9:29

[r.gonzales]

Rodrigo Bivar:

However, Christians no longer obey the OT to the letter and can see that it is nothing more than the Jewish scripture antecedent to Christianity.

irrelevant. the fact of the matter is that you believe the OT to be from Allah, this in and of itself negates your claim that the death penalty is inhumane - why would Allah legislate such a punishment if it were?
Rodrigo Bivar:

The message of Jesus Christ, which is what defines Christianity, is contained in the New Testament, and teaches us all to be good to our neighbors.

previously quoted in post #89 from the words of a christian:

Some who believe in God object by pointing to various passages in the Bible. As noted, “You shall not kill” does not negate the principle of capital punishment. If it did, then God Himself violated His own law, which is not a viable option to accept. The “killing” in Exodus 20 refers to murder itself, not the carrying out of justice.

source: focusmagazine.org/Articles/capitalpun.htm

 

[Booklover]

r.gonzales:

perhaps if you followed the discussion rather than just jumping in mid-stream, you’d know why i mentioned such verses.

just to help you out a bit to understand the context of my mentioning them:

i have nothing to hide regarding my religious beliefs, so i don’t need to be setting up smoke screens of any kind. and btw, i don’t think there’s anything barbaric about laws that were ordained by Allah - regardless if you believe they are outdated or not. Allah legislated them for a reason, and whether they are applicable in our times or not, calling them barbaric or inhumane is a direct insult to Allah’s knowledge and wisdom for He’s the one who legislated them in the first place.

this was the main point behind why i mentioned them as our friend boa found it funny that a religion would have legislations set in place that called for the death penalty as a punishment for those who apostate from it. according to your beliefs, the bible is the word of Allah or is at the very least inspired by Allah - that includes both the new and the old testaments. so regardless if you follow the old testament teachings or not, your beliefs stipulate that you respect the laws and legislations contained within it due to the mere fact that you believe it to have originated from Allah who is neither barbaric, nor inhumane.

The Catechism states:

138 The Church accepts and venerates as inspired the 46 books of the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New.

139 the four Gospels occupy a central place because Christ Jesus is their center

140 The unity of the two Testaments procedds fromthe unity of God’s plan and his Revelation. The Old Testament prepares for the New and the New Testament fulfills the Old; the two shed light on each other; both are true Word of God.

141 “The Church has always venerated the divine Scriptures as she venerated the Body of the Lord” (DV21: both nourish and govern the whole Christian life. “Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path” (Ps119:105;, cf.Isa 50:4)

Jesus taught us a whole new way of life, a life of real justice, peace and love. He told us that we have to love one another, forgive our enemies and pray for them. That is a totally different concept from the OT.

I know that Muslims claim that John 8.1-11 is a forgery, but it is not! Many manuscripts and early translations do not have this passage but others have it after John 21.24; others have it after Luke 21.38; one manuscript has it after John 7.36.

Why do Muslims think it’s a forgery?

You don’t believe what I believe and I don’t believe what you believe. You say that Allah legislated that apostates should be executed but that denies a person’s free will, and yet you claim to believe in free will! The two things contradict each other.

The Allah of the Quran is very different from the loving God revealed to us by our Lord Jesus Christ, who told us to call God our Father. Jesus told us:

Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for justice, for they shall be satisfied.

Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called Children of God.

Vickie

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

r.gonzales:

Rodrigo:

So you think killing apostates is a good thing?

by what’s been mentioned thus far in this thread, as well as what i’ve mentioned in other threads on this forum, this is the natural conclusion that you’d think one would come to, isn’t it?

Stop squirming. Please answer the question. It’s a yes or no question. So, yes or no?

r.gonzales:

Rodrigo:

Well, sue me. Is that the level of discussion you resort to? Let’s be civil about this, shall we? If you need clarification I am always happy to oblige.

and what level would that be? i was simply making a point clarifying the insufficiency of simply naming an author and not the title of the actual book. with exception of the eye rolling at one instance, where’s the lack of civility in any of my statements concerning your use of reference for the quote from at-tabaree? stating that simply saying “tabari IX:75” is not a sufficient reference telling me which book to refer to is being uncivil???

If you have a question just ask it. How difficult is: can you please tell me the name of Tabari’s book you’re referring to?

It’s not that difficult is it?

r.gonzales:

Rodrigo:

I thought you would know this already. Besides, it supports your case. My case, for the moment, is the Tabari IX:75 reference.
The Muwatta reference is this: 17.24.46.

i haven’t read maalik’s muwatta’, nor do i have it in my possession. thanks for the reference anyhow, as is the case with the reference to at-tabaree’s taareekh, i’ll also check it out when i have the time.

Okay.

r.gonzales:

Rodrigo:

That is merely Umar’s decree - it is not in the Quran - which is my point exactly.

perhaps you’re unaware of the authentic hadeeth in which prophet muhammad commanded, the muslims, “follow my sunnah and the sunnah of the rightly guided successors (khulafaa’) after me.” umar bin al-khattaab was one of those four rightly guided successors to succeed prophet muhammad; with the other three being aboo bakr as-siddeeq, uthmaan bin affaan and alee bin abee taalib.

and btw, just in case you didn’t know, my statement “welcome to post #61” is in reference to your repeating what i had already stated earlier.

My point exactly. It was Umar who made that decree, not Muhammad.

r.gonzales:

Rodrigo:

I would put it to you that most of the kafirs here are orientalists who are ‘extremely prejudiced, hostile and antagonistic’ to Islam. That’s why we’re not Muslims.

you’d be wrong. there are a couple of non-muslims that i’ve noticed on this forum who aren’t extremely prejudiced, hostile or antagonistic towards islam. i’ve seen from these few that they’re out to discuss and get clarification for concepts and ideas they’ve read about rather than out to tear apart islam every chance they get.

TEXT DELETED

r.gonzales:

Rodrigo:

Well, you wouldn’t ask for writing implements if you’re an adult unless you know how to write.

you would ask for these things to be brought if you wanted your scribes to record what you were about to dictate.

It’s bring me writing implements. Not bring my scribes writing implements.

r.gonzales:

Rodrigo:

Further, the sahih hadiths did claim that Muhammad ‘WROTE’.

and again… while other saheeh hadeeths - not to mention the Quranic verses - clearly indicate that these are to be taken figuratively. but that’s already been mentioned time and time again… .

Figurative again? We’ve been through this. It’s only Ibn Hajar’s opinion that the word ‘wrote’ is to be applied figuratively. It’s not in the hadiths or the Quran.

r.gonzales:

Rodrigo:

In most respects, the zakat was entirely voluntary although some Muslim rulers did punish Muslims for not paying zakat - like Abu Bakr for eg.

who told you it was voluntary? the zakaah is a religious obligation upon every muslim to pay once the nisaab has been met. 9:60 clearly states that the zakaah is obligatory, “certainly, the charities (i.e., the zakaah) are for… as an obligation from Allah. and Allah is Knowledgeable, Wise.” aboo bakr as-siddeeq would not have fought the apostates who refused to pay the zakaah unless it was an obligation.

I did refer to it not being voluntary in respect to punishment for not paying. The point I was making is that Muslims don’t usually get killed for not paying it.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

r.gonzales:

1. The Quran itself says to exact the Jizyah to humiliate the dhimmis.

no it doesn’t. this is the interpretation that some scholars of tafseer have given regarding the verse due to some of the words used in the verse. the verse explicitly states, “until they give the tax from a hand while they are subdued.” the verse says nothing concerning humiliation as being the reason for imposing the tax on them. so to claim the the Quran says that this is the reason for imposing the tax is wrong.

We all know that there is much ‘squirming’ room in tafsirs. Some scholars say this, others say that. You are one of those Muslims who aim to whitewash the Quran to paint it in a less hostile light for the benefit of the Catholic dhimmis here. But it doesn’t wash with me for following reasons:

1. Some scholars disagree with you.
2. The actions of Muslims disagree with you.

Hilali and Khan: until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Maulana Mohammed Ali: until they pay the tax in acknowledgement of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

Sheikh al-O’Taibi, chief of al-Qaida operations in the Arabian Peninsula: until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Dawood: until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued."

Ahmed Ali: until all of them pay protective tax in submission.

Qaribullah & Darwish: until they pay tribute out of hand and have been humiliated.

QâDî Mughîth ad-Dîn told SulTân 'Alâ’u 'd-Dîn Khaljî: ‘If the Jizyah-collector ask a Hindu for silver, the latter should offer gold in all humility. If the collector wishes to spit into his mouth, the latter should open his mouth without demur, so as to enable the former to spit into it.’

Al-Zamakhshari said that “the Jizyah shall be taken from them with belittlement and humiliation. The dhimmi shall come in person, walking not riding. When he pays, he shall stand, while the tax collector sits. The collector shall seize him by the scruff of the neck, shake him, and say “Pay the Jizyah!” and when he pays it he shall be slapped on the nape of the neck.”

The 13th century Shafi’i jurist an-Nawawi: “…The infidel who wishes to pay his poll tax must be treated with disdain by the collector: the collector remains seated and the infidel remains standing in front of him, his head bowed and his back bent. The infidel personally must place the money on the scales, while the collector holds him by the beard, and strikes him on both cheeks…”

To the Catholics:
The Muslims used to do this to the dhimmis when it came time to collect the jizyah.

1. The Turks used to hit the dhimmi on the back of the neck as a mark of humiliation.
2. The tax collectors of the Muslim rulers of the Khalji Dynasty in Delhi used to spit into the mouths of the Hindus to humiliate them.
3. The Muslims used to hold the dhimmi by the beard and slap him on both cheeks.

Now, r.gonzales – tell us how the jizyah is not humiliating in the light of this evidence.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

r.gonzales:

Rodrigo:

However, Christians no longer obey the OT to the letter and can see that it is nothing more than the Jewish scripture antecedent to Christianity.

irrelevant. the fact of the matter is that you believe the OT to be from Allah, this in and of itself negates your claim that the death penalty is inhumane - why would Allah legislate such a punishment if it were?

I am not a Catholic but I do know that the Catholics no longer obey the OT TO THE LETTER. The cruel message has been abrogated/replaced by the New Testament of Jesus Christ. You do know the concept of abrogation, don’t you?

r.gonzales:

Rodrigo:

The message of Jesus Christ, which is what defines Christianity, is contained in the New Testament, and teaches us all to be good to our neighbors.

previously quoted in post #89 from the words of a christian:

Quote:
Some who believe in God object by pointing to various passages in the Bible. As noted, “You shall not kill” does not negate the principle of capital punishment. If it did, then God Himself violated His own law, which is not a viable option to accept. The “killing” in Exodus 20 refers to murder itself, not the carrying out of justice.

source: focusmagazine.org/Articles/capitalpun.htm

So what? Murder is not the same thing as a state-sanctioned execution.

 

[r.gonzales]

Rodrigo Bivar:

the Catholic dhimmis here.

what catholic dhimmis? as far as i’m aware, there aren’t any “dhimmis” here, let alone those who pay jizyah.
Rodrigo Bivar:

I am not a Catholic but I do know that the Catholics no longer obey the OT TO THE LETTER. The cruel message has been abrogated/replaced by the New Testament of Jesus Christ. You do know the concept of abrogation, don’t you?

yes, i am familiar with the concept of abrogation. but that’s irrelevant. the fact of the matter is, abrogated or not, those laws were revealed by Allah according to christian belief. Allah is just and does not wrong or oppress anyone, nor is He inhumane. thus any law that He legislates even if that law is no longer applicable cannot be unjust or inhumane or the simple fact that it was Allah who legislated it in the first place.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

r.gonzales:

Rodrigo:

the Catholic dhimmis here.

what catholic dhimmis? as far as i’m aware, there aren’t any “dhimmis” here, let alone those who pay jizyah.

To me, anyone who is PC about Islam is a dhimmi. It’s the mindset and thank goodness we don’t have to pay the jizyah to you: TEXT DELETED

r.gonzales:

Rodrigo:

I am not a Catholic but I do know that the Catholics no longer obey the OT TO THE LETTER. The cruel message has been abrogated/replaced by the New Testament of Jesus Christ. You do know the concept of abrogation, don’t you?

yes, i am familiar with the concept of abrogation. but that’s irrelevant. the fact of the matter is, abrogated or not, those laws were revealed by Allah according to christian belief.

TEXT DELETED I’m sure the Catholics here don’t agree that their god of “Love and turn the other cheek” and all that is the same Allah that imposes the jizyah on them.

TEXT DELETED

r.gonzales:

Allah is just and does not wrong or oppress anyone, nor is He inhumane. thus any law that He legislates even if that law is no longer applicable cannot be unjust or inhumane or the simple fact that it was Allah who legislated it in the first place.

That’s just your reading of your God. I cannot see what is just about ‘kill the pagans wherever you find them’, or ‘kill the apostate’.

It is merely your closed mind that cannot see the beauty (I mean brutality) of such verses as “Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad), (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”

Truly beautiful, just and humane, don’t you think?

 

[Reuben_J]

r.gonzales:

yes, i am familiar with the concept of abrogation. but that’s irrelevant. the fact of the matter is, abrogated or not, those laws were revealed by Allah according to christian belief. Allah is just and does not wrong or oppress anyone, nor is He inhumane. thus any law that He legislates even if that law is no longer applicable cannot be unjust or inhumane or the simple fact that it was Allah who legislated it in the first place.

The OT verses you mention are irrelevant in the context of this debate. Those verses were for specific times and purposes in God’s salvific plan. God’s and humans’ actions are dynamic throughout history and those laws were to address those specific moments. God’s salvation plan ended with the coming of Jesus who ‘writes the covenant in our heart’. Jesus’ comandments thus supercede the verses mentioned.

It is relevant to this discussion unless the Quranic verse 9:29 is meant specifically for a specific event perhaps during Muhammad’s time, and is no more being followed now. Is it?

 

[janG]

The Old Testament was pointing to Jesus and man’s reconciliation with God through Him. The Holy Spirit had not yet been given to each believer. God was teaching Israel that the sins that carried the death penalty are sins that resulted in spiritual death (separation from God and loss of heaven) and are the precurser of what we know in the Catholic Church as Mortal (deadly) sin.

The other side of God’s message is repentance, sorrow for having offended God and God’s mercy. God was showing Israel that there were so many sins that separated them from God, that they had to depend on His mercy. God also taught them you must treat others the way you want to be treated. Therefore, if you want mercy, you need to be merciful. From what I have read, Israel for the most part understood what God was teaching them and the death penalty was seldom actually imposed.

Jesus gave us the Sacrament of Reconciliation so that those who are truly sorry can receive God’s mercy and be restored in their relationship with God. Further, we understand that repentance and reconciliation must happen in this life, thus sinners are not physically killed so that they will have an opportunity to repent and receive God’s mercy.

The Catholic Church understands that God alone is the judge of souls. The Church calls people to repentance and salvation. In its entire 2,000 plus years, the Catholic Church has never declared that anyone has for certain gone to hell, no matter how evil their deeds in this life or what their religion or lack thereof. That is because it is not the job of men to determine the state of a person’s soul at the moment of their judgment by God. While Mohammed’s message in the beginning was similar; by the end of his life, he had no problem condeming to hell and slaughtering everyone who disagreed with him. Who was he listening to again?

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. Matthew 7:15

The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly. John 10:10

…for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 2Corin11:14

 

[Booklover]

Rodrigo Bivar:

I am not a Catholic but I do know that the Catholics no longer obey the OT TO THE LETTER. The cruel message has been abrogated/replaced by the New Testament of Jesus Christ. You do know the concept of abrogation, don’t you?

Agreed!

r.gonzales:

So what? Murder is not the same thing as a state-sanctioned execution.

Exactly! An apostate is not a criminal, he’s just exercising his God given right to freedom of religion!

 

[Booklover]

janG:

The Old Testament was pointing to Jesus and man’s reconciliation with God through Him. The Holy Spirit had not yet been given to each believer. God was teaching Israel that the sins that carried the death penalty are sins that resulted in spiritual death (separation from God and loss of heaven) and are the precurser of what we know in the Catholic Church as Mortal (deadly) sin.

The other side of God’s message is repentance, sorrow for having offended God and God’s mercy. God was showing Israel that there were so many sins that separated them from God, that they had to depend on His mercy. God also taught them you must treat others the way you want to be treated. Therefore, if you want mercy, you need to be merciful. From what I have read, Israel for the most part understood what God was teaching them and the death penalty was seldom actually imposed.

Jesus gave us the Sacrament of Reconciliation so that those who are truly sorry can receive God’s mercy and be restored in their relationship with God. Further, we understand that repentance and reconciliation must happen in this life, thus sinners are not physically killed so that they will have an opportunity to repent and receive God’s mercy.

The Catholic Church understands that God alone is the judge of souls. The Church calls people to repentance and salvation. In its entire 2,000 plus years, the Catholic Church has never declared that anyone has for certain gone to hell, no matter how evil their deeds in this life or what their religion or lack thereof. That is because it is not the job of men to determine the state of a person’s soul at the moment of their judgment by God. While Mohammed’s message in the beginning was similar; by the end of his life, he had no problem condeming to hell and slaughtering everyone who disagreed with him. Who was he listening to again?

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. Matthew 7:15

The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly. John 10:10

…for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 2Corin11:14

Great post, Jan! Jesus also told us that unless we forgive other people, God would not forgive us! I don’t see anything about forgiveness in Islam, just revenge!
What about loving our neighbor? Jesus also told us that if we do not have love in our hearts, we could pray and fast all day and it would be meaningless. What do our Muslim brothers and sisters have to say about that?

 

[Booklover]

r.gonzales:

what catholic dhimmis? as far as i’m aware, there aren’t any “dhimmis” here, let alone those who pay jizyah.

yes, i am familiar with the concept of abrogation. but that’s irrelevant. the fact of the matter is, abrogated or not, those laws were revealed by Allah according to christian belief. Allah is just and does not wrong or oppress anyone, nor is He inhumane. thus any law that He legislates even if that law is no longer applicable cannot be unjust or inhumane or the simple fact that it was Allah who legislated it in the first place.

Rasheed, you keep bringing all this stuff up and keep using God to justify the continuation of acts of brutality against other people!

Now you claim that abrogation in this case is irrelevant but when Mohammed did it, it’s okay!

How can you be so sure that it was really God and not Mohammed himself that legislated execution for apostates in the first place in order to revenge himself on those who wanted to leave Islam? Where’s your proof?

Vickie

 

[Booklover]

jcaz:

You know, it always amazes me how arrogant Christians come and say that certain laws, that they ADMIT were practiced and implemented by the prophets, are barbaric and inhumane. It is amazing how Christians can state that the laws that their Creator legislated, EVEN IF THOSE LAWS ARE THOUSANDS OF YEARS OLD, are barbaric and inhumane. Do you realize the utter, dispicable arrogance one has when the make such filthy statements? Are you better than your Lord? Do you know better than the Creator of all?

It is amazing how people today feel they are so “civilized” and how they feel they are better than the laws that their Lord legislated, again, whether those laws are binding now or were so in the past. Please, for your own sake, realize the amount of disrespect and arrogance one has before their Creator when they have such filthy beliefs.

Jonathan, you don’t make any sense! A short time ago, you were all upset about certain passages in the OT where “our” God as you called him, wiped out an entire town including infants! You kept taxing us about the death of the said infants! You were outraged about this. Weren’t you judging God’s actions? You accuse us of arrogance and you’re guilty of arrogance yourself.

Let me answer that question since that thread is now closed. Since God can read what’s in human hearts, when God wiped out an entire town in the OT, it was because he knew the people there had become so evil that there was no reforming them, so his justice was swift and complete, but he did not do it as a blood sport!.

In Islam on the other hand, there appears to be a genuine lust for blood! As I told Rasheed, the God that I have come to know through Jesus Christ, and call Father, is completely different from the God of the Quran.

How can you be sure that it was Allah who legislated execution for apostates and not Mohammed himself using the name of God as justification for killing? After all, you only have his word for this.

Is there any mercy, compassion or forgiveness in Islam without the shedding of blood? Hillaire Belloc said that Muslims’ mentality was fanatical and bloodthirsty and I think there’s ample justification for what he said. Jesus Christ abolished the old laws and established real justice on the earth but Mohammed has tried to do away with all that! You call feeling compassion for someone who is executed simply for exercising his right to freedom of religion, a “filthy belief”? Would a loving God actually establish such an unjust law as that? I don’t think so and don’t believe that came from God at all.

All that it takes for evil to take over, is for good people to do nothing. As Bishop Fulton J. Sheen aptly put it:

“LOVE IS NOT TOLERANCE”

Christian love bears evil, but is does not tolerate it. It does penance for the sins of others, but it is not broadminded about sin. The cry for tolerance never induces it to quench its hatred of the evil philosophies that have entered into contest with the Truth. It forgives the sinner, and it hates the sin; it is unmerciful to the error in his mind. The sinner it will always take back into the bosom of the Mystical Body; but his lies will never be taken into the treasury of His Wisdom. Real love involves real hatred: whoever has lost the power of moral indignation and the urge to drive the buyers and sellers from the temples has also lost a living, fervent love of Truth!

Charity, then, is not a mild philosophy of “live and let live”; it is not a species of sloppy sentiment. Charity is the infusion of the Spirit of God, which makes us love the beautiful and hate the morally ugly."

Those are his words, and how true they are!

Vickie

 

[jcaz]

Okay, ALL OF YOU have missed the point that Rasheed was making.

It would have been better to have the discussion regarding “old laws”, and whether or not they are barbaric, on another thread.

Many discussions were taking place including the killing of an apostate and the entire concept of the death penalty.

To this, **BOOKLOVER ** stated that Muslims are following 7th century BARBARIC laws.

Rasheed, in a valiant effort to correct this type of ignorance, questioned her, pointing out that very similar laws were in the Old Testament, and he made the point that EVEN THOUGH Christians today do NOT follow the O.T., that their God, the God they believe in, **DID IN FACT ** legislate those laws. PERIOD.

So to say that ANY LAW, despite how “old” it is, to say that ANY LAW of God is barbaric is of the most arrogant, filthy, and dispicable kinds speech. That was the point.

Rasheed, by the help of Allaah, said it perfectly, and it should be clear for even the most simple-minded of people:

i have nothing to hide regarding my religious beliefs, so i don’t need to be setting up smoke screens of any kind. and btw, i don’t think there’s anything barbaric about laws that were ordained by Allah - regardless if you believe they are outdated or not. Allah legislated them for a reason, and whether they are applicable in our times or not, calling them barbaric or inhumane is a direct insult to Allah’s knowledge and wisdom for He’s the one who legislated them in the first place.

this was the main point behind why i mentioned them as our friend boa found it funny that a religion would have legislations set in place that called for the death penalty as a punishment for those who apostate from it. according to your beliefs, the bible is the word of Allah or is at the very least inspired by Allah - that includes both the new and the old testaments. so regardless if you follow the old testament teachings or not, your beliefs stipulate that you respect the laws and legislations contained within it due to the mere fact that you believe it to have originated from Allah who is neither barbaric, nor inhumane.

 

[jcaz]

Booklover:

Jonathan, you don’t make any sense! A short time ago, you were all upset about certain passages in the OT where “our” God as you called him, wiped out an entire town including infants! You kept taxing us about the death of the said infants! You were outraged about this. Weren’t you judging God’s actions? You accuse us of arrogance and you’re guilty of arrogance yourself.

WRONG. As usual, and perhaps this is to be expected from you, you have very unsuccessfully tried to twist the point I was making. **ALL OF YOU ** Christians were constantly questioning the “God of Islaam” and saying, look at how violent “your God” is, look at what “your God” does. That is the theme of at least half of the threads on the Islaamic forum!

My thread, which yes, was deleted, and which will be posted again in the future, was to simply point out several places were “your God” was FAR MORE VIOLENT than the “God of Islaam” as you called it. KILLING INNOCENT INFANTS IS INFINITELY MORE VIOLENT THAN KILLING “DISBELIEVING” ADULTS. Heck, EVEN Christians admit that God has wiped out disbelievers according to Biblical stories, **and even God has ordered the killing of disbelievers ACCORDING TO YOUR HOLY BOOK. God ORDERED the killing of ALL DISBELIEVERS, and this INCLUDED INFANTS!!! **

Now, I ADMITTED that these Biblical ORDERS WERE for a specific time and place. And the point was, that if you want to scream “bloody murder” and shout at me that these Biblical orders of INSANE VIOLENCE were for only a specific time and place, the POINT BEING MADE was why can you simply not then accept that **FACT ** that the same should be applied to the Islaamic commands. They were for a SPECIFIC TIME AND PLACE.

This, Booklover, you did not get, you do not get, and it will not surprise me if you still will not get.

The ONLY intellectual reply to this would be to finally admit your wrong thought-process, admit that yes, the Biblical verses were for a time and a place, and admit your hypocrasy in trying to say that similar (BUT FAR LESS VIOLENT) Islaamic commands were not for a specific time and place, when indeed they were! Then, a discussion can continue.

But you know, it will surprise no one when you do not do this, because as said before, your types ONLY want to hate. You do not want to discuss. You do not want to understand. You simply want to be a hater.

So we defend our beautiful religion, and in the end, to you your religion, and to us our religion.

Regards,

Jonathan

 

[jcaz]

Booklover:

Rasheed, you keep bringing all this stuff up and keep using God to justify the continuation of acts of brutality against other people!

ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT. Rasheed, and no other Muslim, does not need to justify “acts of brutality”, as you call them, if those acts of “brutality” were legislated by Allaah, the Creator of all.

He merely brought up that point because people who are ignorant of their faith, and then because of their ignorance, they accidentally become VERY HYPICRITICAL, those people end up saying very wrong things.

To say that the death penalty is “inhumane” or “brutal” or that stoning is “inhumane” and “uncivilized”, assuming you believe in God and assuming you believe that the Old Testament is the inspired word of God, then to say such things are nothing short of blasphemy. That kind of speech is filthy and despicable. How can one say that ANY of the legislations of their Creator are “inhumane”? Are you kidding me? The AUDACITY to say that the laws MADE BY GOD are INHUMANE AND BARBARIC! Are you kidding me?

But BOOKLOVER, this is what YOU SAID. So please do not run from this. Simply accept the explanation, perhaps thank Rasheed, and ask forgiveness for making such blasphemous statements.

Regards,
Jonathan

 

[r.gonzales]

booklover or anyone else… let’s put this the simplest way possible…

quoted from above:

r.gonzales:

simple question. did or did not your God legislate the death penalty for those punishments listed in that article?

if yes, do you believe that He was being inhumane or unjust by legislating these punishments?

no need for any long winded explanation of how these laws are abrogated and no longer apply. i’m not asking about their application, i’m asking about whether or not they were just and humane or injust and inhumane.

 

[Booklover]

jcaz:

WRONG. As usual, and perhaps this is to be expected from you, you have very unsuccessfully tried to twist the point I was making. **ALL OF YOU **Christians were constantly questioning the “God of Islaam” and saying, look at how violent “your God” is, look at what “your God” does. That is the theme of at least half of the threads on the Islaamic forum!

My thread, which yes, was deleted, and which will be posted again in the future, was to simply point out several places were “your God” was FAR MORE VIOLENT than the “God of Islaam” as you called it. KILLING INNOCENT INFANTS IS INFINITELY MORE VIOLENT THAN KILLING “DISBELIEVING” ADULTS. Heck, EVEN Christians admit that God has wiped out disbelievers according to Biblical stories, **and even God has ordered the killing of disbelievers ACCORDING TO YOUR HOLY BOOK. God ORDERED the killing of ALL DISBELIEVERS, and this INCLUDED INFANTS!!! **

Now, I ADMITTED that these Biblical ORDERS WERE for a specific time and place. And the point was, that if you want to scream “bloody murder” and shout at me that these Biblical orders of INSANE VIOLENCE were for only a specific time and place, the POINT BEING MADE was why can you simply not then accept that FACT that the same should be applied to the Islaamic commands. They were for a SPECIFIC TIME AND PLACE.

This, Booklover, you did not get, you do not get, and it will not surprise me if you still will not get.

The ONLY intellectual reply to this would be to finally admit your wrong thought-process, admit that yes, the Biblical verses were for a time and a place, and admit your hypocrasy in trying to say that similar (BUT FAR LESS VIOLENT) Islaamic commands were not for a specific time and place, when indeed they were! Then, a discussion can continue.

But you know, it will surprise no one when you do not do this, because as said before, your types ONLY want to hate. You do not want to discuss. You do not want to understand. You simply want to be a hater.

So we defend our beautiful religion, and in the end, to you your religion, and to us our religion.

Regards,

Jonathan

Did you even bother to read my whole post? Obviously not. If you tell me that the Islamic laws were FOR A SPECIFIC TIME, then why are they still being enacted today? Why are you still living by 7th century rules?

You still haven’t answered my question; HOW CAN YOU BE SURE THAT THE LAW OF KILLING APOSTATES WAS REALLY LEGISLATED BY GOD AND NOT BY MOHAMMED?

Vickie

 

[janG]

Where in the Koran does it say those verses were for a specific time and place only? Who with authority and/or a revelation from God told you that? Aren’t you really just agreeing with a scholar who came to that conclusion? How are you sure he’s right?

Muslims are the ones who say the Koran is the clear and final word from God. The second to last “revelation” to your prophet is kill them and slay them whereever you find them. You are the ones that say there can be no more prophets. That pretty much cuts off divine guidance in its tracks.

How does God guide Muslims today? Who is His chosen delegate with the authority to be sure the Koran is properly applied in 2005? Who’s in charge to say when someone is misinterpreting the Koran? How can you be positive that your interpretation that those verses applied to only that time and place is really what God meant? Maybe God really did mean kill them and slay whereever you find them and you are disobeying by not beheading the guy next door. What if you listened to the wrong scholar? How do you know with any certainty?

 

[r.gonzales]

janG:

…

please answer the above question.