News:

About us: a forum for monotheists, and discussion of Islam based on The Quran

Main Menu
Menu

Show posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Show posts Menu

Topics - harris

#1
Salaam.

Hadiths teach that the Prophet of Islam was a man who had a dozen wives while living a very active sexual life. But when one examines history, it can be proved logically that the Prophet would have lived a life of celibacy after the death of his beloved wife Khadija.

Looking for rational proof?

1. The Prophet lived most of his life in a monogamous relationship. It seems highly illogical that a man who was in complete peace living only with one woman from the age of 25-50years (his wife was 15 years his senior) , would suddenly become desirous of having multiple sex partners during his senior years. When he was legally entitled to have more than one wife, why did he not pursue that direction earlier in life?

2. None of the Prophet's wives ever became pregnant after marriage to him. Think about it! Is that not an unbelievable situation if the Prophet was indeed having normal marital relationships with them? There can be no question of impotence or sterility on the Prophet's part; his children by Khadija were proof of that. No question either of barrenness on the part of the other wives, since all except Aisha had children by previous husbands. How then did ALL his wives consistently remain childless throughout their marriages with the Prophet?

Thus the only explanation that can be deduced is that the multiply married Prophet remained celibate after the death of his beloved Khadijah. He married women who had no other support in society so as to provide them financial assistance and a secure home, taking care of those who had no other way to take care of themselves; he also agreed to marriages that would help solidify political bonds in order to strengthen the infant Islamic community.




There is but one another rumour of the Prophet's son 'Ibrahim' who was born to him through his 'concubine'- Mariya the Copt, an Egyptian slave whom Muhammad had freed and kept for himself (other sources say she was a gift from the Egyptian ruler, Al-Muqawqis). There are hadiths which try to explain the following story about Mariya:

It was claimed that the Prophet betrayed his own wives when he slept with his concubine Maria in the house of Hafsah on the day he was supposed to be with her. Hafsah became angry and asked:

?in my home, on my bed, during my day??

The Messenger then said that he would never approach Maria again if it would make Hafsah happy and swore an oath that he would never touch Maria again. That is when the Quranic revelation came:

Qur'an 66:1-2?O Prophet! why do you forbid (yourself) that which Allah has made lawful for you; you seek to please your wives; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. Allah indeed has sanctioned for you the expiation of your oaths and Allah is your Protector, and He is the Knowing, the Wise.

Even if this story were to be true, it only shows that the Prophet definitely took oaths of celibacy atleast from one of his partners. On the other hand, one can argue that the Prophet who lived a life of celibacy, fell in love once again much later in life with Mariya the Copt (who was supposedly very beautiful) and became desirous of her to the horror of his other wives. It was their jealousies that lead to Prophet denying himself the love he felt for this women, which was chastised in the Quranic verse.

In either case, since the child of Mariya 'Ibrahim' died at seventeen months old, and it remains unclear if the baby and the relationship itself ever actually existed, in a culture in which sons were considered a sign of their fathers? virility, the whole story could have just been a kind of legendary assurance of the Prophet?s honor.

Too many centuries have passed by to know anything for certain. But one thing is- The Prophet did not marry Ayesha before puberty because he had 'worldly motives'.

As the Orientalist scholar W Montgomery Watt wrote: "Of all the world's great men, none has been so much maligned as Muhammad."

#2
General Issues / Questions / Y are we mum?
January 12, 2015, 01:14:52 AM
Peace,

One of the largest rallies in the history of Europe in recent times has taken place. World leaders have joined to show their solidarity. Media around the world is filled with news and opinions about how freedom of speech is under attack. The Paris attack is the talking point everywhere today.

In all this, the usual accusations we see against Muslims are
-Muslims are unable to peacefully integrate and live in any society that welcomes them
-Islam is an intolerant religion whose followers are brain-washed to commit such atrocities
-Educated and moderate Muslims whose role it is to stand up for the cause of humanity are usually silent when such inhuman attacks occur, which indirectly shows their acceptance of the forces of violence.

This last point seems to be atleast partially true.. Even in this forum, supposedly one of the places where enlightened Muslims come together, there is not a single discussion about these world incidents. Isn't that a pity?  :giveup:



#3
Peace to all bros n sisters,

As part of the Christmas season, here's something that I wanted to bring out: The nature of Christ

I have always been perturbed as to the nature of Christ. Not because I am influenced by the Trinitarian concept of Christians, but because of the truths revealed by the Holy Quran that we are expected to believe:

1) Why did God provide the Only virgin birth in the history of mankind to Christ? No human being has been born in such a way and there is no reason at all for this to happen. What was the need for this miracle? Why are believers supposed to suspend logic? The believer will reason that it was a proof of his messengership, proving that God can do anything. But being born of a virgin can never stand the test of proof and will only be ridiculed by disbelievers as the fairy tales of an immoral woman and her son. So what did God achieve with this unnatural birth?

