Posted on 07/17/2017 7:03:43 AM PDT by AnalogReigns
I first noticed something unusual about Islam during the 1980s when I was doing research for my book, Ethics in Context. I devoted one section of the book to the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule, in its negative or positive formulations, is incorporated not only in Christianity (Matt. 7:12), where Jesus declares it is a summary of the law and the prophets, but also in other major religions. For example, in Judaism, What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor; in Hinduism, Let no man do to another that which would be repugnant to himself; in Buddhism, Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful; in Confucianism, What you do not want done to yourself, do not do unto others.
I took this as evidence of the relative universality of rational ethical principles in the world. But in Islam, I could find nothing of the sort, rather just the opposite a reverse Golden Rule, so to speak: Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. Be merciful to one another, but ruthless to the unbelievers (Quran 48:29); Never take unbelievers for friends (3:28). Furthermore, the commands in the Quran to slay the unbelievers wherever they find them (2:191), not befriend them (3:28), fight them and show them harshness (9:123), and smite their heads (47:4) accentuate distance from the Golden Rule.
So I decided at that time just to omit any reference to Islam in that chapter. As I have discovered in further researches, however, the ethical/religious problems within Islam are even more serious. Just as Islam teaches the reverse of the Golden Rule, it teaches the reverse of the last seven of the Ten Commandments, which have to do with morality:
As I suggested in a previous column, Islam may be best understood as a worldwide cult. It enforces honesty and loyalty and fairness among believers, but entails no obligation to respect the ethical canons of unbelievers, which include the Golden Rule and the Decalogue.
Yes, a Satanic cult. Muslims are Satan’s soldiers.
The Koran and all the recorded dispensations of “Wisdom” by the false prophet Mohammed Ali (Hadith) are a major re-write of all the religious texts up to that time, casting Mohammed in the role of Jesus of the New Testament, and dismissing just about the entire Old Testament from about the time of Abraham, in which Ishmael is pictured as the favored son, with Isaac and his mother Sarah being the ones cast out into the wilderness. Then, the next step was to FORBID that the “scholars” of Islam ever study or even refer to the other religious texts (including that of the Zoroastrians), but to include the worship of Ba’al and Moloch, upon which Allah is modeled, a god of vengeance and totally lacking in grace or mercy.
Islam is not, strictly speaking an ethical religion, but only a cover for a harsh ideology with roots in ancient tribal rule and the politics of the anthill, in which strict hierarchies and rule of the strong are expressly exalted.
*slam is not a religion like the others. It is a hateful death cult.
To be fair, theologically speaking, all non-Christians are “Satan’s soldiers” who need the grace of God in Jesus Christ to be redeemed. In Christianity though we are commanded to love non-believers, and even our enemies—precisely the opposite to the ethic of Islam.
The more I see it, the more I wonder if Islam is not the worldwide religion to be forced on people by the anti-Christ, predicted in the book of Revelation. God alone knows. I do know, it is the opposite of good.
This is an excellent article!
(((I hopr the author carries at all times)))
Agree. And yet seemingly intelligent people buy into it. Boggles my mind.
Islam appeals to the young male ego by giving it direction and permission to do what it will and wants to do, and all with the promised blessings of allah and virgins in paradise for the true islamist.
As such, it is, it was and it always will be a force for evil in the world. How could it be anything else?
By its fruit we may judge islam and islam's fruits are the fruits of Satan.
Islam sounds just like Stalinism.
When considering that such murderous, pagan, tribal rule was the norm for society in the mid-east and levant 2000 years ago, one realizes how completely radical and new Christ’s message was.
My tagline agrees...
Just for the record, I’m not Roman Catholic, nor am I endorsing this website, I just thought this was a terrific article about the ethics of Islam toward non-Muslims.
It should be noted that the Roman Catholic & Lutheran numbering of the 10 Commandments differs from ordinary Protestant and Eastern Orthodox numbering. Basically #1 & #2 (1-No other gods, 2-No idols) commands are combined as the 1st Command, so, the Don’t Covet command (#10 in the Protestant version) is divided between (#9)don’t covet your neighbor’s wife, and (#10) don’t covet anything else of your neighbor’s, in order to compile the commands to number 10.
Since the biblical text in Hebrew (Exodus 20, and Deuteronomy 5) has no numbers attached to the Decalogue, though it is referred to elsewhere in the bible as 10 Commandments (or, the 10 Big Things...literally the meaning in Hebrew), there is room for interpretation as to where exactly the 10 divisions in the text are.
The Church Father Augustine favored what is now the Catholic/Lutheran enumeration, whereas the Church Father Origen favored the Eastern Orthodox/Protestant enumeration. Since everyone agrees on the same text...WHERE exactly the numbers are in the 10 Commandments is not considered a matter of dogma.
Modern Jewish sources also have a third different enumeration. All three numberings have their sources from different ancient Jewish traditions, and all rely on the same words in the text.
It was more likely St Michael the Archangel telling him, “I’m on you like white on rice”.
Just for the record, Im not Roman Catholic, nor am I endorsing this website, I just thought this was a terrific article about the ethics of Islam toward non-Muslims.
It should be noted that the Roman Catholic & Lutheran numbering of the 10 Commandments differs from ordinary Protestant and Eastern Orthodox numbering. Basically #1 & #2 (1-No other gods, 2-No idols) commands are combined as the 1st Command, so, the Dont Covet command (#10 in the Protestant version) is divided between (#9)dont covet your neighbors wife, and (#10) dont covet anything else of your neighbors, in order to compile the commands to number 10.
Since the biblical text in Hebrew (Exodus 20, and Deuteronomy 5) has no numbers attached to the Decalogue, though it is referred to elsewhere in the bible as 10 Commandments (or, the 10 Big Things...literally the meaning in Hebrew), there is room for interpretation as to where exactly the 10 divisions in the text are.
The Church Father Augustine favored what is now the Catholic/Lutheran enumeration, whereas the Church Father Origen favored the Eastern Orthodox/Protestant enumeration. Since everyone agrees on the same text...WHERE exactly the numbers are in the 10 Commandments is not considered a matter of dogma.
Modern Jewish sources also have a third different enumeration. All three numberings have their sources from different ancient Jewish traditions, and all rely on the same words in the text.
Of course. The Decalogue’s prohibition is against manslaughter and murder. Killing in warfare, self-defense, or lawful executions were allowed.
I attended a Christian college with an Anabaptist-pacifist establishment. Coming from a military family, reflecting on scripture, I’ve thought long and hard on the subject. I can give very solid arguments why the New Testament does not demand pacifism.
The original English bible translations (Tyndale to King James) of the 1500s were done at a time before extensive knowledge of Hebrew. English has changed a bit since then too—and few in those generations questioned that the Bible allows killing in war, self-defense, and lawful executions. Given that in the very same book (Exodus) a few chapters away from the Decalogue, God commands warfare in certain conditions and executions, you’d think any common-sense interpreter would understand that the “thou shalt not kill” command is not without exceptions.
Unfortunately, poor biblical interpretation—using ONLY the New Testament (without sufficient reliance on the Old Testament) led certain radical Christian sects (the Anabaptists in Europe, and the Quakers in the UK) to conclude foolish pacifism was commanded for Christians.
So the issue was bigger than just a mistranslation of “teer.”
Fortunately pacifist Christian sects have always been a small minority of Christians (most were persecuted and chased out of Europe to the America.) Unfortunately, their ideas still influence people, especially on the liberal side of the political spectrum.
The 1960s—for those who didn’t want to fight in a war to protect Asians in Vietnam—pacifism was used as an ideal by the anti-war movement—which given that the leadership were Marxists, I believe was inauthentic pacifism.
I had professors,roommates and friends in college who were pacifists (Mennonites) and they were sincere, even though sincerely wrong. Jesus said “love your enemies” so this is where they get this.
Sound Christian Bible interpretation though tensions Jesus’ words, with the Old Testament, which He upheld. Christian pacifists really cannot come to grips with the military action and death penalty laws commanded by God for the Jews in the Old Testament.
They have to assume a radical break between Old and New Testaments—which is not consistent with there being only one God who inspired both.
Mainstream Protestant, Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox Christianity though does accept that killing is sometimes just—which is how the concept of “Just War” principles developed.
Saint Jerome reputedly was the foremost biblical scholar of his day, and he used “Non occides,” in his 4th-Century Vulgate Latin transliteration.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.