Post by: Gewehr98 on March 24, 2006, 10:56:21 AM
I read they won't even let the guy go into exile:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/03/23/afghan.christian.ap/index.html
Post by: El Tejon on March 24, 2006, 10:57:19 AM
Post by: cordex on March 24, 2006, 10:59:43 AM
Quote
Judge Ansarullah Mawlawizada appears a bit more open-minded. He told ABC News that Rahman will be given a chance to abandon Christianity and convert back to Islam. "If he (does)," the judge said, "we will forgive him, because Islam is a religion of tolerance."
"If he converts back to Islam, we won't even kill him. Ain't we just the most tolerant people in the world?"
Post by: grampster on March 24, 2006, 11:02:58 AM
Post by: charby on March 24, 2006, 11:06:18 AM
C
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 24, 2006, 01:42:50 PM
Quote from: Gewehr98
I'm guessing Sharia law doesn't fully buy into the "tolerance" portion of the Koran as laid out by Mohammed.
Islamic tolerance, through the centuries, seems to mean that you can remain in your infidel religion if you are born into it, but woe unto that one who leaves Islam.I wonder what "'tolerance' portion" you speak of, and whether it allows Muslims to abandon the faith.
Post by: mtnbkr on March 24, 2006, 01:45:22 PM
These are the uber-extreme minority, not mainstream muslims.
Chris
Post by: saxman357 on March 24, 2006, 02:13:40 PM
Quote
"Rejecting Islam is insulting God. We will not allow God to be humiliated. This man must die," said cleric Abdul Raoulf, who is considered a moderate and was jailed three times for opposing the Taliban before the hard-line regime was ousted in 2001.
Great, advocating the execution of a man for apostasy is now considered "moderate". Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Post by: mtnbkr on March 24, 2006, 02:44:20 PM
Chris
Post by: Stand_watie on March 24, 2006, 03:25:35 PM
Quote from: mtnbkr
He's a false moderate. True moderates would never say that.
Chris
A MINO?
Chris
Post by: Gewehr98 on March 24, 2006, 04:09:21 PM
Quote
I wonder what "'tolerance' portion" you speak of, and whether it allows Muslims to abandon the faith.
Parts of the Koran advised tolerance towards the Christians and Jews. Here's a smidgen of that tolerance ideology, taken from here:http://www.interfaithdialog.org/Articles/Yildirim.pdf
Quote
Islams Tolerance toward Christians
By Suat Yildirim, Professor of Theology at Marmara University, Turkey.
In Fountain, A Magazine of Critical, Scientific, and Spiritual Thought, Issue 31, July-September
2, pp. 18-23.
The Quran calls Christians and Jews the People of the Book, meaning those who have a
Divinely revealed holy book that they follow. Toward the end of the Makkan era of the Prophets
life, the Quran began to mention these people and gave them a special and honored place. They
were first mentioned in: And argue not with the People of the Book ... (29:46).
Thus the Quran started the greatest ecumenical movement history had ever seen. All the Quran
required of them was that they confirm the Last Prophet, for their own books told them that such a
person was going to come.
The Quran, gradually deepening its intimacy with Christians, declared they were the nearest to
Muslims in love, because their priests and monks are not proud, and because they listen to and
recoagnize the truth of what the Messenger has brought (5:82-83). It also warns them against
certain heresies, such as following those who earlier had gone astray (5:77), believing in the
Trinity (4:171), or remaining in their rebellion and unbelief (5:68).
Many Quranic verses state that Jesus called people to believe in Gods oneness, and that he
called himself a servant of God. The Quran stresses that his mother Mary (Maryam) was
sinless, dedicated to the temple, and raised under Prophet Zakariyas guidance. It also relates the
miracles God gave her, Jesus miraculous birth without a father, miracles given to Jesus, his
Prophethood, and his being raised to the sky by God (3:33-64). In Maryam:19, their behavior and
postures are described and praised. Of all religions, Islam is the only one to attest that Mary was
a virgin and gave birth to Jesus miraculously. Islam is even more sensitive about this subject than
Christians. In fact, the Bible says in Luke (chapters 2, 4, 5) that Mary was engaged to a carpenter
named Joseph, whereas the Quran mentions no such person.
The Quran rejects Christianitys fundamental beliefs that Jesus is divine and the Son of God. It
asserts that his being distinguished among people or being given many miracles do not make him
a deity. People who attribute a son to God are rejected, without clearly pointing out that the
subjects are Christians (2:116). Thus the Quran wants Christians to understand the implication
and correct themselves.
In the early days of Islam, Christians and Muslims were on very good terms. For example, when
the Makkans persecution became unbearable, the Prophet permitted those who wanted to leave
to go to Ethiopia (615 CE / 5 AH). He said that the land was safe, for its ruler was just. A group of
15 Muslims including Uthman and the Prophets cousin Jafar, emigrated there. The Prophet sent
Najashi a letter asking him to give refuge to these Muslims, which he did.1 After a while, the
Quraysh sent a delegation with many precious gifts to ask Najashi to return the Muslims. Najashi
summoned them, and Jafar explained the situation. Najashi wanted to learn what they thought of
Jesus and Mary. Jafar recited the beginning of Surah Maryam, which deals with the births of
Prophet Yahya (John the Baptist) and Jesus. The emperor drew a line on the ground and said: If
there is a difference between our religions, it is as great as this line. Najashi refused the
Qurayshi request.(2 )
At that time, an internal war broke and threatened Najashis throne. All Muslims who could fight
supported the emperor. Most remained in Ethiopia until 7 AH, when the Prophet summoned them
to Madina. Najashi sent his son to the Prophet with a letter stating he had embraced Islam. The
Prophet treated Najashis men with great hospitality. Najashi died that same year, and the
Prophet led his funeral prayer in Madinah.
Relations between the Muslims and the Byzantine Empire started out as peaceful and in an
atmosphere of good will. In the initial years of the Prophets mission, war broke out between
Christian Byzantium and Sassanid Persia. The Muslims in Makkah sided with the Byzantines, as
they were People of the Book.
Evidently, the Prophet Mohammed also offered protection to Christians on several occasions. By Suat Yildirim, Professor of Theology at Marmara University, Turkey.
In Fountain, A Magazine of Critical, Scientific, and Spiritual Thought, Issue 31, July-September
2, pp. 18-23.
The Quran calls Christians and Jews the People of the Book, meaning those who have a
Divinely revealed holy book that they follow. Toward the end of the Makkan era of the Prophets
life, the Quran began to mention these people and gave them a special and honored place. They
were first mentioned in: And argue not with the People of the Book ... (29:46).
Thus the Quran started the greatest ecumenical movement history had ever seen. All the Quran
required of them was that they confirm the Last Prophet, for their own books told them that such a
person was going to come.
The Quran, gradually deepening its intimacy with Christians, declared they were the nearest to
Muslims in love, because their priests and monks are not proud, and because they listen to and
recoagnize the truth of what the Messenger has brought (5:82-83). It also warns them against
certain heresies, such as following those who earlier had gone astray (5:77), believing in the
Trinity (4:171), or remaining in their rebellion and unbelief (5:68).
Many Quranic verses state that Jesus called people to believe in Gods oneness, and that he
called himself a servant of God. The Quran stresses that his mother Mary (Maryam) was
sinless, dedicated to the temple, and raised under Prophet Zakariyas guidance. It also relates the
miracles God gave her, Jesus miraculous birth without a father, miracles given to Jesus, his
Prophethood, and his being raised to the sky by God (3:33-64). In Maryam:19, their behavior and
postures are described and praised. Of all religions, Islam is the only one to attest that Mary was
a virgin and gave birth to Jesus miraculously. Islam is even more sensitive about this subject than
Christians. In fact, the Bible says in Luke (chapters 2, 4, 5) that Mary was engaged to a carpenter
named Joseph, whereas the Quran mentions no such person.
The Quran rejects Christianitys fundamental beliefs that Jesus is divine and the Son of God. It
asserts that his being distinguished among people or being given many miracles do not make him
a deity. People who attribute a son to God are rejected, without clearly pointing out that the
subjects are Christians (2:116). Thus the Quran wants Christians to understand the implication
and correct themselves.
In the early days of Islam, Christians and Muslims were on very good terms. For example, when
the Makkans persecution became unbearable, the Prophet permitted those who wanted to leave
to go to Ethiopia (615 CE / 5 AH). He said that the land was safe, for its ruler was just. A group of
15 Muslims including Uthman and the Prophets cousin Jafar, emigrated there. The Prophet sent
Najashi a letter asking him to give refuge to these Muslims, which he did.1 After a while, the
Quraysh sent a delegation with many precious gifts to ask Najashi to return the Muslims. Najashi
summoned them, and Jafar explained the situation. Najashi wanted to learn what they thought of
Jesus and Mary. Jafar recited the beginning of Surah Maryam, which deals with the births of
Prophet Yahya (John the Baptist) and Jesus. The emperor drew a line on the ground and said: If
there is a difference between our religions, it is as great as this line. Najashi refused the
Qurayshi request.(2 )
At that time, an internal war broke and threatened Najashis throne. All Muslims who could fight
supported the emperor. Most remained in Ethiopia until 7 AH, when the Prophet summoned them
to Madina. Najashi sent his son to the Prophet with a letter stating he had embraced Islam. The
Prophet treated Najashis men with great hospitality. Najashi died that same year, and the
Prophet led his funeral prayer in Madinah.
Relations between the Muslims and the Byzantine Empire started out as peaceful and in an
atmosphere of good will. In the initial years of the Prophets mission, war broke out between
Christian Byzantium and Sassanid Persia. The Muslims in Makkah sided with the Byzantines, as
they were People of the Book.
Noteworthy is the Charter of Privileges granted by Mohammed to the monks of St. Catherine Monastery in Mt. Sinai in 628:
Quote
This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them.
Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and by Allah! I hold out against anything that displeases them.
No compulsion is to be on them.
Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries.
No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims' houses.
Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God's covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate.
No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight.
The Muslims are to fight for them.
If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take place without her approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to pray.
Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants.
No one of the nation (Muslims) is to disobey the covenant till the Last Day (end of the world).
Such examples tend to get lost in the current version of Sharia Law. Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and by Allah! I hold out against anything that displeases them.
No compulsion is to be on them.
Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries.
No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims' houses.
Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God's covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate.
No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight.
The Muslims are to fight for them.
If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take place without her approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to pray.
Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants.
No one of the nation (Muslims) is to disobey the covenant till the Last Day (end of the world).
Post by: One of Many on March 24, 2006, 04:34:53 PM
Modern Christians don't go around killing people for quiting Christianity; the teaching is that God will judge at the correct time (after death). Christians try to convert people peacefully. Islam (Sharia) teaches that Men will be Judge and executioner, and they choose the time and place, and cause death to those that refuse the Prophet Mohammed. The question is: how much of Sharia is actually found in the Book that Mohammed wrote; how much has been added over the centuries to enhance the power of the religious leadership in Islam. My guess is that most of Sharia does not come from Mohammed's book.
Post by: RevDisk on March 24, 2006, 06:52:10 PM
Quote from: One of Many
It seems to me that the Islamic religion denies the Diety of Christ, refusing to acknowledge that he is God. Christians refuse to acknowledge that Mohammed was a Prophet. There doesn't seem to be any way around the fundamental opposition of those two positions.
Modern Christians don't go around killing people for quiting Christianity; the teaching is that God will judge at the correct time (after death). Christians try to convert people peacefully. Islam (Sharia) teaches that Men will be Judge and executioner, and they choose the time and place, and cause death to those that refuse the Prophet Mohammed. The question is: how much of Sharia is actually found in the Book that Mohammed wrote; how much has been added over the centuries to enhance the power of the religious leadership in Islam. My guess is that most of Sharia does not come from Mohammed's book.
Hmm, so those scars (mostly faded, thankfully) are a figment of my imagination? I very vividly remember a beered up redneck trying to rip my pentacle off my neck in GA. Or the time I was nearly put up on charges solely due to my religious beliefs? All religions have their bigotted intolerant loonies that find it amusing to kill those that are different. I don't hate Christianity because of a handful of ignorant loonies, but I know to keep my eyes peeled in areas that I suspect contain fundimentalists. Modern Christians don't go around killing people for quiting Christianity; the teaching is that God will judge at the correct time (after death). Christians try to convert people peacefully. Islam (Sharia) teaches that Men will be Judge and executioner, and they choose the time and place, and cause death to those that refuse the Prophet Mohammed. The question is: how much of Sharia is actually found in the Book that Mohammed wrote; how much has been added over the centuries to enhance the power of the religious leadership in Islam. My guess is that most of Sharia does not come from Mohammed's book.
A Muslim buddy of mine gets pissed every time he sees Muslims in third world countries rioting over minor stuff. His comment was that these folks are amoung the most ignorant, uneducated, unemployed SOB's on the planet. He made the parallel of the dumb as a rock idiots in LA that burned down their own neighborhoods because a trial didn't go the way they liked. (My buddy is black, so he's free to make such comments.) He has a decent job (sysadmin at a large company), decent family and a decent sense of humor. He's black and Muslim. No reporter ever interviewed him. He never rioted, never killed any infidels, never wanted to kill any infidels, etc. Granted, he thought that it was rather disrespectful to mess with the Koran in Gitmo, and he thought the various antics of white cops beating the hell out of an unarmed black guy were screwed up. He didn't try to kill any infidels or white devils. Does anyone care? Nope. He doesn't get any respect as a black Muslim for doing what he's supposed to do. (He doesn't really care, but that's besides the point.) But whenever a bunch of blacks do something stupid, or a bunch of Muslims do something stupid, he has to watch his steps just a wee bit more carefully. That's just life.
Some of Sharia is based off the Koran, some of it is based off oral traditions (hadith), some of it is based off cultural beliefs (ijma and qiyas) . How much of modern Sharia comes from the teaching of Mohammed? Not sure, I'm not an expert, but after reading the Madina charter, I wonder.
http://www.constitution.org/cons/medina/con_medina.htm
Quote
In the name of God the Compassionate, the Merciful.
(1) This is a document from Muhammad the prophet (governing the relations) between the believers and Muslims of Quraysh and Yathrib, and those who followed them and joined them and labored with them.
(2) They are one community (umma) to the exclusion of all men.
(3) The Quraysh emigrants according to their present custom shall pay the bloodwit within their number and shall redeem their prisoners with the kindness and justice common among believers.
(4-8) The B. Auf according to their present custom shall pay the bloodwit they paid in heatheism; every section shall redeem its prisoners with the kindness and justice common among believers. The B. Sa ida, the B. l-Harith, and the B. Jusham, and the B. al-Najjar likewise.
(9-11) The B. Amr b. Auf, the B. al-Nabit and the B. al-Aus likewise.
(12)(a) Believers shall not leave anyone destitute among them by not paying his redemption money or bloodwit in kindness.
(12)(b) A believer shall not take as an ally the freedman of another Muslim against him.
(13) The God-fearing believers shall be against the rebellious or him who seeks to spread injustice, or sin or animosity, or corruption between believers; the hand of every man shall be against him even if he be a son of one of them.
(14) A believer shall not slay a believer for the sake of an unbeliever, nor shall he aid an unbeliever against a believer.
(15) Gods protection is one, the least of them may give protection to a stranger on their behalf. Believers are friends one to the other to the exclusion of outsiders.
(16) To the Jew who follows us belong help and equality. He shall not be wronged nor shall his enemies be aided.
(17) The peace of the believers is indivisible. No separate peace shall be made when believers are fighting in the way of God. Conditions must be fair and equitable to all.
(18) In every foray a rider must take another behind him.
(19) The believers must avenge the blood of one another shed in the way of God.
(20)(a) The God-fearing believers enjoy the best and most upright guidance.
(20)(b) No polytheist shall take the property of person of Quraysh under his protection nor shall he intervene against a believer.
(21) Whoever is convicted of killing a believer without good reason shall be subject to retaliation unless the next of kin is satisfied (with blood-money), and the believers shall be against him as one man, and they are bound to take action against him.
(22) It shall not be lawful to a believer who holds by what is in this document and believes in God and the last day to help an evil-doer or to shelter him. The curse of God and His anger on the day of resurrection will be upon him if he does, and neither repentance nor ransom will be received from him.
