CHRISTIANS:WOULD YOU KILL A SUCKLING?

Hi Honeto,   

Quote: �so according to your book, God ordered killings of man and women who do not believe as you do.�

Response: --- By now you will have read my response to Islam.
However, I want to ask you, �What is written in your book?�

Surah 6:6 See they not how many of those before them We did destroy? - generations We had established on the earth, in strength such as We have not given to you - for whom We poured out rain from the skies in abundance, and gave (fertile) streams flowing beneath their (feet): yet for their sins We destroyed them, and raised in their wake fresh generations (to succeed them).
10:13 We destroyed the generations before you when they did wrong; and their messengers (from Allah) came unto them with clear proofs (of His Sovereignty) but they would not believe. Thus do We reward the guilty folk.
17:16 When We decide to destroy a population, We (first) send a definite order to those among them who are given the good things of this life and yet transgress; so that the word is proved true against them: then (it is) We destroy them utterly.
18:59 And (all) those townships! We destroyed them when they did wrong, and We appointed a fixed time for their destruction.
21:95 And there is a ban upon any community which We have destroyed: that they shall not return.
22:45 How many a township have We destroyed while it was sinful, so that it lieth (to this day) in ruins, and (how many) a deserted well and lofty tower!
25:36 Then We said: Go together unto the folk who have denied Our revelations. Then We destroyed them, a complete destruction.
25:39 To each one We set forth Parables and examples; and each one We broke to utter annihilation (for their sins).
29:31 When Our Apostles came to Abraham with the good news, they said: "We are indeed going to destroy the people of this township: for truly they are (addicted to) crime."
29:40 Each one of them We seized for his crime: of them, against some We sent a violent tornado (with showers of stones); some were caught by a (mighty) Blast; some We caused the earth to swallow up; and some We drowned (in the waters): It was not Allah Who injured (or oppressed) them: They injured (and oppressed) their own souls.
32:26 Does it not teach them a lesson, how many generations We destroyed before them, in whose dwellings they (now) go to and fro? Verily in that are Signs: Do they not then listen?
38:3 How many generations before them did We destroy? In the end they cried (for mercy)- when there was no longer time for being saved!
50:36 But how many generations before them did We destroy (for their sins), - stronger in power than they? Then did they wander through the land: was there any place of escape (for them)?

God was merciful and gave them warning, or an example, --- but sin reaches a limit, --- and that is what is coming again, is it not?


Placid

islamispeace wrote: This is the first time I have heard a Christian actually claim that this was not genocide.� All I can say is...wow.� Apparently, it is not genocide when you kill off entire cities and nations, slaughtering even the children and babies!� What is it if not genocide...?By the way, the genocide started with Moses (pbuh) and was continued by his successors, including Joshua.� What was that you said about reading the Bible carefully to see what it actually says?�

The position is that the Bible does describe events where large numbers are killed. In many cases one can rationalise what is done but that i think is unwise and the premier emotion is one of sorrow. But in Christian and Jewish theology we say those stories are closed, that is we acknowledge they happened but they are not examples to be followed. We may read the stories and there may be lessons we can learn but that is all.

In Islam there have been many genocides from the massacre of the Jews in medina to Darfur. The question is do Muslims feel a deep sence of sorrow for these events and/or use them as examples to follow?


Edited by bunter - 29 November 2012 at 1:54pm

Mahdi The Seeke wrote: islamispeace wrote: Placid, your response is a typical Christian response.  First, you say that "loving God and loving your neighbor as yourself" is the way to go, yet at the same time, you cannot bring yourself around to categorically condemn the horrific genocide in the land of Canaan that the Bible claims God (Jesus, in your view) commanded.  Also, it wasn't just the Amalekites which were "annihilated".  It was also the Midianites...and the Hittites...and the Amorites...and the Perizzites...and so on...What I find even more ironic is the fact that the same Christians who so enthusiastically defend the Biblically-sanctioned genocide also have the audacity to actually criticize the prophet Muhammad (pbuh) for fighting against his enemies and killing them!  Yet, Muhammad (pbuh) did not kill women, children, the elderly, or farm animals!  I don't know if you are one of these Christians, but it is an all too common hypocrisy amongst many of your brethren.  somebody should add a like button in this forum

Jazak Allah Khair, brother. 

