Yep, a very convenient belief. Maybe that’s reason why the evangelical-“I-have-that-special-relationship-with-Jesus” brand is somehow attractive for postmodern individuals.
Before I provide the verses germane to the opening words of this thread, I think that it is very important to point out the Mosaic Law was given to a nation/people that were essentially monolithic in terms of culture, society, and religion. This meant ALL aspects of life were covered by the set laws that Yahweh gave them, including CIVIL laws. The Gospel brought by Jesus was primarily spiritual in nature, with a focus on the renewal of mankind from within. Civil laws, though important, do not renew the inward man; as such Jesus said: “You must be born again”, and that one is to, “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you”.
And yet, this same Jesus also said:
“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”
“Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.”
“The lord [Jesus] of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of, And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
“Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.”
There are, of course, more verses that could be cited, but the above should suffice for now.
The Jesus of Matthew’s gospel is decidedly Torah-observant:
“Don’t even think that I’ve come to abolish the law and the prophets — I have come not to abolish but to fulfill,” pronounces Matthew’s Jesus (5:17).
Indeed, Matthew’s Jesus instructs his disciples to do just as the scribes and Pharisees teach — but not to emulate their behavior (23:2-3).
So Jesus advocated a society much like an Islamic one with the Divine Law (rather than secular law) ruling. So he would have supported the death penalty for adulterers, sodomites, etc and rejected Ken’s Americanised gentile Christianity where religion is privatised and secular law is dominant.
“The Jesus of Matthew’s gospel is decidedly Torah-observant:”
It took a while, but here it is, on another thead. Finally an admission that Jesus was Torah abiding and thus his soteriology etc would not resemble anything akin to Islam.
OT judgment on Moab; God using Israel as a theocracy to judge Moab.
There is not more theocratic or biblical Israel today. Gone, since 70 AD. Jesus judged it.
God’s people are not to make theocracies, and they are spread out in local churches all over the world in most all countries, and to be established among all the nations. (Rev. 5:9; 7:9; Matthew 28:19)
The NT does not give the right for the church or Christian to do such a thing.
There is a separation between church and government rule.
No He did not; He dismantled Israel – “therefore I say to you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you [Israel; Pharisees, Jewish leaders] and given to a nation that produces the fruit of it. . . . the Pharisees understood that Jesus was speaking about them . . .” (Matthew 21:43-45)
“I will built My Church . . . ” Matthew 16:18
“you (the NT believers) are a chosen race, a kingdom of priests, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession. . . in order that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light.” ( I Peter 2:9-10)
The Church is the new people of God on God, among all nations. Rev. 5:9; 7:9
“some from every nation, people, tribe, and tongue were redeemed by the blood of the lamb”
Christian and Jews today who have been inevitably influenced by modern liberal ideology have rejected all rules and principles from their religions that do not fit into the modern world. They even do it out of full conviction that this is their real religion. They attack Islam for not being liberal while pretending that their religion is liberal for itself and has not been liberalized due to external pressure from the liberal zeitgeist.
This is unbelievably disgusting. Therefore I say that the Dhimmah cannot be applied anymore in our age to the majority of Christians. Their rule has to be the rule of verse 9:5.
Only a few oriental Christian groups might have a right for Dhimmah and maybe Christians like this Baptist preacher from Arizona or the Amish people.
“Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.” (Pickthall)
This verse refers to apostates and to the extinct Arab pagans. It can also apply to certain other people if they fulfill the conditions like in this case.
Usually the verse with the rule for Jews and Christian is verse 9:29:
“Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.” (Pickthall)
A real Christian or Jew would not have any problems to accept the Shariah as the law ruling. Islam has not to be accepted as the religion but as the governing force. Then there can be freedom of religion for Christians.
But today Christians are not real believers in their religion but followers of modern liberal ideologies that contradict the basics of the Shariah and the Bible. It is not about Christians but modern Christians. As I mentioned, the Amish people would perfectly fit into an Islamic state as Dhimmis.
And I do not want to defend IS but they did offer the Dhimmah to the Iraqi Christians. They offered them a life under their state. It was their decision to flee without real reason. They could have stayed there just like Sunni Muslims.
Beware of false messengers. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.
First your post on christians killing gays and now this one – it seems as though you are trying to incite christians to commit violence, like your muslim brethren.
