The Coming Caliphate who will it Love?

originally posted by: LightningStrikesHere
Part of it is finding truth ! By fact! A lot of Muslims disagree with salafi because they question the authenticity of certain hadith ect ect .
Its hard to explain.
Let's see if can give you an example .
We have two ponds of knowlwge the names are Quran and Muhammad . well Quran and Mohammed gave clear instructions on how to drink from them to gain knowledge. Part of that instruction was to stay on the strait path to the pond of knowledge . but over the years people started to deviate from the strait path and forge their own path. This causesed many pathways to open up to the ponds of knowledge .
So much so that the original path became hard to see and fallow.... You say what's wrong with new paths being formed to ponds of knowledge?
Well, if people would have stayed on the strait path like Quran & Muhammad explained they would have found that on the way to the ponds of knowledge was more instruction on how to understand the knowledge of what they drink from. ... So to be salafi is to be on the straight path and restore it along the way..
Hope this makes sense ..

Of course it makes sense. This is what we always say ! there are many hadithes in Sahih muslim, Sahih Bukhari and other Sunni books that prophet of Islam left two important things. As you said two ponds of knowledge ! Koran and Ahlul Bait.
But muslims forgot Ahlul Bait and they said Koran is enough. So as you said over the years people started to deviate from the strait path and forge their own path. This causesed many pathways to open up to the ponds of knowledge .
And you may say so what about tradition of prophet of Islam. Ahlul Bait is the keeper of tradition of prophet of Islam.
You are making me think that Salafis and Shias are very similar !!!

a reply to: nenothtu

Actually Allah=Baal=Beelzebub but thats ok about 7 billion people haven't got a clue what they worship.

a reply to: khnum

"7 billion people"? That's the entire planet! I doubt that there are 7 billion people who worship at all.

I don't care if they worship God, or Ba'al, or Beelzebub, or Satan, or Zeus, or Odin, or the Great Spaghetti Monster, or Guard Rails. It's not for me to determine WHAT or WHO they worship - it's a matter for their own conscience, not mine.

a reply to: nenothtu

As my Grandfather used to say be tolerant of other peoples beliefs because guaranteed theres always something even stupider out there for them to believe in.

a reply to: maes2

Bro all Islamic sects believe in la illah ila allah muhammad rasul alla
You will find that most of what devides us is aqueeta . thats why its wrong to be takfiri
Just because the ideals are differint does not make us disbelievers.

Thats why its important to stick to the sunna.

Heres a sad fact we cant even assume the khuawarij are disbelievers unless they commit acts of disbelief.
Sins are forgiven disbelief is not.

So yes shia sunni sufi we only have minor difference.
But sadly it's enough to keep us devided

a reply to: deadeyedick

TextDo you think you will be loved by the rising of the last caliphate? Where ever you are do you feel that the danger of violence will rise in your area? Do you feel that after estiblished they will find peace?

You assume too much. We will have to wait and see if a Caliphate will emerge. There is a lot riding on Syria and Iran as well as their allies Russia and China. Iran will never bow to a Sunni Caliphate as they are well over 90% Shi'a. If they get their bomb they will then be left alone with their Syrian ally and the so called Caliphate will not truly exist except on paper. They must have world domination to fulfill their religious ambition and that will never happen.

As far as violence is concerned the Muslims mind set is actually a bunch of insane people and even if they wiped out the entire non Muslim world they would eat each other. They are an inbred race of insane people who will eventually self destruct.

America is in destruction mode right now and if we continue this mindset we will not have to worry about the Muslims much longer. I won't be here but America may be right behind me.

lightning strikes here:


ilah is enlil.

observe

enlil (en means lord)
lil (of the air)
il
ilah
al'ilah

it is not, however,

iah. iah is enki (en means lord and ki means of the clay/soil/earth from which he formed the adam)

enki was ea, pronounced
ayah,
add semitic prefix
h-ayah who is yah-weh

=======

both names derive from sumerian gods, enlil and enki. for some reason, enlil and enki (ea) were melded into one god, later in the timeline, so you see the addition of "ah" to enlil's name, ilah. yet sumerian texts reveal they were two different gods. some moments in biblical texts are enlil's doing and some are enki's doing.

for example, enlil decreed the flood. enki warned the noah figure about it and gave him instructions how to build an ark. enki created the adam males and females and gave them procreation and enlil demanded their dna be nerfed because he didn't want the adam procreating all over the universe, as would likely happen since they still retained their original eternally regenerating dna. enki confused the languages at babel to thwart enlil's world order.

they've been struggling over the fate of humans since the beginning. for reasons i can only guess, enlil absolutely despises human beings.

originally posted by: undo
lightning strikes here:


ilah is enlil.

observe

enlil (en means lord)
lil (of the air)
il
ilah
al'ilah

it is not, however,

iah. iah is enki (en means lord and ki means of the clay/soil/earth from which he formed the adam)

enki was ea, pronounced
ayah,
add semitic prefix
h-ayah who is yah-weh

=======

both names derive from sumerian gods, enlil and enki. for some reason, enlil and enki (ea) were melded into one god, later in the timeline, so you see the addition of "ah" to enlil's name, ilah. yet sumerian texts reveal they were two different gods. some moments in biblical texts are enlil's doing and some are enki's doing.

for example, enlil decreed the flood. enki warned the noah figure about it and gave him instructions how to build an ark. enki created the adam males and females and gave them procreation and enlil demanded their dna be nerfed because he didn't want the adam procreating all over the universe, as would likely happen since they still retained their original eternally regenerating dna. enki confused the languages at babel to thwart enlil's world order.

they've been struggling over the fate of humans since the beginning

WHAT? .....

What are you on about?

The Shahada (Arabic: الشهادة‎ aš-šahādah  audio , from the verb شهد šahida, "to witness" or "to testify") or Kalimat ash-Shahādah (Arabic: كلمة الشهادة) is an Islamic creed declaring belief in the oneness of God and the acceptance of Muhammad as God's prophet. The declaration, in its shortest form, reads:

لَا إِلٰهَ إِلَّا الله مُحَمَّدٌ رَسُولُ الله
lā ʾilāha ʾil ʾāllāh, muḥammadun rasūlu-llāh
"There is no god but God, Muhammad is the messenger of God."

a reply to: LightningStrikesHere

i'll explain. you said allah is ilah, correct? and you are right.

en.lil was lord of the air.
remove the lord prefix
lil
shorten to
il
for example the tower of babel was originally the tower of babilu, a form of el (see the ilu, that's enlil)

ilah contains the names of both enlil and enki (ea/ayah).
one was the creator god, who created humans, gave them procreation, warned them about the flood, gave instructions on how to build the ark, and saved them from enlil's one world order.
the other was the god of this world, who because of divine laws, decided if humans were going to be procreators their eternally repairing dna be nerfed. this is the scene in the garden.

so does that mean enlil is more powerful than enki.
no. it was a matter of divine law regarding planets.
enki was the creator god. enlil was the political god.
they were both gods and sons of god, who was anu, the heavenly father, the amen.
enlil started demanding blood sacrifices. have you read the sumerian texts by chance?

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: LightningStrikesHere

i'll explain. you said allah is ilah, correct? and you are right.

en.lil was lord of the air.
remove the lord prefix
lil
shorten to
il
for example the tower of babel was originally the tower of babilu, a form of el (see the ilu, that's enlil)

ilah contains the names of both enlil and enki (ea/ayah).
one was the creator god, who created humans, gave them procreation, warned them about the flood, gave instructions on how to build the ark, and saved them from enlil's one world order.
the other was the god of this world, who because of divine laws, decided if humans were going to be procreators their eternally repairing dna be nerfed. this is the scene in the garden.

so does that mean enlil is more powerful than enki.
no. it was a matter of divine law regarding planets.
enki was the creator god. enlil was the political god.
they were both gods and sons of god, who was anu, the heavenly father, the amen.
enlil started demanding blood sacrifices. have you read the sumerian texts by chance?

That's really interesting! I can't say that I have read them. But I am open minded
Do you have a source ?

Humbly

LSH

a reply to: LightningStrikesHere


lets see. this is the namshub of enki which describes enki rescuing humans from enlil's world order by confusing the languages. it's excerpted from a larger text called enmerkar and the lord of arrata, if i remember correctly. enmerkar was the biblical nimrod, who of course, built the tower of babel (well he didn't build it, he was the architect, but the actual builders were conscripted from arrata). the people who wrote this particular text, were apparently fans of enlil, since it sounds like everything was peaceful and hunky dory till enki confused the languages. but according to biblical texts, the confusing of the languages was because the world was being taken over by nimrod's tyranny, which presumably means enlil was sponsoring him to do just that.

oddly, the enmerkar text claims this whole event started with inana (who i think was the egyptian isis) and the granddaughter or something of enlil. something's a bit odd there, since when inana got in trouble, it wasn't enlil who came to her aide but enki. anyway, here's the confusion of the languages event

the namshub of enki
deoxy.org...

this next one is the atrahasis epic. it discusses the creation of humans by enki, as workers to replace the gods. apparently, the earth had undergone a cataclysm that had wiped the former civilizations from the planet. this particular cataclysm predates the flood in genesis 6, although genesis 6 does mention it.

anyway, enlil, who owned the planet like a piece of real estate, had the anunna gods working to restore the planet's infrastructure. the canals, the mines,the buildings, the culture. and they apparently got tired of it. they staged a strike, refused to work, and threatened to demolish enlil's fortress on the euphrates at nippur (etymology, nibru, nibbur, nippur). enlil called upon enki, the creator god, to solve the problem.

it may seem strange to call a creator god to solve a work labor shortage. but what enki does next, explains it all. he creates humans. i originally thought this was describing the creation of the adam males and females, but it is not. the adam were the gods who staged the strike. they were not human -- they were copies of enki. what enki does is take the original adam dna and adds mammalian procreation. why would he do that in this situation? all i can figure out was that the original adam gods were clones/copies in the image of enki as the creator god, and as such didn't procreate. new adam were simply cloned. they had full body regeneration and therefore didn't need to rest to recoup their energy and must've worked around the clock, non stop. however, they wanted to be able to do other things besides work and became quite irate about it.

so enlil calls upon enki for help. enki, at the time, was offworld, and had to travel back to earth to solve the problem. his solution was to give the adam clones the ability to copy themselves, the ability to clone themselves, in effect, procreation. he gave them "knowing". the text of the bible says, "adam knew eve and she begat". to know, to have knowledge, from the tree of knowledge, meant to procreate-- in effect, the adam became creators. a hands free solution that enlil decided he didn't like. apparently, enki refused to nerf the humans he had created and this caused enlil to go to the divine court to demand that enki make the changes that made the new human dna have an expiration date, a shutdown sequence---death after x amount of years of servitude.

this same crap has been going on for thousands of years. enlil gets pissed at humans, enki figures out a way to save them. enlil tries to create a tyrannical order over all humans, enki figures out a way to stop it. on and on and on. personally, i think enki is jesus. pretty much all the indicators are there, but that's for a different thread.

anyway,

the atrahasis epic
www.jcu.edu...

the etymology of enlil

a reply to: LightningStrikesHere
You mentioned Khawarijes it is good that we hear from a person which was martyred by such deaf and blind people.

Ali ibn Abi Talib also said concerning the Kharijites: Do not fight the Kharijites after me, because one who seeks right but does not find it, is not like one who seeks wrong and finds it.
As-Sayyid ar-Radi says: (By “one who seeks wrong and finds it”) Amir al-mu'minin means Mu`awiyah and his men.

However it does not mean that when they are killing muslims even non-muslims we can just sit and watch but it shows that there are enemies more dangerous than Khawarijes, I mean Hypocrites. Islam does not let anyone to endanger safety of those who are under it's protection no matter what they believe in.
Was not Ali ibn Abi Talib who said :

" I have come to know that every one of them entered upon Muslim women and other women under protection of Islam (Christians and Jews) and took away their ornaments from legs, arms, necks and ears and no woman could resist it except by pronouncing the verse, "We are for Allah and to Him we shall return." (Qur'an, 2 :156) Then they got back laden with wealth without any wound or loss of life. If any Muslim dies of grief after all this he is not to be blamed but rather there is justification for him before me. How strange! How strange! By Allah my heart sinks to see the unity of these people on their wrong and your dispersion from your right. Woe and grief befall you. You have become the target at which arrows are shot. You are being killed and you do not kill. You are being attacked but you do not attack. Allah is being disobeyed and you remain agreeable to it "

I would say if son of Ali (Mahdi) comes, He will repeat these statements !

a reply to: maes2


I agree , but what are we to do is the question?

Killing Muslims is sinful just as killing a Jew or chtistan

Again Sins are forgiven but an act of disbelief is not...

My jihad is against these khuawarij ...I do what I can with knowledge...


Honestly I am not knowledgeable in this area

a reply to: maes2


No one is following Islam these days... or haven't you noticed. Islam has become a thing unknown in its own countries.

