|
Questioning Islam.
|
View this Thread in Original format
| melech_mike |
In an ongoing attempt I have to understand Islam/Muslims/Arabs/Palestinians better, I have been reading various opinions and facts about the above mentioned topics.
I came across this interesting article.
I warn you it’s long, but well worth the read.
I don't necessarily agree with parts of his views/opinions, but I believe he presents a fair, intelligent argument.
I don't want this thread to start into a flame-orgy. I am seriously wondering if anyone would like a shot to refute this before i store all this information to be, for the most part, true.
I will ignore any comments made towards me accussing me of racism as i find it to be rediculous, and extremely offensive and demeaning to my character.
The author of this paper cites many parts of the Koran for all of you who are familiar with it.
It is also you guys that are familiar with it that I want to hear responses from.
| quote: | I Slam Islam. By Steve Omega
I've read the Koran three times now. The first time was as a youth searching for a divine nugget. It struck me as disappointingly uninspiring. The second time was in 1998 to look for prophecy and found only a repetitive message akin to brainwashing. The third time, I admit to being leery of it, and found it to have been written with help that is far from divine.
The translation I used of the Koran seems virulent but probably not the most so, as many are available. It is just chance that I currently have access to one translated in 1930 by Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall, and printed by the government of Mir Osman Ali Khan, the late nizam of Hyderabad-Deccan. I've cross referenced some of the verses in other Korans and found them sometimes slightly differing in meaning and verse numbers. So the verses I refer to can sometimes be off numerically in other translations so any passage I refer to could be the verse above or below it, if not immediately obvious.
There are claims that the Koran is similar to Sanskrit and Tamil texts as evidenced by the Koran not conforming to Arabic grammar. Over 100 aberrations were noted by Mahmud-oz-zamakshari and he stated the Koran was not miraculous. There are parts imitative of a pre-islamic Syrian poet and Ali Dashti in his book "23 Years: A study of the Prophetic Career of Mohammed" (published 1985) draws attention to these probable sources. Mohammed also seems to have borrowed from Al-Ukdal-Fareed, the 25 chapters called 'Jaw-hara' (the Pearl) from which to pillage verses for his surahs. This was written by Ibn Abd Rabbi'hil Andalusi who was born in 246AD and died in 327 AD.
So if the Koran is based on cribbed together writings and dubious other religious texts, this really casts doubt on the divine source. Some people (yes, anti-Muslims) have suggested that Mohammed had epileptic fits, and his own mother had declared him possessed by a devil. Regardless of these claims, it seems highly suspect to find castigation of an enemy uncle and a confirmation that an adopted son should divorce his wife so that Mo' can marry her in its suras. This seems way too convenient to just happen to fit in with Mo's mindset, for surely if God really wanted such a thing, he could have just willed it?
Consider something like sura 33:36 which states, '...when Allah and his messenger have decided an affair...' and goes on to say you shouldn't question it. Well how convenient for him that god has Mo' for a partner to help decide things!
There are other reasons to suspect that the claimed divine revelation is actually from a satanic source, if not simply from Mo's fevered brow, but I'll get more into that later.
The Muslim world has generated suicide bombers and terrorists galore. The Koran stokes these fires of hatred. There are numerous promises of paradise for the slain and booty for the alive. A typical one is sura 4:74, 'Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him we shall bestow a vast reward'. 
Suicide has it's roots as a tradition starting with Mohammed's attempts. This may be another indication of his epileptic type fits, as no true messenger of God has ever wanted to kill himself. However in the Bakhari hadith, Book 9, volume 87, verse 111, we read this: ' But after a few days Waraqa died and the Divine Inspiration was also paused for a while and the Prophet became so sad as we have heard that he intended several times to throw himself from the tops of high mountains and every time he went up the top of a mountain in order to throw himself down, Gabriel would appear before him and say, "O Muhammad! You are indeed Allah's Apostle in truth" whereupon his heart would become quiet and he would calm down and would return home.'
Hmmm, would God really give you a message and then you commit suicide? This whole entwining of Islam with death is part and parcel of it's message. The assassins developed as a group of killers from Islamic culture that believed their reward lay in paradise, of which they'd had a drugged foretaste. This killing for a reward message is continued today and is encouraged by Muslim clerics, but stop and ask yourself whether God really wants his creation to be used this way.
A lack of regard for human life and barbarity is usually indicative of Godless people.
Sura 5:33 threatens death, crucifixion or hands and feet cut off for those that strive against Allah. Christians and non-Muslims beware! Anyone that isn't a follower of Islam is classed as causing corruption to the earth and is therefore to be killed. The two suras just mentioned are only two of many, many such threats and intimidations. Read sura 9:5 that says to slay the unbelievers wherever you find them, etc.
Islamaniacs trumpet that Islam is the fastest growing religion and must therefore be right, but surely it has all the hallmarks of a cult that offers certainty not understanding. Fascism and communism were ideologies that encompassed a billion people but today are discounted as having any worth. The majority are often wrong and that is why inspired leaders exist that have a better dream, and also the bible tells that the road to destruction is broad and wide (Mathew 7:13).
The Muslim apologists claim that Islam is a religion of peace and that the terrorists aren't real Muslims. This reminds me of when the Soviet Union had its communist grip on Eastern Europe. When one pointed out that it was a crap system with food shortages, queues for everything and nothing working properly, the red propagandists would claim that the real communists weren't in charge. Today we have a similar situation with Islamic propagandists saying the terrorists aren't representative, despite all the bombers and hijackers claiming action for Allah.
Unfortunately, the whole tenor of the Koran is one that dwells on slaughter and the doom of unbelievers. The Hadiths are even worse and talk of violence against Jews especially. One says that even the trees and bushes will shout out that there are Jews hiding behind them, and they should then be killed.
Now the koranicists tell me that I am taking passages about annihilating towns after warning them, out of context. The threats and promised destruction of surah 17:16 towards a town is supposedly a general warning from Allah. But if I don't see it that way, then why should an uneducated Muslim? He could well think the verses saying 'we will destroy them and slaughter them where we find them' are general exhortations for the cause. Certainly the well educated terrorists seem to interpret it that way. 
And if such passages are so ambiguous, then why would God choose to express himself in such an imprecise language. Did God really send Jesus to tell us plainly to love our enemy and turn the other cheek, yet then send Mohammed to tell us to revel in their destruction?
Now the Muslims say that they only fight those that started it first, those who cause trouble are apparently fair game for slaughter. The Koran says 'persecution is worse than slaughter' (2:191). Quite a different message from turning the other cheek. However, some Muslims seem persecuted by the mere presence of non-Muslims. This was the reasoning behind attacks on the USS Cole, that they didn't like Americans in their waters or based on the soil of Saudi Arabia, whether invited or not. Yet these people that feel so persecuted will tell you of how merciful and big hearted Mohammed was to Jews, and claim Christians cried when Muslims removed their presence from them in Syria or someplace.
This is clearly propaganda and nonsense to claim that non-Muslims felt protected by Muslims when the Koran tells them to be compassionate to Muslims but to show harshness to others. The Jews fled the Romans and settled all over Arabia, becoming a majority in Yathrib. They took Mohammed in when he needed a base, and their eventual reward was to be expelled or worse from their own city, which was then renamed Medina. If Mohammed was so kind, then how come there are no Jews in Mecca today? Come to think of it, only Muslims are allowed there, period. Would any such apartheid be tolerated in the West? Why are Mecca and Medina such a closed cities?
Muslims will tell you that there is no compulsion in their religion. Yet why insist on making the Hajj, a pilgrimage to Mecca? They'll tell you that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerant of people like Jews and Christians. Yet these people are required to pay the 'jizrah', a special tax on non-Muslims that has no fixed amount but used to be a gold dinar in one district. Imagine having to hand over a piece of gold just because you aren't a Muslim. It sounds like a severe arm twisting not a lack of compulsion.
Just exactly how benevolent this is can surely be seen for the added burden it was. Who would want to pay a form of protection money to an unfriendly gang? Just how popular this tax would have been, can be gauged from the American reaction to a tax on tea imposed by their British 'protectors'.
Can you imagine if the West made religious minorities pay a special tax, what a cry about equal rights there would be? Or suppose Philadelphia or Rome was made off limits to non-Christians?
We have reciprocal agreements with countries, but we should also consider the golden rule to apply to philosophy and religion. We don't tolerate political fascism so neither should we accept religious fascism.
I don't think the Koran has anything nice or admirable to say about anyone not one of them. The muslims make a big deal of being tolerant but when they conquered a place, they enslaved the men, built a mosque on the local people's most revered sites (eg they tried to build one in the Acropolis in Greece but got expelled first), and taxed the remaining wretched survivors something like 50% of everything for their supposed protection. The hadith in volume 3, book 39, number 524 talks of giving the Jews a valley to farm and of taking half of everything from them.
If , as the Koran constantly claims, Allah is so merciful, then how come it's always going on about hellfire and making snide remarks about just about everyone who isn't part of the Muslim cult? If Islam is so tolerant of other religions and peaceful, where are the Jewish communities that used to exist throughout Arabia? What about the grand old tradition of issuing 'fatwas'? We don't see Christian bishops and clerics calling for people to be murdered. Muslims don't seem to acknowledge that mullahs issuing death sentences on people that offend them is inconsistent with claims of Islam being peaceful.
The existence of death dealing militant Muslim terror groups in every area of the world shows me that there is something not really peaceful about them or their message. By their fruits, we should know them. And let's face it, until the recent pressure from America, the Muslim countries of the world haven't really made efforts to extirpate these nests of vipers.
I challenge any apologist to tell me a true nation of Islam, a devout pursuer of peace that could not or would not in some future eventuality fracture into hateful angry people.
Hmmm... Now where have I seen this before...?
Oh yeah... that's right...
