Punishment for Apostasy (riddah) in Islam
Printed From: IslamiCity.org
Category: General
Forum Name: General Discussion
Forum Description: General Discussion
URL: https://www.islamicity.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=18572
Printed Date: 25 April 2024 at 4:48am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Punishment for Apostasy (riddah) in Islam
Posted By: abosait
Subject: Punishment for Apostasy (riddah) in Islam
Date Posted: 28 February 2011 at 8:10pm
|
by Sajid Kayum on Thursday, 17 February 2011 at 23:11 Bismillah ar-Rahman ar-Raheem Here is a clarification on some serious misunderstanding that can occur as a result of Dr. Zakir Naik's answer at the Oxford Union Debate on the issue of "Punishment of Riddah (apostasy) in Islam" In reply to a question, Dr. Zakir Naik said, "�death penalty is not the standard punishment for any Muslim who leaves his faith and professes any other religion�" and he substantiated it by stating that Muslim who converted to another faith, was pardoned by Allah's Messenger (sallallahu alaihe wasallam) according to hadeeth no. 4345 from Sunan Abu Dawood. The answer to this in brief is that Dr. Zakir's statement is factually false. Killing is the standard and only prescribed punishment for the murtad (apostate, one who leaves Islam). [Pl. see the fatwa of Allamah Ibn Baaz (rahimahullah) mentioned later]. The hadeeth from Sunan Abu Dawood that Dr. Zakir referred to in support of 'pardoning' the apostate, is actually mentioned by the scholars in support of killing the apostate, because the incident (mentioned in this hadeeth) is not about pardoning the apostate, for his apostasy (leaving Islam), at all. The summary of the incident in the narration is that Abdullah ibn abu Sarh accepted Islam and was one of the scribes of the Qur'aan. He then became an apostate and returned to Meccah. After the conquest of Meccah, the Prophet (salallahu alaihe wasallam) ordered the killing of Abdullah ibn abu Sarh and some others, even if they were found clinging to the curtains of the Kaaba. Abu Sarh hid in the house of Uthmaan ibn Affan (radhiallahu anhu), and came along with him to Allah's Messenger salallahu alaihe wasallam to enter Islam again, but the Prophet refused three times. He sallallahu alaihe wasallam finally accepted Abu Sarh's return to Islam because of hayaa for Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu). The Prophet salallahu alaihe wasallam hoped that while he refused to accept Abu Sarh's return to Islam three times, one of his companions would kill him. Therefore, this incident is not about pardoning the murtad (apostate) who insists upon his apostasy (which is the situation Dr. Zakir was asked about). Rather the incident is about the Prophet's refusal to accept Abu Sarh's "return to Islam" three times because of the severity of his crime, while hoping that one of his sahabah would come forward and kill him. Following is a detailed response based upon the Tafseer and Fatawa of the scholars But firstly, the reason we find it necessary to prepare this response The extremely serious matter of riddah (apostasy � i.e., changing one's deen from Islam to some other religion) and its true scholarly understanding is lightened by the way Dr. Zakir Naik responded. This mistake will be relayed over and over again via the satellite and on the internet, and those who trust and admire Dr. Zakir will accept this mistake without verification. We have many avid fans of Dr. Zakir who defend those mistakes � not to mention the many 'Zakir-imitator daees' who copy his speeches, his style, his way of dress, his gestures, and even his natural peculiarities. It is very likely that this reply of Dr. Zakir Naik will be repeated at seminars and lectures, either as it is or with further exaggeration. Lastly, and most importantly this time around, Dr. Zakir has stated that he is sending out a message to millions of Muslims via the Peace TV channel; on an issue of the sharee'ah, not comparative religion. Thus is demolished the great and almost impenetrable excuse of Dr. Zakir's admirers, that even if he made a mistake or used a bad choice of words � his explanation should not be scrutinized as it was meant to explain a concept to non-Muslims in a manner that they can understand. And that sometimes Dawah needs to be sugar-coated for the sake of hikmah. They give this excuse, despite the fact that 99.99% of Dr. Zakir's audience are Muslims, who are learning their deen from him. The transcript of the question and the reply by Dr. Zakir Naik Question: Hi my name is John and I am a doctoral student from the USA. My question has to do with persecution, specifically how former Muslims are sometimes killed if they have chosen to leave Islam, deciding that another religion is more true. For example my girlfriend is Turkish and she lives in turkey, she used to be Muslim but she decided to become a Christian after understanding Jesus in a new way as god made flesh. She's had fears in the past that she may be harmed or even killed for her decision. In light of the recent attention to this matter in Pakistan with Miss. Bibi and the blasphemy laws my question is this - what are you doing to educate or you plan to do to educate the Muslims that if someone chooses to leave Islam that person should not be killed? Answer by Dr. Zakir Naik: "� the brother has asked a very important question and he said that what if a person who is practicing Islamic faith changes to any other faith, is it required that he should be killed? And all these articles that came about me - a preacher of hate - one of the point was that Dr. Zakir prescribes death penalty for those Muslims who leave their faith and they profess any other faith. Again these reports were out of context, they took up a portion of my speech where I said that many scholars say that a Muslim who leaves his faith and professes any other religion, death penalty is the punishment but I went on to further say that death penalty is not the standard punishment for any Muslim who leaves his faith and professes any other religion. I gave the example that once during the time of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), there was a Muslim who converted to another faith and had done some wrong deed for which the Prophet had told that he should be put to death, but later on when Hazrat Uthman approached the Prophet and he said that the man should be forgiven, the Prophet pardoned him. This incident proves that death penalty is not the standard rule for any Muslim who changes his faith. If he does some act which requires to be punished by death depending upon the act he has done but according to Islam and according to Prophet (peace be upon him) - according to me - death penalty is not the standard rule for any Muslim who changes his faith and professes any other religion - and that's what I have told in my talks - but unfortunately what they do - �. (and Dr. Zakir continues to speaks about the injustice of those who misquote him and call him a preacher of hate�.) The Questioner then asked if Dr. Zakir would continue to educate the Muslims around the world about this? Reply by Dr. Zakir Naik: Brother, this I have mentioned in several of my speeches. Now when you ask this question, I gave the reply. There are tens of millions of people watching this program on 'Peace TV', they are being educated that death penalty is not the standard rule but why will they believe in me because I have given the reference. I gave the reference of the saying of Prophet from Abu Dawood. I am giving the reference for authenticity - Abu Dawood, vol. 3, hadeeth no. 4345. Now when I give reference� anyone can go and check up. In this hadeeth, the prophet pardoned the person who was a Muslim and changed to another faith. Now the difference between my answer and the other answers are that the other people just say without giving reference. Now when I give a reference, � � this gives more authenticity and I am sure now, there are millions of Muslims who will agree that death penalty is not the standard rule for any Muslim who changes his faith to any other religion� �" [end quote] ___________________________________________________________________ The narration which Dr. Zakir Naik gave the reference to is as follows: Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas: Abdullah ibn Abu Sarh used to write (the revelation) for the Apostle of Allah (salallahu alaihe wasallam). Satan made him slip, and he joined the infidels. The Apostle of Allah (salallahu alaihe wasallam) commanded to kill him on the day of Conquest (of Mecca). Uthman ibn Affan sought protection for him. The Apostle of Allah (salallahu alaihe wasallam) gave him protection." (Abu Dawood, Book #38, Hadith #4345) ___________________________________________________ What will the people understand from Dr. Zakir Naik's reply and the brief narration of Abu Dawood? a) The listeners will be under the impression that killing is not the standard punishment for Riddah (apostasy, turning away from the religion of Islam), while in realty it is the standard punishment, though the actual execution of an apostate may not be carried due to weakness of the Muslim nations in applying the hudood. b) The listener will be misguided that the Hadeeth supports the pardoning of apostasy, while in reality, Riddah is the greatest crime in Islam, and the Murtad is far worse than the original disbeliever. [A detailed explanation from the books of tafseer to follow insha'allah] Shaikh ul-Islam Ibn Taymeeyah said in Majmoo al-Fatawa (2/193) in his refutation of the Batini Ittihadis, "It is known that the disbelieving Tatars are better than these � because these are murtads (apostates) from Islam and of the worst people of Riddah � and the murtad is more evil than the original (disbeliever) from many aspects." [More to follow on the gravity of Riddah.] c) Dr. Zakir's statement, "� many scholars say that a Muslim who leaves his faith and professes any other religion, death penalty is the punishment"; indicates that this is an issue of disagreement amongst the scholars, while such is not the case. Those who disagree are not scholars, but hadeeth-rejectors, liberalists, proponents of western-style individual freedom, and others innovators of this category. All of these three points are further corroborated by the following Fatawa by Allamah Abdul-Aziz ibn Baaz (rahimahullah) from Majmoo Fatawa: Question: I heard in one of the radio interview programs that there is no proof from the Qur'aan, Hadeeth or Islamic fatawa for the permission of killing the apostate from Islam, please explain how sound is this (statement)? Answer: The noble Qur'aan and the purified Sunnah have proven the killing of the murtad if he does not repent as in Soorah Tawbah, "� But if they repent and perform As-Sal�t (Iq�mat-as-Sal�t), and give Zak�t, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." [Soorah Tawbah (9): 5] This verse proves that those who do not repent, their way should not be left. And in Saheeh al-Bukharee from Ibn Abbas (rahiallahu anhuma) from the Prophet (sallallahu alaihe wasallam), "Whosoever changes his deen then kill him." And in the Saheeh from Mu'adh (rahiallahu anhu) that he said when he saw a murtad with Abu Moosa al-Ash'ari (rahiallahu anhu) in Yemen, "I will not dismount � i.e., his riding animal until he is killed�" There are many proofs of this and the people of knowledge have explained these proofs in the chapter of, 'Ruling concerning the Murtad' in all four madhhabs. Whosoever wishes to know these proofs, then he should look into the above-mentioned chapter. Whosoever denies it (i.e., the killing of the apostate) is a Jahil (ignorant) or deviant � his sayings should not be given any consideration, rather he should be advised and educated perhaps he might be guided, and all guidance is with Allah." [end quote of Allamah Abdul-Aziz ibn Baaz] More on the seriousness of the crime of Riddah Shaikh ul-Islam Ibn Taymeeyah said in Majmoo al-Fatawa (34/213), "The ruling of Murtad is more evil than the ruling of a Jew or a Christian." Shaikhul-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (rahimahullah) said in Majmoo al-Fatawa, (20/102) "� If the murtad is not killed, those who are in the deen will leave it, killing of the murtad is protecting the people of the Deen and the Deen, it prevents them from going out of the deen�" There are specific rulings for the murtad. The wife of the murtad is separated from him, and his blood is no longer sanctified. He is neither washed nor prayed upon, and he is not buried in the graveyards of the Muslims, he does not inherit (from the Muslims), nor is he inherited from � rather his wealth goes to the treasury of the Muslims. He is deprived of Duaa being made for him, and neither is forgiveness sought for him. These rulings show the seriousness of the crime of Riddah. As for declaring someone a Murtad and levying the punishment for it, than it is only for the Sharee'ah courts. As Shaikh al-Fawzaan (hafidhahulah) explained, "� the ones who gives the ruling of Riddah are the judges of the Sharee'ah court, and those who execute this ruling are the leaders of the Muslims � and anything apart from this is chaotic and evil." (al-Muntaqa) The Muslim ruler summons the murtad, establishes the hujjah upon him and asks him to repent, and if he does not repent then the ruler will establish the hadd (punishment) upon him. A Detailed narration from Abu Dawood concerning the incident, Sunan Abu Dawood contains a much more detailed account of the incident that clarifies the reality of the matter, yet Dr. Zakir Naik chose to give the reference of a very brief narration, that fits his distorted view. The detailed narration is as follows � "Narrated Sa'd, "On the day when Mecca was conquered, the Prophet of Allah (sallallahu alaihe wasallam) gave protection to the people except four men and two women and he named them. Ibn Abu Sarh was one of them� Ibn Abu Sarh hid himself with Uthman ibn Affan. When the Prophet of Allah (sallallahu alaihe wasallam) called the people to take the oath of allegiance, he (Uthmaan) brought him and made him stand before the Prophet of Allah. He (Uthmaan) said, "O Prophet of Allah, receive the oath of allegiance from him." The Prophet (sallallahu alaihe wasallam) raised his head and looked at him thrice, denying him every time. After the third time, the Prophet received his oath. The Prophet then turned to his companions and said, "Is not there any intelligent man among you who would stand to this (man) when he saw me desisting from receiving the oath of allegiance, and kill him?" They replied, "We do not know, O Prophet of Allah, what lies in your heart? Had you given us an hint with your eye?" The Prophet said, "It is not proper for a Prophet to have a treacherous eye." [Abu Dawood (book no. 14, no.2677)] From the Tafseer of Imam Qurtubi To know more about Abu Sarh, we quote below the words of Imam Qurtubi from his Tafseer, "al-Jame li-Ahkaam al-Qur'aan" explaining the verse, "Who can be more unjust than he who invents a lie against Allah, or says� "I will reveal the like of what Allah has revealed." [Soorah al-An'aam: 93] Imam Qurtubi writes, "The person meant in the Saying of Allah, '' who says, 'I will reveal the like of what Allah has revealed." � is Abdullah ibn Abi Sarh, who used to write the revelation for the Prophet of Allah, then he apostatized and joined the mushrikeen. The reason behind that is � as the interpreters have mentioned � when the verse (12) of Soorah al-Mu'minoon was revealed, "Indeed, We created man (Adam) out of an extract of clay (water and earth)." The Prophet called Abu Sarh and dictated it to him and when he reached to the verse, 'and then We brought it forth as another creation.' [Soorah al-Mu'minoon (23): 14] Abdullah ibn Sarh was amazed by the details of the creation of man and said, "So blessed be Allah, the Best of creators." The Prophet (sallallahu alaihe wasallam) said, 'this is how it was revealed to me.' (but) Abdullah doubted it and said, 'If Muhammad is truthful, then it is revealed to me the like of what is revealed to him, and if he is a liar then I have said what he has said.' So, he committed Riddah and joined the mushrikeen � that is the saying of Allah, ''and who says, "I will reveal the like of what All�h has revealed." � reported by al-Kalbi from Ibn Abbas (rahiallahu anhuma). It is mentioned by Muhammad ibn Ishaq, Sharhabil said to me, "The verse, 'and who says, I will reveal the like of what Allah has revealed', was revealed concerning Abdullah ibn Sa'ad ibn Abi Sarh. He had apostatized from Islam. So, when Allah's Messenger (sallallahu alaihe wasallam) entered Makkah, he ordered his killing, and the killing of Abdulllah ibn Khatal and Muqees ibn Sababa � even if they were found under the curtains of Ka'ba. So, Abdullah ibn Abi Sarh fled to Uthmaan (radiallahu anhu), who was his foster brother � his mother had suckled Uthmaan. Uthmaan (radiallahu anhu) hid him until he brought Abdullah ibn Abi Sarh to the Prophet after the people of Makkah had settled and he sought security for Abdullah but the Prophet kept silent for a long time and then said, 'Yes.' When Uthmaan left, Allah's Messenger said, 'I kept quiet so that some of you would kill him.' A man from the Ansaar said, 'If only you had hinted me, O Messenger of Allah.' Allah's Messenger said, 'Treachery of the eye does not befit the Prophet.' Abu Umar said, 'Abdullah ibn Sa'ad ibn Abi Sarh accepted Islam during the days of the conquest of Makkah, and his Islam was excellent and nothing which could be reproached appeared from him and he was one of the wise and noble from the Quraysh� Then in the year, 25H Uthman (radiallahu anhu) appointed him the governor of Egypt. And Africa was conquered at his hand in the year 27H � (and his other achievements)" [end quote of Imam Qurtubi] The meaning of 'protection' in the narration of Abu Dawood is � In the narration (no. 4345) that Dr. Zakir mentioned, "�Uthman ibn Affan sought protection for him. The Messenger of Allah (salallahu alaihe wasallam) gave him protection." - Protection (or pardon) here is not about waiving the punishment of killing the murtad (apostate); but the protection means accepting the murtad�s repentance and accepting him back to Islam. The incident shows the gravity of the situation in that the Prophet refused to accept Abu Sarh's repentance. The Prophet's attitude reflects the gravity of the crime, while Dr. Zakir Naik lightens the issue for all those who watch him when said, "� but later on when Hazrat Uthman approached the Prophet and he said that the man should be forgiven, the Prophet pardoned him" Furthermore, by drawing the conclusion that, "In this hadeeth, the Prophet pardoned the person who was a Muslim and changed to another faith", Dr. Zakir Naik has understood the matter, completely opposite to that of the scholars � who mention this incident as a proof for killing the apostate, as in the next quote by Imam Ibn al-Qayyim. Imam Ibn al-Qayyim writes about the incident, "In it (i.e. the incident) is the understanding of the permissibility of killing the murtad whose riddah has become intense and he does not repent from it� (Imam Ibn al-Qayyim then mentioned the long narration of Abu Dawood, we quoted earlier)� � � This was the one whose disbelief had become intense with his Riddah (apostasy) after Eeman, and the Prophet (sallallahu alaihe wasallam) wanted to kill him, but when Uthmaan ibn Affan came with him (i.e. Abdullah ibn Abi Sarh), who was his foster brother, the Prophet did not order to kill him due to Haya (discretion, prudence, honor) for Uthman. And the Prophet did not accept his (Abdullah ibn Sarh's) Bay'ah (oath of allegiance as a Muslim) so that some of his Sahabah would come forward and kill him, but due to respect for the Prophet, the Sahabah did not come forward to kill him without his permission and the Prophet felt haya for Uthman (radiallahu anhu) and thus, accepted his Bay'ah." [end quote of Ibnil-Qayyim. Quoted from Majallah al-Buhooth al-Islami, issue. No. 77 1426-1427: Protecting the Muslim society from intellectual heresy, part 2, section.1] Thus we understand from the whole incident, The Prophet did not pardon the man for his changing his faith � rather Abdullah ibn Abu Sarh was not killed because he returned back to Islam. If it were not for Prophet's Haya for Uthmaan (radiallahu'anhu), the man would have been killed because the Prophet (sallallahu alaihe wasallam) had already ordered the killing of the man due to apostasy, and he refused to accept his coming back to Islam initially. Is giving reference enough? Dr. Zakir Naik boasts in his answer "Now when I give reference� anyone can go and check up. In this hadeeth, the Prophet pardoned the person who was a Muslim and changed to another faith. Now the difference between my answer and the other answers are that the other people just say without giving reference. Now when I give a reference, � � this gives more authenticity and I am sure now, there are millions of Muslims who will agree that death penalty is not the standard rule for any Muslim who changes his faith to any other religion�" What distinguishes those upon the way of the SALAF, from those who are not upon it - is the understanding not the reference. Even the most devious and misguided of groups, whether they are the Qadianis, or the Ismailis or the Raafidah, they all give references from the Qur'aan and Sunnah to argue their ideas; but the question is � Do they understand those references from the Qur'aan and the Sunnah, the way they are supposed to be understood? As for us, the Salafis or the ahlul-Hadeeth � the question we ask to the one who presents a matter of Deen to us, is �. Who is your Salaf in this understanding? i.e. Who preceded you in this statement or understanding of yours? If the answer is the sahabah or the Imams of Ahlus-Sunnah, then we know this to be a matter that is given consideration. If the answer is, this is speculation by a contemporary academic on an issue explained and agreed upon a 1000 plus years back, these views are not even given consideration � and the one who publicizes these issues amongst the people is considered a fitnah and a spreader of innovation. Finally � The lime-light and the media is a great fitnah, and there are so many whose judgments have been clouded by it, and we have always considered Dr. Zakir Naik to be amongst those who have taken the tremendous pressure well. But off late one can clearly see serious lapses of judgment on his part. For instance, the disastrous program on NDTV, where Shah Rukh Khan forcefully advanced his evil ideas of Wahdat al-Adyaan (unity of religions). While it is understandable that Dr. Zakir was unable to respond during that NDTV program; his response that was aired on his own channel later was disappointing and devious. Quoting the NDTV program: SRK was asked, "If your kids asked you what is your religion, what would you say." SRK replied, �My daughter asked me one day, she came back, and said teacher or somebody asked if she was Hindu or Muslim, and I said to her say you are Christian, its absolutely alright. We are Indians, let�s not go there. But yes I make them pray as much as I can in the Islamic way�. Barkha interjects saying, �Both Faiths�. He replied, �My wife does it in her faith. And the fact is we are very clear, we accept it with ease.� [End Quote] ����������.. Rather than clarifying SRK's statements of Kufr that were uttered on the NDTV program; Dr. Zakir Naik opted to put a positive spin to it all, and actually praised SRK's responses saying, they are far better and correct than others. He also claimed ignorance of what is well-known of SRK's mixing idol-worship with Islam � something a simple youtube search will reveal to any common person. While a lot more can be said, for now this should suffice. And thus we ask Allah to keep us all steadfast upon his deen and to protect us from Fitan and temptations. We ask Allah for prudence and understanding of the deen, and safety from falling into misguidance. -sajid http://www.qsep.com/ |
Replies:
Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 02 March 2011 at 12:33am
|
member_profile.asp?PF=60791&FID=29 - abosait Could any apostate be executed in India? I may have some comments later on this subject! ------------- Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction. |
Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 02 March 2011 at 6:26am
|
Even if Prophet Muhammad pardoned a man for riddah once in his lifetime - that for us is the basis of the law that death penalty cannot be the standard punishment. Everybody can say whatever they like - end of the day Sunnah is the basis... ------------- "O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young." |
Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 02 March 2011 at 6:31am
|
...and really... Zakir Naik is not reliable because he didn't stand up and shout 'KUFR' to Shahrukh Khan on national television? SRK's opinions about religion are insignificant... he can believe & think whatever he likes... Even if we think he is wrong, he is not a significant authority on religion..or Islam for that matter to be taken seriously. There is such a thing called 'Hikmah'... which in today's time is a rarity indeed. ------------- "O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young." |
Posted By: Gibbs
Date Posted: 02 March 2011 at 6:57pm
| I still find it sad that people have to.die because they switched faiths or even such a subject is debated |
Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 03 March 2011 at 12:51am
|
The execution has been carried out in modern times not for switching faiths but the switching the support of one ism against other aka espionage and treason..., Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, American Jews, were executed for treason in 1953 for passing the nuclear secrets to commie USSR during cold war! The other six : Klaus Fuchs, Harry Gold, David Greenglass, Abraham Brothman, Miriam Moskowitz, and Sidney Weinbaum were smart & pled guilty and were imprisoned! Imagine if there was a shooting war! all of them would been fried! Basically the rule for riddah was applied to get rid of the traitors from the society! These days every other ruler of the Muslim land is traitor or a turncoat where you go with this rule in the neo colonies? At present there is no Ummah why worry about this riddah punishment anyways? ibn Sarh was smart and got away for his treason cuz who was his protection and the Meccan had been defeated, his treason had not been detrimental that could have been for his espionage against Prophet's(saw) efforts to finish his mission ... ------------- Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction. |
Posted By: abosait
Date Posted: 09 March 2011 at 4:45am
There is some confusion in the scripts I posted. They (the authors of that script) say that a murthad who repented was ordered to be killed. Then it is said that according to 9:5, the murthad who repents should be set free. In the first instance it is said that it was hoped that in spite of the pardoning, and in view of having been commanded to be killed, some one would kill him! Those who actually read any translation of 9:5, find that it is about idolaters who repeatedly broke treaties. And ibn qayyim is quoted thus: "In it (i.e. the incident) is the understanding of the permissibility of killing the murtad whose riddah has become intense and he does not repent from it�� Look at the use of the word �permissibility� in the quote. Are permissibility and command one and the same? Is this the way of writing serious matters? And, how can haya for Usman prevent outright articulation of a verdict? |
Chrysalis wrote:Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 09 March 2011 at 1:16pm
|
abusait: Talk about confusion! The plight of Ummah in bondage is so bad most of the heads of so called Islamic states countries will be executed or their hands cut...for one or other injunctions about being a secular or a robber or crook take your pick! Most of them have robbed the nation or done what a "murtad" would do openly...Aren't we spinning? Pray tell, what is the point of this discussion?  ------------- Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction. |
Posted By: abosait
Date Posted: 12 March 2011 at 2:19am
1. To come to a conclusion whether Zakir Naik's statement on the issue of punishment is correct in the light of the objections raised by his critics. 2. To propagate the results of our findings and advice the erring party. |
Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 12 March 2011 at 3:08am
http://www.islamicity.com/Articles/articles.asp?ref=IC1103-4546 - http://www.islamicity.com/Articles/articles.asp?ref=IC1103-4546 Blaspheme laws - Defending or Desecrating the Quran and Sunnah 3/4/2011 - Religious Social - Article Ref: IC1103-4546 Number of comments: 10 By: ../Articles/action.lasso.asp?-Search=search&-database=Services&-Table=Magazine&-noresultserror=error.asp&-Response=search.asp&-MaxRecords=10&-SortField=Pdate&-SortOrder=Descending&-op=eq&PFlag=X&-op=cn&S=I&-op=cn&search=Dr.%20Aslam%20Abdullah - Dr. Aslam Abdullah IslamiCity* - here is nothing in the Quran or the authentic teachings of Prophet Muhammad 
justifying the killing of people for opposing, criticizing, humiliating
or showing irreverence toward holy personages, religious artifacts,
customs and beliefs of Islam.
The Quran says: "Revile not ye those whom they call upon besides Allah, lest they out of spite revile Allah in their ignorance. Thus We have made alluring to each people its own doings. In the end will they return to their Lord, and We shall then tell them the truth of all that they did. [Quran 6:108] "O ye who believe! Let not some men among you ridicule others: It may be that the (latter) are better than the (former): Nor let some women ridicule others: It may be that the (latter are better than the (former): Nor defame nor be sarcastic to each other, nor call each other by (offensive) nicknames: Ill-seeming is a name connoting wickedness, (to be used of one) after he has believed: And those who do not desist are (indeed) doing wrong. [Quran 49:11] "Those who avoid the greater crimes and shameful deeds, and, when they are angry even then forgive;" [Quran 42:37] If blasphemy was punishable by death in Islam, then the Prophet
The old woman who used to throw garbage on the
Prophet The
assassination of a Pakistani Christian cabinet minister for speaking
against the blasphemy law is a stab in the heart of Islam and a
humiliation of the Prophet
Unfortunately, their argument is built on a position that is supported by a good number of Muslim religious scholars all over the world that demand death for acts of apostasy and blasphemy, two of the practices that were developed under the influence of corrupt despotic Muslim rulers who misused their power to twist religious scholarship to serve their political interests. The idea of blasphemy is foreign to Islam. It was justified by many medieval Muslim scholars on the basis of their understanding of Christian and Jewish texts supporting laws against those who blaspheme and vilify their religions. The word "blasphemy" came via Middle English blasfemen and Old French blasfemer and Later Latin blasphemare meaning "I injure." Based on this definition, rulers used laws to victimize non-members of and dissident members of the ruling sect or cult. Countries that had a state religion used it often to serve the interests of the rulers. In Judaism, the third book of Torah, Leviticus 24:16 states that those who speak blasphemy shall surely be put to death. The seven laws of Noah seen by Judaism as applicable to all of humankind prohibits blasphemy. In Christian theology, the Gospel of Mark 3:29, describes blaspheming the holy spirit as unforgiveable eternal sin. Thomas Aquinas considered blasphemy a major unforgiveable sin, more grave than murder. The Book of Concord describes it the greatest sin ever committed. The Baptist Confession of Faith calls it a disgusting and detesting act. Catholic Church has specific prayers and devotions as Acts of Reparation for blasphemy against God and the Church was a crime punishable by death in much of the Christian world. In England, the last blasphemy execution, was that of an 18-year-old Thomas Aikenhead who was executed for the crime in 1697. He was prosecuted for denying the accuracy of Old Testament and the legitimacy of Christ's miracles.
The Quran and the authentic teachings of the Prophet
Some Muslim jurists, have, often misused the institution of ijtihad to serve the emotive interests of the people. The fatwa or religious decree issued by Khomeini proposing murder of Salman Rushdie was a personal opinion with no support from the divine guidance. The
"Islamic Republic of Pakistan" also has in its penal code laws that
prohibit and punish blasphemy against Islam ranging from a fine to
death. The Criminal courts often decides a case of blasphemy on the
basis of public emotions and political interests rather than the divine
writ.
