Report: Nearly 1 in 4 People Worldwide Is Muslim

[Molly]

I have no problem making comparisons like that, to say that New Jerusalem is a dictatorship, ...

Neither will the antiChrist.  In fact, I would imagine he plans to rule his nwo from that very city.

[Gab]

(There is no word for love in the Q'ran.  Every one out of 58 verses in the Q'ran advacates violence.)

Huh?

The Arabic word for "love" is hubb, and it appears in the Qur'an sixty-nine times.

The Qur'an itself even promises that Jews and Christians ought have nothing to fear:

"Surely, those who believe, those who are Jewish, the converts, and the Christians; any of them who believe in GOD and believe in the Last Day, and lead a righteous life, have nothing to fear, nor will they grieve." (Qur'an 5:69)

[Seth]

I have no problem making comparisons like that, to say that New Jerusalem is a dictatorship, ...

Neither will the antiChrist.  In fact, I would imagine he plans to rule his nwo from that very city.

Not the city described in Revelation 21, Hebrews 12, and Galatians 4, IMHO

[Molly]

I have no problem making comparisons like that, to say that New Jerusalem is a dictatorship, ...

Neither will the antiChrist.  In fact, I would imagine he plans to rule his nwo from that very city.

Not the city described in Revelation 21, Hebrews 12, and Galatians 4, IMHO

So it is not a place but a state of being?  Dictatorship has very bad connotations for a state of being--never is it associated with love, joy, and peace.  Not a good choice of words, IMHO.

Don't you think if God wanted to be a dictator, he would have done it by now?

But if it describes the condition of the Christ being fully manifested everywhere,  then that is a hologram, where each piece fully declares the whole, each piece contains the whole message.


Revelation 11:15
And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.

[reFORMer]

(There is no word for love in the Q'ran.  Every one out of 58 verses in the Q'ran advacates violence.)

Huh?

The Arabic word for "love" is hubb, and it appears in the Qur'an sixty-nine times.

The Qur'an itself even promises that Jews and Christians ought have nothing to fear:

"Surely, those who believe, those who are Jewish, the converts, and the Christians; any of them who believe in GOD and believe in the Last Day, and lead a righteous life, have nothing to fear, nor will they grieve." (Qur'an 5:69)

At this point I don't remember the source of my quotes.  I can not vouch for my statement concerning love in the Q'ran or you assertion of "hubb" 69 times.  I get tired of having to independently verify everything I say.  Mostly I have done my own research and verification of the doctrine that God will save all mankind.  There are several other areas I've done quite a lot of work in so have a more secure knowledge.  I'll try to examine that "love" thing closer before I repeat it.  I read much of the Q'ran when I was 11 years old.  I've read some in the last several years.

One of the worst things that stand out to me at this point is based on the Moslem idea God has no helper or son.  I take it as God's plan to make us in His image and likeness.  If that isn't so for a Moslem, what identity do they think we are to aim to emulate and grow into?  Related to this is the idea that God spoke to Mohammad and now we should just follow what he had to say of that communication.  We are not to experience our own communication with God?  Yet, as I understand Jesus, experiencing fellowship with God is central to what should be happening.  What would they say I'm experiencing when I have things relevant to the future revealed to me in dreams and visions?  (These experiences have proved true.)

[Seth]

So it is not a place but a state of being?  Dictatorship has very bad connotations for a state of being--never is it associated with love, joy, and peace.  Not a good choice of words, IMHO.

Not usually associated with love joy and peace because usually it is an expression of sinful humanity...just like a slavemaster.

Paul said he was Christ's slave. A slave is not usually associated with love, joy peace, and certainly not freedom....unless the association is with God.

Don't you think if God wanted to be a dictator, he would have done it by now?

He already is. He gives commandments. We follow them....and his commandments are not grievous.

[Raggedy Anne]

Some of the things in this thread are just flat out crazy!    There is no righteousness to be gotten from keeping the law.  But I digress.  If y'all want to debate that, please carry on.  I have not got time to go back over such milk issues.

Anne

[Seth]

Raggety, not sure who that was directed at, but when I spoke about commandments, do you think I was referencing "the law?"

[Seth]

2 Timothy 2
1 You therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. 2 And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. 3 You therefore must endure hardship as a good soldier of Jesus Christ. 4 No one engaged in warfare entangles himself with the affairs of this life, that he may please him who enlisted him as a soldier. 5 And also if anyone competes in athletics, he is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules.

Those rules are not the Law, they are the teaching of Christ by the Spirit who gives us commandments to love eachother in our daily lives (because grace chastises us to live godly lives). And look how Christ told us to put down the sword, yet we are compared to soldiers engaging in warfare. The comparison is a good one.

Who enlists us? That's right, God is a general of warfare.

Revelation 19
11 Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse. And He who sat on him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war. 12 His eyes were like a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns. He had a name written that no one knew except Himself. 13 He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. 14 And the armies in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, followed Him on white horses. 15 Now out of His mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it He should strike the nations. And He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron. He Himself treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. 16 And He has on His robe and on His thigh a name written:  KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.

This is fit description of a war making God. Yet the war is against the flesh against sin itself. Yet another good comparison.

