Islam true or false

[Autumn-Smoke]

Do a Google search and see the number of Muslims who are converting to Christianity - - many are saying that Jesus has appeared to them in visions and dreams.

Here’s some examples http://www1.cbn.com/onlinediscipleship/visions-of-jesus-stir-muslim-hearts)

See also this site: Muslims Converting to Christianity | Open Doors USA - Open Doors USA

See this Catholic site with the same news: Miraculous dreams of Jesus Christ lead Muslims to Christianity - Middle East - International - News - Catholic Online " Miraculous dreams of Jesus Christ lead Muslims to Christianity"

There’s many more. Jesus is The Way, The Truth and The Life for the whole world.

 

[Jesusislove]

When they told me I was going to hell, they were trying to put fear in me. They scare people into converting

 

[sevenswords]

Jesus Loves you you are not going to Hell.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

That’s generally how they have spread, through fear or conquest. This is in stark contrast to Christianity, whose early spread was entirely through peaceful conversion.

 

[phil19034]

sevenswords:

Islam is controlled by fear…

Death in this world as opposed to eternal damnation in the next. Mmm. Tricky decision.

There is a HUGE difference.

1. God does NOT hold people accountable for things they don’t know, as long as they were doing their best to follow Him. We are bound to God’s Revelation, but God can make exceptions.
2. God gives us until the moment of our death to repent & convert our hearts.
3. killing of infidels isn’t limited to military targets & criminals. It includes the killing of innocent women & children too. That was never the Christian way. Even when so-called Catholics did horrible things to innocents, it wasn’t in the name of the Catholic Church or the Magisterium. They were war Crimes done by individuals or military units, but not sanctioned by the magisterium.

God Bless

 

[Wozza]

1. No religion holds anyone responsible for that which they don’t know.
2. It’s not my idea of justice. But then, I’m not God.
3. You are taking the Quran out of historical context. Just as if I were to say that massacres in the OT are representative of Christianity.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

1. You are taking the Quran out of historical context. Just as if I were to say that massacres in the OT are representative of Christianity.

The problem with this common rebuttal is that the OT slaughters were in response to specific cultures, served specific purposes, and were a limited commands. The commands in the Quran are not, they are general calls to squash any religion that isn’t Islam, through violence if necessary. They are limitless decrees which are active regardless of context.

The two things are not comparable.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

1. You are taking the Quran out of historical context. Just as if I were to say that massacres in the OT are representative of Christianity.

The problem with this common rebuttal is that the OT slaughters were in response to specific cultures, served specific purposes, and were a limited commands. The commands in the Quran are not, they are general calls to squash any religion that isn’t Islam, through violence if necessary. They are limitless decrees which are active regardless of context.

The two things are not comparable.

Are you aware of these quotes from the Quran?

There is no compulsion in religion (2:256)
Let him who will believe and let him who will disbelieve (18:29)
Allah does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who fought not against you on account of religion and did not drive you out of your homes. Verily, Allah loves those who deal with equity. ( 60: 8).
And do not insult those whom they call upon besides Allah. (6:108).

Perhaps you could comment.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I never said such verses weren’t in there, only that the commands for bringing about conversion, through violence if necessary, are also in there, and do not carry the limiting factors seen in the OT.

The Quran is a schizophrenic book. In order to live by one half of it, you basically have to ignore the other half. To live by the verses promoting peace, you have to ignore the verse promoting violence, and vice-versa. True, you could say the same of portions of the OT, but the difference is that the OT to NT is the journey of a civilization over several centuries, whereas the Quran is the ravings of one individual who claimed to get commands from God (or at least, from an angle), even when those commands were inherently contradictory.

 

[chessnerd321]

As I understand it, Islam and the Bible make different claims about who Jesus was. However, by my estimation the Islamic account is little more than an adaptation of some Gnostic accounts.

The Gnostic gospels are predated by the Biblical gospels by centuries. Think about this way: What source seems more reliable if you’re researching George Washington? A book written in 1800 or a book written in 1980.

The one in 1800 clearly. So it is with Christ. Are you gonna trust the letters of St Paul from 40 AD and the gospels written in 70-100 AD or the not so profit Muhammad born in 570?

 

[JimG]

Islam is a Christian heresy. It is covered by Hillaire Belloc in his book, The Great Heresies.
It is Christianity with a simplified theology and an incorrect view of Christ.

 

[Wozza]

I never said such verses weren’t in there, only that the commands for bringing about conversion, through violence if necessary are in there…

It would be helpful if you could reference them so we could see them in context.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Sura 2: 193

Fight them, till there is no persecution and the religion is God’s; then if they give over, there shall be no enmity save for evildoers.

Sura 47:4

Fight them, till there is no persecution and the religion is God’s; then if they give over, there shall be no enmity save for evildoers.

4:76

The believers fight in the way of God, and the unbelievers fight in the idols’ way. Fight you therefore against the friends of Satan; surely the guile of Satan is ever feeble.

9:5

Slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them captive, and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful

9:29

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued

8:39

And fight them until there is no more Fitnah

9:1-11

Four-months reprieve, and, honour those who keep perfectly to accords you have made with them, and respect those who pay the subjugation tax and convert, but otherwise, “then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush”.

48:29

“Those who follow [Muhammad] are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another”.

4: 95-101

The believers who stay at home - apart from those that suffer from a grave impediment - are not the equal of those who fight for the cause of God with their goods and their persons. God has given those that fight with their goods and persons a higher rank than those who stay at home. God has promised all a good reward; but far richer is the recompense of those who fight for Him… He that leaves his dwelling to fight for God and His apostle and is then overtaken by death, shall be rewarded by God… the unbelievers are your inveterate enemies

There are more, but I think I’ve made my point.

 

[Wozza]

To take a few:

9.5 refers to the Meccans (the idolaters) who had declared war on Mohammed and Islam. Not all idolaters.

9.29 refers to those who refuse to pay taxes (Jizya). Not everyone who doesn’t believe. In fact, those who didn’t believe and paid were protected.

48.29 is mistranslated. It should read ‘stern and unyielding’ not ruthless.

4.95 refers to those who fight justified wars agains those who war against Islam. Those who fight in Allah’s name are thought better than those who do not.

The only point that you have made is that everyone can see that context is everything.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

To take a few:

9.5 refers to the Meccans (the idolaters) who had declared war on Mohammed and Islam. Not all idolaters.

Per other verses (even some I’ve given here), anybody who doesn’t submit to Islam is an Idolater who has declared war against it. Hence, anyone who worships Jesus as God, for example, would be subject to this.

9.29 refers to those who refuse to pay taxes (Jizya). Not everyone who doesn’t believe. In fact, those who didn’t believe and paid were protected.

Funny thing. I know another organization that threatens violence if you don’t pay a “protection” fee. I think they’re called the Mob, kind of a big deal, and pretty much universally despised.

At least we can see where they learned their tactics.

48.29 is mistranslated. It should read ‘stern and unyielding’ not ruthless.

Yeah… that doesn’t actually improve the message, it just makes it sound nicer.

4.95 refers to those who fight justified wars agains those who war against Islam. Those who fight in Allah’s name are thought better than those who do not.

Isn’t any war against non-believers justified because it is done to spread the word of Mohammad? Hence, anyone who fights against non-believers is justified in taking violent action.

You might not like it, but that’s a very common reading, and a very easy one to arrive at given the language of this so-called “holy book.” This is the sort of logic driving pretty much all of the Islamic terrorist groups at work today, so you can’t really claim the language doesn’t support it.

Sorry, you haven’t really helped your case any, and you ignored the more damning passages.

Historically, Islam never been a religion of peace. Even if the words are there, the spirit and the follow-through aren’t.

 

[Wozza]

Those who worship other Gods are to be respected. The idolaters in the passages you have quoted refer to specific people who were at war with Islam. It does NOT refer to ALL idolaters.

Wozza:

To take a few:

9.5 refers to the Meccans (the idolaters) who had declared war on Mohammed and Islam. Not all idolaters.

Per other verses (even some I’ve given here), anybody who doesn’t submit to Islam is an Idolater who has declared war against it. Hence, anyone who worships Jesus as God, for example, would be subject to this.

9.29 refers to those who refuse to pay taxes (Jizya). Not everyone who doesn’t believe. In fact, those who didn’t believe and paid were protected.

Funny thing. I know another organization that threatens violence if you don’t pay a “protection” fee. I think they’re called the Mob, kind of a big deal, and pretty much universally despised.

At least we can see where they learned their tactics.

48.29 is mistranslated. It should read ‘stern and unyielding’ not ruthless.

Yeah… that doesn’t actually improve the message, it just makes it sound nicer.

4.95 refers to those who fight justified wars agains those who war against Islam. Those who fight in Allah’s name are thought better than those who do not.

Isn’t any war against non-believers justified because it is done to spread the word of Mohammad? Hence, anyone who fights against non-believers is justified in taking violent action.

You might not like it, but that’s a very common reading, and a very easy one to arrive at given the language of this so-called “holy book.” This is the sort of logic driving pretty much all of the Islamic terrorist groups at work today, so you can’t really claim the language doesn’t support it.

Sorry, you haven’t really helped your case any, and you ignored the more damning passages.

Historically, Islam never been a religion of peace. Even if the words are there, the spirit and the follow-through aren’t.

And war against unbelievers is only allowed in cases where THEY are waging war avainst Islam. It does NOT refer to ALL unbelievers.

We are talking the 7th century in the Middle East. They used to hang people in England for stealing bread in the 19th century. It’s somewhat naive to think that not oaying your taxes might get you a small fine. What was the punishment for working on the Sabbath?

And there is huge difference between being stern and being ruthless. Especially in the context you were using the term ‘ruthless’.

And finally, no. Any war against non-believers is not justified for just that reason.

If you want to claim that people are using Islam and the Quran unjustifiably then be my guest. But you would appear to have an impossible task on your hand as you believe exactly as those who do use to justify violence.

It’s a large and very slow moving band wagon full of people with the exact same attitude as you have been exhibiting. Too many people find it’s all too easy to climb aboard.

 

[adamhovey1988]

Muslims don’t believe that non-Muslims will go to hell, per se. If you can, read what they believe about “People of the book”. Personally, I think Islam is false, not because I don’t believe there are some good things in Islam, but because the deny the reality of the crucifixion. There are others too, but that leaves a bad taste.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Those who worship other Gods are to be respected. The idolaters in the passages you have quoted refer to specific people who were at war with Islam. It does NOT refer to ALL idolaters.

That’s your interpretation. I think, given the current situation in the world, it is quite plain that there are other interpretations which contradict yours. Given the lack of any central authority in Islam to make definitive pronouncements, you have no basis to claim that your interpretation is correct.

Like I said before, it’s a pretty schizophrenic book.

And war against unbelievers is only allowed in cases where THEY are waging war avainst Islam. It does NOT refer to ALL unbelievers.

Your interpretation, again…

We are talking the 7th century in the Middle East. They used to hang people in England for stealing bread in the 19th century. It’s somewhat naive to think that not oaying your taxes might get you a small fine. What was the punishment for working on the Sabbath?

The 7th century Middle East is 7 centuries after Christendom had spread to a great portion of it. There was no penalty among Christians for working on the Sabbath, though you still had to go to mass on Sunday. (Because to not do so willfully is a mortal sin, not because of any sort of imposed penalty)

You also didn’t address the underlying reality that it’s extortion to avoid violence.

And there is huge difference between being stern and being ruthless. Especially in the context you were using the term ‘ruthless’.

Stern and unyielding. That means that you do not give, and you do not stop. Ruthless implies a specific methodology which is not precluded by your translation.

And finally, no. Any war against non-believers is not justified for just that reason.

Sorry to keep falling back on this, but, again, that’s your interpretation. There’s nothing authoritative about it, and there are plenty of groups in the world who have read the book and arrived at the opposite conclusion. You have no grounds to claim that your interpretation is the correct one, or even a better reading, because Islam lack any central authority for making those determinations. Given the historical reality of Islam, I would say that more people have agreed with my reading of the text than yours.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

continued…

If you want to claim that people are using Islam and the Quran unjustifiably then be my guest. But you would appear to have an impossible task on your hand as you believe exactly as those who do use to justify violence.

It’s a large and very slow moving band wagon full of people with the exact same attitude as you have been exhibiting. Too many people find it’s all too easy to climb aboard.

I’m not claiming they’re using it unjustifiably. I believe their actions are totally justified if the book is real. I just don’t think it is. I believe it is the ravings of a warlord who used religion and the promise of glory to fuel his economic and political empire. I believe that they are following the tenants of their faith as they are laid out in the book, or, at least as laid out in part of it. (Again, it’s a pretty self-contradictory read).

The book lends itself to such violent interpretations because, again, there’s no authority to claim otherwise, and also because significant portions of the book place an emphasis on war against non-believers. Those passages also lack the qualifiers you’ve attempted to give them here, given how other portions of the text can be interpreted to apply to any and all non-believers at any time.

To top it all off, you’re still only responding to roughly half of my examples, which is hardly an exhaustive list to begin with. I don’t expect you to respond to them all, there are really too many for a single conversation, but still, it bears mentioning.

I’m not going to be able to respond today again. I’ll probably drop out of this conversation in general. You’ve tried to make your point, but I just don’t buy it. I appreciate that you think you’re right, but my reading contradicts yours, and I believe that history bares out my understanding of the text.

 

[Nelka]

False.

Extras.