Pay, convert or die. Muslims, do you believe this?

[peace_at_last]

You can always reread, of course–but I understand if you don’t think it’s worth it:

Some do. I don’t claim to speak for all.

I think the best way to put it is that there is a culmination: Jesus. Jesus is the apex of God’s revelation.

Up to Jesus, we have “progressive revelation.” That is to say, the OT reveals God, and reflects a process in which God was revealing Himself more and more fully to the Hebrew people, but the OT does not fully reveal God–it points to Jesus.

After Jesus, we have progress in understanding the revelation given in Jesus, but no further “public revelation.”

Edwin

Actually I did re-read your posts but you brought up so many different subjects that I just decided to stick to one of them. Now back to the discussion,

I think I wasn’t clear enough about point a to b. You brought up the concept of progressive revelation in relation to the harsh laws of the OT. Explain “progressive revelation” in that context. What progressed that suddenly caused an earthquake in God’s laws. God was the same God and I am sure nothing miraculous happened to the people that would warrant such a great change in attitude.

 

[peace_at_last]

While I agree with the generality of what you are saying here dear friend, it is important to acknowledge the lamentably poor record of “correct judgement” that humans have shown in the past and today.

While I agree that God should be the judger of the murderer and the rapist etc etc, and it is for Him to provide guidance as to what the punishment should be (through Revelation), it is a whole diffeent matter in discerning who was the TRUE murderer, and the TRUE rapist.

False and incorrect judgements are passed down every single day in the Middle East, and for the punishments to be given in these circumstances proves the defectiveness of Sharia Law in todays society. There are today, walking freely in the Middle East, those who are murderers and rapists…and those who were punished (incorrectly) in their place…well (sad indeed, I’m sure you will agree)

The intention is for true justice. Often it is the messenger of true injustice.

I love and honour the intention. The time for it to be implemented is not now…



.

There are two forms of injustice in this context: 1-deliberate injustice, 2-unintentional injustice.

Number one is rejected in all legislative systems, religious and secular, and number two is immediately corrected wherever possible in all legislative systems once it becomes apparent that an error has occurred. Both forms of these injustices occur worldwide in ever single country. I don’t understand why you simply singled out the middle-east.

 

[Servant19]

There are two forms of injustice in this context: 1-deliberate injustice, 2-unintentional injustice.

Number one is rejected in all legislative systems, religious and secular, and number two is immediately corrected wherever possible in all legislative systems once it becomes apparent that an error has occurred. Both forms of these injustices occur worldwide in ever single country. I don’t understand why you simply singled out the middle-east.

I singled out the Middle East because it is not dictated by secular reward and punishment.

Secular stuff is inevitably fallible.

When God’s guidance is put to practice so fallibly as it is in the Middle East, it does not offer a legitimate point of difference for the world to appreciate.

God’s Law should be like a beacon of light for the world to sit up and take notice. Unfortunately, Islamic countries do not show a “sit up and take notice of this wonderful system” evidence of this.

As I say, the concept is correct

The application is lamentably defective. And it is not Muhammad’s (pbuh) fault

.

 

[manualman]

Explain “progressive revelation” in that context. What progressed that suddenly caused an earthquake in God’s laws. God was the same God and I am sure nothing miraculous happened to the people that would warrant such a great change in attitude.

Edwin is explaining better something I tried to point out earlier. Let’s use the example of adultery. In the Old Testament, the Israelites were allowed to stone to death someone caught in adultery. In the New Testament, Jesus makes it pretty clear that no human has the moral standing to impose such a sentence. What changed? Not the character of God! The moral comprehension of the people changed. Prior to the OT revelation, vengeance and retribution ruled. As I understand it, if a woman was caught in adultery, the scorned man could execute her AND her children. Limiting the killing to the guilty person was what Pope Benedict would have called a “first step towards morality.” God didn’t reveal Himself totally to the people of the OT because they weren’t ready for it. They needed to come to understand gradually as they were able to. Because God loved them, He was patient and nudged them slowly towards being ready to understand more.

As for some of your counter-examples I am mystified. In the last 10 years, I watched as an Islamic boarding school and mosque were built near my home. They had some trouble with the stormwater detention and parking stall requirements of the city ordinance for a few months. They didn’t even try to get permission for a minaret or an amplification system for a muezzin, because they probably wouldn’t have been approved. The end product is architecturally very distinctively a mosque though. You honestly think this is similar to how Christians were treated in Iraq, Pakistan, or even Egypt even 8 years ago? That’s some serious denial of reality you have going on.

