Comparing religions

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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, Clement of Alexandria and Augustine of Hippo Regis (way too prolific for my taste and I have his philosophy - still, very interesting in understanding the later development of Christianity).

[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 .

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.

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]

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.

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).

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.