2) Why does God inform us that the likeness of Christ is the same as that of Adam? As proof of their similarity, even the 25 number of times both are mentioned is exactly the same!

3) Why did God raise Christ back to heaven? Every human being dies and becomes dust. Why not Christ? What was special about him that his body had to be raised?

4) Why was Christ able to do miracles that were much greater than any other Prophet? He spoke from the cradle, breath life into birds made of clay and even raised dead people!



Thus the following facts come into picture:
1) If Christ was born of a virgin, it shows that his nature "requires" that he not be born of the seed of man.
2) If Christ is like Adam, he too would have to be created in Paradise, before being born on Earth, similar to Adam with neither father nor mother. We know Adam was sent to Earth from Paradise.
3) If Christ was raised back to heaven, it shows that he would not be judged on the Judgement Day.
4) If Christ spoke from the cradle, it shows that age was not of concern for his learning and wisdom. He already had the wisdom required about God and his own mission on Earth.


These facts lead us to conclude that Christ could not have been a mere human whose life began 2000 years back, but was a being created in Paradise just as Adam was created by God Almighty. Similar conclusions have been reached by some Christian groups such as Jehovah's Witness (who do not support the trinitarian view) too. They all point to him being Michael, the Archangel.

Proofs?
Many of you may not believe in the Bible itself, but there are verses in the Bible where Christ quotes:
1) that he lived much before Abraham (the very reason for the false conclusion by Christians that he is god incarnate)
2) that he will send another who is similar to him after he is gone (he sent Gabriel with the Quran to Muhammad)



Bible also says
1) Christ is a begotten son of God (not to be understood in the blasphemous way the Christians understand it.. but the meaning makes sense if you consider that Adam too was begotten (initiated). Both Michael and Adam were directly created by God Himself. Thus both can be said to be first 'sons' of God, before we began life as sons too.)
2) Baptise in the name of God, Christ and Spirit (we see a similar verse in the Quran itself!)

Don't believe? Define the meaning of this verse:

Anyone who opposes God, and His angels, and His messengers, and Gabriel and Michael, should know that God opposes the disbelievers.
(Holy Quran- 2:98)


Why does God seperate Gabriel and Michael from other angels? Why are they specificaly mentioned? Ever wondered?
Answer - Because they are not like other angels but of different nature.
Gabriel is the Holy Spirit (26:193) through whom all life is created.
Michael is the Archangel who fights the forces of Satan.



Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! :sun:

In the end, our worship is to GOD Almighty Alone. The Creator and Master of All. None is worthy of worship except Him.

#4

Salaam Bros n Sisters,

Its been a long time since I posted. As a rational monotheist Muslim, I am content that I follow a religion that is most logical and superior to all other beliefs on Earth. But then there are yet questions about Islam that bother me. These are questions that pop-up when discussing religion with people of other religions. I would be grateful if all of you here could provide your own views and responses.


Shukran.

Here are a few queries....

1) We usually discuss that the Holy Quran is very scientific, logical and one will not find any nonsense within it. But then we also have verses that discuss about King Solomon's time when he 'spoke' to the hoopoe bird and heard the ant; when 'jinns' did all kinds of magical stuff in daily life. Verses talk about the bad effects of black-magic, the evil-eye etc. all of which are truly unscientific. Hindus are quick to point out such verses to show that their outlandish mythologies of demons and gods on earth are comparatively the same in this regard. On what basis can one invite a rational polytheist/ disbeliever/ pagan/ athiest to 'believe' Islam when we have to ask him to accept our unbelievable stories, so as to leave behind his own illogical beliefs?

3) If Islam is the true word of God, why is there so much chaos, suffering and hatred in the Muslim world? If we explain that this is because average Muslims do not follow the real word of God from the Quran, then the Christian asks, why then did God reveal the Quran, if people ultimately did not follow it? What is the utility of the revelation when it is not used for society's benefits? Why is it that the world's most peaceful, techonologically advanced and democratic countries that give human freedoms are all nations that DO NOT follow the message of Islam? For whose benefit was the "final message" of the Quran revealed? For just a few individuals here and there who call themselves monotheists? What is the need for the message, when mankind is always attaining its ethical and moral goals through other sources?
We say the Bible is not truly the word of God, but contains conflicting messages. How is it that the adherents of the Bible, even today are the most blessed of all people,the most charitable and the most powerful? They have established schools, hospitals and orphanages across the world, with countless priests and nuns having dedicated their lives for the welfare of the needy. How many Muslims organisations are doing half of this work?

3) Something as basic as marriage..if it is allowed by God to have up to 4 wives for men, (assuming that one can be just and fair to each wife) why is it that the Prophet of Islam had upto 9 wives at the same time? Isn't the very messenger, breaking the message he preached? Isn't that hypocrisy?

Any answers to these queries would really make life a lot easier.. Thank you so much for your time!
Peace.

#5
Salaam bros n sistas,

Been sometime since i started a thread. So here's my query.
It is understood that Islam allows marriage between relatives including first-cousins. In fact marriage between cousins is very common in the pakistani and other muslim communities in the UK.

Since the western world still frowns at this and its pretty much illegal in most parts of the States, my question is

Does modern science give concrete evidence that cousins marrying can indeed significantly increase the possibility of genetic defects in the new-borns?
If there indeed is heightened danger, then why does not the Holy Book forbid the same? I mean wouldn't it make as much sense as forbidding alcohol and pork?  :o 






i only ask this as our families are interested in getting my son married to his female cousin, Inshallah if they would like to do so in the future (still another 15 years to go, before either of them even get their driver's- licence so i'm just planning very very early  :laugh:).

SHUKRAN.
#6

Salaam all,

Now I'm a believer that the Holy Book is the true word of GOD. But I couldn't help wondering how scientifically accurate the below verse is:

[29:14] We sent Noah to his people, and he stayed with them one thousand years, less fifty.* Subsequently, they incurred the flood because of their transgressions.

Do you think that the messenger really lived for almost a millennium? I'm guessing it must be a problem with the calendar used those days. Maybe during the time of Noah its possible they had a calendar where each month was considered an year.
Or maybe "one thousand years less fifty' has some other inner meaning.... :giveup:

Peace.
#7
Salaam bros n sistas,

A picture speaks a thousand words. Therefore instead of indulging in never-ending arguments with those who disbelieve that the Holy Quraan alone can save us, I'd simply like the following pictures which showcase the state of affairs in our 'so-called' islamic world today, to speak for themselves.

I just have a single simple question though: If the present form of Islam practiced is the one true path that Allah almighty has prescribed, why is there so much violence, ignorance, poverty and hatred in the muslim world today?


Inshallah, may those who are able to think for themselves see the light.




There is good news for them in the life of this world and in the Hereafter. There is no changing the words of Allah. That is the great victory!
-Sura 10:64


Warning: images may be disturbing to some viewers.










http://www.theodoresworld.net/pcfreezone/ashura_day_two.jpg



http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/assets/library/081209nipeid--122882529717778700.jpg










http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/lo6uRwwnFH0/hqdefault.jpg

http://media.cleveland.com/nationworld_impact/photo/time-magazine-afghan-girl-nosejpg-353a12e38f89803a_large.jpg























http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_8t59jorH2DM/R0fHPEojnFI/AAAAAAAABNY/EOXmxfsUzpE/s400/Paul+Johnson+Beheading.jpg




http://angrywhitedude.com/wp-content/uploads2/2010/02/mmuslim-woman-beheaded.jpg



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~And the Messenger will say (on the Day of Judgment), "O my Lord, my people have rejected this Qur'an." -Sura 25:30~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


PEACE.


Moderator edit: added warning
#8
General Issues / Questions / Re: advice needed
October 27, 2010, 05:39:31 AM
Quote from: Alen on October 26, 2010, 12:50:58 PM
If they - for example - see me pray, they see that my hands are along my body, that I don't point my finger to the sky nor that I give salaams to either sides, they ask me why. I respond that it is not in The Qur'an.

Salaam brother Alen,
Just wondered why you feel that giving salaams to either sides after salat is wrong? The Holy Quraan clearly states that GOD's angels are with us constantly. If a Muslim believes in this fact, isn't it obligatory to greet the angels with Salaam?




[50:17] Two recording (angels), at right and at left, are constantly recording.
[50:18] Not an utterance does he utter without an alert witness.


[13:11] Shifts (of angels) take turns, staying with each one of you - they are in front of you and behind you. They stay with you, and guard you in accordance with GOD's commands.


[17:78] (Reciting) the Quran at dawn is witnessed.






I mean, you wouldn't wanna be rude with the dude in your company who's job is to record and assesses your work quality, would you?
The least you could do is say hello  ;)

Peace.
#9

Salaam bros n sistas,

We've been hearing it for the last 10years: All Muslims may not be terrorists, but all terrorists are definitely muslims!
Sadly, even though we don't want to agree, many of us believe it is true in our hearts... whatever American media preaches, the rest of the world believes ryt?  well here's proof that its all hogwash!!










All Terrorists are Muslims?Except the 94% that Aren?t
Posted on 20 January 2010 by Danios

CNN recently published an article entitled Study: Threat of Muslim-American terrorism in U.S. exaggerated; according to a study released by Duke University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, ?the terrorist threat posed by radicalized Muslim-Americans has been exaggerated.?

Yet, Americans continue to live in mortal fear of radical Islam, a fear propagated and inflamed by right wing Islamophobes.  If one follows the cable news networks, it seems as if all terrorists are Muslims.  It has even become axiomatic in some circles to chant: ?Not all Muslims are terrorists, but nearly all terrorists are Muslims.? Muslims and their ?leftist dhimmi allies? respond feebly, mentioning Waco as the one counter example, unwittingly affirming the belief that ?nearly all terrorists are Muslims.?