And that’s the mild one. You had the nerve to equate the strained family relations that often happens when a Christian leaves the faith for another (or none) with the honor killings that my Indonesian college acquaintances feared if their families found out that they had embraced Jesus as Savior and Lord? Sheesh.

As for Vatican City, it’s not a normal country. You can’t buy land there because it’s not for sale. The place exists to support the Holy See. But right at the main entry points to greater Rome, all sorts of religious diversity exists. One protestant sect famously set up an outreach outpost across the street with a big sign out front saying “A Light Shines in the Darkness.” Our Jewish friends call that Chutzpah, but there is no law against it. See much of that just outside Mecca?

 

[dronald]

You see that is the problem you and I have. I believe God gives us guidelines for everything, even how people are to be punished. I find it irrational that God’s erring servants are allowed to come up with methods of punishment but God with all his omniscience, who knows what punishment is best for what crime, can not legislate laws for punishments because we are not to judge peoples hearts. We don’t judge peoples hearts either. God will judge everyones hearts and actions in Judgment day. We judge the actions, based on God’s legislation just like secular governments that judge the actions based on their constitution.

When we judge one’s actions we do judge the hearts, and we also judge our own hearts because we are also full of sin. Someone who is strugling with a specific sin (pornography, lack of faith, adultery, etc.) we don’t believe can be put in prison and be killed because none of us are perfect; but I’ll get to your murder example.

For example, if someone commits murder, we are not judging his heart, we judge his action. Under different secular laws, the murderer can get a range of punishments from living on a 5 Star Island to being hanged. Under the law of God-Who definitely knows better than his erring servants which punishment is more appropriate-one has these choices: 1-Capital punishment, 2-Pay blood money, 3-Forgiveness. God advises number 3 but he has left it up to the deceased’s heir’s to decide for they have suffered the most. You might not know this but in Iran, there are special groups connected to the law enforcement body whose duty is to try to persuade the deceased’s heir to forgive the murderer (of course not for all forms of murder).

Unfortunately however there are multiple interpretations of Islamic law just as different countries have different modes of punishing others for very serious crimes. So how do you explain this? Does it prove that even men are so erring that they cannot implement God’s law? Maybe it’s not our job as a religious authority?

The Islamic laws all have forgiveness included in them. As I said in many of the punishments the person in charge can simply put aside the punishment for whatever reason. In some cases if the person orally claims that he has repented he is not to be punished. There are documented instances that people have come to the First Shia Imam (Imam Ali) requesting to be punished for severe sins they had committed but he had told them: No. Simply go and repent to God and ask Him for forgiveness. There is no need for punishment.

That’s fine.

I’ve lost count of the number of times I have answered your question: If God deems it appropriate that under specific conditions a sin/crime be met with a harsh punishment, who am I to oppose this order? My answer is obvious and based on the condition that I keep repeating.

Okay, so your answer then is; “Yes, one can be killed for apostasy according to Islam” and that’s fine. What troubles me is the way you tiptoe around a simple question and just want others to realize how “obvious” your answer is. Quite silly in my opinion, but thank you for answering.

You keep repeating the kindness and forgiveness that exists in the bible. I do not deny this but it seems you don’t know much about the guidelines for forgiveness and kindness that exist in (Shia) Islam. How about we create a comparative thread on ethics, Morals, and/or forgiveness in Christianity and Shia Islam and enlighten each other about the guidelines given on these subjects?

That would be a lot of fun. We could compare what Jesus taught to what Muhammad taught in regards to certain punishments.

I’m sure you’ve learned by now that the one I am most interested in is apostasy.

 

[peace_at_last]

Edwin is explaining better something I tried to point out earlier. Let’s use the example of adultery. In the Old Testament, the Israelites were allowed to stone to death someone caught in adultery. In the New Testament, Jesus makes it pretty clear that no human has the moral standing to impose such a sentence. What changed? Not the character of God! The moral comprehension of the people changed. Prior to the OT revelation, vengeance and retribution ruled. As I understand it, if a woman was caught in adultery, the scorned man could execute her AND her children. Limiting the killing to the guilty person was what Pope Benedict would have called a “first step towards morality.” God didn’t reveal Himself totally to the people of the OT because they weren’t ready for it. They needed to come to understand gradually as they were able to. Because God loved them, He was patient and nudged them slowly towards being ready to understand more.

