‘[T]hey kill and are killed’ for Paradise -‘a true promise…in the…Gospel’?

1280px-battle_of_borodino.A random scene of warfare I found. I thought an image of religious violence might be too contoversial. A painting by Louis Lejeune. {{PD-1923}

Q 9:111 – ‘Indeed, Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties [in exchange] for that they will have Paradise. They fight in the cause of Allah , so they kill and are killed. [It is] a true promise [binding] upon Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur’an. And who is truer to his covenant than Allah ? So rejoice in your transaction which you have contracted. And it is that which is the great attainment.‘ (Sahih International)

This verse promises Paradise for those who kill and are killed, fighting in the cause of Allah. It claims that such a promise is to be found in the Gospel. But is it?

I have elsewhere expressed my studied conclusion that the Qur’an affirms that the Christians of the time of Muhammad still have the true Gospel (e.g. https://bloggingtheology.net/2016/09/18/the-quran-affirms-the-reliability-of-the-bible-a-plausible-muslim-view/). Assuming this is the case (I have neither the energy nor space to explain it here), I was struck by the contrast between Q 9:111 and what I actually stumbled upon in the Gospel yesterday during my devotional Bible reading:

‘Jesus said to [Judas], ‘Friend, do what you are here to do.’ Then they came and laid hands on Jesus and arrested him. Suddenly, one of those with Jesus put his hand on his sword, drew it , and struck the slave of the high priest, cutting off his ear. Then Jesus said to him, ‘Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.’ (Matthew 26:50-52. NRSV. Emphasis added)

Whatever one might think of whether Christians can be pacifists or whether they can use violence in self-defence, the context supports the comments of the ESV study Bible on this passage:

‘True disciples of Jesus do not seek to advance or impose God’s will on others through violent means.’

If one grants my premise that Christians still have the Gospel the Qur’an refers to, this would seem to be a contradiction.

 

Advertisements


Categories: Islam, Quran

43 replies

  1. ‘I have elsewhere expressed my studied conclusion that the Qur’an affirms that the Christians of the time of Muhammad still have the true Gospel.’

    But this is not the view held by the most senior companions of the Prophet Muhammad.

    Ibn ‘Abbas, appointed by the prophet to interpret the Quran said,

    “Why do you ask the people of the scripture about anything while your Book (Quran) which has been revealed to Allah’s Apostle is newer and the latest?

    You read it pure, undistorted and unchanged, and Allah has told you that the people of the scripture (Jews and Christians) changed their scripture and distorted it, and wrote the scripture with their own hands and said, ‘It is from Allah,’ to sell it for a little gain.

    Does not the knowledge which has come to you prevent you from asking them about anything? No, by Allah, we have never seen any man from them asking you regarding what has been revealed to you!”

    ——————–

    ‘The people of the Book used to read the Torah in Hebrew and then explain it in Arabic to the Muslims. Allah’s Apostle said (to the Muslims). “Do not believe the people of the Book, nor disbelieve them, but say, ‘We believe in Allah and whatever is revealed to us, and whatever is revealed to you.’ ”

    http://i-cias.com/textarchive/bukhari/092.htm

    Liked by 1 person

    • Weak Hadith. And this Hadith is hearsay centuries after the fact.

      What we know historicallly and not by hearsay is the gospel of muhammad’s time is the same gospel we have today. Richard is correct.

      Like

    • Amusing how ignorant fools like Paulus want to make slanderous claims about Muhammad (pbuh) and his actions by cherrypicking hadith, whilst at the same time claiming hadith are just “hearsay”. They want to have their cake and eat it to.

      Please, pick one! Either accept the hadith as reliable, or stop using them as evidence for your arguments.

      Also, he’s still on 1950s discredited theories of hadith forgery from Joseph Schacht.

      Another commenter demonstrated the nonsense of such theories and cited secular (non-Muslim) research from people like Harald Motzki that confirms numerous hadith from Ibn Abbas are historically reliable by secular, non-Muslim standards: https://bloggingtheology.net/2016/11/13/are-there-any-hadith-collections-from-early-islam/#comment-30981

      Actual professionals in the field of history concede that at the very least, numerous hadiths attributed to the companions of Muhammad (pbuh) are historically reliable, even though they may not hold hadith to the same authority and reliability Muslims hold them to, nor do they agree with the Islamic position a 100%, only a lunatic would say “all hadith are just invented hearsay!”

      Oh and it’s accepted as authentic by Muslims. It is one of the accepted hadith in Bukhari, so you can’t even claim “well no Muslim would ever grade this hadith as authentic!”

      Liked by 4 people

    • In the hopes of deceiving others, Paulus and his friends are in the habit of regurgitating tired old worn out theories about Islam that have been discredited ad nauseum for years upon years now. It only goes to show that they really have nothing else to offer, without scraping the bottom of the barrel looking for old disproven arguments to throw out on the table again. sad.

      Their perennial and discredited accusation of Hadith forgery is made repeatedly because they can’t stand the fact that most if not all of the Bible is now proven by their own scholars beyond a shadow of a doubt to be absolute pseudepeigrapic forgery and this knowledge eats them alive from the inside out.

      Liked by 2 people

    • “…they can’t stand the fact that most if not all of the Bible is now proven by their own scholars beyond a shadow of a doubt to be absolute pseudepeigrapic forgery and this knowledge eats them alive from the inside out.” Ibn Issam

      Incorrect

      Like

    • The fact that every single time we discuss the Hadith or Koran Muslims need to divert the topic away shows who the ignorant really are.

      What we are comparing is historical manuscripts of the gospels vs the hearsay of biased commentators centuries after the event. They may or may not be reliable, we can just never know because historically speaking the Hadith are just so late. As you said, only fundamentalists accept the isnad, not mainstream scholars.

      So if established history contradicts your hearsay Hadith, then established history wins every time.

      Unless you are a fundamentalist Muslim of course, as seen in the comments here. Only then will your faith override established facts. But such is not compelling for the rest of the world.

      Like

    • >The fact that every single time we discuss the Hadith or Koran Muslims need to divert the topic away shows who the ignorant really are.

      Oh the sheer irony.

      >What we are comparing is historical manuscripts of the gospels vs the hearsay of biased commentators centuries after the event. They may or may not be reliable, we can just never know because historically speaking the Hadith are just so late.

      >As you said, only fundamentalists accept the isnad, not mainstream scholars.

      I manifestly did not say that.

      It seems you aren’t capable of logical reasoning. Or even reading.

      The linked comment explicitly quotes a mainstream non-Muslim scholar saying the Ibn Abbas -> ‘Ata -> Ibn Jurayj Isnad is a reliable transmission traceable to Ibn Abbas and can be said to be Ibn Abbas’s actual words with confidence. The reliability of many isnads is a large part topic of the referenced works. It’s not hearsay at all.

      Next, you are talking about “Today’s Gospel and the Gospel at Muhammad’s time being the same” and contradictions between hadith and established history, but that is not relevant at all to what Paul said. It is completely unrelated.

      Nobody is discussing that here. It has no relation to the quoted hadith.

      The quoted hadith has someone from Muhammad’s time, Ibn Abbas, saying the Gospel in his own time is corrupted and unreliable, and not the original Gospel.

      Richard’s premise is that if Muhammad and his companions thought the Gospel in their time was not corrupted, then the Gospel today is also not corrupted according to Islam.

      But If they did consider the gospel in their own time corrupted, then they would also consider the Gospel of today corrupted.

      Paul’s hadith quote is to prove the latter. To prove that Muhammad and his companions did not consider the original Gospel to exist in their time, by quoting one of them saying exactly that.

      Ibn Abbas calling the gospel/bible of his own time corrupt in no way contradicts the notion of “today’s gospel being the same as the gospel in Muhammad’s time.”

      The Gospel today being the same as the Gospel in Muhammad’s time just means Ibn Abbas’s opinion of today’s gospel would be the same as the opinion he held of the gospel in his own time that is seen in the hadith.

      Liked by 3 people

    • But I like how you ignored my first point entirely:

      “Please, pick one! Either accept the hadith as reliable, or stop using them as evidence for your arguments.”

      So again, you repeat the claim that hadith are just hearsay.

      If hadith are hearsay, never again use them in your arguments! They are not reliable information about Muhammad, right? It’s just hearsay about him!

      So of course, you’ll never use them as a source of hard information again right?

      Again you want to have your cake and eat it to.

