Hi Aziz,
By the way, sparky has mentioned a few times that, as opposed to the New Testament, God in the Qur'an gives a timeless command to the believers to go out and commit themselves to jihad to kill the kafiroon. He has complained that Hassan's and other's reading comprehension of the Bible is wrong or superficial at best.
I was actually contrasting the Old Testament and the Quran. I don't think the New Testament has any commands for Jesus followers to kill anyone (although God does it himself on a couple of occasions).
Hassan has cropped quotes to demonstrate a particular emotional point of his. It's not really an argument from the text at all.
Indeed, it is true that some Muslims believe that the Qur'an orders them to attack and kill the unbelievers, but the fact of the matter is that there are various interpretations of certain chapters and passages in the Qur'an, which of course didn't get the attention of sparky because of his superficial reading of it.
I am quite aware that there are alternative interpretations. My question was how these can be supported from the text itself due to the lack of historical context that is recorded there. I was contrasting this with the Old Testament where the historical context is plainly recorded.
In addition, the New Testament teaching on fulfillment of the Jewish law in Christ presents reasons for not extending the OT commands that is not available for the Muslim that rejects Christ's particular role in achieving this (no more than a messenger).
I remember that when I was a Muslim I subscribed to the interpretation of a scholar (reading on the Internet,) who said that Jihad without a Khalifat and unprovoked attacks are forbidden and that some verses only applied to the Muslims at Mohammed's time. To his mind, God's character and behaviour throughout the Bible and the Qur'an is consistent, because whenever God saw that a people rejected a righteous prophet He destroyed them with a natural calamity or through the hands of the believers. In Islam's case, God appointed Mohammed as a rasul to the Mekkans and the surrounding cities. Since many people were not at all inclined to accept the new prophet, God helped to raise an army (humans as well as angels) for Mohammed in Medina in order to administer His justice on the rejectors during that time. The punishment for unbelievers in non-Prophet aeras will come in the hereafter, not on Earth. That is because only prophets will come with clear signs so as to make it possible to tell true believers and rejectors or hiders of the Truth (kafiroon) apart.
Great! (although most of the prophets in the bible were actually reminding the Israelites of the covenant they had made with God and what would happen to them if they didn't live up to it - many prophets were rejected before judgement came on the Israelites).
Should husbands only beat their wives if there is a Khalifat? How is the distinction drawn between what was 'for that time' and what is 'for all time'?
Now you may say that this interpretation is not very main-stream. I partly agree with that, but in contrast to Christianity Islam still hasn't undergone a period of critical analysis and enlightenment like Christianity did. Therefore it's not very fair to make that comparison without keeping that in mind.
You seem to have missed the point of the comparison. The arguments I have been making are from the NT itself. It was Paul's argument that the OT law was fulfilled in Christ (and Jesus'). The commands to love your neighbours and enemies are extensively recorded there. Historical development has nothing to do with it.
Cheers,
sparky
Topic: Readings from the "Holy Book"