who believe [in this divine writ]: this is so because there are priests and monks among them, and because these are not given to arrogance.' (5:82) I find most in common with many Christians from this, that many are bereft of arrogance, especially Protestant Preachers (not of the pentecostal tradition), Catholic monks and those of the Eastern Tradition. Christians are most likely to express love for other faiths (broadly, I'm not talking about Urban II here). However when it comes to God, we find you misguided and disrespectful. Foremost in my mind is the representation of Jesus, whom you believe to be God, who has the self-delusion to believe they can draw God and hang him in their church? SubhanAllah!

 

[98cwitr]

so it stands to reason that God has falsified documentation to us mortals via the Gospel of Jesus (reference Surah 3:3-4)?