Crypto2015
Active Member
Yes. Find a passage in the New Testament that says that we must NOT love our enemies.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Islamic State has infiltrated airports, metro stations, etc.
- Thread starter Crypto2015
- Start date
Yes. Find a passage in the New Testament that says that we must NOT love our enemies.
I think you are rather missing the point of what I'm saying here to be honest. People take the same text differently.
Crypto2015
Active Member
I think you should find a single verse in the New Testament saying that we must NOT love our enemies.
Please try to understand what I am saying here - regardless of what you or I see as being justified by the scripture, there are others seeing things differently. This is why you have some Christians who are very anti-gay rights, and other Christians who are accepting of gay marriage, both basing that in their Christian understanding, for example. While one may think one understands the true message of some scripture, that's only one's own view - others see it differently, and think they understand the true message.
I can bring up some verse, and you'll argue it down, and it'll go back and forth and never get anywhere. The point is different people do have different interpretations, in Islam and in Christianity.
If you can't understand this point I'm making, then I don't feel our dialogue can continue profitably, but I'll thank you for your time.
You're ignoring the verse before that that says: "Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you (which means not anyone, and to fighting back to defend) but do not transgress (even then, do it without going overboard?). Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors (an Islamic teaching to not cross lines?)" and the part "but if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors" even tho you provided it, even tho in different wording. Oh, and by the way, you brought a wrong translation. You say that "Az-Zalimun" means the polytheists? This is wrong and you know what intentionally giving wrong information against others mean for the reputation of the poster. The word Az-Zalimun or الظالمون in Arabic does in no way mean anything except being bad. You can copy and past the Arabic word to Google Translate to confirm it. Let alone "etc." which is tricky.
Other members couldn't comment on this for you because of their lack of Arabic and Quranic knowledge. You provided other verses like this many times and I only commented on this one, which means the others I didn't, only spread propaganda and further misunderstanding (possibly unneeded hatred) against Muslims and Islam. This is not the first time the out of context verses selection method is used and looks like it will not be the last. The Quran is not a book to choose from at well for our own gain, it is a complete indivisible unit of which all parts connect to each other.
Last edited:
The Emperor of Mankind
Currently the galaxy's spookiest paraplegic
Except the wording is different to the point the meaning of this particular part is altered drastically. The translation Crypto quoted makes it easily sound like you can war down polytheists without having to treat them as humanely because they're polytheists. And if a Muslim goes for a literal interpretation then that's inevitably what they'll take out of the text.
Crypto2015
Active Member
I tried to understand what you were saying, but you are wrong. The New Testament NEVER condones violence. It follows that anyone who condones violence is acting against the teachings of Christ. Regarding homosexuality, the Bible makes it absolutely clear that homosexuality is a sin. Those who think otherwise base their world view not on the Bible, but on the current understanding of what right and wrong are. They believe that the goal of the Bible is to create a better society. They believe this because they do NOT believe that the Bible is the word of God. I know this because I know about clerics in Europe that are being discriminated by their superiors simply because they believe that the Bible is the word of God. In many churches, most priests and pastors do not even believe in God. They think that the church is just a social movement and that Jesus was a social reformer.
Crypto2015
Active Member
Here is what Ibn Kathir (one of the most respected Islamic commentators of all time) says about these verses:
"190. And fight in the way of Allah those who fight you, but transgress not the limits. Truly, Allah likes not the transgressors.) (191. And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah is worse than killing. And fight not with them at Al-Masjid Al-Haram (the sanctuary at Makkah), unless they (first) fight you there. But if they attack you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. ) (192. But if they cease, then Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.) (193. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah) and the religion (all and every kind of worship) is for Allah (Alone). But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimin (the polytheists and wrongdoers)."
It seems that Ibn Kathir also thinks that the Az-Zalimin are the polytheists. Perhaps he couldn't speak Arabic?
Ibn Kathir then says:
"Allah said: (but transgress not the limits. Truly, Allah likes not the transgressors.) This Ayah means, `Fight for the sake of Allah and do not be transgressors,' such as, by committing prohibitions. Al-Hasan Al-Basri stated that transgression (indicated by the Ayah), "includes mutilating the dead, theft (from the captured goods), killing women, children and old people who do not participate in warfare, killing priests and residents of houses of worship, burning down trees and killing animals without real benefit.''
http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=234
Another famous commentator, al-Jalalayn, says:
"And slay them wherever you come upon them, and expel them from where they expelled you, that is, from Mecca, and this was done after the Conquest of Mecca; sedition, their idolatry, is more grievous, more serious, than slaying, them in the Sacred Enclosure or while in a state of pilgrimage inviolability, the thing that you greatly feared. But fight them not by the Sacred Mosque, that is, in the Sacred Enclosure, until they should fight you there; then if they fight you, there, slay them, there (a variant reading drops the alif in the three verbs [sc. wa-lā taqtilūhum, hattā yaqtulūkum, fa-in qatalūkum, so that the sense is ‘slaying’ in all three, and not just ‘fighting’]) — such, killing and expulsion, is the requital of disbelievers."
