Obama’s Illegitimate War on Israel

[JenT]

Jesus, did you tell your followers that they were exempt from Mosaic law, or did you make it clear that it would be in effect until heaven and earth pass away?

The law still exists. Followers of Christ are not under the law. How else can I say it?

Why did the disciples adhere to Mosaic law?

You mean like when God told Peter to "kill and eat" animals that were forbidden before Christ rose again?

And when the disciples were told not to be judged by the days of the festivals? And the gentiles need not be circumsized? Those laws?

 

[THE LIGHT]

The law still exists. Followers of Christ are not under the law. How else can I say it?

Why did the disciples adhere to Mosaic law?

Because the laws have not been abolished and there is nothing wrong with following the laws. Jesus came to fulfill the law not break the law. We are justified by faith and not works. The law was the tree of good and evil in the garden of eden. Adam and Eve chose to eat of the tree of good works and the law and were thus cursed. The tree of life is Jesus who is the only one that can give eternal life.

Christ came to redeem us from the bondage of the law and not from the law itself. Notice that Jesus showed that God's expectations are far higher than that of the laws written in the OT. He showed in Matthew 5:27-28 that if we even think a thought of sin it is accounted as braking the law. Therefore no one is righteous and no one is worthy to enter the kingdom of heaven...unless....they are redeemed by the blood of the Lamb.


Only though the acceptance of Jesus into our hearts can we experience and in turn demonstrate the gift of perfect love. And only with Him who has fulfilled the Law for us can we fulfill the law through love and not of ourselves. No man will ever be able to fulfill the law. We will always always always fall short no matter how hard we try.

 

[Kalam]

Which translation are you using because I haven't seen any that made the additions and changed the meaning as you did.

I rely mostly on the translations of A.J. Arberry, Maulana Muhammad Ali, and Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall, which are by and large the most accurate and literal. If you truly cared about accuracy in translation, you'd lambast your friend Fitnuts for using one of the most egregiously warped translations in print.

Why are you avoiding the part that says to slay those who left Allah? It was unambiguous too.

Don't be thick. I haven't avoided anything.

Why should you, then, be two parties in relation to the hypocrites (munafiquun) while Allah has made them return for what they have earned? Do you desire to guide him whom Allah leaves in error? And whomsoever Allah leaves in error thou canst not find a way for him. They long that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved so that you might be on the same level; so take not from among them friends until they flee in Allah’s way. Then if they turn back, seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take no friend nor helper from among them, except those who join a people between whom and you there is an alliance, or who come to you, their hearts shrinking from fighting you or fighting their own people. And if Allah had pleased, He would have given them power over you, so that they would have fought you. So if they withdraw from you and fight you not and offer you peace, then Allah allows you no way against them. You will find others who desire to be secure from you and secure from their own people. Whenever they are made to return to hostility, they are plunged into it. So if they withdraw not from you, nor offer you peace and restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them. And against these We have given you a clear authority. - 4:88-91​

A munafiq is a person whose actions are different from his or her intentions. In a Qur'anic context, it refers to a person who claims to be a Muslim and practices Islam publicly while privately detesting it. The passage goes on to expressly forbid killing those who are tired of fighting ("who come to you, their hearts shrinking from fighting you"); those who are members of an allied party ("those who join a people between whom and you there is an alliance"); and those who desire peace and an end to the conflict ("if they withdraw from you and fight you not and offer you peace, then Allah allows you no way against them.") This is repeated so that slaying non-combatants is clearly forbidden.

So are you denouncing the life and sayings of Mohammed then?

You won't be able to find any sahih hadith demanding the humiliation and terrorizing of the ahl al-dhimma. If you were as familiar with Islamic juristic history as you seem to think you are, you'd know that most of the demands for "humiliation" came from medieval commentators and a few jurists from the same period. Earlier scholars and jurists, such as Abu Yusuf, held opposite views:

"No-one of the people of dhimma should be beaten in order to exact payment of the jizya, nor made to stand in the hot sun, nor should hateful things inflicted upon their bodies, or anything of that sort.. Rather they should be treated with leniency."​

Are you a Muslim that denies Mohammed's life and sayings? Or do you agree Muslims are to follow the life of Mohammed? And if so, what is the oldest, most respected book describing his life?

