Jump to content
Islamic Forum

Absolute truth

IF Guardian
  • Content count

    875
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    27

Everything posted by Absolute truth

  1. I am not familiar with Yahiya E. I use Sahih International and I think it's an easy and simple translation.
  2. Here To Explore Islam

    Welcome to the forum Inshaa'Allah I hope you could benefit from the forum. You can teach us about Linux too :) Here is a simple gift as a starter: Free Islamic Books www.islamicbooks4free.com/ Best wishes and you are in your home :yes:
  3. Committed Sins After Taking Shahada

    Salam alaikum Islam is a faith which serves as an alarm clock reminding the creation of their true purpose. It helps to focus the heart, discipline the mind, and perfect the morals and actions. The outcome of such a submission is the dawn of a very special relationship between the Creator and the created. For one cannot develop a true relationship with another until the latter is acknowledged. Thus, by knowing Allah and submitting to Him alone, one will truly feel the heavy shackles of sin lightened and escape from the dungeon that one’s soul had languished in. “There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; therefore, whoever disbelieves in the Shaitan and believes in Allah he indeed has laid hold on the firmest handle, which shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing.” (Al-Baqarah 2:256) “If one firmly believes in Allah, He will guide his heart.” (At-Taghabun 64:11) Since we are bound to fall into error, it is important to remember that our Creator is an understanding and loving Lord. This mercy and understanding are exhibited for Allah is ready to forgive. One of the great bounties that Allah has bestowed upon His servants is forgiveness for evil thoughts and actions. It is one of the great mercies of Allah that we are not called to account for the evil inclinations that appear in our hearts. And, in fact, such evil inclinations if ignored and not acted upon can bear sweet fruit! Fighting against evil inclinations brings one closer to Allah. Prophet said :Allah the Almighty says: “I am as My servant thinks I am. I am with him when he makes mention of Me. If he makes mention of Me to himself, I make mention of him to Myself. And if he makes mention of Me in an assembly, I make mention of him in an assembly better than it. And if he draws near to Me a hand’s span, I draw near to him an arm’s length. And if he draws near to Me an arm’s length, I draw near to him a fathom’s length. And if he comes to Me walking, I go to him at speed.” (Al-Bukhari) God said: Say, "O My servants who have transgressed against themselves [by sinning], do not despair of the mercy of Allah. Indeed, Allah forgives all sins. Indeed, it is He who is the Forgiving, the Merciful."39:53
  4. Proofs Of The Bible's Corruption

    Priest Feeds Congregation Rat Poison to Show They Can Defy Death… They All Die Priest Light Monyeki is from Soshaguve, South Africa. And it seems to be his calling to show his followers that he and those who believe in his teachings were superhumans able to ward off death. Mark 16:18 "when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well." During the High Place Conference, which is also referred to as his “Supernatural Service,” Monyeki proclaimed that they must not fear death, as they will not die. He then started pouring Rattax (a popular rat poison) into a bottle of water, which he then urged his believers to drink. This is Priest Light Monyeki, a non-believer in the power of rat poison. Priest Feeds Congregation Rat Poison to Show They Can Defy Death... They All Die He proclaimed, We do not need to proclaim faith because we are believers. Death has no power over us. Monyeki put some rat poison into a water bottle and then challenged his believers to drink from the poisoned water. Priest Feeds Congregation Rat Poison to Show They Can Defy Death... They All Die Monyeki then took a swig from the bottle of poisoned water. And with the power of belief and the absolute faith they had in Monyeki, many followers ran forward to take a drink as well. The congregation, in their absolute faith in Monyeki, rushed forward to drink the poison. Priest Feeds Congregation Rat Poison to Show They Can Defy Death... They All Die Many of them were enthralled by the idea that they could defy death. Priest Feeds Congregation Rat Poison to Show They Can Defy Death... They All Die Predictably enough, in the evening, many members of the congregation started to complain of stomach pains, and later 5 of them were declared to be dead. 13 more of the member of the congregation were taken to the hospital for ingesting Monyeki’s rat poison ####tail. Monyeki, however, refused to take the blame for the horrific effects of what he did. Instead, all he had to say was, Too much of any good thing could be bad. We’re guessing that by “good thing” he’s referring to the ability to escape from death. The incident has sparked an investigation, though no arrests have been made. Sadly, it looks like Monyeki may walk away a free man as the people who died or became sick from the rat poison were the ones who willingly ingested the concoction! Now, this reminds me of that controversial Pastor who ‘Heals’ HIV and Cancer patients by spraying them with insecticide. http://springsbury.com/priest-feeds-congregation-rat-poison-to-show-they-can-defy-death-they-all-die/
  5. Salam Alaykom

    wa alaikum assalam brother, welcome to the forum :)
  6. By Laura El Alam (a wife and mother of five in Southern California. She is a writer for London-based SISTERS Magazine andAboutislam and was previously a columnist for InFocus News. She embraced Islam in 2000.) “Creators should have nothing to do with Islamic fashion,” asserted Pierre Bergé, co-founder of Yves Saint Laurent in an interview with radio station Europe 1. “Designers are there to make women more beautiful, to give them their freedom, not to collaborate with this dictatorship which imposes this abominable thing by which we hide women and make them live a hidden life.” The “abominable thing” Bergé is referring to — modest Islamic women’s clothing — has recently been appropriated by major designers including DKNY, Dolce & Gabbana, Tommy Hilfiger, and Marks & Spencer. Fashion brands are gradually recognizing that they have a lucrative, untapped market in Muslim consumers and are producing clothes to satisfy that profitable niche. From full-body swimsuits and ankle-length dresses to abâyas and headscarves, the fashion world is starting to incorporate loose and modest garments that are a major departure from the typical sexy runway fashions. But not everyone is happy about it. In her April 14, 2016 article “What Freedom Looks Like” for the New York Times, author Vanessa Friedman explores the backlash that is coming from some people in France’s fashion industry and government. Referring to Pierre Bergé, Friedman writes, “He … implied that the designers were exploiting a misogynist system that, for financial gain, forces women to hide their bodies.” Laurence Rossignol, the French minister for women’s rights, jumped into the fashion fray. In an interview with BFTV, she likened modest clothing to a prison: “What’s at stake is social control over women’s bodies,” she said in an interview on the French news network. “When brands invest in this Islamic garment market, they are shirking their responsibilities and are promoting women’s bodies being locked up.” Rossignol then infamously compared Muslim women to “negroes” who supported slavery, causing a global uproar and accusations of racism. She later recanted that particular part of her statement. Reading the statements of these two French public figures, I am torn between derision and disgust. On one hand, I wonder how they cannot see the irony of their statements. Bergé laments a “misogynist system that, for financial gain, forces women to hide their bodies,” but apparently fails to see any problem with a high-profit fashion industry that has, for centuries, persuaded women to reveal their bodies in order to serve as sex objects, sell clothes, and entice the male gaze. When Rossignol decries “social control over women’s bodies,” doesn’t she see how women’s bodies have been controlled in various ways throughout Western history? Isn’t banning the headscarf in French schools an example of “social control?” Isn’t requiring all swimmers in French pools to wear tiny, tight, and extremely revealing swimsuits another example? On the other hand, I am disgusted with Bergé’s and Rossignol’s depressing and incorrect depiction of Muslim women. The image they are associating with a Muslim woman is of an uneducated, voiceless, oppressed person who has no say in her wardrobe or her life choices. Haven’t they observed the countless Muslim women doctors, professors, engineers, intellectuals, businesswomen, and highly educated and talented women who choose to cover? Don’t they see the millions of empowered Muslim women around the world who have the “freedom” to uncover in their country of residence if they wish, and yet often willingly embrace a modest wardrobe? Unlike Bergé and Rossignol, I view all women as intelligent beings with free will and intellect. I do not think they are so easily duped or forced into dressing or acting certain ways. Even when the runway models are waif thin and wearing extremely revealing clothing, Western non-Muslim women can still choose to dress however they wish. I would not, as Bergé does, define them as “forced” to do things. And although the fashion industry has been criticized widely for creating and perpetuating unrealistic ideals of beauty, I still would not describe Western women as being “locked up” by the shackles of fashion. They have a choice and a mind, should they choose to use them. What about Muslim women? Do we have any choice in our clothing? Are we, as Rossignol said, “consenting slaves”? Are our long dresses, tunics, and abayas truly a prison for us? Do we need to be liberated by the likes of Bergé and Rossignol? First, if the opponents of Islamic clothing bothered to ask Muslim women their opinion, they would learn something that might surprise them: the vast majority of Muslim women who dress modestly do it willingly and for one reason: to please their Creator. “Yes, but what if their husband or father or government is forcing them to cover?” someone is bound to argue. To that question I would reply, “A Muslim woman’s duty to cover is mandated by her Creator. Regardless of what others in her life might do or say, dressing modestly is an act of obedience to Allah. Some women might indeed be exploited or mistreated by individuals or governments, but any oppression of women is un-Islamic.” Besides, do people seriously think that non-Muslim women are free from oppression, coercion, and control? What about uniforms that require women to show their legs, arms, and chests to look appealing for customers? What about egotistical husbands who want their wives to look like “arm candy” at all times? What about mothers who constantly pressure their daughters to lose weight, wear makeup, and squeeze into the latest styles so that they can find a husband, thrive socially, or be a “credit” to their parents? Aren’t these females victims, too?” So let’s look at a realistic view of Muslim women. Of course, there are some Muslimahs who choose not to cover at all, and their freedom of choice is obvious. The majority of Muslim women who do dress modestly do so with their eyes wide open. Their goals are the noblest ones possible: To please their Creator and to earn Paradise. By covering their bodies, they are eschewing public opinion, pop culture, and a superficial understanding of beauty. They are refusing to exhibit their attractiveness or to sell their bodies. Their faith tells them that their worth is not based on their outward appearance, but on their character and morals. Their inner beauty (the most important one) is apparent in their actions and manners, and their outward beauty is revealed on their own terms, only to those who can be entrusted with it. That is empowerment, not prison. Bergé and Rossignol would like to cast themselves as super heroes whose noble task is to liberate the poor Muslim women who are living what Bergé calls “a hidden life.” What, I would ask them, is wrong with a hidden life? Should everything be made public? Aren’t there certain things that even French people would like to keep private? Why should women’s bodies and beauty be expected to be on display for other’s enjoyment? Are men entitled to that? If, theoretically, all women started dressing modestly, who, exactly, would find that disappointing? Is this whole issue really about women’s feelings and empowerment, or about men’s insistence on keeping them half undressed? If a woman chooses to cover her own body in compliance with her faith, isn’t that her right, her freedom? It comes down to a matter of semantics, in a way. What some people call an “abominable thing,” others call “modesty.” What some call “locked up” others call “liberated.” Even the very first word of Bergé’s quote proves that he has a completely different mindset from a Muslim. He uses the term “creators” to describe designers like himself. It is their duty, asserts Bergé, to “make women more beautiful and to give them their freedom.” What a lofty goal for mere mortals with a flair for design! Muslims, of course, have a completely different definition of “Creator.” We live our life to please the One Creator, Allah, and our beauty and freedom are gifts from Him and contingent upon Him. No miniskirt or makeup can make us beautiful if we are rotten on the inside. No politicians or fashionistas can free us if our hearts are slaves to a false god. Therein lies the crux of the matter and why Bergé and Rossegnol will never see why our freedom and our power are in the very garments they abhor. http://aljumuah.com/liberal-discontent-with-designer-modesty/
  7. In the desert of Arabia was Mohammad born, according to Muslim historians, on April 20, 571. The name means highly praised. He is to me the greatest mind among all the sons of Arabia. He means so much more than all the poets and kings that preceded him in that impenetrable desert of red sand. When he appeared Arabia was a desert — a nothing. Out of nothing a new world was fashioned by the mighty spirit of Mohammad — a new life, a new culture, a new civilization, a new kingdom which extended from Morocco to Indies and influenced the thought and life of three continents — Asia, Africa and Europe. When I thought of writing on Mohammad the prophet, I was a bit hesitant because it was to write about a religion I do not profess and it is a delicate matter to do so for there are many persons professing various religions and belonging to diverse school of thought and denominations even in same religion. Though it is sometimes, claimed that religion is entirely personal yet it can not be gain-said that it has a tendency to envelop the whole universe seen as well unseen. It somehow permeates something or other our hearts, our souls, our minds their conscious as well as subconscious and unconscious levels too. The problem assumes overwhelming importance when there is a deep conviction that our past, present and future all hang by the soft delicate, tender silked cord. If we further happen to be highly sensitive, the center of gravity is very likely to be always in a state of extreme tension. Looked at from this point of view, the less said about other religion the better. Let our religions be deeply hidden and embedded in the resistance of our innermost hearts fortified by unbroken seals on our lips. But there is another aspect of this problem. Man lives in society. Our lives are bound with the lives of others willingly or unwillingly, directly or indirectly. We eat the food grown in the same soil, drink water, from the same the same spring and breathe the same air. Even while staunchly holding our own views, it would be helpful, if we try to adjust ourselves to our surroundings, if we also know to some extent, how the mind our neighbor moves and what the main springs of his actions are. From this angle of vision it is highly desirable that one should try to know all religions of the world, in the proper sprit, to promote mutual understanding and better appreciation of our neighborhood, immediate and remote. Further, our thoughts are not scattered as appear to be on the surface. They have got themselves crystallized around a few nuclei in the form of great world religions and living faiths that guide and motivate the lives of millions that inhabit this earth of ours. It is our duty, in one sense if we have the ideal of ever becoming a citizen of the world before us, to make a little attempt to know the great religions and system of philosophy that have ruled mankind. In spite of these preliminary remarks, the ground in these field of religion, where there is often a conflict between intellect and emotion is so slippery that one is constantly reminded of fools that rush in where angels fear to tread. It is also not so complex from another point of view. The subject of my writing is about the tenets of a religion which is historic and its prophet who is also a historic personality. Even a hostile critic like Sir William Muir speaking about the holy Quran says that. “There is probably in the world no other book which has remained twelve centuries with so pure text.” I may also add Prophet Mohammad is also a historic personality, every event of whose life has been most carefully recorded and even the minutest details preserved intact for the posterity. His life and works are not wrapped in mystery. My work today is further lightened because those days are fast disappearing when Islam was highly misrepresented by some of its critics for reasons political and otherwise. Prof. Bevan writes in Cambridge Medieval History, “Those account of Mohammad and Islam which were published in Europe before the beginning of 19th century are now to be regarded as literary curiosities.” My problem is to write this monograph is easier because we are now generally not fed on this kind of history and much time need be spent on pointing out our misrepresentation of Islam. The theory of Islam and Sword for instance is not heard now frequently in any quarter worth the name. The principle of Islam that there is no compulsion in religion is well known. Gibbon, a historian of world repute says, “A pernicious tenet has been imputed to Mohammadans, the duty of extirpating all the religions by sword.” This charge based on ignorance and bigotry, says the eminent historian, is refuted by Quran, by history of Musalman conquerors and by their public and legal toleration of Christian worship. The great success of Mohammad’s life had been effected by sheer moral force, without a stroke of sword. By: Profrssor K.S. Ramakrishna Rao http://www.siasat.com/news/muhammad-prophet-Islam-professor-k-s-ramakrishna-rao-1130120/
  8. Joining To Help Spreading Islam

