Monday, January 31, 2011

BBC on the 'moderate and non-violent' Muslim Brotherhood

In typical BBC Islam-inclining fashion, Jeremy Bowen reports ' Egypt protesters step up pressure', and states:
The country's only properly organised mass political movement outside the ruling party is the Muslim Brotherhood, and it would do very well in any free election. Unlike the jihadis, it does not believe it is at war with the West. It is conservative, moderate and non-violent. But it is highly critical of Western policy in the Middle East.
Yet the BBC's Middle East profile on the Muslim Brotherhood states:
The Muslim Brotherhood, or al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun, is Egypt's oldest and largest Islamist organisation... While the Ikhwan say that they support democratic principles, one of their stated aims is to create a state ruled by Islamic law, or Sharia.
So, according to Auntie, 'moderate and non-violent' is congruent with 'committed to Sharia law'.

Could the BBC please explain to its licence fee payers which aspects of sharia law they consider 'moderate'?

Sharia family law? Sharia education? Shariah justice? Sharia fashion?


Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

Judging by the mission statement of the Muslim Brotherhood, it is certainly conservative but neither moderate nor non-violent: ‘Allah is our objective, the Qur’an is our constitution, the Prophet is our leader, jihad is our way, and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations.’

31 January 2011 at 23:08  
Blogger AncientBriton said...

I heard on Newsnight this evening that the English Defence League and Islam will be discussed on tomorrow evening's programme. That should be interesting; you may wish to have your notebook to hand Your Grace.

31 January 2011 at 23:39  
Blogger Owl said...

I read this article on the American Thinker site today:

Maybe someone can shed some light on the accuracy of the article.

31 January 2011 at 23:50  
Anonymous Trencherbone said...

"Could the BBC please explain to its licence fee payers which aspects of sharia law they consider 'moderate'?"

Probably the same aspects, such as the right to kill your children with impunity, that are considered moderate by the Archbishop of Canterbury (pbuh)

31 January 2011 at 23:55  
Blogger Manfarang said...

Don't forget to reread-
The Paranoid Style in American Politics. By Richard Hofstadter† Harper's Magazine, November 1964, pp. 77-86.

1 February 2011 at 01:40  
Anonymous Oswin said...

I'm rather fond of 7 denier sharia black stockings ... but not, you understand, for my own direct use...

1 February 2011 at 02:24  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Never mind. If this government ever brings in domestic energy rationing because they are too frigging stupid and suicidally deluded to form a coherent energy policy, we'll pay a visit to Broadcasting House right after we've made our feelings very obvious at Downing Street and Westminster Palace. I hope we won't need piano wire to make a point.

Meanwhile we can simply mass refuse to pay the BBC tax. They can't lock all of us up.

1 February 2011 at 08:12  
Anonymous len said...

The BBC either understands Islam and has an agenda all of their own which they are not telling us.

Or the BBC and our Government( are they the same thing?) does not understand Islam at all!

What is a good Muslim? One who follows the teachings (and the example, presumably)of Mohammed.
So we need to examine the Koran to see exactly what Mohammed said.

1 February 2011 at 08:23  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

Cranmer you are being a bit selective. Much as I am opposed to Islam, what Bowen is saying is that the Muslim Brotherhood maintains that it will accept the democratic will of the people. However, and this is the paradox of democracy, if a regime whose stated aim is to destroy democracy receives a democratic mandate, this could be seen as a triumph of the democratic principle. The alternative, as happened in Algeria some decades ago, is that an Islamist government was elected only to be immediately ousted in a thoroughly undemocratic way.

1 February 2011 at 08:50  
Anonymous Caedmon's Cat said...

Considering Beeby See's claim that the Muslim Brotherhood is 'moderate' and 'non-violent', is it not therefore surprising that the killing of tourists in past years has been attributed to them? Or are they now the hallmarks of moderation and pacifism in these postmodern times? Or perhaps Beeby See is counting on either the idiocy or the short attention and memory span of the public?

1 February 2011 at 09:12  
Blogger jdennis_99 said...

His Grace alluded to this quite well in a previous post, when he said that Christianity is not a religion that simply worships a book, and regards it as an instruction manual (I am paraphrasing).

