Replies

>>>>They have NO business trying to convert Muslims to pagan Christianity.

Now that is interesting. I don't recall noticing Christians being referred to as Pagans before.

Now the Quran refers to Christians and Jews as 'people of the book'. According to several translations, 'people of the book' are to be converted.

NOW, according to the same translations I've read, Hindus are referred to at the level of pagans and are just to be put to death. They are idol worshippers.

Now I'm not lending logic to any of the translations; but what I'm seeing here is a newer interpretation from the Quran.

Yes, there were Fatwas issued; but that is different than retranslating the Quran.

What do you think StillProud?

The problem is the Quran and the Hadith are not terribly consistent about what is to be done with Jews and Christians. Followers of these two religions, along with a third religion that no one seems to be able to decide for certain what it is, are considered "Dar al Kitab", or People of the Book. That name comes from the fact that the Quran holds that these were religions which received a prophet of God, and a book of teachings from God, and as such are true religions. Although they are to be encouraged to be converted to Islam, they are not to be forced. Instead they can instead pay a special tax to the Islamic state for the freedom to practice their religion.

Remember that Muslims believe that the Prophet Mohamed is the "Seal of the Prophet" - that he is the final prophet, and brought the last word so to speak, the fully evolved form of the religion that they believe everyone is to practice.

The emnity between Arabs and Jews actually predates Islam. We can easily trace its sources back to the days of the Biblical Patriarch Abraham.

Readers of the Bible will be familiar with the story of how Abraham's wife Sarah was infertile until she was quite elderly, and then in her old age had a son who we call in English and who is called Yitzak in Hebrew.

Earlier, Abraham also had a son by Sarah's Egyptian slave girl, Haggar, around the same time. This son is known as Ishmael in the Bible, and in the Quran is known as Ismail.

Jews believe that God sealed a covenant with Abraham on the day he told him that Sarah would bear him the child Isaac. At the same time, he instituted the practice of circumcision, which both Jews and Muslims follow until today.

According to the Bible, God also promised the following: "As for Ishmael, I have heard you; I will bless him and make him fruitful and exceedingly numerous; he shall be the father of twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation."

After Isaac was born and then weaned, both Jewish and Islamic teachings say that Sarah became enraged with Haggar and had her thrown out of the household with her son.

Both the Bible and the Quran agree that Haggar and Ishael wandered in the desert until the water and food was all gone, and then Haggar sat down to wait for her son to die. In both accounts a spring erupted from the ground, and provided water for the child. The Bible locates the spring in the Beersheba area; the Quran calls this spring the "Waters of Zamzam", which they believe still flows today in the city of Mecca.

So upon reading the historical perspective you've got a sibling rivalry of immense proportions - one gone very wrong. Muslims believe is was the child Ismail who was spared the sacrifice by God; Jews and Christians believe it was the child Isaac.

Muslims, Jews, and Christians claim Abraham as the earliest patriarch of their religion. Muslims call this God Allah, which they will explain to you is the Arabic word for The (impying uniqueness and oneness) God.

But still, the emnity between these two groups had obviously become an insurmountable obstacle by the time the Quran was written or revealed. (Muslims believe it wasn't written but was revealed by God.) So it is likely that the hadith are prejudiced to a degree by the cultural conditioning of 2000 years of hatred and resentment.

It is unquestionable tht there is Quranic justification for amicability and peaceful coexistance between Muslims, Jews, and Christians.

The following verses from the Quran illustrate this:

You will find the people most affectionate to those who believe are those who say, 'We are Christians.' (Surat al-Ma'ida, 82).

Today all good things have been made lawful for you. And the food of those given the Book is also lawful for you and your food is lawful for them. So are chaste women from among the believers and chaste women of those given the Book before you, once you have given them their dowries in marriage, not in fornication or taking them as lovers. But as for anyone who disbelieve, his actions will come to nothing and in the hereafter he will be among the losers. (Surat al-Mai'da: 5)

In fact, synagogues and churches are even to be protected: "if God had not driven some people back by means of others, monasteries, churches, synagogues and mosques, where God's name is mentioned much, would have been pulled down and destroyed. God will certainly help those who help Him - God is All-Strong, Almighty." (Surat al-Hajj: 40 )

So where is the problem? Many Islamic clerics point to what they describe as the corruption of Christianity. (I haven't really seen any justification in the Quran for the emnity with the Jews.) They cite this verse: "O People of the Book! Let us rally to a common formula to be binding on both us and you: That we worship none but God; that we associate no partners with Him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords and patrons other than God." (Surat Al 'Imran, 64)

They feel that belief in Jesus Christ basically associates a partner, a co-diety with God, and this is the sole point that they justify their religous jihad upon.

There are cultural reasons for the emnity with Christians as well, going back to the Dark Ages and the Middle Ages, and the various Crusades, which they believe were attempting to stamp out Islam.

This posting is getting too long - I'll continue writing if anyone wants me to explore this further. And no I didn't answer the question so I will answer than in a few minutes :) Was just gving a historical perspective.

Catholics are pagans, protestantss are not.

The trinity, Virgin Mary and various female depictions consign Catholics to the same category as Hindus.

Any depiction of human form or face to the jihadiSaudi islamis is idolatry. Including Orthodox icons.

I see your point.

Usually the jihadi forums describe Christians as "infidels" and the general "moderate" muslim boards describe Christians as "people of the book." On rare occasions, I have seen hot-heads substitute the word "pagan" for "infidel", but that is rare. I'm trying to remember where I saw that. If I recall correctly, that may have been on a vegan-related discussion board.