Is "Smite Their Neck" acceptable in Islam for those who are perceived as enemy?

[JoelRichardson]

QUOTE]joel, not only would it befit to cite the source of your article, it is also forum rules (see forum rules under content rules).

Being that I am the author of the book that i cited, I think that there may be an exception here.

As for Ibn Taymiyya not being a philosopher: He refuted Greek philosophy when it did not agree with Islam. So what? Your suggestion that simply because he did not espouse Greek philosophy, he is therefore not a Muslim philospher betrays your lack of understanding. You also failed to mention his work for instance, Al-Mantiq wal-Falsafah: (Logic and Philosophy). Not surprising. Ignorance? Or Taqiya? Either way, your point is irrelevant to the point of the post. Once again, try to marginalize your opponent to eliminate the need to discuss the real issues, in order to avoid having to address the clear facts that I have shown. By the way, I am not an Orientalist. I am merely a person who loves truth…

Bless you,

Joel Richardson

kitaabun.com/shopping3/article_info.php?articles_id=4&osCsid=b1eb23c56b53075b9188b4634430583c

“Ibn Taimiyah studied, at an early stage, all the disciplines of jurisprudence, Ahadith of the Prophet (peace be upon him), commentaries of the Quran, mathematics and philosophy, and in each he was far lead of his contemporaries.”

 

[r.gonzales]

i was able to squeeze out some time and write a short reply for now…

JoelRichardson:

The rule for al-taqiya also applies to “mental” injury (whatever that means), as well as to protect the religion of IsIam from looking bad.

is this something from your own inference, or do you have support from islamic texts to back up your claims?

“Believers when in a weakened stage in a non-Muslim country should forgive and be patient with people of the book (i.e., Jews and Christians) when they insult Allah and his prophet by any means. Believers should lie to people of the book to protect their lives and their religion.”

first of all, the closest book i could think of that matches the title for the source of this quote as found in your references is the book “as-saarim al-maslool 'alaa shaatim ar-rasool”, which translates to “the unsheathed sword against the abuser of the messenger” - so right away, i’m led to question the original translator’s ability to convey ibn taimiyyah’s words according to their intended meanings. i’ve downloaded an msword copy of this book to try to verify the statement and have yet been able to find it. i’ve also picked up a hardcopy of the book from my islamic centre’s library and have still yet to find the quote… but i’ll keep looking, if Allah permits.

as for what’s been presented here itself, using this quote to back up your initial statement is grossly misinterpretating the intent of what is said, especially in applying it to situations like those found in interfaith dialogues or debates. fearing for one’s self and one’s religion is fearing some danger or harm to these things. what’s going on in france with the state-wide ban on the islamic hijaab is something that would cause harm to a muslim woman’s religion; such that it may even be obligatory for her to migrate to a place where such a ban does not exist. ignornant muslims not well grounded in their faith having propaganda thrown at them from deviant cultish sects like the shee’ah or the sufis would be something that would cause them to fear some type of harm to their religion; such that he/she may need to boycott or flee from such people…

interfaith discussions and debates with unbelievers in these forum type settings are no where similar to these above mentioned situations. in these settings a muslim who thinks he is well grounded in belief and faith would have no reason to fear for his/her life or religion. the only reason a muslim would join a forum like this would be to defend his/her religion from the sometimes blatant attacks by people such as yourself, or to clear up misconceptions being spread about it. so your trying to portray these types of settings as a cause and allowance for a muslim to use taqiyyah is nothing short of deceptive itself.

it’s also quite amusing how your references show that you take a lot of your supporting evidences from shee’ah websites - a sect and cult that makes it permissible for its adherents to lie to just about anyone at anytime - regardless if there is a danger or not. quoting from such sources to discredit islam is like someone quoting from cultish sects like the kkk to discredit christiainity…

as for the specific evidences quoted that came from sunni sources, they’ve all been pretty much taken out of context and misinterpreted to suit your desires… if Allah wills, i’ll address those when i have time.

 

[JoelRichardson]

To reference Shia’ sources is not like a Christian citing the KKK or some cult. Shai’ make up approx 15% of Islam, it is not some fringe movement.

