Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Is Islam the Synagogue of Satan?

page: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by babloyi

But muslims DO accept Jesus as the Messiah.



No, they don't. They accept Jesus as one of the lesser prophets of Islam. The term "messiah" is used by them much like the term "mister" is used in America. It used to mean "master", now it just means "any guy".

They Do, however, believe Jesus will return in the end times - to eradicate Christianity, and convert all to Islam, or kill the resisters.

Ain't THAT a kick in the head?


Thank you.

I have been to many an internet forum, more forums discussing religion than anything probably, and I have to say this is the first time I have ever read the statement that muslims consider Jesus as Messiah. You took the words right out of my mouth.




posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 


Actually the word allah was used in terms of curses prenounced through the breaking of the covernant.
Orah means "properity" "light" "happiness".



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Selahobed
 

You will please excuse me for going on about this, because (like nenothtu,) this is the first time I've heard of this.

I apologise for my previous mistake, I guess it was because I was looking in Deutronomy. I think the verses you're referring to are Leviticus 26:14 onwards?

I am really sorry to be hassling you like this, but could you please provide the pronunciation or transliteration, or even the actual hebrew quote of the line where "allah" is used to mean what you say? As I said, hebrew is not my first language. It would really help! I was using this to copy paste the hebrew (instead of having to type it all out on my english keyboard), but if you have a better resource, I'd be glad to see that too!

Thanks again for your patience!

PS: What did you mean about "Orah"? Is that the pronunciation of the word I quoted? Not Ah-roor?

[edit on 7-10-2009 by babloyi]



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 02:54 PM
link   
not sure , they call themselves jews but are of the synagoug of satan . so no they i think they are jewish or it would be mosque synagog
so id say bad jews maybe the abkarzian jews or the jews who hide what they really do.
but i dont know for sure



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 


No worries

Strongs Hebrew concordence states:
'allah
aw-law'
a primitive root (rather identical with ''alah' (422) through the idea of invocation); to bewail:--lament.

422
'allah
aw-law'
a primitive root; properly, to adjure, i.e. (usually in a bad sense) imprecate:--adjure, curse, swear.

423
'allah
aw-law'
from ''alah' (422); an imprecation:--curse, cursing, execration, oath, swearing.

The term was used over and over again in terms of G-d swearing an oath covernant:
Deauteromony 30:7
God will then direct all these curses against your enemies and against the foes who pursued you.
Venatan Adonay Eloheycha et kol-ha'alot ha'alah (allah) al-oyveycha ve'al-son'eycha asher redafucha.

Hope this helps, if not get back, more than happy to help


[edit on 033131p://f04Wednesday by Selahobed]



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 03:59 PM
link   
So your using one religion to discredit another? Good luck with that.

My question to you is, how do i know what you say is right and what they (Islam) say is wrong? And oh yea, you can't use the bible to back up your claims because i'm not a believer in it.

At the end of the day, it's your word against theirs, their words against yours. I don't call someone dying only to be raised and sit at the right hand of God a sacrifice, it's an upgrade.



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Selahobed
 

Thanks a lot for the clarification! I didn't even think of using Strong's concordance
. I suppose they do sound similar (depending on how you pronounce "אלה" and الله‎ "Allah"), but the roots at least do not match (at least according to this explanation of strong's 423). You can compare the arabic of "Allah" as I wrote up there with the "١لوة" on that page to see what I mean. ١لوة is not الله. I guess the corresponding form in aramaic would be אֱלָהָא?


Thanks again!

[edit on 7-10-2009 by babloyi]



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 


Allah is the curse that only G-d can pronounce. There are many words for curse, but when refering to a curse that G-d gives the word allah is used. Its the strongest curse you can be given.

Not only do they sound similar bt they are one and the same. Aramaic was the orginal language of the middle east, and is the root of arabic and hebrew. The word was written long before the evolved arabic in its current form. Words and definitions change with time, permations, and we even get to the point where "bad" can mean good! But the Word of G-d is constant, and the original meaning stands!

My advice is to study the etymology of the semitic languages for yourself, and you will see that im not bs'ing you. I will be happy to help you in that.

I speak and can read semitic languages and will assist you if you wish.



