Comparative Religious Teachings on War and Peace

Berrin

Quote:

• Comparative Religious Teachings on
  WAR AND PEACE
  TEACHINGS OF JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY ABOUT WAR
  ... The question ... arises - Can it ever be right to fight for a faith? Let us, therefore, turn to this question.
  The teaching of religion on the subject of war takes different forms... Moses is commanded to enter the land of Canaan by force, to defeat its population and to settle his own people in it (Deut. 20:10-18] .In spite of this teaching in the Book of Moses, and in spite of its reinforcement by practical example of the Prophets Joshua, David and others, Jews and Christians continue to hold their Prophets in reverence and to regard their books as the Books of God.
  At the end of the Mosaic tradition, we had Jesus who taught;
  But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also (Matthew 5-39)
  Christians have often cited this teaching of Jesus and argued that Jesus preached against war. But in the New Testament, we have passages which purport to teach quite the opposite. One passage, for instance, says:
  Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword (Matthew 10:34)
  And another passage says:
  Then said he unto them. But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one (Luke 22:36)
  Of the three verses the last two contradict the first. If Jesus came for war, why did he teach about turning the other cheek? It seems we have either to admit a contradiction in the New Testament, or we have to explain one of the contradictory teachings in a suitable manner. We are not concerned here with the question whether turning the other cheek can ever be practicable. We are concerned only to point out that, throughout their long history, no Christian people have ever hesitated to make war. When Christians first attained to power in Rome, they took part in wars both defensive and aggressive. They are dominant powers in the world today, and they continue to take part in wars both defensive and aggressive. Only now the side which wins is canonized by the rest of the Christian world. Their victory is said to be the victory of Christian civilization. Christian civilization has come to mean whatever tends to be dominant and successful. When two Christian powers go to war, each claims to be the protector of Christian ideals. The power which wins is canonized as the true Christian power. It is true, however, that from the time of Jesus to our time, Christendom has been involved-and indications are that it will continue to remain involved-in war. The practical verdict of the Christian peoples, therefore, is that war is the real teaching of the New Testament, and that turning the other cheek was either an opportunist teaching dictated by the helplessness of early Christians, or it is meant to apply only to individuals, not to States and peoples.
  Secondly, even if we assume that Jesus taught peace and not war, it does not follow that those who do not act upon this teaching are not holy and honored. For Christendom has ever revered exponents of war such as Moses, Joshua and David. Not only this, the Church itself has canonized national heroes who suffered in wars. They were made saints by the Popes.
  THE QURAN ON WAR AND PEACE
  The teaching of Islam is different from both these teachings. It strikes a mean between the two. Islam does not teach aggression as did Moses. Nor does it, like present-day (and presumably corrupt) Christianity, preach a contradiction. It does not ask us to turn the other cheek and at the same time to sell our clothes to buy a sword. The teaching of Islam fits into the natural instincts of man, and promotes peace in the only possible way.
  Islam forbids aggression, but it urges us to fight if failure to fight jeopardizes peace and promotes war. If failure to fight means the extirpation of free belief and of the search of truth, it is our duty to fight. This is the teaching on which peace can ultimately be built, and this is the teaching on which the Prophet based his own policies and his practice. The Prophet suffered continuously and consistently at Mecca but did not fight the aggression of which he was an innocent victim. When he escaped to Medina, the enemy was out to extirpate Islam; it was, therefore, necessary to fight the enemy in defense of truth and freedom of belief.
  We quote below the passages in the Quran which bear on the subject of war.
  (1) In 22:40-42 we have:
  Permission to fight is given to those against whom war is made, because they have been wronged-and Allah indeed has power to help them-Those who have been driven out from their homes unjustly only because they said, "Our Lord is Allah"-And if Allah did not repel some men by means of others, there would surely have been pulled down cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques, wherein the name of Allah is oft commemorated. And Allah will surely help one who helps Him. Allah is indeed Powerful, Mighty.-Those who, if We establish them in the earth, will observe Prayer and pay the Zakat and enjoin good and forbid evil. And with Allah rests the final issue of all affairs.
  The verse purports to say that permission to fight is given to the victims of aggression. God is well able to help the victims-those who have been driven out of their homes because of their beliefs. The permission is wise because, if God were not to repel the cruel with the help of the righteous, there would be no freedom of faith and worship in the world. God must help those who help to establish freedom of worship. It follows that fighting is permitted when a people have suffered long from wanton aggression-when the aggressor has had no cause for aggression and he seeks to interfere with the religion of his victim. The duty of the victim, if and when he attains to power, is to establish religious freedom and to protect all religions and all religious places. His power is to be used not for his own glorification, but for the care of the poor, the progress of the country and the general promotion of peace. This teaching is as unexceptionable as it is clear and precise. It proclaims the fact that early Muslims took to war because they were constrained to do so. Aggressive wars were forbidden by Islam. Muslims are promised political power, but are warned that this power must be used not for self-aggrandizement, but for the amelioration of the poor and the promotion of peace and progress.
  (2) In (2:191-194) we have:
  And fight in the cause of Allah against those who fight against you, but do not transgress. Surely, Allah loves not 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, 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 professed for Allah. But if they desist, then remember that no hostility is allowed except against the aggressors.
  Fighting is to be for the sake of God, not for our own sake or out of anger or aggrandizement, and even fighting is to be free from excesses, for excesses are displeasing to God. Fighting is between parties of combatants. Assaults on individuals are forbidden. Aggression against a religion is to be met by active resistance, for such aggression is worse than bloodshed. Muslims are not to fight near the Sacred Mosque, unless an attack is first made by the enemy. Fighting near the Sacred Mosque interferes with the public right of pilgrimage. But if the enemy attacks, Muslims are free to reply, this being the just reward of aggression. But if the enemy desists, Muslims must desist also, and forgive and forget the past. Fighting is to continue so long as religious persecution lasts and religious freedom is not established. Religion is for God. The use of force or pressure in religion is wrong. If the Kafirs desist from it and make religion free, Muslims are to desist from fighting the Kafirs. Arms are to be taken up against those who commit excesses. When excesses cease, fighting must cease also.
  Categorically, we may say, the verses teach the following rules:
  i. War is to be resorted to only for the sake of God and not for the sake of any selfish motives, not for aggrandizement or for the advancement of any other interests.
  ii. We can go to war only against one who attacks us first.
  iii. We can fight only those who fight against us. We cannot fight against those who take no part in warfare.
  iv. Even after the enemy has initiated the attack, it is our duty to keep warfare within limits. To extend the war, either territorially or in respect of weapons used, is wrong.
  v. We are to fight only a regular army charged by the enemy to fight on his side. We are not to fight others on the enemy side.
  vi. In warfare immunity is to be afforded to all religious rites and observances. If the enemy spares the places where religious ceremonies are held, then Muslims also must desist from fighting in such places.
  vii. If the enemy uses a place of worship as a base for attack, then Muslims may return the attack. No blame will attach to them if they do so. No fighting is allowed even in the neighborhood of religious places. To attack religious places and to destroy them or to do any kind of harm to them is absolutely forbidden. A religious place used as a base of operations may invite a counter-attack. The responsibility for any harm done to the place will then rest with the enemy, not with Muslims.
  viii. If the enemy realizes the danger and the mistake of using a religious place as a base, and changes the battle-front, then Muslims must conform to the change. The fact that the enemy started the attack from a religious place is not to be used as an excuse for attacking that place. Out of reverence Muslims must change their battle-front as soon as the enemy does so.
  ix. Fighting is to continue only so long as interference with religion and religious freedom lasts. When religion becomes free and interference with it is no longer permitted and the enemy declares and begins to act accordingly, then there is to be no war, even if it is the enemy who starts it.
  (3) In 8:39-41 we have:
  Say to those who disbelieve, if they desist, that which is past will be forgiven them; and if they return thereto, then verily the example of the former people has already gone before them. And fight them until there is no persecution and religion is wholly for Allah. But if they desist, then surely Allah is Watchful of what they do. And if they turn their backs, then know that Allah is your Protector. What an excellent Protector and what an excellent Helper.
  That is to say, wars have been forced upon Muslims. But if the enemy desists, it is the duty of Muslims to desist also, and forgive the past. But if the enemy does not desist and attacks Muslims again and again, then he should remember the fate of the enemies of earlier Prophets. Muslims are to fight, while religious persecution lasts, and so long as religion is not for God and interference in religious matters is not abandoned. When the aggressor desists, Muslims are to desist also. They are not to continue the war because the enemy believes in a false religion. The value of beliefs and actions is well known to God and He will reward them as He pleases. Muslims have no right to meddle with another people's religion even if that religion seems to them to be false. If after an offer of peace the enemy continues to make war, then Muslims may be sure of victory even though their numbers are small. For God will help them and who can help better than God?
  These verses were revealed in connection with the Battle of Badr. This battle was the first regular fight between Muslims and disbelievers. In it Muslims were the victims of unprovoked aggression. The enemy had chosen to disturb the peace of Medina and of the territory around. In spite of this, victory went to the Muslims and important leaders of the enemy were killed. To retaliate against such unprovoked aggression seems natural, just and necessary. Yet Muslims are taught to stop fighting as soon as the enemy ceases it. All that the enemy is required to concede is freedom of belief and worship.
  (4) In 8:62-63 we have:
  And if they incline towards peace, incline thou also towards it, and put thy trust in Allah. Surely, it is He Who is All-Hearing, All-Knowing. And if they intend to deceive thee, then surely Allah is sufficient for thee. He it is Who has strengthened thee with His help and with the believers.
  That is to say, if in the course of a battle the disbelievers at any time incline towards peace, Muslims are to accept the offer at once and to make peace. Muslims are to do so even at the risk of being deceived. They are to put their trust in God. Cheating will not avail against Muslims, who rely on the help of God. Their victories are due not to themselves but to God. In the darkest and most difficult times, God has stood by the Prophet and his followers. So will He stand by them against cheats. An offer of peace is to be accepted. It is not to be rejected on the plea that it may only be a ruse with which the enemy seeks to gain time for a fresh attack.
  The stress on peace in the verses is not without significance. It anticipates the peace which the Prophet signed at Hudaibiya. The Prophet is warned that a time will come when the enemy will sue for peace. The offer is not to be turned down on the ground that the enemy was the aggressor and had committed excesses, or that he cannot be trusted. The straight path inculcated by Islam requires a Muslim to accept an offer of peace. Both piety and policy make the acceptance desirable.
  (5) In 4:95 we have:
  O ye who believe! when you go forth in the cause of Allah, make proper investigation and say not to anyone who greets you with the greeting of peace, "Thou art not a believer." You seek the goods of this life, but with Allah are good things in plenty. Such were you before this, but Allah conferred His favor on you; so do make proper investigation. Surely, Allah is well aware of what you do.
  That is to say, when Muslims go out for war, they are to make sure that the unreasonableness of war has been explained to the enemy and that he still wants war. Even so, if a proposal of peace is received from an individual or a group, Muslims are not to turn it down on the plea that it is not honest. If Muslims turn down proposals of peace, they will not be fighting for God, but for self-aggrandizement and worldly gain. Just as religion comes from God, worldly gain and glory also come from Him. Killing is not to be the aim. One whom we wish to kill today may be guided tomorrow. Could Muslims have become Muslims if they had not been spared? Muslims are to abstain from killing because lives spared may turn out to be lives guided. God is well aware of what men do and to what ends and with what motives they do it.
  The verse teaches that even after war has begun, it is the duty of Muslims to satisfy themselves that the enemy is bent upon aggression. It often happens that no aggression is intended but that out of excitement and fear the enemy has started preparations for war. Unless Muslims are satisfied that an aggressive attack has been planned by the enemy, they are not to go to war. If it turns out, or if the enemy claims, that his preparations are for self-defense, Muslims are to accept the claim and desist from war. They are not to argue that the enemy preparations point to nothing but aggression; maybe he intended aggression, but his intention has changed. Are not intentions and motives continually changing? Did not enemies of Islam become friends?
  (6) On the inviolability of treaties the Quran says clearly:
  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 (9:4)
  Pagans, who enter into a pact with Muslims, keep the pact and do not help the enemy against Muslims, are to have reciprocal treatment from Muslims. Piety requires that Muslims should fulfill their part of a pact in the letter as well as the spirit.
  (7) Of an enemy at war with Muslims who wishes to study the Message of Islam, the Quran orders:
  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 (9:6)
  That is to say, if any of those at war with Muslims seek refuge with Muslims in order to study Islam and ponder over its Message, they are to have refuge with Muslims for such time as may be reasonably necessary for such a purpose.
  (8] Of prisoners of war, the Quran teaches:
  It does not behoove a Prophet that he should have captives until he engages in a regular fighting in the land. You desire the goods of the world, while Allah desires for you the Hereafter. And Allah is Mighty, Wise (8:68]
  That is to say, it does not become a Prophet to make prisoners of his enemy save as a result of regular war involving much bloodshed. The system of making prisoners of enemy tribes without war and bloodshed practiced until-and even after-the advent of Islam, is here made unlawful. Prisoners can be taken only from combatants and after a battle.
  (9) Rules for the release of prisoners are also laid down. Thus we have:
  Then afterwards either release them as a favor or by taking ransom-until the war lays down its burdens (47:5)
  The best thing, according to Islam, is to let off prisoners without asking for ransom. As this is not always possible, release by ransom is also provided for.
  (10) There is provision for prisoners of war who are unable themselves to pay, and who have none who can or will pay, for their release. Often, relations are able to pay, but do not, because they prefer to let their relations remain prisoners-possibly with the intention of misappropriating their property in their absence. This provision is contained in the Quran:
  
  And such as desire a deed of manumission from among those whom your right hands possess, write it for them, if you know any good in them; and give them out of the wealth of Allah which He has bestowed upon You (24:34)
  That is, those who do not deserve to be released without ransom but who have no one to pay ransom for them-if they still ask for their freedom-can obtain it by signing an undertaking that, if allowed to work and earn, they will pay their ransom. They are to be allowed to do so, however, only if their competence to work and earn is reasonably certain. If their competence is proved, they should even have financial help from Muslims in their effort to work and earn. Individual Muslims who can afford to do so should pay; or, public subscription should be raised to put these unfortunates on their feet.
  The passages from the Quran which we have quoted above contain the teaching of Islam on the subject of war and peace. They tell us in what circumstances, according to Islam, is it right to go to war and what limits have to be observed by Muslims when they make war.
  THE PROPHET'S PRECEPTS ABOUT WAR
  Muslim teaching, however, does not consist only of precepts laid down in the Quran. It also includes the precepts and example of the Prophet. What he did or what he taught in concrete situations is also an essential part of the Islamic teaching. We append here some sayings of the Prophet on the subject of war and peace.
  i. Muslims are forbidden altogether to mutilate the dead (Muslim).
  ii. Muslims are forbidden to resort to cheating (Muslim).
  iii. Children are not to be killed, nor women (Muslim).
  iv. Priests and religious functionaries and religious leaders are not to be interfered with (Ôaªavi).
  
  v. The old and decrepit and women and children are not to be killed. The possibility of peace should always be kept in view (Abu Dawud).
  vi. When Muslims enter enemy territory, they should not strike terror into the general population. They should permit no ill-treatment of common folk (Muslim).
  
  vii. A Muslim army should not camp in a place where it causes inconvenience to the general public. When it marches it should take care not to block the road nor cause discomfort to other wayfarers.
  
  viii. No disfigurement of face is to be permitted (Bukhari and Muslim).
  
  ix. The least possible losses should be inflicted upon the enemy (Abu Dawud).
  x. When prisoners of war are put under guard, those closely related should be placed together (Abu Dawud).
  xi. Prisoners should live in comfort. Muslims should care more for the comfort of their prisoners than for their own (Tirmidhi).
  
  xii. Emissaries and delegates from other countries should be held in great respect. Any mistakes or discourtesies they commit should be ignored (Abu Dawud, Kitab al-Jihad).
  
  xiii. If a Muslim commits the sin of ill-treating a prisoner of war, atonement is to be made by releasing the prisoner without ransom.
  xiv. When a Muslim takes charge of a prisoner of war, the latter is to be fed and clothed in the same way as the Muslim himself (Bukhari).
  The Holy Prophet was so insistent on these rules for a fighting army that he declared that whoever did not observe these rules, would fight not for God but for his own mean self (Abu Dawud).
  Abu Bakr, the First Khalifa of Islam, supplemented these commands of the Prophet by some of his own. One of these commands appended here also constitutes part of the Muslim teaching:
  xv. Public buildings and fruit-bearing trees (and food crops) are not to be damaged (Mu'aÕÕa).
  From the sayings of the Prophet and the commands of the First Khalifa of Islam it is evident that Islam has instituted steps which have the effect of preventing or stopping a war or reducing its evil. As we have said before, the principles which Islam teaches are not pious precepts only; they have their practical illustration in the example of the Prophet and the early Khalifas of Islam. As all the world knows, the Prophet not only taught these principles; he practiced them and insisted on their observance.
  Turning to our own time we must say that no other teaching seems able to solve the problem of war and peace. The teaching of Moses is far from our conceptions of justice and fair play. Nor is it possible to act upon that teaching today. The teaching of Jesus is impracticable and has ever been so. Never in their history have Christians tried to put this teaching into practice. Only the teaching of Islam is practicable; one which has been both preached and practiced by its exponents, and the practice of which can create and maintain peace in the world.
  In our time, Mr. Gandhi apparently taught that even when war is forced on us we should not go to war. We should not fight. But this teaching has not been put into practice at any time in the history of the world. It has never been put in the crucible and tested. It is impossible; therefore, to say what value this teaching may have in terms of war and peace. Mr. Gandhi lived long enough to see the Indian Congress attain to political independence. Yet the Congress Government has not disbanded either the army or the other armed forces of India. It is only making plans for their Indianization. It also has plans for the reinstatement of those Indian officers who constituted themselves into the Indian National Army (and who were dismissed by the British authorities) during the Japanese attack on Burma and India in the last stages of the recent World War. Mr. Gandhi has himself, on many occasions, raised his voice in extenuation of crimes of violence, and urged the release of those who committed such crimes. This shows at least that Mr. Gandhi's teaching cannot be put into practice and that Mr. Gandhi knows it as well as all his followers. No practical example at least has been offered to show the world how non-violence can be applied when armed disputes arise between nation and nation and State and State, or how non-violence can prevent or stop a war. To preach a method of stopping wars, but never to be able to afford a practical illustration of that method indicates that the method is impracticable. It would, therefore, seem that human experience and human wisdom point to only one method of preventing or stopping war; and that method was taught and practiced by the Prophet of Islam.
  Life of Muhammad, pp. 95-105,
  Islam International Publications, U.K., 1990.

event horizon I addressed this silly piece when shafique first copy-pastied the article on another forum. It should speak volumes that this author chooses to ignore the difficult to reconcile Koranic passages which clearly call for warfare against unbelievers, such 9:29 and a host of other violent and militant passages. I agree with the Qadiani writer that Muslims must (should) choose which passages to follow and ignore the violent teachings of the Koran. event horizon

Quote:

• xv. Public buildings and fruit-bearing trees (and food crops) are not to be damaged (Mu'aÕÕa).

Unfortunately, the facts show that Muhammad and his predecessors did indeed destroy crops and fruit-bearing trees to punish a civilian population. This was already discussed before and it was agreed that Muhammad carried out collective punishment was, therefore, a war criminal.

Quote:

• From the sayings of the Prophet and the commands of the First Khalifa of Islam it is evident that Islam has instituted steps which have the effect of preventing or stopping a war or reducing its evil.

Summon the people to God; those who respond to your call, accept it from them, but those who refuse must pay the poll tax out of humiliation and lowliness. If they refuse this, it is the sword without leniency. Fear God with regard to what you have been entrusted.[7]
Umar ibn al-Khattab during the conquest of al-Basrah (636 CE)
:( shafique Thanks Berrin - many clear commandments and verifiable references. Thanks also to eh - it is always good for people to compare and contrast the teachings of Islam with what critics of Islam say its teachings are. One keeps seeing that the critics have to rely on very selective quotes and ignore the totality of the Islamic teachings - but as you showed in your 'contradictions in Koran' thread - the Quran when read in context does contradict Orientalist fantasies about Islamic teachings. The silence about the references to what the Bible teaches about war also speaks volumes. Cheers, Shafique dattaswami [color=blue] World Peace & Removal of Terrorism
[/color]
There are two root causes for the entire chaos and terrorism in this world. One is the thirst for earning money and the other is the religious fanatic. Due to money, people are quarreling, hereas due to religion, countries are quarreling. Unless these two root causes are eradicated we cannot achieve world peace. The tree will not die by cutting leaves and branches. It dies only by cutting its roots. There is no use in earning the extra money. Due to excess money, quarrels, mental worries and several other problems arise. Finally, it ends in loss only and not in any profit. You have to leave all this extra money here only and quit this world alone. Your issues may lose that money given by you. Such sinful extra money brings problems not only to you but also to your children. Neither yourself nor your children will be happy and peaceful. This entire world is the property of God and take whatever is required from it. This is said in Gita, (“Yavanartha….”).
In these days, buffet system is followed during feasts. In this system, large vessels contain various food items and people take food from these vessels according to their requirement. Similarly, God created this entire world and you can take the wealth from it according to your requirement. People are not following the same system when they are taking wealth from this world. The peculiarity is that most rich people follow this buffet system in the feasts but do not follow the same when it comes to earning the money. ‘Esavasya Upanishad’ says that one should return back this extra money to the Lord. Otherwise, the Lord will give the troubles.
In buffet system, if one takes extra food in his plate by over ambition and ignorance for a moment, he returns back immediately before starting eating. Veda says that you must return back the extra money for the God’s work if taken by ignorance. In the buffet system if you eat the extra food, you will suffer from diseases. Similarly, if you enjoy the extra money, God will punish you in several ways.
In this world, people belonging to any religion think that their religion only is the true religion. They think that the God of their religion can alone give the salvation and the worship of that God should be according to their religion only. They also condemn other religions and invite people to convert people into their religion. They do lot of work to establish their religion only in the entire world which shows their ambition. It is just like Alexander’s ambition to make the entire world his kingdom. Alexander wanted to extend his kingdom. But, even he returned back after fighting with Porus (Purushotama) on seeing the loss of life in the battle. But, the ambition of religious fanatics is not subsided on seeing any amount of loss of life. Religion is considered to be backed with spiritual knowledge and the religious people are expected to be free from ambition. We can excuse ambition of any ignorant person like Alexander.
The heart of a religious fanatic will not change by any amount of kindness or love expressed in the appeals. Such appeals can change only the heart and the change in the heart is always temporary. Change in the intelligence brought by knowledge based on logic is always real and permanent. Intelligence (Buddhi) is considered to be the driver of this body, which is like a chariot running by the senses, which are like the horses. If the driver is convinced, the entire chariot along with the horses is in the correct path. The terrorist will not change by love or kindness shown to him. He becomes the terrorist due to the wrong knowledge that enters his brain. He was convinced by that knowledge. That knowledge can be changed only by the right knowledge. A diamond can only be cut by another diamond. Similarly, one type of knowledge can only be replaced by another type of knowledge. Then only, he will be convinced and changed forever.
So far, the trials made to change the terrorist were beating around the bush and therefore, they did not have much effect. Today, SRI GURU DATTA is giving the right knowledge to remove the religious conservatism. event horizon

Quote:

• The silence about the references to what the Bible teaches about war also speaks volumes.

I already laughed at the article the first time around.
But I agree with you that it speaks volumes that none of the violent passages calling for perpetual jihad warfare in the Koran have been addressed. shafique :lol: Still swimming in Egypt I see - always in de-nile. ;) Cheers, Shafique Berrin

Quote:

• The Concept of war in the Holy Book
  By: Dr Zeinb Abd Alziz
  French Civilization professor
  Translated By: Magdy Abd AL-Shafy
  Nowadays, every bad picture is given to the Muslims and Islam and in the same time feverish attempts to Christianize the Islamic world are going on. In this short article, we will pour some lights on the cultural background that governed spreading Christianity in Europe,
  or, in other words if, you review some of verses that were followed while spreading Christianity, you will understand why every military campaign ,now, is always accompanied with Christian missionaries. Also, we believe in the Holy Book as the word of God but the one we have now is in most of its parts is not the word of God. Also, we believe that these verses were inserted in the holy Book, just like many things that were either inserted or deleted or moved to another place. Contrary to what was followed and done before concerning spreading Christianity, Now, preaching Christianity became rampant. The malicious goal that lies in their aim is forminga sectarian fanatic European Union.
  No doubt, any Holy book form the behavior and the identity of its adherents; it is important to review some verses in the old and New testament that direct and guide the conduct of its adherents.
  (1)And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.(Joshua ,6:20-21)
  (2)And they burnt the city with fire, and all that was therein: only the silver, and the gold, and the vessels of brass and of iron, they put into the treasury of the house of the LORD.( Joshua:6-24)
  (3)The righteous shall rejoice when he sees the vengeance. He shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked; (psalm, 58:10)
  (4) Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.( Samuel(1),3:15)
  (5)…….and to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity: 6: Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house. (Ezekiel ,5:9)
  (6)Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.(Numbers :31:17-18]
  (7)15: Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword.
  (8)Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.( Isaiah :13:15:16)
  This policy is applied now in Palestine and Iraq.
  We would like to pose this question to the present pope, who insist on imposing the personality of Jesus as a god and imposing that kind of Christendom that Jesus never knew and who chanted words that reflect how kind was Jesus’ heart was, If Jesus is such kind hearted man, who inserted these verses ?
  (9)But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.(Luke:19:17)
  How fearful is this verse, this verse that makes God’s prophet a bloody one, who enjoys looking at his enemies while they are slaughtered before his eyes.
  There are other verses that implies two things in the same time; the cruelty in dealing with those they invaded their countries and the other is distorting the holy passages. The following verse is a case in point
  (10)And he brought forth the people that were therein, and put them under saws, and under harrows of iron, and under axes of iron, and made them pass through the brick-kiln: and thus did he unto all the cities of the children of Ammon. So David and all the people returned unto Jerusalem.(Samuel:12-13)
  To dilute the effect of this fearful verse, the French Holy Bible ,Bayer version, say “ he took a lot of war spoils from the city and asked them if they could work with saws ,harrows of iron and axes of iron.”
  How could the Christian world accept to believe in passages only imposed on people in the successive synods and it remained as so till it was declared in Vatican synod(11) that some of these are old-worn passages, i.e, some are not good to use. There are a lot of holy verses that order them not only to kill but also to eat the flesh of those they killed. This was practiced during the first Crusade war, Lnouniem ,a famous French historian, who was contemporary to the first Crusades war recorded such acts in his annals, read the following holy verse:
  (11)And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword. But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee. Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations. (Deuteronomy,14:16-20) .The word “spoils” was inserted in the text instead of another word which means” eat from your enemy flesh, it was like this in Arabic Bible till 1671 and then it was replaced with what could means spoils, it is worth nothing that the word remains as it is in the French Bible; it is “dépouilles”, which means” the dead corpses”, that is ,eat from the corpses of the dead whom you slew by the sword.
  This what was handed down to the church through generation, that church which opinionatedly insists on adding the attribute of sadism to whom it deifies in the fourth century. Though we read in the bibles an implied percept in which Jesus orders his disciples to eat his flesh and drink his blood, we find another palpably order from Jesus in John:
  Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.(John:6:53-56)
  There is a great difference between the Holy Quran and the Holy Bible concerning the personality of Jesus. He is a prophet from God and was sent to convey the message of monotheism to his people .
  The mention of magedeaths ,massacres in the Holy Book coupled with orders of destruction, eradication ,changing the demography of the areas conquered are palpably in the Holy Book, nothing could outnumber or equate these massacres but the atrocities of the wars of the American marines in Iraq and Afghanistan within the sight and the hear of the international society but it seems that this society was imbibed by these instructions and it seems that the false allegation that they attribute to the Muslims has become deeply- entrenched in their nature and it seems that no effective resolution could be taken to foil and abort all these attempts of eradicating the Islamic world.
  A sign from the past
  There is a conclusive evidence whist testifies to this fact; it is a church by the name Sdleitus in Conta Houra in the Czech Republic, it is a church which is decorated with the bones of more than 40.000 skeletons who were killed in holy wars. Those who read the history quite well know well how Christianity was imposed on people and that they had to accept it because there were no other choice but death, in this connection, books of history still relates to us how Christianity was spread.
  These bones, be it for Moslems who were killed in the Crusades as some sources say or for protestants who were exterminated during the war that the church launched against is evidence to how the church imposed its opinion and Christianity. Yan Hiss and his followers story is still afloat here and there, he refused Indulgence that was sold for remitting the sins, the Holy communion and luxurious dresses of the priests and their wealth and he used to accuse the church of being aloof from the teachings of Jesus, so he was condemned in the synod of 1414 and he was burnt alive and thousands of his adherents were exterminated.
  How awful and flagrant texts and historical stories that ensued the American political Christian tool that spares no effort to exterminate the others and they even brag about this.
  Why don’t they stop preaching a distorted doctrine, why don’t they desist calling the world to such Trinity that the early Christians didn’t know and it was only invented and protected by synods resolutions.

shafique I think it is a good thing that the Quran has corrected the erroneous views of the Talmud - don't you? I mean, look what would happen if we took the passages above literally - all the Jewish people would be going round killing innocent civilians - and using their scripture to justify these acts. Pretty much like Baruch Goldstein - the Jewish terrorist that is venerated by some and whom you refuse to condemn as a religious terrorist. Thanks to Berrin for posting the comparative teachings of Islam and Christianity and Judaism on this subject. The comparison is stark, not least between the hate-filled rhetoric and reality when it comes to the respective teachings. Cheers, Shafique event horizon

• shafique wrote:
  :lol:
  Still swimming in Egypt I see - always in de-nile. ;)
  Cheers,
  Shafique

My bad, I must have missed where the author addresses the violent passages as opposed to citing the contradictory verses in the Koran - which I already knew were present.

1 Dubai Jobs .com The First Place to Find a Job in Dubai
shafique :lol: The denial, as you well know, was about the violent passages in the Bible. But hey, I was not surprised you chose not to address these - you can't bring yourself to condemn Baruch Goldstein and his supporters who use the Bible to justify terrorism. It appears that the only religion you are prepared to criticise is Islam. Cheers, Shafique event horizon I already explained this to you last time around. This was when you pontificated on the Talmud but were unaware of what it actually was. But thanks again for reminding me of that incident. Berrin well this article about Talmud's contribution to world peace is even better contrast to understand islam's position for peace and war..
This article has some page images of the book of Talmud and Zohar to read...but can't be pasted here and can be read for the article source
I wonder if hitler was aware of these passages and if these passages were his motivations of his actions towards the jews in and around his country...Who knows?

Quote:

• HAVE YOU READ THE TALMUD LATELY?
  By Rev. Ted Pike
  In my last e-alert, I was the bearer of bad news: Deep within Judaism's most sacred rabbinic writings, the Talmud and Zohar (Kabbalah), there exists the obligation to overthrow existing Gentile and Christian society and establish a “new Jewish order.” Such Judaic teaching powerfully diminishes the value of Gentile lives, particularly today in Israel’s occupied territories and Lebanon.
  I was consequently vilified by a number of readers. One asked, “Where do you get this trash?” He said that if he needed to know the dark side of Judaism, he’d rather do it from Mein Kampf!
  The truth is that, with the possible exception of some secular Jewish congregations, every synagogue in the world contains the Talmud and Zohar. It’s from these works that my assertions came. They are the two most important sources of inspired literature for observant Jews, greatly surpassing the Bible. The Talmud however, is the most universally read and applied.
  Herman Wouk, Orthodox Jew and famed author of The Cain Mutiny, affirms, “The Talmud is to this day the circulating heart’s blood of the Jewish religion. Whatever laws, customs, ceremonies we observe—whether we are Orthodox, Conservative, Reform or merely spasmodic sentimentalists—we follow the Talmud. It is our common law.” 1
  One would think that religious literature so centrally important to one of the world’s great religions would be easily located in local libraries. It is certainly easy to find the Bible or Koran.
  Not so the Talmud. While the very largest municipal libraries in a state may possess the Talmud and Zohar, they are almost always absent elsewhere, except in synagogues. In almost every synagogue in the world, the Talmud and Zohar loom above every other piece of literature in authority and appreciation.
  Why are library shelves vacant of the Talmud and Zohar? Quite simply, it’s because Judaism teaches that the law they contain was given to Jews alone and it’s wrong for Gentiles to read that law. The Talmud says, “The goy who pries into the law is worthy of death.” 2
  The Jewish Encyclopedia tells us, “Hence the Talmud prohibited the teaching to a Gentile of the Torah [Talmud and Zohar] “the inheritance of the congregation of Jacob…” R. Johanan says of one so teaching, “Such a person deserves death.”—Sanh. 59a, Hagigah.” 3
  Accordingly, Jewish leaders make it clear to Christian seminaries and scholars that they will not tolerate published research into the Talmud’s real teachings about Christ, Christianity, and Gentiles. Christian academics obey, terrified of being smeared as “anti-Semites.”
  In the early '80s, as part of research for my book, Israel: Our Duty, Our Dilemma, I visited the Judaic section of the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C. to study various versions of the Zohar, or Kabbalah.
  On my first visit, I asked the Jewish librarian where to find the Soncino English translation. He became disturbed and replied, “I don’t think you want to read that. You might misunderstand it.” I couldn’t believe my ears. I’m afraid I showed my anger. He relented.
  Since publication of my book in 1984 and release of my first video documentary on this subject, “The Other Israel,” many people, confronted with the dark side of Judaic ethics, have rejected my message outright. Their reasoning is simple and direct: “What Pike says can’t be true because our Christian leaders and national media have never given us a hint of confirmation for what he says.” A smaller number contend that I quoted out of context or, even worse, forged documents. They think I faked the Xerox copies of the Talmud and Zohar in the appendix of my book, to create the illusion of a Judaic conspiracy.
  Such skepticism has been flying at me via email this week. I will therefore conclude by reproducing a few pages from the Talmud and Zohar, displaying the antipathy of the Talmud and Zohar toward Gentiles.
  Where do I get this stuff? See you at the Library of Congress!
  Endnotes:
  1 From a Nov. 19, 1959 installment of This is my God, serialized in The New York Herald-Tribune under “The Talmud: The Heart’s Blood of the Jewish Faith.”
  2 Abodah Zarah 26b, Tosephoth. Although this inflammatory dictum was omitted from the Soncino translation of the Talmud, the Jewish Encyclopedia in its article on “Gentiles,” p. 617, confirms its existence in the original.
  3 Jewish Encyclopedia, “Gentiles,” p. 623
  
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Rev. Ted Pike is director of the National Prayer Network, a Christian/conservative watchdog organization.
  Even if obtainable, the vast dry formlessness of the Talmud and mystical obscurity of the Zohar make them very difficult for the uninitiated to penetrate. My 345-page book, Israel: Our Duty, Our Dilemma, provides an easy-to-follow "road map" of references into the Talmud's and Zohar's most troubling passages.

shafique ^ Sounds like these are the kind of passages the supporters of Baruch Goldstein would use to justify their support for the killings of innocents. It would be interesting to read eh's views on this. I fully expect he'll try and pull the 'but look what I think the Quran says' line ;) Cheers, Shafique event horizon

Quote:

• ^ Sounds like these are the kind of passages the supporters of Baruch Goldstein would use to justify their support for the killings of innocents.

That would explain why the Koran lifts so many of the stories and doctrines of Rabbinic Judaism into the Koran. shafique ^Actually it is because the Quran clarifies what parts of the Bible haven't been interpolated and which parts should still be followed - and helps determine which of the contradictory verses and teachings should be viewed as from God and which are man-made fabrications. Of course, we can also use the research of Biblical Scholars such as Father O'Conner and Hans Kung to help here as well -they've also pointed out the insertion of fabricated verses into the Bible. Anyway, eh-oh has now conceded that the Talmud does contain all these violent teachings and is playing his favourite - 'yeah but, yeah but,yeah but ... Islam is bad' card! :) But the evidence is above for all to read - a comparison of what the Quran, the Bible and now the Talmud have to say on warfare. I predict we'll get rhetoric rather than facts/evidence in the face of these cold hard quotes. ;) Cheers, Shafique Berrin

Quote:

• That would explain why the Koran lifts so many of the stories and doctrines of Rabbinic Judaism into the Koran.

Did you think islam was a completely new religion teaching something that never known before?…
On the contrary, One important point to understand about Islam is that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) never claimed that he was teaching a new religion. He said that his mission was to restore the original and true religion of Abraham, Moses, Jesus and all other prophets.
This is clearly stated in Surah 2, verse 136:
-Say: “We believe in God, and in what has been revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and in [the Books] given to Moses, Jesus, and the prophets, from their Lord: We make no distinction between one and another among them, and to God do we bow our will [in Islam].
You like being wicked eh! don't you? It’s as if you have never heard why one religion had to come after the other.
Keep on reading…I feel you are further advancing than those who wanna know nothing at all...
&pagename=IslamOnline-English-AAbout_Islam%2FAskAboutIslamE%2FAskAboutIslamE
&pagename=IslamOnline-English-AAbout_Islam%2FAskAboutIslamE%2FAskAboutIslamE event horizon

Quote:

• ^Actually it is because the Quran clarifies what parts of the Bible haven't been interpolated and which parts should still be followed - and helps determine which of the contradictory verses and teachings should be viewed as from God and which are man-made fabrications.

Not sure how this response relates in any way to what I wrote. Are you simply writing long posts again in the hope someone will be convinced that you know what you're talking about?
Curious and curiouser.

Quote:

• Of course, we can also use the research of Biblical Scholars such as Father O'Conner and Hans Kung to help here as well -they've also pointed out the insertion of fabricated verses into the Bible.

Research is shafique speak for wikipedia surfing. But yeah, go ahead do all the 'research' you like. Maybe you'll convince someone you know what you're talking about, just like the time you claimed a quote from the epistle of James was something Jesus had said (or claimed that James was opposed to converting Gentiles).

Quote:

• Anyway, eh-oh has now conceded that the Talmud does contain all these violent teachings and is playing his favourite - 'yeah but, yeah but,yeah but ... Islam is bad' card!

Well, I have never studied the Talmud - have you? event horizon

Quote:

• On the contrary, One important point to understand about Islam is that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) never claimed that he was teaching a new religion. He said that his mission was to restore the original and true religion of Abraham, Moses, Jesus and all other prophets.

Yes, I agree - the Koran has a horribly distorted view of Judaism which includes a number of theological/historical errors that can easily be pointed out. I think I'll go ahead and start a thread or two on these silly and basic errors that any historian (or layperson) will recognize. event horizon

Quote:

• I think it is a good thing that the Quran has corrected the erroneous views of the Talmud - don't you?

Which ones? shafique The ones relating to warfare - read the intial post and the one with quotes from the Talmud. Plain to see that the Quran corrects man made notions about warfare. Did you miss this thread's title in your haste? We are comparing the different teachings in scripture, and now Talmud, concerning warfare. Do try and keep up. ;) Cheers, Shafique event horizon Didn't see any Talmud passages quoted. Perhaps you also missed my last question - have you studied the Talmud? Just curious cuz I'm sure your knowledge on Rabbinical Judaism is profoundly deep. shafique ^As I thought - you seem to have been immersed in the practice of selectively quoting passages that now you appear to selective read accounts as well!!
Berrin's article he posted about the Talmud includes the following:

Quote:

• 
  because Judaism teaches that the law they contain was given to Jews alone and it’s wrong for Gentiles to read that law. The Talmud says, “The goy who pries into the law is worthy of death.” 2
  The Jewish Encyclopedia tells us, “Hence the Talmud prohibited the teaching to a Gentile of the Torah [Talmud and Zohar] “the inheritance of the congregation of Jacob…” R. Johanan says of one so teaching, “Such a person deserves death.”—Sanh. 59a, Hagigah.” 3
  

What were you saying about the Talmud not being quoted?
May I ask you again - is not the Quran right to correct this mistaken view that non-Jews should not follow religion revealed by God and that 'there is no compulsion in religion'?
You ask whether I've studied the Talmud or Torah - it appears that I know more about them than you do about the Quran ;). But given this question, let me quote from Sanhedrin 59 v 1 to 3:

Quote:

• 
  R. Johanan said: A heathen who studies the Torah deserves death, for it is written, Moses commanded us a law for an inheritance;2 it is our inheritance, not theirs.3

So perhaps any non-Jew should think twice before admitting to have studied the Torah?!:shock:
Cheers,
Shafique event horizon It would appear that I'm not the only one with problems in selective reading.
What does your claim of passages in the Talmud that relate to warfare have to do with a quote (taken out of context) concerning capital punishment?

Quote:

• The ones relating to warfare - read the intial post and the one with quotes from the Talmud.

shafique My bad - the Quran corrects the Talmudic view that non-believers should be killed for reading a book. That will teach me to be more precise in future. Thank you for pointing out my error - the other posts do highlight the differences between the Bible and Quranic teachings on warfare - but the article on the Talmud only quoted it saying that non-Jews should be killed if they read the Torah. Thanks for pointing this out. Do you agree that the Quran's teachings that 'there is no compulsion in religion' is an improvement?? Cheers, Shafique event horizon Actually, I think the *prohibition* of the death penalty based on the teachings of Rabbinical Judaism is an even better improvement over the barbaric forms of capital punishment found in the texts and teachings of Islam. But why am I explaining this to you? You already knew this. shafique Again with your 'beliefs'. ;) But you do make a valid point - the Bible shouldn't be followed as Gospel and the Rabbis have done a good deed by pointing out which parts of the Bible should no longer be followed. The comparisons of actual teachings is still presented in the quotes above for people to compare and contrast. I'm wondering whether your refusal to condemn Goldstein stems from a study of the Judaic scriptures... hmmm? Cheers, Shafique event horizon

Quote:

• But you do make a valid point - the Bible shouldn't be followed as Gospel and the Rabbis have done a good deed by pointing out which parts of the Bible should no longer be followed.

I guess this is your own little way of skirting the fact that you were once again pontificating on a subject you lacked any basic knowledge and understanding of, eh?

Quote:

• Actually, I think the *prohibition* of the death penalty based on the teachings of Rabbinical Judaism is an even better improvement over the barbaric forms of capital punishment found in the texts and teachings of Islam.

pwned Berrin Is Judaism More Barbaric Than Islam ?

Quote:

• One of the selling points the Zionist founders of Israel used on Westerners to establish the so called Jewish state in the midst of Muslim states is "an out post of civilization in the midst of Barbarism". Theodor Herzl (founder of Zionism)
  The Zionists referencing the Muslim death penalty laws, decapitating heads and amputating limbs, what the Westerners and Zionists over looked is the context of these Quranic laws and more so, they ignored that their Bible commands punishments far more severe and for a much wider array of acts.
  Islam as in America, is restrained in it's use of death penalty, only severe crimes would invoke the Electric chair in America as in Islam. While in Judaism, Jews are ordered to barbarically kill others with stones, whips and swords for various petty acts that any civil human would find repulsive and terroristic.
  Barbarism and senseless killing is manifested at it's peak in the Jewish Bible, which consequently is not followed by the so called Jewish state, in order to avoid appearing more Monstrous than their neighbors. Here are the list of Barbaric murderous laws in the Jewish Bible which prove that Judaism is more Barbaric than Islam and that Israel was more of a Jewish state under Islam than it is under the con artist anti-religious Zionists:
  - for a stranger entering the temple: Numbers 1:51 states (in part): ...when the tabernacle is to be pitched, the Levites shall set it up: and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death. See also Numbers 3:10, 18:7 and 17:13.
  what if a non-Jew got lost in the maze like streets of Jerusalem, and entered a temple to ask for directions, unaware of the savages that await him or her within.
  -for proselytizing: Deuteronomy 13:1-10
  This would explain Israelis killing previous Prophets.
  -for communicating with the dead: Leviticus 20:27 calls for the execution by stoning of all mediums and spiritualists, both male and female.
  in other words, killing those with mental disorders or who are haunted.
  -for black magic: Exodus 22:18 states: Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
  we see where the Salem witch hunters who burned women alive got their teachings from.
  -for cursing parents: Exodus 21:17 states: And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death. See also Leviticus 20:9.
  Israelis ordered to kill their children for talking back, is there anything more barbaric than that?
  -for abusing one's parents: Exodus 21:15 states: And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.
  Surly a Rabbi with bad kids edited this verse.
  -for careless handling of an animal: Exodus 21:29 states: But if the ox .....hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death. If an animal has the habit of injuring others, and the owner does not kill it, then the both the owner and the ox may be put to death.
  Would Islam order someone murdered because their cattle acted up ? Who then are the Barbarians?
  -for stubbornness and rebellion: Deuteronomy 21:18-21 states: If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother.....all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die.
  again genocide against those with mental disorders.
  -for working on Saturday: Exodus 35:2 states: ...but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death. Numbers 15:32-36 described a man who was executed because he gathered wood on Saturday.
  Israelis have an entire day designated for murder, even towards those who need to work to live.
  -for perjury: Deuteronomy 19:15-21 states in part (with reference to a murder trial) ....if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother.... That is, a perjurer would himself be killed.
  
  -for accidentally killing a pregnant woman: Exodus 21:22-23 states: "If men strive [i.e. fight], and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, A male who was not circumcised: Genesis 17:14
  -Eating leavened bread during the Feast of Unleavened Bread: Exodus 12:15
  another excuse for barbaric killing by the Israelis
  -Manufacturing anointing oil: Exodus 30:33
  
  -Engaging in ritual animal sacrifices other than at the temple: Leviticus 17:1-9
  
  -Consuming blood: Leviticus 17:10
  
  -Eating peace offerings while ritually unclean: Leviticus 7:20
  
  -Waiting too long before consuming sacrifices: Leviticus 19:5-8
  pardon me, I'm not hungry.....
  -Sexual activity with a woman who is menstruating: Leviticus 20:18
  -Going to the temple in an unclean state: Numbers 19:13
  you get killed because the plumbing in your apartment is not working ?
  -Gluttony and excessive drinking: Deuteronomy 21:20
  In other words, the Israelis are told to kill everyone, maybe that's why they don't want international observers, they may kill them too. For the Zionists to deceive the mass public by labeling Israel a Jewish state is in itself a crime, for Zionists to degrade and demonize Muslims as being more barbaric than the followers of Judaism is hypocrisy.
  Peace

shafique Thanks Berrin. eh - nice to see you can't address the issues raised any more and have to revert to personal attacks. Not surprising. I asked whether you agreed that the Quran did improve on the Talmud's instructions that non-Jews should be killed for reading the Torah. I know that latterly some Rabbis have said these passages should be ingnored (a recurring theme with the Bible, it seems) - but you asked what teachings the Quran corrected. I see you don't like admitting when your questions are answered! Cheers, Shafique event horizon

Quote:

• I know that latterly some Rabbis have said these passages should be ingnored (a recurring theme with the Bible, it seems) - but you asked what teachings the Quran corrected. I see you don't like admitting when your questions are answered!

So you've studied (read) the Talmud now? Interesting. shafique Still ignoring the inconvenient facts about the comparative teachings I see. No surprises there then. All I did was ask you whether you agreed that the Quranic teachings in relation to not killing those who studied scripture was an improvement - you seem reluctant to concede this point. Pretty much just like your inability to condemn Jewish Terrorists who kill in the name of the Bible.... speaks volumes! Cheers, Shafique event horizon

Quote:

• All I did was ask you whether you agreed that the Quranic teachings in relation to not killing those who studied scripture was an improvement

Once again, it would be difficult to believe the Talmud actually teaches this (as opposed to taking the teachings of the Talmud out of context) when I can easily point out that Rabbinic Judaism has more or less abolished the death penalty.
So, have you actually read (studied) the Talmud or are you pontificating on its teachings based off of one line you read on some website? shafique It was a simple question - a comparison of the Quranic injuctions on religious freedom with the entries in the Talmud which say non-Jews should be killed if they study the Torah. Arguing that later Jewish scholars dis-owned these instructions merely shows that they came round to the Quran's way of reasoning. But then again, I fully understand why eh would rather not compare the Quranic instructions with instructions in the Bible and Talmud, but rather compare them against interpretations and edited opinions of later scholars (who rightly say we should disregard many instructions in the Bible - as well as this Talmudic injunction to kill non-Jews for reading scripture). I note that there is no dispute that the Bible contains the violent verses posted earlier, nor the violent instructions in the Talmud. I'm not arguing that Christians follow these - on the contrary I've applauded the fact that these are now effectively recognised as man-made fabrications, or at least as injunctions that should not be followed. Cheers, Shafique event horizon

Quote:

• Arguing that later Jewish scholars dis-owned these instructions merely shows that they came round to the Quran's way of reasoning.

"A Sanhedrin that puts one person to death once in seven years is called destructive. Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah says: Or even once in seventy years. Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiba say: Had we been the Sanhedrin, none would ever have been put to death." Mishnah Makkot, 1:10 (2nd Century, C.E.)
Sure, if the Koran was revealed at around the time of Jesus. Oh, let me guess, you're pontificating once more on a topic you have no basic understanding or knowledge of.
Please, share some more pearls of wisdom, oh wise one.
(Oh, and I still have not seen your answer to my question, have you read the Talmud?) shafique So Rabbi Eliezer disowns what is in Sanhendrin - I applaud that, and you are right, there were some enlightened Rabbis before the rise of Islam. Thanks for the reminder.
It does not change the fact that it is written in the San. verse quoted that non-Jews should be killed for reading the Torah.
And it also does not change the fact that to this day some Jews disagree with Rabbi Eliezer and venerate the actions of Jewish Terrorists such as Baruch Goldstein - who killed because of his interpretation of Judaic law.
Given your refusal to condemn Goldstein as a Jewish terrorist - one could assume you also disagree with Rabbi Eliezer's opinion that the Sanhedrin verses are wrong?
Cheers,
Shafique event horizon

Quote:

• So Rabbi Eliezer disowns what is in Sanhendrin

You've never studied up on the Sanhedrin, it's obvious.

Quote:

• It does not change the fact that it is written in the San. verse quoted that non-Jews should be killed for reading the Torah.

The what verses? (The passage was taken from the Mishnah, not the Sanhedrin - the Sanhedrin was simply a court of law, lol)

Quote:

• who killed because of his interpretation of Judaic law.

That's doubtful.

Quote:

• Given your refusal to condemn Goldstein as a Jewish terrorist - one could assume you also disagree with Rabbi Eliezer's opinion that the Sanhedrin verses are wrong?

Oh dear, I really should not have confused you and brought up the Sanhedrin.
I guess that answers my question if you've read the Talmud. shafique Indeed - I haven't read the Talmud, only the Bible proper and the quote given above which states that non-Jews should be killed for studying scripture. I've noted that you don't dispute this is an accurate quote, only that it is also a teaching that some Jews believe shouldn't be followed. Fair enough. As I've said, Goldstein killed in the name of religion and you refuse to condemn him for this - therefore it is reasonable to assume you don't agree with the Rabbi you quoted who says killing is wrong. And we keep coming back to the fact that the Quran and Bible's teachings have been presented on warfare, and the Bible is much more violent! Cheers, Shafique event horizon

Quote:

• Indeed - I haven't read the Talmud

'nuff said. shafique Indeed - 'nuff said about the Talmud. An undisputed quote that non-Jews should be killed if they read the Torah is sufficient for this thread. So, can we get back to the main issue of the Quran's superior teachings on warfare etc when compared with the Bible? Cheers, Shafique event horizon Well, I'm not sure general commands in the Koran to wage warfare against unbelievers until the world is under the domain of Islam is a superior teaching (if you're a non-Muslim or reject offensive jihad warfare). But I see that you're still pontificating on a text you've never read a page of. As I said, 'nuf said. shafique There are clearly quite a number of topics that you are, indeed, 'not sure of'. We'll just chalk up the inability to compare the various teachings of the Bible on warfare with those of the Quran as one of these. Indeed, 'nuff said. ;) Cheers, Shafique event horizon It seems that you're more interested in reading your own posts than actually possessing any type of knowledge on a particular subject. But hey, perhaps I'm wrong and you're actually well versed on the Talmud (since you seem to draw conclusions on its teachings) even though you have already acknowledged you have not read one page from its texts. Once again, thanks for the laughs. shafique You are quite welcome. As I said, the intial posts comparing the Biblical with Quranic injunctions are there for all to read and digest (albeit they are lengthy). I'm sure it hasn't escaped everyone's notice that you are trying to change the subject... but hey, I foresaw that! ;) Cheers, Shafique