Reading the Bible Like Conservatives Read the Qur’an

Here is an interesting bit of sensible Christian commentary on the Bible vs Quran debate raging on social media at the moment.  The author might also have mentioned the advice St Paul gave to young Timothy about how to treat the Old Testament: ‘All Scripture [ie the OT, the NT had not yet been written] is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.’ 

reblogged from Progressive Christian Channel

angry-christian-FB

There’s an unfortunately popular meme going around conservative social media depicting some horrific doctrines of “radical Islam and ISIS.”

In at least one case, from the Conservative Post, the meme’s accompanied by a message suggesting all American Muslims should have to deny the doctrine listed or “leave our country” [my emphasis].

The list includes things like: enslaving for sex, approval of beating slaves, and killing non-Muslims.

This is an example of a hermeneutic (which is a fancy way of saying “method of interpreting a holy text) which seeks to prove a point by cherry picking verses from the Qur’an rather than having a larger understanding of the overall text. It completely (and conveniently) ignores verses like:

But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace. – Qur’an 8:61

And good and evil deeds are not alike. Repel evil with good. And he who is your enemy will become your dearest friend. – Qur’an 41:33-34

Just to show the folly of approaching a text in such a simpleminded and shortsighted way, I thought it might be interesting to pull a few verses from the Bible, apply the same kind of hermeneutic and consider the results.

1) Kill all those who do not worship God.

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. – 2 Chronicles 15:12-13 (NAB)

2) If a town is beginning to not worship God, kill them all! Oh – and burn it to the ground!

Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. “The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him.” – Deuteronomy 13:13-19 (NLT)

3) Kill you own relatives if they try to lead you away from worshipping God.

If anyone secretly entices you—even if it is your brother, your father’s son or your mother’s son, or your own son or daughter, or the wife you embrace, or your most intimate friend—saying, “Let us go worship other gods,” whom neither you nor your ancestors have known, any of the gods of the peoples that are around you, whether near you or far away from you, from one end of the earth to the other, you must not yield to or heed any such persons. Show them no pity or compassion and do not shield them. – Deuteronomy 13:6-8 (NRSV)

4) Not only is it okay to have slaves, you can beat them to near death as long as you don’t kill them.

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished.  If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.  – Exodus 21:20-21 (NAB)

5) You can sell your daughter as a sex slave, just make sure everyone treats her a little better than other slaves.

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed; he shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt unfairly with her. – Exodus 21:7-8 (NRSV)

6) Spanking is probably good, but never rule out death.

Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. – Exodus 21:15 (NAB)

7) The only penalty for unfaithfulness is death.

If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death.  – Leviticus 20:10 (NLT)

8) Premarital sex is punishable by death! Well, for women.

But if this charge is true (that she wasn’t a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her father’s house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father’s house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst – Deuteronomy 22:20-21 (NAB)

9) It’s perfectly fine to rape an unmarried woman, but if you’re caught you must give her Dad 50 shekels and marry her.

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. – Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (NIV)

If conservatives really want all Muslims to renounce the most horrific verses in their holy text, it would seem that Christians will need to do the same.

It’s time to stop masquerading hate and fear around in costumes of concern and piousness.

If you are not willing to apply the same scrutiny to your own faith that you insist on applying to other people’s faith, then at some point, you are going to have to admit that your issue is not with their actual faith but with the fact they are different from you and that scares the bejeebers out of you.

Like the Bible, the Qur’an has an over-arching theology which, ultimately, overrides the worst parts of the text.

For Islam, it can be summarized by the words with which they greet each other: “Assalamu alaykum” or “peace be upon you.” To which the response is: “Wa alaykum assalam” or “and peace be upon you also.”

For Protestants, it might remind you of this: “Peace be with you.” To which the response is: “And also with you.”

When you find those overarching points of commonality, it’s of little surprise that Muslims and Christians share a common ancestor in Abraham and believe in the common God Abraham worshiped.

With that in mind, let’s all put a little more time into peacemaking and stop the nonsensical fear-mongering.

Frankly, it’s what the God of Abraham would want.

Read more: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thegodarticle/2015/02/reading-the-bible-like-conservatives-read-the-quran/#ixzz3TMgjiaPa



Categories: Bible, Quran

40 replies

  1. It’s unfortunate that seemingly horrible verses are not contextualised, and seemingly good verses are also not contextualised. What’s happening is that literature is being read independently within the same narrative.

    I mean, most certainly, anyone who is aware/has a nuanced understanding should appreciate that the Bible is not to be read in the same manner as the Qurʾān, since the former introduces ahistorical accounts, genres, etc,. that are not necessarily from God. The Bible is more in-line toward a hadith compilation (similar in nature to hadith al-Qudsi and the rest of the hadith collection – in fact, a lot of OT scripture is da’if in nature or worse).

    Secondly, if one is to contextualise the series of events, then the outcome between Christianity (and there’s a reason as to why I didn’t explicitly say “Judaism and Christianity”) and Islam is different. There’s a gradual progression in the Bible, from the ahistorical accounts – as discerned with modern scholarship – and its hyperbolic harshness to the reinterpretation through Christ, with him being allocated as the superseding Rabbi, interpreter of what the OT is intended as (cf. Matthew 5). Conversely, it appears as though Muhammad developed from an exclusively quasi-apocalyptic prophet to one who established regulations, rules, etc,. Unfortunately, there are questionable periods, such as the destruction of Dhul al-Khalasa and the killing of anyone who was willing to defend their faith or themselves, Muhammad’s transgression with the ‘Ukl tribe which eventually led to Q5:33, the questionable case of Banu Qurayza (whether they were even worthy of the onslaught is highly contested) and the bizarre application of “Judaic” law by Sa’d ibn Mu’adh, and agreed upon by Muhammad to allow for the beheading of its “able-bodies men”, and finally, Q9:29. Hence, suggesting the narrative of “peace” when the historical context doesn’t align itself with peace is quite telling.

    This reminds me of the use of “innocent” in the Talmud and Qurʾān. You have Q5:32’s use of “innocent”. Now, it’s derived from the Talmud (cf. Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5, and the Babylonian Talmud Tractate Sanhedrin 37a), and even the Qurʾān would allude to it being so, “We decreed upon the Children of Israel[…]”. If you’re familiar with OT literature, there are many moments in which seemingly innocent people have been ordained to be killed for their “crimes”. This is similar in nature within Islam, where Al-Khidr and Moses’ interactions are telling.

    Q18:74
    “So they set out, until when they met a boy, al-Khidr killed him. [Moses] said, “Have you killed a pure soul for other than [having killed] a soul**? You have certainly done a deplorable thing.”

    Al-Khidr explains to Moses as to why he did what he had to do, “And as for the boy, his parents were believers, and we feared that he would overburden them by transgression and disbelief.” (Q18:80). This transgression is elaborated in Bukhari: “[…]His parents were believers, and he (the boy) was a non-believer and we (Khadir) feared lest he would oppress them by obstinate rebellion and disbelief. (18.80) (i.e. that their love for him would urge them to follow him in his religion, ‘so we (Khadir) desired that their Lord should change him for them for one better in righteousness and near to mercy’ (18:81). This was in reply to Moses’ saying: Have you killed an innocent soul.’? (18.74). ‘Near to mercy” means they will be more merciful to him than they were to the former whom Khadir had killed. Other than Sa’id, said that they were compensated with a girl. Dawud bin Abi Asim said on the authority of more than one that this next child was a girl.” (Sahih Bukhari, Book 65, Hadith 4773). Here, transgression and lack-of-mercy was considered as “that their love for him would urge them to follow him in his religion”.

    And most interestingly, is Muhammad’s inclination to reintroducing some parts of the Halakhah, when the Halakhah is a deeply convoluted subjected even within Judaism (that’s not to say fiqh isn’t either).

