alBHAGDADI:
Thanks for this.

All those trying to claim that Muslims can enter heaven without Jesus really need to see this post of yours. They don't know that Islam states that Thieves and fornicators will enter heaven. Perhaps, a paradise where 72 virgins are given, not the Heaven where the True God resides.

You are the one that needs to thanked.
God bless you bountifully , in the name of Jesus.

Keep up the good works. All your threads are always inspiring.
Pls stay blessed

enilove:



Am I the one that wrote that hadith?

I quoted Volume 1, Bk 93, number 579 , just the way it is in the Bukharin. But you have gone to pick another a different volume, a diff book and a diff number.
Why didn't the compiler of the hadith put them together but separated them.

Let's see who is wrong btw you and I.

YOU QUOTED:

Volume 7, Book 72, Number 717:
Sahib Bukhari
Narrated Abu Dharr:

I came to the Prophet while he was wearing white clothes and sleeping. Then I went back to him again after he had got up from his sleep. He said, "Nobody says: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah' and then later on he dies while believing in that, except that he will enter Paradise.' I said, "Even It he had committed illegal sexual intercourse and theft." I said. "Even if he had committed illegal sexual intercourse and theft? He said. 'Even If he had committed illegal sexual intercourse and theft," I said, 'Even it he had committed illegal sexual intercourse and thefts.' He said, "Even If he had committed Illegal sexual intercourse and theft, inspite of the Abu Dharrs dislikeness. Abu 'Abdullah said, "This is at the time of death or before it if one repents and regrets and says "None has the right to be worshipped but Allah. He will be forgiven his sins."

I QUOTED :

Volume 9, Book 93, Number 579:
Sahib Bukhari
Narrated Abu Dharr:

The Prophet said, Gabriel came to me and gave me the glad tidings that anyone who died without worshipping anything besides Allah, would enter Paradise. I asked (Gabriel), 'Even if he committed theft, and even if he committed illegal sexual intercourse?' He said, '(Yes), even if he committed theft, and even if he Committed illegal sexual intercourse."

ANALYSING THE ABOVE.

Muhammed said in your quoted hadith and the one I quoted that " Nobody says : None has right to be worship but Allah and later on he dies while believing in that except that he will enter paradise....."
That is the direct statements from Muhammed to Abu Dharrs.

But the Hadith you quoted included another person's statement , that is , Abu Abdullah, who did not receive any message from Allah. It was him that added
" This is at the time of death or b4 it, if one repents or regrets and says.,,,"
Muhammed who got the revelation did not include that in what he told Abu Dharrs , who was not pleased with Abu Abdullah for including it in the hadith you quoted.
This clearly shows that , volume 1,bk 93, no 579 is more valid that what you posted.

Who then is mango picking?

Are you serious? Tell me you are joking? Hahahahaha , my brother ignorance is a disease! Stop jumping at every information you see on the internet and instead start searching for true enlightenment. Firstly, you do realize that the Hadith is not direct words from Allah but an interpretation of what the Holy Prophet SAW did and said during his lifetime. Furthermore, Abu Abdullah is better known as Al-Bukhari, ask any Muslim scholar and you'll get the same response, he is known as the author of the most authentic Hadith collection, so it blows my mind when a simpleton like you could insinuate that he just made up his own interpretation It's quite silly really, LOOK AT THE BOLD PART OF YOUR WRITE-UP, you have no clue of what you are arguing as evidence by your RIDICULOUS assumption that the Hadith Volume 1, Bk 93, number 579 and Volume 7, Book 72, Number 717 differs in their message even though they were written by the same author. It's like going to church and a pastor is revealing the meanings of some parables in the Bible and you shout, "Pastor it says cut off your right hand, so I have to cut it off", SILLY!

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/features/2017/05/27/Who-was-Imam-Al-Bukhari-the-most-famous-Muslim-to-documented-Islamic-hadiths-.html

I understand where you are coming from, you so desperately want to disprove a theory that you are willing to jump at the first conclusion, you are not the only one, the news media does it all the time but please in all you do seek WISDOM!

abbey621:


Are you serious? Tell me you are joking? Hahahahaha , my brother ignorance is a disease! Stop jumping at every information you see on the internet and instead start searching for true enlightenment. Firstly, you do realize that the Hadith is not direct words from Allah but an interpretation of what the Holy Prophet SAW did and said during his lifetime. Furthermore, Abu Abdullah is better known as Al-Bukhari, ask any Muslim scholar and you'll get the same response, he is known as the author of the most authentic Hadith collection, so it blows my mind when a simpleton like you could insinuate that he just made up his own interpretation It's quite silly really, LOOK AT THE BOLD PART OF YOUR WRITE-UP, you have no clue of what you are arguing as evidence by your RIDICULOUS assumption that the Hadith Volume 1, Bk 93, number 579 and Volume 7, Book 72, Number 717 differs in their message even though they were written by the same author. It's like going to church and a pastor is revealing the meanings of some parables in the Bible and you shout, "Pastor it says cut off your right hand, so I have to cut it off", SILLY!

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/features/2017/05/27/Who-was-Imam-Al-Bukhari-the-most-famous-Muslim-to-documented-Islamic-hadiths-.html

I understand where you are coming from, you so desperately want to disprove a theory that you are willing to jump at the first conclusion, you are not the only one, the news media does it all the time but please in all you do seek WISDOM!

Just post the hadith I quoted and compare them here for everyone to read.

Muhammed said that sinners will go to heaven in the hadith I quoted as long as they believe there is non that should be worshiped beside Allah , period.

The hadith you quoted included another person's opinion , no matter who he was , that is the truth.
Muhammed himself did not say " if the persons repents b4 his death .

