Comparing religions

[skiguy]

This is mostly to satisfy curiosity. Is there any section of the Qur'an that has any similarities to Jesus's sermon on the mount? Or is it just a case of digging and finding particular verses/passages?
Thanks

[Danny]

No. No similar ideas or strictures.

[Sarajevo071]

The Last Sermon of Prophet Muhammad (SAW)

After praising, and thanking God he said:

"O People, lend me an attentive ear, for I know not whether after this year, I shall ever be amongst you again. Therefore listen to what I am saying to you very carefully and take these words to those who could not be present here today.

O People, just as you regard this month, this day, this city as Sacred, so regard the life and property of every Muslim as a sacred trust. Return the goods entrusted to you to their rightful owners. Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you. Remember that you will indeed meet your Lord, and that He will indeed reckon your deeds. God has forbidden you to take usury (interest), therefore all interest obligation shall henceforth be waived. Your capital, however, is yours to keep. You will neither inflict nor suffer any inequity. God has judged that there shall be no interest and that all the interest due to Abbas ibn 'Abd'al Muttalib (Prophet's uncle) shall henceforth be waived...

Beware of Satan, for the safety of your religion. He has lost all hope that he will ever be able to lead you astray in big things, so beware of following him in small things.

O People, it is true that you have certain rights with regard to your women, but they also have rights over you. Remember that you have taken them as your wives only under God's trust and with His permission. If they abide by your right then to them belongs the right to be fed and clothed in kindness. Do treat your women well and be kind to them for they are your partners and committed helpers. And it is your right that they do not make friends with any one of whom you do not approve, as well as never to be unchaste.

O People, listen to me in earnest, worship God, say your five daily prayers (Salah), fast during the month of Ramadan, and give your wealth in Zakat. Perform Hajj if you can afford to.

All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action. Learn that every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood. Nothing shall be legitimate to a Muslim which belongs to a fellow Muslim unless it was given freely and willingly. Do not, therefore, do injustice to yourselves.

Remember, one day you will appear before God and answer your deeds. So beware, do not stray from the path of righteousness after I am gone.

O People, no prophet or apostle will come after me and no new faith will be born. Reason well, therefore, O People, and understand words which I convey to you. I leave behind me two things, the Quran and my example, the Sunnah and if you follow these you will never go astray.

All those who listen to me shall pass on my words to others and those to others again; and may the last ones understand my words better than those who listen to me directly. Be my witness, O God, that I have conveyed your message to your people".

http://islamfortoday.com/lastsermon.htm

=======================================
The The Farewell Sermon (Arabic: خطبة الوداع, Khutbatul Wada), also known as the Prophet's final sermon, is a famous sermon by Muhammad, the final prophet of traditional Islam, delivered before his death, on the ninth day of Dhu al-Hijjah, 10 A.H. (632 CE), at the end of his first and final pilgrimage.
=======================================

[Danny]

Go back and re-read Matthew 5. This isn't even close.

[Sarajevo071]

First, I did not say it is same.

Second, have no intention reading Bible anymore. Once was enough to find holes and not to accept.

BTW, if you find the real one, original, the one that Vatican rejected since it was against Church centralize power and financial empire they created, tell me. That one I will read.

Last sermon of the Last Prophet have also deep meaning and good message for those who can read and wish to know:


All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action.

[slapout9]

Hi Sarajevo, that is some interesting stuff about muslim beliefs on usury(interest rates) never new that was in there. Some of you may know if this is true or not, but isn't there a section of the bible that says every 50 years there was a year of jubilee and all debtors were released from their debts?

[Pat]

Sarajevo071

He asked if there was anything similar in the Qu'an, this last sermon is not in the Qu'an (or if it is give me the Surah.)

Skiguy

No, there is nothing in the Koran that is similar to the sermon on the mount. There are places where the rewards of charity are mentioned.

If you are looking for something more global, well whoever wrote the Koran had to have known something about the Torah and about Christian teachings. Examples are Jesus is mentioned and so is Joseph, and there are other examples of knowledge of the Torah.

[Sarajevo071]

You are right but how could be!? Bible was written after Jesus (saw) died and there was many different version and modifications, changes if you will. On the other hand, Kur'an was reviled and finished while Muhammad (saw) was still alive. No one heaved the right to changed or modified it. Any Prophet's sermon was regarded like message from God therefore have same importance like it is in the Kur'an.

Simple put, they can not be same, or similar, message in both Books since one Book was written by people who recorded Prophet's words and action before he died on the cross and then by they memories of him and other Book was written in order and ways how was reveled. And if you will, major difference would be that Bible was written BY people about extraordinary man and other was revealed TO the extraordinary man.

Second thing you mention is also simple... Jesus (Isa S.A.W.) and Abraham (S.A.W.), and Torah and early Bible scripts and well known and well respected people and Books. It is the SAME blood line of God's Prophets and ALL of them are loved and respected by Muslims. So it is normal that you can find elements of this or that in Kur'an (like you can find elements of Zoroastrianism in Bible). In the beginning of Kur'an is clearly said that that Kur'an and Islam is newest and final revalation of the SAME God's message. Same message that was revealed in Torah and Bible but people refused to listen and respect it.

Sorry for being this long but I just tried to explain what I tried to say with first post here.

[Sarajevo071]

Yes. That's also there. And many other things that would surprise you.

BTW, interest rates are major (some would say only major) difference between western and islamic banking/monetary systems.

[skiguy]

Sarajevo, thanks. Although not exactly the same as the sermon on the mount, their are many similarities.

[marct]

Hi Sarajevo,


BTW, if you find the real one, original, the one that Vatican rejected since it was against Church centralize power and financial empire they created, tell me. That one I will read.

Great posts - thanks. There actually is no "original bible, certainly not in the sense of the Qu'ran being "original". The earliest of he surviving gospels is the Gospel of Thomas, written probably about 10-15 years after Jesus death. There is a reconstructed "text", called the Q text, that is an attempt to reconstruct the original sayings upon which the Gospels were based.

You're actually wrong about how the current versions (there are two main versions and several minor variants) of the Bible came into existence. It wasn't with the church centralizing power, it was with the Emperor Constantine forcing a new state religion into existence by combining various strands of Christianity and Mithraism in the early 4th century. The Roman Church only started to really grab centralized power after the dissolution of the Western Empire in the 5th century and the creation of the fake Will of Constantine.

If you want to read some of the excluded books, most have been published in one form or another. The earliest is the Gospel of Thomas, while most of the rest are in the Nag Hamadi Library (a few may also be in the Dead Sea Scrolls, but that is highly questionable).

[skiguy]

Don't know all that much about "original" OT translations, but Paul's letters are considered by many of the original church to be the "first" NT. (he wrote them long before the Catholic empire started and before churches became, to their detriment, large organizations)

[marct]

HiSkiguy,


Don't know all that much about "original" OT translations, but Paul's letters are considered by many of the original church to be the "first" NT. (he wrote them long before the Catholic empire started and before churches became, to their detriment, large organizations)

It depends on which of Paul's letters you are considering. Galatians was probably written around 52 or so, and most scholars would agree that at least 3, and maybe 5, of Paul's letters weren't written by him. It's also important to note that Jesus didn't write anything, so everything in the NT was written after his death. The general division is into Gospels, Letters and Other, crossed by which "Church" or lineage wrote them (e.g. Paul's stuff, which also includes the Gospel of John and the three Johanine Letters, the Lukan series, etc.).

As far as the "original" church is concerned, and by that I mean the Church in Jerusalem pre-Jewish Revolt, Paul was an interloper and upstart who had no "right" to preach what he did. Nowadays, many people do consider Paul to be a founder of the Church, but that certainly wasn't the attitude of most Christians in the first couple of centuries.

[skiguy]

I have to disagree, Marc. Most of the early (pre AD 60) churches, such as those in Ephesus, Thessalonica etc, did accept Paul as one of the messengers of the gospel. If there was any argument about Paul's authority, it was over whether or not the gospel was meant for the Gentiles as well as the Jews.
Yes, the Gospels (and the rest of the NT) were written after Jesus's death, but the gospel writers were all eye witnesses of His ministry. Speculation here, it wouldn't surpirse me if Luke (the Dr.) kept a journal, seeing how specific he was in his writing.

[marct]

I have to disagree, Marc. Most of the early (pre AD 60) churches, such as those in Ephesus, Thessalonica etc, did accept Paul as one of the messengers of the gospel. If there was any argument about Paul's authority, it was over whether or not the gospel was meant for the Gentiles as well as the Jews.