Ibn Kathir (not a Shia’ last time I checked), utterly destroys the notion that Taqiya is for Shia’ Muslims only when he says, “Taqiya is allowed until the Day of Resurrection.” in reference to Surah 3:28 www.tafsir.com

Likewise Abu Hamid Imam Al-Ghazali (another Sunni Muslim philosopher) also makes it clear exactly how broad the range of lying in Islam is allowed when he says:

“Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible.”

“Know this that lying is not sin by itself, but if it brings harm to you it could be ugly. However, you can lie if that will keep you from evil or if it will result in prosperity.”

The idea that I am conveying is that because Islam is in a weakened state presently in the US, Muslims see that they are allowed to lie to protect the image of Islam. I’ve been around long enough to see this over and over and over. To deny it is to simply discredit yourself in my eyes. Taqiya is used over and over with reference to nearly every offensive aspect of Islam: I have seen this in attempts to deny that Muhammad was a pedophile or to chnge the clear definition of Jihad or the totalitarian goals of Islam or Islam’s prophecies about a final slaughter of Jews, or what Islam really means (Peace versus Submission) etc etc etc. You can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all the people all the time.

Bless you,

Joel

 

[r.gonzales]

JoelRichardson:

To reference Shia’ sources is not like a Christian citing the KKK or some cult. Shai’ make up approx 15% of Islam, it is not some fringe movement.

the shee’ah are a cult. their beliefs and acts of innovation are so absurd that cultish is the only word to describe them (an example of this would be their declaring the vast majority of prophet muhammad’s companions, including his 3 closest friends and his most beloved wife, to be apostates - this would be akin to someone claiming that jesus’ 12 diciples left the religion that jesus came with and disbelieved in him after he left them). secondly, since when does the beliefs of a deviant 15% of muslims make up for the rest of the 85%'s beliefs with regards to anything???

JoelRichardson:

Ibn Kathir (not a Shia’ last time I checked), utterly destroys the notion that Taqiya is for Shia’ Muslims only when he says, “Taqiya is allowed until the Day of Resurrection.” in reference to Surah 3:28 www.tafsir.com

no, ibn katheer wasn’t shee’ee. but he wasn’t one of islam’s earliest Quranic commentators, as you so erroneously stated, either. ibn katheer lived during the 8th century of islamic history, we’re currently in the 15th century, which roughly puts him in the “middle of the pack” so to speak. as for him utterly destroying the notion that taqiyyah is only for the shee’ah, there are a couple things to mention here:

1. where in this thread have i ever suggested that there is no such thing as taqiyyah in islam at all?
2. your claim that ibn katheer made that statement, just shows and exposes the fact that you don’t really check your sources. ibn katheer did not make that statement, he was quoting al-imam al-bukhaaree who was quoting al-hasan al-basree. it also shows how little you understand al-basree’s statement, “at-taqiyyah ilaa yawm il-qiyaamah - taqiyyah is until the day of standing.” this statement means that its allowance will last until the establishment of the final hour. and btw, if you check the link you provide as a referece (tafsir.com) you’ll see that the quote you’ve presented here differs from the quote that’s presented there… (tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=3&tid=8052)

JoelRichardson:

Likewise Abu Hamid Imam Al-Ghazali (another Sunni Muslim philosopher)

al-imam aboo haamid al-ghazaalee was a sufi for much of his life. he has also said things that are considered disbelief, let alone things that are contrary to islam’s teachings. lying in itself is a major sin as is clearly shown in the Quran and sunnah (another good reference to show this fact would be al-imam adh-dhahabee’s book on major sins). so ghazaalee’s saying that it isn’t is wrong. islam forbids lying, except in certain limited cases. you talk of deception, but your portrayal that islam calls for lying beyond these restrictions is nothing short of deception itself.

 

[DeExupery]

Dear Gonzales,

Sorry for just entering again this time. It’s interesting to read what Joel has mentioned, and its a new knowledge for me.
So, is it all true? Isn’t Islam a religion of peace? Is there anyone can quote the full verse of the peace: that someone who kills a man kills all human?

Fox

 

[DeExupery]

Another saddening news,

two other Christian girls were shot in the head and died in Poso.

westernresistance.com/blog/archives/000853.html

Fox

 

[Reuben_J]

Gonzales,

It’s interesting to observe that you’re actually trying to attack the sources rather than to discuss the examples that Joel presented. If you don’t agree with what he says why don’t you just say so and state your reasons. Otherwise I would tend to agree with Joel that you’re merely trying to eliminate the need to discuss the real issues. Deceit? For goodness sake, I hope not.

