Originally posted by ahosyneySome who call themselves Muslims also take liberties with the Qur’an to justify aggression, oppression and atrocities—such as Osama Bin Laden, the Taliban, suicide bombers across the board.
That is a good point. Thank you for explaining it. I was going to say the same.
Islam doesn't support war for conversion or anything else. It is also for self defense. The Quran strictly state the regulations of war if required. That is because it provides a complete system. You understand it as a teaching for what should be the war be like if a muslim is forced to fight. But others see it as a call of violence.
Anti-terrorist fatwas seem to have been slow in coming, but here are some—
Spanish Muslims proclaimed a fatwa against Bin Laden in March of 2005 [2]. They said that he had abandoned his religion and they urged other Muslims to make similar proclamations. They were followed in July of 2005 by the Fiqh Council of North America, a ruling council that issued a fatwa against providing support to terrorist groups (see Istihlal).
Excerpt from the Spanish fatwa:
“That according to the Sharia, anyone who declares halaal, or permitted, what God has declared haraam, or forbidden, such as the killing of innocent persons in terrorist attacks, turns into a Kafir Murtadd Mustahlil, that is to say, an apostate, by having claimed to make halal (istihlal) the murder of innocents, a crime that the Holy Qur'an and the Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad (may God bless and save him) expressly forbid.
Insofar as Osama bin Laden and his organization defend the legality of terrorism and claim to base it in the Holy Qur'an and the Sunnah, they are committing the sin of istihlal and become ipso facto apostates (kafir murtadd), who should not be considered Muslims nor be treated as such.”
Article on the American fatwa: http://www.archives2005.ghazali.net/html/fatwa_issued.html
From http://www.beliefnet.com/story/182/story_18200_1.html:
"The fatwa, unfortunately, has become a tool of terrorists," said Abdulssalam Al-Abbadi, Jordan's former religious affairs minister. "We cannot keep having two versions of Islam: the correct and moderate views and the violent and extremists views. It's tearing apart the faith."
Comments by Islamic Jurist Khaled Abou El Fadl (author of The Great Theft: Wrestling Islam from the Extremists):
“Supremacist puritanism in contemporary Islam is dismissive of all moral norms or ethical values.
“The hallmark of these puritan movements was an intolerant theology displaying extreme hostility not only to non-Muslims but also to Muslims who belonged to different schools of thought or even remained neutral. These movements considered opponents and indifferent Muslims to have exited the fold of Islam, and therefore legitimate targets of violence. These groups' preferred methods of violence were stealth attacks and the dissemination of terror in the general population.
“Muslim jurists reacted sharply to these groups, considering them enemies of humankind. They were designated as muharibs (literally, those who fight society). A muharib was defined as someone who attacks defenseless victims by stealth, and spreads terror in society. They were not to be given quarter or refuge by anyone or at any place. In fact, Muslim jurists argued that any Muslim or non-Muslim territory sheltering such a group is hostile territory that may be attacked by the mainstream Islamic forces. Although the classical jurists agreed on the definition of a muharib, they disagreed about which types of criminal acts should be considered crimes of terror. Many jurists classified rape, armed robbery, assassinations, arson and murder by poisoning as crimes of terror and argued that such crimes must be punished vigorously regardless of the motivations of the criminal. Most importantly, these doctrines were asserted as religious imperatives. Regardless of the desired goals or ideological justifications, the terrorizing of the defenseless was recognized as a moral wrong and an offense against society and God.”
— From an essay by El Fadl entitled “Islam and the Theology of Power,” http://www.islamfortoday.com/elfadl01.htm
It’s going to take a lot more voices like these—and actions that back them up—to wrestle Islam away from all the extremists. (It’s also, perhaps, going to take better media reporting of them.)
Originally posted by vistesdOriginally posted by vistesd
First, what do you mean exactly by “Jihad,” in the context of this discussion?
Second, if you mean wars of conversion or aggression, could you cite any Qur’anic statements that encourage/support the same—without taking Qur’anic statements out of context, since you rightfully object to that with regard to the Bible? (Qur’anic context is difficult, since i ...[text shortened]... ke part in some wars without violating the tenets of their faith (i.e., the “just war” concept)?
First, what do you mean exactly by “Jihad,” in the context of this discussion?
Second, if you mean wars of conversion or aggression, could you cite any Qur’anic statements that encourage/support the same—without taking Qur’anic statements out of context, since you rightfully object to that with regard to the Bible? (Qur’anic context is difficult, since it seems to be more “dialectical” than “narrative,” but the exegesis can be done.)
Third, what—if any—acts of warfare do not violate Christ’s teachings? That is, are you taking a pacifist position, or can Christians take part in some wars without violating the tenets of their faith (i.e., the “just war” concept)?
Well, I'm certainly not a pacifist. The last thing that convinced me that this is the wrong position, was the muslims systematically eliminating christians in Sudan. If they had not resisted, they would have simply be wiped out. The cruelty to which christians were exposed over there are shocking. A not very nice face of Islam, the Sudanese government supported by arabian oil in order to exterminate the christians. Luckily, they didn't succeed when christians started fighting back.
That's by the way my opinion: To defend myself when I'm under attack.
Originally posted by louisXIVThe persecution of Somali Christians by militant Islamic groups is deplorable. At the same time, I must ask to what extent it is a Somali rather than a Muslim problem:
Well, I'm certainly not a pacifist. The last thing that convinced me that this is the wrong position, was the muslims systematically eliminating christians in Sudan. If they had not resisted, they would have simply be wiped out. The cruelty to which christians were exposed over there are shocking. A not very nice face of Islam, the Sudanese government supp arted fighting back.
That's by the way my opinion: To defend myself when I'm under attack.
Most Somalis, over 99.5%, are Muslims who regard Christianity as a foreign religion of their historic enemies in Ethiopia and of their former colonial masters the Italians and the British. There is a long history of conflict between Muslim Somalis and Christian Ethiopians, so anti-Christian sentiment runs deep. Most Somalis take it for granted that a true Somali is a Muslim and converts to Christianity must be traitors. http://www.pakistanchristianpost.com/newsviewsdetails.php?newsid=214
Nationalism and religions are conflated here, causing the usual mess.
You might note that Muslim insurgency is justified by its proponents as being self-defence, which should also justify it in your view--no?
Can somebody explain whether Augustine's "just war" and the martial version of jihad (as opposed to the inner struggle) are terribly different?
Originally posted by Bosse de NageDon't forget the Albigensian Crusade. That one was in France.
The Northern Crusades were indeed Crusades by Christian Warriors against godless heathens.
"The Pope proclaimed a crusade against the Baltic heathens in 1193 and a crusading expedition led by Meinhard's successor, Bishop Berthold, landed in Livonia (part of present-day Latvia, surrounding the Gulf of Riga) in 1198. Although the crusaders won their f ...[text shortened]... ally wounded and the crusaders were repulsed." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Crusades
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_crusade
Originally posted by louisXIV[/b]I'm not a pacifist either; I just didn't know if that's where you were coming from or not.
Originally posted by vistesd
[b]First, what do you mean exactly by “Jihad,” in the context of this discussion?
Second, if you mean wars of conversion or aggression, could you cite any Qur’anic statements that encourage/support the same—without taking Qur’anic statements out of context, since you rightfully object to that with regard to the Bible? arted fighting back.
That's by the way my opinion: To defend myself when I'm under attack.
These are all the verses on fighting in the Qur’an that I found from prior discussions, and simply lumped together here. That’s all the work I want to do, so it’s just cut and paste. I have used more than one translation.
I think all this presents some kind of “just war” doctrine for Islam (outlined by Muhammad Asad in his commentary to Surah 9:5, below), which simply implies that Muslims who violate these general principles are, in fact violating Quranic injunctions.
Again, it should also be noted that the Qur’an is not written as a straightforward narrative text. It often seems to have a kind of dialectical pattern to it, which undoubtedly complicates the nature of “contextuality,” and which I think Islamic exegesis takes into account. I do not know enough to do more than present the verses, with commentaries by the translators for understanding. Others can argue them out.
