muslim pacifism

robtex

Registered Senior Member
I got a question. I talked to a few muslims online over the years, saw some speak at a protest for the movie "the siege" and have a friend who is a shite and all say that the islamic religion is a religion of pacifism. I have two questions for that:

1) How do you tie in dismemberment for stealing to a pacifistic ideology
2) How do you tie in the death penalty for adultry to a pacifistic ideology

I ask you this because it a muslim law for these punishments and they are carried out but under humanist guidelines ( which is a pacifistic philosphy) this would be considered non-pacifitic.

So I ask the Muslims how is that these two practices can applied to a pacifistic religion?
 
firstly Islamic law only works if everything is set up and is correct. no country in the world is shariah compatible nowadays expect for corruptive regimemes who use the banner of Islam for their nown gains.

robtex said:
1) How do you tie in dismemberment for stealing to a pacifistic ideology

are you a thief? if not you'll have no problem :D anyway the penalyt is not for stealing which is excusbale. it is for persistent stealing only for people who are sane and responsible for their actions.

::sigh:: if your country had a system that meant crime rates werre low and good then fine you have a right to diss this law but look at yoursleves your countries have exploding crime rates so dont bother critising a 1400 year old law if you mordern secularised law which is (secularistaion) appartently meant to show the evoloution of humans, doesn't even work itself!! ujnder the time of the Prophet (saw) (in later stages) and Khalifs (raa) crimes wre very uncommon.

even in Saudia were the Shraiah is corrupt and not fully practised you can drop a valuable (e.g. chain) and walk past it half an hour later to find it still there. in the west (america, Uk for exmaple) do you have to thrown your chain on the floor by accident to have it robbed... NO!! you get it forcefully taken!! like they say in Liverpool (where im from) notrhing stays unless its tied down!!

robtex said:
2) How do you tie in the death penalty for adultry to a pacifistic ideology

once again are you an adulteror. if you want to go fuck someone else and cheat on your partner the least you can do is divorce them and do it thus preventing arguements, suspicions, kids not knowing parents, fmaily split ups etc.
 
islamic religion is a religion of pacifism


Seems kinda ironic hearing something like that come from a Shite......but i never really considered Islam a "pacifist" religion the Koran doesnt say never go to War but instead it says:


"Fight in the way of God against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Indeed God does not love transgressors (Koran 2:192-193)."


"Warfare is ordained for you though it is hateful for you. Yet it may happen that you will hate a thing even though it is good for you and love a thing that is bad for you. God knows, you do not know (KORAN 2:216)."



A muslim must never start hostilities but if War is brought to them then it is ordained for them to defend themselves.....and if peace is offered then they must take it.



I ask you this because it a muslim law for these punishments and they are carried out but under humanist guidelines ( which is a pacifistic philosphy) this would be considered non-pacifitic.



In Islam such punishments are for Habitual offenders who show no remorse or shame in the crimes they constantly commit...Is the punishment harsh? yes....but if you know the law and you break it anyway then you deserve the punishment. There is an Hadith which states that the Prophet (pbuh) had a man brought to him who had stolen food for his family because he was poor. The people wanted to chop off the mans hand but the Prophet(pbuh) wouldnt allow it because this man was trying to provide for his family and wasnt a Habitual offender or a "menace" to society
 
Last edited:
Preacher x if you don't want to answer the question than don't post. But don't dance around it with attacks on other cultures, theroies on my personal habits, false statements of critizing muslim religion and "dissing" and profanity to validate your relgion.

The validation of your religion isn't even part of the question.

I asked how dimemberment for stealing and execution for adultry fit into the paradign of a religion that claims to be pacifistic by nature? How does your religion justify those practices as compatable with a religion that presents itself as pacifistic in design?
 
surender you are muslim right? Interesting post. So do the laws have mostly shite influence sunni influence or sufi influence? Are they congruent on their stance and if someone who is a muslim is convicted of said crime many times and the stated punishments are carried out do they die a muslim (if stoned it is stoning right?) or can they still be a muslim if thief or do they lose that and their afterlife with Allah, which if I understand correctly (and I am still trying to take crash couse in Islamic relgion) one goes to paradise of afterlife if they live a moral life.
 
Robtex,
I only made the Shite comment because historically they have been more violent(not saying wether thats good or bad) than sunni muslims



So do the laws have mostly shite influence sunni influence or sufi influence?


Well as far as Shite influence thats a hard question because the main difference between Shite an Sunni is that the Shite elevate Imans(in many Sunni opinons) to the status of the Prophet(pbuh) so what their Imans say goes.......as far as Sufi influence I dint think that they have enough power to actually be influencial in Islam.....their teachings dont even qualify(again in my opinon) them to be Muslims......Sunni Islam makes up about 90% of all muslims and we base our Law on the Sharia




Are they congruent on their stance and if someone who is a muslim is convicted of said crime many times and the stated punishments are carried out do they die a muslim (if stoned it is stoning right?) or can they still be a muslim if thief or do they lose that and their afterlife with Allah, which if I understand correctly (and I am still trying to take crash couse in Islamic relgion) one goes to paradise of afterlife if they live a moral life.
[/QUOTE]


Well 1st before I answer that let me say that only God can judge people. I know that sounds like a "cop-out" but thats how I feel. I feel as if one is truly a muslim trying to live his life like those examples set before him (jesus, moses, Muhamaad etc..... peace upon all of them) then he wont be stealing or commiting murder or adultry etc.....but again I dont know there heart only God does so thats why he is the judge. I would think that if one believes that there is only 1 God and Muhammad(pbuh) was his messenger than you are a muslim no matter what thus when you die ALL your good and bad deeds are weighed together
 
Um ... carry on, and all. I don't want to interrupt the general discussion, but something strikes me as so hilarious that I simply must share it:

• In the English language, we generally use Shia or Shiite, with two i's. "Shite" is merely a less-impolite version of the same word without an the e. And, yes, we use the apostrophe when we want to be really technical about it: Shi'a, Shi'ite.

