honesty and the Koran

[scameron]

Greetings.

This morning's local newspaper included a highlighted quote wherein someone stated that because a family was Muslim, they were free to lie.

I found this to be shocking in that it was printed to begin with. Second, I am convinced that it is very much a falsehood.

I am preparing a letter to the editor in response. I am looking for a quote from Mohammed where he enjoins his followers to be truthful or not to tell lies.

Does anyone know of such a quote?

Thank you for your assistance.

[shunyadragon]

Greetings.

This morning's local newspaper included a highlighted quote wherein someone stated that because a family was Muslim, they were free to lie.

I found this to be shocking in that it was printed to begin with. Second, I am convinced that it is very much a falsehood.

I am preparing a letter to the editor in response. I am looking for a quote from Mohammed where he enjoins his followers to be truthful or not to tell lies.

Does anyone know of such a quote?

Thank you for your assistance.The following is section of the Koran dealing with honesty and lieing
23:1Thou shalt not raise a false report (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ex/notes.html#23:1): put not thine hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness.

23:2 Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ex/notes.html#23:2); neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment:
23:3 Neither shalt thou countenance a poor man in his cause.

23:4 If thou meet thine enemy's ox or his ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again. (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ex/notes.html#23:4)
23:5 If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burden, and wouldest forbear to help him, thou shalt surely help with him. (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ex/notes.html#23:4)

23:6 Thou shalt not wrest the judgment of thy poor in his cause. (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ex/notes.html#23:6)

. 23:7 Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ex/notes.html#23:7): for I will not justify the wicked.

[Dr T]

9:5 But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.


You may wish to consider that lying could be considered a stratagem.

There are 100+ verses of the above nature in the Koran, may of which abrogate the earlier nicer ones, you can't quote a verse out of the Koran and assume it is still valid.

When Mohammed was giving the Koran, very early on he stated that it could be shown to be from God because it wouldn't contain contraditions. However over a period of time many contradictions started to appear (Mohammed gave out verses over 20 years). Once these were spotted the verse on abrogation was given , that is if there is a contradiction then the later verse replaces the earlier one. Although it can't be told from the Koran which is the later verse (the Koran is incomplete), you have to rely on the Islamic traditions.

For example there are several verses saying that moderate comsumption of wine is good for you, but there is one later verse saying that it is forbidden.

Many of the nice verses quoted by Muslims have been abrogated by later more violent verses. You would have to think that the Muslims must know this.

[Solly]

Doc, in relation to that, would you say Islam is a religion of the Book, or a religion of the teachers of the book, and thus you also need to take that aspect into account.

Btw, :hi: long time no see.

[Dr T]

Doc, in relation to that, would you say Islam is a religion of the Book, or a religion of the teachers of the book, and thus you also need to take that aspect into account.

Btw, :hi: long time no see.

I think that the Koran is so incomplete that it requires teachers and hence interpretation. However, having said that some of the verses seem pretty clear, and the violent ones seem to fall into this catergory.

A lot of the terrorists seem to be Arabs, the Koran is in Arabic (albeit an old form) so it isn't a question of translating dead languages (although there must be some element of that, as languages change).

One look at the bleeding edge of Islam (and any look at the historic bleeding edge of Islam) shows that many Muslims take the sword verses literaly, and always have done.

OT. been very busy, and won't be able to stop for long. Hope you are well

[Solly]

OT: we're all well, and wishing you the same. slly

[shunyadragon]

9:5 But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.


You may wish to consider that lying could be considered a stratagem.

There are 100+ verses of the above nature in the Koran, may of which abrogate the earlier nicer ones, you can't quote a verse out of the Koran and assume it is still valid.

When Mohammed was giving the Koran, very early on he stated that it could be shown to be from God because it wouldn't contain contraditions. However over a period of time many contradictions started to appear (Mohammed gave out verses over 20 years). Once these were spotted the verse on abrogation was given , that is if there is a contradiction then the later verse replaces the earlier one. Although it can't be told from the Koran which is the later verse (the Koran is incomplete), you have to rely on the Islamic traditions.

For example there are several verses saying that moderate comsumption of wine is good for you, but there is one later verse saying that it is forbidden.

Many of the nice verses quoted by Muslims have been abrogated by later more violent verses. You would have to think that the Muslims must know this.I am not a Muslem, but I have a fair grasp of the Koran as a whole. Like the Bible, the Koran often appears contradictory and inconsistent. As with the Bible, the skeptic and the non-believer can point out many problems which the faithful in both Christianity and Islam explain away.

First, your quote is only a part of the chapter on Repentence and you need to read the whole chapter to get a better understanding of the context of what you quoted.

Reading the book as a whole it can be understood that Islam allows for the tolerance of other beliefs, especially people of the Book, Jews and Christians.
Moslems are only instructed to fight a war in defense of there faith. There could be an interesting debate as to whether the current war and terrorism chould interpreted as a defensive or offensive war depending from which side you view the conflict.

Considering the Koran as a whole there is no quote in the Quran that could justify dishonesty or lieing.

