Are all Muslims troublemakers?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Are you kidding me?

Ever hear of the Crusades or Inquisition?

Need I mention the KKK?

Behead? I suppose that it is possible. When my brothers studied World Geography, the text book said that when the crusaders captured Jerusalem, they killed all of the inhabitants. Wikipedia says some were spared, but one witness says, "In this temple 10,000 were killed. Indeed, if you had been there you would have seen our feet colored to our ankles with the blood of the slain. But what more shall I relate? None of them were left alive; neither women nor children were spared".


Probably there is no record beheading, but considering the carnage, maybe that is not relevant
 
Behead? I suppose that it is possible. When my brothers studied World Geography, the text book said that when the crusaders captured Jerusalem, they killed all of the inhabitants. Wikipedia says some were spared, but one witness says, "In this temple 10,000 were killed. Indeed, if you had been there you would have seen our feet colored to our ankles with the blood of the slain. But what more shall I relate? None of them were left alive; neither women nor children were spared".


Probably there is no record beheading, but considering the carnage, maybe that is not relevant

Well, for one, it is not my opinion that beheading is any different than execution in general. Beheading was actually one of the more humane forms of execution at the time. And second, the crusades were fare more deadly than any modern conflict if you look at it in terms of percentage. Although I don't even think ISIS or Al Qaeda has inflicted as much death in raw numbers as the crusades.

Now, don't get me wrong. Islam has its own sins and violent history, and is probably the least friendly to other faithful confessions, but its not fair to say that they are an inherently violent religion. As I said most Muslims are peaceful, and while Christianity on balance is friendlier to peace, there are plenty of records to show that individual Christians have not always been so peace loving. In general I think that one needs to distinguish between sects/individuals and the religion as a whole. I don't like absolute statements about anyone.
 
The concept of abrogation in islam is a long and drawn out process. In the end, every school (madhab) disagrees to one extent or the other concerning abrogation, and every scholar disagrees with everyone else. Depending upon which scholar you listen to, you have some teaching only 1 verses was ever abrogated and some believe up to 500. (I personally think those who believe up to 500 are crazy, lazy, and just WANT it to be like that so they don't have to do much thinking!)

I personally only believe in the abrogation of 9 verses. The rest work hand in hand together... this is what I believe. This is how I was taught by scholars, and this is how I always taught Islam - as I was also a teacher.

In order for you to see how in depth this concept is, and how it originated from the scholars themselves, I will quote this:

Hanafi Doctrine of Naskh (Abrogation)

Hamdard Islamicus, Vol. 22 (1999) No. 3
by Dr. M. Akram Rana

In the usual classification of Muslim sciences, the usul al-fiqh isgenerally defined as the science of the proofs which lead to the establishment of legal standard.(1)

The usul had been the subject of study by jurists as attested by the fact that Abu Yusuf discusses certain aspects of it in his Kitab al-Kharaj(2) and Shaybani is reported to have written a book on the usul.(3) But this term had not yet acquired the technical meaning of a science dealing specifically with the sources of Islamic law. The Risalah,(4) a unique work in the literature of Islamic law, gave Shafi’i a name as the founder of the science of usul al-fiqh. Shafi’i was followed in his monumental work on the principles of jurisprudence by a Hanafi jurist, al-Karkhi, the teacher of al-Jassas. Although his treatment was very sketchy, it was a fruitful start in the field concerned.(5) Al-Karkhi was followed by Abu Bakr al-Jassas who wrote a comprehensive book about usul al-fiqh in which he explained the views of his teacher al-Karkhi.(6) The Usul al-Jassas, as a matter of fact, is the first systematic attempt ever made to describe the principles of Muslim jurisprudence. The late Hanafi works on the usul and particularly on al-Nasikh wa’l Mansukh give us clues that most of the ideas were borrowed from the Usul al-Jassas.(7) Mustafa Zaid,(8) an Egyptian Writer on the subject of al-Nasikh wa'l-Mansukh, states that definition of naskh by Jassas was followed for five centuries. Jassas included in his Usul the views who do and do not believe in the theory of Naskh. The views of his fellow Hanafites like 'Isa b. Aban are also explained. Further, he presented Karkhi's views and remarked that Karkhi's opinions were clearer than those of 'Isa b. Aban's.(9) Records show that Jassas was an exponent of the Hanafi school and its acknowledged Usuli. The production of the Usul al-Jassas was intended to verify the fiqh of Imam Abu Hanifah. Jassas endeavoured to document the Hanafi views in the light of verses of the Qur'an and the ahadith of the Prophet (P.B.H.).

Abu Hanifah may here be mentioned as the founder of the system. He acquired much of his knowledge from Hammad b. Abi Sulaymain who is regarded as the pioneer of the Hanafi school. The fiqh of the Iraqi school was supported and established by the great pupils of Imam Abu Hanifah i.e., Abu Yusuf and Shaybani. At the request of caliph Harun al-Rasyid, the former compiled his Kitab al-Kharaj which, however, covers much wider ground than is indicated by its title. However, little is learnt about naskh from the book. Abu Yusuf maintains that the Sunnah can override the Qur'an. The abrogation of the Qur'anic injunction of ablution (al-Qur'an, V:6) by the wiping of the shoes is a case in point.(10) Shaybani, like his companion Abu Yusuf, did not discuss the principles of abrogation in detail although some instances of naskh are discussed in his works. Shaybani reported that the Prophet (P.B.H.) launched a campaign against. Al-Ta'if at the beginning of the sacred month of Muharram and continued it for forty days until he captured the city in the month of Safar. Shaybani then produced a report on the authority of Mujahid in which he had declared that the prohibition of fighting during the sacred months was abrogated. According to Mujahid, the prohibition of fighting during the sacred months as laid down in the Qur'an (11:217) was abrogated by God in another verse: "slay the Pagans wherever you may find them" (al-Qur’an, IX:5). When Shaybani that fighting during the sacred months, according to Kalbi, was not abrogated, he remarked that Kalbi's opinion was not to be followed.(11) This sort of report tells us that there was no agreed theory of naskh. It also informs us that there seems to be no agreement among the jurists on the incidence of naskh. The earlier works on fiqh and hadith show that the word naskh was not used frequently. In the Muwatta’ of Imam Malik the word naskh is mentioned only once. It is held that the Qur'anic injunction which prescribed the precise shares of the listed relatives of a deceased person (al-Qur’an, IV:11-12) abrogated the Qur'anic injunction concerning wasiyyah (al-Qur’an, 11:180). Imam Malik also indicated that the Qur'an could abrogate the Sunnah, but in this case he used the word taraka. He agreed with his teacher Zuhri on the point that the later command abrogated the earlier.(12)

The works on al-Nasikh wa'l-Mansukh reveal that there was no single reported instance in which the Prophet (P.B.H.) said explicitly that a certain ruling was abrogated. Hamadhani, however, records two versions in which the name of the Prophet (P.B.H.) was involved. 'Urwah b. Zubayr said: "I testify that ray father told me that the Prophet (P.B.H.) would make a statement and after a while, he would abrogate it by means of another statement just as the Qur’an abrogates other parts of the Qur’an". Ibn Baylmani reported on the authority of his father that ibn 'Umar heard from the Prophet (P.B.H.) who had said: "Some parts of my ahadith abrogate other parts of my ahadith". Hamadhani, after recording this hadith, argued that no one except ibn Baylmani had narrated this ahadith. Further, ibn Baylmani was not a reliable person and his hadith must not be accepted.(13)

Shafi’i, according to Hamadhani, was the first scholar who systematised the principles of naskh.(14) This reveals that principles of naskh were in operation. Before we present the Hanafi's views on abrogation and the arguments against and for the theory concerned presented by Jassas and documented by Sarakhsi, it would be extremely useful to see how Jassas settles the meaning of naskh.

The scholars disagreed concerning the meaning of naskh. Some said: "it refers to naql (transfer). They say: nasakha al-Kitab (He copied the book i.e., he transferred what was in, the original copy to another copy). Others said: it refers to ibtal (nullification). They say: nasakhat al-shams al-zill, (the sun removed the shade). Some of them said: naskh is zalah. They refer to nasakhat al-rih al-athar (The wind obliterated the traces). These words are close in meaning, and whatever naskh may mean in the language, when it is used for the abrogation of the ruling, it is used metaphorically." Jassas rejects all the possible meaning of naskh, derived from secular usage whether it refers to naql, ibtal or iza1ah.(15)

Jassas restricts discussion of the word naskh to the Shari’ah usage and remarks: "Naskh is the declaration of the time of the particular ruling which we thought would remain for ever, but the second ruling made it clear that the time of the ruling was for a certain period and it was now no longer valid."(16)

This meaning of naskh had not been defined by any of Jassas' predecessors, therefore, he was the first person to declare that naskh in the Shari’ah is the bayan of the duration of the ruling. This definition of naskh was adopted by Jassas in order to refute the views of those Muslim scholars who held that naskh, never occurred in the Shari’ah. It was also to refute those Jews who had declared that Moses had informed them that the Shari’ah of the Torah and working on the day of the Sabbath would never be abrogated. Thirdly, it was to refute the views of Shafi’i who had maintained that only the Qur'an superseded the Qur'an; only the Sunnah superseded the Sunnah. He claimed that they did not and could not supersede each other. The function of the Sunnah, he believes, is to follow what is laid down in the Qur'an. In support of his view he listed some Qur’anic verses which according to him clearly spoke about the abrogation of the Qur'an alone.(17) He refers the Qur'anic verses X:15 and II:106. His opponents interpreted the same verses to indicate that the Qur’an could be abrogated by the Sunnah, and the Sunnah could be abrogated by the Qur'an. According to Jassas, the Qur’an (11:106) indicated that naskh occurred in the Qur'an. It did not indicate that the Qur'anic verse would be abrogated by a better or similar Qur'anic verse, since nothing prevented as from understanding from the verse that abrogation might be achieved by the Sunnah which was revealed to the Prophet (P.B.H.), and this, he argued, was the precise meaning of the verses: "we bring better or like thereof("18.) God meant to state that He would make a ruling superior to the first in the sense of its being easier to perform, or richer in terms of reward.(19)

Concerning those, Muslim scholars who did not believe in the theory of naskh, Jassas stated: "Some of the modern scholars have asserted that there was no naskh in the Shari’ah of our Prophet (P.B.H.). The occurrence of naskh was merely an indication that laws of the previous prophets (A.S.) were abrogated like the Sabbath and facing towards the East or the West while praying. They had argued that our Prophet (P.B.H.) was the last of the prophets (A S.) and his Shari’ah was confirmed and everlasting until the day of judgement. The man (Abu Muslim al-Isfahani) who had held this view was endowed with knowledge of rhetoric and Arabic language, but he had no knowledge of jurisprudence and the principles of jurisprudence. Although it could not be doubted that he was perfect in faith, he deviated greatly from the right path by declaring this dogma, since no one had reported this before him. Our predecessors and their successors understood from the religion of God, that numerous rulings were abrogated from it; and they have narrated these reports in a way which could not be questioned. There are general, specific, confirmed and obscure passages in the Qur'an. The one who rejected the occurrence of naskh, rejected all its general, specific, confirmed and obscure commands because these categories all arrived in the same manner. This man had derived from the abrogated and abrogating verses, judgements which were excluded from the interpretations of our early scholars I (Jassas) could not understand from where he had obtained his information. However, I maintain that he had used his own judgement leaving aside the reports of the salaf. The Prophet (P.B.H.) had said: 'whoever interpreted the Qur'an by using his personal opinion, certainly committed a sin'."

Jassas' opponents quoted several passages from the Qur’an in order to show that abrogation or withdrawal of the verses was impossible; God said: 'We have without doubt, sent down the Message (Qur’an) and We will surely guard it (from corruption) (al-Qur’an, XV:9). God also said: "It is for us to collect it (the Qur’an) and to promulgate it: But when We have promulgated it, follow then its recital (as promulgated). Nay, more it is for Us to explain it (and make it clear)" (al-Qur'an, LXXV:17-19). The explicit meaning of the verses require that God would guard the Qur’an for ever and its implication is for the whole ummah because He did not specify the time or generation. God said: "...it (the Qur'an), is no less a Message for all creatures". (al-Qur'an, XII:104). God in this verse informed us that the whole Qur'an is a Message (or Reminder) and it confirms that there would be no abrogation of the wording, because what is abrogated or forgotten and did not reach us, would not be considered as a Message for the people.

Jassas explains away these verses by simply saying that they refer to something else. The verses do not prevent the possibility of the ruling being abrogated. In a similar vein, the verses do not prevent the possibility of the wording being abrogated, said Jasas.

The view that these verses do not prevent us from talking about the abrogation of the wording or ruling might mean that Jassas was dealing with the two phenomena of the naskh:
  1. Naskh al-tilawah duna al-hukm and
  2. Naskh al-hukm duna al-tilawah.

The first is adopted by Jassas in order to establish the ruling of kaffarat al-yamin which is imposed upon a believer who fails to fulfil his deliberate oath. The Hanafis argued that three days should be consecutive, because the wording mutatabi’at had existed in 'Abd Allah b. Mas’ud's reading.(20) Jassas and Sarakhsi claim that the wording was withdrawn while the ruling remained valid.(21) Tabari was also of the view that the keeper of the fast who has to expiate for the breaking of an oath should fast for three continuous days. There is no disagreement among the scholars that this will suffice; others disagree as to whether fasting on non-consecutive days will suffice as expiation.(22)

Shifi’i’s predecessors, both Hanafis and Malikis, allowed the abrogation of the Sunnah by the Qur'an and vice verse. For Shafi'i who had interpreted the verse No. 106 of the Surah al-Baqarah (No. II) in the light of the verse No. 10 of the Surah Nahl (No. XVI), it was very difficult to adopt the procedure. Shafi'i succeeded in his attempts and secured the place of the Sunnah as a source of law and the danger which had threatened it was no longer felt. Even the followers of Shafi’i, let alone the Hanafis and Malikis, felt free to, revert to pre-Shafi'i thinking. Jassas, a Hanafi exponent, had no difficulty, therefore, in arguing that the Sunnah could be abrogated by the Qur’an and the Qur'an could be abrogated by the Sunnah. However, they could not be abrogated by khabr al-wahid. Further, khabr al-wahid as an addition to the Qur'an cannot be accepted.(23)

The naskh implied that the later command abrogated the earlier. Sarakhsi says: "The contradiction between the sources is impossible, since this would mean Divine fallibility; in actuality the contradiction is created by our human inability to estimate correctly the date of the texts. Once this has been done, however, the later abrogates the earlier."(24)

Among other principles of the naskh, one ofthem is very important. Once the date has been established, the nasikh verse or hadith became easy to be traced. Reports from the Companions and Successors are also decisive in the process of distinguishing the nasikh from the mansukh. This indicates that the naskh as a principle was alleged to have been accepted during the lifetime of the Companions. Jassas' final criterion for determining the nasikh from the mansukh isthat of ijma'. However, ijma' itself cannot abrogate the ruling of the Qur’an and the Sunnah.

The principles of naskh were justified by referring to the wording of the Qur'anic verses II:106 and XVI:101. The verses were shown to provide sufficient grounds for the occurrence of the naskh. The two modes: naskh al-hukm duna al-tilawah and naskh al-tilawah duna al-hukm were forwarded by the jurists as they were directly related to the fiqh. The naskh was alleged to have worked within and between the sources, as they could not solve the seeming contradiction, though being informed of the dictum: "al-jama' yamna' al-naskh" (reconciliation rules out naskh).(25)

~ Notes and References ~
  1. Encydopaedia of Islam (4 vols.), London, 1924, vol. 4, P. 1655.
  2. Abu Yusuf, Kitab al-Kharaj, Cairo, 1352/1933. According to Khatib Baghdadi, Abu Yusuf was the first person to compose a book on Usul Talrikh Baghdad (14 vols.), Beirut, n.d., vol. 4, p. 246. According to Schacht, "The statement of Khatib Baghdadi, that Abu Yusuf was the first to compose books on the theory Of law on the basis of the doctrine of Abu Hanifah, is not confirmed by the old sources". "The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence", Oxford, 1929, p. 133.
  3. Ibn al-Nadim, al-Fihrist (2 vols.), London, 1970, vol. 1, p. 506.
  4. Shafi’i, al-Risalah, Cairo, 1358/1939.
  5. Saidullah Qazi, Principles of Muslim Jurisprudence, Lahore, 1981, p.2; al-Karakhi's Usul is published as a supplement to al-Dabusi's Tasts al-Nazar, Cairo, n.d., quoted by Shehaby, N., "'illah and Qiyas in early Islamic legal theory", J.A.O.S./, 1982, p. 27.
  6. Khudari, Usul al-fiqh, Beirut, 1969, p. 10.
  7. Sarakhsi, Usul (2 vol.), Haiderabad, 1372/1952, vol. 2, pp. 53-8.
  8. Zaid, M., al-Naskh fi’l Qur’an al-Karim (2 vols.), Cairo, 1383/1963, vol. 1, p. 82.
  9. Usul al-Jassas (Manuscript Dar al-Kutub al-Misriyya, Cairo), fol. 139b.
  10. Abu Yusuf, Kitab al-Athar, Haiderabad, 1355/1936, p. 14; Jassas, Ahkam, vol. 2, p. 425.
  11. Shaybani, Kitab al-Siyar al-Kabir, ed., M. Khadduri, Maryland, 1966, p. 94.
  12. A. Rippen, Naskh al-Quran and the problem of early Tafsir Texts, Bulletin, S.O.A.S. Nov. 1984, p. 25; Malik, Muwa'tta’, vol. 1, p. 299, vol. 2, p. 765.
  13. Hamadhani, Al-I’tibar Matba'al-Andulus, Hims, 1386/1986, p. 50.
  14. Ibid.
  15. Usul al-Jassas, fol. 115a..
  16. Ibid.
  17. Al-Risalah, p. 106.
  18. Usu1 al-Jassas, fol. 152a.
  19. Ghazzali, Mustafa (2 vols.), Bulaq, 1322/1904, vol. 2, p. 125. Also see Tabari's Tafsir on al-Qur'an, II:106.
  20. Usul al-Jassas, fol. 127b.
  21. Usul, vol. 2, p. 81.
  22. Tafsir, vol. 7, p. 30.
  23. Usul al-Jassas, fol.143a.
  24. Usul, vol. 2, p. 12.
  25. I’tibar, p. 6.

I'm trying to decode this so I can read it. It is going to take me a couple of days.
 
Well, for one, it is not my opinion that beheading is any different than execution in general. Beheading was actually one of the more humane forms of execution at the time. And second, the crusades were fare more deadly than any modern conflict if you look at it in terms of percentage. Although I don't even think ISIS or Al Qaeda has inflicted as much death in raw numbers as the crusades.

Now, don't get me wrong. Islam has its own sins and violent history, and is probably the least friendly to other faithful confessions, but its not fair to say that they are an inherently violent religion. As I said most Muslims are peaceful, and while Christianity on balance is friendlier to peace, there are plenty of records to show that individual Christians have not always been so peace loving. In general I think that one needs to distinguish between sects/individuals and the religion as a whole. I don't like absolute statements about anyone.

Yes, I understand. I apologize for my sarcasm, but at least I will have something to confess in the next confession.