The oldest and most respected book is the Qur'an, which contains a multitude of references to events in Muhammad's life. It is the only account that can be considered 100% factual and reliable in Islam, and the only source of guidance that all Muslims share in common.

Next in supposed reliability for many Muslims are the hadith collections. The Sunni canon consists of Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Sunan Abu Dawud, Sunan al-Tirmidhi, Sunan as-Sughra, and Sunan ibn Maja. Shi'ites generally reject the Sunni canon, and acceptance of other collections among Shi'ites tends to vary from sect to sect. The most prominent sect, the Twelvers, accepts the Kitab al-Kafi, Man la yahduruhu al-Faqih, Tahdhib al-Ahkam, and Al-Istibsar. Even Muslims who believe in one canon of ahadith or another admit that they're non-divine and fallible. After all, in spite of the careful research completed by most compilers, ahadith are based on oral traditions transmitted over multiple centuries and must be tested for accuracy using the Qur'an. As Bernard Lewis wrote, "the collection and scrutiny of Hadiths didn't take place until several generations [after Muhammad's death]... during that period the opportunities and motives for falsification were almost unlimited."

The biographies are even less reliable. Unlike ahadiths, biographical accounts were based on oral traditions with unknown isnad (chains of transmitters). Because the transmitters of these traditions are not even known, the reliability of these biographies is even more questionable than the reliability of hadith collections and no definitive conclusions should be drawn about the life of Muhammad (SAW) based on biographies alone.

The caravans he attacked

The caravans belonged to those who oppressed and tortured Muslims, making them legitimate targets.

and the Qurayza who were neutural and according to Muslim sources, 600 to 900 were beheaded because they would not convert.

The B. Qurazya were not neutral according to any account. The traditional story runs thus. They were a Jewish tribe living in Madinah while Muhammad (SAW) and his followers were also there. In 627, Madinah was besieged by the Makkan Quraysh. The Makkans outnumbered the Muslim-Jewish defense, and the B. Qurayza presumably betrayed their allies for the Quraysh because they thought that they would be defeated. As it turned out, their betrayal was apprehended and they were unable to successfully attack their former allies. After the Muslim-Jewish victory, the B. Qurayza were accused of treason and surrendered on the condition that they would be allowed to select their arbitrator from among the Muslims. They chose Sa'd ibn Mua'dh (or he was appointed), who chose execution as a punishment for their betrayal. The treasonists were summarily killed.

Of course, the reliability of this account is questionable. No archaeological evidence exists of the execution and it was found that the traditional account was based on a story transmitted by Madinan Jews.

Traditional Islam or the new and improved Islam? The one being pushed to gain acceptance into the European Union?

Scriptural Islam.

"Legitimate" traditions. So you pick and choose what you want to believe and throw out the rest.

I accept ahadith that don't contradict known facts or the Qur'an.

Do you denounce all the Islamic judgments then, of apostates?

Noting that the Qur'an forbids slaying purely on the basis of belief, it seems clear that any hadith or tradition demanding that would be illegitimate.

Oh I understood it, especially the part where it talked about how accepted his accounts were. Something you seem to want to contradict.

I'd estimate that most Muslims don't make it through an entire hadith collection in their life, much less a 9th-century biography. Your arguments rely on the fundamentally unreliable accounts of Ibn Ishaq/Ibn Hisham being a "holy book" lol because you're unable to put forth a legitimate criticism of Islam based on what is said in the Qur'an.

Or you could just google "Sacred Hadiths" and see what you get (over 3,250,000)

"Sacred Shit" yielded 1,530,000 results. What conclusions should I draw from this?

Sirat Rasul Allah is not a hadith collection.

Now isn't that odd...because many sites even seem to suggest that the word Sharia and Sira are related. Do you denounce Sharia law, Kalam? I wonder how many real Muslims do.

I accept what has been laid down in the Qur'an and (in some cases) explained further by authentic ahadith. I do not feel inclined to automatically accept any "ruling" issued by a person other than Muhammad (SAW) or base my beliefs on what the jurists of one school or another deem proper.

