Qur'an istinita Bozija uputa

[Zvek_Zivi]

True, the risen Christ predicted martyrdom for a few of his followers in the church at Smyrna (Rev. 2:10), but they did not initiate it in warfare; they were being persecuted—severely. Moreover, after their deaths, this New Testament church did not raise a small army to wage a jihad on their persecutors (as Muhammad did on his Meccan persecutors). It is better to die loving one’s executioner than to kill the executioner in rage. This stands in sharp contrast to Muhammad’s misguided belief that fighting enemies will relieve the rage that his Muslims have against them (Sura 9:15).

It is also true that some later Christians even sought out martyrdom, though not in the context of military warfare, but to win fame. Church authorities rightly rebuked them. The following cannot be repeated too often because it diametrically opposes the Islamic doctrine of salvation: only Christ’s “Martyrdom” guarantees a believer’s place in heaven; only his ultimate good work on the cross paves the way to God. Thus, the Christian does not (or should not) have a psychological inducement to kill himself or to be killed in battle to achieve heaven. He needs only trust in Christ.

So Jesus and his disciples through the first three centuries turned the world upside down by simple proclamation, not by butchering with swords (or by threatening to butcher with swords) people who opposed their ministry—the warpath of Emperor Constantine in the fourth century and the Medieval Crusaders do not set the genetic code in the very origins of Christianity in the New Testament. On the other hand, Muhammad is foundational to Islam, and he says that a martyr’s death in the cause of Allah (cause = war) guarantees heaven. The contrast between the two religions is stark. Christ’s way leads to the light; Muhammad’s way leads to darkness.

Hence, the deadly bargain of martyrdom is completely foreign to devout Christians and even to nominal Christians world over, who no longer take their faith seriously. Christians want heaven, and they are assured of it by the atoning death of Christ, once they receive him and his Spirit (who is not Gabriel).

Why would a Christian choose the inferior path to heaven—the one that Muhammad teaches—death by martyrdom in a qital or war? Total devotion and surrender should not be perverted. Instead, total devotion and surrender to Christ is far better, for he produces divine love and true inner peace, and hence his real path to heaven far surpasses Muhammad’s claims and “revelations” that conveniently support his wars. Christ rose above such petty, dubious assertions and cleared the way to heaven with his Resurrection.

Thus, Islam does not complete or fulfill Christianity. Rather, Muhammad’s religion is a degradation and a distortion of Christianity, devolving downwards from it.

[mastermind]

Ha, ha!!!

Pa samo budale možeš impresionirati gigantskim copy-paste textovima!

Samo bolesni umovi (kao što su ono koji pišu tvoje textove) uzimaju samo djelimično značenje ajeta/hadisa. To što uzimaš prevodioce muslimane nije nikakav izgovor, tvoja metodologija opet ostaje ista, jedan ajet i tutto finitto. Skupi sve ajete o jednoj tematici i onda vidi šta ćeš dobiti. To što si ti ovo postavio... Pa nemoj misliti da ovo nema odgovor, malo se vrati unazad nekol'ke stranice. Sem toga, ova priča o nasilju u Islamu toliko se ponavlja, ali je uvijek Islam dao odgovor, ali ipak pročitaj ove gore linkove (ako te nije strah istine...) Ti ako kažeš da da su ovi odgovori potpuni... Tvoj jedan "razlog" jeste nakolika pasusa, Qur'an ima 600 stranica... Da li je to potpuno rezonovanje. To dosta govori o tebi...

[Zvek_Zivi]

Jesam li te inpesionira a ???
Questions on Islam

Traditions: What is true Islam? Islam has traditions people have followed for over a thousand years. Shi’ite Muslims believe in temporary marriage, ‘Alawite Muslims believe in worshipping Mohammed and ‘Ali, Sufis compare knowing God to drinking wine, and the hadiths of Sunni Muslims mention Mohammed ordered assassinations(1). On the other hand, some people claiming to be Christian believe false things too, such as men becoming God, following the Pope’s orders to kill people, etc.. Christians can know what is true by going back to the teachings of Jesus and the Bible. How can Muslims know?

Four answers might be: by what today’s leaders teach, what Mohammed taught, and what the Qur’an says, and the reliability of God’s scripture.

Modern leaders being the center of a religion has caused a lot of problems. The Taliban who forbade women to work outside of the home had one view of Mohammed and Islam. Non-Sharia Muslims have a very different view of the Qur’an, and hardliner and moderate Shi’ites have differences. It appears fairly easy for some people to confuse what their modern leader says with what Mohammed really intended. It seems to me that if someone follows a leader who is not of God, their loyalty to their religion keeps them away from God. Do you agree?

Mohammed: Christians know that Jesus was from God because of the prophecies made about Him, the miracles He did, the sinless life He lived, His humility and love, and the testimony of His followers who died for Him back up His claim to be from God. How can a Muslim know whether or not Mohammed was from the True God or not?

There were no prophecies made about Mohammed. Unless Mohammed glorified Jesus, the Gospel of John 14-16 refers to the Holy Spirit of God, not Mohammed. Even if Mohammed were Jewish, the prophecies in Deuteronomy 18,33,34 about raising up another prophet from their own brothers would refer to Jesus more than to Mohammed.

While the hadiths give numerous miracles Mohammed did, including splitting the moon, these are all bogus, because Sura 17:90-93 says Mohammed did no miracles, except giving the Qur’an. Do you think that the hadiths that contradict the Qur’an are fake?

Mohammed needed forgiveness for his sin (or frailty) in Sura 40:55 and 48:1-2. Now people do not need forgiveness for physical frailties, but moral ones. Sahih Muslim 1:1695 says Mohammed prayed, "I wronged myself and make a confession of my sin. Forgive all my sins,…" Specific things(2) were burning out their eyes, and making them thirst as they died after their arms and legs were amputated. Do you agree these were evil sins?

Mohammed’s followers collected his sayings into the Qur’an after his death, though some parts were lost according to Bukhari 6:509-511. After the Qur’an was distributed, ‘Uthman tried collected and burned most of the Qur’ans and re-issued a standardized Qur’an. Early followers fought bloody civil wars: ‘Ali vs. ‘Aisha’s army, Mu’awiya vs. ‘Ali, and at Karbala where Husain became a Shi’ite martyr.

Mohammed’s privileges: While Muslim men can have up to four wives, Sura 33:50 makes an exception for Mohammed. Muslims are [correctly] told that some of his wives were widows. However, that includes Saffiya, a beautiful captive Mohammed married after killing her husband and 700-1,000 men of Khaibar. Mohammed only married Zainab of Jahsh after he (and the Qur’an) commanded Mohammed’s adopted son Zaid to first divorce her. Many believe Mohammed was always a poor man, but Bukhari Hadith 3:495 says, "When Allah made the prophet wealthy through conquests..." One-fifth of all spoils of war were put into treasury, and Mohammed’s family could use that (Sahih Muslim 2:2348).

The Qur’an: Both Christians and Muslims agree that the Old Testament and Gospels were from God. Both Sura 5:46-48 and Jesus testify of the reliability of the Old Testament. But how could someone tell if the Qur’an was from God or not?

Sura 18:85-86 has a problem when it says the ruler Zul-Qarnaim followed the setting sun and found that it went down into the waters of a muddy spring.

Morally, why does Sura 4:34 say to "beat" or "scourge" your wife, if she is disobedient? This Arabic word does not mean tap lightly; it is the same word used to beat a violent criminal or a camel. Mohammed himself deliberately struck ‘Aisha "on the chest which caused me pain". (Sahih Muslim 2:2127)

Reliability: If Muslims believe God’s word given to Moses, Jesus and others was fundamentally corrupted later, how do Muslims know whether the Qur’an or the Bible was corrupted?

At least 15 papyrii up through 200 A.D. show the New Testament’s reliability. For example, these contain 82% of the 2,029 verses in the gospels of Luke and John. Second, many early writers referred to verses in the Bible. Prior to 200 A.D. over 97% of verses in the gospels are mentioned. There are manuscript variations, but none alter Christian doctrine. For the Old Testament we have the Dead Sea scrolls from the time of Jesus.

In contrast, many Muslims think the Qur’an today is word-for-word the original, because they do not know that Bukhari Hadith 4:69; 6:509 says some parts of the Qur’an were lost (not abrogated). Ubai’s early copies of the Qur’an did not contain two Suras in the Qur’an today. Sahih Muslim 2:2286 gives part of a Sura that was lost. Finally, the Qur’an of Sunni Muslims is based on the ibn Masud codex, which differs from ‘Uthman’s version in 150 places in Sura 2 alone, including complete sentences.(3)

Walk Away from False Religion and Find the True God

Finding the truth of God is the most important thing we can do. Do you believe that God preserves His truth on earth as Isaiah 59:21 says? If so, either God was untruthful between the time of Jesus and the Qur’an, or else the Qur’an, which contradicts the truth of the preserved Bible, is a fraud. It cannot be both.

Here is the Truth You Need to Know

God is a Father. Let God be God. He can be any way He wants, and both the Old Testament Jesus read and the New reveal that God is a Father. We can have a relationship with Him better than with any father on earth.

We are separated from God. Our sins have separated us from the Holy, truthful God, who does not lie or deceive people. People are full of vengeance, hatred, and lack love toward others. Even worse, people adore creatures and black stones, instead of the one true God. Apart from God’s grace and forgiveness, Heaven would be impossible for any of us.

God is a Son. If God wanted to, does He lack any power that would prevent Him from walking on the earth as a man, while still being in Heaven at the same time? Jesus, the Word of God, not only claimed to be God in words, but also in accepting worship.

God is the Holy Spirit. Prayer is not a dry ritual, but talking with God. Pray for God to show you the truth, for His Holy Spirit guides people to God. But you must choose to accept the truth, and ask Jesus into your life as your Lord and Savior. Then join with brothers and sisters who worship the True God in a church that follows the Bible. We love Muslims, and write so that they will leave Islam, find the True God, and join us in Heaven with Him.

Contact: Christian Debater® P.O. Box 144441 Austin, Texas 78714. www.muslimhope.com

(1)There was a deceptive assassination of Ka'b bin Ashraf the Jew Sahih Muslim 3:4436 Bukhari 3:687. Abdullah bin 'Atik and some other Muslims were sent to assassinate Abu Rafi the Jew. He was attacked in the dark while he was sleeping. Bukhari 5:371. Tabari’s History also mentions these.

(2) See Bukhari, 1:7,19,234,711, 781; 6:3; 6:198 prior, 8:319,794-797 and 8:407 prior, as well as Fiqh us-Sunnah volume 1 p.133.

(3) Geisler & Saleeb: Answering Islam p.192.

[Zvek_Zivi]

Muslim apologists frequently quote Matthew 10:34, which mentions a sword, drawing a parallel between Christianity and Islam: Jesus and Muhammad both endorse jihad, so why would Christians today complain about it in Islam?

However, this parallel is deadly flawed.

To explain more effectively how the two “Founders” differ, this article follows a particular method of exegesis (detailed analysis of a text). First, the historical context of the two verses is explained, so their meaning can be made clear. Second, the literary context—the verses surrounding the two targeted verses—is quoted or summarized, so we do not look at the two verses in isolation. Third, we discuss any important elements within the verses, such as key words. Finally, we will then be in a position to contrast the two verses at the end of the article, applying them to today.

We take Quran 9:123 as our counter-verse to Matthew 10:34 because, as we will see, both share the context of family relations.

9:123 O you who believe, fight those of the unbelievers near you and let them see how harsh you can be. Know that Allah is with the righteous. (Fakhry’s translation)

The historical context of this verse takes place after a military expedition in early 630, so it is late in Muhammad’s life (he dies of a fever in AD 632)—some scholars regard Sura 9 as the last sura (chapter) to be revealed from on high. Therefore, it sets many policies for Muslims today, and is often interpreted as abrogating or canceling previous verses, even peaceful ones. During the military expedition, Muhammad led a large army of 30,000 soldiers to the northern city of Tabuk in order to confront the Byzantine Christians. This is clearly a Muslim Crusade, centuries before the European Crusades. The Byzantine army never materialized, though, so this Islamic Crusade was fruitless. After the Muslims returned, Muhammad scolded the “hypocrites” who had stayed behind and who stirred up strife in the community. But some unbelievers (usually polytheists, but not necessarily) still hung on to their religion, and they too needed to be silenced. This latter groups is who he attacks in 9:123—the “unbelievers.” He may wage war on them, without flinching.

Another aspect of the historical context should be considered. Muhammad urges his fighters forward in order to kill the unbelievers, even if the latter belong to the fighters’ own family, as seen in the words “near you” in v. 123. The Muslim commentator S. Abdul A’La Maududi informs us:

The Command [to fight] has been repeated at [the] end [of Sura 9] in order to impress on the Muslims the importance of the matter and to urge them to do Jihad and crush these internal enemies, without paying the least regard to the racial, family, and social relations that had been proving a binding force with them.

It is clear, then, that Muslims should not pay even “the least regard to the . . . family . . . relations,” a “binding force” that had encumbered the expansion of Islam. Muslims have been ordered, therefore, to fight their family members in a physical way, in other words, to hit them with sharp swords. Why does Muhammad order this? According to Maududi, it is to “crush these internal enemies.”

The literary context of 9:123 shows strife with Muhammad’s enemies. For example, in verse 121 Muhammad complains that the hypocrites do not spend any money in Allah’s cause (code for fighting), so Allah will recompense them accordingly. Next, Muhammad instructs his troops in verse 122 that not all Muslims should go out on a campaign of jihad, but some should stay behind to teach Islam, so they may warn people to beware of evil. Finally, in the verses after 9:123 Muhammad condemns the hypocrites for mocking his revelations. Thus, the literary context does not consist of peace and friendship with Muhammad’s enemies, and that is why he goes on the warpath and to deal with them harshly in 9:123.

The elements within 9:123, the third step in our exegetical method, yield two hard truths. First, Muhammad uses the Arabic word qital (three-consonant root is q-t-l), which always means physically fighting and killing and warring—no other meaning is available. This word is usually stronger than jihad (three consonant root is j-h-d), which Muhammad uses in 9:73, a companion verse to 9:123:

9:73 “O Prophet, fight [j-h-d] the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be stern with them. Their abode is Hell, and what a terrible fate!” (Fakhry)

Thus, jihad and qital can barely be distinguished, since the means (swords) and the goal (submission or death) of fighting are the same in both verses. These two verses alone should lay to rest forever the frequent claim that jihad means only a spiritual struggle against sin in the soul. Second, not only does Muhammad say that his jihadists should fight the unbelievers (and hypocrites in verse 73), but the Muslim warriors should do so harshly or sternly. This lends a severity to the verse which is difficult to take in—along with the eternal fate of the unbelievers, which is very, very often stated in the Quran in exactly the same way as verse 73 states it—short and quick and severe.

