Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Topics - Sama

Pages: [1] 2
1
https://youtu.be/gtKYYgyNONI

Refuting Christians lies.

2
GENERAL TOPICS | BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS / Jesus vs Muhammad
« on: March 14, 2020, 04:53:09 AM »
(By Basheer Onimago )


 1. According to Quran 19:19, been a righteous son doesn’t mean Jesus is sinless , are you not a righteous son? But you do sin.

We Muslim did not call prophet Muhammad the greatest, it is you Christians that call him the greatest through a man called Michael Hart.

Quran did not in any way call Jesus sinless, even the Bible did not call him sinless, according to the book of job 25:4. How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman?

We all know Jesus was born of a woman.

There are many sins committed by Jesus according to the Bible, I can give you at least 10 sins committed by Jesus in the Bible.

If truly Jesus was sinless, why did he said in the book of Matthew 6:12. And forgive (US OUR SINS)as we forgive those who sin against US

2. Who is greater?
Let Quran speak
Holy Quran 3:84
------------------
قُلْ آمَنَّا بِاللَّهِ وَمَا أُنزِلَ عَلَيْنَا وَمَا أُنزِلَ عَلَىٰ إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَإِسْمَاعِيلَ وَإِسْحَاقَ وَيَعْقُوبَ وَالْأَسْبَاطِ وَمَا أُوتِيَ مُوسَىٰ وَعِيسَىٰ وَالنَّبِيُّونَ مِن رَّبِّهِمْ لَا نُفَرِّقُ بَيْنَ أَحَدٍ مِّنْهُمْ وَنَحْنُ لَهُ مُسْلِمُونَ

Say: "We believe in God, and in what has been revealed to us, and in what had been sent down to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and their offspring, and what had been revealed to Moses and to Jesus and to all other prophets by their Lord. We make no distinction between them, and we submit to Him and obey."
Almighty Allah as instructed we Muslims not to make no distinction among the prophets.

But there is a man, a prophet in the Bible called John the Baptist.
1. Did John the Baptist committed any sin according to the Bible?
2. Did John the Baptist perform any miracle?
3. Did John the Baptist have followers?

Matthew 11:11. Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

The question now is according to the Bible and Christians, who is greater between Jesus Christ and John the Baptist?

We all know Jesus was born of woman.
We don’t use
1. Sin
2. Miracles
3. Follower
To determine the greatness.

3. What does normal human being doing that Jesus Christ did not do?

1. Eating- Luke 24:42-43. And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.
43 And he took it, and did eat before them.
2. Sleeping- Mark 4:38. And he was in the hinder part of the ship, asleep on a pillow: and they awake him, and say unto him, Master, carest thou not that we perish?
3. Crying- John 11:35. Jesus wept.
4. Circumcision- Luke 2:21. And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.
5. No one knows everything- Matthew 24:36. But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

REASON FOR YOURSELVES BELOVED CHRISTIANS BRETHREN ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE OF ISAIAH 1:18

4
Why Christian missionaries & dishonest Jews slanders Hajar/Hagar wife of Abraham & mother of Ismail?

Truth about Hajar/hagar the second wife of prophet Abraham and the mother of Prophet Ismail the eldest son of prophet Abraham, from the mouth of Jewish scholar and Jewish Rabbi.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKvLzTPlNMw&feature=youtu.be

5
Question:
In the bible (both OT & NT) Gabriel appeared to prophets but none of them were physically hurt nor scared. So what's the proof that the angel Muhammad saw was real?

Answer:
This question; again; rose from the ignorance. However, since the question rose let me make this clear once and for all.
*did other prophets get hurt during their prophecies/ visions?
>yes they did. Daniel reported this

"My appearance was horribly changed and I retained no strength."( Daniel 10:8)

it's not only prophet Muhammad (sm) but other prophets also faced physical stress during their visions. In the case of our father Abraham (as), he wasn't even able to see anything and felt unconscious,

"And a great, dark dread fell over him."( Genesis 15:12)

now the question rises why Muhammad (sm) was afraid when other biblical characters weren't afraid of seeing angels?

answer is simple, they were too. And the new testaments reports this too

Zechariah in bible:
"And there appeared to him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense. And Zechariah was troubled when he saw him, and fear fell upon him."(Luke 1:11-12)

mother Mary in bible:
Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30 But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God." ( Luke 1:29-30)

and just like them it was Muhammad's (sm) first time.

All these show that what Christians/islamophobis accuse prophet Muhammad (sm) of having is actually because of their lack of knowledge. Prophet Muhammad (sm) indeed was a true prophet from Almighty.


7
Concept of salvation between Islam and Christianity:

This article shall compare the concept of salvation between Islam and Christianity. It shall discuss how Muslims and Christians view salvation and which is the right way to God.

Salvation in Islam is by Both Faith and Works:

In Islam, it is neither work alone nor faith alone get man to Paradise. It’s both actually, Allah says in the Quran:

But as for those who believe and do good works, for them are the Gardens of Retreat – a welcome (in reward) for what they used to do.(Sura 32:19)

See, belief is mentioned before good works, because actually good works alone do nothing if they were without belief, and belief without good works is not a serious belief. So actually good works are an indication of belief and that’s why in Islam we are accounted on our good and bad deeds, where bad deeds negate good deeds and the rank of every man in Paradise is dependent on his score of good and bad deeds, so actually good and bad deeds distinguish between believers in Paradise rather than meaning that man shall enter Paradise because of his deeds:

47. And We shall set up balances of justice on the Day of Resurrection, then none will be dealt with unjustly in anything. And if there be the weight of a mustard seed, We will bring it. And Sufficient are We as Reckoners. (Holy Quran 21:47)

Associate this verse with this hadith:
Jabir reported that the Prophet of Islam said: “No good works of yours can ever secure heaven for you, nor can they save you from hell – not even me, without the grace of God.”

God promised us that if we believed and obeyed Him, we shall go to Paradise:

9. Allah has promised those who believe (in the Oneness of Allah – Islamic Monotheism) and do deeds of righteousness, that for them there is forgiveness and a great reward (i.e. Paradise). (Holy Quran 5:9)

God is All Merciful, that’s why He says in the Quran:

160. Whoever comes [on the Day of Judgement] with a good deed will have ten times the like thereof [to his credit], and whoever comes with an evil deed will not be recompensed except the like thereof; and they will not be wronged. (Holy Quran 6:160)

How Did Islam Deal with Sins?

Now concerning sins, what if a man is a sinner? If he repented, God shall forgive him:

110. And whoever does evil or wrongs himself but afterwards seeks Allah’s Forgiveness, he will find Allah Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. (Holy Quran 4:110)

If the sin was against God,then God will forgive him, if the sin was against someone else as murder or insult for example, God won’t forgive it unless the one whom was sinned against forgives the sinner, otherwise, he shall take from his good deeds, if the sinner has no good deeds, he will receive the sins of the one whom he sinned against.

