Peaceful Religious Dialogue (Islam/Christianity)

[Mohamed]

This thread was created to move the on-going discussion between Mustardseed and I from the Understanding Christianity thread to a more relevant area.  Although the topic of the other thread has changed considerably, I hope Mustardseed and other Christians will persist in answering the concerns posed by Jeehad.

Mind you, this thread is designed for productive discussions - any reply or question that is aimed at sparking a debate will go unanswered and runs the risk of being flamed.  With that said, here are some questioning guidelines for you to follow.

Good Questions:

-  I don't quite understand such and such verse in the Qur'an, would you elaborate for me?
-  I learned in my Church that Muslims believe in such and such, is that true?  If so how can you believe such a thing?
-  I read on so and so site that there is such and such error in the Qur'an, is this true?  Can you prove otherwise?
-  I see plenty of women in the Middle East covering their hair/skin/anything visible to the eye, is this really taught in Islam?  Could you prove your stance by showing exactly where it is taught (or taught against)?

Bad Questions:

-  How do you view the current Israeli / Palestinian conflict?
-  Do you believe in sharia law?
-  Jesus is god and will forgive your sins if you accept him (yeah it's not a question but God only knows what extremists view as questions).
-  If you are a US citizen, how would you feel if such and such law system of such and such nation where imposed on you?

As you can see, the good questions are related to a religious dialogue where as the bad questions are aimed towards gathering information about personal beliefs and/or picking a fight.

I will attempt to answer questions as they are brought to me, but it is not my responsibility to educate anyone.  If I do not reply it is not because Muslims have no answer for your particular question, it is because I as an individual am too busy to reply or I simply do not know the answer and do not wish to invest time into it.  For such questions, I would advise you to seek guidance from a learned Muslim scholar in your area (they are everywhere, even in the USA) - which is what you should be doing if you where seriously considering learning about Islam anyway.

Peace, Love and Light,
Mohamed

[Mohamed]

First question asked by Mustardseed:

Do you believe that in order to fully understand the content of the Koran and the Hadith one must understand Arabic?

My reply:

I'm going to fill you in on a little secret.  At least, it is a secret to many Christians.  I have recently taken up Hebrew as a fourth language - one because I wanted to read the Bible in its native tongue and two, my girlfriend is Jewish.  You see Mustard; the Bible becomes so much more wondrous in Hebrew than when it is read in English or any other translation at that.  Of course it can be understood in English, but to fully understand the jest of it all - that requires knowledge in Hebrew.  Much like the Qur'an; the Qur'an can be read and understood in any translation - but to fully understand what is revealed to mankind, it must be read in its native tongue, Arabic.

Peace, Love and Light,
Mohamed

[Mohamed]

Dear Muhamad

I will try my best to take your suggestions into consideration. I do have a few questions that I hope you will be able to elaborate on.

1 Having read the Koran extensively over the last years and having researched the doctrine of Aborgation, I would like your take on this issue. Aborgation, to substitute one sura for another, appears to be a valid doctrine and certainly one that is used my Islamic Koran scholars throughout the world. According to this doctrine the later (timewise) command given is supposed to substitute any earlier command, making it easier to find the will of Allah, in a given area. 

2 If the Koran is only understood by those who read and understand CA, how do the masses of muslims who do not command this language comprehend the text. Do you yourself speak or understand Ca? If not how do you feel your understanding of the text benefit?

For now these are my questions, if you have any questions about Christianity I shall be glad to reply and try my best to answer them as much as I have the knowledge.

Regards Mustardseed

Peace Mustardseed,

I appreciate your gesture towards a productive discussion.  Although the questions you ask have been used by Christians in the attempt of conversion, I will take them from you as sincere inquiries - after all, who am I to judge?

Your questions are legitimate and I thank you for not bombarding me with 2,000 verses that you would like interpreted ASAP.  On to your questions.

1)  Abrogation

-  It is indeed true that what was revealed later must be taken into consideration above what was revealed earlier.  Now, given what was revealed by God to humanity within the Qur'an, abrogation poses no difficulties because issues only arise when the previous command contradicts the later one or when the two commands brought beside one another make no sense.  For the sake of our readers and yourself, I will show the classic example of abrogation within the Qur'an - the banning of alcoholic drinks .

First, the following verse was revealed:

Qur'an 4:43 - "O you who believe! Do not go near prayer when you are intoxicated until you know (well) what you say..."

Then, this one:

Qur'an 2:219 - "They ask you about intoxicants and games of chance. Say: In both of them there is a great sin and means of profit for men, and their sin is greater than their profit."

And finally:

Qur'an 5:90 - "O ye who believe! Intoxicants and gambling, (dedication of) stones, and (divination by) arrows, are an abomination,- of Satan's handwork: eschew such (abomination), that ye may prosper."

As you can see, 4:43 does not ban alcohol - instead it tells humanity not to pray while intoxicated.  2:219 doesn't fully ban the consumption of Alcohol but it is weaning the Arabs, who loved intoxicants (possibly more than the Irish ), off of the strong drinks.  Finally, when the desert Arabs were ready to give up alcohol (after much great faith had been built within them), 5:90 was revealed and alcohol was totally banned.

