What Disqualifies Allah As The Supreme God ?

[apothanein kerdos]

Deut: 13:6 - 13:9

"If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which [is] as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely], of the gods of the people which [are] round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the [one] end of the earth even unto the [other] end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people."

This was to deal with Israel specifically and only to deal with Jews that converted away from the Lord during the time of the wanderings. The purpose was to make sure that the Jews kept God as their God and did not turn away. It was to show their commitment, that if someone was so dedicated to another god the tempted person was to kill that person. The reason for this:

1) SHows the commitment to God by the tempted person

2) It is most humane...banishment from the camp or the wanderings would have caused instant death in the wilderness

3) Kept the entire camp of Israel focused on God

Regardless, this stood for a specific point in time and, as almost all Christian scholars will tell you, no longer applies to today or een applied after the Jews had taken the promised land.

As a side note, notice he is only talking about family and close friends that encourage a person to worship another god. It is not a law against worshiping false gods, it is a law against enticing your close friends and relatives to worshiping false gods....strangers apparently do not matter.

An emotional response is when a person opinions are based not on the facts but on their own inflamed senses. It would also be something that is skewed or biased by ones own personal beliefs or morality, such as you treating the equally deplorable actions of the Christians during the crusades as some trite matter.

How did I treat it as a trite matter? Again, you are not providing any warrant for what you are saying

How is anything I said about the Crusades not based on fact? Which part is false or untrue?

The kingdom of Islam was (usually) quite tolerent of Christians and Jews, and was also an area of scientific and social advancement until they decidied to cut themselves off from the west. After this their society collapsed and degraded into the hostile backwards people that they tend to be. Yes there were always violent muslims and wars based on Islam...but not any more then those by Christians at the time so it is hardly fair to act as if one was any more moral or less guilty then the other.

The original argument that brought me into this was that Islam was only militant because the Europeans invaded their land and that both Islam and Christianity call for death in their scriptures. I am not downplaying what the Europeans did, I am merely showing the other side of what occured, that the Muslims did the same thing prior to the Europeans taking Jerusalem. There were killings of Jews regularly, especially when Islam was first growing. Mohammed, when spreading Islam through Arabia, would capture a pagan, Jewish, or Christian town and often slaughter the inhabitants if they refused to convert or at least submit to Islamic law. As for Muslims being tolerant, this was only done so long as Islamic law was followed. Regardless, we have the genocide against the Goths in the 8th century, genocide in Sicily, the killings in Arabia, the besieging of Constantinople (both in 674 and 717), their invasions and killings in Gaul (modern day France, only to be stopped at the city of Poitiers), and the invasions into Persia, Egypt, and North Africa. It is only between the 8th and 9th century, after all has been subdued, that we begin to see an intellectual reformation take place. It also takes until the 11th century for Europeans to finally invade the middle east...this is only after having to fight them on both western and eastern fronts (western in Spain and France, and eastern in Constantinople). In other words, for four centuries the Europeans were on the defensive against Islam whereas Islam was on the offensive. Islam would soon be put on the defensive at the hands of the barbarious Europeans who slaughtered thousands for selfish greed for three centuries. After this time, Islam went back on the offensive. You tend to say that Islam did not become violent until it isolated itself. When was this period of time. When did it isolate itself?

Saying their actions were "anti-biblical" ergo they were not Christians doesn't mean much unless you also believe that there are no "real christians" today since in my experience Christians follow very little of the bible and in many cases have not even bothered to read it. I base this on the hundreds of Christians I know in person and the ones I meet online.

I would say that people who consistently fail to meet Biblical guidelines lose the justification to call themselves Christians. The Bible even states this numerous times where it shows our works are proof of our faith. If our works do not show our faith (which is a peaceful faith established by Christ) then it is hard to justify being called a Chrisitan. Likewise, the Crusaders killed, murdered, committed genocide, slaughtered the innocent, took money from all in order to become rich, did not serve the poor, and commited many other atrocities...all of these violate the laws established by Christ. Thus, how can we justifiably call them a Chrisitan? Under your logic of "They claim it thus they are" I could say I am a fish. Yet if I live out of the water, don't have gills, and can't stay under water for a prolonged period of time...can I justifiably call myself a fish?

As can be seen in 2 Chronicles

15:10 So they gathered themselves together at Jerusalem in the third month, in the fifteenth year of the reign of Asa.

15:11 And they offered unto the LORD the same time, of the spoil [which] they had brought, seven hundred oxen and seven thousand sheep.

15:12 And they entered into a covenant to seek the LORD God of their fathers with all their heart and with all their soul;

15:13 That whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.

