Could forum Muslims please explain how Islam is a religion of peace

[Johnathan]

There is no shortage of Muslims that proclaim Islam to be a religion of peace, and I believe that is what many truly desire, for the world they will leave behind for their heirs to inherit. However there is also no shortage of Muslims that believe that Islam is a religion of imperialistic aggression, conquest, and subjugation of non-Muslims to Muhammad's followers, as evidenced around much of the world today.

Muhammad and his followers conquered nearly the entirety of the Arabian Peninsula during his lifetime, and over the next 100 years his followers went on to conquer northern Africa and much of the whole "known world" until they were stopped in the Battle of Tours France (alternately called the Battle of Poitiers) in 732, with a resurgence of Islamic imperialistic aggression once again brought to a halt in the Battle of Vienna Austria in 1683.

Since the Quran and Sunnah contain no shortage of material that seems to call for Islamic imperialistic aggression and conquest, could forum members please explain what it is about the Islam that peace desiring Muslims wish for today, that renders the verses that suggest terrorizing, fighting and slaying non-Muslims to be inoperative, that groups like The Islamic State, the Taliban, Boco Haram and the Muslim Brotherhood, understand to be completely operative verses?

[greenhill]

What is supposed to be and what is are two separate things.

It becomes disparaging due to human interference.

Initially, the spread of islam in Arabia from battles was not because it was the only was to spread it. When it was rooted in Medina, it was under threat from the entire surrounding territories and in the course of defending itself, it ended up conquering them.

With the quick rise of a 'new empire', it would be fair to say that neighbouring powers took notice and prepared themselves.

That was because the empires around at that time had their various religious practices, it became a battle for the 'God'(s). But when islam spread outside of Europe, the Far East especially, it was via a very peaceful mechanism. A caring, community oriented civilisation developed. The violence as I see it is a western manifestation as a result of the history around the region that has been at war in one form or another.

Coupled with the fact that the 'clerics' from the old testaments' constant denial of the truth in the message of the Quran, they felt very threatened by the spread. They had to find a way to resist it, destroy it even...and the battle raged on..

It still happens today. Only now, they plant the violence via their agents or via direct provocation until they get a reaction.

Then they say "Islam is violent".

No! Islam is peaceful. The largest muslim population in the world is in scattered islands far away from Europe, call Indonesia. They accepted islam as a peaceful religion and entered it peacefully too. Likewise Malaysia. Powers of reason alone.

:peace:

[جوري]

ISLAM doesn't mean religion of peace that's what your western imperialists concocted much like the Ahmadi sect they created in India so they may occupy it without resistance!
ISLAM means to submit oneself to God with that there's a time for peace and a time for war!
your premise is faulty ergo everything that follows can and should be binned!

[ardianto]

My Christian neighbor ever told me that she was worry with extreme Muslims, but she also grateful because she lives among peaceful Muslims. Both parties, the extreme intolerant Muslims, and the peaceful tolerant Muslims, follow Qur'an and hadith, but with different way of interpretation.

Is Islam religion of peace or religion of violent?. I will not make any claim about it. But I just want to say, there are extreme intolerant Muslims, there are peaceful tolerant Muslims.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Johnathan]

What is supposed to be and what is are two separate things.

It becomes disparaging due to human interference.

Initially, the spread of islam in Arabia from battles was not because it was the only was to spread it. When it was rooted in Medina, ......

It was Jewish tribes that were exiled from the Holy Land by the Roman Empire, during the 1st and 2nd centuries, that founded and were "rooted in" Medina centuries before Muhammad.

...... it was under threat from the entire surrounding territories and in the course of defending itself, it ended up conquering them.

With the quick rise of a 'new empire', it would be fair to say that neighbouring powers took notice and prepared themselves.

That was because the empires around at that time had their various religious practices, .....

Like Judaism and Christianity.

.... it became a battle for the 'God'(s).

You seem to suggest it was a meeting on some sort of neutral territory, when it was Muhammad's followers imperialistic aggression imposing Islam's God on those in foreign lands, while the people of those lands were defending their faith, families, homes and communities from the onslaught of Muhammad's followers.

But when islam spread outside of Europe, the Far East especially, it was via a very peaceful mechanism. A caring, community oriented civilisation developed. The violence as I see it is a western manifestation as a result of the history around the region that has been at war in one form or another.

Coupled with the fact that the 'clerics' from the old testaments' constant denial of the truth in the message of the Quran, they felt very threatened by the spread. They had to find a way to resist it, destroy it even...and the battle raged on..

It still happens today. Only now, they plant the violence via their agents or via direct provocation until they get a reaction.

Then they say "Islam is violent".

No! Islam is peaceful. The largest muslim population in the world is in scattered islands far away from Europe, call Indonesia. They accepted islam as a peaceful religion and entered it peacefully too. Likewise Malaysia. Powers of reason alone.

:peace:

I think you might agree that simply proclaiming "powers of reason", to be why Islam is supposed to be a religion of peace, would not be much of an argument to carry to violent Muslims that believe the Quran, Sunnah and Islamic history support their imperialistic aggression.

So my question is what part of the religion of Islam suggests otherwise?

[جوري]

In your other post dear shill you proclaimed that there were no Jews in Makkah or medinah and it was all concocted?
How about you stick to a narrative? Can't have it both ways can you?
Prove jews existed at all in medinah were it not for islamic sources and after you've completed your thorough research do us the grand favor of sticking to the original story without spinning your lies around it :)

all the best,

[Futuwwa]

Define what constitutes being "a religion of peace", and your question can be answered in a relevant way.

[Johnathan]

My Christian neighbor ever told me that she was worry with extreme Muslims, but she also grateful because she lives among peaceful Muslims. Both parties, the extreme intolerant Muslims, and the peaceful tolerant Muslims, follow Qur'an and hadith, but with different way of interpretation.

Is Islam religion of peace or religion of violent?. I will not make any claim about it. But I just want to say, there are extreme intolerant Muslims, there are peaceful tolerant Muslims.

You seem to suggest you don't live in an area where you are subjugated to intolerant Muslims. You also indicated that those in the example of The Islamic State, may even want to kill you before anybody else, for your religious tolerance. So it is just a happenstance of geography that you aren't subjugated to The Islamic State, the Taliban or some other group in the Middle East cradle of Islam today.
But which kind of Muslim do peaceful Muslims believe they are consigning their heirs to be ruled by in the future?
Are peaceful Muslims expected to go out and conquer and subjugate the violent ones?
You didn't express much stomach for doing so yourself.
http://www.islamicboard.com/general/...ml#post2842833

[Johnathan]

In your other post dear shill you proclaimed that there were no Jews in Makkah or medinah and it was all concocted?