Now, neither of the abovementioned verses contradict or come into conflict with one another.  4:43 is a commandment to not pray while drunk.  So, if I were to drink lots of alcohol right now, I could not pray until I am able to understand what I am saying.  2:219 states that there is a great sin in alcohol but also some profit - although the sin is far greater than the profit.  So, for those people who are able to profit one way or another from alcohol they should understand that their sin is greater than their profit - if they profit a lot, then their sin is just that much more intense than their profit.  Finally, 5:90 states clearly to avoid alcohol altogether - but in a sense 2:219 already implied that.

Some people feel that 2:219 and 5:90 contradict one another seeing that there is profit in Satan's handwork.  Clearly there is profit in Satan's handwork or else people wouldn't give themselves up to prostitution or become hitmen and murder others for a living.  Truly there is profit in selling alcohol, especially here in the USA within cities that harbor major universities - no one can deny that.  But again, as 2:219 states the sin of alcohol consumption and/or profiting from alcohol is far greater than that of the profit made by it.

So you see, indeed we have abrogation in Islam - but it poses no problems because the previous verses line up wonderfully, beautifully and logically to the later verses.

Now I have a question for you, Mustardseed.  How do you feel about abrogation in the Bible, the likes of which do contradict each other as well as bring up difficulties?  I shall give you an example - note, this is an example - I am not questioning you on these verses but showing that abrogation is not limited to Islam:

First the following verses were revealed:

The Bible, Leviticus Book 11 Verses 7 & 8 KJV - "And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.  Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you."

Then later (much later) the following:

The Bible, Mark Book 7 Verses 18 - 20 KJV - "And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man."

A little confusing I know, but here is another version of the Bible which is a bit more clear:

"Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this. Jesus declared all foods "clean.") Mark 7:18-20 NIV

And another version:

He said to them, "Then do you also fail to understand? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile, since it enters not the heart but the stomach, and goes out into the sewer?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.) Mark 7:18-20 NRSV

Here is an example of abrogation in which the latter verse contradicts and comes into conflict with the former.  And to complicate things further we have:

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." Matthew 5:17 KJV

And, on top of this we have (last one, I don't want to overwhelm anyone):

"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:" Deuteronomy 6:4 KJV

Here we have several cases of abrogation which clearly confuse the followers of divinity in Christ (Trinitarian Christians).

Again you do not need to respond to the verses I have posed - my questioning is NOT on these verses but as to your take on abrogation in Christianity (notice I am asking you the same question you asked me).

2)  I feel I have sufficiently answered this question already.  If not, then do let me know exactly what you doubt.

Peace, Love and Light,
Mohamed

[Mustardseed]

Dear Muhamad

Thankyou for the explanation. This makes a lot of sense to me and has consequently caused me a great deal of concern. If we take the guideline that you mentioned and apply this principle of Abrogation, where a former Sura is replaced by a latter, and apply it to Sura 9:5, in which the follower of Islam is commanded to kill the unbelievers, am I right to conclude that the former peacefull Suras commanding peace, are abrogated by the latter commanding violence. It would seem this way.

Concerning your questions on the Bible.

Though there is no doctrine of abrogation in the Bible as such, it is evident that Jesus did indeed replace former commandments with new ones. I suppose that for the sake of clarity we could call it Abrogation. This you will find in verses such as these that I have selected from The Gospel of Matthew:

38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, but I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy, but I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;


It seems that while the Koran is replacing peacefull former verses with latter more violent ones, Jesus replaces the Mosaic law and the principle of revenge with forgiveness and non violence.

When I asked if the Koran is best read in Arabic I think you misunderstood. It is my understanding the it is written in CA (Classical Arabic) which is for all intents and purposes a different language. It would appear that the problem of diglossia is at play here. What do you think. Do you yourself read it in Arabic? If so how do you find the difference between CA and Modern Arabic influence your understanding of the text.

Regards Mustardseed

[Mohamed]

Peace Mustardseed,

You know, my girlfriend is completely against us having these discussions; she says I'm wasting my time and then distracts me from you - I am in agreement with her, but her distractions are quite pleasant; so I'll keep this up for a while.  I had actually almost forgotten about this but luckily I just completed my afternoon prayer and you came to mind.  I'll get right into it.

So, how did I know that this was the direction you were moving towards?  Oh yes, I've come across this argument before!  Interestingly by someone aiming to create a religious debate in which said person was hoping for a victory on their side.  Thankfully, I have come across this several times in the past and have saved my response (how convenient, I knew it would come in handy).

