| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
syed_z 
Senior Member
Joined: 16 February 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 116
|
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote  Reply
 Posted: 27 November 2016 at 9:03am |
|
|
 |
2Acts
Senior Member
Joined: 22 March 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 143
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 02 December 2016 at 3:16pm |
 syed_z wrote:
DavidC wrote:
Thank you, Syed. The resource I found most valuable
as a Christian in understanding violence in Islam was Martin Ling's
biography of Muhammad. Ling used hadith exclusively as his source, so
one can read direct accounts of Muhammad acting as a general through a
well documented, traditional muslim perspective.
Muhammad's sense of chivalry, fair play and mercy are shown to be a
definitive part of his ethos. The Qu'ran is limited in discussing
violence, and reading hadith is exhausting. I think Ling did a good job
of presenting an orthodox Muslim perspective and anyone interested in
understanding violence within Islam as Muslims understand it would do
well to start with Ling.
It is also simply a fascinating read, and biography of one of histories most important personalities. |
Greetings David,Thank
you for your comments. I haven't personally read Martin Ling's work on
Prophet Muhammad's biography but I have read many Muslim and Non-Muslims
who have referred to his work in their writings. So I think he is one
of the influential Non-Muslim writers on Prophet Muhammad's life.I
do agree that Prophet Muhammad is one of most important personalities
in history. In addition to Martin there are other Non-Muslim writers who
have given an honest account of his life and how Quran was his guide in
achieving the mission he was sent with.� In fact one of the
very recent Christian writers named Michael Hart in his work called '100
Most Influential People in history' ranked Prophet Muhammad (SallAllahu
alaihi Wassallam) as # 1. He explains his choice in the following
words:
<p ="Msonormal">"My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world's most
influential persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others,
but he was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the
religious and secular levels...
<p ="Msonormal">�
<p ="Msonormal">Muhammad founded and promulgated one of the world's great
religions, and became an immensely effective political leader. Today, thirteen
centuries after his death, his influence is still powerful and pervasive...
Like all religions, Islam exerts an enormous influence upon the lives of its
followers. It is for this reason that the founders of the world's great
religions all figure prominently in this book. Since there are roughly twice as
many Christians as Moslems in the world, it may initially seem strange that Muhammad
has been ranked higher than Jesus. There are two principal reasons for that
decision. First, Muhammad played a far more important role in the development
of Islam than Jesus did in the development of Christianity. Although Jesus was
responsible for the main ethical and moral precepts of Christianity (insofar as
these differed from Judaism), St. Paul was the main developer of Christian
theology, its principal proselytizer, and the author of a large portion of the
New Testament.
<p ="Msonormal">�
<p ="Msonormal">Muhammad, however, was responsible for both the theology of
Islam and its main ethical and moral principles. In addition, he played the key
role in proselytizing the new faith, and in establishing the religious
practices of Islam. Moreover, he is the author of the Moslem holy scriptures,
the Koran, a collection of certain of Muhammad's insights that he believed had
been directly revealed to him by Allah. Most of these utterances were copied
more or less faithfully during Muhammad's lifetime and were collected together
in authoritative form not long after his death. The Koran therefore, closely
represents Muhammad's ideas and teachings and to a considerable extent his
exact words. No such detailed compilation of the teachings of Christ has
survived. Since the Koran is at least as important to Moslems as the Bible is
to Christians, the influence of Muhammed through the medium of the Koran has
been enormous It is probable that the relative influence of Muhammad on Islam
has been larger than the combined influence of Jesus Christ and St. Paul on
Christianity. On the purely religious level, then, it seems likely that
Muhammad has been as influential in human history as Jesus.