[WhiteWings]

To each is own. But God did express it through a comparison to a monarchy, so that is good enough for me.

How is King of kings a monarchy?  You think Queen Elizabeth would go along with that?

There are still kings in the earth. Jesus is the king of them all. There are kings in the earth, and those who share Christ's throne, who are still subject to the King above all. He will reveal that to them when he returns to put down all rule and authority.

Aren't the elect the Kings?
It's  impossible for Jesus to be  King of kings and rule the whole planet because many countries don't have a king/queen.
In a monarchy the next king/queen is always a (grand)child from a previous king/queen.
The elect are in a way childeren/brothers of Jesus.
So Elizabeth won't be one of the queens. (she more likely part of the beast empire)

[WhiteWings]

So it is not a place but a state of being?  Dictatorship has very bad connotations for a state of being--never is it associated with love, joy, and peace.  Not a good choice of words, IMHO.

President, king, dictator, what exactly is the rea difference?
President: Elected but never listens to the people.
Dictator: Took power by force and never listens to the people.
King/monarchy: Took the country by force, kid are the next ruler. Don't listen to the people.

It's all about what intentions the ruler has. Lining his own pockets or trying to let the whole nation prosper equally.
And if that is the true goal then there isn't much difference.
But that is not how it currently is. So I think Jesus kingdom is as similar to a present kingdom than a snail looks like a horse (they are both animals... :laughing7:)

[Gab]

At this point I don't remember the source of my quotes.  I can not vouch for my statement concerning love in the Q'ran or you assertion of "hubb" 69 times.  I get tired of having to independently verify everything I say.  Mostly I have done my own research and verification of the doctrine that God will save all mankind.  There are several other areas I've done quite a lot of work in so have a more secure knowledge.  I'll try to examine that "love" thing closer before I repeat it.  I read much of the Q'ran when I was 11 years old.  I've read some in the last several years.

One of the worst things that stand out to me at this point is based on the Moslem idea God has no helper or son.  I take it as God's plan to make us in His image and likeness.  If that isn't so for a Moslem, what identity do they think we are to aim to emulate and grow into?  Related to this is the idea that God spoke to Mohammad and now we should just follow what he had to say of that communication.  We are not to experience our own communication with God?  Yet, as I understand Jesus, experiencing fellowship with God is central to what should be happening.  What would they say I'm experiencing when I have things relevant to the future revealed to me in dreams and visions?  (These experiences have proved true.)

Well, one thing that I think must be stressed is that Muslims do hold that Jesus was the son of God - just not in the same sense in which Christians do.  They revere him as the Messiah, just as Christians do.  They regard him as a prophet, and as the only person who has existed who truly fully understood God and thus could speak with authority.  They see him, therefore, as the son of God in the same sense that one might call a group of people the sons of the desert - he lived in God, and knew God, and understood God. They just don't believe that he was equivalent to God (which, if I recall correctly, is an assertion that someone here has even made).

In the interest of full disclosure, I should say that I happen to be acquainted with two Muslims.  Both are very pleasant people, on the whole - certainly no less pleasant than the average Christian I've encountered.  Yet, both take their faith quite seriously - they don't discard the Qur'an or ignore entire chunks of it anything like that.  It just happens to be the case that they find in the Qur'an very different things than most Muslim leaders today.  In that respect, they seem to be quite like us, in a sense - both have independently studied their holy books, and having done so, both have come to reject the doctrines advocated by orthodox leaders of the faith.

Probably one of the most interesting encounters I've ever had with a Muslim was the time that I attended a talk given by one Irshad Manji, who is a Muslim lesbian (yes, I know).  She went to a Muslim school, but was kicked out because (as she recalls) she asked too many questions.  So, instead of that, she studied the Qur'an on her own, without the "filter" (so to speak) of religious leaders.  And now she has become probably the most prominent advocate in the world for the idea that conservative Islamic religious leaders have got it completely wrong and have twisted their holy book to make it say what they want it to say rather than preaching what it actually does say.  (Kind of like what Christians have done, too.)

It's for all of the above reasons that I find a terribly difficult pill to swallow in the assertion that Islam itself is a religion of death and violence as so many have accused.  If I gave the Bible as cursory a glance as most seem to give the Qur'an, and if I took so many seemingly damning Biblical quotes out of context as so many do with the Qur'an, I can pretty much guarantee that I would not be a Christian.  It seems utterly unfair, therefore, to do such a thing to the Muslim faith.  I'm not saying we need to accept it as the one true faith or anything, just that we ought to at least understand it (and I mean really understand it, not just have read a few choice verses) before we criticize it.  By all means, criticize those who advocate violence and death.  But as we ought to be acutely aware, the most vocal and prominent members of a religion are not necessarily its perfect representatives.

I don't mean any offense by this, but when I hear criticism bundled together in the same breath with statements that are just completely wrong, I get worried, not only because not bearing false witness is one of the ten commandments, but also because we are told that love "rejoices with the truth." (1 Corinthians 13:6)  As a result, I am sometimes concerned when I see people making statements as part of an argument that are completely untrue - seemingly without concern for whether or not it might be untrue - and I am forced to wonder in such a situation whether love is truly the motivator behind the words that are being said.