Before I begin, I would like to comment on the verses you provided me as evidence of abrogation in the Bible.  Unlike what I teach below [About your question on abrogation], your verses do contradict previous revelations and cause confusion.  Because in one instance your god talks about an eye for an eye, yet in latter verses discusses something completely different which doesn't complement former revelations.  Not unlike John Kerry's constant changing of opinion.  Though, your faith does preach three gods which are all a part of one - perhaps the fault of this abrogation is due to one of the three passing a ruling without the others knowledge, then another one passes their own ruling which contradicts the previous revelation (Yes I know Jesus is the word, I'm only trying to help your case here by providing suggestions).

Now let us discuss your concerns, again assuming you are here to learn about Islam.

First, let's discuss your so called verses of violence then we will get into abrogation.

Surah 9:5 reads, "slay the idolaters [pagans] wherever ye find them..."

Well, that certainly supports the theory that the Quran preaches violence-unless, of course, one is inclined to study context. Those who quote such passages often fail to provide any context behind the verse, such as in this case, where the verse just previous explicitly forbids committing any violence against those who keep their peace with you.

Surah 9:4 reads, "Except those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement, then they have not failed you in anything and have not backed up any one against you, so fulfill their agreement to the end of their term; surely Allah loves those who are careful (of their duty)."

Surah 9:5 was revealed after the Meccans broke the peace treaty they signed with Muhammad [pbuh].  Now let's discuss that treaty.

In Islam, every Muslim must travel to Mecca to perform pilgrimage at least once in their life time unless they are physically unable to do so [if you don't and you die before you get the chance to, there are ways for your family to clear you of that burden].  The Holy Prophet [pbuh] gathered ten thousand believers and made his way to Mecca [hostile at the time] un-armed to perform the pilgrimage.  The Meccans refused them.  Instead they came to an agreement, a peace treaty whereupon the Muslims can perform their pilgrimage at a later time and hostilities from Mecca will end.  The Muslims then returned to Medina without performing the pilgrimage.

The Meccans didn't uphold their end of the bargain and soon after led a pre-emptive attack against the Muslims by literally slaughtering a tribe allied with them [Muslims].  Now Muhammad [pbuh] refused to act in any matter without clear guidance from Allah, so this is when those verses [9:5 and the ones before and after it] were revealed to him.  The Angel Gabriel came to Muhammad [pbuh] and relayed the message of Allah to him and the Muslims armed themselves and conquered Mecca with very little effort.  This was the historic moment when Muhammad [pbuh] entered the Kabaa and destroyed the 300 pagan gods that the Arabs used to worship.  At this point the Meccan women and children prepared themselves to be sold into slavery or raped, but Muhammad [pbuh] told them that they are free individuals and invited them to Islam.  Many converted, and many remained pagans - but one thing was clear that day, hostilities from Mecca ended and Muslims were free to perform pilgrimage.

When read in context, those verses are not violent; instead they instruct men in such matters.  The Qur'an is a complete guide given to mankind - now we (Muslims) know that if we were in a situation where a nation prematurely dissolves a peace treaty with us, we have the right to wage war against them.  Now, you might be asking exactly when a Muslim nation can wage war.  Simple, let's look at Surah 2 verses 190 - 193.

"Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.  And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.  But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.  And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors."  [Qur'an 2: 190 - 193]

Let's look at what these verses are saying:

- "Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities."

Muslims are not allowed to start any wars unless they are first attacked.

- "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers."

You are attacked, so what are you allowed to do?  Sit at home and be murdered while watching your loved ones be murdered and/or raped?  Qur'an is a complete guidance to mankind.  If you are attacked buddy, go out and kill the enemy where ever they may be - why?  Because persecution is worse than slaughter.

- "But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.  And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors."

Hey look at that!  If they stop attacking you, then you stop attacking them; fair enough?  Don't take advantage of their weakness and conquer them UNLESS they keep fighting you, then keep fighting them until there is no more persecution and they are all Muslim [then there wouldn't be anymore hostilities would there?]  But if they stop, then leave them alone.  Remember, they started it in the first place or else there wouldn't all be this violence.

If humanity followed the rules of God placed within the Qur'an then there would be no wars... period.

Now for the abrogation you are concerned with, there should be no cause for concern.  The verses which seem to justify violence in reality do the opposite.  They teach man how to end violence that is brought against them.  Yes, in essence you are fighting violence with violence, but unfortunately that's the way the world works.  If someone where to come up to you and begin hurting you, bruising you, and shedding your blood are you going to fall to the ground, let it happen and possibly get killed in the process?  I would hope not.

The peaceful verses you refer to are ways in which we learn patience in the face of intolerance and racism - but never were the Muslims in any position in which war was waged against them [because they had no nation or land to defend at that time].  The Qur'an doesn't teach men to kill others because they are racist or intolerant and you will not find anything close to that in the Qur'an.  In this instance of abrogation [which really isn't abrogation, just like my previous argument with alcohol] there is no contradiction and bringing the various verses together does not create confusion.  This is once again a fantastic example of how the various Qur'anic verses complement one another perfectly without creating contradictions or confusion.

