Muhammed, the Muslim prophet

For discussing the Church, Gospel of Jesus Christ, Mormonism, etc.
User avatar
7cylon7
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1137

Re: Muhammed, the Muslim prophet

Post by 7cylon7 »

linj2fly wrote:
Book of Ruth:
Yes, I believe they have a portion of truth, that is what muddies the waters, they do not have the full truth. This is exactly how Satan does it so well, he mixes truth with lies.
Agree with this general statement.

But this is why I brought up the First Presidency's statement, which is saying he received a 'portion of light' and 'moral truths' from God. He did not receive the 'portion' from Satan as you seem to be saying in the above statement and with your thesis that Islam is a creation of the Catholic Church. So which is it? Can it be both? How? As I've said in previous posts, religion is the oft exploited means by which conquest and killing is justified. I know they don't have a pretty picture and neither do we on this account. No argument about this aspect of history, but you have not proven anything beyond conjecture and speculation regarding a Roman Catholic Connection. Is it possible? Maybe. Is it possible that Mohammad was inspired by God (which is already affirmed by the 1st pres so far as light is concerned) and that it devolved from there....yea. It's not like that's an isolated pattern.
This problem was before the coming of the Savior.
(Agreed)
Moral truths does not equal true religion.

I see you have the koolaid in front of you just don't drink it. Any course about Islam given is going to be super kind to their faith so as not to get the death sentence pronounced on them like the guy who did one comic strip about him. Dead. That is a religion of peace of yes. Book of Ruth has more truth than you do my friend. Islam was created by the Roman Empire or the Roman Church to rid themselves of the Jews. All men have the portion of light given to them. Satan has a portion of light for pete sake. You take a small statement and take it way out of proportion (from the first presidency). What little light Islam had it is now buried and gone. They are even now being used to provoke the US and Israel and WWIII is being set up. They are true masters at deception. They have all the money and power and go to the best schools. They make the rules that we have to follow. The US constitution tried to keep Satan at bay but only good men following it will uphold it or else it falls.

---I never argued that....I was merely pointing out from whom he received light...as opposed to some satanic plot/influence from the Roman Catholic church. That is why I asked you to reconcile it. How do you think they can both be true?

pritchet1
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3600

Re: Muhammed, the Muslim prophet

Post by pritchet1 »

Lucifer=Lightbearer, Son of the Morning (Dawn), Morning Star, no? Maybe the color of the light matters.

User avatar
paper face
captain of 100
Posts: 462
Contact:

Re: Muhammed, the Muslim prophet

Post by paper face »

He was a Son of the Morning before, not after, his rebellion. Meaning that his light was bright and pure. He used to be on our side.

But he was reborn through darkness. Darkness is a womb, you see. Just like a font. Once you come out of the womb, you get a new name. You take on a new identity.

Vengeance is also a womb. Once you pass through it, you are never the same person. You are endowed with all the power that hate affords. It changes your speech, your countenance, and the way you see.

Did you ever read Moby Dick? Few Americans have, and that's too bad because it's 500 pages+ long, and all about what happens to people when they succumb to vengeance. Just like the Book of Mormon. Both carry a message about vengeance that is so vital to their continent of origin, yet few there be that ever take the plunge.

Ahab was a projectionist. He projected all of the accumulated anger, bile and hatred within him onto the "screen" that was the whale. He was like a madman attacking the silver screen in a movie theater with a harpoon in the middle of a film. Was the whale guilty of all of that stuff? No. But Ahab stabbed him anyway. What people don't get is that we all do this, we all project what we choose on to others.

I forgive Islam for having bad apples. I forgive the generalities concerning the West that their general populace may or may not espouse. I don't care about their traditions of war, or Jihad. I'm more interested in how we can relate to them, and as a Mormon, I think it begins with the fact that their women have veiled faces.

liberty_belle
captain of 100
Posts: 556

Re: Muhammed, the Muslim prophet

Post by liberty_belle »

This has been a very great thread, has added insight to my enquiring mind. A couple of thoughts

1. Has anyone read the Talmud?

I am in the process of trying to read it. All I can say is WOW, the Quran has nothing on the Talmud. I had no idea!

2.
by Book of Ruth » Mon Nov 28, 2011 7:44 pm
I just have to add my two cents here:

Muhammed- born 570 AD, married wealth Roman Catholic Woman Khadija. They had four daughter one of which was named Fatima. Sound familiar? Yep, the Lady of Fatima who appeared in Fatima Portugal to 3 catholic children. Whom gave the 3 prophecies, 2 have been made public, the last one held by the pope, regarding the last world war.

Muhammed left for Middle East after the death of his wife very wealthy. Then we have the the start of Islam. Funded by the Roman Catholic's. Illumianti!!!

These two groups alone, catholics and muslims are approx. 4 billion people. There are only 6 billion on the earth. They are being highly controled, and the Middle Eastern Anti-Christ and the Roman False Prophet have some pretty strong ties.

570 AD + 1260 spoken of by Daniel= 1830 Coming forth of the Book of Mormon.

Very few people know of this connection, but it's no coincidence. We must preach the gospel to ALL the world.
About 6 months ago I watched a seminar from Prof Veith who talks about this very thing. That was astounding and has been something that has really caused me a great deal of scriptural study into this very thing. There are a ton of ideas about who is the Anti-Christ, etc.... so when I learned this connection it really made me wonder just how this will play out in the end.

Then, as I stated on the Israel thread, I started doing research into that whole set up (Rothschilds behind the formation of the State of Israel)....found out that 90% of those who are Jews are actually not from the House of Israel. They come from the Khazar Kingdom (of which the Rothschilds are descendants of) and converted to Judaism embracing the Pharasiac Law, The Talmud (which is also an instruction manual for all kind of deviance, read up on Kol Nidre Prayer before the Day of Atonement).

I am have been thinking for the past few weeks about how all this plays a role together. The bottom line, I separate the People from the Governments because we are used for the agenda. However, by their deceits we end up becoming products of these evil entities.

I would love any information you could share that can shed light on either of these subjects. Thanks

User avatar
Book of Ruth
captain of 100
Posts: 264

Re: Muhammed, the Muslim prophet

Post by Book of Ruth »

Liberty Belle- thanks so muchfor your post. I whole heartly agree, seperate the people from the manipulation of Governments/Bankers and the world starts making more sense.

I wanted to post this: I just spent a Q & A hour long session with a very good Shi'a. I didn't hold back on any of my questions, and he didn't hold back on his answers, and it was very educational. This is taken from my very recent memory of 3 hours ago, so it is still fresh, but know this is from a conversation that I had with someone, and their answers.

Me: Who is Jesus?
Shi'a: He is a very good prophet who ran into a cave when the soldiers came to arrest him. They did not crucify him, he is not the Son of God. They crucified the wrong man, and Jesus went to heaven. He will return with the Mahdi.

Me: What is the Shi'a line of authority?
Shi'a: Muhommed then to Ali (Fatimah's husband) cousin to Muhommed. This will be the lineage of the Imam.

Me: Why does Ahmadinejad keep calling for the return of the Mahdi, and can he hasten it?
Shi'a: All Shi'a pray for the Mahdi to return soon so that we can be in his army. Ahmadniejad is not the one we listen to he cannot hasten the Mahdi, it is Ayatollah Khamenei that we listen too.

Me: Is the US the "Great Satan", and Israel the "Little Satan, and will Israel be annihilated?
Shi'a: The US government has caused great crimes against Muslims. Israel is very bad, and they have displaced many Palestinians. The Israelites came to Arabia from Egypt from Moses then scattered and went to Jerusalem. When the crusades came, the Jews chose to abandon Jerusalem rather than fight. They went to Europe, and they are Europeans. When WWII no one wanted the Jews, and they put them right in the Muslims Holy land, the largest insult you could give to Muslims.

Me: So in the end, does Israel have to go?
Shi’a: They are very bad.

Shi’a: Islam is very specific, that if you are not at war with someone they are your brother. Killing them would be as killing yourself. You must have declared war before you fight, then you fight with everything you ever have or can think of.

There is more, but this is really long already. It just finally made sense why all the provocation. They must have war declared, then no holds bar, and all of Islam will fight until the return of the Mahdi when they can fight in his army. (I have more info on this specifically)

liberty_belle
captain of 100
Posts: 556

Re: Muhammed, the Muslim prophet

Post by liberty_belle »

Book of Ruth: Awesome! Post as soon as you can.

So basically what I get from his answer about Israel is that when they had the opportunity to fight for their land, they didn't. They abandoned the land and therefore lost their "rights" to the land?

Another thing of interest was his statement about how Israel came back into the land and their treatment of the Palastinians who lived there. It reminds me of a couple of things.

1. The People of Ammon needed a place to live and the Nephites consulted together and together came the voice that they would give the Land of Jershon to them. Now you know that the people living there are the ones that offered it willingly. It was not taken from them by force. They also were not forced to accept a colonized people. As a result there was peace within the Nephite Nation because they became part of the Nephites and worked with them.

2. Kirtland and Nauvoo days where the people paid for their lands and did not just take what they wanted. Even today, when the Church obtains any property it either freely donated or they pay fair price for it.

I think that there is a real principle here. the Balfour Declaration of 1917 expressed to Herzel that the Jews could go to Palestine on the condition:
His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.[
Even though this document became hotly debated, it seems clear to me that its intent was to protect all those who already lived there.

I am not a trusting fan of wikipedia but this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_De ... on_of_1917 does have some excellent parts of letters that really tells a story of just how the Palastinians basically had no choice in the matter.

Now, I wonder how any of us feel if we were in the Palastinians and Arab's position? Needless to say I believe they have a legitimate complaint. The Palastinians have been/are treated very badly. The sacntions and forced removal from their homes is aggressive behavior. I guess what I am learning from all of this is that we have to be careful to not judge because there is always two sides to every story. I am just not comfortable with believing the way the State of Israel was obtained is exactly how the Lord would have commanded it to be done....hmmm, :-\ more thinking to do, I guess

User avatar
Oldemandalton
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2226
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Re: Muhammed, the Muslim prophet

Post by Oldemandalton »

Liberty Belle, “Khazar Jews” is a myth along the same lines as “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”.
Book of Ruth;
Liberty Belle- thanks so muchfor your post. I whole heartly agree, seperate the people from the manipulation of Governments/Bankers and the world starts making more sense.

Credibility is lost when the “Jews” or “Zionists” are blamed for the world’s ills. This is what has led to the 100s of pogroms of the past several century’s and the holocaust. I feel that another one is just around the corner. I have noticed in the news that Anti-Semitism is on the rise again.

I wanted to post this: I just spent a Q & A hour long session with a very good Shi'a. I didn't hold back on any of my questions, and he didn't hold back on his answers, and it was very educational. This is taken from my very recent memory of 3 hours ago, so it is still fresh, but know this is from a conversation that I had with someone, and their answers.

Me: Who is Jesus?
Shi'a: He is a very good prophet who ran into a cave when the soldiers came to arrest him. They did not crucify him, he is not the Son of God. They crucified the wrong man, and Jesus went to heaven. He will return with the Mahdi.

Just curious but did you get a chance to bear your testimony of the Savior and His Atonement or were you just making small talk to get to know his religion better?

Me: What is the Shi'a line of authority?
Shi'a: Muhommed then to Ali (Fatimah's husband) cousin to Muhommed. This will be the lineage of the Imam.

I guess it would have been inappropriate to point out the fact that we have a prophet here on earth today. Is he interested in learning about the restored Church?

Me: Why does Ahmadinejad keep calling for the return of the Mahdi, and can he hasten it?
Shi'a: All Shi'a pray for the Mahdi to return soon so that we can be in his army. Ahmadniejad is not the one we listen to he cannot hasten the Mahdi, it is Ayatollah Khamenei that we listen too.

I heard that the Shi’a believed that when the Mahdi returns it will be a time of great chaos and war. If someone could help create this chaos/war would that not help hasten his return?

Me: Is the US the "Great Satan", and Israel the "Little Satan, and will Israel be annihilated?
Shi'a: The US government has caused great crimes against Muslims.

The Muslims have been attacking Americans long before Beirut, Iraq, or Afghanistan. Muslim pirates were taking our ships before we were even a nation and soon after.

Israel is very bad, and they have displaced many Palestinians. The Israelites came to Arabia from Egypt from Moses then scattered and went to Jerusalem. When the crusades came, the Jews chose to abandon Jerusalem rather than fight. They went to Europe, and they are Europeans.

Over a million Jews were killed and 100,000 were carried away as slaves from the sack of Jerusalem by Titus and the Roman army in 70 AD. The survivors fled in order to avoid their friends and family’s fate, so I guess you can say they “went to Europe”. :)) Living as exiles without a country does not make them Europeans. They kept their culture and religion separate which of course caused more persecutions and death among their “fellow” Europeans. :(

When WWII no one wanted the Jews, and they put them right in the Muslims Holy land, the largest insult you could give to Muslims.

The Muslims occupied the land that God gave to the tribes Israel and, in these the Latter Days, to the Jews. See my first posts on this thread that prove that the Holy Land is for the return of the Jews in these the Last days.

Me: So in the end, does Israel have to go?
Shi’a: They are very bad.

There is no Palestinian organization or Arab state which believes that Israel has the right to exist.

Shi’a: Islam is very specific, that if you are not at war with someone they are your brother.

Who is Islam NOT at war with? They are fighting; Russia, China, India, Africa, America, Israel, Philippines, Europe, Bangladesh, Indonesia. Did I miss anyone? I wonder if your Shi’a friend came to America to escape the turmoil in the ME and else where.

Killing them would be as killing yourself. You must have declared war before you fight, then you fight with everything you ever have or can think of.

There is more, but this is really long already. It just finally made sense why all the provocation. They must have war declared, then no holds bar, and all of Islam will fight until the return of the Mahdi when they can fight in his army. (I have more info on this specifically)
Very interesting, Book of Ruth, to see how the other side sees us.

I have been interested in how the Mahdi fits into the LDS prophesies and would be like to learn more. One theory I have read is that the Mahdi is the mirror image of the Savior. I wonder how the Shi’a thinks of this theory.

When Christ returns to save the Jews from destruction and split the Mount of Olives, 1/5 of the Armies of Gog will survive the destruction of Gog. Mostly being made up of Muslim countries, will these Islamic soldiers think that the Savior is the Mahdi at first just as the Jews will believe that He will be the Promised Messiah who has finally come to save them? I imagine that the Muslims will be just as shocked as the Jews to find out that their Messiah/Mahdi is Jesus Christ. :)


OMD

User avatar
Book of Ruth
captain of 100
Posts: 264

Re: Muhammed, the Muslim prophet

Post by Book of Ruth »

Just to reinterate that the statements I made were part of a conversation I had with a Shi'a and his opinions/beliefs are obviously NOT mine, seeing how I'm LDS and absolutely believe in the Savior Jesus Christ. So, opinons expressed, not my opinions, just the other side of the coin.

Cont of questions:
Me: So if the Mahdi is to bring peace to the world, then why would he need an army?
Shi'a: The Mahdi will be so great that everyone will want to join his army. It will be a privledge to serve in his army.

Me: Normally and army is used for war, so why an army?
Shi'a: The Mahdi will be so great eveyone will want to join him.

Me: What if someone does not want to join him?
Shi'a: The Mahdi will rule the earth, everyone will join him

Me: What happens to someone if they don't
Shi'a: They will there will not be anyone who has not joined the Mahdi.

I pushed this answer really hard, I got back that everyone will convert to Islam, or die. He believes this every bit as much as I know that the Savior is the Son of God.

User avatar
durangout
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2835
Location: Bugged out man, WAY out

Re: Muhammed, the Muslim prophet

Post by durangout »

Yes; very interesting Ruth. Thanks. It confirms exactly what is in the book I suggested be read: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam.

Speaking of politically incorrect: The DOJ just labled the Fort Hood Massacre (You remember it. It was where Mgr Hasan killed in the name of Allah) as "workplace violence". If I call it "terrorism" then I'm the bad person and a fool, right? ;)

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12 ... kers-warn/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Sen. Susan Collins on Wednesday blasted the Defense Department for classifying the Fort Hood massacre as workplace violence and suggested political correctness is being placed above the security of the nation's Armed Forces at home.

During a joint session of the Senate and House Homeland Security Committee on Wednesday, the Maine Republican referenced a letter from the Defense Department depicting the Fort Hood shootings as workplace violence. She criticized the Obama administration for failing to identify the threat as radical Islam.


April 9, 2010: FILE - This file photo provided by the Bell County Sheriff's Department shows U.S. Major Nidal Hasan at the Bell County Jail in Belton, Texas. Hasan was charged in the Fort Hood shooting rampage.

Thirteen people were killed and dozens more wounded at Fort Hood in 2009, and the number of alleged plots targeting the military has grown significantly since then. Lawmakers said there have been 33 plots against the U.S. military since Sept. 11, 2001, and 70 percent of those threats have been since mid-2009. Major Nidal Hasan, a former Army psychiatrist, who is being held for the attacks, allegedly was inspired by radical U.S.-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who was killed in a U.S. drone strike in Yemen in late September. The two men exchanged as many as 20 emails, according to U.S. officials, and Awlaki declared Hasan a hero.

The chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, Connecticut independent Sen. Joe Lieberman, said the military has become a "direct target of violent Islamist extremism" within the United States.

"The stark reality is that the American service member is increasingly in the terrorists' scope and not just overseas in a traditional war setting," Lieberman told Fox News before the start of Wednesday's hearing.

In June, two men allegedly plotted to attack a Seattle, Wash., military installation using guns and grenades. In July, Army Pvt. Naser Abdo was accused of planning a second attack on Fort Hood. And in November, New York police arrested Jose Pimentel, who alleged sought to kill service members returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Both Pimentel and Abdo also allegedly drew inspiration from al-Awlaki and the online jihadist magazine Inspire, which includes a spread on how to "Make a Bomb in the Kitchen of Your Mom."

Rep. Peter King of New York, the Republican chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said military service members are "symbols of America's power, symbols of America's might."

"And if they (military personnel) can be killed, then that is a great propaganda victory for al Qaeda," King told Fox News.

King said there is also evidence that extremists have joined the services.

"There is a serious threat within the military from people who have enlisted who are radical jihadists," King said. "The Defense Department is very concerned about them. They feel they're a threat to the military both for what they can do within the military itself and also because of the weapons skills they acquire while they're in the military."

The witnesses testifying before the joint session include Paul N. Stockton, assistant secretary of defense for homeland defense; Jim Stuteville, U.S. Army senior adviser for counterintelligence operations and liaison to the FBI; Lt. Col. Reid L. Sawyer, director of the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, and Darius Long, whose son, Army Pvt. William Andrew Long, was shot and killed at an Arkansas military recruitment center in 2009.

A second private was also injured in the Arkansas attack. Both victims had just finished basic training and had not been deployed. They were outside the Arkansas recruitment center when the shooter opened fire from a passing truck. The shooter, Carlos Bledsoe, pleaded guilty to the crime earlier this year.

In a letter to the court, Bledsoe said he carried out the attack on behalf of al Qaeda in Yemen -- the group that was behind the last two major plots targeting the U.S. airline industry.

"My faith in government is diminished. It invents euphemisms ... Little Rock is a drive by and Fort Hood is just workplace violence. The truth is denied," Long testified.

King said the web is the driver of the new digital jihad.

"It enables people -- rather than having to travel to Afghanistan to learn about jihad or to be trained, they can do it right over the Internet," he said. "And this is a growing role."

And while Awlaki and his colleague Samir Khan, who was behind the magazine Inspire, were killed in a CIA-led operation in September, King warned against overconfidence that al Qaeda in Yemen was done.

"This is a definite short-term victory for us. There's no doubt they are going to regroup, that there will be others who will be providing Internet data, inspiration to jihadists in this country, instructions on how to make bombs," he said.

While King was heavily criticized, in some quarters, for launching his hearings 10 months ago on homegrown terrorism, the congressman said the joint session shows the threat is legitimate, and recognized as such by other members of Congress.

"To me it's a validation of what I've been trying to do all year," King emphasized. "There's a definite threat from Islamic radicalization in various parts of our society, including within the military, and we can't allow political correctness to keep us from exposing this threat for what it is."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12 ... z1fsaEzAdT" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
Oldemandalton
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2226
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Re: Muhammed, the Muslim prophet

Post by Oldemandalton »

liberty_belle
Book of Ruth: Awesome! Post as soon as you can.

So basically what I get from his answer about Israel is that when they had the opportunity to fight for their land, they didn't. They abandoned the land and therefore lost their "rights" to the land?

Another thing of interest was his statement about how Israel came back into the land and their treatment of the Palastinians who lived there. It reminds me of a couple of things.

1. The People of Ammon needed a place to live and the Nephites consulted together and together came the voice that they would give the Land of Jershon to them. Now you know that the people living there are the ones that offered it willingly. It was not taken from them by force. They also were not forced to accept a colonized people. As a result there was peace within the Nephite Nation because they became part of the Nephites and worked with them.

2. Kirtland and Nauvoo days where the people paid for their lands and did not just take what they wanted. Even today, when the Church obtains any property it either freely donated or they pay fair price for it.

I think that there is a real principle here. the Balfour Declaration of 1917 expressed to Herzel that the Jews could go to Palestine on the condition:
His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.[


Even though this document became hotly debated, it seems clear to me that its intent was to protect all those who already lived there.

I am not a trusting fan of wikipedia but this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_De ... on_of_1917" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; does have some excellent parts of letters that really tells a story of just how the Palastinians basically had no choice in the matter.

Now, I wonder how any of us feel if we were in the Palastinians and Arab's position? Needless to say I believe they have a legitimate complaint. The Palastinians have been/are treated very badly. The sacntions and forced removal from their homes is aggressive behavior. I guess what I am learning from all of this is that we have to be careful to not judge because there is always two sides to every story. I am just not comfortable with believing the way the State of Israel was obtained is exactly how the Lord would have commanded it to be done....hmmm, more thinking to do, I guess
As noted in my post above the Jews did not “abandoned the land” but were massacred and enslaved by the Romans. The rest fled to avoid the same fate.

The Jews DID pay for the land but just like our Missouri their Arab neighbours opposed this and rioted and persecuted their Jewish neighbours.
Zionist Land Acquisition and Dispossession in Palestine


We turn our attention now to the arrival of Jewish immigrants to Palestine and their contribution to the dispossession of Palestinian Arabs. These immigrants started arriving in successive waves starting in the 1880s and continued through the creation of the state of Israel. Given the fact that an Arab-Arab conflict never took shape before the Jews arrived, it would be understandable to conclude that there must have been something especially harsh about the dispossession resulting from Zionist methods of land accumulation.

One would expect to see commonplace examples of Jews stealing, strong-arming, swindling, blackmailing; basically resorting to any trick up their sleeve to pry land out of Arab hands. In reality, the Jewish technique of accumulating land was simple ... they bought it. Both the concern and the complaints of Jews dispossessing Arabs centered on how much land the Jews were purchasing, not stealing, from land owners:

•The British investigation into the Arab riots during 1936-39 identifies "Arab alarm at the continued Jewish purchase of land"1, not Jewish theft of land, as one of the motivating factors.

•"Conversely, the main Ottoman and Arab complaint against the Zionists was about land sales ..."2

•"Meanwhile, Jewish land purchase continued apace, exacerbating Palestinian disquiet."3

•"Arab discontent on account of Jewish immigration and the sale of lands to Jews which has been a permanent feature of political opinion in Palestine for the past ten years, began to show signs of renewed activity from the beginning of 1933, developing in intensity until it reached a climax in the riots of October and November."4

•"In the beginning of the 1930s, the national value of the land and its transfer from one people to the other became one of the main issues in the political conflict between the two communities. The Arabs insisted that His Majesty's Government put an end to land purchase by the Jews, claiming that it threatened their national existence."5

•"Though they had profited from the enhanced trade and employment opportunities generated by the new Jewish settlements, Palestinian Arabs had grown increasingly concerned about the rise of Jewish immigration and land purchases."6

•"An article published in July 1911 by Mustafa Effendi Tamr, a teacher of mathematics at a Jerusalem school" reads, "You are selling the property of your fathers and grandfathers for a pittance to people who will have no pity on you, to those who will act to expel you and expunge your memory from your habitations and disperse you among the nations. This is a crime that will be recorded in your names in history, a black stain and disgrace that your descendants will bear, which will not be expunged even after years and eras have gone by. ... Opposition to land sales was one of the principal focal points around which the Arab national idea in Palestine coalesced."7

•"Of course, the Zionists bought the land from Arab landholders, who moved to cities or even left the country. They were all too willing to sell, for the price paid by the purchasers was often many times more than anyone else would or could pay."32

•King Abdallah of Jordan complains several times in his memoirs about Jews acquiring land in Palestine. Not once does he accuse the Jews of stealing it from the Arabs. Each time he mentions it, the complaint is how much land they are buying:

"... the fears of the Arab political leaders are supported by the fact that the sale of land continues unrestricted and every day one piece of land after another is torn from the hands of the Arabs.8

"According to my information the Jews have requested the continuance of the mandate so that they can buy up more land and bring in additional immigrants. No other country has gone through such a trial as Palestine."9

"Or are you among those who believe that there is no harm in continuing the present deleterious mandate despite the Jewish usurpers it has brought and despite the demonstrated inability of those Palestinians now at the political helm to prevent their compatriots from selling their land? Furthermore, it is made quite clear to all, both by the map drawn up by the Simpson Commission and by another compiled by the Peel Commission, that the Arabs are as prodigal in selling their land as they are in useless wailing and weeping."10

•"‘Know each of you that in the end every Arab who sells land of the Arab patrimony or who pimps for the Jews will soon receive his due, which is certain death.’ The placards were signed by an organization calling itself ‘Revenge.’ ‘Our problem is the outcome of the sale of our land. The amazing thing is that we sell to the Jews and then scream and wail and ask for the government’s help,’"11


Not only was the land being legally purchased, it was being purchased at drastically inflated prices. Arab land owners were making a killing selling their land during the waves of Jewish immigration in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Despite the animosity against selling land to Jews coming from elitist Arabs, it simply made good economic sense for landlords to sell while they could exploit the thriving market Jewish demand was creating. Sometimes the land being purchased was nothing more than sand dune, malarial swamps and marshes, or other unattractive plots of waste. Even so, it was payday for many landlords; a day many hadn't seen in a long time and one that wouldn't come again:

•"Until 1936 ... the Jews acquired about 25,000 dunam in the Beit-Shean Valley ... The soil was of the poorest quality, in scattered parcels of land, and it was impossible to establish even one settlement on it. The Jewish purchasers paid the full price for these lands; in addition the Government compelled them to cover all the outstanding debts that the sellers had accumulated. (In most cases not one penny of these bad debts had been paid for years.)"12

•"The Jewish authorities have nothing with which to reproach themselves in the matter of the Sursock lands. They paid high prices for the land, and in addition they paid to certain of the occupants of those lands a considerable amount of money which they were not legally bound to pay."13

•"He [the Arab] may sell his land for a fantastic price and add to the congestion in the other zones by moving there. An Arab living a short distance away, just across the zone boundary, cannot obtain anything approximating the same sum for land of equal quality.”14

•"The Jews were paying exorbitant prices to wealthy landowners for small tracts of arid land. “In 1944, Jews paid between $1,000 and $1,100 per acre in Palestine, mostly for arid or semiarid land; in the same year, rich black soil in Iowa was selling for about $110 per acre."15

•"The settlers were ready to pay much more than the economic value of the land. The same or better land is available a few kilometers to the east or north of the Palestine frontiers at one tenth or less of the Palestinian price."16

•“Between 1880 and 1914 over sixty thousand Jews entered Palestine … Many settled on wasteland, sand-dunes and malarial marsh, which they then drained, irrigated and farmed. In 1909 a group of Jews founded the first entirely Jewish town, Tel Aviv, on the sandhills north of Jaffa. The Jews purchased their land piecemeal, from European, Turkish and (principally) Arab landlords, mostly at extremely high prices.”17

•“By 1925 over 2,600 Jews had settled in the [Jezreel] valley, and 3,000 acres of barren hillside had been afforested. This previously uncultivated land, bought at highly inflated prices, became the pattern of all subsequent Jewish National Fund settlements in Palestine.”18

•"In his 'note of reservations' to the Report of the Woodhead Commission, Sir Alison Russel says: 'It does not appear to me that to permit an Arab to sell his land for three or four times its value, and to go with the money to a different part of the Arab world where land is cheap, can be said to "prejudice" his rights and position.'"19

•"The average price paid by Jews for the rural land they bought in Palestine during 1944 amounted to over $1000 per acre or about $250 per dunam (including the value of buildings, orchards and other improvements). These prices are, of course, highly inflated …"20

•"... land brokers sometimes purchased their shares or parcels at a very low price and sold them at ten and twenty multiples to Jewish buyers. Peasants who were in musha' villages were particularly incensed at landlords, land brokers, or agents after learning that they had been swindled."21

• "Aharon Danin of KKL told of an interesting conversation he had at the beginning of the 1940s with Khaled Zu’bi (brother of Sayf al-Din), who helped him buy land in the Zu’biyya villages east of Nazareth: He [Zu’bi] said, ‘Look, who knows better than me that your work is pure. You pay money for everything, top dollar, many times more than what the land is worth. But that doesn’t change the fact that you are dispossessing us. You are dispossessing us with money, not by force, but the fact is that we are leaving the land.’ I say to him: ‘You are from this Zu’biyya tribe which is located here, in Transjordan, and in Syria, what difference does it make to you where you are, if you are here or if you and your family are there? …’ He said: ‘It’s hard for me to tell you, but in any case the graves of my forefathers are here. I feel that we are leaving this place. It’s our fault and not yours.’"30


"The Arab large landowner quickly recognized that he could now do much better business with his land than continuing to have it worked by tenants. ... It was valid to sell it to the newly arrived [Jewish and German] colonist and indeed for the highest possible price. What was to happen to the renter for whom the land was ... sold from under his feet concerned the effendi very little. The tenant was just tossed out onto the street and had to take to his heels. So the colonization became an uninterrupted source of tenant tragedies. On the other hand, the price of land rose in an unimaginable manner."22

In addition to the inflated land value, Jewish buyers were also making numerous and substantial (some might say extortionist) payments to see the deal through from beginning to end. "Initial sums were usually paid to lubricate the selling motive. Local village notables, tenants in occupation, mukhtars, intermediaries, brokers, short-term squatters, and land registry officials often received persuasive sums. The owner or owners also received a sum of money prior to signing the contract. This could mean paying several similar or different sums to members of one family who owned portions of a large land area. A subsequent payment was sometimes made when all the title deeds available were collected and condensed into one large parcel. Another payment was made when a portion of the land was legally transferred or prior to the land being considered free of tenants and agricultural occupants. Still another sum was paid when possession was taken (this to avoid squatting by transient fellaheen), and then periodically as stipulated in a contract."31

A Bit of Hypocrisy

It was the Arab political leadership that was screaming the loudest about stopping these land sales: "The Arab Press lost nothing of its virulence in inveighing against ... the transfer of land to Jews ... The Arab leaders have been more outspoken and less compromising in their hostility ..."23 Of course, rendering these protests utterly disingenuous was the fact these same Arabs continued selling their land to immigrating Zionists. These elitist hypocrites wanted to reserve the right to profit from the suddenly valuable land in Palestine while denying other debt-ridden land owners the same option.

•"The historian's eye has also been caught by the ambivalent position of the Arab national leadership which, while publicly demanding an end to Zionist expansion, privately continued to sell land to the Jews."24

•"Here one cannot ignore the continuous sale of land by Arab landowners to Jews in the 1930s, which was so crucial to the success of Zionism. This can be treated in the context of the social fragmentation of Arab society in Palestine: some Arabs sold land for profit and thus deprived other Arabs of their only means of livelihood. Moreover, some of the national leaders themselves profited from land sales, despite their national consciousness."25

•"Throughout the Mandate, the leading Arab families, including Husseinis and Opposition figures, sold land to the Zionists, despite their nationalist professions. Jewish landholding increased between 1920 and 1947 from about 456,000 dunams to about 1.4 million dunams. The main brake on Jewish land purchases, at least during the 1920s and 1930s, was lack of funds, not any Arab indisposition to sell."26

•"And a giant question mark hangs over the “nationalist” ethos of the Palestinian arab elite: Husseinis as well as Nashashibis, Khalidis, Dajanis, and Tamimis just before and during the Mandate sold land to the Zionist institutions and/or served as Zionist agents and spies."27

•"Muhammad Nimer al-Hawwari, who headed the Najjadah, took the microphone at a rally in Jaffa and said, ‘For twenty years we have heard talk against land brokers and land sellers, yet here they sit in the front rows at every national gathering.’ The rally’s organizers reacted swiftly; they turned off the loudspeakers."28

•"The rural elite, with their large landholdings, were accused of opportunism by fellahin, who declared: ‘They, the effendis, sold their lands to the Jews, they are the intermediaries between us and the Jews in the sale of land, they exploit us with usurious interest and head the gangs that abused us.’"29


An initial contrast between the way Arab money lenders and merchants acquired land through economic oppression and trickery versus the way Zionist immigrants acquired land through paying exorbitant sums of money offers no answers for why conflict erupted. In fact, considering only the methods of land acquisition apart from any issue it would seem the arrival of Jewish immigrants and their money would have ended hostilities that should have already been in place. It cannot be suggested by any reasonable account that Jewish land purchases oppressed or dispossessed the legal owners of the land being sold. That was a willful agreement reached between two parties. The catch here was the tenant farmers that lived and worked the land being sold. These were often times the previous owners who had already been dispossessed of their ownership before Jewish immigrants arrived. Now with interested Jewish buyers available, the same Arabs guilty of demoting these farmers to tenant status were selling the land out from under them to turn a profit.

The reason this was such a concern was that Jewish buyers wanted the land free of tenant farmers. Unlike absentee Arab landlords living in Damascus, Beirut, and Cairo, the Jews desired to live and work on the plots they bought. Certainly the new Jewish owners were within their rights to expect the land they had spent so much money for would not have to be shared, but we are looking to explain why this dispossession led to conflict, not to justify owners' rights which do not require a defense.

Perhaps the physical act of relocation was of greater psychological consequence than losing intangible ownership and therefore accounts for why conflict only arose against the Jews. Yes, it was the Arab elite who stripped them of this ownership through a series of oppressive measures and then in a second pass sold away the land they used, but it was typically not until the Jews arrived that the Arabs faced the physical consequences of relocation. The next section in this series explores the extent to which this form of Zionist dispossession took place.
http://www.middleeastpiece.com/disposse ... thods.html
When the UN Partitioned Palestine they created TWO states, one Jewish and one Arab. The jews accepted the plan the Arabs rejected it. THERE WAS A TWO STATE SOLUTION OVER 60 YEARS AGO! The Arabs rejected it then and they still do so now.
The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was a recommendation for partition by the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine in 1947 to replace the British Mandate for Palestine with "Independent Arab and Jewish States" and a "Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem" administered by the United Nations. It was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 29 November 1947 as Resolution 181.

The proposed plan was accepted by the leaders of the Jewish community in Palestine, through the Jewish Agency. The plan was rejected by leaders of the Arab community (the Palestine Arab Higher Committee etc.), who were supported in their rejection by the states of the Arab League.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nat ... _Palestine

liberty_belle
captain of 100
Posts: 556

Re: Muhammed, the Muslim prophet

Post by liberty_belle »

OMD, a couple of things. First, I never said that the Jews left their land willingly, I was making sure I understood the Shi'ia words.

Second, about the Khazars, the information I got was from a man who he himself had dedicated his life to understanding where they came from. Also the majority of Jews, those in leadership especially claim themselves that they are Ashkazaria Jews. I appreciate all information and I am investigating your link to wikipedia against what I have read. Even if, as you suggested in the Israel Post, that they were the Elite of the Khazars, they were the ones from which the Rothschilds and every Zionist who has been a leader came from. I know you cannot be ignorant of the part the Rothschilds have played in history but if you are, here is link to a timeline:

http://www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBradf ... schild.htm

I have not been able to find in any of the information I have been reading, other than what you just posted, where the Jews entering into Palestine, bought anything. If they did, to whom was the money paid, the UN? Great Brittan? Certainly not the Palastinians themselves, so to whom? That would be like the Govorner of UT negotiating the transfer of Governemnt and property of Arizona without our knowledge and then accepting the money but not paying us.

I spent a lot of time on Wikipedia, which is not a really a source I count on as the complete truth. I attended University of Phoenix for a week and I was told that not one University accepts wikipedia as a credible source in doing research, so with that said.....The links that I kept connecting to within wikipedia told the story of the deals being made without the knowledge of certain nations, one being Palestine. So, if they never were involved, but their fate was decided by other people, I think I would be angry also, wouldn't you? HOwever, this has actually verified information that I read from a man in the 1960(I think that was the year he revealed his information on the Khazars).

The UN Partition of land that was not their's to partition without the consent of the people who lived in the area. I am an American, I call America my homeland and I am loyal to it. Just like you, my roots did not originate here. My mom's family is from England and my Dad's from Scottland. I do not call that my homeland and demand to be restored to there. Lets take that just a bit further, in my patriarchle blessing, I am told that I am a LITERAL DESCENDANT of Ephraim, so where does that put my actual homeland? By this reasoning, I could claim Egypt and the lands of Ephraim in the Middle-East. My family obviously had been those who had been taken captive and assimilted into Assyria. The Jews were scattered for the same reasons, they perverted the Law of Moses, they denied the Christ and killed him and those that followed him. They were guilty and were given the consequences, but just like my family the Ephramites have been promised, that we would once again, when we believe in Christ and when the Lord gathers all the tribes together with his mighty arm, that we would once again gain a land for our inheritance.

I would also like you to consider 2 Nephi 29 and 30. What are the Gentiles guilty of where the Jews are concerned. Let me just give you a hint, its not restoring them to the lands of their inheritance, that is what the Lord has claimed HE will do with a mighty arm. We are guilty of something different. When you read that we can have further discussions on where it says in that scripture that the Jews would be gathered to help faciliate their conversion.

I would also like you to consider, how the Jews will ever become believers in Christ when in their land we are not allowed to proselyte? Isaiah promised them the Gentile Nations (Christian) would be their nursing mothers and fathers...this implies that this is where they would be safe and have the best chance for conversion. However, God also had foreknowledge of just what would happen in the middle east and the horrible conflicts that would envelope the world, and promised that those who were humble would flee from their enemies (that could also mean their oppressors within their own governemnt) and meet Christ when the mount of olives split and he shows him his wounds. They will know they inherited lies, just as we all will.

The point is that even the Arabs and Muslims have inherited lies. However, they believe that their Savior will deliver them from their enemies just as we do. They believe that their Savior will destory by death all of his enemies who refuse to believe and worship him, just as we do. They believe that their God will have an army, just as we do (every hear of the 144k?). Their God will give them the lands of their inheritances, just as we do. Now compare that to the Jews, they believe they are the chosen race, they believe that their Messiah will destory all their enemies.....what then is so different in our beliefs? Nothing except to whom we call Savior.

I have asked if anyone as attempted to read the Talmud? If not maybe I will start a thread on it. I think you would be surprised.

User avatar
Oldemandalton
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2226
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Re: Muhammed, the Muslim prophet

Post by Oldemandalton »

Liberty Belle;
OMD, a couple of things. First, I never said that the Jews left their land willingly, I was making sure I understood the Shi'ia words.
That’s cool LB. You would be surprised how many on this forum believe that the Jews have no right to be in Palestine.

Second, about the Khazars, the information I got was from a man who he himself had dedicated his life to understanding where they came from. Also the majority of Jews, those in leadership especially claim themselves that they are Ashkazaria Jews. I appreciate all information and I am investigating your link to wikipedia against what I have read. Even if, as you suggested in the Israel Post, that they were the Elite of the Khazars, they were the ones from which the Rothschilds and every Zionist who has been a leader came from. I know you cannot be ignorant of the part the Rothschilds have played in history but if you are, here is link to a timeline:

I believe your friend has ‘dedicated his life’ in half-truths. He needs to expand his search a little. Pearls aren’t found in the cow pasture, remember. ;)

I am sure once the Jews fled and were enslaved in Europe that they intermarried to a point. God gave Israel the laws of Moses which not only helped to lead them to Christ, but also it separated them from their neighbors. An example is their dietary laws. This would have kept them somewhat apart from the Europeans they found themselves living amongst. They did keep their identity Liberty Belle.

Ashkenazi Jews

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jews


http://www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBradf ... schild.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I know about the Rothschilds and no they don’t “control the world”. :)) It’s a lot more complicated than blaming everything on one rich Jewish family.

I have not been able to find in any of the information I have been reading, other than what you just posted, where the Jews entering into Palestine, bought anything. If they did, to whom was the money paid, the UN? Great Brittan? Certainly not the Palastinians themselves, so to whom? That would be like the Govorner of UT negotiating the transfer of Governemnt and property of Arizona without our knowledge and then accepting the money but not paying us.

Read the article I posted above. It explains who they paid. Check out the footnotes. Most are not Jewish sources.
See also;


Land Ownership in Palestine, 1880-1948, by Moshe Aumann

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... sw7wi-us8w

Jewish land purchase in Palestine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_lan ... _Palestine

Part III, The Sweeping Vista of Jewish History, Fantastic Victory-Israel's Rendezvous With Destiny, by W. Cleon Skousen

I spent a lot of time on Wikipedia, which is not a really a source I count on as the complete truth. I attended University of Phoenix for a week and I was told that not one University accepts wikipedia as a credible source in doing research, so with that said.....The links that I kept connecting to within wikipedia told the story of the deals being made without the knowledge of certain nations, one being Palestine. So, if they never were involved, but their fate was decided by other people, I think I would be angry also, wouldn't you? HOwever, this has actually verified information that I read from a man in the 1960(I think that was the year he revealed his information on the Khazars).

When I use Wikipedia I always check the footnotes also and see where they lead.

There was neither a ‘Palestine’ nor ‘Palestinians’. They were all Arabs who were governed by different kingdoms, caliphates and, towards the end the Ottoman Empire. Brittan ended up with it and wanted to create two nations within what they called the Palestinian Mandate, one Jewish and one Arab. Brittan tried to work with both groups. Most of the Jews cooperated some didn’t. Most of the Arabs did not and neither did they want to share governance of Palestine with the Jews. Never did, still don’t. The Arabs wanted to drive the Jews into the sea in 1948 and have never given up with this goal ever since.


The UN Partition of land that was not their's to partition without the consent of the people who lived in the area. I am an American, I call America my homeland and I am loyal to it. Just like you, my roots did not originate here. My mom's family is from England and my Dad's from Scottland. I do not call that my homeland and demand to be restored to there. Lets take that just a bit further, in my patriarchle blessing, I am told that I am a LITERAL DESCENDANT of Ephraim, so where does that put my actual homeland? By this reasoning, I could claim Egypt and the lands of Ephraim in the Middle-East. My family obviously had been those who had been taken captive and assimilted into Assyria. The Jews were scattered for the same reasons, they perverted the Law of Moses, they denied the Christ and killed him and those that followed him. They were guilty and were given the consequences, but just like my family the Ephramites have been promised, that we would once again, when we believe in Christ and when the Lord gathers all the tribes together with his mighty arm, that we would once again gain a land for our inheritance.

The Arabs lost their chance to compromise when they chose the path of war in 1948, rather than peace.

I would also like you to consider 2 Nephi 29 and 30. What are the Gentiles guilty of where the Jews are concerned. Let me just give you a hint, its not restoring them to the lands of their inheritance, that is what the Lord has claimed HE will do with a mighty arm. We are guilty of something different. When you read that we can have further discussions on where it says in that scripture that the Jews would be gathered to help faciliate their conversion.
I would also like you to consider, how the Jews will ever become believers in Christ when in their land we are not allowed to proselyte?

The two witnesses IMO will open the work to the Jews after the ‘Times of the Gentiles’ has ended. Until then it is still the Gentiles turn.

Isaiah promised them the Gentile Nations (Christian) would be their nursing mothers and fathers...this implies that this is where they would be safe and have the best chance for conversion.

No it means that God used the Gentiles UN/Brittan/USA, etc, to have God’s promises fulfilled.

However, God also had foreknowledge of just what would happen in the middle east and the horrible conflicts that would envelope the world, and promised that those who were humble would flee from their enemies (that could also mean their oppressors within their own governemnt) and meet Christ when the mount of olives split and he shows him his wounds. They will know they inherited lies, just as we all will.

So you believe that the Jews will flee to Palestine during the ‘War of Armageddon”? /:) No, LB, it is the Jewish nation of Israel that will be attacked by the armies of Gog for 3 ½ years and will be supported by the two witnesses, two LDS Apostles. After part of Jerusalem is sacked and the two witnesses lie in the street for three days they are resurrected, Christ comes, splits Mnt of Olives in two and saves the rest of the Jews from slaughter. That’s when they see their Messiah and realize he was the Christ which their ancestors had crucified. I believe that many will be converted during the 3 1/2 year war as the two apostles perform one miracle after another to save them.

The point is that even the Arabs and Muslims have inherited lies. However, they believe that their Savior will deliver them from their enemies just as we do. They believe that their Savior will destory by death all of his enemies who refuse to believe and worship him, just as we do. They believe that their God will have an army, just as we do (every hear of the 144k? Missionaries, not an Army). Their God will give them the lands of their inheritances, just as we do. Now compare that to the Jews, they believe they are the chosen race, they believe that their Messiah will destory all their enemies.....what then is so different in our beliefs? Nothing except to whom we call Savior.

Yes but the difference is that ours and the Jews prophecies will come true and those of the Muslims ….. well let’s just say they’ll be very disappointed when it is THEIR army that is destroyed.

I have asked if anyone as attempted to read the Talmud? If not maybe I will start a thread on it. I think you would be surprised.





The Talmud is not scripture LB.

The sriptures and quotes below show that God did want the Jews to settle in the Holy Land in these the last days.


Elder Orson Hyde’s Dedicatory Prayer for the return of the Jews to Palestine in 1841, “…"Now, O Lord! Thy servant has been obedient to the heavenly vision which Thou gavest him in his native land; and under the shadow of Thine outstretched arm, he has safely arrived in this place to dedicate and consecrate this land unto Thee, for the gathering together of Judah's scattered remnants, according to the predictions of the holy Prophets..”

Soon after this prayer the Zionist movement began in earnest and thousands of the diaspora Jews began to settle in Palestine.

D&C 133:13
13 And let them who be of Judah flee unto Jerusalem, unto the mountains of the Lord’s house.

D&C 109:61-64
61 But thou knowest that thou hast a great love for the children of Jacob, who have been scattered upon the mountains for a long time, in a cloudy and dark day.
62 We therefore ask thee to have mercy upon the children of Jacob, that Jerusalem, from this hour, may begin to be redeemed;
63 And the yoke of bondage may begin to be broken off from the house of David;
64 And the children of Judah may begin to return to the lands which thou didst give to Abraham, their father.

3 Nephi 29:8
8 Yea, and ye need not any longer hiss, nor spurn, nor make game of the Jews, nor any of the remnant of the house of Israel; for behold, the Lord remembereth his covenant unto them, and he will do unto them according to that which he hath sworn.

2 Nephi 29:3-5
3 And because my words shall hiss forth—many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible.
4 But thus saith the Lord God: O fools, they shall have a Bible; and it shall proceed forth from the Jews, mine ancient covenant people. And what thank they the Jews for the Bible which they receive from them? Yea, what do the Gentiles mean? Do they remember the travails, and the labors, and the pains of the Jews, and their diligence unto me, in bringing forth salvation unto the Gentiles?
5 O ye Gentiles, have ye remembered the Jews, mine ancient covenant people? Nay; but ye have cursed them, and have hated them, and have not sought to recover them. But behold, I will return all these things upon your own heads; for I the Lord have not forgotten my people.

Elder Ezra Taft Benson
In a Conference talk, April 1950, Elder Benson describes the establishment of the State of Israel as fulfillment of prophecy,
“As Latter-day Saints, familiar with ancient and modern prophecies, we of course do not agree that some other more suitable place should be and will be found for the descendants of Judas. We believe in the over-ruling power of Providence in the affairs of men and nations. We believe that the Old Testament prophets clearly predicted the dispersion and scattering of Israel and the eventual lathering of Judah in the land given to their fathers.

President Joseph Fielding Smith
In an April 1966 Conference Talk by President Joseph Fielding Smith, entitled, Stand With Israel also describes the creation of the nation of Israel as fulfillment of prophecy. He said “Jesus said the Jews would be scattered among all nations and Jerusalem would be trodden down by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles were fulfilled. (Luke 21:24.) The prophecy in Section 45, verses 24-29, of the Doctrine and Covenants regarding the Jews was literally fulfilled. Jerusalem, which was trodden down by the Gentiles, is no longer trodden down but is made the home for the Jews. They are returning to Palestine, and by this we may know that the times of the Gentiles are near their close.”

President Wilford Woodruff
“President Wilford Woodruff uttered a very important prophecy, prayer, and testimony with reference to this people, in which he said,
. . . the Lord has decreed that the Jews should be gathered from all the Gentile nations where they have been driven, into their own land, in fulfillment of the words of Moses. their law-giver. And this is the will of your great Elohim, O house of Judah... Then he said further that the time would come when the armies of the Gentiles would be gathered against them, but he promised further that the time is not far distant when the rich men among the Jews would be called upon to use their abundant wealth to gather the dispersed of Judah and purchase the ancient dwelling places of their fathers in and about Jerusalem, and rebuild the holy city and temple.”

W. Cleon Skousen
In W. Cleon Skousen’s book “Fantastic Victory: Israel's Rendezvous With Destiny”
Bro Skousen explains very well the Arab Israeli conflict and the history of the Jew’s return to Palestine. This book is a must read for the Israel/Jew doubters.

It is interesting that under the heading, Zionism, Bruce R. McConkie, in “Mormon Doctrine” stated;
“One of the living miracles of the ages is the preservation of the Jewish people as a distinct race and the restless anxiety in the hearts of so many of them to return to the land of their fathers. This modern movement to resettle the house of Judah in Palestine is called Zionism. It gains impetus from the many Old Testament prophecies which tell of the latter-day return of Judah to their homeland.”

User avatar
Book of Ruth
captain of 100
Posts: 264

Re: Muhammed, the Muslim prophet

Post by Book of Ruth »

Something that I have learned from my friend the Shi'a:

They give strict adherence to their Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei. He is their authority, he interprets Islamic law, and when he says move, they are prepared to move with stict obedience. They take their month long fast Ramadan very seriously, and they follow their leader, and will move as one when called upon.

This is important, because we as LDS following the Prophet often pick and chose what commandments/council we will follow, they DO NOT. We will be in the "wilderness" for our "training" on how to obey every word. They have been at it for their entire lives, and they are prepared.

Worse, they know that we are uncommited, undisciplined, and that as we currently stand, that they can move forward upon us because we will scatter to save our own skins because we do not have discipline. (Speaking as American's as a whole.)

They pride themselves are bending their own will into the will of the Allah. And they are really really good at it. We have got to learn complete faith in our Prophet as he speaks for the Savior. Disciplining ourselves to do exactly as the Prophet directs. They have.

User avatar
linj2fly
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1007

Re: Muhammed, the Muslim prophet

Post by linj2fly »

This transcript (FAIR conference talk) by Daniel Peterson, is an excellent survey of the teachings of Joseph Smith and other brethren on religious freedom and tolerance. It's a mine of quotes, and I highly recommend it.

The first half covers Joseph's sentiments toward other religions, while the second half focuses on Islam and is a survey of teachings from our prophets and apostles regarding Islam from the mid-19th century up to 1978:

http://www.fairlds.org/fair-conferences ... gions#en28
Last edited by linj2fly on February 9th, 2012, 11:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

liberty_belle
captain of 100
Posts: 556

Re: Muhammed, the Muslim prophet

Post by liberty_belle »

I re-read this entire thread after having done a lot more research these past few months. I have come to the conclusion that there are many great people in the world with a handful of cruel puppeteers who have used relgion as a means to control others.

After reading again this thread, I just wanted to say thank you to Paperface for your incredible posts. Truly, a peacemaker!

chase
captain of 100
Posts: 266

Re: Muhammed, the Muslim prophet

Post by chase »

The problem with this post is that everyone is referring to both Islam and Mormonism as they exist today. I think the initial intent was to show that Islam, at its roots, is much the same as Christianity, Mormonism, etc, at their roots. What we seem to be commenting on is what these religions have become, not where they began...and where they began is what is important, and in all likelihood they began in the same place.

User avatar
Oldemandalton
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2226
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Re: Muhammed, the Muslim prophet

Post by Oldemandalton »

chasetafer0707
The problem with this post is that everyone is referring to both Islam and Mormonism as they exist today. I think the initial intent was to show that Islam, at its roots, is much the same as Christianity, Mormonism, etc, at their roots. What we seem to be commenting on is what these religions have become, not where they began...and where they began is what is important, and in all likelihood they began in the same place.
Roots are what the religions were founded on, Chasetafer0707. “Christianity and Mormonism” were both founded by The Lord Jesus Christ. He Himself restored it to the Jews in the Holy Land two thousand years ago. Then in 1830 He restored it again after the “Great Apostasy” through a living prophet Joseph Smith. This differs greatly from Islam. It was started by a man, Mohammed, who claimed to be a prophet and to have received revelations from God. It is interesting to me that Mohammed was born the same years as the start of the Great Apostasy, 570 AD.

There are similarities between the teachings of Islam and Judaism because many of the Bedouin tribes where it began were descendants of Abraham through Ishmael, Esau, and Lot and shared many common traditions and beliefs with the Jews. The difference is that in Islam it was Ishmael who got the birthright from Abraham and not Isaac, thus the centuries of enmity between the two people. This was very similar to the hatred between the Nephites and Lamanites. The elder children feel jealousy and hatred toward their younger siblings who receive the birthright instead of them, which is tradition amongst their people.

Just as any religion created by man it has “the philosophies of men mingled with scripture”. Islam has a split personality due to the evolution in the life of Mohammed. It the beginning he taught peace and prosperity. Eventually he taught that ‘jihad” was not only a spiritual struggle against Satan and evil but also a righteous way to spread Islam and to subjugate their earthly enemies. The peaceful Muslims around the world read the Qur’an and hadith ignoring the violent sections while the fanatical Islamists embrace them. Thus we get Arabs who want to live in peace with their distant cousins, the Jews, while on the other hand we have Jihadists who want to “kill all the Jews” and have trees call out,” there is a Jew hiding behind me come kill him”.

chase
captain of 100
Posts: 266

Re: Muhammed, the Muslim prophet

Post by chase »

Oldemandalton wrote:
chasetafer0707
The problem with this post is that everyone is referring to both Islam and Mormonism as they exist today. I think the initial intent was to show that Islam, at its roots, is much the same as Christianity, Mormonism, etc, at their roots. What we seem to be commenting on is what these religions have become, not where they began...and where they began is what is important, and in all likelihood they began in the same place.
Islam was started by a man, Mohammed, who claimed to be a prophet and to have received revelations from God. It is interesting to me that Mohammed was born the same years as the start of the Great Apostasy, 570 AD.

There are similarities between the teachings of Islam and Judaism because many of the Bedouin tribes where it began were descendants of Abraham through Ishmael, Esau, and Lot and shared many common traditions and beliefs with the Jews. The difference is that in Islam it was Ishmael who got the birthright from Abraham and not Isaac, thus the centuries of enmity between the two people. This was very similar to the hatred between the Nephites and Lamanites. The elder children feel jealousy and hatred toward their younger siblings who receive the birthright instead of them, which is tradition amongst their people.

Just as any religion created by man it has “the philosophies of men mingled with scripture”. Islam has a split personality due to the evolution in the life of Mohammed. It the beginning he taught peace and prosperity. Eventually he taught that ‘jihad” was not only a spiritual struggle against Satan and evil but also a righteous way to spread Islam and to subjugate their earthly enemies. The peaceful Muslims around the world read the Qur’an and hadith ignoring the violent sections while the fanatical Islamists embrace them. Thus we get Arabs who want to live in peace with their distant cousins, the Jews, while on the other hand we have Jihadists who want to “kill all the Jews” and have trees call out,” there is a Jew hiding behind me come kill him”.
Haha, I guess you don't see the interesting parallels in what you wrote an what I said. Of course we look at the situation and see the vast differences between Mormonism and Islam. That is how we operate. But look at what you just said. "It was started by a man, Mohammed, who claimed to be a prophet and to have received revelations from God." Isn't that what people say about Joseph Smith? Those of use who believe obviously refute critics disagreement that our church was founded by a man by telling them that we have a testimony. Well, what if Mohammed really did have significant spiritual experiences because of his righteousness which he unsuccessfully attempted to present to his posterity? Could his experiences have been akin to what Joseph experienced when he sought for divine guidance?

What if after Israel's failure to maintain the gospel covenant (around the time when Christ's church drifted into apostasy, which you said was around the date of Mohammed's theophany), God offered the gospel to those who were not of the covenant lineage. For example, the gospel going to the Gentiles (maybe we can lump Ishmael in with the Gentiles) which it did. You also bring up the example of the Nephites and the Lamanites. Of course the Nephites had the gospel anciently and the Lamanites traditionally did not...but who is going to be gathered as the remnant in the end? The Lamanites. Perhaps this is a parallel example. Israel failed to keep the covenant (like the Nephites) so it was offered to the Ishmaelites (as it will be to the Lamanites).

Was the original intent of "Jihad" to be an offensive military movement? I don't think so. I think it was meant to be a teaching of declaring peace to a nation, and then if that nation continued its offenses, those followers of that teaching were then allowed to defend themselves. This sounds strangely familiar to what we find in the D&C as the only justification for violence. I do not think that Islam in its modern form is inspired or saving or credible. Nor do I think the modern version of jihad is valid. I don't think it has maintained its original intent. However, I think if we would go back to the source, we might be surprised. If Mohammed actually did have heavenly visions, as did Joseph, even just angelic visions, I think that at the well-spring of Islam we may find something very similar to Mormonism. On the other hand, we may find that Mohammed was deceived. We are not privy to that information. Personally, I doubt that Mohamed ever received the promises given to Abraham granting a perpetual covenant to his seed, otherwise Islam would have perpetuated ordinances, which it seems they haven't, but that doesn't mean that he wasn't on the path to those promises at some point. As an important note, I don't think I have received those promises either. I think that outside of Joseph, very very few men, if any, have in this dispensation. I could be wrong...but so could you.

We look at history through a very western lens, and we tend to look at results rather than actual facts. For example, Mormonism is much much different than it was when Joseph received it, but do we blame Joseph for that or those who have come after him. I imagine Islam is vastly different than Mohammed (or even God) intended for it to be. But should we blame Mohammed for that? I am only responding because I think you misunderstood my original post. I just wanted to clarify what I meant, and we may just have to respectfully disagree, but I think there are striking parallels in what you said in response and what I said in my original post. Thanks for the reply Oldmandalton.

User avatar
Oldemandalton
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2226
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Re: Muhammed, the Muslim prophet

Post by Oldemandalton »

chasetafer0707
Haha, I guess you don't see the interesting parallels in what you wrote an what I said. Of course we look at the situation and see the vast differences between Mormonism and Islam. That is how we operate. But look at what you just said. "It was started by a man, Mohammed, who claimed to be a prophet and to have received revelations from God." Isn't that what people say about Joseph Smith? Those of use who believe obviously refute critics disagreement that our church was founded by a man by telling them that we have a testimony. Well, what if Mohammed really did have significant spiritual experiences because of his righteousness which he unsuccessfully attempted to present to his posterity? Could his experiences have been akin to what Joseph experienced when he sought for divine guidance?
No I think their experiences were different because Joseph Smith actually DID see God the Father, Jesus Christ, and many other heavenly beings while, IMO, Mohammed did not. Why do I believe this? When the apostasy occurred there was no more priesthood on the earth nor any more prophets or visitations by angles. Daniel prophesied that this apostasy would last 1260 years which is long after Mohammed’s establishing the religion of Islam. If the apostasy did last 1260 years then there were no prophets or priesthood holders during this time.

See:
The 1260 Year Prophecy
http://mormonprophets.org/prophecies/th ... r-prophecy

Quotes From Modern Prophets
http://mormonprophets.org/prophecies/qu ... n-prophets

What if after Israel's failure to maintain the gospel covenant (around the time when Christ's church drifted into apostasy, which you said was around the date of Mohammed's theophany), God offered the gospel to those who were not of the covenant lineage. For example, the gospel going to the Gentiles (maybe we can lump Ishmael in with the Gentiles) which it did. You also bring up the example of the Nephites and the Lamanites. Of course the Nephites had the gospel anciently and the Lamanites traditionally did not...but who is going to be gathered as the remnant in the end? The Lamanites. Perhaps this is a parallel example. Israel failed to keep the covenant (like the Nephites) so it was offered to the Ishmaelites (as it will be to the Lamanites).
You bare correct that after the rejection of the gospel by the Jews it went to the Gentiles. The Church was to be on the earth till 570 AD, when the Great Apostasy began. This is decades before Mohammed started Islam so it could not have been ordained of God.

See:
Seven Proofs Of The Great Apostasy
http://mormonprophets.org/prophecies/se ... t-apostasy

Was the original intent of "Jihad" to be an offensive military movement? I don't think so. I think it was meant to be a teaching of declaring peace to a nation, and then if that nation continued its offenses, those followers of that teaching were then allowed to defend themselves. This sounds strangely familiar to what we find in the D&C as the only justification for violence. I do not think that Islam in its modern form is inspired or saving or credible. Nor do I think the modern version of jihad is valid. I don't think it has maintained its original intent. However, I think if we would go back to the source, we might be surprised. If Mohammed actually did have heavenly visions, as did Joseph, even just angelic visions, I think that at the well-spring of Islam we may find something very similar to Mormonism. On the other hand, we may find that Mohammed was deceived. We are not privy to that information. Personally, I doubt that Mohamed ever received the promises given to Abraham granting a perpetual covenant to his seed, otherwise Islam would have perpetuated ordinances, which it seems they haven't, but that doesn't mean that he wasn't on the path to those promises at some point. As an important note, I don't think I have received those promises either. I think that outside of Joseph, very very few men, if any, have in this dispensation. I could be wrong...but so could you.


You are right that “jihad” did not have a militaristic meaning in the beginning but gradually evolved into one during Mohammed’s life time. Thus all the wars of aggression and domination when we see that Islam spread by the sword from Arabia into North Africa, Europe, and Asia.
We look at history through a very western lens, and we tend to look at results rather than actual facts. For example, Mormonism is much much different than it was when Joseph received it, but do we blame Joseph for that or those who have come after him. I imagine Islam is vastly different than Mohammed (or even God) intended for it to be. But should we blame Mohammed for that? I am only responding because I think you misunderstood my original post. I just wanted to clarify what I meant, and we may just have to respectfully disagree, but I think there are striking parallels in what you said in response and what I said in my original post. Thanks for the reply Oldmandalton.
Actually Islam has changed little over the centuries.

We as LDS have an advantage over other churches because we have living prophets to help interpret the scriptures and understand God’s will. We know the importance of priesthood authority and how it is necessary to administer in God’s Church. Without revelation and the priesthood men have created churches which may have similarities to God’s true church but do not have the full truth. They are churches who truly have “the philosophies of men mingled with scripture”.

Go here to learn about Islamic on a friendly site:
http://www.islamicity.com/education/und ... eSupport=1

And here for an opposing view:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/History.htm

chase
captain of 100
Posts: 266

Re: Muhammed, the Muslim prophet

Post by chase »

Oldemandalton wrote:
chasetafer0707
Haha, I guess you don't see the interesting parallels in what you wrote an what I said. Of course we look at the situation and see the vast differences between Mormonism and Islam. That is how we operate. But look at what you just said. "It was started by a man, Mohammed, who claimed to be a prophet and to have received revelations from God." Isn't that what people say about Joseph Smith? Those of use who believe obviously refute critics disagreement that our church was founded by a man by telling them that we have a testimony. Well, what if Mohammed really did have significant spiritual experiences because of his righteousness which he unsuccessfully attempted to present to his posterity? Could his experiences have been akin to what Joseph experienced when he sought for divine guidance?
No I think their experiences were different because Joseph Smith actually DID see God the Father, Jesus Christ, and many other heavenly beings while, IMO, Mohammed did not. Why do I believe this? When the apostasy occurred there was no more priesthood on the earth nor any more prophets or visitations by angles. Daniel prophesied that this apostasy would last 1260 years which is long after Mohammed’s establishing the religion of Islam. If the apostasy did last 1260 years then there were no prophets or priesthood holders during this time.

See:
The 1260 Year Prophecy
http://mormonprophets.org/prophecies/th ... r-prophecy

Quotes From Modern Prophets
http://mormonprophets.org/prophecies/qu ... n-prophets

What if after Israel's failure to maintain the gospel covenant (around the time when Christ's church drifted into apostasy, which you said was around the date of Mohammed's theophany), God offered the gospel to those who were not of the covenant lineage. For example, the gospel going to the Gentiles (maybe we can lump Ishmael in with the Gentiles) which it did. You also bring up the example of the Nephites and the Lamanites. Of course the Nephites had the gospel anciently and the Lamanites traditionally did not...but who is going to be gathered as the remnant in the end? The Lamanites. Perhaps this is a parallel example. Israel failed to keep the covenant (like the Nephites) so it was offered to the Ishmaelites (as it will be to the Lamanites).
You bare correct that after the rejection of the gospel by the Jews it went to the Gentiles. The Church was to be on the earth till 570 AD, when the Great Apostasy began. This is decades before Mohammed started Islam so it could not have been ordained of God.

See:
Seven Proofs Of The Great Apostasy
http://mormonprophets.org/prophecies/se ... t-apostasy

Was the original intent of "Jihad" to be an offensive military movement? I don't think so. I think it was meant to be a teaching of declaring peace to a nation, and then if that nation continued its offenses, those followers of that teaching were then allowed to defend themselves. This sounds strangely familiar to what we find in the D&C as the only justification for violence. I do not think that Islam in its modern form is inspired or saving or credible. Nor do I think the modern version of jihad is valid. I don't think it has maintained its original intent. However, I think if we would go back to the source, we might be surprised. If Mohammed actually did have heavenly visions, as did Joseph, even just angelic visions, I think that at the well-spring of Islam we may find something very similar to Mormonism. On the other hand, we may find that Mohammed was deceived. We are not privy to that information. Personally, I doubt that Mohamed ever received the promises given to Abraham granting a perpetual covenant to his seed, otherwise Islam would have perpetuated ordinances, which it seems they haven't, but that doesn't mean that he wasn't on the path to those promises at some point. As an important note, I don't think I have received those promises either. I think that outside of Joseph, very very few men, if any, have in this dispensation. I could be wrong...but so could you.


You are right that “jihad” did not have a militaristic meaning in the beginning but gradually evolved into one during Mohammed’s life time. Thus all the wars of aggression and domination when we see that Islam spread by the sword from Arabia into North Africa, Europe, and Asia.
We look at history through a very western lens, and we tend to look at results rather than actual facts. For example, Mormonism is much much different than it was when Joseph received it, but do we blame Joseph for that or those who have come after him. I imagine Islam is vastly different than Mohammed (or even God) intended for it to be. But should we blame Mohammed for that? I am only responding because I think you misunderstood my original post. I just wanted to clarify what I meant, and we may just have to respectfully disagree, but I think there are striking parallels in what you said in response and what I said in my original post. Thanks for the reply Oldmandalton.
Actually Islam has changed little over the centuries.

We as LDS have an advantage over other churches because we have living prophets to help interpret the scriptures and understand God’s will. We know the importance of priesthood authority and how it is necessary to administer in God’s Church. Without revelation and the priesthood men have created churches which may have similarities to God’s true church but do not have the full truth. They are churches who truly have “the philosophies of men mingled with scripture”.

Go here to learn about Islamic on a friendly site:
http://www.islamicity.com/education/und ... eSupport=1

And here for an opposing view:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/History.htm
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I can see this becoming just a back and forth about things you say that I disagree with and vice versa. Thanks for your replies.

User avatar
Oldemandalton
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2226
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Re: Muhammed, the Muslim prophet

Post by Oldemandalton »

chasetafer0707
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I can see this becoming just a back and forth about things you say that I disagree with and vice versa. Thanks for your replies.


It’s the back and forth where we can understand each other’s position, chasetafer0707. I am not trying to be combative just trying to understand your position while expressing mine. I am not sure where you stand on Islam and the prophet Mohammed. I get the impression you believe that he could have been a prophet who receive revelation from God and that the religion he started deviated from his teachings.

Can I ask a few direct questions to more understand your position?

Do you believe that Mohamed received revelation and was visited by angles?

Are the Qur’an and the hadith scripture, written by inspiration and direction from God just as the Bible and Book of Mormon were?


Joseph Smith is a good example of a prophet who was called of God to restore His church on earth. He claims to have seen God, record scriptures (B of M, D & C), and receive revelation to start a religion. There is not middle point where it comes to the truth. Either Joseph Smith was a charlatan and made up his visions and wrote fiction calling them scripture OR he did as he says and translated ancient records of God’s people from this continent and was visited by God and Jesus Christ himself and was commanded to restore His Church. I believe and know he did and that through Joseph Smith the Priesthood and Christ’s Church was restored and we have living prophets again on the earth to guide mankind.
The same goes for Mohammed. Either he did receive revelation from God, was visited by angles, and wrote scripture OR he did not. One or the other occurred, both cannot be true.

User avatar
AussieOi
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6137
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Muhammed, the Muslim prophet

Post by AussieOi »

Oldemandalton wrote: I am not sure where you stand on Islam and the prophet Mohammed

Gods spirit was poured out on all man and part of it found its way to Mohammed

Official. Church. Position

User avatar
Oldemandalton
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2226
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Re: Muhammed, the Muslim prophet

Post by Oldemandalton »

Every religion has truth AussieOi. My question was is Mohammed a prophet who spoke with God and was visited by angels. Also whether the Qu'ran is the word of God just as the Bible and B of M are.

ldsfireguy
captain of 100
Posts: 320

Re: Muhammed, the Muslim prophet

Post by ldsfireguy »

Noah did NOT visit Mohammed and instruct him to start the Muslim faith. That did NOT happen - Noah was as familiar with the Truth as any man who ever lived.

Does that mean that Mohammed did not have any divine truth? Of course not, he had plenty. But it means that the "angel" who visited Mohammed was no angel, any more than were the beings who visited Ellen White, Mary Baker Eddy, or any other founders of such religions. The followers are sincere, in most instances good, and possess truths that sometimes are not yet possessed in the gospel ... but they are false religions founded upon false revelation by someone masquerading as an angel of light.

ndjili
captain of 100
Posts: 984

Re: Muhammed, the Muslim prophet

Post by ndjili »

Muhammad received his first revelation in 610, on the mountain of Hira outside Mecca. The revelation came in a time when Muhammad searched for solitude. Muhammad received the first fraction of the Holy Koran from the angel Gabriel, and experienced first great pain, and feared that he was going to die. Muhammad was ordered to recite. The first fraction Muhammad received is believed to be the beginning of sura 96:

1 Recite in the name of your Lord, who created,
2 created mankind from clots of blood,
3 recite, and your Lord will be the bountiful,
4 he who have taught by the pen,
5 taught mankind what was not known.

Most of the stories of Muhammeds first vision are terrifying. In contrast to those of Joseph Smith or Moses..only the ones from Satan are painful or terrifying.
Christians believe that Jesus was divine, the actual son of God. Moslems believe that Muhammad was a mortal man, not at all divine. Rather, they see Muhammad as a prophet, in fact, the last and most important of the great prophets (such as Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus).
inscriptions on the Dome of the Rock
S In the name of God, the Merciful the Compassionate. There is no god but God. He is One. He has
no associate. Unto Him belongeth sovereignity and unto Him belongeth praise. He quickeneth and He giveth death; and He has Power over all things. Muhammad is the servant of God and His Messenger.
SE Lo! God and His angels shower blessings on the Prophet.
O ye who believe! Ask blessings on him and salute him with a worthy salutation. The blessing of God be on him and peace be
on him, and may God have mercy. O People of the Book! Do not exaggerate in your religion
E nor utter aught concerning God save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of
Mary, was only a Messenger of God, and His Word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit
from Him. So believe in God and His messengers, and say not 'Three' - Cease! (it is)
NE better for you! - God is only One God. Far be it removed from His transcendent majesty that He should have a son. His is all that is
in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And God is
sufficient as Defender. The Messiah will never scorn to be a
N servant unto God, nor will the favoured angels. Whoso scorneth
His service and is proud, all such will He assemble unto Him.
Oh God, bless Your Messenger and Your servant Jesus
NW son of Mary. Peace be on him the day he was born, and the day he dies,
and the day he shall be raised alive! Such was Jesus, son of Mary, (this is) a statement of
the truth concerning which they doubt. It befitteth not (the Majesty of) God that He should take unto Himself a son. Glory be to Him!
W When He decreeth a thing, He saith unto it only: Be! and it is.
Lo! God is my Lord and your Lord. So serve Him. That is the right path. God (Himself) is witness that there is no God
save Him. And the angels and the men of learning (too are witness). Maintaining His creation in justice, there is no God save Him,
SW the Almighty, the Wise. Lo! religion with God (is) Islam. Those who (formerly) received the Book
differed only after knowledge came unto them, through transgression among themselves. Whoso
disbelieveth the revelations of God (will find that) lo! God is swift at reckoning!
These statements are anti-christ. Just because all religions have kernels of truth it does not make them true...hence the importance of the restoration.

I fear that the truthers forget that the Muslim Brotherhood always worked with the Nazis.

Post Reply