Keltoi
IB Legend
- Messages
- 5,061
- Reaction score
- 463
I didn't think stating the obvious was warranted...but now I think about it, stating the obvious was probably the best answer.
"Views on Atonement for Sin."
- Thread starter Redeemed
- Start date
- Replies 631
- Views 57K
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Halal Food Gastronomy | vBulletin 4 php 8.0 patch
I didn't think stating the obvious was warranted...but now I think about it, stating the obvious was probably the best answer.
vpb
IB Expert
- Messages
- 1,943
- Reaction score
- 189
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
2:62. Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.
2:2. This is the Book; in it is guidance sure, without doubt, to those who fear Allah.
2:3. Who believe in the Unseen, are steadfast in prayer, and spend out of what We have provided for them;
2:4. And who believe in the Revelation sent to thee, and sent before thy time, and (in their hearts) have the assurance of the Hereafter.
2:5. They are on (true) guidance, from their Lord, and it is these who will prosper.
please tell me now, if you don't say Muhammed saws is the Last Messenger, which means that you reject what has been revelaed to him (the Qur'an), how can you go to heaven, check the verse up
this is just one example, bc there are thousdands of hadiths and verses, which show that Islam teaches Oneness of Allah, not joining Him partnerhsip, or bringing him partners or rivals. So there can't be any form of shirk within Islam, bc that's why Muhammed saws came , He came to fight the shirk done to Allah swt.
You have a master's degree, you should be smart enough to understand it.
2:2. This is the Book; in it is guidance sure, without doubt, to those who fear Allah.
2:3. Who believe in the Unseen, are steadfast in prayer, and spend out of what We have provided for them;
2:4. And who believe in the Revelation sent to thee, and sent before thy time, and (in their hearts) have the assurance of the Hereafter.
2:5. They are on (true) guidance, from their Lord, and it is these who will prosper.
please tell me now, if you don't say Muhammed saws is the Last Messenger, which means that you reject what has been revelaed to him (the Qur'an), how can you go to heaven, check the verse up
this is just one example, bc there are thousdands of hadiths and verses, which show that Islam teaches Oneness of Allah, not joining Him partnerhsip, or bringing him partners or rivals. So there can't be any form of shirk within Islam, bc that's why Muhammed saws came , He came to fight the shirk done to Allah swt.
You have a master's degree, you should be smart enough to understand it.
Last edited:
Woodrow
May Allah have mercy on him رحمة الله عليه
- Messages
- 17,217
- Reaction score
- 4,224
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
One problem here is that in order to understand the need for the mentioning of Muhammad(PBUH) in the Shahadah you would need to understand the nature of names among Semetic people and also have a true understanding of the Shahadah.
The Shahadah is very simple to say and the overall understanding of it is easy. However as a person learns more about Islam and the connotations of the Arabic language the meanings become clearer.
shahada in Quran:
1- testimony: as in "wa la taktomo al shahada" "thou shalt not hideth a testimony"
2- the visible (what is seen to all people): as in "aalem al ghayb wa al shahada"Knower of the invisible and the visible"
The Shahadah is a testimony of what we believe and acknowledgment of how it was revealed to us.
Shahadah
The expression of faith: La ilaha illa Allah. Muhammadun rasulullah. "There is no god but God. Muhammad is the messenger of God."
Testimony---"There is no god but God.
The Visible---"Muhammad is the messenger of God." (We can visibly see the Message (testimony) as we can see what was given to Muhammad(PBUH)
Islam demands that we do not follow blindly and that we seek verification of all we believe.
This is how I see and understand the Shahadah, it is not a remembrance of Muhammad(PBUH) it is a statement of where the message can be seen visibly. Astragfirullah. The Message is the is only one God(swt)
It was through many years of searching that I came to know the Truth of Islam. No person has ever tried to convince me to accept Islam.
It was as a young seminarian that i learned the error of Catholicism. At that time and for a long time afterwards I believed that Christianity was the path and the problem was that nobody practiced Christianity.