I for one will go and buy a sword and attack the people of Moab. Happy?
By the way, I’m not sure how it helps to de-radicalize muslims to say “look, it’s in the bible too!!!”. Seems as though leftists are shooting themselves in the foot by using this strategy and only empowering islamic violence.
Great additional marketing campaigns for the weapons/death-guaranteed-on-industrial-scale- industry,
built and run by superior loving civilized enlightened christians.
Makes you feel proud, doesn’t it? That’s the (holy) spirit! Halleluja, yeehaw!
So once again, members of the religion of peace make the choice to buy weapons of mass destruction so that they can kill each other and everyone else that your god tells you to hate, and they are still the true victims of someone else’s conspiracy. LOL!!!
It’s no conspiracy. It’s bloody reality, idiot. Superior loving civilized enlightened christians make a killing out of killing on industrial scale.
All top world weapons manufacturers and exporters are from superior loving civilized enlightened christian/jewish countries. Makes you feel proud, my little western supremacist, doesn’t it?
And your brothers in islam are being forced to buy these weapons? Of course, I don’t see any islamic nations leading the charge in world disarmament nor do I see much in the way of world peace movements coming out of islamic countries.
Must be the west’s fault. They are forcing muslim countries to buy these weapons. Poor victims. LOL!!!
Paul,
Nadir appears to be inciting violence against Christians. I hope you will be reporting this to the appropriate law enforcement authorities and blocking him/her from this blog.
“Therefore I say that the Dhimmah cannot be applied anymore in our age to the majority of Christians. Their rule has to be the rule of verse 9:5”
“Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free”
If I understand this correctly, Nadir is saying that unless Christians “repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due” they are to be slain.
I am not inciting vigilant violence against Christians. What I say is how an Islamic government should deal with these issues. I do not call upon Muslims to kill Christians.
Just like Ted Shoebat or Steven Anderson are not inciting violence but calling the government to establish Biblical law.
This is in fact very obvious from my posts since the Dhimmah is only a government issue. I think this is a try to compromise Paul William as having someone inciting violence on his blog.
Nadir,
Thanks you for your clarification.
Could you please spell out “how an Islamic government should deal with these issues” in terms of actual policies in our age.
In order for the Dhimmah to be established Christians would have to accept that the Islamic Shariah is ruling. Paying the Jizyah is part of the Dhimmah but the essential part of it is the acceptance of Islamic rule and not the financial factor.
For the majority of Christians in this age this is impossible because they are liberals. Like most modern people they believe that secular democracy is superior to the Shariah. They call the Shariah barbarian and can therefore not become Dhimmis.
An actual government would have to check if the conditions for the Dhimmah are given. If the conditions are fulfilled the government would offer this contract to the Christians. They can accept it or refuse and move away. If the conditions for Dhimmah are not being fulfilled the government would have to either deport or capture them.
“In order for the Dhimmah to be established Christians would have to accept that the Islamic Shariah is ruling. Paying the Jizyah is part of the Dhimmah but the essential part of it is the acceptance of Islamic rule and not the financial factor.
For the majority of Christians in this age this is impossible because they are liberals. Like most modern people they believe that secular democracy is superior to the Shariah. They call the Shariah barbarian and can therefore not become Dhimmis.
An actual government would have to check if the conditions for the Dhimmah are given. If the conditions are fulfilled the government would offer this contract to the Christians. They can accept it or refuse and move away. If the conditions for Dhimmah are not being fulfilled the government would have to either deport or capture them.”
Sounds like the paradise jews and christians have been dreaming of. I like your honesty, though.
I already explained the difference between modern liberal Jews and Christians and real Jews and Christians. For real Biblical believers this Islamic system would not be a problem. They would even prefer this system over secular liberal modern states.
It is not supposed to be paradise anyway but it is not hell though.
Nadir,
Sorry to keep banging on about this, but I’m still after clarity on your position. The 9:5 verse talks about slaying, but your clarification said “If the conditions for Dhimmah are not being fulfilled the government would have to either deport or capture them” – no mention of slaying. Has slaying been dropped as a policy instrument? Or do you need to revise your advise to Islamic states?
Additionally, you haven’t mentioned the non-religious (atheists and agnostics). Do we get the option of deportation or capture, or is it straight to the slaying?