What if the sinner didn’t repent and doesn’t have good works that outweigh these sins?

116. Verily! Allah forgives not (the sin of) setting up partners in worship with Him, but He forgives whom he pleases sins other than that, and whoever sets up partners in worship with Allah, has indeed strayed far away. (Holy Quran 4:116)

The only sin that shall let someone be eternally in Hell is Shirk which is associating partners with Allah and not believing Islam is the right religion. Other sins are either forgiven by God’s mercy or by going to Hell for some time till they are cleaned from the sins and enter Heaven afterwards.

So if they are Muslims even if they are sinners, they shall enter Paradise, but after being cleansed of their sins in Hell.

Faith is Essential, Deeds Distinguish Between People

So simply salvation in Islam is first through faith, so that actually all Muslims shall go to Paradise, based on their deeds, they shall distinguish, some will be in the higher ranks of Heaven, some will be in lower ranks, some shall go to Hell first till he is cleansed out of his sins, then he shall go to Paradise. Deeds doesn’t mean that man can fulfill God’s blessings by his good deeds, but they are a sign of loyalty to God as long as they are associated with real faith, so that he gains God’s mercy that shall let him go to Paradise. But good deeds without faith shall not be accepted by God:

97. Whoever does righteousness, whether male or female, while he is a believer – We will surely cause him to live a good life, and We will surely give them their reward [in the Hereafter] according to the best of what they used to do. (Holy Quran 16:97)

“Verily, Allah accepts only from the pious” (Holy Quran 5:27)

Salvation in Christianity:

When I ask Christians, what is the need that God becomes a man and dies for our sins? The answer I always receive is: because God is just, He made an atonement for people to repent in the OT so forgiving people’s sins without an atonement is against His justice.

God Needs To Die For our Sins Because He is Just?

God has the right to forgive those who sinned against Him as I have the right forgive anyone who insulted me, that has nothing with me being just or not, but actually people consider this as something good I do, so it has nothing to do with God’s justice, but it actually poses a couple of questions.

What About Atonement in the The Old Testament?

Christians cite this point of Jesus’ death with the atonement in the OT. According to Christian belief, who put the rule that there must be an atonement for blood so that the sins are forgiven? who put this rule? Isn’t He God? So how can this be a sacrifice? What Jesus did is not a sacrifice, but he just gave a solution to the problem God in Christianity caused? He is the one who put the rule and it was found to be impractical, he did what he did to solve the problem. So either God didn’t know the consequences of this rule, so he made a problem and solved it, which is against God’s omniscience as God knows the consequences of everything, or that he actually knew and did what he did to make a show that he loves you.

The second thing, what I know is that people are accounted for their intention, if you do something and this deed gives consequences other than who you intended it to be, then you are actually accounted for your intention not for the consequences, for example if I robbed a guy walking in the street and gave what I stole as a gift to a friend of mine, then I discovered that the guy I robbed actually stole this stuff from my friend, am I a thief or a noble guy who wanted to help my friend? For sure a thief, as my intention was just to rob a guy and I didn’t know the other part of the story. That’s exactly what the death of Jesus was about, it wasn’t intended by the Jews to make a sacrifice or atonement so that Jesus takes away their sins, they were just looking to him as someone who shall destroy their leadership and positions and they wanted to get rid of him. So the whole action cannot be accounted as an atonement, but as a murder crime, and this has nothing with what Jesus himself intended, because he is not the one who implemented the action, otherwise he would have killed himself..

https://www.facebook.com/SeekingJesusFindingAllah/photos/a.379840139435960/658205301599441/

9
By ‘Ali Muhammad As-Sallabee

As soon as the Muslims, under the leadership of the Prophet, achieved a sense of stability in Al-Madeenah, they had to prepare for a long and hard struggle against both the Quraish and other enemies. The leaders of the Quraish were not satisfied with persecuting Muslims within Makkah; they also didn’t want Muslims to establish a presence and to become strong outside of Makkah. Quraish’ s leaders feared that if Islam spread throughout Arabia, it would mean an end to their rule in Makkah, an end to the tribal system of law that dominated Arabia, an end to their religion and to the customs of their forefathers. In short, they knew that, if Islam gained a strong foothold in Al-Madeenah, somewhere down the road Muslims would set their sights on Makkah.

We have hitherto discussed the many attempts the Quraish made to prevent the Prophet from even reaching Al-Madeenah, and as soon as he arrived there, they made it amply clear that they were as much the enemies of those who harboured the Prophet – the native inhabitants of Al-Madeenah – as they were enemies of the Prophet himself.

One incident that clearly establishes their attitude towards Al- Madeenah’ s inhabitants involves Sa’d ibn Mu’aadh one of the leaders of the Ansaar. Prior to the advent of Islam, Sa’d ibn Mu’aadh was a friend of Ummayyah ibn Khalaf, one of Makkah’s chieftains. Whenever Ummayyah visited Al- Madeenah, he stayed there as a guest of Sa’d and vice-versa. Their cordial friendship continued until the early days of Islam. For when the Messenger of Allah arrived in Al-Madeenah, Sa’d set out towards Makkah, with the intention to perform ‘Umrah (the lesser pilgrimage); once he arrived there, he stayed in the house of Umayyah ibn Khalaf. Sa’d & said to Umayyah, “See if you can find a time when (the Masjid) is empty, so that I might perhaps make Tawaf around the House (i.e., the Ka’bah).” Umayyah took him out during the middle of the day, and they were met on the way by Abu Jahl, who said, “O Abu Safwaan (i.e., Umayyah), who is this with you?” He said, “This is Sa’d" Abu Jahl said to Sa’d

“How is it that I see you walking around Makkah in safety, when you have granted refuge to those that have changed their religion! You claim that you will support and help them. Lo! By Allah, had it not been for the fact that you are with Abu Safwaan, you would not have safely returned to your family.”