Following are some of Pakistan's Criminal Code regarding blasphemy: Code
295 forbids damaging or defiling a place of worship or a sacred
object. Code 296A forbids outraging religious feelings. Code 295 B
forbids defiling the
Quran. Code 295 C forbids defaming Prophet Muhammad Defiling the Quran in punishable by imprisonment for life and defaming Prophet Muhammad
The tyranny of religious scholars is so intense that those opposed to these laws are condemned as non-Muslims punishable by death. Some of the scholars even encourage their followers to unleash reign of terror against such people and their families. Their arrogance has reached a point that they do not want to listen to any argument based on the Quran and the teachings of the Quran. The religious and educational institutions of the Muslim world suffer from the tyranny of these scholars who justify their ignorance and arrogance on the basis of a literature that emerged at a time, when Muslims had lost connection with the Quran and by and large were at the mercy of autocratic rulers and their hired religious scholars. The un-Quranic and un-Prophetic practices adopted by many Muslims scholars must be challenged. Islam is not the monopoly of self imposed scholars. It is the responsibility of all who profess to be Muslims to understand their faith sincerely in light of the Quran and authentic Sunna and keep their scholars true to the religion with out any political and self interest. Those who assume the divine role in condemning people and deciding their life and death must be challenged and what better way than to seek the repelling of blasphemy law in light of the Quran and Sunna. If Muslim religious scholars are seriously concerned about the sensitivities of people with regards to their faith and its holy figures, then they should advocate common laws for every religion and religious community emphasizing that respect must be shown to all religions and freedom of speech must NOT be seen as a license to hurt and provoke others. It is time that Muslim scholars from all over the world revisit issues such as blasphemy and apostasy in the light of the Quran and Sunna rather than falling victim to positions that can not be substantiated by the divine writ.
Dr. Aslam Abdullah is editor in chief of the weekly Muslim Observer and director of the Islamic Society of Nevada. ------------- "O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young." |
Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 12 March 2011 at 3:13am
|
Question
The other day I was out with some of my friends and we started talking about different groups. One of them said that such and such person is a kafir (infidel). Upon hearing this I told him that was not right. In his defense he told me that he heard one of this person�s talks and what he said was nothing but kufar. What do I do? Answer Bismillah wa salatu wa salamu `ala sayydina rasulillah. Sadly, this is the case of some in our community. Frank Luntz mentions in What American Think�Really
that 90% of Americans think they are smarter than other Americans.
Unfortunately, it seems that arrogance like this transcends faith and
falls into our community as well. http://www.suhaibwebb.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/5344749230_78264aa72a_z.jpg"> Takfir (declaring apostasy) is not an easy affair. Just like any ruling it has certain conditions that, if not present, will prevent the ruling, in this case disbelief, from occurring. Here are some of those conditions:
Allah (swt) knows best. Suhaib http://www.suhaibwebb.com/islam-studies/faqs-and-fatwas/calling-someone-a-kafir/ - http://www.suhaibwebb.com/islam-studies/faqs-and-fatwas/calling-someone-a-kafir/ Suhaib Webb is a convert & Scholar of Islam, who studied sholarly sciences at Al-Azhar Cairo. ------------- "O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young." |
Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 12 March 2011 at 6:51am
| "........what he said was nothing but kufar..." So, what did he say? |
Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 13 March 2011 at 8:44am
The questioner doesn't give specifics. Or maybe the website left it out.... ------------- "O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young." |
Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 14 March 2011 at 10:09pm
How can you give Dr. Naik so much importance on this matter? He neither is a Caliph nor a Qadi, he is just interpreter for the sake of dawah purposes! He lives in India which is a Hindu majority country and he has no force to protect himself and enforce his pronouncements about the any penal business! Let's see the realities of life as we have it vs as we dream to have it! The capital punishment to be enforced the nation has to have a clear and undisputed law and the power to enforce it! If you want enforce the laws as was at the time of the prophesy you better have the same standards of Takwa in the ruled and the ruler...No monkey business and no one above the law... application beyond fear or favor...All rights of the ruled fully protected...Otherwise it will be nothing but tyranny and red herring form the corruption in society and injustice! There are so many erring parties in the world for so many things that it is not funny! As some one has said Islam is best religion and the Muzlums are the worst people...the dishonesty on the name of prophet and allah is rampant among them! I think they need the house cleaning first cuz they are giving a bad name to the prophet and Allah no less than apostates! Muzlums need to realize that they are going through a reactionary phase... May be a new generation come soon that will be well ground in knowledge themselves and clear thinking with strengths to be independent of their mammon masters! The current lot is a we say in manufacturing quality assurance language the "discrepant lot" needs rejection and sent back to scrap yard and redone! How do you sort out the apostates? Need a test and put them through Material Review Board! But who will do that test? ------------- Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction. |
Posted By: Matt Browne
Date Posted: 28 March 2011 at 8:26am
Christians no longer have to die when they switch faith. In 50 years time my prediction is that Muslims too no longer have to die when they switch faith. Progress is unstoppable. ------------- A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt |
Posted By: aka2x2
Date Posted: 28 March 2011 at 7:03pm
|
Islam does not say to kill those who are "kafir" or non-believers. Nor does it say to kill those who leave Islam. In fact Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) dealt with these people and made treaties with them. And, Quran sets rules on marriages that end because one party leaves Islam. For example, in the treaty that Prophet Mohammad made with people of Mecca, any Meccan who came to Medina was to be returned to the Kufar and any Muslim who went to the Kufar could stay with them (note there was no provisions to kill anyone). In another example, Quran teaches us if a woman becomes Muslim she is not to be returned to her people, but if a woman leaves Islam her Muslim husband is to be compensated from "beit-ol-mal" or national treasury. Again, there is no talk there about killing anyone. The confusion is about those who turn against Islam and take up arms against Muslim (because of their faith). Under those circumstances, Muslims are permitted to defend themselves by force against these aggressors. ------------- Respectfully  aka2x2
|
Posted By: Matt Browne
Date Posted: 31 March 2011 at 7:43am
|
I wish all Muslim countries would adopt your interpretation of Islam, aka2x2, and abolish the death penalty. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostacy_in_Islam#Applying_law_in_the_Muslim_world - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostacy_in_Islam#Applying_law_in_the_Muslim_world ------------- A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt |
Posted By: rememberallah
Date Posted: 31 March 2011 at 10:33am
|
peace be on all the very first post, the topic starter knows a lot and yet knows nothing. only if people pay so much attention to Quran rather than other things they would realise. Abdullah Ibn Ubay - the biggest enemy of islam, was never punished
by prophet even after the verse on blasphemy was revealed long ago.
why? do our scholars who bank on religous understanding developed in
ancient madarsas under the eyes of kings know more than prophet?
i tell you what prophet knew, read on.
{90:10}- "we showed him the 2 highways yet he attempts not the
ascent" {2 WAYS, remember o men of no understanding, 2 ways, one of
Allah-righteousness and other of Satan-unrighteousness}
{3:7} - "the Quran has clear verses which are foundation of it,
others are unclear verses, those with sickness of heart follow unclear
verses causing hatred, and search for its true meaning, but none knows
its true meaning except Allah and those possesed with knowledge...none
grasps the message but men of understanding"
the verse from which blasphemy law is drawn out is an unclear
verse, our scholars fail to understand it....if only they were like
haabil, the better son of Adam they would had understood it.
let me start all over again -
{90:10} - "we show 2 ways" {one of Allah, other of satan}
way of Allah when Adam dishonored Him - exile from land ie paradise
way of satan {7:124}-"pharaoh said i will cut off your hands & feet from opposite sides and crucify you"
i have shown you the 2 ways, one of Allah and other of Satan, remember {90:10}- "we show 2 ways"
read this now {5:33} - "punishment of those who wage war against
Allah and his messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief
through the land is : execution, crucification, or cutting off of hands
and feet from opposite sides or exile from the land"
O men who claim to be of understanding, now do you see how Allah
shows 2 ways?? but how will you see when Quran doesnt go furthur down
your throats into your heart....into your veins....into your blood. Now
do you see how you have made islamic shariah, a shariah of satan and
not of Allah the merciful. you do not take the path of Allah {exile
from land} but you take path of satan/pharaoh and seek to kill, crucify
and cut opposite hands and feet. O khalifas of Allah be khalifas of
Allah and not khalifas of Satan/pharoah.
think, of all the things, Allah will teach us the way of pharaoh?
ie kill, crucify, cut opposite hands and feet?? he will teach muslims
to be like pharoah?? where is your understanding??? NO YOU SEEK TO
FOLLOW THE UNCLEAR VERSES WHEN YOU ARE NOT MEN POSSESED WITH KNOWLEDGE,
WHEN YOU ARE NOT MEN OF UNDERSTANDING, YOU IGNORE THE CLEAR VERSES,
LIKE {20:44} - "GO TO PHAROAH HE HAS CROSSED ALL THE BOUNDS, GO TO HIM
AND TALK TO HIM GENTLY"
now you will ask why would God do so? ie tell the way of pharoah!!
i counter ask who asks parents to kill their children? satan, right?
tell me who asked Abraham to kill his own son? Allah or satan??
but you understand not for you are far from God's cause.
tell me who offers alchohol? satanic person, right? who offered milk as well as alchohol to prophet on miraj? Allah or satan??
but you understand not for you are far from God's cause.
tell me those who do magic are they good or bad? satan asks them
to learn magic, right? but who sent angels Harut and Marut to teach
magic, Allah or satan??
but you understand not for you are far from God's cause.
{see topic "God's cause" in Quran and sunnah section, or check website http://www.rememberingallah.com/ - www.rememberingallah.com }
truly those who do magic are going in hell just as those who seek to kill on blasphemy are going to hell.
the prophet didnt even gave Abdullah Ibn Ubay exile from land leave alone cut off hands and feet and crucify....
O muslims follow the clear verses. for you dont have people who
are men of understanding and possesed of knowledge......it will be
better for you.......if you meet a man who is pharoah {recall what all
pharoah did} then talk to him gently {20:44}, that is a clear verse.
have many things to say but you are not prepared for it.
i tell you another master key to paradise {16:126-128} - "{again 2
ways are shown} if you want to punish then let your punishment be
proportianate to the wrong done to you {one way} but if you show
patience {2nd way} then it is indeed the best course. AND DO YOU BE
PATIENT {ie not punish those who deserve punishment, with whom else can
you be patient?} for Allah is with the patient" O muslims throw
out the desire to punish and Allah will be with you, or Allah will say
on judgement day "you punished him and chose not to be with me...this
day i choose not to be with you" truly one who has Allah has everything
and one who doesnt, has nothing. there are many lies floating around
which are accepted as truths regarding Islam, may Quran be your
"furqan", the criteria.
peace be on those who when are shown the truth follow it.
may Allah guide all.
{25:30} - "then the messenger will say {on judgement day} O my
lord truly my people treated the Quran with neglect/ignored
it/discarded it/as foolish nonsense/as a thing to be laughed at/as a
joke"
------------- The whole world is like Hazrat Umar but no one is like his sister and brother in law. |
Posted By: Larry
Date Posted: 27 May 2011 at 1:30am
| Killing people for changing their religion? Why is this even discussed? To murder someone in the name of religion says more about the religion than the person being killed. |
Posted By: Douggg
Date Posted: 27 May 2011 at 9:19pm
|
oops double post |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 27 May 2011 at 9:31pm
|
It seems Larry and Douggg completely ignored what aka2x2 wrote. Go figure. Isn't there a religious book which gives specific instructions on what to do with an apostate? Which book was that? Hmm, why can't I remember? Was it the Rig Veda? No, that wasn't it. Was it the Quran? Nope. Oh wait, I know! It was that book called the Bible. You know, the one those Christians read? If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son, or your daughter, or the wife of your bosom, or your friend, which is as your own soul�entice you secretly, saying, �Let us go and worship other gods,� which you have not known�not you, nor your fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, near to you, or far off from you, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; You shall not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall your eye pity him, neither shall you spare, neither shall you conceal him: 13:9 But you must surely kill him; your hand must be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And you must stone him with stones, that he die; because he has sought to thrust you away from the LORD your God. (Deuteronomy 13:6-10) Now I know the standard Christian argument. It's the Old Testament, so it no longer counts! Yet, this was God's command wasn't it? And who is God to Christians? Is it not Jesus? ------------- Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162) |
Posted By: Douggg
Date Posted: 27 May 2011 at 9:40pm
A line from "Dirty Harry" .....Harry: ""You know you're crazy if you think you've heard the last of this guy. He's gonna kill again!" Character 1: "How do you know?" Harry: "Cause he likes it." I would like to ask muslims, is the spiritual power behind the killing of persons leaving Islam is God or Satan? |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 01 June 2011 at 2:50pm
I would say it is probably the same spiritual power which told the Jews to stone anyone among them who worshiped other gods. And since Jews and Christians both believe that the relevant passages from Deuteronomy were from God, then the answer to your question is obvious. ------------- Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162) |
Posted By: Douggg
Date Posted: 01 June 2011 at 5:55pm
To worship other gods? ip, you as a muslim can't use that excuse because muslims say that Allah is the same God of the Christians and Jews. So if someone leaves Islam to become a Christian, what is the spirit behind muslims to stone that person. Or suppose the person wants to leave because he doesn't like the muslims religion, is there compulsion of religion in Islam? To me, the death threat to leave is an indication of a cult-like control. The 603 laws that God gave specific to the Children of Israel, in addition to the ten commandments, totaling 613, were basically how they were to keep the ten commandments. Keep in mind that they had left Egypt and a host of false gods. Plus when Moses came down the mountain the first time, the Children of Israel had made the golden calf. The Jews say that it was due to the influence of the mixed multitude - meaning there were some non Children of Israel in the group who just wanted to get out of Egypt as well - which wanted to worship the golden calf idol, thinking Moses was never going to return. Anyway, it was a special situation for the times. Not to have a repeat of the golden calf incident. Doug L. |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 01 June 2011 at 6:29pm
 Um genius, you Christians worship Jesus, who you feel was God incarnate and a part of the foreign concept of the trinity! If that is not "worshiping other gods", then I don't know what is! Let me again point out what aka2x2 said, which subjective people like you always ignore. Let me also add that the punishment for apostasy in Islam was based on the element of treason. In that time, the Muslims had to deal with enemies from abroad and form within their own community. Any person who ended up leaving Islam would immediately have joined the pagans who were trying to annihilate Islam. As such, they were treated as traitors and hence were to be executed. That was the reason for this ruling. People like you, who have an agenda, fail to realize these facts.
Oh here we go. This is the standard Christian argument. "It was for the time" they say. Even if it was, the fact is that you believe this was a commandment from God. Regardless of the reasons for it, you agree that God did order the killing of apostates, right? So why was it okay for God to make such a law for the Jews, but it is not okay for such a law (with some differences) for Islam? Your double standards are once again exposed. Given your obvious bias in the matter, I think the better question is what type of "spiritual power" is behind this bias? I cannot fathom this power being God. Therefore, it must be Satan by default. Did you get that, Douggg? You are a puppet of Satan!  ------------- Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162) |
Posted By: Douggg
Date Posted: 02 June 2011 at 12:20pm
So you admit that Allah is not the God of the bible. Great. We finally agree on something. It still doesn't excuse muslims from killing people who don't want to be a muslim any longer. What western muslims want, especially the new converts fin the United States, is a brand of Islam that is appealing. They have an idea of what they think Islam should be. Unfortunately, they are delusional about Islam. I hear the new muslims on you tube all the time acting like they are the flower children of the 1970's. Here, watch this you tube video of exterroist Walid Shoebat trying explain that the number one cause of murder in the middle east of women is honor killing. http://%20www.youtube.com/watch?v=znJDbGi_8nM - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znJDbGi_8nM
That is the classic muslim reasoning. Muslim are always just defending themselfs against people out to destroy them.
God did not give any such directive to those who worshiped the false religion of the golden calf. Your religion is just as false. Because Mohamed made the whole thing up for personal gain. Why do you think all the pleasures of paradise that Mohamed came up with such as the 72 virgins, the rivers of wine, etc., was something that would appeal to the Arab pagans? Do you really believe the 72 virgin story? And anyone who refused Allah's command to follow Mohamed (for Mohamed, by Mohamed) would spend eternity in hell-fire. Doug L. |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 02 June 2011 at 4:01pm
 The st**idity and arrogance of people like you always amazes me! When did I say that Allah (swt) is not the God of the "Bible"? First of all, the "Bible" actually is the word of anonymous men not God. God/Allah was the author of the original Torah and the original Gospel. Therefore, He is the same God that the Jews worship. The problem is with Christianity. Christians claim that God is a trinity when He never said that for thousands of years. Christians had to invent the false belief of the trinity to justify their false worship of Jesus (pbuh) who was a mere man. Therefore, Christians are guilty of "worshiping other gods". This is why they are condemned by the Quran for the sin of shirk. That is why, in the eye of the Lord, you are a blasphemer who will get his punishment in the next life. Add to that your arrogance and condescending attitude towards Islam, and you pretty much are royally s c r e w e d!  The point of all this is that anyone who believes in the Bible has no case to condemn Islam for the apostasy issue when the Bible itself contains a commandment to kill anyone who worships other gods. This means that as far this commandment is concerned, there is no such thing as "religious freedom" in the Bible. Thus far, you have failed to refute this.
Riiiight, and I suppose Joe Jesus here (i.e. you) is going to set everyone straight! Right? Don't make me laugh! The only one delusional is you and your Bible-thumping brethren. You are the *****s who claim that God unleashed a mass genocide in the Holy Land all for His "chosen people", yet you have the gall to call Islam "satanic"? Really Douggg?
Oh this one takes the cake! Delusional Christians using fake "ex-terrorists" to prove their point! Perhaps if you had done your homework, you would have known that Walid Shoebat's "story" of his "terrorist exploits" are full of holes which has led many people to question his credibility. Here is some bedtime reading for you: http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/04/the-three-stooges-coming-to-a-campus-near-you/ - http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/04/the-three-stooges-coming-to-a-campus-near-you/ The guy is a liar, plain and simple. But hey, there is nothing wrong with that, right? I mean, Paul did say that it is okay for Christians to use deception to convert the unbelievers, didn't he? Let's read what he wrote: "20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God�s law but am under Christ�s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings." (1 Corinthians 9:20-23) So in Shoebat's case, we see a modern example of Pauline deception. He pretends like he is an expert since he was a "terrorist" who has been "born again (as a liar )" so he can misinform the ignorant and malign Islam as much as he can. And of course, mindless drones like you eat up everything he says.
You still have not refuted what I said. So far, all I have gotten from you is mindless chatter.
Oh really? Let's see if you are telling the truth or are deliberately trying to use that classic Pauline deception. Let us read Exodus 32: "25 Moses saw that the people were running wild and that Aaron had let them get out of control and so become a laughingstock to their enemies. 26 So he stood at the entrance to the camp and said, �Whoever is for the LORD, come to me.� And all the Levites rallied to him. 27
Then he said to them, �This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says:
�Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp
from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and
neighbor.�� 28 The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died. 29
Then Moses said, �You have been set apart to the LORD today, for you
were against your own sons and brothers, and he has blessed you this
day."
Classic missionary ranting with no substance or truth. Just empty statements from an empty man. What else can one say? If Muhammad (pbuh) made the whole thing up, why was he willing to endure more than 20 years of torture and repeated attacks by a larger pagan force? Use your limited mental capacity for once and take the dunce cap off your head. You are embarrassing yourself. ------------- Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162) |
Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 02 June 2011 at 4:31pm
one of the rare occassions that I have to agree with you. God will Himself deal and punish those who refuse to acknowledge Him and refuse to humble in front of their maker and instead do evil deads by worshiping what God created.
Interestingly there are no mention of killing of the one who leaves the submission to the Will of God, in the Quran. And in my personal understanding killing someone for leaving Islam does not seem to be an order from God himself. We know that the prophet himself lived through people insulting and harming him and even attacking him but he always stayed calm and did not retaliate but forgave. So it seem odd that some people would want to do what the prophet did not do himself. Allah knows the best. But I think it is clear that the Quran, the book of Allah does not order anyone who leaves His religion to be killed.
On the other hand, interestingly the Bible happen to order the killing of the one preaching of worship to other gods.
"Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT) Some of the other things that are punisable by death according to the Bible: "A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death." (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)
Look at this one:"If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)"
Here is another one: A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)
or this one:
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB I guess people will be people, some acting on behalf of their claimed faiths, like those Popes under who's authority millions accross continents for many centuries were tortured, lost their filmiles and were killed because they refused their authority and to be Baptized.
Hasan ------------- The friends of God will certainly have nothing to fear, nor will they be grieved. Al Quran 10:62 |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 03 June 2011 at 6:18pm
This is a very interesting verse. Thank you brother Hasan for bringing it up. Given all the current obsession in the West regarding "honor killings" by Muslims, this verse shows that it is the Bible which actually has a commandment for honor killing. There is no such concept in the Quran or Hadiths, which shows that the phenomenon as it occurs in many Muslim countries is the result of cultural traditions and not Islam. But why is it present in the Bible? Douggg? Why doesn't Walid Shoebat discuss why the Bible has this commandment and not the Quran? ------------- Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162) |
Posted By: Douggg
Date Posted: 05 June 2011 at 11:31pm
And why would we? The law applied only to one person on earth, the high priest. The high priest also had other restrictions that no-one else had to follow. And no-one can hold that position any longer because Jesus is the high priest. Doug L. |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 06 June 2011 at 3:14pm
Oh, Doug, Doug, Doug. There are so many things wrongs with your response. You seem to suggest that since it only applied to the high priest, somehow it is okay. The problem is that your idol Walid Shoebat gave a whole speech about "honor killings" under Islam (when there is no such concept) and completely ignored the fact that the Bible does have such a concept (and conveniently kept it hidden). Is this the Pauline deception at work again?  Second, why is there not a similar ruling for the high priest's son? What if the son committed fornication? Leviticus 21 makes no mention of the punishment for the son. Third, despite all of your special pleading, you still failed to explain why it is your Bible which contains a commandment for a literal "honor killing" and the Quran and Sunnah do not. For sure, fornication is forbidden in the Quran but there is no commandment that a fornicator must be killed (the punishment is actually flogging) because he or she has dishonored his/her family. It is not for dishonoring one's family that a fornicator is punished but for breaking God's laws. ------------- Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162) |
Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 07 June 2011 at 5:17pm
Dear Dougg,
may be you misread or did not get what it said:
It does not deal with high priest, but rather her daughter. If she commits the sin of sex out of marriage or adultry, it is her that should be killed according to the Bible. Also are you saying that it is Ok according to the Bible for believers other than priests to have their daughters commit such acts?
Also, you missed the most important quote I wrote that was about what to do with non-believers and those who turn to other beliefs according to the Bible:
"Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT) can you comment on this one! Hasan ------------- The friends of God will certainly have nothing to fear, nor will they be grieved. Al Quran 10:62 |
Posted By: Matt Browne
Date Posted: 09 June 2011 at 6:29am
|
Islamispeace, Your interpretation of trinity as the worshiping of other gods (or false gods) has the sole effect of disrupting the peace between Muslims and Christians. When you choose a nickname like "Islam is peace" you should actually honor the words you chose. Otherwise a nickname like Islamisdisruptingpeace would be more appropriate when looking at some of your posts here. Peaceful Christians don't insult Islam. Peaceful Muslims don't insult Christianity. ------------- A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 09 June 2011 at 3:19pm
Um, this is a religious forum. More importantly, this is an ISLAMIC forum, so one would expect most of the members to be Muslims. Whether you like it or not, Muslims do not believe in the trinity and we believe it to be false. For you to whine and suggest that it is somehow "insulting" or "disrupting the peace" is absurd. Muslims also do not accept the Hindu gods. Can you accuse us of "insulting" Hindus? What nonsense is this? Do you accept Muhammad (pbuh) as a prophet of God? Since you are a Christian, the answer is probably no. Do you see me whining that this constitutes as an "insult"? Dude, you need to grow up and accept the fact that not everyone believes what you believe or sees religion the way you see it. You also said "peaceful Christians don't insult Islam". Since Douggg (and others) has/have insulted Islam many times, including in this thread, do you believe he is not a "peaceful Christian"? If so, why have you not criticized him? Why is this such a common occurrence with the Christian members of this forum? Why do they criticize Muslim "attacks" on Christianity but not the other way around? Will you call Douggg out for his insults? Go ahead. I'll wait... ------------- Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162) |
Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 09 June 2011 at 3:46pm
|
Matt and Dougg,
I think you guys need to address the question, that quote needs to be answered, picking on Islamispeace is not the answer and neither an escape so please come back to the issue posed and answer if you can about honor killing in the Bible.
Hasan ------------- The friends of God will certainly have nothing to fear, nor will they be grieved. Al Quran 10:62 |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 10 June 2011 at 1:41pm
Yes, exactly! Well-said. ------------- Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162) |
Posted By: John Mohammad
Date Posted: 17 June 2011 at 1:49pm
|
If death is not the 'standard' penalty for those who leave Islam, then what IS the 'standard' penalty? As this is a matter of faith, is this not for Allah(swt) to decide as he sees fit? As long as the apostate does no harm to Islam after his leaving the faith, is not his choice a personal one and the consequences between him and Allah(swt) alone? |
Posted By: Larry
Date Posted: 17 June 2011 at 10:16pm
| Matt, I agree with you 100%. "Islamispeace" hasn't got a clue as to the true nature of Christianity and makes the most inflammatory and vile statements about Christians while pretending to be a moderate voice of Islam. It is pointless to argue with him as he simply reverts to cut-and-pastings or makes his ludicrous statements based on nothing but his own ignorance. I think he must be very insecure in his own faith and remedies that by attacking other religions. |
Posted By: Larry
Date Posted: 18 June 2011 at 5:48am
|
"Honor killing in the Bible"?
The point you seem to be missing is that neither Jews nor Christians endorse or practice "honor killing" but it is a common practice among some Islamic societies to this day. |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 18 June 2011 at 3:06pm
I can see that there are very few, if any, Christians on this forum who are capable of having a reasonable discussion with someone who does not agree with their religious point of view. So far, no one has responded to the facts that brother Hasan and I have brought up. Rather, there has been nothing but childish whining pertaining to perceived "insults" or "ignorance". No actual responses made, just ad hominem attacks. What a shame.  Larry, I will ask you the same thing I asked Matt. Do you find Douggg's comments about Islam just as "inflammatory and vile" as you find my comments about Christianity? If so, why have you not called him out for it? I have to tell you guys...you are not painting a pretty picture of yourselves and your brethren. The hypocrisy is appalling. As far as my comments, what exactly do you find "inflammatory and vile"? I was responding to Douggg and I stated what I believe about the trinity. Whether you like it or not, Muslims DO NOT accept the concept of the trinity and we DO consider it to be FALSE. If you don't like it, then go to a Christian forum! Have you seen me whining about Douggg's comments on Islam? I am not a cry-baby like you guys. Douggg has his beliefs and he is responsible for them. Why should I be bothered by them or get upset like a pouting child? You guys need to grow up. You accused me of "cut and pastings". This is a habit of some people. When they cannot respond to the facts, they make up silly accusations. From whom or what do you think I "cut and pasted" from? What evidence do you have? Finally, if I am so "ignorant", then why is it so difficult for anyone here to "correct" me? Why do you all ignore the facts raised here and simply resort to childish remarks about "ignorance"? To make a long story short, I guess it suffices to say that you guys are simply pathetic, spiritually immature people. It seems to me that it is you guys who are "insecure", not me. I am confident in my beliefs and I do not have to be resort to questioning a person's intelligence or perceived ignorance. I let the facts do the talking. ------------- Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162) |
Posted By: Larry
Date Posted: 18 June 2011 at 11:13pm
| Sorry, Bud, but I think I made a valid atatement concerning "honor killings" and I am well aware of your views on Christianity, and I still consider them naive and uninformed. Sorry to hurt your feelings, didn't think that you would take it so hard, you need to relax more. Also your "facts" are not quite as factual as you propose, simply your ideas and feelings about Christianity. Everyone has a right to their beliefs and opinions, even you. To tell you the truth, I don't believe that Muhammad was the "seal of the prophets" and I don't consider him a prophet period. I have read the entire Qur'an on this site and find it filled with bits and pieces of Judaism, Christianity and pagan Arabian beliefs and practices, such as the central events and practices concerning the Hajj. I found it unconnected in structure, more as a series of statements that become repetitious, the story of the Exodus from Egypt is repeated a number of times. The thing that I can never understand is the subject of Jesus as a true prophet but anything regarding His statements and the central themes of His entire ministry are simply ignored. The Bible on the other hand is linear in style and has extensive geneaologies concerning early Judaism and historic events and personalities that are recorded in books such as Chronicles, Kings and Samuel. The beauty of the poetry in the Psalms and the extensive prophecies concerning the Messiah in the Old Testament that are revealed as fulfilled in the New Testament, especially the prophecies of Isaiah. The other major and minor prophets such as Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Micah and Zechariah are well documented. The Bible says that the proof of a prophet is in their prophecies and I found no prophecies at all in my readings of the Qur'an, certainly none that can be documented as being fulfilled by later specific events. It doesn't mean that I hold Islam in contempt, I don't, but I believe that I am entitled to make my feelings on the matter clear and concise from my religious point of view as you do also. We are never going to agree on most of these points but at least everyone knows where everyone else stands on the issues. And we could all probably soften the tone of the discussions a bit more than we do now, but religion is always a volatile subject in any case, as is politics. Larry |
Posted By: Matt Browne
Date Posted: 19 June 2011 at 9:41am
|
Islamispeace, The vast majority of scholars agree that Judaism, Christianity and Islam are monotheistic religions. They don't use the concept of trinity to turn Christianity into a polytheistic religion. ------------- A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 19 June 2011 at 11:14am
Yes! Have you not read Leviticus 21:9? It's right there in plain words.