Unfortunately though, your verses do contradict previous revelations and cause confusion.  Because in one instance your god talks about an eye for an eye, yet in latter verses discusses something completely different which doesn't complement former revelations.  Not unlike John Kerry's constant changing of opinion.  Though, your faith does preach three gods which are all a part of one - perhaps the fault of this abrogation is due to one of the three passing a ruling without the others knowledge, then another one passes their own ruling which contradicts the previous revelation (Yes I know Jesus is the word, I'm only trying to help your case here by providing suggestions).

Peace, Love and Light,
Mohamed

P.S.  No, Classical Arabic is not a completely different language than Modern Arabic.  A person fluent in Modern Arabic [or even not so fluent] can read and understand Qur'anic Arabic with little difficulty.

[abu-usaama]

I'd like to note that the scholars who consider/ed 9:5 as abrogating previous commands of peace have never believed it applies to Jews and Christians.

[Mustardseed]

Dear Mohammad
Peace to you as well. Before I address your answers relating to our religious discussion, I would like to draw your attention to something you wrote at an earlier date. I found your statement very wise and worthwhile and thus I would like to ask you how you would see it applied to yourself.

You said

Attacking another's religion will only anger them and push them away, isolating them from the path; in essence, worsening their ailment

In your last post you then proceed to compare my God, (someone who means as much to me as Muhammad (pbuh) does to you), to a crooked politician and known liar and hypocrite. How do you expect me to take such a comparison?

How would you yourself take it if I compared Muhammad (pbuh) to a known warmonger, pedophile or what have you? How did YOU react when various cartoons were drawn of Him with a bomb in His turban?

You said

my dear Mustard,...... on one hand you wish to discuss Islam, yet on the other you attempt to provoke me with subtle comments - a tactic well worth the title of Christian.

Let me tell you my brother that this comment makes me feel in every way as provoked as you did. I had to take a few days to cool down enough to write you this note.

I would totally agree with you in your statement that.......:

........ the good questions are related to a religious dialogue where as the bad questions are aimed towards gathering information about personal beliefs and/or picking a fight.

I wonder if YOU are looking for a fight, baiting me with your sarcastic remarks. If so, you would appear to be rather hypocritical. I hope it was a slip of the tongue and will leave it at this.

On to your answers and our discussion.

You said:

Muslims are not allowed to start any wars unless they are first attacked.

You are attacked, so what are you allowed to do?  Sit at home and be murdered while watching your loved ones be murdered and/or raped?  Qur'an is a complete guidance to mankind.  If you are attacked buddy, go out and kill the enemy where ever they may be - why?  Because persecution is worse than slaughter.

........................If they stop attacking you, then you stop attacking them; fair enough?  Don't take advantage of their weakness and conquer them UNLESS they keep fighting you, then keep fighting them until there is no more persecution and they are all Muslim [then there wouldn't be anymore hostilities would there?]  But if they stop, then leave them alone.  Remember, they started it in the first place or else there wouldn't all be this violence.

The verses which seem to justify violence in reality do the opposite.  They teach man how to end violence that is brought against them.  Yes, in essence you are fighting violence with violence, but unfortunately that's the way the world works.  If someone where to come up to you and begin hurting you, bruising you, and shedding your blood are you going to fall to the ground, let it happen and possibly get killed in the process?  I would hope not.

What I am trying to understand is this. What is the difference between the Koran and the teaching of Muhammad (pbuh) and the New testament and the words of Jesus.

It is becoming very obvious to me that there is a profound difference. Christians have no right to do anything else than pray for those who persecute them. We have no words from Jesus justifying the use of violence. Muslims however not only have permission but they actually have commandments to the opposite effect. They are encouraged to fight the unbelievers who attacked them and even go as far as force Islam on them with violence

Like you said above .......:

keep fighting them until there is no more persecution and they are all Muslim [then there wouldn't be anymore hostilities would there?]

Remember we are not discussing what is right but only where we differ.

My next questions regarding Islam are somewhere along these same lines.

1.What is a Muslim to do regarding those who leave the faith. Is it true that such an act is punishable by death?

2. If a Muslim is expected to return hostility with hostility, is it only required where an invasion of Muslim land is at stake, like Iraq, or is it also accepted where the concern is a desecration of the faith the Prophet (pbuh) or any other Islamic Holy tenant of faith.

Regards Mustardseed

[DH]

Peace Mustardseed,
You know, my girlfriend is completely against us having these discussions; she says I'm wasting my time and then distracts me from you - I am in agreement with her, but her distractions are quite pleasant; so I'll keep this up for a while.  I had actually almost forgotten about this but luckily I just completed my afternoon prayer and you came to mind.  I'll get right into it.
So, how did I know that this was the direction you were moving towards?  Oh yes, I've come across this argument before!  Interestingly by someone aiming to create a religious debate in which said person was hoping for a victory on their side.  Thankfully, I have come across this several times in the past and have saved my response (how convenient, I knew it would come in handy).