To me Christianity was very beautiful and full of hope and promise. To believe that Jesus(as) came to earth and was God(swt) offering himself so that I may join him in heaven was a wonderful inspiring message. It did give me great joy and assurance, even in my darkest days when I was nearly an atheist I would still call upon Jesus(as) to show me the truest and best way to worship him.
Yet, God(swt) in his Divine mercy was kind and helped me see the errors of Christianity, that I did not want to believe were false. I was able to see that through readings of Church History it went from people worshiping God(swt) to seeking ways to speak to God(swt) through Jesus(as) Then the prayers slowly changed and became Speaking to Jesus(as) instead of God(as) and today it has reached the point were people no longer worship the God(swt) Jesus(as) tried so hard to teach people to worship.
Oddly, non-Catholics can see it happening with Catholics were the "Mother of God(swt)" is called upon to ask Jesus(as) for favors. It is only a matter of time now before Catholics will be replacing Jesus(as) with Mary and the separation from God(swt) will be complete. That is what I see happening with all of Christianity and among some it has already been completed. Jesus(as) has replaced God(swt) for many Christians and soon people will "forget" that God(swt) was the creator. The path is already set that it is just a matter of time that Jesus(as) will be seen as the creator and than Christianity will become Monotheistic, but only in the sense of worshiping one God(swt) they will have separated themselves completely from worshiping the God(swt) of Abraham and will be worshiping Jesus(as) alone.
I can not follow you down the path to Hellfire, no matter how beautiful and promising it looks. I prefer to stay on the straight path that leads to Jannah even if it is filled with many trials.
A'uzu Billahi Minash shaitanir Rajim
Redeemed
Account Disabled
- Messages
- 753
- Reaction score
- 12
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Christianity
I hear you!
Thank you, Woodrow, for sharing your testimony. I find all such accounts very fascinating, how people come to believe what they believe, and why and how people leave one faith for another.
You mention that you were once a Catholic and how you came to see the errors of Catholicism. As a Protestant, I might readily agree Catholicism contains errors (or I would be a Catholic!). I'm wondering what non-Catholic errors you found in Christianity that led you to embrace Islam?
You mention the gradual shift from worship of God to worship of Jesus and then worship of or prayer to Mary. Obviously, the last step would be characteristic of Catholicism, not Protestantism. But I guess I can see why you might opt for an opposite extreme---no worship of Jesus or Mary.
The early Church embraced Jesus as God and Creator, but without any exclusion of the Father as God and Creator also. "Let us make man in our image after our likeness" permits a teaching that God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) was the Creator. Prayer was always proper to the Father, in the Name of Jesus, or directly to Jesus, or even the Holy Spirit, as such prayer was still only to God. It would only be when the prayer is to anyone other than God, such as Mary or other departed "saints" that it would be contrary to Scripture. To do so is tantamount to communicating with the dead, which was condemned as an abomination in the O.T., and would be no less forbidden in N.T. times, though its prohibition is not specifically mentioned in the N.T.
We certainly would not want you to follow anyone down the path to Hellfire, but, of course, that is the path you are presently on, from the Christians' perspective. The beautiful and promising path that Christ offers would only lead to life, and that eternal.
I respect that: you and the other Christian members believe that you are on the Straight and Narrow Way to Heaven and that you truly want the best for others and for them to join you in Heaven.
Likewise, I hope that you respect that: I and the other Muslim members believe that we are on the Straight and Narrow Way to Heaven and that we truly want the best for you and others and for you to join us in Heaven.
I find this as being beautiful in a weird way.^o)
Redeemed
Account Disabled
- Messages
- 753
- Reaction score
- 12
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Christianity
I can identify with that!
Yes, we both want what is best for the other. We just have an opposite view of what that "best" is.
Personally, I would not want my worst enemy to end up in Hellfire. I know I've heard some people (not on this forum) say to someone, "I hope you rot in hell!" and I cringe when I hear that, thinking, how could anyone say that, and the speaker is mostly likely going to end up there too.
That is why I cannot understand how Muslim armies could spread their faith by force, giving people only the options of convert, or pay a tax, or die. I could never insist on people converting and, if they didn't, kill them. That would quickly send them (presumably) to hellfire, which I would never want anyone to suffer.
The same is true of the Inquisition and the Catholic Church's hundreds of years of trying to stamp out what it considered "heresies." People accused of heresy were forced by torture to confess to heresies they never committed in hopes of leniency of punishment. If they refused to confess, they were tortured till death; if they confessed, they might be burned at the stake. But all of that was conducted not by Christians but by evil people in leadership roles at that time. Fortunately, that does not occur today.
vpb
IB Expert
- Messages
- 1,943
- Reaction score
- 189
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
Who said it was spread by force? come on Phil, are you joking now? you have been long enough in this forum to understand that people didn't come to Islam by force. Please don't make such statements when we know they are not true. These are just lies invented by orientalists in order to make Islam look as a violent religion. Please be more sensible.
and as for
please read this post made by bro Fi_Sabililah.
Most people say that Islaam forced people from other lands to become muslim.
We usually get the muslim response that this isn't the case, and that 'there is no compulsion in religion':
Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things. [Qur'an 2:256]Then people usually ask why islaam spread to other lands, why couldn't the people just go to the other lands and call the public to islaam. Why couldn't the muslims go in the streets of the other nation and give the people leaflets, pamphlets explaining the truth and reality of islaam?
The answer to this is simple; 1400yrs ago - nearly in every nation a person was bound to follow the religion of his/her ruler. If a person turned away from the religion of the nation/ruler, they were likely to be executed straightaway.
We know that this was the case when an arab [located on the border of Al-Sham/Greater Syria] who was a former ally with the Byzantinian Romans became muslim, he was executed by the Byzantinians. This shows that the people weren't allowed to follow another way of life other than what their ruler followed, otherwise they would face death.
This is also the case with Khisra, the ruler of Persia who tore up the letter recieved by the Messenger of Allaah, Muhammad (peace be upon him) - because he never wanted his people to follow another religion, otherwise he could lose his authority.
Therefore if the ruler was christian, the people were forced to follow that religion. Anyone who was in Iraq/Iran would have to follow Zoroastrianism. Anyone who was in India would have to follow hinduism etc. This happened for many centuries in the world, it was also at the time of the Messenger of Allaah (peace be upon him), and continued for many centuries even after that.
What did Islaam come to do? It came to the oppressive rulers and gave them one of 3 options:
1) Become muslim.That might seem violent, but lets look at it this way - all the nations of the world would force the people to follow the religion of their ruler.
2) Pay Jizya [a small tax] and you will be under the protection of the muslims.
3) If you don't want to accept the above, then fight.
When islaam came, it abolished this ideology of following the faith of your ruler, and because the people were living under oppression anyway by these rulers, who were taking advantage of the people. At the same time these oppressive rulers may have taxed the people heavily, because all they had in their mind was to keep the poor - poor, and keep themselves rich.
So what options did the muslims give to these oppressive governments?
The government had one of the 3 choices mentioned above.
1) They could either accept islaam and become brothers and sisters in faith, the muslims would allow these people to keep their land and wealth etc. But at the same time they would have to rule with the justice of Islaam. This would give safety to those who wanted to accept islaam within the nation because no-one could harm them if they wanted to accept the truth.
2) They could pay Jizya [a small tax] and this would be used to strengthen the security of the state, and also to help the needy etc. The benefits with this tax would be that, the people who lived in the state - they would keep their land, wealth, their honor and blood would be protected - which means their oppressive rulers can't harm them no more, and if anyone waged war against them - the muslims would fight on their behalf.
Compare this to the oppressive rulers before who would tax the people heavily, take over their lands, take their wealth, even harm them physically and take away their honor because all these people wanted was this life, they wanted to keep their empire so keeping the poor - weak would make them feel superior and feel less under a threat.
3) Or the war would take place. The muslims would actually tell the enemy that within 3 days the opposing government has to make a decision. If they don't accept either terms 1 or 2, they will be fought against. This gave the enemy time to think carefully and the muslims trustworthiness meant that they weren't ready to be attacked at any moment, rather the muslims would fight only when they had said so, unlike other enemies who may have done a surprise attack without notice.
The muslims would fight the government until the muslims had authority in the land, and then the justice would be set for the public. 1400yrs ago, if a nation took over a land - the people there would become slaves of the rulers. However, when islaam had authority the people were still free and could either pay Jizya (option 2) or become muslim without the threat of being killed.
Muslims were only told to fight against those who fought them. The Messenger of Allaah, Muhammad (peace be upon him) said:
[In the Context of War:]The people living in the state, whether muslim or non muslim were under the protection of the muslim government and like mentioned earlier, their blood and honor was protected. They weren't forced to become muslim, but due to this justice and fair treatment, alot actually became muslim.
“Do not kill any old person, any child, or any woman.” [Abu Dawud]
“Do not kill the monks in monasteries,” or “Do not kill the people who are sitting in places of worship.” [Musnad Ahmad]
Narrated Anas ibn Malik: The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: Go in Allah's name, trusting in Allah, and adhering to the religion of Allah's Apostle. Do not kill a decrepit old man, or a young infant, or a child, or a woman; do not be dishonest about booty, but collect your spoils, do right and act well, for Allah loves those who do well. (Sunan Abu Dawud , Book 14, Number 2608)
It is narrated by Ibn 'Umar that a woman was found killed in one of these battles; so the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) forbade the killing of women and children.
[Sahih Muslim, Book 019, Number 4320]
Those who never accepted islaam were allowed to rule by their own scripture, and they even had their own courts. However the major crimes would be taken to authority, and would be dealt with justly. Even if a non muslim was wronged, they would have the right to equity.
If anyone mentions situations which may have happened in muslim history in which the muslims were unjust, realise that we don't take our example from them - rather we take it from the example of the Messenger of Allaah, Muhammad (peace be upon him), and the way of his companions, who all applied justice. It was only after that some people ruled with oppression. Islaam is perfect, muslims aren't.
Someone might claim that alot of countries today allow people to follow a religion of their choice without being executed for switching religions. So why is this rule of: 1) Become Muslim 2) Jizya 3) Fight. come into it? Why is it still an islamic rule? Isn't this just an ancient idea now?
We simply say that it has only been a few centuries since the idea of 'being executed' for not following the religion of the state has been abolished [Especially in the west.]
We have seen an increase in the amount of people from other parts of the world settling in other nations (especially the west) where you have the right to follow your religion and not be harmed. And this is a basic rule in islaam, that the muslims are allowed to live in a state which allows the muslims to practise their religion freely.
Why don't the muslims go to other nations to fight and have authority in the land like the past?
Allaah Almighty out of His Eternal Wisdom has made the world in a situation that the events leading to the final hour [i.e. Judgement Day] are coming to pass. One of these events has been prophecised by the Messenger of Allaah (peace be upon him) who said:
Narrated Thawban:We can see this today, where we have wahn in our hearts - when the love of this world has entered our hearts, over the love of the hereafter [i.e. Paradise.]
The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: The people will soon summon one another to attack you as people when eating invite others to share their dish.
Someone asked: Will that be because of our small numbers at that time?
He replied: No, you will be numerous at that time: but you will be scum and rubbish like that carried down by a torrent, and Allah will take fear of you from the breasts of your enemy and last enervation into your hearts.
Someone asked:What is wahn (enervation). Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him):
He replied: Love of the world and dislike of death.
Abu Dawud Book 37, Number 4284.