[Molly]

It's for all of the above reasons that I find a terribly difficult pill to swallow in the assertion that Islam itself is a religion of death and violence as so many have accused.

Not sure what you are referring to but I have two questions that I would like you to clear up for me--

1) What is their attitude based on the Quran about 'infidels.'  Is it ok to kill them?

Under traditional Islamic law[22] an apostate may be given up to three days while in incarceration to repent and accept Islam again and if not the apostate is to be killed without any reservations. There are difference between the four schools in the various details on how to deal with the various aspects of imposing the penalties with respect to the material property and holdings of the apostate and in the status and rights of the family of the apostate. A distinction is also made between "Murtad Fitri", an apostate who was born of Muslim parents, and "Murtad Milli", an apostate who had converted into Islam initially. Some additional penalties and considerations that are mentioned are that a divorce is automatic if either spouse apostatize, an under age apostate is imprisoned till he reaches maturity and then he is killed, and the recommended execution is beheading with a sword. The examples of Apostasy given below show that these punishments are rarely carried out in toto at present, and also underline the problem in harmonizing the constitutional law and Islamic law in the various countries.

In the period of the early Islamic Caliphate, apostasy was considered treason, and was accordingly treated as a capital offense; death penalties were carried out under the authority of the Caliph, the most famous such incidents being the Martyrs of Cordoba. Today apostasy is punishable by death in the countries of Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Qatar, Yemen, Iran, Sudan, Afghanistan and Mauritania. In Pakistan blasphemy is also punishable by death. Other punishments prescribed by Islamic law include the annulment of marriage with a Muslim spouse, the removal of children and the loss of all property and inheritance rights.

--Wikipedia



2) What is your opinion of Sharia law?


[iIn accordance with the Qur'an and several hadith, theft is punished by imprisonment or amputation of hands or feet,[135] depending on the number of times it was committed and depe]nding on the item of theft. However, before the punishment is executed two eyewitnesses under oath must say that they saw the person stealing. If these witnesses cannot be produced then the punishment cannot be carried out.[citation needed] Witnesses must be either two men, or, if only one man can be found, one man and two women. Several requirements are in place for the amputation of hands, so the actual instances of this are relatively few[citation needed]; they are:

There must have been criminal intent to take private (not common) property.
The theft must not have been the product of hunger, necessity, or duress.
The goods stolen must: be over a minimum value, not haraam, and not owned by the thief's family.
Goods must have been taken from custody (i.e. not in a public place).
There must be reliable witnesses.
The punishment is carried out even if the thief repents. [said by Muhammad]
All of these must be met under the scrutiny of judicial authority. [Qur'an 5:38][136]

In accordance with hadith, stoning to death is the penalty for married men and women who commit adultery. In addition, there are several conditions related to the person who commits it that must be met. One of the difficult ones is that the punishment cannot be enforced unless there is a confession of the person, or four male eyewitnesses who each saw the act being committed. All of these must be met under the scrutiny of judicial authority[137] For unmarried men and women, the punishment prescribed in the Qur'an and hadith is 100 lashes.[138]

The "four witness" standard comes from the Qur'an itself, a revelation Muhammad announced in response to accusations of adultery leveled at his wife, Aisha: "Why did they not produce four witnesses? Since they produce not witnesses, they verily are liars in the sight of Allah."[Qur'an 24:13]

Punishments are authorized by other passages in the Qur'an and hadiths for certain crimes (e.g., extramarital sex, adultery), and are employed by some as rationale for extra-legal punitive action while others disagree:

"The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication—flog each of them with hundred stripes: Let no compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by God, if ye believe in God and the last day."[Qur'an 24:2] "Nor come nigh to adultery: for it is a shameful (deed) and an evil, opening the road (to other evils)."[Qur'an 17:32]

In most interpretations of Sharia, conversion by Muslims to other religions, is strictly forbidden and is termed apostasy. Muslim theology equates apostasy to treason, and in most interpretations of sharia, the penalty for apostasy is death. During the time of Muhammad, treason and apostasy were considered one and the same; nowadays, many scholars differentiate between treason and apostasy, believing that the punishment for apostasy is not death, while the punishment for treason is death.

In many Muslim countries, the accusation of apostasy is even used against non-conventional interpretations of the Qur'an. The severe persecution of the famous expert in Arabic literature, Nasr Abu Zayd, is an example of this.

Insulting Muhammad or blasphemy has also resulted in the death penalty.[139][/i]

--Wikipedia

[noname]

Gab, like you I have very positive experiences with people whose faith just happens to be Islam

in my spec of the woods you'd find a Christian church, a Mosque, a Hindu temple and even a Synagog in close proximity of each other...and there is peace and respect between the different faiths

I have found Muslims to be of the most generous people to all other faiths as well...after the last massacre by Israel on the Palestinians, I have seen many Muslim organisations giving freely to fellow Muslims and Christian Palestinians and even to those who have no beliefs

we can never call ourselves followers of Jesus if there are still an "us" and "them" mentality within us...whether divisions are according to faith, race, country, economic model, culture...whatever...Jesus came for ALL of US...we should examine our own hearts and eliminate any prejudice against another

[Gab]

Not sure what you are referring to but I have two questions that I would like you to clear up for me--

1) What is their attitude based on the Quran about 'infidels.'  Is it ok to kill them?

Under traditional Islamic law[22] an apostate may be given up to three days while in incarceration to repent and accept Islam again and if not the apostate is to be killed without any reservations. There are difference between the four schools in the various details on how to deal with the various aspects of imposing the penalties with respect to the material property and holdings of the apostate and in the status and rights of the family of the apostate. A distinction is also made between "Murtad Fitri", an apostate who was born of Muslim parents, and "Murtad Milli", an apostate who had converted into Islam initially. Some additional penalties and considerations that are mentioned are that a divorce is automatic if either spouse apostatize, an under age apostate is imprisoned till he reaches maturity and then he is killed, and the recommended execution is beheading with a sword. The examples of Apostasy given below show that these punishments are rarely carried out in toto at present, and also underline the problem in harmonizing the constitutional law and Islamic law in the various countries.

In the period of the early Islamic Caliphate, apostasy was considered treason, and was accordingly treated as a capital offense; death penalties were carried out under the authority of the Caliph, the most famous such incidents being the Martyrs of Cordoba. Today apostasy is punishable by death in the countries of Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Qatar, Yemen, Iran, Sudan, Afghanistan and Mauritania. In Pakistan blasphemy is also punishable by death. Other punishments prescribed by Islamic law include the annulment of marriage with a Muslim spouse, the removal of children and the loss of all property and inheritance rights.

--Wikipedia

As I'm sure we're all aware, the word "traditional" ought to raise a red flag, as the religious observations of the Pharisees that Jesus so completely rebuked were traditions as well - traditions that went completely against and thereby nullified the word of God.

The "kill the infidels" line usually is accompanied with a quotation of this verse:

"Fight and slay the kafir wherever you find them" (Qur'an 9:5)

There are a number of problems with this.  First, this isn't even the whole verse, which should pop up another red flag.  And I've purposefully left a word there untranslated, for reasons that we will see shortly.  The following is the entire verse:

"And when the forbidden months have passed, kill the idolaters wherever you find them and take them prisoners, and beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent and observe Prayer and pay the Zakat, then leave their way free. Surely, Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful." (Qur'an 9:5)

Where's the word "infidel"?  It's nowhere to be found because, frankly, indicators point instead towards the proper translation of the word in question as "idolator".  Already the meaning seems to be changing, given a similar description of what happens to idolators in Romans 1 in the Bible.  And it changes even more if we add further context to this verse:

"This is a declaration of complete absolution on the part of Allah and His Messenger from all obligation to the idolaters with whom you had made promises.  So go about in the land for four months, and know that you cannot frustrate the plan of Allah and that Allah will humiliate the disbelievers.  And this is a proclamation from Allah and His Messenger to the people on the day of the Greater Pilgrimage, that Allah is clear of the idolaters, and so is His Messenger. So if you repent, it will be better for you; but if you turn away, then know that you cannot frustrate the plan of Allah.

"And give tidings of a painful punishment to those who disbelieve, excepting those of the idolaters with whom you have entered into a treaty and who have not subsequently failed you in anything nor aided anyone against you. So fulfill to these the treaty you have made with them till their term. Surely, Allah loves those who are righteous.  And when the forbidden months have passed, kill the idolaters wherever you find them and take them prisoners, and beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent and observe Prayer and pay the Zakat, then leave their way free. Surely, Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful.  And if anyone of the idolaters ask protection of thee, grant him protection so that he may hear the word of Allah; then convey him to his place of security. That is because they are a people who have no knowledge.

"How can there be a treaty of these idolaters with Allah and His Messenger, except those with whom you entered into a treaty at the Sacred Mosque? So, as long as they stand true to you, stand true to them. Surely, Allah loves those who are righteous.  How can it be when, if they prevail against you, they would not observe any tie of relationship or covenant in respect of you? They would please you with their mouths, while their hearts refuse, and most of them are perfidious.  They barter the Signs of Allah for a paltry price and turn men away from His way. Evil indeed is that which they do.  They observe not any tie of relationship or covenant in respect of anyone who trusts them. And it is they who are transgressors.  But if they repent and observe Prayer and pay the Zakat, then they are your brethren in faith. And We explain the Signs for a people who have knowledge." (Qur'an 9:1-11)

It thus becomes very clear what group of people this is really talking about - it's speaking of those who "turn men away from Allah's way" (or God's way; Allah is just the Arabic word for God), who do evil, and who are unfaithful to those who trusted them.  And it is very clear that all of this only applies if these people stay in such a state to the end.

If you want an exhaustive analysis of this, you can find a good one here.  As the author of that article says, if Muslims are truly commanded to kill all who are non-Muslim, then we ought to expect evidence of mass exterminations and genocide in the Middle East after Islam took root there, but we see nothing of the sort in history - instead, the Islamic world for its first three centuries was open to all visitors, be they Muslim, Christian, Jew, and "doubters" (as they were called), and was the forefront of the world in scientific advancement.

As for the subject of the death penalty for apostates, that typically comes from this verse from the Qur'an:

"And if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them" (Qur'an 4:90)

Again, context is important:

"What has happened to you that you are divided into two parties regarding the hypocrites? And Allah has overthrown them because of what they earned. Desire ye to guide him whom Allah has caused to perish? And for him whom Allah causes to perish thou shalt not find a way.  They wish that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you may become all alike. Take not, therefore, friends from among them, until they emigrate in the way of Allah.

"And if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them; and take no friend nor helper from among them; except those who are connected with a people between whom and you there is a pact, or those who come to you, while their hearts shrink from fighting you or fighting their own people. And if Allah had so pleased, He would have given them power over you, then they would have surely fought you. So, if they keep aloof from you and fight you not, and make you an offer of peace, then remember that Allah has allowed you no way of aggression against them." (Qur'an 4:89-91)

Interpreting that singular verse to say that all those who were Muslim and now are not must be put to death is now, I think, a little strange, as immediately thereafter we are told that anyone who does not fight you and who wishes for there to be peace must have his wishes granted.  It is imperative for people to keep in mind this command when reading any other commands that appear to be advocating open and unprovoked hostilities among those who simply wish to live in peace:

"And fight in the cause of Allah against those who fight against you, but do not transgress. Surely, Allah loves not the transgressors.  And kill them wherever you meet them and drive them out from where they have driven you out; for persecution is worse than killing. And fight them not in, and near, the Sacred Mosque until they fight you therein. But if they fight you, then fight them: such is the requital for the disbelievers.  But if they desist, then surely Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful.  And fight them until there is no persecution, and religion is freely professed for Allah. But if they desist, then remember that no hostility is allowed except against the aggressors." (Qur'an 2:191-194)

In actuality, what is being said is far different than what it initially appears: Muslims are absolutely forbidden from beginning hostilities against any who are not hostile to them first.  All of this talk of killing the infidel and apostates is really instructions to defend oneself and one's faith against those who threaten them, not to go out and murder innocent people who are just minding their own business and attempting to live their lives in peace.

(It should be noted that there are also certain passages quoted from hadiths - oral traditions relating to the words and actions of Muhammad.  However, these are regarded by most Muslims as simply about the man, and do not contain divine inspiration, and thus are not to be taken as divine scripture equal to the Qur'an.)

2) What is your opinion of Sharia law?


[iIn accordance with the Qur'an and several hadith, theft is punished by imprisonment or amputation of hands or feet,[135] depending on the number of times it was committed and depe]nding on the item of theft. However, before the punishment is executed two eyewitnesses under oath must say that they saw the person stealing. If these witnesses cannot be produced then the punishment cannot be carried out.[citation needed] Witnesses must be either two men, or, if only one man can be found, one man and two women. Several requirements are in place for the amputation of hands, so the actual instances of this are relatively few[citation needed]; they are:

There must have been criminal intent to take private (not common) property.
The theft must not have been the product of hunger, necessity, or duress.
The goods stolen must: be over a minimum value, not haraam, and not owned by the thief's family.
Goods must have been taken from custody (i.e. not in a public place).
There must be reliable witnesses.
The punishment is carried out even if the thief repents. [said by Muhammad]
All of these must be met under the scrutiny of judicial authority. [Qur'an 5:38][136]

In accordance with hadith, stoning to death is the penalty for married men and women who commit adultery. In addition, there are several conditions related to the person who commits it that must be met. One of the difficult ones is that the punishment cannot be enforced unless there is a confession of the person, or four male eyewitnesses who each saw the act being committed. All of these must be met under the scrutiny of judicial authority[137] For unmarried men and women, the punishment prescribed in the Qur'an and hadith is 100 lashes.[138]

The "four witness" standard comes from the Qur'an itself, a revelation Muhammad announced in response to accusations of adultery leveled at his wife, Aisha: "Why did they not produce four witnesses? Since they produce not witnesses, they verily are liars in the sight of Allah."[Qur'an 24:13]

Punishments are authorized by other passages in the Qur'an and hadiths for certain crimes (e.g., extramarital sex, adultery), and are employed by some as rationale for extra-legal punitive action while others disagree:

"The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication—flog each of them with hundred stripes: Let no compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by God, if ye believe in God and the last day."[Qur'an 24:2] "Nor come nigh to adultery: for it is a shameful (deed) and an evil, opening the road (to other evils)."[Qur'an 17:32]

In most interpretations of Sharia, conversion by Muslims to other religions, is strictly forbidden and is termed apostasy. Muslim theology equates apostasy to treason, and in most interpretations of sharia, the penalty for apostasy is death. During the time of Muhammad, treason and apostasy were considered one and the same; nowadays, many scholars differentiate between treason and apostasy, believing that the punishment for apostasy is not death, while the punishment for treason is death.

In many Muslim countries, the accusation of apostasy is even used against non-conventional interpretations of the Qur'an. The severe persecution of the famous expert in Arabic literature, Nasr Abu Zayd, is an example of this.

