Arguments against Islam by an Ex-Muslim
Neil Ozman
Welcome to my page. I am a 22 years old Turkish guy. I used to be a Muslim
until 1 year ago. Now I am an atheist. On this page you will find some
arguments against Islam that I found. I will go on adding new arguments and
contradictions on the page in time. If you want to submit new arguments or
object to them contact me at heyw...@yahoo.com
See My Favorite Hadiths page.
Arguments
Logical Fallacy of Quran's Argument in 4:82
4:82 Will they not ponder on the Quran? If it had not come from Allah, they
could have surely found in it many contradictions.
The statement "If it had not come from Allah, they could have surely found
in it many contradictions" logically entails:
"Quran is from Allah, because it has no contradictions."
This sentence is made of two statements, the former being infered through
deductive reasoning from the latter statement with an unstated premise which
is:
"All of the books written by Allah are non-contradictory and all of the
books that are written by other than Allah are contradictory."
The argument can be written in syllogism as follows:
(1) All of the books written by Allah are non-contradictory and all of the
books that are written by other than Allah are contradictory.
(2) Quran has no contradictions.
(3) Therefore Quran is from Allah.
Premise 1 is false. There can be books written other than Allah which are
non-contradictory (e.g. see my book I wrote One Word. It is made of only one
word and it has no contradictions). Since you don't expect an omnipotent
being to make logical errors, then it is obvious that Quran has no divine
origins. So it is a lie because it claims to be of divine origins.
Injil & Iblis
In Islam, "Injil" is the name of the Holy Book revealed from Allah to
prophet Jesus. Since JEsus was a Jewish and spoke a Hebrew dialect
(Aramaic), and since in Islam the belief is that Allah reveals books in the
own tounge of the prophet, then Injil was a book in Aramaic. And you expect
the book's name to be Aramaic also.
Quran 5:46. Waqaffayna AAala atharihim biAAeesa ibni maryama musaddiqan lima
bayna yadayhi mina alttawrati waataynahu al-injeela feehi hudan wanoorun
wamusaddiqan lima bayna yadayhi mina alttawrati wahudan wamawAAithatan
lilmuttaqeena (ARABIC)
Quran 5:46. And We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow in their footsteps,
confirming that which was (revealed) before him in the Torah, and We
bestowed on him the Gospel wherein is guidance and a light, confirming that
which was (revealed) before it in the Torah - a guidance and an admonition
unto those who ward off (evil). (ENGLISH)
But in fact the word "Injil" was derived to Arabic through Christianity
centuries before Muhammad was born. It was derived from the Greek word
"euangelion" which means good news. Euangelion is also the root of the word
"evangel" in English.
Mark 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;
(ENGLISH)
Mark 1:1 Bad'u injeeli yasuhal maseehi ibnallahi (ARABIC)
Mark 1:1 arch tou euaggeliou ihsou cristou uiou tou yeou (GREEK)
The Islamic Injil must have been derived from Aramaic since Jesus spoke
Aramaic. In Islam The New Testament has no divine origin but having a word
>from that book shows the lie of Quran. This is caused by the ignorance of
Muhammad when he was copying the Christian theology. He never knew the
linguistic origins of the word "Injil".
There is also another Greek word in Quran that is derived to Arabic through
Christianity. It is the "Iblis", the name of Satan. It is a derivation of
the Greek word "diabolos" which literally means "slanderer" and used as a
name of Satan in New Testament:
Matthew 4:5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him
on a pinnacle of the temple,(ENGLISH)
Mat4:5 Tote paralambanei auton o diabolov eiv thn agian polin kai isthsin
auton epi to pterugion tou ierou (GREEK)
Matt 4:5 Heena'ithin akhathahu iblees ila al-madeenatil muqaddasati
wa'aqamahu aala janahil haykali (ARABIC)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
David / Amicus
a former Muslim.
May I ask - aren't you afraid of some fundamentalist trying to kill you
or a religious judge issuing a fatwa for your death? Isn't appostasy a
capital offence?
asimm...@yahoo.com
> Arguments against Islam by an Ex-Muslim
>
> Welcome to my page. I am a 22 years old Turkish guy. I used to be a Muslim
> until 1 year ago. Now I am an atheist. On this page you will find some
> arguments against Islam that I found. I will go on adding new arguments and
> contradictions on the page in time. If you want to submit new arguments or
> object to them contact me at heyw...@yahoo.com
>
> See My Favorite Hadiths page.
>
> Arguments
> Logical Fallacy of Quran's Argument in 4:82
> 4:82 Will they not ponder on the Quran? If it had not come from Allah, they
> could have surely found in it many contradictions.
>
> The statement "If it had not come from Allah, they could have surely found
> in it many contradictions" logically entails:
>
> "Quran is from Allah, because it has no contradictions."
>
Yes it entails this. Because the Quran was revealed over a 23 year
period according to various circumstances, addressing various
situations and still no contradictions.
> This sentence is made of two statements, the former being infered through
> deductive reasoning from the latter statement with an unstated premise which
> is:
>
> "All of the books written by Allah are non-contradictory and all of the
> books that are written by other than Allah are contradictory."
>
The logical fallacy is only there for people who deny the nature of
the Quran. One needs to know what the Quran is, before they make such
logical statements. There is no logical fallacy and the deductive
reasoning is flawed.
The Quran is saying that NATURE of this Book is such that it could not
come from other than God. The sentence is in the middle of a
discourse. To isolate it from its context, and at the same time deny
the NATURE of the Book leads one to make obviously absurd conclusions.
The Quran is a Book, REVEALED over 23 years, according to various
circumstances. Human Beings, over twenty three years, compose books
with editing, formatting, and sometimes even reversing their opinions,
let alone being revealed in an environment the Quran was revealed in.
The nature of the Quran is that it was revealed to guide a DYNAMIC
growing community. I challenge ANYONE who is objecting to this verse,
to contradict the claim of the Quran that over a 23 year period,
according to the various circumstances the Muslim state was facing,
including debate and war, that a human being could produce such a
work.
The previous verse speaks about PLOTTING, and the subsequent verse
speaks about the spread of RUMOURS and FALSE INFORMATION. Now the
Quran is a book that was DYNAMICALLY revealed, according to VARIOUS
circumstances and times, yet its statements are definitive, without
contradiction, and mutually support each other like an impregnable
fortress.
The people who are arguing against it fail to even realize what the
Quran is, a dynamic Book revealed over various crcumstances, facing
arguments from different groups including polytheists and ahl-kitab,
and a community that is based upon it is being threatned at the same
time. This failure is because they do not even see that statements
are made in the nature of DISCOURSE. They are not made in a VACUUM
and isolated out of context.
The syllogism is invalid because it totally neglects the NATURE of the
Book. When the verse says Had the QURAN been from anyone other than
God, it means this Book that was revealed over a twenty three yeriod
according to such circumstances, and one finds absolutely no
contradictions. It is an integrated whole, each verse supporting each
other, let alone not even contradicting each other. One only has to
observe the nature of hte politicians and how they change their face
at every different situation.
JJ
> Welcome to my page. I am a 22 years old Turkish guy. I used to be a Muslim
> until 1 year ago. Now I am an atheist. On this page you will find some
> arguments against Islam that I found. I will go on adding new arguments
and
> contradictions on the page in time. If you want to submit new arguments or
> object to them contact me at heyw...@yahoo.com
>
another religious erosion victim produced by the govenrnment of Turkey, I
wonder why the hadith are not in turkish. smells plagiarism. look at the
level of english in the introduction, and the rest of the page.
It is very hard and risky to get religious education in Turkey, if you want
to get it, then you risk your career and your future, because not alotof
people will give you jobs and the government denies places to muslim sisters
with hijab(headcover) in universities, making it impossible to get a
university degree, it is very unlikely that he has got adequate knowledge
about Islam. I think it is the effect of governments propaganda against
Islam, it is everywhere, not a day passes in Turkey that the pro government
media(90% of the media) fabricates something about islam, consequently
people get the wrong message, and hate it. people like him distribute the
wrong message proudly and believeingly (kind of brainwashing I guess). it is
very sad that they deny something they dont know. I feel very sad for this
unfortunate soul, may Allah(swt) guide him and all like him.
with peace
Steadfast
any way it is one more page added to the hundreds of pages on the internet
that slander Islam
before saying your page and just reading your words in this post
my advice is to educate yourself
try to read the hundreds of pages who tried it before you and you might as well see the answers to those
you will be saving yourself and others a lot of valuable effort
Saqib Virk
news:a5g6mo$51d$1...@samba.rahul.net...
> Arguments against Islam by an Ex-Muslim
You, Neil Ozman, are not an ex-Muslim so why are you posting this childish
nonsense here? Your clear hatred of Islam and petty rage against Muslims can
be witnessed on many other Usenet groups and so there is little need for you
to be on SRI.
--
Peace,
Saqib Virk
Shibli Zaman
Now we have Mr. Turkey moonlighting as an etymologist. I have a tip for
him: keep your day job...
I cut a lot of the junk out to keep this short.
On 26 Feb 2002 14:39:20 GMT, "Neil Ozman" <neil...@yahoo.com.au>
>But in fact the word "Injil" was derived to Arabic through Christianity
>centuries before Muhammad was born. It was derived from the Greek word
>"euangelion" which means good news. Euangelion is also the root of the
word
>"evangel" in English.
The Greek word is not "Euangelion", but "EUAGGELION". Origin?
"EUAGGELIDZO". Origin? UNKNOWN!
Thayer postulates the following roots:
I. Possibly "YOO" + "AGGELOS" = "Good" + "Messenger"
a. "YOO" - Oddly this is a word found almost NOWHERE in the New
Testament (maybe 5 times), whereas, the words in Greek used THROUGHOUT
the New Testament for "good" are "AGATHOS" and "KALOS" both used at
least a HUNDRED times or more.
b. "AGGELOS" - Here we find the stinking swampy dead end to this theory.
Thayer postulates that "AGGELOS" comes from either:
i. "AGO" - To take something (??) or
ii. "AGELE" - A HERD. How is this word used in the NT?
"And there was a good way off from them an herd of many swine
feeding." [Matthew 8:30] It is used ONLY to refer to PIGS (Matt 8:30-32]
End result? NO ONE KNOWS WHERE THE GREEK WORD CAME FROM. If you want to
follow the Biblical scholars' leads then you get "GOOD HERD OF PIGS". Do
you really think this is what Jesus' message was about?
[Note: Evidence that the Greeks changed the meanings of words to fit
Christianity is the word "Christos" which means "anointed" in Greek, but
STRANGELY came to also mean "GOOD"!]
Now regarding the word Injeel in Aramaic and Hebrew, the word "NAGAL"
(Arabic "J" is "G" in Aramaic and Hebrew) Genesius says the root is
UNKNOWN in Hebrew and cites the ARABIC word "MINJAL" which refers to a
scythe (see BDB Lexicon, p.618). Then the next entry is "MAGAL" which it
says is BORROWED from the Aramaic "MAGALTA" for which he cites the
Arabic "Minjal". These all mean "sickle". Why a "sickle"? Gesenius says,
"figurative for JUDGEMENT as in Joel 4:13" (see BDB Lexicon, p.618).
How is this word used in the Qur'aan?
"wa li-YAHKUM Ahl AL-INJEEL bi-maa anzal-Allaahu feehi..."
"So JUDGED the People of the INJEEL by what Allaah had revealed.."
[Surat al-Maa'idah 5:116]
Thus, this word is used *100%* in accordance with the words SEMITIC
etymology, IGNORING its Greek lack thereof.
So, you pick. Should it be "GOOD HERD OF PIGS" or should it be a
Revelation from God by which the believers were to JUDGE their affairs?
>Aramaic. In Islam The New Testament has no divine origin but having a
word
In Islam the Torah, Zaboor and Injeel ALL have Divine origin. They were
corrupted by later generations. How come you don't know something so
BASIC about Islam yet you want to refute its tenets? Very, very
typical...*yawn*
>Muhammad when he was copying the Christian theology. He never knew the
How original (sarcasm). Let me guess...you thought that one up yourself?
NOT! Again...*yawn*
Now for this person's satire regarding the word "IBLEES"...
>There is also another Greek word in Quran that is derived to Arabic
through
>Christianity. It is the "Iblis", the name of Satan. It is a derivation
of
>the Greek word "diabolos" which literally means "slanderer" and used as
a
>name of Satan in New Testament:
No, sir, the word is of SEMITIC origin. It comes from the semitic
trilateral root "BLS".
In Hebrew, it is believed the name "BILSHAN" (the Hebrew "SH" is "S" in
Arabic) is affiliated with slander. Gesenius theorizes that it may be a
contaction of "BEN-LASHAN" which means "The Son of Lashan", "LASHAN"
meaning slander (strangely there is a person with this name in Ezra and
Nehemiah).
In Arabic the root "BLS" means to be cut off ie cut off from the Mercy
of Allaah. "Lisaan al-`Arab", the renowned and authoritative Arabic
lexicon of Ibn al-ManTHoor al-Ifreeqi states under "BLS":
"To be 'ablas' from the Mercy of Allaah, meaning to be in despair and
regret. And from this is the name Iblees whose name was `Azaazeel. And
in the Qur'an it states that on that day the wrong doers will
'yuBLiSu'...(al-Qur'aan ar-Rum, verse 12)"
This word was used with inflection in the Qur'an and can also be found
with various inflection throughout MANY of the classical Arabic works.
This means it was a word in USE and UNDERSTOOD in Arabic.
Thus this name "IBLEES" is ABSOLUTELY in accordance with the Semitic
etymology which has predated its use in the Arabic language.
Don't play games with etymology if you have absolutely no knowledge in
that field. You know the word "Turk" is similar to the word "Taraka" in
Arabic which is used for rejecting something. So if I was to play
senseless word games IGNORING sound etymological evidence I could say
all the Turks in the world are a rejected folk and thats how they got
their name. This is nonsense of course just as your baseless etymology
is.
You people have such little knowledge yet you dismiss religious beliefs
based on something you literally read off of a bubble-gum wrapper! Do
you base all your MAJOR life decisions on such evidences so severely
BEREFT of any credibility? If so, I really, really feel sorry for you.
Regards,
Shibli Zaman
Shi...@Zaman.Net
http://shibli.zaman.net
Eric
> Logical Fallacy of Quran's Argument in 4:82
> 4:82 Will they not ponder on the Quran? If it had not come from Allah,
they
> could have surely found in it many contradictions.
Does the Qur'an have NO contradictions, or does it have NOT MANY
contradictions? Unless the Arabic says something completely different from
this English text (and sadly enough, it usually does), this verse says the
Qur'an has NOT MANY contradictions.
> The statement "If it had not come from Allah, they could have surely found
> in it many contradictions" logically entails:
>
> "Quran is from Allah, because it has no contradictions."
See what happens to the analysis all because of the insertion of that one
little word? What actually follows from the statement in Surah 4:82 is:
"Qur'an is from Allah, because it has FEW contradictions."
-- NOT, "Qur'an is from Allah, because it has NO contradictions."
Clearly no logical fallacy could come out of this statement. This makes it
the statement of a charlatan -- a person who appears to make profound
claims, but who in fact says nothing he can't conveniently slip away from
later on. And since Allah does not speak with such a forked tongue, it
seems unlikely that the statement comes from Him.
Okay, okay, I'm sorry folks... I know there would be no way to fall into
this misunderstanding of the text if I could read it in the original Arabic!
Aaliyah Olson-Ahmed
logic that I have found. Well the Quran has thus proven it's point - Allah
only guides those who want to be guided. SubhanAllah! :)
Aaliyah
"David / Amicus" <Ami...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:a5hpkb$edj$1...@samba.rahul.net...
Osman
In the Name of Allah Most Gracious Most Merciful,
Interesting you are ozman and I am osman. you are an ex muslim who is
now
an aithiest and I am an ex aithiest who is now a muslim.
A scholar should be asked answers to your question. My opinion is
regarding your logic.
"Neil Ozman" <neil...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:<a5g6mo$51d$1...@samba.rahul.net>...
> Arguments against Islam by an Ex-Muslim
>
SNIPPED
>
> Arguments
> Logical Fallacy of Quran's Argument in 4:82
> 4:82 Will they not ponder on the Quran? If it had not come from Allah, they
> could have surely found in it many contradictions.
>
> The statement "If it had not come from Allah, they could have surely found
> in it many contradictions" logically entails:
>
> "Quran is from Allah, because it has no contradictions."
>
> This sentence is made of two statements, the former being infered through
> deductive reasoning from the latter statement with an unstated premise which
> is:
>
> "All of the books written by Allah are non-contradictory and all of the
> books that are written by other than Allah are contradictory."
>
> The argument can be written in syllogism as follows:
>
> (1) All of the books written by Allah are non-contradictory and all of the
> books that are written by other than Allah are contradictory.
> (2) Quran has no contradictions.
> (3) Therefore Quran is from Allah.
>
> Premise 1 is false. There can be books written other than Allah which are
> non-contradictory (e.g. see my book I wrote One Word. It is made of only one
> word and it has no contradictions). Since you don't expect an omnipotent
> being to make logical errors, then it is obvious that Quran has no divine
> origins. So it is a lie because it claims to be of divine origins.
Not necessarily, Premise 1 is about the Quran. It is said that
Will they not ponder on the Quran?
The object in question is the Quran. The challenge is that If it had
not
come from Allah, contradictions would have been found in it. The
object being talked about is the Quran. Not just any book.
How can you know that the group/set talked about is any book including
your
one word book? For me it seems that the challenge is for a similar
book.
Perhaps scripture, perhaps a comprehensive book? The challenge is
talking about
the Quran i.e. a book like the Quran, if it had not been from God you
would
surely have found contraditions in it.
As an example if you met an egyptian in ankara and the Egyptian said
to you,
If I had not been an Egyptian surely I would not have this Egyptian
passport with me.
To conclude that All Egyptians have Egyptian Passports may not be
correct. Egyptians who never travelled abroad may never have had
passports made. However, It is likely correct that All Egyptians
traveling legally abroad have Egyptian passports. The context
determines how broadly you look at and define this set. The Egyptians
statement implicitly is talking about Egyptians abroad.
Your one word book is not really a book like the quran. The
comparision is
not necessarily correct. To say that a book as extensive as the Quran
has no contradictions can in no way be equated with a book of one
word.
Your restriction of the set in question to the Set of All Books is not
necessarily superior to my restriction of the Set to be of Books
"similar" to the Quran. You could validly argue that then I can just
restrict my paramaters
untill the Quran passes the test. But my counter argument is that that
is exactly what you are doing by equating one word with a book of
thousands of statements.
Allah knows best.
At the very least your argument is inconclusive.
> Injil & Iblis
> In Islam, "Injil" is the name of the Holy Book revealed from Allah to
> prophet Jesus. Since JEsus was a Jewish and spoke a Hebrew dialect
> (Aramaic), and since in Islam the belief is that Allah reveals books in the
> own tounge of the prophet, then Injil was a book in Aramaic. And you expect
> the book's name to be Aramaic also.
Since the Quran was in the language of the Prophet (SWAS) who was an
Arab, even if the Injeels original name was in Aramic, there is no
reason why God should not use an Arabic name for it. A point of
sending the book in the language of the people is so that they
understand it. Usage of a word most well understood
by the locals is not to be unexpected rather preferred. Refer to the
seven recitations of the Quran for different people at the time of the
prophet.
>
> Quran 5:46. Waqaffayna AAala atharihim biAAeesa ibni maryama musaddiqan lima
> bayna yadayhi mina alttawrati waataynahu al-injeela feehi hudan wanoorun
> wamusaddiqan lima bayna yadayhi mina alttawrati wahudan wamawAAithatan
> lilmuttaqeena (ARABIC)
>
> Quran 5:46. And We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow in their footsteps,
> confirming that which was (revealed) before him in the Torah, and We
> bestowed on him the Gospel wherein is guidance and a light, confirming that
> which was (revealed) before it in the Torah - a guidance and an admonition
> unto those who ward off (evil). (ENGLISH)
>
> But in fact the word "Injil" was derived to Arabic through Christianity
> centuries before Muhammad was born. It was derived from the Greek word
> "euangelion" which means good news. Euangelion is also the root of the word
> "evangel" in English.
>
> Mark 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;
> (ENGLISH)
>
> Mark 1:1 Bad'u injeeli yasuhal maseehi ibnallahi (ARABIC)
>
[SNIPPED]
I am curious. You were a muslim a year ago. You probably had proofs or
reasons
for being a muslims? what were they? why were you a muslim?
An now you are an aithiest. You must have some proof why God does not
exist. What are they? I am not looking for any Islam specific proofs.
ie. not why islam is false, but why you know God does not exist. What
are the primary reasons why you believe God does not exist?
Just to see how you think. How sure r u that man has visited the Moon?
How sure r u that your parents are your parents? Have your ever had
any
doubts about any of the above mentioned statments? I am just trying to
get an idea of what you use as criteria of "proof" generally. What do
you regard as fact and what do you regard as information which has
possible doubt in it. Would appreciate any of your thinking which
would give me information about this.
osman
MahmudTaha
>Arguments against Islam by an Ex-Muslim
>
>Welcome to my page...
I actually felt like visiting it. But I didn't see any URL given in your
posting.
Peace,
Mahmud K. Taha
tamer
my english writing skill is not very good but i found your arguement
about word injil in the quran very intrested in fact i have a theory
about this word too
but before i talk about my theory i would like to give my opinion
about foreign origin words in quran.
if english speaking people ask me to tell them in clear english that
what did i do yesterday and if i tell them that i watched TELEVISION
and eat SPAGETTI i think english speaking people never say me that you
were not talking in clear english. before prophet (pbuh), arabic
language has words in foreign origin but those words are arabized.
just like other languages of the worlds,but common people did used
these words and when ALLAH revealed quran he used these words in quran
to communicate people and this is perfecly normal.this is what some
people do not understand or maybe they dont want to understand.
anyway now i liked to talk about my theory about word injil in quran.
i have been thinking for a long time and i did some searches in greek
language about origin of word "evengel" i found that there is
something missing about this greek origin explanation and in your
resbonse you also pointed out this fact. then i did more thinking and
i started searching about language of jesus(pbuh).we know that
jesus(pbuh) spoke aramaic and this language was very popular in middle
east at that time. because of this i went to www.peshitta.org and did
word search in aramaic gospel translated by this site.but i must tell
before write anything that i am not claiming that i am correct ,this
is just a theory and i hope you can commend on this theory.
in that site there is a arameic lexicon and you can do word search in
that place.
when you write REVELATION in english its gives you aramaic equavelent
for that word. i did that and it gave me results in below.
REVELATION
Word: 0nylglw
Lexeme: 0nylg
Root: fg
Pronunciation: (Eastern) OaLG,eLYaNeA
(Western) OaLG,eLYoNeA ( used in romans 2:5)
Word: 0nylg
Lexeme: 0nylg
Root: fg
Pronunciation: (Eastern) G'eLYaNaA
(Western) G'eLYoNoA (used in 1Corinthians — 12:7,
14:26)
this is only two example from that result but if you go that site you
can find all the translations of word revelation occured in aramaic
gospels.
i hope you looked this and tell em your view.
dear brother i am originaly turkish origin too and just like
everywhere we have some people too that they do not want to understand
when they read , they do not produse their own argument . they copy
and paste arguements that has been answered but because of they dont
read those answers they still think that they are making points.
salamun aleykum
John Smith
> The Greek word is not "Euangelion", but "EUAGGELION".
It is obvious you have never studied Koine Greek:
"Gamma usually has a hard "g" sound, as in "get." However, when it is
immediately followed by gamma, kappa, chi, or xsi, it is pronounced as
a "n".
For example, the word alpha-gamma-gamma-epsilon-lambda-omicron-sigma
is pronounced "angelos", from which we get our word "angel". The
gamma pronounced like a "n" is called a gamma nasal."
["Basics of Biblical Greek", Mounce, pp. 9-10]
So it is entirely reasonable to transliterate
epsilon-upsilon-alpha-gamma-gamma-epsilon-lambda-iota-omicron-nu as
"euangelion"!
euangelion
1) God's good news to humans: good news
2) details relating to the life and ministry of Jesus: good news of
Jesus
3) a book dealing with the life and ministry of Jesus: gospel account
["A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early
Christian Literature", Bauer-Danker-Aland-Gingrich, pp. 402-403]
> Origin? "EUAGGELIDZO".
Wrong. It is simply a related word:
euangelizO
1) bring good news, announce good news
2) proclaim the divine message of salvation: proclaim the gospel
["A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early
Christian Literature", Bauer-Danker-Aland-Gingrich, p. 402]
> Origin? UNKNOWN!
How about "eu" (good) + "angelia" (message)?
> Thayer postulates the following roots:
>
> I. Possibly "YOO" + "AGGELOS" = "Good" + "Messenger"
Angelion, angelia and angelos are clearly related to each other. The
first is neuter, the second is feminine, the third is masculine.
> a. "YOO" - Oddly this is a word found almost NOWHERE in the New
> Testament (maybe 5 times), whereas, the words in Greek used THROUGHOUT
> the New Testament for "good" are "AGATHOS" and "KALOS" both used at
> least a HUNDRED times or more.
Here is where you start to swerve into the ditch.
Bauer-Danker-Aland-Gingrich lists 17 pages worth of words starting
with the prefix "eu".
> b. "AGGELOS" - Here we find the stinking swampy dead end to this theory.
> Thayer postulates that "AGGELOS" comes from either:
> i. "AGO" - To take something (??) or
> ii. "AGELE" - A HERD. How is this word used in the NT?
> "And there was a good way off from them an herd of many swine
> feeding." [Matthew 8:30] It is used ONLY to refer to PIGS (Matt 8:30-32]
Here is where you land in the ditch:
angelos
1) a human messenger serving as an envoy: an envoy, one who is sent
2) a transcendent power who carries out various missions or tasks:
messenger, angel
["A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early
Christian Literature", Bauer-Danker-Aland-Gingrich, pp. 8-9]
> End result? NO ONE KNOWS WHERE THE GREEK WORD CAME FROM. If you want to
> follow the Biblical scholars' leads then you get "GOOD HERD OF PIGS". Do
> you really think this is what Jesus' message was about?
This is just silly, as I have demonstrated above.
> [Note: Evidence that the Greeks changed the meanings of words to fit
> Christianity is the word "Christos" which means "anointed" in Greek, but
> STRANGELY came to also mean "GOOD"!]
