0
![Not allowed!](images/buttons/up_dis.png)
Thumbs Up |
Received: 1,051 Given: 756 |
Bible versus Qur'an
What do you say to people who say "there is more violence in the Bible than in the Qur'an, so clearly Islam is a less violent religion?", or to those who argue that "because the history of Christianity is full of violence, therefore Christianity is violent?"
The fundamental error is that Judeo-Christian history—which is violent—is being conflated with Islamic theology—which commands violence. Of course, the three major monotheistic religions have all had their share of violence and intolerance towards the "other." Whether this violence is ordained by God or whether warlike men merely wished it thus is the key question.
Old Testament violence is an interesting case in point. God clearly ordered the Hebrews to annihilate the Canaanites and surrounding peoples. Such violence is therefore an expression of God's will, for good or ill. Regardless, all the historic violence committed by the Hebrews and recorded in the Old Testament is just that—history. It happened; God commanded it. But it revolved around a specific time and place and was directed against a specific people. At no time did such violence go on to become standardized or codified into Jewish law. In short, biblical accounts of violence are descriptive, not prescriptive.
This is where Islamic violence is unique.
Though similar to the violence of the Old Testament—commanded by God and manifested in history—certain aspects of Islamic violence and intolerance have become standardized in Islamic law and apply at all times. Thus, while the violence found in the Qur'an has a historical context, its ultimate significance is theological. Consider the following Qur'anic verses, better known as the "sword-verses":
"Then, when the sacred months are drawn away, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent, and perform the prayer, and pay the alms, then let them go their way."
Qur'an, Chapter 9 Verse 5
"Fight those who believe not in God and the Last Day, and do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden – such men as practise not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book – until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled."
Qur'an, Chapter 9 Verse 29
Thumbs Up |
Received: 1,051 Given: 756 |
The main difference between the violence in the Bible and that in the Qur'an is that violence in the Bible is descriptive in nature (describes events that supposedly took place in the past), while the Qur'an's violent verses are prescriptive in nature (they prescribe violence to be carried out by believers in the future). The Qur'an's exhortations to violence are universal and binding on all believers, and even required (Chapter 9 Verse 29) - not just recommended, or suggested, or exhorted, but actually obligatory.
Another structural difference between the Bible and the Qur'an is that the Bible has an Old and a New Testaments, where the New Testament supersedes the Old. The New Testament has practically no violence in it; the bulk of the descriptions of violence are in the Old Testament. For Christians, whenever there is a contradiction between Old and New Testaments, the conflict is resolved by abrogating the Old Testament passages which are not consistent with the spirit of the New Testament.
Whereas in the Qur'an, there are Medinan passages (generally violent and supremacist) and the Meccan passages (generally not violent or supremacist). The structural problem here is that, whenever the two types of passages conflict with one another (and they do), the conflict is resolved by abrogating the Meccan passages (the more peaceful ones).
Another reason why Islam is more violent than Christianity is easy to see in the examples of Muhammad and Jesus Christ. Christ never murdered people nor had them executed, Muhammad did. Christ never preached that Jews ought to be exterminated, Muhammad did (in the Hadith collection of Bukhari) etc.
These are just the three main reasons why Christianity is not nearly as violent a religion as Islam is.
Thumbs Up |
Received: 1,051 Given: 756 |
Does violence in the Bible excuse violence in the Qur'an?
As with Old Testament verses where God commanded the Hebrews to attack and slay their neighbors, the sword-verses also have a historical context. God first issued these commandments after the Muslims under Muhammad's leadership had grown sufficiently strong to invade their Christian and pagan neighbors.
But unlike the bellicose verses and anecdotes of the Old Testament, the sword-verses became fundamental to Islam's subsequent relationship to both the "people of the book" (i.e., Jews and Christians) and the "idolators" (i.e., Hindus, Buddhists, animists, etc.) and, in fact, set off the Islamic conquests, which changed the face of the world forever.
