Fundamental Biblical Christianity and Fundamental Islam Fundamentally 180% Opposites

Holmes, these scholsrs are not militants perse. They are highly regarded who's who scholars accepted as authority in Islam world.Do you even know what the Azhar is? It is the oldest university in the world at Cairo and the leading historical center of Islam learning. The Jalalan is a commentary published by scholars of this university in the 80s. This is the source of the quote in my post.As I said, these people are more qualified for comment on the Quran than you or me. I'm simply letting them settle the matter of debate for us. You're rejecting the authority of Islamic souces and arguing on your own undocumented opinion.

This is not the "scolar's" quote. It is the link commentary about the quote. Check out the quote marks in the link message. He wasn't attacked. He was giving a 4 month reprieve treaty to those pagans who he was dictating to and stating that if they refused the terms of the treaty which meant submission to Islam, him and Allah, he would fight them. This is just one example of how he operated his whole life after he became powerful. Uh uh. The ultimatum was convert or die in 4 months. They were not allowed in Mecca with their pagan gods as they had done for centuries. After Ramadan his forces were to attack. Note in .006 that they MUST HEAR THE WORDS OF ALLAH for protection, i.e. submit to Islam and him the prophet of Allah.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What baffles me about this whole matter is how the religion that leveled our greatest buildings, waging war on us and which is perpetrating terrorism around the globe is receiving all this apologetics from our these, so many of our younger citizens who at the same time show so much hate for Christianity, the religion that inspired the freedoms and blessings we've enjoyed in this great republic so long. If this is any indication of where we're headed, pity us all and especially our children in the coming years.

Don't you see where your logic is failing you?I can quote Pat Robertson and others of his ilk (and in Catholicism the Pope etc etc). I can talk about Bob Jones University, or Oral Roberts, or how about the Vatican and the NUMEROUS Catholic affiliated universities?Without question all of these are major Xian leaders, and the locations some of the MOST major historical centers of Xian learning.Yet you are able to call them nonXians, and incorrect if they say anything which is not directly in the Bible... as in they put a quote into some other context. It is true that I can find people that believe as you do, that these famous and popular people are wrong. Are they really able to say so, or must they defer to these more knowledgable and popular men?If Xians can, the why are Muslims unable to claim the popular people and institutions you claim are what defines Islam equally wrong when they do what the above Xians do? I can find Muslim people and scholars that say that very thing. Why MUST they defer?

quote:

---

As I said, these people are more qualified for comment on the Quran than you or me.

---

This shows your ignorance of Islam. But let's play this game... then I am to understand that you cede your ability to comment on the Bible and the teachings of Christ to Pat Robertson and the Pope because they are more qualified than you, right?If not, then why must I (and the others who talk about Islam as I do) pretend this person you quote is more qualified than us?Let me ask, do you have Azhar's assessment/comparison of how that ONE passage is to be interpreted in context with the other passages which state that other beliefs are to be tolerated?Does he speak of these at all?How do YOU make sense of that ONE passage (which when taken in the context it is written clearly speaks of a singular time and place), with the general advice not to aggress and let others live as they will?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

He wasn't attacked.

---

It says that he was right in the passage! It was a series of Q&A asking why he (or Muslims) would deal with these pagans that had already transgressed against them.You are right that it gave them a period of time and then to attack those that remained, unless they converted, or asked for protection.They would have to leave Mecca though. However this condition was not a universal mandate from then on, and outside of that area.You will note this in the other passages I also quoted.

quote:

---

This is just one example of how he operated his whole life after he became powerful.

---

Once again, the QURAN is the holy text which people must read and understand. It is irrelevant what he did in life... and frankly this is cheap character assassination.And Once again, what will Christ do in HIS WHOLE LIFE? His atrocities are yet to come. At least that is what many famous Xians claim. Of course these same people also usually point to the actions of the OT leaders, that were more horrendous than anything Mohammed did.

quote:

---

They were not allowed in Mecca with their pagan gods as they had done for centuries. After Ramadan his forces were to attack. Note in .006 that they MUST HEAR THE WORDS OF ALLAH for protection, i.e. submit to Islam and him the prophet of Allah.

---

Right... Mecca, not the world. And those that ask for protection and are willing to hear the words will be given safe passage out of there. They didn't have to convert, simply being willing to listen and accept and not attack Muslim beliefs.This is less severe than pagans in Israel, or any non Xian in the End Times.But let's get this straight, you are admitting now that this passage says nothing about the rest of the world right?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

What baffles me about this whole matter is how the religion that leveled our greatest buildings, waging war on us and which is perpetrating terrorism around the globe is receiving all this apologetics...

---

You are making a mistake. I have hated the Taliban and selfserving theocracies across the MidEast for quite a long time. You will never hear a word from me supporting them or their version of Islam.That said, the Islamic religion did not level our buildings, just as shintoism did not sink our ships at Pearl Harbor. It is powerful men who have used the power of religion, and the desperation of the populations they lord over, that plotted and brought down those buildings.In particular, Al-Queda and the Taliban were products of our great Xian leaders who wanted to use religious zealotry to fight the incursion of Soviet Power in the region. They created a monster, and helped twist a religion to their own ends.We are now fighting that monster. I am all for that. You simply have to recognize that not all Muslims are part of that monster of organizations and militarism, nor is that a NATURAL end of that religion.You are alienating the peaceful Muslims, and giving leverage to the militant ones by backing up their false claims. That makes YOU part of the problem. You are helping our enemies recruit.

quote:

---

who at the same time show so much hate for Christianity, the religion that inspired the freedoms and blessings we've enjoyed

---

Are these the same Xians that are against gays and gay marriage, and porn, and blamed 9-11 on Americans that like that stuff, instead of blaming the terrorist organizations which actually conducted the atrocity?Gee, no wonder there's a backlash.Or how about Xians bombing our government buildings, or shooting people, or simply forcing their beliefs into our government social programs (which means taking our money by force to fund their religion)?Hmmmmmm.But those are not Xians right? Just like the terrorists are not proper representatives of Islam.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Okay Buz,First, if you want to quote the Qur'an, please cite also which translation you quote. Unlike Jesus worshippers, Muslims have the authentic Arabic text of our holy book, and all translations must be referred to the original Arabic to avoid distortions.Second,

quote:

---

...quotes of Mohammed in the Quran...

---

The Prophet do not speak in the Qur'an. It is God speaking in the Qur'an.I'll see if you got your readings correct. First This is the actual verse
9:5 Fa-itha insalakha al-ashhuru alhurumu faoqtuloo almushrikeena haythu wajadtumoohum wakhuthoohum waohsuroohum waoqAAudoo lahum kulla marsadin fa-in taboo waaqamoo alssalata waatawoo alzzakata fakhalloo sabeelahum inna Allaha ghafoorun raheemun
YUSUFALI But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.The next verse:
9:6 Wa-in ahadun mina almushrikeena istajaraka faajirhu hatta yasmaAAa kalama Allahi thumma ablighhu ma/manahu thalika bi-annahum qawmun la yaAAlamoona
YUSUFALI If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.Next, The whole verse is
5:33 {iInnama jazao allatheena yuhariboona Allaha warasoolahu wayasAAawna fee al-ardi fasadan an yuqattaloo aw yusallaboo aw tuqattaAAa aydeehim waarjuluhum min khilafin aw yunfaw mina al-ardi thalika lahum khizyun fee alddunya walahum fee al-akhirati AAathabun AAatheemun[/i]
YUSUFALI The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;
---
Emphasis mine. You [purposely?] left out 'and strive with might and main (wayasAAawna) for mischief (fasadan) through the land'. Other translators translate 'fasadan' to 'horrendous crimes'[Khalifa] and 'corruption'[Pickthal]. So it's only applicable to those who attack Muslims (refer my earlier post, violence only for defensive actions) AND does serious crimes.You might also want to check out the verse before,
9:32 Min ajli thalika katabna AAala banee isra-eela annahu man qatala nafsan bighayri nafsin aw fasadin fee al-ardi fakaannama qatala alnnasa jameeAAan waman ahyaha fakaannama ahya alnnasa jameeAAan walaqad jaat-hum rusuluna bialbayyinati thumma inna katheeran minhum baAAda thalika fee al-ardi lamusrifoona
YUSUFALI On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.Next, this quote DOES NOT come from the Qur'an. It was a hadith (saying attributed to the Prophet) narrated by Abu Hurayrah. The hadith had a lower status than Qur'anic verses, because, unlike the Qur'an, many hadith are fake. That one is generally considered strongly authentic, since it was recorded in Bukhari and Muslim's collection of hadith. As a point of reference, I myself do not believe most of the hadith, for authenticity reasons. So I am in no position to defend that hadith you quote. But I will let another one tackle yur question.
Sheikh Sami al-Majid said here:

quote:

---

Another misunderstood text is the hadth where the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: I have been commanded to fight the people until they bear witness that there is no God but Allah and that I am Allah’s Messenger. If they do so, then there blood and their wealth are inviolable except in the dispensation of justice, and their affair is with Allah. [Sahh al-Bukhr and Sahh Muslim]

​

There can be no qualms about this hadth’s authenticity, since it is recorded in both Sahh al-Bukhr and Sahh Muslim. However, this hadth is also not to be taken generally, out of context, and in complete disregard to all the other textual evidence.

​

The term people here is not referring to all humanity. Ibn Taymiyah says: It refers to fighting those who are waging war, whom Allah has permitted us to fight. It does not refer to those who have a covenant with us with whom Allah commands us to fulfill our covenant. [Majm` al-Fatw (19/20)]

---

Ibn Taymiyah is a medieval Islamic scholar. From the name of the author, I can tell that your source is not a Muslim. Why? Muslims sometimes use the name 'Abd (servant)'+ one of God's 99 names, like 'Abd Allah/Abdullah', 'Abdur-Rahim', 'Abdul-Jabbar'. And 'al-Schafi (spelling?}' is not among the 99 names. Muslims do not use the name 'Abd' except followed by one of God's names. So I conclude that the author is not a Muslim.

Hi Syamsu,

quote:

---

I don't understand why you don't mention it, but the prophet infamously once had 700 prisoners of war killed. Don't you know about it, or you thought this would not be of interest in this discussion?

---

I have discussed the same thing with Buzsaw here, and I guess he forgot that I have posted a refutation for that myth. EvC Forum: World's Happiest People? You Gotta Be Kidding!
Posted 10-11-2003

quote:

---

quote:

---

Before Muhammed there were over 200 pagan deities worshipped at Mecca. After Muhammed there was one deity, Muhammed's god, Allah worshipped at Mecca. Does this tell you anything as to why the pagans resisted Muhammed?

---

​

The Prophet was chased out of Makkah by the pagans. The pagans also tortured early Muslims. And the first war in his time, the Badr war, was provoked by Makkah pagans who was jealous of the Madinah state. The second war, the Uhud war, was also a pagan attack to Madinah. Then the pagans blockaded Madinah. These events would have make life miserable for the Prophet and his followers, yet when they eventually got the upper hand and marched to conquer Makkah, Prophet Muhammad ordered to spare the pagans. The only victims in the conquest of Makkah was the pagan statues, destroyed like Prophet Ibrahim did earlier.

​

Here's a link to a 'sirah' (history) of Prophet Muhammad's life.

​

quote:

---

According to my Encyclopedia Britannica and other reliable sources, Mohammed had all the men (hundreds) in one Jewish village beheaded who had surrendered and carried off the women and children for the slave trade. Are you aware of this or can you refute it?

---

​

This following article may refute it. Some quotes:

​

IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT at the advent of Islam there were three Jewish tribes who lived in Yathrib (later Medina), as well as other Jewish settlements further to the north, the most important of which were Khaybar and Fadak. It is also generally accepted that at first the Prophet Muhammad hoped that the Jews of Yathrib, as followers of a divine religion, would show understanding of the new monotheistic religion, Islam. However, as soon as these tribes realized that Islam was being firmly established and gaining power, they adopted an actively hostile attitude, and the final result of the struggle was the disappearance of these Jewish communities from Arabia proper.
...
On examination, details of the story can he challenged. It can be demonstrated that the assertion that 600 or 800 or 900 men of Banu Qurayza were put to death in cold blood can not be true; that it is a later invention; and that it has its source in Jewish traditions. Indeed the source of the details in earlier Jewish history can be pointed out with surprising accuracy.
...
So then the real source of this unacceptable story of slaughter was the descendants of the Jews of Medina, from whom Ibn Ishaq took these "odd tales". For doing so Ibn Ishaq was severely criticized by other scholars and historians and was called by Malik an impostor.
The sources of the story are, therefore, extremely doubtful and the details are diametrically opposed to the spirit of Islam and the rules of the Qur'an to make the story credible. Credible authority is lacking, and circumstantial evidence does not support it. This means that the story is more than doubtful.

​

Original article title:
Ahmad, Barakat. 1976. Did Prophet Muhammad ordered 900 Jews killed? Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland pp. 100-107.

---

It took Christians about 1700 years for them to get inspired to create a country based on equality. I think one of the main reasons it took such a long time, eventhough teachings of equality are foundational in Christianity in regards to Adam and Eve, is because equality requires an understanding of religion as being generically the same with some variation, in stead of an exclusivist hierarchal understanding, as one being superior to another. Religion basicly being a part of human nature like arms and legs are, and so if you consider the one religion superior to another, then it becomes harder to consider people as equal.Christianity, Jesus, is largely incorporated into Islam, as are all the Jewish prophets. This is why Islamic countries have generally, over all the years, not just the last few, been comparitively tolerant of Christianity and Judaism. Of course comparitive tolerance is still apart from full tolerance.The terrorists didn't much destroy the great buildings, they killed several thousand people. How can you be so confused to mention the loss of some symbol of greatness, and forget to mention the loss of some thousands of lives? I think it's mistaken to view the killing as some kind of means to achieve an end, or collateral damage, the killing is the end meant to be achieved.I guess basicly these terrorists read every word in terms of whether or not it allows to kill or not to kill. If it would say love thy neighbour, then it would be interpreted as kill everyone who doesn't apparently love their neighbour. When Jesus says love your enemy, then it would be interpreted as kill your enemy so that they will be saved from sin. As before Jesus is incorporated into Islam, so the terrorists also read much the same words as you.It's a ridiculous myth that it's all the work of just a few powerful evil terrorists. A great share of the Muslim population takes parts in the sins of the terrorists with sympathy, because killing people like all sins, are tempting to take part in of course. I don't think it's Christianity which protects you from that sin much. If that's your only protection then you have very little protection to withstand the temptation to go out and kill every Muslim in a tit for tat frenzy.So to address your original hypothesis, fundamentalist religion is a high risk attitude toward religion which tends to enslave people to it. It's not right to say fundamentalist Islam is a direct opposite of fundamentalist Christianity, because obviously they belong to the same fundamentalist class of religion.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

We agree!!!!