But do carry on. LIke I said, I don't want to be a tremendous interruption to the general discussion.
 
I don't really think pacifism and islam get on too well except in the unlikely event that everyone was a muslim from the same sect, then there only remains the sticky issue of shari'ah and it's interpretation or misinterpretation. Islam itself was founded with the sword.
Islam's founder said that fighting in the way of god was the second best act a muslim could perform.

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle was asked, "What is the best deed?" He replied, "To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad). The questioner then asked, "What is the next (in goodness)? He replied, "To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah's Cause." The questioner again asked, "What is the next (in goodness)?" He replied, "To perform Hajj (Pilgrim age to Mecca) 'Mubrur, (which is accepted by Allah and is performed with the intention of seeking Allah's pleasure only and not to show off and without committing a sin and in accordance with the traditions of the Prophet)."

Sahih Bukhari

He also recommends death for anyone who leaves islam

Narrated Ikrima:

Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' "

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 260:

He ordered death for those who insulted him or his god (can a god really be insulted by a mere mortal?)

Allah's Apostle said, "Who is willing to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?" Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, "O Allah's Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?" The Prophet said, "Yes," Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab). "The Prophet said, "You may say it." .....

Narrated Al-Bara bin Azib:

Allah's Apostle sent a group of persons to Abu Rafi. Abdullah bin Atik entered his house at night, while he was sleeping, and killed him.

Volume 5, Book 59, Number 369

He claimed that the spoils of conquered people are made legal for muslims by god. Note; they are illegal for anyone else ie. when muslims loot and plunder in the right circumstance it is fine when any non-muslim loots and plunders it is always an abomination :p

Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Prophet said, "The person who participates in (Holy battles) in Allah's cause and nothing compels him to do so except belief in Allah and His Apostles, will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty (if he survives) or will be admitted to Paradise (if he is killed in the battle as a martyr). Had I not found it difficult for my followers, then I would not remain behind any sariya going for Jihad and I would have loved to be martyred in Allah's cause and then made alive, and then martyred and then made alive, and then again martyred in His cause."

Volume 1, Book 2, Number 35

Anyone who has killed an enemy and has a proof of that, will posses his spoils." I got up and said, "Who will be a witness for me?" and then sat down. The Prophet again said, "Anyone who has killed an enemy and has proof of that, will possess his spoils." I (again) got up and said, "Who will be a witness for me?" and sat down. Then the Prophet said the same for the third time. I again got up, and Allah's Apostle said, "O Abu Qatada! What is your story?

Volume 4, Book 53, Number 370:

He was a fighting man, he was a man of peace only once he had managed to subdue his adversaries, Mahatma Ghandi he wasn't. :D

Sahih Muslim, Book 019, Number 4464:
It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Ishaq that 'Abdullah b. Yazid went (out of the city) with people for offering" Istisqa" ' prayer (for rainfall). He offered two rak'ahs. Then he prayed for rain. That day I met Zaid b. Arqam. There was only one man between me and him (at that time). I asked him: How many military expeditions did the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) undertake? He said: Nineteen expeditions. I asked him: On how many expeditions did you accompany him? He said: On seventeen expeditions. I asked: Which was the first expedition he led? He answered: Dhat-ul-, Usair or 'Ushair.

Here

These are excerpts from Bukhari only there are loads more in Bukhari and countless others in Hadith and Sunnah like this from Abu Dawud

Narrated Samurah ibn Jundub:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Kill the old men who are polytheists, but spare their children.



Book 14, Number 2665:
Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin:

No woman of Banu Qurayzah was killed except one. She was with me, talking and laughing on her back and belly (extremely), while the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) was killing her people with the swords. Suddenly a man called her name: Where is so-and-so? She said: I I asked: What is the matter with you? She said: I did a new act. She said: The man took her and beheaded her. She said: I will not forget that she was laughing extremely although she knew that she would be killed.


Book 14, Number 2667:
Narrated Hamzah al-Aslami:

The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) appointed him commander over a detachment. He said: I went out along with it. He (the Prophet) said: If you find so-and-so, burn him with the fire. I then turned away, and he called me. So I returned to him, and he said: If you find so-and-so, kill him, and do not burn him, for no one punishes with fire except the Lord of the fire.

Abu Dawud

I can't help but find this juxtaposition "The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Kill " absolutely ludicrous
 
Last edited:
Well 1st of all :

Allah's Apostle was asked, "What is the best deed?" He replied, "To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad). The questioner then asked, "What is the next (in goodness)? He replied, "To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah's Cause."


The term Jihad doesnt usually mean "religious fighting" as any true muslim knows The word "jihad" comes from the three-letter root of j, h, and d. The j, h, and d of jihad when grouped together mean "effort." Consequently, the word "jihad" means struggle, endeavor, undertaking, and journey. When someone is asked to perform his best in any endeavor, the common verb is jahid. The world today faces a jihad of sorts: the jihad of peace. The word "jihad," as originally used by the Prophet Mohammad, was meant to shed light on the incredible struggle and effort individuals, and mankind as a whole, must undertake to cleanse themselves of pains, illicit desires, anger, wantonness and violence. It is easy to strike out in anger; it is easy to beat a child when he/she misbehaves. It is easy to roll down the window and curse the slow driver in the fast lane However, it becomes a jihad to restrain oneself from anger and employ patience, humility, and compassion to deal with situations





Islam itself was founded with the sword.

Many non-Muslims, when they think about Islam, picture religious fanatics on camels with a sword in one hand and a Qur'an in the other. This myth, which was made popular in Europe during the Crusades, is totally baseless. First of all, the Holy Qur'an clearly says "Let there be no compulsion in religion". In addition to this, Islam teaches that a person's faith must be pure and sincere, so it is certainly not something that can be forced on someone. In debunking the myth that Islam was "spread by the sword", the (non-Muslim) historian De Lacy O' Leary wrote: "History makes it clear, however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever accepted." (Islam at the Crossroads, London, 1923, p. 8.). It should also be known that Muslims ruled Spain for roughly 800 years. During this time, and up to when they were finally forced out, the non-Muslims there were alive and flourishing. Additionally, Christian and Jewish minorities have survived in the Muslim lands of the Middle East for centuries. Countries such as Egypt, Morocco, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan all have Christian and/or Jewish populations. If Islam taught that all people are supposed to be killed or forced to become Muslims, how did all of these non-Muslims survive for so long in the middle of the Islamic Empire? Additionally, if one considers the small number of Muslims who initially spread Islam from Spain and Morocco in the West to India and China in the East, one would realize that they were far too few to force people to be members of a religion against their will. Additionally, the great empire and civilization established by the Muslims had great staying power -- its citizens were proud to be part of it. The spread of Islam stands in contrast to the actions of the followers of Christianity, who since the time of the Emperor Constantine have made liberal use of the sword - often basing their conduct on Biblical verses. This was especially true of the colonization of South America and Africa, where native peoples were systematically wiped-out or forced to convert. It is also interesting to note that when the Mongols invaded and conquered large portions of the Islamic Empire, instead of destroying the religion, they adopted it. This is a unique occurrence in history - the conquerors adopting the religion of the conquered! Since they were the victors, they certainly could not have been forced to become Muslims! Ask any of the over one billion Muslims alive in the world today whether they were forced! The largest Muslim country in the world today is Indonesia --- and there were never any battles fought there! So where was the sword? How could someone be forced to adhere to a spiritually rewarding and demanding religion like Islam?







The Prophet said, "The person who participates in (Holy battles) in Allah's cause and nothing compels him to do so except belief in Allah and His Apostles, will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty (if he survives) or will be admitted to Paradise (if he is killed in the battle as a martyr). Had I not found it difficult for my followers, then I would not remain behind any sariya going for Jihad and I would have loved to be martyred in Allah's cause and then made alive, and then martyred and then made alive, and then again martyred in His cause



I dont see the problem with this. If you die or get injured fighting for a God cause then God will bless you.......I dont think even Christians would debate that



He was a fighting man, he was a man of peace only once he had managed to subdue his adversaries, Mahatma Ghandi he wasn't.


Already explained....now perhaps we can get back on topic :m:
 
surenderer said:
Well 1st of all :
The term Jihad doesnt usually mean "religious fighting" as any true muslim knows The word "jihad" etc etc..

I understand the concept of inner struggle but this is but one aspect of jihad and some muslims believe the opposite of what you are claiming here and they quote the quran to back it up

We must realise that Jihad is a pillar of Islam and was described as its peak by Sayyidina Muhammad (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam). It is the thing, which Allah (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala) in the Qur’an states that gives the Ummah life; indeed Umar ibn al Khattab (ra) stated, “There is no izza (honour) without Jihad”. Hence any misunderstanding of this vital concept would have huge ramifications. Hence, it is necessary to have a clear understanding of Jihad and make clear these corruptions, which have been propagated by the Kuffar, their agent rulers and their “scholars”.

Jihad an-Nafs

Some have attempted to justify their stance on this concept with what is apparently intended as a daleel (Islamic evidence), and so have used a narration to justify this concept of Jihad an-Nafs or dealing with all the political and military problems we face by becoming introspective or looking inwardly as opposed to looking at the Ahkam Shari’ah and seeing what Allah (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala) has demanded from us.

To elaborate further, it is in contradiction with the subject matter of Jihad that has been elaborated in over a hundred ayat of the Qur’an that have come with the meaning of Jihad being Qitaal, which means to slay or to kill or to fight. This was how the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) and the Sahabah (ra) understood it. To give an example from the Seerah that was narrated by Ibn Majah with a source in Bukhari, woman came to the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) and asked “O Messenger of Allah! Is Jihad obliged upon the women?” To which he responded, “Yes, a Jihad without Qitaal (fighting), it is the Hajj and the Umrah!”

This clearly demonstrates that Jihad is Qitaal i.e. Jihad is undertaking the physical fighting and this is how it was understood by the woman and the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam), as explained in the Prophet’s (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) answer i.e. Jihad in Islam means fighting. The Messenger of Allah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) did not respond by saying that there was the greater Jihad for everyone i.e. Jihad against oneself! Rather he informed her that Allah had prescribed the Hajj and the Umrah for her and that she would get the reward of the Mujahid for undertaking this action, as explained by Imam Sanani in his explanation in the book Sub us Salam.

A definition of the subject of Jihad can be extracted from the Islamic evidences rather than a mere linguistic understanding - so for example the term ‘Salah’ in the Arabic language means seeking maghfirah (forgiveness) or blessing or Du’a (supplication); however we know that in the Islamic Shari’ah it is referent to the five obligatory prayers. Similarly the term ‘Zakah’ means, literally, purification but in the Islamic Shari’ah, Zakah is referent to a specific amount of charity that is taken from specific types of wealth and distributed to particular categories of people. So when we scrutinise the Islamic daleel we can extract a clear definition or definitions. When the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) was asked who is in the way of Allah i.e. who is a Mujahid, he explained, “Whosoever fights to make Allah’s word the highest, then he is in the way of Allah.” [Bukhari and Muslim].

Similarly looking at the Ayat of Qur’an we can see that Jihad is undertaken to convey Islam, and to remove the barriers from implementing and propagating Islam, this can be seen from the rules to do with Jihad as well. So we can define Jihad as struggling to remove the material barriers to conveying the Islamic Da’wa, whether it is by the physical means, or by wealth or expressing an opinion concerning the same.

Myth: Jihad is only defensive

Another distortion that is promoted is the idea that Jihad is only defensive. The protagonists of this idea again utilise certain misinterpretations to justify their positions.

"Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress the limits. For Allah loves not the transgressors” [TMQ Al-Baqarah: 190].

“And if they incline to peace, you incline to it also, and trust in Allah. Verily! He is the hearer, the knower” [TMQ Al-A’raf: 61].

These two verses however, cannot abrogate the 119 other verses of Qur’an that suggest that Jihad is not merely limited to defensive war alone. These 119 verses, which are general and absolute, indicate that Jihad encompasses all of the following types of war:....

here

Now you may take offense to the article but I am not the one who wrote it and these guys aren't osama's crew either. Just look at the few passages I quoted for you. If the personal jihad was so important then why did muhammed spend so much time involved in warfare during his life?





Many non-Muslims, when they think about Islam, picture religious fanatics on camels with a sword in one hand and a Qur'an in the other. This myth, which was made popular in Europe during the Crusades, is totally baseless.

This is so riddiculous it hardly merits a response. How many battles were fought before islam was dominant in most of arabia? When did the meccans attack Medina while muhammed was living there?

First of all, the Holy Qur'an clearly says "Let there be no compulsion in religion". In addition to this, Islam teaches that a person's faith must be pure and sincere, so it is certainly not something that can be forced on someone. In debunking the myth that Islam was "spread by the sword", the (non-Muslim) historian De Lacy O' Leary wrote: "History makes it clear, however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever accepted." (Islam at the Crossroads, London, 1923, p. 8.).

O'Leary needs to do his homework. A brief history of islamic expansion from 632-661 AD

[
B]632 - 634[/B] Abu Bakr, one of the Prophet's first converts and his father-in-law, established the caliphate (khilaafa, or, "succession"), initiating the first dynasty of caliphs (sing. khalifa, plural, khulafaa ). These first four caliphs became known as al-rashidoon ("the rightly-guided ones"), and, they ruled from their capital in Medina. All four were, like the Prophet himself, members of the leading clan of Mecca, the Quraysh, and, thus, were close relatives of the Prophet. The period of the Muslim conquest dates from this time. Abu Bakr sent Muslim armies into Syria and Iraq. Scholars debate about whether it is more proper to refer to the expansion of Muslim power as a jihad ("striving," and "holy war"), or as a hijra, ("migration"). In any case, resistance was minimal. The Byzantine Empire was too weak and torn with internal strife (see Councils of Nicea and Chalcedon) to resist the incoming tide of fresh, vital Arabian energy.

634 - 644 Caliphate of Umar Ibn al-Khattab, handpicked successor to Abu Bakr. Most of the Islamic "conquest" took place during his time. In 644, he was murdered by a Christian slave.

636 Battle of Yarmuk: The Byzantine army was defeated by the Muslims. Muslim sovereignty over Palestine begins.

637 Battle of Qadisiyya: The Sasanian army was defeated by the Muslims. After the Muslim victories over the Byzantine and Sasanian armies, Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, and Persia fell under Muslim control.

638 The "Covenant of Umar," a pact between Umar Ibn Khatib and the Christians of Jerusalem, was concluded on the occasion of the conquest of that city by the Muslims. Umar decreed that Muslims should forever thereafter guarantee Christians freedom of religion, use of their churches for worship, and the right to visit holy places. In another version, Umar rescinded the Roman decrees that had banished Jews from Jerusalem and accorded Jews all the rights granted Christians.

Non-Muslims were not required to participate in jihad (military action in defense of Islam) nor did they have to pay the zakat (the tax for charity required of all Muslims), but they were required to pay the jizya, a poll tax that helped defray the expense of protecting them. Since Muslim taxes amounted to considerably less than what had been exacted from them under Byzantine rule and since Muslims allowed them much more freedom to pursue their own customs and religious beliefs, Jews and Christians almost universally welcomed their new rulers.

639-641 Egypt was conquered by the Muslim general Amr, who built a new capital, Misr al-Fustat, ("city of the tent"): the future Cairo.

644 - 656 Caliphate of Uthman Ibn Affan. The Qur'an, as we know it, was edited in his time but would not reach final form until as late as 935. By the time Uthman assumed the caliphate, confusion had begun to abound over which of at least four different existing texts was the definitive word of God as transmitted to Muhammad. The Prophet, who himself was illiterate, had dictated the Qur'an to his followers. They memorized it, the normal method of transmission for Arabic poetry. Only after the Prophet's death did it occur to anybody to write it down. The rapidly escalating confusion prompted Uthman to appoint a committee in 650 to come up with a single, authoritative text. The Prophet's secretary, Zaid Ibn Thabit, served on that committee.

Uthman met his end in 656, murdered while praying by disgruntled Egyptians. Mu'awiyya, Umayyad governor of Syria, hearing of the threats against his uncle, Uthman, had sent soldiers to rescue him, but they arrived too late. Thus began the first fitna ("dissension"), or, civil war, in Islam. One of the earliest dissident groups in Islam, the Kharijites, emerged at this time.

This was a turning point. After this time, the unified, brotherly body of believers (the umma) that Muhammad had sought to create and which apparently did mark the earliest years, lived on only in the theology, nostalgic memory, and hopes of Muslims, but, never again in their history.

656 - 661 Caliphate of Ali Ibn Talib, cousin of the prophet, also son-in-law by virtue of his marriage to Muhammad's daughter, Fatima. Ali moved the Arab capital from Medina to Kufa in southern Iraq. His sons were Husayn (martyred in 680), and Hasan (who died in 669). During Ali's caliphate, the split in the Muslim umma ("community") intensified over the question, should a direct familial descendant of Muhammad, or, a selected leader from his tribe become caliph? The two chief sects in Islam appeared at this point: the Shiites ("partisans," i.e. partial to the caliph Ali and his descendants through Husayn) favoring the first option (today only 15% of all Muslims), and the Sunni ("orthodox") favoring the second path.

Ali angered the Kharijites when, following an inconclusive military engagement with the Umayyads, the Battle of Siffin in 658, he agreed to submit his dispute with the Umayyads to arbitration, a process that was decided in favor of the more powerful party, the Umayyads. Ali was murdered by the Kharijites in Kufa in 661 and buried in the nearby city of Najaf, a major shrine for Shiites.
here

That sure is a lot of fighting for the religion of peace and that was just the start


It should also be known that Muslims ruled Spain for roughly 800 years.

It should also be noted that, in contrast to what you are trying to claim THEY CONQUERED SPAIN! and they kept right on going until Charles Martel defeated them at Poitier in 732.

During this time, and up to when they were finally forced out, the non-Muslims there were alive and flourishing. Additionally, Christian and Jewish minorities have survived in the Muslim lands of the Middle East for centuries. Countries such as Egypt, Morocco, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan all have Christian and/or Jewish populations.

I have already explained to you how non-muslims were made second class citizens by the "pact of Umar" amongst other things.
All of these WERE christian lands before the muslims came and what few christians there are left haven't had it easy. Go visit the Barnabas foundation to see how well copts fare in islamic heartlands. Treatment of kufr was and is arbitrary some rulers were benevolent some were not.

If Islam taught that all people are supposed to be killed or forced to become Muslims, how did all of these non-Muslims survive for so long in the middle of the Islamic Empire?

Did anyone here claim that islam teaches muslims to "kill all people"?

Additionally, if one considers the small number of Muslims who initially spread Islam from Spain and Morocco in the West to India and China in the East, one would realize that they were far too few to force people to be members of a religion against their will.

Ok for example at the battle of Yarmuk which gave control of most of what is now Jordan, Syria, Israel/Palestine the muslims had an army of 17,000 men, they defeated a byzantine army of 23,000 and not only did they defeat them but they spent 2 days hunting down and killing every last byzantine soldier they could find (a wise move strategically). After that there were nothing left to defend the area but small garrisons most of whom wisely chose to surrender rather than risk death. It took an army of only about 5000 muslims to gain control of most of Iraq because the Sassanin empire was at a very weak state at the time, though they did put up a fight once the muslims invaded Persia itself. In North africa it took 3 expeditions to finally defeat the Berbers the last involving some 12,000 men. Check the size of the muslim army that invaded Spain it was around 30,000 strong larger than the christian army sent to defend against them. So you didn't exactly need huge numbers to conquer territory back then there were no automatic weapons or explosives.

Additionally, the great empire and civilization established by the Muslims had great staying power -- its citizens were proud to be part of it.

How many christian children were taken from their families by the ottomans in the Balkans every year? Were they proud citizens?

The spread of Islam stands in contrast to the actions of the followers of Christianity, who since the time of the Emperor Constantine have made liberal use of the sword - often basing their conduct on Biblical verses.

I am laughing so hard I am crying compare the crusades which lasted less than 200 years and never expanded christendom. They were only intended to recapture christendoms holy places, imagine if christians captured mecca :eek: Compare that to 1200 years of jihad that stretched from Spain to the Indian subcontinent. The last official jihad was declared in 1889 and was fought by Afghans against the polytheists in the hindu kush in what is now part of Pakistan (research it)

This was especially true of the colonization of South America and Africa, where native peoples were systematically wiped-out or forced to convert.

Here have a little read about India and muslims conquest and treatment of the natives.

As a contribution to research on the quantity of the Islamic crimes against humanity, we may mention Prof. K.S.Lal's estimates about the population figures in medieval India (Growth of Muslim Population in India). According to his calculations, the Indian (subcontinent) population decreased by 80 million between 1000 (conquest of Afghanistan) and 1525 (end of Delhi Sultanate). More research is needed before we can settle for a quantitatively accurate evaluation of Muslim rule in India, but at least we know for sure that the term crime against humanity is not exaggerated.

But the Indian Pagans were far too numerous and never fully surrendered. What some call the Muslim period in Indian history, was in reality a continuous war of occupiers against resisters, in which the Muslim rulers were finally defeated in the 18th century. Against these rebellious Pagans the Muslim rulers preferred to avoid total confrontation, and to accept the compromise which the (in India dominant) Hanifite school of Islamic law made possible. Alone among the four Islamic law schools, the school of Hanifa gave Muslim rulers the right not to offer the Pagans the sole choice between death and conversion, but to allow them toleration as zimmis (protected ones) living under 20 humiliating conditions, and to collect the jizya (toleration tax) from them.

The American historian Will Durant summed it up like this:"The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex of order and freedom, culture and peace, can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within."


It is also interesting to note that when the Mongols invaded and conquered large portions of the Islamic Empire, instead of destroying the religion, they adopted it. This is a unique occurrence in history - the conquerors adopting the religion of the conquered! Since they were the victors, they certainly could not have been forced to become Muslims!

WOW that is amazing so they did just like the Vandals, Angles, Saxons, Visigoths, Magyars, and Vikings etc etc..did with christianity :rolleyes:

Ask any of the over one billion Muslims alive in the world today whether they were forced! The largest Muslim country in the world today is Indonesia --- and there were never any battles fought there! So where was the sword?

There are a few examples of islam spreading without the sword and maybe it could have spread completely without the sword if given a chance but it didn't.

How could someone be forced to adhere to a spiritually rewarding and demanding religion like Islam?

The same way they spread christianity promise the moon in the hereafter give them more rights if the convert and threaten them with hell if need be.



Already explained....now perhaps we can get back on topic :m:

We are.
 
Last edited:
fadeaway humper said:
I have the nagging feeling, in the back of my mind, that path isn't buying it.




LOL.......yea this circle debate between me him and Bruce Wayne has me going to the doctor 7 days a week ;) but I like Path and we can agree to disagree (on pretty much everything) :m:
 
I dont see the problem with this. If you die or get injured fighting for a God cause then God will bless you.......I dont think even Christians would debate that

i will :)

II Corinthians 10:3,4
"For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds."

Ephesians 6:12
"For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places."

My God is a very powerful God. He does not require me to be His soldier. In fact we are told not to engage in combat.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days
 
Adstar said:
i will :)

II Corinthians 10:3,4
"For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds."

Ephesians 6:12
"For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places."

My God is a very powerful God. He does not require me to be His soldier. In fact we are told not to engage in combat.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

He may not require you to be a soldier (which has been debated among Christians for quite a while), but he requires you to be a martyr if you're put in that position. Fun, isn't it? :) I wonder why a loving God would make you die instead of saying these simple words: "I deny Jesus".
 
Last edited:
My God is a very powerful God. He does not require me to be His soldier. In fact we are told not to engage in combat


Ok then fair enogh.....then please tell me what are the punishments for breaking a Commandment(of the ten) in the Bible?
 
anonymous2 said:
He may not require you to be a soldier (which has been debated among Christians for quite a while), but he requires you to be a martyr if you're put in that position. Fun, isn't it? :) I wonder why a loving God would make you die instead of saying these simple words: "I deny Jesus".

Because as a believer in the God of Abraham i believe in eternity with Him, so my life or death is of no importance to me. Actually my death is a release from this world. And we all know gravity is an elusion this world actually sucks. LOL i would prefer to be doused with petrol and burnt to death than deny my savor Jesus or even have my head hacked of by one of surenderers muslim brothers. Actually we are told in prophesy that many of us will be beheaded for our faith in Jesus so we know what’s coming.

Many former killers of followers of Jesus actually where impressed so much at the way those Christians died, that in the end they actually believed and accepted Jesus as Messiah. It is far better for a true follower to die and have eternity with God than for a follower of Jesus to kill a non-believer and have them burn in the lake of fire for eternity. Death for a true believer in nothing death for a non-believer is horrendous beyond belief.

All praise the Ancient Of Days
 
My God is a very powerful God. He does not require me to be His soldier. In fact we are told not to engage in combat

surenderer said:
Ok then fair enough.....then please tell me what are the punishments for breaking a Commandment(of the ten) in the Bible?


The punishment for breaking one of the ten commandments is eternal suffering in the lake of fire, reserved for satan and all sinners. far more terrible than anything you can do to someone in this life.

The only way in which that punishment can be avoided is to accept Jesus as Messiah and follow His Word in Spirit. Those who embrace The Love of His Truth are repentant and will be forgiven. Those who seek righteousness through the law and break just one may as well break them all because God will not accept anything with Him in eternity that is not perfect. And we are made perfect not by our own pathetic attempts at righteousness which will never succeed, but by acceptance that we are sinners needing saving by the Power of God through the Messiah Jesus.

Of course to accept that takes meekness, But the proud who think that they can achieve perfection no matter if it is through "religion" of "new age" ideologies are setting themselves up for destruction.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days
 
Adstar said:
The punishment for breaking one of the ten commandments is eternal suffering in the lake of fire, reserved for satan and all sinners. far more terrible than anything you can do to someone in this life.

The only way in which that punishment can be avoided is to accept Jesus as Messiah and follow His Word in Spirit. Those who embrace The Love of His Truth are repentant and will be forgiven. Those who seek righteousness through the law and break just one may as well break them all because God will not accept anything with Him in eternity that is not perfect. And we are made perfect not by our own pathetic attempts at righteousness which will never succeed, but by acceptance that we are sinners needing saving by the Power of God through the Messiah Jesus.

Of course to accept that takes meekness, But the proud who think that they can achieve perfection no matter if it is through "religion" of "new age" ideologies are setting themselves up for destruction.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days


Adstar,
In the BIBLE what is the punishment for breaking the 10 comandments? i.e. adultry, paganism etc.....ok let me help you(just a few examples):

Worshipping any other god should be punished by death. (Ex. 22:20)
Blasphemy against God should be met with death. (Lev. 24:16)
Performing any work on the Sabbath should be punished with death. (Ex. 31:15)

Deuteronomy 13:6-9: "If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods", do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death."


"Honor thy father and thy mother" carries death as the punishment for its infraction. (Ex. 21:17)


In Joshua 7:21, Achan was stoned to death for coveting a garment, and some gold and silver. He was stoned to death, along with all his sons, daughters, oxen, asses and sheep


In not one of those verses does it say to accept Jesus(pbuh) as your savior to avoid death for those crimes :m:
 
Worshipping any other god should be punished by death. (Ex. 22:20)
Blasphemy against God should be met with death. (Lev. 24:16)
Performing any work on the Sabbath should be punished with death. (Ex. 31:15)

Deuteronomy 13:6-9: "If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods", do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death."


"Honor thy father and thy mother" carries death as the punishment for its infraction. (Ex. 21:17)


In Joshua 7:21, Achan was stoned to death for coveting a garment, and some gold and silver. He was stoned to death, along with all his sons, daughters, oxen, asses and sheep

Exactly. The punishment is still the same as it ever was. Do you know that the lake of fire is called the second death in the bible. The punishment is the same but the difference is who has authority to carry out the punishment. It has gone from our hands into Gods Hands. And lets face it He is a perfect Judge isn't He? Who would you prefer to sit in judgement at your trial a faulty corruptible human who does not know the whole truth on the matter or The God of Abraham who knows all things?

In not one of those verses does it say to accept Jesus(pbuh) as your savior to avoid death for those crimes

The prophesies of the coming Messiah are well known by the Jews and they are still waiting for His coming. Of course the followers of Jesus believe He is the promised Messiah but the Jews or more correctly most of the Jews saw him as just another prophet or holy man but the Jewish religious elite saw Him as an evil liar or a demon possessed madman. That’s why they rejected Him and conspired to have the Romans execute Him.