We turn now to Matthew 10:34.

Many Muslims assert that Jesus either wielded a physical sword, or he endorsed a holy war, of sorts. Thus, he is not different from Muhammad—and the latter prophet is better than Jesus. They say this to defend tacitly their prophet from any accusation of violence. But this is completely wrong.

10:34 Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth, but a sword.

This historical context, we should recall, is Jewish culture, as Jesus ministers to his own people. He sends out the twelve disciples to the “lost sheep of Israel,” not yet to the gentiles, who will be reached after the Resurrection. It is not surprising, historically speaking, that he would spread his word by proclamation to his own, by Jewish disciples. Second, he predicts that some towns may not receive the disciples and that the authorities may put them on trial and flog them. In that eventuality, they should shake the dust off their feet, pray for them, and flee to another city (not attack the people or the authorities, which Muhammad does to his Meccan persecutors). Third, it is only natural that first-century Jews may not understand this new sect or “Jesus movement” (as sociologists of the New Testament call it), so they resist it. Does this mean, then, that Jesus calls for a jihad with a physical, military sword against his fellow Jews—say, against his own family who wanted to take custody of him because they thought he was “out of his mind” (Mark 3:21)?

[Zvek_Zivi]

Aj necu vise hehehehehe !
These cultural facts explain the literary context, which shows division among family members. The literary context must be quoted in full to explain the meaning of “sword” in 10:34 (bold print):

32 “Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven. 34 Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn

a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law— 36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household [Micah 7:6]

37 Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take up his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.”

The one key element in this lengthy passage is the word “sword,” and its meaning is now clear. It indicates that following Jesus in his original Jewish society may not bring peace to a family, but may “split” it up, the precise function of a metaphorical sword. Are his disciples ready for that? This kind of spiritual sword invisibly severs a man from his father, and daughter from her mother, and so on (Micah 7:6). It is only natural that Matthew, the traditional author of the most Jewish of the Gospels, would include a pericope (a unit or section) like 10:32-39. Given Jesus’ own family resistance early on (they later came around), it is only natural he would say that no matter what the cost, one must follow him to the end, even if it means giving up one’s family. But this applies only if the family rejects the new convert, not if the family accepts him and his new faith; he must not reject them because the whole point of Jesus’ advent is to win as many people to his side as possible, even if this divides the world in two, but never violently.

Finally, reaching the fourth step in our method, we may now contrast the two verses (Quran 9:123 and Matt. 10:34), applying them to today, beginning with the Quranic verse.

Muhammad wages military war on disbelievers, so the targeted people are wide open today. Throughout the Quran in verses that speak of qital and jihad, the prophet divides the world into Dar-ul-Islam (Abode of Islam) and Dar-ul-Kufr (Abode of Unbelief). In 9:123 (and 9:73) Allah permits the superior first world, Islam, to wage war (qital) on and physically struggle (jihad) with the inferior second world—everyone else. This “everyone else” includes kinship and family ties. Muslims today can appreciate this in a literal way, for if they apostatize and become Christians, their family may disown them, or worse, following their Quran. In his book Jesus and Muhammad (pp. 1-20, 208-13), Mark A. Gabriel, former lecturer of Islamic History at Al-Azhar University in Egypt, narrates his conversion to Christianity from Islam, the ensuing death threats, his near-assassination by a hit squad, and a near-murder even by his own father who fired five shots at him.

It is no wonder that non-violent fanatics and violent fanatics like terrorists are inspired by their sacred book. Sura 9 alone has many verses commanding the earliest Muslims to wage military war against disbelievers and hypocrites—and against Byzantine Christians until they, the People of the Book (Christians and Jews), submit to the Muslim army outside the city wall (or die) and pay a special “protection” tax for the “privilege” of living under Islam (Quran 9:29). After all, Muhammad’s jihadists conquer Jerusalem in AD 638, only six years after his death (632). Thus, one Saudi cleric today, quoting mostly from Sura 9 alone (and there are many other verses in other chapters in the Quran), rebukes all Muslims who are indifferent to jihad—not a struggle only within the soul, but a military jihad with real live weapons. He is not misquoting his sacred text; rather, those moderates who misinform unsuspecting Westerners that jihad is an inner struggle of the soul only—these moderates are misquoting the Quran, not the fanatical Saudi cleric.

In contrast, history demonstrates that Jesus never wielded a sword against anyone, and in Matt. 10:34 he does not order his followers to swing one either, in order to kill their family opponents or for any reason. But a true disciple who is worthy of following Christ and who comes from a possibly hostile family has to use a sword of the will (never a physical sword) to sever away all opposition, even as far as taking up his cross—another metaphorical implement for the disciples. It is true that Jesus divides the world into two camps, those who follow him, and those who do not, those in the light, and those in the dark. However, he never tells his followers to wage war on everyone else, and certainly not on one’s family. If people in the second camp do not convert, they will not be harassed with swords in a jihad.

It is true that the Roman Emperor Constantine, Medieval Crusaders, and Protestants and Catholics have used the sword against unbelievers and each other. However, none of them is foundational to Christianity—only Jesus is, and he never endorses the sword to spread his message. Also, Christianity has undergone Reform (c. 1400-1600) and has been put under the pressure of the Enlightenment (c. 1600-1800), which demanded peace. Both the Reformation and the Enlightenment have deeply influenced the founding of the US; hence, many Americans are the most tolerant and the most fervent in their Christian faith (and other faiths) among the industrialized nations around the world. In any case, according to the historical and literary contexts of Matt. 10:34, Jesus himself never calls for military jihad, and only he sets the genetic code for his movement.

On the other hand, Muhammad is foundational for Islam, and he indeed endorses using a sword, and he actually swings one on his frequent military raids and wars. His later Muslims are merely following their leader with a grounding in his Quran. They are not misinterpreting or misapplying their sacred text, for 9:123 (and many other verses) is clear and unambiguous, according to the historical and literary contexts.

Therefore, Muhammad and Jesus are in fact completely different from each other—as different as dark night and bright daylight. Muhammad commands his believers to kill family members with a physical sword, whereas Jesus says a spiritual sword, not a physical one, may sever family ties, so his disciples must be ready for that.

Thus, the Muslim apologists are misusing Matt. 10:34 in order to mask the violence coming from Muslim fanatics today, who are inspired by Muhammad and his Quran, the source of Islam.

This article has a companion piece, which may be read here.

[mastermind]

Ha, ha!!!

Koga misliš impresionirati giga copy paste textovima?! U mnogim stvarima ljdu tvrde različito, zauzimaju različite stavove, ali istina ne može da bude statusa "možda", samo "da" ili "ne", pa treba pogledati i drugu stranu priču, staviti svaku pro i svaki contra tezu, pa onda sumirati. A ti drugu stranu priče nisi izložio...

[Zvek_Zivi]

Znaci " T I " znas istinu dok ostatak ljudstva na ovu planetu nezna nista ????? Ti mora da si muamedov direktni potomak kad sve znas ,no pitanje: procitali ti makar dva reda od ovije tekstova a ????



ps. nemo da te rusi ukradu !

[mastermind]

Onaj ko misli zakopati se u svoje mišljenje, njemu je dosta pogledati jednu stranu priče, onu od neprijatelja Islama. I normalno da će naići na ono što ti pišeš. Ali onaj ko stvarno žei da misli svojim mozgom, on će potražiti istinu, skupiti SVE na jedno mjesto.

