Islam, Muslim / Christian Forum - Welcome All

Particularly Buddhists are being targeted. You can browse the sites at this search:
http://www.bing.com/search?q=islamic+terrorism+persecution+thailand&qs=n&form=QBRE&pq=islamic+terrorism+persecution+thailand&sc=0-0&sp=-1&sk=

Don't let this EXTREMELY GRAPHIC PAGE from Bare Naked Islam catch you by surprise as it did me when I was introduced to Islamic terrorism and persecution in Thailand.
I highly recommend avoiding this URL in that search.
http://www.barenakedislam.com/2013/01/05/thailand-muslim-behaving-badly-when-they-dont-get-their-way/

Here's another from their site on Islam in Thailand that is less graphic:
http://www.barenakedislam.com/2012/03/31/muslim-terrorists-set-off-bombs-in-southern-thailand-killing-14-wounding-341/

After reviewing their site a little more I added a page to the BrotherPete site:
Best viewed at page link.
http://www.petewaldo.com/religious_pluralism.htm

Is the "International Interfaith Council" of God? Let's take a look at this exercise in religious pluralism, as advanced on their website at http://www.iicouncil.org. Page links will be embedded in the text from here on out. Their list of members includes several Christians whom it is hard to imagine have ever visited the website. When we click on the link to the webpage "Three Holy Books" we find listed are "Qur'an" "Torah" "Bible", which is peculiar enough, since the Torah is included in the Christian Bible. Jews and Christians share our Old Testament Scriptures, and understand them to be the inspired Word of God, while Muslims proclaim them to have been "corrupted". When we click on the "Bible" link we find a page that begins like this:

"Opening- True Gospel of Jesus, called Christ, a new prophet sent by God to the world: according to the description of Barnabas his apostle."

Now that certainly looks peculiar to a Scripture-literate Christian, particularly when announced as the "opening" of the "Bible". When we copy and paste the above verse into a search engine we find "The Gospel of Barnabas". The International Interfaith Council "Bible" page was deceptively titled "Bible", rather than "Gospel of Barnabas", an apparent subtly of dissimulation. Of course not only does this Gospel of Barnabas not constitute the "Bible", but there is no Gospel of Barnabas to be found anywhere in the bible, because it is a 16th century obviously Muhammadan, fictional forgery. It is nothing more than an exercise in religious dissimulation, or taqiyyah, that embarrasses anyone that has been foolish enough to tout it prior to actually reading it or learning about it.

So why would the "International Interfaith Council" provide that false gospel rather than link to an actual Bible, such as the most widely recognized and respected King James Version, as presented on many websites such as at Blue Letter Bible? Could it be that folks browsing the website would then have access to truth? If they had chosen the Gospel of Mark to represent the "Bible", rather than the phony gospel of Barnabas, this is how their page might have started:

Opening- Mark 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;

Of course that  would have spoiled the party, because followers of Muhammad suggest that to believe and confess that Jesus is the Son of God, is to commit the most egregious and only unforgivable sin, of "shirk". According to many, even to pray in Jesus' name would constitute a sin worse than, for example, child rape or cold-blooded mass murder since those may be forgiven. This is further explored on that page of this site. Yet the Gospel proclaims:

1John 4:15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.

Matthew 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Thus it would seem that according to Muhammad's followers, each and every Christian throughout a period of nearly 2,000 years has lived, and died, in a state of committing Muhammad's only unforgivable sin. Would Muhammad's seem to be a just God, when raping a little girl or cold-blooded mass-murder may constitute forgivable sins, while praying in Jesus' name is unforgivable?

Yet not only does the website of the International Interfaith Council select a preposterous 16th century, conspicuous demonstrable fraud to represent the "Bible", here is what that abomination teaches in chapter 97:

"Then said the priest: `How shall the Messiah be called, and what sign shall reveal his coming?'

Jesus answered: `The name of the Messiah is admirable, for God himself gave him the name when he had created his soul, and placed it in a celestial splendour. God said: "Wait Mohammed; for thy sake I will to create paradise, the world, and a great multitude of creatures, whereof I make thee a present, insomuch that whoso bless thee shall be blessed, and whoso shall curse thee shall be accursed. When I shall send thee into the world I shall send thee as my messenger of salvation, and thy word shall be true, insomuch that heaven and earth shall fail, but thy faith shall never fail." Mohammed is his blessed name.'

Then the crowd lifted up their voices, saying: `O God, send us thy messenger: O Mohammed, come quickly for the salvation of the world!'"

Pure raw unadulterated blasphemy! Indeed that abomination should be recognized as pure blasphemy even to a follower of Muhammad!

To those who believe themselves to be Christians that are listed in the member page of the "International Interfaith Council" website, which suggests a presumption of support for the abominations advanced therein through association, you desperately need to repent before it is too late. Do you not even understand that the Quran prohibits Muhammad's followers from taking Jews and Christians for friends?

Sura 5:51 ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.

"In other words, any Muslim who becomes a Christian or even befriends a Christian leaves the leadership and control of Allah.
So, all Islamic leaders who come to British and American Church leaders for inter-faith co-operation are either defying the instructions of Allah or they have a hidden agenda." - G.J.O. Moshay "Who is This Allah?"

Thus while engaging in religious dissimulation they put on a facade of friendship, which has always been their way, when setting out to conquer the ignorant and unwary. In other words you've been duped. As much as Christians might wish to, it is impossible to reconcile the Gospel to the exact opposite of it's whole subject. Perhaps a very public retraction of support for the International Interfaith Council is in order for those Christians, as well as an apology to Jesus Christ, and denouncement of and divorce from this abomination.

If Christian members disagree, simply explain before Jesus Christ and your Christian brethren, just how it is you lend your support to an organization that represents the "Bible", as being the Gospel of Barnabas. Please feel free to contact us in the Islam-Christian Forum to explain your position if you believe it to be defensible.

Romans 3:8 And not [rather], (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.

Would it even be slanderous for someone to report that is what Christian members of the International Interfaith Council are doing, while likely remaining silent in regard to the whole subject of the Gospel, which would be an obvious deal breaker? That verse does, however, describe what we find typical of Islamic religious dissimulation, found throughout the Internet and youtube communities, as exampled by their "Baca" is "Bakkah" nonsense. Has it been so long since Christian members of this council have picked up a bible, that they've forgotten what's at stake? You could stand in judgment this very day.

Matthew 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
 
Islam is the Opposite of Christianity (URL)

Many evangelical Christians consider Jews to be our brethren even though we understand why some of them may not feel the same way, as some may remain blind to the Gospel (verse by verse of Romans 11) through an act of God, to preclude them from sinning against it. Along with Romans 11 the two groups would seem to be suggested here:

1Corinthians 12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and [that] no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

John 14:26 But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Yet Muhammad curses Jews and Christians while commanding his followers to fight against us and subjugate us:

Surah 9.29 Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. 30 The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!

Worse than all, Muhammad proclaimed the exact opposite of the whole subject of the Gospel.

Surah 4:157 That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-

Here's the whole subject of the Gospel:

Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

In Jesus' own prophecy:

Matthew 20:17 And Jesus going up to Jerusalem took the twelve disciples apart in the way, and said unto them, 18 Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death, 19 And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify [him]: and the third day he shall rise again.

Not a stretch that the prophesied Messiah and His shed blood is the subject of the whole bible:

Leviticus 17:11 For the life of the flesh [is] in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it [is] the blood [that] maketh an atonement for the soul.

As pointed out on the home page Muhammad's proclamation of the exact opposite of the whole subject of the Gospel - that Jesus wasn't crucified and didn't die - is all that a Christian needs to know about Islam. Islam 101, a complete course, in one verse. Additionally, according to the scriptures to deny the Son of God is antichrist.

1 John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. 23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father:

The spirit of antichrist fills followers with complete resolve to DISbelieve the crucifixion, to DENY  the Son of God, and REJECT  His shed blood. Yet among the International Interfaith Council member list we find Christians may be involved in supporting that exercise in dissimulation.
 
More Taqiyyah or Subterfuge of Dissimulation (URL)

Taqiyyah and the subterfuge of religious dissimilation is advanced in the very opening of the home page of the website through a partial quote followed by a false proclamation:

"The world has been divided into religious groups. However, the order of God is clear: 'Do not divide into groups!'"

Putting that quote into a web search we find it may come from the "Worldwide English" translation. But what does the rest of 1Corinthians 1:10 say?

"My Christian brothers, I beg you all in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, agree in what you say. Do not divide into groups. You should all think in the same way and decide to do the same things."

It has absolutely nothing to do with Muhammad's followers, but has to do with Christians "in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ", to avoid making divisions amongst ourselves. Paul was addressing the church in Corinth. He also taught that Christians should all "think in the same way and decide to do the same things", which at a minimum, is to believe in and preach Christ crucified:

1Corinthians 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

The most obvious reason it has nothing to do with the followers of the false prophet Muhammad is because Muhammad proclaimed the exact opposite of the whole subject of the Gospel.

God manifest Himself in His Son, our Savior Jesus Christ, to reconcile the whole world unto Himself.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

1John 4:14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son [to be] the Saviour of the world. 15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.

Yet if a follower of Muhammad were to make that simple confession he would be committing the most egregious - and only unforgivable sin - according to Muhammad alone.

Indeed the Gospel teaches that Christians are to expect the very opposite of that proclaimed in the opening of the International Interfaith Council website:

Luke 12:51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: 52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. 53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

We find those verses perfectly fulfilled in Muhammad's follower's "honor killing" of family members that begin a life in Jesus Christ and even parents murdering their own children for coming to Christ. Satan's forces have aligned against Christ the Messiah and his followers ever since He was made manifest to the world.

Ephesians 6:10 Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. 11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. 12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. 13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. 14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; 15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; 16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. 17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God: 18 Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;
 
The 7th century Islamic Fiction of "Hanaf" or "faith of Abraham" (URL)

Contrary to what is indicated on the website, Christians follow the religion of Jesus Christ through the Gospel, not a fictional religion called "Hanaf" that sprang from the imagination of a 7th century SW Arabian desert dwelling illiterate. The suggestion of "Hanaf" or a "religion of Abraham" comes from Islamic books penned in the 7th to 10th centuries AD without reference to any actual  historical record that preceded the 6th century AD. In fact there is not a shred of historical or archaeological evidence that suggests that Mecca ever existed before the 4th century AD. Abraham did not practice a "religion", but rather had a direct relationship with YHWH Himself, even while manifest in the flesh. Indeed the ten commandments were given to Moses, not Abraham. Let alone that the only promise given to the seed of Ishmael is that they would be numerous and were prophesied to be against all mankind.