What on earth are you talking about?
christos
1) fulfiller of Israelite expectation of a deliverer: the Anointed
One, the Messiah, the Christ
2) the personal name ascribed to Jesus: Christ
["A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early
Christian Literature", Bauer-Danker-Aland-Gingrich, p. 1091]
Since "euangelion" is the Greek word for the Christian gospel, it
shouldn't surprise anyone that the Quran would use that word (injil)
for the Christian gospel!
Regards,
John
Mete Gulenoglu
eu(good) + angelos(news)
check it in http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=evangel
e暇an搽el (-vnjl)
n.
1.The Christian gospel.
2.An evangelist.
[Middle English evaungel, from Late Latin vangelium, from Greek
euangelion, good news, from euangelos, bringing good news : eu-, eu-
+ angelos, messenger.]
>
> Since "euangelion" is the Greek word for the Christian gospel, it
> shouldn't surprise anyone that the Quran would use that word (injil)
> for the Christian gospel!
And that is a big contradiction in Islamic worldview, because
according to Islam none of the authors in the New Testament are
revealed anything from God, the prophet/apostle was Jesus himself, and
he was revealed a book in his own language which Aramaic or Hebrew but
never Greek. Now you see what Islam says: There was never a Greek
revelation, the original Injil(euangelion) was in Aramaic and it was
lost, the whole New Testament is just lies and innovations made up
after Jesus. Well if the New Testament is just lies then why are you
using the word Injil(Euangelion) which was coined in Greek and used in
the New Testament to point to the Gospel of Jesus? I tell you what I
think: Muhammad heard the Arab Christians around talking of the
Injil(euangelion--good news) of Isa (Gospel/Goodnews of Jesus) and he
thought "Injil" is actually a book that Allah revealed to Jesus, a
book like Quran in which Allah is speaking directly. Just like he
thought Zabur (Psalms?) and Torah are books revealed to David and
Moses respectively in which Allah is speaking directly to mankind.
There is a big problem here.
Gilberto Simpson
> > Since "euangelion" is the Greek word for the Christian gospel, it
> > shouldn't surprise anyone that the Quran would use that word (injil)
> > for the Christian gospel!
> And that is a big contradiction in Islamic worldview, because
> according to Islam none of the authors in the New Testament are
> revealed anything from God
Or to be more precise, given what the New Testament books say, a
Muslim would be unlikely to accept them as revelation.
> the prophet/apostle was Jesus himself, and
> he was revealed a book in his own language which Aramaic or Hebrew but
> never Greek.
This isn't a particularly Muslim belief either, but it makes sense.
Even the Church historian Eusebius said that Matthew was originally
written in Hebrew and only later translated into Greek.
> Now you see what Islam says: There was never a Greek
> revelation, the original Injil(euangelion) was in Aramaic and it was
> lost
Well, if *you* are saying that Jesus own language was Aramaic or
Hebrew, while the NT is in Greek which Jesus did not speak, then the
NT is a translation and doesn't contain the actual words of Christ,
even in the original.
> Well if the New Testament is just lies then why are you
> using the word Injil(Euangelion) which was coined in Greek and used in
> the New Testament to point to the Gospel of Jesus?
But "good news" is "good news". I don't buy the argument that somehow
the term is wedded to the NT and that *no* other Christian groups used
it. The Good News can refer to whatever Christ's message was,
regardless of whether it is accurately or inaccuractely transmitted in
the Bible.
Peace
Gilberto
Mete Gulenoglu
> Hebrew, while the NT is in Greek which Jesus did not speak, then the
> NT is a translation and doesn't contain the actual words of Christ,
> even in the original.
According to Islam theory Jesus was revealed the same Islam like
Muhamad, so if words of Christ were translated to Greek and written in
Matthew's book that can't be told Injil, because it will be just like
the translation of hadiths to English and calling them Quran. Because
Islam theory says Jesus was a prophet and revealed a book called Injil
which was a book in which Allah was speaking directly just like the
Quran and that book is lost. And after Jesus` death the Islam he
established was corrupted, his book was lost and new different beliefs
were innovated, like the death on the cross, resurrection and by
believing in his sacrifice atonement of sins, and most of those
innovations were written in Greek and they called that whole package
of beliefs that Jesus coming down as Son of God and dying for the sins
of mankind and ressurrected on the 3rd day and whoever believes will
be saved was called the "Good News" and in those innovative Greek
texts they called it the "Euangelion of Jesus Christ" i.e. the good
news/gospel about Jesus Christ. And today Arab Christian's Bibles
translate that word Euangelion to be Injil, which I suppose derived
from Greek Euangelion to Arabic by the early spreading of the
Christianity in Arabia way before Muhamamd's time, and Euangelion is
also the root of Evangel in English. Now the problem I see in Islam
theory is that the book revealed to Prophet Jesus from Allah and the
innovative religion's Greek word pointing at the whole package of
atonement doctrine are both called Injil, and this is a way too lucky
coincidence to happen. The only rational explanation of that is that
Muhamamd had mistaken the "Injil of Isa" talk he heard around to mean
that they are talking of a book called Injil revealed to Isa(Jesus).
Mr Mahdi
>According to Islam theory Jesus was revealed the same Islam like
>Muhamad
This is not true. Muhammad (saaws) and Jesus (as) were given the same message
of Tawheed (oneness of God; true monotheism) from Allah. But what was revealed
to Jesus (as) was only for his people at his time while Islam of Muhammad
(saaws) is for all people and for all times.
Muhammad (saaws) said in a Hadith that if Moses (as) were alive today, he would
have no choice but to follow him (saaws).
But I hope you realize someday that your "rebellion" against Islam is futile
and that your atheism is not based on evidence that there exists no creator but
on rebelling from religion (Islam).
Mahdi Muhammad
Saqib Virk
"Mete Gulenoglu" <logica...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a6689r$ig2$1...@samba.rahul.net...
> Islam theory says Jesus was a prophet and revealed a book called
> Injil which was a book in which Allah was speaking directly just like
> the Quran and that book is lost.
SV
I don't think the Injil is ever referred to as a Book in the same sense that
the Quran and Torah are referred to as Books.
> The only rational explanation of that is that
> Muhamamd had mistaken the "Injil of Isa" talk he heard around
> to mean that they are talking of a book called Injil revealed to
> Isa(Jesus).
SV
The rational explanation is that you fail to understand.
--
Wasalaam,
Saqib Virk
Paul Davis
"Mr Mahdi" <mrm...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:a69ihe$far$1...@samba.rahul.net...
As-salaamu `ala man ittaba`a al-huda,
>This is not true. Muhammad (saaws) and Jesus (as) were given the same
message
>of Tawheed (oneness of God; true monotheism) from Allah. But what was
>revealed
>to Jesus (as) was only for his people at his time while Islam of Muhammad
>(saaws) is for all people and for all times.
With all respect,
If Muhammad was was given the message of "oneness" in the same sense that
Jesus was, then why have his followers been so aggresive in killing the
followers of Jesus, not just recently on 9-11, but also the invasions of
north Africa, Fez, Spain, Jerusalem, Constantinopal, Vienna, Portiers, and
so forth? It seems that in many respects the "oneness" of Mohommed is not
the same as the "oneness" of all persons in Jesus, at least as understood
by most Christians. Why is that?
Mr Mahdi
With all respect, tell me a little about your Christian history and wonder who
killed more and caused more destruction: Muslims or Christians in the past 2000
years? Would it be fair to attribute the behavior of Christians to the verse
in Matthew 10:34 where it claimed that Jesus (as) said that he did not come to
bring peace but the sword?
Now to make you reflect on your own beliefs so that you can realize that your
bashing of Islam is far from being a sincere inquiry as to the alleged
"violent" tendencies in Islam, answer these questions:
Who started the Crusades?
Who forced millions of Africans, Asians, Native Americans, etc., to become
Christians?
Who forced millions of Africans to be slaves as well as become Christians?
Who killed and persecuted thinkers and intellectuals for believing in things
like the earth being round and not flat?
Who has a history of racially segegrated churchs and institutions in the name
of religion?
Who were the main participants in WWI and WWII as well as the Cold War where
HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS were killed including an estimated 6 million Jews?
Who created the nuclear bomb and used it on a civilian population twice in
Japan?
Why are the majority of intellectuals and scientists in Christian countries (an
estimated 60 to 80 percent) atheists?
I can go on and on and on and on and on and on and I still will have more
questions to ask, but the point remains, how dare you come here and ask Muslims
about their religion and when people has committed a millions times than
Muslims.
People like you are so eager to overlook their atrocities to focus on what
little Muslims have done in the past 1400 years. It was Islam that allowed the
Christians and Jews to worship their religion. When the Christians forced
Muslims, Jews and even other Christians to become Christian or face death,
expulsion and severe persecution it was the Islamic State of the Ottomans that
gave them a place to freely practice their beliefs. It is Islam that has laws
protecting the non Muslims and even have laws punishing those who harm non
Muslims.
>It seems that in many respects the "oneness" of Mohommed is not
>the same as the "oneness" of all persons in Jesus, at least as understood
>by most Christians.
You mean the "oneness" of God in Islam as opposed to your "trinity" of your
god.
>Why is that?
I think you need to answer your own question. You might find the answer....
Mahdi Muhammad
Mete Gulenoglu
> "Mete Gulenoglu" <logica...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:a6689r$ig2$1...@samba.rahul.net...
>
> > Islam theory says Jesus was a prophet and revealed a book called
> > Injil which was a book in which Allah was speaking directly just like
> > the Quran and that book is lost.
>
> SV
> I don't think the Injil is ever referred to as a Book in the same sense that
> the Quran and Torah are referred to as Books.
>
Have you never read the Quran or are you testing me? Read these verses
and tell me again that Injil is not referred as a book like the Torah
or Quran.
5.46. And We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow in their footsteps,
confirming that which was (revealed) before him in the Torah, and We
bestowed on him the Gospel(INJIL) wherein is guidance and a light,
confirming that which was (revealed) before it in the Torah - a
guidance and an admonition unto those who ward off (evil).
Torah has guidance and Injil has guidance.
5.47. Let the People of the Gospel(INJIL) judge by that which Allah
hath revealed therein. Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah hath
revealed: such are evil-livers.
Judging with what Allah revealed in the Injil. Injil is revealed from
Allah. Is it not a book like Quran and Torah?
5.66. If they had observed the Torah and the Gospel(INJIL) and that
which was revealed unto them from their Lord, they would surely have
been nourished from above them and from beneath their feet. Among them
there are people who are moderate, but many of them are of evil
conduct.
How is one supposed to observe the Injil if it is not a book?
5.68. Say O People of the Scripture! Ye have naught (of guidance)
till ye observe the Torah and the Gospel(INJIL) and that which was
revealed unto you from your Lord. That which is revealed unto thee
(Muhammad) from thy Lord is certain to increase the contumacy and
disbelief of many of them. But grieve not for the disbelieving folk.
7.157. Those who follow the messenger, the Prophet who can neither
read nor write, whom they will find described in the Torah and the
Gospel(INJIL) (which are) with them. He will enjoin on them that which
is right and forbid them that which is wrong. He will make lawful for
them all good things and prohibit for them only the foul; and he will
relieve them of their burden and the fetters that they used to wear.
Then those who believe in him, and honour him, and help him, and
follow the light which is sent down with him: they are the successful.
IS INJIL NOT REFERRED A BOOK IN THE SAME SENSE LIKE TORAH AND QURAN?
9.111. Lo! Allah hath bought from the believers their lives and their
wealth because the Garden will be theirs: they shall fight in the way
of Allah and shall slay and be slain. It is a promise which is binding
on Him in the Torah and the Gospel(INJIL) and the Quran. Who
fulfilleth His covenant better than Allah ? Rejoice then in your
bargain that ye have made, for that is the supreme triumph.
57.27. Then We caused Our messengers to follow in their footsteps;
and We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow, and gave him the
Gospel(INJIL), and placed compassion and mercy in the hearts of those
who followed him. But monasticism they invented - We ordained it not
for them - only seeking Allahs pleasure, and they observed it not with
right observance. So We give those of them who believe their reward,
but many of them are evil-livers.
Injil's origin is Euangelion (used in the sense that good news about
Jesus - the good news of the atonement doctrine--a supposed innovation
to Islam), and euangelion word was used in the NT which was written
years after Jesus, and it is in Greek. And Quran says Allah gave Jesus
the Euangelion. Can't you see how confused Muhamamd was?
Johnny
>
> With all respect,
>
> If Muhammad was was given the message of "oneness" in the same sense that
> Jesus was, then why have his followers been so aggresive in killing the
> followers of Jesus......
And the usuall wiffle woffle then follows which we all are used to by
now. Anyway, do tell us why the followers of Jesus (PBUH) are so
aggressive in killing not only Muslims, but people of other faiths as
well? The "peace loving" crusaders followers of Jesus (PBUH) killing
Jews and Muslims and committing the most horrific acts imaginable.