It's certainly open to debate. Most of Paul's churches weren't accepted by the Church in Jerusalem for exactly the reason you listed. I wouldn't call them "original" partly for that reason, and partly because Paul wasn't a first hand witness. I tend to think of them as a set of "first round expansion teams" to use a hockey analogy ;).


Yes, the Gospels (and the rest of the NT) were written after Jesus's death, but the gospel writers were all eye witnesses of His ministry. Speculation here, it wouldn't surpirse me if Luke (the Dr.) kept a journal, seeing how specific he was in his writing.

There is some really serious question about the Gospel of John beingn written by an eye witness. Most of the non-conservative theologians I know or have read tend to place it fairly late, say ~85-95, and generally conclude that it wasn't written by the disciple of that name. At least when I studied it, the general agreement was that the Johanine community derived from Paul's churches rather than from John. I'll agree with you on the synoptics, however.

[skiguy]

Yes, definitely debatable...as is most everything in the Bible. (the authorship and dating of the NT probably being one of the bigger debates)
I'll just leave it at this: there's a big difference between studying the bible (or any religious text) for scholarly purposes, and studying it because you believe it.

The original question was because I think there are a lot of moral similarities between the 2 religions, and those similarities can be used for peacekeeping. Just wondering if Sarajevo would agree.

[wm]

More to the point raised by Sarajevo is the divine nature of all the texts. The Gospel of John may have been written by Mary Magdalene's great grandson or some out-of-work wino sitting in the ruins of Jerusalem after the Bar Kochba revolt. I submit that the wielder of the writing instrument does not really matter. The important issue is whether the works are the revealed word of a supreme deity. This claim is differentially made for the Koran and for the elements of the Bible, including the Apocrypha and the so-called Gnostic gospels, among others. It is likewise made for the Book of Mormon and the Eleusian Mysteries, to list a very small sampling of a very long list of foundational religious texts. Can any of us refute these claims? The claims of faith are not usually subject to refutation using rational argumentation.

[marct]

Hi Wayne,


Can any of us refute these claims? The claims of faith are not usually subject to refutation using rational argumentation.

A good point. Of course, that still leaves open their refutation by irrational arguments - something that was certainly the case with many of these texts.

[wm]

Hey Marc,

. Of course, that still leaves open their refutation by irrational arguments - something that was certainly the case with many of these texts. Irrational argument--isn't that an oxymoron? Or did you mean to use that as a polite euphemism for "knuckles" and associated exercises of brute force? :D

[marct]

Hi Wayne,


Hey Marc,
Irrational argument--isn't that an oxymoron? Or did you mean to use that as a polite euphemism for "knuckles" and associated exercises of brute force? :D

I was thinking more along the lines of "God says..." or "credo qua absurdam est", but the knuckle dusting refs will do as well ;).

[wm]

Marc,

I was thinking more along the lines of "God says..." or "credo qua absurdam est", but the knuckle dusting refs will do as well ;).

The argumentum ad verecundiam or appeal to (false) authority is an example of the exercise of brute force; at least that's how I have taught it in critical reasoning classes. By the same token, in the argumentum ad batulum , that stick is a false authority, as is the insult in the argumentum ad hominem, wouldn't you agree?

[marct]

Hi Wayne,


The argumentum ad verecundiam or appeal to (false) authority is an example of the exercise of brute force; at least that's how I have taught it in critical reasoning classes. By the same token, in the argumentum ad batulum , that stick is a false authority, as is the insult in the argumentum ad hominem, wouldn't you agree?

This, of course, gets us into the nature of truth - something I try not to get into unless it's face to face with a tangential discussion of optics :D. Anyway, I've got to run... I'm singing Mozart's Requiem tonight.

[SteveMetz]

Hi Wayne,



This, of course, gets us into the nature of truth - something I try not to get into unless it's face to face with a tangential discussion of optics :D. Anyway, I've got to run... I'm singing Mozart's Requiem tonight.

Are you wearing your Salieri costume?

[marct]

Are you wearing your Salieri costume?

To quote Mozart


:p

[Sarajevo071]

Hi Sarajevo,
If you want to read some of the excluded books, most have been published in one form or another. The earliest is the Gospel of Thomas, while most of the rest are in the Nag Hamadi Library (a few may also be in the Dead Sea Scrolls, but that is highly questionable).

I did have in mind Dead Sea Scrolls but I forget they actual name (I thought they call them differently!?). They are highly controversial, right? Like Mary Magdalene's, Gnostic gospels (like someone mention them before) or even Juda's?

[Sarajevo071]

The original question was because I think there are a lot of moral similarities between the 2 religions, and those similarities can be used for peacekeeping. Just wondering if Sarajevo would agree.

And Sarajevo wonders why didn't you ask him that directly!?

To save you that hassle of talking to me (obviously you are not big fan of it) let me answer... Do I agree? Yes, I do. But how, when and under which circumstances?! That's something else.

[marct]

I did have in mind Dead Sea Scrolls but I forget they actual name (I thought they call them differently!?). They are highly controversial, right?

There also sometimes called the Qumran Library and, yes, quite controversial. I've read most of them and, to me at least, they don't appear to be Christian (I'm not an expert, and I've only read them in translation). If you are more interested in the Christian (influenced) books, I would go for the Nag Hamadi Library.

If you are interested in the general topic of early Christian writing, and some of it is very good, you might want to track down Origen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen), Clement of Alexandria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_of_Alexandria) and Augustine of Hippo Regis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo) (way too prolific for my taste and I have his philosophy - still, very interesting in understanding the later development of Christianity).

[Sarajevo071]

THANK you marct on you responses and reading recommendations. You will keep be busy for some time.
;)

[marct]

Do I agree? Yes, I do. But how, when and under which circumstances?! That's something else.

I agree, it really does change things. So, when do you think it would be a good idea, and when not?

[Sarajevo071]

Generally speaking (we are speaking generally, right?) it will depend who is in question, where, when and why? But I would say not before killings are stooped, invasions are halted, fair reparations are made and respect and trust is gain back... Without that you will have just bunch of people screaming on each others, accusing them for this and that, defending they of guilty sides and spiting on opposites.

This is just my personal opinion from top of my head this night. For something more precise or deeper (!?) I will need to get back to you. Sorry. :wry:

[marct]

Generally speaking (we are speaking generally, right?) it will depend who is in question, where, when and why? But I would say not before killings are stooped, invasions are halted, fair reparations are made and respect and trust is gain back... Without that you will have just bunch of people screaming on each others, accusing them for this and that, defending they of guilty sides and spiting on opposites.

Yup - I think we are best off using the general right now. Hmm, okay, I can see why you would say that. I was thinking that it has been used during actual conflicts (I'll try and get the refs, but a couple of places in Africa and Northern Ireland come to mind) as a way to stop the conflict.


This is just my personal opinion from top of my head this night. For something more precise or deeper (!?) I will need to get back to you. Sorry. :wry:

No worries - I'm pretty much done for the night myself (too much work, too little sleep), Take care,

Marc

[Sarajevo071]

Yup - I think we are best off using the general right now. Hmm, okay, I can see why you would say that. I was thinking that it has been used during actual conflicts (I'll try and get the refs, but a couple of places in Africa and Northern Ireland come to mind) as a way to stop the conflict.

No need to go far like Africa. Stay closer. Bosnia? Or, since you mention Northern Ireland... Didn't they need for talks to start (and results to shown) new people in charge, different mentalities and let down in fighting (attacks)? IMO, generally speaking something need to really change so people will start thinking about peace and not about revenge for they killed and wrongs they suffer. Do you believe that one can have talks/conversations about peace and mutual understanding while attacks/invasion/war is still going strong?! I am not so sure.

[skiguy]

Do you believe that one can have talks/conversations about peace and mutual understanding while attacks/invasion/war is still going strong?! I am not so sure.

That's probably when it's the most important time to have talks.

[goesh]

It's in the eye of the beholder, comparisons and analogies, with any of the major religious texts. The real bright spot in Islamic thinking are the Sufis, many of whom will accomodate broad interpretation and application but we are ignoring some basics in this discussion. Assuming monotheistic orientation and with no taint of agnosticism/healthy skepticism, it is the ritual and manner said texts are approached, handled and read that imparts the real message. Lustration is the key, the ritual most ignore, part our missing 'juju'. Pecking the keyboard to read Al Qu'ran or the Upanishads or the Bible in no way compares to ritual application of the real thing. We in the West have blended the spiritual and the intellectual for some time now but at what cost is better addressed in other threads.

