Islam, Muslim / Christian Forum - Welcome All

Quote from: Peter on September 16, 2012, 08:25:53 AM
Regarding Deedat, can you tell me if you can see this video? Maybe a cookie in my computer allows me to see it. It got over a million views, and then it's like it got shut off a couple months ago::
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN-_20sjHVI
The traffic stopped about the time that Google took over youtube.

I was able to watch the video. Perhaps you can download it and then reupload it using websites that allow YouTube video downloading, maybe upload it again as unlisted so only those with a link can see it, so there's less of a problem of copyright because not everyone can view the video.

I was reading through the previous topic on the subject but I felt it was too late to give a reply to that so I started a new topic. Regarding the topic, Alberto Rivera is often mentioned but I watched a video a while a go about the subject of the creation of Islam, which goes much further. I'm not sure if Walter Veith is a reliable source of information, but he seems fairly convincing, and he thinks the ancient orders and secret societies are involved (Freemasons, Knights Templar, Illuminati and The Ancient Arabic Order Of The Nobles of the Mystic Shrine, etc.) in the creation and manipulation of Islam and notes how Islamic secret societies are linked to Judeo-Christian ones as well as showing many Pagan influences in both Catholicism and Islam. He seems to have traveled the world (so he says) and provides lots of pictures to back-up his claims. Anyone whose patient enough to watch the whole video (1hr:27mins long) - I want your take. This is not his only lecture and he has lots on the channel known as "OfficialADTV" (AD = Amazing Dsicoveries) which he shares with one or two other people, though this one grabbed my attention more than the others.

His website:
http://walterveith.com/

One of his critics (but really an anti- Seven Day Adventist site; I don't know what's wrong with them and it has nothing do with the video on Islam):
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Seventh-Day%20Adventist/walter_veith_heretic.htm

The video I'm referring to:
(The Islamic Connection / Total Onslaught - Walter Veith)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCmSBfVXEmA

Or am I interpreting the Biblical criterion for a true prophet wrongly? Muhammad broke the Sabbath laws which Muslims don't believe Jesus overturnd since they don't believe he was god (I'm assuming Jesus did this; see below). This is taken from something I am writing (by the way I never claimed to have any real knowledge of either religion):

It sounds too good to be true, but I was watching a debate between David Wood and Sami Zaatari*, and to my astonishment, Sami unwittingly proved Muhammad is a false prophet, showing how little knowledge he has of the Bible. Why? In this debate he says he is using the Biblical criteria (below) for a prophet and at the same time claims Muhammad meets these criteria. At the same time however, he also acknowledges that the original Koran 53:21 (popularly known as the Satanic Verses) were uttered by Muhammad, claim this proves he is a prophet of god. What he doesn’t know, and this is what makes his lack of knowledge evident, that as soon as Muhammad first uttered the names of Al-Lat and Al-‘Uzzá and Manāt he proved he was a false prophet according to the Biblical criterion.

This is the debate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3F897ENtvsk
Timings:
At 0:34:37 Sami says: “Since David is a Christian, I will argue from Biblical standards â€" how do we judge a true prophet?”
At 0:54:56 Sami says: “If you want to accept the first part of the story you have to accept the second part.”
At 0:55:37 Sami says (in reference to the Satanic Verses): “Now this story, although many scholars say it’s not authentic, I’m not gonna do that; because I don’t need to. This story proves Muhammad is a prophet. In fact I hope the scholars say the story is true because it proves he is a true prophet.”

If the video is removed I have the clips saved on my computer. At first I thought Sami was a decent debater, however since he said he is using Biblical criteria in reference to Muhammad, so will I. There are a number of verses that show Muhammad is a false prophet but there are a few verses in particular that I want to focus on. A verse Muslims often like to quote, which they claim refer to Muhammad is one from a passage in Deuteronomy known as “The Prophet”. The prophecy can only refer to an Israelite, but that’s another story.
Deuteronomy (18: 15): “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your fellow Israelites. You must listen to him.”

So according to the Muslims this verse is one of the uncorrupted ones. It’s quoted so much them it has to be. So a verse of the Bible suddenly becomes uncorrupted if the Muslims can twist to make it seem like it is refer to their religion? Hmmm, ok. They can either they go with Sami says and acknowledge the original Koran 53:21 or they deny the event the Muslim sources they mention cannot be trusted. However they have a problem if they go with what Sami is saying. A couple of verses after Deuteronomy 18: 15 (in the same passage) there is another verse and it goes like this:
Deuteronomy (15:20): “But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, is to be put to death.”
The uncorrupted (original) Koran 53:21 goes like this: “Have ye thought upon Al-Lat and Al-‘Uzzá and Manāt, the third, the other? These are the exalted gharāniq, whose intercession is hoped for.”

