Is Roman Catholicism Christian or universalist?

Perhaps we ought to begin with some definitions:

Catholicism: In short, Catholicism is a Pagan mystery religion which combines biblical theology proper with non-, un- and even anti-biblical systematic theology. Theology proper is used here to refer to their actual beliefs solely about God whilst systematic theology is used here to refer to the rest of their beliefs.

Due to this combination, it comes across as being biblical and employs biblical terms in order to hide their Paganism. Also, this church came about by a long series of steps which went from there being various bishops sharing equal authority, to the bishop of Rome declaring himself the supreme pontiff and one and only representative of Christ on Earth. This resulted in the Pope as being said to possess absolute power and hidden (gnostic) teachings that the apostles passed on in oral form outside of the Bible’s text.

You can learn more about Catholicism in general here and about their history here.

Christian: There are various ways to define Christianity and Christian but let us simply focus on the fact that, as the apostle Paul put it, “Watch your life and doctrine” (1Timothy 4:16). Thus, one can know the Bible backwards and forwards but if one’s life does not match biblical principles then one is lacking. Conversely, one can live a very moral life but if one’s doctrine is erroneous then one is lacking just as much.

The basics of Christianity is that the Bible is the word of YHVH, YHVH is the one true living triune God, Jesus is a member of the Trinity and incarnated, died on the cross to pay for our sins, resurrected and now sits at the Father’s right hand making unique intercession. Those who believe and live this are called Christians.

You can learn more about Christianity here and theology, including Trinitarian doctrine here.

buddhism2c20baha27i2c20roman20catholic2c20muslim2c20islam2c20prayer20beads2c20rosary-6782668

Universalism: Generally speaking, the view (which comes in various forms) that claims that all will be “saved” regardless; sometime and somehow we all end up in “heaven.”

Some actually claim that there is such a thing as Christian universalism but that is tantamount of claiming that there is such a thing as a vegan carnivore.

Some examples of this view can be found in the following articles:

Unitarian Universalism and the illogical sham of pluralism

The Godless Church of Unitarian Universalism, part 1 of 2

Unitarian Universalist – Condolences and Critiques, part 1 of 6

Spiritual Evolution and Godless Unitarian Universalist “Church”

Lost – The Final Season

Perhaps it would be going too far to claim that Catholicism is a universalist religion since, as Catholic apologist Tim Staples put it, ex-Catholics are the only ones who will go to hell (stated during a broadcast of The Bible Answer Man radio program during an on the air debate with James White).

Yet, shy of ex-Catholics; all other people seem to make it as they each—according to Catholicism—have a different gospel.

Catholicism has concocted many gospels, which are no gospels at all. It has promulgated gospels for the salvation of non-, un- and even anti-Biblical religions. It has a gospel for Protestants, another for Muslims, another for Atheists, etc. It has even changed the gospel for Catholics—repeatedly.

The Vatican’s New American Bible states the following at 2 Corinthians 11:3-4,

But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts may be corrupted from a sincere (and pure) commitment to Christ.

For if someone comes and preaches another Jesus than the one we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it well enough. [emphasis added]

Their level of deception is such that they simply put up, well enough, with such satanic corruptions of the gospel.

Galatians 1:6-9, from the same Bible, elucidates further:

I am amazed that you are so quickly forsaking the one who called you by (the) grace (of Christ) for a different gospel (not that there is another). But there are some who are disturbing you and wish to pervert the gospel of Christ.

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach (to you) a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed! As we have said before, and now I say again, if anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one that you received, let that one be accursed! [emphasis added]

At this point, note the specific reference to the relation between preaching another Jesus as it results in another gospel which results in being accursed.

According to Islam; Jesus was a virgin born prophet but is not God in the flesh and did not die on the cross for our sins. Islam preaches another Jesus and thus, another gospel which is no gospel at all as there is not another.

Thus, biblically speaking; they are accursed.

But what saith the Vatican? The Catechism of the Catholic Church # 841 states,

The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

So biblically, another Jesus equals accursedness but Catholically another Jesus equals salvation. And note that even on the issue of who is the God of Abraham they are inaccurate as this God, YHVH who is the God of Christians, has a Son but Allah, the god of Muslims / Islam, cannot have a Son. In fact, the very worst sin in Islam, known as shirk, is associating any one or thing with Allah.

Thus, the Vatican / Catholicism is in direct conflict with the Bible. This is no ethereal nor technical theological minutia; this is very simple and straight forward.

In times past, Catholicism referred to Protestants as being eternally condemned (same word as we saw above for accursed; the Greek anathema). The Vatican burnt Protestants alive, to their death. They would execute Protestants for the sin of translating the Bible and getting it into the common persons’ hands. There have been no greater persecutors of Christians than Catholicism. Yet, one day Catholicism decided that Protestants are not anathema but are “separated brethren” who are not to be murdered by the hundreds of thousands but are to be invited to join Catholicism.

Thus, once the gospel condemned Protestants and now the gospel (another-other gospel) accepts them.

Lastly, let us consider the other gospel of Catholicism itself. Note that within Catholicism there is doctrine and dogma. Doctrine is an important teaching, indeed, however dogma is a teaching that is required to be accepted by the faithful (Catholics) as a requirement for salvation. In other words, Catholics have their very own gospel and even their own gospel changes. How so? Well, because every time that a dogma is proclaimed there is a new salvific requirement upon Catholics.

For example, before 1950 AD Catholics may have believed in Mary’s assumption into heaven or not. However, after 1950 AD they could not be saved unless they accepted it. Thus, the gospel consisted or certain things before 1950 AD and was added to after 1950 AD.

What about the Catholic church’s relationship with the Atheists? Does the plan of salvation also includes those who do not acknowledge the Creator, in the first (and only) place amongst whom are the Atheists; these reject the faith of Abraham, and in opposition to us they either ignore, rebel again and/or are simply apathetic about the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.

Note that with regards to Islam, the only issue is that they “acknowledge the Creator.” By the way, the Bible notes that demons also “acknowledge the Creator” and tremble (James 2:19).

As we recently reported in the article New World Pope Francis’s gospel of atheism; while he may not have been speaking ex cathedra, that is dogmatically/officially, the Pope, the Pontiff, the personified representative on Christ on Earth had a Q&A session with himself as he simulated being asked questions so as to make a point. His overall point was about who can be saved:

“Father, the atheists?” Even the atheists. Everyone! And this Blood makes us children of God of the first class! We are created children in the likeness of God and the Blood of Christ has redeemed us all!

While we are all created in God’s image, the blood of Christ redeems those who accept the redemption that He offers. There are various sects of Atheism (about which you can read here Definition of “Atheism” and Variations of Atheism) but one thing they have in common is that they do not believe in God. Hebrews 11:6 states:

But without faith it is impossible to please him, for anyone who approaches God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.

Atheists do not even meet this very, very basic requirement which is the acknowledgment of God’s existence in the first place. Moreover, we are saved by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8) and this text noted that “without faith it is impossible to please him.”

Even with these few examples it is clear that Catholicism has found non-, un-, and anti-biblical ways to offer a pseudo salvation via false gospels to everyone; even those who are specifically excluded from salvation by their own free will choice of not accepting the one true real and history Jesus.

Thus, Catholicism is a Pagan mystery universalist religion with merely a Christian/biblical veneer.

Juan Williams, Islam, NPR and the PC Movement

Interestingly, it was along with the affirmation “I’m not a bigot” that Juan Williams has been labeled a bigot and fired for breaking the commandments of the politically correct (PC) movement.

He has been fired from the partially tax payer funded liberal propaganda machine National Public Radio (NPR) for stating:

I’m not a bigot. You know the kind of books I’ve written about the civil rights movement in this country.

But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried.

I get nervous.

juan20williams2c20islam2c20npr-7988170

There is much to be stated on this issue and many directions in which the comments could go, for example: just as soon as Scotsmen are perpetrating terrorist acts worldwide then when you see a guy in a kilt getting on an airplane it would only be normal, natural and human to get worried and nervous.

Muslims are still shoving the Crusades in the faces of Christians today; Christians who were not alive one thousand years ago. This goes to show that, just or unjust-fair or unfair, we must often suffer for the actions of those who placed upon themselves the same labels we place upon ourselves. Christians for the Crusades, Muslims for modern day terrorism, atheists for…well, atheist refuse to accept the historic realities of history as recent as the 20th century, but that is another issue (one discussed here).

I actually had precisely the experience described by Juan Williams well, almost the same.

I was waiting to board an airplane and noted four Muslim in full garb, in their traditional regalia waiting for board.

I prayed.

Indeed.

I prayed to YHVH.

I did.

I did no get worried for even a second, however.

I did no get nervous in the least bit.

I prayed to YHVH and asked that one of them end up sitting next to me.

My aisle had three seats next to each other: I got the window seat, a woman sat by the aisle and…sure enough: one of the Muslims sat right next to me.

I was thrilled and we ended up discussing theology for virtually the entire flight.

This is where Juan Williams can either be said to have gone wrong or to not have told the full story, if he has such a story to tell, which is that whether fearful or not; we can all be civil (the reference to civility is generic as Juan Williams gave no indication of being uncivil in his actions or even thoughts).

Do you consider Muslims you neighbors?

Then the Bible tells you to love and pray for them.

Do you consider Muslims you enemies?

Then the Bible tells you to love and pray for them.

Do you think that Muslims hate you?

Then the Bible tells you to love and pray for them.

Do you think that Muslims curse you?

Then the Bible tells you to love and pray for them.

Do you think that Muslims persecute you?

Then the Bible tells you to love and pray for them.

Do you think that Muslims spitefully use you?

Then the Bible tells you to love and pray for them.

Do you think that Muslims mistreat you?

Then the Bible tells you to love and pray for them.

In the news: zombie Jesus, pushy atheists and fear of Muslims

CHRISTIANITY
Christianity

Christian Apologetics

Bible

God – Theology

Problem of Evil – Theodicy

Jesus

Nephilim – Giants

Book of Enoch

Serpent Seed

Satanic Serpent & Dragon

Angels

Cherubim & Seraphim

Satan / Devil

Demons

Miracles

Inspirational

Unbelievers Compliment Christianity

Da Vinci Code / Angels and Demons / Templars, etc.

Gospel of Judas

The Lost Tomb of Jesus

————-
ATHEISM
Atheism

New Atheists

Project-Answering Atheism

Richard Dawkins

Sam Harris

Christopher Hitchens

Dan Barker

Daniel Dennett

Bart Ehrman

Bill Maher

PZ Myers

Quentin Smith

Michael Shermer

John Loftus

Ricky Gervais

Raphael Lataster

Carl Sagan

Atheism’s Public Relations Problems

Atheist Bus Ads and Billboards

Atheist Child Rearing

Atheist Charity

American Atheists

American Humanist Association

The Skeptic Arena

ExChristian.Net

PositiveAtheism.org

Evilbible.com

Science Club of Long Island

Skeptic’s Annotated Bible

Capella’s Guide to Atheism

The BOBA Digest

————-
RELIGIONS
Judaism (Rabbinic, Messianic, etc.)

Baha’i

Islam

Jehovah’s Witnesses

Mormonism

Catholicism

Scientology – Dianetics – L. Ron Hubbard

Unitarian Universalism

Misc. Religions

————-
FRINGE-OLOGY
Transhumanism

UFOs and Aliens

Billy Meier

Whitley Strieber

Robert Temple-Sirius Mystery

Conspiracy theories, Illuminati, New World Order (NWO), etc.

Occult, Witchcraft, Magick, satanism, etc.

Satanic Crime

————-
SCIENCE
Science

Creation Science

Intelligent Design

Cosmology

Evolution

The Wedgie Document

————-
MOVIES & TV SHOWS

Movies

Alchemical Hollywood

Transhuman Hollywood

————-
MISC.
Adolf Hitler / Nazism / Communism

The Crusades

Morality / Ethics

Abortion

Rape

Meaning and Purpose

Homosexuality

Postgender Androgyny, Hermaphroditism & Beyond

Debates

Pop Culture and Politics

————-
RESOURCES
Fitness

Audio

Books

TFT essay “Books”

Debate

Links

Video

Find it Fast – Fast Facts

Visuals – Illustrations and Photos

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Kevin Smith, aka “Silent Bob,” compliments Christianity

In the article Pop-occulture’s top 24 movies/TV shows on angels and fallen angels we noted the following with regards to the Kevin Smith, aka “Silent Bob,” 1999 AD movie “Dogma”:

Two fallen angels, Loki and Bartleby, find a way to get back into Heaven after being cast out by God (via a loophole in Catholic dogma) due to an inebriated Loki, with Bartleby’s encouragement, resigned as the Angel of Death (Note that Loki is a god of Norse mythology). A movie poster reads, “Get ‘touched’ by an angel.” The movie is really about the paradox created by this return as, “existence is founded on the principle that God is infallible, their success would prove God wrong and thus undo all creation.”

This movie created a lot of controversy (for example, there is a character named Rufus who is said to be the thirteenth apostle who was left out of the Bible for being black) and yet, the premise takes solid aim at the Catholic concept of indulgences—a scam whereby Catholicism trades works for forgiveness, salvation or just time off of Purgatory—about which you can learn more by reading here—the works can consist of everything from, you guessed it, donating money to that which the fallen angles decide to do. They come upon a Catholic church celebrating its centennial anniversary with a plenary indulgence. This means that the church is trading forgiveness of sins for the work of passing through the doors of that church—this is the kind of real life stuff that the Catholic church has done for centuries.

Metatron makes an appearance; within Jewish folklore/tradition he is God’s scribe (and also makes an appearance in the TV show Supernatural wherein his name’s resemblance with the robotic Megatron is noted—see here). Loki becomes human, having had his wings have been torn off by Bartleby, and Bartleby then becomes human when his wings are shot off with a submachine gun.

To make a long plot short; God, played by a woman, had been comatose on Earth after having been beat up during one of her occasional jaunts to Earth to play seek ball. She resurrects one of the female human characters who has been killed along the way and conceives a child inside her.

Within a 2005 AD Q&A session, he Kevin Smith was asked about a Dogma sequel and replied:

So weird you should ask this, because ever since 9/11, I have been thinking about a sequel of sorts. I mean, the worst terrorist attack on American soil was religiously bent. In the wake of said attack, the leader of the “Free World” outed himself as pretty damned Christian. In the last election, rather than a quagmire war abroad, the big issue was whether or not gay marriage was moral. Back when I made “Dogma”, I always maintained that another movie about religion wouldn’t be forthcoming, as “Dogma” was the product of 28 years of religious and spiritual meditation, and I’d kinda shot my wad on the subject. Now? I think I might have more to say. And, yes — the Last Scion would be at the epicenter of it. And She’d have to be played by Alanis [Morissette]. And we’d need a bigger budget — because the entire third act would be the Apocalypse. Scary thing is this: the film would have to touch on Islam. And unlike the Catholic League, when those cats don’t like what you do, they issue a death warrant on yer ass. And now that I’ve got a family, I’m not as free to stir the ****-pot as I was when I was single, back when I made “Dogma”.

I mean, now I’ve gotta think about more than my own safety and well-being. But regardless — yeah, a “Dogma” followup’s been swimming around in my head for some time now.[1]

1d4cfb487099fb13209b9cbede5edd28-8631997

And behold, the reason why this one belongs in the Unbelievers Compliment Christianity archives is made clear. When it comes to Christianity, sure, besmirch at will but when it comes to Islam you have the right to remain silent…Bob.

Indeed, Bobby realizes that the worse that the Catholic League and Christians at large will do is say, “Better not to watch this one; let us pray for Kevin Smith.”

But he knows that he is, literally, risking his life and the lives of others worldwide were he to tread where the majority of the world fears to tread; on Islam’s toes.

Thus, Bobby has gone, at least, close to a decade now cowering in fear of Islam and things on the world stage have only gotten worse.

Let us close by stating, “Hey Kevin, you are welcome, I love you and you have nothing to fear from me except for a bad review.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Source:

Kevin Smith, The View Askewniverse Message Board, November 27, 2005 AD (retrieved June 18, 2009 AD).

Do Islam’s Hadith affirm Bible reliability?

Herein we conclude, from a series found here, gleaning from Dr. William Campbell’s book The Qur’an and the Bible in the light of history and science and will conclude that, ironically, if we trust the Qur’an aka Koran then we can be certain that 1) the Bible is accurate and 2) the Qur’an is discredited. To see how such an odd conclusion plays out, read on.

There are also evidences of “The Integrity of the Bible according to the Hadith:

Mishkat al-Masabih, Book I, Ch. VI:

Abu Huraira reported God’s messenger as saying, “In the last days there will be lying dajjals who will bring you traditions of which neither you nor your fathers have heard, so beware of them. They will neither lead you astray nor seduce you.” Muslim transmitted it.

He also said that the people of the Book used to read the Torah in Hebrew and expound it in Arabic to the Muslims, so God’s messenger said, “Neither believe nor disbelieve the people of the Book, but say,

Say (O Muslims): We believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the tribes, and that which Moses and Jesus received, and that which the Prophets received from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and unto Him we have surrendered.” (Qur’an 2:136) Bukhari transmitted it.

Mishkat al-Masabih, Book VIII, ch. I, p. 454: Book I, ch. VI, p. 49; Book XX, ch. I, p. 892:

Abu Huraira told that when God’s messenger once asked Ubai b. Ka’b how he recited in the course of the prayer and he recited Umm al-Qur’an, he said, “By Him in whose hand my soul is, nothing like it has been sent down in the Torah, the Injl, the Testament Zabr, or the Qur’an and it is seven of the oft-repeated verses and mighty Qur’an which I have been given.” Tirmidhi transmitted it…

Jabir told how ‘Umar b. al-Khattab brought God’s messenger a copy of the Torah saying, “Messenger of God, this is a copy of the Torah.” When he received no reply he began to read to the obvious displeasure of God’s messenger, so Abu Bakr said, “Confound you, do you not see how God’s messenger is looking?” So ‘Umar looked at God’s messenger’s face and said, “I seek refuge in God from the anger of God and His messenger. We are satisfied with God as Lord, with Islam as religion, and with Muhammad as Prophet.” Then God’s messenger said, “By Him in whose hand Muhammad’s soul is, were Moses to appear to you and you were to follow him and abandon me, you would err from the right way. Were he alive and came in touch with my prophetic mission he would follow me.” Darimi transmitted it.

f565a474c28ec4b9e1e842e9a3a1ecdb-6470460

Mishkat al-Masabih, Book XXVI, ch. XXXIX, pp. 1371, 1372:

Khaithama b. Abu Sabra said: I came to Medina and asked God to grant me a good companion to sit with and He granted me Abu Huraira. I sat with him and told him I had asked God to grant me a good companion to sit with and that he suited me. He asked where I came from and I replied that I belonged to al-Kufa and had come desiring and seeking good. He then said, “Do you not have among you Sa’d b. Malik whose prayers are answered, Ibn Mas’ud who looked after God’s messenger’s water for ablution and his sandals, Hudhaifa who was God’s messenger’s confident, ‘Ammar to whom God gave protection from the devil at the tongue of His Prophet, and Salman who was a believer in the two Books? meaning the Injil and the Qur’an. Tirmidhi translated it.

Mishkat al-Masabih, Book II, ch. I, pp. 62,63:

Ziyad b. Labid said: The Prophet mentioned a matter, saying, “that will be at the time when knowledge departs.” I asked, “How can knowledge depart when we recite the Qur’an and teach it to our children and they will teach it to their children up till the Day of Resurrection?” He replied, “I am astonished at you, Ziyad. I thought you were the most learned man in Medina. Do not these Jews and Christians read the Torah and the Injil without knowing a thing about their contents?” Ahmad and Ibn Majah transmitted it, Tirmidhi transmitted something similar from him, as did Darimi from Abu Umama.

Mishkat al-Masabih, book VI, ch. XLIII, p. 285:

Abu Huraira said: I went out to at-Tur and met Ka’b al-Ahbar with whom I sat, he telling me about the Torah and I telling him about God’s messenger. One of the things I told him was that God’s messenger had said, “The best day on which the sun has risen is Friday; on it his repentance was accepted, on it he died, on it the last hour will come, on Friday every beast is on the outlook from dawn to sunrise from the last hour, but not jinn and men, and it contains a time at which no Muslim will pray and ask anything from God without His giving him it.” Ka’b said that was one day every year, but when I insisted that it was on every Friday Ka’b read the Torah and said that God’s messenger had spoken the truth. Abu Huraira said” I met ‘Abdallah b. Salam and told him of my meeting with Ka’b al-Ahbar and of what I had told him about Friday, telling him that Ka’b had said that was one day every year. ‘Abdallah b. Salam said that Ka’b had lied, but when I told him that Ka’b afterwards read the Torah and said that it was every Friday he said that Ka’b had spoken the truth…

Malik, Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi and Nisa’i transmitted it, and Ahmad transmitted it up to the statement that Ka’b had spoken the truth.

Mishkat al-Masabih cites several traditions (Book XXVI, Ch. XVIII, pp. 1232, 1233 and ch. XIX, p. 1244) “which indicate that the Torah prophesies the coming of Muhammad”:

‘Ata b. Yasar told that he met ‘Abdallah b. ‘Amr b. al-As and asked him to inform him of the description of God’s messenger given in the Torah. He agreed, swearing by God that he was certainly described in the Torah by part of the description of him given in the Qur’an when it says, “O prophet, We have sent you as a witness, a bearer of good tidings, and a warner, and a guard for the common people. [From Al-Ahzab 33:45 up to here. The following is from the Torah-Old Testament, Isaiah 42:1-3,6-7] You are my servant and my messenger; I have called you the one who trusts, not harsh or rough, nor loud-voiced in the streets. He will not repulse evil with evil, but will pardon and forgive, and God will not take him till He uses him to straighten the crooked creed so that people may say there is no god but God, and he opens thereby blind eyes, deaf ears and hardened hearts.
Bukhari transmitted it, and Darimi also gives something to the same effect on the authority of ‘Ata who gave as his authority Ibn Salam.

Anas told that when a young Jew who was a servant of the Prophet became ill, he went to visit him and found his father sitting by his head reciting the Torah. God’s messenger said to him, “I adjure you, Jew, by God who sent down the Torah to Moses, do you find in the Torah any description of me, or anything about my coming forth?” On his replying that he did not, the young man said, “Certainly, messenger of God, I swear by God that we do find in the Torah an account and description of you and a statement about your coming forth, and I testify that there is no god but God and that you are God’s messenger.” The Prophet then said to his companions. “Remove this man from beside his head and look after your brother.”
Baihaqi transmitted it in Dala’il al-Nubuwa.

Mishkat al-Masabih, Book XVI, ch. I, p. 758:

‘Abdallah b. Umar told that the Jews came to God’s messenger and mentioned to him that a man and a woman of their number had committed fornication. He asked them what they found in the Torah about stoning and they replied that they should disgrace them and that they should be beaten.

‘Abdallah b. Salam then said, “You lie; it contains instruction that they should be stoned to death, so bring the Torah.” They spread it out, and one of them put his hand over the verse of stoning and read what preceded it and what followed it. ‘Abdallah b. Salam told him to lift his hand and when he did so the verse of stoning was seen to be in it.

They then said, “He has spoken the truth, Muhammad; the verse of stoning is in it.” The Prophet then gave command regarding them and they were stoned to death. In another version it says that he told him to lift his hand and that when he did so, the verse of stoning was clearly in it. The man then said, “It contains the verse of stoning, Muhammad, but we have been concealing it from one another.” He then gave command regarding them and they were stoned to death. (Bukhari and Muslim.)

Mishkat al-Masabih, Book XIII, ch. III, p. 667:

‘Umar b. al-Khattab and Anas b. Malik reported God’s messenger as saying that it is written in the Torah. “If anyone does not give his daughter in marriage when she reaches twelve and she commits sin, the guilt of that rests on him.” Baihaqi transmitted both traditions in Shu’ab al-iman.

Mishkat al-Masabih, Book XVII, chap. III, P. 795:

Sa’id b. al-Musayyib told that a Muslim and a Jew brought a dispute before ‘Umar, and as he considered the Jew was in the right he pronounced judgement in his favor; but when the Jew said, “I swear by God that you have pronounced just judgement” he struck him with the whip and asked him what caused him to know that.

The Jew replied, “I swear by God that we find in the Torah that no qadi judges rightly without having an angel at his right hand and an angel at his left who direct him and dispose him to what is right as long as he adheres to the right; but when he abandons the right, they ascend and leave him.” Malik transmitted it.

We are told that “The second one is reported by Darimi in Sunan, Muqaddima 56. Abbad ben Abbad Abu Ataba quotes a letter of Omar ben Al-Khattab as saying”:

If the doctors and the monks had not feared the disappearance of their ranks and the destruction of their prestige by the observance of the Scripture and expounding it (correctly), they would not have falsified (harrafu) or hidden (katamu) it. But as they went against the Scripture by their acts, they tried to fool the people about what they had done. Fearing the destruction of their prestige and that their corruption would be revealed to men, they falsified (harrafu) the Scripture by their interpretation, and what they could not falsify they hid (katamu). They were silent about their acts in order to keep their prestige and they were silent about the acts of their people acting in complicity. And truly God made a covenant with those to whom the Scripture came that they should make it known to the people an d not hide it, but they deceived with it and were accommodating to themselves with it.

Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 38 (Kitab al Hudud, ie. Prescribed Punishments), Number 4434 states:

Narrated Abdullah Ibn Umar:

A group of Jews came and invited the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) to Quff. So he visited them in their school.

They said: AbulQasim, one of our men has committed fornication with a woman; so pronounce judgment upon them. They placed a cushion for the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) who sat on it and said: Bring the Torah. It was then brought. He then withdrew the cushion from beneath him and placed the Torah on it saying: I believed in thee and in Him Who revealed thee.

He then said: Bring me one who is learned among you. Then a young man was brought. The transmitter then mentioned the rest of the tradition of stoning similar to the one transmitted by Malik from Nafi’ (No. 4431).”

William Campbell wraps it up by stating that “From this hadith we learn the following lessons”:

1. That prophet Muhammad had an authentic copy of the Torah which was widely used in his times … The Jews did not protest that Muhammad’s copy was any different than their own. In fact, it probably was a copy from the Jews, since Muhammad or the Arabs could not read it themselves. This copy was God’s infallible word. There was no corruption in the Scriptures, Allah’s inerrant Word. (cf.Yunus 94)

2. The very fact that he called the Scripture for reference should be an example to every Muslim today. We notice that the prophet withdrew the cushion from beneath him and put the Torah on it. This is how every devout Muslim should treat Allah’s holy Scriptures.

3. The very fact that the prophet said, “I believed in thee and in Him Who revealed thee” should be an exhortation to all of us to believe in all the Bible, following his example. Don’t get silly on me and say, “But Timothy, we don’t have the authentic original Torah”. Do you know better than prophet Muhammad? He himself asserted his belief in the Holy Scriptures which were handed down from generation to generation, until his own time. And that our scriptures are faithful copies of those at Muhammad’s time is easy to demonstrate with archeological and manuscript evidence.

Mock Jesus but not Muhammad: BBC Mark Thompson and Peter Sissons

CHRISTIANITY
Christianity

Christian Apologetics

Bible

God – Theology

Problem of Evil – Theodicy

Jesus

Nephilim – Giants

Book of Enoch

Serpent Seed

Satanic Serpent & Dragon

Angels

Cherubim & Seraphim

Satan / Devil

Demons

Miracles

Inspirational

Unbelievers Compliment Christianity

Da Vinci Code / Angels and Demons / Templars, etc.

Gospel of Judas

The Lost Tomb of Jesus

————-
ATHEISM
Atheism

New Atheists

Project-Answering Atheism

Richard Dawkins

Sam Harris

Christopher Hitchens

Dan Barker

Daniel Dennett

Bart Ehrman

Bill Maher

PZ Myers

Quentin Smith

Michael Shermer

John Loftus

Ricky Gervais

Raphael Lataster

Carl Sagan

Atheism’s Public Relations Problems

Atheist Bus Ads and Billboards

Atheist Child Rearing

Atheist Charity

American Atheists

American Humanist Association

The Skeptic Arena

ExChristian.Net

PositiveAtheism.org

Evilbible.com

Science Club of Long Island

Skeptic’s Annotated Bible

Capella’s Guide to Atheism

The BOBA Digest

————-
RELIGIONS
Judaism (Rabbinic, Messianic, etc.)

Baha’i

Islam

Jehovah’s Witnesses

Mormonism

Catholicism

Scientology – Dianetics – L. Ron Hubbard

Unitarian Universalism

Misc. Religions

————-
FRINGE-OLOGY
Transhumanism

UFOs and Aliens

Billy Meier

Whitley Strieber

Robert Temple-Sirius Mystery

Conspiracy theories, Illuminati, New World Order (NWO), etc.

Occult, Witchcraft, Magick, satanism, etc.

Satanic Crime

————-
SCIENCE
Science

Creation Science

Intelligent Design

Cosmology

Evolution

The Wedgie Document

————-
MOVIES & TV SHOWS

Movies

Alchemical Hollywood

Transhuman Hollywood

————-
MISC.
Adolf Hitler / Nazism / Communism

The Crusades

Morality / Ethics

Abortion

Rape

Meaning and Purpose

Homosexuality

Postgender Androgyny, Hermaphroditism & Beyond

Debates

Pop Culture and Politics

————-
RESOURCES
Fitness

Audio

Books

TFT essay “Books”

Debate

Links

Video

Find it Fast – Fast Facts

Visuals – Illustrations and Photos

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Joseph Smith as the second Muhammad – “Joseph Smith or the sword!”

Oft times, a denial is the best evidence in favor of the original accusation. Such was the case when the pro-Mormon (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) site Juvenile Instructor attempted to deal with the issue of Joseph Smith likening himself to Islam’s Muhammad and correlated their proselytizing via the sword.
Juvenile Instructor took umbrage at a Jack Chick publication titled, “The Enchanter” (Chick provided documentation for his claims at this link).

[The publication] contains a picture of Joseph Smith, dressed in full Nauvoo Legion attire, saying:

“If the people let us alone, we will preach the gospel in peace. But if they come on us to molest us, we will establish our religion with the sword. We will trample down our enemies and make it one gore of blood…from the Rocky Mountains to the Atlantic Ocean. I will be to this generation a 2nd Muhammad, whose motto in treating for peace was ‘the Al-Qur’an or the sword.’ So shall it be with us — ‘Joseph Smith or the sword!’ (See History of the Church, Vol. 3, p. 167).” [emphasis in original]

Juvenile Instructor’s (hereinafter JI) main concern seems to be that the publication places Joseph Smith in Illinois at the time but, apparently, he was not there but in Missouri (in 1838 AD).
JI notes that “The quote is taken from Thomas B. Marsh’s October 24, 1838 affidavit…corroborated by three other individuals, George M. Hinkle, John Corrill, George Walter, and partially by a fourth, Abner Scovil.” Marsh was the president of the Mormon Quorum of the Twelve. As we will see, for JI, it all comes down to not wanting to believe the validity of the statement due to incredulity.

mormon2c20joseph20smith-1809217

mormon2c20joseph20smith-_0-5074276
Well, their artwork, especially the coloring, could use some improvements.

But let us consider the substance

For now, JI notes that Joseph Smith claimed that some “apostates from this Church” were “reporting false stories, and statements”1 and that “We will never know with certainty if Smith made this statement or not.”
JI then states “To my knowledge, Marsh, Hinkle, Corrill, Walter, and Scovil were the only individuals that recorded the quote, and the first three had left the Church prior to making their statements.”

Moreover, “Mormon leaders declared in 1838 that they would not be driven again, and therefore advocated violent counter-measures. Given this context, it is possible that Smith made some kind of reference to violent resistance and may have compared himself to the Muslim prophet. But there is no evidence that Smith had similar sentiments in Nauvoo” and JI again takes issue with Jack Chick mis-placing the scene. So, again, the main complain it geography and chronology.

JI was even kind enough to provide the statements of Marsh, Hinkle, Corrill, Walter and Scovil but before getting to those; that the issue is incredulity and geography/chronology is further reinforced by what the JI author wrote in response to a comment,

I’m trying to say that, given the context in Missouri, JS could have compared himself to Muhammad. But I can’t see him making such a declaration either before, or after, the summer/fall of 1838.
If you can provide compelling evidence that JS would have done this throughout his life, have at it.

So, another affirmation in the form of a denial. Also, note that now the goal post has been moved; we begin with Joseph Smith making the statements and are now challenged to “provide compelling evidence,” mind you, “that JS would have done this throughout his life.”
But why? Why does referencing a statement attested by four people fail if it could not be said to reflect Joseph Smith’s lifelong character? Is it because a statement so uncharacteristic of him would be evidence that the statement is not his own?

Note that I have written a comparison of Jesus and Muhammad. Regardless of the second Muhammad statement; others have written fascinating comparisons between Joseph Smith and Muhammad (see Islamic And Mormonism Similarities and Joseph Smith and Muhammad.. The Similarities for two examples of this). The difference is that Jesus and Muhammad were nothing alike while Joseph Smith and Muhammad were much alike.

Let us consider the four statements before moving on (the footnotes are from JI):

Thomas B. Marsh:

I have heard the prophet say that he should yet tread down his enemies, and walk over their dead bodies; that if he was not let alone he would be a second Mahomet to this generation, and that he would make it one gore of blood from the Rocky Mountains to the Atlantic Ocean; that like Mahomet, whose motto, in treating for peace, was “the Alcoran or the Sword,” so should it be eventually with us, “Joseph Smith or the Sword.” These last statements were made during the last summer.2

George M. Hinkle:

I have heard Joseph Smith, jr. say that he believed Mahomet was a good man; that the Koran was not a true thing, but the world belied Mohamet, as they had belied him, and that Mahomet was a true prophet.3

John Corrill:

In the last, or in some public meeting, Joseph Smith, jr., said: if the people would let us alone, we would preach the gospel to them in peace; but, if they came on us to molest us, we would establish our religion by the sword; and that he would become to this generation a second Mahomet.4

George Walter:

Soon after the dissenters were driven away from Caldwell county, I was in Far-West, in Corill’s [Corrill’s] store, perhaps the last of June last, and heard Joseph Smith, jun., say, that he believed Mahomet was an inspired man, and had done a great deal of good, and that he intended to take the same course Mahomet did; that if the people would let him alone, he would, after a while, die a natural death; but if they did not, he would make it one gore of blood from the Rocky Mountains to the State of Maine.
He further said, that he had, or would have, (the witness does not-remember which,) as regular an inquisition as ever was established, and as good a set of inquisitors as ever was. This conversation was had when talking about the dissenters.5

Abner Scovil:

In the latter part of June last, I heard Joseph Smith, jun., say, that if the people would let him alone, he would conquer them by the sword of the spirit; but if they would not, he would beat the plough-shares into swords, and their pruning-hooks into spears, and conquer them he would.6

As it turns out, on the same day that Marsh gave his affidavit Orson Hyde, a Mormon Apostle, swore to a similar statement and noted, “The most of the statements in the foregoing disclosure I know to be true; the remainder I believe to be true.”

Mormon historian Richard Van Wagoner wrote:

On 18 October, however, Mormon raiders were able to ride out. Apostle David W. Patten, known by his Danite tide “Captain Fearnought,” descended on Gallatin with a large contingent of men and, after plundering the small village, burned most of it to the ground. Then the marauders pillaged the Daviess County countryside, depositing their spoils, which they termed “consecrated property,” in the bishop’s storehouse at Diahman.7

Thomas B. Marsh defined “Danites” as Mormons “who have taken an oath to support the heads of the Church in all things that they say or do, whether right or wrong.” He also mentions the “Destruction Company” whose purpose was “burning and destroying.”

Joseph Smith published a sermon by associate Sidney Rigdon in which was stated, in part:

And that mob that comes on us to disturb us; it shall be between us and them a war of extermination, for we will follow them, till the last drop of their blood is spilled, or else they will have to exterminate us: for we will carry the seal of war to their own houses, and their own families, and one party or the other shall be utterly destroyed.

Consider also that Joseph Smith proposed that which has come to be known as the “Blood Atonement.” This pertains to those who were considered to have perpetrated actions against Mormons; they were to have their blood shed as a means of remission of sin. The “Danites” aka “Avenging Angels” were in charge of carrying out the atonement and employed the concept during the battle against the Missourians.

Also, when Orrin Porter Rockwell attempted to assassinate Missouri governor Lilburn Boggs; he appalled to the “Blood Atonement” as an excuse (or, reason).8

As Jesus was dying, He said the following of those who rejoiced at His death, “Forgive them father, for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34).
Joseph Smith himself was shot to death even whilst shooting others to death—he was in the midst of a gun fight (and Mormons refer to this as “martyrdom”: see The death of the prophets ).

joseph20smith2c20gun2c20mormon-3158315

After His death Jesus’ followers lived peaceful lives; preaching love and forgiveness, even whilst being persecuted.
After his death Joseph Smith’s followers too an “Oath of Vengeance” on the anniversary of his death. This was to serve as a prayer to God for vengeance those involved in his death. That this occurred a year after the fact demonstrates that it was not a merely heat of the moment inspired statement. In fact, a half year after the “Oath of Vengeance” was conceived it actually became a part of the Mormon temple endowment ceremony.9
The Oath was appealed to as justification for various murders such as those of the people who had murdered Joseph Smith and Hyrum Smith.10

Overall, these merely example tend to demonstrated a Mormon history peppered with vengeance, aggression, strife and violence.

Roman Catholic Maryology: Mary in Roman Catholicism, part 8 – Immaculately Conceived?

At a glance:
If Mary was truly born without sin and never sinned (as we discussed in the article Sinless?) she could have been the Savior, the true Redeemer, the spotless lamb of God. However, we will see that the Catholic Church seeks by technicalities to make Mary both sinless and in need of a savior, which is a complete contradiction in terms. And we will clearly see that the text they use to concoct various Marian dogmas is perhaps the best text to use to prove that she was born with original sin.

New American Bible: Revelation 12:1-2, “A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. Because she was with child, she wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth.” The footnote to these verses states, “Because of Eve’s sin, the woman gives birth in distress and pain (Gn 3, 16).”

Genesis 3:16 “To the woman [Eve] he said: ‘I will intensify the pangs of your childbearing; in pain shall you bring forth children.’”

The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ: Revelation 12:1-2, “AND A GREAT SIGN appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon was under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars. And being with child, she cried out in her travail and was in the anguish of delivery.”

The footnote to these verses states, “12, 1: A woman: this is not the Blessed Virgin, for the details of the prophecy do not fit her. The prophecy pictures the Church of the Old and New Covenant. The beams of the divine glory clothe her; the moon is beneath her feet; she is crowned with a crown of twelve stars, and she must bring forth Christ to the world. By accommodation the Church applies this verse to the Blessed Virgin.”

The New Testament Rendered from the Original Greek with Explanatory Notes: Revelation 12:1-2, “A great sign appeared in the sky: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. She was with child and cried out because of the pain and anguish of childbirth.”

The footnote to these verses states, “12:1. a woman: the spiritual Israel which gave birth to Christ in his real and in his mystic body, or as St. Augustine and many other Fathers put it, the city of God, which, of course, includes the Virgin Mary. Her clothing is indicative of her grandeur.”

We quote these texts in discussing the Immaculate Conception because Mary is said to be the woman in Revelation 12. The problem is that the woman in this text is suffering from the stain of original sin. The Vatican approved NAB Bible’s footnotes state this fact, “Because of Eve’s sin, the woman gives birth in distress and pain (Gn 3, 16).” Also from another Vatican approved Bible we learned that “this is not the Blessed Virgin…By accommodation the Church applies this verse to the Blessed Virgin.” Therefore, a choice must be made; either Mary was Immaculately Conceived or she is the woman in revelation, she cannot be both. For more on this issue see the essays Queen of Heaven? and Coronation in Heaven?

The Holy Bible with the Confraternity Text-Papal Edition—A Practical Dictionary of Biblical and General Catholic Information:

Immaculate Conception. The singular privilege by which the Blessed Virgin Mary, in view of the future merits of her divine son, Jesus Christ, was conceived free from original sin in the womb of her mother, St. Anne. This privilege of Mary was solemnly defined to be a dogma of faith on December 8, 1854, by Pope Pius IX in the following words: ‘We declare, pronounce and define that the most blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin by the singular grace and privilege of the omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of mankind, and that this doctrine was revealed by God, and therefore must be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.’
Catholics likewise believe that Mary was immune from even the slightest sin throughout her whole life, this being a dogma declared by the Council of Trent in 1547. However, Mary’s sinlessness is thought by Catholics to be the result of a special divine privilege, as distinguished from Christ’s sinlessness, which was a necessary postulate of His divinity.

Note that the Immaculate Conception of Mary was not an official dogma of the Roman Catholic Church until circa one 1,854 years after Mary.

New American Bible Fireside Family Edition—Encyclopedic Dictionary and Biblical Reference Guide:

On December 8, 1854, Pope Pius XI issued the bull, ‘Ineffablis Deus’ which defined the Immaculate Conception as an article of faith and truth contained in the original teachings of the Apostles…It is a Holy Day of Obligation.”
We must ask, if the Immaculate Conception of Mary was an authentic teaching of the Apostles, why did it not become Roman Catholic dogma until 1,854 years after the Apostles taught it? Even if it was acceptable from very early times to believe in the Immaculate Conception what happened in 1854 that caused to become a Holy Day of Obligation, which as discussed in the essay Assumed in to Heaven? means that if a Catholic does not go to church on that day (and do not confess to a priest), they are condemned to hell for all eternity.1

This is done in blatant violation of Colossians 2:16-17 “do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ” (Colossians 2:16-17). And again we are warned, “But now that you know God—or rather are known by God—how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you” (Galatians 4:9-11). “One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it” (Romans 14:5-6).

The Maryknoll Catholic Dictionary:

From all eternity Mary was chosen to be the Mother of the Word Incarnate. It is unthinkable that such a mother should have been defiled by sin for even a moment. Therefore, in the instant of her conception she was made immaculate.”2

Note the faulty reasoning; a human minded preconceived notion leads to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception not because the Bible clearly teaches it but because it is unthinkable that Mary was defiled by sin for even a moment.

Non-Biblical Dogma:
Fr. Oscar Lukefahr wrote, “The Immaculate Conception is an example of Catholic doctrine that is not clearly taught in Scripture but which, congruent with Scripture, was believed universally by Catholics for centuries before it was formally defined as doctrine by the pope.”3

Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J. explains, “Without claiming that Scripture reveals the doctrine explicitly, he [Pope Pius IX] shows that the most common interpretation of the relevant texts by the ancient Fathers and current theologians sees in these texts an implicit teaching that Mary was conceived without sin.”4
“[Pope] Sixtus IV approved the feast and Mass of the Immaculate Conception in 1476.”5

Catholic Theologian Ludwig Ott wrote, “The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary is not explicitly revealed in Scripture…The Bull ‘Ineffabilis’ approves of this messianic-marianic interpretation….The Bull does not give any authentic explanation of the passage. It must also be observed that the infallibility of the Papal doctrinal decision extends only to the dogma as such and not to the reasons given as leading up to the dogma.”6
Apparently faulty reasoning, faulty assumptions and faulty interpretations could lead to a divinely inspired infallible dogma. This is the exact point made by Christian theologian James White as he dialogued with Roman Catholic apologist Tim Staples. Tim Staples responds by stating, “You misrepresented Ott. Ott did not say the reasoning was wrong. Ott simply says, as the Catholic Church has always taught—it is the decree, it is what the Pope binds on earth, that is what is bound in heaven, and it’s the answer, it is not the reasoning leading up to it. That’s what Ott said.” James White states, “So in other words, you can misreason, you can misinterpret Scripture and yet, the end result allegedly will be infallible…” Tim Staples explains, “Do you know why James? Because Peter as he is walking on the water might shake and it might look like he is going down but Jesus is gonna reach His hand down and He’s not gonna let him go under.”7

Another thing that Ott certainly did state is the following, “Mary gave birth in miraculous fashion without opening of the womb and injury to the hymen, and consequently also without pains.”8 Therefore, Mary is either not the woman of Revelation 12 or she is this woman but was not immaculately conceived.

Sinless but Saved?:
Fr. Oscar Lukefahr wrote, “the very fact that Mary is our Mother should help us realize what Vatican II taught explicitly—that Mary is one of us, a member of the Church, and one of those redeemed by Christ.”9 If Mary was born without sin and sinless throughout her whole life, why is she being referred to as redeemed? The following quote will explain, “Some influential Catholic Christians expressed reservations about this doctrine, because it appeared to imply that Mary did not need Christ as her Savior. The church seemed to be caught in a dilemma: it did not seem correct that the mother of God was stained by sin, but it was necessary to believe that Mary had been redeemed from sin by Jesus Christ like everyone else.

Even such a great figure as St. Thomas Aquinas could not fully accept the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception for this reason. Fr. Raymond Brown, S.S., explains…Duns Scotus was able to win the day because of his insight that the Immaculate Conception came through God’s application of the grace of Christ beforehand…she was the first Christian…the Lord applied the grace of Jesus’ salvation to Mary in advance to prepare her for her special role in his plan.”10

With regards to Catholic dogmas we often see, as we do here, that the dogmas are not justified by Scripture or history, but rather by lawyer like tactics of semantic, technicalities and loopholes. For example the Church realize that their devotees have been accepting a very questionable belief and so when it comes time for the church to make this belief an official teaching they come up with a loophole. Can you imagine such a scene, the elite of the Church stating, “Good job Duns Scotus, your brilliant technical loophole will go down in history as an inspired revelation from God! As well as the cause of damnation to hell for those who do not come to Church on the feast day (and are not forgiven for that mortal sin)!”
Please note that John Scotus Duns was a “FRANCISCAN philosopher and theologian who attempted to create a new synthesis of Christian belief with Greek and Arab philosophy.”11
Supposedly, Mary is not a saved sinner; she was saved from having ever sinned. Mary was saved from sin before she ever sinning, it was impossible for her to sin because she was born without a sin nature (original sin). Then she was not saved from sin, she did not sin and so she needs no savior, how could she need to be saved from sin she never committed? How could she be redeemed before she was in need of redemption?

Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J. writes, “After the Fathers and up to the early Middle Ages we find explicit references to Mary’s freedom from sin from the moment of her life. Paschasius Radbertus (ninth century), for example, wrote that she was exempt from sin since the beginning of her existence. As early as the late half of the seventh century, a feast of the Immaculate Conception was celebrated annually in the East under the title ‘Conception of St. Anne.’ St. Andrew Crete (d. A.D. 720) composed a hymn with the inscription: ‘The Ninth Day of December, Conception of the Grandmother of God, St. Anne.’”12
Mary is thought to have died in 48 AD13 consider just how long after her death these teachings came to be. For more on this, see our article A Review of Marian Dogma and Apparition Chronology. Just because a belief is old, it does not make it true.

Pope Leo I wrote, “Alone therefore among the sons of men the Lord Jesus was born innocent, because alone conceived without pollution of carnal concupiscence.”14

Catholic Theologian Ludwig Ott wrote, “Neither the Greek nor the Latin Fathers explicitly teach the Immaculate Conception of Mary….individual Greek Fathers (e.g., Origen, Basil, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria) taught that Mary suffered from venial personal faults, such as ambition and vanity.”15

Islam / Muslim: Muhammad and Jesus, part 4 of 10

Regarding Wives There are various points to be made regarding wives:Muhammad ordains polygamy in Surah 4:3,

“marry women of your choice, two, or three, or four.”

When Muhammad wanted to marry his adopted son’s wife, he received a revelation that made it acceptable to do so (after a divorce). Surah 33:36-37,

“You [Muhammad] sought to hide in your heart what Allah was to reveal(1)…when Zeid [Muhammad’s adopted son] divorced his wife, We [Allah] gave her to you [Muhammad] in marriage, so that it should become legitimate for true believers to wed the wives of their adopted sons if they divorced them.”

A footnote informs us that what Allah was to reveal is that Muhammad wanted his son’s wife.1

Consider what the Bible states about how a husband is to treat his wife,

“Husbands, love your wives and do not be bitter toward them” (Colossians 3:19).
“Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her” (Ephesians 5:25).

Love and do not be bitter, and also give yourself to her. What does it mean to give oneself like Christ did? Men are to give their very lives for their wives, this means that you would die in her place and more importantly, men are to devote their entire lives to loving their wives, serving them and caring for them.
Now here is an example of the Qur’an’s teaching on the subject as found in Surah 4 quoted from eight different translations:

Abdulah Yusuf Ali, “As to those women on whose part you fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly).”2

N. J. Dawood, “Good women are obedient…As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them.”3

Arthur J. Arberry, “But when they are in wedlock, if they commit indecency, they shall be liable to half the chastisement of freewomen.”4

George Sale, “But those, whose perverseness ye shall be apprehensive of, rebuke and remove them into separate apartments, and chastise them.”5

M. H. Shakir, “the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.”6

Rashad Khalifa, “The righteous women will cheerfully accept this arrangement, since it is GOD’s commandment, and honor their husbands during their absence. If you experience rebellion from the women, you shall first talk to them, then (you may use negative incentives like) deserting them in bed, then you may (as a last alternative) beat them.”7

Marmaduke W. Pickthall, “good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them.”8

E. H. Palmer, “virtuous women, devoted, careful (in their husbands’) absence, as God has cared for them. But those whose perverseness ye fear, admonish them and remove them into bedchambers and beat them.”9

How did they play out in Muhammad’s own life? The Hadith—Sahih Muslim 4:2127 The Book of Prayers / Kitab Al-Salat—relates that A’isha, one of Muhammad’s wives who was circa 9 years old narrated the following:

When it was my turn for Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) to spend the night with me…[I] lay down till he thought that I had gone to sleep….[I] put on the shoes slowly, and opened the door and went out…He struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you? She said: Whatsoever the people conceal, Allah will know it.

She was taking turns amongst his many wives, he beat her and on top of it he blamed her and claimed that Allah approved.

Also, the Hadith has some interesting things to say regarding Muhammad’s sexual appetite. Muhammad was a polygamist who was married to anywhere between nine and eleven women.

He had an insatiable sexual appetite shown by sacred tradition about his making his round amongst his many wives to copulate with them all in one night, or one day and night.

The Hadith makes the following references (from M. Muhsin Khan’s translation of Sahih Bukhari):

Vol. 1, Book 5, #268 states day and night and Vol. 7, Book 62, #142 states that it was in one night.

That he had wives (plural) is related in Vol. 1, Book 5, #267, 270; Vol. 6, Book 60, #435; Vol. 7, Book 62, #1.

That he had nine wives is related in Vol. 1, Book 5, #268; Vol. 7, Book 62, #5-6, 142.

That he had eleven wives is related in Vol. 1, Book 5, #268.

Also in Vol. 1, Book 8, #367 it is related that Muhammad give a slave girl away to be married only to change his mind and take her for himself.

Lastly, note that a Hadith transmitted by Tirmidhi states, “The Prophet said: If a woman dies while her husband was pleased with her, she will enter Paradise.”

VIDEO: “Blood Moon Lunacy” aka John Hagee, et al., take it on the chin

CHRISTIANITY
Christianity

Christian Apologetics

Bible

God – Theology

Problem of Evil – Theodicy

Jesus

Nephilim – Giants

Book of Enoch

Serpent Seed

Satanic Serpent & Dragon

Angels

Cherubim & Seraphim

Satan / Devil

Demons

Miracles

Inspirational

Unbelievers Compliment Christianity

Da Vinci Code / Angels and Demons / Templars, etc.

Gospel of Judas

The Lost Tomb of Jesus

————-
ATHEISM
Atheism

New Atheists

Project-Answering Atheism

Richard Dawkins

Sam Harris

Christopher Hitchens

Dan Barker

Daniel Dennett

Bart Ehrman

Bill Maher

PZ Myers

Quentin Smith

Michael Shermer

John Loftus

Ricky Gervais

Raphael Lataster

Carl Sagan

Atheism’s Public Relations Problems

Atheist Bus Ads and Billboards

Atheist Child Rearing

Atheist Charity

American Atheists

American Humanist Association

The Skeptic Arena

ExChristian.Net

PositiveAtheism.org

Evilbible.com

Science Club of Long Island

Skeptic’s Annotated Bible

Capella’s Guide to Atheism

The BOBA Digest

————-
RELIGIONS
Judaism (Rabbinic, Messianic, etc.)

Baha’i

Islam

Jehovah’s Witnesses

Mormonism

Catholicism

Scientology – Dianetics – L. Ron Hubbard

Unitarian Universalism

Misc. Religions

————-
FRINGE-OLOGY
Transhumanism

UFOs and Aliens

Billy Meier

Whitley Strieber

Robert Temple-Sirius Mystery

Conspiracy theories, Illuminati, New World Order (NWO), etc.

Occult, Witchcraft, Magick, satanism, etc.

Satanic Crime

————-
SCIENCE
Science

Creation Science

Intelligent Design

Cosmology

Evolution

The Wedgie Document

————-
MOVIES & TV SHOWS

Movies

Alchemical Hollywood

Transhuman Hollywood

————-
MISC.
Adolf Hitler / Nazism / Communism

The Crusades

Morality / Ethics

Abortion

Rape

Meaning and Purpose

Homosexuality

Postgender Androgyny, Hermaphroditism & Beyond

Debates

Pop Culture and Politics

————-
RESOURCES
Fitness

Audio

Books

TFT essay “Books”

Debate

Links

Video

Find it Fast – Fast Facts

Visuals – Illustrations and Photos

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~