Society Religious Discussion and Q&A Thread

[hunter71485]

@leen
They have been arguing about Islam and Judaism, and according to what you said,

The Law of Moses (old testament) might punish really harshly on people and could be interpreted as dictatorship instead of a democratic, lovely relationship between God and men. However, New Testament obviously no longer promotes any violence; neither does it displays any killings of huge armies and other violence scenes that you mostly get in old testament. Of course, revelation is an exceptional case which we can ignore.

And Jewish Israelis adhere only to the Torah and rabbinic teachings, not to the New Testament.

 

[Leen]

@leen
They have been arguing about Islam and Judaism, and according to what you said,

And Jewish Israelis adhere only to the Torah and rabbinic teachings, not to the New Testament.

Yes, I am well aware of that. ^__^ I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear in my previous post but I was referring to Christianity and Islam instead of Judaism and Islam. Sorry.

 

[ddadain]

Who said the Old Testament people were "christians"? Lol?

 

[xi0]

So, Christianity no longer shows any sign of violence after Jesus came. Since, Christianity is based on grace and love right now, it does not in any sense promote any violence.

I think you're wrong on two accounts. First as dain said, there was no Christianity before Jesus, nor was there immediately after his death. What you said makes sense since Jesus was Jewish, but it's still paradoxical.

Second, the assertion that Christianity no longer shows any sign of violence is also incorrect. While in the New Testament there was much less violence and "acts of spite" on God's behalf, followers still used the scripture in their own way to cause violence and persecution. (e.g. Crusades, The Inquisition, Witch Trials, etc.) So the Bible may be written one way, but I fail to see how these atrocities could all be coincidences. They all saw something in the scripture to convince themselves to do such things...whether they where of right mind or not.

Aside from Revelation, the "Fire and Brimstone" impression Christians have of Hell isn't from the Bible at all, but from the Church themselves in order to "scare" parishioners into donating during weekly service, and paying admission to see, what in many cases, were false relics. So in a literal sense, organized religion back then was a money-making operation. I'm not trying to characterize Catholics or or other Christians as being this way, even though there is evidence of this still going on 'till this day.

Therefore, if what Jesus said was indeed true, I think a peaceful and righteous Jesus would not approve of what many of his followers became. It would also seem that his message didn't get across to many people in power especially.

 

[hunter71485]

@xi0

The differences you enumerated can be attributed to the number of different misinterpretations of the Bible, and as you say, the 'purging of non-Christians' held in the middle ages are made by the Roman Catholic Church. But do they only believe in the Bible? Wasn't their self-made traditions more important? And if religious traditions are bad and contradicts the Bible, why do people still follow it?

The answer: People today are tired of understanding the Bible. They rely on their preachers (who want nothing more than their money and should be taxed), who adapt the Bible to their system rather than adapt their system in what the Bible says.

That's why the Bible still exists: to be the one true guide to salvation.

....Anyways contradictions between a scriptural text and infamous traditions aren't limited to Christianity. I remember a similar contradiction between the Qur'an and the Hadiths. A few samples:

256 – There shall be no compulsion in religion.
2 The Cow, 256

Hadith: “Kill the renegade!”
Nesei, Bukhari.

There has been no end to murders due to the work of the hadith fabricators who tried to overrule the injunctions of the Quran. Such hadiths were responsible for legitimizing the massacres committed by extremist organizations. If you were among the defenders of the Sunni sects, your raising objections to these murders would be in vain. Evidence to justify this are embodied in the Sunni books of hadiths and in the books of the sectarians.

38 – No soul bears sins of another soul.
53 The Star, 38

Hadith: “The dead will suffer for the tears of his/her family will shed for him/her.”
Bukhari, Jemiz

This hadith, unreasonable and inconsistent with the intrinsic logic of the Quran, is an illustrative example of a fabricated hadith.

195 - Never will I suffer to be lost the work of any of you, be he male or female: you are members one of another.
3 The Family of Imran, 195

Hadith: ”A good woman among women is like a white crow among one hundred crows.”
Bukhari

While the Quran opens the path for men and women produces good deeds without any discrimination between them, the hadith bars the way to women. The woman issue is one of the subjects about which there is no end to invented hadiths. (For a detailed account, see Chapters 21 & 22.)

8 - The wicked say. “You follow none other than a man bewitched.”
25 The Distinguisher, 8

Hadith: ”A spell was cast on the Prophet in Medina. He went around dazed.”
Bukhari, Hanbal

To the objection raised by Muhammad Abduh and Mu’tezila to this hadith, Muhammad Abu Shhebe provided the following argument: “If Abduh denied the hadith related to the spell cast over Muhammad, many scholars like Al Mazrii, al Hattabi, Cadi Iyaz, Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn ul Kayyým Ibn Kathir, En Nevevi, Ibn Hajar, al Kurtubi and Alusi, have acknowledged its truth.” Shahbe says Bukhari and Muslim also had acknowledged it, went on to add to it the following account: “A spell was cast upon the Prophet. He was believed to have slept with his wives while in fact he had not. Sufyan declared that he had been under a powerful black magic” (Abu Shabbe, Defense of the Sunna, pp. 152-153.).