(23) Whenever you differ about a matter it must be referred to God and to Muhammad.
(24) The Jews shall contribute to the cost of war so long as they are fighting alongside the believers.
(25) The Jews of the B. Auf are one community with the believers (the Jews have their religion and the Muslims have theirs), their freedmen and their persons except those who behave unjustly and sinfully, for they hurt but themselves and their families.
(26-35) The same applies to the Jews of the B. al-Najjar, B. al-Harith, B. Sai ida, B. Jusham, B. al-Aus, B. Tha'laba, and the Jafna, a clan of the Thalaba and the B. al-Shutayba. Loyalty is a protection against treachery. The freedmen of Tha laba are as themselves. The close friends of the Jews are as themselves.
(36) None of them shall go out to war save the permission of Muhammad, but he shall not be prevented from taking revenge for a wound. He who slays a man without warning slays himself and his household, unless it be one who has wronged him, for God will accept that.
(37) The Jews must bear their expenses and the Muslims their expenses. Each must help the other against anyone who attacks the people of this document. They must seek mutual advice and consultation, and loyalty is a protection against treachery. A man is not liable for his allys misdeeds. The wronged must be helped.
(38) The Jews must pay with the believers so long as war lasts.
(39) Yathrib shall be a sanctuary for the people of this document.
(40) A stranger under protection shall be as his host doing no harm and committing no crime.
(41) A woman shall only be given protection with the consent of her family.
(42) If any dispute or controversy likely to cause trouble should arise it must be referred to God and to Muhammad the apostle of God. God accepts what is nearest to piety and goodness in this document.
(43) Quraysh and their helpers shall not be given protection.
(44) The contracting parties are bound to help one another against any attack on Yathrib.
(45)(a) If they are called to make peace and maintain it they must do so; and if they make a similar demand on the Muslims it must be carried out except in the case of a holy war.
(45)(b) Every one shall have his portion from the side to which he belongs.
(46) The Jews of al-Aus, their freedmen and themselves have the same standing with the people of this document in purely loyalty from the people of this document. Loyalty is a protection against treachery. He who acquires ought acquires it for himself. God approves of this document.
(47) This deed will not protect the unjust and the sinner. The man who goes forth to fight and the man who stays at home in the city is safe unless he has been unjust and sinned. God is the protector of the good and God-fearing man and Muhammad is the apostle of God.
(1) This is a document from Muhammad the prophet (governing the relations) between the believers and Muslims of Quraysh and Yathrib, and those who followed them and joined them and labored with them.
(2) They are one community (umma) to the exclusion of all men.
(3) The Quraysh emigrants according to their present custom shall pay the bloodwit within their number and shall redeem their prisoners with the kindness and justice common among believers.
(4-8) The B. Auf according to their present custom shall pay the bloodwit they paid in heatheism; every section shall redeem its prisoners with the kindness and justice common among believers. The B. Sa ida, the B. l-Harith, and the B. Jusham, and the B. al-Najjar likewise.
(9-11) The B. Amr b. Auf, the B. al-Nabit and the B. al-Aus likewise.
(12)(a) Believers shall not leave anyone destitute among them by not paying his redemption money or bloodwit in kindness.
(12)(b) A believer shall not take as an ally the freedman of another Muslim against him.
(13) The God-fearing believers shall be against the rebellious or him who seeks to spread injustice, or sin or animosity, or corruption between believers; the hand of every man shall be against him even if he be a son of one of them.
(14) A believer shall not slay a believer for the sake of an unbeliever, nor shall he aid an unbeliever against a believer.
(15) Gods protection is one, the least of them may give protection to a stranger on their behalf. Believers are friends one to the other to the exclusion of outsiders.
(16) To the Jew who follows us belong help and equality. He shall not be wronged nor shall his enemies be aided.
(17) The peace of the believers is indivisible. No separate peace shall be made when believers are fighting in the way of God. Conditions must be fair and equitable to all.
(18) In every foray a rider must take another behind him.
(19) The believers must avenge the blood of one another shed in the way of God.
(20)(a) The God-fearing believers enjoy the best and most upright guidance.
(20)(b) No polytheist shall take the property of person of Quraysh under his protection nor shall he intervene against a believer.
(21) Whoever is convicted of killing a believer without good reason shall be subject to retaliation unless the next of kin is satisfied (with blood-money), and the believers shall be against him as one man, and they are bound to take action against him.
(22) It shall not be lawful to a believer who holds by what is in this document and believes in God and the last day to help an evil-doer or to shelter him. The curse of God and His anger on the day of resurrection will be upon him if he does, and neither repentance nor ransom will be received from him.
(23) Whenever you differ about a matter it must be referred to God and to Muhammad.
(24) The Jews shall contribute to the cost of war so long as they are fighting alongside the believers.
(25) The Jews of the B. Auf are one community with the believers (the Jews have their religion and the Muslims have theirs), their freedmen and their persons except those who behave unjustly and sinfully, for they hurt but themselves and their families.
(26-35) The same applies to the Jews of the B. al-Najjar, B. al-Harith, B. Sai ida, B. Jusham, B. al-Aus, B. Tha'laba, and the Jafna, a clan of the Thalaba and the B. al-Shutayba. Loyalty is a protection against treachery. The freedmen of Tha laba are as themselves. The close friends of the Jews are as themselves.
(36) None of them shall go out to war save the permission of Muhammad, but he shall not be prevented from taking revenge for a wound. He who slays a man without warning slays himself and his household, unless it be one who has wronged him, for God will accept that.
(37) The Jews must bear their expenses and the Muslims their expenses. Each must help the other against anyone who attacks the people of this document. They must seek mutual advice and consultation, and loyalty is a protection against treachery. A man is not liable for his allys misdeeds. The wronged must be helped.
(38) The Jews must pay with the believers so long as war lasts.
(39) Yathrib shall be a sanctuary for the people of this document.
(40) A stranger under protection shall be as his host doing no harm and committing no crime.
(41) A woman shall only be given protection with the consent of her family.
(42) If any dispute or controversy likely to cause trouble should arise it must be referred to God and to Muhammad the apostle of God. God accepts what is nearest to piety and goodness in this document.
(43) Quraysh and their helpers shall not be given protection.
(44) The contracting parties are bound to help one another against any attack on Yathrib.
(45)(a) If they are called to make peace and maintain it they must do so; and if they make a similar demand on the Muslims it must be carried out except in the case of a holy war.
(45)(b) Every one shall have his portion from the side to which he belongs.
(46) The Jews of al-Aus, their freedmen and themselves have the same standing with the people of this document in purely loyalty from the people of this document. Loyalty is a protection against treachery. He who acquires ought acquires it for himself. God approves of this document.
(47) This deed will not protect the unjust and the sinner. The man who goes forth to fight and the man who stays at home in the city is safe unless he has been unjust and sinned. God is the protector of the good and God-fearing man and Muhammad is the apostle of God.
Post by: Guest on March 24, 2006, 07:41:44 PM
Quote
Hmm, so those scars (mostly faded, thankfully) are a figment of my imagination? I very vividly remember a beered up redneck trying to rip my pentacle off my neck in GA. Or the time I was nearly put up on charges solely due to my religious beliefs? All religions have their bigotted intolerant loonies that find it amusing to kill those that are different. I don't hate Christianity because of a handful of ignorant loonies, but I know to keep my eyes peeled in areas that I suspect contain fundimentalists.
Are you honestly trying to draw a parrallell between the act of ignorant individuals, *almost* being charged with a crime and a man being put to death by their government?
Post by: RevDisk on March 24, 2006, 08:37:21 PM
Quote from: c_yeager
Are you honestly trying to draw a parrallell between the act of ignorant individuals, *almost* being charged with a crime and a man being put to death by their government?
Nope. My point was that whackos and bad folks exist in all religions. No religion I'm aware of is completely evil or good. Some have more whack jobs than others, and that number is not static.
Post by: Guest on March 24, 2006, 09:24:11 PM
Quote from: RevDisk
Quote from: c_yeager
Are you honestly trying to draw a parrallell between the act of ignorant individuals, *almost* being charged with a crime and a man being put to death by their government?