I would hope a Christian would understand the reason for this. For one, part of being in the nation of Israel one would have to declare loyalty to God. Not doing so was treason. In the modern times, in civilised nations, the crime for treason is most often death. Thus how can we look at this and go "shame"? Secondly, the other gods that Israel had been following prior to Asa's rule required the sacrifice of children. Are you insinuating it was wrong to kill those that chose to continue such acts?

[amor]

As can be seen in 2 Chronicles

15:10 So they gathered themselves together at Jerusalem in the third month, in the fifteenth year of the reign of Asa.

15:11 And they offered unto the LORD the same time, of the spoil [which] they had brought, seven hundred oxen and seven thousand sheep.

15:12 And they entered into a covenant to seek the LORD God of their fathers with all their heart and with all their soul;

15:13 That whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.

I would hope a Christian would understand the reason for this. For one, part of being in the nation of Israel one would have to declare loyalty to God. Not doing so was treason. In the modern times, in civilised nations, the crime for treason is most often death. Thus how can we look at this and go "shame"? Secondly, the other gods that Israel had been following prior to Asa's rule required the sacrifice of children. Are you insinuating it was wrong to kill those that chose to continue such acts?

No i'm suggesting that if you see it acceptable to stick up a few decontextualised bits of Koranic scripture to prove that all Muslims are blood thirsty crazies, you should accept that it is possible to do the same with Biblical texts. I'm a firm believer in the mature contextualised and critical study of scriptures, but that has to apply to those of the "other side" too

[apothanein kerdos]

However the bible did not say only to put relatives to death, it was only saying that even if it was someone close to you. Am I to believe that God considered it okay to convert people to Baal worship as long as you didn't know them well? God ordered the death of Pagans period.

Yes, only if they were close. The reasoning behind this is that, in the Jewish culture at least, it would be rare to listen to a stranger. Generally if a stranger tells you something you simply tell them to bugger off. However if it was a close friend, the matter was much different, and the temptation would be great.

Regardless Shamrock, this stands for a specific point in history (during the exile) and is never to be done again. It is not a command to future generations, instead it is a command to that generation alone. I am still waiting for New Testament scripture or other scriptures that specifically state we are to kill non-Christians.

No i'm suggesting that if you see it acceptable to stick up a few decontextualised bits of Koranic scripture to prove that all Muslims are blood thirsty crazies, you should accept that it is possible to do the same with Biblical texts. I'm a firm believer in the mature contextualised and critical study of scriptures, but that has to apply to those of the "other side" too

You have yet to prove why the Surah's are mistranslated or taken out of context. Again, I have read the whole of the Qu'ran and I can tell you that many of these passages are not taken out of context. They are specific commands to the followers of Allah. It is one thing to say something is outside of its context, but it is entirely another to prove it.

[kiwimac]

However the bible did not say only to put relatives to death, it was only saying that even if it was someone close to you. Am I to believe that God considered it okay to convert people to Baal worship as long as you didn't know them well? God ordered the death of Pagans period.

Yes, only if they were close. The reasoning behind this is that, in the Jewish culture at least, it would be rare to listen to a stranger. Generally if a stranger tells you something you simply tell them to bugger off. However if it was a close friend, the matter was much different, and the temptation would be great.

Regardless Shamrock, this stands for a specific point in history (during the exile) and is never to be done again. It is not a command to future generations, instead it is a command to that generation alone. I am still waiting for New Testament scripture or other scriptures that specifically state we are to kill non-Christians.

No i'm suggesting that if you see it acceptable to stick up a few decontextualised bits of Koranic scripture to prove that all Muslims are blood thirsty crazies, you should accept that it is possible to do the same with Biblical texts. I'm a firm believer in the mature contextualised and critical study of scriptures, but that has to apply to those of the "other side" too

You have yet to prove why the Surah's are mistranslated or taken out of context. Again, I have read the whole of the Qu'ran and I can tell you that many of these passages are not taken out of context. They are specific commands to the followers of Allah. It is one thing to say something is outside of its context, but it is entirely another to prove it.

I also have read the Qur'an and in several translations. Islam is no more inherently violent than any other religion. The problem with islam is that much of what passes for isamic teaching is in fact specific cultural teachings which local islamic authorities have tried to pass off as Muslim doctrine an example of which is Female Circumcision, another 'honour killings'.

Further, to get back to the OP. Allah was never the name of any of the Hamitic moon-Gods, it is etymologically realted to the Semitic 'El and simply means "the God". As for our relationship as Christians with the Muslims perhaps the following story might be helpful.

