James White is Favorite Tool for Muslims and Atheists

Advertisements
Posted in Uncategorized | 7 Comments

Part 1 – Six Lies that modern scholars tell us, by Will Kinney

Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments

On a thread at bloggingtheology.net Jonathan S demonstrates that it could not be the case that dialects caused the text of the early Qurans to differ among themselves

  1. Jonathan
  2. Mr Williams,
  3. Just a quick question before I post my comments regarding the video above; were you raised COE?
  4. First, there was no canonization of the New Testament as your describing it Mr Williams. To give an actual historical reference, I refer you to the council of Carthage in 419 cannon 24 which defines the cannon of scripture.
  5. Notice Mr Williams, that after citing the canonical books of the New Testament, the North African Churches do not use decree or dogma, but state these writings have been RECEIVED FROM OUR FATHERS TO BE READ IN THE CHUCH”
  6. 419 Council of Carthage: Cannon 24
  7. The New Testament.
    The Gospels, iv. books.
    The Acts of the Apostles, j. book.
    The Epistles of Paul, xiv.
    The Epistles of Peter, the Apostle, ij.
    The Epistles of John the Apostle, iij.
    The Epistles of James the Apostle, j.
    The Epistle of Jude the Apostle, j.
    The Revelation of John, j. book.
  8. “Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church”.http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3816.htm
  9. Now, over 1000 years later the church of England in its 1562 Articles of Religion, lists the same 27 books, naming the same authors, and uses a similar language to define the cannon.
  10. COE 1562 Articles of Religion”All the Books of the New Testament, as they are COMMONLY RECEIVED we do receive, and account them Canonical.”
  11. Athanasius the Great, Bishop of Alexandria, sets out prior to listing the same 27 books, naming the same authors, defines the cannon in the same way when he states
  12. “it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, AND HANDED DOWN, and accredited as divine;…further on Athanasius remarks on the criteria that sets the distinction between the cannon and what is known as the Apocropha..Hear his words “But for the sake of greater exactness I add this also, writing under obligation, as it were. There are other books besides these, indeed NOT RECEIVED as canonical.
    http://www.bible-researcher.com/athanasius.html
  13. http://www.bible-researcher.com/athanasius.html
  14. Jerome uses this same standard in ruling out the Apocropha from the Jewish Cannon, for those books were not received by the Jewish Churches.
  15. This was the same standard as evinced in the writings of Ireneus and Tertullian, that ruled out the Gnostic editions – for the criteria was two-fold, it had to be both Apostolic (tracing back to the Apostle/or their scribe) and Catholic (Not Rome, but commonly received by the Apostolic Churches)
  16. Let’s not kid ourselves, the Apostolic Churches and Bishops were not stupid – they discussed to make sure that they weren’t allowing in forged documents. What makes up the New Testament Cannon is independent churches coming up with the same text as opposed to witnesses that don’t agree. Remember, Christianity didn’t have the 3rd Kalief to chop your head off and burn the other texts if you didn’t agree. See Bukhari
  17. Mr Williams, what you didn’t point out in your discussion is when Eusebius is discussing the books his sites as spoken against such 2nd Peter, James, Jude etc…is that “They were Familiar to Most” So Mr Williams, we have independent witnesses throughout the ancient world that received these texts, from churches that can establish a legal chain of custody back to the Apostles. That would be conclusive in any normal court of law.
  18. Tertullian Challenged Marcion rejection of Johns Revelation by using the same historical criteria stating” We have also St. John’s foster churches. For although Marcion rejects his Apocalypse, the order of the bishops (thereof), when traced up to their origin, will yet rest on John as their author.
  19. So Mr Williams, any discussion on the Cannon of the New Testament begins first by understanding the historical Apostolic Polity and the criteria for the text. In your above mentioned discussion on the New Testament you have ignored the documents which states what constitutes the cannon.
  20. So I have provided them above for you, and for further discussion, I have provided my links to my video discussion on this subject.
  21. Link to my videos on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqjsB-lvDBWXDB-DYVLt-Zg/videos?view_as=subscriber
  22. God Bless
  23. Jonathan S
  24. I’ll be waiting for your reply
  25. Liked by 1 person
  • Let’s not kid ourselves, we are not stupid. Christians to this day don’t agree what’s “the Bible”.

    Liked by 1 person

  • Burhanuddi1

    I suggest you go to the eye doctor and get a new prescription – obviously you are unable to read what I wrote above. When I cite the council of carthage which lists all 27 books, naming the same authors, and Athanasius lists the same 27 books of the new testament naming the same authors which represents the Greek East and Latin West and – Jerome includes the same 27 books of the New Testament in his Vulgate – and a 1000 years later the church of England recognizes the same 27 books.

    While, the aramiac churches may not have accepted Revelation, 2nd Peter, Jude,2 & 3 John, they do accept the 4 Gospels, the 14 letters of Paul, Acts, 1 Peter, James and 1 John. What this demonstrates is that the Apostolic churches weren’t forced to accept books of the New Testament. Whereas the 3rd Kalief Uthman made them accept 1 version of the Koran, and burned all the others – See Bukhari. Rember, please go get those new glasses.

    Lol.

    God Bless

    Jonathan S

    Like

  • Bye bye brainwash preaching.

    “Different religious groups include different books in their Biblical canons, in varying orders, and sometimes divide or combine books. Christian Bibles range from the 66 books of the Protestant canon to the 81 books of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church canon.” Wikipedia

    Like

  • Burhanuddin1

    instead of dealing with the official declarations of the Apostolic churches of the 4th century on the definition of the New Testament Cannon as evinced by the North African Churches, Athanasius representing the Greek East and Jerome representing the Latin West; the extent of your scholarship comes down to Wikipedia. Lol.

    You seem to confuse Books that’s are read in the churches for example of life and instruction of manners with the Canonical books of the New Testament.

    Definition of the New Testament Canon:

    Church of England 1562 Articles of Religion “All the Books of the New Testament, as they are COMMONLY RECEIVED we do receive, and account them Canonical.”

    The Church of England does quote Jerome in making a clear distinction regarding other books that are not canonical

    And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:

    The Third Book of Esdras
    The Fourth Book of Esdras
    The Book of Tobias
    The Book of Judith
    The rest of the Book of Esther
    The Book of Wisdom
    Jesus the Son of Sirach Baruch the Prophet
    The Song of the Three Children
    The Story of Susanna
    Of Bel and the Dragon
    The Prayer of Manasses
    The First Book of Maccabees
    The Second Book of Maccabees
    http://www.victorianweb.org/religion/39articles.html

    Jerome also states in his writings: “This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a helmeted [i.e. defensive] introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is outside of them must be placed aside among the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd [of Hermes?] are not in the canon”

    Jerome makes it absolutely clear that since these texts were not commonly received by the Jewish churches, they are placed among the Apocryphal writings and are not in the Canon.

    Same standard for both the new testament and the old testament. only the commonly received books by the Apostolic Churches are accounted canonical, just as only the commonly received texts of the Jewish churches are accounted Canonical.

    Athanasius the Great, Bishop of Alexandria echo’s the same position as Jerome in the 4th century when he makes it abundantly clear about this other books:

    “But for the sake of greater exactness I add this also, writing under obligation, as it were. There are other books besides these, indeed not received as canonical but having been appointed by our fathers to be read to those just approaching and wishing to be instructed in the word of godliness: Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being merely read; nor is there any place a mention of secret writings. But such are the invention of heretics, who indeed write them whenever they wish, bestowing upon them their approval, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as if they were ancient writings, they find a means by which to lead astray the simple-minded.

    http://www.bible-researcher.com/athanasius.html

    Athanasius Lists out the 27 canonical books of the New Testament:

    “Again, it is not tedious to speak of the books of the New Testament. These are: the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. After these, The Acts of the Apostles, and the seven epistles called Catholic: of James, one; of Peter, two, of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, written in this order: the first, to the Romans; then, two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians, then, to the Philippians; then, to the Colossians; after these, two of the Thessalonians; and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John.

    The North African Churches list these same books as count them as canonical:

    419 Council of Carthage: Cannon 24

    The New Testament.
    The Gospels, iv. books.
    The Acts of the Apostles, j. book.
    The Epistles of Paul, xiv.
    The Epistles of Peter, the Apostle, ij.
    The Epistles of John the Apostle, iij.
    The Epistles of James the Apostle, j.
    The Epistle of Jude the Apostle, j.
    The Revelation of John, j. book.

    Burhanuddin1; The Greek Apostolic Churches, the North African Churches and the Latin Churches of Europe has sounded off and independently witnesses to the commonly received text which are accounted canonical.

    I have tremendous respect for the Ethiopian Orthodox Churches which also witnesses to these same 27 canonical texts represented in the statements of Jerome, Athanasius, and the council of Carthage – and I do understand they their use of these other books that they classify within their New/Old testament groupings. Ethiopia is just one church, but remember only the commonly received texts are accounted canonical which represent the 27 books of the New Testament, not these other works. There is a clear distinction.

    God Bless

    Jonathan S

    Like

  • Come now Jonathan, you’re really not gonna start with the Uthman no are you?
    Uthman’s decision was based on burning the all the other texts due to the 7 ahrufs.
    Please don’t bring the Jay potato smith argument. It’s just so bad!

    Like

  • Atlas – by the way, I do enjoy discussing these things with you

    But remember, its important to go to the official historical records on why Uthman destroyed the other Korans – In dealing with Islamic history, I go to your sources – See Bukhari as I have listed it out:

    Sahih Bukhari. In Volume 6, Book 61, Number 510 the story about Muslim soldiers arguing about different versions of the Qur’an reads as follows: “Hudhaifa was afraid of the different recitations of the Qur’an, so he asked ‘Uthman, “O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Qur’an as Jews and the Christians did before.” also “Uthman then ordered four men to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. After this had been done, the Hafsah codex was returned to her. “Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsah.” Also: Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur’anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. This means that drastic changes occurred. After all, Why were the other copies and fragements ordered to be burnt – the answer is clearly found in the original statement – “Hudhaifa was afraid of the different recitations of the Quran”Now Uthman as the Third Kalieh had state power to create an official version of the Koran and destroyed all your variants and differences.

    Atlas, I’m quoting Bukhari, not Jay Smith. Lol. And don’t get me wrong, Uthman used great Muslim scholars in creating the second edition of the Koran just 30 years after the death of your prophet.

    Our Canon is based on the COMMONLY RECEIVED TEXTS of the Apostolic Churches – which can establish a legal chain of custody back to the Apostles – that is independently witnessed throughout the historic churches of the apostles – not compulsion – there is a big difference. 5 independent witnesses giving the same basic testimony would be conclusive in any normal court of law – witnesses forced under compulsion that renders the same testimony would be thrown out in any normal court of law.

    God Bless

    Jonathan S

    Like

  • desperate

    Like

  • You just proved my point!

    You said:
    [Sahih Bukhari. In Volume 6, Book 61, Number 510 the story about Muslim soldiers arguing about different versions of the Qur’an reads as follows: “Hudhaifa was afraid of the different recitations of the Qur’an, so he asked ‘Uthman, “O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Qur’an as Jews and the Christians did before.” also “Uthman then ordered four men to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. After this had been done, the Hafsah codex was returned to her. “Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsah.” Also: Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur’anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. This means that drastic changes occurred. After all, Why were the other copies and fragements ordered to be burnt – the answer is clearly found in the original statement – “Hudhaifa was afraid of the different recitations of the Quran”Now Uthman as the Third Kalieh had state power to create an official version of the Koran and destroyed all your variants and differences]

    You think I’m not aware of the hadith sources?

    You say ” the story about Muslim soldiers arguing about different versions of the Qur’an reads as follows”.
    Dead wrong! These aren’t different VERSIONS. They are different recitations based on the 7 ahruf!
    As the Prophet (saw) said: “this Quran has been revealed in seven Ahruf. You can read it in any of them you find easy from among them”
    Also you don’t quote the full hadith! And I don’t think that’s an accident either!
    Here is the part:
    ‘Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, “In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur’an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Qur’an was revealed in their tongue.”

    This part wasn’t even at the end of the hadith but right in the middle. How can you “accidentally” leave that out?
    It says clearly that the disagreement was based on the DIALECT: “In case you DISAGREE with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur’an, then write it in the DIALECT of Quraish”
    So the disagreements were on the dialects there.
    The reason for burning the remaining texts was that it would cause division and NOT that they were different Qur’ans. The Prophet (saw) said to recite whichever ahruf was desired, whichever was easy.
    But if you have people arguing and causing division among themselves with regards to the recitations based on the 7 ahrufs then that makes things harder/complicated and hence doesn’t serve the purpose anymore, does it (i.e. making it easy as the Prophet said)?

    Nice try though but you should know that you’re bringing up dead arguments.

    Liked by 4 people

  • well done for exposing the hate preachers for their lies!

    Liked by 3 people

  • Atlas,

    I am glad I can welcome you back to my history class, because when you state: [Dead wrong! These aren’t different VERSIONS. They are different recitations based on the 7 ahruf!]…and you also said [It says clearly that the disagreement was based on the DIALECT:]

    then your statements naturally begs the following question – if the disagreement was about the DIALECT, and I totally get that Uthman would only want the recitation to be from those from the Quraish tribe so the reciter can speak it in the Dialect that Muhammed spoke when reading from the Koran and the people would memorize it in that dialect and recite it as such, but this doesn’t explain why did Uthman need to burn all the Korans.

    Here is what I mean; The Koran was written in Arabic which is a Semitic language just like Hebrew. Unlike English and Greek where we add vowels in the text, this is not the case in Arabic and Hebrew. The vowels (dots) are either on top of the text or the bottom – so the Text isn’t changed. It’s not until the spread of Islam and the conversion of a large number of non-Arabs that there was a need for making the texts of the Quran readable for them.

    We do know from history that the common Arabic font during the advent of Islam was a kind of kufi script which had no dots nor any signs. Al-Qalqashandi; the famous Egyptian linguist of the 15th century A.D says “The first person who invented Arabic grammar was Abul-Aswad al-Doeli by the order of Amirul-Mo’meneen Ali Ibn Abi Talib who is said to be the first person who put the dots on the words of the Quran. Abul-Aswad was one of the students of Imam Ali (a.s) who died in 69 (A.H). Other opinions suggest that this science was developed by Yahya Bin Ya’mar or by Nasr Fin ‘Asem who were both the students of Abul-Aswad.

    Even to this day there are newspapers that are sent to the west in Arabic without the dots so the different groups can read it in their own Dialect. Now when we speak, we do add the vowels, and based on our Dialect or where we are from it’s going to sound different – but the text we are reading from doesn’t change, whether my Dialect sounds like I’m from Brooklyn, Alabama or from Britain, the text will always be constant.

    So the text of the Quran (the written text) didn’t have the dots/vowels (to dictate how it should sound) since this science wasn’t developed until after Uthman’s time and wasn’t added to the Quran, therefore there was no reason for older versions to be burned. Having reciters read it in the dialect of the Quarish tribe, comes from the reader with that dialect, not the written text, so burning all the old Qurans doesn’t solve that issue.

    But re-read what Bukhari says: “Hudhaifa was afraid of the different recitations of the Qur’an, so he asked ‘Uthman, “O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Qur’an as Jews and the Christians did before.”

    Now, I see you did not comment over the last part of Bukhari’s statement where Hudhaifa wanted to save this nation before they differ about the Quran as the Jews and the Christians did before – The Christians and Jews argued over differences in the text s(variants) not what dialect they were spoken from. Therefore the logical conclusion is the written text was different – otherwise the comparison to save this nation before they differ about the Quran (which is the written text) to the Jews and Christians make so sense what so ever –

    So Uthman’s decision to burn the Quran’s and all the fragments makes perfect sense if their were textual differences between the various Korans, and then to create perfect copies to be sent out.

    Dude, you just lost. Your argument sounds like this; everyone was reading the Quran with a different Dialect – so even though the text was not different between the various Korans – Let’s burn all the old Korans (even though nothing was wrong with them and Make a new one, even though the real issue is that the reciter needs to speak with a Dialect from the Quraish tribe, which is not dictated from the text, but from the person who is reading from the text.

    God Bless

    Jonathan S

    Like

  • Debate over.

    Liked by 2 people

  • indeed!

    Like

  • Thx for your history lesson but please keep it to yourself as I am well aware of it.

    “Having reciters read it in the dialect of the Quarish tribe, comes from the reader with that dialect, not the written text, so burning all the old Qurans doesn’t solve that issue.”
    If it comes just from the reader and not from the WRITTEN TEXT then Uthman wouldn’t have said: “WRITE it in the Quraishi dialect”. If you say write it in dialect X then that means there is a difference between the WRITTEN text using dialect X with that of the other written texts using other dialects.
    As for the Jews and Christians part: there was a fear that the people would think that the differences of the recitation due to the ahrufs would lead people to believe that some of the readings are not just inferior due to dialect but due to alleged variants.
    The 7 ahrufs don’t just mean difference in pronunciation!
    Do your research!

    So yes Jonathan, you’re dead wrong.

    Like

  • Atlas –

    Now you are making a critical grammatical mistake – in order to write in a dialect you need written vowels or a vowel system which wasn’t developed at that time. The vowels in the written language specifies how the word should sound – no vowels mean you can’t dictate how it needs to sound (creating the sound for the dialect) from the written text. So “Writing the Koran in the Quraish Dialect would have been impossible at that time – I have great respect for Bukhari – but that statement that the “Quran needs to be written in the Quraish Dialect – could not have been done unless they time travelled to the future and brought that vowel system to their time period. Now it makes sense they used reciters from the Quarish Tribe to read from the written text so the people with memorize it with that dialect.

    So Checkmate on that one Atlas. lol

    Secondly Abdullah Ibn Masud objected to Uthman’s actions who was authorized to teach the Koran; Uthman didn’t even consult Abdullah Ibn Masud when he created his official version. Abdullah was not only upset that he wasn’t consulted, but also that his collection needed to turned over to be burned.

    So why would Abdullah Ibn Masud written collection needed to be turned over to Uthman? What would have been wrong with it?

    Why wasn’t Abdullah chosen to work on copying the new official Koran?

    Remember Muhammad listed Abdullah as 1 of 4 men authorized to teach the Quran, and he personally recited the Quran to Muhammad at his prophets request.

    Ibn Masud also warned the people of Iraq to hide their Qurans in their homes from Uthman.

    Why was Ibn Masub warning people to hide their Qurans from Uthman if everything was so peachy keen? lol.

    Atlas, I really had to laugh at this statement below, because now you are making things up. lol.

    [As for the Jews and Christians part: there was a fear that the people would think that the differences of the recitation due to the ahrufs would lead people to believe that some of the readings are not just inferior due to dialect but due to alleged variants]

    The reference to Christians is quite clear – 4 Gospels were published on the life of Jesus, and the comparison makes perfect sense if there were different collections of the Koran, Uthman wouldn’t want to deal with that drama, so creating an official collection and burning all the other collections and variants, hopefully would prevent that from ever happening.

    Atlas, why are you so opposed to admitting that there were variants in the collections of the Korans leading up to Uthmans decision to create an official version?

    Also in regards to variants today, do you honestly believe that after 1400 years of transmission that there doesn’t exist variants in Korans throughout the Islamic world today?

    I can admit as a Christian, that very early on variants existed in our biblical texts, Ireneus speaks about variants in the second century and down through the ages we have always dealt with variants between the Latin, Greek and Aramaic textual traditions. After all those years the reality is there is going to be scribal mistakes, omissions, etc.

    So why can’t you admit it in regards to the Koran?
    .
    God Bless

    Jonathan

    Like

  • 1) Ahruf: learn what ahruf are about cus you only checkmated yourself you potato and the sad part is you don’t even realize it!

    2) There are multiple reasons that Ibn Masud didn’t die on the decisions he made to canonize the Qu’ran (he left out surah 1 and surah 113 and 114). But even if that’s not the case the Prophet himself said that those left out are surahs! Meaning they are part of the Qur’an. There are authentic hadith on this.

    3) One of the 4 was also part of Uthman’s committee. He agreed with Uthman!

    4) Those 4 aren’t the only one that are learned on the Qur’an. The Prophet also made others learned like ibn Abbas when the Prophet made a dua to make him learned of the Qur’an and hence he has an authority as well. The Prophet said that for a certain amount of years (not remember the exact amount)
    the leaders/caliphs would make right decisions (paraphrasing) and Uthman was within this time interval and hence has the authority to make that decision.

    5) I don’t have problems accepting scribes making spelling mistakes while copying.

    6) I didn’t argue anything about ibn Masud before in my comments! So why do you act like you caught me on something? I know about ibn Masud and the typical arguments made using the hadiths regarding his sayings about the Qur’an. My comments were about the hadith you brought up about Uthman. Uthman clearly said that if the scribes had disagreements than they should resolve it with the Quraishi dialect.

    7) You bring the argument of jews and christians up again. But you know what the answer to that is.
    It’s the same as before and you didn’t refute it. You’re just making claims that can’t be proven.
    And my argument is right cus when Hudhaifa came from the battlefield and said what he said in that hadith, Uthman acted on that by making the scribes write the Qur’an and all the disagreements were based on ahruf! So according to your potato logic Uthman thought ‘hey jews and christians differ about their scriptures not by dialect but because they are actual variants! So I’m gonna say to my scribes to rewrite the Qur’an in perfect copies and all the disagreements are based on ahruf (and not actual variants)’. Yeaaaaaaa, makes a lot of sense buddy.

    So what valid point did you make???
    NONE!

    And for the last time: learn what ahruf are you potato!
    Clearly you have ZERO idea about ahruf!

    Perhaps you can watch Bassam Zawadi school Nabeel Qureshi in this 2 part debate:

    Stop losing so badly, you already embarrassed yourself towards your own brothers and sisters in faith be making childish cartoons. Now you also want to become a laughing stock for the Muslims?
    Pathetic.

    Debate over and this time it’s for real!

    Liked by 1 person

  • Atlas – Don’t get mad because you lost the argument.

    What you don’t understand is that the written text remains the same no matter how the person receiting from the text sounds. Uthman burned texts, not reciters of the text. I totally get what the Ahrufs are – (See Below)

    “I heard Hisham Ibn Hakim Ibn Hizam reading Surat Al-Furqan in a different way from the one I used to read it, and the Prophet himself had read out this surah to me. Consequently, as soon as I heard him, I wanted to get hold of him. However, I gave him respite until he had finished the prayer. Then I got hold of his cloak and dragged him to the Prophet. I said to him: “I have heard this person [Hisham Ibn Hakim Ibn Hizam] reading Surah Al Furqan in a different way from the one you had read it out to me.” The Prophet said: “Leave him alone [O ‘Umar].” Then he said to Hisham: “Read [it].” [Umar said:] “He read it out in the same way as he had done before me.” [At this,] the Prophet said: “It was revealed thus.” Then the Prophet asked me to read it out. So I read it out. [At this], he said: “It was revealed thus; this Quran has been revealed in seven Ahruf. You can read it in any of them you find easy from among them.”

    b Malik Ibn Anas, Muwatta, vol. 1 (Egypt: Dar Ahya al-Turath, n.d.), 201, (no. 473).

    Dude, we are discussing why the written texts of the Korans had to be burned, not the style that its being recited in. the style of the reciter doesn’t change the written text. try reciting from any text with different voices, you will notice after each kind of voice, the written text remains the same. I know its a difficult concept, but the written text remains the same, no matter which style it is recited in. You can even recite it backwards – and the text will remain the same

    Of course Uthman would want it in receited in the Quarish Dialect – I have no issue with that decision from Uthman – but this is no reason to burn all the texts. Arabic only used consonants at that time (no vowels) – the reciter would add the vowels when he spoke, that’s why Uthman used reciters from the Quarish tribe. Please try to wrap your head around a written text and the sounds you make when speaking from the written text – I know you can do it.

    The question we are discussing is why the written Korans had to be turned over to burned by Uthman – There was no physical way to write vowels into the written text to match the dialect of the Quarish Tribe as documented below at that time – the science did not exist at that time –

    The Arabs did not require the vowel signs and diacritical marks for correct pronunciation of the Quran since it was their mother tongue. For Muslims of non-Arab origin, however, it was difficult to recite the Quran correctly without the vowels. These marks were introduced into the Quranic script during the time of the fifth ‘Umayyad’ Caliph, Malik-ar-Marwan (66-86 Hijri/685-705 C.E.) and during the governorship of Al-Hajaj in Iraq.
    https://quranalonebesthadith.wordpress.com/2016/05/27/diacritical-marks-were-added-for-non-arabs/

    Obviously there were differences in the WRITTEN COLLECTIONS of the Koran so Uthman Burned the written collections – because you do not BURN SOUNDS. Also you don’t need to re-write 9 new PERFECT COPIES of the Koran if the old ones were already PERFECT written Koran’s.

    Atlas, I hope your not suffering from the Dunning–Kruger effect

    God Bless

    Jonathan S

    Like

  • Jonathan.

    I find Muslims who feel uncomfortable with this topic will normally just say, “you don’t understand ahruf”. They never explain why you are wrong, or what is in fact correct. They just say it as if it dissolves the textual errors and problems of early Koranic transmission.

    They are masjidians- slaves to the deen. Unable to think beyond what they are allowed to believe.

    Good luck dealing with such lunacy

    Like

  • Thank you for your comments Paulus,

    I agree – They should just be honest about their history and owe up to the fact that Uthman did text criticism and produced a critical text of the Koran. It’s really not a big deal.

    As Christians, we have no problems with doing text criticism on our scriptures.

    God Bless

    Jonathan S

    Like

  1. However that fact aone is not sufficient to prove that there is no perfect bible out there that has been produced by the providence of God. You have to work much harder than that.

    Like

  1. To add to Jonathan’s good points.

    Irenaeus and Tertullian around 180-200 AD named, quoted from almost all of the 27 books of the NT. (22-23 out of 27)

    There is an earlier list that Athanasius’ famous list in 367 AD – Origen, over a century earlier – 250 AD – listed all 27 books of the NT.

    Dr. Michael Kruger writes:

    “When it comes to the study of the New Testament canon, few questions have received more attention than the canon’s date. When did we have a New Testament canon? Well, it depends on what one means by “New Testament canon.” If one is simply asking when (some of) these books came to be regarded as Scripture, then we can say that happened at a very early time. But, if one is asking when we see these books, and only these books, occur in some sort of list, then that did not happen until the fourth century. To establish this fourth-century date, most scholars will appeal to the well-known canonical list of Athanasius, included in his Festal Letter in 367 A.D.

    But, is Athanasius really the first complete New Testament list? Despite the repeated claims that he is, we have a list by Origen more than a century earlier (c.250), that seems to include all 27 books. Origen, in his Homilies on Joshua, writes:

    “So too our Lord Jesus Christ…sent his apostles as priests carrying well-wrought trumpets. First Matthew sounded the priestly trumpet in his Gospel, Mark also, and Luke, and John, each gave forth a strain on their priestly trumpets. Peter moreover sounds with the two trumpets of his Epistles; James also and Jude. Still the number is incomplete, and John gives forth the trumpet sound through his Epistles [and Apocalypse]; and Luke while describing the deeds of the apostles. Latest of all, moreover, that one comes who said, “I think that God has set us forth as the apostles last of all” (1 Cor 4:9), and thundering on the fourteen trumpets of his Epistles he threw down, even to their very foundations, the wall of Jericho, that is to say, all the instruments of idolatry and the dogmas of the philosophers.[1]”

    This is a fascinating passage. A reasonable interpretation of Origen’s words would leave us with a list of 27 books (he obviously puts the book of Hebrews with Paul’s letters).” Dr. Michael J. Kruger (emphasis in bold my own)

    See the link to Dr. Kruger’s article within this larger article and answer to Ijaz Ahmad’s question on the canon:

    https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2018/01/28/a-muslims-question-about-the-canon-of-scripture/

    Like

  2. You forget that there was no such thing as a book as we know it today in the first and second centuries of the Christian era.

    Originally, they were individual scrolls rolled up and sent to different places. (Rome, Corinth, Ephesus, Antioch, Jerusalem, Philippi, Thessalonika, Crete, Galatia (central Turkey today, etc.)

    A codex started to be used more and more in the later 2nd century and 3rd century – flattened out sheets of papyri tied together – they were tied with string – there was no binding yet.

    Many scholars believe the impetus for even creating what later became our “book” was the Christians wanting to put the inspired writings together under one binding / tie / codex / “book cover”.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

UK: Muslim migrant rapes teen girl, tells her “You can’t be a virgin because you’re white”, a post from JihadWatch.org, with comments

It is a staple of Islamic supremacist rhetoric that the West is a sinkhole of immorality, where all women dress like prostitutes and are insatiably promiscuous. So Ahmed Abdoule’s incredulity is not surprising.

What will happen when Ahmed Abdoule is released from prison, in less than eleven years’ time? Will he become a stable, productive, loyal member of British society? Do British authorities really believe that?

In any case, there will be much, much, much more of this. The Qur’an teaches that Infidel women can be lawfully taken for sexual use (cf. its allowance for a man to take “captives of the right hand,” 4:3, 4:24, 23:1-6, 33:50, 70:30). The Qur’an says: “O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to bring down over themselves of their outer garments. That is more suitable that they will be known and not be abused. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful.” (33:59) The implication there is that if women do not cover themselves adequately with their outer garments, they may be abused, and that such abuse would be justified.

“Somalian rapist who held sharp piece of wood to teenager’s throat and told her ‘you can’t be a virgin because you’re white’ is jailed for 11 years,” by Charlie Bayliss, Mailonline, February 9, 2018:

A Somalian man has been jailed after he held a sharp piece of wood against a teenage girl’s throat and raping her, saying that the victim could not be a virgin ‘because you are white’.

Ahmed Abdoule, 33, told his victim ‘my country would love you’ following the brutal attack which has seen him jailed for 11 years.

The victim, who was known to Abdoule prior to the attack, ‘cried and pleaded’ with the savage rapist to let her go during the ordeal, Hull Crown Court heard.

The sickening pervert took the victim to his home and locked the door as she begged him to let her go.

Despite her pleas, Abdoule ‘jabbed a sharp piece of wood into her stomach’ and forced her upstairs. He then began his twisted attack on the teenager, holding the weapon against her throat as he raped her.

Judge Mark Bury told Abdoule: ‘She told you she was a virgin to try and get you to stop.

‘You said to her, “You cannot be, you are white”.’

The court also heard that Abdoule ordered the girl not to look at him while he raped her and pulled her top over her face during the attack.

After he had finished raping her, he told his victim that he had ‘liked it’ and that she was ‘not the only girl who was going to get punished’.

Abdoule, from east Hull, also told her that ‘my country would love you’.

After he dropped the teenager away from his home, Abdoule gave the victim a new top to wear and told her to ‘cherish it’ and threatened to kill her if she told anyone about his attack.

Abdoule denied the accusations levelled against him but was found guilty in court and has been sentenced to 11 years behind bars….

Comments

        • mortimer says

          It isn’t RACISM when a Somalian rapist does it! Even if he makes a SPECIFICALLY RACIST comment.

          It isn’t BIGOTRY when a Somalian rapist does! Even if he is SPECIFICALLY attacking non-Muslims!

          It isn’t even truly ‘RAPE’ when a Somalian rapist does it! The judge will consider that SHARIA LAW has NO PUNISHMENT for the RAPE of DIRTY KAFIR WOMEN, because according to Islam, KAFIRS SHOULD BE ‘HUMBLED’ and submissive.

          The judge should be aware that IN HIS CULTURE, Muslim men consider it an HONOR for dirty kafirs to be touched by a SUPREMACIST MUSLIM JIHADIST.

          The judge will realize that for Somalian rapists, the ACT OF RAPE is a part of JIHAD required by the ISLAMIC FAITH! So the judge will let him off with a very light, minor sentence in the interest of ‘COMMUNITY HARMONY’.

    1. elee says

      Dawa Hilton for 11 years, imagine all the already-criminal minds he can poison! Well, they’ll probably parole him in no time…….anybody care to share any knowledge of British law? How much time will he actually serve (other than Not Enough)?

        • Eddue says

          This creature will never be ‘reformed’ nor repentant. Prison is a better place to live then Somalia the Sh*t Hole of the world….I would rather focus on the British government and how they have ‘quelled’ free speech. This is like George Orwells’ 1084…If innocent you are guilty….if guilty you are righteous. What I do not understand is why the British people, specifically the MEN are not retaliating in FORCE. Take the country back from these ‘evil’ sub-human louts! Civil disobedience is righteous….Ms. May is an Islamic apologist like the Angela Merkel…disgusting so called leaders…getthem out of power!!

            • Dwight Hogg says

              not only British men should be retaliating – where are the moderate, decent Muslims and their Imams – why aren’t they our in the streets protesting monsters like this? Where are you Allah?

                • mortimer says

                  British feminists do not want British men to stop the rape… that would be white supremacism or a hate crime or Islamophobia or … whatever! I’m disgusted by the Left. They are sacrificing these girls to the RED-GREEN AXIS of EVIL.

        • Ray Jarman says

          Thomas, I said in another article about a thirteen year old girl being raped by someone who had been in detention previously for rape. I agree with your punishment but I would go further and let the victims father or brother finish the punishment. He would have to squat to urinate as he would be left without a tool and then I would deport him to the closest drop off point in the Sahara Desert.

    1. libertyORdeath says

      I completely agree with the above comments…a U.K. prison is far too nice for these monsters.

      Considering the fact that he is not from the U.K. why not just deport him? He will no doubt influence other prisoners who should be focused on rehabilitation to instead see their imprisonment as an injustice. Why the hell would any country keep someone like that who isn’t entitled to stay? Why would The UK continue to take care of this savage like a child (free shelter, food, medical treatment and the like)?

    1. Norbert says

      “After he dropped the teenager away from his home, Abdoule gave the victim a new top to wear and told her to ‘cherish it’ and threatened to kill her if she told anyone about his attack. ”

      He knew this was wrong. So he threatened her with death if she reported it.

      And you Brits can’t recognize a viper when you see one? You are too stupid to live.

        • gravenimage says

          Norbert, this rapist didn’t know it was wrong. He just knew the Infidels was think it was wrong.

          That is a *very* different matter.

    1. Jac says

      He can’t be human because he’s muzzlum!

      This is for all muzzlum rapists, paedophiles, thieves, murderers and each and every taqqiya scum…

      “AS-SAMU ‘ALAIKA”
      “AS-SAMU ‘ALAIKA”
      “AS-SAMU ‘ALAIKA”

    1. Rufluc says

      Every single male Muslim has the same belief mentality as this barbaric heathen, which means there are now millions of ‘ticking time bombs’ walking about among us, each with a high probability of attacking our sisters and daughters as and when their animal urges take over their primitive minds.

      Do we have to have this ever growing threat from these evil perverts hang over us for ever more all because of the lunatic lefts insane desire for diversity and multiculturalism? The untold damage these kinds of attacks have on our girls for the rest of their lives is immeasurable. Any future relationships they may enter into with a man are sure to be doomed even before they start, due to the mental anguish they must go through when attacked by these monsters.

      There needs to be effective preventative measures put in place to stop these never ending attacks on our girls because normal deterrents do not work where these animals are concerned. They honestly believe they are above the laws of the West, and only believe in the teachings of the evil cult of Islam, which clearly condones the raping of infidel women whenever they feel like it. This mentality will remain. It is none negotiable where they are concerned. The ONLY 100% effective method there is to stop this evil barbaric attack on our girls is to deport them all!!

        • gravenimage says

          Not every victim of rape is doomed to be incapable of having a healthy relationship–but it is something that never leaves you and always casts a shadow *at best*.

          Why would we want to expose thousands of victims to this horror? Suicidal insanity.

    1. gravenimage says

      UK: Muslim migrant rapes teen girl, tells her “You can’t be a virgin because you’re white”
      ……………………………….

      Firstly, of course, the idea that all Infidels are ‘sluts’–even young girls. Then, the idea that as a result, they are fair game for Muslim rape.

      Further, that while being a woman who may have had some sexual experience is immoral, that a Muslim *raping her* is not.