Raising his voice, Sa’d responded, “By Allah, if you prevent me from this (from performing pilgrimage here in Makkah), I will prevent you from that which you will find even more severe upon you than that: Your road through Al-Madeenah (i.e., I will prevent you from passing through Al-Madeenah on your way to doing business in Ash-Sham)” According to the narration of Al-Baihaqee, Sa’d responded to Abu Jahl’s threat with the following words: “By Allah, if you prevent me from performing circuits around the Ka’bah, I will cut off your trade (routes) to Ash-Sham (Syria and surrounding regions).” This narration proves that Abu Jahl considered Sa’d ibn Mu’aadh to be an enemy of the Quraish, for he made it amply clear that had he not arrived in Makkah under the protection of a Makkan chieftain, he would have been killed. Abu Jahl was announcing a policy shift regarding how Makkah’s chieftains treated the people of Al-Madeenah; for prior to the establishment of a Muslim country in Al-Madeenah, no native of Al-Madeenah needed a guarantee of protection in order to enter Makkah. Quite the opposite, the leaders of the Quraish loathed even the idea of there being any hostility between them and the people of Al-Madeenah, since they depended on cordial relations with them in order to safely traverse their lands on their way to doing business in Ash-Sham, which they relied on for their livelihood. In fact, the leaders of the Quraish were known to have said, “By Allah, we do not detest fighting any Arab people as much as we detest (the idea of) fighting you (i.e., the people of Al-Madeenah) .” This story also proves that, until Abu Jahl showed open hostility to the people of Al-Madeenah, Makkan trading caravans would travel safely through Al-Madeenah on their way to Ash-Sham. The newly-formed Muslim country made no attempts to stop them from passing through, which means that they didn’t initially treat them as enemies, overtake any of their caravans, or place any economic embargo upon them. Therefore, it was the leaders of the Quraish who first declared war on the people of Al-Madeenah, and not the other way around. They treated Muslims as enemies of war, forbidding them entry into Makkah, unless they entered under the protection of a Makkan chieftain. But that was not the only incident which proves that the Quraish were the first to declare war.

On another occasion, but still only shortly after the Prophet arrived in Al-Madeenah, the Quraish tried to incite a civil war in Al-Madeenah. ‘Abdur-Rahmaan ibn Ka’ab ibn Maalik related from one of the Prophet’s Companions & that the disbelievers of the Quraish wrote a letter to ‘Abdullah ibn Ubai and other members of the Aus and Khazraj tribes that still worshipped idols. This occurred when ibn Ubai and others like him still professed their polytheistic beliefs, for a short while later those among this group that didn’t sincerely embrace Islam, professed to embrace Islam while still harbouring disbelief in their hearts; hence they became known as “the Hypocrites.” In their letter, which was sent prior to the Battle of Badr, Quraish’ s leaders wrote the following message:

“You have indeed granted refuge to our companion (i.e., the Prophet), and we indeed swear by Allah that you will fight him and expel him (from Al-Madeenah) or we will all come to you (with a large army), until we fight those among you who fight, and take captive (as slaves) your women.”

‘Abdullah ibn Ubai and his fellow polytheists then gathered all the men they could find in order to fight the Prophet. When news of their intentions reached the Prophet, he went to them and said, ” Quraish’ s threat has had a profound effect upon you, but (know this): what they have planned for you (in terms of them coming to fight you) is not greater than the plotting that you are doing against your own selves (i.e., by fighting Muslims, among whom are your own relatives), for you want to fight your children and your brothers!” When they heard this from the Prophet they dispersed, abandoning the idea of fighting the Prophet and his Companions

Here is a wonderful example of what a great leader and teacher the Prophet was, in terms of how he was able to bring an end to an incipient rebellion in its very early stages. He reached with his words the very depths of their hearts, for hewas appealing to that which they valued most: tribal and familial loyalty. He wanted to make them understand the shame involved in the internecine fighting that they wanted to instigate. After the Quraish declared war – both in speech and in action – on the Islamic country of Al-Madeenah, and after they stole all of the wealth that Makkah’s Muslims left behind once they migrated to Al-Madeenah, Allah permitted Muslims to fight. It was only natural, considering the open hostility that the Quraish showed, for Muslims to do what was necessary to both ensure the stability of Al-Madeenah and to take decisive action against the Quraish.

10
Quran Morality and Moral Code, Laws & QA / The stolen armor !
« on: January 10, 2019, 03:31:50 AM »
It was narrated that an armor was stolen from the house of a Muslim man from Medina. This incident shaked the whole city. Who could have done such evil in the city of Prophet Muhammad ?

While the investigation was in progress, the thief put the armor in the house of a Jew.

Someone said that he saw a man named Tuma bin Ubayriq steal the armor. Its owner approached the Prophet (peace be on him) and expressed his suspicion about Tumah. But Tuma and his kinsmen colluded to ascribe the guilt to the Jew.

To ascertain the truth, the Prophet sent people to look in Tuma’s house. The armor was not there.

The armor was found in the house of the Jew !

When the Jew concerned was asked about the matter he pleaded that he was not guilty. Tuma's supporters, on the other hand, waged a vigorous propaganda campaign to save Tuma's skin. They argued that the Jew, who had denied the Truth and disbelieved in God and the Prophet (peace be on him), was absolutely untrustworthy, and his statement ought to be rejected outright.

But something happened. God sent the Angel Gabriel to the Prophet to declare that the Jewish man was innocent, and it was indeed Tuma who stole the armor. God revealed in the Qur’an:

“(O Messenger!) We have revealed to you this Book with the Truth so that you may judge between people in accordance with what Allah has shown you. So do not dispute on behalf of the dishonest"4:105

11
Anti-Muslim demagoguery relies on the demonization of the Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam), who is characterized by Islam-hating liars as being especially violent and warlike. This propaganda has certainly gained currency in the “Judeo-Zionist-Freemasonic-Christian West”. When it is pointed out that the Biblical prophets–including Moses, Joshua, Samson , Saul , David , among many others–were far more violent and warlike (and even engaged in religiously sanctioned genocide ), anti-Muslim pro-Christian ideologues will respond by disregarding or downplaying the Old Testament and will instead focus on the personality of Jesus (‘Eesa alaihissalaam) in the New Testament.

Didn’t Jesus preach nonviolence and “loving one’s enemies”? The anti-Muslim ideologues use this idea to assault the religion of Islam with. For example, the Catholic apologist shaitaan Robert Spencer compares Islam to Christianity by juxtaposing carefully selected quotes from Jesus to Islamic texts. In his book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) , Spencer includes a “Muhammad vs Jesus” section. He cites the following sayings of Jesus in the Bible:

“Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you”

“If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also”

“Blessed are the peacemakers”

“Blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy”

“But love your enemies, and do good”

These so-called “peaceful” verses of the Bible are compared to select battle revealed-Quranic verses. The violent verses of the Bible “don’t count” and are craftily excluded from the comparison (“that’s just the Old Testament!”). To tighten the noose, peaceful verses of the Glorious Qur’an are also excluded from the heavily biased analysis, the shaitaan  gives his evil reason for that: these “don’t count” since they are supposedly from when Muhammad was still in Mecca.

