Battle of the Books: Bible and Koran discussion

**AE Bravo** · 11-14-2015, 08:32

Originally Posted by PFH

Muhammed could still have shown them mercy but he chose not to.

As far as they were concerned it was god’s will. They chose a judge from an allied tribe and were put to death for collective sedition. Their women and children spared, way better than the way Romans treated Jews.

1 - They weren’t executed by mere virtue of being Jewish
2 - Unlike the Jewish revolts (Alexander, Herod reign), no crucifixion and slaughter of women and children
3 - Banishment would have added about 400-700 men to an already stronger Meccan army
4 - The protection pact between pagan, Jewish, and Muslim clans was broken by them
5 - Qurayza occupied an integral stronghold south of the city, with the Meccan army regularly invading the north

Twice were they abandoned by their allies, basically I’d assume as a result of perceived treachery and lack of honor. First they were abandoned by the Makkan army, second by the judge which the betrayed Muslims were kind enough to allow them to determine. They could have easily avoided their fate and their biggest blunder was choosing a judge who would later die from the wounds they had caused him beforehand, who cited Deuteronomy 20:12 in the ruling.

Overall this whole event actually improved relations between Muslims and Jews for a time, a multiethnic and multi religious Medina/Yathrib was officially established.
We sent down the Torah, in which there is guidance and light, by which the Prophets who surrendered to God's will provided judgments for the Jewish people. Also, the rabbis and doctors of the Law (did likewise), according to that portion of God's Book with which they were entrusted, and they became witnesses to it as well…. Whoever does not judge by what God has sent down (including the Torah), they are indeed unbelievers (5:44)

If you're asking if I blame the Jews throughout the Empire then no, but I think that those who went to war against Rome are responsible for their own actions just as the Roman legionaries are responsible for destroying the Temple.

Jesus was a Jew and went to war with Rome. Crucifixion is for enemies of the state.

As this relates to Muslims, weren't all Muslims more or less part of Muhammed's tribe at this time? Presumably the Muslims were under his command, under arms, and they did the killing.

No, most of Muhammad’s clan was in the Makkan army. They wanted his head for what they saw as asserting his branch over theirs. They would not pledge loyalty to a Hashemite merchant.

For my birthday Montmercy sent me an essay on Pharaoh's refusal to let the people go and free will. In the case of Moses, he kills someone, flees into the desert and then becomes a prophet and one of the most visible avatars of God's will, what he does he does at the behest and with the power of the Lord.

Point still stands that the enactors of god’s will can make mistakes because they are men. Most prophets did not start out as bad men, yet Moses pre-prophethood is more in the grey area. Again, he murdered someone and god chose him. The first prophet and human being in scripture is the original sinner so no surprise that his successors follow suit in their lifetimes.

Well, then one might as well say that Muhammed never existed and it's just a story - that's a popular belief among Atheists.

The Koran is different to the Bible in a number of ways, the Koran is essentially one book, not many, one man's biography supposedly transcribed during his lifetime. There's no reason to believe the narrative is in any way allegorical.

I don’t think it’s a popular belief among atheists. There is no doubt that Muhammad existed. Qur’an is not the biography of Muhammad, nor is he really the main character in it. Egyptian historians would’ve picked up on how their god-king ended or if this mountain disappeared, this is why some parts of it may well be symbolic.

Even the chapter titles lead you to believe in the allegorical approach to scripture.
“The Spider”
“Night Journey”
“Gold”
“Smoke”
“Wind that scatter”
“The Cloaked One”

Actually, both the terms "Prophet" (Speaker) and "Messiah" (Anointed) describe Muhammed perfectly. He was, according to the Islamic tradition, the one appointed by God to give people the correct instruction and way of living that most please God.

Note that Jesus is far from unique in being called "Messiah" because that appellation was applied by the Jews to Prophets and Kings they believed to be chosen by God - including the Persian Cyrus the Great.

My point, in any case, is that Muhammed is presumably the model for a Muslim man (correct me if I'm wrong) and, as a Christian, I find little to recommend him compared to other men.

On a personal level he carried the most admirable traits at the time. Women were treated far worse before Islam came around. There is a lot to admire in the spiritual and moral side, but equally just as much on the prudent and political side of Muhammad. Jesus was the chosen before he was even born, Muhammad was about 40 when the message came to him.

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 11-17-2015, 04:42

"Jesus was a Jew and went to war with Rome. Crucifixion is for enemies of the state."

The fact he was innocent of all charges is the central plank of Christianity, that a guiltless man tied and went to hell as substitute for all the sins of humanity.

There is no evidence, not one iota, that Jesus in any way opposed Rome. Indeed, Jesus was far more pro-Roman than most Jews because he had no interest in earthly political realities.

"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's"

When Pilate said, "they say you are a King" Jesus said "they say it" and then "My Kingdom is not of this World."

The wiping out of an entire tribe by murdering all the men is a form of genocide, by enslaving or adopting the women and children the Muslims ensured the tribe's destruction.

You can't dress that up in enough silk and jewels enough to make it look Just. Nor is this the only time Muhammed enacted vengeance on another tribe for a perceived or expected slight rather than an actual offence. Wikipedia lists a hundred battles and raids of the Muslims under Muhammed, from raiding caravans and attacking people for looking at Muhammed's camels funny to attacks to force other Arab tribes to embrace Islam and follow Muhammed, up to the opening salvoes of the Muslims conquest of the Empire.

This is not "the Religion of peace"

When I asked weren't all Muslims part of Muhammed's tribe I meant that he was their King, and they were to all intents and purposes a tribe or a confederation of tribes, not that they were Muhammed's blood-kin per se. The point is that I assume, correct me if I'm wrong, that the killings of all these men were carried out by Muslims.

One notes that Adam is not the original sinner - Eve is according to the Torah, unless the sin if not the deed but hiding it from God - in which case the "first" sinner is ambiguous. As to Prophet's making mistakes - I'm fairly certain that can only happen "if God wills it", I know Islam has a phrase for that - but I can't spell it. In any case, I don't think Muslims theology is anywhere near as fuzzy on free will as Christian theology is.

Ah ha: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inshallah

"Muslims believe that everything is maktub (lit. "written") and so whatever it is one wishes to do, will only occur if it is within God's plan."

That sounds right to me, given that central to Islam is "submission" to God.

as to Muhammed not existing - I can tell you that is most definitely a popular belief among modern atheists - along with the belief that Jesus didn't exist.

**AE Bravo** · 11-19-2015, 22:40

Jesus always knew that his movement was too powerful for Rome, and he was the founder of a new world order. You can dress that up in silk and jewels but it doesn't change the fact that he was an enemy of the state, a revolutionary, and dissident.

I feel like I'm wasting my time with you. You believe that this is an easy argument to make due to the highly politicized foundations of Islam.

If you want me to admit that Islam had been built by politics and fitna, you'll find no argument here. But for you to come out and make fun of Muhammad because the time and place he was in is not consistent with yours is ignorant. That you think Muslims are inevitably following that same path shows your static image of Muslims, and frankly you're not worth persuading.

You show no introspection of Christianity, just a weak "my book is better than yours" mind. I expected a Christian to show more self-examination than a Muslim. Guess not.

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 11-20-2015, 01:59

Oooow, ouch.

Maybe I should stop transcribing my Gospel and reply. Maybe I shouldn't, I probably shouldn't but I will because I'm a bad person.

Here's the thing - if you read the Gospels then you can see - very clearly - that Jesus is uninterested in the politics of the world - he even says in the gospel of Mark that he doesn't perform miracles to help people but to convince them that he wields God's power. The core message is "It doesn't matter who you were in life, what you did, how old you were or how late you came to God so long as you came to God."

Jesus is not a rebel and he does not oppose the Roman State, he is apathetic towards it, unlike the Jewish Temple which he DOES actively oppose. There is nothing in the Gospel to suggest that "Jesus always knew that his movement was too powerful for Rome, and he was the founder of a new world order." because Christianity isn't like that. See, this is what you're missing - Christianity isn't actually about life on Earth. It's not really about how you lived, it's about how you died.

Now, if you want to argue that the Roman may have had reason to execute him then you would, in fact, be correct from their point of view. One of the things the Emperor Augustus instituted was the "Imperial Cult" which involved worshipping the Emperor's "Genius", what we might call the "angle on his shoulder" and in the Eastern Provinces this was often simplified as simply worshipping the Emperor as a living God. So, refusing to worship the Emperor's Genius was a form of treason because it implied you did not have goodwill to the Emperor.

Now, according to Roman philosophy Jews were "atheists" because, from the Roman point of view, all Gods existed. When the Romans encountered a new people they either assimilated the local God as aspects of Rome's Gods or they added new minor deities to their pantheon. For Polytheists monotheists are inherently dangerous and closed minded. Obviously, Christians were subject to the same criticisms as Jews - neither believed in the Gods of other people or places, angering those Gods, and neither would worship the Emperor's Genius.

The difference between Christians and Jews was that whilst the Jews mostly kept to themselves and were not wont to induct new members into their perverse Cult the Christians went around preaching and trying to convert everyone, this threatened the stability of the state not only by potentially fracturing Roman public life (which was centred around religious ritual) but also by converting the slaves and potentially triggering another servile war.

For these reasons Christians were sporadically (but not consistently) persecuted until the time of Constantine the Great who publicly endorsed Christianity and favoured it over the traditional Roman religion.

So, yes, one might argue that the Romans had reason to execute Jesus because his religious movement threatened the State. However, there are two points you are missing.

1. This does not make Jesus an enemy of the State, and in fact Christians did not generally cause a problem for the Roman State either during Jesus's lifetime or after his death. In fact, I'm not aware of any riots with a specifically Christian element until after Christianity essentially became the State Religion and Christians became the majority.

2. During Jesus' lifetime the Christian movement was a movement within Judaism, it was only after Jesus' death that the Jews began branching out and converting good, decent Roman Citizens (most Jews in this period were non Citizens, I believe Paul was the only Apostle who was a Roman).

In summation, the only motive, according to the Christian Gospel, that the Romans had for killing Jesus was to resolve the developing schism in Judaism by beheading one of the factions and thus preventing a revolt in Palestine.

This is not generally accepted to have been a just reason to kill him and, indeed, central to the Gospel is the belief that Jesus died guiltless. Now, my understanding of the Islamic version is that Jesus does not die (but another man dies in his place) precisely because he does not deserve death. Now, I personally think that makes a mockery of the Gospel and raises serious questions about God's Goodness because a man still died, and he still wasn't guilty, it just wasn't Jesus.

A final point, it is (somewhat depressingly) possible to argue that Christianity itself has had little effect on the power structures in the countries where it has remained a dominant religion. Whilst I think it's fair to say that the belief in "Christian mercy" has had some impact, such as during the sack of Rome and after the siege of Jerusalem it never established a "New World Order" that happened after the Germanic Tribes breached the Western Limes and then later after the Arabs breached the South Eastern Limes but, in terms of administration there's little to divide Diocletian from Constantine or later genuinely Christian Emperors like Theodosius.

**Gilrandir** · 11-20-2015, 17:24

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

Christianity isn't actually about life on Earth. It's not really about how you lived, it's about how you died.

This is what exasperates me most about Christianity: you can live the life of a scoundrel and repent of it on your deathbed - and pop you go into heavens. But if you are a nice person who is an atheist - heaven is closed for you. Sounds like some kind of organization - if you aren't a member you can't enjoy the facilities.

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

The difference between Christians and Jews was that whilst the Jews mostly kept to themselves and were not wont to induct new members into their perverse Cult the Christians went around preaching and trying to convert everyone.

Early to bed, early to rise makes no use until you advertise?