It appears that Islam Web, a popular website owned by Qatar’s Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs, may have been responsible for the rationale used by the Islamic State to burn alive a Jordanian pilot captive.
On February 7, 2006, the widely accessed Arabic website issued Fatwa No. 71480, titled “The Burning of Ias bin Abdul Yalil by Abu Bakr.” The fatwa, or Islamic decree, concluded that burning people as a form of punishment is permissible.
Ironically, hours after the Islamic State burned the pilot alive, Fatwa No. 71480 was removed from Islam Web.
What is interesting to note is that the more recent fatwa issued by the Islamic State to justify the burning of the pilot makes the very same arguments as this 2006 Islam Web fatwa did — citing the same sources, hadiths, tafsirs, even the logic of “humility” — implying that IS may well have relied on this fatwa from the Qatari website when writing its own to burn the pilot alive — hence, why the fatwa has now “mysteriously” disappeared from Islam Web.
Incidentally, Islam Web won the World Summit Award of 2007, on the basis that it is “the best interactive edutainment website for Arabic-speaking children by the consensus of the Jury which met in Croatia, in evaluating the productions nominated from 160 countries.”
Thanks to Rachid, a translation of the fatwa and image of the original Arabic before it was removed from Islam Web follow.
The Burning of Ias bin Abdul Yalil by Abu Bakr
Fatwa No. 71480
Tuesday 2- 7- 2006
[Question]: How do we reconcile between the prohibition of burning [enemies] by fire made by the Prophet, peace be upon him, and the burning of Ias Abdul Yalil by Abu Bakr, may Allah be pleased with him, during the war of apostasy ?
[Answer]: Praise be to Allah and peace and blessings be upon the Messenger of God and his family and companions. Now:
The fact that the prophet – peace be upon him – forbade burning by fire is documented and stated in his holy hadith – peace and blessings be upon him – where he said: “No one punishes with fire except the Lord of fire,” Narrated by Abu Dawood and Ahmad in his Musnad .
The scholars differ as to whether this prohibition is for interdiction or just for humility; Ibn Hajar said in [his book] Fath Albari: “..Al Muhallab said: This prohibition is not for interdiction but just for humility, and the proof that burning is allowed is in the acts of the prophet’s companions, the prophet – peace be upon him – burned the eyes of the Oranyeen [from Orayna] with heated iron [nails]. And Abu Bakr burned the aggressors in the presence of the companions, Khalid Bin Alwalid [Muslim Army commander] burned some apostates, and most of the scholars of Medina [the prophet’s city] permit burning castles and ships, upon its people, this was stated by Althawri and Al-Awzaai. Ibn Mounir and others said: there is not a proof for permission, because the Oranyeen story was revenge, and the case of castles and ships is allowed with the necessity as a condition, if it was a way to achieve victory upon the enemy.
As for the story of Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) burning Ias Abdul Yalil with fire is documented in the books of history. In the book (Alkamel): “Ias Abdul Yalil came to Abu Bakr and said to him: help me fight the apostates by giving me arms. He gave him arms and ordered him to follow orders; he came to Muslims and even went down to Aljoa, and sent Nokhba bin Abi Almithae of Bani Sharid and appointed him an Emir on Muslims, then he raided every Muslim in the tribe of Salim, Amer, and Hawazen. Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) heard about that then he sent somebody to arrest him [Ias] and bring him back. Abu Bakr ordered a fire to be set in the prayer court then he threw him [Ias] in it with his hands tied.
If scholars have different opinions on the prohibition of burning by fire, as we have said, those who objected to burning allowed it in some exceptional cases, but there is no doubt that what Ias Abdul Yalil did was worth burning him [alive]. May Allah reward the Caliph of the Messenger of Allah – peace be upon him – for his zeal for Islam.
And Allah knows.
Snapshot of original fatwa before being removed from Islam Web follows:
I submitted a “Question for Muslims” to Islam Web I distribute occasionally regarding an article on jihad by Sheikh Abdullah bin Humaid I found in a Summarized Bukhari I’d ordered. I still haven’t got a response.
Letter to Oxford Islamic Studies 2-8-15
Regarding: The Origins of the ISIS Conflict by John L. Esposito
http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/Public/focus.html
Just got through reading The Origins of the ISIS Conflict by John L. Esposito. I fear for America. This reading followed that by Paul Weston, The Multicultural Madness of Theresa May. And truly, she must be absolutely insane. She is one of the main actors in denying Robert Spencer and Pamella Geller entry into Britain yet practically singing the praises of radical preachers trying to destroy Democracy.
Here in Esposito’s “article” he pretty much blames the problems or “drivers of radicalization” on a “hostile society”, “the pressing need for social justice” and of course “Islamophobia”.
Incredibly, in one sentence, he says “the US and European Union failed to become significantly engaged and work closely with regional allies such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar to support moderate anti-Assad forces.”
And then, in the next paragraph; “The situation was compounded by the Gulf countries, in particular Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which funded militant Salafi jihadists, including ISIS, to fight a proxy war in Syria against Assad.”
I’ve read this over and over and I still don’t get it. Of course I’m just a dumb-ass construction worker. Not edgeekayted like you folks. Did he say that we failed to become significantly engaged with those who funded terrorists?
Just below that under the heading “What about the “Islamic pedigree & vision” of ISIS?” he suggest that “The Islamic State (IS) offers a distorted militant Salafi ideology and religious rationale to justify, recruit, and motivate many of its fighters.”
Really? Does he mean the distorted view of Islam preached in the majority of mosques in Britain and the United States and responsible for these “Muslim enclaves” and “no-go zones” I’m reading about? Or how about the fact that ISIS burned a Jordanian pilot on “Islamic” grounds suspiciously similar to a fatwa from Qatar.
From Raymond Ibrahim, who unlike the Oxford Islamic Studies actually DOES report on what Islam is doing:
“It appears that Islam Web, a popular website owned by Qatar’s Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs, may have been responsible for the rationale used by the Islamic State to burn alive a Jordanian pilot captive.”
Here’s the link:Qatar Published Fatwa In 2006 Permitting Burning People — Removes It After IS Burns Pilot by Raymond Ibrahim on February 7, 2015 https://www.raymondibrahim.com/from-the-arab-world/qatar-published-fatwa-in-2006-permitting-burning-people-removes-it-after-is-burns-pilot/
“And he says this: Ironically, hours after the Islamic State burned the pilot alive, Fatwa No. 71480 was removed from Islam Web.”
“What is interesting to note is that the more recent fatwa issued by the Islamic State to justify the burning of the pilot makes the very same arguments as this 2006 Islam Web fatwa did — citing the same sources, hadiths, tafsirs, even the logic of “humility” — implying that IS may well have relied on this fatwa from the Qatari website when writing its own to burn the pilot alive — hence, why the fatwa has now “mysteriously” disappeared from Islam Web.”
And in case you missed it, this was from Qatar’s Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs. The country that you suggest we “work closely” with.
It’s jaw-dropping to me how you persist on this “religion of peace” bullshit when there’s overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
I recently sent this same Islam Web an inquiry shortly before Ibrahim’s article came out regarding an article on jihad I found in a Summuarized Bukhari I’d ordered. As a matter of fact I’m pretty sure I sent you one too. Hmm, maybe not. Anyway, here’s part of it. Maybe you can address it. I haven’t received a response from anybody I’ve sent this to.
Well, how about that. I guess I did. (Guess I’m gettin’ old):
2-6-15 John Esposito-Oxford Islamic Studies Online
http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/Public/contact_us.html
and
Submitted to Islam Web English 12-?-14
http://www.islamweb.net/emainpage/index.php?page=submitfatwa
Home:
http://www.islamweb.net/emainpage/index.php
12-27-14: So far no answer
Here’s the “Questions for Muslims 12-20-14”
“What the horn is to the rhinoceros, what the sting is to the wasp, the Mohammedan faith is to the Arabs of the Sudan-a faculty of offence. All the warlike operations of Mohammedan peoples are characterised by fanatacism” Winston Churchill
“While Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Parsees and Jews, along with several million adherents of an animistic religion, all coexisted in relative harmony, one religion that would not accept compromise stood out from the rest: Islam.” Mahatma Gandhi
About three years ago I ordered some reading material, including Taha’s “Second Message”, and a “study” Koran to find out what this “Islam thing” was all about. When I was sixteen I was chanting nam yo ho renge kyo to a piece of paper, (gahonzen?), having NO idea what I was doing. A few years later, hair down to my ass and a knapsack on my back, I hitchhiked cross country, got saved in Nashville Tenn. and went to live on a Christian farm in Mansfield Ohio. (Not the prison.) My gra’mom called me a “seeker”. As I said, there came a time when I wanted to understand this “religion of peace”. It was Humaid’s article on jihad I found in my Summarized Bukhari that decided “things” for me.