Nope. My point was that whackos and bad folks exist in all religions. No religion I'm aware of is completely evil or good. Some have more whack jobs than others, and that number is not static.Post by: Perd Hapley on March 24, 2006, 09:37:50 PM
Interesting reading, but it comports well with what I already knew; Christians and Jews have been allowed a certain amount of religious freedom in Islamic countries, albeit as second-class citizens:
Quote
Bukhari:V4B53N380 Umar expelled all the Jews and Christians from Arabia. Allahs Apostle after conquering Khaybar thought of expelling the Jews from the land which, after he conquered it, belonged to Allah, Allahs Apostle and the Muslims. But the Jews requested Allahs Apostle to leave them there on the condition that they would do the labor and get half of the fruits (the land would yield). Allahs Apostle said, We shall keep you on these terms as long as we wish. Thus they stayed till the time of Umars Caliphate when he expelled them.
Ishaq:524 We cannot accept the oaths of Jews. Their infidelity is so great they swear falsely.
Tabari VII:158 The Messenger of Allah besieged the Nadir Jews for fifteen days. In the end they made peace with him on the condition that the Prophet would not shed their blood and that their property and possessions would be his.
Quran 9:29 Fight those who do not believe in Allah or the Last Day, who do not forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, or acknowledge the Religion of Truth (Islam), (even if they are) People of the Book (Christians and Jews), until they pay the Jizyah tribute tax in submission, feeling themselves subdued and brought low. [Another translation says:] pay the tax in acknowledgment of our superiority and their state of subjection.
Then again;Ishaq:524 We cannot accept the oaths of Jews. Their infidelity is so great they swear falsely.
Tabari VII:158 The Messenger of Allah besieged the Nadir Jews for fifteen days. In the end they made peace with him on the condition that the Prophet would not shed their blood and that their property and possessions would be his.
Quran 9:29 Fight those who do not believe in Allah or the Last Day, who do not forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, or acknowledge the Religion of Truth (Islam), (even if they are) People of the Book (Christians and Jews), until they pay the Jizyah tribute tax in submission, feeling themselves subdued and brought low. [Another translation says:] pay the tax in acknowledgment of our superiority and their state of subjection.
Quote
Tabari VIII:130 The Messenger said during his final illness, Two religions cannot coexist in the Arabian Peninsula. Umar investigated the matter, then sent to the Jews, saying: Allah has given permission for you to be expelled; for I have received word that the Prophet said that two religions cannot coexist in Arabia.
Ishaq:517 Khaybar was stormed by the Apostles squadron, fully armed, powerful, and strong. It brought certain humiliation with Muslim men in its midst. We attacked and they met their doom. Muhammad conquered the Jews in fighting that day as they opened their eyes to our dust.
Ishaq:517 Khaybar was stormed by the Apostles squadron, fully armed, powerful, and strong. It brought certain humiliation with Muslim men in its midst. We attacked and they met their doom. Muhammad conquered the Jews in fighting that day as they opened their eyes to our dust.
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 24, 2006, 09:41:01 PM
this current case is of a Muslim man who has converted to Christianity. I do not know if this has ever been allowed by Islam, and I was asking if the Qur'an or other writings ever say that this is acceptable, or if it is lawful to persecute such a man.
Lest anyone think this case is unusual:
http://www.prisoneralert.com/
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 24, 2006, 09:52:29 PM
Quote from: RevDisk
I very vividly remember a beered up redneck trying to rip my pentacle off my neck in GA. Or the time I was nearly put up on charges solely due to my religious beliefs? All religions have their bigotted intolerant loonies that find it amusing to kill those that are different. I don't hate Christianity because of a handful of ignorant loonies, but I know to keep my eyes peeled in areas that I suspect contain fundimentalists.
Do you have reason to believe these people were Christians? Drunkeness, assault and destruction of property (your necklace) are all forbidden by the Christian scriptures, so this redneck doesn't sound like a Christian to me. What charges were threatened due to your religion?I know I'm wasting my time here, but a "fundimentalist" is one who believes literally in certain fundamental doctrines. I am such a person. Fundamentalism is not militancy or theocracy, unless that is fundamental to that person's belief system. And, no, Christianity is neither violent nor theocratic. As Christ said, "My kingdom is not of this world."
Post by: Stand_watie on March 24, 2006, 10:13:59 PM
Quote from: fistful
...I know I'm wasting my time here, but a "fundimentalist" is one who believes literally in certain fundamental doctrines. I am such a person. Fundamentalism is not militancy or theocracy, unless that is fundamental to that person's belief system. And, no, Christianity is neither violent nor theocratic. As Christ said, "My kingdom is not of this world."
Amish and Mennonite churches are some of the most 'fundamentalist' churches you could find. Not exactly hotbeds of personal assault on unwary strangers passing by, pentacle or not. I'd tuck that thing away out of sight though in a lot of Muslim parts of the world.http://63.175.194.25/index.php?cs=prn&ln=eng&QR=82201&dgn=4&dgn=2
Islam Questions & Answers
www.islam-qa.com
Question Reference Number:: 82201
Title: Is it permissible for him to kill practitioners of witchcraft without the permission of the authorities?
Home > Basic Tenets of Faith > Belief > Belief in the Jinn, witchcraft and the evil eye >
Home > Jurisprudence and Islamic Rulings > Transactions > Punishment and Judicial Sentences >
Home > Jurisprudence and Islamic Rulings > Acts of Worship > Apostasy >
Question:
Witchcraft is widespread in our land and they annoy and harm the people. Is it permissible to kill them so that the people will be spared their evil?
Please note that our government allows them to work and takes taxes from them.
Answer:
Praise be to Allaah.
Firstly:
If it is proven that a person is doing witchcraft then it is obligatory to kill him because of his evil and the harm that he is doing to people. This has been explained in the answer to question no. 13941.
What is required of those whom Allaah has placed in authority over people is to rule them in accordance with that which Allaah has revealed. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
And so judge (you O Muhammad) among them by what Allaah has revealed and follow not their vain desires
[al-Maaidah 5:49]
And whosoever does not judge by what Allaah has revealed, such are the Kaafiroon (i.e. disbelievers of a lesser degree as they do not act on Allaahs Laws)
[al-Maa'idah 5:44]
And whosoever does not judge by that which Allaah has revealed, such are the Zaalimoon (polytheists and wrongdoers of a lesser degree)
[al-Maaidah 5:45]
And whosoever does not judge by what Allaah has revealed (then) such (people) are the Faasiqoon [the rebellious i.e. disobedient (of a lesser degree)] to Allaah
[al-Maa'idah 5:47]
It is not permissible at all to annul a punishment prescribed in shareeah. Even worse and more abhorrent than that is approving of the haraam deed and allowing the practitioner of witchcraft to work his magic in return for paying taxes.
This is a betrayal of trust which the ruler will be asked about on the Day of Resurrection, the Day on which he will bite his hand in regret, but it will be to no avail. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
And (remember) the Day when the Zaalim (wrongdoer, oppressor, polytheist) will bite at his hands, he will say: Oh! Would that I had taken a path with the Messenger (Muhammad).
28. Ah! Woe to me! Would that I had never taken so‑and‑so as a Khaleel (an intimate friend)!
29. He indeed led me astray from the Reminder (this Quraan) after it had come to me. And Shaytaan (Satan) is to man ever a deserter in the hour of need.
[al-Furqaan 25:27-29]
Secondly:
If the ruler does not do what is required of him of carrying out punishments prescribed in shareeah, then no one of the Muslim masses has the right to do that, because punishments first require proof that this person deserves this punishment, then they require the authority to carry them out.
If the door is opened for people to carry out the shari punishments, chaos will reign in society and no ones life or wealth will be safe.
The scholars of the Standing Committee said:
The one whose job it is to establish proof of witchcraft and carry out those punishments is the ruler who is in charge of the Muslims affairs, so as to ward off evil and to close the door to chaos.
Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daaimah (1/552).
In the answer to question no. 13941 we have quoted the words of Shaykh Sulaymaan al-Alwaan:
Once it is proven that a person is guilty of practicing magic, then he must be killed. This was proven from a group of the Sahaabah, but it is not for individuals to carry out this hadd punishment without the command of the ruler or his deputy, because carrying out the hadd punishments without the authority of the ruler may lead to mischief, and destroy any sense of security in the society, and undermine the position of the ruler. End quote.
