According to the gospels, you are supposed to turn the other cheek. Obviously, this command was impossible to follow when Europe confronted Hitler. In Islam, fighting is allowed against an aggressor. Thus, in choosing to fight Hitler, England and the other allied nations were not following the gospels.
Oh dear, I didn’t realize you were so ignorant. Oh wait, yes I did.
The four gospelS were written by anonymous people who used different sources, both written and oral. So for example, it is widely acknowledged that Mark was the first one, but that it used an oral tradition called Q as a source. Then, Matthew and Luke came along and used Mark and Q as sources, but they also changed parts as they saw fit. Get it?
The Gospels are not addressing the way a nation or its leaders should respond to war or invasion. However, you might note that in my previous post, I wasn’t making a case for England following the gospels. I simply asked for sources that demonstrate that England was following the Sira as the title of the post claims. Since you are the first to respond, perhaps you have some?
I just told you. Islam allows war in cases of aggression. The example of Prophet Muhammad shows this. Thus, in choosing to confront Hitler, the allies were closer to the example of Muhammad (pbuh) than the Biblical Jesus.
There is a difference between: “In choosing to confront Hitler, the allies were closer to the example of Muhammad” and “England USED the Sirah against Hitler”
So again, do you have any sources that show that England actually used the Sira in its dealings with Hitler?
Lol, I think you’re being deliberately dense. I already explained everything.
And who said England “USED” the Sira against Hitler? The point being made is that the gospels are impractical and offer no real-life advice. Where in the gospels did Jesus say to fight against an enemy? By fighting Hitler, England ignored the impractical gospels and was closer to the example of Muhammad (pbuh).
Quranandbibleblog – Do you still hold to this statement – ” I welcome constructive criticism and and am always willing to learn more. I also would like to declare that it is not my intention to insult Christians or make them feel bad. If any person feels this way after reading my articles, I offer my sincere apologies.”
You might like to reconsider your approach. Indeed the word USED should be replaced with CHOSE. Let’s go with that. Of course, if one chose something, then it would infer using it. In any case, let’s stick with the word “chose” since that is what the title says.
Work with me here. Suppose a Satanic Handbook talks about fighting enemies also and not turning the other cheek as you say, would it be fair to say that Muhammad chose the Satanic Handbook in his conquests? Of course not. Even if one performs actions that may be consistent with something that appears in a particular source certainly does not mean that the said person used that source to carry out their actions.
So where I’m getting at is that I think it is false advertising to say that England chose the Sira to confront Hitler. If such a claim is made, I want to see a source. Since you have replied three times without pointing to a source, I believe that you probably agree with me that there is no source showing that England chose the Sira.
quranandbibleblog said:“Lol, I think you’re being deliberately dense”
…I see you’re a tad touchy. I don’t recall saying anything uncivil.
Work with me here. Where do the gospels say to fight an aggressor? Let’s start with that.
My Response: As I have previously mentioned, I am not trying to make a case for the gospels being chosen as the means by which to confront Hitler. Therefore there is no burden of proof upon me to disprove a negative.
On the other hand, Paul Williams made the claim that England chose the Sira to confront Hitler. That is a positive claim. Hence, I would like to see the sources of evidence. However, as I have already stated, since you have not provided one on any of the opportunities given, I will conclude that you do not have any.Perhaps someone else might like to contribute some evidence. Paul, since you wrote this post, would you like to provide your sources or retract the claim?
I think the post was worded strangely but (and I could be wrong as I’m not the author) I think the post is saying that basically, Islam has a more practical approach to the multiple situations that happen in life and history than the sometimes utopian rose colored glasses that plagues Christendom. I kinda was discussing this a few days ago with another person in the comment section here. For example, turn the other cheek is generally the best practice BUT there are certain enemies and ideologies whom this won’t work for (aka the give a mouse a cookie problem) and you both basically can’t exist on planet earth together. Christendom generally lacks practical solutions for cases such as this.
A less serious example but something that is unfortunately common divorce. There are no practical ways a couple should leave and the rules in Christendom basically mean even in a case of abuse, for example, the wife has no grounds to leave. Or let’s do something that will affect all of us, death. Christianity lacks any laws regarding inheritance. I know families who fought so bad they still don’t talk to this day over this.
So again I think “England chose the Seerah” means that when ish got real, England dropped the rose-colored glasses and took the Islamic approach of dealing with a hostile government. That’s just my .02 but God knows best.
Stew, that is basically what I said, although you went into more detail. But alas, you didn’t provide any “quote” from the Sira, which royal son requires for some reason. I don’t know exactly what kind of “quote” he is looking for though.
So there is a difference after all. Usually the Muslim apologist insists it is the same story :-)))
oh dear
LOL, oh dear indeed!
Does this guy really think anyone is persuaded by his mindless droning?
The usual inconsistent cherry picking
The usual one-sentence droning.
No need to waste more time on nonsense
So you’ll waste it on more mindless droning? Okay, got it.
Could I have some quotes that showed that England actually used the Sirah to confront Hitler as the title of this post claims?
According to the gospels, you are supposed to turn the other cheek. Obviously, this command was impossible to follow when Europe confronted Hitler. In Islam, fighting is allowed against an aggressor. Thus, in choosing to fight Hitler, England and the other allied nations were not following the gospels.
Post says GospeL, not gospelS. The Gospel Injeel according to Muslim polemicists is fundamentally the same as Muhammad’s message.
Lol!! The four gospelS represent contradictory versions of the gospeL. Get with the program, Ignoramus.
Oh dear. The for gospels represent versions of the Injeel?
Oh dear, I didn’t realize you were so ignorant. Oh wait, yes I did.
The four gospelS were written by anonymous people who used different sources, both written and oral. So for example, it is widely acknowledged that Mark was the first one, but that it used an oral tradition called Q as a source. Then, Matthew and Luke came along and used Mark and Q as sources, but they also changed parts as they saw fit. Get it?
The Gospels are not addressing the way a nation or its leaders should respond to war or invasion. However, you might note that in my previous post, I wasn’t making a case for England following the gospels. I simply asked for sources that demonstrate that England was following the Sira as the title of the post claims. Since you are the first to respond, perhaps you have some?
I just told you. Islam allows war in cases of aggression. The example of Prophet Muhammad shows this. Thus, in choosing to confront Hitler, the allies were closer to the example of Muhammad (pbuh) than the Biblical Jesus.
There is a difference between: “In choosing to confront Hitler, the allies were closer to the example of Muhammad” and “England USED the Sirah against Hitler”
So again, do you have any sources that show that England actually used the Sira in its dealings with Hitler?
Lol, I think you’re being deliberately dense. I already explained everything.
And who said England “USED” the Sira against Hitler? The point being made is that the gospels are impractical and offer no real-life advice. Where in the gospels did Jesus say to fight against an enemy? By fighting Hitler, England ignored the impractical gospels and was closer to the example of Muhammad (pbuh).
Quranandbibleblog – Do you still hold to this statement – ” I welcome constructive criticism and and am always willing to learn more. I also would like to declare that it is not my intention to insult Christians or make them feel bad. If any person feels this way after reading my articles, I offer my sincere apologies.”
You might like to reconsider your approach. Indeed the word USED should be replaced with CHOSE. Let’s go with that. Of course, if one chose something, then it would infer using it. In any case, let’s stick with the word “chose” since that is what the title says.
Work with me here. Suppose a Satanic Handbook talks about fighting enemies also and not turning the other cheek as you say, would it be fair to say that Muhammad chose the Satanic Handbook in his conquests? Of course not. Even if one performs actions that may be consistent with something that appears in a particular source certainly does not mean that the said person used that source to carry out their actions.
So where I’m getting at is that I think it is false advertising to say that England chose the Sira to confront Hitler. If such a claim is made, I want to see a source. Since you have replied three times without pointing to a source, I believe that you probably agree with me that there is no source showing that England chose the Sira.
Please try to keep your comments civil. Thanks.
I see you’re a tad touchy. I don’t recall saying anything uncivil.
Work with me here. Where do the gospels say to fight an aggressor? Let’s start with that.
quranandbibleblog said: “Lol, I think you’re being deliberately dense”
…I see you’re a tad touchy. I don’t recall saying anything uncivil.
Work with me here. Where do the gospels say to fight an aggressor? Let’s start with that.
My Response: As I have previously mentioned, I am not trying to make a case for the gospels being chosen as the means by which to confront Hitler. Therefore there is no burden of proof upon me to disprove a negative.
On the other hand, Paul Williams made the claim that England chose the Sira to confront Hitler. That is a positive claim. Hence, I would like to see the sources of evidence. However, as I have already stated, since you have not provided one on any of the opportunities given, I will conclude that you do not have any.Perhaps someone else might like to contribute some evidence. Paul, since you wrote this post, would you like to provide your sources or retract the claim?
@ Royal
I think the post was worded strangely but (and I could be wrong as I’m not the author) I think the post is saying that basically, Islam has a more practical approach to the multiple situations that happen in life and history than the sometimes utopian rose colored glasses that plagues Christendom. I kinda was discussing this a few days ago with another person in the comment section here. For example, turn the other cheek is generally the best practice BUT there are certain enemies and ideologies whom this won’t work for (aka the give a mouse a cookie problem) and you both basically can’t exist on planet earth together. Christendom generally lacks practical solutions for cases such as this.
A less serious example but something that is unfortunately common divorce. There are no practical ways a couple should leave and the rules in Christendom basically mean even in a case of abuse, for example, the wife has no grounds to leave. Or let’s do something that will affect all of us, death. Christianity lacks any laws regarding inheritance. I know families who fought so bad they still don’t talk to this day over this.
So again I think “England chose the Seerah” means that when ish got real, England dropped the rose-colored glasses and took the Islamic approach of dealing with a hostile government. That’s just my .02 but God knows best.
Stew, that is basically what I said, although you went into more detail. But alas, you didn’t provide any “quote” from the Sira, which royal son requires for some reason. I don’t know exactly what kind of “quote” he is looking for though.
So I will take it that you are just nitpicking and don’t have anything substantive to add. OK, got it.
I explained everything as clearly as possible.
So I will take it that you are just nitpicking and have nothing substantive to add. OK, got it.
I have explained everything as clearly as possible. I don’t know what else you need.