We think of the twentieth century as being horribly violent. I suspect that you are correct that earlier centuries on a percentage basis were worse. The first example that I would remember is the Hebrews killing everyone in Jericho, which must have been similar to the crusaders killing the inhabitants of Jerusalem. When I read Homer's Iliad, the first thing that jumped out at me was, "I wonder how Briseis became Achiles's slave.?" Homer does not say, but Achilles must have killed her father and brothers, so he could claim her as a slave. If her mother was old and wrinkled, he probably killed her too.
 
Are you kidding me?

Ever hear of the Crusades or Inquisition?

Need I mention the KKK?

I am always horrified by stories of the torture that took place. Inquisitors were given absolution if they tortured to get a confession from heretics.

But you are missing a humungous fact. There is no scripture supporting any of these actions. Jesus tells us to love our enemies. Muhammad gives crystal clear instructions to cut off fingertips and heads to cast terror.
 
Most are not. This is honest. Most just want to live their lives. Jihad simply means struggle in the way of God. In this, a Muslim struggles against their own ego, considered the highest jihad.

There is extremism, exemplified by the disease of literalism and ignorance, where a few use the ignorance of people to gain power to themselves. It ignores the majority of the teachings, in order to concentrate on one thing, and one thing only. Power.

It's very sad, but I see Islam as going through something right now - when she rises above it, it will be a much different thing than what you see today. These are the birth pains of the 21st century for Muslims.

I believe in Christianity went through something similar some time ago. She is just 600 years older. So her pains are gone now. Muslims' are just beginning.

Muslim pains? You have the cart before the horse.
 
Yes, I understand. I apologize for my sarcasm, but at least I will have something to confess in the next confession.

We think of the twentieth century as being horribly violent. I suspect that you are correct that earlier centuries on a percentage basis were worse. The first example that I would remember is the Hebrews killing everyone in Jericho, which must have been similar to the crusaders killing the inhabitants of Jerusalem. When I read Homer's Iliad, the first thing that jumped out at me was, "I wonder how Briseis became Achiles's slave.?" Homer does not say, but Achilles must have killed her father and brothers, so he could claim her as a slave. If her mother was old and wrinkled, he probably killed her too.

I would like to point out, Ghid, that we think of the twentieth century as being horribly violent today because statistics bear out that truth. The percentage basis of the twentieth century violence as compared to earlier centuries actually shows the twentieth century having a much higher percentage of violence than earlier centuries.

Also, when the Hebrews killed everyone in Jericho, it was GOD ORDAINED (it is a whole other topic as to why He ordained it), while the crusaders killing the inhabitants of Jerusalem was NOT GOD ORDAINED.

I don't know anything about Homer's Iliad and I don't know what you are pointing out by bringing that up.
 
Also, more as a side note, but it is BECAUSE I believe in Islam, that I stand here today. It is Islam, and no other, that brought me to this place. See... I figured it all out. I understand everything now... and without Islam, I could never have understood.

I am a Christian, BECAUSE I was first a Muslim.

You may hate Islam and Muslims... but there was a reason it had to be this way... and there is a really really good reason for Satan to want that reason hidden. He is doing a good job of it too... hiding the truth of it all.

But he cannot hide it from everyone.
Islam taught you to be God fearing. That is good. God fearing > ungodly. There are many Muslim teachings I love! If Muslims didn't follow Muhammad to the letter, I would prefer them as my neighbors over some modern liberal Christians.

But, sadly, Islam will stay as it is as long Muhammad > Jesus. How else can it move from an eye for an eye?
 
I am always horrified by stories of the torture that took place. Inquisitors were given absolution if they tortured to get a confession from heretics.

But you are missing a humungous fact. There is no scripture supporting any of these actions. Jesus tells us to love our enemies. Muhammad gives crystal clear instructions to cut off fingertips and heads to cast terror.

I agree absolutely. There is a big difference in what Jesus actually taught and what Muhammad taught. The claim cannot be made to justify Muslim violence by comparing it to violence committed by "Christians" (I do not believe that those who commit violence in the name of Jesus to be Christian), because Jesus did NOT EVER promote such. And like you said, Muhammad repeatedly promotes violence in the Koran. BIG DIFFERENCE, IMO.
 
