In my view a good apologist for the Christian faith needs to be familiar with the Bible. Yes, you need to have read every word from cover to cover – and be honest about what it says regarding God and human beings. If only for the sake of not looking a complete fool you’ve got to tell the truth about what it says, otherwise someone will come along and expose you as either ignorant of the Bible’s contents, or worse, a liar covering up the truth. Nabeel Qureshi, the American missionary convert from the Qadiani sect to fundamentalist Christianity is either I am sad to say, a fool or a deceiver. I leave it to you dear reader to decide which after reading the evidence. In an article (published 28th March) which is very critical of the alleged ‘violent’ nature of Islam, Qureshi uttered these words:
If you are even casually familiar with the Jewish Scriptures you will probably share my sense of disbelief at these words. In contrast to violent Islam, the Bible, Qureshi believes, presents a “completely different picture”. There is just the “slightly problematic issue” of God’s violence.
Is this true? Is it even a remotely accurate description of the Christian Bible in the Old Testament or the New Testament? Knowledgable and honest folk know full well this is utterly false.
Let’s look at the evidence of God-ordained genocide:
1 Samuel 15
‘Samuel said to Saul, ‘The Lord sent me to anoint you king over his people Israel; now therefore listen to the words of the Lord. 2 Thus says the Lord of hosts, “I will punish the Amalekites for what they did in opposing the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt. 3 Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.”’
Christians often try to soften the awfulness of this commandment to kill all women, children and babies. They tell me that the Amalekites are being justly punished for their sins by a holy God. But what are their sins exactly? In fact the women, children and infants are being killed for what their Amalekite ancestors did over three centuries earlier “in opposing the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt!” A “slightly problematic issue” indeed!
But this is not the only example of God commanding the mass slaughter of women, children and babies. Moses and the Israelites are said to have massacred the inhabitants of sixty different cities:
Deuteronomy 3
3:3 So the Lord our God also gave into our hands Og king of Bashan and all his army. We struck them down, leaving no survivors.
3:4 At that time we took all his cities. There was not one of the sixty cities that we did not take from them—the whole region of Argob, Og’s kingdom in Bashan.
3:5 All these cities were fortified with high walls and with gates and bars, and there were also a great many unwalled villages.
3:6 We completely destroyed them, as we had done with Sihon king of Heshbon, destroying every city—men, women and children.
3:7 But all the livestock and the plunder from their cities we carried off for ourselves.
Both the Old and New Testament are considered by all mainstream branches of Christianity to be “just as inspired as the New Testament.” The New Testament itself affirms the accuracy of the Old Testament:
2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Christians see Jesus as God. That means that he was also the God of the Old Testament. The same God who commanded all those killings.
Jesus Christ himself is depicted in the New Testament as being very violent during his Second Coming in the Book of Revelation. Even if we completely sweep the Biblical prophets and the Old Testament under the carpet (which is exactly what anti-Muslim Christians like Jay Smith always do in debates with Muslims), it doesn’t change the fact that Jesus in the New Testament is very violent: he promises to kill or subjugate all of his enemies. So, even if we completely disregard the OT, this wouldn’t solve the “problem”.
More importantly, the fact that Jesus promised to kill his enemies (a promise he made during his First Coming) – even if he is yet to fulfill this promise – shows that Jesus did not reject the violent ways of the earlier Biblical prophets. He simply was not in a position of authority or power to carry out these acts of unbridled violence. He wouldn’t have promised violence if he truly rejected the OT’s violence.
See the article Jesus Loves His Enemies…and Then Kills Them All for full references and discussion.
———————-∞———————
So we can see now why Qureshi’s claim that violence in the Bible is “slightly problematic” and “not as much people think” means he is either utterly ignorant of the Bible’s contents, or worse, a liar covering up the truth.
So dear reader what conclusion do you draw: an ignoramus or a deceiver? I will tell you my view shortly.
Categories: Bible, God, Islamophobia, Utterly idiotic
Blogging Theology 
and the christian god in flesh says ” me and my father are one”
so he must be “one” in this
1 Samuel 15
‘Samuel said to Saul, ‘The Lord sent me to anoint you king over his people Israel; now therefore listen to the words of the Lord. 2 Thus says the Lord of hosts, “I will punish the Amalekites for what they did in opposing the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt. 3 Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.”’
and some say angel of the lord = jesus .
LikeLike
So what conclusion do you draw: an ignoramus or a deceiver?
LikeLike
‘Warfare in the Old Testament was designed to purge the Promised Land of the Canaanites (a group of whom were the Amorites), and this was God’s promise to Abraham. That promise was fulfilled 400 years later, affording the Amorites many generations to repent and change their ways before the Hebrews finally attacked.’
Not that the text indicates the Amorites were actually TOLD about this supposed ultimatum but hey ho!
So Nabeel on the one hand considers genocide an appropriate punishment from God while thinking he is still on a moral high ground to criticise Islam? He’s havin’ a laugh 😉
But like many an apologist he would rather skate over this and get to the ‘final marching orders’ despite of course that if Jesus was God he would have commanded these wars in the first place! What did God change his opinions? Kill em all to love em all? Sadly the Amorites were not able to receive this universal love as they had all been massacred long before Jesus came on the scene.
source
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/how-does-jihad-compare-with-old-testament-warfare#
LikeLiked by 1 person
‘So Nabeel on the one hand considers genocide an appropriate punishment from God while thinking he is still on a moral high ground to criticise Islam? He’s havin’ a laugh😉’
LOL precisely!