I don't know where you would have gotten that idea since that is not my understanding. Perhaps you could provide a link to the post. In that thread I think you are referring to, I was seeking historical or archaeological evidence that suggests that Mecca existed prior to the 4th century AD, like the evidence we have for ancient Arabian towns:
http://www.islamicboard.com/general/...ml#post2842185

Medina is not Mecca. Jews arrived in Medina likely upon being exiled from Israel after a million to a million and a half were killed by the Romans in 70AD, and another half to three quarters of a million were killed during the Bar Kochba revolt of about 132AD.

How about you stick to a narrative? Can't have it both ways can you?
Prove jews existed at all in medinah were it not for islamic sources .......

It is both Islamic and Jewish historical sources that suggest Jews lived in Medina for a long time prior to the Hijra.

....... and after you've completed your thorough research do us the grand favor of sticking to the original story without spinning your lies around it :)

all the best,

[greenhill]

Should have waited for others to respond first.. :D

Totally slipped my mind that Islam is about submitting to the will of Allah.

Normally I would not be derailed by the 'peace' correlation of islam to the fundamental meaning of submission.

On whether islam is truly violent is about who gets to tell the story. Hmmmm I wonder who controls the media?

What was the true reason for the war against Iraq? Was it justifiable violence? (citing just one example) and what was the story given? How was the entire operation carried out?

Islam is a threat to the older testaments. The truth IS known by the clerics, if they were to admit it, there would be no 'nation' for them to rule. That is the truth. They KNEW it with Jesus, they also knew it with Muhammad (saw).

Hence, the propaganda against Islam, and they used Christians to fight their battle...as though that will keep their hands clean.

:peace:

[جوري]

Was it not you who said that dearie and I quote:

Originally Posted by Johnathan

Yet the counter-scriptural suggestion, that Abraham and Ishmael traveled 1200 kilometers to Mecca, is essentially a demograhpical and geographical impossibility. Particularly considering that the trade route along the Red Sea wasn't established until over a thousand years after Abraham roamed the earth.

where would jews have come from in either Makkah or medina if Abraham was never there? It's a barren land after all people took up migration for amongst other things a source of water for water means ability to sustain life and land!

i don't want your 'likely' I like historical facts and Id also like for you to stick to a narrative not switch it up based on your agenda :)

[M.I.A.]

Well OP, you know the official line.

Islam is peace, we are peaceful people.

Unfortunately the world does not work like that, we are all struggling within our own little circles.

Which one is successful and which one is not really is up to god.

Why should anybody have to answer for somebody else unless they have a better answer?

While most of us are powerless but to watch and listen.. Or add fuel to the fire.

Islam is much the same as any religion. All claim to be guidance and salvation.. And yet, the losers outweigh the winners by far.

Good news and glad tidings are hard to come by.. Do you make your own?

Most genuinely are heedless of what they say and do, sad is the day when questions are loaded.. Or not.

Have you seen any that fight twice as many and win?

...besides genocides and carpet bombings

Not really.

Islam is peace, we don't have the authority for it to be war.

Well I don't anyway.

..so ask yourself who builds there empire on the bodies of the dead in this age.

[Johnathan]

Was it not you who said that dearie and I quote:

Originally Posted by Johnathan

Yet the counter-scriptural suggestion, that Abraham and Ishmael traveled 1200 kilometers to Mecca, is essentially a demograhpical and geographical impossibility. Particularly considering that the trade route along the Red Sea wasn't established until over a thousand years after Abraham roamed the earth.

where would jews have come from in either Makkah or medina is Abraham was never there?

i don't want your 'likely' I like historical facts .......

It is the nature of historical record. Some of it is literally etched in stone. Other of it is well accounted in historical and archaeological records. Still other requires a little date speculation to fill in gaps.
Muslims do the same with the Sunnah. Is your answer to simply reject all historical record?

........ and Id also like for you to stick to a narrative not switch it up based on your agenda :)

Yes I did say that. The historical record suggests the caravan route along the Red Sea wasn't established until around 6BC - at the earliest. Since Abraham lived over a thousand years before that time, the Islamic "tradition" regarding Abraham, Hagar and Ishmael wandering 1200 kilometers across mostly harsh, dry, undeveloped barren desert wasteland from Hebron to Mecca, and Abraham dropping them off under a tree and wandering the 1200 kilometers back to his home, would seem an insurmountable demographical and geographical impossibility. Let alone that the advent of camel transport in Arabia did not arise until hundreds of years after Abraham roamed the earth.

The fact that Jews migrated from Israel to Medina, almost 2,000 years after Abraham lived, is simply a matter of historical fact. It didn't have anything to do with Abraham. Jews migrated to many other places when they were exiled from the Holy Land.

[جوري]

A 'historical fact' you're yet to prove and we will be waiting!

all the best,

[ardianto]

You seem to suggest you don't live in an area where you are subjugated to intolerant Muslims. You also indicated that those in the example of The Islamic State, may even want to kill you before anybody else, for your religious tolerance. So it is just a happenstance of geography that you aren't subjugated to The Islamic State, the Taliban or some other group in the Middle East cradle of Islam today.
But which kind of Muslim do peaceful Muslims believe they are consigning their heirs to be ruled by in the future?
Are peaceful Muslims expected to go out and conquer and subjugate the violent ones?
You didn't express much stomach for doing so yourself.
http://www.islamicboard.com/general/...ml#post2842833

One of my Christian neighbor is young man who has tire repairing stall beside the mosque. He lives in his small stall which there's no water. So he often take bath in mosque which provide free bathroom. Yes, I live in community like this, not community which non-Muslims are threatened by Muslims. There are six official religions in my country which include Protestant Christianity and Catholic. Atheism is strictly prohibited in my country.

I know, there is question, what tolerant Muslims do to counter terrorism?. Why don't tolerant Muslims down to the street to protest extremism?.

Protest on the street is not the right way to counter extremism. The right way is teach the right interpretation of Islam to the kids and the people. Extremism is the huge problem for Muslims themselves. Now Muslims are in struggle to counter extremism, and will really help if non-Muslims stop making negative stigma toward Islam because it will make the tolerant Muslims effort to eliminate extremism become useless.

[Johnathan]

A 'historical fact' you're yet to prove and we will be waiting!

all the best,

I was editing while you posted. Consider this example from a Jewish source for example:
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10545-medina

"Jews may have settled in the Hijaz after the sack of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar; and it is probable that they came in successive colonies, e.g., after Pompey's attack upon Judea (64 B.C.), after Titus' conquest of Jerusalem (70 C.E.), and again after Hadrian's persecution of the Jews (in 136 C.E.; see Arabia)."

The latter claims are reasonable, while the Nebuchadnezzar claims are likely unsupportable, and thus the "may" is injected.
It is geographically reasonable to believe the record found in scripture in which Hagar left Abraham's home in Hebron, which is just below Jerusalem, and wandered in the Wilderness of Beersheba which is just below Hebron, and Ishmael hunted in the Wilderness of Paran which is just below Beersheba. Nor would it have been a geographical problem for him to join his brother Isaac when they buried Abraham.

