Peaceful Religious Dialogue (Islam/Christianity)

[Mustardseed]

Yes Mohammed, I know this Sura and you quote it correctly, but you must admit that there are several indications in the Hadith that testifies to the opposite view. My question to you is this. What gives you the authority to decide against the Hadith, are you a scholar, taught and trained as such or are you an individual, a western convert, with no acreditation. This is what the Hadith has to say about the subject of Apostacy:

Apostasy in Islam - According to Hadith

The Hadith (the body of quotes attributed to Muhammad and alleged eyewitnesses' accounts of Muhammad's life and deeds) includes statements that some scholars see as supporting the death penalty for apostasy. Only those from Sahih Bukhari, which are considered reliable by most Muslims generally are given below:

"Allah's Apostle said, The blood of a Muslim, who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims." (Sahih Bukhari Vol. 9, book 83, number 17, narrated via Abdullah)

Narrated 'Ikrima: 'Ali burnt some people and this news reached ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.'" — Volume 4, Book 52, Chapter 149, Number 260. p. 160-161.

The legal regulation concerning the male and the female who reverts from Islam (apostates). Ibn 'Umar, Az-Zuhri and Ibrahim said, "A female apostate (who reverts from Islam), should be killed. And the obliging of the reverters from Islam (apostates) to repent. Allah said: — 'How shall Allah guide a people who disbelieved after their belief and (after) they bore witness that the Apostle (Muhammad) was true, and that Clear Signs had come unto them? And Allah does not guide the wrong-doing people. As for such the reward is that on them (rests) the curse of Allah, the Angels, and of all mankind. They will abide there-in (Hell). Neither will their torment be lightened nor it will be postponed (for a while). Except for those that repent after that and make amends. Verily Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. Surely those who disbelieved after their belief, and go on adding to their defiance of faith, never will their repentance be accepted, and they are those who have gone astray.' (Sura 3:86-90) — Volume 9, Book 84, Chapter 2, p. 42-43.

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.'" — Volume 9, Book 84, Chapter 2, Number 57, page 45

58. Narrated Abu Burda: Abu Musa said, "I came to the Prophet along with two men (from the tribe) of Ash'ariyin, one on my right and the other on my left, while Allah's Apostle was brushing his teeth (with a Siwak), and both men asked him for some employment. The Prophet said, 'O Abu Musa (O 'Abdullah bin Qais!).' I said, 'By Him Who sent you with the Truth, these two men did not tell me what was in their hearts and I did not feel (realize) that they were seeking employment.' As if I were looking now at his Siwak being drawn to a corner under his lips, and he said, 'We never (or, we do not) appoint for our affairs anyone who seeks to be employed. But O Abu Musa! (or 'Abdullah bin Qais!) Go to Yemen.'" The Prophet then sent Mu'adh bin Jabal after him and when Mu'adh reached him, he spread out a cushion for him and requested him to get down (and sit on the cushion). Behold: There was a fettered man beside Abu Musa. Mu'adh asked, "Who is this (man)?" Abu Muisa said, "He was a Jew and became a Muslim and then reverted back to Judaism." Then Abu Musa requested Mu'adh to sit down but Mu'adh said, "I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and His Apostle (for such cases) and repeated it thrice. Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed. Abu Musa added, "Then we discussed the night prayers and one of us said, 'I pray and sleep, and I hope that Allah will reward me for my sleep as well as for my prayers.'" — Volume 9, Book 84, Chapter 2, Number 58, p. 45-46.

271. Narrated Abu Musa: A man embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism. Mu'adh bin Jabal came and saw the man with Abu Musa. Mu'adh asked, "What is wrong with this (man)?" Abu Musa replied, "He embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism." Mu'adh said, "I will not sit down unless you kill him (as it is) the verdict of Allah and His Apostle. — Volume 9, Book 89, Chapter 12, Number 271, p. 201.

Could you please explain what gives YOU the edge on noted scholars such as Zakir Naik and others, why is YOUR interpretation right and theirs wrong.

[Mohamed]

Mustardseed,

You are arguing a lost cause here buddy.  I've shown you the Word of God, and that Word clearly states that apostates may believe as they please.  In fact God clearly states in Sura 18 verse 29, "and let him who please disbelieve."

Of your quotes, you copy pasted a portion of the Qur'an which in some 'last hope' attempt you believed you could twist and use to support your position.  I will re-type those verses here:

Qur'an Chapter Verses 86 - 90:

86:  How shall Allah guide a people who disbelieved after their believing and (after) they had borne witness that the Messenger was true and clear arguments had come to them; and Allah does not guide the unjust people.

87:  (As for) these, their reward is that upon them is the curse of Allah and the angels and of men, all together.

88:  Abiding in it; their chastisement shall not be lightened nor shall they be respited.

89:  Except those who repent after that and amend, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

90:  Surely, those who disbelieve after their believing, then increase in unbelief, their repentance shall not be accepted, and these are they that go astray.

Tell me Mustard, where in those verses can we find any support of your argument?  Not a single word would support your lies and I am still waiting for you to fulfill the impossible challenge I bestowed upon you.