“we may describe it, (jihad), as a surgeon’s lancet and not a butcher’s knife.” Mahmoud Mohammed Taha (I’m sure there are about 200 million dead people that would disagree with him. And this from the guy who’s been called the Mahatma Ghandi of Islam.)
Question for Muslims:
Jihad in the Qur’an and Sunnah by ‘Abdullâh bin Muhammad bin Humaid (Isn’t that interesting: I had two links to this article that no longer work. In any case, Google it. It should be easy to find. Also check out the publisher Dar-us-Salam and general manager of “Sound Vision” Abdul Malik Mujahid who personally plugs this article.)
If Islam is the “religion of peace”, where in Sheikh Abdullah bin Humaid’s article on jihad can I find the equivalent of “Love Thy Neighbor” and “good will toward men”?
Explain this articles prominence, and significance almost as an “Introduction”, in a book, my Summarized Sahih Al-Bukhari, that’s described as “the most authentic and true among the books of the Prophet”
Compare Humaid’s “jihad” and Emmet Fox’ Sermon on the Mount and tell me which one best represents a spirit of Love and “compassion” and tell me….
….Why, out of all the articles, out of all the words of pearly Muslim wisdom they could have put in this, “the most authentic and true among the books of the Prophet”, this is the one they chose to submit and use almost as an Introduction?
Also address “jihad” as it’s defined in Reliance of the Traveller and answer the same question. (Chapter O-9.0: Jihad O: “Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada signifying warfare to establish the religion.” And explain why the “greater” jihad is only mentioned once here and never seen again in this “Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law”.)
I’ve posted this many times to many Muslims and have yet to get a single response. Well, I did receive a response from some goofball named “Dr.” Mohsen El-Guindy asking me to read his books. Instead I downloaded a bunch of his articles. Which were pure rants. An Imam, sidestepped it by telling me I had to “study Islam” to gain a greater understanding.
Here are some extra things I submitted later. I’d like you to dispute or debunk a single thing listed below.
As I attested above, once upon a time I made a good faithed effort to understand this “religion of peace”. Once upon a time I was a hard core racist whose only name for blacks was “those fuckin’ niggers”. Until I read some books. Today I haven’t got a racist bone in my body in spite of what the scumbags say who respond to my pro-Israel anti-terror posts online. I finally reached only one, inevitable conclusion: Islam is a disease and Muslims are the symptom.
Update 12-29-14
Question #1 for Our Muslim Friends: How can I believe that Mohammed is the greatest prophet of God? (Jacob Prasch-You Tube video)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtfUSpov9ww
Question #2 for Our Muslim Friends: If Islam is a religion of peace & tolerance, why are there no Islamic countries of peace or tolerance? (Jacob Prasch-You Tube video)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDePthOhcuE
(See other “Question”(s)
The Cliff Notes version of Islam 101 is this:
1. According to the Prophet Muhammad, the Quran represents the exact words of Allah as told to Muhammad by the Angel Gabriel. As such, no man can interpret what Allah has revealed (although at least 20% of the Quran makes no sense to scholars).
2. Any Muslim failing to believe what is written in the Quran and to comply with its teachings is an apostate-the punishment for which is death. Thus, the allegiance of all Muslims is to Allah and Muhammad’s teachings.
3. The Quran sanctions violence in order to impose Islam upon all non-Muslims. Such violence is detailed by Muhammad in the Quran, who even boasts therein about beheading hundreds of Jews who had voluntarily surrendered.
4. Every Muslim’s purpose in life is to work toward a global caliphate in which Islam reigns supreme-again using force where necessary.
The 4th Conference of the Academy of Islamic Research: Arab Theologians on Jews and Israel. Sept. 1968 Translated by D.F. Green/David G. Littman (Support Secure Freedom)Front to back; 95 pages of outrageous lies, inversion and vile Jew-Hatred. I’ve read this whole thing. I invite you to find any comparison with Jewish, Christain or Buddhist “Conferences”.
http://supportsecurefreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/Arab-HYPERLINK “http://supportsecurefreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/Arab-Theologians-on-Jews-and-Israel-4th_Ed_082011.pdf” Theologians-on-Jews-and-Israel-4th_Ed_082011.pdf
Read Andrew Bostom’s The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism and read from page 51 on the above topic to page 53 the 2003 Putrajaya Islamic Summit and a little beyond to a speech by Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi on the same page. The whole chapter is one horrific example after another of Islamic mass murder and pogroms but go ahead and start with this.
And this:
Dr. Wafa Sultan exposes Islamic values with Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad
http://www.mrctv.org/videos/dr-wafa-sultan-exposes-islamic-values-HYPERLINK “http://www.mrctv.org/videos/dr-wafa-sultan-exposes-islamic-values-sheikh-omar-bakri-muhammad” sheikh-omar-bakri-muhammad
This less than 8-minute video segment, if viewed objectively and dispassionately, could do more to educate the American public on the theory animating the practice of “Islamic international relations,” without any further explanation required. Andrew G. Bostom-The Legacy of Jihad and The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism.
Islamists Project Islam’s Worst Traits onto Christians by Raymond Ibrahim
raymondibrahim-com/9669/islamists-project-islam-worst-traits-onto
Muslims Project Islam’s Worst Traits onto Israel and the Jews by Raymond Ibrahim
raymondibrahim-com/8348/muslims-project-islam-worst-traits-onto-israel
The circular reasoning is amazing. The cruelty even more so. But then one remembers that the Roman Church did the same and in the name of Christ, no less. The difference though is this: the Christian Scriptures cannot be pointed to as a reason or excuse for the actions of the Roman Church, whereas the Koran can and is responsible for the actions of its followers.
“the Christian Scriptures can” and fact is your logic determines the Islamic religion cannot. Because it determines a religions adherents ;evil’ behavior is Not-Religion which is rightfully what Islam can claim if you persist.
It is not hard to find even from Jesus himself determining any community who rejected his disciples would be subject to annihilation. Jesus did not say he had brought ‘Love and Peace’ he said he had brought the sword setting sister against Brother son against Father etc, Also by his own example in the premeditated violence Jesus perpetrated in the temple sets the justification and authority to utilize violence to clear space. Humans deal in analogies what do you expect to happen? It is no use saying Love your Neighbor’ surely counts as clearly as with all codex neighbor tends to be highly qualified.
But that is not the point where as Christianity could put genocide behind it given its codex and the construct of the Christian soul Islam has not the same supportive codex nor construct of the individual being able to detemine their own future ‘Allah decides therefore Democracy really is not a political construct which fits the Islamic politic.
You obviously do not understand God’s Word in the Scriptures and your answer to my comment is very difficult to understand . You state Jesus perpetrated violence in the Temple. There is a large chasm between anger and violence. Did Christ slaughter anyone? No, he upset the money changer’s tables and chased them out. The Town that rejected the disciples was NOT punished by Jesus or His followers but Jesus said eventual judgement would fall on them. As to Jesus bringing a “sword “. That obviously was not a literal sword. The Bible speaks frequently of “the sword of His mouth”.
Jesus was not crucified by those who He came to save but by those who rejected Him. Islam rejects Christ as to Who he claimed to be and therefore , because it is a hate driven religion, wants to kill, slaughter, rape and pillage anyone that does not agree with it’s harsh, hate-filled concepts and therefore fulfilling the many prophecies of Christ.
“anger and violence” Yes there is a chasm between anger and violence “the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person”. Jesus made the whip himself and then utilised it against Man and beast and bird. Jesus I agree is in no way a replicant of Mohammad and that is why I believe Christians could move so easily from a genocide construct of Other but you have completely ignored Jesus comments of the sword and well as annihilating communities who rejected his view of the world via his disciples – the later is clearly aligned to what Islam believes should happen to Other. By saying this does Jesus inform peace and freedom for Other (non-christian) to decide their own future? I myself have difficulty believing Jesus was the same person in determining death to Other and love to Other at the same time. Just going on what was said.
You are obviously hung up on one’s ability to decide ones own future. Let me educate you a little about the Gospel of Christ. John 3:16; For God so loved the world that He GAVE His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him, should not perish, but have everlasting life.
So, God loved you, and He loved me. What does he say we must do to have everlasting life? Believe in Christ.
Christ also said that no one took His life, but that He GAVE it.
It was God who decided and still decides on who will have eternal life, solely based on what we do with Christ.
According to Islam, do you have the power to decide your future? You claim to have it. Kill yourself in the name of your god and you will go to paradise and be able to satisfy the insatiable lust to have your penis stuck in some innocent girl, and you are promised 70 of these, they will always remain virgins so that you can possess them like a bunch of cattle. Unfortunately, you are not assured of the age of these virgins, but I am certain that most of you will hope they are very, very young. You see, according to the Holy Scriptures, that is called SIN, as is MURDER, and any manner of other actions that your god is commanding you to do.
Jesus said; he who does not believe in Him is judged already because he has not believed in the only begotten Son of God. Is that you?
renate: don’t waste your time on this moron. I’ve heard from hundreds like him. “LoonWatch” idiots. Mostly unread when it comes to the facts. Won’t put two issues side by side and debate them in their head. Like I like to do with people like Finkelstein when he’s stupid enough to try and challenge people like Robert Spencer. He sees things one way and that’s it. I have the advantage of being an ex racist. I was part of that degenerate, close minded thinking. Guys like this haven’t been “enlightened” yet. And probably never will.
Thanks for the suggestion. Sometimes fools like this get ones goat. Glad YOU have been enlightened. We will meet some day in the ‘great bye and bye’. God bless.
“enlightened” Damascus I presume. I been there it is not at all what is promised.
They try to use the same arguments about “genocide” in the Bible. I found a great article on genocide in my NLT Study Bible:
God’s War-Genocide
The Lord’s command to Israel to annihilate its enemies poses a major ethical problem. How could the God of love mandate genocide? What justification could Israel have had for invading, conquering, and destroying the land of Canaan and its peoples? From a human perspective, it appears that Israel’s aggressive campaigns to settle Canaan were illegal and immoral.
However, the war against the Canaanites was led by God, not by mere human whim (see Deut 7:2). The conquest was directed against wicked people who had rebelled against the Lord and his purposes. Their sin had reached its full measure and now warranted their destruction (cp. Gen 15:16). Israel became God’s instrument to carry out his judgment.
The war that Israel was authorized to wage was limited historically and theologically to its OT setting. Medieval campaigns, such as the Crusades by European “Christians” against Middle Eastern “infidels,” or the more recent jihads of Islamic terrorism cannot be justified based on OT practice. Jesus made it very clear that “God blesses those who work for peace” (Matt 5:9) and that “those who use the sword will die by the sword” (Matt 26:52). No justification for such action exists in the modern world. In the final judgment, God himself will pour out his holy wrath on human wickedness (see Rev 19:11-21; 20:7-10).
I definitely disagree with this last part regarding the Crusades. See A Concise History of the Crusades by Thomas F. Madden. But in the end may be a correct statement when it comes to “peace”.
WHY do you use this useless piece of crap Disqus??????
This is what it looks like before I “filter” it through WordPad:
God’s
War-Genocide
The
Lord’s command to Israel to annihilate its enemies poses a major
ethical problem. How could the God of love mandate genocide? What
justification could Israel have had for invading, conquering, and
destroying the land of Canaan and its peoples? From a human
perspective, it appears that Israel’s aggressive campaigns to
settle Canaan were illegal and immoral.
However,
the war against the Canaanites was led by God, not by mere human whim
(see Deut 7:2). The conquest was directed against wicked people who
had rebelled against the Lord and his purposes. Their sin had reached
its full measure and now warranted their destruction (cp. Gen 15:16).
Israel became God’s instrument to carry out his judgment.
The
war that Israel was authorized to wage was limited historically and
theologically to its OT setting. Medieval campaigns, such as the
Crusades by European “Christians” against Middle Eastern
“infidels,” or the more recent jihads of Islamic terrorism cannot
be justified based on OT practice. Jesus made it very clear that “God
blesses those who work for peace” (Matt 5:9) and that “those who
use the sword will die by the sword” (Matt 26:52). No justification
for such action exists in the modern world. In the final judgment,
God himself will pour out his holy wrath on human wickedness (see Rev
19:11-21; 20:7-10).
I
definitely disagree with this last part regarding the Crusades. See A
Concise History of the Crusades by Thomas F. Madden. But in the end
may be a correct statement when it comes to “peace”.
Glad to read you, you e planned it very well. It is difficult to converse with Islamic reasoning as their reasoning is circular and will not stay on point. I haven’t received an answer to my earlier question from ‘Rational Fear’. Too bad he hides behind such a name. I don’t believe the Islamic mind can understand love, especially not the love of God.
You have spelt simpleton wrongly.
Also by his own example in the premeditated violence Jesus perpetrated in the temple sets the justification and authority to utilize violence to clear space.
No offense, but are you an idiot?
I’m not the kind of Christian I’d like to be. I have three friends, brothers, who are part of a large ministry in my area. We used to party together. And I mean HARD partying. They were struck with that “proverbial bolt of lightning” apparently while I make excuses about my “learning variety”.
Thing is only a moron would read Jesus advocating violence of any kind. As a matter of fact, the more I read of Islam the more my Christian faith gets solidified. Read my comment above regarding the article on jihad by Sheikh Humaid. I see “Islam” all over the Bible. I sometimes wonder if the Antichrist isn’t so much a person as an ideology. “False teachers”. Martyred Christians. The mention of beheadings in Rev 20:4. Mostly I see “Good vs. Evil”. And it can’t be me who sees “end times” in massive genocide being perpetrated, and increasingly, every day by Muslims.
“Blessed”? “Lucky”? “Coincidence”? I have a weird knack for reading the right books at the right time. Like when I finally, after years of effort, forced myself to wade through Emmet Fox’s The Sermon on the Mount. (I think the reason it was so hard was the “guilt” factor) And then, almost the next day, getting the Summarized Bukhari in the mail that had the article on jihad almost as an Introduction. I read people like Esposito and the one nagging inconvenient truth and ongoing theme is that they have to constantly apologize and make excuses for this disease, this “religion of peace”. Truly, any conversation with a Muslim or supporter of Islam will inevitably lead to them to whitewashing and underplaying Islam as the cult of death that it is. Every Time!
I’m even trying to understand Judaism. I’m reading Maimonides and this wisest of Jewish philosophers falls all over himself to trash Christians in his Letter to Yemen. Anyway, I’m rambling.
The crusades what was the rational?
In 1095 the Sejuk Turks(Mulims) captured the Holy Land which belonged at that point belonged to the Byzantine empire. They were spreading Islam under the slogan “Allah or the Sword”. The Christians of the time believed, rightly or wrongly, that they gained benefits by making pilgrimages to sites in the Holy land. As soon as the Turks took control they banned all Christian Pilgrimages. The Christians tried to negotiate access for 25 years without success. The Pope then launched a defensive war to retake the lands pillaged by the Turks and to gain access to the Holy sites. There were atrocities on both sides during the attempt by the Christians to regain the territory taken by the Turks,
Can you imagine what would happen if some superpower or aliens, or anyone else, invaded Saudi Arabia and stopped all Muslims going on the Haj?
When Jesus said he would bring the sword – he clearly meant, from the context, that the reaction by others to his followers would be violent. (Muslims are killing Christians all over the world – so that was prophetic).This reaction to Jesus happens regularly when for example a Muslim becomes a Christian – the family will turn against the convert – and sometimes they will kill the convert. This shows what Jesus meant by bringing a sword.
Jesus did not require his followers to kill people. He said “Love your enemies do good to those who hate you”. When he drove the money changers out of the temple he was enraged by the fact they were conning people with outrageous exchange rates. The offerings in the Temple had to be paid in a special currency because the Roman coins had a picture of the Emperor on it which described him as a God. Any image was banned in the Old testament and calling the Emperor God was blasphemy. So the money had to be changed into temple currency which did not have the inscription or an image on it. The money changer used an extortionate rate – that is why Jesus called them a den or robbers but he said my house shall be a house of prayer.
Funny I just was talking to a Muslim who said exactly the same thing about the Quran -misinterpreted. Sorry my comment stands the fact it is those who do not agree with another is obvious do you take the sword to someone that agrees with you. The fact he enables such terror to occur means?
Love for Enemies
Jesus said
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet only your brothers and sisters,[o] what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
I am confused (not really)? To be crucified, or not to be burned alive, that is the question— Whether ’tis Nobler in the mind of Islamic religion to have Other suffer nail and sword of outrageous crucifixion, Or
http://citizensfirstasnau.blogspot.com.au/2015/02/i-am-confused-not-really-to-be.html
Im sure a lot of this type of editing goes on to save face. Screenshot everything shady that muslims post. Facebook, twitter, doesnt matter. I suspect many have even edited the translations of the quran, to soften its tone, for western consumption. Buy all old s of tafsir, quran, and especially hadeeth. Dictionaries too. Time to expose these muhammadans for their deceit