The first issue that has to be understood is that there is a difference of opinion among Islamic scholars about what kind of people can be Dhimmis. One opinion is that only the “people of the book” can become Dhimmis because only they are explicitly mentioned in verse 9:29. For all other non-Muslims this opinion views verse 9:5 as the rule.
The other opinion is that all non-Muslims have the right to become Dhimmis except the extinct Arab pagans and apostates from Islam. So verse 9:5 goes only for these two groups. According to this opinion verse 9:29 mentions the “people of the book” specifically but not in an exclusionary way.
Both legal opinions are acceptable and can be acted upon by a ruler. The first is the opinion of the Shafi’i legal school and the second is that of the Hanafi and Maliki legal school.
In my previous comments I was talking about how in this age the concept of Dhimmah cannot be used for modern liberal people. Putting them under the Dhimmah would not work. But in principle they might have the right to Dhimmah. They lose it just because of the specific circumstances. They could also regain it.
Therefore there are more options to deal with them. Among them are expulsion, capturing and execution too. One of these can be chosen by the government depending on the benefits.
People who have no right for Dhimmah by principle only have the option offered in verse 9:5.
And what would be with non-religious people? According to the first opinion they would have to convert to Islam or die and and according to the second opinion they could become Dhimmis.
I’m sure Nadir will not mind me reiterating that these comments are his personal opinions. He does not speak for other Muslims and he is not a scholar of the Quran, hadith or fiqh.
Yes, I saw his comment that he is not a scholar. That being the case it should be easy for your to spell out where his error(s) lie. This would be of great assistance to many non-muslims who perhaps have a distorted view Islam.
Burhanuddin1,
Yes, I’m sure that is the case. But that being so, I’m looking for arguments from mainstream Islam that refute the fundamentalist position. As a secular liberal I want to defend the right of others to manifest religious belief insofar as it does not impinge disproportionately on the rights and freedoms of others. But to do so I need to be able to argue against those who would characterise Islam as inherently violent and against religious freedom. I feel it’s a bit weak to dismiss the likes of Nadir as fundamentalists unless I can support this with arguments supporting the correct position of Islam.
The modern world has no need for the likes of Nadir. We have the Marrakesh Declaration which represents the current mainstream Islamic position on the rights of religious minorities in the Muslim countries.
If another major religion would celebrate a brutal human sacrifice as essential foundation as God’s greatest act of mercy.
And would celebrate eating human flesh and drinking human blood symbolically?
Just imagine the propaganda of self declared loving and enlightened Christianity?
Like “this barbaric religion has to adapt or die”?
What would you think of any other religion that ritually celebrates a brutal torturous bloody human sacrifice as its essential foundation, as God’s greatest act of mercy?
What would you think of any other religion that ritually celebrates eating human flesh and drinking human blood symbolically?
I guess you would say despicable because of your supreme moral standards.
Jesus upheld the execution of apostates in Matt 23 and in your belief system Jesus (as a god) ordered the killing of apostates in the first place in the Torah.
“What would you think of any other religion that ritually celebrates a brutal torturous bloody human sacrifice as its essential foundation, as God’s greatest act of mercy?
What would you think of any other religion that ritually celebrates eating human flesh and drinking human blood symbolically?
I guess you would say despicable because of your supreme moral standards.”
I would say that symbolism as means to show gratitude is not a moral problem. For god to take the redress for sin onto himself, is as compassionate as it gets. I don’t see why you are having such a conniption fit about symbolism.
On the other hand your god requires the killing of certain people based on their beliefs in order to be appeased. That is human sacrifice by any standard.
I’m just asking that you show some honesty about it and not keep throwing these tu quoque arguments at me. Your god is appeased when you kill certain groups of people – like apostates, disbelievers, gays, and the like.
In other words, sacrifice other humans or face his wrath. There is no controversy here.
“Jesus upheld the execution of apostates in Matt 23 and in your belief system Jesus (as a god) ordered the killing of apostates in the first place in the Torah.”
Dhimmism and Dhimminitude, from ذمی (Dhimmi) is another proof that discredits Islam, since it is evil and unjust and based on Surah 9:29 and Hadith, etc. It was unjust for Islam to spread out in aggressive warfare against Byzantine, N. Africa, Spain, and Persia, India, etc.