[Zvek_Zivi]

HIS TREATMENT OF HIS ENEMIES
THE ASSASSINATION OF KA'B IBN ASHRAF
The Battle of Badr was Muhammad's first direct military confrontation with the people of Mecca. It also initiated a new perspective on both sides which resulted in each treating the other no longer as a troublesome adversary but as a sworn enemy. It was not long before Muhammad himself had to deal with this situation as some of his opponents within Medina, whom he had hitherto treated as irritating antagonists, became serious foes whose influence had to be checked.

The first of these was one Ka`b ibn Ashraf, a Jew who was resident in Medina and who had long been a nuisance to the Prophet in composing satirical verses against him. After the Battle of Badr he became a real threat as he visited Mecca and stirred up the Quraysh to mount a reprisal raid against the Muslims in the hope of neutralising their gains and nullifying the increased prestige Muhammad had obtained in his new city. He composed poems lamenting the leaders of the Quraysh who had been slain at Badr and, when Muhammad learnt of his plans, he made it clear to his followers that he wanted him out of the way. What followed is narrated in many of the early traditions.

Narrated Jabir: The Prophet said, "Who is ready to kill Ka'b ibn Ashraf?". Muhammad bin Maslama replied, "Do you like me to kill him?" The Prophet replied in the affirmative. Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say what I like". The Prophet replied, "I do". (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol.4, p. 168).
It is clear from this narrative that Muhammad not only sanctioned the murder of his opponent but also permitted his followers to use whatever deception they considered necessary to achieve their purpose. In another tradition Muhammad ibn Maslama's statement "allow me to say what I like" is interpreted to mean that he should be allowed to say a "false" thing to deceive Ka'b (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol.5, p.248). This was the first occasion that Muhammad, now in a state of actual warfare with those who withstood him, had to prescribe a policy in dealing with them and his license to his companions to not only assassinate but also to deceive them became a precedent in his future attitudes towards his foes. An early biographer is quite emphatic in his record of this commission:

The apostle said, "All that is incumbent upon you is that you should try". He answered, "O apostle of God, we shall have to tell lies". He answered "Say what you like, for you are free in the matter". (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulullah, p.367).
It cannot be denied that this was a direct order to one of his followers to murder one of his opponents and to use any manner of lies to achieve his purpose. It is hardly surprising to find that this companion of the same name duly took advantage of his commission to dispatch the offending Jew and kill him under the cover of darkness:

Muhammad b. Maslama came to Ka`b and talked to him, referred to the old friendship between them and said: This man (i.e. the Holy Prophet) has made up his mind to collect charity (from us) and this has put us to a great hardship. When he heard this, Ka`b said, By God, you will be put to more trouble by him. Muhammad b. Maslama said: No doubt, now we have become his followers and we do not like to forsake him until we see what turn his affairs will take. (Sahih Muslim, Vol.3, p.991).
Muhammad's companion had only persuaded Ka`b to leave the security of his home by deceiving him into thinking that his group was disillusioned by Muhammad's intention to financially burden the Muslims. As Ibn Maslama was of the Aus tribe who were resident in Medina, he succeeded in convincing him that he meant him no harm. His own foster brother Abu Na`ilah who was also one of the group was even more persuasive in using dishonest tactics to lure him unsuspectingly into the darkness:


He said: I am Abu Na`ilah, and I have come to inform you that the advent of this man (the Prophet) is a calamity for us. The Arabs are fighting with us and they are shooting with one bow (i.e. they are united against us). We want to keep away from him (the Prophet). (Ibn Sa'd, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol.2, p.36).
The same biographer records that these men had claimed that they had come to visit him purely to purchase dates and food. When Ka`b was lured into talking freely with them and was "pleased with them and became intimate with them" (op.cit., p.37), they came closer to him on the pretext that they wished to smell his perfume. Drawing near to him, they suddenly drew their swords and thrust him through and, having killed him, they immediately returned to Muhammad uttering the takbir ("Allahu Akbar" - Allah is Most Great). Muhammad's reception of them is recorded in this narrative:


When they reached the Apostle of Allah, Allah bless him; he said (Your) faces be lucky. They said: Yours too, O Apostle of Allah! They cast his head before him. He (the Prophet) praised Allah on his being slain. When it was morning, he said: Kill every Jew whom you come across. The Jews were frightened, so none of them came out, nor did they speak. They were afraid that they would be suddenly attacked as Ibn Ashraf was attacked in the night. (Ibn Sa'd, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol.2, p.37).
This whole affair has an atmosphere of conspiracy and intrigue, of deception and treachery, of murder and assassination. Muslim writers, in trying to clear Muhammad of blame in the whole sordid affair, have used a number of arguments in his defense. At times Muhammad's own part in it has been totally ignored and it has been suggested that it was solely the reaction of some of his companions to Ka`b's false accusations against the Muslim women of Medina that led to the offence while others have argued that Ka`b was legally "executed" by the Prophet for treason against him. Legal terminology has been used to justify his action by saying that a just sentence had been performed upon a traitor who, of necessity, was summarily dispatched in a swift and secret execution. The clandestine murder of the poet under cover of darkness is rationalised as an attempt to execute him silently and without any fuss rather than in a public execution which might attract unwanted attention. It has also been argued that Muhammad had already decreed that deception was an art in warfare and, as Ka`b had declared war on the Muslims by stirring up opposition to them, the lies of his murderers were vindicated as a legitimate strategy in disposing of him.

[Zvek_Zivi]

It is hard to view the incident as anything other than a cold blooded murder to further the aims of a man who, at this stage, was anything but the undisputed ruler of Medina. The lies which accompanied it, sanctioned as they were by the Prophet, merely aggravate his culpability and the defenses raised by Muslim writers seem to be nothing more than expedient attempts to acquit him from what otherwise appear to be severe blemishes on his character. The band of assassins creeping through the darkness to unleash their swords against an unsuspecting foe hardly fit the role of executioners legally commissioned to dispatch a criminal properly condemned after a proper trial in the spirit of true justice.

Yet another defense of Muhammad's action has been raised, namely that a traitor is no more than an outlaw who can be killed by anyone without any special authority. When one considers that Ka`b never swore allegiance to Muhammad's cause at any time it is hard to see how he could be accused of being a traitor. Nonetheless the license to all and sundry to lynch anyone suspected of being a renegade does tend to give a more realistic picture of what really happened that night than the legal euphemisms of others who would acquit the Prophet of Islam of being an accomplice in murder and falsehood.

THE SLAUGHTER OF OTHER OPPONENTS OF THE PROPHET

The story of Ka`b ibn Ashraf does not stand alone. Numerous other Arabs who ventured to withstand Muhammad were cunningly murdered once he had an opportunity to dispatch them. Another Jew named Abu Rafi, who was one of the chiefs of a Jewish tribe, the Banu Nadhir, was also killed in much the same way. After being exiled from Medina he moved to Khaibar north of the city and what happened to him is once again set out in bland language in the early records of Islam. This account is one of many in the Hadith literature outlining the event:

Narrated Al-Bara: Allah's Apostle sent Abdullah bin Atik and Abdullah bin Utba with a group of men to Abu Rafi (to kill him) ... (Abdullah said) "I called, 'O Abu Rafi!' He replied 'Who is it?' I proceeded towards the voice and hit him. He cried loudly but my blow was futile. Then I came to him, pretending to help him, saying with a different tone of voice, 'What is wrong with you, O Abu Rafi?' He said 'Are you not surprised? Woe on your mother! A man has come to me and hit me with a sword!' So again I aimed at him and hit him, but the blow proved futile again, and on that Abu Rafi cried loudly and his wife got up. I came again and changed my voice as if I was a helper, and found Abu Rafi lying straight on his back, so I drove the sword into his belly and bent on it till I heard the sound of a bone break." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol.5, pp. 253,254).
The story has much the same character as the assassination of Ka`b ibn Ashraf. Once again the cold blooded murder of Muhammad's enemy was accomplished with pretence and deceit. Another record of the incident adds that, when Abu Rafi's wife enquired who they were, they replied that they were simply a group of "Arabs in search of supplies" (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulullah, p.483).