To understand the last point, one needs to have a basic understanding of the Prophet Muhammad’s (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) biography: he first declared his prophethood in the city of Makkah. Only a very small segment of society accepted him (mostly the weak and poor), whereas the masses–especially the powerful leaders of the city–not only rejected him but actively persecuted him. The chapters of the Qur’an that were revealed during this period are known as the Makkan chapters. Eventually, Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) was commanded by God to fled to the city of Madinah, whose people accepted him as their ruler. He went from persecuted prophet to ruler and commander-in-chief of a fledgling city-state.

The anti-Muslim ideologues claim that the peaceful and tolerant verses of the Qur’an come from when Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) was weak and persecuted in Mekkah. According to this islamophobe Baboon, These verses are “cancelled”, they argue, by the violent-sounding verses in the Medinan chapters.
Robert Spencer writes in his book:

Islamic theology divides the Qur’an into “Meccan” and “Medinan” suras [chapters]. The Meccan ones come from the first segment of Muhammad’s career as a prophet, when he simply called the Meccans to Islam. Later, after he fled to Medina, his positions hardened. The Medinan suras [are]…filled with matters of law and ritual–and exhortations to jihad warfare against unbelievers. The relatively tolerant verses quoted above and others like them generally date from the Meccan period, while those with a more violent and intolerant edge are mostly from Medina.

The Islamophobe deceivers portray Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) as opportunistic:

when he was weak and under the rule of the pagans, he called for peace. Without being in a position of authority, Muhammad was hardly in a position to do otherwise. As soon as he came to power, however, he waged “jihad warfare” (what a strange phrase!) against them. This is why, they argue, the peaceful verses of the Quran simply “don’t count”.

For now, however, we will demonstrate that, using such logic, it is equally possible to invalidate the “peaceful” sayings of Jesus. While he was a persecuted prophet, Jesus advocated nonviolence and peaceful resistance. He was hardly in a position to do otherwise, right? Once in power, however, this changes dramatically and violent warfare becomes the new
modus operandi .

The Messiah

Just as Prophet Muhammad’s (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) biography can be divided into a Mekkan and Medinan period, so too can Jesus’s (‘Eesa alaihissalaam) lifestory be divided into a First and Second Coming. (Likewise can Moses’ (Musa alaihissalaam) lifestory be divided into pre- and post-Exodus: prior to Exodus, Moses (Musa alaihissalaam) was largely peaceful, but after Exodus, Moses became the leader of the emerging Jewish state–and subsequently engaged in holy wars and even genocide against other nations.)

In the First Coming of Jesus (‘Eesa alaihissalaam), only a small segment of society (mostly from the weak and poor) accepted Jesus, whereas the leaders and authorities persecuted him. During this time period, Jesus (‘Eesa alaihissalaam) advised his followers to engage in nonviolent resistance only, perhaps even pacifism. Jesus advised his followers to “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” According to the Bible, this didn’t stop his Jewish and Roman persecutors from making an attempt to kill him.

Yet, the Second Coming of Jesus (‘Eesa maseeh alaihissalaam) is a central theological belief of Christianity as well as Islam. When Jesus (‘Eesa alaihissalaam) returns to earth, the gloves will be off: no longer will he practice non-violence or pacifism. Enemies will be mercilessly killed, not loved. In this manner, Jesus will fulfill the messianic prophecies found in the Bible–both in the Old and New Testaments. To Christians, Jesus is the Messiah (the Greek word “Christ” has the same meaning as the Hebrew word “Messiah”)–the same Messiah that the Jews had been in anticipation of.

It is important to understand how the concept of Messiah developed. According to the Bible, Moses (Musa alaihissalaam) and his followers fled persecution in Egypt to find refuge in the land of Canaan. They believed that God had bequeathed this land to them, which would come to be known as Israel. Unfortunately, there were already peoples who lived in Canaan, a problem that Moses (Musa alaihissalaam) and his followers rectified via military might. The native Canaanites were subsequently occupied, exterminated, or run off their ancestral lands. When the natives fought back, the Israelites attributed this to their innate and infernal hatred of the Jewish people.

After ruling the “promised land” for a time, the Israelites were themselves conquered by outsiders. The Babylonian Empire captured the Kingdom of Judah and expelled the Jews. Though the Israelites felt no remorse over occupying, slaughtering, and running off the native inhabitants of Canaan, they were mortified when they received similar (albeit milder) treatment. In exile, the Jews prayed for vengeance, as recorded in a divine prayer in the Bible:

Psalm 137:8 O Babylon, you will be destroyed. Happy is the one who pays you back for what you have done to us.

137:9 Blessed is the one who grabs your babies and smashes them against a rock.

(We can hardly imagine the glee that an Islamophobe devil would feel had such a violent passage, one that blesses those who smash infidel babies against rocks, been found in the Qur’an instead of the Bible.)

It was during the time of exile that the Jewish concept of Messiah was first born. Dutch historian Jona Lendering writes:

It was believed that the Messiah (the Anointed One) would receive God’s personal help against the enemies of Israel; the Messiah would defeat the Babylonians and reestablish the Jewish state of Israel. Cyrus the Great, king of Persia, fulfilled this role by conquering Babylon and releasing the Jews from exile. Israel Smith Clare writes:

Prof. Martin Bernal of Cornell University writes:

The first Messiah in the Bible was Cyrus, the king of Persia who released the Jews–at least those who wanted to leave–from Exile in Babylon.

As for this passage in the Bible:

Psalm 137:8 O Babylon, you will be destroyed. Happy is the one who pays you back for what you have done to us.

137:9 Blessed is the one who grabs your babies and smashes them against a rock.

Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible comments on this verse:

The Jews thereby returned to the promised land and rebuilt their nation. According to Jewish tradition, however, this did not last long: the Roman Empire conquered the land, destroyed the Temple, and exiled the Jews once again. As a result, as Lendering puts it, “the old prophecies [about Messiah] became relevant again.” Although in Jewish tradition there is a messiah for each generation, there is also the Messiah, which is what is commonly thought of when we hear the word. The Messiah would fulfill the task of destroying all of Israel’s enemies.

JewFaq.org says of the Messiah, which they spell as mashiach (emphasis is ours):

KosherJudaism.org states:

The Second Coming of Christ
Around 4 B.C., a prophet by the name of Jesus was born. He claimed to be the Messiah, and some Jews followed him. The followers of Christ eventually split into numerous sects, and eventually one triumphed over all others. These became what are today known as Christians. As for the majority of Jews, they rejected Jesus. Why? The Jews rejected (and continue to reject) Jesus because he did not fulfill the prophecies pertaining to the Messiah. How could Jesus be the Messiah when he not only did not defeat or conquer Israel’s enemies, but he never even led an army into a single war? On the contrary, didn’t Jesus preach nonviolence and “loving one’s enemies”?