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Selahobed
 

I realise they all have a common root, and enjoy finding everyday connections between the two (hebrew and arabic). Of course, my knowledge is majorly limited (mostly to stuff like shalom salaam, yom yaum, Eli Allah, seven sabbath sabth, etc.), but I'd think I could get this specific example easily enough.

Allah is written "aleph lamed lamed he" (converting from arabic script to hebrew here
). "'alah" (as in covenant, curse, etc) is "aleph lamed he". For comparison, the hebrew word for "Deity" is "aleph lamed".

From the wiki of El (deity) I get this little quote:
"The ordinary, non-theological form and meaning of the ʕarabī word cognate with ʕibrī /ʔēl/ is ال /ʔill/ 'pact, covenant; consanguinity'[4]. This is, of course, a different word (having a different root) from the ʕarabī word /ʔi-lāh/".

You might not trust wikipedia in this case, but the reference mentioned (Hans Wehr's Arabic Dictionary) is in my possession, and I can corroborate that the word is there (Aleph Lamed "a-lā", meaning pact, covenant, blood relationship, consanguinity).

Compounded with the root shown here (and given in Arabic too), I think I'm satisfied on this count that it is not the same.

PS: I am bound to take you up on your offer


[edit on 7-10-2009 by babloyi]



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 


Ok, as i said, the aramaic was the original language, and historically classical arabic was supplanted by middle then modern. However they have thier roots from proto phoniecia in terms of the written word, which parts of the torah were written. In the original, and cultural context, the word alah was used as a curse that only G-d can pronounce. And this has been passed on to biblical/modern hebrew, however loosing some of the impact of the word through time.

PS, Bring it on! It would be great to teach you and learn from you! Thats what ATS is about! U2U me anytime!



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 05:39 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   
So allah is a curse on the enemies of Israel.

Gee.

Is that ever the truth!



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 

Why would God send a "curse" of a false God to confuse people (and thereby making them "enemies of Israel", when they weren't before)? I thought God was a nice guy.


[edit on 7-10-2009 by babloyi]



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 


Oh, He is.

In fact, He gave us a great gift. The greatest gift that ever could be conceived: free will.

You can decide to follow a delusional, evil man who gives you reign to rape, kill, pillage, and burn, and if you want to believe that he's a prophet just based on his word, with zero power to perform miracles as are all other prophets were given to VALIDATE their position, then you can do just that.

We have in the New Testament telling Christians that even if an angel come and teach a different gospel, that it is not of God.

Then, every once in a while, a new prophet comes along. According to Mormons, THEIR prophet was the last one.

It's not hard to determine if something is from God. He's consistent. He keeps His promises. He tells us what He expects of us. He cannot tolerate evil, and thus the sacrifice of His son, to purchase for us forgiveness.

The God of Israel and the same God of Christianity seems to be able to do a lot with remnants. I've seen unbelievable things He has done with the remnant of Israel since 1945.

And lots more to come!

Oddly, the teachings of Muhammed are the exact antithesis of both the teachings of the God of Israel and the God of Christianity.

Go figure.

And now I find out that the curse on the enemies is allah. This appeals to my awareness of the concept of duality I see throughout the Old and New Testaments.



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 

So on one hand, your perception of God gave humanity free will, and on the other, just to mess with them, he also gave them a "curse" of a false god, so that they'd be misled into believing the "anti-thesis of his message", and become enemies of the group of people he arbitrarily chose to be his "favourite". Sure, nice guy.

Also, Muhammad did perform miracles. However, I'm pretty sure that is irrelevant to you. You'll just say "Yeah, and the Bible tells us to beware of false prophets who perform great miracles!". See? Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I agree with you. God is CONSISTENT. God is CLEAR. God is ONE. You shall have no other GOD. God is TRINITY. God is...wait, what?! Something inconsistent got stuck in there! If you ask me, Christianity is the odd one out, here.

If it appeals to your awareness of a belief system to blindly accept that everything as long as it agrees with what you say, and blindly reject everything if it disagrees, go ahead.


PS: I'm STILL waiting on that source about the contemporary arabs of Muhammad's time wearing yellow turbans. Just reminding you in case you forgot
.