Genesis 16:10 And the angel of the LORD said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude. 11 And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Behold, thou [art] with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the LORD hath heard thy affliction. 12 And he will be a wild man; his hand [will be] against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.

Just as we find the self-proclaimed seed of Ishmael are revealed today. Fighting and murdering not only non-Muslims but each other as well. Nor did God ever have a covenant with the seed of Ishmael, but specifically proclaimed His covenant to be with the seed of Isaac.

Romans 9:7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, [are they] all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these [are] not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. 9 For this [is] the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son.

Genesis 17:19 And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, [and] with his seed after him.

More on the "children of the flesh" and the Arabian pagan rituals Muhammad adopted, adapted and thinly veneered. The seed of Ishmael are specifically not included in God's Abrahamic covenants:

Genesis 21:9 And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, which she had born unto Abraham, mocking. 10 Wherefore she said unto Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, [even] with Isaac. 11 And the thing was very grievous in Abraham's sight because of his son. 12 And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called.
 
What Did Jesus Teach? (URL)

On the page "What did Jesus teach?", as with all dissimulation, once you establish the goal of the effort it's best to start at the bottom and conclusions reached, before wasting time with the process in getting there. Again, for any self-proclaimed Christians that are a part of this:

Rather than recognize Jesus' words as a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy the author which was unnamed on the website of proclaims:

"If Jesus had indeed been God, the words, "My God, my God," would have been a mockery most extreme. God could not have deemed himself forsaken by himself. The dying Jesus, in that despair, confessed himself either the dupe of some other teaching, a self- deluded enthusiast, or an arch-impostor, who in that bitter cry, with the wide-opening of the flood-gates through which life's stream ran out, confessed aloud that he, at least, was no deity, and deemed himself a God-forsaken man. The garden scene of agony is fitting prelude to this most terrible act. Jesus, who is God, prays to himself; in "agony he prayed most earnestly." [Luke xxii. 44.] He refuses to hear his own prayers, and he, the omnipotent, is forearmed against his coming trial by an angel from heaven, who "strengthened " the great Creator.

Was Jesus the Son of God? Praying, he said, Father, the hour is come, glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee." [Jolan xvii. 2.] And was he glorified? His death and resurrection most strongly disbelieved in the very city where they are alleged to have happened. His doctrines rejected by the only people to whom he preached them. His miracles denied by the only nation amongst whom they are alleged to have been performed; and he himself thus on the cross crying out, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Nor is it true that the teachings of Jesus are generally received. Jesus taught: "And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." How many of those who profess to believe in Jesus would be content to be tested by these signs? Any person claiming that each sign was to be found manifested in her or his case would be regarded as mad. Illustrations of faith-healing occasionally arise, but are not always reliable, nor are such cures limited to those who profess faith in Jesus. The gift of speaking with new tongues has been the claim of a very small sect. Serpent- charming is more practised among Hindus than among Christians.

Peace and love are alleged to be the special characteristics of Christianity. Yet the whole history of Christian nations has been blurred by war and hate. Now and for the past thirty years the most civilized amongst Christian nations have been devoting enorihous sums and huge masses of men to the preparation for war. Torpedoes and explosive shells, one hundred ton guns and melinite, are by Christian rulers accounted better aids than faith in Jesus."

So it should come as no surprise that when we put "God could not have deemed himself forsaken by himself. The dying Jesus, in that despair, confessed himself either the dupe of some other teaching" into a search engine we find this is the blasphemy of Charles Bradlaugh presented on "The Secular Web". From Wikipedia:

"Charles Bradlaugh (26 September 1833 – 30 January 1891) was a political activist and one of the most famous English atheists of the 19th century. He founded the National Secular Society in 1866.[1]"

We Christians that have been in the trenches of Internet forums are well experienced in Islamic dissimulation, and often find that in their desperation to run from the truth of the whole subject of the Gospel, it isn't unusual for Muhammad's followers to turn to atheists and agnostics for quotes in order to advance their blasphemy against the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Nor should we be surprised to find Muslims covertly engaged in the same, while pretending to be friends of Christians, in their efforts to subjugate God's people to the followers of Muhammad alone. Are we to expect that the Christians listed on the member page have been informed regarding the content of the site? May the Good Lord show enough mercy to at least one of the self-described Christians, that are engaged in this blasphemous exercise in dissimulation of the "International Interfaith Council", to give him the strength and resolve to very publically and continually renounce any association with it and its antichrist blasphemy.

2Thessalonians 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Whether an atheist, or a follower of the false prophet Muhammad who reject the Holy Spirit in the name of Jesus, they can't expect to understand:

1Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

Their goals are obvious. No amount of website change will alter their intent or plan. Nor can the Gospel be reconciled with its exact opposite. Nor will wishful hopes and dreams, change a dangerous cult with a 1400 year history of imperialistic conquest and slaughter of God's people, that is commanded to the followers of the false prophet Muhammad. For those that have deluded themselves into believing they are Christian, that are participating in this sacrilegious abomination, again the risk:

Matthew 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Revelation 3:15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. 16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

This page is a result of just the first little bit of time I spent exploring the website of the International Interfaith Council, that I felt the need to rush to upload. There should be more to come.

This gets even more filthy than Muhammad's "Hanaf" fiction! This is some really sick twisted stuff. On their page "Three Holy Books"
http://www.iicouncil.org/default.aspx?pid=50293
When you get there you find listed: "Qur'an" "Torah" "Bible", which is peculiar enough, since the Torah is part of the Bible. So what do you get when you click on "Bible"?