http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp...o=191&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2
Ibn ‘Abbâs, another famous commentator says:
"(And slay them) if they start the fight against you (wherever ye find them) whether in the Sacred Precinct or in other places, (and drive them) out of Mecca (out of the places whence they drove you out) as they drove you out of it, (for persecution) associating partners with Allah and worshipping idols (is worse) more evil (than slaughter) in the Sacred Precinct. (And fight not with them) do not initiate a fight with them (at the Inviolable Place of Worship) in the Sacred Precinct (until they attack you there) until they initiate a fight with you in the Sacred Precinct, (but if they attack you (there)) first (then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers) i.e. death is their reward."
http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp...o=191&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2
Al-Jalalayn adds:
"Fight them till there is no sedition, no idolatry, and the religion, all worship, is for God, alone and none are worshipped apart from Him; then if they desist, from idolatry, do not aggress against them. This is indicated by the following words, there shall be no enmity, no aggression through slaying or otherwise, save against evildoers. Those that desist, however, are not evildoers and should not be shown any enmity."
Sorry, I misinterpreted my mind. The meaning of the verse is the same in my post and his. I meant the lexicon was different; i.e. in his it was transliterated but translated in mine. The only wrong meaning was the addition of "polytheists" as a complement to the verse form the author, which is not part of the verse. The word "Az-Zalimun" does not have any of its meanings as polytheists.
Crypto2015
Active Member
Perhaps you are a better Islamic scholar than Ibn Kathir, because he certainly believes that Az-Zalimun means "polytheists". Check my previous post.
Yes, at that time wars were going between the Muslims and the polytheists. In a historical presentation, historians do tell who the other side was. This does not mean that now Muslims should look around for polytheists and kill them just because the word referred to them at that time in those events. Anyways, you say the Quran says this and that. Take the word from the Quran and translate it. Nothing is difficult here. Also, your giving references about Ibn Katheer and Arabic... you're providing English text. Please provide the Arabic to get a better understanding. Unless you mean Ibn Katheer wrote the English text you provided himself? Not sure if he knew English.
One more thing; what I quoted you in red above is actually a good point in favor of Muslims.
As for the rest, same argument about historical events above applies. Those had their case at that time and by all means what happened then is to necessarily be taken as a general rule now. Just because the war then was with polytheists, it does not mean that now Muslims are suppose to kill polytheists. The verses clearly say to fight those who fight you, and to cease if the other side stops. I don't see how any argument could take place here.
He does not and it does not. Check my post above.
Crypto2015
Active Member
The texts I am reading (in English) are the ones that most Muslims in the world read, since the vast majority of the Muslim population does not speak Arabic. If these texts are so defective, why do the most respect Islamic websites have them on their internet pages? Don't you think that if these texts were so wrongly translated, those highly popular Islamic websites would have corrected them? The fact that they haven't done that suggests that you are the one who is wrong, unless you are the greatest Islamic scholar in the history of Islam. You also seem to ignore that these verses were not the last to be revealed. The last chapter to be revealed is chapter 9, which abrogates the contents of many other chapters when it comes to Jihad. Chapter 9 of the Qur'an says:
"Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled." (Qur'an 9:29)
Ibn Kathir says: "(Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the People of the Scripture,) This honorable Ayah was revealed with the order to fight the People of the Book, after the pagans were defeated, the people entered Allah's religion in large numbers, and the Arabian Peninsula was secured under the Muslims' control. Allah commanded His Messenger to fight the People of the Scriptures, Jews and Christians, on the ninth year of Hijrah, and he prepared his army to fight the Romans and called the people to Jihad announcing his intent and destination. The Messenger sent his intent to various Arab areas around Al-Madinah to gather forces, and he collected an army of thirty thousand. Some people from Al-Madinah and some hypocrites, in and around it, lagged behind, for that year was a year of drought and intense heat. The Messenger of Allah marched, heading towards Ash-Sham to fight the Romans until he reached Tabuk, where he set camp for about twenty days next to its water resources. He then prayed to Allah for a decision and went back to Al-Madinah because it was a hard year and the people were weak, as we will mention, Allah willing."
It is evident that these commands to wage Jihad on Christians and Jews were not defensive, but offensive, since the Arabian Peninsula was already secured under the Muslim's control.
