When Quran refers to "people of the Book" is it as friends?

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Taking comparitive religon will help you get a basic understanding but might I suggest you read the Q' uran, Talmud and the Bible (KJV). I am sure you have long since learned not to take the professors word on it but researched it out for yourself. The actual book that the Jews follow is the Babylonian Talmud and not the Torah. Plus the symbol for their people and nation is the star of Moloch which they have had since the Babylon captivity.

There really is no compatibility between the three. Both Muslims and Christians believe in the laws of Moses (Ten Commandments) yet the Muslim says it is permissible to lie, cheat, steal and even murder while the Christian says just the opposite. The Rabi's simply calls the Torah all fairy tales. Something you might find interesting here regarding the Bible.

You will find some similarities between the Muslim faith and the Christian faith and some shared beliefs but in the end the Muslim believes he will get to paradise by his works and the Christian by grace which are diametrically opposed to each other.

sk0rpi0n
op.. The people of the book refer to people who received revelation from God. I.e.. The torah and the gospel. Islam is continuation of the prophetic tradition starting from Adam. Of course, Adam and the early figures such as Noah, Enoch, Abraham were neither Jews nor Christians, but early monotheists.

Islam cannot be revelation from God because Mohammad cannot be a prophet.

The Bible explicitly says that Prophets must come from the tribes of Israel (the twelve sons of Jacob) and Mohammad is not from any of those tribes therefore not a Prophet.

If you feel this to be an error in a corrupted Bible, then how is the Quran itself not corrupt if the Bible is so easily corrupt?

reply to post by FreeMason


Muhammad is the "false prophet" as mentioned in revelation.

pstrron
It doesn't refer to Jew's or Christians as friends. Anyone that is not a Muslim is considered an infidel and if they refuse to convert, worthy of death. They do however believe that Jesus was a prophet yet refuse to do what he said. There are major differences between all three.

Keep spreading that Christian propaganda. All the people that lives in Muslim nations that aren't Muslim proves the convert or die is just BS.

reply to post by lestweforget


False Prophet = Pope!!

The last Pope 112th, we aren't allowed any more!!



These threads are a great distraction from the doom and gloom..

buster2010

pstrron
It doesn't refer to Jew's or Christians as friends. Anyone that is not a Muslim is considered an infidel and if they refuse to convert, worthy of death. They do however believe that Jesus was a prophet yet refuse to do what he said. There are major differences between all three.

Keep spreading that Christian propaganda. All the people that lives in Muslim nations that aren't Muslim proves the convert or die is just BS.

Instead of "Christian Propaganda", how about Islamic academia based upon authentic ahadith and substantiated historic events?

Muhammad committed an unprovoked, preemptive utter genocide upon the Jews of Arabia. Muhammad then went on to predict a future genocide of Jews:

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews , when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews."

(Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim)

lestweforget
reply to post by FreeMason

 

Muhammad is the "false prophet" as mentioned in revelation.

I do not agree with that. From my point of view Paul is the real deceiver that speaks in nice words but the message is not what Jesus and the other apostles teach. When it comes to Muhammad I just get confused since he shifts between being a non dualist that really loves his people, to an dualist who hates his own people if they do not agree with him.

Hey FreeMason!

As Sahabi had already told you (as I had informed him earlier in another thread), The Quran refers to itself as "The Book", so I'm not so sure your delineation works.

reply to post by pstrron

pstrron
Anyone that is not a Muslim is considered an infidel and if they refuse to convert, worthy of death. They do however believe that Jesus was a prophet yet refuse to do what he said.

Errrr....no.

Awen24
It's not PC to state it, but the "people of the book" were only tolerated in Mohammed's early years.
Mohammed's life can be fairly neatly divided into two parts... a time of tolerance (while the people of the Arabian Peninsula held the power and the Muslims were militarily inferior), and a time of brutality, enacted once the Islamic forces were powerful enough to force all others into submission.

Once you realize the sequence, and understand that the Muslim concept of "abrogation" (that is, later verses take precedence over and replace the earlier ones), you can see that the tolerance for "people of the book" was limited, and didn't last. As soon as Mohammed had the army to do so, he obliterated the Jews - in a battle that Muslims still celebrate today.

The only "peace" in Islam is the "peace" that exists when all the world is converted or living in submission.

Errr.....also no.

The famous "No compulsion in religion" verse is a Medinite verse, after Muhammad had consolidated power, AND after a battle where 300 muslims had to face off a 1000 Meccans (which the muslims won, however). The Achtiname of Muhammad, which came up recently in another thread here- an oath of protection to Christians, was written several years after Muhammad consolidated power in Medinah. And Muhammad certainly didn't "obliterate the jews", their community was documented to have openly lived in Arabia even several decades after his death. And I'm sorry, but you'll be hard-pressed to find a single muslim who can tell you the date of any of the early battles, and when it falls, and how they "celebrate" it. People like to paint with a general brush, and just attach whatever negative things they can to Islam, very often in total error, with the result of people like pstrrron thinking it is okay in Islam to "Lie, cheat and steal", and so on.

But despite all that being wrong, this whole "Abrogation" story that critics of Islam use to knock over anything peaceful about Islam (even when it doesn't chronologically fit to do so), is a farce. A tradition of "abrogation" certainly existed among many groups of muslims in history, and even exists now, but it is absolutely not applied in the sense of "Oh, this came before, this came after, toss that old thing out". That is absurd. The Islamic scripture certainly doesn't work like that. There are some instances where abrogation can be applied where a change in the rules openly occurred, and was openly mentioned (i.e. with alcohol originally being simply advised against, to it being prohibited, or when the muslims changed the direction they prayed towards from Jerusalem to Mecca), but one can't simply claim abrogation left and right whenever one feels like it.

reply to post by Sahabi

I am sorry, Sahabi, but it seems your lack of knowledge on this topic is showing again. For your benefit, and for the posters before, let me quote a few verses:

Surah Al-Imran, v20, instructing Muhammad (and by proxy, Muslims) on how to deal with the People of the Book:
So if they (the People of the Book) dispute with you, say: "I have submitted my whole self to God and so have those who follow me." And say to the People of the Book and to those who are unlearned: "Do you also submit yourselves to God?" If they do, they are in right guidance, but if they turn back, Your duty is to convey the Message; and in God's sight are all His servants.

Verse 64 of the same Surah:
Say: "O People of the Book! come to common terms as between us and you: That we worship none but God; that we associate no partners with him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords and patrons other than God." If then they turn away, say: "Bear witness that we (at least) are bowing to God's Will."

I totally admit, it isn't ALL roses. Islam defined itself as a continuation of (and a removal of corruption from) the Abrahamic message, so there are obviously disagreements:

Same surah, verse 69:
It is the wish of a section of the People of the Book to lead you astray. But they shall lead astray not you, but themselves, and they do not perceive!

Same surah, verse 19
The only true Religion before God is submission to His Will: The People of the Book disagreed among themselves only after the knowledge had come down to them. But if any deny the Signs of God, God is swift in calling to account.

But then:

Same surah, verse 113
Not all of them are alike: Of the People of the Book are a portion that stand for the right: They rehearse the Signs of God all night long, and they prostrate themselves in adoration. They believe in God and the Last Day; they enjoin what is right, and forbid what is wrong; and they hasten in all good works: They are in the ranks of the righteous. Of the good that they do, nothing will be rejected of them; for God knows well those that do good.

Surah Al-Ankabut, Verse 46:
And argue not with the People of the Book unless it be in (a way) that is better, save with such of them as do wrong; and say: We believe in that which has been revealed unto us and revealed unto you; our God and your God is One, and unto Him we submit ourselves.

And so on. Obviously injunctions and references and talk not of the past, and certainly not a derogatory term. I apologise for the quote-fest, but I hope you see it was all relevant.

I am amazed that Wrabbit had the most level-headed response in this thread .

reply to post by babloyi


Your roses smell nice, but you stopped short of the full story.

Continue through the history AFTER "no compulsion in religion" was revealed.

Chapter #9 was revealed far after, and contains a declaration of dissolution from non-believers, and calls for a perpetuating jihad, conquest, and conversion of non-believers.