Unfortunately, Islam is - and therefore lends itself to fundamentalism quite easily. Of course, not all Muslims are fundamentalist, but some are, to the detriment of everyone.

What I find astonishing is some allusions to the fact that, because they might vote in Islamic fundamentalists, the West should somehow disapprove of Middle-Eastern democracy.

I find this fundamentally hypocritical. If we profess to abhor autocracy and dictatorship, and laud our histories so much for confronting them, surely we should not object when another country makes an attempt to do the same, regardless of whether it is politically expedient for us or not?

It is perhaps worth noting that we cannot always have our cake and eat it.

1 February 2011 at 09:28  
Anonymous martin sewell said...

The measure of a democrat is not his/her response to being elected into office, but rather the response to being voted out of office.

I fear that those of a Sharia persuasion might disappoint us on the latter scenario.

Does anyone know of an historic example that should cause me to repent my pessimism?

1 February 2011 at 10:01  
Blogger Owl said...


Exactly, that is why I asked if anyone could tell me if the article was historically accurate or not.

1 February 2011 at 12:25  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think "intention to destroy Israel and the Jews..." is regarded by Mr Bowen and co as synonymous with the idea of "moderate".

Honestly, I think this is the defining idea behind all BBC ME journalism. Shocking, incredible and bizarre.... but true.

1 February 2011 at 14:19  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Al Beeb propagandists will rejoice when a new caliphate is established throughout the Middle East, North African and, of course, Europe.

Is the NWO that the political elite have planned for us about to be unveiled?

1 February 2011 at 15:20  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think a moderate muslim is a muslim living in a country where muslims are in the minority.

Moderate is a weasel word coined by the apologists to try and fool the rest of us that minority muslims don't wish to follow the dictats of the koran.

As to the BBC's agenda; do they want us to be homosexual OR muslim or homosexual AND muslim?

1 February 2011 at 16:20  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

Wasn't Sayyid Qtub rather key to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt in the 1950s and 1960s?

1 February 2011 at 17:54  
Anonymous len said...

I suppose one of the problems with Islam is one of interpretation.Does one just do the 'good bits' (presumably there are some?)or does one pull out all the stops and do all that the Koran encourages one to do?
Islam has some of the elements of the Old (Testament) Covenant which were put in place to keep the fallen nature in check until Gods solution (Jesus Christ) was able to remedy this with the Spiritual re birth and a new nature.

The Old Covenant placed all the responsibility for righteousness on man( who failed dismally!)Some Religions still persist in this attempt to make man acceptable to God by his own efforts!. It is a struggle doomed to failure!!.

The New Covenant is entirely a work of God.God places His Spirit in the Believer to enable him to be righteous not by his own efforts but by the Grace of God.

Islam has no such solution for the problems of a fallen nature only to keep struggling with an impossible task.

1 February 2011 at 20:25  
Blogger srizals said...

That's why we have no paedophile priests, less likely to destroy and conquer for materialistic gains (gold, gospel and glory was never our motto) and do not have any problem with legal abortion, last but not least, have sex with dignity.

1 February 2011 at 20:51  
Anonymous JayBee said...

@srizals 20:51

No paedophile priests. Really?
I think you better click on this link.

1 February 2011 at 21:19  
Blogger KINGOFHIGHCS said...

Srizals said

That's why we have no paedophile priests (Priests maybe but no paedophiles..puhleese!), less likely to destroy and conquer for materialistic gains (What on earth was the muslim crusades that swept all before, right up into Spain about then..Goodwill at the edge of a sword?) (gold, gospel and glory was never our motto)(What is your motto..Death, Denial, Dhimmitude??), and do not have any problem with legal abortion (fair enough but if you (Muslims) were to accept abortion, would it not decimate, DECREMENTALLY, if you want to take over the world by sheer numbers of muslims inhabitants?), last but not least, have sex with dignity (What on earth does this mean?).


1 February 2011 at 21:21  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ srizals (20:51)—Click here for another mosque miscreant.

