Russia Bans Quran

[ardillacid]

...what is wrong with you? 

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KQ4Y47kX0U[/media]

[Didacus]

The Quran doe have some violent passages.  Though many few than the Bible

 

There is a distinctive difference between the violence in the bible and the violence in the koran.

 

The violence in the bible is shown as history, the violence in the koran is expressed as a command.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

There is a distinctive difference between the violence in the bible and the violence in the koran.

 

The violence in the bible is shown as history, the violence in the koran is expressed as a command.

I don't know whether or not Muhammad would cosign the peaceful interpretation many Muslims are applying to these passages. However, I feel it's fair to allow for the understanding of religious texts to change over time. There are plenty of religious laws in the OT that were anything but savory. The way most Catholics interpret Leviticus nowadays is different than how it would have been interpreted in 400 BC. 

Edited September 26, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[4588686]

There is a distinctive difference between the violence in the bible and the violence in the koran.

 

The violence in the bible is shown as history, the violence in the koran is expressed as a command.

Exodus:

 

Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.

[4588686]

http://history.howstuffworks.com/history-vs-myth/joan-of-arc-trial.htm

[AugustineA]

Exodus:

 

Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.

 

The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. For further study, you can start with the book of Acts, the council of Jerusalem in particular. http://www.drbo.org/chapter/51001.htm

 

edit: Notice most people who quote the torah in relation to Christianity are not aware of the covenant relationship between God and his people established temporally.

Edited September 26, 2013 by AugustineA

[4588686]

The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. For further study, you can start with the book of Acts, the council of Jerusalem in particular. http://www.drbo.org/chapter/51001.htm

 

 

Ok, and the closest thing Sunni Islam has to a Pope, the head Imam of Al Azhar University, has issued Fatwa's condemning Jihad not motivated by self-defense.  That's not the point.  The point is that yes, you can read the Qur'an and derive from certain passages a promotion of violence.  That same is true of the Bible.  There are massive numbers of Christias who do not grant any authority to the Council of Jerusalem.  They're called Protestants.  

[Apteka]

Exodus:

 

Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.

 

Christians and non-Christian gentiles are not bound to the Old Law. Not even medieval laws carried execution as punishment for "defiling the sabath." Although I agree with Didacus that this is history, it's interesting to meditate on the severity of the crime. According to the Jewish text, God declared defiling the sabath a capital offense, as well as prescribed the execution of entire non-Jewish tribes. One has to wonder whether modern man is not more moral? But then again, God kills us all in the end.

[4588686]

 

 

edit: Notice most people who quote the torah in relation to Christianity are not aware of the covenant relationship between God and his people established temporally.

 

I'm very aware of that interpretation of the text.  But it is just an interpretation.  Saint Thomas Aquinas, reading scripture and Tradition, believed that rulers had a moral duty to execute heretics.  

[Apteka]

Ok, and the closest thing Sunni Islam has to a Pope, the head Imam of Al Azhar University, has issued Fatwa's condemning Jihad not motivated by self-defense.  That's not the point.  The point is that yes, you can read the Qur'an and derive from certain passages a promotion of violence.  That same is true of the Bible.  There are massive numbers of Christias who do not grant any authority to the Council of Jerusalem.  They're called Protestants.  

 

Al-Azhar is not even a shadow of what it used to be, but anyway, many say a legitimate Jihad can not be watched without a Khalif, and therefore, any jihad is invalid. Allahualim as they say. But either way, I think the comparison between the Quran and New Testament is weak. Despite anything a Mufti in Egypt may say, Muhammad himself engaged in pre-emptive strikes against non-aggressive Mekkan caravans, and the history Islam is essentially war after war with some Christian nation or power.

[Apteka]

I'm very aware of that interpretation of the text.  But it is just an interpretation.  Saint Thomas Aquinas, reading scripture and Tradition, believed that rulers had a moral duty to execute heretics.  

 

Source and quote?

[4588686]

Source and quote?

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3011.htm

[AugustineA]

Ok, and the closest thing Sunni Islam has to a Pope, the head Imam of Al Azhar University, has issued Fatwa's condemning Jihad not motivated by self-defense.  That's not the point.  The point is that yes, you can read the Qur'an and derive from certain passages a promotion of violence.  That same is true of the Bible.  There are massive numbers of Christias who do not grant any authority to the Council of Jerusalem.  They're called Protestants.  

 

Now, you are again providing many points for clarification and understanding. 

 

There is no parallel between Islam and Christianity. They are separate. Specifically because there has been no historical separation of Mosque and state. Further, the term Mosque is not parallel to Church. This is another discussion altogether. Let us drop it for the sake of clarity. Within Islam there have been many schools of interpretation. This is of particular relevance as the religion struggles with its identity. It is complicated by the pace at which Islam must interface with a modern world, and by the positive command to violence in their scripture.

 

Now, for Christianity. The same is not true of the Bible. Jesus makes clear he has come to fulfil the Law. It is done. Paul makes clear we live in a different way now. Both are very clear that they are conscious of the demands of the Mosaic covenant. In comparison, the Quran is one book with one author, without a temporal progression in the message. This is part of the modern Muslim's struggle. 

 

Now to gently correct an error. All Christians accept the validity of the scriptures. The Council of Jerusalem is in the scriptures. Protestants do not commonly call it the Council of Jerusalem, but believe it to be true, as it is in scripture. I am very sure. I was a protestant. 

[Apteka]

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3011.htm

 

Obstinate heretics who were repeat offenders were to be delivered to the secular tribunal, and in most European nations that meant death. Is this a just sentence? After all, in our day one may think as they wish, and essentially create their own personal religion. In the traditional societies however, heresy was worse than a temporal crime such as forging money, which also carried a capital offense apparently. It's hard for us moderns to understand how important a thing doctrine can be, since our worldview is so vastly different. Is there anything in our secular world worth dying for? Anything that if a man failed to do, or infringed upon, would cost him his life? To us, life itself is the most important thing, nothing else is sacred, only trivial, so who are we to judge?

[4588686]

Now, you are again providing many points for clarification and understanding. 

 

There is no parallel between Islam and Christianity. They are separate. Specifically because there has been no historical separation of Mosque and state. Further, the term Mosque is not parallel to Church. This is another discussion altogether. Let us drop it for the sake of clarity. Within Islam there have been many schools of interpretation. This is of particular relevance as the religion struggles with its identity. It is complicated by the pace at which Islam must interface with a modern world, and by the positive command to violence in their scripture.

 

Now, for Christianity. The same is not true of the Bible. Jesus makes clear he has come to fulfil the Law. It is done. Paul makes clear we live in a different way now. Both are very clear that they are conscious of the demands of the Mosaic covenant. In comparison, the Quran is one book with one author, without a temporal progression in the message. This is part of the modern Muslim's struggle. 

 

Now to gently correct an error. All Christians accept the validity of the scriptures. The Council of Jerusalem is in the scriptures. Protestants do not commonly call it the Council of Jerusalem, but believe it to be true, as it is in scripture. I am very sure. I was a protestant. 

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm