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?
We have reciprocal
agreements with countries, but we should also consider the golden rule to apply
to philosophy and religion. We don’t tolerate political fascism so neither
should we accept religious facism.
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 fact that EVERYTHING is
different in the Koran from the bible (God’s name, what the prophets said and
did, accounts of Jesus) shows that they can’t both be true. The Bible has
history, archaeology, testimony and the dead sea scrolls on it’s side amongst a
wealth of evidence. The Koran is a perversion of every truth the Bible has. Ask
who could possibly want everyone to believe the opposite of truth. Ask who
would gloat, as Osama did on the video tape at those who didn’t know the whole
picture. Ask why muhamhead would tell his soldiers a wrong thing (so as not to
discourage them), and why modern negotiators like Arafat flat out lie for
deceptive advantage? Note how muhamhead boasts of preparing and presenting hell
(18:101, 103). Ask why it says nothing of God’s love in the Koran yet it does
mention allah as a beguiler (4:142) and the best of all plotters (8:30). Just
ask who would want to deceive even the very elect.
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”.
Consider too, Proverbs 4:7 ‘Wisdom is the principal thing:
therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.’ Proverbs is
full of such messages.
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. The
Sabbath gives us no excuse for not having done so.
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 bull****. 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. Now the Bible also has it’s share of general
prophecies (e.g.Daniel 12:4, ‘..many shall run to and fro, and knowledge will
be increased’) that are open to the when question, but it has stacks of very
precise indications. 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. Nowhere are there predictions about a merchant of
Mecca, unless you count the stuff about 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.
Why then do Muslims persist in calling him a great prophet?
Propogandists claim that talking hips (taken to mean beepers) and talking
sandals which aren’t even in the Koran or hadiths are some sort of Moslem
prophecy. Yet Mohammed said several times that he couldn’t predict anything. In
Sura 46:9, he couldn’t even say what would happen to him or if he was going to
heaven. The only way to God is given by Jesus in John 14:6 (…no man cometh to
the father, but by me).
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 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.
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.
I have also seen cruelties against defenceless animals like
kittens with my own eyes, and from the internet I got this account of what gets
shown on Syrian TV,
‘..acts of animal torture have
been publically broadcast on television from Syria,..with President Assad of
Syria smiling and applauding these horrific acts - male and particularly female
Syrian soldiers biting the heads off of snakes and kittens to show what they
will do to the Jews. When I saw this on only one news program, with Linda
Ellerbee reporting it (completely shocked with it, herself), at around 2am, I
wrote to every major news station. The replies I received were all the same:
they didn't want to show it because they didn't think the American public could
handle it, it was in bad taste or too violent.’
Sadly, neither do the western media like to show the
Palestinians stringing up and butchering suspected collaborators in the streets
either. This kind of bloodlust and public barbarity is why there are no voices
of moderation in radical muslim areas. Anyone that questions a regime or the
Koran is humiliated and executed.
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.
If you consider the above is overly pejorative, I suggest you
look around muslim districts in the West. The ones that I have seen are usually
distinguished by a phenomenal amount of rubbish and litter, far in excess of
the average area peopled by the native population. Lack of local environmental
concern is just one more of the ‘fruits’ of islam that you can add to the other
fruits of bombers and the fanatics. There is a tendency to ascribe a mess as
the will of allah instead of asserting any personal responsibility.
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.
And read this from a muslim account of the Hajj unintentionally
pointing the finger: “The pilgrims circle the black stone so that any radiation
or other influence from it will And unite them. People who return from the hajj
look like before the journey. You can see buses department for Mecca, with the
people joyful, excited and clapping their hands.
But when they return their faces
are serious like a stone mask. A believing Brother who lives in Mecca wrote,
“We need your prayers especially during the Hajj. We who lives in Mecca feel as
if devils are walking through the streets as the time of the pilgrimage. One
can almost see and feel the presence of Satan” (from a posting on the debate.org.uk site).
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?
Which God is it that wants us to seek understanding?
Islam has retarded all aspects of progress because it exhorts
slavish acceptance over the spirit of enquiry and understanding. Revisionists
of history like to say islam was the basis of a great civilization, but all it
did was conquer already existing cultures like the Assyrians or the Nestorians,
and stamp out their learning. What little of Babylonian or Chaldean mathematics
and Astronomy that survived was then appropriated. The revisionists won’t
mention that when the Sophia mosque (originally a Byzantine church), needed
repair, they had to import Armenian Christian craftsmen to fix it. The
revisionists don’t like to mention the slaughter and destruction of anything
that doesn’t jibe with the mad mullahs opinions. This is why the Moslem lands
didn’t come up with mobile phones or televisions or satellites or any great
technology and scientific advance. Islam kills the advance of civilization. It
literally beheads it.
The revisionists appropriate surviving elements of culture
as if they fermented it, yet they are elements that flowered before islam put
it’s dead hand upon their bloom.
The Koran is also inaccurate in the scientific claims that
it’s propagandists claim. 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.
The return of Jesus may well be as an eagle not a dove. As
a lion and not a lamb. By returning as
a farmer to reap the harvest, the returned messiah will also satisfy the understanding
of the Jews and be recognised as the one they expected.
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.