LikeLike
According to Trinitarianism, the pre incarnate, preexisting God the Son (Jesus) willed, decreed and agreed with other members of the trinity to command the mass genocide illustrated in the OT.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The “slightly problematic issue” of Divinely sanctioned genocide in the Bible!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve always believed he’s a liar.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think Nabeel is more a deceiver than an ignoramus.
LikeLike
It seems to me that “Dr.” Qureshi would know about the stories of mass genocide. Therefore, he is either a mediocre “expert” or he is deliberately lying. Either way, it severely damages his credibility.
LikeLike
This article is “slightly problematic” to me for a few reasons –
– you spent the paragraph preceding the excerpt Quereshi. You could have provided context here.
– if you had provided context, you would have allowed your readers to see that he was responding to the question “It seems like if you look at the Old Testament, you could argue that Christianity and Judaism have been pretty violent religions, as well. What would you say to people who say Christianity is violent, too?”. I think it’s obvious that he refers to it as an “issue” if you’re in a conversation with someone who is arguing that Christianity is as violent as a religion (in its foundations and principles, as he says in the article) as Islam.
Opinions don’t frustrate me, but articles written without context do.
LikeLike
The context is very clear. My article demonstrates why Qureshi’s claim that violence in the Bible is “slightly problematic” and “not as much people think” means he is either utterly ignorant of the Bible’s contents, or worse, a liar covering up the truth.
Which is it?
LikeLike
Hi Lindsey
I’ll post the earlier paragraph you are referring to:
“When it comes to Islam, I’m not saying “Look how violent the terrorists are, therefore Islam is violent.” That would be poor reasoning. What I’m saying is the foundations of Islam—I’m talking about the Quran and the life of Muhammed—are very violent. Islam can be formulated in non-violent ways, but to do so, you have to depart from its foundations, as many Muslims do.”
While i fully acknowledge that the Bible and the Qur’an are not the same and therefore should not be contrasted in every instance. The question posed to Nabeel is one of consistency. If we are to say that Islamic scripture is inherently violent due to it containing violent passages which are meant to be applied in a general setting then what of the Bible?
Nabeel responds with far more kindness when it comes to his own religion. Willing to condone genocide and non-defensive war as just (as long God commands it of course, we wouldn’t want to think that any old sod can just pick up a sword and start a war). Our question is if Nabeel is okay with genocide in the Bible then why not in the Qur’an (presuming his view of the Qur’an is accurate). How can he possibly still think he has the right to stand in judgement after condoning mass murder as a act of divine justice?
I submit because it is one rule for Islam and quite another for Christianity. The previous paragraph only further cements Pauls response in my opinion. Do you disagree?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jesus preached pacifism for humans on Earth. He never organized people to fight, nor did he instruct them to do so.
Here is what he taught
Turn the other cheek (if attacked physically do not fight back, instead expose yourself to further attack).
If stolen from give the thief even more than was stolen.
Don’t throw stones.
A rich man cannot go to heaven.
Pay your taxes (obey the Earthly laws even of an occupying tyrant).
Serve your slavemaster well (if you are a slave do not rebel, rather serve).
The behavior Jesus preached is pacifism.
So, people who understand and follow the message of behavior humans on Earth are not a threat, in stark contrast to those who follow the message and example of Muhammad, who was a robber, extortionist, rapist, enslaver, murderer, and conquering expansionist warlord.
OT violence is not a Christian behavioral problem since Jesus gave clear instructions for future behavior: pacifism.
LikeLike
stardusty psyche indeed
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lol a very silly person
LikeLike
“Here is what he taught
Turn the other cheek (if attacked physically do not fight back, instead expose yourself to further attack).
If stolen from give the thief even more than was stolen.
Don’t throw stones.
A rich man cannot go to heaven.
Pay your taxes (obey the Earthly laws even of an occupying tyrant).
Serve your slavemaster well (if you are a slave do not rebel, rather serve).”
1. Turn the other cheek does not refer to physical violence but rather verbal insults. To turn the other cheek means to not allow such attacks on ones honor (remember ancient judeah was not the same culturally as the west). Such was the nature of an honor-shame society where reputation was very important.
2. “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.” – Matthew 7:1-2
Jesus did not teach people not to judge. This is a common fluffy reading of the NT to serve a modern cultural hangup. The story you reference (John 7:53 – 8:11) is widely considered by NT scholars to not have been written by the author of Johns Gospel.
3. This is true. Wealth cannot get you into heaven but faith and obedience to Torah (for Jews only). The same Torah that records the slaughtering of the Amorites.
“18 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. 19 You know the commandments: ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, you shall not defraud, honor your father and mother.’” – Mark 10:18-19
4. Yep. Prophet Muhammad taught the very same concept:
The Prophet said, “You should listen and obey them even if the ruler strikes your back and takes your wealth, even still listen and obey.” – Sahih Muslim 1847
5. Tell that to William Wilberforce who while a devout Christian campaigned tirelessly to end slavery in Britain. Prophet Muhammad also taught about the manumission of slaves.