The cry of the Muslim at prayer starts off by saying there is no God but Allah. Some linguists have said that 'Allah' can be a general word for 'everything'. On this model, millions of unwitting Muslims could be saying, "There is no God, just everything". Now who could benefit the most from such a deception? Possibly the great deceiver himself who is apparently able to 'deceive the very elect'. So much of the Bible's teaching are perverted in the Koran, that you can imagine the great deceiver laughing like Usama bin laden in that video at the misbelieve of others. The greatest prophet of the Old Testament, Zechariah in sura 3:38 has him praying for bounty. Even Jesus and the disciples are portrayed as asking for non spiritual gifts. Satan must laugh his head off at how many people buy into this revised history. The real message of God's prophets and Jesus that you will suffer for believing in his name is never mentioned in the Koran. Only reward for the followers of Allah, either the wine in heaven or spoils and bounty on earth. I ask that you consider carefully which prophet offers redemption, offers a spiritual truth and which prophet offers fulfillment of earthly desires.
For arguments sake, let's assume that 'Allah' is a name. Yet Allah is not a name we see in the bible. Mecca isn't mentioned in the bible either. Yet it says in the bible in many places, that those who call in the Lord's name will be saved. So you would expect that getting God's name right is crucial. Essential for the salvation of your soul, and to fulfill requirements that are asked of you. God's name is given by those that don't really understand what the name is as anything from Adonai or Elohim which mean Lord. But in fact, in Psalms 83:18 it explicitly says, "whose name alone is JEHOVAH".
In Exodus 3:13-15, God tells Moses that his name is I AM and says that 'this is my name forever'.
"JAH" is also given as God's name in Psalms 68:4. Nowhere does it say the name that the Muslim world prefers to use, and there's even a controversy from the Sufis that says Allah is a concept for everything, so that what the Muslims could actually be saying is that there is no God. This is all indicative of some great deceiver that would have people say many things that are contrary to what is actually said in the bible, and a blasphemy against the true God.
It is very important to get God's name correct. If your name is Susan or Rasheed and someone is calling you Fred, would you even answer? Not only might you not respond, but you could be insulted by being addressed by another name. Especially when you have already spelled out how you ought to be called. Would you even turn around if someone shouted out a name that you didn't especially like or wish to be called?
The Koran has contradictions and inaccuracies about Ishmael, about the earth being created in eight or two days (41:9), stuff about yellow cows instead of the red heifer. Within it's own Koranic pages, it has differences about the number of gardens in paradise (one, 39:73 4:30 57:21 or many 18:31 22:23 35:33 78:32). It also has divergent claims about where evil comes from (Allah 4:78 or Satan 38:41), about man created from water (lots) or a blood clot (96:1-2), dust or earth (11:61), or fluid (16:4) or from nothing (19:67).
It says that none but Allah protects (2:107 29:22) yet also says the angels do it (82:10 41:31). It says Aaron was guilty of the golden calf in 7:151 but that he wasn't in 20:85-90.
It says that the verses can't be changed in 53:19-20, 2:106, 16:101 22:52, but then that they can in 6:34 6:115 and 10:65. Then there's the whole satanic verses controversy about Mohammed having decided some verses had been from Satan so he changed them. A reference to Satan putting his spin on verses can be found at 22:52 amongst other places.
When I've talked with some Muslim scholars, they told me that unlike the bible, the Koran had no ambiguities or contradictions, but clearly it does and it's very lazy of them not to have investigated their own claims. These inconsistencies could well be the work of the great deceiver that wants us to believe a contrary and different set of truths to the ones given by God.
"O Prophet! make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal sternly with them. Hell shall be their home, evil their fate." Koran 66:9
Now there are contradictions and ambiguities in the bible, though I would say this to be expected when there are many authors or eyewitnesses. Indeed, I'd say this is an indication of veracity rather than indicative of conspiracy to get all their stories absolutely perfect. The Koran is supposedly all from one source so cannot claim this reasoning for its contradictions.
The Koran says in 4:82 that 'had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy'. Well, there are discrepancies with regard to whether angels talk or whether the verses can be changed and all kinds of nit picking details, some of which I've noted above. So again, I'd say that it is hoist by its own petard. At least the bible can claim multiple authors as a reason for some variance.
Despite the differing accounts or personal claims of Paul in the New Testament, I don't find the message of Jesus undimmed. His parables have a spiritual truth that transcends the detail of who was where. The incidentals of place were possibly written down third hand, so can reasonably be expected to vary, just like when children play that remembering game where one whispers something to another to pass on. Also, rather like the theologians debating how many angels can fit on a pinhead, such issues seem irrelevant to the real meaning of Christ's message.
Regardless of the bible or the Moslem book having some seeming contradictions, the inner spiritual truth should shine through. It's a bit like being hungry for the truth and nitpicking the minor details. Let's say you were hungry for a pizza, but instead of being happy with the contents, you niggled about the packaging. Noticing that one side of the box wasn't symmetrical with another side. Never mind the packing, the truth should be able to be got at and fully sensed.
The body of Jesus is not what is to be exalted or worshipped but the spiritual message that he brought. Although he did say that no-one comes to the father except through him. When we understand his teaching, we should not be overly concerned about how the truth of it was delivered. It is natural to be interested in the life of Jesus, but whether a parable was delivered in the morning or evening or up a mountain or at a table is incidental to the meat of the message. Similarly we shouldn't be concentrating on whether the body has a blemish or whether one finger is exactly the same as another if we are taking in the meaning of what is being delivered to us.
I've debated Jesus with Muslims and they have a couple of points they bring up regularly. They say Christ was inconsistent with his message of peace by saying he himself claimed to bring a fire on earth or a sword and to set fathers against children and brother against brother. Now, I don't see this as inconsistent because he wasn't advocating his followers go out and start trouble, but he was telling what would be the natural consequences of his message. Another thing mentioned as showing Christ to be a warmonger is when he tells his disciples to sell their clothes for swords before he is captured. As he then says that two swords would be enough, it is clear that he wants them to have some defence rather than be completely without. This could be interpreted as showing that he didn't want them all to be taken and arrested along with him, and to be free to go forth and spread the gospel. He certainly didn't tell them all to be armed and attack the temple guards coming to arrest him. When Peter strikes off an ear, he tells him to stop it, as you'd expect for a man that has preached to turn the other cheek.
When Jesus tells his flock that he has come to bring a sword (Mathew 10:34), the antichrists bay that this is clearly not peaceful. However, he wasn't exhorting his followers to take up arms, but instead telling them that a sword would come against them. His message would and did provoke trouble.
"I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, maim them in every limb." Koran 8:12
Another accusation is one of racism as when he ignores a Canaanite woman asking him to do a miracle for her daughter. He uses the analogy of a dog eating the children's food, and this seems to imply that Jesus is racist. However, as Mark 7 says, he was trying to get peace and quiet for one thing, and in Mathew 15:22, he ignored her because she called him 'son of David'. Mathew 22:41 showed that he didn't think being called 'son of David' was appropriate, so much so that 'they durst not' ask him any other questions again. The analogy of dogs at a master's table is well answered by the woman and so he does as she asked. Since one of his disciples (Simon the zealot) was a Canaanite, it seems unlikely that he was discriminating on racial grounds, especially when his teachings are for all people. When he met the Samaritan woman (John 4:7) at the well, and correctly told her about her five husbands, she brought other
Samaritans to listen to his teachings and this also shows he didn't have a narrow group of people to preach unto.
About the only inconsistency I can find with Christ's teaching is when he calls people fools, and in another passage tells people those that call others fools, that they are in danger of the judgment. This is a case of 'Do as I say, not as I do', which is familiar in most parent child relationships, but not mutually exclusive.
Muslims complain that when Jesus says that he and the father are one, or that all power is given to him; yet then says God works through him or the power to decide who sits on his right hand is not his to give, it is contradictory. Well I agree that it is a difficult concept to grasp but not impossible. A weak analogy might be that of Siamese twins linked by the spirit but one being stronger than the other. Or consider someone that is born powerful, but is clearly unable to choose their own parents, or change that which has already been destined. Surely it is commendable of Jesus to acknowledge his limitations rather than boast of being able to do whatever is asked or to promise places in paradise at his side for everyone that asks? Yet this is what Mohammed tells his followers. Who is really being more truthful; the man that doesn't point out any possible problems or the one that says he can't guarantee it?
The concept of the trinity, the father, the son and the Holy Ghost seems very problematic for Muslims. St Patrick used a three leaved shamrock to demonstrate how three could be one. But regardless of whether this trinity is an interpretation imposed by the church or not, it is irrelevant to the spiritual message. It's like the theologians that debate how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. It's not an answer that is necessary to understand the spiritual truth, the bread and water of life. How God works is said to be a mystery and that his ways aren't our ways, so claiming that understanding how God works is not a prerequisite to understanding his message. Furthermore, the flat out denial by Islam that God could have a son seems to contradict and go against the usual claim that God can do anything.
And when it comes to preaching God's message and letting the truth set you free, this is something that is not found in the Koran. Instead it harps on about slavery. The spiritual truth shining through to the inner heart and a deep understanding of God, seems inconsistent with the Muslim approach. It says the message is one that has to be unquestioningly submitted to, yet in the bible there are numerous questions asked of God by his chosen prophets and the like. Even Jesus had questions, and in the Old Testament there are people setting tests for God to fulfill (e.g. the test about dew on a bush but not on the ground then the other way round or the fire on the altar test against the heathen).
All these points should not be swept under the carpet. I am all in favor of open discussion rather than handed down dogma. Personally I think God expects us to disagree on the finer points and anything that moves along our understanding of him, is I believe blessed. The Sabbath is set aside especially as a day for enquiry.