But how do you explain how Abraham, Hagar and Ishmael could have wandered across 1200 kilometers of mostly harsh, barren, undeveloped desert wasteland to Mecca, as suggested by Islamic "tradition" that is embraced as "historical fact"?

[Johnathan]

One of my Christian neighbor is young man who has tire repairing stall beside the mosque. He lives in his small stall which there's no water. So he often take bath in mosque which provide free bathroom. Yes, I live in community like this, not community which non-Muslims are threatened by Muslims. There are six official religions in my country which include Protestant Christianity and Catholic. Atheism is strictly prohibited in my country.

I know, there is question, what tolerant Muslims do to counter terrorism?. Why don't tolerant Muslims down to the street to protest extremism?.

Protest on the street is not the right way to counter extremism. The right way is teach the right interpretation of Islam to the kids and the people.

That goes exactly to the subject of this thread and what I was asking. Where is this "right interpretation of Islam" to be found?
For example where does the Quran indicate that Jihad is an "internal struggle" as some Muslims suggest?

Extremism is the huge problem for Muslims themselves. Now Muslims are in struggle to counter extremism, and will really help if non-Muslims stop making negative stigma toward Islam because it will make the tolerant Muslims effort to eliminate extremism become useless.

[جوري]

The Jewish encyclopaedia isn't a historical fact it's conjecture anyone can write anything the way you do here but sadly can't keep track of your own nonsense so it comes back to tighten the noose around your neck!
the place is no friendlier to them than where they were exiled also last I left it the onus is on the one making the claim to prove it- per your prior thread where are the archeological finds, digs and historical facts???
Anyone is welcome to read what I posted earlier using your own bible that book of 'mathematical genius'