Although... they wont fight ISIS... But I seriously doubt they had Imam Ali (as) in mind as to their reason not to fight...And I seriously doubt that Imam Ali (as) thought we should just allow ourselves to get overtaken and murdered by these self professed "Muslims"

But... since Ayatollah Sistani called for war against them, I doubt the scholars believe that was the intent of the message either. And, since Ayatollah Sistani called for war against them, I doubt you can call people who follow his message hypocrites for wanting to fight them.

Therefore, I seriously hope that was not the intent of your post, to call people hypocrites who feel we should stand and fight against them.

a reply to: Seede You claim they would have to have world domination but i heard that it would take 51% to complete their goal and i do wonder how you can be so sure that the u.s. is not under their control already.

a reply to: nenothtu You claim you have no right to say what path someone should take but i say you are getting sort. ILet's just say that the path one could take requires the blood of you and everyone you love before they complete their requirments. That would be a path that involves you and you should be concerned at that point with what your neighbor is up to. Basically the path that you want people to have the freedom and choice to be on should not exist at the expense of the saftey of the world? If someone started worshipping gun powder as their god then people should worry. if that god then ask for blood of the infedals then we should get involved. One should always be careful when trying to understanding a religion that is being used to outright kill folks. They can take a soft heart and turn it hard as death.

originally posted by: OpinionatedB
a reply to: maes2
Although... they wont fight ISIS... But I seriously doubt they had Imam Ali (as) in mind as to their reason not to fight...And I seriously doubt that Imam Ali (as) thought we should just allow ourselves to get overtaken and murdered by these self professed "Muslims"

No I explained in the above post. I quoted two narrations from Ali ibn abi Talib. One about Jihad and one about Khawarijes (as a belief). We have no right to kill persons just because we think their thoughts are like Khawarijes.
May be Ali ibn abi Talib was concerned that people might chase all Khawarijes and might kill them one by one Just because one of them (Ibn Muljam) killed Ali ibn abi Talib. Ali ibn abi Talib was symbol of Justice after prophet of Islam pbuh. He prevented people from oppression against Khawarij. While Khawarijes were thirsty of blood of Ali and they killed him finally.
Ali ibn abi Talib himself had a large war with Khawarijes and killed many of them but Ali never started the war. He tried to enlighten them but they were really deaf and blind and they started the war.
Moreover from statements of Ali ibn abi Talib I can deduce that Hypocrites are more dangerous than Khawarijes. Even now we see how Hypocrites are playing and misusing radical deaf and blind muslims.

a reply to: maes2

We need to stand for what is right, I mean really right. God's kind of right - not our own.

There are some who are God's people in every group of us, even wahabbis who are God's in heart and spirit, which is why we cannot judge all as a group, but rather only the individual based on action.

And while we are fallible, and can and are prone to making mistakes... when something is so wrong that even a child can understand this is evil without having to be told such... then we need to start standing up and speaking out. In every manner we can, whether with word, or sword... we need to put a stop to it. And stop turning a blind eye.

This is how I feel, I don't know that I can say it is right or it is wrong... but it is a feeling so strong I cannot contain it anymore.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: nenothtu You claim you have no right to say what path someone should take but i say you are getting sort. ILet's just say that the path one could take requires the blood of you and everyone you love before they complete their requirments. That would be a path that involves you and you should be concerned at that point with what your neighbor is up to. Basically the path that you want people to have the freedom and choice to be on should not exist at the expense of the saftey of the world? If someone started worshipping gun powder as their god then people should worry. if that god then ask for blood of the infedals then we should get involved. One should always be careful when trying to understanding a religion that is being used to outright kill folks. They can take a soft heart and turn it hard as death.

I stand by what I said.

Their path means nothing to me, and is none of my business, until it crosses mine and endangers me or my own. At that point, their rights cease to exist where mine begin, and a good time will not be had by all.

UP TO that point, their business is none of mine. I have no more right to infringe on their free choice than they have to infringe on mine.

Nor can one take an entire religion and slander it because of a minority of miscreants that are present in it. Christians say to "hate the sin but love the sinner". I can condemn the radical's ideology, but until a radical raises his sword to ME, I cannot condemn that radical, for there are good people found in all groups, and one eliminates them as well when one eliminates parent group wholesale.

One cannot prosecute a war of self-defense before there is anything to defend from. In doing so, he runs the risk of throwing the baby out with the bath water, and on the last day will have to answer for that to God.

a reply to: nenothtu

Yeah but when it's time for defending then defending we should do.