The Fundamental difference between Islam and Christianity

by ILoveTTATT2 39 Replies latest jw friends

  • Rainbow_Troll
    Rainbow_Troll
    Perry 3 hours ago
    The founding fathers of the USA who were virtually all Christians

    I'm glad that you used the qualifier "virtually", but I'd still like you to be more specific. Who of the founding fathers was Christian? I know that George Washington was an Anglican, but he was also a Freemason, which I think disqualifies him from being a Christian in all but name. It's true that many of them spoke of God and divine providence, but they could just as well have been speaking of a deist or spinozean God as a Christian one.

    It seeks a state religion through Sharia Law. From its beginning, it spread by violent conquest. By contrast Christianity took down the most powerful military machine the world had ever known - Rome: without a single sword being drawn. The two systems couldn't be more different.

    Islam spread largely by the sword - that's beyond dispute - but how can you say that the history of Christianity is different? I will grant that the founders of Christianity (Jesus and Paul) were paragons of nonviolence, as were the early Christians; but as soon as Emperor Constantine made it the official religion of the Roman empire, the Bible was replaced with the sword.

    With the exception of Britain and Ireland, the Roman Church used a combination of war and economic embargoes to pound the population of Northern Europe into servitude. King Charlemagne alone 'converted' tens of thousands, killing anyone who preferred to worship the gods of their ancestors. Why did the vikings start carrying out raids against Britain and Ireland? Because the pope had forbidden Christians to trade with heathens!

    I guess you could always argue that the Roman Church does not represent the true spirit of Christianity (and I would agree) but the fact is that the doctrines and policies of that church have influenced every denomination that came after it. Hell, even the Bible that every Protestant denomination uses was compiled and cannonized by the cardinals of Rome! Sola scriptura? If Luther was really serious about questioning church authority, he should have started with their right to determine which books are inspired and which are not.

  • Rainbow_Troll
    Rainbow_Troll
    ILoveTTATT2:
    More importantly, IT HAS AN OUT. It doesn't HAVE to follow the Mosaic Law, which is absolutely horrible and at par with the Koran, or possibly worse. Islam doesn't have an "out", unless you consider the interpreters of the law, similar to Jews. Most interpreters of the Jews are extremely liberal, whereas the interpreters of the Muslims aren't.
    You make an important point here. The ethics of the Koran are almost totally at odds with the ethics of Jesus. Liberal Christians have the sermon on the mount to fall back in while liberal Muslims have little else than a few of the softer verses of the Koran.

    It should be noted, however, that Sharia Law is based mainly on the Sunnah (alleged words and deeds of Muhammad collected over a century after his death) and not the Koran. To use just a single example: the Koran says an adulter(ess) should be flogged, while the sunnah says she should be executed. The problem is most muslims place the Sunnah OVER the Koran in cases of jurisprudence.

    The reason this is important is because there has recently been a movement, usually dubbed 'Quaranist', within sunni Islam to trash the Sunnah and return to the Koran alone. Though I would rather just see both books trashed, I think we should do all we can to aid and abbet the Quranists. An Islam based on the Koran would at least respect the right of other religions to exist and it would end the death penalty for every offense save murder.

    Quranism could be the 'out' that liberal muslims need to support their ideology and coexist with secular western democracy.

  • ILoveTTATT2
    ILoveTTATT2

    Rainbow, I need to research what you just said. If true, then that would change my viewpoint completely.

  • Yesu Kristo Bwana Wangu
    Yesu Kristo Bwana Wangu

    What is also interesting is Naskh (abrogation). This is when there are contradictions found in the Quran, Sunnah, Haddith that the newest aya (verse) replaces the older aya(s).

    For instance, there are ayas in the Quran that shows alcohol was not forbidden for Muslims, but later an aya was written in which it was said that it was forbidden, so the newest aya makes the older no longer relevant.

    for the example below, note that Quran is not chronological, but organized in terms of length. So the aya from chapter 3 can replace the aya from chapter 5 and 2.

    Surah 2:62 (some claim this is abrogated by Surah 3:85 below)

    Those who believe (in the Quran) and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures) and the Christians and the Sabians, - Any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord: on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

    Surah 5:69 (some claim this is also abrogated by Surah 3:85 below)

    If only they had stood fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness from every side. There is from among them a party on the right course : but many of them follow a course that is evil.

    Surah 3:85

    If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to God), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good).

    So we see a complete contradiction here. Will only Muslims be rewared for there faith or also Christians and Jews? Because of Naskh, little to no attention is paid to verses that speak positively about faiths other than Islam, or to the many many other contradictions in the Quran. Smart solution!
  • Yesu Kristo Bwana Wangu
    Yesu Kristo Bwana Wangu

    In addition to my first post. Here Some quran verses that say you can choose your own religion, and after that some from Haddith that forbids that practice. Haddith is made superior here to Quran

    Surah 2:256
    There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing.