1 February 2011 at 22:07  
Blogger DP111 said...

Prayer Focus








1 February 2011 at 22:40  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Srizals @20:51

What you don't have, is a press that reports YOUR paedophile priests! Are you truly so naive?

2 February 2011 at 02:02  
Anonymous len said...

I would ask all Muslims this question(quite sincerely) because how you answer this question will determine your existence when you step out of time into Eternity.
Who would you rather spend Eternity with;
Jesus Christ
Don`t say both because that is impossible!
( I should qualify this statement by saying the Isa of the Koran is NOT the Jesus of the New Testament!)

2 February 2011 at 08:14  
Blogger srizals said...

Jaybee, Johnny and Oswin,
I stand with my statement. We do not have paedophile priests since there is no priesthood in Islam. Every Muslim is the same. But we definitely do have common criminals, just like you. That’s why we have Sharia, remember? My response is for Len, reminding him the nature of the fallen people seem to be showing on the side of those who believed their hideous sins are easily cleansed with other’s blood, not of their own.

Oswin, I do not seclude myself from any resources in a wonderful world of make believe. I’m here aren’t I? Not in a local and familiar territory. I do not limit myself to certain resources only. The world is my limit.

Every Muslim is the same. No Muslim can claim he or she has direct ‘revelation’ or ‘connection’ from God or he has the power to pardon the sins of man or blessed him with Paradise. What more of cursing him with the torment of Hell. Only our sincerity and our deeds set us apart, in the eyes of God.

the One who created death and life, so that He may test you as to which of you is better in his deeds. And He is the All-Mighty, the Most-Forgiving,

who has created seven skies, one over the other. You will see nothing out of proportion in the creation of the RaHmān (the All-Merciful Allah). So, cast your eye again. Do you see any rifts?

Those who teach some element of Islam are just like you and me. They are not known as the holy priests of the house of god! The only famous house of God in Islam, well known to the world is Kaabah. For example, I can pray at just about any mosque, can you pray at any church?

2 February 2011 at 09:46  
Blogger srizals said...

Mr. Kingofhighcs,
Spain asked for Muslims’ help and they provided it and built her for almost 800 years with the Spanish of Andalusia. Even the Jews flourished with them. Compare that to the native Indians of America and the aborigines of Australia, to name a few. Do they have any peculiar similarities? One more, no Jews flourished with Christian kingdoms, ever. Only the atheist Jews prevail in recent century, exploiting the guilt of Christians for what the Christian Germans had done. And simply forgetting the tens of millions Christians that perished along with them. Only the atheist Jews dared to enslave their former masters through ‘democratic politics’. Alluring (Seducing more likely) ‘powerful’ men with the strongest power addiction of them all, the source of all evil, printed paper money. The true religious Jews never indulge themselves in using sex and usury to subdue others. Only the atheist and not that religious Zionists have such bravery. Remember, not all Jews are Zionists.

"The traditional story is that in the year 711, an oppressed Christian chief, Julian, went to Musa ibn Nusair, the governor of North Africa, with a plea for help against the tyrannical Visigoth ruler of Spain, Roderick".

Don’t forget the bloody Spanish civil war 1936 - 1939. They liberated themselves to more bloody tyranny of their own. As did the gates of Vienna would witnessed in Napoleonic wars, World War One and Two. But people only remembered the invading Turks that do not even destroy the city and its inhabitants.

No one seems to remember who introduced coffee beans to the people of Vienna.

"The real first coffeehouse in Austria opened in Vienna in 1683 after the Battle of Vienna, by using supplies from the spoils obtained after defeating the Turks. The officer who received the coffee beans, Polish military officer of Ukrainian origin Jerzy Franciszek Kulczycki, opened the coffee house and helped popularize the custom of adding sugar and milk to the coffee". Hope English Viking isn't reading all this, I know he loves coffee.

Now can you see why this life of pleasure and pain for a thousand years won’t matter for the true hearts? Their thirst can only be quenched with infinity. How long is the sensation of pleasure and pain in this life that we can remember? 120 years?

2 February 2011 at 09:46  
Blogger srizals said...

Len, Muslims want to live side by side with God and with those who love Him, forever being blessed, save from any evil and harm, for eternity. And having this memory of our earthly life to be cherished, in infinity.

The only thing that separates Muslims from Non Muslims is the understanding of God. For Muslims, God is not of this temporal earthly existence, so He couldn't be the sun and the moon, what more a blind created statue, absolutely not the weak, prone to error ordinary human being! God is God, to whom belong everything that depends on Him and it's not suitable for Him to have the needs and weaknesses of His creations!

He is the One who made the earth a bed for you, and the sky a roof, and sent down water from the sky, then brought forth with it fruits, as a provision for you. So, do not set up parallels to Allah when you know.

To Allah belongs the East and the West. So, whichever way you turn, there is the Face of Allah. Indeed, Allah is All-Embracing, All-Knowing.

They say: “Allah has got a son.” Pure is He. Instead, to Him belongs all that there is in the heavens and the earth. All stand obedient to Him.

(He is the) Originator of the heavens and the earth. When He decides a matter, He simply says to it: “Be”, and it comes to be.

Those who do not know say: “Why is it that Allah does not speak to us, nor does a sign come to us?” So spoke those before them as these people do. Their hearts resemble each other. We have indeed made the signs clear for the people who have certitude.

Surely, We have sent you with the truth, as a bearer of good tidings, and a warner, and you will not be asked about the people of Hell.

Len, could you provide the proof that Jesus Christ was not Isa? I'm looking forward for the proof Len. Thanks.

And a question for you Len, who are you actually following? Jesus, Paul or Constantine? Who actually taught about trinity?

Mark 12:29 New International Version
29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.

Why didn't he mentioned that he was god too? Why did he said 'our' God?

2 February 2011 at 10:10  
Blogger srizals said...

Mr. Kingofhighcs,

I'm sorry that you didn't understand what I mean by 'sex with dignity'. Our mindset and culture at certain point would differ. You see, man like any other species, have to multiply and renew themselves since they, like all things that exist in this universe, are actually dying or diminishing, the moment they exist. In order to keep the species going or the survival of the species, and especially civilisation of man, we have to have sex with the opposite sex, so that our sexual organs may function as they are suppose to. We can't have same sex orientation, since like all living things, we are created in pairs. Doing so would invite certain viruses only unique to humans and hence they are known as human papillomavirus and Human Immunodeficiency Virus, to name a few. We must marry and build a family unit consist of a husband (male only) and a wife (specifically female) with children, to ensure our existence would see a continuum. Failing to do so and we would be like Singapore. Constantly in the state of fear and had to keep on importing new 'Singaporeans' to keep them from going barren. And most importantly, when we have returned to our beginning existence of being baby-like, toothless, weak and in diapers, if we live that long, our children would take care of us, as we had. They are after all, our genes and legacy.

2 February 2011 at 14:50  
Blogger KINGOFHIGHCS said...

Srizals said 2 February 2011 14:50

'I'm sorry that you didn't understand what I mean by 'sex with dignity'.'..Blah, blah, blah.'
'They are after all, our genes and legacy.'.

I am truly non the wiser by your comment. You really are an old windbag, aren't you?.

Ha ha


2 February 2011 at 19:30  
Blogger srizals said...

Laughing your way out again Mr. K? You have some serious issue in your personality. You're not well, Mr. K. and I can tell.

Well, we can't help everyone now, can we? Some light can never be seen.

2 February 2011 at 23:31  
Blogger srizals said...

Len, something I want to share with you while waiting for your proof.

O children of Isrā’īl (Israel), remember My blessing that I conferred upon you, and that I gave you excellence over the worlds.

And guard yourselves against a day when no one shall stand for anyone for anything, nor shall ransom be accepted from anyone, nor shall intercession be of benefit to him, nor shall any support be given to such people.

When his Lord put Ibrāhīm to a test with certain Words, and he fulfilled them, He said, “I am going to make you an Imām for the people.”He said, “And from among my progeny?” He replied, “My promise does not extend to the unjust.”

When We made the House (Ka‘bah of Makkah) a frequented place for men, and a place of peace! Make from the Station of Ibrāhīm a place of prayer. We gave the (following directive) to Ibrāhīm and Ismā‘īl (Ishmael): “Purify My House for those who are to circumambulate (make Tawāf) and those who stay in I‘tikāf, and those who bow down or prostrate themselves (in prayers).

(Recall) when Ibrāhīm said, “My Lord, make this a city of peace, and provide its people with fruits - those of them who believe in Allah and the Last Day.” He (Allah) said, “As for the one who disbelieves, I shall let him enjoy a little, then I shall drag him to the punishment of the Fire. How evil an end it is!

When Ibrāhīm was raising up the foundations of the House, along with Ismā‘īl (Ishmael) (supplicating): “Our Lord accept (this service) from us! Indeed, You - and You alone - are the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing!

Our Lord, make us both submissive to You, and (make) of our progeny as well, a people submissive to You and show us our ways of Pilgrimage and accept our repentance. Indeed, You - and You alone - are the Most-Relenting, the Very-Merciful.

And, our Lord, raise in their midst a Messenger from among them, who should recite to them Your verses, and teach them the Book and the wisdom, and cleanse them of all impurities. Indeed You, and You alone, are the All-Mighty, the All-Wise.”

Who can turn away from the faith of Ibrāhīm except the one who has debased himself in folly? Indeed We have chosen him in this world. And he is certainly among the righteous in the Hereafter.

When his Lord said to him, “Submit!” He said, “I submit myself to the Lord of all the worlds.”

And Ibrāhīm exhorted the same to his sons, and so did Ya‘qūb (Jacob): “My sons, Allah has certainly chosen for you the Faith. So, let not death overtake you but as Muslims.”

Is it that you were present when death approached Ya‘qūb, when he said to his sons: “What will you worship after me”? They said, “We will worship your God and the God of your fathers, Ibrāhīm, Ismā‘īl (Ishmael) and IsHāq (Isaac), the one God, and to Him we submit ourselves.”

Those are a people who have passed away. For them is what they earned, and for you is what you earned. Nor shall you be questioned as to what they have been doing.

They said, “Become Jews or Christians, and you will find the right path.” Say: “Instead, (we follow) the faith of Ibrāhīm, the upright, - and he was not one of those who associate partners with Allah.”

Say (O, Muslims): “We believe in Allah, and in what has been revealed to us, and in what has been revealed to Ibrāhīm, Ismā‘īl (Ishmael), IsHāq (Isaac), Ya‘qūb and his children, and in what has been given to Mūsā and ‘Īsā (Jesus) and what has been given to the prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between any of them, and to Him we submit ourselves.”

3 February 2011 at 02:43  
Anonymous len said...

"I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him
who called you in the grace of Christ, ("grace" means you can't earn Heaven - He paid for you)
to a different gospel, which is not another;
but there are some who trouble you
and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.
But even if we, or an ANGEL from heaven,
preach any other gospel to you
than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.
As we have said before, so now I say again,
if anyone preaches any other gospel to you
than what you have received, let him be accursed."
(Gal 1:6-9)
(Srizels I wonder if you will see it? Answer you question later,must go to work!)

3 February 2011 at 08:24  
Blogger srizals said...

'17 I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus.

18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas[b] and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. 20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

21 Then I went to Syria and Cilicia. 22 I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. 23 They only heard the report: “The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” 24 And they praised God because of me'.

I wonder what is the significance of Arabia in these verses Len? Could you share your thoughts on it?

And 23 is a problematic expression. No one could stop persecuting the weaklings and become one of them. Not unless Mubarak, Ben Ali, Barak, Livni, Sharon, Netanyahu, Petraeus, Blair, Bush and other persecutors of the weak prove me wrong. It's just simply illogical. Not unless, the enemy within is the only way to destroy the weaklings once and for all. A corruption that would be unnoticed and unstoppable by the weaklings themselves.

Could you give me another example of a persecutor cum saviour?

Jesus said that another comforter would be coming after him. Does that mean another son of god or god will be coming after him? Was he referring to Paul, a Christian hater?

4 February 2011 at 00:40  
Blogger KINGOFHIGHCS said...

Srizals said 3 February 2011 08:24

Srizals, my old mate, you appear to have not included or started with the preceding verse that answers your question? A bit foolish and unsound of you or WAS IT.
Galatians 1
'16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the HEATHEN; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood'.

(Ah, He told no other believers what he intended to do (confer with flesh and blood) and was led by the Holy Spirit to go and start preaching to ARABS/Gentiles and Jews living in these lands (Babylonia had a large Jewish community at that time which Peter visited and wrote an epistle from!) about The Way (Christ said I am the Way, the Truth, the Life!) and how he had persecuted all who believed that Christ was the Messiah come in the flesh.)

'23 But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed. ' (So, he declares he had not shown or declared his ministry to the believers in Judea but they had only HEARD he had repented and now believed that Jesus was the messiah foretold in prophecy!).
'Could you give me another example of a persecutor cum saviour?' (Paul rejected all worship given to him as if he were some sort of saviour as Peter and the other apostles did after performing mighty miracles as is shown in the Book of Acts. They were not SAVIOURS and neither is Mohammed..Oh Where were Mohammed's mighty miracles or prophecy, HAVE YOU GOT THE GUTS and Care to answer his lack of them. How can he be a prophet or saviour as muslims declare without them. Bit short sighted of Allah was it not???!!!. There is only ONE and The Holy Bible is all about Him and He is the central figure in ALL History!).

'Jesus said that another comforter would be coming after him.
John 14:16-17
16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

(I know you understand PERFECTLY who the Comforter is. He is The Holy Spirit..irrespective whether you believe as a Muslim He exists and is the 3rd person in the Triune Godhead!. Oh dear, the answer was there all along and yet with your UNBELIEVABLY EXCELLENT GRASP OF ENGLISH of a poor foreigner from Malay you missed it. How come?)

Does that mean another son of god or god will be coming after him (I have just answered it for you! GOD)? Was he referring to Paul, a Christian hater?' (NO. Read the above slowly and let it sink in. The term Christian was not phrased until Paul and others visited Antioch and they were called as such by the gentiles there!)

Contentious for the mere sake of it??. GOD FORBID??


4 February 2011 at 12:13  
Blogger KINGOFHIGHCS said...

Srizals said 2 February 2011 10:10
Srizals, you ask 'Len, could you provide the proof that Jesus Christ was not Isa? '

part 1
Bit of a 'non sequitur' from you? (a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said ).

' Len, could you provide the proof that Jesus Christ was not Isa? '

(Which, His name as translated into another language or definition of Him as within the Holy Bible as OPPOSED to how Muslims view Him?)

What is Jesus' original name then?
1 The only historically correct answer can only be that it is the name that he was given at his "naming ceremony" (Luke 2:21), the name by which he was called by his mother, his foster-father, his siblings and other relatives, his neighbors, his friends and his disciples during his life on earth.
There can be NO disagreement about the fact that Jesus was not an ARAB but a JEW who lived in Israel and was born into a family of pious Jews. (He had without question a Hebrew name. His original (i.e. true) name is neither European nor Arabic, so it was neither Jesus nor Yasu' nor Esa). A close phonetic transliteration of Jesus' Hebrew name into modern English would be Yeshua'.
In fact, the choice of his name receives considerable attention in the Gospels. His name was not chosen by chance by his parents, but he received his name based on God's direct command (Matthew 1:21, Luke 1:31) because the meaning of this name expresses the purpose for which he was born (Matthew 1:21).
2 Christian Arabs have always called Jesus Yasu after the Aramaic Yashua from which comes the Greek "Iesous" and the English Jesus. For reasons that have never been apparent Muhammad chose to call him Isa.
3 There is no Esa in the Bible, and it was certainly not Jesus' original name.
The idea to name the Messiah after Esau, a man who was rejected by God, is absurd for anyone who knows what the Bible says about Esau:
Malachi 1:1-3
"The oracle of the word of the LORD to Israel by Mal'achi. ‘I have loved you,’ says the LORD. But you say, ‘How hast thou loved us?’ ‘Is not Esau Jacob's brother?’ says the LORD. ‘Yet I have loved Jacob but I have hated Esau; I have laid waste his hill country and left his heritage to jackals of the desert.’"
Hebrews 12:15-17
"See to it that no one fail to obtain the grace of God; that no ‘root of bitterness’ spring up and cause trouble, and by it the many become defiled; that no one be immoral or irreligious like Esau, who sold his birthright for a single meal. For you know that afterward, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no chance to repent, though he sought it with tears."

NO JEW would EVER have named a child after Esau.


4 February 2011 at 13:19  
Blogger KINGOFHIGHCS said...

Srizals said 2 February 2011 10:10
Part 2
Who KNOWS the TRUE Jesus Of Nazareth??? Holy Bible or Qu'ran.

The Muslim ‘Isa (Jesus)

There are two main sources for ‘Isa, the Muslim Jesus. The Qur’an gives a history of his life, whilst the Hadith collections — recollections of Muhammad’s words and deeds — establish his place in the Muslim understanding of the future.

The Qur’an
‘Isa, was a prophet of Islam

‘Isa (Jesus) in the Hadith
‘Isa the destroyer of Christianity

Wrongful Muslim conclusions

1 ‘Isa not an historical figure

The Qur’an’s ‘Isa is not an historical figure. His identity and role as a prophet of Islam is based SOLELY on supposed revelations to Muhammad over half a 500 years after the Jesus of history lived and died.
2 Jesus’ name was never ‘Isa. ( see part 1 ).

3 Jesus did not receive a ‘book’

According to the Qur’an, the ‘book’ revealed to ‘Isa was the Injil. The word Injil is a corrupted form of the Greek euanggelion ‘good news’ or gospel.

4 The ‘gospels’ of the Bible are biographies

The term euanggelion later came to be used as a title for the four biographies of Jesus written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the ‘gospels’. This was a secondary development of meaning. Apparently this is where Muhammad got his mistaken idea of the Injil being a ‘book’.!!

5 Most so-called prophets of Islam received no book

Virtually all of the so-called ‘prophets’ of Islam, whose names are taken from the Hebrew scriptures, received no ‘book’ or law code. For example, the Psalms are not a book revealing Islam, as the Qur’an claims, but a collection of songs of worship, only some of which are David’s. There is not a shred of evidence in the Biblical history of David that he received a book of laws for the Israelites. They already had the Torah of Moses to follow. So David was not a prophet in the Qur’an’s sense of this word. Likewise most of the prophets claimed by Islam were neither lawgivers nor rulers.

6 Biblical prophecy and Islamic prophecy are not the same thing

The Biblical understanding of prophecy is quite different from Muhammad’s. A Biblical prophecy is not regarded as a passage from a heavenly eternally pre-existent text like the Qur’an, but a message from God for a specific time and place. A biblical prophet is someone to whom God reveals hidden things, and who then acts as God’s verbal agent. When a Samaritan woman called Jesus a prophet (John 4:19) it was because he had spoken about things in her life that he could only have known supernaturally. Christianity teaches that Jesus was a prophet, but he brought no ‘book’: he himself was the living ‘Word of God’.

7 The Qur’an is not a credible source for Biblical history

The Qur’an, written in the 7th century AD, cannot be regarded as having any authority whatsoever to inform us about Jesus of Nazareth. It offers no evidence for its claims about biblical history. Its numerous historical errors reflect a garbled understanding of the Bible.

As we say in Italian CAPICHE (do you get it?, do you understand?)?


4 February 2011 at 13:26  
Blogger srizals said...

Mr. Kingofhighcs, we have gone down this road before, are you sure you're going to be okay to the end of the journey? I'll respond when Len has provided his proof. Thank you for your explanation. Much appreciated.

4 February 2011 at 14:35  
Blogger KINGOFHIGHCS said...

srizals said 4 February 2011 14:35

You see, you get your answers but you do not LISTEN.!!

What more can Len state as you have your proof!! The road is long with many a winding turn. He ain't heavy?


5 February 2011 at 13:12  
Anonymous srizals said...

He ain't heavy, but he's my brother of humanity, I hope.

6 February 2011 at 03:34  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older