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

Is Islam an immoral religion? Debate between SHIA Muslim and Christian PREACHER.

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Veteran Member
3 hours ago, hasanhh said:

Ahmadinejad holding such a denial conference just to poke at the US was the dumbest thing he ever said or did.

I’m not sure if he was outright denying it but he said that the numbers needed to be looked into or that it needed to be studied (perhaps he was pointing out the hypocrisy of wanting “absolute freedom of speech” but having a few exceptions?) . I think he (and also Norman Finkelstein) also questioned why zionists kept talking about the holocaust so as to justify their crimes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 99
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

There's racism involved. It's people of the desert vs the morally ethical Europeans.

What I don't understand is that both religions are Abrahamic faiths, it's not as though Islam came with a new "god", it's the same Deity, new revelation. Christianity is the religion that deviate

This "argument" is mute. 1] Slavery exists in the Bible. Examples: Genesis 17:12 & 27 and Leviticus 19:20 (Douay translation for the phrase "bought slaves). Then for bought "servants" and "bo

  • Development Team
3 hours ago, El Cid said:

I've told him this above that he can make a thousand observations about anything

Most observations have some truth and experience behind them. I didn't  just randomly wake up and decide "You know, I think I will project my experiences on El Cid and upset him for the giggles."

 

3 hours ago, El Cid said:

Just don't project your observations of other people onto me based on race and the stereotype you have of said race especially when I've said nothing of the sort. And gave plenty of evidence for my statement

Bold words from somebody who got emotional and also said:

Quote

Inappropriate comment removed

It may mean nothing to you now but can you say the same in the Afterlife? You are truly a coward and a waste of my time. 

As far I'm personally concerned, I don't recall any evidence from you, just you telling me that I said:"Oh you silly easterns and your silly thoughts".

Which by the way, I didn't say that, I said "most eastern people don't understand the complex history between Europeans and Jews."   

Yes, I do realize that I could have phrased in a much better way but parroting what the average Islamophobe also says about Jews does not impress me. It's been a consistent theme in my experience and absolutely pathetic. 

Never reply to me ever again.

Edited by Mahdavist
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Development Team
1 hour ago, 313_Waiter said:

The conspiracy is not about Jews, it’s about zionists like the RothschiId’s and the RockefeIIers controlling the world. They say that a RothschiId central bank is in almost every country except a few like North Korea and lran. Have you looked deeply into such conspiracies?

I have to a certain extent, here's the problem: It's speculation, unless I was actually there or have conclusive evidence, I have no reason to look deeply into what I cannot prove beyond the conspiracy theory.

I don't who wrote the conspiracy theory, the proof is all over the place and at best reaching, sometimes there's no proof and it is potentially slanderous. 

يَـٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوٓا۟ إِن جَآءَكُمْ فَاسِقٌۢ بِنَبَإٍۢ فَتَبَيَّنُوٓا۟ أَن تُصِيبُوا۟ قَوْمًۢا بِجَهَـٰلَةٍۢ فَتُصْبِحُوا۟ عَلَىٰ مَا فَعَلْتُمْ نَـٰدِمِينَ

(49:6)

As I stated previously, I stay far away from some of these theories especially Qanon, Rockefeller-Rothschild, New World Order.

I used to believe in some of them and now, I deeply regret it. It was a waste of my time, time that I will never get back.

However, I do agree that Zionism is a huge problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
33 minutes ago, Gaius I. Caesar said:

 

It may mean nothing to you now but can you say the same in the Afterlife? You are truly a coward and a waste of my t

Pretty ironic for a racist to call someone else a coward. Racists are true cowards who try to dismiss others for their race rather than their thoughts. 

As for the after-life. Worry about yourself.

Imam Ja’far al‑Sadiq (a) reported from the Prophet (s) who said: "Whoso­ever possesses in his heart 'asabiyyah (prejudice in any of its forms such as tribalism, racism, nationalism) even to the extent of a mustard seed, God will raise him on the Day of Resurrection with the (pagan) Bedouins of the Jahiliyyah (the pre‑Islamic era).” [Al‑Kulayni, al‑Kafi, vol. 2, bab al ‘asabiyah, p. 308, hadith # 3].

Hope you resolve your issues in your heart before you join your true brothers in faith on the day of judgement.

36 minutes ago, Gaius I. Caesar said:

 

Yes, I do realize that I could have phrased in a much better way

That's what every racist says when he gets called out in the end.

Wasalam.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
1 hour ago, El Cid said:

Pretty ironic for a racist to call someone else a coward. Racists are true cowards who try to dismiss others for their race rather than their thoughts. 

Gaius is not a "racist" in my online experiences. 

Besides, racism is usually for people who want something to show-off about.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
12 hours ago, Abdul-Hadi said:

Waitaminute-- is someone actually trying to say that the holocaust didn't happen?

I had an aunt in the Mathausen concentration camp. The holocaust definitely happened.

Salam we don't  deny it but we don't  buy Zionist propaganda that comes from Hollywood  movies & forged history  & fake stories that they are selling to people in order to justify defending  from Israel & call everyone  anti-Semitic because  questions  their propaganda  about Holucaust. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 10/28/2020 at 10:38 AM, al-Muttaqin said:

called Nazarenes i

No, they were called “the-Way”, Jesus called himself that aswell,  but “Nasraya” was just another title for them similar to how we are Called “Jafari” and also “twelvers” 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Development Team
6 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

we don't  buy Zionist propaganda that comes from Hollywood  movies & forged history  & fake stories that they are selling to people in order to justify defending  from Israel & call everyone  anti-Semitic because  questions  their propaganda  about Holucaust. 

Last time I checked, most people don't lie about ethnic cleansing/genocide. However, I agree that the Holocaust doesn't excuse the Nakbah and current situation between the Israeli and Palestinians.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
19 minutes ago, Gaius I. Caesar said:

current situation between the Israeli and Palestinians.

Back in the 80s, several men and women just out of the lsraeIi Army told me the same thing.

One of these women actually said to me, "We worry that we(lsraelis) are becoming like the Nazis ourselves."  [0ne of the things/experiences that l haven't forgotten in Life.] That was three decades ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
13 hours ago, THREE1THREE said:

It is a European religion once Paul went on a killing spree and put is pagan Greek ideas and teachings in. 

Paul was a Jew though. He was such a Jew that he was originally investigating the Christians for breaking Jewish religious law iirc.

Christianity wouldn't have become a "European religion" until the Christianization of Europe began between the 4th and 6th century CE unless I'm severely confused.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Abdul-Hadi said:

Paul was a Jew though. He was such a Jew that he was originally investigating the Christians for breaking Jewish religious law iirc.

Where’s your evidence for such claims ? History shows otherwise. Have a look it Paul’s epistles to start with first read Galatians regarding the law. I’ve already made an article on Paul’s stance regarding the law and etc. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
3 hours ago, THREE1THREE said:

Where’s your evidence for such claims ? History shows otherwise. Have a look it Paul’s epistles to start with first read Galatians regarding the law. I’ve already made an article on Paul’s stance regarding the law and etc. 

The fact that the book of Acts says his name was Saul of Tarsus & was a Pharisee before he "encountered Jesus" on the road to Damascus and changed his name to Paul? What "evidence" am I supposed to be using here?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Development Team
16 minutes ago, THREE1THREE said:

Where’s your evidence for such claims ? History shows otherwise. Have a look it Paul’s epistles to start with first read Galatians regarding the law. I’ve already made an article on Paul’s stance regarding the law and etc. 

It's literally in the Bible, Acts 8: 

Quote

1.And at that time there was raised a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all dispersed through the countries of Judea, and Samaria, except the apostles.

2. And devout men took order for Stephen's funeral, and made great mourning over him.

3. But Saul made havock of the church, entering in from house to house, and dragging away men and women, committed them to prison.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)

I mean, I'm not a fan of Paul either because I feel like he perverted the things that Isa(عليه السلام) taught and made him into the deity known as "Jesus", but to try and deny that he was Jewish when it's in the Bible is a little odd to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
8 hours ago, Abdul-Hadi said:

encountered Jesus" on the road to Damascus and changed his name to Paul? What "evidence" am I supposed to be using here?

That’s not true although it is mentioned in the book of acts, it is to cover up Saul the imposter. Saul’s actual background is Hellenistic samatarian, the book of acts was made to try to cover up Saul’s outrages history by giving a “better” background and deleting some the vicious incidents that took place and replacing them with false stories like “stephen” being stoned and etc which is a plain lie, Saul actually attacked James the Just pushing him down the stairs Inside the temple. Luke the imposter made a false Character called “Simon magus” and the Paulines went to the extent of putting it in the Clementine of homilies before ditching it to make the book of acts to twist parts of history around.

I hope you understand what’s going on here .... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
20 hours ago, THREE1THREE said:

That’s not true although it is mentioned in the book of acts, it is to cover up Saul the imposter. Saul’s actual background is Hellenistic samatarian, the book of acts was made to try to cover up Saul’s outrages history by giving a “better” background and deleting some the vicious incidents that took place and replacing them with false stories like “stephen” being stoned and etc which is a plain lie, Saul actually attacked James the Just pushing him down the stairs Inside the temple. Luke the imposter made a false Character called “Simon magus” and the Paulines went to the extent of putting it in the Clementine of homilies before ditching it to make the book of acts to twist parts of history around.

I hope you understand what’s going on here .... 

Do you have any proof of these claims? Because that's a pretty far-out accusation to level on the entire history of Christianity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 10/28/2020 at 2:48 PM, hasanhh said:

? Maybe  @Cool lexicography, please.

ln Ayat 3:52, the word ansari is used, which has the same triliteral root nun sad ra.  "Helpers" is not the same as evilgelicals who call themselves "chr!stians."

 

I just need to look into the context of this discussions. 

"Ansari" means helper, it is a common noun

"Nasara" means the so called followers of Jesus (عليه السلام). generally, it is a proper noun.

وَقَالُواْ كُونُواْ هُودًا أَوْ نَصَارَى تَهْتَدُواْ قُلْ بَلْ مِلَّةَ إِبْرَاهِيمَ حَنِيفًا وَمَا كَانَ مِنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ

2:135 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
On 10/30/2020 at 3:29 AM, THREE1THREE said:

I hope you understand what’s going on here .... 

l believe l know what you are referring to. lf so, you are not writing 'completely' or 'well expressed'.

Without using notes and writing extemporaneously -because this is on S.C somewhere- Satan Saul was a persecutor, Acts Chapters 7,8, & 9 until the two different versions of the Road to Damascus (Gehenna) story at which time Satan Saul (romanized to Paul) went forth preaching the Words of the Devil, established Antioch [where they were first called chr!stians because they no longer followed the First & Second  Commandments and were excommunicated from the Believers/Jewish community], and Satan-Simon/Peter "wondered"/"doubted" if Satan-Saul was "an apostle.

Satan-Saul's work became dominant in the Greco-Roman World because it was developed to "local intellectual traditions." That is why he is dominant in Western history during and after the Roman Church ruled the Dark Ages.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
14 hours ago, hasanhh said:

l believe l know what you are referring to. lf so, you are not writing 'completely' or 'well expressed'.

Without using notes and writing extemporaneously -because this is on S.C somewhere- Satan Saul was a persecutor, Acts Chapters 7,8, & 9 until the two different versions of the Road to Damascus (Gehenna) story at which time Satan Saul (romanized to Paul) went forth preaching the Words of the Devil, established Antioch [where they were first called chr!stians because they no longer followed the First & Second  Commandments and were excommunicated from the Believers/Jewish community], and Satan-Simon/Peter "wondered"/"doubted" if Satan-Saul was "an apostle.

Satan-Saul's work became dominant in the Greco-Roman World because it was developed to "local intellectual traditions." That is why he is dominant in Western history during and after the Roman Church ruled the Dark Ages.

What I'm asking though, is where I can find this information so I can read it for myself and judge it accordingly

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
14 minutes ago, Abdul-Hadi said:

What I'm asking though, is where I can find this information so I can read it for myself and judge it accordingly

On S.C, goto Thoughts 2018, page 40, date August 2,2018.

To what is there l'II add this:

ln the Greco-Roman World, anything to do with devils and demons was shunned and rejected (why Book of John is written without Satan Says); while in North Africa and Western Asia, 'gods' had both good and bad qualities (like the ideas of yin & yang), so there was no problems preaching the Words of the Devil openly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 10/31/2020 at 11:34 AM, Abdul-Hadi said:

Do you have any proof of these claims?

Yes for most part but some are obvious due to the context leading to it indirectly. 
 

"And when matters were at that point, some one of our enemies(reference to Paul), entering the temple with a few men, began to cry out and to say, What mean ye, O men of Israel? Why are you so easily hurried on? Why are ye led headlong by most miserable men, who are deceived by Simon(reference to Simon Peter), a magician?' While he was thus speaking and adding more to the same effect and while James the bishop was refuting him, he began to excite the people and to raise a tumult so that the people might not be able to hear what was said. Therefore he began to drive all into confusion with shouting and to undo what had been arranged with much labour and at the same time to reproach the priests and to enrage them with revilings and abuse and like a madman to excite every one to murder saying, What do ye? Why do ye hesitate? Oh sluggish and inert, why do we not lay hands upon them, and pull all these fellows to pieces?' When he had said this he first seizing a strong brand from the altar, set the example of smiting. Then others also seeing him were carried away with like readiness. Then ensued a tumult on either side of the beating and the beaten. Much blood is shed; there is a confused flight in the midst of which that enemy attacked James and threw him headlong from the top of the steps; and supposing him to be dead, he cared not to inflict further violence upon him." (Clementine of recognitions LXX) 


"But our friends lifted him up for they were both more numerous and more powerful than the others; but from their fear of God, they rather suffered themselves to be killed by an inferior force than they would kill others. But when the evening came the priests shut up the temple and we returned to the house of James and spent the night there in prayer. Then before daylight we went down to Jericho, to the number of 5000 men. Then after three days one of the brethren came to us from Gamaliel, whom we mentioned before, bringing to us secret tidings that that enemy had received a commission from Caiaphas the chief priest, that he should arrest all who believed in Jesus and should go to Damascus with his letters, and that there also employing the help of the unbelievers he should make havoc among the faithful; and that he was hastening to Damascus chiefly on this account, because he believed that Peter had fled thither. And about thirty days thereafter he stopped on his way while passing through Jericho going to Damascus. At that time we were absent having gone out to the sepulchres of two brethren which were whitened of themselves every year, by which miracle the fury of many against us was restrained, because they saw that our brethren were had in remembrance before God." (Clementine of recognitions LXXI) 


"While we stayed in Jericho and gave ourselves to prayer and fasting, James the bishop sent for me and sent me here to Cæsarea saying that Zacchæus had written to him from Cæsarea, that one Saul, a Samaritan magician, was subverting many of our people, asserting that he was one Stans -- that is, in other words, the Messiah and the great power of the high God, which is superior to the Creator of the world; at the same time that he showed many miracles and made some doubt and others fall away to him. He informed me of all things that had been ascertained respecting this man from those who had formerly been either his associates or his disciples and had afterwards been converted to Zacchæus. Many therefore there are, O Peter,' said James, for whose safety's sake it behoves you to go and to refute the magician and to teach the word of truth. Therefore make no delay; nor let it grieve you that you set out alone knowing that God by Jesus will help you and that soon by His grace, you will have many associates and sympathizers. Now be sure that you send me in writing every year an account of your sayings and doings, and especially at the end of every seven years.' With these expressions he dismissed me, and in six days I arrived at Cæsarea." (Clementine of Recognitions LXII)

 

"When I entered the city, our most beloved brother Zacchæus met me; and embracing me, brought me to this house in which he himself stayed, inquiring of me concerning each of the brethren especially concerning our honourable brother James. And when I told him that he was still lame on one foot, on his immediately asking the cause of this, I related to him all that I have now detailed to you, how we had been called by the priests and Caiaphas the high priest to the temple and how James the archbishop, standing on the top of the steps had for seven successive days shown the whole people from the Scriptures of the Lord that Jesus is the Messiah; an enemy [came and] did all those things which I have already mentioned, and which I need not [to] repeat (Clementine of recognitions LXIII)

"When Zacchæus had heard these things, he told me in return of the doings of Saul; and in the meantime Saul himself -- how he heard of my arrival I do not know how -- sent a message to me saying, Let us debate tomorrow in front of the people.' To which I answered, Be it so as it pleaseth you.' And this promise of mine was known over the whole city, so that even you who arrived on that very day, learned that I was to hold a discussion with Saul on the following day and having found out my abode, according to the directions which you had received from Barnabas, came to me. But I so rejoiced at your coming, that my mind moved I know not how hastened to expound all things quickly to you, yet especially that which is the main point in our faith, concerning the true Prophet, which alone I doubt not, is a sufficient foundation for the whole of our doctrine. Then in the next place I unfolded to you the more secret meaning of the written Torah, through its several heads, which there was occasion to unfold; neither did I conceal from you the good things of the traditions. But what remains, beginning from tomorrow, you shall hear from day to day in connection with the questions which will be raised in the discussion with Saul, until by God's favour we reach that city of Rome to which we believe that our journey is to be directed." (Clementine of recognitions LXIV)

you can see where Luke twists history, the parts that have “Saul” originally had “Simon” referring to the fictional character “Simon magus”, I changed it  to Saul to make it easier for u, but he could not conceal Paul’s barbaric history since he gave it away in his book.  I have much to say about the Clementine of homollies and recognitions but time not serving well atm. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 11/1/2020 at 12:36 AM, hasanhh said:

On S.C, goto Thoughts 2018, page 40, date August 2,2018.

To what is there l'II add this:

ln the Greco-Roman World, anything to do with devils and demons was shunned and rejected (why Book of John is written without Satan Says); while in North Africa and Western Asia, 'gods' had both good and bad qualities (like the ideas of yin & yang), so there was no problems preaching the Words of the Devil openly.

Furthermore, the Hellenistic world, while pagan, was pluralistic, whereas the Trinitarians attempted to force their version of paganism on the (known) world by force, unlike previous pagan societies. The schizophrenic Trinitarians also destroyed science and technology, leading to the Dark Ages in Europe, whereas Islam borrowed and refined useful elements from its neighbours, including the remnants of classical (pagan) antiquity. Trinitarian, Latinate Christianity has been a genocidal pox on the entire planet, and everything bad in human history comes from this Western pox. No other ideology, pagan or otherwise, has done damage even remotely on the scale of the Trinitarian elites’. (Incidentally, the part in the Qur’ān that commends the Christian “monks and priests” for their lack of arrogance vs. Jews doesn’t make sense to me, since only Trinitarians had “monks and priests” and the best of the observant Jews were better than the best of the Trinitarians.) All the destroyed civilisations and lost sciences should be resurrected for the ascent of mankind!

Edited by Northwest
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
19 minutes ago, Northwest said:

 . . . unlike previous pagan societies.

Under the influence of his tutor Aristotle, Alexander who looked great used the idea of "religious toleration" in his conquering of Western Asia. This worked because unlike previous conquerors, allowing a people to keep their god-idols had a pacifying effect.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
4 hours ago, Northwest said:

Incidentally, the part in the Qur’ān that commends the Christian “monks and priests” for their lack of arrogance vs. Jews doesn’t make sense to me, since only Trinitarians had “monks and priests” and the best of the observant Jews were better than the best of the Trinitarians

Quote

Surely You will find the most hostile of all people towards the faithful to be the Jews and the polytheists, and surely you will find the nearest of them in affection to the faithful to be those who say ‘We are Christians.’ That is because there are priests and monks among them, and because they are not arrogant. (5:82)

When they hear what has been revealed to the Apostle, you see their eyes fill with tears because of the truth that they recognize. They say, ‘Our Lord, we believe; so write us down among the witnesses. (5:83)


Please see these verses in light of Chapter 3 verse 113 as well:

Quote

“Yet they are not all alike. Among the People of the Book is an upright nation; they recite Allah’s signs in the watches of the night and prostrate.”


As for why this verse was revealed? Let me c/p some exegeses.

The Study Quran

Quote

Although some commentators consider these statements to be absolute in nature and not limited to a particular historical situation (Th), such an interpretation is belied by the fact that at various points in Islamic history Muslims had better relations with the Jews than with Christians and Christian dynasties—the Crusades and the Spanish Reconquista would be two clear examples of this fact. It thus seems more plausible to contextualize this verse within the life of the Prophet and the early Muslim community. The Jews of Madinah and of the surrounding region presented a continual challenge to the Prophet’s authority as a prophet, and some of them reportedly colluded with the Makkan idolaters to harm the Prophet and his community. By contrast, certain Christian figures played positive and pivotal roles in the Prophet’s early life and mission. The Christian monk Baḥīrah first recognized Muhammad as a prophet; Waraqah, the Christian cousin of the Prophet’s wife Khadījah, identified the early revelations the Prophet received as being Divine in origin and consistent with the Christian scriptures he knew (see the introduction to Sūrah 96); and the Negus, the Christian king of Abyssinia, sheltered some of the Makkan Muslims from persecution by keeping them as guests in Abyssinia for years until they could later journey to Madinah. The Negus reportedly recognized the affinity between the Islamic teachings and his own religious beliefs as a Christian and thus refused to hand over the Muslim refugees to the idolatrous Quraysh, who demanded their return...

“According to most commentators, however, the occasion for the revelation of these verses was the later visit of a delegation sent by the Negus to the Prophet in Madinah. When the Quran was recited to the Christian delegation, they began to weep and became believers (IK, Ṭ, Th, Z). Some accounts state that the delegation returned to the Negus and recited the Quran to him, whereupon he became a believer as well (Ṭ, Th). However, there is no historical evidence that the Negus later became Muslim, and the verse attributes positive attributes to Christians in general, not only to those who later embraced Islam (Th), since the Christians are described as nearest … in affection toward those who believe, rather than as  Muslim believers themselves (see also 57:27, where the virtues of Christians are similarly praised). Some say that this refers to those Christians who heard the message brought by Muhammad and believed in his prophethood, although they continued to live according to the “sharīʿah (religious law) of Jesus” or the “way of the Gospel,” thus remaining “Christian” in a confessional sense (IK). Nonetheless, the report about the Negus does illustrate the good relations between the Prophet’s community and an important Christian dynasty in the region and suggests that a certain spiritual affinity between the Christians and the Muslims was a basis for their good relations.

...Christians are also said to be “near” to Muslim believers, because they are not arrogant. Arrogance is a vice derided in all religious traditions, and the Quran repeatedly connects arrogance to the spiritual blindness that leads people to reject the signs of God, which include the prophets and their messages; see 2:87; 6:93; 7:75–76, 146; 10:75; 23:67; 31:7; 35:42–43; 39:59, 72; 41:15; 45:8, 31; 46:10; 63:5; 71:7. Arrogance is contrasted with the attitude of humility and gratitude that compels one to prostrate before God and to worship Him (cf. 4:172–73; 16:49; 21:19; 32:15; 40:60; 41:37–38). The assertion that Christians are not arrogant thus suggests both their inclination to worship and devote themselves to God and their receptivity to God’s signs and prophetic messages.

An Enlightening Commentary into the Light of the Holy Qur'an vol. 4

Quote

The Jews, even with seeing those abundant miracles and also the good temper of the Prophet (S), did not believe in Islam. They participated in plots against Muslims.

They did breach promises and made mischief, while some Christian bishops in Abyssinia shed tears when they heard the verses of Surah Maryam and adhered those Muslims who were there.

Tafsir al Mizan

Quote

“They have been counted as the nearest in friendship to the believers, because a group of them did believe in the Holy Prophet((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).a.) as the next verse shows:And when they hear what has been revealed to the Messenger you will see their eyes overflowing with tears on account of the truth that they recognize; they say: "Our Lord! We believe, so write us down with the witnesses(of truth)." [5:83]…

 

“In this background, singling the Christians out for the praise contained in the above verse – to the exclusion of the Jews and polytheists – points to their sincere acceptance of the call of Islam, even when they had other options than entering into Islam: they could have opted to continue on their religion and pay jizyah, or to fight againstIslam…

 

“Coming to the Jews, although they had the same alternatives as the Christians, and they could remain on their religion with payment of jizyah, yet they continued in their haughtiness, became harder in their bigotry, and turned to double dealing and deception. They broke their covenants, eagerly waited calamities to befall the Muslims and dealt to them bitterest deal.

“The attitude the Christians had towards the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).a.) and the Muslims, and their attraction to Islam; and also the enmity of the Jews and polytheists toward the divine religion and their sustained arrogance and bigotry, have continued exactly in the same manner even after the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).a.). Innumerable were the Christians who answered the call to Islam during the past centuries, while the number of the Jews and the polytheists was so insignificant. These unchanged characteristics in both groups confirm what the Mighty Book had indicated.

“…It is because of these factors that Allãh has said about Christians that they are nearer to accept the call of the true religion because they have their religious scholars and monks who do not behave proudly.Their scholars continue to teach them cognizance of truth and realities of religion – verbally. Their ascetics remind them the greatness of their Lord and the importance of their felicity in this world and the next –practically. And they do not have pride and haughtiness, which would prevent them from accepting the truth.As for the Jews, they had their own scholars, no doubt; but they behaved proudly, and their arrogance and stubbornness did not let them be prepared for accepting the truth.And as for the polytheists, they did not have any religious scholar or ascetics, and on top of that, they did behave arrogantly.”

From an eschatological POV Sheikh Imran Hosein states the close Christians is referring to those Christians who will represent the “second victory of Rome” which he says will be done by Russia.

In my own opinion, maybe it has something to do with accepting Imam Mahdi (عجّل الله تعالى فرجه الشريف) and Isa ((عليه السلام)) in the coming times, whereas some of the corrupt Jews seeing the antichrist as the Moshiach that they await. Perhaps it has something to do with Israel as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Quote

Did the abovementioned Jewish “liturgical customs” which started in Rome somehow find their way into the Church at Rome? Were they little by little incorporated into its worship, which gradually developed into the Roman Catholic Mass?  It may come as a surprise to many Catholics that the Catholic Encyclopedia officially defines the Catholic liturgy as a carryover from the Mosaic Law:

“...the word liturgy...is used for the public service of the temple...the function of the priests, the ritual service of the temple... So in Christian use liturgy meant the public official service of the Church, that corresponded to the official service of the Temple in the Old Law.”

After which we find a startling admission, viz., that the Mass was “a Christianized synagogue service” conducted by “learned elders”:

 “The Eucharist was always celebrated at the end of a service of lessons, psalms, prayers, and preaching, which was itself merely a continuation of the service of the synagogue. So we have everywhere this double function; first a synagogue service Christianized, in which the holy books were read, psalms were sung, prayers said by the bishop in the name of all (the people answering ‘Amen’ in Hebrew, as had their Jewish forefathers), and homilies, explanations of what had been read, were made by the bishop or priests, just as they had been made in the synagogues by the learned men and elders (e. g., Luke, iv, 16-27)... The likeness between the prayers of thanksgiving (ix-x) and the Jewish forms for blessing bread and wine on the Sabbath (given in the ‘Berakoth’ treatise of the Talmud; cf. Sabatier, ‘La Didache’, Paris, 1885, p. 99) points obviously to derivation from them.”

“As a Jew coming to the Catholic Church, it was natural for me to find the relationship between Judaism and the Catholic Church among the most interesting things in the world. It was obvious to me that for a Jew to enter the Catholic Church wasn’t a matter of conversion at all, but was rather simply coming into the fullness of Judaism — into the form that Judaism took after the coming of the Jewish Messiah.

“Although Catholics are aware of this in principle, they often don’t think of the Catholic Church as the continuation of Judaism after the Messiah... It’s everywhere you look. It’s obviously in the Sacrifice of the Mass and the way the Mass is prefigured in Jewish ceremonial worship. It’s in the role that the Old Testament, Jewish Scripture have in Catholic theology and the structure of the Catholic Faith.” [Seattle Catholic]

A listing of parallels between Roman Catholicism and Judaism, which have analogues in the Eastern Orthodox Church as well, presented us with the startling prospect that Roman Catholicism may have been a Judaized form of Christianity from its inception. In the list of traditions below, links to the Catholic Encyclopedia show that the Roman Catholic Church justifies most of its practices by appealing to the Old Testament. Even in cases where the New Testament is cited as justification, these practices are not required under the New Covenant but have their basis in Judaism.

Priesthood (cf. Levitical priesthood/mediators between God and men)

Pope (cf. Jewish High Priest)

College of Cardinals (70) (cf. seventy elders of Moses/Deut.17:8)

Confession of sins to priest for forgiveness (cf. Lev.5:5)

Daily sacrifice of the Mass (cf. Daily burnt offering / Heb.10:11)

Altars for sacrifices

Altar vessels of gold and silver

Vestments for priests

Cardinals’ skullcap (cf. Jewish yarmulke)

Offertory (cf. Offerings)

Church buildings for worship (cf. Temple)

Liturgy (cf. service of the Temple)

Sunday obligation (cf. Sabbath observance)

Ecclesiastical Feasts (cf. Jewish feasts)

Scapular / Hairshirt (cf. Sackcloth)

Works-based salvation (cf. Mosaic Law)

Sacrament of infant baptism (cf. Rite of Circumcision / Talmud)

Wafer-only Communion (cf. Manna/Shew Bread)

Sacrament of Confirmation (cf. Jewish Bar/Bat Mitzvah)

Burning of candles and incense (cf. Exodus 30)

Holy water font (cf. The Laver / Exodus 40)

No salvation outside the (Catholic) Church (Gentiles must convert to Judaism to be saved)

The following Roman Catholic traditions were not part of the Mosaic Law but were adopted by the Israelites in their apostasy:

Traditions of men (Mark 7:6-13)

Vain repetitions (Lip service (Isa.29:13)

Veneration of saints (Idolatry/pagan gods)

Worship of Mary as Mother of God (Jews worshipped Queen of Heaven / Jer. 44)

Statues/images (images on the walls of Solomon’s Temple) (Ezek 8:10)

Demotion of Jesus to Co-Redeemer (cf. Jews’ denial of Jesus as Messiah)

Preoccupation with Christ’s death rather than resurrection (Jews’ denial of Jesus’ resurrection)

Source

Quote

THE REFORMATION:

 

ROSICRUCIAN CONNECTIONS

 

PART 2

 

IGNATIUS OF LOYOLA

JOHN CALVIN

JOHN KNOX

Source

Quote

THE HUMAN SACRIFICE OF THE MARY-WORSHIPING, MASONIC, PROTESTANT REFORMERS

In Greek mythology, (Platonism,) “The Wisdom of God” is called Sophia — while Shekinah, “The Glory of God,” is the  fertility goddess of the masonic Jewish Kabalah.  In the Kabalah, Shekinah is also “the divine feminine” and the “soul of god and man.”  Gleaned from paganism and in particular, masonic orders, these goddesses were Christianized by the Vatican as the ‘feminine god’ “Mother” Mary, secretly worshiped as the ‘holy spirit’ of the trinity.  As seen below in the masonic signs and Catholic statements of the Reformers, it is clear that they did not really repent from Mary worship.

Source

Quote

Hyam Maccoby Mostly Right About Apostle Paul

Now, before Paul invented his gospel, the only gospel which existed was that of the apostles. Why would a man who believed his salvation depended upon believing the gospel not believe in the gospel preached by the apostles of Christ? How could Paul, who makes so much of his own authority as an apostle, so disregard the teaching of every other apostle?

The contradictions are particularly acute with regard to the "law," or Torah: in Romans he portrays himself as a pious observer of the Torah who found himself unable to obey it; meaning, we suppose, that no one else can either. ...

How can we discover Paul's true beliefs from this maze of contradictory statements? By Maccoby's Fourth Proposition: 4. That Paul employed deception, and most especially misrepresentation, to convince people to accept the gospel.

In other words, Paul was a liar, not a pathological liar, but a purposeful one: he lied to advance the gospel; not the gospel of the apostles, but the gospel he himself preached.

He himself declared that among Jews he acted like a Jew, among Greeks like a Greek; is it unlikely then that among apostles he would act like an apostle? Or that he would emulate apostlolic behavior (like extreme humility) in his letters even though he was nothing like it in fact? ...

Paul used a special type of language which he called "spiritual words," which he distinguished from the ordinary kind of language, which he called "speaking as a human being." Now these "spiritual words" could not be understood by the rules of grammar and syntax.

They can, however, be deciphered. Here are some examples, and their meaning, translated by myself: ...[the law] was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. Now a mediator of one is not, but God is one. Gal. 3:19-20

Notice how the meaning of this passage seems to sail right past you and out of sight, leaving you the impression of having witnessed something profound even though you cannot say just what. Let us turn the passage front to back and see what we have: God is one.

A mediator of one is not. The Law was ordained through a mediator.

What we have here is what the Greeks call a syllogism, a sequence of facts tending towards a conclusion. And the conclusion? Since the law was ordained through a "mediator" (leaving aside the question of whether this was so or not), and there can not be a mediator of "one," such as God is (leaving aside this issue as well), it follows that the law could not have been ordained by God. So the phrase which begins the passage, "the law was ordained by angels," is really the conclusion of the syllogism. ...

So, what did Paul serve in his youth? The answer to this might give us an idea of what "elements" are.

For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: and profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers. Gal. 1:13

The upshot of all of which is this: Paul was a Jew in his youth, and served the "elements of the world;" and the Galatians observe the law and serve "elements." So "elements" must be a disparaging sort of term for "Yahweh," just as "angels" is another. It is not that Paul does not believe in Scripture, but that he has a negative opinion (in Greek, heresy) about Scripture's God: He acknowledges that those who obey the Commandments serve the "ruler of this world." He acknowledges that this "ruler" ordained the Law.

He acknowledges that someone "in Christ" who decides to obey the Commandments serves this "ruler." This is why obeying the law abrogates the gospel of Christ: for the function of Paul's Christ is to "conquer all rule." ...

The revelation that Paul was trying to overthrow God, and the means he chose to do it, namely disguising himself as an apostle of Jesus Christ, explains a number of seeming contradictions in his epistles, and allows us to hazard a guess as to why he granted Christ God-like, or at least Yahweh-like attributes: Paul's Christ was intended to serve as a kind of substitute for Yahweh during the Interregnum, the transitional period between the Rule of Yahweh and the Rule of the Gnostic deity.

Source

So Trinitarian Christianity was apparently established by cabalistic, elitist, assimilated, Hellenised Israelites/Jews, including Saul the imposter, who adopted the pagan traditions of Babylon, Egypt, et al. and mixed them with occult material from Jewish Kabbalah, Hellenistic Judaism (Philo Judaeus and other Alexandrian Jews, for instance), Gnosticism, various mystery schools/cults based on solar worship/Satanism (Osiris, Mithras, Baal, et al.), and the various philosophies of pagan antiquity, including those with ties to Asia, e.g., the post-Vedic “Hindu,” Zoroastrian, animist, Buddhist, and Confucian traditions, including worship of ancestors, race/lineage, belief in the pagan trinity, etc.

These Israelites then infiltrated all the top royal elites worldwide and began to conquer the world and form an integrated New World Order, including a syncretistic, Zionist, pagan-Jewish one-world religion, while using secret societies such as the Vatican, Freemasons, et al. to found political dynasties, secular and pseudo-religious ideologies, et al., all while gaining access to secrets from past civilisations before Prophet Adam, contact with jinn and so-called “extraterrestrials,” etc., leading to the rise of a global civilisation based on usury, the occult, science, and technology, hence vaccines, 5G, secret space programs, GMOs, climate control, HAARP, EMF, tsunami/earthquake/weather weapons, deep underground military bases, time travel, access to parallel dimensions, nuclear weapons, bioweapons, the IMF, the World Bank, the Anglo-American-Zionist Establishment and its fake/controlled oppositions, the UN, NATO, economic-political and related blocs, ecumenism, the “Sexual Revolution,” abortion, birth control, contraception, eugenics, racialism, open borders, genocidal wars for conquest, black-budget projects, the international drug-and-arms trade, human trafficking, Satanic ritual abuse (SRI), human sacrifice, world wars, revolutions, feudalism, fascism, capitalism, communism, nationalism, Nazism, Illuminati (jinn–angel–human bloodlines, Nephilim, pharaonic and aristocratic “globalist” elites who control all sides), usury, international banking ... in short, the world we see today in the vast gasp of the Kali Yuga, the culmination of a vast, millennia-long conspiracy.

The Israelite-pagan-Zionist “Gaia” conspiracy. Trans-humanism. Dialectics. Sustainability. Depopulation. One-world totalitarianism.

@:Sami II was right.

Edited by Northwest
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 11/2/2020 at 7:49 AM, 313_Waiter said:

Please see these verses in light of Chapter 3 verse 113 as well:

...

While I do understand your point, my own knowledge and personal study of history has led me to conclude, so far, that it is the European Christians—not Jews or polytheists, much less Muslims or even secularist “godless,” particularly Stalinist, communists—who, both individually and collectively, have cumulatively destroyed more people, more knowledge, science, religion, and spirituality, than any group in billions of years’ history, on such a planetary and total scale. The European societies, especially the Christian elites and royals, have done more harm to Muslims and the planet, murdered and destroyed and spread corruption, on such a level that the crimes of Pharaoh, who at least let the Israelites’ women live, and even the Umayyads and Abbasids, by comparison, seem almost minuscule, at least in terms of overall impact.

I am, of course, referring to the “big picture,” beyond simply the impact on Islam and/or Muslims.

(Whereas the Malthusian European Christians have always practiced extreme sexual perversity and hypocrisy, and have long specialised in murdering nonwhite, non-Christian women and children, and even don’t respect their own very much, as evidence by the state of abortion, homosexuality, broken families and homes, degenerate culture, poverty, et al. in their own societies, yet have so indoctrinated and brainwashed the mentally ill masses that they only know how to “punch down” at each other and outsiders, both within and without their own societies, while always blaming and hating the victim, reading his every shred of virtue and humanity as a sign of weakness to be exploited for evil. I know from experience, being one of the very few Westerners who are at least semi-penitent.)

In my view, none of this can be replaced, nor materially compensated, which is why I oppose bribes such as ”reparations.” The problem is that the Christian West, though now deceptively “secularised,” has always excelled in propaganda, mind-control, and teaching its victims to behave as victims and despise themselves, while using “peace” propaganda and “turn-the-other-cheek” to prevent the victims from forcefully opposing its violence and aggression. (As for Jewish influence: yes, it is there, as my previous post illustrated, but by and large the Christian masses’ ideology has conditioned them to accept, indeed voluntarily and eagerly embrace, whatever Christian elites and their crypto-Israelite fellow travellers say and do.)

See also:

 

Edited by Northwest
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 10/28/2020 at 11:15 PM, hasanhh said:

l do not think so. l re-read it a couple of times.

Yeah, as Gaius did refer to the gullible "shoah deniers", but he is not writing it, shoah, didn't happen. Those deniers get on S.C ever so often and try to push their garbage. Personally, l think Ahmadinejad holding such a denial conference just to poke at the US was the dumbest thing he ever said or did. And it certainly backfired.

My best thoughts to your aunt.

Well, even the Supreme Leader of Iran is promoting revisionism:

Imam Khamenei: Why Insulting to Prophet of God Permissible, But Doubting Holocaust a Crime?

Quote

  Quote

AhlulBayt News Agency (ABNA): Following recent flagrant insults to the Holy Prophet Muhammad ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) in France, the strong support of the French President and the Cabinet of that country for these malicious actions under the guise of "freedom of expression," and also the role played by that government in spreading Islamophobia, Imam Khamenei, the Leader of the Islamic Revolution of Iran, has raised important questions in a message to the French youth.

Here is the full text of his message:

In His Name

Young French people!

Ask your President why he supports insulting God’s Messenger in the name of freedom of expression. Does freedom of expression mean insulting, especially a sacred personage? Isn’t this stupid act an insult to the reason of the people who elected him?

The next question to ask is: why is it a crime to raise doubts about the Holocaust? Why should anyone who writes about such doubts be imprisoned while insulting the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) is allowed?

Sayyid Ali Khamenei
October 28, 2020

 

Source

@hasanhh @Gaius I. Caesar @Sirius_Bright

Given the history of virulent European antisemitism, I don’t understand why some people doubt the gassings, murders, and so on. Many European Christians voluntarily turned “their” Jews over to the Nazis, and the Zionists thrived on antisemitism, and did everything to encourage the Nazis, so as to secure a “remnant” for the colonisation of Palestine. Zionist goals and the reality of five or six million dead Jews are not mutually exclusive.

Edited by Northwest
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...