Is it as unjust and evil as this NT command to slaves:
‘You who are slaves must accept the authority of your masters with all respect. Do what they tell you–not only if they are kind and reasonable, but even if they are cruel.’
So kill all the boys and all the women who have had intercourse with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.
So kill all the boys and all the women who have had intercourse with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.”
That is exactly what IS did with the Yazidis. Only the virgin girls were kept to become sex slaves. This shows once again how shameless these Christians are.
But I.S. (the Islamic State) ( or ISIS or ISIL or Da’esh) did not use the Bible texts to justify what they did; they used the Qur’an and Hadith to justify what they did. the same verses about “whom your right hand possesses” that gave Brother Ismael his problems with Islam and made him leave Islam. His video is on You Tube and Paul has an article about him under “Sad News”.
First of all Ken, why should I care for your explanations of the Bible when you don’t care for Islamic explanations of the Qur’an and Hadith?
But I read the explanation on this link and it gives a theory about why non-virgins were killed. I cannot say if this has a basis but Rashi’s commentary does not seem to support this.
But in any case it is about taking all women who are not killed as slaves. And intercourse with slaves is allowed according to the Bible, right?
Blogging Theology 
Yep, a very convenient belief. Maybe that’s reason why the evangelical-“I-have-that-special-relationship-with-Jesus” brand is somehow attractive for postmodern individuals.
LikeLike
Hi Paul,
Before I provide the verses germane to the opening words of this thread, I think that it is very important to point out the Mosaic Law was given to a nation/people that were essentially monolithic in terms of culture, society, and religion. This meant ALL aspects of life were covered by the set laws that Yahweh gave them, including CIVIL laws. The Gospel brought by Jesus was primarily spiritual in nature, with a focus on the renewal of mankind from within. Civil laws, though important, do not renew the inward man; as such Jesus said: “You must be born again”, and that one is to, “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you”.
And yet, this same Jesus also said:
“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”
“Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.”
“The lord [Jesus] of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of, And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
“Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.”
There are, of course, more verses that could be cited, but the above should suffice for now.
Grace and peace,
David
LikeLike
Hi David
The Jesus of Matthew’s gospel is decidedly Torah-observant:
“Don’t even think that I’ve come to abolish the law and the prophets — I have come not to abolish but to fulfill,” pronounces Matthew’s Jesus (5:17).
Indeed, Matthew’s Jesus instructs his disciples to do just as the scribes and Pharisees teach — but not to emulate their behavior (23:2-3).
So Jesus advocated a society much like an Islamic one with the Divine Law (rather than secular law) ruling. So he would have supported the death penalty for adulterers, sodomites, etc and rejected Ken’s Americanised gentile Christianity where religion is privatised and secular law is dominant.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“The Jesus of Matthew’s gospel is decidedly Torah-observant:”
It took a while, but here it is, on another thead. Finally an admission that Jesus was Torah abiding and thus his soteriology etc would not resemble anything akin to Islam.
I knew you would contradict yourself eventually.
LikeLike
you will have to do better than mere ad hominems (your favourite method I know). Explain what the alleged contradiction is.
Secondly, do you agree with Matthew that Jesus was a Torah-observant Jew, and that Jesus’ disciples should be too?
LikeLike
OT judgment on Moab; God using Israel as a theocracy to judge Moab.
There is not more theocratic or biblical Israel today. Gone, since 70 AD. Jesus judged it.
God’s people are not to make theocracies, and they are spread out in local churches all over the world in most all countries, and to be established among all the nations. (Rev. 5:9; 7:9; Matthew 28:19)
The NT does not give the right for the church or Christian to do such a thing.
There is a separation between church and government rule.
LikeLike
‘God’s people are not to make theocracies’ Jesus supported the existence of one – see above
LikeLike
No He did not; He dismantled Israel – “therefore I say to you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you [Israel; Pharisees, Jewish leaders] and given to a nation that produces the fruit of it. . . . the Pharisees understood that Jesus was speaking about them . . .” (Matthew 21:43-45)
“I will built My Church . . . ” Matthew 16:18
“you (the NT believers) are a chosen race, a kingdom of priests, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession. . . in order that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light.” ( I Peter 2:9-10)
The Church is the new people of God on God, among all nations. Rev. 5:9; 7:9
“some from every nation, people, tribe, and tongue were redeemed by the blood of the lamb”
LikeLike
typo
I meant
“the Church is the new people of God on earth”
LikeLike
Modern Israel (1948 to today) is not Biblical Israel. they have the right to exist, but they are not Biblical.
