Interpretation the Trinity is polytheistic

[siam]

Muhamed, islam’s founder had to flee Mecca for his life because he badly offended the sensibilities of the Meccans and Quraish whom he had earlier tried to desperately convert to his new cult and ideology but had failed miserably at.
...
At-Tabari and the Sirah of Muhammad tell of the horrific massacre and genocide of the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza...
Besides that, he also banished 2 other Jewish tribes, the banu Nadir and banu Qaynuqa and confiscated their properties, assets and lands, further enriching his booty and war chests. What were the crimes of these Jewish victims ...

Like Judaism, Islam is a religion of law---not theology.

Before the Prophet was invited to Yathrib (Medina) there was deadly tribal warfare occurring there. The people invited Muhammed(Pbuh) to arbitrate according to (Islamic) law---to settle the disputes and bring peace. In order to do so, most of the people of Yathrib converted to Islam. When the Prophet reached Yathrib/Medina with his followers, he instituted a mentorship system in which each Medina family became guardians/mentors for each Meccan immigrant. Such a system evenly distributed the burdens of a large group of immigrants and reduced social tensions.

The Medinan population decided to elect the Prophet as their leader---and the Prophet requested an acceptance of this decision (what we might today refer to as "vote") from the community---including women.
This practice of being "elected" was also carried out by the succeeding 4 caliphs.

Further, the Prophet also made a treaty---which today is referred to as the "constitution of Medina" in which the Jewish tribes of Yathrib were free to practice their religion (religion = law) and be equal members of the society. There were perhaps 9 Jewish tribes.(?) When the Meccans attacked Medina---3 of these tribes were proven to have committed treason---in direct contradiction to the treaty terms---therefore 2 of them were exiled according to Islamic law. The third Jewish tribe was tried according to Jewish Law by a Jewish tribe, the Aws (Sa‘ad ibn Mu‘adh.) According to Jewish law, the penalty for treason is death. (...today, according to Western laws, the penalty for treason is death or life imprisonment)

[siam]

...
...need to bear in mind that warfare was then, and remains now, a bloody business. Nor were there such as things as the ICC and Geneva Conventions in previous centuries.

Christians massacring Jews and Muslims when they took Jerusalem in 1099 were no less barbaric. The Christian church and its adherents persecuted and massacred Jews "back home" as well for centuries. Christians even slaughtered their own when they took Constantinople in 1204....

War is a bloody business---and pretending otherwise is simply foolish. However, maybe some war strategies might be needlessly brutal? The Mongol invasions might also be an example?

Sun Tsu (art of war) advised:-
In the practical art of war, the best thing is to take the enemy's country whole and intact, to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So too, it is better to recapture an army entire than to destroy it. To capture a regiment, a detachment or a company entire than to destroy them.
...and...
hence, to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence: supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemies resistance without fighting
...and...
there is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.

Historically, the "Early Islamic Conquests" were very fast, the damage was minimal, and the post-war recovery was also speedy.
Peace brought an increase in trade activities and this brought in more taxes for the state which were used to repair, rebuild or build new, ---the roads, caravenserai, aquaducts, canals and various other public works that had been neglected by the Sassanid and Byzantines.

ICC and Geneva conventions..etc. Though we have such instruments and guidelines on the conduct of war, not everyone follows them---the U.S. and its wars are a good example.
Islamic law also has ethical guidelines on war and conduct in war. ---some have followed it, some have not....

[siam]

New Testament verses that could be misused---?......

I do not know how they are interpreted or used/misused in Christian history...

Mathew 10: 34-36
The Sword of the Gospel


...and...

I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.
John 15 NIV

......etc...

[Dan Zebiri]

In Luke 22:38, Strong's Concordance acknowledges the Greek word machaira (Strong's #G3162) is defined as a knife, dirk or sword.

Back up to verse 35 and we hear Jesus reminding his disciples that he had sent them on a temporary journey with neither purse nor passports, nor shoes (see Matthew 10:5 - 10). When he asked if they lacked anything during the trip, they answered, "Nothing." But when Jesus was no longer with them, their journey would not be temporary.

The disciples would need certain provisions, including a knife for preparation of food, cutting wood for fuel, and possibly to fend off robbers for which the locality was noted. So, once Jesus' ordeal was over, they should make sure they each had a knife.

In Luke 22:38 the disciples said they had two knives, and Jesus said, "It is enough." By this he may have been saying that's all they would need, but Bible commentators Adam Clarke and John Gill believe that he was saying, jihad fisibilillahhttps://www.answering-islam.org/Qura..._passages.html

New Testament verses that could be misused---?......

I do not know how they are interpreted or used/misused in Christian history...

Mathew 10: 34-36
The Sword of the Gospel


...and...

I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.
John 15 NIV

......etc...

[Dan Zebiri]

Mohammed first entered Yathrib (later Madina), he was counting on the support of its people. One particular ethnic group he thought would give more authority to his prophethood were the Jews because they had the Torah and all the previous Prophets were Jewish. They also controlled the city's trade and commerce.