Where we have deviated from the religion of Allaah/God Almighty, so we have turned away from establishing Allaah's Just law on the earth. So the oppressors can oppress, and the weak stay poor. This is still taking place in the materialistic world we live in today. Where the people are put under pressure to get the latest things, in order to be respected or accepted by society. The media is our 'guidance' and if we turn away from this 'guidance' - we are looked down upon by the public. Then something new comes out and the gadget you got before is 'old' and you need to move forward, otherwise you're looked down upon again. Where if you don't move forward with society, you're left alone.. rejected.
It's a continous circle, and we as muslims have fallen into it. We've actually become the slaves of this society, even though the purpose of this life is to be the slave of our own Creator, Allaah Almighty.
Due to this attatchment to this world, we have turned away from the guidance which was revealed to Muhammad (peace be upon him.) Which means we have stopped striving for Allaah's cause, and in return for that - we are facing the humiliation on earth we see today.
So - no, the establishment of justice with the law of Allaah, isn't 'ancient' - rather we are becoming slaves of society instead of slaves of Allaah. The real life is the afterlife, and the establishment of Justice for Allaah's sake holds a huge reward in this world and the hereafter. This can only come through striving in order to please Allaah, and with your sincerety - you will see the fruits inshaa'Allaah [God willing.] If not in this world, in the real life of the eternal hereafter.. where you can have all that you desire, and more. They are pleased with Allaah, and He is pleased with them. That is the great victory.
Woodrow
May Allah have mercy on him رحمة الله عليه
- Messages
- 17,217
- Reaction score
- 4,224
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
You mention that you were once a Catholic and how you came to see the errors of Catholicism.
Oddly it was not the "Large errors" that Protestants see. I was quite defensive of them and viewed them as a thing of Beauty that Protestantism threw away as arrogance and snubbing of Catholicism. To me it was more the small things.
The system of hierarchy from Priest to Monsignor to Bishop to Cardinal to Pope. Quite a bit of internal politics and underhanded shenanigans.
I was actually quite upset when the Mass changed from Latin to English. I felt that English did not do justice to the meaning of the Mass and was imitating Protestanism.
The subtle changes in Periodic "revisions" such as the periodic updating of who was and who was not a Saint. I mean after centuriess of Venerating Saint Christopher as a bona fide Saint and then suddenly deciding he never existed and was a fictitious person.
It was many things like that I saw that made me start looking into early church history and realizing how often Catholicism had changed. If it was decided that something that was believed for centuries could be changed how could I be certain the "updates" were any truer or falser.
As a Protestant, I might readily agree Catholicism contains errors (or I would be a Catholic!). I'm wondering what non-Catholic errors you found in Christianity that led you to embrace Islam?
I really can not say that it was the finding of any errors in Christianity that led me to embrace Islam. To me Islam is the Truth Isa(as) was teaching and it was the message that we as humans are to follow. I did not seek Islam, Islam found me. The concept of the Christian Trinity and the Islamic non-trinitarian few was probably the least influential factor for me to believe that the Qur'an was the Truth and the Bible was erroneous. I was and still am an avid student of linguistics. I love the Mideastern languages especially Arabic, Hebrew and Aramaic. Although my Arabic is still in need of improvement especially in pronunciation and proper grammar and I am very poor in Hebrew and Aramaic I do believe that I have some insight into mideastern ideology and concepts of how the literature developed. Reading the OT in the Bible I can see the Mideastern flavor even in the translations. The subtle metaphors are there. However, in reading the NT I can not imagine how that could have been translated from any mideastern Sources. If you have ever read any of the attempts to translate the KJV into Arabic or Hebrew, you would find the results to be very laughable and not Mideastern or what a Mid easterner would have ever understood. Later further study into the Bible has honestly convinced me that very little of the NT had a Hebrew or Aramaic source and what we see is Greek thought flavored with Roman concepts of what Christianity should be. The Hebrew versions of Early scriptures that I have been able to actually see turned out to be Hebrew translations of what was Written in Greek or Latin. I have never seen nor know of any Hebrew/Aramaic sources that the old existing Greek and Latin scriptures were translated form. Although in the first 500 years of Christian History much of the Latin/Greek were translated into Hebrew and that is what is often used when scholars present a Bible that they say came from the original Hebrew. My conclusion that the Bible was false and the Qur'an was true was probably part of the reason I readily accepted Islam the day i was reading the Qur'an as Arabic Literature and suddenly became aware that I was truly reading the Words of God(swt)
You mention the gradual shift from worship of God to worship of Jesus and then worship of or prayer to Mary. Obviously, the last step would be characteristic of Catholicism, not Protestantism. But I guess I can see why you might opt for an opposite extreme---no worship of Jesus or Mary.
Perhaps it was seeing that gradual take over in Catholicism that caused me to wonder if the same thing had happened with Isa(as).
The early Church embraced Jesus as God and Creator, but without any exclusion of the Father as God and Creator also. "Let us make man in our image after our likeness" permits a teaching that God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) was the Creator. Prayer was always proper to the Father, in the Name of Jesus, or directly to Jesus, or even the Holy Spirit, as such prayer was still only to God. It would only be when the prayer is to anyone other than God, such as Mary or other departed "saints" that it would be contrary to Scripture. To do so is tantamount to communicating with the dead, which was condemned as an abomination in the O.T., and would be no less forbidden in N.T. times, though its prohibition is not specifically mentioned in the N.T.
Even modern Christian Theologians acknowledge the gradual change of Christianity viewing Christ(as) as a man and than developing into a worship as God(swt). I did not attend this conference but had read about it and to be honest this is one of the things that helpe lead me into believing that the Christian concept of the Trinity was a fabrication brought about by human desires.
Source: http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_sd/jesus_conference.html
Here is a very poignant abstract from that conferance:
Source: http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_sd/jconf_casey.html
You may come to a different conclusion than I did based on that abstract. However, I did not come to my final conclusion based on just reading one abstract. This was just one of many.
We certainly would not want you to follow anyone down the path to Hellfire, but, of course, that is the path you are presently on, from the Christians' perspective. The beautiful and promising path that Christ offers would only lead to life, and that eternal.
I do appreciate your sincerity and concern. However, All that I see and can comprehend continues to reassure me that Islam is the true path to salvation.
I will not paraphrase your words as I am certain you already are aware that what you say about Christianity is what I believe about Islam. I do sincerely pray that you and all people will follow the true path and find their way to Jannah.
For me, "modern Christian Theologians" hold little weight. Should I attend a conference and listen to them and reject the Word of God? I would have to in order to accept the idea that Jesus was only gradually viewed as more than a man rather than worship of Him being proper from the get go. Certainly His own disciples went through that process, but by the time He appeared in their midst behind closed doors, the risen Lord was unmistakenly worthy of their worship, just as Thomas declared, "My Lord and my God!" Even before that, throughout His earthly ministry, Christ received worship again and again, and never ONCE did He rebuke it and redirect anyone to God or the Father alone. NOT ONCE!!! Need I recite verse after verse showing that? That is in stark contrast to the proper rejection of worship offered Peter (Acts 10:25-26) and an angel (Rev. 19:10; 22:8-9).
And yes, I am familar with the Arian Controversy and various Councils that met to resolve it. Perhaps not everyone had ALL of the NT to settle it, I don't know. But there will always be disputes and disagreements, just as there are today, with modern-day Arians that are today called "Jehovah's Witnesses." As 1 Cor. 11:19 says, "For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you."
Acts 17:31 ---...[God] has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.
When I stand before the Lord Jesus Christ and He judges me, I will fear no condemnation, for "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 8:1), since all my sins were judged at the Cross and paid for by Him in full, He will have no cause to ask me, "Why didn't you believe My Word?" or "Why did you believe theologians rather than My Word?"
Curaezipirid
IB Veteran
- Messages
- 864
- Reaction score
- 57
Salam,
Actually I have made the point very plain to you in a pm Phil12123, that for many real Christians, we experience a higher standard of being able to worship God and worship with our minds to Jesus and Mary, through worship in Islam in a Mosque.
Your Biblical references are very good and we all appreciate you contributing such to these forums.
wasalam
I agree with Br. vpb, please restate your post so that we may understand what you are trying to say.
Muslim armies conquered land from the border of China in the east to Spain in the west. They were stopped, I believe it was, at France, finally being defeated there, or they would have marched through Europe and exceeded Alexander the Great or the Roman Empire in the amount of land captured.
The quote you give makes it sound like they were doing everyone a favor to conquer lands of bad rulers who forced their citizens to have the religion of the ruler. Well, what about the people who were happy and content with that religion and wanted nothing to do with Islam? Look at this again:
It is admitted that this was violent, but it is justified because the rulers are supposedly "oppressive". And the rulers are forced to become Muslim or pay a tax or fight to the death to avoid either. And the people were forced to be Muslim or pay a tax. What if they want to do neither? They have no choice. No choice is called FORCE. DUH. And it is meaningless to say "Muslims were only told to fight against those who fought them," when it is the Muslims who were the aggressors, marching into lands to take them over, for whatever reason. This is far worse than the Catholic Crusades that focused only on liberating the holy land, one small area of the entire Muslim empire.
I notice no quotes are taken from the Quran, except the one about no compulsion in religion (what a joke). Are you afraid to quote them --- slay the infidels wherever you find them, etc., etc.
Muhammad engaged in several battles in Mecca and Medina, driving out several Jewish tribes, and in one battle killing 900 people in one day. He had blood on his hands big-time. Compare that to the Lord Jesus Christ, Who NEVER fought a battle or told his followers to do so. NO SWORD EVER USED BY A CHRISTIAN to spread the Gospel. Oppressive rulers? Paul said,
Romans 13:
1. Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves condemnation.
3. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4. For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
5. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
6. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
7. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.
8. Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
Oppressive rulers are there by the permission of God and no where does the Word of God authorize any fighting or battles or killing to go against them, even if it makes people more free to become Christians.
vpb
IB Expert
- Messages
- 1,943
- Reaction score
- 189
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
Yeah, people had just rulers, that if they would say "earth is not flat" , they would be burned. that is what type of rulers people had. So I assume you agree of having a ruler who would burn you bc you say earth is flat.
so your government and all other government are behaving same as "islamic states", forcing you pay taxes??
you can't do whatever you want within a state, usually state has rules, and you have to follow those rules, as long as they are not oppressive rules. a state requiring u to pay a tax is not an oppression or a bad thing, it's just a rule.
really? is it the muslim aggressors who took spain by force? why the biggest muslim community in indonesia, yet no war happened there between muslim and other army? malysia? why in albania&kosovo there are majority muslims, yet ottoman empire came through bulgaria?? why countries around are christians? why christian socities exist today in egypt??? where is the muslim aggressors???? where did that knowledge in Spain evolve from? knowledge doesn't increase during war, so how come when Spain was ruled by muslims, other non-muslim countries dreamed to go and get knowledge from Islamic universities? opsss...
people at that time (ie. in Spain) , they accepted Islam with their wish, since Arabs started trading, spanish people became very interested, bc Islam is what gave them the free thinking, the freedom etc. etc. that's how the Spain got to be a muslim country.
Wars were made only against the opressors.
the quote about killing the infidels wherever you find them , has nothing to do with what we are talking about. the verse has to do about a peace treaty made with Quraish, which was broken, and this verse was dedicated to them, to a specific group. Don't take verses out of context.
Islamic state was established in peace in Medina, cuz people were waiting for him when he went to medina, and as for mecca, mecca was the home of Muhammed saws, and the home of many companions who were denied the right to sell/buy, their houses were taken etc. etc. you have probably read in history. and it's their full right to fight back to get their places back. and also jewish people were just a minority there.