---

Common sense isn't

1. Equality is not a fundamental of either the Old or New Testaments. As one person put it. "Free men are not equal and equal men are not free." There is a chain of command as to authority in the home. There is the rich and the poor. There is the worker and the master. There is the intelligent and the not so smart as well as the just plain stupid. There's the strong and the weak, both spiritually and physically. Theres the owner and the tennant. Theres the ruler and the ruled. On and on we go.2. The great commission of Christ and the appostles was not to establish a nation at all, let alone an equal one. Communism tried the equal kind, but no dice. The commission was to preach the gospel and baptize in the name of the Father, Son and HS. The freedom nation eventually came when the true commission was prevailing and we've become the greatest missionary and benevolent nation of the world because of it.3. All religions are not equal, just as all doctrines are not true and of God. In fact no religion truly teaches otherwise. Else they would all preach one another's doctrines. The proof must be shown supernaturally. The Bible has that in it's fulfilled prophecies. Islam, like Roman Catholicism are tolerant only when they must be tolerant. Their true nature becomes manifested when they receive the power to exert it. Islam is on the rise being the fastest growing religion in the world as well as in the US. Thus the violence and the true nature is becoming manifest. Confused? No. I would assume that it was understood that I grieved the loss of these along with the rest of the nation. No, not confused and admittedly, I should have mentioned them. I haven't yet arrived at perfection as is the case with the rest of you who don't cover everything in every statement everywhere. That's nutty, Syamsu. Kill the enemy by loving them so as to save them? Say what?????????? As I've said all along. The fundamentals of Christianity in no way call for killing, either tit for tat or otherwise. Those who do so are not Christofundies. Better reread my unrefuted points that the fundamentals of Christianity in no way enslave or do violence to others. Prove your point by refuting what I've alread posted on this. I've proven the fundamental differences in the fundamentalisms of both religions. If you can't accept them, I can't help you and no sense in going round and round about them all over again.

Gotta be outa town the rest of the day. Will try to address other stuff when I can get to it.

Hi Andya,I notice we went for the same points with Buz. I hope you feel I did an adequate job for a nonbeliever in coming to the defense of your religion.I noticed you used Yusufali's translation/interpretation. I had a choice of three and went with Pickthal's because I thought it was more clear to a modern English read. In future, would it be better that I use Yusufali over Pickthal? My third choice was Shakir, would he be any better/worse?Also, there has been mentioned the Hadiths. Is there any reason that a Muslim must accept these as teachings to be followed at all? I have been unable to ascertain why anyone would want to place them on a level with what is supposed to be the direct words of God.Thanks

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Well I can't believe I'm defending Syamsu about anything, but for the first time his writing was almost lucid.

quote:

---

we've become the greatest missionary and benevolent nation of the world because of it.

---

Given that this country's greatness was built in part by slaves, and in near total by the purge and genocide (one of the few successful in history) of Native Americans to seize their lands, are you amenable to allowing other nations to do the same?How does this history conflict your statement above?

quote:

---

Islam, like Roman Catholicism are tolerant only when they must be tolerant. Their true nature becomes manifested when they receive the power to exert it.

---

You misspoke, not "Islam" just as RC does not represent all Xianity. I am okay with you calling what you dislike "Fundamentalist Islam", but then it must be compared to those Xians who do the same things as these militant theocrats and who happen to call themselves "Fundamentalist Xians".If you can denounce the RC and people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell (the true Xian Fundies in my eye as well as their own), how come regular Muslims cannot denounce their version of the RC and Evangelics?

quote:

---

Confused? No. I would assume that it was understood that I grieved the loss

---

Just to back you up, I understood what you were saying. But you were still confused in that you said it was a religion, rather than a religious faction, which caused the attacks.

quote:

---

That's nutty, Syamsu. Kill the enemy by loving them so as to save them? Say what??????????

---

Please do not feign you can't figure this out. Xian Fundies have said the same thing. Oh yes, you do not believe they are Xian, just as Muslims doe not believe the Islamic Fundies are true Muslims.By the way, what happens to all the enemies of Xianity (which by definition are all nonbelievers) when the end times come? I keep finding it odd that you soend so much time preaching about the coming of the end times, and then refusing to talk about the nature of these end times.

quote:

---

The fundamentals of Christianity in no way call for killing, either tit for tat or otherwise.

---

So you were against the war in Afghanistan and Iraq? How about the war on terrorism? How about the end times?Xians are allowed to fight in the end times, right?And once again, how does this score with your assessment of America being a great Xian nation when the purging of Native Americans involved MUCH killing?

quote:

---

Better reread my unrefuted points that the fundamentals of Christianity in no way enslave or do violence to others. Prove your point by refuting what I've alread posted on this. I've proven the fundamental differences in the fundamentalisms of both religions.

---

Hey, I agree that you CAN say that Xian texts may be read so that they do not allow for killing. If you want to call that the REAL fundamentalist Xianity, then that's cool.But you have not proven anything except your sheer ignorance of Islam. My and Andya's points have been proven and unrefuted by anyone except people on the Islamic side, who you say must be THE Islamic authorities, but if they were Xian you would denounce. You can't choose for another people who THEY must think is the most important source of knowledge.Just as you can denounce RC and Evangelicals, many Muslims reject their versions of these things, and follow strictly the WORD OF GOD as written in the Quran. If you call yourself the real fundamentalist Xian then you should call these people the true Islamic fundamentalists.You have yet to show any refutations of our points from the Quran itself, not even from "scholars". In fact, you have only shown yourself taking a single quote out of context (as you accused others of doing with Xianity), in order to dash all the other quotes you were presented.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

I notice we went for the same points with Buz. I hope you feel I did an adequate job for a nonbeliever in coming to the defense of your religion.

---

Well, if I had to choose between Christians and atheists/agnostics to be on my side, I'd still go with the latter here.

quote:

---

I noticed you used Yusufali's translation/interpretation. I had a choice of three and went with Pickthal's because I thought it was more clear to a modern English read. In future, would it be better that I use Yusufali over Pickthal? My third choice was Shakir, would he be any better/worse?

---

Well, to be precise, all of them had their flaws and good points. The best version to use is the original Arabic, but I assume you don't understand Arabic so use any one translation you want, just don't forget to say which translation. I used Yusuf Ali because Buz used it when he quoted earlier. There are also some other less known translations. Personally I like to compare between them, to check for various meanings and sometimes extra commentary.

quote:

---

Also, there has been mentioned the Hadiths. Is there any reason that a Muslim must accept these as teachings to be followed at all? I have been unable to ascertain why anyone would want to place them on a level with what is supposed to be the direct words of God.

---

Well, most Muslims view the hadiths as the second source of Islamic creed and law. Another name for the hadith is the sunna, or traditions ascribed to the Messenger. Some Muslims view that the life of the Prophet is a perfect example of how a good Muslim should live, therefore they used the hadith for reference.The hadiths had a complicated history. Muslims start writing down hadiths 200 years after Muhammad's death, and by that time there were as many as a million hadiths in circulation, usually passed by mouth, and many were forged (usually for political reasons). al-Bukhari and other scholars spend their lives separating the ones whose authenticity were strongly supported from the ones that is dubious and/or false and recording the ones they think are genuine. Sahih al-Bukhari, the most influential among hadith records, contained almost 10.000 hadith, and it was longer than the Qur'an. But along our history, Muslims never had a general consensus about hadith. I am from Ahlu Sunnah (Sunni) background; my Syiah brothers in Iran and Iraq used a different hadith collection. But we use the same Qur'an text. All Muslims have the same Arabic text.That said, I myself am skeptic with the use of hadith in Islamic faith. I said earlier that most of them were forged, and some even survived in the collections of Bukhari, Muslim, and other scholars. But I still cannot abandon their use altogether because the hadith supplies many important points in Islam not specified in the Qur'an (like the daily prayer schedule). My viewpoint is a minority, but I can name at least one prominent Muslim scholar sympathetic to it: Abu Deedat of South Africa. He's a Christologist and famous throughout the Muslim world for his studies to expose the corruption of the Bible text.I find this website largely informational if you want to know something about my beliefs: Home | www.free-minds.orgAnd by the way, you make a point there about why anyone would place the hadith, which came from man, at the same level as the word of God. Most Muslims do that.