But perception is not reality.  The data simply does not support such a hasty conclusion.  On the FBI?s official website, there exists a chronological list of all terrorist attacks committed on U.S. soil from the year 1980 all the way to 2005.


Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Soil by Group, From 1980 to 2005, According to FBI Database

According to this data, there were more Jewish acts of terrorism within the United States than Islamic (7% vs 6%).  These radical Jews committed acts of terrorism in the name of their religion.  These were not terrorists who happened to be Jews; rather, they were extremist Jews who committed acts of terrorism based on their religious passions, just like Al-Qaeda and company.

Yet notice the disparity in media coverage between the two.  It would indeed be very interesting to construct a corresponding pie chart that depicted the level of media coverage of each group.  The reason that Muslim apologists and their ?leftist dhimmi allies? cannot recall another non-Islamic act of terrorism other than Waco is due to the fact that the media gives menial (if any) coverage to such events.  If a terrorist attack does not fit the ?Islam is the perennial and existential threat of our times? narrative, it is simply not paid much attention to, which in a circuitous manner reinforces and ?proves? the preconceived narrative.  It is to such an extent that the average American cannot remember any Jewish or Latino terrorist; why should he when he has never even heard of the Jewish Defense League or the Ejercito Popular Boricua Macheteros?  Surely what he does not know does not exist!

The Islamophobes claim that Islam is intrinsically a terrorist religion.  The proof?  Well, just about every terrorist attack is Islamic, they retort.  Unfortunately for them, that?s not quite true.  More like six percent.  Using their defunct logic, these right wingers ought now to conclude that nearly all acts of terrorism are committed by Latinos (or Jews).  Let them dare say it?they couldn?t; it would be political and social suicide to say such a thing. Most Americans would shut down such talk as bigoted; yet, similar statements continue to be said of Islam, without any repercussions.

The Islamophobes live in a fantasy world where everyone is supposedly too ?politically correct? to criticize Islam and Muslims.  Yet, the reality is the exact opposite: you can get away with saying anything against the crescent.  Can you imagine the reaction if I said that Latinos should be profiled because after all they are the ones who commit the most terrorism in the country? 

The moral of the story is that Americans ought to calm down when it comes to Islamic terrorism.  Right wingers always live in mortal fear?or rather, they try to make you feel that way.  In fact, Pamela Geller (the queen of internet Islamophobia) literally said her mission was to ?scare the bejeezus outta ya.? Don?t be fooled, and don?t be a wuss.  You don?t live in constant fear of radicalized Latinos (unless you?re Lou Dobbs), even though they commit seven times more acts of terrorism than Muslims in America.  Why then are you wetting yourself over Islamic radicals?  In the words of Cenk Uygur: you?re at a ten when you need to be at a four.  Nobody is saying that Islamic terrorism is not a matter of concern, but it?s grossly exaggerated.



Reference:
http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/not-all-terrorists-are-muslims/
#10






Salaam bros n sistas,

Recently i realized that my wife has completely stopped putting on nail-polish.. i guess it must have something to do with wat her aunts n other relatives talk to her about- tat it is haraam, nullifies her prayers blah blah...  :whatever:

Any clue on wat great logic this 'idea' is based on? Does it hold any water?  :confused:



More importantly, How the heck do i convince her tat its all bull****?
:brickwall:  :brickwall:   :brickwall:

Any verses in the Holy Quran which can directly prove the foolishness of such a belief wud be most helpful...  :pr


Peace
.
#11
Salaam all,

Just to share the good news that last week I was able to go to Mecca for Umra. Finally got to do the Tawaaf at the Kaabah and witness the marvel that has been passed down through generations of believers for 5000 years... passed down to us from the time of Prophet Abraham...

You can read about my experience at my blog www.harris.blog.com

Hope you guys too get a chance to do a pilgrimage sooner or later. Inshallah.

Peace
#12
Checkout the latest absurdity from 'wise' clerics whose only function is to bring shame to our people.. Its all over the news
wonder how some muslims still look up to them :confused:


Saudi Clerics Advocate Adult Breast-Feeding
15 days 12 hours ago
Dana Kennedy, AOL News
(June 5) -- Women in Saudi Arabia should give their breast milk to male colleagues and acquaintances in order to avoid breaking strict Islamic law forbidding mixing between the sexes, two powerful Saudi clerics have said. They are at odds, however, over precisely how the milk should be conveyed.



A fatwa issued recently about adult breast-feeding to establish "maternal relations" and preclude the possibility of sexual contact has resulted in a week's worth of newspaper headlines in Saudi Arabia. Some have found the debate so bizarre that they're calling for stricter regulations about how and when fatwas should be issued.

