Does Quran 2:256 show that Islam is a religion of peace? Response to David Wood.
Posted: February 2, 2012 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Abrogation, No Compulsion in islam, Quran 42 Comments »The anti -islamist bigot David Wood has made a short video asserting that Islam is not a religion of peace based on Quran 2:256. He claims based on the methodology laid out in the Quran ,that 2:256 is done away with. However the verses he refers to, Quran 2:106 and Quran 16:101 no where lay out such a method where Quran 2:256 would be done away with. No where does Allah say he has abrogated 2:256 nor is there any report where Muhammad said 2:256 is abrogated. This is the strongest proof that David is wrong. And no, the “I have been ordered to fight ” hadith does not abrogate 2:256 either.
Al Nawawi in his commentary on the 40 Hadith states concerning the”I have been ordered to fight” hadith that;
“The majority of the scholars think it refers to the Arab Polytheists” (pg.505 “commentary on the 40 Hadith”)
Ibn Hajr we are told says this hadith has been abrogated( rather than it abrogating any Quranic verses) by later rulings concerning jizyah and peace agreements. ( pg 505 “Commentary on the 40 Hadith” Al Nawawi).
Further more there are ample verses in Quran the highest source of guidance in Islam that clearly state to Muhammad concerning the disbelievers rejection of islam that:
” yet your people still reject it even though it is the truth. Say, ‘I have not been put in charge of you.”-Quran 6:66
“We have not sent you to be their guardian: your only duty is to deliver the message.”-Quran 42:48
I could site over a dozen other such verses making it clear that 2:256 is not done away with because similar verses ( over a dozen) like the 2 just cited above, support the same idea of no compulsion to accept islam. Muhammad and the muslims are told over and over again that he/they can not force people to accept Islam and that the duty given is to convey the message.
So in order to attempt to support his claim David refers to the tafsir of Ibn Kathir.Again remember the highest source of tafsir of the Quran is the Quran by the Quran. (pg 123,124,129 Ulum Al Quran By Ahmad Von denffer).David attempts to sway the viewers by claiming Ibn Kathir is “The Greatest” sunni commentator of the Quran and claim Ibn Kathir says 2:256 is abrogated. When you listen to the evidence given by David, you notice no evidence is provided where Allah or the Messenger say Quran 2:256 has been abrogated. All we see are the differing opinons of various scholars but no conclusive evidence that the verse is in fact abrogated. Those that hold that the verse is not abroagted such as Al Razi state :
“That he should be forced to accept faith is not lawful in this world, which is a world of trial.”(pg 254 “The Quran and Its interpreters” By Mahmoud Ayoub)
Sayyid Qutb :
“It(Islam) is the system which asserts that “there is no compulsion in religion”. (pg 255 “The Quran and its interpreters”)
You can find many who hold the position that 2:256 is not abrogated.Those who hold that 2:256 is not abrogated have the judgement in their favor, as stated before. No verse or report traced to Muhammad states that 2:256 was done away with. In fact concerning 9:5 which they claim Ibn kathir says abrogates 2:256, we read that Ibn kathir merely gives THE OPINION of a person by the name of Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim who said, “It abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty, and every term.” Notice this opinion is not traced back to Allah or the Messenger, which is why our opponents claims are baseless.
Further more I wonder why our opponents never mention the fact that many scholars say that Quran 9:5 it self is abrogated .Imam al-Qurtubi mentions that al-Dahhak, ‘Ata’, and others are of the opinion that the above-mentioned verse (Qur’an 47:4) abrogates the “Verse of the Sword.” Al-Thawri relates from Juwaybir, that al-Dahhak said, “Slay the polytheists wherever you find them… (9:5)” is abrogated by the verse, “Then set them free or ransom them….(47:4).”And of course these verses were in the context of battle with the Pagans who attacked the Muslims 1st (Quran 9:13). Yet our opponents never mention this view.
We see then that David is wrong in his claims concerning Quran 2:256. The verse was not abrogated , nor forgotten, and there are over a dozen verses that support and confirm what 2:256 says.Further more no one has the authority to claim a verse is done away if Allah nor the messenger gave no authority to say so.
David ends his video by making the claim that Muslims who still cite the verse 2:256 are using Taqiyyah. 1st of all David uses the word taqiyyah wrongly.See here what Taqiyyah really means http://the-case-for-islam.webs.com/caseforislamvideos.htm and how the haters are refuted who use taqiyyah as a claim against Islam and Muslims. He uses the word as if it means Muslim are boldly lying about Islam and covering its true teachings. Yet no stated teaching on Taqiyyah that I have seen condones such a practice. This is clearly what the anti -muslim bigots have created themselves. The only lying and deception being done, is that done by David and his cohorts. 1st of all he pretends that there are no other views about 2:256 and that its engraved in stone that 2:256 is abrogated. We already have shown that is not the case. There are plenty of scholars in favor of the position that 2:256 is not abroagted, thus if muslims still cite the verse they can not be charged with hiding any thing, as this is a valid position endorsed by many islamic scholars. The attempts to demonise and spread prejudiced about Muslims is shameful. I once said that I did not think David was a bigot of the likes of Robert Spencer and others. I was wrong! His fear mongering videos about Arab immigrants and false information about the alleged threat of Islam in the west or America, has clearly exposed the bigot that is David Wood.
Your reasoning is absurd and dishonest. There was no such thing as “surah 2:256″ when it got abrogated. Don’t you know anything about your own religion? Why do you think Mohamed would have said, “I hereby abrogate Surah number two verse two hundred and fifty six because time has come to kill all the infidels” ?? You probably don’t even see how ridiculous your reasoning is. All that the warlord did was simply contradict himself – go back on his word. This caused concern – if he was talking from God, why was he changing his mind? Then he said “Allah changes what he wants” and the concept of abrogation (i.e., divine lying) was born.
Perhaps you should permit a person more schooled in Islam should carry on the debate for you.
Mack its you who doesn’t know anything about our religion. What do you mean there was no such thing as surah 2:256 when it got abrogated? If there was no such thing, then how could it be claimed to be abrogated if it didn’t exist??Thats make no sense what so ever. You probably dont see how ridiculous your own reasoning is. Nothing you said addresses the points made in the article. So step aside and take your own advice, and let some one more schooled in Anti islamic attacks carry on the debate for you! Cause you clearly have no clue WTH you’re talking about!
I think that why other religion can not co-op with science and law of physics because they can not think correctly.
I remember one an example in physics- Newton Laws of Gravity.
First law: The velocity of a body remains constant unless the body is acted upon by an external force.
Second law: The acceleration a of a body is parallel and directly proportional to the net force F and inversely proportional to the mass m, i.e., F = ma.
Third law: The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear.
Every law there shall have condition to meet to active the law or formula. When they do not use or use it wrongly for sure it will bring catastrophic. So in Islam, the law shall put at the right place so it can bring justice and peace. But I think typical non-Muslim can’t think correctly because they stuck with their own theology that proven wrong.
