Jump to content
Islamic Forum

yusufar

IF Guardian
  • Content count

    250
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by yusufar

  1. About The Apostates

    Greetings Joseph, The Shari'ah (Islamic Law) is only one part of Islam. In the Qur'an and Sunnah (Examples or Way of the Prophet (pbbuh)) will be found the basis of Islam and the Shari'ah. When there is an apparent "conflict" between Sunnah and Qur'an, then depending upon the context and situation, the Qur'an takes precedence. Everything in Islam is logical. Study of plain texts must always take into account the context, situation and explanation of any ruling and further purported rulings which are based on it. Rulings in Shari'ah also do take into account, among other matters, present circumstances - as long as the basics are adhered to and not changed. When scholars disagree, usually the ruling with the more "merciful" interpretation is to be preferred. There is no question of any logic-chopping or white-washing in Islam, except in the fertile and futile imaginations of its detractors. What passes off as Shari'ah in some Muslim countries and which defies logic is simply unIslamic. Any law purportedly in the Shari'ah which provides for death for plain apostasy (irrespective of circumstances) is unIslamic and is based on a non-logical interpretation of both the Qur'an and Sunnah. Unfortunately, there do exist illogical Muslims, as with other communities as well. The fact is that the basic tenet in Islam that there is no compulsion in religion has never been abrogated. If this is a myth, conqueror would not have taken on the religion of the conquered and Islam would have become a dead religion long ago. The truth is clear from error. At worst, Muslims can say that anyone who leaves Islam is stupid, but they do not have the right to kill him because of that. We can only leave it to God to deal with such persons on Judgement Day. Regards, yusufar See this article on the Islamic Forum: (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.gawaher(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?act=ST&f=127&t=30070&st=0#entry309887"]The Global Insurgency Against America[/url]
  2. White and Might Make Right: Morality is in the Eye of the Oppressor by JASON MILLER 5/15/06 We of the privileged *Caucasian race have been dancing without paying for centuries. And the piper is seriously pissed. Rudyard Kipling encouraged America's fledgling empire when he wrote The White Man’s Burden. However, by that time the Unites States had already committed genocide against the Native Americans, engulfed half of Mexico and turned Hawaii over to a handful of wealthy White plantation owners. White Americans were already "bearing the burden" of ruling those who were "half-devil and half-child". In the early 20th Century, confidence in their moral superiority and Manifest Destiny spurred Americans to slaughter hundreds of thousands of civilians in the Philippines, prevent a sovereign nation from emerging in Cuba, and negate Puerto Rico the autonomy it had negotiated with Spain. As one of the most brutal European imperialists, Spain played a significant role in the ongoing oppression of the Filipinos, Cubans and Puerto Ricans. When the United States defeated them in the Spanish-American War, they essentially sold the Philippines, Cuba and Puerto Rico to their new masters in Washington. See the rest of this article at (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_civillibertarian.blogspot(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/2006/05/white-and-might-make-right.html"]Thomas Paine's Corner[/url] yusufar See this Article on Islamic Forum: (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.gawaher(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?showtopic=30070&pid=309887&st=0entry309887"]The Global Insurgency Against America[/url]
  3. Pope Asks Why God Was Silent At Auschwitz

    Greetings Darla, Absolutely! Well said. God's Plan has infinitely many dimensions and levels, which we normally cannot fathom, even at our own personal level. Sometimes we catch a glimpse of it, or we think we do, most of the time not. He has normally only ever explained Himself in the context of humanity through His Prophets and Saints/Friends ("Awliya" in Islam), not all of whom had the complete or overall explanation either. The wholesale massacre/genocide of the Jews by the German State in WWII called the "Holocaust" was not the first nor will be the last against any race or people in human history. Certainly this was part of God's Plan at work and God's Plan will continue to be at work until the Day of Judgement. Regards, yusufar (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.islamicunityfoundation(contact admin if its a beneficial link)"]The Islamic Unity Foundation[/url]
  4. About The Apostates

    I am reposting this again for the benefit of those who may not have read it in an earlier thread. My view is that the penalty for apostasy in Islam is as stated in the Qur'an below: "Those who believe, then disbelieve, then again believe, then disbelieve and thereafter go on increasing in disbelief, Allah will never forgive them, nor guide them to any way of deliverance". (4:137) I think that it would immediately be obvious that if a person were to be put to death for apostasy, i.e. for disbelieving, it would not be possible to "believe, then disbelieve, then again believe, then disbelieve..." A basic tenet in Islam is that there is no compulsion in religion. Death for apostasy therefore does not make any sense, unless such apostasy was accompanied by a betrayal of or treason or enmity/fighting against the Islamic state/community. Perhaps it may be useful to look into the context and circumstances of the hadiths decreeing the death penalty so that this controversial (and to me unnecessary) subject is laid to rest. My opinion is close to that in the following article: "Is Killing An Apostate in the Islamic Law?" by Ibrahim B. Syed, Ph. D. President of the Islamic Research Foundation International, Inc. Ridda or Irtidãd: Literally means "turning back". The act of apostasy -- leaving Islam for another religion or for a secular lifestyle. Murtadd: Literally means "one who turns the back." An apostate. Murtad Fitri: Literally means apostate - natural. A person born of a Muslim parent who later rejects Islam. Murtad Milli: Literally means apostate - from the community. A person who converted to Islam and later rejected the religion. Due to lack of education and critical thinking several myths have taken root in the Muslim world over the ages, and there have not been any efforts in the past to clear these doubts. On the contrary, there has been a sort of effort to strengthen these myths and misconceptions. These misinterpretations of Islamic teachings have taken their toll on the Muslim world and have strengthened a misplaced perception that Islam is a symbol of obscurantism, a religion of intolerance and answers everything with the sword. And there is no bigger misconception - strengthened with misunderstanding of Islamic beliefs over the years - other than the belief that Islam doesn't tolerate apostasy. The Christian missionaries and the Western world are cashing in on it. Ulama have tried to strengthen their point of view and several leading Muslim reformists have failed to tackle the issue. This misconception has also presented Islam as a medieval and killer religion. Islam bashers have time and again tried to carry the point by pointing out that Islam orders the killing of a person if he or she reverts to another religion from Islam. Nobody has come forward to challenge this widely held belief as well as put forth a convincing argument about the misinterpretation of Qur'anic teachings by Ulama (Muslim religious scholars). The Qur’an is completely silent on any worldly punishment for apostasy and the sole Tradition that forms the basis of rulings is open to many interpretations. Prophet (pbuh) is reported to have said: ‘Whosoever changes his religion, Kill Him (man baddala Dinahu faqtuluhu)’”. It is this last