Do Muslems and Christains have the same God?

by Undecided 74 Replies latest jw friends

theMartian

Nope the so-called Christians have this-
the Muslims have this--
Neither are the True God...
LittleToe
Merry:
Two questions, one with a supplimentary rider:
1. What's the difference between the communal responsibility of a nation that has attacked an Islamic State and that of the individuals therein.
2. You mention several times that there are bounds on who may be attacked during a time of war, but I may have missed who those classes might be. Would you mind expounding on that for me, please? Perhaps, as a rider, you might explain how suicide bombing of school buses falls into your categorisation?
I'm finding the discussion quite enlightening
Merry Magdalene
What's the difference between the communal responsibility of a nation that has attacked an Islamic State and that of the individuals therein.
You mention several times that there are bounds on who may be attacked during a time of war, but I may have missed who those classes might be. Would you mind expounding on that for me, please? Perhaps, as a rider, you might explain how suicide bombing of school buses falls into your categorisation?
My apologies, LT. I thought I had those points pretty much covered in my last post. But either I didn't or else they got lost in it. I'll try again. It's the eve of Ramadan and I can't sleep anyway.Let me know if I'm still missing what you're trying to get at, will ya?
1. What's the difference between the communal responsibility of a nation that has attacked an Islamic State and that of the individuals therein?
I think there are differing opinions on that. (Non-Muslims aren't the only ones who can isolate and twist Qur'anic verses) So, to address such issues authoritatively, it is important to have Islamic knowledge and understanding of the Qur'an in its entirety (in Arabic), and the Sunnah and Islamic jurisprudence.
From what I have heard, Osama bin Laden does feel that Americans bear communal responsibility for the actions of their government in the Middle East. So he gives warning to them, that if they are unwilling or unable to change their government's policies and actions they should expect to be attacked and, just as civilians in the M.E. are not always protected from being targeted and are never protected from becoming collateral damage, neither should American citizens expect to be.
I believe Hamas feels similarly about Israelis, partly because Israelis are seen as wrongful occupiers (of more than just the West Bank and Gaza) who drove out the Palestinians in order to make a nation for themselves (with the permission of someone other than the Palestinians), and partly because all Israelis are required to serve in the military when old enough.
I understand the above views, but do not entirely agree. That is easy for me, though, not having the same history nor living in the same conditions or parts of the world as the people of whom I speak, and having only fought schoolyard bullies in my youth. I still feel that non-combatants should not be targeted and I do not condone collateral damage, because of my (obviously limited) reading of the Qur'an and Sunnah along with strong personal feelings. And I am not the only one.
2. You mention several times that there are bounds on who may be attacked during a time of war, but I may have missed who those classes might be. Would you mind expounding on that for me, please?
From my last post:
“But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things).” (Qur'an 8:61)

Abu Bakr, the first caliph after Muhammad’s death, formulated a detailed set of rules for Islamic conduct during war. He gave the following instructions to a Muslim army setting out for Syria, which was then governed by the Byzantine Empire:
Stop, O people, that I may give you ten rules for your guidance in the battlefield. Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy’s flock, save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone.

--http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB588.pdf
Muhammad also gave similar instructions:
"Do not kill any old person, any child or any woman." "Do not kill the monks in monasteries." "Do not kill the people who are sitting in places of worship."
Perhaps, as a rider, you might explain how suicide bombing of school buses falls into your categorisation?
Suicide Bombing Rider:
School buses totally off limits (unless they are filled with enemy combatants rather than children, I suppose). See answer to question number two regarding children.
In my belief, it is alright to terrorise your enemy, even the noncombatants amongst your enemies, but NOT by any violence done or threatened against said noncombatants, only by that against enemy combatants.
As to suicide bombing...There was a time when I would have said that suicide bombing was completely wrong, even if used only against enemy combatants. Why? Because Allah swt forbids suicide. But on further consideration, there are many operations during war that might be considered "suicide missions." In fact, being a warrior/soldier at all seems a bit suicidal. So, at this time, I would say there is a possibility of drawing a line between suicide to escape one's life and carrying out an operation against one's enemies that was guaranteed to also kill oneself. One poster mentioned the example of Sampson in the Bible. But I am not completely decided on the issue. Still under consideration. Human bombs seem to be one of those desperate choices made by those who are outmatched militarily.
From "Confessions of a Human Bomb in Palestine":
This is emphatically not the act of some one committing suicide! Suicide is a selfish act, the act of some one who repudiates life and embraces death as a solution. The human bomb does not repudiate life at all. The human bomb embraces death as a comrade in arms, acting as a weapon for the cause of justice and freedom from Occupation....The goal of the action of the human bomb is not his or her own death! The goal is to strike a resounding blow against the enemy. If our own deaths are required, then so be it, but we do not go out seeking our own deaths. Let that be very clear. The act of the human bomb is the ultimate act of protest against the extermination of our people.
All this talk of war makes me feel a bit ill, just not enough to give up the right of defense. But diplomacy first, please, and not just for show, something with substance.
Allah knows best.
~Merry
funkyderek