According to the Quran, those who said that the prophet was bewitched were wicked people. Yet, most of the reliable hadith scholars had been of a different cast of mind. You may revert to syllogistic reasoning to conclude the identity of the wicked people.

The dangers of tradition is high, and over time it makes us forget what is the ideal.

 

[miyi]

However, I am interested in how the concept of Jihad influences so many suicide bombers nowadays. No, I'm not bashing any religion, but it is a fact that people (who might be sidetracked from the original religion) uses jihad as an excuse to kill perfectly innocent people.

How would you explain that?

just to make it clear, I'm not Muslim, however I've been studying Islam in the historical perspective, so if I say anything incorrect, I apologize in advance..


during the time of the Crusades, there was friction between the Byzantine Christians and the Muslims over who shall claim the Levant area (i.e. Jerusalem).

Initially, the area of Jerusalem was shared between the two neighbors, both somewhat coexisting peacefully, and even there are evidence of trade between the two empires in this region.

I believe it all started when the Muslims saw Jerusalem as a potential commercial area in which they will greatly profit from, and so there's evidence that they tried to gain a monopoly control of this region, via slowly restricting access of the region from non-Muslims, through taxation.

In other words, for instance, Christians and Jews who wanted to travel to Jerusalem to worship were taxed extra, and I think this was the beginning of where there was tension.

Naturally the Crusades followed, in which the Byzantines tried to reclaim Jerusalem in what they perceived as belonging to them. This was the essence of the Holy War, in their perspective, and theirs was limited only in this sense; which is to reclaim Jerusalem, and that's it.

Similarly, "jihad" was in the same way, for Muslims, to maintain possession of Jerusalem, and further, to expand, until the whole world embraces Islam.

At least this was the early interpretation of "jihad"; by contrast, the modern interpretation of "jihad" is less militaristic, but more spiritual and moral.

The term "jihad" denotes: "to strive in the path of [Allah]".

In order to understand the attitudes that is associated with this notion of "jihad", Muslims truly believe their faith to be the correct one, and if they are being threatened by outside aggression, defending their faith is justified.....however, it is clear in the Qu'ran that Islam must not be spread by compulsion......this is very clear.

In fact, to give an idea of how it was, historically, Muslims never forced their non-Muslim neighbors into accepting Islam...in fact most of the time they coexisted with them tolerantly and peacefully, except maybe they were taxed extra, but in general, these taxes were reasonable. The Abrahamic faiths (Christians, Jews), and the Zoroastrians, were tolerated in Islam rule, with the exception of other faiths other than these (i.e. animists, polytheists, etc.), they unfortunately were not as lucky. but this was an exception and I don't want to stray too off topic..


Another thing to understand about Islam is that in general they felt threatened from within and outside, and so it's natural that they were a faith who consistently needed to defend and maintain their faiths, via militaristic means, if necessary.

So "jihad" was a justified means of defending the faith from threat, and with the exception of occasional "truce", where they cooled of a bit, the theory is that over time, every people would embrace Islam, and so in this sense, expansion will be gradual, and perpetual (it never stops). However, they expand not by force or compulsion, only when a threat necessitates the need to defend the faith, is it considered justified, and this last point is important.

So having said all that, I think it is understandable why some Muslims feel threatened and feel the need to adopt a militaristic "jihad" attitude against the West...and it's a complicated issue that deals with the political, cultural, economic, and social reality, and not something we can simply understand in a simplistic way...in my opinion, I don't condone the violence, and I think it's only a tiny minority of Muslims who adopt the practice of suicide bombing....and it is not something shared by all Muslims, I hope.


anyway, if I made any false assumptions or incorrect statements, I apologize....these are all stuff I've been learning in my historical studies about the Middle East...

 

[xi0]

@xi0

The differences you enumerated can be attributed to the number of different misinterpretations of the Bible, and as you say, the 'purging of non-Christians' held in the middle ages are made by the Roman Catholic Church. But do they only believe in the Bible? Wasn't their self-made traditions more important? And if religious traditions are bad and contradicts the Bible, why do people still follow it?

The answer: People today are tired of understanding the Bible. They rely on their preachers (who want nothing more than their money and should be taxed), who adapt the Bible to their system rather than adapt their system in what the Bible says.

That's why the Bible still exists: to be the one true guide to salvation.

....Anyways contradictions between a scriptural text and infamous traditions aren't limited to Christianity. I remember a similar contradiction between the Qur'an and the Hadiths. A few samples:


The dangers of tradition is high, and over time it makes us forget what is the ideal.

Therein lies the problem though. Who's to say what constitutes a misinterpretation? Maybe something as egregious as persecution and "purging" of non-Christians is still justified based on a group's interpretation. Maybe not...who's to say?

You are correct in saying that certain traditions are dropped, which are almost always religious in foundation. This does show humanity's ability to evolve in social settings. To know what is right and just despite someone's interpretation of "millennia year-old hearsay" . I don't intend to put down the Bible, but at times it is quite evident what loose ground many traditions are based on.

 

[helping]

@ Leen,

I think your question is pretty much answered from the posts above so I’ll give a short one.

To begin with I can’t explain what these insane people (suicide bombers) think when they decide to commit theses atrocities and blow themselves into oblivion. They use Islam -“Jihad/Holy War”- to justify their action and Muslims are suffering all over because of their act. Just as Christians bear the shame of the crusaders, Muslims will bear the shame for what is done in the name of their religion. Muslims will condemn it and we will continue to condemn it as long we live whether it be bombings in Tel Aviv or an F16 bombing in Iraq.

 

[hunter71485]

@helping
i'll quote again,

256 – There shall be no compulsion in religion.
2 The Cow, 256

Hadith: “Kill the renegade!”
Nesei, Bukhari.

There has been no end to murders due to the work of the hadith fabricators who tried to overrule the injunctions of the Quran. Such hadiths were responsible for legitimizing the massacres committed by extremist organizations. If you were among the defenders of the Sunni sects, your raising objections to these murders would be in vain. Evidence to justify this are embodied in the Sunni books of hadiths and in the books of the sectarians.

i found these on a website interview with different hadiths representing their sects (Sunni, Shi'ite, etc.) they use their hadith's teachings to promote warfare.

you don't need to feel the shame of what your fellow Muslims do, if they really are Muslims.

 

[miyi]

you know, a lot of stereotyping is being done especially since after 9/11....and unfairly there is a tendency of some people to generalize Islam as a whole, as a "violent" religion...


under Muhammad, he established Islam that is 3 parts: a religion of faith, an economic system based on commerce/trade, and a political governing system with rules and regulations.


In general the religion of Islam condemns violence.....but naturally with the other two aspects, economy and politics, over time there is a tendency that it will be prone to corruption, and so to best explain why Islam is at various times in the history of Islam, "misapplied" by leaders, is because of the fact (and this is true for any religion, culture, or society) that whoever is in POWER, whether it be in politics and/or economics, they typically would want to stay in power and maintain it, and using religion as a means to justify their rule, violence has been used by many autocratic and extremist regimes/rulers.



I guess this is evident almost immediately after Muhammad's death............so soon there was the question: who should be the rightful ruler?

already there was the "struggle for power", provoking divisions within the Islam community right from its very beginnings as a world faith....

and power, politics, economics, has always been the corruptive aspect of Islam, whereas Islam as a religion, is in principle very non-violent and just.

so just look how divided the Muslim community is, in terms of tribes, sects, etc...you'll see that there is more threat and disunity within Islam, than there is a threat from the outside, and you can understand, at least, why there's been a history of violence.....and it's all because of POWER, and the struggle to maintain or obtain it.


and just to be clear, I don't mean to be too harshly critical about Islam, but what I'm trying to convey is that there is a corrupt aspect in Islam that has nothing to do with the religion, but more on politics and economy.



and I'm really tired sorry if my post didnt make sense


...and also, in regards to analyzing the Qur'an and Hadiths and its contradictions....I'm no religious scholar....but I just want to point out that the Hadiths are secondary in importance....the ultimate law is the Qur'an....

also, there are various levels of Hadiths in terms of its credibility, and it all depends in how accurate their primary sources are....basically it's suppose to record sayings and customs of the Prophet and the followers, during his time......and there's a system to do this:

for example, I think it goes something like: person A said this, said by person B, who was passed on to him by person C...............all the way to person X, who is supposedly the primary source, either a follower of Muhammad or Muhammad himself.


and so the religious scholars would study the reliability of the Hadiths, and obviously there will be those that are false, and those half truths, and then those that are well accepted as credible.

So the Hadiths aren't simply sources that are unchecked for its validity....in fact the practice that I just mentioned, is taken very seriously.

but nevertheless, even with all that, some clever leaders will of course find ways to twist the message and use it to influence the people for their own political/economic interests...

 

[hunter71485]

but nevertheless, even with all that, some clever leaders will of course find ways to twist the message and use it to influence the people for their own political/economic interests...

happens all the time. you know, i had a lot of respect for pat robertson when i was a kid growing up. then came the shocking truths. now i noticed several (or almost all) nation-wide congregations catering themselves as "born again Christians" or "Protestants" have leaders who have become millionaires, their income coming from the church tithes.

and tithing isn't supposed to be even (at least) 10%. God commanded us to give "wholeheartedly", or to give what we want to give without anyone forcing us. tithing is only enforced in the Old Testament because it is the priest-Levites' share. now they reel in huge amounts of money because, as they say, "we are the modern-day Levites" -- turning religion into business. and Jesus said, "Give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's and to God what is God's", which means, follow the government, do what they say, but give what is due to God.


and the worst part is what a certain religious founder L. Ron Hubbard told his editor:

Spoiler

the best way to make a million is to start a religion

and he did.

