CHRISTIANS:WOULD YOU KILL A SUCKLING?

In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful...

Caringheart wrote: I am not confused.  It is the message of Muhammad that is confused.  The confusion is in whether to follow sunna(hadith) or quran, since they are often not in agreement.  The confusion is in sorting out which surah's in the quran are to be followed, which are abrogated. Why would God be so unclear and confusing in His messsage?

It is only "unclear" to those who want it to be "unclear".  You are the one who is confused.  More than anything, the issue of abrogation has you confused even more, even though it should not.  It is very clear to those with knowledge. 

Caringheart wrote: Yes, I am aware of the things you quoted.  Are you aware that anything a slave accumulated in terms of wealth in his lifetime could not be passed on to his children, (even if he was freed, if I am remembering correctly).  How would you feel about that?  How just and humane is it to not be able to give your children a better future?

Where did you hear this?  Name your source. 

Caringheart wrote: I have a copy of the Qur'an at home.  I have read it.  I refuse to devote extended time in providing proofs on this forum.  I did in the past and the posts were not allowed to post.  That meant a great deal of my time and energy was wasted.  I won't do that anymore.  I leave others to do their own research.  If they are truly seeking the truth they will.  Thank you for the online link though.

Well then, when you misquoted the Quran on this thread, you were just being purposefully deceptive.  That's quite an improvement from just being ignorant! 

Caringheart wrote: So basically it says - make a treaty but they know full well the threat when the time for the treaty is up, and if they have not converted by then, kill them.  How is that good?  This makes me think of the child that is told he is going to receive punishment and then must wait for that punishment.  The threat and fear of that punishment is enough to do them in. I am not sure I get the meaning of the last 2 sentences.  Can one receive asylum without converting?

So now, you are having trouble with reading comprehension. 

What the ayats are saying is that Allah and His messenger have dissolved their treaty obligations (the Treaty of Hudaybiyah) with those pagans who broke the treaty.  If you know a little Islamic history, you would know that 2 years into the treaty, the pagans of Mecca ambushed and killed some Muslims.  It was in response to this incident that these verses were revealed.  But the verses added a stipulation that Muhammad (pbuh) was only dissolving treaty obligations with those pagans who had broken the treaty (specifically Abu Sufyan and his allies).  Those pagans who had honored their treaty obligations were not being held responsible. 

So, the "kill them where ever you find them" command is with regard to the pagans who had broken the treaty.  Even then, Allah commanded that if any of the pagans surrendered, they were not to be killed, so that they could hear the Word of Allah. In other words, the Muslims were not allowed to just kill everyone, even the combatants if they surrendered.  Compare this to the Israelites' treatment of the Amalekites, Midianites, Hittites etc., where the command was "kill everyone". 

Who are you indeed to complain?

Caringheart wrote: lol - Thanks for making me smile with your *cough.

I am glad my joke made you smile,  but in all seriousness, you did not answer my question.  Would you rather that the Muslims had just killed everyone off, like Moses (pbuh) allegedly did?

Caringheart wrote: Muhammad spoke to his people in his time. Moses spoke to his people in his time. Jesus is a man for all time.

Incorrect.  Muhammad (pbuh) was sent to all mankind and his message is for all times.  Moses and Jesus (pbut) were sent to their own people.  Even the Gospel of Matthew stated that Jesus (pbuh) was sent to the Jews only (Matthew 15:24). 

Caringheart wrote: I don't know where you keep coming up with this blood bath notion when Jesus returns.  It will not b Jesus killing.  It will be Jesus coming to stop the blood bath of people killing one another. (But I do not accuse you of making 'assinine', unstudied, unfounded 'claims', do I?)  If this is what you think or believe all I can do is tell you otherwise and you can either believe me or do some research.  It is up to you.

Either you have a short memory or you are just pretending to be, if I may say so, st**id.  I proved, using a Christian commentary, that Luke 19:27 was a prophecy about Jesus' return, when he would condemn all who refused to accept him to death.  Remember the commentary from "Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible"?  Your answer to that was the following:

"I honestly can not understand the 'Gill's exposition'.  If I can find the time and energy to delve into it at another time I will."

Caringheart wrote: Do you not see that this is exactly what I am telling you?  I use my intellect.  I am not the one following in blind faith.  I am secure in my truth, in my belief, because I seek and thirst after it.  I see that there is no sin, and no thing evil in Jesus.  It is Jesus that can not be denied.  So I am as sure in my truth as you feel sure about yours. Still, I know that either of us, or both of us, could be wrong. I have the humility to see that. Who will God save? I think the one with humility and faith.  "Pride goeth before a fall."

 

This "humility" you speak of, that either of us or both of us could be wrong, is not humility.  It is uncertainty.  How can you insist that you use your intellect when you are so unsure?  How can you insist that you are "secure" in your faith yet at the same time think that you could be wrong?  Where is the intellect?

As far as "pride" is concerned, I am "proud" of the intellect my Lord and Sustainer has given me.  I am "proud" to say that I am secure in my faith.  It is inconceivable to me, based on my studies, that Islam is wrong and that there is a possibility that Christianity could be right.  There is nothing wrong with being proud of that.  My Lord has blessed me with common sense.  How can I not be proud of that?  I am also proud to say that I regard the Biblical stories of genocide and baby-killing to be evil and that God could not have been the source of those commandments.

bunter wrote: honeto wrote: Bunter, by the way what lessons do you learn from those stories, and who declared that those are not to be followed, and if they are so bad, why are they there in the first place. According to your guys, Jesus is "love" and that he was with the father since the beginning so what was going on then, as these acts were actually quoted to have been directed by God as commands! And did not Jesus in the NT is quoted to have said that every iota of the law has to be fulfilled. And that he did not come to abolish but to fulfill, didn't he? Oh my..!Hasan Some points. 1. No one 'decides', it is just that is the way it is generally interpreted. I might ask you - who interprets the Quran? 2. Any event where judgement occurs is bad and meant to bring us sorrow - unless you are of the persuasion that we should rejoice and be glad when we see someone on their way to hell? How do you feel about the medina massacre by your prophet - do you feel glad about it, do you feel it was a good thing to happen? 3. You are sadly mistaken if you think that because killings occurred in the Bible that they then become a law for all time - that might be the Islamic way, but it is neither Jewish or Christian nor logical. 4. You seem to have a clear view on what is bad, so take a look at Q4:56 and Q18:29 where Allah one presumes burns off skins and then replaces them so they can be burned off again and the only relief from this with water like molten metal thrown in their faces for all eternity - is that good or bad? If we are to understand each other faith we have to be honest about it.

bunter,
and that's where you lack, honesty.
Of course the punishment of hell is real, and there is no doubt about it. How it is described is to be taken as such.
But, if you missed that's not we are talking about, we are talking about God of OT and God of NT, they not only seem to be different, they seem to be sky a part, the difference between night and day. I am told by Christians that "God is love", like a parrot they repeat it, when asked to differentiate they cannot.
You understand what we are talking about and I know your actual position, you just cannot defend it, so you try to your best to distract.
Please go back and read my pearlier posts and try to address the issue with your Bible, if you have issues with Islam or Quran put them up in their appropriate thread, don't make them escape goats here.
Hasan

Greetings Hasan,
"man, woman, infant..."
gotcha.  Thanks.  I guess I just got hung up because islamispeace kept referring to 'sucklings'.
Yes.  God did say to destroy them all.  I did know that.  That is why I shared that I do not know of anyone who follows Jesus who does not have difficulty with the things that went on in old testament times, and that is why they do not follow the old covenant, but the new one... Jesus.
Salaam,
CH


Edited by Caringheart - 03 December 2012 at 4:36pm

In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful...

Caringheart, it seems you are getting desperate in continuing to justify your refusal to denounce evil, so you are now refusing to respond to all my points, and instead making excuses.  I think you are planning to make a break for it and quietly bow out of this discussion.  However, I will still respond to all your points, because that's the kind of guy I am!

Caringheart wrote: Thanks for sharing.  My replies will become shorter and shorter so that we do not just keep going over and over the same things.

Yep, that's the typical last resort of aperson left with no more excuses and no more logical arguments. 

Caringheart wrote: RE:  "infant and suckling ox and sheep camel and ass" I'd say that since it goes from talking about humans to animals it could easily mean suckling pig.  It is not precisely clear is it?  It is not only just now dawning on me.  I have read the scripture before.  I took it to mean suckling pig since that is the way pigs were most frequently referred to in the scriptures.

I'd say you have run out of excuses and are finding it increasingly difficult to defend the Biblical slaughter of babies.  No, they were not "suckling pigs".  That's a new one to me!  Brother Hasan has already refuted this nonsensical statement.  Allow me to refute it further.  Here are some more verses which prove without a doubt that the command was to kill all humans (in all cases) and animals (in some cases):

When Sihon and all his army came out to meet us in battle at Jahaz, ³³ the Lord our God delivered him over to us and we struck him down, together with his sons and his whole army. ³⁴ At that time we took all his towns and completely destroyed them�men, women and children. We left no survivors. ³⁵ But the livestock and the plunder from the towns we had captured we carried off for ourselves. (Deuteronomy 2:32-34) - Notice here that the animals were not killed but instead taken as plunder!

