Page 3 of 4

Re: The Deception of the Koranic 'proper names'

Posted: Thu Apr 01, 2010 10:43 pm
by manfred

I just spotted something that brought a smile to my face...

after AB went through a great deal of contortions denying that allah stands for "the god", on his very own website there is a forum called

The God, His Messengers & Prohpets (yes,it says "Prohpets")

Have a look here


well, "THE GOD" turns out to be allah, when you read through it

Could it be that our dear Ahmed has not been, well, entirely straight-forward is his comments to us? Surely not!

Re: The Deception of the Koranic 'proper names'

Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2010 3:12 am
by The Cat
Hi, manfred...
I've being searching a lot around the wording 'Allah'. Some old passion about etymology and anthropology. Here's what I've got...

First of all, the Koranic Bismillah is as old as... the Bible! It's written in Ex.34.6; Num.14.18 and Psalm 103 (sometimes 102)!
---Ex.43.6: The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious.....
---Psalm 103.8: The LORD is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy.
---Num.14.18: The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression....

There are many sites quoting the recent discovery of 'Father Pecerillo', a 'famous Franciscan archeologist' stating that he uncovered:

''More than twenty churches in Madaba at the south of Jordan. From the Forth Century we found houses in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and
Palestine with this inscription in Arabic :"Bism El-Lah al Rahman al Rahim" that showed that Christians were the first to use this name
so as to indicate their belief in the Holy Trinity, more than two hundred years before Islam.
'' I stood confused because I couldn't find
scholarly articles about his discoveries. It turned out that his name was... -Michele Piccirillo- (d.2008) yes, a well-known archeologist.
Were these inscriptions related to the Christian trinity or simply mentioning some attributes of God? Whatever, it's truly mind-blowing! ... about%20us" onclick=";return false;
One of his lasting contributions to the academic field was to demonstrate through archaeological evidence the continuity
of early Byzantine traditions into the Islamic periods, a theme now commonly accepted among most scholars of the subject.
Mosaic map of Jerusalem in Madaba, dated 540 it could be the very oldest we have! ... ic-jordan/" onclick=";return false;
See also:" onclick=";return false;

Jews for Allah: Allah in the Jewish Bible (article by Dennis Giron). ... -Bible.htm" onclick=";return false;
Where I found this Aramaic lexicon, under the quest: god" onclick=";return false;
God. Pronunciation: Eastern AaLaH; Western AaLoH
It gives concordances with 1Cor.8.4; Eph.2.12 and 2Thes.2.4

A real scholarly research is found here (much more therein):" onclick=";return false;
Webster’s Dictionary gives the definition and etymology of Allah as follows. Allah is the Muslim name for "the God." Allah is derived from two words "al," which means "the" and "ilah," which is related to the feminine Hebrew word for God, "eloah." Now the Hebrew title or name for God is 'Elohim' and it is the plural form of eloah. It is made plural by adding "im," which is masculine. This corresponds to adding "s" to make a word plural in English. So the commonality between Allah and Elohim is "eloah" and "ilah."
Indeed the biblical terminology of Eloah is the closest to that of Allah. It is mainly written in the Book of Ezra (4.25, chap.5, 6.5) and Job.
Ezra identifies Eloah as the Eloah of Israel (5:1). The prophets were of Eloah (5:2). He's closely associated with Jerusalem's renewal (4.25).
Cyrus decreed that the house of Eloah be built, that the vessels of gold and silver belonged to Eloah, so to be placed therein (5:13-17, 6:5)." onclick=";return false;
The Hebrew form Eloah (אלוהּ, which looks as though it might be a singular feminine form of Elohim) is comparatively rare, occurring only in poetry and late prose (in the Book of Job, 41 times). What is probably the same divine name is found in Arabic (Ilah as singular "a god", as opposed to Allah meaning "The God" or "God") and in Aramaic (Elaha). This unusual singular form is used in six places for heathen deities (examples: 2 Chronicles 32:15; Daniel 11:37, 38;). The normal Elohim form is also used in the plural a few times, either for gods or images (Exodus 9:1, 12:12, 20:3; and so forth) or for one god (Exodus 32:1; Genesis 31:30, 32; and elsewhere). In the great majority of cases both are used as names of the One God of Israel.

Eloah, Elohim, means "He who is the object of fear or reverence", or "He with whom one who is afraid takes refuge". Another theory is that it is derived from the Semitic root "uhl" meaning "to be strong". Elohim then would mean "the all-powerful One", based on the usage of the word "el" in certain verses to denote power or might (Genesis 31:29, Nehemiah 5:5). In many of the passages in which elohim [lower case] occurs in the Bible it refers to non-Israelite deities, or in some instances to powerful men or judges, and even angels (Exodus 21:6, Psalms 8:5).
--There's also an unknown ancient Chaldean root at the origin of Eloah: Elahh (so written only in Dan.11.38)!
--Eleos is an old Greek term for olive oil, back then used to sooth wounds so in: Kyrie Eleison (God's Mercy).

That the name of Allah predates Islam to at least Christianity is emphasized, between the lines, in the Koran too:
22.40: Those who have been driven from their homes unjustly only because they said: Our Lord is Allah - For had it not been for Allah's
repelling some men by means of others, cloisters and churches and oratories and mosques, wherein the name of Allah is oft mentioned,
would assuredly have been pulled down. Verily Allah helpeth one who helpeth Him. Lo! Allah is Strong, Almighty.

Still all those etymologies do not go back far enough: to the Sumerian En'lil (Lord of the Air) and its diminutive of IL/ILU/ILANU (Allahu)." onclick=";return false;" onclick=";return false;
What's troubling the etymologists is, in my opinion, that Allah may have three different regional sources. The Al-Ilah (Enlil) source comes
from the Lakhmid territories (Iraq and North Syria), while the Syro/Aramaic root of Alaha/Eloah was more influential in the biblical Levant.

Yet a third influence, in the northwest Nabatea, must be weighted in: that of the Egyptian moon-god, LAH/YAH. Lah/Yah wasn't important
and was mainly related to the moon proper, our satellite. Egyptologists think that he has been adopted by the Hyksos, all along with Seth.
Lah/Yah became associated with the moon as time (months). As such it's the root for Jericho (Yarich/Yerech) with that of Arah: wandering." onclick=";return false;
The complexity and controversy of Yah stem from the term's similarity to the early form of the name for the modern god of the Jews (Yahweh), Christians and Muslims, as well as the fact that their ancestors were so intermingled with those of the Egyptians. In fact, this distinctive attribute of this god makes research on his ancient Egyptian mythology all the more difficult. Little is really know of this god's cult, and there is no references to actual temples or locations where he may have been worshipped. However, among ancient references, we do seem to find in the Papyrus of Ani several references to the god, though here, his name has been translated as Lah. In Chapter 2: ''O One, bright as the moon-god Iah; O One, shining as Iah''; And again, in Chapter 18: ''I am the moon-god Iah among the gods; I do not fail....''
The extreme sparsity of informations about Lah/Yah might be the reason why it did escape etymologists' scrutiny, while Al-Lah is obvious.

Re: The Deception of the Koranic 'proper names'

Posted: Sat Apr 03, 2010 4:27 pm
by The Cat
The Quran's Deceptive Proper Names. Part 6: The Abrogations
The abrogation is a theory coming up in the late 10th century by some Muslim scholars notably Ahmed Bin Ishaq Al-Dinary (d.940/318),
Mohamad Bin Bahr Al-Asbahany (d.944/322), Hebat Allah Bin Salamah (d.1032/410) and Mohamad Bin Mousa Al-Hazmy (d.1170/ 548),
whose book about Al-Nasekh and Al-Mansoukh is one of the leading references on the subject. And every bit of it is utterly hypocrite!