[wm]

There If you are interested in the general topic of early Christian writing, and some of it is very good, you might want to track down Origen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen), Clement of Alexandria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_of_Alexandria) and Augustine of Hippo Regis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo) (way too prolific for my taste and I have his philosophy - still, very interesting in understanding the later development of Christianity).

In the same vein regarding early Christian writing, I heartily suggest a long look through the contents of this website (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/). Some big names to consider besides those provided by MarcT are Irenaeaus, Justin Martyr, Polycarp of Smyrna, Tertullian, and Jerome. IMO, the later (post 3rd C AD) writers are much less interesting in their broad content and much more interesting because of the minuteness of what they dispute. You might also try a read of Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea's history of the early church.

[marct]

No need to go far like Africa. Stay closer. Bosnia? Or, since you mention Northern Ireland... Didn't they need for talks to start (and results to shown) new people in charge, different mentalities and let down in fighting (attacks)? IMO, generally speaking something need to really change so people will start thinking about peace and not about revenge for they killed and wrongs they suffer. Do you believe that one can have talks/conversations about peace and mutual understanding while attacks/invasion/war is still going strong?! I am not so sure.

I do agree with Skiguy that that is when they have to start (if not earlier). Over the years, I've done a fair bit of research on how one group stigmatizes another - usually with little or no basis in reality. For example, 2nd century ce Roman authors accused Christian cultists of exactly the same things that later Christian groups accused other groups of - e.g. stealing children to sacrifice hem and drink their blood, casting evil spells (malleficium in Roman Law), seducing youths away from what is "right and proper" (i.e. the official religion), etc.

These types of accusations are really simple to make against almost any group but, when aimed by one religious group against another, they tend to heighten the emotional divide while, at the same time, portraying each other in line with the "demonic" of their own conceptions. BTW, this shows up much more in monotheistic religions than in others - not surprising since their are Manichean elements in all of the major monotheistic religions.

I suspect that Bosnia is, in many ways, a particular type of a special case. Bear with me for a moment, because I know that it is a very personal case for you :wry:.

Most mountainous areas tend to hold groups that "lost" in their bids to get better land. In some ways, the areas tend to contain an incredible number of different ethnic groups - think about the Caucuses, the Balkans, the Highlands of Scotland before the Highland clearances. Even when you have only a single ethnic group, it is usually because they "lost" (e.g. Ethiopia, Swaziland). This is one strand that plays out in the creation and maintenance of very strong ethnic identities.

The second strand that tends towards the creation and maintenance of strong ethnic identities is the very nature of most mountainous areas. Think about how food is produced and, also, what other economic activities are followed (e.g. mining, lumber, etc.). All of these activities require both strong teamwork and control over access to scarce resources - a situation that tends to promote strong lineage systems which, in turn, leads to the development of feud cultures with honour systems based around blood vengeance and long memories. Even in the US you can see this in the rather infamous Hatfield-McCoy feud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatfield-McCoy_feud).

This gives us a situation where the social structure and the economic base of the cultures in mountainous areas, such as the Balkans, are predisposed towards conflict and, also, to the use of any symbol system that allows for a) justifications for feuds and b) differentiation between ethnic groups.

[goesh]

we are starting to shake the Sephirothic tree here methinks

[marct]

Hi Goesh,


Assuming monotheistic orientation and with no taint of agnosticism/healthy skepticism, it is the ritual and manner said texts are approached, handled and read that imparts the real message. Lustration is the key, the ritual most ignore, part our missing 'juju'. Pecking the keyboard to read Al Qu'ran or the Upanishads or the Bible in no way compares to ritual application of the real thing. We in the West have blended the spiritual and the intellectual for some time now but at what cost is better addressed in other threads.

Hmm, I'm not sure about another thread being the best place for it since it is a key in the comparison and understanding between religions. You have certainly raised a key point, though - the intellectual examination of a symbol system is a pale shadow of the practice of that symbol system, and there are significant differences between the academic ritual of examining a text and that of a believer examining the same text.

[marct]

we are starting to shake the Sephirothic tree here methinks

In which world :D? Well, I spent a couple of years working with the QBL in a variety of its forms and, having done that, I can say that it is a pretty powerful collection of ritual sequences. What is fascinating to me at least is that the power of the technology is not dependent on the particularity of the symbol system used. Which leads to all sorts of things...

[invictus0972]

[I]
Last sermon of the Last Prophet have also deep meaning and good message for those who can read and wish to know:

Hi Sarajevo,

My question is less theological and more in the IO arena. In the past, I have read the quote you posted, the one about no person being superior to other persons. This is often quoted as an example of how Islam is inclusive and tolerant. However, I have always disagreed with this text as an example because is it not true that it is referring to Muslims not being superior to one another? In other words, those outside Islam, so called infidels, are not included in this message. In laymen's terms, one could paraphrase and say, "No Muslim black is superior to a Muslim arab and no Muslim arab is superior to a Muslim black." If one reads the entire text that you posted, it seems to be good to be a Muslim, but non-Muslims are not covered, at least in the text you provided.

I ask because I am looking for texts within Islam that discourage terrorism against non-Muslims. I know of the ones which discourage the killing of noncombatants; however, is there anything more powerful? Just as an example, Christian theology, as an ideal too often not realized, goes beyond not killing an enemy but demands that its adherents actually love the enemy. Is there any text like this in Islam in which the enemy (non-Muslims, infidels, people of the book, etc.) are to be so fully embraced?

If we can find these texts, perhaps we could use them to more effectively counter violent salafists' call to combat the "far enemy" in a defensive jihad, a term I know is justified in the Koran. Thanks in advance for your help!

Very respectfully,

Jerry

[skiguy]

Hi Sarajevo,

My question is less theological and more in the IO arena.

That's kind of the same reasons I'm asking these questions. (although I'm probably being a little more theological here). I'm trying to be careful and show respect for other's beliefs, not trying to find "holes" or problems in the Qur'an....just attempting to learn things here.

Sarajevo, is there anything equivalent to "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God"?

[Sarajevo071]

I do agree with Skiguy that that is when they have to start (if not earlier). Over the years, I've done a fair bit of research on how one group stigmatizes another - usually with little or no basis in reality. For example, 2nd century ce Roman authors accused Christian cultists of exactly the same things that later Christian groups accused other groups of - e.g. stealing children to sacrifice hem and drink their blood, casting evil spells (malleficium in Roman Law), seducing youths away from what is "right and proper" (i.e. the official religion), etc.

These types of accusations are really simple to make against almost any group but, when aimed by one religious group against another, they tend to heighten the emotional divide while, at the same time, portraying each other in line with the "demonic" of their own conceptions. BTW, this shows up much more in monotheistic religions than in others - not surprising since their are Manichean elements in all of the major monotheistic religions.

I suspect that Bosnia is, in many ways, a particular type of a special case. Bear with me for a moment, because I know that it is a very personal case for you :wry:.

Most mountainous areas tend to hold groups that "lost" in their bids to get better land. In some ways, the areas tend to contain an incredible number of different ethnic groups - think about the Caucuses, the Balkans, the Highlands of Scotland before the Highland clearances. Even when you have only a single ethnic group, it is usually because they "lost" (e.g. Ethiopia, Swaziland). This is one strand that plays out in the creation and maintenance of very strong ethnic identities.

The second strand that tends towards the creation and maintenance of strong ethnic identities is the very nature of most mountainous areas. Think about how food is produced and, also, what other economic activities are followed (e.g. mining, lumber, etc.). All of these activities require both strong teamwork and control over access to scarce resources - a situation that tends to promote strong lineage systems which, in turn, leads to the development of feud cultures with honour systems based around blood vengeance and long memories. Even in the US you can see this in the rather infamous Hatfield-McCoy feud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatfield-McCoy_feud).

This gives us a situation where the social structure and the economic base of the cultures in mountainous areas, such as the Balkans, are predisposed towards conflict and, also, to the use of any symbol system that allows for a) justifications for feuds and b) differentiation between ethnic groups.

Hi, marct

All true to the point but you are forgetting that "minor" thing of misuse of religion and history in Balkans! Both strong and both so easily manipulated. Latest war was not about land and food sources per se, but it was about losing control that gave serbs power and right on continues use of name "Yugoslavia" (no matter how much they hate Yugoslavia and Tito) which will grant them same prestige that YU heaved in UN and World, and all those gold reserves (which serbs stole before Yugo wars).