LikeLike
From a Christian point of view, Jews do not have any right to exist at all. Not to mention the secular liberal state of Israel.
LikeLike
Do the Palestinian people have a “right to exist”? Evangelicals always ignore the underdog and oppressed
LikeLike
of course. I don’t ignore. Read books like Blood Brothers by Elias Chakour, Whose Promised Land? by Colin Chapman – very important.
LikeLike
Good book:
Blood Brothers, by Elias Chacour
https://www.amazon.com/Blood-Brothers-Dramatic-Palestinian-Christian/dp/0800793218
LikeLike
Christian and Jews today who have been inevitably influenced by modern liberal ideology have rejected all rules and principles from their religions that do not fit into the modern world. They even do it out of full conviction that this is their real religion. They attack Islam for not being liberal while pretending that their religion is liberal for itself and has not been liberalized due to external pressure from the liberal zeitgeist.
This is unbelievably disgusting. Therefore I say that the Dhimmah cannot be applied anymore in our age to the majority of Christians. Their rule has to be the rule of verse 9:5.
Only a few oriental Christian groups might have a right for Dhimmah and maybe Christians like this Baptist preacher from Arizona or the Amish people.
LikeLike
Verse 9:5 is the verse of the sword:
“Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.” (Pickthall)
This verse refers to apostates and to the extinct Arab pagans. It can also apply to certain other people if they fulfill the conditions like in this case.
Usually the verse with the rule for Jews and Christian is verse 9:29:
“Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.” (Pickthall)
This is the verse of Dhimmah.
LikeLike
Islam will adapt – or die.
LikeLike
No: the world will adapt to God and his last messenger. You can’t beat God. Futile.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A real Christian or Jew would not have any problems to accept the Shariah as the law ruling. Islam has not to be accepted as the religion but as the governing force. Then there can be freedom of religion for Christians.
But today Christians are not real believers in their religion but followers of modern liberal ideologies that contradict the basics of the Shariah and the Bible. It is not about Christians but modern Christians. As I mentioned, the Amish people would perfectly fit into an Islamic state as Dhimmis.
And I do not want to defend IS but they did offer the Dhimmah to the Iraqi Christians. They offered them a life under their state. It was their decision to flee without real reason. They could have stayed there just like Sunni Muslims.
LikeLike
Beware of false messengers. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.
LikeLike
Paul W
First your post on christians killing gays and now this one – it seems as though you are trying to incite christians to commit violence, like your muslim brethren.
I for one will go and buy a sword and attack the people of Moab. Happy?
By the way, I’m not sure how it helps to de-radicalize muslims to say “look, it’s in the bible too!!!”. Seems as though leftists are shooting themselves in the foot by using this strategy and only empowering islamic violence.
LikeLike
“it seems as though you are trying to incite christians to commit violence”
Not necessary. There is no religion on earth with as much blood on its hands like christianity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Burhanuddin1
“Not necessary. There is no religion on earth with as much blood on its hands like christianity.”
Islam likely has more blood on its hands. lol!!
LikeLike
Cluster munition – developed and applied by superior loving civilized enlightened christians.
LikeLike
And eagerly purchased and utilized by our muslim friends to kill each other.
LikeLike
Great additional marketing campaigns for the weapons/death-guaranteed-on-industrial-scale- industry,
built and run by superior loving civilized enlightened christians.
Makes you feel proud, doesn’t it? That’s the (holy) spirit! Halleluja, yeehaw!
LikeLike
So once again, members of the religion of peace make the choice to buy weapons of mass destruction so that they can kill each other and everyone else that your god tells you to hate, and they are still the true victims of someone else’s conspiracy. LOL!!!
LikeLike
It’s no conspiracy. It’s bloody reality, idiot. Superior loving civilized enlightened christians make a killing out of killing on industrial scale.
All top world weapons manufacturers and exporters are from superior loving civilized enlightened christian/jewish countries. Makes you feel proud, my little western supremacist, doesn’t it?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Burhanuddin1
And your brothers in islam are being forced to buy these weapons? Of course, I don’t see any islamic nations leading the charge in world disarmament nor do I see much in the way of world peace movements coming out of islamic countries.
Must be the west’s fault. They are forcing muslim countries to buy these weapons. Poor victims. LOL!!!
LikeLike
Paul,
Nadir appears to be inciting violence against Christians. I hope you will be reporting this to the appropriate law enforcement authorities and blocking him/her from this blog.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Andy, could you explain in more detail where he is inciting violence?
LikeLike
“Therefore I say that the Dhimmah cannot be applied anymore in our age to the majority of Christians. Their rule has to be the rule of verse 9:5”
“Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free”
If I understand this correctly, Nadir is saying that unless Christians “repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due” they are to be slain.
LikeLike
I see. Let’s clarify what he meant.
Nadir
Andy has raised a legitimate concern about what might be interpreted as a call to violence against Christians in a comment you made.
Can you clarify the intended meaning of your comment please.
LikeLike
I am not inciting vigilant violence against Christians. What I say is how an Islamic government should deal with these issues. I do not call upon Muslims to kill Christians.
Just like Ted Shoebat or Steven Anderson are not inciting violence but calling the government to establish Biblical law.
This is in fact very obvious from my posts since the Dhimmah is only a government issue. I think this is a try to compromise Paul William as having someone inciting violence on his blog.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for the clarification Nadir
LikeLike
Nadir,
Thanks you for your clarification.
Could you please spell out “how an Islamic government should deal with these issues” in terms of actual policies in our age.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In order for the Dhimmah to be established Christians would have to accept that the Islamic Shariah is ruling. Paying the Jizyah is part of the Dhimmah but the essential part of it is the acceptance of Islamic rule and not the financial factor.
For the majority of Christians in this age this is impossible because they are liberals. Like most modern people they believe that secular democracy is superior to the Shariah. They call the Shariah barbarian and can therefore not become Dhimmis.
An actual government would have to check if the conditions for the Dhimmah are given. If the conditions are fulfilled the government would offer this contract to the Christians. They can accept it or refuse and move away. If the conditions for Dhimmah are not being fulfilled the government would have to either deport or capture them.
LikeLike
Nadir are you a qualified Islamic scholar? Are you qualified to issue fatwas? Just asking…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nadir
“In order for the Dhimmah to be established Christians would have to accept that the Islamic Shariah is ruling. Paying the Jizyah is part of the Dhimmah but the essential part of it is the acceptance of Islamic rule and not the financial factor.
For the majority of Christians in this age this is impossible because they are liberals. Like most modern people they believe that secular democracy is superior to the Shariah. They call the Shariah barbarian and can therefore not become Dhimmis.
An actual government would have to check if the conditions for the Dhimmah are given. If the conditions are fulfilled the government would offer this contract to the Christians. They can accept it or refuse and move away. If the conditions for Dhimmah are not being fulfilled the government would have to either deport or capture them.”
Sounds like the paradise jews and christians have been dreaming of. I like your honesty, though.
LikeLike
@D
I already explained the difference between modern liberal Jews and Christians and real Jews and Christians. For real Biblical believers this Islamic system would not be a problem. They would even prefer this system over secular liberal modern states.
It is not supposed to be paradise anyway but it is not hell though.
LikeLike
I am not a scholar and I have not studied religion at some place.
LikeLike
Ok
LikeLike
Nadir,
Sorry to keep banging on about this, but I’m still after clarity on your position. The 9:5 verse talks about slaying, but your clarification said “If the conditions for Dhimmah are not being fulfilled the government would have to either deport or capture them” – no mention of slaying. Has slaying been dropped as a policy instrument? Or do you need to revise your advise to Islamic states?
Additionally, you haven’t mentioned the non-religious (atheists and agnostics). Do we get the option of deportation or capture, or is it straight to the slaying?
LikeLike
I see that this is quite confusing.
The first issue that has to be understood is that there is a difference of opinion among Islamic scholars about what kind of people can be Dhimmis. One opinion is that only the “people of the book” can become Dhimmis because only they are explicitly mentioned in verse 9:29. For all other non-Muslims this opinion views verse 9:5 as the rule.
