godelian wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2024 9:12 am
Both the Pauline and the Ebionite branches of Christianity emerged out of Messianistic Judaism which itself was an alternative branch in second-temple Judaism along with at least a dozen other branches including what would later evolve into Orthodox Judaism but which was originally known as the Pharisees. The Ebionite branch of Messianistic Judaism later on evolved into Islam.
So, the question becomes: What was originally the beef between the Messianistic Jews and the Pharisees?
I will not even go into the equally bitter conflict between the Jews, irrespective of branch, and the Samaritans.
The beef was the following. The Pharisees utterly rejected the claim that Christ was the Messiah and successfully conspired to bring him to trial for blasphemy. In Pauline Christianity, they kept accusing the Pharisees, i.e. the Orthodox Jews, over the centuries of deicide ("god killing"). The Ebionite branch of Christianity also inherited this mutual hostility, which was preserved to some extent in Islam.
In prophetic times, the Jews of Medina were originally allied to the Muslims but were suspected of conspiring against the Muslims with the pagans. This distrust eventually led to violent combat and wholesale executions.
So, the Quran expresses hostility against the Pharisees mostly because the Gospels already did. When push came to shove, they could not trust each other.
But then again, in Ottoman times, the Jews were not disliked or persecuted by the Muslims, while in European Christianity, the Jews certainly were. The original animosity between Jews and Muslims only flared up again because of the Zionist occupation of Palestine.
First there is the fact of an inherent instinct of tribalism, us vs then, in-group vs out-group,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-group_and_out-group
This tribalistic instinct is critical for basis survival which can lead to the evil acts of killing and harming the other tribe[s]; this is in opposition to co-operation between tribes which is later-evolved impulse.
The Ebionite branch of Messianistic Judaism later on evolved into Islam.
This is one of the most unintelligent view I have ever come across.
So, the Quran expresses hostility against the Pharisees mostly because the Gospels already did. When push came to shove, they could not trust each other.
You are making excuses for the evil acts of the Quran.
The
Gospels [as the Constitution of Christianity] has an
overriding pacifist maxim of 'love all - even enemies' 'give the other cheek' and the likes; so, there is no way the Christian God commands His believers to hate anyone [inclusive of the Jews].
Some "Christians" would have had or hate the Jews, but they can only do it as ordinary humans, not as a Christian officially.
Any Christian who do not love all even enemies would have sinned against the Christian's God command as in the Gospels. [then it is up to God to forgive or not]
Muhammad [who initiated the Quran] hated Jews because they mocked and rejected his claims of prophethood.
This is the same with Hitler who hated the Jews due to some sort of being mocked and rejected by some Jews.
Muhammad hatred was converted into an religious ideology with large followers with its inherent tribalistic us vs them impulses that evil impulses of anti-semitism. [Hitler into a malignant political ideology]
The critical problems is that M's hatred is embedded into the ideology and the Quran is immutable as commanded by God.
To ensure their salvation in heaven & to avoid hell which is a very terrible threat, Muslims has to obey the immutable commands of their God which include the hatred and killing of Jews whenever given the opportunity.
Where one's land is occupied, naturally [for humans] it will triggered retaliation to kick out the occupiers and the hatred for the occupiers. This has been going on for eons.
(however, the Jews-Arabs-Jews occupation is complex due to its history).
What is critical for the Jews-Arab occupation point is, beside the natural human acts it is infused with the religious factor, very toxic religious elements.
The theocratic "Tibetan lands" [Buddhist] is occupied at present, why no 'such' terrible protests [using evil and violence] against the occupiers??
The religion of Islam sanctions the killing of all the occupiers of any "Islamic land" [5:33 etc.] and because of the threat of hell if Muslims do not comply with God's command, all true-Muslims are contractually [duty] bound hate the occupiers and kill them wherever possible to get back their land.
This is why the protests and violence of the occupation and anti-semitism is going on all over the world wherever there are Muslims.
The term "Islamic land" is a farce itself. Point is, before the Islamists occupied the land, it was not "Islamic" at all.
Commanded the Gospels, Christianity-proper cannot be anti-semitic.
There is no other religion that is officially anti-semitic. [evidence if otherwise]
The only anti-semitic religion is the supposedly Religion of Peace with its immutable commands which induce [duty, obligate] hatred and sanction the killing of Jews, more so, if the Jews are "interpreted" as occupying Islamic land.