I know the next option for you is to start to reign abuses. But for the sake of others who wants to know the truth , here are the hadiths :

You quoted this:
Volume 7, Book 72, Number 717:
Sahih Bukhari :
Narrated Abu Dharr:

I came to the Prophet while he was wearing white clothes and sleeping. Then I went back to him again after he had got up from his sleep. He said, "Nobody says: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah' and then later on he dies while believing in that, except that he will enter Paradise.' I said, "Even It he had committed illegal sexual intercourse and theft." I said. "Even if he had committed illegal sexual intercourse and theft? He said. 'Even If he had committed illegal sexual intercourse and theft," I said, 'Even it he had committed illegal sexual intercourse and thefts.' He said, "Even If he had committed Illegal sexual intercourse and theft, inspite of the Abu Dharrs dislikeness. Abu 'Abdullah said, "This is at the time of death or before it if one repents and regrets and says "None has the right to be worshipped but Allah. He will be forgiven his sins."

Now compare with what I quoted:

Volume 9, Book 93, Number 579:
Sahih Bukhari :
Narrated Abu Dharr:

The Prophet said, Gabriel came to me and gave me the glad tidings that anyone who died without worshipping anything besides Allah, would enter Paradise. I asked (Gabriel), 'Even if he committed theft, and even if he committed illegal sexual intercourse?' He said, '(Yes), even if he committed theft, and even if he Committed illegal sexual intercourse."

Is the diff not what Abu Abdullah inserted ? Even the narrator, Abu Dharrs ,was not pleased with Abu Abdullah for adding to what Muhammed told him. That is written there for everyone to read.

This is even another quotation from bukhari
Volume 4, Book 54, Number 445:

Narrated Abu Dhar:

The Prophet said, "Gabriel said to me, 'Whoever amongst your followers die without having worshipped others besides Allah, will enter Paradise (or will not enter the (Hell) Fire)." The Prophet asked. "Even if he has committed illegal sexual intercourse or theft?" He replied, "Even then."

enilove:



Just post the hadith I quoted and compare them here for everyone to read.

Muhammed said that sinners will go to heaven in the hadith I quoted as long as they believe there is non that should be worshiped beside Allah , period.

The hadith you quoted included another person's opinion , no matter who he was , that is the truth.
Muhammed himself did not say " if the persons repents b4 his death .

I know the next option for you is to start to reign abuses. But for the sake of others who wants to know the truth , here are the hadiths :

You quoted this:
Volume 7, Book 72, Number 717:
Sahih Bukhari :
Narrated Abu Dharr:

I came to the Prophet while he was wearing white clothes and sleeping. Then I went back to him again after he had got up from his sleep. He said, "Nobody says: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah' and then later on he dies while believing in that, except that he will enter Paradise.' I said, "Even It he had committed illegal sexual intercourse and theft." I said. "Even if he had committed illegal sexual intercourse and theft? He said. 'Even If he had committed illegal sexual intercourse and theft," I said, 'Even it he had committed illegal sexual intercourse and thefts.' He said, "Even If he had committed Illegal sexual intercourse and theft, inspite of the Abu Dharrs dislikeness. Abu 'Abdullah said, "This is at the time of death or before it if one repents and regrets and says "None has the right to be worshipped but Allah. He will be forgiven his sins."

Now compare with what I quoted:

Volume 9, Book 93, Number 579:
Sahih Bukhari :
Narrated Abu Dharr:

The Prophet said, Gabriel came to me and gave me the glad tidings that anyone who died without worshipping anything besides Allah, would enter Paradise. I asked (Gabriel), 'Even if he committed theft, and even if he committed illegal sexual intercourse?' He said, '(Yes), even if he committed theft, and even if he Committed illegal sexual intercourse."

Is the diff not what Abu Abdullah inserted ? Even the narrator, Abu Dharrs ,was not pleased with Abu Abdullah for adding to what Muhammed told him. That is written there for everyone to read.

This is even another quotation from bukhari
Volume 4, Book 54, Number 445:

Narrated Abu Dhar:

The Prophet said, "Gabriel said to me, 'Whoever amongst your followers die without having worshipped others besides Allah, will enter Paradise (or will not enter the (Hell) Fire)." The Prophet asked. "Even if he has committed illegal sexual intercourse or theft?" He replied, "Even then."

You are still on this crap after explaining to you vividly that both sections were written by the same person? You are still exhibiting stubbornness even when I gave you a link to show you Abu Abdullah is more authentic than you!

I am still trying to decipher what you mean by: Even the narrator, Abu Dharrs ,was not pleased with Abu Abdullah for adding to what Muhammed told him. That is written there for everyone to read.

Where did you get this crap from? Every time you make this argument, it makes you look uneducated. I'll attempt to enlighten you once again but this time from the Quran:

Quran 25: 68-70:

And those who do not invoke with Allah another deity or kill the soul which Allah has forbidden [to be killed], except by right, and do not commit unlawful sexual intercourse. And whoever should do that will meet a penalty.

Multiplied for him is the punishment on the Day of Resurrection, and he will abide therein humiliated -

Except for those who repent, believe and do righteous work. For them Allah will replace their evil deeds with good. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful.


This is from the Quran, greater than any Hadith. You can continue arguing with yourself trying to win a battle you CANNOT win or you can simply accept that you are not as wise as you think and seek ENLIGHTENMENT!

abbey621:



You are still on this crap after explaining to you vividly that both sections were written by the same person? You are still exhibiting stubbornness even when I gave you a link to show you Abu Abdullah is more authentic than you!

I am still trying to decipher what you mean by: Even the narrator, Abu Dharrs ,was not pleased with Abu Abdullah for adding to what Muhammed told him. That is written there for everyone to read.

Where did you get this crap from? Every time you make this argument, it makes you look uneducated. I'll attempt to enlighten you once again but this time from the Quran:

Quran 25: 68-70:

And those who do not invoke with Allah another deity or kill the soul which Allah has forbidden [to be killed], except by right, and do not commit unlawful sexual intercourse. And whoever should do that will meet a penalty.