Sheikh Al Obeikan, an adviser to the royal court and consultant to the Ministry of Justice, set off a firestorm of controversy recently when he said on TV that women who come into regular contact with men who aren't related to them ought to give them their breast milk so they will be considered relatives.

"The man should take the milk, but not directly from the breast of the woman," Al Obeikan said, according to Gulf News. "He should drink it and then becomes a relative of the family, a fact that allows him to come in contact with the women without breaking Islam's rules about mixing."

Obeikan said the fatwa applied to men who live in the same house or come into contact with women on a regular basis, except for drivers.

Al Obeikan, who made the statement after being asked on TV about a 2007 fatwa issued by an Egyptian scholar about adult breast-feeding, said that the breast milk ought to be pumped out and given to men in a glass.

But his remarks were followed by an announcement by another high-profile sheik, Abi Ishaq Al Huwaini, who said that men should suckle the breast milk directly from a woman's breast.

Shortly after the two sheiks weighed in on the matter, a bus driver in the country's Eastern Region reportedly told one of the female teachers whom he drives regularly that he wanted to suckle milk from her breast. The teacher has threaten to file a lawsuit against him.

The fatwa stems from the tenets of the strict Wahhabi version of Islam that governs modern Saudi Arabia and forbids women from mixing with men who are not relatives. They are also not allowed to vote, drive or even leave the country without the consent of a male "guardian."

Under Islamic law, women are encouraged to breast-feed their children until the age of 2. It is not uncommon for sisters, for example, to breast-feed their nephews so they and their daughters will not have to cover their faces in front of them later in life. The custom is called being a "breast milk sibling."

But under Islamic law, breast milk siblings have to be breastfed before the age of 2 in five "fulfilling" sessions. Islam prohibits sexual relations between a man and any woman who breastfed him in infancy. They are then allowed to be alone together when the man is an adult because he is not considered a potential mate.

"The whole issue just shows how clueless men are," blogger Eman Al Nafjan wrote on her website. "All this back and forth between sheiks and not one bothers to ask a woman if it's logical, let alone possible to breastfeed a grown man five fulfilling breast milk meals.

"Moreover, the thought of a huge hairy face at a woman's breast does not evoke motherly or even brotherly feelings. It could go from the grotesque to the erotic but definitely not maternal."

Al Nafjan said many in the country were appalled by the fatwa.

"We have many important issues that need discussing," Al Nafjan told AOL News Friday. "It's ridiculous to spend time talking about adult breast-feeding."

Unlawful mixing between the sexes is taken very seriously in Saudi Arabia. In March 2009, a 75-year-old Syrian widow, Khamisa Mohammed Sawadi, living in the city of Al-Chamil, was given 40 lashes and sentenced to six months in prison after the religious police learned that two men who were not related to her were in her house, delivering bread to her.

One of the two men found in her house, Fahd, told the police that Sawadi breast-fed him as a baby so he was considered a son and had a right to be there. But in a later court ruling, a judge said it could not be proved that Fahd was her "breast milk son." Fahd was sentenced to four months in prison and 40 lashes, and the man who accompanied him got six months and 60 lashes.

The original adult breast-feeding fatwa was issued three years ago by an Egyptian scholar at Egypt's al-Azhar University, considered Sunni Islam's top university. Ezzat Attiya was expelled from the university after advocating breast-feeding of men as a way to circumnavigate segregation of the sexes in Egypt.

A year ago, Attiya was reinstated to his post.



checkout related news:
http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/saudi-clerics-advocate-adult-breast-feeding/19504280

http://www.timesnewsline.com/news/Saudi-Clerics-Call-For-Adult-Breast-Feeding-1275746201/

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2010/06/09/2010-06-09_saudi_clerics_issue_fatwa_okaying_adult_breastfeeding_as_way_of_circumventing_is.html
#13

Here's how the diversion of the religion of Jesus (pbuh) took place from it's original teachings:


1) Around 2000 years back, Jesus (pbuh) came to show the Jews how their religion had been changed from that preached to them by Moses and their previous prophets (pbut).

2) Jesus (pbuh) called the Jews back to the true religion of God sent down upon their previous messengers. Jesus himself observed every single aspect of the religion of Moses (pbuh) steadfastly and uncompromisingly. He fasted as Moses (pbuh) fasted, he worshipped as Moses (pbuh) worshipped, he refrained from tasting a single pig, he observed the Sabbath, never having violated it. He did this up until the crucifixion. It was only after the crucifixion, according to the Bible, that he allegedly returned in "visions" to Paul in order to nullify the law he had spent his whole life upholding. The Bible actually bears witness that during his lifetime, Jesus commanded his followers to follow the religion of Moses (pbuh) and threatened severe retribution from God for all of his followers who would forsake a single aspect of this religion until the end of time.

3) Jesus (pbuh) departed from this earth and his apostles continued to follow his teachings religiously. They too followed the religion of Moses (pbuh) as Jesus (pbuh) had done before them and commanded them to do. For the first three decades after the departure of Jesus (pbuh), the followers of Jesus would merely be Jews who affirmed that Jesus (pbuh) was their promised Messiah. For the first three decades after the departure of Jesus (pbuh), his followers would continue to worship in the synagogues and Temple of the Jews and observe all of the aspects of the religion of Moses (pbuh) without exception.

4) Shortly after the departure of Jesus (pbuh), a Jew named Saul of Tarsus (the future Saint Paul) persecutes Jesus' followers in every way possible. By his own admission, he does his utmost to utterly waste the Church and to wipe the religion of Jesus from the face of the earth and the minds of men. He has never met Jesus (pbuh) in person.

5) Suddenly Saul claims to be receiving "visions" from Jesus (pbuh). The apostle Barnabas takes him under his wing, and through Barnabas he is accepted by the rest of the apostles. Barnabas then travels with him extensively until his reputation as a persecutor and killer of Christians is replaced with one of a true convert.

6) Now Saul parts ways with the apostle of Jesus (pbuh), Barnabas, and decides to preach to the Gentiles. He claims that the apostles of Jesus (pbuh) are lazy, misguided, hypocrites. He claims that it was necessary for him to constantly guide the apostles out of their ignorance into the truth of God which he was receiving in his "visions." He openly claims that he learned nothing from the apostles, and every single word he preached was from direct divine inspiration. The neighboring gentiles hated the Jews with such a passion that he found it all but impossible to convince them to accept the Judaism that Jesus (pbuh) practiced his whole life and taught his apostles to carry on after him until the end of time.

7)  Saul readily admits in the Bible in many places that he was willing to do anything without exception in order to convert the gentiles. He claims that everything has been made lawful for him. For this reason, Saul begins to compromise with the pagan gentiles and simplify the religion of Jesus for them in order to make it more appealing to them that they might convert.

8 ) Saul continues to compromise with the gentiles and mold the religion of Jesus (pbuh) closer and closer to their established beliefs in order to gain their conversion. In the end, all that he requires of them is "faith" without work. The pagan gentiles he is preaching to worship many "sons of almighty Jupiter or Zeus" and other such gods. Among them are such as Attis, Adonis, Dionysus, etc. They believe that these pagan gods had died for their sins and been resurrected. Saul now explains to them that Jesus (pbuh) was not merely a normal human prophet but a "Son of God" and that this "Son of God" died in atonement for the sins of all mankind. The Gentiles immediately see the parallels and the great degree of similarity with that which they already believe. All they have to do is change a few labels. In this manner, Saul manages to convince the Greeks (and other gentiles) to accept the "religion of Jesus." This is because, unlike the Jews, the religion of the Greeks already accepts "Trinities," and "father gods" and "son gods," and the death of gods, and the resurrection of gods, and the incarnation of gods, and divine savior gods, and the eating of the flesh of gods, and the drinking of the blood of gods...etc. All of these concepts are old news to them. He becomes a great leader among them and is named "Saint Paul."

9) "Saint Paul" now writes extensively and gains more and more converts.  Once his converts begin to exceed the number of converts to the more strict and demanding religion of the apostles of Jesus (pbuh), they begin to kill the followers of the apostles, persecute them, and burn their Gospels.

10)  The followers of "Saint Paul" are challenged to prove their claims of "son of God," "original sin," ..etc. through the scriptures and prove that Jesus (pbuh) or God had anything to do with them. They cannot. There are too many verses which declare that there is only ONE God in existence and that He does not hold mankind responsible for the sin of any man. Examples of these verses are available to this day (e.g. Isaiah 43:10-11, Ezekiel 18:19-20, Deuteronomy 24:16...etc.). Thus, it becomes necessary for them to recognize that God is a "Trinity" similar to the ancient "Trinities" of the Greeks and Romans so that they can have three Gods but claim that they only worship one. The ancient "Trinities" of Greek philosophy are redefined with new labels and applied to God Almighty in order to define this new doctrine of "three gods in one." Once again, the "Trinity" could not be proven through the Bible, so the Church began to receive divine inspiration from God commanding them to clarify their Bible so that the "Trinity" could be seen clearly. These "clarifications" would only be discovered by the scholars of Christianity centuries later. They would later provide irrefutable proof of how, when, and by whom these "clarifications" were inserted into the Bible. In the twentieth century, Thirty two conservative biblical scholars of the highest eminence backed by fifty cooperating denominations would justly throw out 1 John 5:7 as a fabricated insertion of the church. Many other fabrications would be discovered by them.

11) For the first four centuries CE Christianity is split into innumerable sects of countless divergent beliefs. Countless gospels of varying degrees of authenticity begin to spring up. These sects bitterly fight among one another with each one claiming that they alone possess the "true" religion of Jesus and the "true" Gospel. All of these sect vie for the backing of the Roman pagans in order to gain the upper hand over the other sects and silence them once and for all.

12) In the fourth century CE., the followers of the "Trinity" manage to enlist the aid of the pagan Roman empire. They wield the power of this pagan nation to "cleanse" the earth of the "heretical" and "blasphemous" followers of the apostles. They later launch campaigns of "inquiry" to "convert" them.

13)  "Trinitarian" beliefs are touted as the only truly correct religion of Jesus (pbuh). The writings of Paul are collected and today they form the majority of the books of the new testament. The books of the apostles are burned. They are all labeled "apocryphal" lies. The list of "truly inspired" books of the Bible that we have in our hands today was not officially sanctioned until the year 367C.E. The "Bibles" in the hands of the first three hundred years of Christians was very drastically different than the ones in our hands today. Within the span of a three centuries the Trinitarians manage to "recognize" that all of the books that were considered inspired and divine during the very first centuries CE were indeed all lies and apocrypha. Only those books that were considered apocryphal during these very first centuries CE are now recognized to be canonical, authentic, and divine. Those who are found concealing the original books of the apostles are now burned to death with their books. Paul's followers obtain copies of the Gospels of the apostles. They copy them but with drastic modifications to the doctrine found therein. They claim that the apostles wrote them. These books are attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The additions to these books will continue for many more centuries. Only centuries later will Christian scholars begin to see the evidence that the claimed authors did not write these books.

14) Since the general populace of Christendom is perceived by the Church to be too backward and heathenistic to understand such sacred scriptures, therefore it becomes necessary for the Church to horde the Bible for their own personal use. Anyone who wishes to learn what the Bible says must come to the Church and ask them. The Church then through a combination of divine inspiration and verses of the Bible will tell them what they need to know.

15)  Six hundred years after Christ, Muhammad (pbuh) is born. He follows the religion of Abraham (pbuh) which was handed down to him and all Arabs from the father of the Arabs, Ishmael, the eldest son of prophet Abraham (pbut). Upon reaching the age of 40, God sends the angel Gabriel to Muhammad to teach him His final message, the message of Islam. He tells him that the "people of the book" have changed the religion of Jesus (pbuh) and have altered it from a religion of submission to one God to a religion where multiple gods are being worshipped. He is told that he will be the final messenger, and that his message is to be directed to all of mankind including the Jews and Christians.

16) The Jews and Christians claim that Muhammad (pbuh) is a liar, a lunatic, deceived by the Devil, and a false prophet. They claim that he has just copied the Bible in order to write his Qur'an. Just as many Jews refused to accept Jesus (pbuh) as a true messenger of God, so too do many Jews and Christians refuse to believe Muhammad (pbuh).

17) Muhammad (pbuh) passes away. The Trinitarians continue with their burning at the stake any Christian who opposes the "Trinity" or openly speaks about the discrepancies in the Bible. They launch campaigns of "inquiry" to cleanse the earth of all remnants of believers in one (monotheistic) God. They slaughter the Jews at every opportunity. The sentences of death by these inquisitions become so unbounded in their nature that whole nations are sentenced to death. A single holy decree of the Trinitarian church in 1568 would later condemn three million men women and children of the Netherlands to the scaffold as heretics. In the end, over twelve million people were put to death through the authority of the "Inquisitions."

18)  The Church loses its power to the scientists and is pushed into a dark corner. Without the threat of death hanging over their heads, many Christian scholars begin to publish countless books exhibiting detailed examples of contradicting verses and evidence of modification and tampering with the text of the Bible. The ancient manuscripts of the Christian society are studied in detail and slowly, the previous picture begins to come together. Countless excuses are made by the Church and those who's livelihood and power depend on these established beliefs. They now begin to give practically every single verse of the Bible "abstract" meanings. They tell their flock to have blind faith. They convince their flock that they can not understand the Bible without the interpretation and holy inspiration of the Church. They tell their flock that Jesus (pbuh) never means what he says and that every reference he makes to following the religion of Moses (pbuh) is not meant to be taken "literally" but was meant by Jesus (pbuh) to have "hidden" meanings totally in opposition to the obvious meanings. Only they can tell you what these hidden meanings of Jesus (pbuh) were.

19) Copies of the original Gospels of the apostles of Jesus (pbuh) begin to surface. They are found, of all places, hidden away in the capital of Christianity, the Vatican itself. These Gospels (Such as the "Gospel of Barnabas") confirm the teachings of the Qur'an. Copies of these Gospels have a tendency to disappear mysteriously. They are labels false Gospels and lies written by Muslims. Suddenly, in 1947, the Dead Sea Scrolls are discovered. For close to forty five years, they are hoarded in Israel and hidden from the masses. When they are finally forced out into the open, an amazing discovery is made. They too confirm the Qur'an! They foretell the coming of not one but TWO Messiahs. They claim that these two Messiahs will be announced by an eschatological prophet. The dual prophesy is very clear and prevalent throughout the scrolls. The scrolls claim that the first Messiah will be betrayed by one of his followers but will not be forsaken by God to die, rather, the one who betrayed him shall be taken in his place. The scrolls specifically state that no nail shall touch the Messiah. There is so much in the Dead Sea Scrolls that parallels the teachings of the Qur'an, however, once again it is all explained away with abstract meanings. We are told that the fact that the Jews who lived 100 years before Jesus (the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls) were expecting TWO Messiahs does not mean that they were expecting two different Messiahs, but rather, they must have been expecting a single Messiah with two different personalities. Thus, we are told, Jesus (pbuh) is BOTH Messiahs. On the other hand, the Jews explain that both prophesies refer to past or future occurrences and neither one could possibly refer to Jesus (pbuh) or Muhammad (pbuh).



The bottom-line?  Satan is always close-by. He knows the best ways to lead mankind away from the light.



reference:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/572609/posts
#14
General Issues / Questions / The Devil's Music
June 15, 2010, 02:00:30 PM
Salaam bros n sistas,

Now the hadithists say we shouldn't listen to music as it is 'haraam' and ofcourse tats a load of BS... but recently wen a sunni dude sent me some Utube links to prove his point i was kinda taken aback... not coz of the 'proofs' but by all the research that goes into this sorta thing.... don't these ppl hav anythin else to do?

But frankly speakin, the vids were interesting.. kinda creepy tho (as with any topic abt satan) bt made me think... is there a teeny weeny chance tat some of this stuff is true?  :hypno:  everyone loves a good conspiracy theory....so u be the judge...
Ofcourse the kinda hip hop trash tat comes out these days, satan mst hav something to do with inspiration for these artists out there... more fodder for the hadithists! sorry!  :giveup:


ok let's check out the vids... u guys msta already heard the constant rumours tat Rihanna is a Satan worshipper... >:D   well the below video tries to shed light on tat. They've got her hit single 'umbrella' analyzed here..   :tempt:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJzkqHqYOBM&annotation_id=annotation_82767&feature=iv

Then comes Chris Brown... he seems to be followin her in the same direction..   :voodoo:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zl-wBh35cio&feature=related

Wadaya guys n gals think? fact?  :yeah:  
Anyways hopefully none of you gonna throw ur ipod away n stop listenin to chart-toppin numbers after this...my apologies if i've converted you!   :laugh:

Peace
-Harris
#15
General Issues / Questions / Dogs Banned in Islam??
June 14, 2010, 03:32:45 AM
Salaam bros n sistas,

It always amuses me when some traditional muslim friend tells me how dogs are the most evil and hated creatures on earth.  :whatever:  These guys then go on to show many "proofs" by stating some hadiths like:
--I heard Allah's Apostle  saying; "Angels do not enter a house wherein there is a dog or a picture of a living creature." (Hadith - Bukhari 3:515, Narrated Abu Huraira)

--The Prophet  said, "Were dogs not a species of creature I should command that they all be killed; but kill every pure black one." [Muslim, Narrated AbuDharr: "...The black dog is a devil."; Hadith - Mishkat, Transmitted by Abu Dawud and Darimi ]

--Allah's Apostle  said, "Whoever keeps a dog, one Qirat of the reward of his good deeds is deducted daily, unless the dog is used for guarding a farm or cattle."  (Hadith - Bukhari 3:515, Narrated Abu Huraira)


Learning such hadiths, muslims view the dogs as something dirty and evil. Some even believe it to be satan himself! For these ppl, i just have one solid answer that will prove like the light of day, how they reject the signs of Allah and believe in things that have no basis. See below the verses from the Quran that show the story of the 7 sleepers in the cave:
"You would think that they were awake, when they were in fact asleep. We turned them to the right side and the left side, while their dog stretched his arms in their midst."-  Quran 18:18

Some would say, "They were three; their dog being the fourth," while others would say, "Five; the sixth being their dog," as they guessed. Others said, "Seven," and the eighth was their dog. Say, "My Lord is the best knower of their number." - Quran 18:22


Why would Allah give so much importance to the dog as being one among his best servants if the animal was as these hadithists say a despicable creation of the devil? The sleepers in the cave were protected by Allah for around 300 years. If Allah were to allow the dog to be protected along with them, that can only show that Allah approves of the dog as being man?s companion. This only proves without a doubt that the Prophet could have never uttered such hadiths that go against the very essence of the Holy Quran. The dog is the creature that has been man?s best friend throughout history. This animal has a God given gift to bring happiness into people?s lives. It serves many important roles in our lives as most are aware of. Therefore it doesn?t make sense that the Prophet would trash the animal and warn us against it.

May Allah guide us in the right path.
Peace.
-Harris