      Either they are not hearsay as you claim they are, in which case you can rely on at least some of them. Or they are hearsay and you can’t rely on them.

      You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Paulus
      The fact that every single time we discuss the Forged books in the bible Christians need to divert the topic away shows who the ignorant really are.

      What we are comparing is historical manuscripts of the Quran & Hadeeth vs the hearsay of biased unknown pseudepigraphal Bible authors centuries after the event. They may or may not be reliable, we can just never know because historically speaking the Gospels are just so late. only fundamentalists accept the traditional NT Gospel, not mainstream scholars.

      So if established history (& NT historical criticism) contradicts your forged Gospels, then established history wins every time.

      Unless you are a fundamentalist Christian of course, as seen in the comments here. Only then will your faith override established facts. But such is not compelling for the rest of the world.

      Yeah I know, tu quoque. But only to point out the irony of your comments.

      Liked by 1 person

    • You’re fallacious for two reasons.

      First, your question is illogical. It need not be either/or.

      Second, you did the very thing you yourself. Here you are defending the idea that the gospel was corrupt, and yet in your comment below you cite this very same gospel as evidence.

      So don’t pretend to be a logician when your fallacious reasoning is easily exposed.

      Son of Isaan.

      You might have a point if the gospels were written centuries after the fact (like the Hadith) and if we had early mushafs of the Hadith (like we do the gospels).

      Since we have neither for the Hadith, your comparison is merely a red herring, illogical and irrelevant. Try to deal with the discussion. We have manuscript evidence that the gospel in Muhammad’s time was and is the same as it has always been. Since this is established and irrefutable fact, we can be confident that the Hadith under discussion is inaccurate. Historically misinformed and formed centuries after the event it supposedly details.

      Honest Muslims realise this and thus is born the anti Hadith movement. You and others here are clearly masjid puppets, closed to evidence that doesn’t support the deen. Sad.

      Like

    • Paulus,
      You just proved my point that you and your friends keep regurgitating the same tired old worn out theories about Islam that have been discredited ad nauseum for years upon years. The perennial accusation of Hadith forgery has been discredited as Guest has noted in comments above and as you can also read here:
      https://discover-the-truth.com/2013/10/13/are-there-any-hadith-collections-from-early-islam/

      and Here:https://discover-the-truth.com/category/answering-hadith-rejecters/

      We have Hadith collections dating to the 1st century, and Qur’an which dates to lifetime of Prophet Muhammad (sws) supports and defends sunnah. However your Gospels are 40-90 years after Prophet Jesus. Much of the NT is even later than that.

      Anti Hadith movement is supported by misguided Muslims who dont know the facts and have ingested the accusations of Non-Muslim critics of Islam who will grab and hang on to anything, including weak discredited arguments, in order to draw attention away from the comparative weakness that is inherent in the Biblical scriptures.

      Guest and Paul Williams have adequately addressed the fact that the Christian scripture and Gospel have been altered since the time of our Prophet. Nuff said.

      I would rather put my faith in Qur’an, Hadith and the Methodology of the Muhaditheen as providing accurate historical documents rather than the outright forgeries of unknown pseudepigraphal authors of the Bible. Honest Christians know the Bible is not the inerrant inspired word of God, that is why Christianity is either dying in some areas (Europe) or morphing into feel good prosperity movement, or developing into new age, living prophetic movements. Christians are so confused they don’t know what to do or where to go.

      I invite them to……come home to Islam.

      Liked by 3 people

    • The mushafs you reference show the opposite, namely, that the Koran went through modification. It is not the same as the Koran you hold today. Good try though.

      Like

    • Ok, I’ll call your bluff. Show me where the Hadith Paul cited is found in these “early Hadith collections”.

      I wait with anticipation for your documentation.