Jesus came to bear the sins of many and by His selfless sacrifice make intercession for transgressors of the Law who accept Him as Lord And Messiah.

Here is a post from one of my Jewish brothers in Jesus it deals mainly with ISAIAH 53:


By Efraim Goldstein
Jews For Jesus



"One Jewish scholar, Claude Montefiore, explained: 'Because of the christological interpretation given to the chapter [Isaiah 53] by Christians it is omitted from the series of prophetical lessons for the Deuteronomy Sabbaths … the omission is deliberate and striking.' Why is the omission so striking? We've left out a portion from our own prophets, ostensibly because of what Christians think about it."



CBN.com – Isaiah 53 is a well-known passage of Scripture to the avid student of the Bible. But most people are not avid Bible students and have not read this controversial passage. A recent informal survey illustrates this point.(1) One hundred Jews on the streets of Tel Aviv were asked, "Who do you think the 53rd chapter of Isaiah describes?" Most were unfamiliar with the passage and were asked to read it before answering. After doing so, many conceded that they did not know to whom it referred.
Some thought it was Jesus, but when it sunk in that the passage was a citation from the Tenach, they were put off. Others shrugged off the passage as too difficult to understand. Some repeated what they had heard from Jews more religious than themselves: that it referred to the Jewish people or perhaps even the gentile nations. All seemed to think that whomever it referred to, it wouldn't make much difference in their daily lives.

Israel is unique inasmuch as it is probably the only place on earth where you can spend a couple of hours on a public street and be assured of getting one hundred Jewish opinions. (Not that our people outside of Israel are adverse to giving opinions, it's just difficult to find such a high concentration of us in any one place.) But Israel is not unique when it comes to the Jewish response to Isaiah 53. There is really no consensus based on personal knowledge of the passage. People either have not read it or they have accepted a status quo interpretation, or both.

One might think the passage is obscure and irrelevant based on the fact that so many people are unfamiliar with it. That unfamiliarity in part stems from the fact that Isaiah 53 does not appear in the regular synagogue calendar readings. Yet it could be argued that the very fact that it is left out shouts out the importance of this passage. Even the reasons for omitting it point to the uniqueness of this passage. For example, one Jewish scholar, Claude Montefiore, explained: "Because of the christological interpretation given to the chapter by Christians it is omitted from the series of prophetical lessons for the Deuteronomy Sabbaths … the omission is deliberate and striking."(2)

Why is the omission so striking? Because when we finish the cycle of readings for the year, we haven't really finished it. We've left out a portion from our own prophets, ostensibly because of what Christians think about it. Since when does the Christian interpretation of Jewish Scripture have a bearing on what is or is not read in synagogues all over the world?

The omission is striking because of what Montefiore does not quite say. It is not simply because of the Christian interpretation that the Isaiah passage is omitted. After all, the services from which it is omitted are not for Christian ears. They are for Jews. What does that imply? The problem is not what Christians think of the passage. The problem (according to those who omitted the passage) is what Jews might think.

This portion of Scripture is highly controversial. Because contrary to what those surveyed felt, many people have looked into the questions this passage poses and have found that the answers are extremely relevant to their own lives. Are you ready to know why?

If you are willing to explore this "obscure" passage, see the inset below.


Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted.


But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.


We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.


He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. By oppression and judgment, he was taken away.


And who can speak of his descendants?


For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken.


He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.


Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.


After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will jusitfy many, and he will bear their iniquities.


Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors. (Isaiah 52:13-53:12)

Those words were written over 2700 years ago. Yet many people who read them today find that the words seem to jump off the page. If nothing else, the chapter is packed with incredible drama, heroics and pathos. But many people find a personal challenge in these words that is interwoven with the questions: who is this person and what in the world was he doing?

They are questions worth considering for oneself, but it may also be helpful to see the progression of opinions given by our rabbis.

What do the early rabbis say?

Some of the first written interpretations or targums (ancient paraphrases on biblical texts) see this passage as referring to an individual servant, the Messiah, who would suffer. Messianic Jewish talmudist, Rachmiel Frydland, recounts those early views:(3)

"Our ancient commentators with one accord noted that the context clearly speaks of God's Anointed One, the Messiah. The Aramaic translation of this chapter, ascribed to Rabbi Jonathan ben Uzziel, a disciple of Hillel who lived early in the second century c.e., begins with the simple and worthy words:


'Behold my servant Messiah shall prosper; he shall be high, and increase, and be exceeding strong: as the house of Israel looked to him through many days, because their countenance was darkened among the peoples, and their complexion beyond the sons of men (Targum Jonathan on Isaiah 53, ad locum).'"

"We find the same interpretation in the Babylonian Talmud:


What is his [the Messiah's] name? The Rabbis said: His name is "the leper scholar," as it is written, "Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God, and afflicted." (Sanhedrin 98b)

"Similarly, in an explanation of Ruth 2:14 in the Midrash Rabbah it states:


He is speaking of the King Messiah: "Come hither" draw near to the throne "and dip thy morsel in the vinegar," this refers to the chastisements, as it is said, "But he was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities."

"The Zohar, in its interpretation of Isaiah 53, points to the Messiah as well:


There is in the Garden of Eden a palace named the Palace of the Sons of Sickness. This palace the Messiah enters, and He summons every pain and every chastisement of Israel. All of these come and rest upon Him. And had He not thus lightened them upon Himself, there had been no man able to bear Israel's chastisements for the trangression of the law; as it is written, "Surely our sicknesses he has carried." (Zohar II, 212a)

The early sages expected a personal Messiah to fulfill the Isaiah prophecy. No alternative interpretation was applied to this passage until the Middle Ages. And then, a completely different view was presented. This view was popularized by Jewish commentator Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo Itzchaki), who lived one thousand years after Jesus.