[edit on 7-10-2009 by babloyi]



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 

I found a source for those yellow turbans, and I may have saved it, I'll have to look. It was a great source, too!

Three in one seems to cause you trouble.

If I'm a man, and I'm body, soul, and spirit, then I too am three, yet one. Nothing along the magnitude of God, but it's a very simple concept.

The pagan moon-good Allah was one, with human characteristics, and had three daughters - al-Lat, al-Uzza, and Manat - who he tried to use to appeal to the Meccans. Recall the Satanic verses, which caused his Monotheistic followers to begin to abandon him, so he had to back off.

Ishaq 166 and Tabari VI:110 denotes the baloney excuse Muhammed tried to use, explaining that Lucifer or Satan had put words in his mouth.

"Have you considered Al Lat and al Uzza and Manat the third other?" This is where some choice editing came in. Originally, the passage was followed by the words, "Verily they are the exalted maidens and their intercession is to be hoped for."

No other prophets had Satan leading them astray.

That's the problem with Satan. He really isn't that smart, and makes mistakes himself.

The problem for Muslims was that their "prophet" was an illiterate delusional. His contemporaries were convince he was possessed, and absolutely certain he was unstable. In fact, Muhammed's contemporaries speak very openly of it.

Muhammed did NOT perform miracles. Take for example the woman he took captive after killing her family. She poisoned him.

Apparently, while it didn't kill him straightaway, it did kill him.

Normally, a real prophet would be able to discern something as trivial as that, but not Muhammed.

Muhammed being an illiterate, would get the Christian and Jewish stories very confused, which is clearly demonstrated in his dialogue.

Muhammed personally tried himself to sell the Jews that his Allah, a pagan moon-god, was the same as the YAHWEH of Israel. They knew better, they ridiculed his misunderstandings, they laughed at his misperceptions, and Muhammed never forgave them.

If you read the life of Muhammed, and parallel the Qur'an with his life, you'll see that as his meglomania increases, so does the meglomania of his Allah.

The Allah of Muhammed, was a direct reflection of Muhammed, created by Muhammed, in Muhammed's image.

Seven versions of the Qur'an, two versions of the Qur'an, neither of which was even close to the other, and it does make on wonder if the current copy is the more correct copy.

And then the question arises about the vast and distinct differences that are related, and what those differences were.

Muhammed didn't intend for Islam to survive his own life. And at the end, he was terrified of what would happen to him on the other side.

Unbelievable for a supposed prophet of his god.



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 


I believe we were discussing Revelation, and that as I described in detail the Revelation 9: 1-11, and the primary exception you had was the color of the turbans, as I stated they wore yellow which from a distance could resemble crowns of gold.

You stated that the Arabs didn't wear yellow turbans.

In the book of the Bedoin book Antar, the Ishamaelites wore yellow turbans which were know as their golden crowns.



One other thing, Mawdudi, in his book written to introduce Westerners to Islam tells his readers that Muhammed and his message came out of "Arabia, the Abyss of Darkness." Those are his exact words.

In the Bedoin romance of Antar, the locust is introduced as the national emblem of the Ishmaelites, as many Ishmaelites considered Allah as "Lord of the Locusts."

I hope this helps.



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by dooper

Muhammed did NOT perform miracles. Take for example the woman he took captive after killing her family. She poisoned him.

Apparently, while it didn't kill him straightaway, it did kill him.

Normally, a real prophet would be able to discern something as trivial as that, but not Muhammed.


Indeed, that was WHY he was poisoned. At least that's the reason the woman gave - to test his alleged "prophethood". She was of the Banu Qurayzah, from Khaibar, a jewish tribe that the muslims had massacred, killing all the men (beheading something around 900 in a single day, according to the hadith), and raping and enslaving the women and children.

I'm guessing that may have had a bit to do with the poisoning in reality.

I discussed this with a muslim - regular man in the street, not a cleric of any sort - who denied the story, rather vehemently. Problem is, it's right there in the hadith, in black and white. Either you believe all of it, or none of it if you're an adherent of the religion.



Muhammed being an illiterate, would get the Christian and Jewish stories very confused, which is clearly demonstrated in his dialogue.