 

[Kalam]

You mean like when God told Peter to "kill and eat" animals that were forbidden before Christ rose again?

I stand corrected; St. Peter disobeyed certain aspects of Mosaic law (and by extension, Jesus' teachings.) This, however, took place independently of Jesus. Deviation from Mosaic code has no basis in the Bible's account of Jesus' teachings.

And when the disciples were told not to be judged by the days of the festivals?

This was written in St. Paul's second epistle to the Colossians, independently of Jesus. St. Paul never even knew Jesus.

And the gentiles need not be circumsized?

This was an act of the Council of Jerusalem and had nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels. See Acts 15.

 

[Kalam]

Because the laws have not been abolished and there is nothing wrong with following the laws.

There is nothing wrong with slaughtering whole towns because unbelievers preached in them? There's nothing wrong with stoning to death family members who attempt to convince you to disbelieve?

Jesus came to fulfill the law not break the law.

Exactly. Jesus offered interpretations of Mosaic law that, in some cases, were stricter than its literal meaning. Jesus enforced the law and emphasized what he felt were the most important aspects of it (ie: "justice," which would include the laws demanding that unbelievers be slain.)

We are justified by faith and not works. The law was the tree of good and evil in the garden of eden. Adam and Eve chose to eat of the tree of good works and the law and were thus cursed. The tree of life is Jesus who is the only one that can give eternal life.

Where is this in the Bible?

Christ came to redeem us from the bondage of the law and not from the law itself. Notice that Jesus showed that God's expectations are far higher than that of the laws written in the OT. He showed in Matthew 5:27-28 that if we even think a thought of sin it is accounted as braking the law.

As I said, his interpretation was even stricter.

Therefore no one is righteous and no one is worthy to enter the kingdom of heaven...unless....they are redeemed by the blood of the Lamb.

That is not what is said. No one is worthy to enter the kingdom of heaven unless they surpass even the Pharisees in their observance of the law. This is done by following the law in one's heart as well as physically; Jesus' issue with the Pharisees was not that they supported Mosaic law, it was that they didn't follow it in their hearts as well.

Only though the acceptance of Jesus into our hearts can we experience and in turn demonstrate the gift of perfect love. And only with Him who has fulfilled the Law for us can we fulfill the law through love and not of ourselves. No man will ever be able to fulfill the law. We will always always always fall short no matter how hard we try.

Thus Jesus condemned you to eternal hellfire. Again, if observing the law is not necessary, why don't you permit homosexuality?

 

[Kalam]

No I don't believe in the "devine revaltion" of Mister Pedophile.

So you don't believe that Sahih Bukhari is accurate or that Muhammad married Aishah when she was nine, correct?

Oh I see, its "generally" reliable. In other words you'll ignore whatever you don't like or whatever makes followers of your faith look bad. Gotcha.

It's "generally" reliable because it was written by a man who was as error-prone as any human. I'll ignore anything that contradicts the Qur'an, which is 100% reliable for Muslims.

That seems to contradict the passage I quoted about divorce concerning wives that haven't yet reached menstruation. Nice try to tapdance around that one.

I explained it in the first sentence of my response to that passage. I'll post it again for your convenience. That verse was revealed "because many Muslims were recent converts, having taken their spouses before Islamic marital jurisprudence was established."

Maybe the ass-backwards Islamists think a girl can reach the "age of intellectual maturity" before they reach the menstruation age.

It's a possibility. Menarche can occur as late as a woman's mid-to-late teen years. What is clear is that the Qur'an forbids marriage to those who are not intellectually and emotionally prepared to make such a commitment. No pre-pubescent girl can be said to have attained intellectual maturity as required by the Qur'an.

Ah of course, for centuries it was accepted as fact.

Bukhari is thought to be reliable by orthodox Sunnis and a handful of others. Many, such as Shi'ites, reject it entirely. No righteous Muslim, Sunni or otherwise, believes that it is immune to error; that's a distinction reserved for Allah (SWT.)

But now, only in the 21st century are Muslims begining to realize how bad it looks that their little false prophet was a child molester.