As for some of your counter-examples I am mystified. In the last 10 years, I watched as an Islamic boarding school and mosque were built near my home. They had some trouble with the stormwater detention and parking stall requirements of the city ordinance for a few months. They didn’t even try to get permission for a minaret or an amplification system for a muezzin, because they probably wouldn’t have been approved. The end product is architecturally very distinctively a mosque though. You honestly think this is similar to how Christians were treated in Iraq, Pakistan, or even Egypt even 8 years ago? That’s some serious denial of reality you have going on.

And that’s the mild one. You had the nerve to equate the strained family relations that often happens when a Christian leaves the faith for another (or none) with the honor killings that my Indonesian college acquaintances feared if their families found out that they had embraced Jesus as Savior and Lord? Sheesh.

As for Vatican City, it’s not a normal country. You can’t buy land there because it’s not for sale. The place exists to support the Holy See. But right at the main entry points to greater Rome, all sorts of religious diversity exists. One protestant sect famously set up an outreach outpost across the street with a big sign out front saying “A Light Shines in the Darkness.” Our Jewish friends call that Chutzpah, but there is no law against it. See much of that just outside Mecca?

Now this is where I have problems with the progressive revelation reasoning. There is no proof to show that the people of the OT were not ready to accept the seemingly less harsh laws later brought by Jesus. And there is also no indication to show that the manners/morals of the people had changed much during the time of Jesus. Even hundreds of years after Jesus, for instance, during the Christian Inquisitions you have a Christian clergy that does not fit the moral change you claim occurred amongst the people centuries earlier.

The justifications claim an tsunami of moral change while most of the time the facts on the ground show the contrary or at best are inconclusive.

P.S. As I previously said, the counter examples were simply put forward to show there is discrimination everywhere.

 

[peace_at_last]

When we judge one’s actions we do judge the hearts, and we also judge our own hearts because we are also full of sin. Someone who is strugling with a specific sin (pornography, lack of faith, adultery, etc.) we don’t believe can be put in prison and be killed because none of us are perfect; but I’ll get to your murder example.

I wasn’t speaking about specific sins. I was speaking about all crimes in general. I believe it is up to God to legislate how one that commits a crime is punished for he knows best.

We judge people’s actions not their hearts. We don’t know what goes on in peoples hearts but when someone deliberately commits a crime we judge his actions. When a criminal is punished under secular or religious rule no one judges his heart. It is his actions that are judged.

P.S. Sometimes the heart is judged too, for instance there is a difference between someone who accidentally commits a crime and someone who does so deliberately.

Unfortunately however there are multiple interpretations of Islamic law just as different countries have different modes of punishing others for very serious crimes. So how do you explain this? Does it prove that even men are so erring that they cannot implement God’s law? Maybe it’s not our job as a religious authority?

These differences mostly arise from differences in the scripture of different sects. It does not prove that since people are erring they cannot implement God’s laws. Do secular states halt punishments because of differences in interpreting the laws or differences in different laws in different countries? no.

 

[dronald]

I wasn’t speaking about specific sins. I was speaking about all crimes in general. I believe it is up to God to legislate how one that commits a crime is punished for he knows best.

But aren’t specific sins punishable by Islamic law? Such as apostasy, adultery and blasphemy?

We judge people’s actions not their hearts. We don’t know what goes on in peoples hearts but when someone deliberately commits a crime we judge his actions. When a criminal is punished under secular or religious rule no one judges his heart. It is his actions that are judged.

This is what goes on in the secular too. It’s all the same.

These differences mostly arise from differences in the scripture of different sects. It does not prove that since people are erring they cannot implement God’s laws. Do secular states halt punishments because of differences in interpreting the laws or differences in different laws in different countries? no.

That exactly proves my point. Your god and his laws are similar to that of any other country trying to come up with the best way to interpret law. It only shows that we fail at trying to implement any “holy law”.