Francis and the Sultan

In 1219, Francis of Assisi traveled to the Holy Land to bring the gospel to the Muslims. Given a pass through enemy lines, he met with Sultan Melek Al-Kamil. A sickle-shaped sword presented to Francis by the sultan as a memento of their encounter can still be seen in Assisi...

Francis of Assisi was sorely troubled. A great army of his Christian countrymen had come to Egypt to fight the Mohammedans. They were on a crusade to win the Holy Land from the Turks. They were killing many people. Francis saw people starving; he saw little children dying. It was not right. What could he do to stop the terrible massacre?

"In the thirteenth year of his conversion Francis set out for the Holy Land at a time when great and severe battles were raging daily between the Christians and the Muslims; he took with him a companion, and he did not fear to present himself before the Sultan of the Saracens

[Bolts]

Kiwimac

I saw your name, so I thought I'd jump in and say Hi. I'm a kiwi to from the Hawkes Bay.

Welcome to Worthy

[apothanein kerdos]

I also have read the Qur'an and in several translations. Islam is no more inherently violent than any other religion. The problem with islam is that much of what passes for isamic teaching is in fact specific cultural teachings which local islamic authorities have tried to pass off as Muslim doctrine an example of which is Female Circumcision, another 'honour killings'.

It is a religion founded upon violence and the subjection of women....these were not commands to a culture but instead the commands to be a good Muslim.

[Inti]

It is a religion founded upon violence and the subjection of women....these were not commands to a culture but instead the commands to be a good Muslim.

1 Tim 2:8-11

I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

1 Tim 3:14,15; 2:11-15

These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly: But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

1 Cor 14:33b-35,37

As in all churches of the saints. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

Eph 5:18, 22-24

And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit; ... Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

What was that you where saying about Islam and the subjection of women? And do I really have to mention the crusades again?

[ted]

Keep reading in that same book and chapter, Inti......

Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

Eph 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

Eph 5:27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

Eph 5:28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

Anyway,

I think Kiwimac hits it on the head here:

I also have read the Qur'an and in several translations. Islam is no more inherently violent than any other religion. The problem with islam is that much of what passes for isamic teaching is in fact specific cultural teachings which local islamic authorities have tried to pass off as Muslim doctrine an example of which is Female Circumcision, another 'honour killings'.

Radicals have sprouted up over the course of history from almost all of the different religions. We live in a time period in which radical islam seems to be the flavor of the month, hence, it is in the news. Yes, what has happened in recent history has been terrible, and must be dealt with, but I'd like to see what islam is all about without the radical murderers. The trouble is, this era has lasted hundreds of years so far, and doesn't look like it's going to subside anytime soon.

Also, in reference to the Crusades and other eras of "Christian" bloodshed; I think that there were times when Christians were at the root of these problems. Many times it's explained that if Christians would do stuff like this, then they weren't Christian in the first place. My point is, some of this has been done by Christians, but it was wrong just the same. Sometimes, people just go overboard, Christian or not.

Much of what we hear to be "islamic" is traced to a cultural tradition, rather than a religious one. It's easy to spot. Just check out America's own KKK. I would think that they are a good case study of a cultural-based group which tried to hide under a cloak of religion, rather than a group based on the word of God.

The same thing is going on around the world. But, although the difference is fairly easy to spot, basic survival rules apply.

Personally, I could care less whether the people that hijacked some jets and drove them into the WTC did it for religious or cultural reasons. The fact remains that they have a huge following that is actively trying to do more damage. We (the US) demonstrate daily that we are not at war with the muslim religion. If that were so, there wouldn't be a mosque or muslim left by now. Were are also not at war with the Arab culture in general, either. Rather, we are at war with those that would try to hit us, or that have already. This is why it is so tricky. They hide within their culture and religion, and rarely come out into the light of day.

We are at war with people that know how to use the masses. Yes, they have used the passionate faith in islam for their own good. If it works, why change it, right? You can hear it in their speeches. They appeal to the call of islam, and to the cultural roots of the area. In terms of propaganda, they are very effective.

Personally, I don't think their leaders give much of a hoot concerning islamic teaching, except that it adds countless millions to their cause. They espouse this and that about islam, yet they have many places in which to "lay aside" their religion and indulge in sin in such places as Bahrain. Little islands where they can "get it out of their system".

Sorry, I ain't buying it.

Osama's campaign is based more on money and his own feelings of an insulted soul, rather than islamic faith, so I don't fall for it in his case, either.

Understanding this is crucial in the fight against him.