This is based on your belief. but in our belief Jesus came for a short-time message. but Muhammed saws was sent as the seal of the prophets, where he is a role model. He was a commander, a father, a brother ........etc.
Jesus did not teach just "love", as you say. He taught exactly what Muhammed saws taught.
Have you ever lived under an oppressor? people talk easy with their mouths, but if you would ever try to live under oppressor, you wouldn't repeat that same statement. I see many westerners, they have never seen a war, never experienced what is to live under oppression, and they think they know everything, and they speak all day, so please don't be one of them.
MuhammadRizan
Esteemed Member
- Messages
- 147
- Reaction score
- 13
what are u guys talking about?
i thought this thread discussing about Atonement For Sin... what is the wisdom behind this atonement for sin anyway?:?
Btw...come on! we've been arguing this "mouzlemss spreading Izlam by sword" thing for century now...just read the history books honestly and forget about it...Spain is christian country now, no muslim or even jews left there(i wonder where did they go?)...ottoman empire is destroyed...the christian is all free, alive and kickin'...Christian also very much in control now and they will never burn people again for sure...it seem everything just okay now..we should be grateful...
mg:
what are u guys talking about?
what is the wisdom behind this atonement for sin anyway?:?
Btw...come on! we've been arguing this "mouzlemss spreading Izlam by sword" thing for century now...just read the history books honestly and forget about it...Spain is christian country now, no muslim or even jews left there(i wonder where did they go?)...ottoman empire is destroyed...the christian is all free, alive and kickin'...Christian also very much in control now and they will never burn people again for sure...it seem everything just okay now..we should be grateful...
You're right, we got way off-topic. I must have hit a nerve for some people who are in denial of history (non-rewritten, non-sanitized history). I was talking about spreading the Gospel... the good news that Jesus paid for our sins (the blood atonement for sin) and I mentioned something about how I could never kill anyone for rejecting it, etc., because that would put them in hell all the sooner. It would be the opposite of loving that soul and wanting the best for it.
You ask, "what is the wisdom behind this atonement for sin anyway?" It all fulfills the O.T. animal sacrifice system that God gave to His chosen people through Moses. Actually, it goes back further than that, to the Garden of Eden where God had to slay an animal, shedding it blood, to provide clothing: Genesis 3:21 --- "Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them." And, of course, there were the two sacrifices that Cain and Abel offered to God, and God respected Abel's, which was "the firstlings of his flock," which foreshadowed the animal sacrifices that followed under Moses.
So, God revealed, first in the Old Testament, that to be just God must punish every sin. So He instituted the animal sacrifice system and, for example, a lamb without spot or blemish was sacrificed for the sins of the people. There were probably millions of animals sacrificed over the hundreds of years they did that. Why? Because:
Lev. 17:11 "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul."
Now the blood of those animals merely covered sins, as in the Passover, when God saw the blood, He would pass over the sinner and judgment would not fall on him. The sin was paid for by the animal's life, its blood. God's MERCY on the sinner was based on the shedding of blood of the animal in payment for the sinner's sins.
All of that was a type or picture of the Ultimate Sacrifice to come when Jesus, "the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29) would lay down His life, shedding the "precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot" (1 Peter 1:19). But Christ's blood doesn't just cover sins, it washes they away (Rev. 1:5; 1 John 1:7).
That is now the basis of a person's redemption and of God's mercy and grace toward the sinner. That is God's way. For a sinner to say to God, "No, I reject what Christ did for me," is to reject GOD'S way of salvation, which then removes any chance for mercy and forgiveness. God "spared not His own Son but delivered Him up for us all" (Rom. 8:32). In effect, God sent His Son to save the world by His shed blood, showing HIM no mercy as He (Jesus) bore our sins (taking our punishment), so that God could be JUST in terms of punishing all sin, and show US mercy by giving us forgiveness as a free gift. And because it is free to us, we have no excuse. If we reject it, we simply sentence OURSELVES to an eternity paying for our own sins.
THAT is the wisdom behind this atonement for sin.