      Like

    • And I’ll post this here from your fellow Muslims re the reliability of Ibn Abbas

      Professor Herbert Berg conducted “a unique test on the exegetical Hadiths attributed to Ibn Abbas (considered one of, if not the, most important figures in Quranic exegis) by plugging thousands of his Hadith with their isnad (chain of transmission) into a database and running statistics and analysis on them to determine consistency. He goes into the process in detail in his book, but his overall conclusion is that most, if not all, of the Hadiths in his test sample cannot have originated with Ibn Abbas, or even his students. He says at the very least, the first two links in the chain, i.e. Ibn Abbas and student, are false. Of course, this has grave consequences for the isnads of all exegetical Hadiths. This does not disprove the content of the Hadith (which may be right/wrong), simply the isnad. He further states “not only is there no possibility of reconstructing the original tafsir of Ibn Abbas, but there is also no point in attempting to do so”. Quite a damning statement! But he does say further studies are needed to fully accept his conclusions. He states at the very end “we may never know the answer” to such questions.”

      Like

    • Paulus,
      Once again I was right, it seems you are incapable of making a comment without regurgitating the same tired old worn out theories about Islam that have been discredited ad nauseum. You are like a broken record that keeps playing the same old song.

      In regard to the revisionist theory that the Qur’an has been changed, I am sure orientalists everywhere hated to hear that Birmingham Qur’an has helped put this to rest. Alhamdullah, Thanks to the work of others on this subject, I don’t have to argue this further, since it has thoroughly discredited elsewhere:

      http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/
      http://lostislamichistory.com/how-do-we-know-the-quran-is-unchanged/
      http://islamicresponse.blogspot.com/2008/07/allegation-that-quran-has-been-changed.html

      In regard to the Hadith quoted by Paul Wiliams, it is clearly from Bukhari, though this does not negate the Isnad which is Sahih and indicates that Ibn Abbas witnessed the Prophet saying these words. As it stands the Hadith from Ibn Abbas is reliable. Regardless of what professor Berger and his more than likely biased test has to say.

      Here is the rest of the quote which you deceptively chose not to re-post from your friend who calls himself Follower of Prophet Muhammad (sws) –

      “Clarification on Professor Berger’s test.

      On reading the review again, I think Berg did the test on all hadiths ascribed to Ibn Abbas and not just the authentic ones and if that is so, his conclusion based on that test alone that they these narrations could not have originated with Ibn Abbas or his students are not based on an appropriate test.

      They must be done on only the “authentic” ones to make assessments on them.

      The reason why I think Berg’s test was not just on the “authentic” ones was that the review said he did it on thousands and for sure, there are not thousands of authentic such hadiths.”

      On a separate unrelated note: The transliteration of name of Islam’s holy book “Koran” is out dated and a poor alternate for the more correct transliteration “Qur’an.” If you can’t even get this right then how can anyone trust anything else you have to say. When I refer your book I respectfully call it the Bible, I don’t call it the Booble or the Babel, Your error just makes you sound uninformed and ignorant about a topic you claim to be an “expert” on.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Hi Richard,
    That verse is a great evidence showing that Quran is absolute authority & arbitrator of Torah and Injeel which means Quran has already a clear idea when it talks about what Torah and Injeel are, so I hope to reconsider your theory that Quran affirms your (biblical canon). Also, that verse has its own interpretation.

    ” Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword”
    Jesus

    According to christians this prophecy in Isaiah is about Jesus and his followers.
    ” They will swoop down on the slopes of Philistia to the west; together they will plunder the people to the east. They will subdue Edom and Moab, and the Ammonites will be subject to them”

    Your problem as most christians is as you said
    “While the classical liberal in me is uncomfortable with elements of Shariah, in light of the OT I think Christians need to be nuanced in interacting with it, or critiquing it if they wish to do so”
    However, the whole bible has nothing to do with the liberal form that got its shape in the second half of the 20th century in the West.

    Like

  3. “If one grants my premise that Christians still have the Gospel the Qur’an refers to, this would seem to be a contradiction.”

    Fortunately for you, we see that no one on the blog comments section of your initial claim on this from the Muslim side have granted you this premise, therefore as opposed to engaging in hypothetical possible world philosophy, could we return to their engagement with the original claim (of the Qur’an’s affirmation) and have you actually respond to them?

    Liked by 4 people

  4. This is the other Richard:

    1.There is no evidence anywhere in the Torah we have today about life after death,so the claim in the Quran is wrong.

    2.Why would anybody in the past decide to take out from the Torah the doctrine of life after death,a heavenly paradise? What benefit would it have?