 

[miyi]

^yeah I agree....and not to single out any particular religious sect or anything like that.....but I think in general, all religions, are susceptible to corruption; and it is the tiny minority of so-called followers who usually find ways to corrupt the message of such faiths...and so the corruption starts not with the religion, but with the few minority groups of people who follows it in a corrupt way.


speaking of almsgiving, this is one of the five pillars of Islam....in fact it is so detailed, it is in the laws....and typically those who can afford to give, are all obligated to give calculated amounts, depending on their wealth, etc.....rather than me explaining, it can easily be looked up in many Islamic sources of how the method works....

and the idea is that almsgiving is to help alleviate inequality...and it's supposed to be a personal thing.....it's not something you brag about, like "hey, I gave you money"....it's to be done discreetly and honestly and sincerely and personally.

And I think this part of Islam is fascinating....in my view, they're probably the most egalitarian religion by comparison to other faiths..at least in the economic sense..

and this is also true in Christianity...i.e. most priesthood and nuns, they're supposed to live a life of asceticism, and in fact they assume the responsibility of providing for the poor, provide for the welfare of the destitute, and so on...



on the concept of violence..........if you look at the history of pre-Islam Arabia, you'll learn that the Arab tribes practiced two general types of livelihood: agricultural (usually pacifists), and the nomads (warlike); the latter were people who raided caravans as a means to livelihood, and it became a custom, predating Islam..

and so, such acts of violence was a means of survival, not merely meaningless acts of aggression towards one another.....and also if you understand the difficult life of being in an arid region such as Arabia where water was so vital to the survival of a clan/tribe....it is understandable why violence became a necessary part of life.........

and it can be argued that during Muhammad's revelationary years, he adopted strategies of war that by comparison to pre-Islam customs, was even more humane!

for example, contrary to what some biased historical sources might say about Muhammad, he never actually authorized, or take part in, violent or unnecessary cruel punishments of his defeated opponents in battle. In fact, he was fair in his judgement, and always referred to the revelations as guide as to what he ought to do, and more or less he was never unjust.....in the Muslim perspective, he was a fair judge that punished prisoners of war in what they only deserved..according to divine law.

but sometimes his people would massacre people, but according to the records, he never authorized such violence....or took part in it...in fact, he discouraged it. when it happens, its usually something that happens without him knowing it, and when he does find out about it, he usually punishes his own people who have took it upon themselves to act violently..

another thing that many critics of Islam would try to claim, to discredit Muhammad, is that he was engaged in many battles. While this was true, the majority of the time, it resulted in peaceful negotiations...........the way war worked during his time, was that before two parties went to war, initially a negotiation is attempted....sort of like the modern usage of the term diplomatic talks......and when diplomatic relations cannot be met, then as last resort, only then did they actually fight.

again, if observed objectively and historically, Muhammad is a reasonable warrior, and did not act on senseless agression or violence. And he engages in battles, as a means to preserve the faith, for survival, and it was never their intention to start a war without reason. Perhaps it was after Muhammad, that the reality of war became different, and more political and economic, than religious. But this is expected, and not the fault of the religion, but by the few followers who follow it corruptly.



In sum, relative to pre-Islam customs, the advent of Islam actually made rules of war less brutal and more humane, and discouraged unnecessary violence, and overall was a faith based on self-defense when threatened upon from the outside and within.

In order to survive in pre-Islam Arabia, violence was traditionalized because it was necessary.

Similarly, in order to survive as a Muslim (during and after Muhammad), violence was restrained only as an act of self-defense, and the Islam empire that developed more and more incorporated people who have backgrounds of violence, and so understandably the new followers were used to violence, which is why violence remained as a predominant force in Islam up until now...........not because it is encouraged by the religion itself, but because it has been a pre-Islam custom that persistently remained in use by the new followers of the faith.




and if I've been repeating already discussed material, I apologize..

 

[shigeki]

I'm not a Muslim, but I did live quite some time in a heavily muslim-influenced country.

I have no interest in "starting hostility" topic since I don't know a lot about it.

However, I am interested in how the concept of Jihad influences so many suicide bombers nowadays. No, I'm not bashing any religion, but it is a fact that people (who might be sidetracked from the original religion) uses jihad as an excuse to kill perfectly innocent people.

How would you explain that?

You might argue, "Hey, Christianity has some pretty bloody history too." In fact, you can quote from bible however you want on all the different wars David led his people to, how they killed everyone (even children and women) and so on and so forth.

However, in the New Testament, things changed when Jesus came.

I'm going to quote from bible for a while. Bear with me. =D

But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"

"No one, sir," she said.
"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin." ~John 8:1-11 NIV

The Law of Moses (old testament) might punish really harshly on people and could be interpreted as dictatorship instead of a democratic, lovely relationship between God and men. However, New Testament obviously no longer promotes any violence; neither does it displays any killings of huge armies and other violence scenes that you mostly get in old testament. Of course, revelation is an exceptional case which we can ignore.

So, Christianity no longer shows any sign of violence after Jesus came. Since, Christianity is based on grace and love right now, it does not in any sense promote any violence.