      More:

      After he had finished raping her, he told his victim that he had ‘liked it’ and that she was ‘not the only girl who was going to get punished’.
      ……………………………….

      Not only does this vicious Mohammedan consider it moral for him to rape Western girls, he considers it *punishment* for the girls being non-Muslim.

      How many Muslim like Ahmed Abdoule are there in Britain and the rest of the West? How many more are being allowed to flood in every day?

        • LeftisruiningCanada says

          I’m guessing many many……

          We are importing some of the most truly nasty vicious humans ever to walk the earth.
          And they don’t like us one bit.

    1. LeftisruiningCanada says

      Terrible, vicious creature. The vile things this filth did and uttered would have taken him to the gallows in a civilized country.

        • LeftisruiningCanada says

          11 years on the rack, or breaking rocks with your teeth, would be too little punishment for this outrage.

  1. utis says

    Oh da poor little wefugee! He probably meant to say, “You can’t be a virgin, ’cause you’re over nine-years-old.” Once again, find the imam, send them both back.

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Hate, a post from GatesOfVienna.net

Hate

by MC

I like bananas, monkey nuts and grapes, but I don’t like cabbage and I simply hate cleaning the toilet after a drunk has vomited a five-finger spread all over it.

Is being a messy drunk a hate crime? No, it is perfectly acceptable, and I should just willingly grab my mop and bucket and try not to gag as I deal with the unpleasant consequences.

Alternatively I can say that Islamic immigration is going to have dire consequences to my culture and country. No foul smell, no case-hardened spew, just a true statement.

In many Western countries the above statement of truth is enough to get me banged up, unemployed and destitute, and that it is truth is just not relevant.

There is a narrative that crtiticising Islam in any way is just not acceptable, and it is increasingly mandatory throughout Europe. Here I am, an Englishman, sitting in Israel writing for an American blog. If I were still sitting in my native land I would be treated as a criminal because I deviate from this acceptable narrative.

Just who is hating whom?

The narrative demands that I keep stumm where the truth is considered ‘hateful’. I can point out that Jooz own the world, and because that is part of the narrative it is therefore acceptable, but if I point out that Islam is a religion of extreme violence, whilst provably true, it is a “hate crime”.

However did we get here, to this moronic place and time? How did the Enlightenment itself unravel?

It took a long hard journey to get to enlightenment, from rule by warlord to rule by informed consent, and somehow we have lost sight of that pathway. Our forefathers fought to open up the way and many died for it. But we, my generation, then squandered it, daydreaming our way back into bondage, our good intentions backfiring on us in a big way. Maybe through kindness and benevolence we let down our guard, and unfortunately, those jealous of our success were just waiting for the opportunity to strike.

Is it now ‘hateful’ to hate tyranny.

There were two great commandments arising out of our Judeo-Christian tradition:

“Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” (John 14:15)

Jesus is then asked “Who is my neighbour?” and launches into the famous parable.

Whilst our societies kept these laws, things generally improved. Slavery, poverty and malnutrition were being eradicated from the land. But then society began to ignore the “first and greatest” and promoted the second outside of its secondary context as “like unto it”.

One gets a big virtue hit by loving one’s neighbour as one’s self, but we too need to ask “Who is my neighbour?” Is it the politician or the academic? Is it the robber? Or is it the despised Judeo-Christian (Samaritan) who picks me up, tends to my wounds and pays for my keep out of his own pocket?

People who come into a country in order to financially exploit it are not neighbours; they are robbers. They are the cause of all my woes not the cure.

In forgetting to love Yahovah with all our being, we lose the context of loving our neighbour and we generate a theological tumour. All men have religion, even if it is a religion of no religion. If they lose sight of the controlling factors of their religion then the cancer cells start to multiply and take us down destructive pathways where the ends justify the means.

One such destructive pathway that is now a festering tumour is the idea of ‘race’ as a defining quality of humanity. In days past, skin colour was a usable but not terribly accurate cultural indicator.

When we encounter somebody in circumstances where we may be vulnerable, we do an automatic threat assessment of the cultural factors presented by that threat. It is part of survival 101.

Skin colour and mode of dress are important factors in our threat assessment.

Lee Rigby was not murdered by white-skinned Mormons dressed suits and ties.

Whilst my threat assessment and subsequent actions should be personal and based upon my individual experience, the race-tumour industry seeks to demonise me if I make a decision that they consider contradicts their ‘ideal’ (another name for a religious belief).

So we have to pretend that the Islamic ‘race’ is intrinsically peaceful because the SJW oncologist demands it. And not only that, but I am required to treat Islam as the ‘neighbour’ when in fact it was the ‘robber’.

Loving one’s neighbour as oneself is both conditional and secondary to the controls defined by the first and greatest commandment. “If you love me, keep my commandments,” (John 14:15) says Jesus.

There is a corollary here: if you hate Jesus then you should destroy his commandments, make them obviously unworkable, and this is what the real truth of the ‘hate crime’ is actually about.

If we distort the Judeo-Christian ideal, we can make truth a lie and lies the truth. If we spin the word ‘neighbour’ out of its scriptural context, it becomes all-inclusive. Thus to deplore the ‘robber’ for his violence becomes a violation of the commandment to love thy ‘neighbour’, and we fall for it every time unless we are prepared to look it up for ourselves.

The scriptures define very precisely who is in fact our ‘neighbour’: it is the Samaritan. It is the person giving to us, not the person to whom we must give. The robbers, the priests and the scribes are NOT our neighbours because they beat us up, rob us or ignore us because they have other things that are more pressing in their lives and we are not important in their narrow world.

Our culture is Judeo-Christian, and we trust our leaders to be motivated in a way that is mutually and culturally compatible, even if secular, and herein lies the danger. For when Judeo-Christianity is disassembled and largely reconstructed around a ‘love all your neighbours’ concept, but devoid of its ‘Love God’ elements, it is no longer Judeo-Christianity; it is basically socialism. And socialism has a dismal record of murder, mayhem and ultimate failure.

Jews know that socialists hate Jooz and cannot therefore be trusted. Trotsky knew that a Jew could not replace Lenin as party leader and retain party political credibility amongst workers and peasants; their anti-Semitism was just too virulent. So it had to be Stalin.

Unfortunately, mainstream Christians as a whole have not yet had their Holocaust, and tend to be blind to the menace posed by the “principalities, with the authorities, with the world-rulers of the darkness of this age, with the spiritual things of the evil in the heavenly places.” (Ephesians 6:12)

Having been lulled into the ‘all you need is lurve’ meme, they have lost the ability to discern exactly who their neighbours are (and more importantly maybe, who they are NOT).

So to ‘not love’ is deemed to be to ‘hate’. Just think it through though: I do not ‘love’ bananas, monkey nuts and grapes, but I love steak eggs and chips. Does that mean I hate bananas?

I find Islam hateful. Its missiles are intended to do me harm, and when the ‘Sever Adom’ goes off I cringe. Does that mean that I hate Muslims? No? But I am well aware that they are not ‘Samaritans’, and are actually more likely to be ‘robbers’, so yes to that.

Of course the SJWs who would call this ‘hate speech’ but then they have probably not been caught outside by an incoming missile. I am a pensioner with a game leg and a dicky heart, so I cannot run for shelter. The last one that happened to me, in December, landed about a quarter of a mile away very near a colleague’s house.

Of course, hating Israeli Jooz and lobbing missiles at them is permissible, as is hating Christian extremists and fundamentalists. In fact, anybody who might open a Bible and actually check out the validity of the twisted dictates of this Christo-Socialism for themselves is fair game.

There is a carefully sculpted image of the violent Christian extremist that is pushed by the mainstream media, he/she is deemed to be every bit as dangerous as the clear and present Islamist fanatic; he/she is radicalized by hellfire pastors in a white supremacist church and is also a gun nut; is anti-abortion and hates LBGTIKJLM.

However, nobody has yet has managed to find a sample one of these bogeymen, and there is a reason for this. The Bible has a message of peace and goodwill at its core, and a fundamentalist (Bible-believing) Christian takes the Bible message both seriously and holistically, and would not resort to violence.

The Koran, however, is ‘hate speech’ central, and the fundamentalist Muslim takes the message of the Koran very seriously too.

The Bible tells us to love Yahovah. The Koran tells us to hate the unbeliever.

Isaiah 5:20 Woe to those saying to evil ‘good,’ And to good ‘evil,’ Putting darkness for light, and light for darkness, Putting bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter.
Woe to the wise in their own eyes, And — before their own faces — intelligent!
Woe to the mighty to drink wine, And men of strength to mingle strong drink.
Declaring righteous the wicked for a bribe, And the righteousness of the righteous They turn aside from him.
Therefore, as a tongue of fire devoureth stubble, And flaming hay falleth, Their root is as muck, And their flower as dust goeth up. Because they have rejected the law of Jehovah of Hosts, And the saying of the Holy One of Israel despised. (Young’s Literal Translation)

MC lives in the southern Israeli city of Sderot. For his previous essays, see the MC Archives.

16 thoughts on “Hate”

  1. Oy veh! Ya don’t have enough missiles already being lobbed at ya, eh, MC? 😉

    How did the Enlightenment itself unravel?

    ‘Twas Marx who unraveled it and all the King’s knitters couldn’t repair that garment.

    [Fortunately, America – not being tied down as Europe was, or as feudal as Russia was – mostly escaped. Not entirely, though – as you can see, our second-class academic intellectuals are still piping his tune. In a higher key.]

  2. I was going to mention the verse in Isaiah about calling good evil and evil, good; as that is the tenor of these days, but you beat me to it MC. Best to you and yours and I look forward to seeing you when the last trumpet sounds. (Notice I didn’t say Trump, he’s been sounding off for the past year now, all a twitter, like some ‘tweety’ bird)

  3. Massive nonwhite immigration with its various hateful nonwhite agenda is already bad enough to any Western countries and Islam together with Muslims do tend to make it worst because most of them are using Islam to oppress and to have “power” over us nonbelievers.

    I mean other religions or other religious groups can be bad to us too but they don’t
    harm our western freedom that significantly.

    I am not one to believe in God but I do hope somehow there is a God that will miraculously get us out of this mess.

    • Just substitute the word “Truth” for “God”, and I think you will have your answer. What is true eventually seems to prevail throughout history.

      • What should also be stated about those that believe in unconditional love is that they are in violation of the very important Commandment “Thou shall not take the Lord’s name in vain”. There is nothing worse than using the word of God to support evil things. They are truly bearing false witness.

  4. “Having been lulled into the ‘all you need is lurve’ meme, they have lost the ability to discern exactly who their neighbours are.”

    Spot on. I know quite a number of the 90’s generation who broke all contacts with me after I told them I am against the middle east migration to Europe. They all went to the big cities, London, Amsterdam, New York, and they seem to just love the “black community”. Now I have nothing against the blacks, but my friend’s actions are in a way illogical – separating from their own group, but group with people who are not only foreign, but also distinctively different. Why do some of my childhood friends hate their own neighbors?

    • Why do some of my acquaintances love Hillary and broke up with me completely when we elected Trump? Why some of my colleagues in the office are frowning upon my insistence to celebrate Christmas and stubbornly correct me that it is “Holidays”?

      Why’s one after another … I do believe now that it is the march of Marx-Leninism, decades after its victory and decades after its demise which we had thought was final, decimating and historical. It was not. Look at our academia: our UV KSC’s apparatchiks would rejoice over California’s top schools!

      And now the whole “thing” with Islam … Gee. But at the root of this multi-kulti madness is something eerily monstrous: hate of your own, of your culture, sense of guilt for the past – this is fueling the self-loathing and what many of us perceive as treason on the West.

      Boy, the 80’s were so simple, almost black&white.

  5. As long as Islam is treated as a religion and not a political cult, we have no chance to fight back. They will use our own “religious freedom” rules against us.

  6. MC, do you think a predominantly nonwhite group such as Muslims is using Islam to break up United Kingdom and therefore gain control politically?
    I suspect Muslims is trying to break up United Kingdom just like what those Bosnian Muslims did to former Yugoslavia.

    But, I think it would be impossible at this moment for the present Muslims groups of migrants to break up the UK due to the fact that most Muslims are only recent migrants unlike the majority of Bosnians who were unfortunately mixed and Islamized due to the imposition of Ottomans hundreds of years ago.

    • Islam is a demographic timebomb, others are more expert in this than I am, but I understand that once there is a significant block of islamic voters then they will become the ‘swing’ vote that political parties must attract in order to win elections, this will give them an enormous political clout out of all proportion to their actual numbers.

      At some stage however the penny is going to drop with an enormous clang as people realize that they have been betrayed. What happens next is then up for grabs.

  7. It’s about time for a paradigm shift against Islam….the caveat being that all the Progressives want to use Islam to get political power. They feel they can manage Islam later….which is going to be a sort of grand historical joke on the Left.

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

A Public challenge to James White , Jay Smith and Christian apologists at Hyde park Speakers corner

Posted in Uncategorized | 15 Comments

Islamic apologists conveniently overlook the fact that the High Priest had to make atonement through bloody sacrifice for all the repentant Israelites that attended the mandatory religious festivals

The Daily Offerings

(Exodus 29:38-44)

1And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2Command the children of Israel, and say unto them, My offering, and my bread for my sacrifices made by fire, for a sweet savour unto me, shall ye observe to offer unto me in their due season. 3And thou shalt say unto them, This is the offering made by fire which ye shall offer unto the LORD; two lambs of the first year without spot day by day, for a continual burnt offering. 4The one lamb shalt thou offer in the morning, and the other lamb shalt thou offer at even; 5And a tenth part of an ephah of flour for a meat offering, mingled with the fourth part of an hin of beaten oil. 6It is a continual burnt offering, which was ordained in mount Sinai for a sweet savour, a sacrifice made by fire unto the LORD. 7And the drink offering thereof shall be the fourth part of an hin for the one lamb: in the holy place shalt thou cause the strong wine to be poured unto the LORD for a drink offering. 8And the other lamb shalt thou offer at even: as the meat offering of the morning, and as the drink offering thereof, thou shalt offer it, a sacrifice made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD.

The Sabbath Offerings

9And on the sabbath day two lambs of the first year without spot, and two tenth deals of flour for a meat offering, mingled with oil, and the drink offering thereof: 10This is the burnt offering of every sabbath, beside the continual burnt offering, and his drink offering.

The Monthly Offerings

11And in the beginnings of your months ye shall offer a burnt offering unto the LORD; two young bullocks, and one ram, seven lambs of the first year without spot; 12And three tenth deals of flour for a meat offering, mingled with oil, for one bullock; and two tenth deals of flour for a meat offering, mingled with oil, for one ram; 13And a several tenth deal of flour mingled with oil for a meat offering unto one lamb; for a burnt offering of a sweet savour, a sacrifice made by fire unto the LORD. 14And their drink offerings shall be half an hin of wine unto a bullock, and the third part of an hin unto a ram, and a fourth part of an hin unto a lamb: this is the burnt offering of every month throughout the months of the year. 15And one kid of the goats for a sin offering unto the LORD shall be offered, beside the continual burnt offering, and his drink offering.

The Passover

(Exodus 12:14-28; Leviticus 23:4-8; Deuteronomy 16:1-8)

16And in the fourteenth day of the first month is the passover of the LORD. 17And in the fifteenth day of this month is the feast: seven days shall unleavened bread be eaten. 18In the first day shall be an holy convocation; ye shall do no manner of servile work therein: 19But ye shall offer a sacrifice made by fire for a burnt offering unto the LORD; two young bullocks, and one ram, and seven lambs of the first year: they shall be unto you without blemish: 20And their meat offering shall be of flour mingled with oil: three tenth deals shall ye offer for a bullock, and two tenth deals for a ram; 21A several tenth deal shalt thou offer for every lamb, throughout the seven lambs: 22And one goat for a sin offering, to make an atonement for you. 23Ye shall offer these beside the burnt offering in the morning, which is for a continual burnt offering. 24After this manner ye shall offer daily, throughout the seven days, the meat of the sacrifice made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD: it shall be offered beside the continual burnt offering, and his drink offering. 25And on the seventh day ye shall have an holy convocation; ye shall do no servile work.

The Feast of Weeks

(Deuteronomy 16:9-12)

26Also in the day of the firstfruits, when ye bring a new meat offering unto the LORD, after your weeks be out, ye shall have an holy convocation; ye shall do no servile work: 27But ye shall offer the burnt offering for a sweet savour unto the LORD; two young bullocks, one ram, seven lambs of the first year; 28And their meat offering of flour mingled with oil, three tenth deals unto one bullock, two tenth deals unto one ram, 29A several tenth deal unto one lamb, throughout the seven lambs; 30And one kid of the goats, to make an atonement for you. 31Ye shall offer them beside the continual burnt offering, and his meat offering, (they shall be unto you without blemish) and their drink offerings.

The Feast of Trumpets

(Leviticus 23:23-25)

1And in the seventh month, on the first day of the month, ye shall have an holy convocation; ye shall do no servile work: it is a day of blowing the trumpets unto you. 2And ye shall offer a burnt offering for a sweet savour unto the LORD; one young bullock, one ram, and seven lambs of the first year without blemish: 3And their meat offering shall be of flour mingled with oil, three tenth deals for a bullock, and two tenth deals for a ram, 4And one tenth deal for one lamb, throughout the seven lambs: 5And one kid of the goats for a sin offering, to make an atonement for you: 6Beside the burnt offering of the month, and his meat offering, and the daily burnt offering, and his meat offering, and their drink offerings, according unto their manner, for a sweet savour, a sacrifice made by fire unto the LORD.

The Day of Atonement

(Leviticus 23:26-32)

7And ye shall have on the tenth day of this seventh month an holy convocation; and ye shall afflict your souls: ye shall not do any work therein: 8But ye shall offer a burnt offering unto the LORD for a sweet savour; one young bullock, one ram, and seven lambs of the first year; they shall be unto you without blemish: 9And their meat offering shall be of flour mingled with oil, three tenth deals to a bullock, and two tenth deals to one ram, 10A several tenth deal for one lamb, throughout the seven lambs: 11One kid of the goats for a sin offering; beside the sin offering of atonement, and the continual burnt offering, and the meat offering of it, and their drink offerings.