According to the Bible Muhammad should be “put to death”, however it goes further than that. How inconsistent does the Muslim want to be? The passage known as “The Prophet” is telling people what to look for in this future prophet. Deuteronomy 18:20 is part of this description, so if the former part is supposed to be referring to Muhammad we have a contradiction. To be consistent Muslims, should accept the whole of the Biblical passage. Consistency is something Muslims lack.
Deuteronomy 18:5 “For the Lord your God has chosen them and their descendants out of all your tribes to stand and minister in the Lord’s name always.”

But there’s more. Muhammad also broke one of the Sabbath Laws by uttering the names of these Pagan goddesses. Since Muslims don’t believe in the divinity of Jesus, they also do not believe that he could have conducted such a blasphemous act as overturn the Sabbath laws (Matthew 5:17-19?). Only somebody who claims to be god could have had that authority (unless of course Jesus didn't overturn these laws, which allowed Muhammad to utter the names but Koran 10:64* says the Bible is the uncorrupted word of Allah when taken in conjunction with Koran 5:68*). It is true that the Koran states the Bible is the uncorrupted word of god, and I’ll get to that later. The Sabbath Law he broke is as follows:
Exodus (23:13): “Be careful to do everything I have said to you. Do not invoke the names of other gods; do not let them be heard on your lips.”
But Muhammad invoked the names of other god on his lips, therefore breaking the Sabbath Law. As Sami Zaatari says at 54:11 of this debate with Sam Shamoun:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1fOE-PTRvc
"I'm glad you have more to say, you haven't proven nothing yet."
5:68 “Say O People of the Scripture! Ye have naught (of guidance) till ye observe the Torah and the Gospel and that which was revealed unto you from your Lord...”
And Koran 10:64 says: “Theirs are good tidings in the life of the world and in the Hereafter - There is no changing the Words of Allah - that is the Supreme Triumph.”

Which is a double negative, so that means that I have proven something â€" thanks for that Sami. As we see, or rather hear, in the debate, Sami has a very narrow-minded view of the Bible, and takes the verses at face value, and with that in mind I think Sam won the debate, not least because of Sami’s use of a double negative. I could say: “If Muhammad is a true prophet of Allah then he should have said “I am a true prophet of Allah and Jesus is not the son of god” in the same sentence”. Of course he does not say this and it is a very narrow-minded view, not that it matters, because I have already proven Muhammad is false anyway.

And the Koran tells people to read the Bible if they doubt Muhammad (5:68 for example), and by reading the Bible, we discover Muhammad cannot be a true prophet or the Hadith are corrupted.

Quote from: Peter on September 14, 2012, 09:38:04 AM
I did notice:
"The reason I use the word Muhammadan extensively over the words Muslim or Islam is explained in section 9b."
I still sometimes use that perhaps more historical term, but some Muslims find it offensive, and I don't think offending them will help win them to Christ (which is my purpose). The substitute I use to isolate them and punctuate that they follow Muhammad alone, is "followers of Muhammad". They cannot complain or argue since that's what Muhammad himself called them. Not a single Muslim has taken issue with me on that (though a Christian did!).
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=2656.0
Actually, the same message, in all of the early manuscripts in all of the various languages is how we can know it's not.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=97.0

Quote from: fernmessagenotgood on September 14, 2012, 03:40:03 AM....... I'm not sure if you can see where I'm going with this but essentially it was because it was written in Greek and Jesus spoke Aramaic. I don't think you have a video discussing that point, which if you look at history Greek was a very important language of the Roman period so I'm inclined to think the point raised is a non-issue.

Indeed. Jesus addressing a crowd in Aramaic would be akin to a U.S. businessman addressing a conference in Yiddish! More on the textual integrity of scripture in the following forum section.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?board=68.0

I opted to use the word Muhammadan because Muslims need to invoke the name of Muhammad if they want salvation, in a similar fashion to Christians needing to invoke the name of Jesus. No other prophet is mentioned by name in the Shahada for example, and Allah even swore by Muhammad's life in the Koran. Koran (part of 15:72): "By thy life (O Muhammad)..."
However, in terms of trying to win over Muslims, I consider this no worse than citing thereligionofpeace.com as source, as you did because I consider it a propaganda site. This could be my own bias, because terrorism is not the main reason for my dislike of Islam. They didn't give the full picture on the Muslims in Burma, so although a portion of the Muslim community are clear liars (like Zakir Naik and Yusuf Estes) and/or violent, perhaps just deluded, I think the site is too biased. I feel a bit strange saying that because I know Muslims have their own sites which they use to brainwash people. You have to fight fire with fire I guess. This is a minor thing, and I'm not in a position to question any statistics provided by the site, and a lot of what they post is true even if I do have a problem with certain articles.

Quote from: Peter on September 13, 2012, 08:05:57 AM
Hi fern and welcome to the forum!
After YouTube was changed by Google it made things very difficult. Do you mind if I ask how you found the video?

Regarding any videos, I first found the video about Mecca and then I went on tool look at your other ones.
I probably should have posted an introduction first, but oh well. I was also reading this.
I was also wondering how I access the place to edit my forum profile because I can seem to find it anywhere, and there are no links in the questions section. My username is an anagrammatic reference to a certain combination of words because ferns defy a certain verse in the Koran (51:49 because ferns don't need to be in pairs to breed as they breed asexually using spores) and I want to let everyone know.

Quote from: Peter on September 13, 2012, 08:15:11 AM

Quote from: fernmessagenotgood on September 13, 2012, 07:30:26 AM....... and it made sense in a weird sort of way. I'm currently neither Muslim nor Christian, but even if I have a slight bias against Islam .........

I think we can help with that. Google - history of Mecca - and collect all of the historical and archaeological record you can find on the subject. As stunning as it is, and as you will discover in your search, there is not a shred of historical or archaeological evidence that suggests that Mecca ever existed before the 4th century AD when pagan immigrants from Yemen settled the area, and built their kaaba in the early 5th century for Arabian Star Family and jinn-devil worship.

Actually I already knew all that. I have written about it here:
http://pastebin.com/2T2JaAZ7
I have a section discussing the various responses I've had to the question of Mecca and its Kaaba. (I'm not Hindu either by the way) but I tell them the ancient Hindu city city of Lord Krishna (Dwarka) can still be found despite being flooded thousands of years ago because some seem to think Mecca was destroyed in a "great sandstorm" but there is no proof of such a sandstorm or Mecca.

In addition, to that in the article I have a section discussing the various similarities between Islam and Hinduism, since Muslims think the Christian trinity is from Hinduism. That could be another video. Also, I was told the language barriers of the New Testament would mean it is corrupted; I'm not sure if you can see where I'm going with this but essentially it was because it was written in Greek and Jesus spoke Aramaic. I don't think you have a video discussing that point, which if you look at history Greek was a very important language of the Roman period so I'm inclined to think the point raised is a non-issue.

The article I have written almost 20,000 words long but I feel there are some things you may find useful, like the idea that the holy Sanskrit letter "OM" (from Hinduism) is on Arabic copies of the Koran as the Arabic for the number 786. This is in spite of fact the Muslims claim Islam to be the least Pagan religion.

Regarding the empire of the beast I have some questions. Your video was very informative, and I read the Biblical book of Revelation in light of knowledge of the Mahdi, and it made sense in a weird sort of way. I'm currently neither Muslim nor Christian, but even if I have a slight bias against Islam I did note a potential flaw in the idea of a revived caliphate, or maybe I'm just interpreting the information wrongly.

Are the criteria for an "Empire of the Beast" just that it rules Israel for a period of time or does it actually have to bring down the previous Empire Of The Beast; which criteria needs to be fufiled first? The thing is, I noted there were caliphates before Ottomans, (the Ottoman Empire was the empire that brought down the Byzantines). I'm fine with the Byzantines being the 6th Empire Of The Beast because there are essentially Romans and the "empire that is" in the New Testament. The thing that god me, is that first you have a caliphates from the Arabian peninsula, i.e. Muhammad's successors, and they ruled over Jerusalem too, as the map shows but did not succeed in bringing down the Byzantines, but instead exploited the weakness of the Persians.

I'm not sure if the Ottoman Empire can be classed as one the same because it was founded amongst Turkic peoples rather than Arabs, unless of course one melded into the other. Perhaps I have my history wrong, but I was under the impression that the Ottoman caliphate was a separate entity to the Islamic empires that came before it.  Unless of course the Empire Of The Beast should rule over Jerusalem first and then taken down the previous Empire Of The Beast

The Bible mentions that the 8th beast empire will be a revived 7th beast empire that will come from the area surrounding the Turkey/Persia border (leopard, bear and lion) and the Ottomans meet this criterion as well as that of ruling over Jerusalem and they were the ones who brought down the Byzantines. The Bible also says the Antichrist will murder Jews and Christians, which the Ottomans did too. The Ottomans slaughtered many Eastern Europeans and allowed the Armenian, Assyrian and Greek genocides to take place, and took many Saqaliba as well as being a major player in the  Arab slave trade..

At the moment I'm of the impression the Biblical prophecy has been partly fufiled because the Ottoman Empire seems to meet some of the criteria of the 8th Empire Of The Beast, but at the same time I think this is wrong and I need form clarification because the Rashidun, 632â€"661, and Umayyads, 7thâ€"8th centuries, and Abbasid Caliphate and Fatimid Caliphates, 8th to 13th century, all rule over Jerusalem. The Muslim Brotherhood seems quite popular at the moment so I could well be wrong with my interpration of the evidence.