    Sahih Muslim 1700 a, Book 29, Hadith 43 (cf. Leviticus 20:10):

    Al-Bara’ b. ‘Azib reported:

    There happened to pass by Allah’s Apostle (ﷺ) a Jew blackened and lashed. Allah’s Apostle (ﷺ) called them (the Jews) and said: Is this the punishment that you find in your Book (Torah) as a prescribed punishment for adultery? They said: Yes. He (the Holy Prophet) called one of the scholars amongst them and said: I ask you in the name of Allah Who sent down the Torah on Moses if that is the prescribed punishment for adultery that you find in your Book. He said: No. Had you not asked me in the name of Allah, I would not have given you this information. We find stoning to death (as punishment prescribed in the Torah). But this (crime) became quite common amongst our aristocratic class. So when we caught hold of any rich person (indulging in this offence) we spared him, but when we caught hold of a helpless person we imposed the prescribed punishment upon him. We then said: Let us argree (on a punishment) which we can inflict both upon the rich and the poor. So We decided to blacken the face with coal and flog as a substitute punishment for stoning. Thereupon Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said: O Allah, I am the first to revive Thy command when they had made it dead. He then commanded and he (the offender) was stoned to death. Allah, the Majestic and Glorious, sent down (this verse):” O Messenger, (the behaviour of) those who vie with one another in denying the truth should not grieve you…” up to” is vouchsafed unto you, accept it” (v. 41) 2176 It was said (by the Jews): Go to Muhammad; it he commands you to blacken the face and award flogging (as punishment for adultery), then accept it, but it he gives verdict for stoning, then avoid it. It was (then) that Allah, the Majestic and Great, sent down (these verses):” And they who do not judge in accordance with what Allah has revealed are, indeed, deniers of the truth” (v. 44) ; “And they who do not judge in accordance with what Allah has revealed-they, they indeed are the wrongdoers” (v. 45) ;” And they who do not judge in accordance with what God has revealed-they are the iniquitous (v. 47). (All these verses) were revealed in connection with the non-believers.

    Whereas Christ dealt with the OT in a completely contrary manner to Muhammad had.

    Like

    • Zozo, as you know in Islamic theology (also found in the Qur’an undoubtedly) Muslims, especially children before their puberty, are guaranteed heaven. Since God has the right to take life and death, I do not see anything evil about the story. God simply killed the boy to prevent a future evil – not that the boy himself was blameworthy *at that time*. Furthermore the boy himself was promised salvation due to this.

      “Whereas Christ dealt with the OT in a completely contrary manner to Muhammad had.”

      Is Christ not the god of the old testament? Why then did he order the slaughter of women and children?

      Like

    • Uwootm8, I was not dealing with the eschatological nature of that verse. I was discussing what is meant by “innocent”, in the same manner as the Jews would refer to “innocent”. Reread it.

      —————————————————————

      “Is Christ not the god of the old testament? Why then did he order the slaughter of women and children?”

      Read my other comments. I’ve addressed this.

      Like

  2. zozo Al-Maslawi

    You said;
    Whereas Christ dealt with the OT in a completely contrary manner to Muhammad had.

    I say;
    Christ is God, according to Christians, so he(Christ) is responsible for the genocides in the Old Testament and New Testament and you zozo must condemn Christ and do not cherry pick verses and personalities as the wise writer of the article suggests.

    Christ never condemned to atrocity and barbaric and horrible verses in the Old and New Testament, so he is accountable to that.

    Thanks.

    Like

  3. Well, as I said, one is required to express some kind of nuance. And as I have unfortunately witnessed here, there is a lack of nuance particularly when it defeats their arguments.

    There are two approaches here.

    1) Firstly, Christ’s Godliness and how it is seen throughout ahistorical accounts and rhetoric

    2) Christ as the human Rabbi

    As I have explicitly said beforehand, the OT is strange in its accusation or assertions. There is little historicity in most of its literature, therefore discerning what may have happened from what may have not happened is difficult. Most scholars would attest to a lack of historicity, and most of the writings are ahistorical narratives defined by some geo-socio-political necessities (cf. James Kugel’s ‘How to Read the Bible’). I think we should move away from the typical American evangelical mind-set, as it butchers scripture more than it can understand it (just like IS).

    “Christ never condemned to atrocity and barbaric and horrible verses in the Old and New Testament, so he is accountable to that.”

    I am in the process of writing up the Rabbi nature of Christ and how he reacted to the OT: similar in nature to the thoughts of Bart Ehrman, etc,. For a brief overview, cf. the following verses: Matthew 7:12, Matthew 11:11-13, Matthew 12, John 5:10, Mark 2:24, Mark 3:4, Luke 6:2, Matthew 19:3-12, Matthew 23:23, Luke 10:25-37, Luke 14:1-6, Luke 22:37, Luke 24:44, John 1:17, John 1:45, John 5, John 7:19-24, John 8:5 (the interpolation), John 15:25, John 18:31, John 19:7. His assertions, or literary positives, underline the barbarity of the OT. If he claims the necessity of “love your enemies”, and “there is no greater love than to lay down one’s life for another”, then he’s depicting the lack of righteous in the OT (refer to a few verses in the selection).

    And finally, comparing the lifes, outcomes, and – supposedly – motives of the character of Christ and Muhammad, then you can see different personalities. One who tried to do away with the harshness of the OT by implementing a new quasi-Talmud, and the other tried to re-establish it (Muhammad).

    Like

  4. zozo Al-Maslawi

    You said;
    And finally, comparing the lifes, outcomes, and – supposedly – motives of the character of Christ and Muhammad, then you can see different personalities. One who tried to do away with the harshness of the OT by implementing a new quasi-Talmud, and the other tried to re-establish it (Muhammad).

    I say;
    Prophets Moses, Mohammed, David, Solomon and many prophets are head of states or presidents, having populations to protect. They are to protect their followers, the weak, children, infants, the sick, women and the entire followers of God message from any aggression and who will sabotage God message.

    Jesus on the other hand has no population to protect and his own disciples deserted him and he is under control of a powerful army and so he is weak. We all read about the second coming of Jesus Christ when he will be strong and has control of affairs. What will happen then when Jesus Christ comes back powerful and not weak as his first coming?

    Jesus Christ, will inflict more atrocities to his enemies than all the atrocities found in both the New Testament, Old Testament and the Quran. Christ will kill, torture and maimed his enemies who do not follow him or hear his message as he himself said;

    19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

    Jesus Christ was weak to carry his atrocities, because the Roman rulers are stronger than him, but he did managed to insult people and turned some tables in anger. This will tell you that if he had power then, he would have committed atrocities of gigantic proportion that will look like a child play when compared with the atrocities in NT, OT and the Quran.

    You said;
    There are two approaches here.

    1) Firstly, Christ’s Godliness and how it is seen throughout ahistorical accounts and rhetoric

    2) Christ as the human Rabbi

    I say;
    It is the same Christ and he is responsible for all the atrocities in the Bible

    You said;
    As I have explicitly said beforehand, the OT is strange in its accusation or assertions. There is little historicity in most of its literature, therefore discerning what may have happened from what may have not happened is difficult. Most scholars would attest to a lack of historicity, and most of the writings are ahistorical narratives defined by some geo-socio-political necessities (cf. James Kugel’s ‘How to Read the Bible’)

    I say;
    Oh, so the OT has little historicity, when you go there and quote Isiah as your proof that Jesus is God. The Bible consists of both NT and OT and if OT has little historicity and so will the NT has little historicity. The compilers, compiled the book together and why will they compile them as single book if they deem the OT has little historicity?

    Thanks.

    Like

  5. Q18:74
    “So they set out, until when they met a boy, al-Khidr killed him. [Moses] said, “Have you killed a pure soul for other than [having killed] a soul**? You have certainly done a deplorable thing.”

    Al-Khidr explains to Moses as to why he did what he had to do, “And as for the boy, his parents were believers, and we feared that he would overburden them by transgression and disbelief.” (Q18:80).

    As a Muslim, this story disturbed me….but also challenged me….
    …and perhaps best illustrates how our understanding of God affects how we understand God’s scriptures?
    In the Quran, there is an understanding that God is most compassionate most merciful. There may be Muslims who have a harsher view of God, but what if we understood this story from the perspective of God’s attributes of compassion and mercy?

    But first consider….who does life belong to?. A Western person might say that life belongs to the individual. But from a Muslim/Quranic perspective, life belongs to God, for it is God who gives and takes life.(2:156) Though that right is God’s alone, he has given a very limited right to human beings to take life in the pursuit of justice under law or in self defense.

    In the case of al-Khidr and the boy, neither of the above mentioned circumstances (justice/self-defense) applied—and so the question as to why arises. If, in the story, God had simply taken life without involving an outside agent (al-Khidr) then the point of the story could not have been seen/emphasized.

    What is the point of the story?—the purpose of life. Consider the question, why are we placed on earth? The Quran says it is to worship God. “Worship” in the Islamic context is understood as intents and actions.
    Our intentions and actions can benefit our soul or they can harm our soul. (45:15). Our life on earth from birth to death is a test. God is most compassionate, most merciful and for those of us who have harmed our souls, we can repent and God will forgive (39:53).

    Thus, a long life will give us more opportunities to harm our souls but also more time to repent and gain God’s grace. A short life, on the other hand, may give us less time to harm our souls. In either case, God’s grace will be open to us.

    In other words, the length of a life cannot be the measure of God’s compassion and mercy….because it is far more vast than what we can comprehend….?……

    Like

    • The purpose of life is certainly not about worshipping this egostatistical and broken God. There’s more mercy in my pinky finger than the mercy that is described in the God of the Qurʾān. He allows for an awful world to be created: he establishes the laws that allow for pain, famine, starvation, cancer, war, lies, and every conceivable evil. It’s as if this evil isn’t enough, he creates a world in which he will punish those who reject him endlessly because they will be depraved from his mercy (Q29:23), he creates most people for the purpose of hell (Q7:179), and then hell itself is as follows:

      • Q22:19 “But those who disbelieved will have cut out for them garments of fire. Poured upon their heads will be scalding water.”

      • Q14:49-50 “And you will see the criminals that Day bound together in shackles, their garments of liquid pitch (melted copper) and their faces covered by the Fire.”

      • Q56:41-44 “And the companions of the left – what are the companions of the left? (They will be) in scorching fire and scalding water and a shade of black smoke, neither cool nor beneficial.”

      • Q74:26-29 “And what can make you know what is Hellfire? It lets nothing remain and leaves nothing (unburned), altering the skins”

      • Q88:6-7 “No food will there be for them except from a bitter, thorny plant which neither nourishes nor avails against hunger.”

      • Q47:15 “They will be given to drink boiling water, so that it cuts up their bowels (to pieces).”

      • Q73:12-13 “Surely, with us are fetters (to bind them) and a ranging Fire (to burn them), and a food that chokes and a penalty grievous.”

      • Q18:29 “And if they call for relief, they will be relieved with water like murky oil, which scalds (their) faces. Wretched is the drink, and evil is the resting place.”

      • Q4:56 “Indeed, those who disbelieve in Our verses – We will drive them into a Fire. Every time their skins are roasted through We will replace them with other skins so they may taste the punishment. Indeed, God is ever Exalted in Might and Wise.”

      • Q76:4 “for the rejecters We have prepared iron chains, yokes, and a blazing Fire.”

      You claim that following God is about perfecting our actions, but yet I do that without the need for the Islamic concept of God. Yet, even by me doing so, it’s futile since my deeds are to be considered as worthless (Q7:147, Q18:105).

      Regardless, I used the narrative of al-Khidr to highlight how “innocent” in Islam (and Judaism) means completely different to what we currently understand innocent as.

      Like

  6. No one is contesting the necessity in protecting their people. What is being contested is their aggression and their questionable nature. This is applicable to most OT prophets and Muhammad. How is it acceptable that Muhammad brands the eyes of criminals – albeit criminals who committed murder? How is Muhammad’s treatment towards those of Banu Qurayza acceptable, or Dhul al-Khalasa? How is Moses’ rampage against the non-Israelites acceptable? And this is all supposedly in the context of protecting their community? Such barbarity does not equate to protection, but a reflection of questionable characteristics and personalities. If you would defend such “barbarity” as a means in preventing further “aggression” from your enemies, then quite obviously it didn’t work: I mean, Muhammad’s state fell immediately with the Ridda wars, a testament to how dysfunctional the forms of punishment that are prescribed.

    Secondly, Christ had a people to protect – I don’t know where you’re getting the idea that he didn’t – but you’ve misunderstood the purpose of Christianity. It’s not to establish a theocracy, where one wishes to enforce and coerce others into their own religious narrative, instead, it’s about preparing one’s intentions and life towards good, and hopefully the afterlife will be of theosis.

    In regard to Luke 19:27, we have discussed this endlessly. Just like I don’t quote 9:5 because it’s out of context, you should also have the audacity to not quote things out of context, particularly when the entire parable is about refuting the immediate appearance of the Kingdom of God (Luke 19:11). In addition, academics relate to the apocalyptic nature of Jerusalem and its destruction with Luke 19:11-27, Luke 19:28-40, Luke 21:21-24 (cf. Matthew 21:1-9, Mark 11:1-10, and John 12:12-19). This is how the Book of Revelation should also be read, as a certain prophesy within a historical, literary, and social context – that of which relates to not adhering to Greco-Roman society (cf. Howard Brook’s “Unveiling Empire: Reading Revelation Then and Now” and Bart Ehrman’s textbook on this subject). It’s interesting that Muhammad decided to take on board this misconstrued apocalyptic narrative, however, and even uses Christ as one of the players in this odd Islamic eschatology.

    I’m a secular Christian-moralist. When have I ever quoted Isaiah? I suggest tailoring your comments to give yourself more justice.

    And you have yet to answer my original question.

    Like

    • “I’m a secular Christian-moralist.” Do all secular Christian-moralists have merciful pinky fingers?

      Like

    • Well, my pinky finger doesn’t go around threatening people to worship it, otherwise it’s gonna do some old-school, Near Ancient East, Bronze-age torturing. Say Masha’Allah. :3

      Like

    • Sorry, stupid me, I forgot, “secular Christian-moralist” pinky fingers only do new-school Western high-tech post-modern torturing.

      Like

    • zozo Al-Maslawi

      You said;
      No one is contesting the necessity in protecting their people. What is being contested is their aggression and their questionable nature.

      I say;
      Yes, Most prophets of God were head of states and have population to protect, unlike Jesus Christ who does not have anyone to protect. Jesus Christ was weak and with no power and is a subject of the Romans and cannot cause any mischief but he(Christ) managed to insult people and turned tables in anger and that will tell you that if he had power, he would have punished those he was angry with. He cannot punish anyone because he is under the Romans. Again, Christ ministry was short as compared to some of the PRESIDENT OR HEAD OF STATE prophets who have people and property and the message of God to protect.

      Banu Quraiza intent was to annihilate Muslims at all cost, like how isis want to annihilate any one right now at all cost and both Banu Quraiza and isis and anyone who want to annihilate other population with no cause must be stopped. If you have a population to protect, your enemies will always attack you and you have the right to fight back and remove the threat.

      When Jesus comes back he will have power and will kill and torture anyone who will not support him.

      You said;
      How is it acceptable that Muhammad brands the eyes of criminals – albeit criminals who committed murder?

      You also said;
      In regard to Luke 19:27, we have discussed this endlessly. Just like I don’t quote 9:5 because it’s out of context, you should also have the audacity to not quote things out of context, particularly when the entire parable is about refuting the immediate appearance of the Kingdom of God (Luke 19:11).

      Now I say;
      Brother Eric has discussed the “eyes of the criminals” comments you keep repeating you and Eric brought Arabic into the arguments and also scholars to refute you but you keep bringing it. Even, if the punishment was done, did the criminals not commit murder? Do you want them to be set free, so that there will be murder in society? and the populations of these prophets to be murdered in cold blood?

      If Jesus Christ was to be in the shoes of these noble prophets with population to protect will he let every murderer to go scot free? so that his population will be unprotected? and murdered by wicked people? Have you forgotten the beheadings and killings in the Christian world according to guidance from the Bible? Beheadings was abolished in Europe recently, but that was norm under Christian rule with guidance from the Bible and Jesus Christ. There is still capital punishment in most majority Christian countries and that was derived from the Bible.

      Prophet Jesus had no one to protect but is under the Romans and his own disciples deserted him, and his ministry was short as compared to most prophets who were head of states and had population to protect, so expect punishment from these prophets. When Jesus come back his atrocities will make those of these prophets looks like a child’s play because he(Christ) will kill any one who will not follow him.

      Let Jesus Christ has a population to control like Moses, David, Solomon, Mohammed etc. and let see whether he will sit and allow his population to be murdered and tortured by wicked people and for him to turn his cheek. I bet God would have punished him for not using his given strength to punish the culprits.
      Will you be happy and turn your cheek to some one who had raped your sister and killed her without remorse or repentance? Such people needs to be punished to deter others from doing that. Turning the other cheek to these wicked people is not a wise thing to do.

      Thanks.

      Like

    • Intellect, I sincerely suggest reading the Bible.

      The entire reason Christ did not react on Earth was because…

      John [18:36]
      “Pilate answered, “I am not a Jew, am I? Your own nation and the chief priests delivered You to me; what have You done?” Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.”

      This has nothing to do with “power” because Christ would have told his people regardless to protect him, but a theocracy… or a Kingdom on Earth is far removed from the Christian narrative. This is sincerely not that hard to figure, but it appears as though it’s flying past most members’ capacity on this blog.

      Banu Qurayza were not intent on annihilating Muslims. Allow me to quote a post from a friend I know.