Who had the covenant? Ishmael or Isaac? The story of Abraham, Ishmael and Hagar (May the mercy and blessings of Allah be on them all) is found in the Bible, much skewed and corrupted from the pure Islamic version. The reason this is so is because the book of Genesis, undoubtedly written by some Jewish Rabbi of the past would certainly be biased in his understanding of history between the two forefathers. There would be in him, whoever he was, the desire to paint his own ancestry, that is the seed of Isaac, in the brightest of colors, whereby either purposely or inadvertently condemning the rival (I.e. Ishmael) as the negative end of the spectrum. In other words, a Jew most certainly wrote Genesis, so Isaac, the father of the Jews and Abraham’s son, is presented in this blessed light, and Ishmael, the father of the Arabs is whereby presented in somewhat dark euphemisms, and foisted on him is the subtle racism and condescending attitude of the author. This being said, it is evident that my own assumptions are true, because of the many gaps and inconsistencies which are clues left to us by the True and Almighty God in the Biblical account, which point us in the direction of the truth (I.E. of the Islamic version.) 1. Abraham (saas) was told by God that a Great Nation would come from him. (Genesis 12:2-3) 2. Sarah, Abraham’s wife doesn’t bear children at first. (Genesis 16:1) 3. Sarah whereby allowed Abraham to MARRY Hagar (Genesis 16:3) -This defeats the evangelical claim that Ishmael was illegitamite. Hagar conceives Ishmael. (genesis 16:4) 4. Later Sarah has Isaac. (Genesis 21:2) So far so good. The story here is quite clear. A Prophecy for a great nation was said to come from Abraham. After Sarah seemingly cannot conceive, Hagar becomes Abraham’s second wife and conceives Ishmael. Later Sarah actually does conceive and has Isaac. Biblical points which hold true to the Islamic perception of Ishmael and the pure lineage of Muhammad (saas): 1. Ishmael was Abraham’s first son. (Genesis 16:4) 2. God said that Hagar’s seed would be multiplied exceedingly. (Genesis 16:10) 3. God said Ishmael was blessed! (Genesis 17:20) 4. Ishmael is clearly called ‘Abraham’s seed’ by God. (Genesis 21:13) 4. God repeats His promise to make Ishmael a great nation FIVE TIMES! (Genesis 15:4) (Genesis 16:10) (Genesis 17:20) (Genesis 21:13) (Genesis 21:18) From here the Islamic version and the Biblical account part ways. The Muslim holds that it was in fact Ishmael who had the covenant and not Isaac, whereas the bible states the opposite. The Muslim holds that it was Ishmael who was to be sacrificed and not Isaac, and again, the Bible states the opposite. The Muslim version states that both Isaac and Ishmael were pure blameless children of Abraham, both revered, whereas in the Biblical account, Isaac is revered and Ishmael is seen as a mean-spirited outcast. Let us review the shameful and undoubtedly corrupted view of Ishmael in the Bible: 1. Ishmael is called a ‘wild donkey of a man’: (Genesis 16:12) 2. Ishmael and his descendants are going to be known as troublemakers (Genesis 16:12) 3. Ishmael is considered illegitamite (This is a Christian claim which no Bible verse supports.) 4. Ishmael makes fun of Isaac and teases him: (Genesis 21:9) 5. Ishmael and his mother are cast out from Abrahams’ family (Genesis 21:10) Now let us lay these preposterous and slanderous claims to rest. Ishmael a wild donkey of a man? This is where it becomes evident that the prejudice of the author seeps through. The Christian must remember that the Islamic view of the Bible is that it is corrupted, and history attests this, especially that of the Old Testament. God himself attests this in the Old Testament, saying, "How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us'? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie.” (From the RSV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8) -So it is admitted within the Bible itself, that the Old Testament is corrupted. No independent scholar accepts the preposterous view that the first 5 books of the Bible were written by Moses as evangelicals claim. This indeed would be quite impossible because otherwise Moses refers to himself in the third person and even writes about his own death and the month that follows it. Therefore, if the Islamic view of the Bible is that it is corrupted (Not wrong, but not always right either) then it is very well possible, from this viewpoint that the entire story of Ishmael and Isaac is skewed, handled malisciously from the pen of some overzealous rabbi who could not ignore fully his own prejudice and wishes, but yet also could not ignore fully the facts of history, being that both Ishmael and Isaac were blessed, revered and of highly esteemed moral character. Starting from this point we can see through the authors slanders and see to the truth, and that is that this particular verse, that is the verse of Ishmael being a ‘wild donkey’ of a man is an overly obvious forgery, and opinion of whoever the mildly racist author of this book is. –And his intent is quite clear. He wants to prove that the lineage of the Jews is pure, and that no non-jew could ever partake in the pure lineage of Abraham. This is undoubtedly the authors intention, because he goes to great lengths to ‘prove’ it. Consider the ‘all-to-convenient’ verbiage of Sarah as interjected by the author: “Wherefore she said to Abraham, ‘Cast out this bondwoman and her son: For the son of a bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac.’” (21:10). As to the authors intention to show that the blood and lineage of the Jewish people is untainted, consider the fact that according to the Bible, Abraham and Sarah were brother and Sister! (Genesis 20:12.) This same author is the one who insulted the Prophet Lot by saying he had an incestuous drunken relationship with his two daughters, (Genesis 19:36) And Jacob was married to two sisters at the same time: (Genesis 29:28). The intention is clear, that the author of Genesis is either a pervert obsessed with incest, or he slanders honorable prophets with false stories of Incest in order to show that the blood of Isaac and his descendants (The Jews) is pure. It is for this reason the author feels the need to slander Ishmael and foist on him the false story of being ‘cast out’ of the family of Abraham. –It is also clearly, based on the evidence, a big lie. Ishmael was not a wild donkey of a man, but the author of Genesis sure was! Ishmael and his descendants will ‘be against all men?’ The Bible says of Ishmael: “…his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.” (Genesis 16:12) In recent times this is probably the most oft-repeated verse against Ishmael and the Muslims used by Christians to prove a plethora of points. All one needs to do is point to the news to see that seemingly Ishmael’s seed truly is ‘against all men’ and ‘all men are against him.’ It is, to them, proof positive that the Bible is the word of God. But there is a problem with this theory, and that is quite simply that only recently could this be applied. It wasn’t until the decline of the Ottomon Empire in the 1700’s that the Islamic world experienced a regression leading to a downward spiral of corruption, hopelessness, and violence. One need not point out the fact that the oldest and indeed one of the first colleges on earth was founded by Muslims and is still on the earth today (Al-Azhar.) It is evident that whilst Europe was sunk in the dark ages, the civilized Muslims revived the learning of Aristotle and Plato, who otherwise would have been forgotten. There was a time when Baghdad, for example, was called, ‘The greatest city on earth.’ -And this title was given it by European scholars. Was it because the Arabs of Baghdad were mindless killers against all men? Of course not! It was because they were civilized learners who enjoyed a thriving economy! In fact, it was the Muslims who saved the Christians in their lands from the conquests of invaders, and it was the Turkish Muslims who later protected the Jews who fled persecution from Spain. Was it not the Muslim Salahaddin who granted all Christians in Jerusalem amnesty despite that fact that when Muslims were run out of Jerusalem years earlier the Christians boiled Muslim children alive in pots? So there is well over a thousand years of the Muslim empire (now known as the Golden age of Islam) in which this whimsical sentence in the Bible was utterly false, and any attempt to apply it to Muslims would be deemed laughable by even the Christians! So what is more logical? To say this verse is true, when it has only been true for the past 100 years at best, which represents not even a glimmer in the existence of Islam, or to say that this is the interjection of some ancient Jew who had, as seen above, his own wicked intentions? Ishmael is considered illegitimite? This one I really don’t get. The Bible clearly states that Hagar and Abraham were married. (Genesis 16:3) Abraham is also spoken of in highly respected terms in the Bible? How is it that this highly respected Prophet had a child with a woman whom he was married to, and by the logic of some evangelicals this = illigetamite? Of course not! So how can this be deemed an instance with which to judge Ishmael and say he was therefore excluded from the covenant? Based on what we have seen so far, we need not even address the last two biblical accounts of Ishmael teasing Isaac and whereby being cast out, as this is another obvious forgery by the baised author, whoever he was. The Bible Had Ishmael and Isaac Confused! The most common question to be asked by the Christian then is, how can the Muslims believe that Ishmael was to be sacrificed and not Isaac, and that Ishmael got the covenant, when the Bible clearly states otherwise? Well, not to beat a dead horse, but the Muslim view of the Bible is that it is corrupted. So automatically, any story which contradicts Islamic teachings we view with skepticism. As seen already, the author of Genesis, where we find the account of Ishmael and Isaac, is also extremely baised. These facts alone are a red flag to the logical thinkers that just to accept this story as 100% authentic as it is presented in the Bible would be a great error. With that being said, let us examine the story in the Bible again, and show that the author made some grave errors in his writing which proves that Ishmael and Isaac were confused: The Bible states that Abraham was 99 years old when Ishmael was circumcised. Ishmael was 13 at the time. (Genesis 17:24-27) Exactly one year later Isaac is born. (Genesis 21:4-5) So if Abraham was 99 when Ishmael was circumcised a year earlier, that would mean when Isaac is born, he is 100 years old, and Ishmael is 14. Then comes the story of the sacrifice in the Bible: In Genesis 22, God tells Abraham to take ‘Thine ONLY son Isaac…’ -WHAT? Ishmael is 14 at the time? Why does the Bible refer to Isaac as Abrahams ONLY son? Many Christians will say that this is because God here is making it clear that Isaac is the only heir to the covenant, and that is why God refers to Isaac as ‘The ONLY son..’ but God clearly calls Ishmael the seed of Abraham according to Genesis 21:13, so such conclusions are impossible. The only conclusion is that the author of Genesis had Ishmael and Isaac confused. Consider when Ishmael is cast out with Hagar into the desert in Genesis 21. What are the descriptions of Ishmael? Pay close attention to the following descriptions: A. Ishmael is tucked under shrubs (Genesis 21:15) B. He is called a ‘lad’ (Genesis 21:18, 20) C. Hagar holds Ishmael in ONE HAND (Genesis 21:18) Clearly the author is referring to an infant. But Ishmael is 14 at the time, how would he be tucked under shrubs and held in one hand of a weak woman who was dying of thirst? Why is he called a lad? Would this not more aptly apply to the infant Isaac who was only a year old and not to Ishmael who is a teenager?

[Johnathan]

The Jewish encyclopaedia isn't a historical fact it's conjecture anyone can write anything the way you do here but sadly can't keep track of your own nonsense so it comes back to tighten the noose around your neck!

While you had wished it did, I demonstrated how my posts were perfectly consistent. Rather than historical and archaeological record for Mecca before the 4th century AD (which was not produced), lets focus on the very physical matter of immovable geographical fact.

Do you agree that Abraham's home was in Hebron (where Muslims control his tomb today), and would you agree that Mecca is about 880 miles from Hebron?

[M.I.A.]

Jihad is internal primarily by way of implication and pondering.

In this world you can literally only wrong your own soul..

Maybe a worldly concept of it is to look at the other side.

Prescription medication for depression and all sorts of disorders of the mind is mainstream..

Rationalising something within oneself is apparently more difficult than one would think.

Secondly by way of logic, I have said before that battles are won and lost a long time before any battlefield is reached.

Although make of it what you will.

All religions have a central book or text probably.

And yet your either told what it says or read it for yourself to the best of your understanding.

Ultimately guidance is with Allah swt

..or misguidance whatevs.

[Johnathan]

Jihad is internal primarily by way of implication and pondering.

Could you support that suggestion through the Quran, if you were discussing it with a Muslim fundamentalist?

In this world you can literallybonly wrong your own soul..

Maybe a worldly concept of it is to look at the other side.

Proscription medication for depression and all sorts of disorders of the mind is mainstream..

Rationalising something within oneself is apparently more difficult than one would think.

Secondly by way of logic, I have said before that battles are won and lost a long time before any battle

[جوري]

While you had wished it did, I demonstrated how my posts were perfectly consistent. Rather than historical and archaeological record for Mecca before the 4th century AD (which was not produced), lets focus on the very physical matter of immovable geographical fact.

Do you agree that Abraham's home was in Hebron (where Muslims control his tomb today), and would you agree that Mecca is about 880 miles from Hebron?

So long as you believe your own delusions :)

Abraham's ancestry is from Yemen to modern day it's still the only purely Semitic population in existence not the Ashkenazis who've converted circa 7th c. From Yemen there were always two migrations on the two known routes one to the North the other to the south not many favoured the austere route and preferred to settle in sham which included Iraq this is where he was born in UR Iraq and upon God's command moved to najd where he founded the well and that's how others migrated and settled there any Jews there no relation to the modern day ones as I also previously demonstrated were strict monotheists and his direct off spring!

[M.I.A.]

The next line where you split my post is taken from the Quran.

Although its context and that of the lines preceding and following it you will have to find for yourself.

...its probably loosely paraphrased at best.

But I guess it moves those that are open to it.

[ardianto]

That goes exactly to the subject of this thread and what I was asking. Where is this "right interpretation of Islam" to be found?
For example where does the Quran indicate that Jihad is an "internal struggle" as some Muslims suggest?

I've learned Islam since I was kid, and jihad was one lesson that I learned. What is jihad according to my teachers?. Fighting. It could be fight the enemy that want to destroy Islam, it could be fight my own desire, including fight my own desire to do injustice toward the others.

So it's not wrong if there are Muslims who interpret jihad as internal struggle. Internal struggle against laziness is jihad. Internal struggle against desire to commit sin is jihad.

Johnathan, my suggestion if you want to learn about other religions is throw away prejudice. I learn about other religions too, and I learn with clean heart. So I have respect to other religions.

:)

[Scimitar]

id like to chime in.

hi jonathan.

blah blah blah. islam fastest growing religion in world. blah blah blah. muslim marriages most stable from any faith group. blah blah blah. Western imperial powers attack muslim nations killing innocents by the millions. blah blah blah. muslims fight back and you come here to rant. blah blah blah. jonathan... grow a brain mate.

Scimi

[جوري]

Let me bring it from the end dear Jonathan as I know you're on this sleepy forum for a job to do.
the west has built its empires using other people's blood. The British crown used to boast how it won wars not having spilled a single British soldier's blood and that's because their army was filled with subjugated mercenaries whom they used and tossed later should they've survived.
As you know history is always written in blood and the best your boys can do now a days is cluster bomb and drone from above while using enough propaganda to avoid a ground warfare but foment the divide amongst Muslims - obviously your best bet is a Sunni Sunni war given the cowardice of the shite army which the US helped establish putting their lackey and former lingerie seller Al-Maliki over Sunni majority country whilst raping and pillaging everything in sight- after all the hoopla and mess they made Mosul fell to those alleged extremists in a matter of days I reckon if you want to change ideology and I think you can indeed you've been much successful you'd best do it in people who've an actual vested interest in that land!
peace loving people aren't gonna travel all the way from Indonesia or China or wherever else to lose their heads for nothing when they can simply express their condemnation in front of the UN there's got to be something a little less visceral you catch my drift?

i just bring you the bottom line because you appear to be as clueless in your pursuits as the Muslims here!

All the best!

[M.I.A.]

I live in Britain and there was a documentary not too long ago about soldiers in Iraq.

At one point they ambushed some unsuspecting Taliban.. Probably.

Air support came in soon after and a blue on blue incident of friendly fire occurred.

...a lot of casualties.


War is never that easy.

Although some things are easier if one is asleep.

Although most people don't see it that way.

[Johnathan]

So long as you believe your own delusions :)

Abraham's ancestry is from Yemen to modern day it's still the only purely Semitic population in existence not the Ashkenazis who've converted circa 7th c. From Yemen there were always two migrations on the two known routes one to the North the other to the south not many favoured the austere route and preferred to settle in sham which included Iraq this is where he was born in UR Iraq .......

At least we agree on the UR part as Abraham's birthplace. Which is also located by archaeological evidence.
Now look at where UR is located in relation to Yemen. Even farther from Mecca than Abraham's eventual home in Hebron (where Muslims control his tomb).
Now do a web search of Abraham's journey.
UR is on the eastern side of what is referred to as the "Fertile Crescent". Abraham's journey as detailed in scripture as confirmed by the archaeological evidence, is once again perfectly reasonable since it was in an area where there was pasture, game, settlements, and necessities for human survival - like water. Abraham traveled the same area that the 12 tribes of Ishmael eventually inhabited (some of which were known for their flocks).

Gen 25:18 And they dwelt from Havilah unto Shur, that [is] before Egypt, as thou goest toward Assyria: [and] he died in the presence of all his brethren.

Havilah is near UR. "as though goest toward Assyria" meaning the range was bent in a northerly direction, otherwise it would have been south of the fertile crescent and in what we know as the Syrian desert today, where there would have been no pasture for flocks, let alone water.

..... and upon God's command moved to najd where he founded the well .......

By contrast that claim comes from Islamic "tradition" that was put to the pen in the 7th to 10th centuries AD, without reference to any actual historical record that preceded the 5th century AD.

...... and that's how others migrated and settled there any Jews there no relation to the modern day ones as I also previously demonstrated were strict monotheists and his direct off spring!

[Johnathan]

Define what constitutes being "a religion of peace", and your question can be answered in a relevant way.

Sorry for the delay as I thought this would be answered in successive conversation. Perhaps a peaceful religion might in part be described by one that respects the God-given rights of all people to religious freedom, liberty and self-determination.

[Johnathan]

I've learned Islam since I was kid, and jihad was one lesson that I learned. What is jihad according to my teachers?. Fighting. It could be fight the enemy that want to destroy Islam, it could be fight my own desire, including fight my own desire to do injustice toward the others.

So it's not wrong if there are Muslims who interpret jihad as internal struggle.

I'm sorry if I offered the impression I thought that suggestion on an "internal struggle" was wrong. Muslims have presented it to me as if it were an internal struggle instead of physical fighting.
I think that those fighting in The Islamic State would agree that it is an internal struggle, along with imperialistic aggression and subjugation of non-Muslims to The Islamic State.

Internal struggle against laziness is jihad. Internal struggle against desire to commit sin is jihad.

Johnathan, my suggestion if you want to learn about other religions is throw away prejudice. I learn about other religions too, and I learn with clean heart. So I have respect to other religions.

:)

[Scimitar]

You've just shot yourself in the foot then havent you?

no compulsion in religion. you either do or you do not.

problem im finding with your logic is that you are holding minority extremist groups to be representative of islam... that is really stupid of you Jonathan. sorry but its true buddy. you see, using your logic I can easily claim that christianity is a violent religion justified by crusades... or how the USA as a Christian nation is violent and extremely terrible on non Christians ... even today... I can cite george bush jr claiming god told him to crusade against moozlums... does it help me to make a point? no... because I prefer to understand a religion by what is written in its scriptures - in context... and unlike you I would never try to understans a faith based on those whp follow it...

Scimi

[جوري]

At least we agree on the UR part as Abraham's birthplace. Which is also located by archaeological evidence.
Now look at where UR is located in relation to ....: [and AD.

I am not sure why you're having a difficult time following what's written when I've broken it down to very easy digestible bits?
If you want your perspective (although I've used more often than not your own bible) then go on a forum with like minded individuals - I don't understand what you're doing here?
you've not been consistent!
you've not followed through when onus is on you to prove your claims in a historically and biblically sound manner
and obviously you've no interest in what anyone else provides I doubt that you even read given your bizarre non sequitur replies and allegations which follow from no premise save your own indoctrinated psyche!

[Johnathan]

You've just shot yourself in the foot then havent you?

no compulsion in religion.

Doesn't that verse date back to Muhammad's early, pre-Hijra, Mecca days?

you either do or you do not.

Aren't the fundamentalists simply respecting Muhammad's doctrine of substitution, where surahs revealed later replace earlier surahs? In another thread جوري advised that Asad is a preferred translation to Yusuf Ali so I will risk quoting it:

Surah 2:106 Any message which, We annul or consign to oblivion We replace with a better or a similar one. Dost thou not know that God has the power to will anything?

How else could Muhammad's earlier more peaceful Mecca revelations, be reconciled with Muhammad's later post-Hijra surahs that call for smiting unbelievers at the neck and Hadith that suggest being ordered to fight against the people until they testify that no God has the right to be worshiped except Allah and that Muhammad is his messenger?

problem im finding with your logic is that you are holding minority extremist groups to be representative of islam... that is really stupid of you Jonathan.

What do those you refer to as "extremists" believe they are commanded by the Quran and Sunnah to do, that Muhammad's followers during his lifetime and for a hundred years in his wake, didn't understand they were commanded to do?

sorry but its true buddy. you see, using your logic I can easily claim that christianity is a violent religion justified by crusades... or how the USA as a Christian nation is violent and extremely terrible on non Christians ... even today... I can cite george bush jr claiming god told him to crusade against moozlums... does it help me to make a point? no...

Exactly. Christians are commanded to love our neighbors as ourselves and even to love our enemies. So it should be no surprise that the specifically UNChristian behavior of the Roman Church was responsible for the murder of millions of Christians and Jews as well as others.

But how do you explain away Surah 9.29, when that's exactly what Muhammad and his followers did during his day, and went on to do during the 100 years after Muhammad?

because I prefer to understand a religion by what is written in its scriptures - in context... and unlike you I would never try to understans a faith based on those whp follow it...

Scimi

That's why my questions regard the fundamentals of Islam, as revealed through the Quran and Sunnah, rather than empty claims without basis in religious texts.
If you desired to accuse the Gospel or the behavior of Jesus Christ, for inciting violence in unregenerate people that proclaimed themselves to be Christians, you would need to point out where the Gospel and Jesus example call for violence.

[M.I.A.]

Doesn't that verse date back to Muhammad's early, pre-Hijra, Mecca days?



Aren't the fundamentalists simply respecting Muhammad's doctrine of substitution, where surahs revealed later replace earlier surahs? In another thread جوري advised that Asad is a preferred translation to Yusuf Ali so I will risk quoting it:

Surah 2:106 Any message which, We annul or consign to oblivion We replace with a better or a similar one. Dost thou not know that God has the power to will anything?

How else could Muhammad's earlier more peaceful Mecca revelations, be reconciled with Muhammad's later post-Hijra surahs that call for smiting unbelievers at the neck and Hadith that suggest being ordered to fight against the people until they testify that no God has the right to be worshiped except Allah and that Muhammad is his messenger?



What do those you refer to as "extremists" believe they are commanded by the Quran and Sunnah to do, that Muhammad's followers during his lifetime and for a hundred years in his wake, didn't understand they were commanded to do?



Exactly. Christians are commanded to love our neighbors as ourselves and even to love our enemies. So it should be no surprise that the specifically UNChristian behavior of the Roman Church was responsible for the murder of millions of Christians and Jews as well as others.

But how do you explain away Surah 9.29, when that's exactly what Muhammad and his followers did during his day, and went on to do during the 100 years after Muhammad?



That's why my questions regard the fundamentals of Islam, as revealed through the Quran and Sunnah, rather than empty claims without basis in religious texts.
If you desired to accuse the Gospel or the behavior of Jesus Christ, for inciting violence in unregenerate people that proclaimed themselves to be Christians, you would need to point out where the Gospel and Jesus example call for violence.

...I would say that context is everything.

If you look at any monotheistic religion it has progressed or evolved over time... Just as time and society progresses.

Ten commandments elaborated on and so forth.

So its hardly specific to Islam. What is specific and quiet unique is the method and transcription of revelation.

...would a politician or preacher or imam ever back track if he knew there was a transcription kept?

Even harder to do so.

Lastly you speak of the love Christians hold for others including enemies.

...maybe a bit harder to find in the Quran.

But there is a verse that maybe speaks of doing for the love of Allah swt and its about feeding the captives.

But without context that is open to interpretation.. Im no expert on history so I don't know what those conditions were and to what end.

Isis is probably at the extreme end I imagine but I'm not in a position to have any accurate say.

If I could ask a question for the Muslims here..

Why is the punishment of chopping hand and foot on alternate sides a prescribed punishment when it mirrors the punishment pharoe used..

Both cases are in the Quran.

[Johnathan]

I am not sure why you're having a difficult time following what's written.....

Because your 7th-10th century AD account is a 1200 kilometer geographical impossibility, across harsh, barren, undeveloped Arabian desert wasteland away from, the perfectly geographical reasonable account within the Fertile Crescent we are given through the historical record of scripture.

[Johnathan]

...I would say that context is everything.

If you look at any monotheistic religion it has progressed or evolved over time... Just as time and society progresses.

I agree and would add, evolved because mankind progressed.

Ten commandments elaborated on and so forth.