Mohamed,

I've been following this thread with some interest, but now I'm wondering why you don't take your girlfriend's advice and spend more time with her rather than "wasting your time" responding here.  You stated that this thread is about a "peaceful religious dialogue"  -- but that seems to be a sham in light of the arrogant, sarcastic tone of some of your posts, like the one quoted above.  I have nothing against you personally, I'm just trying to figure out why you seem to bother with a dialogue that is nothing more than a joke to you.

I'm also wondering how sincere you are in "peaceful dialogue" when I read other statements you've made, such as:

"Peace Mustardseed,

I also find it interesting, my dear Mustard, that on one hand you wish to discuss Islam, yet on the other you attempt to provoke me with subtle comments - a tactic well worth the title of Christian."


"A tactic well worth the title of Christian"? 

How do you define the title "Christian"? 

You seem not to be aware that the title "Christian" literally means "little Christ".  A sincere Christian desires to be "A little Christ" -- one who walks in the unconditional love of Jesus.  Granted, many don't live up to the title -- but do you think you are winning friends by insulting the many who do? 

And what does your insult about the "title of Christian" imply about the character of Jesus?  Are those Christians who act like jackasses imitating their spiritual leader?

What really bothers me about such a "peaceful dialogue" is that those who insult your prophet are persecuted unto death by angry mobs his followers.  We've seen that happen more than once in the recent past. What I've seen of Christians is that their response to insults against Jesus is consistent with the title "little Christ" -- they respond like Jesus would  -- not, "Kill them", but they pray, "Forgive them for they know not what they do."

I'm just trying to figure out where you are coming from and why you sign you posts with "peace, love and light."  That seems out of sync with the tone of your posts.

DH

[abu-usaama]

What I am trying to understand is this. What is the difference between the Koran and the teaching of Muhammad (pbuh) and the New testament and the words of Jesus.

It is becoming very obvious to me that there is a profound difference. Christians have no right to do anything else than pray for those who persecute them. We have no words from Jesus justifying the use of violence. Muslims however not only have permission but they actually have commandments to the opposite effect. They are encouraged to fight the unbelievers who attacked them and even go as far as force Islam on them with violence

That is an incorrect statement. How does this weigh up to the statement of Jesus according to the Book of John:

36Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place." John 18:36 (New International Version)

36Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. John 18:36 (King James Version)

This may not be a command for christians to fight, but Jesus is clearly informing that violence would have been justified, if his kingdom were of this world.

The Prophet Muhammad's (peace and blessing of God be upon him) kingdom was of this world.

Muhammad and his followers were commanded to forgive, for the first 13 years of his message. At this point, God revealed such verses as:

قُل لِّلَّذِينَ آمَنُوا يَغْفِرُوا لِلَّذِينَ لا يَرْجُون أَيَّامَ اللَّهِ لِيَجْزِيَ قَوْماً بِما كَانُوا يَكْسِبُونَ
Say (O Muhammad SAW) to the believers to forgive those who (harm them and) hope not for the Days of Allah (i.e. His Recompense), that He may recompense people according to what they have earned  [Quran 45:14]

فَاصْفَحْ عَنْهُمْ وَقُلْ سَلَامٌ فَسَوْفَ يَعْلَمُونَ
So turn away from them (O Muhammad SAW), and say: Salam (peace)! But they will come to know. [Qur'an 43:89]

When the Prophet went to Medina and established a Muslim community, with penal laws and the like, fighting became permitted, and then was commanded.

[abu-usaama]

1.What is a Muslim to do regarding those who leave the faith. Is it true that such an act is punishable by death?

2. If a Muslim is expected to return hostility with hostility, is it only required where an invasion of Muslim land is at stake, like Iraq, or is it also accepted where the concern is a desecration of the faith the Prophet (pbuh) or any other Islamic Holy tenant of faith.

1. As for those who leave Islam, this is an issue left up to the Islamic state. There are differing opinions about whether he should be killed or not. However, if it is true this is God's command I have no problem with it. This was the punishment in the Old Testament as well. A true believer when he hears a ruling of God he simply says "I hear and I obey."

2. I dont know.

[Mustardseed]

That is an incorrect statement. How does this weigh up to the statement of Jesus according to the Book of John:

36Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place." John 18:36 (New International Version)

36Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. John 18:36 (King James Version)

This may not be a command for christians to fight, but Jesus is clearly informing that violence would have been justified, if his kingdom were of this world.

The Prophet Muhammad's (peace and blessing of God be upon him) kingdom was of this world.

Muhammad and his followers were commanded to forgive, for the first 13 years of his message. At this point, God revealed such verses as:

قُل لِّلَّذِينَ آمَنُوا يَغْفِرُوا لِلَّذِينَ لا يَرْجُون أَيَّامَ اللَّهِ لِيَجْزِيَ قَوْماً بِما كَانُوا يَكْسِبُونَ
Say (O Muhammad SAW) to the believers to forgive those who (harm them and) hope not for the Days of Allah (i.e. His Recompense), that He may recompense people according to what they have earned  [Quran 45:14]

فَاصْفَحْ عَنْهُمْ وَقُلْ سَلَامٌ فَسَوْفَ يَعْلَمُونَ
So turn away from them (O Muhammad SAW), and say: Salam (peace)! But they will come to know. [Qur'an 43:89]

When the Prophet went to Medina and established a Muslim community, with penal laws and the like, fighting became permitted, and then was commanded.