Multiplied for him is the punishment on the Day of Resurrection, and he will abide therein humiliated -

Except for those who repent, believe and do righteous work. For them Allah will replace their evil deeds with good. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful.


This is from the Quran, greater than any Hadith. You can continue arguing with yourself trying to win a battle you CANNOT win or you can simply accept that you are not as wise as you think and seek ENLIGHTENMENT!

Did I dispute about the writer ?
You claimed I was wrong in the hadith I quoted , why can't you show everyone where I was wrong?

The best thing I expected from someone who is honest is to accept his errors or mistake . But I know doing that would amount to discarding the authenticity of the hadith.

When talking about scriptures and things of God, you and all the Muslims in the world put together should keep quiet when a Christian is talking so as to learn from him.
If Muhammed was instructed to learn from Christians and Jews concerning Allah's revelations to him who are you to say you want to enlighten me ? Moreover , you a slave , you can't know the mind of God my Father,

Allah SWT says:
فَإِنْ كُنْتَ فِى شَكٍّ مِّمَّآ أَنْزَلْنَآ إِلَيْكَ فَسْئَلِ الَّذِينَ يَقْرَءُونَ الْكِتٰبَ مِنْ قَبْلِكَ ۚ لَقَدْ جَآءَكَ الْحَقُّ مِنْ رَّبِّكَ فَلَا تَكُونَنَّ مِنَ الْمُمْتَرِينَ
"So if you are in doubt, [O Muhammad], about that which We have revealed to you, then ask those who have been reading the Scripture before you. The truth has certainly come to you from your Lord, so never be among the doubters."
(QS. Yunus: Verse 94)

Lastly, did Muhammed not commit unlawful sexual intercourse by sleeping with his Son's wife?

Allah SWT says:
وَإِذْ تَقُولُ لِلَّذِىٓ أَنْعَمَ اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَأَنْعَمْتَ عَلَيْهِ أَمْسِكْ عَلَيْكَ زَوْجَكَ وَاتَّقِ اللَّهَ وَتُخْفِى فِى نَفْسِكَ مَا اللَّهُ مُبْدِيهِ وَتَخْشَى النَّاسَ وَاللَّهُ أَحَقُّ أَنْ تَخْشٰىهُ ۖ فَلَمَّا قَضٰى زَيْدٌ مِّنْهَا وَطَرًا زَوَّجْنٰكَهَا لِكَىْ لَا يَكُونَ عَلَى الْمُؤْمِنِينَ حَرَجٌ فِىٓ أَزْوٰجِ أَدْعِيَآئِهِمْ إِذَا قَضَوْا مِنْهُنَّ وَطَرًا ۚ وَكَانَ أَمْرُ اللَّهِ مَفْعُولًا
"And [remember, O Muhammad], when you said to the one on whom Allah bestowed favor and you bestowed favor, "Keep your wife and fear Allah," while you concealed within yourself that which Allah is to disclose. And you feared the people, while Allah has more right that you fear Him. So when Zayd had no longer any need for her, We married her to you in order that there not be upon the believers any discomfort concerning the wives of their adopted sons when they no longer have need of them. And ever is the command of Allah accomplished."
(QS. Al-Ahzaab: Verse 37)

You need to be humble cause you know nothing about this Islam.

ollah1:



Mathematics says consistency ought to exist to reach a meaningful and right solution/conclusion. The Bible isn't the consistent book to use

when you find any one more consistent...please hala@me

enilove:


Did I dispute about the writer ?
You claimed I was wrong in the hadith I quoted , why can't you show everyone where I was wrong?

The best thing I expected from someone who is honest is to accept his errors or mistake . But I know doing that would amount to discarding the authenticity of the hadith.

When talking about scriptures and things of God, you and all the Muslims in the world put together should keep quiet when a Christian is talking so as to learn from him.
If Muhammed was instructed to learn from Christians and Jews concerning Allah's revelations to him who are you to say you want to enlighten me ? Moreover , you a slave , you can't know the mind of God my Father,

Allah SWT says:
فَإِنْ كُنْتَ فِى شَكٍّ مِّمَّآ أَنْزَلْنَآ إِلَيْكَ فَسْئَلِ الَّذِينَ يَقْرَءُونَ الْكِتٰبَ مِنْ قَبْلِكَ ۚ لَقَدْ جَآءَكَ الْحَقُّ مِنْ رَّبِّكَ فَلَا تَكُونَنَّ مِنَ الْمُمْتَرِينَ
"So if you are in doubt, [O Muhammad], about that which We have revealed to you, then ask those who have been reading the Scripture before you. The truth has certainly come to you from your Lord, so never be among the doubters."
(QS. Yunus: Verse 94)

Lastly, did Muhammed not commit unlawful sexual intercourse by sleeping with his Son's wife?

Allah SWT says:
وَإِذْ تَقُولُ لِلَّذِىٓ أَنْعَمَ اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَأَنْعَمْتَ عَلَيْهِ أَمْسِكْ عَلَيْكَ زَوْجَكَ وَاتَّقِ اللَّهَ وَتُخْفِى فِى نَفْسِكَ مَا اللَّهُ مُبْدِيهِ وَتَخْشَى النَّاسَ وَاللَّهُ أَحَقُّ أَنْ تَخْشٰىهُ ۖ فَلَمَّا قَضٰى زَيْدٌ مِّنْهَا وَطَرًا زَوَّجْنٰكَهَا لِكَىْ لَا يَكُونَ عَلَى الْمُؤْمِنِينَ حَرَجٌ فِىٓ أَزْوٰجِ أَدْعِيَآئِهِمْ إِذَا قَضَوْا مِنْهُنَّ وَطَرًا ۚ وَكَانَ أَمْرُ اللَّهِ مَفْعُولًا
"And [remember, O Muhammad], when you said to the one on whom Allah bestowed favor and you bestowed favor, "Keep your wife and fear Allah," while you concealed within yourself that which Allah is to disclose. And you feared the people, while Allah has more right that you fear Him. So when Zayd had no longer any need for her, We married her to you in order that there not be upon the believers any discomfort concerning the wives of their adopted sons when they no longer have need of them. And ever is the command of Allah accomplished."
(QS. Al-Ahzaab: Verse 37)

You need to be humble cause you know nothing about this Islam.

