The Qur'an openly states many times that Allah is the 'best deceiver'. The root word used in these verses is Makr which means deception.
"and [they] deceived and Allah deceived and Allah is the best of deceivers" - Sura 3:54
"Abu Huraira (Allah be pleased with him) reported that Allah's Messenger (peace and blessing of Allah be upon him) said, 'If one hides (the sins of) a Muslim, Allah will hide (his sins) in this world and the Hereafter. (1)"
"...and then only this nation (i.e., Muslims) will remain, including their hypocrites. Allah will come to them in a shape other than they know and will say, 'I am your Lord.' They will say, 'We seek refuge with Allah from you. This is our place; (we will not follow you) till our Lord comes to us, and when our Lord comes to us, we will recognise Him.' Then Allah will come to them in a shape they know and will say, 'I am your Lord.' They will say, (no doubt) You are our Lord,' and they will follow Him." Bukhari vol.8 book 76 ch.52 no.577
But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. 6 The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”
28:38. Pharaoh said: "O Chiefs! no god do I know for you but myself: therefore, O Haman! light me a (kiln to bake bricks) out of clay, and build me a lofty palace, that I may mount up to the god of Moses: but as far as I am concerned, I think (Moses) is a liar!" (Yusuf Ali's Quran Translation)
When Allah allegedly had only the appearance of Jesus die on the cross, that deceived the Jews who thought they had crucified him. Now if Allah really did plot this "great switcheroo", you would have to agree the effect to extremely successful at not only completely deceiving all the Romans, and Jews, but the followers of Jesus too.
Not too long ago, a certain Dutch politician – Geert Wilders, leader of the far-right Dutch Freedom party – caused a stir in that rather flat country by suggesting that the Quran should be banned on the grounds that it was a ‘dangerous book’ that spread the message of hate and violence. As the rather pointless and tiresome debate took its course, other right-wing politicians chipped in, suggesting things such as new laws that forbade the reading of the Quran in public, limiting the sale and dissemination of the Quran in Dutch society, controlling the number of Qurans being brought into the country, etc.
Needless to say, Geert Wilders got what he wanted, which was to project himself yet again on the national stage as a rather loud and outlandish advocate of far-right causes.
Predictably, the Muslim community of Holland and other European countries were upset by Wilders’ remarks. Many came to the fore to insist that all this talk about banning Qurans was part and parcel of a wider trend of Islamophobia in the EU; that it was essentially racist and that it was an attempt to rob Muslims in Europe of their fundamental rights and liberties. What offended many Muslims was the suggestion that the Quran could be seen by some as a ‘dangerous text’ which Wilders even compared to Hitler’s Mein Kampf: An ironic comparison to say the least considering Wilders’ own far-right political leanings.
That Muslims would be offended by such claims and demands is understandable as no doubt most faith communities regard their sacred books as precisely that: sacred arks that bear the message of God and divine revelation. To even suggest that the Quran could be read profanely as some terrorists’ manual or guidebook for fanatics was to demean the text, and by extension Islam and Muslims.
Yet the question remains: If Muslims can get so worked up by the fact that some right-wing Dutch politician hungering for publicity can stir up a debate by demeaning the Quran, why is it that so many Muslims remain indifferent to how their fellow Muslims treat the holy texts of other faiths and belief-systems?
According to the way of Abraham and what the Quran teaches us, all the followers of the way of Abraham (followers of Moses, Jesus plus Muhammad) must get involved in politics to be true submitters.
It is reported that when Abu Bakar took over as the First Caliph of Islam soon after Prophet Muhammad’s death (S.A.W.), he was asked: how would the people of Medina be assured that he would be a just and righteous leader? It is further reported that in reply to this question, Abu Bakar removed his sword from his person and placed it before him on the floor and then said that if he ever deviated one iota from his duty then they were to take his own sword and end his life.
That was the example of Abu Bakar, the First Caliph of Islam whom Muslims believe was one of the four ‘Rightly-Guided’ Caliphs. And if Abu Bakar is believed to be Rightly-Guided then surely he knows what he is talking about and it can only be God and no other that had guided him. Would Abu Bakar then be wrong in what he said and could he have instead been Wrongly-Guided? No, no Muslim would ever believe Abu Bakar had been Wrongly-Guided. They will swear with their life that Abu Bakar had been Rightly-Guided and that it was no less than God that had guided him.