http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2567&Itemid=64
Ibn Kathir continues:
(Do not initiate the Salam to the Jews and Christians, and if you meet any of them in a road, force them to its narrowest alley.) This is why the Leader of the faithful `Umar bin Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, demanded his well-known conditions be met by the Christians, these conditions that ensured their continued humiliation, degradation and disgrace. The scholars of Hadith narrated from `Abdur-Rahman bin Ghanm Al-Ash`ari that he said, "I recorded for `Umar bin Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, the terms of the treaty of peace he conducted with the Christians of Ash-Sham: `In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. This is a document to the servant of Allah `Umar, the Leader of the faithful, from the Christians of such and such city. When you (Muslims) came to us we requested safety for ourselves, children, property and followers of our religion. We made a condition on ourselves that we will neither erect in our areas a monastery, church, or a sanctuary for a monk, nor restore any place of worship that needs restoration nor use any of them for the purpose of enmity against Muslims. We will not prevent any Muslim from resting in our churches whether they come by day or night, and we will open the doors﴿ of our houses of worship ﴾ for the wayfarer and passerby. Those Muslims who come as guests, will enjoy boarding and food for three days. We will not allow a spy against Muslims into our churches and homes or hide deceit ﴿or betrayal﴾ against Muslims. We will not teach our children the Qur'an, publicize practices of Shirk, invite anyone to Shirk (Shirk is idolatry, hence, preaching Christianity, for a Muslim, is inviting people to commit Shirk and thus carries the death penalty) or prevent any of our fellows from embracing Islam, if they choose to do so. We will respect Muslims, move from the places we sit in if they choose to sit in them. We will not imitate their clothing, caps, turbans, sandals, hairstyles, speech, nicknames and title names, or ride on saddles, hang swords on the shoulders, collect weapons of any kind or carry these weapons. We will not encrypt our stamps in Arabic, or sell liquor. We will have the front of our hair cut, wear our customary clothes wherever we are, wear belts around our waist, refrain from erecting crosses on the outside of our churches and demonstrating them and our books in public in Muslim fairways and markets. We will not sound the bells in our churches, except discretely, or raise our voices while reciting our holy books inside our churches in the presence of Muslims, nor raise our voices ﴿with prayer﴾ at our funerals, or light torches in funeral processions in the fairways of Muslims, or their markets. We will not bury our dead next to Muslim dead, or buy servants who were captured by Muslims. We will be guides for Muslims and refrain from breaching their privacy in their homes.' When I gave this document to `Umar, he added to it, `We will not beat any Muslim. These are the conditions that we set against ourselves and followers of our religion in return for safety and protection. If we break any of these promises that we set for your benefit against ourselves, then our Dhimmah (promise of protection) is broken and you are allowed to do with us what you are allowed of people of defiance and rebellion.''' (what is in red is mine)
http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2566&Itemid=64
Crypto2015
Active Member
Also, you are wrong when you say that 2:191 does not allow Muslims to attack non-Muslims in general. Check the Ibn Kathir's commentary on verse 9:5
"(So when the Sacred Months have passed...), meaning, `Upon the end of the four months during which We prohibited you from fighting the idolators, and which is the grace period We gave them, then fight and kill the idolators wherever you may find them.' Allah's statement next, (then fight the Mushrikin wherever you find them), means, on the earth in general, except for the Sacred Area, for Allah said, (And fight not with them at Al-Masjid Al-Haram, unless they fight you there. But if they attack you, then fight them. )﴿2:191﴾ Allah said here, (and capture them), executing some and keeping some as prisoners, (and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush), do not wait until you find them. Rather, seek and besiege them in their areas and forts, gather intelligence about them in the various roads and fairways so that what is made wide looks ever smaller to them. This way, they will have no choice, but to die or embrace Islam,"
(the sacred area, referred to in 2:191, is Mecca)
http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2581&Itemid=64
And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. (Qur'an 9:5)
This makes it not Ibn Katheer's, and the others', fault.
Anyways, I don't mean to change your mind about it. It is just that you're using verses out of context, both historical and cohesive & coherent to the verses of the Quran, again just you did before. The only difference is that before the verses you provided you ignored directly found in them while this time the verses you're providing are governed with verses else where in the indivisible integrated whole unit called Quran.
If you're okay with the enemy staying around murdering and raping
By the way, regardless to whether Ibn Katheer is right or wrong, and others, it does not mean what they say define Muslims and Islam.
Crypto2015
Active Member
On the contrary, I am providing the context. You are the one who is not providing any sort of context. Islamic terrorism will not go away if we just pretend that there is no ideology behind it. We need to acknowledge the fact that such ideology exists and that this ideology is mainstream Islam. Can mainstream Islam be reformed? I don't think so, but if we are going to try that, the first step would be to acknowledge the fact that mainstream Islam mandates war against non-Muslims.
In a way, "infiltration" is a good thing, or at least a necessary stepping stone.
Nurturing hatred, closed borders and mutual mistrust is a self-fulfilling prophecy for both sides.
If lasting peace and security are to be attained, we all should aim for having people of differing cultures and beliefs reach a working understanding of each other. I don't think there is any real alternative.
Nurturing hatred, closed borders and mutual mistrust is a self-fulfilling prophecy for both sides.
If lasting peace and security are to be attained, we all should aim for having people of differing cultures and beliefs reach a working understanding of each other. I don't think there is any real alternative.
Crypto2015
Active Member
So, you are OK with ISIS operatives flying your plane?
Why, no, of course not.
I just think that the measures that could ensure that such does not happen tend to aggravate the problem as opposed to helping it.
The only context you're providing is judging Islam and Muslims by the doings of IS IS. Islam does not do "act" to be reformed, Muslims do. If you say Muslims have to reform, then I strongly agree with you.
As for providing context, I can't see how didn't give any. I provided context at least in my post here:
Ask any Arabic language professional about the word Az-Zalimun, what started most of this, and see for yourself. The word has absolutely to reference to polytheists.