    Surah 18:29
    And say, "The truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills - let him believe; and whoever wills - let him disbelieve

    Surah 109:6
    For you is your religion, and for me is my religion

    These were the Quran verses, now HADITH

    The most reliable Hadith collection contain numerous accounts of Muhammad and his companions putting people to death for leaving Islam. According to verse 4:80 of the Quran: "Those who obey the Messenger obey Allah."

    Sahih Bukhari (52:260) - "...The Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' "

    Sahih Bukhari (83:37) - "Allah's Apostle never killed anyone except in one of the following three situations: (1) A person who killed somebody unjustly, was killed (in Qisas,) (2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse and (3) a man who fought against Allah and His Apostle and deserted Islam and became an apostate."

    Sahih Bukhari (84:57) - [In the words of] "Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"

    Sahih Bukhari (89:271) - A man who embraces Islam, then reverts to Judaism is to be killed according to "the verdict of Allah and his apostle."

    Sahih Bukhari (84:58)
    - "There was a fettered man beside Abu Muisa. Mu'adh asked, 'Who is this (man)?' Abu Muisa said, 'He was a Jew and became a Muslim and then reverted back to Judaism.' Then Abu Muisa requested Mu'adh to sit down but Mu'adh said, 'I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and His Apostle (for such cases) and repeated it thrice.' Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed. Abu Musa added, 'Then we discussed the night prayers'"

    Sahih Bukhari (84:64-65) - "Allah's Apostle: 'During the last days there will appear some young foolish people who will say the best words but their faith will not go beyond their throats (i.e. they will have no faith) and will go out from (leave) their religion as an arrow goes out of the game. So, wherever you find them, kill them, for whoever kills them shall have reward on the Day of Resurrection.'" This verse from the Hadith is worse than it appears because it isn't speaking solely of apostates, but those who say they believe but don't put their religion into practice.

    Sahih Bukhari (11:626) - "The Prophet said, 'No prayer is harder for the hypocrites than the Fajr and the 'Isha' prayers and if they knew the reward for these prayers at their respective times, they would certainly present themselves (in the mosques) even if they had to crawl.' The Prophet added, 'Certainly I decided to order the Mu'adh-dhin (call-maker) to pronounce Iqama and order a man to lead the prayer and then take a fire flame to burn all those who had not left their houses so far for the prayer along with their houses'."

    Abu Dawud (4346) - "Was not there a wise man among you who would stand up to him when he saw that I had withheld my hand from accepting his allegiance, and kill him?" Muhammad is chastising his companions for allowing an apostate to "repent" under duress. (The person in question was Muhammad's former scribe, who left him after doubting the authenticity of divine "revelations" - upon finding out that grammatical changes could be made. He was brought back to Muhammad after having been captured in Medina).

    al-Muwatta of Imam Malik (36.18.15) - "The Messenger of Allah said, "If someone changes his religion - then strike off his head."

    Reliance of the Traveller (Islamic Law) o8.1 - "When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed." (o8.4 affirms that there is no penalty for killing an apostate).

    So if you have debates with Muslims about their freedom to change their religion, they will probably show you the Quran verses, but what it is really all about is the Haddith here. It clearly is forbidden for them, no matter how they say or quote things

  • Yesu Kristo Bwana Wangu
    Yesu Kristo Bwana Wangu

    Rainbow, about the Quranists, this is really controversial. You say, they return to the Quran alone. This makes them non-muslims, because Muslims need to follow the prophet Mohammed.

    The aya also mentioned in my last post

    Surah 4:80
    He who obeys the Messenger has obeyed Allah ; but those who turn away - We have not sent you over them as a guardian.

    If they turn away from the things their messenger said, then they will be rejected by all other Muslims. From my own non-Muslim point of view, I cannot really view them as Muslims if they don't listen to Mohammed.

    Rainbow you also say

    An Islam based on the Koran would at least respect the right of other religions to exist and it would end the death penalty for every offense save murder

    The thing I would like to say about this, is: an Islam based on the Quran alone is no longer Islam. You cannot simply say, we now reject the scriptures about our prophet. The scriptures are there, and form an essential part of Islam.

  • Rainbow_Troll
    Rainbow_Troll
    Rainbow, about the Quranists, this is really controversial. You say, they return to the Quran alone. This makes them non-muslims, because Muslims need to follow the prophet Mohammed.

    All of this presumes that the hadith are accurate records of Muhammad's words and deeds. But how could they be? They were compiled about 250 years after he died. We all know how quickly stories mutate and words get distorted. Imagine what could happen in 250 years!

    But more importantly, as you pointed out, much of the hadith directly contradicts the Qur'an. The Qur'an is supposed to be the word of God, while the hadith are only the words of a man named Muhammad (maybe). If one conflicts with the other, which should a true Muslim obey? If a muslim chooses to disobey God and follow a man instead, then how can he call himself a Muslim?