Abu Bakar was one of the Companions of the Prophet. Muslims believe he can do no wrong and that he had already been assured a place in heaven even before he died. Yet Abu Bakar not only asked the people of Medina to take him to task if he erred. He asked them to take his life with his own sword, the Sword of Islam. Can anyone lesser than Abu Bakar be expected to do less than this? If Abu Bakar should be killed with his own sword if he did not rule justly and righteously, should any lesser fate befall those lesser than Abu Bakar?
Abu Bakar should be killed if he was not just and righteous. Abu Bakar is not infallible. Abu Bakar is not perfect. Abu Bakar is only human. And as a mere mortal, as one who can easily err, Abu Bakar wants to suffer execution by his own sword. That is what is expected of a Ruler of the Muslim faith.
The Quran states that all those followers of Moses (Musa) and followers of Jesus (Isa) who follow the way (Deen) of Abraham (Ibrahim) are the true submitters (Muslims). Note, in that particular verse, the Quran talks about Abraham, Moses and Jesus. There is no mention of Muhammad in that verse.
Now, have you noticed that Muslims always argue that Abraham, Moses and Jesus were Muslims? In a way they are not wrong. Muslim merely means submitter — submit to God. This does not mean they were Muslims according to the Federal Constitution of Malaysia’s interpretation of Muslim. But they are submitters nevertheless, as far as the Quran is concerned (as long as they follow the way or deen of Abraham).
Now, Islam is not only a religion. It is a way of life or adeen. Every Muslim would tell you this.
Islam is not just about rituals. It is also about economics, governing, the legal system, politics, war, foreign affairs, internal security, public order and safety, the welfare system, and much more. In short, Islam is an entire and complete governing system for society.
Therefore, for the followers of Moses and the followers of Jesus to be true followers of the way of Abraham, they must not only focus on rituals. Politics is also part of the way or deen of Abraham.
This means if the followers of Moses and Jesus steer clear of or refuse to get involved in politics, then they are NOT the true followers of the way of Abraham, as far as the Quran is concerned. Any Jew or Christian who is NOT political is a deviant Jew or Christian. Islam would declare you a murtad or apostate for defying God.
The ‘separation of church and state’ does not exist in Islam. If it is okay for the followers of Muhammad to seek political power based on a religious platform, why is it wrong for the other submitters and followers of the way of Abraham to also seek political power on a religious platform? If only the followers of Muhammad can seek political power on a religious platform, while those followers of Moses and Jesus cannot, then why would the Quran say that the followers of Moses and Jesus who follow the way of Abraham are the true submitters?
Islam History - The Sword Of The Prophet (1/2)
Islam History - The Sword Of The Prophet (2/2)
Note that the followers of Muhammad are allowed to marry women from the followers of Moses and Jesus (Muhammad married a Jewish woman) plus they can eat meat from animals slaughtered by them. So Islam recognises Judaism and Christianity as ‘brother-religions’. Therefore, what is allowed for Islam is also allowed for the Jews and Christians.
And politics is one such thing that is not only allowed but a must.
Okay, let me demonstrate this ‘political Islam’ in another way by quoting Imam Ghazali.
Abu Hamid al-Ghazali, more fondly known as Imam Ghazali, was one of the renowned imams from 11th century Persia. And you can read below what Imam Ghazli said.
Would you say that Imam Ghazali was ‘playing politics’?
Ponder on this before we whack the Christians and deny them their right of ‘political Christianity’. Would we tolerate a Christian or Jew telling us that Islam must be separated from politics? We will riot and lynch any Christian or Jew who tries to deny us our ‘political Islam’.
Is there such a thing as “moderate” and “fundamentalist” Muslims? Do these two categories of Muslims really exist? If they do, why then did Prophet Muhammad not clearly spell it out and why is there no mention of it in the Koran? All the Koran says is there are believers and non-believers. And Prophet Muhammad taught the world only one form of religion, Islam. There was no such thing as Moderate Islam, Modern Islam, Progressive Islam, Hadhari Islam, Extremist Islam, Radical Islam, Militant Islam, and so on. When did all these various forms of Islam emerge and who invented them?
Will the real Islam please stand up! And what about all those other ‘non-real’ forms of Islam? Can we assume then that these are deviant forms of Islam introduced by the Devil as what is mentioned in the Koran that the Devil will embark on a mission to mislead all children of Adam?