A page that starts out like this:

"Opening- True Gospel of Jesus, called Christ, a new prophet sent by God to the world: according to the description of Barnabas his apostle."

Copy and paste that into a search engine and voila! The Gospel of Barnabas!!!
http://barnabas.net/chapters/271.html?task=view

A 16th century preposterous, conspicuous, provable Muhammadan forgery and fraud!
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=465.0
As exposed in this forum and so many other places on the web. A filthy lie that even teaches that Jesus said Muhammad is the Messiah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://barnabas.net/chapters/145-97-muhammad-is-his-blessed-name.html

"Then said the priest: `How shall the Messiah be called, and what sign shall reveal his coming?'

Jesus answered: `The name of the Messiah is admirable, for God himself gave him the name when he had created his soul, and placed it in a celestial splendour. God said: "Wait Mohammed; for thy sake I will to create paradise, the world, and a great multitude of creatures, whereof I make thee a present, insomuch that whoso bless thee shall be blessed, and whoso shall curse thee shall be accursed. When I shall send thee into the world I shall send thee as my messenger of salvation, and thy word shall be true, insomuch that heaven and earth shall fail, but thy faith shall never fail." Mohammed is his blessed name.'

Then the crowd lifted up their voices, saying: `O God, send us thy messenger: O Mohammed, come quickly for the salvation of the world!'

Pure raw unadulterated blasphemy! Even to a Muhammadan!

Gee, I wonder why they didn't choose the Gospel of Mark, for example, as the "Bible"?

Mark 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;

Yet they actually list Christians as being members of this abomination:
http://www.iicouncil.org/default.aspx?pid=49411

Either the site is lying about members, or the institutional church is in far worse shape than I ever could have possibly imagined.
http://www.christianeschatology.com/falling_away_apostasy.htm#religious_pluralism

This issue is heating up even more.
http://www.ucanews.com/news/outrage-over-plans-for-malaysian-bible-burning-festival/67199
Why on earth would Malaysian Christians not want to change the name from the name of blasphemy "Allah" to that of the one true God Yahweh in their bibles. While perhaps informing their fellow Muslim citizens:

1. Of the name of the one true God Yahweh as occurs nearly 7,000 times in scripture.
2. The Arabic language was unknown to the world until a few centuries into the Christian era.
3. The etymology of the name "Allah" suggests is was a pagan Arabian moon God.

http://answering-islam.org/Cross/crucifixion-day.html
Which Day Was Christ Crucified?

A contradiction often raised by skeptics, whether Muslims or others, centers on the day Christ was crucified. The Synoptic Gospels (i.e., Matthew, Mark and Luke) state that Christ was crucified on Friday, the day after Passover Eve. John, on the other hand, seems to imply that Christ was crucified the day before, on Thursday. We have decided to quote the late Dr. Gleason L. Archer’s entire response from his book, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, since he does a masterful job of showing that no real contradiction exists between these accounts.

    Was Christ crucified on Thursday or Friday?

    The uniform impression conveyed by the synoptic Gospels is that the Crucifixion took place on Friday of Holy Week. If it were not for John 19:14, the point would never have come up for debate. But John 19:14 says (according to NASB): "Now it was the day of preparation [paraskeue] for the Passover; it was about the sixth hour. And he [Pilate] said to the Jews, ‘Behold, your king!’" The NIV suggests a somewhat less difficult handling of the apparent discrepancy: "It was the day of Preparation of Passover Week, about the sixth hour." This latter translation takes note of two very important matters of usage. First, the word paraskeue had already by the first century A.D., become a technical term for "Friday," since every Friday was the day of preparation for Saturday, that is, the Sabbath. In Modern Greek the word for "Friday" is paraskeue.

    Second, the Greek term tou pascha (lit., "of the Passover") is taken to be equivalent to the Passover Week. This refers to the seven-day Feast of Unleavened Bread (Heb. massot) that immediately followed the initial slaughtering and eating of the Passover lamb on the evening of the fourteenth day of the month Abib, which by Hebrew reckoning would mean the commencement of the fifteenth day, right after sunset. The week of masso-t, coming right after on the heels of Passover itself (during which masso-t were actually eaten, along with the lamb, bitter herbs, etc.) very naturally came to be known as Passover Week (cf. Encyclopedia Britannica, 14th ed., 12:1041), extending from the fifteenth to the twenty-first of Abib, inclusively. (Arndt and Gingrich [Greek-English Lexicon, pp. 638-639] state: "This [i.e., Passover] was followed immediately by the Fast of Unleavened Bread … on the 15th to the 21st. Popular usage merged the two festivals and treated them as a unity, as they were for practical purposes.") It was unnecessary to insert a specific term for "week" (such as sa-bua) for it to be understood as such. Therefore, that which might be translated literally as "the preparation of the Passover" must in this context be rendered "Friday of Passover Week."

    It turns out, therefore, that John affirms just as clearly as the Synoptics that Christ was crucified on Friday and that His sacrificial death represented an antitypical fulfillment of the Passover ordinance itself, which was instituted by God in the days of the Exodus as a means of making Calvary available by faith to the ancient people of God even before the coming of Christ.