Based on Qur'an 9:5, for instance, Islamic law mandates that idolators and polytheists must either convert to Islam or be killed; simultaneously, Qur'an 9:29 is the primary source of Islam's well-known discriminatory practices against conquered Christians and Jews living under Islamic suzerainty.
Does Hebrew violence in the ancient era, and Christian violence in the medieval era, compare to or explain away the tenacity of Muslim violence in the modern era?
Thumbs Up |
Received: 1,051 Given: 756 |
Comparing Islam with Christianity
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/sho...d-Christianity
Thumbs Up |
Received: 1,051 Given: 756 |
Qur'an, Chapter 4 Verse 89
"They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah . But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper."
Just to be clear. This passage does not say kill the apostates if they fight you, it says fight them because they were once believers and now no longer are. This passage is talking about belief. The question is, is there any circumstance in which killing another person for his beliefs is justified. I don't see how. It seems like we have struck a universal cord, yet this universal truth is absent from Islam.
Qur'an, Chapter 9 Verse 29
"Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah [tax levied on non-Muslim subjects of an Islamic state] willingly while they are humbled."
This passage instructs, exhorts, and requires Muslims to fight against Christians and Jews (People of the Book), until they either submit to the suzereignty of Islam or are utterly subdued and subjugated under an Islamic state. This passage is also about a person's beliefs.
Thumbs Up |
Received: 1,051 Given: 756 |
"There is far more violence in the Bible than in the Qur'an; the idea that Islam imposed itself by the sword is a Western fiction, fabricated during the time of the crusades when, in fact, it was Western Christians who were fighting brutal holy wars against Islam."
So announces former nun and self-professed "freelance monotheist," Karen Armstrong. This quote sums up the single most influential argument currently serving to deflect the accusation that Islam is inherently violent and intolerant: All monotheistic religions, proponents of such an argument say, and not just Islam, have their fair share of violent and intolerant scriptures, as well as bloody histories. Thus, whenever Islam's sacred scriptures—the Qur'an first, followed by the reports on the words and deeds of Muhammad (the Hadith)—are highlighted as demonstrative of the religion's innate bellicosity, the immediate rejoinder is that other scriptures, specifically those of Judeo-Christianity, are as riddled with violent passages.
More often than not, this argument puts an end to any discussion regarding whether violence and intolerance are unique to Islam. Instead, the default answer becomes that it is not Islam per se but rather Muslim grievance and frustration—ever exacerbated by economic, political, and social factors—that lead to violence. That this view comports perfectly with the secular West's "materialistic" epistemology makes it all the more unquestioned.
Therefore, before condemning the Qur'an and the historical words and deeds of Islam's prophet Muhammad for inciting violence and intolerance, Jews are counselled to consider the historical atrocities committed by their Hebrew forefathers as recorded in their own scriptures; Christians are advised to consider the brutal cycle of violence their forbears have committed in the name of their faith against both non-Christians and fellow Christians. In other words, Jews and Christians are reminded that those who live in glass houses should not be hurling stones.
But is that really the case? Is the analogy with other scriptures legitimate? Does Hebrew violence in the ancient era, and Christian violence in the medieval era, compare to or explain away the tenacity of Muslim violence in the modern era?
Thumbs Up |
Received: 12,781 Given: 8,063 |
The difference between Bible and Qur'an is this;
Bible was talking about massacre in Old testament (which cannot be proven), Quran has actually committed a massacre on ppl along with preaching about it (and this is historical fact).
Thumbs Up |
Received: 1,051 Given: 756 |
Most of the massacres listed in the Old Testament did not even happen.
This is just something that the ancient Israelites wrote out of nationalistic fervour.
Don't get me wrong, I condemn the violence described in the Bible too,
but the nature of the violence in the Bible is very different from that of the Qur'an.
There is no comparison between these two. They are night and day.
Last edited by Petros Agapetos; 12-04-2016 at 04:58 AM.
Thumbs Up |
Received: 1,051 Given: 756 |
bump
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks