People may have something against a certain faith. That we can see in many countries today, like it was foretold in the Bible, what would happen at the end of times.
In the Middle East we have Muslims fighting Hindus or Hindus fighting against Christians, but also Christians having to defend themselves against severe attacks by other religious people, but also against denominations which belong to the same group, namely Christendom.
Muslims know that when there comes to them some matter touching (public) safety or fear, they have to make it known (among the people), if only they had referred it to the Messenger or to those charged with authority among them, the proper investigators would have understood it from them (directly). In many countries where Christendom was the main religion lots of people have lost contact with their God, in case they had already contact with Him. In the West lots of people were by birth belonging to one or the other Christian denomination, but many did or do not believe really.
To say, like the author of the reblogged article claims, that “It has been suggested that the pre-Islamic Allah was the Babylonian deity Ba’al, not the Hebrew Yahweh as suggested in the Quran. ” is probably distorting history, like it is depicting it not rightly to say there is one huge difference between the Yahweh of Jewish and Christian literature and the Allah of Islamic literature.
Allah was already in the time of Muhammad the Arabic word for the title of God (not His Name) and was already used many years before Muhammad was born by the Christians, but also by others who used the title for their gods, like Pharaoh and Moses were also called allah or god. The Allah/God of the Islamic prophet came confronted with was the same Allah Abraham got to hear.
Allah or God, whose Name is Jehovah or called Yahweh can and does defend his own holiness, to say Allah’s holiness (and therefore that of Mohammed’s) has to be avidly and violently defended by his followers is doing disrespect to the real followers of Allah, who do not let themselves be mislead by human writings, like many Christians have in the past let themselves been mislead by many different people who called themselves ‘theologian‘ and by the different denominations which brought unto their people different dogma‘s.
As in Christendom Muslims also took to human writings. Instead of just taking the words of the Quran they preferred to follow more the words of tradition, like the writings of the hadith, which may leave many Christians with the impression that when Mohammed/Muhammad wanted something, he would go into a trance and Allah would then respond to Mohammed’s request. That is why many Christians did come to see a Quran that seems to contradict itself, like others have come to see a Bible that seems to contradict itself,
For sure it is by the false teachers and false prophets we have come to see, by the years, an abrogation of the mainly ‘peaceful’ passages, to the much more violent passages as time passes, and several people, on the different sites (Islam and Christendom) misusing the title of God (or if you want: misusing the Name of God) to get their political desires in the forefront and to regain or to get more power.
In the article is further questioned:
- Do we really need a system of laws that sees nothing wrong with a man in his forties marrying a pre-pubescent child?
- The place of women in society
It also says:
- Shariah defines female unbelievers as the property (slaves) of believing males who have no rights at all; subject only to the whim of their owners.
- To some Muslims, grooming underage non-Muslim girls is totally acceptable within Shariah,==> by doing nothing, and by failing to do their jobs – negligently and shamefully allowed to be implemented in Rotherham and other places; all part of the creep of Shariah into our society.
- those who refused to investigate complaints => were thus accessories after the fact
- those who further victimized the victims saying that the sex was ‘consensual’
- ==> very loud, clear message to every authority in the country, its ok to implement Shariah as an alternative to English law.
Find also to read:
- Titles of God beginning with the Aleph in Hebrew
- Attributes to God, titles ascribed to Him or Names given to JHWH, the God of gods.
- Patriarch Abraham, Muslims, Christians and the son of God
Additional material of interest:
- Shariah Law Dispute Goes to Court; Judge to Consider Arguments on Injunction of Ban in Okla
- Shariah Is Incompatible with Liberty; Many Americans Still Don’t See the Threat of Islamic Law
- Shariah’s Trojan Horse
- Examining the Anti-Shariah Movement in America
- Treasury Submits to Shariah
- Muhammad’s Opinions Regarding Jesus (biblicalmissiology.org)
Nearly six centuries before the advent of Muhammad, the aged prophet Simeon took the baby Jesus in his arms and said, “This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against, so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed” (Luke 2:34-35). As it was then, so it is today. Each person’s eternal destiny is linked to his or her response, and relationship to, Jesus.
The “Muhammad against Jesus” position seemed the most likely option for Muhammad, yet he did not choose it. Muhammad considered ridding the world of idol worship to be a major component of his message. He was pained by the idolatry of his kinsmen in Mecca, which he rightly rebuked. He ultimately made associating partners (Arabic, shirk) with the one true God, Allah, as the unpardonable sin in Islam (Sura 4:116).
The Islamic State claims to be regulated in strict accordance with Koranic instruction, and to follow the example given by Mohammed. This is not some Looney Tunes “misinterpretation” of Islamic scriptures – those who support Islamic State provide an abundance of Koranic quotations, and references to the Sunnah (the Islamic record of Mohammed’s life).
On the other hand, some who call themselves Muslims believe that participation in ethnic cleansing, slaughter of prisoners and mass rape is not the most appropriate way to emulate Mohammed’s example. This interpretation of Islamic scriptures is less literal, more contextualised and more nuanced.
In the absence of a religious authority – an Islamic Pope – to define a “correct” interpretation, I find it difficult to concede that one form of behaviour is any more – or less – Islamic than the other.
- What part of “Islamic State” don’t they understand? (my.telegraph.co.uk)
some who call themselves Muslims believe that participation in ethnic cleansing, slaughter of prisoners and mass rape is not the most appropriate way to emulate Mohammed’s example. This interpretation of Islamic scriptures is less literal, more contextualised and more nuanced.
Those in the Middle East who wish to live under the Shariah (provided that this is the wish of the majority) are not the enemy. Those who wish to impose Islamic laws and customs upon non-Muslims are the enemy; and so are our elected leaders who pretend that this is somehow unconnected with Islamic belief.
- On Islam, do we believe Obama or Muslim Ph.D.? (wnd.com)
Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes, with reference to Obama’s similar comment made earlier in September, explained that,
“In making this preposterous claim, Obama joins his two immediate predecessors in pronouncing on what is not Islamic. Bill Clinton called the Taliban treatment of women and children ‘a terrible perversion of Islam.’ George W. Bush deemed that 9/11 and other acts of violence against innocents ‘violate the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith.’”
- Jihad’s Secret Weapon Against America (frontpagemag.com)
Scholars such as Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller and Daniel Pipes have warned for years of the Muslim Brotherhood’s doctrine of immigration, or “al-hijra,” as the long-term strategy to transform America into a different type of society – one that subjugates all other religions under Islam.Now, another man has stepped up to sound the alarm. And his credentials make him hard to ignore.Dr. Mark Christian, an obstetrician and former Egyptian Muslim with direct family ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, is talking a lot these days about “stealth jihad.” He says it’s the Brotherhood’s way of exploiting liberal immigration policies while working relentlessly through various Islamic front groups to pressure government, education and religious institutions to make concessions to Islam.
+According to the Pew Research study on the religious affiliation of immigrants, the number of Muslims entering the U.S. as a percentage of the total immigrant population has doubled over a recent 20-year period, going from 5 percent in 1992 to 10 percent in 2010.
While America’s overall Muslim population is only 0.8 percent according to Pew, 0.6 percent according to the CIA World Factbook, and up to 2 percent according to other sources, the European experience shows that Islam does not need anywhere near a majority of the population to begin influencing a country’s laws and culture.
The largest Muslim population in Europe resides in France, where the CIA World Factbook estimates 5 to 10 percent of that country’s overall population claims faith in Allah. Pew Research puts the figure just under 6 percent and projects that it will continually balloon to 7 percent by 2020, to 8.5 percent by 2030, and that by 2050, nearly a third of the nation’s people will identify as Muslim.
And the picture is not much different in other European countries. Germany’s Muslim population, mostly from Turkey, is estimated at 5 percent, Belgium 6 percent, Austria 5.7 percent, the Netherlands 5.5 percent, Sweden 4.9 percent and the U.K. 4.6 percent. Almost all of these countries will have Muslim populations of 10 percent or more within 20 years, based on current birthrate
- UK Home Secretary: “ISIS Is Not Islamic; Their Actions Have Absolutely No Basis In Anything Written In The Koran” (thedaleygator.wordpress.com)
The terrorists who murdered David Haines like to call themselves the Islamic State. But I will tell you the truth: They are not Islamic. And they are not a state. Their actions have absolutely no basis in anything written in the Quran. What they believe has no resemblance whatsoever to the beliefs of more than a billion Muslims all over the world. And, like all the other Islamist terrorist organisations, they have caused the deaths of many thousands of innocent Muslim civilians. They occupy large parts of Syria and Iraq, and not only are they bringing death and destruction to the people of those countries, they have made absolutely clear their desire to attack Britain, America and the West.
The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called ‘hypocrites’ and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, the verses of violence in the Quran are mostly open-ended, meaning that they are not restrained by the historical context of the surrounding text. They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subjective as anything else in the Quran.The context of violent passages is more ambiguous than might be expected of a perfect book from a loving God, however this can work both ways. Most of today’s Muslims exercise a personal choice to interpret their holy book’s call to arms according to their own moral preconceptions about justifiable violence. Apologists cater to their preferences with tenuous arguments that gloss over historical fact and generally do not stand up to scrutiny. Still, it is important to note that the problem is not bad people, but bad ideology.
Unfortunately, there are very few verses of tolerance and peace to abrogate or even balance out the many that call for nonbelievers to be fought and subdued until they either accept humiliation, convert to Islam, or are killed. Muhammad’s own martial legacy – and that of his companions – along with the remarkable stress on violence found in the Quran have produced a trail of blood and tears across world history.
- Anti-semitic ancient evil (conservativenewsandviews.com)
Anti-Semitic feeling was “in the air” throughout the Western world. William Shakespeare wrote the prize example in popular culture: his comedy The Merchant of Venice. Martin Luther was more serious: he openly blamed the Jews for the death of Jesus Christ. (In so doing, he forgot that Jesus Himself said, “No one takes my life; I lay it down.”) Even James Ussher, Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland, succumbed to an anti-Semitic mind-set. He ended his Annals of the World by describing the Jewish Wars of A.D. 70-73. “This was the end of Jewish affairs,” he wrote.But what put anti-Semitic feeling into the air? For that we must turn to the Bible.
- Ariel speaks with the voice of a spirit medium (jwdoctrine.com)
Isaiah foretold a dramatic change in spiritual’s Jerusalem’s earthly counterparts for the times ahead : “From the ground you will speak”(Isaiah 29:4) Like Jerusalem of Isaiah’s days had been accustomed to pride itself on its strength and immunity of Godly judgment similarly the Watchtower has elevated itself to the sole channel of communication with God but future events are sure to overtake them .They will be greatly humbled and subdued. Its loud and lofty tone will change to mere whisper. It would use the suppressed language of fear and alarm as if it spoke from the dust, or in a shrill small voice, like a spirit medium or a necromancer of the dead communicated in ancient Israel with the spirits.
- From Transfiguration to Transhumanism: Taking Seriously Theology as … (ct.moreover.com)
theologians need to consider whether a “science of God” ultimately turns out to be anything other than science itself – or put more normatively, “science properly done.” In other words, as theologians try to fathom the mind of God, they are coming to terms with reality’s intelligibility, in the strict sense, which requires that we have minds that are designed not merely to make sense of our everyday environments (that is, the adaptive forms of intelligence that most “naturalistic” and “evolutionary” epistemologies try to explain) but more tellingly, the entire cosmos, the vast majority of which we have never empirically encountered, let alone inhabited. Of course, God would “always already” have access to the entirety of this extended realm. Theology’s task, then, put in today’s terms, is to “occupy God” – but that may mean abandoning conventional religion.