So its hardly specific to Islam. What is specific and quiet unique is the method and transcription of revelation.

Why unique considering the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls that predate the Christian era. We also have 5300 partial or complete copies of the Gospel that date before 300 AD.

...would a politician or preacher or imam ever back track if he knew there was a transcription kept?

By Muhammad's day the Gospel had been translated into many languages, had been copied thousands of times, and had been read all over the known world for centuries. Muhammad told the people of the Gospel to go by what is revealed therein, yet modern Muslims claim the Gospel is corrupted.

Even harder to do so.

Lastly you speak of the love Christians hold for others ......

To love our neighbors as ourselves is our second most important commandment. Second only to our commandment to love God.

.... including enemies.

...maybe a bit harder to find in the Quran.

But there is a verse that maybe speaks of doing for the love of Allah swt and its about feeding the captives.

Wouldn't that be a simple matter of self-interest? Of what use would Islam's captives be, to press into service or sell off into slavery, if one didn't feed them?

But without context that is open to interpretation.. Im no expert on history so I don't know what those conditions were and to what end.

Isis is probably at the extreme end I imagine but I'm not in a position to have any accurate say.

If I could ask a question for the Muslims here..

Why is the punishment of chopping hand and foot on alternate sides a prescribed punishment when it mirrors the punishment pharoe used..

Both cases are in the Quran.

[جوري]

Because your 7th-10th century AD account is a 1200 kilometer geographical impossibility, across harsh, barren, undeveloped Arabian desert wasteland away from, the perfectly geographical reasonable account within the Fertile Crescent we are given through the historical record of scripture.

Under whose testimony is it a geographical impossibility? You believe Moses split the sea and Noah built a ship to house all animals and survive a flood which wiped out humanity as it was known but find it an impossibility for a chosen messenger of God to cross the desert or dig a well? ;D
you're a hoot, not to mention under educated it is almost an insult to engage you!

all the best,

[M.I.A.]

I agree and would add, evolved because mankind progressed.



Why unique considering the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls that predate the Christian era. We also have 5300 partial or complete copies of the Gospel that date before 300 AD.



By Muhammad's day the Gospel had been translated into many languages, had been copied thousands of times, and had been read all over the known world for centuries. Muhammad told the people of the Gospel to go by what is revealed therein, yet modern Muslims claim the Gospel is corrupted.



To love our neighbors as ourselves is our second most important commandment. Second only to our commandment to love God.



Wouldn't that be a simple matter of self-interest? Of what use would Islam's captives be, to press into service or sell off into slavery, if one didn't feed them?

When you have been on the board long enough, ya kinda get tired of repeating it

...sure it evolves we wernt rocket scientists to begin with..
Although I'm sure the world has seen better people.

Its not a contradiction of terms.

It is unique because every revelation is a story in itself.. It has its own miraculous nature.

The Quran is not a legacy, its a book of god.

If you can grasp that then its easier to not disrespect it.. Or to appreciate it a little more.

It can't really be compared to those other examples you mentioned.. They may have the age but its the nature of revelation and transcription that I talked about.

Does god not live in translations? Or those that didn't know the language.

The leeway given to monotheism seems great in my eyes.

The Quran mentions sabiens and there discription is a broad one..

Depends how broadly you define god. :) but that's how I approach it..

From thousands of years away.

Not sure about self interest..

Have you read all the posts about an open heart?

If all converts were conscripts then maybe submission comes before belief.

But hearts and minds can be won I suppose.


You talk about Muslims saying that the Jews and Christians became corrupt.


And yet you started the thread.. Title says everything.

Religions can be hijacked.

Islam faces the same problems as any other that has passed before it.

...ain't it an obvious test? Get your head around it and self righteousness goes out the window.

Or is heaven only for the Jews? Christians? Or Muslims?

But saying and doing are two different things aren't they?

[Futuwwa]

Sorry for the delay as I thought this would be answered in successive conversation. Perhaps a peaceful religion might in part be described by one that respects the God-given rights of all people to religious freedom, liberty and self-determination.

Perhaps? So you're asking whether Islam is a religion of peace, without even having made up your mind about what the whole concept means in the first place? That's why that whole talking point is so stupid, the whole concept is never defined yet everyone (Muslims included) acts as if it were obvious what it means.

[Zafran]

Jonathan is there religious freedom, liberty and self determination in the bible?

Islam is probably the only religion that has "No compulsion in religion" and Surat Kaffarun - Both show freedom of religion, Liberty and self determination. It doesn't matter if they are Meccan or median - the whole Quran is to be followed. End of.

I Echo جوري - How in Gods earth can you call 1200 miles an impossibility when you have no problem in believing in the splitting of the sea, the resurrection of Christ, the miracles of Christ etc etc?? Sounds stupid to me.

Your main question Got answered on the first page.

[Johnathan]

Under whose testimony is it a geographical impossibility?

Under the testimony of the God of the scriptures. The God of the Bible gave us a demographically and geographically perfectly reasonable account from the Holy Land of the prophets and patriarchs, that is confirmed by historical and archaeological evidence.
In the 7th-10th centuries AD Muhammad's followers created a demographically and geographically impossible, scripture-contrary, anti-history.

You believe Moses split the sea and Noah built a ship to house all animals and survive a flood which wiped out humanity as it was known but find it an impossibility for a chosen messenger of God to cross the desert or dig a well? ;D

According to the accounts in scripture Abraham was never within 1,000 kilometers of where Mecca was eventually settled in the 4th century AD. Add in the fact that there is not a shred of evidence that suggests Mecca existed prior to the 4th century AD, and I will take the accounts in scripture that are backed by the historical and archaeological evidence as well as fulfilled prophecy.

you're a hoot, not to mention under educated it is almost an insult to engage you!

all the best,

[Johnathan]

When you have been on the board long enough, ya kinda get tired of repeating it

...sure it evolves we wernt rocket scientists to begin with..
Although I'm sure the world has seen better people.

Its not a contradiction of terms.

It is unique because every revelation is a story in itself.. It has its own miraculous nature.

The Quran is not a legacy, its a book of god.

If you can grasp that then its easier to not disrespect it.. Or to appreciate it a little more.

It can't really be compared to those other examples you mentioned.. They may have the age but its the nature of revelation and transcription that I talked about.

Does god not live in translations? Or those that didn't know the language.

The leeway given to monotheism seems great in my eyes.

There isn't "leeway" in the God of the scriptures eyes.
There was a monotheistic sect of Sabian/Harannian moon god worshipers. Just because their moon god worship was monotheistic, did not make it right.

The Quran mentions sabiens and there discription is a broad one..

Depends how broadly you define god. :) but that's how I approach it.

Perhaps you might agree that defining Him as the god of the moon is not an option. At least it certainly isn't according to the scriptures.

From thousands of years away.

Not sure about self interest..

Have you read all the posts about an open heart?

If all converts were conscripts then maybe submission comes before belief.

But hearts and minds can be won I suppose.


You talk about Muslims saying that the Jews and Christians became corrupt.

Please reread the post. I said they claim the Gospel became corrupted. This was in answer to your post comment:

What is specific and quiet unique is the method and transcription of revelation.
...would a politician or preacher or imam ever back track if he knew there was a transcription kept?
Even harder to do so.

What I pointed out is we have transcripts of the OT that date from before the Christian era, and we have 5300 partial or complete transcripts of the Gospel that date prior to 300 AD, yet in spite of the fact that all of the translations of the Gospel in all those languages tell the same story, Muhammad's followers deny the whole subject of the Gospel. Since they must reject the whole subject of the Gospel, they are left with little choice but to proclaim the Gospel to be corrupt, even though their own messenger told the people of the Gospel to go by what is revealed therein.

And yet you started the thread.. Title says everything.

Religions can be hijacked.

The question is how and by whom? For example, when and how did the order "(by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle", become nullified?

Islam faces the same problems as any other that has passed before it.

...ain't it an obvious test? Get your head around it and self righteousness goes out the window.

Or is heaven only for the Jews? Christians? Or Muslims?

According to the scriptures, it's about what a person knows. Where there is no law there is no transgression. So if a remote tribesman has never been brought the Gospel or otherwise been quickened by the Spirit of God, or a person is too young or mentally incapacitated to understand, they would be incapable of transgressing a law they couldn't understand.
However if a person learns and understands the Gospel is about the crucifixion, death and resurrection of the Son of God, and then disbelieves the crucifixion of the Messiah, and rejects the sin atoning shed blood of the Lamb of God, and denies the Son of God, it would of course be a different matter.

But saying and doing are two different things aren't they?

Indeed. So besides going over the top in a few details, what is The Islamic State doing that is inconsistent with Surah 9:29?

[Johnathan]

Jonathan is there religious freedom, liberty and self determination in the bible?

Those who the Son sets free are free indeed.

Islam is probably the only religion that has "No compulsion in religion" and Surat Kaffarun - Both show freedom of religion, Liberty and self determination.

I replied to that contradiction in the post regarding abrogation:
http://www.islamicboard.com/clarific...ml#post2842940

Islamic history and at least 9 Islamic nation states also reply to it, with the death penalty by state statute, for "apostasy". Along with 54 mainly Islamic nation states banning or restricting the Gospel, doesn't really suggest freedom of religion to me. Does it to you?

It doesn't matter if they are Meccan or median - the whole Quran is to be followed. End of.

A two-headed dog can't hunt. How doesn't one have to choose between the "no compulsion" verse of Muhammad's early pre-Hijra Mecca days, or that revealed in the second to last chapter in order of revelation, to fight and slay as a promise binding on Muhammad's followers in the Quran (9:29), in respect to the doctrine of substitution or replacement in 2:106? When as you suggest "the whole Quran is to be followed". Your argument isn't with me, but with fundamentalists, that follow the whole Quran.

I Echo جوري - How in Gods earth can you call 1200 miles an impossibility when you have no problem in believing in the splitting of the sea, the resurrection of Christ, the miracles of Christ etc etc?? Sounds stupid to me.

Because Islam's 8th-10th century penned "tradition" is an anti-history, to that of the 1600 year record of YHWH to mankind that is supported by the historical and archaeological record, as well as fulfilled prophecy and the mathematical precision thereof. Nobody could even bring historical or archaeological evidence that suggests that Mecca existed before the 4th century AD (like the archaeological evidence we have for actual ancient Arabian towns), let alone 4500 years worth of such evidence.
http://www.islamicboard.com/general/...ml#post2842185
Compare that absence of evidence with the archaeological record of Jerusalem and the Holy Land of the prophets and patriarchs.

Your main question Got answered on the first page.

Then when and how did the order, "(by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle", become nullified?

[M.I.A.]

There isn't "leeway" in the God of the scriptures eyes.
There was a monotheistic sect of Sabian/Harannian moon god worshipers. Just because their moon god worship was monotheistic, did not make it right.



Perhaps you might agree that defining Him as the god of the moon is not an option. At least it certainly isn't according to the scriptures.



Please reread the post. I said they claim the Gospel became corrupted. This was in answer to your post comment:



What I pointed out is we have transcripts of the OT that date from before the Christian era, and we have 5300 partial or complete transcripts of the Gospel that date prior to 300 AD, yet in spite of the fact that all of the translations of the Gospel in all those languages tell the same story, Muhammad's followers deny the whole subject of the Gospel. Since they must reject the whole subject of the Gospel, they are left with little choice but to proclaim the Gospel to be corrupt, even though their own messenger told the people of the Gospel to go by what is revealed therein.



The question is how and by whom? For example, when and how did the order "(by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle", become nullified?



According to the scriptures, it's about what a person knows. Where there is no law there is no transgression. So if a remote tribesman has never been brought the Gospel or otherwise been quickened by the Spirit of God, or a person is too young or mentally incapacitated to understand, they would be incapable of transgressing a law they couldn't understand.
However if a person learns and understands the Gospel is about the crucifixion, death and resurrection of the Son of God, and then disbelieves the crucifixion of the Messiah, and rejects the sin atoning shed blood of the Lamb of God, and denies the Son of God, it would of course be a different matter.



Indeed. So besides going over the top in a few details, what is The Islamic State doing that is inconsistent with Surah 9:29?

your definition of sabien does not fit in with mine...

and therein lies the rub.


which is the better definition and why?

which one is detrimental to peace and why?



its relevant because of your thread title.

feel free to find the quranic verse and make of it what you will.

i feel your tone is beyond reasoning with now so i cant really respond to anything else you brought up.

[Johnathan]

your definition of sabien does not fit in with mine...

and therein lies the rub.

You can wish it was anything you like, but if you've ever read the Gospel you should easily recognize that any description of the Sabians that exists, would be preposterous to associate with Christianity.

which is the better definition and why?

which one is detrimental to peace and why?

its relevant because of your thread title.

feel free to find the quranic verse and make of it what you will.

i feel your tone is beyond reasoning with now so i cant really respond to anything else you brought up.

Is that really why you didn't want to respond to my question?
Isn't it reasonable for me to inquire as to when and how the order, "(by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle", became nullified?

[sister herb]

I don´t believe that we could ever find the answer which will satisfy this troll. He has decided not to accept anything except his own prejudices. I wonder is it even necessary to spend time to answer his endless "questions".

Anyone who reads the Quran, can feels the message of love and peace from Allah to people, if his mind and heart are open to this message. May Allah opens the heart of this "troll" and makes his mind ready to understand Islam better.

It would be a beautiful path.