The Jews were many in Yathrib and its suburbs. There were the Bani Al-Nadheer Jews, the Bani Qaynuqa' Jews, the Bani Quraytha (Qurayza) Jews, and several more. The Jews were rich and successful in their businesses. A great asset to the young Islamic nation Muhamed was trying to construct there.

At first, Mohammed was trying to befriend the Jews and get them on his side. He insisted that the People of the Book - Jews and Christians, "worship the same God" [Quran Surah 29:46]. He claimed that the same God sent down the Torah [Quran Surah 5:48]. He ordered the Muslims to fast Ashura' or the Passover [Saheeh Bukhari - 2004]. Even the Qibla (the direction the Muslims face in prayer) faced towards Jerusalem - the SAME direction the Jews faced in prayer [Saheeh Bukhari - 41].

But no matter how hard Mohammed tried to convince them that he is a prophet he just couldn't, he just FAILED spectacularly. Once he even barged into a Jewish Synagogue in Yathrib (Madina) and said that if only twelve Jews would believe in him then Allah would spare them his wrath [Musnad Ahmad - 23464].

When he realized that the Jews wouldn't believe in him, and that their unbelief would TURN AGAINST him - because they have the Torah which has the criteria for any prophet, he realized that they should be eliminated.

So at first he switched the Qibla (the direction the Muslims face in prayer) from Jerusalem to Mecca [Quran Surah 2:144 and Saheeh Bukhari - 41]. Then warned them; they either become Muslims and be safe, or sell their possessions and LEAVE THEIR LAND [Saheeh Muslim - 1765 & 1767 and Sunan Abi Dawood - 3003].

Mohammed marched towards the Jews in order to either exile them or make a treaty with them. The Bani Al-Nadheer Jews refused to make a treaty with Mohammed so they fought against him, lost, and subsequently were exiled. The Bani Quraytha Jews saw the fate of their Bani Al-Nadheer brethren so they had no choice but to make a peace treaty with him [Saheeh Muslim - 1766 and Sunan Abi Dawood - 3004].

Yet Mohammed was determined that all Jews should be either exiled or killed - he was set on their elimination. He cannot simply break the treaty with Bani Quraytha though because it would be bad for his image as a Prophet who's supposed to keep his promises and treaties. He strongly emphasized the importance of keeping treaties [Quran Surah 9:4 and Saheeh Bukhari - 33]. So his only way out was to MAKE IT APPEAR as though Bani Qurayza were the ones who broke the treaty.

Then came the Ghazwat Al-Khandaq (The Battle of the Trench or Ditch). The Pagan Arab tribes retreated and Mohammed was ready for battle. Mohammed went to the Bani Quraytha/Qurayza Jews and eliminated them because it was CLAIMED that they betrayed the Muslims and renounced the treaty, but did they?

The Battle of Al-Khandaq (Trench) and The Battle of Bani Quraytha:

The Quraysh tribes and Ghatfan, encouraged by the exiled Bani Al-Nadheer Jews, wanted to eliminate Mohammed once and for all. They gathered up a great army and put Yathrib under siege [Saheeh Bukhari - 4103]. Mohammed , based on a suggestion by Salman Al-Farisi, dug a trench around Yathrib [Saheeh Bukhari - 2837], except for the Bani Quraytha side that is, because they had great fortresses and it would be practically impossible for the Pagan Arabs to get through their fortresses unless Bani Quraytha allowed it. Now since Mohammed and Bani Quraytha had a treaty, Mohammed had nothing to fear [Saheeh Muslim - 1766 and Sunan Abi Dawood - 3004]. Thus all was set.

Now the siege has started, Mohammed was running low on food and resources [Saheeh Bukhari - 4101 and Musnad Ahmad - 13808], his companions were terrified [Saheeh Bukhari - 4103 and Musnad Ahmad - 10613], and above all that it was rumored that Bani Quraytha were going to break the treaty between them and Mohammed and let the Pagan Arabs come through their side. But after a while, a sandstorm hit the armies of the Pagan Arabs, and since Bani Quraytha refused to let them in through their fortresses, the armies had no choice but to retreat [Musnad Ahmad - 22823].

Mohammed on the other hand was ready for battle, he had a full army equipped and eager to fight in the name of Allah. The rumors that Bani Quraytha wanted to betray him were his only excuse, that and an order sent from Allah via Jibreel (Gabriel). He went to them, put them under siege for 14 days. Finally they surrendered. So Muhamed killed ALL their men and male youth - 700-900 souls, enslaved their women and children [Saheeh Muslim - 1769]. Now there was one less Jewish tribe to worry about.

The Sirah biographer, Ibn Ishaq says:

A number of Jews who had formed a party against the apostle, among whom were Sallam b. Abu’l-Huqayq al-Nadir [he had been assassinated so the chronology is questionable], and Huyayy b. Aktab al-Nadri, and Kinana b. Abu’l-Huaqayq al-Nadri, and Hauda b. Qays al-Wa’ili, and Abu Ammar al-Wa’ili with a number of B. [Bani or tribe or clan] Nadir and B. Wa’il, went to the Quraysh at Mecca and invited them to join them in an attack on the apostle so that they might get rid of him altogether. (p. 450).

How much did the Jews actually instigate the battle, and how much were the Meccans fed up with Muslim harassment on their own without Jewish provocation? This is unclear. Let us assume only for the sake of argument that the Islamic sources - written 200 years later, are right. These specific Jews were the alleged "principal instigators". In the end, this does not matter, for the following reason.

It is important to cite these complex names, above, because today’s Muslim polemicists who defend Muhammad’s extermination and enslavement of the Qurayza Jews overlook the fact that early Islam knew specifically who the enemy Jewish leaders were—BY THEIR NAMES.

So DID ALL the men and adolescent boys have to be executed and all the women and children enslaved? Could only the leaders not have been executed?

Sources: Ibn Ishaq; Tabari, The Victory of Islam, trans. M. Fishbein, vol. 8, (1997), pp. 6-7. Safi-ur-Rahman Mubarakpuri, The Sealed Nectar: Biography of the Noble Prophet, Darrusalam, 1996, p. 201.

Like Judaism, Islam is a religion of law---not theology.

Before the Prophet was invited to Yathrib (Medina) there was deadly tribal warfare occurring there. The people invited Muhammed(Pbuh) to arbitrate according to (Islamic) law---to settle the disputes and bring peace. In order to do so, most of the people of Yathrib converted to Islam. When the Prophet reached Yathrib/Medina with his followers, he instituted a mentorship system in which each Medina family became guardians/mentors for each Meccan immigrant. Such a system evenly distributed the burdens of a large group of immigrants and reduced social tensions.

The Medinan population decided to elect the Prophet as their leader---and the Prophet requested an acceptance of this decision (what we might today refer to as "vote") from the community---including women.
This practice of being "elected" was also carried out by the succeeding 4 caliphs.

Further, the Prophet also made a treaty---which today is referred to as the "constitution of Medina" in which the Jewish tribes of Yathrib were free to practice their religion (religion = law) and be equal members of the society. There were perhaps 9 Jewish tribes.(?) When the Meccans attacked Medina---3 of these tribes were proven to have committed treason---in direct contradiction to the treaty terms---therefore 2 of them were exiled according to Islamic law. The third Jewish tribe was tried according to Jewish Law by a Jewish tribe, the Aws (Sa‘ad ibn Mu‘adh.) According to Jewish law, the penalty for treason is death. (...today, according to Western laws, the penalty for treason is death or life imprisonment)

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

New Testament verses that could be misused---?......

I do not know how they are interpreted or used/misused in Christian history...

Mathew 10: 34-36
The Sword of the Gospel


...and...

That does rather suggest that Jesus might not have been as pacific as other verses in the gospels would suggest. The "render unto Caesar" verse may also be considered with an entirely different interpretation, likewise the verses about Jesus as the son of a carpenter.

[Dan Zebiri]

That does rather suggest that Jesus might not have been as pacific as other verses in the gospels would suggest. The "render unto Caesar" verse may also be considered with an entirely different interpretation, likewise the verses about Jesus as the son of a carpenter.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

God owned the land of Israel, not Caesar.

[Same Hakeem]

JimL,
The Trinity explanation are three distinct persons, God the Father, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit who are the one God.

But Jesus himself limited the knowledge of his second coming to "THE FATHER ONLY" in Matthew 24:36 "of that day and that hour no one knows not even the angels in heaven BUT THE FATHER ALONE" hence the Holy Spirit CANNOT BE GOD since God the Father ONLY knows his second coming.

[Tassman]

JimL,
The Trinity explanation are three distinct persons, God the Father, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit who are the one God.

Except that it's NOT an explanation, it's an incoherent logical contradiction. Three distinct persons cannot logically be one person.

[JonathanL]

Except that it's NOT an explanation, it's an incoherent logical contradiction. Three distinct persons cannot logically be one person.

You've been provided an explanation of the Trinity so many times now that this cannot be other than deliberate misrepresentation. Stop lying about what the doctrine of the Trinity teaches.

[JimL]

You've been provided an explanation of the Trinity so many times now that this cannot be other than deliberate misrepresentation. Stop lying about what the doctrine of the Trinity teaches.

Give us a logical explanation of 3 persons who are also 1 god? Otherwise it is a logical contradition.

[JonathanL]

Give us a logical explanation of 3 persons who are also 1 god? Otherwise it is a logical contradition.

The burden is on you to demonstrate that it's logical contradiction, without misrepresenting what the Trinity teaches. Unless you can do that you haven't got a leg to stand on.

[JimL]

The burden is on you to demonstrate that it's logical contradiction, without misrepresenting what the Trinity teaches. Unless you can do that you haven't got a leg to stand on.

Well that's a cop out if I ever saw one. 1 being+1 being+1 being=3 beings, not 1 indivisable being.

[JonathanL]

Well that's a cop out if I ever saw one. 1 being+1 being+1 being=3 beings, not 1 indivisable being.

As I said, if you're going to demonstrate that there is a logical contradiction you have to show that there is a logical contradiction in the actual teaching of the Trinity, and not in your misrepresentation of it. The Trinity does not teach that "1 being+1 being+1 being=1 being". The word "person" when talking about the Trinity does not constitute a being. The Trinity teaches that there are three persons in one Being.