    Muhammad himself once uttered some 'satanic verses' which acknowledged the existence of "Allah's" daughter goddesses Al-Lat, Al-Uzza and Manat. Should Muslims become polytheists? In one hadith (I can't recall where) he catches some other muslims recording his words on parchment and forces them to burn the parchment, telling them that the Qur'an is all they need.

    The entire orthodox sunni position contradicts itself. They claim to be strict monotheists, but they worship a man who has been dead for over 1400 years. Yet another way in which they are just like the Christians.

  • Yesu Kristo Bwana Wangu
    Yesu Kristo Bwana Wangu

    Rainbow, yes I agree with you, many aspects within Islam contradict one another. I would like to comment on the things you said.

    All of this presumes that the hadith are accurate records of Muhammad's words and deeds. But how could they be?

    Here is where faith comes into play. This is the core of their whole religion. It cannot be removed. Compare this, I replaced some words.

    Christianity:

    All of this presumes that the Gospel accounts are accurate records of Jesus' words and deeds. But how could they be?

    Is this not very much the same reasoning? This is called faith. A Christian will never say, ''well, we don't know if these accounts are really trustworthy, so let's forget the things Jesus said.'' And if they would do that, then they can no longer be Christians. Likewise, no Muslim will be willing to deny the words of their prophet. The ones that do, are not changing the religion, but making a complete new one. They are no longer Muslim.

    But more importantly, as you pointed out, much of the hadith directly contradicts the Qur'an. The Qur'an is supposed to be the word of God, while the hadith are only the words of a man named Muhammad (maybe). If one conflicts with the other, which should a true Muslim obey?

    Again, I would like to make a comparison, I change some words

    For JW's:

    Much of the Watchtower directly contradicts the Bible. The Bible is supposed to be the word of God, while the Watchtower are only the words of an organisation. If one conflicts with the other, which should a true JW obey?

    Answer: JW's should obey the watchtower

    For Mormons:

    Much of the Book of Mormon directly contradicts the Bible. The Bible is supposed to be the word of God, while the Book of Mormon are only the words of a man named Joseph Smith If one conflicts with the other, which should a true Mormon obey?

    Answer: Mormons should obey the Book of Mormon.

    Examples for each one of them:

    Watchtower says: We should shun apostates, whereas the Bible does not teach this. Which side do they choose? Watchtower!

    Book of Mormon says: drinking alcohol is forbidden, whereas the Bible does not teach this. Which side to they choose? The Book of Mormon!

    And now what this discussion is about, the Muslims:

    Hadith says: kill apostates! The Quran does not (explicitly) teach this. Which side do they choose?

    The Hadith!

    I can completely agree with you that Muslims should not follow Hadith, but also do I say that I think JW's should not follow Watchtower and Mormons should not follow the Book of Mormon.

    But what happens if a JW's rejects the watchtower? Is he just changing the religion or making a complete new one? The same with mormons. If they reject the Book of Mormon, it creates a whole new religion.

    Likewise, if these Quranists reject the Hadith, they are not just changing Islam, but they are creating a new religion that is in no way how Islam really is.

    Can a JW still be called a JW if he no longer follows the Watchtower? No.

    Can a Mormon still be called a Mormon if he no longer follows the Book of Mormon? No.

    Which brings us to the most important question.

    Can a Muslim still be called a Muslim if he no longer follows the Hadith?

    I leave this question open. I am interested in what you would answer there.



  • Diogenesister
    Diogenesister

    Rainbow _Troll Can you tell us anymore about these " satanic verses"? About these daughters of Allah please?

  • snare&racket
    snare&racket

    Racist....no, but prejudice....yes.

    The motivation for leaving England for the new country was....freedom of worship. It is the very foundation of American society.

    i am an atheist, but I have no say in anyone else's beliefs and that is how it should be.i know how dangerous the JW belief system is....but I wouldn't ban its people from travelling or living anywhere. We are all adults. Our opinions differ. To assume one's opinion and view of the world is correct and the most appropriate is small minded and ignorant, therefore we allow freedom of belief.

    I know many Muslims and ...cliche....one of my closest friends is a Muslim. He is one of the most caring, moral, hospitable humans I have ever met and if you think the JW's are good at lI've bombing, try visiting a mosque!

    Christianity has a plague of disturbing trends, from anti-semitism and sexism to the darkness that is torture, war and even mass child abuse.

    There is no hierarchy of what is right or moral or correct with beliefs and faith. Unlike facts and evidence, they are personal and varied. To punish a people for not thinking as you do is ...... immature .....and prejudice.


    If every Muslim in the world landed in the US and then immediately went on a rampage, it would be a difficult point to argue. If half of them did, if ten percent did, if one percent did........ but they don't. They just don't.


Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit