islam: truly an Abrahamic religion?

reply to post by sHuRuLuNi

"Muslim" means "submitting your will to God".

Orly? So I'm a Muslim?

reply to post by NOTurTypical


no , its not only orally , its by believing that he is the only GOD ,you have faith in that , and do accordingly , thats how you submit .

reply to post by smallpeeps

Originally posted by smallpeeps
He made a whip for Christ's sake. A non lethal weapon, with which to fight the supreme assheads of history, the babylon/rabbi moneylending network.

You are comparing Indiana Jones to Hitler.

I'm not talking anything about any whip or any moneylenders. It is much worse than that.

Originally posted by Dr UAE
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

no , its not only orally , its by believing that he is the only GOD ,you have faith in that , and do accordingly , thats how you submit .

I didn't say "orally".

I said OH, REALLY??? "Orly" is simply short for that.

In the literal understanding of the word "muslim" (one who submits to the will of God" (as the term is sometimes used in the Quran), yes, you'd be a muslim, if that is what you do.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Dr UAE

 

you are referring to the old testament which was written by the jews who hated Ismael which was not born from a jewish woman.

Neither was Issac, Sarah wasn't a Jew.

This is a very good point, because Sarah really is the key to it all.

But for us to have this discussion, we need to agree that the prime pivot of bloodlines, happens at conception. Who is it that enables conception? Is it the man's sperm that does it? Is it the woman's egg and womb?

Sarah is the divine vessel. She stands between two great men, Abraham, and "the Pharaoh". But, which Pharaoh did Sarah stay with, when Abraham said to her "Pretend you are my sister."?

This question is answered by subsequent investigation of who came from Sarah. But really, her womb, is the beginning of Abraham's domination of this planet.

After Isaac is born (when Sarah returns from her timewith the Pharaoh), then Isaac has Jacob.

But Ishmael? He is not mentioned anymore. Ishmael did not have the birthright or the blessing for which the brothers Jacob and Esau strived and traded. But what birthright?

What birthright was passed from Isaac but not from Ishmael?

Of course it was the Pharaonic birthright. The right to rule upper and lower Egypt. That is what preceded Moses and Mohammed alike.

We may say then that there are teo Abrahamic birthrights: The "Hagarian Birthright" versus the "Saraian Birthright" from a primogenitorial perspective. Because both of these ladies' wombs carried Abraham's sons, but only one is said to have had the "birthright" of some kind.

Who was this great man Abraham? The next question supremely ignored is this: When Abraham's God told him to slay his son Isaac, when God said to him, "Take up your son and kill him!"

The key question is: 'Was burnt offering of your beloved child, a new thing for the people of Abraham's time?'

Also when you answer this question, consider the bible-tale of Adam and Eve, written (ostensibly) by Moses himself. Also the tale of Cain and Able, for perhaps Esau is like Cain and Jacob is like Able? And also we must consider that Isaac's wife deceived him and she totally faked him out in his old age, made Jacob totally lie to his father, in order to obtain this 'birthright'. Why would God favor a sneaky conniving move like that?? It is definitely part of the story.

So anyway Jacob got the birthright.

So who is the temporal corollary on the Ishmael side, to this man Jacob on the Isaacian side? Do we have a timeline for these events? Yes, we do. For Jacob had Joseph as his favorite son:

www.mechon-mamre.org...

Therefore, Joseph gets the birthright.

So Joseph, is thought by some (from the work of Ahmed Osman and others), to be the actual character "Yuya", whose mummy is in Egypt, and is quite amazing to behold. Therefore, this man, Yuya, if he was Joseph, explains much, because it is he, Yuya, who produced the penultimate queen named Tiye of the final true dynasty of Egypt, the 18th, which ended with Tutankhamun. After Tut there were only military men filling a shell with no heart.

Yes, because Yuya had Tiye as his daughter. And when Tiye married back into the royal house around 1400 bc or so, it was a refreshing of the bloodlines via Sarah's womb, and when she and Amenhotep III had their first son, he was killed. this was the older brother of Amenhotep IV aka Akhenaten. This killing of his sibling caused Amenhotep IV to have to go into hiding, aka 'hidden in the reeds'. Eventually he served as co-ruler with his father Amenhotep III and it was Joseph or Yuya who was the spiritual head of the household. Yuya of course, was Akhenaten's grandfather through his mother, Tiye.

So the birthright passed to Amenhotep IV, for he is the biblical Moses, as Osman has explained.

Therefore it was Moses, the man Osarseph, who opposed the priests, and became the renegade of his day.

But who is the Ishmael-ite corollary to Joseph? Where he at?

Who is the Ishmael-ite corollary to Moses around 1350 bc? Where he at?

Since Moses goes to meet Jethro and thereby connects to his old crew (Moses was clearly the actual Pharaoh so they followed him), perhaps this is where Ismael shows up? Perhaps Jethro of the bible, is connected to Ishmael's side?

The final question to consider this morning, would be, "Who was Hagar?" Well. she would have to have been of the utmost beauty. The Kings of Amenhotep dynasty 18 traded princesses like fine bred stallions. And who can blame them? So consider that Abraham knew for a fact that his wife was so hot that he was a dead man if he brought her around the Pharaoh. How could he know his wife was that hot?? It's a good question for bible students to consider: How did Abraham assume that his wife's hotness would kill? Hmmm.

About Islam being an abrahamic religion...
Yes, it is.

Jews = pure monotheists, but guilty of insulting and rejecting Jesus
Christians = revere Jesus, but compromise on monotheism.

Islam = pure monotheism AND reveres Jesus as a human messiah.

Originally posted by smallpeeps

The next question supremely ignored is this: When Abraham's God told him to slay his son Isaac, when God said to him, "Take up your son and kill him!"

The key question is: 'Was burnt offering of your beloved child, a new thing for the people of Abraham's time?'

To expound on the point above, about "Was child sacrifice, the way of Abraham's people?", and the followup question "If not, and it was a strange request, to offer your child as a slaughtered pop-tart, then why did Abraham do so? Why did he make moves toward child-killing, unless it was the way of his people?"

Is there a history, of humans offering up their young, to appease some god or get some reward? ANSWER: Yes.

Was this the way of Abraham's people, meaning the volcano tribes of the sinai peninsula, yes in places, it seems to be true. Or perhaps this was the way of Abraham's enemies, to kill their favorite child as an burnt offering to their God? If so, and this was not Abraham's way, then what would make him emulate his enemies in this horrific practice??

You cannot evade this question, you religo-dolts who know not history.

Do not hide behind books, do not try and run from the truth. The truth is that child killing to appease God, is the way of humanity. That is why our greatest century, the 20th, has resulted in masses and heaps of dead children and young persons in the flower of their life.

This world loves piles of dead kids, or just one dead kid, that is Abraham's challenge, to spare his son and defy God, or to follow along like some mindless chump. Really now, can it be said that the anti-Abraham, who refuses to slaughter his son when God says so, is the evil person? Which father is to be praised?? Key question here for you who like to dissonate. Can you help me please define this term: "Anti-Abrahamic" in relation to the idea of obeying commands to offer your children as sacrifices? And also this question: Would all of you even know, if the Earth was full of blood from millions killed in wars? Really now, when hundreds of children are ground between the gears of war in the 20th century, how can you call yourselves righteous? No, Earth is soaked in the blood of children, and the quicker you realize that, the quicker you'll realize why these Shias splatter the blood of their kids' heads and so forth.

What is Jihad? Of course it is the call to martyrdom. Ah but all suicide bomber and all jihadi, are therefore, sacrificers of children. This is the key question of all Abrahamic dolts: Did the people of Abraham's time regularly try to appease God with burnt corpse of their children?

Here is a fun website to catch up on Abraham and Muhammed and such. This quote sums up the author's position. But the author doesn't answer as to "Is it okay to submit to the value of child sacrifice" ...The author assumes a priori that children, smoking on an altar as dead corpses, are sometimes what God asks for. But what God asks for that? And is there a person who if their God asks for it, will say "No.", and would that person go to hell? Key questions for you not to evade. Seek integrity and you may find it.

I've not read the quran, I am saving that for if AQ kidnaps me cause I hear that they must allow you to live and read the quran if you've not. So it could mean your life to not have read the quran, and you are captured by radical Mohammedans because they legally are obliged to let you live, as an un-knower, they can't kill you until you read their book. This is from actual hostages taken by radical Mohammedans so I believe them. They said, "We had not read the quran and our captors then switched to being nicer because we were potential converts then."

Anyway, notice the huge assumptions made by Mohammedan scholars:

www.yuksel.org...

[...]

Verse 16:123 [of the quran] is a direct proof that all religious practices in Islam were intact when Muhammad was born. Thus, he was enjoined to "follow the religion of Abraham." If I ask you to ride a bicycle, it is assumed that you know what a bicycle is and you know or learn from others how to ride it. Similarly, when God enjoined Muhammad to follow the practices of Abraham (16:123), such practices must have been well known.

"Such practices must have been well known"???

Does this include child-as-burnt-offering??? And if you say "No, killing your child wasn't what is meant by "such practices", because the article above is talking about contact-prayer.

Yet due to warfare and sanctions, child sacrifice is the principle of the 20th Century.

Any of you read how Albert "Dumbledore" Pike said he would use the Muhammedans:radicalized, to destroy all world religions? If you research you'll find that his letter to Mazzini is real. Also that Pike was given the US Masonic power after Abraham Lincoln was martyred. Much evil was done in name of Jew and Arab alike.

Originally posted by smallpeeps

What is Jihad? Of course it is the call to martyrdom.

Once more, you show that behind all your WALLS OF TEXT is in fact only a lot of noise.

No, Jihad is not "call to martyrdom".

Jihad means "struggle" - and primarily "struggle with ones self desires". This is the "greater Jihad" according to Muhammad. The "armed struggle" for the defense of ones right to believe in God is called "lesser Jihad".

Originally posted by sHuRuLuNi

Originally posted by smallpeeps

What is Jihad? Of course it is the call to martyrdom.

Once more, you show that behind all your WALLS OF TEXT is in fact only a lot of noise.

No, Jihad is not "call to martyrdom".

Jihad means "struggle" - and primarily "struggle with ones self desires". This is the "greater Jihad" according to Muhammad. The "armed struggle" for the defense of ones right to believe in God is called "lesser Jihad".

Walls of text are what the hadiths and talmud are all about, isn't that true?

My walls of text are far far smaller, far far more concise, and far far more sage. Choose your walls of text wisely.

As your idea that "jihad" means "struggle with self", yes I do know how all religo-drones can destroy words themselves. Why, entire afternoons and months have been devoted to the word "love", for example. Many manipulations of words are possible, including your above.

But the world knows that jihad is referring to the idea that if some dude dies righteously, he gets rewarded. It is gold which a person coins from their own blood, or more evilly, the blood of others.

Was that reply short enough for you? Still no response to facts, from your corner. Just a desire for nicer walls of texts like what the mullahs and rabbis produce huh?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by sHuRuLuNi

 

"Muslim" means "submitting your will to God".

Orly? So I'm a Muslim?

I know you are only taking all this as a joke - thus the urban dictionary with "orly" and smiley faces.
But you should not do that. I was serious about that, and explaining it to people who repeatedly counter our claim.
Still, as I said you probably take all this only as a joke.

It does not befit you, as one who claims to believe in God - so, do not make yourself part of the following group:

And when they meet those who believe, they say, "We believe"; but when they are alone with their evil ones, they say, "Indeed, we are with you; we were only mockers." - 2:14

Originally posted by smallpeeps


But the world knows that jihad is referring to the idea that if some dude dies righteously, he gets rewarded. It is gold which a person coins from their own blood, or more evilly, the blood of others.

Was that reply short enough for you? Still no response to facts, from your corner. Just a desire for nicer walls of texts like what the mullahs and rabbis produce huh?

I would be glad to respond to you in a fashion more to your liking, if you but would clearly ask something, and not mix a lot of text without saying anything. You jump from Hadith to Talmud, from mullahs to rabbis, from Jihad to love.

What on earth are you trying to say?

reply to post by sHuRuLuNi


YOU claimed that a "Muslim" merely means one who submits his (or her) "will to God".

I follow Jesus Christ.

YOU previously claimed to believe Jesus is a prophet who spoke for God.

Therefore I must be a Muslim according to your definition and rationale:

"And this is the will of Him that sent me (God), that every one which seeth the Son (Jesus), and believeth on Him (Jesus), may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day." ~ John 6:40

So, again, I'm a Muslim?

Originally posted by babloyi
In the literal understanding of the word "muslim" (one who submits to the will of God" (as the term is sometimes used in the Quran), yes, you'd be a muslim, if that is what you do.

Oh cool, I'm the world's first Christian Muslim. That's gotta be worth some kind of book deal correct?

Originally posted by sHuRuLuNi
I would be glad to respond to you in a fashion more to your liking, if you but would clearly ask something, and not mix a lot of text without saying anything. You jump from Hadith to Talmud, from mullahs to rabbis, from Jihad to love.

What on earth are you trying to say?

I am not _trying_, to say anything. I have said, and your response above, shows that some part of you heard. It is your choice to respond if the light inside you can allow it.

I am saying yes, the hadiths and the talmud are the same. The oppression of the bloodlusting sacrificing rabbi and the bloodlusting sacrificing mullah are the same.

Yes, in spite of yourself you seem to be understanding. Well done.

No , it's THE Abrahamic religion, Abraham/Ibraheem who surrundered (was muslim in arabic) to God orders.

Originally posted by Anonymousman
No , it's THE Abrahamic religion, Abraham/Ibraheem who surrundered (was muslim in arabic) to God orders.

Yes, the God of that area orders Abraham to holocaust his child, means: burnt offering.

Was this an odd request? That is the question. Submitting to God means what? Because see, there was an intervention, and yet STILL there is a conflict about the 'deathrite' which was the unspilt-blood. Whom was on the altar?? That's the key question, yet why does it matter, since no blood was spilt? The logical answer is that usually, the blood of children was spilt, and therefore the blood-price of Isaac (or Ishmael if you think he was the one on the altar) was valid, though no blood was spilt. How could Ishmael and Isaac compete for a sacrifice that never took place? The only answer is that God made it "as if" the child had been killed. God owned both Ishmael and Isaac completely, as they were both (or just one of them?) was the subject of Gods divine intervention.

The 20th Century (tm) has been the scene of some great offerings. The whole middle section of Europe is littered with their bones. Sacrifice of the innocent and the soldiers/rebels/centurions, is exactly the same in the 20th Century as it was in Jesus' time. Rome still marches into Israel, in fact there are rotting King Tiger tanks in Israel, if I need to make my point I'll post some pics of them.

It is shameful and disgusting that these people still hobble forward with the flags of Moses and Mohammed when those men are dead and cannot defend themselves. Shame on all of those who surf corpses and use dead men's names to get rich or powerful. I personally think Moses, Mohammed and Jesus would be completely angry with how their names have been used.

reply to post by sHuRuLuNi


Watch "Cosmic Codes", all volumes on Youtube and let me know what you think. Does the Quran display ANY of the same characteristics underlying the text?

reply to post by NOTurTypical


exactly the signature of GOD is found in the bible not the quran
that is enough proof
the quran is not the word of GOD
it is the jealousy of man.

reply to post by sHuRuLuNi


there is no hyperdimentional structures in the quran
the bible is a hologram
the SWORD OF YHWH