    Note that in 1 Corinthians 5:7 Jesus is referred to as the Passover Lamb for believers: "Purge out the old leaven, so that you may be a new lump, just as you were unleavened. For Christ, our Lamb was sacrificed for us." The statement of E. C. Hoskyns on John 19:14 is very appropriate here: "The hour of the double sacrifice is drawing near. It is midday. The Passover lambs are being prepared for sacrifice, and the Lamb of God is likewise sentenced to death" (The Fourth Gospel [London: Farber and Farber, 1940], ad. loc.). It simply needs to be pointed out that the lambs referred to here are not those that were slaughtered and eaten in private homes-a rite Jesus had already observed with His disciples the night before ("Maundy Thursday")- but the lambs to be offered on the altar of the Lord on behalf of the whole nation of Israel. (For the household observance on the evening of the fourteenth of Abib, cf. Exod. 12:6; for the public sacrifice on the altar, cf. Exod. 12:16-17; Lev. 23:4-8; 2 Chron. 30:15-19; 35:11-16. These were all known as Passover sacrifices, since they were presented during Passover week.)

    Thus it turns out that there has been a simple misunderstanding of the phrase paraskeue tou pascha that has occasioned such perplexity that even Guthrie (New Bible Commentary, p. 964) deduced an original error, for which he had no solution to offer. The various ingenious explanations offered by others, that Christ held His personal Passover a night early, knowing that He would be crucified before the evening of the fourteenth; that Christ and His movement held to a different calendar, reckoning the fourteenth to be a day earlier than the calendar of the official Jerusalem priesthood; or that He was following a revised calendar observed by the Essenes at Qumran-all these theories are quite improbable and altogether unnecessary. There is no contradiction whatever between John and the Synoptics as to the day on which Christ died — it was Friday. (Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties [Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1982], pp. 375-376)

http://www.blueletterbible.org/commentaries/comm_view.cfm?AuthorID=4&contentID=1685&commInfo=5&topic=John&ar=Jhn_19_37

IV. The attestation of the truth of this by an eye-witness (v. 35), the evangelist himself. Observe,

1. What a competent witness he was of the matters of fact. (1.) What he bore record of he saw; he had it not by hearsay, nor was it only his own conjecture, but he was an eyewitness of it; it is what we have seen and looked upon (1 Jn. 1:1; 2 Pt. 1:16), and had perfect understanding of, Lu. 1:3. (2.) What he saw he faithfully bore record of; as a faithful witness, he told not only the truth, but the whole truth; and did not only attest it by word of mouth, but left it upon record in writing, in perpetuam rei memoriam—for a perpetual memorial. (3.) His record is undoubtedly true; for he wrote not only from his own personal knowledge and observation, but from the dictates of the Spirit of truth, that leads into all truth. (4.) He had himself a full assurance of the truth of what he wrote, and did not persuade others to believe that which he did not believe himself: He knows that he saith true. (5.) He therefore witnessed these things, that we might believe; he did not record them merely for his own satisfaction or the private use of his friends, but made them public to the world; not to please the curious nor entertain the ingenious, but to draw men to believe the gospel in order to their eternal welfare.

2. What care he showed in this particular instance. That we may be well assured of the truth of Christ’s death, he saw his heart’s blood, his life’s blood, let out; and also of the benefits that flow to us from his death, signified by the blood and water which came out of his side. Let this silence the fears of weak Christians, and encourage their hopes, iniquity shall not be their ruin, for there came both water and blood out of Christ’s pierced side, both to justify and sanctify them; and if you ask, How can we be sure of this? You may be sure, for he that saw it bore record.

V. The accomplishment of the scripture in all this (v. 36): That the scripture might be fulfilled, and so both the honour of the Old Testament preserved and the truth of the New Testament confirmed. Here are two instances of it together:—

1. The scripture was fulfilled in the preserving of his legs from being broken; therein that word was fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken. (1.) There was a promise of this made indeed to all the righteous, but principally pointing at Jesus Christ the righteous (Ps. 34:20): He keepeth all his bones, not one of them is broken. And David, in spirit, says, All my bones shall say, Lord, who is like unto thee? Ps. 35:10. (2.) There was a type of this in the paschal lamb, which seems to be specially referred to here (Ex. 12:46): Neither shall you break a bone thereof; and it is repeated (Num. 9:12), You shall not break any bone of it; for which law the will of the law-maker is the reason, but the antitype must answer the type. Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us, 1 Co. 5:7. He is the Lamb of God (ch. 1:29), and, as the true passover, his bones were kept unbroken. This commandment was given concerning his bones, when dead, as of Joseph’s, Heb. 11:22. (3.) There was a significancy in it; the strength of the body is in the bones. The Hebrew word for the bones signifies the strength, and therefore not a bone of Christ must be broken, to show that though he be crucified in weakness his strength to save is not at all broken. Sin breaks our bones, as it broke David’s (Ps. 51:; but it did not break Christ’s bones; he stood firm under the burden, mighty to save.

2. The scripture was fulfilled in the piercing of his side (v. 37): They shall look on me whom they had pierced; so it is written, Zec. 12:10. And there the same that pours out the Spirit of grace, and can be no less than the God of the holy prophets, says, They shall look upon me, which is here applied to Christ, They shall look upon him. (1.) It is here implied that the Messiah shall be pierced; and here it had a more full accomplishment than in the piercing of his hands and feet; he was pierced by the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, wounded in the house of his friends, as it follows, Zec. 13:6. (2.) It is promised that when the Spirit is poured out they shall look on him and mourn. This was in part fulfilled when many of those that were his betrayers and murderers were pricked to the heart, and brought to believe in him; it will be further fulfilled, in mercy, when all Israel shall be saved; and, in wrath, when those who persisted in their infidelity shall see him whom they have pierced, and wail because of him, Rev. 1:7. But it is applicable to us all. We have all been guilty of piercing the Lord Jesus, and are all concerned with suitable affections to look on him.