I think in their religion, there were too many philosopher than scientist. Of course their scientist have become heresy and become atheist. Pity them…
Salamoalaikum wr wb,
Are you sure it is “velocity” which remains unchanged until external force is applied, I thought it was state of the body which remains constant unless external force is applied. If a body is in “state” of rest or motion then it will continue to be so unless force is applied.
I still remember some kinematics, thanks for the sticks of my physics teacher LOL
sincerely,
Q.M.
Q.M,
Good observation, thanks for your correction.
For a second though,
“The velocity of a body remains constant unless the body is acted upon by an external force.”
If v=0, then it will continue to be so unless force is applied.
same as v= have a quantity, then it will continue to be so unless force is applied.
So actually the law given is also can be derived to be similar as what Newton said.
Salamoalaikum wr wb,
v=0 and v=V are again two states – the state of rest and motion. LOL
)
sincerely,
Q.M.
Dear Mr Philosopher,
You make me confuse earlier with . I thought with simple explanation you should understand my statement, I forgot that you are philosopher.
When velocity, v=0, and acceleration, a =0
The velocity of a body remains constant unless the body is acted upon by an external force
and another state,
When, velocity, v=V, and acceleration, a=0 so a body remains moving at constant speed unless the body is acted upon by an external force.
The important message in Newton 1st law is “acceleration = 0
but you statement of “v=0 and v=V are again two states – the state of rest and motion.” can be correct if:
When someone sit inside the train that move with velocity, v2=V, but let me correct your formula
Man velocity, v1 Train velocity, v2
So, v1 = 0 and v2 =V2, people call it relative velocity.
but you can also put it as v1 = V1, if you make a condition earth is moving.
***
The point I want to highlight is :
Every law there shall have condition to meet to active the law or formula. It not the formula is wrong, but what are the term and condition that you put is important to give a good result.
I hope you can understand, if can’t please refer to “Mc Graw Hill Engineering textbooks, “Dynamics” or “Static”.
Abrogate this abrogate that. What a circus. Abrogate the whole thing and have done with it. No wonder you guys invented the abacus. Counting scholars all day long.
@Brother erasmus,
I think before commenting what you commented, you forgot to take into account that Allah (SWT) states that when He so called abrogates a certain verse, He REPLACES it with something similar or better. The very concept of prudent “replacement” explains your (mis)conception that it is not a “circus” issue.
In deed, it is circus when you have tomes of Old Testament BOOKS, not merely a few verses here and there, utterly rejected unceremoniously because of the influence of one man – Paul. Even though, let alone multiple OT prophets, NT figures like John, Jesus (peace be upon them), James, Peter, Barnabas and other earliest church members of Jerusalem opposed Paul – embarrasingly all of this is accounted in the NT.
And by the way you would not have to “count scholars” since counting only one Paul would not take “all day long”.
sincerely,
Q.M.
We didn’t invent the abacus dumbass.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abacus
“In deed, it is circus when you have tomes of Old Testament BOOKS, not merely a few verses here and there, utterly rejected unceremoniously because of the influence of one man – Paul.”
They were not rejected, they were fulfilled.
“Even though, let alone multiple OT prophets, NT figures like John, Jesus (peace be upon them), James, Peter, Barnabas and other earliest church members of Jerusalem opposed Paul – embarrasingly all of this is accounted in the NT.”
Peter preached the same gospel that is recorded in Acts 2 and 3 that Paul later preached and wrote about in his letters. At the time that Peter preached that Gospel Paul was persecuting the church and he even presided over the stoning of Stephen. So the gospel was preached and the church was founded without the help, and indeed in opposition to the efforts, of Paul.
Where is the doctrinal opposition to Paul in the early church that you refer to?
@Brother Erasmus,
Thanks for your notes.
“They were not rejected, they were fulfilled.”
Really!? It seems then that I was under delusion since I believed with Paul that Jesus (peace be upon him) brought the Laws to an end (Romans 10:4). Or, I never knew that to “end” something means to “fulfill” it!
Furthermore, how were they fulfilled? By claiming that the Laws are “USELESS” (Hebrews 9:12-14) or by asserting that Laws are not holy enough not to beget sins (Romans 7:7-8, 1 Corinthians 15:56-57, Romans 7:9-10 so on and so forth). I wont engage much of cyber space, please help yourself to: http://donotsaytrinity.wordpress.com/2012/02/04/what-was-paul-up-to-in-jerusalem/ for more on the topic. In that paper, I have discussed your claims of fulfillment of Laws!
I am not surprised you concentrated on Peter only when I wrote about others also besides him like James, Barnabas etc. However, NT testifies that even Peter disowned Paul with Barnabas not to mention John and Jesus (peace be upon them). I dont think I would be able to accomodate the argument in here, therefore kindly refer to one of my recent article: http://donotsaytrinity.wordpress.com/2012/02/04/high-octane-faceoff-in-jerusalem/ .In this article you will also find how EARLIEST Church council rejected Paul’s doctrines – to prove it I have not use any extra-biblical material.
sincerely,
Q.M.
This shows nothing more than that as long as the temple was standing and the rituals continued that the church at Jerusalem could not free itself from the old covenant and fully enter in to the new. There is nothing unusual in this. It was a transitional period in which it was especialy difficult for the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem to detach themselves from the old customs and rituals because of the presence of the Temple.
Paul, and the rest of the New Testament by the way, teaches that the law was useless as a means of attaining righteousness before God because of man’s weakness. He did not teach that the law did not have any other use. He said the law is holy, just and good. He taught that it is the purpose of grace “that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us”. This is not perfectly fulfilled in this life.
Sharia law is not the Mosaic law. It does not demand anything of man beyond to serve himself and not to infringe upon the property rights of fellow Muslims.
@ Brother erasmus,
Thanks for your insightful note.
After going through you comments, I have a few queries:
As you said, “This shows nothing more than that as long as the temple was standing and the rituals continued that the church at Jerusalem could not free itself from the old covenant and fully enter in to the new. There is nothing unusual in this.”
Why could not they “free themselves from the old covenent and fully enter into the new”? Did not they knew that “Christ (pbuh) had allegedly died and brought the laws to an end”? Did not they knew that his alleged sacrificial blood was “perfect” enough to trump the stones of “standing temple”? Did not they knew that his alleged sacrifice was “not something as fleeting as gold and silver but much more precious” than that?
Furthermore, we are not talking about Toms, Dicks and Harrys of Jerusalem Church. We are referring to James, Peter and Barnabas – most of whom who were taught by Jesus (pbuh). Why were these greats facing “difficulties in detaching themselves from old customs”? Do you want mean, Jesus’ (pbuh) words did not had impact enough on their heart to renounce the Laws at once. Or do you want to say that the mere “presence of Temple” trumped these “Apostles” to outweigh the alleged blood of Christ (pbuh) when compared to the mere “presence of Temple”? Or is the matter totally different that they did not support Pauline Theology! And they were reserved in their hearts for it!
Further, as you said, “It was a transitional period in which it was especialy difficult for the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem to detach themselves from the old customs and rituals because of the presence of the Temple.”
Please enlighten me, as I seriously doubt whether it was “transitional period” or they did not wanted the “transition”. Because, if you read the NT text I quoted, it clearly says that James and others had concerted the ceremony in order to belie Paul and his theology.
In order to prove that the Old Laws has not ended as per Paul’s assertions, but on the contrary, even Paul is loyal to its viability! But of course, the next question is, Paul considered the Laws to be dead once Jesus (pbuh) allegedly died.
You also said, “Paul, and the rest of the New Testament by the way, teaches that the law was useless as a means of attaining righteousness before God because of man’s weakness. He did not teach that the law did not have any other use.”
Brother, you know it more than me that according to Paul, Laws had what “other uses”? It is the Law which engenders Sin? It is Law because of which Paul knew and started to sin – otherwise he was innocent? It is the Law which stirrs up all kind of Sins – it also fuelled coveting in Paul? Paul also considered that – strangulate the Laws and sins would die? These are only some of the many “other teachings” of Paul regarding Laws!!
Talking of “Law being useless…man’s weakness” etc. Did not God knew about man’s weakness when He revealed the Laws and demanded men to follow. (God did know about man’s weakness but at the same time He also knows about his forgiving nature to forgive man’s short comings while following the Laws)
Man’s weakness theory is contravened by the Psalmist, who was a sinner, yet he had no problems in obeying the Laws. In fact for him, Laws were “as sweet as honey” and he wanted to abide by them “forever and ever… always”
sincerely,
Q.M.
And your understanding of Shariah is as moronic as your understanding of abacii
I agree with Sami, this verse simply doesn’t fit the criterion of having being abrogated, although some scholars may think so, they can not substantiate the claim on the basis of the strict conditions of abrogation.
So it is agreed the verse doesn’t force anyone to join Islam. However Islam is not looking to force people into becoming Muslims it gives us a choice. Either pay the Jizyah or become a Muslim.
“Majmoo’ Fataawa wa Maqaalaat li’l-Shaykh Ibn Baaz, 6/219 (www.islam-qa.com)
“Question:
Some friends say that whoever does not enter Islam, that is his choice and he should not be forced to become Muslim, quoting as evidence the verses in which Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And had your Lord willed, those on earth would have believed, all of them together. So, will you (O Muhammad) then compel mankind, until they become believers”
[Yoonus 10:99]
“There is no compulsion in religion”
[al-Baqarah 2:256]
What is your opinion concerning that?.
Answer:
Praise be to Allaah.
The scholars explained that these two verses, and other similar verses, have to do with those from whom the jizyah may be taken, such as Jews, Christians and Magians (Zoroastrians). They are not to be forced, rather they are to be given the choice between becoming Muslim or paying the jizyah.
Other scholars said that this applied in the beginning, BUT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY ABROGATED by Allaah’s command to fight and wage jihad. So whoever refuses to enter Islam should be fought WHEN THE MUSLIMS ARE ABLE TO FIGHT, until they either enter Islam or pay the jizyah if they are among the people who may pay jizyah. The kuffaar should be compelled to enter Islam if they are not people from whom the jizyah may be taken, because that will lead to their happiness and salvation in this world and in the Hereafter. Obliging a person to adhere to the truth in which is guidance and happiness is better for him than falsehood. Just as a person may be forced to do the duty that he owes to other people even if that is by means of imprisonment or beating, so forcing the kaafirs to believe in Allaah alone and enter into the religion of Islam is more important and more essential, because this will lead to their happiness in this world and in the Hereafter. This applies unless they are People of the Book, i.e., Jews and Christians, or Magians, because Islam says that these three groups may be given the choice: they may enter Islam or they may pay the jizyah and feel themselves subdued.
Some of the scholars are of the view that others may also be given the choice between Islam and jizyah, but the most correct view is that no others should be given this choice, rather these three groups are the only ones who may be given the choice, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) fought the kuffaar in the Arabian Peninsula and he only accepted their becoming Muslim. And Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“But if they repent [by rejecting Shirk (polytheism) and accept Islamic Monotheism] and perform As-Salaah (Iqaamat-as-Salaah), and give Zakaah, then leave their way free. Verily, Allaah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful”
[al-Tawbah 9:5]
He did not say, “if they pay the jizyah”. The Jews, Christians and Magians are to be asked to enter Islam; if they refuse then they should be asked to pay the jizyah. If they refuse to pay the jizyah then the Muslims must fight them IF THEY ARE ABLE TO DO SO. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allaah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allaah and His Messenger (Muhammad), (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued”
[al-Tawbah 9:29]
And it was proven that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) accepted the jizyah from the Magians, but it was not proven that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) or his companions (may Allaah be pleased with them) accepted the jizyah from anyone except the three groups mentioned above.
The basic principle concerning that is the words of Allaah (interpretation of the meaning):
“And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism, i.e. worshipping others besides Allaah), and the religion (worship) will all be for Allaah Alone [in the whole of the world]”
[al-Anfaal 8:39]
“Then when the Sacred Months (the 1st, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikoon (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush. But if they repent [by rejecting Shirk (polytheism) and accept Islamic Monotheism] and perform As-Salaah (Iqaamat-as-Salaah), and give Zakaah, then leave their way free. Verily, Allaah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful”
[al-Tawbah 9:5]
This verse is known as Ayat al-Sayf (the verse of the sword).
These and similar verses ABROGATE the verses which say that there is no compulsion to become Muslim.
And Allaah is the Source of strength.”
(Source: http://islamqa.com/en/ref/34770)
Finally there may not be compulsion in joining religion (since the other unfavorable option of being forced to pay the jizyah exists) but there is compulsion in staying in religion as there is a great deterrent in leaving.
What is that deterrence?
Well I’ll let Zaatari’s colleague, Mr Zawadi explain:
http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/of_course_apostates_should_be_killed
You need to stick to the point instead of quote mining scholars like Bin Baz etc who many people within Islam openly accuse of heretical ideas. Stick to the Quran, and don’t use these cheap missionary arguments about ‘abrogation’. The orthodox position is that there IS no abrogation, and those who DO believe in it do not say that it is a compulsory belief. And even if you do use Bin Baz, anyone who knows about the Wahhabi movement knows that Ibn Taymiyyah trumps your Bin Baz and he does not share this interpretation. Flop.