MerryMagdalene:
In my belief, it is alright to terrorise your enemy, even the noncombatants amongst your enemies, but NOT by any violence done or threatened against said noncombatants, only by that against enemy combatants.
When you say "enemy" here, do you mean the innocent people who happen to live in countries that Islamist leaders have a grudge against?
hibiscusfire

Is it possible for demons/gods to proliferate to a point where they could overwhelm God with their power?
NEVER!
hibie
Merry Magdalene

Derek,
Would you mind telling me what you mean by "grudge"? It's reminds me of the rather insulting and dismissive description I recently read where what is happening in Afghanistan and Iraq was described as each another "pebble" in the mountain of grievances erected by "militant fanatics." Pebbles? Grudges? Honestly!
Anyway, to answer your question, I would say that by "enemy" I mean all those who support the objectives and actions of the leaders responsible for war and other acts of aggression, whether they fight or not. To see everyone in an enemy nation as "the enemy" would be counterproductive and very unfair imo.
The terminology I resort to using, such as combatant and noncombatant and enemy, is inedequate to express the entirety of my meaning.
I also feel that it isn't only nation states that can be attacked and that have the right to defend themselves.
~Merry
jgnat

I see you picked the easy question, Hibbie. I assume from your answer that you believe that God's power is infinite, and no god or no plethora of gods or plethora of demons could overwhelm Him.
My remaining questions,
Are demons gods or godlike, in your opinion?
Would you agree that you are a polythiest?
And a new one based on your last answer, what are the limits on the demons/god's powers?
Merry Magdalene

Merry, In our society the government doesnt discriminate as to what religion a person chooses but from the verses quoted by you Islam would be the state religion. Muslim states are supposed to be ruled by Islamic law, true. This position is against the right of individuals to choose there own religion, and and against the principle christians have to preach the gospel to the world. Actually, individuals would be able to choose their own religion in a genuinely Islamic caliphate (khilapha). A government based religion allways results in discrimination and persecution. As people here have said before where are the churches in Saudi Arabia. Even the symble of the cross is outlawed there. According to one proposal for a modern caliphate (just some snippets):
Accountability (muhasabah) is not the first word that springs to mind when discussing the Muslim world. Dictatorship, rigged elections, tyranny and torture pretty much sum up most Muslim countries today. The level of cruelty inflicted upon the people easily rivals if not surpasses some of the worst oppression in history. Unfortunately for those living there accountability and the rule of law seem a distant dream.
The re-establishment of the Khilafah in the Muslim world will put an end to this oppression and establish an accountable government where no one is above the law.
Accountability in the Khilafah is guaranteed firstly through the institutions of government, secondly in the obligation to establish political parties and thirdly through an individual obligation on all the citizens.
The Caliphate is a unique political system from the ideology of Islam that bears no resemblance to any of the Muslim Governments today. It is a government built upon a concept of citizenship regardless of ethnicity, gender or creed and is totally opposed to the oppression of any religious or ethnic grouping.
Non-Muslims are referred to as dhimmi (people of contract) in the Caliphate, which means they enjoy the full rights of citizenship.The Prophet Muhammad (saw) said: "He who abuses a dhimmi [non-Muslim citizen] then I will be his rival and dispute him on the Day of Judgment."
Imam Qarafi (Classical Islamic Scholar) summed up the responsibility of the Caliphate to the dhimmi when he said: “It is the responsibility of the Muslims to the People of the Dhimma to care for their weak, fulfil the needs of the poor, feed the hungry, provide clothes, address them politely, and even tolerate their harm even if it was from a neighbour, even though the Muslim would have an upper hand. The Muslims must also advise them sincerely on their affairs and protect them against anyone who tries to hurt them or their family, steal their wealth, or violates their rights.”
Consultation is one of the pillars of ruling and a House of Representatives (majlis ash-shura) will exist in the capital and all provinces of the Caliphate. They will consist of men and women from all religions and ethnic groupings within the state. Non-Muslim representatives will have guaranteed seats in the House, to raise any concerns their communities have. They will not be required to take any oath that contradicts their beliefs in order to become a member of the House. Their only requirement is to obey the rules of the House and the Speaker.
Taxation in the Caliphate is on excess wealth and not income, and there are no regressive taxes like VAT. The only taxes on companies are the agricultural land taxes (ushur and kharaj) that are a percentage of the agricultural produce or the land value. Non-agricultural companies do not pay this. Muslim owned companies will also pay the zakat tax, but non-Muslim companies are exempt from this.
Non-Muslim men must pay a nominal tax called Jizya that gives them full citizenship rights, exempting them from National Service and taxes specific to Muslims like zakat . Jizya is means tested and there are different bands for different levels of wealth. Caliph Omar imposed three bands for the Jizya tax - 4 dinars (£108) for the rich, 2 dinars (£54) for the middle class and 1 dinar (£27) for the poor. The Jizya tax rate is much lower rate than that of zakat , t herefore the tax burden of non-Muslims is lower than that of Muslims in the Caliphate.
The Caliphate cannot force or pressurise any non-Muslim to become Muslim. Churches, Synagogues and Temples are all protected by the Caliphate. Those who follow a religion can practise their religion without interference or harassment from the police and authorities....The Caliphate, unlike the intolerance of secular states, allows non-Muslims to have their own courts and judges to settle family law disputes and other matters related to their personal lives and religion.
The Caliphate will encourage non-Muslims from other countries to visit it, study in its universities and conduct trade. Economic and cultural treaties will be signed to facilitate this. Any non-Muslim visiting the Caliphate from a country that the Caliphate has a treaty with, can enter without the need for a visa. They are called a Mu'ahid and have full protection under the state similar to the dhimmi . Historically scholars and scientists from Europe flocked to the Caliphate and studied in the universities of Cordoba, Cairo and Baghdad.
Non-Muslims are not obliged to do National Service, although they can join the Armed Forces if they wish. In the event of war it is the Muslims responsibility to fight and protect the non-Muslims from any harm.
Torturing anyone including prisoners of war is absolutely prohibited, and the perpetrators will face a severe punishment. Any evidence obtained via torture whether at home or abroad is not legally admissible in an Islamic Court.
http://caliphate.eu/index.htm
That said, I fully acknowledge that there can be a large gap between the ideal and the real. But we must all have an ideal to work and struggle and aim towards. I choose the Islamic ideal. I do not expect you to want to live there. But for me, capitalism and democracy leave much to be desired. So do all the other systems with which I am familiar (though I am no expert and have much to learn).
Admittedly these passages are toned down from the more extremist ones but maybe the Quaran can be over time interpreted in a more reasoned way.
Merry I would just feel safer if you want a non christian religion why not choose Budism they are the most peacefull of religions here is Australia we have more Budists than muslims but we hardely know they are there.
I have no desire to make you feel unsafe, Barry.
As for choosing a religion...I was raised a 4th-generation JW, left at the age of about 24, was an eclectic pagan for many years (interested primarily in Irish Druidry, Chinese Toaism, Indian Immortalism, Hawaiian Huna, Native American Shamanism and Feminist Wicca), then became a non-denominational Christian and attended a local Presbyterian Church for about a year before discovering and embracing Islam. It wasn't a matter of wanting a non-Christian religion, it was a matter of wanting truth. I originally wanted to convert a Muslim friend to Christianity, but it just didn't go down that way.
So, do Muslims have a right to try to establish an Islamic system of government (and to fight amongst themselves over it)? Do non-Muslims have a right to try to stop them and to interfere in their attempts, as they have so often done? Do Muslims have a right to defend and protect themselves/each other?
Did the early immigrants/invaders of America (founding fathers) have a right to establish their own independent form of government (and to fight amongst themselves over it)? Did the Zionist Jews have a right to establish a Jewish democracy and homeland? I would say yes to both, just not where it was done, in the harmful ways it was done, at the expense of people already living in those places whose only crime seemed to be--not going out of their own places and attacking those other groups but resisting occupation, genocide and ethnic cleansing when it was visited upon them.
That's kinda how I see things.
~Merry
steve2

If I can distill some of the complex arguments that have arisen on this thread:
Under some circumstances, some Christians and some Moslems believe that a violent response to one's enemies is justified. The more "intellectual" believers of each religion, can adduce more sophisticated arguments in favour of the violence.
On a related note, historically some Christian nations and some Moslem nations have used bloody force to either eradicate unbelievers or convert unbelievers to the "true" faith. Nowadays, a lot of argmuents centre around Who Started The Violence. For example, would there have been room for a Bin Laden if the US had kept its nose out of foreign oil-rich countries?
barry

Merry,
You have changed my opinions in some ways even though we may not agree on every detail. "Youre summary of an islamic state has in it some excellent ideals. The part about not taxing companies remindes me of Liectenstine where they invited profitable companies in, the companies didnt pay taxes and as a result the people there benefited by haveing the highest income in europe.
Just about suicide bombers I saw a documentry about this and during the Iran Irak war a young Iranian soldier bravely placed a bomb with a short fuse under a tank of the superiour attacking Irakie army. Because he was blown to bits some people saw it as a suicide mission but many saw it as doing a necessary job and the thought of suicide was never entertained.
I hope to visit youre ideal state and if I dont maybe my kids will.

Do Muslems and Christains have the same God?

Share this