The Koran dwells constantly upon the doom of unbelievers and positively gloats on their demise. I find this not divine, but if anything, an attribute of the Devil that likes to dwell on the fires of hell. Its verses are repetitive and derivative, as if some great deceiver has tried to fashion a teaching that mimics the work of the bible. The fact that everything is different in the Koran from the bible (God's name, what the prophets said and did, accounts of Jesus) shows that they can't both be true. The Bible has history, archaeology, testimony and the Dead Sea scrolls on its side amongst a wealth of evidence. The Koran is a perversion of every truth the Bible has. Ask who could possibly want everyone to believe the opposite of truth. Ask who would gloat, as Osama did on the video tape at those who didn't know the whole picture. Ask why Mohammed would tell his soldiers a wrong thing (so as not to discourage them), and why modern negotiators sometimes flat out lie for deceptive advantage? Note how Mohammed boasts of preparing and presenting hell (18:101, 103). Ask why it says nothing of God's love in the Koran yet it does mention Allah as a beguiler (4:142) and the best of all plotters (8:30). Just ask who would want to deceive even the very elect?
The Koran claims that nothing so beautiful can be created. In 10:38, you find the usual braggadocio saying the Koran couldn't be invented. Indeed, the whole tone of the book is one of braggarty triumph calling itself glorious and saying that nobody could write something comparable. This is nonsense. It is the philosophical equivalent to saying "My wife is the most beautiful woman in the world. No-one can show me a woman as beautiful as this".
A real test, as in science is when you can also show what is needed to disprove something. Simply by saying you can't paint a painting as good as this, is entirely subjective. And when I have pointed out the similarity of pre-Islamic verses to those in the Koran, the islamicists say it is a forgery, a work of the devil to weaken their faith. So what they are really saying is, "show me something like it, and I'll deny it". This lack of scientific rationality or testing as we understand it, is endemic in the Muslim world and this is why progress and advanced technology have come entirely from the West.
If it wasn't for Western development, cars, tarmac, satellites and oil drilling, the Muslims would still be beating their heavily laden beasts and finding it difficult to even develop a better camel saddle.
Furthermore this test about the beauty of the Koran is capped by believers claiming that no-one has yet been able to do so. Both non-Muslims and Muslims don't even try because it would be a blasphemy, but putting together a string of lines about people being warned, then shackled and then slaughtered and adding how merciful Allah can be doesn't seem difficult in the slightest.
Romans 11:18 warns, 'Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee'.
The truth that nothing can be like it is clearly disproved by the Muslim's own acknowledgement of the so-called 'Satanic verses'. Tradition has it that the verses around 53:19 were changed. They acknowledge three goddesses (originally the three daughters of Allah) and originally Mo' had recognized them as such to cement an alliance with the Quarashi tribe in Mecca. The Meccans derived great revenues from people coming to worship these three female deities and would not accept that these daughters were no longer on a par with Allah. So Mo' compromised to gain their allegiance. As these suras were an oral tradition, it's not clear when Mo' ordered them to be changed, but probably it was when he had consolidated his power to the extent he could dictate anything he wanted. He explained the change to his followers as the original verses as having come from Satan. Now, assumedly he couldn't tell the difference for some time which kind of shows how easy his verses were able to be duplicated. If the prophet himself is so easily fooled into what was and wasn't a divine verse, then it makes a mockery of such divine claims. Of course the more prosaic explanation is that Mo' was a cunning liar that chose whatever was expedient to him to say had been revealed.
Another apologist response to criticism of the Koran is to say that you can only understand it properly and appreciate it's beauty in Arabic.
Well if this is the case, how come God didn't choose to reveal his message in a more common language or at least one less accessible to ambiguity? Does this mean, this religion is one only for the Arabs? There's no doubt that Mo' was a chauvinist and encouraged the pagan traditions of hajj, etc to continue under his redirection. The apologists suggest that we all ought to learn Arabic to better appreciate its 'beauty'.
Of course the irony is that Arabic is a phlegmatic language that makes anything to sound harsh and sickly to other ears.
Unlike the inspirational verses of Isaiah or the advanced rationality of Jesus' parables, the Koran only offers rote learning. To invest so much time in memorizing such lines makes it unlikely for you then to question them. The little children taught to memorise the Koran instead of multiplication tables at the madrassahs (religious schools) have no spiritual maturity that would allow them to form alternative questions. At least the little children learning the parables of Jesus are advancing their understanding of how metaphors and analogies can be used to illustrate deeper spiritual truths.
God has urged us to seek understanding above all else. In Psalms 14:2-3, this is equated with doing good. Hosea 6:6 says Jehovah desires the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings, and Zephaniah, chapter 1:4-6 says he "will cut off... those that have not sought the Lord, nor enquired for him".
Consider too, Proverbs 4:7 'Wisdom is the principal thing: therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.' Proverbs is full of such messages. And consider how Solomon pleased God by choosing wisdom over other gifts.
I am convinced that one of the reasons that we are urged to keep the Sabbath is so that we have a time to reflect upon God and indeed reflect upon our own morals and enquire into the mysteries that are posed for us. The Sabbath gives us no excuse for not having done so.
Like a traveler that roams the world, I have quested in foreign philosophies. Always trying to glean wisdom and insights abroad, I dismissed the Bible scriptures as too uptight. Because I found no jokes in it, no sense of humor, I suspected a lack of divinity also. But like the return of the prodigal I haven't found anything better elsewhere. Like the returned traveler, I now see the beauties and benefits of my own hometown.
The stories of Christian converts from Mohammedanism show just how false is their claim of there being no compulsion in their religion. Egyptians hounded from their village or non-believing wives forced to convert are just tips of an iceberg. Yes there are hell and damnation evangelicals in Christianity but they don't threaten death for not accepting their message. About the least compulsive group I've ever seen are the Anglicans. The genteel invitation to tea with the vicar is about as far removed as possible from religious policing. The Anglicans don't even seem to insist on anything really, and are merely glad to see you show up at all.
In my maturity, the wondrously broad canvas of human nature that you find in the Bible now strikes me as marvelously insightful. Unlike the hectoring and badgering of the Koran, the Bible has all the pearls of wisdom that can help you mature spiritually. For those not yet able to transcend their daily grind and who prefer entertainment to a quest for truth, then the Bible can offer as grand a cast of dramatic lives and events as you could find in a Hollywood film. It tells stories for the reader to glean insights from, and encourages one to learn to read 'between the lines'. All manner of human nature is in there, even incest even a sandwich (Ezekiel 4:12), but all this indicates the grand scope of the bible. The parables especially are for people that have had experience of life and so are able to extrapolate the real meaning of these stories.
This life experience is what enables western minds to see the hypocrisy in Muslim life. When usury or interest on loans is disallowed by the Koran, the Muslim lenders simply charge a facilitation fee. Same thing. There is hypocrisy in the outcry over Palestinian deaths and the stony silence on Jewish deaths. There is hypocrisy in regimes that berate democracies yet have all manner of human rights abuses in their own dictatorships.
When slavery is cited as a blot on human affairs in the new world, they conveniently forget to mention the slave routes and markets established by Muslim traders particularly in Africa. Europeans didn't just jump off a ship and run off into the jungle rounding people up. They bought them. Even Mohammed kept, bought and sold slaves. If a Muslim kills another Muslim, then he suggests freeing a believing slave as a punishment. The fact that he suggests freeing a believing slave, shows the lie to the apologists that converted slaves were set free just for conversion.
Nowhere in the Koran is there a suggestion that we are free to think for ourselves. On the contrary, it claims we are only slaves not able to question. It offers certainty and prescriptions for living for those too lazy or poor in spirit to really enquire. This is the absolute certainty that has allowed Islam to spread amongst people that want only answers instead of understanding. Like the American Taliban who had to ask whether he should pray soft or loudly. It offers the answers to those that can't be bothered enquiring of God themselves.
Prophets of old (e.g. Habakkuk) weren't afraid to ask God some insightful questions, and even Jesus seemed to need reassurance that he was doing the right thing. It isn't a sin to approach God and ask for an explanation. In fact, he seems to prefer it.
However the Koran does not anywhere encourage this personal approach. It constantly exhorts the Muslim to be a slave, a repetitive theme that has no echo in the bible. We have a God given free will to choose for ourselves. In the bible there are no references to us being God's slaves. Just look in any concordance. It actually says the opposite. In Jeremiah 2:14, it poses the question "Is Israel a homeborn slave?" meaning of course we aren't slaves. We are allowed and probably expected to waver, to choose wrongly and hopefully repent.
Jesus suggests that some people will work in his name but will be rebuked. Nowhere does Mohammed offer this rationality, only the naïve certainty of being rewarded in a garden full of virgins, wearing gold and silks and drinking wine from silver goblets. This is just pandering to base lusts. The Moslem paradise is all about material and sexual benefits for the men.
If wine drinking is so bad on earth, how come it is promised in paradise? Also, the women must have some other garden of paradise away from their men and their houris. Since sura 4:34 asserts that 'Men are in charge of women...' and if 'ye fear rebellion...to scourge them', then the women are probably happy to be apart from the scourgers.
Nowhere is there an explication of the spirituality of heaven. Half the Koran is taken up with the doom of the unbelievers and their tortures and the well-watered paradise of chaste maidens, silk robes and crystal goblets. This is a naïve childlike picture and the spiritual truths that you find in the parables or the inspired writings of Isaiah simply aren't in the book of Moslems. Despite claiming subtlety, it's so straightforward that there are only pedantic points of general acceptance, unlike the sudden deeper meanings of revelation that can come from familiar biblical passages.
This is another area that makes the Christian message superior and all the more so for being harder to understand. You have to expend some effort to make sense of it and this effort is what God really wants.
The slavery that Allah wants is just religious fascism that negates the free will of mankind and denigrates those that won't submit. The Koran is full of threats and menaces with an undercurrent of hostility that is a long way from Jesus' radical message of loving your neighbor and even your enemy. The Koran claims 'slaughter is better than persecution' (2:191) and also advises not to take captives until slaughter has been done (8:67). Not surprisingly, Islam has been spread at the point of a scimitar and through military conquest rather than the spirit of God, which even managed to overcome the Roman Empire.
Almost every surah has its menaces and bullying tone, but typical would be 56:60 promising to 'mete out death among you' or 17:16 about annihilating towns that won't convert. In the 8th surah, Mohammed attacks an unarmed caravan that had sent a camel ahead to try and get help. It boasts of destroying many townships (22:45), is overly gleeful at other's destruction (25:36) and implies that Muslims can outstrip anyone in doing evil deeds (29:4).
Surah 69, around verse 46 clearly states that they would seize and kill anyone they suspected of lying which is hardly a model of religious tolerance and the Muslims also take pride in having with them heavy fetters (73:12) and food which choketh (73:13). Sounds like Satan's army on the march to me.
This:
equals this:
Surah 2 has menacing undercurrents and constant hostility against the Jews and the Christians. Hitler would have been proud. Not surprising then that some Moslem battalions fought for Hitler in WWII.
It seems odd that the Koran claims Jesus made a bird out of clay (5:110) and gave it life yet no mention of this is in the bible. It also claims his disciples demanded a table of food (5:112) and that Jesus asked for himself and his mother to be as gods (5:116). Most Christians would consider this blasphemy and lies, but in the interests of peace and tolerance, they never raise the issue. Basically the Koran gives a false and different version of everything. Could this be the 'stumbling block' that deceives even the very elect? About the only entity that I can think of that would like to lead us astray is Satan himself.
Here are some more references that illustrate the true nature of this tawdry work.
'Take not Jews and Christians for friends' (5:51)
'Jews forbidden cattle and sheep' (6:147)
'Persecution is worse than slaughter' (2:191)
'Fight disbelievers near to you. Let them find harshness in you' (9:29)
'Accursed will be seized wherever found and slain with a fierce slaughter' (33:61)
Apologists for the Muslim cause claim it's all taken out of context and refers only to those that start trouble. But c'mon, this is the worst kind of bull. Sura 9:29 clearly says, 'Fight against such as those who hath been given the scripture as believe not in Allah...until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low'. This goes on for pages including 9:73, 'Strive against the disbelievers...Be harsh with them.'
And if you think that is bad, it is nothing compared to the evil cruelty found in the hadith which are reputed sayings and deeds of their prophet. A hell of a difference from the message of Jesus.
Even if you acknowledge that some of the hadith are unsubstantiated, the fact is that most Muslims consider them to be glorifying Islam and worthy. They range from the fairly innocuous to implying the children of unbelievers to be killed (Vol.8, book 77,number597) which talks of children 'were they to live'.
Even some of the fairly innocuous hadith such as asking Muslims to dye their hair and beards is commanded as part of a general admonishment to do the opposite of everything the Jews and Christians do.
Some of the astonishing cruelties done to Jews are related as everyday incidents. For example, a Jew was in chains for apparently having converted to Islam and then reverting to Judaism. In vol9 book84 number 58, it relates how Mu'adh would not sit down until the Jew had been killed. His host graciously obliges and then they piously discuss the evening prayers.
Another incident glorifies how Mo' sentenced two Jews to be stoned to death for illegal intercourse, and the witness relaying this incident says how the Jew sheltered the Jewess which has the sad ring of truth. Another example of life that is stamped on with death by the supposedly merciful and non-compulsive Mohammed.
How anyone can claim that this diabolical catalogue is wisdom or of peaceful import is absolutely denying the words on the page. They are only showing that they have chosen to delude themselves.
Note the feverish fanaticism of militant Islamics. Notice also the counter clockwise processions around the Qa'ba. This is akin to the widdershins direction of Satanists. Note also the backward contrariwise arrangement of the Koran where the earliest surahs are last and the latter ones mostly at the front.
Note also the special reverence for stones that the islamicists have. They revere the one in Jerusalem at the Dome of the Rock and especially the black stone embedded in the Qa'ba. This doesn't seem radically different from the idolatrous Arabs of before that worshipped stones.
In fact kissing the black stone at the Qa'ba was in existence before Mohammed when it was called 'Beit-Allah' known as the house of Allah. Pre-Islamic literature says Allah was the special god of Mohammed's tribe, the Quarish but only one of 360 other deities worshipped there. Allah corresponded to the Babylonian god called Baal, and was known as the Moon god, which is why the crescent moon is such a prevalent symbol. All Mohammed was really doing was asserting his own deity over and above the other ones.
Mohammed, a leader of raiding war parties claimed revelations over a period of 23 years. The prophets of the bible had rare meetings with God that changed them. Angels conveyed messages swiftly and God never seemed to need a long time to make a revelation. So it seems most peculiar that Mohammed required years of laborious ongoing contact. His method of stopping, starting, changing (the satanic verses) and then starting again seems more indicative of headaches than divine wisdom.
The surah that mentions Mohammed's uncle by name is more a private plea than any divine revelation. And can we really say that wallowing in retribution and constant threats and wheedling for slavish followers are divine? They seem more to be from an angry Lucifer that can't control his base emotions and there are more than a few ambiguous verses in the Koran and surahs (the cloaked one, the enfolded one) that could well be indicators of the true source.
Even if we accept that Mohammed didn't just cobble it all together from other texts and his own prejudices, and that an angel dictated the Koran to him, we must acknowledge what it says in Galatians. In chapter 1, verse 7-8, it clearly warns "..but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we or an ANGEL from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed".
The parables are rich stories to derive understanding from. Mohammed doesn't give any parables, he uses some metaphors and analogy. One that is given about a spider's house is an analogy not a parable and not an especially good one. It baldly states that if you don't have Allah, then your house is flimsy like a spider's web house. It ignores the remarkable tensile strength of spiders' cobwebs. If you were the same size of a spider, I doubt that you would agree to its flimsy nature.
The parables are a remarkable teaching tool, a way to develop spiritual understanding. They are little stories about men hiding their light under a bushel or of tares in a field showing that bad grow alongside the good wheat. It circumvents the potential errors of translation because moral tales don't depend on just a few words or turn of phrase to convey their message. |
....Continued on following post.... |
|
|
| melech_mike |
...continued from following post...
| quote: | If you read the parables yourself, and derive the spiritual understanding therein, then you are making the effort to seek God. This is what he wants. No church or religious institution can do this for you. Yes, they can help disseminate the message and provide a social setting that can help you understand some things, but the ultimate link that counts is you and your personal understanding of God. Many are lazy and prefer to have the message part digested for them and handed to them on a plate, but Jesus' message is for anyone that takes the trouble to read. Remember that Jesus warned that many would claim to have worked in his name but he will say, 'I did not know you'. These are likely to be the Christians that have taken someone else's interpretation of what it's all about. Personally I feel the Catholics have unnecessarily embellished the message and have unreasonably elevated Mary the mother of Jesus. Furthermore, the vows of celibacy and of silence taken by monastic orders are a misinterpretation of the message. Remember Jesus himself said that the kingdom of heaven is within us. As 2 Corinthians 5:1 says,'..we have a building of God, an house not made with hands.' Far too many churches gloss over the admonition from Mathew 6:7 to pray unseen within our closet. They hope that their sermonizers are closer to God and have a clearer interpretation of the gospel, but take it from me, no-one can do it for you. Now it does say that Jesus is amongst them when two or three gather in his name (Mathew 18:20), but consider that two or three does not necessarily mean twenty or thirty. Acts 7:49 and Isaiah 66:1-2 has God scoffing 'what house will ye build me?' so to think that the builders of churches and mosques are somehow doing God's will is actually breaking the commandment of taking God's name in vain.
Consider too, Hebrews 9:24. 'For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands...'.In Psalms 4:4, it says to commune with God upon our own beds.
Jesus taught in parables so that his teaching could be circulated in many languages without controversy as to the real meaning. A code of law or prescription for living is ever open to interpretation. But by couching the message in a story, understanding the story is possible, no matter what language delivers it.
In this way, the parables are like a Hollywood film dubbed into many languages. No matter what phrases or words are substituted, the basic story is not changeable. So the parables are translatable into any language but the deeper meaning has to be sought out by the recipient.
Mathew 13 onwards has Jesus expounding on why he talks in parables. He explains the benefits of doing so, whilst echoing the vision of Isaiah 6:8-9. In another place he suggests that we mustn't cast pearls before swine, because in Mathew he clearly tells of those that will see but not perceive. If you make a sincere effort, you will be able to fully comprehend these parables, but if you can't be bothered then truly you will never understand. Like the parable of the master and his three servants, those that hath this understanding will be given more, and those that haven't increased theirs, then what little they hath will be taken away.
If you look in a bible concordance, look under words like understanding, seek and knowledge. They are numerous references like the ones in Psalms 14:2-3 or in Romans that equate seeking understanding or knowledge of God as the highest good. Think on how pleased God was at Solomon asking for wisdom over long life or riches. Look in a koranic index, and you won't see any focus on understanding or wisdom.
Jesus made prophecies that came true, such as the one about not one stone remaining on top of another at the temple. Mohammed didn't. For someone labelled as the last prophet, Mohammed didn't really say any specific prophecies just bald statements. In fact, if you think about other mystics and real prophets that foretold future events, they make a mockery of the Muslim claim that Mo' was the last prophet. God's ongoing revelations through Malachi of Ireland or perhaps the prophecies at Fatima, show that others since seventh century Arabia have had attested, witnessed and undoubted messages.
Now Mohammed's followers asked him why there were no portents or prophecies from him via God. The Koran alludes to this in several places such as 29:50, but he just shrugged it off saying he was 'a plain warner'. Deuteronomy 18:22 plainly tells what the test of a prophet should be. I suppose after Mo' wrongly predicted he was going to win a battle against the Meccans and had to flee to Medina, he decided to tread softly in the prediction business.
What are usually passed off as prophecies in the Koran are ambiguous general statements about the heavens being rolled back or camels heavy with young being abandoned. Like the quatrains of Nostradamus or indeed the visions of John in Revelation, these rather general open to interpretation statements are too broad and have been used by every generation to point to something in their own time. Now the Bible also has it's share of general prophecies (e.g. Daniel 12:4, '..many shall run to and fro, and knowledge will be increased') that are open to the when question, but it has stacks of very precise indications. Certain prophecies in the bible are very specific about temples or cities and tribes and what will befall them. The messiah is mentioned specifically as the one who is pierced or the one riding a donkey or born of a virgin or sold for thirty pieces of silver. These are very apt prophecies for the messiah. Nowhere are there predictions about a merchant of Mecca, unless you count the stuff about antichrist and the false prophet. Nowhere in the Koran is a real prophecy about a specific place or people unless you count the belief in military victory that was smashed by Mohammed losing a couple of battles.
Why then do Muslims persist in calling him a great prophet? Propagandists claim that talking hips (taken to mean beepers) and talking sandals which aren't even in the Koran or hadiths are some sort of Moslem prophecy. Yet Mohammed said several times that he couldn't predict anything. In Sura 46:9, he couldn't even say what would happen to him or if he was going to heaven. The only way to God is given by Jesus in John 14:6 (...no man cometh to the father, but by me).
Some of Mo's other human failings are apparent in sura 33:36-37. This is when he told his adopted son to divorce his wife so that he could have her and add her to his bed. The lustful prophet claimed Allah had condoned it in this sura. Not to have a magic child, which is usually the excuse of latter day cult leaders but simply for his own randy pleasure.
In fact, 33:36 baldly states that Allah and his messenger have decided an affair, clearly a refutation of the argument that the Koran is all revelation from on high.
There's numerous hadith about Mohammed having sex with his wives when they are on their period, and consider his lust wasn't stemmed by anything. Just type 'menses' into a hadith search engine to see the many references to him doing this. Also there's several references to him having sex with his nine year old wife. He was 52 at the time.
Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64 is an unambiguous testimony to this. It's strange but I never hear Islamic scholars falling over themselves to publicize this as Islamic practice. Whatever Mohammed did is usually touted as worthy of doing.
Sura 33:50 says that the prophet can apparently have the daughters of his uncles and aunts if he feels like it in addition to those Allah has given him as the spoils of war. Incest and forced sex with female prisoners is the message here. It claims that it's alright for Mo' to do this with no reproach. Well I reproach you.
Consider the strange exhortation of Mohammed to have his followers bow towards Jerusalem. This was done early on in his career to hopefully influence the Jews to follow him. When they rebuffed him, as did many of his own relatives, he changed the order to no longer bow towards Jerusalem but instead to the Ka'ba in Mecca. This is another instance of inconsistency that hardly jibes with divine immutability.
Even bowing towards Mecca has some curious paradoxes. Consider a mosque on the other side of the planet from Mecca. Does the Muslim face north, south, east or west or simply stare at the floor since that is the true direction of Mecca?
Consider too the denials of falsehood. Sura 53:11 is the equivalent of Mohammed saying he's not a crook. Saying that he isn't making things up reminds you of the angry child that stamps his foot and says he didn't do it. There's a couple of other places where this oddity of protesting his innocence seems unlikely of a true prophet. Ironically of course, he didn't really make any prophecies at all.
Islam seems but an attempt by Mohammed (and his helper) to copy that which the Christians and Jews had. To copy or mimic the strength of having one God. When others denied the truth of his assertions, he sought revenge thru naked and veiled threats against them and started lumping them together with idolaters. As he grew in military strength, so he became more vocal with his threats towards the Jews and Christians.
Surah 96:15 has a passage about grabbing someone by the forelock to stop them praying. As the Jews are the most obvious group with forelocks, this is assumedly written with them in mind.
Saudi Arabia is perhaps the most obvious Islamic country. It's a place where the religious police beat (and worse) Christians. Immigrant workers, particularly Filipinos have been killed for having bibles and trying to follow their Christian beliefs. Not surprising then, that most of the September 11th hijackers were Saudis. Their religious police attempt conversions to Islam at the point of torture. What's the matter with them that they can't coexist with Christianity? Isn't Islam strong enough to take criticism? As the calls for death (fatwas) from mullahs demonstrate, it can't abide questions or insightful enquiries. It is as the Inquisition in its intolerance, a similarly bleak outlook once practiced by the Catholic Church, before a welcome reformation. The fanatical islamicist has to wheedle and threaten because he is incapable of letting any truth illuminate an issue. 'Judge not lest ye be judged' has no meaning for a fascist bully that demands obedience or else.
The halal method of slaughtering animals for food has much cruelty too. Unlike the methods in the west that has evolved stunning as a humane way to do it, Islam insists on full consciousness for an animal before cutting its throat and letting it slowly and consciously bleed to death. I once saw chickens screeching as they were denuded of their feathers by being held against a grindstone, and then being tossed into a bloody heap still alive. The concept of cruelty to animals has no meaning in Islamic countries, where overburdened animals being jabbed with sharp sticks or whipped along is not unusual.
I have also seen cruelties against defenseless animals like kittens with my own eyes, and from the internet I got this account of what gets shown on Syrian TV,
'..acts of animal torture have been publicly broadcast on television from Syria,.. with President Assad of Syria smiling and applauding these horrific acts - male and particularly female Syrian soldiers biting the heads off of snakes and kittens to show what they will do to the Jews. When I saw this on only one news program, with Linda Ellerbe reporting it (completely shocked with it, herself), at around 2am, I wrote to every major news station. The replies I received were all the same: they didn't want to show it because they didn't think the American public could handle it, it was in bad taste or too violent.'
Sadly, neither do the western media like to show the Palestinians stringing up and butchering suspected collaborators in the streets either. This kind of bloodlust and public barbarity is why there are no voices of moderation in Muslim areas. Anyone that questions a regime or the Koran is humiliated and executed. So it is that Islam tends towards radicalization and away from moderation and tolerance.
Another thing that you no longer see openly practiced in Western society is the segregation of men and women. But the segregation of Moslems and non-Muslims as in Saudi Arabia, is reminiscent of apartheid. It wouldn't be tolerated in any modern country and certainly nothing like that could be sanctioned along racial lines.
The Koran says (6:11, 16:36 and many other places) to travel in the land and see the nature of the consequences for the rejecters. Hmmm, well on the one hand we have Moslem countries marked by poverty, flies and -strewn wildernesses. And we have the milk and honey of the West where rich Arabs go shopping and have medical operations to repair their health. Which lands do you consider most blessed? It is typical of travel in Moslem lands that you are urged to agree what a fantastic country it is with one breath and then asked if you can help the speaker get to the west in the next breath. I consider the islamicists hoist by their own petard.
If you consider the above is overly pejorative, I suggest you look around Muslim districts in the West. The ones that I have seen are usually distinguished by a phenomenal amount of rubbish and litter, far in excess of the average area peopled by the native population. Lack of local environmental concern is just one more of the 'fruits' of Islam that you can add to the other fruits of bombers and the fanatics. There is a tendency to ascribe a mess as the will of Allah instead of asserting any personal responsibility.
The rich people from Muslim lands come west to indulge their depravity in the fleshpots of western cities. Now western consumerism is hardly a perfect thing, but it does allow the greatest freedom for the greatest number of people. We are all freer than a Roman emperor to travel the world and indulge ourselves with vices should we so choose. As with the parable of the Tares, the good and the bad coexist side by side. But this access to instant gratification and moral temptation is what allows most of us to mature spiritually and overcome our lusts. To reject those things of our own free will, to indulge and repent are our own rites of passage. The mullahs would have all things they consider bad, removed and banned from society. To cover up women so we can't be tempted, but all this does is really stoke the lusts and desires. So it is then that young suicide bombers can't wait to get to paradise and satiate their lusts on the 72 virgins promised to them by hypocritical clerics. The Sept 11th terrorists like others before them used money to have a few good times in strip clubs and wash down the whiskey at the first opportunity to do so.
It is in human nature that we can't create a completely perfect or lust free society. Making things forbidden only perverts the lusts into other areas. Furthermore what kind of childlike mind must a Muslim have that he can't see an enshrouded woman without being overwhelmed with lust? Like a child, they can't see something without wanting it. So what kind of immature attitude is that? And clearly the idea of covering men up in a bag so that they aren't inciting lust in the women isn't a concern. You don't abolish lust and desire just by removing the object. All that happens is that you are cloaking it, but the base instinct is still there. It is better to have temptations out in the open and trust that each can confront their inner demons as it were, and choose wisely. I forget where I saw it, but I once read that living under Islamic law is like being in a prison run by children.
Individual atrocities by the religious police going round enforcing prayers to Allah are rarely known about. A rare news item about their disgusting practices made it to a newspaper on March 15th 2002 about 15 schoolgirls burned to death in a school. They could have lived but the religious police clubbed them back because they hadn't on the proper headgear. Incidents like this only confirm for me that Islam is a religion that offers death more than it does life. I've long wondered at the Hajj where people are killed in stampedes around the Qa'ba and stoned to death regularly at the stoning of Satan ceremonies, albeit supposedly accidentally. Add to this, the regular explosions of cooking stoves and overcrowded buses crashing, it just seems like a festival of death.
And read this from a Muslim account of the Hajj unintentionally pointing the finger: "The pilgrims circle the black stone so that any radiation or other influence from it will And unite them. People who return from the hajj look like before the journey. You can see buses department for Mecca, with the people joyful, excited and clapping their hands.
But when they return their faces are serious like a stone mask. A believing Brother who lives in Mecca wrote, "We need your prayers especially during the Hajj. We who lives in Mecca feel as if devils are walking through the streets as the time of the pilgrimage. One can almost see and feel the presence of Satan" (from a posting on the debate.org.uk site).
The constant threats, the gloating and hectoring about portents of doom in the Koran yet immediately claiming Allah is merciful, but only to those who convert, is hardly a text full of grace. Typical is the verse at 48:29 that tells Muslims to be 'hard against the disbelievers but compassionate amongst ourselves'. Surah 9:113 even commands Muslims not to pray for non-Muslims. It isn't this book that has spread a message of common humanity. It teaches slavery and submission and death.
Muslims sometimes like to pal up with Christians and say we are all people of the book, but there's enough variance between them and the New Testament to show little in common with the queer one. Despite millions of adherents, Islam has all the hallmarks of a cult. The certainty it offers rather than enlightenment, the numerous prayers from dawn to dusk and its repetitions are well known brainwashing techniques. Mathew 6:7 warns us against repetitions and says "But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking".
When it suits their purposes, Muslims allow that we worship the same God and just call him by different names, but do we? When you hear Muslim scholars or read their arguments as to why the bible is rubbish, it is clear that they have a different conception of God. A scholar like Ahmed Deedat is entertaining when he mocks the names in the bible or questions how someone could slay hundreds with a jawbone or a goad, but his disdain for the bible shows that he rejects the deeper spiritual message therein. On a videotaped debate I saw, Mr Deedat used rhetoric to dismiss the bible's claims and belittle his opponent whilst ignoring the wisdom of the parables or any of God's teaching through his prophets. A bit like concentrating on the eggshell to deny the goodness of the egg within. His opponent, a Christian Arab, made many points but one of the most telling was that Mohammed brought no new revelation to the world.
What Has Islam Ever Done To You...?
Allah Must Be Very Proud!
Now, islamicists would say Mohammed was clarifying the message. But to do that in the highly ambiguous language of Arabic that then lacked vowels seems more of a muddying. In fact, the numerous divisions and sects within Islam show that there is no one clear message anyway.
What could be more of a clarification than Jesus' 'Sermon of the Mount' where he spelled out his doctrine, a kind of hillside press conference? If Jesus wasn't the clarifier that fulfilled numerous prophecies, then how much less must Mohammed have been, that had no prophecies of his coming in the Old Testament?
The message of Jesus is different enough to anyone else's that this marks him out as an especial and unique prophet. The message of Mohammed is at best a reversion, and at worst a devilish attempt to mimic a monotheistic religion. One where everything is different, and one that emphasizes a message of punishment and death rather than one of redemption and life. Would you not consider as I contend that the god of Islam and the God of Jesus are different? Which God is it that wants us to seek understanding and know God for ourselves?
Islam has retarded all aspects of progress because it exhorts slavish acceptance over the spirit of enquiry and understanding. Revisionists of history like to say Islam was the basis of a great civilization, but all it did was conquer already existing cultures like the Assyrians or the Nestorians, and stamp out their learning. What little of Babylonian or Chaldean mathematics and Astronomy that survived was then appropriated.
Another source of Mathematics that the Arabs claim credit for was when they translated Greek books into Arabic, and Europe did indeed rediscover some knowledge this way. What the Muslim revisionists of history don't mention is that all books of history etc and centres of learning like monasteries were destroyed. About the only books that did survive were some mathematical books as they didn't seem to be anything in them that could contradict the Koran. All religious books, history and political treatises didn't make it. Anything potentially damaging to the curse of Mohammed was eradicated.
The revisionists won't mention that when the Sophia mosque (originally a Byzantine church), needed repair, they had to import Armenian Christian craftsmen to fix it. The revisionists don't like to mention the slaughter and destruction of anything that doesn't jibe with the mad mullahs opinions. This is why the Moslem lands didn't come up with mobile phones or televisions or satellites or any great technology and scientific advance. Islam kills the advance of civilization. It literally beheads it.
The revisionists appropriate surviving elements of culture as if they fermented it, yet they are elements that flowered before Islam put it's dead hand upon their bloom.
The Koran is also inaccurate in the scientific claims that its propagandists claim. Although Islam is usually known as being vehemently opposed to progress in the western sense, a few scholars claim that scientific truths can be found within it. They say passages about the mountains being the anchors or tent pegs of the Earth, such as during quakes shows knowledge of geology. When actually many mountain ranges are thrust upward by earthquakes and can shake more violently than anywhere. They claim that a foetus described as resembling a type of blob after 21 days is something only Allah could have known. Yet actually, the day count is out by ten days, and the whole thing was derived from Galen's work on embryos. This Greek knowledge became dispersed along trade routes and Mohammed as a wealthy merchant could easily have gleaned such trivia from ordinary conversations. An obvious refutation of koranic claims to divine knowledge is found at surah 2:222 where instead of a natural cycle, menstruation is declared to be an illness.
Other errors and inconsistencies abound, but are conveniently ignored by Islamic scholars making their scholarship laughable. They seize upon a passage in the bible like the oft quoted one of Deuteronomy 18:15-19 where it mentions a prophet and brethren as indicating Mohammed. Yet it very clearly states that the prophet will be raised up from 'in the midst of thee', not somebody from Arabia. If they really want to use the bible as an authoritative source then perhaps they'd care to interpret the passages about the false prophet spoken of in Revelation (20:7-10).
Clearly, the only major prophet since the time of Jesus is reputedly Mohammed, so when it talks of a false prophet along with the Beast and Satan (Revelation 20:10), who else could be indicated?
Mohammed is the false prophet because he denies Christ. Surah 18:4 says 'Warn those who say Allah hath chosen a son ….. they speak a lie'. A similar claim is found at 19:35 and 17:111 (Allah has not taken himself a son). Since Allah is probably Satan, this is true.
The new testament warns of new gospels and spirits trying to pervert the message. 2Corinthians chapter 11-12 says that even Lucifer can transform himself into an angel of light, and a spirit may try and offer up a new Jesus that the disciples haven't preached. Galatians 1:8 warns that a man or even an angel may try to give a wrong message. Maybe Lucifer had a chat with Mohammed?
The irony is that musselmen say that America is the great Satan, yet there is more evil in their fingers of accusation than in the target. There is more poison in the handle than in the point of their sharp accusations. One thing that life has taught me, is that sometimes the accuser can be more guilty than the accused. A thief thinks of stealing so is ever quick with branding someone else a thief. A crazy person is quick to call others mad, and so on.
The hypocrisy of Moslem nations and Muslims in general abounds. They scream for justice when Palestinians are killed yet are silent when Israeli civilians are murdered. They claim persecution by a Jewish or Christian mere presence. They are quick to point accusing fingers at security forces seeking Islamic terrorists, yet never mention the occupation of Lebanon by Syrian troops. The fountains of blood of the Algerian people massacred by islamicists or the Iran Iraq war that killed millions are considered brotherly quarrels where it is unseemly to interfere. Yet any conflict involving the west or non-Muslims and they bay for blood.
This is hardly a religion of love. Passages of threats and slaughter and chains and doom for non-believers are always then ironically followed by praise for how merciful Allah is. But clearly there is no mercy for non-Muslims. Do the Muslim countries ever go out of their way to help others not of their faith? Of course not, they scourge and issue fatwas of death and burn books in mobs but could not muster a group for charity. With all the oil money, the Saudis have spent it on building mosques and repression, never on feeding the hungry or helping others save as tokens to trumpet their munificence.
This is not a religion of peace, but one of loathing for others. It is the religion of the antichrist. They won't even admit that Jesus was crucified or share his spiritual parables, yet they revel in making up stories about him that aren't in the bible. Odd then
that they will admit it is Jesus and not Mohammed that returns at the end of time. They have sealed up the eastern gate to the temple mount because they fear his entrance through it to throw out the abominators there.
The antichrist mentioned in 1John 2:22 and 2 John 7, is very clear about who it is. It is the one that denies the son and the father, the one that denies Jesus is the Christ.
On the sermon of the mount, Jesus is also quite clear about how to pray. In Mathew 6:6-7, he says, "But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, pray to thy Father which is in secret....use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do…."
Now even many Christian churches ignore the first part of this message, but the Moslem that likes to make a public show of his prayers and uses only repetitions is way off the mark of what Christ asks.
The Christian God and the one called Allah by Muslims are not the same. The two religions are not just two paths to the same top of the mountain. If you accept that Allah was one of many gods in the Ka'ba, then contrast what happened when the Ark of the Covenant was in the vicinity of other false gods. According to 1Samuel 5:1-12, the other idols were found smashed or on their face towards the ark. Now, how come there aren't these kind of stories about Allah amongst the other gods of the Arabic pantheon, the Ka'ba?
Now there are undoubtedly good people of both faiths that are misguided in their belief, but unless each and every one of us takes a personal leap of understanding God, why should we expect God to meet us halfway without us taking a step. In Revelations 3, 16-19, we are warned about being lukewarm and that as many that are loved will be rebuked and chastened.
Allah is the god of deception. Just one of the pantheons of gods worshipped at the Ka'ba, but one that has raised high above the rest.
There are many things that link Allah with Baal, the old moon god of the high places. One of the reasons Muslims hate the skyscrapers of the West, is that they want the high places dedicated to Baal or Allah. This is why buildings in Muslim countries are usually kept low, below the level of the local mosque's minarets. There are numerous biblical references to Baal in the old testament about his high places, and the call to prayer from a minaret is an echo of this.
This derives from the moon being the highest thing in the heavens, so the moon worshippers would get as high as possible from which to worship it. Mohamed himself swears by the moon (84:18), and names a sura after it (54). Black stones throughout pagan Arabia were considered to have fallen from the moon and so were worshipped as a chip off the old block. Black stones were revered as being from the moon because of the moon being dark most of the time.
The Qa'ba in Mecca has a black stone embedded in the wall that the Muslims kiss. In 1 Kings 19:18, it talks about 'all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him'. Just another echo of the connective echoes between Baal and Allah. There's other links such as with the Sumerian God known as Sin, also a moon god and from where Sinai may derive its name.
Ramadan is a festival that emphasizes the crescent moon. Consider also that the Muslim year is based on the moon, and so is shorter than the calendar that the West uses, which is based on the solar year. This reverence for the 'lesser light' is an echo of Lucifer being elevated above that of God himself.
The enmity between God and Baal has a long history, and the wrong god seems to have always been God's main rival for worship. Jeremiah 23:26-27 talks about false dreams in Gods name that cause God's people to forget his name, '..as their fathers have forgotten my name for Baal'.
Furthermore, there's a picture of Baal in the Schofield Reference Bible (opposite page 20 in the concordance) that is taken from a cylinder-seal in the British museum, Babylonian room, Case B. You only have to look at the distinctive cap, beard and long thin form holding his hand to the crescent moon and you will be immediately reminded of a recent terrorist leader.
More damming evidence for the message of Mohammed as being from an infernal source can be found in its own passages. In 31:16, it says Allah is subtle, yet when this attribute is given in the bible, it is given to the serpent.
Surah 86:15 says 'and I plot against them', yet surah 58:10 says 'Conspiracy is only of the devil'.
Among the curses given to the serpent, there is a curious prophecy. In Genesis 3:15, it says 'and thou shalt bruise his heel'. This could be a general statement or it could have a double meaning pertaining to the coming of the messiah. Mohammed coming on the heels of Jesus' ministry could be the bruising alluded to.
Surah 48:29 boasts of the mark Muslims receive from prostrating themselves on the ground. Now is it conceivable that prostrating yourself on the ground puts a mark on the hand and forehead? I'm afraid it is. An Islamic Q&A website describes a mark on the forehead as indicating the most pious.
This is very reminiscent of the reputed mark of the Beast. Unlike God's chosen who will have his name sealed into their foreheads or a writer with an inkhorn that will write God's name for them, the marks of prostration are touted as something other Muslims will recognize, not God. Now this can quickly lead into the prophecy that the mark of the Beast is something that only those bearing it will be allowed to buy and sell. In a way, since only Muslims are allowed into places like Mecca and Medina, this prophecy has been fulfilled.
This mark is also supposedly how angels will recognize the Muslims in hell and yank them out with hooks. This is explained in hadiths (I use the Bukhari ones as they seem most prevalent) Book 8, Vol 76, verse 577 and Book 9, Vol 93, verse 532. Since these passages make it clear that all Muslims will find themselves in hell being yanked around with hooks, I expect that they will then discover that there is no paradise for them and the angels have turned out to be Satan's demons. Too late for them, will they then realize the deception.
One of the most diabolical aspects of Islam is that it denies the right of every human being to have a personal relationship with God. That apparently hasn't been possible since Mohammed. Islam would have us believe that God doesn't want to talk to us or make anything known to us. The Muslim is unable to have a vision or revelation or divine guidance, though they substitute that by talking of dreams they had. Just ask yourself, who it would most please for us to believe that there is no direct contact with God.
Atop most mosques is a horn like feature. Sometimes it can resemble a crescent moon, and sometimes it sits with the prongs pointing directly upwards. No matter which interpretation you put upon it, and whatever way you describe it, it has horns.
The moon has horns just like a beast, and the moon gods of old were frequently shown with beast like features. The picture of Baal that I referred to earlier, has him seated on a throne whose back legs are those of a cloven hoofed beast. There are definite echoes of Baal and the Sumerian god called Sin in Allah. Kissing stones, bowing before them and crescent moons are just the most obvious. Regard 2 Thessalonians 2:3 that warns that the man of sin will be revealed. This is a prophecy with a double meaning.
In case you wonder who this man of sin could possibly be, regard surah 36, rendered in English as 'Ya sin'. Some Moslems say this is an address to man but it is clearly an epithet, the title given to their most unholy prophet as is obvious by reading the first three verses.
If the Muslims are so enamored of God, then let them explain why they fear the return of the messiah? After they conquered Jerusalem, the prophecy that the messiah would return from an eastern direction led them to seal up the Golden Gate, the eastern entrance to Temple Mount.
The return of Jesus may well be as an eagle not a dove. As a lion and not a lamb. By returning as a farmer to reap the harvest, the returned messiah will also satisfy the understanding of the Jews and be recognized as the one they expected. The passages about separating the wheat from the chaff and burning the waste could well be fulfilled.
Perhaps the mosque is the synagogue of Satan talked about in Revelation 2:9 and 3:9. The passage also mentions that those that say they are of Jews will worship there. In a way, this could portend the Arabs who claim descent from Ishmael. Ishmael's descendents were more likely to have been the Jews of Arabia that were eradicated by the Muslims. Today's Arabs are Semitic but may well be mistaken about their descent from Abraham.
So where is the actual temple of God?
The Qa'ba in Mecca is the very antithesis of what God commanded in Exodus 20:25, where he commanded an altar of unhewn stone. Its rectangular walls are a house of pagan gods that existed before the false prophet.
The Old Testament and 99% of theologians would inform you that the temple of God was situated upon Temple Mount in Jerusalem. When the second temple was destroyed by the Romans in 70AD leaving "not one stone upon another", the daily sacrifice of the Jews was ended. This is why Jews gather at the western wall of it, known as the 'wailing wall' where they lament the destruction of the temple.
There are a few things in the bible that I could say to you about abominations that desolate, but as these are sealed up until the end of time, it would be presumptuous of me to attempt to decipher them.
But consider 2 Thessalonians 2:3-12 where the one "sitteth in the temple of God showing himself that he is God". There's only one temple of God and there's only one thing that now sitteth there. It's been sitting there for over 1300 years, and was built shortly after the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem. It is called the Dome of the Rock.
Zechariah in the Old Testament has several chapters about the second coming of the messiah. Descriptions that seem to meet a nuclear scenario. Today's Palestinians are yesterday's Canaanites, and they are the ones currently holding and debarring the Jews from worship at the Temple Mount. So it seems acutely prophetic that the very last verse of Zechariah (14:21) says 'in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the Lord of hosts'.
For some reason, the world's media and the Arab world are outraged by Israeli's defending themselves yet there is no outrage when a gunman shoots a 5 year old child in her bed. It acts as if this is an understandable rage by Islamic militants. Terrorists that target pregnant women then scream about unproven massacres. More women and children have been killed on the Israeli side but the hypocrites pretend it is the other way round. The world castigates a democratic and intellectual state and glorifies religious fascists and throwbacks to a more barbaric era. Nobody seems outraged when gunmen desecrate the church of the nativity yet these same people say it's scandalous if Sharon sets a small foot on temple mount.
What about Islamic ambulances used to transport terrorists and bombs? There is an evil double standard at work. How can the world be more concerned for Arafat holed up with acknowledged murderers more than it is for targeted women and children?
Everyone mentions Arafat being an elected representative, and he is but in the same way that Mugabe wins by intimidating any opposition or Castro who eliminates any opposition.
Just when was this election anyway? In 1996 or something? It's hardly democratic if you only set elections when you know you'll win and never have another election. What we actually call democracies have elections every four years. Arafat didn't have one in 1999 or 2000 because he didn't want anything to crimp his planned terror.
The biography channel has a documentary on Arafat. It mentions his shenanigans with democracy from his student years in Egypt, like when he mobilized blind students to vote for him. Show me a Palestinian that has consistently opposed Arafat over the years and you will be showing a true democracy. No-one can show this, because the hooded men with guns would immediately target any such viewpoint. Fascism is the correct term for such systems.
These evil people only protest the deaths of Muslims. You never hear them decrying the innocent blood of Israelis or even of people in other wars. They support the Bosnian, the Chechen the just about anyone who is nominally Muslim but they never protest the killing of anyone that is not. Consider how many suicide bombers have come from Christian groups. I can't think of a single one because they have reverence for life. Contrast that with the thousands and millions prepared to kill for Allah. This just shows that death is part of the Islamaniac. Consider again the two hundred thousand mentioned in Revelation (Revelation 9:16) as marching on Jerusalem and it seems fairly evident that these could be the islamaniacs surrounding Israel that will fulfill this prophecy.
It is typical of the Muslim fighter that he trains to shoot pregnant women or blow up buses unseen. How brave and noble of them to always pick the soft target and then claim it is they who are the victims. I can only hope that most people can see this clear hypocrisy and inversion of humanitarian feelings for the despicable evil that it is.
I feel that I've slammed Islam pretty good in this essay. My intention is not to foster racism but confront an evil ideology that goes too often unchallenged. To forge an implacable resistance to what I consider the beast. Jeremiah 31:27 tells that the seed of the beast will be sown amongst the houses of Israel and the seed of man, and the islamaniacs are they. You have to know your enemy and know what you are up against. Too many people fall prey to fuzzy multicultural thinking when it comes to Islam. Yes, everyone should be free to have their own beliefs but nurturing a creed that will enslave as soon as it has the opportunity to do so, is not the same as encouraging other cultural pursuits. Too many idiots mouth that 'Islam' means peace when in fact it means 'submission'. They confuse it with the similar word 'salaam'.
The true path of righteousness is a narrow one. For myself I hold that no-one comes to the father without being a Christian first. Jesus said this (John 14:6) and is himself the narrow gate to God. In a multicultural world, they teach that there are many paths leading to the top of the mountain, but there is only one that God wishes you to take. Standards have atrophied to the point where people are wary of saying one way is better than the others, but consider Mathew 7:15-20 as the test of false prophets and that "wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them".
The wicked will never understand but the wise shall perceive. |
|
|
|
| fastmp3 |
ok mike what do you want me to do now ? go to a website that says judaism is ed up and totally wrong and useless and bla bla bla insert negative comment here and do one big copy/past here ?
give it up mike what you are doing is useless :rolleyes: |
|
|
| Az |
I suggest you read "God" by Alexander Waugh, Shlomo, it's a great book, he spent 35 researching it, taking from a huge amount of sources, including the hebrew bible + many others. The book discredits pretty much every major religion on earth, apart from Islam, but does criticise it for not evolving like other religions......
it's interesting reading, although its a little unbiased, you may have trouble reading something which doesn't depict Islam as evil, and Jews being the master race ;) |
|
|
| melech_mike |
| quote: | Originally posted by fastmp3
ok mike what do you want me to do now ? go to a website that says judaism is ed up and totally wrong and useless and bla bla bla insert negative comment here and do one big copy/past here ?
give it up mike what you are doing is useless :rolleyes: |
This man is well read in regards to the Koran; what makes his opinion anyless relevant in regards to the Koran than yours or a clergy figure from Islam?
He cites exact points(although he finds a problem with consistency) of where you could find errors, hate, incitment, and full out contradictions.
The negitive comments he is expressing is in direct relation to the negitive text he read that is the Koran.
I'm simply asking you to correct him - if he's wrong that is.
No need to get all M----m on my ass! Hahahahaha! |
|
|
| melech_mike |
| quote: | Originally posted by Az
I suggest you read "God" by Alexander Waugh, Shlomo, it's a great book, he spent 35 researching it, taking from a huge amount of sources, including the hebrew bible + many others. The book discredits pretty much every major religion on earth, apart from Islam, but does criticise it for not evolving like other religions......
it's interesting reading, although its a little unbiased, you may have trouble reading something which doesn't depict Islam as evil, and Jews being the master race ;) |
I'll give that book a try theDemon!!
Anyone who say's they have "discredited" the Torah is a straight out bullter! I met this chinese mathmatician in Jerusalem a couple years ago. He left China over 15 years ago to come and try to discredit the torah mathamatically. Over 15 years later and he has yet to do so with his team of "investigators".
Do you not think this man, along with many many many other people who believfe Judaism is a farse, would jump onto Alexander Waugh to find out what he knows! Judaism can never, and will never be disproved. I'm not claiming it the be all and end all of all religious texts, just saying it is for me!
Alexander Waugh is just another idiot on that long list of hundreds, if not thousands, who have tried to disprove Judaism. |
|
|
| JM |
no way am i reading this ridiculously long post.
>JM< |
|
|
| melech_mike |
| quote: | Originally posted by JM
no way am i reading this ridiculously long post.
>JM< |
You are one of the people who i predicted wouldn't have the patience to read it. Its all good, no harm done. I just really want those people, who in the past have claimed themselves to be so very familiar with the Koran, to post a worthwhile rebuttal o this essay. |
|
|
| melech_mike |
| quote: | ‘The Koran Says The Jews Would Return To Their Land`: Exclusive Interview With Sheikh Abdul Palazzi
Posted 3/27/2003
By Naomi Klass Mauer, Editor
Sheikh Abdul Palazzi, professor at the Research Institute for Anthropological Studies in Rome, was in the United States recently guest lecturing at Yale University on the possibility of bringing democracy to the Arab world. Having read numerous items about the sheikh, we were interested in meeting him. We caught up with him in New York as he was preparing to return to Italy.
Jewish Press: Tell our readers a little about yourself.
Palazzi: I was born in Rome 42 years ago to a Syrian mother and an Italian father. In addition to teaching at the Research Institute, I also teach a post-doctoral course on Middle East studies, I’m the secretary general for the Italian Muslim Association and the Muslim chair of Islam-Israel Fellowship at the Root and Branch Association.
Do you think democracy can ever come to the Arab world?
The United States has a real opportunity now to accomplish just that. The best proof is Afghanistan. Things are really turning around there and they can do the same thing in Iraq. After the first Gulf war ended the Emir was left in place in Kuwait. Slavery is rampant in Kuwait, but no one tried to replace the Emir with a real democracy, or to abolish slavery. Everything was left in place. But this time if the U.S. proves that it wants the globalization of democracy, it has a real chance to accomplish it in Arab countries. When you show the Arab world that you side with Arab leaders who kill them or enslave them, they lose all hope of change. An example is Arafat. When you build him up and the people know who he is, they have no hope of a change. I am terribly concerned that President Bush speaks of a Palestinian state. I am afraid that once this war with Iraq is won, the pressure on Israel to create a Palestinian state will be enormous. You cannot get rid of one terrorist state and then create a new one. And the Palestinian Authority will be worse, because they are the true allies of Saddam Hussein.
You know the terrorists always claim to be followers of the Koran.
The Koran is being misread. The Koran forbids mistreatment of Jews and the state is obligated to protect them. At the time of the Ottoman Empire Jews held positions in the government. The Koran says before the end of days the Jews will return to their land. At the end of World War One, Sharif Al Hussein, the leader of the Hashemite family and governor of Mecca said, when he saw the Jews returning to Palestine, “We are seeing what was foretold in the Koran. When others settled there the land stayed barren, but now the land recognizes its original sons and it is producing.”
It’s too bad the Palestinian Arabs don’t know that.
They can’t know it because these passages have been removed from their books. The PA selected only certain sources for their books. All of the proofs are deleted. But in other Islamic countries you do find all proofs in the Koran. You know, before 1967, Islamists referred to the Jews as Palestinians and the present-day Palestinians were called Jordanians. In Jerusalem, Imam Tabari, an important cleric, wrote an important book, “Lives of Prophets and Kings” He described the life of King Solomon and the Temple he built. Anyone who denies this not only denies history, but denies Islamic sources.
The Palestinian Arabs even deny that the Holy Temple ever stood on the Temple Mount.
I was part of an international delegation that visited Israel in 2000. The Wakf took us to visit Al Aksa. Right outside of the Dome of the Rock is a small chapel on the eastern side. “What is this place?” I asked. “It is the place where Solomon stood to dedicate the Temple,” was the reply. “Then why do you deny this?” I asked. With a smile I was told, “For political reasons.” Mecca and Medina are the holiest places for Islam. Jerusalem is shared with Jews and Christians. Why, according to Islam, did Mohammed go to Jerusalem? To meet all the prophets from other religions who worshiped there. Islam is faith in monotheism, faith in prophets, faith in humanity. The basic distinction is monotheism versus idolatry. And this concept it shares with Judaism.
This is just one of many instances of historical revisionism on the part of the Arabs.
Another example of history being forgotten concerns the 1919 agreement between Chaim Weizmann and King Faisel of Jordan and Iraq. The agreement said that the Jordan River was the border between the Jewish state and the Arab state. The Arabs did not oppose this. Then the British came and created Saudi Arabia, taking land from Jordan. So they told them to take some of the land back from the Jews. When the kingdom of Saudi Arabia was created, control of Mecca and Medina was thereby given to Wahabbism, the most primitive tribe of all. Islamic scholars were horrified. Then oil was discovered and they became all powerful and forced everyone to believe in Wahabbism and killed whoever didn’t. With the passing of years they became more sophisticated. Wahabbism in its original form is still practiced in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. It is their official religion.
Regarding the situation in Iraq, are you surprised by the way the French have acted?
Unfortunately, no. France has reached a new low level. They want the regime of Saddam to survive because they have a financial interest in him.
What about the Vatican?
Tariq Aziz was warmly welcomed by the Vatican and the Franciscan Monks prayed with him for Bush to repent. The pope approved the war against Milosevic – was he worse than Saddam Hussein?
We recall that the pope didn’t condemn the Arab gunmen who took over the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem last year.
No voice of dissent is heard inside the Catholic church. In the past there were many instances where bishops and cardinals voiced an opposite point of view. But not this time. The Franciscan priest inside the Church of the Nativity acted as if the Arabs were just seeking refuge from the Israelis. He is now visiting Italy and has such deep-rooted anti-Semitism that he is speaking out against Israel wherever he goes.
The Arab bishops who depend on their dictators for appointments are increasing inside the Vatican. The best bishops and cardinals are retiring, leaving a terrible vacuum. Cardinal Martini was an honorable and brilliant scholar from Milano. He said you cannot accept opinions of dictators in religious matters.
After his retirement he was sent to Jerusalem. He was accepted by the Latin Patriarchate only because the pope sent him, but they don’t like him and refer to him as “the Zionist.”
What is your view of the now discredited Oslo peace process?
Oslo was a basic mistake, and unless Israel takes steps to end it and publicly renounce it, we cannot expect the rest of the world to do so. When we in Italy try to stop the European Union from transferring money to Arafat, they answer us that even Israel is doing so. And why shouldn’t Bin Laden hope to be forgiven like Arafat was? Oslo abolished one of the basic principles of international law. If you are a terrorist, your crimes will not be forgiven. The world needs to be reminded of that.
* * * * *
The day after our interview a suicidal Arab terrorist blew up a bus in Haifa. A protest was immediately organized outside the PLO mission in New York by Rabbi Avi Weiss. Sheikh Palazzi, about to leave the country, joined Rabbi Weiss at that protest. It was the first time a Moslem sheikh took part in such a protest.
|
|
|
|
| torontotrance |
I don't believe with islam but why are you posting this stuff? to offend muslims in the forums?. I just don't get it
| quote: | | I will ignore any comments made towards me accussing me of racism as i find it to be rediculous, and extremely offensive and demeaning to my character. |
rofl.....lies....lies and more lies. |
|
|
| ferrycorstenfan |
| I think he's forgetting that this is T R A N C E A D D I C T and the primary usage is to talk music, not spouting bull propaganda, You know I am pro-Israel in many respects but you are a pathetic lifeform, if you cared so much u'd be over there doing something about it, we dont need ppl like you here, you racist bastard, so why don't u leave b4 ur forced off |
|
|
| torontotrance |
| I think as people we should ask questions because then you open dialogue about things. Asking questions about religion is good in my opinion, no matter the religion because I think when we stop asking questions, we tend to close the dialogue and just do nothing. I find when you ask questions about things, it opens dialogue with others who may share or may not share your view and then maybe you see some points that you never thought of. |
|
|
|
|
