15 replies to this topic

[Bigmo]

Koran gives complete freedom

2:256 There is no compulsion in religion, for the right way is clearly from the wrong way. Whoever therefore rejects the forces of evil and believes in God, he has taken hold of a support most unfailing, which shall never give way, for God is All Hearing and Knowing.

16:82 But if they turn away from you, your only duty is a clear delivery of the Message .

6:107 Yet if God had so willed, they would not have ascribed Divinity to aught besides Him; hence, We have not made you their keeper, nor are you a guardian over them.

4:79-80 Say:'Whatever good betides you is from God and whatever evil betides you is from your own self and that We have sent you to mankind only as a messenger and all sufficing is God as witness. Whoso obeys the Messenger, he indeed obeys God. And for those who turn away, We have not sent you as a keeper."

11:28 He (Noah) said "O my people! think over it! If I act upon a clear direction from my Lord who has bestowed on me from Himself the Merciful talent of seeing the right way, a way which you cannot see for yourself, does it follow that we can force you to take the right path when you definitely decline to take it?°

17:53-54 And tell my servants that they should speak in a most kindly manner. Verily, Satan is always ready to stir up discord between men; for verily; Satan is mans foe .... Hence, We have not sent you with power to determine their Faith.

21:107-109 (O Prophet?) 'We have not sent you except to be a mercy to all mankind:" Declare, "Verily, what is revealed to me is this, your God is the only One God, so is it not up to you to bow down to Him?' But if they turn away then say, "I have delivered the Truth in a manner clear to one and all, and I know not whether the promised hour is near or far."

22:67 To every people have We appointed ceremonial rites which they observe; therefore, let them not wrangle over this matter with you, but bid them to turn to your Lord. You indeed are rightly guided. But if they still dispute you in this matter, `God best knows what you do."

24.54. Say: "Obey God, and obey the Messenger. but if ye turn away, he is only responsible for the duty placed on him and ye for that placed on you. If ye obey him, ye shall be on right guidance. The Messenger's duty is only to preach the clear (Message).

88:21 22; And so, exhort them your task is only to exhort; you cannot compel them to believe.

48:28 He it is Who has sent forth His Messenger with the Guidance and the Religion of Truth, to the end that tie make it prevail over every religion, and none can bear witness to the Truth as God does.

36:16 17 (Three Messengers to their people) Said, "Our Sustainer knows that we have indeed been sent unto you, but we are not bound to more than clearly deliver the Message entrusted to us.'

39:41 Assuredly, We have sent down the Book to you in right form for the good of man. Whoso guided himself by it does so to his own advantage, and whoso turns away from it does so at his own loss. You certainly are not their keeper.

42:6 48 And whoso takes for patrons others besides God, over them does God keep a watch. Mark, you are not a keeper over them. But if they turn aside from you (do not get disheartened), for We have not sent you to be a keeper over them; your task is but to preach ....

64:12 Obey God then and obey the Messenger, but if you turn away (no blame shall attach to our Messenger), for the duty of Our Messenger is just to deliver the message.

67:25 26 And they ask, "When shall the promise be fulfilled if you speak the Truth?" Say, "The knowledge of it is verily with God alone, and verily I am but a plain warner."

10.99-100. If it had been thy Lord's will, they would all have believed,- all who are on earth! wilt thou then compel mankind, against their will, to believe! No soul can believe, except by the will of God, and He will place doubt (or obscurity) on those who will not understand

28.55-56 And when they hear vain talk, they turn away therefrom and say: "To us our deeds, and to you yours; peace be to you: we seek not the ignorant," It is true thou wilt not be able to guide whom thou lovest; but God guides those whom He will and He knows best those who receive guidance.

109.1-6 Say : O ye that reject Faith,! I worship not that which ye worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship, And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship, To you be your Way, and to me mine.

74.11-17 Leave Me with whom I created alone!, To whom I granted resources in abundance, And sons to be by his side, To whom I made (life) smooth and comfortable, Yet is he greedy-that I should add (yet more);- By no means! For to Our Signs he has been refractory!, Soon will I visit him with a mount of calamities!

"So have We appointed for every Prophet an enemy - devils of men and Jinns; who inspire each other with seductive, deceptive speech which leads astray; but had thy Lord willed they would not have done so. So leave them with what they do devise. And let the hearts of those who believe not in the Hereafter listen to it; and let them be well pleased with it; and let them gain what they can gain!" 6:113-114

"And when you see those who meddle with Our revelations, withdraw from them until they meddle with another topic. And if the devil causes you to forget, sit not, after the remembrance, with the congregation of wrongdoers. 6:68

[Bigmo]

After 9-11 there has been various debates about Islam. Some have said that the terrorist are Islam's true spoken. The so called moderates practice taqiya. Taqiya is the deliberate lying for the faith. They say Islam is a violent religion that commands Muslims to kill non Muslim. Non Muslims have 3 choices, either they convert, pay the jizya(tax) or die. They say Muhammad was peaceful for PR reasons and once strong showed his true colors and preached violent jihad. They say all the peaceful verses were abrogated after his final victory with this verse:

9.5. 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 God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

And also this verse:

9.29. Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Messenger, 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.