The other opinion is that all non-Muslims have the right to become Dhimmis except the extinct Arab pagans and apostates from Islam. So verse 9:5 goes only for these two groups. According to this opinion verse 9:29 mentions the “people of the book” specifically but not in an exclusionary way.
Both legal opinions are acceptable and can be acted upon by a ruler. The first is the opinion of the Shafi’i legal school and the second is that of the Hanafi and Maliki legal school.
In my previous comments I was talking about how in this age the concept of Dhimmah cannot be used for modern liberal people. Putting them under the Dhimmah would not work. But in principle they might have the right to Dhimmah. They lose it just because of the specific circumstances. They could also regain it.
Therefore there are more options to deal with them. Among them are expulsion, capturing and execution too. One of these can be chosen by the government depending on the benefits.
People who have no right for Dhimmah by principle only have the option offered in verse 9:5.
And what would be with non-religious people? According to the first opinion they would have to convert to Islam or die and and according to the second opinion they could become Dhimmis.
LikeLike
Andy
I’m sure Nadir will not mind me reiterating that these comments are his personal opinions. He does not speak for other Muslims and he is not a scholar of the Quran, hadith or fiqh.
LikeLike
Yes, I saw his comment that he is not a scholar. That being the case it should be easy for your to spell out where his error(s) lie. This would be of great assistance to many non-muslims who perhaps have a distorted view Islam.
LikeLike
Andy, the problem is not religion. It’s the fundamentalist interpretation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Burhanuddin1,
Yes, I’m sure that is the case. But that being so, I’m looking for arguments from mainstream Islam that refute the fundamentalist position. As a secular liberal I want to defend the right of others to manifest religious belief insofar as it does not impinge disproportionately on the rights and freedoms of others. But to do so I need to be able to argue against those who would characterise Islam as inherently violent and against religious freedom. I feel it’s a bit weak to dismiss the likes of Nadir as fundamentalists unless I can support this with arguments supporting the correct position of Islam.
LikeLike
Andy later I will recommend some good books by actual scholars who discuss these questions.
LikeLike
Yes, I am not enforcing my opinion upon other Muslims.
LikeLike
The modern world has no need for the likes of Nadir. We have the Marrakesh Declaration which represents the current mainstream Islamic position on the rights of religious minorities in the Muslim countries.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Just imagine it was the other way round.
If another major religion would celebrate a brutal human sacrifice as essential foundation as God’s greatest act of mercy.
And would celebrate eating human flesh and drinking human blood symbolically?
Just imagine the propaganda of self declared loving and enlightened Christianity?
Like “this barbaric religion has to adapt or die”?
LikeLike
Burhanuddin1
The islamic command to kill non-believers is human sacrifice.
LikeLike
Muslims do not ritually celebrate a brutal human sacrifice as essential foundation as God’s greatest act of mercy.
And do not ritually celebrate eating human flesh and drinking human blood symbolically.
LikeLiked by 1 person
But you have are commanded to kill disbelievers to appease your god – not doing so makes you an apostate, who are also sacrificed to appease your god.
LikeLike
Yawn…
LikeLike
You seem to get a kick out declaring others “kafir”, grand sheikh D.
Why not join Isis, as you have the same mindset anyway.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Burhanuddin1
So you admit that there are some instance where you might have to sacrifice the lives of other human beings in order to appease your god.
Noted.
LikeLike
What?
LikeLike
So you admit that there are some instance where you might have to sacrifice the lives of other human beings in order to appease your god.
Noted.
LikeLike
No I don’t you fool.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Burhanuddin1
“No I don’t you fool.”
So your prophet was wrong? Your god does not demand the sacrifice of human life to appease him in cases of apostasy or the killing of disbelievers?
LikeLike
You mean like Jesus does in the Torah?
LikeLike
What would you think of any other religion that ritually celebrates a brutal torturous bloody human sacrifice as its essential foundation, as God’s greatest act of mercy?
What would you think of any other religion that ritually celebrates eating human flesh and drinking human blood symbolically?
I guess you would say despicable because of your supreme moral standards.
LikeLike
Paul Williams
“You mean like Jesus does in the Torah?”
Jesus fulfilled the law and all its purposes.
LikeLike
Jesus upheld the execution of apostates in Matt 23 and in your belief system Jesus (as a god) ordered the killing of apostates in the first place in the Torah.
Ouch!
LikeLike
Burhanuddin1
“What would you think of any other religion that ritually celebrates a brutal torturous bloody human sacrifice as its essential foundation, as God’s greatest act of mercy?
What would you think of any other religion that ritually celebrates eating human flesh and drinking human blood symbolically?
I guess you would say despicable because of your supreme moral standards.”
I would say that symbolism as means to show gratitude is not a moral problem. For god to take the redress for sin onto himself, is as compassionate as it gets. I don’t see why you are having such a conniption fit about symbolism.
On the other hand your god requires the killing of certain people based on their beliefs in order to be appeased. That is human sacrifice by any standard.
I’m just asking that you show some honesty about it and not keep throwing these tu quoque arguments at me. Your god is appeased when you kill certain groups of people – like apostates, disbelievers, gays, and the like.
In other words, sacrifice other humans or face his wrath. There is no controversy here.
LikeLike
Paul Williams
“Jesus upheld the execution of apostates in Matt 23 and in your belief system Jesus (as a god) ordered the killing of apostates in the first place in the Torah.”
LOL!! Oh, okay.
LikeLike
D
“Jesus fulfilled the law and all its purposes.”
LOL. He couldn’t, because according to you he has to be sinless!
He cannot fulfill the the part of the law where has to repent for his sins.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dhimmism and Dhimminitude, from ذمی (Dhimmi) is another proof that discredits Islam, since it is evil and unjust and based on Surah 9:29 and Hadith, etc. It was unjust for Islam to spread out in aggressive warfare against Byzantine, N. Africa, Spain, and Persia, India, etc.
LikeLike
Thanks Ken. You’ve figured everything out.
LikeLike
Btw Dhimmism and Dhimmitude are polemical terms used by detractors. They are not used in the Islamic legal literature.
LikeLike
comes from Dhimmi – ذمّی ، which is in Islamic legal literature. Totally unjust and evil.
LikeLike
Is it as unjust and evil as this NT command to slaves:
‘You who are slaves must accept the authority of your masters with all respect. Do what they tell you–not only if they are kind and reasonable, but even if they are cruel.’
1 Peter 2:18
LikeLike
Is it as unjust and evil as Numbers 31:17-18?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Numbers 31:17-18
So kill all the boys and all the women who have had intercourse with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.
LikeLike
The word Dhimmitude was invented by an islamophobic author. The Arabic term is Dhimmah. So there is no fundamental problem in using it.
It is not unjust. The spreading of Islamic rule was not unjust neither.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Numbers 31:17-18
So kill all the boys and all the women who have had intercourse with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.”
That is exactly what IS did with the Yazidis. Only the virgin girls were kept to become sex slaves. This shows once again how shameless these Christians are.
LikeLike
But I.S. (the Islamic State) ( or ISIS or ISIL or Da’esh) did not use the Bible texts to justify what they did; they used the Qur’an and Hadith to justify what they did. the same verses about “whom your right hand possesses” that gave Brother Ismael his problems with Islam and made him leave Islam. His video is on You Tube and Paul has an article about him under “Sad News”.
the Numbers passage and others are answered very well here. This article includes answers to lots of the same verses that many Muslims bring up all the time.
http://www.reformedapologeticsministries.com/2014/05/is-christianity-religion-of-peace.html
LikeLike
Temple: But I.S. (the Islamic State) ( or ISIS or ISIL or Da’esh) did not use the Bible texts to justify what they did;
I agree. It is simply a coincidence that ISIS’s brutality is biblical.
LikeLike
Kmak
“Temple: But I.S. (the Islamic State) ( or ISIS or ISIL or Da’esh) did not use the Bible texts to justify what they did;
I agree. It is simply a coincidence that ISIS’s brutality is biblical.”
ISIS’ savagery is quranic and hadithic.
LikeLike
First of all Ken, why should I care for your explanations of the Bible when you don’t care for Islamic explanations of the Qur’an and Hadith?
But I read the explanation on this link and it gives a theory about why non-virgins were killed. I cannot say if this has a basis but Rashi’s commentary does not seem to support this.
But in any case it is about taking all women who are not killed as slaves. And intercourse with slaves is allowed according to the Bible, right?
LikeLike