It is significant to find that most of the individuals dispatched at Muhammad's instance were those who had composed satirical legends against him or had invented poetic passages to rival the text of the Qur'an. It seems that the Prophet of Islam could not tolerate a challenge to his claim to be a divinely inspired messenger. Mention has already been made of An-Nadr ibn al-Harith who was put to death after the Battle of Badr for having formerly ridiculed the Qur'an and reciting Persian legends in their stead which he claimed were more beautiful that Muhammad's oracles. Although the Qur'an boldly invites anyone who challenges its authenticity to produce similar passages to rival it (Surah 11.13), Muhammad appears to have been severely troubled when some of his opponents set out to do just that.

Al-Harith ibn Suwayd ibn Samit was another opponent murdered at Muhammad's instigation. This set off something of a chain reaction. One Abu Afak, annoyed at the incident, composed a satire defending the ancestors of those who were disaffected at the Prophet which prompted him to respond "Who will deal with this rascal for me?" at which another of his companions, Salim ibn `Umayr, went forth and slaughtered him. (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulullah, p.675). In reply to this `Asma bint Marwan, another resident of Medina disenchanted with Islam, composed a satire charging her fellow townsmen of the Aus and Khazraj "You obey a stranger who is none of yours ... Is there no man of pride who would attack him by surprise and cut off the hopes of those who expect aught from him?" When Muhammad heard this he said "Who will rid me of Marwan's daughter?" at which `Umayr ibn `Adiy al-Khatmi immediately crept into her house and murdered her. On his return he confirmed that he had killed her at which Muhammad was greatly pleased and said to him "You have greatly helped God and his Apostle, O `Umayr!" (op. cit., p.676).

After the conquest of Khaibar a local traitor cowardly told Muhammad that he knew where his master Kinana had a large sum of money concealed. The search yielded only a little at which the Prophet weakly allowed az-Zubayr to torture him to disclose the place where the rest was hidden. Two pieces of very hot wood were applied to Kinana's chest so forcefully that he fainted from the ordeal. The pressure did not result in the disclosure of the rest of the money, however, and when the Prophet saw that nothing was being gained he had him decapitated.

A CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE OF MUHAMMAD'S INTRIGUES

Little argument is needed to persuade an objective reader that the Prophet of Islam thought little of murdering his opponents in clandestine circumstances and using deceitful means to achieve his aims. Muslims have done all they can to vindicate hum but, from a Christian perspective, he cannot escape the most severe censure. During his own lifetime Jesus addressed this sort of behaviour quite unambiguously when, considering the devil, he said:

"He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, because he is a liar and the father of lies". John 8.44
The records of most of these incidents state that the murders of such opponents of the Prophet usually took place at night. On each occasion the assassins did everything they could to keep their identity hidden and their actions concealed. The Christian Bible states its own impressions as to why such deeds are performed under cover of darkness:


Men loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. For every one who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. John 3.19-20
It is a shame even to speak of the things that they do in secret. Ephesians 5.12

Muslim writers often argue that such actions were typical of those practiced by most military leaders in wartime as understood by the nations of the world. This leads, however, to a key question. Is the Prophet of Islam to be judged (and acquitted) purely by the standards of his own time or, having boldly claimed to be the greatest of all divinely commissioned men throughout all human history, is he to be assessed by the absolute standards set forth by the human figure of Jesus Christ who preceded him? It does appear that Muhammad's designs on his enemies can only be justified by relative standards and that he cannot escape the censure of Christian morality.

When Muhammad discovered that neither the Jews nor the Christians were going to respond to his claims he became very angry with them and the Qur'an declares Qaatalahumullaah meaning "Allah curse them!" (Surah 9.30). Jesus was also confronted often with people who would not receive him yet, when his disciples wanted to call down fire from heaven to consume a group of Samaritans who had refused to receive him, he replied:

"You do not know what manner of spirit you are of, for the Son of man came not to destroy men's lives but to save them". Luke 9.55
Jesus taught that love for one's fellow-man was to be so impartial that it was to extend even to one's foes: "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you" (Luke 6.27-28). Indeed when Jesus chose to show just what true love is in a parable just after this, he chose a Samaritan as the hero of the story (Luke 10.33). Most importantly Jesus himself put his own teaching into practice and, when he was finally unjustly crucified by his staunchest foes, instead of seeking to condemn them, he prayed "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" (Luke 23.34).

For all his greatness Muhammad's character is very seriously compromised by the stories in the earliest works of Islamic tradition which disclose, in simple narrative form, how he deviously sanctioned the slaughter of his enemies, especially those who did him no other harm than to irk him with their poetic satires. Many of the prophets of Old Testament times can be shown to have acted just as callously at times but this does not exonerate Muhammad. Between those prophets and his era stands a new dawn in human history when the man Jesus Christ projected a perfect human character and fulfilled God's revealed purposes for mankind once and for all. Muhammad shows himself to be as much in need of the redeeming work of God's Saviour as any other person in history - he cannot really be compared with him as God's final representative on earth.

[mastermind]

Znaci " T I " znas istinu dok ostatak ljudstva na ovu planetu nezna nista ????? Ti mora da si muamedov direktni potomak kad sve znas ,no pitanje: procitali ti makar dva reda od ovije tekstova a ????



ps. nemo da te rusi ukradu !

Da li su hrišćani većina ljudstva? Da li je u ovom trenutku ijedna vjera više od 50% Zemaljskog stanovništva? Na kraju krajeva: čime se Istina mjeri: brojem sljedbenika???

Pročitao sam ja stranice od onoga što si ti napisao, vjeruj mi. Da nisam, ne bi ni naišao (i postova) neke od odgovora gore na linkovima.

PS: Dušo, jesi li to popizdio, pa se na Ruse vadiš?

[Zvek_Zivi]

Islam

Many Muslims claim Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. It may well become part of all our lives. Some may well ask, "Does it matter, for some in Islam are gentle people?" The truth is that while the sensitive Muslim is disturbed by some of the things done in the name of Islam, the expansionists uphold extremes:

"One Muslim extremist of the Islamic Liberation party reminded his interlocutors just before the scheduled opening of the party's international rally in London in August, 1994, that 'there are 123 verses in the Quran about killing and fighting.' And he added, quite unnecessarily, 'Ours is not a passive religion.' Quoted from Fregosi, P. (1998, p.18).

Whether one's enemies should be treated differently from those who believe, is one of the most distinctive differences between the world's most read religious books (in particular the Quran and the New Testament).

Here are four of the 123 verses referred to above. [Note: the numbering of these varies slightly between translations.]

"O believers, fight the unbelievers who are near to you, and let them find in you a harshness; and know that Allah is with the godfearing" (Sura al-Tawba 9:123).

"Fight against those who believe not in Allah and the Last Day and do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger, have forbidden -- such men as practise not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book -- until they pay tribute out of hand and have been humbled" (Sura al-Tawba 9:29).

"The punishment of those who wage war against God and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;" (Sura Al Ma idah 5:33).

The Quran encourages Muslims to fight, even when they would rather seek peace with those who do not wish to adopt Islam.

"Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." (Sura AL-BAQARA 2:16) The Quran

Most Muslims would say that these verses are misunderstood, but misunderstood or not, the history of Islam shows that many Muslim leaders have used those verses to spread terror. Islam, according to the Quran, can be spread by force. Mohammed, the founder of Islam, was quoted as saying, "Invitation first (that is, call them first to embrace Islam). If they refuse, then war." "The sword", said Mohammed, "is the key of heaven and hell; a drop of blood shed in the cause of Allah, a night spent in arms, is of more avail than two months of fasting or prayer: whosoever falls in battle, his sins are forgiven, and at the day of judgment his limbs shall be supplied by the wings of angels and cherubim."

It is as true today as it was then that Muslims wish to have their sins forgiven. Every Muslim lacks this certainty, and some are willing to do anything to gain it. Thus, fighting for Allah (a form Jihad) is the way of many.

Such self-sacrifice and devotion to Allah has not unified the Islamic world. Much of the Islamic world is constantly in a state of confusion and violence, warring against itself. History has shown that Muslims always fight against other Muslims because they cannot accept other group's interpretation of the Quran or their particular application of the Law. Many Muslim countries regard other Muslim countries as not strict enough when it comes to applying "Sharia Law" (Law based on the Quran and Hadith); groups such as the Taliban in Afghanistan claim others are not true Muslims. One can expect to see an increase in war until all are under one Islamic denomination (Mazhab).

What will happen if most of the Islamic world is united under one leader (as in times of old), having the wealth and military might to challenge western nations? If the world is forced to accept Islamic Law, the world will not be a more peaceful place. Instead, the result of a world under the rule of Islam would be disaster. Consider that the few countries that have adopted Islamic Sharia Law are all disasters. Since it has been adopted by Sudan (1983), 2 million unnecessary deaths have occurred in that country, all due to Islamic oppression. This is the story of Islam.

Consider the following quotes from the cover of Paul Fregosi's book, "Jihad":

"The story begins around 650 C.E. with the first, unsuccessful siege of Constantinople, and continues with the invasion and occupation, sometimes for hundreds of years, of many European countries. Italy, Sicily, Portugal, France, Spain, Austria, Bosnia, Serbia, Croatia, Hungary, Rumania, Wallachia, Albania, Moldavia, Bulgaria, Greece, Armenia, Georgia, Poland, the Ukraine, and eastern and southern Russia were all battlefields where Islam conquered or was conquered in violent conflicts marked by cruelty, bloodlust, and a fearful loss of life, spread over considerably more than a thousand years. "

"For over a century and a half the world had forgotten this fact, since most Muslim countries were politically impotent and ruled mainly as the colonies or protectorates of European powers."

"… European history has remained transfixed on the Christian Crusades of the eleventh to the thirteenth century, it has largely ignored these Muslim attacks and invasions...When accusing the West of imperialism, Muslims are obsessed with the crusades , but have forgotten their own longer and more gruesome Jihad."

Why should all this interest us? Fregosi adds, "There's an intention to censor what's going on about Islam, more so than for any other religion".

For example, Muslim propagandists say that Islam spread quickly because it was from God. But conquest is not conversion and giving in to threats is not conviction. War and oppression were the secrets to Islam's success. Idolaters had to choose between Islam, slavery and death; Jews and Christians were allowed to purchase a limited toleration by the payment of tribute, but were otherwise kept in degrading bondage. To a large degree oppression toward Jews and Christians was dependent on whether Islamic leaders wanted converts to Islam to raise their numbers, or taxes; as non-Muslims were compelled to pay more tax in fact at some points in history it was very difficult to convert to Islam because they didn't want to loose the extra money they were receiving from taxes!
[Here is a list of European countries which were occupied by Muslims (either Arabs, Moors, or Ottoman Turks): Spain 800 years, Portugal 600 years, Greece 500 years, Sicily 300 years, Serbia 400 years, Bulgaria 500 years, Rumania 400 year, and Hungary 150 years.] What do Islamic scholars have to say about offensive war? See Offensive War to Spread Islam. .

Islamic teachers continue to deliberately misquote those who do not support the Islamic historical view. They rewrite history to suite themselves and threaten anyone who speaks a word against the Quran with death. Some say we have our present day democracy because of Islam. Obviously Muslim religious leaders have no trouble lying in order to uphold their positions. See Lying for Allah

Muslims are taught that Islam is a blessing to the whole world. Yet, it is true that, 'Awful religions have awful gods', for they can only say Islam has been more of a blessing than a curse if they have a blind devotion to the God they call Allah. This god claims to be good. Unfortunately a person's character is slowly transformed into the character of the god they try to please. We find that many followers of Islam commit atrocities with a clean conscience for the sake of their god, and they thus imagine that these atrocities are even for the uplifting of humanity to God.

We note also that while Islam is supposed to bring equality, in practice this has never occurred. The super rich are able to avoid many of the harsh punishments that poor people cannot escape from.

Sadly, every Muslim dreams of a world under Islam because he believes Islam is the solution to the problems that plague humanity.

[Zvek_Zivi]

Islam is a state religion by nature; consequently Muslims are automatically involved in the affairs of the state (politics). However, history has shown that ordinary Muslims will never have a real choice when it comes to the laws they are going to live under, as the majority of them are decided by their religious leaders. God, they say, has given his laws in the Quran and Hadiths (although we have noted the conflicting opinions resulting in conflicts within Islam over these).

On the other hand, democracy is something that Muslims use (when available) to establish what they believe is God's law on earth -a non-democratic religious system. Democracy almost becomes non-existent once Muslim religious leaders gain control.

It is a sad fact that most Muslims had more rights and freedoms when they lived under European rule than they have had under Sharia law. But Muslim religious leaders hated being ruled by Europeans because Muslims were no longer masters over minority groups but had to treat them as equals, which included freedom of belief and equality in courts of law. (In Islam the testimony of a Muslim man is equivalent to the testimony of 2 Muslim women, Sura 2:282 "…so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her ." Not surprisingly, the testimony of non-Muslims is worth even less). The slave trade was only abolished in Muslim countries because of European rule. See http://www.zanzibar-archives.org/slv.htm . Unfortunately, it has begun again. Slavery in Sudan

So why do Muslims remain Muslim? Do they have a choice? To the fanatical Muslim, anyone who gives up Islam must have done it because of insanity. Though Sura 2:256 states, "There is no compulsion in religion", many Muslims suffer the death penalty for apostasy (in accordance with the practices of Mohammed). It seems that all Muslim scholars support the death penalty without exception. The view of respected Islamic scholars on apostasy can be found at Relinquishing the Faith. According to Muslim scholars, Sura 2:256, which emphasises freedom of religion, is no longer valid as it has been abrogated by later revelations which were given to Mohammed (hence the death penalty for apostates and hardships for non-believers).

Many have chosen to follow Islam without questioning the claims it makes. (Muslims are taught not to question the religion's - and so the Quran's - authority, and so they follow blindly without questioning.) Most Muslims are afraid to ask difficult questions as the questions might be viewed as an attack against Islam. However, people of other faiths are not afraid to investigate the claims the Quran (and Islam) makes for itself. See the results at One Arabic Quran ,A 'Perfect' Quran and Islamic Hoaxes

We are told that in the Arabic language there is nothing more beautiful than the Quran, although those who read the English often question what they mean by beauty. Unfortunately for non-Arabs the Quran is less than ordinary when translated and contains very little that is beautiful. Further, the Quran hardly mentions love, and does not encourage love toward non-Muslims. Love for example is only shown toward the Muslim widow and orphan. Other widows and orphans (eg.Hindus) have to convert if they wish to receive the same treatment from the Muslim community.

Perhaps it is not such a wonderful thing to receive the 'same' treatment from the Muslim Community. Would the world really be a wonderful place if we were all members of the same Islamic denomination?

"Foreign Correspondent" (Australian TV) has screened some of the atrocities committed publicly by Muslims against Muslims. These acts were approved by the religious leaders of those communities. Sounds a bit far fetched? Some things have to be seen to be believed. Murder in Purdha , License to Kill (both of these programs and many others are available on video)

http://www.homa.org/punish.html
http://www.AngelsInSudan.com/sudan/brutalfacts.htm
In The Name of Allah
My Grace is Sufficient for You by G.M. Naaman. It is about his life as a Muslim, the crimes he committed towards Hindu's, and why he left Islam and became a peace-maker. Such stories are more common than you would think.

And the crimes of the recent past Massacres of the Khilafah

Obviously, Islam should be taken as a serious threat to today's non-Muslim communities. There are presently more Muslim missionaries in the world than Christian missionaries. Muslim missionaries are spreading Islam by enticing people to believe that Islam is a religion of Justice and equality . Strangely, Muslims are succeeding in convincing people (including the Media) that the Quran does not preach war. See Islam today .

Yusufali translates Sura 4:95 as follows:

"Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,"

Sadly, one of the most disturbing results of Islamic teaching is the effect it has on the young.

I have been told that all fictional futuristic Muslim books end the same way; with Islam ruling the world. I have not read any fictional Muslim books, but this is not hard to believe considering the songs many Palestinian Muslims teach their children. Walid, who was born as a Palestinian Muslim (in Bethlehem), tells his story.

“I did not forget the first song I learned in school just before the six day war titled, 'Arabs our beloved and Jews our dogs.' I used to wonder at that time who the Jews were, but repeated with the rest of the kids the words without any knowledge of the meaning.”

What about today? See Taught to Hate.

Belief is a powerful motivational force, especially when it is learned from an early age; people lie, murder, commit suicide, seek war and revenge all on the basis of belief, or if they have alternative beliefs which oppose these, they will seek love and peace. Islam can be spread by war or any other means. Islam does not allow freedom of belief; it does not allow true freedom of religion.

How should we treat a strife-maker?

This tract is not intended as a mere political statement, for the writer believes that God wants to show us what life is really all about, which is to learn about him and find our security in a meaningful relationship with him, so that we can begin to think more about others rather than ourselves. Fear (insecurity) leads to aggression. While we are so afraid of losing what we value in this world we will not be able to love our enemies, and unless we begin to care for our enemies there will never be lasting peace.

[Zvek_Zivi]

http://www.debate.org.uk/topics/cool..._murdered.html
http://www.debate.org.uk/topics/coolcalm/fruit.html
Eo uspjeh ja koji nezna istinu da skratim textove !

[mastermind]

Slušaj me, ba... Ne samo da me nije strah to što izlažeš Qur'anske ajete (uz napomenu da je to sve po tvojoj volji i kako se tebi sviđa...) već me nije strah staviti Islam na jedan tas, a Hrišćanstvo na drugi tas. Mene diskusije komp. religije ne plaše. Ja sam dosad nisam gledao hrišćanske sajtove sa sekcijama za komp. rel. već samo hrišć. sajtove sa sekcijama kako da ocrne ime Islama.

Ti si stavio tvoje linkove, odgovori su na primjer ovdje:

And the winner iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiis: http://www.jamaat.net/deedat.htm

[SIZE=2]WARNING: reading any of the below, can change your life!
Please note, the literature below is intended to show to the Christian, the Muslim position in regards to Jesus Christ (Peace be upon him), the character of the Prophet of Islam and his mentioning in the Biblical scriptures, the Muslim view of the present Bible. etc etc..
Please, if you are to read any of this. Read with an open mind, as pre-conceived notions can impair ones search for the truth. Even though I' am not the author of any of the below online books. I have in very rare instances of Sheikh Deedat's books, inserted my commentry in order to clarify a meaning that I have noticed many Christian's misunderstand, or enhance the authors argument. I have clearly marked my insertions in Red. Also the authors footnotes I have placed below many of the paragraphs, to make it easier for the reader to pick up as one is reading along, as it is very relevant to the text being read. Sheikh Deedat's footnotes are indicated in the Fuchsia colour. I'll accept criticism or questions on behalf of Sheikh Deedat. As I support his thesis's, please write your comments in the forum (for [/SIZE][SIZE=2]benefit of other readers to this site[/SIZE])[SIZE=2], and I will endeavor to explain any of the points God-willing. [/SIZE]

Ili na primjer ovdje: http://www.irf.net/irf/comparativereligion/index.htm Na ovom istom sajtu imate i Video kao i Download sekciju. Štetiti vam ne može: ako ste u pravu, onda ovi sajtovi neće nauditi, već će vam samo vjeru učvrsititi. (Što te ne ubije, samo će te ojačati ) a ako niste, onda ćete naći Istinu. U svakom slučaju ste na dobitnoj strani.

[Zvek_Zivi]

Quote: And the winner iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiis: http://www.jamaat.net/deedat.htm
Hhahahahahahaha jes i sad posto ja napisah one tekstove oceli i mene bit nesto slicno ovome :THE SLAUGHTER OF OTHER OPPONENTS OF THE PROPHET END ISLAM
??????????????????????????????????????????????+

[Mabus]

Zweku sve sam procitao sto si naveo. Nista od toga nije istina. Sta da ti kazem drugo tebra? Nadam se da si zadovoljan odgovorom.

[mastermind]

Taman tako, brate Mabuse...Nego da mi nastavimo:

Islam answers (the absurdities of the Bible)

Samo neki citati sa linka:

[SIZE=2]10. CONTRADICTIONS: [/SIZE]In the Bible— (a) The "Lord" tempted David . . . 2 SAMUEL 24:1 or "Satan provoked David . . . I CHRONICLES 21:1 (b) 700 or 7000? "Horsemen" or "Footmen" . . . ? 2 Samuel 10:18 vs 1 CHRONICLES 19: 18 (c) Solomon had 2000 baths or 3000 baths? 1 KINGS 7-26 vs 2 CHRONICLES 4:5 (d) Solomon had 4000 stalls of horses or 40000? 2 CHRONICLES 9:25 vs 1 KINGS 4:26 (e) Did Saul enquire of the Lord or didn't he? 1 SAMUELS 28:6 vs 1 CHRONICLES 10:13-14 (f) Heaven, no man hath ascended JOHN 3:13 Contradicted by. 2 KINGS 2:11 Elijah ascended, and GENESIS 5:24 Enoch ascended. (g) Jesus lost "None" of his disciples JOHN 18:9 Contradicted by. He lost only "One" JOHN 17:12 (h) ALL are sinners 2 CHRONICLES 6:36 Contradicted by: "Whosoever is born of God DOTH NOT commit sin. . ." 1 John 3:9

[SIZE=2]26. JESUS (pbuh) A "GOD"?:[/SIZE] Powerless (a) "I can of mine own self W NOTHING . . ." JOHN 5:30
HE HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE HEREAFTER (b) "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, NEITHER THE SON, but the Father " MARK 13:32 HE WAS IGNORANT OF THE SEASONS (c) 'And seeing a fig tree afar of having leaves, he came if happily he might find any thing there on. and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves, FOR THE TIME OF FIGS WAS NOT YET." MARK 11:13
JESUS (PBUH) AS A THIRSTY "GOD'? (d) " . . (Jesus) saith, I THIRST." JOHN 19:28 JESUS (PBUH) AS A WEEPING "GOD'? (e) Jesus WEPT. JOHN I 1:3 5 Remember that this is the shortest sentence in the Bible! (Only two words)
IMAGINE A "GOD" BEING TEMPTED by THE DEVIL (?) (f) "Where he (Jesus) stayed forty days, being tempted by Satan" MARK 1:13

[Nikolina]

Taman tako, brate Mabuse...Nego da mi nastavimo:

Islam answers (the absurdities of the Bible)

Samo neki citati sa linka:

Ao ao, otvorite oči ljudi, što Kuran, što Biblija - sve jedno te isto, ispiranje mozga ovamo, ispiranje mozga onamo.
Ako ste mi jasni, pomamila se...
Ovi se trude da ospore Bibliju, ovi drugi Kuran, kuku kuku... Blagoš u pamet.

[mastermind]

Malo više na temu topića:

Answers to Who Wrote The Qur'an

(Desni klik, zatim "Save Target as..." u internet Exploreru; u Firefoxu "Save Link as...")

See you soon folks!

[mastermind]

Ao ao, otvorite oči ljudi, što Kuran, što Biblija - sve jedno te isto, ispiranje mozga ovamo, ispiranje mozga onamo.
Ako ste mi jasni, pomamila se...
Ovi se trude da ospore Bibliju, ovi drugi Kuran, kuku kuku... Blagoš u pamet.

He, he... Pa šta ti nije jasno, da ti pokušamo objasniti? Nije sve jedno te isto, jesi li ti to pročitala nešto od ovoga svega iznad pa da kažeš? Let us know, OK?

[mastermind]

Examining The Qur'an

It is worthwhile knowing something about the Orientalism and its distortion of Islam. The academic study of the Oriental East by the Occidental West was often motivated and often co-operated hand-in-hand with the imperialistic aims of the European colonial powers. Without a doubt, the foundations of Orientalism are in the maxim "Know thy enemy". When the Christian Nations of Europe began their long campaign to colonize and conquer the rest of the world for their own benefit, they brought their academic and missionary resources to bear in order to help them with their task. Orientalists and missionaries whose ranks often overlapped, not just the servants of an imperialist government who were using their services as a way to subdue or weaken an enemy, however subtly.
Quite a few Orientalist scholars were Christian missionaries. Two examples worth mentioning are that of Sir William Muir and Rev. St. Claire Tisdall, who were active missionaries and authors of several books on Islam. Today, these books are viewed as very biased studies, even though they continue to be used as references for those wishing to attack Islam to this very day. That Christians were the source of some of the worst lies and distortions about Islam should come as no surprise, since Islam was its main "competitor" on the stage of World Religions. Far from honouring the commandment not to bear false witness against one's neighbour, Christians distortions and outright lies about Islam were widespread.
The modern day Orientalists may have become de-Christianised, but there still exist some age-old notions about Islam. The Christian missionaries as usual, rely on the material of Orientalists. But unfortunately, the Orientalists do not say what the Christian missionaries would like to point out. Hence misquoting is very rife in Christian missionary writing as most of the articles below would show.
This page exclusively deals with the Christian missionary propaganda, lies and distortion about the Qur'an. The Muslims assert that the Qur'an is same as recited by the Prophet Muhammad(P). There are no additional materials added to it nor subtracted after the death of the Prophet(P).
We have divided them into following sections so as to enable the reader to understand the issues involved here.

Textual Integrity
Logical Consistency
Miraculous Features

Supernatural eloquence
Scientific statements far ahead of its time

Sources Of The Qur'an
Abrogation
Tafsir of the Qur'an

In this section, the Tafsir of some of the important verses of the Qur'an misquoted by the Christian missionaries would be provided along with the methodology of interpreting the Qur'an.

Qur'anic Studies

The content is be primarily the interesting papers published in peer-reviewed journals. Some material is also the excerpts from books. The aim of bringing such material on the web is to disseminate interesting information which otherwise would end up getting stacked in the libraries, unread.

Integrity of the Bible according to the Qur'an?

May be we should first check what the Church tradition has to say about the integrity or lack of it of the Bible!
The Canons Of The Old Testament & The New Testament Through The Ages

A comprehensive collection of biblical canons throughout the history from the time of Jesus to the modern day critical editions.

On The Textual Sources Of The New International Version (NIV) Bible

What are the textual sources of the NIV Bible? Can these textual sources be considered "inspired" or "original"? Such issues are dealt with in this article. It should be added that the arguments made against the "inspiration" or "originality" of textual sources of the NIV Bible are also valid for RSV, NASV and other Bibles. Please note that the article is not about translations of the Bible; it is about their textual sources.

The Integrity Of The Bible According To The Church Tradition
What about the Bible at the time of Muhammad(P)?
Is The Bible In Our Hands Same As During The Time Of Muhammad(P)?

Insha'allah, more information can be obtained by clicking on the above and following the argument through the links.

[mastermind]

Ma koga je strah textualne kritike! Mene ne:

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bib...criticism.html

[Zvek_Zivi]

Jes no MENE izbrisase linkove i tekst a ne tebe hehehehehe !

Komso oli ni malacko objasnit sto kad neko konvertira iz islama na kriscanstvo udaraju mu se fatve i zagarantovan odmor pod crnom zemljom a ????? Hhehehehehe !

End Quote:
Most Muslims would say that these verses are misunderstood, but misunderstood or not, the history of Islam shows that many Muslim leaders have used those verses to spread terror. Islam, according to the Quran, can be spread by force. Mohammed, the founder of Islam, was quoted as saying, "Invitation first (that is, call them first to embrace Islam). If they refuse, then war." "The sword", said Mohammed, "is the key of heaven and hell; a drop of blood shed in the cause of Allah, a night spent in arms, is of more avail than two months of fasting or prayer: whosoever falls in battle, his sins are forgiven, and at the day of judgment his limbs shall be supplied by the wings of angels and cherubim."



Kako objasnjavas da u drzave dje se najvise praktikuje islam ima masu prostitucije droge ubijanja (na najogre moguce nacine) zabranjuju se druge religije, mora se nosit roba koju samo muslimani nose (tipa ona traveza oko glave), itd itd ???????
ps. pa zborimo o tolerantnoscu ,suzivotu respektu itd itd itd !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ps za one koji ne znaju ja sam ateist tako da svako pljuvanje na kriscanstvo mene ne dodiruje ! Postovanje za sve koji praktikuju svoju odabranu ( ne nametnutu) vjeru ALI U SVOJU KUCU uz svu svoju privatnost !

PS: Mabuse VAZDA KOMSO !

[mastermind]

Komso oli ni malacko objasnit sto kad neko konvertira iz islama na kriscanstvo udaraju mu se fatve i zagarantovan odmor pod crnom zemljom a ????? Hhehehehehe !

Haj' ti malo prelistaj Bibliju:Laws Of Apostacy in The Bible