    3.If the historical Jesus had said something about going to heaven, a guarantee, if you died killing for God, then

    it would have been mentioned somewhere in the many books by the writers of the different Christian groups (Gnostics,Trinitarians,Ebionites,etc) in the first 300-400 years after Jesus.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. You’ll have to do better Zetter!!!

    Before the scene in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus seemed to think that he and his followers could fight their way to success. which is why he says the following:

    Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. ~ Luke 22:36

    Later when the Romans meet him with overwhelming force, and he can plainly see that continued violent resistance is futile and will only result in unnecessary deaths, he finally says, ‘Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.’

    This outs ESV study Bible on this passage as a lie:‘True disciples of Jesus do not seek to advance or impose God’s will on others through violent means.’ How can this be true when Jesus clearly advocated violence initially. And only backed down when he saw resistance was futile?

    I think a lot of Christians search for a pacifist reading of their own scriptural text but this is based on a lot of wishful thinking. and a desire to hang on to a superior moral high ground in relation to Qur’an and Islam. But that is clearly hard to achieve when as Abdullah noted, there are verses like this to contend with:

    ” Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword”

    While I appreciate and respect your spirituality, instead of “devotional Bible reading,” I would advise to do more Critical Analysis Bible reading.

    Liked by 1 person

    • ” Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword”

      after dr ehrman was shown this:

      why would a peaceful message from peaceful man lead to division?

      what about avalos who takes complete different stance on this

      quote:

      Another reason is equally circular, namely , that jesus is recorded to have preached ‘unqualified love’ elsewhere. but how did the fellows determine that it is the loving jesus that is authentic rather than the more violent one? if this saying is so starkly contraposed to the love sayings, then why does the redactor not see that? denying that jesus uttered this logion because it alludes to MIC 7.5-6 is also circular. given that QUOTING, or ALLUDING to, the HEBREW BIBLE was common in jewish exegesis of the time, how did the fellows determine that jesus could not allude to that passage?

      However, perhaps the most common strategy is to misread jesus’ purpose clause, (‘for i have come to set a man against his father…’) as a result clause, which is not what the grammar of jesus’ language indicates at all. the relevant clauses in mt. 10 .34-35 are PURPOSE clauses, as indicated by the infinitives, in the greek expression…

      ‘ do not think that i have come to bring peace on earth; i have not come to bring peace, but a sword. for i have come to set a man against his father….’

      As daniel wallace notes purpose clauses can be expressed by a [s]imple or “naked” infinite (usually following an [intransitive] verb of motion . A close parallel to the use of the infinitive in mt. 10:34 is found in mt 5.17

      ‘think not that i have come to abolish the law and the prophets; i have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them’

      jesus did not say that his mission would simply result in family strife. jesus is saying that a primary PURPOSE of his mission is to create violence within families, and the mention of sword is consistent with that violent intent

      the bad jesus
      page 93-94

      quote:
      Because some in each community, each family, would accept his teachings, while many others would not, and in fact this did lead to division, among both Jewish and Pagan families.

      question:
      but if the message was peaceful how could it cause fire and division even if it is rejected?
      why is it not possible that jesus went around causing division? why is it not possible that when someone rejected jesus, jesus got pissed and started making trouble and cursing people and used violence?

      ehrman replied:

      It’s certainly possible. But some of these “division” sayings may have come from later Christian story tellers trying to make sense of the fact that the Christian faith was indeed splitting up families, and putting these notions back on Jesus’ lips.

      ehrman had no response to dr avalos’ claim and admits it is possible . his “but” assumes christians were making up stories . but go for the straight forward meaning. the man god is violent person.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Here are a few verses some Christians have interpreted as promises of Paradise for those who kill and are killed, fighting in the cause of God. I am sure that there are many more:

      1 Timothy 6:12 “Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called and about which you made the good confession in the presence of many witnesses.”

      12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against kthe rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil oin the heavenly places. ………Take up the Armor of God…….the helmet of SALVATION. Ephesians 6:12-20

      “Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it” (Matthew 10:39).

      Liked by 1 person

    • Richard Z.
      I also recall a certain Church Hymnal, “Onward Christian Soldiers, Marching as to war with the Cross of Jesus going on before” How many Christian soldiers and crusaders sang that song while they were off killing the “heathens” and hoping to gain salvation for their brutal, heartless, vicious, and bloody efforts?