<p ="Msonormal">�
<p ="Msonormal">Furthermore, Muhammad (unlike Jesus) was a secular as well
as a religious leader. In fact, as the driving force behind the Arab conquests,
he may well rank as the most influential political leader of all time... the
Arab conquests of the seventh century have continued to play an important role
in human history, down to the present day. It is this unparalleled combination
of secular and religious influence which I feel entitles Muhammad to be
considered the most influential single figure in human history."<p ="Msonormal">http://www.adherents.com/adh_influ.html#Muhammad<p ="Msonormal">Keeping
Hart's explanation in mind is why we Muslims believe that Allah (swt)
refers to the life of Prophet Muhammad (sallAllahu alaihi Wassallam) as
the best example for entire mankind till the day of judgment:<p ="Msonormal">Al Quran 33:21<p ="Msonormal">The Messenger of God is an excellent model for those of you who put your hope in God and the Last Day and remember Him often. <p ="Msonormal">Whether
you are father, husband, suffering from poverty, political leader,
military commander, Employer (referred to as Master in the past), A
judge , a spiritual leader etc, whatever you are, there is a best model
available for you in the life of the Final Messenger of God.<p ="Msonormal">As
for your words of 'Violence within Islam' I would humbly disagree
because to me violence is a form of lunacy. In the teachings of Islam
Muslims are not allowed to resort to violence at any circumstances. They
can only resort to fighting in self defense. Allah (swt), did not only
gave permission to the Muslims to fight when faced with aggression but
also people of other religions to defend themselves if they are attacked
by similar force:<p ="Msonormal">Al Quran 22:38-40<p ="Msonormal">Those
who have been attacked are permitted to take up arms because they have
been wronged��God has the power to help them�� those who have been
driven unjustly from their homes only for saying, �Our Lord is God.� If
God did not repel some people by means of others, many monasteries,
churches, synagogues, and mosques, where God�s name is much invoked,
would have been destroyed.<p ="Msonormal">The above Verse
was the first commandment allowing Muslims to fight in self defense only
after they had been patient against severe persecution done to them for
more than 10 years. Just FYI, Muslims don't own monasteries, churches and synagogues. The message of the Quran is a Universal one.Thank you.
|
Michael Hart ? Never heard of him.
|
|
asep48garut60
Senior Member
Male
Joined: 27 July 2016
Location: Indonesia
Status: Offline
Points: 248
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 05 December 2016 at 5:49pm |
Saved wrote:
asep48garut60 wrote:
Yes like that, everything that God created was not in vain, certainly all be useful as in His word. Allah created heaven and hell, is reserved to those who faithfully execute His commands and for those who don't run His commands. That's why the love of Allah in the Quran is conditional. Here I would like to ask, who created heaven and hell? and then for whom heaven and hell? |
But who is able to execute his commands faithfully? The gospel states no one is able to keep the law, and those that live by it will be judged by it or the fact that they didn't keep it perfectly. Remember God is also just. If you break the law in your country don't you get punished for it? We do in America. God's two greatest laws is to love Him with all our being and our neighbor as ourselves, but we cannot do that without God's grace and we can only be justified by faith otherwise God doesn't get the glory and man does. If we earn salvation by keeping the law we can take some credit for it and get the glory. it is not what man does that counts but only what God does through you. That is the message of the gospel.
asep48garut60 wrote:
Yes, the way we look in the understanding of truth is different, we can only explain the truth in accordance with our respective beliefs, and shouldn't impose one another.
Regards,
Asep
|
Of course I know we see things from our respective beliefs and I respect that, but that doesn't mean we cannot call things as we see them. I also agree with you that we shouldn't impose on one another, but that shouldn't stop us from witnessing truth that may be interpreted as imposing. That is where the sword Jesus spoke of comes in.
With all due respect to you and your religion. Let me ask you a few questions since you are trying to convince me that the gospel can be interpreted as promoting violence, and I'll rest my case. Did Jesus carry a sword? Did Jesus use a sword on anyone? Did Muhammad carry a sword? Did he use it on anyone? Did Jesus love his enemies? Did Muhammad love his enemies?
We are suppose to model and be like Jesus. Who are you suppose to model?
PBUY,
Saved |
Dear Saved,
Yes you are right that we must respect our respective beliefs, even in Islam, Allah forbids to force others to embrace Islam, as in His word (Quran 2:256)
Sorry, I'm not trying to convince you that the Gospel can be interpreted as promoting violence, could you please show me about my statement as you mean?
As far as I know that Jesus did not carry a sword and never used the sword to anyone. And yes, Muhammad carrying a sword and was used only for those who fight against the Muslim Ummah and will eliminate the religion of Allah on this earth. Other than that, he never used the sword, he did not kill the prisoner of war captives even told them to go back to his troops after they were given food and horses for their vehicles. It's proof that Muhammad also love his enemies.