Insulting Muhammad or blasphemy has also resulted in the death penalty.[139][/i]

--Wikipedia

I don't know of any Jews who stone people to death or who mete out similar punishments, yet those punishments are clearly enumerated in the Old Testament.  Rather, they believe that the specific punishments for the crimes listed were simply a reflection of the oral tradition and customary law of the day, and that the real message was in the opposition to the crimes listed, not regarding the precise punishment that absolutely must be utilized.  Liberal factions within Islam (which do exist, mind you) view it much in the same way.

To be frank, I view those attempting to establish Sharia law as the law of the land to be much like those fundamentalist Christians who want to make the Bible (their interpretation of it, of course!) the supreme law of the land in the United States.  Its encouragement is certainly not an integral part of being a Muslim - some of the largest Muslim-majority countries in the world, such as Indonesia and Bangladesh, do not have much in the way of Sharia law on the books.

[Molly]

As the author of that article says, if Muslims are truly commanded to kill all who are non-Muslim, then we ought to expect evidence of mass exterminations and genocide in the Middle East after Islam took root there, but we see nothing of the sort in history - instead, the Islamic world for its first three centuries was open to all visitors, be they Muslim, Christian, Jew, and "doubters" (as they were called), and was the forefront of the world in scientific advancement.

For starters, have you studied the history of Muhammad?  Since he is responsible for the Quran and is considered the prophet, don't you think it would be important to look at his life, as we look at the life of Jesus?

The Ottoman empire became a vast and successful empire, and yes they did have 'nonbelievers' living within their borders, other peoples, as all empires do, but they were considered second class citizens, and more importantly, they were taxed for the benefit of the muslims.

But, the religion's main man was not a man of peace.  In those days, one did not easily establish an empire by peaceful means, which is why Jesus said at the time, my kingdom is not of this world.


After his migration to Medina, Muhammad's attitude towards Christians and Jews changed. Norman Stillman states:[8]

During this fateful time, fraught with tension after the Hijra [migration to Medina], when Muhammad encountered contradiction, ridicule and rejection from the Jewish scholars in Medina, he came to adopt a radically more negative view of the people of the Book who had received earlier scriptures. This attitude was already evolving in the third Meccan period as the Prophet became more aware of the antipathy between Jews and Christians and the disagreements and strife amongst members of the same religion. The Qur'an at this time states that it will "relate [correctly] to the Children of Israel most of that about which they differ" (XXVII, 76).

Economically uprooted and with no available profession besides that of arms, the Muslim migrants turned to raiding Meccan caravans for their livelihood, thus initiating armed conflict between the Muslims and Mecca.[9][10] Muhammad delivered Qur'anic verses permitting the Muslims to fight the Meccans (see Qur'an 22:39–40).[11] These attacks provoked and pressured Mecca by interfering with trade, and allowed the Muslims to acquire wealth, power and prestige while working toward their ultimate goal of inducing Mecca's submission to the new faith.[12]

[13] In March of 624, Muhammad led some three hundred warriors in a raid on a Meccan merchant caravan. The Muslims set an ambush for the Meccans at Badr.[14] Aware of the plan, the Meccan caravan eluded Muslims. Meanwhile a force from Mecca was sent to protect the caravan. The force did not return home upon hearing that the caravan was safe. The battle of Badr began in March of 624.[15] Though outnumbered more than three to one, the Muslims won the battle, killing at least forty-five Meccans and taking seventy prisoners for ransom; only fourteen Muslims died. They had also succeeded in killing many of the Meccan leaders, including Abu Jahl.[16] Muhammad himself did not fight, directing the battle from a nearby hut alongside Abu Bakr.[17]

In the weeks following the battle, Meccans visited Medina in order to ransom captives from Badr. Many of these had belonged to wealthy families, and were likely ransomed for a considerable sum. Those captives who were not sufficiently influential or wealthy were usually freed without ransom. Muhammad's decision was that those who were wealthy but did not ransom themselves should be killed.[18][19] Muhammad ordered the immediate execution of two men without entertaining offers for their release.[19] One of the men, Uqba ibn Abu Mu'ayt, had written verses about Muhammad, and the other had said that his own stories about Persians were as good as the tales of the Qur'an.[18] The raiders had won much booty, and the battle helped to stabilize the Medinan community.[20] Muhammad and his followers saw in the victory a confirmation of their faith. prime importance in the affairs of Medina. Those remaining pagans in Medina were very bitter about the advance of Islam. In particular Asma bint Marwan and Abu 'Afak had composed verses taunting and insulting some of the Muslims. These two were assassinated and Muhammad did not disapprove of it. No one dared to take vengeance on them, and some of the members of the clan of Asma bint Marwan who had previously converted to Islam in secret, now professed Islam openly. This marked an end to the overt opposition to Muhammad among the pagans in Medina.[21]

Muhammad expelled from Medina the Banu Qaynuqa, one of the three main Jewish tribes.[3] Jewish opposition "may well have been for political as well as religious reasons".[22] On religious grounds, the Jews were skeptical of the possibility of a non-Jewish prophet,[23] and also had concerns about possible incompatibilities between the Qur'an and their own scriptures.[23][24] The Qur'an's response regarding the possibility of a non-Jew being a prophet was that Abraham was not a Jew. The Qur'an also stated that it was "restoring the pure monotheism of Abraham which had been corrupted in various, clearly specified, ways by Jews and Christians".[23] According to Francis Edwards Peters, "The Jews also began secretly to connive with Muhammad's enemies in Mecca to overthrow him."[25]

Following the battle of Badr, Muhammad also made mutual-aid alliances with a number of Bedouin tribes to protect his community from attacks from the northern part of Hijaz.[3]

--Wikipedia


And so on....

[Seth]

President, king, dictator, what exactly is the rea difference?
President: Elected but never listens to the people.
Dictator: Took power by force and never listens to the people.
King/monarchy: Took the country by force, kid are the next ruler. Don't listen to the people.

Exactly. In the Bible God tends to take what we associate as evil, and flip it on its head to show a contrast between himself and evil man. So concerning a president:

Was God elected by the people? No
Does God need to approval from a house of reps to go to war? No
Can God be impeached? No
Does God have term limits? No
Does God submit to checks and balances? No

etc etc etc

All the things that we would rightly require from a human leader, is reversed with God because God is good and is not a tyrant. The main reason our democracy was created like it was, was to control tyranny as best it can. The need does not exist with God which is why he is a Monarch in most classic sense.

Aren't the elect the Kings?
It's  impossible for Jesus to be  King of kings and rule the whole planet because many countries don't have a king/queen.

It depends on what you mean by that. Hebrews says that everything has already been placed under Christ, we just don't see it yet. Christ already is a king that rules the whole planet, he just hasn't put the end result into action until the appointed time.

So Elizabeth won't be one of the queens. (she more likely part of the beast empire)

Maybe. That is for God to decide. However if we are talking about a metephor or a comparison: Queen Elizabeth IS a queen of lords. Jesus is a Lord of Lords and King of Kings in the same way, but in a much higher way. That is what makes it a compare and contrast.

[WhiteWings]

Exactly. In the Bible God tends to take what we associate as evil, and flip it on its head to show a contrast between himself and evil man. So concerning a president:

Was God elected by the people? No
Does God need to approval from a house of reps to go to war? No
Can God be impeached? No
Does God have term limits? No
Does God submit to checks and balances? No

Several translations speak about master and slave.
That sounds closer to a dictatorship. How the dictatorship is to live in depends on the heart of the dictator.

All the things that we would rightly require from a human leader, is reversed with God because God is good and is not a tyrant. The main reason our democracy was created like it was, was to control tyranny as best it can. The need does not exist with God which is why he is a Monarch in most classic sense.

But Father never will be king. Only Son is a King for a while. That would mean the Kingdom of Jesus isn't perfect.
Just a intermediate step to real perfection
1Co_15:22-28No more rule  No more authority  No more power  No more reigning
Bit weird a supreme ruler without being a ruler....

Aren't the elect the Kings?
It's  impossible for Jesus to be  King of kings and rule the whole planet because many countries don't have a king/queen.

It depends on what you mean by that.

IMO the verses listed below state that the saints/overcomers/elect will be kings/rulers. Unless the current rulers are the elect they won't rule during the 1000 years of Jesus.

Hebrews says that everything has already been placed under Christ, we just don't see it yet. Christ already is a king that rules the whole planet, he just hasn't put the end result into action until the appointed time.

Does that mean Jesus already started His 1000 year rule?

[WhiteWings]

Today the same can be said about (man made???) Islam.

really? please point me to these vicious Muslim countries mowing down people like the Christians and Jews do?

you didn't notice what happen to israel?

iD,

When speaking about war in general I wonder if it's fair to say 'the country wants war'.
Take the Iran-Iraq war for example. Or one of the many wars  in Europe. I really doubt the average man wanted those wars. I think the average man just wants to do his daily things, eat something, have a tasty drink and in general lead a quiet a peacful life. They don't want to invaded countries they didn't even knew before their leader declared war.

[Seth]

Exactly. In the Bible God tends to take what we associate as evil, and flip it on its head to show a contrast between himself and evil man. So concerning a president:

Was God elected by the people? No
Does God need to approval from a house of reps to go to war? No
Can God be impeached? No
Does God have term limits? No
Does God submit to checks and balances? No

Several translations speak about master and slave.
That sounds closer to a dictatorship. How the dictatorship is to live in depends on the heart of the dictator.

:thumbsup: Amen.

But Father never will be king. Only Son is a King for a while. That would mean the Kingdom of Jesus isn't perfect.
Just a intermediate step to real perfection
1Co_15:22-28No more rule  No more authority  No more power  No more reigning
Bit weird a supreme ruler without being a ruler....

I believe we will always be subordinate to our Father.

IMO the verses listed below state that the saints/overcomers/elect will be kings/rulers. Unless the current rulers are the elect they won't rule during the 1000 years of Jesus.

I believe the same about the saints/elect being kings/rulers. Alot of people have different views on the "1000 year reign", however regardless of those differences, Jesus already is the king of those who do not realize that or see it. More on that below.

Does that mean Jesus already started His 1000 year rule?