[Sarajevo071]

Hi Sarajevo,

My question is less theological and more in the IO arena. In the past, I have read the quote you posted, the one about no person being superior to other persons. This is often quoted as an example of how Islam is inclusive and tolerant. However, I have always disagreed with this text as an example because is it not true that it is referring to Muslims not being superior to one another? In other words, those outside Islam, so called infidels, are not included in this message. In laymen's terms, one could paraphrase and say, "No Muslim black is superior to a Muslim arab and no Muslim arab is superior to a Muslim black." If one reads the entire text that you posted, it seems to be good to be a Muslim, but non-Muslims are not covered, at least in the text you provided.

I ask because I am looking for texts within Islam that discourage terrorism against non-Muslims. I know of the ones which discourage the killing of noncombatants; however, is there anything more powerful? Just as an example, Christian theology, as an ideal too often not realized, goes beyond not killing an enemy but demands that its adherents actually love the enemy. Is there any text like this in Islam in which the enemy (non-Muslims, infidels, people of the book, etc.) are to be so fully embraced?

If we can find these texts, perhaps we could use them to more effectively counter violent salafists' call to combat the "far enemy" in a defensive jihad, a term I know is justified in the Koran. Thanks in advance for your help!

Very respectfully,

Jerry

Right now of top of my head I can give you great example... Actually, two.

When Spain was plaque by Christian Inquisition and jews was running for they lives, many of them find safe heaven in territory of todays Bosnia (under Ottomans). Turkish sultan gave official and open a decree that jews is NOT to be harmed, that they are to be let to settle down and live, to trade and to be treated fairly. And they was.

When Ottomans heaved great battle against Serbs (serbs lost that battle but manage to deadly wound Sultan), dieing sultan told his son NOT to take revenge for his death and to rule wisely. His son didn't listen and Ottoman's end in Balkans started with that period.

Also, when Islam was just in infancy and Mecca's rules was killling new Muslims, it was Christian king Ashama ibn Abjar of Abyssinia that give them refuge and protect them from intense persecution, after they prove them respect that Islam and Muslims are offering to the Marry and Jesus (and mentioning them in Holly Qur'an). That was not lost to Muslims and it will never be forgotten.

My humble point here is that you can find examples of non-Muslims being treated fairly and equal and that Islam teaching us of respect toward ALL "people of the book", and toward mercy towards woman, kids, elderly, clergy and people who find shelter in holly places! All those things one can find in Islam and Qur'an. There are parts that one can use and defend non-Muslims against attacks.

It's there. Now, why do some people skipping those parts and why is revenge bigger then mercy that is another question and involving other religions and people. Like I ask many here before... While attacks against Muslims by US going strong and all those torture and false imprisonments for years (backed by political and intelligence manipulations), how many Muslims will option to help and go openly against Salafiya Jihadia?! I still didn't get answer on that.

Away from public eyes that "resistance" is happening and more and more spilling into open but some big, public descend that you will like to see (while all this is happening) I don't see it.

[Sarajevo071]

That's kind of the same reasons I'm asking these questions. (although I'm probably being a little more theological here). I'm trying to be careful and show respect for other's beliefs, not trying to find "holes" or problems in the Qur'an....just attempting to learn things here.

He is open in his desires and honest. I can respect that. :cool:


Sarajevo, is there anything equivalent to "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God"?

For that I am not sure and I need to check things before I say anything more. Just do not forget that there was different "reasons" and historical factors when Bible and Qur'an was written down (and by whom and why).

[goesh]

I'm going to post up some of Fludds 'sketches' (no insult intended) and by God! (for lack of better word) COIN will get a limb of its own:p

[goesh]

"Like I ask many here before... While attacks against Muslims by US going strong and all those torture and false imprisonments for years (backed by political and intelligence manipulations), how many Muslims will option to help and go openly against Salafiya Jihadia?! I still didn't get answer on that."
(Sarajevo)

I'm not invoking a false collective here when I say we are not "attacking Muslims" per se. That point has been reiterated in this forum many times. The considerate and intelligent discussion that has evolved on and around Islamic issues clearly demonstrates this and any racist, bigoted commentary is quickly deleted and I would imagine such people would be banned from further commentary. The Monitors and participants of SWC pretty much represent a small but solid slice of a larger collective that manages and directs our nation. Lastly, there is no common data, no readily availble facts and observations to support your contention. I refer specifically to post 9/11 when attacks against Muslims, their property and Masjids was almost non-existant. Blood-lust was running high after 9/11 but there was no civilian retribution against innocent Muslims under the protection of our Constitution and Law Enforcement agencies. That fact cannot be ingored and I contend it is not ignored by Muslims througout the world. As we are at home, we are abroad and belive me when I say, we have elements here at home that differ from Muslim terrorists in language and location only. We will assault any forces or elements that threaten our national security and who visit slaughter and mayhem upon innocents, regardless of the ideology they espouse in so doing. Our history bears this out and we will continue to act accordingly for generations to come and we will continue to die in so doing. There is no more I can say to you regarding your assertion that America is waging war against Muslims.

[marct]

Hi Sarajevo,


All true to the point but you are forgetting that "minor" thing of misuse of religion and history in Balkans! Both strong and both so easily manipulated. Latest war was not about land and food sources per se, but it was about losing control that gave serbs power and right on continues use of name "Yugoslavia" (no matter how much they hate Yugoslavia and Tito) which will grant them same prestige that YU heaved in UN and World, and all those gold reserves (which serbs stole before Yugo wars).

Umm, I'm not trying to "forget" the misuses of religion in the Balkans so much as trying to contextualize them and note some of the structural reasons why religions tend to be misused in these areas. BTW, another good example, in similar terrain, is the Turkish, Armenian, Kurdish interactions.

[goesh]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21816221/


" updated 2 hours, 7 minutes ago
KHOST, Afghanistan - Taliban militants shot dead a teenage boy in southeastern Afghanistan for teaching English to his classmates, police said on Thursday.

Taliban militants have killed a number of teachers and students in recent years for attending government-run schools, taking part in classes for girls or what the hardline Islamist militants consider un-Islamic subjects.

Armed men arrived at the school in the Sayed Karam district of Paktia province and grabbed a 16-year-old student and dragged him outside. "

There ain't a man here that wouldn't draw down on these killers and religion and culture has nothing to do with it.

[Tacitus]

Christian theology, as an ideal too often not realized, goes beyond not killing an enemy but demands that its adherents actually love the enemy. Is there any text like this in Islam in which the enemy (non-Muslims, infidels, people of the book, etc.) are to be so fully embraced?

If we can find these texts, perhaps we could use them to more effectively counter violent salafists' call to combat the "far enemy" in a defensive jihad, a term I know is justified in the Koran. Thanks in advance for your help!

Very respectfully,

Jerry

So the Christian God commands his followers to love their enemy. He’s got a funny way of showing it. You wouldn’t know it from actually reading the Bible. Here is just a short list of the record of atrocities this God endorsed, commanded, or participated in.

People of Judah shout and God helps them kill 500,000 Israelites (2 Chr 13: 15-18)
God kills 70 men for simply looking into the Ark (1 Sam 6:19)
Korah questions Moses’ leadership and God makes the earth open up and swallow his people: men, women, and children (Num 16:20-49)
God drowns almost everyone on earth (Gen 7:21)
God orders and joins in on the genocide of all of Canaan (all through the book of Joshua, the killing just never stops)
God threatens people with having to eat their children’s flesh (Lev 26:29, Jer 19:9)
Sons of Levi are blessed for randomly slaughtering cow worshippers (Exo 32:27-29)
God, after hardening Pharaoh’s heart, kills all the Egyptian babies for Pharaoh’s stubbornness (Exo 11:10, Exo 12:29)
God kills the meat eaters (Num 11)
God allows people to sacrifice their babies to him to teach them a lesson (Ezek 20:26)
God kills a man for not impregnanting his sister-in-law (Gen 38:9-10)
God comes out of the sky to kill David’s enemies (2 Sam 22:9-16)
God allows babies to be dashed and pregnant women to be ripped open (Hosea 13:16)
God threatens to have wild animals carry away the Israelite’s children (Lev 26:22)
God tells people to kill their loved ones if they worship other gods (Deu 13:6-10)
Bible says beat your child with a rod (Prov 23:13)
Bible says beating and wounding people is good for them (Prov 20:30)
God promises to punish children for their parent’s sin (Exo 20:5)
God terrifies and causes tumors (1 Sam 5:6)

If one was to make an argument that a Supreme Being that has ultimate authority has the right to kill innocent children if he so desires, then I concur. But I take issue with the idea of such a Deity being “good”, “benevolent” or “loving.” Such a deity has a death fetish, He is petty, and deserving of not worship, but contempt.