Umar bin Khattab (before converting to Islam) came to the Prophet Muhammad with the intent to kill him, and Mohammad did not fight hi with the sword, he only fought with Quran 20:1-8
I think a model like Jesus would be suitable for his followers when Jesus was on earth, because at the time of Jesus, there were no openly fought him with swords etc., In contrast to the time of Muhammad, there were many who want to kill him and even to wipe his teachings by fighting Muhammad and his followers (the situation is different).
You said: �Who are you suppose to model?�
My model is Muhammad, because he is the most suitable to be a model in the face of today's life and so on.
Regards,
Asep
|
|
DavidC
Senior Member
Male
Christian
Joined: 20 September 2001
Location: Florida USA
Status: Offline
Points: 2474
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 06 December 2016 at 5:55am |
|
>>As far as I know that Jesus did not carry a sword and never used the sword to anyone.<<
Correct. No evidence of Jesus ever carrying a sword. He did tell His disciples they should buy swords just before he was arrested (rushed right now; sorry, no reference). Context makes this a prediction of their coming scattering and flight, and everything argues against their being used as implements of aggression.
Edited by DavidC - 06 December 2016 at 5:56am
|
|
Christian; Wesleyan M.Div.
|
|
syed_z
Senior Member
Joined: 16 February 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 116
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 06 December 2016 at 9:47am |
|
2Acts
I'm unable to make them hear who choose to remain deaf.
Thanks,
|
|
asep48garut60
Senior Member
Male
Joined: 27 July 2016
Location: Indonesia
Status: Offline
Points: 248
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07 December 2016 at 8:44pm |
DavidC wrote:
>>As far as I know that Jesus did not carry a sword and never used the sword to anyone.<<
Correct. No evidence of Jesus ever carrying a sword. He did tell His disciples they should buy swords just before he was arrested (rushed right now; sorry, no reference). Context makes this a prediction of their coming scattering and flight, and everything argues against their being used as implements of aggression. |
Dear David C,
Thank you for your kind explanation.
Regards,
Asep
|
|
Saved
Senior Member
Male
Joined: 22 October 2016
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 190
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 09 December 2016 at 4:14pm |
asep48garut60 wrote:
You said: �Who are you suppose to model?�
My model is Muhammad, because he is the most suitable to be a model in the face of today's life and so on.
Regards,
Asep
|
So, you'd have no problem marrying a child?
Muhammad might be suitable for you and as your prophet, but I don't see how that makes him a suitable universal prophet for the world; since most of the world frowns on child marriage. Jesus didn't have this problem and many wanted him dead and they finally succeeded only to find out they won a battle but lost the war on deception
|
|
airmano
Senior Member
Joined: 31 March 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 884
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 11 December 2016 at 1:37pm |
2Acts:
| Michael Hart ? Never heard of him. |
That's just the point.
Micheal Hart gets cited over and over again [in the Muslim world] because in a book he wrote, he calls Mohamed the most influential person in human history.
That nobody in the West knows this bloke doesn't stop anybody citing him in support of Islam and Mohamed. It is as if I quoted a certain John Knox from downtown Bakersfield for his Tee-shirt with "The Quran is wrong" written on it as a proof against Quran.
It probably tells more about the psychological state Islam is in [and possibly the desperate wish of being recognized by western(?) intellectuals] then about the Quran (or Mohamed) being right.
Where things get fully out of control is when you look at the Wiki about Micheal Hart.
I would give him some credit for analyzing "Fermi's Paradox" but his white supremacist speaking and acting would forbid me citing him in support of my theories - even if he was in line with [some of] my thoughts.
Ah, and one anecdote about him is particularly telling:
Hart organized a conference held in Baltimore in 2009 with the title, Preserving Western Civilization. It was billed as addressing the need to defend "America's Judeo-Christian heritage and European identity" from immigrants, Muslims(!), and African Americans.
Well, Airmano
Edited by airmano - 11 December 2016 at 2:16pm
|
|
The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter")
|
|
Tweet
