What Verses?

[Didacus]

If you want to continue our conversation EraMight, then may I propose you begin a different thread.  We've detracted from the original subject.

[Era Might]

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.

 

The idea of the crusades as a defensive war may be true in the immediate context, but remember how Christianity came to possess those lands in the first place: through the conquests of the Greeks and Romans. The idea that Christians had claim to the Roman empire, and the Muslims were just going to submit to an empire, would be completely out of character with the ancient world. Alexander the Great conquered Eastern lands, just as the Persians had conquered Western lands (even though it's kind of anachronistic to speak of "Eastern" and "Western").

 

Islam was a universalist religion, so conquest was an obvious implication. Jesus spoke of a universalist mission, but he never laid this out as an earthly plan, because his kingdom was not of this world. Christians just integrated their universalism into the empire they inherited, rather than having to conquer their way to a civilization. And when their civilization was threatened, it was quite useful to be able to justify universalism in the name of Christian peace, and unite against the heathen. Though that became harder when they were fighting among themselves.

Edited September 17, 2013 by Era Might

[Apteka]

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

 

Most verses you read about Christians and Jews are all authoritative. Perhaps the only one that may have been viewed as abrogated, or clarified later, is the following one:

 

"Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve."

Surah 2 aya 62

[Apteka]

The idea of the crusades as a defensive war may be true in the immediate context, but remember how Christianity came to possess those lands in the first place: through the conquests of the Greeks and Romans. The idea that Christians had claim to the Roman empire, and the Muslims were just going to submit to an empire, would be completely out of character with the ancient world. Alexander the Great conquered Eastern lands, just as the Persians had conquered Western lands (even though it's kind of anachronistic to speak of "Eastern" and "Western").

 

Islam was a universalist religion, so conquest was an obvious implication. Jesus spoke of a universalist mission, but he never laid this out as an earthly plan, because his kingdom was not of this world. Christians just integrated their universalism into the empire they inherited, rather than having to conquer their way to a civilization. And when their civilization was threatened, it was quite useful to be able to justify universalism in the name of Christian peace, and unite against the heathen. Though that became harder when they were fighting among themselves.

 

I think to understand this difference better would be to put it this way, the Muslim is after your land and the Christian is after your soul. The first Christians were Jews who did not identify with the Roman Empire or feel they had some special claim to it, at least in a territorial sense. Christianity spread through conversion and miracle absent of any force or warfare. In contrast, Islam from its very onset started as a military movement which used war to conquer territory, and only secondarily have the populace embrace the new religion.

[Didacus]

Most verses you read about Christians and Jews are all authoritative. Perhaps the only one that may have been viewed as abrogated, or clarified later, is the following one:

 

"Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve."

Surah 2 aya 62

 

Does Surah 9 supercede Surah 2 (making Surah 2 null and void)?

 

Which is authorative - Surah 9 or Surah 2?  According to the islamic abbrogation principal as I have read, surah 2 no longer applies; surah 9 is authorative.

[Apteka]

Does Surah 9 supercede Surah 2 (making Surah 2 null and void)?

 

Which is authorative - Surah 9 or Surah 2?  According to the islamic abbrogation principal as I have read, surah 2 no longer applies; surah 9 is authorative.

 

The rule of abrogation is complicated, it's not applied the way your question suggests. Surah 9 is chronologically after Surah 2, but it doesn't mean Surah 2 is null and void. Surah 2 is just as authoritative as Surah 9. Perhaps to make it clearer, focus on verses and not chapters. A verse can abrogate or clarify an earlier verse, but not a whole chapter.

[Era Might]

I think to understand this difference better would be to put it this way, the Muslim is after your land and the Christian is after your soul. The first Christians were Jews who did not identify with the Roman Empire or feel they had some special claim to it, at least in a territorial sense. Christianity spread through conversion and miracle absent of any force or warfare. In contrast, Islam from its very onset started as a military movement which used war to conquer territory, and only secondarily have the populace embrace the new religion.

