What Verses?

[Era Might]

But there is an ideological difference in the civilizations, one that goes all the way back before Christianity. Early Greek civilization was unique for its democracy and related ideas, and that has survived in different ways in Western civilization, just as Islam is rooted in Eastern civilizations which were not like the Greeks (Persians, Jews, etc.), and that shaped Islam's aggressive universalism.

Edited September 17, 2013 by Era Might

[Apteka]

I have a few quick questions for those amongst you who are familiar with islam and the koran.

 

Is the koran the most authorative writting in islam?

 

I've heard from several sources that the koran contains a verse which is a disclaimer of sorts, saying the later verses, if they contradict earlier verses, supercede the earlier versus - is this correct?

 

 

Assuming the above 2 questions are replied to as 'yes', then; applying the principals above, what are the 2 most authorative verses in the koran speaking of jews, christians and infidels?  (what do they say?  any translation?)

 

Yes, the Quran is the most authoritative text in Islam.

 

I'm not sure I follow the latter question, why would there be only two verses? There are many ayat relating to Jews and Christians, perhaps the one you ought to be concerned with most is the following:

 

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger nor, acknowledge the Religion of Truth from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission and feel themselves subdued."

Surah Al Tawba (9) aya 29

[Apteka]

Yes, the Quran is the most authoritative text in Islam.

 

I'm not sure I follow the latter question, why would there be only two verses? There are many ayat relating to Jews and Christians, perhaps the one you ought to be concerned with most is the following:

 

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger nor, acknowledge the Religion of Truth from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission and feel themselves subdued."

Surah Al Tawba (9) aya 29

 

Note: "People of the Book" = Jews and Christians

 

Jizyah is a tribute tax paid by conquered peoples to the Muslim nation.

[Didacus]

The foundation of Christianity is Jesus = peaceful.  In its first 300 years it was entirely peaceful.

 

Foundation of islam is Muhammed = not peaceful.  Waged wars continuously throughout its first centuries, and this is the main mechanism with which it spread.

 

 

Pretty simple really.

[Didacus]

Yes, the Quran is the most authoritative text in Islam.

 

I'm not sure I follow the latter question, why would there be only two verses? There are many ayat relating to Jews and Christians, perhaps the one you ought to be concerned with most is the following:

 

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger nor, acknowledge the Religion of Truth from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission and feel themselves subdued."

Surah Al Tawba (9) aya 29

 

What verses in the koran are most authorative?  Especially considerinig that several seem to contradict one another?

[Era Might]

The foundation of Christianity is Jesus = peaceful.  In its first 300 years it was entirely peaceful.

 

Foundation of islam is Muhammed = not peaceful.  Waged wars continuously throughout its first centuries, and this is the main mechanism with which it spread.

 

 

Pretty simple really.

 

It's not that simple, because Christians (or Catholics, at least) don't claim to just follow Jesus, they also claim as their own Christendom, and in particular, the authority of the Popes as representatives of God. When Pope Urban II preached for the First Crusade, it is not something one can simply dismiss from Christianity as though it has nothing to do with how the church understood itself.

 

Christians fought among themselves before they gained power in the world, and then they really fought among themselves as well as among other people. And I'm not sure what "peaceful" means. Passive? Not participating in the world? Resigned to death? Submissive to Caesar to take care of worldly matters? Taking care of their own worldly matters but only when threatened?

Edited September 17, 2013 by Era Might

[Apteka]

In short, although christianity does have violent episodes, there are no violent dictates or laws within it, and trcaing back to its authorative source (Jesus), there is nothing in his commands that are violent.  The total opposite seems to be present in islam (including their authorative example which supercedes the example of Jesus in every way - Muhammed).

 

This is pretty much accurate. According to Islamic tradition Muhammad had preached the Quran to the Mekkans for thirteen years. The Pagans of Mekka challenged Muhammad to produce a miracle to prove his prophethood. Muhammad pointed back to the Quran saying this was the miracle offered to them. Suffice to say more than a decade of reciting the Quran did not convert many of them, and Muhammad's following remained small and ostracized until one fateful event. Muhammad had found a neighboring town willing to accept him and his followers, this town was called Yathrib but would later be called Medina (town of the prophet.) Muhammad eventually convinced his new patrons to join him in raids against Mekkan caravans. This eventually lead to the Battle of Badr which resulted in Muslim victory. As Muhammad and his followers began to win successive battles and Islam began to be seen as a military power, then droves of people began 'converting'. Muhammad started a wave of jihad that would not cease until more than a millennia after his death. So yes, I would say it's absolutely accurate that the dominion of Islam was essentially spread by the sword.

[Era Might]

So yes, I would say it's absolutely accurate that the dominion of Islam was essentially spread by the sword.

 

As were the Greco-Roman empires.

[Didacus]

EraMight, I can't make it any simpler than what I spelled out.

 

I'll try again...

 

Does Christianity have its violent episodes - yes.

Does islam and other societies have violent episodes - yes.

 

Does the foundation of Christianity encourage violence - no.

Does the foundation of islam encourage violence - yes.

[Era Might]

EraMight, I can't make it any simpler than what I spelled out.

 

I'll try again...

 

Does Christianity have its violent episodes - yes.

Does islam and other societies have violent episodes - yes.

 

Does the foundation of Christianity encourage violence - no.

Does the foundation of islam encourage violence - yes.

 

What is the foundation of Christianity? Catholics accept the Ecumenical Councils as dogmatic. You are trying to reduce Christianity to Jesus, as though a man who departed from the world in AD 33 explains the religion that dominated Europe for the next 2,000 years.

[Era Might]

Pope Leo X condemned the following propositions in 1520. Did Pope Leo X not understand Jesus? Would you have been permitted to suggest that he was wrong in 1520?

 

In virtue of our pastoral office committed to us by the divine favor we can under no circumstances tolerate or overlook any longer the pernicious poison of the above errors without disgrace to the Christian religion and injury to orthodox faith. Some of these errors we have decided to include in the present document; their substance is as follows:

 

...

 

33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.

 

34. To go to war against the Turks is to resist God who punishes our iniquities through them.

 

http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/l10exdom.htm

[Didacus]

Well EraMight, I really can't make it any simpler.

 

I will only add that I am not 'reducing' Christianity to Jesus, I am simply pointint to Jesus as its foundation.  If that is not true, then I tragically misunderstood something along the way.

[Didacus]

I have a few quick questions for those amongst you who are familiar with islam and the koran.

 

Is the koran the most authorative writting in islam?

 

I've heard from several sources that the koran contains a verse which is a disclaimer of sorts, saying the later verses, if they contradict earlier verses, supercede the earlier versus - is this correct?

 

 

Assuming the above 2 questions are replied to as 'yes', then; applying the principals above, what are the 2 most authorative verses in the koran speaking of jews, christians and infidels?  (what do they say?  any translation?)

 

*bump*

 

just to refocus the thread to the original intent

[Apteka]

It's not that simple, because Christians (or Catholics, at least) don't claim to just follow Jesus, they also claim as their own Christendom, and in particular, the authority of the Popes as representatives of God. When Pope Urban II preached for the First Crusade, it is not something one can simply dismiss from Christianity as though it has nothing to do with how the church understood itself.

 

Christians fought among themselves before they gained power in the world, and then they really fought among themselves as well as among other people. And I'm not sure what "peaceful" means. Passive? Not participating in the world? Resigned to death? Submissive to Caesar to take care of worldly matters? Taking care of their own worldly matters but only when threatened?

 

Era makes a good point here, and to be specific there was a paradigm shift in the way Christians viewed war. Christians were a passivist, non war like people in the first four centuries, and in fact they were prohibited from joining the Roman army. It wasn't until the Empire was converted and a political system in need of defending, that one finds leaders like St Augustine defending the principle of Just War. Further down the line you have St Bernard of Clariveux arguing for a new Christian knighthood, where brave souls who fight and kill in crusades are saintly men defending Christ and his Church. The question is how comparable is this to the Islamic concept of jihad?

 

There are obvious similarities, since the Pope did promise an indulgence to any Crusader who fought against the infidel, but at the same time there is a crucial difference. We must recall that for centuries Christians were on the defensive end while Islam was the aggressor. The first Crusade was called at the behest of the Eastern Emperor, who asked his arch enemy in Rome to assist in the fight against the heathen. So this was a defensive movement to combat Islamic Jihad and restore Christian holy sites which had fallen in the hands of Muslims. In contrast, Islam teaches that proactive, offensive war against peaceful non-Muslim nations is just. The fourth Islamic caliph contradicted no Islamic ethic by attacking Byzantium and robbing Christians of their sovereignty, it was perfectly within his right and duty to do so. Furthermore, whereas Christians have a long tradition of sending missionaries to argue the faith intellectually and prove it through miracles, Muslims have nothing comparable (yes, your college Dawah workshop is a modern invention.) The primary method of spreading Islam was through war, and let me unpack this point a bit. Muslims are less concerned with converting a people than they are with ensuring they live under Islamic dominion. They then place the populace under a tax that symbolizes their subjection, and effectively curtail their religious worship (e.g. prohibitions in building new churches or repairing old ones, laws forbidding public expressions of faith such as wearing crosses, making processions, or sounding church bells, etc) Eventually sociological pressure takes place, and over centuries a significant amount of the native population is transformed to identify with their masters. So in essence, Islam spreads more like a changing culture pattern or fashion than a profound embrace of truth by a person.

[Era Might]

Well EraMight, I really can't make it any simpler.

 

I will only add that I am not 'reducing' Christianity to Jesus, I am simply pointint to Jesus as its foundation.  If that is not true, then I tragically misunderstood something along the way.

 

I guess I don't understand your point, since you seem to relegate "peaceful Christianity" to the first three hundred years, then, I presume, they all became a typical sword-enforced civilization, but (I presume) that doesn't really have anything to do with the foundation, and it's unclear then what Christianity has to do with Christ in the first place if, at the end of the day, Christianity used violence for its civilization, just like Muslims, and "peaceful Christianity" only existed 300 years.

Edited September 17, 2013 by Era Might