I am getting extremely sick and tired of all those, who think they know best, telling us what kind of Muslim we should be. I am also getting extremely sick and tired of those who decide on our behalf what kind of Muslim we should be.
And I am getting perturbed by those who decide on our behalf which school of Islam we should follow. Can you imagine the British, German, French, Italian or United States governments passing laws that makes it mandatory for all the Christians in that country to follow only the Catholic or Protestant or Presbyterian, etc. churches, and if they follow any other church other than the government-approved church they would then be arrested and detained without trial under the Patriot Act?
Abid Ullah Jan has addressed this exact issue in his article ‘Islam and the war between two Americas’ which goes as follows:
(Moderates vs Radicals)
Did you ever think, who frequently use the terms “moderate” Muslims and “moderate” Islam? “But this has nothing to do with the war between two Americas,” someone might argue.
These terms and the war between two Americas seem un-related. But it is time we understand that these terms are the product of the extremist trends sweeping the United States these days.
The inventors, promoters, subscribers and supporters of these terms together constitute just a fraction of all the Muslims and non-Muslims.
This vocal and influential minority justifies its words and deed with the attractive slogan of fighting extremism in the Muslim World. However, in fact, this minority is the product of extremism in the US itself. To demystify the myth of “moderate” Muslims and Islam, we need to understand the ongoing war between two Americas: First, there is the America which lives by the great ideals of justice.
Second, there is the America which has succumbed to self-interest groups. The promotion of “moderate” Muslims is part of this extremist tendency sweeping the United States. Fighting extremism in the Muslim world is a perfect ruse to justify and further consolidate the extremist America.
For the extremist America of self-interest groups, there are many voices in the United States, including Daniel Pipes and other such neoconservatives, who are using any means necessary to sacrifice the well-being of the United States for the promotion of the State of Israel.
These individuals would never regard any Muslim as a moderate, unless he or she publicly supports the state of Israel. Look at their track record. All other factors are irrelevant.
The distinction between “moderate” and “radical” is not one that is defined by their adherence to Islam but how much they are a threat to the interest of the extremist America and Israel. For example, a devout man who is fervent in all his personal rituals but do not have any participation in the political affairs of his oppressed nation would be a “moderate”.
In contrast, even a ‘half’ or non-practicing Muslim with zeal to voice his opposition to the direct and indirect occupation of his people and land would be classified as a radical. In the current political context, a “moderate” is one who is passive like the devout man or active (like the neo-mods of Islam) who openly promotes the US agenda, using Islamic interpretation or the so-called ‘Ijtih d’ as a cover. This, to most Muslims, is like a see-through dress!
Hence the distinction is not one of academic but purely political, driven by ulterior motive and sustained by Islamophobia. The phobia can be judged from the fact that even legal activities of Muslims, labeled as Islamists, are now presented as a “challenge” and, hence, unacceptable and threat. The extreme of hatred is evident from first dubbing Muslims as “Islamists” and then equating them with Nazis. This extremism goes on to consider Islam as an evil and calling Mohammed (PBUH) a terrorist.
Another manifestation of this extremism lies in leading newspapers like the New York Times’ attempts at making its readers believe: “Red Menace is Gone, But Here is Islam,” and the Los Angeles Times making the public read: “Islam’s outdated domination theology” needs to be defeated to “give peace a chance”.
This extremist trend considers extremist as moderation. For example, if someone decided to suspend the Hudud (penal code), he becomes “moderate” and “enlightened” in the view of Islamophobes (best described by the term anti-Islam, fanatical Nazis). In fact, such a Muslim is not a moderate but an extremist.
Those who support these Muslim extremists are Nazi 3/4 a suitable title for them since Nazism evolved in European culture and non-Muslims practiced it. Nazism, fascism, communism, etc., are totally alien to Islam. They are Nazi by their open double standards and intolerance of others, this is why they have an election with party and one single agenda then calls it democracy!
To the contrary, so-called extremism in the Muslim world is not the result of Muslims’ faith or baseless invention of “extremists”. It is a function of the oppressed and dispossessed for lack of a central authority to control and channel the energies of these people into productive activities. It is naive to suggest that a few ill-informed “moderate” individuals or puppet regimes, such as that of dictator Musharraf, can emulate the abilities of an entire central authority, i.e. the Islamic State.
The “moderates” who are confused in their thoughts get further confused about their identity when argument from some leading self-proclaimed “moderates” is rejected as “reformist apologetic” and the others are called “radical”. To the contrary, those who are shunned even by the self-proclaimed “moderates,” are presented by the American extremist as a “practicing Muslim”.
In fact, these highly praised “practicing” Muslims believe that “an uncritical acceptance of the Koran as the final manifesto of God” is one of the “disturbing cornerstones of Islam”.
It is ironic that these “moderate” and “practicing” Muslims like Irshad Manji turn around and call other self-proclaimed “moderates” as “so-called moderates” and equate them with “fundamentalists” for sharing a “sense of spiritual supremacy” with other “fundamentalists”.
Two opposing factors clear this confusion. The first is the clear commands for Muslims to be moderate by default. Being moderate is a prerequisite. It is not an identity label for a specific kind of Muslims. Accordingly, the most perfect moderates are those who most seriously live by the Qur’an and Sunnah.
Accordingly, Muslims cannot be part time or partial Muslims to be moderate by virtue of rejecting part of the Qur’an and accepting part of it (Al-Qur’an 2:85).
The second factor is in total contrast to what the Qur’an says the Muslims should be. This factor is the insistence on the part of the American extremists, the standard-setters for “moderates” that strong belief in the totality of the Qur’an makes Muslims “Islamists,” and “extremists”. Accordingly, the most partial believers of the Qur’an become the most perfect “moderates” because promoters of “moderate” Muslims believe they “are absolutely at war with the vision of life that is prescribed to all Muslims in the Koran”.
“Moderates” are thus required to totally reject parts of the Qur’an, such as rejection of the clear commands about inheritance (Al-Qur’an 4:11-14, 4:33, 4:176), court testimony (Al-Qur’an 2:282) and even Riba (Al-Qur’an 2:275-76, 278-79; 3:130; 4:161; 30:39). The extremist Americans publicly say that “the fundamentals of Islam are a threat to us”. The covert Islamophobes (read anti-Islam Nazis) keep this little secret to themselves for the sake of diplomacy. It clearly shows that the extremists do not want the “moderates” they support to follow fundamentals of Islam.
The above examples lead us to see the self-proclaimed “moderates” in the following forms:
1. Benighted opportunists, the neo-mods of Islam, who exploit Islamophobes’ agenda to their advantage. These include dictator Musharraf in the circle of dictators to others in journalism, academia and politics.
2. Secular Muslims, who have successfully reconciled themselves to relegating Islam to a private affair and leaving the public affairs to the state to conduct without being informed by any revelatory law (i.e. the Shari’ah). Most of these had no problem at all in embracing communist ideology.
3. The rejectionists: Those who are close to atheists in rejecting the major aspects of Islam in the name of moderation.
The so-called “moderates” have mostly misunderstood Islam. Their version of Islam involves an ill-conceived and un-Islamic mixture of worshipping activities, rebellion against the sovereignty of Allah, acceptance of western transactional laws, godless standards of freedom, transactional conventions (not allowed under the Shari’ah) and attempts at reducing Islam to yet another church (Mosque) confined religion.
Due to elite Islamophobes’ public denial of their fear of the rise of Islam, the “moderates” are in a difficult position:
(a) If they express their love for Islam or reject any standard or moderation set by Islamophobes; they thus become suspect; resulting in boycotting them like Tariq Ramadan, despite their claiming at the top of their voice that they are “moderate” and they want a moratorium on Hudud laws.
(b) If they do not express their love for Islam and or do not work for its cause, they are unlikely to receive much credence in the Muslim community.
The new standards for “moderation” are making their lives even more difficult because rejecting part of the Qur’an throws them out of Islam right away, let alone their dreams of ruling the Muslim world. But at the same time, there are yet more serious opportunist Muslims who are ready to accept even those pre-conditions that demand them to reject parts of the Qur’an.
Thus the struggle between the America of ideals and the extremist America is making life hard for Muslims all over the world. Non-Muslims are not immune to the wind they are sowing.
For global peace and security, it is imperative that both Muslims and non-Muslims understand the extremist face of America and the minority of extremist that is driving the world to a crisis of unprecedented levels.
It's all about a matter of tolerance. When either one is not tolerating, there'll be no peace but war. Everyone in the world is tolerating the smell of people's shit when ONE needs to ease themselves in a public toilet. Wonder why people can tolerate the smell of other people shit but somehow there is no tolerance to the smell of cigarettes? Even though you are smoking at a secluded area out of sight of public viewings. Tats how life is living in a round world which seems flat because too many crooked ways. For I be Damn.
“Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” — 1 Corinthians 6:9-11
“Adultery is an injustice. He who commits adultery fails in his commitment. He does injury to the sign of the covenant which the marriage bond is, transgresses the rights of the other spouse, and undermines the institution of marriage by breaking the contract on which it is based. He compromises the good of human generation and the welfare of children who need their parents’ stable union.” — Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2335
Moses was reported to have received the Ten Commandments at the burning bush on Mt Sinai at St Catherine soon after the exodus from Egypt. The Jews, Christians and Muslims all believe that this incident did happen and it is reported in the holy books of all the three Abrahamic faiths. There is definitely no dispute here.
“And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.” — Exodus 31:18
The holy books also report that Moses and his people crossed the Red Sea — which God had parted — to get to Mt Sinai and that the Pharaoh and his entire army drowned (not a single Egyptian survived) when God closed back the Red Sea as soon as Moses and his people had safely crossed.
If Moses and his tribe made the journey from the Nile Delta to Mt Sinai, then they need not have crossed the Red Sea because the place where Moses received the Ten Commandments is north of the Red Sea between the Gulf of Suez and the Gulf of Aqaba (which is very far north of the Red Sea).
The map below plots the journey that the Israelites took and you can see that they need not have travelled so far south and crossed the Red Sea to get from the Nile Delta to Mt Sinai.
So, before we argue about whether God did or did not give humankind the Ten Commandments through Moses at Mt Sinai and whether Jesus did or did not abrogate this law and whether the Muslims are following Jesus or Moses in implementing the laws of the Ten Commandments, let us first of all talk about the story of the parting of the Red sea and if this story is not in the least plausible then is the story about the burning bush and the two tablets plausible?
Here we are arguing about a so-called historical fact (the Ten Commandments and the punishment for breaking these Commandments) when in the first place we need to argue about whether the incident of the Ten Commandments really did happen when the parting of the Red Sea may not have happened after all.
Jacob and Esau - Bible Story (TRICKERY)
To Deceived so as to be Blessed???
Jacob and Esau were twin brothers born to Isaac and Rebekah. The Bible tells us that they struggled together in Rebekahs womb, a foreshadowing of their troubled relationship. Esau was born first and thereby became legal heir to the family birthright which included, among other things, being heir to the Covenant between God and Abraham. This birthright was a link in the line of descent through which the Promised Messiah was to come (Numbers 24:17-19).
In contrast with Esau who was a skillful hunter and his fathers favorite, Jacob was a plain man, dwelling in tents (Genesis 25:27), and his mother's favorite. The Hebrew word for plain is the same word translated in other Scripture as perfect, upright, undefiled. So the word plain refers to Jacob's character as a man of God. God records His highest praise and blessing for Jacob: The LORD hath chosen Jacob unto Himself (Psalm 135:4).
Esau came from the field, and he was faint: And Esau said to Jacob, Feed me . . . with that same red pottage (stew); for I am faint (Genesis 25: 29-30). Knowing the character of his brother, Jacob replied: Sell me this day thy birthright (25:31). Esau had no interest in spiritual things so he agreed, saying: I am at the point (about) to die: and what profit shall this birthright do to me? (25:32-34). Esau could not have been at the point to die by missing one meal but he revealed how worthless he considered the birthright.
When Issac was close to death it became time to give Esau his blessings. Issac asked Esau to go hunt for a special meal after which he would pass the blessing.
Rebekah overhead and helped Jacob disguise himself as Esau and bring Issac the meal instead while his brother was still hunting. Because Issac had poor sight he was tricked into giving the blessing to Jacob. Esau was enraged and Jacob had to run away to save his life.
From our lives' beginning on
We are pushed in little forms
No-one asks us how we'd like to be
In school they teach us what to think
But everyone says different things
But they're all convinced that They're the ones to see
So they keep talking and they never stop
At a certain point you give it up
So the only thing that's left to think is this
I want out T
o live my life alone
I want out
Leave me be
I want out
To do things on my own
I want out
To live my life and to be free!!!