Islam on the other hand still holds on the Quran (again I'm not trying to bash anything) that justifies jihad, which can indeed promote violence (at least to some people) such that people actually kill other innocent lives.

How would you explain that, my Muslim friends? Note that I'm not trying to hold a grudge against any religion, but it is always good that we try to sort things up. Little by little, through understanding, the new generation can make a difference.

Firstly, I’d say the definition of jihad- as helpfully given by miyi- which literally means striving. Or jihad fi sabilillah, which means striving in the path of Allah. Jihad in the physical form, i.e. fighting, which is basically what most people would like to stress about, is but one of many forms of Jihad as illuminated in Islamic teachings. There are, for instance, jihad against oneself (inner struggle), jihad against the devil’s enticement, etc. That being said, physical jihad is indeed of great importance in upholding Islam’s rights and dignity. However, note that in Islamic jurisprudence, there are detailed rules regarding acts of war, which, amongst others, include not killing women, children, non-combatants, and not targeting destruction upon residential areas.

You yourself have answered the question actually when you said about people being sidetracked from the original religion and using it as an excuse to kill innocent people. Jihad as justified in the Quran never includes killing innocent lives. Let me quote verses from the Quran testifying the subject:-

"...... You shall not kill - GOD has made life sacred - except in the course of justice. These are His commandments to you, that you may understand." (Al-An’am: 151)

"...... We decreed for the Children of Israel that anyone who murders any person who had not committed murder or horrendous crimes, it shall be as if he murdered all the people. And anyone who spares a life, it shall be as if he spared the lives of all the people. .............." (Al-Maidah: 32)

And again still, aggression is only allowed in case of you being aggressed first.

"...... Therefore, if they leave you alone, refrain from fighting you, and offer you peace, then GOD gives you no excuse to fight them." (An-Nisa’:90)

"GOD does not enjoin you from befriending those who do not fight you because of religion, and do not evict you from your homes. You may befriend them and be equitable towards them. GOD loves the equitable." (Al-Mumtahanah:8)

....Anyways contradictions between a scriptural text and infamous traditions aren't limited to Christianity. I remember a similar contradiction between the Qur'an and the Hadiths. A few samples:

256 – There shall be no compulsion in religion.
2 The Cow, 256

Hadith: “Kill the renegade!”
Nesei, Bukhari.

There has been no end to murders due to the work of the hadith fabricators who tried to overrule the injunctions of the Quran. Such hadiths were responsible for legitimizing the massacres committed by extremist organizations. If you were among the defenders of the Sunni sects, your raising objections to these murders would be in vain. Evidence to justify this are embodied in the Sunni books of hadiths and in the books of the sectarians.

38 – No soul bears sins of another soul.
53 The Star, 38

Hadith: “The dead will suffer for the tears of his/her family will shed for him/her.”
Bukhari, Jemiz

This hadith, unreasonable and inconsistent with the intrinsic logic of the Quran, is an illustrative example of a fabricated hadith.

195 - Never will I suffer to be lost the work of any of you, be he male or female: you are members one of another.
3 The Family of Imran, 195

Hadith: ”A good woman among women is like a white crow among one hundred crows.”
Bukhari

While the Quran opens the path for men and women produces good deeds without any discrimination between them, the hadith bars the way to women. The woman issue is one of the subjects about which there is no end to invented hadiths. (For a detailed account, see Chapters 21 & 22.)

8 - The wicked say. “You follow none other than a man bewitched.”
25 The Distinguisher, 8

Hadith: ”A spell was cast on the Prophet in Medina. He went around dazed.”
Bukhari, Hanbal

To the objection raised by Muhammad Abduh and Mu’tezila to this hadith, Muhammad Abu Shhebe provided the following argument: “If Abduh denied the hadith related to the spell cast over Muhammad, many scholars like Al Mazrii, al Hattabi, Cadi Iyaz, Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn ul Kayyým Ibn Kathir, En Nevevi, Ibn Hajar, al Kurtubi and Alusi, have acknowledged its truth.” Shahbe says Bukhari and Muslim also had acknowledged it, went on to add to it the following account: “A spell was cast upon the Prophet. He was believed to have slept with his wives while in fact he had not. Sufyan declared that he had been under a powerful black magic” (Abu Shabbe, Defense of the Sunna, pp. 152-153.).

According to the Quran, those who said that the prophet was bewitched were wicked people. Yet, most of the reliable hadith scholars had been of a different cast of mind. You may revert to syllogistic reasoning to conclude the identity of the wicked people.

The dangers of tradition is high, and over time it makes us forget what is the ideal.

It is stated in many of the quotes themselves about ‘fabricated hadiths’, which some people use to justify their horrendous acts. Anyhow, the first quote given refers to no specific chapter in the Sahih Bukhari, so I can’t check it up for clarification. But well, one sentence doesn’t say it all- every saying of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) takes place in a specific context and scenario. Thus it is unmerited to use a partial quote from a total narrative and generalise it at will.