Instead of rejecting these militaristic aspects of the Messiah, Christians attribute them to Jesus during his Second Coming. No longer will Jesus be a weak and persecuted prophet. Instead, he will hold governmental authority, and is depicted as powerful and mighty. This Jesus will certainly not love his enemies or turn the other cheek to them. In fact, the Bible tells us that Jesus will wage violent warfare against his enemies, and he will mercilessly kill them all.

Many Christians talk about how Jesus Christ will bring peace to the world, once and for all. But they often neglect to mention how this world “peace” is obtained. It is only after slaughtering his opponents and subduing “the nations” (the entire world?) under the foot of the global Christian empire that the world will have “peace”. Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible explains:

In other words, there will be peace for the simple reason that there will be nobody left to fight, all opponents having been slaughtered or subdued. This world “peace” is the same “peace” that any conqueror dreams of: after utterly defeating and conquering all of one’s neighbors and enemies, what is there left but “peace”, insofar as the non-existence of violence? In the accidentally insightful words of the Evangelist Wayne Blank : “Put another way, humans aren’t going to have anything left to fight about.”

Following conquest, a foreign occupier would obviously want the occupied peoples to be peaceful, as this would eliminate the nuisance of having to fight off freedom-fighters. The absence of violence would allow the conquering force to effortlessly sustain its occupation.

The events of the Second Coming of Christ are found in the Bible, including the Book of Revelation–which is the last book in the New Testament. Jesus will “judge and wage war” (Rev. 19:11), his robe will be “dipped in blood” (19:13), and he will be accompanied by “armies” (19:14) with which he will “strike down the nations” (19:15), . Furthermore: “ including “the Gentiles” in general and “the nations that were opposed to him” in specific. This will result in the “utter destruction of all his enemies” In his second coming[,] he will complete their destruction, when he shall put down all opposing rule, principality, and power.”

Once he conquers the infidels, Jesus “will rule them with an iron rod” (19:15). Wayne Blank writes:
Jesus will “will release the fierce wrath of God” (19:15) on them, and “he shall execute the severest judgment on the opposers of his truth” . Because of this, “every tribe on earth will mourn because of him” (Rev. 1:7), and they will “express the inward terror and horror of their minds, at his appearing; they will fear his resentment” . Just as the people of Canaan were terrified by the Israelite war machine , so too would the unbelievers “look with trembling upon [Jesus]” . This is repeated in the Gospels, that “the Son of man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn” (Matthew 24:30).

“All the nations of the world shall wail when he comes to judgment” and the enemies of Jesus “shall mourn at the great calamities coming upon them” .

Far from the meek prophet of the First Coming, Jesus on his return will command a very strong military force that will “destroy[] every ruler, authority, and power”. Not only is this consistent with the legacy of conquests by the Biblical prophets, it is actually a fulfillment or completion of the task that Moses initiated: holy war and conquest in the name of God. In First Corinthians (part of the New Testament) it is prophesied that instead of loving his enemies, Christ will subdue and humble them under his feet:

1 Corinthians 15:24 [Jesus] will turn the Kingdom over to God the Father, having destroyed every ruler and authority and power.

15:25 For Christ must reign until he humbles all his enemies beneath his feet.

Pastor and Biblical scholar Ron Teed explains that Jesus Christ brought “comfort and salvation at His first coming” but will bring “vengeance on God’s enemies” during his Second Coming. There are thus “two comings of Christ, the first to save, the second to judge”–yet in debates with Muslims it seems that Christians play up the First Coming and completely ignore the Second. The popular Teed Commentaries explains how “vengeance” is for Christ’s enemies (the “unbelievers”) and “comfort” only for his followers (the believers):

The Messiah will bring both comfort and
vengeance. He will take vengeance on God’s enemies and bring comfort to His people. This is a summary of the mission of Christ. He brought comfort and salvation at His first coming during His earthly ministry according to Luke…

However, He said nothing of taking vengeance on God’s enemies at that time, for that part of his mission will not be fulfilled till He returns triumphant…

[There are] two comings of Christ, the first to save, the second to judge.

In His First coming He did the things mentioned in Isaiah 61:1-2; in His Second Coming He will do the things in verses 2-3. When He returns He will bring judgment on unbelievers. This will be the day of God’s “vengeance.”

The ever popular Evangelical site GotQuestions.org sums it up nicely:

Jesus’ second coming will be exceedingly violent.
Revelation 19:11-21 describes the ultimate war with Christ, the conquering commander who judges and makes war “with justice” (v. 11). It’s going to be bloody (v. 13) and gory. The birds will eat the flesh of all those who oppose Him (v. 17-18). He has no compassion upon His enemies, whom He will conquer completely and consign to a “fiery lake of burning sulfur” (v. 20).

It is an error to say that God never supports a war. Jesus is not a pacifist.

Will the Real Messiah Please Stand Up?

Whereas the Second Coming of Christ is curiously forgotten in debates with Muslims, it is conveniently remembered during debates with Jews. One of the primary (if not the
primary) functions of the promised messiah in the Judeo-Christian tradition is, after all, vengeance against Israel’s enemies and global dominance. Indeed, the entire concept of Messiah emerged following the conquest of Jewish lands with the subjugation and exile of its inhabitants. The Messiah stood as hope for the redemption of Israel as well as revenge against her enemies.
Jewish polemical tracts against Christians reveal to us how militarism is a fundamental characteristic of the Messiah. The Christian response in turn reveal how Jesus Christ will indeed be militaristic (during his Second Coming). David Klinghoffer, an Orthodox Jewish author, writes in his book Why the Jews Rejected Jesus :

There were certainly those among [Jesus’] followers who saw him as the promised Messiah. This was natural. The first century produced messiahs the way our own time produces movie stars. There was always a hot new candidate for the role emerging from obscurity, whose glory faded either as he was slaughtered by the Romans or as his followers lost interest when he failed to produce the goods promised by the prophets.

“The goods” refer to the military conquest of Israel’s enemies and world domination. The fact that Jesus failed to produce these “goods” proves that he is not the promised messiah. Klinghoffer continues:

Let him do what the “son of man,” the promised Messiah, had been advertised as being destined to do from Daniel back through Ezekiel and Isaiah and the rest of the prophets. Let him rule as a monarch, his kingship extending over “all peoples, nations, and languages.” Let him return the exiles and build the Temple and defeat the oppressors and establish universal peace, as the prophets also said…

Let Jesus come up with the real messianic goods–visible to all rather than requiring us to accept someone’s assurance that, for example, he was born in Bethlehem–and then we’ll take him seriously

This point is reiterated in his book numerous times:

Hearing Jesus preach, a Jew might reasonably have crossed his arms upon his chest and muttered, “Hm, intriguing, but let’s see what happens.” After all, the scriptures themselves common-sensically defined a false prophet as someone whose prophecies fail to come true. According to Deuteronomy, this was the chief test of a prophet.

Klinghoffer writes elsewhere:

The Hebrew prophets describe the elements of a messianic scenario that could not easily be overlooked: an ingathering of the Jewish exiles, the reign of a messianic king, a new covenant with the Jews based on a restored commitment to observance of the commandments, a new Temple, the recognition of God by the world’s peoples. The future Davidic king was expected to radically change the world.

The “radical change” involves the “subjugation” of the nations:

The Messiah would be a military and political leader. Philo, whose views have sometimes been taken as foreshadowing Christian teachings, is clear on this: “For ‘there shall come forth a man’ (Num. 24:7), says the oracle, and leading his host of war he will subdue great and populous nations.”

The Gospel writers thus faced the challenge that Jesus never raised an army, fought the Romans, returned any Jewish exiles, ruled over any population, or did anything else a king messiah would do.

The subjugated nations would then “prostrate” themselves to the Messiah and “serve” him (perpetual servitude?):

The promised royal scion of David, the Messiah, would surely inspire veneration and awe beyond that accorded even to David himself…The nations will “prostrate” themselves before God, says one psalm; but so will they “prostrate” themselves (same Hebrew verb) before the Davidic king , says another psalm…As Daniel puts it…“[The Messiah] was given dominion, honor, kingship, so that all peoples, nations, and languages would serve him.”

Klinghoffer defines the Messiah as he “who conquers and rules the nations and liberates the Jews” and describes him as
“ a mighty warrior”. He rhetorically asks:

Was there in Jewish tradition any room for a dead Messiah? Didn’t Jesus’s death tend to cast doubt on his ability to accomplish all the world-transforming things the Messiah was supposed to do?

Again, the “world-transforming things” include violent holy war against the heathen nations and their subjugation under his rule. Klinghoffer answers his own question:

But was Jesus a ruler over Israel? On the contrary, the younger Kimchi pointed out, “He did not govern Israel but they governed him.”

Christians reply by arguing that Jesus will fulfill these prophecies, just during his Second Coming. The Good News, a Christian magazine with a readership of nearly half a million subscribers, responds to the Jewish criticism by arguing that Jesus returns “a second time” as a “conquering King” who will “slay the great armies of those who opposed Him”.  Jesus will be “the promised Messiah whom the prophets claimed would rule all nations ‘with a rod of iron’” and “all nations would come under His rule”.

Klinghoffer, the Orthodox Jewish interlocutor, cries foul:

Christians respond by saying that “the famously unfulfilled prophecies (for instance, that the messianic era will be one of peace) apply to the second and final act in Jesus’s career, when he returns to earth. This is a convenient and necessary dodge: The Bible itself never speaks of a two-act messianic drama.

The interesting dynamic is thus established: Jews accuse Jesus of not being militaristic enough, and Christian apologists respond by eagerly proving the militaristic nature of Jesus during his Second Coming.

Christians Affirm Militant Old Testament Prophecies


Far from saying “it’s just the Old Testament!”, Christians routinely–and as a matter of accepted fundamental theology–use the Old Testament prophecies of the Messiah to validate their belief in Jesus–prophecies that have militaristic overtones. The Book of Isaiah, for example, has numerous prophecies in it that Christians routinely attribute to Jesus Christ. For example:

Isaiah 35:4 Say to those with fearful hearts, “Be strong, do not fear; your God will come, he will come with vengeance; with divine retribution he will come to save you.”

Matthew Henry’s commentary of this verse says:

This will be “a day of vengeance, a year of retribution, to uphold Zion’s cause” (34:8) against the “nations at enmity with the church” and “those found opposing the church of Christ”, which will result in “the destruction of [the church’s] enemies.” Likewise do Christians claim that the Book of Micah foretells the Second Coming of Christ:

Micah 15:5 I will execute vengeance in anger and fury on the heathen, such as they have not heard.

One Biblical commentary helpfully explains this verse:

Christ will give his Son either the hearts or necks of his enemies, and make them either his friends or his footstool.

[NassirH, a reader of our website, astutely commented: I suppose this is what JihadWatch writer Roland Shirk meant when he said “Islam is a religion of fear and force, and its adherents can only be at your feet or at your throat.”]

Another Biblical commentary notes: “Here no mention is made of Mercy, but only of executing vengeance; and that, with wrath and fury.” Yet another states that this is “a prophecy of the final overthrow of all the enemies of pure and undefiled religion” and that this is “a threatening of vengeance to the Heathens” .

When we published articles comparing the Judeo-Christian prophets of the Hebrew Bible to the Prophet Muhammad, an anti-Muslim bigot by the name of Percey (formerly known as Cassidy) claimed that the genocides of the Old Testament were “not supported by Christ’s teachings.” This hardly seems the case, however, when we consider that Jesus will bring to a climax the holy war first initiated by Moses against the enemies of Israel. Jesus will fulfill , not repudiate, Old Testament holy wars against Israel’s foes. In fact, the war will be expanded to heathen nations in general, or at least those that reject Jesus.

Conclusion

We could reproduce violent Christian texts ad nauseum …What is clear is that the Christian conception of Jesus can very easily be characterized as violent. Prof. Melancthon W. Jacobus writes in A Standard Bible Dictionary:

[Jesus] excluded from the Messiah’s character the main elements of the popular ideal, i.e. that of a conquering hero, who would exalt Israel above the heathen, and through such exclusion He seemed to fail to realize the older Scriptural conception. The failure, however, was only apparent and temporary. For in the second coming in glory He was to achieve this work.
Accordingly, His disciples recognized a twofoldness in His Messiahship: (1) They saw realized in His past life the ideal Servant of Jehovah, the spiritual Messiah, the Christ who teaches and suffers for the people, and (2) they looked forward to the realization of the Davidic and conquering Messiah in His second coming in power and glory to conquer the nations and reign over them

How then do we reconcile the seemingly peaceful and pacifist sayings of Jesus with the violent and warlike Second Coming of Christ? There are numerous ways to do this, but perhaps the most convincing is that Jesus’ peaceful and pacifist sayings were directed towards a resident’s personal and local enemies–usually (but not always) referring to fellow co-religionists. It did not refer to a government’s foreign adversaries, certainly not to heathen nations. Prof. Richard A. Horsley of the University of Massachusetts argues:

The cluster of sayings keynoted by “love your enemies” pertains neither to external, political enemies nor to the question of nonviolence or nonresistance…The content of nearly all the sayings indicates a context of local interaction with personal enemies, not of relations with foreign or political foes…

“Love your enemies” and the related sayings apparently were understood by [Jesus’] followers…to refer to local social-economic relations, largely within the village community, which was still probably coextensive with the religious community in most cases…[although sometimes referring] to persecutors outside the religious community but still in the local residential community—and certainly not the national or political enemies.