 

[r.gonzales]

Reuben J:

It’s interesting to observe that you’re actually trying to attack the sources rather than to discuss the examples that Joel presented.

reuben, what’s interesting is that you’ve either missed or ignored what i’ve said above:

r.gonzales:

as for the specific evidences quoted that came from sunni sources, they’ve all been pretty much taken out of context and misinterpreted to suit your desires… if Allah wills, i’ll address those when i have time.

as well as my respose to the statement he quoted from ibn taimiyyah (which i still haven’t been able to find in the original book it was quoted from) made in the same post i made the above statement:

r.gonzales:

as for what’s been presented here itself, using this quote to back up your initial statement is grossly misinterpretating the intent of what is said, especially in applying it to situations like those found in interfaith dialogues or debates. fearing for one’s self and one’s religion is fearing some danger or harm to these things. what’s going on in france with the state-wide ban on the islamic hijaab is something that would cause harm to a muslim woman’s religion; such that it may even be obligatory for her to migrate to a place where such a ban does not exist. ignornant muslims not well grounded in their faith having propaganda thrown at them from deviant cultish sects like the shee’ah or the sufis would be something that would cause them to fear some type of harm to their religion; such that he/she may need to boycott or flee from such people…

interfaith discussions and debates with unbelievers in these forum type settings are no where similar to these above mentioned situations. in these settings a muslim who thinks he is well grounded in belief and faith would have no reason to fear for his/her life or religion. the only reason a muslim would join a forum like this would be to defend his/her religion from the sometimes blatant attacks by people such as yourself, or to clear up misconceptions being spread about it. so your trying to portray these types of settings as a cause and allowance for a muslim to use taqiyyah is nothing short of deceptive itself.

as well as my comment to his use of the quote from ibn katheer’s tafseer regarding taqiyyah being permissible until the day of standing:

r.gonzales:

no, ibn katheer wasn’t shee’ee. but he wasn’t one of islam’s earliest Quranic commentators, as you so erroneously stated, either. ibn katheer lived during the 8th century of islamic history, we’re currently in the 15th century, which roughly puts him in the “middle of the pack” so to speak. as for him utterly destroying the notion that taqiyyah is only for the shee’ah, there are a couple things to mention here:

1. where in this thread have i ever suggested that there is no such thing as taqiyyah in islam at all?
2. your claim that ibn katheer made that statement, just shows and exposes the fact that you don’t really check your sources. ibn katheer did not make that statement, he was quoting al-imam al-bukhaaree who was quoting al-hasan al-basree. it also shows how little you understand al-basree’s statement, “at-taqiyyah ilaa yawm il-qiyaamah - taqiyyah is until the day of standing.” this statement means that its allowance will last until the establishment of the final hour. and btw, if you check the link you provide as a referece (tafsir.com) you’ll see that the quote you’ve presented here differs from the quote that’s presented there… (tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=3&tid=8052)

as i mentioned, many of the examples brought by joel that originate from legitimate islamic texts are taken way out of context and presented with twisted understandings and misinterpretations. and just as i’ve said, i will address the evidences and examples brought by joel when i have the time to sit down and write a full reply - which will take time as i will no doubt need to check back to the original arabic sources of the quotes.

DeExupery:

Is there anyone can quote the full verse of the peace: that someone who kills a man kills all human?

Allah says in the Quran, 5:32 - whoever killed a soul without a soul (i.e., without right) or caused corruption in the earth, then it is certainly as if he killed all of mankind. and whoever let it live (i.e., the soul), it is certainly as if he let all of mankind live.

 

[Reuben_J]

JoelRichardson:

I also demonsrtate that Muhammad allowed deciet for the sake of gaining wealth:

"After the conquest of the city of Khaybar by the Muslims, the Prophet was approached by Hajaj Ibn `Aalat and told: “O Prophet of Allah: I have in Mecca some excess wealth and some relatives, and I would like to have them back; am I excused if I bad-mouth you to escape persecution?” The Prophet excused him and said: “Say whatever you have to say.”

And deception is allowed to kill Muhammad’s enemies:

“Allah’s Apostle said, “Who is willing to kill Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?” Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, “O Allah’s Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?” The Prophet said, “Yes.” Muhammad bin Maslama said, “Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab).” The Prophet said, “You may say it.””

It was Imam Al-Ghazali who says it best.

“Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible.”

“Know this that lying is not sin by itself, but if it brings harm to you it could be ugly. However, you can lie if that will keep you from evil or if it will result in prosperity.”

Ibn Kathir comments that:

"Allah prohibited His believing servants from becoming supporters of the disbelievers, or to take them as comrades with whom they develop friendships… Allah warned against such behavior when He said, ‘O you who believe! Take not my enemies and your enemies as friends, showing affection towards them. And whosoever of you does that, then indeed he has gone astray from the straight path.’ And, ‘O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as friends, they are but friends of each other. And whoever befriends them, then surely, he is one of them.’. Allah said next, ‘Unless you indeed fear a danger from them,’ meaning, except those (Muslims) who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers. In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly. For instance, Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda’ said, ‘We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.’ "

rg, are the above out of context?

Okay. Please take your time to respond.

God bless.

 

[r.gonzales]

Reuben J:

rg, are the above out of context?

Okay. Please take your time to respond.

God bless.

hi reuben, i’m in the process of replying to the specific examples mentioned by joel in this post of his. and when i’m done, if Allah wills, the deceit used by him or those he quotes from will be plainly evident.

 

[MrS]

r.gonzales:

hi reuben, i’m in the process of replying to the specific examples mentioned by joel in this post of his. and when i’m done, if Allah wills, the deceit used by him or those he quotes from will be plainly evident.

to whom?

 

[flameburns623]

Could I point out some things which perhaps will further this discussion?

1. Many of the Muslims who post here are NOT posting in their primary language: many learned English in school or after emigrating to English-speaking countries. This affects to a great degree their ability to manage the nuances of the language and to articulate arguments in a manner which seems coherent to native speakers of English, at least in my opinion and experience.
2. For the same reason, there is a bit of a cultural gulf between how many of the Muslims conduct a religous discussion and how Americans and British do so. In Arabic countries, there is a cultural proclivity to be rather aggressive in one’s discourse, whereas Americans and British tend to want to retain an air of genteel restraint. I think this colors a lot of the discussions I see about Islam.
3. It appears to me that many of the Muslim apologists are also not highly-educated in the fields of the liberal-arts or humanities, though they may have significant training in ‘hard’ science or technical fields. (I am NOT saying the Muslim posters are not intelligent or well-educated, but the liberal-arts and humanities put a different sort of ‘stamp’ or ‘impress’ upon a person than do the applied sciences or technical fields). Many are well-read in Islam and have seen a lot of the sorts of arguments which keep coming up in this forum. They are not, however, scholars in comparative religion nor especially familiar with religious beliefs other than their own. This is important because it affects how well they can manage discussions about religion–it seems to me that some of them bring a lot of fervor to discussions but not a lot of substance. Others are quite learned and thoroughly familiar with American culture, and I have had some good discussions with those folks.
4. By the same token, many of the Christian posters don’t seem to have read very widely in Islam, either. I, personally, don’t recollect that I have ever read a ‘hadith’, though I’ve made several attempts to muddle my way through the Qu’ran. Most of the folks raising issues against Islam are relying upon second-hand, mostly Internet, sources–which may in turn ALSO be relying upon second-hand sources. One needs to assume that such information may get corrupted in transmission or that it might have been wrong to begin with. Muslims who spot such errors would do us all a favor if they will cite exactly how and where the information has gotten off-track–not simply dismiss a source because it was posted on an anti-Islamic website, but actually give us evidence that such-and-so quote is bogus, or that thus-and-thus citation has characterised something improperly in these ways. Offering evidence or citations–even if the citations are NOT accessible via internet–would be helpful. I do stress to our Muslim friends that my decision to cite a source such as “Answering Islam” does not automatically render the source wrong nor show ill will on my part: the point seems valid to me, and it is up to you to do the work to show me how the source has gone astray, or else concede the point and let me move on to the next issue.
5. If somone is going to quote Arabic–please have mercy upon those of us who can’t actually READ the Arabic language. Give us an English source. If a non-Muslim is going to quote a translation of something, do what one can to ensure that the translation is accurate. Be sure of the quotes one posts. Bear in mind that after 9/11, almost everyone in the world with an e-mail address got a bogus letter which said those attacks were predicted in the Qu’ran, in Sura 9, verse 11. (I stress this was NOT a bona fide quote). If I were going to cite an Arabic authority to make a particularly-damning point against Islam–I think I would want to ‘google’ that source first, lest I discover that I were perpetuating a hoax.

 

[r.gonzales]

here is the first of my replies to what’s been mentioned by joel in his post…

JoelRichardson:

Renowned Muslim Philosopher Ibn Taymiyah from his book titled The Sword on the neck of the Accuser of Muhammad:

“Believers when in a weakened stage in a non-Muslim country should forgive and be patient with people of the book (i.e., Jews and Christians) when they insult Allah and his prophet by any means. Believers should lie to people of the book to protect their lives and their religion.”

with Allah’s praise, i was able to find this passage in the original arabic work, as-saarim ul-maslool 'alaa shaatim ir-rasool (the unsheathed sword against the abuser of the messenger), while flipping through the hardcopy i borrowed from my islamic centre. the ms word format copy can be downloaded here for whoever is able and wants to verify my findings. the quote starts on the bottom of page 84 (at least on my computer that’s what page it’s on).

firstly, i want to mention that this whole book’s topic is the legislated ruling and punishment for someone who curses or abuses Allah’s messenger. in it, ibn taimiyyah discusses the various aspects of the issue (such as what is considered to be cursing prophet muhammad, who the ruling and punishment applies to, etc.) and proofs and evidences concerning them as found in the legislative texts.

under the subheading, “the believer in a land or during a time in which he is weakened acts by the verse of patience and forgiveness…” (as found in the hardcopy i have with me), ibn taimiyyah writes:

so whoever was from the muslims in a land in which he was put in a weakened state, or during a time in which he was in a weakened state, then he should act by the verse of patience, forgiveness and {pardon} from whoever of those who were given the Book (i.e., the jews and the christians) and the polytheists who harms Allah and His messenger. as for the people of strength, then certainly they act by the verse of fighting the leaders of disbelief who attack the religion and by the verse of fighting those who were given the Book until they give the jizyah from a [willing] hand while they are subdued.

so if it is said Allah, exalted is He, has said, “do you not see those who were forbidden from secret counsels - until - and if they came to you greeting you by what Allah did not great you with and they say within themselves, ‘if Allah will not punish us for what we say.’ sufficient for them is hell; they will be burned by it. the outcome is wretched.” (58:8) then He informed that they greet the messenger with a rejected greeting and he informed that the punishment in the hereafter suffices them for it. so it is known that punishing them in the worldly life is not obligatory.

(additions in ]'s & ( )'s are by me to aid in understanding & addtions in { }'s are parts found in the hardcopy i have that do not exist in the ms word copy i have linked to.)

unless the last sentence of the quote found in your article appears further down in the text in another section, it’s not from ibn taimiyyah’s words as found in this particular part of the book. looking at this, it’s clear that a large portion of what ibn taimiyyah has said in this section of his book has been clipped and that portions have been added. it’s also clear that what ibn taimiyyah was saying in this portion of his book was grossly taken out of context. big surprise there, huh? that sir, is deceitful - and given the motives behind mark a. gabriel’s writings and his attempts to discredit islam, i think it’s pretty safe to assume deceit rather than assume ignorance in this case.

con’t…

 

[r.gonzales]

con’t…

for argument’s sake though, let’s say that ibn taimiyyah had made this statement in the passage quoted, it’s utterly ridiculous to suggest that internet forums such as this one would be a setting that would warrant the use of taqiyyah according to islam’s legislated texts.

the word taqiyyah comes from the same root word as the word taqwaa (which means piety, fear of Allah): taqaa or waqaa - both mean to fear, to be cautious and wary of, to protect and to guard. taqiyyah is a means of protecting one’s self and one’s religion due to some fear or danger that is present. its allowance stems from the verse in which Allah says, “the believers should not take the unbelievers as allies and whoever does that, then he has nothing to do with Allah, unless they fear from them something to be feared. and Allah warns you from Himself, and to Allah is the outcome.” (3:28). and as i posted above, ibn katheer commented on this verse saying, “‘unless they fear from them something to be feared,’ meaning: unless someone feared from their evil in some of the countries or moments. so he has [the right] to take shelter from them with his outward (appearance), not with his inward (condition) and his intention.” many other Quranic commentators such as 'abdur-rahmaan bin naasir as-sa’dee have said similarly.