The last quote: again, generalising. Or rather, misinterpreting. The verse from the Quran was referring to the non-believers who worked tirelessly to deny the truth of the prophet’s revelations, calling him names and accusing him of this and that; questioning the fact that a normal human being has been sent instead of an angel, etc. The comparison with the quoted hadith was totally taken out of context.

I am not a scholar of hadith, so I can’t at once make a distinction between an authentic and fabricated one. But a hadith comprises of many isnad, or chain of transmission (from the prophet to his companions), and noted scholars like Bukhari and Muslim went at great lengths to compile hadiths, which have been indisputably accepted by Muslims as being authentic. Still, contested and fabricated hadiths are abundant, thus we should be careful in quoting any of them for reference.

Like the ones you mentioned, mostly are already stated as fabricated hadiths. Thus, rather than contraindications between Quran and hadiths, like you said, the abovesaid ones are contraindications between Quran and fabricated hadiths (which are not hadiths at all). Because for Muslims, the Quran and Sunnah (all acts/sayings by the prophet Muhammad) go hand in hand, complementing each other.

In fact, to give an idea of how it was, historically, Muslims never forced their non-Muslim neighbors into accepting Islam...in fact most of the time they coexisted with them tolerantly and peacefully, except maybe they were taxed extra, but in general, these taxes were reasonable. The Abrahamic faiths (Christians, Jews), and the Zoroastrians, were tolerated in Islam rule, with the exception of other faiths other than these (i.e. animists, polytheists, etc.), they unfortunately were not as lucky. but this was an exception and I don't want to stray too off topic..

Regarding the polytheists during the birth and rise of Islam- historically these people were constantly waging war on the Muslims and would stop at no ends to kill the prophet and get rid of the whole religion; thus the harsh mentions concerning them in the Quran. But if you look closer- for example, during the conquest of Makkah, the idolaters who sought refuge in their houses and the mosque were all forgiven (save a couple few prominent figures who had been the greatest enemies of the Muslims) and unharmed.

Another thing to understand about Islam is that in general they felt threatened from within and outside, and so it's natural that they were a faith who consistently needed to defend and maintain their faiths, via militaristic means, if necessary.

By saying that Muslims feel threatened from within, do you mean the disunity amongst the people themselves? Not quite clear there.

I agree that this whole issue also deals with political, cultural, economic, and social outlooks besides putting the simplistic blame on a misconstrued concept of religion. Again, initiating violence is absolutely unjustifiable, and so does killing innocent lives.

And God knows best.

 

[miyi]

By saying that Muslims feel threatened from within, do you mean the disunity amongst the people themselves? Not quite clear there.

yes, it's the disunity..

there's a constant distrust between Muslims and Muslims, and it can be traced back all the way to the time Muhammad died, and the controversial decision of the next caliph, because the controversy started there....and of course, other factors play a role in intensifying disunity....for example, Arab Muslims vs. non-Arab Muslims vs. non-Muslims.......and in addition to all of that, it can even be traced even before Muhammad....because I think the tribal system of pre-Islam Arabia is such that inter-tribal warfare was very common, especially when there is "distrust" between tribes....it's like a perpetual struggle for survival, and whoever possess power has a likelier chance of surviving, and so violence has been a preeminent part of life even before Islam....and all of this customs were incorporated in the people who later embraced Islam, and so I think "disunity" was inevitable from the very start;

and so you'll have religious divisions, some being moderate, and then some will inevitably adopt extremist ideologies, i.e. the Kharijites, who resorted to violent tactics in purging the Islam community in what they perceived as impure or sinful..

I've been saying that in general, Islam condemns the use of unnecessary violence, which is true.

however, politically it has become distorted, and the message of Islam is constantly modified to fit certain religio-political ideologies, and usually it's the extremist sects who adopt militaristic tactics, using violence unjustifiably....

And I think all of this is political and economical, hardly anything to do with religion.

the disagreement of who should rule (caliph), is more political, in my opinion....and from there it just got ugly.

 

[Azurel]

Well, seeing that there's an active discussion of Islam here, I'm pleased to know that there is some awareness towards the misrepresentation of Islam. I thought I post this link for an article called "25 Questions asked about Islam".

I believe that it provides simple and useful explanations of Islam in general and hope that it will help both muslims and non-muslims to understand Islam better.

http://www.islamfortoday.com/athar02.htm

 

[Gold Knight]

Since this thread isn't supposed to just be about Islam, I thought I'd post up some Q&A's from the LA Times regarding the Mormon faith, as I learned a lot about it just now. Doubtful I'll start believing in it though but it's interesting regardless.

The reason there was an article about it was because an American Republican presidental contender this year, Mitt Romney, is a Mormon.

How did the Mormon Church get started?