We have mentioned the conditions of the ruler in carrying out hadd punishments in the answer to question no. 8980, where we mentioned that there is scholarly consensus on this point.
You have to warn the people against this practitioner of witchcraft and against going to him, and explain that this action may lead a person to kufr and going beyond the pale of Islam.
And Allaah knows best.
Islam Q&A (www.islam-qa.com)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
©Copyright Islam Q&A 1997-2000
You are granted the right to use and display all the information on this site without any consent from the site maintainer(s). You may copy, distribute, print, link to any document, or translate to any language, as long as the information is quoted in its entirety, the source is mentioned, and without changing the contents.
Post by: gunsmith on March 24, 2006, 10:48:20 PM
I was raised Catholic and told that if I convert to any other religion that I would go to hell (thats what they told me) so now that I'm old and don't go to Church because it's boring ...but they're real cool Christian Churches here in Reno, with nice conservative single women...and I can't go because I am afraid of going to hell....thanks alot Sister Aloloyisius or how ever you spell that name...anyway back to the topic going to hell or being killed here...both unpleaseant...why do religions do this to people?
Post by: pawcatch on March 25, 2006, 12:42:50 AM
So until we put scum like Debra LaFave in prison,I think that we have no right to intervene in Afghanistan's affairs.
JMHO.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on March 25, 2006, 09:42:36 AM
Quote from: fistful
Gewehr,
this current case is of a Muslim man who has converted to Christianity. I do not know if this has ever been allowed by Islam, and I was asking if the Qur'an or other writings ever say that this is acceptable, or if it is lawful to persecute such a man.
No, it has always been a death sentence and still is. They are thinking of bowing to political pressure from outside on this one by stating that anyone who would reject Islam is obviously insane and thus shouldn't be killed because Allah (praise to his name) protects the weak-minded.this current case is of a Muslim man who has converted to Christianity. I do not know if this has ever been allowed by Islam, and I was asking if the Qur'an or other writings ever say that this is acceptable, or if it is lawful to persecute such a man.
The whole "you can pay a tax and remain in your own faith" is a bit of a straw man as well. It's a blood tax, paid to prevent the other option, that you either convert or die. It came about for purely practical economic and political reasons as Islam spread from the desert into the cities where existing beauraucracies and infrastructure maintenance had to be handled by the unbelievers until staff could be trained up from the Faithful. It was made onerous enough that most would convert within a generation or so.
And that was to the West. In the East, where it wasn't "people of the book" but rather "pagan" ZoroAstrians, Mithraists, Hindus, Buddhists and the like the blood tax didn't exist, it was convert or die, usually en masse after your city was conquered.
Which is exactly why the rich diversity of ancient religions in the middle East disappeared in the space of a few centuries. It sure wasn't Roman or Jewish or Christian savagery.
Post by: Stand_watie on March 25, 2006, 12:06:34 PM
Quote from: carebear
..Which is exactly why the rich diversity of ancient religions in the middle East disappeared in the space of a few centuries. It sure wasn't Roman or Jewish or Christian savagery.
There was some Roman Christian savagery in the far west (now Latin America) though. Jewish-Christian-Romano-Pagan savagery if you want to put all the cultural influences who had a part in it into the picture. Lest I sound like a bleating 'the noble, friendly, and pacifistic-grain eating -non-violent savage-who-were-genocided-by evil-white-man' liberal I'll add that for the large part the pagan cultures they wiped out may have been technologically inferior in terms of large scale warfare, but certainly didn't take second place to anyone in bloodlust. I'll certainly agree with anyone who feels that some eastern religions better exemplified the tenets of what I think of as true Christianity than what was called Christianity for a millenium or so. Frankly, from my understanding of history they had about a thousand year jump start on the west in development of ideals of 'getting along well with others'.
However -- Go down to Mexico, Guatamala, or Belize and stand atop a mayan temple
and look out over the complex and the surrounding jungle and if you have any sense of wonder about what can be accomplished with crude implements, strong backs and good architectural technology and you'll mourn that particular element of the loss of that culture. I promise you that you can see them a million times in video and stills and you won't have an inkling of what they actually are until you stand upon them and see them in perspective.
Post by: RevDisk on March 25, 2006, 12:15:48 PM
Quote from: carebear
The whole "you can pay a tax and remain in your own faith" is a bit of a straw man as well. It's a blood tax, paid to prevent the other option, that you either convert or die. It came about for purely practical economic and political reasons as Islam spread from the desert into the cities where existing beauraucracies and infrastructure maintenance had to be handled by the unbelievers until staff could be trained up from the Faithful. It was made onerous enough that most would convert within a generation or so.
You're refering to dhimmi (protected) which guaranteed personal safety and security of property if one paid a jizya, a capita tax imposed on non-Muslim adult males. And yea, I'm not a fan of the practice.Nor I am a fan of danegeld (Viking 'tax' on the English), dazdie (Russian tax on Roma/Gypsies), Judenhut/ Leibzoll/Geleitzoll (Christian stigma/tax on Jews), tallage (British tax on Jews, ex. 'Saladin tallage' 1189, Henry III 1225, Edward I240), millet (Ottoman Turkish tax on primarily Jews, Greek Orthodox and Armenian, but also minority Islamic sects such as the Shi'as, Druzes, Alawis, Alevis, and Yezidis.), etc. If you wish, I can provide dozens of other examples of blood money, with as much documentation and details as desired.
I'm not saying it's a nice activity, but unfortunately it was very common throughout history.
Quote
anyway back to the topic going to hell or being killed here...both unpleaseant...why do religions do this to people?
Primarily two reasons. Temporal and 'spiritual'. In the temporal sense, it keeps up attendence and revenue if the believers of a religion because they will suffer (here or after death) if they disobey the teachings of said religion. Spiritual, because every religion probably does believe it is doing a good thing by threatening its followers if they stray from said religion. Saving your soul by instilling fear of retribution. Most organized religions I've ever studied claim bad things will happen to you (temporally or spiritually), if you do not follow instructions of said religion. It's just how humans are wired, I guess. I suspect there is no true answer to human nature, and one should defer said question to one's deity or deities.
Quote
Amish and Mennonite churches are some of the most 'fundamentalist' churches you could find. Not exactly hotbeds of personal assault on unwary strangers passing by, pentacle or not. I'd tuck that thing away out of sight though in a lot of Muslim parts of the world.
I've worn my pentacle pretty much anywhere I go, that includes Muslim parts of the world. And ironically enough, I do know someone that was attacked by an Amish man with a shovel, I believe, because he was wearing pagan jewelry. I live in Lancaster PA, plenty of Amish and Mennonites. But they mostly avoid non-commercial contact with all infidels, including other Christian sects. I believe you might be confusing the Amish/Mennonites with the Quakers, who are known for being militantly anti-violent. 
Oh, and Stand_watie ? Deuteronomy 18:10-11, Exodus 22:18, etc
Post by: roo_ster on March 25, 2006, 05:19:45 PM
Are those verses you list enforced by law in any majority Christian or majority Jewish country in the world? If my memory does not fail me, the last person killed by the Spanish (or any Roman Catholic country's) Inquisition was in 1800.
I think what we are dealing with, at its essence, is a desert nomad moon-cult which was considered bloody & savage even for the time it came onto the world stage.
One day, we may yet again take the threat seriously. Maybe when they succeed (in part) in their stated efforts to impose sharia law on us, here in the USA, UK, & the rest of the House of War.
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 25, 2006, 07:31:08 PM
Quote
Amish and Mennonite churches are some of the most 'fundamentalist' churches you could find
What is so fundamental about them?
Post by: RevDisk on March 25, 2006, 07:35:03 PM
Quote from: jfruser
RevDisk:
Are those verses you list enforced by law in any majority Christian or majority Jewish country in the world? If my memory does not fail me, the last person killed by the Spanish (or any Roman Catholic country's) Inquisition was in 1800.
I think what we are dealing with, at its essence, is a desert nomad moon-cult which was considered bloody & savage even for the time it came onto the world stage.
One day, we may yet again take the threat seriously. Maybe when they succeed (in part) in their stated efforts to impose sharia law on us, here in the USA, UK, & the rest of the House of War.
The last mass grave I stood on was about 2 years ago. I believe it was 3-5 years old, reports vary. It was a bunch of Christians executed by Muslims. As such, I have no illusions of the capabilities of followers of Islam. Of course, it was a stone's throw from a mass grave of Muslims executed by Christians. Are those verses you list enforced by law in any majority Christian or majority Jewish country in the world? If my memory does not fail me, the last person killed by the Spanish (or any Roman Catholic country's) Inquisition was in 1800.
I think what we are dealing with, at its essence, is a desert nomad moon-cult which was considered bloody & savage even for the time it came onto the world stage.
One day, we may yet again take the threat seriously. Maybe when they succeed (in part) in their stated efforts to impose sharia law on us, here in the USA, UK, & the rest of the House of War.
Call it an instructive experience.
But yea, undue theological influence on the legal system in the USA is rather worrisome. I suppose we're in agreement on that point. Novus ordo seclorum.
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 25, 2006, 07:55:49 PM
Quote from: gunsmith
anyway back to the topic going to hell or being killed here...both unpleaseant...why do religions do this to people?
Different religions will have different reasons, but I would like to answer you from a Christian perspective. Killing unbelievers is something commanded, in some situations, by the Hebrew scriptures (the Old Testament), but superseded by Christ, who fulfilled and completed the civil and ceremonial aspects of the Mosaic Law. An interesting question is, would you even think this was wrong, had you not been influenced by the Protestant notion of a seperation of spiritual and secular authority? Going to hell? Well, if you refer to actually sending sinners to hell, that is not something mere men can do to you. If, as I suspect, you mean threatening people with hell, that is more interesting. Naturally, some people do like to threaten others to bring them into line. However, from a Christian point of view, human beings are already heading towards hell. You cannot threaten someone with the consequence he is already heading for. We can warn people of hell, and show them the way to heaven, but threats are above our paygrade, as we can't send souls to one place or the other.
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 25, 2006, 08:15:04 PM
Quote
Deuteronomy 18:10-11, Exodus 22:18, etc
Quote from: jfruser
RevDisk:
Are those verses you list enforced by law in any majority Christian or majority Jewish country in the world?
RevDisk, you didn't answer the question. Which is; are there any Christian or Jewish countries that punish witches with the death penalty? Are those verses you list enforced by law in any majority Christian or majority Jewish country in the world?
As far as the mass graves you're talking about (Bosnia?), do you believe people filled those graves through actual religious fervor or did they have other motives for which religion is mere window dressing?
Post by: Gewehr98 on March 25, 2006, 08:44:56 PM
Post by: RevDisk on March 25, 2006, 08:58:50 PM
Quote from: fistful
Do you have reason to believe these people were Christians? Drunkeness, assault and destruction of property (your necklace) are all forbidden by the Christian scriptures, so this redneck doesn't sound like a Christian to me. What charges were threatened due to your religion?
I know I'm wasting my time here, but a "fundimentalist" is one who believes literally in certain fundamental doctrines. I am such a person. Fundamentalism is not militancy or theocracy, unless that is fundamental to that person's belief system. And, no, Christianity is neither violent nor theocratic. As Christ said, "My kingdom is not of this world."
In case you missed my question, Reverend Disk
The beered up redneck has a cross around his neck. So I suppose it's an assumption, but I didn't have sufficient time to question him in detail. As for his actions making him "not sound like a Christian", I'll have to defer to C.S. Lewis' 'Mere Christianity' (Pg 10). A rather good book, I highly recommend it.I know I'm wasting my time here, but a "fundimentalist" is one who believes literally in certain fundamental doctrines. I am such a person. Fundamentalism is not militancy or theocracy, unless that is fundamental to that person's belief system. And, no, Christianity is neither violent nor theocratic. As Christ said, "My kingdom is not of this world."
In case you missed my question, Reverend Disk
Quote
Now if once we allow people to start spiritualising and refining, or as they might say "deepening," the sense of the word Christian, it too will speedily become a useless word [as gentlemen did]. In the first place, Christians themselves will never be able to apply it to anyone. It is not for us to say who, in the deepest sense, is or is not close to the spirit of Christ. We do not see into men's hearts. We cannot judge, and indeed are forbidden to judge. It would be wicked arrogance for us to say any man is, or is not, a Christian in this refined sense. And obviously a word that we can never apply is not going to be a very useful word. As for the unbelievers, they will no doubt cheerfully use the word in the refined sense. It will become in their mouth's simply a term of praise. In calling anyone a Christian they will mean that they think him a good man. But that way of using the word will be no enrichment of the language, for we already have the word good. Meanwhile, the word Christian will have been spoiled for any really useful purpose it might have served.
We must therefore stick to the original, obvious meaning. The name Christian was first given at Antioch (Acts 11:26) to "the disciples," to those who accepted the teaching of the apostles. There is no question of its being restricted to those who profited by that teaching as much as they should have. There is no question of its being extended to those who in some refined, spiritual, inward fashion were "far closer to the spirit of Christ" than the less satisfactory of the disciples. The point is not a theological, or moral one. It is only a questions of words so that we can all understand what is being said. When a man who accepts the Christian doctrine lives unworthily of it, it is much clearer to say he is a bad Christian than to say he is not a Christian.
According to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (Fourth Edition), Fundamentalism is "A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism." Fundamentalism is not inheriently militant, per se. But the "often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism" all too often leads to militancy. We must therefore stick to the original, obvious meaning. The name Christian was first given at Antioch (Acts 11:26) to "the disciples," to those who accepted the teaching of the apostles. There is no question of its being restricted to those who profited by that teaching as much as they should have. There is no question of its being extended to those who in some refined, spiritual, inward fashion were "far closer to the spirit of Christ" than the less satisfactory of the disciples. The point is not a theological, or moral one. It is only a questions of words so that we can all understand what is being said. When a man who accepts the Christian doctrine lives unworthily of it, it is much clearer to say he is a bad Christian than to say he is not a Christian.
I would agree, as would anyone who's read the four Gospels, that Jesus did not advocate violence (Turn the cheek, et al) nor theocratic rule (Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, et al). There is a vast difference between his teachings and the actions of each of his followers. He acknowledged more than once that no one is perfect and no one is without sin. Just because Jesus advocated something does not mean all of his followers will follow his message completely. It's called "human nature".
Post by: gunsmith on March 25, 2006, 09:31:46 PM
your right!
Thank you very much sir.
Post by: RevDisk on March 25, 2006, 09:34:35 PM
Quote from: fistful
Quote
Deuteronomy 18:10-11, Exodus 22:18, etc
Quote from: jfruser
RevDisk:
Are those verses you list enforced by law in any majority Christian or majority Jewish country in the world?
RevDisk, you didn't answer the question. Which is; are there any Christian or Jewish countries that punish witches with the death penalty? Are those verses you list enforced by law in any majority Christian or majority Jewish country in the world?
As far as the mass graves you're talking about (Bosnia?), do you believe people filled those graves through actual religious fervor or did they have other motives for which religion is mere window dressing?
I'm watching the second season of Battlestar Galactica and Col Tigh just declared martial law, as well as disbanded the Quorum. I'm sure you can understand the priority of this in relation to your questions.
As far as I know, no current Christian or Jewish country are enforcing any state-sponsored death penalty on witches. As for the mass graves, the answer is "Yes". I suspect the Serb politicians that started the mess were motivated for a desire to remain in power and played the religion/nationalist card. I merely suspect this, I have no firsthand proof or experience to justify this suspicion. The people that tossed the bodies into the graves were largely acting with actual religious fervor, according to the ones I spoke with. They fully believed they were doing the morally correct thing, with the support of their political and religious leaders.
Post by: Stand_watie on March 26, 2006, 03:16:59 AM
Quote from: RevDisk
Quote
Amish and Mennonite churches are some of the most 'fundamentalist' churches you could find. Not exactly hotbeds of personal assault on unwary strangers passing by, pentacle or not. I'd tuck that thing away out of sight though in a lot of Muslim parts of the world.
I've worn my pentacle pretty much anywhere I go, that includes Muslim parts of the world.Quote
And ironically enough, I do know someone that was attacked by an Amish man with a shovel, I believe, because he was wearing pagan jewelry. I live in Lancaster PA, plenty of Amish and Mennonites. But they mostly avoid non-commercial contact with all infidels, including other Christian sects. I believe you might be confusing the Amish/Mennonites with the Quakers, who are known for being militantly anti-violent.