You know, I had an old friend visit me today.  I told him about our discussions and he wanted to read some of my replies to you.  Sure enough, we found this reply of yours.  At the same moment, we saw the complete ignorance in your reply.  To Muslims, your argument looks like this:

Mustardseed:  "Did you know that Muslims believe clouds are purple?"
Muslim:          "This is laughable on so many levels!  I tell you, the clouds are grey."
Mustardseed:  "No you are wrong, you believe they are purple!"
Muslim:          "No, look here - the book says they are grey."
Mustardseed:  "No!  Why do you anger me so!!  You believe they are grey!"
Muslim:          "You are funny.  My book doesn't say they are grey and I would like you to find proof otherwise, but indeed your book does!  Did you know that - how do you feel about that?"
Mustardseed:  "[No answer]  I'm going to ignore your book and show you the history, that some four of your people believe they are purple!"
Muslim:          "You, Mustardseed, are pathetic."

Why is it that you continue to argue a lie?  Do you believe that if you push it long enough people will start believing it?  Truly this is a mischievous thing you do.

Qur'an Chapter 4 Verse 82 reads:

"Do they not then meditate on the Quran? And if it were from any other than Allah, they would have found in it many a discrepancy."

There is not a single sane Muslim who believes Hadith is the word of God.  Hadith are simply the histories of what passed.  Because those were oral histories you will find many contradictions between the Hadith and the Qur'an.  Therefore, any Hadith that contradicts the Qur'an is false.

Furthermore, any Hadith that states an action or a statement, of the Prophet (s) or his household (as), contradicts with the Qur'an is also false.  You simply stated excerpts from 6 very contradictory Hadith, which disagree with the Word of God and you want me to believe they are true?  Or perhaps you want others to believe they are true?  What daemon or ill gotten spirit has possessed you Mustard?  Indeed you are among those who are astray!

But to calm the 'crying child,' as it were, I will answer your question.  What gives me the edge over Zakir Naik and others is the Word of God.  For any sane and logically thinking Muslim, this is more than enough.  Unfortunately, I can't say the same for radical individuals hell-bent on spreading lies.

You still haven't answered my question Mustard.  You seem to want to prove this point so badly as if it were the Holy Grail in your un-just crusade, yet your own book teaches those very lies.  In case you skipped them, I will re-type them here:

Deuteronomy 13:6-10:

6:  If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;

7:  Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;

8:  Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:

9:  But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

10:  And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.

As you can see, an apostate of Christianity [The OT is considered a part of the Word in Christianity, but you already knew that] must be stoned to death.  Stoned to Death!  What a painful way to die.  But there's more, just incase you try to refute this.

Matthew 5:17:

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."

Deuteronomy 13:18:

"When thou shalt hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep all his commandments which I command thee this day, to do that which is right in the eyes of the LORD thy God."

Indeed I have shown many free thinking minds on this forum; minds which are open to truth, logic, and common sense - that the sayings of Mustardseed are false, and that his crusade is un-just.  In order to defend his faith, he feels the need to spread lies - both his tongue and pen wicked and evil.  Words can not express the pity I feel for you Mustardseed; Insha'Allah [God willing] you will come to see the truth.

Peace, love and light,
Mohamed

[Mustardseed]

Dear Mohamed

Thanks for the reply. So let me try to clarify what I hear you saying. If a Hadith ....any Hadith contradicts the Koran, one should follow the Koran not the Hadith. ?

This means that any Muslim is free to follow the words in the Koran without adhering to various Immams teachers and scholars etc. The Koran is open to an individual interpretation?

Regarding the verses you mentioned, it is true that a variety of very vicious punishments were advocated in the Old Testament. It is a hotly debated issue wether these were actually written by Moses or not. In any case it is Jewish History and has no impact on the New Testament at all.

The verses you picked out from Matthew 5:17 , should be seen in the context of the sermon on the mount , where Jesus apparently explained that HE was the fulfillment of the law. In this context, it should appear clear that Violence is not a part of the message, on the contrary. I have copied some parts of an article,so you can see what I mean.

From WIKIPEDIA

The Sermon on the Mount was, according to the Gospel of Matthew 5-7, a particular sermon given by Jesus of Nazareth (estimated around AD 30) on a mountainside to his disciples and a large crowd.

The best-known portions of the Sermon comprise the Beatitudes, found at the beginning of the section. The Sermon also contains the Lord's Prayer and the injunctions to "resist not evil" and "turn the other cheek", and the doctrine of Nonresistance (or non-resistance) which discourages physical resistance to an enemy and is a subdivision of nonviolence. Strict practitioners of nonresistance refuse to retaliate against an opponent or offer any form of self-defense. The teachings of Jesus Christ, especially the Sermon on the Mountas well as Jesus' version of the Golden Rule. Other lines often quoted are the references to "salt of the Earth," "light of the world," and "judge not, lest ye be judged."

Many Christians believe that the Sermon on the Mount is a form of commentary on the Ten Commandments. To many, the Sermon on the Mount contains the central tenets of Christian discipleship, and is considered as such by many religious and moral thinkers, such as Tolstoy and Gandhi.


Rather than bore you and others with copying chapters of the bible here is some pasted parts of wikipedia that shows the context. Matthew 5:17 is not to be understood as a encouragement to violence.

Regarding my posts I am sorry that you seem to get so emotional about them. What I am trying to determine is who I should believe. Laymen such as yourself or learned scholars and Immams both from the Mideast and abroad. There is as I am sure you are aware of a vast difference in how the Koran is interpreted. Many issues such as apostasy, Jihad, the role of women and suicide bombings to name a few are being lectured about by Immams from Muslim countries. I need not show you the horrendous clips from Youtube, where the same teachers encourage such atrocities. Yet in the Um ma among Muslims in the west we are told that Islam is a religion of peace. Who is right?

Some lean to believe that the Um ma is practising the doctrine of Taqiyya, and while this may be the case in some situations, it appears evident that many Muslims are very ignorant about what the Koran and the Hadith actually teaches. As you know Taqiyya, means, and I quote from Wikipedia again:

Within Islamic tradition, the concept of Taqiyya (التقية - 'fear, guard against')[1] refers to a controversial dispensation allowing believers to conceal their faith when under threat, persecution or compulsion.[2]

The word "al-Taqiyya" literally means: "Concealing or disguising one's beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies at a time of imminent danger, whether now or later in time, to save oneself from physical and/or mental injury." A one-word translation would be "Dissimulation."

A very interesting article has been written about these issues. I will post the link
here:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/004628.php

Though I am not in agreement with every article on the website, this particular one however, contains many  interesting points of view.

Regards Mustardseed

[Sharpe]

These religious discussions are always quotemania's

[Sharpe]

Not that it's not logical because it's the same as law, where you have to quote all the rules if a law is broken.
In a courtroom I mean.

Sorry for disturbing your discussion, please continue...

[Mohamed]

Peace Mustardseed,

You said, "...many Muslims are very ignorant about what the Koran and the Hadith actually teaches."  Yes, this is true.  And because of this, many Muslims are being manipulated to committing un-Islamic acts within the Arab world.  Which reminds me of something we discussed earlier; you said, "Islam runs the Middle East, and the result is chaos."  I countered your argument by saying that very few of the Middle Eastern nations are actually in a state of chaos - many of which are successful, productive, independent nations pioneering in the sciences.  I would like to add to this by stating that there are approximately 220 million Arabs in the world, of that number I estimate about 150 million of them are Muslim.  That's 150 million Arab Muslims in comparison to the 1.6 billion Muslims world wide.  I'm sure you can predict where this is going.

You also said, "I need not show you the horrendous clips from Youtube, where the same teachers encourage such atrocities. Yet in the Um ma among Muslims in the west we are told that Islam is a religion of peace. Who is right?"

Look for a moment, at those who are committing those atrocities.  Ask yourself what they practice.  Your first answer will be Islam - but I will ask you again, what do they practice?  Over the past century there has been a 'spawning' of various new Islamic sects, Wahabbism, Salafism, and Qutbism just to name a few.  All of these sects account for less than 5% of the Islamic Umma but their actions speak far louder than their numbers.  In fact, those actions are so evident that the ignorant buy into the notion that the face of Islam is Wahabbism, Salafism, Qutbism, etc.

Let's restate your question.  "Who is right, the followers of the five original Islamic Schools, or the followers of these new recently formed schools?"  But that's like asking, "Who is right, the believers of Christianity or the believers of Judaism?"  I'm sure both sides will argue to their deaths that they are correct.  In any case, logic is the one determining factor for any rational human being.  Just as, logically, it does not make sense that if a man where to kill your mother he would be forgiven by Jesus without getting your forgiveness first; logically, it doesn't make sense that a Muslim is permitted to kill civilians during warfare when God specifically tells us otherwise in the Qur'an.  In both these cases, the 'believer' is following blind faith irrespective to authentic scriptural context and individual morality.

Who is right?  I'll ask you that question.  Who is right, God or Man?  Everyone knows the Hadith are written by men; but the Qur'an, that is from God.  The Qur'an does not teach any Muslim to kill those who leave Islam, therefore that is what you should believe - that is what's 'right.'  The Qur'an allows self-defense but forbids any other form of violence - that is what you should believe, what is 'right.'

When you mingle with the various scholars, especially those who bring innovation to the faith, then you become confused as to who is 'right.'  But when any bit of doubt or confusion overtakes you, then refer to the Qur'an and everything will be clear.

Thanks for clarifying the Sermon on the Mount for me.  However - using your logic, this leads to obvious questions, questions that I wouldn't normally ask because the answer is clear to me; but I will play you at your own game.  Who is right?  The scholars who perpetrated the Crusade wars or laymen such as you who say violence is strictly forbidden?

Now for more fitting questions.  How can any rational person abolish the concept of self-defense?  Would you really rather your sisters or mother be raped then defend your house from intruders?  Would you really sit down (literally) and allow yourself to be raped and violated rather than defending yourself against such lewdness?  Would a fair and just god preach such a thing?  Does this make sense logically?

Logic would answer all of the above with a strong NO.

Peace, love and light,
Mohamed