Try respected scholars like Abu Hanifa amongst thousands of others if you INSIST on straw manning on the basis of scholars (yawn), instead of organs of the Saudi state which itself is aided and abetted by the ‘secular’ West of which you are a no doubt a card – carrying member. Better yet stick to the Quran and Mutawatir hadith. Or just stop with the victimisation and leave us be.
Your argument is poor (apart form the OLD tactic of not quoting after 9:5, although since you were ‘quoting a quote’ I’ll let that be) and EVEN if we accept your posturing that the ayats are abrogated, the remaining ayats do not tell you to compel to belief, merely fight and kill the enemy, which you admit, so what was the point of all that?
And who says that the option of paying jizya is ‘unfavourable’? Don’t believe in taxation do you? Then sort out your own country first, and then please sort out the U.K when you’re done.
And who cares what this Zawadi guy says? Is he like the Islamic Pope or something? Stop doing all your research off Google. How do you know he and Zataari are ‘colleagues’, you been to their office or something? Or are all Muslims the ‘same’. You don’t seem know about apostasy in Islam on this evidence.
And perhaps you can tell us what happens to you when you ‘apostate’ from a secular state? They let you run off with their secrets do they? I heard they take away your passport and lock you up in some part of Cuba and water-board you without a trial. But you know all about detention in Australia, so who am I schooling?!! Oh yeah, Australia…that reminds me of Julian Assange, who didn’t even ‘apostate’ from the United States, since he AIN’T EVEN A CITIZEN THERE and people STILL asked for the death penalty! Damn, steady on boys, even the Muslims think that’s harsh!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/01/us-embassy-cables-executed-mike-huckabee
Don’t hear you complain though…or are you confused about ‘apostasy’ and ‘treason’?
You see, we could play this game all year long, I can go on the internet and find dumb atheists and secularists who say moronic stuff (you know, like Sam Harris saying people deserve to be killed for holding ideas that are ‘sufficiently’ dangerous or like France telling women what to wear, just like the Taliban or those ass – clowns above) but that would be aimless because just finding a dumb exponent of an idea does not invalidate the idea, it merely proves that there is a surfeit of dumb people.
I, Shadid wrote this article not Sami. And I already provided ample evidence that The verse is not abrogated and Allah never abrogated ” No compulsion in religion”. As I said in the article There are over a dozen verses in the Quran that express the same idea that no one is forced to accept Islam. Allah Himself says if he wanted to he could have made every one muslim, but he has not , there fore he ask would you compell them to believe? If Allah himself refuses to make everyone believers why would he command Muslims to do that which he chooses not to do?
.
There is no compulsion to stay in religion either. See here Quran 3:144 “And Muhammad is no more than a messenger; the messengers have already passed away before him; if then he dies or is killed will you turn back upon your heels? And whoever turns back upon his heels, he will by no means do harm to Allah in the least and Allah will reward the grateful”
Quran 5:54 “O you who believe! whoever from among you turns back from his religion, then Allah will bring a people, He shall love them and they shall love Him,”
Is that not clear , there is clearly no compulsion to stay, Allah wont be harmed and he will just bring others who will believe and replace those who leave.
Bro, your article was PLENTY clear, but not to the haters, who can’t even tell the Muslims apart, like the dumbass above.
Zataari, Lewis, Zawadi, who cares?! It’s all the same right?!
It’s not like they’re going to distinguish when they undertake their ‘Final Solution’ of the ‘Muslim Problem’ so who GIVES a crap WHO wrote what article?! They’re all the same!
Besides, these guys seem to be able to ‘compel’ and ‘kill’ people the world over JUST FINE without even needing the Quran!
We also must understand that:
1) If 2 Muslim fighting, and one of them killed, both are going to hell, why the one who being killed also being put in hell.
2) In one war, one companion of Rasullah pbuh have been spit by his opponent, and he stop killing him because his intent have change from “For Allah” to “revenge for spitting”.
3) In one war, there are two companion fighting and one of them go to Heaven and another one go to Hell. Both are warrior, the different in their intention. The one who go to heaven fight for Allah, the one (Qotzman) who go to Hell is fighting for glory Medina.
Here, the fatwa shown should not be use easily. This fatwa cannot be consider as public fatwa which all people can be use. If not we just invite our own Muslim to go to Hell.
Above story is about a warrior which attend a war with Rasullah still go to Hell. Who are we today, are we comparable to them?
How public can differentiate between fighting for Allah and fighting for glory or revenge. That why in every war of prophets, David fighting Goliath or Rasullah pbuh’s war. They all being select among the best man i.e hafidz, ulama, etc.
“Of course apostates should be killed”
This is not simple thing. If I put 3 above condition, no one will dare to kill apostasy or anyone.
Can we surely that we our intention is purely because of Allah, or just because “lost in debate”, or “lost for revenge” or “my family have became apostasy and I cant face the society”.
Many apostasy today are not because they dont like Islam, but the don’t know Islam. Sometime they don’t even know how to solah. Can we blame them when we dont do our job to teach them?
if companion (no2) can have a doubt either he killing for Allah or for revenge. Can our public think and differentiate about that. Seriously, I dont think we can differentiate it.
When Umar al Khattab said “If you ask me first before you killed that apostate, I will just prison him”
When Umar Abdul Aziz said “Let go the apostate”, I think both of them doing a right thing.
With this, the verse of fighting cannot be use easily and verse 2:256 can be use freely.
“Either pay the Jizyah or become a Muslim.”
In term of fiqh, Yes, non-Muslim should pay Jizyah or become Muslim, if we based solely on Fiqh.
In we based on tasawwuf, we must think about their burden, their suffering, etc.
If we refer to Islamic history, many non-Muslim converted to Islam because we implement tasawwuf in our government and not forget about fiqh. This two fundamental teaching (fiqh and tasawwuf) must be balance all the time.
Dont we forget about tasawwuf, Imam Shafi said “Be at the same time a faqîh (fiqh) and a Sufi”. All imam of 4 mainstream madzhab hold a same view.
Good reply Hifzan, but you must remember, in Dawah it is very difficult to defend the views of each and every scholar, especially people like Ibn Baz and Albani etc who say some very messed up things.
If a Christian had to defend the views of every Church Father or Pope or Christian scholar from Augustine to Aquinas throughout history then their job would be much more difficult, so they do not try to do that, and neither should we, or it becomes ‘asymmetric warfare’.
I promise you that one of the main reasons that Islam is not spreading as fast as it could is because of the so called ‘Salafi’ movement and the opinions of their scholars such as Ibn Baz above. They say all of these things, like driving bans for women is justified, like covering the face is Fard etc. and the western people just think: ‘Well, if this is how crazy their leaders are, then I will not bother to look into the religion or read the Quran’. Also, the behaviour of the Saudi leadership and royal family when they are abroad is a big deterrent and creates a false impression of Islam. And this is not condemned by the scholars in Saudi, although The Prophet (SAW) said that the BEST jihad is to speak a word of truth to the unjust ruler, which the scholars in Saudi and other places fail to do. In fact they justify the absurd policies on the basis of ‘Islam’.