      Like

    • Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. ~ Luke 22:36

      Not to be taken out of context and literally

      Like

    • The lyric was written as a processional hymn for children walking on a mission for Sunday School. BUILDING CHARACTER IN THE AMERICAN BOY

      Like

    • Here are a few verses some Christians have interpreted as promises of Paradise for those who kill and are killed, fighting in the cause of God. I am sure that there are many more:

      1 Timothy 6:12 “Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called and about which you made the good confession in the presence of many witnesses.”

      12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against kthe rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil oin the heavenly places. ………Take up the Armor of God…….the helmet of SALVATION. Ephesians 6:12-20

      “Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it” (Matthew 10:39). Ibn Issam

      Your evidence proving some Christians interpreted these verses as promises of paradise for those who kill and are killed, fighting in the cause of Gog, is where?

      Like

  6. quote:

    ‘Jesus said to [Judas], ‘Friend, do what you are here to do.’ Then they came and laid hands on Jesus and arrested him. Suddenly, one of those with Jesus put his hand on his sword, drew it , and struck the slave of the high priest, cutting off his ear. Then Jesus said to him, ‘Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.’ (Matthew 26:50-52. NRSV. Emphasis added)

    Whatever one might think of whether Christians can be pacifists or whether they can use violence in self-defence, the context supports the comments of the ESV study Bible on this passage:

    ‘True disciples of Jesus do not seek to advance or impose God’s will on others through violent means.’

    response :

    1. jesus already told his disciples to arm themselves
    2.disciples drew the sword because they knew that jesus did not always object to using violence
    3, mark has no rebuke . go and check marks version. jesus does not rebuke the guy who chopped of the ear. mark has his jesus responding to those who came to arrest him.

    the only reason they were carrying arms was to protect themselves against jesus’ disciple who carried out an attack, so jesus’ response in mark makes no sense.

    think about it. if pontius pilate knew jesus told his desiples to arm themselves would pontius pilate transfer jesus from one place to another and have sweet dialogue with him? he would have crucified him upside down. but each writer is careful not to reveal anything to pilate.

    4. the gospels are lies, how is it possible jesus is the only one arrested and the rest aren’t ?
    5. there is more to this guys arrest which is being covered by the later liars.
    6. why did the other writers have desperate need to add jesus’ rebuke?
    7. notice that in matthews version, jesus thinks that his god can send angelic back up to demolish the arresting authorities? this means jesus’ mind is VIOLENT minded. one can compare him to budda and other pacifists and ask if they had violent mind like jesus .

    8. this is differed violence, not putting away violence but waiting for violence when the time is right.

    9. jesus wants to receive a thrashing because he thinks it would cool of his daddy’s anger. jesus is not saying “no ” to violence , it is just that he has a need to appease yhwh

    10. jesus’ is only “fulfilling” what is allegedly was written for him in old testament. the violence in the divine plan cannot be INTERRUPTED otherwise jesus might get SAVED and the divine plan messes up.

    11. the greater violence shall come after jesus gets a thrashing by god himself

    12. jesus then says , a few verses later

    ” but i tell u … you will see the son of man coming seated at right hand of power….”

    referring to the verses in psalms where yhwh makes enemies his footstool.

    13.

    what we see is that jesus is not non-violent buddist. the man uses differed violence until his greater violence shall come . if noah waited 900 years and turned the other cheek, and then god brought judgement upon the people, why can’t one say god brought judgement upon the pagans, jews and christians in saudi arabia? ???

    Like

  7. >If one grants my premise that Christians still have the Gospel the Qur’an refers to, this would seem to be a contradiction.

    I strongly disagree with the premise, but I think you are misreading the verse.

    Let us examine the verse.

    First we have:

    >”‘Indeed, Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties [in exchange] for that they will have Paradise.”

    This is followed by:

    >”They fight in the cause of Allah , so they kill and are killed.”

    Then followed by:

    > [It is] a true promise [binding] upon Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur’an. And who is truer to his covenant than Allah ?

    “It is a true promise…”

    Now what is “it”? What is this promise? This covenant? This agreement God has promised to uphold?

    The promise is clearly:

    >”‘Indeed, Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties [in exchange] for that they will have Paradise.”

    That is, those who lay down their lives and wealth for the sake of God are promised paradise. That is the promise.

