Is Islam the Synagogue of Satan?

Islam uses fear to control people. Although jihad is a political term, there is no separation between church and state in Islam. So then jihad may often be redefined, as is most of Islam, to meet whatever conditions that the moment calls for whether they be personal, spiritual, or political ones. The god of Islam evokes fear. However, Jesus Christ is the Prince of Peace. The spirit of Jesus Christ is very different than the one in Islam. The Islamic god is NOT THE SAME as the Christian God of Israel.

Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Originally posted by babloyi

But muslims DO accept Jesus as the Messiah.

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

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

Ain't THAT a kick in the head?

Originally posted by Prototype786

The Holy Bible does indeed mention the coming of the Prophet Muhammed.

Thus begins your post. I was hoping you would provide evidence for this claim, but alas it was sorely lacking.

Could you please cite some reference in the Bible to support your initial statement?

Originally posted by checkers
Muslims often like to say that they don't worship the Black Stone and the Kabba. However, one definition of worship is:
reverent honor and homage paid to any object regarded as sacred.
or
the object of adoring reverence or regard.
Source

The Kabba certainly does seem to be the object of considerable regard here:
YouTube

The Black Stone, in the corner of the Ka'aba, IS worshipped. Muslims on the Hajj kneel to it, and kiss it, supposing that their sins are drawn into it thereby. This, they say, is why it has turned black over the millenia.

Christians have a living sacrifice to absorb their sins, Muslims have a cold stone that they believe does the same for them.

How do christians define "idolatry" again? Isn't there something in the Bible about worshipping stones, which neither speak nor eat?

reply to post by nenothtu

I think the scripture that is trying to be passed as referring to Muhammed is Deuteronomy 18:15.

Unfortunately for the Muslims, the prophet referred to Moses was of the Christ, the Messiah. (Acts 3:22, 7:37, John 6:14, 1:1, 8:12, and Hebrews 1:2)

Then they try to tie the Biblical references to the Comforter, or the Holy Spirit as being references to Muhammed. Not even close, but then again, Muhammed is the antithesis of Moses, Jesus, and everyone of the prophets of JAHWEH.

If one reads the Islamic apologist inferences, they claim that Muhammed was like unto Moses.

Unlettered, delusional, and everything Moses wasn't.

Not likely.

So don't hold your breath.

reply to post by dooper


That's one they use for that purpose, but I think his argument was tending towards how the Gospel of Barnabas was alleged to have been maliciously removed from the Christian cannon so as to hide the true origins of Islam.

"Therefore", the argument goes, "Mohammed WAS mentioned in your christian book, but your early church fathers removed all the references to conceal the TRUE faith, and lead you all astray!"

Never mind that the Gospel of Barnanas was written in the 1500's, long after the cannon was determined, and existed only in two original manuscripts, one in Italian, one in Spanish, none in the ancient languages of the holy land. It's a long, interesting story on how it came about, but really doesn't have a bearing here.

Suffice it to say that it's pretty popular in muslim countries now, as "evidence" that the Christian bible was "tampered with" to snatch the carpet out from under Mohammed.

Actual investigation into the matter leads to quite a contrary conclusion as to who was doing the "tampering".

reply to post by nenothtu



But then who is to say that, what content that is in the bible is correct, or the the content that is in the bible is the truth?

The bible has been rewritten over an over by those who want to use this to control or turn Christians away from God. No one can actually turn round and say this is the present bible is from original scriptures depicted by God or christ himself.

reply to post by Laurauk


Like what, specifically?

I'd say the Bible is one of the most documented, consistent books to ever stand the test of time.

And of course if one wishes, there are much more scholarly sources you can turn to for these hundreds of verifications.

Every time a new old text is discovered, rather than point out inconsistencies, they verify that the document we have is accurate.

reply to post by Laurauk


Good to hear from you, Laurak. We don't talk enough. Might be a good thing, as we'd probably end up arguing like an old married couple.

"Correct" is one thing, "truth" entirely another.

The bible we have today is a fair representation of the earliest texts we have. In other words, it's been transmitted through the ages with relatively little change. Actually, AMAZINGLY little change, given the fact that up until the 1400's, all copies of it were propagated by hand.

The earliest copies of old testament texts that I'm aware of are contained in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and what we have today is substantially the same text, with, I think about a 98% agreement. New testament texts are, of course, younger, as they have of necessity all been written after the death of Jesus. Some few copies go back to the 1st and second centuries AD, fairly soon after that event. Again, what we have today has an amazingly close agreement with the earliest known texts.

The main point of contention there is which books, as opposed to transmission of those books, are contained in the biblical cannon, and which are left out of it. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha.

In that sense, they are substantially "correct" - faithful transmissions of the text, albeit in translations. To muslims, translations don't count as "holy writ". For example, a translation of the Qur'an is NOT the Qur'an. It's a translation, with the assumption that something is lost in the translation, as Arabic is assumed to be the only perfect language. For example, my own copy of the Qur'an (printed in Pakistan) has two versions in it, an english translation on the right hand page, and the arabic original on the left hand page. That way, when one encounters a difficult passage, the authoritative original is right there to check the translation against.

As all languages have cultural concepts that are mighty nigh untranslatable into the language of a culture without that concept, I suppose the idea has some slim merit. On the other hand, if the culture of the recieving individual has no corollary, he or she won't be able to gain a precise grasp of the concept anyhow, translation or original.

As far as the bible containing "truth", that's an entirely different story. Accuracy of transmission can be checked against the oldest extant copies, or the original languages. That process is entirely objective. "Truth", on the other hand, is an entirely subjective concept. One either has faith in that truth, or one doesn't, but the nature of the beast ( faith ) defies "proof".

I may have "faith" in it, others may not, but neither stance will ultimately affect the "truth" of the matter.

In the end, it will be what it will be.

Edit: I had my "objective" and "subjective" bass ackwards.



[edit on 2009/10/6 by nenothtu]

reply to post by nenothtu


Why thank you nenothtu, I read the title of the thread read through the comments etc and thought I would post an opinion.

With regards to your reply,

Muslims could claim the exact same thing as you have stated with regards to the Qur'an. Who is it that decides which is wrong and which is correct.

Are we so gullable to be mislead, by those in position, whom have rewitten the context within the bible to meet thier own agenda.





[edit on 6-10-2009 by Laurauk]

reply to post by nenothtu

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by babloyi

But muslims DO accept Jesus as the Messiah.

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

Actually, if you're going to talk about greater and lesser prophets, according to Islam, Jesus is definitely considered one of the major prophets.

And (unlike Judaism, I suppose), Jesus is the ONLY one in the Quran who's referred to as the Messiah. Hardly equivalent to "mister", if you ask me.

PS: Where did you get this interesting translation of "Messiah" to mean "master"? I've never in my life heard it before. If I'm not mistaken, it means "annointed one".

[edit on 6-10-2009 by babloyi]

reply to post by babloyi


"Lesser" prophet, as in subservient to Mohammed. In Islam, ALL prophets are lesser than Mohammed, and while they are reverered, none of that reverence approaches the reverence given to Mohammed, as the last prophet.

Jesus is referred to as the messiah in the Qur'an because that's how he was referred to by the Christians of the day, where Mohammed got his basic information on the subject. It was taken as a title, rather than a sacred office. "Messiah" being the annointed one, Jesus is simply not seen in that light by either the Qur'an, or modern muslims. He is Prophet Isa' to them, one of around 120,000 prophets. He is, however, scheduled to return at the last day, and clean house among the christians, converting them to Islam, and he is one of only 3 islamic prophets to have ascended to heaven alive, in company with Elijah and Elisha. Mohammed is claimed to have ascended to heaven as well, in the Night Journey, but it was only a short trip, not to stay.

I apologize if my post wasn't clear. "Messiah" has never meant "master". What I meant to convey is that "mister" carried the meaning of master formerly, and just means "some guy" now.

[edit on 2009/10/7 by nenothtu]

reply to post by Laurauk


Indeed muslims can make the same claims. They can't however, claim to have compared the text to any of an antiquity greater than about 610 AD, when the initial "revelations" were alleged to have been given to Mohammed. So for one thing, the track record is necessarily shorter, allowing for less change over time. That would be a GOOD thing, I would think.

Then you have to add in other factors. The "revelations" were not complied during Mohammed's lifetime, they were recited only, by professional reciters (qurra,"reciters", related to Qur'an, "recitations"). When Mohammed died in 632 AD, the recitations carried on, but variations crept in, as folks memories change over time. To combat this, the verses were written down on various items at hand, individually. Potsherds, leaves, anything handy, and large enough for a verse.

The verses got a bit scrambled then.

Eventually, there were at least seven, and probably a great many more. variant "readings". Some sources say as many as 40.

The first collection of the Qur'an as a complete text was by ibn Thabit, one of the companions of Mohammed, under Abu Bakr, the first Caliph. Over time, the variant readings grew out of the fact that the Islamic Empire was so widely flung. In the further reaches, variants developed faster.

About 19 years after Mohammed died, the variations had become so pronounced that Uthman, the third Caliph, commissioned a standardized text, and ordered all others destroyed. This would have been around 651 AD.

Not all of them were, but he gave it a bully effort.

There is evidence of further changes after the time of Uthman, and overall, some of the verses were forgotten, lost, or what muslims call "abrogated". It's sometimes a touchy subject with them. If allah, like God, is the same yesterday, today, and forever, why would he capriciously change his mind? Their answer is that he didn't really, he just "abrogated" some of the verses. I never really grasped the difference.

Now, when Christian scholars find a "new" old text of a biblical book, it's thrown to the wolves in academia to be picked apart, and so comparisons are bound to follow. Not so with ancient copies or the Qur'an that may be discovered.

That always made me wonder what there was to fear.

Right now, it has recently been discovered that there are something like 400,000 pages of ancient Qur'anic manuscripts in the posession of a German scholar, but for some odd reason they won't be released. In 1965, I believe in Yemen, another cache of ancient Qur'anic manuscripts were found stashed. Some of these may go back to within 50 or 75 years of Mohammed's death.

I've often wondered why comparison with the modern Qur'an is not allowed with these ancient manuscripts of what is supposed to be the same thing, as is regularly done with biblical texts. Well, I don't really wonder TOO hard.

Also, there is evidence from the hadith that there WERE verses in the Qur'an that aren't there any more.

This is a long, complex subject, best suited to another time or place, but that's a general overview.

To answer the question about the bible having been rewritten to cover an agenda, it would have had to have begun long ago, thousands of years ago, and continue to this day, in order to remain covered up, since the texts we have to compare the modern text with go back well over 2000 years, to before the time when parts of the bible were even written.

In essence, the argument would be better framed as it having initially been written with the modern agenda, rather than changed. The textual comparisons belie the change argument.

I've been afforded all the verification I need for a faith in the text we have now, but that may not be so for most. The essence is that each is entitled to his own beliefs, and I have no quarrel with any in the matter, save those who would try to change my belief, through force or subterfuge. I also acknowledge that they are entitled to their own beliefs, as we will each answer for our beliefs individually, or not as the belief may be.

It IS interesting to note that if an individual is led to leave Islam for any other belief, or lack of a belief, he's given 2 days to repent, and return to Islam, or is thereafter fair game for any muslim that would want to snuff him.

I find that odd for a tolerant religion of peace, which should be a bit more secure in itself than that. The refusal to allow textual criticisms is also suspect for a religion that ought to be more secure in itself.

reply to post by nenothtu

Hey nenothtu!
Thanks for the speedy reply.

Originally posted by nenothtu
"Lesser" prophet, as in subservient to Mohammed. In Islam, ALL prophets are lesser than Mohammed, and while they are reverered, none of that reverence approaches the reverence given to Mohammed, as the last prophet.

I'm not sure where you're getting your information from. The Quran clearly states that Muhammad was human. No prophet was subservient to him. I think the only importance given to Muhammad is that he was the "Seal of the Prophets" (i.e. the last one), and thus, according to Islam, the best example for Muslims to follow.

Originally posted by nenothtu
Jesus is referred to as the messiah in the Qur'an because that's how he was referred to by the Christians of the day, where Mohammed got his basic information on the subject. It was taken as a title, rather than a sacred office. "Messiah" being the annointed one, Jesus is simply not seen in that light by either the Qur'an, or modern muslims. He is Prophet Isa' to them, one of around 120,000 prophets.

Once again, I'm not sure where you're getting your information from. Where do you get the idea (or the capability to make such a judgement) that "It was taken as a title, rather than a sacred office"? How does calling Jesus "Isa" reduce his importance? You do realise that "Jesus" wasn't how he was called, right? I mean, in latin it is Iesus, in greek it is Iēsoûs, in Hebrew Yeshua. Do any of these other (far more accurate) names reduce the importance of "Jesus"?


Also, just to note, since you made the claim of Jesus being a "lesser prophet" (and continued that claim even after I said that that is not what the Quran states), I checked up, and it appears that out of the total 120,000 prophets in Islam, only 25 were mentioned in the Quran. And out of those 25, 5 have been given the title of "Ulul Azmi" (Leaders of the Prophets), and out of those 5, Jesus is specifically mentioned as being "Gifted above others" and "Exalted above others". So in light of this (as well as your whole last paragraph that expounds of the importance of Jesus in Islam), I really can't say how you can claim he is considered "lesser".

[edit on 7-10-2009 by babloyi]

reply to post by dooper


Firstly i would like to say that you are right with reference that Islam uses scripture from the Gospel of John where Yeshua talks about "sending a comforter" after Him, which He is obviously talking about Ruach HaKodesh or the Holy Spririt.

I have had this debate with many muslims in the past (kinda my calling, apologetics and eschatology to hard folks lol), and have found muslims to extremly arguementative or very willing to hear and debate, much like everyone else! Very gracious! And have been welcomed into many homes (even in Y'israel) and have been made very welcome (and well fed!) by muslims who i count as close friends, debating these issues till the cock crows lol. "Those who CALL THEMSELVES JEWS BUT ARE NOT," cant get more black and white than that! I do wish people would stop allogorising everything in the scriptures, it means what it says, and says what it means, and this is more aparrant when read in its original language. I appreciate that most people do not speak hebrew/aramaic, however taking the effort to learn, and the culture of the people that wrote it would open your eyes to truths that you cannot imagine otherwise. The jews are guilty of mysticising everything too, especially when it comes to Yeshua because they dont want to accept "that man." However as it says in zecheriah "they will mourn for Him whom they PIERCED as for a lost son" and "the WHOLE house of Y'israel shall be saved." That house includes the desendants of Ishmael, Y'israels brother in blood.

However that specific scripture that the op has specified does indeed deal with the Jews, in specific the jews who do not accept Moshiach.

And to answer another post, Moshiach or Messiah doesnt mean "master" baal does. Baal also is a hebrew term for husband. Moshiach actually means "annointed one" , however there were loads of moshiachs and Yeshua never refered Himself to that but to "Bar Enash" or the Son of Man, which in 2nd temple judaism was a title given to the desendant of David who would be "given a sceptre and a kingdom that would never perish" and whats more would "sit at the right Hand of G-d until His enemies have been made His footstool". Also Peter, when He confirmed who Yeshua was after the transfigeration on the mount, didnt just call Him Messiah, but called Him Moshiach EL, annointed G-d!

One thing that not a lot of people know, is in fact that the name or word "allah" means "curse" in hebrew/aramaic, so in the original wording of deauteromony, where G-d pronounces curses 7 times 7 fold against those who depart from His ways, it actually says; " I shall send curse "allah" in your streets" and so on, and indeed He has! I do not mean to offend my muslim brothers, but its true. And like Yeshua drove the demonic host who called themselves legion from a man that entered into pigs that went mad, and ran off a cliff and died. , Muhamid was likewise afflicted on his visitation in a cave which drove him to the point of nearly jumping off a cliff.
G-d's Spririt is love, peace and sound mind, the Spirit of G-d is gentle and not oppressive and would never cause people to kill one another in His Name. He is more than capable of doing that Himself. Does not need us to defend Him. He would be a weak G-d indeed if He did! However will put up with our bs, giving us the chance to come to a saving knowlege of His Son, however much like G-d closed the door of the ark, a vessel of safety from the flood, He will close the door on salvation through His son. The ark was a "type of" who Yeshua is, only in the shape of a person and not a boat, but if you get on "that boat" you will be saved. All you have to do is accept it. Its free, for jew and gentile alike, but time is short, dont waste it or it will waste you.

[edit on 033131p://f23Wednesday by Selahobed]

[edit on 033131p://f28Wednesday by Selahobed]

[edit on 033131p://f30Wednesday by Selahobed]

I see a pattern starting emmerger wher my posts seem to get lost?

I see a pattern starting emmerger wher my posts seem to get lost?

Originally posted by babloyi

Originally posted by nenothtu
"Lesser" prophet, as in subservient to Mohammed. In Islam, ALL prophets are lesser than Mohammed, and while they are reverered, none of that reverence approaches the reverence given to Mohammed, as the last prophet.

I'm not sure where you're getting your information from. The Quran clearly states that Muhammad was human. No prophet was subservient to him. I think the only importance given to Muhammad is that he was the "Seal of the Prophets" (i.e. the last one), and thus, according to Islam, the best example for Muslims to follow.

I get my information from the Qur'an, the Sunnah, the Hadith, and modern Islamic practice, as observed. Yes, all of those sources freely admit that Mohammed died. You can go see his tomb even to this day at Al-Masjid Al-Nabawi in Medinah. There is some debate as to the cause of his death, with most sources citing "a short illness", and a few giving more nefarious details of the occurrence. I never said that he DIDN'T die. Muslims also claim that Jesus NEVER did die, and was instead taken up to heaven alive. That means no crucifixion, no atonement. That notion alone makes of His "Messiahship" something other than the Christian notion, counter to it, and in fact contradictory to it.

The islamic Isa' is an attempt to cancel out the Christian Jesus, while claiming that he is the same person. In much the same way, the Islamic "allah" has attributes that directly contradict the Jewish and Christian God, while claiming it to be the same god.

It is NOT the same god. No amount of argument about the god of the Abrahamic religions will change that. I would suggest investigating deeply the history of the Ka'aba in that respect, and Mohammed's relation to it, as well as it's pre-islamic history. Interestingly, the muslims believe now that the Ka'aba was built originally by Abraham and Ishmael jointly, yet none of the other Abrahamic religions even hint that Abraham was anywhere within 400 miles of the location, much less that he had any further dealings with Ishmael after sending he and Hagar into the wilderness.

Nowhere in Islam is Jesus accorded the same degree of deference as Mohammed.

Originally posted by nenothtu
Jesus is referred to as the messiah in the Qur'an because that's how he was referred to by the Christians of the day, where Mohammed got his basic information on the subject. It was taken as a title, rather than a sacred office. "Messiah" being the annointed one, Jesus is simply not seen in that light by either the Qur'an, or modern muslims. He is Prophet Isa' to them, one of around 120,000 prophets.

Once again, I'm not sure where you're getting your information from. Where do you get the idea (or the capability to make such a judgement) that "It was taken as a title, rather than a sacred office"? How does calling Jesus "Isa" reduce his importance? You do realise that "Jesus" wasn't how he was called, right? I mean, in latin it is Iesus, in greek it is Iēsoûs, in Hebrew Yeshua. Do any of these other (far more accurate) names reduce the importance of "Jesus"?

Same sources. The views concerning the Messiahship of Jesus are what they are. Christians see the messiah as a saviour, muslims don't. They see Jesus as a prophet of Islam. I'm not as well versed in Judaism as I'd like to be, so I'll probably be corrected in this, (which is fine, I'm always up to be educated), But I believe Jews see the messiah as more of a political figure, a "king", to lead them out of adversity.

The Islamic name Isa' is just another form of the name. I never meant to imply that it diminished his person in any way, any more than any of the other names you mention would - or even using the anglicized form of "Joshua". They all mean the same name, allegedly the same person. It's the CHARACTERISTICS of Isa found in Islam that make the difference, not the name.

Also, just to note, since you made the claim of Jesus being a "lesser prophet" (and continued that claim even after I said that that is not what the Quran states), I checked up, and it appears that out of the total 120,000 prophets in Islam, only 25 were mentioned in the Quran. And out of those 25, 5 have been given the title of "Ulul Azmi" (Leaders of the Prophets), and out of those 5, Jesus is specifically mentioned as being "Gifted above others" and "Exalted above others". So in light of this (as well as your whole last paragraph that expounds of the importance of Jesus in Islam), I really can't say how you can claim he is considered "lesser".

[edit on 7-10-2009 by babloyi]

Note that Jesus is mentioned as "gifted above others" and "exalted above others", not gifted and exalted above ALL others. A little word can make a big difference. Islam accords Mohammed far more deference and exaltation than Jesus, Christianity doesn't, and therein lies the rub.

Yes, muslims revere Isa'. They revere Mohammed MUCH more, though. You'll also note that some of the stories of Isa' in the Qur'an appear to have be lifted directly from pseudepigraphal sources (the Gospel of Thomas comes to mind), and He is given a different sort of character therein than is given him in the bible. Therefore, Isa', while held forth to be the same person as Jesus, is not. The charactersistics make the difference, not the name.

Thank you for forcing me to re-examine issues I had settled in my own mind long ago.

Originally posted by Selahobed
However as it says in zecheriah "they will mourn for Him whom they PIERCED as for a lost son" and "the WHOLE house of Y'israel shall be saved." That house includes the desendants of Ishmael, Y'israels brother in blood.

I'd have to differ here. If it said the "whole house of Abraham", I'd say Ishmael was included. I don't believe he'd be included in the house of his brother Israel, especially in light of the fact that he and Hagar were expelled specifically to avoid entanglements in the inheritance of Israel. Ishmael was given his own accolades.

However, as I've said above, I'm always open to education.

And to answer another post, Moshiach or Messiah doesnt mean "master" baal does. Baal also is a hebrew term for husband. Moshiach actually means "annointed one"

That would be me. I'm afraid I didn't construct that comment very well, and had to clear it up in a subsequent post. I didn't mean that Messiah meant "master", I meant that the original meaning of "mister" was "master". After revieing it, I can see how my construction of the comment was at fault.

One thing that not a lot of people know, is in fact that the name or word "allah" means "curse" in hebrew/aramaic, so in the original wording of deauteromony, where G-d pronounces curses 7 times 7 fold against those who depart from His ways, it actually says; " I shall send curse "allah" in your streets" and so on, and indeed He has! I do not mean to offend my muslim brothers, but its true.

THAT is what I mean by educated. I never knew that before, and I thank you for enlightening me in the matter.

And like Yeshua drove the demonic host who called themselves legion from a man that entered into pigs that went mad, and ran off a cliff and died. , Muhamid was likewise afflicted on his visitation in a cave which drove him to the point of nearly jumping off a cliff.

Yup, Mohammed was so taken aback by the "revelations" that he feared he was going insane, and became suicidal over it. That, together with Umar's comments about Mohammed trembling and convulsing in the presence of Jibreel has led some to speculate that Mohammed had suffered some brain injury earlier that caused epilepsy and hallucinations, But my personal opinion is that notion is reaching to explain things that have a much simpler explanation, no brain injury required.

G-d's Spririt is love, peace and sound mind, the Spirit of G-d is gentle and not oppressive and would never cause people to kill one another in His Name. He is more than capable of doing that Himself. Does not need us to defend Him. He would be a weak G-d indeed if He did!

I've tried to make that same point time and again, that a god who is so weak as to require mere humans to do his fighting isn't worthy of their worship. If humans were more powerful than their god, their god ought to rightfully be worshipping them.

True enough, the children of Israel had a pretty bloody beginning too, but the difference is that they were fighting for their territory, the Promised Land, and not their God. They never made any claims to the contrary, that I'm aware of, and so never diminished their God in that respect.

However will put up with our bs, giving us the chance to come to a saving knowlege of His Son, however much like G-d closed the door of the ark, a vessel of safety from the flood, He will close the door on salvation through His son. The ark was a "type of" who Yeshua is, only in the shape of a person and not a boat, but if you get on "that boat" you will be saved. All you have to do is accept it. Its free, for jew and gentile alike, but time is short, dont waste it or it will waste you.

We differ in some respects of theology, as I tend toward the notion that God accepted me, not the other way 'round, but it's not a point I'm willing to argue over very much. Unfortunately, Schofield's "typology" goes way over my head, and I never even entertain notions of it, much less argue over it.

Things are what they are.

I can't see Islam as the Synagogue of Satan, as properly muslims haven't much to do with synagogues at all. There was no such thing as Islam when the "Synagogue of Satan" quote was penned.

I do, however, see Islam as "an" antichrist (not necessarily THE antichrist), since their view of what the christ IS is so radically different from what he was originally set up to be.

reply to post by nenothtu

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by Selahobed
One thing that not a lot of people know, is in fact that the name or word "allah" means "curse" in hebrew/aramaic, so in the original wording of deauteromony, where G-d pronounces curses 7 times 7 fold against those who depart from His ways, it actually says; " I shall send curse "allah" in your streets" and so on, and indeed He has! I do not mean to offend my muslim brothers, but its true.

THAT is what I mean by educated. I never knew that before, and I thank you for enlightening me in the matter.

Actually, I checked up a bit, and it seems that the hebrew word for "Cursed" (as used in deutronomy) is אָרוּר, pronounced "Ah-roor". However, I'm not a native speaker, and Selahobed seems to be, so maybe s/he can clear it up.