The "peace loving" followers of Jesus (PBUH) killing the natives of
America in the most barbaric manner and wiping out the natives of
Australia. The "peace loving" followers of Jesus (PBUH) committing
all sorts of gruesome acts and killing millions in midieval Europe,
WW1, WW2. The "peace loving" followers of Jesus (PBUH) killing
between 7,000 and 10,000 Somalis, followers of Jesus (PBUH) killing
over 70,000 Chechens in the 1st war and over 20,000 in the present
war, followers of Jesus (PBUH) killing over half a million in Iraq,
followers of Jesus (PBUH) killing over 1/2 million in Vietnam
(US-backed French war)and many more thousands when the followers of
Jesus (PBUH), Americans, attacked Vietnam, followers of Jesus (PBUH)
arming a racist terrorist state such as Israel to teeth to kill
Palestinians. The followers of Jesus (PBUH)committed many attrocities
in Korea (1950-53) , the followers of Jesus (PBUH) butchering Muslims
in Bosnia ... and the list goes on and on.
Johnny
M.S.M. Saifullah
> If Muhammad was was given the message of "oneness" in the same sense that
> Jesus was, then why have his followers been so aggresive in killing the
> followers of Jesus, not just recently on 9-11, but also the invasions of
> north Africa, Fez, Spain, Jerusalem, Constantinopal, Vienna, Portiers, and
> so forth? It seems that in many respects the "oneness" of Mohommed is not
> the same as the "oneness" of all persons in Jesus, at least as understood
> by most Christians. Why is that?
Well you are confusing two different things. Monotheism is different from
fighting a war. This concept is well elucidated in the Old Testament where
the Old Testament Prophets preached monotheism and fought battles with
disbelievers and idolators. In this sense Islam is no different from the
religion of the Prophets of the Old testament.
Now your grievance is that of killing. I would kindly request you to study
your history as well as Old Testament. The people who bring the arguments
like you have done are consistently ignorant about the history. Old
Testament is full of massacres and the Christian history is littered with
Crusades, Inquisitions, WWI, WWII, dropping atomic bombs. Some followers
of the "Prince of Peace" Jesus Christ, shall we say?
Wassalam
Saifullah
thebit
> If Muhammad was was given the message of "oneness" in the same sense that
> Jesus was, then why have his followers been so aggresive in killing the
> followers of Jesus,
They have? Where?
> not just recently on 9-11,
Sorry? How many Muslims died in that attack? Again, we have the BASELESS
assertion that this was somehow from the teachigns of Islam.
> but also the invasions of
> north Africa, Fez, Spain, Jerusalem, Constantinopal, Vienna, Portiers, and
> so forth?
If you read history, you'll also see that (from a purely materialistic point
of view) there was vaccum needing to be filled. The Byzantines and Persians
were very corrupt. The Semites under Persian rule greeted the Arab Muslim
advanced, and this lead to an even quicker fall of the Persian empire.
However, from the Qur'an, we see that the Companions of the Prophet (p) were
made "witnesses unto mankind". A rejection of them, entailed a rejection of a
Messenger. Notice how quickly Islam spread, upto about 50 years after the
death of the Messenger (p). Thereatfer, I think, it was the impluse and
momentum which carried forward the Muslims. Thereafter, the sudden expansion
stopped. This was not for any reason.
> It seems that in many respects the "oneness" of Mohommed is not
> the same as the "oneness" of all persons in Jesus, at least as understood
> by most Christians. Why is that?
Many Christians of North Africa accepted his Message. North Africa was the
home of the "Arian" heresy. In fact, the oneness is the same. The Christian
Church has introduced ideas of "persons" etc. Did Jesus (p) ONCE teach the
Trinity? Or this is an attempted formalisation of a doctrine which is
difficult to reconcile with the Scripture you have?
Paul Davis
news:a6isbu$bsa$1...@samba.rahul.net...
Salaam to each of you,
Well you are asking "why?" for quit a few different instances. I'd suggest
that the answer to each instance why is different, and that the various
answers are complex, most having to do with economic or political interests,
rather than anything to do with a genuine direct spiritual commitment to
Christianity. But this being soc.religion.Islam, I thought that we should
be talking primarily about Islam. If you want to discuss Christianity, I'd
be happy to do what as a separate topic, if the moderators do not object (as
they have in the past) or in a separate newsgroup that you might recommend.
I guess what I am looking for is a more definitive understanding of the
Moslem view (or views) on peace and oneness with persons who do not share
their specific religious understanding. Frankly, I've been trying to follow
that train of thought in this newsgroup long enough to become confused.
Opinions seem to range from Abdul Aziz and others who thinks that hijacking
a civilian airliner and flying into a commercial building is perfectly
acceptable under Islamic law, to others who think that the only thing
lacking was a legitimate government authority to give it sanction. There
might be a few (perhaps more reticent individuals) who think that it was the
entirely wrong thing to do.
I'm interested in the process by which a Moslem discerns right and wrong, in
such an instance. I understand that there is no centralized authority who
carries the final word on the matter (like the Roman Catholics have). There
is the Koran, and Hadith, and yet persons seem to be coming from different
conclusions when working from the same body of information. Or are they
actually working from different hadith? Also, is there a provision to
incorporate thought from outside the Koran into the ethics of decision
making? I've heard both yes and no. I understand that the Wahibi sect says
that reason should not be used for such decisions, only the Koran; and that
this is a minority view.
G. Waleed Kavalec
>
> Opinions seem to range from Abdul Aziz and others who thinks that
hijacking
> a civilian airliner and flying into a commercial building is perfectly
> acceptable under Islamic law, to others who think that the only thing
> lacking was a legitimate government authority to give it sanction. There
> might be a few (perhaps more reticent individuals) who think that it was
the
> entirely wrong thing to do.
>
Paul do you actually READ this newsgroup??
The "range from and to" of opinions you describe above is so off base I
consider it a deliberate attempt to insult Islam.
The Quran CLEARLY prohibits murder. Killing an enemy by fire is CLEARLY
prohibited. Have you actually bothered to read the Qur'an with an open
mind?
Or, better yet, visit a local mosque and TALK to people. These forums do
tend to a non-mainstream cross-section of opinion.
--
G. Waleed Kavalec
-------------------
Do not act in response to how you wish the world was.
Act in response to how the world is.
Saqib Virk
news:a6qf3d$rid$1...@samba.rahul.net...
>> Opinions seem to range from Abdul Aziz and others who thinks
>> that hijacking a civilian airliner and flying into a commercial building
>> is perfectly acceptable under Islamic law, to others who think that
>> the only thing lacking was a legitimate government authority to give
>> it sanction. There might be a few (perhaps more reticent individuals)
>> who think that it was the entirely wrong thing to do.
> >
>
> Paul do you actually READ this newsgroup??
>
> The "range from and to" of opinions you describe above is so off base
> I consider it a deliberate attempt to insult Islam.
SV
I noticed the same thing but wasn't going to say anything at first. I don't
believe it was a deliberate insult but I have noticed his sort of thinking
is quite common lately. It seems you need 50 or so reasonable Muslims to
counter the words of one fanatical Muslim before some Westerners will even
begin to entertain the idea that the fanatical view might not be the correct
or only one. One or two posts from Abdul Aziz is all it takes to drown out
the voice of practically every other Muslim on SRI. The hearing of some is
clear and sharp when the fanatic speaks but they are practically deaf to
reasonable and sane Muslims. It is a strange phenomenon.
--
Peace,
Saqib Virk
Saqib Virk
> Have you never read the Quran or are you testing me? Read these
> verses and tell me again that Injil is not referred as a book like the
> Torah or Quran.
SV
"But when there came unto them the Truth from Our presence, they said: Why
is he not given the like of what was given unto Moses? Did they not
disbelieve in that which was given unto Moses of old? They say: Two magics
that support each other; and they say: Lo! in both we are disbelievers. Say
(unto them, O Muhammad): Then bring a scripture from the presence of Allah
that giveth clearer guidance than these two (that) I may follow it, if ye
are truthful." [Quran 28:48,49]
"These two", refer to the Torah and Quran. The Injeel is not included. The
Quran states that Jesus was given the Book and the Wisdom, the Torah and the
Injeel. I realize there is no point having a discussion with you but thought
it might be interesting if anyone else reading SRI would comment. Does the
Quran refer to the Injeel as a scripture in the same sense that it refers
to the Torah and Quran as scriptures?
"And God will teach him(Jesus) the Book and Wisdom and the Torah and the
Gospel," [Quran 3:48]
--
Peace,
Saqib Virk
Johnny
> "Johnny" <johnny_b...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:a6isbu$bsa$1...@samba.rahul.net...
> "Paul Davis" <pmdla...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:<a6erod$ha3$1...@samba.rahul.net>...
>
> Salaam to each of you,
>
> Well you are asking "why?" for quit a few different instances.
The original question was about monothiesm, the belief in one God.
Now for some mysterious reasons (as mysterious as the trinity), you
brought up something totally unrelated, namely bad evil Muslims
killing peace-loving Christians etc. Therefore you should learn to
stick to the topic and not waste peoples time by brining in completely
irrelevant issues which have nothing at all to do with the topic at
hand.
>I'd suggest
> that the answer to each instance why is different, and that the various
> answers are complex,
Sure sure, the usuall excuses, keep em flowing... ah jee its so
complex, yes they did that, but you see its so complex....not good
excuses..
> most having to do with economic or political interests,
> rather than anything to do with a genuine direct spiritual commitment to
> Christianity.
Oh really? Ever heard of the crusades? Didn't the pope (Urban 2)
ever read the Bible ? Of course he did. The Christians, "followers
of Jesus (PBUH)", slaughtered millions in the name of Jesus and
claiming to be following the Bible and acting according to
Christianity. Sure you can say they were acting against the commands
of the Bible and Jesus (PBUH), but these Christians at that point in
time did really believe that they were indeed following Jesus (PBUH)
and the Bible. Thus, do I have the right to condemn Christianity?
You will say no, but of course when it comes to Islam the doors are
open to throw such cheap polemics. Oh, and that Hitler fellow also
quoted the Bible on occasions in support of his crimes. Let me know
if you didn't know about this. Oh, and the inquisitions. Ever heard
of them? You know, peace-loving Christians claiming to be following
the Bible and Jesus (PBUH) slaughtering each other, the Jews and
Muslims? And what about the slaughter and extermination of the native
Indians by the so very peace loving Christians? I heard they believed
the Bible was the word of God and should be followed. Did you know
this? Read here how the
peace-loving-bible-believing-jesus-worshipping good good good
Christians killed and slaughtered the natives:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Polemics/deception.html
Of course, the peace-loving Christians have been killing and
slaughtering people of other faith in the 20th and 21st century as
well. How about Christian priests and nuns actively taking part in
killing thousands in Ruwanda? Ever heard of that or do you have
"complex" answers for that as well? Oh and how about the white racist
organisations, the KKK and others who kill people and claim to be
staunch Christians? So what if some have reasons such as economic and
political? They are still Christians, so this should give me all the
right in the world to do some Christianity bashing does it not? If it
was the Muslims and were I to tell you that such and such an
individual was killed for political and other reasons and not Islam,
that wouldn't stop you from bashing Islam, therefore you should not be
shocked when I do the same with Christianity. Afterall I am merely
following your own logic. Just to show it can be used against your
religion as well. Bush is a born again Christian, how many has he
killed since taking office and how many did his dad kill?
> But this being soc.religion.Islam, I thought that we should
> be talking primarily about Islam.
This being soc.religion.islam does not give you a free ticket to do
vicious Islam bashing. Of course if you do then you should expect a
reaction as well.
>If you want to discuss Christianity, I'd
> be happy to do what as a separate topic, if the moderators do not object (as
> they have in the past) or in a separate newsgroup that you might recommend.
No I do not wish to discuss with you Christianity some where else.
You started it in this group then you should have the discussion here.
<deleting some>
>to others who think that the only thing
> lacking was a legitimate government authority to give it sanction.
Please let us know which "others" are you referring to who have said
that the 9/11 attack would only be legitimate were it done by a
government? Stop putting words into other peoples mouth. Get over
it, Muslims have condemned it, period. Now if some individual here
and there, such as Br Aziz, supports 9/11 and praises it, then that
does not give you the right to attack Islam since his views are not
representive of an over whelming majority of Muslims. Br. Aziz is not
our leader and neither is he a scholar, and Muslims scholars have
condemned this terrorist attack.
> There
> might be a few (perhaps more reticent individuals) who think that it was the
> entirely wrong thing to do.
This is your imagination. You WANT to believe that it was only a few
Muslims here and there who believed this attack was wrong. But the
fact of the matter is that an over whelming majority of Muslims and
our scholars have condemned this terrorist attack in clear cut terms.
I understand you wish this had not occured, but it has, so get over
it. And how many peace-loving Christians have condemned the killings
of up to 4000 Afghan civillians by the U.S? How many peace-loving
Christians have condemned the killing of hundered of thousands of
civillians by the U.S in various other conflicts? Not many I'd say.
You all believe in the fairy tale that your country and soldiers do no
wrong, but the fact is some of the worst crimes have been committed by
you folks and hardly any "peace-loving" Christian have condemned it.
>There
> is the Koran, and Hadith, and yet persons seem to be coming from different
> conclusions when working from the same body of information.
The same can be said about any scripture, be it the Bible or the Hindu
scriptures. Different interpretations, or people distorting a text
for their own personal selfish interests is not unique to Muslims!
Johnny.
Paul Davis
news:a6qf3d$rid$1...@samba.rahul.net...
>The Quran CLEARLY prohibits murder. Killing an enemy by fire is CLEARLY
>prohibited. Have you actually bothered to read the Qur'an with an open
>mind?
>Or, better yet, visit a local mosque and TALK to people. These forums do
>tend to a non-mainstream cross-section of opinion.
Peace to you.
It is possible to insult a person. It is NOT possible to insult an idea or
a concept. Concepts are to be examined and evaluated objectively. The good
ones will withstand the scrutiny, and poor ones will not.
I haven't even thought about going to a mosque to talk to someone about
Islam. Can you do that sort of thing? I have no idea whether or not there
is even one in the area. It simply isn't the sort of thing that I would
notice, let alone to looking for. I'm sure that there probably wasn't one
within 200 miles of where I was raised, though.
The extent of my knowledge about what Islam teaches I learned from 1.
Reading the Quran with an open mind. 2. What I've sought out on the
internet at some of the web sites recommended in this newsgroup.. 3. What
persons such as Abdul Aziz, Anjum, Khalid Salem, Naqshbandi-Haqqari and
RFP15 (some very helpful articles) and some others have posted in this
newsgroup. Is this enough to be able to discern whether something that I
say is to be regarded as an insult or not?
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
Grace and peace be upon all who read this:
snip
>I noticed the same thing but wasn't going to say anything at first. I don't
>believe it was a deliberate insult but I have noticed his sort of thinking
>is quite common lately. It seems you need 50 or so reasonable Muslims to
>counter the words of one fanatical Muslim before some Westerners will even
>begin to entertain the idea that the fanatical view might not be the correct
>or only one. One or two posts from Abdul Aziz is all it takes to drown out
>the voice of practically every other Muslim on SRI. The hearing of some is
>clear and sharp when the fanatic speaks but they are practically deaf to
>reasonable and sane Muslims. It is a strange phenomenon.
It's unfamiliarity with mainstream Islam.
One benefit from my reading this group is that I've learned to
recognize what is and isn't extreme and apply certain mental filters.
IOW, I've learned to screen out Abdul Aziz and his ilk.
And the benefit is, so far I've found that my "extremist Christian"
mental filters work pretty well for "extremist Muslim" mental filters
as well, because the tone is quite similar.
Sadly, many of those who post such ignorant stuff about Islam fall
into the "extremist Christian" segment, and are trying to lead to
preconcieved evangelical arguments in futile attempts to preach to
y'all. There's one fellow here who hasn't revealed himself publicly
(as far as I can tell) who's come back on me privately with some
hard-core Christian preachy stuff. And he's one who's posting in the
argumentative and ignorant threads.
jrw
(aisha)
Mete Gulenoglu
> prohibited. Have you actually bothered to read the Qur'an with an open
> mind?
>
It depends on your definition of "murder". While in our day killing a
polytheist just for being a polytheist or someone who changes his
religion from one to another is called a "murder", in Islam neither of
the two is a "murder". So when you say Islam prohibits "murder" you
use the word "murder" in a different meaning than how we commonly
understand and it can be confusing. Islam does not prohibit all murder
as we understand today, it actually commands such murders of killing
the polytheist and the apostate.
Quran 2.193. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief
and worshipping of others along with Allah) and (all and every kind
of) worship is for Allah (Alone). But if they cease, let there be no
transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and
wrong-doers, etc.)
Bukhari Vol 9. Number:57. Narrated 'Ikrima:
Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The
news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his
place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it,
saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I
would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle,
'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"
Michael
news:a6qf3d$rid$1...@samba.rahul.net...
SV
>I noticed the same thing but wasn't going to say anything at first. I
don't
>believe it was a deliberate insult but I have noticed his sort of
thinking
>is quite common lately. It seems you need 50 or so reasonable Muslims
to
>counter the words of one fanatical Muslim before some Westerners will
even
>begin to entertain the idea that the fanatical view might not be the
correct
>or only one.
When he says something in support of terrorism a few Muslims take him
on, but there is certainly not a flood of outrage from 50 or so
reasonable Muslims. To many observers it seems that Muslims condemn
the World Trade Center attacks in theory as being against Islam, but
when someone actually supports them, they are generally meek and
silent (with a few notable exceptions). They perhaps wonder (wrongly):
"do Muslims really condemn terrorism in Islam- or is Abdul Aziz the
only Muslim who is honest about Islam?"
This may be because other Muslims are ignoring Abdul Aziz, or because
Muslims are scared of taking him on.
The latter explanation is plausible because I think that fanatics of
all persuasions enjoy a kind of immunity from criticism in their own
communities. This is because they project a false piety, claim to have
the exclusive truth, or intimidate others by condemning their actions
and words as being deviated in some way from the "truth".
They effectively equate terms like "moderate", and "reasonable" with
"traitor" (or us other offensive labels like "modernist sell-out").
The climate of guilt and fear they create makes others in their
community wary of taking them on, and leads to the fanatics being
further emboldened. They then run rampant. Another poster made
reference to Jewish fanatic settlers in Israel; the problem in Israel
is that probably that most Jews are too timid to speak up against the
fanatics because the fanatics seem so committed and play the guilt
card, even though other Jews may privately loath their actions.
Muslims, it appears are no different, even if they have more reason
for being embittered, nor are Americans, who are generally intimidated
by fanatic "patriots" into silence about the murder of civilians in
Afghanistan and the injustices in Israel.
>One or two posts from Abdul Aziz is all it takes to drown out
>the voice of practically every other Muslim on SRI. The hearing of
some is
>clear and sharp when the fanatic speaks but they are practically deaf
to
>reasonable and sane Muslims. It is a strange phenomenon.
It is not strange. It is understandable. If someone, especially if
they are in my midst, wants me dead (even if it is empty rhetoric),
then I do listen closely and I observe the reactions of those around
him as well.
Michael Nichols jr.
3-3-3-3-3--3-3-3-3-3-3--3-3-3-3-3-3--33-3
"History doesn't repeat itself but it rhymes"
-Mark Twain
Paul Davis
Thank you Johnny.
Peace be to you.
This is the sort of heated exchange of ideas between Moslems and Christians
that I believe should be occurring in society. I would hope for a more
honest and open dialogue regarding the underlying resentments that divide
our respective religions There are number of misperceptions that each
segment of believers in Allah (swa) have about the other. The only remedy
that I see is not isolating each other from our real perceptions, but in
exchanging them. That is how the sort of tragedy that occurred on 9-11 can
be avoided. I believe that as different persons draw closer to be more
complete understanding and commitment to Allah (swa), they also draw closer
to other persons who also have some degree of understanding and commitment
to Allah (swa).
The original question may have been about "monotheism" but the title of the
thread is "arguments against Islam". To suggest that arguments against
Islam are off topic in a thread entitled "Arguments against Islam" seems to
me to be a transparently false premise. Any honest minded persons will
recognize that for nearly every premise there are argument that support and
that do not support it. The sincere adherent will listen respectfully to
other points of view in order to either refute them more effectively, or
else to learn from them, or both. Speaking as a Christian I fully intend to
be respectful of the newsgroup which I am in, and to be mindful of the
sentiments of those with whom I happen to disagree.
For monotheists such as you and I to ignore honest arguments against our
respective understandings of the Deity is to add fuel to the atheists and
materialists in their effort to discredit monotheism as a concept, in the
realm of public ideas. To suggest that historic issues are not complex is
to deny the reality of world history. Life is not simple for any of us. It
gets even more complex when we try to reach back through hundreds of years
of history and examine that motives or persons from a culture and society
that is entirely different from our own. A sincere effort at a more clear
understanding is not to be confused with an "excuse".
Yes, of course I have heard of the Crusades. I do not defend the actions of
all persons who consider themselves to be Christian any more than I hold you
personally responsible for every action of everyone who considers themselves
to be Moslem. The fact remains that Europe had the historic precedent of
free and unrestricted access to the Holy Land for nearly a thousand years,
back before the time of Jesus (pbuh). Perhaps you can enlighten me as to
why that free access should have become restricted by the time of the
Crusades. I would like to know that, before I am inclined to apologize for
that sort of action. Otherwise, I will continue to view the Crusades as a
regrettable, but necessary military action.
:::::::::::pause to give people sufficient time to throw things at
me:::::::::::::::
The Inquisitions (and there were many) were exclusively political matters
done by civil governments and without any participation of the church at all
(except perhaps for one of them). In fact, the church condemned them or
their brutal methods on more than one occurrence. They were a matter of
securing the civil government from foreign invaders back in the days before
church and state became separate entities in western culture. "Christian"
as
used in the context of the Inquisitions has everything to do with national
citizenship and nothing whatsoever to do with religion.
The Spanish (coming fresh from the Reconquista) treated the Indians brutally
until the church ended that abuse. The Indian problem was primarily a
matter of lacking resistance to European diseases. Most diseases such as
flu, smallpox, measles, respiratory infections, and so forth are mutations
of diseases that infected domestic livestock. Over the centuries the
Europeans gradually developed resistance to those disease by the fact that
the non-resistant members of the population died out, and by passing on
anti-bodies through milk. Indians, lacking domestic livestock for the most
part, also lacked the disease resistance that develops from being around
livestock. This is not a religious matter, but it accounted for the vast
majority of the negative impacts on Indian populations.
That is what I mean when I say the situations are "complex". Otherwise, the
fact that some Christians have been at fault in some instances does indeed,
give one the right to criticize those individual persons for the individual
actions for which they are directly responsible. Likewise, other Christians
who did not correct wrong actions are responsible for their omissions.
That is all that I am saying in my criticism of Islam in regard to 911. I
believe that your analogy of Osama's followers and the KKK is a very
appropriate one. They both advocate xenophobic terror in the guise of
religion.
My point is that Al Jazeera and other Islamic sources must be strongly and
universally critical of the 911 attacks, just as American Christians were
effective at ending black slavery in America, and eventually stripping the
KKK of all effective credibility in American society.
Even more serious than the deaths of 3,000 is the wedge of division and
mistrust that the attacks have driven between American Christians and
Moslems in general. Perhaps that is what should be addressed, with sincere
intentions to heal that mutually distrust.
Imaan Joshi
j...@aracnet.com (Joyce Reynolds-Ward) wrote in message news:<a6uvh0$pts$1...@samba.rahul.net>...
> It's unfamiliarity with mainstream Islam.
> Sadly, many of those who post such ignorant stuff about Islam fall
> into the "extremist Christian" segment There's one fellow here who hasn't revealed himself publicly (as far as I can tell) who's come back on me privately with some hard-core Christian preachy stuff. And he's one who's posting in the argumentative and ignorant threads.
I have received private emails from this person too, if I understand
you correctly sister, and they have taken up way too much space on my
limited mailbox.
I am of the opinion, and have told this person as much, that unless
invited to participate in private "chats" (and these were not chats as
much as articles and verses from the bible to prove I am wrong for
following Islam), I was not interested in communicating with him off
sri.
Imaan Joshi
asimm...@yahoo.com
> It depends on your definition of "murder". While in our day killing a
> polytheist just for being a polytheist or someone who changes his
> religion from one to another is called a "murder", in Islam neither of
> the two is a "murder". So when you say Islam prohibits "murder" you
> use the word "murder" in a different meaning than how we commonly
> understand and it can be confusing. Islam does not prohibit all murder
> as we understand today, it actually commands such murders of killing
> the polytheist and the apostate.
>
This is the problem when you come from an atheistic perspective. In
ALL SEMITIC religions, there is what is known as a REVELATIONAL
period, i.e. a period in which God himself 'acts' in the world to
deliver a historical proof for the generations that FOLLOW that man
will have to account for their deeds. Thus, the period of Messengers
is filled with signs or miracles, i.e. the splitting of the sea, and
the raising of the dead. If people refuse to believe in the
Messengers, they are subject to not only punishment in the next word,
but this world as well. The Quran teaches that Pharoah was drowned,
and also the Jews were scattered and disbersed, and their Temple
destroyed for their rejection of Jesus. The latter group was also
made politically subservient to the Christians. If the Messenger can
gain more followers, then God destroys the unbelievers through their
own hands. "It was not you who threw, it was God himself who threw."
What is clear is that "seeing is believing" and in the case of the
disbelievers who continued to resiste despite knowing full well of the
truth of the Rasul mission, they were subject to punishment. Thus,
for them is was "WE SEE BUT WE STILL REFUSE TO BELIEVE."
Thus, in Islam, there is a metaphysical aspect towards history. But
what is noteworthy is that these obligations or killing were subject
to period of the MESSENGERS only, i.e. those that through REVELATION,
it was made clear who was worthy of punishment. One may ask as for
this hadeeth, it specifies the period of the Sahabah's. The fact is
this, the Sahabah as a colectivity could extend this mission because
"They are to bear witness to the truth among Humanity, and the
Messenger is to bear witness to them." Thsu, there position was such
that as participators in the period of revelation, they as a
COLLECTIVITY carried on the metaphysical truths in practical form.
These ayahs were specifically addressed to the Prophet and His
Companions and cannot in any way be extended to Muslims today. This
is very clear for God alone can determine what is in the hearts of
men, and the revelational period has ended. It is also a strking
feature in the Quran that a Prophet himself cannot tell when the
punishemnt of God is to be inflicted, thus God tells His Prophet not
to leave Mecca early, as did Yunus. He is to wait for revelation. As
the Quran says "We will not punish them while they are asking
forgiveness or you are still among them."
So no, this is not murder for it is killing with a just cause, i.e.
the authority of God himself. The Old Testament in Numbers even
recounts this specific law when it talks about Moses and His followers
killing the disbelievers. Jesus also does in the New Testament.
John Smith
> But what was revealed
> to Jesus (as) was only for his people at his time while Islam of Muhammad
> (saaws) is for all people and for all times.
Is this your personal belief, or the belief of the majority of
Muslims? This contradicts the Injil, for example:
And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been
given to Me in heaven and on earth. [19] Go therefore and make
disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father
and the Son and the Holy Spirit, [20] teaching them to observe all
that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of
the age."
(Matthew 28:18-20)
Regards,
John
Johnny
>
> The original question may have been about "monotheism" but the title of the
> thread is "arguments against Islam". To suggest that arguments against
> Islam are off topic in a thread entitled "Arguments against Islam" seems to
> me to be a transparently false premise.
I suggest you read again what I said. I *did not* say that "arguments
against Islam" are "off topic" in this thread. Your simply putting
words into my mouth. All I said was that you brought in totally
unrelated irrelevant comments which had nothing at all to do to that
which you were responding to. Do you understand now what I was saying?
Here is what I said:
" The original question was about monothiesm, the belief in one God.
Now for some mysterious reasons (as mysterious as the trinity), you
brought up something totally unrelated, namely bad evil Muslims
killing peace-loving Christians etc. Therefore you should learn to
stick to the topic and not waste peoples time by brining in completely
irrelevant issues which have nothing at all to do with the topic at
hand."
Please show me where in the above, or anywhere else in my post, did I
say or suggest "arguments against Islam are off topic"?
>
> For monotheists such as you and I to ignore honest arguments against our
> respective understandings of the Deity is to add fuel to the atheists and
> materialists in their effort to discredit monotheism as a concept, in the
> realm of public ideas.
Look, "understanding of the Diety" has nothing to do with bad evil
Muslims killing peace-loving Christians! If you want to discuss the
"Diety", monothiesm etc, then fine do so, feel free to send in
comments against Islam, no problem. But when you start lambasting
Muslims for killing this and that peace-loving Christian, then that
just has nothing to do with the topic you wish to discuss!
>To suggest that historic issues are not complex is
> to deny the reality of world history.
I did not suggest that historic issues are not complex! The problem
is when it comes to Islam you just want to blame our religion, do
Islam bashing, and then you want to blame all Muslims for it. But
when it comes to Christianity and barbarious acts committed by
peace-loving Jesus-worshipping Christians, you wish to pass the
excuse: "oh its so complex". So on one hand you just wish to bash
Islam and Muslims for acts committed by this and that Muslim, but when
it comes to Christianity you do not do the same, you want us to keep
silent because its so "complex" and acts committed by Muslims are so
"simple". Double standards!
>
> Yes, of course I have heard of the Crusades. I do not defend the actions of
> all persons who consider themselves to be Christian any more than I hold you
> personally responsible for every action of everyone who considers themselves
> to be Moslem.
sigh :)
>The fact remains that Europe had the historic precedent of
> free and unrestricted access to the Holy Land for nearly a thousand years,
> back before the time of Jesus (pbuh).
>Perhaps you can enlighten me as to
> why that free access should have become restricted by the time of the
> Crusades.
So basically, your argument is that the crusaders did what they did to
rescue Christians and to restore access to their Holy sites. I am
assuming that you heard about the "Crusades" just a few days back, or
maybe a few hours ago. Well sorry to dissapoint you but you, but the
aim of the crusaders was not to rescue any Christians from the evil
bad Muslims, nor to free the Holy places:
"Their object was not to rescue the Christians there, NOR TO free the
holy places ... but to fight a mythic war against the 'Infidel'."
["Crusades" by Terry Jones and Alan Ereira. pg. 65-66]
What did the crusaders do to the Christians in that region after
slaughtering the Muslims and the Jews? We read on page 75-78:
"They had come to rid Jerusalem of all other religions and to make it
a purely Christian city - and, what's more, Christians in their terms.
The Orthodox Greek Christians, the Georgian Christians, the Armenean
Christians, the Jacobite Christians and the Coptic Christians, who had
been expelled in the led-up to the seige, quickly discovered that
victory had not been on their behalf. Their priests were banished from
the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. They were not even allowed to hold
services there. Meanwhile the ecclesiastical hierarchy of Jerusalem
became exclusively Latin.
Most insufferable of all was the fact that the new Patriach, Arnulf of
Rhodes, proved himself to be quite capable of torturing his fellow
Christians, in order to find out where they had hidden their portion
of the True Cross. Turture appears to have loosened their tongues,
but it also hardened attitudes between the Oriental and the Western
Churches."
Wow, what a "rescue"!
Lets enlighten you yet again:
"Although there is NO REASON to believe that Christians in Jerusalem
were having a particularly hard time in the 1090s, pilgrimage had
become very difficult as a result of disintegration of authority along
the route, as Peter had discovered. Strange bands of visionaries,
often led by minor German knights from the edge of Christian Europe,
began converging. Hairs said to be from the tail of Peter's donkey
were venerated. One group of pilgrims were said to be following a
GOOSE inspired by God."
["Crusades" by Terry Jones and Alan Ereira. pg. 28 1995.]
So Muslims most certainly did not stop Christians from making
pilgrimages to Jerusalem. Infact in the same book we read:
"...Anatolia, was controlled by the Turks to within a few miles of the
Bosphorus. Most of the population were Christians, but they had NOT
FELT ANY NEED to appeal for help when they found the Turks in charge.
On the contrary, since many of them followed heretical Christian sects
- Jacobites, Nestorians, Armeneans - they found life MUCH EASIER under
Islamic law. They were allowed freedom of worship and found their
taxes somewhat lower; their writers, FAR FROM PROTESTING about the
rule of their conquerors, Malik Shah, SANG HIS PRAISES FOR BRINGING
RESTORATION OF ORDER after the chaos of invasion." [pg. 33]
About the Christians in Jerusalem:
"Their object was not to rescue the Christians there, NOR TO free the
holy places - the Christians in Jerusalem DID NOT NEED rescuing and
the holy places were ALREADY OPEN FOR BUSINESS AGAIN - but to fight a
mythic war against the 'Infidel'." [pg. 65-66]
How did the Muslims treat the Christians of Jerusalem?
"It had been in the hands of the Moslems for 461 years. Nonetheless,
the majority of the population had remained Christian. During most of
that time the Moslems had protected the rights of the Christians. Of
course, the Muslims retained overall control - even today the key to
the Church of the Holy Sepulchre remains entrusted to a Moslem..."
[pg. 75]
And in the documentry I saw on telly (can't remember which channel,
but this book is based on the documentry), the Christians under the
Muslims had a much larger area of Jerusalem under their control than
they do today!
>Otherwise, I will continue to view the Crusades as a
> regrettable, but necessary military action.
Amazing, you whine and cry because Muslims ahve not condemned the 9/11
attacks in full force, even though they have done so, and then you
have this disgusting liner to offer for an act of barbarism by
"peace-loving" Christians which is a billion times worse than the 9/11
attack! You whine and blame all Muslims because Br. Aziz justifies
the 9/11 attacks, or to put it in other words, he deemes them to be
"neccessary millitary action". And on the other hand we have you on
the same boat, deeming "neccessary" an act of history which is far far
hideous, brutal and barbarious than the 9/11 attacks! What is the
difference between the two of you? Just one difference: Br. Aziz is
in support of an attack which killed 2900 civillians, and you are in
support of an act that killed MILLIONS. I wonder why you have any
problem or qualms if any Muslim on this planet speaks in support of
the 9/11 attacks.
>
> The Inquisitions (and there were many) were exclusively political matters
> done by civil governments and without any participation of the church at all
> (except perhaps for one of them). In fact, the church condemned them or
> their brutal methods on more than one occurrence. They were a matter of
> securing the civil government from foreign invaders back in the days before
> church and state became separate entities in western culture. "Christian"
> as
> used in the context of the Inquisitions has everything to do with national
> citizenship and nothing whatsoever to do with religion.
"After the Roman Church had consolidated its power in the early Middle
Ages, heretics came to be regarded as enemies of society. The crime of
heresy was defined as a deliberate denial of an article of truth of
the Catholic faith, and a public and obst inate persistence in that
alleged error. At this time, there was a sense of Christian unity
among townspeople and rulers alike, and most of them agreed with the
Church that heretics seemed to threated society itself.
However, the repression of heresy remained unorganized, and with the
large scale heresies in the 11th and 12th centuries, Pope Gregory IX
instituted the papal inquisition in 1231 for the apprehension and
trial of heretics. The name Inquisition is der ived from the Latin
verb inquiro (inquire into). The Inquisitiors did not wait for
complaints, but sought out persons accused of heresy. Although the
Inquisition was created to combat the heretical Cathari and Waldenses,
the Inquisition later extended i ts activity to include witches,
diviners, blasphemers, and other sacrilegious persons."
http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo/Student_Work/Trial96/loftis/overview.html
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/inquisition1.html
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/inquisition-processes.html
So what was it that you were saying? oh yes "nothing whatsoever to do
with religion." oh and "Church condemned them"?...right.
More excellent "condemnations" by the peace-loving Church and pious
Christians:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/17c-lea-limainquis.html
http://www.malleusmaleficarum.org/
http://www.dimensional.com/~randl/tinq.htm
>
> The Spanish (coming fresh from the Reconquista) treated the Indians brutally
> until the church ended that abuse.
Really?
"Ferdinand and Isabella chose Catholicism to unite Spain and in 1478
asked permission of the pope to begin the Spanish Inquisition to
purify the people of Spain. "
http://www.geocities.com/iberianinquisition/
Your pope gave the ok signal to the inquisitions. Oh and the Church
"ended" this abuse"? very funny. Here is what the Church did:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Polemics/deception.html
Here is how Christians tortured the innocent:
http://www.dimensional.com/~randl/racking.htm
> The Indian problem was primarily a
> matter of lacking resistance to European diseases. Most diseases such as
> flu, smallpox, measles, respiratory infections, and so forth are mutations
> of diseases that infected domestic livestock. Over the centuries the
> Europeans gradually developed resistance to those disease by the fact that
> the non-resistant members of the population died out, and by passing on
> anti-bodies through milk. Indians, lacking domestic livestock for the most
> part, also lacked the disease resistance that develops from being around
> livestock. This is not a religious matter, but it accounted for the vast
> majority of the negative impacts on Indian populations.
The fact is that the native Indians were sought after and wiped out
quite deleberately by "peace-loving" Christians. Sure, millions died
through diseases introduced by the Christians, but millions were also
quite deleberately killed! Christian missionaries are responsible for
the complete destruction of the culture of these native people! And
you want us to thumbsuck the myth that the Church ended this! You can
read here how the "peace-loving" Christians killed and looted the
natives: http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Polemics/deception.html
"What began with Columbus' voyage, first in the sixteenth century in
Southern and Meso-America under Spanish rule, then from the
seventeenth century onward in Northern America in the English
colonies, was the vastest holocaust and genocide in all of human
history, with a death rate in average well over 80 percent, and
probably more than 150 million victims."
"The Spaniards took babies from their mothers' breasts, grabbing them
by the feet and smashing their heads against rocks... They built a
long gibbet, low enough for the toes to touch the ground to prevent
strangling, and hanged thirteen [natives] at a time in honor of Christ
Our Saviour and the twelve Apostles... Then, straw was wrapped around
their torn bodies and they were burned alive."
The people who did these brutal barbaric killings were quite simply
folks who considered themselves to be good and pious Christians!
more here: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5195/natives.html
>
> My point is that Al Jazeera and other Islamic sources must be strongly and
> universally critical of the 911 attacks,
The only problem is your in denial. Thats all. The fact is that the
over whelming majority of Muslims and our scholars and sources such as
AL-JAZEERA and others have ALL condemned the 9/11 attack, yet you keep
insisting the condemnation is not "strong"! Do some searches on the
internet and you will come accross scores of condemnations by the
Muslims. You keep repeating the same thing over and over again like a
tape-recorder, it seems as if you had wished the Muslims had not
strongly condemned this terrorist attack, perhaps to have a joyous day
doing Islam and Muslim bashing, but sadly for you, Muslims have MORE
THAN STRONGLY AND UNIVERSALLY condemned the attack! So get over it..
> just as American Christians were
> effective at ending black slavery in America, and eventually stripping the
> KKK of all effective credibility in American society.
KKK still exists and so do many other racist organizations in the US
and else where in the Christian world who do have a considerable
following. I asked you regarding Christian condemnation of the
crimes committed against civillians by their country. The number of
Christians who have condemned the crimes committed by their government
all over the world is far far less and minute than the number of
Muslims who have condemned 9/11 and other acts. So do let us know why
Christian condemnation of terrorist attacks by people of their own
faith is not universal and strong?
Johnny.
hook
>To many observers it seems that Muslims condemn
> the World Trade Center attacks in theory as being against Islam, but
> when someone actually supports them, they are generally meek and
> silent (with a few notable exceptions). They perhaps wonder (wrongly):
> "do Muslims really condemn terrorism in Islam- or is Abdul Aziz the
> only Muslim who is honest about Islam?"
You are assuming that someone really is a Muslim; frankly on the
Internet it’s hard to tell.
Speaking generally, but it is not inconceivable that a Jewish
operative could came online whose job it is to convince people that
"Islamic fundamentalists" under Usama's control carried out the
attacks on September the 11'th. Western intelligence agencies are
capable of infiltrating the Ummah to convince it of Usama's guilt.
Shin Bet, too has many skilled agents who can skilfully impersonate
Muslims in their Mista'arvim division.
> This may be because other Muslims are ignoring Abdul Aziz, or because
> Muslims are scared of taking him on.
Maybe. Maybe they can see a little deeper than you can.
> It is not strange. It is understandable. If someone, especially if
> they are in my midst, wants me dead (even if it is empty rhetoric),
> then I do listen closely and I observe the reactions of those around
> him as well.
If one is engaged in covert military action, one does not advertise
one's intentions in public.
Saqib Virk
news:a784ab$luf$1...@samba.rahul.net...
>> But what was revealed to Jesus (as) was only for his people at
>> his time while Islam of Muhammad (saaws) is for all people
>> and for all times.
>
> Is this your personal belief, or the belief of the majority of
> Muslims? This contradicts the Injil, for example:
>
> And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been
> given to Me in heaven and on earth. [19] Go therefore and make
> disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father
> and the Son and the Holy Spirit, [20] teaching them to observe all
> that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of
> the age."
> (Matthew 28:18-20)
If the words you quoted are correct then why do we find them only in Matthew
and not in the other 3 Gospel accounts? Do those words not contradict the
following:
"These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them saying, Go not into the
way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But
go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." [Bible, Matthew 10:5-6]
"I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." [Bible,
Matthew 15:24]
"I(Muhammad) have been granted five distinctions which none of the Prophets
were granted before me ... and fifthly, while Prophets before me were
commissioned to their particular people, I have been sent to all of
mankind." [Bukhari]
--
Peace,
Saqib Virk
John Smith
> If the words you quoted are correct then why do we find them only in Matthew
> and not in the other 3 Gospel accounts?
We also find these words in Acts (the sequel to Luke):
"but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you;
and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and
Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth."
(Acts 1:8)
> Do those words not contradict the following:
>
> "These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them saying, Go not into the
> way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But
> go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." [Bible, Matthew 10:5-6]
>
> "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." [Bible,
> Matthew 15:24]
No, they do not. Context shows that Matthew 10 and 15 are before the
crucifixion, while Matthew 28 and Acts 1 are after the resurrection.
> "I(Muhammad) have been granted five distinctions which none of the Prophets
> were granted before me ... and fifthly, while Prophets before me were
> commissioned to their particular people, I have been sent to all of
> mankind." [Bukhari]
All you have is a hadith? Nothing from the Quran? If Muhammad
actually said this, he was apparently unaware of Matthew 28:19, Mark
16:15 and Acts 1:8.
Regards,
John
Gilberto Simpson
Jesus Universal or Particular?
> "but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you;
> and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and
> Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth."
> (Acts 1:8)
There are two seperate questions. Where geographically will the gospel
spread? And who will it spread to? Even in Jesus day, Jews formed a
diverse group, and had spread out enough that they didn't necessarily
all understand the same language. that's why there was the miracle at
Pentacost. "Staying in Jerusalem at the time were devout Jews of every
nation under heaven." (Acts 2:5) (by this time Judaism had spread to
the Arabian Peninsula, Libya, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Rome and other
places.)
So if according to the Bible, there are Jews "of every nation" then
the above reference to "the remotest part ofthe earth" or even the
Great Comission itself might be seen in the context of spreading the
fullness of the Gospel to all of the children of Israel, wherever they
may be found on Earth. (Which would be consistent with the
Quranic/Islamic view that Jesus was just sent to a specific people)
> > "These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them saying, Go not into the
> > way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But
> > go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." [Bible, Matthew 10:5-6]
> >
> > "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." [Bible,
> > Matthew 15:24]
> Context shows that Matthew 10 and 15 are before the
> crucifixion, while Matthew 28 and Acts 1 are after the resurrection.
I would suggest that if we are trying to have a neutral reasonable
discussion about the truth of this between ISlam and Christianity,
assuming that the resurrection happened just as the Bible described is
begging the question in a major way. If the Bible could be taken as a
reliable source of evidence in a straightforward way, there wouldn't
be any question. Christianity of some sort would be true.
If you don't want to beg the question, then I would suggest that the
resurrection (and the great commission) are things that, even if they
later turn out to be true, deserve greater scrutiny and skepticism,
based on the fact that, in our everyday lives we don't see people rise
>from the dead on a regular basis.
> > "I(Muhammad) have been granted five distinctions which none of the Prophets
> > were granted before me ... and fifthly, while Prophets before me were
> > commissioned to their particular people, I have been sent to all of
> > mankind." [Bukhari]
> All you have is a hadith? Nothing from the Quran? If Muhammad
> actually said this, he was apparently unaware of Matthew 28:19, Mark
> 16:15 and Acts 1:8.
Even if he were aware of them, there is no guarantee that he would
have believed them. Again, you are begging the question.
But if you would like to see something from the Quran:
Quran 61:6
6. And remember, Jesus, the son of Mary, said: "O Children of Israel!
I am the messenger of Allah (sent) to you, confirming the Taurįt (Law)
(which came) before me, and giving Glad Tidings of a Messenger to come
after me, whose name shall be Ahmad." But when he came to them with
Clear Signs, they said, "This is evident sorcery!"
Peace
Gilberto
Saqib Virk
>
>> "I(Muhammad) have been granted five distinctions which none of
>> the Prophets were granted before me ... and fifthly, while
>> Prophets before me were commissioned to their particular people,
>> I have been sent to all of mankind." [Bukhari]
>
> All you have is a hadith? Nothing from the Quran? If Muhammad
> actually said this, he was apparently unaware of Matthew 28:19, Mark
> 16:15 and Acts 1:8.
SV
There is serious doubt about Matthew 28:19. Most Biblical scholars state the
verse was tampered with and at least part of it was not original. There is
even more serious doubt about Mark 16:15. Practically all Biblical scholars
agree it is not original. It is not found in the oldest copies of the Bible.
Odd don't you think?
After the departure of Jesus, Paul decided to preach to the Gentiles and
this resulted in a heated debate and a great difference of opinion between
him and at least some of the apostles. Why would this be the case if Jesus
had told the disciples to go and preach to the whole world? The words of
Jesus in the Bible are clear, he had been sent to the lost sheep of the
house of Israel. The 12 tribes were not all in Israel at the time Jesus was
there and any command to go out and preach could only refer to the lost
tribes.
"And remember, Jesus, the son of Mary, said: "O Children of Israel! I am the
apostle of God (sent) to you, confirming the Law (which came) before me, and
giving Glad Tidings of an Apostle to come after me, whose name shall be
Ahmad." But when he came to them with Clear Signs, they said, "this is
evident sorcery!" [Quran 61:6]
As and aside, it is interesting to note that the Quran states Jesus was sent
to the Jews and they accused him of sorcery. We find that accusation
recorded by the Jews themselves in the Talmud.
"It has been taught: On the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu (Jesus)...
because he practiced sorcery and enticed and led Israel astray..."
[Baraitha, Sanhedrin 43a]
"For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost." [Bible, Matthew
18:11]
"...I(Jesus) am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
[Bible, Matthew 15:24]
On the other hand, Muhammad is commanded to say:
"Say, 'O mankind! truly I am a Messenger to you all from Allah to Whom
belongs the kingdom of the heavens and the earth." [Quran 7:158]
--
Peace,
Saqib Virk
John Smith
> There are two seperate questions. Where geographically will the gospel
> spread? And who will it spread to?
First God brought in Jews (Acts 2:4), then Samaritans (Acts 8:17), and
finally Gentiles (Acts 10:44). Paul's pattern was to preach first to
the Jews, then to the Gentiles (Acts 13:46).
By the end of the 1st century, the church was mostly Gentile. We see
the same thing today. How can this be if Jesus was for the Jews only?
> If you don't want to beg the question, then I would suggest that the
> resurrection (and the great commission) are things that, even if they
> later turn out to be true, deserve greater scrutiny and skepticism,
> based on the fact that, in our everyday lives we don't see people rise
> from the dead on a regular basis.
You reject the Bible because it contains miracles? Doesn't the Quran
also contain miracles?
Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a
Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in
honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those
nearest to Allah; He shall speak to the people in childhood and in
maturity. And he shall be (of the company) of the righteous." She
said: "O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man hath touched me?"
He said: "Even so: Allah createth what He willeth: When He hath
decreed a plan, He but saith to it, 'Be,' and it is!
(Quran 3:45-47)
> 6. And remember, Jesus, the son of Mary, said: "O Children of Israel!
> I am the messenger of Allah (sent) to you, confirming the Taurįt (Law)
> (which came) before me, and giving Glad Tidings of a Messenger to come
> after me, whose name shall be Ahmad." But when he came to them with
> Clear Signs, they said, "This is evident sorcery!"
But even if we, or AN ANGEL FROM HEAVEN, should preach to you a gospel
contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! [9] As
we have said before, so I say again now, if ANY MAN is preaching to
you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!
(Galatians 1:8-9)
Regards,
John
Gilberto Simpson
> > There are two seperate questions. Where geographically will the gospel
> > spread? And who will it spread to?
> First God brought in Jews (Acts 2:4), then Samaritans (Acts 8:17),
No, this passage says that the word went to *Samaria*. Samaritans are
not just Samarians, they are actually a distinctive religious/ethnic
group similar to Jews but also different. Samarians could just as
easily refer to Jews in Samaria
and
> finally Gentiles (Acts 10:44). Paul's pattern was to preach first to
> the Jews, then to the Gentiles (Acts 13:46).
Okay sure, but that's what Paul says. Here's the situation: According
to the Bible, during his earthly ministry, Jesus specifically tells
his disciples not to preach to the Samaritans, he says that he was
sent only to the lost sheep of the children of Israel. This attitude
is so particularlist that in all three synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark
and Luke) we find the story of Jesus at first refusing to perform a
miracle for a Gentile woman, comparing it to give the children's (of
Israel) bread and giving it to (Gentile) dogs.
Further, in the early part of Acts we see Peter and James (Jesus'
brother) still working on the assumtion that eating with Gentiles
seems a questionable practice and that one must still follow the Torah
(be Jewish) to be a follower of Christ. (And so historicity of the
Great Comission becomes questionable if this is how the disciples are
acting in Acts.)
I would say these facts are consistent with and at least resonate with
Islam on two counts.
1) Islam teaches that Muhammad (saaws) was the only world-wide prophet
while the other prophets were sent to particular communities. And in
particular, the Quran specifically says that Jesus was sent to the
children of Israel.
2) The above facts would tend to support the idea that Jewish
Christianity or some faction of the Judaizing party (mentioned in Acts
and Galatians) is the authentic Christianity rather than Paul's.
This would resonate with Islam because Jewish Christianity would
be a religion with a dietary code, regular ritual prayer, animal
sacrifices, ritual laws regarding hygine and grooming, practiced male
circumcision, specified days for fasting, required pilgrimiages to a
holy city, combined with a belief that Jesus was the messiah.
These are all features that a Muslim would expect authentic
Christianity to have.
> By the end of the 1st century, the church was mostly Gentile. We see
> the same thing today. How can this be if Jesus was for the Jews only?
James, Peter who actually knew Jesus were part of the Judaizers and
did not try to convert large numbers of Gentiles. (Or if Gentiles did
convert, they were encouraged to follow the Torah to some degree as
well) It was Paul who apparently never met Jesus in the flesh and
didn't even spend much time with the actual disciples (maybe 2 weeks
in well over 7 years according to Acts or Galatians) who made
preaching to Gentiles his special ministry.
> > If you don't want to beg the question, then I would suggest that the
> > resurrection (and the great commission) are things that, even if they
> > later turn out to be true, deserve greater scrutiny and skepticism,
> > based on the fact that, in our everyday lives we don't see people rise
> > from the dead on a regular basis.
>
> You reject the Bible because it contains miracles?
I don't not say that in any way shape or form. But if I told that
yesterday A) I went to the store, bought some juice, a magazine, and a
bag chips and also B) I died and came back from the dead you would,
with good reasons, have an easier time believing A than B. Even if you
knew me to be a generally honest person, you might (with good reason)
insist on seeing more evidence like a coroners report, testimony from
doctors etc. before believing story B. On the
hand, you might not even ask for a reciept before believing story A.
And this difference would not depend on whether or not you believed
that people could from time to time, rise from the dead.
If someone I knew claimed to win several million dollars in the
lottery, for example, I might also have a certain degree of skepticism
"Are you for real? Dude, you must be kidding, right?" (and rightfully
so) in spite of the fact that I know that some people actually do win
several million dollars in the lottery.
And by the same token, reading that Jesus said "I was sent only to the
lost sheep of the children of Israel" during his earthly ministry is
easier to believe than him saying "Go into all the world" after a
resurrection before ascending into heaven.
> Doesn't the Quran
> also contain miracles?
Yes. But I wouldn't expect non-Muslims to believe them except in the
case that a particular miracle is already a part of their faith. (like
the example you give of the virgin birth).
A good example of the opposite, especially considering that today is
Easter, is the Islamic belief in the miraculous non-crucifixion of
Jesus. Maybe there are some fruitful ways that this could be
understood non-literally and there are some interesting connections
one could make with this doctrine and other statements in the Quran
regarding martyrs. But for the most part, this doctrine isn't one of
the "selling points" of Islam. There is little reason for a Christian
or a secularly minded person to independently believe that the
crucifixion of Jesus was some sort of illusion.
(Actually, this isn't completely true. There are a number of early
Christian writings and communities that in some form did not accept
the crucifixion as a straightforward physical event. The description
in the Acts of John is an interesting one to read for this point...)
I have no expectations that you, as a Christian, would find this
convincing. But if you are a Muslim, it is part of your religion.
> > 6. And remember, Jesus, the son of Mary, said: "O Children of Israel!
> > I am the messenger of Allah (sent) to you, confirming the Taurįt (Law)
> > (which came) before me, and giving Glad Tidings of a Messenger to come
> > after me, whose name shall be Ahmad." But when he came to them with
> > Clear Signs, they said, "This is evident sorcery!"
> But even if we, or AN ANGEL FROM HEAVEN, should preach to you a gospel
> contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! [9] As
> we have said before, so I say again now, if ANY MAN is preaching to
> you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!
> (Galatians 1:8-9)
That is an interesting passage. Something that you might not realize
is that there are various differences between the doctrines and
perspectives endorsed by Paul and the words attributed to Jesus in the
New Testament.
The current point of discussion (Jesus saying he was sent only the
children of Israel, while later interpreters actively prosyletizing
Gentiles) is only one example of a different gospel. Another more
striking comparison is:
Matthew 7
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom
of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in
heaven.
Romans 10
13 Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.
The first is from Jesus, the second is from Paul. And there is a
response one can make to try to reconcile the two, but these are still
pretty representative slogans. Ultimately if you look at the full
range of verses, Jesus in the gospels (and Jesus' brother James, in
his epistle, wants people to be *actually* good, while on the other
hand, Paul and the church after him (especially in its Protestant
form) has a very particular notion of salvation
by faith (not works)which can't be completely reconciled.
And I would further add, that Jesus' emphasis on deeds in the gospels
is more consistent with the Islamic view that (yes, you must believe
but also) your deeds will be weighed at the end of your life. While
the emphasis placed on a legal/formal/imputed righteousness found on
Paul represents a move away from that emphasis. And it is just another
manifestation of the general (Islamic) impression that Jesus'
authentic message was not accurately transmitted by Paul and that he
is one of the main reasons why Christianity took the form that it did.
-Gilberto
-Gilberto
Abdalla Alothman
wdl...@yahoo.com (John Smith) wrote in message
> > 6. And remember, Jesus, the son of Mary, said: "O Children of Israel!
> > I am the messenger of Allah (sent) to you, confirming the Taurįt (Law)
> > (which came) before me, and giving Glad Tidings of a Messenger to come
> > after me, whose name shall be Ahmad." But when he came to them with
> > Clear Signs, they said, "This is evident sorcery!"
>
> But even if we, or AN ANGEL FROM HEAVEN, should preach to you a gospel
> contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! [9] As
> we have said before, so I say again now, if ANY MAN is preaching to
> you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!
> (Galatians 1:8-9)
Please try to get it straight. The words of Paul are of no value to
us. If the book you people hold does not contain the words of the
Messenger 'Eesa confirmed in the aaya above, then all of your books
are of no value to us until we see 'Eesa informing his people about
a messenger coming after him called "Ahmad." If we don't find this
in your books, the simplest conclusion we can make is this: Your books
are not the words of God or any messenger from God.
We believed in the Messenger Jesus because the Quran told us so, not
because Paul or your books told us to do so.
An Angel has more authority to us than Paul. To us, Paul is nobody.
His statements are just as good as any statement made by any human
being. We are obliged to believe in God's Angels, His Books, and
Messengers, but we are not obliged to believe in someone called
Paul and his wild adventures with the pagans and the Jews.
Salam,
Abdalla.
John Smith
> No, this passage says that the word went to *Samaria*. Samaritans are
> not just Samarians, they are actually a distinctive religious/ethnic
> group similar to Jews but also different. Samarians could just as
> easily refer to Jews in Samaria
No, Acts 8:17 says that they went to the CITY of Samaria. If you need
further evidence, consider the following:
So, when they had solemnly testified and spoken the word of the Lord,
they started back to Jerusalem, and were preaching the gospel to many
villages of the Samaritans.
(Acts 8:25)
> Okay sure, but that's what Paul says. Here's the situation: According
> to the Bible, during his earthly ministry, Jesus specifically tells
> his disciples not to preach to the Samaritans, he says that he was
> sent only to the lost sheep of the children of Israel.
You are confusing this commission:
And He called the twelve together, and gave them power and authority
over all the demons and to heal diseases. [2] And He sent them out TO
PROCLAIM THE KINGDOM OF GOD AND TO PERFORM HEALING. ... [10] When
the apostles returned, they gave an account to Him of all that they
had done. Taking them with Him, He withdrew by Himself to a city
called Bethsaida.
(Luke 9:1-2,10)
with the Great Commission:
but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and
you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and
Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth.
(Acts 1:8)
The earlier commission was limited to Israel; the Great Commission was
to the entire world. The earlier commission was completed during
Jesus' lifetime; the Great Commission is ongoing.
> This attitude
> is so particularlist that in all three synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark
> and Luke) we find the story of Jesus at first refusing to perform a
> miracle for a Gentile woman, comparing it to give the children's (of
> Israel) bread and giving it to (Gentile) dogs.
And as a counter-example, I could mention how Jesus spent two days
among the Samaritans after encountering the woman at the well (John
4).
> Further, in the early part of Acts we see Peter and James (Jesus'
> brother) still working on the assumtion that eating with Gentiles
> seems a questionable practice and that one must still follow the Torah
> (be Jewish) to be a follower of Christ. (And so historicity of the
> Great Comission becomes questionable if this is how the disciples are
> acting in Acts.)
There is no doubt that 1st century Palestinian Jews were prejudiced
against Gentiles. See Acts 11:2-3. There was no problem with the
Great Commission, only with the apostles' understanding of it. They
understood it much like you do. God set them straight in Acts 10 and
11. ;-)
> 1) Islam teaches that Muhammad (saaws) was the only world-wide prophet
> while the other prophets were sent to particular communities.
Then Islam is incorrect on this point.
> And in
> particular, the Quran specifically says that Jesus was sent to the
> children of Israel.
Then the Quran is incorrect on this point.
> 2) The above facts would tend to support the idea that Jewish
> Christianity or some faction of the Judaizing party (mentioned in Acts
> and Galatians) is the authentic Christianity rather than Paul's.
Paul's Christianity IS the authentic Christianity. See Acts 15.
> James, Peter who actually knew Jesus were part of the Judaizers and
> did not try to convert large numbers of Gentiles.
Philip, Peter and John converted the first Samaritans (Acts 8). Peter
converted the first Gentiles (Acts 10). There was no conflict between
them and Paul.
> (Or if Gentiles did
> convert, they were encouraged to follow the Torah to some degree as
> well)
For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no
greater burden than these essentials: [29] that you abstain from
things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled
and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things,
you will do well. Farewell."
(Acts 15:28-29)
> It was Paul who apparently never met Jesus in the flesh and
> didn't even spend much time with the actual disciples (maybe 2 weeks
> in well over 7 years according to Acts or Galatians) who made
> preaching to Gentiles his special ministry.
But the Lord said to him, "Go, for he [Paul] is a chosen instrument of
Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of
Israel; [16] for I will show him how much he must suffer for My name's
sake."
(Acts 9:15-16)
> And by the same token, reading that Jesus said "I was sent only to the
> lost sheep of the children of Israel" during his earthly ministry is
> easier to believe than him saying "Go into all the world" after a
> resurrection before ascending into heaven.
They are both true, though.
> A good example of the opposite, especially considering that today is
> Easter, is the Islamic belief in the miraculous non-crucifixion of
> Jesus. [snip] But for the most part, this doctrine isn't one of
> the "selling points" of Islam.
Agreed.
> There is little reason for a Christian
> or a secularly minded person to independently believe that the
> crucifixion of Jesus was some sort of illusion.
Agreed.
> Ultimately if you look at the full
> range of verses, Jesus in the gospels (and Jesus' brother James, in
> his epistle, wants people to be *actually* good, while on the other
> hand, Paul and the church after him (especially in its Protestant
> form) has a very particular notion of salvation
> by faith (not works)which can't be completely reconciled.
There is salvation from the penalty of sin (justification), salvation
>from the power of sin (sanctification), and salvation from the
presence of sin (glorification).
Justification is by grace through faith. Sanctification involves
works. Glorification is where we are rewarded for our works.
> And I would further add, that Jesus' emphasis on deeds in the gospels
> is more consistent with the Islamic view that (yes, you must believe
> but also) your deeds will be weighed at the end of your life.
Your works (sanctification) don't get you into heaven (justification),
but they are the basis of your rewards in heaven (glorification).
> While
> the emphasis placed on a legal/formal/imputed righteousness found on
> Paul represents a move away from that emphasis.
Justification.
> And it is just another
> manifestation of the general (Islamic) impression that Jesus'
> authentic message was not accurately transmitted by Paul and that he
> is one of the main reasons why Christianity took the form that it did.
Paul emphasized justification, but he talked a lot about
sanctification and glorification as well.
The Prophet said, "I have been given five things which were not given
to any one else before me. ... Every Prophet used to be sent to his
nation only but I have been sent to all mankind.
(Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 7, Number 331)
Regards,
John
dave
> > > spread? And who will it spread to?
>
> > First God brought in Jews (Acts 2:4), then Samaritans (Acts 8:17),
>
> No, this passage says that the word went to *Samaria*. Samaritans are
> not just Samarians, they are actually a distinctive religious/ethnic
> group similar to Jews but also different. Samarians could just as
> easily refer to Jews in Samaria
>
> and
> > finally Gentiles (Acts 10:44). Paul's pattern was to preach first to
> > the Jews, then to the Gentiles (Acts 13:46).
>
> Okay sure, but that's what Paul says. Here's the situation: According
> to the Bible, during his earthly ministry, Jesus specifically tells
> his disciples not to preach to the Samaritans, he says that he was
> sent only to the lost sheep of the children of Israel. This attitude
> is so particularlist that in all three synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark
> and Luke) we find the story of Jesus at first refusing to perform a
> miracle for a Gentile woman, comparing it to give the children's (of
> Israel) bread and giving it to (Gentile) dogs.
>
> Further, in the early part of Acts we see Peter and James (Jesus'
> brother) still working on the assumtion that eating with Gentiles
> seems a questionable practice and that one must still follow the Torah
> (be Jewish) to be a follower of Christ. (And so historicity of the
> Great Comission becomes questionable if this is how the disciples are
> acting in Acts.)
That God wanted to save all nations is a theme that runs throughout
the Old Testament. The Jews themselves seem to want to guard their
special status all for themselves, but God had stated from very early
a plan to work through them, saving all nations.
to Abraham, God said, "all peoples on earth will be blessed through
you" (Gen 12:3)
the purpose of the exodus was "that my name might be proclaimed in all
the earth" (Ex. 9:16)
The prophet Jeremiah said, "Israel was holy to the Lord, the
first-fruits of his harvest" (Jer. 2:3)
What harvest? presumably his harvest among the nations. Israel was not
the sum and limit of God's interest, they were, rather, the
first-fruits of a wider harvest among the nations.
in Jeremiah 4:2 we read, "and if in a truthful, just and righteous way
you swear, 'As surely as the Lord lives,' then the nations will be
blessed by him
and in him they will glory."
in Deuteronomy 4:6-8 we read that if Israel would keep the righteous
laws of the Lord, then the other nations would hear and inquire about
their God.
Psalm 47:1 says, "clap your hands all you nations"
Psalm 96:1 says, "sing to the Lord all the earth"
Psalm 47:9 says, "The nobles of the nations assemble as the people of
the God of Abraham"
in Amos 9:12 we read that David's house will be restored and it will
include "all the nations that bear my name"
the prophet Jeremiah said that if the nations would learn the ways of
his people, then "then they will be established among my people"
(12:15-16)
the prophet Isaiah prophesied that: "Listen to me, my people; hear me,
my nation: The law will go out from me; my justice will become a light
to the nations. My righteousness draws near speedily, my salvation is
on the way,
and my arm will bring justice to the nations." (Isaiah 51:4-5)
of the Messiah, he said, "I will put my Spirit on him and he will
bring justice to the nations" (42:1) and, "I will also make you a
light for the Gentiles, that you may bring my salvation to the ends of
the earth" (49:6)
and in Isaiah 45:2 the Lord says, "Turn to me and be saved, all you
ends of the earth"
In the context of all the revelation of God, Old and New Testament, we
see that the great commission is no far fetched idea. It is the
outworking of the plan God had all along. Geographically, the gospel
would spread over all the earth, and it would spread to all peoples.
Muslims are fond of quoting the passage in Matthew 10 as proof that
his message was to only Israel, while ignoring the other passages such
as the great commission, that specifically contradict that. the
obvious understnding is that the first was a local outreach only, they
would be sent out after the resurrection and the Holy Spirit had come
on them. And that is exactly what we see.
But in light of the previous Old Testament passages, God clearly had a
plan for all the nations to share in his covenant and he would use the
Messiah to accomplish that purpose.
take care,
dave