No one disputed this, Larry. I am not sure what your point is. However, "honor killings" do occur among Jews and Christians as well. For example, there is the story of the Palestinian Christian Faten Habash, who was killed by her father for wanting to marry a Palestinian Muslim: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jun/23/israel - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jun/23/israel The point was that there is nothing in the Quran or Sunnah that supports the concept of "honor killing". On the other hand, the Bible does contain a commandment to kill the daughter (not son, mind you) of the High Priest for dishonoring her father by having illegal sexual relations. Do you dispute this?
As I said before, if I am so wrong, then why is it so difficult for you to "correct" me? Why do you waste time with meaningless posts, criticizing my "ignorance" rather than my arguments? By the way, you did not hurt my feelings! Like I said, I am not a cry-baby.
Well we can discuss these issues, if you are willing. You are more than welcome to open a new thread. Whether you are willing or not, what needs to be pointed out is that I do not whine when a Christian says that he does not believe Islam is true. I don't perceive that as an "insult". Your false beliefs about Islam do not bother me in the least. I simply see your beliefs to be the result of misguidance.
Not at all. The Quran does mention some of Jesus' teachings. The problem is that the Quran considers the Bible to be unreliable. That is why God sent the final revelation to correct the past errors. Now whether you believe this or not is a different matter.
You are straying off topic. In any case, you and I have already attempted to discuss this issue but as I remember it, you decided to terminate it. Do you want to restart this discussion? Make up your mind, dude.
Sure, I agree. Let us all discuss in a more cordial manner and not get angry or accuse each other of being "ignorant". Rather, let us discuss the issues and not resort to ad hominem attacks. I am willing if you are... ------------- Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162) |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 19 June 2011 at 11:20am
Matt, if you will kindly reread what I http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=18572&PID=156055#156055 - wrote to Douggg: "The problem is with Christianity. Christians claim that God is a trinity when He never said that for thousands of years. Christians had to invent the false belief of the trinity to justify their false worship of Jesus (pbuh) who was a mere man. Therefore, Christians are guilty of "worshiping other gods". This is why they are condemned by the Quran for the sin of shirk." As you can see, I never said that Christians are polytheists. I said that their belief regarding God being a trinity is false, and hence it is a form of "worshiping other gods". Since I believe God never said He was triune, for Christians to worship Him as such is blasphemy. ------------- Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162) |
Posted By: taoist
Date Posted: 19 June 2011 at 6:30pm
Here is a web site that i found to have some interesting angles on why the jews do not believe Jesus pbuh was the messiah . It is aish .com and the heading is " why the Jews do not believe in Jesus. Also has a short video by a Rabbi the helps explain it . Enjoy . 
------------- taoist |
Posted By: Larry
Date Posted: 19 June 2011 at 7:18pm
|
islamispeace,
I agree that there is a reference to honor killing in the Bible, my point was that it is not practiced by Jews or Christians, excepting a case or two such as the Palestinian Christian father whose actions reflect more of a Palestinian cultural idea than one of religion. There may not be any references to honor killing in the Qur'an or Sunnah but the practice is far from rare in any number of Islamic countries or tribes. I believe that this is a reflection of the cultural milieu I spoke of above. I came upon more prophecies concerning the Messiah, and the striking parallels in the life of Jesus Christ, in the Old Testament Book of Psalms. Psalms Chapter 2 expresses it clearly and concisely and in Psalm 22 there are references such as Verse 1; "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" which is a statement attributed to Jesus Christ while being crucified. Another is Verses 16-18; "For dogs have surrounded Me; The congregation of the wicked has enclosed Me. They pierced My hands and My feet; I can count all My bones. They look and stare at Me. They divide my garments among them, And for My clothing they cast lots." These prophecies were made in the time of King David a thousand years before the events prophesied. There are many such prophecies in the Old Testament akin to these and the corresponding events recorded in the New Testament are striking and very specific in character. You wrote that the Qur'an does mention SOME of Jesus' teachings. I wonder what the criteria was used to distinguish the true teachings from those that were considered "corruptions" of the words of Jesus? My point was that ANY teaching of Jesus that mentions or refers to His role as Messiah are summarily rejected, even though these teachings are central to the entire ministry of Jesus and cannot be simply ignored or dismissed as corrupted text, though in Islam this is exactly what occurs. The amount of "corruptions" that would need to occur in order for these revisionist views of the life and ministry of Jesus Christ, considered a true prophet in Islam, to be valid, would certainly be in the realm of fantasy and near-impossibility. Larry |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 20 June 2011 at 8:50pm
OK, I agree.
As with the other alleged "prophecies" that you have mentioned, when read in context, the verses are clearly not prophecies about certain events mentioned in the New Testament concerning Jesus (pbuh). For example, verse 2 states "My God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer". Would this suggest that Jesus' prayers were not answered by God? What about Luke 22? Also, if the psalm is actually speaking of future events about the Messiah, then according to verses 20 and 21 state that he should have been rescued: "Deliver me from the sword, my precious life from the power of the dogs. 21 Rescue me from the mouth of the lions; save me from the horns of the wild oxen. " Notice also that the verse specifically mentions "the sword" and not "the cross". Jesus (pbuh) was not killed by being pierced by swords was he? Rather, he was supposedly crucified, was he not? No where in the verse is crucifixion implied.
Actually, according to modern scholarship, the amount of corruptions is indeed very high. When referring to the extant manuscripts of the New Testament, Bart Ehrman stated: "Possibly it is easiest to put it in comparative terms: there are more differences among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament" (Misquoting Jesus, p. 10) Of course, many of these differences were due to mistakes in copying but a significant number were also due to deliberate changes. So, the corruption that the Quran says occurred has indeed been demonstrated by modern scholarship. ------------- Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162) |
Posted By: Larry
Date Posted: 20 June 2011 at 11:42pm
|
islamispeace,
You say that verses in Psalm 22 (when read in context) "are clearly not prophecies about certain events mentioned in the New Testament concerning Jesus(pbuh). "You say, "For example verse 2 states "My God I cry out by day, but You do not answer." You say that "Would this suggest that Jesus' prayers were not answered by God?" You quote, "verses 20 and 21 of Psalms 22 but you left the last line out of verse 22. It reads, "You have answered Me." Do you still believe that Jesus' prayers were "not answered"? According to Psalms 22:16-18 it is stated that "For dogs have surrounded Me; The congregation of the wicked has enclosesd Me. They pierced My hands and My feet. I can count all My bones. They look and stare at Me. They divide My garments among them, And for My clothing they cast lots." Luke 22:33-34 says, "And when they had come to the place called Calvary, there they crucified Him, and the criminals, one on the right hand and the other on the left. Then Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do. And they divided His garments and cast lots." Matthew 27:35-40,46, "Then they crucified Him, and divided His garments, casting lots, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet: "They divided my garments among them, And for my clothing they cast lots. Sitting down, they kept watch over Him there. And they put up over His head the accusation written against Him: THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS. Then two robbers were crucified with Him, one on the right and another on the left. And those who passed by blasphemed Him, wagging their heads and saying, "You who destroy the temple (Jesus has prophsied that within a generation of Him the temple would be totally destroyed to the point that "not one stone will be left atop another." And this happened exactly in 70 AD by the Roman General and future Emperor Titus following the Second Jewish Revolt), and build it in three days, save Yourself! If You are the Son of God, come down from the cross." Verse 46: "And in the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" that is, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" John 19:23-24, "Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took His garments and made four parts, to each soldier a part, and also the tunic. Now the tunic was without seam, woven from the top in one piece. They said therefore among themselves, "Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be," that the Scripture might be fulfilled which says; "They divided My garments among them, and for My clothing they cast lots." You said, "As with the other alleged "prophecies" that you have mentioned, when read in context, the verses are clearly not prophecies about certain events mentioned in the New Testament concetrning Jesus(pbuh)" Really? When Psalm 22 says; "Deliver Me from the sword, My precious life from the power of the dog" it refers to His death by violence. Jesus referred to this in Matthew Chapter 26:52 "But Jesus said to him (Peter), "Put your sword in it's place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword." Psalm 22:17, "I can count all my bones." John Chapter 19:31-34 says, "Therefore, because it was the Preparation Day, that the bodies should not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. Then the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and of the other who was crucified with Him. But when they came to Jesus and saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs. But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out. And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you may believe. For these things were done that the Scripture should be fulfilled, "Not one of His bones shall be broken." How you can state that prophecies made in the Old Testament were NOT fulfilled in the New Testament is beyond me. The prophecies were authentic because they were fulfilled a thousand years later almost word for word. As to your comments concerning the "corruption" of Biblical texts, you state; "Actually, according to modern scholarship, the amount of corruption is very high. What "modern scholarship" are you referring to SPECIFICALLY? You further state; "When referring to the extant manuscripts of the New Testament, Bart Ehrman stated: "Possibly it is easiest to put it into comparative terms: there are more differences among our mabnuscripts than there are words in the New Testament." You further state, "Of course, many of these differences were due to mistakes in copying but a significant number, (can you specify what constitutes a "significant" number?), were also due to deliberate changes. So, the corruption that the Quran says occurred has indeed been demonstrated by modern scholarship." I would like to know who "Bart Ehrman" is and what makes him such a highly recognized Biblical authority on the New Testament? I would need more than "Bart Ehrman's" opinions to support your statements that "modern scholarship" has shown that the Quran is right in saying that most of the New Testament is corrupt. The Quran HAS to believe and say that the Bible (specifically the New Testament) is corrupt because if it is not then the Quran would be the text that is the one that is corrupt. It always amuses me somewhat that the Quran, which uses the Old and New Testaments EXTENSIVELY in it's structure and background, now says that these very texts are the ones that are corrupt. It seems that, with all the connections between the Old and New Testaments in regard to prophecy and the fulfillments of these specific prophecies, that the Quran is indeed the text that has garbled and corrupted the Biblical texts, which have been extensively, and continuously, been the subject of intense and scholarly study by Jewish and Christian researchers. If the Bible was as "corrupted" as you say the Quran states, such evidence would be clear and compelling to any qualified scholarly research. You are making the statements concerning the "corruption" of the Biblical texts. it is up to YOU to show the proof of this using credible and scholarly works, including the Bible. Not just the ridiculous claims of Mr. Bart Ehrman, whoever he is, and the Quran. Peace to you, Larry |
Posted By: Matt Browne
Date Posted: 21 June 2011 at 12:06am
|
Thanks for the clarification, Islamispeace. I'm glad to hear this! ------------- A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 21 June 2011 at 4:12pm
Good! We are making progress! ------------- Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162) |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 22 June 2011 at 4:01pm
Sorry Larry, but where in verse 22 does it say "You have answered me"? I am using the NIV from biblegateway.com and verse 22 says the following: "I will declare your name to my people; in the assembly I will praise you." No where does it say "You have answered me". So, I reiterate my initial argument. Luke 22 states that when Jesus prayed, an angel appeared and "strengthened" him. More on this verse in the section about corruption.
Yes, really. You have not actually responded to the points I raised. You have simply repeated the same out of context verses. What I am saying is that these verses are part of a series of verses which are to be read together. And when they are read together, it becomes obvious that they cannot possibly refer to the events of the New Testament. Psalm 22 is simply a long prayer, not a prophecy. When you pick and choose verses out of context, you can make them appear to be saying something they are not.
But if this was a prophecy about Jesus' crucifixion, would it not make sense to mention something related to crucifixion? Replace the word "sword" with "cross" and you have a much clearer connection. Furthermore, there is no reference to an actual death. The verses simply implore God to save the person saying the prayer. They describe the danger the person faces but they do not actually say that the person is killed. At most, they suggest the person is wounded and in pain, but they do not say that he is killed.
How is "I can count all my bones" a fulfillment of John 19? The verse "Not one of his bones shall be broken" is actually a reference to Psalm 34, not Psalm 22. When we read Psalm 34, the same problems arise as with Psalm 22. The verse is part of a series of verses which must be read in context.
Simple. When read in context, it is obvious they are not prophecies at all. Also, most of the verses which Christians appeal to are always part of a larger group of verses. If they were talking about events which the NT describes, the entire group would apply, not just some of them.
I am referring to the scholarship which has demonstrated that there are many changes and alterations which have been made in the extant manuscripts of the New Testament. I have already mentioned Bart Ehrman, who is a noted authority on the New Testament.
Bart Ehrman is a New Testament scholar. He is a professor of religious studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. You can learn more here: http://www.bartdehrman.com/ - http://www.bartdehrman.com/ If you want specific examples, I recommend you read his book "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why". I can give you a few specific examples of corruption that has occurred, if you want. In fact, I mentioned Luke 22 above. This is one example of an addition that was made to the original text. Specifically, verse 43 and 44 are absent from the earliest surviving manuscripts. The NIV attests to this as well. So does Ehrman. The verses state: "43 An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him. 44 And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground. #fen-NIV-25909c - [ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2022&version=NIV#fen-NIV-25909c - c ]" The footnote in the NIV says the following: "Many early manuscripts do not have verses 43 and 44." http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2022&version=NIV#fen-NIV-25909c - [1] The New American Bible also attests to this. In a footnote on these verses, it states: "These verses, though very ancient, were probably not part of the original text of Luke. They are absent from the oldest papyrus manuscripts of Luke and from manuscripts of wide geographical distribution." http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/luke/luke22.htm#foot14 - [2] This is just one example. There are many more, some which are much more disturbing.
But the fact of the matter is that the Quran is correct in this case. The Bible has indeed been corrupted by anonymous hands. The Quran does refer many times to the biblical stories. However, one of the purposes of the Quran is to correct the errors and corruptions of the past. That is why it mentions the stories of the prophets and other biblical figures. It is trying to set the record straight.
You still have not provided conclusive evidence of any specific prophecies. So far, all you have done is to bring gabled verses and call them "prophecies". My contention is that these are not prophecies, because if they were, then they certainly do not refer to the NT events as they are part of a group of verses which are to be read in context.
It appears to me that you have not actually studied the history of the New Testament's compilation. If you did, you would at least have heard about scholars like Bart Ehrman. This guy is notorious among believing Christians. He has debated leading Christian figures like James White and is well-known among scholarly circles. ------------- Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162) |
Posted By: Larry
Date Posted: 22 June 2011 at 10:56pm
|
islamispeace,
I use the New King James Bible. It is a much better and more accurate translation than the NIV. As to "Bart Ehrman". Wow, he is a "New Testament Scholar" and "a professor of religious studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill." Well who could argue with a "professor" from a prestigious school in North Carolina? Not exactly Harvard or Yale is it? "This guy (Ehrman) is notorious among believing Christians." I'm sure he is, being "notorious" is not usually the hallmark of a serious Biblical scholar. I wonder, are "believing Christians" the same as "believing Muslims"? The rest of your response is your typical drivel. Talking to you is like talking to a wall, but in the wall's case at least it has an excuse for ignorance, you don't. Find someone else to display your lack of understanding about Christianity. You have become boring and predictable and your Biblical literalism is embarrassing in it's naivete. Your constant misuse of "in context" is a poor excuse for avoiding the subject. I have better ways to waste my time. Larry |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 24 June 2011 at 11:54am
Oh here we go again! Larry, were you not the one who said:
Why do you not practice what you preach? Hypocrisy is a major sin, you know. By the way, how old are you? I am just curious because sometimes it seems like I am talking to a 10-year old. Just saying... Your most recent comment only strengthens my previous assertion that there is no Christian on this forum who is capable of having a reasonable discussion. You are very quick to get angry and whiny like a little child. I wonder if this is due to my "ignorance" or to yours?
What do you base this on? How is the NKJV better than the NIV or any other translation? Not even the original KJV has this passage. It is obviously a later addition.
Seriously Larry, how old are you? UNC at Chapel Hill is a respected university whether you like it or not. For you to attack Ehrman's credentials and his education is more a reflection on your own insecurities than it is on Ehrman's "ignorance". I can see a pattern developing here. Whenever someone disagrees with you or makes an argument that you cannot answer, you immediately accuse the person of "ignorance" or question his credentials. Bravo!
He is "notorious" because Bible-believing Christians such as yourself lampoon him for not believing what they believe. Like you, they attack his credentials or his motives rather than his arguments. It is nothing more than childish ad hominem attacks.
Oh oh, somebody's angry! What happened to "let's soften the tone"? It is painfully obvious that you are incapable of having a cordial, rational, mature discussion nor do you practice what you preach. Whatever makes you feel better about yourself, more power to you. It must be that I am "ignorant". OK, whatever you say. On a more serious note, is there any Christian here who is capable of having a conversation without getting all angry, upset and whiny? Larry is obviously not capable. Anyone? Don't be shy. Raise your voice. ------------- Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162) |
Posted By: Larry
Date Posted: 25 June 2011 at 1:07am
|
islamispeace,
Anyone who does not support your revisionist ideas and beliefs concerning the "corruption" of Biblical texts is "angry, upset and whiny" in your world. I stand by my previous statements. If you don't like them then don't read them. I have no interest in dealing with, or responding to, your personal opinions and beliefs masquerading as the "truth." Of the three theological texts, the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur'an, it is the Old and New Testaments that relate perfectly to each other and reveal prophetic truths. The Qur'an is the only book that finds "corruptions" in the Bible. And as I have stated before, I find it amusing that the Qur'an takes what it wants from the Old and New Testaments and rejects as "corrupt" any texts that do not coincide with it's own teachings and beliefs. The various contradictory statements in the Qur'an detailing the proper relations between "the People of the Book" and Islam are a case in point. Please find someone else to harangue with your personal opinions and beliefs because I find them tedious and verbose. I am sure that you can find someone who agrees with your contentions. I am not one of them. Larry |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 25 June 2011 at 3:31pm
Larry, I am not the one going around accusing people of being "ignorant". I am not the one starting a conversation and then abruptly ending it not once but twice! I can't understand what you are even doing here. If you see this as a waste of time, then why do you keep coming back? Help me to understand. I reiterate that you are obviously a very immature individual. You get upset very quickly but pretend like you want everyone to cool down and discuss the issues in a cordial manner. That is truly pathetic. But anyway, I won't hold you. Go do what you feel is not a "waste of time". I will not be expecting any further from you on this or other threads. Hopefully, someone else who is not such a whiner will take your place. ------------- Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162) |
Posted By: Larry
Date Posted: 26 June 2011 at 12:56am
|
islamispeace,
Whether or not you are "expecting" anything from me on this or other threads is your business and is quite immaterial to me. I will participate in whatever forums or conversations that I please with or without your approval. And you're right, you are not the one calling people "ignorant." You are the one calling people "immature" "pathetic" and "whiner" etc. But the "major sin" of hypocrisy seems to suit you and coincides exactly with your self-centered demeanor. Spare me your self righteous indignation. Larry |