Including freeing up to 63 slaves during his lifetime while those who embraced Islam freed their slaves as well. The Prophets wife Aisha also freed Slaves.
Narrated ‘Urwa:
That ‘Aisha told him that Buraira came to seek her help in her writing of emancipation (for a certain sum) and that time she had not paid anything of it. ‘Aisha said to her, “Go back to your masters, and if they agree that I will pay the amount of your writing of emancipation and get your Wala’, I will do so.” Buraira informed her masters of that but they refused and said, “If she (i.e. ‘Aisha) is seeking Allah’s reward, then she can do so, but your Wala’ will be for us.” ‘Aisha mentioned that to Allah’s Apostle who said to her, “Buy and manumit her, as the Wala’ is for the liberator.” Allah’s Apostle then got up and said, “What about the people who stipulate conditions which are not present in Allah’s Laws? Whoever imposes conditions which are not present in Allah’s Laws, then those conditions will be invalid, even if he imposed these conditions a hundred times. Allah’s conditions (Laws) are the truth and are more solid.” – Sahih Bukhari 3:46:735
LikeLike
Woops! forgot the thief one 😀
Islam also teaches that one should be merciful to thieves, especially if they are poor or the social circumstances demand the law be relaxed. Heck it isn’t even punishable for a thief who steals for selfish reason unless the value is over a certain amount.
On this Prophet Muhammad and Prophet Jesus would have been in complete agreement.
LikeLike
How about throwing stones? Lol
LikeLike
I’m assuming he was talking about not judging considering that is how folk tend to interpret these things 😉
Of course Jesus would have had no problem with stoning people to death as this is the God ordained punishment for various sins (according to Torah, which Jesus believed was Gods revelation to Moses)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well said Patrice. Christians tend to be quite unhistorical about Jesus on this point
LikeLike
Patrice –
“Islam also teaches that one should be merciful to thieves,”
Sure, if cutting off a hand and opposite foot is your idea of mercy.
So, I appreciate your responses, Patrice, but they only reinforce my point, which is that the closer you get to the core teachings of Jesus, taken in order that he preached them, the less violent you are.
The more you follow the recitation of Muhammad, and follow the example of his life, taken in date order of the recitations and in date order of his example, the more you invade, kill, conquer, rape, enslave, and extort the conquered, then kill people who criticize or leave Islam.
Yes, you can pick out a few nice sounding passages from back in Mecca when the prophet was weak and had but a small band of followers, and was thus conciliatory.
The facts of the texts are that Muhammad was a conquering warlord, killing, robbing, raping, his way across Arabia until he ruled the whole of it, holding the vanquished on pain of death lest they cease to pay his extortion demands, criticize him, or leave his newfound death cult called Islam.
LikeLike
Thanks Stardusty psyche. You’ve figured out Islam for me! To think I spent so much time and energy listening to lectures, and reading academic books and journals when I should have just patiently waited in the comments section of bloggingtheology for a random troll to appear out of nowhere and say things like ‘Muhammad was a conquering warlord, killing, robbing, raping, his way across Arabia until he ruled the whole of it’. I mean this is the most original argument ever!
LikeLike
Indeed, my arguments lack originality. Islam has been as i describe it for some 1400 years, and many before me have pointed out the truth of its debauchery.
Do you have any specific refutations of my assertions, considering the date order of the Qur’an and the date order of the example set by Muhammad?
LikeLike
Another troll: Do you have any specific refutations of my assertions
Sure. Take for instance the claim that the more one follows Muhammad (saw) the more evil he becomes. There are absolutely no empirical studies that find a statistically significant relationship between following Muhammad and violence. I can tell you there will be no such study, at least by economists, because of the insuperable difficulties of measuring the variable ‘following Muhammad’. Since you don’t have evidence (and evidence means something very specific in social science research), your assertion is as good as the worthless piece of crap troll that you are.
LikeLike
“the worthless piece of crap troll that you are.”
Thank you Kmak for that insightful exposition of my humanity 🙂
LikeLike
Stardusty
And I thank you for taking the time to respond 🙂
My point is certainly not that Jesus was either a violent man or a peaceful one but rather that when we make claims as to what he taught, I think we should remember that he was a human being who living in a certain time and culture would have deeply impacted by the predominant worldview, i.e Second Temple Judaism which did not have an either pacifist or ‘warlord’ mentality but just like Islam has a more complex view of violence.
One where it is not desired but sometimes necessary to overcome tyranny. The Torah was certainly not shy of making this point as we find many instances of warfare carried out by the Israelites under Gods’ command.
“Yes, you can pick out a few nice sounding passages from back in Mecca when the prophet was weak and had but a small band of followers, and was thus conciliatory.”
Why do you presume the traditions I quoted were from Mecca and not Medina? In truth one of the most peaceful texts of the Qur’an is from the time in Medina:
“There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing.” – Surah Al-Baqarah 256
I am not aware of any Muslim scholars who consider this text is to be not applicable today.
On to your final point about Prophet Muhammad being a war mongering whatnot, i’m frankly surprised you didn’t throw in that he used to kick puppies and scare small children to that list 😉 Without any actual examples of these charges its impossible for me to respond to them.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Kmak
You shouldn’t insult people merely because you disagree with them. Try to show some restraint dude 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Isn’t there a “slightly problematic issue” of Divinely sanctioned infanticide at the very core of Christianity?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Lok
LikeLike
Stardusty just another thing concerning the hadith about Aisha. It would be appropriate for me to mention the fact that this would have taken place long after the early Meccan period as Prophet Muhammad married Aisha in Medina when he was approx 53 years old. Urwa, the person who narrated this tradition was one of her students.
LikeLike
Patrice – “he (Jesus) was a human being who living in a certain time and culture would have deeply impacted by the predominant worldview”
If Jesus was god incarnate then that makes no sense, as with similar claims that we have to understand Muhammad in the context of his times. If Muhammad was getting instructions as to what to say from Allah via an archangel Gabriel one can reasonably expect his words to be beyond any particular time, place, or language and clearly applicable to all.
“Why do you presume the traditions I quoted were from Mecca and not Medina? In truth one of the most peaceful texts of the Qur’an is from the time in Medina:” True, that this is not a hard rule. Muhammad managed to utter a few fairly benign statements even in the era that he was terrorizing all Arabia with his endless killing, raping, robbing, extorting, and murdering to seize and hold military control.
““There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion.”
Big lie, one of the most preposterous lies and so very often repeated.
Apostates are to be murdered.
Critics are to be murdered.
Those who do not join Islam are forced to pay extortion money to the Muhammad Mafia (jizya)
Oh, but there is no compulsion in religion, we are just going to kill you if you do not say the shahada, extort you if you do not join, murder you if you say anything against the religion, and murder you if you leave the religion. How silly of me to consider that compulsion at all.
“I am not aware of any Muslim scholars who consider this text is to be not applicable today. ”
Then you are not aware of the facts of sharia.
“On to your final point about Prophet Muhammad being a war mongering whatnot, i’m frankly surprised you didn’t throw in that he used to kick puppies and scare small children to that list”
He undoubtedly scared many small children while he was invading, killing their fathers and brothers, and raping their mothers and sisters.
Read about the life of Muhammad. From orphan boy, to first marriage to a wealthy widow, his rise thereby to become a wealthy merchant, his long series of “revelations”, his struggles to get a small band of followers in Mecca, the move to Medina, then the long list of armed robberies, invasions, murders, rapes, ending with the conquest of all Arabia by force of arms while holding non-muslims in dhimtude paying extortion money.
The Qur’an, Bukhari, Ibn Ishaq, and on and on. Even the whitewashed Hollywood version tells the story of battle after battle, as does wiki or any general source you wish to use.
LikeLike
Burhanuddin1 – Isn’t there a “slightly problematic issue” of Divinely sanctioned infanticide at the very core of Christianity?
Not as an admonition of behavior by Jesus. Jesus did not tell human beings to commit infanticide.
Of course, among the many absurdities of Christianity is the notion that god changed his mind or changed his ways. Certainly god committed genocide, infanticide, and many other heinous acts described in the OT and the rapture is not looking too promising either.
But Jesus did not instruct humans to kill babies or each other, which is what makes Christianity the safer absurdity, if one must engage in the absurdity of theism.
LikeLike
“which is what makes Christianity the safer absurdity,…” On what stardusty planet do you live psycho?
LikeLike
Patrice – “Stardusty just another thing concerning the hadith about Aisha. It would be appropriate for me to mention the fact that this would have taken place long after the early Meccan period as Prophet Muhammad married Aisha in Medina when he was approx 53 years old. Urwa, the person who narrated this tradition was one of her students.”
Ok, I don’t know why you brought that up exactly, it is not one of my points, but it is true it is a criticism often leveled against Muhammad, so it is in keeping with the conversation here.
I do not make that criticism. Arranged marriages were the norm. People have traditionally reproduced starting at puberty, as all living things will reproduce as soon as they are physically able to do so. Modern society has placed certain taboos on sex I do not find compelling.
Aisha, by all accounts, did not suffer some terrible psychological harm by this marriage. In fact, she grew to be a leader in Islam. In Greece, for example, an older man would mentor and have sex with a much younger boy, and that was simply part of the normal social structure, not some terrible hidden abuse..
LikeLike
“Big lie, one of the most preposterous lies and so very often repeated.
Apostates are to be murdered.
Critics are to be murdered.
Those who do not join Islam are forced to pay extortion money to the Muhammad Mafia (jizya)”
Apostasy has nothing to do with changing ones religion but was rather about acting against the state, i.e. treason.
Critics are to be murdered? Source? and about those people who don’t join Islam (within a Islamic state) are required to pay a tax (Jizya) while Muslims are required to pay a tax (Zakah). Non Muslims were free to practice their religion and not face any societal restrictions. My evidence for this is the 1400 years of peaceful coexistence between Muslims, Christians, and Jews throughout the ‘Muslim world’.
By the way who is this ‘Muhammad Mafia’? Were they some kind of Italian criminal organization? They don’t sound very nice 😉 I do hope you were not referring to the early Muslims as this would be about as insulting as saying the 12 were the ‘Jesus Mafia’.
“If Jesus was god incarnate then that makes no sense”
I know right! Its probably because he wasn’t 😉 Why do you think that being a prophet means you are aloof of any earthly concerns or influences? Remember Jesus wept at the tomb of Lazarus, if Jesus were God incarnate and knew that Lazarus was going to heaven (without needing to believe in Jesus’ resurrection i might add) then why weep? Surely God who is all knowing would not be so deeply moved by something he had seen countless times before?
LikeLike
Burhanuddin1 – ” “which is what makes Christianity the safer absurdity,…” On what stardusty planet do you live psycho?”
Planet Earth is stardusty.
You are stardust, my fellow Earthling.
Nucleosynthesis. Stars explode. The dust is you and me and this planet and all the elements higher than 4.
LikeLike
Patrice – “Apostasy has nothing to do with changing ones religion but was rather about acting against the state, i.e. treason. ”
In Islam religion and state are one. The head of state is the keeper of the faith. Leaving Islam is treason to a Muslim. If you are an American you likely are so separated from this mindset that you do not realize how deeply this is felt my Muslims, I did not until I began communicating personally with many Muslims and found how deeply this in engrained in so many Muslim minds.
“Critics are to be murdered? Source? ”
Your video, for starters. Public criticism was a serious crime by our own linked source. The punishment always has been and remains—death. I call that murder.
“My evidence for this is the 1400 years of peaceful coexistence between Muslims, Christians, and Jews throughout the ‘Muslim world’. ”
Wherever Muslims rule all others are subjugated. I suggest you look at the present state of Christians, Jews, Atheists, and others under Muslim rule.
“By the way who is this ‘Muhammad Mafia’? Were they some kind of Italian criminal organization? ”
Much worse than the Italian criminal organizations. This was and is today a state run Mafia. That is what Islam is.
“‘Jesus Mafia’”
Jesus never picked up the sword or exhorted people to violence. Muhammad was the polar opposite, a warlord and Mafioso.
” if Jesus were God incarnate and knew that Lazarus was going to heaven (without needing to believe in Jesus’ resurrection i might add) then why weep? Surely God who is all knowing would not be so deeply moved by something he had seen countless times before?”
Indeed, the Jesus story is sheer idiocy. But is is relatively benign idiocy when compared to the Muhammad story.
Muhammad was a robber, extortionist, rapist, murderer, polygamist, and conquering warlord. If you are not aware of these facts I suggest you critically study the life of Muhammad and what he did to rise from being a poor orphan to the ruler of all Arabia.
Think about it, how does an orphan boy seize control of all Arabia in the 7th century? You should be able to understand that can only be done by extreme violence, deceit, and ruthlessness.
LikeLike
“which is what makes Christianity the safer absurdity,…” You obviously don’t live on planet earth.
No other religion has shed as much blood as Christianity.
And “But Jesus did not instruct humans to kill babies or each other, which is what makes Christianity the safer absurdity,… is a non-sequitur by the way
LikeLike
Stardusty did any of those Muslims you spoke to call for the deaths of the people who left Islam? Once again apostasy within the context of an Islamic state is only punishable if that person acts against the state. Even then the punishment can be waved off. For example:
Abu ‘Abdur-Rahman and Hibban bin ‘Atiyya had a dispute. Abu ‘Abdur-Rahman said to Hibban, “You know what made your companions (i.e. Ali) dare to shed blood.” Hibban said, “Come on! What is that?” ‘Abdur-Rahman said, “Something I heard him saying.” The other said, “What was it?” ‘AbdurRahman said, “‘Ali said, Allah’s Apostle sent for me, Az-Zubair and Abu Marthad, and all of us were cavalry men, and said, ‘Proceed to Raudat-Hajj (Abu Salama said that Abu ‘Awana called it like this, i.e., Hajj where there is a woman carrying a letter from Hatib bin Abi Balta’a to the pagans (of Mecca). So bring that letter to me.’ So we proceeded riding on our horses till we overtook her at the same place of which Allah’s Apostle had told us. She was traveling on her camel. In that letter Hatib had written to the Meccans about the proposed attached of Allah’s Apostle against them. We asked her, “Where is the letter which is with you?’ She replied, ‘I haven’t got any letter.’ So we made her camel kneel down and searched her luggage, but we did not find anything. My two companions said, ‘We do not think that she has got a letter.’ I said, ‘We know that Allah’s Apostle has not told a lie.'”
Then ‘Ali took an oath saying, “By Him by Whom one should swear! You shall either bring out the letter or we shall strip off your clothes.” She then stretched out her hand for her girdle (round her waist) and brought out the paper (letter). They took the letter to Allah’s Apostle. ‘Umar said, “O Allah’s Apostle! (Hatib) has betrayed Allah, His Apostle and the believers; let me chop off his neck!” Allah’s Apostle said, “O Hatib! What obliged you to do what you have done?” Hatib replied, “O Allah’s Apostle! Why (for what reason) should I not believe in Allah and His Apostle? But I intended to do the (Mecca) people a favor by virtue of which my family and property may be protected as there is none of your companions but has some of his people (relatives) whom Allah urges to protect his family and property.” The Prophet said, “He has said the truth; therefore, do not say anything to him except good.” ‘Umar again said, “O Allah’s Apostle! He has betrayed Allah, His Apostle and the believers; let me chop his neck off!” The Prophet said, “Isn’t he from those who fought the battle of Badr? And what do you know, Allah might have looked at them (Badr warriors) and said (to them), ‘Do what you like, for I have granted you Paradise?’ ” On that, ‘Umar’s eyes became flooded with tears and he said, “Allah and His Apostle know best.” – Sahih Bukhari 9:84:72
I do not deny that Muslims especially when Islam is woven into their very identity would take apostasy seriously. Why shouldn’t they? If they actually believe that Islam is the truth from God and to reject the message means hell. I can understand that.
LikeLike
“Wherever Muslims rule all others are subjugated. I suggest you look at the present state of Christians, Jews, Atheists, and others under Muslim rule.”
Utter tripe there are many countries where Christians, Jews, and whoever else have been freely able to practice their faith for centuries. Take for example the historic Jewish communities in both Iran and Syria. The Christians in Egypt are respected and there is no barrier for them in society. Turkey is a secular country with a majority Muslim population who have freedom of religion. Morocco one of the largest Muslim majority countries allows freedom of religion.
I’m not saying they are the west. But to make the claim they are being subjugated is simply untrue.
LikeLike
Patrice – “Stardusty did any of those Muslims you spoke to call for the deaths of the people who left Islam?”
Yes, of course, Also, you can listen to as many clerics say so as you wish. This is sharia 101. The penalty for apostasy is death.
Numbering systems vary for the texts so you can go to the links to see various references.
You can read the text in English and Arabic here
http://sunnah.com/bukhari/87/17
http://sunnah.com/nasai/37/54
http://sunnah.com/nasai/37/93
Bukhari, volume 9, #17
“Narrated Abdullah: Allah’s Messenger said, “The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Messenger, cannot be shed except in three cases: in Qisas (equality in punishment) for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (Apostate) and leaves the Muslims.”
Bukhari, volume 9, #57
Narrated Ikrima, “Some atheists were brought to Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn Abbas who said, “If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah’s messenger forbade it, saying, “Do not punish anybody with Allah’s punishment (fire).” I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah’s Messenger, “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.”
Bukhari, volume 9, #58
Narrated Abu Burda, “Abu Musa said…..Behold there was a fettered man beside Abu Musa. Muadh asked, “Who is this (man)?” Abu Musa said, “He was a Jew and became a Muslim and then reverted back to Judaism.” Then Abu Musa requested Muadh to sit down but Muadh said, “I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and his messenger,” and repeated it thrice. Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed. Abu Musa added, “Then we discussed the night prayers
Ok, Patrice, if that does not convince you the punishment for apostasy is death let’s take a look at the present law in the cities of Muhammad. If one commits apostasy in Mecca or Medina today what is the punishment?
Saudi law allows the death penalty for many crimes. For example:
Adultery (Unmarried adulterers can be sentenced to 100 lashes, married ones can be sentenced to stoning.)[8]
Apostasy (Apostates are sentenced to beheading but are usually given three days to repent and return to Islam.)[7]
Atheism
Armed robbery[7]
Blasphemy[7]
Burglary
Carjacking
Aircraft hijacking
Drug smuggling
Fornication
Home invasion
Sodomy, homosexuality, or lesbianism (If a man or woman is sodomized by their own consent, then they will also be sentenced to death along with the sodomizer)
Idolatry
Murder[7]
Rape[7]
Sedition and Political crimes
Sexual misconduct
Sorcery
Terrorism
Theft (fourth conviction)
Treason
Waging war on God[27][28]
Witchcraft[9][10][11][12
Honestly, I don’t know whether to laugh or cry sometimes about the poor understanding of sharia rampant in the West. Do you suppose the keepers of Mecca and Medina just took it all out of context? Maybe you think the Saudi clerics are not well versed in Arabic? Perhaps you think these clerics simply have not studied the Islamic texts sufficiently to get their true meaning?
Under sharia apostasy, atheism, blasphemy, idolatry, and witchcraft are all capital crimes. This is not in the abstract. Islamic countries have been executing for these crimes for some 1400 years and they continue to do so to this very day.
No compulsion in religion? Patrice, you really need to learn the concept of abrogation. Muhammad said a few nice things when he was weak and building up his cult, later came all the deadly horrors of Islam, and that is taken as his final word.
Patrice, I urge you to investigate the truth of what sharia calls for and the fact that it is what it is because very learned men have studied the texts in great detail and they are writing into civil law what is in the Islamic texts.
LikeLike
Burhanuddin1 – “which is what makes Christianity the safer absurdity,…” You obviously don’t live on planet earth.No other religion has shed as much blood as Christianity.”
There is no place in the words of Jesus that tells people to wage war or shed blood. Jesus instructed just the opposite.
There is no such thing as Christian aggressive war. If you disagree please find in the words of Jesus any instructions to wage wars of human bloodshed.
“And “But Jesus did not instruct humans to kill babies or each other, which is what makes Christianity the safer absurdity,… is a non-sequitur by the way”
Not at all.
The story of Jesus contains many absurdities, but no instructions for humans to wage wars of bloodshed.
The story of Muhammad contains many absurdities, and also vast numbers of instructions to wage bloody wars, rape, murder, conquer, tax, and extort.
The Jesus absurdity is vastly safer than the Muhammad absurdity.
LikeLike
OMG
LikeLike
Stardusty you still seem to misunderstand (or ignore) how the Shariah defines ‘apostasy’. You while quoting several texts have failed to interact with the citations I have given as well as the video from Jonathan Brown explaining this issue. I am not saying that ‘apostasy’ isn’t punishable by death according to the Shariah until that you confuse what the term means with how it is expressed in a secular context. A more fair comparison would be that of treason. Treason which is still very much punishable in many western countries including America.
“Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”
On to the next point about Muslim subjugating non Muslims. It seems you have moved the goalpost from:
“Wherever Muslims rule all others are subjugated.” to ” If one commits apostasy in Mecca or Medina today…”
You have introduced a new criteria to determine Islamic from non-Islamic which is Saudi Arabia. I’m sure you know that the House of Saud has no extraordinary legal or religious authority over Sunni Muslims (or the Shia). The only thing they have is Mecca and Medina. As you are well aware in fact Sunnis have no hierachy.
Why do you believe they are somehow special? or more so than Egypt, Morocco, Turkey, Indonesia or any other Muslim majority country that has freedom of religion?
LikeLike
Stardusty (again!!!)
I must point out that your view of Jesus is simply anachronistic as it fails to as NT Wright says “think in the proper catagories”. Jesus was a Torah abiding Pharisaic Jew who living in the 1st century taught “Jews about Judaism” he absolutely nowhere repudiates the teachings of the Torah nor its stories about the slaughter of the Amorites or of the slaughter of the 1st born of Egypt. Jesus affirms the Torah:
““Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” – Matthew 5:17-19
Jesus lived and spoke with those who already believed the things you claim he didn’t. He had no need to teach them since they already knew.
Finally you said that there was no such teaching from Jesus that spoke of war or violence. You are mistaken. As this passage demonstrates Jesus would have had no problem with violence in his name. Many later Christians would act violently against Muslims, Jews etc…
“Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.” – John 18:36
LikeLike
Patrice – ” am not saying that ‘apostasy’ isn’t punishable by death according to the Shariah until that you confuse what the term means with how it is expressed in a secular context. ”
Sorry, you are the one so very confused to the core, quite apparently from this utterly confused sentence.
Sharia is a religious law. It means that if a person is first a Muslim and then renounces the faith that person is subject to execution. That is what it means. If you do not understand this simple fact then you do not understand even the fundamental of Sharia
“Treason which is still very much punishable in many western countries including America. ”
Yes, and that is what Sharia considers a Muslim who publicly states he or she is no longer a Muslim, a traitor deserving of a death sentence.
“You have introduced a new criteria to determine Islamic from non-Islamic which is Saudi Arabia”
No, it is merely an obvious example. Wherever a nation is ruled by Islamic law, wherever the Islamic theocracy rules, the murderous subjugation of the innocent is law, and a law that is carried out by draconian whippings, amputations, and executions.
If you do not understand these facts of the places where sharia is the supreme law then you have not educated yourself on the subject.
“Why do you believe they are somehow special? or more so than Egypt, Morocco, Turkey, Indonesia or any other Muslim majority country that has freedom of religion?”
Not every Muslim majority country is ruled entirely by sharia as a theocracy. To the extent the people have at least some voice in government the homicidal subjugating horrors of Islam are at least partially mitigated or tempered.
Saudi Arabia is special in the sense that it is the very center of Islam historically. Mecca is the place all Muslims pray to and are called upon to make pilgrimage to.
But there is no pope of Islam, no central figure with a widely recognized claim to the right to interpret scripture for all others. However, the monstrous subjugation, repression, and draconian punishments active in the land of Muhammad and the birthplace of Islam are highly emblematic of the debauchery that is Islamic law.
LikeLike
Patrice – “he absolutely nowhere repudiates the teachings of the Torah nor its stories…Jesus affirms the Torah:”
In one example Jesus changed the law of divorce, stating the old law of permitting divorce was in consideration of the hardness of hearts, but he declared that no one should put asunder what god has brought together. Hence the strong stand against divorce by any serious Christian.
Again and again Jesus preached love and non-violence for all of us to followers, never organizing any violent attacks against anybody, nor advocating any violent attacks against anybody. An extremely stark contrast to Muhammad who organized and participated in and ruled by robbery, invasion, murder, enslavement, and extortion.
“Finally you said that there was no such teaching from Jesus that spoke of war or violence. You are mistaken. As this passage demonstrates Jesus would have had no problem with violence in his name. Many later Christians would act violently against Muslims, Jews etc…
“Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.” – John 18:36
I never said Jesus never “spoke of” war or violence. Ironically, the quote you provide only proves my point. Jesus is stating the his servants are not to prevent his arrest (which would require armed violence).
Indeed, this passage refers to potential violence, with Jesus instructing that his servants are not to use violence. Precisely my point, thank you very much for making it for me!
LikeLike
Burhanuddin1 – “OMG”
I see I have stunned you with my irrefutable logic! When you recover perhaps you will find more than three words to express your appreciation for the educational service I have provided you 🙂
LikeLike
Psyche, you are priceless. A true ayatollah, a sign of God
LikeLike
Stardust Psyche claims he has “irrefutable logic”. Um, no…
Let’s see what Jesus actually said in the Bible regarding war and violence:
““He replied, ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what they have will be taken away. But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.’”” (Luke 19:26-27)
Now, of course, there are other places where we see a more “pacifist” Jesus, but the passage from Luke shows the exact opposite. Not only that, but Christians have historically had different views on violence. Some have been pacifistic, while others (like Augustine) have argued in favor of the “just war” theory. And of course, others have argued for a more militant view on violence, using war against all who do not agree with them.
LikeLike
Sorry Faiz, you simply did not read the story, and your conclusions are thus patently fallacious.:
The Parable of the Ten Minas
11 While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once. 12 He said: “A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. 13 So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas.[a] ‘Put this money to work,’ he said, ‘until I come back.’
14 “But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, ‘We don’t want this man to be our king.’
15 “He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it.
16 “The first one came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned ten more.’
17 “‘Well done, my good servant!’ his master replied. ‘Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.’
18 “The second came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned five more.’
19 “His master answered, ‘You take charge of five cities.’
20 “Then another servant came and said, ‘Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. 21 I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.’
22 “His master replied, ‘I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? 23 Why then didn’t you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?’
24 “Then he said to those standing by, ‘Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.’
25 “‘Sir,’ they said, ‘he already has ten!’
26 “He replied, ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what they have will be taken away. 27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.’”
“Stardust Psyche claims he has “irrefutable logic”. Um, no…”
My logic stands unrefuted by you or anybody else on this site.
Clearly, Jesus was telling a story. The “me” in 27 is the character of the story, not Jesus, as is obvious from the plain text.
LikeLike
Nice try Stardust but…no, you’re “logic” actually is in ruins. Stop patting yourself on the back, dude. No one is impressed. LOL…
What is obvious from the story is that Jesus is talking about himself during his second coming when he will kill all who oppose him. The “parable” is about himself, as any Christian theologian will tell you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Jesus is talking about himself during his second coming”
Ah, the second coming!
Are we living in the period of the second coming of Jesus?
Was Jesus speaking of himself in the present tense?
Was Jesus giving his followers of that time or Christians today instructions to commit violence?
No, No, and No.
My logic remains unrefuted by your irrelevancies.
Muhammad gave instructions by his recitation and example for his followers to rob, murder, conquer, enslave, rape, and extort.
Jesus gave instructions to his followers to turn the other cheek, not throw stones, pay taxes, serve your master well, love your neighbor, and give even more to he who steals from you.
Textual facts unrefuted by you or anybody else on this site or elsewhere.
LikeLike
Stardust Psyche, so you admit that Jesus was talking about himself? Therefore, your original assertion was incorrect? Great, we’re making progress! Your “irrefutable logic” lies in ruins. Jesus did speak of violence and he promised that he would destroy anyone who refused to have him as their king. Not very “pacifistic”, I’m afraid!
For early Christians, the second coming was supposed to happen in the first century. They were ardently waiting for it! Of course, they were not stupid enough to let the Romans know that they were preparing for the arrival of the “kingdom of God”. Nor did they pick a fight with the Romans. If they had, they would have been badly beaten, like the Jews were. Speaking of the Jews, there was Messianic fervor among them, which led to the revolt against Rome, and ended with the destruction of Jerusalem and the exile of the Jews from the Holy Land.
But once Christians became the most powerful group in the Roman empire, they immediately set about persecuting pagans, Jews and other Christians who did not follow their “orthodox” views.
Your vague and ultimately false assertions about Muhammad (pbuh) show that you are just another Google scholar who has done very poor research on the subject. And as I said before, your self-adoration is not impressing anyone! 😉
LikeLike
Here is another example of the violence during the Second Coming, according to the “visions” of the Book of Revelation: A rider on a white horse (Jesus) descended to earth followed by the “armies of heaven” to meet the armies of the “beast” in a final battle between good and evil. As a result of the battle, the “beast” was captured and along with the “false prophet” (the second beast) was “thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur”. Also, the army of the beast was completely destroyed and “all the birds gorged themselves on their flesh”.
http://quranandbible.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-book-of-revelation.html
LikeLike
One point I’ve always found telling –
The Judeo-Christian faith evolved from a barbaric and violent beginning to a position where only self defense was allowed to eventually a pacifist and civilized maturity (though it didn’t stay that way long, given the return to violence after Constantine that continues to this day).
The Islamic faith evolved the opposite way – starting as a pacifist movement and moving toward one that then allowed self defense only and then eventually to conquest of the infidels.
It is disappointing many Christians do not take seriously the trajectory toward peace their faith’s founding documents set.
LikeLike