      —————————————————————-

      There were no treacherous acts on Banu Qurayza’s part that could possibly justify the total annihilation of their tribe. They were being victimized for the incentives of Muhammad. It is necessary to start from where the Qur’an first mentions the battle of Khandaq (trench). The genocide in question occurred after this battle.

      “Qur’an 33:9 “O ye who believe Remember Allah’s favor unto you when there came against you hosts, and we sent against them a great wind and hosts ye could not see. And Allah is ever Seer of what ye do”

      Allah is reminding the believers of the favors he bestowed upon them. “When there came a lot to attack them, he sent a wind to turn the foes away, thus saving the believers from destruction”. The above verse implies that the enemies of Muhammad are being turned away by Allah. Doubt still remains whether the enemies were turned away before or after fighting a war. If we move with the Qur’an

      Qur’an 33:10
      “When they came upon you from above you and from below you, and when eyes grew wild and hearts reached to the throats, and ye were imagining vain thoughts concerning Allah”
      Here, Allah reveals the state of Muslims, when they had to face a huge Meccan army. They (Muslims) started to have doubts, believing a clash with such a vast army would certainly be devastating to them. Ibn Kathir clarifies in his Tafsir:

      Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Quran 33:10)
      “Ibn Jarir said: “Some of those who were with the Messenger of Allah , had doubts and thought that the outcome would be against the believers, and that Allah would allow that to happen.”
      The Qur’anic verses in conjunction with the above interpretation reveal the fact that Muhammad and his army were not at all in any position to fight a war at Khandaq (Trench). Muhammad had heard of the strength of the Meccan army much earlier, so acting upon the advice of one of his companions, Salman the Persian, there were trenches dug all around them to prevent hostile Meccans from entering Muslim territory. The battle gained the name “the war of trench” due to this tactic employed by Muhammad. The Meccans were a huge army consisting of two tribes, namely the Quraish and Ghatafans. The very fact that Muhammad adopted such an extremely defensive stance in this fight proves the weakness of the Muslim army at the time, and the strength of their foes.
      It is clear, the “war of Khandaq” was in fact a war that was never fought. Though they were huge in numbers and could have annihilated the entire population of Muslims at that time, the Meccan army had to halt at the trenches, being unable to find an entry route to the Muslim territory. Their only chance of reaching the Muslims was through the route of Banu Qurayza where Muhammad did not dig trenches, but ultimately, those who came to fight and win a war had to regress and return without success. Allah testifies in the Qur’an, he inflicted terror on the opposition by sending winds and shaking their settlements, so that they had to withdraw. Thus the Qur’an confirms the battle did not occur at all.

      After establishing through Qur’anic text that the war of Khandaq was never fought, it is necessary to investigate other authentic sources of Islam to discover what prompted Muhammad and his army (who had just salvaged their lives and pride without fighting a war) to turn their attentions towards the Banu Qurayza. We saw Allah himself attest to the fact he was the one who drove away the Meccans and helped Muslims escape an otherwise inevitable extermination. Let’s now turn to Ibn Kathir to find out what happened next:

      Tafsir Ibn Kathir – The Campaign against Banu Qurayzah
      “the Messenger of Allah returned to Al-Madinah in triumph and the people put down their weapons. While the Messenger of Allah was washing off the dust of battle in the house of Umm Salamah, may Allah be pleased with her, Jibril, upon him be peace, came to him wearing a turban of brocade, riding on a mule on which was a cloth of silk brocade. He said, “Have you put down your weapons, O Messenger of Allah” He said, “Yes” He said, “But the angels have not put down their weapons. I have just now come back from pursuing the people.” Then he said: “Allah, may He be blessed and exalted, commands you to get up and go to Banu Quraiza. According to another report, “What a fighter you are! Have you put down your weapons” He said, “Yes”. He said, “But we have not put down our weapons yet, get up and go to these people.” He said: “Where?” He said, “Banu Quraiza, for Allah has commanded me to shake them.” So the Messenger of Allah got up immediately, and commanded the people to march towards Banu Quraiza, who were a few miles from Al-Madinah. This was after Salat Az-Zuhr. He said, No one among you should pray `Asr except at Banu Quraiza”

      This account of Ibn Kathir is supported by sahih (authentic) hadiths:
      Sahih Bukhari 4:52:68

      “Narrated ‘Aisha: When Allah’s Apostle returned on the day (of the battle) of Al-Khandaq (i.e. Trench), he put down his arms and took a bath. Then Gabriel whose head was covered with dust, came to him saying, “You have put down your arms! By Allah, I have not put down my arms yet.” Allah’s Apostle said, “Where (to go now)?” Gabriel said, “This way,” pointing towards the tribe of Banu Qurayza. So Allah’s Apostle went out towards them.”

      It is evident from this account, that Muhammad and his followers were relaxed and reclining after the withdrawal of Meccan troops. The campaign against the Banu Qurayza was not on their agenda until the angel Jibreel (Gabriel) appeared with Allah’s orders. It also reveal the fact that the tribe of Banu Qurayza did not do anything atrocious to Muslims during the siege at Khandaq while the Meccan army were stranded at the trenches. Sources say the siege lasted for almost a month, but ultimately the Meccans departed without a fight. It was not possible for them to engage in battle, as the trenches were a new tactic that they had never expected from Muhammad’s side. Still they waited for a green light from the Banu Qurayza stronghold, as that was the only route to enter in which they could reach the Muslims, a green light which never appeared. Eventually losing all hope of crossing and engaging in a full-scale war which would have resulted in wiping all Muslims from the face of the earth, the Meccans retreated.

      Once the enemy had left, it was time for the Muslims to lay down their arms and relax, but not so for Muhammad. He felt it inadequate to regress without any gains. Whenever he fought a war prior to it, he and his followers emerged victorious and victory brought them booties in means of materials and human beings. Uhud was the only exception. This time, though they had survived, there was something still lacking; booty. The Meccan’s resignation left them without any.

      It was time for Jibreel to show up. Muhammad needed war booty to satisfy himself and his followers. A small fraction stationed in a castle nearby would make an easy target to acquire these means of satisfaction. So Jibreel appears with orders from Allah. “No Muhammad, you laid arms without meeting the objective.” And the prime objective here is slaughter, then the acquisition of booty through this means.

      If Banu Quraiza were in fact treacherous, Muhammad and the religion of Islam would have been buried in those trenches they had dug. That did not happen and Muhammad’s fellow warriors did not feel any need to carry on. They were not aware of any alleged treachery, for this reason they reclined once the Meccans had left. All that changed, once Muhammad intervened with the aid of Jibreel and Allah. This proves the alleged treason is nothing but a made up excuse or a pretext Muslims use in our period to justify genocide.

      Later, the warriors of Islam besieged a weak tribe for almost a month until they surrendered; Not fighting, but enduring. The siege ended with the unconditional surrender of Jews. Now the fate of the surrendered tribe lay in the hands of Muhammad.

      To recount what happened to the then subjugated tribe who were on their knees to Muhammad and his fellow warriors, let us see the details as provided in Muhammad Husayn Haykal’s The life of Muhammad:

      Muhammad Husayn Haykal – The Life of Muhammad. (p. 337)
      “Banu Qurayzah sent word to Muhammad proposing to evacuate their territory and remove themselves to Adhri’at, but Muhammad rejected their proposal and insisted on their abiding by his judgment. They sent to al-Aws pleading that they should help them as al-Khazraj had helped their client Jews before them. A group of al-Aws tribesmen sought Muhammad and pleaded with him to accept from their allies a similar arrangement to that which he accepted from the allies of al-Khazraj. Muhammad asked, “O men of al-Aws, would you be happy if we allowed one of your men to arbitrate the case?” When they agreed, he asked them to nominate whomsoever they wished. This was communicated to the Jews, and the latter, unmindful of the fate that was lying in store for them, nominated Sa’d ibn Mu’adh. Sa’d was a reputable man of al-Aws tribe, respected for his sound judgment. Previously, Sa’d was the first one to approach the Jews, to warn them adequately, even to predict to them that they might have to face Muhammad one day. He had witnessed the Jews cursing Muhammad and the Muslims. After his nomination and acceptance as arbitrator, Sa’d sought guarantees from the two parties that they would abide by his judgment. After these guarantees were secured, he commanded that Banu Qurayzah come out of their fortress and surrender their armour. Sa’d then pronounced his verdict that the fighting men be put to the sword, that their wealth be confiscated as war booty, and that the women and the children be taken as captives. When Muhammad heard the verdict, he said: “By Him Who dominates my soul, God is pleased with your judgment, 0 Sa’d; and so are the believers. You have surely done your duty. He then proceeded to Madinah where he commanded a large grave to be dug for the Jewish fighters brought in to be killed and buried”

      Ibn Ishaq describes the killing of the Banu Qurayza men as follows:

      “Then they surrendered, and the apostle confined them in Medina in the quarter of d. al-Harith, a woman of B. al-Najjar. Then the apostle went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches. Among them was the enemy of Allah Huyayy b. Akhtab and Kab b. Asad their chief. There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900. As they were being taken out in batches to the apostle they asked Kab what he thought would be done with them. He replied, ‘Will you never understand? Don’t you see that the summoner never stops and those who are taken away do not return? By Allah it is death!’ This went on until the apostle made an end of them. Huyayy was brought out wearing a flowered robe in which he had made holes about the size of the finger-tips in every part so that it should not be taken from him as spoil, with his hands bound to his neck by a rope. When he saw the apostle he said, ‘By God, I do not blame myself for opposing you, but he who forsakes God will be forsaken.’ Then he went to the men and said, ‘God’s command is right. A book and a decree, and massacre have been written against the Sons of Israel.’ Then he sat down and his head was struck off.”