It is now that I confirmed you are mentally challenged! You've started going off topic just to find something to ease your failed reasoning. The topic here is that Muslims no matter how unholy will go to heaven and I rebutted that with the caveat that they genuinely repent before their death and ask for forgiveness. I have proven you wrong because all you see is the words but you lack the meaning or interpretation. It is clear you have nothing of value to say.

Now let me entertain your madness:

"So if you are in doubt, [O Muhammad], about that which We have revealed to you, then ask those who have been reading the Scripture before you. The truth has certainly come to you from your Lord, so never be among the doubters."
(QS. Yunus: Verse 94)

FACT 1: There were no Christians before Christ but we did have people of the book.
FACT 2: Before Christ, the Old Testament(The Torah and Injil) were the holy books with the most authority.
FACT 3: These books vastly differs from today's Bible.

Hence if you used your brain to reason instead of your eyes, it is easy to know that the passage above was directing him to confirm the revelation(Quran) with what was written in the Old testament(Torah and Injil) and if you believe today's Bible is the same as the Torah or Injil then you are smoking cheap weed.

Furthermore you made mention that he slept with his son's wife and you are absolutely correct but is this supposed to diminish from his authority? Do you fully understand the circumstances? Do you know the difference between adopted son and blood son? Do you understand the meaning between a divorced wife and one still married to you? I thought I could reason with you on a scholarly level but you keep disappointing yourself at every turn, when it comes to Islam, the likes of you cannot lecture me and when it comes to Christianity you will fail at it also because a scholar is always seeking knowledge and enlightenment while people like you need to be told what to do and are nothing but a flock of sheep with no sense of direction!

abbey621:


There's a difference between being religious and being a fanatic! Most people go to church or mosque, observe fasting and stay away from drugs or other vices but the simple basis of their religion they fail to follow it. Love thy neighbor as thy self! It happens here in Nigeria a lot, Muslims will ignore Christians while Christians do the same. We see a starving neighbor or one who is in danger and we just turn a blind eye. If this is an acceptable doctrine of one enlightened religion then I want no part of it! Enlightenment is seeing beyond religion, seeing beyond tribes, skin color, gender and so on. It is a state of being when one has discovered his or her true purpose in life, it is different from any doctrine because it simply cannot be taught, it MUST be discovered!

We agree that enlightenment is being, then.

And it is good that you used the word "true"to describe that state, too.

You've agreed to that.

But my first question was about the word "allies" and "friends". It's not that we want to be fanatics and hate or kill people who we know and hold dear, but the word that has been used for ages in that passage you quoted, and that has been quoted to my hearing, is the word "friend".

What is true and good and religious about telling people to maltreat/disregard/hate Christian and Jewish friends? That doctrine cannot be enlightenment.

It's not a matter of how religious people are, but what the doctrine says to its adherents to do.

BRATISLAVA:


We agree that enlightenment is being, then.

And it is good that you used the word "true"to describe that state, too.

You've agreed to that.

But my first question was about the word "allies" and "friends". It's not that we want to be fanatics and hate or kill people who we know and hold dear, but the word that has been used for ages in that passage you quoted, and that has been quoted to my hearing, is the word "friend".

What is true and good and religious about telling people to maltreat/disregard/hate Christian and Jewish friends? That doctrine cannot be enlightenment.

It's not a matter of how religious people are, but what the doctrine says to its adherents to do.

This is why interpretation matters a lot more than just looking at words and assume you know the meaning. My knowledge today differs greatly from 5 or 7 years ago. Enlightenment takes time and it starts when we make a conscious effort to seek true knowledge. I want you to do one thing, pick up the Bible and only focus on the old testament then find a copy of the English translated version of the Quran, can you tell me which is more violent? Which is more sexists? Which is more intolerant? Don't be surprised that you will find that they are exactly the same thing. This shows us all that these books are not to be interpreted using today's standards alone, to do so will be a huge mistake.

Example: In the early centuries, it is an abomination that a young woman refuse the husband chosen for her. In today's term it is unacceptable to even put one's child through such but both the Bible and the Quran supports it. Are we to say these books are flawed? Only you can decide for yourself, this is true enlightenment!

abbey621:


It is now that I confirmed you are mentally challenged! You've started going off topic just to find something to ease your failed reasoning. The topic here is that Muslims no matter how unholy will go to heaven and I rebutted that with the caveat that they genuinely repent before their death and ask for forgiveness. I have proven you wrong because all you see is the words but you lack the meaning or interpretation. It is clear you have nothing of value to say.

Now let me entertain your madness:



FACT 1: There were no Christians before Christ but we did have people of the book.
FACT 2: Before Christ, the Old Testament(The Torah and Injil) were the holy books with the most authority.
FACT 3: These books vastly differs from today's Bible.

Hence if you used your brain to reason instead of your eyes, it is easy to know that the passage above was directing him to confirm the revelation(Quran) with what was written in the Old testament(Torah and Injil) and if you believe today's Bible is the same as the Torah or Injil then you are smoking cheap weed.

Furthermore you made mention that he slept with his son's wife and you are absolutely correct but is this supposed to diminish from his authority? Do you fully understand the circumstances? Do you know the difference between adopted son and blood son? Do you understand the meaning between a divorced wife and one still married to you? I thought I could reason with you on a scholarly level but you keep disappointing yourself at every turn, when it comes to Islam, the likes of you cannot lecture me and when it comes to Christianity you will fail at it also because a scholar is always seeking knowledge and enlightenment while people like you need to be told what to do and are nothing but a flock of sheep with no sense of direction!