[WebToaster]

A lot of the terrorists seem to be Arabs, the Koran is in Arabic (albeit an old form) so it isn't a question of translating dead languages (although there must be some element of that, as languages change). Arabic is widely understood across the world, so I don't think the language itself has anything to do with it. If you ask any modern Arabic speaker, they can read the Qur'an, which is almost 1500 years old. Contrast this with English, which didn't even exist 1500 years ago, and if you try to read Beowulf, which is only about 1000 years old, it is completely unrecognizable as English.

One look at the bleeding edge of Islam (and any look at the historic bleeding edge of Islam) shows that many Muslims take the sword verses literaly, and always have done. Not any more than the Christians. You'll probably find a lot more cases of Christian intolerance throughout history than Muslim intolerance. When the Muslims took Jerusalem, they spared the inhabitants. When the Christians took Jerusalem in the crusades, they killed everyone, babies were pitted on spikes, old people had their brains bashed in, etc... Pretty gruesome, but that's just one example.

Christianity does not have a good history of tolerance, so don't throw rocks at anyone while living in a glass house.

[CatholicSage]

Not any more than the Christians. You'll probably find a lot more cases of Christian intolerance throughout history than Muslim intolerance. When the Muslims took Jerusalem, they spared the inhabitants. When the Christians took Jerusalem in the crusades, they killed everyone, babies were pitted on spikes, old people had their brains bashed in, etc... Pretty gruesome, but that's just one example.


Oh really? And just what Bible verses were the atrocities of the Crusades based on? I'll tell you: none. The atrocities that you describe were in complete defiance of the Bible, while Islam's invasion of Christendom was completely justified according to the Qur'an.

[WebToaster]

Oh really? And just what Bible verses were the atrocities of the Crusades based on? I'll tell you: none. The atrocities that you describe were in complete defiance of the Bible, while Islam's invasion of Christendom was completely justified according to the Qur'an.
Wrong, and here's just one example. Be 'in charge of thy brethren' was inferred into John 21:17 into the crusades and later. While this view is seen as misguided in contemporary western society, it was certainly abused by crusade era Christians.

“To him, that is, to Peter, all by divine ordinancebow the head, and the rulers of the world obey him as the Lord Jesus himself.” And Chrysostom, speaking in the person of Christ, says: “Feed my sheep (John 21:17), that is, in my place be in charge of your brethren" (St. Thomas Aquinas, Against the Errors of the Greeks.).

And what about Martin Luther's writings in "The Jews and Their Lies?" He invokes scripture quite often to justify the genocide of the Jews.

[CatholicSage]

Wrong, and here's just one example. Be 'in charge of thy brethren' was inferred into John 21:17 into the crusades and later. While this view is seen as misguided in contemporary western society, it was certainly abused by crusade era Christians.

“To him, that is, to Peter, all by divine ordinancebow the head, and the rulers of the world obey him as the Lord Jesus himself.” And Chrysostom, speaking in the person of Christ, says: “Feed my sheep (John 21:17), that is, in my place be in charge of your brethren" (St. Thomas Aquinas, Against the Errors of the Greeks.).


:stop: Not so fast. That verse appears to be used to justify only the Crusades in general, not the atrocities committed therein. I believe that the Crusades were just in intent, if not in practice.

Another note, to clarify my first post: I am saying that the atrocities committed in the Crusades by Christians are denounced in the Bible, no matter what attempt at justification is being used. I am also saying that the Qur'an does genuinely prescribe religious war for Islam, and that the initial Islamic attack on Christendom was not merely shabbily justified according to a few Qur'anic verses, but correctly done according to the Qur'an.


And what about Martin Luther's writings in "The Jews and Their Lies?" He invokes scripture quite often to justify the genocide of the Jews.

Wasn't he old and senile when he wrote that? In any case, I must again make a distinction between false justification and genuine prescription. If you just reads the New Testament, you won't come away from it feeling full of anti-Semitism. Only if you go into the NT really wanting to hate Jews will you come out with that idea. I think that this is not the case with the Qur'an and warring for Islam.

[WebToaster]

:stop: Not so fast. That verse appears to be used to justify only the Crusades in general, not the atrocities committed therein. I believe that the Crusades were just in intent, if not in practice.
That is true, and I'll agree with you within a contemporary framework. But war was waged quite differently at the time of the crusades. It was common to kill anyone opposing your rule, or entire cities opposing a siege (e.g. Jerusalem). To be 'in charge of your brethren' meant you conquored them and imposed your laws upon them by the sword.

Another note, to clarify my first post: I am saying that the atrocities committed in the Crusades by Christians are denounced in the Bible, no matter what attempt at justification is being used. I am also saying that the Qur'an does genuinely prescribe religious war for Islam, and that the initial Islamic attack on Christendom was not merely shabbily justified according to a few Qur'anic verses, but correctly done according to the Qur'an.
I don't see any condemnation in the Bible for the genocide waged against the Midianites, et.al.

Wasn't he old and senile when he wrote that? In any case, I must again make a distinction between false justification and genuine prescription. If you just reads the New Testament, you won't come away from it feeling full of anti-Semitism. Only if you go into the NT really wanting to hate Jews will you come out with that idea. I think that this is not the case with the Qur'an and warring for Islam.
Well, again, I'm in partial agreement with you. Yet, when I read the Qur'an, I didn't come away from it feeling like I had to kill the infidels. Certainly there are some Muslims who have taken a different meaning, but I don't think this is any different from the misguided beliefs of Christians such as those in the Salem witch trials. It all depends upon what you take into reading either the Bible or the Qur'an.

[ali420]

I guess you can't do justice to the discussion when a muslim is not present. I like to begin with one simple explanation that any verse of the Quran which permits and instructs killing, is either reffering to a legal matter, forexample someone kills your son, in return kill the killer, or is reffering to state of war, and the instruction of killing are given, and please note that these instructions are limited to the time of war, and also these commands are given only say kill the person in the battles, they dont have kill the man and his wife and his two year old son and make sure you kill his horse. Quranic verses only allow the killing of a person in the war fighting the Muslims, only a soilder figting is to be killed, thats if he doesnt surrender first. These two are the main main categories in which each verse about killing will go. Now its entirely your duty to hunt down verses which you think are not reffering to War, o Legal matters, so we can have a concluding discusion. And I am sure that there wont be any verse which doest fall in this category, thus wouldnt need any explaination, but some hints I will give you, read the context of each verse, and secondly use your brains, not your fundi emotions.

Now with regards to the Christian way of fighting the War. The crusades are a classic example, how a Christian would conduct a war based on Biblical scripture, and how he will use the Bible to kill children, rape, and killing of animals. Thats the intorduction to what is comming next.

I would like to begin with the Jesus, and his actions, to show that Jesus had fighting in his mind. Jesus instructed his deciples to buy swords, and you dont have to be a genious to work out what he will do with the swords, killing. The scene is that Roman soilders come to arrest Jesus, lead by his deciple, Judas Iscariot, soon has the soilders try to arrest Jesus one of the deciple uses his sword two well, and does away with the ear of the Roman soilder, Jesus heals back the ear, and tells the deciples to lay down the swords, saying something to his effect, those who live by sword will die by sword, meaning if you can prolong you life by using the sword for a while, remember that this sword will take your life also, reffering to the Romans soilders that that they will kill you all with there swords.

Thats the scene, proving that Jesus also intended to do Jihad like Muhammed (pbuh), but when realised that he has been out numbered, he did the best thing, surrender. Some Christians dont like Jesus instructing his deciples to buy swords so they try to explain away this stating that the instruction to buy sword is a metaphoric expression meaning, that get sharp arguments, wisdom. So I buy there this argument for a while and try to explain to them, if Jesus intended this then according to the text, this would mean that one of the soilder whoes ear was cut of, meant that, he was empressed with the wisdom of the deciple (even though we dont now what was that empressed him) and consequently show symphathy for Jesus's cause, so far good, but what, Jesus heals his ear, meaning that he restored his previous state of mind. Whats thay, Jesus came to make beleivers not beleivers into disbeleivers. And then he says who so ever lives by widom, will die by wisdom, thats total rubbish. Making literal passage into allegorical passage will only raise more problems not solve any. You will have to accept that this passage is literal and instructions to buy swords was also literal, and he wanted to use his swords, but he wasnt good with them and the Roman soilders caught him napping. Another of the Biblical passages comes to my mind which is reffering to fighting and killing, but Christians argue that this passage is reffering to the second comming of Jesus. Lets suppose this is genuine, if Jesus was so peace loving, prince of peace, why would he need anything at all, for killing. Its irrelevent weather he intended to use his weapons then or for later second comming, whats certain that he intended to use them. Secondly why would Jesus use the weapons second time around, because this time he is here to stay, here to establish the deen of Allah, and for it he will have to fight. Just like Muhammed (pbuh) fought battles to establish the deen of Allah, so will Jesus fight the battles to establish the deen of Allah, his first time around was not for fighting, second time around he will.

Now comming to the Biblical actrocities which are found in the Old Testament, which Jesus ( If Jesus was according to Trinity = Yahweh) intstructs and commands the Jewish terrorists to commit against the plastinians. And these passages of the Bible where used in the Crusades to justify the killing of babies, men woman, children, animals. And not forgetting that these people who commited these terrorist acts where in direct command of the Catholic Church. Every action had to be approved by pope before it was carried out, and this representative of Jesus Christ sitting on the throne of Jesus, gave these instructions and justified the killings by using the BiBle, now dont tell me they are not Christians or are not christians. These Christians where under the command of most religious authority of Christiandom yet these horrendous acts where commited with the permission and exicuted has commanded. Pope isssued decree's justifying his actions quoting passages of Old Testament, preaching that nothing was done wrong, infact pope stated that words of Bible where being acted out has described. Here are some verse of the Bible which where used to justify the killing of men women childre, old, and sick, and even the animals, and with each I will answer all the possible rebuttles that can be given.

"Deuteronomy chapter 7:

1 When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou;
2 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:"

This was one of the verse on which the untter destrcution of Jeruslem by Crusaders was based on.

Deuteronomy chapter 20:

12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.
16 However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy [1] them-the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites-as the LORD your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God.

Here Lord or you can say Jesus is commanding that everything should be killed, nothing should be spared. ONe possible response that could be given is that since it says give them the option of making peace first. But lets suppose they made peace the actuall killing that Jesus commanded didnt happen, but the fact remains is that Jesus still commanded this killing to take place if they reffuse, so if they had reffused his command would have been carried out to the letter. Some of you may think I am not being fair for attributing these things to Jesus, but isnt it logical when you consider that Jesus is Lord, and he was lord always, isnt it logical when you say We OUr in the oldest proves Jesus was trinity. If you could argue using your vague and pathetic attempts to find verses that with your over strecthed imagination prove that Trinity is in OT, then why is it hard to reconcile my over strechted imegination with your approach. And its not all imiganation that you beleive Jesus was God therefore I am rightly blaming him for these sickening acts.

And now I am bored so here is a copied chunk:

JS 10:10-27 With the help of the Lord, Joshua utterly destroys the Gibeonites.

JS 10:28 With the Lord's approval, Joshua utterly destroys the people of Makkedah.

JS 10:30 With the Lord's approval, Joshua utterly destroys the Libnahites.

JS 10:32-33 With the Lord's approval, Joshua utterly destroys the people of Lachish.

JS 10:34-35 With the Lord's approval, Joshua utterly destroys the Eglonites.

JS 10:36-37 With the Lord's approval, Joshua utterly destroys the Hebronites.

JS 10:38-39 With the Lord's approval, Joshua utterly destroys the Debirites"

Oh yeah this chunk came from here: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/atrocity.shtml

Now you have two choices to beleive that your Trinitarian YahwehJesusElohim is the most dispickable and most terrorist, fanatical, extremist, devilish-god. Take your choice. And please, dont bable non-sense if you cant right anything serious, try not writting it, i dont have time to answer to your studpidities, so dont make fus of things which should not be needing any attention, just stick to the aim, thats to write a rebuttle, not to character assisnate me, or ween about my comical comments, I say they come with the pacakage. All you need to respond to is that Christian God was not a killer, rape encourager, child killer, animal right breaker, because ...

Ali

I am soo good, that I am bad.
Ali

[shunyadragon]

:stop: Not so fast. That verse appears to be used to justify only the Crusades in general, not the atrocities committed therein. I believe that the Crusades were just in intent, if not in practice.

Another note, to clarify my first post: I am saying that the atrocities committed in the Crusades by Christians are denounced in the Bible, no matter what attempt at justification is being used. I am also saying that the Qur'an does genuinely prescribe religious war for Islam, and that the initial Islamic attack on Christendom was not merely shabbily justified according to a few Qur'anic verses, but correctly done according to the Qur'an.

The atrocities commited by the Christians in the Crusades was well within the model of how God ordered the Hebrews to to exterminate tribes of the enemies including every woman, child and infant.

Wasn't he old and senile when he wrote that? In any case, I must again make a distinction between false justification and genuine prescription. If you just reads the New Testament, you won't come away from it feeling full of anti-Semitism. Only if you go into the NT really wanting to hate Jews will you come out with that idea. I think that this is not the case with the Qur'an and warring for Islam.

Antisemitism was a widespread and almost universal belief in The Roman, Orthodox and Lutheran Churches up through WWII and beyond. The passion plays of Europe and Latin America are clearly extremely antisemetic. Christians of Central Europe almost universally supported Hitler, Stalin and others in their ethnic cleansing of Jews.

Explain how this belief was such a widespread accepted belief without support from scripture.

How does the contemporary Lutheran Church justify Luther's blatant antisemitism which contributed to the death of millions of Jews.

Back to the original subject of the thread. There are no quotes in the Quran that may be interpreted as a lie.

[CatholicSage]

That is true, and I'll agree with you within a contemporary framework. But war was waged quite differently at the time of the crusades. It was common to kill anyone opposing your rule, or entire cities opposing a siege (e.g. Jerusalem). To be 'in charge of your brethren' meant you conquored them and imposed your laws upon them by the sword.


I'm sure war was waged differently, and the destructive way that the Christians took Jerusalem was an example of a wrong way to wage a war. And I still doubt that the Christians used "be in charge of your brethren" to justify that slaughter.


I don't see any condemnation in the Bible for the genocide waged against the Midianites, et.al.


I think there's a thread going on about that in Apologetics right now.


Well, again, I'm in partial agreement with you. Yet, when I read the Qur'an, I didn't come away from it feeling like I had to kill the infidels. Certainly there are some Muslims who have taken a different meaning, but I don't think this is any different from the misguided beliefs of Christians such as those in the Salem witch trials. It all depends upon what you take into reading either the Bible or the Qur'an.


You may not necessarily come away with it wanting to randomly kill the infidels, but you must certainly recognize that the Qur'an allows the starting of wars for Islam.

I guess you can't do justice to the discussion when a muslim is not present. I like to begin with one simple explanation that any verse of the Quran which permits and instructs killing, is either reffering to a legal matter, forexample someone kills your son, in return kill the killer, or is reffering to state of war, and the instruction of killing are given, and please note that these instructions are limited to the time of war, and also these commands are given only say kill the person in the battles, they dont have kill the man and his wife and his two year old son and make sure you kill his horse. Quranic verses only allow the killing of a person in the war fighting the Muslims, only a soilder figting is to be killed, thats if he doesnt surrender first. These two are the main main categories in which each verse about killing will go. Now its entirely your duty to hunt down verses which you think are not reffering to War, o Legal matters, so we can have a concluding discusion. And I am sure that there wont be any verse which doest fall in this category, thus wouldnt need any explaination,


I never said anything about Muslims simply being able to kill infidels at random. I specifically referred to war for Islam being prescribed in the Qur'an, so thank you for proving my point. And I also recognize that the Qur'an does prescribe rules for this warfare.


but some hints I will give you, read the context of each verse, and secondly use your brains, not your fundi emotions.


Fundy emotions, huh? Where did I use those?


Now with regards to the Christian way of fighting the War. The crusades are a classic example, how a Christian would conduct a war based on Biblical scripture, and how he will use the Bible to kill children, rape, and killing of animals. Thats the intorduction to what is comming next.


The Christian way of fighting a war can be found in the Chivalric Code. Of course, the Christians in the Crusades often neglected this code, but the Muslims also neglected their code of war as well. These failures shouldn't be unexpected of humans.


I would like to begin with the Jesus, and his actions, to show that Jesus had fighting in his mind. Jesus instructed his deciples to buy swords, and you dont have to be a genious to work out what he will do with the swords, killing. The scene is that Roman soilders come to arrest Jesus, lead by his deciple, Judas Iscariot, soon has the soilders try to arrest Jesus one of the deciple uses his sword two well, and does away with the ear of the Roman soilder, Jesus heals back the ear, and tells the deciples to lay down the swords, saying something to his effect, those who live by sword will die by sword, meaning if you can prolong you life by using the sword for a while, remember that this sword will take your life also, reffering to the Romans soilders that that they will kill you all with there swords.

Thats the scene, proving that Jesus also intended to do Jihad like Muhammed (pbuh), but when realised that he has been out numbered, he did the best thing, surrender. Some Christians dont like Jesus instructing his deciples to buy swords so they try to explain away this stating that the instruction to buy sword is a metaphoric expression meaning, that get sharp arguments, wisdom. So I buy there this argument for a while and try to explain to them, if Jesus intended this then according to the text, this would mean that one of the soilder whoes ear was cut of, meant that, he was empressed with the wisdom of the deciple (even though we dont now what was that empressed him) and consequently show symphathy for Jesus's cause, so far good, but what, Jesus heals his ear, meaning that he restored his previous state of mind. Whats thay, Jesus came to make beleivers not beleivers into disbeleivers. And then he says who so ever lives by widom, will die by wisdom, thats total rubbish. Making literal passage into allegorical passage will only raise more problems not solve any. You will have to accept that this passage is literal and instructions to buy swords was also literal, and he wanted to use his swords, but he wasnt good with them and the Roman soilders caught him napping. Another of the Biblical passages comes to my mind which is reffering to fighting and killing, but Christians argue that this passage is reffering to the second comming of Jesus. Lets suppose this is genuine, if Jesus was so peace loving, prince of peace, why would he need anything at all, for killing. Its irrelevent weather he intended to use his weapons then or for later second comming, whats certain that he intended to use them. Secondly why would Jesus use the weapons second time around, because this time he is here to stay, here to establish the deen of Allah, and for it he will have to fight. Just like Muhammed (pbuh) fought battles to establish the deen of Allah, so will Jesus fight the battles to establish the deen of Allah, his first time around was not for fighting, second time around he will.


Oh boy...

The passage that you mention about Jesus instructing the disciples to buy swords was definitely not an indication that Jesus advocates war, for two reasons. One, Jesus subsequently says that two swords will be sufficient-something that would seem ridiculous if he was arming his disciples for Jihad. And two, the swords they have are more than likely Jewish short swords, extremely common tools used for fighting off wild animals and the like.


Now comming to the Biblical actrocities which are found in the Old Testament, which Jesus ( If Jesus was according to Trinity = Yahweh) intstructs and commands the Jewish terrorists to commit against the plastinians. And these passages of the Bible where used in the Crusades to justify the killing of babies, men woman, children, animals. And not forgetting that these people who commited these terrorist acts where in direct command of the Catholic Church. Every action had to be approved by pope before it was carried out, and this representative of Jesus Christ sitting on the throne of Jesus, gave these instructions and justified the killings by using the BiBle, now dont tell me they are not Christians or are not christians. These Christians where under the command of most religious authority of Christiandom yet these horrendous acts where commited with the permission and exicuted has commanded. Pope isssued decree's justifying his actions quoting passages of Old Testament, preaching that nothing was done wrong, infact pope stated that words of Bible where being acted out has described. Here are some verse of the Bible which where used to justify the killing of men women childre, old, and sick, and even the animals, and with each I will answer all the possible rebuttles that can be given.