      According to Ibn Kathir:

      “Then the Messenger of Allah commanded that ditches should be dug, so they were dug in the earth, and they were brought tied by their shoulders, and were beheaded. There were between seven hundred and eight hundred of them. The children who had not yet reached adolescence and the women were taken prisoner, and their wealth was seized.”

      It is worth mentioning here, not all were lucky enough to be beheaded among Banu Quraiza. Those whose lives were spared had a worse fate awaiting them. Again from Haykal:

      Muhammad Husayn Haykal – The Life of Muhammad. (p. 338)
      “The Prophet divided the properties, women, and children of Banu Quraiza among the Muslims after he had separated one-fifth for public purposes. Each man of the cavalry received two shares, one for himself and one for his horse. On that day, the Muslim force included thirty-six cavalrymen. Sa’d ibn Zayd al Ansari sent a number of Banu Qurayza captives to Najd where he exchanged them for horses and armour in order to increase Muslim military power.”

      These captives who were sold for horses were the women of the Banu Qurayza tribe. Ibn Ishaq confirms this:

      Ibn Ishaq: 693
      “Then the apostle sent for Sa’d bin Zayd al-Ansari brother of bin Abdul-Ashhal with some of the captive women of Banu Qurayza to Najd and he sold them for horses and weapons.”

      The most common Muslim argument is that Muhammad was dealing with treachery and he had taken the maximum punitive actions against it. But this alleged treachery on Banu Qurayza’s part is very hard to accept for a rational mind. To be treacherous, Banu Qurayza must have joined the confederate army who had come to attack the Muslims. If that were the case (had Banu Qurayza joined the Meccan army) it would have ended in the total eradication of Muslims. But Abu Sufyan’s (the Meccan chief’s) words before retreating, testifies Banu Qurayza did not ally with the Meccans in a war against the Muslims. To quote Ibn Ishaq:

      Ibn Ishaq: 683
      “Then Abu Sufyan said: “O Quraish, we are not in a permanent camp; the horses and camels are dying; the Banu Qurayza have broken their word to us and we have heard disquieting reports of them. You can see the violence of the wind which leaves us neither cooking-pots, or fire, nor tents to count on. Be off, for I am going”

      Besides, Muhammad nor his followers accused the Banu Qurayza of being treasonous. After Meccans left, the prophet had to bring Jibreel down to ‘testify’ that any such thing had taken place, before they even considered besieging the tribe. This attests to the fact there was no treason from the tribe that warranted their total annihilation. The account given in the Qur’an of the Banu Qurayza siding with the Muslims’ enemy at Khandaq is after the incidents occurred, not during it. Muhammad would have felt it necessary to give a reason to justify the annihilation of an entire Jewish tribe, so he came up with holy verses later.

      Another argument often brought up by Muslims is “Banu Qurayza were given the choice of deciding their judge”. They argue Banu Qurayza were massacred because of Sad bin Muadh, the arbitrator they agreed to. So Muhammad is innocent of shedding their blood.

      This argument is not without its problems:
      First of all, it is not clear from Islamic sources whether it were Banu Qurayza or their allies, the tribe of “Aws”, who agreed to Sad bin Muadh being the judge. The sahih hadith in Bukhari below points to this fact: Sahih Bukhari 5:58:148
      In the USC translation, “Jews of Banu Qurayza” has been given in brackets when mentioning the people agreed to accept Sad bin Muadh’s verdict. But the original Sahih Bukhari hadith in Arabic does not have this. So, it is most probably the tribe of Aus were who agreed to accept the verdict of Sa’d, not the Banu Qurayza. It does not make any sense for a subjugated people like the Banu Qurayza who were on their knees at the time to be given a choice in selecting their judge. So, the evidence we have available is against the Muslims claim that the surrendered Banu Qurayza tribe were given a choice in the case of adjudicator.

      Moreover, even if one accepts the Muslim arguments that the Banu Qurayza were given a choice in selecting their judge, it does not let Muhammad off the hook. A careful analysis of the sahih hadiths on this account reveals Saad bin Muadh was just echoing Muhammad’s intention as his verdict. Soon after Saad bin Muad gave his verdict, Muhammad rushed to applaud him stating Saad’s judged was in accordance with the judgement of Allah. Again from Sahih Bukhari
      Sahih Bukhari 5:59:447

      Muhammad always intended to massacre the tribe, ever before Saad bin Muadh had come into the picture. He had this plan in mind when besieging the tribe. He sent an envoy (Abu Lubaba) to the Banu Quraiza fort during the siege.

      Below is the account of this incident as mentioned in Sirah Ibn Ishaq:
      Ibn Ishaq: 686
      “Apostle sent him (Abu Lubaba) to them (Banu Quraiza), and when they saw him they got up to meet him. The women and children went up to him weeping in his face, and he felt sorry for them. They said, ‘Oh Abu Lubaba, do you think that we should submit to Muhammad’s judgement? He said ‘yes’ and pointed with his hand to his throat signifying slaughter.”

      Remember, this incident occurred during the siege and Saad bin Muadh became involved in this affair after the siege. Here we see Muhammad’s envoy revealing Muhammad’s intentions to the Banu Quraiza. Again, we see a remorseful Abu Lubaba who later felt contrite for revealing Muhammad’s plan to the besieged tribe. This man soon left the place and tied himself to one of the pillars in the mosque. Again, it is recorded in Ibn Ishaq:

      Ibn Ishaq: 686
      “Then he (Abu Lubaba) left them and did not go to the apostle but bound himself to one of the pillars in the mosque saying ‘I will not leave this place until god forgives me for what I have done’ and he promised god that he would never go to Banu Quraiza and would never be seen in a town in which he had betrayed god and his apostle”

      If all that befell the Banu Qurayza were solely the fault of Saad bin Muaad, how does one deal with the account given by Ibn Ishaq? It reveals Muhammad besieged the Banu Qurayza with the intention of ethnically cleansing them.

      Another favorite argument is the Jews of Banu Qurayza were put to death according to “their own laws” within the Torah. Saad bin Muadh’s verdict matches that which is found in Deuteronomy 20:10-18 thus, Islam nor the Muslims can be blamed for it.

      In reality, Deuteronomy 20:10-18 is not the “law of the Torah.” It is a specific direction from the Judeo-Christian God for a specific program of conquest. No longer relevant, as the Promised land mentioned in the Torah had been settled. It has nothing to do with “treason,” or the treatment of treasonous allies. So if Muhammad or Saad bin Muaad had indeed applied these laws to the tribe, it was the wrong application of the wrong law to the wrong situation. Being the prophet of Allah, Muhammad could have easily annulled such a faulty application of the wrong laws.

      Besides, this argument of Muslims begs the questions:

      1) Why are the Muslims now accepting the judgment of Deuteronomy [scripture which they allege is corrupt] as righteous and just when on other occasions they attack this as being a cruel and harsh command, and a clear example of genocide?

      2) The Islamic sources say that Muhammad did not only have the fighting men killed, such as the leaders of Banu Quraiza, but also their young men who had nothing whatsoever to do with the decisions of their leaders/elders, were massacred. Why the unnecessary slaughter of innocents?
      Some Muslims claim only those who were able to fight among the tribe of Banu Quraiza were killed. According to their own sources, this is not true. How did Muhammad determine who from among the Jews were capable of fighting? See it in their sources:
      Al-Tabari: Vol 8. (p. 38)
      ” The Messenger of God had commanded that all of them who had reached puberty should be killed.”
      Another source tells us exactly how it was determined, whether a person had reached puberty or not:
      Abu Dawud 38:4390
      “Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi: I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair.”