For the same passage from the Tanach form the website of Orthodox Jews please click here:
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=3389.0

(KJV) Isaiah 53:1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed? {report: or, doctrine?: Heb. hearing?}   2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, [there is] no beauty that we should desire him.   3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were [our] faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. {we hid...: or, he hid as it were his face from us: Heb. as an hiding of faces from him, or, from us}   4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.   5 But he [was] wounded for our transgressions, [he was] bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace [was] upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. {wounded: or, tormented} {stripes: Heb. bruise}   6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. {laid...: Heb. made the iniquity of us all to meet on him}   7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.   8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. {from prison...: or, away my distress and judgment: but, etc} {was he...: Heb. was the stroke upon him}   9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither [was any] deceit in his mouth. {death: Heb. deaths}   10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put [him] to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see [his] seed, he shall prolong [his] days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. {thou...: or, his soul shall make an offering}   11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, [and] shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.   12 Therefore will I divide him [a portion] with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

I'll defer to the webpage with a version from the Tanach at chabad.org, as well as the King James and with embedded links, on the IslamAndTheTruth website:
http://www.islamandthetruth.com/isaiah_53.htm

Specifically the passover Lamb to the slaughter:
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=3080.0

All of that, and we barely got started on discussing the character of the man/men that you follow, as revealed through Muhammad's stand-alone 23 year 7th century record:
http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=coitus&translator=1&search=1&book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all

Can you list for us all the reasons, that Muhammad's followers prostrate themselves toward the Quraish pagan's black stone idol in Mecca five times a day, besides Muhammad told his followers to?
http://www.historyofmecca.com/

(Book #92, Hadith #448) He will reply. '(My witnesses are) Muhammad and his followers.'
(Book #93, Hadith #601) I will say, 'O Lord, my followers! My followers!'.....
(Book #60, Hadith #264) Lo! Some men from my followers will be brought and taken towards the left side...
(Book #78, Hadith #627) Narrated 'Aisha: The Prophet said, "O followers of Muhammad! By Allah, if you knew what I know, you would weep much and laugh little."
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=2656.0
Indeed. Even Muhammad wondered where he was going after he died. No assurance of salvation

Let me give you some help with your answer to listing all the reasons you follow Muhammad.
Can you list all the reason that Muhammad's followers kiss the Quraish pagan's black stone idol in Mecca?

You have mostly responded to my previous post by using quotes from the bible, in what I believe is an effort to support your point of view. The problem with that though is as much as I respect the Bible and value my relationship with many good people who are Christians, I don’t believe the Bible is anywhere close to been the Word of God, just as am sure you also don’t believe what I believe in is anywhere even close to the words of God, so how can you use what I don’t believe in to respond to my points?

And after blaspheming the Word of God while deluding yourself with unctuous platitudes like "as much as I respect the Bible" which is preposterous lie since you believe the exact opposite of its whole subject, we can see how God weighs in:

1John 5:10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.

So since Muhammad proclaimed the exact opposite of the whole subject of the Gospel, and because of your faith in him you reject the scriptures of the one truth God YHWH, you were instead given a chance to explain why you believe solely Muhammad's words for other reasons, like history, archaeology, and geography, but were then rendered mute. Perhaps this is because it should have become as apparent to you, as to anyone with the remotest ability to engage in critical thought, that it is the exact opposite of the one true God, that you in fact follow. Your epic failure to support Muhammad's words even after you amusingly wrote:

In fact how can even God expect us to believe in what does not make sense and is illogical on the basis of faith? That would be injustice for it is He who created us to think with our minds and not heart. The way to the heart is through the mind; which is why information or knowledge based on logic increases ones faith and information that is illogical, but still accepted through faith is fanaticism. Fanaticism means we are guided by our emotions and desires, instead of God conscience

Can you defend your faith based on reason and invite people to accept salvation through your faith through the same?

Can you see how your mind has been rendered dysfunctional, even as you describe your faith in Muhammad alone, let alone his flying donkey-mule, as if it were logical to do so. Satan even compels you to believe that all Christians over the last nearly 2,000 years are guilty of Muhammad's - and thus obviously Satan's - only unforgivable sin. Guiltier of worse sin than Adolph Hitler, Pol Pot, Ghengis Khan, the Mufti of Jerusalem and the false prophet Muhammad himself.

EXACTLY: As you said you couldn't give an answer because it would go against the words given to you by God according your scripture.

For Him to take the form of a man, according to ours would be an abomination-a sin beyond any other that is unforgivable if one dies in that state, unless he or she repents and turns to the one and only lord.

You mean "repents and turns to" Muhammad alone.
I showed you exactly how YHWH revealed Himself to Abraham in the flesh of a man, so many centuries before He did so, in the person of His Son our Savior the Prince of Peace.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=3485.msg14555#msg14555
Can't even you begin to see that only an entirely unjust and opposite "god" named Satan would suggest that praying in Jesus name at any time and in any direction one chooses to an omnipresent God, would be a sin worse than child rape or cold blooded mass murder, while praying in the name of the Arabian pagan's deity "Allah" while prostrating toward the Quraish pagan's black stone idol in Mecca would be what the one true God Yahweh wants us to do?