 

Yeah, there's no doubt there is a fundamental difference between the two founders. But in general, I wouldn't put such a fine distinction between conquest and conversion. They were both related in the ancient world. In the same way that Alexander saw himself as extending Greek civilization by conquering new lands, and the Romans after him, Muslims saw themselves as extending their religion. Of course, Christ came with a very different message and mission than Alexander, Caesar, Mohammed, Achilles, or other ancient conquerors.

 

Also, I think it's important that spreading "through conversion and miracle" was possible because they lived in an empire. Mohammed's Arabian peninsula was not a great empire or advanced civilization, so it was a very different social context, and that kind of ability to move relatively easily through the empire, which Christians had, was not available in the same way. Islam would unite the Arabian peninsula.

Edited September 17, 2013 by Era Might

[Apteka]

Yeah, there's no doubt there is a fundamental difference between the two founders. But in general, I wouldn't put such a fine distinction between conquest and conversion. They were both related in the ancient world. In the same way that Alexander saw himself as extending Greek civilization by conquering new lands, and the Romans after him, Muslims saw themselves as extending their religion. Of course, Christ came with a very different message and mission than Alexander, Caesar, Mohammed, Achilles, or other ancient conquerors.

 

I think what we're emphasizing is that Christianity is spiritual whereas Islam is carnal. Yes, conversion can be seen as a spiritual and intellectual conquest, but the point is that the arguments for early Christianity were not accompanied with swords. And in fact, to convert by the sword via an offensive war would have been morally and ethically reprehensible as per what St Augustine defined as a just war. In contrast Islam believes such a war against a peaceful nation would be perfectly legitimate.

 

Also, I think it's important that spreading "through conversion and miracle" was possible because they lived in an empire. Mohammed's Arabian peninsula was not a great empire or advanced civilization, so it was a very different social context, and that kind of ability to move relatively easily through the empire, which Christians had, was not available in the same way. Islam would unite the Arabian peninsula.

 

 

The hijaaz was certainly less civilized and uncultivated but I don't find this to be an excuse. Remember, that according to Islam Muhammad is the *highest* model of excellence, he embodies the perfection that all humans ought to mirror. I would say the bar was set quite low by the Arab prophet, and if he were excellent, one would find much more sublime teaching, especially one that would not be so blood thirsty.

Edited September 17, 2013 by Apteka

[Didacus]

Most verses you read about Christians and Jews are all authoritative. Perhaps the only one that may have been viewed as abrogated, or clarified later, is the following one:

 

"Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve."

Surah 2 aya 62

 

 

The rule of abrogation is complicated, it's not applied the way your question suggests. Surah 9 is chronologically after Surah 2, but it doesn't mean Surah 2 is null and void. Surah 2 is just as authoritative as Surah 9. Perhaps to make it clearer, focus on verses and not chapters. A verse can abrogate or clarify an earlier verse, but not a whole chapter.

 

OK then, does

 

surah 9:29 Fight against Christians and Jews "until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low."

abrogate surah 2 aya 62?

 

Or does it clarify, that even though christians and jews will have their share of heaven, fight against them nonetheless until they pay tribute and are humiliated?

Edited September 17, 2013 by Didacus

[Didacus]

fyi - I tried again tonight to ask these questions to muslims and again was denied and kicked out.

Seems to me muslims simply do not want to provide any honest replies to these questions at all.

 

Its pretty straight forward;

 

The koran is authorative, the highest authority inside the koran per their own concept of abrogation is surah 9, and sorah 9 says nothing nice of other religions including jews and christians.  How can this be consolidated as a religion of 'peace'?

 

 

 

If islam was certainly a religion of peace, I would think it would be easy to find the proper explanation to my question above.  It would seem to be 'basic' islam...  would it not?

[Era Might]

I think what we're emphasizing is that Christianity is spiritual whereas Islam is carnal. Yes, conversion can be seen as a spiritual and intellectual conquest, but the point is that the arguments for early Christianity were not accompanied with swords. And in fact, to convert by the sword via an offensive war would have been morally and ethically reprehensible as per what St Augustine defined as a just war. In contrast Islam believes such a war against a peaceful nation would be perfectly legitimate.

 

 

The hijaaz was certainly less civilized and uncultivated but I don't find this to be an excuse. Remember, that according to Islam Muhammad is the *highest* model of excellence, he embodies the perfection that all humans ought to mirror. I would say the bar was set quite low by the Arab prophet, and if he were excellent, one would find much more sublime teaching, especially one that would not be so blood thirsty.

 

I think it's comparing apples and oranges to compare Islam and Christianity, because Christianity began unconcerned about worldly matters. It was not setting out to create any kind of society or civilization except for its spiritual community. It prayed for the emperor and minded its own business. That would not have been possible had it had the ambitions it would later develop.

 

And Christianity was also growing out of cultural and intellectual ideas of the Greco-Roman world which had always differed from Eastern civilizations like the Persians. The Greeks and Romans always saw the peoples of the East as given to slavish obedience and brutality, and when Christians emerged in Western civilization they were drawing on that tradition.

 

Whether Mohammed was an exemplar or not is a different question from understanding Islam in context. Islam was not an unimaginable anomoly in the ancient world. It can be understood along many of the same lines as Christian civilization, because they were both coming out of pre-existing worlds.

 

To compare Christ and Mohammad, also, is different from comparing Christianity and Islam.

Edited September 17, 2013 by Era Might

[Apteka]

OK then, does

 

surah 9:29 Fight against Christians and Jews "until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low."

abrogate surah 2 aya 62?

 

Or does it clarify, that even though christians and jews will have their share of heaven, fight against them nonetheless until they pay tribute and are humiliated?

 

I should have clarified, I did not mean to suggest Surah 2:62 was abrogated by Surah 9:29. In reference to your original question, I meant only 2:62 comes to mind as perhaps being clarified later. If I were to think which verse clarified or abrogated it, it would be the following one:

 

"And whoever desires other than Islam as religion - never will it be accepted from him, and he, in the Hereafter, will be among the losers."

Surah 3:85

[Didacus]

EarMight - my I suggest once again, that you start a new thread?

[Aya Sophia]

There being nothing like a "magisterium" in Islam, is there any supreme or central authority on scripture, doctrine, etc.?

 

Not in answer to your question but perhaps of interest:  a Muslim considers and compares the authority of the Koran and the "Injeel"/Christian New Testament.  (I knew Jesus/ "Isa" is considered a prophet in Islam but I didn't know Islam gave any credence to the Christian NT.)

 

 

http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Farooq_Ibrahim/trustworthy1.htm

 

Conclusion of Part 1 of 3:

 

In conclusion, for many Muslims, the Quran is the literal word of Allah and has been perfectly preserved through the ages. Like my other Muslim brothers and sisters I had started with the belief that the Quran was the word of Allah and that it has been perfectly compiled but that the Injeel was written by Church Councils and was corrupted. Muslims make these claims not based on history as I have investigated and discovered, but purely as a statement of faith. I too made such claims and held such beliefs in my early life while a Muslim, but when I began to study the history and try to defend that position, I was forced to come to a very different conclusion. In summary, I came to a place of understanding the following key points regarding the compilation of the Quran and Injeel:

• This authoritative text of the Quran was not compiled by Mohammad, but made such by the order of Khalifa Abu Bakr and subsequently by the order of Khalifa Uthman.

• Khalifa Uthman ordered the destruction of all competing Quran manuscripts; even from those that Mohammad had recommended were the best teachers of the Quran.

• The historical evidence shows that there were many challenges involved in finalizing what we have today as the authoritative Quran. The evidence also shows that the compilation of the authoritative Quran was a process that took place during the Khalifas’ reign.

• The Injeel was not written by Isa, but by his apostles and their close associates based on Isa’s teachings.

• Of the 27 books of the Injeel, 20 were accepted within the first century to be inspired, however the other 7 were not until much later as there was doubt if these 7 were written or taught by the apostles.

• The books that make up the Injeel were not put into a standard compilation until the councils did this in the fourth century. However, historical evidence is clear that the Christian community who bore witness to the teachings of Isa and apostles used these writings as God inspired scripture during the life of the apostles in the first century.

[Didacus]

Thanks for the post Sophia, very instructive.

 

For better or worse however, islam holds the koran as authorative - the christian equivalent to 'Sola Scriptura'.

That position is admitedly dangerous and false according to catholics, and I believe this view is equally true in holding the koran as indisputable and beyond criticism.