Ibn Abbas was a break dancer, a heavy drinker and a drug addict, and the only thing that saved him from a life of clutches, was Islam.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Islamophobes and Jizyah: The Truth
Being misinformed over the Jizya The fact remains, there is nothing wrong with the Jizya and it has been explained many times over. This post will bring you a presentation from Imam Shabir Ally (Let the Quran speak)on the Jizya. I have also presented the basics which EVERY Muslim and Non-Muslim should be aware of in order NOT to be misdirected by the “Christian” Islamophobes at ABN and other organisations who make it their business to politically scaremonger against Islam and Muslims
Researching Jizya and the Bible's support of such?
For those willing to further their research, I will furnish you a link to Jonathon’s site which covers the Jizya and features links to more extensive coverage from Bassam Zawadi. See below the video.
Bullied by the Islamophobe’s negative spin?
The Jizya is NOTHING to worry over despite all the theatrics from the Islamophobes. The Islamophobes try to bully and manipulate audiences via spin and preying on gaps in the audience’s knowledge – effectively capitalising on the vulnerable as opportunists.
Firstly, before playing Imam Shabir Ally’s presentation on the Jizya (with regards to S9:29) we should realise the Jizya is not discriminatory and is simply a poll tax which non-Muslims pay in the stead of the religious tax which is imposed upon Muslims (zakat).
Imam Shabir Ally explains Surah 9:29 – Jizya
Is the Jizya so scary? No.
The Jizya is an extremely agreeable poll tax. The Jizya is ALWAYS whatever amount both parties agree upon if the amount ever exceeds the set minimum. Now is that so scary? No.
The minimum non-Muslim poll tax is one dinar (n: 4.235 grams of gold) per person (A:per year). The maximum is whatever both sides agree upon.
It is collected with leniency and politeness as are all debts and is not levied on women, children, or the insane. [o11.4 Reliance of the Traveller, Ahmad ibn Naqib al Misri, edited and translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, Amana Publications, 1994]
Christians should NEVER argue against the Jizya: Mark 12:17
“Christian” Islamophobes are throwing their Bible under the bus in order to jump on the anti-Muslim bandwagon. The fact remains NO true Christian would be opposed to the Jizya.
Christians are instructed to give unto Caesar what belongs to him (see Mark 12:17), thus paying the Jizya is hardly an issue for a Bible-believing Christian. If an Islamic government taxes a Christian the Christian should not grumble. Quite why the Christians at ABN are jumping up and down is beyond me as they pay GREATER taxes to the US government which spends its tax revenues on illicit (ANTI CHRISTIAN) actions.
I guess the stench of Islamophobia is blinding too.
More information on why true Christians should not be arguing against the Jizya
Jonathon has a whole post regarding the Bible’s instructions towards Jizya (the post contains further details on Jizya and features links to more extensive information vis-à-vis the Jizya):
http://www.acommonword.net/2010/11/bible-commands-christians-to-pay-jizyah.html
Don’t be fooled or bullied by detractors who work assiduously to demonize Muslims.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Islamdunk_First show.mov
Alhamdulilah the first show is out. Islamdunktv has published their fist show. We ask you to forgive us for any mistakes, as it was the first show, so we hope to hear your feedback.
Please make duaa for us to improve and serve better.
Please make duaa for us to improve and serve better.
Deaf man regains hearing during pilgrimage target=
Deaf man regains hearing during pilgrimage target=
A Somali man Identified as Shareef had lost his ability to hear and speak after a bomb explosion in his conflict-battered African country, he regained his hearing sense while on Hajj (Muslim annual pilgrimage).
He was hit by a bomb during internal clashes in Somalia over 20 years ago and decided later to immigrate to Britain after he could no longer hear or speak.
Doctors in Britain examined him but found that his condition is incurable, prompting authorities to let him stay as a “deaf-mute” refugee. Shareef, in his 40s, has been living in Britain with his wife and four children ever since, adding that he came to Saudi Arabia along with the Somali-British Hajj mission to perform Hajj.
After going around the Ka'aba in the grand mosque at Makkah along with the other pilgrims, he drank Zamzam (sacred) water and went to the bathroom, when he got out of the bathroom, he heard the call for Fajr (morning) prayers. “He could hardly believe what he heard…he rushed to his friends and told them what happened…they were shocked when they heard him talking.”
The head of the Somali-British Haj (pilgrimage) mission, Abdul Samad Mohammed said he was stunned when he heard him speak. “Shareef had been deaf mute for a long time…during our flight to Saudi Arabia, he was writing what he wanted from the cabin crew,” Mohammed said. “At first we could not believe it….so we asked him to speak again and he did… we took him to the hospital here for examination and doctors said there is nothing wrong with him.”
Apart from many Arabic newspapers, this story was reported on the front page of Gulf News and on the following sites:
http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentID=2010111787515
http://www.emirates247.com/news/region/deaf-man-regains-hearing-during-pilgrimage-2010-11-16-1.318039
A Somali man Identified as Shareef had lost his ability to hear and speak after a bomb explosion in his conflict-battered African country, he regained his hearing sense while on Hajj (Muslim annual pilgrimage).
He was hit by a bomb during internal clashes in Somalia over 20 years ago and decided later to immigrate to Britain after he could no longer hear or speak.
Doctors in Britain examined him but found that his condition is incurable, prompting authorities to let him stay as a “deaf-mute” refugee. Shareef, in his 40s, has been living in Britain with his wife and four children ever since, adding that he came to Saudi Arabia along with the Somali-British Hajj mission to perform Hajj.
After going around the Ka'aba in the grand mosque at Makkah along with the other pilgrims, he drank Zamzam (sacred) water and went to the bathroom, when he got out of the bathroom, he heard the call for Fajr (morning) prayers. “He could hardly believe what he heard…he rushed to his friends and told them what happened…they were shocked when they heard him talking.”
The head of the Somali-British Haj (pilgrimage) mission, Abdul Samad Mohammed said he was stunned when he heard him speak. “Shareef had been deaf mute for a long time…during our flight to Saudi Arabia, he was writing what he wanted from the cabin crew,” Mohammed said. “At first we could not believe it….so we asked him to speak again and he did… we took him to the hospital here for examination and doctors said there is nothing wrong with him.”
Apart from many Arabic newspapers, this story was reported on the front page of Gulf News and on the following sites:
http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentID=2010111787515
http://www.emirates247.com/news/region/deaf-man-regains-hearing-during-pilgrimage-2010-11-16-1.318039
Friday, November 19, 2010
A road to Hajj - China - 24 Nov 09 - Pt 1
This is a must see.... Make sure you also check out the other parts once you view this video on youtube. There are Road to Hajj Panama, Azerbaijan, and many other countries. I have really enjoyed seeing this series.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Amazing Bible Facts by Dr Jerald Dirks
Biblical Insight From Dr Jerad Dirks
Muslims believe in the ORIGINAL Scriptures but the ORIGNIAL scriptures (in their entirety) have been lost, hence the need for the Quran (God’s final Revelation to mankind)
NOTES from Dr Jerald Dirks’ lecture (plus additions from Dennis Bratcher, ChristianAnswers, Bruce Metzger, BibleResearcher)
We are not speaking about translations (ie KJV, NRSV etc). Christianity has never agreed upon what constitutes the Bible.
Are Christians agreed on what constitutes the Old Testament? No!
OT Protestant Bible is 39 books whilst the Roman Catholics add a number of books to this as well as additions to the book of Daniel and the book of Esther. Greek Orthodox add EVEN MORE than the Roman Catholics; they have a 151st Psalm rather than ending with 150. They have additions to the book of Jeremiah and add 3rd and 4th Maccabees amongst others.
The Ethiopian Orthodox Church has a canon of 46 books in their Old Testament. Thus Christianity has NEVER agreed upon what makes up the OT
Have Christians agreed upon what constitutes the New Testament?
No, never!
Protestant and Roman Catholics agree upon 27 books but the Coptic Orthodox have 29 books (adding 1st and 2nd Clement) in their New Testament! The Nestorian Church omits 5 books (including Revelation) which are found in the Catholic and Protestant 27 book NT. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church has 35 books in their New Testament (including the Shepherd of Hermes).
Did Moses author the first 5 Books of the Old Testament? (plus history of the Old Testament compilation)
We know Moses did not write all of it though this is the traditional belief of the Christians. It is a cut and paste compilation from earlier source material:
J – 950 BCE
E- 750 BCE
D- 600s BCE
P- 400-500 BCE
And they were finally put together around the year 400.
Moses (p) lived is thought to have lived within the 1600-1200 BCE range. Amazingly that is at least 250 years before the first source (J) material of the Old Testament.
The letters JEDP are a designation used by scholars to identify the component parts or sources that they understand were used to compile the first five books of the Old Testament. There have been various opinions as to whether these sources were written or oral traditions, and whether each source represents an independent strand or a stage in the development of an older source. [Dennis Bratcher: JEDP: Sources in the Pentateuch]
The Torah
Most modern Biblical scholars believe the Torah (as we have it today) to be a cut and paste compilation in Babylon. The law (Torah) was actually believed to be lost in Palestine and Ezra brought the law back to Palestine from Babylonian (around year 400 BCE).
Three parts to the OT
1. Torah (first 5 books of the OT)
2. Prophets (Nabiyim),
3. The Writings (Kethubim), Christians call this the Hagiographa (the holy writings)
The Roman Catholic Church, in order to construct their OT went to the Septuagint – thus automatically accepted EVERYTHING that was in there.
Protestants used the Hebrew text rather than the Greek Septuagint and thus ended up with a shorter OT (as the Jews at the time of writing the Septuagint had not decided what constitutes the OT)
In many cases we don’t know who authored parts of the OT (e.g. Deuteronomy, 1Kings, 2Kings). We DON’T know who authored all the books of the Old Testament. Can the OT be considered reliable based on this information? No!
New Testament Reliability and Authorship
None of the disciples wrote the Gospel accounts, sadly, many Christian wrongly believe this despite being untrue.
Gospel of Matthew – (80-85 CE) we don’t know who wrote it and it is a compilation of earlier material (proto-Mark and the theoretical Sayings Gospel (Q) and M?). First mention of Matthew writing a Gospel comes around 120 CE despite the Matthew we have being in Greek rather than Hebrew and a non-sayings Gospel
Hebrews was NOT written by Paul despite legend associating it with him.
A problem with the Bible is that it is difficult to ascertain what Jesus said and we did not; the same applies to his actions. There are NO chains of transmission either which further compounds the issue of unreliability as it is second, third hand, fourth hand information.
Does the New Testament contain forgeries (unauthorised insertions)?
The last part of the Gospel Mark (Mark 16:9-20)
Earlier manuscripts show chapter 16 to end at verse 8 but in later manuscripts there is a whole chunk (12 verses) which is added after this. We KNOW this is a later (unauthorised) insertion!
Mark 16:9-20 has been called a later addition to the Gospel of Mark by most New Testament scholars in the past century. The main reason for doubting the authenticity of the ending is that it does not appear in some of the oldest existing witnesses, and it is reported to be absent from many others in ancient times by early writers of the Church. Moreover, the ending has some stylistic features which also suggest that it came from another hand. The Gospel is obviously incomplete without these verses, and so most scholars believe that the final leaf of the original manuscript was lost, and that the ending which appears in English versions today (verses 9-20) was supplied during the second century. [ BibleResearcher]
Even the internal evidence militates against this addition:
The internal evidence for the shorter ending (2) is decidedly against its being genuine. Besides containing a high percentage of non-Markan words, its rhetorical tone differs totally from the simple style of Mark's Gospel. [Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart, 1971), pages 122-126.]
More info:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/endmark.html
The story of the adulteress in John (John 1:53 – 8:11)
It does NOT exist in the earliest manuscripts we have; (the ENTIRE section does not exist). Further explanation: Biblical scholars are nearly all agreed that the Story of the Adulteress (also known as the Pericope Adulterae or the Pericope de Adultera) usually printed in Bibles as John 7:53-8:11 is a later addition to the Gospel. [BibleResearcher.com]
American Standard Version (1901). Marginal note: "Most of the ancient authorities omit John vii. 53--viii. 11. Those which contain it vary much from each other."
If the story of the adulteress was an ancient story about Jesus, why did it not immediately become part of the accepted Gospels? Riesenfeld has given the most plausible explanation of the delay in the acceptance of this story. The ease with which Jesus forgave the adulteress was hard to reconcile with the stern penitential discipline in vogue in the early Church. It was only when a more liberal penitential practice was firmly established that this story received wide acceptance. (Riesenfeld traces its liturgical acceptance to the fifth century as a reading for the feast of St. Pelagia.) [Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (i-xii), in the Anchor Bible series (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1966), pages 335-6.]
This clearly shows there was a CULTURE of scribal addition which imputes tangible suspicion upon the whole of the New Testament.
More info on this scribal addition:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/adult.html
Dr Jerald Dirks has presented sufficient material to do away with the doctrinal view of Biblical inerrancy.
Christians; become familiar with your own scripture. Study carefully.
"'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely? (NIV Jeremiah 8:8)
God willing your studies will lead you to Islam
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." (NIV, John 8:32)
Are they then unaware that Allah knoweth that which they keep hidden and that which they proclaim? (77) Among them are unlettered folk who know the Scripture not except from hearsay. They but guess. (78) Therefore woe be unto those who write the Scripture with their hands and then say, "This is from Allah," that they may purchase a small gain therewith. Woe unto them for that their hands have written, and woe unto them for that they earn thereby. (79) [Pikthal translation of the Holy Quran, 2:77-79]
Muslims believe in the ORIGINAL Scriptures but the ORIGNIAL scriptures (in their entirety) have been lost, hence the need for the Quran (God’s final Revelation to mankind)
NOTES from Dr Jerald Dirks’ lecture (plus additions from Dennis Bratcher, ChristianAnswers, Bruce Metzger, BibleResearcher)
We are not speaking about translations (ie KJV, NRSV etc). Christianity has never agreed upon what constitutes the Bible.
Are Christians agreed on what constitutes the Old Testament? No!
OT Protestant Bible is 39 books whilst the Roman Catholics add a number of books to this as well as additions to the book of Daniel and the book of Esther. Greek Orthodox add EVEN MORE than the Roman Catholics; they have a 151st Psalm rather than ending with 150. They have additions to the book of Jeremiah and add 3rd and 4th Maccabees amongst others.
The Ethiopian Orthodox Church has a canon of 46 books in their Old Testament. Thus Christianity has NEVER agreed upon what makes up the OT
Have Christians agreed upon what constitutes the New Testament?
No, never!
Protestant and Roman Catholics agree upon 27 books but the Coptic Orthodox have 29 books (adding 1st and 2nd Clement) in their New Testament! The Nestorian Church omits 5 books (including Revelation) which are found in the Catholic and Protestant 27 book NT. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church has 35 books in their New Testament (including the Shepherd of Hermes).
Did Moses author the first 5 Books of the Old Testament? (plus history of the Old Testament compilation)
We know Moses did not write all of it though this is the traditional belief of the Christians. It is a cut and paste compilation from earlier source material:
J – 950 BCE
E- 750 BCE
D- 600s BCE
P- 400-500 BCE
And they were finally put together around the year 400.
Moses (p) lived is thought to have lived within the 1600-1200 BCE range. Amazingly that is at least 250 years before the first source (J) material of the Old Testament.
The letters JEDP are a designation used by scholars to identify the component parts or sources that they understand were used to compile the first five books of the Old Testament. There have been various opinions as to whether these sources were written or oral traditions, and whether each source represents an independent strand or a stage in the development of an older source. [Dennis Bratcher: JEDP: Sources in the Pentateuch]
The Torah
Most modern Biblical scholars believe the Torah (as we have it today) to be a cut and paste compilation in Babylon. The law (Torah) was actually believed to be lost in Palestine and Ezra brought the law back to Palestine from Babylonian (around year 400 BCE).
Three parts to the OT
1. Torah (first 5 books of the OT)
2. Prophets (Nabiyim),
3. The Writings (Kethubim), Christians call this the Hagiographa (the holy writings)
The Roman Catholic Church, in order to construct their OT went to the Septuagint – thus automatically accepted EVERYTHING that was in there.
Protestants used the Hebrew text rather than the Greek Septuagint and thus ended up with a shorter OT (as the Jews at the time of writing the Septuagint had not decided what constitutes the OT)
In many cases we don’t know who authored parts of the OT (e.g. Deuteronomy, 1Kings, 2Kings). We DON’T know who authored all the books of the Old Testament. Can the OT be considered reliable based on this information? No!
New Testament Reliability and Authorship
None of the disciples wrote the Gospel accounts, sadly, many Christian wrongly believe this despite being untrue.
Gospel of Matthew – (80-85 CE) we don’t know who wrote it and it is a compilation of earlier material (proto-Mark and the theoretical Sayings Gospel (Q) and M?). First mention of Matthew writing a Gospel comes around 120 CE despite the Matthew we have being in Greek rather than Hebrew and a non-sayings Gospel
Hebrews was NOT written by Paul despite legend associating it with him.
A problem with the Bible is that it is difficult to ascertain what Jesus said and we did not; the same applies to his actions. There are NO chains of transmission either which further compounds the issue of unreliability as it is second, third hand, fourth hand information.
Does the New Testament contain forgeries (unauthorised insertions)?
The last part of the Gospel Mark (Mark 16:9-20)
Earlier manuscripts show chapter 16 to end at verse 8 but in later manuscripts there is a whole chunk (12 verses) which is added after this. We KNOW this is a later (unauthorised) insertion!
Mark 16:9-20 has been called a later addition to the Gospel of Mark by most New Testament scholars in the past century. The main reason for doubting the authenticity of the ending is that it does not appear in some of the oldest existing witnesses, and it is reported to be absent from many others in ancient times by early writers of the Church. Moreover, the ending has some stylistic features which also suggest that it came from another hand. The Gospel is obviously incomplete without these verses, and so most scholars believe that the final leaf of the original manuscript was lost, and that the ending which appears in English versions today (verses 9-20) was supplied during the second century. [ BibleResearcher]
Even the internal evidence militates against this addition:
The internal evidence for the shorter ending (2) is decidedly against its being genuine. Besides containing a high percentage of non-Markan words, its rhetorical tone differs totally from the simple style of Mark's Gospel. [Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart, 1971), pages 122-126.]
More info:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/endmark.html
The story of the adulteress in John (John 1:53 – 8:11)
It does NOT exist in the earliest manuscripts we have; (the ENTIRE section does not exist). Further explanation: Biblical scholars are nearly all agreed that the Story of the Adulteress (also known as the Pericope Adulterae or the Pericope de Adultera) usually printed in Bibles as John 7:53-8:11 is a later addition to the Gospel. [BibleResearcher.com]
American Standard Version (1901). Marginal note: "Most of the ancient authorities omit John vii. 53--viii. 11. Those which contain it vary much from each other."
If the story of the adulteress was an ancient story about Jesus, why did it not immediately become part of the accepted Gospels? Riesenfeld has given the most plausible explanation of the delay in the acceptance of this story. The ease with which Jesus forgave the adulteress was hard to reconcile with the stern penitential discipline in vogue in the early Church. It was only when a more liberal penitential practice was firmly established that this story received wide acceptance. (Riesenfeld traces its liturgical acceptance to the fifth century as a reading for the feast of St. Pelagia.) [Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (i-xii), in the Anchor Bible series (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1966), pages 335-6.]
This clearly shows there was a CULTURE of scribal addition which imputes tangible suspicion upon the whole of the New Testament.
More info on this scribal addition:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/adult.html
Dr Jerald Dirks has presented sufficient material to do away with the doctrinal view of Biblical inerrancy.
Christians; become familiar with your own scripture. Study carefully.
"'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely? (NIV Jeremiah 8:8)
God willing your studies will lead you to Islam
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." (NIV, John 8:32)
Are they then unaware that Allah knoweth that which they keep hidden and that which they proclaim? (77) Among them are unlettered folk who know the Scripture not except from hearsay. They but guess. (78) Therefore woe be unto those who write the Scripture with their hands and then say, "This is from Allah," that they may purchase a small gain therewith. Woe unto them for that their hands have written, and woe unto them for that they earn thereby. (79) [Pikthal translation of the Holy Quran, 2:77-79]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)