The Feast of Tabernacles

(Deuteronomy 16:13-17)

12And on the fifteenth day of the seventh month ye shall have an holy convocation; ye shall do no servile work, and ye shall keep a feast unto the LORD seven days: 13And ye shall offer a burnt offering, a sacrifice made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD; thirteen young bullocks, two rams, and fourteen lambs of the first year; they shall be without blemish: 14And their meat offering shall be of flour mingled with oil, three tenth deals unto every bullock of the thirteen bullocks, two tenth deals to each ram of the two rams, 15And a several tenth deal to each lamb of the fourteen lambs: 16And one kid of the goats for a sin offering; beside the continual burnt offering, his meat offering, and his drink offering.

17And on the second day ye shall offer twelve young bullocks, two rams, fourteen lambs of the first year without spot: 18And their meat offering and their drink offerings for the bullocks, for the rams, and for the lambs, shall be according to their number, after the manner: 19And one kid of the goats for a sin offering; beside the continual burnt offering, and the meat offering thereof, and their drink offerings.

20And on the third day eleven bullocks, two rams, fourteen lambs of the first year without blemish; 21And their meat offering and their drink offerings for the bullocks, for the rams, and for the lambs, shall be according to their number, after the manner: 22And one goat for a sin offering; beside the continual burnt offering, and his meat offering, and his drink offering.

23And on the fourth day ten bullocks, two rams, and fourteen lambs of the first year without blemish: 24Their meat offering and their drink offerings for the bullocks, for the rams, and for the lambs, shall be according to their number, after the manner: 25And one kid of the goats for a sin offering; beside the continual burnt offering, his meat offering, and his drink offering.

26And on the fifth day nine bullocks, two rams, and fourteen lambs of the first year without spot: 27And their meat offering and their drink offerings for the bullocks, for the rams, and for the lambs, shall be according to their number, after the manner: 28And one goat for a sin offering; beside the continual burnt offering, and his meat offering, and his drink offering.

29And on the sixth day eight bullocks, two rams, and fourteen lambs of the first year without blemish: 30And their meat offering and their drink offerings for the bullocks, for the rams, and for the lambs, shall be according to their number, after the manner: 31And one goat for a sin offering; beside the continual burnt offering, his meat offering, and his drink offering.

32And on the seventh day seven bullocks, two rams, and fourteen lambs of the first year without blemish: 33And their meat offering and their drink offerings for the bullocks, for the rams, and for the lambs, shall be according to their number, after the manner: 34And one goat for a sin offering; beside the continual burnt offering, his meat offering, and his drink offering.

35On the eighth day ye shall have a solemn assembly: ye shall do no servile work therein: 36But ye shall offer a burnt offering, a sacrifice made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD: one bullock, one ram, seven lambs of the first year without blemish: 37Their meat offering and their drink offerings for the bullock, for the ram, and for the lambs, shall be according to their number, after the manner: 38And one goat for a sin offering; beside the continual burnt offering, and his meat offering, and his drink offering.

39These things ye shall do unto the LORD in your set feasts, beside your vows, and your freewill offerings, for your burnt offerings, and for your meat offerings, and for your drink offerings, and for your peace offerings. 40And Moses told the children of Israel according to all that the LORD commanded Moses.

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Muslim tries to ram Jewish father and son with his car. From JihadWatch.org with comments

The Qur’an depicts the Jews as inveterately evil and bent on destroying the well-being of the Muslims. They are the strongest of all people in enmity toward the Muslims (5:82); they fabricate things and falsely ascribe them to Allah (2:79; 3:75, 3:181); they claim that Allah’s power is limited (5:64); they love to listen to lies (5:41); they disobey Allah and never observe his commands (5:13). They are disputing and quarreling (2:247); hiding the truth and misleading people (3:78); staging rebellion against the prophets and rejecting their guidance (2:55); being hypocritical (2:14, 2:44); giving preference to their own interests over the teachings of Muhammad (2:87); wishing evil for people and trying to mislead them (2:109); feeling pain when others are happy or fortunate (3:120); being arrogant about their being Allah’s beloved people (5:18); devouring people’s wealth by subterfuge (4:161); slandering the true religion and being cursed by Allah (4:46); killing the prophets (2:61); being merciless and heartless (2:74); never keeping their promises or fulfilling their words (2:100); being unrestrained in committing sins (5:79); being cowardly (59:13-14); being miserly (4:53); being transformed into apes and pigs for breaking the Sabbath (2:63-65; 5:59-60; 7:166); and more. They are under Allah’s curse (9:30), and Muslims should wage war against them and subjugate them under Islamic hegemony (9:29).

So this Muslim opted for vehicular jihad. Last June, the Islamic State published a poster depicting an SUV driving over a heap of skulls and bearing the legend “Run Over Them Without Mercy.”

And the Islamic State issued this call in September 2014:

So O muwahhid, do not let this battle pass you by wherever you may be. You must strike the soldiers, patrons, and troops of the tawaghit. Strike their police, security, and intelligence members, as well as their treacherous agents. Destroy their beds. Embitter their lives for them and busy them with themselves. If you can kill a disbelieving American or European — especially the spiteful and filthy French — or an Australian, or a Canadian, or any other disbeliever from the disbelievers waging war, including the citizens of the countries that entered into a coalition against the Islamic State, then rely upon Allah, and kill him in any manner or way however it may be….If you are not able to find an IED or a bullet, then single out the disbelieving American, Frenchman, or any of their allies. Smash his head with a rock, or slaughter him with a knife, or run him over with your car, or throw him down from a high place, or choke him, or poison him….

Muslims have also issued calls to target Jews specifically in vehicular jihad attacks. A billboard in Nazareth actually called for them. “Moderate” Fatah also called for such attacks.

“Man tries to ram haredim in Antwerp,” by Ben Ariel, Arutz Sheva, February 4, 2018:

Police in Belgium have arrested a man who is suspected of trying to ram with his car an Orthodox man and a child on a street in Antwerp, JTA reported Saturday.

The incident occurred on Saturday morning while the man and the child were walking to synagogue and was filmed by security cameras.

The footage shows a black Seat Ibiza car swerving sharply while speeding on Isabellalei, a central street in Antwerp, toward the alleged victim and a boy, who is the man’s son, according to the Antwerp-based Joods Actueel Jewish monthly.

The car is seen intersecting a bike path, apparently while speeding. The car then climbs the curb as the two alleged victims are walking toward it, prompting them to jump away from the curb and toward the safety of the building facades.

They jump behind a lamp post. The car swerves back wildly, returning to the road from its incursion into the sidewalk. The father ran after the car as it sped away.

Joods Actueel reported that witnesses said the driver had foreign origins. While their report did not name the man or offer any additional information on his identity, Israel’s public broadcaster Kan News reported that the driver was of Muslim origin….

Comments
    1. StellaSaidSo says

      It has long been suspected that vehicular jihad is not a new phenomenon. Who knows how many traffic accidents involving Muslim motorists and kuffar pedestrians were not accidental, how many fatalities caused by ‘careless drivers’ were actually homicides? At least we’re awake now.

        • Infidel says

          This is something to reflect upon for sure… With these vermin one never knows!!! They can be Ur best friend for 20 years and they will slaughter U in the 21st year for Ur only crime… the crime of being a non-Muslim..

    1. Infidel says

      The same thing happened to my friend(a Hindu) in India.. He once asked a Kashmiri Muslim as to how come the Muslims in Kashmir mistreat the Hindus while he (the Muslim) is enjoying a good life in Hindu areas of the country.. Later as my friend was walking back to his home, this same Muslim and his friends came driving at breakneck speed and came very close to him before slamming the breaks and screeching to a halt inches from my terrified friend… Then the Muslim threatened him that the next time there would be no breaking……

        • Prabh108 says

          There ought to be exactly ZERO (O) Moslem countries: these are originally all territories of Vedic-Zarathustran-Buddhists-Hindu/Sikh lands.

          Mother Earth created by dint of Thought of Aryan Sages
          (Dev-Devi – Shiv-Shakti etc.) operating under Divine Will of
          Paramataman-Bhagwan-Brahman. Personal powerful Will is gift From Almighty.

          Aryan is synonym for North India caste Hindu. This is fact of history and is true today as it was yesterday and will be tomorrow. Such a personage can take birth anywhere upon Earth. Aryan can also refer to Germanic pagan.

          Best way to defeat Jihad permanently is Logic – Logic alone can defeat this truly demented creed of Jihadism. Violent jihadists must be prohibited from driving – a motor vehicle in the wrong hands is a lethal weapon.

          pr108

    1. DFD says

      From Europe, off topic, of course
      ========== ===============

      By now seven German cities have declared a stop in accepting further so-called refugees. The first were Cottbus, followed by Freiburg. In the former there was recent fighting between Germans and colonists, it was triggered after an assault upon a German couple. Freiburg was the recent scene of a gruesome rape and murder. Nevertheless, the CDU/SPD regime is pushing for more settlers to be brought in by means of “family unification”. Even more weird, the anarchists and the communists (i.e. the greens and “die linke” (the left)) are proclaiming that that would end the sexual and other assaults. Which is weird because according to them this problem doesn’t exist in the first place.

      It has further been found to be true and confirmed, including pictures and videos of landings, that there are frequent night-flights into Europe, bringing in more colonists, between 10 and 30 flights a night. Crew members have tipped off various alternative media, such as PI-Magazine/News, Junge Freiheit, Compact etc.

      Equally odd, Joachim Gauck from East Germany, now the President of Germany by courtesy of Merkel, is warning against more and more multikulti, proclaiming that the settlers have to integrate, and not the other way round, and that there should be a stop of colonists… What a surprise! Errr, no. Merkel’s position becomes more and more precarious, despite all the help from the “Atlantic Bridge”, (that’s Kissinger, Obama, the entire Bilderberg – ought to be renamed into the ‘Picturemountainrange 🙂 )plus Jewish, Protestant and Catholic community leaders, and others, mainly NGO’s and ***her very own*** press.

      She is now preparing a law to inject every year 250 million €’s (~$265 Mega) into the press (and the MSM generally) to protect it from losing it’s independence! BTW, the editor in Chief of the “Bild Zeitung” has just quit. In this context, Nicolaus Fest resigned in 2012 from Springer/Bild and is now one of the main members of the AfD in Berlin/Brandenburg. Another editor (in chief) has also quit Bild, about a year ago, and now works for PI-Magazine (PI = Politically Incorrect).

      For those who don’t know the Euro scene, Bild Zeitung was Germany’s, and Europe’s, largest single and best selling daily tabloid. 1 million plus copies, SOLD per day! They are hovering by now just over the million mark….

      It’s not exactly boring over here, I assure you.

        • DFD says

          PS: Sorry, typo. That was supposed to read as: “….**5** million plus copies, SOLD per day!…” and NOT as **1**. Well, even I make mistakes!

    1. Andy says

      These moslem vermin need to be thrown out of any Judeo-Christian civilized country!! Islam is satanic in all it thinks, all it teaches and all it acts, it must be abolished off the face of the earth

      Islam’s 10 Most Diabolical Evil Teachings in all Human History in Quran from Allah & Muhammad

    1. eduardo odraude says

      Until a majority of Muslim-majority nations establish real freedom of religion, Muslim immigration to non-Muslim nations should stop.

      If a jury or judges find that the driver intended to run over the two pedestrians, the driver should get life in prison for attempted murder.

  1. G.Man says

    Security tip. Situational awareness tip 1,always walk so you can see the traffic heading towards you, tip 2 be aware of real cover you can get behind quickly in case of need, such as a parked vehicle, a solid postbox,a lamppost, inside a store, moving quickly to the rear, these should help to reduce or avoid injury.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

When the mercy of Allah becomes a license to kill. The more people you have killed the more likely Allah will forgive you. Killing a monk will always increase your chances that Allah will forgive you

(7) Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: The Prophet said, “Amongst the men of Bani Israel there was a man who had murdered ninety-nine persons. Then he set out asking (whether his repentance could be accepted or not). He came upon a monk and asked him if his repentance could be accepted. The monk replied in the negative and so the man killed him. He kept on asking till a man advised to go to such and such village. (So he left for it) but death overtook him on the way. While dying, he turned his chest towards that village (where he had hoped his repentance would be accepted), and so the angels of mercy and the angels of punishment quarrelled amongst themselves regarding him. Allah ordered the village (towards which he was going) to come closer to him, and ordered the village (whence he had come), to go far away, and then He ordered the angels to measure the distances between his body and the two villages. So he was found to be one span closer to the village (he was going to). So he was forgiven.”  Sahih Bukhari (Book #56, Hadith #676)

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Why Animal Sacrifices During Hajj? An article from Biblestudyresources.org

Muslims believe that animals are sacrificed during the Hajj to commemorate the sacrifice of Abraham of his son. However, there is no adequate explanation for the sacrifice of animals?

Why is there a need for blood sacrifice?

The blood does not reach God. “It is not their meat nor their blood that reaches Allah: It is their peity that reaches Him” Surah 22:37

[Suah 22:37] Daging-daging unta dan darahnya itu sekali-kali tidak dapat mencapai (keridaan) Allah, tetapi ketakwaan dari kamulah yang dapat mencapainya.

If piety alone, why is there a need to shed blood?

Explain to the Muslim the symbolism of animal sacrifices as taught in the Torah.

(Lev 16:3, 6 NIV)  “This is how Aaron is to enter the sanctuary area: with a young bull for a sin offering and a ram for a burnt offering. … {6} “Aaron is to offer the bull for his own sin offering to make atonement for himself and his household.

LEV 16:3 Beginilah caranya Harun masuk ke dalam tempat kudus itu, yakni dengan membawa seekor lembu jantan muda untuk korban penghapus dosa dan seekor domba jantan untuk korban bakaran.

LEV 16:6 Kemudian Harun harus mempersembahkan lembu jantan yang akan menjadi korban penghapus dosa baginya sendiri dan dengan demikian mengadakan pendamaian baginya dan bagi keluarganya.

Even prominent Muslim scholars believe that animal sacrifices have something to do with salvation from sin and is not purely a commemorative act.

“Sacrifice in a mass scale brings people near God. For this reason, the animal for sacrifice should be stout and strong. Hope that in lieu of every limb of the sacrificed animal, God will save your every limb from Hell-fire. The more it is stout and strong, the more you will be free from Hell-fire.” Imam Ghazali, Ihya Ulum id din, Vol.1 pg 257 (trans. Maulana Fazlul Karim)

Animal sacrifices repeated if wrongdoings committed during Hajj

Muslims believe that the sacrifice offered during the Hajj has nothing to do with the ransom paid for sin. They think it is only a commemorative act of Abraham sacrificing his son.

But when performing the Hajj, Muslims have to repeat the animal sacrifices if they commit wrongdoing during the process. If the animal sacrifice has nothing to do with sin, why is there a need to do this?

The following in taken from an Islamic website “Al-Islam” which lists out the method of redemption for committing wrong acts during the hajj.

Committing harm, wearing prohibited clothes, or applying perfume:

One is to choose from three things, as follows:

To fast three days.
To feed six indigent persons, giving six Sa`s (an amount of grains) to each one.
To slaughter a ewe

The following is taken from “umma.net”

For people who come (to Mecca) from long distances for hajj, ‘umra, trade or for any other purpose, it is haram to go through the places called Miqat and enter the Harem, that is, the blessed city of Mecca, without the ihram on. Any person who passes by (the miqat without the ihram on) has to return to the Miqat and put on the ihram. If he does not put on the ihram he will have to kill an animal of qurban.

So offering sacrifices in Islam is not just to commemorate Abraham’s sacrifice of his son. It also has to do with compensation for sin. This is also the view of some Muslim scholars.

“A pilgrim should give a sacrifice of a goat or sheep; one animal for one person is necessary. If a bull or camel is sacrificed, seven persons can join in one animal. This sacrifice of an animal is obligatory on every pilgrim. It is not the ‘Id day sacrifice which is an expression of obedience to the will of God, as observed by Prophet Abraham. The Hajj sacrifice is the flowing blood as redemption by the pilgrim for the atonement of his sins, and for his Hajj being granted by the Almighty.”   Abdur Rahman I Doi, The Cardinal Principles of Islam, pg 187

Delegation of the slaughtering of the animal sacrifice

Furthermore, the Hajj practice allows someone to kill the animal on your behalf. If the killing of the animal symbolizes Abraham’s obedience to God, how can someone carry out this act of obedience on your behalf?

“It is preferable that the pilgrim should slaughter the animal himself, though it is permissible to ask someone else to do it, because it is one of the rites in which delegation is possible. The deputy makes the intention known of slaughtering on behalf of the one who deputizes and it is better that both of them should make the intention together. According to Jafari it is recommended for the pilgrim to put his hand on that of him who slaughters or at least be present at the time of slaughtering. (ibid pg 220)

The animal offered by God to Abraham is a “tremendous” sacrifice

When Abraham was about to offer his son as a sacrifice, God stopped him and provided him with a ransom instead.

037.107
YUSUFALI: And We ransomed him with a momentous (Arabic “azim”) sacrifice:
PICKTHAL: Then We ransomed him with a tremendous victim.
SHAKIR: And We ransomed him with a Feat sacrifice.

Ransom refers to payment for the release of a captive. (Similar usage in Surah 47:4, 70:11). God ransomed Abraham’s son with a substitute sacrifice so that his son can be set free. It is interesting to note that the Quran describes this ransom as a “momentous”, “tremendous” or “feat” sacrifice.

The sacrifice is described by the Arabic word “azim” and translated as “momentous”, “tremendous” or “Feat”. (In other words, it is a feat even for God to provide that sacrifice.) It is obvious that this is an inappropriate description for the ram Abraham used for the sacrifice.

Conversation pointer: Why is the animal offered by Allah is a tremendous sacrifice?

What would be the greatest thing that God can sacrifice?

It would be Himself.

Identification with the sacrificed animal

In the hadiths, Muhammad told his daughter to lay her hand on the head of the animal that was about to be sacrifices so that when it was killed, she would be identified with the animal.

Posted in Uncategorized | 14 Comments