Any person who is too cowardly to speak up before the oppressors or the unjust or immoral has no right to be followed as a scholar in Islam, even if he has Knowledge (which Ibn Baz does not any way). To make the point even more obvious, The Prophet (SAW) said:
‘The master of martyrs is Hamzah and a man who stood up to an unjust ruler, commanding him (to do good) and forbidding him (from evil) and was killed’
Thus The Prophet (SAW) was emphatic in commanding the believers to endure harm and even death in questioning and struggling against the unjust rulers. If that is the case for US, as ordinary believers, how much more so for the scholars? So you have to faced facts that the scholars in these places, since they are in league with the state, are not reliable.
End of the day, we do not care what scholars say. We listen to them and if it makes sense to our limited knowledge and intellect, then we accept it. If not, then we don’t. If following scholars was allowed to an unlimited extent, then there is no point in doing Dawah, as the other religions would just say: ‘We are following OUR scholars’. We have to use our own mind, and if we do, it is clear that what Ibn Baz is saying above is idiotic and that the theory of abrogation is just that: a THEORY, and one which does not make sense: there is not a SINGLE proved incident of abrogation in the Quran and the verses people use to justify it like;
”None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?” (TMQ 2:106)
actually refer to PREVIOUS scriptures/oral traditions, As Muhammad Asad explains in his translation:
”The principle laid down in this passage – relating to the supersession of the Biblical
dispensation by that of the Qur’an – has given rise to an erroneous interpretation by many
Muslim theologians. The word ayah (“message”) occurring in this, context is also used to
denote a “verse;” of the Qur’an (because every one of these verses contains a message).
Taking this restricted meaning of the term ayah, some scholars conclude from the above passage that certain verses of the Qur’an have been “abrogated” by God’s command before the revelation of the Qur’an was completed. Apart from the fancifulness of this assertion -
which calls to mind the image of a human author correcting, on second thought, the proofs
of his manuscript – deleting one passage and replacing it with another – there does not
exist a single reliable Tradition to the effect that the Prophet ever, declared a verse of
the Qur’an to have been “abrogated”. At the root of the so-called “doctrine of abrogation”
may lie the inability of some of the early commentators to reconcile one Qur’anic passage
with another: a difficulty which was overcome by declaring that one of the verses in
question had been “abrogated”. This arbitrary procedure explains also why there is no
unanimity whatsoever among the upholders of the “doctrine of abrogation” as to which, and
how many, Qur’an verses have been affected by it; and, furthermore, as to whether this
alleged abrogation implies a total elimination of the verse in question from the context
of the Qur’an, or only a cancellation of the specific ordinance or statement contained in it.
In short, the “doctrine of abrogation” has no basis whatever in historical fact, and must
be rejected. On the other hand, the apparent difficulty in interpreting the above Qur’anic
passage disappears immediately if the term ayah is understoood, correctly, as “message”,
and if we read this verse in conjunction with the preceding one, which states that the Jews
and the Christians refuse to accept any revelation which might supersede that of the Bible:
for, if read in this way, the abrogation relates to the earlier divine messages and not to
any part of the Qur’an itself.”
I would not use these erroneous ideas about abrogation in my (very small) dawah work personally and would advise you to do the same brother.
Zawadi does not support his argument for the killing of apostates from the Koran or hadith. He states in his article “Both Muslims and Christians believe in the Divine Command Theory, which teaches that our morals are derived from God’s commands”. There is however no mention in his article of where the divine command comes from. His main argument for the death penalty for apostates seems to be that Christians don’t agree with it so it must be right.
So I see the death penalty for apostates as a contradiction to the words “there is no compulsion in religion”.
Thanks, I agree completely. Zawadi has lost the plot on this and embarrassed himself.
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
Erasmus,
Or maybe there isn’t punishment for changing of one’s faith/religion mentioned in the Qur’an.
As for the support in the hadiths, this is not a unanimous opinion among Muslim scholars. One must be thoughtful is there problem or weakness or is this the case involved treason or rebellion endangering muslim ummah at large.
There is in fact hadith which exemplify how the Prophet dealt with solely apostasy case without any reference of the hadd punishment (incl. death penalty).
http://bit.ly/xIcd1k
This was an open case of apostasy. Interestingly the Prophet neither punished the man nor asked anyone to do it. He just let him to leave without any harm
IMO, Islam is unambiguous affirmation of freedom of faith, which also applies to changing of faith. Freedom of faith ; Islam by choice
” … Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error …” (Q 2:256)
Wassalam
Excellent comment bro
“Let there be no compulsion in religion” and many verse supporting this, i.e:
Say, “O disbelievers, ….. For you is your religion, and for me is my religion.” (109:1-6)
In Quran, there are no verse that supporting killing of apostasy. So, actually there are no contradicting verse in Quran.
There are some apostate punishment, but that verse talking about afterlife punishment. Hey! every religion punish their heresy in afterlife.
And whoever of you reverts from his religion [to disbelief] and dies while he is a disbeliever – for those, their deeds have become worthless in this world and the Hereafter, and those are the companions of the Fire, they will abide therein eternally. (2:217)
But many apostate are stupid (they always try to make chaos). So I think they deserve to be punish. Almost all government today have enactment for rebellion. So what the fuss.
There is a confusion amongst the non – Muslims about ‘apostasy’ and ‘treason’. They seem to think it is fine to punish ‘treason’ with the death penalty but not ‘apostasy’.
Zawadi has messed up, and as you brothers point out, there is no penalty for simple apostasy, but when action is taken by the apostate against the Islamic state, then it IS punished, as treason. I indicated the same in his response above.
The proof is what Erik rightly said and the fact that both of the apostates mentioned in the Quran went unpunished.
The End.
This business about ‘killing apostates’ is a wet dream of Islamophobes, and it’s getting old. Maybe we need to remind the atheists how their Communist ‘brothers’ used to enforce ‘ideological hygiene’ and deal with ‘dissent’. Or perhaps we should remind our Christian brothers how the Church dealt with heresy and sectarianism.
@Free Lover,
This business about ‘killing apostates’ is a wet dream of Islamophobes, and it’s getting old. Maybe we need to remind the atheists how their Communist ‘brothers’ used to enforce ‘ideological hygiene’ and deal with ‘dissent’. Or perhaps we should remind our Christian brothers how the Church dealt with heresy and sectarianism.
I agree with you. The situation today is almost similar to stories of prophet pbuh starting from the story Hudaibiyah Treaty until the capture of Mecca. When the leader of Mecca spread the news about how weak Muslim are, how poor they are in Medina etc. People in Mecca believe that news and later than Muslim come to Mecca for Hajj. They are shock seeing Muslim jog around Kaabah (while normally they walking). They also shock seeing the right hand’s muscle. They bring a lot of goat for foods. They feel cheated by their leader, and almost all Mecca convert to Islam. The truth and false cannot be together.