As you can see, the claim was contradicted by prominent Muslims (Ibn Kathir, Al-Tabrizi) almost immediately. Inquiry into the true age of Aishah has occurred throughout the history of Islam.

So lets rewrite history! Bingo! She was magically 19!

She was nineteen according to multiple sources, and even Bukhari's traditions imply that she must have been older than the age he reported. This has nothing to do with "rewriting history." You accept Bukhari's account not because you actually believe it's reliable, but because you think that you can use it to tarnish the reputation of the Messenger of God (SAW.)

Don't forget why they needed Muhammed to marry such a young girl. They needed to be sure he married a virgin since his other wasn't one.

That's why her age was artificially lowered in Bukhari's account - so that no questions about her virginity would be raised. She had been engaged to Jubair previously and opponents of Islam used this to claim that she'd slept with him and that Muhammad's lineage was illegitimate.

I feel sorry for you Muslims. Brainwashed since childhood in believing in the lies of a child molesting false prophet.

I study my religion independently.

 

[THE LIGHT]

Therefore no one is righteous and no one is worthy to enter the kingdom of heaven...unless....they are redeemed by the blood of the Lamb.

That is not what is said. No one is worthy to enter the kingdom of heaven unless they surpass even the Pharisees in their observance of the law. This is done by following the law in one's heart as well as physically; Jesus' issue with the Pharisees was not that they supported Mosaic law, it was that they didn't follow it in their hearts as well.

Read what you wrote and you will have my answer. Keep in mind the Pharisees were the highest followers of the law.

Man's righteousness is like an asymptotic curve where the asymptotic line is a certain distance away from the origin. No matter how far you go you will never reach the origin. No matter how righteous we aspire to be we will never reach the origin of righteousness which is God. The only way to bridge this gap is to add a shift to the function. That shift happens to be God’s only begotten Son Jesus Christ.

Jesus is the ONLY one who surpassed the Pharisees and the only one who fulfilled all the law completely. No one else can. That is the point.

The problem is you believe Jesus is a teacher. The Bible says Jesus is God. You seem to have forgotten that Jesus said to Nicodemus a Pharisee, “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. (John 3:3)”

Without the Holy Spirit I don’t expect you to understand anything the Bible says. And all the explaining I do won’t help because that which is spirit is spirit and that which is flesh is flesh.

 

[Sunni Man]

Jesus never claimed to be God

 

[theHawk]

It's "generally" reliable because it was written by a man who was as error-prone as any human. I'll ignore anything that contradicts the Qur'an, which is 100% reliable for Muslims.

Yup thats the typical response of Muslims. Although I am curious, if anything written by man is "error-prone", why is our friend Muhammed's writtings immune to error? Was he not human?

I explained it in the first sentence of my response to that passage. I'll post it again for your convenience. That verse was revealed "because many Muslims were recent converts, having taken their spouses before Islamic marital jurisprudence was established."

Another blantant lie. No where in those passages does it speak of "recent converts".

It's a possibility. Menarche can occur as late as a woman's mid-to-late teen years. What is clear is that the Qur'an forbids marriage to those who are not intellectually and emotionally prepared to make such a commitment. No pre-pubescent girl can be said to have attained intellectual maturity as required by the Qur'an.

Bukhari is thought to be reliable by orthodox Sunnis and a handful of others. Many, such as Shi'ites, reject it entirely. No righteous Muslim, Sunni or otherwise, believes that it is immune to error; that's a distinction reserved for Allah (SWT.)

As you can see, the claim was contradicted by prominent Muslims (Ibn Kathir, Al-Tabrizi) almost immediately. Inquiry into the true age of Aishah has occurred throughout the history of Islam.

She was nineteen according to multiple sources, and even Bukhari's traditions imply that she must have been older than the age he reported. This has nothing to do with "rewriting history." You accept Bukhari's account not because you actually believe it's reliable, but because you think that you can use it to tarnish the reputation of the Messenger of God (SAW.)

That's why her age was artificially lowered in Bukhari's account - so that no questions about her virginity would be raised. She had been engaged to Jubair previously and opponents of Islam used this to claim that she'd slept with him and that Muhammad's lineage was illegitimate.

There are other sources that cite her age as 9.

Kitab Al-Nikah Book 008, Number 3310:
'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old.

Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 41:
Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin:

The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) married me when I was seven or six. When we came to Medina, some women came. according to Bishr's version: Umm Ruman came to me when I was swinging. They took me, made me prepared and decorated me. I was then brought to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him), and he took up cohabitation with me when I was nine. She halted me at the door, and I burst into laughter.
Book 41, Number 4917:
Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin:

When we came to Medina, the women came to me when I was playing on the swing, and my hair were up to my ears. They brought me, prepared me, and decorated me. Then they brought me to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) and he took up cohabitation with me, when I was nine.

Yea, a little girl, playing with dolls and playing on a swing. Thats not a 19 year old, its a small child. Several times states she was 6 or 7 at the time of her marriage. And 9 when taking into his house. They don't "imply she was older", they imply she was a small girl.

Can't say I blame you for wanting to just ignore the testamony.

 

[THE LIGHT]

Jesus never claimed to be God

You are kidding right?

 

[theHawk]

Jesus never claimed to be God

If Jesus wasn't the Messiah then who was?

He very clearly said he was the Son of Man, a title which refers to Daniel's prophecy of the Messiah.

Daniel 7:13-14, “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.”

Mark 14:60-62
60Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, "Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?" 61But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?"
62"I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

 

[THE LIGHT]

Jesus never claimed to be God

If Jesus wasn't the Messiah then who was?

He very clearly said he was the Son of Man, a title which refers to Daniel's prophecy of the Messiah.

Daniel 7:13-14, “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.”

Mark 14:60-62
60Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, "Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?" 61But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?"
62"I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

I and my Father are one.
-John 10:30

 

[JenT]

and also,

57 Then the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?”
58 Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”
59 Then they took up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple,[a] going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

They were going to stone Him because they knew He was saying He was "I AM" as in:

13 Then Moses said to God, “Indeed, when I come to the children of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they say to me, ‘What is His name?’ what shall I say to them?”
14 And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And He said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”Exodus 3

 

[Sunni Man]

58 Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”

All Jesus was saying: was that before Abraham, there was God

He didn't say He was God

 

[Sunni Man]

I and my Father are one.
-John 10:30

All Jesus was saying is that he was copying the behavior of God.

So that anyone who saw the way he conducted himself.

They saw what God was like.

He wasn't saying he was God.

Just an earthly example of God.

 

[THE LIGHT]

58 Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”

All Jesus was saying: was that before Abraham, there was God

He didn't say He was God

Ohhh that is sooooo lame.

why wouldn't he say before Abraham was God IS rather than I AM.

That's like me saying I am going to eat. You would say that what I really meant was that some kid in China was going to eat.

 

[Sunni Man]

58 Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”

All Jesus was saying: was that before Abraham, there was God

He didn't say He was God

Ohhh that is sooooo lame.

why wouldn't he say before Abraham was God IS rather than I AM.

You do realize the NT in english is a translation?

People in the middle east think and talk and express things in a different idiomatic way than we do.

 

[THE LIGHT]

I and my Father are one.
-John 10:30

All Jesus was saying is that he was copying the behavior of God.

So that anyone who saw the way he conducted himself.

They saw what God was like.

He wasn't saying he was God.

Just an earthly example of God.

Even the Jews at the time knew he was claiming to be God.

I and my Father are one. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I showed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
-John 10:30-33

 

[THE LIGHT]

All Jesus was saying: was that before Abraham, there was God

He didn't say He was God

Ohhh that is sooooo lame.

why wouldn't he say before Abraham was God IS rather than I AM.

You do realize the NT in english is a translation?

People in the middle east think and talk and express things in a different idiomatic way than we do.

Oh please don't give me that BS

It is an english translation of the GREEK and if you look at the GREEK you will see the words εγω (I) and ειμι (exist or am).

 

[Sunni Man]

Even the Jews at the time knew he was claiming to be God.

I and my Father are one. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I showed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
-John 10:30-33

Once again, Jesus did not say he was God or claim to be God.

Other people my have said it or implied it.

But Jesus never said it. Period