He also put to the sword Nob, the town of the priests, with its men and women, its children and infants, and its cattle, donkeys and sheep. (1 Samuel 22:19) - Now here, everything living things was killed.  Notice that the children and infants of Nob were among those killed! 

Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is the one who repays you according to what you have done to us.  Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks. (Psalm 137:8-9) - Even you should see that this lovely psalm is not talking about dashing suckling pigs on rocks (as inhumane as that would be)!

It keeps getting worse for you, doesn't it?  That is what happens when people lie to others and to themselves.  As the Blue Fairy said to Pinocchio:

"A lie keeps growing and growing until it's as plain as the nose on your face."

How long will you keep lying to yourself?

Caringheart wrote: How else will I come to understand God if I do not argue with Him? Why do you argue with me?  Is it not for better understanding?

Tell me, in your scintillating "arguments" with God, does He answer you back?  Are you sure you are not just arguing with yourself?

A true believer, a man/woman of faith, does not "argue" with God.  We accept God's will, even if we don't understand it.  However, God has taught us that He loves good and despises evil.  He has also given us the criteria to distinguish between good and evil, so that we can identify what is God's will and what is not His will, but the will of men.  Charity is the will of God.  Selfishness is not.  Protecting the innocent is God's will.  Killing them is not.  Do you see the difference?  You don't need to argue with God about something that does not need arguing.  Moreover, you should not be arguing with Him in the first place!  Who are you to argue with the Lord and Master of the Universe?  Talk about pride!

Caringheart wrote: But you will not know the truth until you meet your Maker.  That is an absolute truth.  None of us will know of a certainty, the truth, until we meet our Maker.

 

We will not know the truth of every matter until we meet God.  I wonder how big the universes is.  I don't anyone will ever know.  But, I hope to find out when I meet God. 

However, there are some truths that we already know.  We know that God is One.  Do you agree?  We know that giving charity is good.  Do you agree?

Similarly, we know that some things are evil.  The Holocaust was evil.  Do you agree?  Killing babies is evil.  Do you...well you know.

Caringheart wrote: Are there not some who can not be saved?  Are there not those who in the end satan will win for his own? Men have free will to choose, and if they do not choose God then God can not save them as His own.  This by no means diminishes the pain of loss.

 

It seems that God is simply choosing not to save them, even though He easily could.  To argue that He would feel pain for something He could stop in an instant is absurd.  If He knew from the very beginning that so many would reject Him, why did He create us?  Wouldn't it have been better if He simply had not created those who would become sinners and end up in Hell?

Caringheart wrote: Let me ask... Do you love your children... assuming that you have any... if not, did your parents love you?  Do you not punish your children... or did your parents punish you?  Is it unloving to do so, or are you trying to assert any means to get your children onto a right path?  Would it be loving to never discipline your children and allow them to go their own way, without warning them that there would be consequences, some which are irreversible?  Would it not hurt to lose them to satan in spite of all your efforts?  Do you see that this can happen? God gives every chance to choose Him, but if we do not belong to Him can He allow us to enter into heaven, the purest of places?  Can a corrupt thing enter into purity?  Or must a corrupt thing go to be where corruption is.

Do you think before you come up with these ridiculous analogies?  Disciplining one's children (I don't have kids by the way) is a far cry from the eternal torment all sinners will face in the Hell.  The purpose of discipline is to get children on the right path, but it is by no means continuous and unending.  What parent would keep their child in unending torment?  I certainly hope you don't put your absurd analogy to practice, assuming you have children.

Caringheart wrote: This is not a contradiction.  "All scripture is useful for learning."  We learn from the old testament but we live by the new testament. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

It is a contradiction because on the one hand you say that you owe no allegiance to the "Old Covenant", but then you say that you receive guidance from both the Old and New Covenants. 

If I am not loyal to my country, then how could I learn or receive any guidance from it? 

Caringheart wrote: So you were not comparing quran with Bible scriptures.

 

Do you know how to read?  I compared the bible with the two central sources of Islamic beliefs, the Quran and the Sunnah. 

Caringheart wrote: Your comparison with the holocaust is absurd since that was without question the act of a human.

Wrong.  It was the act of a human who believed he was doing God's work!  Hitler was convinced that he had a divine mission.  That is not much different from what you believe about Moses and his successors.  According to you, they were simply doing God's Will.

Caringheart wrote: Where did I misquote the quran?

Here is one example. You said in one of your posts:

"And the quran instructs to smite the necks of all unbelievers(anyone who will not take the shahada, anyone who does not believe in Muhammad, even though they believe in the One God), this is no different that the Israelites being commanded to kill all the Canaanites, classifying them all as pagan idolators(i.e., as evil people)... same thing.  Islam views anyone non-muslim the same way the Israelites were told to treat the Canaanites.  Old covenant ways vs. new covenant ways.  Islam ignores the 'new thing' which God brought."

I refuted this misquote by showing what the Quran actually says, which is:

"Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost." (47:4)

Conclusion: You misquoted, either deliberately or due to your ignorance, the Quran.

Caringheart wrote: I realized last night that you are probably not aware that alot of what I say comes straight from scripture so I am going to try to go back through my posts so that you will know which statements are not my own but words from God Himself.  It is Job who argues with God and God who admonishes Him... 'Do you have the mind of God, did you create the universe'? [this is my paraphrase]

I could care less what your "scripture" says.  I don't regard those books as being "scripture".  I certainly don't regard the verses talking about slaughtering babies to be "scripture".

Moreover, if what you say about Job is true, then it only proves my point about your blasphemous claim that you "argue" with God.  If Job was admonished for arguing with God, who are you to argue with Him?

Caringheart wrote: Sorry, I just do not put the time into these posts that I used to.  As I said, I just don't have the time and energy for it.  I speak from memory. I come to the forums for conversation, not tit for tat, but an exchange of ideas... a further seeking.  I want to know the minds of people.

 

Unfortunately, I already know what's in your mind, and I don't like it!

Caringheart wrote: As I am reading what you wrote some problems that I have... 1.  there is no clear muslim history... there are differing testimonies of what happened with the treaty between Mecca and Medina. 2.  why do you insist on comparisons?  How is it beneficial?

1.  More vague claims with no supporting evidence.
2.  It helps us to distinguish between the truth and falsehood, between good and evil and between the Word of God and the word of man.  I'd say that is immensely beneficial!

Caringheart wrote: Sorry, but no, you have proved nothing to me, any more than I have 'proved' anything to you.  You share with me what you believe, I do my own research into what you say, and reach my own conclusions.  I think I have done more thorough research than you have.  I think you speak from what you have been taught.  I could be wrong though. Do you ever look into the things that others share with you?  I do.

 

Your views and opinions mean nothing to me.  My hope is that other people who read these posts will benefit.  When I talk with people like you, it is with the understanding that 99% of the time, you will refuse to acknowledge the facts.  I still talk, however, so that others who may be more open to the facts will benefit from reading our conversations, inshaAllah.

Caringheart wrote: Now as far as belief goes... I don't think that I could be wrong... I know that I could be wrong... that's why it's called Faith.

Actually, that is called Blind Faith. 

Caringheart wrote: �For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been His counselor?� "Who has known the mind of the Lord     so as to instruct him?� (these are spoken in Isaiah, Job, Jeremiah)

"And remember We gave Moses the Scripture and the criterion (Between right and wrong): There was a chance for you to be guided aright." (2:53)

"O ye who believe! if ye fear Allah, He will grant you a criterion (to judge between right and wrong), remove from you (all) evil (that may afflict) you, and forgive you: for Allah is the Lord of grace unbounded. " (8:29)

"Behold this is the Word that distinguishes (Good from Evil): It is not a thing for amusement." (17:13-14)

"Nor can goodness and evil be equal. Repel (evil) with what is better: Then will he between whom and thee was hatred become as it were thy friend and intimate!" (41:34)

These are spoken by God in the Quran.

Caringheart wrote: Do we then, place ourselves higher than God in understanding?  It is arrogance to say that we know, without question, the mind of God.  How do you think God will look upon this arrogance come judgement day?

He will not look upon it as "arrogance" but as rationality, inshaAllah.  He will commend us for using our common sense, which He gave us, inshaAllah.  And He will reward us for using His Word to distinguish between good and evil, inshaAllah.

Caringheart wrote: I am curious, can you tell me what the quran teaches about pride?

"Is then the man who believes no better than the man who is rebellious and wicked? Not equal are they." (32:18)

"They say, "If we return to Medina, surely the more honourable (element) will expel therefrom the meaner." But honour belongs to Allah and His Messenger, and to the Believers; but the Hypocrites know not." (63:8)

I am proud of my faith in Allah (swt).  There is nothing wrong with that.  In fact, being timid about my faith would be wrong.  It is only in worldly matters that pride is a sin.  Hence, pride in one's wealth, family or influence is sinful.