I SLAM
ISLAM
By
Steve Omega
I’ve read the Koran three times now. The first time was as a youth
searching for a divine nugget. It struck me as disappointingly uninspiring.
The second time was in 1998 to look for prophecy and found only a repetitive
message akin to brainwashing. The third time, I admit to being leery of it,
and found it to have been written with help that is far from divine.
The translation I used of the Koran seems virulent but probably not the
most so, as many are available. It is just chance that I currently have access
to one translated in 1930 by Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall, and printed by the
government of Mir Osman Ali Khan, the late nizam of Hyderabad-Deccan. I’ve
cross referenced some of the verses in other Korans and found them sometimes
slightly differing in meaning, and the verses I refer to can sometimes be off
by one or more verses in different translations so any passage I refer to
could be the verse above or below it, if not immediately obvious.
There are claims that the Koran is similar to Sanskrit and Tamil texts
as evidenced by the Koran not conforming to Arabic grammar. Over 100
aberrations were noted by Mahmud-oz-zamakshari and he stated the Koran was not
miraculous. There are parts imitative of a Syrian poet and Ali Dashti in his
book “23 Years: A study of the Prophetic Career of Mohammed” (published
1985) draws attention to these probable sources. Mohammed also used Al-Ukdal-Fareed,
the 25 chapters called ‘Jaw-hara’ (the Pearl) from which to pillage verses
for his surahs. This was written by Ibn Abd Rabbi’hil Andalusi who was born
in 246AD and died in 327AD.
So if the Koran is based on cribbed together writings and dubious other
religious texts, this really casts doubt on the divine source. Some people
(yes, anti-Muslims) have suggested that Mohammed had epileptic fits, and his
own mother had declared him possessed by a devil. Regardless of these claims,
it seems highly suspect to find castigation of an enemy uncle and a
confirmation that an adopted son should divorce his wife so that Mo’ can
marry her in it’s suras. This seems way too convenient to just happen to fit
in with Mo’s mindset, for surely if God really wanted such a thing, he could
have just willed it?
Consider something like sura 33:36 which states, ‘….when allah and
his messenger have decided an affair…’ and goes on to say you shouldn’t
question it. Well how convenient for him that god has Mo’ for a partner.
There are other reasons to suspect that the claimed divine revelation
is actually a satanic source, if not simply from Mo’s fevered brow, but
I’ll get more into that later.
The Muslim world has generated suicide bombers and terrorists galore.
The Koran stokes these fires of hatred. There are numerous promises of
paradise for the slain and booty for the alive. A typical one is sura 4:74,
‘Whoso fighteth in the way of allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him
we shall bestow a vast reward’.
Sura 5:33 threatens death, crucifiction or hands and feet cut off for
those that strive against allah. Christians and non-moslems beware! Anyone
that isn’t a follower of islam is classed as causing corruption to the earth
and is therefore to be killed. The two suras just mentioned are only two of
many, many such threats and intimidations. Read sura 9:5 that says to slay the
unbelievers wherever you find them, etc etc etc.
The Muslim apologists claim that Islam is a religion of peace and that
the terrorists aren’t real Muslims. This reminds me of when the Soviet Union
had its communist grip on Eastern Europe. When one pointed out that it was a
crap system with food shortages, queues for everything and nothing working
properly, the red propagandists would claim that the real communists weren’t
in charge. Today we have a similar situation with Islamic propagandists saying
the terrorists aren’t representative, despite the bombers and hijackers
claiming action for Allah.
Unfortunately, the whole tenor of the Koran is one that dwells on
slaughter and the doom of unbelievers. The Hadiths are even worse and talk of
violence against Jews especially. It says even the trees and bushes will say
there are Jews hiding behind them, and they should then be killed.
Now the koranicists tell me that I am taking passages about
annihilating towns after warning them, out of context. The threats and
promised destruction of surah 17:16 towards a town is supposedly a general
warning from allah. But if I don’t see it that way, then why should an
uneducated muslim? He could well think the verses saying ‘we will destroy
them and slaughter them where we find them’ are general exhortations for the
cause. Certainly the well educated terrorists seem to interpret it that way.
And if such passages are so ambiguous, then why would God choose to
express himself in such an imprecise language. Did God really send Jesus to
tell us plainly to love our enemy and turn the other cheek, yet then send
mohammed to tell us to revel in their destruction?
Now the Muslims say that they only fight those that started it first,
those who cause trouble or ‘fasad’ are apparently fair game for slaughter.
The Koran says ‘persecution is worse than slaughter’. Quite a difference
from turning the other cheek. However, some Muslims seem persecuted by the
mere presence of non-moslems. This was the reasoning behind attacks on the USS
Cole, that they didn’t like Americans in their waters or based on the soil
of Saudi Arabia, whether invited or not. Yet these people that feel so
persecuted will tell you of how merciful and big hearted Mohammed was to Jews,
and how Christians cried when Muslims removed their presence from them in
Syria or someplace.
This is clearly propaganda and nonsense to claim that non-Muslims felt
protected by Muslims when the Koran tells them to be compassionate to Muslims
but to show harshness to others. The Jews fled the Romans and settled all over
Arabia, becoming a majority in Yathrib. They took Mohammed in when he needed a
base, and their eventual reward was to be expelled or worse from their own
city, which was then renamed Medina. If Mohammed was so kind, then how come
there’s no Jews in Mecca today. Come to think of it, only Muslims are
allowed there period. Why is Mecca such a closed city?
Muslims will tell you that there is no compulsion in their religion.
Yet why insist on making the Haj, a pilgrimage to Mecca? They’ll tell you
that islam is a religion of peace and tolerant of people like Jews and
Christians. Yet these people are required to pay the ‘jizrah’, a special
tax on non-Muslims that has no fixed amount but used to be a gold dinar in one
district. In one of the hadiths it talks about giving the Jews a valley to
farm and only charging them half of everything, a 50% income tax! (Vol 3, book
39, number 524), as below also.
Just exactly how benevolent this is can surely be seen for the added
burden it was. Who would want to pay a form of protection money to an
unfriendly gang? Just how popular this tax would have been, can be gauged from
the American reaction to a tax on tea imposed by their British
‘protectors’.
Can you imagine if the West made religious minorities pay a special
tax, what a cry about equal rights there would be? Or suppose Philadelphia or
Rome was made off limits to non-Christians?
I don’t think the Koran has anything nice or admirable to say about
anyone not one of them. The muslims make a big deal of being tolerant but when
they conquered a place, they enslaved the men, built a mosque on the local
people’s most revered sites (eg they tried to build one in the Acropolis in
Greece but got expelled first), and taxed the remaining wretched survivors
something like 50% of everything for their supposed protection. The hadith in
volume 3, book 39, number 524 talks of giving the Jews a valley to farm and of
taking half of everything from them.
If , as the Koran constantly claims, allah is so merciful, then how
come it’s always going on about hellfire and making snide remarks about just
about everyone who isn’t part of the muslim set. If islam is so tolerant of
other religions and peaceful, where are the Jewish communities that used to
exist throughout Arabia? What about the grand old tradition of issuing ‘fatwas’?
We don’t see Christian bishops and clerics usually calling for people to be
murdered. Muslims don’t seem to acknowledge that mullahs issuing death
sentences on people that offend them is inconsistent with claims of islam
being peaceful.
The existence of death dealing militant muslim terror groups in every
area of the world shows me that there is something not really peaceful about
them or their message. By their fruits, we should know them. And let’s face
it, until the recent pressure from America, the muslim countries of the world
haven’t really made efforts to extirpate these nests of vipers.
I challenge any apologist to tell me a true nation of Islam, a devout
pursuer of peace that could not or would not in some future eventuality
fracture into hateful angry people.
The cry of the muslim at prayer starts off by saying there is no God
but allah. Some linguists have said that ‘allah’ can be a general word for
‘everything’. On this model, millions of unwitting Muslims could be
saying, “There is no God, just everything”. Now who could benefit the most
from such a deception? Possibly the great deceiver himself who is apparently
able to ‘deceive the very elect’. So much of the Bible’s teaching are
perverted in the Koran, that you can imagine the great deceiver laughing like
Usama bin laden in that video at the misbelief of others. The greatest prophet
of the Old Testament, Zechariah in sura 3:38 has him praying for bounty. Even
Jesus and the disciples are portrayed as asking for non spiritual gifts. Satan
must laugh his head off at how many people buy into this revised history. The
real message of God’s prophets and Jesus that you will suffer for believing
in his name is never mentioned in the koran. Only reward for the followers of
allah, either the wine in heaven or spoils and bounty on earth. I ask that you
consider carefully which prophet offers redemption, offers a spiritual truth
and which prophet offers fulfilment of earthly desires.
For arguments sake, let’s assume that ‘allah’ is a name. Yet
allah is not a name we see in the bible. Mecca isn’t mentioned in the bible
either. Yet it says in the bible in many places, that those who call in the
Lord’s name will be saved. So you would expect that getting God’s name
right is crucial. Essential for the salvation of your soul, and to fulfil
requirements that are asked of you. God’s name is given by those that
don’t really understand what the name is as anything from Adonai or Elohim
which mean Lord. But in fact, in Psalms 83:18 it explicitly says, “whose
name alone is JEHOVAH”.
“JAH” is also given as God’s name in Psalms 68:4. Nowhere does it
say the name that the Muslim world prefers to use, and there’s even a
controversy from the Sufis that says Allah is a concept for everything, so
that what the Muslims could actually be saying is that there is no God. This
is all indicative of some great deceiver that would have people say many
things that are contrary to what is actually said in the bible, and a
blasphemy against the true God.
The Koran has contradictions and inaccuracies about Ishmael, about the
earth being created in eight or two days (41:9), stuff about yellow cows
instead of the red heifer. Within it’s own Koranic pages, it has differences
about the number of gardens in paradise (one, 39:73
4:30 57:21 or many 18:31 22:23
35:33 78:32). It also has
divergent claims about where evil comes from (Allah 4:78 or Satan 38:41),
about man created from water (lots) or a blood clot (96:1-2), dust or earth
(11:61), or fluid (16:4) or from nothing (19:67).
It says that none but Allah protects (2:107
29:22) yet also says the angels do it (82:10
41:31). It says Aaron was guilty of the golden calf in 7:151 but that
he wasn’t in 20:85-90. It says only Allah is the creator but mentions three
in some surahs. It says that the verses can’t be changed in 53:19-20
2:106 16:101
22:52, but then that they can in 6:34
6:115 and 10:65. Then
there’s the whole satanic verses controversy about Mohammed having decided
some verses had been from Satan so he changed them.
When I’ve talked with some Muslim scholars, they told me that unlike
the bible, the Koran had no ambiguities or contradictions, but clearly it does
and it’s very lazy of them not to have investigated their own claims. These
inconsistencies could well be the work of the great deceiver that wants us to
believe a contrary and different set of truths to the ones given by God.
Now there are contradictions and ambiguities in the bible, though I
would say this to be expected when there are many authors or eyewitnesses.
Indeed, I’d say this is an indication of veracity rather than indicative of
conspiracy to get all their stories absolutely perfect. The Koran is
supposedly all from one source so cannot claim this reasoning for its
contradictions.
The Koran says in 4:82 that ‘had it been from other than allah, they
would surely have found therein much discrepency’. Well, there are
discrepancies with regard to whether angels talk or whether the verses can be
changed and all kinds of nit picking details, some of which I’ve noted
above. So again, I’d say that it is hoist by it’s own petard. At least the
bible can claim multiple authors as a reason for some variance.
Despite the differing accounts or personal claims of Paul in the New
Testament, I don’t find the message of Jesus undimmed. His parables have a
spiritual truth that transcends the detail of who was where. The incidentals
of place were possibly written down third hand, so can reasonably be expected
to vary, just like when children play that remembering game where one whispers
something to another to pass on. Also, rather like the theologians debating
how many angels can fit on a pinhead, such issues seem irrelevant to the real
meaning of Christ’s message.
Regardless of the bible or the
Moslem book having some seeming contradictions, the inner spiritual truth
should shine through. It’s a bit like being hungry for the truth and
nitpicking the minor details. Let’s say you were hungry for a pizza, but
instead of being happy with the contents, you niggled about the packaging.
Noticing that one side of the box wasn’t symmetrical with another side.
Never mind the packing, the truth should be able to be got at and fully
sensed.
The body of Jesus is not what is to be exalted or worshipped but the
spiritual message that he brought. Although he did say that no-one comes to
the father except through him. When we understand his teaching, we should not
be overly concerned about how the truth of it was delivered. It is natural to
be interested in the life of Jesus, but whether a parable was delivered in the
morning or evening or up a mountain or at a table is incidental to the meat of
the message. Similarly we shouldn’t be concentrating on whether the body has
a blemish or whether one finger is exactly the same as another if we taking in
the meaning of what is being delivered to us.
I’ve debated Jesus with Muslims and they have a couple of points they
bring up regularly. They say Christ was inconsistent with his message of peace
by saying he himself claimed to bring a fire on earth or a sword and to set
fathers against children and brother against brother. Now, I don’t see this
as inconsistent because he wasn’t advocating his followers go out and start
trouble, but he was telling what would be the natural consequences of his
message. Another thing mentioned as showing Christ to be a warmonger is when
he tells his disciples to sell their clothes for swords before he is captured.
As he then says that two swords would be enough, it is clear that he wants
them to have some defence rather than be completely without. This could be
interpreted as showing that he didn’t want them all to be taken and arrested
along with him, and to be free to go forth and spread the gospel. He certainly
didn’t tell them all to be armed and attack the temple guards coming to
arrest him. When Peter strikes off an ear, he tells him to stop it, as you’d
expect for a man that has preached to turn the other cheek.
When Jesus tells his flock that he has come to bring a sword (Mathew
10:34), the antichrists bay that this is clearly not peaceful. However, he
wasn’t exhorting his followers to take up arms, but instead telling them
that a sword would come against them. His message would and did provoke
trouble.
Another accusation is one of racism as when he ignores a Canaanite
woman asking him to do a miracle for her daughter. He uses the analogy of a
dog eating the children’s food, and this seems to imply that Jesus is
racist. However, as Mark 7 says, he was trying to get peace and quiet for one
thing, and in Mathew 15:22, he ignored her because she called him ‘son of
David’. Mathew 22:41 showed that he didn’t think being called ‘son of
David’ was appropriate, so much so that ‘they durst not’ ask him any
other questions again. The analogy of dogs at a master’s table is well
answered by the woman and so he does as she asked. Since one of his disciples
(Simon the zealot) was a Canaanite, it seems unlikely that he was
discriminating on racial grounds, especially when his teachings were for all
people. When he met the Samaritan woman (John 4:7) at the well, and correctly
told her about her five husbands, she brought other Samaritans to listen to
his teachings and this also shows he didn’t have a narrow group of people to
preach unto.
About the only inconsistency I can find with Christ’s teaching is
when he calls people fools, and in another passage tells people those that
call others fools, that they are in danger of the judgement. This is a case of
‘Do as I say, not as I do’, which is familiar in most parent child
relationships, but not mutually exclusive.
Muslims complain that when Jesus says that he and the father are one,
or that all power is given to him; yet then says God works through him or the
power to decide who sits on his right hand is not his to give, is
contradictory. Well I agree that it is a difficult concept to grasp but not
impossible. A weak analogy might be that of Siamese twins linked by the spirit
but one being stronger than the other. Or consider someone that is all
powerful, but is clearly unable to choose their own parents, or change that
which has already been destined. Surely it is commendable of Jesus to
acknowledge his limitations rather than boast of being able to do whatever is
asked or to promise places in paradise at his side for everyone that asks? Yet
this is what Mohammed tells his followers. Who is really being more truthful;
the man that doesn’t point out any possible problems or the one that says he
can’t guarantee it?
And when it comes to preaching the message and letting the truth set
you free, this is something that is not found in the Koran. Instead it harps
on about slavery. The spiritual truth shining through to the inner heart and a
deep understanding of God, seems inconsistent with the muslim approach.
All these points should not be swept under the carpet. I am all in
favour of open discussion rather than handed down dogma. Personally I think
God expects us to disagree on the finer points and anything that moves along
our understanding of him, is I believe blessed. The Sabbath is set aside
especially as a day for enquiry.
The Koran dwells constantly upon the doom of unbelievers and positively
gloats on their demise. I find this not divine, but if anything, an attribute
of the Devil that likes to dwell on the fires of hell. Its verses are
repetitive and derivative, as if some great deceiver has tried to fashion a
teaching that mimics the work of the bible.
The Koran claims that nothing so beautiful can be created. In 10:38,
you find the usual braggadocio saying the Koran couldn’t be invented.
Indeed, the whole tone of the book is one of braggarty triumph calling
itself glorious and saying that nobody could write something comparable. This
is nonsense. It is the philosophical equivalent to saying “My wife is the
most beautiful woman in the world. No-one can show me a woman as beautiful as
this”.
A real test, as in science is when you can also show what is needed to
disprove something. Simply by saying you can’t paint a painting as good as
this, is entirely subjective. And when I have pointed out the similarity of
pre-islamic verses and those in the Koran, the islamicists say it is a
forgery, a work of the devil to weaken their faith. So what they are really
saying is, “show me something like it, and I’ll deny it”. This lack of
scientific rationality or testing as we understand it, is endemic in the
muslim world and where progress and advanced technology have come entirely
from the West.
If it wasn’t for Western development, cars, tarmac, satellites and
oil drilling, the Muslims would still be beating their heavily laden beasts
and finding it impossible to even develop a better camel saddle.
Furthermore this test about the beauty of the Koran is capped by
believers claiming that no-one has yet been able to do so. Both non-Muslims
and Muslims don’t even try because it would be a blasphemy, but putting
together a string of lines about people being
warned, then shackled and then slaughtered and adding how merciful allah can
be doesn’t seem difficult in the slightest.
Romans 11:18 warns, ‘Boast not against the branches. But if thou
boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee’.
The truth that nothing can be like it is clearly disproved by the
muslim’s own acknowledgement of the so-called ‘Satanic verses’.
Tradition has it that the verses around 53:19 were changed. They acknowledge
three goddesses (originally the three daughters of allah) and originally Mo’
had recognised them as such to cement an alliance with the other Quarashi
tribe in Mecca. The Meccans derived great revenues from people coming to
worship these three female deities and would not accept that these daughters
were no longer on a par with allah. So Mo’ compromised to gain their
allegiance. As these suras were an oral tradition, it’s not clear when Mo’
ordered them to be changed, but undoubtedly it was when he had consolidated
his power to the extent he could dictate anything he wanted. He explained the
change to his followers as the original verses as having come from Satan. Now,
assumedly he couldn’t tell the difference for some time which kind of shows
how easy his verses were able to be duplicated. If the prophet himself is so
easily fooled into what was and wasn’t a divine verse, then it makes a
mockery of such divine claims. Of course the more prosaic explanation is that
Mo’ was a cunning liar that chose whatever was expedient to him to say had
been revealed.
Another apologist response to criticism of the Koran is to say that you
can only understand it properly and appreciate it’s beauty in Arabic.
Well if this is the case, how come God didn’t choose to reveal his
message in a more common language or at least one less accessible to
ambiguity. Does this mean, this religion is one only for the arabs? There’s
no doubt that Mo’ was a chauvinist and encouraged the pagan traditions of
haj, etc to continue under his redirection. The apologists suggest that we all
ought to learn Arabic to better appreciate it’s ‘beauty’.
Of course the irony is that Arabic is a phlegmatic language that makes
anything sound harsh and sickly to other ears.
Unlike the inspirational verses of Isaiah or the advanced rationality
of Jesus’ parables, the Koran only offers rote learning. To invest so much
time in memorising such lines makes it unlikely for you then to question them.
The little children taught to memorise the Koran instead of multiplication
tables at the madrassahs (religious schools) have no spiritual maturity that
would allow them to form alternative questions. At least the little children
learning the parables of Jesus are advancing their understanding of how
metaphors and analogies can be used to illustrate deeper spiritual truths.
God has urged us to seek understanding above all else. In Psalms
14:2-3, this is equated with doing good.
Hosea 6:6 says God desired knowledge of God more than burnt offerings,
and Zephaniah, chapter 1:4-6 says he “will cut off…..those that have not
sought the Lord, nor enquired for him”.
I am convinced that one of the reasons that we are urged to keep the
Sabbath is so that we have a time to reflect upon God and indeed reflect upon
our own morals and enquire into the mysteries that are posed for us.
Like a traveller that roams the world, I have quested in foreign
philosophies. Always trying to glean wisdom and insights abroad, I dismissed
the Bible scriptures as too uptight. Because I found no jokes in it, no sense
of humor, I suspected a lack of divinity also. But like the return of the
prodigal I haven’t found anything better elsewhere. Like the returned
traveller, I now see the beauties and benefits of my own hometown.
The stories of Christian converts from mahommedianism show just how
false is their claim of there being no compulsion in their religion. Egyptians
hounded from their village or non-believing wives forced to convert are just
tips of an iceberg. Yes there are hell and damnation evangelicals in
Christianity but they don’t threaten death for not accepting their message.
About the least compulsive group I’ve ever seen are the Anglicans. The
genteel invitation to tea with the vicar is about as far removed as possible
from religious policing. The Anglicans don’t even seem to insist on anything
really, and are merely glad to see you show up at all.
In my maturity, the wondrously broad canvas of human nature that you
find in the Bible now strikes me as marvellously insightful. Unlike the
hectoring and badgering of the Koran, the Bible has all the pearls of wisdom
that can help you mature spiritually.
For those not yet able to transcend their daily grind and who prefer
entertainment to a quest for truth, then the Bible can offer as a grand a cast
of dramatic lives and events as you could in a Hollywood film. It tells
stories for the reader to glean insights from, and encourages one to learn to
read ‘between the lines’. The parables especially are for people that have
had experience of life and so are able to extrapolate the real meaning of
these stories.
This life experience is what enables western minds to see the hypocrisy
in the muslim one. When usury or interest on loans is disallowed by the Koran,
the muslim lenders simply charge a facilitation fee. Same thing. When slavery
is cited as a blot on human affairs in the new world, they conveniently forget
to mention the slave routes and markets established by muslim traders
particularly in Africa. Europeans didn’t just jump off a ship and run off
into the jungle rounding people up. They bought them. Even mohammed kept,
bought and sold slaves. If a muslim kills another muslim, then he suggests
freeing a believing slave as a punishment. The fact that he suggests freeing a
believing slave, shows the lie to the apologists that converted slaves were
set free just for conversion.
Nowhere in the Koran is there a suggestion that we are free to think
for ourselves. On the contrary, it claims we are only slaves not able to
question. It offers certainty and prescriptions for living for those too lazy
or poor in spirit to really enquire. This is the absolute certainty that has
allowed Islam to spread amongst people that want only answers instead of
understanding. Like the American Taliban who had to ask whether he should pray
soft or loudly. It offers the answers to those that can’t be bothered
enquiring of God themselves.
Prophets of old (e.g. Habakkuk) weren’t afraid to ask God some
insightful questions, and even Jesus seemed to need reassurance that he was
doing the right thing. It isn’t a sin to approach God and ask for an
explanation. In fact, he seems to prefer it.
However the Koran does not anywhere encourage this personal approach.
It constantly exhorts the Muslim to be a slave, a repetitive theme that has no
echo in the bible. We have a God given free will to choose for ourselves. In
the bible there are no references to us being God’s slaves. Just look in any
concordance. It actually says the opposite. In Jeremiah 2:14, it poses the
question “Is Israel a homeborn slave?” meaning of course we aren’t
slaves. We are allowed and probably expected to waver, to choose wrongly and
hopefully repent.
Jesus suggests that some people will work in his name but will be
rebuked. Nowhere does Mohammed offer this rationality, only the naïve
certainty of being rewarded in a garden full of virgins, wearing gold and
silks and drinking wine from silver goblets. This is just pandering to base
lusts. The Moslem paradise is all about material and sexual benefits for the
men.
If wine drinking is so bad on earth, how come it is promised in
paradise? Also, the women must have some other garden of paradise away from
their men and their houris. Since sura 4:34 asserts that ‘Men are in charge
of women…..’ and if ‘ye fear rebellion….to scourge them’, then the
women are probably happy to be apart from the scourgers.
Nowhere is there an explication of the spirituality of heaven. Half the
Koran is taken up with the doom of the unbelievers and their tortures and the
well-watered paradise of virgins described as chaste maidens, silk robes and
crystal goblets. This is a naïve childlike picture and the spiritual truths
that you find in the parables or the inspired writings of Isaiah simply
aren’t in the book of moslems. Despite claiming subtlety, it’s so
straightforward that there are only pedantic points of general acceptence,
unlike the sudden deeper meanings of revelation that can come from familiar
biblical passages.
This is another area that makes the Christian message superior and all
the more so for being harder to understand. You have to expend some effort to
make sense of it and this effort is what God really wants.
The slavery that Allah wants is just religious fascism that negates the
free will of mankind and denigrates those that won’t submit. The Koran is
full of threats and menaces with an undercurrent of hostility that is a long
way from Jesus’ radical message of loving your neighbour and even your
enemy. The Koran claims ‘slaughter is better than persecution’ (2:91) and
also advises not to take captives until slaughter has been done (8:67). Not
surprisingly, Islam has been spread at the point of a scimitar and through
military conquest rather than the spirit of God, which even managed to
overcome the Roman Empire.
Almost every surah has its menaces and bullying tone, but typical would
be 56:60 promising to ‘mete out death among you’ or 17:16 about
annihilating towns that won’t convert. In the 8th surah, Mohammed
attacks an unarmed caravan that had sent a camel ahead to try and get help. It
boasts of destroying many townships (22:45), is overly gleeful at other’s
destruction (25:36) and implies that Muslims can outstrip anyone in doing evil
deeds (29:4).
Surah 69, around verse 46 clearly states that they would seize and kill
anyone they suspected of lying which is hardly a model of religious tolerance
and the Muslims also take pride in having with them heavy fetters (73:12) and
food which choketh (73:13). Sounds like Satan’s army on the march to me.
Surah 2 has menacing undercurrents and constant hostility against the
Jews and the Christians. Hitler would have been proud. Not surprising then
that some Moslem battalions fought for Hitler in WWII.
It seems odd that the Koran claims Jesus made a bird out of clay
(5:110) and gave it life yet no mention of this is in the bible. It also
claims his disciples demanded a table of food (5:112) and that Jesus asked for
himself and his mother to be as gods (5:116). Most Christians would consider
this blasphemy and lies, but in the interests of peace and tolerance, they
never raise the issue. Basically the Koran gives a false and different version
of everything. Could this be the ‘stumbling block’ that deceives even the
very elect? About the only entity that I can think of that would like to lead
us astray is Satan himself.
Here are some more references that illustrate the true nature of this
tawdry work.
‘Take not Jews and Christians for friends’ (5:51)
‘Jews forbidden cattle and sheep’ (6:147)
‘Persecution is worse than slaughter’ (2:191)
‘Fight disbelievers near to you. Let them find harshness in you’
(9:29)
‘Accursed will be seized wherever found and slain with a fierce
slaughter’ (33:61)
Apologists for the muslim cause claim it’s all taken out of context
and refers only to those that start trouble. But c’mon, this is the worst
kind of bullshit. Sura 9:29 clearly says, ’Fight against such as those who
hath been given the scripture as believe not in allah……until they pay the
tribute readily, being brought low’. This goes on for pages including 9:73,
‘Strive against the disbelievers….Be harsh with them.’
And if you think that is bad, it is nothing compared to the evil
cruelty found in the hadith which are reputed sayings and deeds of their
prophet. A hell of a difference from the message of Jesus.
Even if you acknowledge that some of the hadiths are unsubstantiated,
the fact is that most Muslims consider them to be glorifying islam and worthy.
They range from the fairly innocuous to implying the children of unbelievers
to be killed (Vol.8, book 77,number597) which talks of children ‘were they
to live’.
Even some of the fairly innocuous hadiths such as asking Muslims to dye
their hair and beards is commanded as part of a general admonishment to do the
opposite of everything the Jews and Christians do.
Some of the astonishing cruelties done to Jews are related as everyday
incidents. For example, a Jew was in chains for apparently having converted to
islam and then reverting to Judaism. In vol9 book84 number 58, it relates how
Mu’adh would not sit down until the jew had been killed. His host graciously
obliges and then they piously discuss the evening prayers.
Another incident glorifies how Mo’ sentenced two Jews to be stoned to
death for illegal intercourse (???), and the witness relaying this incident
says how the Jew sheltered the Jewess which has the sad ring of truth.
How anyone can claim that this diabolical catalogue is wisdom or of
peaceful import is absolutely denying the words on the page. They are only
showing that they have chosen to delude themselves.
Note the feverish fanaticism of militant islamics. Notice also the
counterclockwise processions around the Qa’ba. This is akin to the
widdershins direction of Satanists. Note also the backward contrariwise
arrangement of the Koran where the earliest surahs are last and the latter
ones mostly at the front.
Note also the special reverence for stones that the islamicists have.
They revere the one in Jerusalem at the Dome of the Rock and especially the black
stone embedded in the Qa’ba. This doesn’t seem radically different from
the idolatrous Arabs of before that worshipped stones.
In fact kissing the black stone at the Qa’ba was in existence before
Mohammed when it was called ‘Beit-Allah’ known as the house of allah. Pre-islamic
literature says allah was the special god of Mohammed’s tribe, the Quarish
but only one of 360 other deities worshipped there. Allah corresponded to the
Babylonian god called Baal, and was known as the Moon god, which is why the
crescent moon is such a prevalent symbol. All Mohammed was really doing was
asserting his own deity over and above the other ones.
Mohammed, a leader of raiding war parties claimed revelations over a
period of 23 years. The prophets of the bible had rare meetings with God that
changed them. Angels conveyed messages swiftly and God never seemed to need a
long time to make a revelation. So it seems most peculiar that Mohammed
required years of laborious ongoing contact. His method of stopping, starting,
changing (the satanic verses) and then starting again seems more indicative of
headaches than divine wisdom.
The surah that mentions Mohammed’s uncle by name is more a private
plea than any divine revelation. And can we really say that wallowing in
retribution and constant threats and wheedling for slavish followers are
divine? They seem more to be from an angry Lucifer that can’t control his
base emotions and there are more than a few ambiguous verses in the Koran and
surahs (the cloaked one, the enfolded one) that could well be indicators of
the true source.
Even if we accept that Mohammed didn’t just cobble it all together
from other texts and his own prejudices, and that an angel dictated the Koran
to him, we must acknowledge what it says in Galatians. In chapter 1, verse
7-8, it clearly warns “..but there be some that trouble you, and would
pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we or an ANGEL from heaven preach any other gospel
unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed”.
The parables are rich stories to derive understanding from. Mohammed
doesn’t give any parables, he uses some metaphors and analogy. One that is
given about a spider’s house is an analogy not a parable and not an
especially good one. It baldly states that if you don’t have allah, then
your house is flimsy like a spider’s web house. It ignores the remarkable
tensile strength of spiders cobwebs. If you was the same size of a spider, I
doubt that you would agree to it’s flimsy nature.
The parables are a remarkable teaching tool, a way to develop spiritual
understanding. They are little stories about men hiding their light under a
bushel or of tares in a field showing that bad grows alongside the good wheat.
It circumvents the potential errors of translation because moral tales don’t
depend on just a few words or turn of phrase to convey their message.
If you read the parables yourself, and derive the spiritual
understanding therein, then you are making the effort to seek God. This is
what he wants. No church or religious institution can do this for you. Yes,
they can help disseminate the message and provide a social setting that can
help you understand some things, but the ultimate link that counts is you and
your personal understanding of God. Many are lazy and prefer to have the
message part digested for them and handed to them on a plate, but Jesus’
message is for anyone that takes the trouble to read. Remember that Jesus
warned that many would claim to have worked in his name but he will say, ‘I
did not know you’. These are likely to be the Christians that have taken
someone else’s interpretation of what it’s all about. Personally I feel
the catholics have unnecessarily embellished the message and have unreasonably
elevated Mary the mother of Jesus. Furthermore, the vows of celibacy and of
silence taken by monastic orders are a misinterpretation of the message.
Remember Jesus himself said that the kingdom of heaven is within us. As 2
Corinthians 5:1 says,’..we have a building of God, an house not made with
hands.’ Far too many churches
gloss over the admonition from Mathew 6:7 to pray unseen within our closet.
They hope that their sermonisers are closer to God and have a clearer
interpretation of the gospel, but take it from me, no-one can do it for you.
Now it does say that Jesus is amongst them when two or three gather in his
name (Mathew 18:20), but consider that two or three does not necessarily mean
twenty or thirty. Acts 7:49 and Isaiah 66:1-2 has God scoffing ‘what house
will ye build me?’ so to think that the builders of churches and mosques are
somehow doing God’s will is actually breaking the commandment of taking
God’s name in vain.
Consider too, Hebrews 9:24. ‘For Christ is not entered
into the holy places made with hands….’.
Jesus taught in parables so that his teaching could be circulated in
many languages without controversy as to the real meaning. A code of law or
prescription for living is ever open to interpretation. But by couching the
message in a story, understanding the story is possible, no matter what
language delivers it.
In this way, the parables are like a Hollywood film dubbed into many
languages. No matter what phrases or words are substituted, the basic story is
not changeable. So the parables are translatable into any language but the
deeper meaning has to be sought out by the recipient.
Mathew 13 onwards has Jesus expounding on why he talks in parables. He
explains the benefits of doing so, whilst echoing the vision of Isaiah 6:8-9.
In another place he suggests that we musn’t cast pearls before swine,
because in Mathew he clearly tells of those that will see but not perceive. If
you make a sincere effort, you will be able to fully comprehend these
parables, but if you can’t be bothered then truly you will never understand.
Like the parable of the master and his three servants, those that hath this
understanding will be given more, and those that haven’t increased theirs,
then what little they hath will be taken away.
If you look in a bible concordance, look under words like
understanding, seek and knowledge. They are numerous references like the one
in Romans that equate seeking understanding or knowledge of God as the highest
good. Or consider how pleased God was at Solomon asking for wisdom over long
life or riches. Look in a koranic index, and you won’t see this.
Jesus made prophecies that came true, such as the one about not one
stone remaining on top of another at the temple. Mohammed didn’t. For
someone labelled as the last prophet, mohammed didn’t really say any
specific prophecies just bald statements. In fact, if you think about other
mystics and real prophets that foretold future events, they make a mockery of
the muslim claim that Mo’ was the last prophet. God’s ongoing revelations
through Malachi of Ireland or perhaps
the prophecies at Fatima, show that others since seventh century Arabia have
had attested witnessed and undoubted messages.
Now mohammed’s followers asked him why there were no portents or
prophecies from him via God. The Koran alludes to this in several places such
as 29:50, but he just shrugged it off saying he was ‘ a plain warner’.
Deuteronomy 18:22 plainly tells what the test of a prophet should be. I
suppose after Mo’ wrongly predicted he was going to win a battle against the
Meccans and had to flee to Medina, he decided to tread softly in the
prediction business.
What are usually passed off as prophecies in the Koran are ambiguous
general statements about the heavens being rolled back or camels heavy with
young being abandoned. Like the quatrains of Nostradamus or indeed the visions
of John in Revelation, these rather general open to interpretation statements
are too broad and have been used by every generation to point to something in
their own time. Whereas certain prophecies in the bible are very specific
about temples or cities and tribes and what will befall them. The messiah is
mentioned specifically as the one who is pierced or the one riding a donkey or
born of a virgin or sold for thirty pieces of silver. These are very apt
prophecies for the messiah that will rise again. Nowhere are there predictions
about a merchant of Mecca, unless you count the stuff sbout antichrist and the
false prophet. Nowhere in the Koran is a real prophecy about a specific place
or people unless you count the belief in military victory that was smashed by
mohammed losing a couple of battles.
Some of Mo’s other human failings are apparent in sura 33:36-37. This
is when he told his adopted son to divorce his wife so that he could have her
and add her to his bed. The lustful prophet claimed allah had condoned it viz
this sura. Not to have a magic child, which is usually the excuse of latter
day cult leaders but simply for his own randy pleasure.
In fact 33:36 baldly states that allah and his messenger have decided
an affair, clearly a refutation of the argument that the Koran is all
revelation from on high.
Sura 33:50 says that the prophet can apparently have the daughters of
his uncles and aunts if he feels like it in addition to those allah has given
him as the spoils of war. Incest and forced sex with female prisoners is the
message here. It claims that it’s alright for Mo’ to do with this with no
reproach. Well I reproach you.
The parables are rich stories to derive understanding from. Mohammed
doesn’t give any parables. One that is given about a spider’s house is a
metaphor not a parable and not an especially good one.
If you look in a bible concordance, look under words like
understanding, seek and knowledge. They are numerous references like the one
in Romans that equate seeking understanding or knowledge of God as the highest
good. Or consider how pleased God was at Solomon asking for wisdom over long
life or riches. Look in a koranic index, and you won’t see this.
Consider the strange exhortation of Mohammed to have his followers bow
towards Jerusalem. This was done early on in his career to hopefully influence
the Jews to follow him. When they rebuffed him, as did many of his own
relatives, he changed the order to no longer bow towards Jerusalem but instead
to the Ka’ba in Mecca. This is another instance of inconsistency that hardly
jibes with divine immutability.
Consider too the denials of falsehood. Sura 53:11 is the equivalent of
mohammed saying he’s not a crook. Saying that he isn’t making things up
reminds you of the angry child that stamps his foot and says he didn’t do
it. There’s a couple of other places where this oddity of protesting his
innocence seems unlikely of a true prophet. Ironically of course, he didn’t
really make any prophecies at all.
Islam seems but an attempt by Mohammed (and his helper) to copy that
which the Christians and Jews had. To copy or mimic the strength of
having one God. When others denied the truth of his assertions, he
sought revenge thru naked and veiled threats against them and started lumping
them together with idolators. As he grew in military strength, so he became
more vocal with his threats towards the Jews and Christians.
Surah 96:15 has a passage about grabbing someone by the forelock to
stop them praying. As the Jews are the most obvious group with forelocks, this
is assumedly written with them in mind.
Saudi Arabia is perhaps the most obvious Islamic country. It’s a
place where the religious police beat (and worse) Christians. Immigrant
workers, particularly Filipinos have been killed for having bibles and trying
to follow their Christian beliefs. Not surprising then, that most of the
September 11th hijackers were Saudis. Their religious police
attempt conversions to Islam at the point of torture. What’s the matter with
them that they can’t coexist with Christianity? Isn’t Islam strong enough
to take criticism? As the calls for death (fatwas) from mullahs demonstrate,
it can’t abide questions or insightful enquiries. It is as the Inquisition
in its intolerance, a similarly bleak outlook once practised by the Catholic
church, before a welcome reformation. The fanatical islamicist has to wheedle
and threaten because he is incapable of letting any truth illuminate an issue.
‘Judge not lest ye be judged’ has no meaning for a fascist bully that
demands obedience or else.
The halal method of slaughtering animals for food has much cruelty too.
Unlike the methods in the west that has evolved stunning as a humane way to do
it, Islam insists on full consciousness for an animal before cutting its
throat and letting it slowly and consciously bleed to death. I once saw
chickens screeching as they were denuded of their feathers by being held
against a grindstone, and then being tossed into a bloody heap still alive.
The concept of cruelty to animals has no meaning in Islamic countries, where
overburdened animals being jabbed with sharp sticks or whipped along is not
unusual.
Another thing that you no longer see openly practised in Western
society is the segregation of men and women. But the segregation of Moslems
and non-muslims as in Saudi Arabia, is reminiscent of apartheid. It wouldn’t
be tolerated in any modern country and certainly nothing like that could be
sanctioned along racial lines.
The Koran says (6:11 16:36
and many other places) to travel in the land and see the nature of the
consequences for the rejecters. Hmmm, well on the one hand we have Moslem
countries marked by poverty, flies and shit-strewn wildernesses. And we have
the milk and honey of the West where rich Arabs go shopping and have medical
operations to repair their health. Which lands do you consider most blessed?
It is typical of travel in Moslem lands that you are urged to agree what a
fantastic country it is with one breath and then asked if you can help the
speaker get to the west in the next breath. I consider the islamicists hoist
by their own petard.
The people from Muslim lands come west to indulge their depravity in
the fleshpots of western cities. Now western consumerism is hardly a perfect
thing, but it does allow the greatest freedom for the greatest number of
people. We are all freer than a Roman emperor to travel the world and indulge
ourselves with vices should we so choose. As with the parable of the Tares,
the good and the bad coexist side by side. But this access to instant
gratification and moral temptation is what allows most of us to mature
spiritually and overcome our lusts. To reject those things of our own free
will, to indulge and repent are our own rites of passage. The mullahs would
have all things they consider bad, removed and banned from society. To cover
up women so we can’t be tempted, but all this does is really stoke the lusts
and desires. So it is then that young suicide bombers can’t wait to get to
paradise and satiate their lusts on the 72 virgins promised to them by
hypocritical clerics. The Sept 11th terrorists like others before
them used money to have a few good times in strip clubs and wash down the
whiskey at the first opportunity to do so.
It is in human nature that we can’t create a completely perfect or
lust free society. Making things forbidden only perverts the lusts into other
areas. Furthermore what kind of childlike mind must a Muslim have that he
can’t see an unshrouded woman without being overwhelmed with lust? Like a
child, they can’t see something without wanting it. So what kind of immature
attitude is that? And clearly the idea of covering men up in a bag so that
they aren’t inciting lust in the women isn’t a concern. You don’t
abolish lust and desire just by removing the object. All that happens is that
you are cloaking it, but the base instinct is still there. It is better to
have temptations out in the open and trust that each can confront their inner
demons as it were, and choose wisely. I forget where I saw it, but I once read
that living under Islamic law is like being in a prison run by children.
Individual atrocities by the religious police going round enforcing
prayers to allah are rarely known about. A rare news item about their
disgusting practices made it to a newspaper on March 15th 2002
about 15 schoolgirls burned to death in a school. They could have lived but
the religious police clubbed them back because they hadn’t on the proper
headgear. Incidents like this only confirm for me that islam is a religion
that offers death more than it does life. I’ve long wondered at the Hajj
where people are killed in stampedes around the Qa’ba and stoned to death
regularly at the stoning of Satan ceremonies, albeit supposedly accidentally.
Add to this, the regular explosions of cooking stoves and overcrowded buses
crashing, it just seems like a festival of death.
The constant threats, the gloating and hectoring about portents of doom
in the Koran yet immediately claiming allah is merciful, but only to those who
convert, is hardly a text full of grace. Typical is the verse at 48:29 that
tells muslims to be ‘hard against the disbelievers but compassionate amongst
ourselves’. Surah 9:113 even commands muslims not to pray for non-muslims.
It issn’t this book that has spread a message of common humanity. It teaches
slavery and submission and death.
Muslims sometimes like to pal up with Christians and say we are all
people of the book, but there’s enough variance between them and the New
Testament to show little in common with the queer one. Despite millions of
adherents, Islam has all the hallmarks of a cult. The certainty it offers
rather than enlightenment, the numerous prayers from dawn to dusk and its
repetitions are well known brainwashing techniques. Mathew 6:7 warns us
against repetitions and says “But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as
the heathen do for they think that they shall be heard for their much
speaking”.
When it suits their purposes, Muslims allow that we worship the same
God and just call him by different names, but do we? When you hear muslim
scholars or read their arguments as to why the bible is rubbish, it is clear
that they have a different conception of God. A scholar like Ahmed Deedat is
entertaining when he mocks the names in the bible or questions how someone
could slay hundreds with a jawbone or a goad, but his disdain for the bible
shows that he rejects the deeper spiritual message therein. On a videotaped
debate I saw, Mr Deedat used rhetoric to dismiss the bible’s claims and
belittle his opponent whilst ignoring the wisdom of the parables or any of
God’s teaching through his prophets. A bit like concentrating on the
eggshell to deny the goodness of the egg within. His opponent, a Christian
Arab, made many points but one of the most telling was that Mohammed brought
no new revelation to the world.
Now, islamicists would say Mohammed was clarifying the message. But to
do that in the highly ambiguous language of Arabic that then lacked vowels
seems more of a muddying. In fact, the numerous divisions and sects within
islam show that there is no one clear message anyway.
What could be more of a clarification than Jesus’ ‘Sermon of the
Mount’ where he spelled out his doctrine, a kind of hillside press
conference? If Jesus wasn’t the clarifier that fulfilled numerous
prophecies, then how much less must Mohammed have been, that had no prophecies
of his coming in the Old Testament?
The message of Jesus is different enough to anyone else’s that this
marks him out as an especial and unique prophet. The message of Mohammed is at
best a reversion, and at worst a devilish attempt to mimic a monotheistic
religion. One where everything is different, and one that emphasizes a message
of punishment and death rather than one of redemption and life. Would you not
consider as I contend that the god of islam and the God of Jesus are
different?
The Koran is inaccurate in its scientific claims. Although Islam is
usually known as being vehemently opposed to progress in the western sense, a
few scholars claim that scientific truths can be found within it. They say
passages about the mountains being the anchors or tent pegs of the Earth, such
as during quakes shows knowledge of geology. When actually many mountain
ranges are thrust upward by earthquakes and can shake more violently than
anywhere. They claim that a foetus described as resembling a type of blob
after 21 days is something only Allah could have known. Yet actually, the day
count is out by ten days, and the whole thing was derived from Galen’s work
on embryos. This Greek knowledge became dispersed along trade routes and
Mohammed as a wealthy merchant could easily have gleaned such trivia from
ordinary conversations. An obvious refutation of koranic claims to divine
knowledge is found at surah 2:222 where instead of a natural cycle,
menstruation is declared to be an illness.
Other errors and inconsistencies abound, but are conveniently ignored
by Islamic scholars making their scholarship laughable. They seize upon a
passage in the bible like the oft quoted one of Deuteronomy 18:15-19 where it
mentions a prophet and brethren as indicating Mohammed. Yet it very clearly
states that the prophet will be raised up from ‘in the midst of thee’, not
somebody from Arabia. If they really want to use the bible as an authoritative
source then perhaps they’d care to interpret the passages about the false
prophet spoken of in Revelation (20:7-10).
Clearly, the only major prophet since the time of Jesus is reputedly
Mohammed, so when it talks of a false prophet along with the Beast and Satan
(Revelation 20:10), who else could be indicated ?
Mohammed is the false prophet because he denies Christ. Surah 18:4 says
‘Warn those who say Allah hath chosen a son ….. they speak a lie’.
A similar claim is found at 19:35 and 17:111 (Allah has not taken
himself a son). Since Allah is probably Satan, this is true.
The new testament warns of new gospels and spirits trying to pervert
the message. 2Corinthians chapter 11-12 says that even Lucifer can transform
himself into an angel of light, and a spirit may try and offer up a new jesus
that the disciples haven’t preached. Galatians 1:8 warns that a man or even
an angel may try to give a wrong message. Maybe Lucifer had a chat with
mohammed?
The irony is that musselmen say that America is the great Satan, yet
there is more evil in their fingers of accusation than in the target. There is
more poison in the handle than in the point of their sharp accusations. One
thing that life has taught me, is that sometimes the accuser can be more
guilty than the accused. A thief thinks of stealing so is ever quick with
branding someone else a thief. A crazy person is quick to call others mad, and
so on.
The hypocrisy of Moslem nations and Muslims in general abounds. They
scream for justice when Palestinians are killed yet are silent when Israeli
civilians are murdered. They claim persecution by a jewish or Christian mere
presence. They are quick to point accusing fingers at security forces seeking
Islamic terrorists, yet never mention the occupation of Lebanon by Syrian
troops. The fountains of blood of the Algerian people massacred by islamicists
or the Iran Iraq war that killed millions are considered brotherly quarrels
where it is unseemly to interfere. Yet any conflict involving the west or
non-Muslims and they bay for blood.
This is hardly a religion of love. Passages of threats and slaughter
and chains and doom for non-believers are always then ironically followed by
praise for how merciful allah is. But clearly there is no mercy for
non-Muslims. Do the muslim countries ever go out of their way to help others
not of their faith? Of course not, they scourge and call for fatwas and burn
books in mobs but could not muster a group for charity. With all the oil
money, the Saudis have spent it on building mosques and repression, never on
feeding the hungry or helping others save as tokens to trumpet their
munificence.
This is not a religion of peace, but one of loathing for others. It is
the religion of the antichrist. They won’t even admit that Jesus was
crucified or share his spiritual parables, yet they revel in making up stories
about him that aren’t in the bible. Odd then that they will admit it is
Jesus and not mohammed that returns at the end of time. They have sealed up
the eastern gate to the temple mount because they fear his entrance through it
to throw the abominators there.
The antichrist mentioned in 1John 2:22 and 2 John 7,
is very clear about who it is. It is the one that denies the son and
the father, the one that denies Jesus is the Christ.
On the sermon of the mount, Jesus is also quite clear about how to
pray. In Mathew 6:6-7, he says, “But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy
closet, pray to thy Father which is in secret………..use not vain
repetitions, as the heathen do….”
Now even many Christian churches ignore the first part of this message,
but the Moslem that likes to make a public show of his prayers and uses only
repetitions is way off the mark of what Christ asks.
The Christian God and the one called allah by Muslims are not the same.
The two religions are not just two paths to the same top of the mountain. Now
there are undoubtedly good people of both faiths that are misguided in their
belief, but unless each and every one of us takes a personal leap of
understanding God, why should we expect God to meet us halfway?
Allah is the god of deception. Just one of the pantheon of gods
worshipped at the Qa’ba, but one that has risen high above the rest.
There are many things that link allah with Baal, the old moon god of
the high places. One of the reasons muslims hate the skyscrapers of the West,
is that they want the high places dedicated to Baal or allah. This is why
buildings in muslim countries are usually kept low, below the level of the
local mosque’s minarets. There are numerous biblical references to Baal in
the old testament about his high places, and the call to prayer from a minaret
is an echo of this.
The Qa’ba in Mecca has a black stone embedded in the wall that the
Muslims kiss. In 1 Kings 19:18, it talks about ‘all the knees which have not
bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him’. Just another
echo of the connective echoes between Baal and Allah. There’s other links
such as with the Sumerian God known as Sin, also a moon god and from where
Sinai may derive it’s name.
Ramadan is a festival that emphasises the crescent moon. Consider also
that the muslim year is based on the moon, and so is shorter than the calendar
that the West uses, which is based on the solar year. This reverence for the
‘lesser light’ is an echo of Lucifer being elevated above that of God
himself.
The enmity between God and Baal has a long history, and the wrong god
seems to have always been God’s main rival for worship. Jeremiah 23:26-27
talks about false dreams in Gods name that cause God’s people to forget his
name, ‘..as their fathers have forgotten my name for Baal’.
Furthermore, there’s a picture of Baal in the Schofield Reference
Bible (opposite page 20 in the concordance) that is taken from a cylinder-seal
in the British museum, Babylonian room, Case B. You only have to look at the
distinctive cap, beard and long thin form holding his hand to the crescent
moon and you will be immediately reminded of a recent terrorist leader.
More damming evidence for the message of Mohammed as being from an
infernal source can be found in it’s own passages. In 31:16, it says allah
is subtle, yet when this attribute is given in the bible, it is given to the
serpent.
Surah 86:15 says ‘and I plot against them’, yet surah 58:10 says
‘Conspiracy is only of the devil’.
Among the curses given to the serpent, there is a curious prophecy. In
Genesis 3:15, it says ‘and thou shalt bruise his heel’. This could be a
general statement or it could have a double meaning pertaining to the coming
of the messiah. Mohammed coming on the heels of Jesus’ ministry could be the
bruising alluded to.
Surah 48:29 boasts of the mark muslims receive from prostrating
themselves on the ground. Now is it conceivable that prostrating yourself on
the ground puts a mark on the hand and forehead? I’m afraid it is. This is
very reminiscent of the reputed mark of the Beast. Unlike God’s chosen who
will have his name sealed into their foreheads or a writer with an inkhorn
that will write God’s name for them, the marks of prostration are touted as
something other muslims will recognise, not God. Now this can quickly lead
into the prophecy that the mark of the Beast is something that only those
bearing it will be allowed to buy and sell. In a way, since only muslims are
allowed into places like Mecca, this prophecy is fulfilled for that region.
One of the most diabolical aspects of islam is that it denies the right
of every human being to have a personal relationship with God. That apparently
hasn’t been possible since mohammed. Islam would have us believe that God
doesn’t want to talk to us or make anything known to us. The muslim is
unable to have a vision or revelation or divine guidance, though they
substitute that by talking of dreams they had. Just ask yourself, who it would
most please for us to believe that there is no direct contact with God.
Atop most mosques are a horn like feature. Sometimes it can resemble a
crescent moon, and sometimes it sits with the prongs pointing directly
upwards. No matter which interpretation you put upon it, and whatever way you describe
it, it has horns.
The moon has horns just like a beast, and the moon gods of old were
frequently shown with beast like features. The picture of Baal that I referred
to earlier, has him seated on a throne whose back legs are those of a cloven
hoofed beast. There are definite echoes of Baal and the Sumerian god called
Sin in allah. Kissing stones, bowing before them and crescent moons are just
the most obvious. Regard 2 Thessalonians 2:3 that warns the man of sin will be
revealed. This is a prophecy with a double meaning.
In case you wonder who this man of sin could possibly be, regard surah
36, rendered in English as ‘Ya sin’. Some Moslems say this is an address
to man but it is clearly an epithet, the title given to their most unholy
prophet as is obvious by reading the first three verses.
If the muslims are so enamoured of God, then let them explain why they
fear the return of the messiah? After
they conquered Jerusalem, the prophecy that the messiah would return from an
eastern direction led them to seal up the Golden Gate, the eastern entrance to
Temple Mount.
So where is the actual temple of God?
The Qa’ba in Mecca is the very antithesis of what God commanded in
Exodus 20:25. It’s rectangular walls are a house of pagan gods that existed
before the false prophet.
The Old Testament and 99% of theologians would inform you that the
temple of God was situated upon Temple Mount in Jerusalem. When the second
temple was destroyed by the Romans in 70AD leaving “not one stone upon
another”, the daily sacrifice of the Jews was ended. This is why Jews gather
at the western wall of it, known as the ‘wailing wall’ where they lament
the destruction of the temple.
There’s a few things in the bible that I could say to you about
abominations that desolate, but as these are sealed up until the end of time,
it would be presumptuous of me to attempt to decipher them.
But consider 2 Thessalonians 2:3-12 where the one “sitteth in the
temple of God showing himself that he is God”. There’s only one temple of
God and there’s only one thing that now sitteth there. It’s been sitting
there for over 1300 years, and was built shortly after the muslim conquest of
Jerusalem. It is called the Dome
of the Rock.
Zechariah in the Old Testament has several chapters about the second
coming of the messiah Descriptions that seem to meet a nuclear scenario.
Today’s Palestinians are yesterday’s Canaanites, and they are the ones
currently holding and debarring the Jews from the Temple Mount. So it seems
acutely prophetic that the very last verse of Zechariah (14:21) says ‘in
that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the Lord of hosts’.
None
of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.
|