You stop short at the early Median-period. Don't stop there! Acknowledge the late-Medina period closer to Muhammad's death, and the last plethora of violent and intolerant verses revealed.

They don't call it "The Verse of the Sword" for Peaceful, tolerant reasons.

reply to post by babloyi


I don't recall ever being blatantly rude to you, but before you speak to me in a negative or condescending tone again,....

Allah proclaimed abrogation.

Muhammad proclaimed of abrogation.

The sahaba (disciple/companions) adhered to abrogation.

The scholars of old and new proclaim abrogation.


Just because YOU and a minority have a different personal-interpretation about abrogation, that does not change the fact that Muhammad abrogated peace for jihad.

The last years of Muhammad's life and the examples of this immediate successors blatantly illustrates the jihad, conversion, conquest mentality.




These are REAL concepts according to Allah, Muhammad, Caliphs, Sahaba, and scholars:


1. Naskh al-hukm duna al-tilawa (Words Stay, Ruling Abandoned): The original verse remains intact, but a newer verse supersedes its ruling.

2. Naskh al-hukm wa'l-tilawa (Words Removed, Ruling Abandoned): The verse and ruling are removed and annihilated from the Qur’an and Islam altogether.

3. Naskh al-tilawa duna al-hukm (Words Removed, Ruling Stay): The verse is removed from the Qur’an, but it’s ruling is still followed.



Deny it and don't like it? That is your person choice.



Jihad, conquest, and conversion were the finalization of Islam as proven Qur'an chronology, by authentic ahadith, and substantiated historic events. All of which backed by caliphs, sahabas, and scholars.

reply to post by Sahabi

I'm sorry, what?

You say you were a muslim, yes? I'm sure you've actually read Surah at-Tawba, yes? How exactly is it calling for perpetual anything, when, including your "verse of the sword", it is littered with qualifiers that put it in the context of the events that were happening at the time?

Go ahead and reread it right now, and try your best, if you can, to make it an eternal commandment. When you do, please do explain to me how I am supposed to be freed from the obligations of alliances I made with pagans if I wasn't meant to make alliances with pagans. And if I was, only to then be freed from them, at what point would that be? But then it says I'm not freed from the alliances I made with pagans who didn't subsequently break them. So now what? And how exactly am I supposed to "roam back and forth across the land" for 4 months eternally? That would indeed be quite a jihad!

The entire Quran is meant as a message to all mankind for all time, certainly, but it also has verses specifically references specific times. Not to say that those verses are useless to us, of course. If we find ourselves in a situation similar to the muslims back then ("..people who violated their treaties, and took the aggressive by being the first to attack", etc.), those verses would be very relevant.

reply to post by babloyi


Perpetual, yes indeed!

Further substantiated by the examples of Muhammad and his "Rightly Guided Caliphs". After peace was abrogated for jihad, conversion, and conquest,.... there weren't anymore warm and fuzzy moments of tolerance. Just the military expansion of the Islamic empire.


Ever since you broke our long and ongoing discussions with your negative and rude tone to me,... I have lost interest in speaking with you. I hope that you can remember I never insulted or disrespected you.

reply to post by babloyi

I don't believe I spoke in a negative tone to you before. In the case of me referring to your ignorance, a person maybe ignorant of something, but it isn't an intentional wrong that they did, or a derogatory remark against them.

And technically, Allah (in the Quran) DENIED abrogation. Go look up where the word "nansakh" appears in the Quran.

I have no real issue with abrogation, but the idea has to be applied properly, and I am certainly not in a minority thinking that the medieval jurists with their obsession with throwing about "abrogation" left and right (at the peak, some 500 verses were abrogated, a thing which no scholar today agrees with) were wrong. Abrogation would exist where there is a clear statement of abrogation, not exist on the personal opinions of those who can't be bothered to read and understand the text.

I am sorry, whatever you may have believed before, but in this matter, it is not me who is in the minority.

reply to post by babloyi


It is not merely "medieval scholars" who equated Chapter 9 with the abrogation of peace for jihad. It was Allah, it was Muhammad, it was the sahaba, it was the caliphs.

And all of the historic examples thereafter prove of the militaristic jihad. Although some battles were legitimately fought in self-defense,..... IT CAN NOT BE DENIED the many battles that were waged preemptively and unprovoked against non-Muslims. These campaigns ordered by Muhammad and his successors.




P.S.

For crying out loud, Muhammad setup his believers with the anticipation of an End Times genocide against the Jews.

Perpetuation much!!!!

reply to post by Sahabi

I'm sorry, no it wasn't. If you want to push that point, please provide evidence.

The change in ruling on direction of prayer: We have ahadith that give it in detail.
The change in ruling on alcohol: We have ahadith that give it in detail.
The change in ruling on attitude and treatment to non-belligerent non-muslims: Doesn't exist, unless someone really wants to twist the meanings of the verses.
And no, I'm not asking for ahadith that state the revelation of verses of Surah At-Tawba, I am talking about ahadith that state those as an unequivocal change in the attitude that was established by previous verses- similar to the two examples I gave.

Instead, we have Ibn Umar's response when confronted with this question:

Bukhari, Book 60, #40:
and:--" And fight them till there is no more affliction (i.e. no more worshiping of others along with Allah)." Ibn 'Umar said, "We did it, during the lifetime of Allah's Apostle when Islam had only a few followers. A (Muslim) man would be put to trial because of his religion; he would either be killed or tortured. But when the Muslims increased, there was no more afflictions or oppressions."

If you're going to talk about "Historical Examples", then I don't think any religion is free from violence, and heck, Christianity is the most bloodthirsty religion in existence. Except....those examples lie outside of scripture, and no christian is going to accept them.

buster2010

pstrron
It doesn't refer to Jew's or Christians as friends. Anyone that is not a Muslim is considered an infidel and if they refuse to convert, worthy of death. They do however believe that Jesus was a prophet yet refuse to do what he said. There are major differences between all three.

Keep spreading that Christian propaganda. All the people that lives in Muslim nations that aren't Muslim proves the convert or die is just BS.

No it just proves you don't know anything about those countries. Look at the "Convert or Die" raids that are ongoing in Syria now against the Christians by the Rebels.

Christianity was a majority religion in the Middle East/North Africa until about the 1800s...which is why the Muslims never tried to exterminate them completely until now.

reply to post by FreeMason


You do realize that the Headquarters for the US Navy's 5th Fleet is in a very Muslim nation, right? (Bahrain). Additionally, major U.S. support and command facilities exist in Dubai and Qatar. We won't even get into Kuwait whom I think we'd have to insult on the deepest level possible to erase good will made in 1991.

All very Muslim nations though. All hosting small or large U.S. (Great Satan...to some radical Muslims) military forces.

How would that be happening, if convert or die was the belief and general mindset of a majority and not minority of the Muslim world? There are contradictions that argument creates that just don't go away so easily, IMO.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000



Well I promise not to kill Neno in his sleep!

No...United States is definitely seen as the great satan by even some moderates... But this meaning is greatly misunderstood as the reference is NOT to the people but to the government... The Spirit which is above the government is one of great evil or so it is seen as such.

There be proof for this according to Christianity as well... but this is concerning the system, not its people



Ever notice some conversations the United States is referenced and others America is?

reply to post by FlyersFan

Even though Christianity isn't polytheistic there are some people who are THICK HEADED and refuse to understand or acknowledge the fact that Christianity believes in ONE GOD Who appears in three manifestations - God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. ONE GOD ... three manifestations.

And there are some thickheaded people who insist that 3 = 1. Forget religion, thats 1st grade maths that you seem to be struggling with.

You don't even believe Jesus was born of a virgin and that his body rose to heaven, so why even bother?

sk0rpi0n
reply to post by FlyersFan

 

Even though Christianity isn't polytheistic there are some people who are THICK HEADED and refuse to understand or acknowledge the fact that Christianity believes in ONE GOD Who appears in three manifestations - God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. ONE GOD ... three manifestations.

And there are some thickheaded people who insist that 3 = 1. Forget religion, thats 1st grade maths that you seem to be struggling with.

You don't even believe Jesus was born of a virgin and that his body rose to heaven, so why even bother?

Your body i s made of three parts isnt it? Your mind,body and soul correct? Does that make you 3 seperate people?