Islam? [Archive] - The Dancing Lawn - Official Forums of Narnia Fans

CSLewisFan

01-14-2006, 12:49 AM

I must admit, at first glance, Islam is an attractive creed.

It can be simply summed up in one repeated phrase: la illaha illa Allah! (There is no God but Allah!)
Allah is supposed to be the same God as the one that believers in Jesus and the Jews follow. The full creed of the Muslim is: “There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is His prophet."

The five "rules' or "pillars" of Islam are:

1. The traveling to Mecca at least once, to commemorate the birth of Islam, 622 years before Christ was born.
2. Fasting.
3. Almsgiving (Charity)
4. Ritual prayer five times a day.
5. Of course, professing the creed, “There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is His prophet.”

Some have called Islam the simplification of Christianity; I disagree and think the opposite.

Islam adds to Christianity, for where Jews have only our “Old Testament” Scriptures and Christians add the New Testament, Muslims also add the Quran. In the Quran, Muhammad tells you how to live Jesus' ethic (Jesus is seen only as a man, an ethical teacher). Which he was, but he is so much more.

Islam neither merely simplifies Christianity nor merely adds to it, but reinterprets it. The Muslim interpretation of the New Testament is not the same as the Christian one; the Quran tries to interpret the New Testament as the New interprets the Old.

An illiterate peasant, Mohammed received the Quran by word-for-word dictation from Allah, according to the faith of Islam.

Islam believes in a single, all-just, all-merciful, all-powerful God who created the world and man, insists on obedience to His will, and promises salvation and immortality to believers and those who obey.

I cannot believe in Islam for several reasons.

I am a follower of Jesus Christ.
I do not believe the Bible is inherently flawed. I could not use the Quran as a reliable source to discover more about Jesus, as the Quran is not inspired by God.

Islam ignores Jesus' divinity when they view Jesus only as a good teacher and a holy prophet. Christianity declares that Jesus was crucified; Islam asserts that it only seemed like Jesus was crucified, and that God miraculously "took him up to God, Himself." The Muslim do not believe that Jesus is the great Rescuer of a lifestyle of sin.

Jesus tells us that there is no way to God but through him. I am saved by Jesus' grace and mercy. Muhammad or his teachings are not even part of the picture.

I hope PrinceoftheWest and Basilides can further expound on this, as they and other smart people are much better at explaining what they know, and not just knowing it :)

-Austin

Gibby

01-14-2006, 06:21 AM

An illiterate peasant, Mohammed received the Quran by word-for-word dictation from Allah, according to the faith of Islam.

Yes, and my understanding is that "an angel" told him to start writing, and Muhammad didn't, so the angel choked Muhammad 3 times until he agreed to write it down. Also, Muhammad went into a deep depression for 2 years after writing the words down. This doesn't sound like words from God, does it?

Islam believes in a single, all-just, all-merciful, all-powerful God who created the world and man, insists on obedience to His will, and promises salvation and immortality to believers and those who obey.

They also believe that their god can change, too. Or abrogation as they call it.

I'm with you C.S. Lewis fan. Christ is Lord...

Impreza

01-14-2006, 10:20 AM

Yes, and my understanding is that "an angel" told him to start writing, and Muhammad didn't, so the angel choked Muhammad 3 times until he agreed to write it down. Also, Muhammad went into a deep depression for 2 years after writing the words down. This doesn't sound like words from God, does it?

They also believe that their god can change, too. Or abrogation as they call it.

I'm with you C.S. Lewis fan. Christ is Lord...

Gibby...He was not chocked. But was given a tight hug.

CSLewisFan...yup...that's the basic things about Islam.

TimmyofOz

01-14-2006, 10:26 AM

Impreza

01-14-2006, 11:05 AM

I love Jesus and I don't want to live like I'm in Arabia in the 6th century AD still. I also don't feel women need to wear bags over their bodies. There is little I can think of that is good about Islam. Especailly the going to hell part. :eek:

Most part of the Arabian countries wear casual nowadays. In Islam, every part of the flesh of a women is an aurat, which is forbidden to be seen by any man except by her own husband.

PrinceOfTheWest

01-14-2006, 11:05 AM

Well, SapphireOfSeptember, I hope you've gotten a few ideas. Let me give you one more, and then hopefully you can give us some feedback.

From my studies of both traditions, one of the biggest differences between Islam and Christianity is how God relates to man.

Islam teaches that what God wants of man is worship done correctly. It teaches that Abraham knew how to worship God correctly, and tried to pass it along to his descendants through his sons Isaac and Ishmael. Unfortunately, the descendants kept losing the true practice of the faith and wandering off into idolatry. God sent various prophets to man to recall him to the true worship, and some obeyed for a while, but the true worship kept getting lost. At last God sent His final word to Muhammed, the perfection of all the earlier revelations (which were only partial). It was to this final, perfect revelation that all men were called to be submitted (muslim).

The pivotal point here is that Islam teaches that men are just creatures who need to perform certain actions to be pleasing to God, but they remain creatures - effectively, slaves of God. Willing, submitted (muslim) slaves of a benevolent Master, perhaps, but slaves nonetheless.

Judaism and Christianity teach that what God wants is His family back. They teach that God created man in a special way, breathing life into him personally, and impressing man with His image. Man, however, rebelled and left God's family to go out on his own. He immediately began reaping the bitter fruit of his rebellion, but God's options were limited - as long as man was sinning, he could not return to God's family because God is utterly holy, and His presence requires perfection. But God did not give up. He began speaking to men and (here's the important part) making covenants with them. A covenant is a family bond; an adoption is a covenant, so is a marriage. Blood brotherhood is a covenant. God made covenants over time with men - with Noah, with Abraham, with the people of Israel through Moses, with David. These covenants were very important, for they were God's steps in bringing man back into His family. They in no way "profited" God; indeed, they cost Him a lot, and man reaped all the benefits - but that is the nature of love.

So, in time, God took on flesh and was born of the virgin Mary. He taught us many good things, but few of them were new. The most important thing He did was make the final, definitive covenenant with mankind. This covenant went beyond the wildest imaginings of man: it was adoption back into God's family. By entering into this covenant, man could be welcomed back into the place he had lost by his rebellion - in fact, to a greater place. But because covenants had to be sealed by blood, Jesus took the radical step of sealing this one with His own blood - which at the same time (by some mysterious means) satisfied the judgement of God against man's sins and washed away the stain of guilt that kept man from coming into the presence of a Holy God.

So that is what we Christians are. We are not just people who believe a certain set of teachings, or willing slaves muslim to a particular set of requirements. We are people who been re-adopted back into God's family. The price is higher than just following rules or assenting to truths. We have to die, which we do in the Sacrament of Baptism, and then live each day letting Christ's life grow within us.

And there is your big difference.

Parthian King

01-14-2006, 12:45 PM

Prince of the West has laid out some excellent truths that summarize very well the essentials. Basilides has (elsewhere) made some great points, too. I would like to make a fairly simple but (I think) profound observation of what I think is the key difference between Islam and Christianity: The Cross.

I am not referring to merely the purpose of the Cross, though that is of course part of it. And I am not merely referring to the critical place of the Incarnation in the Christian's worldview (i.e., as the miraculous event of human history) contra the Islamic worldview, though that of course is also inseparable. I am speaking of the very idea that God Himself can not only come down to enter His creation with an end to redeem it (shocking all by itself), but that He chose to do it through a show of weakness and not strength. Now, we are so used to tying it all together (and rightly so) that we can hardly perceive of God Incarnate, bound by time and space, but as a victorious, conquering warrior in His first coming, rather than (as we anticipate Him) in His second. He could have done it that way.

Instead, God chose to be weak not only as any other man (meaning, as compared to God--confined by time and space), but He crowned the whole work with the supreme show of weakness: Crucifixion. We have certainly lost, in spite of all the passion plays, what crucifixion was in the first century. Cicero declared that this horrific humiliation not even be breathed in the same sentence with the name of any Roman citizen. Ancient graffiti found in Rome lampoons Christian worship by displaying a naked man with the head of an ass hanging from a cross. Crucifixion was supremely painful, supremely ugly, supremely humiliating. And Christ embraced it. This means that at the bedrock of the Christian faith lies the concept of a God who not only can be weak, but willingly chose to be weak for mercy's sake. "No servant is above his master, nor a pupil above his teacher." In spite of all the Christian slamming that has gone on (ironically, much of it by other Christians), at the end of the day Christians who see the cross are willing to be weak and find strength in it. True Christianity, historical Christianity is therefore shot through with divine irony and paradox: In brokenness is strength, in outward defeat is inward advantage, and power is perfected in weakness.

Islam denies the cross (i.e., that it ever happened) because it is unfathomable that a great prophet would be so executed. Weakness is not strength, strength is strength. God is never weak, but only ever strong. Defeat is defeat, and victory is victory. There is no irony, there is no paradox. The God they see is not a God who allows things to happen apart from His will and weeps for those things even as He folds them into His eternal purposes, but "everything that happens is the will of Allah" in a much more direct and fatalistic way.

underthefryingpan

01-14-2006, 03:38 PM

my dad has several muslim friends at work(he's a civil engineer) and has a great respect for them.

i believe they have part of the truth such as, there's only one god. but they don't have the whole truth (such as jesus christ came to save us and we need to be baptised etc) therefore we need to pray for their conversion.
if a muslim has never heard of jesus in his life, and yet leads a good moral life; i think God might let him go to heaven. but if he rejects the gospel once he is exposed to it, or leads an immoral muslim life, he is in big trouble in the afterlife. it is a heresey after all, i can't consider it as beneficial as catholism.

it is rather like the last battle isn't it?

i'm sure there's many different degrees of islam and not all muslims go around in burkas.

Gibby

01-14-2006, 05:51 PM

if a muslim has never heard of jesus in his life, and yet leads a good moral life; i think God might let him go to heaven. but if he rejects the gospel once he is exposed to it, or leads an immoral muslim life, he is in big trouble in the afterlife. it is a heresey after all, i can't consider it as beneficial as catholism.

The bible is clear about the way to the father.

John 14:6

6Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

SapphireOfSeptember

01-14-2006, 06:27 PM

You see, I am a devote muslim. I would just like to get a few points straight since a user has misunderstood a point. The Angel told Muhammad to READ not to write. To Repeat the words of God, to memorize them and explain it to others. He did NOT choke Muhammad, he said "Read, Oh Muhammad the words of your Lord." in surah Al-qalam verse 1-3. And he repeated this 3 times because Muhammad did not understand what the Angel Gabriel wanted him to do since he was illiterate. Muslims believe that God shaped Adam from clay(soil) and breathed life into him, we believe in the story of Adam and Eve, and the Fruit tree. How satan whispered to Eve to eat from the tree when God told Adam and Eve not too. Since in our faith, God Created the world, and man, he is the Owner of the Universe, the Creator. So we are his slaves in a fact. He owns us and to him we will return. In islam, we believe that a believeer can create a personal relationship with god. It is not just a set of rules we follow because Muhammad (Peace be upon him) told us too.

Gibby

01-14-2006, 06:37 PM

Thanks for that clarification, Sapphire of September. I don't personally have the Quran and I had heard this many times and found other sites that stated this as well (some of them looked like legitimate scholarly sites also). Frankly, I was not too comfortable quoting the "choking" story without seeing the actual verses in front of me so I apologizehttp://www.narniafans.com/forum/images/icons/icon11.gif. Do you have access to the verse in question and could you post it?

PrinceOfTheWest

01-14-2006, 07:12 PM

So we are his slaves in a fact. He owns us and to him we will return. And right there is one of the greatest differences between Islam and Christianity. As Jesus says, speaking through the Apostle John, "See what love the Father has given us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are." (1 John 3) and through the Apostle Paul "So through God you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son then an heir." (Gal 4).

It is true that we have no right to claim anything more than creaturehood, but God by His grace and through the sacrifice of Jesus has granted us this adoption.

she-elfwarrior19

01-14-2006, 07:21 PM

Yes, and my understanding is that "an angel" told him to start writing, and Muhammad didn't, so the angel choked Muhammad 3 times until he agreed to write it down. Also, Muhammad went into a deep depression for 2 years after writing the words down. This doesn't sound like words from God, does it?

They also believe that their god can change, too. Or abrogation as they call it.

I'm with you C.S. Lewis fan. Christ is Lord...

I also believ that Christ is the Lord, he dies on the the cross and Jesus is God's only son and that "whoever believes in him shall not parish but have eternal life."john 3:16.
And no those words definately dont sound like they are from God.

unleavened

01-14-2006, 07:46 PM

The big difference (according to a muslim who converted to Christianity) is this:
Christianity's God is Loving. Islam's God is not.

In fact Christianity centralizes around love (after all, God is love!). No other religion's God does.

Charn_Tim

01-14-2006, 08:24 PM

In addition to the above differences noted by others, I would like to add my own 2 cents on the difference between Islam (and all other religions for that matter) and Christianity. I guess this just says what the others have said a bit differently, but it is a story from the book, What's so Amazing About Grace, by Phillip Yancey. (I think this quote is actually in "inkspot's thread of amazing grace" too, but whatever).

During a British conference on comparative religions, experts from around the world debated what, if any, belief was unique to the Christian faith. They began eliminating possibilities. Incarnation? Other religions had different versions of gods appearing in human form. Resurrection? Again, other religions had accounts of return from death. The debate went on for sometime until CS Lewis wandered into the room. "What's the rumpus about?" he asked, and heard in reply that his colleagues were discussing Christianity's unique contribution among world religions. Lewis responded, "Oh, that's easy. It's grace."

After some discussion, the conferees had to agree. The notion of God's love for us coming to us free of charge, no strings attached, seems to go against every instinct of humanity. The Buddhist eight-fold path, the Hindu doctrine of karma, the Jewish covenant, and Muslim code of law-each of these offers a way to earn approval. Only Christianity dares to make God's love unconditional.
So no religion besides Christianity (including Islam of course) offers the free gift of God's grace to pardon our sins (by the cross, of course-as others have pointed out on this thread).

SapphireOfSeptember

01-14-2006, 11:12 PM

The Cross and the Crescent: An Interfaith Dialogue between Christianity and Islam

This is a good book I think you should read.

SapphireOfSeptember

01-14-2006, 11:43 PM

Quran Describes God's Nature Exactly

The Quran is clear on who God is and who He is not. There is no room left for doubt after reading the Quran in the Arabic languge: God is One. He is the only Creator, Sustainer and Owner of the Universe. He has no partners. He has no relatives; wives, children or offspring. He is not like His creation and He does not need it for His existance, while all the time the creation is totally dependent on Him. His attributes are clearly spelled out as the epitome of each and every one. He is for instance, the All-Knowing; the All-Hearing; the All-Seeing; the All-Forgiving; the All- Loving; the All-Merciful; the Only One God. There is never a contradiction to this found anywhere in the Quran.

SapphireOfSeptember

01-14-2006, 11:45 PM

Scientific Miracles in Quran

The scientific miracles of the Quran could not have been understood at that time, yet today we take for granted the many things included in the revelation of the Quran. Some include mentioning: The formation of embryo in the womb of the mother (surah 98); deep seas partitions; waters that do not mix; clouds and how they make rain and how lightning is caused by ice crystals; formation of the earth's mountains deep underground; orbits of planets and stars and moons - and even the mention of space travel (surah 55:33).

SapphireOfSeptember

01-14-2006, 11:46 PM

Quran Challanges Readers

The Quran makes the clear challange, that if you are in doubt about it - then bring a book like it. Also, to bring ten chapters like it and then finally, to bring one single chapter like it. 1,400 years - and no one has been able to duplicate it's beauty, recitation, miracles and ease of memorization. Another challange for the unbelievers to consider; "If this (Quran) were from other than Allah, you would find within it many contradictions." And yet, another challange offered by Allah in the Quran is for the unbelievers to look around for evidences. Allah says He will show them His signs within themselves and on the farthest horizons.

TimmyofOz

01-15-2006, 09:50 AM

Most part of the Arabian countries wear casual nowadays. In Islam, every part of the flesh of a women is an aurat, which is forbidden to be seen by any man except by her own husband.
Like I said women shouldn't have to wear bags over theit entire body. I've been to some Arab nations and I've seen women that every part of their body is heavly covered. That is wrong!!!!!! I am very affraid of Fascist-Islamists. Given a chance they will do to me and other non-Islams what Hitler tried to do to the Jews. And right now I don't see any moderate Islamists. When fascist Christian Germany was killing Jews, Christian USA and Britian fought to distroy it. I don't see any Islamist nation fighting to distroy fascist-Islamist.

SapphireOfSeptember

01-15-2006, 10:00 AM

no! women don't have to if they don't want to. at least not to wear those heavy bags your talking about. it depends. i am a muslim and i try to wear modest cloths (long-sleeve and long skirts or pants, jeans, etc) and a nice hijab(scarf)
islam does not force a women to cover her whole body. only her face and her hands and feet are allowed to show. other than that she has to cover up the rest of her modestly.
actually, when women wear those "bags" it very cooling. since its hot over in the mid-east , women wear those over shorts and tank tops usually.
it can be whatever.

SapphireOfSeptember

01-15-2006, 10:06 AM

to tell you the truth timmyofoz, being a fascist is NOT AT ALL islamic. those things that are happening right now that are possibly coming from "islam" is not at all acceptable if you are following the religion correctly. other islamic countries are not doing anything about it because they don't have strong armies, etc. so they can't just barge in trying to save the world from wrong-muslims followers who think that God told them to kill other people. that is just WRONG. america had big, strong armies. thats a difference

kirke

01-15-2006, 10:36 AM

hmmm thats an interesting relationship... muslum to facist... ill have to go back and see how he got that idea

edit- interesting. Islam looks doun very badly on killing,

". . . Do not take life, which Allah has made sacred, except through justice and the law. He orders this so that you may acquire wisdom" (6:151)

to kill one innocent person according to islam is exactly the same thing as killing all of humanity. The terrorists used the excuse of dying in an act of war you will go to nervana, but killing innocents is an act of terrorism not war. i think you get the idea of all muslums being facist murderers from either A) what others said after 911. B) taking the Quaran out of context. or C) you actually know nothing about it and since Alqueda (sp) claims they are muslum you think they sum the religion up. none of those choices gives true muslums the chance to show what Islam is really aboutl.

Parthian King

01-15-2006, 10:59 AM

I am not a Muslim, obviously, but for the sake of both fairness and accuracy it should be said that what has been branded as Islamo-Fascism is a form of political authoritarianism that is atypical of the practice of most Muslims. These people do base what they do upon the Quran as they read it, but then again, the Crusaders based what they did upon the Christian Scriptures as they saw them. The disconnect is that Mohammed and his followers were in fact conquering warriors of the early Middle Ages, and Jesus Christ and his followers were pacifists, at least in the personal and religious sense; they won converts through entirely different means. Therefore I would contend that todays "Muslim" extremists have not been as far from the spirit of their perceived founder as "Christian" extremists have been from theirs. Be that as it may, it is not politically accurate to say that all Islam is fascist in the political sense. Their extremism is certainly fascist-like in many ways, but many Muslims abhor what these extremists have done.

SapphireofSeptember (my favorite stone, BTW), I appreciate your measured response. We Americans have been wounded (and not just Americans--our friends the Brits have been hit, too), and sometimes those wounds lead to fear (as Timmy confessed), and that leads to certain statements that aren't meant to be a sweeping as they sound. TimmyofOz can speak for himself, but I think his point is that even vocal support for action against extremists is muted among certain Islamic countries, and sometimes we hear support for extremists from people who have claimed to be friends; that hurts Americans when we see American blood being spilled in the fight. But what we as Americans often don't measure is the very, very deep wounds of a region and a people much more ancient than our own, and so many misunderstandings and conflicts over the centuries that it makes one's head spin to try and sort it all out. Those problems, lamentably, seem to be getting even more complex; it is hardly only Western blood that is being spilled. I do appreciate, though, your sentiments of strong opposition to violent extremism. I enjoy hearing from you.

I also think it may be better to keep things to a discussion of the differences between Islam and Christianity in their purest religious forms, and not take the discussion onto political grounds. I'm not a mod, but it seems kind of unfair to force SapphireofSeptember to explain the actions of a violent fringe, though I'm glad if it has cleared something up for someone. I personally am more interested in discussing issues of spiritual truth.

Impreza

01-15-2006, 12:19 PM

Johan 72109

01-15-2006, 05:21 PM

Like I said women shouldn't have to wear bags over theit entire body. I've been to some Arab nations and I've seen women that every part of their body is heavly covered. That is wrong!!!!!! I am very affraid of Fascist-Islamists. Given a chance they will do to me and other non-Islams what Hitler tried to do to the Jews. And right now I don't see any moderate Islamists. When fascist Christian Germany was killing Jews, Christian USA and Britian fought to distroy it. I don't see any Islamist nation fighting to distroy fascist-Islamist.

I'd have to disagree with some of your points TimmyofOz... :o While your viewpoint is understandable, considering the way America has suffered over the past few years, you have to consider that your statements are perhaps a little broad.

In this case, I'd suggest that comparisons of religious history in terms of politics and war is rather pointless, since when religion gets involved with politics and war, it mutates into something that is a far cry from the original religion itself (if that makes sense... :o )

Your example of WWII, in particular pertaining to the killing of the Jews, is in fact a flawed one. Firstly, both Britain and Germany were only nominally Christian at this time, especially in the case of Germany. As to the idea of Christian countries uniting... What about Soviet Russia, which suffered the worst casualties (27 million - I think I can safely say this is more losses than those suffered by Britain and America, throughout military history, all added together... :( ), lost (then regained) the most land, and (it has been argued by many prominent historians) contributed the most to winning the war... and was a totalitarian atheistic nation, not a Christian one. As for the comment about the killing of the Jews prompting other nations to intervene, in fact there's substantial evidence to suggest that the outside world didn't care about the plight of the Jews until it was too late, even when they were realising what was going on. Jews were frequently barred from emigrating to countries that were 'overcrowded' (such as Britain and America), and there were fierce complaints when they did. A very brave member of the Polish army, a Jew named Szmul Zygielbojm, managed to escape a POW camp, find a plane, and fly across the Third Reich to land in England. Here he explained the impending German 'Final Solution' that as yet had not been implemented, and begged on a radio broadcast sent to all the world for something to be done to help European Jewry, most of whom were still alive. As it was, nothing changed, the military plans were not centred around bringing the war to a close before a genocide could be carried out (which may well have been possible), and 6 million innocents were killed in gas chambers... 'Christian' nations did not particularly bother about the Jews until it was far too late.

And, in fact, Islamic countries HAVE been involved in fighting the more hardline states, though not to as large an extent as America and Britain in WWII, simply because they don't have the resources. Pakistani soldiers and civilian contractors have fought (and died) in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The Afghani war was fought to a large extent by the Northern Alliance, who fought, died (sometimes by being bombed accidentally by their Coalition allies, one prominent example being in Qalai Janghi prison camp, where an inmate uprising was suppressed by US airstrikes which also destroyed the local Northern Alliance HQ).

In addition, I have several Muslim friends who are very moderate, very nice people.

Hehe, getting off the soapbox now... :o

TimmyofOz

01-16-2006, 10:46 AM

I'm not trying to be mean. There was a time about 12 years ago when I met a teenage Muslim girl, and being very impressed with her faith. But after seeing how the Muslim nations have behaved these last 10 years, those ascribing that faith need to do a lot of explaining. As far as World War II, first, the Soviet Union would have never gone to war with Germany except that Hitler invaded Russia, breaking a non-aggression treaty. Stalin had no problem with Hitler till then. Second I'm sorry the United States and her allies couldn't win the war any faster. We were fighting as hard as we could and the Germans were resisting. Yes, it would have been nice if we could have liberated the death camps a year or two earlier thus saving millions of Jews. But bombing death camp would not have ended the war sooner which is the only way we could have saved the Jews. Last, Israel belongs to the Jews, take it up with God. Mohammed visiting Jerusalem in the spirit doesn't cut it, any more than the LDS claim that Jesus visited American. There is no historical evidence that Mohammed ever visited Jerusalem.

TimmyofOz

01-16-2006, 11:06 AM

If you read this link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Solution) you will see that Hitler's final solution started after America entered the war. To say that the USA wasn't trying to win the war hard enough is a rotten thing to say about the hundred of thousands of Americans that gave their lives to defeat Germany.

Seravian

01-16-2006, 11:38 AM

Like Parthian king, I would like to discuss about spiritual issues, not politic ones.

Not that I want to ignore reality, but I think war and such would be off topic. And words like "rotten" don't help with the Chistian mood one is granted from the Chronicles of Narnia. ;)

I am very thankful to those depicting the image of God for both christian and Muslims. I didn't know about the differences with the very important concept of Freedom: to choose between good and evil, either as child of God that freely chooses within his Heart to go to Him, or as an obedient creature fulfilling the Will of His mighty absolute Master.

kirke

01-16-2006, 11:40 AM

kirke

01-16-2006, 11:49 AM

if we are to take it the way you are saying Christianity is the worst religion on earth...
there are several "christian groups" such as the Church of Jesus Christ Christians which are NAZI's and the Peoples Temple

why cannot there not be "islamic groups"

TimmyofOz

01-16-2006, 12:02 PM

know your turning a stereotype against muslums to defending the US in WW2? someone used a simple point to show that calling the entire religion bad because of one terrorist group is a bad idea, and you responded with 2 posts totaly unrelated to Islam.

Yes some countries that practice Islam have groups that have totally messed up what the Quran says, but that doesnt mean you should say all of Islam (or all of the country) is bad...
I was reponding to Johan 72109 about his comments about whether the USA took its war against Germany serious enough.
As far as who is bad and who is not. People aren't bad just sinners. Ideas are bad. Islam is a bad idea that turn people away from Jesus. The only way Muslems will enter heaven is if the Bible is wrong.

Johan 72109

01-16-2006, 12:03 PM

My point about the Allies being capable of saving the Jewish population of Europe is not meant to be 'rotton' to the thousands who died... Sorry if you got that impression... :o I understand, and am greatly thankful for, the sacrifices people made.
But the fact remains, the Allies could quite possibly have ended the war sooner, or at least managed to liberate large sections of Europe sooner, though it would have been more expensive, monetarily and in lives lost (though bear in mind that delay cost four million jewish lives and the lives of many others in minority groups). At least they could have allowed in more Jewish immigrants. Evidence for this ranges from letters and news articles of the time (displayed in famous museums such as the Holocaust memorial in the Imperial War Museum), and books, such as 'While 6 Million Died'. My point remains, The Allies still have culpability in the deaths of the Jews. As to your point about Soviet Russia, bear in mind that America only joined the war after Pearl Harbour. Russia after Barbarossa in 1941, America after Pearl Harbour in 1941 - we're talking very similar events, even if Pearl Harbour was smaller scale than Barbarossa. The war was not about preventing atrocities against the Jews, though it should have been. Anyway, major side-tracking here, sorry... :o If you disagree on any points here (I've been wrong before), perhaps PM me, or start a seperate thread or something, I dunno... :)

I also have to say, I agree with Kirke - these Muslim radicals are a minority, just like our Christian radicals.

CSLewisFan

01-16-2006, 12:21 PM

Anyway, major side-tracking here, sorry... :o If you disagree on any points here (I've been wrong before), perhaps PM me, or start a seperate thread or something, I dunno... :)

This is a cool discussion, but I think a seperate thread would be best. :)

-Austin

TimmyofOz

01-16-2006, 12:43 PM

kirke

01-16-2006, 02:12 PM

you know its not very often that i see someone use YHWH for Yahweeh but it is accurate. It is kind of difficult for me to post against you, because i am myself christian. I will leave the Christian bashing to any atheists or muslums that you have bashing.

I cannot understand what your point is timmy. I mean this board, as i understand it, is supposed to be about learning about the worlds most popular religion (Islam), but everything you say is set to say that Islam and muslums are just ignorant and pointless, or atleast thats the feeling you give to me. I know you want to get your beliefs said, but if you look around 90% of the threads in this section are about Christianity... cannot just 1 be set aside from the Christian belief to the Islamic? It almost sounds by the way you talk you are trying to tell them they are wrong and need to convert, but the fact is you cannot convince someone to give up the beliefs that they have grown up on just by saying your wrong over the internet.

Seravian

01-16-2006, 02:41 PM

I openly agree with Mr. Tumnus!!!

Saruman

01-16-2006, 03:01 PM

I cannot understand what your point is timmy. I mean this board, as i understand it, is supposed to be about learning about the worlds most popular religion (Islam), but everything you say is set to say that Islam and muslums are just ignorant and pointless, or atleast thats the feeling you give to me. I know you want to get your beliefs said, but if you look around 90% of the threads in this section are about Christianity... cannot just 1 be set aside from the Christian belief to the Islamic? It almost sounds by the way you talk you are trying to tell them they are wrong and need to convert, but the fact is you cannot convince someone to give up the beliefs that they have grown up on just by saying your wrong over the internet.

TimmyofOz was presently presenting some facts concerning Islam and Christianity. I don't get anywhere from his post that he is referring to Muslims as being either arrogant or ignorant, or even pointless. He has every right to say what he wills, just as much as any Muslim, or Buddhist, or Catholic, or Protestant, or Hindu, or rock-worshipper, or Indian-spiritist, or satanist, or atheist, or agnostic, or gnostic, has to say about anything on this forum. And who says that Islam, or Buddhism, or Atheism, or Hinduism, etc., cannot be wrong? They can't all be correct, that much is certain.

inkspot

01-16-2006, 05:13 PM

kirke

01-16-2006, 08:07 PM

curumo i think you are looking at the wrong post... im talking about the one where muslums are "facist killers"

Saruman

01-16-2006, 08:24 PM

curumo i think you are looking at the wrong post... im talking about the one where muslums are "facist killers"

I didn't realize that. I thought you were responding directly to his last post. Nevertheless, now that I have read his post, I think he was trying to make a point concerning those who actually live by every single word of the Quran for, as we see in Israel, the groups of Arabic peoples that call themselves Palestinians (based off an extinct group of Greek peoples called the Philistines), continuously and violently attack through homicide bombings. The men and women, boys and girls, who strap themselves with explosives and rejoice at the death of the Jews (and of others) do so because they are taught by sheikhs that it is what they are supposed to do.

Barbara Walters had an interview with different peoples of different faiths (Islam, Buddhism, Atheism, etc.). Her first interview dealt with a prison inmate, a Muslim, who shared that those young men who sacrifice themselves to kill off a Jew will be promised with "seventy-two young women, who are perpetual virgins." Author and long-time student of prophecy Hal Lindsey has gone into even greater depths and details concerning the holy jihad declared against those who refuse to accept Allah.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that all Muslims are like this (for many are moderate and do not practice many of the creeds found in the Quran), but I believe TimmyofOz has rather nailed it on the head in a way. When the so-called Christian Nazi Germany began to eliminate the Jews (part of a deeper spiritual warfare that's taking place), the Christian nations of USA and Britain fought to stop them and, by God's grace, we succeeded. And not least of all who helped Nazi Germany in the "kampf" to eliminate the Jews were the late Yasir Arafat, an Egyptian, and other Islamist leaders.

Let me reiterate to make it clear that I don't believe all Muslims are like this; sadly, however, a vast majority of them are. One need only to read the newspapers concerning the happenings in Jerusalem to know what's going on. Even better, the Word of God already spoke of this matter long ago:

Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about.... And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people; all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it (Zechariah 12:2-3).

kirke

01-16-2006, 09:15 PM

where did you hear the palastinians where from the philistines??? if thats true its kinda ironic that they are in a constant fight with Israel huh...

anyways back on subject, it isnt the majority of muslums who do that... if you read those newspapers they will do the exact things we do in america... the stories they cover are atleast 2/3 (easily more most of the time) bad things. i cannot remember the last time i have seen the front page article of my local paper be about something good that people are doing

Saruman

01-16-2006, 10:32 PM

You've misunderstood. The Palestinians call themselves Palestinians because of the name of the land when the Roman caeser took it over; he renamed it "Palestine" out of spite of the Jews. The Philistines were a seafaring folk descended from the Greeks who now no longer exist. The Arabs call themselves Palestinians. Either they are from different Arabic countries (which many of them are) or they are originally from the land of Israel, and are, in truth, Israelites (by definition of the name of the country only, not necessarily by heritage).

Perhaps the media covers a lot of bad stuff because there is seldom anything good worth reporting in the news. These days are full of sorrow.

kirke

01-16-2006, 11:25 PM

i think they cover mostly bad stuff anymore because people are more interested in terrorists killing people than say middle school kids helping senior citizens.

TimmyofOz

01-16-2006, 11:32 PM

LOL, that's right, Curumo. I think Timmy was just saying:
* Allah is not the same word as Yahweh and referring to a theory discussed in another thread that actually Allah refers to a pre-Islamic moon god which was worshipped in the form of a meteor shard that is still in existence today. I cannot find the other thread or the theory, can anyone help me out? This isn't intended to disrespect Islam, but it's a theory I have heard before about its origins. Oh, here is a link, I don't know how reliable it is:
http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-meteorite-worship.htm
* Muslims don't believe that Christ died on the cross and would not respect a God who did. This I have heard from Muslim friends.

Anyway, let's all respectful of one another; not just Christians be respectful of Muslims, which goes without saying, but Christians be respectful of other Christians, too. Thanx!

Of course inkspot, I will mind your recommendations. You know I think the world for you. :) I am not trying to be mean. The difference between Islam and other world religions (Hinduism and Budhism) to the Christian is that Mohammad inspired by the Enemy created Islam to counter the spreading of the Christian faith by taking certain biblical characters and bastardizing them into a religion that is legalistic and does nothing to save people. Those other religions being older and from another part of the world has nothing in their basic doctrine about Jesus. Islam's basic doctrine creates a different Jesus Christ and so according to the I John 2:18-23. are from the antichrist. The Islamo-fascist want to create a world caliphate from Spain to Malaysia where Christians are either killed or are second class rightless subjects. That is exactly what Hilter tried to do to the Jews. It is hard to have a dialog with people (even nice people) that accept a religion that's goal would distroy Christianity.

TimmyofOz

01-16-2006, 11:39 PM

Actally inspot that web sit you referenced is even harder on Islam than I was. :D

inkspot

01-17-2006, 12:29 AM

Actally inspot that web sit you referenced is even harder on Islam than I was. :D
Oh, sorry, I just did a google search and that's one of the first sites that came up. I don't know anything about the site, but that it mentions this moon god/meteor thing.

The problem with a discussion of Islam is that it is apparently divided into many sects which differ on the proper way to live a Koran-honoring life. The fact cannot be denied that a good many Islamic people in various nations of the world have been taught that hatred and terror are key. What is troubling is that more moderate Muslims seem to fear the reprisals of the terrorists (who can blame them?) and do not speak up much in condemnation of terrorist acts or in favor of peace. Likewise it is difficult for a moderate in an extremist land to take any action to stop the terror tactics. This is especially true in the Israel/Palestine situation where radicals rule, and non-radicals are quickly done-away with, from my understanding of the situation.

It seems to me that "radical Christianity" has at times been aggressive in much the same way, but that today if a "Christian" sect began using weapons of terror, every other Christian church would soundly condemn it and do what was possible to stop it. But perhaps I am overly optimistic.

Oh, I forgot: earlier in this Thread, Sapphire averred that Muslim women do not have to cover up -- that it is a choice for them whether to wear the complete covering. But I do not think in many nations, and in certain communities within other nations, that there is any choice. At least, this is my understanding from reading the news and other sources.

TimmyofOz

01-17-2006, 12:55 AM

inkspot

It seems to me that "radical Christianity" has at times been aggressive in much the same way, but that today if a "Christian" sect began using weapons of terror, every other Christian church would soundly condemn it and do what was possible to stop it. But perhaps I am overly optimistic.
I agree inky, I was once involved with radical pro-life groups, but as they started to talk about a time when it might be ok to go beyond peaceful protests and personally protesting specfic abortionist, I dropped out of the movement. I knew that violence would be just around the corner. I am still pro-life just not as active. I'm glad I didn't get your wrath against me earlier. :D

Saruman

01-17-2006, 01:09 AM

It seems to me that "radical Christianity" has at times been aggressive in much the same way, but that today if a "Christian" sect began using weapons of terror, every other Christian church would soundly condemn it and do what was possible to stop it. But perhaps I am overly optimistic.

Oh, I forgot: earlier in this Thread, Sapphire averred that Muslim women do not have to cover up -- that it is a choice for them whether to wear the complete covering. But I do not think in many nations, and in certain communities within other nations, that there is any choice. At least, this is my understanding from reading the news and other sources.

If they truly follow the teachings of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, then they would sharply condemn any such terrorism. No man, I believe, can be called a born-again Christian if he chooses to engage in any form of terrorism/violence, and those like Timmy has mentioned certainly need to do some praying and rethinking about their decisions in life. They are not being a witness of Christ in any way.

As for Muslim women wearing berkas, they are required to do so in most Muslim countries, from head to foot, with only their eyes showing. It is part of their religious culture, unless I am mistaken.

SapphireOfSeptember

01-17-2006, 09:12 PM

You might want to check out this islamic sight. very interesting...
http://www.harunyahya.com/

TimmyofOz

01-18-2006, 12:00 AM

Well, that web sit sure set me straight about Jesus not being the Son of God. :p, I'm sorry I won't be mean. But don't tell us to read a web site or as they use to do shove a phamplet in my hand and ask for money. This is a
dialog. Why would Islam make me a better person, when I already have a personal relationship with God. My sin have been forgiven and I am going to be with Jesus forever. Are you going to tell me my Bible is corrupted and I don't have a relationship with God? If all I know about the bible is wrong, why should I listen to Mohammad views about God or Jesus. Did Mahammad preform miricles as great as Jesus. Did he fulfill biblical prophecy? Of course the bible is too corrupt to know.

SapphireOfSeptember

01-18-2006, 08:47 AM

:( Why are you taking this so offensivly? I never even mentioned that the bible was corrupted! Even check so for your self, did I even mention corruption? We believe that most of the things mentioned in the bible are correct. We do believe in the Messiah, as you have probably seen on the site.
I am not trying to force you over to Islam, it is not right to force someone out of a religion the are comfortable with, but all I was trying to do was give an idea of what Islam is all about.

TimmyofOz

01-18-2006, 10:13 AM

inkspot

01-18-2006, 10:44 AM

The website Sapphire linked to had clear topics on "Islam is against terrorism," and "Pacifism of Islam" and what have you, so i don't think Sapphire and her family are representatives of the radicals you fear, Timmy. That's why it is difficult to have a discussion of Islam: there are too many different sects that each believe the Koran says something different. Some radicals believe death in suicide bombing of infidels is their key to paradise, whereas some moderates believe that Islam is a religion of peace. To keep returning to the idea of terrorism in a discussion with Sapphire would be the same as to keep returning to the Crusades in a discussion of Christianity. While I, too, believe Jesus is the Son of God and the only way to salvation, I don't want Sapphire to think she is disrespected or unwanted here, because that's not true. I don't think Sapphire denies the existence of radical Islamic terrorism, but I think she has made it clear, she is not part of it.

waterhogboy

01-18-2006, 11:03 AM

kirke

01-18-2006, 04:12 PM

I'm sorry, I know your just a 14 year old girl and Islam is the religion of your parents, but people are blowing themselves up daily in the name of Islam and Allah. My God would never ask me to strap on a bomb so I could blow people up. I will try not to be so offensive and just pray for you that you can come to know Jesus and find a way out of Islam without your family coming after you.
timmy you SERIOUSLY need to stop that crap... just because some radicals say they belong to a certain religion doesnt mean its true... look at the people who hold up signs that say stuff like "God hates Qu**rs" or David Kuresh and the people who said they were christian and drank cyanide punch to kill themselves in god's name

just because some people say they are islamic (or in as ur saying the suicide bombers, who are insugenents (sp) but they dont say they are islamic) does not mean that that is what they really are. Alqueda is not muslum, these suicide bombers are not muslum... if you search the koran it says that if you kill one innocent person then you might as well have killed all humanity (and dont try to say that it means your not innocent if your not islamic cause it doesnt)

kirke

01-18-2006, 04:17 PM

True - if I was undecided unbeliever viewing this conversation right now, I'd probably be siding with Sapphire because shes stating her view in a far more mature, peaceful and polite manner, despite her age...

odd you say that because i am a christian and with the way this conversation keeps going i am siding up with sapphire

SapphireOfSeptember

01-18-2006, 04:51 PM

inkspot

01-18-2006, 04:58 PM

SapphireOfSeptember

01-18-2006, 05:13 PM

There, that should make Timmy feel better. Now, Sapphire, I understand you are a teenager, so I admire you for opening this thread and seeking to educate people about Islam. In Christianity, we feel we are "saved" when we believe on Jesus as Messiah or Savior. That means, His sacrifice cancels our sins, and we are allowed to be with Him in heaven when we die.

What does Islam teach is required for a person to be saved, or guaranteed that they will go to heaven after this life? Is "sin" a concept in Islam, and must a person somehow deal with their sin problem in order to get to heaven?

In Islam, every human makes sins, it's in our nature. The way we are guaranteed heaven is if we follow the ways of Muhammad(Peace be upon Him), and the words of the Qur'an, And a true, and sincere belief in Him, (no doubting that there even is a god). God set us a way of life for which he told us to live upon. When one makes a sin, or wants to get rid of a sin, they seek forgiveness from God, which God gives forgiveness of sins by us praying to Him, making Du'aa(This is a way when we raise our palms up to chest level(as if we are catching something) and say to God to forgive our sins, or any needs we might be in need of). Also, by doing a good deed with your intention to God, God will erase a sin you might have. The Prophet once mentioned that even if a person had sins as much as the sea, God will forgive them if the seek forgiveness from Him.

Seravian

01-18-2006, 05:15 PM

inkspot

01-18-2006, 05:28 PM

Gibby

01-18-2006, 06:29 PM

Please, let us not confuse the meanings of being "radical" (the one who tries to act in consequence with his convictions) with "fundamentalist" (the ones who act fanatically and break the law of love with self-explñoding bombs, phrases like "God hates fags" and etc. :( )

Saphire: Thank you for giving us the chance to get to know your religion according to your own experience. ;)

Isn't a "fundamentalist" someone who adheres to the "fundamentals" of a religion? I would consider myself a fundamentalist bible-believing Christian and I certainly don't fall into your described definition of a "fundamentalist" I think this word has been abused and the meaning twisted.

purplemonkeyhunter

01-18-2006, 09:02 PM

Isn't a "fundamentalist" someone who adheres to the "fundamentals" of a religion? I would consider myself a fundamentalist bible-believing Christian and I certainly don't fall into your described definition of a "fundamentalist" I think this word has been abused and the meaning twisted.
I think the word fundamentalist now has the connotation of the people who blow up themselves, bomb abortion clinics, make claims that God hates gay people etc. It perhaps dosen't mean that, when I looked it up, the word meant pretty much what you said, but I think now that is just what people think of when they hear fundamentalist.

Something that gets me angry is people assume since a few people act a certian way, all people of their race/religion or w/e group they are in are like that. I've heard someone say that they believed that at least twenty percent of Islamic people were "terrorists". I don't know any people of that religion persannaly, however I have met a few online through message boards and things like that, and not one was a "terrorist" or hated America. All were american citizens. Some people will believe anything they hear, any propaganda, and it frankly scares me how ignorant of the world people can be. How much I don't know. Stereotypes put on people.

I'm going to stop my rant before it's started and I say something stupid lol.

Green Knight

01-18-2006, 09:37 PM

TimmyofOz

01-19-2006, 02:51 AM

If it hadn't been for the followers of Islam, we wouldn't know about the writings of most of the ancient philosophers. Plato, Aristotole, Socrates, and may others would have disappeared into the mists of history beause of the actions of many Medieval Christians who thought that anything not written by Christians was the work of the Devil, and therefore, not worth knowing.
Well that is not quite true. The writings of Plato, and Aristotole were not taught much in the West (Roman Catholic Europe) during the Middle ages. But they were popular in the Eastern Orthodox Europe. When Constantinople fell to the Islam invaders many of these writings were brought to the West with the refugees. And these writings started to have an effect on the Roman Catholic teachings if you read Thomas Aquinas. Granted Aquinas lived before the fall of Constantinople, the movement of the Crusaders also brought Eastern and Western Church teachings together. Islam scholars also kept these writings but because they were well know in Turkey, not because Mohammed was a geat reader Plato. There is a clear correlation between the Fall of Constantinople and the start of the Renaissance in Italy in the 15th Century.

I am sorry everyone is mad at me. But I do believe the world would be better if Muslims became Christians.

Seravian

01-19-2006, 10:33 AM

the actions of many Medieval Christians who thought that anything not written by Christians was the work of the Devil, and therefore, not worth knowing.

That would be something that I'd call fundamentalist. I think this meaning of the word was already long ago very much used in Theology. But there I really am not an expert, perhaps PrinceoftheWest could help?

I was always told, as well, that Religious Fundamentalism means that the interpretation of the Sacred Texts is done straight away without thoughtfully reflecting. It often ignores Theology and sciences that involve rational processes. But the people employing such exegesis call themselves "true to the Bible" just because they do what the Bible textually means. (for instance, they wouldn't eat meat at saturday because it's meant so in the Leviticus).
This is what I consider is seriously wrong, because it's damaging the Gospel by proclaiming a meaning of the Word of God, without any solid argument supporting it! And in consequence, you have people that blow up themselves, that bomb abortion clinics, etc. just because they think they act according to the fundamentals of their Bible, or Quoran, etc.

And we christians...we do not behave necessarly better than the Muslims...that's why I disagree with you, Timmy. The world wouldn't be necessary better. The world would be better if we would really act lovingly i.e. more consequent with the Gospel!

And I daresay something to all Christians, though I will sound fanatic: It is because of not humble attitudes of many fundamentalists that we Christians are loosing mercy in our hearts: we become harder and support the segregation of denominations of people that believe in the same Lord and the One Law of Love.

With such a segregation, fundamentalists become fierce and lack mercy. This
feeds the atheists up and as a consequence, they really don't want to hear the word Christian nor religion nor spirituality and etc. again, for it brings so
many fights and hatred. That's what I think makes Aslan very, very sad. So
many people that get away from Him just because of the fights among us his
followers. And this wouldn't concern the Muslims! It's just because of uis christians!

Ecumenism and above all, Prayer, is what will brings us to One Body in Christ!

inkspot

01-19-2006, 11:37 AM

As this is the Islam Thread, I think maybe we are getting far afield from our topic to discuss Christian fundamentalism -- we could open a separate thread on that, but I am afraid it is bound to be divisive. Sapphire, if you are still with us, did you have an answer for my previous question:
Christ's becoming a man and gving Himself for us also allowed us, when we believe in Him, to come into relationship with Him, and for Him to place His Spirit in us. In this way, we feel like Christ is within us, helping us every day to sin less and less. Is there a concept like this in Islam? Is there a part of Allah that resides in you when you become Muslim?
And something else I thought I should mention: you say that forgivess comes through keeping the rules of Islam and doing good deeds. This contrasts with Christianity, where forgiveness comes through asking and receiving it from Christ. Keeping the rules and doing good deeds may follow as Christ gives you strength, but they are not the "stuff" of salvation, in our faith.

Seravian

01-19-2006, 01:01 PM

Inkspot, you are right, what I wrote was more like an exabrupt instead of something cooly reflected. I just wanted to openly notice that what happens with Islam -that many Muslims are fundamentalists and other not- happens very regrettably with us Christians as well!

Other than that, I am lookign for Sapphire's answer on Inkspot question too.

SapphireOfSeptember

01-19-2006, 01:38 PM

Good, Sapphire, some of what you say is similar to what we believe as Christians. We base the forgiveness on belief in Christ and His sacrifice of atonement, but we likewise believe that no matter how terrible your sins or how many you have, God can forgive you. It's a very comforting thing. Of course to us, the sacrifice of Christ is absolutely necessary for forgiveness - the Bible says "no sins can be forgiven unless blood is offered" (Hebrews 9:22). For some reason, the sacrifice of Christ was necessary, by our Scriptures.

But Christ's becoming a man and gving Himself for us also allowed us, when we believe in Him, to come into relationship with Him, and for Him to place His Spirit in us. In this way, we feel like Christ is within us, helping us every day to sin less and less. Is there a concept like this in Islam? Is there a part of Allah that resides in you when you become Muslim?

I am so sorry I have not answered your question right away, but I had to get off of Narniafans because I have midterm exams coming up next week and I had to study and do schoolwork.

Regarding this topic about a part of Allah that resides in us, we believe it not nessicarily that way. Muhammad told us that God is closer to us then ourselves. He knows what you know and don't know about yourself, and gives us his blessings and protection from him if we are sincere believers. I don't exactly understand what your trying to say when you said,
" But Christ's becoming a man and gving Himself for us also allowed us, when we believe in Him, to come into relationship with Him, and for Him to place His Spirit in us. In this way, we feel like Christ is within us, helping us every day to sin less and less."
A muslim can develope a relationship with God if he is sincere. God's blessing's and love for us show us how much he cares about us. In Islam, Allah does not take the blame of a man's sins when He showed man the right path and sent messengers to warn them of the punishment of the hellfire if we don't ask Allah for forgiveness.
I think I am understanding what you mean by Jesus's (Pbuh) spirit in christians and how if a person truely believes in him, then jesus will help clear those sins away. I hope that is right. (?)
I also want to say that some people in this sight seem to claim that if leaving Islam to follow christianity, the world would be a better place. if timmyofoz is saying this, he then must mean all the other religions in the world because Christians dont commit anything against others...? Well, I opened this thread to discuss the similarities between islam and chrisitianity. not to provoke the other religions mistakes. I dont mention against christians so please do not provoke me with negative remarks..Thank you.

inkspot

01-19-2006, 01:55 PM

Thanks, Sapphire. Listen, just come on narniafans when you have time, and don't feel pressured at all. You and all the students here should put your studies first.

I am not a theologian, so I cannot explain exactly how this happens, but because we believe our God is Three People in One: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit part can reside inside us. Then, the more we trust in God, the more the Holy Spirit guides our actions, so that we do more and more good things and less and less bad things.

I sense that maybe there is no correlation to this in Islam? You are in a relationship with Allah, so your closeness to Him guides you to behave better, or to desire to behave better, is that it?

As for clearing the sins away: we believe all sins were forgiven because of Jesus' sacrifice. That means sins I did in the past, and sins I may do in the future. We believe this forgiveness is universal, and those Christ calls will accept it and begin to live for Him and allow His Spirit to work through them. Others who do not accept this gift of forgiveness are what we would call "lost" or still bearing the burden of their sins and at risk of hell in the future (a similar concept to what you describe in Islam).

I think Seravian had the better point about what would make the world a better place: if all people would act as loving and compassionately as Jesus acted. There are a lot of people who believe in the common doctrines of the Christian church who do not act as Jesus acted. There are a lot of people of all faiths and no faith who do not act with love and compassion, and the world would be a better place if they all did. It would be a better place if I did!

SK999111

01-19-2006, 03:18 PM

kirke

01-19-2006, 05:15 PM

I don't exactly understand what your trying to say when you said....

i think the reason you didnt understand the feeling of bonding we have with Christ by him becomming a man is because as far as i know muslums do not consider mohommad (srry for sp. if wrong) to be god, but just the proffit of god. Christian's believe that Jesus is God as the "son" part of the trinity (3 in 1 god). I may be wrong though.

SapphireOfSeptember

01-19-2006, 08:44 PM

Hello
I have been wondering for a while which oarent in islam do you get the religion from?
In Judaism, you are Jewish if your mother, is regardless of your fathers faith. Is this the same in Islam?

Thank you

Actually, that is a very good question. In Islam, A man can marry a women from the people of the book (Judaism, Christianitiy, Islam). But the children's religion would be their fathers religion, unless the non-muslim mother divorced the father and raised the children according to her own faith.
But most non-muslim women who marry muslim men usually convert to Islam.

waterhogboy

01-20-2006, 10:44 AM

SapphireOfSeptember

01-20-2006, 01:47 PM

Hey Saph!

One thing I've always wondered is the how Muslims regard Jesus. I know he is held as a prophet, the prophet Isa, but does he appear at all in the Qu'ran and if he does what does it say about him?

As muslims, we regard Jesus as one of the 5 greatest prophets. We do believe in the messiah, in which Jesus (pbuh) will return to unite the muslims and christians together to fight off the 'Dajjal' (the one who claims he is god, and starts violence in the world. the prophet muhammad once said that the dajjal will have powers other men do not posess (the worst of evil))
Jesus will save us from the Dajjal and during his return, it would be a peaceful time after the dajjal.
In the Qur'an, Jesus is mentioned many, many times. There is a chapter in the Qur-an about Mary, mother of Jesus (peace be upon her) and her story.
I can give you some translations soon. you might want to check out this site that contains useful information about the Qur'an and the prophets. Its a really interesting site. i hope you'll find it useful for any information you might be finding about islam.
http://www.jesuswillreturn.com/
an islamic site about Jesus (pbuh)
also another
http://www.harunyahya.com

samven582

01-23-2006, 10:34 PM

OK, let's talk about the teachings of Islam. Let's start with Allah. Allah is not the Arab word for the Jewish-Christian God "YHWH". Allah is an ancient Arab moon god that Muhammad claimed did all the acts that God did. Allah didn't do any of the divine acts in the Bible any more than did the golden calf.
Islam claims that the Bible is corrupted, while the Koran is perfect.
Islam teaches that Jesus Christ was neither crucified nor resurrected; therefore, it is impossiple that salvation can be had through faith in Christ.

but don't take my word for it.....look what the arab christians themselves say

this one is written by a Lebanses christian preacher who live in the US...i emailed him abt 2 years ago and he emailed me back and asked me to watch him in Al Jazeera and i did....he is a nice guy

Allah-God-Yahweh Is Allah the name of the true God? By William Qarraa

I received some time ago several letters asking about the name of God. "Is Allah the name of God or the name of a god/demon?" Several people thought that the name of Allah, linked to Islam, is the God of Islam or the bad god.

My answer was:

1- The Name of Allah is the name of the true God:

a- The Moslems worship the true God who has been the God of the Ancient and New Testament. They confess that "in order to be a good Moslem, you have to be a good Jew and a good Christian", a statement of confessing to the truth of the other two religions. b- The name of Allah was taking by the Moslems from the Christians who existed five centuries before the arrival of Islam. Arabs were mentioned in the book of Acts at the time of the Pentecost.

c- The existence of bad elements in any country or religion does not make that religion bad and hence does not make all moslems bad or all jews or chritians bad. People become bad when they do not follow the teaching of their religion.

d- Beauty and Truth is One. All religions reflect the beauty of God in a certain way and so does the Islam.

e- Moslems teach us that there are 99 names for Allah and that the 100th name is hidden. These names are adjectives of God and do not tell us the true entity of God.The 100th name may be the one that really is the name of God.

2- The Name of Allah is the same as the name of Elohim:

a- In the Semetic languages Vowels do not count. Consonants form the words. These consonants are not written because they are not important and they do make the word sick and ill. So if we look at the name of Allah and the name of Elohim we will find the following:
Allah = L + H, Elohim = L+H+M (we will ignore the M and come back to it later).
b- In the Semetic languages, word roots are formed of three letters. It was found later on that these three letters were formed of two two-letter verbs. A complete study was made by several scholars among which is Fr. Marmarji S.J. in Lebanon.

c- L+H= LH (pronounced 'lahh') means "to him". God, Allah or Yahweh is not the name of God, Allah and Yahweh. God is not the name. He exists and no one knows his name. If we know His name then we will possess Him and understand Him, then He is not God the Omnopotents the Existant etc.. d- So instead we say "to Him" be the glory. "To Him" be the praise Look at the book of Revelation 5:13: Blessing and honor and glory and power be unto Him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever. It is safe to say that instead of saying God you can say "To Him"

e- Till our present day, Christians and Moslems replace the name of God with "Taala" (pronounced 'Tah-ah-lah') the excelsior, the most high.

3- Moses and the Name of Yahweh

a- Moses did not know the name of God even several hundred years after Abraham who is supposed to have known God and became the friend of God. Moses is from the descendents of Abraham, he is the leader and yet he did not know Him. The story is known where Moses says what is your name so I may tell them. God said "Yehyeh Asher Yehyeh" that means be who it be. He may have said I be who I am, or it is not your business to know my name. God definitely did not reveal his name to Moses. Moses used the verb to be in order to denote God, hence the word "existent" came to play a role. You have to know that the word of God when uttered does not go out in vain, it has to produce something. The "existent" has a triple chronological dimention in the semetic language. It means he who was, he who is and he who will be.Revelation again mentions these three dimentions. b- The name got deformed adonai

4-Is it possible to know the name of God?

Knowing a name or naming something means you are in command. Adam names of all the animals (Gen 2:19) because God gave him power over all of them (Gen. 1:26). The father always gives the name to his sons indicating the power over children. God changes the names of Abraham and Sarah. He tells him to call his son Isaac.

Remember also: "You are my son, today I have called you.". When the name of the Lord is called. You are calling the person of the Lord.

That's why it is impossible for man to grasp God and understand Him. He is out of our reach. Knowing His real name is grasping Him.

On the other hand, we use the names God, Theos, Allah, Elohim to denote an entity that is ' "To Him" be the glory'. A name is not enough to denote His power and glory etc..

5- Elohim

Elohim is the Hebrew name for Allah with the exception that it has an "M" at the end. "M" indicates the plural. And plural could indicate one of the following: a- plural of respect. Addressing a person with plural denotes respect. A king, a prince, a president are all addressed in president. You find that in Arabic, French, Italian etc.. (It is self explanatory).

b- plural of plurality of Gods despite the belief in one God, the people of Israel continued to worship several gods. They worshiped the golden calf (Exodus 32:4), the Baal and Ashtaroth (Judges 2:13) others "the foolish" said there is no God. That's why they were worshiping the gods, the "elohim" not the "eloh". It is amazing how the sons of Abraham who is the worshiper of the One God have stayed polytheist for a long time.

Finally, the name of the one and only God, became the name of the plural of gods. Theologically now: "Elohim" is the name of the Only and One God.

c- Plurality of the persons (out of revelation) The Lord appeared in the form of three men and Abram addressed them as a singular.(Gen 18). We know now that God is one in three persons through the revelation of Jesus Christ the Son of God. Since the Bible is a revelation, then we have the knowledge of the person of God even through the layers of the Old Testament.

Conclusion

Our conflict on what God, Allah, Yahweh should be called in a futile conflict that revolves around something superficial that would never define the name of God which is the nature of God. No language can say that they have the true name of the Entity that created the world. All what we can do is say "To Him" be the glory. Amen

More on this issue please, click here

http://www.albushra.org/varia/allah.htm

TimmyofOz

01-24-2006, 07:31 AM

I want to respond but I promised myself I would stay off this thread. Help me PK or PotW.

purplemonkeyhunter

01-24-2006, 06:42 PM

I have a question, what are Islamic beliefs on hell?

jonathanruiz209

01-25-2006, 07:02 PM

GO HERE::

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0042/0042_01.asp

Spare Oom

01-25-2006, 08:18 PM

Sorry, but that cartoon about Allah being a moon-god (jonathanruiz209's link) is just plain wrong. "Allah" is made up of two words in Arabic - "Al" meaning "the," plus "lah" or "llah" meaning "god." It's perfectly possible that the word "allah" has been used back in history for a pagan god, just as we who speak English use the word "god" to refer to pagan beings like Jove or Bacchus. However, Allah is used nowadays to refer to God Almighty, just like the English word God. Allah is not a "proper name" for God, but simply the Arabic word for God. It is used by Christian Arabs, as well as Muslim ones, to refer to God.

If people really think that the Qur'an asks Muslims to worship the moon, they should read it and see. What they will find is that it speaks throughout of worshipping only Almighty God. Surah 6, verses 73 - 79, show Abraham rejecting worship of the stars, the moon, the sun and idols, and preaching worship of the One God.

Samven 582 posted a very detailed account of the word "Allah" just a couple of posts ago on this very thread!

Parthian King

01-25-2006, 08:20 PM

Timmy, I'd love to help, but I'm on the road and can nly throw in the occasional comment.

I would simply say, a la Lewis, that to call Jesus great prophet is not an option given to us. Those who walked with him considered him God and recorded his words as making this claim. A great prophet cannot get the idenity of God wrong not to mention saying he's Him! So Jesus was liar, lunatic, or Lord. No other option presented itself. Christian writings were laid by those who folowed Christ personally down a matter of decades after his days on earth. It is a very trustworthy record.

Mar

01-25-2006, 08:37 PM

i would be curious what islams think that aslan represents.

i mean lewis had in mind aslan as jesus..but what does the movie mean to you?

Spare Oom

01-25-2006, 08:49 PM

Mar, I know that C. S. Lewis was a Christian so I see Aslan as his representation of Jesus, from his viewpoint as a Christian. I'm more familiar with the books than the film version, though I did go and see the film and I appreciated the fact that it was true to the spirit of the book.

samven582

01-25-2006, 09:36 PM

GO HERE::

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0042/0042_01.asp

I had a feeeling sombody would eventually post this :rolleyes:

Mar

01-25-2006, 09:48 PM

Spare Oom

01-26-2006, 07:09 AM

Mar, the Chronicles of Narnia still contain much for me as a Muslim. To begin with, they are a great fantasy story, rousing and magical, with interesting characters, imaginative events and good overcoming evil. I love the idea of discovering a strange land through a wardrobe or whatever, and I used to dream of finding one as a child. The stories have a poetry and beauty about them which move me - I shiver at Charn, feel a delicious sadness creep over me when Peter and the others rediscover Cair Paravel, and delight in the voyage to the utter east. Many of the religious themes in the Chronicles of Narnia apply as much to Muslims as to Christians - for example the children being called "Sons of Adam" and "Daughters of Eve," the tree of forbidden fruit, Satan as a tempter, life being a spiritual journey, Creation and the Day of Judgement, etc. Even though Aslan does not equate in every respect to the Muslim view of Jesus, I can still appreciate Aslan's role in Narnia as that of spiritual guide and saviour. Hope that answers your question :) .

Further to what I said yesterday about jonathanruiz209's "allah the moon-god" link, the following verse from the Qur'an (Surah 41, verse 37) states clearly that Muslims must worship only God - not the sun or moon:

"And of His signs are the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. Prostrate not to the sun and the moon, but prostrate yourselves to God, who created them, if it is He you worship."

TimmyofOz

01-27-2006, 02:50 AM

Ok I promise to be nice.
My understanding of what Spare Oom is saying is that even if Allah may have been a moon god in pre-Islam Arabia, that is the name of the one god they worship now and that god is the same God that was in the Bible.

First, Islam says the Bible has been corrupted, and so you reject any teaching in it that contradict the Koran. That says your god is the god of the Koran, not the God of the Bible.
Second, your god isn't the God of Christainity, because our God is Trinitartian.
Third, if your god is the one true god and not just an Arabian god, why must I know Arabic to worship him.
Last, this word study of yours on Allah and Elohim, means nothing. Elohim is generally seen as the Hebrew word for the english word "god". Just as "theo" is the greek word for god, and "allah" is the arabic word for god. JHWH is the Hebrew Name of God. Just as Zues is the name of the Greek god, and (Father, Son-Jesus Christ, and Holy Spirit) is the name of the Christian god. If I were to talk about god to an Arab in Arabic I might say the word "allah" for god, but would call Him (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) to tell the arab person who allah was. So my God is not the Allah of Islam.

So what does this all mean. I means that the True God is either Allah, the Trinitarian God of Christainity, or some other god. They can't all be God. I know what your thinking, that then Christains reject YHWH. No We believe the Old Testament is inerrant also and that the New Testamant only fulfills the what the Old said who would be the Savior. So as I said before in an earlier post, Islam is only giving Allah credit for what the True God did in the Bible.

Spare Oom

01-27-2006, 07:34 AM

[TimmyofOz:] "First, Islam says the Bible has been corrupted, and so you reject any teaching in it that contradict the Koran. That says your god is the god of the Koran, not the God of the Bible."

[TimmyofOz:] "If I were to talk about god to an Arab in Arabic I might say the word "allah" for god, but would call Him (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) to tell the arab person who allah was. So my God is not the Allah of Islam."

Since I'm a Muslim and you're a Christian, we obviously see things differently. The Qur'an tells me that the One God I worship is the God of Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, Mary, Jesus and other people familiar to Christians from the Bible. That is what I believe.

In the Qur'an, Jews and Christians are referred to as "people of earlier scripture" or "people of the Book" and we are told: "Surely, those who believe in God and follow the Qur'an (Muslims) and those who were guided from among the Jews, and those who followed Jesus' true message from among the Christians, and those who were Sabians (monotheists), whoever believes in God and the Last Day and performs deeds of righteousness, they shall have their reward with their Lord, no fear shall be on them, nor shall they grieve." (Surah 2, verse 62).

[TimmyofOz:] "Second, your god isn't the God of Christainity, because our God is Trinitartian."

God in one person or God in three persons?
For me, the truth of the Oneness of God is something that touches my heart - I feel it with every fibre of my being.

The Qur'an says:

"So believe in God and His Messengers, and do not say: 'Trinity', desist! it is better for you, most surely God is One God, Glory be to Him! High exalted is He above having a son. What is in the heavens and on the earth belongs to God. And God suffices for a trustee."

Personally I felt this Oneness of God even when I was a Christian, and never did accept the idea of a God "in three persons." Jesus in the four Gospels emphasized One God - not Three in One. Jehovah's Witnesses also reject the idea of a Trinity, though their religion is Bible-based.

[TimmyofOz:] "Third, if your god is the one true god and not just an Arabian god, why must I know Arabic to worship him."

You don't have to, or not much anyway. I worship God and I know very little Arabic. Regarding the term "Allah," English-speaking Muslims use "Allah" and "God" interchangeably. Prayers are offered in Arabic because saying the same words unites Muslims across space and time and, once you know the prayers in Arabic, you can step into a mosque anywhere around the world and join in the prayers. Therefore, I have learnt enough Arabic to understand the prayers. However, I haven't read anything that says I can't offer the prayers in English if I wish. Outside the five obligatory prayers, which follow a set format, I often pray to God in English.

You may hear of some people adopting an Arabic name on converting to Islam. That is not obligatory. Some of those who embraced Islam at the time of Mohammed did not have Arabic names and they did not change their names. I didn't change my name, which is of Hebrew origin. After all, I became a Muslim, not an Arab :) !

You may also hear Muslims using the occasional Arabic phrase even when they're speaking in another language, eg. "insha'Allah" (God willing) or "Al-hamdulillah!" (Praise be to God!) Using these phrases unites Muslims across the globe but it's perfectly permissible to say them in English or any other language.

[TimmyofOz:] "JHWH is the Hebrew Name of God. Just as Zues is the name of the Greek god, and (Father, Son-Jesus Christ, and Holy Spirit) is the name of the Christian god."

I believe there's some debate about what exactly YHWH means, but that it's something along the lines of "I am who I am" or "He is who He is." This emphasizes God as an eternal being, so Muslims would have no problem with anyone referring to God as YHWH.

Saruman

01-28-2006, 05:54 PM

Much of what Parthian King has had to say is rather right on the money as far as Jesus' identity is concerned. When Jesus boldly declares that "I and My Father are One" (John 10:30), He indeed leaves no room to interpret that He is a mere prophet; and do not forget what God the Father had to say concerning Jesus:

Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened, and the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon Him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, You are My beloved Son; in You am I well pleased (Luke 3:21-22)

and

While he [Simon Peter] yet spoke, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye Him (Mt. 17:5)

The reason behind a Holy Trinity? God's Word declares this better than I could ever:

Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way? Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou [then], Shew us the Father? (John 14:5-9).

If Jesus Himself tells us that He is the Father (God), then two conclusions are to be drawn from this:

1) Jesus Christ is not a prophet.
2) Jesus Christ is God the Father in the form of a Man, being fully God and fully Man, being the Second Person of the Holy Trinity (God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit). This concept is quite clearly portrayed and given to us in the Bible, in the Old Testament and in the New.

For the God of the Bible (whom the Muslims claim to be the same "Allah" of Islam) to declare that Jesus is "His Son" in whom "He is well pleased" and also commands that we listen to Him, there then comes into the light a clear separation between Christianity and Islam, and (unfortunately) between Christianity and Judaism as well.

As far as Timmy's point made concerning the Name of the One God, he too is right on the money. The consonants YHVH (often thought to be Yahweh, Jehovah, or Yahushua or Yahoshua), means "The Becoming One." In essence, God becomes to us what we need (and please don't misinterpret that to mean He is a magical genie that is at our disposal, to answer and respond to our every call). God is Love, God is Mercy, God is Truth, God is Good, God is Just, God is Righteous, God is Holy, God is Grace, God is Forgiveness. He is all of these things, and He becomes to us these things. He is our Salvation, He is our Banner, etc (Jehovah-rafa, Jehovah-tsidkenu, Jehovah-shama, Jehovah-nissi, etc.) Sadly, the Jews refused the command of God when He commanded that His name be declared among the nations. Instead they left us with "YHVH," and the correct spelling and pronunciation of God's name is not now known to us fully, but the meaning of His name remains.

Allah is, indeed, the ancient "moon-god," whose symbol is the crescent moon. He is a separate entity from the God of the Bible. He certainly makes no claim concerning having a "son," but God the Father declares of Jesus that "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." And the statements found in the four Gospels of the New Testament were chronicled by the same disciples who were with Jesus step-by-step, what Parthian King calls "a very trustworthy record." Couldn't have articulated it better myself.

I have a question for my Muslim friends on this forum: why is it that we Christians and the Jews are called "people of the Book," when there are pronounced upon us many condemnations? Why are the Palestinians who dwell in the ancient land of Israel so vehement and so dedicated in their determination to exterminate every last Jew on this earth? If Islam is purported to mean "peace," why then is there such a conquest to exterminate and to destroy?

"Surely, those who believe in God and follow the Qur'an (Muslims) and those who were guided from among the Jews, and those who followed Jesus' true message from among the Christians, and those who were Sabians (monotheists), whoever believes in God and the Last Day and performs deeds of righteousness, they shall have their reward with their Lord, no fear shall be on them, nor shall they grieve." (Surah 2, verse 62). (emphasis added)

A question here about Jesus' "true" message. What message, other than what He preached while here on this earth, would declare that He is only a prophet and not God?

Islam has me bewildered entirely.

TimmyofOz

01-29-2006, 10:26 AM

.
2) Jesus Christ is God the Father in the form of a Man, being fully God and fully Man, being the Second Person of the Holy Trinity (God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit). This concept is quite clearly portrayed and given to us in the Bible, in the Old Testament and in the New.

I think you mean Jesus Christ is God the Son. :)

Christine Marie

01-29-2006, 11:41 AM

I learned about Islam in World History class in grade 12 and two things struck me as very odd about the faith:

1) The belief that Jesus was a prophet but not the Son of God. If they believe he is a prophet then do they believe he was lying about him claiming to be the messiah? If so, why do they consider him a prophet instead of a heretic?

2) Muhammad's life seems to be an odd choice for someone chosen as the main prophet. He married 11 times and had four wives at a time, including one who was only six years old! :eek:
It's as if he's trying to show that God made women for the purpose of serving men and only serving men, and that really bugs me! Women are to respect their husband and men are to respect their wife, no plural!
And I won't even get into forcing children into marriages :mad:

Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of good Muslim people out there but I just can't believe in it ; )

Christine Marie

01-29-2006, 12:14 PM

Terrorism is a crime against humanity. It is a brutal attack on innocent people. Islam is a religion that means "peace". In the Koran, the Holy Book of Islam, God commands believers to bring peace and security to the world. Terrorism and all other mischief on Earth are the very acts that Muslims are commanded by God to stand against. The Islamic morality is the cure for terrorism, not the source of it. Those who resort to or support terrorism in the name of Islam are in a great error. They are committing a crime which God has cursed in the Koran. All true Muslims denounce terrorism of any kind, and share the sorrows of its victims.
Exactly!
I'm not a Muslim but it's quite obvious that true Muslims do not condone suicide or murdering, especially in the name of God!
Some Muslims and my fellow Christians misconstrue parts of their Holy Books to carry out deeds of hate and it is very wrong

The situation with the suicide bombers seems more of a need for power and pride (both sins) rather then a matter of faith

inkspot

01-29-2006, 01:18 PM

Welcome to the discussion, Christine Marie.

Couple things to think about: Old Testament men often had several wives. It's a bad system, but God's people followed it before Christ, I don't know why or how it changed. Anyone have an idea?

Also, in the Quran as I understand it, Jesus does not claim to be God, in fact he makes clear that he isn't God. Muslims believe the Quran, and they believe Christian Scriptures have got it wrong.

As for Mohammed being a poor choice for prophet: we're all sinners, and God can use anybody who surrenders to Him. (I'm not Muslim, but in Christianity this is true: it doesn't matter what kind of a mess you have been before you come to Christ, He can use you, even if you are the unlikely choice.)

Christine Marie

01-29-2006, 02:52 PM

Also, in the Quran as I understand it, Jesus does not claim to be God, in fact he makes clear that he isn't God. Muslims believe the Quran, and they believe Christian Scriptures have got it wrong.

But that confuses me. Did they write Jesus to be a completely different person since he was very upfront about being the Son of God and so were his followers so I don't quite understand how the Islam interpretation of Jesus began?
As for Mohammed being a poor choice for prophet: we're all sinners, and God can use anybody who surrenders to Him. (I'm not Muslim, but in Christianity this is true: it doesn't matter what kind of a mess you have been before you come to Christ, He can use you, even if you are the unlikely choice.)
I understand what you're saying; I just find it strange that a prophet felt the need to have 11 wives and at least one who is only a child. Polygamy is about using women for self-gratification and I just don't like it; it removes the sanctity and respect of marriage

inkspot

01-29-2006, 04:50 PM

Agreed, polygamy is a bad thing ... I just think in the old days, people didn't realize how bad it was. Also, I thought you meant Mohammed had all those wives before he was called as a prophet. Did he take them after he was already a prophet? That would be odd, from our viewpoint.

As for why the Quran says Christ presented himself differently than in the Christian Bible -- I guess if it weren't different, then Islamic people would have to believe Christ was the Messiah, and there wouldn't be any reason for a different religion ...

Spare Oom

01-29-2006, 08:04 PM

[Christine Marie:] "Muhammad's life seems to be an odd choice for someone chosen as the main prophet. He married 11 times and had four wives at a time, including one who was only six years old!"

It was quite common back then for parents to betrothe their children from a very early age, usually to cement ties between families/tribes. This took place in Europe too. However, the couple wouldn't live together as man and wife, or consummate the marriage, until the younger of the two at least reached puberty. (That may still sound early by today's standards, but remember that it's not so long ago that the age of consent in America was ten.)

[Inkspot:] "Old Testament men often had several wives."

Yes, and those men included prophets. In the Old Testament, we hear of Abraham, Solomon and others practising polygamy.

Islam reduced the number of wives permitted to four (more wives were allowed in Arabia prior to that). Polygamy made sense in the society of the time as men often went off on long, dangerous journeys across the desert to trade goods, and many male lives were lost in tribal wars. This meant there was a surplus of women. If a man had more than one wife, the wives could rely on one another for support, and for help with childcare and daily work.

Only one of the Prophet Mohammed's wives was a young girl and she married him willingly. The others were older, often widowed. There was great love and respect between Mohammed and his wives, and between the wives themselves. They lived together as a family.

A different way of life, yes, but not necessarily a bad one.

Spare Oom

01-29-2006, 08:18 PM

[Curumo:] "Allah is, indeed, the ancient "moon-god," whose symbol is the crescent moon."

I've already given my views on this in earlier posts. The long message from Samven582, posted in this thread (message 78), explores this in depth.

[Curumo:] "I have a question for my Muslim friends on this forum: why is it that we Christians and the Jews are called "people of the Book," when there are pronounced upon us many condemnations? Why are the Palestinians who dwell in the ancient land of Israel so vehement and so dedicated in their determination to exterminate every last Jew on this earth? If Islam is purported to mean "peace," why then is there such a conquest to exterminate and to destroy?"

You'd have to ask a Palestinian about that, but the dispute in Israel is over land rather than over the nature of God. Muslims and Jews live together in peace in other countries.

Spare Oom

01-29-2006, 08:39 PM

[Curumo:] "Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened, and the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon Him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, You are My beloved Son; in You am I well pleased (Luke 3:21-22)"

In the Bible, “Son of God” is not a title reserved exclusively for Jesus. Other people besides Jesus are called “Son of God,” eg. Adam (Luke 3: 38), Israel (Exodus 4: 22), David (2 Samuel 7:14), Ephraim (Jeremiah 31:9) and peacemakers (Matthew 5:9). Therefore, I don’t believe that the title “Son of God” was ever meant to be taken literally, but only metaphorically – it was an honorary title denoting closeness to God. The Qur’an objects to the literal interpretation.

[Curumo:] "Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way? Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou [then], Shew us the Father? (John 14:5-9)."

This simply shows that knowing Jesus means knowing God, since Jesus brings knowledge of God. It doesn’t follow that Jesus is God.

[Curumo:] "A question here about Jesus' "true" message. What message, other than what He preached while here on this earth, would declare that He is only a prophet and not God?"

Many verses in the Bible point to what Muslims believe to be the true message – that Jesus was the Messiah (ie. the anointed one whose coming was awaited by the Jews), that he was a prophet, that he was born of the Virgin Mary and that God gave him the power to do miracles – yet that he was not God. Here are just a few of these passages, taken from the Good News Bible:

John 17: 16-18
Jesus answered, ‘What I teach is not my own teaching, but it comes from God, who sent me. Whoever is willing to do what God wants will know whether what I teach comes from God or whether I speak on my own authority. A person who speaks on his own authority is trying to gain glory for himself. But he who wants glory for the one who sent him is honest, and there is nothing false in him.'

John 7: 28-29
Do you really know me and know where I am from? I have not come on my own authority. He who sent me, however, is truthful. You do not know him, but I know him, because I come from him and he sent me.

John 5: 30
I can do nothing on my own authority; I judge only as God tells me, so my judgement is right, because I am not trying to do what I want, but only what he who sent me wants.

Jesus is talking about being sent by God and teaching what God has asked him to teach. His power and authority have been given to him by God. In John 17: 16-18 (above), he calls on people to glorify God – not to glorify him.

Mark 13: 32
No one knows, however, when that day or hour will come – neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son; only the Father knows.

The Son does not know, yet the Father does. Therefore, how can they be one being? And if Jesus is not all-knowing, how can he be God?

Mark 12: 29
Jesus says that the most important commandment is 'Listen, Israel! The Lord our God is the only Lord.'

Note that he says “our God” (ie. Jesus’ God as well as ours).

John 14: 28-31
If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father; for he is greater than I…the world must know that I love the Father; that is why I do everything as he commands me.

The Father is greater than Jesus, and Jesus loves Him and obeys Him.

Matthew 26: 39
He went a little farther on, threw himself face downwards on the ground, and prayed, ‘My Father, if it is possible, take this cup of suffering from me! Yet not what I want, but what you want.’

What Jesus wants may differ from what God wants. Also, Jesus prostrates and prays to God, so how can he himself be God? We should be worshipping the One Jesus prayed to; not be worshipping Jesus himself.

John 20:17
But go to my brothers [ie. the disciples] and tell them that I am returning to him who is my Father and their Father, my God and their God.

Jesus states clearly that the Father is his GOD! This couldn’t be more plain. If Jesus has a God (ie. the Father), Jesus cannot be God.

The Qur’an confirms this:

Surah 5: 72
Most certainly they blaspheme who say: ‘God is the Messiah, the son of Mary,’ but the Messiah said: ‘O Children of Israel, worship God, my Lord and your Lord.’

[Curumo:] "Islam has me bewildered entirely."

Sorry about that. I’ve tried to explain my own understanding of Islam in this thread (as has SapphireOfSeptember) as well as in the thread on “Does Jesus care?” There are plenty of others better qualified than I am to discuss these things, but unless they have an interest in C. S. Lewis they’re unlikely to join this Forum.

I can recommend two books which look in detail at Jesus in Christianity and Islam. The first is Jesus Prophet of Islam by Muhammad ‘Ata’ ur-Rahim and Ahmad Thomson (sorry if the title sounds provocative to Christians) and the second is For Christ’s Sake, by the same authors.

Christine Marie

01-30-2006, 03:56 AM

Agreed, polygamy is a bad thing ... I just think in the old days, people didn't realize how bad it was. Also, I thought you meant Mohammed had all those wives before he was called as a prophet. Did he take them after he was already a prophet? That would be odd, from our viewpoint.

That's true...
He apparently only had one wife prior to him being a prophet and then got involved in polygamy. Correct me if I'm wrong because I'm not 100% sure on this

Oh, and thanks Spare Oom for the Jesus- Islam explanation :)

TimmyofOz

01-30-2006, 09:56 AM

inkspot

01-30-2006, 11:08 AM

I notice the pope did not make an official statement -- Timmy's link and the link in the article to an Italian news story are attributed to what people at a conference said the pope said (and the one in worldnetdaily is more harsh toward Islam than the one in the Italian news). It seems to me that we cannot speak in generalities at all about Islam because there are too many factions. Obviously radical factions and the majority of Palestinians want to see Israel wiped out (they did elect Hamas officially!) while the nice Muslims we hear from on this sight want peace with their neighbors. I think we cannot say "Islam is a religion of peace" or "Islam is a religion of terrorism" because Islam seems to mean different things to different adherents.

I am very grateful and happy that we have Muslims on this site who show us that Islam can be a religion of peace, and one that gives them meaning in their lives.

DunadainofArrakis

02-03-2006, 02:55 PM

OK, let's talk about the teachings of Islam. Let's start with Allah. Allah is not the Arab word for the Jewish-Christian God "YHWH". Allah is an ancient Arab moon god that Muhammad claimed did all the acts that God did.

I find it interesting after having watched the Mel Gibson movie about Christ that when he was on the cross, at some point he asks, "My God, why have you forsaken me?" Up until that point, I was very excited watching the movie at being able to understand a lot of what Jesus and the others(non-Latin speakers) were saying just based on my knowledge of Arabic. A lot of the time I didn’t even need to look at the subtitles to understand what was being said. Aramaic and Arabic are very similar to one another in many respects. When it came to that scene, however, I was awed at what he said when he uttered “My God.” Currently studying linguistics and Arabic in college, I’ve learned quite a bit about Semitic grammar and Arabic grammar in particular. In the Gibson movie, “My God” is said as “ilahi” (for any interested and have the DVD, check this part out and listen for it).

In Arabic grammar, the word “Allah” is a combination of two things—the definite article al and ilah. al just means “the” and ilah means God, hence you have “The God” for Muslims, Arab Christians, and Arab Jews. Guess what “My God” is in Arabic? It’s ilahi, the same exact thing that was said in Passion by the Christ character on the cross. Since Aramaic and Arabic are so similar, Jesus must have referred to God as Allah when he wanted to say “The God” like Muslims do.

I think YHWH has some meaning that is meant to refer to God, but I don’t think it’s the actual name of God, as we see people like the Aramaic Jews and Chrisians from Jesus’ time and area, as well as the Arabs refer to him as Allah. We’re talking about the same, exact pronunciations here.

Parthian King

02-03-2006, 04:23 PM

Yes, Dunadain, there are clear etymological and therefore phonetic similarities going on. The Jews spoke Aramaic from the time of the Exile because it had become the lingua franca of the Persian Empire. On the Cross, Jesus quoted from the first verse of Psalm 22, arguably accomplishing two things at once: Expressing the condition of His soul unto His Father, and at the same time referencing the entire psalm for the sake of His hearers (since the psalms were not numbered back then, to quote the first few words was to quote the whole, just as I have by using a number). In Hebrew, the words are Eli Eli, coupling the Hebrew "El" (generic "God") with the first person possessive singular suffix "i"--hence, "My God, my God." You'll know how well this squares with Arabic grammar better than I. Jesus quoted from the Targum, or Aramaic translation of that verse when He cried out.

The question is, did Jesus' concept of God and Father resemble what Islam considers Allah to be? Phonetic expressions can be one thing, while the actual concepts are quite another. The word "God" is a co-opted term from a pagan Norse pantheon. If we are going by phonetics and etymology, therefore, Muslims are far closer to Christianity than modern, English speaking Jesus-worshippers. Yet when one considers that the Christian concept of God involves--as its central tenet--a God who willingly becomes man so that He may die a substitutionary death in order to save His enemies, well, I would argue (at this point by way of pure observation and not at all by comparative qualification), that any similarity between Allah of Islam and the Heavenly Father that Jesus preached goes as deep at linguistic similarity, and little further.

DunadainofArrakis

02-03-2006, 05:08 PM

The question is, did Jesus' concept of God and Father resemble what Islam considers Allah to be? Phonetic expressions can be one thing, while the actual concepts are quite another.

I agree with you Parthian King. I was merely trying to point out the origins of the Arabic (or rather Semitic) word Allah. I attended a lecture in college where one history professor tried to draw the phonetic comparison between Al-Lat and Allah. The Qur'an addresses this particular moon goddess the Arabs worshipped prior to the coming of Islam.

"Compare this with the female idols Allaat and Al-Uzzah. And Manaat, the third one. Do you have sons, while He (God) has these as daughters? ...To God belongs both the Hereafter, and this World. Not even the angels in heaven possess authority to intercede. The only ones permitted by God are those who act in accordance with His will and His approval. (53:19-26)

I found this on a site explaining the context for these verses from the Qur’an:

Some pagans and hypocrites planned secretly to recite words praising idolatry alongside the recitation of the Holy Prophet, while he was praying, in such a way that the people would think as if they were recited by him. Once when the Holy Prophet was reciting verses 19 and 20 of Najm one of the pagans recited: "Tilkal gharani-ul ula wa inna shafa-atahuma laturja"-(These are the lofty (idols), verily their intercession is sought after.) As soon as this was recited the conspirators shouted in delight to make the people believe that it was the Holy Prophet who said these words. Here, the Quran is stating the general pattern the enemies of the messengers of Allah followed when they were positively convinced that the people were paying attention to the teachings of the messengers of Allah and sincerely believing in them. They would mix their false doctrines with the original teachings so as to make the divine message a bundle of contradictions.

Parthian King

02-03-2006, 05:35 PM

Dunadain, you and I, Muslim and Christian, have dialogued fairly well. I certainly want to keep it that way, and for my part I say "so far so good."

I have had in mind a post (actually not in this thread, but in another that has been following these same issues) that explains why, as a "thinking man" (boy, isn't that going out on a limb!) I have settled on Christianity, and (in a spirit of all due respect), by corollary, why I have not chosen Islam. Actually, it was not your words that made me think this way, but those of another Muslim who has recently been posting, whose name presently escapes me.

In any case, I want it to be well worded, not for pure rhetoric's sake, but for the sake of expressing as closely as possible what I really mean. This because I know navigating these waters is tricky business, and if I am to offend, at very least I want it to be substantially offensive, i.e., because I have represented Christianity well and not because I am clumsy. And, I might add, I hope we have enough mutual respect that we can afford to offend each other in this way and not fall prey to all the insipid relativism that insists that offense is the greatest sin that can be committed or the greatest pain one can suffer. Let's leave that rot to the moderns and talk, for goodness sake.

All that said, I just don't have the time right now. I must travel, but hope to get back to this within a number of days (how's that for inexactitude?). I will, however, say for the record that while all the history fascinates me, I am not much for judging the value of a confession by the murky idiosyncracies surrounding its origins. As I have stated elsewhere, I consider this to be a "genetic fallacy," a logically flawed and usually ad hominem approach that manages to offend but often (though not always) ends up degenerating into cheap shots. If you'll take a look at my appraoach in the "Mormon" thread, you'll see how I do business. Mormon origins are a veritable gold mine of possibility for anyone who wants to use that strategy, and I virtually ignored the issue. Much more important to me is the matter of merit. Now, origins inevitably come into the picture, but I appeal to them not to sling mud but rather to understand and place events in proper order, not to cast doubt upon integrity, etc.

Similarly, arguments based upon the actions of a few (or even many) devotees of a particular confession shouldn't weigh much either, at least not in the type of discussion I am interested in. There's not a confession on earth that can stand if we judge it according to the actions of its worst representatives.

So, as far as I personally am concerned, there's no need to concern yourself with defending Islam's origins vis-a-vis some moon rock. I am not going one way or another, and that is meant at face value. It simply isn't the question to me. My questions have to do with Islamic confession as is as compared to Christian confession as is.

When I next break bread, I will pray for you. Until we speak again--Pax.

DunadainofArrakis

02-03-2006, 06:07 PM

Dunadain, you and I, Muslim and Christian, have dialogued fairly well. I certainly want to keep it that way, and for my part I say "so far so good."

I would like to keep it that way too. I think Muslims and Christians should discuss issues such as these freely. I enjoy reading what you and many others on this forum have to say, especially as it pertains to a Christian’s perspective on Islam. At the same time, we should take great care to not disrespect anyone’s beliefs, be it in a direct way or in a subtle way. Those cartoons that were published in Denmark (and later in other European countries) were a big mistake. All that does is increase animosity. The papers that were publishing those cartoons were treating it as an exercise of free speech and nothing more. Sadly, for 1.5 billion people in the world those cartoons did mean something more. Sometimes for the greater good of society and the world, people need to not exercise free speech in the way that the Denmark newspaper did. There are limits to what a person can say, especially if it is going to offend a lot of people. I cannot just go and threaten someone, even though that technically should fall under free speech.

And there also appears to be a double standard at work here. If someone were to deny the holocaust in some European countries, that would be enough to throw them in jail. If those cartoons were about Jews (similar to the ones that were drawn in Nazi Germany), people in the Western media would be all over that calling it anti-semitism. But since this pertains to Muslims, this is merely free speech. I salute all the Christians who keep a keen awareness of these issues and are kind and respectful to people of other faiths.

Parthian King

02-03-2006, 06:15 PM

For those Christians that have had to put up with works of "art" like "Piss Christ" (a crucifix submerged in human urine) and elephant dung on a statue of the Virgin Mary, I know what you mean. Funny how those things are ignored while other items get so much press. It is also interesting to see how respective adherents perceive what is legitimate response to these offenses.

The question Dunadain, is what do we do when the same figure is claimed in contradictory ways by religions that both hold exclusivist claims to the truth? The cartoons you refer to are easy to discuss, because Christians lay no claim to Mohammed (the butt of those secularists' jokes). But with Jesus, that is a different matter, since Mohammed came along centuries later and laid claim to theological "territory" already claimed by others--Christians. That is a much stickier issue, and one that postmodern "I'm OK you're OK" attitudes don't seem very good at resolving. Perhaps that had better be established first before we go on with the discussion...

DunadainofArrakis

02-03-2006, 06:54 PM

For those Christians that have had to put up with works of "art" like "Piss Christ" (a crucifix submerged in human urine) and elephant dung on a statue of the Virgin Mary, I know what you mean.

That “Piss Christ” work of art (or work of trash, however you want to see it), and anything else which defames a religious figure in a vulgar way, should be seriously scrutinized, because those things are flat out wrong however you want to look at it.

The question Dunadain, is what do we do when the same figure is claimed in contradictory ways by religions that both hold exclusivist claims to the truth? The cartoons you refer to are easy to discuss, because Christians lay no claim to Mohammed (the butt of those secularists' jokes). But with Jesus, that is a different matter, since Mohammed came along centuries later and laid claim to theological "territory" already claimed by others--Christians. That is a much stickier issue, and one that postmodern "I'm OK you're OK" attitudes don't seem very good at resolving. Perhaps that had better be established first before we go on with the discussion...

I agree, but there are proper methods and procedures to go about discussing something. I once read in a course reader of mine, I think it was something written by Karen Armstrong, that described an event that took place in Medieval Spain while it was under the control of Muslims. There was a group of Arab guys who were walking and they happened to encounter a Christian. They asked the Christian “Who in your opinion was the greater Prophet, Muhammad or Jesus?” They knew full well how the Christian regarded Jesus, but they wanted to provoke the Christian. The Christian responded to the provocation with a provocation of his own, and was then taken to the Islamic judge for having insulted Islam. The Islamic judge said that it was wrong for the Muslims to have engaged the Christian in that manner because it was sure to have aroused a negative reaction from him. This story highlights the point that there needs to be some semblance of respect before engaging in a discussion with someone. There are ways to discuss something without having to resort to low blows.

Parthian King

02-03-2006, 09:18 PM

Absolutely agreed, no low blows. For my part, insult for insult's sake is not consistent with Christianity. But if you'll note in my comments, I am not referring to that kind of gratuitous and rude offense, but the cooler and, in truth, deeper offense that comes with the fundamental contradictions that eventually come into the light when discussing matters of the type I already mentioned.

That's what I meant about being willing to "offend" one another, and yet still "dialogue."

DunadainofArrakis

02-04-2006, 04:20 PM

I don't think there is anyway to get around that kind of "offense", so it's to be expected. Unlike you, however, there are others on this forum and the many other forums out there whose comments reflect their own ignorance pertaining to other people's beliefs. These people should be more considerate, especially as there are others who want to have the kind of dialogue that me and you are talking about.

echoscot

02-04-2006, 05:17 PM

The five "rules' or "pillars" of Islam are:

1. The traveling to Mecca at least once, to commemorate the birth of Islam, 622 years before Christ was born.

-Austin
Uhhmmm actually that was After Christ was born, It was AD. Most of Mecca had been converted to Christianity and it was the official religion of Mecca when Mohammed lived there. He felt it was corrupt, which was part of the motivation for Islam. :o

echoscot

02-04-2006, 06:14 PM

You might want to check out this islamic sight. very interesting...
http://www.harunyahya.com/
Sapphire,

I have been reading this thread with great interest. I very much enjoyed the link you posted and watched the full 15 minute video fo "islam denounces Terrorism" I thought the author made some very good points. however I must honestly say that there some flaws in the logic used and some things that still concerned me.

1. The verse he qouted did not specifically denounce terrorism, they denounced wrong doing, and evil doers. That leaves a lot to interpretation. I am GLAD that you and this author interpret those verses pacifistically. But Ican see where others might not and still believe they have a correct interpretation of the Koran. Even my Bible does not fully speak against violence but makes a discernment between murder and death due to war or capital punishment. Eccleisastes spells out a time for war....

2. One specific verse was qouted saying that "you(I am assuming that to mean Islamic peoples) are the greatest nation on earth and ....God basically gives them judicial powers over all others..."Those who are evil doers" many such as Bin laden and the Ayatollah Khomeini could easily interpret the similarity to the Aryan Nation ideologies.

3. Another verse he qouted punishes people who take another life, EXCEPT for retribution or for "those who have corrupted the earth" Which in many Islamic eyes would be those of us who are non-Islamic. So the taking of lives in 9/11 is justified to them. They destroyed those who "have corrupted the earth".

4. I ENJOYED his comment that most terrorism comes from non-religious conviction

5. Aside from Terrorism, he did point out a major difference between Islam and the Judao-Christian faiths. A verse he qouted says "God hates wrongdoers" In the Christian and Jewish faiths, God does not hate the wrongdoers, or sinners, he hates the sin and throughout the Old and New Testaments that is consistent. Ezekiel states that "God takes no delight in punishing the wicked, but would rather that all would repent and turn to him" In Chronicles, the prophet cries out"If my people, which are called by my name shall humble themselves and pray, and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and forgive their sins and heal their land." The New Testament tells of the physical incarnation of God to deliver us specifically, by grace, not by works to his redemptive purpose. "For it is not God's will that any should perish, but that all should have everlasting life." Another Old Testament example, was that of Jonah. God sends Jonah to a heathen city, to warn them and tell them to repent. Non-Jewish, hated the Jewish people, but God said "Go" and delivered them. In spite of their Wrongdoing. Jonah didn't want to go, he wanted to see God pour out his wrath against them, but God does not hate wrongdoers, rather he would see everyone turn to Him.

Thank you for sharing that link, i would love to hear what you think of this.

Scot

Saruman

02-05-2006, 01:14 PM

First, I have not forgotten this thread and am hoping to prepare a good response to the discussion concerning the position of Jesus Christ and who He really, truly is.

I must say how frightfully sorry I am to see all of these embassies in Islamic nations being set ablaze, all because of some cartoon drawings. But the response to these cartoon drawings is what truly frightens me. The living God would never make a cause to go and burn others down to the ground for something of this nature, or, at the least I might mention, the God of the Bible would never go to such an extreme. Perhaps these are some of the differences between the "Allah" of the Qu'ran and YHVH (Yahweh) of the Bible. I strongly believe there is a god of the descendants of Ishmael and Esau, and that there is the living God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. They are not one in the same. (And, by stating this, I do not declare to be a polytheist, for I am not, but merely to declare that the God of the Bible and the god of the Qu'ran are not the same Person, as has been suggested.)

Spare Oom

02-05-2006, 06:15 PM

[Curumo:] "First, I have not forgotten this thread and am hoping to prepare a good response to the discussion concerning the position of Jesus Christ and who He really, truly is."

Nice to see you in this thread again, Curumo. I was hoping the topic wasn't just going to peter out.

[Curumo:] "I must say how frightfully sorry I am to see all of these embassies in Islamic nations being set ablaze, all because of some cartoon drawings. But the response to these cartoon drawings is what truly frightens me. The living God would never make a cause to go and burn others down to the ground for something of this nature, or, at the least I might mention, the God of the Bible would never go to such an extreme. Perhaps these are some of the differences between the "Allah" of the Qu'ran and YHVH (Yahweh) of the Bible.

You say that you find some of the responses to the cartoon drawings disturbing. Well, so do I. You need to remember that the vast majority of Muslims voice their concerns in more socially acceptable ways, but that it's the extreme response of the minority that makes the headlines! You add that the God of the Bible would never go to such an extreme - no, He wouldn't, and the God of the Bible is also the God of the Qur'an.

Those countries which published the cartoons were countries in which the predominant religion is Christianity. They knew that to publish the pictures would be insulting and provocative, yet they went ahead and did it anyway. Would Jesus have done such a thing? Certainly not. The fact that some people in predominantly Christian countries did it doesn't mean that Jesus would have done it. And the fact that some people in predominantly Muslim countries have responded by burning embassies doesn't mean that Mohammed would have responded in the same way.

[Curumo:] "I strongly believe there is a god of the descendants of Ishmael and Esau, and that there is the living God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. They are not one in the same."

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Esau and Ishmael are mentioned in the Bible and God is their God, just as He is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. If you believe there is only One God (as I do), surely He must be the God of everyone, whether they know it or not?

Scot, your comments are also interesting and I'd like to discuss some of them but I don't have time at present. I wanted to view the video you mentioned but my computer kept crashing when I tried to access it, which was rather frustrating.

PrinceOfTheWest

02-06-2006, 08:52 AM

Those countries which published the cartoons were countries in which the predominant religion is Christianity.Actually, this isn't true. Denmark is one of several European countries that has been described by both Christian and secular leaders as "post-Christian". According to a website (http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_rate.htm)maintained by the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolearance, less than 5% of Denmark's population attends religious services of any kind. Though the official state religion is Lutheranism, that means nothing in the day-to-day culture. Christian groups from East Asia to Africa consider countries like Denmark to be mission territory, and virgin mission territory at that. Denmark is a secular country whose culture reflects secular values.They knew that to publish the pictures would be insulting and provocative, yet they went ahead and did it anyway.By the admission of the newspapers themselves, the publication was intended to express the value of free speech, which is certainly a value but one valued more highly by a secular culture than by Christianity. The overriding virtue of charity is the yardstick by which true Christians measure everything.

My question is this: if so many moderate Muslims decry such tactics, where are they? Where are their voices? For that matter, where are their voices when synagogues are desecrated in France, or crucifixes are immersed in vats of urine as an expression of "art"?

Spare Oom

02-06-2006, 10:00 AM

[PrinceOftheWest:] "Actually, this isn't true. Denmark is one of several European countries that has been described by both Christian and secular leaders as "post-Christian". According to a website maintained by the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolearance, less than 5% of Denmark's population attends religious services of any kind. Though the official state religion is Lutheranism, that means nothing in the day-to-day culture."

It may be true that Denmark is "post-Christian" (why, I wonder?) but the same cannot be said of Spain, which also published the cartoons.

[PrinceOftheWest:] "My question is this: if so many moderate Muslims decry such tactics, where are they? Where are their voices? For that matter, where are their voices when synagogues are desecrated in France, or crucifixes are immersed in vats of urine as an expression of "art"?"

You've heard Muslim voices decrying these things on this very Forum. The Muslim Council of Britain has also spoken out against such behaviour. If you weren't aware of that, it's because the media focuses not on the mainstream moderate but on the fringe element. Ordinary peace-loving Muslims (the vast majority) who work, study, pray, care for others, play a positive part in their local community, mow the lawn, visit the park, play football etc. and generally live in peace with others do not tend to make the news.

The Muslim Council of Britain http://www.mcb.org.uk/ put out the following press release on 3rd Feb (my underlining):

Don’t Be Provoked By Mischievous Elements Over Cartoon Row

The Muslim Council of Britain is deeply concerned by the continuing refusal of several European newspapers to understand and acknowledge the immense hurt they have caused to Muslims the world over by printing gratuitously offensive caricatures of the blessed Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

“We reiterate our absolute condemnation of the decision to publish these images in Denmark and view their republication in other European countries as a deliberate and senseless act of provocation. Newspaper editors must exercise restraint and good judgement instead of adding to the increasingly xenophobic tone being adopted in parts of Europe against Muslims. These newspapers should apologise immediately for the harm they have caused,” said Sir Iqbal Sacranie, Secretary-General of the Muslim Council of Britain.

The MCB acknowledges the fundamental right of peoples of all faiths to freedom of speech and expression. This does not mean however that they should be free to create social unrest and instability. Neither should that freedom be abused to undermine national interests at home and abroad.

Inevitably some elements may seek to exploit this current crisis to provoke negative or extreme reactions among Muslims. The MCB urges fellow British Muslims to exercise the utmost restraint in the face of these provocations.

“There may be elements that would want to exploit the genuine sense of anguish and hurt among British Muslims about the manner in which the Prophet has been vilified to pursue their own mischievous agenda. We would caution all British Muslims to not allow themselves to be provoked. They should respond peacefully and with dignity at all times,” added Sir Iqbal.

inkspot

02-06-2006, 03:58 PM

t may be true that Denmark is "post-Christian" (why, I wonder?) but the same cannot be said of Spain, which also published the cartoons.
I think Spain is also considered post-Christian, despite its Catholic roots. USA Today reports, "A series of Eurobarometer surveys since 1970 in five key countries (France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany and Italy) shows that regular church attendance fell from about 40% of the population to about half that figure. Declines were sharpest in predominantly Catholic nations." Although Spain is not mentioned, it is predominantly Catholic, less so than Italy, and the Catholic nations are the ones with the largest decline in church going.

Europe is chiefly a secular region, and the fastest growing most vital religion there is, as I understand it, Islam. For what that's worth.

Parthian King

02-06-2006, 04:16 PM

I'm at the worst internet café on earth in Lima, Perú, so I'll be brief. Spare Oom, I look forward to some dialogue, but it will be some days. For now, I think Inkspot and Prince of the West have answered (and asked) some things on my mind, though I'd like to explore a few more of the ripples brought about by your answers.

For now, let me simply ask what you meant by this:

it may be true that Denmark is "post-Christian" (why, I wonder?)

Why, I wonder, did you write "why, I wonder?"?

Spare Oom

02-06-2006, 05:06 PM

[Parthian King:] "I'm at the worst internet café on earth in Lima, Perú, so I'll be brief. Spare Oom, I look forward to some dialogue, but it will be some days."

Okay, that sounds fine. It's interesting to talk and discuss. I'm feeling in the minority here though, so I hope some other Muslims who have posted recently will rejoin the discussion. There are obviously going to be some fundamental things on which we disagree but I hope we can do that without animosity as far as possible (by "we" I mean Muslims and Christians, because this thread seems mainly to be a dialogue between those two faiths, although anyone can join in, of course.)

[Parthian King:] "Why, I wonder, did you write "why, I wonder?"?"

Just wondering, really, what it is that makes a large proportion of a nation apparently turn away from God. I've always been certain myself that God is there - I feel His presence - and it seems strange that a whole body of people can drift away from God like that. Secularism is happening in Britain too, of course, and I find myself musing on whether the vast majority really have become secular (is that what "post-Christian" means?), or whether the lack of church attendance simply means that people are looking elsewhere when it comes to spirituality (I myself used to attend church regularly once upon a time, but some years ago I converted to Islam so naturally I no longer go to church.) And for some Christians, not attending church may not necessarily mean that they don't believe in God, but that they just don't feel comfortable with church.

DunadainofArrakis

02-06-2006, 09:20 PM

Whatever the current state of these countries concerning their affinity toward Christianity, historically they have been known as adherents to this particular faith. Part of the reaction of certain groups in Muslim lands stems from past interactions with the nations of Europe, going all the way back to the Crusades. During the Crusades, atrocities were being committed by both sides. Often times the Crusaders did not even care who was Christian, Muslim, or Jew, like when they stormed the city of Jerusalem killing all of its inhabitants. According to the Crusaders, they were fighting for their faith.

No one knows for sure what motivated the Crusaders and what continues to motivate radical elements in any religion, whether it is Christianity or Islam. We shouldn't forget that while Christianity preaches love and peace, people who have practiced it in the past have contributed to just the opposite. The same applies to Islam and probably other religions as well.

Also, the Crusades of the Middle Ages have not been easily forgotten by people living in the Middle East and other Muslim lands, and the regions that comprised these crusader states are the same ones that have been publishing these dumb cartoons. It's not that Muslims have been holding deep rooted prejudices against people from Europe, but that they have been on the receiving end of a lot of hostility over the years, and more recently with the period of colonization in which many Muslims died (but you don't often hear about that).

In the end, we must not let the actions of a small percentage of individuals adhering to a religion determine how we view that entire religion.

Spare Oom

02-07-2006, 05:59 AM

Scot, I know your post was really addressed to Sapphire but I hope you (and she) won't mind if I make a few comments.

[Echoscot:] "One specific verse was qouted saying that "you(I am assuming that to mean Islamic peoples) are the greatest nation on earth and ....God basically gives them judicial powers over all others..."Those who are evil doers" many such as Bin laden and the Ayatollah Khomeini could easily interpret the similarity to the Aryan Nation ideologies."

I’m not sure whether the following verse is the one that was quoted in the video, as I’ve been unable to view it, but the Qur’an does say:

“You are the best of nations, evolved for the people, enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong and believing in God…” (3: 110)

Here, “best of nations” actually refers to people of a particular faith (ie. Muslims; submitters to the One God) and not to people of a particular race. Arabia in the seventh century was a place of trade and travel, where people of many races met, and those who followed Islam at the time of the Prophet Mohammed included Persians and black people as well as Arabs. Christians and Jews enjoyed rights and protection under the Prophet Mohammed in Medina and were not required to convert to Islam. As the Qur’an says: “There is no compulsion in religion.” (2: 256).

Christians and Jews are respected in the Qur’an as “people of the Book” or “people of earlier Scripture”:

"Surely, those who believe in God and follow the Qur'an and those who were guided from among the Jews, and those who followed Jesus' true message from among the Christians, and those who were Sabians (monotheists), whoever believes in God and the Last Day and performs deeds of righteousness, they shall have their reward with the Lord, no fear shall be on them, nor shall they grieve." (2: 62)

The verse that is often quoted as suggesting that Muslims should kill those of other faiths is the second of the following two sentences:

“And fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits, surely God loves not the transgressors.
And slay them wherever you come upon them, and expel them from where they expelled you, for persecuting people to sway them from God’s religion is worse than slaying.” (2: 190-191).

Looked at in context, together with what leads up to it, it is clear that the verse is warning Muslims to fight only in self-defence, when they have been attacked, and even then to exercise restraint and not “transgress limits.” These verses were revealed at a time when physical attacks on Muslims were rife.

Harming innocent bystanders during war is forbidden in Islam. The Prophet Mohammed made it clear that innocent bystanders meant not just non-combatants (including women, children, the sick and the elderly) but also animals, trees and crops. The Qur’an warns that enemies must be treated absolutely fairly:

“O you who believe! Be constant for God as just witnesses, and let not detestation of a people move you to be unfair; be equitable, that is closer to piety; and fear God, God is well aware of all that you do.” (5:8).

There are much harsher passages in the Bible concerning enemies and warfare, especially in Deuteronomy (eg. Deuteronomy 20: 10-18).

You said, Scot, that to some Islamic eyes “the taking of lives in 9/11 is justified…They destroyed those who ‘corrupted the earth.’” The fact that taking those lives was not justified is demonstrated in what I’ve discussed above – the Qur’an shows that there is no justification in Islam for killing anyone simply because he/she is not a Muslim. Suicide bombing in particular is un-Islamic because a) innocent civilians are harmed and b) suicide is forbidden in the Qur’an: “And do not kill yourselves, surely God is All-Merciful to you.” (4: 29). Martyrdom means being killed by an enemy in battle – not purposely choosing to kill oneself.

I'd like to address some of the other issues you raised but I'll do so in a separate post, as this one is getting rather long :) .

Spare Oom

02-07-2006, 06:21 AM

[Echoscot:] "A verse he qouted says "God hates wrongdoers" In the Christian and Jewish faiths, God does not hate the wrongdoers, or sinners, he hates the sin and throughout the Old and New Testaments that is consistent."

Actually there are verses in the Bible which state that God hates wrongdoers, or sinners, and not just their sins, eg.

“He [ie. God] examines the good and the wicked alike;
the lawless he hates with all his heart.” (Psalms 11:5)

“You are not a God who is pleased with wrongdoing;
you allow no evil in your presence.
You cannot stand the sight of proud men;
you hate all wicked people.
You destroy all liars
And despise violent, deceitful men.” (Psalms 5: 4-6)

"There are seven things that the Lord hates and cannot tolerate:
A proud look,
A lying tongue,
hands that kill innocent people,
a mind that thinks up wicked plans,
feet that hurry off to do evil,
a witness who tells one lie after another,
and a man who stirs up trouble among friends.
(Proverbs 6: 16-19)

You are right that, in the Qur’an, it says: “God loves not the evildoers.”(3:140). “Loves not” is not quite the same as “hates.” And of course, evildoers have the chance to repent, turn to God and become one of His beloved. That is what God wants people to do:

“Say: ‘Oh my servants who have transgressed against their own souls, do not despair of God’s mercy, surely God forgives all sins, surely He is the All-forgiving, the Most Merciful.’” (39:53)

You quote a similar verse from the Bible: “Ezekiel states that 'God takes no delight in punishing the wicked, but would rather that all would repent and turn to him.'”

However, in other Bible verses he rejects people who call to him:

“Jeremiah, don’t pray to me or plead with me on behalf of these people. When they are in trouble and call to me for help, I will not listen to them.” (Jeremiah 11:14)

[Echoscot:] "The New Testament tells of the physical incarnation of God to deliver us specifically, by grace, not by works to his redemptive purpose. "For it is not God's will that any should perish, but that all should have everlasting life."

God’s grace is also of prime importance in Islam. Both faith and good actions are required to receive it. After all, there’s no point in saying “I believe” if you don’t follow the teachings which you profess to believe. In Islam one’s personal relationship with God is paramount and Muslims have a very strong “God-consciousness.” I remember the first time I visited a Muslim country (years before I embraced Islam) and how I listened to people speaking Arabic. I couldn’t understand a word but I kept hearing the phrase “insha’Allah” again and again. No other word or phrase stood out or was as oft-repeated as that. Curious to know what it meant, I asked someone and learnt that it meant “God willing.” Muslims are acutely aware, whenever they make plans, that the things they plan are not set in stone – the unexpected may happen and Muslims acknowledge that when they say, “God willing.” They also say "Bismillah" ("in the name of God") whenever embarking on something new, or sometimes just for reassurance or comfort. When picking up a crying baby, for example, one would say "Bismillah."

Muslims call only on God – not on Mohammed, Jesus, Mary or anyone else – and He answers the call:

“And whenever my servants ask you about me, indeed I am near, I answer the prayer of the caller when he calls on me, so let them respond to my call and believe in me, that they may be rightly guided.” (2: 186)

“And obey God and the Messenger that you may attain mercy;
And vie in the race for forgiveness from your Lord, and for a Garden whose extensiveness is the heavens and the earth, prepared for the pious;
Those who spend (for charity) whether in prosperity or adversity, who restrain anger, and pardon people, and God loves those who do good.
And those who when they commit an indecency or wrong themselves, remember God and pray for forgiveness for their sins, and who forgives sins except God?, and do not persist in wrong knowingly-
For those their reward is forgiveness from their Lord, and Gardens beneath which rivers flow, therein dwelling forever, how excellent a reward for those who do good works.” (3: 132-136)

Grace in Islam does not depend upon human sacrifice but on God knowing what is in your heart and repaying you (with abundant mercy and understanding) for the way you have lived your life. Perfect justice.

[Echoscot:] "Another Old Testament example, was that of Jonah. God sends Jonah to a heathen city, to warn them and tell them to repent. Non-Jewish, hated the Jewish people, but God said "Go" and delivered them. In spite of their Wrongdoing. Jonah didn't want to go, he wanted to see God pour out his wrath against them, but God does not hate wrongdoers, rather he would see everyone turn to Him."

Yes, the story of Jonah is in the Qur’an too, though not such a detailed account.

inkspot

02-07-2006, 04:54 PM

You are doing great, Spare Oom.

Parthian King

02-07-2006, 04:57 PM

Again, a quick reply just to let participants know that I'm still in the game, especially Dunadain and Spare Oom.

Spare Oom, I am not surprised by your answer to my question. For my part, I too went to church as a youth, but turned way from it as unsatisfactory and got caught up in worldy things. The faith I eventually found in Christ had been right in front of me for years, but I had rejected it because I loved my independence and my sin, and perhaps, because the presentation lacked something at times. The failure of the delivery agency at times turned out to have no bearing upon the truth it always was.

I was thinking specifically about the issue of 'Christian countries' and 'Christian societies,' because the issue is implicit in the commentaries being made, and the issues facing the world today (i.e., the perception among significant elements of the Muslim population, and now Iran officially, that 'Christian countries' are out to blaspheme what they hold dear).

Now, I have a number of things I really do want to discuss, and have wanted to discuss since reading some of your comments, Spare Oom, in another thread, and since laying some groundwork with Dunadain. I understand that you feel outnumbered: A website dedicated to the fandom of the most prominent Christian apologist of the 20th century is bound to make a Muslim feel that way! But for my part, as I stated before, I want to remain civil and direct at the same time, and stay on the subject. I have hope that this won't be too difficult a task given your and Dunadain's tenor. By your confession here you obviously abhor violence and desire simply to live in peace, and you vocally distance yourself from those who in the name of Islam violate what you perceive to be fundamental tenets of Islam. As I said before, so far, so good.

But now that you have laid some things down that have helped me, allow me to attempt the same. In my perception, being a Christian is the essence of Christianity. Although this may come off as a tautology, history demonstrates the necessity of the declaration. Christianity is not the 'Christianizing' of anything except for people or a group of people, i.e., the Church in the collective sense. 'Christian,' though used as an adjective in popular speech, is not one. There are no Christian books, schools, governments, philosophies, nations, kingdoms, societies, or wars. The term is used thrice in the NT, and always of persons. Nothing can be Christian unless it can be converted through a rebirth through the Holy Spirit and enter paradise upon death of the earthly body, subsequently to be resurrected at the End. Christianity is thus an otherwordly way of life by definition practiced in this world. Any other expression that paints itself as Christian (even by Christians themselves) is a contradiction in terms.

Now, many, many have fallen into this trap, some of them sincere people, and some not so sincere (I would argue insincere to the point that they are/were not Christians at all, much as you both do concerning some 'Muslims' making headlines in the world today). The idea of 'Christian Europe' may fall into this category. If by that phrase we refer to an age when the majority of the population was in fact made up of Christians, then we are fine. But if we mean that the administration of nation states was Christian in the sense that a person can be Christian, then we are in problems. That cannot ever happen. Why? Because the foundation of the Christian's faith is the Cross. Christ is a suffering savior, not a warrior who bears a sword, or an earthly monarch who bears a scepter and crown, but a Lamb who takes a sword in the side while wearing a crown of thorns. His sacrifice for us, as we see it (i.e, collectively, and in our best moments and by purest theological expression), not only pays the price for our sin and paves the way for a transformed nature that we may worship God without fear, but it also sets an example and gives warning. Those who live by the sword, He said, shall die by it. The Cross, magnificent in its suffering, bans coercion of all kinds. Nation states and kingdoms are of this world, and are therefore by definition coersive in nature. Some Christians have lost the path of the Cross and the warning of their Lord (it's a habit of history, I suppose), and have ironically and tragically resorted to coersion to effect 'Christian' change (example: one has recently suggested assassination of undesirable world leaders and other extreme actions). But this is flat crosswise to the truth of the gospel as the Church has seen it (though not always well-practiced it) historically.

Nations, like Denmark, and others in which were recently published some mean-spirited cartoons (though that offense is minor compared to their offenses in the past, as Dunadain has noted), have erred doubly. First, they attempted to project an image (note their flag) of being a Christian government at one time (without a doubt any truly Christian connotation is entirely lost now, and the flag is a holdover, a tradition of the past). Again, it was doubtless sincere, and many good people surely have lived and died under that and other similar flags. The problem is, governments are worldly and coercive, and it is a matter of time before bad things were done in the name of that country and flag, and therefore in Christ's name. The error was in the genesis of the matter. It was that kind of coercion that produced the Crusades (against those outside the fold) and the Inquisition (against those within). Many in Europe tired of such 'Christianity' (which is not true Christianity at all), and turned in the Enlightenment to Modernism. The desire of the Modern is above all the pursuit of personal liberties. Ah, but this too is all wrong, because Christianity teaches that true liberty is only found in Christ. The Church, against this challenge, cannot return to coercion (what, more Crusades?), besides, Christians are sons of God through Christ, not slaves. Slaves can be coerced, made to serve and toe the line; sonship is based on spiritual freedom to accept or (by definition) to reject. So the Church weeps and allows those once supposedly in the fold turn to Modernism (or Postmodernism) because to force them in by the sword (an old tactic) violates what and who Jesus Christ is all about. And what do they do? They vainly pursue their 'freedoms' (including a twisted concept of 'self-expression' they call freedom of press that wounds and hurts for the sake of it, just because they can). This is their second error. Christianity rejects these actions because 1) they are grounded in a concept of 'freedom' that is in reality a glorified form of rebellion against God, 2) they are deliberately insensitive to the feelings of others, while Christ (through His servant, Peter) commands gentleness and respect while talking with those outside the faith, and 3) they indulge in coarse humor, which leads to more ungodliness. Even if a Christian considers Islam to be fundamentally flawed, for these reasons they should abhor these actions for these reasons, even while they pray for the perpetrators, who are no more Christian than the people they callously sought to offend.

At this point, there is no need to go on, as you have graciously condemned the actions of those in the Islamic world who have responded with violence and threats of more, including (now) an entire country that has chosen the path of retribution and spite instead of forgiveness. Such is the coercive nature of nation states, no matter what religion or culture controls them. Hopefully, with this foundation, we may proceed with some issues having to do with the faiths themselves.

echoscot

02-07-2006, 06:58 PM

I read your reply to my post. I need some time to read it more thoroughly, and respond. But I already have some thoughts formulating. I will put them down when I have more time.

Spare Oom

02-07-2006, 08:54 PM

[Parthian King:] "Again, a quick reply..."

Whew - that's a very long "quick." ;)

[Parthian King:] "Christianity is not the 'Christianizing' of anything except for people or a group of people, i.e., the Church in the collective sense. 'Christian,' though used as an adjective in popular speech, is not one. There are no Christian books, schools, governments, philosophies, nations, kingdoms, societies, or wars. The term is used thrice in the NT, and always of persons. Nothing can be Christian unless it can be converted through a rebirth through the Holy Spirit and enter paradise upon death of the earthly body, subsequently to be resurrected at the End."

Next time I pass the local "Christian Bookshop," I'll think of it winging its way to Heaven after its demise :) (Only joking, I take your point!)

[Parthian King:] "By your confession here you obviously abhor violence and desire simply to live in peace, and you vocally distance yourself from those who in the name of Islam violate what you perceive to be fundamental tenets of Islam."

Hope people don't get the impression that the peace-loving Muslims on this Forum are atypical of Muslims in general. We're actually the norm.

Anyway, I'm burning the midnight oil here but thanks for your reply Parthian King, and also Inkspot. Scot, I look forward to reading your further thoughts whenever you have the time.

DunadainofArrakis

02-07-2006, 11:56 PM

Thank you Parthian King for the “quick” reply. You made some really good points, especially about the coercive forces during and after the Crusades trying to impose their will on others, and how this kind of coercion contradicts the very nature of Christianity.

What you said about Christ being a “suffering savior” made me wonder what parallel, if any, that had in Islam. Islam places great significance on justice and fighting against oppression, whether it is the oppression of tyrannous external forces aligned against you or the oppression you inflict upon yourself.

042.039
And those who, when an oppressive wrong is inflicted on them, (are not cowed but) help and defend themselves.

According to the Qur’an, God does not like to see oppression in the land. He would like to see the people make some effort to remove persecution. The approach espoused by certain verses in the Bible would appear to be at odds with verses found in the Qur’an.

Mathew 5:38-39
38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[g] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

As compared to:

042.040
The recompense for an injury is an injury equal thereto (in degree): but if a person forgives and makes reconciliation, his reward is due from Allah: for (Allah) loveth not those who do wrong.

I think the verse of the Qur’an prescribes the more complete approach in that it gives a person more leeway to act forcibly against someone committing oppression or, if the situation permits, to endure the oppression and forgive the oppressor. It really depends on the situation. But if the oppression continues even after you try to make reconciliation, and if it’s severe enough, God and common sense would hope that you would try to put an end to it using more direct methods. People shouldn’t have to feel like victims all the time in order to deal with oppression. Allowing oneself to be victimized by not doing anything can be very damaging to the soul.

However, taking a more passive approach in combating oppression can be very effective in other kinds of situations. During the early part of Islam, the pagan Arabs inflicted all kinds of abuses on the early Muslim converts, especially on the Prophet. They would throw rocks and feces at him and were trying to just humiliate and hurt the guy. The Prophet just endured these attacks. He was turning his “defeat” into victory, much like Christ, by showing his detractors the strength of Islam by how he was able to endure their physical assaults. However, once he was able to reform the values of his people at Madina and make it a center for justice, he was in a better position to forcibly end the continual oppression of the pagans in Mecca who were showing no signs of ending their persecution against the people and against the Muslims. In the end, Mecca had to stop what it was doing. When this happened, the Muslims could have swept into the city and killed those who had been causing them great harm and injustice, but instead, the Prophet ordered his army to kill no one. The biggest enemies of Islam, who now were no longer able to commit oppression, were forgiven of their offenses and allowed to live. Why? Because the situation allowed for forgiveness as such because the Meccans were no longer able to oppress. Mecca would never have entered this state whereby its oppression ended had it not been for the Muslims militant encounters with them.

When it comes to the kind of “love” found in the Bible, I think it is important to remember just what Christ was up against when he was bringing his message to the world. What he was saying basically constituted a revolt against the values of his people and the world at that particular time of history. This period of history for the people living in Christ’s area was a very hateful one. People not loving each other is an understatement. Even members of the Jewish people would give in to hatred against other Jews. Not only did Christ have the oppression of the Romans to deal with, but also the oppressive values held by his own people. Christ and his followers were in no position to deal with both of these oppressions by taking up arms. The situation necessitated for him to deal with the oppression of his people first by speaking out against it rather than acting out physically against it.

I would like to ask the Christians on this forum about Christ’s role during the end-times. He is a messianic figure for Muslims, being the one to slay the Anti-Christ and help rid the world of its oppression and injustice. I was wondering if he takes on the same kind of combative role in Christian eschatology, or if he continues to preach love and peace even as the world plunges into even more injustice and oppression which, according to Islamic prophesies, will show no end in sight until God’s forces forcibly remove these conditions.

inkspot

02-08-2006, 11:07 AM

There is debate even among Christian churches about the end-times and what the imagery of the book of Revelation means. If the poetry of this book is to be believed as prophecy yet to come, Christ will arrive on earth in the end-times on a white horse, with a sword for the destruction of evil, leading an army which will de-throne the anti-Christ and cast the devil into 1000 years of bondage. So in some ways, Islamic and Christian revelation about the end-times match up very well.

It is the view of Christ as God and Savior in Christianity which differs from the Muslim view of Christ as a man and prophet, as I understand what you are saying ... and of course, for Christians, this is a very big difference.

Parthian King

02-08-2006, 05:00 PM

Dunadain and Spare Oom, thanks for your replies. Hey, what's with busting my chops, here? So I ended up with some time on my hands! :)

I really do have to keep this one (more) brief, but I have some questions before we proceed so that we may keep all as transparent as possible. Dunadain, you allude to this (and your heart is very good), though frankly your pacific view of the early days of Islam does not mesh with any history I have ever read, i.e., anecdotally that incident may be true, but on a whole, Islam conquered the lands it now occupies, at least for the most part. The Christians of Coptic Church in Egypt (the cradle of great Christian thinkers like Origen and others) did not convert (as Spare Oom did), they were overrun. The same goes for the Christian communities in North Africa (home of St. Augustine), Syria (home of John Chrysostom), and Asia Minor (home to the great churches of Paul's first missionary journeys). Mohammed was in fact a military leader as well as a religious one (in fact, I'm sure that he himself would see no dichotomy between the two). So, though I retreat not a bit from the self-deprecation concerning 'Christian' abuses during the Inquisition and the Crusades, what of those having to do with the darker chapters of Islamic history? What of the Christians who were minding their own business when Islam was imposed upon them, just as innocent Muslims were attacked by European knights 400-500 some years later? I am glad to hear that those Muslims discussing here have a 'freedom of conversion' mindset, and Spare Oom, you are quick to assert that folks like you are the majority. I truly hope that is so. What concerns me in dialogues such as this is I hear constantly about the crime of the Crusades (and rightly so), but nothing of how Christianity was suppressed in the lands Islam conquered in the early years. If you want to say 'Oops, we blew that one,' I'm good with that, and we can move on. But I'd like to hear it even as you accept my 'best I can do explanation' regarding violence committed in Christ's name. At the same time, I am wondering if you can explain the strict anti-conversion laws in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and many other countries with an Islamic majority, and in many cases Islamic law at a level of government. Why is it that Muslims can feel the freedom (even if, admittedly, they may feel some prejudice) to convert and/or practice their faith in liberal, open countries that have historically had Christian majorities, but that same freedom in reverse is not allowed in the countries I mention? I won't go into anecdotes, but I have more than a few. Incidentally, Israel has anti-conversion laws, too, and I'm not too crazy about them, either.

I'd just like to know and hear from you on these issues, so we can talk about the faiths proper. There's more than a little hurt out there--on both sides.

inkspot

02-08-2006, 05:28 PM

hy is it that Muslims can feel the freedom (even if, admittedly, they may feel some prejudice) to convert and/or practice their faith in liberal, open countries that have historically had Christian majorities, but that same freedom in reverse is not allowed in the countries I mention?
Good question. If the moderate voice is the true voice of Islam, why are Islamic nations among the most repressive?

PK, you know what was good in Lima last time I was there? Paltas -- avocados! Oh, my goodness, I can just taste the avodaco salad -- just sliced avocado with sliced tomatoe and a little salt ...yum!!!

Parthian King

02-08-2006, 07:24 PM

Thanks for the tip, Inkspot. I just had some fantastic tomatoes! I enjoy the avocados (aguacates los llamamos!), too, but none here so far. In Ecuador they throw one of those in their cheesy potato soup (locro). Man! The real claim to fame here is the seafood, ceviches especially. Maybe I'll get some of that before I cut out.

Frankly, though, I'm looking forward to some Missouri home cooking right now. Not too much longer!!

inkspot

02-09-2006, 02:21 PM

Oh, I had some trout up in Cuzco that was out of this world! I don't know how they prepared it, but it was delicious. It probably wasn't trout, either, but this is what they told me. No avocados in Lima, huh? It must have been a particularly good crop last time I was there. The tomatoes were good, too. The Ecuadorian soup sound muy bueno tambien!

Parthian King

02-09-2006, 06:17 PM

Saw some avocados today (some other lucky guy was eating them, though). Tomorrow mariscos(!), then the changing of the guard in the Plaza Nacional, etc.

Spare Oom

02-09-2006, 08:06 PM

[Inkspot:] "It is the view of Christ as God and Savior in Christianity which differs from the Muslim view of Christ as a man and prophet, as I understand what you are saying ... and of course, for Christians, this is a very big difference."

Yes, that's the crucial difference between the two faiths.

[Parthian King:] "Dunadain, you allude to this (and your heart is very good), though frankly your pacific view of the early days of Islam does not mesh with any history I have ever read, i.e., anecdotally that incident may be true, but on a whole, Islam conquered the lands it now occupies, at least for the most part."

Before I answer this as best I can, I must stress that my knowledge of the history of Islam is sketchy – it’s an area I’d like to study at some time in the future. However, I’m familiar with the story related by Dunadain and I’ve read it in more than one book.

You may like to take a look at an article by Dr. Sharif Mohammed at the following link, if you have the time:

http://thetruereligion.org/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=58

Basically, Dr. Sharif Mohammed says that the idea of Islam being spread “by the sword” is erroneous. He gives titles of books written by Western historians (Sir Thomas W. Arnold, Marshall G. Hodgson and others) which support his claim. In fact, he says that oppressed peoples often viewed the Muslims as liberators, and that it was not the sword but the simplicity and rationality of the religion which caused people to convert to Islam. He cites one of the chief attractions of the religion as the “unambiguous and uncompromising belief in the Unity, the Greatness, the Wisdom of God, the Creator of the universe.” That’s exactly what drew me to Islam (though I would tend to say “Oneness” of God, not “Unity,” since unity implies several things united.) Another attraction for people was Islam’s system of social justice.

I'm not sure that Christianity was suppressed by Islam as you said, Parthian King. In their book, For Christ’s Sake, Ahmad Thomson and Muhammad ‘Ata’ur-Rahim state that there were a number of groups of Unitarian Christians in existence at the time of the spread of Islam. These Unitarians did not believe in the Trinity and they rejected the idea of Jesus being divine. Therefore, many of them readily “recognised and embraced Islam when they came into contact with the Muslims.” Others chose not to convert to Islam but were given the freedom to practise their religion under Muslim rule, as were Jews. The Unitarian Christians had been condemned as “heretics” or “apostates” by Trinitarian Christians.

Of course, you may not accept Dr. Sharif Mohammed’s article as correct. In that case, the best thing to do is to consult a range of scholarly books and articles on the early history of Islam, written by authors from a variety of faiths and backgrounds, to see what they have to say. That’s what I intend to do myself when I have the time, God willing, as I still have much to learn about the history of Islam and I don’t just read what one person has to say on the matter and leave it at that.

I have a feeling that Dunadain may be rather knowledgeable in this area so please chip in with further comments if you have time, Dunadain.

Spare Oom

02-09-2006, 08:24 PM

[Parthian King:] "I am wondering if you can explain the strict anti-conversion laws in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and many other countries with an Islamic majority, and in many cases Islamic law at a level of government. Why is it that Muslims can feel the freedom (even if, admittedly, they may feel some prejudice) to convert and/or practice their faith in liberal, open countries that have historically had Christian majorities, but that same freedom in reverse is not allowed in the countries I mention?"

Several verses in the Qur’an talk about apostasy but, significantly, they do not advocate putting apostates to death. Rather, they declare that those who leave Islam will be punished in the after-life:

“Nor will they [ie enemies of the Muslims] cease fighting you until they succeed in turning you away from your religion if they can. But whosoever from among you renounces his religion and dies a renegade, those it shall be whose works are fruitless both in this world and in the Hereafter. And those shall be the dwellers of the fire, abiding therein forever.” (2: 217)

“How can it be expected that God would guide a people who have disbelieved after they have believed, and they bore witness that the Messenger is true and that clear revelation came to them? And God does not guide the wrongdoers.
These, their penalty is that the curse of God and the angels and of all the people is upon them,
Abiding in it, their chastisement shall not be lightened nor shall they be given respite-
Except those who repent after that and become righteous, indeed God is All-Forgiving, All-Merciful.” (3: 86-89)

“Surely those who believed, and then disbelieved, and then believed, and then disbelieved, and then increase in unbelief, God will never forgive them, neither guide them on the way.” (4: 137)

If it were true that those who left the religion must be killed, then they would not still be alive to repent, or to believe again only to fall back into disbelief, and so on. No earthly punishment for apostasy is prescribed in the Qur’an – it is left to God to deal with those who leave Islam.

Having said all that, there are a few Hadiths (Sayings attributed to the Prophet Mohammed) which say that those who leave Islam should be put to death. As I’ve said before, the Hadiths were compiled 200 or more years after the death of the Prophet Mohammed and therefore they are not 100% reliable. Also, they have to be looked at in context. At the time those Hadiths were spoken, Muslims were under attack and those individuals who left Islam went to join enemy tribes who were fighting against the Muslims. A war situation like that is obviously a special case. Nowadays, it’s perfectly possible for a person in a predominantly Muslim country to leave Islam without going to war against his/her people so, if we follow the Qur’an – “There is no compulsion in religion” (2: 256) – I can’t see any justification for putting such people to death.

DunadainofArrakis

02-09-2006, 09:35 PM

Sorry for not responding for so long. I had a couple of midterms this week and a paper to do that I’m not quite sure how I was able to finish on time. Okay, a lot of questions have been raised.

So, though I retreat not a bit from the self-deprecation concerning 'Christian' abuses during the Inquisition and the Crusades, what of those having to do with the darker chapters of Islamic history? What of the Christians who were minding their own business when Islam was imposed upon them, just as innocent Muslims were attacked by European knights 400-500 some years later?
“The darker chapters of Islamic history” does not just include periods of history when abuses were inflicted on Christians, but also includes times when the Muslims have suffered and continue to suffer at the hands of many “Islamic” rulers as well. If one wants to get an accurate picture of the way Islam views other religions, it therefore becomes necessary to highlight the way the Prophet engaged people of other faiths and how this contrasts with the way political authorities currently conduct themselves in the Middle East and other Muslim lands. Let me just say right of the bat, that the vast majority of leaders in Muslim countries today and the way they conduct the affairs of their people in such a dictatorial and oppressive fashion would not have been tolerated by the Prophet of Islam. Things are bad now in the Middle East, but it wasn’t always like this and Islam is not the cause of this situation. Does anyone actually believe Islam is the reason Saddam Hussein came to power and ruled the way he did? There are other, more political reasons for this type of situation we are faced with today, and it’s not really the purpose of this thread to elaborate on those reasons.

Firstly, when the Prophet was spreading the message of Islam he sent envoys carrying his own personal letters to invite the various rulers and their peoples to Islam. On one such occasion, the Prophet sent his emissary Harith bin Umayr to the court of a prince of the Christian Arab Tribe Ghassan. The prince’s name was Shorhail and he was also a vassal to the Byzantine Emperor. Upon the emissary’s arrival, the Byzantine vassal ordered his execution. The murder of Harith was an unprovoked killing, and the Prophet therefore decided that punitive action was necessary against the Byzantines. He sent an army of 3000 men to demand reparations. This was the first occasion when the armies of Islam would clash with the military might of the Roman Empire, which was predominantly Christian. The Muslims ended up losing this battle. It ended up setting the stage for future conflicts between the Muslims and the Byzantines.

During the summer of 630 AD, reports were circulating within the Arabian peninsula that Roman troops were gathering at the Syrian frontier for an invasion of Hijaz. The Prophet therefore prepared his army and they marched to Tabuk. Ultimately, no battle took place on this occasion. But before the Prophet left Tabuk, the monks from the St. Catherine monastery in the valley of Mt. Sinai came to see him. He gave them audience, and they signed a charter similar to the one in Medina which he had granted to the Jews. Its main terms were:

1. The Muslims would protect the churches and monasteries of the Christians. They would not demolish any church property either to build mosques or to build houses for the Muslims.
2. All ecclesiastical property (of the Christians) would be exempt from every tax.
3. No ecclesiastical authority would ever be forced by the Muslims to abandon his post.
4. No Christian would ever be forced by the Muslims to become a convert to Islam.
5. If a Christian woman marries a Muslim, she would have full freedom to follow her own religion.

This charter is indicative of how the Muslims and Christians were expected to get along, as outlined by the Prophet. This charter granted the Christians rights under the Muslims that no Muslim could infringe upon. No Muslim could say or do otherwise because this is what the messenger of God decreed.

The Christians of Coptic Church in Egypt (the cradle of great Christian thinkers like Origen and others) did not convert (as Spare Oom did), they were overrun.
I have also read or heard from somewhere that the Muslims were actually assisted by the Coptic Christians in their attacks against the Byzantines during the Islamic conquest of Egypt. I think the Coptics had preferred to be ruled by the Muslims rather than the Byzantines because the Muslims were more tolerant during this time in history. It is very likely that on some ocassions the Muslims did not behave like they should have when they were dealing with the Christians. It must be said that the Prophet and the religion of Islam itself does not condone attacks against innocent people. Unfortunately there are times when Muslims have not followed the principles and beliefs of their faith. I am not too sure about the particulars of the wrongdoings committed against Christians during periods of Islamic conquest, but I think in Egypt’s case that it wasn’t all that bad as there is still a sizeable Coptic population in Egypt. Another important point to take note is that the Byzantines and Sassanians did not want to see another power rise up and compete with them, so they engaged the Muslims in numerous military encounters before the Muslims were finally able to conquer many of the lands that these powers used to launch attacks against the Muslims, Syria and Asia Minor included. Most of these lands were conquered during the time of the second caliph Umar. This is from a wikipedia article which basically sums it up:

During `Umar's reign, the Islamic empire grew at an unprecedented rate, taking Mesopotamia and parts of Persia from the Sāsānids (effectively ending that empire), and taking Egypt, Palestine, Syria, North Africa and Armenia from the Byzantines. Many of these conquests followed watershed battles on both the western and eastern fronts. The Battle of Yarmūk, fought near Damascus in 636, saw a Muslim army of 20,000 defeat a Byzantine force estimated to number 40,000, permanently ending Byzantine rule south of Asia Minor. Another small Muslim army achieved victory over a larger force in the much-mythologized Battle of al-Qaadisiyyah of circa 636, near the banks of the Euphrates River. During the course of the battle, Muslim general Saa'ad ibn Abi Waqqas routed the Sassanian army and achieved the death of the famed Persian general Rostam Farrokhzaad.

In 637, after a prolonged siege of Jerusalem, the Muslims took the city. `Umar was given the key to the city by the Patriarch of Jerusalem, Sophronius, and invited to pray at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Umar chose to pray some distance from the Church, so as not to endanger its status as a Christian temple.

Basilides

02-10-2006, 12:00 AM

I would like to ask the Christians on this forum about Christ’s role during the end-times. He is a messianic figure for Muslims, being the one to slay the Anti-Christ and help rid the world of its oppression and injustice. I was wondering if he takes on the same kind of combative role in Christian eschatology, or if he continues to preach love and peace even as the world plunges into even more injustice and oppression which, according to Islamic prophesies, will show no end in sight until God’s forces forcibly remove these conditions.

Christ's eschatological role is that of the returning rightful King, bringing love and peace by judgment and renewal. There is no contradiction between the preaching of love and peace and the re-establishment of Divine rule. In fact, they are one and the same. The Jesus who commanded us to love our enemies also said he came with a sword.

Grace and forgiveness are powerful weapons, deadly powerful to the real Enemy.

inkspot

02-10-2006, 11:55 AM

Basilides is back! I've missed you - hope all is well.
PK, I'm in Curacao now and may sample a few mariscos myself.

Parthian King

02-11-2006, 08:51 PM

Oh, thank the Lord I am on my way home! More good stuff, today, though, Ink. Good hunting for yours in Curacao!

I cannot respond at length now to the recent posts by Dunadain and Spare Oom, but by way of pure clarification, am I to understand that both (or either one) simply hold that in the Islamic expansion during the 7th and 8th centuries, the Muslims simply evangelized, and that there was no bloodshed in the name of Allah, no military action, and no compulsion to covert? I am aware that painting with broad brush strokes is always dangerous, and I am willing to cede the point that some (in particular Nestorians, Ebionites, Monophists, and other fringe groups, as well as some nominal orthodox) surely did convert, especially since some of these 'Christians' held to doctrines closer to those of Islam. Respectfully, I can find a book or books, and group of scholars holding to a variant view of history on essentially any point I'd like, especially something of such vast importance as this. Again, I have some foot work to do, but before I do, I just want to confirm that (in very respectful tones) you are collectively citing certain gentlemen and saying that the Islamic armies were liberators, that they just shared a message, and that there really was no military conquest (and associated abuses) to apologize for?

Just clarifying so we know where we stand.

DunadainofArrakis

02-11-2006, 11:48 PM

Again, I have some foot work to do, but before I do, I just want to confirm that (in very respectful tones) you are collectively citing certain gentlemen and saying that the Islamic armies were liberators, that they just shared a message, and that there really was no military conquest (and associated abuses) to apologize for?

Just clarifying so we know where we stand.
I am simply asserting that the Prophet did things a certain way, whereas those who came after him may have started doing things differently. Also, battles against the Byzantines and Persians were to be expected considering the stances that these two powers had against the rising Muslim power. These clashes had less to do with “spreading the faith” for the Muslims and more to do with preserving it. The Qur’an clearly states:

002.256
Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.

However, if you Parthian King were to provide me with instances in which the Muslims did things that they were not supposed to do, in fact things which were outright immoral, I would not be surprised. I could provide you with many of these accounts as well. One account should be adequate to illustrate how the Muslims would go against the wishes of the Prophet and what the religion of Islam had prescribed for them, even during the lifetime of the Prophet.

Going back to when the Muslims conquered Mecca, and as I and many historians have noted, the Prophet ordered none of the inhabitants of Mecca to be killed unless his commanders met with resistance. The conquest of Mecca was pretty much a bloodless battle, but I have read in some sources that a companion by the name of Khalid ibn al Waleed killed a few people at Mecca’s southern gate. Regardless of being provoked or not, I have read some sources which say that this commander was severely reprimanded by the Prophet for having conducted the encounter the way that he did.
Another account that involves Khalid is one in which the Prophet sent him out to collect some unpaid taxes from a Muslim tribe called Bani Jadheema. It seems that Khalid had a score to settle with certain members of the tribe for having killed his uncle when they were still a pagan tribe. He had a group of them killed. When the Prophet found out about this, according to many sources he stood up, faced towards the Ka’aba (the direction for prayer), and called upon heaven to be his witness that he was innocent of what Khalid had done. Khalid had tarnished the image of Islam (and he would not be the last of the companions of the Prophet to do so). The image of Islam needed to be restored, so the Prophet then had to send his most trusted companion and relative Ali to make reparations to this tribe and to redress the injustice committed against them. The Prophet gave funds to Ali, instructing him to give to the victims compensation and he also compensated the property owners for their damages. Before leaving, he gave the rest of the money the Prophet had given him to these people just in case there were any other losses which weren’t taken into account at the time. Ali had helped redress not only the physical wounds that were inflicted on this group of Muslims by another Muslim, but also their psychological and spiritual wounds as well, thus showing that Islam was a religion of peace and caring.

So as we can see, not all of the Prophet’s followers did everything according to Islam. I personally don’t think of all of the early Muslims as being good people. It was up to the good followers of the Prophet and Islam to make big sacrifices so that we Muslims of today have the level of understanding that we have. I think of many of the Prophet’s companions, such as Ali ibn Abi Talib, Bilal, Ammar ibn Yassir, Salman Al Farsi, and many others as being great followers of the Prophet. But for all that these great companions of the Prophet could do, especially after his death, they couldn’t keep all the Muslims from choosing to sin against God. Much of our spiritual strength and understanding we owe to companions like these previously mentioned ones. Much of our troubles we owe to those other, less disciplined and immoral companions of the Prophet. Unfortunately, every Prophet had followers like these, to various extents. Jesus had insubordinates, as well as Moses, and David, and the rest. But in order to understand what these prophets were all about, we have to look more so at them and less so at those who followed them.

Spare Oom

02-12-2006, 04:36 AM

[Dunadain:] "So as we can see, not all of the Prophet’s followers did everything according to Islam. I personally don’t think of all of the early Muslims as being good people. It was up to the good followers of the Prophet and Islam to make big sacrifices so that we Muslims of today have the level of understanding that we have. I think of many of the Prophet’s companions, such as Ali ibn Abi Talib, Bilal, Ammar ibn Yassir, Salman Al Farsi, and many others as being great followers of the Prophet. But for all that these great companions of the Prophet could do, especially after his death, they couldn’t keep all the Muslims from choosing to sin against God. Much of our spiritual strength and understanding we owe to companions like these previously mentioned ones. Much of our troubles we owe to those other, less disciplined and immoral companions of the Prophet. Unfortunately, every Prophet had followers like these, to various extents. Jesus had insubordinates, as well as Moses, and David, and the rest. But in order to understand what these prophets were all about, we have to look more so at them and less so at those who followed them."

Yes, I'd agree with that. Unfortunately, not everyone who professes to follow a particular religion acts in the spirit of that religion. That's still the case today, and it's a terrible thing that those few who commit threatening or violent acts in the name of Islam get all the attention, tarring all Muslims with the same brush in the eyes of many non-Muslims. I know lots of Muslims from several different countries and all of them are peaceful, serene, dignified people, committed to doing what they can for society. I have also read scores of books written by Muslims (Dr. Maurice Bucaille, Jeffrey Lang, Ahmad Thomson, Muhammad 'Ata'ur-Rahim, Ruqaiyyah Warris Maqsood and others), which attest to the real nature of the religion. The true spirit of Islam is one of peace, fellowship, joy and strong trust in God.

miss-moseley

02-12-2006, 05:10 AM

if you are talking about islam here i have a couple of things to say.. what is the muslims problem.. i mean, freak out over some stupid cartoons of Mohammed. they have made cartoons of the jewish reigion too.. i've no respect of them when they start to burn all our embassies.. thats out of respect!!! thats my openion but off course i have that openion because im danish :rolleyes:

Queen Swanwhite

02-12-2006, 06:42 AM

The thing is, with lots of religions (you have to take this into consideration) they get offended over the smallest thing. Like (as miss-moseley pointed out) a cartoon of Mohammed. Christians are ignored when they are offended. When in London, they had the nativity play with Victoria Beckham and co. chrisitans were ignored, but when muslims, hindus etc, get offended, it's big news!

(I'm agreeing with you miss-moseley) :)

miss-moseley

02-12-2006, 06:55 AM

i know but its just anoying when they for example get mad on our prime minister when all he does is to say sorry and tell them that we have freedom of expression.. off course i understand their madness because they have another religion than us but i still dont think that burning our embassies down will solve the problem...!!

Queen Swanwhite

02-12-2006, 06:57 AM

miss-moseley

02-12-2006, 07:00 AM

jep.. thats my openion.. :D

DunadainofArrakis

02-12-2006, 06:24 PM

I agree. Sometimes Muslims etc. can be disrespectful. There's no need for it.

That's all I have to say on this subject.
Yeah, that's true. Sometimes Muslims can be disrespectful. There is a lot of anger right now in the Middle East and other Muslim lands. I understand that anger myself, but it still in no way justifies burning embassies. The peaceful protests are necessary though. I would expect Christians to protest if their religion were being attacked. The people who published these cartoons are starting to get the message that this wasn't just some exercise of free speech. It's something more than that. Now their entire nation is being affected by these silly and pointless cartoons. Those people in Denmark who have lost their jobs over these cartoons due to boycotts in Muslim lands are probably not too happy with the newspaper Jyllands-Posten. They had nothing to do with this. Maybe the people who published these cartoons should have considered what possibly might happen as a result of their publishing these cartoons. These newspaper editors in Europe are very reckless and insensitive.

PrinceOfTheWest

02-12-2006, 08:19 PM

A couple of issues here. First, I understand that part of the furor over the cartoons goes beyond just the cartoons themselves, but includes outrage over a picture of a man dressed up as a pig. Apparently the impression is being spread that this is somehow meant to characterize Muhammed. This is a total fabrication - the man dressed up as a pig is a Frenchman who was taking part in his town's centuries-old pork festival. It has nothing to do with Muhammed, yet it is being exploited by the unscrupulous. One wonders why.

Another point is that the issue of doing or not doing something because some other party might be offended is a very touchy question, since someone can just decide to be offended no matter what someone else has done. We had a case here in the states when an airline flight attendant used a nursery rhyme to encourage people to get to their seats, and one passenger took it as a racial slur and decided to sue the airline! This is beyond reason. If I must modulate anything I do or say because it may offend someone else, then I will not be able to do or say anything. To control my behaviour, all someone has to do is threaten to take offense.

It seems a simple guideline to be able to absorb a little offense in the interest of being courteous to others. For instance, I am a Catholic Christian - one who certain elements in Western Culture seem to take glee in offending. I do not burn their houses - in fact, I pray for their souls, since they are the ones who will reap what they have sown, if they do not repent. For that matter, some would consider Islam's denial of the divinity of Christ as a tremendous offense to the Second Person of the Trinity - but we are forbidden to exact vengance. There have been blasphemers who have turned from their blasphemy because they were treated with charity, not retribution. Is this not more pleasing to God?

DunadainofArrakis

02-12-2006, 09:24 PM

If I must modulate anything I do or say because it may offend someone else, then I will not be able to do or say anything. To control my behaviour, all someone has to do is threaten to take offense.

Freedom of speech is one thing. Being able to make fun of a figure like the Prophet goes beyond the bounds of reason and decency. If someone were to characterize Christ in this way, would you not feel offended? Should our societies hold nothing sacred? No one should have to modulate anything. Our own sense of decency and intellect should prevent us from doing anything rash like these cartoonists have done. And for what? There was really no point behind these cartoons. You can exercise freedom of speech in other ways. Why did they choose this way? These people lack intelligence.

Parthian King

02-13-2006, 02:31 AM

Oh, a number of things. First, Dunadain, I personally have made my position clear on the cartoons, so you know where I stand. But I am at a loss as to why you felt Prince of the West’s post needed any response at all along the lines of the one you gave. For the record: We got it. Muslims don’t like that the one they consider a prophet was insulted by the secular press in secular Europe. We also think it’s pretty stupid (along with some prominent Muslim leaders) that people are killing and rioting and destroying things in response. I cannot find a post on this site that says anything like “Hey, those cartoons are great and those who drew and published them are geniuses.” When that horse just keeps getting beaten, it gives the impression that being Muslim means walking about with a perpetual chip on your shoulder, an attitude rather at odds with the one you and Spare Oom are claiming is true of Islam. These foolish publishers are to blame for what they did, but though their actions have had a historically causative effect upon the reaction we have seen in the Muslim world, any suggestion that anyone but the rioters are responsible for the riots is sheer nonsense.

Offense is indeed often in the mind of the hearer, and we Christians can be (and are) offended as well. But our theology rejects even coming close (i.e., remotely considering, becoming bitter, dwelling on, hating people for, etc.) to the kind of response that you also claim to see as aberrant. Yet as has been said, “Don’t take the quietness of my demeanor as a lack of resolve.” When Spare Oom says this…

…I don't see why killing His 'son' to save us is "just."—Thread Does Jesus Care, Post #177

…hey, guess what? It offends me. It is a discussion, and he is making an assertion, and that’s fine. But what if every time I referred to Mohammed as a prophet I not only skipped the capital letter, but used quotation marks? Would that offend you? Kudos to you if you have thick enough skin to say “no.” But this offends me that on a site where, quite frankly, I come to read about Aslan, King of kings, Son of the Emperor from Over the Sea, who died for me and rose again, and there I find that someone cannot even bring themselves to respect the opposition’s stand enough to take responsibility for stating it as it is, but rather must use quotes as is often done as a rhetorical device in a text to belittle a position at odds with one's own. Since we all know that Jesus is the Son of God according to our faith, why else would Spare Oom refer to Him this way? But my Lord tells me this is part of being a disciple of a crucified King, and we are to turn the other cheek. We are not craven, we are surrendered to One who tells us to let it go—vengeance is His, and to take it ourselves does not venerate His sovereignty, it violates it.

So that’s another rather big difference between these two faiths. You said, after reading what I said about Jesus being a suffering servant, that you mused what might be comparable in Islam. My response is: if you have to muse about what might be comparable, the point is made. Christ’s loving sacrifice is the cornerstone of who we are and lies at the center of our identity—it is not a peripheral issue that one has to search high and low for.

As for your recent responses, Dundadain and Spare Oom, I take them to mean that “no,” there’s nothing to apologize for. That’s fine; I just needed to know where you both stood. You both feel that any violence done was either highly aberrant and not true to either the way Mohammed commanded and led, or did not happen at all and is the result of historical distortions since then. I won’t delve into a history lesson here because it isn’t the place (a simple Google search in the reader’s spare time will do). I would simply say that I find it quite enlightening that the two primary adherents to the Muslim faith represented here—both of whom claim to be moderates—propose a version and interpretation of history that is so blatantly revisionist. If that is the moderate view…

As far as I can see, this perception also stands at odds with verses from the Quran, such as:

How many a township have We destroyed! As a raid by night, or while they slept at noon, Our terror came unto them. No plea had they, when Our terror came unto them, save that they said: Lo! We were wrong-doers—Quran, Surah 7:4-5

O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey's end. Ye slew them not, but Allah slew them. And thou (Muhammad) threwest not when thou didst throw, but Allah threw, that He might test the believers by a fair test from Him. –Quran, Surah 8:15-17

O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there be of you twenty steadfast they shall overcome two hundred, and if there be of you a hundred (steadfast) they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they (the disbelievers) are a folk without intelligence.—Quran, Surah 8:65

(Dundain, I suppose the final words of this verse is your base for saying that those who wrote the cartoons are “without intelligence.” But does it mean we all here—indeed, C.S. Lewis himself—also fall in the same camp?)

It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise.—Quran, Surah 8:67

Lo! Allah hath bought from the believers their lives and their wealth because the Garden will be theirs: they shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain. It is a promise which is binding on Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur'an.—Quran, Surah 9:111

Say unto those of the wandering Arabs who were left behind: Ye will be called against a folk of mighty prowess, to fight them until they surrender; and if ye obey, Allah will give you a fair reward; but if ye turn away as ye did turn away before, He will punish you with a painful doom.—Quran, Surah 48:16

I could quote more, but why? Now, given that Muslims believe that Mohammed has the final word (i.e., he is the last and the greatest of the prophets), and that Islam rests upon his words as is, and not some later revision or covenant (as with the New Testament over against the wars of Yahweh is the Old), I find these words rather hard to reconcile with these words which we have recently read:

One account should be adequate to illustrate how the Muslims would go against the wishes of the Prophet and what the religion of Islam had prescribed for them, even during the lifetime of the Prophet.

Or these:

The true spirit of Islam is one of peace, fellowship, joy and strong trust in God.

Again, I am not interested in the actions of fringe elements of the Islamic faith. But are those who take these verses literally and of persistent importance really so fringe? Are they not acting in line with the faith as it is spelled out by the Prophet (I’ll refrain from the quotation marks)? Or, from another angle, are you suggesting (either one of you) that the earliest Muslims fell away from the true faith so rapidly that even in the Prophet’s lifetime they did not take these words literally? Secular historians, who are not at all interested in theological issues, but rather the clash of civilizations, certainly would argue that they were very faithful indeed to these commandments. This makes my head spin a bit, then, when I read, Dundain, your statement that “So as we can see, not all of the Prophet’s followers did everything according to Islam.” Which followers of his are you referring to? The ones who obeyed these verses from the Quran, or those who did not? One thing is certainly for sure: there are those in the Islamic world (who form significant percentages of populations in Muslim countries) that, quoting these verses would say that to take a “moderate” tone is nothing less than an insipid faith.

Finally, Spare Oom, I am thankful for your stance that “apostates” (I’m quoting you here, not undercutting your use of the term) should not be killed. I do wish you would rise as a great teacher in the Islamic world and inform the religious police of Saudi Arabia (the mutaween, or Commission for Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice) of how things should be done! But in truth, I was referring to the freedom to even share the Christian faith (or any other, for that matter) in Muslim countries. Again, I‘ll resist the temptation at the moment to provide testimonials on this score. But I will say that people who have never been Muslims (thus making the title “apostate” inapplicable) have been tortured and killed by official government agencies in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Pakistan (here I name those with which I am somewhat familiar) for the heinous crime of leading a house church and telling others about Jesus in the vein C.S. Lewis followed (i.e., orthodox Christian). That is why I wondered aloud concerning Muslim freedoms in the West over against the nearly total lack of said freedom in the Islamic world. This is what I’d like you to address.

Perhaps these issues are unanswerable. But I have to wonder about them, and note that dividing them from foundational issues in such a discussion is pretty near impossible. In any case, though some has already been discussed (briefly, in the Does Jesus Care thread) I want (for my part) to move toward the real issue, which is, who is Jesus Christ—REALLY.

Spare Oom

02-13-2006, 05:45 AM

[Parthian King:] "Offense is indeed often in the mind of the hearer, and we Christians can be (and are) offended as well. But our theology rejects even coming close (i.e., remotely considering, becoming bitter, dwelling on, hating people for, etc.) to the kind of response that you also claim to see as aberrant. Yet as has been said, “Don’t take the quietness of my demeanor as a lack of resolve.” When Spare Oom says this…

Quote:
…I don't see why killing His 'son' to save us is "just."—Thread Does Jesus Care, Post #177

…hey, guess what? It offends me. It is a discussion, and he is making an assertion, and that’s fine. But what if every time I referred to Mohammed as a prophet I not only skipped the capital letter, but used quotation marks? Would that offend you? Kudos to you if you have thick enough skin to say “no.” But this offends me that on a site where, quite frankly, I come to read about Aslan, King of kings, Son of the Emperor from Over the Sea, who died for me and rose again, and there I find that someone cannot even bring themselves to respect the opposition’s stand enough to take responsibility for stating it as it is, but rather must use quotes as is often done as a rhetorical device in a text to belittle a position at odds with one's own."

Parthian King, I wasn’t trying to belittle Christians and I’m sorry if it seemed that way (by the way, I'm female.) In using the quotation marks, I meant to show that I don’t accept Jesus’ divinity. To be honest, I think this is one of those fundamental contradictions which you said in a previous post constitute a “deeper offense” and, however politely we express those fundamental differences in belief, they will inevitably come across as offensive.

[Parthian King:] "I find it quite enlightening that the two primary adherents to the Muslim faith represented here—both of whom claim to be moderates—propose a version and interpretation of history that is so blatantly revisionist."

Actually, we have agreed that atrocities were committed but that those who went further than fighting man to man (for example those who harmed women, children, the sick, the elderly, trees and crops, or those who attacked without provocation) were not acting in accordance with Islam.

Regarding the quotations from the Qur’an, yes it’s true that, in the early years of Islam, God commanded the Muslims to fight the pagans who were fighting against them – but within the rules I’ve already outlined. Look at what God commands in the Bible:

“When you go to attack a city, first give its people a chance to surrender. If they open the gates and surrender, they are all to become your slaves and do forced labour for you. But if the people of that city will not surrender, but choose to fight, surround it with your army. Then, when the Lord your God lets you capture the city, kill every man in it. You may, however, take for yourselves the women, the children, the livestock, and everything else in the city. You may use everything that belongs to your enemies. The Lord has given it to you. That is how you are to deal with those cities that are far away from the land you will settle in.

But when you capture cities in the land that the Lord your God is giving you, kill everyone. Completely destroy all the people: the Hittites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, as the Lord ordered you to do. Kill them, so that they will not make you sin against the Lord by teaching you to do all the disgusting things that they do in the worship of their gods.

When you are trying to capture a city, do not cut down its fruit-trees, even though the siege lasts a long time. Eat the fruit, but do not destroy the trees; the trees are not your enemies. You may cut down the other trees and use them in the siege mounds until the city is captured.” (Deuteronomy 20: 10-20).

The second paragraph of that seems particularly harsh, yet it was God’s command. You say that the New Testament is a later revision or covenant, but it’s still the same God and He has commanded such actions at times when He has deemed them necessary. It’s the same with the Qur’an. And the Qur’an also speaks of peace and justice:

“But if they [ie the enemy] incline to peace, then incline to it, and trust in God, indeed He is the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing.” (8: 61)

“God forbids you not with regard to those who have not fought you in the cause of religion, nor expelled you from your homes, that you should be considerate and deal justly with them, surely God loves the just.” (60: 8)

Since Christians were instructed by Jesus to “turn the other cheek” when attacked, why have there been so many wars involving Christians? Should Christians never fight, even in self-defence?

[Parthian King:] "I was referring to the freedom to even share the Christian faith (or any other, for that matter) in Muslim countries. Again, I‘ll resist the temptation at the moment to provide testimonials on this score. But I will say that people who have never been Muslims (thus making the title “apostate” inapplicable) have been tortured and killed by official government agencies in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Pakistan (here I name those with which I am somewhat familiar) for the heinous crime of leading a house church and telling others about Jesus in the vein C.S. Lewis followed (i.e., orthodox Christian). That is why I wondered aloud concerning Muslim freedoms in the West over against the nearly total lack of said freedom in the Islamic world. This is what I’d like you to address."

The Prophet Mohammed lived alongside Christians and Jews and they continued to practise their faith, so predominantly Muslim countries of today ought to follow that example.

[Parthian King:] "In any case, though some has already been discussed (briefly, in the Does Jesus Care thread) I want (for my part) to move toward the real issue, which is, who is Jesus Christ—REALLY."

I have posted some questions/thoughts on Jesus in response to a post by Curumo but he hasn't had time to get back to me yet.

inkspot

02-13-2006, 10:43 AM

Just a note ... as I understand Islamic history from my reading (which I know can never come close to what you who practice Islam know from day to day experience) it was in the early days of Islam when Mohammed lived peacefully with Jews and Christians, before his religion became popular. Then it was in the latter days (when he had followers and an army) that the philosophy became more militant and military -- then he didn't have to live in peace with anyone, as he had the might to conquer instead. So while the Koran preaches peace in some places, it also preaches war in others, and the war parts were written after the peace parts. Perhaps I am mistaken in this, if so, sorry, this is what i read.

By contrast, the Old Testament for Jews and Christians moves from war-like to peaceful in the New Testament, with the peace part coming last, making it the most current part of our Scriptures. In the Old Testament, God was ruthlessly protecting one nation, Israel, trying to keep them as uncorrupted by surrounding religions as possible, while the foundation was laid for the coming of the King, His Son. God seems as tough and brutal as any Father would be in protecting His children. Then Christ came and fulfilled the harsh laws, and also opened the door to the Gentile world to be saved along with Israel. This sort of explains why the OT seems so harsh, and the NT, which is our most current Scripture, the latest, is based on peaceful philosophy.

Now, we can discuss whether Christians should ever fight and those other questions in another Thread, but this is the Islam Thread. Also, there is another Thread on those stupid cartoons, but I think it worth a mention here: the cartoon were published in an Arabic newspaper last October (to show how offensive they were) and no one rioted. It seems today's rioters either took a long time to notice the cartoons (published months ago in the Middle East) or did not take offense to them until someone told them to -- which makes it not religious fervor but a political ploy.

Parthian King

02-13-2006, 01:18 PM

Spare Oom, sorry for getting your sex wrong. I assumed, which is always dangerous! (I guess the idea of you becoming a teacher to the mutaween is out the window, then!)

I believe we are re-covering old ground. Respectfully, I simply do not accept your explanation regarding violence in the Quran vis-a-vis the Bible. Your attempt to question/draw parallels has already been dealt with, and after having gone through this sort of thing in the Mormon thread I'm not sure I have the stomach for it here. First, I addressed the issue of "Christian Wars" in post 126 of this thread, above. I would also draw a distinction between the concept of a "Christian War" (a contradiction in terms) and a Christian (or Muslim, for that matter) going to war as a combatant for their country, meaning they are not pacifist (C.S. Lewis' position BTW). I have no problem with the latter; the former causes fundamental problems. At its bedrock, Islam is militant in a literal way as demonstrated by its holy writings. This means that "evangelism" can be done with the sword. Christianity cannot do things that way and still be true to Christ (again, see my post #126). As for self-defense, of course they should, at least at a communal level (i.e., not merely a personal offense). But in 1453, when Constantinople was being besieged by Muslim forces for the third time, who was the defender and who the aggressor? Charles Martel fought Islamic forces at Poitiers, not Medina. Dunadain's statement that violence was only to be used if militant coercion was met with resistance rather makes my case for me: Serve Allah as we see it, or be subject to sword, slavery, or tribute. How does this posture on the part of Muslims elicit your question as to whether Christians have a right to defend themselves?

As for your quoting of OT assages, you missed more than a few. But you make my point for me, really, because in my last post I said this, which you apparently did not grasp:

...Muslims believe that Mohammed has the final word (i.e., he is the last and the greatest of the prophets), and that Islam rests upon his words as is, and not some later revision or covenant (as with the New Testament over against the wars of Yahweh is the Old)...

The point is, the Old Testament (=Covenant) was imperfect and therefore intermediary, and meant to be superceded by a new one. (Inkspot points this out with more economy of words.) This is recognized, by the way, within the OT, in Jeremiah specifically and throughout the prophetic witness generally (see especially Moses' statement concerning the prophet to come). God's plan was not finally to sustain a monarchical theocracy from whch He could reign temporally, but a Church that is salt and light amongst all nations, the hearts of whom serve as His throne in another manner. The New supercedes the Old in the Cross, the sword is abolished (see Jesus' conversations with His disciples about them at the Last Supper, culminating in the episode with Peter and Malchus), and the New, final age of conquest through love is inaugurated. This shows that using the sword was a "necessary evil" for the wickedness of the nations, and that God Himself wasn't too crazy about it (else why was David as a "man of blood" prohibited from building the temple?)--it is a temporary stage until the coming of the final form of God's plan. When you say it was the "same God" giving commands, you obscure the fact that though He never changes, His plan progresses in the world as His promises unfold and the knowledge of Him increases among humanity. My objection that arises from the violence prescribed in the Quran is that for Muslims, there is no prophet between Jesus and Mohammed, and none after Mohammed. He is the final word, and his words the final form until the end. To say that this was an "early form" seems odd, when so many Muslims take the Quran as actual (meaning, fully relevant in the contemporary sense) holy scripture through and through. We divide Old from New. What do you do, Spare Oom, to separate these concepts from the milder ones one might find in the Quran? For as I see it, it appears that the maxim concerning "one life=the whole world" applies only to a Muslim life:

For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty), but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth.--Quran

...a verse followed immediately by this:

The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom.--Quran

Given that it seems that not being Muslim (i.e., rejecting the Islamic version of God/Allah) is pretty much all it takes to qualify as one who "strives after corruption in the land," I have to say, rather ironically, that (as one who takes my own Scriptures very seriously) I agree with Al Qaeda's interpretation of the Quran over against any moderate position that I have seen.

Finally, regarding your explanation on the quotes around the word son when referring to Jesus, I believe it (again) simply adds to my point. We are quick enough to know that as a Muslim you do not regard Christ Jesus as divine, just as you are surely intelligent enough to recognize that we don't accept Mohammed as any kind of prophet. These points are indeed from the category of "cooler, deeper" offense. Yet if one, in a context where these positions are self-evident, continues to use such literary devices, how can offense not be taken? Were not the papers in Europe simply saying "Hey, no offense, we are just asserting that we don't accept Mohammed as a prophet through something we do hold as sacred--freedom of speech." As for my part, Spare Oom, I only brought the issue up by way of illustration. I obey my Lord on this matter, and you were forgiven long before I used it to make the point.

As for that regarding modern freedom of religion and speech, I'll assume you are in agreement with your Muslim brothers on them, that such people are "striving after corruption in the land" and deserve what they get. In other words, I am still not hearing whether you agree that I should be able to operate freely in Saudi Arabia (or other such places) as a missionary to spread the good news of Christ as I perceive it. The fact is, even with your moderating (though incomplete) position on this matter, you are ultra-liberal over against the reality that rules the Islamic world. In other words, even though you don't seem willing to allow Christians the freedom to share Christ there as Muslims can here, you are still non-representative and must talk about things as they should be, and not as they are. Could it be as a fairly recent convert (I assume, again dangerously, perhaps) that there are some factors about Islam on this point that you are missing, seeming that pretty much everyone else in your faith is going the other way on it? But again, I'm going to drop it (since you saying such and such will hardly grant my visa to take such action, much less guarantee my safety once I got there!), and move on the christological issues as I have the time.

DunadainofArrakis

02-13-2006, 03:35 PM

Spare Oom, I couldn’t have given a better reply as the one you have provided. It just feels like we (both Muslims and Christians) are running around in circles. While I have been thought of as espousing an interpretation of Islamic history that is so “blatantly revisionist,” I could just as easily say orthodox Christianity is a revisionist interpretation of the Old Testament. When people try to highlight the verses of the Qur’an that seemingly mean (to some non-Muslims) “Go kill the disbelievers,” we can very easily find verses that appear to espouse the same thing in the Old Testament. (And by the way, “disbelievers” has a specific meaning in mind—it doesn’t simply mean one who does not believe in Islam; the ones who would say otherwise have taken a revisionist approach to understanding Islam so that they can justify their own beliefs and actions).

You can provide me with any explanation you like as to why that there is an inconsistency between the God of the OT and the God of the NT, but don’t just ignore the previously mentioned verses as if they never existed. My suggestion is that Christians try to look at Islam not through the eyes of a Christian, but through the eyes of someone who doesn’t believe in Christ as “the incarnation of the eternally existent Second Person of the Trinity.” If you are going to keep this belief constantly at the forefront of your analysis, I think you are going to come away with a very narrow and limited understanding of Islam. That’s all I can say. Maybe after a while you will start to see a few parallels between the God of Islam and the God that Jesus Christ (Peace be upon him) worshipped.

If any on this forum have questions about Islam, I’d be more than happy to answer what I know (but I am kind of limited in my time because of my studies, but I will try my best), and I am sure Spare Oom would do the same.

003.113
YUSUFALI: Not all of them are alike: Of the People of the Book are a portion that stand (For the right): They rehearse the Signs of Allah all night long, and they prostrate themselves in adoration.

003.114
YUSUFALI: They believe in Allah and the Last Day; they enjoin what is right, and forbid what is wrong; and they hasten (in emulation) in (all) good works: They are in the ranks of the righteous.

003.115
YUSUFALI: Of the good that they do, nothing will be rejected of them; for Allah knoweth well those that do right.

inkspot

02-13-2006, 04:40 PM

This is very nice. PK and I both clearly state why the Bible is divided into Old and New Testaments: the Old Testament was God's laying the foundation for the plan of salvation through Jesus, and although He did not enjoy shedding blood, sometimes it was the only way to force the plan forward. When Christ came, He was the completion of the plan, and from that moment forward, His Word and His New Covenant became the law for us. This is clear for everyone by the labeling of the old covenant as the OLD Testament, and the new covenant as the NEW Testament. Then PK asks: where does Islam draw the line between their old and new?

Instead of any coherent response, we get:
You can provide me with any explanation you like as to why that there is an inconsistency between the God of the OT and the God of the NT, but don’t just ignore the previously mentioned verses as if they never existed.
No one has ignored them, we have explained them: that violence was appparently the necessary evil to preserve the nation of Israel in as uncorrupted a form as possible to bring about the Messiah for all people. And as for inconsistency, there is none: the Old Testament plan clearly proclaims itself as the vehicle for the Messiah's advent, with full knowledge that at His coming it would fade away. Every book looks forward to the coming Deliverer. When He came, old things were passed away! The old violence was no longer necessary to preserve Israel as a nation -- because now everyone could be grafted into the Israeli tree, through Christ.
God Most High will strengthen the city of Zion. Then everyone will say, "We were born here too."
Psalm 87:5
There is no admonition to violence in the New Testament, which has done away with the law of the Old Testament and completed its promise: the promise that all who believe on Christ are considered by God as His chosen people; we can all say we were born in Zion!

This is the difference between Old and New Testaments. Now, can anyone show me where in the Koran the admonitions to violence are done away with, and the admonitions for peace are shown to take precedence?

And ... did anyone ever answer why, if Islam is a religion of peace and respect for other religions, why there is no freedom of religion in some Islamic nations (and why it is disappearing in the more secular Islamic nations as they become more theistic)?

These are my questions.

Daishi

02-13-2006, 04:45 PM

A lot of Christians here talking as if Christianity is not used oppressively in some regards. Here in the U.S. there are significant groups of people which deny woman any place in the public work force or of significance based on their interpretations of the Bible. Regulations range from being as that extreme down to prohibitions on jewelry, makeup, wearing anything other than long dresses, etc.

Of course from my perspective I think Islam is a much more prohbitive religion applied at a state level, but that also deals with other aspects of society including culture and societal development, not just religion in and of itself.

Parthian King

02-13-2006, 05:11 PM

Daishi, read post #126 of this thread, and you'll see what I think of that.

I could just as easily say orthodox Christianity is a revisionist interpretation of the Old Testament....You can provide me with any explanation you like as to why that there is an inconsistency between the God of the OT and the God of the NT, but don’t just ignore the previously mentioned verses as if they never existed.

Apples and oranges. When I say that you seem revisionist, I refer to your view of what happened militarily in North Africa, Asia, and to an extent, Europe in the wake of Islam's rise through Mohammed's teachings during the 7th and 8th centuries AD and afterward. The vast majority of historians (indeed, entire libraries) say that Arabic forces, motivated by the teachings of Islam, used military force to conquer lands that neither attacked them nor invited them. From what I am reading, you, Dunadain, and Spare Oom (especially), have suggested that Islamic military expansion should somehow be either construed as self-defense or that it really didn't happen at all (see above for Spare Oom's suggestion of this school of thought). When someone stands up and says "Hey, I know everyone for centuries has thought that such-and-such happened. Well, it didn't--actually, the opposite happened,"--that's revisionism. What the Iranian regime currently attempts to do regarding the history of the Holocaust in Europe is revisionism.

Now, if you are not saying that Islam expanded peacefully (i.e., what you really meant was that, yes, Islam expanded by means of overrunning its neighbors militarily), and I have somehow miscontrued your words, I stand corrected. Actually, it would make more sense to me if you would just come out and say, "Yeah, we took those lands by the sword along with whatever other means we could. What of it?" As it is, I find it puzzling to read about how peaceful Islam is when common knowledge of history tells another story.

What Christians do with the interperetation of the Old Testament is entirely different because it has to do with interpreting events we not only admit happened, but consider important in the history of God's dealing with mankind. You will not find me waffling on whether or not Joshua destroyed Jericho and all inside it, including animals. Where in my previous posts, Dunadain, do you find that I am denying or ignoring these previous verses, when in fact I referred to them very directly? (Circles indeed!) This stands in contrast with Spare Oom's suggestion that Islamic expansion did not involve conquest of the military variety.

Rather, what Christianity does with the Old Testament conquests by Israel in the name of Yahweh is interpret them in the light of the New Covenant. We consider them important, but we recognize that they were part of a stage that had to pass away. This is not revisionism, because we deny or adjust nothing. Neither is it "inconsistency," because we believe that God is acting in a thoroughly consistent manner, moving salvation history along toward His intended goal by acting wisely and necessarily in each epoch. This is known as "biblical theology," the practice of interpreting Scripture in the light of other Scripture, that is, it is a theological interpretation of biblical events--not the re-writing of history to suit how we would have it to have been. The fact that you view it as "inconsistent" shows that you have not understood Christianity and its worldview.

The upshot of all that is the following: We have the New Covenant to help us understand those events and mitigate them vis-a-vis our actions. What do you have? Dunadain, I find it genuinely heartwarming that you quote verses from the Quran that say I as a devoted Christian (one of the "People of the Book") am among the ranks of the righteous. Yet all I can see that causes you to cite these, rather than those which I quoted, is that you choose to do so. Others, who don't see things that way, may just as easily choose to quote the passages concerning violence to justify killing me (do you doubt that they would, were I to preach the gospel on the streets of Medina?). In other words, what is the factor that mitigates your interpretation of violent texts in the Quran? How you feel? What you want? That's my issue at the moment, and genuinely and truly I am curious to know why you concentrate on these things while others just as easily flip the page in the same book and quote something that reads quite differently, with just as much confidence as you. Since Mohammed was the last and greatest of the prophets for Muslims, and his word in the Quran is supreme, nothing after it can adjust it as the Cross mitigates Joshua's sword.

As a corollary issue, I think it strange that Islam considers Jesus a prophet, but that early on His followers went astray. That is, under the Old Covenant, bloodshed and warfare in Yahweh's name was allowed and even mandated, and then Jesus came along He preached a great message of the knowledge of God. But somehow they messed things up (not least concerning the idea that he was the Incarnation of Yahaweh Himself), and ended up preaching a pacifist doctrine of love and martyrdom based on Christ's death on the Cross (itself a docetic illusion), out dying and out lasting all the violence raised against them in the name of a "New Covenant." Sadly, thousands turned to their erroneous message, not because the Christians they encountered bore the sword with courage, but because, unarmed (but deluded), they faced the sword with courage during the persecutions. Yet God sent Mohammed to fix the situation, to deliver the final revelation of God in the earth before the Last Day, and the sword was put back in the hands of His followers as it should have been all along; religion once again took on a militant tone. Instead of the Christian view that Joshua's conquests (and the like) were a temporary stage, Islam views that Jesus' teachings about putting away the sword (or the misconstrual of these teachings) were the temporary stage: In its final form, the revelation of God through Mohammed is militant. Is this not how most Muslims in the world view things?

As for Jesus Christ Himself, your apparent reverence for Him (i.e., very real and sincere to be sure, but toward a form of Him at odds with that found in the NT) will form the basis for my coming posts.

DunadainofArrakis

02-13-2006, 11:27 PM

But this offends me that on a site where, quite frankly, I come to read about Aslan, King of kings, Son of the Emperor from Over the Sea, who died for me and rose again . . .

Bro, I think you're taking this Narnia stuff a little too seriously. Maybe you should lay off for just a while.

As for your recent responses, Dundadain and Spare Oom, I take them . . .

How dare you mispell my name. My name is Dunadain, not Dundadain. You have insulted my entire belief system you vagabond. This is an "even deeper offense" than the "deep offense" that I agreed to in Post 112. I will not tolerate this kind of offense. How about I just start calling you Parthaduzel, Parthian King?

Just to make things clear, this post is a joke. I apologize for making light of the situation, but this thread has taken on humourous tones for me. Oh yeah, Parthian King, can I call you Parthaduzel?

Parthian King

02-13-2006, 11:30 PM

Whatever makes you sleep at night, Dunddaidain, especially given that you can't seem to address the tougher issues. :)

Quick edit: Some would say, Dunadain, that you aren't taking your "Narnia stuff" seriously enough.

DunadainofArrakis

02-13-2006, 11:41 PM

lol. Are you back from your trip yet? Hopefully, if you are back, you can make your responses a little longer. Your points don't seem to get across in the first 10,000 words. It should take at least 10,000 more.

DunadainofArrakis

02-14-2006, 12:35 AM

Whatever makes you sleep at night, Dunddaidain, especially given that you can't seem to address the tougher issues.

Now to address the tougher issues. And again Parthian King, this was just some friendly jibing on my part, I hope you haven’t taken a deeper offense than the deep offense that we have agreed to in previous posts.

Now, can anyone show me where in the Koran the admonitions to violence are done away with, and the admonitions for peace are shown to take precedence?

The Qur'an gives admonitions for peace and that they are always to take precedence, unless the circumstances necessitate otherwise. Islam does not "evangelize" to people by attacking them. No where in the Qur'an does it prescribe this. Some people might think it otherwise given the acts of certain Muslims, but often times Muslims commit bad deeds and try to find a way to justify it using the Qur'an. Big deal. You can do this with many texts, including the Bible.

And ... did anyone ever answer why, if Islam is a religion of peace and respect for other religions, why there is no freedom of religion in some Islamic nations (and why it is disappearing in the more secular Islamic nations as they become more theistic)?

There is a simple explanation for this. The regimes currently in power in Muslim countries will support whatever "version" of Islam that fits with their dictatorial and oppressive political stances. The rulers themselves don't even give a whole lot of freedom to Muslims to practice Islam in the way that they want to. This has more to do with politics and the rulers' desire to manipulate religion for their own purposes. And Islam is not the reason that these rulers came to power, as I have stated earlier.

And as for inconsistency, there is none: the Old Testament plan clearly proclaims itself as the vehicle for the Messiah's advent, with full knowledge that at His coming it would fade away.

First, please provide me with references where it states this in the OT. Second, this is known as "biblical theology," as Parthian King has pointed out. To use his words, it is:

the practice of interpreting Scripture in the light of other Scripture, that is, it is a theological interpretation of biblical events--not the re-writing of history to suit how we would have it to have been.

I am interpreting these scriptures with the Islamic scripture according to the standards of theology. Nowhere in the Bible do I see Christ elaborate on his position as “the incarnation of the eternally existent Second Person of the Trinity.” My beliefs, according to what is contained in the Qur’an, fit perfectly with much of what is contained in the OT and NT concerning pure monotheism. In my opinion, and please afford me this deep offense, this belief of Christ as being divine, semi-divine, quarter divine, etc, is made up. Even the early Christians were not sure about the exact nature of Christ, which is why there were conflicts early on between certain Christian sects, leading to council after council by the early Church fathers. They knew he didn’t have a human father, which Muslims acknowledge (But neither did Adam). These beliefs were later codified after his death by people who were not Christ. If this is so fundamental to being a “Christian,” why did Christ not elaborate on this at all in Scripture? In Islam, the most crucial thing which makes or breaks a person’s faith is this – “There is no God except (the one) God, and Muhammad is his Messenger.” Our Prophet explained this very clearly, as did Adam to his people, as did Abraham to his people, as did Jesus to his people, etc(Peace be on them all). The monotheism that the Jews practiced is in a complete and utter conflict with the Trinitarian monotheism of the Christians. Why would God change it up all of a sudden in such a drastic fashion that would basically throw everything he told his chosen people, the Jews, out the window? (And by asserting that the infinite God can have a son, everything is being thrown out the window).

Again, if this post offends Christians, I’m sorry. Naturally this kind of subject matter would be offensive because we are dealing with two different faiths. If we could get around the “deep offense” as we have called it, we would all be “Muslim” or we would all be “Christian.”

The fact that you view it as "inconsistent" shows that you have not understood Christianity and its worldview.

Apples and oranges back at you Parthian King. How little it is you understand of Islam based on what you have been posting. I understand your “theological interpretation.” Now I have just elaborated a little on what my “theological interpretation” is and how it conflicts with the one you believe in.

Saruman

02-14-2006, 04:01 AM

Dunadain, I might ask how much of the New Testament you have actually read, for it seems that you have missed several key passages, many words spoken by Christ Himself, concerning His divinity. If I may, I would like to share with you some of these passages and, through this, dispel the myth that the Allah of the Muslims is one and the same as the God of the Christians and the Jews.

I think at least you do understand and see one thing in all of this: that Christianity is indeed monotheistic, for we believe in One God. Through the Scriptures (Genesis 1 being a prime example) we learn that God works in Three Divine Persons (not that there are three separate gods, but that the One God works in Three Persons). As the Old Testament, inspired by the Holy Spirit of God (the Third Person) and written long before the birth of Islam, we learn that "in the beginning, Elohim" (plural form of God). Did Moses, in writing this, contradict himself straight off the bat in saying that there was more than one God? I tell you he did not. God is perfect, and cannot lie, and when He declares that He is One Lord, One God, then it is as He has said. Yet what, then, does He mean in saying, "Let Us make man in Our image"? These are the first signs we see of this Trinity, and the Old Testament (of course as well as the New) are scattershot with examples of this.

Perhaps now is the opportunity I shall have to clarify how Christ is God incarnate, and how He has amply declared Himself not only to be the Son of God (the Second Person), but also has made clear to us (in the Bible) His divinity, not to mention several works and miracles performed by Him (I recommend reading John chapter 10, a very good answer to your thoughts).

Firstly, I shall quote to you a particular passage when Jesus was confronted by the Pharisees, who, like you, did not believe He was (1) the Messiah and (2) God in the flesh:

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. Then they took up stones to cast at Him...

This causes me to become rather surprised by your statement that "nowhere in the Bible do I see Christ elaborate on His position...." Yet here we plainly hear from Him, from His own mouth, a statement that caused the religious leaders to want to kill Him then and there. They knew exactly what He was saying.

In John 1, we learn more of this Person, Jesus Christ (a great reinforcer of Genesis 1):

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made. (14) And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Well, what then? Have you not yet read this passage in the Bible, Dunadain? Or have you not yet read of "Immanuel" (God with us)? I encourage you to re-read the Old Testament anew, and read the revelations given to the prophets concerning the coming Messiah, the Son of God.

Forgive me for what I am about to say, but I will stand firm in declaring that I believe someone's line of theological interpretation and thinking has gone amiss, and it came centuries after the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Another:

Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known Me, Philip? he that hath seen Me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou [then], Shew us the Father?

He goes on to say that He is in the Father, and the Father is in Him. They are One (as He declares at other times as well). He never forbade others from worshipping Him when they did, such as John and James' mother, who came to Jesus, worshipping Him and asking if her sons could sit on His right hand and on His left. Either He was a blasphemer, or He was (and is) indeed who He has declared Himself to be.

I don't see how you, in your reading, could have missed this one.

Yet another:

And Jesus went out, and his disciples, into the towns of Caesarea Philippi: and by the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, Whom do men say that I am? And they answered, John the Baptist: but some [say], Elias; and others, One of the prophets. And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ. And he charged them that they should tell no man of him. And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and [of] the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.

If Jesus were a mere prophet, why would He declare that He would rise again three days after being killed? In fact, this brings up yet another issue when Jesus declared firmly:

"No man taketh it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of My Father" (Jn. 10:18)

Who alone has the power to lay down His life, and then take it up again? Jesus makes a very bold declaration concerning His Person. And what was the purpose of His laying down His life? Of course you know, For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life (Jn. 3:16).

Also, later in John 10 Jesus walked into the temple, and He makes it plain for us to see and learn:

"I and [My] Father are One" (Jn 10:30)

John 10:31: "Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him."

There is plenty more. Yet it therefore presents a great problem for every Muslim. If Jesus Christ has called Himself God, then there lies now a choice before every Muslim: to accept Him as Lord and Savior (for He said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life: no man comes to the Father but by Me" Jn. 14:6), or to reject Him and so remain separate from God the Father.

I am blessed to say this choice is open to everyone. In His supreme love, God came to this earth as a man, to die for the sins of all, so as to restore the relationship that was lost at Eden. For me, I have come to recognize Jesus Christ, who He is, and what He has done, and my life will forever remain in His holy hands. I am indebted to Him forever, and am forever grateful.

I challenge you to take a look again at the words of Christ, for they are bold and powerful indeed.

Charn_Tim

02-14-2006, 04:26 AM

I don't have a lot of time to devote to this at the moment, but I wanted to address something that DunadainofArrakis has said and that has been the subject of a good deal of discussion in this thread. Dunadain states:

The Qur'an gives admonitions for peace and that they are always to take precedence, unless the circumstances necessitate otherwise.

Islam does not "evangelize" to people by attacking them. No where in the Qur'an does it prescribe this.
However, in light of the Qur'an itself (as I am about to show and as others have argued) Dunadain's claims simply do not stand up to reason. I don't think any of us doubt that the Qur'an gives admonitions for peace to a limited degree to followers of Islam, but that hardly supports the claim that "they are always to take precedence" (and by implication, in all circumstances). The statement, "They are always to take precedence" is an opinion and remains only an opinion (and a contradictory one as I argue), unless it can be justified from the Qur'an itself. On the other hand, one key issue that Parthian King and inkspot have been driving at (among other things) is the distinction made within the Bible itself between the old and new covenants and what that entails. However, no such distinction has been presented in the Qur'an (to my knowledge) saying that peace should be promoted over attack, or that new laws have been given and the statements concerning violence in the name of Allah are now to be rejected. Note that this is in stark contrast to the teachings of the Bible, that speak of the coming of Jesus Christ, signifying the passing of the old covenant into the new one-a law of love and God's grace.

Hence, if one does indeed wish to retain the position that the "admonitions for peace are to take precedence," then the following verses need to be explained, and in the explanation of these verses, one would need to cite specific scriptures from the Qur'an as to why we don't have to follow these teachings any more.

9.123: O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).

9.5: So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush.

5.51: O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

(BTW, I hope you Muslims don't have any Christian or Jewish friends, unless you can justify reinterpreting or casting aside this one...;))

4.89: They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.

We are left only to conclude that these verses (and others that I could have supplied but omitted for the sake of brevity) fully support the "Islamic fundamentalism" (along the lines of the interpretation of Al Quaeda) as the only valid interpretation of these verses (as Parthian King has stated), unless of course we have missed something in the Qur'an itself that tells us that these passages (and actions they promote) have been brushed aside in favor of something else-a new law, covenant, or way of life.

Once again, unless the Muslim "pacifists" holding to a "non-fundamentalist" interpretation of the Qur'an are able to provide specific teachings from the Qur'an itself that say we no longer need to heed these specific passages or actions, then I'm afraid we have to conclude that you all who believe this are subscribing to an imaginary Islam and following a false Allah.

PrinceOfTheWest

02-14-2006, 07:59 AM

Now I have just elaborated a little on what my “theological interpretation” is and how it conflicts with the one you believe in.Now we come to the heart of the "deep offense", which hopefully we can address in the same spirit of courtesy and gravity that we have to this point, Doondinoon. (oops - sorry!)

It boils down to this: somebody is putting words in Jesus' mouth. Either it was Christ's disciples placing claims of divinity, or it was Muhammed placing denials thereof (Surah 5 in particular). St. Paul said "For you did not receive the spirit ofslavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the spirit of sonship." (Rom 8:15), which has always been interpreted by the Church as our being adopted into God's family; Muhammed writes "It befitteth not (the Majesty of) Allah that He should take unto Himself a son." (19:35) The question is, who are we to believe?

This is the heart of it, really, and why Islam and Christianity are on a theological collision course. If Christianity is correct, Islam is one of the most dangerous things on earth: a subtle heresy that is, in fact, antichrist ("Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son." 1 John 2:22). But if Islam is correct, then Christianity is at least as bad: a prior revelation that won't step aside to usher in the new one - putting it in the same position regarding Islam that Christianity stood in regard to the Old Covenant.

For me, the issue that decides it is the Resurrection. Jesus walked out of the tomb on Easter Morning. According to the Quran, this was merely God vindicating His messenger (3:55). According to the New Testament, this was the inaguration of a New Creation in which we are swept up and adopted into the divine family (not, mind you, that we become divine. We retain our human nature, but it is caught up in glory. We are glorified, not divinized - and Jesus's resurrected body was the first of this new family.) Are you following this, Dindindan? (rats! I'll get this yet...)

It really boils down to a betting game. I'm betting my eternal existence that Christianity is the final, definitive revelation of God. As my tradition puts it, ""The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ." (Dei Verbum 1:4) My Muslim cousins, such as yourself, Dandinoon ($%#* typos!), maintain that there was a newer public revelation, and that Islam is it. If you're right and I'm wrong, I'm in big trouble - even moreso because I've actually examined both claims side by side, and thus cannot claim ignorance. But I take responsibility for that decision.

I await your response, Mr. Arrakis :D

Spare Oom

02-14-2006, 09:25 AM

Whew - so many posts and so little time! There are a number of things to which I'd like to respond, God willing, but that'll have to wait for a while - probably a few days - as I'm pretty busy at present.

[PrinceOfTheWest:]"This is the heart of it, really, and why Islam and Christianity are on a theological collision course. If Christianity is correct, Islam is one of the most dangerous things on earth: a subtle heresy that is, in fact, antichrist ("Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son." 1 John 2:22). But if Islam is correct, then Christianity is at least as bad: a prior revelation that won't step aside to usher in the new one - putting it in the same position regarding Islam that Christianity stood in regard to the Old Covenant."

As far as I understand it, "Christ" and "Messiah" both mean "Anointed One" (Christ comes from the Greek word and Messiah comes from the Hebrew word, if I remember correctly.) The Qur'an tells us that Jesus is the Messiah - ie. the Prophet awaited by the Jews and the Anointed One who will return to rule towards the end of the world. In that way Muslims accept Jesus as the Christ, but I doubt the word means the same to us as it does to Christians - though there is some overlap.

Certainly the Qur'an forbids us to call Jesus the Son of God, but it is the literal interpretation to which the Qur'an objects (because of the implication that Jesus is divine.) I can accept that he was referred to as Son of God in the past (though he is referred to far more often as Son of Man in the Bible), but I believe that was an honorary title, denoting closeness to God rather than literal sonship. After all, Jesus is not the only Son of God in the Bible as I pointed out in an earlier post (number 100).

As PrinceOfTheWest stated, we each have to take responsibility for our own decision on what we consider to be the truth about Jesus. For PrinceOfTheWest, the Resurrection is the issue that decides it. For me, the Oneness of God is the issue that decides it, and I can never accept the Trinity.

Saruman

02-14-2006, 11:39 AM

One last thing for you, Spare_Oom, if I may repeat this verse I have already presented: and these are the words of Jesus to a religious leader, Nicodemus, who sought the truth:

John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that He gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Jesus made the final distinction here between those who are called sons of God (i.e. us who are followers of Christ and have become sons of God, angels, Adam who was not born but made directly by God from the dust of the earth, etc.) and God's "only begotten" Son. Jesus, in this particular chapter, also goes on to explain the situation of those who believe on Him, and those who do not. I am glad Islam has considered Him to be a prophet, or even Messiah, but perhaps it might reconsider His words a little more carefully. He makes some pretty radical claims, and backs them up through miracles wrought by His own hands to boot. Only God has the power to do these things, and Jesus makes known to us His Person very clearly, through speech, as well as through action.

John 3:18-19
He that believeth on Him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that Light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

inkspot

02-14-2006, 12:16 PM

Okay, PK, PoTW, and Charn Tim have all presented the evidence asked for regarding when Christ claimed to be God, and the New Testament documents for us, He did claim this. Others called Him the Messiah, the Anointed One, and He is -- but He Himself forgave sins (which landed him in bad rapport with the religious establishment: "But there was certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts, Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?", Mark 2:6-7). The scribes certainly recognized that Jesus claimed to be not only a prophet, not only an Anointed One, but God. You cannot say anyone except Jesus started this blasphemy (if it is blasphemy) so by Muslim standards, Jesus cannot be very honorable (cannot be a prophet) if he claimed to be God without being God, because He would be a blasphemer.

So I do not really understand how Muslims can honor Jesus as a prophet when He claimed to be God. Or why they believe His followers went astray from the true message when the began practicing Christ's commands of love rather than rigid rule-following, as PK has also asked.

Also, someone asked me to show where Jesus claimed, in Scripture, to be the fulfillment of the salvation plan and the completion of the Old Covenant. Let me try.
A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. -- John 13:34-35

Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. -- Matthew 5:39

Clearly, Christ was referring to the old, harsh laws of the Old Testament, which He was replacing with a new law of love -- in reality, it was an even tougher law, because He demanded that His followers be perfect, even as He is perfect! But it was to be made possible by His Spirit alive in us. Now, as for Old Testament references which show the prophets of those days knew their role was merely preparatory for the coming of the Savior ...

Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. -- vs4-6
Really, the whole chapter of Isaiah 53. Really the whole book of Isaiah. Really, you find the coming of Christ, as a sacrificial lamb, throughout the Old Testament. look at the laws of the Pentateuch, especially the sacrifices required -- and you see the foreshadowing of Jesus on the cross.

Jesus found the cross in the Old Testament story of Moses' saving the people from snakebite by lifting a serpent on a pole:
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. -- John 3:14-15

I can continue digging for examples, but the idea of the New Testament completing and perfecting the Old Testament isn't just an interpretation I made up in my head. It is what Jesus believed. So, this explains how we know as Christians that the militantism of the past is not our law today -- Jesus said He was bringing a new commandment: love.

I am still waiting to hear how true Muslims know the commands to love and peace are the ones which take precendence at all times, unless circumstances demand they don't ...

Parthian King

02-14-2006, 01:52 PM

Well, hhmm. I’m with you, Spare Oom,—a lot of ground to cover. Nevertheless, I think some things are becoming clearer. Before I move to the next issue I wanted to cover (some of which has already unfolded on both sides of the discussion), I’d like to “clean up” a couple of things.

First, Dunadain, of course I can take a joke, friend. Can you? Or should I say “can y’all?” as they do here in the South? Tolkien’s etymology indicates that “Dúnadan” is the singular form, while “Dúnedain” the plural (see the index to the Return of the King, as well as numerous references in the text of LOTR). Perhaps you are making a theological assertion about yourself along the lines Curumo has explained regarding Genesis 1? ;)

Second, well met, Curumo, Charn Tim, and Prince of the West! True Númenoreans art thou all!

Third, when I said “apples and oranges,” like most who use that saying, I was referencing the logical fallacy of applying a line of reasoning from one issue to another issue that is fundamentally distinct. In this case, it was the application of the word “revisionist,” which is a technical term drawn from the study of history, to the discipline of Biblical interpretation, which is theology. “Apples and oranges” does not mean “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander,” or better, “the pot calling the kettle black.” But as for that (i.e., I don’t know Islam any better than you know Christianity), I will readily admit that to a point I am indeed dependent upon those Muslims of goodwill who post in this forum for accurate information on Islam. That is, in part, what is so puzzling to me about the direction of this discussion, because no matter how clearly the questions are stated (in 10,000 words or less :) ), or from how many countries, posters, and posts, I can’t seem to get any answers—to a number of questions. I’ll leave the minutia and get to the main thing: The Quran and Islamic doctrine is your turf. The Bible is ours (we are, after all, “People of the Book,” though I shall have some qualifying words on that soon enough). I know, and am grateful, that you consider that peaceful streams of thought take precedence over violent ones in your holy book. What has not been answered (anymore than questions regarding freedom of religion in the Muslim world) is based on WHAT, WHAT, WHAT do you make this assertion??? It is of more than passing interest to me as one who (as some have pointed out in this forum) should find out about other faiths, not to mention some pretty significant world events of late, how it is that some Muslims who call themselves moderates quote the Quran (not just refer to it, but actually provide the words) and sustain a peaceful view of their faith, while others, who call themselves faithful restorationists (also quoting very directly) conclude the opposite, and kill, kill, kill. You seem to think this question is mere antagonism on my part, when the fact is, my curiosity is piqued and, Dunadain and Spare Oom, I really want to know. According to orthodox Christian belief we have explained—not explained away—how OT relates to NT. We are waiting for you to do the same with the Quran, since, as you note (rightly), we need education as to your worldview. Is the Quran not the final word from God for you? Do not all its words carry equal weight? Is there some hermeneutical key we are missing? That the terrorists (whom some Muslim leaders have called “infidels” for their violence) are missing? Why are you right, and they wrong, i.e., from a standpoint of textual interpretation of the Quran and not merely from the evidence of the corpses they leave in their wake?

Finally, I am glad that we have turned to the New Testament, for just as I have admitted that I need some help with the Islamic worldview, so you seem to have admitted the same regarding the Christian one. I am, of course, at your service, and hope to develop some things concerning Christian origins, the Scriptures of the New Testament, and the patristic era (i.e., the aforementioned councils) specifically vis-à-vis Islam in the coming posts.

DunadainofArrakis

02-14-2006, 05:36 PM

You can provide me with any explanation you like as to why that there is an inconsistency between the God of the OT and the God of the NT, but don’t just ignore the previously mentioned verses as if they never existed. My suggestion is that Christians try to look at Islam not through the eyes of a Christian, but through the eyes of someone who doesn’t believe in Christ as “the incarnation of the eternally existent Second Person of the Trinity.”

When I was saying this, I was primarily trying to get at that Christians are taking events in the Old Testament and applying their “God the Father” and “God the Son” representations to every event that happened in the OT, whereas before, the Jews had no concept of “God the Son.” You could say that all the Jews had was God, and no “Father” and no “Son.” This concept was inserted later into the history during the early part of Christianity. While you say its apples and oranges to compare history and theology (which it is), I am merely intertwining the two, as is often necessary when comparing different belief systems and how they progress over time.

I appreciate all of the references and verses that you Curumo, Charn Tim, Prince of the West, Inkspot, and Parthian King have provided me. My understanding of certain beliefs held by Christians, which I admit is lacking, is improving thanks to all of you. That being said, I must say that I still disagree with the interpretations laid out by Christians regarding these verses, especially in light of what the Jews were led to believe by God, and what the final messenger has explained and laid out for all of mankind. Allow me to give an example of what I mean:

John 1:1-3;14
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made. (14) And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

This verse is so vague that it entertains many different interpretations, including the one that you adhere to Curumo, I must admit. That does not mean, however, that your interpretation is correct. I could impart my own understanding of the Islamic doctrine concerning the kalimatullah, or Word of God, and apply it into interpreting this verse. Why should I take the interpretation of some early Christians and Church Fathers, who were in disagreement with other Christians as to the exact nature of Christ as being the ones with the truest and most correct understanding? The early Christians themselves did not have a complete understanding on this very fundamental belief to Christianity even as Christianity was spreading. Early Christians, according to historical texts that I have read, sounded confused pertaining to their own “fundamental” beliefs. Curumo, you say that “They knew exactly what He was saying.” I’m not so sure of that.

I have heard some Jewish rabbis say that all the evidence would seem to indicate that what the Prophet of Islam preached was in fact true and was from God. The reason why they don’t embrace Islam is because these particular rabbis think that he was a Prophet for the “gentiles” and not for the chosen race that they belong to. These rabbis would seem to think that the kind of monotheism espoused by Islam fits exactly with their kind of monotheism. I would agree, as I am sure most objective people would.

In the end, I believe that if you were to take this concept of Trinitarian belief, whether it be the Nicene Creed or the view held by followers of Arianism, and relate it, to say someone like the Prophet Abraham, he would not consider you in line with his understanding of God—which is that he is indivisible (you cannot separate him into parts, which according to mathematics is impossible because how can you separate infinity into a confined spaces) and that his majestic quality would prevent him from ever having created offspring. These are some fundamental differences between Islam and Christianity, a line of reasoning which has no doubt been debated upon by Jews, Christians, and Muslims for centuries.

Also, Jesus may have referred to God as “Father”, not because God is his literal father but because he didn’t have a human father. In Middle Eastern patriarchal society, and I’m sure many other societies of Jesus’ time period, the role of fathers was seen as a kind of “lord” over his offspring (In Arabic he is called rubb al bayt or “lord of the house”). He was responsible for not only providing physical nourishment to his children, but to guide his son or daughter along a particular spiritual path. Jesus did not have this figure in the human sense. God took on this guiding role for the creation of Jesus whom he did not bestow upon a corporeal father figure. God was the one who guided Jesus since his birth. According to Islam, Jesus was able to speak as soon as he was born, and his speech resembled that of an adult. No doubt it was God who imparted this knowledge onto him, and it would be God who would continue to guide him throughout his life much like a father would, except that God did not divide his divine essence to give birth to Jesus nor did he make Jesus as being part of the divine. According to Islam and probably Judaism as well, God giving birth to a son is not necessary for the salvation of mankind. The institution of Propethood and Heavenly Representation is the necessary implementation of God’s will on Earth. That was and continues to be God’s master-plan, and that is why he made his prophets perfect guiders of mankind since before the time of Jesus. These representatives of God will never lead you astray. Men will lead themselves astray if that is what they want.

I know, and am grateful, that you consider that peaceful streams of thought take precedence over violent ones in your holy book. What has not been answered (anymore than questions regarding freedom of religion in the Muslim world) is based on WHAT, WHAT, WHAT do you make this assertion???

This is what I base my assertion on: The two weighty things that the Prophet has left his followers after his death so that we do not let ourselves go astray from God’s straight path:
Sahih Muslim
Book 031, Number 5920:
One day Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) stood up to deliver a sermon at a watering place known as Khumm situated between Mecca and Medina. He praised Allah, extolled Him and delivered the sermon and exhorted (us) and said: Now to our purpose. O people, I am a human being. I am about to receive a messenger (the angel of death) from my Lord and I, in response to Allah's call, (would bid good-bye to you), but I am leaving among you two weighty things: the one being the Book of Allah in which there is right guidance and light, so hold fast to the Book of Allah and adhere to it. He exhorted (us) (to hold fast) to the Book of Allah and then said: The second are the members of my household I remind you (of your duties) to the members of my family. He (Husain) said to Zaid: Who are the members of his household? Aren't his wives the members of his family? Thereupon he said: His wives are the members of his family (but here) the members of his family are those for whom acceptance of Zakat is forbidden. And he said: Who are they? Thereupon he said: 'Ali and the offspring of 'Ali, 'Aqil and the offspring of 'Aqil and the offspring of Ja'far and the offspring of 'Abbas. Husain said: These are those for whom the acceptance of Zakat is forbidden. Zaid said: Yes.

If you would further like to research this subject, you should check out Nahj al Balagha by Ali ibn Abi Talib. There is also a compendium of religious texts at the USC Muslim Students Association website, which is where I drew this saying of the Prophet from. The Qur’an clearly outlines the fundamentals of the religion, and to prevent people from misinterpreting the text, as so many have done in the past, we must look to the inheritors of the Prophetic knowledge and then we will come to the proper understanding of Islam.

Parthian King

02-14-2006, 06:03 PM

Dunadain--I do think we are back on course here, for a couple of reasons, and we can make progress through some constructive dialogue. Even if we never agree (highly likely), at least we will understand each other.

What I find fascinating is your respect for the text of the NT, at least in principle. This certainly gives us a base of common ground to work from (again, in principle). To clarify, so that I don't spend a bunch of time on stuff you already believe: Do you believe the NT is sound, textually and otherwise, as is, or do you believe (as do, say, the Mormons) that the NT (or even the OT) has been corrupted textually, or original texts tampered with, or that there are "levels" of canonicity (i.e., Gospels carry more weight that Pauline works, or Revelation, or book of Hebrews, or Acts, etc.), or any other such beliefs? Again, not loaded--I just want to know.

Your knowledge of Islamic writings certainly surpasses that our mine, and I'm sure others would agree. Unfortunately, it so surpasses it that in the text you quoted (from the Quran?), the point you claimed it made about the injunction to pitch everything in the Quran about violence and retain that about peace and harmony was entirely lost on me. Since you are among the Muslims explaining your faith, and I/we among the Christians explaining ours vis-a-vis Islam, let's make a deal and say you explain your position so at least we can understand it (even if we don't agree with it), and we'll do the same with ours.

I hear you on your concerns regarding OT views of God and sonship, and I am more than prepared to answer, but time constrains me at the moment, and I cannot hit my per-post quota of 10,000 words :). It'll have to wait a bit. Until then, permit me pose this to you:

Surely I am more stupid than any man, And I do not have the understanding of a man. Neither have I learned wisdom, Nor do I have the knowledge of the Holy One. Who has ascended into heaven and descended? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has wrapped the waters in His garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name or His son’s name? Surely you know!--Proverbs 30:2-4

PrinceOfTheWest

02-14-2006, 06:15 PM

When I was saying this, I was primarily trying to get at that Christians are taking events in the Old Testament and applying their “God the Father” and “God the Son” representations to every event that happened in the OT, whereas before, the Jews had no concept of “God the Son.” You could say that all the Jews had was God, and no “Father” and no “Son.” This concept was inserted later into the history during the early part of Christianity. While you say its apples and oranges to compare history and theology (which it is), I am merely intertwining the two, as is often necessary when comparing different belief systems and how they progress over time.Actually, the idea of the Trinity was present in the OT, though its presence mystified the rabbis. For instance, in Gen 1:26, you have God saying "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth." The plural is inescapable, and there is no explanation that fits other than there was more than one party present. Even the great shema (Duet 6:4), which Jesus affirmed as the greatest law in Mark 12:29 ("Jesus answered, "The first is, 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one'") is literally translated "The Lord is a unity." Now, why that exact phrasing? I can speak of the penny in my pocket as "one", but if I'm going to be precise in describing my inkpen, I'd have to say it is "a unity", since it is made of many parts.

Part of the problem here is not the completeness of revelation, but the limitations of human minds. For us, space-and-time restricted as we are, the idea of a being being one and yet having three personalities defies our conceptual framework - it's like trying to imagine a new color. Lewis deals with this quite well in Mere Christianity, using the spatial dimensions as a model. He points out that a Flatlander (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=ye4paPuCmm&isbn=0451529766&itm=2)could not understand a cube as being one thing yet consisting of several squares. In the Flatlander's mind, more than one square necessitates more than one thing - but someone even one dimension above Flatland can understand how a single thing could contain several squares and still be one. If we can understand this using even a simple mathematical model, why should we be surprised that the full reality of the God who spun the galaxies should prove beyond our mental capacity?

Regarding presuppositions: when you say:
This concept was inserted later into the history during the early part of Christianity. you are making a philosophical statement based on unquestioned assumptions - i.e. that later understanding of God was inserted by the hand of man. Could not later knowledge have been revealed by God? After all, isn't that what Islam claims regarding the Quran? The revelation of God has always been unfolding - Jesus Himself said "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now." (Jn 16:12) The later revelation illuminates the earlier.

You are correct that there were disputes over doctrine early in the Church's history, but you are incorrect in presuming that this meant the doctrine in question was untrue or had to be "cobbled together". If you research every doctrinal point resolved at the Ecumenical Councils, you find that they all were understood and accepted by the faithful before the Council that resolved them. Usually the Councils were called because some heretic started challenging a long-held understanding and the doctrine needed to be clarified in the face of the challenge. Sometimes a Council had to create new words to describe the reality being clarified (e.g. the term "transubstantiation" did not exist until the time of Aquinas, but the belief in what it did dated to the Apostolic Age.), but the beliefs were always there.

Parthian King

02-14-2006, 08:13 PM

Prince, what you have just stated is where I was planning on going regarding the Councils. I will still go there, but you do well to point out assumptions.

In the mean time, I was ruminating on Dunadain's last post and thought this:

For Dunadain, these words...

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made...And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.--John 1:1-3; 14

...are best described as follows: "This verse is so vague that it entertains many different interpretations..." (meaning, he couldn't see how Curumo saw Jesus as being declared by John to be God).

Yet John's lucid, "ABC" syllogisms (i.e., Word=God=Jesus) evident in this verse are sustained by his theology elsewhere, such as,

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ.--1 John 1:1-3

...and again, here...

I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war. His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many diadems. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God....On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.--Revelation 19:11-13, 16

[B]Parthian King[/I].]

Over and over, Christ is identified as the Word of God by John--a Word made flesh. Yet Dunadain finds this "vague." On the other hand, he quotes this:

Sahih Muslim Book 031, Number 5920: One day Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) stood up to deliver a sermon at a watering place known as Khumm situated between Mecca and Medina. He praised Allah, extolled Him and delivered the sermon and exhorted (us) and said: Now to our purpose. O people, I am a human being. I am about to receive a messenger (the angel of death) from my Lord and I, in response to Allah's call, (would bid good-bye to you), but I am leaving among you two weighty things: the one being the Book of Allah in which there is right guidance and light, so hold fast to the Book of Allah and adhere to it. He exhorted (us) (to hold fast) to the Book of Allah and then said: The second are the members of my household I remind you (of your duties) to the members of my family. He (Husain) said to Zaid: Who are the members of his household? Aren't his wives the members of his family? Thereupon he said: His wives are the members of his family (but here) the members of his family are those for whom acceptance of Zakat is forbidden. And he said: Who are they? Thereupon he said: 'Ali and the offspring of 'Ali, 'Aqil and the offspring of 'Aqil and the offspring of Ja'far and the offspring of 'Abbas. Husain said: These are those for whom the acceptance of Zakat is forbidden. Zaid said: Yes.

...and sees it as locktight evidence that the Quranic verses dealing with violence are to be discarded and only the peaceful ones followed.

With all respect, to say we are experiencing a disconnect is a gross understatement. Still, I respectfuly await Dundain and/or Spare Oom's response, especially concerning their view of the New Testament as queried in my previous post.

DunadainofArrakis

02-14-2006, 10:40 PM

To clarify, so that I don't spend a bunch of time on stuff you already believe: Do you believe the NT is sound, textually and otherwise, as is, or do you believe (as do, say, the Mormons) that the NT (or even the OT) has been corrupted textually, or original texts tampered with, or that there are "levels" of canonicity (i.e., Gospels carry more weight that Pauline works, or Revelation, or book of Hebrews, or Acts, etc.), or any other such beliefs? Again, not loaded--I just want to know.

We really don’t know much about the “original texts” seeing as how the current NT that is circulated across the world is in a language that Christ didn’t even speak with his followers. The language that Christ spoke is a Semitic language called Aramaic of the variety that was spoken in Palestine during his time. Christianity really suffers by not having their scriptures recorded in the original language of their revealer—Christ. These scriptures are at best a translation. This is naturally going to raise many concerns regarding the texts authentic meaning. The Qur’an, on the other hand, is in the original language of its revealer, and no alterations have been made or are going to be made to this final and complete revelation sent to Mankind from God through the Angel Gabriel to his final messenger. Now regarding the authenticity of these Greek texts, this is my position and the position of Muslims. Anything which clearly contradicts the Islamic scripture, which God has told us will never be altered because of his protection over it, is a fabrication. Maybe the original Aramaic texts of the Bible are out there waiting to be discovered in some sea cave near the Dead Sea. Who really knows? It sounds reasonable that at least some of what is contained in the Bible may somehow correspond to what Jesus actually said. When I read certain sections of the Bible I am sometimes reminded of the style of the Qu’ran. The best I can do when discussing Christianity, especially with Christians, is refer to a collection of writings in English (a translation of a translation) which may have been altered. But I hope I haven’t sent the wrong message. I agree with much of what is contained in the Bible. But anything that is said to contradict the holy unity of God and assign him parts, I completely disagree with and view as suspect, or anything else which contradicts the Qur’an.

Actually, the idea of the Trinity was present in the OT, though its presence mystified the rabbis. For instance, in Gen 1:26, you have God saying "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth." The plural is inescapable, and there is no explanation that fits other than there was more than one party present. Even the great shema (Duet 6:4), which Jesus affirmed as the greatest law in Mark 12:29 ("Jesus answered, "The first is, 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one'") is literally translated "The Lord is a unity." Now, why that exact phrasing? I can speak of the penny in my pocket as "one", but if I'm going to be precise in describing my inkpen, I'd have to say it is "a unity", since it is made of many parts.

The use of personal pronouns such as “us,” “we” and “our” is found even in the Qur’an. According to Semitic grammar, the plural can sometimes refer to the singular. Take the Muslim greeting Assalaamu ‘alaykum for example. Literally this greeting is saying Peace be on you, with the “you” being in the plural sense, as indicated by the kum at the end of the greeting. If it was singular, instead of kum it would be ka as in Asalaamu ‘alayka. Here is evidence in the Qur’an of the use of plural:

032.023
We did indeed aforetime give the Book to Moses: be not then in doubt of its reaching (thee): and We made it a guide to the Children of Israel.

032.024
And We appointed, from among them, leaders (Imams), giving guidance under Our command, so long as they persevered with patience and continued to have faith in Our Signs.

“We” and “our” can refer to not only God, but his angels and other representatives. The plural then is meant as a way to represent God’s authority and his heavenly court that carry out his will (especially with regard to his angels who serve him unwaveringly and are not being tested like we are). Therefore, based on what I know concerning the rules in place by Semitic speaking peoples and how they regard issues of number, the use of plural personal pronouns in the Bible is in no way indicative of a plurality of the Godhead. But you seem to think that it does. Interpret it as you will, but you should probably give more consideration to the points that I have just made.

you are making a philosophical statement based on unquestioned assumptions - i.e. that later understanding of God was inserted by the hand of man. Could not later knowledge have been revealed by God? After all, isn't that what Islam claims regarding the Quran? The revelation of God has always been unfolding - Jesus Himself said "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now." (Jn 16:12) The later revelation illuminates the earlier.

This does not apply to deeply theological matters, such as whether God is one or whether he can be divided into two or three or four, etc. God, since the time of Adam, through the time of Abraham, and ending with the last Messenger has been and always will be an indivisible entity above being confined to the flesh of his creation. This is what he has been telling us from the very beginning. So how can he just contradict himself and say he can be divided now. This would be beneath God's majesty. This sermon by Ali ibn Abi Talib sums up Islamic belief concerning the oneness of God in a very eloquent fashion:

The foremost in religion is the acknowledgement of Him, the perfection of acknowledging Him is to testify Him, the perfection of testifying Him is to believe in His Oneness, the perfection of believing in His Oneness is to regard Him Pure, and the perfection of His purity is to deny Him attributes, because every attribute is a proof that it is different from that to which it is attributed and everything to which something is attributed is different from the attribute. Thus whoever attaches attributes to Allah recognises His like, and who recognises His like regards Him two; and who regards Him two recognises parts for Him; and who recognises parts for Him mistook Him; and who mistook Him pointed at Him; and who pointed at Him admitted limitations for Him; and who admitted limitations for Him numbered Him.

Whoever said in what is He, held that He is contained; and whoever said on what is He held He is not on something else. He is a Being but not through phenomenon of coming into being. He exists but not from non-existence. He is with everything but not in physical nearness. He is different from everything but not in physical separation. He acts but without connotation of movements and instruments. He sees even when there is none to be looked at from among His creation. He is only One, such that there is none with whom He may keep company or whom He may miss in his absence.

DunadainofArrakis

02-14-2006, 10:46 PM

...and sees it as locktight evidence that the Quranic verses dealing with violence are to be discarded and only the peaceful ones followed.

With all respect, to say we are experiencing a disconnect is a gross understatement.

The “two weighty things” is what was missing from the discussion. You say you agree with the al-qaeda interpretation of the Qur’an Parthian King. The problem with that kind of interpretative approach is that it is influenced by a person's impulses, which will encourage a person to take verses out of context. Al-qaeda is an organization filled with people driven by violent impulses to destroy those whom in their opinion have an anti-Muslim agenda. Naturally they will focus more on the verses which prescribe military action against disbelievers (what exactly is a disbeliever by the way?—It does not simply mean Christian or Jew who is minding his own business and not hurting anyone--these people, the Qur'an says, should not be attacked). The Qur’an contains all the knowledge that a person would ever need to know, but as the Qur’an points out, people who have a particular kind of perversity may try to justify that perversity using verses from the Qur’an taken out of their proper context, and not having taken what the Prophet has said regarding said verses into consideration.

003.007
He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:" and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding.

This is taken from the same sermon by ibn Abi Talib that I drew the previous excerpt from. This will explain what I meant with that post which obviously confused you Parthian King (I thought you would have been able to figure out where I was going with it—my mistake and I apologize for not explaining it sooner):

The Holy Qur'an and Sunnah
But the Prophet left among you the same which other Prophets left among their peoples, because Prophets do not leave them untended (in dark) without a clear path and a standing ensign, namely the Book of your Creator clarifying its permission and prohibitions, its obligations and discretion, its repealing injunctions and the repealed ones, its permissible matters and compulsory ones, its particulars and the general ones, its lessons and illustrations, its long and the short ones, its clear and obscure ones, detailing its abbreviations and clarifying its obscurities.

In it there are some verses whose knowledge [1] is obligatory and others whose ignorance by the people is permissible. It also contains what appears to be obligatory according to the Book [2] but its repeal is signified by the Prophet's action (sunnah) or that which appears compulsory according to the Prophet's action but the Book allows not following it. Or there are those which are obligatory in a given time but not so after that time. Its prohibitions also differ. Some are major regarding which there exists the threat of fire (Hell), and others are minor for which there are prospects of forgiveness. There are also those of which a small portion is also acceptable (to Allah) but they are capable of being expanded.

It is therefore the Prophet’s action and sayings (sunnah) which elucidate the complete understanding and meaning behind the Qur’an. We get this understanding from the “Men of understanding,” whom have been deputized as leaders (going back to verse 32:24 that I included earlier in this post about the plural) and that it is these Imams who will fully explain “its particulars and the general ones” with respect to understanding the real meaning of the Qur’an. Those al-qaeda guys disregard this essential body of knowledge when interpreting the Qur’an. They are trying to follow only one of the two weighty things, and while the Qur’an is the weightier of the two, approaching it without the other weighty thing is a very difficult thing to do and could lead you astray, as we have seen from past examples.

Parthian King

02-15-2006, 11:37 AM

Excellent stuff, really. I am learning a great deal, although (of course) significant points of departure have not changed at all.

First, thanks to Dunadain for explaining your stance on the NT. In essence, where it behooves you to quote our Scriptures to support your theology (i.e., "Hey Christians, even your Scriptures say such-and-such..."), you do. But where those same Scriptures say something you don't like, you say that they have been corrupted. Got it. No really, it does help me understand where you stand, and lays some ground rules for where you are. I might add, however, that I find it odd that neither of you (i.e., you and Spare Oom) have ever stated that before. When any Christian has quoted Scripture, you have always argued the interpretation on the merits, not on the validity of the text itself. Interesting. Of course, this significantly cuts down a great deal of our ability to dialogue, since at precisely the point we close in on conclusions made concerning Christ's true identity, you can always cry foul, claiming something like (at best), "Wow, I thought that passage 'may somehow correspond to what Jesus actually said,' but now that I see it does indeed seem to point to an auto-claim to divinity, I realize He could not have said it since 'anything that is said to contradict the holy unity of God and assign him parts, I completely disagree with and view as suspect, or anything else which contradicts the Qur’an.'" This, my friends, is what is known as a circular argument. More on this later.

Second, Dunadain, your position on the New Testament and language is somewhat skewed, even by standards of those who study them from a historical or otherwise non-Christian position (e.g. Jews who want to study, say, the Pharisees, of whom the NT says more than any other known document). First, none of the texts are translations, not even Matthew, which had long had rumors to this effect. (Although at some point there may have been some "source document" in Aramaic for Matthew, the current Matthew is certainly not a translation.) We know how translations "work" because we have the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translation of the OT, to compare with the original Hebrew and Aramaic (in certain sections of Daniel) of the OT, and the NT texts do not follow that pattern. It is very technical linguistic stuff that leads to this conclusion, all very boring and boggy for a forum discussion such as this, but that's where the Academy (made up of scholars of many religions, including those with no religion) is for very well-stated reasons. Second, the idea that Jesus spoke in Aramaic is certainly reasonable. However, the idea that He did not understand and speak at least some Greek is not, and the same goes for not only His disciples but all of Jewish Palestine. The view that Judaism was divided into two camps--Palestinian "Traditional" and Diaspora "Hellenistic"--went down in flames about 40 years ago with the publication of Martin Hengel's landmark Judaism and Hellenism, which demonstrated that Greek ideas and thought patterns saturated Jewish culture from 250 BC or so--some 300 years before Christ walked and taught in Palestine. Hengel's thesis has been developed and thoroughly sustained across the scholarly spectrum (in several faiths) ever since. Evidence number one for this? The aforementioned LXX. Some may be surprised to know that NT writers, when quoting the OT, usually quote from the LXX--not the Hebrew text. This means that early Jews--not modern Europeans--rejected then the dichotomy between Aramaic thought and Greek thought that you propose now. Hand in glove with this is the fact that it was Jesus' early followers [Peter, Matthew, John, His half-brothers James and Jude (or, if you are Catholic, close relatives)--not to mention other critical 'second generation' disciples like Paul and Luke], bilingual Aramaic/Greek speakers who also understood textual Hebrew, themselves who wrote the NT texts. Are you really suggesting that a bilingual person who, when shifting between languages, loses the fundamental meaning of what they were thinking a mere moment ago in their first language? Could a switch from Aramaic to Greek really change the meaning of Christ's identity comprehensively from "He's only a great prophet" to "He is the Word of God, the Great I AM Incarnate"? You quoted a section of a translation of an explanatory sermon to me (complete with parenthetical explanations to fill the lacunae associated with such translations from ancient Semitic languages), and quite nearly chide me (an 21st century Anglo Christian who is multilingual, yes, but not in Arabic) for not "getting it" (after his further explanation, I did). You assumed something, as most people do: Translations may obscure to some extent (like watching the Olympics in black and white instead of color), but they do not significantly distort, especially with sacred texts about which there is a great deal of cross reference, comment, and multiple translations in different languages (and usually in the same languages). As an aside, how do you assume (if indeed you do), that those who write here cannot read Greek and Hebrew?

Finally, I hear you on the use of the first person plural to indicate the first person singular. The Apostle Paul does the same in the NT. The problem with applying that theory to the OT use of Elohim is the grammar. In Paul, and in the sections you quote, the subject and the verb conjugation is plural. In contrast, the Hebrew use of Elohim to refer to Yahweh actually violates Hebrew grammar by combining the plural subject with the singular verb conjugation. This is why this issue stands apart. In any case, and I say this with as much gentleness as I can convey through a computer keyboard, you simply do not understand the concept of Godhead if you think we as Christians "divide" God. If you choose to reject our doctrine, fine, but know what you reject. At this point, you reject a caricature (or cartoon, if you will) of what we believe.

Last of all, thank you, very, very much for the other stuff. Yes, this does explain. And by the way, I think you know I am no fan of Al Qaeda! Would that they would hear you, friend, and submit to your perspective. I merely fully understand where they get their justifications from. One thing, to make things crystal clear: Was this sermon you quoted from the Quran, or after (i.e., some sort of commentary on) the Quran? If not, does it carry canonical weight? How widely is it known? Further, what happens when Imams differ, and some determine that violence is necessary (as you have indicated can be done)? In other words, in this sermon I do see a base from which reasonable people (such as yourself, and Spare Oom) can operate to legitimately condemn the actions of terrorists, etc. But I also see that it can still be used both ways. At best, it serves as an intermediary step that they must get past. It does not say "passages on violence are allegorical," but rather, "some passages are allegorical." What if the Imam in question simply draws the line in a different place hermeneutically? Do you follow me?

As a postscript/sidebar, you say that a "Christian or Jew who is minding his own business and not hurting anyone" should "not be attacked." Does this include a Christian who is openly preaching the gospel to Muslims in Muslim majority countries (i.e., building churches, sharing with neighbors, inviting people to services--NOT pounding on the gates of the Kaaba Mosque)? In other words, does "minding our own business" for Christians in Muslim countries constitute what you consider to be "minding your own business" in a liberal Western country? How would the majority of Muslims--or even the Imams you mention--view this issue?

inkspot

02-15-2006, 01:53 PM

Okay, I'm a dumb bunnie sometimes. I still do not understand the "two weighty issues" and how they differentiate between the admonition to peace and the admonition to violence in the Koran.

Can someone please, just for me and anyone else who's lagging behind, explain:

* Weighty issue #1
* Weighty issue #2
* Who said them and where (are the in the Koran?)
* How we know these two things clearly instruct Muslims to practice peace and not violence.

Sorry, I read the posts, but I can't keep up, cuz of my brain.

Also, another nice Scripture passage from Luke which clearly shows that 1st Century Jews believed Christ was the Savior, were shocked when He was crucified, and needed Jesus Himself to show them how the Old Testament plan was being unfolded in Him. After the Resurrection, from Luke 24:

That same day two of Jesus' disciples were going to the village of Emmaus, which was about seven miles from Jerusalem. As they were talking and thinking about what had happened, Jesus came near and started walking along beside them. 16But they did not know who he was.

Jesus asked them, "What were you talking about as you walked along?"

The two of them stood there looking sad and gloomy. Then the one named Cleopas asked Jesus, "Are you the only person from Jerusalem who didn't know what was happening there these last few days?"

"What do you mean?" Jesus asked.

They answered:

Those things that happened to Jesus from Nazareth. By what he did and said he showed that he was a powerful prophet, who pleased God and all the people. Then the chief priests and our leaders had him arrested and sentenced to die on a cross. We had hoped that he would be the one to set Israel free! But it has already been three days since all this happened.

Some women in our group surprised us. They had gone to the tomb early in the morning, but did not find the body of Jesus. They came back, saying that they had seen a vision of angels who told them that he is alive. Some men from our group went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said. But they didn't see Jesus either.

Then Jesus asked the two disciples, "Why can't you understand? How can you be so slow to believe all that the prophets said? Didn't you know that the Messiah would have to suffer before he was given his glory?" Jesus then explained everything written about himself in the Scriptures, beginning with the Law of Moses and the Books of the Prophets.

Also, of course, Matthew 5:17, Jesus says, "Don't suppose that I came to do away with the Law and the Prophets. I did not come to do away with them, but to give them their full meaning." Or in the King James, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."

Now, no one should be arguing Jesus did not claim to be God, and did not claim to be the fulfillment of the Old Testament plan. The Scriptures are clear, and He was clear on this issue. He even told people they misunderstood the plan when they expected a conqueror to free Israel from Rome -- He clarified that He was the completion of the plan, the suffering Savior.

This may be a peripheral issue at this point if our Muslim friends believe the Bible is a jumbled mess and "may somehow correspond to what Jesus actually said" ... because the entire dialog will come down to: "You are wrong because your Scriptures are corrupt, and we are right because Mohammed spoke Arabic" whichj of course is nonsense, as PK has pointed out, the reliability of the translation of the Scriptures is not in any serious question among real scholars.

SapphireOfSeptember

02-15-2006, 09:34 PM

Parthian King

02-15-2006, 11:57 PM

So do you believe Jesus to BE god? If so, then why do you call him the Son of God if he IS God? what about the third person? Is it Mary? How is it that Jesus is the Son of God and God at the same time? I believe that God is One and the trinity is a confusing concept to understand (and will probably always be to me). -So do Christians believe that God has three different minds? What are Jews opinions on this subject? I would love to hear from a jews view.

As innocently and candidly as these questions are stated, sadly they are indicative of the caricature that is made of Christian beliefs among Muslims. Of course, Muslims can (and do, as we have seen) object to Christian beliefs about them as well. The difference is that Christians make no claims regarding the content of what is in the Quran, while Muslims very much lay claim to what lies within the Christian canon (both Old and New Testaments). And so the sparks fly.

Sapphire, the answer to your first two questions, and perhaps the last as well (though a Jew would have to weigh in personally), may be found (among other places), in John 10:29-39, which bears witness to a conversation between Jesus and some Jews:

“My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.” The Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?” The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.” Jesus answered them, “Has it not been written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God'? If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father.” Therefore they were seeking again to seize Him, and He eluded their grasp.

This passage makes clear that 1) The Jews understood what Jesus was saying, and didn't like it a bit 2) Jesus understood their offense, and did nothing to dispel it, but rather confirmed it (and added to it!), and 3) that for both Jesus and the Jews, "Son of God" in the unique sense that He was stating (as opposed to that lesser sense that He referred to by quoting Psalm 82, i.e., you are "gods") meant that Jesus shared fully in the Divinity of His Heavenly Father and deserved to be stoned for blasphemy for having said it.

The third person of the Trinity is NOT Mary, though I have read similar nonsense among some Islamic teachings (though I doubt anyone of any real knowledge among Muslims would say this). The Trinity (a word which does not appear in Scripture, but is used to describe a spiritual reality which is found there) consists of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Mary was a person, although a very special one, whom God the Father used to bring His Son into the world as Savior.

I agree that to the natural mind, the Trinity is confusing. Do you really expect God to be simple enough for us to understand as one would understand a math problem that can be learned by the third grade? In the end, the matter is not what we think or what makes sense to us, but how God reveals Himself through Scripture. The Bible has revealed realities that are beyond us, even as it is consistent and firm in them. At the same time, Christians fully believe that God is one, although He is a compound, dynamic unity, not a static, singular reality. We do not believe that God has three minds, or that He can be divided, or that there are three Gods, or that when we get to heaven we will look around for "two other associates" of God the Father (and that God would laugh at us about it!). These are all distortions of what we believe.

Sapphire, do you enjoy reading C.S. Lewis? Do you enjoy the images and the stories he tells? Do you appreciate the Person of Aslan? Well, if you really want to find out more, I suggest that you read the New Testament, starting with the Gospel of John, then read the Gospel of Mark. If you don't want to believe it, that's your business. But at least know what it is you are not choosing to believe.

PrinceOfTheWest

02-16-2006, 08:17 AM

I've been meaning to weigh in on this point, Sapphire, but a busy work schedule prevented me responding quickly. Parthian King covered the topic well, but I'd like to address something very specifically.

A few posts back, I stated that the decisive issue for me regarding Christ's claims to divinity was the Resurrection. Spare Oom made this countercomment:
For PrinceOfTheWest, the Resurrection is the issue that decides it. For me, the Oneness of God is the issue that decides it, and I can never accept the Trinity.This indicates that I end up in the better position here, for I get both the Resurrection and the Oneness of God. The fact that Spare Oom would juxtapose them, as if you had to make a choice between them, indicates just how poorly she (at least) understands what Christianity means by the Trinity.

Parthian King has made this point, but it bears repeating: Christians worship the One True God. There is one God, and one God only. Here is the description provided by the Catechism of the Catholic Church, but all orthodox Christians embrace this:

The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the "consubstantial Trinity". The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: "The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one God." In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), "Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature."

The divine persons are really distinct from one another. "God is one but not solitary." "Father", "Son", "Holy Spirit" are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: "He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son." They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: "It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds." The divine Unity is Triune. (Catechism 253, 254 (http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/believe.html#ONE))

These truths are based on statements made by Jesus Himself, and on Old Testament Scriptures, many of which are listed in this thread. There have been disputes of linguistics and translation (e.g. what was meant in Genesis 1:26), but remember - we are not college debaters discussing welfare reform. We are handling the most important truths in the universe here (and, to the credit of all, handling them with profound respect for God and each other). We are not worldlings; the issue is not what makes PrinceOfTheWest comfortable or what fits Spare Oom's worldview, but what God actually meant when He said something.

This is why it is so vital to understand what Christians mean when they speak of the Trinity. The shema (Duet 6:4) is part of our Scripture, too, and was unambiguously affirmed by Jesus Himself (Mark 12:29). Yet this same Jesus claimed a unity with God that no man ever has (numerous citations in this thread), accepted worship (Matt 28:17), claimed to forgive sins (Matt 9:2, Mark 2:5, Luke 7:48, etc.), and claimed to send prophets (Matt 23:34). As Inkspot pointed out, these claims are not the claims of a nice man or a good prophet. They are either the claims of a madman, or a very wicked man who is trying to horn in on God's place, or someone who is who He claims to be. So how to reconcile these seemingly conflicting truths? By asking God to illuminate them. Contrary to the illusion of many, the early Church was not a secret greek philosopher's club, seeking blur Christ's teaching with doctrines borrowed from Hellenistic mystery cults. Those interested in mystery cults could (and did) get more acceptance and a lot less trouble elsewhere. The Church Fathers were interested in pursuing the truth, and pursued it with prayer, pious study, and at great cost. They wanted to know what God actually meant. The truth that was revealed to them is distilled in the quote above: that God is One Being, yet three persons.

Is this hard for natural human intellect to understand? It's worse - it's impossible. It's what's called a Mystery, a truth known only because God told us about it; furthermore, my tradition refers to it as an Eternal Mystery, which means that human intellect can never understand it exhaustively. Other mysteries, such as free will or the manner of the Incarnation, may someday be understood, but we will spend eternity exploring the wonder and mystery of the Trinity.

The response of the human intellect to the Mysterious truth of the Trinty has always been one of two: either a humble acceptance of it or denial. The denial is usually because it defies easy understanding ("That's too difficult, that makes no sense, I can't believe that.") But for those who are concerned with what God actually meant, it is important to understand what a thing is before rejecting it.

That's why Sapphire's question is so illuminating. No, Mary is not the third person of the Trinity (though one could get that impression from the Quran (Surah 5:116), which indicates that Muhammed himself was unclear on the concept.) One does not have to sacrifice the Oneness of God to believe in the Trinity, because the Trinity does not mean three Gods. What one does have to sacrifice is the idea that an idea must be completely comprehendable to be true; that humans have to be able to "wrap their minds" around something to be able to accept it.

I ask my Muslim cousins to do their best to understand what Christians mean by the Trinity, even if you do not agree with it. It is no service to the truth to embrace a false representation of Christian teaching just because it makes your position look easier. (Not that I think anyone here is interested in doing that.) Just as no Christian should say, "Those Muslims claim to believe in One God - but they really worship Muhammed, too", no Muslim should say, "Those Christians claim to worship one God, but they're really polytheists under the surface." We are not polytheists. The Trinity is One God, but three Persons - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

inkspot

02-16-2006, 09:20 AM

Right, Sapphire, did someone tell you Mary was a member of the Trinity? That is very untrue.

Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

For a great explanation (in addition to what PK and PoTW have given here) get CS Lewis' Mere Christianity, and read the chapter about The Three-Person God.

Read the whole book, actually.

We do not worship three Gods. We worship one God comprised of three distinct persons.

Now, this is the Islam thread, so if we could get back to Islam ...

Someone please briefly and simply define:

Weighty Issue #1
Weighty Issue #2
Where they come from (Koran?)
How we know they mean peace takes precedence over violence.

Thank you.

Spare Oom

02-16-2006, 07:59 PM

Inkspot, I think the “two weighty things” were the 1) the Qur’an itself , and 2) the huge body of commentary on it (by Muslim scholars). More on that in a minute.

We seem to have two main topics of conversation going on in this thread at the moment - 1) God as a Trinity, and 2) Why should peaceful verses in the Qur’an take precedence over verses about fighting? I hope to look at the second of these two issues in this post, and follow up in a few days with some thoughts on the Trinity.

Okay, why should peaceful verses in the Qur’an take precedence over those concerning fighting? Well, there are three reasons:

Firstly, if the verses concerning war are read in context we see that the verses around them often give further information, eg.

“And fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits, surely God loves not the transgressors.
And slay them wherever you come upon them, and expel them from where they expelled you, for persecuting people to sway them from God’s religion is worse than slaying.” (2: 190-191)

It has been known for people to quote the middle part of this – “And slay them wherever you come upon them” – to suggest that Muslims are commanded to kill all unbelievers. However, when we take into consideration the context we realise that the verse is talking about a war situation, in which unbelievers are attacking Muslims and persecuting them, so that Muslims have to fight in self-defence. Even in those circumstances, Muslims are warned not to transgress limits.

Parthian King quoted the following verse:

“The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom.”

Again, this verse refers only to those who “make war” upon Muslims. It doesn’t include non-Muslims who live peacefully. The phrase “and strive after corruption in the land” is linked to the former phrase – it’s talking about people who “make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land.”

Charn Tim quoted the following verse:

“O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil.)” (9: 123)

If you read the verses which lead up to that one (9: 120 onwards), you’ll see that these verses refer specifically to “the people of Madinah [alternative spelling = Medina] and the Arabs of the desert around them” – ie. to a specific people at a specific time.

Charn Tim also quoted:

“So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush.” (9:5)

Read all the verses around that one and it’s obvious that it’s referring to a particular time in history when the idolaters of Mecca (pagans, not Christians or Jews) had broken their treaties with the Muslims.

Charn Tim also quoted:

“O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.” (5:51)

The Arabic word “awliya” (singular “wali”), which has there been translated into English as “friends,” ought more properly to have been translated as “protectors.” “Awliya” can mean “friends,” “guardians” or “protectors,” depending on context. How, then, do we know that “friends” is not the correct interpretation? We know because traditional commentaries on the Qur’an explain the background to the revelation of the verses (more to come on that.) Commentators tell us that, shortly before the revelation of 5: 51, the Prophet and the Meccan Muslim community had migrated from Mecca to Medina to try to escape persecution by their fellow tribesmen, who were pagans. The Prophet had been invited to come to Medina, as the main tribes of that city had heard the message of Islam and embraced the religion. Verse 5: 51 came down at the time of attacks (by the Meccans) on the Muslim community in Medina. Because the Muslim community was small in number at the time, some Muslims felt it would be a good idea to form alliances with Jewish tribes and Christian Arab tribes in and around Medina, so that they would have support. This verse advised them not to because, although those other groups were not hostile to the Muslims, they were not (obviously) loyal to Islam, and the new Muslims must not put themselves in a situation where they may be tempted to compromise on any aspect of their religion just to save their skins. Therefore, it can be seen that “awliya” in that context means “protectors,” in strictly military terms.

It’s clear that “awliya” couldn’t mean “friends” in the sense of personal friends anyway, since the Prophet Mohammed had friends who were Christians and Jews. Also, Muslim men are permitted to marry Christian and Jewish women.

Other Qur’anic verses discussing relationships with those of different religions (Jews and Christians in particular) include:

“God forbids you not with regard to those who have not fought you in the cause of Religion, nor expelled you from your homes, that you should be considerate and deal justly with them, surely God loves the just.” (60: 8)

“And of the people of Moses there are some who guide with the Truth, and by it act with justice.” (7: 159)

“You will surely find the most hostile of people to the believers are the Jews [not all of them by any means – see above verse] and the polytheists, and you will surely find the nearest in affection to the believers are those who said: ‘We are Nasara (the followers of Jesus),’ this is because there are among them men devoted to learning, and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant.” (5: 82)

In conclusion, just because a person is non-Muslim, that doesn’t make him/her an enemy to Muslims.

Phew – that was just the first of my “three reasons.” I’ll continue in a separate post.

Spare Oom

02-16-2006, 08:14 PM

Secondly, as Dunadain has mentioned, there is a huge body of Qur’an commentary going back to the early days of Islam, including commentary on the timing and occasion of the revelation of verses – eg. whether a verse was revealed at Mecca or Medina, whether it relates to a particular circumstance, etc. The verses which talk about war are linked to specific wars. By studying the Qur’an commentary, readers of the Qur’an are able to see which of the verses applied to particular situations affecting the early Muslims

Thirdly, we have the example of the Prophet to guide us. He lived alongside Christians and Muslims, who were given protection and continued to practise their faith under Muslim rule. Therefore, those preachers of hate who incite Muslims to blow up innocent civilians (which often include Muslims as well as non-Muslims), and to commit suicide in the process (forbidden by the Qur’an under any circumstances) are hardly following the example of the Prophet!

To sum up, we know peace takes precedence by a) looking at the verses in context, b) studying Qur’an commentary which explains the timing and occasion of the revelation of verses, and c) looking at the example set by the Prophet Mohammed.

The vast majority of Muslims are peace-loving people. I’ve stayed with a family in Morocco (which is a predominantly Muslim country) on several occasions. The first two visits occurred when I was a Christian (I knew only the basics of Islam at the time, and had no thoughts of converting.) I couldn’t have been welcomed more warmly and in no way was I made to feel an outsider because of my religion. Certainly no-one felt it was their duty to kill me, or I wouldn’t be sitting here now typing this message :) ! The family I stayed with was Muslim, though one male member of the family had married a Christian lady and she was treated as one of the family (as indeed she was – still is – and to this day she is still a Christian.) One female member of the family works for a Jewish man – has done for years – and he and his family are regarded by the Muslim family as friends. That is a picture of the Muslim way of life as followed by the Prophet Mohammed, who mixed with Christians and Jews in his daily life. I too have friends of several different religions (or of no religion at all), as do millions of Muslims.

Parthian King, in answer to your question about evangelizing, I believe in individuals being able to speak out about their understanding of God wherever they may happen to be. Regarding your comments on my position as a convert, I converted to Islam seven years ago – I don’t know whether you’d view that as “fairly recent.” I don’t think I’m “missing” anything essential as I’ve done a great deal of reading about Islam over the years, as well as living the faith, though of course I still have much to learn. Who doesn’t? (In his/her particular faith, I mean.) Not one of the books I’ve read (which include publications on the practice of Islam, the life of Mohammed, stories of the Prophets, Islam in Europe, novels, etc) advocates violence. You said something about my views being ultra-liberal but, if you were to read books written by some of the Muslim authors I’ve mentioned in previous posts, you’d see that my views are not out of the ordinary. For example, Ruqaiyyah Waris Maqsood encourages dialogue between Muslims and those of other faiths. And Hassan Radwan has written two very good detective books for children aged around 8 – 13, which are a bit like the American “Three Investigators” series, but set in the UK in London. The books are called Rashid and the Missing Body and Rashid and the Haupmann Diamond, and the stories are told from the viewpoint of a Muslim boy who forms a club with two other boys, from Christian and Jewish backgrounds. The relationship between the three boys is one of friendship and respect – they care for one another and have fun together. In each book they have a mystery to solve and, as they piece together the clues, they learn important lessons about identity, conflict, friendship, etc. The Islamic Foundation (http://www.islamic-foundation.org.uk/) publishes many such books which are valued by both Muslims and non-Muslims.

Many mosques organise Open Days, talks, coffee mornings etc. to which non-Muslims are invited.

In short, true Muslims can live alongside people of other religions.

Parthian King

02-17-2006, 01:19 AM

Spare Oom, thanks for your post. I, personally, am more interested in pursuing the more theological line of discussion, which you dub the "Trinity" issue, but which I would classify more broadly, though it includes that. I will come to that soon enough.

However, I will address a couple of concerns, and hope that my directness not be taken as intent to offend, because it most certainly is not.

I don't think that you are on the same page as Dunadain, and if you are, then the two of you are speaking in a code that only the two of you understand. Perhaps "two weighty things" is a technical theological phrase for the issues you bring up, much as Christians are wont to speak "Christianese" at times and confuse outsiders. Nevertheless, I'll take your version (since I understand what you are saying) and respond to it. You say that the two weighty things that mitigate violence in the Quran is the Quran itself and post-canonical commentary. I don't mean to be petulant, and I am trying to be polite even as I am being pointed, but questions keep getting posed, without them ever being answered: ARE THE COMMENTARIES CANONICAL? Meaning: Does the second of the "two weighty things" carry the same weight as the Quran in the mind of the "Muslim on the street." If these are known to only a few (i.e., relatively speaking), and are not considered canonical (i.e., sacred Scripture to be read inseparably alongside the Quran itself, indeed, no one should remotely consider reading the Quran without them), well, then, I would say that that isn't very "weighty." Why? Because people can go without it, and the tempering effect it could have is absent. Second, when you say the Quran itself tells us not to interpret the Quran violently (meaning context), that is all well and good, but again, these are subtle issues. I am overjoyed by your interpretation. I am not confident that the rest of the Islamic world sees things your way. They may not (and many do not) interpret matters of "context" as you do. Why is your reading better than theirs? Now I think it's better, but I mean in concrete terms, locktight?

I am also enlightened by the interface you have observed between Christians and Muslims. I have known that Muslim men can marry non-Muslim women (btw, how must their children be raised?). The examples you give of children from different faiths playing together--set in an occidental setting, yes?

With great respect, I would say that you as a first generation Muslim convert, occidental in your cultural orientation rather than oriental, and a practitioner for seven years would have significant insight from the perspective of such a person. I feel confident to ask you about doctrine to a point. You are obviously quite dedicated to your faith, and significantly engaged. Nevertheless, you are not culturally Arabic, or even Persian or Southeast Asian, you have not been raised in that world, and (apparently) are still not in that world (I gather by your references you live in England, though perhaps I presume too much). For obvious reasons, that puts you at a disadvantage, not in your ability to practice your faith for yourself, but insofar as you can explain the concerns of occidental Christians about the religion whose idiosyncrasies are inescapably oriental. Your own liberal, occidental perspective colors much of what you say (the thought of the Magna Carta flows in your very blood, whether you will or no), and explains an extraordinary amount to me personally. The majority--nay, the whole of the Muslim world, less a very few such as yourself--does not think as you think, and that's a fact. It is a question of culture that has been formed on the anvil of history for 1400 years, and even before that. For you, it is quite simple to say "I believe in individuals being able to speak out about their understanding of God wherever they may happen to be," and have that be the end of the matter (literally, as you add nothing more to it). I know for a solid fact that if I were to "speak out about my understanding of God wherever I may happen to be" (meaning, I actively seek to share Jesus Christ as I understand Him in an effort to obey the command to preach His truth to every creature) in most places in the Muslim world, especially Arabia, only a miracle from God, or (by the thinnest of chances) some local authority's desire to avoid a clash with my country over my demise would save me (and that one has fallen on very hard times of late!). I know, also for a fact, that if I happened to be an Arab who spoke out about Jesus, and did not desist, I would be imprisioned and finally killed. Spare Oom, this is an undeniable, ascertainable fact. And it wouldn't be because of "the form of government" that is in that country: Those people feel they are obeying the Quran when they do such things.

So in the end, Muslim countries on this point are simply not, in practice, analogous to open Western ones. It is fine to speak of theory, but there is too much history, past and present, that points another way. Now, individual Muslim Arabs and Persians can be incredibly sweet, hospitable, and warm people. Frankly, I have found it easier to get along with certain Arabs than with, well, I won't say--but I'm not talking about Christians. What I have observed is what happens when a Muslim majority begins to get political clout through numbers. When they can make rules for others, real problems start. You say that "the Prophet...lived alongside Christians and Muslims, who were given protection and continued to practise their faith under Muslim rule." Do you really believe this? What if I said that the Crusaders really went to take food and clothing to those in Palestine, and we just don't get where the Muslims get all this talk of atrocities? Likewise, I must say, "that's not how we remember it." In the wake of the Islamic conquests, Christians were isolated into the equivalent of closed communities (they're called "ghettos" now), and subject to tribute. The ringing of church bells was outlawed so they could not call people to church to celebrate Christ's Last Supper--that ceremony that defined them as Christians. Islamic rule saturated the society, and the financial burden of the tribute made it extremely difficult to survive in the marketplace and feed one's children. Eventually, the coercive effect of this kind of living forced conversion upon the populace within a few generations. Yes, there are some vestiges of Chaldean, Coptic, and Nestorian Christianity still left. But these are but tokens. Please Spare Oom, don't talk about "protection and tolerance"--such practices could not be considered "protection" in any sense of the word now, and they weren't then either.

You have challenged us. I challenge you with a challenge that may lie dormant for years and never awake, but I can pray: Look hard, very, very hard at this thing. Hide from nothing, turn away from nothing, quell no question. Why, Spare Oom, can't I live and do and think, and say there, in Muslim majority countries, like you can where you are as a Muslim?

For me, I'm done with this issue. If others want to pursue it, that's their business. I have other matters more pressing to attend to shortly.

inkspot

02-17-2006, 10:05 AM

This is what I base my assertion on: The two weighty things that the Prophet has left his followers after his death so that we do not let ourselves go astray from God’s straight path:
Sahih Muslim
Book 031, Number 5920:
One day Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) stood up to deliver a sermon at a watering place known as Khumm situated between Mecca and Medina. He praised Allah, extolled Him and delivered the sermon and exhorted (us) and said: Now to our purpose. O people, I am a human being. I am about to receive a messenger (the angel of death) from my Lord and I, in response to Allah's call, (would bid good-bye to you), but I am leaving among you two weighty things: the one being the Book of Allah in which there is right guidance and light, so hold fast to the Book of Allah and adhere to it. He exhorted (us) (to hold fast) to the Book of Allah and then said: The second are the members of my household I remind you (of your duties) to the members of my family. He (Husain) said to Zaid: Who are the members of his household? Aren't his wives the members of his family? Thereupon he said: His wives are the members of his family (but here) the members of his family are those for whom acceptance of Zakat is forbidden. And he said: Who are they? Thereupon he said: 'Ali and the offspring of 'Ali, 'Aqil and the offspring of 'Aqil and the offspring of Ja'far and the offspring of 'Abbas. Husain said: These are those for whom the acceptance of Zakat is forbidden. Zaid said: Yes.

The “two weighty things” is what was missing from the discussion. You say you agree with the al-qaeda interpretation of the Qur’an Parthian King. The problem with that kind of interpretative approach is that it is influenced by a person's impulses, which will encourage a person to take verses out of context. Al-qaeda is an organization filled with people driven by violent impulses to destroy those whom in their opinion have an anti-Muslim agenda. Naturally they will focus more on the verses which prescribe military action against disbelievers (what exactly is a disbeliever by the way?—It does not simply mean Christian or Jew who is minding his own business and not hurting anyone--these people, the Qur'an says, should not be attacked). The Qur’an contains all the knowledge that a person would ever need to know, but as the Qur’an points out, people who have a particular kind of perversity may try to justify that perversity using verses from the Qur’an taken out of their proper context, and not having taken what the Prophet has said regarding said verses into consideration.

003.007
He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:" and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding.

This is taken from the same sermon by ibn Abi Talib that I drew the previous excerpt from. This will explain what I meant with that post which obviously confused you Parthian King (I thought you would have been able to figure out where I was going with it—my mistake and I apologize for not explaining it sooner):

The Holy Qur'an and Sunnah
But the Prophet left among you the same which other Prophets left among their peoples, because Prophets do not leave them untended (in dark) without a clear path and a standing ensign, namely the Book of your Creator clarifying its permission and prohibitions, its obligations and discretion, its repealing injunctions and the repealed ones, its permissible matters and compulsory ones, its particulars and the general ones, its lessons and illustrations, its long and the short ones, its clear and obscure ones, detailing its abbreviations and clarifying its obscurities.

In it there are some verses whose knowledge [1] is obligatory and others whose ignorance by the people is permissible. It also contains what appears to be obligatory according to the Book [2] but its repeal is signified by the Prophet's action (sunnah) or that which appears compulsory according to the Prophet's action but the Book allows not following it. Or there are those which are obligatory in a given time but not so after that time. Its prohibitions also differ. Some are major regarding which there exists the threat of fire (Hell), and others are minor for which there are prospects of forgiveness. There are also those of which a small portion is also acceptable (to Allah) but they are capable of being expanded.

It is therefore the Prophet’s action and sayings (sunnah) which elucidate the complete understanding and meaning behind the Qur’an. We get this understanding from the “Men of understanding,” whom have been deputized as leaders (going back to verse 32:24 that I included earlier in this post about the plural) and that it is these Imams who will fully explain “its particulars and the general ones” with respect to understanding the real meaning of the Qur’an. Those al-qaeda guys disregard this essential body of knowledge when interpreting the Qur’an. They are trying to follow only one of the two weighty things, and while the Qur’an is the weightier of the two, approaching it without the other weighty thing is a very difficult thing to do and could lead you astray, as we have seen from past examples.

Whew! :p Dunadain said all that (in two separate posts, after being asked for clarification) to say what Spare Oom said in two lines: the two weighty things are the Koran and commentaries on the Koran. So next we need to know:
Is it accepted throughout the Islamic world that the Koran cannot be understood and its precepts practiced without the commentaries, or are the commentaries optional?

If they are optional, then al Qaeda does have a just interpretation, as does every repressive regime from Sudan to Saudi Arabia. With PK, I await the Muslim answer to this quandary: where Muslims are in the majority, the atmosphere shifts from one of friendship/peace to one of repression (Saudi Arabia) and even violence (Sudan). How does this square with your interpretation of the Koran as peaceful and friendly?

I met a Muslim man from the Middle East, a professor at an Islamic university, who had left the faith because he came to the conclusion that the extremist actions of terrorist organizations were in fact the true path according to the Koran. When he left the faith, his own father tried to kill him. He is still an outcast from his family, and has been forced to change his name and identity.

Spare Oom, I am curious, when you chose Islam, did your Christian family members try to kill you, did you lose your job and have to change your name and identity?

Parthian King

02-17-2006, 12:39 PM

I know that I said I was done with this issue, but I had to post this because it just came out in the news:

PESHAWAR, Pakistan — A Pakistani cleric announced a $1 million bounty for killing a cartoonist who drew the Prophet Muhammad caricatures, as thousands rallied across the country Friday and authorities arrested scores of protesters...."This is a unanimous decision of by all imams (prayer leaders) of Islam that whoever insults the prophet deserves to be killed and whoever will take this insulting man to his end, will get this prize," Qureshi told about 1,000 people outside the mosque after Friday prayers.

Qureshi did not name any cartoonist in his announcement and did not appear to be aware that 12 different people had drawn the pictures. The crowd outside the mosque burned a Danish flag and an effigy of the Danish prime minister.

The Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten first printed the prophet drawings by 12 cartoonists in September. The newspaper has since apologized to Muslims for the drawings, one of them showing Muhammad wearing a bomb-shaped turban with an ignited fuse.

Other Western newspapers, mostly in Europe but also some in the United States, have reprinted the pictures, asserting their news value and the right to freedom of expression.

The publication of the drawings set off weeks of protests across the Muslim world in which at least 19 people have been killed, most of them in Afghanistan and Pakistan.--The Associated Press, February 17, 2006

For the full story, follow this link (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185202,00.html).

I only point to this to indicate that the Muslim imam offering this bounty has a perception of the Quran that is 180 degrees diametrically opposite from the one being represented here by Spare Oom and Dunadain. Furthermore, he claims that his perception is that which is unanimously held by imams across the whole of the Islamic world. Now, the point is not whether he is right, but rather that he is not a member of a terrorist group like Al Qaeda, instead being a popular cleric who functions within the public realm and has the ear of thousands (at least) and now millions of Muslims. Will they reject what he says? Will they carefully read the contexts surrounding Quranic texts regarding violence, consult their commentaries, and then conclude he is way off course? Is he not one of the imams to whom Dunadain referred when he said that it was through their guidance that we are to judiciously sift through the Quranic verses in order the properly interpret it, rejecting the violence and following the path of peace? Will we soon hear from hundreds of imams (i.e., a significant majority) who will say he is in grave error and violates the true spirit of Islam?

As I have stated elsewhere and even in this thread, the cartoons were out of line. But is it right to hunt a person down and kill them for this?

For more information on how Christians are really treated in Muslim countries, visit The Voice of the Martyrs (http://www.persecution.com). Free registration is required, but once that is done (a 90 second process with no cost or obligation of any kind), you will have access to a list of restricted countries and a map. This will inform you, country by country, of how Christians are actually dealt with, and specifically how Christian attempts to speak of Christ are dealt with. BTW, it deals not only with Islamic counties, but any country that oppresses Christians for any reason. It is highly educational.

inkspot

02-17-2006, 01:52 PM

Well there you go. At least one imam is claiming the second weighty issue (clerical commentary) is in favor of the violence and repression. I am curious how this also squares with what Dunadain and Spare Ooom have put forth here. Thanks, PK.

Spare Oom

02-18-2006, 08:08 PM

In reply to Inkspot and Parthian King, all Muslims are very much aware of the importance of Qur’an commentary – it’s not something that is only known about or read by scholars. Muslims are encouraged to study it in conjuction with the Qur’an , and translations in languages other than Arabic (including English) are available. It is not a revealed Scripture, like the Qur’an, but was compiled by scholars from the early days of Islam and is considered essential for a true understanding of the Qur’an. Extremists are certainly aware of it, but have chosen to ignore it. Such people take Qur’anic verses out of context, obscuring their real meaning, in order to further their own political agenda.

[Inkspot:] "Spare Oom, I am curious, when you chose Islam, did your Christian family members try to kill you, did you lose your job and have to change your name and identity?"

No. There are no Christians in my family. I first started going to church as a child only because some of my friends asked me to come to Sunday School with them. As it happened, I carried on going to church long after those friends had dropped out.

I’m sorry to hear about the professor whose father tried to kill him for leaving his faith. Sadly, some societies have traditionally had a culture of killing family members who make a decision that they regard as dishonouring the family. If that man’s family truly followed Islam, they would no longer practise such customs.

[Parthian King:] "I know, also for a fact, that if I happened to be an Arab who spoke out about Jesus, and did not desist, I would be imprisioned and finally killed."

Taking your statement out of context, I could simply reply that a) Arab Muslims often talk about Jesus, since he’s in the Qur’an, and b)there are several million Arab Christians in countries like Lebanon, Jordan, Syria and Iraq who also talk about Jesus. However, I gather that you are talking mainly about Saudi Arabia, and about preaching Christianity rather than just taking about Jesus. I gave my own thoughts on this in post 137.

[Parthian King:] "I am also enlightened by the interface you have observed between Christians and Muslims. I have known that Muslim men can marry non-Muslim women (btw, how must their children be raised?). The examples you give of children from different faiths playing together--set in an occidental setting, yes?"

I’ve seen children of different faiths playing together in a predominantly Muslim country.

Usually, children of a Muslim father are raised as Muslims. However, the couple I spoke about in Morocco (a Muslim man married to a Christian woman) are bringing up their children with knowledge of both Islam and Christianity, so they will be able to choose for themselves. Both parents consider that they’re worshipping the same God anyway, so they have no problem with their children participating in both Christian and Muslim worship, and Christian and Muslim celebrations.

[Parthian King:] "What I have observed is what happens when a Muslim majority begins to get political clout through numbers."

Don’t forget that a large percentage of the people of a country may well be in disagreement with their leaders. Just because I live in Britain, that doesn’t mean my views are the same as those of Tony Blair.

There are at least one and a half million Muslims in Britain, out of a population of about sixty million, obviously a minority but a significant minority. Organisations like The Islamic Foundation (www.islamic-foundation.org.uk) are representative of most of these British Muslims. They have a USA branch as well (www.islamic-foundation.com) and I’d urge people to try to get hold of some of their publications to see how ordinary Muslims go about their daily lives.

[Parthian King:] "...the Muslim imam offering this bounty has a perception of the Quran that is 180 degrees diametrically opposite from the one being represented here by Spare Oom and Dunadain. Furthermore, he claims that his perception is that which is unanimously held by imams across the whole of the Islamic world. Now, the point is not whether he is right, but rather that he is not a member of a terrorist group like Al Qaeda, instead being a popular cleric who functions within the public realm and has the ear of thousands (at least) and now millions of Muslims. Will they reject what he says? Will they carefully read the contexts surrounding Quranic texts regarding violence, consult their commentaries, and then conclude he is way off course? Is he not one of the imams to whom Dunadain referred when he said that it was through their guidance that we are to judiciously sift through the Quranic verses in order the properly interpret it, rejecting the violence and following the path of peace? Will we soon hear from hundreds of imams (i.e., a significant majority) who will say he is in grave error and violates the true spirit of Islam?"

Well, to start with, his claim that all imams share his opinion is a blatant lie which just serves to show how he goes to extremes. He doesn’t even know that the cartoons were not all drawn by the same person – you’d have thought he’d get his facts straight before displaying such ignorance so publicly. Those two things, plus the fact that his announcement is preposterous, should be enough to prevent almost everyone from taking him seriously, whether he's an imam or not. I expect most other Muslims will either ignore him or speak out against him. Remember, many other imams and Muslim organisations have already spoken out against those who have reacted in a violent way to the publication of the cartoons.

Most Muslims (both in Britain and abroad) think as I do about living in peace and harmony with non-Muslims.

[Parthian King:] "You say that "the Prophet...lived alongside Christians and Muslims, who were given protection and continued to practise their faith under Muslim rule." Do you really believe this?"

Yes, I believe that the Prophet Mohammed gave rights to Christians and Jews. Under his rule in Medina, churches were respected and were not allowed to be pulled down so that mosques or houses could be built. Jews had a holiday on Saturday so that they could observe their Sabbath, and Christians had a holiday on Sunday so that they could observe theirs. In matters of personal law such as marriage, divorce and inheritance, minorities had the freedom to implement their own religious laws. Regarding the payment of tax, the Prophet made it clear that minorities must not be burdened “in more than they can bear.” Some later leaders of the Muslims behaved wrongly in not adhering to these rules.

[Parthian King:] "Nevertheless, you are not culturally Arabic, or even Persian or Southeast Asian, you have not been raised in that world, and (apparently) are still not in that world (I gather by your references you live in England, though perhaps I presume too much). For obvious reasons, that puts you at a disadvantage, not in your ability to practice your faith for yourself, but insofar as you can explain the concerns of occidental Christians about the religion whose idiosyncrasies are inescapably oriental. Your own liberal, occidental perspective colors much of what you say (the thought of the Magna Carta flows in your very blood, whether you will or no), and explains an extraordinary amount to me personally. The majority--nay, the whole of the Muslim world, less a very few such as yourself--does not think as you think, and that's a fact."

Yes, I live in Britain. Since I’m not culturally Arabic, Persian or Southeast Asian, as you say, I cannot elaborate on what you describe as “oriental idiosyncrasies.” But anyone can become a Muslim and there’s no need to become “oriental” in order to do so, or to reject one’s non-oriental heritage.

Anyway, I’ve posted enough about this kind of thing and I’m busy for the next few days in any case. If non-Muslims on this Forum really want to know more about Islam, why not visit your nearest mosque and talk to Muslims (if you haven’t done so already)? You can easily explain that you’re a committed Christian (or atheist, etc.) and that you’re merely interested in understanding what it is that Muslims believe. No-one will kill you for that ;) !

Parthian King

02-18-2006, 10:42 PM

Spare Oom, thanks. This is not something that I want to continue to pursue, because 1) I think there is more fruitful discussion elsewhere (theological realities), and 2) In the end, it seems clear, that no matter what happens across the Muslim world (currently), no matter how extreme, widespread, and comprehensive its alarming manifestations, the response will be that those people are "fringe" (even when their rallies number in the thousands), and that "true" Islam is not really that way. In a similar vein, in all of these discussions, there has been absolutely no willingness on the part of Muslim participants to admit to events and conditions of history that are general knowledge when it comes to the violence and oppression that accompanied the Islamic conquests. Information on both of these issues (i.e., past and present) is ubiquitous, and anyone who would know the truth concerning them has the information at their fingertips in just about any history book that addresses the issue; I have provided a link for Voice of the Martyrs (http://www.persecution.com/) for those interested in seeing how Christians who desire to share their faith are treated in these countries.

At the end of the day, the question is, how is it that Islam be enforced, while true Christianity cannot? And, a corollary issue, also lying at the heart of all of this discussion, is the canyon that stretches between the ideal Islam we have heard described here and the Islam that is actually practiced, especially in relation to other religions that would have the same voice as Islam (but are denied) in society after society on a planet that belongs to God and God alone. Spare Oom, you have indeed given "your thoughts" on this matter (and btw, of course I was talking about sharing Jesus as true Lord and King), but unfortunately--and this is the point--your thoughts have little to nothing to do with the reality that Christians under Muslim rule live with. The Islam which stretches from Morrocco to Indonesia, to varying degrees but consistently enough for the assertion to be made with confidence, has very little tolerance for anything but Islam. The question is, why? The practice of this religion, evident from the first conquests to the present, has its roots in its theology. I'll be turning to some issues I have there pretty soon.

TimmyofOz

02-20-2006, 10:12 AM

This kind of explains why I fear Mohammedans. From Pakistan. Sorry if this offends anyone. It sure does me.

<Image Deleted by Moderator>

From Chakal: This image was deleted because in general the forum is not a place for inflammatory hate crime photos. I realize this was not intended to be an offensive post.

samven582

02-20-2006, 11:49 AM

This kind of explains why I fear Mohammedans. From Pakistan. Sorry if this offends anyone. It sure does me.

The term Mohammedans is incorrect. We Muslim do not worship Mohammed(swt). This terminology is considered incorrect and I'am insulted by it.

PrinceOfTheWest

02-20-2006, 12:11 PM

Don't misinterpret Timmy's words. Lutherans don't worship Luther, either - it's just a handy way of identifying a group. For that matter, the more archaic English term "Musselman" to identify Muslims doesn't mean that Muslims are (or eat!) mussels - it's a corruption of the term "Mosul-men", i.e. Men of Mosul, now in northern Iraq. I'm a Roman Catholic, but there's nothing Roman about me - I'm an American citizen of English and French extraction.

DeviaAngelus

02-20-2006, 12:20 PM

I'm a Muslim and I love my religion. All those islamic suicide bombers you see and hear about are just unhappy people whom have been pushed to do it. I would'nt do it because it's a sin. And I don't actually cover my face and head, becaues my familys not very orthodox and my mum and her family are all christians.
I can't believe what some people do to us. it's awful. luckily, people are'nt racist to me at all, except for once, but that was because of my asian inheritance. my friends totally support my Muslimness 100% and they think it's a cool religion.
it's hard to be a muslim in England but it must be harder when you're an orthodox muslim and unhappy, and everyone knows what you are and hates you for it. And most of these abusive people are afraid of muslims because all they know is they could whip out a gun at any moment. Anyone beg to differ?

PrinceOfTheWest

02-20-2006, 12:22 PM

DeviaAngelus

02-20-2006, 12:32 PM

They've been "pushed" into disobeying the tenets of their own faith? Gee, I'm Christian, and ideally we don't let anyone push us into disobeying our creed. Of course, we fail a lot, but the ones who succeed, we call martyrs and saints and emulate their example.
Look, theire really unhappy, their mistreated, they hate this people who have ruined their lives. they want to end this pain, stop the hurt. So they end their suffering themselves instead of waitng for Allah to do it.

PrinceOfTheWest

02-20-2006, 12:58 PM

Well, I can see doing that for yourself (though in my faith that's a very severe sin), but why kill others while doing so?

Parthian King

02-20-2006, 01:05 PM

Queen Aravis, have you checked out the previous posts, following the links to see how Christians who attempt freedom of religion in Muslim lands are treated through religious government policies? Have you considered that nothing even remotely approaching the freedom and peace of mind you enjoy in England is available to Christians in Muslim lands? This is not just a tit for tat, back and forth discussion that attempts to win "points." When you say that, as a result of mistreatment, these people are consumed with hate and seek to end their own suffering, you tell a great deal. Christian teaching comprehensively (i.e., there is no school of thought or movement within it to the contrary) rejects hatred of enemies, violence, vengeance, and taking matters into one's own hands to the point of despair and self-destruction. To do so is to cease to be a Christian, and though post facto such a person might garner a sense of pity and compassion, few would consider that there was anything redemptive about their life and actions at the end. Probably without meaning to, you have elucidated critically important differences between these faiths, at least at a level of "end result." For the fact is, widely within the Islamic world, such people are lionized, hatred of Jews and Christians is encouraged, families of suicide bombers are compensated, and world terrorists are like rock stars. In other words, the people you describe not only continue to be considered Muslims, but as exemplary Muslims by many people (including religious leaders) in the Islamic world. The "lines of demarcation," so taken for granted in the secular West, are nearly non-existent: A "peaceful" demonstration against Danish cartoons in Trafalgar Square includes the burning of the Israeli and American flags (?!); similar uprisings in Nigeria result in Christian churches being burned to the ground (??!!); scores of Muslims themselves lose their lives in protests of cartoons that did nothing but offend the mind--and most are still more offended by the cartoons than by that horrendous lose of life!!!!! My purpose is not to "slam" what you believe, but to discuss civilly, in the spirit of a forum, what lies at the heart (i.e., "root" instead of only "fruit") of all this.

Accordingly, I, personally, would like to shift things to a more historical/theological footing. I know there are two strains, but we could go reound and round on this previous one, and I'd like to do some stuff on the merits. So I have prepared the following, as food for thought, concerning the birth of a religion:

1) A charismatic figure arises. The person, during a time of seeking, finds himself disillusioned with traditional religion, suffers a crisis, and ends up viewing the religious status quo of their context as corrupt and erroneous.

2) This charismatic figure perceives and proclaims himself to be the chosen one of God (applying exalted titles such as “Apostle” or “Final Prophet” to himself in an exclusive manner), called to set things straight in regard to true religion as possessing the last word in divine revelation.

3) Both the calling of said charismatic persona and the content of the teaching he is to disseminate comes to him ecstatically through an angelic visitation. The angel is always named. A new holy book, arising out of the encounter, is written and becomes the real basis for the new religion.

4) The teachings of the new leader are an eclectic mix of Gnostic and other teachings that find their root in late antiquity, and invariably carry strong ascetic strains. Major portions of teaching are culturally particular (i.e., tied inextricably to the culture of the founder). In particular, the ineffable nature of orthodox Christian Christology is rejected (i.e., the deity of Jesus Christ, and associated complications), even while Jesus is recognized as a powerful teacher who deserves important recognition.

5) To wit, previous holy (Christian) writings are not discarded wholesale, but they are viewed as corrupted at those points that they do not conform to the new revelation; otherwise, they are oft appealed to.

6) The new religion views itself as the only true path, specifically over against orthodox Christianity, and is aggressively evangelistic.

Which religion fits this pattern? Well, actually several do. The first one to fit this pattern after the founding of the Christian Church was Manichaeism (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09591a.htm), which arose with the teachings of the Persian prophet Mani in the 3rd century AD. The next to fit the pattern (to my knowledge) is Islam, led by Mohammed in the 7th century. Finally (again, to my knowledge), Joseph Smith and Mormonism also fit the pattern remarkably well, hailing from the 19th century. Obviously, the specific tenets of these different faiths are quite different, as are the cultural contexts. For example, in its effort to resolve the quandary of orthodox Christology, Mormonism makes everyone a god. Manichaeism and Islam deny divinity to Christ in favor of a doctrine that sits easier with human reason, but (like Mormonism) sacrifice the integrity of those documents that bear original witness to Jesus in order to sustain their own doctrine. There is no need to construct a synopsis between the doctrines of these religions, only to note the striking similarity between them on many points.

[Excursus: Just to lay it at rest before someone else brings it up, Christianity does not fit the pattern vis-à-vis Judaism because 1) Jesus did not see Judaism as doctrinally corrupt, only a significant portion of its leaders during His ministry as unfit of the great truths they were stewards of; 2) Jesus claimed to be the Divine Son of God, not merely a prophet of God. Neither did He claim to be the last prophet, but in fact, appointed others as apostles in His wake; 3) An angel pronounced the birth of Christ, but Jesus’ message itself came directly from the Father without any intermediary; 4) Jesus’ teachings represent a fulfilled Judaism, and His life reveals that He summarily rejected asceticism. At the same time Christianity has its roots in Judaism, its expression is truly universalistic and does not require visits to certain holy places, learning of certain languages as innately superior when it comes to the holy writings, or other practices restricted to one local or culture; 5) Jesus constantly appealed to the OT Scriptures and declared that they cannot be broken; 6) Christianity is aggressively evangelistic, and does indeed view itself exclusively as the path to life.]

My point in presenting these religions side by side is to focus in on one particular posture common to all them, viz. the apparent respect they all have for the person of Jesus Christ, their guarded respect for the Christian Scriptures and use of them as a source for any number of concepts foundational for the new faith, and their assertion that in spite of this dependence, Christianity is nevertheless fundamentally wrong-headed not only in practice but in doctrine. This posture has been elucidated repeatedly by those Muslims active in this forum.

My purpose will be to examine the issues that such a position presents for any such religion, especially in light of the nature of the New Testament itself. I’ll deal with those issues soon.

DeviaAngelus

02-20-2006, 03:28 PM

DeviaAngelus

02-20-2006, 03:37 PM

And plus, if any muslim acted in a way that was wrong, such as you have described, then they do not love Allah, and there fore are not a muslim but wear it like a mask to sheild their evil.
They are NOT true muslims. i love everyone and everything and they are the opposite. those people are condemned to hell and we can but pray for them to change their ways!
I do not wish to argue, but my point is that everyone whether they are good or bad, religious or not, they are all equal and deserve to be treated equally. Even if others dont we should, if we believe in Allah and love him.

The Dancing Lawn

02-20-2006, 03:41 PM

Go u !!! U talk a lotta sense yay we hav someting in common!

DeviaAngelus

02-20-2006, 03:59 PM

Cool!
Lets be friends! Official friends!

The Dancing Lawn

02-20-2006, 04:03 PM

Yes wat a fabuluos idea!!! U PM me whenevr u want and Ill Pm u 2morrow ok?

DeviaAngelus

02-20-2006, 04:04 PM

Sure!!
By the by, I'm Sophia, but my friends call me Sophie.

The Dancing Lawn

02-20-2006, 04:09 PM

OK! Yay! Hi Sophie-(p.s. there both beautiful nakes) my name is Justin. (sorry if its a shock I guess the name is knida decieving (not that its meant 2 b)!

DeviaAngelus

02-20-2006, 04:12 PM

nakes?knida? No, justins cool! So are you a galadrielanite? or a maddonanite? Or both?
And what religion are you.
P.S i know you're called justin because when you said:Yes wat a fabuluos idea!!! U PM me whenevr u want and Ill Pm u 2morrow ok?I looked up your profile!
COOL!

Parthian King

02-20-2006, 04:16 PM

(Sorry to interrupt all the open PMing, but I was wondering if I could return to the subject of the thread ;)).

Queen Aravis, you are sincere when you say the way Christians are treated in Islamic countries resembles how they are treated in the West, and my guess is that this reflects a strong desire on your part for it to be so (thanks, btw :)), but you are sincerely mistaken. In other words, what you assert here just isn't so.

Simple question: Have you followed the link to Voice of the Martyrs (http://www.persecution.com) and read the material? Have you done this Queen Aravis?

Allow me to provide a few write ups from the site:

Kuwait: Although the Gulf War resulted in loosening strict religious rules in Kuwait, full freedom to worship is still not a reality. Only Muslims may become citizens. Christians have the freedom to live and work in Kuwait, but worship must be within the Christian community (a physical location). Evangelism to Kuwaitis is forbidden. The government discourages Christianity by providing financial incentives for Muslims and has even purchased large quantities of Bibles to burn them.

United Arab Emirates: Only foreign Christians have freedom to worship and witness. Christian education and witnessing to nationals are severely restricted. Few believers have opportunities to openly share their faith.

Pakistan: Militant Islamic forces in Pakistan have initiated much violence against Christians. Many Pakistani Christians have been falsely accused of breaking Law 295c—blaspheming Mohammed—a crime punishable by death. Some have even been killed by mobs after being acquitted of such charges. Christians are barred from some professions, and the most menial tasks are reserved for Christians alone. Their testimony in court is half the value of a Muslim’s. Several pastors and Christian evangelists were martyred by Islamic militants in 2004, including Pastor George Masih, who was slain in his home for sharing the gospel with Muslim villagers in Manawala. More kidnappings, amputations and violence occurred in 2005 as Muslim persecution of Christians continued.

At the same time, I was encouraged to see that the site sees Morocco as relaxing its standards in an effort to mitigate radical islam, but on a whole in the Muslim world, strong anti-conversion laws are in place and are rigorously enforced. Are such laws in place anywhere in the liberal West, Queen Aravis?

There are no such thing as "Christian countries" (see my post #126, this thread); there are such things as Muslim ones. Would you care to name those countries you consider to be "Christian"? The UK? The United States? At one time they had Christian majorities, but no longer, and even fewer who claim to be Christian ever darken the doorstep of a Church. In any case, Christianity is a faith that does not translate well into government policy. Jesus' kingdom is not of this earth, and faith in Him cannot be enforced. Islam can be, and is.

Now, the more Muslims like you that I hear from, the more I am encouraged. As I said previously, may your strain of thinking take over your faith! At the moment, things don't appear to be going your way. I also see (and I say this with no intent to offend) something of a contradiction in your words:

Queen Aravis said... All those islamic suicide bombers you see and hear about are just unhappy people whom have been pushed to do it.

Look, theire really unhappy, their mistreated, they hate this people who have ruined their lives. they want to end this pain, stop the hurt. So they end their suffering themselves instead of waitng for Allah to do it.

contrasted with this...

Queen Aravis said... And plus, if any muslim acted in a way that was wrong, such as you have described, then they do not love Allah, and there fore are not a muslim but where it like a mask to sheild their evil.
They are NOT true muslims.

My question is, if they are not true Muslims, but only use Islam as a mask for evil, then they are no more Muslim than I am--less, even, since they are distorting the religion and making things worse for Muslims everywhere, whereas I am simply an inquirer who is asking pointed questions. By what you say, my non-violent stand makes me a better Muslim than they are. That said, why on the very same day, talking about the very same people, do you seem to empathize with the very folks you later identify as monsters? I am confused...

My theological discussion is going and will go to the heart of the issue you mention at last: Is the God of Islam and the God of Christianity the same God? I have consistently heard Muslims declare that yes, it is the same God. I have just as consistently heard Christians that follow historical, traditional Christianity deny with great passion that they are the same God. Why might this be, Aravis? Why is the perception so one-sided? That's what I'll be getting to soon enough.

The Dancing Lawn

02-20-2006, 04:25 PM

IM undecided on religion and im a mad galadrielanite and a maddonanite!!!

DeviaAngelus

02-20-2006, 04:36 PM

Parthian king, you are mistaken. suicide bombers are unhappy people, well most of them. You CANNOT change the truth, but there are monsters and you can see it in timmyofoz's pic. But, muslims are mistreated even in islamiccountries such as Iran. recently on the news came the announcement of pictures of iranians that were horryfyingly dealt with e.i. raped and such and some of the pictures were too gory to show. it drove me to tears.
There are monsters in this world, Christian and Muslim(no offence) and there are the mistreated. we are all the same whatever our religion.

Spare Oom

02-20-2006, 04:37 PM

Hi to those who have joined the discussion in this thread.

Those people from Pakistan with the "God Bless Hitler" sign - of course that's disgusting. I suppose they wanted to carry the most shocking, offensive banner they could think of, but such tactics would not be employed by true Muslims.

[Parthian King, talking to Queen Aravis:] "Now, the more Muslims like you that I hear from, the more I am encouraged. As I said previously, may your strain of thinking take over your faith!"

Most Muslims are peace-loving and just as concerned about such appalling behaviour as anyone. We only hear about the fringe element on the media because extreme behaviour makes a story - not the millions of ordinary Muslims whose lives revolve around going to work or school, praying, rejoicing, caring for others and cooking the dinner!

"Indeed God is with those who are pious, and those who are doers of good." (Qur'an 16: 128).

DeviaAngelus

02-20-2006, 04:42 PM

Thankyou! what you have said is true. All i want to do is serve Allah. no one can take away my faith and love for muslims and allah. actually i pretty much love everyone and everything.

Swimfan1918

02-20-2006, 04:54 PM

you go girl! lol ;)

Parthian King

02-20-2006, 05:31 PM

Parthian king, you are mistaken.

In what respect, Aravis? About the anti-conversion laws? About the huge disparity between how Christians are treated in Islamic countries vs. how Muslims are treated in the liberal West? I'm afraid I have read a little bit too much of commonly available literature, and have talked to too many Christians who have lived and worked in the Islamic world to lie down simply because someone (even as charming and spritely as yourself) says so.

No one denies that the majority of Muslims are normal people attempting to live normal lives. People of every culture and religion on the planet, in one form or another, fall into that category. I know that millions of Muslims are repulsed by all of this, and would rather not have the attention that they are receiving. Spare Oom, point well taken on the media. My love, compassion, and prayers are for this people, more than you will know.

This said, it changes nothing of what has been stated previously in this thread by myself and others. Why, where Islam rules, is oppression the greater? Queen Aravis, you make my point very well when you say that many Muslims within Muslim countries are oppressed--to be denied a true testimony of Jesus Christ as Lord and King, and to be threatened with bodily harm upon conversion to Christianity is the greatest oppression I can think of.

Perhaps what is beginning to come out in this thread has to do with the very name of it: Islam? Perhaps a better title would be Islams? Those in participation here are without exception English-speaking (duh!) citizens of the liberal West, accustomed to the rights and privileges of a citizen of the liberal West and for the most part participants in that culture. Spare Oom has shared that she is a British convert to Islam, while Queen Aravis is of Asian descent, but lives in GB. Dunadain (where is that guy?) probably lives in southern California, given his reference to the USC library. Without exception, these have renounced violence and find the majority of what has gone on recently to be a tragedy. (The only caveat I would tender is the nearly constant dance of sympathy with the reactions of such people, even as their actions are condemned--see my previous post--as well as a pretty prominent strain of justifying revisionism in both ancient history and the present.) In contrast to them stands millions of others who have stood up for another kind of Islam, and would roundly denounce the Islam of these few represented here as tepid and even apostate. When a 56 year old mother is democratically elected (that means a majority, folks) to the Palestinian Parliament on the platform (i.e., "Hey, everyone, this is who I am and what I've done, so vote for me") that she has sacrificed 3 of her 6 sons in jihad, one of whom she personally sent off as a suicide bomber, well, that says a lot. (I won't mention in detail all the other recently-elected Hamas people who are convicted terrorists, some of them in prison.) Will the Muslim participants in this forum now denounce this woman as evil and not a true Muslim? More to the point, will they denounce all who voted for her? I think you'll find yourselves in a minority, not only in Palestine, but pretty much everywhere else in the Islamic orient.

Now, this doesn't mean that I do not respect what you all are saying. I just think that you are in a catch 22: If you say Islam is fully unified (heck, even just substantially unified), and everyone is on the same page, well, you have a lot of explaining to do, and identifying these "mega-trends" in Islam as "fringe" just isn't going to cut it; there's simply too much out there to contradict you. But if you say that no, Islam isn't really one, that entire countries, governments, and sub-cultures are deeply in error, then, well, that opens a great big can of worms for you. If that were really so, then you should be as interested in evangelizing Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, and Iran for Islam as I am interested in evangelizing them for Christ!

So, I am going to proceed, as I stated before, discussing the merits of the tenets of the faiths we are discussing, because I think we are "ships passing in the night" on this issue. The Islam we as Christians are alarmed about bears (in your minds) very little resemblance to the Islam you practice. I, for one, believe you. Spare Oom, for goodness' sake, do you think I believe you are staying up nights, building bombs, or (as you tongue in cheek mentioned earlier) plotting ambushes for unsuspecting Christian inquirers who may show up at your Mosque? I simply think we are talking about two (or more) different type of Islams, each held fervently by its adherents, with each group viewing the other(s) with an obligatory fraternal sympathy but also with a heavy measure of disdain. We, as outsiders, watch in confusion and shake our heads, but in the end it isn't our fight. No, not even if our blood is shed during the slug fest.

And so *brightly* on to theology soon enough!

Swimfan1918

02-20-2006, 05:41 PM

i have a question 4 u...
y do u keep on complaining about this r u sum kind of suicide bomber and want to kno wat others think of irt or r u racist against muslims or sumthing....? seriously wat is it? ok if u have issues u should go watch this movie im serious ok its called the 5 people u meet in heaven and it is amazingly good or read the book. ok cuz if u think muslims r freaks then go and live in antarctica becuz ya i dont kno y ok listen im a conservatdox jew and i have nothign against muslims but i do have have things against suscide bombers cuz they bomb israel and i beleive that the gaza and west bank should ave to be given to the palestinians ok but thats a totaly different subject that couls be another thread but serioiusly wats ur problom?

Parthian King

02-20-2006, 05:44 PM

i have a question 4 u...
Ah, I could say the same thing, several times over! But I'll keep it to one: Have you read all the posts in this thread, and (therefore) do you understand the direction it is taking?

Swimfan1918

02-20-2006, 05:48 PM

wats ur point? thats all muslims suck i think thats it!

Parthian King

02-20-2006, 05:53 PM

My point is, answer the question: Have you read this thread? Until you do, you have no place barging in here and leaping to conclusions that have no basis in reality.

Swimfan1918

02-20-2006, 05:54 PM

yes i have now u answer my question. btw wat religion ru?

PrinceOfTheWest

02-20-2006, 06:01 PM

Gee whiz, PK! This member is just - dazzling (or something)...

Friend Will, please try to keep the discussion on a civilized keel, and not stoop to ad hominem* arguments. All they do is make you look silly and shallow. Had you read this thread, instead of jumping in and flailing around foolishly, you would see that everyone has been treating each other with dignity and respect. I'm certain you'd hate to spoil that record.

The essence of the current discussion is to attempt to get to the core of what Islam truly is, and how it relates to other faiths. That is what PK is working on, and you'll notice that he's citing documented facts. If you have facts to counter them, then cite them. Otherwise, don't attack someone just because you don't like what is being said. That is neither mature nor effective, and only makes you look like a fool.

*ad hominem: (latin) "against the man", i.e. an attack or insult against an party in an argument. Considered a logical fallacy.)

Swimfan1918

02-20-2006, 06:09 PM

u kno wat im wasting my life waitng 4 a response from u b/c i have betetr things to do than talk to sum1 who is doubdtfull and a non beleive r u kno who u remind me of u remind em of that woemn that was on wife swap she was christian and she was switched with i dont kno wat its called but she was hynotist and she was christian but no longer is and so she was switched and the christain wife was insane she beleived that she was under the devil and that she was a sin and a curse on ehr and she coudl nto stay in her house thta is who u remind em of and im sryu if its hurtful to u and maybe other chriatinas or watevre i hope not others onyl YOU becuz wat u r doing is hurtful not just to muslims but to other such as emr and im nto even muslim io am jewish . <INAPPROPRIATE LANGUAGE DELETED BY MODERATOR> Consider yourself cautioned. We have a family friendly forum here.

Parthian King

02-20-2006, 06:10 PM

Wow! That was fast! So fast, in fact, that you managed to overlook the fact that I identify myself as a Christian more times than I can count. I wonder how you managed to read the whole thread, yet miss that point. Hhhmmm.

Well, no matter. Since you missed that point, you probably missed some of the opening terms of my recent discussion, laid down with DundainofArrakis starting around post #105. There we agreed to dialogue, but that dialogue between Christians and Muslims is a dicey (tricky) issue, and that offense of one kind or another is inevitable. I find it remarkable that while others--Muslims and Christians--have managed to keep things civil, you (a member of neither of these faiths) come in and determine that from what I have been laying out my main goal has been to prove that "all muslims suck" (to use your phrase). Perhaps you come from a world and a setting where everyone falls into either the "you go girl" category or the "sucks" category, with no room for anything else.

For the record, I deeply respect all human beings as made in the image of God, I don't think anybody "sucks," and I believe that God so valued every single human being--whether I agree with what they believe or not--that He sent His Son to pay for their sin with His own blood. I am gladly bound to love and respect all people, even as I am equally bound to share the truth according to the dictates of my conscience.

You talk like a pluralist, but you can't be, because pluralists are supposed to be open-minded, and not jump to conclusions about people.

EDIT: I missed the last exchange between Prince of the West and WillisHott. I don't know whether to apologize to the others participating in this discussion, or express sympathy to them. As we say in Spanish, "Con amigos así, para que enemigos?" Funny how this person's tenor reads pretty much like she thinks "all christians suck."

EveningStar

02-20-2006, 06:50 PM

Someone called for a moderator to look into this recent nasty turn of thread. It's a good thing they did.

No attacks against individual people. Discuss, debate, and disagree, but don't diss.

samven582

02-20-2006, 07:19 PM

what do christian have to say about this? I just want to know what your opinion is. This done by US soilders in Masjid in Ramadi

<PHOTOS DELETED BY MODERATOR>

CHAKAL: This is a place for discussing religious differences, not hate crimes. There is no sense in posting inflamatory pictures. Please do not confuse The Dancing Lawn with Fox News of Al Jazeera.

Parthian King

02-20-2006, 07:39 PM

(Out of respect for the judgment of the moderator, I have deleted my response to the previous post. It wouldn't make a lot of sense anyway without the photos, which Chakal, in my opinion, was correct to delete.)

EveningStar

02-20-2006, 07:52 PM

There was a murder here in Nashville last night. Not by permission of the local authorities. In fact we have police cruisers that go about regularly, neighbors with phones, neighborhood watches. Still someone died violently. But not because of our government's policy. Not because of the Christian religion.

People overseas in countries with spotty law enforcement and a culture where people are afraid to contact their local police to report crimes is going to make it much, much harder to enforce existing laws. That's been the problem in wartime since Julius Caesar was in diapers.

Crimes against religious freedom are not tangental to this discussion. This is a discussion about the relative merits of Christianity and Islam and it will remain so.

EveningStar

02-20-2006, 08:04 PM

Many people on this thread are my dearest friends, but I am addresing all of you as a group. This thread is about religion not hate crimes. There is no need for apologies, retractions, or even FURTHER COMMENTS on hate crimes, even to say "I understand and agree." I will lock it temporarily if I must to get everyone's attention.

Parthian King

02-20-2006, 08:23 PM

Thanks so much, Chakal.

TimmyofOz

02-21-2006, 01:35 AM

I am sorry also that my picture was upsetting. I try not to hate. I wish that none would be hurting each other. I don't want to hate and be forced to go to war with Arabs. Right now all I want to be able to do is buy a house in Utah and live a peaceful life. I could care less about the god the Arabs worships, except that it saddens me that they reject Jesus and the grace and forgiveness of sin the God of the Bible has given all.

In Western thought we put a lot of stress on Truth and not feelings. Even Heaven is better than Hell because Heaven is the place of Truth not just a place of Happiness. So we in the West stress that our God be true to His Own Values or He cannot be God and thus cannot be able to fullfill what he says He is. In the West also we hold that our governments are responsible to God. Yet the governments run the affairs of man, not God or religion. Even in the Bible when Israel chose Saul as their King, Samual the Prophet told the people now you are ruled by a King not God. So government rules over the will of God to put it another way. Yet in the Arab world you try to think for God and then Rule how you think he (God) thinks. So you are offended because you think your God is offended. And then you make a crazy jump that you must advenge for God. So there you are doing all this work for what you think God wants. I never try to do the work of God. Jesus already did everything that need to be done. Christians don't even convert people, God does. If we all never sent out missionaries God would have the rocks proclaim Jesus. So since Mohammedans are a works religion we in the West hold all the Mohammadans for the over all works of your religion. I don't see a religion of peace. Where are the Pope John Paul's, the Mother Thereasa's or the Billy Grahman's of the Mohammadans. You can criticize our Governments, but it never says it is doing the work of God. It is responsible to God, but then we let God deal with his judgements. It is sad that the the Arabs have all that oil so we have to listen to you.

Spare Oom

02-21-2006, 07:10 AM

[TimmyofOz:] "I could care less about the god the Arabs worships, except that it saddens me that they reject Jesus and the grace and forgiveness of sin the God of the Bible has given all."

Hmm – have you been following the thread? What do you mean by “the god the Arabs worship”? For a start, only around 15% of Muslims are Arabs (plus, of course, there are about 12 million Arab Christians across countries like Lebanon, Kuwait, Jordan, Syria and Iraq, as well as a number of Arab Jews.) All Muslims – and many Christians – believe that the “God of the Bible” and the “God of the Qur’an” are one and the same.

Muslims do not “reject Jesus.” In the Qur’an it is made clear that we are to honour Jesus as a Prophet and as the Messiah:

“On the day when God shall assemble all the Messengers, then say: ‘What response did you receive?’ they shall say: ‘We have no knowledge, surely you are the Knower of the Unseen.’
Then God will say: ‘O Jesus, son of Mary, recall to mind my favour upon you and your mother, when I strengthened you with the Holy Spirit, to speak to people from the cradle, and in maturity, and when I taught you the Book and the Wisdom, and the Torah and the Injeel, and when you made out of clay a figure of a bird, by my leave, and you breathed into it and it became a bird, by my leave, and when you healed those born blind and the lepers, by my leave, and when you brought forth the dead, by my leave, and when I restrained the Children of Israel from you, when you came to them with Clear Signs, but those who disbelieved among them said: ‘This is nothing but plain magic;’
And when I inspired the Disciples to believe in me and my Messenger, they said: ‘We believe and bear witness that we submit to the will of God.”
(5: 110)

Perhaps I’d better make it clear that the Holy Spirit here is not a “person” – it is the inspiration and power bestowed by God on whom He chooses. Injeel means Evangel or Gospel – not one of the four Gospels in today’s New Testament, but a Gospel revealed to Jesus which has now been lost (as were many, many early Gospels.)

Here is another passage, showing that Jesus is the Messiah and that he warns us to worship the One God:

“Most certainly they blaspheme who say: ‘God is the Messiah the son of Mary,’ but the Messiah said: ‘O Children of Israel, worship God, my Lord and your Lord, whoever ascribes partners with God, God will forbid him the Garden, and the Fire will be his abode, and such workers of iniquity will have no helpers.’
Most certainly they blaspheme who say: ‘God is one of three in a trinity,’ for there is no god except One God, and if they do not desist from what they say, surely a painful chastisement shall befall the blasphemers among them;
Will they not repent to God and seek His forgiveness? And God is All-Forgiving; All-Merciful.”
(5: 72-74)

And certainly we don’t reject “grace and forgiveness of sin” – God offers that in the Qur’an to all who call on Him and live a “God-conscious” life:

“Say: ‘Oh my servants who have transgressed against their own souls, do not despair of God’s mercy, surely God forgives all sins, surely He is the All-forgiving, the Most Merciful.’” (39:53)

“And whenever my servants ask you about me, indeed I am near, I answer the prayer of the caller when he calls on me, so let them respond to my call and believe in me, that they may be rightly guided.” (2: 186)

“And obey God and the Messenger that you may attain mercy;
And vie in the race for forgiveness from your Lord, and for a Garden whose extensiveness is the heavens and the earth, prepared for the pious;
Those who spend (for charity) whether in prosperity or adversity, who restrain anger, and pardon people, and God loves those who do good.
And those who when they commit an indecency or wrong themselves, remember God and pray for forgiveness for their sins, and who forgives sins except God?, and do not persist in wrong knowingly-
For those their reward is forgiveness from their Lord, and Gardens beneath which rivers flow, therein dwelling forever, how excellent a reward for those who do good works.”
(3: 132-136)

As I’ve mentioned before, grace in Islam does not depend upon human sacrifice but on God knowing what is in your heart and repaying you (with abundant mercy and understanding) for the way you have lived your life. Islam is not a “works religion.” It’s a religion of faith and good works, as is Christianity.

“Surely those who believe and do righteous deeds and establish prayer and pay alms, they shall have their reward with their Lord, and they shall have no fear, nor shall they sorrow.” (Qur’an 2: 277)

The Bible also states clearly: “You see, then, that it is by his actions that a person is put right with God, and not by his faith alone." (James 2: 24).

If the Bible says that, why do some Christians on this Forum disagree, and argue that faith alone is enough?

There are plenty of good Muslims leading a life of peace, devotion and charity. That’s the norm for Muslims, which is why such people don’t hit the headlines. What makes the news is what is not the norm. Parthian King, you spoke about the gulf between the extremists and the moderates. The gulf between those extremists who call themselves Muslims, and the ordinary Muslims, is like the gulf between members of the IRA (and other such groups, including the Protestant ones) and ordinary Christians.

samven582

02-21-2006, 10:43 AM

EveningStar

02-21-2006, 11:04 AM

Samven582 is technically correct. The term was not intended to be offensive, but it is not substantially different from calling Pentecostals "Holy Rollers".

Some groups, such as the Society of Friends ("Quakers") have come to peace with the names stuck on them by outsiders. Others, like "Methodists", have even embraced the term. But Muslims have always found "Mohammadans" offensive and, due to their resasoning, probably always will.

Ideally we'll all show a certain respect to people whose journey to find God is somehow different from our own. I expect that equally and without prejudice from Muslim and Jew, Christian and Buddhist, Arminian and Calvinist. I am speaking in my role as a fellow member with friends who are all of the above.

PrinceOfTheWest

02-21-2006, 11:43 AM

I agree, Magister. A good rule for interactions in general, and for this thread in particular, is a generous measure of benefit of the doubt - i.e. when reading something that initially offends you, grant the writer maximum allowance in assuming good will. Ideally, Charn Tim would have known that the term 'Muhammadan' offends Muslims. Ideally, we all would. But then, ideally everyone should know that when entering a Catholic sanctuary, one should genuflect to the tablernacle as a sign of respect for the presence of God. Yet if I were to escort someone into a sanctuary - especially a Muslim - I would not take offense if they just walked in and sat down, because I would understand that they did not know this, and would not presume that they meant disrespect.

samven582, if you're going to base your offense on what you think other people should know, then you're going to have a difficult time holding a civilized conversation with anyone here. Ignorance is a universal human problem, and being quick to take offense by assuming that people are expressing disrespect when actually they're just ignorant neither honors God nor helps other. In this thread in particular, people of diverse traditions and understandings of God are trying to deepen their understanding and appreciation of each other. With a few unfortunate exceptions, that record has stayed remarkably clean. Are you interested in participating?

Parthian King

02-21-2006, 11:48 AM

Agreed Chakal. With great deference for Timmy's apparent sincerity, I would think it a mistake to use that term. Interestingly, the term for Muslim in Spanish (heavily influenced as a language and culture by the Moorish occupation of Spain before they were driven out) is Muselmán--man from Mosul, as prince of the West has pointed out. With all the "deeper offense" flying around, there is no need for the gratuitous stuff. Let's call people what they prefer to be called (if our own confession allows it). Even if we say, "Hey, I didn't mean that" there's no need to keep antagonizing them.

Spare Oom, I am about to move on here, but it will take me a bit. I would like to have a constructive, forward moving dialogue, but I am beginning to have my doubts. You take offense with Timmy, and I understand. But when you say...

Muslims do not “reject Jesus.”

..in reponse to Timmy's assertion, you deeply frustrate the issue and engage in intellectual disingenuity. The fact that you had exposure to teaching from the perspective of the Christian Church prior to you conversion to Islam makes this even more frustrating. You know full well what he meant, but for those those who read this and may not, I'll spell it out: For Christians, the recognition of Christ's divinity is not some sort of hood ornament that one can take or leave. It is essential to understanding the nature of the Father and it is essential to the redemption of the human soul through Christ's sacrifice on the Cross. To recognize Jesus as a "great prophet" and merely a great prophet is blasphemy to a Christian; to deny the divinity of the Son is to deny the Father as well. (This is akin to your response to my protests about anti-conversion laws: It is allowable to speak of Jesus in Muslim lands--but oh, yeah, only as a prophet a la Mohammed's interpretation of what that means.) Your statement that Muslims do not reject Jesus involves a deliberate shifting of theological definition in the interlude that occurs between interrogative and response, and hints that you are more interested in something other than constructive dialogue; I'll let others draw their own conclusions as to what. I am not here to engage in tit for tat exchanges ("yes, we are," "no, you're not," etc.), but to learn and make some progress. When we keep going in circles, when questions are dodged and concepts muddied, how can these goals be accomplished?

As for this statement...

Parthian King, you spoke about the gulf between the extremists and the moderates. The gulf between those extremists who call themselves Muslims, and the ordinary Muslims, is like the gulf between members of the IRA (and other such groups, including the Protestant ones) and ordinary Christians.

...I couldn't agree more. I still didn't catch your response to what I asked, though:

When a 56 year old mother is democratically elected (that means a majority, folks) to the Palestinian Parliament on the platform (i.e., "Hey, everyone, this is who I am and what I've done, so vote for me") that she has sacrificed 3 of her 6 sons in jihad, one of whom she personally sent off as a suicide bomber, well, that says a lot. (I won't mention in detail all the other recently-elected Hamas people who are convicted terrorists, some of them in prison.) Will the Muslim participants in this forum now denounce this woman as evil and not a true Muslim? More to the point, will they denounce all who voted for her?

I think people are more complicated than what you grant, Spare Oom. People can be peace-loving, sweet, normal, "raise your kids and make dinner" every day kind of folks. At the same time, they can harbor deep feelings of hatred that, collectively, cause undercurrents in a religion and a culture. The film of Palestinian women shrilling their tongues in joy over the 9/11 attacks (at first contested as inaccurate, but later sadly confirmed as true) reveal this human compexity. The issue remains for us as a matter of observation: You have managed to work some things out, using commentaries and the guidance of spiritual leaders to allegorize or otherwise diminish violent texts in the Quran. You also have a way you have chosen to see the Muslim world. We as outsiders, unfettered by the tenets of your brand of Islam, survey the land a bit differently. The point of this discussion, in part, has been to hear you and understand to what extent you are representative (meaning, if you had been of the violent sort we wouldn't have wasted our time). The degree to which you are representative seems to be the sticking point.

EveningStar

02-21-2006, 11:51 AM

Congratulations, you have all managed to discover that Christianity and Islam are separate religions! :D

I could have told you that.... :rolleyes:

DeviaAngelus

02-21-2006, 03:47 PM

Ok, I'm back. I was reading the last posts and some of it seems a bit hurtful, PK. And to answer an earlier question.........

The Dancing Lawn

02-21-2006, 04:01 PM

Ok, I'm back. I was reading the last posts and some of it seems a bit hurtful, PK. And to answer an earlier question.........

Yeah that is the only bad ting about sections of da forum like dis things can get pretty hurtful and we're only kids- they wonder why the world is how it is!

DeviaAngelus

02-21-2006, 04:01 PM

Yes, Allah and God are the same and I can prove this.
Hmm, lets see..........
Ah! Yes, the Egyptians. They were the first to worship Allah. of course they gave him some Egyptian name but historians are 99.9% sure that he and Allah are the same. Then there were the Jews. I'm not sure, i think Abraham was their first prophet. Anyway, he told them of Allah and they became Jews like him. Then Jesus comes along and his followers whom were origianlly Jewish, were called Christians (since their Patriot was christ) and thats Christianity. Then comes Mohammed and the Jews and Christians branch out again and those branches of jews and christians whom followed Mohammed(you must remember that the prophets came at different times) were called Muslims. And that proves that Allah and God are the same, for we all believe in the same Allah or God, we're just called different names. maybe the religions are different in some ways but our main belief(allah or god) is the same. I hope that answered your earlier question.
And of course the Baha'i Faith comes somewhere in this.
My theological discussion is going and will go to the heart of the issue you mention at last: Is the God of Islam and the God of Christianity the same God? I have consistently heard Muslims declare that yes, it is the same God. I have just as consistently heard Christians that follow historical, traditional Christianity deny with great passion that they are the same God. Why might this be, Aravis? Why is the perception so one-sided? That's what I'll be getting to soon enough.

The Dancing Lawn

02-21-2006, 04:02 PM

Im sure nobody meant 2 b hurtful!

QA48

02-21-2006, 04:07 PM

Congratulations, you have all managed to discover that Christianity and Islam are separate religions! :D

I could have told you that.... :rolleyes:

i love your sense of sarcasm! :D

But anyways why are christians trying to justify other religions by finding comparisons with christianity? either we completely believe in the bible and its teachings or we don't end of story. we can't serve Two gods. its either one or the other. and about Allah being the name of God in arab. maybe it is but the way they portrait their god and the promises that their god (a.k.a. allah) gives them by no means portrays the characteristics of my god. (a.k.a. GOD)

Parthian King

02-21-2006, 04:34 PM

Wow, a Queen Aravis and a Queen Aravis48--the first, Muslim, the second, decidely not Muslim. That can get confusing!

Dear (Muslim) Queen Aravis (or should I just call you Sophia?): These types of offenses are the ones that were referred to earlier: When two faiths lay claim to the same person as a critically important figure (in this case, Jesus), but do so in very different ways, hurts are bound to occur. When you say, "Hey, I think Jesus was cool and all, but only a great prophet," well, that's blasphemy by the Christian definition. You can say, "Well, I didn't mean to hurt anyone's feelings," but if you meant what you said, you still blasphemed by Christian standards. On the other hand, by us saying that Mohammed was all wrong about Jesus, that Jesus was really God made flesh, well, for you that's blasphemy. I can say all day, "I mean no offense," but as long as I really believe it, I am a blasphemer by Muslim standards. Now, I'm not sure what you mean by "hurtful," but I'm betting it was my point about that, and my insistence that in this discussion we at least recognize the obvious differences between the two faiths. Otherwise, what's the point?

As I have pointed out, the question is whether the God of the Bible and Allah are the same. Muslims all seem to say they are the same God. Conservative, historical Christians generally say they are not the same God. I'll be getting to that question soon enough. But in the meantime, Sophia, know that I have no intention of hurting anyone's feelings intentionally, just for the sake of it. You seem very sincere and intelligent, and I am glad to hear from you.

TimmyofOz

02-21-2006, 04:38 PM

Why is it when I use "Mohammadan" there is offence, but Lewis uses the same term Mohammadans exclusively in Mere Christainity. This is a Lewis web site and I am using his terms.
Also we Christains have accepted the name given to us by our critics, We don't run around asking to be called The Way, which was the name Christians originally preferred.

The Dancing Lawn

02-21-2006, 04:40 PM

TimmyofOz

02-21-2006, 05:02 PM

Thats not right! Yeah, why the ---- is dat?
Lewis uses Mohammedans in the first page of Book 2 chapter 1 of Mere Christainity. It has been the English term to discribe Islam for centuries.

And in the Books of Acts Christians went by the name Followers of The Way (Acts 9: 2 and 19: 9) until called Christians in Antioch (Acts 11: 26).

Parthian King

02-21-2006, 05:26 PM

Timmy, I am smitten. You just flat nailed me on that one. Lewis does use the term, and he clearly does not mean it pejoratively. I guess I owe you an apology, at least for not recognizing that Lewis used it (and for obvious reasons, he carries a bit of weight on this site).

You are also correct when you say that Christian was originally a slur, but was joyfully adopted by Christ's early followers almost because of the irony associated with being insulted for Christ's sake.

That said, don't you think that making a last, bloody stand over what the followers of Islam themselves prefer to be called is a bit off the point? I just think we should choose our battles more carefully. For me, the issue is the veracity of the New Testament and the nature of Christ. I'm not ready to lose points (through alienation, or whatever) simply because I won't grant my opponents a formal courtesy they ask for. It costs me nothing, and the dividend is high.

Spare Oom

02-21-2006, 06:19 PM

[Parthian King:]
But when you say...

Quote:
Muslims do not “reject Jesus.”

..in reponse to Timmy's assertion, you deeply frustrate the issue and engage in intellectual disingenuity. The fact that you had exposure to teaching from the perspective of the Christian Church prior to you conversion to Islam makes this even more frustrating. You know full well what he meant, but for those those who read this and may not, I'll spell it out: For Christians, the recognition of Christ's divinity is not some sort of hood ornament that one can take or leave. It is essential to understanding the nature of the Father and it is essential to the redemption of the human soul through Christ's sacrifice on the Cross. To recognize Jesus as a "great prophet" and merely a great prophet is blasphemy to a Christian; to deny the divinity of the Son is to deny the Father as well. (This is akin to your response to my protests about anti-conversion laws: It is allowable to speak of Jesus in Muslim lands--but oh, yeah, only as a prophet a la Mohammed's interpretation of what that means.) Your statement that Muslims to not reject Jesus involves a deliberate shifting of theological definition in the interlude that occurs between interrogative and response, and hints that you are more interested in something other than constructive dialogue; I'll let others draw their own conclusions as to what. I am not here to engage in tit for tat exchanges ("yes, we are," "no, you're not," etc.), but to learn and make some progress. When we keep going in circles, when questions are dodged and concepts muddied, how can these goals be accomplished?"

Actually, I was merely saying that I don't reject Jesus, which is true. And I didn't leave it at that, either. I went on to say that I accept him as Prophet and Messiah, and gave quotations from the Qur'an to show how the portrayal of Jesus in the Qur'an differs from the portrayal of Jesus in the Bible, and how Muslims do not accept the Trinity.

As I said before, the Bible states clearly:“You see, then, that it is by his actions that a person is put right with God, and not by his faith alone." (James 2: 24).

If the Bible says that, why do some Christians on this Forum disagree, and argue that faith alone is enough? I have asked this question before but haven't had an answer.

Also, I haven't really had an answer to the questions that I asked about Jesus in the Bible, in Post 100. If Jesus is God, why does he:

- pray to God,
- say that the Father (also God) is greater than he,
- say that the Father knows things he himself does not know,
- ask for God's will, not his own will, to be done,
- say that he does what the Father commands him to do, and that he can do nothing on his own authority?

As far as the Palestinian parliament is concerned, I am not Palestinian and you would really need to ask the Palestinians about that. I don't condone terrorism by Palestinians, Israelis or anyone. However, I haven't lived through such horror, tension and instability year after year, as both Palestinians and Israelis have, and it must have an effect on one's psychological well-being. All I can say is that I hope a solution can somehow be found.

inkspot

02-21-2006, 06:21 PM

Goodness, folks, I turn my back on this Thread for 5 days and ... anyway, thank you, Chakal for cleaning up some messes!

Parthian King

02-21-2006, 06:22 PM

Spare Oom, your own words make my case for me--on multiple counts.

As for your questions, I would have thought you'd have pitched me tougher ones, Spare Oom. They are, in fact, the very questions I addressed from a Mormon (there's that parallel again) in the Mormonism thread on this site. They betray an almost complete lack of comprehension of the Christian understanding of the Incarnation and the Godhead, and are, in fact, used within Christian doctrine to combat an early Christian heresy known as Sabellianism. The fact that you ask them at all, and that you previously stated that it was "Islam's monotheism" that clinched it for you, indicates you paid little attention during the Sunday School lessons you attended or just plain didn't get what was being said (or perhaps hit a bum church that was more of a social club than a place of teaching and learning). My aim is not to offend, but I am completely at a loss given the contrast between your claim to previous Christian confession and your lostness when it comes to the substance of Christian doctrine (and understanding it does not mean you have to accept it).

Although I have already addressed them (if you really want to get to those answers, you can look them up in the aforementioned thread), I shortly as I move on with my concerns as I have the time.

The "works v. grace" issue is an old debate, but rest assured, there is little to no parallel between your interpretation of "works" within Islam and the "works," that say, a conservative Catholic (such as Prince of the West) might refer to. As brothers from different Christian traditions, he and I might find nuances of difference in NT passages dealing with works and grace, but that whole debate takes place within a structured understanding that "the blood of Jesus Christ, God's Son, cleanses us from all sin." When we debate the issue, in comparison to Islamic theology, we are mere inches apart, while you stand across a great divide.

Gryphon

02-21-2006, 06:33 PM

If the Bible says that, why do some Christians on this Forum disagree, and argue that faith alone is enough? I have asked this question before but haven't had an answer.

Also, I haven't really had an answer to the questions that I asked about Jesus in the Bible, in Post 100. If Jesus is God, why does he:

- pray to God,
- say that the Father (also God) is greater than he,
- say that the Father knows things he himself does not know,
- ask for God's will, not his own will, to be done,
- say that he does what the Father commands him to do, and that he can do nothing on his own authority?

ok, about your first question, Jesus wanted a relationship. I cant tell you how many times i have tried to press this into the minds of other believers. You can believe that someone exsists but that doesnt mean that you know them. Jesus died for a bride (also something i keep telling people) and he wants take his bride into his home. If you dont know him how can you be his bride? Matthew 7:21 states this:

"21Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord!' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to Me, 'Lord, Lord, didn't we prophesy in Your name, drive out demons in Your name, and do many miracles in Your name?' 23 Then I will announce to them, 'I never knew you! Depart from Me, you lawbreakers!'"
Holman Christian Standard bible

therefore faith isnt enough. It has to be a relationship.

and as for your questions about Christ praying to God. You remember the Trinity? Its a very confusing thing, he prayed to God the Father. Your questions cant be answered if you dont accept the trinity because its a huge part of our knowlegde of God. I cant explain your questions without the trinity. Anyway, He's God the Son. He couldnt have known everything the Father knew because at the time he was human and human brains would fry if they knew eveything the Father knew. As for the Father's will being done, the Father did (and still does) know things that the Son does not and He is head of it all. Jesus came not only to set us free but to teach us how to love the Father. (if you want me to go into more detail just ask)