For the record, I was forced to attend a Southern Baptist church every Sunday as a kid. I have recovered from the experience, thank you very much. I tend to find that generally Christians gloss over these atrocities. After all, if they question God they may get the same fate as those mentioned in the Bible. I think that a lot of Christians live in a state of denial about these Scriptures. They just pretend that the atrocities don’t exist in the “inspired, infallible, inerrant word of God.” Fact is these things DO exist in the Bible. Probably because it is the word of man, not God—in particular, the word of an ancient barbaric people who used “God” or “Yaweh” to justify their genocide and blood lust.

There is simply no other explanation, otherwise you have to reconcile a homicidal, genocidal, bloody ogre of a monster God in the Old Testament with the supposedly gentle peacenik hippy Jesus in the New Testament. Good luck reconciling the two.

This is the same problem the Muslims have. The militant, homicidal ones find their passages in the Koran to back up their divinely sanctioned violence. No matter what other good things are there--and they do exist, this backdrop of violence and murder sacnctioned by the Supreme Being just can't be avoided.

[marct]

Hi Tactitus,


I think that a lot of Christians live in a state of denial about these Scriptures. They just pretend that the atrocities don’t exist in the “inspired, infallible, inerrant word of God.” Fact is these things DO exist in the Bible. Probably because it is the word of man, not God—in particular, the word of an ancient barbaric people who used “God” or “Yaweh” to justify their genocide and blood lust.

On the whole, I think you are right about the glossing over of many of these passages. There is even the "convenient" out brought around by the "New Covenant" in the NT :wry:. I should also note that it is pretty wel known, in academic circles at least, that the Hebrew tribes plagiarized at least one book (Job) from Ugarit (no citations - what would Dr. P. say :eek:!!).

At the same time, you should keep in mind that the bloodthirstyness you mention is pretty much a characteristic of a lot of Gods (and Goddesses) at that time (say ~1850-550 bce). It had a tendency to be exacerbated, to some degree, in later iterations in duotheistic and monotheistic religions.

[wm]

So If one was to make an argument that a Supreme Being that has ultimate authority has the right to kill innocent children if he so desires, then I concur. But I take issue with the idea of such a Deity being “good”, “benevolent” or “loving.” Such a deity has a death fetish, He is petty, and deserving of not worship, but contempt.

For the record, I was forced to attend a Southern Baptist church every Sunday as a kid. I have recovered from the experience, thank you very much. I tend to find that generally Christians gloss over these atrocities. After all, if they question God they may get the same fate as those mentioned in the Bible. I think that a lot of Christians live in a state of denial about these Scriptures. They just pretend that the atrocities don’t exist in the “inspired, infallible, inerrant word of God.” Fact is these things DO exist in the Bible. Probably because it is the word of man, not God—in particular, the word of an ancient barbaric people who used “God” or “Yaweh” to justify their genocide and blood lust.

There is simply no other explanation, otherwise you have to reconcile a homicidal, genocidal, bloody ogre of a monster God in the Old Testament with the supposedly gentle peacenik hippy Jesus in the New Testament. Good luck reconciling the two.

This is the same problem the Muslims have. The militant, homicidal ones find their passages in the Koran to back up their divinely sanctioned violence. No matter what other good things are there--and they do exist, this backdrop of violence and murder sacnctioned by the Supreme Being just can't be avoided.

I heartily recommend Heinelin's book JOB (http://www.amazon.com/Job-Comedy-Justice-Robert-Heinlein/dp/0345316509/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195149766&sr=1-1) as a corrective for religious angst. It provides a much better answer than reading the melancholy Dane, IMHO

[goesh]

- I've always found browsing the Halachic compositions stemming from their 'book' , Bishul/cooking in particular, took my mind off the sword and inspired a neurosis its own and I intend no offense to Jews, absolutely not

[Tom Odom]

At the same time, you should keep in mind that the bloodthirstyness you mention is pretty much a characteristic of a lot of Gods (and Goddesses) at that time (say ~1850-550 bce). It had a tendency to be exacerbated, to some degree, in later iterations in duotheistic and monotheistic religions.

I dunno 'bout that Marc. Tacitus hails from just up the Eastex freeway from where I grew up. Like him, I grew up in a strict southern Baptist culture and I can attest that the God my Pastor invoked each sunday when praying for the high school football team was very genocidal in his views of the opposition--especially those who came from Catholic schools. :eek:

Tom

[skiguy]

If one was to make an argument that a Supreme Being that has ultimate authority has the right to kill innocent children if he so desires, then I concur. But I take issue with the idea of such a Deity being “good”, “benevolent” or “loving.” Such a deity has a death fetish, He is petty, and deserving of not worship, but contempt.

I'm going to continue the tradition of glossing over. I don't know the answer to this. The closest I get is because He's God, so there must be some reason for it that we don't understand and may never understand. It probably relates somehow to "the wages of sin is death", but, other than that,I don't pretend to know or pretend to have an explanation. I just do the best I can to obey the commands love God and love your neighbor which is what Jesus said it all boils down to and it's where we're at now...yes, Marc, I played the NT card. :) Now could someone let Israel know this?
This is part of my whole gripe with Christians calling Islam evil and saying their text condones genocide and suicide bombing. I just point to these verses in the Bible and ask them to explain the difference.

When I get a real answer, I'll let y'all know. :wry:

[marct]

Hi Tom,


I dunno 'bout that Marc. Tacitus hails from just up the Eastex freeway from where I grew up. Like him, I grew up in a strict southern Baptist culture and I can attest that the God my Pastor invoked each sunday when praying for the high school football team was very genocidal in his views of the opposition--especially those who came from Catholic schools. :eek:

Is that like he WW II Army saying that "the Germans are our opponents, but the Navy is our Enemy!"? :D

Personally, I grew up in a strict Anglo-Catholic (aka "confused") culture - i.e. heavy drinking, lots of incense, the Choir runs the church, and this "God" fellow gets minimal mention. We never had any real problems with the Catholics, except for that, what was it called again?, oh, yeah - "guilt" (never got that one :cool:).

[invictus0972]

So the Christian God commands his followers to love their enemy. He’s got a funny way of showing it. You wouldn’t know it from actually reading the Bible. Here is just a short list of the record of atrocities this God endorsed, commanded, or participated in.

People of Judah shout and God helps them kill 500,000 Israelites (2 Chr 13: 15-18)
God kills 70 men for simply looking into the Ark (1 Sam 6:19)
Korah questions Moses’ leadership and God makes the earth open up and swallow his people: men, women, and children (Num 16:20-49)
God drowns almost everyone on earth (Gen 7:21)
God orders and joins in on the genocide of all of Canaan (all through the book of Joshua, the killing just never stops)
God threatens people with having to eat their children’s flesh (Lev 26:29, Jer 19:9)
Sons of Levi are blessed for randomly slaughtering cow worshippers (Exo 32:27-29)
God, after hardening Pharaoh’s heart, kills all the Egyptian babies for Pharaoh’s stubbornness (Exo 11:10, Exo 12:29)
God kills the meat eaters (Num 11)
God allows people to sacrifice their babies to him to teach them a lesson (Ezek 20:26)
God kills a man for not impregnanting his sister-in-law (Gen 38:9-10)
God comes out of the sky to kill David’s enemies (2 Sam 22:9-16)
God allows babies to be dashed and pregnant women to be ripped open (Hosea 13:16)
God threatens to have wild animals carry away the Israelite’s children (Lev 26:22)
God tells people to kill their loved ones if they worship other gods (Deu 13:6-10)
Bible says beat your child with a rod (Prov 23:13)
Bible says beating and wounding people is good for them (Prov 20:30)
God promises to punish children for their parent’s sin (Exo 20:5)
God terrifies and causes tumors (1 Sam 5:6)

If one was to make an argument that a Supreme Being that has ultimate authority has the right to kill innocent children if he so desires, then I concur. But I take issue with the idea of such a Deity being “good”, “benevolent” or “loving.” Such a deity has a death fetish, He is petty, and deserving of not worship, but contempt.