That would be terrifically ironic. So ironic that I'd require evidence of anyone who made that claim to me that I didn't trust implicitly already, before taking it at face value. And I can't speak for Lancaster Mennonites, but north Indiana Amish and east Texas Mennonites don't try to avoid contact with anyone, even us non pacifist types. My Mennonite neighbors have no problem breaking bread with my family in my home or theirs - and I've had invites into Indiana farmhouses and barns to get a better look at a particular farming operation or procedure that caught my eye and invited a roadside conversation.And no, I'm not confusing Quakers with Amish. I know what the Amish and Mennonites believe, and other than sharing pacifist ideals and having shared some anti-retaliatory Indian treaties with the Quakers they are doctrinally quite disimilar
Quote
Oh, and Stand_watie ? Deuteronomy 18:10-11, Exodus 22:18, etc
And that commandment to the Jews in the wilderness is currently being employed by which government?
Post by: Stand_watie on March 26, 2006, 03:38:08 AM
Quote from: fistful
Quote
Amish and Mennonite churches are some of the most 'fundamentalist' churches you could find
What is so fundamental about them?http://www.mennolink.org/doc/cof/
The index is on the right side of the page, with 24 articles of doctrine. As a sample, article 8, Salvation
Quote
We believe that, through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, God offers salvation from sin and a new way of life to all people. We receive God's salvation when we repent of sin and accept Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. In Christ, we are reconciled with God and brought into the reconciling community of God's people. We place our faith in God that, by the same power that raised Christ from the dead, we may be saved from sin to follow Christ in this life and to know the fullness of salvation in the age to come.
From the beginning, God has acted with grace and mercy to bring about salvation--through signs and wonders, by delivering God's people, and by making a covenant with Israel. 1 God so loved the world that, in the fullness of time, God sent his Son, whose faithfulness unto death on the cross has provided the way of salvation for all people. 2 By his blood shed for us, Christ inaugurated the new covenant. 3 He heals us, forgives our sins, and delivers us from the bondage of evil and from those who do evil against us. 4 By his death and resurrection, he breaks the powers of sin and death, 5 cancels our debt of sin, 6 and opens the way to new life. 7 We are saved by God's grace, not by our own merits. 8
When we hear the good news of the love of God, the Holy Spirit moves us to accept the gift of salvation. God brings us into right relationship without coercion. Our response includes yielding to God's grace, placing full trust in God alone, repenting of sin, turning from evil, joining the fellowship of the redeemed, and showing forth the obedience of faith in word and deed. 9 When we who once were God's enemies are reconciled with God through Christ, we also experience reconciliation with others, especially within the church. 10 In baptism we publicly testify to our salvation and pledge allegiance to the one true God and to the people of God, the church. As we experience grace and the new birth, we are adopted into the family of God and become more and more transformed into the image of Christ. 11 We thus respond in faith to Christ and seek to walk faithfully in the way of Christ.
We believe that the salvation we already experience is but a foretaste of the salvation yet to come, when Christ will vanquish sin and death, and the redeemed will live in eternal communion with God.
Perhaps the least "Fundamental", in my opinion, of their doctrines is found in Article 22, Peace, Justice, and NonresistanceFrom the beginning, God has acted with grace and mercy to bring about salvation--through signs and wonders, by delivering God's people, and by making a covenant with Israel. 1 God so loved the world that, in the fullness of time, God sent his Son, whose faithfulness unto death on the cross has provided the way of salvation for all people. 2 By his blood shed for us, Christ inaugurated the new covenant. 3 He heals us, forgives our sins, and delivers us from the bondage of evil and from those who do evil against us. 4 By his death and resurrection, he breaks the powers of sin and death, 5 cancels our debt of sin, 6 and opens the way to new life. 7 We are saved by God's grace, not by our own merits. 8
When we hear the good news of the love of God, the Holy Spirit moves us to accept the gift of salvation. God brings us into right relationship without coercion. Our response includes yielding to God's grace, placing full trust in God alone, repenting of sin, turning from evil, joining the fellowship of the redeemed, and showing forth the obedience of faith in word and deed. 9 When we who once were God's enemies are reconciled with God through Christ, we also experience reconciliation with others, especially within the church. 10 In baptism we publicly testify to our salvation and pledge allegiance to the one true God and to the people of God, the church. As we experience grace and the new birth, we are adopted into the family of God and become more and more transformed into the image of Christ. 11 We thus respond in faith to Christ and seek to walk faithfully in the way of Christ.
We believe that the salvation we already experience is but a foretaste of the salvation yet to come, when Christ will vanquish sin and death, and the redeemed will live in eternal communion with God.
Quote
...As disciples of Christ, we do not prepare for war, or participate in war or military service. The same Spirit that empowered Jesus also empowers us to love enemies, to forgive rather than to seek revenge, to practice right relationships, to rely on the community of faith to settle disputes, and to resist evil without violence. Led by the Spirit, and beginning in the church, we witness to all people that violence is not the will of God. We witness against all forms of violence, including war among nations...
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 26, 2006, 04:39:53 AM
Quote from: RevDisk
The beered up redneck has a cross around his neck. So I suppose it's an assumption, but I didn't have sufficient time to question him in detail. As for his actions making him "not sound like a Christian", I'll have to defer to C.S. Lewis' 'Mere Christianity' (Pg 10). A rather good book, I highly recommend it.
It is good! I'm in the middle of reading for the first time. Actually, Lewis isn't addressing my statements. Whereas the wearing of crosses means precisely nothing in 20th/21st century America, I am asking if there is any reason to believe that he would describe himself as a Christian, or that his motives were religious.Quote
Just because Jesus advocated something does not mean all of his followers will follow his message completely. It's called "human nature".
Of course. Did I say otherwise?
Post by: RevDisk on March 26, 2006, 06:57:25 AM
Quote from: fistful
It is good! I'm in the middle of reading for the first time. Actually, Lewis isn't addressing my statements. Whereas the wearing of crosses means precisely nothing in 20th/21st century America, I am asking if there is any reason to believe that he would describe himself as a Christian, or that his motives were religious.
Of course. Did I say otherwise?
As I stated, it's not like we had a couple hour theological discussion on qualifications to being a Christian. As far as I know, to be a Christian, you just have to worship Jesus and believe that he is your savior. Different Christian sects have their own qualifications beyond that, I suppose. I suppose we could ask Preacherman to be our ref? Of course. Did I say otherwise?
I believe his motives were too much alcohol and the famous last words "Hey watch this". But I don't think I was randomly selected for his attention, as I was standing outside Wal-mart smoking a cigarette, waiting for a bunch of my fellow soldiers to finish their shopping because the freakin PX prices are much higher than Wal-mart. As I didn't utter a single word (I'm a very focused smoker) and I was wearing all PX clothing, he couldn't have pegged me as a Yank, damn dirty liberal, or any other group he might have disliked. As his attention was focused on the religious symbol hanging from a dog tag chain around my neck. It's not expensive looking (stainless steel), it's not oversized, and it makes no tactical sense to grab a dog tag chain (they're designed to break rather than strangle you). What would you infer his motivations were?
Unfortunately, said gentleman slipped on a rock before I could fully question him to his motives. Very tragic accident, terrible really. Said gentleman should not have err, 'slipped on a rock' that spent the entire day being poked and prod'd by quacks for a damn SRP he'd been given THREE times already, in addition to a billion useless other 'stations' that need to rubber stamp a damn paper so that he could spend a year in a gorram third world country that 99.99% of Americans couldn't find on a map with a gun held to their heads. As I said, darn shame, 'em loose rocks underfoot.
Edit : Lemme know how you like the book. It's been a couple of years since I've last fully read it, still skim a couple sections from time to time. I'm a fan of a good part of his work, but he can be 'hit or miss' at times. This book is one of his better.
Respectfully tho, you might want to re-read the section I addressed above. Lewis (rightly so) warns against attempting to redefine the term "Christian" to exclude those who live unworthy of Christian doctrine. Rightly so, because if one were to do so, there would be zero "Christians", as a core tenet of Christian doctrine (Jesus' teachings) is that no man is without sin and is never the less worthy of redemption through faith in spite of this. I might be misunderstanding you, but you're suspicious of the idiot's true faith because of his actions? Tis the entire point Lewis was warning against!
Post by: Guest on March 26, 2006, 07:35:20 AM
Quote from: fistful
Quote
Deuteronomy 18:10-11, Exodus 22:18, etc
Quote from: jfruser
RevDisk:
Are those verses you list enforced by law in any majority Christian or majority Jewish country in the world?
RevDisk, you didn't answer the question. Which is; are there any Christian or Jewish countries that punish witches with the death penalty?Are those verses you list enforced by law in any majority Christian or majority Jewish country in the world?
Post by: Matthew Carberry on March 26, 2006, 09:01:30 AM
The yahoo in question may fall outside even Lewis' caution if he is a "Christian" only by being born into a American household and is not actively anything else.
Most Americans or Western Europeans (who are not actually active believers in anything) will generically describe themselves as Christian if asked. Christian simply because they are not Hindu, or Muslim, or Buddhist.
To be a Christian, even a bad one, requires that one have once made a real step of faith, that one has at some point actively accepted the Lordship of Christ in one's life. You may stray away after (which is partly where varying doctrine comes in) but you have to sincerely and actively sign the papers first.
I couldn't accuse you of being even a bad soldier nor you accuse me of being a bad Marine if either of us had not first actively signed on the line and taken the oath.
Just cause some yahoo is born in a predominantly Christian society and wears its commonplace symbols doesn't mean he's paid his dues to earn the title.
Paul said (not a quote) that a believer will be identifiable by their actions. If the only Christian identity that guy showed was a cross on a chain, his ID was pretty weak.
Oh, either way, "slipping on a rock" is, like Scripture, suitable for correction and instruction.
Blessed be.
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 26, 2006, 01:21:39 PM
Quote from: RevDisk
According to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (Fourth Edition), Fundamentalism is "A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism." Fundamentalism is not inheriently militant, per se. But the "often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism" all too often leads to militancy.
So, will you admit that you should have said, "I know to keep my eyes peeled in areas that I suspect contain militants," instead of using the word, "fundamentalist"? The problem here is that, although you do not mean to, you imply that beating up pagan bystanders is a foundational teaching of Christianity. I know you are only using the word in the way it is commonly used, but I would like to persuade you that the popular definition is wrong.Quote
The people that tossed the bodies into the graves were largely acting with actual religious fervor, according to the ones I spoke with. They fully believed they were doing the morally correct thing, with the support of their political and religious leaders.
I must admit, this surprises me. If people are claiming to do such things from Christian motives, that is pretty sad. Then again, in my point of view, many Christian denominations teach what is un- or anti-Biblical.
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 26, 2006, 01:35:26 PM
Post by: Stand_watie on March 26, 2006, 05:52:11 PM
Quote from: fistful
Standwatie, that's the least fundamental? The first quotation was all standard Christian doctrine, more or less. The second was most certainly fundamentalist, to the point of resisting the draft. Disobeying the law in the belief that it contradicts the higher law of God should most certainly be regarded as fundamentalist. Which is why I applaud them for having the courage of their convictions, though I disagree on the particular point.
Most fundamental my friend, most. I agree with your asessment, and am happy to call Mennonites and Amish 'brother' even if I find they have some peculiar quirks.
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 26, 2006, 07:57:03 PM
Quote from: Stand_watie
The answer to that of course lies in your own personal definition of fundamentalism, and rather than try to give the really long version, explaining my definition of fundamentalism, I'll refer you to the Menno doctrinal statement which I believe is the most current, and let you decide for yourself whether you agree with me or not.
I don't have a personal definition for "fundamentalist." I use the term as it was originally used in 1909 to describe the authors of The Fundamentals, and which may be easily inferred from the face value of the word itself. Fundamental means foundational, basic, essential. Therefore a fundamentalist is one who holds to what he views as the endangered fundamentals of his professed belief system. Look up "fundamentalism" on Wiki - their entry is rather informative.I would be pleased to hear how you define it. And no, I don't accept the idea that words are defined soley by current usage.
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 26, 2006, 08:37:10 PM
Quote from: RevDisk
spent the entire day being poked and prod'd by quacks for a damn SRP he'd been given THREE times already, in addition to a billion useless other 'stations' that need to rubber stamp a damn paper....
Four SRP's!!! I am truly sorry. I've had two or three myself. Given that the fellow was wearing a cross and attacked your own religious symbol, I can see where you're coming from. But as I tried to explain earlier; it is not as if the guy told me he was a Christian and I'm trying to say that he isn't. I'm just saying that the evidence doesn't give me reason to believe so without his direct claim to be a Christian.
Mere Christianity is so called because Lewis wanted to talk about Christianity without getting sectarian. Unfortunately, that is hard to do and Lewis failed. My own pastor likes the book, but I am sure he would disagree strenuously with much of the passage you quoted. He represents a large segment of Christianity that would say that faith is demonstrated by works (see the book of James) and a lack of faith is also demonstrated by works. I tend to lean in that direction myself. That said, I can't know with certainty, but Christ did tell us to judge on the basis of fruits. To wit,
Quote
Mat 7:15-20
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
I grant the man was no prophet, but the principle remains as does this one.Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
Quote
If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?
Quote from: RevDisk
I believe his motives were too much alcohol....What would you infer his motivations were?
I would say you nailed it. I find the book very readable, enjoyable, and profound. My previous experience with Lewis is from reading the Chronicles as a kid, which I barely remember, and the ubiquitous Lewis quotations one finds so frequently in Christian media. He certainly writes up to his reputation. Also, I recently read "Till We Have Faces." In case you are unfamiliar with it, it is a novelization of the Cupid/Psyche myth which ends up supporting the Christian worldview. Oh, I don't know how to explain what the book does, but I liked it. Have you read that one?
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 27, 2006, 03:13:07 AM
Ungit so wills it.
Post by: grampster on March 27, 2006, 04:39:09 AM
He wrote that he reasoned his way out of atheism to ultimately making the leap of faith to Christianity. Some have said that he, had he lived longer, would have become affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church. Be that as it may, the man had a unique ability to write about weighty matters of faith and yet be able to easily convey the point to someone not as intellectualy gifted as he; many times by explaining how the spiritual man is so entwined in everyday mundane life. In my opinion, that was Lewis' gift.
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 27, 2006, 08:30:21 AM
Quote from: grampster
Some have said that he, had he lived longer, would have become affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church.
I have heard that his Anglicanism was tinted with certain Catholic ideas. Just goes to show that even great intellects can be wrong. 
C'mon, folks, just teasin'.
Post by: grampster on March 27, 2006, 09:07:45 AM
Post by: Stand_watie on March 27, 2006, 11:27:18 AM
Back to topic. I'd describe 'fundamentalism' as traditional Christian doctrine I guess. For that you'd start with the teachings of Christ, and continue particularly with Pauline doctrine and then the doctrines taught by early church fathers up until the time the church began (IMHO) straying wide of the mark somewhere around the 5th century (again IMHO), and then doctrine of the early reformation. I'd reject the notion that state level pacificism, or even the ideologically purest variety of personal pacifism is taught anywhere in the New Testament, and even rejected specifically in words and actions by Christ
Quote
36Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place."
John 18Quote
13When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. 15So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16To those who sold doves he said, "Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father's house into a market!"
John 2and specifically in doctrine by Saul
Quote
3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.
Romans 13
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 27, 2006, 01:50:31 PM
Quote from: Stand_watie
I'd describe 'fundamentalism' as traditional Christian doctrine I guess.
Well, yes, if you're talking about Christian fundamentalism. Fundamentalism can be applied to any set of beliefs, however, even Marxism. Quote
I'd reject the notion that state level pacificism, or even the ideologically purest variety of personal pacifism is taught anywhere in the New Testament, and even rejected specifically in words and actions by Christ
I'd agree, and I'm sure you realize the passages you cite are just the tip of the iceberg.So, have we cleared out everybody who doesn't read the Bible and/or C.S. Lewis on a regular basis? I hear the individual under discussion will be allowed to seek asylum abroad. Hope he comes here and settles down.