Jump to content
Islamic Forum

Absolute truth

IF Guardian
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Absolute truth

  1. Pro-cc , masjid under attack right now !!!!!!!!!!!!! Pray for the brothers in Alex. There are many trapped in al-Qaed Ibrahim Masjid and the Masjid is being besieged by thugs. The Qiyam prayers was cancelled for the first time in alex history.
  2. I Need Advice About Some Concerns.....

    If u refer to marriage; http://quran.com/5/5 Sahih International This day [all] good foods have been made lawful, and the food of those who were given the Scripture is lawful for you and your food is lawful for them. And [lawful in marriage are] chaste women from among the believers and chaste women from among those who were given the Scripture before you, when you have given them their due compensation, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse or taking [secret] lovers. And whoever denies the faith - his work has become worthless, and he, in the Hereafter, will be among the losers.
  3. I Need Advice About Some Concerns.....

    welcome to the forum, From the Islamic view, there is nothing like that, it's ok to have christian wife that respects Islam.
  4. The Failure Of Islamic Gradualism

    By Abdullah al Andalusi In Islamic Revivalist thought, the concept of Gradualism is the belief amongst Muslim revivalists that the method to re-establish Islamic government (Khilafah) lies in a gradual (re-)implementation of Islam in a Muslim country. Gradualists typically achieve this by seeking to gain power in a system, and gradually phase out of the pre-existing political system until the full implementation of the Islamic system has been achieved. However, this pragmatic approach, represents a shallow way of thinking – looking at how to carve out a niche for Islam in the current reality, instead of how to carve the current reality to fit the Islamic niche. Therefore it is common to notice that gradualists make the status quo the object of their thinking, not the subject of their thinking. The shallow thinking that leads people to employ gradualism, creates a fundamental lack of understanding about the reality of human society, ideology, geo-politics and Islam. Understanding how to change a Human Society The first mistake made by gradualists, is an inaccurate understanding of human society. All human societies are based upon transactions of its members seeking their needs. In order for society to be effective, all transactions are regulated by a common set of agreed values (Arabic: furqan) for determining permissible actions, prohibitions, forms of communication and expectations of duty. This is called a ‘way of life’ (Arabic: Deen), or ‘culture’. A way of life can derive from either tradition, imitation of external civilisations, or from a worldview/belief, or a combination of all three. Since some individual humans may act against their own culture, each society will create Laws to preserve some aspects of their way of life necessary for the preservation of social order. Law will be preserved by a specialist faction of that society devoted to the preservation of order in society. This is the ‘Enforcement faction’ (e.g. Military, Police or in ancient times, most male members of a tribe), and they generally possess a monopoly on the application of force. The ‘Enforcement faction’ generally underwrites the ruler(s) of a society, and no ruler can possess power without their consent, or the consent of their commanders, These Commanders are the ‘kingmakers’ (in Arabic they are called the ‘Ahl Hal wa Aqd’). Gradualists, using a pragmatic approach, attempt to gain power by using whatever processes or traditions exist within a society, in order to rise to government. However, any group attempts to change society by rising to power and then applying new laws based upon a different way of life, it will be resisted. The people will always reject something they don’t understand or believe in. In order to change a society, you must change its beliefs or understandings about what it should want for a way of life. Muslims should not assume that because the people of a Muslim country believe in the some of the original sources of their culture (e.g. Allah and his Messenger), that they will believe in the applicability of the Islamic laws emanating from these sources. This is because many Muslim populations no longer make Islam the only source for their culture, but have mixed it with other sources, and actively use those other sources as a basis for their transactions and political affairs (e.g. Nationalism). But seeing as Muslim populations have knowledge that they emanated from an extensive Islamic Civilisation, how could they justify this to themselves? Take the example of the Chinese and Italians who revere their Imperial pasts and the achievements of Chinese and Roman culture and civilisation. Yet, they do not believe that laws of those civilisations are still applicable. Likewise, the Pagan Arabs of Arabia believed in Abraham as their revered ancestor, and they believed in Allah (swt) as the Chief God, but they rejected the Message of the Prophet Muhammed (saaw) when he told them that this shared belief means they must turn away from their immoral customs and polytheism, live by Allah’s laws, and desist in their spiritual practices of seeking intercession through idols.
  5. The Failure Of Islamic Gradualism

    What would the Prophet Muhammed (saaw) do? There came a time when Muhammed (saaw) had the opportunity of gaining leadership over his pagan tribe of Quraysh. In response to his invitation to Islam, and his social critique of Quraysh customs, traditions and practices, they made him an offer. His Uncle Utbah said to him: “O my nephew, if you want, by this matter which you have brought, money, we will collect to you from our monies until you shall be the wealthiest of us. If you want, by it, honor, we will make you the master over us that we shall not decide anything without you. If you want, by it, authority, we shall make you the ruler over us” [ibn Hishaam / Kanz al Ummal] This could have been an opportunity for Muhammed (saaw) to avert persecution, and gradually implement Islam over his tribe, bit by bit. But no sooner was the offer made, then Muhammed (saaw) rejected it outright. He suffered greatly afterwards at the hands of the Quraysh, but he never compromised his Message – and maintained his faith in his mission, and that God would eventually bring him victory, or he would die trying: ‘“O my uncle! by God if they put the sun in my right hand and the moon in my left on condition that I abandon this course, until God has made me victorious, or I perish therein, I would not abandon it.” Ibn Hisham And indeed, many years later when he peacefully marched back into his town at the head of 10,000 Muslims, was his decision against gradualism vindicated. The Islamic (and rational) method to re-establish the Islamic state (i.e. Khilafah) is to explain clearly to Muslims in post-colonial countries: what the Islamic laws are – in detail, with their subtleties how they are derived from the Islamic Creed (Aqeeda), how they work and compliment each other, how they alone can effectively solve human problems,especially ‘modern’ ones How they are superior to Communism, Socialism, Nationalism, Liberalism and Secularism and why they are are urgently required for immediate re-implementation. When these matters have been made clear to all the Muslims in the Muslim world, and a sufficient portion have declared their acceptance and desire for the return of the Islamic laws – including from a portion of those who are military commanders, an effective (and co-ordinated) regime change can be planned and occur within one day. The group or party responsible can then set about a rapid implementation process once all government institutions are secured – and the Islamic State will have been re-born. The Islamic state is not a supernatural state; it does not require angels descending from the heavens to achieve a regime change, or the Secular dictators turning into pillars of salt by miraculous intervention, or the Mahdi or Jesus reappearing (we should note, that they will not have any special powers when they come in the future anyway). The return of the Khilafah will be no different in appearance to any of the historical revolutions, coups or regime changes – except that it will be based upon justice. And after the change, the current ‘Abdullah ibn Ubayy’s’ of the Muslim world will wake up the next morning and find themselves deposed. This is the method of the Prophet, and the method is the only effective one. Gradualism ultimately is self-defeating and counter-productive. Serving to re-enforce the culture it seeks to change, rather than actually changing it. Employing Gradualism, is like deliberately choosing to sail on a boat with a hole, hoping to remove the surging water. It is better to take a slower but sturdy boat that gets you to your destination without sinking – then taking a faster, but leaking, boat – that takes you quickly to the bottom of the sea.
  6. The Failure Of Islamic Gradualism