    The portion “They fight in the cause of Allah , so they kill and are killed.” is not an additional condition to the above promise, but a description of believers who engage in battle. It also places the emphasis that laying down your life is far greater then your wealth. But if this was a condition it would mean anyone killed in the path of God (even in battle) doesn’t count unless they have also killed the enemy in battle. This is nonsensical.

    It would also mean many of the martyrs like, Sumayyah bint Khayyat, who gave her life for God’s cause would be excluded. It would be lunacy to suggest this promise did not apply to people like her.

    It includes all believers who lay down their lives and wealth in God’s cause. This is made clear from the mention of “wealth” (property). A warrior fighting in God’s cause may be giving his life, but he may not be giving that much of property which on his death will transfer to his heirs.

    The promise applies to all killed in the way of God.

    Once you realise the promise is for anyone who gave their life and/or wealth in God’s cause, you see this is in the Gospel, with passages like Matthew 19:29.

    >‘True disciples of Jesus do not seek to advance or impose God’s will on others through violent means.’

    Impose the will of God on others?

    The verse above (9:111) about fighting in God’s cause was revealed at Mecca (prior to hijra) at an event known as the second pledge of ‘aqabah. Verses like “Permission [to fight] has been given to those who are being fought, because they were wronged….” [22:39] were revealed *after* hijra. As are verses like 8:61, 2:193, ecetera

    Yes clearly the entire purpose of fighting is imposing Islam on other people. /sarcasm

    Liked by 1 person

    • Thanks for posting your article and for clarifying the issue. I encourage you and your associates to keep up the good work at Discover the Truth.com!!!

      Allahu barak feekum!!!

      Liked by 2 people

    • Your article says “Late Madinan verse.”

      Do you mean late Meccan? If we read commentaries and sources such as Asbab al-Nuzul of al-Wāhidī they indicate late Meccan: https://imgur.com/a/bB2PU

      Reference to the second pledge at al-‘Aqabah in Mecca appears in other commentaries.

      I mentioned this in my above comment in this thread:

      “The verse above (9:111) about fighting in God’s cause was revealed at Mecca (prior to hijra) at an event known as the second pledge of ‘aqabah. Verses like “Permission [to fight] has been given to those who are being fought, because they were wronged….” [22:39] were revealed *after* hijra. As are verses like 8:61, 2:193, ecetera”

      Is there another opinion or source on the matter placing it as a Madinan verse? Correct me if I have been mistaken.

      Like

    • Hi guest,

      Majority of scholars agree with what you said, HOWEVER, all scholars agree that the chapter, Surah 9 as a whole was revealed towards the end of his life. This is why I dated it as late Madinan.

      Like

  8. There’s modern scholarship saying the Quranic understanding of the Torah and Gospel is different from the Jewish/Christian understanding…..and then there’s Richard Zetter.

    Like

    • kmak

      “There’s modern scholarship saying the Quranic understanding of the Torah and Gospel is different from the Jewish/Christian understanding”

      No kidding mr obvious – we don’t need scholarship to tell us that the men who wrote the quran were not intimately acquainted with the bible, particularly the NT. The quran screams its ignorance.

      The quran does not even have a clear understanding of the significance of the term “messiah” – a figure hugely significant and central to jewish and cgrşistşian belief.

      Like

    • “cgrşistşian ” ….. oops….should be “Christian”.

      Like

  9. This verse does not necessarily mean that Prophet Jesus instructed his immediate followers to fight in battles at his own time.

    Consider that Prophet Moses did not fight the Pharaoh in battle nor did the Prophet Muhammad fight the Meccans initially. But both took up arms and waged war in the latter stage of their missions. The world has so far witnessed only the first stage of Jesus’ mission. The second stage of his mission is yet to come.

    In any case, if you look at statements attributed to Jesus in the NT, we can find places where he refers to OT texts and OT imagery about things yet to come. He uses the sickle imagery for the punishment of the nations which in the OT is used in the context of battles.

    Similarly in the parable of the mustard seed, the description of the tree is the same in the OT as a those of physical kingdoms on earth that have under it other nations. In Ezekiel 31, the tree image is used for Assyria and Egypt. In Daniel 4 it is used for Babylon. These were physical kingdoms on earth that ruled physical land and had many nations under them. The description of the mustard seed becoming a great tree that shelters birds and animals is similar to Daniel 2, where a stone becomes a mountain.

    Consider the sequence of Daniel 2 Gold(Babylon), Silver(Medo-Persia),Bronze(Greek), Iron(Rome), Iron and Clay(divided Roman empire into East and West and dependency on subject nations/mercenaries).Since the parable of the mustard seed alludes to Daniel 2, it only stands to reason that we should consider the next force that emerged in the region as the fulfilment of the seed/stone(humble origin) becoming giant tree/mountain(enormous nation).

    The first time in history when the entirety of the land God promised to Abraham came under the control of people of Abraham’s descent was when companions of the Prophet brought down two empires(Eastern Roman Byzantine and Persian Sassanid).The Israelite successes in this region were short-lived and did not fulfill the purpose of the promise. Because soon after Solomon’s death, the pagan powers re-asserted their control over the region. This also fits neatly with the Danielic sequence of chapter 2. This also corresponds to the statement attributed to Jesus that indicates that there would be a new group of people to steward God’s garden.” The Kingdom of God shall be taken away from you and given to another nation”. The companions of the Prophet were made up of Ishmaelites, Israelites and people of other nations but were led by an Ishmaelite Prophet. This also happens to be the only time in recorded history when idolatry was rooted out of the Arabian peninsula(Isaiah 42- villages of Kedar rejoice and idolators put to shame).

    Liked by 1 person

  10. By the other Richard:

    Ibn Issam said:

    ”You’ll have to do better Zetter!!!

    Before the scene in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus seemed to think that he and his followers could fight their way to success. which is why he says the following:

    Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. ~ Luke 22:36

    Later when the Romans meet him with overwhelming force, and he can plainly see that continued violent resistance is futile and will only result in unnecessary deaths, he finally says, ‘Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.’ ”

    Sura 9:111 is a clear doctrine that says:”If you die killing for God you goes to

    Nowherein the OT or NT is there such an idea, what there is is the following:

    It is ok to fight in self-defense,to protect yourself.

    In other words,the NT is NOT pacifist.

    But nowhere is there a GUARANTEE that killing in God’s name takes you to heaven.

    Like

    • Hi Richard

      I think its important to read the following verses. Up till verse 117. Especially verses 112 and 113

      “[Such believers are] the repentant, the worshippers, the praisers [of Allah ], the travelers [for His cause], those who bow and prostrate [in prayer], those who enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong, and those who observe the limits [set by] Allah . And give good tidings to the believers.”

      and

      “It is not for the Prophet and those who have believed to ask forgiveness for the polytheists, even if they were relatives, after it has become clear to them that they are companions of Hellfire.”

      Verse 111 describes that God owns us and all that we have, in this historical context of this discourse that meant the Campaign of Tabuk which was a response to Roman (Byzantine) aggression, so yes fighting was expression of this. However in more general terms we find in verse 112 what the signs of a true believer is. Therefore i would submit that the meaning of what binds the Torah, Gospel, and the Qur’an is this.

      Like

  11. Hi Richard,

    I think you’ve misunderstood Q 9:111. I’ve put together some translation and commentary material that may help you see this here:

    https://bloggingtheology.net/2016/11/20/25030/

    Thanks

    Liked by 1 person

  12. This is a very weak argument!

    Note what the verse is actually saying. It is the promise that if you give your life and property to God then to you is paradise. That generic pact which is confirmed in the end of the verse is what is also in the Torah and Ingeel.

    Therefore, because of this, when they fight and die in his way they fulfill this generic promise.

    Note the promise only also has to be place in meaning in both the Torah and Ingeel (obviously explicitly) in order for this to be confirmed.

    Really Richard, we expect better from you. Genuinely weak polemic

    Like

  13. Also, a very reasonable can be made to strongly indicate that the Old Testament does indeed imply an everlasting life following the resurrection.

    The New Testament is obviously clearer

    Note, as Paul noted, these are crude reflections of the original Torah and Injeel according to the Quranic view point. This latter point is despite the lenthy dialectic (the Quran supposedly confirms the previous scriptures(which are what we generally have in our hands) etc. )in the archives of Richards mind.

    Like

Trackbacks

  1. Blogging Theology

Please leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: