4 ms·

All religious differences are that kind of trivial... It is just difficult to see in own case.

by xornox 7y ago

pbhjpbhj 7y ago
This is false. I suspect hated of religion may have blinded you, making you ignorant of facts. For example in the Koran believers are told, in unabrogated verses, to kill anyone who isn't Muslim (paraphrasing: 'strike down non-believers wherever you find them'). In the New Testament believers are told to love everyone, including foreigners and non-believers and are given a specific edict to pray for their enemies. Buddhism seems to me to be most pacifist of the major World religions. In contrast Islam, Judaism, and Sikhism all have warring as central elements of their doctrine; modern followers may have 'workarounds' for those. These are not trivial differences.
- D-Coder 7y ago
  >In the New Testament believers are told to love everyone, including foreigners and non-believers and are given a specific edict to pray for their enemies. But also: >34 Do not assume that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn ‘A man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.…
  - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
    Yes, do you have anything that suggests it's not figurative? All the NT reports are of Jesus being entirely pacifist. In the NT "the sword" is the Holy Spirit, like "the son of man" is Jesus. There is an incidence of sword use by a disciple, cutting the ear of a Roman soldier at Jesus arrest; Jesus berates the disciple and heals the soldier; though IIRC Jesus tells them to bring a sword if they have one. To remain consistent to the message of the text it seems Jesus must have been speaking figuratively in your quote and I don't think any stretch is needed there? His immediate disciples appear to have acted consistent with that after his death. In contrast, but with similar consistency, when Mohammed says strike down unbelievers, that is also what he did - he was a successful warlord who besieged and put to the sword entire cities (according to Islamic sources: Koran and Hadith). IMO his transition to allowing opposing fighters to live, if they convert; then allowing Christians and Jews to live if they pay jizya; were the principle elements that allowed early growth - he turned cities in to golden geese, rather than razing them to the ground. His immediate followers of course also killed non-believers (and all the rest that we associate with mediaeval war). It's worth noting that where I am in the UK, there are many Muslims and quite a few are amongst my friends; none of them appear to follow Mohammed or the Koran in this aspect. People are not religions. There are examples of Buddhists being extremely violent for example, that doesn't mean Buddhism is bad; adherents who act malevolently didn't negate the worth of a particular doctrine. And vice versa: doctrine that is malevolent doesn't negate the worth of supposed proponents.
- int_19h 7y ago
  Whether that verse is abrogated or not is a matter of debate in Islam, particularly when it comes to its specific meaning (i.e. many would say that it's not abrogated, but that's because it only applied in the original context of Muhammad's conquests, and is not a broad commandment).
  - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
    In Islam, to my understanding, Mohammed is the paragon, the perfect example to be imitated in all things. Do you have a source that you've found convincing on those surah being abrogated? Presumably sources that say that was only for Mohammed necessarily would condemn his warring (making him not a paragon, and destroying a central premise), and what of the caliphs that followed Mohammed. I'd be interested in a mainstream condemnation of Islamic military expansion, if there is one?
    - int_19h 7y ago
      Imitation also has to consider conquest. So again the question becomes whether it was a general guideline for warfare, or specific to the particular circumstances of the specific conflict that Muhammad was engaged in at the time. So far as I know, the mainstream position is that it is the latter. It doesn't mean that they're abrogated - it just means that a similar situation is unlikely to arise again. It also doesn't imply a condemnation of war. Even the "righteous" caliphs did all kinds of things contradicting the Sunnah, so I don't think that's a very useful yardstick. But overall, given that the Caliphate had plenty - indeed, early after the initial conquests, the majority of its population - following different religions, it's pretty obvious that the commandment wasn't taken quite so verbatim even then. And, on the other hand, consider the ultimate fate of the Kharijites, who kinda took it to heart.

All religious differences are that kind of trivial... It is just difficult to see in own case.

by xornox 7y ago

All religious differences are that kind of trivial... It is just difficult to see in own case.

This is false. I suspect hated of religion may have blinded you, making you ignorant of facts. For example in the Koran believers are told, in unabrogated verses, to kill anyone who isn't Muslim (paraphrasing: 'strike down non-believers wherever you find them'). In the New Testament believers are told to love everyone, including foreigners and non-believers and are given a specific edict to pray for their enemies. Buddhism seems to me to be most pacifist of the major World religions. In contrast Islam, Judaism, and Sikhism all have warring as central elements of their doctrine; modern followers may have 'workarounds' for those. These are not trivial differences.

D-Coder 7y ago
>In the New Testament believers are told to love everyone, including foreigners and non-believers and are given a specific edict to pray for their enemies. But also: >34 Do not assume that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn ‘A man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.…
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  Yes, do you have anything that suggests it's not figurative? All the NT reports are of Jesus being entirely pacifist. In the NT "the sword" is the Holy Spirit, like "the son of man" is Jesus. There is an incidence of sword use by a disciple, cutting the ear of a Roman soldier at Jesus arrest; Jesus berates the disciple and heals the soldier; though IIRC Jesus tells them to bring a sword if they have one. To remain consistent to the message of the text it seems Jesus must have been speaking figuratively in your quote and I don't think any stretch is needed there? His immediate disciples appear to have acted consistent with that after his death. In contrast, but with similar consistency, when Mohammed says strike down unbelievers, that is also what he did - he was a successful warlord who besieged and put to the sword entire cities (according to Islamic sources: Koran and Hadith). IMO his transition to allowing opposing fighters to live, if they convert; then allowing Christians and Jews to live if they pay jizya; were the principle elements that allowed early growth - he turned cities in to golden geese, rather than razing them to the ground. His immediate followers of course also killed non-believers (and all the rest that we associate with mediaeval war). It's worth noting that where I am in the UK, there are many Muslims and quite a few are amongst my friends; none of them appear to follow Mohammed or the Koran in this aspect. People are not religions. There are examples of Buddhists being extremely violent for example, that doesn't mean Buddhism is bad; adherents who act malevolently didn't negate the worth of a particular doctrine. And vice versa: doctrine that is malevolent doesn't negate the worth of supposed proponents.
int_19h 7y ago
Whether that verse is abrogated or not is a matter of debate in Islam, particularly when it comes to its specific meaning (i.e. many would say that it's not abrogated, but that's because it only applied in the original context of Muhammad's conquests, and is not a broad commandment).
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  In Islam, to my understanding, Mohammed is the paragon, the perfect example to be imitated in all things. Do you have a source that you've found convincing on those surah being abrogated? Presumably sources that say that was only for Mohammed necessarily would condemn his warring (making him not a paragon, and destroying a central premise), and what of the caliphs that followed Mohammed. I'd be interested in a mainstream condemnation of Islamic military expansion, if there is one?
  - int_19h 7y ago
    Imitation also has to consider conquest. So again the question becomes whether it was a general guideline for warfare, or specific to the particular circumstances of the specific conflict that Muhammad was engaged in at the time. So far as I know, the mainstream position is that it is the latter. It doesn't mean that they're abrogated - it just means that a similar situation is unlikely to arise again. It also doesn't imply a condemnation of war. Even the "righteous" caliphs did all kinds of things contradicting the Sunnah, so I don't think that's a very useful yardstick. But overall, given that the Caliphate had plenty - indeed, early after the initial conquests, the majority of its population - following different religions, it's pretty obvious that the commandment wasn't taken quite so verbatim even then. And, on the other hand, consider the ultimate fate of the Kharijites, who kinda took it to heart.