I think this will happen to West sooner or later. We are starting a physiological war. I think they do not know that Eastern missionaries are avoiding to open debate with us because they afraid to us.
Seriously, I thanks to Islamophobia, a free marketing service for Islam (even in hard way). If not, we still can’t penetrate to Europe and US.
A loser still a loser no matter what they said, just like leader of Mecca.
@ Question Mark, my fellow monotheist,
You raise some good points.
I will try to be as brief as possible.
The Christian Jews believed in Jesus as Acts 2 v 37-38 describes, “Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethen, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost”, v 41 “Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.”
If they just wanted to continue as Jews and keep the law they would not have believed in Jesus Christ as Lord and they would not have been baptized in the first place. They practiced the sacrament of breaking bread and they believed that God had exalted Jesus to his right hand to be Lord, as Peter had preached to them.
They obviously believed that they could retain some of the Mosaic law without contradicting their beliefs. The Nazarite vow was taken when a man wanted to consecrate or devote himself to God in a special way. It was not primarily designed for forgiveness of personal sins as the sin offering was.
At the end of the day your arguments only apply to Messianic Jews so it is rather academic. It is clear from the book of Acts that God gave the Spirit to the uncircumcised Gentiles and the church at Jerusalem recognised this. They had no choice but to concur with God who laid no burden of ritual law keeping upon them.
I think God’s verdict of whether man is able to be perfect by keeping the law is given in Psalm 14 which Paul quotes from in Romans. “The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.”
After Adam sinned God decreed that man would be redeemed by the Messiah who would keep the law and suffer it’s curse for mankind. “It shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.”
The law was necessary to define sin and to bring man under the conviction of sin. As Paul said the law is “a schoomaster to bring us to Christ”. How could the Messiah keep the law if it had not been given?
I have a question for you. How can you keep the Torah without the tabernacle or the temple? I do not see that any Muslim or Jew or anyone else for that matter is keeping the Torah today. The Muslims do not even keep the moral law of the Torah. Sharia is nothing like the Torah except perhaps in it punishments but certainly not in it’s moral obligations.
@Eramus,
I just starting reading NT(Mark and half Acts currently), I see many many verse talking about Holy Ghost,etc. I still confuse how Holy Ghost look like. Seem like Christian can see Holy Ghost but today I see Holy Ghost are forgetting Christianity already. Is it Holy Ghost is being crucified?
Torah is for Jews, even Jesus are preaching to Jews only, we dont need to follow Torah. Any problem with that? In Islamic school we have one subject called “Akhlak” (moral, ethics) ,so keep Torah for yourself, your people needed it more than us.
@ Brother Erasmus,
Thanks for your notes.
I did not understand why you quote me Acts 2 when I never argued that according to some NT verses early Christian believed in Christ (peace be upon him), Baptism, Blood etc. With this said, I was searching your notes where you addressed the points I raised in my earlier post and I came to this paragraph you wrote,
“They obviously believed that they could retain some of the Mosaic law without contradicting their beliefs.”
Okay, that being the case I would request you to edify me (i) Why did they wanted to retaing “some” Law (ii) Why were they pleased to do away with others (iii) With whose authority did they wanted to keep some while rejecting others (iv) How did retaining Laws DID NOT CONTRADICT their belief when Paul over emphasized that Laws has been brought to and END by Jesus (peace be upon him). (v) I want you to comment on the fact that Paul apologized that Christian life has been purchased after paying a precious price that of blood of Christ and not by some fleeting worldly goody – then why these Earliest Christians trumped “precious” blood of Christ (pbuh) just to retain some Laws which, for Paul, were nothing but PLASTIC “OUTWARD SHOW”!
You also said, “The Nazarite vow was taken when a man wanted to consecrate or devote himself to God in a special way. It was not primarily designed for forgiveness of personal sins as the sin offering was.”
In the first place, and continuin on above queries, (a.) why was the need of so called Nazarite Vow and stuff related to OT Laws when a “precious” price brought the Laws to an END (b.) I am sorry, but I disagree with you, the purification ceremony had many bifurcations and one of the many rituals in it was a SIN-OFFERING and we all know what sin-offering means and why it was used by Jews. Dont make me do some tedious Deuteronomy and Leviticus quotations.
You further said, “I think God’s verdict of whether man is able to be perfect by keeping the law is given in Psalm 14 which Paul quotes from in Romans. “The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.”
If God knew that man could never be perfect by following the Law then why did He gave one and further expected it to be followed. Furthermore, why was the Psalmist so convinced that he would follow the Laws meticulously – was he wrong? Why did Jesus (pbuh) claimed that a Christian unless he is more loyal to the Laws than the PHARISEES, he cannot enter heaven? Forget about being more loyal than the Pharisees, Paul taught to reject it from cover to cover.
You said, “I have a question for you. How can you keep the Torah without the tabernacle or the temple?”
I do not think I understood what you wanted to say, but I can say that if observing Laws require tabernacle and temple then have it, what is the issue there.
You said, “The law was necessary to define sin and to bring man under the conviction of sin.” That was the case with Paul alone, not with Jesus, John or any other OT prophet or OT God. In fact OT God clearly speaks that observing Laws gives LIFE, it does not say that Law was revealed to define sin? Where do you get this from?
You said, “The Muslims do not even keep the moral law of the Torah.”
Why do you expect Muslims to observe Laws in the first place. Who told you Muslims are obliged to follow the Law. In fact if a Muslim obeys it then, according to a Hadith, he is misled. We have got nothing to do with the Law except that the Laws as originally given to Moses (pbuh) was sacred and should have been followed.
sincerely,
Q.M.
@ above post of mine,
I made some grammatical error in the first sentence, would like to correct it here.
I did not understand why you quoted me Acts 2 when I know that according to some NT verses some early Christian did believed in Christ (peace be upon him), Baptism, Blood etc.
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
I want to know in what way when you say Sharia is nothing like the Torah?
Of course Muslims are not obliged to follow the “Torah” Law. Muslim are obliged to obey Sharia which is based on the Holy Qur’an and the sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad (p). So the law that governs every aspect of one’s life as a Muslim is the Sharia not the Torah.
However Muslim view hold that the still genuine God law which is left in the present day collection we call the book of Torah/OT should still resonates in the Quran and hadiths since those are based on revelation of the same God.
In my personal observation of Sharia there are obvious parallels with Judaism’s legal system, known as Halacha, which is based from the Torah and the Talmud.
Take for instance the case for rape allegation. In the the west if a women says she was raped the accused is almost certainly guilty even if it was consensual.
In Sharia, we have to have a witness or two since people knew women would lie about that to get men in trouble. It is not different than that Jewish law, according to the Talmud requires two witnesses as well.
Not only punishment, the Ten Commandments which is the most important moral law in OT are also implied in the Qur’an thus part of the Sharia.
http://bit.ly/wJYpre
Wassalam
@ Brother Q.M.,
I don’t think the Jews who performed the Nazarite vow wanted to use it to get their sins forgiven. It would not make sense if they were trusting in the resurrected Messiah to do this for them and then continue to use the temple rituals for the same purpose. Peter preached repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins. Why did they need a dead animal then?
“If God knew that man could never be perfect by following the Law then why did He gave one and further expected it to be followed. Furthermore, why was the Psalmist so convinced that he would follow the Laws meticulously – was he wrong?”
God is the measure of what man should be, not man. What God is dictates what man must be. Leviticus 11 v 45 “For I am the LORD that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.” We believe as Christians that man, through Adam, is responsible for making himself sinful but God can not lower his standards in response to this.
Did the psalmist claim to be perfect in following God’s laws? I don’t think so.
Jesus did say that our righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees. Here he is talking about our day to day life not the righteousness of Jesus which is imputed for our justification. Under the new covenant we have the Holy Spirit to help us. Jesus also said “without me ye can do nothing”.
“it does not say that Law was revealed to define sin? Where do you get this from?”
I could have said the Law was revealed to define righteousness. Would you have objected to that? By the same token it also reveals where man has fallen short. You believe your prophets were sinless, we believe only Jesus was without sin. All others have fallen short of God’s glory and need to be saved.
“You said, “The law was necessary to define sin and to bring man under the conviction of sin.” That was the case with Paul alone,” Was it? Which law are you measuring youself by Q.M.?
“Why do you expect Muslims to observe Laws in the first place. Who told you Muslims are obliged to follow the Law. In fact if a Muslim obeys it then, according to a Hadith, he is misled. We have got nothing to do with the Law except that the Laws as originally given to Moses (pbuh) was sacred and should have been followed.”
If this is the case you have a different God to Moses then. Fair enough. Are you sure he actually exists?
Erik said “I want to know in what way when you say Sharia is nothing like the Torah?
The Sharia contradicts and leaves out much of the moral law of the Torah.
Erik said “Not only punishment, the Ten Commandments which is the most important moral law in OT are also implied in the Qur’an thus part of the Sharia.”
No they are not, they are denied and contradicted in the Sharia.
all the 10 commandments are found in various parts of the Quran!
Is Erasmus having problem to acces the link I have given?? or is he just too narrow minded to comprehend the Quran?
@ Brother Erasmus,
Thanks for your notes. It was very insightful, but I have some humble queries:
As you (ironically) wrote, “I don’t think the Jews who performed the Nazarite vow wanted to use it to get their sins forgiven. It would not make sense if they were trusting in the resurrected Messiah to do this for them and then continue to use the temple rituals for the same purpose. Peter preached repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins. Why did they need a dead animal then?”
Dont you think I should be asking this question?? “WHY DID THEY NEED DEAD ANIMAL THEN?” Why was bulls and goats required when “Lamb” was already allegedly slaughtered!!
You also wrote, “God is the measure of what man should be, not man. What God is dictates what man must be. Leviticus 11 v 45 “For I am the LORD that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.”
Let us agree with you that man is expected to be holy, however, man also has shortcomings and he is bound to err – here comes in forgiveness of God and His magnanimity. God is not an exacting military officer who would shout at men even if a smote is found on the uniform. I could not find a verse where God expects “PERFECT” obedience. In fact if we read Psalms, God reveals in there through the Psalmist that He expects a sincere “TRY” from men – refer Psalms 119:9-10.
You also enquired, “Did the psalmist claim to be perfect in following God’s laws? I don’t think so”
In reply I would like to ask, when did God asked that he wants “perfect” obedience from mortals? Secondly, forget about Psalmist because Paul claims he was “faultless” in obeying the Laws – refer Philipians 3:6
You claimed, “Jesus did say that our righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees. Here he is talking about our day to day life not the righteousness of Jesus which is imputed for our justification.”
After your assertions I went to the context of the subject verse and found that Jesus (peace be upon him) was specifically talking, not about, day to day life but about Laws. Please visit the context bro! However, even if he said about day to day affair, then still he was talking about righteousness which is brought by the Laws. You know why? because according to Nehemiah Law is the “WAY OF LIFE” – refer Nehemiah 9:26-29. Therefore, it makes not difference!!
You said, “I could have said the Law was revealed to define righteousness. Would you have objected to that? By the same token it also reveals where man has fallen short.”
Not that “you could have said” that Law was revealed to provide righteousness but infact OT does say that Law provides righteousness – refer Ezekiel 20:11, 33:14-15. Having supported that, you support your claim that Law was revealed to condemn men. It was only in Pauline theology that you would find non-providential applications of Laws! Or else support your claim scripturally!!
Finally, speaking of Sharia and Torah. Brother, Torah has got nothing to do with Muslims. I accept it was holy and divinely revealed. But Muslim salvation does not hinges in obeying Torah (although we need to believe that it is Allah’s revelation as given to Moses) but in following Sharia given to the final Prophet (peace be upon him)
sincerely,
Ibn Salim Khan
Erik,
Your link wouldn’t open. I have read through the Quran once in the english translation by M.A.S. Abdel Haleem.
@ Question Mark, thanks for your challenging and insightful comments.
I wonder why I as a Gentile should take any notice of the fact that some Jews in the early church peformed sacrifices for whatever reason. Show me a Gentile who did this. What the Jews did is not normative for me as a Gentile. I go through the door that that the Gentiles went through to find salvation. If the Jews had another way that is their business not mine.
You said: “I could not find a verse where God expects “PERFECT” obedience. In fact if we read Psalms, God reveals in there through the Psalmist that He expects a sincere “TRY” from men – refer Psalms 119:9-10.”
Let’s approach the issue from the other side. If what you claim here is true why did Jehovah punish Adam with death and the curse if he does not demand perfection? All he did was take a piece of fruit from a tree and eat it. Surely, if your theory is correct, he should have overlooked Adam’s action if he does not demand or expect perfection from mankind. The Koran’s view seems to be that Adam just did something natural and trivial that Allah did not even punish. So that is probably why the Christian and Moslem view on perfection differ so much.
You said “because according to Nehemiah Law is the “WAY OF LIFE” – refer Nehemiah 9:26-29. Therefore, it makes not difference!!”
Nehemiah 9 v 29 “which if a man do he shall live in them”.
What does “he shall live in them” mean? Does it mean earn a place in paradise through keeping the law? Does it say anywhere in the OT that men can earn a place in paradise through keeping the law? I would say that “shall live in them” means to have fellowship with God, walk with God and to be blessed by God, NOW, in this life.
You said: ” OT does say that Law provides righteousness – refer Ezekiel 20:11, 33:14-15.”
“None of his sins that he hath committed shall be mentioned unto him: he hath done that which is lawful and right; he shall surely live.”
As I see it the question is what is meant by “he shall surely live” and similar expressions? Where is anything said about a reward beyond this life by keeping the law? Or where is anything said about a righteousness that God must reward with paradise after death? Are not all these statements talking about the blessings of keeping the law which man receives directly as a result in this life?
Ezekiel 33 v 12: “The righteousness of the righteous shall not deliver him IN THE DAY OF his transgression: as for the wickedness of the wicked, he shall not fall thereby IN THE DAY that he turneth from his wickedness; neither shall the righteous be able to live for his righteousness IN THE DAY that he sinneth.”
So it appears to me that the passages are talking about the immediate effects of sinning or turning away from sin and don’t have any relevance to the question as to whether or not it is possible for men to earn a reward in paradise through the keeping of the law.
Sincerely,
Erasmus.
Salamalaikum wr wb,
Thanks for your notes brother Erasmus. Kindly have my views below:
“I wonder why I as a Gentile should take any notice of the fact that some Jews in the early church peformed sacrifices for whatever reason. Show me a Gentile who did this. What the Jews did is not normative for me as a Gentile. I go through the door that that the Gentiles went through to find salvation. If the Jews had another way that is their business not mine.”
This is a total misrepresentation of my argument. I am not concerned with Jews or Gentile issue here. My point was if the alleged, PRECIOUS, PERFECT (etc etc) sacrifice already on then why even ONE believing JEW would observe OT Laws. Moreover when Paul said that with Jesus (peace be upon him) Laws have come to an end. Plus, you say “some Jews” – brother, please revisit the text, it was practically entire Jerusalem and its Church with James, Peter and Barnabas doing the ritual. You said they “performed sacrifices for WHATEVER REASON” – brother, brother, you know it better than me that the sacrifice was meant as a SIN-OFFERING. Now dont say to me that you do not know what SIN-OFFERING serves. I go to Church and every single Christian including Pastors has the concept of SIN-OFFERING to offer me
. Brother, can you see the desperation in your statement when you said, “If the Jews had another way that is their business not mine.” Why would there be two different salvation modes for two different groups of people especially when Paul – A JEW left no difference between Jews and Gentiles by claiming that LAWS HAVE COME TO AN END WITH JESUS (peace be upon him)
“Let’s approach the issue from the other side. If what you claim here is true why did Jehovah punish Adam with death and the curse if he does not demand perfection?”
Okay we will look at it from “other side” as well. But first you need to tell me why do you need “other side”. I provided you two reasons (i) God never said he needs “perfection” in obedience (ii) I showed you a DIRECT EXPLICIT VERSE where God required a sincere “TRY” and not perfection. But now you coming up with remote and indirect occurances like Adam (pbuh) and his disobedience – thank you very much.
Coming to Adam’s (pbuh) topic which you pulled off. Firstly, I would reiterate that your Adam (pbuh) topic is not a response to the Psalm 119:9-10 verse where God DIRECTLY AND EXPLICITLY asks for sincere “TRY” rather than perfection. Yet, Adam’s (pbuh) punishment cannot be taken to prove that God demands perfection it is because, go to the context and you will find MANY a time God warned both Adam (pbuh) and Eve not to eat, infact He even warned them not even to touch the Tree, plus, He gave them multiple other alternative in spite of all of these if they disobeyed God then they will have to bear the punishment. Qur’an further explains that when Adam (pbuh) and Eve regretted and apologized GOD FORGAVE THEM! You see now how your topic of Adam (pbuh) and Eve is irrelevant to our topic.
“Nehemiah 9 v 29 “which if a man do he shall live in them”.What does “he shall live in them” mean?”
Brother, why are you concerned about a phrase which is NOT EVEN THERE IN THE BIBLE. I quoted you from verse 26-29 and I never wrote this phrase. I checked up with KJV, RWebster, RNKJV and in none of these Bibles could I find your phrase in the main text!!!!
“Does it say anywhere in the OT that men can earn a place in paradise through keeping the law?”
Consider the following OT Verses:
“And so I led them out of Egypt into the desert. I gave them my commands and taught them MY LAWS, which brings LIFE to anyone who obeys them.” (Ezekiel 20:11)
“I may warn an evil man that he is going to die, but if he stops sinning and does what is right and good – for example, if he returns the security he took for a loan or gives back what he stole – if he stops sinning and FOLLOWS THE LAWS THAT GIVE LIFE, he will not die, but live.” (Ezekiel 33:14-15)
Let alone Old testament even New Testament testifies that OT Laws provides salvation, please read James 1:22-25, especially v. 25. After that please take time to read my latest article:
http://donotsaytrinity.wordpress.com/2012/03/01/did-earliest-christians-believe-alleged-crucifixion-to-be-indispensible/
“I would say that “shall live in them” means to have fellowship with God, walk with God and to be blessed by God, NOW, in this life.”
Although I have already informed you that the subject phrase is not in Bible, yet think about it, if a person lives in fellowship of God, Walks with Him and is blessed by God, NOW IN THIS LIFE – will he be banished to hell in there hereafter?
“So it appears to me that the passages are talking about the immediate effects of sinning or turning away from sin and don’t have any relevance to the question as to whether or not it is possible for men to earn a reward in paradise through the keeping of the law.”
Brother, I wonder if you would have spent a little more time with Ezekiel 33:12. Think about it, if the verses are talking about immediate effect then it would have said that that the righteousness of righteous shall SAVE HIM on the day of his transgression but rather the verse says it shall NOT save him. With that said, paraphrase the verse for you (you may check it up): In the context God lays personal responsiblity of each individual (as opposed to the concept of vicarious atonement) then he states that but if a good man stops doing good and starts sinning then his good deeds would avail him nothing, however, if a sinner stops sinning then he would not be punished. God continues to state, if a good man stops doing good and indulges in sin and then thinks that his past good deeds would be enough to save him on his days of transgression then he shall not be saved.
Brother, I request you go read the passages once again, infact you may read from v 10 to 17.
sincerely,
Ibn Salim Khan
Mr wood,u are an intelijent person,be more liberal.you refer to the bible as your scripture writen by paul.read ACTS 23….canning paul says he was a jew when he was to be floked and again says he was a Roman when again he was to be floked.he became a pharisee after noticing things were getting out of hand to create confusion.this man wrote majority of the NT after his one white light vision .And for the other gospel writers,why coincidentally,they all started with accoding to?what are their second names?note: Mathew in the NT is not the original one.refer to:THE NEW ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANICA VOL.14 .P,824, م 826,827,830,THE CATHOLIC DIGEST,THE APOCRYPHA where BARNABAS(blind disciple) mentioned that JESUS did not die on the cross and MOHAMMED(THE٠PRAISED ONE) name is mentioned.the Gospel writters are of unkown origion.