Why not see what some of your former followers of Muhammad brethren found, after they hit the wall that you just have. They came to know the love of the one true holy and just God:
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1259.0

Preterists reject the stunning reality of Jews raising their flag over Israel in 1948, and fulfilling the "times of the Gentiles" in Jerusalem in 1967, as vindicating John Darby's eschatology, even though his eschatology called for that restoration. I know it set the futurist Christian community on fire at the time, with this vindication as proof of their eschatology, when that event took place in 1948. It should have also proven simultaneously devastating to partial preterism, though I don't know if they were skulking around with their tails between their legs at the time or not. Based on the reluctance we see in both futurists and preterists in this forum to even consider, anything other than those two eschatologies, I'd guess not.

I would agree that restoration didn't vindicate futurism. However through the traditional historicist approach to prophecy I do recognize the restoration of Jews to their land as having been prophesied, as Christians like Matthew Henry and others anticipated of that restoration, centuries before it began to take place. Yet in spite of the stunning reality, preterists reject it as fulfillment of prophecy, because their doctrine won't allow for it.
Preterists also reject that the "abomination of desolation" Jesus mentioned in the Olivet Discourse may have referred to something other than the sacking of Jerusalem in 70 AD, even though Islamic Gentiles took over from the Roman Gentiles and reigned until they had rendered Jerusalem a completely spiritually as well as physically, desolated, deforested, denuded, desertified and depopulated wasteland. That Roman sacking of Jerusalem in 70 AD was just the beginning of its ultimate desolation during the "times of the Gentiles" in Jerusalem.

But just as that desolation was prophesied, so was the restoration thereof:

Eze 36:35 And they shall say, This land that was desolate is become like the garden of Eden; and the waste and desolate and ruined cities [are become] fenced, [and] are inhabited.
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/christian_zionism.htm

Eze 36:22 Therefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; I do not [this] for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy name's sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen, whither ye went. 23 And I will sanctify my great name, which was profaned among the heathen, which ye have profaned in the midst of them; and the heathen shall know that I [am] the LORD, saith the Lord GOD, when I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes. 24 For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land. 25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you.....

Now let's look at a verse in the Olivet Discourse:

Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:) 16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains

It's pretty obvious that if Christians had waited until the Roman soldiers, or "The Roman sign was a straight staff, capped with a metallic eagle, and right under the eagle was a graven image of Caesar", or any other such thing to "stand in the holy place" it would have obviously been too late for them to get out of Dodge. And obviously if they had gotten out beforehand, they wouldn't have seen it. More of a case against their departure having been related to the Olivet Discourse, and the Roman sacking of Jerusalem, being related to the "abomination of desolation".
(Here's a thread on this subject for futurists): http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthrea...-of-Desolation

Now let's look at the quotes from that preterist I mentioned earlier:

Eusebius (325) "But the people of the church in Jerusalem had been commanded by a revelation, vouchsafed to approved men there before the war, to leave the city and to dwell in a certain town of Perea called Pella. " (History of the Church 3:5:3)
Had been "commanded by a revelation"? That doesn't strike me as an account of men musing over the Olivet Discourse, and where in the Olivet Discourse did Jesus mention Pella?

"For when the city was about to be captured and sacked by the Romans, all the disciples were warned beforehand by an angel to remove from the city, doomed as it was to utter destruction. On migrating from it they settled at Pella, the town already indicated, across the Jordan. It is said to belong to Decapolis (de Mens. et Pond., 15).
While consistent with the prior account, being "warned beforehand by an angel" doesn't seem to suggest it was the result of men musing over the Olivet Discourse either. It works for me either way, and including dual fulfillment, since the traditional historicist view allows that things would shortly begin to come to pass in the first century. It also still allows that the Christians may have fled because of the Olivet Discourse, but even if they had taken that as a clue that certainly doesn't necessarily support the preterist presumption that fulfilled the prophecy of the abomination of desolation. Indeed the Christian community in Jerusalem was alive and well in 639 when Islam took over. Even considering dual fulfillment works fine with historicism. Also some ECFs recognized that the end of the world could not come until the times of the Gentiles were fulfilled in Jerusalem.

Irenaeus "John and Daniel have predicted the dissolution and desolation of the Roman Empire, which shall precede the end of the world and the eternal Kingdom of Christ. The Gnostics are refuted, those tools of Satan, who invent another Father different from the Creator."
In spite of the inverted pyramids of pile-on presumption, I would suggest there is no more vindication for preterism in Christians fleeing Jerusalem, than the restoration of Jews to their land was to futurism.

Following is the blasphemous inscription written in Mosaic on the Dome of the Rock, that stands on the temple mount as God's prophetic symbol for Islam, and its desolation of Jerusalem and role as the end-time foe of God's people:

"O you People of the Book, overstep not bounds in your religion, and of God speak only the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, is only an apostle of God, and his Word which he conveyed unto Mary, and a Spirit proceeding from him. Believe therefore in God and his apostles, and say not Three. It will be better for you. God is only one God. Far be it from His transcendent majesty that he should have a son."

Just more blasphemy from the Islamic beast. Rev 13:6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.

The founding of the Dome of the Rock in 688 date-pinned through John's 1260 days as well as his 42 months:
Isaac Newton - "She is nourished by the merchants of the earth, three times or years and an half, or 42 months, or 1260 days: and in these Prophecies days are put for years."
http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthrea...and-Revelation

Or its possible that this is the process needed to go through to arrive where we are and when we are.

I would say yes. While I don't claim to have a franchise on truth, I am however comfortable conforming with 2,000 years of declared universal Christian core doctrine. Also comfortable approaching all bible prophecy uniformly through the historicist approach, thorough which all Jews and Christians understand Old Testament prophecy was fulfilled, and as those great men of God that forged the reformation and the church, up until a couple hundred years ago, understood New Testament prophecy was being fulfilled. Their having cast aside the dead formalism of Roman Catholicism, that preterism is still associated with - regarding perhaps the most unfortunate aspect.
http://christianeschatology.com/supe...upersessionism

As far as arriving where and when we are I believe it has all been and will continue to be in God's hands, and we have been nearly 2,000 years in the process of getting here - while steadily fulfilling prophecy - that was prophesied as convincingly as we all understand Daniel's kingdom beasts were fulfilled, when one is open to giving it a chance, through the same approach to prophecy. That prophecy is fulfilled steadily, throughout the era about which is prophesied, like Daniel's beasts.
http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthrea...ook-Revelation
I believe that as much as I believe Muhammad is THE false prophet, and his Islamic kingdom beast, the prophesied final foe of God's people. Is that really that hard to imagine when 1/4 of mankind is commanded to conquer and subjugate the other 3/4 of mankind specifically to deny the Son of God and reject His shed blood as articles of faith in Muhammad?
No Jew is commanded by their/our Old Testament scriptures to do the same. Indeed Old Testament prophets laid down swords, or suggestion of the use of the sword in God's service, about 1500 years before Muhammad was ever born.
I also believe the present state of the "church" was prophesied (not applicable to the ecclesia remnant):
http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthrea...way-first-quot

2 Timothy 4:3-4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

I guess you would have to believe that was fulfilled within the two or so years after it was penned. But doesn't it make you ponder it just a teensy bit, in light of the tens of millions of dollars netted in the "Left Behind" series alone?
In any event when I read that verse I'm not surprised when I consider that the 19th century brought us (partial list):

Mary Baker Eddy - Christian Science
Joseph Smith - LDS Mormon
Charles Taze Russell - Jehovah's Witness
William Miller - Millerites associated into SDA
Ellen White - SDA Seventh Day Adventists
Edward Irving - Irvingites
United and Oneness Pentecostal Church - several individuals 19th & 20th century
John Nelson Darby - dispensationalism futurism - Darby from Irving via C.I. Scofield
Dr. John Thomas - Christadelphians
Georg W. F. Hegel - Idealism school of eschatology (adopted by Karl Marx)
Madame Blavatsky - Theosophical Society - satanist acquaintence of Westcott and Hort
Westcott and Hort - These two men penned a minority Greek text that is the basis of the majority of modern bible versions.
Pope Pius IX - 1854 dogma of the "immaculate conception" (to add to the prior 1700 year steady accumulation of false dogma)

And so......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBpw2oQrvMM

You put your faith in Muhammad alone. You put your trust in Muhammad alone. You follow the words of Muhammad alone. You follow Muhammad because Muhammad told his followers to follow him - or get their heads cut off as renegades and apostates.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=2656.0
This even as we can see in the prior posts how he is revealed through your own books, and so far I have gone easy on you.

So then since Muhammad proclaimed the exact opposite of the whole subject of the Gospel, do you follow Muhammad alone because of the rich history of Mecca? It can't be that because there is no evidence that suggests that Mecca ever existed before the 4th century AD.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1138.0

Is it the extensive archaeological record of Mecca? Can't be that because there is no archaeological evidence that suggests that Mecca ever existed before pagan immigrants from Yemen settled the area in about the 4th century AD.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1132.0

Is it the geographical location of Mecca? It can't be that because Mecca is located across 1200 kilometers of harsh desert from THE Holy Land of the prophets and patriarchs. Abraham's travels never took him to within 1,000 kilometers of Mecca, and there was no overland route along the Red Sea in Arabia until most of a millennium after Abraham walked the earth.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=3416.0

Is it the ancient kaaba? Can't hardly be that since Mecca never existed, let alone that the Quraish pagan's kaaba was built in the early 5th century for Arabian Star Family worship, about 666 nautical miles from where the one true God of the scriptures, had His people build His temple.
http://www.historyofmecca.com/#temple

So you believe in the words of Muhammad alone, even though all of the available evidence suggests, it is an anti-a-specific-religion cult that follows the stand-alone words of a single 7th century SW Arabian desert dwelling murderous imperialistic conqueror. Islam is antichrist.

You follow Muhammad even though 1/4 of the bible is prophecy, with much of it fulfilled, including the whole subject of the Gospel that was prophesied in the scriptures so many hundreds of years before that event:
http://www.islamandthetruth.com/psalms_22.htm
http://www.islamandthetruth.com/isaiah_53.htm

You follow Muhammad alone, even though the 1600 year record of YHWH to mankind through all of His prophets and witnesses, that His people have followed through two covenants for 3500 years, is ever increasingly supported by history, archaeology, geography and even mathematically.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?board=68.0
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/mathematical_precision_of_prophecy.htm