This verses are chosen for a reason. When read alone it implies a command to attack until they convert. Of course there are other verses in the Koran that talks about fighting. But why do they tend to focus on this one? Its simple, the other verses tend to show the defensive nature of the jihad and also the malicious intent and behavior of the pagans. Thus never cited. Lets look at some of them:

2.190. Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loveth not transgressors

2.191. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith

2.193. And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God, but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression

Also:

2.217. They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: "Fighting therein is a grave (offence); but graver is it in the sight of God to prevent access to the path of God, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members." Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith if they can. And if any of you Turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will abide therein.

All these verses talks about fighting, however within these verses the defensive nature of the verses and the malicious behavior of the pagans is cited. Thus those who wish to attack Islam never cite those verses. Its a deliberate attempt to hide what the Koran as saying and using selective verses to imply what they know the verses does not mean.

Lets however look at the verse that is often cited. This time we will take the verses before and after it to see what is the context this verse is talking.

9.4. (But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for God loveth the righteous.

9.5. 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 God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

However in the same chapter in explains the intention behind this verse:

9.13. Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you? Do ye fear them? Nay, it is God Whom ye should more justly fear, if ye believe!

Its important for us to understand what the Koran is saying. When the koran says if they repent and establish regular prayers and so on, its not a command to attack them till they do that. Its a command to say if they choose to one day becoming Muslims, do not despise them because of past blood. Let bygones be bygones because now there are your brethren. If he chooses to remain pagan then let him be and do not fight him unless he chooses to fight you. The verse are read wrong, since many pagans converted to Islam and some of the earlier believers had problems with individuals who they fought before or were persecuted and oppressed by them before.

The verses clearly indicate that no forced conversion was there.There are standards that the Koran established for fighting.

As for such who do not fight you on account of faith, or drive you forth from your homelands, God does not forbid you to show them kindness and to deal with them with equity, for God loves those who act equitably. God only forbids you to turn in friendship towards such as fight against you because of faith and drive you forth from your homelands or aid in driving you forth[/i]. As for those from among you who turn towards them for alliance, it is they who are wrongdoers. 60:8-9

Permission (to fight) is given to those against whom war is being wrongfully waged, and verily, God has indeed the power to aid them. Those who have been driven from their homelands in defiance of right for no other reason than their saying, ‘Our Lord is God.’ 22:39-40

However both Sunni Islam or Shia islam do not follow the Koranic guidance. They follow whats know as the hadiths. The hadiths are the supposed "oral" prophetic traditions they say was passed along orally across time and was collected and written down 2 to 3 centuries after the prophet. The prophet and his companions never left behind them any text except the Koran. The hadiths emerged during the reign of the Abbasid empire and was a way to establish an orthodoxy and give legitimacy to a corrupt dynasty by using the prophet's name. Everything from executing apostates, to stoning adulterers and labelling other monotheist as infidels have their support not in the koran, but in these so called hadiths. So hadiths have the same place in sectarian Islam as do the Talmud in Judaism. The Koran condemned the Talmud and Jesus in the Gospel of Mark 7 also condemned the Talmud. The Koran only recognizes the Torah and the Gospel. However like Islam, both these religions have abandoned these scriptues for either a supposed "oral" tradition that emerged centuries later or a supposed "holy ghost" who was to interpret the Gospel in ways not supported by the Gospel.

The Koran makes clear the job of the prophet:

16:82 But [b]if they turn away from you, your only duty is a clear delivery of the Message[/b] .

6:107 Yet if God had so willed, they would not have ascribed Divinity to aught besides Him; hence, We have not made you their keeper, nor are you a guardian over them.

4:79-80 Say:'Whatever good betides you is from God and whatever evil betides you is from your own self and that We have sent you to mankind only as a messenger and all sufficing is God as witness. Whoso obeys the Messenger, he indeed obeys God. And for those who turn away, We have not sent you as a keeper."

11:28 He (Noah) said "O my people! think over it! If I act upon a clear direction from my Lord who has bestowed on me from Himself the Merciful talent of seeing the right way, a way which you cannot see for yourself, does it follow that we can force you to take the right path when you definitely decline to take it?°

17:53-54 And tell my servants that they should speak in a most kindly manner. Verily, Satan is always ready to stir up discord between men; for verily; Satan is mans foe .... Hence, We have not sent you with power to determine their Faith.

88:21 22; And so, exhort them your task is only to exhort; you cannot compel them to believe.

But most of all the Koran asks the prophet himself this question:

10.99-100. If it had been thy Lord's will, they would all have believed,- all who are on earth! wilt thou then compel mankind, against their will, to believe! No soul can believe, except by the will of God, and He will place doubt (or obscurity) on those who will not understand

The prophet's answer must have been no!

109.1-6 Say : O ye that reject Faith,! I worship not that which ye worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship, [i]And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship, To you be your Way, and to me mine

Koran is peace!

[Moonbeam]

Troll alert--I've seen BigMo on other forums.

[Bigmo]

Why the Jewish/Christian orthodoxy reject the Koran

Its all about Jesus the Messiah

There has been many discussions by Jews and Christians regarding the Koran. In recent times there has been an emphasis on Koran and violence and Koran and freedom and Koran and women. Although I have dealt with the issue of violence and freedom in my other posts, I will talk about another issue which I think is absolutely crucial in understanding why the Jews and Christians can never accept the Koran. There are of cource many other reasons why people question the Koran, and certainly in the history and current reality of many adherents of the so called Islamic faith do raise issues regarding frredom and women and violence. But my main concern is about these two religious traditions and why the real issues that seperate them from the Koran are rarely highlited.