    Free Islamic Bookswww.islamicbooks4free.com/
  9. An Irishwoman on converting to Islam: 'It excited me. It wasn't anything I thought it was' By Gráinne Ní Aodha I believed there was a God, but I couldn’t find God in the Catholic religion, it didn’t make sense for me. I wasn’t a practising Catholic but I still believed in God, and life was fine but I needed an element of purpose. I started reading the Bible, and felt like their was a total lack of clarity. BRIGID AYLWARD, A paediatric nurse at University Hospital Waterford, grew up as a Christian, but wouldn’t have given much consideration to what that meant. It was after she left home that she started thinking more about where she was was going and for what purpose she was here. She decided that she would travel to a Muslim country where she would work as a nurse in the hope that in isolation, she could reconnect with God, confirming her belief. “When I got to Saudi Arabia, I realised that I had a very western mindset, a western culture. I had so many questions: ‘What the heck is with these women who covered head; I thought it was sad to look at, and that women had no place in society.” ‘Mothers behind the veil’ Brigid says that working as a paediatric nurse in a Muslim country she got to know the “mothers behind the veil”, and disspelled myths she had about the veil. “They don’t have to cover – it’s their choice, they prefer to. They’re human, they’re normal. I started to read about Islam purely to do my job better and to understand these women better. It started to make sense to me – it excited to me. It wasn’t anything I thought it was before. In November 2008 Brigid accepted Islam. There were some fears she had that were associated with it, about what her mum would say and what her family would say. Her husband, who she met while working in hospital in Saudi helped her deal with her fears and she says her family have seen the sense of purpose the religion has given her. “I’ve only ever had positive reactions. I knew people would be surprised at a big change. I’ve only experienced niceness, that’s the great spirit of Ireland.” Brigid says that the news of Donald Trump’s travel ban saddened her, but that she’d be sad no matter what religion they were. “What Trump has done is put a mark on Muslims that says ‘We’ve a reason to be afraid of these people’. This is what we’ve been working against, it’s putting fuel on a fire.” Muslim Holiday NYC Muslim worshippers attend a service for the Eid al-Adha holiday, Monday, Sept. 12, 2016, in the Queens borough of New York. Source: Mark Lennihan Misconceptions about Muslims Dr Rachel Woodlock is an Australian Muslim academic who lives in Clonmel, Co Tipperary. She’s been studying attitudes about Muslims and opinions of Muslims themselves, and says that there are many misconceptions around Islam – one of which is not all Muslims are really religious. “In Christianity, you’re meant to fast during Lent, but not all Catholics fast, not all Catholics go to church, and it’s the same with Islam. Muslims are a lot more heterogeneous – there’s no Vatican equivalent that prescribes what you do.” Woodlock says that a survey was done of a population in Victoria, Australia that showed rates of ‘religiousness’ was the same in the general population as it was with Muslims. “[some Muslims] go to Masjids the same way some Christians go to church at Christmas time. After the Lindt café siege, Woodlock said that different states reacted differently – states like New South Wales started a multicultural-crime force, while Brisbane set-up a multicultural centre. “The thing about the attacker though, the Muslim community had been saying this guy is crazy, we’re worried about him, he doesn’t represent us. At the Quebec shooting this week, the attacker was called a ‘lone wolf’. Well Man Haron Monis was our lone wolf.” She says that in Australia, Muslims make up 2% of the population but take up 30-40% of the media coverage, while in Ireland, about 1% of the population is Muslim and half a percent is covered in the media. “I think the history of terrorism in the north means Ireland can contextualise a national crisis a bit better than most.” Hijabs used as political props In traditional Muslim cultures, both men and women covered their bodies. It later evolved so that it was reserved only for upper class women. This then eventually spread out to all families as a symbol of culture and identity in the 18th century. “Europeans argued that the veil, of the hijab emancipated women,” Woodlock says. “But ironically, people like Lord Cromer who were arguing that these women needed to be set free, were also opposing the suffragette movement in America.” In the Ottoman empire, women were a representation of the Muslim world; the Hijab was seen as the last barrier of defence. “So the veil took on a political current that it wouldn’t have had in previous eras.” Even more so now – with burkini bans in France causing a debate over how to deal with the fear of terrorism and a recent ruling by a Swedish High Court that means Muslim girls must learn to swim with boys as part of their education, the issue of how to make room for tradition in a modern setting is becoming more and more tricky. “Most Muslim women in the west chose to wear a hijab as part of their identity – it’s not a fundamentalist act,” says Woodlock. It’s a part of the religion and there are a lot of different meanings to it, but it all gets collapsed into one symbol of religion. Muslim mother teach her daughter reading koran inside the Masjid. Source: Shutterstock/leolintang “It’s the woman who wants to wear this,” says Brigid. “When you actually wear it then you realise the benefits. “As well as fulfilling the religious requirements, for me I’ve gained more confidence when I speak, they’re not looking at me at what my hair is like, what my body is like, I have an inner confidence.” Woodlock recalls donning a veil when she was visiting a Muslim country, and she says it gave her an deeper understanding of why women wear it. “I really got a sense of the privacy of it – I feel I’m able to look out at the world and operate in the world without the world intruding on me. “But I wouldn’t wear it in the West, as it can create a fear and apprehension.” Aylward and Woodlock took part in the only registered event in Ireland to mark World Hijab Day last Wednesday at Waterford Institute of Technology. The an annual global event was set up by New Yorker Nazma Khan in 2013 in order to fight prejudice and discrimination against Muslim women. www.thejournal.ie/Islam-hijab-3221552-Feb2017/
  10. Some Muslims believe that the problem with the Muslim world is a lack of understanding of Tawheed, and consequently before advocating for the re-establishment of the Caliphate (Khilafah), they believe that the Muslim people must be called to tawheed first. Furthermore, to back-up their argument, they point to the fact that the Prophet Muhammed (saaw) spent 13 years calling to tawheed before the first Islamic state was established. When these Muslims say that there is a problem with the lack of understanding of tawheed – they are exactly right – but not in the way they believe. For when they call to Tawheed, they do not call to the comprehensive Tawheed of Allah (swt) being the highest and only direction of belief, human action, morality and law in all life’s affairs. Instead they only call to Allah being the only God to be worshiped by spiritual rituals and personal habits, leaving brazenly neglected, the vast majority of the worship of God that occurs in all life’s affairs. In effect, these Muslims have secularised ‘Tawheed’, rendering the worship of Allah restricted only to ritualised spiritual actions (ibaadah), and they neglect the worship of Allah through establishing his hukm (laws) in life’s affairs and activities (mu’amalaat) which covers the social to the political. Thus they are the best example of the problem with the Ummah that they claim to campaign against. It is in reality, their ignorance of the true depth and breadth of Tawheed, that is the fundamental problem with the intellectual understanding of Islam amongst the Ummah. So indeed they are right. Secondly, these Muslims only possess a shallow understanding of the method of the Prophet (saaw). The Prophet (saaw) called to Tawheed in the spiritual actions and beliefs of the Pagan Arabs, because they were Polytheists. I think it is safe to say that the Arabs have stopped worshipping Hubaal, Allat, Manat and Al Uzza. If these spiritual-only ‘tawheed’ advocates were consistent with following the method of the Prophet (saaw), then as well as abstaining for calling to the laws of God, they should also abstain from calling people to the 5 daily Salah, since the command for the Salah was 12 years into the Prophet’s mission. But of course, that would be absurd – but so is neglecting to call the people to the laws of God too. As the Quran says about the people of the previous revelations who deferred ruling by the law of God – there is a part of the book they accept, and a part they reject – by not calling to comprehensively. And what these Muslims additionally fail to realise is the Prophet (saaw) spoke out against female infanticide in Mekkah. Isn’t that a critical of a society’s culture and social norms? Didn’t he critique the lack of charity by the rich in that society, and attack its corrupt politicians (Abu Jahl, Abu Lahab, Abu Sufyan -all members of the ‘mala’, the Quraysh parliament of nobles)? All these things that the Prophet did in Mekkah during his first 13 years – are, yes you guessed it, POLITICAL. But Spiritual-only Tawheedists seem to overlook those particular Political criticisms by the Prophet (saaw), despite them being during the first 13 years of his mission! However, due to the absence of guidance in the political sphere (thanks to colonialism), many Muslims have filled in these areas by worshipping the Secular gods of Nationalism (e.g. Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Saudi Arabia etc) by taking glory and pride in their ‘nations’ (which two european colonialist politicians, Skyes and Picot carved out for them in the Sykes-Picot treaty). Muhammed (saaw) wasn’t wrong when he compared people, in a hadith, who believed in nationalism to being in the same condition of the Pagan Arabs before Islam came (i.e. Jahil/Ignorant). In fact, the more you think about it, the more nationalism really does resemble a religion. The nation is viewed as a higher power invisible power which provides sustenance for the people, and created them upon its land (who should be ‘grateful’ to it). The nation has rituals, symbols and a flag for its ‘believers’ (i.e citizens) which must be saluted like it somehow appreciates these salutes as supplications. If someone dies for their country, they are considered martyrs for a ‘noble cause’. Nationalism also has a clergy – the politicians of that state, which act as khulafah (successors) to the founding ‘prophet’ of that nation (which usually is some national hero or founder), whose pronouncements and actions become the Sunnah (tradition) of the state. The politicians are tasked to rule according to the will of their deity, the ‘national will’. And if that isn’t enough of a similarity with religion, consider that as religion defines morality based upon the will of God, so nationalism defines morality by the ‘national interest’. Thus following the interest of the nation becomes the halal, and going against the interest of the nation, becomes the haram. We therefore see these Muslims, who declare their belief in One God, and make supplication and prayer to Him alone, yet ignorantly neglect, and even reject every hukm (law) that Allah (swt) has ordained for society and state. They do not intend to be negligent, but because the only thing they know of Islam, is ‘who to pray to’, they must seek for everything else, to ‘follow the national will’. And if a spiritual-only ‘Tawheed’ advocate approaches them, they respond ‘you do not need to instruct me, I know who I worship’, prompting the advocate to find some small obscure issue merely to find an excuse to continue their mostly irrelevant campaign. If you truly contemplate the nature of the Jahil Muslim, and the Muslim who calls only to the Tawheed of the spiritual actions, they are both exactly the same in their outward activities. Both neglect the political aspect of Islam, and both may indulge in the spiritual aspects of it, with no problem. In fact, I would dare say the Jahil Muslim is better than the Muslim who calls to the ‘tawheed’ of only the spiritual actions, for while the Jahil Muslim is only concerned with their own affairs, the Spiritual-only ‘Tawheed’ caller, actively goes out of their way to block Dawah Carriers from their work, and acts as an obstacle to them until they make the dawah carrier abandon the call to a holistic Islam. It is no surprise then to find, that Secularists, and certain corrupt Muslim countries (backed by the USA) and financed by natural resources, love the Spiritual-only ‘Tawheed’ caller, and support him, for he is their first line of defence against the return of Islam, and the holistic Tawheed, they so fear and loathe. And in calling to only a part of the comprehensive and all-embracing worship of God, they have secularised Tawheed, and are more part of the problem with the Ummah, then part of the solution. https://abdullahalandalusi.com/2013/07/26/the-secularisation-of-tawhid/
  11. The Secularisation Of Tawhid/monotheism

    Welcome back Andalusi, we miss you so much.
  12. Salam

    wa alaikum assalam welcome to the forum sister.
  13. Who Is Jesus (Peace Be Upon Him) -Is Jesus Our Creator?

    Jesus, The icon ? The trinitarian belief system which holds that Jesus was the real God Almighty who incarnated into a human body and thus taking on 100% human nature while retaining 100% divine substance, was and always the most notorious point at issue between Christianity and Islam. Amazing it may seem, as christians love to tell us that God incarnated into a man in order to show God’s love to human and to save them from hell (1), but this, to muslim ears, are out of touch the true Semitic concept of deity and does sound intuitively wrong. God, the ultimate reality of all being, surely must be always be singular, unseen and undivided deity without any imagery (2). From the muslim viewpoint who see themselves as the true heirs of semitic monotheism, this desemiticising of God into a concept more like Sanskrit Avatara resulted in dire consequences. The Quran stated: مَّا الْمَسِيحُ ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ إِلَّا رَسُولٌ قَدْ خَلَتْ مِن قَبْلِهِ الرُّسُلُ ‘The Messiah, son of Mary, was no other than a messenger, messengers the like of whom had passed away before him… (Surat al-Ma’ida, 75) قُلْ يَا أَهْلَ الْكِتَابِ لَا تَغْلُوا فِي دِينِكُمْ غَيْرَ الْحَقِّ وَلَا تَتَّبِعُوا أَهْوَاءَ قَوْمٍ قَدْ ضَلُّوا مِن قَبْلُ O people of the Book – Do not exaggerate in your religion other than the truth, and follow not the vain desires of a people who went astray before you.’ (Surat al-Ma’ida, 77) The Qur’anic term for ‘exaggeration’ used here, ghuluw غلو, became a standard term in Muslim heresiography for any tendency, Muslim or otherwise, which attributed divinity to a revered and charismatic figure (3). On the Question about God who incarnate into a man According to christian belief : God, as creator, to whom all things are possible, can, if He wishes, join a human nature to himself. The resulting person would be fully human and also fully divine.(4) This is the crux where Islam (and also Judaism) disagree. Islamic scholars provide a clear demarkation that although God posses absolute power (Al Qudraatu القدرة) to do all things (5), but he cannot do things that are logically impossible (Maa yastahiilu haqillahu ta’ala ما يستحيل في حق الله تعالى). In other words the fact that God possesses ultimate power does not mean that God will perform something which does not have the possibility of actualization (6): God cannot create a two dimensional shape that is both square and round. God cannot create a man who is both married and a bachelor. God cannot add a human nature on to his divine nature, and the resulting person be both human and divine which is logically impossible. Of course God could enter into a human body. He could even share consciousness with a human person inside a human body. But these beings would never be ‘fully’ divine and ‘fully’ human, but some kind of mixture. Because if God become a man and God become 100% it mean God become equals with man (and share human weakness such as wrongful, dependent on others which is impossible for God (7). Jesus christ as the shaktyavesha avatara an empowered god incarnate in modern hinduism. Trinitarian would normally say that muslims try to keep God in a very small box, and limits Him to abilities that only the finite mind can comprehend. However this argument put the idea of God outside the realm of the logicality and deviates into unintelligible, meaningless philosophical speculation if not a logical fallacy. Using jewish scriptures, trinitarians are keen to point to the burning bush which Moses encountered at Horeb (Exodus 3:1-4) and the cloud covers the tabernacle (Exodus 40:34) to show that God can manifested in many forms,and surely God can also incarnate into man. But the jews believe those manifestation were the works of God’s agent: the angels (throughout jewish scripture, visions of God are accompanied by the sighting of angels). The jewish interpretation are more in line with semitic monotheism that the Angel(s) of the Lord who was commissioned to speak God’s words throughout the Scriptures. Sometime He is called “Lord” on behalf of conveying God’s message to Prophets of God Nabī Āllah نبي الله, but the Angel of the Lord is not God incarnate as trinitarians insist. But even if for argument sake, it was really God who manifested in various incarnation forms in the jewish Bible, why do not trinitarians maintain the same relationship between Jesus and God as the relationship between God and the burning bush or between God and the tabernacle cloud etc. Why trinitarian theologian limit only three members of godhead instead of five (- add the bush and the cloud )?. If anything, trinitarian concept of God becoming a man mixes semitic monotheism and paganism. To worship YHWH through “human nature” for it breaks away with biblical principles that God is not a man (8) and we should not put trust in “son of man” in which there is no salvation (9). Allah knows best. Notes: Catechism: The Son of God Became Man The essence of Judaism: Unity of God Sh. Abdal Hakim Murad’s The Trinity: a Muslim Perspective I take the stance by the adherence of calvinists “classical” orthodoxy like the apologist James White in his debate with brother Abdullah Kunde on the topic “Can God become man“ إِنَّ اللّهَ عَلَى كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ “Allah has the perfect Power over all things” [Q 2:109] Medieval Sunni theologian Abu Ishaq al-Isfara’ini recorded this narration in his Islamic jurisprudence: (my own translation) رُوي أن سيدنا إدريس عليه الصلاة والسلام جاءه مرة إبليس في صورة إنسان وكان سيدنا إدريس يخيط وفي كل دخلة وخرجة يقول سبحان الله والحمد لله، فجاءه إبليس اللعين بقشرة وقال له: الله تعالى يقدر أن يجعل الدنيا في هذه القشرة؟ فقال له سيدنا إدريس: الله تعالى قادر أن يجعل الدنيا في سَمّ هذه الإبرة أي ثقبها، ونخس بالإبرة في إحدى عينيه وجعله أعور “Narrated that prophet Idris peace be upon him received Satan as visitor in the form of man at that time when prophet Idris is sewing (his clothes) while he is praising Allah. Satan ask whether God with His power is able to put the world in the (egg) shell. Prophet Idris replied : ” God is able to put the world into this needle hole” while at the same time he puncture one of the man eye so he then became one-eyed. <> Islamic theologians call this impossibility of God’s attribute as Mumatsalatu Lil Hawadits (مماثلة للحوادث) means “Equals with God Creations”. “Lo eesh El“– לֹ֣א אִ֥ישׁ אֵל֙ “God is not a man” that He should be deceitful, not a “son of man” that He should relent » Numbers 23:19 . It is argued that the verse can not be used as an argument against the Incarnation (Richard Zetter one the contributor of this blog has written about this ), I would argue this is still the case. If anything, it is the acquired human nature after the incarnation that oddly makes god-man a 100% human. To be a human in fulness he has to have the shortcomings of change his mind or lying . Worshipping a hybrid but unseparated god-man constitutes worshipping a human and that is certainly something guilty of idolatry. אַל־תִּבְטְח֥וּ בִנְדִיבִ֑ים בְּבֶן־אָדָ֓ם ׀ שֶׁ֤אֵֽין ל֥וֹ תְשׁוּעָֽה Put not your trust in the great, in son of man who cannot save. [Ps 146:3] Interestingly the very root of hebrew word teshuah תְּשׁוּעָה used in that verse means salvation. It does seem to me that this verse prophesies a danger of worshipping the “son of man” ben Adam בֶן־אָדָ֓ם a man mistakenly thought as god incarnate thus a warning for believing in false salvation. https://bloggingtheology.net/2017/01/15/jesus-the-icon-a-short-muslim-critique-about-god-incarnate/
  14. The Messiahship of Jesus in the Qur’an, New Testament, Old Testament, and Other Sources (by Louay Fatoohi) By Eric bin Kisam To my knowledge there is no academic studies of what the messiahship of Jesus means in the Qur’an in comparison with the messiahship in Judaism and Christianity. This book: The Mystery of the Messiah: The Messiahship of Jesus in the Qur’an, New Testament, Old Testament, and Other Sources, by Louay Fatoohi (Luna Plena Publishing, 2009 ), is the only one of its kind. I consider Dr. Louay Fatoohi a unique muslim scholar of comparative religion. He came from Arab Christian background and has been passionate in studying the Qur’an, Islam and comparative religion since his youth . He is one of a few muslim author I know who is equally conversant with scholarly works on religion on both Christian and Islamic tradition, modern and classical as well as other historical sources, or on combinations of these writings. This book, I must say, is concise yet dense with information with meticulous crafted analysis on why and how the Messiah was developed in Judaism and Christianity. Fatoohi seeks to show that the Qur’anic Messiah is actually the historical one. Fatoohi drew upon his extensive study on the historical Jesus as he went through the concept of the “Messiah” in the Qur’an, the Bible (canonical and non canonical sources) and Dead Sea Scrolls and scholars from this field. In one chapter Fatoohi examines the concept of “Messiah” in the Hebrew Bible and other Jewish sources, including the Dead Sea Scrolls,. He make a very important observation that this title “Messiah” in the Hebrew Bible is applied only to historical never prophetic / future saviour figures, only later Jewish theology and literature started to invent this title as prophetic King, the salvational eschatological Messiah serving to free an oppressed jews abandoned by God. Fatoohi also explains different messiahs in other Jewish writings, the most prominent is the one described as the “son of David” the Royal military saviour and other is the priestly Messiah of Aaronic decendant, albeit the jews were not unanimous in their depiction of the awaited Messiah. In another chapter Fatoohi go through the concept of the term Messiah in the greek New Testament, Christos (Χριστός) from which “Christ” is derived. All New testament writers recognise Jesus as the Christ but in the New Testament the concept of “the Messiah”reflect the substantially bigger role as opposed to the Hebrew Bible. However Fatoohi explains Jesus of the Gospels was not properly anointed according to jewish tradition so that Jewish authorities and most jews did not recognise his messiahship. The same chapter Fatoohi highlight that the term “Christ”makes most of its appearance in Paul’s letters. Paul incorrectly use the term “Christ” as a proper name not title. This show his flawed understanding of what the term mean. Paul’s Christ is a spiritual figure who came to redeem people, by being crucified and raised from the dead. This version of Christ, Fatoohi argues, blur the historical Jesus because it is lack of Jesus historical details. Over centuries, most christians took Paul version of historical Jesus and focus only on the alleged crucifixion and the resurrection of him. Fatoohi dedicated a chapter discussing Al-Masih in the Qur’an. Essentially Fatoohi shows that the title is never presented as the reason for a special prophethood that make Jesus one of the most favoured prophets (yes , Jesus is one of those prophets) however Qur’an 3:45 give indication that the Messiah was a concept that God had previously revealed: a prophecy, although this prophecy is not specifically cited anywhere in the Qur’an as mentioning it centuries after it was fulfilled would not serve any purpose. Also Fatoohi explains that the use of definite article Al Masih does not necessarily mean that the Qur’an implies that there was only one Messiah although Jesus was the one special Messiah. The rest of the chapters Fatoohi discuss the different identities and attribute that the Gospel writers presented the Christ and examine each one of them from the Qur’an perspective, here are some salient points from this book, which I find it interesting: King of the Jews — in addition to anointed priests and prophets , the awaited Messiah is seen by the Jews as King, however the general context in NT, Fatoohi argues that Jesus never sought nor was he ever given the Kingship title. Jesus confirmed that he was the Christ in a way that a prophet and rabbi who remind people to go back to the religion of Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Aaron and all Hebrew prophets. The Christian image of the Messiah as a Spiritual King is the result of blending the Jewish concept of the messiah as an earthly King with the fact that Jesus historical role who was a spiritual leader to the Jews. The Qur’an corrected this distortion and put Jesus as a prophet who teach his people to go back to the teaching of what earlier prophets had brought. Jesus of the Qur’an is not a political leader who was expected to re-establish an earthly kingdom i.e. israel nor a quasi God who posses the throne of Heaven. Second Coming — Fatoohi persuasively argues that the concept of Jesus second coming was developed by Jesus early followers to explain his failure to deliver what they thought the Christ was going to do. The Qur’an does not support this concept of returning Messiah. The Qur’an messiah fulfilled his mission on earth. Although there are a number of hadiths attributed to Prophet Muhammad that seems to confirm Jesus second coming, it must have been influenced by Christian understanding. I am surprised that Fatoohi arrive at this conclusion there is Qur’anic verses which indirectly seems to suggest Jesus return e.g.[sûrah al-Nisâ’: 159, Sûrah al-Zukhruf: 61] as well as those hadiths predicting the returning of Jesus which are considered authentic, nevertheless I still find Fatoohi position plausible albeit minority position among Islamic scholars. I will look into this matter. Son of David — Many christians are eager to link Jesus as being descendant to David, the second King of israel (later just Judah) who had descendants also upon the throne. Here Fatoohi shows how contradictory position in the four gospels in relation to Jesus as being the son of David, and how those position were not reconcilable. On the other hand the Qur’anic position is consistent in maintaining that Jesus is “the son of Mary”, this mean the Qur’an reject any idea that Jesus is a warrior Messiah like David who was going to restore israel thus the fulfilment of the prophecy to David in 2 Samuel 7:16. In my opinion Fatoohi also spot on when bringing the point that Jesus link to Aaron because the fact that the Qur’an call Jesus’ Mother as “sister of Aaron. While as Fatoohi pointed out it is common mistakes among Biblical scholar to understand the expression “sister of Aaron” as meaning that Mary had brother called “Aaron” not as title of tribal connection , I have personally fascinated by this Qur’an term. To me there is a good reason why the Quran refer Mary to Aaron kinship. It emphatically gives a particular significance that Mary’s son ie. Jesus has the birth right as “the Messiah” or anointed one as we can read in Exodus 30:30-31 when God ordered prophet Moses to anoint his brother Aaron with a special type of anointment with a particular oil for kings …..from this anointing it give him and his heirs the right to the priesthood title down to prophet Jesus, hence the title Jesus “the Messiah”. Saviour — Fatoohi explains that the Qur’anic Messiah of Jesus is neither a saviour to bring the jews to restore its own kingdom nor the one who save people from sin by playing role as atoning agent, he is no unique saviour, a messenger and prophet albeit one of special messenger who was conceived miraculously and performed impressive miracles. Suffering Messiah — Fatoohi rightly mention that Judaism actually never knew of a suffering or resurrected messiah and the Qur’an reject the idea that the Messiah ever suffered the Passion. The concept of suffering messiah was a novelty that Christian writers introduced. As a final point, Fatoohi concluded from his study that the messiahship of Jesus in the Qur’an represent the original concept of the messiah or one messiah which was revealed by God which predate any shift in the meaning by Jews and Christian. At first the Jews did not expect a redeemer Messiah as this title is just for any past figures who were anointed as a gesture to sanctify themselves. Later the Jews started to invent a eschatological warrior messiah and associate him with King David to restore the Kingdom of israel. Christians inherited this type of Messiah and projected it even more on their Christ: a King from throne of Heaven who already came to atone people sin. Jesus saw his messiahship as a mandate to conform divine messages that had been revealed to previous prophets that is calling people back to the way of God of Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Aaron and all Hebrew prophets. That is the historical Messiah the Qur’an is telling us about. I can say Fatoohi’s study is helpful in considering critically how the significance of Messiahship evolved from just anointed past figures to eschatological warrior King of Judaism to Pauline god-men Jesus and later how the Qur’an corrected Jesus messiahship back into rightful role : to led jewish people to salvation by showing them the right way to God. As no other Muslim writer/scholar I know have ever attempted to author a book focusing on the concept of “Messiah” like this book, I praise the author for his initiative. Also Dr. Fatoohi has also authored books on similar genre in my collection which I also recommend The Mystery of the Crucifixion: The Attempt to Kill Jesus in the Qur’an, the New Testament, and Historical Sources. (2008) The Mystery of the Historical Jesus: The Messiah in the Qur’an, the Bible, and Historical Sources. (2007) https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/02/09/the-mystery-of-the-messiah-the-messiahship-of-jesus-in-the-quran-new-testament-old-testament-and-other-sources-by-louay-fatoohi/
  15. The Crucifixion Tale: Contradictions And Problems

    Examining Pagan Sources On Jesus Crucifixion, Genuine or Hearsay? By Kaleef K. Karim Christian apologists are in a habit of using any source for the crucifixion of Jesus, even if an author did not refer to Jesus by his name, somehow they would mingle, spice their arguments up that the author(s) must have referred to Jesus. They don’t care whether a passage is a forgery or hearsay, they would add to their collection that Jesus crucifixion outside the Bible is 100% attested, when that is not true in reality. The reason Apologists use various sources from non-Christian authors, they know that ‘thinking’ humans always need outside sources for them to be convinced that Jesus crucifixion is true in order for them to believe in Christianity. All the sources Christian apologists use are hearsay, because none of those so-called sources, apologists cite are eye-witness accounts. All the names provided that claim to attest to Jesus’s crucifixion lived long after Jesus. In other words, these authors mentioned never lived at the time when Jesus was alive. Related Articles: Was Jesus Hanged or Crucified? Examining Jewish sources on Jesus Crucifixion, genuine or forgery? CORNELIUS TACITUS (56 – 117 A.D.) Who was a senator and a historian of the Roman Empire. The passage which is cited by Apologists on Jesus Crucifixion: “Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius. But the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, by through the city of Rome also.” Annals XV, 44 What the passage reveals is: Tacitus doesn’t provide any source where he got this information from. Tacitus names a person who was put to death and uses the name ‘Christus, which cannot be referred to Jesus. If Tacitus was indeed referring to Jesus and he got this information from the Roman archives, as Apologists assume, why didn’t Tacitus use Jesus name? Why did he just refer to the person being killed under Pilate by the name Christus? Tacitus mentions that this person (Christus) was put to death by “Pilate procurator”. What we know historically contradicts what Tacitus says. Pilate was not a “procurator” but a ‘prefect’. Even if we assume for sake of argument that this passage refers to Jesus, Tacitus most certainly received this information from hearsay. There is absolutely nothing in this passage which can be taken as proof that Jesus was crucified. Most probably Tacitus heard rumours about a man called ‘christus’ and wrote something about it. Scholars are also of the opinion that Tacitus’s statement was taken from other Christians. Then, such source cannot be independent information. He is merely repeating what other Christians are saying about Jesus, and most Christians themselves would boast, exaggerate things. German Professor Leonhard Goppelt writes: “We would be very much inclined to ascribe special significance to non-Christian information about Jesus because of its ostensible lack of bias. Our expectations would be high, e.g., if the trial folios of Pilate should be discovered on a piece of papyrus. In all probability, however, such a discovery would lead to disappointment since they would offer only a sum of misunderstandings, much like the accounts of Plinius about the Christians. Such is the confirmed the small number of extant non-Christian sources of information about Jesus from the 1st and 2nd centuries. AMONG THE ROMAN HISTORIANS, JESUS IS MENTIONED ONLY ONCE EACH BY TACITUS AND SUETONIUS. WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY ABOUT HIM CA. A.D, 110 HAS BEEN TAKEN FROM STATEMENTS OF CHRISTIANS. This fact is not astonishing at all since, after all, for the empire in this period, the activity of Jesus and his disciples was nothing more than a remote affair with hardly more than local significance.” [1] Professor Richard Thomas France says: “THE BRIEF NOTICE IN TACITUS ANNALS XV.44 MENTIONS ONLY HIS TITLE, CHRISTUS, AND HIS EXECUTION IN JUDEA BY ORDER OF PONTIUS PILATUS. NOR IS THERE ANY REASON TO BELIEVE THAT TACITUS BASES THIS ON INDEPENDENT INFORMATION-IT IS WHAT CHRISTIANS WOULD BE SAYING IN ROME IN THE EARLY SECOND CENTURY. Suetonius and Pliny, together with Tacitus, testify to the significant presence of Christians in Rome and other parts of the empire from the mid-sixties onwards, but add nothing to our knowledge of their founder. No other clear pagan references to Jesus can be dated before AD 150/1/, by which time the source of any information is more likely to be Christian propaganda than an independent record.” [2] American New Testament Scholar Bart D. Ehrman also writes on Tacitus’s passage, he says: “…would Tacitus know what he knew? It is pretty obvious that he had heard of Jesus, but he was writing eighty-five years after Jesus would have died, and by that time Christians were certainly telling stories of Jesus (the Gospels had been written already, for example), whether the mythcists are wrong or right. IT SHOULD BE CLEAR IN ANY EVENT THAT TACITUS IS BASING HIS COMMENT ABOUT JESUS ON HEARSAY RATHER THAN, SAY DETAILED HISTORICAL RESEARCH. Had he done serious research, one might have expected him to say more, if he even just a bit. But even more to the point, brief though his comment is, Tacitus is precisely wrong in one thing he says. He calls Pilate the ‘procurator’ of Judea. We now know from the inscription discovered in 1961 at Caesarea that as governor, Pilate had the title and rank, not of procurator (one who dealt principally with revenue collection), but of prefect (one who also had military forces at his command). This must show that Tacitus did not look up any official record of what happened to Jesus, written at the time of his execution (if in fact such a record ever existed, which is highly doubtful). He therefore had heard the information. Whether he heard it from Christians or someone else is anyone’s guess.“ [3] What I stated at the start that, most probable is that, the statement of Tacitus was not independent research; the Scholars quoted, confirmed this that Tacitus statement cannot be taken as independent information. He is just repeating what others are saying, his information is derived from hearsay. THALLUS is another historian quoted by apologists that, he wrote something on the midday darkness linked up to Jesus crucifixion, of the Gospels. There are no fragments that have survived from his works, all of it has perished. Thallus statement is quoted by Africanus in the second century (or third century A.D.). Here is the passage: “On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness. The rocks were rent by an earthquake and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun. For the Hebrews celebrate the passover on the 14th day according to the moon, and the passion of our Savior falls on the day before the passover. But an eclipse of the sun takes place only when the moon comes under the sun. And it cannot happen at any other time… Phlegon records that, in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth hour to the ninth-manifestly that one of which we speak.” Chronography XVIII, 47 Reading the passage, we do not know what Thallus actually wrote. All we have is Africanus commenting and dismissing Thallus statement on the eclipse. Christian apologists have connected Thallus statement about the darkness that befall Judea with Jesus crucifixion, they try to connect the two, as if Thallus is talking about the same event, in the same year. All we have is Thallus making a comment of a supernatural event of an eclipse, and apologists have stretched his statement connecting it to Jesus crucifixion. There is absolutely nothing in this passage for anyone to be convinced that Thallus mentioned anything about Jesus. The most logical conclusion regarding this passage is Thallus merely reported on a solar eclipse then later Christians associated it with the crucifixion. Reverend Nathaniel Lardner D.D. who was an English theologian goes in great detail on Thallus statement, he writes: “IV. Thallus, a Syrian author is sometimes alleged by learned moderns, as bearing witness to the darkness at the time of our saviour’s passion. Whether there be any good reason for so doing, may appear from a few observations. In the fragments of Africanus, which are in the Chronicle of G. Synecellus of the eighth century, and in the collections of Eusebius’s Greek Chronicle, as made by Joseph Scaliger, that very learned ancient Christian writer says, “There was a dreadful darkness over the whole world, and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many buildings were overturned in Judea, and in other parts of the earth. This darkness Thallus calls an eclipse of the sub, in the third book of his histories: but as seems to me, very improperly; for the Jews keep the Passover in the fourteenth day of the moon; at which time an eclipse of the sun is impossible.” Upon this passage I must observe, 1. THAT IT APPEARS ONLY IN THE FRAGMENTS OF AFRICANUS; WHEREAS IT OFTEN HAPPENS THAT, IN COLLECTIONS OF THAT KIND, WE DO NOT FIND SO MUCH ACCURACY AS COULD BE WISHED. 2. THE WORDS OF THALLUS ARE NOT CITED: FOR WHICH REASON WE CANNOT PRESUME TO FORM A JUDGMENT CONCERNING WHAT HE SAID. 3. This passage of Thallus is no where quoted or referred to by any other ancient writer that I know of. It is not in any work of Eusebius, excepting those Greek collections of his chronicle, which are very inaccurate and imperfect: nor is there any notice taken of it in Jerome’s version of the Chronicle. The time of Thallus seems not be exactly known. If indeed there was anything in his history relating to transactions in Judea in the time of our saviour, he must have lived between that time and Africanus; but of that we want some farther proof. In Eusebius’s Evangelical preparation is quoted a long passage of Africanus, from the third book of his Chronology; where are mentioned, all together, Diodorus, Thallus, Castor, Polybius , and Phlegon. And afterwards Hellanicus and Philochorus, who wrot a history of Syria; Diodorus, and Alexander Polyhistor. Whereby we learn that Thallus was a Syrian, who wrote in the Greek language. Thallus is quoted by divers ancient Christian writers. Justin Martyr, in his exhortation to the Greeks, allegeth Hellanicus, Philochorus, Castor, and Thallus, as bearing witness to the antiquity of Moses, the Jewish lawgiver. Tertullian and Minucius Felix quote Thallus and divers other authors, as acknowledging Saturn to have been a man who had lived on this earth. Thallus and other writers are quoted with a like view by Lactantius. Theophilus, bishop of Antioch about the year 180, in his atter to Autolicus, quotes Thalluys, to prove that Belus lived long before the Trojan War; which passage is quoted again from Theophilus by Lactantius. All these quotations of THALLUS APPEAR TO BE MADE PROPERLY: AND HE IS SO QUOTED WITH OTHER WRITERS OF ANTIQUITY, THAT ONE MIGHT BE APT TO THINK THAT HE LIVED RATHER BEFORE THAN AFTER OUR SAVIOURS COMING; nor is there anything here said of an eclipse, which may induce us to think that the passage in the fragments of Africanus is not material. Indeed if I was unwilling to admit anything disrespectful to the memory of so great and learned an ancient as Africanus, I SHOULD SUSPECT THAT THE ECLIPSE MENTIONED BY THALLUS, (WHENEVER IT HAPPENED,) WAS A NATURAL ECLIPSE OF THE SUN. FOR IT IS NOT LIKELY THAT A LEARNED HISTORIAN, AS THALLUS WAS, SHOULD USE THAT EXPRESSION CONCERNING ANY OTHER DARKNESS OR OBSCURITY. CONSEQUENTLY, WHAT HE SAID COULD NOT HAVE ANY REFERENCE TO THE DARKNESS IN JUDEA AT THE TIME OF OUR SAVIOUR’S LAST SUFFERINGS.” [4] Retired Professor George Albert Wells: “THE RELEVANT ARTICLE IN A STANDARD CHRISTIAN RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA NOTES CURTLY THAT “THALLUS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS WITNESSING” TO EVENTS IN JESUS’S LIFE. Jacoby notes that it is not certain from what Africanus said that Thallus made any mention of Jesus or Jewish history at all, and may simply have recorded the eclipse of the sun in the reign of Tiberius, for which astronomers have calculated the date 24 November A.D. 29; it may have been Africanus who introduced Jesus by retorting- from his knowledge of Mark- that this was no eclipse, but a supernatural event. That this may be so is conceded by R.T. France who, having studied both Bruce’s argument and my reply to it in DJE, comments: “We do not know whether Thallus actually mentioned Jesus’s crucifixion or whether this was Africanus’s interpretation of a period of darkness which Thallus had not specifically linked with Jesus.” France also rejects the confident statement that Thallus wrote “about A.D. 52”, and says that ‘his date of writing is not known’….” [5] The evidence presented again for another so-called historian, cited by Christian Apologists, is refuted by their own Christian experts that, what Thallus mentioned was most likely just an eclipse and had nothing to do with Jesus crucifixion. MARA BAR SERAPION Who is only known for writing a letter to his son while in captivity, which allegedly speaks about Jesus. Let’s read the passage and see if there is any mention of Jesus of the Gospels: “What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plaque came upon them as a judgement for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that, that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians clied of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on the teaching of Plato.” There nothing whatsoever in this passage that says anything about Jesus. It doesn’t say where this ‘wise king’ lived. It doesn’t mention how this ‘wise king’ was killed. It just mentions that Jews killed the ‘wise king’, that is it! How can apologists be 100% sure that this is referring to Jesus Christ of the Gospels, when there is no detail whatsoever to know, who Serapion is speaking about? If Serapion wanted to refer to Jesus in this passage, why didn’t he do so by name, as he done with Socrates and Pythagoras? Why did he just say a ‘wise king’ got killed by the Jews and left it at that? Conclusion: The sources cited by apologists on Jesus crucifixion are worthless. The evidences presented by scholars would make anyone think, these passages cited by Christian apologists are useless. The best we can say is that, these passages cited are second-hand hearsay of what they heard from other Christians say. None of these authors cited by Christians are contemporary eye-witness accounts of Jesus life. All the authors mentioned by Christians, in defence of Jesus crucifixion, never lived at the time when Jesus was alive. Isn’t it ironic that there is not one contemporary writer when Jesus was alive, that mentions anything about Jesus crucifixion outside the New Testament? References: [1] The Ministry of Jesus in Its Theological Significance by Leonhard Goppelt Volume 1 [Copy Right 1981] page 18 – 19 [2] The Gospels As Historical Sources For Jesus,The Founder Of Christianity by Professor R. T. France http://leaderu.com/truth/1truth21.html [3] Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth By Bart D. Ehrman [4] The works of Nathaniel Lardner D.D. With A Life by Dr. Kippis (1835) volume 7 page 121 – 123 [5] The Jesus Legend By George Albert Wells page 43 – 46 https://discover-the-truth.com/2013/11/22/examining-pagan-sources-on-jesus-crucifixion-genuine-or-hearsay/
  16. The Crucifixion Tale: Contradictions And Problems

    Did earliest Christians believe (alleged) crucifixion to be indispensible? An account of the earliest biblical Christians who did not believe crucifixion to be imperative! By Question Mark Introduction, Background and Premise Paul had made it indispensible for his followers that Jesus’ (peace be upon him) alleged crucifixion is the corner stone of Christianity. According to Paul’s doctrines, without Christ’s (peace be upon him) alleged sacrifice there is nothing else in Christianity: Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how thatChrist died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: (1 Co 15:1-4) And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.(1 Co 15:14) The reason why Paul gave utmost importance to the alleged sacrifice of Jesus (peace be upon him) is because, according to Paul (not all Christians as we would soon observe), Jesus’ (peace be upon him) alleged sacrifice was the only way for the remission of sins: And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. (Heb 9:22) Remember that before Paul preached his branded theology, Old Testament Laws had already provided enough doctrines and teachings on remission of sins and salvation; no wonder Paul pre-empted Laws by stating that they are dead: “But before the time for faith came, the Law kept us all locked up as prisoners until this coming faith should be revealed. And so the Law was in charge of us until Christ came, in order that we might then be put right with God through faith. Now that the time for faith is here, the Law is no longer in charge of us.” (Galatians 3: 23-25) “Now, however, we are free from the Law, because we died to that which once held us prisoners. No longer do we serve in the old way of a written law, but in the new way of the Spirit.” (Romans 7:6) Holy Bible, Good News Edition, Today’s English Version In fact Paul went as far as to claim that with Laws remission of sins and salvationcannot be achieved: Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. (Gal 2:16) But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. (Gal 3:11) Furthermore, Paul even asserted that Christ’s (peace be upon him) alleged sacrifice would be wasted if righteousness/salvation/atonement is achieved by any other means other than alleged cross: I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. (Gal 2:21) Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. (Gal 5:4) On the foregoing, Paul claimed that if Christ (peace be upon him) is not allegedly crucified and raised then the sins of believers would remain – it would not be blotted out: And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. (1 Co 15:17) Thus, to sum up, Paul’s theology is: Without alleged sacrifice of Jesus (peace be upon him) Christianity is vain. The only mode of atonement is through the alleged blood of Christ (peace be upon him) OT Laws were allegedly rendered defunct with the arrival of Messiah (peace be upon him)… …it is because if observation of OT Laws provided salvation then Messiah’s (peace be upon him) precious and “perfect” sacrifice is worthless. Thus, conclusively, it is only the perfect (alleged) sacrifice of Jesus (peace be upon him) which brings salvation and remission of sins. So far so good, however, notice that it is only Paul who is preaching; he was not the only “apostle” preaching about Christianity – there were other stalwarts as well, like James. In fact when we read James’ preaching (through his epistles) then he over and over again contravened Paul on key and very basic doctrines of Christianity. James even contradicted Paul on the indispensability of the alleged crucifixion of Jesus (peace be upon him)! Consider the following passage, for instance: “Do not deceive yourselves by just listening to his word; instead, put in into practice. Whoever listens to the word but does not put it into practice is like a man who looks in a mirror and sees himself as he is. He takes a good look at himself and then goes away and at once forgets what he looks like. But whoever looks closely into PERFECT LAW THAT SETS PEOPLE FREE, who keeps on paying attention to it, but puts it into practice – that person will be blessed by God in what he does. (James 1: 22-25, Holy Bible, Good News Edition, Today’s English Version) Now please ponder with neutral mind. If indeed Paul’s assertions would have been universal representation of Christian doctrines, in other words, if Paul’s doctrines would have been the only theology in Christianity, then, James would have echoed with Paul that: emancipation comes ONLY by the alleged “blood of Christ”, man can never be justified with the works of the Laws on the contrary, he would “fall from grace”, Christ’s (peace be upon him) “perfect” sacrifice has obviated the observance of the Laws, on the foregoing, if anyone follows the Laws even after Messiah’s (peace be upon him) alleged crucifixion then the alleged “perfect” sacrifice would be wasted so on and so forth. However, contrary to all of the above, James postulates that Christian believershave to follow the Laws of the Old Testament to “set themselves free”, in other words, to emancipate themselves from their sins! He exhorts his disciples to not merely read the Laws but put them into practice for remission of their sins. However, the issues are: (I) Did not James know that Christ’s (peace be upon him) alleged “perfect” sacrifice has been offered which is more than enough, if not the only mode of remission of sins? (II) Did not James know that with Christ (peace be upon him) the Laws which “sets people free” have come to an end? (III) More importantly, did not James know that if Laws would “set people free” then Paul’s “lord and savior’s” precious sacrifice would be rendered “vain”? Refer Gal 2:21, 5:4. It would be disrespectful to the knowledge of “apostle” James that he did not know all of the above. That being the case, the only logical inference to be made is: James either, did not consider Jesus’ (peace be upon him) alleged crucifixion the only way of emancipation or perfect enough to “set people free”! It is because even after Christ’s (peace be upon him) alleged crucifixion, if James who is no less than Paul if not more than him, claims that Christians need to observe Laws which “set people free” – then it means beside Jesus’ (peace be upon him) alleged sacrifice, Laws were also potent enough to emancipate people. Acknowledging the obvious problems and contradiction with James’ doctrines, Christians Scholars have come out with weird and desperate, if not disrespectful and belittling, commentaries imputing that James did not had apostolic authority and that his preaching were not meant for Christians (!!??). The Epistle of James is not addressed to the assembly, and does not take the ground of apostolic authority over the persons to whom it is sent. It is a practical exhortation which still recognises the twelve tribes and the connection of the christian Jews with them, as John addressed the Gentiles, although the Jewish people had their place before God. Thus the Spirit of God still acknowledges here the relationship with israel, as in the other case the relationship with Gentiles, and the rights of God which are unchangeable, whatever may be the special privileges granted to the assembly or to israel respectively. We know that historically the christian Jews remained Jews to the end of the New Testament history, and were even zealous for the law — to us a strange thing, but which God endured for a time.(John Darby’s Synopsis, James 1:1-27) Observe very assiduously the important last sentence in the commentary. Notice that Darby makes two assertions: (A) Earliest Christians remained Jews, in other words, they remained loyal to OT Laws and subsequently doctrines promulgated by James. (B) To all those who follow Paul’s preached Christianity, James’ preaching comes as a “strange thing”. Both the above observations have very strong implications: First observation, namely (A), imply that majority, if not all, earliest Christians (including James and other “apostles”) believed that even after the so called “perfect”, precious, and Law-ending sacrifice (alleged) of Messiah (peace be upon him), Old Testament Laws were viable and potent enough as an alternative mode besides the alleged sacrifice to “set people free”. Thus, majority, if not all, earliestChristians did not believe that Jesus’ (peace be upon him) alleged sacrifice was the only way of emancipation and that without it there could not be any remission of sins. Secondly, that is observation (B) implies and further corroborates that indeed James’ doctrines were not in line with popular Christian doctrines, if not contradictory to Paul’s doctrines, otherwise it would not have engendered a “strange” reaction in John Darby – a follower of Paul’s doctrines. Rather than exclaiming on James’ doctrines, Christians need to reconsider each position (that of James and Paul) because who knows James and all of earliestChristians would have had a similar “strange” reaction had they seen Christians of Paul’s thoughts. More biblical proofs that alleged cross was not indispensible James was not merely preaching but his actions proved that he and the earliestChristians did not believed the alleged sacrifice of Jesus (peace be upon him) to be imperative and the only mode of salvation. James and his colleagues in the Church of Jerusalem continued to practice Old Testament Laws and rituals including SIN – OFFERING! In fact what is more ironical is that they made Paul the leader of the OT rituals – the very same person who was championing that OT Laws had been rendered dead with Jesus (peace be upon him), Christ’s (peace be upon him) “perfect” sacrifice (alleged) sacrifice has obviated any need of observance of OT Laws, so on and so forth: “When we arrived in Jerusalem, the believers welcomed us warmly. The next day Paul went with us to see James; and all the church elders were present. Paul greeted them and gave a complete report of everything that God had done among the Gentiles through his work.After hearing him, they all praised God. Then they said, Brother Paul, you can see how many thousands of Jews have become believers, and how devoted they all are to the Law.They have been told that you have been teaching all the Jews who live in Gentile countries to abandon the Law of Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or follow the Jewish customs.They are sure to hear that you have arrived. What should be done, then?This is what we want you to do. There are four men here who have taken a vow. Go along with them and join them in the ceremony of purification and pay their expenses; then they will be able to shave their heads. In this way everyone will know that there is no truth in any of the things that they have been told about you, but that you yourself life in accordance with the Law of Moses.But as for the Gentiles who have become believers, we have sent them a letter telling them we decided that they must not eat any food that has been offered to idols, or any blood, or any animal that has been strangled, and that they must keep themselves from sexual immorality. So Paul took the men and the next day performed the ceremony of purification with them. Then he went into the Temple and gave notice of how many days it would be until the end of the period of purification,when a sacrifice would be offered for each one of them. (Acts 21: 17-26. Today’s English Version) The above ritual is core Old Testament system found in the Book of Numbers which symbolized forgiveness and remission of sins: “When a Nazirite completes his vow, he shall perform the ritual. He shall go to the entrance of the Tent and present to the LORD three animals without any defects: a one-year-old male lamb for a burnt-offering, a one-year-old ewe lamb for a sin-offering, and a ram for a fellowship-offering.” (Numbers 6: 13-14, Today’s English Version) Christians Scholars also agree that OT ritual as mentioned in Book of Numbers was used to purify and help remitting sins as they included SIN – OFFERINGS: “And be at charges with them – Share with them the expense of the offerings required when the vow is completed. Those offerings were a ram of a year old for a burnt-offering, a sheep of the same age for sin-offering, a ram for a thank-offering, a basket of unleavened cakes, and a libation of wine.” (Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, Acts 21:24) Here are multiple problems with the above account of Book of Acts: (I) If James and his colleagues in the Jerusalem Church indeed believed like Paul that Christ (peace be upon him) has allegedly paid the most precious remission for their sins then why did they offered “sin-offering”? (II) On the foregoing, if James and others believed that Jesus (peace be upon him) brought the Laws to an end then why did they at all care for the rituals of Book of Numbers – an OT Law. (III) Why did Paul contradict his own teachings by not merely partaking but leading and even paying for the OT Laws and its rituals a) Did he forget that his “lord and savior’s” has brought to end what he was executing? b) Did not he had any scruple that by the mere “useless” and “outward rule” he would gain nothing but on the contrary, Christ’s (peace be upon him) precious (alleged) sacrifice would be rendered “vain”? c) On what basis did “apostle” Paul partake in the “purification ceremony”? Was not Paul inspired enough to know that sins of believers were purged with the alleged blood of Christ (peace be upon him)? d) In fact by partaking in the ceremony, Paul jeopardized his salvation since he previously claimed (c.f. 1 Co 15:17) that if Christ (peace be upon him) alleged sacrifice did not provide salvation then the faith is in vain andsins remain! The very reason that James and the majority of earliest Christians still believed in the viability of OT laws and its rituals, especially, when it included SIN – OFFERINGin it, sends more than a message that although they might have respected the alleged sacrifice but they did not considered it to be the only mode of salvation or perfect enough! In fact there are numerous Jamesian verses which lends support to the notion that James and his colleagues did not believed faith in alleged crucifixion complete enough for salvation because James strongly exhorted (to the point of contravening Paul) his followers to complement faith with the works of the Laws (as contrary to Paul’s faith-only doctrine): “My brother, what good is it for someone to say that he has faith if his actions do not prove it? Can that faith save him? Suppose there are brothers and sisters who need clothes and don’t have enough to eat. What good is there in your saying to them, “God bless you! Keep warm and eat well!” – if you don’t give them the necessities of life? So it is with faith: if it is alone and includes no actions, then it is dead.” (James 2: 14-17) “But someone will say, “One person has faith, another has actions.” My answer is, “Show me how anyone can have faith without actions. I will show you my faith by my actions.” Do :You believe that there is only one God? Good!The demons also believe – and tremble with fear. You fool! Do you want to be shown that faith without actions is useless?” (James 2: 18-20) Conclusion On one hand we have Paul and his doctrines which enjoins Christian believers that after Christ (peace be upon him) OT Laws were rendered ineffective and the only mode of remission of sins and salvation is through the alleged cross of Christ (peace be upon him). Nevertheless, this notion was not entirely accepted by theearliest Christians as a whole including contemporary apostles. Even after Christ’s alleged perfect and precious sacrifice, James emphatically preached that Christians need to observe the OT Laws because it “sets people free” – once again James was preaching this after Jesus’ (peace be upon him) alleged crucifixion. In fact, James wrote multiple passages just to defend the notion that mere faith in Christ and the alleged cross would not suffice, it has to be complemented with the works of the Laws! James and earliest Christians, even after the alleged crucifixion of Christ (peace be upon him), not merely observed the first ten moral commandments but even observed the OT rituals punctiliously – the same rituals which Paul imputed to be “useless” and merely “outward rules”. What is even interesting is that, these rituals even included SIN-OFFERING in the form of sacrifice of animals which specifically meant to remit sins! It does not end here, Paul who was hitherto championing inefficacy of OT Laws and their “uselessness” and plasticity (“outward rules”) was found not merely observing OT rituals but even leading and bearing the expenses of it! Thus, either contradicting himself and his “divinely inspired inspirations” or establishing that Christ’s (peace be upon him) alleged crucifixion is not imperative enough! Even after all of James’ otherwise preaching, if more popular Christianity wants to do away with Jamesian epistles then they need to justify why they trump James to Paul. Remember, James was the one who met Jesus (peace be upon him) in person – not Paul. Therefore, if James is not greater than Paul then he is, at least, no less either and in this scenario there need to be strong enough grounds to reject James to Paul. Related Articles: How Paul’s personal problem became corner stone of Christianity! What was Paul up to in Jerusalem? High Octane Faceoff in Jerusalem! Addendum to “High Octane Faceoff in Jerusalem”! The Super Pious “Apostle” End Notes: Emphasize wherever not matching with the original, is ours. Unless otherwise mentioned, all biblical text is taken from King James Version, e-Sword Version. https://discover-the-truth.com/2013/11/05/did-earliest-christians-believe-alleged-crucifixion-to-be-indispensible/
  17. Why Muslims Are The True Followers Of Jesus Pbuh

    How Paul’s personal problem became Corner Stone of Christianity! “when the commandment came, sin sprang to life, and I died. And the commandment which was meant to bring life, in my case brought death.” – Paul By Question Mark Introduction God revealed Laws of the Old Testament (OT) so that its followers could live a successful life in every respect! Over centuries, OT prophets and their followers held high esteem about the benefits of the Laws. However, later, after the ascension of Jesus (peace be upon him), Paul promulgated entirely different concepts about Law. It now had little or no positive providence but a lot of negative implications. Nevertheless, Paul by purporting so breached a lot of divinely revealed verses of the OT. The sad part does not end here – the violations (of OT Laws and verses) became corner stone of Christianity! Thus, it is our intent to bring to light the breaches and request sincere Christians to reconsider whom and what they are following. Pauline Theology: Laws engender Sins If one visits the various “epistles” which Paul has written, he will observe that Paul had little or no consideration for the benefits of the Laws: “Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.” (Gal 3:21-22, King James Version, e-Sword) In fact Paul unabashedly claims that sins are nourished because of the God-breathed-Laws so much so that without Laws sins are a dead thing (!): “Death gets its power to hurt from sin, and sin gets its power from the Law. But thanks be to God who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ!” (1 Corinthians 15: 56-57) “For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.” (Rom 4:14-15. King James Version, e-Sword) “If the Law not said, “Do not desire what belongs to someone else,” I wouldnot have known such a desire. But by means of that commandment sin found its chance to stir up all kinds of selfish desires in me. Apart from law, sin is a dead thing.” (Romans 7:7-8) Furthermore, Paul goes out of the way to ironically and absurdly claim that the only reason why God revealed Laws so that “sins would increase” (!): “Law was introduced in order to increase wrongdoing; but where sin increased, God’s grace increased much more.” (Romans 5:20) It is not hard to realize that Paul considered divine Laws to be the very cause of sins amongst humanity. In fact he attributes the functions of Satan upon God’s Laws by (i) claiming that sinful desires are incited by God’s divine Laws (ii) Humans are exposed to the knowledge and temptations of sins but because of Laws (otherwise humans would never have known sins). Consider the following Pauline verses: “For when we lived according to our human nature, the sinful desires stirred up by the Law were at work in our bodies, and all we did ended in death.” (Romans 7:5) “Shall we say, then, that the Law itself is sinful? Of course not! But it was the Law that made me know what sin is. If the Law had not said, “Do not desire what belongs to someone else,” I would not have known such a desire.” (Romans 7:7) Psalmist: OT Laws give success and salvation! However, contrary to Paul’s utter low opinion and incrimination of the OT Laws; OT prophets reasoned that humans can keep away from sins only by following the Laws: “How can a young man keep his life pure? By obeying your commands. With all my heart I try to serve you; keep me from disobeying your commandments. I keep your law in my heart, so that I will not sin against you…I will repeat aloud all the Laws you have given. I delight in following your commands more than in having great wealth. I study your instructions; I examine your teachings. I take pleasure in your Laws; your commands I will not forget.” (Psalms 119:9-16) Notice the rationales of the Psalmist. For him, human can keep their life sin-free only by obeying and practicing the Laws. This is in stark contradiction to the Pauline teaching wherein Paul taught that (A.) sinful desires are stirred up by Laws and (B.) humans knew sins but because of the God-Breathed-Laws!? Furthermore, why would the Psalmist find “delight” in obeying the Laws if it werestirring up sins in him? Was he morally less or was Paul more God fearing (than the Psalmist)? Did not the Psalmist know that Laws stir up sinful desires and therefore, he should not find “delight” in obeying the Laws? Or, was Paul misunderstanding the attributes of Laws? In fact the Psalmist wanted to save the Laws in his heart – the same place where sins were stirred in Paul: “Your teachings are wonderful; I obey them with all my heart. The explanation of your teachings gives light and brings wisdom to the ignorant. In my desire for your commands I pant with open mouth…Save me from those who oppress me, so that I may obey your commands. Bless me with your presence and teach me your laws. My tears pour down like a river, because people do not obey your law.” (Psalms 119:129-136) Notice the longing which the Psalmist has for the Laws. He is panting with open mouth and crying to follow the Laws. If Laws were revealed to “increase wrongdoing” then why was this Psalmist panting and crying to follow such Laws? Moreover, why does he want to obey them with all his heart? Who is compelling him to follow that which stir up “evil desires” and where revealed only to “increase wrong doings”? The answer to all such queries are simple, either of the one – Psalmist or Paul misunderstood the purpose and qualities of the Laws. And in such a situation it is better to bank on the Psalmist who was God’s personally chosen messenger! Moreover, his views are multiply attested by other God’s prophets like Ezekiel, Nehemiah etc. Whereas, on the other hand, we have contemporaries of Paul contravening him! In fact a closer look at Paul’s reasoning clarify that he had personal problems with the OT Laws and not that Laws were “sin inciting” per se as he claimed: “I myself was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life, and I died. And the commandment which was meant to bring life, in my case brought death”. (Romans 7:9-10) We saw the providential capacities of the Laws with OT prophets – it was life and salvation giving to them (c.f. Ezekiel 20:11, 33:14-15), however, in Paul’s personal case, “…in my case…” Laws were working backwards. Conclusion With the foregoing factual qualification, is it justified to reject and sneer at God’s divinely revealed Laws, multiply attested by numerous OT prophets; for the personal problems of an individual mortal (Paul)? Before discarding the Laws as a whole, sincere Christians need to rethink: There are God’s divine Laws which were all providential to sincere and purportedly strictest monotheists and they testified towards it so much so that they wanted to follow it with panting mouth and tears in their eyes. How Paul’s personal problem became Corner Stone of Christianity! And all of a sudden we have a mortal (Paul) who declares that Laws worked otherwise in his personal case while his contemporaries who were no less than him,expressed their fealty for the OT Laws and even disputed with Paul over the same! Yet millions of Christians have no qualms in rejecting what was revealed by God to be followed. Sadly, it has become a corner stone of their theology. Notes: All biblical texts, unless otherwise mentioned, are taken from Holy Bible, Good News Edition, Today’s English Version. Emphasize wherever not matching with the original, is ours. https://discover-the-truth.com/2013/11/03/how-pauls-personal-problem-became-corner-stone-of-christianity/
  18. ما هو إسم الإله في المسيحية ؟ نظرة تفصيلية في العقائد المسيحية - من هو الإله في المسيحية : قد يعتقد الكثير من المسلمين ان المسيحيين لهم إيمان قريب من إيمان المسلمين , بل قد يعتقد المسلم ان المسيحي هذا إيمانه مثل إيمان المسلم تماماً ولكن الفارق بينهم فقط نقطة الإيمان بالنبي محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم , فقد يعتقد المسلم ان المسيحي رجلٌ موحد بالله عز وجل ويصلى مثلنا ويصوم مثلنا ولكنه فقط يؤمن بأنه لا نبي بعد عيسى عليه السلام , وأن عيسى عليه السلام هو خاتَم النبيين وإمام المرسلين وان محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم ليس نبي , فيعتقد المسلم ان الفارق بينه وبين المسيحي هي نقطو الإيمان بمحمد صلى الله عليه وسلم فقط لا غير . في الحقيقة هناك إختلاف كبير جدا جدا بين إيمان ومعتقدات المسلم , وإيمان ومعتقدات المسيحي , بل استطيع ان أقول وقلبي مطمئن ان الفرق بين عقائد المسلم والمسيحي كالفرق بين السماء والأرض , والفارق موجود تقريباً في كل شئ مشترك بين المسلم والمسيحي , كالإله مثلاً , فإله المسلمين ليس هو إله المسيحيين , مع ان اي مسيحي قد يقول لك انه يعبد الله كما انك تعبد الله , ولكن في الحقيقة الموضوع غير ذلك تماماً , وأيضاً إيمان المسيحي في المسيح عليه السلام مختلف تماماً عن إيمان المسلم بالسيد المسيح عليه أفضل الصلاة والسلام . سوف نحاول ان نلقي الضوء على أكثر من عقيدة من عقائد المسيحيين بشئ من التفصيل والتبيان حتى يعلم المسلم البسيط مدى فساد العقائد المسيحية , وكي يقول المسلم بملئ فاه " الحمد لله على نعمة الإسلام وكفى بها نعمة " و " الْحَمْدُ لِلّهِ الَّذِي هَدَانَا لِهَـذَا وَمَا كُنَّا لِنَهْتَدِيَ لَوْلا أَنْ هَدَانَا اللّهُ لَقَدْ جَاءتْ رُسُلُ رَبِّنَا بِالْحَقِّ " وتقول وانت مطمئن أيها المسلم " أَشْهَدُ أَنْ لاَ إِلَهَ إِلاَّ اللَّهُ وَحْدَهُ لاَ شَرِيكَ لَهُ وَأَشْهَدُ أَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا عَبْدُهُ وَرَسُولُهُ رَضِيتُ بِاللَّهِ رَبًّا وَبِمُحَمَّدٍ رَسُولاً وَبِالإِسْلاَمِ دِينًا " . فنبدأ ان شاء الله رب العالمين بعرض معتقدات المسيحيين : 1. ما إسم الإله في المسيحية ؟ قد يكون السؤال غريباً ولكن قد يستعجب المسلم عندما يعلم ان هذا السؤال , من أصعب الأسئلة التي قد تواجه المسيحي ! صدقوني هذه هي الحقيقة , فالمسيحي لا يعلم من يعبد ولا يعرف إسمه إلهه , فقد يقول المسيحي في أول مره تسأله فيه عن إسم الإله الذي يعبده , يجيب بسرعة شديدة جدا جدا ’’ الإله الذي أعبده هو الله , وهو نفس الإله الذي تعبده أنت أيها المسلم ‘‘ قد تنطوي هذه الإجبة على اي مسلم عامي ليس له علمٌ في الكتاب المقدس ولكن في الحقيقة , إسم " الله " الذي هو إسم على للإله الذي يعبده المسلمين , ليس له وجود في أصول الكتاب المقدس , أعلم ان الموضوع صعب ولكن ان شاء الله رب العالمين سوف نشرح الموضوع بإستفاضه حتى يعلم الجميع ان المسيحي لا يعلم إسم الإله الذي يعبده وسوف يحتار جدا في معرفة إسمه . قبل أن نبدأ بأي كلام , يجب ان نعرف ان الله عز وجل قد عرّف نفسه بـ إسم " الله " وطلب من البشر عبادتة , سوف نعطي أدلة من القرآن على هذا الأمر ثم ننتقل إلى الجزء الخاص بـ إسم الإله في الكتاب المقدس : ( سورة طه ) ( سورة النمل ) ( سورة القصص ) ( سورة الأنعام ) ورد في موقع الأنبا تكلا حول هذا الموضوع الآتي : [ لفظ "الله" Allah هي كلمة إسلامية، لماذا تستخدمونها؟! وهل لديكم إثبات على وجودها بالكتاب المقدس؟ الإجابة: كلمة الله God أصلاً كلمة مذكورة في الكتاب المقدس، وهو قبل الإسلام. وعدد مرات ذكرها حوالي 2244 مرة، (ستجد النص الكامل للكتاب المقدس هنا في موقع الأنبا تكلا) وللتأكد من أن أصلها من الكتاب المقدس، لك أن تقرأ الآية الأولى من الإصحاح الأول من السفر الأول في الكتاب المقدس، فستجدها به! ومن أسماء الله في الكتاب المقدس "ألوهيم"، وهو أصل الكلمة المشتقة منها.. وترجمات الكتاب المقدس العربية سبقت الإسلام أيضاً.. فقد بدأت محاولات الترجمة للكتاب المقدس إلى اللغة العربية بعد بداية إنتشار المسيحية.. فاللغة العربية ليست من ابتداع القرآن، بل هي مجرد لغة كُتِبَ بها. ] بالرجوع إلى كتب اليهود الموجودة بين أيدينا الآن , ما هو إسم الإله المذكورة في تلك الكتب ؟ للرجوع إلى أول نص في الكتاب المقدس سوف نرى الآتي : Gen 1:1 فِي الْبَدْءِ خَلَقَ اللهُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالارْضَ. ( ترجمة الفاندايك ) هذا هو النص العربي , وجدنا فيه لفظ الجلالة " الله " وأنه هو الذي خلق السماوات والأرض كما عند المسلمين في القرآن الكريم , إذن فاليهود يعبدون نفس الإله الذي نعبده نحن , المسلم يعبد الله , واليهودي يعبد الله , فنحن سواء . في الحقيقة الموضوع ليس بهذا البساطة , لنوجه سؤال بسيط لأي يهودي , هل كُتِب العهد القديم باللغة العربية ؟ بالطبع سيقول لا , وسيقول بالتأكيد ان العهد القديم قد كُتِب باللغة العبرية . هذا الكلام رائع جدا جدا , إذاً فلنتطلع على النص باللغة العبرية ولكن قبل هذا , أريد أن أوضح شئياً مهماً جدا جدا ... الإسم لا يُترجم ,بمعنى ان إسمي محمد أرموش باللغة العربية , فسيكون إسمي باللغة الإنجليزية Muhammad Armoosh وبأي لغة أخرى كانت سيظل إسمي محمد أرموش دون تبديل أو تغيير أو تحريف , هذا أمر بديهي ولكني أذكر فقط , فلا يمكن ان يكون إسم شخص ما " شاكر " باللغة العربية , فيترجم إسمه إلى الإنجليزية " Thankfull " , بل لو ان احد من المترجمين قد قام بالترجمة بهذا الشكل فسوف يجعل من نفسه مناط سخرية . وكذلك الحال في إسم الإله العلم " الله " جل جلاله , إسمه جل وعلى لا يترجم , فمن المفترض مثلاً إذا قمنا بترجمة معاني آيات القرآن الكريم من اللغة العربية إلى اللغة الإنجلية , فالمفترض انه عندما يأتي المترجم ليقوم بترجمة لفظ الجلالة " الله " سوف يترجمة إلى " Allah " لأن هذا الإسم هو إسم علم لإله المسلمين , لا يترجم أبداً , فنرى في هذه الترجمة لمعاني القرآن الكريم من اللغة العربية للإنجليزية الآتي : [ طه:14 ]-[ إِنَّنِي أَنَا اللَّهُ لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا أَنَا فَاعْبُدْنِي وَأَقِمِ الصَّلَاةَ لِذِكْرِي ] , الترجمة باللغة الإنجليزية كالآتي : Lo! I , even I , am Allah . There is no God save Me . serve Me and establish worship for My remembrance. اعتقد ان ما أريد ان ارمي عليه أصبح مفهوماً الآن . بعد التوضيح , يوف نتطلع على النص مرة أخرى ولكن باللغة العبرية : Gen 1:1 فِي الْبَدْءِ خَلَقَ اللهُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالارْضَ. Gen 1:1 בראשׁית * ברא * אלהים * את * השׁמים * ואת * הארץ׃ اللهُ = אלהים إذن , فالمقابل للفظ الجلالة في اللغة العربية هي " אלהים " وبالطبع انا لا أعلم شيئاً في اللغة العبرية ولكن سوف نسمع سوياً تسجيلاً صوتياً باللغة العبرية لهاذا النص ولكن أذكركم بموضوع ترجمة الأسماء , فمن المفترض ان نسمع في التسجيل كلمة " الله " لأننا قلنا ان الأسماء لا تترجم . سوف تجد العهد القديم باللغة العبرية ومعه مقابله باللغة العبرية مع تسجيلات صوتة باللغة العبريه على هذا الموقع [ A Hebrew - English Bible ] النص سوف يقال مره بالكامل , ثم سوف نعيده مع ترديد المقابل للفظ الجلالة ثلاث مرات http://eld3wah.com/img/ta3reef_pics/gn-1-1-heb.wav بالإستعانة ببرنامج Interlinear Scripture Analyzer - مدقق المخطوطات سوف نفهم كل ما يحدث ان شاء الله رب العالمين طريقة نطق النص بالعبرية : برشيث برا إلوهيم اتث هشامايم فـ إيتا آرتز , brashith bra aleim ath eshmim uath eartz كما هو موجود في الصورة نرى باللون الأسود بالحروف الإنجليزية , كيفية نطق النص باللغة العبرية وباللون الأخضر الترجمة الحرفية من اللغة العبرية إلى اللغة الإنجليزية , نرى بكل وضوح الآتي : אלהים = aleim ( كيفية النطق , إلوهيم ) = Elohim ( الترجمة الحرفية بالإنجليزية ) أين لفظ الجلالة في هذا النص ؟ النص يقول ان الخالق هو إلوهيم , هل يقول المسيحي انه يعبد إلوهيم ؟ نحن لا نعلم من هو إلوهيم هذا ولكننا نعلم الله عز وجل , وليس لدينا خبر من الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم بأن اسم من أسماء الله عز وجل هو إلوهيم لذا فلا نعترف بهذا الإسم ولا نقدسه , وكما اتفقنا ان الأسماء لا تُترجم , فما الذي وضع إسم إله المسلمين " الله " في الترجمة العربية لكتب اليهود والنصارى الموجودة في الشرق الأوسط ؟ قبل ان نجيب على هذا السؤال المهم , سوف نقرأ نص آخر في العهد القديم لنرى اسم الإله في العهد القديم : Exo 3:15 وَقَالَ اللهُ ايْضا لِمُوسَى: «هَكَذَا تَقُولُ لِبَنِي اسْرَائِيلَ: يَهْوَهْ الَهُ ابَائِكُمْ الَهُ ابْرَاهِيمَ وَالَهُ اسْحَاقَ وَالَهُ يَعْقُوبَ ارْسَلَنِي الَيْكُمْ. هَذَا اسْمِي الَى الابَدِ وَهَذَا ذِكْرِي الَى دَوْرٍ فَدَوْرٍ. Exo 3:15 ויאמר עוד אלהים אל־משׁה כה־תאמר אל־בני ישׂראל יהוה אלהי אבתיכם אלהי אברהם אלהי יצחק ואלהי יעקב שׁלחני אליכם זה־שׁמי לעלם וזה זכרי לדר דר׃ وبالإستعانة مرة أخرى ببرنامج مدقق المخطوطات سوف نعلم الأصول العبرية للنص وهذه ترجمة النص الحرفي باللغة الإنجليزية God said to Moses: 'Thus shalt thou say unto the children of israel: Yahweh, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you; this is My name for ever, and this is My memorial unto all generations. في هذا النص , تم ذكر ثلاثة ألفاظ في العبرية ( אלהים - יהוה - אלהי ) : 1. אלהים = الإله : قد تم إستخدام هذا اللفظ بمعنى الإله , مُعرفة بالألف واللام , وهذه نفس اللفظة المستخدمة في النص الأول في سفر التكوين , Gen 1:1 فِي الْبَدْءِ خَلَقَ اللهُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالارْضَ. Gen 1:1 בראשׁית * ברא * אלהים * את * השׁמים * ואת * הארץ׃ الإله وليس الله = אלהים هذه اللفظة باللغة العبرية تستخدم للإله المعرف , " الإله " فالترجمة العربية الصحيحة لابد ان تكون كالآتي : Gen 1:1 فِي الْبَدْءِ خَلَقَ الإلهُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالارْضَ. __________ Exo 7:1 فَقَالَ الرَّبُّ لِمُوسَى: «انْظُرْ! انَا جَعَلْتُكَ الَها لِفِرْعَوْنَ. وَهَارُونُ اخُوكَ يَكُونُ نَبِيَّكَ. Exo 7:1 ויאמר יהוה אל־משׁה ראה נתתיך אלהים לפרעה ואהרן אחיך יהיה נביאך׃ هذا النص أيضاً غير مترجم بالشكل الصحيح , وترجمته الصحيحة هي كالآتي : Exo 7:1 فَقَالَ يهوه لِمُوسَى: «انْظُرْ! انَا جَعَلْتُكَ كالإله لِفِرْعَوْنَ. وَهَارُونُ اخُوكَ يَكُونُ نَبِيَّكَ. والدليل على ان هذه الترجمة العربية التي وضعتها هي الأدق وجود ترجمات إنجليزية كثيرة دقيقة تساند الترجمة التي وضعتها : (American Standered Version) And Jehovah said unto Moses, See, I have made thee as God to Pharaoh; and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. (Darby Bible) And Jehovah said to Moses, See, I have made thee God to Pharaoh; and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. (Young's Literal Translation) And Jehovah saith unto Moses, `See, I have given thee a God to Pharaoh, and Aaron thy brother is thy prophet; جميع هذه الترجمات موجودة على موقع بوابة الكتاب المقدس BibleGateway.com http://www.biblegateway.com/versions Jehovah said unto Moses, See, I have made you as God to Pharaoh Exo 7:1 فَقَالَ يهوه لِمُوسَى: «انْظُرْ! انَا جَعَلْتُكَ كالإله لِفِرْعَوْنَ. هذه اللفظة ليست خاصة بالإله الحقيقي وقد تستخدم مع غيره والدليل هذا النص : Deu 13:6 «وَإِذَا أَغْوَاكَ سِرّاً أَخُوكَ ابْنُ أُمِّكَ أَوِ ابْنُكَ أَوِ ابْنَتُكَ أَوِ امْرَأَةُ حِضْنِكَ أَوْ صَاحِبُكَ الذِي مِثْلُ نَفْسِكَ قَائِلاً: نَذْهَبُ وَنَعْبُدُ آلِهَةً أُخْرَى لمْ تَعْرِفْهَا أَنْتَ وَلا آبَاؤُكَ ( يطلب منه عبادة آلهة غير الإله الحقيقي ) Deu 13:6 כי יסיתך אחיך בן־אמך או־בנך או־בתך או אשׁת חיקך או רעך אשׁר כנפשׁך בסתר לאמר נלכה ונעבדה אלהים אחרים אשׁר לא ידעת אתה ואבתיך׃ Deu 28:36 يَذْهَبُ بِكَ الرَّبُّ وَبِمَلِكِكَ الذِي تُقِيمُهُ عَليْكَ إِلى أُمَّةٍ لمْ تَعْرِفْهَا أَنْتَ وَلا آبَاؤُكَ وَتَعْبُدُ هُنَاكَ آلِهَةً أُخْرَى مِنْ خَشَبٍ وَحَجَرٍ Deu 28:36 יולך יהוה אתך ואת־מלכך אשׁר תקים עליך אל־גוי אשׁר לא־ידעת אתה ואבתיך ועבדת שׁם אלהים אחרים עץ ואבן׃ __________ 2. יהוה = يهوه : هذه اللفظة باللغة العبرية تستخدم للإسم العلم للإله في العهد القديم , لا تطلق إلا على الإله الحقيقي المستحق للعبادة وإليكم مثال آخر . Psa 83:18 وَيَعْلَمُوا أَنَّكَ اسْمُكَ يَهْوَهُ وَحْدَكَ الْعَلِيُّ عَلَى كُلِّ الأَرْضِ. Psa 83:18 וידעו כי־אתה שׁמך יהוה לבדך עליון על־כל־הארץ׃ Hos 12:5 وَالرَّبُّ إِلَهُ الْجُنُودِ يَهْوَهُ اسْمُهُ. Hos 12:5 ויהוה אלהי הצבאות יהוה זכרו׃ __________ 3. אלהי = إله : هذه اللفظة باللغة العبرية تستخدم لأي إله ولو كان وثن أو إله غير حقيقي وليس شرطاً ان تستخدم للإله الحقيقي المستحق للعبادة . مثال لإستخدام هذه اللفظة مع الإله الحقيقي : Gen 9:26 وَقَالَ: «مُبَارَكٌ الرَّبُّ ( يهوه ) الَهُ سَامٍ. وَلْيَكُنْ كَنْعَانُ عَبْدا لَهُ. Gen 9:26 ויאמר ברוך יהוה אלהי שׁם ויהי כנען עבד למו׃ Exo 4:5 «لِكَيْ يُصَدِّقُوا انَّهُ قَدْ ظَهَرَ لَكَ الرَّبُّ ( يهوه ) الَهُ ابَائِهِمْ الَهُ ابْرَاهِيمَ وَالَهُ اسْحَاقَ وَالَهُ يَعْقُوبَ». Exo 4:5 למען יאמינו כי־נראה אליך יהוה אלהי אבתם אלהי אברהם אלהי יצחק ואלהי יעקב׃ __________ خلاصة الموضوع : لفظ الجلالة عند اليهود هو יהוה = يهوه ولفظة إلوهيم قد استخدمت كلفظ عام لكلمة إله سواء كانت للإله الحقيقي بالتعريف أو بالجمع لآلة أخري أو بأى طريقة أخرى كانت , ولكن نرجع للسؤال الذي تركناه هو : ما الذي وضع إسم إله المسلمين " الله " في الترجمة العربية لكتب اليهود والنصارى الموجودة في الشرق الأوسط ؟ مع العلم ان الأصول العبريه لا توجد فيها لفظ الجلالة . السبب واضح وبسيط جدا جدا , هو لإيهام المسلمين بأن إسم الإله في الكتاب المقدس هو نفس الإله الموجود في القرآن الكريم وان المسيحيين يعبدون نفس الإله الذي يعبدونه المسلمين وأنهم ليسوا كفار وما إلى ذلك من ما يريدون إدخاله في تفكير المسلم البسيط . وأنا صراحة أعتبر هذا تحريف . طيب هذا بالنسبة لليهودي , يعبد إله إسمه يهوه , هل المسيحي يتفق مع اليهودي في نفس إسم الإله ؟ , في الواقع ان مفهوم المسيحي للإله فريد جدا جدا , فهو مختلف تماماً عن مفهوم المسلم للإله ومفوم اليهودي للإله ولا يتفق مع المسيحي لمفهومه للإله إلا الوثنيين , وهذه حقيقة لابد ان يعترف بها المسيحي , فالمسلم يؤمن ان الإله إله واحد ليس معه شريك وليس له ولد , وفي الحقيقة اليهودي ايضاً يؤمن ان الإله واحد ليس معه شريك ولا له ولد , ولكن المسيحي يختلف مع الإثنين , فالمسيحي مؤمن بأن الإله مكون من ثلاثة أقانيم ( ثلاثة أشخاص مستقلين بذاتهم ) وسوف نقوم بالتوضيح : الإله في المسيحية = الآب + الإبن ( المسيح ) + الروح القدس = إله واحد آمين ولا نعلم ما هو إسم هذا الإله , هل إسمه يهوه مثل اليهود ؟ وكيف يعلم المسيحي هذا وليس هناك دليل من العهد القديم ان الإله يهوه هو إله مثلث الأقانيم مثل الإله في المسيحية , فالمسيحيون يقولون بأنهم يعبدون الله , وأن الله مكون من آب وإبن وروح قدس يشكلون إله واحداً . كيف ان الثلاثة يكونون واحد ؟ الله أعلم , والموضوع ليس هذا فحسب , فالمسيحيون يؤمنون بأن : الآب هو الله , إله كامل كُليّ القدرة كُليّ العلم له جميع صفات الكمال والجلال الإبن ( المسيح ) هو الله , إله كامل كُليّ القدرة كُليّ العلم له جميع صفات الكمال والجلال الروح القدس هو الله , إله كامل كُليّ القدرة كُليّ العلم له جميع صفات الكمال والجلال ومع كل هذا فـ الآب + الإبن ( المسيح ) + الروح القدس = إله واحد آمين = الله , بحسب زعمهم والله انه لشئ عُجاب , هذه هي فهمهم عن الله أو عن الإله , صدق ولابد ان تصدق أقول لكل انك لو قلت انك تعبد يهوه مثل اليهود , فاليهود ليس عندهم تثليث وان إسم يهوه لم يُذكر في العهد الجديد بِرُمته , وان قلت انك تعبد الله , فإن لفظ الجلالة الخاصة بإله الإسلام لم يُذكر قط في الكتاب المقدس بالكامل , لا في العهد القديم الخاص باليهود , ولا في العهد الجديد الخاص بالمسيحيين , لذلك نطرح سؤال مهم جدا جدا . ما إسم الإله في المسيحية ؟ وآخر دعوانا ان الحمد لله رب العالمين http://www.ebnmaryam.com/vb/t17954.html
  19. I M New Muslim

    welcome to the forum
  20. John 8:58 is perhaps one of the best verses to disprove the deity of Christ, most Christians simply fail to see the problems with utilizing such a verse and in this article I’d like to demonstrate just how useful the “I AM” statement attributed to Christ is. Let’s first take a look at the verses in question: God said to Moses, “I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’” – Exodus 3:14. “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” – John 8:58. There is something very important to note, we must ask, who is God in Exodus 3:14? The Hebrew from the Westminster Leningrad Codex references God as Elohiym, see here. According to Christian belief, Elohiym can either refer to the Father (God) or the Godhead (all three persons of the Trinity). If Christ is claiming to be the Elohiym of Exodus 3:14 then there exists a major problem. Problem 1: Elohiym consists of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit of one substance, united by the Godhead. If Christ is claiming to be this Elohiym (the united Three Persons), then he is claiming to be the Father as well as the Holy Spirit. According to Trinitarian dogma, the Son is not the Father or the Spirit. In other words, if Christ is claiming to be the Elohiym (of Three Persons) then he is effectively breaking the rules of the Trinitarian dogma as the Son is claiming to be other persons in the Godhead. Problem 2: If the Elohiym of Exodus 3:14 is the Father alone, then Christ who is the Son is claiming to be the Father and according to Christian Trinitarian belief, the Son is not the Father. Therefore if the Christian is claiming Christ to be Elohiym – the Father, then the Christian is admitting that the Trinity in this case is a false teaching or that Christ did not believe in the Trinity that they appeal to. Problem 3: The Fallacy of False Equivocation. Jack is a boy. James is a boy. Jack is James. Obviously Jack is not James. Orange is a fruit. Apple is a fruit. Oranges are Apples. Obviously Oranges are not Apples. God says I am. Jesus says I am. God is Jesus. Clearly we can see that this is the fallacy of false equivocation. Problem 4: The Christian claims that while the Son cannot claim to be the Father or the Spirit, the Son can claim to be God. For explanation purposes, let’s use a common learning aid which Christians use to explain this reasoning: cc-2014-trinity-diagram However, this makes it worse for the Christian. Consider the following examples: You cannot say that John is an employee in the company, but you can say that John works for the company. You cannot say that Shem and Ham are brothers, but you can say that they have the same mother and father. You cannot say that a banana is a fruit, but you can say that the banana belongs in the fruit basket. Similarly: You cannot say that the Son is the Father or the Spirit, but you can say that the Son is the Father, Son and Spirit. It’s a contradictory claim. The Son is not the Father or the Spirit, yet they believe the Son is the Father and the Spirit unified. Allow the Christian to ponder on this logic and see where it leads them, aid their thinking process by using the other examples provided above. Conclusion: The Christian cannot appeal to John 8:58 without disproving the doctrine of the Trinity by means of demonstrating that Christ himself did not know he could not claim to be the other persons of the Godhead. We can also demonstrate that they are applying faulty reasoning in their argumentation and thus can quickly disarm their frivolous claims. and God knows best. http://callingchristians.com/2014/02/27/the-problem-of-john-858-for-christianity/
  21. Original Sin

    In the Name of Allah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful. This is a short introduction to the "original sin" concept in christian theology. What is original sin? Although Christianity emphasizes the inherited original/Adam's sin, this principle cannot be traced back to any prophet. No prophet preached it. All prophets emphasized the individual's responsibility for his own words and deeds, as God’s message is the same in its basics with all the prophets. The doctrine of Original Sin basically boils down to this: Everyone has "inherited" this sinful nature from Adam. This sinful nature is going to make humans sin, or is a causative something back of the will. God is going to condemn everyone to Hell for having this sinful nature. Atonement and reconciliation The word atonement is used in Christian theology to describe what is achieved by the alleged death of Jesus. The word was first used in 1526 to translate the Latin word reconciliatio. In the Revised Standard Version the word reconciliation replaces the word atonement. Atonement (at-one-ment) is the reconciliation of men and women to God through the death of Jesus. But why was reconciliation needed? Christian theology suggests that Everybody carries this original sin of Adam with them which separates them from God, just as Adam and Eve were separated from God when they were cast out of the Garden of Eden. The Atonement is that Jesus paid the penalty for the original and other sins of men by his death on the cross of Calvary, and that salvation cannot be obtained without belief in the saving power of his blood. "There is no single doctrine of the atonement in the New Testament. In fact, perhaps more surprisingly, there is no official Church definition either." (http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/beliefs/whydidjesusdie_1.shtml) Jesus taught that salvation lies in good deeds and faith, but the church states that salvation and success was achieved through crucifixion. The teachings of he who they believe to be the son of God, are not in line with what present day churches preach, the illogicality and inconsistency of their faith is obvious. Original sin is an Augustine Christian doctrine that says that everyone is born sinful. The root of Christianity is the original sin upon which the crucifixion is justified and used for the benefit of Christians. Like trinity, Jesus never said I would be crucified for Adam's sin nor did he said that children are born sinful. None of these are found in the entire Bible. The concept of Original Sin was explained in depth by St Augustine and formalised as part of Roman Catholic doctrine by the Councils of Trent in the 16th Century. Getting rid of original sin The way a person can 'cleanse' their soul from sin is to accept that Christ's death on the cross atoned for this sin to be baptised. Many Christians who profess to believe in the doctrine of original sin do not know what it teaches. Even more Christians are ignorant of its history and origin.
  22. Original Sin

    1 min. response by Sheikh Ahmed Deedat to alleged original sin, crucifixion and Jesus sacrifice!
  23. Disgusting - A decision by a French school to bar Muslim from classes for wearing long skirt has sparked outrage among the Muslim community, after the head teacher insisted the outfit was too openly religious. The skirt was “nothing special, it’s very simple, there’s nothing conspicuous. There is no religious sign whatsoever,” the student, identified as Sarah told L’Ardennais, Agence France Presse (AFP) reported on Tuesday, April 28. Sarah has been banned from class twice this month by the head teacher who claimed that the long skirt “conspicuously” showed religious affiliation. “The girl was not excluded, she was asked to come back with a neutral outfit and it seems her father did not want the student to come back to school,” local education official Patrice Dutot said. According to the official, Sarah used to take off her hijab before entering the school premises in the north-eastern town of Charleville-Mezieres. The school decision has sparked anger among French, with the hashtag #JePorteMaJupeCommeJeVeux, translated into English as “I wear my skirt as I please” that has been trending since its launch. “If it’s worn by a ‘white’ person, it’s hippy chic, if it’s a Muslim, it becomes conspicuous,” one user tweeted. On the other hand, the regional education office backed the school decision, saying that the outfit could have been part of a concerted “provocation.” “When it comes to concerted protest actions by students, which follow other more visible incidents linked for instance to wearing the veil, the secular framework for education must be firmly reminded and guaranteed,” regional education office said in a statement. Sarah's case is not the first in France. Last year, around 130 students were barred from classes for their religious outfits, according to the CCIF Islamophobia watch. "Wearing a long skirt is nothing ostentatious. This is more due to mass hysteria," said Abdallah Zekri, President of the National Observatory against Islamophobia, the Local reported. France is home to a Muslim community of nearly six million, the largest in Europe. French Muslims have been complaining of restrictions on performing their religious practices. In 2004, France banned Muslims from wearing hijab, an obligatory code of dress, in public places. Several European countries followed the French example. France also outlawed the wearing of face-veil in public in 2011. http://islamstory.com/en/french-student-kicked-out-long-skirt
  24. When Did Adam And Eve Exist?

    No one knows exactly. Allah knows best.
×