Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
ShiaChat.com
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

mehdi soldier

Advanced Member
  • Content Count

    2,297
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    mehdi soldier got a reaction from PureExistence1 in Rabbi Refuting Christian Concept Of Atonement   
    i think you are seeing things from the other way round.while you identified that the rabbi is not denying blood sacrifice as one method mentioned in his bible,there is no where the rabbi denied blood as being a method.so even if that one method fits in ,you have ignored the points of christianity which the rabbi identifies that does not fit into the bible.
    the question is not whether or not blood sacrifice is acceptable.the question is if blood sacrifice is the only method to attain atonement.to the christian if you do not accept Jesus' alleged "blood sacrifice" then you'd go to hell fire.to them that is the only way for atonement.here i am not even talking about whether or not Jesus truly died.i am assuming for argument sake he did.but even if he did,is his "blood" the only way to atonement?
    also,the bottom line for atonement to be obtained repentance is the way and a must.so the christian concept that you throw all the laws out of the window and look up to Jesus' "blood" is faulty without repentance( and upholding the laws) which has always being an open door to forgiveness.
    the question also the rabbi raised is where does the scripture say that the blood of Jesus (the messiah) is what must be shed when he was talking about leviticus and sacrifice on the altar.he is simply pointing out that christian theology is made up and not found in the scripture exactly as they have made it up and propagate it today or used it to threaten others that if they dont believe as they do,others will go to hell fire.
  2. Like
    mehdi soldier got a reaction from Northwest in Easter Gift   
    (NOTE:
    "Easter Gift:"the Christian God:Blood and Human Sacrifice" is written by "mehdi soldier" and sharing and reproducing this material is free and acceptable by me for the sake of Almighty God).
    "Easter Gift: “the Christian God: Blood And Human Sacrifice”
    It is of great amazement to know that men of knowledge and intellect and particularly professionals who believe in Christianity do celebrate human sacrifice and the shedding of an innocent human being’s blood to mark the so called redemption of humanity. If the god of Christianity can carry out human sacrifice then what is the difference between Christianity and tradition African religions which support human sacrifice? In our world of today, upon hearing the term “human sacrifice”, everyone freaks out and considers it barbaric. On the other hand, Christians up to this day annually commemorates human sacrifice and in fact have made it the basic and most fundamental tenet of their faith that without it there would be no Christianity.
    1 Corinthians 15
    And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
    Galatians 2:21
    I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
    In Christianity “human sacrifice” is God’s “grace” while the same people would continue to condemn traditional religions if they employ human sacrifice. Why the double standard since “human sacrifice” is “human sacrifice”. Is it not time for Christians with intellect and logic to identify the barbarity involved in celebrating Easter and all that connects to the alleged killing of Jesus (human sacrifice)? Should governments around the world not stop the commemoration of such barbaric practice commemorating what is believed to be a father killing his own son and offering him as a sacrifice? And come to think of it, can God, the universal Supreme Being and the almighty who possesses all and everything, sacrifice anything? Can God sacrifice anything? Do you really know the meaning of “sacrifice”? To sacrifice means to give up or abandon something. Does your God who owns everything and made everything and can also destroy everything be in the position of humans to sacrifice anything? Is it true that God can give up something and loses it? It’s not impossible and “sacrifice” is not compatible with the concept and belief of an Almighty God who is universal, the beginner of everything and the bringer to an end of everything.
    In the same bible that Christians hold as holy we find verses denouncing human sacrifice and also denouncing parents sacrificing their children. But here we have Christians hypocritically accepting and celebrating their “heavenly father” killing his “son” to neutralize sin a mysterious sin that they themselves did not commit but one attributed to Adam in the name of “original sin”. The same bible does not inform us that sin cannot be passed through from one person to another nor can it be inherited:
    Ezekiel 18:20
    20The soul that sinned, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father; neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
    IF GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT DENOUNCES HUMAN SACRIFICE AND HE ALSO DENOUNCES PARENTS WHO SACRIFICE THEIR CHILDREN AND HE ABORTED ABRAHAM’S SLAUGHTERING OF HIS SON (SINCE IT WAS ONLY MEANT TO BE A TEST),THEN WHY DO CHRISTIANS AND THEIR NEW TESTAMENT PRESCRIBE TO GOD WHAT HE HAS REJECTED?
    Deuteronomy 12:31
    31Thou shall not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to the LORD, which he hates, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods.
    From the above God considers sacrificing your children as an abomination, yet Christians ascribe that same abomination to God, sacrificing his own “son”!
    Deuteronomy 18:9-12
    When you enter the land that GOD, your God, is giving you, don't take on the abominable ways of life of the nations there. Don't you dare sacrifice your son or daughter in the fire. Don't practice divination, sorcery, fortunetelling, witchery, casting spells, holding séances, or channeling with the dead. People who do these things are an abomination to GOD. It's because of just such abominable practices that GOD, your God, is driving these nations out before you.
    Now how dare you ascribe an abomination to God? Didn’t God see in the above that sacrificing one’s own child is an abomination?
    Leviticus 18:21
    "Don't give any of your children to be burned in sacrifice to the god Molech—an act of sheer blasphemy of your God. I am GOD.
    When someone sacrifices his own son, God sees it as blasphemy. Then how can you blaspheme by ascribing blasphemy to God Himself what God sees as blasphemy?
    WAS JESUS A WILLING “SACRIFICE”?
    Let us examine the narration of how sorrowful and freigtened Jesus was and obviously was not ready nor willing to die for your sin:
    Matthew 26:36-47
    36Then cometh Jesus with them unto a place called Gethsemane, and saith unto the disciples, Sit ye here, while I go and pray yonder.
    37And he took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be sorrowful and very heavy.
    38Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me.
    39And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.
    40And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour?
    41Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.
    42He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.
    43And he came and found them asleep again: for their eyes were heavy.
    Compare the sorrow and fear Jesus expressed and the joy or at least readiness of soldiers who are willing to die.dont you dare come up and tell me he (Jesus) was human.i don’t even want to go into the question of whether Jesus was human or god or both.the fact is those willing to die are not gods but men.God does not die;gods die and hence they are false!if you can find men willing to die or at least willing to honor their agreement to sacrifice themselves for the truth,Jesus should no less be as strong as them.we read further:
    Luke 22:44
    And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.
    Fear? Not only that he was sweating and weeping. He was sweating as if they were “great drops of blood”. Why all that? Was it because Jesus was willing to die? Or was it because he was not willing to die? Tell me!
    Matthew 27:45-46
    Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour.
    And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? That is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
    Forsaken? The “son” is complaining to his “dad” that his “dad” had forsaken him and here you are telling me he was “willing” to die!
    CAN A “CURSE” REDEEM HUMANITY?
    Galatians 3:13
    Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
    So the Christian god did not only slay his son,he did not only “sacrifice” his son” and he did not only performed human sacrifice,but he allowed his son to be cursed!a cursed “son of god”?is that the gift that Christianity has to offer humanity?thanks but no thanks!
    WHERE DO CURSED PEOPLE TO INTO AND WAS JESUS REALLY “KILLED” OR “CRUCIFIED” AND BECOME “CURSED”?
    Matthew 25:41
    Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
    From the above verse, it is either Jesus is lying that he will drive the cursed ones away since he himself has become cursed according to Galatians 3:13 and he too must be driven away or Jesus is saying the truth that he will drive the cursed ones away because Jesus was never killed or cursed!
    Deuteronomy 21:23
    His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shall in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
    An accursed messiah, prophet and “son of god”?impossible! He could never have being killed and therefore he never “died” for your sins (thus no human sacrifice” and therefore no resurrection!
    With all the crying and weeping of Jesus, Christians hold that Jesus was killed and therefore become “cursed” as a human sacrifice that “died” for their sin”. Is that how a loving God (your so called “heavenly father”) treats his beloved son? Do Christian fathers sacrifice their sons and give them up to save the wicked and those who have committed atrocities? Is it just to punish the innocent in the place of the criminal?
    Deuteronomy 24:16
    The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.
    WAS JESUS REALLY KILLED?
    The Holy Quran replies and the choice is yours:
    “He (Jesus) was neither killed nor crucified”(Holy Quran 4:157-158)
    So will you Christians continue to justify human sacrifice when all evidence point and work against it? The choice is indeed yours to make!

    Major Yeats-Brown, in his “Life of a Bengal Lancer”, summarises the Christian Doctrine of the Atonement in just a single sentence:
    “NO HEATHEN TRIBE HAS CONCEIVED SO GROTESQUE AN IDEA, INVOLVING AS IT DOES THE ASSUMPTION, THAT MAN WAS BORN WITH A HEREDITARY STAIN UPON HIM: AND THAT THIS STAIN (FOR WHICH HE WAS NOT PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE) WAS TO BE ATONED FOR: AND THAT THE CREATOR OF ALL THINGS HAD TO SACRIFICE HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON TO NEUTRALISE THIS MYSTERIOUS CURSE.”
    for further reading,read Ahmad Deedat's:"cruci-fiction or crucifixion":
    http://www.institutealislam.com/crucifixion-or-crucifiction-by-sheikh-ahmed-deedat/
    PLEASE YOU CAN ALSO WATCH THE FOLLOWING:
    1.) "Easter - A Muslim Viewpoint " - by Ahmed Deedat - 1999 - English:
    http://www.shiatv.net/view_video.php?viewkey=79c863ba65467986739c
    2.) " Refuting the Original Sin & Crucifixion" -By Hassanain Rajabali " :

  3. Like
    mehdi soldier got a reaction from Northwest in Rabbi Refuting Christian Concept Of Atonement   
    brother "Saintly_Jinn",
    blood sacrifice does not contradict the bible and that is fine.but human sacrifice does contradict the bible.
    secondly,there is hardly a christian on the face of the planet that does not believe that Jesus "died" for his sins.infact,anyone who does not believe Jesus is his "saviour" is bound to hell fire.to christians,Jesus' "death" is the only way.he is their "saviour" because he "died" for them.
    now if you come up to say that blood sacrifice is not the only way for atonement based on the bible,and even for argument's sake if we accept that human sacrifice is acceptable,then saying blood sacrifice is not the only way for atonement renders the christian threat of hell to others void.this simply means that muslims who do not believe in the alleged death of Jesus cam make it to paradise.in other words,christianity which is centered on the alleged death and resurrection of Jesus is not the only way to attain paradise.there is no christian presently who believes that you can make it without believing in the alleged death of Jesus (ofcourse in the early days of christianity,there were "christians" who doubted and disbelieved in the "crucifixion").the only thing christianity presents for salvation is not "good deeds" but "blood".if it were good deeds or animal sacrifice then islam is more fitting to be the religion that saves.in this regards,i would like you to read Sheikh Ahmad Deedat's "cruci-fixion or cruci-fiction".
    also see this here to know that human sacrifice does contradict the bible:

    the alleged "sacrifice" of Jesus is also biblically faulty in more than one sense:
    a sacrifice must be offered by the guilty party and not by the offended.
    also,a sacrifice should portray sincere repentance.does the alleged "crucifixion" demonstrate the sincere repentance by christians?or is it more or less understood as a license to sin more and go free?or is it even effective?has it achieved its aim?because christians are still required to repent and so "some" good works before attaining the salvation which they believe the "crucifixion" gave them.further on,if good works and repentance can attain salvation alongside belief,wasn't this the case even before Jesus and the alleged "crucifixion"?doesn't this show that the alleged "crucifixion" is really useless and needless?why add one more belief which adds to the burden on humanity to attain paradise?one more belief in this case is like one more visa required for paradise.we could do with other beliefs and in particular the belief in One God alongside good deeds to attain salvation.so really,the objective of the "blood of Jesus" becomes a failure because many would perish on its account according to christianity rather than attain salvation through it.so it is no longer a gift but a burden.
  4. Like
    mehdi soldier got a reaction from Dutchzahra in Does Allah Mean The God?   
    (special note for moderators:kindly make each chapter of the book in a separate post so that the ideas would be set separate and expressivle to define each concept on its own)
    CHAPTER TWO: THE CONCEPTS
    In the religious terminology of the world, we will find that every “son of man” in his own way, in his own dialect has given some beautiful attributive name for the Lord of the Heavens and the Earth.
    THE ZULU CONCEPT
    In our own country, South Africa, the Zulus, a very virile and militant people – a nation akin to the Qureish of pre- Islamic Arabia – have given a name to God Almighty – uMVELINQANGI. This word when properly articulated in its own dialect, sounds identical to the Arabic word Walla-hu-gani, meaning – “And Allah is Rich” (Bounteous). It also sounds like “Allegany” of the Red Indians of North America (Remember their ALLEGANY mountain). The origin or real meaning of the word “Allegany,” is not commonly known to the American people. But ask any Zulu as to who or what this uMvelinqangi is and he will surely explain to you in Zulu:
    HAWU UMNIMZANI! UYENA, UMOYA OINGCWELE. AKAZALI YENA, FUTHI AKAZALWANGA; FUTHI, AKUKHO LUTMO OLU FANA NAYE.”
    Believe me, this is almost a word for word translation of Sura Ikhlas, Chapter 112 of the Holy Quran:
    Say: He is Allah the One and Only; Allah the Eternal Absolute; He begetteth not nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him. (Holy Quran 112: 1-4)
    ALMOST ISLAMIC
    Now, compare the above verses with my free translation of what the Zulu actually said:
    “Oh Sir! He is a pure and Holy Spirit, He does not beget and He is not begotten, and further there is nothing like Him.”
    Every African tribe, South of the Zambesi River, that is, in Southern Africa, have given different names to the Almighty – Tixo, Modimo, uNkulunkulu, etc., and each and every African language group will take pains to explain the same pure and holy concept as the Zulu. It is to the glory of the African nations that though they had no written languages, and hence no written records, therefore not being able to recount the names of their respective prophets, yet not a single one of the tribes ever stooped down to worshipping idols or images of either of men or animals, until the White man first introduced his religion and gave the African his anthropomorphic concept of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost, and brought the African down to bowing before the statues of Jesus, Mary, St. Joseph, St. Christopher and so on.
    Out of the dozens of African tribes inhabiting this part of the world, not a single one of them ever made “umfanegisos” (images) of their God. Yet they were capable of carving out of wood, elephants and lions, and reproducing men and women also, in clay. Besides, the Zulus also had some knowledge of metallurgy. When questioned an old Zulu as to the reason, why the Africans did not make umfanegisos of their Gods, he replied, “How could we make images of Him (God Almighty) when we know that He is not like a man, He is not like a monkey, or an elephant or a snake: He is not like anything we can think of or imagine. He is a pure and Holy Spirit.”
    LIKE THE ARABS
    This term, uMVELINQANGI, though well known to the Zulus, was not commonly used. Again they were like the pagan Qureish of Pre-Islamic Arabia who knew the name Allah, but passed Him by, because they felt that He was too High, too Pure, too Holy to be approached, so they went for their substitutary and imaginary gods – their Al-Lats, AI-Uzzas and Al-Manats and a hundred besides. The Zulus too would not call upon uMvelinqangi directly, but he was better than the Arab of the Ayyam-ul-jahiliyya (days of ignorance), because he did not go after false gods; he only invoked the spirits of his ancestors to intercede with uMvelinqangi on his behalf, exactly as the Catholics do in invoking the Virgin Mary and the Saints.
    The more common term used by the Zulus for their God is uNKULUNKULU which literally means – the Greatest of the Great or the Mightiest of the Mighty (Almighty). More colloquially when taking oath, they would exclaim “iNkosi phe-Zulu” meaning – the Lord Above (knows), or the God in Heaven (knows), or Heaven knows, that I am speaking the truth. The word “zulu” in the language of the Zulu literally means High Heaven, and they consider themselves to be superior to the numerous other tribes of Southern Africa, being in this respect like the Qureish among the dwellers of the desert before Islam.
    CONCEPT FROM THE EAST
    The Hindi word for God Almighty is PRAMATMA. In Sanskrit, the language of ancient India, “Atma” meant the soul, and “Pram-atma” meant the Great and Holy Soul, or the Holy Spirit, which is really a beautiful description of the “Father” in Heaven. The Bible says, “God is Spirit: and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and truth” (John 4:24). Not in form, shape or size, but in SPIRIT.
    Despite his pantheistic interpretation of the Divinity, the name the Hindu gives the Supreme Being, in his classical language, is OM (Aum), which means Guardian or Protector. A very suitable attribute about which the Muslim can have no misgivings.
    CONCEPT FROM THE WEST
    The Anglo/Saxon and the Teuton in their own and other allied European languages call their object of worship “GOD” or words of similar sound and import, i.e.
    God in English;
    Got in Afrikaans (the language of the descendants of the Hollandse people in South Africa);
    Gott in German; and
    Gudd in Danish, Swedish and Norwegian languages.
    The ancient Phoenicians called their God – ALLON – (not far from Allah if we could only hear it articulated), and the Canaanites ADO. The Israelites not only shared the word EL with the original people of Palestine, but borrowed the name of their chief deity – ADO and turned it into ADONAI, and everywhere the four-letter word YHWH occurred in their Holy Scriptures, they read “Adonai” instead of “Yahuwa.” You will not fail to notice the resemblance between the Jewish Adonai and the heathen Adonis. ADONIS was a “beautiful godling loved by Venus” in the Greek pantheon.

    THE LATIN CONCEPT
    In the Latin-dominated languages of Western Europe, where Latin had remained dominant in learning and diplomacy for centuries, the chief term used for God is DEUS:
    Deus in Portuguese;
    Dieu in French;
    Dio in Italian;
    Dies in Spanish;
    Dia in Scotch and Irish; and
    Duw in Welsh.
    Surprisingly in all the languages above, Deus and all the similar sounding words mean heaven.
    Moulana Vidyarthi, in his monumental work – “Muhammad in World Scriptures,” devotes a hundred pages to the names of God in the different languages. And out of a list of 155 attributive names, over 40 of them use the word “Heaven” or the “Above,” in their language in describing God. Though the Muslim chants the Asma-ul-husna (the most beautiful names), 99 as derived from the Holy Quran with the crowning name, Allah; “Heaven” is not one of those ninety-nine attributes. Symbolically, heaven may be described as the abode of God, and in the words of Wordsworth in Tintern Abbey:
    WHOSE DWELLING IS THE LIGHT OF SETTING SUNS, AND THE ROUND OCEAN AND THE LIVING AIR, AND IN THE BLUE SKY, AND IN THE MIND OF MAN: A MOTION AND A SPIRIT THAT IMPELS ALL THINKING THINGS, ALL OBJECTS OF ALL THOUGHTS, AND ROLLS THROUGH ALL THINGS.
    CONCEPT FROM BEYOND THE FAR EAST
    Among all the 155 tantalizing names of God in the various tongues, the one that tickled me most was – “A-T-N-A-T-U!” – and this I have adopted as a title of my book, instead of the original title promised – “What is His Name!” for this present publication.
    WHAT IS SO FUNNY OR SO NOVEL ABOUT ATNATU?
    The aborigine of South Australia calls his God “Atnatu” because some philosopher, poet or prophet had programmed him, that the Father in Heaven is absolutely free from all needs; He is independent; He needs no food nor drink. This quality, in his primitive, un-inhibited language, he conversely named ATNATU, which literally meant “the One without an anus – the One without any flaw” – i.e. the One from Whom no impurity flows or emanates. When I started sharing this novel idea with Hindu, Muslim and Christian friends, without exception, their immediate reaction was one of mirth, they giggled and laughed. Most of them not realizing that the joke was on them. The boot was on the other foot. Though the word “anus” is a very small word, only four letters in English, most people have not heard it. One is forced to use the colloquial substitute which I hesitate to reproduce here, nor will I use the same in public meetings because of people’s hypersensitivity – because in the words of Abdullah Yusuf All, people “HAD PERVERTED THEIR LANGUAGE ONCE BEAUTIFUL, INTO JARGONS OF EMPTY ELEGANCE AND UNMEANING FUTILITY.”
    Therefore to ease the situation, in a round-about-way let us say that where you have an “input,” you must allow for an “output.” The one who eats, must have the call of nature – the toilet or the bush – and our primitive friend smelt the need, which he could never attribute to his Creator. Therefore, he called his God – ATNATU! ‘The one without the excretory system or its tail end’.
    GOD EATS NOT!
    This novel concept of God by primitive man, is not really altogether novel. God Almighty conveys the same truth to mankind, as in His Last and Final Revelation – The Holy Quran – but in a language so noble, so sublime, as befitting its Author. But because of its very finesse, and refined manner of expression we have overlooked the Message. We are commanded to say to all those who wish to wean us from the worship of the One True God -
    Say: “Shall I take for my protector any other than Allah the Maker of the heavens and the earth? And He is that feedeth but is not fed.”
    In other words, we are made to declare that – “WE WILL NOT TAKE ANYONE AS OUR LORD AND PROTECTOR, OTHER THAN Allah, WHO IS THE WONDERFUL ORIGINATOR OF THE UNIVERSE.” And if any have misgivings about his so called “man-gods” or “god-men,” then bring him down to earth, for our God is the One who feeds but is not fed. He is not, in need of food. Does your man-god eat? Or doesn’t he? If he does, then he MUST submit to the call of nature – OUR GOD EATS NOT! How simple the logic, yet how stupendous the argument. Alas! We need primitive man to remind us of the potency of our weapons. We have lost the art or the knack of propagation, because for a good many centuries we have stopped preaching Islam to those around us.
    The Christians are knocking at our doors. Only the spiritually blind and the “ostriches” in our midst cannot see. Kuwait had just one Arab Christian family about fifty years ago. Today there are 35 Churches in that little country. The Jehovah’s Witnesses, a Christian sect which originated in the U.S.A. a hundred years ago, are claiming that the 2nd largest group of Jehovah’s Witnesses outside their country of origin, is the Muslim country of Nigeria.
    In Indonesia, the largest Muslim populated country in the world, there are over 6000 full-time Christian missionaries (Muballighs), not priests, parsons or ministers attached to their respective Churches, but propagators (Crusaders) of their Faith to the non-Christians – harassing “the heathen,” as they call them. These Christians missionaries have more private air-strips of their own than the Indonesian Government has. They have mission ships that anchor off the islands, because Indonesia is a country of over 2000 islands, which have no harbor or docking facilities. They invite the native for refreshment and entertainment on board the ship and subtly initiate them into their blasphemy. In their operation code named “over-kill,” they are aiming to make Indonesia a Christian Nation by the turn of the century. Of the over 60,000 missionaries raising dust throughout the world, more than half of them occupied in Africa. Africa the only Muslim continent today, is now being assailed by these modern day Crusaders who aim at making it a Christian continent, this again, by the turn of the century. Our armor, sword and shield in this battle of Faiths are in the Quran, we have been chanting it for centuries to accumulate sawab (spiritual blessings) only; but now we must bring them forth into the battle field.
    DID JESUS EAT FOOD?
    Christ the son of Mary was no more than an Apostle; many were the Apostles that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how Allah doth makes His Signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth! (Holy Quran 5:75)
    The House of Islam acknowledges that Jesus Christ, the son of Mary was one of the mightiest of Messengers of God. It acknowledges that he was born miraculously, without any male intervention; that he was the Messiah; that he gave life to the dead, by God’s permission; and that he healed the blind and the lepers, by God’s permission – BUT DID HE NOT EAT FOOD?
    “And they gave him (Jesus) a piece of broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And he (Jesus) took it, and did eat before them.” – (Luke 24:42-43)
    Further, the mother of Jesus was a woman of truth, a pious and saintly woman – BUT DID SHE NOT EAT FOOD? Can’t you see the implications? Do we need an Australoid (the aborigine of South Africa) to remind us? Indeed, we do! In this battle for the hearts and minds of people, we need his “Atnatu.” In his simple rustic language, in his childish puerile way, he is telling the world that his God eats not. That the one who eats can never be his God, because he would not be ATNATU. Our primitive brother had no inhibitions. He called a spade a spade.
    THE “MOHAMMEDANS”?
    The Westerner is an adept at concocting names. When he invented the incandescent lamp, he called his light-bulbs or globes, “MAZDA LAMPS”. Mazda happens to be the “god of light” of the Zoroastrians. In South Africa today, the European is making a great success with the sale of his “RAMA” Margarine. Rama happens to be the “man-god” of a substantial number of our population here. The white man calls himself, Christian, because he is a worshipper of Christ. He calls the worshipper of Buddha a Buddhist, and with the same logic he calls the Muslim a “Mohammedan” presuming that he is a worshipper of Muhammad. But the fact of the matter is, there is no such creature among the thousand million Muslims of the world.
    Let us assume that there were such a lunatic, a worshipper of Muhammad (May the Blessings of Allah be upon him) who would in his misguided zeal be called a “Mohammedan.” Now if this so-called “Mohammedan,” in his zeal, went among the primitives of South Australia and with all fan-fare preached his “Mohammedenism,” urging this poor, backward nation, and asked them to accept Muhammad as their god. You could then well imagine this child of nature asking our deluded brother, “Was Muhammad ‘Atnatu’?” The answer will of course be, “No!;” even from our lunatic. What about the heroes and heroines of the world who are worshipped today by the millions of civilized men and women in our own day?
    Present your candidates one by one to the native – Why don’t you try with your real or imagined “man-gods” or “goddesses” – and he will hit you for a “sixer” (over the boundary, as in cricket) every time with his “boomerang,” with his “ATNATU!” Is he not higher in his concept of God than the millions in Europe and America, and in Asia and Africa?
    PROGRESS IN REGRESSION!
    Just picture the American who lands on the moon, and his tribe who sit at home monitoring happenings on the lunar surface and also in the world by means of their satellites, like “gods” with a finger on every pulse. Marvelous, isn’t it? Remember the Bay of Bengal Tragedy? The Americans warned Pakistan about the impending tidal wave. Remember the Ramadaan War in 1973? The Americans warned Israel that the Arabs were on the move. But neither heeded the warning. These same Americans, despite all their depravity wield a power greater than all the “man-gods” put together. Yet this mighty nation and their counterparts in Europe and the world, are worshipping men and monkeys – Nay! The very devil himself! (“The Satan Cult”) How is, this possible?
    But Satan made (to the wicked) their own acts seem alluring: he is also their patron today. (Holy Quran 16:63)
    Hero and Hero-worshipping is ingrained in man. If he will not worship God, then he will worship something else. But worship he must. What can be better than a handsome man or a beautiful woman, who is one of his own kind? Anthropomorphism, a system in which man conceives of God after his own likeness is traditional. It is modern as well as ancient. Mankind thinks of God as one like himself, in his own image. Does not the Christian Bible say, in the very first chapter of the very first Book?
    “And God said, Let us make man in our own image…” (Genesis 1:26)
    As to the word “image,” God is not talking about a physical, human likeness, which is not far from a certain family of apes. Little wonder that Darwin claimed that the monkeys are our ancestors! No! We are made in the spiritual image of the Beneficent. We are one with Him in attributes. The Holy Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said, ‘IMBUE THYSELF WITH DIVINE ATTRIBUTES.” As Allah is Holy, we must be holy. As He is just, justice being his attribute, we must imbibe justice. As He is Merciful, we must portray mercy, and so on with each of the 99 attributes of God from the Book of Allah – The Holy Quran. None can be one with God physically, because He is not a physical Being.
    THE THREE HYPOSTASES OF THE TRINITY
    The poor benighted Christians misunderstood the word “image” as well as the word “us” in the preceding quotation at the very beginning of the Bible. Christians interpret the word “us” to imply the existence of a combination of “Father, Son and Holy Ghost” of their Holy Trinity. They fail to realize that in Hebrew as well as in Arabic there are two types of plurals. There is a plural of numbers as well as that of respect and honor. Here is a plural of honor which you might not have noticed: – the quotation from the Holy Quran about Jesus and his mother, observe the words – “SEE! HOW CLEAR WE MAKE FOR THEM OUR MESSAGES.” No Muslim ever understood by these plurals, a plurality in the Godhead, neither did any Christian Arab or Jew. Ask any Jew who knows Hebrew as to the number of gods in his Hebrew “US” from the first chapter of his Torah, and he will confirm without any hesitation what I am telling you.
    THE GODS OF APARTHEID
    The deluded souls among mankind not only imagined God in their own likeness physically, but they also gave him a racial bias and racial characteristics:
    “ETHIOP GODS HAVE ETHIOP LIPS BRONZE CHEEKS AND WOOLLY HAIR; THE GRECIAN GODS ARE LIKE THE GREEKS AS KEEN-EYED, OLD AND FAIR.” – (Anonymous)
    The Greeks and the Romans jettisoned their Minervas, Appolos and Hercules’ and opted for the newest of “man-gods” two thousand years ago, namely, Jesus Christ. These Romans became the pioneers of their mythology couched in a fresh garb to the nations of Western Europe who were tiring of their Thors and Wodenses and so took on the new creed with alacrity.
    In turn the Europeans inflicted their tri-theology on their colonies. They gave a man-god, more handsome than the “gods” of the natives. And look how they have transformed him in pictures, sculptures and in the movies. He has blond hair, blue eyes, handsome angular features like those of Jeffrey Hunter in the film “King of Kings.” But no! He does not look anything like the Jew with his proverbial polly-nose. The new “god” is more English/German/Scandinavian, in his bone structure. A white, “man-god,” as against a blue “man-god.” (Rama and Krishna are usually painted blue in Hindu religious pictures). Compare the portraittures and you will pity the subjected people for falling “out of the frying pan into the fire.”
    MUSLIMS’ DUTY
    We Muslims really have done nothing for the benighted millions of the world. We should rescue them from their shirk, or else they will take us down with them to perdition, here as well as in the hereafter. There are many millions more worshiping man-gods today on Allah’s good earth, than those worshipping the one true God – Allah subha-nahu-wa-ta aala. The miseries in the Muslim world exist because of our utter neglect in sharing the Din-ul-lah (The Religion of God) with the nations of the world. Propagation of the Faith is the Awwal (the first) Fard (obligation) of the Muslim. Discount this Pillar of Islam at your own peril. You know that Allah’s whip makes no noise. How can you play your part! Simply by memorizing a single verse of the Holy Quran. The one from page 15 of this booklet. Write it down on a piece of cardboard, together with its meaning, and memorize the words of Allah with the meaning – phrase by phrase – as you see it, and do not let the card go out of your pocket or your handbag until you have transferred it into your God-given computer, the brain. With just this one verse, and with the aborigine’s boomerang (his “Atnatu”) you are set to rout every breed of anthropomorphism inflicting Allah’s creatures. This is your privilege and the destiny of Islam. Allah says:
    …That He may make It (ISLAM) prevail over all (FALSE) religion, however hateful this may be to those who ascribe divinity to other than Allah. (Holy Quran 61:9)
    Do you really believe Allah’s promise?
    …THE PROMISE OF Allah IS TRUE… (Holy Quran 4:122)
  5. Like
    mehdi soldier got a reaction from Dutchzahra in Does Allah Mean The God?   
    CHAPTER THREE: WHO IS JEHOVAH?
    Astonishing as it may sound, it is an admitted fact that prior to the sixteenth century, the word “Jehovah,” was unheard of. Whenever the origin of this word appeared in its true Hebrew form in Jewish Scriptures (read from right to left as in Arabic) Yet, Huh, Wav, Huh; or Y.H.W.H. these four letters were preceded by a substitute word “Adonai,” to warn the reader that the following word was not to be articulated. The Jews took meticulous care in repeating this exercise in their “Book of God” six thousand, eight hundred and twenty-three times – interpolating the words “Adonai” or “Elohim.” They sincerely believed that this awesome name of God was never to be pronounced. This prohibition was no ordinary affair: it called for a penalty of death on one who dared to utter it, and this taboo has been more successful than all the “DO’s” and “DON’T’s” of the Ten Commandments put together.
    If Jehovah is the name of God Almighty, and if the 27 Books of the New Testament were inspired by Him, then it is an anomaly of the highest order, that He (Jehovah) signally failed to have His Own Name recorded in “His Word” (N.T.) the Christian addition to the Jewish Bible. The Christians claim that they have in their possession over twenty-four thousand so-called “originals” of their Holy Writ in the Greek language, and yet not a single parchment has “Jehovah” written in it. Curiously this “name of God” (?) has been sacrilegiously replaced by the Greek words ky’ri.os and the.os’, which mean ‘Lord’ and ‘God.’ Yet, miracle of miracles – Alleluya! - no devil or saint has been able to eliminate the word “Allah” from the so-called New Testament of the Christians.
    NEW FANGLED DOCTRINES
    A hundred years ago, all of a sudden, more than a hundred new cults and denominations of Christendom mushroomed in the United States of America. The Seventh Day Adventists, the Christian Scientists, the Mennonites, the Christiadelphins, The Jehovah’s Witnesses and the like. The founder of the last named cult, a Judge Rutherford, about whom the orthodox Christians say that he was no “Judge.” This Judge was a voracious book-worm and a prolific writer. He stumbled across the word “Jehovah” which tickled him immensely, and he made a religion out of it.
    Judge Rutherford, followed by Charles T. Russell created a new “church,” which in its system of organization and administration is second to none in the world. There is very much we Muslims can learn from their enthusiasm and methodology. Read, “Thirty Years a Watchtower Slave” by Schelin. It is not their theology I am enamoured with but their modus operandi (the way they operate). Read, how this incorrigible sect came very close to conquering Germany before Hitler. Read, about their second come-back in West Germany. Think, why they are making a most concerted effort in Nigeria. Will the system or religion that prevails in Nigeria, be ultimately the norm of the rest of Africa! This giant is the hero of the majority of the African people south of the Sahara. Muslims must reflect.
    VIRILE SECT
    The “Jehovah’s Witnesses,” have made the most phenomenal progress of all the religious sects of the past hundred years, on a percentage basis. The Bahaies are moving at a snails-pace in comparison, actually receding in ratio with the other Christian off-shoots. These “Witnesses” are the fittest in their fight against the other Christians as well as against the Muslims. Simply because they program themselves five times a week in their “Kingdom Halls,” and what they learn they implement during the week-ends. We Muslims are supposed to be “programmed” five times a day in our daily Salaat, but we have lost the true purpose of this Pillar of Islam. Our Salaat is for earning Sawaab (spiritual blessings) only.
    They have made the word JEHOVAH famous. They knock at people’s doors, asking the question – “What is His Name?” The orthodox Christian replies – “God.” They say, “God is not a name, it is an object of worship. What’s His Name?” “Father,” says the orthodox as a second try. “Is your father God?” Of course not! So what is His Name? “JEHOVAH! is His Name,” says the “Witness” to both Muslims and non-Muslims alike. He has become a professor of this one word. He has made it into a religion.
    THE “TETRAGRAMMATON”
    Why not for a change ask him, a question or two. Ask him where he got the word Jehovah from? He will surely reply – “From the Holy Bible.” What does it say? Does it spell out the word J-e-h-o-v-a-h? “No,” he will reply. “There is a ‘tetragrammaton’ in the Bible from which the word Jehovah is derived.” What is a tetragrammaton? No one seems to have heard this highly mystical term. In the University of Illinois in the U.S.A. I asked a gathering of students and lecturers whether any one had heard this jaw-breaker! Not one of them knew its meaning! But every Jehovah’s Witness seems to know, even the commonest of them. They have really specialized – ours is a world of specialization. They are Professors of the one word – Jehovah.
    What then is a “tetragrammaton!” The Jehovah’s Witness replies, “Y H W H!”
    “No!” “What I want to know from you is, what does the word tetragrammaton mean?” You will find him most reluctant in explaining. Either he does not really know, or he is feeling embarrassed in replying. “Tetra,” in Greek means FOUR, and “grammaton,” means LETTERS. It simply means “a four letter word.”
    Can you read into Y H W H the word Jehovah? I cannot. “No!”, says the Jehovah’s Witness, “we ought to add vowels to these four consonants to produce the sound. Originally, both Hebrew and Arabic were written without the vowel signs The native of each language was able to read if even without those vowels. Not so the outsider, for whose benefit the vowels were invented.
    THE “J” SICKNESS
    Let us add the vowels as the “Witness” suggests. YHWH becomes YeHoWaH. Juggle as you like but you can never materialize Jehovah! Ask him, from which hat he drew his “J”. He will tell you that “this is the ‘popular’ pronunciation from the 16th century.” The exact sound of the four letters YHWH is known neither to the Jews nor to the Gentiles, yet he is ramming JEHOVAH down everyone’s throats. The European Christians have developed a fondness (sickness) for the letter “J” They add J’s where there are no Jays. Look!
    Yael he converts to Joel
    Yehuda to Juda
    Yeheshua to Joshua
    Yusuf to Joseph
    Yunus to Jonah
    Yesus to Jesus
    Yehowa to Jehovah
    There is no end to the Westerner’s infatuation for the letter “J.” Now in the busy streets of South Africa, he charges people who carelessly cross them for “jay-walking,” but nobody charges him for converting Jewish (Yehudi) names into Gentile names.
    The letters Y H W H occur in the Hebrew (Jewish) Scriptures 6,823 times, boasts the Jehovah’s Witness, and it occurs in combination with the word “Elohim;” 156 times in the booklet called Genesis alone. This combination YHWH/ELOHIM has been consistently translated in the English Bible as “Lord God,” “Lord God,” Lord God,” ad infinitum.

    COMMON ORIGIN
    What is YHWH; and what is ELOHIM? Since the Jews did not articulate the word YHWH for centuries, and since even the Chief Rabbis would not allow the ineffable to be heard, they have forfeited the right to claim dogmatically how the word is to be sounded. We have to seek the aid of the Arab to revive Hebrew, a language which had once died out. In every linguistic difficulty recourse has to be made to Arabic, a sister language, which has remained alive and viable. Racially and linguistically, the Arabs and the Jews have a common origin, going back to Father Abraham.
    Note the startling resemblance between the languages, very often the same sounding words carry identical meaning in both.
    HEBREW ; ARABIC ; ENGLISH
    Elah ; Ilah ; god
    Ikhud ; Ahud ; one
    Yaum ; Yaum ; day
    Shaloam ; Salaam ; peace
    Yahuwa ; Ya Huwa ; oh he
    YHWH or Yehova or Yahuwa all mean the very same thing. “Ya” is a vocative and an exclamatory particle in both Hebrew and Arabic, meaning Oh! And “Huwa” or “Hu” means He, again in both Hebrew and Arabic. Together they mean Oh He! So instead of YHWH ELOHIM, we now have Oh He! ELOHIM.
  6. Like
    mehdi soldier got a reaction from Dutchzahra in Does Allah Mean The God?   
    CHAPTER FOUR : Allah IN THE BIBLE
    The suffix “IM” of the word “ELOHIM” is a plural of respect in Hebrew.
    (Remember that in Arabic and Hebrew there are two types of plurals. One of numbers and the other of honor as in Royal proclamations. Since the plural of honor is uncommon in the language of the European, he has confused these plurals to connote a plurality in the “godhead,” hence his justification for his Doctrine of the Holy Trinity – the Father, Son and Holy Ghost).
    Hence ELOHIM = ELOH + IM. Now I want you to perform an exercise. Do you see the words: YA-HUWA ELOH-IM? Place your left hand index finger on the first two letters “YA” meaning oh! and the other index finger on the “IM” a plural of respect. What you now have remaining in Huwa Eloh or Huwa Elah. El in Hebrew means god, and Elah or Eloh also stands for the same name – god. Therefore, “Huwa el Elah” or HUWA ‘L LAH, which is identical to the Quranic expression – Huwal lah hu (meaning: HE IS Allah) of the verse QUL HUWAL LAH HU AHUD
    Say: He is Allah the One and Only; (Holy Quran 112:1)
    The above exercise proves that El, Elah and Elohim are not three distinctly different words. They all represent the single Arabic word Allah. This is not my wishful thinking. Please see below. It is a photostatic reproduction of a page from the English Bible, edited by Rev. C. I. Scofield,D.D., with his Bible Commentary· This Doctor of Divinity is well respected among the Bible Scholars of the Christian world. He is backed in his “NEW AND IMPROVED EDITION” of this translation by a galaxy of eight other D.D.’s:
    Rev. Henry G. Weston, D.D., LL.D., President Crozer Theological jeminary.
    Rev. W. G. Moorehead, D.D., President Xenia (U.I,) Theological Seminary.
    Rev. lames M. Gray, D.D., President Moody Bible Institute.
    Rev. Elmore Harris, D.D., President Toronto Bible Institute.
    Rev. William !. Erdman, D.D., Author “The Gospel of John,” etc.
    Rev. Arthur T. Pierson, D.D., Author, Editor, Teacher, etc.
    Rev. William L. Pettingill, D.D., Author, Editor, Teacher.
    Arno C. Gaebelein, Author “Harmoney of Prophetic Word,” etc.
    I have not listed the above luminaries to awe you. They have been unanimous in supporting Rev. Scofield in his “New and Improved” commentary.
    Please note that in their comment No. 1 below left, they concur that – “Elohim, (sometimes El or Elah meaning God)” and alternatively spelled “Alah” (line three, third word). All the eight D.D.’s above could not have been blind in dittoing the spelling “Alah” for God. How far were they from the Arabic word spelled – Allah – in English, I ask you dear reader? This is Allah’s handiwork, but the Devil (I must give him a capital “D,” he deserves it) was not slow in making a quick come-back through his agents. He succeeded in firing all the D.D.’s responsible for that debacle, and had them replaced by nine others with more impressive degrees than the previous lot. You will find them in the recent reproduction of “The New Scofield Reference Bible.” You will not be able to lay your hands anymore on the Bible with “Alah” in it. The Devil has seen to that.
    MY ONLY PLEA
    I had made some public statements regarding my discovery of the word “Alah” as alternatively spelled from the usual Christian spelling “Elah.” My plea to the Christians was this that spell the word as you like, with an “A” or an “E”, with a single “L” or double “LL’s”, but for goodness sake pronounce the word correctly, as we Muslims do. Because even with its proper Anglicized spelling – A L L A H: “IT IS SO FAR FROM ITS ARABIC ORIGINAL, WHEN PRONOUNCED WITH A THIN ENGLISH CONSONANT AND FEEBLE VOWELS, THAT MANY AN ARAB MUSLIM WOULD FIND IT UNRECOGNIZABLE.” Says Rev. Kenneth Cragg, the Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem in his book, “The Call of the Minaret,” page 36.
    As much as the Englishman has the right to dictate to us as to how his language is to be sounded, surely we Muslims have as much right to demand a common courtesy when taking the name of God. We do not wish the word Allah to go into limbo like the “Yahuwa” of the Jews. More than 6000 times the formula “YAHUWA ELAH,” or ya”HUWA ALAH,” or “HUWALLAH,” (He is Allah!) occur in the Hebrew manuscripts of the Jewish Bible, commonly called the “Old Testament,” by the Christians. If this fact is openly acknowledged by the learned men of Christianity and broadcasted as Rev. Scofield had done then the day for Muslims and Christians to worship God together would not be far distant. But the Devil will not have it. Vested interests are involved. Instead of pronouncing the word ALAH correctly, they would rather have the whole word omitted.
    QUICK ABROGATION
    “Now You See It” – “Now You Don’t” is an old, old gimmick in the West. Compare the above and see how cleverly, how deftly the new band of missionaries expunged the word “Alah” from the “Authorized King James Version” of the Scofield translation of the Bible.
    As a guide to one of the largest Mosques in the Southern Hemisphere, the JUMA MUSJID, Durban, my companions and I are often asked by the tourists, “Why Allah?” “Is He another God?” The answer of course is “NO!” There is not another god. The Muslim creed, the Kalima is: “There is no god except Allah!” makes this explicit; every Muslim must utter this unequivocal statement. And the second half of the Kalima: “Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah,” excludes even Muhammad (pbuh) from being associated with Allah in His Divinity. We are made to say, so to say – NOT EVEN MUHAMMAD is god, or object of worship. It is Allah, and Allah alone who is the Only Tue God.
    UNIQUE NAME FOR UNIQUE GOD
    “We Muslims prefer the Arabic word Allah to the English word God, because this English word God is often misused or misapplied,” I explain to my non-Muslim visitors to the mosque, on their so-called “Oriental Tour” as arranged by the Durban Publicity Bureau, I continue, “On your last port of call, you will be ending off at a Hindu house of Prayer, called a Temple, and there, you might rightfully point out to your children the idols and the images found, as ‘the gods of the Hindus’, and if a Hindu overhears you; he will not mind, he will not be offended, because what you said to your child is actually what he believes. Then, again, we speak of the gods of ancient Greece; of gods and goddesses, who ate and drank, who wrangled and plotted; carried away the wives of other gods.
    “Further, in English, if some gentleman was to look after somebody’s child as a guardian, we would say that he is a “godfather” to the child, and the woman – a “god- mother” to the child. And if one tried to be a bit too funny, a bit too clever, one would say -’What do you think of yourself, are you a tin god!’ We spell god with a capital “G” (God), and we spell god with a small “g” (god), which creates in your minds grades and grades of divinities.”
    This Arabic word, Allah, is never used in any other sense. There is no such thing as an “Allah-father” or an “Allah-mother” or a “Tin-Allah.” Allah is a unique word for the only God. Arabic, like every other language, also has its rules of grammar, but in Arabic you cannot make a plural form for Allah, nor can you make a feminine of Allah. All this is very unlike the English word, God. If you want to make a plural, just add an “s” (Gods); You can make God feminine by adding “dess” (goddess); and you can make God diminutive by adding “ling” (godling). Look at the sheer mockery the Westerner has made of the word “GOD,” and how his fertile imagination has run riot and havoc in denigrating the Glory and Majesty of the Incomparable Creator, sustainer and Cherisher of all the worlds as recorded in the Oxford Dictionary:
    You have a variety of choices in the list above. Take your pick like that old woman who lit one candle to St. Michael and another to the Devil. So that whether she went to Heaven or to Hell she would have a friend.
    Jupiter the god of Heaven
    Pluto the god of Hell
    Mars the god of War
    Neptune the god of the Sea and
    Zeus the god-father of them all
    with his many wives and many children. His Hercules, his Appolo, his Horus, his Isis and Osiris. Sheer mythology and rank blasphemy, but to a people who believed in mythology, mythology was no mythology; it was empirical truths. And this terminology of the West blended itself well to paganistic theology, with their “gods” and “goddesses.” BUT Allah IS FREE FROM ALL CORRUPTIONS. YOU CAN DO NOTHING WITH THIS WORD IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE ARAB. YOU CANNOT MANIPULATE IT IN ANY WAY!
    PEARLS OF FAITH
    Here is a passage of great sublimity, summing up in marvelous terse verses the Asma-ul-Husna, the Most Beautiful names of Allah.
    Allah is He, than whom there is no other god Who knows (all things) both secret and open; He Most Gracious Most Merciful.
    Allah is He than whom there is no other god the sovereign the Holy One the Source of Peace (and Perfection). The Guardian of Faith the Preserver of Safety the Exalted in Might the Irresistible the Supreme: Glory to Allah! (high is He) above the partners they attribute to Him.
    He is Allah the Creator the Evolver the Bestower of Forms (or colors). To Him belong the Most Beautiful Names: Whatever is in the heavens and on earth doth declare His Praises and Glory: and He is the exalted in Might the Wise.
    (Holy Quran 59: 22-24)
    Where is there in the religious literature of the world anything to compare with this!
    “Allah” IN EVERY BIBLE AND IN EVERY LANGUAGE
    There is no difficulty in our agreeing that in the languages of the world, every nation has given a distinctive name to God. Most of these names are attributive names, describing some aspect of God. But the proper name for God Almighty in the Semitic languages, i.e. in the mother-tongues of Moses, Jesus and Muhammad (Peace be upon them all) is Allah! This name is still extant in the Christian Bible in every language of the world. The Christians are boasting that they have translated their Bible into over fifteen hundred languages, more specially the translation of the New Testament. In every Gospel that I have scrutinized in the various languages I find the word “Allah” preserved – English or Afrikaans, Zulu or Swahili. Why not check up in your own dialect to prove me wrong. I would love to hear from you.
    If what I claim is Gospel Truth, then how is it that the whole Christian world of over 1,200,000,000 people have not been aware of it. This is what effective programming or brain-washing can do. They have been trained NOT to see the obvious. Did not Jesus bewail:
    “Seeing, they see not, and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.” (Matthew 13:13).
    FROM THE LIPS OF JESUS
    I ask my Christian visitors, “Do you remember your Gospel narrative, that when Christ was supposed to have been on the cross, he cried out with a loud voice:
    “ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI? which is, being interpreted, My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34).
    The above is a translation from the Greek manuscripts “ACCORDING TO ST. MARK.” Obviously his Hebrew has a Greek accent. Because, his so-called originals were written in Greek. But listen to Matthew, who is supposed to have written his Gospel originally in Hebrew, which was aimed at the Jews. St. Jerome, an early Christian father of the 4th and 5th centuries after Christ, testifies as follows:
    “MATTHEW, WHO IS ALSO LEVI, AND WHO FROM A PUBLICAN CAME TO BE AN APOSTLE, FIRST OF ALL THE EVANGELISTS, COMPOSED A GOSPEL OF CHRIST IN JUDEA IN THE HEBREW LANGUAGE AND CHARACTERS, FOR THE BENEFIT OF THOSE OF THE CIRCUMCISION WHO HAD BELIEVED.”
    Naturally, Matthew’s accent would be more Semitic (Hebrew and Arabic) than that of Mark. Matthew records the same scene as Mark 15:34, but note the variation of the dialect:
    Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying ELI, ELI, LAMA SABACHTHANI? that is to say, My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me’? (Matthew 27:46).
    Please memorize the words – “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani.” (Eli – pronounced like L and I in English) Utter the words – ELI, ELI, LAMA SABACHTHANI; ELI, ELI, LAMA SABACHTHANI, to your Christian friends and neighbors and ask them whether these words – “Eli, Eli,” sounds like “Jehovah, Jehovah!” to them? No! is the answer if they are not deaf. Ask further, whether “Eli, Eli,” sounds like “Abba, Abba!” (meaning father, father! in Hebrew) to them! Again the reply will be “No!” if they are not deaf. Can’t they see that the cry is to Allah? “Eli, Eli – Elah, Elah, Allah, Allah!” Let them hear these words from your lips and watch their reactions. No honest person can help agreeing with you.
    ALLELUYA!
    Now ask your Christian friend, if he had heard the word – “ALLELUYA.” No Christian worth the name will fail to recognize it. Whenever the Christian goes into ecstasy, he exclaims – “Alleluya! Alleluya!”, just as we Muslims might exclaim the Takbir – “Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar!” Ask him, what is Alleluya? Take him to the Book of Revelation, the last book of the New Testament, Chapter 19; we are informed there that John the disciple of Jesus, saw a vision, in which he heard the angels in heaven singing, Alleluya, Alleluya. Ask him again, what is Alleluya! Is it “hip, hip, hooray; hip, hip, hooray!” Are angels in heaven singing – hip, hip, hoorays to God? Every time when God creates a new galaxy, do the angels exclaim – “hip, hip, hooray!” When He explodes a super-nova, do the angels say, “hip, hip, hooray!”? How absurd!
    Then what is Alleluya! The last syllable “YA” is a vocative and an exclamatory particle in both Arabic and Hebrew meaning “OH!” In other words YA = OH, (the vocative); and YA = (!), a note of exclamation, or an exclamatory particle, or as is more commonly known an exclamation mark.
    The Semite, both Arab and Jew, begins with the exclamatory particle or exclamation mark. The Westerner, in his language ends with the exclamatory particle or exclamation mark, e.g. Stop! Go! Fire! Bang!
    Let us repeat the above Tasbih (words of praise) as an Arab or a Jew: ALLE-LU-YA will be YA-ALLE-LU because, as explained above, YA is always at the beginning in both Arabic and Hebrew.
    YA ALLE LU would be YA ALLA HU: Meaning, “OH Allah!” (You are the Only Being Who deserves worship and Praise) “OH Allah!” (You are the Only Being Who deserves worship and Praise).
    Unbiased Christians will not fail to recognize Allah as none other than his – El, Eli, Alle, Elah, Alah, Allah. Call upon Him by any name, for His are the Most Beautiful names, as long as those names are not contaminated and as long as they do not conjure up in our minds the images of men or monkeys howsoever glorified they might have been.
    THE CONCEPT OF “GOD THE FATHER”
    There are many beautiful attributes of God, which are common to both the Holy Quran and the Holy Bible. A lengthy thesis can be written on this. But a very interesting facet I have discovered in this that among the 99 attributes of God given to us in the Holy Quran the word “Father” is not one of them. If the Holy Prophet was the author of the Holy Quran as his adversaries allege, then how could he have avoided the term – Father – for God, for twenty-three years of his prophetic life! Abb, meaning father in Arabic (Abba in Hebrew), is an easier word than Rabb, meaning Lord and Cherisher; yet the attribute Rabb abounds in the Last and Final Revelation of God. The reason for the omission of the word Abb (father) for describing God Almighty is obvious: MANKIND HAD DENIGRATED THAT BEAUTIFUL CONCEPT OF THE LOVING Father in Heaven to being the Father of the “only begotten son” – to being physically like a human being, because begetting is an animal act, belonging to the lower animal functions of sex.
    UNIQUE TO THE QURAN AND CONCLUSION
    Say: “Shall I take for my protector any other than Allah the Maker of the heavens and the earth? And He is that feedeth but is not fed.” (Holy Quran 6:14)
    No creature who is ever in need of earthly food can be “ATNATU!” If you can make the worshippers of the “man-gods” to apply this touchstone to their heroes, you can retrieve millions from the impending Hell-fire. Learn a lesson from the Australoid (give him one last look on the frontispiece), who despite his abject primitiveness still stands high above the millions of the civilized men and women of both East and West who strut the world today.
    GLORY BE TO Allah!
    And Peace and Salutations upon His Messenger Muhammad for conveying the Message of Cod to mankind. May Allah make us worthy to be his followers, Ameen!
    courtesy:
    http://www.institutealislam.com/what-is-his-name-by-sheikh-ahmed-deedat/
  7. Like
    mehdi soldier got a reaction from PureExistence1 in How Many Daughters Did The Prophet Have?   
    (salam)
    ever since we had the chat regarding this subject in the chatroom,i have read materials and come to more of the conlusion that the Prophet had only one daughter.
    i went through the article but despite the fact that you did show evidence that the Prophet had 4 daughters,it is still a matter of doubt in the following areas:
    1.) who were the children of the 4 daughters?are they "sayyids" also?
    2.) what is the logic in usthman a usurper marrying two biological daughters of the Prophet (pbuh)?is this not a case the sunnis can hold against us that usthman was righteous?
    3.) what inheritance was left for the other "daughters"? was the Prophet (sa) biased towards Sayyida Fatima (as) that he only gave her inheritance?when fadak was given to Sayyida Fatima,her other sisters were alive.
    4.)what happened to the children of the other "daughters"?
    5.) did the Prophet ever spoke about them?what did he say?
    as more questions come into my mind i will ask them.but i hope brother Nader can answer the questions presented.
    the below article denies that the Prophet had more than 1 daughter and it also presents evidence to back it up:
    http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/who_really_killed_uthman/en/chap7.php
  8. Like
    mehdi soldier got a reaction from Dr Xick Marshall in Did Imam Ali Give Allegiance To Abu Bakr?   
    Did Imam Ali Give Allegiance to Abu Bakr?
    Tuesday, 08 December 2009 11:50 Ayatollah Saafi Gulpaygani
    ShareAyatollah Saafi Gulpaygani
    In relation to the issue of the oath of allegiance of the Commander of the Faithful that is said was taken from him – whether this be something that is verified or denied, and also, this noble personality remaining quiet and not participating in any type of activity of rebellion and not picking up arms to go against (those who stole his rights), and the pleasure and approval of this personality in relation to what had occurred: these are all things that are not established (according to the recorded events of history).
    The reluctance of those pure souls (the Companions) and the other great personalities – who in the beginning did not give the oath of allegiance; however, later on (as some people mention) did give the oath of allegiance – and also the large number of people who, in those specific and particular conditions gave the oath of allegiance in a particular way (as has been mentioned in history) is also neither confirmed nor established.
    With his sword drawn out of the sheath and with the help and support of his gang, Umar roamed the streets of Medina threatening the people with death and forced them to give their oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr.
    Please note the following points:
    1. The belief of the Shia, who are of the People of the Text – through the utilization of the logical and related proofs – is this: the Imamate is a position that one is appointed into by Allah, and after the Prophet, that individual whose persona possesses all of the characteristics embodied in Islam except for Nubuwwah (prophethood) and who shares in the continuation of the same divine blessings of that personality (the Prophet) in all ways and forms is the one whose Wilayah (mastership) over all affairs of the society must be designated and appointed by Allah the Most High. The Commander of the Faithful, according to the countless texts (ahadith) and other proofs was the appointed caliph and the true Imam, and deviation from him to anyone else – even if all of the people are in agreement over that other person – is not permissible and is a case of: "Giving preference to one whom Allah has relegated low and leaving behind the one whom Allah has given preference to."
    Just as the Prophet is not permitted to grant the station or position of prophethood to anyone else, so too the Imam is not permitted to grant the station or position of Divinely-appointed leadership to anyone else. Therefore, supposing that after Imam Ali was refused (the station of caliphate) and then later on, the oath of allegiance was taken from him, or this noble personality – due to events that came up later on (which will be mentioned ensuing) – was rendered helpless to pledge the oath of allegiance, then the true meaning and significance of this sort of oath of allegiance was not achieved by this (forced act), and the correctness of the actions of the other party is not accepted.
    2. If the caliphate (of Abu Bakr) was based on the truth, then this would imply that the hesitance of Imam Ali and Sayyidah Zahra (peace be upon them) and a large number of people and revered companions was not proper and that they were not on the path of the truth.
    It is known that there are definite and decisive narrations from the noble Prophet of Islam which state that Ali is on the Truth, and the Truth is with Ali, and these two will never separate from one another. Therefore, if someone says that Imam Ali was not with the truth in this event or did not speak the truth or did not act upon the truth, then he is belying the Prophet.
    Thus it is with no uncertainty that we say that Imam Ali, in this event and all other events and circumstances, was always on the truth, and his refusal to give the oath of allegiance was also not the refusal to be on the truth; rather, his refusal was the denial of falsehood.
    3. The refusal of Imam Ali and a group of others to give oath of allegiance to the caliphate from the point of view of history is not something that can be denied, and even one of the contemporary poets from Egypt who was known by the title of "Poet of the Nile" in his poems has also admitted this. The refusal (to give the oath of allegiance) was so commonly accepted and indisputable such that in one of the letters that he wrote to Imam Ali, Muawiyah has mentioned this fact and in reply, Ali did not deny that he had not given the oath of allegiance; rather, the rightfulness and legitimacy of his denial and refusal and the oppression that he faced is mentioned in his own words in this writing (to Muawiyah) when he wrote: "You also want to taunt me by saying that when I refused to accept the caliphate of the First Caliph, I was dragged like a camel with a rope round my neck, and every kind of cruelty and humiliation was leveled against me." (Nahj al-Balagha, letter 28)
    To summarize our point, not only is there no room for doubt or skepticism that Imam Ali and the rest of the clan of Bani Hashim and a large number of the companions refused to give their oath of allegiance to the caliph, rather, their refusal was known and evident for all to see.
    However, if it is claimed that after those harsh and coarse events that took place, Imam Ali and those who supported him gave their oath of allegiance and that their oath of allegiance was by way of their own inward pleasure and their pure heart and intention, then it is not possible to substantiate this (claim), since the hadith (of this event) is a single narration (khabar-e-wahid), and in the terminology of the science of hadith, it is doubtful (mashkuk). In this hadith, many contrasts and irregularities can also be seen, which this point in time is not the place for discussion. Anyway, we are not able to classify their oath of allegiance as an authentic oath of allegiance that would have any basis in the Islamic legislation.
    At this point we mention some reasons that IF indeed this oath of allegiance did occur in history, then why it may have taken place.
    1. It was seen (by Imam Ali) that to stand up to what had occurred (the events of Saqifah) would not be possible except by resorting to an armed struggle, which was not conceivable, since it would have resulted in an internal war between the Muslims. The condition and situation (that the Muslim Ummah was in) was such that very recently, through the pains and troubles of the Noble Prophet and through the assistance of Imam Ali and others, the seed of true faith and conviction in the Oneness of Allah had just been sown in the hearts of the believers, and an internal war would not have served the cause of Islam. It would be through this act that the very foundations of Islam would be put at in danger and would force the Muslims to stand up in ranks against one another, whose outcome or conclusion would never be reached.
    It was Imam Ali who had helped the Prophet in the establishment of this foundation (of Islam). It was through his truthfulness and sincerity and by putting his life in his own hands and through his self-sacrifices at all places and all times from the very first day (that built the religion). His heart throbbed for this religion, and he saw that if the defense of his own self meant the desolation and annihilation of these foundations, then for sure he would choose to save Islam and try to maintain the unity of the Muslims in face of the opposition of the Kuffar and would give this precedence to the adjudication of the truth. This would allow Islam to progress and advance, even though such a progress would be slower and take much longer.
    Allah forbid that the religion come to a complete standstill and the movement that the Prophet had brought forth with the help of the people should stop for even one moment (if a war would take place amongst the Muslims) just so the groundwork could be laid down for the advancement of the religion of Islam and in order for the mandate and establishment of the Wilayah and Caliphate of Ali to take root in the future, just as happened later on.
    With the passing of time, the truthfulness of the Ahlul Bayt (peace be upon them) and the blunders and mistakes of deviating from the (true) Imam that had been appointed was made apparent, and on their own, the people developed an attraction for the Noble Qur'an and the Ahlul Bayt and the true belief in the Imamate.
    The opportunity also arose for the Ahlul Bayt to guide the people to the pure springs of Islam, the teachings of the religion, the exegesis of the Qur'an, and the true religion of Islam with all of its rules and regulations, political teachings, societal and ethical instructions, and guidelines. More important than all of this, the correct divine theological beliefs were conferred to the people.
    However, if an internal war had taken place in Medina, then the corruption, deviation, sedition, and revolts that would have stemmed from this act would have put all things in danger of complete annihilation, and it was because of this reason that Imam Ali rejected the advice from Abu Sufyan for him paying oath of allegiance to Imam Ali, and considered this as an act that would initiate sedition and revolt.
    2. The second reason for Imam Ali (hypothetically) giving oath of allegiance is that, just as can be deduced from a study of history, this noble personality had fear or concern for the life of himself and that of his family, and this fear or concern was something that Abbas, his uncle, was able to discern. It was his uncle who advocated him to pay the oath of allegiance, since if he was to be killed, then it would be Islam and the Muslims, who at that time were desperately in need of knowledge and enlightenment, who would have been in disadvantage and loss.
    It was in such a circumstance in which it was not possible to have recourse in force and also one in which complete submission was also not in the best interest to deal with the situation that Imam Ali was very careful and critical (in how he dealt with the situation).
    This noble personality, by choosing the path that he did, fulfilled a very heavy responsibility that was upon him; he exposed the truth, and at the same time, observed what was best for Islam in its entirety. His precious soul, which was ready to sacrifice its self in the path of Islam, was also protected, so that his blood would not have been shed uselessly simply to affirm the power of truth, and so that the fire of revolt, through which all things are scorched, would not be lit, and so that the opportunity (of Imamate and leadership of the community) whose acquisition was expected in the future would not go away.
    In summary, Imam Ali acted according to the testament that was left by the Prophet and did not even cringe in carrying out the will by the amount of the head of a needle. The arena or environment that would cause the feelings or emotions of any brave, courageous, powerful person to be stirred or stimulated were all witnessed; however, he did not perform any act that he should not have performed, nor did he utter any words that should not have been issued. He acted with complete knowledge and by observing and weighing all angles of the situation.
    However, all of these conditions and situations prove the truthfulness of Imam Ali and his desire for Islam and his acting not for his own sake. It is clear that this noble personality was completely annihilated and drowned in the Truth, and that which was important to him and had any value to him was Islam, the endurance of the code of Islam, and the interests of the Muslims.
    In the conditions that he was put in, neither his staying quiet nor giving oath of allegiance by force and through coercion would give any credence to the rightfulness of the state of affairs at that time. Such an oath of allegiance would not absolve anyone of their religious responsibility, nor would it pardon anyone of their code of conduct.
    Ayatollah Saafi Gulpaygani is a Marja Taqleed of the Shia world. He lives and teaches in the holy city of Qom.
    Editor's Note: This article is the first of many questions on a variety of religious topics that were answered by Ayatollah Gulpaygani and translated into English by Shaikh Saleem Bhimji. The entire series is available online at al-mubin.org.
    http://www.islamicinsights.com/religion/clergy-corner/did-imam-ali-give-allegiance-to-abu-bakr.html
    [" The following is a letter to Mu'awiya and in it Imam Ali (a) has used the same principle that he applied on Talha and Zubayr. Imam Ali (a) in this letter has raised all the points which were once quoted against him. He says if an election on the basis of general franchise is the criterion to decide such a caliphate, then general election took place to elect him the Caliph and nobody can deny this fact, and if limited franchise (Shura) was the criterion then those who represented this group (Muhajirs and Ansars) were amongst those who elected him and therefore even according to the rules formulated by opponents of Imam Ali (a) his election was lawful, regular and bonafide. Thus no Muslim has a right to speak or act against him". ] --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "Verily, those who took the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman have sworn allegiance to me. Now those who were present at the election have no right to go back against their oaths of allegiance and those who were not present on the occasion have no right to oppose me. And so far as Shura (limited franchise or selection) was concerned it was supposed to be limited to Muhajirs and Ansars and it was also supposed that whomsoever they selected, became caliph as per approval and pleasure of Allah. If somebody goes against such decision, then he should be persuaded to adopt the course followed by others, and if he refuses to fall in line with others, then war is the only course left open to be adopted against him and as he has refused to follow the course followed by the Muslims, Allah will let him wander in the wilderness of his ignorance and schism.
    O Mu'awiya! I am sure that if you give up self-aggrandizement and self-interest, if you forsake the idea of being alive only to personal profits and pleasures, if you cease to be actuated solely by selfishness and if you ponder over the incident leading to the murder of Uthman, you will realize that I cannot at all be held responsible for the affair and I am the least concerned with the episode. But it is a different thing that you create all these false rumours and carry on this heinous propaganda to gain your ulterior motives. Well you may do whatever you like".
    http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul/letters/letter6.htm#letter6
  9. Like
    mehdi soldier got a reaction from Shia.a in Was Prophet Muhammad Black? - Thread Being Revised   
    i dont think it really makes any difference whether he (pbuh) was black or white or colored.that does not make any difference in the sight of Allah.the Quran states that "the best of you in Allah's sight is the pious".
    that aside,based on what i have read the Prophet (pbuh) was not afro-arab or black.i never came across any reference that reported that he was black.i cant recall the exact descriptions so someone else more knowledgeable can tell us.
  10. Like
    mehdi soldier got a reaction from zainabamy in `Umar ibn Sa`d   
    you sickened me with your "radiyallahu anhu" for the killers of imam hussain (as) .you are puuting your self in a position that Allah would not be pleased with you.
    its common sense.piety is not inherited.didn't the son of prophet nuh (as) one of those that drowned? wasnt firaun's wife a believer?
    sunnis cannot use such logic because the shias are in the picture.
  11. Like
    mehdi soldier got a reaction from Hameedeh in Petition to the EU Parliament on Zaria Massacre as Nigeria President Address EU Parliament on Wednesday   
    Salam,
    please sign and share:
    https://www.change.org/p/council-of-the-european-union-european-commission-the-eu-should-take-a-proactive-stand-on-the-zaria-massacre#petition-letter
  12. Like
    mehdi soldier got a reaction from em in Petition to the EU Parliament on Zaria Massacre as Nigeria President Address EU Parliament on Wednesday   
    Salam,
    please sign and share:
    https://www.change.org/p/council-of-the-european-union-european-commission-the-eu-should-take-a-proactive-stand-on-the-zaria-massacre#petition-letter
  13. Like
    mehdi soldier got a reaction from guest050817 in Petition to the EU Parliament on Zaria Massacre as Nigeria President Address EU Parliament on Wednesday   
    Salam,
    please sign and share:
    https://www.change.org/p/council-of-the-european-union-european-commission-the-eu-should-take-a-proactive-stand-on-the-zaria-massacre#petition-letter
  14. Like
    mehdi soldier got a reaction from JHK in Is Salman Rushdie Worse Than Osama Bin Laden   
    i know how happy you are that rushdie wrote a book that exposed the filth in sunni hadith compilations.you said that somewhere.but you and i know well that the filth in those hadith books are not true.rushdie just fingered them with a purpose.
    if you say he didnt know what he was doing,then you're more dumb than him.
  15. Like
    mehdi soldier got a reaction from Waiting for HIM in imam sadiq`s(AS) saying about king abdullah   
    first i am not "enforcing" my views on anyone.it is a sincere piece of advice.i do no support the saudi royals and i detest them and may Allah's curse be upon them.yet still i wish death for no one because it will come to me as well and to you too.
    i did not imply that you dont fear Allah.
    and dont ever try to attack me or verbally assault me.i know you should have understood well what i meant.but i just feel your recent anymosity towards me is because i severely criticized the iranian approach in the case of Imam Musa al-Sadr in the Imam Sadr thread.that ofcourse did not please you and when i openly said (the truth) that either Sayyed Khamanei or Ayatollah Khomeini are not greater than Imam Sadr,and if either of those would have being kidnapped Iran would have declared war,must have really upset you.
    let me make it clear to you that i worship Allah and believe in islam and love the 14 infallibles.i dont worship any sayyed or ayatollah.i respect those who deserve respect and i speak the truth when i have to even if it be Iran,a country i respect and love so much,both its people and leadership.
    if that does not go down well with you and you are not pleased by my approach,there is a lebanese saying for you:"go tile the sea"!!!!
    that is not within our power.it is in Allah's hand.the reappearance of the Imam (ajtfs) or death is in Allah's hand.when it comes it will not be delayed or hasten by a second.i wish it (the faraj) is today but that is not in my hands.
    if you have any way than sitting at home behind your useless keyboard wishing for people's death,then tell us.or better still you can offer your service and get down to libya to free Imam Sadr.
    it is really amazing how we shia pray day and night for faraj of Imam Mehdi (as) with our empty mouths,but here in our physical world we have an imam and a leader and a sayyed who has been kidnapped for 33 years that we cannot free.if it was Imam Mehdi (as) who was kidnapped or imprisoned like his forefathers were,is that how we will fold our hands and sit back???shame indeed!i would stop short of calling us hypocrites.
  16. Like
    mehdi soldier got a reaction from yellow billed magpie in Sunnis Say Aisha Was 9 Years Old At Consummation   
    Notes: (AISHA WAS NOT 9 YEARS OLD OR A CHILD WHEN THE PROPHET MARRIED HER)
    [8] The popular version of ‘Ãisha’s youth age has been exploited by the anti-Islamic groups to attack the Prophet “for marrying a child”. The fact of the matter is that Lady ‘Ãisha was not a child when she was married in 2 AH to the Prophet. At-Tabari, the famous Muslim historian, writes that Abu Bakr’s first two wives and their children were all born in the pre-Islamic era. (Ta’rīkh at-Tabari, vol. 2 [beirut: al-A‘lami, n.d.] p. 616.) Based on this, even if she was born a year before the commencement of Islam, ‘Ãisha would be 15 or 16 years old at the time of her marriage to the Prophet – an age in which marriage is common in most cultures. Ibn Kathīr, in his al-Bidãyah wa ’n-Nihãyah (vol. 8, p. 381) states that Asmã’ bint Abu Bakr, the sister of ‘Ãisha, was ten years older than ‘Ãisha. He also reports that Asmã’ died in the year 73 AH at the age of 100. Based on this calculation, ‘Ãisha was 18 or 19 years old at the time of her marriage.
    http://www.al-islam.org/polygamy-marriages-prophet/
  17. Like
    mehdi soldier got a reaction from Habil Ali in Reference To The 12 Imams In The Bible?   
    salam
    brother for the sake of clarification on your statement,please can you explain what you mean by "near descendants of Ibrahim (as)".
    what do you mean by 12 in two contexts? are the 12 tribes different from 12 offspring? then how did the 12 tribes emerge?
    thank you.
  18. Like
    mehdi soldier got a reaction from Hameedeh in Exile Of Abu Dharr Al-ghifari (ra)   
    thank you all for the replies great replies,especially the last two.may Allah reward you all.
  19. Like
    mehdi soldier got a reaction from Jaysro in Sunnis Say Aisha Was 9 Years Old At Consummation   
    Notes: (AISHA WAS NOT 9 YEARS OLD OR A CHILD WHEN THE PROPHET MARRIED HER)
    [8] The popular version of ‘Ãisha’s youth age has been exploited by the anti-Islamic groups to attack the Prophet “for marrying a child”. The fact of the matter is that Lady ‘Ãisha was not a child when she was married in 2 AH to the Prophet. At-Tabari, the famous Muslim historian, writes that Abu Bakr’s first two wives and their children were all born in the pre-Islamic era. (Ta’rīkh at-Tabari, vol. 2 [beirut: al-A‘lami, n.d.] p. 616.) Based on this, even if she was born a year before the commencement of Islam, ‘Ãisha would be 15 or 16 years old at the time of her marriage to the Prophet – an age in which marriage is common in most cultures. Ibn Kathīr, in his al-Bidãyah wa ’n-Nihãyah (vol. 8, p. 381) states that Asmã’ bint Abu Bakr, the sister of ‘Ãisha, was ten years older than ‘Ãisha. He also reports that Asmã’ died in the year 73 AH at the age of 100. Based on this calculation, ‘Ãisha was 18 or 19 years old at the time of her marriage.
    http://www.al-islam.org/polygamy-marriages-prophet/
  20. Like
    mehdi soldier got a reaction from Fatima Hussain in Sunnis Say Aisha Was 9 Years Old At Consummation   
    Notes: (AISHA WAS NOT 9 YEARS OLD OR A CHILD WHEN THE PROPHET MARRIED HER)
    [8] The popular version of ‘Ãisha’s youth age has been exploited by the anti-Islamic groups to attack the Prophet “for marrying a child”. The fact of the matter is that Lady ‘Ãisha was not a child when she was married in 2 AH to the Prophet. At-Tabari, the famous Muslim historian, writes that Abu Bakr’s first two wives and their children were all born in the pre-Islamic era. (Ta’rīkh at-Tabari, vol. 2 [beirut: al-A‘lami, n.d.] p. 616.) Based on this, even if she was born a year before the commencement of Islam, ‘Ãisha would be 15 or 16 years old at the time of her marriage to the Prophet – an age in which marriage is common in most cultures. Ibn Kathīr, in his al-Bidãyah wa ’n-Nihãyah (vol. 8, p. 381) states that Asmã’ bint Abu Bakr, the sister of ‘Ãisha, was ten years older than ‘Ãisha. He also reports that Asmã’ died in the year 73 AH at the age of 100. Based on this calculation, ‘Ãisha was 18 or 19 years old at the time of her marriage.
    http://www.al-islam.org/polygamy-marriages-prophet/
  21. Like
    mehdi soldier got a reaction from Auqab in Was Imam Ali (as) Forced To Give Bayat?   
    Dear brother,
    i am for one does not even care whether or not Ali (as) gave bayah or did not.that is very irrelevant for as long as you take other events which are historical into perspective.asking if Ali gave bay'a or not,can have so many reasons and explanations.
    before answering that you need to ask:
    1.) why did he abstain from giving bayah for a period of 6 months? your hadith mentions it.the reason that he was not consulted in your hadith and so Ali (as) was unhappy is just too lame.it sounds childish,not to be given any seriousness.if that is the reason,abu bakr would have had that issue the least of his worries and people would have made a mockery of Ali (as).after all,they would ask who are you? if others gave bay'a and it was that easy so then why would Ali (as) have any sepcial case? relation with the Prophet (pbuh)? that is no basis for any argument on the issue why he would make a serious case and abstain from giving bay'a.
    2.) regardless of your interpretation which can be proven ridiculous,did ghadeer khum event take place or not?again why woould Ali (as),if an ordinary man,would be given precedence of being loved,and why would the Prophet make his "friendship" (based on your interpretation of the word "mawla") mandatory? does not the Prophet (pbuh) know that Ali (as) is a fallible man according to you who can offend his fellows and even committ sin?if so why was Ali (as) made the "spoiled child" by the Prophet (pbuh) if the declaration is not meant to be authoritative and not just mere "friendship"?dont you see how your interpretation imply ignorance and favoritism on the part of the Prophet (pbuh)?
    3.) why were your caliphs not have a system to be elected? each was elected differently and the shura was just a non-sense excuse meant to be used.
  22. Like
    mehdi soldier got a reaction from Alejandro Sosa in Why Did The Prophet Marry 9 Wives?   
    Why did the Holy Prophet of Islam marry several wives?
    http://www.askthesheikh.com/why-did-the-holy-prophet-of-islam-marry-several-wives/
    Question:
    What I understand is that a man is allowed to marry once, yet depending on the highly unlikely criteria laid down in Surah Nisa (relating to justice), he may marry more than once (if he can keep justice between them).
    However the Prophet (p) had a total of 12 wives, out of which 9 were alive at the time of his death. What was the reason for this?
    Answer:
    In the old days, there was generally no government social benefits and services, and thus, women and children were financially looked after by men who were then the main bread-providers. This would become more essential when we consider the number of wars that were imposed on early Muslims, the result of which would be obviously many orphans and widows without any supporters.
    In order to meet the needs of this vulnerable part of society, Islam permits and often encourages polygany.
    Note Ayah 3 in Surat Nisa that allows polygany is preceded by the rights of orphans. In other words, the Almighty God first reminds the believers of the rights of orphans as the most vulnerable part of the society, and then deals with the second; i.e. widows. In short, the message of Ayahs 2 & 3 of Surat Nisa to the believing men is:
    1. to encourage the community to bring orphans to their homes and look after them like their own children,
    2. to bring orphans with their mums to their homes by marrying widows so that they too can enjoy a life with a father/husband.
    3. at least marrying one woman (whether widow or not) to take their bear minimum social responsibilities.
    The meaning of justice here also is to be fair in providing food, clothing and other maintenance.
    Now, let’s look at the life of the holy Prophet of Islam (p). Up until 10 months after his migration to Madina, he had only one wife; Khadija. in fact, she dies in the year 9 of his mission while he was still in Makka, but he never married anyone until after 4 yrs later in Madina when he married Aesha.
    Then from the 3rd yr A.H. and after the battle of Uhod which imposed many casualties on Muslims, his holiness married ام سلمۀ (Umm Salamah), whose husband was martyred in Uhod.
    Then he married ام حبیبه (Umm Habeebah) whose husband عبیدالله (Ubaydallah) had died in Ethiopia.
    Then Zainab whose husband was also martyred in Uhod.
    Then Sooda whose husband had died after their migration to Madina.
    Then Hafsa the daughter of Omar, who had married twice before and didn’t have much chance for any more marriages.
    Then Safiya, whose husband was killed in the battle of Khaibar.
    And the list continues which I can’t remember now.
    Most of these women had children too, and the holy Prophet of Islam as the head of the community was looking after all of them compassionately. If there was any lust behind his polyganous practice, he would have naturally had some children from all of these women- given the lack of family control facilities in those days. Yet, the only one he had a child from- apart from Khadija – was ماریه (Mariha), who was a female slave gifted to the Prophet (P) by the then king of Egypt. She gave birth to a son called Ibrahim for the Prophet (p), who unfortunately died at the age of 2.
    The world must really admire the lifestyle of the holy Prophet of Islam, who in spite of his heavy social duty as the head of the state, had the most ideal family life too. A man who at one time had 9 families to look after and yet never divorced any of them. This by itself is one of his miraculous characters.
    It was due to this outstanding nobility and ability that the almighty God exceptionally allowed him to marry up to 9 women at one time.
    Answered by: Sheikh Mansour Leghaei
  23. Like
    mehdi soldier got a reaction from ImAli in Why Did The Prophet Marry 9 Wives?   
    Why did the Holy Prophet of Islam marry several wives?
    http://www.askthesheikh.com/why-did-the-holy-prophet-of-islam-marry-several-wives/
    Question:
    What I understand is that a man is allowed to marry once, yet depending on the highly unlikely criteria laid down in Surah Nisa (relating to justice), he may marry more than once (if he can keep justice between them).
    However the Prophet (p) had a total of 12 wives, out of which 9 were alive at the time of his death. What was the reason for this?
    Answer:
    In the old days, there was generally no government social benefits and services, and thus, women and children were financially looked after by men who were then the main bread-providers. This would become more essential when we consider the number of wars that were imposed on early Muslims, the result of which would be obviously many orphans and widows without any supporters.
    In order to meet the needs of this vulnerable part of society, Islam permits and often encourages polygany.
    Note Ayah 3 in Surat Nisa that allows polygany is preceded by the rights of orphans. In other words, the Almighty God first reminds the believers of the rights of orphans as the most vulnerable part of the society, and then deals with the second; i.e. widows. In short, the message of Ayahs 2 & 3 of Surat Nisa to the believing men is:
    1. to encourage the community to bring orphans to their homes and look after them like their own children,
    2. to bring orphans with their mums to their homes by marrying widows so that they too can enjoy a life with a father/husband.
    3. at least marrying one woman (whether widow or not) to take their bear minimum social responsibilities.
    The meaning of justice here also is to be fair in providing food, clothing and other maintenance.
    Now, let’s look at the life of the holy Prophet of Islam (p). Up until 10 months after his migration to Madina, he had only one wife; Khadija. in fact, she dies in the year 9 of his mission while he was still in Makka, but he never married anyone until after 4 yrs later in Madina when he married Aesha.
    Then from the 3rd yr A.H. and after the battle of Uhod which imposed many casualties on Muslims, his holiness married ام سلمۀ (Umm Salamah), whose husband was martyred in Uhod.
    Then he married ام حبیبه (Umm Habeebah) whose husband عبیدالله (Ubaydallah) had died in Ethiopia.
    Then Zainab whose husband was also martyred in Uhod.
    Then Sooda whose husband had died after their migration to Madina.
    Then Hafsa the daughter of Omar, who had married twice before and didn’t have much chance for any more marriages.
    Then Safiya, whose husband was killed in the battle of Khaibar.
    And the list continues which I can’t remember now.
    Most of these women had children too, and the holy Prophet of Islam as the head of the community was looking after all of them compassionately. If there was any lust behind his polyganous practice, he would have naturally had some children from all of these women- given the lack of family control facilities in those days. Yet, the only one he had a child from- apart from Khadija – was ماریه (Mariha), who was a female slave gifted to the Prophet (P) by the then king of Egypt. She gave birth to a son called Ibrahim for the Prophet (p), who unfortunately died at the age of 2.
    The world must really admire the lifestyle of the holy Prophet of Islam, who in spite of his heavy social duty as the head of the state, had the most ideal family life too. A man who at one time had 9 families to look after and yet never divorced any of them. This by itself is one of his miraculous characters.
    It was due to this outstanding nobility and ability that the almighty God exceptionally allowed him to marry up to 9 women at one time.
    Answered by: Sheikh Mansour Leghaei
  24. Like
    mehdi soldier got a reaction from md. ammar ali in Why Did The Prophet Marry 9 Wives?   
    Why did the Holy Prophet of Islam marry several wives?
    http://www.askthesheikh.com/why-did-the-holy-prophet-of-islam-marry-several-wives/
    Question:
    What I understand is that a man is allowed to marry once, yet depending on the highly unlikely criteria laid down in Surah Nisa (relating to justice), he may marry more than once (if he can keep justice between them).
    However the Prophet (p) had a total of 12 wives, out of which 9 were alive at the time of his death. What was the reason for this?
    Answer:
    In the old days, there was generally no government social benefits and services, and thus, women and children were financially looked after by men who were then the main bread-providers. This would become more essential when we consider the number of wars that were imposed on early Muslims, the result of which would be obviously many orphans and widows without any supporters.
    In order to meet the needs of this vulnerable part of society, Islam permits and often encourages polygany.
    Note Ayah 3 in Surat Nisa that allows polygany is preceded by the rights of orphans. In other words, the Almighty God first reminds the believers of the rights of orphans as the most vulnerable part of the society, and then deals with the second; i.e. widows. In short, the message of Ayahs 2 & 3 of Surat Nisa to the believing men is:
    1. to encourage the community to bring orphans to their homes and look after them like their own children,
    2. to bring orphans with their mums to their homes by marrying widows so that they too can enjoy a life with a father/husband.
    3. at least marrying one woman (whether widow or not) to take their bear minimum social responsibilities.
    The meaning of justice here also is to be fair in providing food, clothing and other maintenance.
    Now, let’s look at the life of the holy Prophet of Islam (p). Up until 10 months after his migration to Madina, he had only one wife; Khadija. in fact, she dies in the year 9 of his mission while he was still in Makka, but he never married anyone until after 4 yrs later in Madina when he married Aesha.
    Then from the 3rd yr A.H. and after the battle of Uhod which imposed many casualties on Muslims, his holiness married ام سلمۀ (Umm Salamah), whose husband was martyred in Uhod.
    Then he married ام حبیبه (Umm Habeebah) whose husband عبیدالله (Ubaydallah) had died in Ethiopia.
    Then Zainab whose husband was also martyred in Uhod.
    Then Sooda whose husband had died after their migration to Madina.
    Then Hafsa the daughter of Omar, who had married twice before and didn’t have much chance for any more marriages.
    Then Safiya, whose husband was killed in the battle of Khaibar.
    And the list continues which I can’t remember now.
    Most of these women had children too, and the holy Prophet of Islam as the head of the community was looking after all of them compassionately. If there was any lust behind his polyganous practice, he would have naturally had some children from all of these women- given the lack of family control facilities in those days. Yet, the only one he had a child from- apart from Khadija – was ماریه (Mariha), who was a female slave gifted to the Prophet (P) by the then king of Egypt. She gave birth to a son called Ibrahim for the Prophet (p), who unfortunately died at the age of 2.
    The world must really admire the lifestyle of the holy Prophet of Islam, who in spite of his heavy social duty as the head of the state, had the most ideal family life too. A man who at one time had 9 families to look after and yet never divorced any of them. This by itself is one of his miraculous characters.
    It was due to this outstanding nobility and ability that the almighty God exceptionally allowed him to marry up to 9 women at one time.
    Answered by: Sheikh Mansour Leghaei
  25. Like
    mehdi soldier got a reaction from Gypsy in Why Did The Prophet Marry 9 Wives?   
    Why did the Holy Prophet of Islam marry several wives?
    http://www.askthesheikh.com/why-did-the-holy-prophet-of-islam-marry-several-wives/
    Question:
    What I understand is that a man is allowed to marry once, yet depending on the highly unlikely criteria laid down in Surah Nisa (relating to justice), he may marry more than once (if he can keep justice between them).
    However the Prophet (p) had a total of 12 wives, out of which 9 were alive at the time of his death. What was the reason for this?
    Answer:
    In the old days, there was generally no government social benefits and services, and thus, women and children were financially looked after by men who were then the main bread-providers. This would become more essential when we consider the number of wars that were imposed on early Muslims, the result of which would be obviously many orphans and widows without any supporters.
    In order to meet the needs of this vulnerable part of society, Islam permits and often encourages polygany.
    Note Ayah 3 in Surat Nisa that allows polygany is preceded by the rights of orphans. In other words, the Almighty God first reminds the believers of the rights of orphans as the most vulnerable part of the society, and then deals with the second; i.e. widows. In short, the message of Ayahs 2 & 3 of Surat Nisa to the believing men is:
    1. to encourage the community to bring orphans to their homes and look after them like their own children,
    2. to bring orphans with their mums to their homes by marrying widows so that they too can enjoy a life with a father/husband.
    3. at least marrying one woman (whether widow or not) to take their bear minimum social responsibilities.
    The meaning of justice here also is to be fair in providing food, clothing and other maintenance.
    Now, let’s look at the life of the holy Prophet of Islam (p). Up until 10 months after his migration to Madina, he had only one wife; Khadija. in fact, she dies in the year 9 of his mission while he was still in Makka, but he never married anyone until after 4 yrs later in Madina when he married Aesha.
    Then from the 3rd yr A.H. and after the battle of Uhod which imposed many casualties on Muslims, his holiness married ام سلمۀ (Umm Salamah), whose husband was martyred in Uhod.
    Then he married ام حبیبه (Umm Habeebah) whose husband عبیدالله (Ubaydallah) had died in Ethiopia.
    Then Zainab whose husband was also martyred in Uhod.
    Then Sooda whose husband had died after their migration to Madina.
    Then Hafsa the daughter of Omar, who had married twice before and didn’t have much chance for any more marriages.
    Then Safiya, whose husband was killed in the battle of Khaibar.
    And the list continues which I can’t remember now.
    Most of these women had children too, and the holy Prophet of Islam as the head of the community was looking after all of them compassionately. If there was any lust behind his polyganous practice, he would have naturally had some children from all of these women- given the lack of family control facilities in those days. Yet, the only one he had a child from- apart from Khadija – was ماریه (Mariha), who was a female slave gifted to the Prophet (P) by the then king of Egypt. She gave birth to a son called Ibrahim for the Prophet (p), who unfortunately died at the age of 2.
    The world must really admire the lifestyle of the holy Prophet of Islam, who in spite of his heavy social duty as the head of the state, had the most ideal family life too. A man who at one time had 9 families to look after and yet never divorced any of them. This by itself is one of his miraculous characters.
    It was due to this outstanding nobility and ability that the almighty God exceptionally allowed him to marry up to 9 women at one time.
    Answered by: Sheikh Mansour Leghaei
×
×
  • Create New...