Dear Abu-Usaama

I find your line of argument very flawed. It sounds more like a "gnat" and entirely an argument for the sake of an argument. This is what we as Christians call "twisting" the scriptures. Like the ugly stepsister in Cinderella you cut a heel or a toe and then say you fit the shoe.

The fact remains that His Kingdom is NOT of this world, and we as Christians are supposed to act accordingly. I am sure that many others can refute your argument better than I, I must admit I am sitting here feeling quite at a loss of words.

As far as you not having a problem with Death penalty for leaving Islam, it only shows that we are indeed very different, our beliefs are different our God is not the same God.

The God you worship is very similar to the God mentioned in the Old Testament, and as far from Christianity as the East from the West.

Giving your previous arguments and line of logic I would assume your next post would be that the east is really the same as the west, and if you keep going west you come to the East.

In any case thanks for the reply, I am still waiting for Muhammad.

Regards Mustardseed

[Mustardseed]

As for those who leave Islam, this is an issue left up to the Islamic state. There are differing opinions about whether he should be killed or not. However, if it is true this is God's command I have no problem with it. This was the punishment in the Old Testament as well. A true believer when he hears a ruling of God he simply says "I hear and I obey."

By the way.............how would a true believer ( I assume you count yourself one such individual ) know that the ruling is "of God" . Is it "of God" when it is issued as a Fatwa, or is it as a result of a direct connection with God or what....? How do you Muslims generally decide what is "the true ruling of God"?

Are the Islamic states themselves allowed to decide whether to implement the rulings in the Koran or the Hadith, would it be counted a Islamic state if it contravenes or makes laws which are not supported by the Koran.?

Regards Mustardseed

[Mustardseed]

The thread here was first set up by Muhammad in order to facilitate a Peaceful dialogue. While this is a very good and necessary goal, it appears that Muhammad himself does not want to take part in it, unless he can censure the content and the questions.

As it is evident below, many Muslims believe that the death penalty for apostasy from Islam is a fair and good ordinance. There are many other questionable practices that are not only embraced and taught by various Mullahs but also believed and practiced by Muslims in general.

If any Muslim would like to comment on some of these it would be welcome. I must admit that I have some serious questions about Islam but I do not see that as a reason to stop communication, on the contrary.

On the other hand I welcome questions regarding the Bible and shall try my best to answer each one.

Regards Mustardseed

[Mohamed]

Peace Companions,

DH,

Did you not see the irony in your post before you hit submit?  You state that I 'seem' not to be aware of what Christian means yet here you are 'seeming' not to understand who a follower of the Prophet Muhammad (s) is.

Granted, you are correct in stating that not all Christians are 'jackasses' as you put it, but you failed to mention that I too said that.  You simply pointed out much of what I said disregarding context – though you aren't alone, many people constantly make that mistake.  If you had read further as I'm sure you have, you would know that I followed up by stating "...and might I add, not all Christians are like Mustard - many are a peace loving people."  Or do you simply wish to ignore this?  What else do you ignore when you critique someone?

You made a clear distinction between a 'jackass' Christian, and a 'true' Christian yet you lumped all Muslims into one category.  Those violent protests were un-Islamic and nothing can be used to support them aside from the twisted lies of those who'd have you believe otherwise.  Not to mention that the amount of protesters in comparison to the 1.6 billion Muslims in the world today is insignificant at most.

As for your statement about implications towards Jesus (as), I won't even reply to this because you and I both know that a Muslim will not attack a prophet and that I am not questioning my motives for what I said.

Mustardseed,

You said, "I had to take a few days to cool down enough to write you this note."  My intention was not to hurt you, friend.  I offer my sincere apologies for the distress I may have caused you.

Now to address your concerns.  Yes, it would seem that there are profound differences between our faiths – but if we dabble in these differences then there will always be conflict between us.  There are more similarities between Islam and Christianity than are differences.  But for this one difference, let us address it logically.

Let us assume for a moment that every Christian on Earth were to adhere to the Word 100%.  Now, let us say that war had been waged against every Christian by a ruthless force.  The logical conclusion would be that every Christian will be murdered/raped/mutilated.  Would a just and honorable God preach that such un-defensive death is not only desired but commanded?  There is no logic in such a command.  The logical conclusion to such an attack would be to take up arms in defense of the innocent.  There is not confusion in Islam; nothing is commanded which doesn't hold certainty and logic behind it.

Now for your questions:

1.  What is a Muslim to do regarding those who leave the faith. Is it true that such an act is punishable by death?

No

2.  If a Muslim is expected to return hostility with hostility, is it only required where an invasion of Muslim land is at stake, like Iraq, or is it also accepted where the concern is a desecration of the faith the Prophet (pbuh) or any other Islamic Holy tenant of faith.