Though these two religions reject each other and are odds with one another but they do have one thing in common regarding the Koran. My purpose here is to explain the role of Jesus in shaping the attitude these two religioons have regarding the Koran.

Those who pay attention can notice that there is constant attempt by Christians, and here I mean the orthodoxy, to paint Islam as somehow different from either Christianity or even Judaism. Muhammad is never compared with any of the prophets you read in the Bible. There is always an attempt even to distance themselves from the God of the Koran. The reality is these differences they try to propagate are fakes. Because the real difference and point of contention between the Koran and these two religions is on what they believe about Jesus and what the Koran says about Jesus. Both these religious traditions could never accept the Jesus reality as presented in the Koran. Once again these are not the only issues, but as a Koranist who does not confirm to Sunni/Shia sectarianism, my intention is to highlight their rejection of the Koran. I will show how regardless of any other issues, the Jesus of the Koran stand in stark contradiction to the central theological core of these two faiths, Judaism and Christianity as practiced and understood by the orthodoxies.

The Koran says it came to confirm the previous scriptures:

5.46. And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear God.[/i]

"It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong)," (3:3).

2.41 And believe in what I reveal, confirming the revelation which is with you, and be not the first to reject Faith therein, nor sell My Signs for a small price; and fear Me, and Me alone.

2.89 And when there comes to them a Book from God, confirming what is with them,- although from of old they had prayed for victory against those without Faith,- when there comes to them that which they (should) have recognized, they refuse to believe in it but the curse of God is on those without Faith.

If the Koran came to confirm the Torah and Gospel and speaks of them as Divine revelations, why would both the Jews and Christians have a serious problem with the Koran? The answer is Jesus.

The Christian orthodoxy is built around the divinity of Jesus, and the Jewsih orthodoxy is built on the awaiting of the Messiah and their rejection of Jesus as the Messiah and indeed of his miraculous birth. Although these are not the only issues the orthodoxies are structured around, without them the orthodoxy can not maintain itself as it is.

So what does the Koran say about Jesus?

When the angel said, "Mary, God gives you a good tidings of a Word from Him whose name is messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, -high honoured shall he be in this world and the next, near stationed to God. He shall speak to men in the cradle, and of age, and righteous he shall be, "lord" said Mary "How shall I have a son, seeing no mortal has touched me? "Even so, he said "God creates what He will". When he decrees a thing He but say to it, "Be", and it is. (Al-Imran 3:45-47)

"Then she brought the child to her folk, carrying him, and they said, "Mary, you have surely committed a monstrous thing. Sister of Aaron, your father was not a wicked man, nor your mother a woman unchaste. Mary pointed to the child; but they said, 'Hoe shall we speak to one who still in the cradle, a little child. And he said, 'Lo, I am God's servant, God has given me the Book and made me a Prophet Blessed He has made me ,wherever/may be; and He has enjoined me to prayer, and to give the alms so long as I live, and likewise to cherish my mother; He has not made me arrogant and wicked. Peace be upon me, the day I was born, and the day I die, and the day I am raised up alive. "Maryam 19:29-33)

5.110.Then will God say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Recount My favour to thee and to thy mother. Behold! I strengthened thee with the holy spirit, so that thou didst speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. Behold! I taught thee the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel and behold! thou makest out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, by My leave, and thou breathest into it and it becometh a bird by My leave, and thou healest those born blind, and the lepers, by My leave. And behold! thou bringest forth the dead by My leave. And behold! I did restrain the Children of Israel from (violence to) thee when thou didst show them the clear Signs, and the unbelievers among them said: 'This is nothing but evident magic.'

This will be absolutely rejected by the Jewish Rabbis. This not only confirms the miraculous birth of Jesus but also confirms he was the awaited messiah as promised in the Hebrew Bible. The Jews rejected Jesus and still do and these verses alone are more than enough to convince the Judaic orthodoxy to reject the Koran outright. Nothing stands against the Judaic orthodoxy more than these verses.

As far as the Christian orthodoxy:


[u]"And they say, The All-Merciful has taken unto Himself a son. You have indeed advanced something hideous. As if the skies are about to burst, the earth to split asunder and its mountain to fall down in the utter ruin for that they have attributed to the All-merciful a son; and behaves not the All-merciful to take a son. None there in the heavens and earth but comes to the All-Merciful as a servant" (Maryam 19:88-93)

Truly the likeness of Jesus, in God's sight is as Adam's likeness; He created him of dust, then He said upon him, 'Be' and he was. (Al-Imran 3:59)

People of the Book, do not go beyond the bounds in your religion, and say nought as to God but the Truth. The messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was only the messenger of God, and his word that he committed to Mary, and a spirit originating from Him. So believe in God and His Messengers, and say not 'Three'. Refrain, better is for you. God is only one God. Glory be to him-that He should have a son! To Him belongs all that is in the Heavens and in the Earth; God suffices for a guardian. [/u](4.171)

This is of course in stark contrast and indeed a denounciation of the Christian orthodoxy which is structured on the divinity of Jesus and the Trinity. These verses alone completely nullifies that orthodoxy in its core theological understanding.

So both these religions can not accept that Jesus was the awaited Messiah born of a miraculous nature but yet human and completely unassociated physically with the Almighty. Yet these issues are never discussed and distractions are usually presented. Of course these are not the only issues since Islam has a sectarian component as represented by the Sunni/Shia religions which rely on oral traditions, known as hadiths, that dominate their religions and in many cases contradict the Koran. But the verses I presented today I am sure will clearly indicate that theverses about Jesus in the Koran by itself is enough for the Judiac and Christian orthodoxy to reject the Koran outright.

So there you have it.

(edited by Matthias: threads 25105 & 25124 merged)

Edited by Matthias, 21 October 2008 - 08:51 AM.

[Shoe]

Trolling with verses from the Koran is actually quite common. I've seen it on many forums, and not just on English ones.

[Bigmo]

Does the Koran say Torah and Gospel corrupted?



Some people have said that the Koran says that the Torah and Gospel are corrupted and its no longer a book of guidance. They say "Islam" says so. Some Muslims even have said that anyone who still follows these scriptures is no longer a believer but a disbeliever and will go to hell. Indeed some Sunni/Shia scholars claim that any follower of islam who does not believe that the Jews and Christians are infidels is an infidel himself! However when asked to provide their evidence from the Koran they are mute and confused. This is because what they say and the Koran are complete opposites. Lets look at the Koran and what it say:

Let the People of the Gospel judge by what God hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what God hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel. (Surah 5, Maida, verse 47)

But why do they come to thee for decision, when they have (their own) Law before them?- Therein is the (plain) command of God; yet even after that, they would turn away. For they are not (really) people of faith. (Surah 5, Maida, verse 43)

Then is it only a part of the Book that ye believe in, and do ye reject the rest? But what is the reward for those among you who behave like this but disgrace in this life? - And on the Day of Judgment they shall be consigned to the most grievous penalty. For God is not unmindful of what ye do. (Surah 2, Baqara, verse 85)

Say: "O People of the Book! Ye have no ground to stand upon unless ye stand fast by the Law, the Gospel and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord...." (Surah 5, Al Ma'idah, verse 68)

If only they had stood fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness from every side. There is from among them a party on the right course: But many of them follow a course that is evil. (Surah 5, Maida, verse 69)

Of the people of Moses there is a section who guide and do justice in the light of truth. (Surah 7, A'raf, verse 159)

2.41 And believe in what I reveal, confirming the revelation which is with you, and be not the first to reject Faith therein, nor sell My Signs for a small price; and fear Me, and Me alone.

2.89 And when there comes to them a Book from God, confirming what is with them,- although from of old they had prayed for victory against those without Faith,- when there comes to them that which they (should) have recognized, they refuse to believe in it but the curse of Allah is on those without Faith.

2.91 When it is said to them, “Believe in what God Hath sent down, “they say, “We believe in what was sent down to us:” yet they reject all besides, even if it be Truth confirming what is with them. Say: “Why then have ye slain the prophets of Allah in times gone by, if ye did indeed believe?”

Here the Koran clearly states the Koran confirms what is with them, meaning the Jews and Christians. Clearly this is not stating scriptures ofthe past but what they have possession of. As I did my research about this subject some time ago I was looking for where this evidence of the tampering and corruption is mentioned. How can God say the previous scriptures are corupted then order them to follow them. It even attacks those who refuse to follow it and says its a confimation of the scriptures they have with them.

Whats more the Koran seems to indicate its a confirmation of the previous scriptures.

To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what God hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee. To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If God had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to God; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute; Surah 5 Verse 48

It even uses the previous scripture as evidence for the validity of the Koran:

And if thou (Muhammad) art in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto thee, then question those who read the Scripture (that) was before thee... (Surah 10, Jonah, verse 94)

Muslims who follow Sunni/Shia Islam say these verses are concerning the originals. But these scriptures have not changed since the days of the prophet. In fact they are the way are today long before the prophet. So what scriptures was the Koran talking about. They then point to this verse as evidence.

2.79 Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from God," to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.

This is then used to support the tampering of the scriptures. However upon close examination, I see they failed to look at the verse before it and after it.

2.78 And there are among them illiterates, who know not the Book, but (see therein their own) desires, and they do nothing but conjecture.

So the Koran is saying those poeple were making things up but never said the Book itself has been tampered since those people never knew the book. It was confusing at first but then the next verse explained it:

2.80 And they say: "The Fire shall not touch us but for a few numbered days:" Say: "Have ye taken a promise from God, for He never breaks His promise? or is it that ye say of God what ye do not know?"

This is not in the Torah but its refering to the Talmud. The supposed "oral" traditions the Rabbis say was passed down to them.

The Rabbinic tradition arose from the Pharisaic tradition after the destruction of the Second Temple in AD 70. In general, it moved away from traditional Judaism's emphasis on an earthly future for Israel toward the concept of reward in the life to come.[4] Gehinom (Gehenna), according to rabbinic literature, is a place or state where the wicked are temporarily punished after death. “Gehenna” is sometimes translated as "hell", but the Christian view of hell differs from the Jewish view of Gehenna. Most sinners are said to suffer in Gehenna no longer than twelve months.Those who are too wicked to reach paradise are sometimes said to be punished forever.[5] Other accounts reject the idea that a merciful God would punish anyone forever,[6] in which case those too wicked for purification are destroyed (see annihilationism)

Gehenna - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also in the Talmud:

Sanhedrin 57a . A Jew need not pay a gentile ("Cuthean") the wages owed him for work.

3.75. Among the People of the Book are some who, if entrusted with a hoard of gold, will (readily) pay it back; others, who, if entrusted with a single silver coin, will not repay it unless thou constantly stoodest demanding, because, they say, "there is no call on us (to keep faith) with these ignorant (Pagans)." but they tell a lie against God, and (well) they know it.

Sanhedrin 106a . Says Jesus' mother was a whore: "She who was the descendant of princes and governors played the harlot with carpenters." Also in footnote #2 to Shabbath 104b of the Soncino edition, it is stated that in the "uncensored" text of the Talmud it is written that Jesus mother, "Miriam the hairdresser," had sex with many men.

4.156 Quran
That they rejected Faith; that they uttered against Mary a grave false charge;

The famous warning of Jesus Christ about the tradition of men that voids Scripture (Mark 7:1-13), is in fact, a direct reference to the Talmud, or more specifically, the forerunner of the first part of it, the Mishnah, which existed in oral form during Christ's lifetime, before being committed to writing. Mark chapter 7, from verse one through thirteen, represents Our Lord's pointed condemnation of the Mishnah.

Also:

The Schindler's List Quote

The Talmud (i.e., the Babylonian Talmud) text of Sanhedrin 37a restricts the duty to save life to saving only Jewish lives.

The book on Hebrew censorship, written by Jews themselves (Hesronot Ha-shas), notes that some Talmud texts use the universalist phrase:

"Whoever destroys the life of a single human being...it is as if he had destroyed an entire world; and whoever preserves the life of a single human being ...it is as if he had preserved an entire world."

However, Hesronot Ha-shas points out that these are not the authentic words of the original Talmud.

In other words, the preceding universalist rendering is not the authentic text of the Talmud and thus, for example, this universalist version which Steven Spielberg in his famous movie, Schindler's List attributed to the Talmud (and which became the motto of the movie on posters and in advertisements), is a hoax and constitutes propaganda intended to give a humanistic gloss to a Talmud which is, in its essence, racist and chauvinist hate literature.

In the authentic, original Talmud text it states that "whoever preserves a single soul of Israel, it is as if he had preserved an entire world" (emphasis supplied). The authentic Talmud text sanctions only the saving of Jewish lives.

The Koran tells us about this and condemns this:

5.32 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 apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land

"According to the Talmud, Jesus was executed by a proper rabbinical court for idolatry, inciting other Jews to idolatry, and contempt of rabbinical authority. All classical Jewish sources which mention his execution are quite happy to take responsibility for it; in the talmudic account the Romans are not even mentioned.

"The more popular accounts--which were nevertheless taken quite seriously--such as the notorious Toldot Yeshu are even worse, for in addition to the above crimes they accuse him of witchcraft. The very name 'Jesus' was for Jews a symbol of all that is abominable and this popular tradition still persists...

The koran tells us:

4.157. That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of God.;- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-
The Talmud then say:

Rosh Hashanah 17a. Christians (minnim) and others who reject the Talmud will go to hell and be punished there for all generations.

Sanhedrin 90a. Those who read the New Testament ("uncanonical books") will have no portion in the world to come.

Shabbath 116a. Jews must destroy the books of the Christians, i.e. the New Testament.

The koran responds by:

And they say: "None shall enter Paradise unless he be a Jew or a Christian." Those are their (vain) desires. Say: "Produce your proof if ye are truthful."Nay,-whoever submits His whole self to God and is a doer of good,- He will get his reward with his Lord; on such shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. The Jews say: "The Christians have naught (to stand) upon; and the Christians say: "The Jews have naught (To stand) upon." Yet they study the (same) Book. Like unto their word is what those say who know not; but God will judge between them in their quarrel on the Day of Judgment. 2.111-113

“Non-Jewish property belongs to the Jew who uses it first” - (Babba Bathra 54b)

“If two Jews have deceived a Non-Jew, they have to split the profit” - (Choschen Ham 183,7)

“Every Jew is allowed to use lies and perjury to bring a Non-Jew to ruin” - (Babha Kama 113a)

“The Jew is allowed to practice usury on the Non-Jew” - (Talmud IV/2/70b)

The koran then says:

4.160. For the iniquity of the Jews We made unlawful for them certain (foods) good and wholesome which had been lawful for them;- in that they hindered many from God's Way;-
4.161. That they took usury, though they were forbidden; and that they devoured men's substance wrongfully;- we have prepared for those among them who reject faith a grievous punishment.

Note: The Torah forbids the Jews from the devouring of Usury ("neshek").See the Old Testament Ex. 22: 25;
Le. 25: 36-37; De. 23:19-20; Ne. 5: 7/10; Ps. 15: 5; Pr. 28:8

The Koran then says:

4.162. But those among them who are well-grounded in knowledge, and the believers, believe in what hath been revealed to thee and what was revealed before thee: And (especially) those who establish regular prayer and practise regular charity and believe in God and in the Last Day: To them shall We soon give a great reward.

Truth About the Talmud: Judaism's Holiest Book

Edited by Bigmo, 21 October 2008 - 02:32 PM.

[Bigmo]

As for the Gospel and New Testament

Jesus is reported to have said “he that hath seen me hath seen the Father” and “I am in the Father, and the Father in me” (John 14:9-10); but in the same passage he shortly goes on to add: “At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.” (John 14:20) Again, while Jesus does proclaim “I and my Father are one” (John 10:30), he also prays for his followers, “that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us.” (John 17:21) Whatever the nature of the “oneness” Jesus is claiming exists between God and himself, it is apparently something that is supposed to hold between God and all Christians – in which case it can hardly be the relation of numerical identity.

Likewise, in the two New Testament passages where Jesus is said to have regarded himself as “equal with God” – John 5:18 and Philippians 2:6 – the Greek word translated “equal” is isos, which means “on the same level” or “of the same rank,” never “identical.” The claim that Jesus was God did not become Christian orthodoxy until the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE. The orthodox reading of these passages seems natural today only because they are read through the lens of what “everybody knows” about Jesus’ claims to divinity; few would find incarnationism in the texts unless they first brought it there.

An objector may point to the opening lines of the Gospel of John, which apparently identify the “Logos” with God (John 1:1) and the “Logos made flesh” with Jesus (John 1:14). Of course these lines were not spoken by Jesus, and so do not show that Jesus himself claimed to be God; but in any case, what exactly are they saying? The relation between God and the Logos seems to fall short of strict identity; the Greek, literally translated, says something like “the Logos was with the God, and God is what the Logos was” – an awkward construction clearly trying to express a subtler relation than identity. The term “Logos” is borrowed from Greek philosophy, where it means a thing’s abstract rational nature; the Logos that is “with” God and is what God is, is not God but God’s nature. To say that Jesus is the Logos made flesh, then, is simply to say that he is a physical embodiment of God’s nature. This hardly makes him identical with God, since all human beings are supposed to be created from God’s spirit (Genesis 2:7) and in God’s image and likeness (Genesis 1:26-27).

Indeed the New Testament authors clearly understand Jesus as offering everyone the opportunity to be sons (and daughters) of God and to partake of God’s nature:


“But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” (John 1:12-13)

“For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. ... And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ.” (Romans 8:14-17)

“Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him.” (1 John 3:2)
As the New Testament authors understand Jesus’ message, being the “Son of God” is evidently not a status that Jesus claims for himself alone, but one that is open to all Christians;

In a Blog's Stead - February 2004

Clearly this has no basis in the Gospel, the Koran reiterates this:

People of the Book, do not go beyond the bounds in your religion, and say nought as to God but the Truth. The messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was only the messenger of God, and his word that he committed to Mary, and a spirit originating from Him. So believe in God and His Messengers, and say not 'Three'. Refrain, better is for you. God is only one God. Glory be to him-that He should have a son! To Him belongs all that is in the Heavens and in the Earth; God suffices for a guardian. (4.171)

"And they say, The All-Merciful has taken unto Himself a son. You have indeed advanced something hideous. As if the skies are about to burst, the earth to split asunder and its mountain to fall down in the utter ruin for that they have attributed to the All-merciful a son; and behaves not the All-merciful to take a son. None there in the heavens and earth but comes to the All-Merciful as a servant" (Maryam 19:88-93)

There is nothing, absolutely nothing about corruption or tampering of previous scriptures. The Koran states that the Talmud is NOT the word of God and says the Christian priests are NOT following the Gospel but indeed they hide and conceal and take things out of context and following vain desires:

"They (i.e. Jews and Christians) changed words from their contexts and forgot a good part of the message given to them, and you will continue to find them -except a few among them- bent on new deceits…" (5:13)

There is among them a section who distort the Book with their tongues: (as they read) you would think it is a part of the Book, but it is no part of the Book; and they say, 'That is from God,' but it is not from God: It is they who tell a lie against God and (well) they know it! (3,78)

The Koran is here to support and confirm the previous scriptures. A reminder to many not to abandon the scriptures and follow men. The scriptures must be read as a WHOLE and not in isolation.

Then is it only a part of the Book that ye believe in, and do ye reject the rest? But what is the reward for those among you who behave like this but disgrace in this life? - And on the Day of Judgment they shall be consigned to the most grievous penalty. For God is not unmindful of what ye do. ( 2,85)

Real Islam is only Koran. Koran is peace!

[daren]

Can you propose any arguement for your position without quoting any book? Do you have any thoughts or ideas of your own?

[medicineman]

Can you propose any arguement for your position without quoting any book? Do you have any thoughts or ideas of your own?

Sura 4:34

Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.

This is definitely one god I dont want to worship........

[Benjamin]

A very profound documentary, about the theological foundation of Islam's violent behaviour:

Islam: What the west needs to know.

[airconditioner]

Its very easy to make the Koran dance to make Islam look more tolerant than it is.

For example you say

There is no compulsion in religion

What about the haddith that says "he who changes his religion, kill him". The haddiths are part of Islam right, so you wouldn't seperate it from the koran. Muslim apostates are regularly killed or punished by muslims who think they are doing the right thing, even in western countries. So whats the point in quoting the verse about no compulsion if its been superseded by a haddith? If mohammad said something that contradicts an earlier thing the later thing stands, thats how islam works right?

Edited by airconditioner, 08 December 2008 - 03:25 PM.

[medicineman]

organized religion is a load of bollocks. Im not jumping on the anti-islam bandwagon, nor the anti catholic or anti-jewish etc.... all religious scriptures deserve to be placed under the Mythology section in bookstores, next to the oddessey and troy and all the rest.

[yipe]

all religious scriptures deserve to be placed under the Mythology section in bookstores, next to the oddessey and troy and all the rest.

Not to quibble (but here I go anyways ) but troy was a real city. Also, if ever a religion wasn't organized, it's Sunni Islam. There's no priestly role, no difference between on muslim and the next. There's no authority, no pope, no leader. Not that that hasn't been perverted in various times and places. But whatever, off point.

My favorite Qur'anic Surah is Al-kaafiruun
"Say: O ye that reject faith. I worship not that which ye worship, nor will ye worship that which I worship. And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship, nor will you worship that which I worship. To you be your way and to me mine."
To me (but then I have a very optimistic turn of mind) this verse seems to say to let everyone else do their own thing. Moderate Muslims love to remind us that "There is to be no compulsion in religion!" and I like to think this verse recapitulates the idea.

[medicineman]

The Sunnis also revere Muawiya and his son Yazeed, the same father and son who slaughtered the prophets grandchilren, and humiliated his grand daughters. That is hypocrisy. But no to quibble here either.

and to airconditioner, yes you are correct. but the hadith thing is complex. You see, the shiaas and sunnis have different ideas about them. One group validates them according to their needs, and rejects them to suit them. Most of the hadiths regarding sexism, killing apostates, etc. are sunni validated. The shiaa usually deny those hadiths to be the prophets, but validate other ones, more specifically, ones stating the greatness of muhammads cousin, whom the shia revere. its a bit complex. but it makes both groups happy. Notice how womens rights are greatly diminished in Sunni dominant countries, hence you get Hamas, Taliban, saud family etc. being sunni, following these hadiths, and hence subjugating the women. The persians on the other hand deny these sexist hadiths, and if you have been to Iran, you would see that the whole women subjugation associated with islam is not as prevalent there. instead, in iran, according to the shiaa hadiths, they are more focused on messianic ideas, or ideas of the second coming of christ and the prophets missing descendant.

Edited by medicineman, 06 January 2009 - 10:07 PM.

[Bigmo]

The Sunnis also revere Muawiya and his son Yazeed, the same father and son who slaughtered the prophets grandchilren, and humiliated his grand daughters. That is hypocrisy. But no to quibble here either.

and to airconditioner, yes you are correct. but the hadith thing is complex. You see, the shiaas and sunnis have different ideas about them. One group validates them according to their needs, and rejects them to suit them. Most of the hadiths regarding sexism, killing apostates, etc. are sunni validated. The shiaa usually deny those hadiths to be the prophets, but validate other ones, more specifically, ones stating the greatness of muhammads cousin, whom the shia revere. its a bit complex. but it makes both groups happy. Notice how womens rights are greatly diminished in Sunni dominant countries, hence you get Hamas, Taliban, saud family etc. being sunni, following these hadiths, and hence subjugating the women. The persians on the other hand deny these sexist hadiths, and if you have been to Iran, you would see that the whole women subjugation associated with islam is not as prevalent there. instead, in iran, according to the shiaa hadiths, they are more focused on messianic ideas, or ideas of the second coming of christ and the prophets missing descendant.

Very good point. Also the Sunnis being the ones in power during the Abbsids always gave authority to the ruler. The Shia being outside of power gave final authority to religious figures. The Mu'tazilites were actually in power before both of them came to existence. Its important for us to see that the concept of a second revelation was promoted by imam Shafi around 160 years after the prophet's death. The questions he was trying to answer clearly indicate the concept of Sunnah was unknown to the public.

The Risal by Imam Al Shafi'

Excerpt: On Legal Knowledge

29. Someone asked me: What is [legal] knowledge and how much should men know of it?

30. Shafi’i replied: Legal knowledge is of two kinds: one is for the general public, and no sober and mature person should be ignorant of it.

31. He asked: For example?

32. [Shafi’i] replied: For example, that the daily prayers are five, that men owe it to God to fast the month of Ramadan, to make the pilgrimage to the [Sacred] House whenever they are able, and to [pay] the legal alms in their estate; that He [God] has prohibited usury, adultery, homicide, theft, [the drinking of] wine, and [everything] of that sort which He has obligated men to comprehend, to perform, to pay in their property, and to abstain from [because] He has forbidden it to them.

This kind of knowledge may be found textually in the Book of God, or may be found generally among the people of Islam. The public relates it from the preceding public and ascribes it to the Apostle of God, nobody ever questioning its ascription or its binding force upon them. It is the kind of knowledge which admits of error neither in its narrative nor in its interpretation; it is not permissible to question it.

33. He asked: What is the second kind?

34. Shafi’i replied: It consists of the detailed duties and rules obligatory on men, concerning which there exists neither a text in the Book of God, nor regarding most of them, a sunna. Whenever a sunna exists [in this case], it is of the kind related by few authorities, not by the public, and is subject to different interpretations arrived at by analogy.

35. He asked: Is [legal knowledge on this kind as obligatory as the other, or is it not obligatory so that he who acquires such knowledge performs a supererogatory act, and he who neglects it falls not into error? Or, is there a third kind, derived from a narrative (khabar) or analogy?

36. [Shafi’i] replied: There is a third kind [of knowledge].

37. He asked: Will you explain it, give its source, and state what [portion] of it is obligatory, and on whom it is binding and on whom it is not binding?

38. [Shafi’i] replied: The public is incapable of knowing this kind of knowledge, nor can all specialists obtain it. But those who do obtain it should not all neglect it. If some can obtain it, the others are relieved of the duty [of obtaining it]; but those who do obtain it will be rewarded.


Here Shafi introduced the concept of another revelation beyond the Koran and the common Muslim rituals like ramadan and pilgrimage to Mecca and paying of the Zakat. It is clear Al Shafi was paving the way for the introduction of hadith to the masses. The questions he was asked if asked today, the person would be labelled an apostate by the Muslim authorities. The person asking never heard of Sunnah or hadith. notice how Al Shafi speaks of specialist and a few authorities. This was the begining of the emergence of a new class called clerics and hadith scholars unknown before that.

Shafi the went to the Koran to justify this new revealtion using "obey God and obey the messenger" as implying God is the Koran and the messenger is the Sunnah. Al Shafi also used the verses of the Koran " the Koran and wisdom" once again to imply wisdom is the Sunnah.

Secular historian saw this development as retrojective, meaning as time went by the authority for the tradition goes backwards ending finally with the prophet himself. Joseph Schacht says:

The need of creating some kind of theoretical justification for what so far had been an instinctive reliance on the opinions of the majority, led, from the first decades of the second/eighth century onwards, to the living tradition being retrojected, and to its being ascribed to some of the great figures of the past. This process, too, began in Kufa, where the stage of doctrine achieved in the time of Hammad b. Abi Sulayman (d. I20/738) was attributed to Ibrahim al-Nakha'i (d. 95-6/7I3-I5). The Medinese followed suit and retrojected their own teaching to a number of ancient authorities who had died about the turn of the century, some of whom later became known as the 'seven jurists of Medina'. At the same time as the doctrine of the school of Kufa was retrospectively attributed to Ibrahim al-Nakha'i, a similar body of doctrine was directly connected with the very beginnings of Islam in Kufa by being attributed to Ibn Mas'ud, a Companion of the Prophet who had come to live in that city, and Ibrahim al-Nakha'i became the main transmitter of that body of doctrine, too. In the same way, other Companions of the Prophet became the eponyms of the schools of Medina and of Mecca. One further step in the search for a solid theoretical foundation of the doctrine of the ancient schools was taken in 'Iraq, very early in the second/eighth century, when the term ' Sunna of the Prophet ' was transferred from its political and theological into a legal context, and identified with the sunna, the ideal practice of the local community and the corresponding doctrine of its scholars. This term, which was taken over by the school of Syria, expressed the axiom that the practice of the Muslims derived from the practice of the Prophet, but it did not as yet imply the existence of positive information in the form of ' Traditions ' (Hadith), that the Prophet by his words or acts had in fact originated or approved any particular practice. It was not long before these Traditions, too, came into existence, and the persons who put them into circulation were the Traditionists.

The ancient schools of law themselves represented, in one aspect, an Islamic opposition to popular and administrative practice under the later Umayyads, and the opposition group which developed into the Traditionist movement emphasized this tendency. As long as a Companion of the Prophet had been the final authority for the doctrine of a school on a particular point, it was sufficient for a divergent doctrine to be put under the aegis of another Companion of equal or even higher authority, as happened in Kufa where all kinds of minority opinions were attributed to the Caliph 'Ali, who had made Kufa his capital. But after the general authority of the Prophet himself had been invoked by identifying the established doctrine with his sunna, a more specific reference to him was needed, and there appeared detailed statements or 'Traditions' which claimed to be the reports of ear- or eye-witnesses on the words or acts of the Prophet, handed down orally by an uninterrupted chain of trustworthy persons. Very soon the emphasis shifted from proposing certain opinions in opposition to the ancient schools to disseminating Traditions from the Prophet as such, and the movement of the Traditionists, which was to develop into a separate branch of Islamic religious learning, came into being. It was the main thesis of the Traditionists that formal Traditions from the Prophet superseded the living tradition of the school. The Traditionists existed in all great centres of Islam, where they formed groups in opposition to, but nevertheless in contact with, the local schools of law. Initially the ancient schools offered strong resistance to the disturbing element represented by the Traditions, but they had no real defence against their rising tide; they had to express their own doctrines in Traditions which allegedly went back to the Prophet, and to take increasing notice of the Traditions produced by their opponents. Finally the outlines and many details of Islamic law were cast into the form of Traditions from the Prophet. In this way, one of the greatest and most successful literary fictions came into being.

Joseph Schacht-origins of Islamic law

[rollo]

A very profound documentary, about the theological foundation of Islam's violent behaviour:

Islam: What the west needs to know.

Profound eh? lol

Too many sheep here....