Please show me a record of Christians and the specifically the pope using the OT verses in question to justify genocide. If they did so, they did so wrongly. Those verses were specific, one-time commands by God to be used only in that situation, not general commands for God's followers.

Finally: To learn more about the verses you mentioned, and why they were not just God going on a sadistic killing spree, visit jpholding's www.tektonics.org.

[CatholicSage]

The atrocities commited by the Christians in the Crusades was well within the model of how God ordered the Hebrews to to exterminate tribes of the enemies including every woman, child and infant.


See above.


Antisemitism was a widespread and almost universal belief in The Roman, Orthodox and Lutheran Churches up through WWII and beyond.


That's quite an assertion. Did anti-semitism exist? Yes. Was it "almost universal?" Please.


The passion plays of Europe and Latin America are clearly extremely antisemetic.


Clearly. I mean, the anti-semitic riots that Mel Gibson's film caused killed hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent Jews in the streets!


Christians of Central Europe almost universally supported Hitler, Stalin and others in their ethnic cleansing of Jews.


Even if the "universally supported" part is true, how does this place the blame on the Bible?


Explain how this belief was such a widespread accepted belief without support from scripture.


So that's your argument for the notion that anti-Semitism is preached in the Bible? Pitiful. Is there a history of anti-Semitism in Christian Europe? Yes. The conclusion that this anti-Semitism has been justified in a Christian framework is false.


How does the contemporary Lutheran Church justify Luther's blatant antisemitism which contributed to the death of millions of Jews.


Like I said, he was quite senile when he wrote The Jews and their Lies; it was written only a couple of years before his death. We also don't have to justify Luther's views on everything, since we don't regard him with papal adoration; most of us simply think he was wrong about the Jews.

[shunyadragon]

I'm sure war was waged differently, and the destructive way that the Christians took Jerusalem was an example of a wrong way to wage a war. And I still doubt that the Christians used "be in charge of your brethren" to justify that slaughter.

The Christian way of fighting a war can be found in the Chivalric Code. Of course, the Christians in the Crusades often neglected this code, but the Muslims also neglected their code of war as well. These failures shouldn't be unexpected of humans.

Chivalric Code is originally a Vedic Code of conduct in war, later adapted by Islam and later by Christians. The capture of Jeruselum classiclly represents who follows their code. The sack and burning of the Christian city of Constantinople by the Crusaders says a lot about Christian Chivalry.

Please show me a record of Christians and the specifically the pope using the OT verses in question to justify genocide. If they did so, they did so wrongly. Those verses were specific, one-time commands by God to be used only in that situation, not general commands for God's followers.

Finally: To learn more about the verses you mentioned, and why they were not just God going on a sadistic killing spree, visit jpholding's www.tektonics.org.

Actions speal louder than words. There is no record that states they are specific one time commands. In fact it indicates that this is the way to deal with the enemies of he faith even if it was the sins of their ancestors that they were being punished for.

Holding's tactics and logic can clearly be seen on this site. I have read his references in tektonics. They are not any better than his performance here.

[ali420]

Let me mention two things, there is no evidence Islam has barrowed anything from Vedic sources, these things where perceiveable you didnt need a hindu sitting india telling you that dont kill the cows while it war, any mentally alert person could formulate the rules of war, what do and what not to do, you dont have to barrow from anyone. On other hand if there is a source and there is word for word copying, then obviously you have the right to point out that was copied, but I know there is no coping going on with regards to the conduct in a war.

Secondly someone said that those verses of the OT in which God states that kill every living thing when you conquer the city, has a one time command, only applicable to only one insidence. Let me reffute this point simply saying in NT we has passages where Jesus is saying go and baptise the people of all nations, was that command only for those deciples, if that was so then why are you going out to convert people to your religion. Secondly if its not onetime command, then you are deducing rulings regarding your own conduct, from the command of Jesus you have deduced that its your duty to go and preach and baptise every nation into christianity. In the same way, Crusader Christians deduced rulings regarding war from the OT passages. With regards to this type of reasoning, I am quite sure that any Christian appologist is using this method to deffend Yahweh, he only is making things complicated for Christians. If such OneTime command method can literally destroy all the Bible, and if a demonstration is needed, just ask.

Thirdly lets me be generous and let you have the new interpretation method, we still have few problems to contend with. Primarly the doctrine of Love, a beleife that god is love. Yet we have the evidence fromt he OT that God was not always Love, infact Yahweh was barbaric, and his OneTime commands are evidence against his character, Yahweh was so unloving that he wasnt contend with the killing of the soilders, he orders that all the men should be killed, and woman. This can be understood, because this satanistYahweh was trying to prevent the new generation of enimies from coming to this world, in order to make sure that there is not one left who will fight his jewish terrorists. SatanistYahweh was not even contend with that, he also commanded that children should be killed, and in some verses SatanistYahweh commands that every living thing should be killed, which will mean that any child, two days old or a year old or five year old will have to be killed. Lets even pretend that this is ok also, Yahweh was totally wanting to anahilate his enemies by even having the babies killed, but what did the animals do, why have them killed? How long do you expect me to be generous and allow you to have easy way out. What sort of LovingYahwehJesus would do this! Hardly loving, bloody, blood thursty, so evil that he even had the animals killed. What kind of Lord Jesus is it, in few words, your Lord YawehJesus is Satan, Devil. And this devils actions speak louder then the words.

Lastly the Quranic wars are only permited in deffence, Muhammed (pbuh) was persecuted, his fallowers killed, woman raped, children killed, and when the persecution got bad, ayah was revealed while he was in Makkah, that now he has been permitted to fight the pagans, but what does he do, fight no. He packs his bags and leaves for Madinah, what will you do when your woman where being killed, friends family killed, in this situation, when you get the permission to fight what will you do! I can gaurantee that you will pick you gun and shoot your enemy, but Muhammed (pbuh) he packed his bags and left for Madinah, when he got there, he began his life has normal, but the pagans didnt like that so they sent an army from Mekkah to attack the Muslims in Madinah, he was forced to act upon the verse which was revealed, that he can fight, but the verses didnt say deffensive or offensive, both interpretations could have worked, if he chose to attack them first the justification was there, but he didnt, he used it deffensively. Every battle fought by Muhammed (pbuh) was fought deffensively, none of them where aggressive.

Give me, few days I will find you the refferences from Pope which he used his actual sermons to justify war, and the way the war was conducted. with regards to the way Crusaders behaved, show me once where they showed any signs of human beings, they started to kill from the Goths and virtually killed every nation which professed another faith then the Catholic was eliminated, man woman children, animals also. If this was the conduct in one of the battles we could say they only slipped once, but this was there tactic from the day one they steped out of there houses to liberate the holy land from the heathen muslims, they started killing indiscriminately. Goths, Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Vandals, Paulicians, all were eliminated, whole villages towns burnt to ashes, by the crusaders. Jews Muslims, everything that conflicting beleife then the catholics, they where killed, without and question.

Dont tell me porkies, I know the history of the Crusades, "oh they slipped, just like the Muslims" Just show me once where any army under the command of KHalifah commited genocide, no proof what so ever. And even lets supppose some Muslim ruler did command such a thing, does that mean Islam permits or instructs such acts! No, if someone who is professing the Islamic beleife and instructs his soilders to commit genocide, does not mean that Islam or Quran or Hadith instructs this kind of behaviour, he is doing out of his own evil desire. But its quite different with Christianity, the bible instructs genocide, rape, and killing undiscriminately.

Have a hell of time.
Ali

[CatholicSage]

Chivalric Code is originally a Vedic Code of conduct in war, later adapted by Islam and later by Christians. The capture of Jeruselum classiclly represents who follows their code. The sack and burning of the Christian city of Constantinople by the Crusaders says a lot about Christian Chivalry.


No, it says a lot about how many Crusaders decided to ignore Christian Chivalry.


Actions speal louder than words. There is no record that states they are specific one time commands.


What else could they be? God did not instruct Israel to simply "kill your enemies." THAT would be a general command. What He said was "kill the Midianites," or "kill the Amalekites," and the like. If those were just general commands, the Israelites would have killed them anyway without a cue from God.


In fact it indicates that this is the way to deal with the enemies of he faith even if it was the sins of their ancestors that they were being punished for.

Holding's tactics and logic can clearly be seen on this site. I have read his references in tektonics. They are not any better than his performance here.

Brushing him off casually like that doesn't count as refuting his articles.

[CatholicSage]

Secondly someone said that those verses of the OT in which God states that kill every living thing when you conquer the city, has a one time command, only applicable to only one insidence. Let me reffute this point simply saying in NT we has passages where Jesus is saying go and baptise the people of all nations, was that command only for those deciples, if that was so then why are you going out to convert people to your religion.


That is an example of a general command, one that does not refute the existence of the specific commands of the OT like you want it to. God told the Israelites to "kill the Midianites," and later told the disciples to "baptize the people of all nations." The difference is that the Midianites are gone, so there no need and no way to fulfill that command anymore. However, there are still many non-Christian people in the world, so we still have to fulfill the Great Commission.


Thirdly lets me be generous and let you have the new interpretation method, we still have few problems to contend with. Primarly the doctrine of Love, a beleife that god is love. Yet we have the evidence fromt he OT that God was not always Love, infact Yahweh was barbaric, and his OneTime commands are evidence against his character, Yahweh was so unloving that he wasnt contend with the killing of the soilders, he orders that all the men should be killed, and woman. This can be understood, because this satanistYahweh was trying to prevent the new generation of enimies from coming to this world, in order to make sure that there is not one left who will fight his jewish terrorists. SatanistYahweh was not even contend with that, he also commanded that children should be killed, and in some verses SatanistYahweh commands that every living thing should be killed, which will mean that any child, two days old or a year old or five year old will have to be killed. Lets even pretend that this is ok also, Yahweh was totally wanting to anahilate his enemies by even having the babies killed, but what did the animals do, why have them killed? How long do you expect me to be generous and allow you to have easy way out. What sort of LovingYahwehJesus would do this! Hardly loving, bloody, blood thursty, so evil that he even had the animals killed. What kind of Lord Jesus is it, in few words, your Lord YawehJesus is Satan, Devil. And this devils actions speak louder then the words.


My reply to this is a simple one: though the death of all those people was unfortunate, it was preferable to the alternative.


Lastly the Quranic wars are only permited in deffence, Muhammed (pbuh) was persecuted, his fallowers killed, woman raped, children killed, and when the persecution got bad, ayah was revealed while he was in Makkah, that now he has been permitted to fight the pagans, but what does he do, fight no. He packs his bags and leaves for Madinah, what will you do when your woman where being killed, friends family killed, in this situation, when you get the permission to fight what will you do! I can gaurantee that you will pick you gun and shoot your enemy, but Muhammed (pbuh) he packed his bags and left for Madinah, when he got there, he began his life has normal, but the pagans didnt like that so they sent an army from Mekkah to attack the Muslims in Madinah, he was forced to act upon the verse which was revealed, that he can fight, but the verses didnt say deffensive or offensive, both interpretations could have worked, if he chose to attack them first the justification was there, but he didnt, he used it deffensively. Every battle fought by Muhammed (pbuh) was fought deffensively, none of them where aggressive.


How does forming an empire count as a defensive war?


Give me, few days I will find you the refferences from Pope which he used his actual sermons to justify war, and the way the war was conducted.


Sure.


with regards to the way Crusaders behaved, show me once where they showed any signs of human beings, they started to kill from the Goths and virtually killed every nation which professed another faith then the Catholic was eliminated, man woman children, animals also.


It is impossible for anyone to prove that the Crusaders did or did not massacre the conquered nations. It is simply a historical unknown due to the lack of documentation. Jerusalem is one exception to this rule.


If this was the conduct in one of the battles we could say they only slipped once, but this was there tactic from the day one they steped out of there houses to liberate the holy land from the heathen muslims, they started killing indiscriminately. Goths, Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Vandals, Paulicians, all were eliminated, whole villages towns burnt to ashes, by the crusaders. Jews Muslims, everything that conflicting beleife then the catholics, they where killed, without and question.


Again, not something that either one of us can prove with any certainty. You have no basis for saying that there was just genocide everywhere, and I have no basis for saying that the Crusaders behaved civilly everywhere.


Dont tell me porkies, I know the history of the Crusades, "oh they slipped, just like the Muslims" Just show me once where any army under the command of KHalifah commited genocide, no proof what so ever.


You think no Muslim committed an atrocity during the Crusades? Though there is no proof either way, I find this hard to believe.


And even lets supppose some Muslim ruler did command such a thing, does that mean Islam permits or instructs such acts! No, if someone who is professing the Islamic beleife and instructs his soilders to commit genocide, does not mean that Islam or Quran or Hadith instructs this kind of behaviour, he is doing out of his own evil desire.


I agree! I'm not saying that the Qur'an allows atrocities, I'm saying that both Christians and Muslims (and everyone else in the world) have a tendency to at times ignore the teachings of whatever moral system they have, even if they try to pitifully justify it based on the source of those teachings.


But its quite different with Christianity, the bible instructs genocide, rape, and killing undiscriminately.


No it doesn't. Period.

[steamer]

To an atheist, all gods are equally bizzare. When you contrast the beleifs about the two, it's just...ironic.

[Dr T]

The atrocities commited by the Christians in the Crusades was well within the model of how God ordered the Hebrews to to exterminate tribes of the enemies including every woman, child and infant.


Most modern historians now accept that there was nothing exceptional about the violence of the crusades for the time they took place in.

Jerusalem was a small provincal town when the crusaders arrived out side it. The year before the Arabs (Egyptians) had captured it from the Turks, when they killed off or expelled all the Turks (as the Turks did to the Arabs when they captured in from them in the 1070s). It is now believed that the total population was of less than 50,000 people, and these mainly Jews and Christians, many of which were expelled before teh crusaders arrived.

The muslims in the town consisting of the garrison and followers.

As was normal the town was offered terms, which it refused. As was normal it was then put to the sack.

The sack of any town is a brutal affair, but it was the norm for the time.
The only exceptional thing appears that the women weren't raped.

Recently found (1980s) ransom letters confirm this. These letters were for the ransom of various Jews captured in Jersulam, and they detail that the women hadn't been touched.

The most famous descriptions detailing all the blood and gore occur at the place where the garrison made it's final stand, so not surprising.


The often given quote of 70,000 muslims killed appears to have been invented about 100 years after the fact, I would wonder if it had anything to do with Saladin uniting the Islamic world.