    Understanding the Geo-political situation One of the biggest mistakes that Gradualists make is to assume the existing system remains passive while they are free to implement ‘gradual changes’ unopposed. This ignores the fact that there exist foreign factions with strong vested interests in Muslim societies, that will take pro-active steps to resist the re-establishment of Islam, especially if they themselves are advocating an opposing ideology that they are trying to spread and implement throughout society, like the U.S’ promotion of Liberal Democracy and Secularism. This means that not only are many Muslim societies going to resist change from those calling to a comprehensive implementation of Islam, but there is an active external competitor seeking to implement its own new way of life in that society – and do so as quickly as it can, with a lot of resources at its disposal. Can gradualists really afford to take the slow road? Understanding the requirements of Islam The sad truth of the matter, is that Gradualists are themselves the products of colonialism. The idea of gradualism is the result of Muslims attempting to take a pragmatic approach to undoing the colonialist destruction of the governance of the Islamic way of life. This is because what makes gradualism acceptable to its followers, is the unconscious concept imbedded in the mind of some Muslims, that Islamic rule is a condition of preference, but not an immediate necessity. The lack of an Islamic state is not viewed as an urgent matter of life or death for these Muslims, but merely a desired end-state. While gradualists believe they should strive for it, it is not viewed as too problematic to embrace the status quo temporarily – as long as a intention is present to pursue a ‘perfect’ end result. Consequently, gradualism does nothing to inculcate Muslims with a sense of urgency in the matter, so Muslims do not exert themselves in the manner required to address the problem. Secondly, Utilitarianism’s willingness to judge immoral actions as good, if they lead to a ‘greater good’, leads to a morality of doing ‘necessary evil’ when circumstances deem it beneficial – which is no different to the morality of materialistic cultures that Islam contests against. Islam requires that human’s are witnesses to God’s sovereignty, His commands, and His values. By seeking to use contradictory methods, Muslims undermine their witnessing to those things. For example, many Muslims believe that since Democracy is popular in the world, and used by many post-colonial Muslim countries, it is the only way to achieve power for Islam. This is despite the fact that democracy (which means that the people are the sovereign’s of a country, and are the ultimate determiners of legitimacy) contradicts the Islamic principle that God alone is the sovereign (law giver) and the revealed laws are the determiner of whether a ruler is legitimate or not: ‘[say], “Then is it other than Allah I should seek as judge while it is He who has revealed to you the Book explained in detail?’ [Quran 6:114] ‘So judge between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations away from what has come to you of the truth…Do they then seek the judgement of Ignorance (pre-Islamic society)? And who is better in judgement than Allah for a people who have firm Faith’ [Quran 5:48] O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in result….Have you seen those (hyprocrites) who claim that they believe in that which has been sent down to you, and that which was sent down before you, and they wish to go for judgement (in their disputes) to the Taghut (false judges, etc.) while they have been ordered to reject them. [Quran 4:59-60] Narated By ‘Abdullah : The Prophet said, ”A Muslim has to listen to and obey (the order of his ruler) whether he likes it or not, as long as his orders involve not one in disobedience (to Allah), but if an act of disobedience (to Allah) is imposed one should not listen to it or obey it. (Sahih Bukhari Hadith No. 203, Vol. 4)
  7. The Failure Of Islamic Gradualism

    The key issue is belief. The Muslims of post-colonial countries believe in the origins of Islam, but do not believe that Islam (in its totality) is applicable in their societies. It is not the issue of whether or not these people are virtuous, or whether they pray regularly, that prevents them from establishing Islam in politics – but it is their belief that Islamic law cannot be applied to politics (or at most parts of it), that cause them to not call for it. However, once they have been persuaded through proofs and arguments to believe in the applicability of a holistic Islam, that change becomes imminently possible. But society would not reach this possibility for change if you focus only on spiritual matters, nor would society change even if the people became fully observant in their prayers (e.g. just look at Saudi for evidence of this). Until a society begins implementing a new way of life, its people will always follow the last officially applied way of life (or aspects of it) – regardless of whether most don’t believe in it anymore. An example of this, is the UK keeping the Royal family. In the UK, the belief that no one is above the law, is accepted in the way of life in that society, and that the people are the ultimate sovereigns. However the Royal family acts as the traditional pillar for the state, and (currently) the citizens of the UK cannot agree as to what would replace them and attract the same national stability and respect from the people, if the UK became a republic. Because of no alternative being implemented, people keep the pre-existing tradition, even though they do not believe it can be justified according to their beliefs in equality and sovereignty to the people (democracy). So it is belief together with the application of a new system based upon the new beliefs, that cause real changes to society, not whether or not people change their personal actions, like praying more or less. This is because private actions are not what creates a society’s way of life, but beliefs, which are the basis behind social actions: “Indeed, Allah will not change the condition of a people until they change what is in themselves” [Quran 11:13] However, this cannot be done by using the way of life against itself. The reason for this is because a way of life is preserved by humans continuing to act according to it, and hence acting according to the culture is only continuing to preserve it, not change it. Any group who rises to power using the existing way of life to give it authority, will only continue to have authority on the condition that it implements the existing way of life. As soon as it veers away from that culture, the group will be resisted by the people – and will be perceived as outside the bounds of the current way of life (i.e. extremists). Furthermore, if the ruling group attempts to overturn the way of life, without the the law ‘Enforcement faction’ supporting them to do so, then they will be overthrown by the enforcers – who perceive them as going outside the bounds of the current (i.e. extremists). In order to change a society, you must understand how your worldview differs from the society you live in. Then you make your group’s alternative worldview known to the people, to get a sufficient portion of them to believe in it – and to agree to live by the new way of life once it is implemented. Society will then only be changed once a critical mass of people in the ‘Enforcement faction’, and a critical mass of the general population, agree to accept the rules, and give your group power, being prepared to overcome/deter the dissenting factions who attempt to attack you once the change has occurred. To change a modern society a group needs the belief and backing of the people, and the Army/Police force. This is the method of the Prophet Muhammed (saaw). He established the first Islamic state in Madinah upon this sound method. Muhammed (saaw) met the powerful commanders of the two leading tribes of Medinah – the Aws and Khazraj, and invited them to pledge their belief in him (saaw), to worship only one God, to obey Muhammed (saaw), and agree to give up their past practices, and perform the Islamic practices (i.e. prayer and charity). However, it should be noted they were not expected to be perfect, for the Prophet Muhammed (saaw) was reported to have said to them: “Allah has prepared Paradise and guarantees rewards for those of you who fulfill his pledge. If someone commits one of these misdeeds out of human error and is punished in this world, that punishment will be considered atonement. And whoever commits one of these out of human error and conceals what he has done and does not reveal it, then it is left to Allah to decide to forgive or punish him.” Ibn Hisham After the commanders made their pledges, Muhammed (saaw) did not then command the change of power to himself. Instead, understanding the need for the general people to accept Islam in their belief, and understand and be willing to know what this commitment entails (even if they aren’t perfect), he sent his companion, Musab Ibn Umayr to Madinah (then called Yathrib), to teach and educate people about Islam. This occurred until it was said that ‘there was not a house where Islam was not talked about’, although many people had not converted to Islam, a sizeable group had enough to form a critical mass of support. When Muhammed (saaw) learned of this, he met the commanders of the two tribes, and requested their pledge for protection and fighting – indicating that they would not only believe him, and obey him as an authority, but also back up that authority with force against domestic and foreign enemies. They said to Muhammed (saaw): “O Allah’s Apostle, every invitation has a way. That way can be either be easy or difficult! The invitation you make is a difficult one for the people of today to accept. You invited us to your religion and to abandon the religion we used to follow. This was a very difficult task. Despite this, we accepted your invitation…We testify to our Lord and your Lord. Allah’s powerful hands are upon our own hands. Our blood is with your blood, our hands are you with your hands. We will protect you as we protect ourselves, our children, and our wives. If we break our promise, then let us be grief-stricken people who have broken Allah’s promise.” Ibn Hishaam Muhammed (saaw) then left for Madinah, and upon his arrival, the Aws and Khazraj’s fighters put on their war clothes (animal skins) and publicly received the Prophet Muhammed (saaw), indicating to the rest of Madinah that the power of Madinah had changed, and none of the other factions of Madinah would be allowed to take up arms and fight this new reality. Abdullah ibn Ubayy (sometimes known as ‘ibn Salul’), who was marked to be the king of Madinah, suddenly discovered he had been deposed – and pretended to convert to Islam in order to keep his social standing. He and a significant group of dissenters against Islam, officially became Muslim, but remained self-interested individuals who later became known as the ‘hypocrites’. It is noteworthy to mention them, since although they did not believe in the new way of life that was being implemented in society – they could not deny it had gained currency – and so they accepted it as the new political situation (albeit not without causing much trouble later). Understanding how to establish an Ideology (A way of life emanating from a creed/worldview) An ideology is a way of life based upon an intellectual foundation (Arabic: Deen min mabda) from which the entire way of life is constructed. This foundation is its worldview (Arabic: Aqeeda), and will only gain currency in a society as a way of life (and not just a mere personal belief) if it can be demonstrated that it can solve human problems and have a plausible justification for its worldview (i.e. Creed). A sad irony of gradualism, is that this method is the result of the Colonialist idea of utilitarianism present in the mind of the Gradualist, namely the end result justifies the means. As long as the end goal is ‘righteous’ or ‘noble’ or for the ‘greater good’, then a pragmatic method is selected in the mistaken belief that it is the most expedient choice. The problems with utilitarianism, of course, primarily consist of the impossibility of knowing the future to judge whether an action will lead to the desired result – so to judge wrong actions as permissible, merely due to the hope they may create a good result is unprovable and therefore morally unjustifiable. However, the main harm occurs in that, by doing the most expedient actions, you undermine, in the public eye, the very reasons for which you claim to be re-establishing. For if Islam can be dispensed with for perceived interest, then why should it be followed in other things that bring a clash with personal interests? Secondly, if the only way Islam can achieve anything in politics, is by using the politics and ideas of other ways of life, then what use is Islam in the first place? In essence, contradicting Islam to get Muslims in power ‘in order to establish Islam’ – leads only to Muslims in power, not Islam in power. Which was no different to the previous power arrangement in Muslim countries.
  8. salam alaikum I hope that the new administration will be successful, the problem now is selective closing of -supposedly Islamic- trouble-making television stations while the trouble-making secular ones are left celebrating their fake victory.
  9. When is a military coup not a military coup? When it happens in Egypt, apparently For the first time in the history of the world, a coup is not a coup. The army take over, depose and imprison the democratically elected president, suspend the constitution, arrest the usual suspects, close down television stations and mass their armour in the streets of the capital. But the word ‘coup’ does not – and cannot – cross the lips of the Blessed Barack Obama. Nor does the hopeless UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon dare to utter such an offensive word. It’s not as if Obama doesn’t know what’s going on. Snipers in Cairo killed 15 Egyptians this week from a rooftop of the very university in which Obama made his ‘reach-out’ speech to the Muslim world in 2009. Is this reticence because millions of Egyptians demanded just such a coup – they didn’t call it that, of course – and thus became the first massed people in the world to demand a coup prior to the actual coup taking place? Is it because Obama fears that to acknowledge it’s a coup would force the US to impose sanctions on the most important Arab nation at peace with israel? Or because the men who staged the coup might forever lose their 1.5 billion subvention from the US – rather than suffer a mere delay -- if they were told they’d actually carried out a coup. Now for the kind of historical memory that Obama would enjoy. In that dodgy 2009 speech in Cairo – in which he managed to refer to Palestinian “dislocation” rather than “dispossession” – Obama made the following remarkable comment, which puts the events in Egypt today into a rather interesting perspective. There were some leaders, he said, “who advocate for democracy only when they are out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others…you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.” Obama did not say this in the aftermath of the coup-that-wasn’t. He uttered these very words in Egypt itself just over four years ago. And it pretty much sums up what Mohamed Morsi did wrong. He treated his Muslim Brotherhood mates as masters rather than servants of the people, showed no interest in protecting Egypt’s Christian minority, and then enraged the Egyptian army by attending a Brotherhood meeting at which Egyptians were asked to join the holy war in Syria to kill Shiites and overthrow Bashar al-Assad’s regime. And there is one salient fact about the events of the last 48 hours in Egypt. No one is happier – no one more satisfied nor more conscious of the correctness of his own national struggle against ‘Islamists’ and ‘terrorists’ -- than Assad. The West has been wetting itself to destroy Assad – but does absolutely nothing when the Egyptian army destroys its democratically-elected president for lining up with Assad’s armed Islamist opponents. The army called Morsi’s supporters “terrorists and fools”. Isn’t that just what Bashar calls his enemies? No wonder Assad told us yesterday that no one should use religion to gain power. Hollow laughter here -- offstage, of course. But this doesn’t let Obama off the hook. Those Western leaders who are gently telling us that Egypt is still on the path to “democracy”, that this is an “interim” period – like the ‘interim’ Egyptian government concocted by the military – and that millions of Egyptians support the coup that isn’t a coup, have to remember that Morsi was indeed elected in a real, Western-approved election. Sure, he won only 51 per cent -- or 52 per cent -- of the vote. But did George W. Bush really win his first presidential election? Morsi certainly won a greater share of the popular vote than David Cameron. We can say that Morsi lost his mandate when he no longer honoured his majority vote by serving the majority of Egyptians. But does that mean that European armies must take over their countries whenever European prime ministers fall below 50 per cent in their public opinion polls? And by the way, are the Muslim Brotherhood to be allowed to participate in the next Egyptian presidential elections? Or will they be banned? And if they participate, what will happen if their candidate wins again? israel, however, must be pleased. It knows a coup when it sees one – and it’s now back playing its familiar role as the only ‘democracy’ in the Middle East, and with the kind of neighbours it understands: military rulers. And if Egypt’s wealthy military king-makers are getting a nifty $1.5 billion dollars a year from Washington – albeit postponed -- they are certainly not going to tamper with their country’s peace treaty with israel, however unpopular it remains with the people for whom it supposedly staged the coup-that-wasn’t. Stand by then for the first US delegation to visit the country which has suffered the coup-that-wasn’t. And you’ll know whether they believe there was a coup or not by the chaps they visit on their arrival in Cairo: the army, of course. http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/when-is-a-military-coup-not-a-military-coup-when-it-happens-in-egypt-apparently-8688000.html
  10. salam alaikum No one in Islam is called Islamist, it's an unislamic term.
  11. Tasfir & More

    salam alaikum Tafseer ( Quran Exegeses )
  12. وحدة المسلمين الحلقة المفقودة عندما غلبَنا المنطق الديني الذي يرفض التصاوير الخاطئة عن الإسلام والمسلمين، أدى إلى اضمحلال الإساءة لهما، ولعل قيام الإنسان بدوره في هذه الحياة الدنيا ما كان ليتمَّ على الوجه الذي لأجله خلقه الله - تعالى - إلا بدافع العاطفة الغريزية، وتوجهه لنصرة هذا الدين؛ ليحقق بذلك تلك المتع التي أوجدها الله - تعالى - معه في الحياة، وهذه المتع لا تتحقق إلا بالتزام العقيدة الصحيحة، والتي تتفرع إلى قسمين، وهي: اعتقادات وعمليات[1]: فالاعتقادات هي منهج العمل؛ مثل اعتقاد ربوبية الله، ووجوب عبادته، وتسمى أصلية. والعمليات وهي ما تتعلق بكيفية العمل؛ مثل الصلاة، والزكاة، والصوم، وسائر الأحكام العملية، وتسمى فرعية. فالعقيدة الصحيحة هي الأساس الذي يقوم عليه الدين وتصح معه الأعمال، كما قال - تعالى -: فَمَنْ كَانَ يَرْجُو لِقَاءَ رَبِّهِ فَلْيَعْمَلْ عَمَلًا صَالِحًا وَلَا يُشْرِكْ بِعِبَادَةِ رَبِّهِ أَحَدًا [الكهف: 110]، لكن بعض الناس بنوا عقيدتهم على غير الكتاب والسُّنة من علم الكلام وقواعد المنطق الموروثين عن فلاسفة اليونان، فحصل الانحراف ثم التفرق، والسبب هو الاختلاف في التصور والكلمة، فحدث تفرق الجماعة، وبذلك تصدع المجتمع الإسلامي. فالانحراف عن جادة الطريق بغير منهج عقائدي صحيح هو مهلكة، بل ضياع إلى غير الصواب؛ لأن الفرد بهذا الانحراف يكون قد وقع فريسةَ الأوهام والشكوك فتحجب عنه الرؤية الصحيحة، وقِسْ بذلك على الجماعة وعلى النحو من ذلك على الأمة. ليس هراءً أن المجتمع الإسلامي بابتعاده عن الثوابت والقيم هو في ابتعادٍ تدريجي بمعنى الانتماء الحقيقي للدين الإسلامي؛ لأن معالم دروب الحياة السعيدة أصبحت غير واضحة بسبب الرؤيا المشوشة، ناهيك عن البصيرة العمياء، والقلب المغلف بالران، هي مشاهد تنطبق على المجتمعات الكافرة؛ لأنها فقدت مقومات العقيدة الصحيحة، بل لم تتبنَّها أصلاً، قال - تعالى -: وَلَقَدْ آتَيْنَا دَاوُدَ مِنَّا فَضْلًا يَا جِبَالُ أَوِّبِي مَعَهُ وَالطَّيْرَ وَأَلَنَّا لَهُ الْحَدِيدَ * أَنِ اعْمَلْ سَابِغَاتٍ وَقَدِّرْ فِي السَّرْدِ وَاعْمَلُوا صَالِحًا إِنِّي بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ بَصِيرٌ * وَلِسُلَيْمَانَ الرِّيحَ غُدُوُّهَا شَهْرٌ وَرَوَاحُهَا شَهْرٌ وَأَسَلْنَا لَهُ عَيْنَ الْقِطْرِ وَمِنَ الْجِنِّ مَنْ يَعْمَلُ بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ بِإِذْنِ رَبِّهِ وَمَنْ يَزِغْ مِنْهُمْ عَنْ أَمْرِنَا نُذِقْهُ مِنْ عَذَابِ السَّعِيرِ * يَعْمَلُونَ لَهُ مَا يَشَاءُ مِنْ مَحَارِيبَ وَتَمَاثِيلَ وَجِفَانٍ كَالْجَوَابِ وَقُدُورٍ رَاسِيَاتٍ اعْمَلُوا آلَ دَاوُدَ شُكْرًا وَقَلِيلٌ مِنْ عِبَادِيَ الشَّكُورُ [سبأ: 10 - 13]. فهناك انسجام وتوحُّد فيما بين القوةفهناك انسجام وتوحُّد فيما بين القوة والمادة وثوابت العقيدة ابتداءً باتباع ما أمرنا الله به وانتهاءً بالشكر، ولو أن القلة القليلة من الشاكرين. إن جمال الوحدة الإسلامية هي في اجتماع القوى الفكرية والمنهجية؛ لتصنع وحدة المسلمين، والجهل بالعقيدة الصحيحة أو عدم إقبال المسلمين عليها كإقبال الطفل على أمه حتمًا سيُنشئ جيلاً هشًّا سهلاً للاستعمار والانقياد، ويصبح بذلك إمعة في التقليد الأعمى لمغريات وبذخ الحياة، وترك اللب وهو العلم والحضارة، فيحدث ما يسمى بالغلو في الدين والإسراف في الانحراف، وفتح منافذ الشيطان؛ لينشر فيما بين المسلمين الفُرْقة ليتغلغل أخطبوط العدو؛ ليحدث الفساد بدءًا بزرع عوامل الكراهية والبغض فيما بين أبناء الجلدة ال
  13. The Corrupted Bible?

    The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament source I have read this excellent book, and though it is definitely not aimed at the average lay reader it is well worth reading if you want an advanced introduction to how and why the Biblical text has been corrupted by Christian scribes. ‘The victors not only write the history, they also reproduce the texts. In a study that explores the close relationship between the social history of early Christianity and the textual tradition of the emerging New Testament, Ehrman examines how early struggles between Christian “heresy” and “orthodoxy” affected the transmission of the documents over which, in part, the debates were waged. His thesis is that proto-orthodox scribes of the second and third centuries occasionally altered their sacred texts for polemical reasons–for example, to oppose adoptionists like the Ebionites, who claimed that Christ was a man but not God, or docetists like Marcion, who claimed that he was God but not a man, or Gnostics like the Ptolemaeans, who claimed that he was two beings, one divine and one human. Ehrman’s analysis makes a significant contribution to our understanding of the social and intellectual history of early Christianity and raises intriguing questions about the relationship of readers to their texts, especially in an age when scribes could transform the documents they reproduced to make them say what they were already thought to mean, effecting thereby the orthodox corruption of Scripture.’ (From the dust-jacket) Reviews “This detailed, carefully argued, and thoroughly documented study should be purchased for collections serving faculty and graduate students in New Testament studies and church history.”–Choice “Ehrman’s arguments throughout deserve our attention; they are frequently compelling….Clearly set out and persuasively presented….Variants that treat of Christ’s person and function must from now on always be considered with reference to Ehrman’s thesis.”–Novum Testamentum “This book is highly recommended as an excellent work of scholarship that is of great importance in the development of New Testament studies. Here is a new voice that addresses some of the central theological and historical issues.”-Journal of Theological Studies “Bart D. Ehrman has written a book which will stimulate the casual reader and intrigue the academic or professional reader of the New Testament….An excellent work and definitely invaluable for lay or scholars.”–Anglican Theological Review
  14. Tour With The Darwinists !

    The same creator or "common ancestor" ?!
  15. Muslim-Christian Debate, Here

  16. The Trinity

    What is the trinitarian god like? According to Christian apologist William Lane Craig (who James White refers to as “the leading apologist in the English speaking world today”) the very best analogy he can think of for the Christian god is the mythological three headed-beast Cerberus (see the charming picture). See Craig explain his . Cerberus is a dog who guarded the entrance to Hades, the ancient Greek idea of Hell. Craig thinks that it is a great analogy of the doctrine of the Trinity: one dog with three minds. Now I have a confession to make (please don’t tell anyone!): I completely agree with James White’s devastating critique of Craig found . As the Almighty God said in his final revelation: O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about God except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of God and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in God and His messengers. And do not say, “Three”; desist – it is better for you.Indeed, God is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is God as Disposer of affairs. Quran 4:171
  17. Did Islam Spread By The Sword ?

    Oh my God :excl:
  18. Prophet Muhammad And Love.

    Prophet Muhammad and treating all people good Source The Prophet taught Muslims to love goodness for all creation, to treat people the way they would love to be treated, and to hate sinful deeds but not the sinners who commit them. Anas ibn Malik reported: The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said: لَا يُؤْمِنُ أَحَدُكُمْ حَتَّى يُحِبَّ لِأَخِيهِ أَوْ قَالَ لِجَارِهِ مَا يُحِبُّ لِنَفْسِهِ None of you has faith until he loves for his brother or his neighbor what he loves for himself. Source: Sahih Bukhari 13, Grade: Sahih An-Nawawi commented on this tradition, saying: الأولى أن يحمل ذلك على عموم الأخوة حتى يشمل الكافر والمسلم فيحب لأخيه الكافر مايحب لنفسه … والمراد بالمحبة إرادة الخير والمنفعة ثم المراد المحبة الدينية لا المحبة البشرية It is better to interpret this as brotherhood in general, such that it includes the disbeliever and the Muslim. So he should love for his brother, the disbeliever, what he loves for himself… The meaning of love here is an intention for good and benefit, and this meaning is religious love, not human love. Source: Sharh Arba’een An-Nawawi Therefore, Muslims have been commanded to love their neighbors as themselves, whether they are Muslims or non-Muslims, righteous or sinful. This involves treating people as if they were our own selves. Abdullah ibn Amr reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said: مَنْ أَحَبَّ أَنْ يُزَحْزَحَ عَنْ النَّارِ وَيَدْخُلَ الْجَنَّةَ فَلْتُدْرِكْهُ مَنِيَّتُهُ وَهُوَ يُؤْمِنُ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ وَيَأْتِي إِلَى النَّاسِ مَا يُحِبُّ أَنْ يُؤْتَى إِلَيْهِ Whoever would love to be delivered from the Hellfire and entered into Paradise, then let him die with faith in Allah and the Last Day, and let him treat the people the way he would love to be treated. Source: Sahih Muslim 1844 Grade: Sahih Likewise, Muslims have been warned about hatred, which is a desire to harm others. Anas ibn Malik reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said: لَا تَبَاغَضُوا وَلَا تَحَاسَدُوا وَلَا تَدَابَرُوا وَكُونُوا عِبَادَ اللَّهِ إِخْوَانًا Do not hate each other, do not envy each other, do not turn away from each other, but rather be servants of Allah as brothers. Source: Sahih Muslim 2559 Grade: Sahih Az-Zubair ibn Awwam reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said: دَبَّ إِلَيْكُمْ دَاءُ الْأُمَمِ قَبْلَكُمْ الْحَسَدُ وَالْبَغْضَاءُ وَالْبَغْضَاءُ هِيَ الْحَالِقَةُ حَالِقَةُ الدِّينِ لَا حَالِقَةُ الشَّعَرِ وَالَّذِي نَفْسُ مُحَمَّدٍ بِيَدِهِ لَا تُؤْمِنُوا حَتَّى تَحَابُّوا أَفَلَا أُنَبِّئُكُمْ بِشَيْءٍ إِذَا فَعَلْتُمُوهُ تَحَابَبْتُمْ أَفْشُوا السَّلَامَ بَيْنَكُمْ There has come to you the disease of the nations before you: envy and hatred, and hatred is the razor; it shaves the religion and it does not shave hair. By the one in whose hand is my soul, you will not believe until you love one another. Shall I tell you something which, if you did, you would love each other? Spread peace between yourselves. Source: Musnad Ahmad 1415 Grade: Sahih
  19. "الأزهر يستجدى الفاتيكان" !! الدكتورة زينب عبدالعزيز أستاذة الحضارة الفرنسية يا للمهانة ! يا لها من مهانة أن نطالع ذلك التصعيد المغرض فى صياغة خبر مرير : "الأزهر يستجدى الفاتيكان" ، "الأزهر يتمنى علاقات أفضل مع الفاتيكان" ، "الأزهر يحاول إستعادة العلاقات مع الفاتيكان" ، "مسئول بالأزهر يقترح على البابا أن يقول ’’أن الإسلام سلمى،،" ، "مصر تريد إجبار البابا فرانسيس على إعلان أن ’’الإسلام ديانة سلمية،،" الخ .. فهل العاملون بالأزهر وخاصة المسئولون عن الحوار المشئوم بين الأديان مدركون لما يسببونه للإسلام والمسلمين من مهانة بهَرْولتهم هذه وبما يقدمونه من تنازلات ؟ وقد وصفت ذلك الحوار "بالمشئوم" لأنه ما من مرة إجتمعوا فيها فى إحدى هذه اللجان إلا وتم فيها تقديم تنازلاتٍ ما من جانب الأزهر، حرجا أو إثباتا لحسن النية، أما التابعون للفاتيكان فيبدأون دوما بعبارة "لا نقاش فى العقيدة" مع الإلحاح الدؤوب للحصول على تنازلات جديدة ! ومعروف يقينا أن الفرق بيننا ثابت فى القرآن الكريم وأنه إختلاف جذرى فى عقيدة التوحيد ، بل لولا هذا الإختلاف لما أنزل الله عز وجل الإسلام كثالث بلاغ لرسالة التوحيد. لقد بدأ موضوع هذا الخبر، الذى تناولته العديد من الصحف والمجلات والمواقع الفرنسية العامة أو التابعة للفاتيكان ، بحديث للمستشار الدبلوماسى للإمام الأكبر ، محمود عبد الجواد ، لجريدة "ميسادݘيرو" الإيطالية يوم 7 يونيو 2013 ، أعرب فيه عن أمنيته فى خطوة إلى الأمام من جانب البابا فرانسيس، لكى يؤكد "أن الإسلام السنّى مستعد للإنفتاح مرة أخرى فى الحوار مع الفاتيكان" ، و"أن المشاكل التى حدثت لنا لم تكن مع الفاتيكان وإنما مع البابا السابق، والآن أبواب الأزهر مفتوحة".. ويواصل الخبر الذى تناولته وسائل الإعلام بتنويعات مختلفة لتنقل تصريحات السيد محمود عبد الجواد ، الذى أوضح "أنه يتعيّن على البابا فرانسيس أن ينتهز فرصة شهر رمضان الذى سيبدأ يوم 9 يوليو ليقول إن الإسلام دين سلمى وأن المسلمين لا يبحثون عن الحرب أو عن العنف" !! كما توضح وكالة الأنباء الفرنسية حوار مستشار الأزهر عبد الجواد قائلا : "أنه بعد إنتخاب البابا فرانسيس يوم 13 مارس 2013 أرسل له الإمام الأكبر برقية تهنئة. وفى العرف الدبلوماسى ذلك يعنى أن القنوات مفتوحة" (...) "كما أن الأزهر قد ثمّن ما قام به البابا فرانسيس أيام عيد الفصح فى تقليد غسل أقدام بعض الأفراد وأنه قد وضع فتاة سجينة (صربية) مسلمة بين الإثنى عشر شخصا".. وأضافت الوكالة عن لسان عبد الجواد "إذا قبل البابا فرانسيس دعوة الباطريارك القبطى تواضرس الثانى لزيارة مصر فيمكنه أيضا زيارة الأزهر، عندئذ العلاقات والحوار وكل شئ سيعود فورا" !! إلا أنه إستبعد مشاركة الأزهر فى الحوار الثلاثى بين قيادات الرسالات التوحيدية الثلاث المزمع إقامته فى إسرائيل "لأن الأزهر لن يسهم فى لقاء مع الإسرائيليين". ومن ناحية أخرى أعلن جريجوريوس الثالث، باطريارك إنطاقيا والشرق من الإسكندرية للقدس، فى 4 يونيو فى مشاركته إحتفالية التبشير فى الميادين وسط إحتفالات مدينة "مارسيليا عاصمة الثقافة"، التى نظمها المعهد الكاثوليكى للبحر الأبيض المتوسط، أمنيته بأن ينغرس مسيحيو أوروبا فى إيمانهم ليمكنهم التصدى للإسلام. فلو أصبحت أوروبا مسيحية سيمكنها ملاقاة الإسلام بلا خشية. وإن لم تكن أوروبا فخورة بإيمانها فلن يمكنها أن تواجهه، وعندئذ لن تواجه إلا أقبح وجه للإسلام".. وفى حديث مع الكاردينال ݘان لوى توران ، رئيس المجلس البابوى للحوار بين الأديان، نشر يوم 9 يونيو 2013 فى وكالة الأنباء الفرنسية ، أى بعد يومين من حوار عبد الجواد، قال فيه : "أنه قام بعدة محاولات لإستعادة الحوار لكنها لم تفلح ، وأن المشاكل ليست فينا، فمن قطع العلاقات هم أصدقاؤنا المسلمين". وتقول الوكالة "حيث أن الكاردينال من أنصار حوار لا يعرف الإلتواء، فهو يصر على إبراز الظروف التعسفية والتفرقة العنصرية التى يعيشها المسيحيون فى البلدان ذات الأغلبية المسلمة، خاصة فيما يتعلق بحرية العقيدة وحرية تغيير الديانة. وهذه موضوعات يصعب تناولها مع شركاؤنا فى الحوار" .. ونفس وكالة الأنباء أعلنت يوم 10 يونيو : "الفاتيكان حذر حيال تهنئة الأزهر للبابا فرانسيس"، وأن الكاردينال توران قد أعلن عن ريبته من عبارات ومحاولات الأزهر لإستعادة الحوار مع الفاتيكان ! وقبل ذلك بشهر تقريبا، أى فى 14 مارس 2013 كان قد تم نشر خبر آخر فى جريدة "ويست فرانس" وغيرها، على لسان د. محمود عزب يقول تحت عنوان "الأزهر يتمنى علاقات أفضل مع الفاتيكان" : "إن مؤسسة الأزهر، أعلى سلطة للإسلام السنّى، تمنت يوم الخميس أن يكون لها علاقات أفضل مع الفاتيكان، مع البابا الجديد فرانسيس وليس مع بنديكت 16". وقد أضاف محمود عزب، مستشار الإمام الأكبر أحمد الطيب للحوار بين الأديان : "وما أن تبدو بادرة جديدة فى التوجه سنعود للحوار مع الفاتيكان الذى كان قد توقف بداية 2011". والملاحظ من الحوارات والتصريحات المتعددة أن الأزهر، جهلا أو عن عمد ، يضع الخلاف الحاصل بين المؤسستين على أنه خلاف شخصى بين طرفين هما : بنديكت 16 والأزهر، متناسيا أو متجاهلا أن الخلاف بل والإختلاف الأساسى والعدوان الصارخ واقع من جانب الفاتيكان والمجمع الذى أقامه تحت عنوان "المجمع الفاتيكانى الثانى" فيما بين 1962 و 1965، الذى قرر فيه وضع الإسلام مع ديانات جنوب شرق آسيا ، ولا يعترف به أصلا كديانة توحيدية أو أنه الرسالة التوحيدية الثالثة التى أتت لتصويب ما تم من تحريف وتبديل فى الرسالتين التوحيديتين السابقتين ، كما قرر تنصير العالم ! وهذا القرار قرار مجمعى لا رجعة فيه فى نظر الكنيسة. ففيما يتحاورون ولصالح من يتنازلون ؟؟ ومعروف أن المؤسسة الفاتيكانية لا تضع الإسلام "قولاً" مع الرسالات التوحيدية إلا إن كانت بحاجة إلى تنازل جديد أو إلى الإستناد إلى الأزهر لعمل شئ ما لصالحها. ومن كل هذه الأخبار والأحاديث المتبادلة بنغمات متنوعة ندرك أن هناك ثمة شئ يتم الترتيب له فى الخفاء وفى العلن ، وهو موقف أشبه ما يكون بما حدث بعد محاضرة بنديكت 16 فى راتيسبون عام 2006، التى سب فيها الإسلام والرسول، صلوات الله عليه، عمدا متعمدا، فالإستشهاد الذى ألصق به رأيه جُبناً وحيطة، مثله مثل أى إستشهاد، لا يقفذ من الكتب والمراجع ليستقر تحت يد الكاتب وإنما الكاتب هو الذى يبحث عنه لإثبات رأيه أو لتفنيد ذلك الإستشهاد. ولم يعتذر بنديكت 16 مطلقا عن هذا الجُرم العدوانى وإنما تأسف لرد فعل المسلمين الهمجى ! وعندما هاله رد فعل المسلمين طلب من أحد أساقفته محاصرة الموضوع، وهى الحيلة الملتوية التى نجم عنها الخطاب المخزى الذى وقّع عليه 138 عالما من علماء المسلمين، جهلا أو عن عمد، مقرّين بأننا نعبد نفس الإله مع النصارى، أى أننا نعبد "ربنا يسوع المسيح" كما يقولون ! بنديكت 16 : لو نظرنا فى عجالة إلى موقف بنديكت 16 لوجدنا أنه هو الذى تبنى تفعيل عبارة "التبشير الجديد" التى أطلقها البابا يوحنا بولس الثانى، وتمادى فيها على الصعيدين : تجاه الغرب الذى ألحد عند إكتشافه تحريف عقيدته، وتجاه العالم الإسلامى الذى تقرر تنصيره. ولم يترك مجالا من المجالات السياسية والإقتصادية والإجتماعية والإعلامية والفنية بل والترفيهية إلا وألزمها بالمشاركة فى عمليات التبشير الجديد.. والجديد فيها أنه طالب المسيحيين "عدم الخجل من دينهم"، فهو أول من يعلم بتحريفه وإنفضاحه، كما طالبهم "عدم الخوف من التبشير" فقد قام باللازم لحمايتهم بالمؤسسات الدولية ! وهو الذى فتح الباب على مصراعيه لتبشير القارة الإفريقية والسيطرة على مواردها الطبيعية، الأمر الذى كشفت عنه بعض الأبحاث المقدَمَة إلى "سينودس إفريقيا" وكلها متعلقة بالمناجم وثرواتها، حتى تلك التى لم يتم إكتشافها بعد لكنه تم تصويرها بالأقمار الصناعية، فما دخل التحدث عن هذه الثروات فى إجتماع كنسى دينى إن لم يكن لأغراض إستعمارية دينية جديدة ؟! وبنديكت 16 هو الذى عمل على زيادة ترسيخ تهمة الإرهاب بالإسلام والمسلمين، ونادى صراحة بالإستعانة بالمنظمات الغربية العالمية والسياسية لحماية الأقليات المسيحية وما يتبعها حاليا من صياغات لقوانين جديدة لمحاصرة المسلمين فى الغرب. وهو صاحب وثيقة "الكنيسة فى الشرق الأوسط" التى طالب فيها بضرورة توصيل الإيمان المسيحى لكافة البشر وأنها الرسالة الأساسية