This is consistent with the ruling given by the Evangelical site
GotQuestions.org , which permits governments to wage war whilst forbidding individuals from “personal vendettas”:

God has allowed for just wars throughout the history of His people. From Abraham to Deborah to David, God’s people have fought as instruments of judgment from a righteous and holy God. Romans 13:1-4 tells us to submit ourselves to government authorities and that nations have the right to bear the sword against evildoers, both foreign and domestic.

Violence occurs, but we must recognize the difference between holy judgment on sin and our own personal vendettas against those we dislike, which is the inevitable outcome of pride

As for the “turning the other cheek” passage, it is known that the slap on the cheek that was being referred to here was in that particular culture understood as an insult, not as assault. The passage itself has to do with a person responding to a personal insult, and has nothing to do with pacifism. In any case, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary clarifies: “Of course, He applied this to personal insults, not to groups or nations.”

Some Christians maintain that fighting the enemies on the battlefield does not exclude loving them. This begs the question: how absolutely irrelevant is this strange form of “love” for enemies that does not proscribe killing them?

Whatever the reason for the contradiction between loving enemies on the one hand and killing them on the other, the point is that the comparison between a supposedly peaceful Jesus and “violent” Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) is not just a vapid oversimplification but pure falsity. It is only through a very selective and biased analysis–a carefully crafted comparison between the most peaceful sounding verses of the New Testament (a handful of quotes from Jesus that constitute a small fraction of the Bible overall) with the most violent sounding verses of the Quran.

Anything that doesn’t fit this agenda simply “doesn’t count” (and indeed, the anti-Muslim pro-Christian readers will furiously rack their brains to figure out ways to make the violent Jesus verses “not count”). The Islamophobic logic is thus: If we exclude all violent verses from the Bible and all the peaceful verses from the Quran, then aha! See how much more violent the Quran is compared to the Bible! Anti-Muslim Christians scoff at Islam and exalt their religion by informing Muslims of how Jesus, unlike Muhammad, loved his enemies. Let the Muslims reply back ever so wryly: Jesus loved them so much that he kills them.

Addendum I:

Anti-Muslim Christians often chant “Muhammad was a prophet of war, whereas Jesus was the Prince of Peace”. A few points about this are worthy of being mentioned: First, Muhammad never used the title “prophet of war” nor is this mentioned in the Quran or anywhere else. In fact, one of the most common epithets used for Muhammad, one found in the Quran no less, was “A Mercy to All Humanity”.

Jesus, on the other hand, will be a “Warrior King” and a “Conquering King.” Should it then be “Muhammad is A Mercy to All Humanity, whereas Jesus is the Warrior King”?

As for Jesus being the Prince of Peace, this epithet comes from Isaiah 9:6:

Isaiah 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

9:7 There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace. He will rule with fairness and justice from the throne of his ancestor David for all eternity.

The passionate commitment of the LORD of Heaven’s Armies will make this happen.

One Christian website paraphrases this succinctly: “Israel’s enemies will be destroyed. Peace will flow to the four corners of the earth, as the Prince of Peace rules and reigns.” Again, this is the “peace” that conquerers dream of. Jesus is the Prince of Peace because he declares war, slaughters and subjugates all possible enemies to the point where nobody is left to fight, and voila! there is peace!
This brings us to the commonly quoted (and oft-debated) verse of the Bible, in which Jesus says:

Matthew 10:34 Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Most debates focus on whether or not the word “sword” here is metaphorical or not. Leaving aside the fact that even if this is a metaphor it is certainly a very violent sounding one, it would actually behoove us to focus on the word “peace” in this verse. Jesus told the Jews: “do not think I have come to bring peace on earth” as a way to explain his failure to produce “the goods”: “ the Jews believed that when the Messiah comes, there would be a time of world peace. ” Naturally, this world “peace” would be brought about through war. Of course, in his Second Coming will Jesus bring this “peace on earth” (and by “peace”, what is meant is war, slaughter, and subjugation). As we can see, this verse confirms the militant nature of the Messiah (and thus Jesus), regardless of if it is metaphorical or not.

Addendum II:

Here is another hotly debated verse, in which Jesus says:

Luke 19:27 But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and kill them in my presence.

Robert Spencer dismisses this verse, saying: “These are the words of a king in a parable.” Yes, this was a parable that Jesus told his disciples. But what was his intention in narrating this parable? Gill’s Explanation to the Entire Bible explains that it was to explain what will happen to the Jews “when Christ shall come a second time”: Jesus will “destroy the Jewish nation” for rejecting him “and then all other enemies will be slain and destroyed” as well.

Death and destruction will be the fate of whoever does not accept Jesus’ reign as Warrior King.
This was hardly an innocuous story. It reminds us of a scene in the movie Gladiator when the evil Roman emperor Commodus tells his nephew a story about an “emperor” who was betrayed by his sister (“his own blood”) and how he “struck down” her son as revenge. (Watch it here.) The story was a thinly veiled threat, as was Jesus’ parable.

One can only hardly imagine how Islamophobes like Robert Spencer would react had it been the Prophet Muhammad who had used such a violent parable, threatening to return to earth in order to “slay” anyone who “did not want me to reign over them”! This would certainly “count” since all violence in the Quran “counts” whereas whatever is peaceful in the Quran “doesn’t count”, and whatever is violent in the Bible “doesn’t count” and whatever is peaceful in the Bible “counts”. Heads I win, tails you lose.

Source: https://islamreigns.wordpress.com/2016/02/04/jesus-loves-all-is-a-christian-missionary-deception/

12
Women are commanded by the author of the bible to cover their head and submit during prayers.

1 Corinthians 11:5[/b]
But every woman that prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

Let's have a look on what bible experts think about this:

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary:


    The woman was made subject to man, because made for his help and comfort. And she should do nothing, in Christian assemblies, which looked like a claim of being equal. She ought to have power, that is, a veil, on her head, because of the angels. Their presence should keep Christians from all that is wrong while in the worship of God.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

    With her head uncovered - That is, with the veil removed which she usually wore. It would seem from this that the women removed their veils, and wore their hair disheveled, when they pretended to be under the influence of divine inspiration. This was the case with the pagan priestesses; and in so doing, the Christian women imitated them. On this account, if on no other, Paul declares the impropriety of this conduct. It was, besides, a custom among ancient females, and one that was strictly enjoined by the traditional laws of the Jews, that a woman should not appear in public unless she were veiled.

    Dishonoureth her head - Shows a lack of proper respect to man, to her husband, to her father, to the sex in general. The veil is a token of modesty and of subordinaion. It is regarded among Jews, and everywhere, as an emblem of her sense of inferiority of rank and station. It is the customary mark of her sex, and that by which she evinces her modesty and sense of subordination. To remove that, is to remove the appropriate mark of such subordination, and is a public act by which she thus shows dishonor to the man. And as it is proper that the grades and ranks of life should be recognized in a suitable manner, so it is improper that, even on pretence of religion, and of being engaged in the service of God, these marks should be laid aside.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

    dishonoureth … head—in that she acts against the divine ordinance and the modest propriety that becomes her: in putting away the veil, she puts away the badge of her subjection to man, which is her true "honor"; for through him it connects her with Christ, the head of the man. Moreover, as the head-covering was the emblem of maiden modesty before man (Ge 24:65), and conjugal chastity (Ge 20:16); so, to uncover the head indicated withdrawal from the power of the husband, whence a suspected wife had her head uncovered by the priest (Nu 5:18). Alford takes "her head" to be man, her symbolical, not her literal head; but as it is literal in the former clause, it must be so in the latter one.

The penalty for those who break this rule:

  "  If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. "

15
“God had taken a Covenant from the Children of Israel… But they broke their Covenant, so I cursed them and made their hearts hard. They changed the words from their original places and have forgotten a huge piece of what they were told to remember over and over again, so you will continue to find treachery against you or cheats from a few of them. Overlook this and forgive them because God loves those who excel in doing good. I had also took a Covenant from those who say: “We’re Christians,” but they too forgot part of what they were told to remember. So I released animosity and hatred among themselves until the Day of Judgement, when God will tell them what they used to manufacture.”

– The Quran, Surah Maidah 5:13-14

            This will be a short and sweet post this time. In the verse of the Qur’an quoted above, God says that the Jews and Christians have forgotten a piece of the Scripture. Dr. Joel Hoffman in his book “The Bible’s Cutting Room Floor” states (emphasis mine):

“The Bible you usually read is the abridged version. Its contents were culled from a much larger selection of holy scriptures when new realities forced religious leaders to discard some of their most cherished and sacred books, resulting in what we now call the Bible. Some writings were left out for political or theological reasons, others simply because of the physical restrictions of ancient bookmaking technology. At times, the compilers of the Bible skipped information that they assumed everyone knew. Some passages were even omitted by accident. For these reasons and more, your Bible doesn’t give you a complete picture. […]

In the end, correct answers to the question, How many books are in the Bible? range from thirty-three to seventy-eight. Yet even with seventy-eight books, more material was left out than was included. Additionally, different groups of people order the books of the Bible differently. The modern Jewish order is different from the traditional Jewish order. Christians put the Old Testament books into a third order yet. (For instance, Christians put Daniel near the other famous prophets like Ezekiel and Isaiah, to underscore his centrality. Jews marginalize Daniel by grouping him with the other “writings.”) The Apocrypha, too, appear variously as part of the Old Testament, as an addition to the Old Testament, or—as we just saw—not at all. Underlying all of these differences is the simple fact that there used to be lots of holy writings, and different groups of people compiled different collections of them to form a single book.”[1]

Today we’re going to look into various places in the Torah where references will be made to books that don’t exist in the present day Bible. Here are a few examples:

    Moses (peace be upon him) quotes a verse to comfort Aaron (peace be upon him) that doesn’t exist in the Bible.[2]
    The Book of the Wars of the Lord.[3]
    The Chronicles of the Kings of Israel and Chronicles of the Kings of Judah.[4]
    The “Book of Shemaiah, and of Iddo the Seer” (also called Story of the Prophet Iddo or The Annals of the Prophet Iddo.[5]
    The Acts of Solomon.[6]
    The Annals of King David.[7]
    The Book of Nathan the Prophet.[8]
    The book of Samuel the seer and the Book of Gad the Seer.[9]
    The Story of the Book of Kings.[10]
    The Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel.[11]
    The Sayings of the Seers (or Sayings of Hozai, in the Masoretic Text).[12]
    The Book of Jasher.[13]
    The Laments for Josiah.[14]

So this leaves an interesting issue. Jews and Christians might argue that these are apocryphal books or that they don’t matter to the Bible’s overall message. There are two points to make:

    If they are “apocryphal books” as some might claim, then why would the canon mention them?
    We don’t know the impact the books would have to the message because we don’t have said books.

The Bible’s preservation as a whole is seriously called into question because as we have seen, lost texts are clearly mentioned within the official canon itself. And keep in mind these are only books we know of because as Dr. Hoffman stated:

“Some writings were left out for political or theological reasons…”

God however will not allow mankind to remain unguided. After He tells of how the Jews and Christian forgot pieces of the Scripture, in the next verse of the Qur’an, He gives hope saying:

“People of the Scripture! My Messenger has come to you; clarifying what you used to keep hidden of the Scripture and who overlooks much of what you changed. A light has now come to you from God, along with a Scripture making things clear, which God uses to guide to the ways of peace, all who are looking to follow what pleases Him. Leading them from their various shades of darkness into the Light, by His will, and onto one straight path.”[15]

For anyone interested in more detail about this subject, I highly recommend Hoffman’s book. Check it out at your local library.

            With that being said, I’m going to give a choice for what you guys want to hear about next. Leave a comment with your vote below.

    The foretelling of the Caliphate in the Bible
    Did the Prophet copy from the Bible?
    Contentions against the story of the Crucifixion (aka The Passion of the Christ).

[1] Dr. Joel E. Hoffman, The Bible’s Cutting Room Floor: The Holy Scriptures Missing From Your Bible (New York: Thomas Dunne Books, 2014).  Kindle Edition.

[2] Leviticus 10:3.

[3] Numbers 21:14.

[4] 1 Kings 14:19, 29.

[5] 2 Chronicles 9:29; 2 Chronicles 12:15; 2 Chronicles 13:22.

[6] 1 Kings 11:41.

[7] 1 Chronicles 27:24.

[8] 1 Chronicles 29:29; 2 Chronicles 9:29.

[9] 1 Chronicles 29:29.

[10] 2 Chronicles 24:27.

[11] 2 Chronicles 32:32.

[12] 2 Chronicles 33:19.

[13] 2 Samuel 1:18, Joshua 10:13.

[14] 2 Chronicles 35:25.

[15] Surah Maidah, 5:16-17.

https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2018/04/21/missing-books-in-the-bible/

Pages: [1] 2