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

Caringheart, you said:

Greetings Islamispeace, I appreciate all that you have said.

Well that's great, but did you understand and contemplate the simple truth or did you cast it aside like so many others?  Let' see.

Caringheart wrote: 15 The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; 16 For this is what you asked of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said, �Let us not hear the voice of the Lord our God nor see this great fire anymore, or we will die.� 17 And the Lord said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken. 18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. 19 I myself will call to account anyone who does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name. 20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.  (Deuteronomy 18, I have used both KJV and NIV to make reading easier without detracting from the true message) and Deuteronomy 34 10 Since then, no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face, 11 who did all those signs and wonders the Lord sent him to do in Egypt�to Pharaoh and to all his officials and to his whole land. 12 For no one has ever shown the mighty power or performed the awesome deeds that Moses did in the sight of all Israel.  ... until Jesus.  Jesus is this "new thing" which God decides to do, because the people asked for it. 37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.� 39 Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.  - the words of Jesus.

This is all irrelevant, as I said before.  None of this changes the fact that from your point of view, it was Jesus who would have been the one to have ordered the Israelites to commit genocide and infanticide.  Pontificating on a "New Covenant" does not erase the legacy of genocide.

Caringheart wrote: You are correct, and this is why so many people reject religion... reject the notion of God. and as I said... "Most followers of Jesus also have trouble reconciling with what went on in the old testament... but that is why they do not follow the old testament but the Gospel... the new covenant."

But the point is that it should not have to be this way!  God is good, not evil.  The Biblical stories of genocide are evil.  Therefore, they could not have been the result of God's command.  In short, God did not command the Israelites to commit genocide.  This is a lie against God which the Judeo-Christian tradition has perpetuated for centuries. 

Caringheart wrote: Honestly... yes, I am.  I only accept Moses because it was the first appearance of God to the people, and then in the later scriptures, more than once, God says that He is revealing that He will do a new thing, and it will not be understood until its time arrives.

I expected this sort of answer..self-contradictory.  You say you are critical of Moses (pbuh) but then you say that you still "accept" him because it was God's "first appearance".  How can you criticize him yet still "accept" him?  More importantly, how can you be critical of him if he was only doing the will of God?

Caringheart wrote: I believe in Jesus as the new covenant... that God of the old testament and of the first followers... i.e., Abraham et.al. ... God of the old testament was a God who visited His wrath, time and again, on His people, and it did no good...

 

"It did no good..."??  Then why did God do it?  Wouldn't He have known that it would do "no good"?  Are you accusing God of incompetence, astagfirAllah?  Be careful you do not blaspheme His Holy Name.

Caringheart wrote: so yes, I believe God was doing just as He said He would do... He was "doing a new thing" when He decided to come to the people in human form, to show rather than His wrath, but the depth of His Love.  It is this Love that leads the followers of Jesus to God.  'Greater love has no one than this... that he lay down his life for another.'  It is in seeing this great love in the sacrifice God made for us that we are led to Love in return, and Love leads one into obedience, out of a desire not to cause hurt to the One who loves us so much.

What good is this gesture of "love" when:

1.  For centuries prior, there was only "wrath", pain and violence;

2.  In the end, all who rejected God will once again experience His "wrath"?

Furthermore, how can any of us "hurt" God?  As the Quran says, God does not need us.  Rather, it is us who need Him:

"O ye men! It is ye that have need of Allah: but Allah is the One Free of all wants, worthy of all praise." (3:15)

Therefore, whether we accept Him or not, He does not need anything from us.  We reject Him to our own detriment. 

Caringheart wrote: Your comparisons are like comparing apples with oranges because it does not compare the word of the torah with the word of the quran.

Well of course it is "like comparing apples with oranges"!  That's what I was saying!  There is no comparison between the two. 

And contrary to your claim, I was comparing the "Word of the [alleged] Torah" and the "Word of the Quran".  The verses describing the genocide are from the alleged Torah.

Caringheart wrote: And regardless of what was said, the followers of Muhammad did the things boldened above.  Muhammad was well known for conquering and taking the conquered as slaves.

 

And that bothers you...but what Moses did is somehow justified?  Wow...

Also, let me just correct you for more of your absurd claims regarding Muhammad (pbuh).  He conquered his enemies, not innocent people, unlike the Moses of the Bible.  Moreover, he did not kill women and children, unlike the Moses of the Bible.  How you have any reason to complain about Muhammad (pbuh) is beyond comprehension. 

Caringheart wrote: What I mean by Muhammad revives the old testament ways is the 'eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth', kind of thinking.

Actually, the Quran declares that when God revealed the true Torah to the Jews, it included a stipulation to the "an eye for an eye" maxim:

"We ordained therein for them: "Life for life, eye for eye, nose or nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal." But if any one remits the retaliation by way of charity, it is an act of atonement for himself. And if any fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (No better than) wrong-doers." (2:45)

So, while God allowed the victims of injustice to demand justice, He also stipulated that it was best to forgive, because forgiveness would atone for their own sins.  This teaching was also applied to Muslims:

"The recompense for an injury is an injury equal thereto (in degree): but if a person forgives and makes reconciliation, his reward is due from Allah: for (Allah) loveth not those who do wrong." (42:40)

There is also a famous hadith of the Prophet which stipulates the importance of forgiveness:

"Mu�adh ibn Anas reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said, �The best of virtues is that you maintain relations with one who cuts you off, that you give to one who deprives you, and that you pardon one who insults you.�" (Musnad Ahmad, Number 15191)

Caringheart wrote: To some extent Muhammad understood mercy, but not entirely.  He was willing not to kill, but to subjugate.  This was also to his benefit since he could then collect taxes from those whom he subjugated.  You can't collect anything from a dead man.  So we can question his motivation.

This is more nonsense.  It is well-known that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) lived a simple life of poverty and gave away all his possessions to others.  So, if he was interested in acquiring wealth which was at his fingertips, giving it away would not be prudent.  Here is the proof that his "motivation" was not wealth, as you so ignorantly assumed:

"Narrated 'Amr bin Al-Harith: The Prophet did not leave anything (after his death) except his arms, a white mule, and a (piece of) land which he had given as Sadaqa." (Sahih Bukhari, Book 53, Number 330)

"Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah Apostle said, "If I had gold equal to the mountain of Uhud, it would not please me that anything of it should remain with me after three nights (i.e., I would spend all of it in Allah's Cause) except what I would keep for repaying debts."" (Sahih Bukhari, Book 76, Number 452)

"Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "Riches does not mean, having a great amount of property, but riches is self-contentment."" (Sahih Bukhari, Book 76, Number 453)

"Narrated 'Aisha: The bed mattress of the Prophet was made of a leather case stuffed with palm fibres." (Sahih Bukhari, Book 76, Number 463)

Also, if you were more knowledgeable about the tax that the Prophet took from non-Muslims, you would know that it was only taken from males, not women and children.  Therefore, if taxes were his motivation for not killing women and children, as you claim, then there is no reason he would not have killed them! 

Caringheart wrote: I am not saying I have the answer, but I do know that the things he did are questionable.

You certainly don't have the answers because of your ignorance and bias. 

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

I can see you are getting more and more desperate to make Muhammad (pbuh) seem just as bloodthirsty as the Moses of the Bible, whom you hypocritically accept.  Here is what the Quran actually says:

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

"But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things)."  (8:61)

I think we can see a pattern emerging in your posts.  You know nothing about Islam or the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and you make accusations which you don't actually support with solid evidence. 

Caringheart wrote: "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them�bring them here and kill them in front of me." (Luke 19:27)" Yes, I have a problem with that scripture.  Let it also be noted that none of the Apostles acted in this way.  In fact Jesus reprimanded Peter for cutting of the ear of one who came to arrest Jesus. I honestly can not understand the 'Gill's exposition'.  If I can find the time and energy to delve into it at another time I will.

The point is that this "New Covenant" has an expiration date.  After this, says the Bible, Jesus will revert to the old ways and will command his followers (which includes you) to kill all who reject him.  Therefore, this "love" you speak of is not for all times and it is conditional.

And Allah knows best.

Walaikum as-salaam.