__________________________
Surah 2:190-195
“And fight in God’s cause* against those who wage war against you but do not commit aggression, for surely God does not love aggressors.
“And slay them wherever you find them, and drive them out from where they drove you out, for oppression is even worse than killing. And fight not against them near the Inviolable House of Worship unless they fight against you there first; but if they fight against you, slay them: such is the recompense of those who deny the truth.
“But if they desist—behold, God is much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace.
“Hence, fight against them until there is no more oppression and all worship is devoted to God alone; but if they desist, all hostility shall cease, except against oppressors.
“Fight during the sacred months if you are attacked: for a violation of sanctity is just retribution. Thus, if anyone commits aggression against you, attack him just as he has attacked you—but remain conscious of God, and know that God is with those who are conscious of him.
“And spend in God’s cause, and let not your own hands throw you into destruction; and persevere in doing good: behold, God loves the doers of good.” (Muhammad Asad’s translation)
This seems to be clearly about fighting against aggression, persecution, oppression, to defend your religion, your property, your life. It is not a “hunting license” against unbelievers. If the aggressors cease hostility, so must the Muslims. (The same general thing applies to Surah 4:89-91, except that these verses deal with those who pretended to ally themselves with the Muslims, while plotting against them.)
* Maulana Ali, in his translation renders this as “fight in the way of Allah,” and comments that this means strictly defensive fighting; it also includes such things as prohibitions on killing innocents (non-combatants) and a requirement to cease fighting once the aggressors do. Ali says: “It is this defensive fighting which is called fighting in the way of Allah. Fighting for the propagation of the faith is not once mentioned in the whole of the Qur’an.” (italics in original)
________________________________
Surah 4:47
Verses 44-46 indicate that this is addressed to some Jews who are accused of having distorted the meaning of Jewish scriptures. Asad translates verse 47 thus:
“O you who have been granted revelation [aforetime]! Believe in what We have [now] bestowed from on high in confirmation of whatever [of the truth] you already possess, lest We efface your hopes and bring them to an end—just as We rejected those people who broke the Sabbath: for God’s will is always done.” (my italics)
In a footnote, he comments on the italicized phrase: Lit., “lest We obliterate the faces”—i.e., that towards which one turns, or that which one faces, with expectation…—“and bring them back to their ends.” It is to be noted that the term dubur (of which adbar is the plural) does not always signify the “back” of a thing—as most translators assume—but often stands for its “last part” or “end.”
_______________________________
Surah 4:101 “And when you journey in the earth, there is no blame on you if you shorten the prayer, if you fear that those who disbelieve will cause you trouble. Surely the disbelievers are an open enemy to you.” (Maulana Ali’s translation)
In this case, it is non-Muslims who have declared themselves to be open enemies to the Muslims. Muslims are here permitted to shorten their prayer-time (Muslims pray five times a day) if they fear that their enemies will harass or attack them.
____________________________________
Surah 8:12-13
This seems to be referring to an injunction given either to the angels or to the Muslim soldiers at the battle of Badr between the Muslims who had settled at Medina and the Quraysh who came from Mecca.
Ahmed Ali’s translation reads thus:
12. And the Lord said to the angels: “I am with you; go and strengthen the faithful. I shall fill the hearts of the infidels with terror. So smite them on their necks and every joint (and incapacitate them).”
13. For they opposed God and His Apostle; but whosoever opposes God and His Apostle (should know) that God is severe in retribution.
Abdullah Yusuf Ali also has those words directed to the angels; Asad does not; Maulana Ali leaves it open. The main point is that this is in reference to a pitched battle, not an open-ended injunction.
____________________________________
Surah 9: 5
First, this footnote comment by Muhammad Asad on verse 5—
“As I have pointed out on more than one occasion, every verse of the Qur'an must be read and interpreted against the background of the Qur'an as a whole. The above verse, which speaks of a possible conversion to Islam on the part of "those who ascribe divinity to aught beside God" with whom the believers are at war, must, therefore, be considered in conjunction with several fundamental Qur'anic ordinances. One of them, "There shall be no coercion in matters of faith" (2 : 256), lays down categorically that any attempt at a forcible conversion of unbelievers is prohibited - which precludes the possibility of the Muslims' demanding or expecting that a defeated enemy should embrace Islam as the price of immunity. Secondly, the Qur'an ordains, "Fight in God's cause against those who wage war against you; but do not commit aggression, for, verily, God does not love aggressors" (2: 190); and, "if they do not let you be, and do not offer you peace, and do not stay their hands, seize them and slay them whenever you come upon them: and it is against these that We have clearly empowered you [to make war]" (4: 91). Thus, war is permissible only in self-defence (see surah 2, notes 167 and 168), with the further proviso that "if they desist - behold, God is much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace" (2 : 192), and "if they desist, then all hostility shall cease" (2: 193). Now the enemy's conversion to Islam - expressed in the words, "if they repent, and take to prayer [lit., "establish prayer"] and render the purifying dues (zakah)" - is no more than one, and by no means the only, way of their "desisting from hostility"; and the reference to it in verses 5and 11 of this surah certainly does not imply an alternative of "conversion or death", as some unfriendly critics of Islam choose to assume. Verses 4 and 6 give a further elucidation of the attitude which the believers are enjoined to adopt towards such of the unbelievers as are not hostile to them. (In this connection, see also 60 : 8-9).”
As for the rest, verses 1 through 16 of this Surah have to do with specific groups of idolaters with whom the Muslims have made treaties—those who have kept the treaties, and those who have broken them. They may fight against those who have broken the treaties (“Will you not fight a people who broke their oaths and aimed at the expulsion of the Messenger, and they attacked you first?” v. 13) but not during the months in which fighting is prohibited (apparently a pre-Islamic tradition that is reaffirmed in the Qur’an; this mention implies that these verses refer to a particular historical circumstance).
Here is Maulana Ali’s translation of the whole (sans all the historical footnotes):
1 A declaration of immunity from Allah and His Messenger to those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement.
2 So go about in the land for four months and know that you cannot escape Allah and that Allah will disgrace the disbelievers.
3 And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger to the people on the day of the greater pilgrimage, that Allah is free from liability to the idolaters, and so is His Messenger. So if you repent, it will be better for you; and if you turn away, then know that you will not escape Allah. And announce painful chastisement to those who disbelieve—
4 Except those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement, then they have not failed you in anything and have not backed up anyone against you; so fulfill their agreement to the end of their term. Surely Allah loves those who keep their duty.
5 So when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters, wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush. But if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free. Surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
6 And if anyone of the idolaters seek thy protection, protect him till he hears the word of Allah, then convey him to his place of safety. This is because they are a people who know not.
7 How can there be an agreement for the idolaters with Allah and with his Messenger, except those with whom you made an agreement at the Sacred Mosque? So as long as they are true to you, be true to them. Surely Allah loves those who keep their duty.
CONTINUED...
CONTINUED from above...
8 How (can it be)? And if they prevail against you, they respect neither ties of relationship nor covenant in your case. They would please you with their mouths while their hearts refuse; and most of them are transgressors.
9 They have taken a small price for the messages of Allah, so they hinder (men) from His way. Surely evil is that which they do.
10 They respect neither ties of relationship nor covenant, in the case of a believer. And these are they who go beyond the limits.
11 But if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, they are your brethren in faith. And We make the messages clear for a people who know.
12 And if they break their oaths after their agreement and revile your religion, then fight the leaders of disbelief - surely their oaths are nothing - so that they may desist.
13 Will you not fight a people who broke their oaths and aimed at the expulsion of the Messenger, and they attacked you first? Do you fear them? But Allah has more right that you should fear Him, if you are believers.
14 Fight them; Allah will chastise them at your hands and bring them to disgrace, and assist you against them and relieve the hearts of a believing people,
15 And remove the rage of their hearts. And Allah turns (mercifully) to whom He pleases. And Allah is Knowing, Wise.
16 Do you think that you would be left alone while Allah has not yet known those of you who struggle hard and take not anyone as an intimate friend besides Allah and His Messenger and the believers? And Allah is Aware of what you do.
It seems clear that this is not about forced conversions—except under an interpretation that wants it to be about that.
__________________________________
Surah 9:29
There seems to be some disagreement among the translators as to whether this verse refers back to “idolaters” in verse 28, or ahead to Jews and Christians in verse 30. Abdullah Yusuf Ali’s translation:
“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.”
(The Jizyah is a tax levied on non-Muslims in Muslim societies for protection and other services, since non-Muslims were not required to serve in the military nor pay the zakah.)
Muhammad Asad, in a footnote on this verse, refers to the arguments in the commentary on Surah 9:5—i.e., that here again, fighting is only allowed under the strictures mentioned in that commentary. The question here is similar to any scriptural exegesis: which verses must be qualified by which other verses in order to make sense.
____________________________________
Surah 9:123
“O you who have attained to faith! Fight against those deniers of the truth who are near you, and let them find you adamant; and know that God is with those who are conscious of Him.”
(Muhammad Asad translation; Asad once again refers back to his previous commentary, and adds that “near you” in this verse means close enough physical proximity to present an actual danger.)
Surah 22:39, 40
“Permission is granted those (to take up arms) who fight because they were oppressed. God is certainly able to help those who were driven away from their homes for no other reason than they said: “Our Lord is God.” And if God had not restrained some men through others, monasteries, churches, synagogues and mosques, where the name of God is honored most, would have been razed.” (Ahmed Ali’s translation; this may be the chronologically earliest mention of fighting in the Qur’an.)
__________________________________
With regard to Hadith, thus far I found these in a disputed wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_war_in_Islam):
• "You are neither hard-hearted nor of fierce character, nor one who shouts in the markets. You do not return evil for evil, but excuse and forgive." - Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 362
• "Do not kill any old person, any child or any woman" (Abu Dawud).
• "Do not kill the monks in monasteries" or "Do not kill the people who are sitting in places of worship" (Musnad of Ibn Hanbal).
Speech by Abu Bakr, Mohammed's closest friend and first successor, to an Islamic army set out for Syria:
"Stop, O people, that I may give you ten rules for your guidance in the battlefield. Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy's flock, save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone."
In my search of previous posts, I also found this one, with a couple more fatwa references. I have simply reposted it here, with my opening comments in response to another poster...
___________________________
I thought that martyrs had to die while fighting “in the way of Allah,” which excludes suicide and the terror-targeting of civilians, period. People who commit such acts are murderers, not martyrs; subject (according the Islamic analyses cited below) to eternal damnation, not eternal reward.
The following from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_bombers—
Ihsanic Intelligence, a London-based Islamic think-tank, published their two-year study into suicide bombings in the name of Islam, titled 'The Hijacked Caravan', which concluded that, "The technique of suicide bombing is anathema, antithetical and abhorrent to Sunni Islam. It is considered legally forbidden, constituting a reprehensible innovation in the Islamic tradition, morally an enormity of sin combining suicide and murder and theologically an act which has consequences of eternal damnation." * The Oxford-based Malayist jurist, Shaykh Muhammad Shaykh Muhammad Afifi al-Akiti, issued his landmark fatwa on suicide bombing and targeting innocent civilians, titled 'Defending the Transgressed, by Censuring the Reckless against the Killing of Civilians', where he states suicide bombing in its most widespread form, is forbidden: 'If the attack involves a bomb placed on the body or placed so close to the bomber that when the bomber detonates it the bomber is certain [yaqin] to die, then the More Correct Position according to us is that it does constitute suicide. This is because the bomber, being also the Maqtul [the one killed], is unquestionably the same Qatil [the immediate/active agent that kills] = Qatil Nafsahu [suicide]"
In January of 2006, one of Shia Islam's highest ranking marja clerics, Ayatollah al-Udhma Yousof al-Sanei also decreed a fatwa against suicide bombing, declaring it as a "terrorist act".
* Study found at: http://mac.abc.se/home/onesr/ez/isl/0-sbm/The.Hijacked.Caravan.html
See also:
http://www.livingislam.org/maa/dcmm_e.html
http://www.freemuslims.org/news/article.php?article=1246
http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/amanullah10132003
It's interesting to compare Jesus' and Mohammed's life. To resume it, one could say the following:
Jesus washed his disciples' feet, Mohammed washed off the blood of the swords of his followers!
The life of Jesus could be imitated without hesitation in every point, but I would not advice anyone to do the same with Mohammed. It would make out of him a murderer, thief, rapist etc...
How do you explain that Mohammed lived such a terrible life?
Originally posted by louisXIVIf you have an idea you are free to express it. But you are not free to insult the Prophet who is considered by millions to be the best ever born human. What do you know about his life to say that. Actually I see you have no respect to anyone including Jesus himself.
It's interesting to compare Jesus' and Mohammed's life. To resume it, one could say the following:
Jesus washed his disciples' feet, Mohammed washed off the blood of the swords of his followers!
The life of Jesus could be imitated without hesitation in every point, but I would not advice anyone to do the same with Mohammed. It would make out of him a murderer, thief, rapist etc...
How do you explain that Mohammed lived such a terrible life?
All what you did through out this thread is Claims without any prove or evidence. And visted showed you all what is said in Quran about wat, and you still doing claims without a prove.
You claim to know the life of Jesus but I can say you don't have
enough resources for that.
And you cliam something about Prophet Mohammed Pease be upon him and it seems you no nothing about him.
And I asked you before and I will ask you again.
Did you read the Old Tastement. Do you know what GOD ask you to do in it. And you claim the Jesus is your GOD. Do you know now what Jesus ask you to do. Or not yet.
I want to tell you something before I finish talking with you..
I'm a Muslim and I love Jesus more than you do. And I respect him more than you do. And I belive he will come back to show that you are wrong and pray as we all pray to the only GOD.
Originally posted by louisXIVWell, if one wants to simply engage in a war of rhetoric, one could say that imitating Jesus would make one a self-aggrandizing, apocalyptic monomaniac who claims to be God; who demands that people hate their parents, spouses, children—indeed hate life—in order to be true disciples; whose purpose is to set people against one another; who has a death-wish; and who wrongly predicts the imminent end of the world...
It's interesting to compare Jesus' and Mohammed's life. To resume it, one could say the following:
Jesus washed his disciples' feet, Mohammed washed off the blood of the swords of his followers!
The life of Jesus could be imitated without hesitation in every point, but I would not advice anyone to do the same with Mohammed. It would make out of him a murderer, thief, rapist etc...
How do you explain that Mohammed lived such a terrible life?
You, however, probably believe that he was divine, that his followers did not make up stories about his rising bodily from the tomb, and that using the below-listed gospel verses in support of the argument I just laid out would be bad exegesis (and I would tend to agree with you on that).
The question does arise as to how so many Christians have committed so many atrocities over the centuries in the name of their religion, if they were following the loving Christ. Perhaps they were looking forward too much to the Christ who comes again, as described in Revelation 19:11-21 (cited below).
Okay, enough of that! I agree with you that people who commit atrocities are not following the loving Christ. You do, however, seem to be engaging in a rhetorical “crusade” against Islam—and I just wanted to show how the counter-crusade could work (without even touching the “old testament,” such as Psalm 137). Many people on here have engaged in that counter-crusade.
If you are a follower of the loving Christ (and I commend you if you are), then I suggest that you be very careful in how you accuse others—and back up your accusations with incontrovertible fact—else you be guilty of “bearing false witness,” since “For with the judgment you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get” (Matthew 7:2).
Now, probably most of us who strive to follow a certain path in life often fail. When we do, we may be judged harshly by others—and we may fail again by returning harsh judgment (I have). I would follow neither Jesus nor Muhammad, except as it seems to me reasonable and right to do so. (If forced to a hard and fast choice to follow a person, I would probably choose to follow the Buddha.) I do, however, like the following lines from the Sufi Ibn Arabi:
My heart has become able
to take on all forms.
It is a pasture for gazelles,
for monks, an abbey.
It is a temple for idols,
and for whoever walks around it, the Kaaba.
It is the tablets of the Torah,
and also the leaves of the Qur’an!
I believe in the religion of Love,
whatever direction its caravans may take,
for Love is my religion and my faith.
___________________________________
Or this from Rumi:
The spiritual community of love
is apart from all faiths.
The lovers' community and path
is God.
___________________________________
Or this “Sufic” saying from the First Letter of John, chapter 4, in the Christian scriptures:
7 Beloved, let us love one another, because love is from God; everyone who loves is born of God and knows God (ginoskei ton theou: knows/recognizes the/this God). 8 Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love (ho theos agape estin: the/this God love is).
____________________________________
Luke 14:25 – 25 Now large crowds were traveling with him; and he turned and said to them, 26 "Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple. 27 Whoever does not carry the cross and follow me cannot be my disciple. 28 For which of you, intending to build a tower, does not first sit down and estimate the cost, to see whether he has enough to complete it? 29 Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who see it will begin to ridicule him, 30 saying, 'This fellow began to build and was not able to finish.' 31 Or what king, going out to wage war against another king, will not sit down first and consider whether he is able with ten thousand to oppose the one who comes against him with twenty thousand? 32 If he cannot, then, while the other is still far away, he sends a delegation and asks for the terms of peace. 33 So therefore, none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions. 34 "Salt is good; but if salt has lost its taste, how can its saltiness be restored? 35 It is fit neither for the soil nor for the manure pile; they throw it away. Let anyone with ears to hear listen!"
John 12:25 – Those who love their life lose it, and those who hate their life in this world will keep it for eternal life.
Matthew 10:34 – "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; 36 and one's foes will be members of one's own household. 37 Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38 and whoever does not take up the cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Those who find their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it.”
Revelation 19:11 – Then I saw heaven opened, and there was a white horse! Its rider is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. 12 His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems; and he has a name inscribed that no one knows but himself. 13 He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is called The Word of God. 14 And the armies of heaven, wearing fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. 15 From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron; he will tread the wine press of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. 16 On his robe and on his thigh he has a name inscribed, "King of kings and Lord of lords." 17 Then I saw an angel standing in the sun, and with a loud voice he called to all the birds that fly in midheaven, "Come, gather for the great supper of God, 18 to eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the flesh of the mighty, the flesh of horses and their riders-- flesh of all, both free and slave, both small and great." 19 Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth with their armies gathered to make war against the rider on the horse and against his army. 20 And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who had performed in its presence the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur. 21 And the rest were killed by the sword of the rider on the horse, the sword that came from his mouth; and all the birds were gorged with their flesh.
Originally posted by vistesdThe question does arise as to how so many Christians have committed so many atrocities over the centuries in the name of their religion, if they were following the loving Christ.
Well, if one wants to simply engage in a war of rhetoric, one could say that imitating Jesus would make one a self-aggrandizing, apocalyptic monomaniac who claims to be God; who demands that people hate their parents, spouses, children—indeed hate life—in order to be true disciples; whose purpose is to set people against one another; who has a death-wish; ...[text shortened]... the sword that came from his mouth; and all the birds were gorged with their flesh.
Simply because they weren't.
Originally posted by lucifershammerIf you will say that I will say they are not Muslims too
[b]The question does arise as to how so many Christians have committed so many atrocities over the centuries in the name of their religion, if they were following the loving Christ.
Simply because they weren't.[/b]
Vistesd: The question does arise as to how so many Christians have committed so many atrocities over the centuries in the name of their religion, if they were following the loving Christ.
Lucifershammer: Simply because they weren't.
Ahosyney: If you will say that I will say they are not Muslims too.
________________________________
Makes my day. 🙂