quote from the Prophet that forms the basis of the said ruling. While jurists are agreed on the authenticity of this tradition, they differ very widely on the appropriate interpretation and thus, the law concerning apostasy. Understanding the different viewpoints, and arriving at the truth is crucial to our discussion of this subject. This tradition does not refer to Muslims who leave the religion of Islam for other religions. Finally, there is the crucial dispute over the nature of the punishment and the crime. Al-Nakha’ee and, according to Sha’rani, al-Thawri, hold that the apostate is a grave sinner who should however be continuously called back to the fold for the rest of his life, and not killed. By implication, they do not consider the offence a hadd (fixed penalty) offence with a fixed punishment that must be carried out. This view is similar to the view that apostasy is a sin that carries no fixed punishment, and any penalty for it is discretionary (ta’zeer). This is a view held by the Hanbali scholar, Ibn Taimiya and he attributes it as well to the Maliki Imam al-Baji. Among Hanafites, the jurist Shamsuddeen al-Sarakhshi holds the same view. He says in al Mabsut that the fixed penalties or hudud are generally not suspended because of repentance, especially when they are reported and become known to the Imam. He then adds in the case of apostasy “renunciation of the faith and conversion to disbelief is admittedly the greatest of offences, yet it is a matter between man and his Creator, and its punishment is postponed to the day of Judgement. (“fa’l jaza’ ‘alayha mu’akhkhar ila dar al-jaza”). If repentance is accepted, then apostasy is not a hadd offence with a fixed punishment. Secondly, once scholars accept that a Muslim apostate has the right to be given the opportunity to repent, they lose the right to set a time limit for his repentance. Allah (SWT) says in the Glorious Qur’an (39: 53-54: Say: “ O you servants of Mine who have transgressed against your own selves! Despair not of God’s mercy. Behold God forgives all sins, for verily He is much forgiving, a dispenser of grace! Hence, turn toward your sustainer and surrender yourselves unto him before the suffering (of death and resurrection) comes upon you for then you will not be succored.” Any scholar who says the death sentence applies to leaving the faith, then the convict is to be given a life-time to repent, and this is the view of Sufyan al-Thawri, Ibrahim al-Nakha’ee, Shamsuddeen al-Sarakhshi, Imam al-Baji and, by strong implication, Ahmad Ibn Taimiya. One must conclude that the death sentence is not for “simple apostasy” (mujarrad al-ridda), but for apostasy accompanied by treason and sedition, or by the abuse and slander (sabb) of the Noble Prophet. Freedom to convert to or from Islam "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance." Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Glorious Qur'an says, "Let there be no compulsion in the religion: Surely the Right Path is clearly distinct from the crooked path." Al Baqarah, 2:256. "Those who believe, then disbelieve, then believe again, then disbelieve, and then increase in their disbelief - Allah will never forgive them nor guide them to the path." Surah An-Nisa', 4:137. For example, the Qur'an says: "Let him who wishes to believe, do so; and let him who wishes to disbelieve, do so." (Al-Kahf: 29) In another verse, Allah Almighty says: "Yours is only the duty to convey the message; you are not a guardian over them." (Al-Ghashiyah: 21- 22) The quotation from Surah An-Nisa', 4:137, shown above, seems to imply that multiple, sequential apostasies are possible. That would not be possible if the person were executed after the first apostasy. From the above verses it can be argued that religious freedom and the absence of compulsion in religion requires that individuals be allowed adopt a religion or to convert to another religion without legal penalty. Hence the death penalty is not an appropriate response to apostasy. The former Chief Justice of Pakistan, SA Rahman, has written that there is no reference to the death penalty in any of the 20 instances of apostasy mentioned in the Qur'an. Muslims who support the death penalty for apostasy use as their foundation the above cited hadith, in which the Prophet (pbuh) is reported to have said: "Kill whoever changes his religion." But this is a weak foundation because this hadith was only transmitted from Muhammad (pbuh) by one individual. It was not confirmed by a second person. According to Islamic law, this is insufficient confirmation to impose the death penalty. The Shari`ah has not fixed any punishment for apostasy. The hadith is so generally worded that it would require the death penalty for a Christian or Jew who converted to Islam. This is obviously not the prophet's intent. The hadith is in need of further specification, which has not been documented. Many scholars interpret this passage as referring only to instances of high treason. (e.g. declaring war on Islam, Muhammad (pbuh), God, etc.). There is no historical record, which indicates that Muhammad (pbuh) or any of his companions ever sentenced anyone to death for apostasy. The issue of killing a murtad or the apostate is not a simple one. Scholars have debated it from various angles and it is not simply an issue of killing someone for choosing one religion or another. The question of apostasy has been debated among scholars based on their interpretations of some hadiths since the Qur'an does not specify any worldly punishment for it. For example, there was a case at the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) where a man came to him in three consecutive days and told him that he wanted to apostate. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) never took any action against him, and when the man finally left Madina, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) never sent anyone to arrest him, let alone kill him. This is why some scholars distinguished between individual apostasy and apostasy which is accompanied by high treason. So, it cannot be confused with the freedom of conscience for every individual, which has been guaranteed in the Qur'an through hundreds of verses. For example, one version of a hadith narrated by `A'isha (RA) concerning apostasy relates to one who left his religion and fought against Muslims. QUR'ANIC VIEWS The Qur’an has referred to the issue of apostasy at more than one place (for example see Al-Baqarah 2: 217, Al-Baqarah 2: 108, A’l Imra’n 3: 90, Al-Nisa’ 4: 137 and Al-Nahl 16: 106). But at none of these places does the Qur’an mention the punishment of death for such people who change their religion. The Qur’an does mention that such people shall face a terrible punishment in the hereafter but no worldly punishment is mentioned at any of these instances in the Qur’an. This situation obviously raises a question mark in the mind of the reader that if Allah had wanted to give the punishment of an apostate a permanent position in the Shari`ah, the punishment should have been mentioned, at least at one of the above mentioned places. If the Qur’an had kept completely silent about the apostate, the matter would have been different. But the strange thing is that the Qur’an mentions apostasy, and still does not mention the punishment (if any) it wants the apostate to be subjected to. Furthermore, the Qur’an has strictly disallowed the imposition of the death penalty except in two specific cases. One of them is where the person is guilty of murdering another person and the other is where a person is guilty of creating unrest in the country (fasa’d fil-ardh) like being involved in activities that create unrest in a society, for example activities like terrorism etc. The Qur’an says: Whoever kills a person without his being guilty of murder or of creating unrest in the land, it is as though he kills the whole of mankind. (Al-Ma’idah, 5: 32) Obviously, apostasy can neither be termed as "murder" nor "creating unrest in the land". Thus, in view of the above facts, we are left with one option only. We can only say that either the saying has been wrongly ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh), as it is clearly contradictory to the Qur’an and the Prophet could not have said anything contradictory to the Qur’an, or that the saying ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) relates not to all apostates but to a particular and specific people. Shaykh Subhani Shaykh Inayatullah Subhani (author of the Book Apostasy doesn't carry death penalty in Islam) says that neither Islam forces any person to embrace neither Islam nor it forces him to remain within its fold. He writes, "Apostasy has been mentioned several times in Qur'an. It also describes the bad treatment that will be meted out for committing apostasy, but it never talks of punishment for the crime in this world." The learned scholar mentions three Ayaat (verses) from Qur'an on apostasy (Al-Baqara 217, Muhammad 25-27 and Al-Maida 54) and then says that none of these Ayaat prescribes any punishment for that though these Ayaat pass strictures on the people who commit it. There are several other Ayaat on the same issue and none of them prescribes either death penalty or any other punishment for apostasy in this world. He then adds that had there been some punishment in Islam for apostasy there was no reason as to why the issue was mentioned repeatedly in Qur'an but no punishment was prescribed. Misinterpretation of the hadith, Man baddala Dinahu faqtuluh (kill him who changes his religion) has caused the problem. This order has been made to look general and permanent, though it was said in a particular circumstance for a particular group. Shaykh Subhani writes that this order was made to counter a scheme prepared by Jews of Madinah. They had planned that some of them embrace Islam for some time and then return to their old religion. Then some other people do the same. It was aimed to create restlessness among Muslims against their own leadership so that the strong Muslim unity should start crumbling. It was made clear in Qur'an in (Aal Imran, 3: 72-73). To counter this planning the Prophet (SAW) ordered his companions to act in such a manner. Despite this order lengthy investigations were made to ascertain that the case was true and the person concerned was given adequate time to explain before the punishment was carried out. Shaykh Subhani says lack of clear grasp of Qur'an misguided even leading Ulama. Otherwise it was not difficult to understand the hadith. Qur'anic teachings on the issue were not kept in mind. He emphasizes that people who were awarded death penalty for reverting to other religions from Islam during the time of the Prophet (SAW) or during the reign of his caliphs were not given the punishment for the crime of apostasy but for the fact that they were at war with Muslims and Islamic government. Shaykh Subhani regrets that punishment that was prescribed for certain people under special circumstances was made to look like a general order. He says that it was the order for people who posed threat to Islamic state and became at war with Islam and not for any person who reverts to other religion. A number of Islamic scholars from past centuries, Ibrahim al-Naka'I, Sufyan al-Thawri, Shams al-Din al-Sarakhsi, Abul Walid al-Baji and Ibn Taymiyyah, have all held that apostasy is a serious sin, but not one that requires the death penalty. In modern times, Mahmud Shaltut, Sheikh of al-Azhar, and Dr Mohammed Sayed Tantawi have concurred. In conclusion, we must never confuse the issue of killing a murtad with the freedom of conscience guaranteed in the Glorious Qur'an. For a detailed discussion, one should read (1) the Dr. Yusuf Al-Qaradawi's book on this issue: Jareemat ar-riddah wal murtadd (The Crime of Apostasy and Apostate) - published by Ar-Risalah foundation. (2) Apostasy doesn't carry death penalty in Islam (Book: Tabdili-e-Mazhab aur Islam) by Maulana Inayatullah Asad Subhani)-published by Idara Ihya-e-Deen, Bilariya Ganj, Azamgarh (UP, India) Pages: 108, Price Rs 30. REFERENCES 1. (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.religioustolerance(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/isl_apos.htm"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.religioustolerance(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/isl_apos.htm[/url] 2. "Islam, Apostasy and PAS," 1999-JUL-22, at: (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.muslimtents(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/sistersinislam/"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.muslimtents(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/sistersinislam/[/url] 3. S.A. Rahman, "Punishment of apostasy in Islam," Kazi Publ., (1986). Limited availability from Amazon(contact admin if its a beneficial link) online bookstore).
  5. Seen through a Syrian lens, 'unknown Americans' are provoking civil war in Iraq By Robert Fisk - 28 April 2006 (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article360624.ece"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article360624.ece[/url] (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.informationclearinghouse.ifo/article12885.htm"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.informationclearinghouse.i fo/article12885.htm[/url] Excerpts: In Syria, the world appears through a glass, darkly. As dark as the smoked windows of the car which takes me to a building on the western side of Damascus where a man I have known for 15 years - we shall call him a "security source", which is the name given by American correspondents to their own powerful intelligence officers - waits with his own ferocious narrative of disaster in Iraq and dangers in the Middle East. His is a fearful portrait of an America trapped in the bloody sands of Iraq, desperately trying to provoke a civil war around Baghdad in order to reduce its own military casualties. It is a scenario in which Saddam Hussein remains Washington's best friend, in which Syria has struck at the Iraqi insurgents with a ruthlessness that the United States wilfully ignores. And in which Syria's Interior Minister, found shot dead in his office last year, committed suicide because of his own mental instability. The Americans, my interlocutor suspected, are trying to provoke an Iraqi civil war so that Sunni Muslim insurgents spend their energies killing their Shia co-religionists rather than soldiers of the Western occupation forces. "I swear to you that we have very good information," my source says, finger stabbing the air in front of him. "One young Iraqi man told us that he was trained by the Americans as a policeman in Baghdad and he spent 70 per cent of his time learning to drive and 30 per cent in weapons training. They said to him: 'Come back in a week.' When he went back, they gave him a mobile phone and told him to drive into a crowded area near a Masjid and phone them. He waited in the car but couldn't get the right mobile signal. So he got out of the car to where he received a better signal. Then his car blew up." Impossible, I think to myself. But then I remember how many times Iraqis in Baghdad have told me similar stories. These reports are believed even if they seem unbelievable. And I know where much of the Syrian information is gleaned: from the tens of thousands of Shia Muslim pilgrims who come to pray at the Sayda Zeinab Masjid outside Damascus. These men and women come from the slums of Baghdad, Hillah and Iskandariyah as well as the cities of Najaf and Basra. Sunnis from Fallujah and Ramadi also visit Damascus to see friends and relatives and talk freely of American tactics in Iraq. "There was another man, trained by the Americans for the police. He too was given a mobile and told to drive to an area where there was a crowd - maybe a protest - and to call them and tell them what was happening. Again, his new mobile was not working. So he went to a landline phone and called the Americans and told them: 'Here I am, in the place you sent me and I can tell you what's happening here.' And at that moment there was a big explosion in his car."...
  6. Only when justified. So are yours. It is not. Why is it Westerners refuse to see that their own interference in other people's countries will come back to haunt them? This is a typical knee-jerk reaction. What threat? It is just a statement. Muslims and Muslim countries are in no position to threaten the West. It is the West which has the overwhelming fire-power to cause devastation in other people's countries (and which they have actually done and continue to do). I may be biased, but I get the feeling that the West will always try to put itself first, and they don't care about what they have to do in other people's countries or the damage that they cause. I am aware that not all in the West feel this way, but until their governments come about to a more equitable way of dealing with the rest of the world, the sense of injustice about how the non-Western world is being treated by the West will continue to everyone's detriment - especially the more disadvantaged, the poor and the oppressed. As I have said, you will see what you like. If most of the West are as blinkered as you, it is no wonder that problems like this exist. There is no effort on your part to even try and understand Islam and Muslim views. Regards, yusufar (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.islamicunityfoundation(contact admin if its a beneficial link)"]The Islamic Unity Foundation[/url]
  7. Essence Of Islam

    Peace to all, It takes sincerity of heart to acknowledge the Absolute Unity or Oneness of God. This is the very essence of Islam and is the very 1st Commandment of ALL the Prophets. God is God. There is nothing else like Him. Anything else other than God is not God. Only He alone is worthy of worship. To Him alone do we pray to guide us to the Straight Path (the Right Way). Each person is responsible only for his own sins. Sincere repentance will lead to God's forgiveness, the consequence of which is as stated in the Qur'an Al Furqan (25:70): "...Except he who repents, believes, and does righteous deeds, for Allah will change the evil deeds of such persons into good deeds, and Allah is ever Forgiving, Most Merciful..." True sincerity in Islam means that one does not do or avoid doing anything for rewards or out of fear of punishment. This however does not exclude ordinary sincerity where one does anything or avoids doing anything for the rewards which God has promised believers or because of punishment God has decreed for transgressors. What more could anyone ask for? That is about as simple as it gets. There is no necessity for all kinds of convoluted and contrived doctrines and no need to argue about or harm or kill anyone over anything. All else is embellishment. Regards, yusufar (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.islamicunityfoundation(contact admin if its a beneficial link)"]The Islamic Unity Foundation[/url]
  8. Quran Refutes Itself!

    Greetings Ignatius, You are back in action! How is your father-in-law? I hope he is better now. Regards, yusufar
  9. No point to just repeat what I say. :D What I'd really like to know is what exactly you find objectionable about what I say and the way I think and speak, i.e. what and why. Otherwise I may have to conclude that you have no reasonable grounds to find the way I think or speak objectionable. :D My apologies if sometimes I may sound a bit abrasive or intolerant. I'm really not and have no intention to be, since I'm just a country yokel, but I will plead guilty to being rather impatient sometimes, which I'm still trying to improve. :D What use is peace to Muslims if non-Muslims cannot enjoy it too? We're not selfish you know. Not to mention that such a situation will also eventually adversely affect Muslims as well. :D Regards, yusufar (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.islamicunityfoundation(contact admin if its a beneficial link)"]The Islamic Unity Foundation[/url]
  10. Peace, Do I detect a note of sarcasm there? :D I thought I was speaking in the context of "mayhem, death and destruction" inflicted from outside sources, but maybe I wasn't clear enough. Not many Muslims were involved in all those wars, except Turkey in the 1st WW, and even then it wasn't involved in an invasion of Europe. So of course, most of this was self-inflicted or intra-Europe/West "mayhem, death and destruction". If Europe can get over such large-scale devastation, I just wonder why so much fuss is being made today over a few terrorist attacks, when Europe/the West is itself causing disruption to and massive destruction in Muslim lands. Regards, yusufar (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.islamicunityfoundation(contact admin if its a beneficial link)"]The Islamic Unity Foundation[/url]
  11. Greetings Anon, And what exactly. pray tell, do you find so objectionable about the way I think or speak? :D I'm all for peace. Islam is all for peace. Unfortunately, I'm all too aware of the insidious and hypocritical ways of the West and the corruption, perversion and oppression that they bring to Muslim and other lands in the East. Not all, mind you, but especially those in power. Perhaps you may not realize it. You should really take a hard look at all the things that Western governments do around the world and see things from those who are at the receiving end of it. It is precisely because of the undue influence of the West that terrorist attacks occur. Now let me make it very clear that when I say this by no means do I wish to justify any such attacks. Judging from the actions of the West as well, how can Muslims also believe that the West wants peace? Other than for 9/11, the origin of which I would venture to say is still a matter of dispute, and other sporadic attacks, the West has still not been on the real receiving end of the scale of mayhem, death and destruction which it has wrought on the rest of the world, including the Muslim world. Now when I say this I do not mean that what the West inflicts on other innocent people should also be inflicted on the West's innocent people as well. But it is high time that the West and its innocent citizens woke up to the havoc and devastation that their governments are wreaking, especially in the Middle East. Even if you don't see it, do you think that Muslims take the same perverse pleasure that the West seems to do, in promoting terrorism? Perhaps a very small minority of misguided Muslims do and even then on a very small scale, but only the West has the armies and military might to do it on a large scale. Do you get my drift? Regards, yusufar (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.islamicunityfoundation(contact admin if its a beneficial link)"]The Islamic Unity Foundation[/url]
  12. :D You are very provocative and not as innocent as you would have us believe. I would NEVER call another Muslim "kufar" or "kafir" no matter how unIslamic they are or seem to be. They could be, yet there is also always a possibility that they may repent and be forgiven by God and their evil deeds changed to good deeds. The Qur'an "Al Furqan" (25:70): "...Except he who repents, believes, and does righteous deeds, for Allah will change the evil deeds of such persons into good deeds, and Allah is ever Forgiving, Most Merciful..." There are certain conditions for jihad which must be met before it can be proclaimed. Any Muslim who proclaims jihad without the majority of the Muslims behind him is in grave danger of not meeting those conditions. The majority of Muslims are not about to commit collective suicide because of a few misguided fanatics. "Shahids" and suicide bombers are two different things. Suicide bombers who deliberately target innocent people cannot call themselves "shahids", much as they or any other "religious leader" would like to. True Islamic religious leaders would never find in Islam any justification for suicide, even in what they wrongly believe to be the cause of Islam or God. There is entirely no justification in Islam for suicide, even in war. This is what you allege. Do you have any proof of it? Bring your proof if you are truthful. If not, please do not exaggerate. Even if you do, which I doubt, the majority of their populations may not know any better and may be misled by them. It can also happen that personal prejudices and emotions get the better of religious convictions and teachings no matter how learned a person is. :D So now we have progressed from tens of millions to hundreds of millions. Are you sure you are not exaggerating? Muslims become unIslamic when they do not follow the teachings of Islam. Not all Muslims keep quiet. The Western media would rather sensationalize the issue, very much like you are doing. Do you expect the Western media which has other agendas, to highlight the fact that the vast majority of Muslims condemn such acts? There is also much exaggeration in the Western media. One fire or bomb in the Middle East and it seems like the whole place is in flames and suicide bombers are running rampage on every square inch of ground. Because both the Saudi Arabian and Egyptian governments are perceived by some if not most of their own people to be heavily influenced and even controlled by or dependent upon foreign powers, particularly the US, and in all probability they are. There is plenty of evidence for it, and it is a favourite tactic of the israelis, the Americans and British to cause maximum disruption to and among their perceived enemies, so that they will fight with each other. Sometimes "friends" are sacrificed as well, the dominant philosophy being that "all is fair in war". Not as specious as your exaggerations I'm afraid. I don't discount areas where Muslims themselves are the oppressors. Not all Muslim countries have good leaders, and there will always be in any country people who do not behave acording to the norms of their religion, morality or guiding philosophies. Sometimes such people control governments (democratically or otherwise) and thereby cause oppression to others. Each case must be studied on its own. All I'm saying is that in many Muslim countries, oppression is a major factor. There may be other factors as well, such as the sheer perverted nature of their mentality. Sociopaths know no religion, much as they may like it to appear to be, and even if they attempt to justify or legitimize their actions through religion or other things. Perverse individuals do exist in all societies and countries. Islam has its fair share of such people and so does the West. Of course I believe it, and so do the majority of Muslims. There is nothing in Islam to justify it. The Prophet (pbbuh) was sent as a mercy to mankind, not a scourge. Islam is a blessing to mankind, not a curse. I do not think I am in the minority. There is probably a very large silent majority amongst Muslims. Again I think you may be exaggerating when you say that this is "what Muslim religious leaders; political leaders; journalists; and ordinary Muslims proclaim that they believe". Even if the majority were to believe it, that would not make it right or Islamic. Any contradiction is entirely in your own mind and perception. :D Yes, it is unIslamic. Yes, true Muslims do not commit this kind of violence. True Muslims do not hate nor are they vicious. Yet it is a general human failing and is not confined to Muslims. Why should you be disturbed only about Muslims misbehaving in this manner? What about non-Muslims, who may be behaving just as badly, if not worse? I don't see anything illogical about anything I have said. It happens, even if there is no excuse at all for it. It is certainly not natural nor normal and I did not even say or imply that it was. :D It is the very thing that Islam is against. Islam teaches peace, not hatred or viciousness, extreme or otherwise. Islam teaches tolerance and patience. Certainly. Any act of provocation, especially if unjustified, will obviously be met with resistance, as I said, not all of which will be reasonable or proportionate. This is NOT the same as saying that murder is an "obvious" response to such provocation. I suppose that the Europeans, Russians, israelis and Americans have never used such brutal force in their entire history? Muslims learned brutality from the West, not Islam and not that justifies anything. Don't give us this one-sided rubbish. Greater atrocities have been committed by non-Muslim countries as well. So what suddenly makes Muslims a greater threat or concern? Muslims and Muslim countries just do not possess the same kind of destructive power as the West. As far as I am concerned, the greatest threat to world peace and stability comes from the US, israel, Russia and Europe, in that order. The US and UK in Afghanistan and Iraq in particular. Certainly not justified by Islam nor me. Did I at all say it was justified? Your first "impression" is correct, your second not. You have not answered my question where you got the rubbish that Iran has proclaimed that "it will use its resources and technology to acquire nuclear weapons in order to wage nuclear war against the infidels" from. I really don't know how sincere you are, or perhaps you have trouble understanding what I have been saying. There is nothing for Islam to reform itself for. I thought that would have been clear by now. Islam does not condone murder. How many times do you want me to repeat this? Is English your mother tongue? It is the West which justifies wholesale murder (which they call "collateral damage") under the guise of war. It is obvious that you will read only what you want to. So much for your sincerity. Perhaps you should study history with a more open mind. "Inter-Islamic aggressions" is a contradiction in terms. Perhaps you mean "Inter-Muslim"? Islam has no need to police itself. Muslim countries do. They could not have done much self-policing when for the most part of the last century they were either colonies or heavily-influenced/controlled zones of Western powers and many still are. By all means, give us ALL the examples. Why only Saudi Arabia? At the same time give us all the non-Muslim wars of conquest, civil war and slaughter of innocents over the last century as well. We think you should wish to solve this problem too - it is a far bigger problem. Another gross exaggeration. Provide examples please. What about all the non-Muslim countries on earth? Fact? One man's fact is another man's fiction. You seem to see only what you want to see. You can start by doing more research and study first instead of jumping to half-baked conclusions. Where did I even suggest or say anything that could lead you to this conclusion? The West will only find out if it leaves Muslims alone. All the evidence points towards Western interference as the main cause for Muslim unrest. If neither you nor the West accepts this, don't talk about solving the "problem". The problem lies with the West, which insists on misunderstanding Islam, refuses to really study it yet persists in interfering in Muslim lands, countries and politics. Regards, yusufar (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.islamicunityfoundation(contact admin if its a beneficial link)"]The Islamic Unity Foundation[/url]
  13. (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_usa.mediamonitors(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/headlines/abe_foxman_shilling_for_the_shron_gang_again"]Abe Foxman Shilling for the Sharon Gang, Again[/url] by William Hughes (Monday December 29 2003)
  14. From Holocaust To Armageddon

    (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_signs-of-the-times(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/signs/editorials/signs20060522_FromHolocaustToAmageddon.php"]From Holocaust To Armageddon[/url] Joe Quinn Signs of the Times 22/05/2006
  15. Wa alikumsalaam, Far from it. Jihad is compulsory upon all Muslims when the conditions for it are met. Wassalaam, yusufar (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.islamicunityfoundation(contact admin if its a beneficial link)"]The Islamic Unity Foundation[/url]
  16. Greetings Moishe3rd, Good to be sincere. So please do take the answers below sincerely as well. There is no such thing in Islam. Islam is against all forms of violence against innocent people, including non-combatants in war, including that done under the guise of "Islamic Jihad". Islam is against terrorism in any form and for any purpose. Strictly speaking, Islam also does not promote nationalistic, racialistic, tribal or despotic ends. Now, what some or even many "Muslims" do is something else and even unIslamic. While this is to some extent true, US and other foreign intervention and occupation has also complicated the issue in all the places you mention, plus the decidely aggressive and state-sponsored terrorism of the israelis against the Palestinians. These factors must not be discounted. Oppression by dominant non-Muslim powers, including the US, israel and Russia who also commit murder against Muslims, is also a major factor in the rise of such unIslamic acts. This is not part of the real Islamic Agenda, which is more concerned about personal salvation. As far as Islam is concerned, the basic tenet is and has always been that there is no complusion in religion so there is no necessity for Islam to dominate anyone or to establish "Islamic" hegemony over the world. There is NO such "Islamic" obsession. Application of the label "Islamic" to something which is essentially unIslamic is something which Western propaganda has largely been responsible for and which many people have fallen into the trap of, no thanks to the acts of some of these unnecessarily fanatic "Muslims" themselves. Islam gets the bad name because of this, when Islam actually condemns murder, destruction and even any ill-conceived quest for world hegemony. Even if they call themselves "Islamic" they are far from it, if not totally out of it. As for "their" land being violated, that is true. The Jews may have had a "right" to the land at one time (having exterminated the Canaanites to establish that right), but that does not justify them taking it away from the Palestinians by force some 2000 years later after they had relinquished possession of it. If every race or nation were to exert rights which were violated even a few hundred years ago by committing even greater violation of other innocent people's rights, there would be a never-ending cycle of violence and violation. Violation begets further violation. Any attempt by anyone outside of Islam to insult or attempt to exert hegemony over Islamic or Muslim land, culture and religious beliefs will obviously be met with resistance, not all of which will be reasonable or proportionate. It would be better if non-Muslims do not provoke Muslims and vice versa by engaging in such insults or attempts. There is a huge difference between reasoned and intelligent discourse and plain insulting, unreasonable and stupid provocations. The very same warfare, destruction and murder in the name of Islam which you say has been ongoing since the inception of Islam, has been ongoing since the beginning of the world in the name of all kinds of beliefs, race, religion, power, systems, nations, communism, socialism, capitalism, democracy and what else have you and that includes Jews, israel, Christianity, US, Russia, etc. as well. Why single out Islam or what you think is "Islam"? The Jews themselves have been responsible for much mayhem in the whole of the Middle East for centuries prior to being evicted by the Romans in 70 CE and today israel as an occupying power has caused far much more death, destruction, devastation and displacement to Palestinian lives, homes and livelihoods than that caused by Palestinians to israelis. This is nothing but Western and israeli propaganda. World domination has never been part of the Islamic agenda. Iran has NEVER proclaimed that "it will use its resources and technology to acquire nuclear weapons in order to wage nuclear war against the infidels". Where did you get this rubbish from? The unlimited funding of the oil-rich Arab nations have benefitted the West more than Islam or Muslim nations. The threats to use nuclear weapons have always come from the US and israel. Why shouldn't Islamic countries acquire such a deterrent as well, purely for self-defence? As long as there is foreign non-Muslim intervention in Islamic lands with its own capricious lust for blood and death, there will always be equally or more violent reactions, much of which will be against innocent people. The answer is very simple. Stop provoking and insulting Islam and Muslims and cease interfering in Islamic or Muslim lands. Let Muslims take care of their own problems and the murderers in their own midst. Stop all foreign and foreign-directed or supported orgies of death and destruction in Muslim lands and of Muslims. Islam's 1 billion plus Muslims can police themselves. The real question is can non-Muslims restrain themselves? Regards, yusufar (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.islamicunityfoundation(contact admin if its a beneficial link)"]The Islamic Unity Foundation[/url]
  17. (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_nilemedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/Columnists/Ahmed/2002/April/The_Idiots.html"]The Idiot's Guide To Yiddish Supremacists[/url] Know your Yiddish supremacist publisher: Art Sulzberger, publisher of the New York Times, Boston Globe and thiry other municipal dailies Gerry Levine, CEO CNN/AOL/Time Warner Donald Graham, publisher Washington Post and NewsWeek Morimier Zucherman, Publisher US World and News Report and the Daily News, also president of the Conference of major Jewish organizations Know your Yiddish supremacist journalist: Thomas Friedman, Foreign Affairs correspondent, New York Times, poses as moderate. Led campaign to bury Sharon's criminal war record. William Safire, Columinst and Netenyahu Likudnik, New York Times, open about his love affair with Sharon and having an affair with Netenyahu Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post and NewsWeek, mental cripple to the extreme right of the Likud. Calls for expulsion. Ellen Goodman, Columist for the Boston Globe, a publication owned by the New York Times. poses as liberal Aaron Brown, CNN Anchor, poses as liberal. A real sneak about his digs against the Palestinians Ted Koppel, Extremist Likudnik and ABC Nightline 'six million dollar man'. A 'family friend' of Netenyahu. Wolf Blitzer, CNN. far right Likudnik who advocates running the Pentagon from Tel Aviv. Andrea Koppel, daughter of extremist Likudnik and CNN 'foreign affairs' correspondent Andrea Mitchel, wife of Alan Greenspan and NBC 'foreign affairs' correspondent. If Greenspan is as crooked as his wife's journalism, we need investigation. Barbara Walters, you all know Barbara. Yiddish supremacist who can't pronounce 'supremacist Larry King, CNN talk show host. Listen carefully to the bigot within this warped troubled man Walter Isacson, CNN director, behind the scenes control freak who masterminded merging CNN with IDF Alan Dershowitz, supporter of torture and collective punishment and alleged 'civil libertarian.' Only a Yiddish supremacist can combine both attributes.
  18. Stop The Wall!

    (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.stopthewall(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/"]stopthewall(contact admin if its a beneficial link)[/url]
  19. Palestine History 101

    (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.nilemedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/Topics/History/index.html"]Palestine History 101[/url]
  20. (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.dissidentvoice(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/May06/Amr17.htm"]Abandon the Palestinians or Abandon the Dollar[/url] by Ahmed Amr www.dissidentvoice(contact admin if its a beneficial link) May 17, 2006
  21. (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.dissidentvoice(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/Feb06/Amr07.htm"]Why Can’t We All Insult One Another?[/url] by Ahmed Amr www.dissidentvoice(contact admin if its a beneficial link) February 7, 2006
  22. The Gospel Of Paul

    [i tried to start this topic in the "Refuting Non-Muslims" Section but could not. Perhaps the moderators would be so kind as to move it there] Paul's Different Gospel 1 With the discovery of "The Gospel of Judas", perhaps it is time we had a look at other gospels as well. There were literally hundreds of gospels available before the Nicene Council of 325 AD convened by Constantine to work out differences between the two main Christian movements at the time, those who adhered to the Athanasian Creed ("Trinitarian") and the Arian Creed ("Unitarian", and which believed that Jesus (pbuh) was a human being). Constantine for political reasons sided with the Trinitarians and a successful state-sponsored pogrom was then launched by the Trinitarians to eliminate the Unitarians and their "heretic" gospels. Needless to say, most of these gospels were destroyed and the Four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John became the orthodoxy of present-day Trinitarian Christianity (though not of all). It is therefore important to see what Paul, widely regarded as the founder of "Trinitarian Christianity" had to say, although Paul himself never actually formally set out the doctrine of the Trinity. This doctrine was also not set out in the 4 main gospels, except by extrapolation from certain of their verses (some of which were later proven false and denounced as "pious forgeries", whether most Christians today accept it or not). It will at once be obvious that Paul taught a different gospel from that of Jesus' (pbuh) immediate disciples and followers, even from his own words. So who should be believed? Paul, the apostle who never knew or met Jesus, has claimed many things about the Gospel which he taught. Let us examine his claims objectively. He claimed that the "super-apostles" (he does not say exactly who they are) whom he criticized preached a Jesus other than the Jesus he preached, and that his congregation received (from them) a different spirit other than the one they received (from him) and that they also received a different gospel from the one which they accepted (from him) (he never said which one exactly but there is evidence to surmise that it was a figment of his own feverish imagination) (2 Corinthians 11:4-5). Who were these "super-apostles"? Although Paul is not specific about them, yet we know from his own words that like him they were also Hebrews, israelites, Abraham's descendants and "servants of Christ" (2 Corinthians 11:22-23). In all likelihood they were the original apostles of Jesus. The fact that Paul calls them "super-apostles" probably means that they could be seen as having a higher status than him among the "servants of Christ" (but nevertheless he did not regard himself as inferior to them). This of course contradicts what he said in 1 Corinthians 15:9, where he admitted that he was the least of the apostles and did not even deserve to be called an apostle, while in the same breath claiming that he worked harder than all of them ("yet not him, but the grace of God that was with him"). Paul was of course a bundle of contradictions. Paul also calls them "false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ". He also said that it was no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. (2 Corinthians 11:13-14). What is surprising here is that Paul has forgotten his own "vision" of "a light from heaven" which "flashed around him" (Acts 9:3). It is apparent that he did not actually see anything in this vision but only heard what purported to be the voice of Jesus. The Acts makes it clear that Paul was temporarily blinded by this light. He probably had an epileptic fit, if it wasn't Satan himself who caused this "vision". In all his "visions" of "Jesus" and "revelations" from him, it is also apparent from the internal evidence that Paul never actually saw Jesus. This is quite important. We all know that Jesus had long hair (or we assume from the images we normally associate with him that he did - I stand to be corrected on this). Paul apparently was unaware of this, as he had no qualms about saying that the very nature of things taught that if a man had long hair, it was a disgrace to him. (1 Corinthians 11:14). Yet Paul also claimed that the "gospel" he preached was not something that man made up, that he did not receive it from any man, nor was he taught it, but rather he received it by revelation from "Jesus Christ" himself. (Galatians 1:11-12). This (together with his complete and blatant disregard for the Mosaic law) appears to be the major cause of the differences between him and the "super-apostles". His congregation were aware of his claims and demanded proof that Christ was speaking through him. (2 Corinthians 13:3). Why would they have needed such proof, unless the other apostles were preaching a different Jesus? Paul, after receiving his revelations of the gospel direct from Jesus (pbuh) (by this time already in Heaven), did not think it necessary to consult any man or go to see the apostles in Jerusalem. By his own admission, he went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus and only after three years did he go to Jerusalem to "acquaint" himself with the apostles, staying a mere 15 days with Peter. He did not see any of the other apostles, except for James. (Galatians 1:16-19). It was only 14 years later that he went to Jerusalem again (to set before those who appeared to be the "leaders" the gospel that he preached among the Gentiles. (Galatians 2:1-2). Paul therefore appears to have developed a different gospel from that of the apostles and was adamant in defending it. If Paul is to be believed (and we shall see why this may not be so), those who "seemed to be important" (which whatever they were didn't make any difference to him) didn't add anything to his message. Here again we have Paul apparently looking down on the other apostles, rather strange considering that they were the original disciples of Jesus (pbuh). This account by Paul himself is perhaps also not consistent with the account found in the Acts, where it appears he went to Jerusalem after only a matter of (many) days in Damascus. (See Acts 9:19-30). At the beginning of Galatians (1:1 and 6-7), he (calling himself "an apostle, sent not from men nor by man" - thereby distancing himself from the other apostles again) expressed his astonishment that his congregation are turning towards a "different gospel" which he called "really no gospel at all". Apparently, "some people" (again he doesn't clearly say who) were perverting "the gospel of Christ". By this time it is apparent that Paul had thrown all caution to the wind and burned all his bridges, as he goes on to say that even if he (himself) or an angel from heaven were to preach a gospel other than the one he had already preached to them, he would be "eternally condemned". (Galatians 1:8). This is clearly an attempt to take the wind out of the sails of anyone whose teachings of Jesus contradicted that of Paul's. Who could that possibly be, so early in the days of "Christianity"? When Paul opposes Peter "to his face" it becomes very apparent what differences in teaching there were between Paul and the other apostles. Paul makes Peter appear to be a man unsure of himself (Peter eats with the Gentiles but withdraws from them when certain men who came from James arrive). Paul calls them "the circumcision group" and said that Peter was afraid of them. He calls this "hypocrisy" which the other Jews joined in and by which even Barnabas was led "astray". (Galatians 2:11-13). The question here of course is who was leading whom "astray", Paul or the other apostles? Jesus (pbuh) had not authorized nor taught the other apostles to do away with circumcision, and they still held fast to this Jewish "custom", a custom which in fact had all the weight of law. Paul however had taught otherwise, and was prepared to do away with such Jewish "customs" and even the law, as he makes clear (probably in order to make it easier for him to convert the Gentiles to his teachings of "Christ"). Paul had by this time developed a theology based on "faith in Jesus Christ" as opposed to one based on "observing the law". As he said, "if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!" (Galatians 2:14-21). It is also at once apparent that the other apostles were teaching that righteousness could be gained through the law (or rather through observance of it). Doing away with the law had by then become a central theme in Paul's gospel, one apparently not supported by the other apostles whom Paul had to take upon himself to remind of the "truth of the gospel" - his own interpretation or concoction. [One of course may doubt that Paul knew better than them]. Peter and the men who came from James were apparently silenced by Paul's diatribe, since he does not record their response (or perhaps Paul just did not wish to have their response on the record, since it would not have served his purpose - his purpose being to establish the truth of his teachings and his gospel rather than theirs). Bearing in mind that the context of Letter to the Galatians is Paul's response to the "perversion of the gospel" which he had preached to them, it is also apparent that the "different" gospel did not preach that Christ had been crucified, since Paul goes on next to defend his clear portrayal "before their very eyes" that Jesus Christ had been crucified. He asked them whether they received the Spirit by observing the law or by believing what they heard (from him, presumably). In context, it would appear that in Paul's gospel observance of the law was akin to denial of the crucifixion of Jesus. (Galatians 3:1-5). An internal inconsistency also becomes apparent in Paul's line of thought (and teaching) when he tries to rely on the Scriptures (the Old Testament) to justify his denial of the law. He said (referring to Deuteronomy 27:26): "All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law"." This Scriptural reference in fact flatly contradicts the point Paul was trying to make, but he does not appear to realise this! What it says of course is NOT that if you continue to observe the law you are under a curse, but rather if you do not continue to observe the law you are under a curse. [Just as a matter of interest, the actual words (NIV) are: "Cursed is the man who does not uphold the words of this law by carrying them out"]. Paul also tried to show by (partially) quoting Habakkuk 2:4 that "Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith." (Galatians 3:11) and also (quoting Leviticus 18:5) that "The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who does these things will live by them." (Galatians 3:12). In my (humble) opinion he merely succeeds in revealing either another facet of his internal inconsistency, an ignorance or deliberate misinterpretation, of Scripture. This becomes all too apparent when one reads Habakkuk 2:4 completely and in its full context [i am not setting the full context out - those who are interested may read it for themselves]: "See, he is puffed up; his desires are not upright - but the righteous will live by his faith - ...". This appears to be a parody of "faith" of the (purportedly) "righteous" rather than a justification for it. Leviticus 18:5 (NIV) on the other hand states: "Keep my decrees and laws, for the man who obeys them will live by them. I am the LORD." This sounds more like a justification for the law rather than a refutal of it, and a sounder basis for faith (though perhaps not of the kind which Paul envisaged and preached - in his different gospel). Paul of course had to persist no matter how inconsistent he became, since he had already burned his bridges... To the extent that he is prepared even to say that "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us" (Galatians 3:13) and referring to another Scriptural quote: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree". (Deuteronomy 21:23). Perhaps it may be that God wanted to curse Himself by allowing Himself (His "Son") to be hung on a tree, but we would be entitled to doubt the veracity of such a claim as nothing more than a feeble attempt by Paul to justify a presupposition which he had already made. Why should Jesus (pbuh) become a curse anyway and why should God allow it? Anyway logic was not one of Paul's strong points. Nor was truth for that matter. All that mattered to him was that he be different, even to the extent of preaching a different gospel from that which Jesus' own closest disciples taught. If Paul was really the founder of present-day Christianity, Christians should really start taking stock of what exactly it is that Paul taught and whether the same was consistent with what Jesus (pbuh) and his original disciples taught. Were the teachings of Jesus (pbuh) really meant for the non-Jews (Gentiles) for it was Paul that actually brought his different gospel to the Gentiles? [to be continued]...
  23. The Gospel Of Paul

    Greetings Ignatius, If this is really the case then why did Paul go to extraordinary lengths to "deny" the Law and to be as offensive as he could to those who adhered to it (including Jesus' original followers) and who still kept to its dietary and other requirements? What was Paul trying to show here? I hope you do not intend to maintain the fiction that Jesus was called the Nazarene because he came from Nazareth, when historically there is no mention of that town during his time. Even if we accept that he was called Nazarene because of this, why would his followers also be called Nazarenes unless they all came from the same place? Yet we know that Paul did not come from Nazareth and was purportedly also called a ringleader of the Nazarenes. Is my association of the Nazarenes with Jesus (pbuh) then just mere conjecture on my part? Is it also a coincidence that the Arabic term for Christians is Nasara? Matthew 2:23 "And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, “He shall be called a Nazarene.”" Mark 14:67 "When she saw Peter warming himself, she looked closely at him. You also were with that Nazarene, Jesus, she said." Mark 16:6 "Don't be alarmed, he said. You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him." Acts 24:5 "For we have found this man a plague, a creator of dissension among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes." If Jesus' original followers still worshipped in the Temple, how could they be called part of the "Church", Mystical or otherwise? I did not say nor mean that the spiritual is unreal. You have taken that out of context. The context is the "reality" of this material world as opposed to the spiritual world (no less "real" but apart from the world we now live in). I presume you would have no objection to a reference to (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.christiananswers(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/q-abr/abr-a023.html"]Christiananswers(contact admin if its a beneficial link)[/url] "The men of Qumran fervently believed in a doctrine of "last things." They had fled to the desert and were readying themselves for the imminent judgment when their enemies would be vanquished and they, God's elect, would be given final victory in accordance with the predictions of the prophets. It was in connection with these end-time events that one of the most fascinating teachings of the sect emerges. The messianic hope loomed large in the thought of the brotherhood. As a matter of fact, evidence shows that they actually believed in three messiahs -- one a prophet, another a priest and the third a king or prince. In the document mentioned earlier called the "Manual of Discipline" or the "Rule of the Community," it is laid down that the faithful should continue to live under the rule "until the coming of a prophet and the anointed ones [messiahs] of Aaron and israel" (column 9, line 11). These three figures would appear to usher in the age for which the community was making preparation. In another document found in Cave Four and referred to as the "Testimonia," a number of Old Testament passages are brought together which formed the basis for their messianic expectations. The first is the citation from Deuteronomy 18:18-19 where God says to Moses: "I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee." Next comes a quotation from Numbers 24:15-17, where Balaam foresees the rise of a princely conqueror: "a Scepter shall rise out of israel, and shall smite the corners of Moab," etc. The third passage is the blessing pronounced by Moses upon the tribe of Levi (the priestly tribe) in Deuteronomy 33:8-11. The way in which these three quotations are brought together suggests that the writer looked forward to the advent of a great prophet, a great prince and a great priest. There were three individuals in the Old Testament writings that were referred to as "my anointed ones" -- the prophet, the priest and the king (refer to Ex 29:29; 1 Sam 16:13, 24:6; 1 Kg 19:16; Ps 105:15). Each of these was consecrated to his work by an anointing with oil. The Hebrew word for "anointed" is meshiach, from which we get the word Messiah." Of course they then come to the absurd and contrived conclusion that "The marvelous truth of the New Testament doctrine of the Messiah is that each of these three offices found fulfillment in the person and work of Jesus of Nazareth!" In reality, throughout history only the Prophet of Islam has been known as "The Prophet" (the Messiah in whom were combined the offices of King and "Priest"), while there is a belief in Islam that Jesus (pbuh) (the King Messiah) will come towards the end of the world to rule as a just ruler (King) around the same time as the Imam Mahdi (the "Priest" Messiah). Regards, yusufar (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.islamicunityfoundation(contact admin if its a beneficial link)"]The Islamic Unity Foundation[/url]
  24. ...And the Word was "Be!". This is all God needed to do to create anything and everything. In all probability He need not have said anything, making this Word "Be!" a mere formality. A fundamental misunderstanding of this process has led to all kinds of religious doctrine completely unsupportable by fact. If we accept the fact that only God the Creator existed prior to Creation, then this makes anything else, which is other than God, Creation and not God. What is the basic building block of Creation then? It cannot be God Himself (His Essence, of which we know absolutely nothing) since He is the Creator and not the Created. Neither can it be anything Created, which did not exist prior to Creation. What is it then or what can it be? Can God be in Heaven, as the Christians believe? But surely Heaven was also created by God, so just as surely God must be above Heaven! To conceive of God as being in Heaven or even on earth would place a human limit of space and time on God. God has no such limit. God is Infinite, both in space and time and everything else and cannot be constrained by anything that the human mind can or cannot conceive. Yet God is also closer to us than our jugular vein. How can this be? Well, it can if only we look at ourselves properly in the perspective of the Divine Scheme of things made known to us through Prophets and Revelation and if we understand our position in Creation. With all our human failings, it is nevertheless still possible to ascertain fact from fiction. The fact is that notwithstanding how close any human being can ever get to God, all human beings without exception will always be Created and not Creator. Anything else is fiction and deviation from the Truth. Regards, yusufar (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.islamicunityfoundation(contact admin if its a beneficial link)"]The Islamic Unity Foundation[/url]
×