I think I agree with you here, KingJ, but could you elaborate on what you mean by "the cart before horse" phrase as it pertains to Chris1's post about Muslim birth pains?
Muslims aren't the ones getting decapitated. The inquisition was Christians killing Christians.
 
Muslims aren't the ones getting decapitated. The inquisition was Christians killing Christians.

Okay, now I understand and I do agree with you. How can Muslims be experiencing "birth pains" when the pain isn't even being felt by them but rather their victims experience the pain. Absolutely!
 
If Christ punished people for believing in the "wrong" religion, he'd be punishing almost everyone.
I think people regardless of their faith will be judged by their fruit.
Of course. God is not dumb. Wrong religion doesn't get you into hell and right religion into heaven.

Rev 3:20 is a verse that applies to everyone. This is what God holds each of us accountable for. Every Muslim would need to explain why they ignored Jesus knocking. If God says He is knocking...
 
Of course. God is not dumb. Wrong religion doesn't get you into hell and right religion into heaven.

Rev 3:20 is a verse that applies to everyone. This is what God holds each of us accountable for. Every Muslim would need to explain why they ignored Jesus knocking. If God says He is knocking...

Muslims are taught to believe in a Jesus. In their view, He is going to come back to earth when their mahdi appears, and He will admit He was wrong and has converted to Islam. They believe their Jesus will help their mahdi to persecute and execute non-believers in Islam. So, I would say that it is VERY important one doesn't believe in the wrong religion because doing so will definitely get you into hell. However, you are right to say that a right religion does not get you into heaven because it is only through Jesus' works on the cross and your faith in Him that will get you into heaven. This is not a religion...it is the truth.
 
The Quran is NOT the word of God. Those that follow it's instructions will surely perform evil.
I have not read the rest of the posts after this comment, but I just had to write something right now. This kind of attitude towards anyone, anywhere is, in my opinion and knowledge, against all the teachings of Christianity. We are the religion of love and forgiveness. Jesus himself has taught us to love the ones who sin, who are doing wrong, love. (This is of course different than blind acceptance.)
This comment here does not come from the place of love, it comes from hatred, from being scared. We don't need to feel that way!
If we attack the people around us with this kind of force, do we do what Christ wants us to do? Do we honour his love and grace in our actions? No. We show pure evil, which comes from very dark place in our hearts. We all have one, but we need to learn not to leach it out and hurt others.
 
A guy that was around here for a little bit, Kyle Jenkins, writes a blog called "loving all peoples" about a ministry he does in Dallas: http://lovingallpeoples.com/

If anyone here is interested in ministering to peoples of different faiths, I recommend giving this blog a read for encouragement.

Some Christians have giftings that seem to allow them to serve and love people in simple ways, and God can do a powerful work through that. I find Kyle's attitude toward ministry to be very refreshing when I need to get out of a headspace of needing to "figure everything out," and be reminded that we can just serve anyone, wherever there is any kind of need, for no other reason than the love of Christ compels us.
 
I have not read the rest of the posts after this comment, but I just had to write something right now. This kind of attitude towards anyone, anywhere is, in my opinion and knowledge, against all the teachings of Christianity. We are the religion of love and forgiveness. Jesus himself has taught us to love the ones who sin, who are doing wrong, love. (This is of course different than blind acceptance.)
This comment here does not come from the place of love, it comes from hatred, from being scared. We don't need to feel that way!
If we attack the people around us with this kind of force, do we do what Christ wants us to do? Do we honour his love and grace in our actions? No. We show pure evil, which comes from very dark place in our hearts. We all have one, but we need to learn not to leach it out and hurt others.

I disagree. Saying that the Koran is not the Word of God is the truth and sometimes the truth hurts. Saying that those who follow its instructions will perform evil is the truth. Sometimes the truth is hard to take, but often the truth must be plainly spoken.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top