Views on Isaiah 53 in the Middle Ages

Rashi held the position that the servant passages of Isaiah referred to the collective fate of the nation of Israel rather than a personal Messiah. Some rabbis, such as Ibn Ezra and Kimchi, agreed. However, many other rabbinic sages during this same period and later—including Maimonides—realized the inconsistencies of Rashi's views and would not abandon the original messianic interpretations.

The objections these rabbis put forth to Rashi's view were threefold: First, they showed the consensus of ancient opinion. Second, they pointed out that the text is grammatically in the singular tense throughout. For example, "He was despised and rejected…he was pierced for our transgressions…he was led like a lamb to the slaughter," and so on.

Third, they noted verse 8 of chapter 53. This verse presents some difficulty to those who interpret this passage as referring to Israel. It reads:

By oppression and judgment, he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken.

Were the Jewish people, God forbid, ever "cut off from the land of the living"? No! God promises that Israel will live forever:


"Only if these decrees [the sun to shine by day, the moon and stars to shine by night, etc.] vanish from my sight," declares the Lord, "will the descendants of Israel ever cease to be a nation before me." (Jeremiah 31:36)

Likewise, it is impossible to say that "for the transgression of my people he was stricken" since "my people" clearly means the Jewish people. If verse 8 refers to Israel, then are we to read that Israel is stricken for Israel because of Israel's sin? How can the sin-bearer and the sinner be the same? Likewise, how can Israel be the servant, the one who "had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth" (Isaiah 53:9)? Israel is not now, nor ever has been, without sin—the Scriptures are replete with examples of Israel's disobedience.

All of these inconsistencies troubled many rabbis and they expressed their opinions of Rashi's view in no uncertain terms. Rabbi Moshe Kohen Iben Crispin of Cordova, who lived in the fourteenth century, said of the Israel as servant interpretation, it "distorts the passage from its natural meaning" and that Isaiah 53 "was given of God as a description of the Messiah, whereby, when any should claim to be the Messiah, to judge by the resemblance or non-resemblance to it whether he were the Messiah or not." (4)

The Rabbinic View of Isaiah 53 Today

Yet to this day, many rabbis persist in citing Rashi as the definitive word on how to interpret the servant of the Lord in Isaiah 53. Others admit the weakness of this view and say that the passage applies to an individual. They usually cite the prophet Isaiah himself, King Cyrus, King Hezekiah, Josiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Moses, Job or even some anonymous contemporaries of Isaiah as the one spoken of by the prophet. (5)

As you go through the proposed list of people this passage describes, ask yourself: which one was totally blameless throughout his life? Which one died for the sins of others? Which one lives today? What do I think? Am I willing to dismiss Jesus as the one whom the prophet foretold? Then ask yourself again, why is this passage omitted from the regular synagogue readings?

Could it be because countless Jewish followers in Y'shua (Jesus) have come to believe in him after studying this very passage? If you were to survey one hundred Jews who believe Y'shua is the Messiah, you'd get a very different opinion about the identity of this servant in Isaiah. And you would probably find that a large percentage of them found this passage extremely influential in their thinking.

Leah is a 25-year-old Jewish woman who was searching for answers to her spiritual questions. When faced with the question, Was Jesus who he claimed to be? she wanted the answer to be no. Leah confessed, "I'm starting to see that Jesus is the Messiah, but if I accept it, I'm also rejecting my father, who did not believe in Jesus. I loved him more than anyone else in this world — I can't do it."

When challenged to read Isaiah 53, Leah found her dad's old, faded Tenach. Opening it to the passage in question, she made two astounding discoveries. First, the passage really did sound like it was describing Jesus. And second, her father had circled the entire chapter. And in the margin he had written: "messianic prophecy — Y'shua is Messiah."

Leah just had to ask…"Who is Y'shua?" When she understood that Y'shua is the Jewish way to say Jesus, it dawned on her. It was a convincing passage, indeed, and even her father had not been able to dismiss it. Within two weeks, she acknowledged that Jesus fit the description of the suffering servant.

In 1922, the late David Baron, a British Jewish believer in Y'shua who was well-versed in rabbinics, wrote in the preface to his exposition of Isaiah chapter 53:


…it is beyond even the wildest credulity to believe that the resemblance in every feature and minutest detail between this prophetic portaiture drawn centuries before his [Jesus'] advent and the story of his life, and death, and glorious resurrection as narrated in the gospels, can be mere accident or fortuitous coincidence. (6)

The chart below offers more striking evidence about how Y'shua, and only Y'shua, could fulfill this very important part of the Jewish Scriptures. Can it be true? Ask yourself, if you have the courage to believe it. -- Efraim Goldstein

ISAIAH PREDICTED THAT THE SERVANT… 700 YEARS LATER, Y'SHUA…
would be disfigured by suffering
(52:14; 53:2-3) was struck, spat on and mocked (Mark 15:17-19)
would come from humble beginnings
(53:2) grew up in Nazareth, a city with a very (53:2) poor reputation; and not where the Messiah was expected to come from (Luke 2:39-40, 51)
would be rejected by many
(53:1,3) while on the cross, was mocked, blasphemed and reviled, even by those who were crucified with him (Matthew 27:39-44)
would bear our sins and suffer in our place (53:4-6,11) "…himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed." (1 Peter 2:24)
would heal many (53:4-5) healed many (Matthew 8:16-17)
voluntarily took our punishment upon himself (53:6-7) said, "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep" (John 10:11)
remained silent during his suffering (53:7) did not defend himself to Herod, Pontius Pilate or the Sanhedrin (Matthew 26:62-64; 27:11-14; Luke 23:9)
would die (53:8,12) died on a cross (Mark 15:37; John 19:33-34)
would be buried with a rich man (53:9) was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, a rich man (Matthew 27:57-60)
would not remain dead, but see his seed, prolong his days and be exalted (53:10-11) rose from the dead three days after the crucifixion and still lives today and millions of people see themselves as his spiritual seed (Matthew 28:1-10)


All praise The Ancient Of Days
 
Back
Top