 

[manualman]

Now this is where I have problems with the progressive revelation reasoning. There is no proof to show that the people of the OT were not ready to accept the seemingly less harsh laws later brought by Jesus. And there is also no indication to show that the manners/morals of the people had changed much during the time of Jesus. Even hundreds of years after Jesus, for instance, during the Christian Inquisitions you have a Christian clergy that does not fit the moral change you claim occurred amongst the people centuries earlier.

What sort of proof would you like? History is dramatically clear in that even simple and blatant concepts can be adopted and yet ignored for centuries before their full implications sink in.

In my own country, it’s almost absurd that those we call “Founding Fathers” expound eloquently about the grandeur of being “endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights…” and yet those very men were slave owners. It took another 150 years before those principles were understood to apply to black people as well as white people. SKIN COLOR! They thought skin color meant that the slave was different enough to make the slave ineligible for those “inalienable rights.” They understood the principle, but were too stiff necked to allow it to be inconvenient in their own economic lives.

Back to my original example, God started by raising the conscience of a society by pointing out the rank injustice of killing children for the sins of the mother. I suspect it took a long time before it became morally unthinkable in their society to kill children for the sins of the parent like had previously been practiced. But it happened. THEN it became possible to move people to understand the virtue of being merciful to the one who committed the sin.

You keep trying to point out exceptions to the rule of moral law as if it proves that there is none among people. That’s invalid. The fact that murderers exist in my society does not prove that murder is acceptable in my society. The fact that Crusaders committed atrocities does not demonstrate that Christianity condones it. But the fact that Muhammed issued an ongoing order to kill infidels (ones unwilling to convert, anyways) in Allah’s name DOES demonstrate a principle, unless you are willing to say that Muhammed was wrong in commanding that or that some of the things Muhammed said and did violated Allah’s will.

 

[peace_at_last]

What sort of proof would you like? History is dramatically clear in that even simple and blatant concepts can be adopted and yet ignored for centuries before their full implications sink in.

In my own country, it’s almost absurd that those we call “Founding Fathers” expound eloquently about the grandeur of being “endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights…” and yet those very men were slave owners. It took another 150 years before those principles were understood to apply to black people as well as white people. SKIN COLOR! They thought skin color meant that the slave was different enough to make the slave ineligible for those “inalienable rights.” They understood the principle, but were too stiff necked to allow it to be inconvenient in their own economic lives.

Back to my original example, God started by raising the conscience of a society by pointing out the rank injustice of killing children for the sins of the mother. I suspect it took a long time before it became morally unthinkable in their society to kill children for the sins of the parent like had previously been practiced. But it happened. THEN it became possible to move people to understand the virtue of being merciful to the one who committed the sin.

You keep trying to point out exceptions to the rule of moral law as if it proves that there is none among people. That’s invalid. The fact that murderers exist in my society does not prove that murder is acceptable in my society. The fact that Crusaders committed atrocities does not demonstrate that Christianity condones it. But the fact that Muhammed issued an ongoing order to kill infidels (ones unwilling to convert, anyways) in Allah’s name DOES demonstrate a principle, unless you are willing to say that Muhammed was wrong in commanding that or that some of the things Muhammed said and did violated Allah’s will.

Actually, I’m trying to say morality has always existed amongst the people and the rules of the OT were not given to an immoral audience. Portraying the audience of the OT as a bunch of immoral uncivilized people is incorrect. You can’t go about justifying the harsh laws of the OT on the basis that they were intended for an immoral uncivilized people, because that is not the case.

 

[Contarini]

Actually I did re-read your posts but you brought up so many different subjects that I just decided to stick to one of them. Now back to the discussion,

I think I wasn’t clear enough about point a to b. You brought up the concept of progressive revelation in relation to the harsh laws of the OT. Explain “progressive revelation” in that context. What progressed that suddenly caused an earthquake in God’s laws. God was the same God and I am sure nothing miraculous happened to the people that would warrant such a great change in attitude.

I am not sure what you mean. You are “sure” that the coming of Jesus wasn’t something miraculous? That may be your assumption, since to you Jesus is just another prophet (though even in Islam the coming of Jesus is acknowledged to have been miraculous, right?). But of course it isn’t what we believe. Jesus was indeed an earthquake in history.

But Jesus didn’t cause an “earthquake” in God’s laws, so much as Jesus revealed the fuller meaning of what God had been trying to get through to people all along.

Several times you have used the word “uncivilized” (it may have first been used by one of the Christian posters, I believe). That is certainly not my language. Indeed, in a sense I would say that Jesus came to deliver us from civilization. I’ve been reading Violence and the Sacred, by Rene Girard. Girard argues that all human civilization is based on the need to control violence. We do this not by eliminating violence but by channeling it toward “safe” targets which won’t destroy the community. This isn’t “uncivilized” behavior at all. It’s the essence of civilization. It is also murderous and based on illusion. I don’t necessarily follow Girard all the way–I’m still thinking through how far I agree with him, and still haven’t read enough of his work to evaluate it properly. But I think he’s on to something.

Edwin

 

[manualman]

Actually, I’m trying to say morality has always existed amongst the people and the rules of the OT were not given to an immoral audience. Portraying the audience of the OT as a bunch of immoral uncivilized people is incorrect. You can’t go about justifying the harsh laws of the OT on the basis that they were intended for an immoral uncivilized people, because that is not the case.

I had to go back and see if I was the one who used the ‘civilized’ vocabulary Edwin objected to. It’s the kind of amateur mistake I make, but not this time. I like his critique against the word.

Perhaps what you are alluding to is that it’s an unfair critique to say that ancient people didn’t recognize right from wrong and try to live by it. In catholic vocabulary, we’d agree to the extent that all people have a built in affinity for recognizing Natural Law. But we don’t agree that all people of all cultures hold the same position in terms of recognizing Natural Law. If that were true, there would be no point to instructing people about right and wrong, something pretty much all religions do. While God did give us all consciences, humans are exceedingly good at deadening them. We do this both individually and culturally. Surely we must agree that cultures can become depraved and increase the likelihood that people will be tempted into sin? Why is it so hard to believe that people who lived in a time before God began his revelation would be more prone to having depraved cultures than cultures that developed after and in response to revelation?

 

[peace_at_last]

I am not sure what you mean. You are “sure” that the coming of Jesus wasn’t something miraculous? That may be your assumption, since to you Jesus is just another prophet (though even in Islam the coming of Jesus is acknowledged to have been miraculous, right?). But of course it isn’t what we believe. Jesus was indeed an earthquake in history.

But Jesus didn’t cause an “earthquake” in God’s laws, so much as Jesus revealed the fuller meaning of what God had been trying to get through to people all along.

Several times you have used the word “uncivilized” (it may have first been used by one of the Christian posters, I believe). That is certainly not my language. Indeed, in a sense I would say that Jesus came to deliver us from civilization. I’ve been reading Violence and the Sacred, by Rene Girard. Girard argues that all human civilization is based on the need to control violence. We do this not by eliminating violence but by channeling it toward “safe” targets which won’t destroy the community. This isn’t “uncivilized” behavior at all. It’s the essence of civilization. It is also murderous and based on illusion. I don’t necessarily follow Girard all the way–I’m still thinking through how far I agree with him, and still haven’t read enough of his work to evaluate it properly. But I think he’s on to something.

Edwin

Actually I do believe Jesus was miraculous and an earthquake in history. I was referring to a great change in the people. What great change occurred in the people from the time of Moses up to Jesus that warranted such a drastic change in laws from the OT to the NT that you referred to as “progressive revelation”. The people were all basically the same people with the same attitudes.

 

[peace_at_last]

I had to go back and see if I was the one who used the ‘civilized’ vocabulary Edwin objected to. It’s the kind of amateur mistake I make, but not this time. I like his critique against the word.

Perhaps what you are alluding to is that it’s an unfair critique to say that ancient people didn’t recognize right from wrong and try to live by it. In catholic vocabulary, we’d agree to the extent that all people have a built in affinity for recognizing Natural Law. But we don’t agree that all people of all cultures hold the same position in terms of recognizing Natural Law. If that were true, there would be no point to instructing people about right and wrong, something pretty much all religions do. While God did give us all consciences, humans are exceedingly good at deadening them. We do this both individually and culturally. Surely we must agree that cultures can become depraved and increase the likelihood that people will be tempted into sin? Why is it so hard to believe that people who lived in a time before God began his revelation would be more prone to having depraved cultures than cultures that developed after and in response to revelation?

I can’t keep track of the discussion like this. Let me ask that question again. Why do you accept the harsh laws of the OT but protest to similar ones in Islam?

