Gavana
JF-Expert Member
- Jul 19, 2008
- 33,637
- 8,947
Nisha-kupotezea kafir innsui wee , na huyu naye alisema John 1:1 na John 1:14 , ndiyo mafundisho ya mungu wako Shoga Cesare Borgia ??
Mtume Muhammad: Jamii isipotoshwe; Jua huzama katika Chemchemu ya matope Meusi na Mazito
Mtume Muhammad: Jamii isipotoshwe; Jua huzama katika Chemchemu ya matope Meusi na Mazito
- Thread starter SANCTUS ANACLETUS
- Start date
- Status
Nisha-kupotezea kafir innsui wee , na huyu naye alisema John 1:1 na John 1:14 , ndiyo mafundisho ya mungu wako Shoga Cesare Borgia ??
Gavana
JF-Expert Member
- Jul 19, 2008
- 33,637
- 8,947
But then with so many Jesuses could there not have been a Jesus of Nazareth?
The problem for this notion is that absolutely nothing at all corroborates the sacred biography and yet this 'greatest story' is peppered with numerous anachronisms, contradictions and absurdities. For example, at the time that Joseph and the pregnant Mary are said to have gone off to Bethlehem for a supposed Roman census, Galilee (unlike Judaea) was not a Roman province and therefore ma and pa would have had no reason to make the journey. Even if Galilee had been imperial territory, history knows of no ‘universal census’ ordered by Augustus (nor any other emperor) – and Roman taxes were based on property ownership not on a head count. Then again, we now know that Nazareth did not exist before the second century.
It is mentioned not at all in the Old Testament nor by Josephus, who waged war across the length and breadth of Galilee (a territory about the size of Greater London) and yet Josephus records the names of dozens of other towns. In fact most of the ‘Jesus-action’ takes place in towns of equally doubtful provenance, in hamlets so small only partisan Christians know of their existence (yet well attested pagan cities, with extant ruins, failed to make the Jesus itinerary).
What should alert us to wholesale fakery here is that practically all the events of Jesus’s supposed life appear in the lives of mythical figures of far more ancient origin. Whether we speak of miraculous birth, prodigious youth, miracles or wondrous healings – all such 'signs' had been ascribed to other gods, centuries before any Jewish holy man strolled about. Jesus’s supposed utterances and wisdom statements are equally common place, being variously drawn from Jewish scripture, neo-Platonic philosophy or commentaries made by Stoic and Cynic sages.
Gavana
JF-Expert Member
- Jul 19, 2008
- 33,637
- 8,947
But was there a crucified Jesus?
Certainly. Jesus ben Stada was a Judean agitator who gave the Romans a headache in the early years of the second century. He met his end in the town of Lydda (twenty five miles from Jerusalem) at the hands of a Roman crucifixion crew. And given the scale that Roman retribution could reach – at the height of the siege of Jerusalem the Romans were crucifying upwards of five hundred captives a day before the city walls – dead heroes called Jesus would (quite literally) have been thick on the ground. Not one merits a full-stop in the great universal history.
Gavana
JF-Expert Member
- Jul 19, 2008
- 33,637
- 8,947
ALIYEKUPOTEZA NI HUYU UKABAKI UNAABUDU SHOGA
You have verses that indicate that Paul was preaching his own Gospel...
Romans 2:16
This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.
Romans 16:25
Now to him who is able to establish you by my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past,
You have verses that indicate that Paul was preaching the Gospel of God...
Romans 15:16
16 to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles with the priestly duty of proclaiming the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.
2 Corinthians 11:7
Was it a sin for me to lower myself in order to elevate you by preaching the gospel of God to you free of charge?
You have verses that indicate that Paul was preaching the Gospel of Christ...
1 Corinthians 9:13
But we did not use this right. On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ. 13Don't you know that those who work in the temple get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar?
2 Corinthians 2:12
Now when I went to Troas to preach the gospel of Christ and found that the Lord had opened a door for me,
2 Corinthians 9:13
Because of the service by which you have proved yourselves, men will praise God for the obedience that accompanies your confession of the gospel of Christ, and for your generosity in sharing with them and with everyone else.
2 Corinthians 10:14
We are not going too far in our boasting, as would be the case if we had not come to you, for we did get as far as you with the gospel of Christ.
Romans 1:9
God, whom I serve with my whole heart in preaching the gospel of his Son, is my witness how constantly I remember you
The last verse shows a distinction between God and his Son (referring to Jesus).
So was Paul preaching his own gospel, the gospel of Jesus or the Gospel of God?
Gavana
JF-Expert Member
- Jul 19, 2008
- 33,637
- 8,947
The Virgin Birth Fraud
The most colossal blunder of the Septuagint translators, the mistranslation of the original Hebrew text of Isaiah, 7.14, allowed deceitful early Christians to concoct their infamous prophecy that somehow the ancient Jewish text presaged the miraculous birth of their own godman.
The Hebrew original says:
'Hinneh ha-almah harah ve-yeldeth ben ve-karath shem-o immanuel.'
Honestly translated, the verse reads:
'Behold, the young woman has conceived — and bears a son and calls his name Immanuel.'
The Greek-speaking translators of Hebrew scripture (in 3rd century B.C. Alexandria) slipped up and translated 'almah' (young woman) into the Greek 'parthenos' (virgin).
The Hebrew word for virgin would have been 'betulah.
' The slip did not matter at the time, for in context, Isaiah’s prophecy – set in the 8th century BC but probably written in the 5th – had been given as reassurance to King Ahaz of Judah that his royal line would survive, despite the ongoing siege of Jerusalem by the Syrians.
And it did. In other words, the prophecy had nothing to do with events in Judaea eight hundred years into the future!
Justin ‘Martyr’, a pagan Greek from Palestine, fled to Ephesus at the time of Bar Kochbar’s revolt (132 -135 AD).
He joined the growing Christian community and found himself competing with the priests of Artemis, an eternally virgin goddess. Justin successfully overcame the sentiments of established Christians and had Mary, mother of Jesus, declared a virgin, citing his Greek copy of Isaiah as 'evidence' of scriptural prescience.
The Greek priest who then forged the 'Gospel according to St. Matthew' went one stage further, taking the word 'harah' – in Hebrew a past or perfect tense – and switched it into a future tense to arrive at:
'Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel.'
– Matthew 1.23.
All this to arrive at the monstrous fiction that ancient scripture foretold of the arrival of an infant actually called Jesus!
mgen
JF-Expert Member
- Nov 18, 2010
- 23,169
- 9,054
Koloani um
Koloani umeiona pumba unafungia vipande vya pweza Sasa [emoji122] [emoji106] unaona chabo za ushoga utakunusurika [emoji15] [emoji33] [emoji33] [emoji33]
Koloani umeiona pumba unafungia vipande vya pweza Sasa [emoji122] [emoji106] unaona chabo za ushoga utakunusurika [emoji15] [emoji33] [emoji33] [emoji33]
2013
JF-Expert Member
- Aug 2, 2011
- 11,360
- 6,069
Unabishana hadi na Kuruani yako kuhusu virgin Mary.
Ha ha ha.. Wewe bado child. Grow up first..
Gavana
JF-Expert Member
- Jul 19, 2008
- 33,637
- 8,947
Kakufundisha baba fatuû eeh
Kweli Shoga Cesare Borgia kawamaliza hivi ninaongelea Qur'an hapo??
2013
JF-Expert Member
- Aug 2, 2011
- 11,360
- 6,069
Treatment of Both Groups by Means of Jihād (“holy war”)
Despite the differences between the People of the Book and al-mushrikūn, Q 9 makes both groups the focused target of jihād.
A. Imperative to fight non-Muslims (verses 14-16)
The Muslim has to fight anyone who is a non-Muslim. In verses 14-16, the Qur’ān incited the Muslims to storm Mecca (AH 8/AD 630). Q 9 states Allah would make the Quraysh taste suffering at the hands of the Muslims.
In verses 14-15, it states that killing the Quraysh would “remove [the] rage” from the hearts of Muslims. Al-Zuḥailī notes that killing the enemy had a psychological benefit for Muslims: “It is a removal of the anguish or the sorrow of the hearts of the Muslims who were hurt by the idolaters breaking their covenant.”
Killing gives the Muslims the joy of revenge—it “heals the chests of [the Muslims] by the killing of the idolaters.” Subduing the idolaters at the hands of the Muslims heals the anger and hatred that are in the hearts of the Muslims because of what had come to them “of harm and abomination.”
Based on these verses, killing for the cause of Islām has become an enjoyable act for the Muslim fighter in every time and place. Jihād is a duty of every Muslim because as verse 16 states (compare with Q 29.2-3), it reveals the true Muslim from the one whose faith is impure. The goal behind the fighting, according to Q 9.33, is that Islām will prevail over all religions “averse although idolaters may be.”
The necessity to fight to raise the banner of Islām over all other religions is mentioned in several places in the Qur’ān.
The most well-known of these verses are located in Q 9:
• Q 9.5: “...kill the idolaters wherever ye may find them; and take them, and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in every place of observation….” This verse concerned the idolatrous Arabs of the Arabian Peninsula, but it became a jurisprudence base for all nonbiblical persons.
• Q 9.29: “Fight those who believe not in God…and who do not practice the religion of truth from amongst those to whom the Book has been brought, until they pay the tribute by their hands and be as little ones.” This verse demands the fighting of the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) to either subdue them and impose the jizya or force them to adopt Islām as their religion.
• Q 9.36: “...but fight the idolaters, one and all, as they fight you one and all.” This passage demands the fighting of all who are non-Muslim and considers the non-Muslims as one anti-Islāmic camp.
B. Foreign Invasion
In the ninth year of the Hegira, Muḥammad carried out a raid on the Syrian borders that became known later as the Raid of Tabūk (AH 9/AD 631). This was the first Islāmic military skirmish outside the Arabian Peninsula. Verses 38-39 of Q 9 helped to incite the invasion and threaten those who refused to take up arms with the punishment of hellfire. As a continuation to this call to battle (verses 88-89), the sūra commends the fighters and promises them “gardens beneath which rivers flow.” Even today, this agitation to invade remains active in the Islāmic doctrine and the Islāmic mind. In verse 73 commands Muḥammad to fight “the unbelievers and the hypocrites.” He is also exhorted to be severe and rough as he makes war on his enemies. This directive has become the duty of Muslims in every time and place. Ibn Mas‘ūd comments that verse 73 states that a Muslim must carry out jihād “by his hand, but if he cannot, then with his tongue, but if he could not, then with his heart, yet if he could not, then let him scowl with his face.”
Verse 111 states that Allah has made a deal with Muslims, in which he has purchased of Muslims “their persons and their wealth, for the paradise they are to have….” That is, Muslims have to put forth their lives and possessions in the cause of lifting the banner of Islām over the world. In return for this sacrifice, Allah will give them paradise. In the text of the contract, we read that the Muslims are obligated to fight, “and they shall slay and be slain….”
C. Elimination of Critics
In the second part of Q 9.12 is a command to fight anyone who criticizes Islām. Thus, criticizing Islām, or critiquing the life of Muḥammad, is considered a crime punishable by death.
A modern exegete states that any critical discussion about the Qur’ān, Islām, or the life of Muḥammad is a form of war on Islām.
If a Christian or a Jew who resides within the borders of an Islāmic country dares to discuss subjects that are related to Islām, “his killing becomes permissible, because the covenant has already been contracted with him that he would not discredit. If he discredits Islām, he will have broken his covenant and left al-dhimma[D].”
In his commentary on verse 13, this same exegete considers that any evangelism by non-Muslims is a product of political colonialism.
So he gives the prohibition for non-Muslims to evangelize in the Islāmic world a false nationalistic justification.
Conclusion
Sura Q 9 divides the believers of other religions into two groups:
• Those who belong to nonbiblical religions. The Muslims must fight them until they adopt Islām or are killed. This ruling used to apply to the idolaters of the Arabian Peninsula. However, now it covers all the nonbiblical religions, including the other major religions: Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, and so on. This ruling also applies to nonreligious groups. The sura specifies a fixed principle to deal with this group, which means that this first group has only two choices: to become Muslims or to be killed.
• People of the Book.
According to the Qur’ān, Muḥammad is the Seal (the Last) of the Prophets, and Islām abrogates all previous religions. Hence, this sura formulates a rule that states that the People of the Book have to either accept Islām or pay the jizya. Furthermore, Islām divides Muslim society into two classes: Muslims (first class) and People of the Book (second class).
Regarding relations between countries, the Muslim doctrine divides the world into two groups: Dār al-Islām (House of Islām) where Islām rules, and Dār al-Ḥarb (House of War), which is every country that has not submitted to the Islāmic ruling, regardless of whether or not it is in a real state of war with Muslims and regardless of the prominent religion in it.
The Qur’ān imposes on Muslims the obligation to fight in order to raise the banner of Islām over all the earth. The imposition of jihād in Q 9 is an absolute command—not for defense but for this one consideration: forcing the world to accept Islām, even by the power of the sword (Q 9.5, 29, 33, 36, 73, 111, and 123). Verse 123 commands Muslims to start their holy war on their neighboring countries:
“O ye who believe! fight those who are near to you of the misbelievers…”—the height of good neighborly conduct among the nations.
Sources : Quran Dilemma
2013
JF-Expert Member
- Aug 2, 2011
- 11,360
- 6,069
The Qur’ānic Image of Women
.
The Qur’ān provides many provocative descriptions regarding the nature of women and their intrinsic value in comparison to men:
A. EVIL BEINGS
The Qur’ān treats women with an attitude of suspicion. It presents them as a source of danger to men. In the story of Joseph, the Qur’ān describes women as possessing great maliciousness or kayd (“tricks”): “…verily, your tricks are mighty!” (Q 12.28).
On the other hand, the Qu’ran uses similar language to describe Satan: “…verily, Satan’s tricks are weak” (Q 4.76).
It is important to note that the word kayd is not always used as an insult. However, the description of women in Q 12, portraying them as possessing kayd, is clearly used in the context of an insult. This word appears three times (verses 33, 34, and 50). Based on these three verses, one may conclude that the innate, malicious kayd of women comes out of their “nature and temperament.” Thus their innocence is a façade that hides the evil or cunning that is within them.
Furthermore, this kayd keeps them busy contriving plots.
B. INCOMPLETE BEINGS
According to the Qur’ān, a woman is an incomplete being. This depiction is illustrated by the following laws:
First, the Qur’ān dictates that a woman’s portion of an inheritance should be only half of what a male receives:
“God instructs you concerning your children; for a male the like of the portion of two females....” (Q 4.11, 176)
Second, the testimony in a court of law by a woman does not carry as much weight as it does by a man. Instead, her testimony is valued at half a man’s testimony. In fact, her legal statements cannot even be accepted as true unless there are two women testifying. Furthermore, the Qur’ān dictates that when a business transaction takes place between two people, two men must witness it, or one man and two women. That way, if one woman forgets what transpired,
“the second of the two may remind the other...” (Q 2.282).
Not only is a woman’s mental capacities considered weak, but the Qur’ān compares her to a man with weak reasoning and an inability to argue his case:
“What! one brought up amongst ornaments, and who is always in contention without obvious cause?” (Q 43.18). The commentators on the Qur’ān see these verses as proof of “the mental weakness of women and of their deficiencies, as compared to the instincts of men. It is said that when a woman spoke to present her cause, she presented the cause against herself.”
They feel that women are incapable of engaging in reasonable discussion. If a woman “needed to argue and fight, she would be unable [to do so], and would not prevail. This is due to her weakness of tongue, mental deficiency, and dullness of temperament.”
Moreover, the Muslim commentators state that a woman understands she is an incomplete being. Hence, she tries to build her self-confidence “by adorning herself with trinkets and such, to compensate for what is deficient in her.”
In addition, the commentators state that men outperform women even in duties that “are exclusively carried out by women, [even though] her share of them has been greater and began much earlier than a man.” Therefore, even though women have been busy since the beginning of history learning how to prepare food properly, a woman can never hope to reach the skill of a man “who dedicates only a few years to it.”
Men are even better than women in designing and embroidering fabrics. In the field of dancing, men are considered to be professional in it, whereas women’s dancing tends to be based on performance rather than originality.
Women who are geniuses in any given field and those who were queens throughout history are exceptional cases that do not change this rule.
The Qur’ān provides many provocative descriptions regarding the nature of women and their intrinsic value in comparison to men:
A. EVIL BEINGS
The Qur’ān treats women with an attitude of suspicion. It presents them as a source of danger to men. In the story of Joseph, the Qur’ān describes women as possessing great maliciousness or kayd (“tricks”): “…verily, your tricks are mighty!” (Q 12.28).
On the other hand, the Qu’ran uses similar language to describe Satan: “…verily, Satan’s tricks are weak” (Q 4.76).
It is important to note that the word kayd is not always used as an insult. However, the description of women in Q 12, portraying them as possessing kayd, is clearly used in the context of an insult. This word appears three times (verses 33, 34, and 50). Based on these three verses, one may conclude that the innate, malicious kayd of women comes out of their “nature and temperament.” Thus their innocence is a façade that hides the evil or cunning that is within them.
Furthermore, this kayd keeps them busy contriving plots.
B. INCOMPLETE BEINGS
According to the Qur’ān, a woman is an incomplete being. This depiction is illustrated by the following laws:
First, the Qur’ān dictates that a woman’s portion of an inheritance should be only half of what a male receives:
“God instructs you concerning your children; for a male the like of the portion of two females....” (Q 4.11, 176)
Second, the testimony in a court of law by a woman does not carry as much weight as it does by a man. Instead, her testimony is valued at half a man’s testimony. In fact, her legal statements cannot even be accepted as true unless there are two women testifying. Furthermore, the Qur’ān dictates that when a business transaction takes place between two people, two men must witness it, or one man and two women. That way, if one woman forgets what transpired,
“the second of the two may remind the other...” (Q 2.282).
Not only is a woman’s mental capacities considered weak, but the Qur’ān compares her to a man with weak reasoning and an inability to argue his case:
“What! one brought up amongst ornaments, and who is always in contention without obvious cause?” (Q 43.18). The commentators on the Qur’ān see these verses as proof of “the mental weakness of women and of their deficiencies, as compared to the instincts of men. It is said that when a woman spoke to present her cause, she presented the cause against herself.”
They feel that women are incapable of engaging in reasonable discussion. If a woman “needed to argue and fight, she would be unable [to do so], and would not prevail. This is due to her weakness of tongue, mental deficiency, and dullness of temperament.”
Moreover, the Muslim commentators state that a woman understands she is an incomplete being. Hence, she tries to build her self-confidence “by adorning herself with trinkets and such, to compensate for what is deficient in her.”
In addition, the commentators state that men outperform women even in duties that “are exclusively carried out by women, [even though] her share of them has been greater and began much earlier than a man.” Therefore, even though women have been busy since the beginning of history learning how to prepare food properly, a woman can never hope to reach the skill of a man “who dedicates only a few years to it.”
Men are even better than women in designing and embroidering fabrics. In the field of dancing, men are considered to be professional in it, whereas women’s dancing tends to be based on performance rather than originality.
Women who are geniuses in any given field and those who were queens throughout history are exceptional cases that do not change this rule.
2013
JF-Expert Member
- Aug 2, 2011
- 11,360
- 6,069
2013
JF-Expert Member
- Aug 2, 2011
- 11,360
- 6,069
allah and Mohammad didn't Knew all these..
Gavana
JF-Expert Member
- Jul 19, 2008
- 33,637
- 8,947
Gavana
JF-Expert Member
- Jul 19, 2008
- 33,637
- 8,947
But was there a crucified Jesus?
Certainly. Jesus ben Stada was a Judean agitator who gave the Romans a headache in the early years of the second century. He met his end in the town of Lydda (twenty five miles from Jerusalem) at the hands of a Roman crucifixion crew. And given the scale that Roman retribution could reach – at the height of the siege of Jerusalem the Romans were crucifying upwards of five hundred captives a day before the city walls – dead heroes called Jesus would (quite literally) have been thick on the ground. Not one merits a full-stop in the great universal history.
2013
JF-Expert Member
- Aug 2, 2011
- 11,360
- 6,069
I love Listening Lies, when i know the Truth.
Love comedy you pouring in.
Christianity is emerged out of nothing but Christ Deaths and resurrections. If there are no death and resurection of Jesus Christ. That faith is not exists either.
Gavana
JF-Expert Member
- Jul 19, 2008
- 33,637
- 8,947
Father of Lies?
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God"
– 2 Timothy 3.16.
"And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie."
– 2 Thessalonians 2.11
2013
JF-Expert Member
- Aug 2, 2011
- 11,360
- 6,069
When and why Did God send that?...
Gavana
JF-Expert Member
- Jul 19, 2008
- 33,637
- 8,947
2013
JF-Expert Member
- Aug 2, 2011
- 11,360
- 6,069
Umewahi kujiuliza kwanini unaamini uongo wa Conspiracy?. Jibu la kinabii hili hapa chini? .
2 Thessalonians 2:10
na katika madanganyo yote ya udhalimu kwa HAO WANAOPOTEA; KWASABABU HAWAKUKUBALI KUIPENDA ILE KWELI, wapate kuokolewa.
Penye Nuru Giza halipo. Nuru inapotoweka. Giza huchukua nafasi. Kristo ndiye Nuru ya ulimwengu. Na Mohammad ni Giza.
Allah anajiita mwenyewe kwa majigambo yeye ni wallahu khaluli makereeena.
Mimi ni nani hata nikatae... Ha ha ha
Gavana
JF-Expert Member
- Jul 19, 2008
- 33,637
- 8,947
- Status