Muhammed personally tried himself to sell the Jews that his Allah, a pagan moon-god, was the same as the YAHWEH of Israel. They knew better, they ridiculed his misunderstandings, they laughed at his misperceptions, and Muhammed never forgave them.


And I believe it was also the Banu Qurayzah that treated him that way. We see how he dealt with the rejection. Funny way for a "man of God" to behave, simply over hurt feelings.



And then the question arises about the vast and distinct differences that are related, and what those differences were.


Muslims will tell you it was only a matter of pronunciation, but I find it hard to believe that Uthman would have ordered the destruction of all competing versions over a simple matter of pronunciation. What would prevent the folks in the far corners of the caliphate, you know, them folks that talk funny, from "mispronouncing" the new and improved version?

So the question still stands about what those differences may REALLY have been.



[edit on 2009/10/7 by nenothtu]



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 06:02 AM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 

Hey Dooper!


Originally posted by dooper
Three in one seems to cause you trouble.

If I'm a man, and I'm body, soul, and spirit, then I too am three, yet one. Nothing along the magnitude of God, but it's a very simple concept.

That is a huge oversimplification of the concept, one that doesn't seem to match up with the Bible. My body doesn't tell people that my soul is greater than I am. My soul doesn't know things that the body doesn't. My body, soul and spirit are unified in purpose, each doesn't have its own desires. None of this can be said of the Trinity. The Bible makes clear on several occasions that each of these three are a separate entity.


But enough of that, right? This is the thread is not for that, it is for you to bash Islam. Lets get back to that, where you fit in every possible insult in every possible adjective, adverb and noun you can!

Originally posted by dooper
The pagan moon-good Allah was one, with human characteristics, and had three daughters - al-Lat, al-Uzza, and Manat - who he tried to use to appeal to the Meccans. Recall the Satanic verses, which caused his Monotheistic followers to begin to abandon him, so he had to back off.

Really? Which monotheistic followers began to abandon him because of this? This "story" is a prime example of my point. I've showed numerous times why it is obviously false, yet you continue to accept it, because it fits into your world view of "I am right, and everything else is wrong, so I don't need to check into it".



Originally posted by dooper
The problem for Muslims was that their "prophet" was an illiterate delusional. His contemporaries were convince he was possessed, and absolutely certain he was unstable. In fact, Muhammed's contemporaries speak very openly of it.

Yes, of course, because no other prophet or man of God ever met huge resistance from his contemporaries




Originally posted by dooper
Muhammed did NOT perform miracles. Take for example the woman he took captive after killing her family. She poisoned him.

Apparently, while it didn't kill him straightaway, it did kill him.

Normally, a real prophet would be able to discern something as trivial as that, but not Muhammed.

Once again, your desire to be right is shown outweighing your interest in the pursuit of knowledge. Here is the full passage (of the story I assume you are talking about). I'm sure nenothtu can benefit from it too:

She had asked what portion of the sheep the apostle of Allah most
enjoyed and, having been told that it was the leg, she put much poison into it, although she also poisoned the whole sheep. When she placed it before the apostle he took a bite, but did not swallow; Bishr likewise took a piece, but he did swallow. Then the apostle of Allah spat his out, saying, 'This bone informs me that it is poisoned.' He summoned the woman, who confessed what she had done, and asked, 'What made thee do this?' She replied, 'It is no secret to thee, what my people feel towards thee. I said to myself, "If he be only a king, we shall be delivered of him; but if he be a prophet, he will know of the poison and guard himself."' The apostle released her, but Bishr died of the piece he had eaten.
During his last sickness, years later, the apostle said, 'I feel the vein of my heart bursting from the food I ate at Khaybar'; from these words, Muslims conclude that the apostle died a martyr of battle, as well as being favoured by Allah with the dignity of prophetic office.

Apologies for the long quote, but I thought it was necessary. I'll ignore the last part of your post, because it is mostly just incessant bashing of Islam/Muhammad, without any facts or substance that can be shown (clever, because I can't point them out as wrong, then).


reply to post by dooper
 

Could you clarify exactly which book you are talking about when you say "book of the Bedoin book Antar" (whatever that means)? Because I find no reference at all to any Ishmaelites with reference to him, and the only mention of locusts is a comparison of the flight of arrows to locusts. And while it is true Antar is nowadays depicted as wearing some sort of yellow head-dress (doesn't really look like a turban, although I suppose it may look like a crown), he's hardly representative of the Ishmaelites. So unless your Revelations verse is foretelling the coming of the warrior poet Antara, who first killed a dog, then a wolf, then a lion, and also romanced the lady Abla, I don't think it fits.