 

[dronald]

I can’t keep track of the discussion like this. Let me ask that question again. Why do you accept the harsh laws of the OT but protest to similar ones in Islam?

Because the OT laws were meant for a very specific people at a very specific time to establish the Jewish people. The laws were also existent to prove for us how impossible God’s law is to follow and how much He loves us for giving an ultimate Sacrifice.

Islamic law is meant for all people of all nations at all times. Jesus forgave the adulterer while Islam has harsh punishments. Jesus taught to love those who reject us, or to pray for those who leave the faith, Muhammad taught death for apostasy.

It just shows that Christianity is morally higher than Islam.

 

[peace_at_last]

Because the OT laws were meant for a very specific people at a very specific time to establish the Jewish people. The laws were also existent to prove for us how impossible God’s law is to follow and how much He loves us for giving an ultimate Sacrifice.

Islamic law is meant for all people of all nations at all times. Jesus forgave the adulterer while Islam has harsh punishments. Jesus taught to love those who reject us, or to pray for those who leave the faith, Muhammad taught death for apostasy.

It just shows that Christianity is morally higher than Islam.

So you think if the harsh laws were for a specific people and time they are justifiable. I don’t find that convincing at all.

 

[dronald]

So you think if the harsh laws were for a specific people and time they are justifiable. I don’t find that convincing at all.

If God says, “These commandments are for Israel” then we accept that they are for Israel. Then when God says “This is the new covenant for the whole world” then we believe it’s for the whole world.

Likewise, you believe Allah has given harsh commandments for the whole world; where as we believe Jesus took things to a higher level. Murder is bad; having hate in your heart is also murder. Adultery is bad; lust for a woman is also adultery. People love those who love them? Jesus taught to love those who hate you too.

Jesus was on a higher moral level than Muhammad and his Qur’an.

 

[manualman]

I can’t keep track of the discussion like this. Let me ask that question again. Why do you accept the harsh laws of the OT but protest to similar ones in Islam?

For precisely the reasons I said above. I’ll try another example from my culture and history. In 1960, it would have been extraordinarily gracious and merciful for a white man on a public bus to get up and offer his seat to a pregnant black woman in an Alabama city. He’d be displaying a recognition of her basic human dignity and honoring her as a woman dealing with the difficulty of pregnancy. Compared to others of his day, he’d be very morally advanced. Now that same man might react with wild rage if he found out his daughter was dating a black man. By today’s standards he’d be considered a bit of a Neanderthal. What changed? Our society came much closer in conformance to understanding the dignity of all people as created in the image and likeness of God to the point where we’ve overcome much of the absurd notion that a particular skin color might make a man worth less. We got there by allowing the revelation of God that we’re all created in His image sink into our souls. Without that revelation it’s easy to suppose that somebody different than me and that talks ‘funny’ is dumber than I am and worth less.

The harsh laws of the OT were the initial stages of revelation by which God revealed to man our need for His mercy and Grace. Of COURSE that revelation had positive benefits on humanity. Why else would God bother with us? We have nothing to offer him! He revealed himself to us for our benefit out of love.

P.S. Don’t mistake my example for bragging about American culture. We’ve also gone BACKWARDS in the moral realm in areas where people have outright rejected the truth of God’s revealed character. I won’t derail the thread with any of many examples.

 

[peace_at_last]

If God says, “These commandments are for Israel” then we accept that they are for Israel. Then when God says “This is the new covenant for the whole world” then we believe it’s for the whole world.

Likewise, you believe Allah has given harsh commandments for the whole world; where as we believe Jesus took things to a higher level. Murder is bad; having hate in your heart is also murder. Adultery is bad; lust for a woman is also adultery. People love those who love them? Jesus taught to love those who hate you too.

Jesus was on a higher moral level than Muhammad and his Qur’an.

So you are telling me that if God decides that a sin warrants a harsh punishment you will not protest it.

 

[SteveVH]

So you are telling me that if God decides that a sin warrants a harsh punishment you will not protest it.

If God decides I certainly will not protest. But we Christians have a way to discern whether or not the decision is really from God. Does it line up with what we have been taught by Christ? Forcing people to submit to one’s faith or die, or to extort money from them under penalty of expulsion or even death is not in line with the teachings of Christ.