Again, people have differing views on that. Some don't see it as an eschatology thing but a symbolic reference to the reign that Christ already has.

Psa 50:10
For every animal of the forest is mine, and the cattle on a thousand hills.

Does God own all cattle, or just the cattle on a thousand hills? Well, some might take the reference to 1000 to not mean time-years but a symbolic manner of complete victory/reign in this life and to come.

But regardless of eschatolagy and differences of view of the 1000 year reign:


Hebrews 2
5 For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak.
6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man that thou visitest him
7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:
8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.

So if you see the 1000 reign as an eschatology thing, it would be the MANIFESTATION of all things already placed under his feet.

As I had said earlier: God is a totalitarian dictator with plans to invade all nations, crush all rule and authority and occupy those nations forever: being all in all.

[WhiteWings]

But Father never will be king. Only Son is a King for a while. That would mean the Kingdom of Jesus isn't perfect.
Just a intermediate step to real perfection
1Co_15:22-28No more rule  No more authority  No more power  No more reigning
Bit weird a supreme ruler without being a ruler....

I believe we will always be subordinate to our Father.

I wonder if that's true. It's a feeling I can't really explain. I'll give it a try...
Jesus returns for His bride. That means marriage. A perfect marriage isn't about one enslaving the other. I see a perfect marriage as both submitting to eachother. Both know eachothers thoughts and both have the same thoughts.
To simplify things if Father has only one rule and that is love; and all people have perfect love due the ruling/teaching of Jesus then the authority of Father is non existant. A ruler submits people to do things the ruler likes. But the submitted already lives in a way the ruler wants then there is nothing lefft to rule for the ruler. Does that make any sense?
In case not: Assume God is a sea God. His ruling is that every animal has to live in the sea. That would really mean subjecting land animals. But is all animals on earth are fish then that ruling is pointless because they already live in teh sea and have no desire to live elsewhere.

[Seth]

To simplify things if Father has only one rule and that is love; and all people have perfect love due the ruling/teaching of Jesus then the authority of Father is non existant.

The way I see that, is that if this is the case, then it shows the authority of the Father (who IS love) not to be nonexistent, but in full effect.

A ruler submits people to do things the ruler likes. But the submitted already lives in a way the ruler wants then there is nothing lefft to rule for the ruler. Does that make any sense?

Yes, but as I was saying above, if the submitted lives in the way that the ruler wants, then they are continually submitted by definition. In other words our continued obedience and adherence to love without desire to the contrary is not a sign of lack of reign of God but the removal of a desire to disobey that reign.

To be living in perfect love is to be continually moved by God's Hand.

In case not: Assume God is a sea God. His ruling is that every animal has to live in the sea. That would really mean subjecting land animals. But is all animals on earth are fish then that ruling is pointless because they already live in teh sea and have no desire to live elsewhere.

But God created them TO live in the sea, so if they do then his authority is being realized regardless of either their desires or lack thereof. See what I mean?

[Seth]

See, a HUMAN dictatorship struggles to order people to obey. It's the blind leading the blind, which is why it is an evil system of government and worse than a democracy in that sense.

But the GODLY dictatorship removes the disobedience to love so that we always are following commandments by nature, not as in a struggle. That is how the comparison reveals how much better God is than man.

His dominance over his creation is not a grievous thing, because it causes us to walk within him.

[WhiteWings]

Yes Seth I see what you mean. I agree with all your answers but our "disagreement" is that I take things 1 step further.
You are right there was a period of submitting, converting to love etc etc. Even ruling with an iron fist. But that was Jesus and His rod of iron.

But God created them TO live in the sea, so if they do then his authority is being realized regardless of either their desires or lack thereof.

For me submitted has a feeling of forcing something on someone. You are submitted as long as you feel submitted. That's as long as you don't fully agree with the rules you are submitted to.
But if the rules of the king are 100% part of your inner self. If the only way you want to live is by those rules. You will even feel unhappy when you are not allowed by those rules. Are you then submitted?
IMO submission can end and isn't eternal by defention.
If the ruler of subject dies the subjection ends.
If the ruler changes the rules the subjection changes or in a certain case ends.
If the opion of the subjected changes and now 100% agrees with the rules subjection has ended.

Say you always hated it when you had to help your mother with the dishes. => Doing dishes is work.
Now you are married a you are deeply in love and want to reduce the workload of your wife. => Doing dishes is an act of love.
=> The same activity changed from something you have to do to something you want to do.
=> Your parents were subjecting you. Your wife is much more like the subjection of God.

Are you subjection your dog when you command it to fetch a ball? I think not because for most dogs the ulimate dream is fetching balls all day long.

As said earlier it's a feeling I can't really express. So you have to read the intention of my posts. Not analyse the words for the exact defenitions. :declare:

[Seth]

If you the only way you want to live is by those rules. You will even feel unhappy when you are not allowed by those rules. Are you then submitted?

I guess it just gets down to how we see submission. I just see it as walking in obedience always, even without a desire to do otherwise. Either way, we both agree as to the final result.

As said earlier it's a feeling I can't really express. So you have to read the intention of my posts. Not analyse the words for the exact defenitions. :declare:

:thumbsup: :HeartThrob: