-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
L
And where is the quran verse that is twisted? People must have realized that quran and most muslims in the world agree on abrogation doctrine. Nasikh-Mansoukh.
And it is greatly supported when you see the word and life of muhammad itself in the sahih (meaning true/correct) hadith and sira.
So again, people professed to be something are their own rights. Discuss the fundamentals of the teachings.
I believe I have more muslim friends than you, it's because i have no problem with them. it's with islam.
And it is greatly supported when you see the word and life of muhammad itself in the sahih (meaning true/correct) hadith and sira.
So again, people professed to be something are their own rights. Discuss the fundamentals of the teachings.
I believe I have more muslim friends than you, it's because i have no problem with them. it's with islam.
It isn't a competition. And it wasn't too many years ago that 'christians' were crucifying people, using the 'word of God' as their back up, and holding a fundamental belief that death for adultery was a fair punishment. So your argument is invalid. Times change, peoples' perceptions change, and still today, there are awry people who are propelled to do evil things and who use the koran or bible as justification.
You can't say the awful, seemingly vicious, irrational supposed teachings of the bible (which are actually misinterpreted) are being read wrong, and then say that the same faulty logic can't apply to the koran. It's a bias, illogical argument.
You can't say the awful, seemingly vicious, irrational supposed teachings of the bible (which are actually misinterpreted) are being read wrong, and then say that the same faulty logic can't apply to the koran. It's a bias, illogical argument.
L
And where did Jesus command His follower to crucify people?
Jesus healed the ear that Peter attacked, and rebuked Peter for that.
Again you were going for PEOPLE who profess or claim. My problem is not with the people.
The only people that I would compare is the greatest example stated by each respective, Christianity and Islam --> which are Jesus Christ and Muhammad.
Other than that, I couldn't care less about them, God knows and takes care of them.
Jesus healed the ear that Peter attacked, and rebuked Peter for that.
Again you were going for PEOPLE who profess or claim. My problem is not with the people.
The only people that I would compare is the greatest example stated by each respective, Christianity and Islam --> which are Jesus Christ and Muhammad.
Other than that, I couldn't care less about them, God knows and takes care of them.
Islam isn't about Mohammed. Mohammed himself says he sins, and Mohammed makes it plainly clear that 'Allah' comes first, not Mohammed. It's also a well known fact that Muslims use the same Old Testament as Christians, and often use it to justify violence. If you read the koran with the same good faith and good sight with which you read the bible, you can come to see that it does not condone the violence people attribute to it.
There is a difference between the lawful thing to do (eye for eye) and the righteous thing to do; peace and forgiveness. And that applies to both books.
There is a difference between the lawful thing to do (eye for eye) and the righteous thing to do; peace and forgiveness. And that applies to both books.
L
Then you haven't read the quran.
[33:21]
Verily in the messenger of Allah ye have a good example for him who looketh unto Allah and the Last Day, and remembereth Allah much.
[33:22]
And when the true believers saw the clans, they said: This is that which Allah and His messenger promised us. Allah and His messenger are true. It did but confirm them in their faith and resignation.
source: Altafsir.com - Translations - التراجم
for the Tafsir stated by Ibn Abbas, Muhammad's cousin himself :
Altafsir.com - The Tafsirs - التفاسير
Altafsir.com - The Tafsirs - التفاسير
Most muslims that you called 'extremist' are not believeing in the bible at all neither new testament nor old testament, they just do what muhammad did and commanded to them.
Even if you still think muhammad is not the big deal in Islam, Then let's compare Jesus with Allah.
[33:21]
Verily in the messenger of Allah ye have a good example for him who looketh unto Allah and the Last Day, and remembereth Allah much.
[33:22]
And when the true believers saw the clans, they said: This is that which Allah and His messenger promised us. Allah and His messenger are true. It did but confirm them in their faith and resignation.
source: Altafsir.com - Translations - التراجم
for the Tafsir stated by Ibn Abbas, Muhammad's cousin himself :
Altafsir.com - The Tafsirs - التفاسير
Altafsir.com - The Tafsirs - التفاسير
Most muslims that you called 'extremist' are not believeing in the bible at all neither new testament nor old testament, they just do what muhammad did and commanded to them.
Even if you still think muhammad is not the big deal in Islam, Then let's compare Jesus with Allah.
A
In the early Meccan messages of Muhammad, there are positive statements about Jews and Christians revealing that Muhammad expected a warm welcome from the Arabian Jews and Christians concerning his divine commission and proclamation of God's unity much as the founder of Mormonism (e.g. Joseph Smith) did (note: both retreated to caves and claimed angelic visitations delivered special revelation).
However as time went on and Muhammad was rejected by the majority of Jews and Christians as an imposter (same with Joseph Smith) Muhammad's attitude shifted dramatically and his angry bitter hateful disposition arose against Jews and Christians in later verses of the Qur'an and in Islamic theology and culture. It is from these that Jihad emerges.
So, in the Meccan and even some early Medinan revelations, we can detect a very friendly attitude toward Jews and Christians but after Muhammad was rejected by Jews and Christians as an imposter/false prophet, he turned against them "0 ye who believe! Take not the Jews And the Christians For your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors To each other" (5:54). "If anyone desires A religion other than Islam (submission to God), Never will it be accepted Of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks Of those who have lost (All spiritual good)" (385).
As historian, theologian, and philosopher Richard Bell points out, "The relationship with the Christians ended as that with the Jews had ended: in war." Thus we read in 9:29, "Fight those who believe not in God... Nor acknowledge the religion of truth, (even if they are) of the people of the book, until they pay the Jizya With willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
Now it's common for people to claim that Qur'anic verses in support of fighting were for a special historical situation concerning the beginning of Islam. They argue that since prophet Muhammad was persecuted in Mecca for the first thirteen years of his ministry, he was justified in his military actions in the last ten years of his life in Medina and for the support of the budding Islamic movement. The problem with this reasoning is that nowhere in the Qur'an itself are the above commands to fight restricted to a special time period or against a special people group.
Unlike the divine commands found in the Book of Joshua in the Old Testament, that were specific to a time, place, and people group, orthodox Muslims believe that the Qur'anic commands are universal and thus applicable for all times and places.
Complicating the situation is that there is no end in Islam to how a Muslim group can define "self-defense" and "oppression" and thus an Islamic justification for violence. Many orthodox Muslims believe that if a nation's leaders do not acknowledge the rule of Islam, then those rulers are "oppressors" and thus a legitimate target for war.
Violence in Islam is not relegated to some isolated incidents or aberrations from the true and peaceful religion of Islam. Such violence in fact goes to the very roots of Islam found in the Qur'an and the actions and teachings of the prophet of Islam himself.
However as time went on and Muhammad was rejected by the majority of Jews and Christians as an imposter (same with Joseph Smith) Muhammad's attitude shifted dramatically and his angry bitter hateful disposition arose against Jews and Christians in later verses of the Qur'an and in Islamic theology and culture. It is from these that Jihad emerges.
So, in the Meccan and even some early Medinan revelations, we can detect a very friendly attitude toward Jews and Christians but after Muhammad was rejected by Jews and Christians as an imposter/false prophet, he turned against them "0 ye who believe! Take not the Jews And the Christians For your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors To each other" (5:54). "If anyone desires A religion other than Islam (submission to God), Never will it be accepted Of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks Of those who have lost (All spiritual good)" (385).
As historian, theologian, and philosopher Richard Bell points out, "The relationship with the Christians ended as that with the Jews had ended: in war." Thus we read in 9:29, "Fight those who believe not in God... Nor acknowledge the religion of truth, (even if they are) of the people of the book, until they pay the Jizya With willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
Now it's common for people to claim that Qur'anic verses in support of fighting were for a special historical situation concerning the beginning of Islam. They argue that since prophet Muhammad was persecuted in Mecca for the first thirteen years of his ministry, he was justified in his military actions in the last ten years of his life in Medina and for the support of the budding Islamic movement. The problem with this reasoning is that nowhere in the Qur'an itself are the above commands to fight restricted to a special time period or against a special people group.
Unlike the divine commands found in the Book of Joshua in the Old Testament, that were specific to a time, place, and people group, orthodox Muslims believe that the Qur'anic commands are universal and thus applicable for all times and places.
Complicating the situation is that there is no end in Islam to how a Muslim group can define "self-defense" and "oppression" and thus an Islamic justification for violence. Many orthodox Muslims believe that if a nation's leaders do not acknowledge the rule of Islam, then those rulers are "oppressors" and thus a legitimate target for war.
Violence in Islam is not relegated to some isolated incidents or aberrations from the true and peaceful religion of Islam. Such violence in fact goes to the very roots of Islam found in the Qur'an and the actions and teachings of the prophet of Islam himself.
L
Not really, Ageof.
The reason was because in his early time Muhammad didn't have many followers, that's why there are peace-seeking verses such as surah al-kafirun (109).
When he had the big number of army and follower then, he start his obsession from the first. so it wasn't because of rejection. The Jews and Christians, in the sira and hadith even, has been portrayed as asking muhammad for miracle since the first start. So they had been rejecting his claim as a prophet already.
If those quranic chapters such as chapter 9 was only for specific time and place, then Islam itself is done by now, since Quran also teaches the abrogation theory (nasikh/mansoukh).
Other things are well said, ageof. Blessings.
The reason was because in his early time Muhammad didn't have many followers, that's why there are peace-seeking verses such as surah al-kafirun (109).
When he had the big number of army and follower then, he start his obsession from the first. so it wasn't because of rejection. The Jews and Christians, in the sira and hadith even, has been portrayed as asking muhammad for miracle since the first start. So they had been rejecting his claim as a prophet already.
If those quranic chapters such as chapter 9 was only for specific time and place, then Islam itself is done by now, since Quran also teaches the abrogation theory (nasikh/mansoukh).
Other things are well said, ageof. Blessings.
A
Yes really. Muhammad initially sought acceptance from Jews and Christians even facing Jerusalem to pray and visiting temples and churches to worship. But he found that the Jews wanted nothing to do with his myths and inventions and Muhammad was ostracized from Jerusalem. Likewise, the Christian Church rejected Muhammad as a false prophet. It was after this, exactly as I stated, the change in Muhammad's teachings and therefore Islamic theology materially occurred.
The rest of your post doesn't make sense. I stated:
"Now it's common for people to claim that Qur'anic verses in support of fighting were for a special historical situation concerning the beginning of Islam. They argue that since prophet Muhammad was persecuted in Mecca for the first thirteen years of his ministry, he was justified in his military actions in the last ten years of his life in Medina and for the support of the budding Islamic movement. The problem with this reasoning is that nowhere in the Qur'an itself are the above commands to fight restricted to a special time period or against a special people group.
Unlike the divine commands found in the Book of Joshua in the Old Testament, that were specific to a time, place, and people group, orthodox Muslims believe that the Qur'anic commands are universal and thus applicable for all times and places."
NOT, the opposite of that.
The rest of your post doesn't make sense. I stated:
"Now it's common for people to claim that Qur'anic verses in support of fighting were for a special historical situation concerning the beginning of Islam. They argue that since prophet Muhammad was persecuted in Mecca for the first thirteen years of his ministry, he was justified in his military actions in the last ten years of his life in Medina and for the support of the budding Islamic movement. The problem with this reasoning is that nowhere in the Qur'an itself are the above commands to fight restricted to a special time period or against a special people group.
Unlike the divine commands found in the Book of Joshua in the Old Testament, that were specific to a time, place, and people group, orthodox Muslims believe that the Qur'anic commands are universal and thus applicable for all times and places."
NOT, the opposite of that.
L
Is this reply for me? If it is, I think you must have misread my post. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
well muhammad also bow to the pagan gods, al-uzza and al-manat, saying they are to be hoped for intercession for. he did that to deceive. because he had not have the vast amount of military that time. when he had, which is the time at madina, he started to attack all who didn't submit to his allah and commandments.
I wasn't really disagreeing with you anyway, I agreed with most of your post. Just adding some insights. don't know why you see it as doesn't make sense.
well muhammad also bow to the pagan gods, al-uzza and al-manat, saying they are to be hoped for intercession for. he did that to deceive. because he had not have the vast amount of military that time. when he had, which is the time at madina, he started to attack all who didn't submit to his allah and commandments.
I wasn't really disagreeing with you anyway, I agreed with most of your post. Just adding some insights. don't know why you see it as doesn't make sense.
No not really. As his followers increased, the unbelievers stopped ridiculing and torturing the prophet and his followers and looked to exterminate them. The prophet and his followers had to flee for their lives to Madinah. Revelation came down on how to deal with that new situation. Telling the Muslims to fight within limits, show mercy and put their trust in God. These lessons are still valid today for any Muslim that is defending themselves. We just need to compare what happened to the occupants of Jerusalem after the first and second crusade to see one group were operating under limits while the other was not.
Last edited:
A
It's true that the relations between Muslims and their pagan fellow-tribesmen rapidly deteriorated. Professor Marco Scholler teaches that pagans persecuted Muhammad early on and that he "suffered from humiliation, derision and from being treated either like a madman or an outcast. Some people would even fling pebbles at him while he was praying and others kicked stones at him so that he had to run away with bleeding feet."
Christians were not doing this to Muhammad: pagan Meccans were.
But Muslims certainly followed in their pagan persecutor's footsteps. They murdered 70 million Hindus, for example, during an expansionary period. They cut apart 150,000 innocent Hindus on a single day once just to demonstrate their power.
The Mongols taught the Muslims a measure of humility for a time though.
Christians were not doing this to Muhammad: pagan Meccans were.
But Muslims certainly followed in their pagan persecutor's footsteps. They murdered 70 million Hindus, for example, during an expansionary period. They cut apart 150,000 innocent Hindus on a single day once just to demonstrate their power.
The Mongols taught the Muslims a measure of humility for a time though.
Hi see my post above. I am fasting this month so I am not my normal energetic self. 