so the question is raised, what fear or danger for one’s life or religion would exist in a setting like this??? a setting where a muslim would participate in an internet discussion forum for the purpose of calling people to islam, or for the purpose of clearing up misconceptions or defending it from attacks??? what justification exists here that would render this concession applicable???

as for this:

JoelRichardson:

He refuted Greek philosophy when it did not agree with Islam. So what? Your suggestion that simply because he did not espouse Greek philosophy, he is therefore not a Muslim philospher betrays your lack of understanding. You also failed to mention his work for instance, Al-Mantiq wal-Falsafah: (Logic and Philosophy). Not surprising. Ignorance? Or Taqiya? Either way, your point is irrelevant to the point of the post. Once again, try to marginalize your opponent to eliminate the need to discuss the real issues, in order to avoid having to address the clear facts that I have shown. By the way, I am not an Orientalist. I am merely a person who loves truth…

“Ibn Taimiyah studied, at an early stage, all the disciplines of jurisprudence, Ahadith of the Prophet (peace be upon him), commentaries of the Quran, mathematics and philosophy, and in each he was far lead of his contemporaries.”

firstly, again, you display your ignorance (or perhaps should i say deception? :ehh: ) concerning islam’s notable figures and scholars. ibn taimiyyah’s study of philosophy does not necessitate that he is thus a philosopher, just as my studying science doesn’t necessitate that i’m thus a scientist. secondly, ibn taimiyyah does not have a work entitled “al-mantiq wal-falsafah”, what he does have are various treatises on those topics, which are pretty much contained in his majmoo’ al-fataawaa. most of which are refutations and criticisms against them and those who use them; two of them being, “ar-radd 'alal-mantiqiyyeen - refutation of the logicians” and “naqd al-mantiq - criticism of logic”. surprising? not really… (ignorance or taqiyyah? ) as for the irrelevance of my bringing it up, perhaps you missed when i started my comment out with the words, “a minor point, perhaps, …” as well as what i ended it with, “as for the rest of the post, if Allah willed, i’ll reply to what’s mentioned in it when i have time after getting home from work.”

more to come when i’m able to post more…

 

[Booklover]

Isn’t it amazing how the Quran protects Mohammed, even mentioning the punishments meted out to those poor souls who dared to disagree with the “prophet” or blasphemed him in any way! What a perfect way to silence your opponents! But then again, since the Quran came through Mohammed, it’s not surprising, is it?

 

[MrS]

Booklover:

Isn’t it amazing how the Quran protects Mohammed, even mentioning the punishments meted out to those poor souls who dared to disagree with the “prophet” or blasphemed him in any way! What a perfect way to silence your opponents! But then again, since the Quran came through Mohammed, it’s not surprising, is it?

The fox will guard the henhouse and also write the rules for security… sounds like a plan to me.
http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/16/16_8_100.gif this is really the fox… we don’t recognize him in his disguise.

 

[Faith101]

Booklover:

Isn’t it amazing how the Quran protects Mohammed, even mentioning the punishments meted out to those poor souls who dared to disagree with the “prophet” or blasphemed him in any way! What a perfect way to silence your opponents! But then again, since the Quran came through Mohammed, it’s not surprising, is it?

What do you believe will happen to those who attacked Jesus Christ peace be upon him?

What do you believe will happen to those who tried to kill Jesus Christ?

Thats right…on to them is a painful punishment.

If you actually read the Quran you will find that Allah corrects Mohamed peace be upon him in several incidents. And this whole “Mohamed wrote it” which you are trying to imply is silly. Really, if you had knowledge about the Quran and about his life, you would know how silly it is.

I try not to respond to you Booklover, because you usually have nothing good to say…and it usually lacks knowledge. You should be thankful for the sake of Christianity, that all Christians are not like you. B/c no one would believe you come from a religion that teaches you to love and not attack people.

May God guide you before its too late.

 

[DeExupery]

Oh, Gonzales,

Thanks. I just find the full version of the 5:32

“32. On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.”

Source: islamicity.com/Mosque/QURAN/5.htm

So I think Allah prescribed that to Children of Israel. Or am I wrong. Please enlight me.

Fox

 

[JoelRichardson]

and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people.

Thats from the Talmud

 

[DeExupery]

Oh Joel,

Is that so? So do you think that there are a lot of things in Quran taken from Talmud?

Fox