For the record, I was forced to attend a Southern Baptist church every Sunday as a kid. I have recovered from the experience, thank you very much. I tend to find that generally Christians gloss over these atrocities. After all, if they question God they may get the same fate as those mentioned in the Bible. I think that a lot of Christians live in a state of denial about these Scriptures. They just pretend that the atrocities don’t exist in the “inspired, infallible, inerrant word of God.” Fact is these things DO exist in the Bible. Probably because it is the word of man, not God—in particular, the word of an ancient barbaric people who used “God” or “Yaweh” to justify their genocide and blood lust.

There is simply no other explanation, otherwise you have to reconcile a homicidal, genocidal, bloody ogre of a monster God in the Old Testament with the supposedly gentle peacenik hippy Jesus in the New Testament. Good luck reconciling the two.

This is the same problem the Muslims have. The militant, homicidal ones find their passages in the Koran to back up their divinely sanctioned violence. No matter what other good things are there--and they do exist, this backdrop of violence and murder sacnctioned by the Supreme Being just can't be avoided.

In my post, I was referring to the ideal of Christianity. I would submit that the examples you provide in your response do not represent the ideal of Christianity. In fact, they were mostly examples from the Old Testament or pre-Christianity. I think to pick and choose certain portions of any religion is not the best way to understand its penultimate ideal. I am interested in the highest ideals of Christianity and Islam, not the evidence of how well people did or did not live out these ideals.

I respect your view on the existence or, in your case, nonexistence of a Supreme Being. However, I would submit that your tendency towards anthropomorphism may cloud your judgment. If a Supreme Being does exist, he would not be anything like a human; therefore, standards applied to it would be different than those applied to a mere mortal. Again, I am not trying to convince you of anything.

Have a good afternoon.

[Tacitus]

WM: I have not read this Job book. But I know the story of Job, and I’ll tell you what I think about Job.

And Job lost all without complaining or cause -- sons, daughters, livestock, all destroyed, and yet Job sinned not. Some say that we should learn a lesson of patience and contentment under wrong and misfortune. That’s what the Preacher delivering the sermon typically concludes is the message. Wrongs will be righted in the hereafter on Judgment Day. But I think that it is not good to submit patiently to wrong, or to rest contented under misfortune. I urge that it is far manlier to resist wrong, better far to carefully investigate the causes of wrong and misfortune, with a view to their removal. Contentment under wrong is voluntary submission under oppression, and (in my opinion) is not the virtue some would have it to be.

In Job there is some poetry, some pathos, and some philosophy, but the story of this drama called Job, is heartless to the last degree. The children of Job are killed to settle a little private wager between God and the Devil. Sort of like a Greek myth, humans are playthings of the Gods, subject to their whims and diversions. Afterward, Job having remained firm, other children are given in the place of the murdered ones. Nothing, however, is done for the children who were murdered. So we are just pawns, bystanders in a cosmic struggle between good and evil then?

Glad you mentioned the melancholy Dane. One of my favorite passages from Kierkegaard is:
One sticks one’s finger into the soil to tell by the smell in what land one is: I stick my finger in existence — it smells of nothing. Where am I? Who am I? How came I here? What is this thing called the world? What does this world mean? Who is it that has lured me into the world? Why was I not consulted, why not made acquainted with its manners and customs instead of throwing me into the ranks, as if I had been bought by a kidnapper, a dealer in souls? How did I obtain an interest in this big enterprise they call reality? Why should I have an interest in it? Is it not a voluntary concern? And if I am to be compelled to take part in it, where is the director? I should like to make a remark to him. Is there no director? Whither shall I turn with my complaint?
 Repetition (1843), Voice: Young Man

Skiguy: I look forward to your answer. I’m Episcopalian now. What can I say, I’m a sucker for the liturgy inside the old stone small Gothic church.:) It somehow fosters a contemplative mood in me; maybe it is the medieval mood. I have the parish Priest over for dinner once a month. We discuss these weighty theological and philosophical matters long into the evening. So far, these questions have not been resolved.

Like you, it gets my hackles up when I hear Christians lamenting all the violence in Islam. Have they ever read Joshua? Methinks not. If that is an accurate portrayal of the will and actions of God, then He is a God to be feared and dreaded, not loved. Sort of like a kidnapper pointing a gun at your head telling you that if you don't tell him you love him, then he'll kill you. Sure, you'll tell him you love him (anything to get him to put the gun away), but you won't really mean it down deep inside. And you will be awfully uneasy about His presence.

[skiguy]

Tacitus, I think you have the book of Job all wrong. Job was not sinless, he was blameless (because he feared God and shunned evil). It was not a "wager" between God and Satan. Satan challenged and accused God, and God wanted to show Satan that Job can be tested and go through all this suffering yet still love God.
I think Joshua is an interesting book. There's CIA-like stuff in there with the spies, and some instances where the Israelites psyched out the enemy.

Request: let's not trash others' religions or beliefs. I like to compare religions to find the common ground in the call for peace, tolerance, and reconciliation. We all know there's violent verses in most, if not all, religious text (at least in the Abrahamic religions), but what are the good things common to all of them? If Christians, Jews, and Muslims think their commandments are to be warriors and kill or enslave everyone who doesn't follow their religion, that's just plain wrong, IMO.

I'm a Christian. I believe what I believe, and admit I'm very narrow minded about it. You're a Muslim. You believe what you believe and are narrow minded as well. Neither of us is going to change each other's beliefs. Does that mean we have to hate each other? Is there any reason we can't accept each other?

[Stan]

I'm a Christian. I believe what I believe, and admit I'm very narrow minded about it. You're a Muslim. You believe what you believe and are narrow minded as well. Neither of us is going to change each other's beliefs. Does that mean we have to hate each other? Is there any reason we can't accept each other?

That has got to be the best version I've seen (read) to date, bar none.

Very Well Put !

I'm one of those Catholics BTW :eek:

[marct]

Hi Skiguy,


Request: let's not trash others' religions or beliefs. I like to compare religions to find the common ground in the call for peace, tolerance, and reconciliation. We all know there's violent verses in most, if not all, religious text (at least in the Abrahamic religions), but what are the good things common to all of them? If Christians, Jews, and Muslims think their commandments are to be warriors and kill or enslave everyone who doesn't follow their religion, that's just plain wrong, IMO.

I really don't think looking at the "dark side" of various religions is necessarily a case of trashing them although, I will admit, it can appear that way :wry:. I think it is important to look at both the good and the bad in them - if for no other reason that to establish the commonalities and differences between them.

[invictus0972]

Like you, it gets my hackles up when I hear Christians lamenting all the violence in Islam. Have they ever read Joshua? Methinks not. If that is an accurate portrayal of the will and actions of God, then He is a God to be feared and dreaded, not loved. Sort of like a kidnapper pointing a gun at your head telling you that if you don't tell him you love him, then he'll kill you. Sure, you'll tell him you love him (anything to get him to put the gun away), but you won't really mean it down deep inside. And you will be awfully uneasy about His presence.

Tacitus,

If an alien were to land from another planet and read only the book of Job, would they have a comprehensive understanding of Christian theology? I don't think they would. If the same alien expanded his knowledge by reading the book of Job and excerpts from every example you provided in your previous post, would they then have a comprehensive understanding of Christian theology? Even with the added information from your excerpts, I submit they still would not have a comprehensive understanding of Christianity. The point I am making is that religions should be criticized and judged in total, which is why I was asking Sarajevo for some insight. At no point did I insinuate that the history of Christianity is devoid of any evils. I was comparing one of its many teachings, Christ's command to love one's enemy, with any similar texts in Islam. In the responses I have read so far, I have yet to find, though I believe it exists, one example of this kind of dictate emanating from Islam. I have only seen attacks on inquisitors, crusaders, and Christianity in general, none of which have anything to do with my original inquiry. Sarajevo did offer examples of the kind actions of individual Muslims, but I am looking for doctrinal teachings that can be used in an IO campaign against radical salafists, for they use theology to justify much of their violent actions. It is their appeal to theology that gives them strength and resilience in the ideological arena. They justify their acts in the same way that Eric Rudolph used Christianity to justify his violent actions. However, because I am from a Christian background, I better understand, though I do not agree with, Rudolph's actions. Anyway, I just wanted to clarify those couple of points.

Also, in reference to your comments on Christianity and suffering, there are several people a lot smarter than you and I who have lucid and logical explanations for this apparent contradiction. C.S. Lewis' The Problem of Pain is a good start. I mention this knowing that you probably have already this book.

[skiguy]

Hi Skiguy,



I really don't think looking at the "dark side" of various religions is necessarily a case of trashing them although, I will admit, it can appear that way :wry:. I think it is important to look at both the good and the bad in them - if for no other reason that to establish the commonalities and differences between them.

Marc, I have no problem looking at the "dark side". We should. I don't think anyone's trashing..YET...but the thread seems to be going in that direction.
My only "problem" (and, no, I don't have a problem with you..I'm just using that word) is when people start looking at religion too academically. I'm trying to look at it more from the POV that religion, God, the holy texts are a very real and important part of many people's lives. Critisizing it can be construed as an insult (I'm not saying I'm insulted). Faith and God can't be proven, so why bother to try? I just wonder why so many try to disprove it.

Stan, thanks!

[invictus0972]

Here is a quote that sums up my point better than I can:

"The Quran and other Muslim sacred scriptures, like those of other religions, are long, complex, and open to wide-ranging interpretations. Emphasis on details such as presumed rewards in Paradise for people who di in Jihad are, frankly, irrelevant and insulting to most educated Muslims. Muslims are not religiously motivated in any way to harm or kill non-Muslims. As with any body of sacred scripture, a selective choice of quotes can "prove" anything, including completely opposite ideas."--Margaret Nydell, Understanding Arabs: A Guide for Modern Times, 4th Edition

I would like to exchange ideas, without the theological rancour, about Islamic scriptures that confirm the bolded statements. There is a lot of talk about the scriptures that invoke violence; but from an IO perspective, I am curious to know some scriptural quotes that confirm the nonviolent aspects of Islam vis-a-vis non-Muslims. In traditional terms, I feel that truly understanding the theological presuppositions of Islam is an "decisive operation" for IO professionals.

Respectfully To All,

Invictus

[Sarajevo071]

I'm not invoking a false collective here when I say we are not "attacking Muslims" per se. That point has been reiterated in this forum many times. The considerate and intelligent discussion that has evolved on and around Islamic issues clearly demonstrates this and any racist, bigoted commentary is quickly deleted and I would imagine such people would be banned from further commentary. The Monitors and participants of SWC pretty much represent a small but solid slice of a larger collective that manages and directs our nation. Lastly, there is no common data, no readily availble facts and observations to support your contention. I refer specifically to post 9/11 when attacks against Muslims, their property and Masjids was almost non-existant. Blood-lust was running high after 9/11 but there was no civilian retribution against innocent Muslims under the protection of our Constitution and Law Enforcement agencies. That fact cannot be ingored and I contend it is not ignored by Muslims througout the world. As we are at home, we are abroad and belive me when I say, we have elements here at home that differ from Muslim terrorists in language and location only. We will assault any forces or elements that threaten our national security and who visit slaughter and mayhem upon innocents, regardless of the ideology they espouse in so doing. Our history bears this out and we will continue to act accordingly for generations to come and we will continue to die in so doing. There is no more I can say to you regarding your assertion that America is waging war against Muslims.

While they WAS attacks and retaliations against Muslims and masjids, you are completely right that they was not revenge en-mass against Muslims in America. And I was not talking about U.S. I am talking of all those INNOCENT Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan (particularly) and all those innocents Muslims in U.S. jails and concentration camps, and torture chambers of your allies.

Second, your statement that you will "assault any forces or elements that threaten our national security and who visit slaughter and mayhem upon innocents, regardless of the ideology they espouse in so doing" is (for me) a big lie. Did you go and bomb Christian militia camps for providing support and shelter for Timothy James McVeigh!? Or Eric Rudolph? No, you did not. But on Muslims people and they cities you did unleash hell.

That also is not ignored by Muslims throughout the world.

And third, you reasoning such "We will assault any forces or elements that threaten our national security and who visit slaughter and mayhem upon innocents, regardless of the ideology they espouse in so doing" is excatly reason why Muslims hating and fighting you. You came in they homes and kill them, rape them, occupy they land and homes...

You don't need to agree or disagree with me. I really don't care. You president, your security advisor's (to the president) and your generals all ready declared crusade on Muslims. And that's all I have to say to you.

[Sarajevo071]

Hi Sarajevo,

Umm, I'm not trying to "forget" the misuses of religion in the Balkans so much as trying to contextualize them and note some of the structural reasons why religions tend to be misused in these areas. BTW, another good example, in similar terrain, is the Turkish, Armenian, Kurdish interactions.

Oh, I didn't mean to sound like I disagree with you, on the contrary. You are completely right about misusing religions and people passions for this or that. But then again, people are just bunch of sheeps.

[skiguy]

Sarajevo, some questions. Why are you calling it crusades? Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and all those other right-wing idiots who do are wrong. I think most, if not all, of us here know this. We've declared war on those who kill innocent people, not Islam. And if the United States is so bad as you're saying, then why are so many of your Muslim brethren joining us in fighting these people and speakng out against terrorism?

About McVeigh, we did sentence him to death. Doesn't that count for something? And by the way, he was no Christian, he was a terrorist.

[Sarajevo071]

Sarajevo, some questions. Why are you calling it crusades? Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and all those other right-wing idiots who do are wrong. I think most, if not all, of us here know this. We've declared war on those who kill innocent people, not Islam. And if the United States is so bad as you're saying, then why are so many of your Muslim brethren joining us in fighting these people and speakng out against terrorism?

About McVeigh, we did sentence him to death. Doesn't that count for something? And by the way, he was no Christian, he was a terrorist.

But, that's exactly my point! He is NOT Christian but terrorist and you put ONLY him on death... In mean time you are waging war on ISLAMIC/MUSLIM terrorist (why that big label in this case while you never label McVeigh or IRA Christian terrorists!?) and attacking and destroying all countries instead small groups and individuals.

I believe your President called Crusade first, General Boykin picked up... In mean time Wolfowitz came out that reason are oil... And there are some others who are not duds like Limbaugh and they beliefs shaping (our) destiny here and today.

BTW, talking about killers of innocent people, remember those U.S. sanctions that killed 500,000 Iraqi kids and for which Albright said it was "worthed"!? Do you really believe your "side" don't kill innocent people? "Funny" how killed Americans are always "innocent people" and all others living on open range and when they died it's they own fault.

No, I do not say that majority of people here think that way but some do. But we are talking in general terms and about this "side" and that "side". I never accused anyone here of being this or that, I do not know anyone nor I know what you or others did in this war/wars (if anything). But we have labels and alliances and we are talking about them.

One more thing, I never said that Americans are so bad or that all Americans are evil and murderers. And I will never say such thing. I am living here and I know people around me. But your foreign (imperial) politics sucks, and you do have same lunatics and bad seeds (like everybody else!). Plus, you have president with 23% approval rating who said that he do not care what other people think since he "knows" he is right. God told him, I guess.

BTW, how you feel bad being put it in same group with those yahoos and labeled badly it's kinda makes you close to me/us when americans labeling all other people together and treating them in same bad way.

Talking about "muslims allies"... There are Muslims and "muslims" and they have they own free will and souls. Let's just hope they will not end up like many of your allies you used and betray on the end. Or maybe even worst then that... Like this latest:

US accused of killing Iraq allies
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7096755.stm

[goesh]

Now there was a guy who knew how to roll over enemies and he had extra time for repentance and redemption believing in reincarnation as he did, what with more lives coming down the line allowing him to become a better general the next time around - it's sort of like being able to run a stop sign and you never get a ticket because you can stop twice the next time. 'Atta boy, George! This reincarnation thing seems to be the way to go - no need to invoke Divine wrath against enemies, just surge ahead, no pun intended here, and refine your tactics the next time around. Of course the problem is, we don't all get to be generals. Sarajevo probably was Saladin in a past life but isn't remembering it, otherwise he wouldn't need to be constantly calling on God to back him up. Who were you in a past life?? It's show 'n tell time - Stan, you go first......;)

[invictus0972]

BTW, talking about killers of innocent people, remember those U.S. sanctions that killed 500,000 Iraqi kids and for which Albright said it was "worthed"!? Do you really believe your "side" don't kill innocent people? "Funny" how killed Americans are always "innocent people" and all others living on open range and when they died it's they own fault.

Talking about "muslims allies"... There are Muslims and "muslims" and they have they own free will and souls. Let's just hope they will not end up like many of your allies you used and betray on the end. Or maybe even worst then that... Like this latest:

US accused of killing Iraq allies
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7096755.stm

You make some valid points, Sarajevo. However, the two claims you make above are not accurate. Sanctions were a result of Hussein not abiding by the UN mandates he agreed to at the end of Operation Desert Storm. This is true of any country that may be suffering under the burden of sanctions. So, in actuality, it was Hussein who caused his people to suffer. Also, it is true that American military actions have killed innocents; however, it is a mistake to equivocate terrorist actions, which intentionally kill innocents, with U.S. actions that unintentionally kill innocents. I don't think you have necessarily done this in your posts, but your comments triggered these thoughts in my mind. Anyway, there have been instances where the U.S., as a state decision, has targeted innocents for killing, but this is another lively discussion altogether. In those instances, your charge is much more valid, but it has been years since this has occurred. Remember that I am only referring to state sanctioned actions, not the actions of people who commit crimes. The point is that in modern days there are never any U.S. military operations in which the U.S. intentionally targets innocents. Intention is a key point here. Of course this discussion revolves around the discussion of the definition of terrorism, a frustrating and difficult discussion.

Also, it is not useful to refer to allies "betrayed" when discussing international relations issues. These are moral terms that do not apply in the conduct of international relations. The only thing that matters in international relations is to secure the interests of the state (raison d' etat), and the moral imperatives that apply to individuals are not extended to the actions of the state. This is the nature of international relations, and it does not matter whether a country is Islamic or Western. Every state operates toward securing its own interest. So, allies come and go depending on their usefulness in any given circumstance. Has not the United States been used and discarded by other countries? YES! It is just the way things are, and to say the United States is singularly bad for doing what every other country does is really quite ridiculous and disingenuous. In order to have a real discussion on U.S. foreign policies, it would be much better to do away with the moral invectives and the emotions because they just don't matter.

[Sarajevo071]

I am sorry but to agree that ONLY Saddam is in fault over sanctions I can not. U.S. government have they blame there too. Big time. Book titled "The Fire This Time: US Crimes in the Gulf" by Ramsey Clark it's amazing read on this subject.

I understand your references on state sanction killings and your attempt to distance your self (U.S.) from killings that I was referring too, but when we talk about those "others" who killing your civilians, they are also NOT state sanctioned but rather singular soldiers in broad war. Instead to fly planes and drop 1,000 lb bombs on everyone under them, they going heads one with they bodies or cars.

So, my point, we are here talking about individuals who are committing atrocities and states/leaders that do not punishing them. In grand scale of life, murder is murder. Simple. At least for me.

I do agree with you about selfish state/nation interests and there is nothing new or strange there. My answer was not emotional but exactly on target and with same irony, bias and underlying insults I am reading from some people here (when I am in case). Also, I never said that "the United States is singularly bad" for doing this or that. You are right. Everyone else is doing same for them self.

That's why I think politics and governments (majority of them) sucks big time. ;)

[Sarajevo071]

What does the Qur'an say about Christians?


In the Qur'an, Christians are often referred to as among the "People of the Book," i.e. people who have received and believed in previous revelation from God's prophets. There are verses that highlight the commonalities between Christians and Muslims, and other verses that warn Christians against sliding towards polytheism in their worship of Jesus Christ.


"Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians -- whoever believes in God and the Last Day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord. And there will be no fear for them, nor shall they grieve" (2:62, 5:69, and many other verses).


"Truly, the religion with Allah is Islam. Those who were given the Scripture (Jews and Christians) did not differ except out of mutual jealousy, after knowledge had come to them. And whoever disbelieves in the Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, signs, revelations, etc.) of Allah, then surely, Allah is Swift in calling to account.

So if they dispute with you (Muhammad SAW) say: "I have submitted myself to Allah (in Islam), and (so have) those who follow me.

"And say to those who were given the Scripture (Jews and Christians) and to those who are illiterates (Arab pagans)

"Do you (also) submit yourselves (to Allah in Islam)?" If they do, they are rightly guided; but if they turn away, your duty is only to convey the Message; and Allah is All-Seer of (His) slaves (3:19-20).


Say (O Muhammad SAW): "O people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians):

Come to a word that is just between us and you, that we worship none but Allah, and that we associate no partners with Him, and that none of us shall take others as lords besides Allah. Then, if they turn away,say: "Bear witness that we are Muslims." (3:64).


"...and nearest among them in love to the believers will you find those who say, 'We are Christians,' because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant" (5:82).


"O you who believe! Be helpers of God -- as Jesus the son of Mary said to the Disciples, 'Who will be my helpers in (the work of) God?' Said the disciples, 'We are God's helpers!' Then a portion of the Children of Israel believed, and a portion disbelieved.

But We gave power to those who believed, against their enemies, and they became the ones that prevailed" (61:14).


"Oh People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion, nor say of God anything but the truth. Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, was (no more than) a messenger of God, and His Word which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him. So believe in God and His messengers. Say not, 'Trinity.' Desist! It will be better for you, for God is One God, Glory be to Him! (Far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is God as a Disposer of affairs" (4:171).


"If only they [i.e. Christians] had stood fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness from every side. There is from among them a party on the right course, but many of them follow a course that is evil" (5:66).


"The Jews call 'Uzair a son of God, and the Christians call Christ the son of God. That is but a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. God's curse be on them; how they are deluded away from the Truth! They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of God, and (they take as their Lord) Christ the son of Mary. Yet they were commanded to worship but One God: there is no god but He. Praise and glory to Him! (Far is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him)" (9:30-31).

[skiguy]

Good verses, Sarajevo. Thanks.


"Do you (also) submit yourselves (to Allah in Islam)?" If they do, they are rightly guided; but if they turn away, your duty is only to convey the Message; and Allah is All-Seer of (His) slaves (3:19-20).

What are ways that Muslims are commanded/allowed to convey the message?
And is 3:22 the consequences of rejecting Allah? "They are those whose works will bear no fruit in this world and in the Hereafter nor will they have anyone to help." (I notice, unlike what we've been hearing on radio and TV the past few years, there isn't any type of 'if they don't believe, kill them' in this passage.)

To compare with Christianity:
Matthew 28:19
"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations" (this is what the resurrected Christ commanded His disciples to do. He didn't tell them to force it on anyone)

[marct]

no i don't think that there is any similarities in this case. but there are many other similarities between these two religions.

Which two religions? You seem to be making a whole series of comments in all of the threads on religion (in general), but no specific points.

[graphei]

Holy Exegesis Batman!

As I've done textual work on both, I'll offer some observations.

First and foremost, the Qur'an as it is known today was not written down until after Muhammad died. If it was written down, there would be no need for those fantastically talented men who've earned the title of Hafiz! A Hafiz is someone who has memorized the Qur'an in its entirety. You can give them the number of any verse and they will recite the correct verse back to you in beautiful medieval Arabic. Verbatim. Although it is written down, it's meant to be recited. In fact, Qur'an is a verbal noun of qaraʾa which means "he recited". How fitting!

Second, I'll offer a different viewpont of thinking about the Qur'an and the Bible. In Christianity, Christ is said to be 'The Word of God made Flesh." While the Bible contains the Word of God, the book itself is not 'The Word of God." Christ is. In Islam, the Qur'an IS the 'Word of God'. The physical object and contents are one in the same. Therefore, it is more analogus to compare Christ to the Qur'an, than to compare the Qur'an and the Bible. The two texts are similar in that both are available from your local book retailer in either hard or soft cover. That's it. The Qur'an does retell stories that are found in the Bible and Old Testament, and certain imagery and word phrases are repeated through all three, so it is possible to compare those specifics. However, any comparisons beyond that are highly problematic.

Third, to be perfectly honest Christians have been called both dhimmi (People of the Book) and kufir (Infidel). That in large part depends on a little known principle called naksh, or abrogation. Naskh is a highly controversial technqiue that has been applied sporadically and unequally throughout Islamic history, and is a method of determining which source will be applied in cases where the Qur'an and the Sunnah conflict (which is often). Unless you're up-to-date on your tafsir and history of each verse, to include its isnad, chain of transmission, it can be like attempting to naviagate a minefield blind-folded.

Fourth, comparing Islam and Christianity- or any two religions, is a broad topic. So broad, Comparative Religious Studies is a field unto itself and scholars focus specifically on a particular point of commonality. If you have questions, I'd be glad to try and answer them, but you've got to give me something more specific to work with or else you're going to get a very general answer.