It is an empty barrel that makes the most noise.
Who made you a scholar ?Scholar in lie fabrications?

The Injil is the gospel of Jesus Christ. Muhammed had a copy of the Bible as at then , where are those copies of the Bible, if the one he was referring to was not the same we have now ?
It least the Arabs had copies , why haven't they brought them out?

The Bible says in :

Matthew 5:32 KJV
But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

What could be more shameful than marrying ones adopted son's wife ? To worsen the situation, zayd had not divorced his wife when the revelation came to muhammad. What is there to say again about who Muhammad was? This is morally repugnant to a sane mind.
Then Allah concluded that there is now no problem for Muslims in marrying their adopted Son's wives. What a shame. Was that their problems?

That shows clearly we Christians are not serving the same God with you . God is not a confusionist.

There is nothing Muhammad cannot do for sex , nothing.

There is always a great diff btw a child and a slave.

enilove:


It is an empty barrel that makes the most noise.
Who made you a scholar ?Scholar in lie fabrications?

The Injil is the gospel of Jesus Christ. Muhammed had a copy of the Bible as at then , where are those copies of the Bible, if the one he was referring to was not the same we have now ?
It least the Arabs had copies , why haven't they brought them out?

The Bible says in :

Matthew 5:32 KJV
But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

What could be more shameful than marrying ones adopted son's wife ? To worsen the situation, zayd had not divorced his wife when the revelation came to muhammad. What is there to say again about who Muhammad was? This is morally repugnant to a sane mind.
Then Allah concluded that there is now no problem for Muslims in marrying their adopted Son's wives. What a shame. Was that their problems?

That shows clearly we Christians are not serving the same God with you . God is not a confusionist.

There is nothing Muhammad cannot do for sex , nothing.

There is always a great diff btw a child and a slave.

An argument you seek but none you shall find! You give a bad name to Christians everywhere and coming from a Mother who is a Christian, I am saddened by this......Wish you best of luck in your journey towards enlightenment!

abbey621:


This is why interpretation matters a lot more than just looking at words and assume you know the meaning. My knowledge today differs greatly from 5 or 7 years ago. Enlightenment takes time and it starts when we make a conscious effort to seek true knowledge. I want you to do one thing, pick up the Bible and only focus on the old testament then find a copy of the English translated version of the Quran, can you tell me which is more violent? Which is more sexists? Which is more intolerant? Don't be surprised that you will find that they are exactly the same thing. This shows us all that these books are not to be interpreted using today's standards alone, to do so will be a huge mistake.

Example: In the early centuries, it is an abomination that a young woman refuse the husband chosen for her. In today's term it is unacceptable to even put one's child through such but both the Bible and the Quran supports it. Are we to say these books are flawed? Only you can decide for yourself, this is true enlightenment!

You will find many convincing arguments for the questions you have asked.

I had a lot to type on it, but what is the point arguing about religion? If I tell you mine, you will look for a way to validate yours. I have deleted all I wanted to type. The arguments are pointless. And long.

Find the truth.

And where in the Bible is it forceful to marry somebody you don't want to? Like a command or rule? I'm interested in learning more about that.

BRATISLAVA:


You will find many convincing arguments for the questions you have asked.

I had a lot to type on it, but what is the point arguing about religion? If I tell you mine, you will look for a way to validate yours. I have deleted all I wanted to type. The arguments are pointless. And long.

Find the truth.

And where in the Bible is it forceful to marry somebody you don't want to? Like a command or rule? I'm interested in learning more about that.

Don't get it wrong, I'm not here to push one religion over the other, in fact that counteracts my entire point of enlightenment. My point is exactly the opposite, all religions have their flaws and strengths and that there is really not that much difference between a christian or a Muslim. In regards to your question, there is no law just an acceptance of a way of life. Isaac and Rebecca, Jacob and Leah; even Joseph. It was acceptable in those days to not only arrange marriage through parents but to also marry women at a very young age. Women did not get much say in this and there are plenty examples both in the Quran and the Bible. My main point is to show that both religion are not so different and a flaw in one can easily be found in the other!

Great analysis!!! Thank God this wolf in sheep clothing is exposed. The spirit of the anti-christ is the one working in him

enilove:



By their fruits you shall know them.
I don't need to prove that tithing is right or wrong when the essence of opening the thread is not for that.

Jesus Christ categorically said we must pay our tithes because it is necessary :
Matthew 23:23 KJV
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

Jesus warned us that his purpose was not to destroy the laws:

Matthew 5:19-20 KJV
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them , the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
[20] For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

"...Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." - 2 Tim 2:15.

Your reply above clearly displayed that, you did not hind to Paul's admonition, now are you solidly grounded in the understandings of the scriptures.

1. Matt 23:23 KJV
Jesus was speaking to the scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!. If you are not a scribe, Pharisee or a hypocrites, this page is not for you. During the time of Jesus the scribes and Pharisees, did not believe he is a prophet sent by God and they were still keeping the laws according to Moses i.e. they were still worshiping on sabbath day, stoning adulteress, witches, etc to death, sacrificing animals for atonement of their sins including tithing, etc, which were also part of the law...Jesus is telling them that, they are obligated to keep the whole law especially the weightier matters of the law, which were judgement, mercy and faith.

If you search the scriptures very well, you never saw Jesus telling his disciples to pay tithe, even when speaking to the 5000, then 4000 gathered to hear him, he never told them anything about tithe....when he sent out his disciples to go make fisher of men, never instructed to teach or collect tithe...None of his disciples or apostles teaches or collected tithe. These are new testament believe example of whom the Lord said we should follow.

2. Yes, Jesus did not come to destroy the laws, but he came to fulfill them. - Matt 5:17. When something is fulfilled, then there is no longer an obligation towards it...e.g. if you are arrested and have fulfill the conditions of your bail requirements, it means there is nothing else that need to be done toward your bail, because it has been fulfilled. The English meaning for the word fulfill is 'bring to completion, achieved, realized, carried out'...He has brought the law into completion on our behalf and as such, we are not obligated to the law any longer.

3. Read Matthew 5:19-20 in conjunction with John 13:34.
In Mathew, Jesus was speaking about keeping the commandments, to the old testament covenant, these commandments were the ten commandments and the laws, sacrifices, etc...but in John 13:34, Jesus made it clear to the new covenant Christians what the new commandments should be. We are no longer bind by the old commandments, because we do not operate according to the flesh any longer, we are elevated above the old commandments and operating at a higher realm with Grace. Hence Paul in Rom 6:1-2, admonishes that, we cannot continue in sins (i.e. living in the fresh and committing sins) because we have Grace, and that we have been elevated above that and operating on a higher realm.

abbey621:


Don't get it wrong, I'm not here to push one religion over the other, in fact that counteracts my entire point of enlightenment. My point is exactly the opposite, all religions have their flaws and strengths and that there is really not that much difference between a christian or a Muslim. In regards to your question, there is no law just an acceptance of a way of life. Isaac and Rebecca, Jacob and Leah; even Joseph. It was acceptable in those days to not only arrange marriage through parents but to also marry women at a very young age. Women did not get much say in this and there are plenty examples both in the Quran and the Bible. My main point is to show that both religion are not so different and a flaw in one can easily be found in the other!

Both are Oriental religions. Both come from Judaism. That's where the similarities end.

I'm not against the open mindset towards learning, but this same learning has made us to understand that there is a huge difference between the two religions.

The God of one is not the same as that of the other. The flaws of one cannot correlate with the flaws of the other when looked at in context.

@Op u are just being religious and guess what, Jesus didn't come to introduce new religion but a new life.

Firstly, I need u to understand that the man Daddy freeze isn't a more "holy" man per say but a man just as u and I who is bound to make utterances not in line with scriptures as he has very limited knowledge of it. You will also agree with me that there are a lot of Antichrist statements that comes from our men of God from the pulpit ignorantly and we didn't label them Antichrist. In fact we hardly go home to take time to check if all we heard were really so...no time.

Secondly, I don't think you even understand the concept of following Jesus or believing in Jesus. The Bible never admonish us to follow Jesus but Christ by this I mean Jesus is just a name but Christ is the WORD OF GOD and that is what the Bible admonish us to follow, let me digress a little, all you who kneel down and pray to the person of Jesus or confess the person of Jesus is committing idolatry... You confess Jesus Christ not Jesus. Until you have encounter with Christ these things will remain mystery to u.

If God is Love and Jesus is the word of God how can someone who believes in Love go to hell? How can someone who loves his neighbour as himself go to hell when that is who God is?.... Jesus Christ said no one goes to the father except through him and he is Love, which means no one goes to the father except through Love hence, he gave us only one commandment and that is Love. If you don't love you don't know him.

Is it difficult for u to understand that the only thing that can guarantee peace hear on earth is Love? The Paradise that you believe in is a true picture of a world where only Love exist. There is nothing u can do that is in the will of God that has no Love as its core ingredient. Anything outside love is not of God.

Giving to the poor is an act of Love.

Preaching the gospel to the oppressed, downtrodden, and all those who's live is nothing to write about is an act of Love.

Shearing with those who don't have when you have mire than enough for you is an act if Love.

Speaking for the oppressed and the brainwashed is an act of Love.

Check your Pastor, if Love is not his anchor he is nothing but a fraudster.

I understand how desperate you and your pastors are to convince followers to not listen to whatever Freez is saying but u need to also understand that Satan can only take advantage of you when u trespass to his territory. If Pastors where following Jesus Christ without part time deviation men like Freeze wouldn't have existed. It believed that many will back slide because of his teaching but one thing I know for sure is that they didn't back slide from serving God but serving men when they encounter Jesus Christ they will serve him in spirit and in truth.

God is Love and they that love are the ones that knows Him.

I am sick and tired of RELIGION.

BRATISLAVA:


Both are Oriental religions. Both come from Judaism. That's where the similarities end.

I'm not against the open mindset towards learning, but this same learning has made us to understand that there is a huge difference between the two religions.

The God of one is not the same as that of the other. The flaws of one cannot correlate with the flaws of the other when looked at in context.

It's a shame you feel that way, speaking strictly from a scholarly standpoint, I see no significant difference between the Quran and the old testament of the Bible. I challenge anyone to prove otherwise but when it comes to the ways of worship and the totality of the religions, yes there are vast differences. Finally if you say the God of one is not the God of the other then you have contradicted the basic foundation of both religion which is the oneness of God. I'm not going to get into which religion is right or wrong but the foundation can never be questioned. God is one, God has no beginning and God is infinite. This is my own little understanding, I'm only human

abbey621:


It's a shame you feel that way, speaking strictly from a scholarly standpoint, I see no significant difference between the Quran and the old testament of the Bible. I challenge anyone to prove otherwise but when it comes to the ways of worship and the totality of the religions, yes there are vast differences. Finally if you say the God of one is not the God of the other then you have contradicted the basic foundation of both religion which is the oneness of God. I'm not going to get into which religion is right or wrong but the foundation can never be questioned. God is one, God has no beginning and God is infinite. This is my own little understanding, I'm only human

Sorry for your shame expressed there.

But each religion has its own God. How can a Christian believe their God comes in as many forms as the Hindu gods? How can a Baha'i believe their God sanctioned them to do a jihad? How can a Buddhist believe his God is beyond himself? There is no contradiction in that. If you do a survey of a religious adherents​(not new age logic deducing individuals(an argument for another day)) you will get to realize that Allah cannot be the God of the Hindus or traditionalists. Each has their own god but there is only one God.

The problem of many religionists today is believing they all serve the same being (s) called God. It's like a molecular physicist and a geophysicist believing they are both doing law, because they all studied in a university and got degrees.

And though it may appear that the Bible and Koran are the same, because they're Oriental, they are very different. If you want to talk about religious violence and self-preservative violence in both and call them both violence it will be wrong. A scholarly standpoint involves all information gathered in order to come to a conclusion. In this case, the two religions cannot be alike except you want to put into consideration that the Koran copied both the Bible and the Torah to come up with its own foundation.

But that's hardly my interest. Search for the truth. That is all.

BRATISLAVA:


Sorry for your shame expressed there.

But each religion has its own God. How can a Christian believe their God comes in as many forms as the Hindu gods? How can a Baha'i believe their God sanctioned them to do a jihad? How can a Buddhist believe his God is beyond himself? There is no contradiction in that. If you do a survey of a religious adherents​(not new age logic deducing individuals(an argument for another day)) you will get to realize that Allah cannot be the God of the Hindus or traditionalists. Each has their own god but there is only one God.

The problem of many religionists today is believing they all serve the same being (s) called God. It's like a molecular physicist and a geophysicist believing they are both doing law, because they all studied in a university and got degrees.

And though it may appear that the Bible and Koran are the same, because they're Oriental, they are very different. If you want to talk about religious violence and self-preservative violence in both and call them both violence it will be wrong. A scholarly standpoint involves all information gathered in order to come to a conclusion. In this case, the two religions cannot be alike except you want to put into consideration that the Koran copied both the Bible and the Torah to come up with its own foundation.

But that's hardly my interest. Search for the truth. That is all.

Christians at least the earlier people of the book also believed in Jihad. Jihad is holy war which means fighting for God and it was done by Moses, Abraham and many others in the Bible. In more modern times it was done by the Holy Roman Catholic Church when they fought the Holy Crusades so this is like giving ammunition to my points. Furthermore man's problem has always been interpretation, most religion were formed based on stories and no one is 100% certain of the authenticity but I guess that's what we call faith. Without faith there is no religion, I'm not going to speak on other religions because I have not extensively researched them but I do know about Islam and Christianity. These two religions are more similar in their origin than you know. From a scholarly standpoint you might want to find out what the earliest version of the Bible looked like before it was translated by the zionist. The easiest way to describe it is to remove the new testament and compare the Quran with the old testament. You'll find all the prophets are the same, all the stories are the same, all the violence, the miracles are all the same. This is the shocking truth and no one can deny it but somewhere along the line things changed but even with these changes, you'll be surprised that some aspects of the new testament are also in the Quran. By you saying the Quran copied the Bible only serves to strengthen my point that they both have the same origin, which to me means they operate under the principle of serving an eternal God with no rival. Which to me means there is only one God and since there is only one God, the logical conclusion here is that they both serve the same God since he is only one anything else is blasphemy! The Quran even confirms that what is written in it is verified by the Torah and Injil, so I'm very convinced Christians and Muslims and Jews serve the same God, the only difference is the alteration and ways people worship over the years.

Finally, you cannot separate the violence in one and term it as religious and then do the same for the other and call it self-preservative. This is purely sentimental and not based on FACTS. Are the violence of Moses or Joshua any different from that of other prophets? Since all these violence are well represented by both books I fail to see how you can separate them.

musicwriter:


Ngugi is among the 7 persons I consider educated ever to come out of Africa. He was so educated he understands education in Africa is a fraud. And until any so called educated African learn up to the point he/she understands the education we have is still colonialism, I don't consider such person as educated.

If there's anything you don't understand you ask question. There's nothing wrong with asking question, as long as its an honest question.

Check your mail

jupiterx:

Check your mail

Email: kemeticphilosophy@gmail

musicwriter:


Email: kemeticphilosophy@gmail

Sent a message

abbey621:


Christians at least the earlier people of the book also believed in Jihad. Jihad is holy war which means fighting for God and it was done by Moses, Abraham and many others in the Bible. In more modern times it was done by the Holy Roman Catholic Church when they fought the Holy Crusades so this is like giving ammunition to my points. Furthermore man's problem has always been interpretation, most religion were formed based on stories and no one is 100% certain of the authenticity but I guess that's what we call faith. Without faith there is no religion, I'm not going to speak on other religions because I have not extensively researched them but I do know about Islam and Christianity. These two religions are more similar in their origin than you know. From a scholarly standpoint you might want to find out what the earliest version of the Bible looked like before it was translated by the zionist. The easiest way to describe it is to remove the new testament and compare the Quran with the old testament. You'll find all the prophets are the same, all the stories are the same, all the violence, the miracles are all the same. This is the shocking truth and no one can deny it but somewhere along the line things changed but even with these changes, you'll be surprised that some aspects of the new testament are also in the Quran. By you saying the Quran copied the Bible only serves to strengthen my point that they both have the same origin, which to me means they operate under the principle of serving an eternal God with no rival. Which to me means there is only one God and since there is only one God, the logical conclusion here is that they both serve the same God since he is only one anything else is blasphemy! The Quran even confirms that what is written in it is verified by the Torah and Injil, so I'm very convinced Christians and Muslims and Jews serve the same God, the only difference is the alteration and ways people worship over the years.

Finally, you cannot separate the violence in one and term it as religious and then do the same for the other and call it self-preservative. This is purely sentimental and not based on FACTS. Are the violence of Moses or Joshua any different from that of other prophets? Since all these violence are well represented by both books I fail to see how you can separate them.

We can argue back and forth, and I can give you reasons why you are wrong with your assumptions about the crusades and what violence is and how we all have the same God (which we don't).

As a scholar you look to the origins and look to the motives and not just the end result. If you take a case of violence to a court, you will be judged not for violence, but for the case presented as violence. In this case you say violence is violence and that is it. That means that in your court a person who kills in self-defense is guilty of murder regardless of how and why; they killed so they must face the music. But there is violence and there is violence.

I'll not argue this for lack of solid points but because you've had a lot of time with the facts you've read somewhere, and nothing you see contrary to that will make sense. I'm not interested in convincing you otherwise.

I don't believe in arguing on religious topics and stopped doing so for a while. I'd rather argue on something educational which has an end.

BRATISLAVA:


We can argue back and forth, and I can give you reasons why you are wrong with your assumptions about the crusades and what violence is and how we all have the same God (which we don't).

As a scholar you look to the origins and look to the motives and not just the end result. If you take a case of violence to a court, you will be judged not for violence, but for the case presented as violence. In this case you say violence is violence and that is it. That means that in your court a person who kills in self-defense is guilty of murder regardless of how and why; they killed so they must face the music. But there is violence and there is violence.

I'll not argue this for lack of solid points but because you've had a lot of time with the facts you've read somewhere, and nothing you see contrary to that will make sense. I'm not interested in convincing you otherwise.

I don't believe in arguing on religious topics and stopped doing so for a while. I'd rather argue on something educational which has an end.

I also don't like arguing but I love trying to enlighten my people with the little that I know. For example your point:

That means that in your court a person who kills in self-defense is guilty of murder regardless of how and why; they killed so they must face the music. But there is violence and there is violence.

In the court of law self defense is a valid excuse but it does not take away from the act. Violence is violence regardless of the motive, now whether you are convicted or judged for such violent acts is another different story. Hope you get my point. Irregardless, my example of violence in both books is not meant to ridicule them but rather highlight the similarities in both. The white men got married in a church, the black man had a traditional marriage ceremony, who is to say one is valid over the other? This is what I meant by one God, how we choose to worship him is another story entirely.....lol

nairavsdollars:
I heard he has over 400,000 members in his church FreetheSheeple located at Victoria Island

What is he going to preach to the freed sheepie who sheepishly ran after him.

Xisnin:
When you attack a man's means of livelihood, he fights dirty.
The issue is whether Freeze's opinion on many issues are right or wrong but the sheeples and G.Os knowing the truth
decide to engage in personality fight with freeze instead of countering him with superior argument.

What you read in this thread is countering your master's claims with superior argument.
#Iamagainstdaddyfreeze

coputa:
What you read in this thread is countering your master's claims with superior argument.
#Iamagainstdaddyfreeze

Who is your superior?
Typical sheeple instead of addressing the issues raised by freeze, you are
calling him names.

abbey621:


I also don't like arguing but I love trying to enlighten my people with the little that I know. For example your point:

That means that in your court a person who kills in self-defense is guilty of murder regardless of how and why; they killed so they must face the music. But there is violence and there is violence.

In the court of law self defense is a valid excuse but it does not take away from the act. Violence is violence regardless of the motive, now whether you are convicted or judged for such violent acts is another different story. Hope you get my point. Irregardless, my example of violence in both books is not meant to ridicule them but rather highlight the similarities in both. The white men got married in a church, the black man had a traditional marriage ceremony, who is to say one is valid over the other? This is what I meant by one God, how we choose to worship him is another story entirely.....lol

@bolded
Yet there are different judgements for it, indicating that not all violence is for the sake of it or considered violence at all.

If the world were so black and white as "violence is violence", then there is no point understanding even physics, for even something as quantitative and logical as that has its exceptions.

Being scholarly means looking at cause and effect, not just the effect. 2+2 equals to 4. 3 + 1 is 4. 2*2 is 4. And 4*1 is 4. Excluding all other numbers above 4 and below 1, you can see that concluding that there is 4, all are 4 as a scholar negates learning processes and additional info that leads to the conclusion that 'equals to four'. What makes it 4? The cause. From there you can see which processes involve prime numbers and which ones don't, though all processes involve integers. If you want to claim self preservation is violence and religious terrorism is violence, all are violence, then the aim of being scholarly is lost. A court knows which is which because it works with causes and not only effects.

As I said, there is no point furthering this argument. Enlightenment is a state of being, not something that can be shared.

Cheerios.

BRATISLAVA:


@bolded
Yet there are different judgements for it, indicating that not all violence is for the sake of it or considered violence at all.

If the world were so black and white as "violence is violence", then there is no point understanding even physics, for even something as quantitative and logical as that has its exceptions.

Being scholarly means looking at cause and effect, not just the effect. 2+2 equals to 4. 3 + 1 is 4. 2*2 is 4. And 4*1 is 4. Excluding all other numbers above 4 and below 1, you can see that concluding that there is 4, all are 4 as a scholar negates learning processes and additional info that leads to the conclusion that 'equals to four'. What makes it 4? The cause. From there you can see which processes involve prime numbers and which ones don't, though all processes involve integers. If you want to claim self preservation is violence and religious terrorism is violence, all are violence, then the aim of being scholarly is lost. A court knows which is which because it works with causes and not only effects.

As I said, there is no point furthering this argument. Enlightenment is a state of being, not something that can be shared.

Cheerios.

You are overthinking this, someone that kills in self defense and someone that kills just for the fun of it both did what? Killed! Whether they both get convicted does not take away from the premise. I'm not here arguing about their motives or whether they'll both get the same judgment, NO! You are arguing on motive, which means we are talking about two different things and quite frankly I don't have time for that. Yes violence is violence but I know people have their reasons, some valid some not valid. This is the clearest way I can put it, any further argument without acknowledging that is just trolling.....Good luck!

musicwriter:


Email: kemeticphilosophy@gmail

Thanks bro
Still on some socialist novels, have downloaded the ones you sent,
Will read them and get back to you soon.
Once again,Thanks.

genocide, from 1 Samuel 15:3: "This is what the Lord Almighty says ... 'Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.' "."

Another gruesome verse to make the list was Psalm 137, which celebrates this terrible revenge: "Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us / He who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks."

1 Peter 2:18: "Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel."

“So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight. When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. He said to her, ‘Get up; let’s go.’ But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home.” (Judges 19:25-28)

Now are these Quran verses