He said he couldn't think of examples, i provided examples. And Superchunk's been explaining that the "slaughter the infidels" deal in the Quran dealt more with the early days of the faith, when it was more about unifying the Arab people. Now perhaps its been reinterpreted to mean all infidels of the world, but that's the fault of the same kind of backwards thinking that led to the murder of George Tiller.

In the Quran is written "KIll every infidel" not "kill the attacking arabs who arent muslims yet" that would be historical context, like it is in the old testament

BUT there are more than HUNDRED orders most of them NEWER verse from the medinesic time that annull older, meccanic verses and the quran was given to muhammad for all time and the orders are effective until forever according to the quran.

please dont believe a muslim, like i said it, read the quran and the hadiths for yourself if you want to know the truth

Very true. People don't seem to realize that.

Yes, Germany will probably be fucked in 10 or 20 years, but it will have nothing to do with Muslim migration. Crime rates are always higher amongst the unemployed, as are birth rates.

Man you drive me crazy.

You are so full of hatred that you just can't see it. All you do is continue with your statements regardless of how many times I've shown your exact examples to be the opposite of what you declare they mean.

The correct answer is when anyone is killing someone in the name of their religion they are wrong as none of these religions tell their followers to kill others outside of defense.

Also, the OT has the exact same commands by God to kill infidels and other unbelievers. Difference is, you read the entire paragraph and know it is refereing to events that were current or about to take place, such as wars when Israelites took control of what would become Judea. These commands to kill all that were not Jews are no different, actually far more harsh than Qur'anic laws of war, than the commands where Muslims were to fight the pagans in Arabia during the time the Qur'an was written.

But, you keep spreadin' your hate.

God refered to specific people during the time. I don't recall in the old testiment God saying to kill all who don't believe. He names specific tribes and people that had angered him. The jews did carry out several brutal attacks but not all of the attacks recorded in the Old Testiment were ordered by God and those that were , were specific orders not kill all that don't believe.

Even the Old Testiment clearly said "Though shalt not murder". I don't know if the Qur'an has a similiar order in it, though I have read many passages which may have been taken out of context but support killing infidel.

Also the Old Testiment is not the cornerstone of Christianity. It is the basis of Jewish beliefs. The New Testiment follows the life and teachings of Jesus Christ which supercede anything found in the Old Testiment. Why? Jesus death was meant to atone for all the sins any man commits. His sacrafice was to cleanse man of their sins as a lamb used to be sacraficed to do so. Jesus was the lamb and according to the New Testiment and Christ himself all those that believe in Jesus and follow his teachings will be forgiven of their sins and they are to try to lead all non-believers into a relationship with Christ Jesus our Lord.

So clearly the teachings of Jesus do not promote killing of anyone outside of defence. The Old Testiment is history it teaches many of God's laws. However the punishments for those who break those laws are forgiven by Jesus death. So the idea of stoning prostitutes and adulterers is replaced with showing mercy and love.

Yes prostitution, adultery and such are still wrong but Jesus teaches that no one is without sin and all should be forgiven and treated lovingly.

Making the Old Testiment more of a guidline for how to live our lives rather then law. Don't use the Old Testiment to try and make Christians look as bad as Islam! Because Christianity is not based on the Old Testiment rather the new one.

1. OT names specific enemies.... you're right. In the same manner as the Qur'an is speaking about those the Muslim armies were currently in war with. No difference. It couldn't say "fight those other Arabs..." that is not much of a distinction since they were all the same race. Instead, it used the only other differentiating factor... religion.

The difference is, as I said before, people like to take those comments out of the context of the rest of the paragraph forcing it to stand on its own vs being specific to the war it was actually describing.

Also, an OT command to kill those who lived peacefully for ever before in their homes just because the land is being ursurped by the Jewish God in a fashion that is to kill everyone and every living thing, including plants and animals.... was far more brutal than anything described in the Qur'an in terms of its discussion to continue attacks on the pagan Arab fighters. It strickly forbids attacking children, women, animals, farms, POWs, etc.

2. "Though shalt not murder" - murder is not equal to war when you are defending yourself. Hell, the unprovoked attack on those that lived in what would become Judea was clearly murder... however, I digress. Again, the killing in the Qur'an was pertaining to current wars with Arab pagans in Mecca. These were considered defensive wars as the Meccans continuously attacked Medina and any Muslims they found.

Additionally, yes, the Qur'an has extensive parts discussing the horrible action of murder itself and just like the OT its punishable by death, however, in the Qur'an its up to the victim's family to decide and its preferred to show mercy.

[2.178] O you who believe! retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the slain, the free for the free, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female, but if any remission is made to any one by his (aggrieved) brother, then prosecution (for the bloodwit) should be made according to usage, and payment should be made to him in a good manner; this is an alleviation from your Lord and a mercy; so whoever exceeds the limit after this he shall have a painful chastisement.

[5.27] And relate to them the story of the two sons of Adam with truth when they both offered an offering, but it was accepted from one of them and was not accepted from the other. He said: I I will most certainly slay you. (The other) said: Allah only accepts from those who guard (against evil).
[5.28] If you will stretch forth your hand towards me to slay me, I am not one to stretch forth my hand towards you to slay you surely I fear Allah, the Lord of the worlds:
[5.29] Surely I wish that you should bear the sin committed against me and your own sin, and so you would be of the inmates of the fire, and this is the recompense of the unjust.
[5.30] Then his mind facilitated to him the slaying of his brother so he slew him; then he became one of the losers
[5.31] Then Allah sent a crow digging up the earth so that he might show him how he should cover the dead body of his brother. He said: Woe me! do I lack the strength that I should be like this crow and cover the dead body of my brother? So he became of those who regret.
[5.32] For this reason did We prescribe to the children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; and certainly Our apostles came to them with clear arguments, but even after that many of them certainly act extravagantly in the land.

"... whoever commits murder, ..., is as if he killed all of humanity; and whoever promotes life, is as if he helps keep alive all of humanity..." - I really like this line of logic personally.

[4.93] And whoever kills a intentionally, his punishment is hell; he shall abide in it, and Allah will send His wrath on him and curse him and prepare for him a painful chastisement.

This one is really identical to "thou shall not muder" in its direct meaning.

[2.190] Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loveth not transgressors.

This one is referring to an ongoing war and it basically means to continue to fight while they fight you, but do not become the aggressor and go beyond the laws ordained for war... i.e. do not commit murder/slaughter/etc.

3. I don't want to argue about the teachings of Jesus in a general sense as he was not here to start a new religion, simply get the Jews (of which he also worshipped with) back on the right path. However, I do agree that his teachings always focused on peace and leaving the judging to God. The Qur'an does not differ in these teachings at all. You're just skipping past all the many parts that discuss this.

Hey Super Chunk I have a question that I have been to afraid to ask my Muslim friend. He's always trying to convert me so I try to change the subject as much as possible and not discuss Islam or Christianity.

But he says that the Bible is a Holy Text in Islam and that Jesus is a prophet of Allah. However he says Jesus never died on the cross or resurected three days later. He says Jesus ascended like Muhammed.

But this gets me confused.

The Bible clearly states that Jesus is the son of God. It also says in the Bible that Jesus died and was resurected. Jesus himself claimed to be the son of God. So this has had me puzzled wouldn't Jesus have been a false prophet as he claimed to be Gods son? And how can the Bible be a Holy Text when it clearly says Jesus resurected three days after being killed on the cross?

The only thing I agree with his mythology is that Jesus ascended to heaven and is coming back. But he ascended after being killed on the cross.

My Muslim friend gets highly pissed off at me. One time he came into my house and my Bible was on the ground. He started yelling at me, The Bible is a Holy Book it should not be on the ground how can you treat it like that.

But if the Bible is such a Holy Book and Jesus is truly a prophet of Allah then why don't Muslim's read the Bible? And how can the Bible be a holy text since it clearly states Jesus is God's son. And how can Jesus be a prophet when he said he was God's son. And how can Jesus not die on the cross in Islam while dying on the cross in the "Holy" Bible?

It's just something I've always wanted to ask him but never had the balls too!

According to the Qur'an...

Jesus is a Prophet just any before him and Muhammad after. He was human not a god in any form. The Qur'an states that Jesus has not died, that it only appeared to others as if he was on the cross. Instead he was pulled up to God until it is time for him to return to be the Messiah. His job was to return the Jews back to God's path, using miracles to prove his message is true, and then leave in order to return later to bring the end of the worlds.

The Qur'an also teaches that it is not the first holy writing to be given to people. The Jews received their Torah from Prophet Moses, however over the centuries they have lost parts of its meanings and have always received other prophets to bring them back on track (of which Jesus was the last).

The Qur'an also says Jesus brought a purely verbal "book" called the Ingil. This book is not the New Testament. However, parts of it can be found in the NT through Jesus' teachings and parables.

According to history and the Bible itself...

Jesus never claimed to be a literal "son of god" or an actual god himself. It was common during that time for people to proclaim how good they are at something. As an example, someone who is a great blacksmith would have said they are the "son of a blacksmith". Whether they really were or not was irrelevant. Additionally, hit up one of the many search able online Bible's and you can find that all throughout the OT prophets, random people, animals, trees, etc are all at times referred to as son(s), daughter(s), children of God. It is simply a phrase to get a meaning across that this person is a great worshiper of God. This can be seen in the bible where Jesus actually shows the opposite of him being god by:

John 20:17 "Jesus told her, "Don't hold on to me, because I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.' "

Statements like this are all through the Bible. Jesus was clearly always aware of his role and his separation from the God he worshiped.

Additionally, a little study of early Christianity also proves that the entire idea of Trinity/Jesus as a god was really just a result of Roman forced acceptance of Christianity and especially the outcome of the vote put forth during the Council of Nicaea in 325CE.... 300 years after Jesus left. At this time there was a major divide among Christians regarding Jesus' divinity and some believed as most do today that Jesus was part of God in a holy trinity, while many others, as they still do today in Egypt,Ethiopia,parts of Lebanon... that Jesus was a Prophet and not God. The Roman leaders wanted to keep it from going into a civil war and began the first of the many religious councils where entire parts of the belief system were put to a vote. The first was whether or not Jesus was divine and the Trinity group was better represented and won. So basically, you can consider most of all modern beliefs in Christianity based on popular votes.

Same goes with the specific collection of books/letters that now exist in the Bible. The specific dates for Easter and Christmas, etc. All based on Romans (who only accepted Christianity to keep off from a larger war and division) diplomatic skills to get all the pagans to accept a forced conversion to Christianity.

However, yes a real Muslim would regard ALL the holy books and Prophets as equals as the Qur'an specifies as such. I have multiple TaNahKs, Bibles, and Qur'ans in my house. They are all well respected and have their specific spots. My children know not to mishandle any of them and respect the beliefs of each and their followers. Because in the end....

Chapter 5 - 69
"Surely those who believe and those who are Jews and the Sabians and the Christians whoever believes in Allah (The God) and the last day and does good-- they shall have no fear nor shall they grieve. "

I'll tell you that Commandment 5, as far as "murder" was probably meant specifically regarding killing other Jews. Most of the commandments are taken so far out of context these days as to have little to do with their original meaning. "Honor thy father and thy mother," for instance, is a commandment directed at the guy who doesn't want to pay his mom's nursing home bills (or the era's equivalent), and not the kid who doesn't want to go to bed on time, as is the modern, out-of-context interpretation

And we can see in our modern days the people that take this stuff to be seriously directed at them in their context, like the people who literally interpret the Levitical prohibitions against homosexuality, which were more about keeping domestic peace than because God hates it (i.e. adult men who would have sex with each other were likely married, thus creating all kinds of interfamilial fun), and can see how contextual issues of intra-Arabian conflict could, just perhaps, be taken to justify blowing up skyscrapers in a country that didn't even exist at the time?