      As has been shown, Muhammad testified that Saad’s verdict was in proportion to the laws of Allah. Therefore Muslims should stop attacking the Torah and instead focus on Muhammad who attested the verdict of Saad with applause.

      As a final point, it would be interesting to learn how Muhammad dealt with the Jews of Banu Qurayza prior to besieging them. Let the sources speak for themselves:
      Ibn Ishaq: 684
      “When the apostle approached their forts he (Muhammad) said: “You brothers of monkeys.., has god disgraced you and brought his vengeance upon you?” Banu Qurayza replied: “O Abul Qasim (Muhammad), you are not a barbarous person”

      Again from the sahih collections

      Sahih Bukhari 5:59:449
      “Narrated Al-Bara: “On the day of Qurayza’s (besiege), Allah’s Apostle said to Hassan bin Thabit, ‘Abuse them (with your poems), and Gabriel is with you”
      How appropriate is it for a religious leader to abuse helpless people with words like “brothers of monkeys” and to incite his followers to do as he did? Not to mention, he traded these insults prior to besieging them.

      Conclusion:

      Muslims propose many apologetic arguments to excuse this crime. The most favored argument they use is the alleged treachery of Banu Quraiza. Its flaws are evident when considering any act of treachery from this tribe would have put an end to Islam at Khandaq, and as a result, Islam would never have existed outside of Arabia.

      The excuses they forward using Deuteronomy (contained within religious scripture they themselves consider to have been altered since the incident in question), and a man who came into the picture much later, do not stand up to scrutiny, for the very reason that Muhammad had planned to slaughter the tribe before Saad bin Muadh, the arbitrator, had been invited.

      Moreover, when the latter pronounced his verdict, it was Muhammad who rushed in favor of it, proclaiming it to be Allah’s judgment. Taking all of these issues into account, there is no valid argument that can be used in its defense. After this incident, there remained not a tribe named Banu Qurayza in Arabia.
      ——————————————————-

      ” When Jesus comes back he will have power and will kill and torture anyone who will not support him.”

      Read my comments. They answer your odd proposals. I’ll just rehash my earlier comment.

      “This is how the Book of Revelation should also be read, as a certain prophesy within a historical, literary, and social context – that of which relates to not adhering to Greco-Roman society (cf. Howard Brook’s “Unveiling Empire: Reading Revelation Then and Now” and Bart Ehrman’s textbook on this subject). It’s interesting that Muhammad decided to take on board this misconstrued apocalyptic narrative, however, and even uses Christ as one of the players in this odd Islamic eschatology.”
      ————————————-

      ” Brother Eric has discussed the “eyes of the criminals” comments you keep repeating you and Eric brought Arabic into the arguments and also scholars to refute you but you keep bringing it.”
      He didn’t even discuss “eyes of criminals” — only that multination was eventually made “haram”.

      What are you even talking about. We were discussing Muhammad Asad’s strange interpretation on Q5:33, and Eric’s proposal that mutilation was prescribed as haram, and yet the Qur’an advocated for it in Q5:38, whereas Muhammad Asad was estranged by Q5:33… a contrary and contradictory opinion. In fact, I have most of the dialogue saved on my computer. Paul can dig it out, again? The Arabic we were discussing was with the Injuctive mood and Subjunctive moods, something that Muhammad Asad was being disingenuous about, it had nothing to do with the branding of eyes. I am curious as to whether you know Arabic or not.

      ———————————————————–

      ” Do you want them to be set free, so that there will be murder in society? and the populations of these prophets to be murdered in cold blood?”

      Hahahaha… hahahahaha… hahahahah. Claiming that what Muhammad did was abhorrent is somehow me being tolerant to crime? Never, these people are to be punished accordingly, but with some sense of humanity and not barbarity.

      ——————————————————–

      ” Will you be happy and turn your cheek to some one who had raped your sister and killed her without remorse or repentance? Such people needs to be punished to deter others from doing that. Turning the other cheek to these wicked people is not a wise thing to do.”

      There’s a difference between vengeance and justice.

      Thanks.

      Like

    • zozo Al-Maslawi

      You said;
      Hahahaha… hahahahaha… hahahahah. Claiming that what Muhammad did was abhorrent is somehow me being tolerant to crime? Never, these people are to be punished accordingly, but with some sense of humanity and not barbarity.

      I say;
      What barbarity is more than Jesus Christ commanding these?

      When the Israelite army finished killing all the men outside the city, they went back and finished off everyone inside. So the entire population of Ai was wiped out that day – twelve thousand in all. For Joshua kept holding out his spear until everyone who had lived in Ai was completely destroyed. Only the cattle and the treasures of the city were not destroyed, for the Israelites kept these for themselves, as the LORD had commanded Joshua. So Ai became a permanent mound of ruins, desolate to this very day. Joshua hung the king of Ai on a tree and left him there until evening. At sunset the Israelites took down the body and threw it in front of the city gate. They piled a great heap of stones over him that can still be seen today. (Joshua 8:1-29 NLT)

      I have more barbarity commanded by your God Jesus Christ or his(Christ’s) God or both Gods. If you are a sincere barbarity critic and interested in humanity, then charity begins at home, blame Jesus Christ for such barbarity of hanging a king on tree before criticizing others.

      With regards to Banu Quraiza, we have discussed it here thoroughly and over and over that, they broke their treaty and teamed up with the enemies of Muslims to annihilate them.

      We do not believe your views as you always call everything Islam bad and everything Jesus love including hell, which we all know it is a place of torment whether Islamic or Judeo-Christian, but your biased view makes a hell out of Islamic hell but a Judeo-Christian hell to be a place of enjoyment and you made a heaven out of a Judeo-Christian hell where people will sit on their sofa watching a moving with pop corn.

      This makes you a biased and your views on Banu Quraiza will not be taking seriously.

      Thanks

      Thanks.

      Like

    • It’s as if no one reads anything. What does a secular Christian-moralist mean to you? Could you define, in the English language please, what (A) secular means, and (B) what is meant by Christian. In regard to the latter, there’s a reason as to why I’m not a Judaic-moralist. Secondly, as I have said repeatedly, and this is something you have yet to catch on, is that most of the OT are ahistorical narratives that are associated with war rhetoric… an exaggeration of myths, aetiologies, and geo-socio-political reflections. If you’re genuinely curious, then cf. John Collins’ “The God of Joshua”. Conversely, scholars are more inclined to adhere to the traditional accounts of Islam because there’s a degree of “preservation” that was not maintained nearly a thousand years before.

      Also, you have yet to justify your faith. All you’re doing is throwing “information” that I’m well aware of as a way of redirecting the topic back on to me. Are you uncomfortable with your beliefs, Intellect? :S

      —————————————————–

      I have not said Islam is all bad. I don’t think Islam is all bad. I don’t think Islam is incredibly violent and vile. I never said that. I just disagree with a lot of it. That’s it. There are worst things on this Earth than Islam, it’s just that I find it funny when people try to excuse Islam as something it’s not. And that’s when I jump in.

      —————————————————-

      How about addressing the Banu Qurayza literature without making baseless assertions. That’s how discussions are made.

      Also, in regard to the afterlife, then do read these academic books on Christianity. Then make your judgement.

      Thank you. 🙂

      Like

    • Bro,

      Have you actually read the seerah?

      It seems because you’re getting the information second hand, you’re being mislead.

      First of all, BANU QURAYZA announced their treachery. This is not something “invented” by the Prophet. You like reading right? Why don’t you read the original sources? Lol.

      HERE, from Ibn Ishaq!

      I recall you said something about not reading apologetics since it’s usually poor. Well, don’t read Christian apologetics on Islam then, it (like this case) misrepresents Islamic sources. Even your friend’s explanation is self-contradictory!

      Like

    • I suggest reading the previous page (673), uwootm8. Also, take note of the narrative that is being created by Muhammad (cf. the raids on Banu Thalaba, to Mudhij, Dhul al-Khalasa, etc,.), before and after Ka’b’s statement.

      Like

    • ??? Could you please be more specific? I have read it, it just seems to confirm what I just said, that Ka’b broke his treaty. Here’s p.673

      Like

    • Salman al-Farisi’s exchange and Abu Hurayra’s comment. Place this in context with Muhammad’s propagation of aggressive raiding.

      Like

    • Okay… what does that have to do with Banu Quraydha?

      Like

    • Not everything is isolated. That’s the entire purpose of higher criticism: determining history, and reading in between the lines. Now, the Banu Qurayza event is questionable in itself — what really occurred is unknown, only what has been claimed within saheeh literature. Ofc, there is literature out of there, but it is unearthing what the literature may be alluding to.

      For instance, I can claim that others were “treacherous”, or I can create such a narrative, but yet, that does not negate from one own’s treachery towards others. Hence, what you’re reading is only a part of the story — Muhammad’s willingness to raid for booty, to defend, to aggress, to transgress, willingness to insult the Judaic people, may have been a reason as to why Banu Qurayza were threatened by Muhammad, and hence the supposed “treachery”. Don’t get me wrong, according to traditional saheehs, there were periods in which the polytheists and Jews were acting in a bad manner, but this is applicable to ALL.

      Now, in regard to 673, there’s a transition from Muhammad’s insistence and warfare within the Hijaz, to beyond – Yemen, Syria, West and East (this is to expand what’s already taken root, however). Already, the literature is telling us something regarding Muhammad’s alignment towards expansion that places this “treachery” into scope. This is reaffirmed in such expeditions to Yemen, for instance (cf. Dhul al-Khalasa, etc,.).

      Like

    • You’d have to be more specific.

      Are you still holding on to the argument you got from your friend or not?
      “, may have been a reason as to why Banu Qurayza were threatened by Muhammad, and hence the supposed “treachery”. ”

      Okay, or they might really have broken their treaty. The Qur’an is contemporaneous:

      “And He brought down those who supported them among the People of the Scripture from their fortresses”

      If you want to make a case for the blame lying on the Prophet, you need to make a *good case*. You can’t just ignore the crucial evidence and then take bits of the source and string your own story together! That’s not higher criticism, that’s storytelling 😛

      Like

  7. Well, you know. I like to help people, and that’s something I’m always working on. I like to help my family by giving them money and being a good kid. I also like to read, as well. So, my pinky has been pretty good.

    My pinky doesn’t really tell other people they’re gonna roast and their skins are going to be replaced so they can roast again, nor does it go around branding criminals in the eye out of some ugly rage. My pinky is a well-behaved pinky, Alhamdulillah.

    Like

    • 10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.

      11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.

      12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

      13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.

      14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

      Luke 18

      Like

    • Lovely stuff. I suggest reading my reddit account, since this is similar in nature of what I’m going through.

      My life, my normal, average life, is to try and help others. Am I doing my best? No. I always aim to improve, and I’m sad about the things I can do that I don’t. So, place Luke 18 in the context of my life, and not one comment (http://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/2wsnsh/what_makes_you_christian/cou69dt).

      But that doesn’t deal with your problem. There’s no “humbleness” before monstrosity. There’s no “humbleness” before evil. Aligning oneself with a God that proposes to do evil is not “humbling”, but it’s saddening. If a God were to exist, then I pray to this God to guide me and others away from such thoughts. There’s no majesty, nor purity, in calling for the worst pain imaginable to those who reject “him”. Such inflammatory ideas, philosophies, are what twist the mind unless they were twisted to begin with.

      Like

    • You are repeating yourself. Gets a bit boring. You seem to obsessed with particular literal reading and interpretations.

      Like

    • No, I’ve invested a lot of time into Sufi writings as well. But the abhorrent nature of what is being described is what I reject.

      Also, I find it odd that you claim “repeating yourself” gets a bit boring. I must wonder how you feel when you read the Qur’an.

      Like

  8. zozo Al-Maslawi

    You said;
    There’s no majesty, nor purity, in calling for the worst pain imaginable to those who reject “him”. Such inflammatory ideas, philosophies, are what twist the mind unless they were twisted to begin with

    I say;
    Jesus Christ said the exact thing that, you will be thrown into hell if you do not fear God and when you reject “him”. Hell is the worst pain imaginable to those who reject Jesus or his God whichever. Either he Jesus Christ or his God or both of them, they have hell waiting for those who do not fear them. Jesus is telling you if you do not fear his God hell is for you and we all know the description of hell.

    Luke 12:5
    New International Version
    But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.

    Defined

    Hell
    noun

    noun: hell; noun: Hell

    1. a place regarded in various religions as a spiritual realm of evil and suffering, often traditionally depicted as a place of perpetual fire beneath the earth where the wicked are punished after death.

    synonyms: the netherworld, the Inferno, the infernal regions, the abyss

    Source of dictionary
    https://www.google.ca/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=zIX4VIS9NaTa8gea-IDICg&gws_rd=ssl#q=what+is+hell

    According to definition when fire burn a person, his skin is going to melt and if he is going to stay long in hell, he needs a reconstruction of his skin, so that is a state of a person who reject Jesus and his God.

    Thanks

    Like

  9. The Islamic hell is far different to the Judeo-Christian one.

    I’m not denying the existence of a hell, I’m denying the “eternal” and “torture” associated with it.

    If you’re genuinely interested in seeking the truth, then I suggest the following academic studies on Christian terminology on “eternal” (Terms for Eternity: Aionios and Aidios in Classical and Christian Texts by Ilaria Ramelli and David Konstan), and universalism (The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis by Ilaria Ramelli ).

    “According to definition when fire burn a person, his skin is going to melt and if he is going to stay long in hell, he needs a reconstruction of his skin, so that is a state of a person who reject Jesus and his God.”

    This isn’t Dante’s Inferno, lol.

    Like

  10. zozo Al-Maslawi

    You said;
    The Islamic hell is far different to the Judeo-Christian one.

    I’m not denying the existence of a hell, I’m denying the “eternal” and “torture” associated with it.

    I say;
    Fire is fire whether Islamic or Judeo-Christian, my friend zozo. Do not lie to let Jesus looks loving but other prophets wicked. It is wicked on your part to make such lie.

    You said;
    I’m not denying the existence of a hell, I’m denying the “eternal” and “torture” associated with it.

    I say;
    Jesus himself said; “Fear hell”. If there is no eternal torture in it, he will not warn people to fear his God otherwise they would be thrown into hell. You do not fear Jesus’s God, you are thrown into hell. If Judeo-Christian hell is a place for enjoyment and not for torture as you want us to believe, then why not put those who do not fear Jesus’s God into heaven but into hell instead?

    Do not fool us Mr. zozo. Hell is the opposite of heaven in every religion that believes it and so, once it is hell it is indeed hell whether Islamic or Judeo-Christian. My friend stop making your child good and another child bad, when both of them went to the market and stole money. Such a behaviour is silly and hypocrisy.

    HELL IS INDEED HELL AND IT IS NOT A PLACE ANYONE WANT TO BE WHETHER ISLAMIC OR JUDEO-CHRISTIAN. It is a place of torment, pain and suffering according to Bible so do not bring any lies here to make a Judeo-Christian hell look better. A hell is hell and it is not better in any way whether Islamic or Judeo-Christian.

    Thanks.

    Like

    • On the basis of what? When I suggest academic studies on the literary devices on hell that is used in Christianity, you refrain from using them?

      You’re not fooling anyone, Intellect. Read the papers, and then return to me. If you want me to address anything in particular, then mention it.

      I have put in hours each day for nearly 2 years trying to understand Judeo-Christian and Islamic salvation and what it will entail. These papers summarise such diverse positions.

      Do me a favour and invest time reading the literature. Then make an honest reply, but at the moment, you’re coming off as someone who is far removed from any “intellect”.

      Like

    • Zozo you’ll end up going in circles sometimes with the people here.
      Sometimes silence is the best response; write what you can to express yourself then leave it at that.

      The topic has some truth in it though. We can’t just read something and be shortsighted about its explanation. Although the way I see it, the Bible went through a clear historical progression and you can clearly see that many OT verses can be read in context. It’s very rare to find a radicalised Christian or Jew quoting the OT as reasons for wanting to harm someone. Jesus summarises these points very well when he explains the golden rule, particularly when he says:
      Matthew 7:12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

      Matthew 22:37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

      Paul also repeats this in his letters such as in Romans 13 and Galatians 5.

      The Quran also has tolerant and merciful verses but I would argue that they are much harder to see at times, and those violent verses cannot be understand in their historical contexts because of the vagueness and random assortment of the text.

      Like

    • Marvin Henry

      You said;
      It’s very rare to find a radicalised Christian or Jew quoting the OT as reasons for wanting to harm someone. Jesus summarises these points very well when he explains the golden rule, particularly when he says:
      Matthew 7:12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

      I say;
      Because you are biased like zozo you will not see John Hagee, Pat Robertson, Jack Van Impe to quote the Bible to harm the Palestinians.