This is a good question.

In Islam we have three types of Jihad, a Jihad against ones self, a verbal Jihad, and a physical Jihad.  The first is one in which a person struggles against his/her self from the sinful desires which they have acquired through their environment or any other negative aspect of their life, for example laziness.  The third is a physical fight against oppression and transgression. I feel that warring a nation over the acts of its individuals does not fit into the ruling behind physical Jihad.

The second form of Jihad, the verbal Jihad is the most likely righteous form of Jihad against the desecration of the faith by individuals.  So to answer your question, I would say, "No, it is unacceptable to violently fight against those who desecrate the faith."

Peace, love and light,
Mohamed

P.S.  There are many aspects of my life that prevented me from responding sooner and I stated clearly at the beginning of this thread that I am not responsible for educating anyone and that if I do not reply it is because I am too busy.  I will re-state that here:

"I will attempt to answer questions as they are brought to me, but it is not my responsibility to educate anyone.  If I do not reply it is not because Muslims have no answer for your particular question, it is because I as an individual am too busy to reply or I simply do not know the answer and do not wish to invest time into it.  For such questions, I would advise you to seek guidance from a learned Muslim scholar in your area (they are everywhere, even in the USA) - which is what you should be doing if you where seriously considering learning about Islam anyway."

[Mustardseed]

1.  What is a Muslim to do regarding those who leave the faith. Is it true that such an act is punishable by death?

No

According to WIKIPEDIA this is not correct. Please explain what gives you the right to make such a statement when the accepted scholars and Islamic schools say otherwise:

WIKIPEDIA
Apostasy in Islam

Apostasy in Islam (Arabic: ارتداد, irtidād or ridda) is commonly defined as the rejection of Islam in word or deed by a person who has been a Muslim.

All five major schools of Islamic jurisprudence agree that a sane male apostate must be executed.[1] A female apostate may be put to death, according to some schools, or imprisoned, according to others. The Islamic laws governing apostasy are derived from the traditions (ahadith); Al-Shafi'i interpreted the verse [Qur'an 2:217] as adducing the main evidence for the death penalty in Qur'an.[2] According to Wael Hallaq nothing of the aspostasy law are derived from the Qur'an. [3]

Some contemporary Shi'a jurists, scholars, writers and Islamic sects have argued or issued fatwas that either the changing of religion is not punishable or is only punishable under restricted circumstances, but these minority opinions have not found broad acceptance among Islamic scholars.[4][5][6][7][8]
For the sake of brevity and transparency I thought it prudent to stick to a few issues at a time.

I seem to understand, that there is a variance in how the different Islamic states, adhere to various teachings. Some act on certain issues, like apostasy, very matter of factly and execute said persons. Who is to decide what is or what is not Islam. Is the Koran and the Haditdh open for individual interpretation, or does a Religious counsel or government decide what is proper action. In the case of Sharia, it appears that a country under sharia rule, do indeed have to obey the leaders or scholars.  How does that apply to a Muslim living among the Um ma in a western country, who's school of thought or doctrine does such a person follow and adhere to.

[Sharpe]

I don't understand the part with jihad.

So you have to kill the unbelievers, but you can't "kill" (10 commandments) or you will go to hell right? Seems confusing.
So if god forgives you anyway, why not just let the unbelievers alone, you'll get to heaven anyway, there's no need for hatred.

[Mohamed]

Mustardseed,

"According to WIKIPEDIA this is not correct. Please explain what gives you the right to make such a statement when the accepted scholars and Islamic schools say otherwise"

Please explain what gives you the right to talk about Islamic jurisprudence when you know nothing about it - other than what is found on Wikipedia.  Because of your self-proclaimed sincerity (which I still doubt), I will forgive this and show you why that quote can not possibly be accurate.

"Al-Shafi'i interpreted the verse [Qur'an 2:217] as adducing the main evidence for the death penalty in Qur'an."

To start, why should I take anything Al-Shafi'i says?  You promote this man as if he was the sole representative to the Muslim faith.  It is true that one of the five schools does indeed follow him, but even they dispute over his contradictory teachings.  But that obviously isn't enough for you is it Mustard?

Let's look at the Qur'anic verse in question:

"They ask you concerning the sacred month about fighting in it. Say: Fighting in it is a grave matter, and hindering (men) from Allah's way and denying Him, and (hindering men from) the Sacred Mosque and turning its people out of it, are still graver with Allah, and persecution is graver than slaughter; and they will not cease fighting with you until they turn you back from your religion, if they can; and whoever of you turns back from his religion, then he dies while an unbeliever-- these it is whose works shall go for nothing in this world and the hereafter, and they are the inmates of the fire; therein they shall abide. [Qur'an 2:217]"

There is nothing in this about killing apostates.  The verse clearly states that if one where to leave Islam then when they die, they will die unbelievers and in Hell shall they abide.  It is crystal clear that apostasy does not equal death and any Muslim who claims otherwise deviates from what the Prophet taught.  Yes, certain branches do deviate - such branches as the Wahabbi and Salafi, but their numbers are small and their beliefs widely shunned in the Muslim world.

"Is the Koran and the Haditdh open for individual interpretation, or does a Religious counsel or government decide what is proper action."

Qur'an is always open for individual interpretation.  Islam is not the Jehovah's Witness where the watch tower group are the sole interpreters of God's word.

"In the case of Sharia, it appears that a country under sharia rule, do indeed have to obey the leaders or scholars.  How does that apply to a Muslim living among the Um ma in a western country, who's school of thought or doctrine does such a person follow and adhere to."

How do Catholics adhere to the teachings of the Pope while living in others countries?  You are asking common sense questions Mustard.

------------------------

Okay buddy.  I didn't want to do this but you've repeatedly attempted to spread lies about my faith.  Now I will show you as well as the others on this board the lies you've brought forth found clearly in your own Bible.  Yes, indeed Christianity is the faith that teaches death to apostates.

Before I do this though, I have a challenge for you.  I challenge you to find a single verse in the Holy Qur'an that teaches the punishment for apostasy is death.  Now let's take a peek at the Bible shall we?

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.

Wow, this is crystal clear.  An apostate of Christianity 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."

So I ask you, Mustardseed, how could you possibly sit here and spread lies about Islam while it is indeed your faith that teaches the lies you spread forth?  What hypocrisy is this within you?

[Mohamed]

Sharpe,

I am not sure what you are asking.  Muslims don't 'kill' the unbelievers; Muslims 'slay' those who start wars against them.  The ruling on physical Jihad is if in a time of peace, a nation wages war against you preemptively or is the first to attack you, then you have the right to defend yourself - simple as that.  This does not contradict any of the Ten Commandments because murder is not taking place on the Muslim side - only on the side of the aggressors.

Did I answer your question?  If not please elaborate and I will try to answer it as best I can.

Peace, love and light,
Mohamed


**Edit**

Just because someone is Muslim doesn't necessarily mean they will go to heaven.  Islam differs from Christianity in this aspect.  According to Christianity, as long as one believes in Jesus they shall go to heaven - Islam teaches that it is a persons good deeds that take them to heaven.  Good deeds are encouraged while bad deeds are shunned and avoided.  Therefore, almost everything we do in this world affects our place in the afterlife.

Also unlike Trinitarian Christianity, Islam teaches that deifying Jesus or anyone/thing other than the One God [The God of Abraham (as)] carries an overwhelmingly heavy sin (extremely bad deed).

I hope I've answered your question.

[Sharpe]

I get the idea of war, but I can't fully understand it.
Because war has massive murdering.
How can this be approved?
Even if someone attacks you.
That just means that YOU can attack not the whole islamic society.
If they would murder they would have murdered men without reason.

That's why I think muslim/christian/jewish rules are overlapping eachother.

[Mohamed]

Yes, that would be true if we were talking about one on one combat.  In the case of war though, we are discussing the issue of armies approaching your people ready to kill them.  In this case, defense involves a lot more than just a few individuals.  The nation as a whole can either defend itself or have its population murdered/raped and conquered.  Defense is the only logical conclusion.

Perhaps your confusion comes from a lack of understanding Islamic rules of war.  The rules are simply, only attack those who attack you - meaning military men who would face you in combat.  Never attack civilians, and do not cause damage to even the leaves of trees - the conflict is between you (as in the nation), and those who fight you and nothing more.  I don't see how you can consider this murder - the aggressors are dying because they attacked you and you are defending yourself.  Of course, you can always opt out of defending yourself and then getting raped/murdered/mutilated, you and your people - that is totally your choice (assuming you were the leader of our hypothetical nation).

Peace, love and light,
Mohamed

[sk8chik]

keep fighting them until there is no more persecution and they are all Muslim [then there wouldn't be anymore hostilities would there?]

muslims kill each other all the time

[Mohamed]

muslims kill each other all the time

Perfect example of media mind corruption and brain washing.  Do not relate tribalism in Iraq to Muslim vs. Muslim violence.

[DH]

Perfect example of media mind corruption and brain washing.  Do not relate tribalism in Iraq to Muslim vs. Muslim violence.

If the murderous tribalism in Iraq isn't "Muslim v.s Muslim" violence -- then what is it?

[Mohamed]

If the murderous tribalism in Iraq isn't "Muslim v.s Muslim" violence -- then what is it?

Muslims killing one another because of their denomination.  The tribalism has nothing to do with Sunni, Shia differences - although the media will promote that ideology.

[Mohamed]

Further proof from the Qur'an that leaving Islam is not punishable by death:

"And say: The truth is from your Lord, so let him who please believe, and let him who please disbelieve; surely We have prepared for the iniquitous a fire, the curtains of which shall encompass them about; and if they cry for water, they shall be given water like molten brass which will scald their faces; evil the drink and ill the resting-place. [Qur'an 18:29]"

Peace, love and light,
Mohamed