للكنيسة لأنها أفضل وسيلة للرد على تحديات العالم اليوم التى هى الإلحاد فى الغرب وإنتشار الإسلام؛ ودعى فيها كافة المسيحيين والكنائس المحلية إلى المساهمة فى عمليات التبشير الجديد ، موضحا فى البند رقم 85 : "إن مجمل الكنيسة الكاثوليكية الموجودة فى الشرق الأوسط مدعوة لمشاركة الكنيسة العالمية وأن ترتبط بهذا التبشير الجديد. كما أنها مكلفة بإعداد مبشرين من الرجال والنساء يمكنهم الإعلان بشجاعة عن الإنجيل".. الأمر الذى يكشف بكل وضوح أن الكنائس المحلية فى الشرق الأوسط مأمورة بالمشاركة فى عملية التبشير حتى وإن كان ذلك يعنى خيانة الأغلبية المسلمة التى يعيشون بينها ويتسبب فى الإحتقان الطبيعى الناجم عنها ! البابا فرانسيس : منذ إنتخاب البابا فرانسيس وهو لا يكف، سواء فى أحاديثه المعلنة أو مع الزوار الرسميين الذين يستقبلهم، لا يكف عن الإشارة إلى التبشير الجديد، وإلى البلدان التى لم تقم بعد علاقات دبلوماسية مع الكرسى الرسولى، وإلى ضروة الدفاع عن الأقليات المسيحية فى الشرق الأوسط ومعاناتها خاصة فى مصر.. كما أنه لم يتوقف عن إستكمال مسيرة بنديكت 16 سواء فى الخطوط العريضة لها وكل ما بدأه من فاعليات دينية لمواصلة التبشير الجديد لتنصير العالم. ومن ناحية أخرى فهو يُعد إحدى القنوات الهامة لتسلل الماسونية إلى الفاتيكان. فقد كبر وتم تكوينه فى الأرݘنتين التى تعد جمهورية قائمة على "البرجل والزاوية" كما يقولون، وهى رموز الماسونية المعلنة. وعند إعلان إنتخابه على كرسى البابوية أعلن جوستاف رافّى المعلم الأعلى للمحفل الماسونى الإيطالى قائلا : "مع البابا فرانسيس لن يصبح أى شئ كما كان سابقا. أنه إختيار واضح للأخوية من أجل كنيسة حوار غير ملوثة بمنطق ومغريات السلطة الزمانية". ومعروف عن أخوية يسوع التى ينتمى إليها البابا فرانسيس أنها من قنوات تسلل الماسونية إلى الفاتيكان الذى تزايد فيه نفوذ منظمات "عمل الرب"، و"إتحاد وتحرير" ، و"الفوكولارى"، و"فرسان المسيح" وجميعها ماسونية النزعة وتتصارع للسيطرة على أموال بنك الفاتيكان، المتهم علنا بغسيل الأموال والإتجار بالأسلحة وبالأعضاء البشريه وغيرها من الممنوعات قانونا .. وفى الخطاب الذى كتبه المكتب الصحافى للفاتيكان، الذى قرأه البابا فرانسيس يوم إضفاء القداسة على الثمانمائة شخص بزعم أن الأتراك ذبحوهم لرفضهم التخلى عن دينهم والدخول فى الإسلام، وهو ما ليس له دليل فى أى وثيقة تاريخية رسمية، كان النص المكتوب يقول : "الذين عاشوا رغم الحصار وغزو العثمانيين سنة 1480 لمدينة أورانت، قد تم ذبحهم قرب هذه المدينة". وعندما قرأ البابا فرانسيس هذا النص أسقط عبارة "العثمانيين" لتثبيت المجزرة المزعومة بالإسلام عامة !. وكان بنديكت 16 هو الذى إقترح، يوم 6 يوليو 2007 ، إضفاء القدسية على هؤلاء.. وقد إعترض وزير الخارجية التركية على هذا التزوير رسميا. البابا فرانسيس واليهود : فى 30 مايو 2013 نشرت جريدة "لاكروا" الكنسية مقالا بعنوان "إسرائيل تقترح على البابا فرانسيس تنظيم لقاء بين الرسالات التوحيدية الثلاث فى الفاتيكان" ! والمقال متعلق بزيارة شيمون بيريس للبابا فرانسيس يوم 30 إبريل 2013 ، وأن هذا اللقاء غير المسبوق موضوعه السلام ورفض العنف وإدانة إستخدام العنف بإسم الدين. وهو ما لا يفعله سوى الإسلام والمسلمين فى نظر هؤلاء السفّاحين بعد أن ألصقوا به تهمة الإرهاب. أما الصهاينة الذين إقتلعوا شعبا بأسره واستولوا على أرضه بكاملها تقريبا فلم يبق من فلسطين حاليا سوى 8 % من مساحتها ، وذلك على مرأى ومسمع من العالم الغربى المتحضر الذى عاون على ترسيخ هذا الكيان، فهم حمائم سلام تقطر وداعة .. لذلك قام تنظيم "أخوية الفرانسيسكان" بإهداء شيمون بيريس "وسام السلام" أثناء هذه الزيارة !! وفى هذا اللقاء بين البابا فرانسيس و الرئيس الصهيونى تناولا فيه الصراع فى الشرق الأوسط وضرورة تفعيل المحادثات بين الإسرائيليين والفلسطينيين "من أجل التوصل إلى إتفاق يحترم التطلعات الشرعية للشعبين" ، كما تناولا الوضع الخاص بالقدس وسوريا. فعن أية شرعية يتحدثون وقد إستولوا على 92 % من أرض فلسطين ، وعن أية شرعية يتحدثون والبقية الباقية من الفلسطينيين محاصرون فى سجن مفتوح ؟؟ كما كان الحاخام دافيد روزن، رئيس المجلس العالمى للمسيحيين واليهود (ICCJ) ورئيس المكتب التنفيذى لمركز الملك عبدالله للحوار بين الأديان (KAICIID)، قد إقترح على البابا تنظيم لقاء فى القدس سنة 2015 ، بين رؤساء الأديان الثلاثة بمناسبة العيد الخمسينى لوثيقة "فى زماننا هذا" الصادرة عن مجمع الفاتيكان الثانى والتى تم فيها تبرأة اليهود من دم المسيح.. هذه الخلفيات والأزهر : إختصارا ، إن ما يدور حول المهزلة القادمة، و ما يبدو أو يتسرب فى وسائل الإعلام المتعددة ، و ما يتم الترتيب له حاليا هو إستخدام الأزهر فى تقسيم المسجد الأقصى بين اليهود والمسلمين !. وهو ما أعلنه أيضا قاضى قضاة فلسطين الدكتور تيسير التميمى فى حواره مع مجلة "المجتمع" الكويتية (العدد 2055). وذلك مثلما سبق واستولوا على حائط البراق والعديد من الآثار الإسلامية وعلى 92 % من فلسطين، أى كلها تقريبا. والسبب فى هذه الحيطة اللافتة للنظر: خشية الصهاينة ، ولو بنسبة 1 % لإحتمال أن يثور المسلمون عند إستيلاء الصهاينة على المسجد الأقصى ظلما وقهرا كما فعلوا بكل فلسطين. ولمجرد إحتمال هذه النسبة الكالحة رأوا الإستيلاء عليه بالوسائل التمويهية "رسميا" وبموافقة الفاتيكان والأزهر، وعندئذ يبدأ التسلل البطئ للإستيلاء على النصف الآخر بأية مزاعم وأحاييل كما يفعلون دوما.. فهل الأزهر بكل علمائه وجهابذته الكرام الذين يجيدون الهرْوَلة مستعدون لهذه الكارثة ؟ أو هل هم مدركون لها حقا لكى يتمنوا ويرجوا ويتطلعوا إلى عودة الحوار ؟؟ ليتهم يتابعون ويقرأون ويفهمون ما يدور فى العلن وفى الخفاء، فهو دائما معلن ولو بشئ من الإلتواء لجس النبض! ليتهم يبدأون بمطالبة الفاتيكان بتصويب كتابة إسم سيدنا محمد عليه الصلاة والسلام، فهم دوما يكتبونه "ما أو ميه" (Mahomet) من قبيل السخرية أو الإستهبال فهم يجيدون تماما كتابة إسم أى محمد.. ليتهم يطالبون الفاتيكان بتعديل قرارات مجمعهم الغاشم الذى برّأ اليهود من دم المسيح رغم كل ما هو وارد فى الأناجيل المتداولة، لكى يتم غرس الكيان الصهيونى فى قلب فلسطين وفى قلب العرب، وأن يطالبوه بوقف قرار إقتلاع الإسلام ، ووقف تنصير العالم وإستخدام الكنائس المحلية وكافة الأتباع النصارى فى عمليات التنصير التى هى السبب الأساس فى كثير مما يدور فى العالم من إحتقان ومآسى.. ولن تكون هذه المطالب بغريبة عليهم فى الفاتيكان ، فقد ألفوا التغيير والتبديل لا فى القوانين والقرارات التى يصدرونها فحسب ولكن حتى فى العقائد ، فما أكثر ما قاموا به..
  20. Question About Muhammad

    Assalam alaikum It appears that OP has no idea about the subject & his only drive was his blind hate, This is "mawdu" as shown here & here. Mawdu الْمَوضُوع A technical term in Hadith terminology which refers to a report in whose chain one of the following defects is discovered: 1. One of the narrators in the chain was known to have fabricated report(s). 2. He was found to have lied, even if in a worldly affair. 3. He was “alleged” by a Hadith scholar to have forged reports. 4. He was “alleged” to have lied, even if in worldly affairs. 5. There are one or more signs of it being fabricated such as, the Hadith goes against a Qur’anic statement, e.g. “A child born out of adultery will not enter Paradise” which goes against the Qur’anic statement (17: 15), “No bearer will bear the sin of another.” Ruling a. It is disallowed to quote a Mawdu` report for religious purposes; the Prophet said, “Whoever quoted a saying of mine which he knows is untrue, is one of the liars.” b. Whenever it is quoted for any purpose, it must go with the warning that it is Mawdu`. c. It is forbidden to act by its demand. d. Quoting a Mawdu` Hadith without pronouncing its status is a major sin. This is being overcautious, but considering the fact that Hadith is one of the sources of Law, it is justified. The scholars are not of divided opinion over this. The Ahadith Mawdu`ah started appearing in the second century. Story-tellers, sermonizers, atheists, courtiers, politicians, and deviant groups were involved in fabrication, but the scholars soon discovered them and quickly sorted out the Mawdu` from the rest. Several books have been written that list the Mawdu` reports. In modern times the Orientalists, missionaries, sermonizers, magazines, newspapers, and TV-scholars are the popularizers and carriers of Mawdu` Ahadith.
  21. Question About Muhammad

    It is not my place to comment on any of that... perhaps you should draw your own conclusions. So, before you ban me, consider that these are not my words, but merely the words of Muslim writers and collectors of hadith... If we ignored the fact that "Al-Amin Al-Maïmoun, "The first people to believe in the prophet." is unknown- not quran or austhentic hadeeth- and most muslims never heard of it, how can any adult think ill of something like this unless he has abnormal sexual impulses in the first place, which is disgraceful to himself only.
  22. Question About Muhammad

    That may be related to their culture & apparent lust initially provoked by old songs like "song of songs" which is The Ultimate Manual for beginners.