Seems to me that the abrogations mentioned are referring to the Arabic additions to the former Korans sent down (Torah, Gospel) and
that they weren't meant at all to apply -within- the Arabic holy book. The Koran is thus -solely- abrogating the former Torah and Gospel,
yet when -and only when- they are conflicting. Let us review them in their context: 16.101 (70th); 2.106 (87th); 13.39 (96th).
16.101: And when We put a revelation in place of (another) revelation, - and Allah knoweth best what He revealeth - they say: Lo! thou art but inventing. Most of them know not. 16.102-103: Say: The holy Spirit hath delivered it from thy Lord with truth, that it may confirm (the faith of) those who believe, and as guidance and good tidings for those who have surrendered (to Allah). ---And We know well that they say: Only a man teacheth him. The speech of him at whom they falsely hint is outlandish, and this is clear Arabic speech.

2.105: Neither those who disbelieve among the people of the Scripture nor the idolaters love that there should be sent down unto you any good thing from your Lord. But Allah chooseth for His mercy whom He will, and Allah is of Infinite Bounty. 2.106: Nothing of our revelation (even a single verse) do we abrogate or cause be forgotten, but we bring (in place) one better or the like thereof. Knowest thou not that Allah is Able to do all things?

2.107-109: Knowest thou not that it is Allah unto Whom belongeth the Sovereignty of the heavens and the earth; and ye have not, beside Allah, any guardian or helper? ---Or would ye question your messenger as Moses was questioned aforetime ? He who chooseth disbelief instead of faith, verily he hath gone astray from a plain road. ---Many of the people of the Scripture long to make you disbelievers after your belief, through envy on their own account, after the truth hath become manifest unto them. Forgive and be indulgent (toward them) until Allah give command. Lo! Allah is Able to do all things.

13.38: And verily We sent messengers (to mankind) before thee, and We appointed for them wives and offspring, and it was not (given) to any messenger that he should bring a portent save by Allah's leave. For everything there is a time prescribed. 13.39: Allah effaceth what He will, and establisheth (what He will), and with Him is the source of ordinance. 13.43: They who disbelieve say: Thou art no messenger (of Allah). Say: Allah, and whosoever hath knowledge of the Scripture, is sufficient witness between me and you.

After further researches, this meaning of abrogations being -solely- related to the former Korans (Torah and Gospel) was spot on!
In 2.106 (Maa Nansakh min 'aayatin) the wording aayatin was erroneously translated 'verse' while meaning -revelation- as a whole.
Yusuf Ali explains, in his commentaries, the term "aayatin": ''What is the meaning here? If we take it in a general sense, it means
that God's Message from age to age is always the same, but that its form may differ according to the needs and exigencies of the
time. That form was different as given to Moses and then to Jesus and then to Muhammad.

This rightful understanding is emphasized in 3.23 ('A portion of the Book') where the Koran is stated as a continuation of the former
revelations, with abrogated differences much like Jesus did about the Torah in Matthew 5. The 'Book of Allah' thus includes both the
Torah and the Gospel, of which the Arabic Koran is but a portion, not to be broke apart (15.90-91). This 'Book of Allah' in three parts
is called 'Umm-ul-Kitab' (the Mother Book) in 3.39: The original foundation of all revelations is thrice, yet from the same source... ... tution.htm" onclick=";return false;
Commentary by Dr. Muhammad Asad for the verse 2.106:
The principal laid down in this passage – relating to the suppression of the Biblical dispensation by that of the Qur'an – has given rise to an erroneous interpretation by many Muslim theologians. The word ayah ("message") occurring in this context is also used to denote a “verse” of the Qur'an (because every one of these verses contains a message). Taking this restricted meaning of the term ayah, some scholars conclude from the above passage that certain verses the Qur'an have been “abrogated” by God’s command before the revelation of Qur'an was completed. (...)

The apparent difficulty in interpreting the above Qur'anic passage disappears immediately if the term ayah is understood, correctly, as “message”, and if we read this verse in conjunction with the preceding one, which states that the Jews and the Christians refuse to accept any revelation which might supersede that of the Bible; for, if read in this way, the abrogation relates to the earlier divine messages and not to any part of the Qur'an itself..
For example, just like Jesus abrogated the Talion Law, so in 5.45: ''And We prescribed for them therein: The life for the life, and the eye
for the eye, and the nose for the nose, and the ear for the ear, and the tooth for the tooth, and for wounds retaliation. But whoso forgoeth
it (in the way of charity) it shall be expiation for him. Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah hath revealed: such are wrong-doers.
'' The
following verses (5.46-48) are clearly stating what Allah meant by abrogations: they refer to the differences between the three Korans!

In Yusuf Ali's commentaries (on 3.23): ''I conceive that Allah's revelation as a whole throughout the ages is "The Book". The Law of Moses,
the Gospel of Jesus were portions of the Book. The Qur'an completes the revelation and is par excellence the Book of Allah.

From the above verses we can see that if Allah differed from some passages (i.e. abrogated) in the former korans (Torah and Gospel)...
they are to be reckoned with and not dismiss. The Islamic interpretation that the abrogations mentioned are referring to their Koran
is thus plainly WRONG: all those verses are referring to the differences between the three korans, them all acknowledged by Allah,
to give preponderance to the later Arabic one, if -and only if- it's found conflicting with any other al-Kitab (Scripture).

AGAIN, Muslims have been duped by their own clergy and Imams to turn them into Muhammadans!

See also:" onclick=";return false;
The misinterpretation of the word "nansakh" (abrogation) as in 2.106: ... 48%29.html" onclick=";return false;

Re: The Deception of the Koranic 'proper names'

Posted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 7:25 pm
by The Cat
The Quran's Deceptive Proper Names. Part 7:

Al-Masjid al-Haram & Al-Masjid al-Aqsa


This of course is of much importance since the traditional Islamic interpretation says it meant Mecca and Jerusalem. Well it's not so...

Surah 17: Al-Isra (or The Children of Israel)
17.1: Glory to (Allah) Who did take His Servant for a Journey by night from the Sacred Mosque (al-Masjid al-Haram)
to the Farthest Mosque (Al-Masjid al-Aqsa), whose precincts We did bless, - in order that We might show him some
of Our Signs: for He is the One Who heareth and seeth (all things).
---The highlighted part is defining as we'll see..." onclick=";return false;
The journey was from the point of origin to the farthest mosque so that Muhammad "might be shown Our Signs". Thereby not purporting to present a travel itinerary, rather as a verse describing a part of the journey and then moving ahead to describe the signs in question. Further indications to support this view can be found in a continued reading of the entire verse, wherein the Isra is used merely as an introduction or sign while the rest of the verse goes on to describe commandments and God's expectations from man, as well as citing examples of Moses, Nūḥ (Noah) and Adem (Adam) as more Signs.

The actual details as left for Isra and Miraj exist primarily in numerous aḥādīth that chronicle Muhammad's descriptions of his experiences that night- the actual descriptions of the Signs referenced in the first extract of the verse. It is in these aḥādīth where the actual narrative of the Israj and Miraj are contained, that one is informed of Jerusalem as being the farthest mosque in reference here, and not Medina or another place. An evaluation of the identity of the farthest mosque as Jerusalem would then entail an evaluation of those collections of hadith and the veracity therein, and not the Quranic verse in question; as well as the understanding of the term "masjid" being a place of prostration, which would also be fulfilled by virtue of the led congregation of Prophets in prayer at the place of Isra.
Well, it is (or will become) obvious that the whole Mecca montage is a late forgery established in the beginning of the 8th century.
The whole Meccan deceptive hoax has been built over time and mainly implemented from the beginning of the Abbasid dynasty.
I shall add that it was from their founder need to be of the ancestry of Muhammad that the whole forgery has been first enacted.
This hoax includes many deviations from the Koran, starting with Mecca which in 48.24 means 'destruction' (i.e. classical Mkk).

I've already covered this (+ 'Kaaba' / 'Hajj') so will proceed from it...
viewtopic.php?p=91348#p91348" onclick=";return false;
viewtopic.php?p=92029#p92029" onclick=";return false;

Now can Mecca really means the forbiden (al-haram) place of prostration? What we are about to find out is that 'Masjid' doesn't
refers to a physical place (like Mecca or Jerusalem, nor even to a physical mosque) but rather to a state of mind, and that 17.1
rather underlines the inner journey from a 'state of ignorance' (Masjid-al-Haram) to the state of 'illumination' (Masjid-al-Aqsa).
Thus 17.1 tell us that, at this moment, Muhammad has been kind of 'transfigured', much like Jesus meeting Moses and Eliyah:
(Mk.9.2-8; Mt.17.1-9; Lk.9.28-36). The parallels with Muhammad's night journey (Mi'raj and Isra) thus becomes overwhelming. ... awting.htm" onclick=";return false;
If al-Masjid al-Haram always meant what it now means at the Muslim sanctuary at Mecca, why would it be used in the Qur'an and the traditions in ways which can only be made to coincide with that meaning with some difficulty? It seems more satisfactory to try to dissociate the name from the Muslim sanctuary at Mecca in cases like those mentioned, to try to make sense of the material without using the concepts of later Islam to interpret it. It seems, for example, that the need to equate al-Masjid al-Haram with the Ka'ba in connection with the qibla verses only arises if we accept the traditional Muslim exegesis of these verses and the traditional accounts of the institution of the qibla.

If, as seems more likely, it is considered that the practice of facing the Ka'ba at Mecca in prayer developed independently of these Qur'anic verses and that the scriptural support for the practice was only provided later, then it is possible to try to reach some understanding of what al-Masjid al-Haram means in the Qur'an without prejudging the outcome. Again, therefore, I suggest that we have a term which has been adapted in order to provide it with some application to the Meccan sanctuary but which probably originated in a different context.

Let's now check an honest Islamic traditional reading..." onclick=";return false;
From a legal point of view it refers to every place on earth since the Prophet - peace be upon him - said: "The earth was made a masjid for me" which is a particularity of this ummah. This was said by the Qadi `Iyad because the previous nations used not to pray except in the places they were sure of their pureness whereas we were allowed to perform the prayers in any place not known to be impure. Since prostration is the most honourable act in prayer because of the nearness of the servant to his Lord, the name of the location was derived from it. This is why we call it masjid [location of sujud/prostration] and not marka` [place of ruku`/inclination].
Indeed, the root for 'Masjid' is that of SJD: sujud. Thing is that the Koranic use of 'SuJuD' does not refer to a physical location (Mecca,
Jerusalem nor even a mosque), nor to the act of prostration. In the Koran to 'fall sujadun' is NOT to fall on one's knees but a state where
one envisions right from wrong, like the al-Masjid al-Azhar where one gets aware of justice. In the Koran this awareness is understood
as a vision, the vision implementing right from wrong in one's mind. So the state of 'Al-Masjid al-Haram' is the state of disobedience
from ignorance (spiritual blindness), while 'Al-Masjid al-Aqsa' refers to the state of utter righteousness.

This clear meaning of the root SJD is found in the following verses: 17.107; 18.57; 25.73; 31.7; 32.15 and best illustrated in 12.100:
''And he placed his parents on the throne and they fell down before him prostrate, and he said: O my father! This is the interpretation
of my dream of old. My Lord hath made it true, and He hath shown me kindness, since He took me out of the prison and hath brought
you from the desert after Satan had made strife between me and my brethren. Lo! my Lord is tender unto whom He will.....

In this verse, how could someone raised on a throne could 'fell down to prostrate' on this very throne? It's as silly as it sounds. They
rather got struck from -sudden- understanding! This meaning is quite emphasized in the following verse (12.101): ''O my Lord! Thou
hast given me (something) of sovereignty and hast taught me (something) of the interpretation of events....

Derivatives from 'sujud' (SJD) are 'masajid' and 'yasjudun' and they all are referring to 'clear understanding' (2.58, 187; 55.3-7; 84.21).
http://mentalbondageinthenameofgod.word ... ostration/" onclick=";return false;
The Reading (55.3-7) clearly shows that everything in the heavens and the earth sujud and aslama or they consented themselves peacefully (aslama from the root Salam) by God. The word Islam is also derived from the same root Salam. Thus if everything that God created in the heavens and the earth are in a state of peacefulness or Islam, can the religionists also tell us how the sun, the moon, the stars, the trees, and all of the animal kingdom become Muslims?

Did they have to declare, “We bear witness that there is no God except Allah, and we bear witness Muhammad is the messenger of Allah?” Then why is it that such a declaration has become the first pillar of faith in so-called Islam? The billions of stars in the sky, the grass on earth, the vegetables that we eat, the Bougainvillaea we plant around our houses, the trees in the forest all sujud to the One God. We do not witness any of them prostrating physically. Everything we see obeys its God-given command; and God says it performs its sujud to Him.

For Muslims wishing to disassociate themselves from the corruptions espoused by their 'spiritual' ayatollahs, mullahs and scholars.
A must read:" onclick=";return false;

So, in 17.1, Muhammad 'journeyed' from the state of disobedience (haram, wrongness) to the state of utter understanding (aqsa).
This is pretty much akin to the Christian notion of being enlightened by the Holy Spirit, as depicted in the opening of Acts (1 & 2);
Allah blessed him with 'hearing and seeing'. Nothing to do with whatsoever location/prostration, except for... leaders in hypocrisy!
:worthy: :worthy: :worthy: :whip: :dev:

Re: The Deception of the Koranic 'proper names'

Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2010 9:08 am
by The Cat
The Quran's Deceptive Proper Names. Part 8: Qibla and Ruku.
Image" onclick=";return false;
Qiblah (Arabic: قبلة‎, also transliterated as Kiblah) is an Arabic word for the direction that should be faced when a Muslim prays during Salah.
Most mosques contain a niche in a wall that indicates the qiblah. The qiblah has importance to more than just the salaat, and plays an
important part in everyday ceremonies. The head of an animal that is slaughtered using Halal methods is aligned with the qiblah.
After death, Muslims are buried with their faces in the direction of the qiblah......
The Koran -seems- to talks about Qibla as a physical place indicating the direction towards Mecca. It is mainly referred to in sura
2.142 & 144 & 145 and its then related to the Al-Masjid al-Haram (usually translated: the Inviolable Place of Worship). At first it
may seems to indicate a physical place, but so-called references to Mecca in the Koran MUST be hold suspicious and questioned.

2.142: The foolish of the people will say: What hath turned them from the qiblah which they formerly observed ? Say: Unto Allah
belong the East and the West.
He guideth whom He will unto a straight path.

2.144: We have seen the turning of thy face to heaven (for guidance, O Muhammad). And now verily We shall make thee turn (in prayer)
toward a qiblah which is dear to thee. So turn thy face toward the Inviolable Place of Worship,
and ye (O Muslims), wheresoever ye may
be, turn your faces (when ye pray) toward it. Lo! Those who have received the Scripture know that (this revelation) is the Truth from
their Lord. And Allah is not unaware of what they do.

2.145: And even if thou broughtest unto those who have received the Scripture all kinds of portents, they would not follow thy qiblah,
nor canst thou be a follower of their qiblah; nor are some of them followers of the qiblah of others.
And if thou shouldst follow their
desires after the knowledge which hath come unto thee, then surely wert thou of the evil-doers.

I found out that not only traditionalists but also the Koran-only Muslims got it all wrong, the later translating al-Masjid al-Haram by
'Restricted Temple' instead of 'Inviolable Place of Worship' and understanding 'Qiblah' as 'towards'. Well its close but no cigars yet...

To get the Koranic meaning of this al-Masjid al-Haram, and of the Qiblah referring to it, we have to search the surrounding ayats.
On this 2.145 is particularly revealing: its obviously referring to the 'Scripture' all over and -solely- to them as different guidings...
The verses right before admonishes Jews and Christians (2.135-141) for departing from the ways of Abraham and of his progeny.
So 2.120: And the Jews will not be pleased with thee, nor will the Christians, till thou follow their creed. Say: Lo! the guidance
of Allah is Guidance. And if thou shouldst follow their desires after the knowledge which hath come unto thee, then wouldst thou
have from Allah no protecting guardian nor helper.

2.143: Thus We have appointed you a middle nation, that ye may be witnesses against mankind, and that the messenger may be
a witness against you. And We appointed the qiblah which ye formerly observed only that We might know him who followeth the
from him who turneth on his heels.

The Inviolable Place of Worship is either the Koran itself, better still the Furkan/Messaniy
It became clear to me thus that the words 'Qiblah' and 'al-Masjid al-Haram do NOT talk about a physical place nor to physical direction.
The Qiblah of the Jews and Christians refers to the directives they are following from their scriptures! And the Al-Masjid al-Haram is
here meaning the Koran itself as the rightful, definitive Qiblah, the 'place' focusing right from wrong, defining what's to be forbidden.

In short, the Inviolable Place of Worship is the Koran itself, the Koran as the Institution of Right and Wrong! Praying while facing the
East (i.e. the Christians), West, or towards Mecca is of no particular importance to Allah who covers ALL directions at once (2.142).

The only other strong possibility is that the expression refers to the Furkan and Messaniy, which are the seven Noachide laws. Those
''seven often repeated verses'' are found in 77.22-36; 2.83-84; 6.150-152. They are the criterion of right and wrong as per the Koran.
As a matter of fact, they do are WILLED by Allah (42.13) as -the sole Sharia- Muhammad was commanded to follow without altering.
But it's exactly what the Islamic clergy has done: brushing those unalterable laws aside... in order to instill their man-made Sharia...

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=5519" onclick=";return false;
viewtopic.php?p=100835#p100835" onclick=";return false;" onclick=";return false;

It gets easy then to grasp Allah's message (2.148-150): ''And each one hath a goal toward which he turneth; so vie with one another in
good works. Wheresoever ye may be, Allah will bring you all together. Lo! Allah is Able to do all things. And whencesoever thou comest
forth (for prayer, O Muhammad) turn thy face toward the Inviolable Place of Worship. Lo! it is the Truth from thy Lord. Allah is not
unaware of what ye do. Whencesoever thou comest forth turn thy face toward the Inviolable Place of Worship; and wheresoever ye may
be (Muslims) turn your faces toward it (when ye pray) so that men may have no argument against you, save such of them as do injustice
- Fear them not, but fear Me! - and so that I may complete My grace upon you, and that ye may be guided.

Turn your face toward the Inviolable Place of Worship = get to read the Koran for directives (Qibla) of wrongness.
East or West, Mecca or Jerusalem, do not matter. They do not indicate what's right from wrong... the Koran does.

Ruku." onclick=";return false;" onclick=";return false;
Rukūʿ (Arabic: رُكوع‎) refers to the bowing down following the recitation of the Quran in the standing position while praying according to Islamic ritual (salat). There is a consensus on the obligatory nature of the ruku. The position of ruku is established by bending over, putting one's hands on one's knees, and remaining in that position until the individual attains "calmness".
Ruku is often associated with 'sujud', which we've seen above, and described in 38.24: (David) said: He hath wronged thee in demanding
thine ewe in addition to his ewes, and lo! many partners oppress one another, save such as believe and do good works, and they are few. And
David guessed that We had tried him, and he sought forgiveness of his Lord, and he bowed himself and fell down prostrate and repented.

We've seen that 'to fall sujudan' wasn't meaning the act of prostration but to become suddenly aware, enlightened. So 'Ruku' should be akin
to that, in opposition to the usually translated act of bowing, as understood in the ritualistic Islam. But the true meaning of 'Ruku' is best
underlined in 77.46-48: ''Eat and take your ease (on earth) a little. Lo! ye are guilty. Woe unto the repudiators on that day! When it is said
unto them: Bow down (irka'u), they bow not down (la yarka'un)!

Ruku is here in opposition to arrogance towards Allah. It means humbleness, to humble oneself in presence of the Lord.
So, in 38.24, David got humbled from sudden understanding and repented, while 77.48 says they kept their arrogance.

Re: The Deception of the Koranic 'proper names'

Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 5:15 pm
by The Cat
The Quran's Deceptive Proper Names. Part 9: Salat and Zakat.

What we are finding out is that there's no religious 'sacraments' in Islam as the rituals instilled by the Islamic clergy. What we've just seen
above about words like Islam, Muslim, Sharia, al-Masjid al-Haram (& al-Aqsa), qibla and ruku are clearly indicating that the former intent
of the words, as found in the Koranic context, have been wrongly transliterated to include religious duties that aren't mentioned -at all- in
the Arabic holy lecture. The former DIN of Abraham, the Sharia sent to Noah have all been twisted for Muslims to become Muhammadans.

We will now explore how the Koranic 'Salat' (Sol-laa) and Zakat were so corrupted.....

The real meaning of the Koranic 'Salat' and Zakat has been well covered in this link, especially its part 4, from which I'll give excerpts." onclick=";return false;
The word Sol-laa or any of the derivatives from the same root word is never used in the Reading to refer to the act of worship or the performance of a set of body movements. Its use always refers to the act of honouring, upholding, dedicating or observing of commitments, obligations, accountabilities, responsibilities etc. by consenting person or persons when the phrase ‘aqi-mu‘ is used. Literally the word Sol-laa means to ‘commit’. This root word (like all roots in Arabic) forms its various functions by use of vowels, prefixes and suffixes. The short vowels “i” or “u” (9:103, 108:2 and 33:56) can be added resulting in ‘Sol-lee’ or ‘Sol-luu’ without changing the underlying, fundamental meaning of the word. The word pronounced with a short vowel ‘a’ appears in the Reading twice, in 75:31 and 96:10 respectively.

In 96:10 it appears as “ ‘Abdan Ezaa Sol-laa” which means “A servant who is committed”. The context of this verse begins from 96:8-12 with the message “Indeed to your Lord is the final return. What do you think of those who prevent a servant who commits? What if he is actually on the right path, advocating people to be observant?” The message is clear. But translators give different meanings to this word for reasons only known to them. In 75:31 it is written as Falla-sod-daqor-wa-Sol-laa and translators insist the word Sol-laa in both verses refers to ritual prayers. Obviously when we read the context, they do not make any sense at all. (...) The subsequent twisting of the meanings of the original Arabic in the Quran by those who would force it into a pre-prescribed shape has marred many people’s reading of the book. For instance, we read in 75:31: falaa soddaqor walaa Sol-laa. The patrons of the Arab religion say it means ‘He was not truthful and not praying’. The true meaning is ‘He was not truthful and not committed’. (...)

The prophet Shuaib (11.85-87) provides another example of Sol-laa clearly signifying commitments. He committed himself to reform his people. Those who rejected his commitments challenged him. Sol-laa here clearly refers to committing to good deeds and upholding a good moral order. The commitment called for his people not to cheat, not to corrupt the earth, and to be fair. There is no other reading without abusing the sense in the text beyond belief. What we can better understand, however, is why the Arab priests themselves emphatically declare that the Reading has no information at all about the five daily prayers (thus contradicting themselves on what they proclaim to be the first absolute pillar of the religion of Islam) – because they are right! Their own lips condemn them. There is no such thing as the five daily prayers.
2.276-278: ''God diminishes profiteering (riba) but encourages charity and God dislikes the disbelievers who are guilty. Surely, those who practice righteousness and uphold their commitments (Sol-laa-ta) and keep them pure (wa-a-tuz-zakaa), for them are rewards from their Lord. And there will be no fear upon them nor will they grieve. O you who believe, beware of God, refrain from taking what remains from profiteering if you truly believe in God.''

So, in the process, we also have find out that the word 'Zakat' never meant a specific tax but spiritual purification, to sacrifice one ego.
The Sol-laa-ta mentioned at 2:277 is our commitment to stop earning income from profiteering (riba) and to maintain our commitments by abstaining from such practices. We do not perform ritual prayer to abstain from profiteering; instead we commit ourselves (Sol-laa-ta) by sacrificing our greed by doing the practical, good deeds prescribed by God and fulfil our commitment to ourselves. The phrase ‘Wa-Aqimus-Sol-laa-tawaa-Atuz-Zakaata’ or observe your commitments and keep it pure appears in the middle of the subject of profiteering. (...)

5.12: God has taken a covenant from the Children of Israel and We appointed for them twelve disciples; and declared, “I will be with you for as long as you ‘observe your commitments and keep them pure’ (aqom-tumuz-Sol-laa-ta-wa-atai-tumuz-Zakaa) and believe My messengers and support them. And lend God a righteous loan of righteousness......

19.31: Waja’al-lani mubarokah ainama kontu wa-ausorni bis-Sol-laa-ti wa-zakaa-ti ma-dumtu hiya:
And He makes me blessed wherever I go and He enjoined the commitments and purity upon me for as long as I live.

The following statement was made while he was in the cradle. When Jesus, son of Mary said wa-ausomi bis-Sol-laa-ti he did not mean I was enjoined with the ritual prayer but I was enjoined with the commitments to reform the Children of Israel, calling them to return to the original law given to Moses. He asked them to abolish the Jewish religion. That was his commitments. From the day he was born God gave him the knowledge of the scripture and the wisdom.
Indeed, in the craddle Jesus didn't performed ritual prayers as the traditionalists would like us to believe, likely bowing to their fallacies!

In the link quoted above, the author ends up (Part V) asking the Islamic clergy some pertinent questions:
How did the Prophet lead the ritual prayers for the non-believers according to (your reading of) 4:101-102?

Likewise, how does the word yuSollee in 3:39 turn into ritual prayer while in 33:43 it is said to mean honour?

How do the birds in the sky and everything between the heavens and the earth (including frogs, termites and trees, for example) perform their ritual prayer? (24:41)

How could the ritual prayer (Sol-laa-tuka) of Shuaib in 11:87 have changed the economic system of the people?

It is inappropriate for the word Sol-laa or any of the derivatives (generated from the same root word) to be rendered as a ritual act by people toward God. Its meanings relate to the commitments which link a human being to God through their deliberate deeds. Sol-laa is the commitment to observe the prescribed covenants. This encompasses the whole of God’s commandments in the Reading to people. It covers obligations, relationships, agreements between people, a person’s obligations to own self, and matters of cleanliness and diet. It extends to promises, dealings, relationships, families, and parenting. There is nothing ‘religious’ about it.
I dissent from his last sentence: to be religious (faith, as shown in the Koran) has nothing to do with practicing rituals or religion as beliefs.
Words like religion (Din, now Shiya'an/sects) and 'establish worship' (ABD, to serve) were -systematically deprived of their basic meanings-!

Re: The Deception of the Koranic 'proper names'

Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 5:51 pm
by yeezevee
Robot says
The word Allah is a unique name..
The Cat puts out the picture of The Cyrus Cylinder in the British Museum

Ha! that looks perfect image for that robot's Allah..

Re: The Deception of the Koranic 'proper names'

Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2010 10:43 pm
by Ibn Rushd
Fantastic. I think this is rather more on your previous thread about Muhammad vs Myth. Your point about Masjid Haram as a position and state of mind that you put your mind in reflects some sentences in Deuteronomy concerning discernment. It also has to do with "truth stands clear from error" thus the "no compulsion" verse is not based on some flawed argument concerning forced conversions, but rather on man being able to discern the truth and steer clear from error.

Re: The Deception of the Koranic 'proper names'

Posted: Thu Apr 22, 2010 9:27 am
by The Cat
Indeed Ibn Rushd, what is clear from the Koran is that Muhammad was never enjoined to start a new religion, like the one invented by
the hadiths which I call 'The Religion of Bukhari'. This was completed with the twisting of many names like those mentioned previously.
The Koran gives a name for this sectarian exercise: shiya'an and condemns them all without whatsoever equivocal. So what the Koran
condemned about the ritualistic Judaism and Christianity has become the trademark of nowadays Islam too: A pharisaical compound...

The very name of the Islamic prophet is only written five times, all of them in later Medina chapters, while the names of Moses, Noah,
Abraham are found hundreds of times. Muhammad was ordered to follow the Sharia or Din revealed to them... yet at times abrogated
by Jesus and the Koran itself, which is merely an Arabic remembrance of the former revelations: Torah, Zabur, Furkan, Gospel, etc.

Nowadays Islam have been corrupted much like the situation that Muhammad found in Medina, after his sojourn in Tabouk; a situation
fully described in surah 9 rightly titled 'Repentance', describing how the Arabs were already in the process of adulterating Allah's Sharia.
The Islamic clergy made sure to redirect this internal jihad, first aiming at them, into a supremacist tone upholding their worldly shirk.

In this ritualistic hypocrisy, the Koranic Muslims became Muhammadans: Shaytan's toys... Stagnation in hatred as -deserved- rewards.

Islam has sold its soul like bowing to arrogance and face Allah's utter justice.

Re: The Deception of the Koranic 'proper names'

Posted: Thu Apr 22, 2010 2:52 pm
by Muhammad bin Lyin
The Cat wrote: .

Islam has sold its soul like bowing to arrogance and face Allah's utter justice.
This assumes there ever WAS any soul to Islam. What is soulful about the Quran? What is soulful about a collection of rules, threats and promises?

Re: The Deception of the Koranic 'proper names'

Posted: Sat Apr 24, 2010 3:24 am
by The Cat
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:This assumes there ever WAS any soul to Islam.

Read the Medina Charter or the Najran Treaty, or the Covenant of Umar." onclick=";return false;
What is soulful about the Quran?

2.177: It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces to the East and the West; but righteous is he who believeth in Allah and the Last Day and the angels and the Scripture and the prophets; and giveth wealth, for love of Him, to kinsfolk and to orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and to those who ask, and to set slaves free; and observeth proper worship and payeth the poor-due. And those who keep their treaty when they make one, and the patient in tribulation and adversity and time of stress. Such are they who are sincere. Such are the God-fearing.
What is soulful about a collection of rules, threats and promises?
''As the Arabs say, the nature of rain is the same, but it makes thorns grow in the marshes and flowers in the gardens.'' -Anthony de Mello.

Re: The Deception of the Koranic 'proper names'

Posted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 3:51 pm
by Muhammad bin Lyin
The Cat wrote:
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:This assumes there ever WAS any soul to Islam.

Read the Medina Charter or the Najran Treaty, or the Covenant of Umar." onclick=";return false;
This says Islam has a soul?? There's nothing "soulful" in Islam and this article only says that they let people remain Christians and Jews. Why does that strike you as "soulful"?
The Cat wrote:
What is soulful about the Quran?

2.177: It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces to the East and the West; but righteous is he who believeth in Allah and the Last Day and the angels and the Scripture and the prophets; and giveth wealth, for love of Him, to kinsfolk and to orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and to those who ask, and to set slaves free; and observeth proper worship and payeth the poor-due. And those who keep their treaty when they make one, and the patient in tribulation and adversity and time of stress. Such are they who are sincere. Such are the God-fearing.
You consider that to be soulful?? My my, how deep. How profound. :lol:
The Cat wrote:
What is soulful about a collection of rules, threats and promises?
''As the Arabs say, the nature of rain is the same, but it makes thorns grow in the marshes and flowers in the gardens.'' -Anthony de Mello.
That's right, you can't quote from the Quran if you want to say something "soulful" or deep like that wonderful saying. That's why the Sufis had to borrow all of their mystic concepts from Eastern thought because deep, profound, mystical concepts simply cannot be found in the Quran anywhere. There is nothing but simple common sense that any 5th grader could think of.

Re: The Deception of the Koranic 'proper names'

Posted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 4:06 pm
by Muhammad bin Lyin
The Cat wrote:Indeed Ibn Rushd, what is clear from the Koran is that Muhammad was never enjoined to start a new religion,
Nullifying Judaism and Christianity as corruptions is not trying to start a new religion??

8:39 (Y. Ali) And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do.

4:171 Say not "trinity" : desist: it will be better for you:

5:73 (Y. Ali) They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a trinity:

4:159 (Y. Ali) And there is none of the People of the Book but must believe in him before his death; and on the Day of Judgment he will be a witness against them;-

5:116 (Y. Ali) And behold! Allah will say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah.?" He will say: "Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say).

Which book are you talking about, the Quran or something else?

Re: The Deception of the Koranic 'proper names'

Posted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 6:00 pm
by The Cat
The Quran's Deceptive Proper Names. Part 10: Mushrikun

Mushrikun (idolators, polytheists).
42.13: He hath ordained for you that righteousness (NOT religion) which He commended unto Noah, and that which We inspire in thee,
and that which We commended unto Abraham and Moses and Jesus, saying: Establish righteousness
(fortitude), and be not divided therein.
Dreadful for the idolaters
(mushrikun) is that unto which thou callest them. (DIN isn't muzdhab -religion- or shiya'an -sect).

What the Islamic clergy has done is to transform the Law commended unto Noah and revealed to Muhammad into a religion.
The very fact that Din has been falsely translated by 'religion' indicates the whole ritualistic corruption that were to prevail.

http://mentalbondageinthenameofgod.word ... ent-kaaba/" onclick=";return false;
According to the Reading, Muhammad condemned all forms of idolatry. Therefore, performing rituals around a temple or devoting oneself to any form of rocks or stone was never part of the peacefulness propagated by him. The religionists mischievously portrayed the Last Prophet kissing the black stone. The religionists believe that people are able to communicate with the black stone. They say Caliph Omar whispered to the black stone, “I know you are nothing but a stone that neither can harm nor help.….. If I have not seen the Messenger of Allah kiss you, I would never kiss you myself.” This is meant to imply that the Last Prophet also kissed the black stone. By this and many other methods, the religionists attributed stupidity and idolatry to the Last Prophet.

The way of life promoted by Abraham as preached by the Last Prophet was to call the people to believe in One God, the Hereafter, and to work righteousness. This is the sine qua non of the prescribed way of life. Muhammad came to change the time-honoured elements of native paganism: stone worship and idolatry. He undermined the foundations of the original Arabic paganism and did not make any concession or compromise. (...) The Reading anticipates this state of affairs: These are God’s revelation that we recite to you with the truth; which other stories (Hadis-thseen) besides God and His revelations do they believe? Woe to every inventor, the guilty. He hears God’s revelation recited to him, and then insists on his own way arrogantly, as if he never heard them. Promise him a painful retribution (45.6-8).
Adulteration has the same etymology as adultery: selfish breaking of a covenant. Spoiling a rightful alliance, divorcing from the truth.
On this ground, the Islamic clergy became like fornicators adulterating Allah's will for greedy desires, like adulterers of His Covenant.

6.112: We have appointed for every prophet enemies from among the human devils and jinn devils who will invent and inspire each other
fancy words in order to deceive the people. Had your Lord willed, they would not have done it. You shall disregard them and their invention.

http://mentalbondageinthenameofgod.word ... -from-god/" onclick=";return false;
Obviously, Muhammad did not know anything about Sunnism, Shia, Ahmadiah or Wahabism the religious sects that follow anything and everything under the sun except the Reading. Instead of following the Reading alone, those who claim to be following Muhammad have – like the Jews – written volumes of books and laden themselves down with them. It would seem that the only lesson people learn from history is that people never learn from history. Today, billions of people are devoting themselves to religions. All religions share common features. Whatever the details, the most important commandments are:

1. Thou shalt worship (according to our definitions, creed)
2. Thou shalt ritually pray according to thy priest’s teachings.
3. Thou shalt pay the caretakers of thy religion.
4. Thou shalt believe that we alone have the Truth.

There will be a mass of further detail, but this takes care of the general landscape. The Lord of the Universe in His wisdom has warned us about religion and its caretakers. The objective of religion is to cheat people and to divert the innocent from the path of God. All religious teachers share one common aspiration: they espouse a false system and then collect financial tribute from their followers: ''O you who believe, the priests and the religious scholars cheat the people out of their money, and they divert everybody from the path of God''. (9:34)
As Erich Fromm pointed out idolatry is far reaching and includes any obsessive dependence leading us to be the puppets of so desires.
Thoghut means idols, are they humans (7.194), prophets and messengers (3.79-80), religious leaders (9.31), imam or mullahs (39.3),
the dead (16.20-21), statues (2.93), personal property (18.42), ego (25.43), jinns (6.100) and also by following a religion (30.31-32).
So Mushrikun are all kinds of people worshiping idols (thoghut), like those worshiping a stone, black or else... in Mecca or elsewhere.

Idolatry is like being possessed, bowing to arrogant beliefs, instead of being vivified by faith through humility. It's an on-going curse.

Re: The Deception of the Koranic 'proper names'

Posted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 7:53 pm
by Muhammad bin Lyin
The Cat wrote: What the Islamic clergy has done is to transform the Law commended unto Noah and revealed to Muhammad into a religion.
God revealed the Law to Muhammad??

Re: The Deception of the Koranic 'proper names'

Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 2:29 am
by The Cat
The Quran's Deceptive Proper Names. Part 11: Kafir" onclick=";return false;
Kafir (Arabic: كافر kāfir; plural كفّار kuffār) is an Arabic word meaning "rejecter" or "ingrate"; also the term "Kuffar" (singular "Kafir") is used to refer to peasants (أَعْجَبَ الْكُفَّارَ نَبَاتُهُ) (Surah 57 Al-Hadid (Iron) Ayah 20;[1]) as they till earth and "cover up" seeds; the term "Kufr" means "to cover up" – this is why earth tillers are referred to as "Kuffar." In the Islamic doctrinal sense, the term refers to a person who rejects God (Allah) or who hides, denies, or covers the "truth". The Quran also uses the word for Muslims; in Sura 2 Verse 256, it asks them to take upon themselves the action of "Kofr" of all unjust idols, persons or powers. It is usually translated into English as "unbeliever", "ungrateful" or "obliterator." In recent times, the term is seen as derogatory, which is why some Muslim scholars discourage its use and suggest the term "non-Muslim" instead.

The word kāfir is the active participle of the root K-F-R "to cover". As a pre-Islamic term it described farmers burying seeds in the ground, covering them with soil while planting. Thus, the word kāfir implies the meaning "a person who hides or covers". In Islamic parlance, a kāfir is a word used to describe a person who rejects Islamic faith, i.e. "hides or covers [viz., the truth]".

"kafara" ~ the root verb ~ means "he hid (something)" and "he covered (something)" or "He hid (something) by covering it up." Both "hiding" and "covering up" are indelible significations of all of the words arising on the verbal root. The Hebrew cognate word kofer also means "apostate"...... In South Africa, the word kaffir eventually became a racial slur, applied pejoratively or offensively by some whites to African blacks or to dark-skinned persons in general.
The Hebrew word 'kofer' has at least three meanings: A ransom (for life), a poll tax, or an heresiarch. The root KFR is found in Gen.32.21;
Ex.21.30 and 30.12; Eze. 43.19 (as a sin offering). It is often related to a propitiation, a sacrifice. As such, Jesus giving his life for the
ransom of mankind is the ultimate act of propitiation. But KFR carries subsequently the idea of humbleness. How come then that for all
Muhammadans it became synonymous with perfidy? Such a discrepancy must be dig out, uncovered...

First, the Koranic understanding of Kafir is related with sedentary agriculture: those farmers covering seeds with soil when planting.
It then carries the same origins as 'pagan', from the latin 'paganus' (peasant), this could be why it became associated with 'infidel'.

But when we explore the verses where the root KFR is found, we discover that the true meaning is quite different. Let's see some:

40.35:Those who wrangle concerning the revelations of Allah without any warrant that hath come unto them, it is greatly hateful in the
sight of Allah and in the sight of those who believe. Thus doth Allah print on every arrogant, disdainful heart.

83.34-36: This day it is those who believe who have the laugh of disbelievers,
On high couches, gazing. Are not the disbelievers paid for what they used to do?

25.77: Say (O Muhammad, unto the disbelievers): My Lord would not concern Himself with you but for your prayer.
But now ye have denied (the Truth), therefore there will be judgment.

47.3: That is because those who disbelieve follow falsehood and because those who believe follow the truth from their Lord.
Thus Allah coineth their similitudes for mankind.

86.11-17: By the heaven which giveth the returning rain, And the earth which splitteth (with the growth of trees and plants).
Lo! this is a conclusive word, It is no pleasantry. Lo! they plot a plot And I plot a plot. So give a respite to the disbelievers.
Deal thou gently with them for a while.

In 2.256 kofr is concerning Muslims too: There's no compulsion in righteousness. The right direction is henceforth distinct from
error (kofr). And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break.....

What we often fail to understand about the Koran is that not only everyone but everything (sura 55) is a Muslim professing Islam!
To be a kafir is thus rejecting the Cosmic Order instilled by Allah, His Natural Laws as a sum. Such is a disbeliever, concealing the
truth. Under this light, it properly refers to non-Muslims, whom can be according to the Koran of any religious persuasion, and yes
Muhammadans. A kafir would be like a peasant planting seeds in the desert: a complete fool, unaware of the Natural Laws.

So, in sura al-Kafiroon (109) it is stated (-Note: the root ABD means to serve and NOT to worship, another ritual perversion-):
Say: O disbelievers (al-kafiroona)! I serve not that which ye serve; Nor serve ye that which I obey to. And I shall
not obey that which ye serve. Nor will ye oblige to that which I serve. Unto you your way and unto me my belonging.

That's all there is to the kafirs: they are to be dismissed as fools, yet without arrogance. Because to be vengeful or feeling contempt upon
a perceived mental illness is verily to make a fool of yourself, thus acting like a kafir! Pointless, would thus be a most correct synonymous.

Of course this benign meaning didn't make it with the sectarian Muhammadans
whom rather insisted on the much harsher interpretation of perfidious infidels.

From its Aramaic root, KFR means ransom (to God), sacrifice (oneself) for propitiation. Kafirs are thus those unwilling to sacrifice their
ego in order to humbly join those who 'make sense' by giving up greeds, lust, power and selfishness. They refuse to propitiate, to humble
themselves. In short, kafirs personify all kind of arrogances. It never meant 'infidel' in the sense of not following some creed or ritual...

Re: The Deception of the Koranic 'proper names'

Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 3:35 pm
by Muhammad bin Lyin
The Cat wrote: What the Islamic clergy has done is to transform the Law commended unto Noah and revealed to Muhammad into a religion.
God revealed the Law to Muhammad??

Re: The Deception of the Koranic 'proper names'

Posted: Sat May 15, 2010 6:31 pm
by The Cat
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:
The Cat wrote:Read the Medina Charter or the Najran Treaty, or the Covenant of Umar." onclick=";return false;
This says Islam has a soul?? There's nothing "soulful" in Islam and this article only says that they let people remain Christians and Jews. Why does that strike you as "soulful"?
Yep, right from the Medina Constitution and the Najran treaty, instituting religious tolerance. Jews were then
allowed to go back into Jerusalem and worship, what the Romans & Christians bared them to do for centuries." onclick=";return false;

I guess this would be much more 'soulful' to you: ... _Jerusalem" onclick=";return false;
''The Jews and Muslims fought together to defend Jerusalem against the invading Franks. They were unsuccessful
though and on 15 July 1099 the crusaders entered the city. They proceeded to massacre the remaining Jewish and
Muslim civilians and pillaged or destroyed mosques and the city itself.''
Then read about Saladin's chivalry..." onclick=";return false; ... st_Crusade" onclick=";return false;
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:
The Cat wrote:2.177: giveth wealth, for love of Him, to kinsfolk and to orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and to those who ask, and to set slaves free; and observeth proper worship and payeth the poor-due. And those who keep their treaty when they make one, and the patient in tribulation and adversity and time of stress. Such are they who are sincere. Such are the God-fearing.
You consider that to be soulful?? My my, how deep. How profound. :lol:
I've underlined it so to be more apparent -even- to you. Yet you'll think that this is much more 'soulful': 2Kg.2.23-24: ''And he (Elisha)
went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him,
and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. ---And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the
name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.''

Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:
The Cat wrote:''As the Arabs say, the nature of rain is the same, but it makes thorns grow in the marshes and flowers in the gardens.'' -Anthony de Mello.
That's right, you can't quote from the Quran if you want to say something "soulful" or deep like that wonderful saying.
That wonderful saying is a Muslim one, simply reported by de Mello. Which means that the same thing (ex. the Koran) can grow
quite differently depending on the soil or the persons. So, in the same manner, he wrote: ''We see people and things not as they
are, but as we are.'' It was thus pointing at your own hatred which you project into the Koran, seeing it as you are... not as it is.
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:Nullifying Judaism and Christianity as corruptions is not trying to start a new religion?? (...)
Which book are you talking about, the Quran or something else?
The Koran clearly states that it is an Arabic continuation of the former scriptures. It never nullified Judaism or Christianity
(ex. 3.64-69, 9.34), but the ritualistic perversions that tampered them. Thing is though that the same ritualistic corruptions
altered the Koran too, like this thread is showing. They weren't Muhammadans either! That's how perverted Islam became !

How clueless about the Koran you truly are! The word 'religion' (muzdhab) is not even written once therein! Now read 2.135:
''And they say: Be Jews or Christians, then ye will be rightly guided. Say (unto them, O Muhammad): Nay, but (we follow) the
righteousness of Abraham, the upright, and he was not of the idolaters.
'' This root of Muzdhab is found in the Arabic term
'Madhab (Mazdab), or Sunni schools of law, meaning 'Way of Persuasion'. In the Koran such are labeled 'shiya'an' or sect (30.32).

2.136: ''Say (O Muslims): We believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed unto Abraham, and
Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the tribes, and that which Moses and Jesus received, and that which the prophets received
from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and unto Him we have made peace''
(Islam). 2.140: ''Or say ye
that Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the tribes were Jews or Christians?
'' nor were they Muhammadans!
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:
The Cat wrote: What the Islamic clergy has done is to transform the Law commended unto Noah and revealed to Muhammad into a religion.
God revealed the Law to Muhammad??
You keep on being pointless about the Koran:
--What is the Koranic 'Islam'?
--Who are the Koranic Muslims?
--What is the Koranic Shariah?

So, unless you cease to shovel but your own shadows, there's no point in 'arguing' with your bile.
Meanwhile, you turn your back on the most powerful ally against Muhammadans: Allah Himself !

Re: The Deception of the Koranic 'proper names'

Posted: Sat May 15, 2010 7:43 pm
by The Cat
The Quran's Deceptive Proper Names. Part 12: Muhammad
I've already created a thread in the Muhammad main on the shaky historical foundation of the Islamic prophet
and also a double post entitled 'Considerations over MHMD(t): A name or an appellation?' So I won't repeat them.
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=5518" onclick=";return false;
viewtopic.php?p=94060#p94060" onclick=";return false;
viewtopic.php?p=94306#p94306" onclick=";return false;

In three different posts, I shall deal with these topics:
A. Obey Allah and His messenger.
B. Muhammad the Ummi
C. The Seal of Prophet

A. Obey Allah and His Messenger.
I'm hurrying in this topic on Muhammad because an on-going discussion is activated nearby, so I'll provide the exegesis herein.
What I've already published is found in the following posts, so I'll expand from them...
viewtopic.php?p=107358#p107358" onclick=";return false;
viewtopic.php?p=107517#p107517" onclick=";return false;
viewtopic.php?p=107715#p107715" onclick=";return false;

64.12: ''Obey Allah and obey His messenger; but if ye turn away, then the duty of Our messenger is only to convey (the message) plainly.''

Muhammad is solely to be obey in that he is a messenger, i.e. to be reckoned with on par with other messengers in a time when many
doubted his mission, yet no more no less then the others(3.144). He is a plain warner (15.89 innama is negating everything else), bringing
in nothing new (46.9), yet not a warder (39.41, 10.108, 6.107), nor able of intercession (2.48). Muhammad isn't bringing any portent on his
own (88.21-22, 6.109). Thus, stressing that Muhammad should be obey as a messenger means that he should be acknowledged on par with
the other messengers (Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus) in obedience, like people were to obey other messengers just the same.

6.34: ''Messengers indeed have been denied before thee, and they were patient under the denial and the persecution till Our succour reached them. There is none to alter the decisions of Allah. Already there hath reached thee (somewhat) of the tidings of the messengers (We sent before).''" onclick=";return false;
Many people site the Quranic Verses that command us to Obey Allah and Obey the Messenger, and say that Obeying Allah and obeying the Messenger are two different things - Obeying Allah is to obey the Quraan and obeying the Messenger is to obey the books of Hadith. (...) The thing that many proponents of Hadith forget is that Allah does not leave it to speculation as to what the people are to obey. The Ayaat do not end at Obey Allah and obey the Messenger, but they continue to include what the duty of the Messenger is: ''Obey Allah and obey the messenger, and beware! But if ye turn away, then know that the duty of Our messenger is only plain conveyance (of the message)'' -5.92 (then adding up by quoting 29.18; 24.54; 64.12).

This term is Balagha, meaning the reaching, or delivery of the Messenger. The word Messenger is derived from the word Message. A Messenger delivers a Message. To Obey the Messenger would thus mean to obey the message he is delivering. We have seen in the previous chapters that the Messenger is teaching, preaching, explaining and living by the Quran. (...5.67) Here the Balagh is defined as that which is being sent down on the Prophet from Allah <unzila. We have seen in the previous chapters what was being sent down was nothing but the Quraan. However, a sick heart might still insist that there was EXTRA something that was sent down and that EXTRA something is in the Hadith books. (...)

But the argument does not end here. People point out that Obey Allah and Obey the Messenger should mean that obedience to the Messenger is separate from Obedience to Allah. This is absurd, as the Messenger does not have any authority except for the reason that he is SENT by Allah. Had Muhammad not been a Messenger of Allah would people obey him The answer is NO. Thus Obedience to the Prophet is BECAUSE he is the Messenger of Allah. Thus the two are NOT mutually exclusive obedience - one is highly dependent on the other....
continued in:" onclick=";return false;

It is of course in the vested interest of the Islamic clergy to maintain that the hadiths are binding, in order to keep the Muhammadans
under their spell. They'll resort to all kinds of mental gymnastics so that their flocks pay the bill. They will twist the word dua'a to mean
prayer while it rather means 'calling upon' and translating 'establish worship' while the root adab really means to serve, to be serviceable.
This whole thread is showing the ritualistic distortions that pervaded in their biased interpretations (qibla, sujud, Islam, Sharia, etc). ... 32%29.html" onclick=";return false;
We never read anywhere in the Quran words like "Obey God and obey Muhammad" or obey Jesus, or Moses. The words used are always "obey the word messenger". This is to emphasise that it is the "message" of God that is to be obeyed and not the personal words or views of the messenger. As mentioned earlier, the word Messenger is derived from the word Message. If there were no message there would not be a messenger. To Obey the Messenger means to obey the message he delivered...
Thing is though that, in some instance, we do read: 'Obey Allah and obey ME'! And they are referring to... Jesus-Christ!

43.63: When Jesus came with clear proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty), he said: I have come unto you with wisdom, and to make plain some
of that concerning which ye differ.So keep your duty to Allah, and obey me.

3.50: And (I come) confirming that which was before me of the Torah, and to make lawful some of that which was forbidden unto you.
I come unto you with a sign from your Lord, so keep your duty to Allah and obey me.

In his own time and teaching, Muhammad was doubted about being a messenger of God. All those verses stressing that he should be
obeyed (as a messenger, never as a person) are simply carrying the imprimatur of Allah. The Prophet erred and sinned: 33.37; 9.43;
93.7; 42.52. Such a person is no authority by himself, but by the Grace of Allah.

88.21-22: Remind them, for thou art but a remembrancer, Thou art not at all a warder over them. also: 10.108; 39.41; 42.48; 6.107:
We have not set thee as a keeper over them, nor art thou responsible for them. Something the hadiths had to contour any witch way!

In fact, the sole earthly authority apart from Allah in religious matter is not Muhammad at all but Jesus-Christ (and Abraham)! It becomes
clear when we link two verses together (2.30 and 3.59). It then shines brightly when joined with 3.45 and 4.171....

2.30: ''And when thy Lord said unto the angels: Lo! I am about to place a viceroy in the earth....''
3.59: ''Lo! the likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the likeness of Adam. He created him of dust, then He said unto him: Be! and he is.''

3.45: ''(And remember) when the angels said: O Mary! Lo! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a word from him, whose name is the Messiah,
Jesus, son of Mary, illustrious in the world and the Hereafter, and one of those brought near (unto Allah).

Thus the examples set forth by Jesus are binding as per the Koran, He is the sole and ultimate earthly viceroy: the Messiah. No other
prophet were ever adjoined such a title, not Noah, Abraham, Ishmael, Moses... not Muhammad. Therefore, all hadiths adding religious
duty to the one enshrined in the Koran (6.151-152) and all those obeying them are committing shirk. They may be obeying Hanafa, Malik,
Hurairah, Bukhari, Muslim, Dawud, Al-Shafi'i, Ibn Hanbal or whomever but they're not following Allah's Word and Spirit: Jesus-Christ !

On this even Muhammad is commanded not to doubt:
3.60: ''(This is) the truth from thy Lord (O Muhammad), so be not thou of those who waver.'' ... rophet.htm" onclick=";return false;
After his death, the persons of authority charged with the governing of the community were expected to be shown reverence and be obeyed. However, in no way did this obedience allow the addition of new precepts to those of God’s laid out in the Quran. We read in the Quran that everything has been made clear in it, and every detail has been explained and that religion was tantamount to what the Quran propounded.

Had the obedience foreseen in the Quran included the interpolation of new principles making certain things lawful and others unlawful, we would have the following illogical picture: among the edible items is the prohibition of the consumption of pork, blood, the flesh of dead animals and animals slaughtered in the name of any entity other than God. Had obedience to the Prophet also included imposition of new religious principles, items such as mussels, shrimp and the flesh of donkeys would have been banned and carried the same effect as those laid down in the Quran.

Yet, this is exactly what the sectarians argue. Yavuz Sultan Selim, who had taken over the title of ‘caliph,’ might well have added to the list of prohibitions the flesh of chicken, veal and bonito, then what would have happened? This mentality may be carried even further as a person of authority may one day crop up claiming that he is entitled to abrogate certain things laid down in the Quran and to add others instead.
The Arabic Koran positioned Jesus as Allah's warder, not Muhammad... This became unbearable to the Islamic clergy, so the hadiths!

5.111: And when I inspired the disciples, (saying): Believe in Me and in My messenger, they
said: We believe. Bear witness that we have surrendered (unto Thee) "We are Muslims".

10.94: And if thou (Muhammad) art in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto thee, then question those who read
the Scripture (that was) before thee. Verily the Truth from thy Lord hath come unto thee. So be not thou of the waverers.

3.7: He it is Who hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Scripture wherein are clear revelations -they are the substance
of the Book- and others (which are) allegorical. But those in whose hearts is doubt pursue, forsooth, that which is allegorical
seeking (to cause) dissension by seeking to explain it. None knoweth its explanation save Allah....

Do we read: if you're in doubt then consult Hanafi, Bukhari, Shafi'i, Imams or Muhammad's sunna? ---NOT EVER--- Period.
10.42-44: And of them are some who listen unto thee. But canst thou make the deaf to hear even though they apprehend not?
---And of them is he who looketh toward thee. But canst thou guide the blind even though they see not ?
---Lo! Allah wrongeth not mankind in aught; but mankind wrong themselves.

Re: The Deception of the Koranic 'proper names'

Posted: Sat May 15, 2010 9:19 pm
by sum
Hello The Cat

I appreciate all the detail and info that you have presented but I still feel that the matter is far from being black and white. If the Koran means what it says when it says that Muhammad is the perfect example for all mankind to follow for all time we need to know how to emulate his his words and deeds - one form of "obey the messenger". We have the situation where we are informed that the Koran originally had verses regarding stoning but these went missing from the Koran thanks to a goat. Stoning is still a present day Islamic punishment which I claim follows on from Muhammad stoning, presumably from the Koranic verses before they went missing and so muslims follow Muhammad - obey the messenger - to this day.

There is the example from the five pillars regarding praying etc which muslims follow because Muhammad set out the timetable. If the muslims were not to obey the messenger, because the message in the Koran in this instance is inadequate, the muslims would not have this timetable. Is this timetable necessary? It stands to reason that the Koran will not cover every query that muslims will have and so they will have to obey the messenger`s words in these situations. Just conveying the Koranic message is insufficient to meet the needs of the muslims if Islam is supposed to be a complete way of life and how to relate to non-muslims.

It would appear that Allah was ESN - educationally sub-normal - if the Koran was the best message that he could convey. If he thought that it was clear then his IQ is very questionable.