[edit on 8-10-2009 by babloyi]



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 


Sorry if it upsets you, and ignoring the Rushdie book which was fairly controversial because of the way it told the story, rather than the story itself, here's the story from Tabari:


"When the Messenger of God saw how his tribe turned their backs on him and was grieved to see them shunning the message he had brought to them from God, he longed in his soul that something would come to him from God that would reconcile him with his tribe. With his love for his tribe and his eagerness for their welfare, it would have delighted him if some of the difficulties which they made for him could have been smoothed, and he debated with himself and fervently desired such an outcome. Then God revealed (Sura 53) ... and when he came to the words "Have you thought al-Lat and al-Uzza and Manat, the third, the other?" (VV. 19-20) Satan cast on his tongue, because of his inner debates and what he desired to bring to his people, the words: "These are the high-flying cranes; verily their intercession is to be hoped for." When the Quraysh heard this, they rejoiced and were happy and delighted at the way in which he had spoken of their gods, and they listened to him, while the Muslims, having complete trust in their Prophet with respect of the message which he brought from God, did not suspect him of error, illusion or mistake. When he came to the prostration, having completed the Sura, he prostrated himself and the Muslims did likewise.... The polytheists of the Quraysh and others who were in the mosque [that is, the Meccan Haram] likewise prostrated themselves because of the reference to their gods which they heard, so that there was no one in the mosque, believer or unbeliever, who did not prostrate himself ... Then they all dispersed from the mosque. The Quraysh left delighted at the mention of their gods." (Tabari, Annals 1.1192-1193 = Tabari vi: 108-109)


Hope that helps clarify things. Only the fundamentalist muslims deny this occurrence, because it conflicts with their worldview, even though it's documented by a respected islamic scholar of the life of Mohammed, right here.

The specific revelatory verse authorizing worship of these three goddesses was "abrogated".

Here's the original construction:


Near it is the Garden of Abode. Behold, the Lote-tree was shrouded (in mystery unspeakable!) (His) sight never swerved, nor did it go wrong! For truly did he see, of the Signs of his Lord, the Greatest! Have ye seen Lat. and 'Uzza, And another, the third (goddess), Manat?

These are the exalted cranes (intermediaries) Whose intercession is to be hoped for.

What! for you the male sex, and for Him, the female? Behold, such would be indeed a division most unfair! (an-Najm 53:19-22)


And here is the redacted version (I mean "abrogated") as it is now:


Near it is the Garden of Abode. Behold, the Lote-tree was shrouded (in mystery unspeakable!) (His) sight never swerved, nor did it go wrong! For truly did he see, of the Signs of his Lord, the Greatest! Have ye seen Lat. and 'Uzza, And another, the third (goddess), Manat?

[Words of Satan Deleted]

What! for you the male sex, and for Him, the female? Behold, such would be indeed a division most unfair! (an-Najm 53:19-22)


That's akin to claiming that Satan really DID pull the wool over the eyes of Jesus, and he actually jumped off the temple.

Never a good thing for a prophet to allow Satan to speak through him. It sullies the primary message from God, and I would imagine it would vex God to no end to be so easily thwarted.

Not only did he lose some followers after this incident, but a huge number of "faithful converts" among the Arabian tribes of the peninsula started deserting the religion immediately upon the death of Mohammed. They had been "converted" by force, and when he died, they mistakenly thought the threat of violence to enforce the religion was gone.

Umar, the first caliph, led forces against them to re-"convert" them.

By the sword again.

After the subjugation of the rebellious tribes of the peninsula, Islam started looking around for even more "converts", and the associated plunder to be had from the forceful conversion process.

The Levant was next, followed by the Byzantine empire and north Africa.

The rest is history.

Edit: added ex tags



[edit on 2009/10/8 by nenothtu]






top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join