These people, obviously, could care less about islam, yet it effectively builds a case for them, and supplies them all with a convenient and endless supply of soldiers for their causes. So yes, I would agree with Bush when he says our fight is not against islam. These people have, in effect, hijacked a religion. Personally, I believe and have faith in the Bible and Jesus Christ so I therefore believe that islam, and any other religion, is not the way to Heaven nor the truth. But, I can understand enough to realize that our fight is not with islam, but rather, the people that are using it to advance their causes.

Much like good Christians getting caught up in a wave of war and violence in centuries past, I think that good muslims are getting caught up in the same way today, and in centuries past.

I hope that I have explained this correctly, or at least made my point where it can't be confused. Although I believe that islam is a religion that is not in accordance with God's will according to the Bible, and therefore a pagan religion, I do not think that our fight today is with the religion itself. Rather, I feel that some people are using it to build passion for their causes quite effectively. I guess that one could make the case that all religions that go against the Bible are false, and therefore worthy of extermination, I do not adhere to that thought.

I would rather use the Bible and God's Word in a war such as that. It's much more effective than carpet bombs anyway. But, our struggle is not against that, but against madmen that have convinced many people that it is within their religious scope to join the fight against us.

They have done this to such an extent that people are now convinced that blowing themselves up and killing us will bring them to paradise! Of course, we know this to be false, but that is what we fight against today.

In conclusion, there is but only a few effective weapons against such an enemy. First and foremost, there is prayer. When we can show the Lord that we actually care about these people that we war against, He just might listen to our prayers. Another weapon is education. When we learn more about the leaders of this movement and understand how they are able to uses the masses for their intentions, we can effectively stem the tide eventually. I think we are demonstrating this understanding by not going in and wiping out everything "muslim" in these areas. It's not a simple matter of human compassion. In war, we have shown that we care little about such notions. No, I think the US has a better grip on what is going on than we actually know. Otherwise, we would have totally wiped them out of the way by now. We certainly have the ability to do so. If this was truly a war against islam, we surely would have nuked the very hubs of the religion from the start. Instead, we have not done that, but rather, went after the leaders of this misguided movement.

Oil, islam, and religion? No, it's pure good against evil. Simply put: Not many have been listening to President Bush from the beginning of this whole mess. He's more right than what people give him credit for on this issue. Most instead, have let their passion and feelings get in the way of the truth. Islam may indeed be a false religion, but God will deal with that in His own time. Today, we actually fight against something a little different than that. We fight against a movement that hides behind the veil of islam. The leaders have simply adapted islam to their cause knowing that it will supply an endless sea of soldiers to their side.

What we truly fight is the ones that cheerlead these people to the fight. Something Bush has said from the beginning. He may be next to useless on most every other issue today, but in this, he is dead on target.

t.

[nebula]

Osama's campaign is based more on money and his own feelings of an insulted soul, rather than islamic faith, so I don't fall for it in his case, either.

Understanding this is crucial in the fight against him.

These people, obviously, could care less about islam, yet it effectively builds a case for them, and supplies them all with a convenient and endless supply of soldiers for their causes. So yes, I would agree with Bush when he says our fight is not against islam. These people have, in effect, hijacked a religion. Personally, I believe and have faith in the Bible and Jesus Christ so I therefore believe that islam, and any other religion, is not the way to Heaven nor the truth. But, I can understand enough to realize that our fight is not with islam, but rather, the people that are using it to advance their causes.

Much like good Christians getting caught up in a wave of war and violence in centuries past, I think that good muslims are getting caught up in the same way today, and in centuries past. . . .

. . . But, our struggle is not against that, but against madmen that have convinced many people that it is within their religious scope to join the fight against us.

They have done this to such an extent that people are now convinced that blowing themselves up and killing us will bring them to paradise! Of course, we know this to be false, but that is what we fight against today. . . .

Simply put: Not many have been listening to President Bush from the beginning of this whole mess. He's more right than what people give him credit for on this issue. Most instead, have let their passion and feelings get in the way of the truth. Islam may indeed be a false religion, but God will deal with that in His own time. Today, we actually fight against something a little different than that. We fight against a movement that hides behind the veil of islam. The leaders have simply adapted islam to their cause knowing that it will supply an endless sea of soldiers to their side.

What we truly fight is the ones that cheerlead these people to the fight. Something Bush has said from the beginning. He may be next to useless on most every other issue today, but in this, he is dead on target.

Great post, Ted!

And good perspectives here.

(I still think you ought to work in PR.)

[ted]

(I still think you ought to work in PR.)

PR.....

t.