In 1820, a 14-year-old boy named Joseph Smith Jr. knelt in the woods near Palmyra, N.Y., to ask God which church he should join. He later reported that he saw two glowing figures who told him that all the churches of the day had fallen into apostasy, believing false doctrines. It would be up to him to restore the truth. Over the next several years, Smith said he was visited by an angel named Moroni, son of Mormon, who directed him to golden plates buried in upstate New York and helped him translate them from a language Smith called "reformed Egyptian." The Book of Mormon was published in 1830; the church was founded that year with a handful of believers. Since then, it's grown to 13 million members worldwide, including nearly 5.8 million in the U.S.

Do Mormons believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers?

Spoiler

Mormon theology holds that the savior and the devil are both sons of God. Therefore, an official church website explains, "Jesus was Lucifer's older brother." But as former Mormon Bishop Scott Gordon points out, the faith also holds that all human beings are sons of God, which would make everyone a sibling of Christ (and of the devil). Mormons believe that Lucifer was not born evil but turned into a power-hungry glory-seeker. He opposed God's plan for mankind and was cast out of heaven.

Do Mormons believe in the Bible?

Spoiler

Yes. Mormons consider the Bible the word of God, though they do not take every verse literally. They generally use the King James version; there is also a translation and commentary written by Joseph Smith.

Mormons also revere three books of additional scripture. The Book of Mormon tells of Christ's sojourn in North America; Smith (who taught that the Garden of Eden was located in rural Missouri) prophesied that Christ would return to the New World one day.

A second book, "The Pearl of Great Price," is said to contain writing from Moses and Abraham.

And the "Doctrine and Covenants" includes the rules that govern everyday life, such as the prohibitions against Mormons drinking alcohol, coffee or tea.

What do Mormons believe about God?

Spoiler

Mormons believe the Heavenly Father is the same species as man; he has a body of flesh and bone -- only more perfect than we could imagine. He's married to a Heavenly Mother. Mormons do not accept the traditional Christian doctrine of the Trinity; they view God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit as three separate beings.

What do Mormons believe about heaven?

Spoiler

Mormons believe that men and women can become like God in the afterlife. This does not mean that they will replace God; he remains more perfect and reigns over all. But men and women can achieve some degree of deification and become "joint heirs with Christ," said Gordon, president of a Mormon theology group called FAIR.

Heaven is divided into three kingdoms. The top, "celestial," tier is where God dwells and is reserved for men and women who have been baptized and married in a Mormon temple and who have done good works on Earth. The second tier is open to anyone who accepts Christ on Earth or in the afterlife, and the third tier -- which is still glorious but removed from God's presence -- can include non-Christians, Gordon said.

Those who have accepted Christ but then willfully turn away from their faith are banished to the "outer darkness."

Why do Mormons baptize the dead?

Spoiler

Mormons say they want to give everyone a chance to enter the most exalted realm of heaven. So they perform "baptism by proxy," in which young Mormons (generally teenagers) step into a baptismal font while the names of the dead are recited. The dead, hovering in a spirit world, then have a choice to accept or reject the Mormon faith.

Because only couples who have been married, or "sealed," in a Mormon temple can achieve the highest realm of heaven, there are also rituals for posthumous weddings.

Why can't non-Mormons go into a Mormon temple?

Spoiler

Everyone is welcome to attend regular Sunday services in Mormon meeting rooms, known as wards. But Mormon authorities aim to keep their temples sacred by excluding nonbelievers. (They won't allow outsiders even to attend a son's or daughter's temple wedding.)

Practicing Mormons must be screened every two years by their bishops, who will ask questions such as: Do you believe in God and Christ? Are you giving 10% of your income to the church? Are you chaste? Are you honest? Do you smoke or drink? Those who pass get a "temple recommend" that allows them to participate in sacred rituals.

What are those sacred rituals?

Spoiler

Men and women of good standing undergo a ritual cleansing ceremony when they reach maturity, usually about age 20. They also go through an "endowment session" when they are instructed in rules for faithful living. The temples are also used for weddings and for baptism, marriage and endowment ceremonies for the dead.

Don't Mormons have to wear special underwear?

Spoiler

At the time of their ritual cleansing (known as "washing and anointing"), both men and women are given temple garments, which look like a boxers-and-T-shirt set embroidered with sacred symbols. Mormons are expected to wear their garments daily, though not every minute. The garments are supposed to remind them of their promises to God and thus provide spiritual protection.

Who can become a Mormon priest?

Spoiler

The Mormon Church has no paid clergy. Most boys in good standing are named deacons at age 12. (They act like altar servers in a Roman Catholic church, passing bread and water used in communion.) At 16, most boys become priests and can bless the sacrament. At 19, they're ordained as elders and generally sent off for two years of missionary work. Women can serve as missionaries but are never priests.

The church is led by a president who is considered a living prophet, a member of an unbroken chain of prophets including Joseph Smith and stretching back to Jesus Christ. The president governs the church with two counselors and 12 apostles, all males. All can receive divine revelation. In 1978, for instance, the church president said God revealed a need to end the practice of excluding blacks from the priesthood, even though the Book of Mormon describes dark skin as a divine mark of disfavor.

Do Mormons practice polygamy?

Spoiler

Joseph Smith taught that men could take multiple wives, and some early Mormons did. Non-Mormon authorities vigorously fought the practice, and the church officially ended it in 1890. Members who take more than one wife are excommunicated.

Are Mormons Christians?

Spoiler

Many denominations do not consider Mormons to be Christians. Some call the faith a cult. Mormons say they are Christians because they accept Jesus Christ as their savior.

Where can I get more information about the faith?

Spoiler

The church sponsors two websites, www.lds.org and www.mormon.org. The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, a group that defends Mormon theology, offers details at www.fairlds.org.

 

[TechnoMagus]

There is one thing most of us can agree on what Mormons are really good at.....their Mormon Tabernacle Choir!!!!!
who can doubt their prowess in singing the hallelujah chorus or christmas songs or american patriotic songs in concerts and state ocassions accompanied by that great pipe organ? there's a lot of clips in youtube for you to verify....

their places of worship also stand out architecturally and their missionaries are very easy to spot, especially in places where white caucasians are not a majority....very well dressed white caucasians preaching their faith in pairs!

as for mitt romney, he's in the same shoes as JFK (and jed bartlett! ), a US president not among those considered among the usual "white protestant evangelical moral majority...." undoubtedly, his religion IS an issue since many consider his religion a cult. but just wait for the uproar when there comes a time for an atheist, jewish or muslim become a candidate for the US presidency.... i just can't understand why it's that kind of an issue there. the US presidency is a secular office and people are not voting for the highest ranking evangelical minister for the US.

oh, some more possible issues, how does his mormon faith affect granting reprieves for the death penalty, sex education/contraception/abortion among other "moral" issues?

 

[xi0]

I dated a Mormon girl when I was still in a High School, and while I have nothing against Mormons or people as individuals, I will say that the belief system Joseph Smith put in place is honestly no less, for lack of a better term, "bizarre" than the system L. Ron Hubbard put in place for Scientology. The only difference is that Mormonism is based on a longstanding faith: Christianity.

Keep in mind, that after the death of Joseph Smith, the leaders of the Mormon Church denied acceptance to Blacks. They disallowed them, along with Native Americans, from becoming Priests, or participating in temple ceremonies eventually. The basis for this was obviously racism, along with passages in The Book of Mormon, which stated to the effect, that darker-skinned people were cursed by God due to their "spiritual blindness". These people were called Lamanites, and those of which that repented and wanted to be with God eventually became white when this "curse" was lifted.

It took until 1978 for the largest Mormon denomination, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", to have leaders change their minds because they received a "revelation" from God that this was wrong. Some fundamentalist groups still practice this obvious racism, and still practice polygamy, despite it being illegal and disallowed by the mainstream Mormon denominations.

That being said, as I've noted before, I am agnostic. It ultimately doesn't matter to me what faith a person has, just that they don't base their decisions on public policy based solely on their faith, and nothing else.

 

[Leen]

There is one thing most of us can agree on what Mormons are really good at.....their Mormon Tabernacle Choir!!!!!
who can doubt their prowess in singing the hallelujah chorus or christmas songs or american patriotic songs in concerts and state ocassions accompanied by that great pipe organ? there's a lot of clips in youtube for you to verify....

their places of worship also stand out architecturally and their missionaries are very easy to spot, especially in places where white caucasians are not a majority....very well dressed white caucasians preaching their faith in pairs!

as for mitt romney, he's in the same shoes as JFK (and jed bartlett! ), a US president not among those considered among the usual "white protestant evangelical moral majority...." undoubtedly, his religion IS an issue since many consider his religion a cult. but just wait for the uproar when there comes a time for an atheist, jewish or muslim become a candidate for the US presidency.... i just can't understand why it's that kind of an issue there. the US presidency is a secular office and people are not voting for the highest ranking evangelical minister for the US.

oh, some more possible issues, how does his mormon faith affect granting reprieves for the death penalty, sex education/contraception/abortion among other "moral" issues?

Hey, I agree completely with you about the Mormon Tabernacle Choir thing. I also agree completely on the missionaries part. I used to see them around cycling and wearing neat black ties with white plain shirts, black pants, and black shoes. They always travel in pair.

 

[ddadain]

-__- Mormonism, eh?

I've been assailed by them lot [yes, they are in pairs supposedly because a.) there is strength in numbers, b.) 2 against one isn't fair, c.) one prays while the other preach, d.) etc.] in my 7-year-continuing stay in Hong Kong. What's weird is that they are usually white *not asians* >_> Imagine you're a Chinese who is very intimidated by the gwai low's skin color and "racial superiority" [oh yes, Hong Kong Chinese people still regard westerners with high esteem -_- although they aren't really so good...] then 2 white dudes or dudettes come and start a conversation out of the blue! :P

Well... as for the theological part of mormonism... If I had time, I'd delve in it more -_- What bothers me most is the fact that they have an "elitist system" in which only a certain number people who exceptionally further the Church of the Latter Day Saints' cause who are allowed to go to heaven, and the rest are given the Earth -_- ;_;