      You will not see the KKK quoting the Bible and burning a cross to hang black people

      You will not know the massacre of Bosnian Muslims by radical Christians quoting Bible

      You will not know Calvin’s murder of Michael quoting the Bible.

      You will not know the Catholic, Protestants, Mormons counter persecutions quoting the Bible until the liberals in the west overpowered the Christian dominance to bring freedom of religion.

      You said;
      The Quran also has tolerant and merciful verses but I would argue that they are much harder to see at times, and those violent verses cannot be understand in their historical contexts because of the vagueness and random assortment of the text.

      I say;
      Yes, your bias will may make it harder to see, but the objective and unbiased Christian writer of the article did not find it hard to see. It is there clearly for any one to see.

      Is something like the this verse harder to find? and what is the vagueness in it?

      Surat Al-Mā’idah (The Table Spread) – سورة المائدة

      5:32
      Sahih International
      Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land – it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one – it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors.

      Thanks.

      Like

    • Intellect you should read my comments more closely so I won’t bother with what you said except for one thing:

      Surah 5:32 is another example of the verses that I’ve said show tolerance and mercy. By the way there’s nothing original about this verse anyway; many Jews and some Christians are familiar with this passage because it originates from the Jewish Talmud (oral Jewish teachings similar to hadith). It’s not some sort of exclusive Quranic principle, plus the Quran also states “We decreed upon the Children of Israel…” just to remind the reader about where it came from and who it was for.
      This is just one example of many Quranic passages that find their origin from the Talmud.

      My argument here isn’t about which text has nicer verses anyway, I’m just agreeing with the topic that we shouldn’t just look at texts in a short sighted way.

      Like

    • Marvin Henry

      You said;
      By the way there’s nothing original about this verse anyway; many Jews and some Christians are familiar with this passage because it

      I say;
      What is the problem about that? It is the same God, that is why He is even reminding the reader that “We decreed upon the children of Israel” and that He sent the law to them then and by repeating it now, it still stands to this generation. Do not kill unjustly.

      But Mr. Henry you did not see that, there is nothing original to what Jesus said and you quoted too and here it is;

      Matthew 7:12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

      Matthew 22:37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments

      Mr. Henry all the above Jesus teaching are not new to the Jews before Jesus and to the Muslims after Jesus. The Jews knew this and Muslims have these in our Quran, Hadith and other literature, but you did not see anything wrong with Jesus saying them and in fact you brought it to support your argument, but when I brought mine, you said oh, but Jews and Christian knew it.

      The Jews and Muslims knew the Jesus saying above too and there is nothing wrong about that, because it is from the same God, but you want to make it as if Jesus’s saying is unique and that is not so.

      My problem with Christians is when they “lie” that every thing Jesus Christ is love including Hell, and that they have been to heaven and back on earth to be sure that Jesus loves them and had a place for them in heaven and every body who is not a Christian is doomed. And they are lying because the have never been anywhere near heaven to know that they are guaranteed heaven. What they know is faith, just like anyone else, but a Christian will say “I am guaranteed” as if he is the only one who is that sure not knowing that others who are not Christians are also sure from their religious perspective.

      Again, anything Jesus Christ is love including Jesus’s hell fire, but Muslim hell fire is bad according to Mr. zozo and some ignorant Christians not knowing that fire is indeed fire whether Jesus or Mohammed fire, it will burn and remove all your skin.

      Stop deceiving us that everything Jesus is love, that is not true for Jesus does not love Satan and does not love anyone who continues to rape peoples wife and killing them without remorse and repentance. I bet Jesus does not love such a person and his act who will continue doing this without sincere repentance just like Islam and the blood of Jesus cannot save that Christian like Jimmy Swaggart or Pastor Eddie Lee Long if they continue doing that without sincere repentance. Jesus death on the cross is meaningless if Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Baker etc. are responsible for their sins as Christians.

      Do not tell me the cross will send mankind to heaven . No Sir, Moses and his followers received the ten commandment to follow and get their salvation and “Jesus will die for your sins or will send you to heaven” is completely missing and absent from the ten commandment. So those people who believes Moses teaching will go to heaven without Jesus dying for their sins. Abraham, Solomon, Isaac, Jacob and all prophets of God had no “Jesus will die for your sins ” in their teachings but “God is One, Only and Alone” is all over the Bible.

      Thanks.

      Like

    • Marvin Henry cc to Ken Temple

      You said;
      Matthew 22:37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments

      I say;
      Our Christian friend ken Temple, passionately blames Islam and Islamic God for saying people should love him. May be Mr. Henry you should copy this passage for him to remind him(Ken) that the God of the Bible must be blamed by him(Ken) first because charity begins at home, before blaming other peoples’ God. Here Jesus is demanding love for his God.

      But ken blamed the Islamic God love

      Thanks.

      Like

    • “Mr. zozo and some ignorant Christians not knowing that fire is indeed fire whether Jesus or Mohammed fire, it will burn and remove all your skin.”

      Hahahahaha. Oh gosh, you’re a good’un. Relays academia, and then somehow I’m ignorant.

      The level of discourse on this blog is painful. Although I despise apologetics, this is like the type of dialogue you’d see on YT – although a little better.

      Like

    • zozo Al-Maslawi

      You said;
      Hahahahaha. Oh gosh, you’re a good’un. Relays academia, and then somehow I’m ignorant.

      The level of discourse on this blog is painful. Although I despise apologetics, this is like the type of dialogue you’d see on YT – although a little better

      I say;
      All academic understandings of a particular topic, goes back to the source of that particular topic and a reference to make anything about that academic findings credible.

      I referenced the Bible itself where Jesus warn people to fear his God or if he(Jesus) is also God, then both must Gods must be feared then otherwise hell fire awaits those who do not fear them. I also referenced the Bible and dictionary for the definition of hell and copy and pasted everything to you and gave you the link of my source. What is more academic than this?

      I also analysed my findings and came out with my conclusions that HELL IS INDEED HELL WHETHER MUSLIM HELL OR JUDEO CHRISTIAN-HELL it is a place of torment, punishment, hell fire, and is the opposite of heaven where there is enjoyment and having the presence of God Almighty.

      You want me to read a biased Christian books like you are biased to lie that everything Jesus is love including Jesus’s hell fire in that people in Jesus hell fire are going to receive the love of Jesus there in hell with their friends relaxing the cotton sofa beds watching movies with pop corn.

      The reason for my explanation above is that you said Islamic hell is bad but Judeo-Christian hell is good but a hell is hell and torment is torment and fire is fire and there is no good or bad burn or punishment.

      The frustrations is not on Muslims part, but on Christians part. Majority of Muslims in this world would not brag that, they are the only ones to go to heaven but everybody is doomed. Majority of Muslims will tell you that Islam is the true religion from God and it is here to correct the previous religion but will never brag that, they have been to heaven and back and guaranteed a place there by the love Jesus but most Christians will lie about this.

      Most Christians like yourself, and not all will say everything Jesus is love including Jesus’s hell fire, and that is the frustrations not youtube or this blog.

      Lets talk about who God is and who Jesus is and that will at least increase our knowledge and understandings and stop that rubbish “Christians are guaranteed heaven”, “Judeo-Christian hell is better than Muslim hell”, “Jesus loves everything, including the sin and the sinners and satan he is punishing in hell”.

      Thanks.

      Like

  11. “You’d have to be more specific.

    Are you still holding on to the argument you got from your friend or not?
    “, may have been a reason as to why Banu Qurayza were threatened by Muhammad, and hence the supposed “treachery”. ”

    Okay, or they might really have broken their treaty. The Qur’an is contemporaneous:

    “And He brought down those who supported them among the People of the Scripture from their fortresses”

    If you want to make a case for the blame lying on the Prophet, you need to make a *good case*. You can’t just ignore the crucial evidence and then take bits of the source and string your own story together! That’s not higher criticism, that’s storytelling”

    Ya3ni, I’ve addressed this. As was made clear in my previous comment – where I said there were others who did behave incorrectly – I am not placing the blame entirely on Muhammad, but there certainly must be some place had. You’re deleting the crucial evidence by somehow negating the earlier statement of expansionism (interlinked with conquest, cf. Abu Hurayra’s comment) and the actual historicity of it, which are there to SUPPLEMENT the so-called narrative of Banu Qurayza. This is certainly how higher criticism is made, and storytelling is deleting the contextualised narrative – prior, present, and after – regarding the contemporary nature of Banu Qurayza’s “treachery”.

    Like

Please leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: