"The Lying Pens of the Scribes"
Internal Errors and Fabrications in the Bible
By: The Alevites

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Linguistic Preface: The Title "Allah" and the Name "YHWH"

A few points of linguistics must be prefaced before the subject at hand is addressed in fullness. For not only has the brutal repression of the Church blinded the masses to the historical reality of Jesus Christ himself, the Church has also concocted the Anti-Semitic lie that the term "Allah" is anything other than the `Arabic way to speak of the One Monotheistic God of the Children of Israel (as the Qur'an claims). Rather Christianity has set forth the lie that "Allah" is the name of some "moon god." This assertion is absurd, for it wasn't until the Ottoman Empire that the crescent moon and star became affiliated with the Muslim world. When the Turks conquered Constantinople (Istanbul) in 1453, they adopted the city's existing flag and symbol. Legend holds that the founder of the Ottoman Empire, `Uthman, had a dream in which the crescent moon stretched from one end of the earth to the other. Taking this as a good omen, he chose to keep the crescent and make it the symbol of his dynasty.

The `Arabic term "Allah" is a combination of two words, "Al" (ال) and "ilah" (إله). "Al" is the definite article in Arabic. Semitic linguists believe that the original root definite article of all Semitic languages was "Hal." With Hebrew it evolved as "Ha" and Arabic as "Al." Though it is not written as a letter in the Hebrew language the first consonant of the word following "the" (ה) in Hebrew is doubled just as is done by the "Lam" (ل) in the `Arabic "Al" (ال) when it precedes certain letters.

The second word is "ilah." This means "divinity" or "god." But "ilah" is not definite. It can be made feminine (إلاهة), it can be made plural (آلهة) and thus does not always convey the absoluteness of THE ONE God. So accordingly, when speaking of THE One God of Monotheism, the Qur'an says "Al-ilah" (الإله) which is conjugated into "Allah" (الله). 

Some have propagated a racist myth that the `Arabic language calls "God" by the name "Allah" because this was allegedly the name of an `Arabic "moon god." This is a lie based on white racists Christian's hatred for Semitic peoples. Christians claim that they have among them 14 Million Christian `Arabs. If that is the case, then this means that there are 14 Million Christians calling Allah by this name of "Allah" as well. The racists who tell you that "Allah is a moon god" are actually slandering the Christian faith of your brothers and sisters in Christ. 

Ironically however, the name "El" (אל) - one of the Hebrew names for God - is a name of a pagan god of the Canaanites.

"El - (also called Latipan, and possibly Dagon) He is known as the Father of the gods, 'the father of mankind', the 'Bull', and 'the creator of creatures'. He is grey haired and bearded and lives at Mt. Lel. He is a heavy drinker and has gotten extremely drunk at his banquets. Mt. Lel is where the assembly of the gods meet. It is El's abode and the source of the rivers and two oceans, as well as where those waters meet those of the firmament. It lies 'two layers beneath the wells of the earth, three spans beneath its marshes.' It had been thought to be a field and not a mountain. The mansion there has eight entrances and seven chambers."

Source: Canaanite/Ugaritic Mythology FAQ, ver. 1.2

The "Biblical Heritage Center" says the following about the Canaanite Supreme deity El: "EL is the supreme creator god of the Canaanites who lives with the other gods on Mount Zaphon (similar to Mount Olympus of the Greeks but located at the mouth of the Orontes river near the border between Turkey and Syria). He is the father of all the gods and men and is often addressed as such by the Canaanite gods. He is the god of the earth and the air who is represented by a bull. He is derived from the Sumerian god AN."

Source: http://www.biblicalheritage.org/

Certainly the similar linguistics used between the ancient Hebrews and the Canaanite pagans does not imply that their gods are the same! If there was ever an `Arabian pagan deity named anything sounding similar to "Allah" then certainly it is because "Allah" means "the God." Thus, someone naming a god would be likely to touch the linguistic root of A-L-L-H. So too is this the case with "El" being a Canaanite pagan deity and also the name of the god of the Children of Israel. 

There is no educated belief that "Allah" is a "moon God" or any other god than the God of Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, John the Baptist, and Jesus (Peace be upon them all), that the Qur'an claims sameness with. If it was another god, why would their be any pretending that It is the same as the aforementioned God? The people of Arabia were already pagan. If Muhammad (Peace and Blessings of Allah be upon him) called them to worship a moon god they would have been overjoyed. He would not have had to sell them on polytheism masquerading as monotheism, he could have simply maintained their existing traditions of worshiping 360 different gods.

All Arabic Bibles refer to "The One God" as "Allah." This is because any Arabic linguist knows that there is no other way - nor has their ever been - to speak of the One God of monotheism than by saying "the God." If you say "a god" or "ilah" then you are implying in the Semitic mind that there are other gods and this is "your God." This Islamic declaration of faith is "La ilaha ill-Allah" (لا إله إلا الله) meaning "There is no god besides the [One and Only] God."

Arabic Bibles translated by Arabian Christians demonstrate this: 

http://www.the-good-way.org/pdf/abible/ot/0195gen1.pdf

http://www.arabicbible.com/bible/doc_bible.htm

Taking a look at the first sentences of both the Bible and the Qur'an we notice the first line of Genesis in Arabic: "افِي الْبَدْءِ خَلَقَ اللهُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالأَرْضَ" meaning "In the Beginning Allah Created the Heavens and the Earth." The underlined term is "Allah" and is quite obviously the same as the following term also denoted in red: "بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمنِ الرَّحِيمِِ" meaning "In the Name of Allah, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful." There is no difference between the God of the Bible and the God of the Qur'an - at the very least one must accept that linguistically this is so. One may disagree with the Islamic understanding of the Will and Law of Allah, but certainly no one knowledgeable of Arabic, Aramaic and Hebrew can say that "Allah" linguistically is any different than the Arabic version of the God of the Bible.

Furthermore, according to the Aramaic Bible Society and Aramaic dictionaries "Alah" is Aramaic for God. Aramaic was of course the vernacular "street language” of Jesus Christ's (Peace be upon him) time and region. The Aramaic Bible Society affirms that every time Jesus Christ said "God" and not "The LORD" (which is an indication he was speaking of the Hebrew proper Name of Allah, "YHWH" יהוה), that he was actually saying "Alah."

Of course one does not need to take my word for this. You can turn to a Hebrew copy of the Book of Daniyel and find that in Chapter 2, verse 42, the term "Alah/Elah" (אֱלָהּ) is used in Aramaic. Chapter 1 through 2:4a in the Book of Daniyel is in Hebrew. Chapter 2:4b through Chapter 7 are in Aramaic and then 8 through 12 are in Hebrew again. Chapter 2:24 is written in Aramaic. It clearly uses the term "Alah/Elah" EXACTLY as it appears were it transliterated from `Arabic.

"The king spoke unto Daniel, and said: 'Of a truth it is, that your God is the God of gods, and the Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, seeing you have been able to reveal this secret.'"

עָנֵה מַלְכָּא לְדָנִיֵּאל וְאָמַר, מִן-קְשֹׁט דִּי אֱלָהֲכוֹן הוּא אֱלָהּ אֱלָהִין וּמָרֵא מַלְכִין--וְגָלֵה רָזִין:  דִּי יְכֵלְתָּ, לְמִגְלֵא רָזָא דְנָה.

In the Assyrian Aramaic script we see "Alah/Elah" called "Alaha" (ܐܠܗܐ). Regardless of this additional "Olap" in the Assyrian script, we see plainly from the ancient BIBLICAL times, that the Prophet Daniyel and those who spoke Aramaic in that time spelled "Alah" as "אֱלָהּ" in the Book of Daniyel, which would be "ܐܠܗ" in the Assyrian. This of course is almost identical with what Hebrew actually is for "God" in the Bible. In Hebrew "Allah" is "Eloah." "Elohim" also is used traditionally thought to be a denotation of grandeur although this was not in common parlance yet at the time of the Torah's writing. Orthodox clergymen will argue that the "us" and "our" (as in "Let US make man in OUR image..." and "In the image of Elohim THEY created them both male AND female") in the creation passage of Sefer Ha'Berashit are simply examples of the "royal we" used by emperors, but this rationalization is false. Sefer Ha'Berasheet was written before the "royal we" originated. It began with the first Roman emperor, Augustus, and included the emperor and his loyal civil administrators. Afterwards, it was sometimes used in pagan religious ceremonies in the pre-Christian Roman Empire, which at that time was polytheistic. Moreover, it is unreasonable to imagine that the Qur'an would employ this pagan custom, which was NOT to be found within the pages of the Torah, contrary to popular belief and wishful thinking of Trinitarians.

The term is most commonly used as "Eloah" (God) or "Elohenu" (Your God) in the Tanakh. "Elohim" is also used for the pagan gods of Egypt in the Book of Exodus 12:12 when it is said "Elohim-Mitzrayim" (אלוהי מערים), or in 18:11 where it is written that "YHWH is greater than the Elohim" (יהוה מכל האלוהים). So to simply say "God" the Nevi'im (Prophetic Books of the Tanukh), often said "Eloah." Thought the English transliteration may make it seem ambiguous through the voweling, "E" is actually the consonantal "A" or "Alef" the same as in "Allah." Eloah is actually spelled "אלוה" or sometimes “אלה.” But all Hebrew dictionaries have "Allah" as "אלוה" and "Elohim" (אלוהים) again, used in MODERN Hebrew, as a special term to mean "The Great God" or "God the Greatest" - much like the Arabic "Allahu Akbaar" (الله اكبر) meaning "Allah is the Greatest." 

This is the same sort of use as in Shir Ha'Shirim (Song of Songs), 5:16 in the Hebrew Tanakh: "His mouth is most sweet: he is MUHAMAD the Great (מחמדים). This is my Beloved, and this is my Friend, O daughters of Yerushalayim."

חִכּוֹ, מַמְתַקִּים, וְכֻלּוֹ, מַחֲמַדִּים; זֶה דוֹדִי וְזֶה רֵעִי, בְּנוֹת יְרוּשָׁלִָם

Here "Muhammad" is called "Muhamadim" (מחמדים). As one can tell from the verse, we are told "He" not "they" (as "they" is used to reference "Elohim" in the Torah) so we know that if a plural suffix is actually an indication of grandeur, rather than plurality then this would be such a case. Similarly, there is no Hebrew word for "Muhamadim" which would essentially be translated here as "He is altogether LOVELIES." So we know that it must be plural of the Hebrew "Mahamad" (מַחְמָד). Likewise, no Bible says "In the Beginning gods created the Heavens and the Earth," (בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ), despite the fact that the plural suffix is at the end of Eloah, thus making "Elohim." However, the point can, and has been, argued (based on Hebrew grammar, as this usage was much later than the Torah and was GRAMMATICALLY used with singular terms. That is, we see the term "he" instead of "they" with this plural noun), that the use of "Elohim" in the Torah was in fact a byproduct of the Northern "Israeli" Tribes, constantly rebuked - throughout the sections of the "Old Testament" known as the "Nevi'im" - for the polytheistic whoring after false "gods."

Those "gods" were often historical beings whic the Torah refers to as "Nefilim" or in some cases the Angles themselves, who primitive peoples saw as the personification of elemental forces. In those days the belief was that there were only five primordial elements, until the 6th Imam of Islam, Ja'far as-Sadiq clarified that there were in fact over 100 elements. Interestingly, and not without significance, the 57th Sura "At-Tin" the Sura of "Iron" matches the Atomic weight of the element iron.

With that understanding "Eloah" is actually only one letter short of being "Allah" since Semitic languages only have consonantal letters (Alef is considered a consonant in both Arabic and Hebrew). If "Allah" were spelled in Hebrew it would be "אללה" yet "Eloah" is simply "אלה," or “אלוה.” To say "Allah" is the same as saying "Allah" just the same as if one said "Gott" in German, or in French "dieu," in Italian "dio," in Spanish "Dios," in Portuguese "Deus," in Farsi "Khuda," in Hebrew "Eloah," in Aramaic "Alah," and yes in Arabic "Allah.” The myth that "Allah" is some "other" Allah, is a myth of the Catholic crusaders dating back to the middle ages. This myth is based in religious and ethnic hatred, and not one iota of fact.

What is Allah?

When i say "Hu" in reference to God Almighty, i am speaking in the masculine pronoun because in Semitic languages there is no such thing as a gender neutral pronoun as there is in English. In English we have the pronoun "IT." However, in Semitic languages the “default” gender neutral pronoun is “Hu.”

 

`Ali, the cousin of Muhammad, who was the son of Muhammad's foster parents and who Muhammad raised basically from infancy - this same `Ali about whom all Muslims accept that Muhammad said "You are my brother in this world and the next" - this `Ali and his descendents told those who asked them, that if one wished to, they could think of Allah as a "Thing" since that would prevent them of anthropomorphizing Allah and attributing qualities of the creation to the Creator.

Muhammad ibn Ya‘qub has narrated from `Ali ibn Ibrahim, from Muhammad ibn `Isa from ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Abu Najran who said the following.

"I asked Imam Abu ‘Abd'ullah about the Oneness of Allah saying, ‘Can I think of Him (the creator) as a thing?’"

The Imam replied, "Yes, but not as something well understood and clearly defined with in limits. What may become a subject of your thoughts is different from Him. Nothing resembles Him and the thoughts and imaginations can not reach Him. He is different from what can become the subject of thoughts and is different from whatever that can be perceived in ones thoughts. You can think of Him as some thing but not well understood and clearly defined (under certain limits)."

Al-Kulayni, Usul al-Kafi H 215, Ch. 2, h 1

Muhammad ibn ‘Abd'ullah has narrated from Muhammad ibn Isma‘il from al-Husayn ibn al-Hassan from Bakr ibn Salih from al-Husayn ibn Sa‘id who said that I asked Imam Abu Ja‘far, the second the following:

"Is it permissible to say that Allah is a thing?"

The Imam replied, "Yes, because it removes two kinds of limitations, the limitation of being forgotten altogether and that of considering Him like other things."

Al-Kulayni, Usul al-Kafi H 216, Ch. 2, h 2

It is narrated from Imam Abu Ja‘far who said when he was asked, "Is it permissible to say Allah is a thing?" "Yes, it is permissible because it excludes Him from being ignored altogether and from being analogized or considered similar to the creatures."

Al-Kulayni, Usul al-Kafi H 221, Ch. 2, h 7

So let us be clear that when any educated Muslim speaks of Allah as "He" - or "Hu" in both Hebrew (הוא) and `Arabic (هو) - then we do not mean that God Most High, who is exalted far above Hu's Creation - is a man. So this is one of many reasons why, throughout many teachings, i refer to God with the Hebrew and `Arabic pronoun "Hu" to point back to the original word used. i find this preferable to mistranslating it as a masculine gendered pronoun into a language with a gender neutral pronoun. This does not mean that there was no other reason why the masculine pronoun would have been used for God. However, that is not within the context of this topic. Suffice it to say that when a gender neutral option exists in a language, then it becomes questionable at best to attribute gender to a non-gendered Being.

Ali ibn Ibrahim has narrated from Muhammad ibn ‘Isa from Yunus from Abu al-Maghra in a marfu‘ manner from Imam Abu Ja‘far who has said the following: "Allah is distinct from His creatures and His creatures are different from Him and whatever that is called a thing is a creature except Allah."

Al-Kulayni, Usul al-Kafi H 217, Ch. 2, h 3

It is narrated from Imam Abu "Abd'ullah who said, "Allah is distinct from His creatures and the creatures are different from Him. Whatever could be called a thing is a creature except Allah Who is the Creator of all things. Holy is He for Whom there is no similarity and He is all-hearing and All-Aware."

Al-Kulayni, Usul al-Kafi H 218, Ch. 2, h 4

So when "Hu" is said, in this text, it does not mean that Hu has sexual organs nor that Hu is anthropomorphic. For to think that really would assert that it is not Allah who is anthropomorphic, but we human beings who are "god-like" since it is God who Existed long before creation, and Exists outside of the context of time, beginning or end. So if one believes that God looks like man, has the gender of man, or the like then they are essentially saying that man is a god-like creation. They do not comprehend Allah with the Understanding due unto Hu!
 

When we speak of God, of Allah, we do not speak of an anthropomorphic being. As the Tanakh says:

"God (El) is not a man (ish) that He should lie; nor the 'son of man/Adam' (a Hebrew term meaning 'human being' as all humans are the sons of Adam) , that He should repent: when He has said, will He not do it? Or when He has spoken, will He not make it good?"

לֹא אִישׁ אֵל וִיכַזֵּב, וּבֶן-אָדָם וְיִתְנֶחָם; הַהוּא אָמַר וְלֹא יַעֲשֶׂה, וְדִבֶּר וְלֹא יְקִימֶנָּה.

So clearly God is not a man, nor the "son of man." God is not Something that grows weary after creation. God is not a man who reproduces or begets children, nor does God stem from any Source other than Himself, or Itself. God is the Source of ALL that exists, and of every potentiality that could ever exist within the Divine Order, or Law of the Universal Construct that is the sustained Thought Construct of the Divine Mind.

God sees, but without the physical organ of sight, and for this reason it is said within Seferim Ha'Zohar that should the Eye of God close for even a second, the Universe would be destroyed.

It is narrated from Imam Abu Ja‘far who said, "Allah is distinct from His creatures and the creatures are different from Him and whatever could be called a thing is a creature except Allah Who is the Creator of all things."

Al-Kulayni, Usul al-Kafi H 219, Ch. 2, h 5

It is narrated from Imam Abu `Abd'ullah , who said this to an atheist on being asked a question. "He (Allah) is a thing but different from all other things. I repeat my statement that speaks about Him as a thing. He is a thing in the sense of the reality of things except that He does not have a body and form. He does not have a feeling (like our sense of feeling) or touching and He does not comprehend with the five senses (as we do). Imaginations can not comprehend Him and the timeless (Dahr) times does not reduce Him and the times do not change Him."

The man asking questions then said, "Do you say that He hears and sees?"

The Imam said, "He does hear and see: He hears without a hearing organ and sees without a means. He Himself hears and He Himself sees. My saying "He hears without a hearing organ and sees without a means. He Himself hears and He Himself sees" does not mean that He is a thing and His-self is another thing but that I only meant to express my self thereby as I was questioned and explained to you as you had asked a question. Thus, I can say that He hears with the whole of His-self but not in the sense that His whole self has parts but that I intended to explain it to you and to express my self. All I meant thereby is that He does hear, see and He is all-knowing and is the expert in knowing without any multiplicity in His-self or meaning."

The man asking questions then said, "What then is He?"

The Imam said, "He is the Lord. He is the One Who is worshipped and He is Allah. When I say Allah, it does not mean establishing the proof for these letters (of alphabet) like Alif, Lam, Ha’, al-Ra’ or al-Ba’ but I intend thereby the meaning of a thing and a thing that is the Creator of all things and the Designer of all things. These letters only refer to the meaning that is called Allah, al-Rahman (the Beneficent), al-Rahim (the Merciful), al-‘Aziz (the Majestic) etc., of the other such names and He is the One Who is worshipped, the Majestic, the Glorious One."

The man asking questions then said, "Given the above, whatever we can think of is but a creature."

The Imam then said, "Were it to the way you said we would not have had any responsibility to believe in the Oneness of the Creator because we will not have any responsibility towards something of whose existence we can not even think of. In fact we say that whatever is thought of in our senses is comprehended thereby by means of drawing limits around it and is analogized, thus, such a thing is a creature. (It then becomes necessary for us to find proof for the existence of the Creator of things. (We must find that is) clear of the two invalid and confusing aspects) if the meaning of negation would be nullification and nothingness or as is the case of the second aspect, the similarity and analogy which is of the attributes of the creatures that under go manifest composition and assemblage. It becomes necessary to prove the existence of the Creator. It is because of the existence of the creatures and their evident dependency on Him as His creatures and that their Creator is something other than them and that He is not similar to them because something similar to them would resemble them in manifest composition and assemblage. It would be as such also in the matters such as coming into existence from nothing and their changing from a smaller size to a full grown size, from blackness to whiteness from strength to weakness and other existing conditions that we do not need to explain their existence."

The man asking questions then said, "You have already defined and limited Him in your proving His existence."

The Imam then said, "I did not limit Him. I only proved His existence if (as you think) there is no difference between proving and disproving."

The man asking questions then said, "Can His existence be proved through a reasoning from the effect to the cause or the cause to the effect?"

The Imam said, "Yes, there is nothing whose existence can be proved without adopting either of the two above process of reasoning."

The man then asked, "Does the question how apply to Him?"

The Imam said, "No, this question does not apply to Him because it is the aspect of qualities and limitations. However, it is necessary to avoid abandoning and analogizing Him because negating Him is denying His existence and refusing to accept Him as the Lord and abandoning Him altogether. Whoever would analogize Him with other things from His creatures he has proved the qualities of the creature in Him, the creatures that do not deserve being called the Lord. It, however, is necessary to believe that the question how applies to Him only in a way that would not apply to things other than Him and things other than Him would not deserve and share Him in it. The how question can not apply to Him if it would limit Him or make Him the subject of knowing for others."

The man then asked, "Do things make Him tired?"

The Imam then said, "He is far Exalted and above experiencing such conditions. Such conditions are due to coming into physical association or dealing with the creatures. They are of the qualities of the creatures who can only associate with others through physical contact but He is the Most High and His will and demand are effective and He does whatever He wants."

Al-Kulayni, Usul al-Kafi H 220, Ch. 2, h 6

As can clearly be seen from the words of the Imams - the A'immah of the Ahl'ul-Bayt, the family of Muhammad and his progeny - our Lord is not some anthropomorphic "god" like the polytheists imagine. Our "God" (the ONLY God and ONLY Reality), does not move from one place to another within Space-Time. Allah is the ONLY Reality that is; this is the meaning of "La ilaha ill-Allah." Nothing exists save the Divine Mind's Thought Construct, and within that Thought Construct are thoughts themselves and the individual identities of ego-selves (nufus), they come to be fomented and identified by. These are the "you" and the "i."

However, in Islam, these things are nothing save thoughts within the Mind of Allah. Thus, an atheist may demand proof of the Existence of God, but this stems from their ignorance in presuming that their own independent and separate Existence can be proven and taken for granted. So before such people wish to see proof of God, they should prove that they themselves exist, and then demonstrate how their existence is separate from that Whole, that Totality that is the very Construct of Allah's Mind.

The Exoteric Name "Allah"

Previously i mentioned that the Name "Allah" is a conjunction of the prefix "Al" and the term "ilah." Though this is linguistically an obvious matter, there are some (even some raised Shi'a), who are unaware of this and erroneously believe "Allah" to be the proper and Supreme Name of God. This is simply not the case.

When we say "God" we mean "Allah." For in `Arabic "God" is "ilah" (إله). The term "God" or "ilah" (إله), can be made feminine (إلاهة); thus attributing gender to God. Or it can be made plural (آلهة); thus associating partners with God. This is why Muslims use the Name "Allah" because it is not subject to genderization, nor pluralization, as is the term "ilah" in `Arabic or "Eloah" in Hebrew. Thus, when i speak of "God" throughout this teaching i use the term "Ha'Eloah" which would be the Hebrew way of grammatically expressing what "Allah" expresses in `Arabic.

So when the Muslim says "God" we do not mean "ilah" we do not mean this term that can be made gendered or plural. We mean THE ONLY GOD. The first principle of Islam is the Shahadah, or declaration of God's Unity. It is to say that one bears Witness to the Reality of "La ilaha ill-Allah" (لا إله إلا الله) meaning "There is no god, but The God." The definite article in English is "the" in Hebrew it is "Ha" in `Arabic it is "Al." So instead of "God" the Qur'an refers to God as "The [ONLY] God" which is said "Al-ilah" or "Allah" in `Arabic. With that said, that we do not associate partners with God, nor do we identify Him with anthropomorphic traits, reproductive organs, nor the position of sexually reproducing, i will continue.

The collection of oral Traditions called "Hadith (plural "Ahadith") called "Usul al-Kafi" explains that the A'immah themselves taught that Allah is a combination of Al-ilah.

`Ali ibn Ibrahim has narrated from his father from an-Nadr ibn Suwayd from Hisham ibn al-Hakam who has said that he asked Abu ‘Abd'ullah about the names of Allah and their derivations and roots.

"What is the root from which the word Allah is derived?"

The Imam replied, "O Hisham, the word Allah is derived from 'ilah,' that is, the One Who is worshipped and the One who is worshipped is supposed to be worth worshipping. The name of Allah is different from His Own self. Whoever worships the name not the meaning has become a heathen and has, in fact, worshipped nothing. Whoever worships the name and its meaning jointly, he becomes a polytheist because of worshipping two gods. Whoever worships the meaning of the word Allah only he, in reality, has worshipped the One Allah (Allah). O Hisham, did you grasp it?"

Hisham requested, "Kindly enlighten me more."

The Imam added, "Allah has ninety-nine names. If each name had a separate meaning then each meaning would have been a god. Allah is One only and all His names stand for just One Reality and all these names are other than Allah Himself. O Hisham, bread is the name of something to eat. Water is the name of something to drink. Dress is the name of something to wear on. Fire is the name of something that burns. O Hisham, did you fully grasp the point so you can defend your belief and contest successfully against our opponents, who, along with Allah, the Exalted, the Great, except things other than Him?"

Hisham replied, "Yes, I did understand."

The Imam said, "O Hisham, may Allah benefit you thereby and grant you steadfastness."

Hisham (the narrator) says, "I swear by Allah, no one has ever defeated me on the issue of the Oneness of Allah until now."

Al-Kulayni, Usul al-Kafi: H 310, Ch. 16, h 2

As well, the authoritative "Tafsir" or "exegesis" of Allamah Tabatabai called "Al-Mizan" states in volume 1 that: "'Allah' (= the divine name) was originally al-Ilah; the 'I'; in the middle was omitted because of frequent use. al-Ilah is derived from alaha ( = he worshipped) or from aliha or waliha (= he was bewildered). It is on paradigm of al-fi’al in meaning of al-maf’ul (= object-noun). For example, al-Kitab means al-Maktub (= the written); likewise al-Ilah means al-Ma’luh that is, the One who is worshipped, or the One about whom minds are bewildered."

"And your Ilah (God) is One Ilah (Gpd), La ilaha ila huwa (there is no god who has the right to be worshipped but He) the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful." Al-Qur'an, Sura 2:163

وَإِلَـهُكُمْ إِلَهٌ وَاحِدٌ لاَّ إِلَهَ إِلاَّ هُوَ الرَّحْمَنُ الرَّحِيمُ

The collection of Ahadith entitled "Bihar al-Anwar" explains that Imam `Ali and other A'immah performed miracles through the "Supreme Name" of Allah which is in Hebrew. Of the prophesied "Mahdi" who will rise at the "End of the Age" with Jesus Christ himself - these being the "Two Witnesses" of the Book of Revelation - it is said:

"After receiving permission [to manifest himself], the [hidden] Imam will pronounce the Hebrew Name of Allah; then his Companions, 313 in all, will gather around him in Mecca, in the same way that small clouds come together in the autumn."

An-Nu'mani, Kitab al-Ghayba, ch.20 p.445

Of this Hebrew Name we are told: "[In the beginning] Allah created a Name with non-sonorous letters, with an unpronounced vowel, an entity without a body; [a Name] indescribable, of a colorless color, unlimited, veiled, though not covered with a veil, from all the senses and from all imagination. Allah made a perfect word out of it; a word composed of four parts, none of which existed before the others; from these four parts, He showed three Names, in order to respond to a need felt by the creatures, keeping one of them veiled: the Hidden, Secret Name. Of the [three] Names shown, the exoteric name is Allah, the Exalted, the Most High. Then He gave each of these three Names four Pillars, a total of twelve Pillars in all, and created thirty Names for each Pillar... These Names added to the Most Beautiful Names make a total of 360 Names, all coming from the [first] three Names that are the Pillars and the Veils of the Single Secret Name, hidden by these three Names..."

Al-Kulayni, Usul, "Kitab al-Hujja," Bab huduth al-asma, vol. 1 p.151-52, num 1; Ibn Babuye, Kitab al-Tawhid, ch.29, p. 190-91, num 3.

Interestingly, we are told that the Hidden Name of Allah is composed of four parts. From these four parts we are given three names totaling 12 parts altogether. In the mystical text Sefer Ha'Zohar, it is said that the Four Letter Name YHWH manifested 12 Primordial Powers, that were pre-existent beings in the Universe. We are furthermore told in Shi'a Ahadith that like the Name YHWH the Supreme Name of Allah is Hebrew and also of four letters. This is the veiled Name which only the Mahdi, the return of Elijah the Prophet, and the Messiah himself have understanding of.

The Supreme Name of Allah

"The Mahdi is so called because he will lead (yahdi) to a secret teaching." - Imam Al-Baqir

Ibn Babuye, Kamal ad-din, vol. 1, ch. 33, p 331;

“I am the Sign of the All-Powerful. I am the First and the Last. I am the Manifest and the Hidden. I am the Face of Allah. I am the Hand of Allah. I am the side of Allah. I am he who in the Injil is called Ilyas. I am he who keeps the secret of Rasul’ullah.”

Imam `Ali “Khutbat’ul-Bayan” - Henry Corbin, En Islam Iranien, vol. I, p. 96

What is this "secret teaching," this "Secret of Muhammad" that `Ali kept and Imam Baqir said the Mahdi will bring?

"After receiving permission [to manifest himself], the [hidden] Imam will pronounce the Hebrew Name of Allah; then his Companions, 313 in all, will gather around him in Mecca, in the same way that small clouds come together in the autumn."

An-Nu'mani, Kitab al-Ghayba, ch.20 p.445

The first "element of power" of the Imam is the Supreme Name of Allah (Al-ism al-a`zam/al-ism al-akbar). According to words ascribed via several chains of transmission to Juwayria ibn Mushir, a companion of `Ali , the supreme Name (in its full expansion) appears to be a mystical phrase in Syriac or in Hebrew.

In one narration, `Ali and his companions are in Babylonia (ard Babil); the sun is about to set and it is time for evening prayer; `Ali then says that the land of Babylonia is damned because it was the first region where idols were worshipped, and that it is forbidden for the Prophet and their Heirs to perform prayer in this land. The companions are worried because the sun is setting and they are going to miss the best time for evening prayer; but `Ali calmly continues his travel until the group leaves the region; then, when the sun has completely disappeared over the horizon, he asks that his companions prepare for evening prayer. Juwayria reports that the Imam, withdrawing from the group, began to whisper a phrase in Syriac or Hebrew (suryani aw `ibrani); then the sun began to reappear from behind the mountains, and the people could say their prayer. When Juwayria asked about is, `Ali replied that he had spoken the Supreme Name, and that through the power of this Name he was able to reverse the time.

if even some of the claims regarding the Supreme Name are true, then the power of the Supreme Name seems terrifying. According to many accounts, only Prophets and A'immah (plural of Imam) are able to stand such power. This is what we might conclude from a hadith reported by As-Saffar: Umar ibn Hanzala, a close disciple of Al-Baqir, asked his master to teach him the Supreme Name.

"Can you stand it?" asked the fifth Imam, to which the disciple replied affirmatively.

They then went to the Imam's home, where his hand was placed on the earth as he began to say the Name; the house was plunged into the greatest darkness, and Umar's entire body began to tremble. He nevertheless heard the first part of the phrase and the Imam ordered him to not divulge it; al-Baqir raised his hand off the ground and things became normal again.

On Jwayris ibn Mushir al-`Abdi al-Kufi, see at-Tusi, Rijal, p.37 num 4; Al-Ardabili, Jami' ar-Ruwat, vol. 1 p.169-70.
Basa'ir, section 5, ch. 2, pp 217-19; see also Ibn Babuye, Am`Ali , "majlis" 71, p.467-68, num. 10 (`Ali states that the Supreme Name is in Syriac).

Basa'ir section 4, ch 12, nadir min al-bab, p.210, num 1. However, a hasty statement by Ja'far according to which the Companion of Muhammad, Salman al-Farisi had learned the Supreme Name (al-Kashshi, rijal, p.7; al-Mufid, al-Ikhtisas, p.11) suggests that the terrifying Name was taught to initiates who had been especially tested. Accordingly, the Imam then said that if Abu Dharr [Al-Ghifari] had received Salman's Science he would fall into infidelity (al-Mufid, al-Ikhtisas, p.12; al-Majlisi, Bihar, vol. 6 p783)? According to the Hadith, Salman and Abu Dharr were both close disciples of Imam `Ali . The formed is in a sense the prototype of an esoteric spirituality, and the latter of an ascetic exoteric spirituality.

Both Judaism and Christianity have lost knowledge of the Holy Name YHWH; with the latter having never attained it on the first place. So-called "Jehovah's Witnesses" claim that this name is pronounced "Jehovah" even though there is no "J" in the Hebrew Alphabet! The misunderstanding surrounding the ignorant transliteration of YHWH as "Jehovah" stems from German translators of the Bible. When the diacritical vowel marks were added to the Tanakh the vowel markings for the name "Adonai" (אָדוֹן) meaning "Lord" were imposed on the letters YHWH (יהוה), in an effort to prevent someone from reading the Torah and accidentally reciting the correct pronunciation of YHWH. Since German does not have a Y, they transliterated "YHWH" as "Jehovah." They also did not know that when a vav (ו) procedes a Hay (ה) in this manner, the vav acts as a long vowel.

Allah remains inconceivably Transcendent, who can be described or apprehended only in the terms with which Hu has described Hu'self in Hu's Revelation. This is why the term "thing" (shay`) can be applied to Allah. Again, in reply to the question "Is it permissible to say that Allah is a thing?" Al-Baqir said "Yes, since [this term] places Allah outside of the two limits of agnosticism (ta`til) and assimilationism (tashbih)."

Al-Kulayni, Usul, Kitab at-Tawhid, bad itlaq al-qawt bi-annahu shay`, vol. 1, pg 109 number 2 Ibn Babuye, Kitab at-Tawhid, ch. 7,. p. 104, num 1

A Final Note On Linguistic Terminology

So in summarization when either the term "God," "Ha'Eloah" or "Allah" are used in teachings, they are used in accordance with who is being spoken to. When i address my Christian Brothers and Sisters, then i primarily use the term "God" and often the pronoun "He." However, when speaking to Jews, or Jews and Christians, i will tend to revert back to the original Hebrew language that the Tanakh was written in, which is the language of the Supreme Name of Allah in the Shi'a tradition. Some Western Christians might find this somewhat awkward as might some of my Muslim Brothers and Sisters reading this who are more familiar with the `Arabic names for these Prophets and for God. From the context, the individual specified is fairly clear. If there is any confusion, one can easily consult a Bible or the like for clarification.

As well for the sake of our Brothers and Sisters in the West who are not familiar with the true names used by `Isa Al-Masih, the Greek "Jesus" and "Jesus Christ" will be used for clarity. However, this should not be seen as a concession to the Roman Antichrist false image of this Prophet and Messiah. When the Greek Bible says kurioV (koo'-ree-os) it means: "he to whom a person or thing belongs, about which he has power of deciding; master, lord; the possessor and disposer of a thing; the owner; one who has control of the person, the master; in the state: the sovereign, prince, chief, the Roman emperor; is a title of honor expressive of respect and reverence, with which servants greet their master." In the original Hebrew, this term was "Reb" (רַב) as in "Rabbi."

So we must always remember that "lord Jesus Christ" or "Rabbi Yashuah Ha'Mashiah" was Hebrew not Greek. Thus, when the Greek language, which evolved around pagan culture and concepts, tries to explain this man, it will do so in context of a pagan culture and in a pagan language that Jews were forbidden to so much as speak in Jesus' day.

But again, because names like "`Isa" and "Yashuah" mean little or nothing to the majority of Christians - despite the fact that these were the two names used most often by the man they claim to worship as god incarnate - the more familiar Western names will generally be used here.

As well, it is common for Muslims to always follow the name of a Prophet with the blessing "Alayhi Salaam" (عليه سلام), or a Saint with "Radhi Allah `Anhu" (رضي الله عنه). For the sake of readability for the non-Muslim readers of this work, these Blessings are being offered here in advance to all Prophets and Saints mentioned herein. Insha'Allah (God Willing), the reverence and respect for these Prophets and Warners will be obvious, and reflected throughout this work.

As well, when the Seal of the Prophet's (Muhammad), is mentioned, it is traditional and out of respect that we Muslims say: "Sal Allahu `alayhi wa-alhi wa-Salaam" (صل الله عليه واله وسلام). The respect for Muhammad and his progeny, should also be apparent; and every time they are mentioned herein, even in passing, a Blessing is implied. With that said, let us begin in the Name of Allah the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful...

Corruption in the Bible

Many Christians will disregard any suggestion that the Bible has been corrupted right off the bat by saying that "God has protected the Bible from corruption." This is a strange claim and reflects only their wishful thinking. Nowhere in the Bible is such a promise made. In fact Deuteronomy 4:2 as well as the Book of Revelation threatens a curse against those who would add to or subtract from it's words:

"You shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall you diminish from it, that you may keep the Mitzvot (Commandments) of YHWH Elohekem (the LORD your God) which I command you."

לֹא תֹסִפוּ, עַל-הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם, וְלֹא תִגְרְעוּ, מִמֶּנּוּ--לִשְׁמֹר, אֶת-מִצְו‍ֹת יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם, אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי, מְצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם.

If such a thing was not possible, then why would it be prohibited? God does not prohibit us from things that are impossible. God does not say, "You may not turn yourself into rabbits and spend the whole day hopping around rather than working and praying!" God does not say "You shall not grow wings and fly into the sun." These are ridiculous things and we would find any scripture with such prohibitions ridiculous. So why would God tell us that we shall not add to the word commanded, nor diminish from it unless such additions and subtractions were possible?

"I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book, if anyone adds to them, may God add to him the plagues which are written in this book. If anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, may God take away his part from the Tree of Life, and out of the holy city, which are written in this book." Revelation 22:18-19

marturw egw panti tw akouonti touV logouV thV profhteiaV tou bibliou toutou: ean tiV epiqh ep auta, epiqhsei o qeoV ep auton taV plhgaV taV gegrammenaV en tw bibliw toutw: kai ean tiV afelh apo twn logwn tou bibliou thV profhteiaV tauthV, afelei o qeoV to meroV autou apo tou xulou thV zwhV kai ek thV polewV thV agiaV, twn gegrammenwn en tw bibliw toutw.

God did not corrupt the passages of the Bible, rather this was mankind, Satan and his imposter prophets and messiahs who corrupted them. It is THEY who are trying to deceive, and Allah PERMITS somethings to go unpunished FOR A TIME, as a test to the ability of the faithful to REASON. The Bible says in Isaiah 1:18:

"Come now, and let us reason together, says YHWH; though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool."

לְכוּ-נָא וְנִוָּכְחָה, יֹאמַר יְהוָה; אִם-יִהְיוּ חֲטָאֵיכֶם כַּשָּׁנִים כַּשֶּׁלֶג יַלְבִּינוּ, אִם-יַאְדִּימוּ כַתּוֹלָע כַּצֶּמֶר יִהְיוּ.

What is this washing of sins associated with? With REASON, with the reasoning together that YHWH has commanded of us. For God has allowed such tests to come to us. God has created both good and evil according to Isaiah. God created those things which are easy and those things which are a test for us.

"I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I am YHWH, that does all these things." Yeshayahu (Isaiah) 45:7

יוֹצֵר אוֹר וּבוֹרֵא חֹשֶׁךְ, עֹשֶׂה שָׁלוֹם וּבוֹרֵא רָע; אֲנִי יְהוָה, עֹשֶׂה כָל-אֵלֶּה.

The Qur'an speaks of this corruption of the Bible in saying:

"Of the Jews there are those who displace words from their (right) places, and say: 'We hear and we disobey;' and 'Hear what is not Heard;' and 'Ra'ina;' with a twist of their tongues and a slander to Faith. If only they had said: 'We hear and we obey;' and 'Do hear;' and 'Do look at us;' it would have been better for them, and more proper; but Allah has cursed them for their Unbelief; and but few of them will believe." Al-Qur'an 4:46

مِّنَ الَّذِينَ هَادُواْ يُحَرِّفُونَ الْكَلِمَ عَن مَّوَاضِعِهِ وَيَقُولُونَ سَمِعْنَا وَعَصَيْنَا وَاسْمَعْ غَيْرَ مُسْمَعٍ وَرَاعِنَا لَيًّا بِأَلْسِنَتِهِمْ وَطَعْنًا فِي الدِّينِ وَلَوْ أَنَّهُمْ قَالُواْ سَمِعْنَا وَأَطَعْنَا وَاسْمَعْ وَانظُرْنَا لَكَانَ خَيْرًا لَّهُمْ وَأَقْوَمَ وَلَكِن لَّعَنَهُمُ اللّهُ بِكُفْرِهِمْ فَلاَ يُؤْمِنُونَ إِلاَّ قَلِيلاً

"Woe, then, to those who write the book with their hands and then say: 'This is from Allah,' to traffic with it for miserable price; therefore woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn." Al-Qur'an, Sura 2:79

فَوَيْلٌ لِّلَّذِينَ يَكْتُبُونَ الْكِتَابَ بِأَيْدِيهِمْ ثُمَّ يَقُولُونَ هَـذَا مِنْ عِندِ اللّهِ لِيَشْتَرُواْ بِهِ ثَمَناً قَلِيلاً فَوَيْلٌ لَّهُم مِّمَّا كَتَبَتْ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَوَيْلٌ لَّهُمْ مِّمَّا يَكْسِبُونَ

"Most surely there is a party amongst those who distort the Book with their tongue that you may consider it to be (a part) of the Book, and they say, It is from Allah, while it is not from Allah, and they tell a lie against Allah whilst they know." Al-Qur'an, Sura 3:78-79

وَإِنَّ مِنْهُمْ لَفَرِيقًا يَلْوُونَ أَلْسِنَتَهُم بِالْكِتَابِ لِتَحْسَبُوهُ مِنَ الْكِتَابِ وَمَا هُوَ مِنَ الْكِتَابِ وَيَقُولُونَ هُوَ مِنْ عِندِ اللّهِ وَمَا هُوَ مِنْ عِندِ اللّهِ وَيَقُولُونَ عَلَى اللّهِ الْكَذِبَ وَهُمْ يَعْلَمُونَ

"O People of the Book! There has come to you our Messenger, revealing to you much that you used to hide in the Book, and passing over much (that is now unnecessary): There has come to you from Allah a light and a perspicuous Book." Al-Qur'an, Sura 5:15

يَا أَهْلَ الْكِتَابِ قَدْ جَاءكُمْ رَسُولُنَا يُبَيِّنُ لَكُمْ كَثِيراً مِّمَّا كُنتُمْ تُخْفُونَ مِنَ الْكِتَابِ وَيَعْفُو عَن كَثِيرٍ قَدْ جَاءكُم مِّنَ اللّهِ نُورٌ وَكِتَابٌ مُّبِينٌ

Still Christians may persist in disbelieving any corruption has infected their Scriptures. They should turn to the Prophet Jeremiah who said:

"Even the stork in the sky knows her appointed seasons, and the dove, the swift and the thrush observe the time of their migration. But my people do not know the requirements of YHWH. How can you say, 'We are wise, for we have the Torah of YHWH,' when actually the lying pen of the Scribes has handled it falsely? The wise will be put to shame; they will be dismayed and trapped. Since they have rejected the Word of YHWH, what kind of Wisdom do they have?" Yirmeyahu 8:7-9

גַּם חֲסִידָה בַשָּׁמַיִם, יָדְעָה מוֹעֲדֶיהָ, וְתֹר וְסִוס (וְסִיס) וְעָגוּר, שָׁמְרוּ אֶת עֵת בֹּאָנָה; וְעַמִּי--לֹא יָדְעוּ, אֵת מִשְׁפַּט יְהוָה. אֵיכָה תֹאמְרוּ חֲכָמִים אֲנַחְנוּ, וְתוֹרַת יְהוָה אִתָּנוּ; אָכֵן הִנֵּה לַשֶּׁקֶר עָשָׂה, עֵט שֶׁקֶר סֹפְרִים. הֹבִשׁוּ חֲכָמִים, חַתּוּ וַיִּלָּכֵדוּ; הִנֵּה בִדְבַר יְהוָה מָאָסוּ, וְחָכְמַת מֶה לָהֶם.

Regarding the Islamic perception of the corruption of the Bible, the Prophet Jeremiah said it all. Nevertheless, this text at hand exists to point out some of these corruptions. There are more that have not been mentioned herein. However, their lack of mention does not indicate their lack of existence.

"We certainly gave the Book to Moses, but differences arose therein: had it not been that a word had gone forth before from your Lord, the matter would have been decided between them, but they are in suspicious doubt concerning it." Al-Qur'an, Sura 11:110

وَلَقَدْ آتَيْنَا مُوسَى الْكِتَابَ فَاخْتُلِفَ فِيهِ وَلَوْلاَ كَلِمَةٌ سَبَقَتْ مِن رَّبِّكَ لَقُضِيَ بَيْنَهُمْ وَإِنَّهُمْ لَفِي شَكٍّ مِّنْهُ مُرِيبٍ

The Scientific Miracle of the Qur'an

Often times people read or are told of "errors" and alleged "scientific fallacies" in the Qur'an. People will speak of the sun rising and setting in the Qur'an and will point out that it is not the sun that rises or sets, but the Earth moving through space on its axis that causes the appearance of a sunrise or sunset. Nevertheless, all scientists and astronomers know this to be the truth, but still speak of the "sunrise" and "sunset." No one refers to such matters in clinical, scientific terminologies. No one says "Ah, look at the beautiful image that our eyes perceive as the Earth turns towards the sun!" No one says, "Isn't that an amazing appearance of the sun's light refracting through the atmosphere as the Earth turns away from it!"

This is not how we speak. Our species is human, not robotic. We are poetic by nature, not sterile and devoid of allegory and comparison. This is why the Qur'an is written in a manner conducive to communication with our species in ANY age.

When we see the Earth turning towards the sun, we speak of it as a "Sunrise" because from our perspective that is what it appears as. You do not tell a person that they are a liar when they call something "green" when you point out that technically it is "Celadon."

Similarly, the Qur'an speaks of the suns of the Universe being as lamps set in a niche (that niche being within the Wall of the dimension of Time-Space). But the Qur'an was not revealed only to modern day astrophysicists. It was not revealed just for the benefit of philosophers and scientists, but also for laymen, also for Bedouins, barbarians, common towns people, "primitive" tribes, businessmen, merchants, poets, artists, stay at home mothers, construction workers, carpenters and masons. And the Qur'an was not revealed 1,400 years ago just so in a Millennium and a half it could FINALLY be understood through the spectacles of modern day science. Rather it was given with layers of depth and understanding.

Imam `Ali said that there are 7 levels of depth in every single Ayah of the Holy Qur'an. These range from the most Exoteric to the most Esoteric, with a "face value" meaning in between, and according to the Imam, ALL of these levels of depth are correct.

So when the Qur'an speaks of something that we may understand in more scientific specificity in the modern era, it is not only speaking to us, but also to Arabs, Persians, Africans, Asians, Europeans and various other peoples throughout ALL of the past 1,400 years. It is not only speaking today to the intellectual aristocracy of the West. So to judge the choice of descriptive words in the Qur'an by what is scientifically understood today is intellectually immature and a self-imposed limit to one's understanding.

Surely if the Qur'an described the sun as what it actually is - which the descendant of Muhammad, Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq, the Sixth Imam later did before scientists anywhere in the world - then many who would hear of burning balls of gas in outer space would laugh at the Qur'an and reject it for speaking so far above their heads. Thus the Qur'an would have not  been Universal, it would have only held meaning for the people of this day and age. Were this the case, it would have been discarded long ago, before its benefit and relevance could be ascertained and appreciated.

So the Qur'an leaves some things loosely described, speaking of the similitude of things. Thus, a more primitive understanding could take an Ayah and think that the Sun is really rising or setting, and a more educated understanding can accept that this is simply how things are described because this is how they appear to us.

The Qur'an is not a science text book, nor a history book. However, it does mention both scientific realities and historical references to recall our minds to certain things that are relevant to the topic at hand in the particular Ayaat. But the scientific knowledge and the historical accuracies are NOT the point of the Qur'an; they are given only as an example for the listener or reader to reflect upon (thus drawing a comparison or analogy for them to the matter that Allah ta'ala is addressing in the Holy Qur'an).

So let us consider the miraculous verses (Ayaat) of the Holy Qur'an. Let us examine and reflect upon these verses that Christians and various enemies of Islam would claim are "errors" in the Qur'an.

"We created man from an extract of clay. Then We made him as a drop in a place of settlement, firmly fixed. Then We made the drop into an alaqah (leech, suspended thing, and blood clot), then We made the alaqah into a mudghah (chewed-like substance). Then We clothed the bones with flesh, then We caused it to grow into another creation, so blessed be Allah, the best of the creators." Al-Qur'an, Sura 23:12-14

وَلَقَدْ خَلَقْنَا الْإِنسَانَ مِن سُلَالَةٍ مِّن طِينٍ ثُمَّ جَعَلْنَاهُ نُطْفَةً فِي قَرَارٍ مَّكِينٍثُمَّ خَلَقْنَا النُّطْفَةَ عَلَقَةً فَخَلَقْنَا الْعَلَقَةَ مُضْغَةً فَخَلَقْنَا الْمُضْغَةَ عِظَامًا فَكَسَوْنَا الْعِظَامَ لَحْمًا ثُمَّ أَنشَأْنَاهُ خَلْقًا آخَرَ فَتَبَارَكَ اللَّهُ أَحْسَنُ الْخَالِقِينَ

The first meaning of the word "alaqah" is "leech." A human embryo is identical in appearance to a leech at the "alaqah" stage of development. There is no way that any human being 1,400 years ago could have found this out through scientific examination. The second of the meanings of the word "alaqah" is "suspended thing." At this "alaqah" stage of development, the embryo is in fact a "suspended thing" within the womb of its mother. The third meaning of a "blood clot" is also verified and legitimized in the fact that the embryo and its sacs during this stage visibly appear as a blood clot. This is due to the presence of a relatively large amount of blood present in the embryo at this stage. As well, the blood in the embryo does not circulate until the third week, and thus at this "alaqah" stage of development, the embryo is very much like a clot of blood.

After this is the "mudghah" stage. The word "mudghah" reflects the reality that the further developing embryo looks like a chewed piece of gummed substance. If you were to take a piece of gum, chew it and then compare it with an embryo at this stage, you would see that it looks extremely similar and thus, this is a fair visual analogy.

Moreover, the Qur'an speaks of the mountains as "pegs" in a bed of Earth. The critic might contend that Muhammad - who they believe was the author of the Qur'an as opposed to Allah - for some reason thought that the mountains were literally "pegs." This is a feeble belief, lacking the depth of explorative, scholastic inquiry, and is only found with those who study Islam in order to find fault with it. Their prejudicial bias, which they bring to the table, has corrupted their research and is an intellectual apostasy to the unbiased and objective approach of the scientific method.

"Have We not made the Earth as a bed, and the mountains as pegs?" Al-Qur'an, Sura 78:6-7

أَلَمْ نَجْعَلِ الْأَرْضَ مِهَادًاوَالْجِبَالَ أَوْتَادًا

In actuality, the Earth was formed through various cataclysms and through plate tectonics, in a manner exactly as the Qur'an allegorically describes. The mountains of the Earth are in fact deeply embedded in the ground with a type of mountainous "root." These "roots" that modern science has "discovered" 1,400 years after the Qur'an proclaimed them, can reach several times their elevations above the surface of the Earth. Mountains also play an important role in stabilizing the crust of the Earth and hindering incessant shaking. The modern theory of plate tectonics maintains that these mountains do in fact work as "pegs;" stabilizing the Earth. However, this theory did not originate until the late 1960's! How could this be the work of a human author 1,400 years ago? What were these claims, just a "lucky guess?"

So it is not the Qur'an that is in error, but the limited understanding of mankind that is in error. Until the modern age Christianity accused Islam of having preposterous and absurd claims of "mountain pegs" and "leech" like embryos. However, now that modern science is beginning to catch up with Qur'anic science, the skeptics and critics of the Qur'an will say "Well why didn't the Qur'an just explain these scientific concepts in scientific words. Why give analogies?" The reason is clearly because until recently, a scientific explanation of these concepts that did not include analogy would confuse and befuddle the minds of the listeners and readers.

The Bible: The Enemy of Science

In stark contradiction to the scientific revelations in the Holy Qur'an, the corrupted Bible is overflowing with unscientific claims and explanations. The first of such unscientific claims is a blatant contradiction in Genesis Chapter 1:3-5. Therein the "gods" (elohim) create light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day.

"And Elohim said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light. And Elohim saw the light, that it was good; and Elohim divided the light from the darkness. And Elohim called the light Day, and the darkness (Elohim) called (qara) Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day."

וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, יְהִי אוֹר; וַיְהִי-אוֹר. וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הָאוֹר, כִּי-טוֹב; וַיַּבְדֵּל אֱלֹהִים, בֵּין הָאוֹר וּבֵין הַחֹשֶׁךְ. וַיִּקְרָא אֱלֹהִים לָאוֹר יוֹם, וְלַחֹשֶׁךְ קָרָא לָיְלָה; וַיְהִי-עֶרֶב וַיְהִי-בֹקֶר, יוֹם אֶחָד.

Yet the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) were not made until the fourth day, as we see in Chapter 1:14-19:

"And Elohim said: 'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.' And it was so. And Elohim made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; and the stars. And Elohim set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness; and Elohim saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day."

וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, יְהִי מְאֹרֹת בִּרְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמַיִם, לְהַבְדִּיל, בֵּין הַיּוֹם וּבֵין הַלָּיְלָה; וְהָיוּ לְאֹתֹת וּלְמוֹעֲדִים, וּלְיָמִים וְשָׁנִים. וְהָיוּ לִמְאוֹרֹת בִּרְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמַיִם, לְהָאִיר עַל-הָאָרֶץ; וַיְהִי-כֵן. וַיַּעַשׂ אֱלֹהִים, אֶת-שְׁנֵי הַמְּאֹרֹת הַגְּדֹלִים: אֶת-הַמָּאוֹר הַגָּדֹל, לְמֶמְשֶׁלֶת הַיּוֹם, וְאֶת-הַמָּאוֹר הַקָּטֹן לְמֶמְשֶׁלֶת הַלַּיְלָה, וְאֵת הַכּוֹכָבִים. וַיִּתֵּן אֹתָם אֱלֹהִים, בִּרְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמָיִם, לְהָאִיר, עַל-הָאָרֶץ. וְלִמְשֹׁל, בַּיּוֹם וּבַלַּיְלָה, וּלְהַבְדִּיל, בֵּין הָאוֹר וּבֵין הַחֹשֶׁךְ; וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים, כִּי-טוֹב. וַיְהִי-עֶרֶב וַיְהִי-בֹקֶר, יוֹם רְבִיעִי.

How could there be "the evening and the morning" on the first day if there was no sun to mark them? In examining the reliability of the Bible, these verses make it clear that the Bible is not off to a good start.

A Difference of 6,300

Among the errors and corruptions in the Bible are different manners and categories. One is the outright concoction of elements of stories. For instance, when it is said that the "ONLY son" of Abraham was to be sacrificed, we are told also that this was Isaac, who was in fact the SECOND born son of Abraham. This is a clear error, and it is a major contradiction that is theological in nature; that requires a reevaluation and change of one's dogma, in light of. Of course, as this is such a major error, it will be dealt with in more depth later in this text.

The second type is the mythological element, were we are told that "evening and the morning" came before the sun, or we are told that Samson killed 5,000 P'leshtim with a donkey's jaw bone; just him against the world. Yet this hypocrite who drank fermented milk when he was a Nazirite, and fornicated with Delilah and broke his covenant with God, was somehow unharmed by this mythologically clumsy P'leshtime.

The third type of corruption is the minor, (but significant), textual variant. Therein we read of two separate accounts of the same story. One account says one number and the other says a much exaggerated number. Such examples do not necessarily effect one's theology, but they nevertheless reflect that the Bible is riddled with corruptions and exaggerations, from the authorship of HUMAN beings and not God.

We read the first of these examples (which are explained herein), in the 2nd Book of Samuel, Chapter 10:18. Therein the author says that David slew the men of 700 merkavot (chariots) of the Syrians and 40,000 horsemen and Shobach the commander.

"And Aram fled before Israel; and David slew seven hundred drivers of chariots, and forty thousand horsemen from Aram, and smote Shobakh the captain of their army, so that he died there."

וַיָּנָס אֲרָם, מִפְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וַיַּהֲרֹג דָּוִד מֵאֲרָם שְׁבַע מֵאוֹת רֶכֶב, וְאַרְבָּעִים אֶלֶף פָּרָשִׁים; וְאֵת שׁוֹבַךְ שַׂר-צְבָאוֹ הִכָּה, וַיָּמָת שָׁם.

Yet 1 Chronicles 19:18 relays that same event, saying that David slew the men of 7000 merkavot and 40,000 footsoldiers!

"And Aram fled before Israel; and David slew the men of seven thousand chariots, and forty thousand footmen from Aram, and killed Shophach the captain of the host."

וַיָּנָס אֲרָם, מִלִּפְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וַיַּהֲרֹג דָּוִיד מֵאֲרָם שִׁבְעַת אֲלָפִים רֶכֶב, וְאַרְבָּעִים אֶלֶף אִישׁ רַגְלִי; וְאֵת שׁוֹפַךְ שַׂר-הַצָּבָא, הֵמִית.

Which one was it: 700 or 7,000? Only one of these verses (at the most) can be correct.

As well, 2 Samuel 10:18 says the captain of Aram was "Shobakh" (שׁוֹבַךְ), yet 1 Chronicles 19:18 says that this captain's name was "Shofakh" (שׁוֹפַךְ). While this seems a minor difference, it makes it CLEAR that the Bible is not at least ENTIRELY the Word of God, nor is it infallible since there are such errors and internal contradictions; two in this one verse alone!

These are very small textual contradictions, but they are contradictions of the SAME event with different spellings and different numbers. While 700 and 7000 are closely written, they are clearly very different amounts and relay the story in a very different manner depending on which number it was.

The fact that in one account we see that it has been increased by 6,300 seems to indicate that the Bible is rife with exaggerations of Jewish conquests for the sake of myth-making and fabricated story telling. 6,300 is a big difference to the meaning of the story. To kill 700 is amazing. However, to kill 7,000 is down right heroic. If the former and not the latter were true this means the Scribes had likely embellished in the Name of God.

These are merely examples of what slips through the cracks and we have evidence to the contrary of. Imagine how many exaggerations exist that are NOT evidenced by conflicting examples. Imagine how many other exaggerations do not have retellings of the same story in the Bible that point out such errors.

A Difference of 36,000...

In 2 Chronicles 9:25 it is said that Solomon had 4,000 stalls for horses and merkavot (chariots).

"And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen, that he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem."

וַיְהִי לִשְׁלֹמֹה אַרְבַּעַת אֲלָפִים אֻרְיוֹת סוּסִים, וּמַרְכָּבוֹת, וּשְׁנֵים-עָשָׂר אֶלֶף, פָּרָשִׁים; וַיַּנִּיחֵם בְּעָרֵי הָרֶכֶב, וְעִם-הַמֶּלֶךְ בִּירוּשָׁלִָם.

1 Kings 5:6, or 4:26 in Christian versions, says that he had 40,000 stalls for horses: "Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen."

וַיְהִי לִשְׁלֹמֹה, אַרְבָּעִים אֶלֶף אֻרְו‍ֹת סוּסִים--לְמֶרְכָּבוֹ; וּשְׁנֵים-עָשָׂר אֶלֶף, פָּרָשִׁים.

Again, only one of these passages can be correct. The other is a clear contradiction in the Bible.

Certainly this contradiction is not a theological issue, but it proves that these texts of the Bible are NOT "the word of God" as Christians claim they are. God does not make such errors. At best the Bible can be looked at in the same way a history book could be viewed. One does not necessarily expect such a text to be infallible and free from all human corruption, but likewise no one takes it as the infallible "word of God." Such texts can be looked at as having some truth in them, but they MUST be taken with a grain of salt and measured against those texts WITHOUT such internal, moral, and scientific contradictions.

Such a text is given to us as Al-Furqan, the Criterion, the Holy Qur'an; the "recitation" of the Angel Gabriel of the Word of God to Muhammad, the "Prophet like unto Moses" foretold in the Torah. By it all Biblical passages can be judged and rendered in accordance with that Criterion, or against it. By it we can separate the wheat from the chaff, and refine the Gold from it's impurities.

All claims of error in the Qur'an have been answered many times over and dispelled and nothing more than the uneducated misreading of illiterates in the `Arabic language. For "Answering Islam" there is "Answering Christianity." For every contention Christianity raises against the Qu'ran, Islam answers it and raises contentions 10 fold against the Bible. To this day most of the contentions have gone COMPLETELY unanswered by Christianity. The Qur'an affirms that truth is manifest from falsehood. So why then has Christianity dodged these questions for nearly 2,000 years if the truth is with them?

Three Years or Seven?

2 Samuel 24:13 says that David was offered a choice between 7 years of famine or fleeing for three months from his enemies, or three days of pestilence in the land.

"So Gad came to David, and told him, and said unto him: 'Shall seven years of famine come unto you in your land? Or will you flee three months before your foes while they pursue you? Or shall there be three days' pestilence in your land? Now advise you, and consider what answer I shall return to Him that sent Me.'"

וַיָּבֹא-גָד אֶל-דָּוִד, וַיַּגֶּד-לוֹ; וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ הֲתָבוֹא לְךָ שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים רָעָב בְּאַרְצֶךָ אִם-שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים נֻסְךָ לִפְנֵי-צָרֶיךָ וְהוּא רֹדְפֶךָ, וְאִם-הֱיוֹת שְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים דֶּבֶר בְּאַרְצֶךָ--עַתָּה דַּע וּרְאֵה, מָה-אָשִׁיב שֹׁלְחִי דָּבָר.

Yet, 1 Chronicles 21:12 claims that this 7 years was in fact 3 years.

"...Either three years of famine; or three months to be swept away before thy foes, while the sword of thine enemies overtaketh you; or else three days the sword of YHWH, even pestilence in the land, and the Malak YHWH (Angel of the LORD) destroying throughout all the borders of Israel. Now therefore consider what answer I shall return to Him that sent me.'"

אִם-שָׁלוֹשׁ שָׁנִים רָעָב, וְאִם-שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים נִסְפֶּה מִפְּנֵי-צָרֶיךָ וְחֶרֶב אוֹיְבֶיךָ לְמַשֶּׂגֶת, וְאִם-שְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים חֶרֶב יְהוָה וְדֶבֶר בָּאָרֶץ, וּמַלְאַךְ יְהוָה מַשְׁחִית בְּכָל-גְּבוּל יִשְׂרָאֵל: וְעַתָּה רְאֵה, מָה-אָשִׁיב אֶת-שֹׁלְחִי דָּבָר.

Of course this latter passage makes more sense, as we see the correlation between 3 years, 3 months and 3 days. However, without employing REASON, how would one know which of these Biblical passages was correct, and which one was erroneously reported?

The answer is that they would not. Clearly if the Bible was the word of God and not the word of human recorders of history, speaking their own words, then there would not be such errors. As the Qur'an says, surely if it was from OTHER THAN ALLAH, they would have found many contradictions therein.

Biblical Infanticide and Abortion

Matthew Chapter 18:14 claims "It is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish."

outwV ouk estin qelhma emprosqen tou patroV umwn tou en ouranoiV ina apolhtai en twn mikrwn toutwn.

While that seems quite nice, the Tanakh says that God OFTEN kills children and commands others to do so as well.

"And it came to pass in an evening, that David arose from off his bed, and walked upon the roof of the king's house: and from the roof he saw a woman washing herself; and the woman was very beautiful to look upon. And David sent and enquired after the woman. And one said, Is not this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite? And David sent messengers, and took her; and she came in unto him, and he lay with her; for she was purified from her uncleanness: and she returned unto her house. And the woman conceived, and sent and told David, and said, I am with child." 2 Samuel 11:2-5

וַיְהִי לִתְשׁוּבַת הַשָּׁנָה לְעֵת צֵאת הַמְּלָאכִים, וַיִּשְׁלַח דָּוִד אֶת-יוֹאָב וְאֶת-עֲבָדָיו עִמּוֹ וְאֶת-כָּל-יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיַּשְׁחִתוּ אֶת-בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן, וַיָּצֻרוּ, עַל-רַבָּה; וְדָוִד, יוֹשֵׁב בִּירוּשָׁלִָם. וַיְהִי לְעֵת הָעֶרֶב, וַיָּקָם דָּוִד מֵעַל מִשְׁכָּבוֹ וַיִּתְהַלֵּךְ עַל-גַּג בֵּית-הַמֶּלֶךְ, וַיַּרְא אִשָּׁה רֹחֶצֶת, מֵעַל הַגָּג; וְהָאִשָּׁה, טוֹבַת מַרְאֶה מְאֹד. וַיִּשְׁלַח דָּוִד, וַיִּדְרֹשׁ לָאִשָּׁה; וַיֹּאמֶר, הֲלוֹא-זֹאת בַּת-שֶׁבַע בַּת-אֱלִיעָם--אֵשֶׁת, אוּרִיָּה הַחִתִּי. וַיִּשְׁלַח דָּוִד מַלְאָכִים וַיִּקָּחֶהָ, וַתָּבוֹא אֵלָיו וַיִּשְׁכַּב עִמָּהּ, וְהִיא מִתְקַדֶּשֶׁת, מִטֻּמְאָתָהּ; וַתָּשָׁב, אֶל-בֵּיתָהּ. וַתַּהַר, הָאִשָּׁה; וַתִּשְׁלַח וַתַּגֵּד לְדָוִד, וַתֹּאמֶר הָרָה אָנֹכִי.

As a result of this, the Tanakh says David's child was aborted in the womb by God.

"Howbeit, because by this deed you have given great occasion to the enemies of YHWH to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto you shall surely die. And Nathan departed unto his house. And YHWH struck the child that Uriah's wife bare unto David, and it was very sick." 2 Samuel 11:14-15

וַיְהִי בַבֹּקֶר, וַיִּכְתֹּב דָּוִד סֵפֶר אֶל-יוֹאָב; וַיִּשְׁלַח, בְּיַד אוּרִיָּה. וַיִּכְתֹּב בַּסֵּפֶר, לֵאמֹר: הָבוּ אֶת-אוּרִיָּה, אֶל-מוּל פְּנֵי הַמִּלְחָמָה הַחֲזָקָה, וְשַׁבְתֶּם מֵאַחֲרָיו, וְנִכָּה וָמֵת.

Of course, beyond this noted example of an innocent child being killed because of its parents (though we Muslims do not attribute such wickedness to Prophet David), the Tanakh has many noted examples of our "Father in Heaven" killing babies and encouraging others to kill them.

Other noted Biblical abortions are found in Hosea 9:16 wherein God supposedly assures Hosea that He will "slay even the beloved fruit of the womb."

"Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit; yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay the beloved fruit of their womb."

הֻכָּה אֶפְרַיִם--שָׁרְשָׁם יָבֵשׁ, פְּרִי בלי- (בַל-) יַעֲשׂוּן; גַּם כִּי יֵלֵדוּן, וְהֵמַתִּי מַחֲמַדֵּי בִטְנָם.

Hosea 13:16/14:1 claims "Samaria shall bear her guilt, for she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword; their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up."

תֶּאְשַׁם, שֹׁמְרוֹן, כִּי מָרְתָה, בֵּאלֹהֶיהָ; בַּחֶרֶב יִפֹּלוּ--עֹלְלֵיהֶם יְרֻטָּשׁוּ, וְהָרִיּוֹתָיו יְבֻקָּעוּ.

God promises to dash to pieces the infants of Samaria and "their women with child shall be ripped up."

In Genesis 7:21-22 the "gods" (elohim) drowns all children (except for Noah's) in a flood. In Genesis 19:24 the "gods" kills all the children of S'dom and `Amorah (Sodom and Gomorrah). In Exodus 12:30 God kills the Egyptian firstborn children. While these may be legitimate acts for the Creator, one can certainly not look at them and then claim that God does not desire for any child to pass away. Obviously if God did not want any child to pass away, then no child would pass away.

Rather harshly, we are instructed in Exodus 21:15, Leviticus 20:9, and Deuteronomy 21:18-21 that children who are disobedient, or who curse or strike their parents are to be killed.

In Deuteronomy 20:16, Joshua 10:40 God supposedly ordered the B'nei Yisrael (Children of Israel), to kill all of the children in the cities that they invaded. Perhaps this is why modern day "Israel" is so quick to murder every young Palestinian child with a mere rock in his hand?

"Howbeit of the cities of these peoples, that YHWH Eloheka gives you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes."

רַק, מֵעָרֵי הָעַמִּים הָאֵלֶּה, אֲשֶׁר יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, נֹתֵן לְךָ נַחֲלָה--לֹא תְחַיֶּה, כָּל-נְשָׁמָה.

"So Joshua smote all the land, the hill-country, and the South, and the Lowland, and the slopes, and all their kings; he left none remaining; but he utterly destroyed all that breathed, as YHWH, Elohei Yisrael (the God of Israel), commanded."

וַיַּכֶּה יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אֶת-כָּל-הָאָרֶץ הָהָר וְהַנֶּגֶב וְהַשְּׁפֵלָה וְהָאֲשֵׁדוֹת, וְאֵת כָּל-מַלְכֵיהֶם--לֹא הִשְׁאִיר, שָׂרִיד; וְאֵת כָּל-הַנְּשָׁמָה, הֶחֱרִים, כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה, יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל

In 1 Samuel 15:2-3 God supposedly orders Saul to kill all of the Amalekite children. Another act of Biblical TERRORISM forbidden by the Qur'an.

"Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.'"

עַתָּה לֵךְ וְהִכִּיתָה אֶת-עֲמָלֵק, וְהַחֲרַמְתֶּם אֶת-כָּל-אֲשֶׁר-לוֹ, וְלֹא תַחְמֹל, עָלָיו; וְהֵמַתָּה מֵאִישׁ עַד-אִשָּׁה, מֵעֹלֵל וְעַד-יוֹנֵק, מִשּׁוֹר וְעַד-שֶׂה, מִגָּמָל וְעַד-חֲמוֹר.

In 2 Kings 2:23-24 God supposedly sends bears to kill 42 little boys for making fun of Elisha's bald head.

"And he went up from thence unto Beth-el; and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him: 'Go up, you baldhead; go up, thou baldhead.' And he looked behind him and saw them, and cursed them in the name of YHWH. And there came forth two she-bears out of the wood, and tore forty-two children of them."

וַיַּעַל מִשָּׁם, בֵּית-אֵל; וְהוּא עֹלֶה בַדֶּרֶךְ, וּנְעָרִים קְטַנִּים יָצְאוּ מִן-הָעִיר, וַיִּתְקַלְּסוּ-בוֹ וַיֹּאמְרוּ לוֹ, עֲלֵה קֵרֵחַ עֲלֵה קֵרֵחַ. וַיִּפֶן אַחֲרָיו וַיִּרְאֵם, וַיְקַלְלֵם בְּשֵׁם יְהוָה; וַתֵּצֶאנָה שְׁתַּיִם דֻּבִּים, מִן-הַיַּעַר, וַתְּבַקַּעְנָה מֵהֶם, אַרְבָּעִים וּשְׁנֵי יְלָדִים.

In Jeremiah 13:13-14 God supposedly will make everyone drunk and then "dash the fathers and the sons together." He vows to "not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them."

"Then shall you say unto them: Thus says YHWH: 'Behold, I will fill all the inhabitants of this land, even the kings that sit upon David's throne, and the priests, and the prophets, and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, with drunkenness. And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, says YHWH; I will not pity, nor spare, nor have compassion, that I should not destroy them."

וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵיהֶם כֹּה-אָמַר יְהוָה, הִנְנִי מְמַלֵּא אֶת-כָּל-יֹשְׁבֵי הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת וְאֶת-הַמְּלָכִים הַיֹּשְׁבִים לְדָוִד עַל-כִּסְאוֹ וְאֶת-הַכֹּהֲנִים וְאֶת-הַנְּבִאִים וְאֵת כָּל-יֹשְׁבֵי יְרוּשָׁלִָם--שִׁכָּרוֹן. וְנִפַּצְתִּים אִישׁ אֶל-אָחִיו וְהָאָבוֹת וְהַבָּנִים, יַחְדָּו--נְאֻם-יְהוָה; לֹא-אֶחְמוֹל וְלֹא-אָחוּס וְלֹא אֲרַחֵם, מֵהַשְׁחִיתָם.

Jeremiah 19:9 states that God will supposedly make parents eat their own children, and friends eat each other.

"And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend, in the siege and in the straitness, wherewith their enemies, and they that seek their life, shall straiten them."

וְהַאֲכַלְתִּים אֶת-בְּשַׂר בְּנֵיהֶם, וְאֵת בְּשַׂר בְּנֹתֵיהֶם, וְאִישׁ בְּשַׂר-רֵעֵהוּ, יֹאכֵלוּ; בְּמָצוֹר, וּבְמָצוֹק, אֲשֶׁר יָצִיקוּ לָהֶם אֹיְבֵיהֶם, וּמְבַקְשֵׁי נַפְשָׁם.

More Biblical cannibalism can be found in Ezekiel 5:10 wherein God supposedly will cause fathers to eat their sons and sons to eat their fathers.

"Therefore the fathers shall eat the sons in the midst of you, and the sons shall eat their fathers; and I will execute judgments in you, and the whole remnant of you will I scatter unto all the winds."

לָכֵן, אָבוֹת יֹאכְלוּ בָנִים בְּתוֹכֵךְ, וּבָנִים, יֹאכְלוּ אֲבוֹתָם; וְעָשִׂיתִי בָךְ שְׁפָטִים, וְזֵרִיתִי אֶת-כָּל-שְׁאֵרִיתֵךְ לְכָל-רוּחַ.

In Tehillim (Psalms) 135:8, 136:10 God is praised for slaughtering little babies and animals; both on account of the "sins of the father."

"Who smote the first-born of Egypt, both of man and beast."

שֶׁהִכָּה, בְּכוֹרֵי מִצְרָיִם-- מֵאָדָם, עַד-בְּהֵמָה.

"To Him that smote Egypt in their first-born, for His mercy endures for ever."

לְמַכֵּה מִצְרַיִם, בִּבְכוֹרֵיהֶם: כִּי לְעוֹלָם חַסְדּוֹ.

That's sort of a strange way to emphasize Divine Mercy, don't you think?

In Tehillim 137:9 we are told that those who smash Bavli (Babylonian) children against rocks will be made happy!

"Happy shall he be, that takes and dashes your little ones against the rock. "

אַשְׁרֵי, שֶׁיֹּאחֵז וְנִפֵּץ אֶת-עֹלָלַיִךְ-- אֶל-הַסָּלַע.

Al-hamdulillah that we Muslims have a COMPASSIONATE and MERCIFUL God, who is like the God of Jesus, One who does not kill children for making fun of someone's haircut; One who does not command (and actually PROHIBITS us from), targeting children in warfare! Judaism and Christianity can keep their infanticidal God whom the "Lying pens of the Scribes" have created of their own imagination and racialistic vain desires. We want no share in their blasphemies against the Lord of the world.

The REAL God does not kill little children for being little children and calling someone a "baldhead." The REAL God does not command His followers to kill every man, woman, child and animal when at war.

These are inventions, corruptions, lies of the "lying pens of the scribes" who the Prophet Jeremiah told us had ALTERED the Torah to the point that we no longer had "the Torah of Moses" even in that day!

"No Compulsion In Religion"

"There is no compulsion in religion; verily, truth is manifest from falsehood. Therefore, whoever disbelieves in the Shaiytan and believes in Allah he indeed has laid hold on the firmest handle, which shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing." Al-Qur'an, Sura 2:256

لاَ إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّينِ قَد تَّبَيَّنَ الرُّشْدُ مِنَ الْغَيِّ فَمَنْ يَكْفُرْ بِالطَّاغُوتِ وَيُؤْمِن بِاللّهِ فَقَدِ اسْتَمْسَكَ بِالْعُرْوَةِ الْوُثْقَىَ لاَ انفِصَامَ لَهَا وَاللّهُ سَمِيعٌ عَلِيمٌ

The Qur'an tells us clearly that there is no compulsion in the religion of Islam. However, Christians and Jews alike accuse Islam of just that. Yet as the saying goes, when you point the finger at someone, there are four others pointing right back at you. It is Christianity and Judaism, in fact, which preach compulsion in religion.

Deuteronomy 13:7-11 says: "If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son, or your daughter, or the wife of your bosom, or thy friend, that is as your own soul, entice you secretly, saying: 'Let us go and serve other gods,' which you have not known, you, nor your fathers; of the gods of the peoples that are round about you, near unto you, or far off from you, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; you shall not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall your eye pity him, neither shall you spare, neither shall you conceal him; but you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And you shall stone him with stones, that he die; because he has sought to draw you away from YHWH Eloheka, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage."

 כִּי יְסִיתְךָ אָחִיךָ בֶן-אִמֶּךָ אוֹ-בִנְךָ אוֹ-בִתְּךָ אוֹ אֵשֶׁת חֵיקֶךָ, אוֹ רֵעֲךָ אֲשֶׁר כְּנַפְשְׁךָ--בַּסֵּתֶר לֵאמֹר: נֵלְכָה, וְנַעַבְדָה אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים, אֲשֶׁר לֹא יָדַעְתָּ, אַתָּה וַאֲבֹתֶיךָ. מֵאֱלֹהֵי הָעַמִּים, אֲשֶׁר סְבִיבֹתֵיכֶם, הַקְּרֹבִים אֵלֶיךָ, אוֹ הָרְחֹקִים מִמֶּךָּ--מִקְצֵה הָאָרֶץ, וְעַד-קְצֵה הָאָרֶץ. לֹא-תֹאבֶה לוֹ, וְלֹא תִשְׁמַע אֵלָיו; וְלֹא-תָחוֹס עֵינְךָ עָלָיו, וְלֹא-תַחְמֹל וְלֹא-תְכַסֶּה עָלָיו. כִּי הָרֹג תַּהַרְגֶנּוּ, יָדְךָ תִּהְיֶה-בּוֹ בָרִאשׁוֹנָה לַהֲמִיתוֹ; וְיַד כָּל-הָעָם, בָּאַחֲרֹנָה. וּסְקַלְתּוֹ בָאֲבָנִים, וָמֵת: כִּי בִקֵּשׁ, לְהַדִּיחֲךָ מֵעַל יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, הַמּוֹצִיאֲךָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם, מִבֵּית עֲבָדִים.

Furthermore, 2 Chronicles 15:13 "Whosoever would not seek YHWH Elohai Yisrael (the LORD, God of Israel), should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman."

וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר לֹא-יִדְרֹשׁ לַיהוָה אֱלֹהֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל, יוּמָת--לְמִן-קָטֹן, וְעַד-גָּדוֹל, לְמֵאִישׁ, וְעַד-אִשָּׁה.

Truthfully though, this is not a BIBLICAL contradiction, but rather a contradiction between what MORALITY dictates and what Christianity and Judaism accept. While Christianity and Judaism assert that their religions must be spread by coercion and terrorizing the masses into following no god but the Biblical God, Islam says that "truth is manifest from falsehood" and mandates that there be "no compulsion in religion." Truly Islam is the moderate and Straight Path.

Biblical Brutalization of Women

It is the chief of fallacies in Islamaphobic Christian propaganda to claim that ISLAM is oppressive towards women. While there are most certainly cases of genuine oppression against women in TRADITIONALLY Muslim lands, these are manifestations of TRADITION and CULTURE, rather than the implementation of Islam. These are instances where said CULTURES have reverted to Jahiliyah (Ignorance) and cast aside the TRUE Islamic Shariah in favor of their desires for patriarchal oppression.

In the Torah we are told that an adulteress must be stoned. However, Jesus Christ, the Muslim Prophet of God contradicted the traditional Jewish culture by allowing an adulteress to live. Muhammad followed suit and lessened the Biblical punishment to 100 lashes for the male or female who commits adultery, except for repeat offenders.

Throughout the Bible we see appalling accounts at the treatment of and regard for women and their rights. While the sexist and oppressive religion of Christianity claims the Qur'an oppresses women, the Qur'an itself is the FIRST document in human history that specifically and deliberately gives rights to women. Prior to that, Arab society and the societies around many parts of the globe viewed woman as nothing more than chattel, property; something that could be bought or sold.

Exodus 21:7 states: "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maid-servant, she shall not go out as the men-servants do."

וְכִי-יִמְכֹּר אִישׁ אֶת-בִּתּוֹ, לְאָמָה--לֹא תֵצֵא, כְּצֵאת הָעֲבָדִים

Can you imagine? Selling your own daughter? Selling your daughter to be a slave. That was the birthright of the female under Biblical law. Genesis 19:8 similarly recounts the Prophet Lot offering his daughters to be gang-raped, just to get the homosexuals at S'dom and `Amorrah to leave the Angels (who came to him) alone (and stop asking to have sex with said Angels). These men were tall and strong; more than capable of defending and asserting themselves. However, the Bible would have us believe that the Prophet Lot said, "no don't bother these MEN. Here take my virgin daughters, dishonor them and gang-rape them; do with them whatever you find pleasing in your eyes."

"Behold now, I have two daughters that have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do you to them as is good in your eyes; only unto these men do nothing; forasmuch as they are come under the shadow of my roof.'"

הִנֵּה-נָא לִי שְׁתֵּי בָנוֹת, אֲשֶׁר לֹא-יָדְעוּ אִישׁ--אוֹצִיאָה-נָּא אֶתְהֶן אֲלֵיכֶם, וַעֲשׂוּ לָהֶן כַּטּוֹב בְּעֵינֵיכֶם; רַק לָאֲנָשִׁים הָאֵל, אַל-תַּעֲשׂוּ דָבָר, כִּי-עַל-כֵּן בָּאוּ, בְּצֵל קֹרָתִי.

Islam rejects this notion and the Qur'an claims that this was not the horrendous and sexist offer by the Prophet Lot. Instead he offered that the men could MARRY his daughters, not that a massive group of men could take them and do whatever they saw as good. Such sick perversions are found only in the corrupted Bible of today's man-made religions of Judaism and Christianity.

"And his people came rushing towards him, and they had been long in the habit of practicing abominations. He said: "O my people! Here are my daughters: they are purer for you (if you marry)! Now fear Allah, and cover me not with shame about my guests! Is there not among you a single right-minded man?' They said: 'Well do you know we have no need of your daughters: indeed you know quite well what we want!'" Al-Qur'an, Sura 11:78-79

وَجَاءهُ قَوْمُهُ يُهْرَعُونَ إِلَيْهِ وَمِن قَبْلُ كَانُواْ يَعْمَلُونَ السَّيِّئَاتِ قَالَ يَا قَوْمِ هَـؤُلاء بَنَاتِي هُنَّ أَطْهَرُ لَكُمْ فَاتَّقُواْ اللّهَ وَلاَ تُخْزُونِ فِي ضَيْفِي أَلَيْسَ مِنكُمْ رَجُلٌ رَّشِيدٌقَالُواْ لَقَدْ عَلِمْتَ مَا لَنَا فِي بَنَاتِكَ مِنْ حَقٍّ وَإِنَّكَ لَتَعْلَمُ مَا نُرِيدُ

However, the corrupted Bible does not speak as kindly about the great Prophet of Islam Lot, who was a Light shining in the midst of darkness. Following the accounts of S'dom and `Amorah, it is claimed in Genesis 19:32-36 that Lot and his same daughters had sex and he got them pregnant!

"Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. Behold, I lay last night with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go you in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father."

לְכָה נַשְׁקֶה אֶת-אָבִינוּ יַיִן, וְנִשְׁכְּבָה עִמּוֹ; וּנְחַיֶּה מֵאָבִינוּ, זָרַע. וַתַּשְׁקֶיןָ אֶת-אֲבִיהֶן יַיִן, בַּלַּיְלָה הוּא; וַתָּבֹא הַבְּכִירָה וַתִּשְׁכַּב אֶת-אָבִיהָ, וְלֹא-יָדַע בְּשִׁכְבָהּ וּבְקוּמָהּ. וַיְהִי, מִמָּחֳרָת, וַתֹּאמֶר הַבְּכִירָה אֶל-הַצְּעִירָה, הֵן-שָׁכַבְתִּי אֶמֶשׁ אֶת-אָבִי; נַשְׁקֶנּוּ יַיִן גַּם-הַלַּיְלָה, וּבֹאִי שִׁכְבִי עִמּוֹ, וּנְחַיֶּה מֵאָבִינוּ, זָרַע. וַתַּשְׁקֶיןָ גַּם בַּלַּיְלָה הַהוּא, אֶת-אֲבִיהֶן--יָיִן; וַתָּקָם הַצְּעִירָה וַתִּשְׁכַּב עִמּוֹ, וְלֹא-יָדַע בְּשִׁכְבָהּ וּבְקֻמָהּ. וַתַּהֲרֶיןָ שְׁתֵּי בְנוֹת-לוֹט, מֵאֲבִיהֶן.

A similar account to that of S'dom and `Amorrah re-occurs in Judges Chapter 19:24-30. Therein we read: "As they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain base fellows, beset the house round about, beating at the door; and they spoke to the master of the house, the old man, saying: 'Bring forth the man that came into your house, that we may know him.' And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them: 'Nay, my brethren, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into my house, do not this wanton deed. Behold, here is my daughter a virgin, and his concubine; I will bring them out now, and you humble them, and do with them what seems good unto you; but unto this man do not so wanton a thing.' But the men would not hearken to him; so the man laid hold on his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning; and when the day began to spring, they let her go. Then came the woman in the dawning of the day, and fell down at the door of the man's house where her lord was, till it was light. And her lord rose up in the morning, and opened the doors of the house, and went out to go his way; and, behold, the woman his concubine was fallen down at the door of the house, with her hands upon the threshold. And he said unto her. 'Up, and let us be going'; but none answered; then he took her up upon the ass; and the man rose up, and got him unto his place. And when he was come into his house, he took a knife, and laid hold on his concubine, and divided her, limb by limb, into twelve pieces, and sent her throughout all the borders of Israel. And it was so, that all that saw it said: 'Such a thing has not happened nor been seen from the day that the children of Israel came up out of the land of Egypt unto this day; consider it, take counsel, and speak.'"

הֵמָּה, מֵיטִיבִים אֶת-לִבָּם, וְהִנֵּה אַנְשֵׁי הָעִיר אַנְשֵׁי בְנֵי-בְלִיַּעַל נָסַבּוּ אֶת-הַבַּיִת, מִתְדַּפְּקִים עַל-הַדָּלֶת; וַיֹּאמְרוּ, אֶל-הָאִישׁ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת הַזָּקֵן לֵאמֹר, הוֹצֵא אֶת-הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר-בָּא אֶל-בֵּיתְךָ, וְנֵדָעֶנּוּ. וַיֵּצֵא אֲלֵיהֶם, הָאִישׁ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת, וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם, אַל-אַחַי אַל-תָּרֵעוּ נָא; אַחֲרֵי אֲשֶׁר-בָּא הָאִישׁ הַזֶּה, אֶל-בֵּיתִי--אַל-תַּעֲשׂוּ, אֶת-הַנְּבָלָה הַזֹּאת. הִנֵּה בִתִּי הַבְּתוּלָה וּפִילַגְשֵׁהוּ, אוֹצִיאָה-נָּא אוֹתָם וְעַנּוּ אוֹתָם, וַעֲשׂוּ לָהֶם, הַטּוֹב בְּעֵינֵיכֶם; וְלָאִישׁ הַזֶּה לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ, דְּבַר הַנְּבָלָה הַזֹּאת. וְלֹא-אָבוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים, לִשְׁמֹעַ לוֹ, וַיַּחֲזֵק הָאִישׁ בְּפִילַגְשׁוֹ, וַיֹּצֵא אֲלֵיהֶם הַחוּץ; וַיֵּדְעוּ אוֹתָהּ וַיִּתְעַלְּלוּ-בָהּ כָּל-הַלַּיְלָה, עַד-הַבֹּקֶר, וַיְשַׁלְּחוּהָ, בעלות (כַּעֲלוֹת) הַשָּׁחַר. וַתָּבֹא הָאִשָּׁה, לִפְנוֹת הַבֹּקֶר; וַתִּפֹּל פֶּתַח בֵּית-הָאִישׁ, אֲשֶׁר-אֲדוֹנֶיהָ שָּׁם--עַד-הָאוֹר. וַיָּקָם אֲדֹנֶיהָ בַּבֹּקֶר, וַיִּפְתַּח דַּלְתוֹת הַבַּיִת, וַיֵּצֵא, לָלֶכֶת לְדַרְכּוֹ; וְהִנֵּה הָאִשָּׁה פִילַגְשׁוֹ, נֹפֶלֶת פֶּתַח הַבַּיִת, וְיָדֶיהָ, עַל-הַסַּף. וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלֶיהָ קוּמִי וְנֵלֵכָה, וְאֵין עֹנֶה; וַיִּקָּחֶהָ, עַל-הַחֲמוֹר, וַיָּקָם הָאִישׁ, וַיֵּלֶךְ לִמְקֹמוֹ. וַיָּבֹא אֶל-בֵּיתוֹ, וַיִּקַּח אֶת-הַמַּאֲכֶלֶת וַיַּחֲזֵק בְּפִילַגְשׁוֹ, וַיְנַתְּחֶהָ לַעֲצָמֶיהָ, לִשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר נְתָחִים; וַיְשַׁלְּחֶהָ, בְּכֹל גְּבוּל יִשְׂרָאֵל. וְהָיָה כָל-הָרֹאֶה, וְאָמַר לֹא-נִהְיְתָה וְלֹא-נִרְאֲתָה כָּזֹאת, לְמִיּוֹם עֲלוֹת בְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם, עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה; שִׂימוּ-לָכֶם עָלֶיהָ, עֻצוּ וְדַבֵּרוּ.

Which element of the story had "not happened nor been seen from the day that the children of Israel cam up out of the land of Egypt?" Was it when the man offered his own daughter and a concubine to be gang-raped? No, that was looked upon as a VIRTUE of Lot in the Biblical account!

Rather, the mutilation of this woman was the gravest of sins that had never before been seen. But was this man prosecuted? Was he himself killed, as the Torah required "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth?" Did the Torah not say "whosoever sheds the blood of man, so too must his blood be shed?" Apparently the Bible understand "the blood of man" to literally refer to the blood of a MAN and not a woMAN. Time and time again we see the abuse, rape, and murder of women going unpunished in the Bible.

These men gang-raped this unnamed woman "ALL NIGHT." When she came home her "master" her "lord" did not even respond to her bruised and broken body that lay at his threshold. Instead he told her to "Get up, and let us be going." She did not answer, so he himself placed her on his donkey. No concern for her injuries. When he got her home, he mutilated her and sent her body, divided amongst the Twelve Tribes.

O Christians and Jews! Could you read this to your sons and daughters as a bed time story? i could not. i could not read these stories to my children. My children would not believe these horrific tales to be from God. Should they too be "dashed against the rocks?" They would terrify them, as indeed these are texts of terror. These are not the words of God, but the words of the "lying pens of the scribes" and their sickening accounts of their racist, sexist and infanticidal history.

How strange that these men are said to have offered their VIRGIN women to be gang-raped. For the punishment for a woman being a non-virgin in the Bible is death. Deuteronomy 22:13-24 says:

"If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, and lay wanton charges against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say: 'I took this woman, and when I came nigh to her, I found not in her the tokens of virginity'; then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate. And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders: 'I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hates her; and, lo, he has laid wanton charges, saying: I found not in your daughter the tokens of virginity; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity.' And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city. And the elders of that city shall take the man and chastise him. And they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he has brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel; and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days. But if this thing be true, that the tokens of virginity were not found in the damsel; then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die; because she has wrought a wanton deed in Israel, to play the harlot in her father's house; so shall you put away the evil from the midst of you. If a man be found lying with a woman married to a husband, then they shall both of them die, the man that lay with the woman, and the woman; so shall you put away the evil from Israel. If there be a damsel that is a virgin betrothed unto a man, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; then you shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and you shall stone them with stones that they die: the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he has humbled his neighbor's wife; so you shall put away the evil from the midst of you."

כִּי-יִקַּח אִישׁ, אִשָּׁה; וּבָא אֵלֶיהָ, וּשְׂנֵאָהּ. וְשָׂם לָהּ עֲלִילֹת דְּבָרִים, וְהוֹצִא עָלֶיהָ שֵׁם רָע; וְאָמַר, אֶת-הָאִשָּׁה הַזֹּאת לָקַחְתִּי, וָאֶקְרַב אֵלֶיהָ, וְלֹא-מָצָאתִי לָהּ בְּתוּלִים. וְלָקַח אֲבִי הַנַּעֲרָ, וְאִמָּהּ; וְהוֹצִיאוּ אֶת-בְּתוּלֵי הַנַּעֲרָ, אֶל-זִקְנֵי הָעִיר--הַשָּׁעְרָה. וְאָמַר אֲבִי הַנַּעֲרָ, אֶל-הַזְּקֵנִים:  אֶת-בִּתִּי, נָתַתִּי לָאִישׁ הַזֶּה לְאִשָּׁה--וַיִּשְׂנָאֶהָ. וְהִנֵּה-הוּא שָׂם עֲלִילֹת דְּבָרִים לֵאמֹר, לֹא-מָצָאתִי לְבִתְּךָ בְּתוּלִים, וְאֵלֶּה, בְּתוּלֵי בִתִּי; וּפָרְשׂוּ, הַשִּׂמְלָה, לִפְנֵי, זִקְנֵי הָעִיר. וְלָקְחוּ זִקְנֵי הָעִיר-הַהִוא, אֶת-הָאִישׁ; וְיִסְּרוּ, אֹתוֹ. וְעָנְשׁוּ אֹתוֹ מֵאָה כֶסֶף, וְנָתְנוּ לַאֲבִי הַנַּעֲרָה--כִּי הוֹצִיא שֵׁם רָע, עַל בְּתוּלַת יִשְׂרָאֵל; וְלוֹ-תִהְיֶה לְאִשָּׁה, לֹא-יוּכַל לְשַׁלְּחָהּ כָּל-יָמָיו. וְאִם-אֱמֶת הָיָה, הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה:  לֹא-נִמְצְאוּ בְתוּלִים, לַנַּעֲרָ. וְהוֹצִיאוּ אֶת-הַנַּעֲרָ אֶל-פֶּתַח בֵּית-אָבִיהָ, וּסְקָלוּהָ אַנְשֵׁי עִירָהּ בָּאֲבָנִים וָמֵתָה--כִּי-עָשְׂתָה נְבָלָה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, לִזְנוֹת בֵּית אָבִיהָ; וּבִעַרְתָּ הָרָע, מִקִּרְבֶּךָ.  כִּי-יִמָּצֵא אִישׁ שֹׁכֵב עִם-אִשָּׁה בְעֻלַת-בַּעַל, וּמֵתוּ גַּם-שְׁנֵיהֶם--הָאִישׁ הַשֹּׁכֵב עִם-הָאִשָּׁה, וְהָאִשָּׁה; וּבִעַרְתָּ הָרָע, מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל.  כִּי יִהְיֶה נַעֲרָ בְתוּלָה, מְאֹרָשָׂה לְאִישׁ; וּמְצָאָהּ אִישׁ בָּעִיר, וְשָׁכַב עִמָּהּ. וְהוֹצֵאתֶם אֶת-שְׁנֵיהֶם אֶל-שַׁעַר הָעִיר הַהִוא, וּסְקַלְתֶּם אֹתָם בָּאֲבָנִים וָמֵתוּ--אֶת-הַנַּעֲרָ עַל-דְּבַר אֲשֶׁר לֹא-צָעֲקָה בָעִיר, וְאֶת-הָאִישׁ עַל-דְּבַר אֲשֶׁר-עִנָּה אֶת-אֵשֶׁת רֵעֵהוּ; וּבִעַרְתָּ הָרָע, מִקִּרְבֶּךָ.

There are some very troubling things about this. One is that young girls in ballet and even track tear their hymens commonly. Stretching excessively or falling on something can break the hymen. Girls living in a pastoralist context could have many chances to accidentally damage their hymen. However, should such a thing have occurred, their parents should and would be notified of this injury and those parents could vouch for their daughter's virginity. As well, a man can tell if a woman is not a virgin, often simply by how she acts sexually. Once a woman has lost her innocence, it can hardly be faked. Moreover, in spite of the woman possibly having had her hymen broken through injury, her vagina would still be extremely tight. If it were not, then the man could legitimately charge that she lied to him. Nevertheless, the woman could have lied about her virginity due to having being raped or molested. Surely this is not cause for her to be STONED to death!

What if this woman was King David's own daughter Tamar whom the Bible says David's son Amnon RAPED and then hated with a hatred more intense than the lust that he lusted for her with! Should she too be killed for her stolen virginity? This falsified and slanderous account is relayed in 2 Samuel Chapter 13.

Was Amnon punished for this rape of his sister? No, in fact we read the INSTRUCTIONS on how he would go about raping his sister in the Bible. Absalom had to take justice into his own hands in avenging his sister Tamar's honor, by having Amnon killed. Regardless, there is no reason to believe such mythologies of the progeny of the great Prophet and King David. If such things are true, then it paints the prophets of the Bible as FAR WORSE than the average person, with far more horrendous of families than the average person. Instead of being the most pious of saints, the Biblical depiction of the prophets and their families is of the worst of transgressors. This of course has an ulterior motive for the scribes who had virtually sole access to the Scriptures and the recording of traditions.

Again, recall the words of Jeremiah 8:7-9. For in order to justify their own lawlessness, the Scribes had to tear down the piety of the HISTORICAL prophets of God. We see this with many cults today who try to assert that the prophets were really grave sinners. Mirza Ghulam Ahmed Qadiani, in claiming to himself be Jesus Christ had to degrade the historical Jesus. David "Koresh," in claiming to be Jesus, had to contort Scripture (as he also did in adopting the title "Koresh" which was a Biblical prophecy of Muhammad, as he was legitimately of the tribe of Quraysh) to speak of a pedophile "Sinful Messiah." If Lot could be a Prophet and have a threesome with his daughters, if Abraham could marry his half sister, and if David could commit adultery and murder, then perhaps we can gain a glimpse into the mind of these madmen. In justifying their OWN sinfulness, which would otherwise contradict their claims of prophethood.

Let us continue examining this corrupted and filthy Bible that is no longer the word of God; that is no longer the original words of the Prophets of God who are pure and honorable people. Let us look at Jephthah, who Judges11:29-39 tells us was inspired by "the spirit of the LORD" to murder his own daughter!

"Then the Ruach YHWH (Spirit of the LORD) came upon Yefthah, and he passed over Gilead and Manasseh, and passed over Mizpeh of Gilead, and from Mizpeh of Gilead he passed over unto the children of Ammon. And Yefthah vowed a vow unto YHWH, and said: 'If You will indeed deliver the children of Ammon into my hand, then it shall be, that whatsoever comes forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, it shall be YHWH'S, and I will offer it up for a burnt-offering.' So Yefthah passed over unto the children of Ammon to fight against them; and YHWH delivered them into his hand. And he smote them from Aroer until you come to Minnith, even twenty cities, and unto Abel-Cheramim, with a very great slaughter. So the children of Ammon were subdued before the B'nei Yisrael. And Yefthah came to Mizpah unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances; and she was his only child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter. And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he tore his clothes, and said: 'Alas, my daughter! you have brought me very low, and you are become my troubler; for I have opened my mouth unto YHWH, and I cannot go back.' And she said unto him: 'My father, you have opened your mouth unto YHWH; do unto me according to that which has proceeded out of your mouth; forasmuch as YHWH has taken vengeance for you of your enemies, even of the children of Ammon.' And she said unto her father: 'Let this thing be done for me: let me alone two months, that I may depart and go down upon the mountains, and bewail my virginity, I and my companions.' And he said: 'Go.' And he sent her away for two months; and she departed, she and her companions, and bewailed her virginity upon the mountains. And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed; and she had not known man. And it was a custom in Yisrael..."

וַתְּהִי עַל-יִפְתָּח רוּחַ יְהוָה, וַיַּעֲבֹר אֶת-הַגִּלְעָד וְאֶת-מְנַשֶּׁה; וַיַּעֲבֹר, אֶת-מִצְפֵּה גִלְעָד, וּמִמִּצְפֵּה גִלְעָד, עָבַר בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן. וַיִּדַּר יִפְתָּח נֶדֶר לַיהוָה, וַיֹּאמַר:  אִם-נָתוֹן תִּתֵּן אֶת-בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן, בְּיָדִי. וְהָיָה הַיּוֹצֵא, אֲשֶׁר יֵצֵא מִדַּלְתֵי בֵיתִי לִקְרָאתִי, בְּשׁוּבִי בְשָׁלוֹם, מִבְּנֵי עַמּוֹן--וְהָיָה, לַיהוָה, וְהַעֲלִיתִיהוּ, עֹלָה. וַיַּעֲבֹר יִפְתָּח אֶל-בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן, לְהִלָּחֶם בָּם; וַיִּתְּנֵם יְהוָה, בְּיָדוֹ. וַיַּכֵּם מֵעֲרוֹעֵר וְעַד-בֹּאֲךָ מִנִּית עֶשְׂרִים עִיר, וְעַד אָבֵל כְּרָמִים, מַכָּה, גְּדוֹלָה מְאֹד; וַיִּכָּנְעוּ בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן, מִפְּנֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.  וַיָּבֹא יִפְתָּח הַמִּצְפָּה, אֶל-בֵּיתוֹ, וְהִנֵּה בִתּוֹ יֹצֵאת לִקְרָאתוֹ, בְּתֻפִּים וּבִמְחֹלוֹת:  וְרַק הִיא יְחִידָה, אֵין-לוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ בֵּן אוֹ-בַת. וַיְהִי כִרְאוֹתוֹ אוֹתָהּ וַיִּקְרַע אֶת-בְּגָדָיו, וַיֹּאמֶר אֲהָהּ בִּתִּי הַכְרֵעַ הִכְרַעְתִּנִי, וְאַתְּ, הָיִית בְּעֹכְרָי; וְאָנֹכִי, פָּצִיתִי פִי אֶל-יְהוָה, וְלֹא אוּכַל, לָשׁוּב. וַתֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו, אָבִי פָּצִיתָה אֶת-פִּיךָ אֶל-יְהוָה--עֲשֵׂה לִי, כַּאֲשֶׁר יָצָא מִפִּיךָ:  אַחֲרֵי אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה לְךָ יְהוָה נְקָמוֹת, מֵאֹיְבֶיךָ--מִבְּנֵי עַמּוֹן. וַתֹּאמֶר, אֶל-אָבִיהָ, יֵעָשֶׂה לִּי, הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה:  הַרְפֵּה מִמֶּנִּי שְׁנַיִם חֳדָשִׁים, וְאֵלְכָה וְיָרַדְתִּי עַל-הֶהָרִים, וְאֶבְכֶּה עַל-בְּתוּלַי, אָנֹכִי ורעיתי (וְרֵעוֹתָי). וַיֹּאמֶר לֵכִי, וַיִּשְׁלַח אוֹתָהּ שְׁנֵי חֳדָשִׁים; וַתֵּלֶךְ הִיא וְרֵעוֹתֶיהָ, וַתֵּבְךְּ עַל-בְּתוּלֶיהָ עַל-הֶהָרִים. וַיְהִי מִקֵּץ שְׁנַיִם חֳדָשִׁים, וַתָּשָׁב אֶל-אָבִיהָ, וַיַּעַשׂ לָהּ, אֶת-נִדְרוֹ אֲשֶׁר נָדָר; וְהִיא לֹא-יָדְעָה אִישׁ, וַתְּהִי-חֹק בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל.

What is the reward of Jephthah's daughter praising him for his victory? For this she is slaughtered. She is a human sacrifice. And who told this man to do such a thing according to the Bible? YHWH's own Spirit supposedly came to this man to tell him to murder his daughter. We Muslims do not believe such horrendous things. We do not believe the God Almighty is appeased through the shedding of blood. We do not believe that innocent people should die. We do not believe that women should be offered as a piece of flesh to be gang-raped. We do not believe that crimes against women should go unpunished. A man who kills and innocent woman should himself be killed, just the same as if he killed a man. This is ISLAM, "Submission to God" because God, Allah is "Al-`Adl" the Just. This is Islam because Islam believes in Justice, because GOD is Just; because GOD is Al-Haqq, the Truth, and accordingly JUSTICE is TRUTH; righteous and in accordance with the Way.

Ezekiel Chapter 23 is too long to warrant being typed up here. Instead you should turn to that chapter and read this brutal account of two sisters who were guilty of "committing whoredoms" by pressing their breasts and bruising "the teats of their virginity."

These sisters, Oholah the elder, and Oholibah her younger sister committed whoredoms with the Chaldeans and Babylonians. Certainly this is a punishable offense. However, the incredible torture that the Bible describes is beyond comprehension. As a punishment, one sister's nakedness was discovered, her children were taken from her and killed, and she herself was killed by the sword. Verse 10 says:

"These uncovered her nakedness; they took her sons and her daughters, and her they slew with the sword; and she became a byword among women, for judgments were executed upon her."

הֵמָּה, גִּלּוּ עֶרְוָתָהּ--בָּנֶיהָ וּבְנוֹתֶיהָ לָקָחוּ, וְאוֹתָהּ בַּחֶרֶב הָרָגוּ; וַתְּהִי-שֵׁם, לַנָּשִׁים, וּשְׁפוּטִים, עָשׂוּ בָהּ. 

However, the fate of the surviving sister was even worse. Her nose and ears were cut off. Verses 25 and 26 relay: "And I will set My jealousy against you, and they shall deal with you in fury; they shall take away your nose and your ears, and your residue shall fall by the sword; they shall take your sons and your daughters, and your residue shall be devoured by the fire. They shall also strip you of your clothes, and take away your fair jewels."

  וְהִפְשִׁיטוּךְ, אֶת-בְּגָדָיִךְ; וְלָקְחוּ, כְּלֵי תִפְאַרְתֵּךְ. וְנָתַתִּי קִנְאָתִי בָּךְ, וְעָשׂוּ אוֹתָךְ בְּחֵמָה--אַפֵּךְ וְאָזְנַיִךְ יָסִירוּ, וְאַחֲרִיתֵךְ בַּחֶרֶב תִּפּוֹל; הֵמָּה, בָּנַיִךְ וּבְנוֹתַיִךְ יִקָּחוּ, וְאַחֲרִיתֵךְ, תֵּאָכֵל בָּאֵשׁ.

Furthermore, she was made to "pluck off" her own breasts. Verse 34 is as follows:

"You shall even drink it and drain it, and you shall crunch the shards thereof, and shall tear your breasts; for I have spoken it, says Adonai YHWH."

וְשָׁתִית אוֹתָהּ וּמָצִית, וְאֶת-חֲרָשֶׂיהָ תְּגָרֵמִי--וְשָׁדַיִךְ תְּנַתֵּקִי:  כִּי אֲנִי דִבַּרְתִּי, נְאֻם אֲדֹנָי יְהוִה. 

Then after being raped (verse 29) and mutilated, she is stoned to death (verse 47).

"And the assembly shall stone them with stones, and cut them apart with their swords; they shall slay their sons and their daughters, and burn up their houses with fire."

וְרָגְמוּ עֲלֵיהֶן אֶבֶן קָהָל, וּבָרֵא אוֹתְהֶן בְּחַרְבוֹתָם; בְּנֵיהֶם וּבְנוֹתֵיהֶם יַהֲרֹגוּ, וּבָתֵּיהֶן בָּאֵשׁ יִשְׂרֹפו

Biblical Incest

Aside from the issue of incestual RAPE in the Bible, other incest is found throughout the Bible. Genesis 19:30-36 records:

"And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar; and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters. And the first-born said unto the younger: 'Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth. Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.' And they made their father drink wine that night. And the first-born went in, and lay with her father; and he knew not when she lay down, nor when she arose. And it came to pass on the morrow, that the first-born said unto the younger: 'Behold, I lay last night with my father. Let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.' And they made their father drink wine that night also. And the younger arose, and lay with him; and he knew not when she lay down, nor when she arose. Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father."

וַיַּעַל לוֹט מִצּוֹעַר וַיֵּשֶׁב בָּהָר, וּשְׁתֵּי בְנֹתָיו עִמּוֹ, כִּי יָרֵא, לָשֶׁבֶת בְּצוֹעַר; וַיֵּשֶׁב, בַּמְּעָרָה--הוּא, וּשְׁתֵּי בְנֹתָיו. וַתֹּאמֶר הַבְּכִירָה אֶל-הַצְּעִירָה, אָבִינוּ זָקֵן; וְאִישׁ אֵין בָּאָרֶץ לָבוֹא עָלֵינוּ, כְּדֶרֶךְ כָּל-הָאָרֶץ. לְכָה נַשְׁקֶה אֶת-אָבִינוּ יַיִן, וְנִשְׁכְּבָה עִמּוֹ; וּנְחַיֶּה מֵאָבִינוּ, זָרַע. וַתַּשְׁקֶיןָ אֶת-אֲבִיהֶן יַיִן, בַּלַּיְלָה הוּא; וַתָּבֹא הַבְּכִירָה וַתִּשְׁכַּב אֶת-אָבִיהָ, וְלֹא-יָדַע בְּשִׁכְבָהּ וּבְקוּמָהּ. וַיְהִי, מִמָּחֳרָת, וַתֹּאמֶר הַבְּכִירָה אֶל-הַצְּעִירָה, הֵן-שָׁכַבְתִּי אֶמֶשׁ אֶת-אָבִי; נַשְׁקֶנּוּ יַיִן גַּם-הַלַּיְלָה, וּבֹאִי שִׁכְבִי עִמּוֹ, וּנְחַיֶּה מֵאָבִינוּ, זָרַע. וַתַּשְׁקֶיןָ גַּם בַּלַּיְלָה הַהוּא, אֶת-אֲבִיהֶן--יָיִן; וַתָּקָם הַצְּעִירָה וַתִּשְׁכַּב עִמּוֹ, וְלֹא-יָדַע בְּשִׁכְבָהּ וּבְקֻמָהּ. וַתַּהֲרֶיןָ שְׁתֵּי בְנוֹת-לוֹט, מֵאֲבִיהֶן.

Islam denies such filthy accusations against the Prophet Lot, that he conceived children with his daughters, just as we reject the notion that he offered his daughters up for gang-rape in S'dom and Gomorrah. If this is not punishable for the Prophets, then it is no wonder that there is such cover up of priestly sexual abuse in Christianity!

As if all of this was not enough, the Bible accuses Abraham of incest with his sister!

"And Abraham journeyed from thence toward the land of the South, and dwelt between Kadesh and Shur; and he sojourned in Gerar. And Abraham said of Sarah his wife: 'She is my sister.' And Abimelech king of Gerar sent, and took Sarah. But God came to Abimelech in a dream of the night, and said to him: 'Behold, you shall die, because of the woman whom you have taken; for she is a man's wife.' Now Abimelech had not come near her; and he said: 'YHWH, will You slay even a righteous nation? Said he not himself unto me: She is my sister? and she, even she herself said: He is my brother. In the simplicity of my heart and the innocence of my hands have I done this.' And God said unto him in the dream: 'Yea, I know that in the simplicity of thy heart you have done this, and I also withheld thee from sinning against Me. Therefore suffered I thee not to touch her. Now therefore restore the man's wife; for he is a prophet, and he shall pray for thee, and you shall live; and if thou restore her not, know thou that you shall surely die, you, and all that are yours.' And Abimelech rose early in the morning, and called all his servants, and told all these things in their ears; and the men were sore afraid. Then Abimelech called Abraham, and said unto him: 'What hast thou done unto us? and wherein have I sinned against thee, that you have brought on me and on my kingdom a great sin? you have done deeds unto me that ought not to be done.' And Abimelech said unto Abraham: 'What did you see, that you had done this thing?' And Abraham said: 'Because I thought: Surely the fear of God is not in this place; and they will slay me for my wife's sake." Genesis 20:1-11

וַיִּסַּע מִשָּׁם אַבְרָהָם אַרְצָה הַנֶּגֶב, וַיֵּשֶׁב בֵּין-קָדֵשׁ וּבֵין שׁוּר; וַיָּגָר, בִּגְרָר. וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְרָהָם אֶל-שָׂרָה אִשְׁתּוֹ, אֲחֹתִי הִוא; וַיִּשְׁלַח, אֲבִימֶלֶךְ מֶלֶךְ גְּרָר, וַיִּקַּח, אֶת-שָׂרָה. וַיָּבֹא אֱלֹהִים אֶל-אֲבִימֶלֶךְ, בַּחֲלוֹם הַלָּיְלָה; וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ, הִנְּךָ מֵת עַל-הָאִשָּׁה אֲשֶׁר-לָקַחְתָּ, וְהִוא, בְּעֻלַת בָּעַל. וַאֲבִימֶלֶךְ, לֹא קָרַב אֵלֶיהָ; וַיֹּאמַר--אֲדֹנָי, הֲגוֹי גַּם-צַדִּיק תַּהֲרֹג. הֲלֹא הוּא אָמַר-לִי אֲחֹתִי הִוא, וְהִיא-גַם-הִוא אָמְרָה אָחִי הוּא; בְּתָם-לְבָבִי וּבְנִקְיֹן כַּפַּי, עָשִׂיתִי זֹאת. וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו הָאֱלֹהִים בַּחֲלֹם, גַּם אָנֹכִי יָדַעְתִּי כִּי בְתָם-לְבָבְךָ עָשִׂיתָ זֹּאת, וָאֶחְשֹׂךְ גַּם-אָנֹכִי אוֹתְךָ, מֵחֲטוֹ-לִי; עַל-כֵּן לֹא-נְתַתִּיךָ, לִנְגֹּעַ אֵלֶיהָ. וְעַתָּה, הָשֵׁב אֵשֶׁת-הָאִישׁ כִּי-נָבִיא הוּא, וְיִתְפַּלֵּל בַּעַדְךָ, וֶחְיֵה; וְאִם-אֵינְךָ מֵשִׁיב--דַּע כִּי-מוֹת תָּמוּת, אַתָּה וְכָל-אֲשֶׁר-לָךְ. וַיַּשְׁכֵּם אֲבִימֶלֶךְ בַּבֹּקֶר, וַיִּקְרָא לְכָל-עֲבָדָיו, וַיְדַבֵּר אֶת-כָּל-הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה, בְּאָזְנֵיהֶם; וַיִּירְאוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים, מְאֹד. וַיִּקְרָא אֲבִימֶלֶךְ לְאַבְרָהָם, וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ מֶה-עָשִׂיתָ לָּנוּ וּמֶה-חָטָאתִי לָךְ, כִּי-הֵבֵאתָ עָלַי וְעַל-מַמְלַכְתִּי, חֲטָאָה גְדֹלָה: מַעֲשִׂים אֲשֶׁר לֹא-יֵעָשׂוּ, עָשִׂיתָ עִמָּדִי. וַיֹּאמֶר אֲבִימֶלֶךְ, אֶל-אַבְרָהָם: מָה רָאִיתָ, כִּי עָשִׂיתָ אֶת-הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה. וַיֹּאמֶר, אַבְרָהָם, כִּי אָמַרְתִּי רַק אֵין-יִרְאַת אֱלֹהִים, בַּמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה; וַהֲרָגוּנִי, עַל-דְּבַר אִשְׁתִּי.

So the "fear of God" was not in this land... In response Abraham says his wife was his sister and allows another man to take her as his wife, assuming that this man would in fact have sex with his wife!?! Does this sound "God fearing" at all? Does this sound like the behavior of a Prophet?

But don't think that the Bible says Abraham lied about Sarah being his sister. According to the Bible, she actually was. Verse 12 follows:

"And moreover she is indeed my sister, the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and so she became my wife."

וְגַם-אָמְנָה, אֲחֹתִי בַת-אָבִי הִוא--אַךְ, לֹא בַת-אִמִּי; וַתְּהִי-לִי, לְאִשָּׁה.

How is this justifiable in the light of Leviticus 18:8, which says: "The nakedness of your sister, the daughter of your father, or the daughter of your mother, whether born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness you shall not uncover."

עֶרְוַת אֲחוֹתְךָ בַת-אָבִיךָ, אוֹ בַת-אִמֶּךָ, מוֹלֶדֶת בַּיִת, אוֹ מוֹלֶדֶת חוּץ--לֹא תְגַלֶּה, עֶרְוָתָן.

According to the Bible, the Prophet Jacob was a child born of incest! Far be it from any of these Prophets which the Bible incessantly slanders. For the Bible also slanders Jacob's son Reuven and accuses him of having sex with his father's concubine:

"While Ya'qov was living in the land, Reuven had SEXUAL INTERCOURSE with Bilhah, his father's concubine." Genesis 35:22

וַיְהִי, בִּשְׁכֹּן יִשְׂרָאֵל בָּאָרֶץ הַהִוא, וַיֵּלֶךְ רְאוּבֵן וַיִּשְׁכַּב אֶת-בִּלְהָה פִּילֶגֶשׁ אָבִיו, וַיִּשְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל;

Moreover, David's son... the "good" son (not the son who raped his sister in otherwords), Absalom had an incestual orgy with his father's concubines!

"So they spread Absalom a tent upon the top of the house; and Absalom went in unto his father's concubines in the sight of all Israel." 2 Samuel 16:22

וַיַּטּוּ לְאַבְשָׁלוֹם הָאֹהֶל, עַל-הַגָּג; וַיָּבֹא אַבְשָׁלוֹם אֶל-פִּלַגְשֵׁי אָבִיו, לְעֵינֵי כָּל-יִשְׂרָאֵל

This from the same religions that speak so much about "family values" today. Are we supposed to believe that these "biblical" family values that the BEST of people in the Bible partake in include incestual orgies? If this is what the BEST people in the Bible are said to do, then no wonder Christians and Jews commit such Holocausts throughout the world and partake in so much evil!

Beyond that, the Bible doubly-damns Judah by accusing him of incest with his daughter-in-law, AND for partaking in prostitution.

"And it was told Tamar, saying: 'Behold, your father-in-law goes up to Timnah to shear his sheep.' And she put off from her the garments of her widowhood, and covered herself with her veil, and wrapped herself, and sat in the entrance of Enaim, which is by the way to Timnah; for she saw that Shelah was grown up, and she was not given unto him to wife. When Y'hudah saw her, he thought her to be a whore; for she had covered her face. And he turned unto her by the way, and said: 'Come, I ask you, let me come in unto you; for he knew not that she was his daughter-in-law. And she said: 'What will you give me, that you may come in unto me?'" Genesis 38:14-16

וַיֻּגַּד לְתָמָר, לֵאמֹר: הִנֵּה חָמִיךְ עֹלֶה תִמְנָתָה, לָגֹז צֹאנוֹ. וַתָּסַר בִּגְדֵי אַלְמְנוּתָהּ מֵעָלֶיהָ, וַתְּכַס בַּצָּעִיף וַתִּתְעַלָּף, וַתֵּשֶׁב בְּפֶתַח עֵינַיִם, אֲשֶׁר עַל-דֶּרֶךְ תִּמְנָתָה: כִּי רָאֲתָה, כִּי-גָדַל שֵׁלָה, וְהִוא, לֹא-נִתְּנָה לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה. וַיִּרְאֶהָ יְהוּדָה, וַיַּחְשְׁבֶהָ לְזוֹנָה: כִּי כִסְּתָה, פָּנֶיהָ. וַיֵּט אֵלֶיהָ אֶל-הַדֶּרֶךְ, וַיֹּאמֶר הָבָה-נָּא אָבוֹא אֵלַיִךְ, כִּי לֹא יָדַע, כִּי כַלָּתוֹ הִוא; וַתֹּאמֶר, מַה-תִּתֶּן-לִי, כִּי תָבוֹא, אֵלָי.

So you see, it wasn't Judah's fault that he had sex with his daughter-in-law; he only thought she was a prostitute! That makes it so much better doesn't it? i suppose it could be worse... he could have just raped her like the Bible claims David's son did to his own sister Tamar!

"Thus says YHWH: Behold, I will raise up evil against you out of your own house, and I will take your wives before your eyes, and give them unto your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun. For you did it secretly; but I will do this thing before all Yisrael, and before the sun.' " 2 Samuel 12:11-12

כֹּה אָמַר יְהוָה, הִנְנִי מֵקִים עָלֶיךָ רָעָה מִבֵּיתֶךָ, וְלָקַחְתִּי אֶת-נָשֶׁיךָ לְעֵינֶיךָ, וְנָתַתִּי לְרֵעֶיךָ; וְשָׁכַב עִם-נָשֶׁיךָ, לְעֵינֵי הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ הַזֹּאת. כִּי אַתָּה, עָשִׂיתָ בַסָּתֶר; וַאֲנִי, אֶעֱשֶׂה אֶת-הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה, נֶגֶד כָּל-יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְנֶגֶד הַשָּׁמֶשׁ.

You read it correctly, because David supposedly fornicated with Bath-Sheva the wife of Uriah (which Islam does not accuse him of), the Bible says that his neighbors will have a public orgy with his wives.

But are David's neighbors the ones to originate this sadistic, foul plot? No! According to the Bible this "evil" is the work of GOD Almighty. This is the type of foul stench that emanates from the corrupt Bible; from the "lying pens of the scribes."

Biblical Chattel Slavery

Islamically, slavery is only "okay" when one conquers an oppressive nation in war and then enslaves the survivors for that generation only. That is, the children of those slaves cannot be born into slavery and these slaves themselves can work towards purchasing their freedom (or others can purchase their freedom as expiation of certain sins). Nevertheless, slavery in Islam is still "makruh" (reprehensible), and is never encouraged, while freeing slaves IS "encouraged" or "mustahab."

Juxtaposed to this some verses in the BIBLE that say slavery is okay and even says the life of a slave is worthless apart from being someone's property:

"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property." Exodus 21:20-21

וְכִי-יַכֶּה אִישׁ אֶת-עַבְדּוֹ אוֹ אֶת-אֲמָתוֹ, בַּשֵּׁבֶט, וּמֵת, תַּחַת יָדוֹ--נָקֹם, יִנָּקֵם. אַךְ אִם-יוֹם אוֹ יוֹמַיִם, יַעֲמֹד--לֹא יֻקַּם, כִּי כַסְפּוֹ הוּא.

Just when you thought that one could not be deprived of any more rights then this, the Bible says of DAUGHTERS that you sell into slavery: "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment." Exodus 21:7-11

וְכִי-יִמְכֹּר אִישׁ אֶת-בִּתּוֹ, לְאָמָה--לֹא תֵצֵא, כְּצֵאת הָעֲבָדִים.  אִם-רָעָה בְּעֵינֵי אֲדֹנֶיהָ, אֲשֶׁר-לא (לוֹ) יְעָדָהּ--וְהֶפְדָּהּ:  לְעַם נָכְרִי לֹא-יִמְשֹׁל לְמָכְרָהּ, בְּבִגְדוֹ-בָהּ.  וְאִם-לִבְנוֹ, יִיעָדֶנָּה--כְּמִשְׁפַּט הַבָּנוֹת, יַעֲשֶׂה-לָּהּ.  אִם-אַחֶרֶת, יִקַּח-לוֹ--שְׁאֵרָהּ כְּסוּתָהּ וְעֹנָתָהּ, לֹא יִגְרָע. יא  וְאִם-שְׁלָשׁ-אֵלֶּה--לֹא יַעֲשֶׂה, לָהּ:  וְיָצְאָה חִנָּם, אֵין כָּסֶף.

Here we are told a few things. One is that an individual could sell their daughters into slavery (as people used to desire male heirs primarily). So while the pagan Arabs were burying their daughters, the Children of Israel were selling them into slavery where they must "please" the man who bought her in any and every way. He may also force her to marry his son, in which her ability to refuse such an arrangement is not mentioned at all, as we know such ability was commonplace when Muslims conquered nations and took slaves. Even the 12th Imam's mother is reported to have REJECTED many men who offered to buy her, until she was purchased as a slave and eventually the wife of the 11th Imam al-`Askari.

The Apostate Paul said: "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ." Ephesians 6:5

oi douloi, upakouete toiV kata sarka kurioiV meta fobou kai tromou en aplothti thV kardiaV umwn wV tw cristw

This was often quoted to the "chattel" slaves of the Southern Christian slave industry. Obey them "as Christ." "Fear" them. Have "deep respect" for them. This is what the Bible says. This is the filthy religion of Christianity that Paul invented.

"Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them." 1 Timothy 6:1-2

osoi eisin upo zugon douloi, touV idiouV despotaV pashV timhV axiouV hgeisqwsan, ina mh to onoma tou qeou kai h didaskalia blasfhmhtai. oi de pistouV econteV despotaV mh katafroneitwsan, oti adelfoi eisin: alla mallon douleuetwsan, oti pistoi eisin kai agaphtoi oi thV euergesiaV antilambanomenoi. tauta didaske kai parakalei.

That's right, do not "shame" God by being disrespectful to your "master." "Work all the harder" if you are a Christian slave. This was Christianity's message to the Africans they stole, they kidnapped for their 400 years of chattel slavery; generation after generation.

Who Provoked David?

Another example of Biblical contradiction is found where the Books of 1 Chronicles 21:1 and 2 Samuel 21:1 cannot decide whether it was God or the Devil who provoked David against Israel.

"And again the anger of YHWH was kindled against Yisrael, and He moved David against them to say, 'Go, number Yisrael and Y'hudah." Sh'mu'el Bet 24:1

וַיֹּסֶף, אַף-יְהוָה, לַחֲרוֹת, בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל; וַיָּסֶת אֶת-דָּוִד בָּהֶם לֵאמֹר, לֵךְ מְנֵה אֶת-יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאֶת-יְהוּדָה.

While the author of Samuel 24 above, makes God the boss of the situation, the author of Chronicles below gives credit to the Devil.

Yet in 1 Chronicles 21:1 we read that this was not the "anger of YHWH" but rather the Satan standing up against Israel

"And Satan stood up against Yisrael, and provoked David to number Yisrael." Divrei ha'Yomim Alef 21:1

וַיַּעֲמֹד שָׂטָן, עַל-יִשְׂרָאֵל; וַיָּסֶת, אֶת-דָּוִיד, לִמְנוֹת, אֶת-יִשְׂרָאֵל

Jacob fathered 12 sons. They are the ancestors of the tribes of Israel, and the ones for whom the tribes are named. Each occupied a separate territory (except the tribe of Levi, which was set apart to serve in the Holy Temple). The sons of Joseph, Ephraim and Menasseh, were also given the status of independent tribes.

After the death of Solomon, his son Rehoboam became king. When he would not reduce the high taxation burden and treat this subjects better, the northern 10 tribes revolted and split from the kingdom.

They set up their own nation of Israel, leaving only the two tribes Judah and Benjamin of the original nation loyal to the House of David. The Israelites then crowned in Shechem, Solomon's servant Yeroboam to be King over Israel. Yeroboam started Israel on the downward path of idolatry.

It is not without significance that the modern day Zionist Entity has chosen to call itself by this name of "Israel" instead of "Judah."

The author of Chronicles - whoever he was - was coming from a completely different perspective than the author of Samuel. For "Israel" and "Judah" were not synonyms, they were the names of two different and distinct kingdoms; one polytheistic and wicked, and the other monotheistic and righteous. Judah was composed of the "Jews" or "Y'hudim" as well as the Levi'im (Levites). To an extent, the Tribe of Benyamin was also Y'hudi, though they also would migrate to Asia Minor, and specifically to Afghanistan to become the ancestors of the modern tribe known as the Pashtuns. Israel or "Yisrael" was the northern "melting pot" of tribes who eventually would become "the lost tribes."

David was originally based in Hebron in southern Judah, but when all 13 tribes of Israel accepted his Kingship he needed a central location from which to govern. An ideal place was on the northern border of Judah, the city of Jebus, also called Jerusalem, but the Jebusites held the city (1 Chronicles 11:4).

By God's command, David, who was now thirty years old, went up to Hebron to claim the kingly power. The men of Judah accepted him as king, and he was again anointed, solemnly and publicly. Through the influence of Abner ben Ner, the cousin and commander-in-chief of Sha'ul's army, the rest of Israel remained faithful to Isboseth ben Sha'ul. These were those who later followed Yeroboam into idolatry and polytheism which the Tanakh would later admonish Israel for time and time again.

So when one version of these accounts, in 2 Samuel 21:1, says that it was God who provoked him to number Israel and Judah, and the account in 1 Chronicles 21:1 mentions Israel and says that it was instead Satan who provoked this, we must pay attention to history and realize that these accounts were not collected until much later; once the split between Judah and Israel had already occurred. Thus, to be provoked to number Israel was viewed as Satanic in provocation. Whilst the other version mentions both Judah and Israel and the same provocation is attributed to God. Again, this is not without significance.

Was Yehoiachin 8 or 18?

See below. Compare the two quotations. 2 Chronicles 36:9 tells us that Yehoiachin was "eight" years old when he began to reign, while 2 Kings 24:8 says that he was "eighteen" when he began to reign.

"Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Yerushalayim: and he did that which was evil in the sight of YHWH." Divrei ha'Yomim Bet 36:9

בֶּן-שְׁמוֹנֶה שָׁנִים, יְהוֹיָכִין בְּמָלְכוֹ, וּשְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים וַעֲשֶׂרֶת יָמִים, מָלַךְ בִּירוּשָׁלִָם; וַיַּעַשׂ הָרַע, בְּעֵינֵי יְהוָה.

"Yehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Yerushalayim three months. And his mothers name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Yerushalayim." Melekhim Bet 24:8

בֶּן-שְׁמֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה, יְהוֹיָכִין בְּמָלְכוֹ, וּשְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים, מָלַךְ בִּירוּשָׁלִָם; וְשֵׁם אִמּוֹ, נְחֻשְׁתָּא בַת-אֶלְנָתָן מִירוּשָׁלִָם

The "unknown" author of KINGS must have concluded that there was no possible "evil" could a child of eight do to deserve his abdication, so he generously added ten years to make Yehoiachin mature enough to become liable to the Wrath of God. However, he must have figured that he had to balance his tampering, so he cut short his reign by 10 days! Thus, he added TEN years to age and deduct TEN days from rule! Clearly these are the works of man, the works of men without knowledge, without certainty. These are the words of men speaking of what they have heard and then following conjecture to fit the pieces of history together. These are certainly not the worlds of the Almighty God.

Unknown Authors?

Possibly the most troubling issue related to Biblical corruptions and contradictions is that Christians and Jews assert that many of these books are the words of God and not of man, yet they cannot tell you the individuals who wrote down these words. That is, they claim these are the words of God, through His prophets, but they cannot tell you who these prophets are!

Of the books of Samuel, and the books of Chronicles, the Revisers of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) say of Samuel: Author "Unknown;" and of the books of Chronicles: Author "Unknown, probably collected and edited by Ezra."

While this is certainly honest of them to admit, this scholarly admission has not "trickled down" (to borrow a term from the Christian hero Ronald Reagan), to the common folk of Judaism and Christianity. All of these "possibly's," all of these "probably's" and all of these "likely's" may well be a warm comfort to the Billions who have bought the greatest story ever SOLD, but it is not a comfort to those who are TRULY seeking the Truth; following it WHEREVER it might lead them, even if this be away from the traditions of their forefathers, and the lies that they have fed to the generations in the West.

So who are these anonymous authors? Why make the prophets Ezra or Isaiah the scapegoats for these contradictions and conflicting statements?

A Fulfillment of Prophecy?

Matthew and Luke are over-zealous in making DAVID the King, the prime ancestor of Jesus, because of that false notion that Jesus was to sit on the "Throne of his father David" (Acts 2:30). The Gospels belie this prophecy, for they tell us that instead of Jesus sitting on his father's (David's) throne, it was Pontius Pilate, a Roman Governor, a pagan who sat on that very throne and condemned its rightful heir (Jesus) to death.

Christians will speak up and say that if this kingly rule were not accomplished in his first rule, then surely it will be in his second. However, the problem at hand is that no matter WHAT coming of Jesus this rule manifests at, if his lineage is as the Bible says, then in NO instance will he be "the Son of David."

For this is what Paul literally had his disciple Luke write in the book of Acts 2:30: "That of the the fruit of his (David's) loins, according to the flesh..." So we cannot be speaking of a metaphoric descent from David... that is, unless either the Gospels or Paul are wrong! Either way, this is proof that the Bible is corrupted, conflicting and erroneous.

Matthew 1:6 says that Jesus was the son of David through SOLOMON, but Luke 3:31 says that he (Jesus) was the son of David through NATHAN. The seed of David reach the mother of Jesus both through Solomon and Nathan at the same time!

Matthew	Luke
David	David
Solomon	Nathan
Rehoboam	Mattatha
Abijah	Menna
Asa	Melea
Jehoshaphat	Eliakim
Joram	Jonam
Uzziah	Joseph
Jotham	Judah
Ahaz	Simeon
Hezekiah	Levi
Manasseh	Matthat
Amon	Jorim
Josiah	Eliezer
Jeconiah	Joshua
Shealtiel	Er
Zerubbabel	Elmadam
Abiud	Cosam
Eliakim	Addi
Azor	Melki
Zadok	Neri
Akim	Shealtiel
Eliud	Zerubbabel
Eleazar	Rhesa
Matthan	Joanan
Jacob	Joda
Joseph	Josech
Jesus	Semein
	Mattathias
	Maath
	Naggai
	Esli
	Nahum
	Amos
	Mattathias
	Joseph
	Jannai
	Melki
	Levi
	Matthat
	Heli
	Joseph
	Jesus

Matthew and Luke also give contradictory genealogies for Zerubbabel. Matthew makes him a descendant of Solomon, David's son. Luke makes him a descendant of Nathan, also a son of David. Since Solomon and Nathan were brothers (I Chronicles 3:5) they cannot both be paternal ancestors of Zerubbabel.

In fact, both genealogies are pointless, since both Matthew and Luke then go on to claim that Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit, not by Joseph. Since Mary was of the tribe of Levi, it is therefore impossible for Christ to have been the "Son of David" as was required for the Kingly Messiah. This is of course why Jews do not follow Jesus, because they are primarily waiting for Mashiach ben David. While the Talmud (Tractate Sukkah folio 52 sides a and b in the Bavli Talmud) speaks of a Mashiach ben Yosef, this is not the kingly ruler of the Jews. According to the Bible, Jesus did not fulfill the Kingly prophecies of Mashiach Ben David. Christians will concede that this is to happen at his return. However, if this is the case will he suddenly become the progeny of David? All Christians should seriously contemplate these questions.

In doing so, Christians might claim that this is merely because Luke records the lineage of Mary, and Matthew that of Joseph. The problem is that both genealogies explicitly end with Joseph. As well, it might be pointed out that Matthew's genealogy is not complete - he skips generations.

While this is certainly true. Joram was actually the great-great-grandfather of of Azariah, and Josiah was actually the grandfather of Jechoniah. However, this still does not explain the divergent genealogies of Zerubbabel, and it means that Matthew's assertion that there are fourteen generations from the captivity to Jesus is wrong. (Matthew 1:17). In fact, in Matthew's list, there are only thirteen generations from the captivity to Jesus, not fourteen as he claimed.

Moreover, Christians might claim that one or both genealogies include maternal deviations. However, in reality Matthew mentions four females - Tamar, Rahab, Ruth and Beth-Sheba - but only together with their husbands in the paternal line.

Zechariah or Jeremiah?

As well Matthew incorrectly attributes a prophecy by Zechariah to Jeremiah! Matthew 27:9,10 makes reference to Jeremiah, but this reference actually appears in Zechariah 11:12,13.

"Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: 'They took the thirty silver coins, the price set on him by the people of Israel, and the used them to buy the potter's field, as the Lord commanded me.'" Matthew 27:9,10

tote eplhrwqh to rhqen dia ieremiou tou profhtou legontoV, kai elabon ta triakonta arguria, thn timhn tou tetimhmenou on etimhsanto apo uiwn israhl, kai edwkan auta eiV ton agron tou keramewV, kaqa sunetaxen moi kurioV.

"I told them, "If you think it best, give me my pay; but if not, keep it." So they paid me thirty pieces of silver. And YHWH said to me, "Throw it to the potter" - the handsome price at which they priced me! So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of YHWH to the potter" Z'khariyah (Zechariah) 11:12,13

וָאֹמַר אֲלֵיהֶם, אִם-טוֹב בְּעֵינֵיכֶם הָבוּ שְׂכָרִי--וְאִם-לֹא חֲדָלוּ; וַיִּשְׁקְלוּ אֶת-שְׂכָרִי, שְׁלֹשִׁים כָּסֶף. וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֵלַי, הַשְׁלִיכֵהוּ אֶל-הַיּוֹצֵר, אֶדֶר הַיְקָר, אֲשֶׁר יָקַרְתִּי מֵעֲלֵיהֶם; וָאֶקְחָה שְׁלֹשִׁים הַכֶּסֶף, וָאַשְׁלִיךְ אֹתוֹ בֵּית יְהוָה אֶל-הַיּוֹצֵר.

Some Christians might respond that Matthew does not misquote scripture, that the last chapters of Zechariah are NOT by Zechariah, but by Jeremiah.

That is UTTER NONSENSE! The different sections are believed to be FIRST by Zechariah, and the last several chapters to be LATER in the 300's to 250 C.E.! There is no reason to presume that Zechariah was inspired to write the entire book at the same time, or that the tone would be the same for both sections he was inspired to write. What we CAN be certain of is that Jeremiah did not live in EITHER time period of 520 to 518 B.C.E. when the first 8 to 11 chapters of Zechariah date, nor in 300 C.E. when SOME believe another author may have had his hand in making additions to the text.

Instead, Jeremiah's prophetic career ranged from between 626-586 B.C.E. The LATTER chapters of Zechariah are thought by all legitimate scholars who think they are from a source other than Zechariah to be LATER NOT EARLIER than Zechariah. That is, they are believed to be additions!

Christian scholars would have NO IDEA who wrote this book since it was written LONG before ANY of them had any interest in the Tanakh. Again, Jews have ALWAYS maintained that Zechariah wrote the ENTIRE book of Zechariah.

Matthew confused two Old Testament characters

"That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar." Matthew 23:35

opwV elqh ef umaV pan aima dikaion ekcunnomenon epi thV ghV apo tou aimatoV abel tou dikaiou ewV tou aimatoV zacariou uiou baraciou, on efoneusate metaxu tou naou kai tou qusiasthriou.

The incident that Jesus is alluding to is recorded in 2 Chronicles.

"And the Spirit of Elohim clothed Zechariah the son of Yehoiada the priest; and he stood above the people, and said unto them: 'Thus says Elohim: 'Why transgress you the Mitzvot (Commandments) of YHWH, that you cannot prosper? Because you have forsaken YHWH, He has also forsaken you.' And they conspired against him, and stoned him with stones at the commandment of the king in the court of the house of YHWH." Divrei ha'Yomim Bet (2 Chronicles) 24:20-21

וְרוּחַ אֱלֹהִים, לָבְשָׁה אֶת-זְכַרְיָה בֶּן-יְהוֹיָדָע הַכֹּהֵן, וַיַּעֲמֹד, מֵעַל לָעָם; וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם כֹּה אָמַר הָאֱלֹהִים, לָמָה אַתֶּם עֹבְרִים אֶת-מִצְו‍ֹת יְהוָה וְלֹא תַצְלִיחוּ--כִּי-עֲזַבְתֶּם אֶת-יְהוָה, וַיַּעֲזֹב אֶתְכֶם. וַיִּקְשְׁרוּ עָלָיו, וַיִּרְגְּמֻהוּ אֶבֶן בְּמִצְוַת הַמֶּלֶךְ, בַּחֲצַר, בֵּית יְהוָה.

However, the Old Testament records that this Zechariah was the son of Yehoidah, not Berechiah. Berechiah was actually the father of the prophet Zechariah, who lived several decades after the death of his namesake.

"In the eighth month, in the second year of Darius, came the word of YHWH unto Z'khariah the son of Berechiah, the son of Iddo Ha'Nevi (Iddo the Prophet), saying:" Z'khariyah (Zechariah) 1:1

בַּחֹדֶשׁ, הַשְּׁמִינִי, בִּשְׁנַת שְׁתַּיִם, לְדָרְיָוֶשׁ--הָיָה דְבַר-יְהוָה, אֶל-זְכַרְיָה בֶּן-בֶּרֶכְיָה, בֶּן-עִדּוֹ הַנָּבִיא, לֵאמֹר.

When Luke quotes this event, Jesus does not give the name of the father of Zechariah.

"From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation." Luke 11:51

apo aimatoV abel ewV aimatoV zacariou tou apolomenou metaxu tou qusiasthriou kai tou oikou: nai, legw umin, ekzhthqhsetai apo thV geneaV tauthV.

So whose words are the Bible: God's or the words of men who cannot even correctly read the Tanakh?

Matthew misunderstood an Old Testament prophecy

In Matthew 21, Jesus is said to have told his disciples to steal... or as the Bible says "find" an ass and a colt, to fulfill and Old Testament prophecy.

"Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me. And if any man say ought unto you, you shall say, The Lord has need of them; and straightway he will send them. All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, Tell you the daughter of Sion, Behold, your King comes unto you, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass. And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them, And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon." Matthew 21:2-7

legwn autoiV, poreuesqe eiV thn kwmhn thn katenanti umwn, kai euqewV eurhsete onon dedemenhn kai pwlon met authV: lusanteV agagete moi. kai ean tiV umin eiph ti, ereite oti o kurioV autwn creian ecei: euquV de apostelei autouV. touto de gegonen ina plhrwqh to rhqen dia tou profhtou legontoV, eipate th qugatri siwn, idou o basileuV sou ercetai soi, prauV kai epibebhkwV epi onon, kai epi pwlon uion upozugiou. poreuqenteV de oi maqhtai kai poihsanteV kaqwV sunetaxen autoiV o ihsouV hgagon thn onon kai ton pwlon, kai epeqhkan ep autwn ta imatia, kai epekaqisen epanw autwn.

In reality, the prophecy that Matthew quoted only refers to one animal. As it is written:

"Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion, shout, O daughter of Jerusalem; behold, your king cometh unto thee, he is triumphant, and victorious, lowly, and riding upon an ass, even upon a colt the foal of an ass." Z'khariyah (Zechariah) 9:9

גִּילִי מְאֹד בַּת-צִיּוֹן, הָרִיעִי בַּת יְרוּשָׁלִַם, הִנֵּה מַלְכֵּךְ יָבוֹא לָךְ, צַדִּיק וְנוֹשָׁע הוּא; עָנִי וְרֹכֵב עַל-חֲמוֹר, וְעַל-עַיִר בֶּן-אֲתֹנוֹת.

Not even addressing the fact that the Bible says Jesus told them to steal someone's animal, (in actuality, they would be made to allow them to take the animal if they tried to stop the disciples from "finding" it), Matthew misunderstood the meaning of the passage, and has Jesus riding on two animals. The other gospel writers only mention one animal.

"And said unto them, 'Go your way into the village over against you: and as soon as you enter into it, you shall find a colt tied, whereon never man sat; loose him, and bring him.' And they brought the colt to Jesus, and cast their garments on him; and he sat upon him." Mark 11:2,7

epoihsan oun autw deipnon ekei, kai h marqa dihkonei, o de lazaroV eiV hn ek twn anakeimenwn sun autw. eipen oun o ihsouV, afeV authn, ina eiV thn hmeran tou entafiasmou mou thrhsh auto:

"Saying, Go into the village over against you; in the which at your entering ye shall find a colt tied, whereon yet never man sat: loose him, and bring him hither. And they brought him to Jesus: and they cast their garments upon the colt, and they set Jesus thereon." Luke 19:30, 35

legwn, upagete eiV thn katenanti kwmhn, en h eisporeuomenoi eurhsete pwlon dedemenon, ef on oudeiV pwpote anqrwpwn ekaqisen, kai lusanteV auton agagete. kai hgagon auton proV ton ihsoun, kai epiriyanteV autwn ta imatia epi ton pwlon epebibasan ton ihsoun.

"And Jesus, when he had found a young ass, sat thereon; as it is written, 'Fear not, daughter of Zion: behold, your King comes, sitting on an ass's colt.'" John 12:14,15

eurwn de o ihsouV onarion ekaqisen ep auto, kaqwV estin gegrammenon, mh fobou, qugathr siwn: idou o basileuV sou ercetai, kaqhmenoV epi pwlon onou.

Were these truthfully the words of Jesus, then it would be clear that he was FORCING prophecies to fit himself. Nowadays we call such things "Self Fulfilling Prophecy." For instance, if someone said "I will be arrested tomorrow evening" and then they went out and shot someone in a supermarket and waited until the police arrived, it would not be a matter of "prophetic fulfillment" but rather of "self-fulfilling prophecy." If the prophecies were to fit to Jesus, then they were to do so naturally, without having to go tell his disciples to "find" such an animal... or animals in the case of Matthew, "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet."

Misapplication of Isaiah's "Virgin" Prophecy

"Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us." Matthew 1:23

idou h parqenoV en gastri exei kai texetai uion, kai kalesousin to onoma autou emmanouhl, o estin meqermhneuomenon meq hmwn o qeoV.

Firstly, the Tanakhi passage that Matthew referred to (Isaiah 7:14) does not contain the word "virgin." It uses the Hebrew word "almah" (עַלְמָה) which simply denotes a young female, and does not connote sexual purity.

"Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

לָכֵן יִתֵּן אֲדֹנָי הוּא, לָכֶם--אוֹת:  הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה, הָרָה וְיֹלֶדֶת בֵּן, וְקָרָאת שְׁמוֹ, עִמָּנוּ אֵל.

The hebrew word for "virgin" was "betulah" (בְּתוּלָה) which is used by Isaiah in 62:5.

"For as a young man espouses a virgin, so shall your sons espouse you; and as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride, so shall your God rejoice over you."

כִּי-יִבְעַל בָּחוּר בְּתוּלָה, יִבְעָלוּךְ בָּנָיִךְ; וּמְשׂוֹשׂ חָתָן עַל-כַּלָּה, יָשִׂישׂ עָלַיִךְ אֱלֹהָיִךְ.

Matthew followed the lead of the Greek Septuagint in mistranslating "almah."

Secondly, this prophecy has immediate application in it's own context. Isaiah used the sign of a young, pregnant woman, whom both he and King Ahaz knew. He prophesied that before the child reached the age of accountability (7:16) both Syria and Israel would be conquered.

"Yea, before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land whose two kings thou hast a horror of shall be forsaken."

כִּי בְּטֶרֶם יֵדַע הַנַּעַר, מָאֹס בָּרָע--וּבָחֹר בַּטּוֹב:  תֵּעָזֵב הָאֲדָמָה אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה קָץ, מִפְּנֵי שְׁנֵי מְלָכֶיהָ.

There is no indication in the text that this prophecy would have a future fulfillment. Lastly, Jesus was never called 'Immanuel' by his parents or anyone else.

Famous Last Words?

Firstly in Tehillim (Psalms) we read: "Eli, Eli, lamah azavtani" (ֵלִי אֵלִי, לָמָה עֲזַבְתָּנִי) which literally means: "My Eloah, My Eloah, for what reason have i been abandoned?"

"My God, my God, why have You forsaken me, and are far from my help at the words of my cry?" Tehillim (Psalms) 22:2

אֵלִי אֵלִי, לָמָה עֲזַבְתָּנִי; רָחוֹק מִישׁוּעָתִי, דִּבְרֵי שַׁאֲגָתִי.

We are told by Christianity that Jesus spoke ARAMAIC on the cross, supposedly quoting this half of a verse in Tehillim. However, were that the case he would have said: "Alahi, Alahi, al-mah (lamna) zavachtani (NOT shabaktani)" if he were speaking purely Aramaic. The fact is that if he were actually quoting the Tehillim - which the gospel narrators say he indeed was throughout the entire crucifixion process, as this is only one single example - then it would seem that he would at least quote a correct translation in the vernacular, if not speak the Tanakh in its original Hebrew altogether, as such was the custom for reciting, or reading from Scriptures.

However, all of this is despite the fact that different so-called "gospel" authors have recorded his words differently. In Matthew you have: "Eli, Eli, lama shabaktani."

Matthew 27:46 "Eli, Eli lama..." (but not sabachtani/shabaktani) is Hebrew for "My god, my god, why/for what reason..."

However, Mark 15:34 "Eloi, Eloi lama..." surprisingly adding an extra vav to each instance of Eli. The Aramaic for "God" is Alah in ancient texts like Sefer Daniyel and "Alaha" in more recent renditions of the Peshita for example. So the Aramaic for "my god" would be as in Hebrew, "Ali" (dropping the Heh since it is a male noun) OR "Alahi" (retaining the Heh).

What happened is obvious: the first person possessive suffix to Eloah rather than El would have been "Elohai" but the Greek transliteration reads "eloi." It is a clear mistake. The narrator accidentally dropped the Heh and added the possessive suffix Yud but in some cases the vav and heh were dropped whereas in others just the heh was dropped. In the original Hebrew it was only Eli... But versions that have this in the so-called "New Testament" of course then employ ARAMAIC in the latter half of this passage.

This verse is not supposed to be Aramaic. This is clear because the Aramaic for why is "al-mah" (this being two separate words, meaning literally "upon what"). It appears in Daniel 2:15 in Aramaic. The Hebrew is "lamah" (lit: for what).

"he answered and said to Arioch the king's captain: 'Wherefore (עַל-מָה) is the decree so peremptory from the king?' Then Arioch made the thing known to Daniel."

עָנֵה וְאָמַר, לְאַרְיוֹךְ שַׁלִּיטָא דִי-מַלְכָּא, עַל-מָה דָתָא מְהַחְצְפָה, מִן-קֳדָם מַלְכָּא; אֱדַיִן מִלְּתָא, הוֹדַע אַרְיוֹךְ לְדָנִיֵּאל

Now, that brings us to "sabachtani." There are multiple problems with this word: The author could have been trying to say "zavachtani" which is from the root for "sacrificed." What he wants to convey is "Why have you sacrificed me?" This was clearly because Christians were trying to imply that "Jesus" was the "atoning sacrifice" for the sins of the world. Unfortunately for them, the Prophet David, the author of the Tehillim did not feel that this was the terminology that God inspired him to write.

The Hebrew root AZV means to leave, forsake, abandon, or be left behind. This is the root used in the Tehillim: "Eli Eli Lama Azavtani."

"My God my God why have i been left behind/forsaken/abandoned?" The word "sabachtani" means nothing in Hebrew. In fact, the "Messianic Hebrew New Testament" has to translate "Eli Eli lama sabachtani" (supposedly a Hebrew verse) into Hebrew. It says: "'Eli, Eli lama shabaqtani' which means 'Eli, Eli lama azavtani.'"

Which brings us to the ARAMAIC root ShBQ. This root means "to abandon, forsake or be left behind." It is possible that this is the intended root, but then one has to explain why half of the verse is in Hebrew while half is in Aramaic? The fact remains that this is not some new fangled, innovative opinion on the matter. Jews fluent in Hebrew (many speaking it as a first language), have been pointing this out for thousands of years.

Peshitta Aramaic text of Psalms 22:1 has: "Alahi, Alahi, Lamna Shabaktani" as the REAL Aramaic reading of this verse that the Christians were so desperately trying to contort and distort to conform to their propaganda mission.

One would also have to admit that this is not a direct quote from Tehillim 22:1 which Christians have gone out of their way to portray as the "crucifixion Psalm." Matthew 27:46 is quoted in the Aramaic Peshitta as saying:

"Yeshua with a loud voice said 'My God, My God, why have you SPARED me!"

ܐܝܠ ܐܝܠ ܠܡܢܐ ܫܒܩܬܢܝ

http://www.peshitta.org/pdf/Mattich27.pdf

According the Aramaic, Jesus is not quoting the Tehillim, but rather saying that he was NOT killed at all! Incidentally, Luke and John do not mention any of these confused variations at all...

When Was the Holy Spirit Given?

"But I tell you the truth, It is better for you that I should go away; for if I do not away, the Comforter will not come to you; but if I should go, I will send him to you. And when he comes, he will rebuke the world concerning sin, concerning righteousness, and concerning Judgment. Concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; Concerning righteousness, because I go to my Father, and you will not see me again; Concerning judgment, because the leader of this world has been judged. Again, I have many other things to tell you, but you cannot grasp them now. But when the Spirit of Truth has come, he will guide you into all the Truth: for he will not speak from himself, but what he hears, that he will speak: and he will make known to you things which are to come in the future. He will glorify me; because he will take of my own and show to you. Everything that my Father has is mine; this is the reason why I told you that he will take of my own and show to you." John 16:7-13

all egw thn alhqeian legw umin, sumferei umin ina egw apelqw. ean gar mh apelqw, o paraklhtoV ouk eleusetai proV umaV: ean de poreuqw, pemyw auton proV umaV. kai elqwn ekeinoV elegxei ton kosmon peri amartiaV kai peri dikaiosunhV kai peri krisewV: peri amartiaV men, oti ou pisteuousin eiV eme: peri dikaiosunhV de, oti proV ton patera upagw kai ouketi qewreite me: peri de krisewV, oti o arcwn tou kosmou toutou kekritai. eti polla ecw umin legein, all ou dunasqe bastazein arti:

It has long since become commonplace in Christianity, to imagine that this "Comforter," which many Christians refer to in the un-original Greek as the "Paraclete," was "the Holy Spirit." This is simply unacceptable, since the Bible itself speaks of the Holy Spirit on numerous occasion prior to this prophecy. But this is the conclusion that the rejecters of Muhammad must make lest they be confronted with the horrifying reality that they have no clue as to who or what their purported "God-man" was talking about.

Contrary to what Christianity propagandizes, we know this "Comforter" is NOT the "Holy Spirit" which the Gospels tell us was already present BEFORE this statement was made.

Luke 1:41 says: "And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit."

kai egeneto wV hkousen ton aspasmon thV mariaV h elisabet, eskirthsen to brefoV en th koilia authV, kai eplhsqh pneumatoV agiou h elisabet,

Verse 1:67 follows that "And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying..."

kai zacariaV o pathr autou eplhsqh pneumatoV agiou kai eprofhteusen legwn,

Chapter 2:25 says: "And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Spirit was upon him."

kai idou anqrwpoV hn en ierousalhm w onoma sumewn, kai o anqrwpoV outoV dikaioV kai eulabhV, prosdecomenoV paraklhsin tou israhl, kai pneuma hn agion ep auton:

Of course this is in stark contradiction to the claims in the Gospel falsely attributed to John, which says in chapter 7:39 that: "(But this spoke he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)"

touto de eipen peri tou pneumatoV o emellon lambanein oi pisteusanteV eiV auton: oupw gar hn pneuma, oti ihsouV oudepw edoxasqh.

The only intelligible reason why Luke would say the Holy Spirit HAD long since come and the pseudepigrapha of John would say it had NOT, is because the pseudepigraphal account of John spoke of the coming "Comforter" yet the author had no idea who this "Comforter" was. Accordingly, in his ignorance, he presumed this was the "Holy Spirit" of "Pentacost."

This demonstrates that the author was completely ignorant that Jews had believe the "Holy Spirit" of "Ruach Ha'Qodesh" was involved even in the Creation of the Heavens and Earth; and that Luke recorded that the Holy Spirit existed long before Pentecost (as was the traditional belief).

Who Raised Christ?

The Bible says that Jesus was PASSIVELY raised. That means the following quote from John 2:19 is false: "Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."

apekriqh ihsouV kai eipen autoiV, lusate ton naon touton kai en trisin hmeraiV egerw auton.

This is proven false by the fact that Jesus was NOT in fact raised three days later. He was not taken off the cross until Shabbat evening, and he was gone by day break on Sunday morning. That is one and a half days. That is half of this "three day" promise.

Moreover, the passive voice was expressed that shows Jesus DID NOT in fact raise himself, but was raised by some one or SOMEONES!

So this alleged claim of Jesus contradicts both later claims of the Gospels that he was the passive participant in his being revived, and that this did not take three days at all. In fact there was only ONE period of daylight - that of Shabbat itself - wherein he was in the Tomb.

This is not even to mention the fact that this statement was made in comparison to the Temple itself, which Jesus ALSO said would be cast down soon, with NO stone left standing on another.

"And as he came out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him, 'Look, Teacher, what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!' And Jesus said to him, 'Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone upon another, that will not be thrown down.'" Mark 13:1-2

kai ekporeuomenou autou ek tou ierou legei autw eiV twn maqhtwn autou, didaskale, ide potapoi liqoi kai potapai oikodomai. kai o ihsouV eipen autw, blepeiV tautaV taV megalaV oikodomaV; ou mh afeqh wde liqoV epi liqon oV ou mh kataluqh.

However, we know that the entire retaining wall, the "Wailing Wall" stands complete and high, and is a center of pilgrimage and prayer, even the original Qibla of Muslims before `Arabian Jews sided with the Pagan Meccans (thus necessitating a further ideological differentiating between Muslims and Jews).

So did Jesus even say these words? If he did he prophesied falsely. It is no wonder that Jews generally reject the "Jesus" of Christian mythology.

Beyond this, Paul asserts: "But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwells in you." Romans 8:11

This passage is PAUL's claim that "the Spirit" of God raised Jesus "from the dead." i have already forensically proven that Jesus never died. Thus, this is a baseless claim and Paul has no explanation as to how he has any idea "what" or "whom" raised Jesus.

Once again Galatians 1:1 is BY PAUL, who says: "Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)"

These are self-contradictory statements. For in Romans 8:11 Paul claims that "the Spirit" raised Jesus "from the dead" and in Galatians 1:1 Paul the Imposter Apostle claims that "God the Father" raised Jesus from the dead.

Did the men with Paul hear the voice that Paul claimed was Jesus?

In Acts 9:7 we read the narrative: "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man."

oi de andreV oi sunodeuonteV autw eisthkeisan eneoi, akouonteV men thV fwnhV mhdena de qewrounteV.

Yet in that same book, Chapter 22:9 we read from Paul's account of things: "And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spoke to me."

oi de sun emoi onteV to men fwV eqeasanto thn de fwnhn ouk hkousan tou lalountoV moi.

Which is it? Either way, the passages affirm that NO ONE saw Jesus talking to Paul. Paul is the ONLY one who claims this was Jesus. He has no witness to these events. Luke claims that Paul has witnesses to what was said, but Paul admits that this is not true; that his companions neither saw a person nor hear a word spoken, but instead saw only a light.

Either way, this is yet ANOTHER Biblical contradiction, and appears to be either Luke covering for Paul or Luke having been LIED to by Paul. How are we supposed to take serious the apostasy of "Christianity" that Paul taught when he and his disciple/biographer cannot even get their facts straight?

Long Hair On Men

Is it permissible for men to have long hair? Paul apparently disagrees with the Tanakhi consensus on this matter. According to the Tanakh, long hair on men is encouraged and is part of the outward signs of the most holy oath of Nizro.

Numbers 6:5 tells us "All the days of his Neder Nizro (vow of Naziritism) there shall no razor come upon his head; until the days be fulfilled, in which he consecrates himself unto YHWH, he shall be holy, he shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow long."

כָּל-יְמֵי נֶדֶר נִזְרוֹ, תַּעַר לֹא-יַעֲבֹר עַל-רֹאשׁוֹ:  עַד-מְלֹאת הַיָּמִם אֲשֶׁר-יַזִּיר לַיהוָה, קָדֹשׁ יִהְיֶה--גַּדֵּל פֶּרַע, שְׂעַר רֹאשׁוֹ.

Later in the Book of Judges chapter 13:5 we are told of the birth and neder (vow) of great suicide martyr Shimshon (ra): "For, lo, you shall conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come upon his head; for the child shall be a Nazir unto Elohim from the womb; and he shall begin to save Yisrael out of the hand of the P'lishtim."

כִּי הִנָּךְ הָרָה וְיֹלַדְתְּ בֵּן, וּמוֹרָה לֹא-יַעֲלֶה עַל-רֹאשׁוֹ--כִּי-נְזִיר אֱלֹהִים יִהְיֶה הַנַּעַר, מִן-הַבָּטֶן; וְהוּא, יָחֵל לְהוֹשִׁיעַ אֶת-יִשְׂרָאֵל--מִיַּד פְּלִשְׁתִּים.

1 Samuel 1:11 says of Sh'mu'el: "And she vowed a vow, and said: 'YHWH Tzabaoth, if You will indeed look on the affliction of Your handmaid, and remember me, and not forget Your handmaid, but will give unto Your handmaid a man-child, then I will give him unto YHWH all the days of his life, and there shall no razor come upon his head.'"

וַתִּדֹּר נֶדֶר וַתֹּאמַר, יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת אִם-רָאֹה תִרְאֶה בָּעֳנִי אֲמָתֶךָ וּזְכַרְתַּנִי וְלֹא-תִשְׁכַּח אֶת-אֲמָתֶךָ, וְנָתַתָּה לַאֲמָתְךָ, זֶרַע אֲנָשִׁים--וּנְתַתִּיו לַיהוָה כָּל-יְמֵי חַיָּיו, וּמוֹרָה לֹא-יַעֲלֶה עַל-רֹאשׁוֹ.

However, Paul says quite the opposite. Long hair on men is shameful in the so-called "New Testament" of this Imposter, this Apostate, this SELF-PROCLAIMED "Apostle."

1 Corinthians 11:14 "Does not even nature herself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?"

oude h fusiV auth didaskei umaV oti anhr men ean koma atimia autw estin, 

How does "Nature" teach us that? Does a male lion not have a long mane? The lion is the symbol of Kingship in Jewish tradition. The locks of a man are his Glory and a symbol of the length of his vow of Naziritism (which he argued against repeatedly). Paul was against the Biblical Nazirite oath, and thus he was against long hair on men.

Who should we believe, various accounts in the Tanakh or Paul's personal opinion? Either way, SOMEONE in the Bible is wrong. If long hair is encouraged in the N'zirim, then Paul is a liar. Clearly, this individual's "epistles" are rife with contradictions and inconsistencies.

Historical Forgeries

In addition to many errors and revisions in the Bible, we find that many of the names of the books themselves do NOT reflect the actual authors. The "Gospel According to John" is not the work of the disciple John. As well, the very opening of this book is word for word plagiarism from the polytheistic "Rig Veda" of the Hindus.

This reality is an unfortunate blow for Christians who wish to claim that Jesus' beloved disciple  called him "god incarnate" in these opening plagiarized verses. As well, they try to claim that the Books of "Peter" were in fact the work of the disciple Peter. This is simply not the case.

There is no question that Peter did not write the Books attributed to him. The writing style in the so-called Books of Peter are IDENTICAL to the writing style of Paul. This should not surprise us since these psuedepigraphical accounts praise Paul unceasingly.

Many mainstream Christian scholars think 1 Peter is pseudepigraphic, since "Babylon" (5:13) is not used until after 70 C.E., and since the Greek is much too refined for a simple Galilean fisherman, who would not have spoken Greek as a first language.

Moreover, Silvanus is admittedly the scribe of 1 Peter (5:12). This could well mean that he is the author himself. Silvanus was a missionary associate of Paul, whom he tried to infiltrate the Jerusalem community with. Silvanus is the same person named "Silas" in Acts is always called "Silvanus" in Paul's letters exclusively; thus indicating the PAUL and not Peter is the origin of these Pseudepigraphic books of "Peter." Beyond that, Mark is called "my son" in 1 Peter 5:13, yet he had no such connection with Peter, as he did with PAUL, as one of Paul's disciples.

One or None?

One thing can be understood as a matter of fact. Jesus Christ NEVER spoke of a "Trinity." He never taught a "Tri-Une" God, of which he was one personage. However, while Christians cannot point to the words of Jesus Christ, they often claim erroneously that such a teaching can be found in the words of the "Beloved" disciple John. This could not be further from the Truth.

The only verses in the whole Bible that explicitly ties God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit in one "Triune" being is the verse of 1 John 5:7

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

oti treiV eisin oi marturounteV, to pneuma kai to udwr kai to aima, kai oi treiV eiV to en eisin.

This verse is now universally recognized as being a later "insertion" of the Church and all recent versions of the Bible, such as the Revised Standard Version the New Revised Standard Version, the New American Standard Bible, the New English Bible, the Phillips Modern English Bible, and so on, have all unceremoniously expunged this verse from their pages. Why would this be? The Biblical translator Benjamin Wilson gives the following explanation for this action in his "Emphatic Diaglott." Mr. Wilson says:

"This text concerning the heavenly witness is not contained in any Greek manuscript which was written earlier than the fifteenth century. It is not cited by any of the ecclesiastical writers; not by any of early Latin fathers even when the subjects upon which they treated would naturally have lead them to appeal to it's authority. It is therefore evidently spurious."

Others, such as the late Dr. Herbert W. Armstrong argued that this verse was added to the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible during the heat of the controversy between Rome, Arius, and "God's people." Whatever the reason, this verse is now universally recognized as an insertion and discarded. Since the Bible contains no verses validating a "Trinity" - certainly not from the mouth of Jesus Christ, and now confirmed also not from the mouth of his disciples - perhaps Christians will claim that those forgers and falsifiers were "inspired" to put these additions in the Biblical scripts? People continued to put words in the mouths of Jesus, his disciples, and even God himself with no reservations whatsoever.

Considered a great luminary of Western literature, Mr. Edward Gibbon, explains the reason for the discarding of this verse from the pages of the Bible with the following words:

"Of all the manuscripts now extant, above fourscore in number, some of which are more than 1200 years old, the orthodox copies of the Vatican, of the Complutensian editors, of Robert Stephens are becoming invisible; and the two manuscripts of Dublin and Berlin are unworthy to form an exception...In the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the Bibles were corrected by LanFrank, Archbishop of Canterbury, and by Nicholas, a cardinal and librarian of the Roman church, secundum Ortodoxam fidem. Notwithstanding these corrections, the passage is still wanting in twenty-five Latin manuscripts, the oldest and fairest; two qualities seldom united, except in manuscripts....The three witnesses have been established in our Greek Testaments by the prudence of Erasmus; the honest bigotry of the Complutensian editors; the typographical fraud, or error, of Robert Stephens in the placing of a crotchet and the deliberate falsehood, or strange misapprehension, of Theodore Beza."

"Decline and fall of the Roman Empire," IV, Gibbon, p. 418.

Edward Gibbon was defended in his findings by his contemporary, the brilliant British scholar Richard Porson who also proceeded to publish devastatingly conclusive proof that the verse of 1 John 5:7 was only first inserted by the Church into the Bible in the year 400 C.E. (Secrets of Mount Sinai, James Bentley, pp. 30-33). Regarding Porson's most devastating proof, Mr. Gibbon later said

"His structures are founded in argument, enriched with learning, and enlivened with wit, and his adversary neither deserves nor finds any quarter at his hands. The evidence of the three heavenly witnesses would now be rejected in any court of justice; but prejudice is blind, authority is deaf, and our vulgar Bibles will ever be polluted by this spurious text."

To which Mr. Bentley responds:

"In fact, they are not. No modern Bible now contains the interpolation."

Mr. Bentley, however, is mistaken. Indeed, just as Mr. Gibbon had predicted, the simple fact that the most learned scholars of Christianity now unanimously recognize this verse to be a later interpolation of the Church has not prevented the preservation of this fabricated text in our modern Bibles. To this day, the Bible in the hands of the majority of Christians, the "King James" Bible, still includes this verse as the "inspired" word of God without so much as a footnote to inform the reader that all scholars of Christianity of note unanimously recognize it as a later fabrication.

Peake's Commentary on the Bible says: "The famous interpolation after 'three witnesses' is not printed even in RSVn, and rightly. It cites the heavenly testimony of the Father, the logos, and the Holy Spirit, but is never used in the early Trinitarian controversies. No respectable Greek MS contains it. Appearing first in a late 4th-cent. Latin text, it entered the Vulgate and finally the NT of Erasmus."

It was only the horrors of the great inquisitions which held back Sir Isaac Newton from openly revealing these facts to all: "In all the vehement universal and lasting controversy about the Trinity in Jerome's time and both before and long enough after it, the text of the 'three in heaven' was never once thought of. It is now in everybody's mouth and accounted the main text for the business and would assuredly have been so too with them, had it been in their books… Let them make good sense of it who are able. For my part I can make none. If it be said that we are not to determine what is scripture and what not by our private judgments, I confess it in places not controverted, but in disputed places I love to take up with what I can best understand. It is the temper of the hot and superstitious part of mankind in matters of religion ever to be fond of mysteries, and for that reason to like best what they understand least. Such men may use the Apostle John as they please, but I have that honor for him as to believe that he wrote good sense and therefore take that to be his which is the best"

Jesus, Prophet of Islam, Muhammad Ata' Ur-Rahim, p. 156

According to Newton, this verse first appeared in the third edition of Erasmus's (1466-1536) New Testament.

For all of the above reasons, we find that when "thirty two biblical scholars backed by fifty cooperating Christian denominations" got together to compile the Revised Standard Version of the Bible based upon the most ancient Biblical manuscripts available to them today, they made some very extensive changes. Among these changes was the unceremonious discarding of the verse of 1 John 5:7 as the fabricated insertion that it is.

Ishmael: Child of Promise and Sacrifice

There is perhaps no scriptural revision greater (at least in its implications), than the notion of the Judeo-Christian belief that it was Abraham's son Isaac who was offered as a potential sacrifice to God, rather than Ishmael. Seeming almost incomprehensible to Jews and Christians alike, the Qur'an says without hesitation or doubt, that it was in fact not Isaac, but Ishmael, the first born of Abraham who was the child of sacrifice. But where does such a concept arise? Is it merely Muhammad's wishful thinking?

There are clear proofs within the Bible itself that Ishmael was the first Promised Child of Abraham's progeny, and the Child who Abraham was given a vision to sacrifice. Though there are clearly Tanakhi passages that contradict this Truth, pure reason proves the issue, based on the timeline and a few key verses that escaped alteration. This issue is of substantial importance due to the consequences of the misinterpretations, mistranslation and often racialistic lies and bigotry that the "lying pens of the Scribes" changed the Torah to say, according to Jeremiah.

 

Jeremiah spoke the Word of God saying: "If you really change your ways and your actions and deal with each other justly, if you do not oppress the foreigner, the fatherless or the widow and do not shed innocent blood in this place, and if you do not follow other elohim to your own harm,  then I will let you live in this place, in the land I gave your forefathers for ever and ever." - Yirmeyahu 7:5-7

 

כִּי אִם הֵיטֵיב תֵּיטִיבוּ, אֶת דַּרְכֵיכֶם וְאֶת מַעַלְלֵיכֶם:  אִם עָשׂוֹ תַעֲשׂוּ מִשְׁפָּט, בֵּין אִישׁ וּבֵין רֵעֵהוּ.  גֵּר יָתוֹם וְאַלְמָנָה, לֹא תַעֲשֹׁקוּ, וְדָם נָקִי, אַל תִּשְׁפְּכוּ בַּמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה; וְאַחֲרֵי אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים לֹא תֵלְכוּ, לְרַע לָכֶם.

 

God is Witness against them that Jews collectively have not fulfilled this admonition to "not oppress the foreigner, the fatherless or the widow and not to shed innocent blood." God is Witness that they have broken the covenant and usurped control of the Holy Land by global propagandizing, terrorism and civilian bombing, violation of U.N. Resolutions, forced expulsion of fellow children of Abraham from the Holy Land and attempting an ongoing genocide of the indigenous population of Palestine.

 

"I will thrust you from my presence, just as I did all your brothers, the people of Ephraim. So do not pray for this people nor offer any plea or petition for them; do not plead with me, for I will not listen to you. " - Yirmeyahu 7:15,16

 

וְהִשְׁלַכְתִּי אֶתְכֶם, מֵעַל פָּנָי, כַּאֲשֶׁר הִשְׁלַכְתִּי אֶת כָּל אֲחֵיכֶם, אֵת כָּל זֶרַע אֶפְרָיִם.  וְאַתָּה אַל תִּתְפַּלֵּל בְּעַד הָעָם הַזֶּה, וְאַל תִּשָּׂא בַעֲדָם רִנָּה וּתְפִלָּה--וְאַל תִּפְגַּע בִּי:  כִּי אֵינֶנִּי שֹׁמֵעַ, אֹתָךְ.

 

Yet this is not an analysis of the Tanakh's prophecies against "Israel" nor is it a study of the many references in the Tanakh that claim both that the Holy Land will not be given to Jewish control and that "the scepter" of Judah will be passed to another. That study is taken up elsewhere, including in "Inheritors of the Land: Debunking the Myth that Eretz Yisrael belongs to modern day Jews." Rather, this is an explanation of how the corruption of the Torah regarding the B'rakah (Blessing) passed through Abraham to his first born son Ishmael has been used for the purpose of fostering a racialist ideology of Jewish-superiority over the B'nei Yishma'el and over all so-called "Goyim." As well, this is to show how the atheistic apostasy of political Zionism has used these racialistic bastardizations of the Torah revealed by YHWH to Moshe in order to subjugate the indigenous Semitic `Arab population of the land that modern day Jews covet; yet no longer have any spiritual, or ethnic claim to.

The Only Begotten Son

The Bible records that Ishmael the Eldest Son was born when Abraham was 86 years old.
 
"Abram was eighty-six years old, when Hagar bore Yishma'el to Abram." - Sefer Ha'Berashit (Genesis) 16:16

 

וְאַבְרָם, בֶּן שְׁמֹנִים שָׁנָה וְשֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים, בְּלֶדֶת הָגָר אֶת יִשְׁמָעֵאל, לְאַבְרָם.

 

Fourteen years later Isaac was born.
 
"Abraham was one hundred years old when his son, Yitzchaq, was born to him." - Sefer Ha'Berashit (Genesis) 21:5

 

וְאַבְרָהָם, בֶּן מְאַת שָׁנָה, בְּהִוָּלֶד לוֹ, אֵת יִצְחָק בְּנוֹ. 

 

The Tanakh repeatedly records that the Command from God to Abraham was to Sacrifice "your only son." This particular phrase "your only son" could only be used when Abraham had ONLY ONE SON.

 

When Ha'Eloah promised the land to Nevi Abraham, his name was Abram. Ha'Eloah had asked Abram to change his name to Abraham when he was ninety-nine years old.

 

"When Abram was ninety-nine years old, YHWH appeared to Abram, and said to him, 'I am El Shaddai. Walk before Me, and be blameless. I will make My B'rit (Covenant) between me and you, and will multiply you exceedingly. Abram fell on his face. El talked with him, saying, "As for me, behold, my B'rit is with you. You will be the father of a multitude of nations. Neither will your name any more be called Abram, but your name will be Abraham; for the father of a multitude of nations have I made you. I will make you exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of you. Kings will come out of you. I will establish my covenant between me and you and your seed after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be El to you and to your seed after you. I will give to you, and to your seed after you, the land where you are traveling, all the land of Kena`an, for an everlasting possession. I will be their Elohim." - Sefer Ha'Berashit (Genesis) 17:1-8

 

וַיְהִי אַבְרָם, בֶּן תִּשְׁעִים שָׁנָה וְתֵשַׁע שָׁנִים; וַיֵּרָא יְהוָה אֶל אַבְרָם, וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו אֲנִי אֵל שַׁדַּי--הִתְהַלֵּךְ לְפָנַי, וֶהְיֵה תָמִים.  וְאֶתְּנָה בְרִיתִי, בֵּינִי וּבֵינֶךָ; וְאַרְבֶּה אוֹתְךָ, בִּמְאֹד מְאֹד.  וַיִּפֹּל אַבְרָם, עַל פָּנָיו; וַיְדַבֵּר אִתּוֹ אֱלֹהִים, לֵאמֹר.  אֲנִי, הִנֵּה בְרִיתִי אִתָּךְ; וְהָיִיתָ, לְאַב הֲמוֹן גּוֹיִם.  וְלֹא יִקָּרֵא עוֹד אֶת שִׁמְךָ, אַבְרָם; וְהָיָה שִׁמְךָ אַבְרָהָם, כִּי אַב הֲמוֹן גּוֹיִם נְתַתִּיךָ.  וְהִפְרֵתִי אֹתְךָ בִּמְאֹד מְאֹד, וּנְתַתִּיךָ לְגוֹיִם; וּמְלָכִים, מִמְּךָ יֵצֵאוּ.  וַהֲקִמֹתִי אֶת בְּרִיתִי בֵּינִי וּבֵינֶךָ, וּבֵין זַרְעֲךָ אַחֲרֶיךָ לְדֹרֹתָם--לִבְרִית עוֹלָם:  לִהְיוֹת לְךָ לֵאלֹהִים, וּלְזַרְעֲךָ אַחֲרֶיךָ.  וְנָתַתִּי לְךָ וּלְזַרְעֲךָ אַחֲרֶיךָ אֵת אֶרֶץ מְגֻרֶיךָ, אֵת כָּל אֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן, לַאֲחֻזַּת, עוֹלָם; וְהָיִיתִי לָהֶם, לֵאלֹהִים

 

Ishmael the eldest son was at that time thirteen years old. Isaac was born one year after the name change of Abram to Abraham.

 

In other words, Isaac was not even born when the land was promised by YHWH. The name Isaac appears for the first time in the Tanakh in Genesis 17:19.

 

B'rakah was passed through both Isaac and Ishmael. Both were equally children of Abraham, in fact traditionally speaking, Ishmael had greater right to inheritance because he was the first born. God did not speak favorably of Isaac alone, nor was he the only one who was foretold to be the father of a great nation.

 

"As for Yishma'el, I have heard you. Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly. He will become the father of Twelve Princes, and I will make him a great nation." - Sefer Ha'Berashit 17:20

 

וּלְיִשְׁמָעֵאל, שְׁמַעְתִּיךָ--הִנֵּה בֵּרַכְתִּי אֹתוֹ וְהִפְרֵיתִי אֹתוֹ וְהִרְבֵּיתִי אֹתוֹ, בִּמְאֹד מְאֹד:  שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר נְשִׂיאִם יוֹלִיד, וּנְתַתִּיו לְגוֹי גָּדוֹל.

 

The land was promised by YHWH was to the seeds of Abram. There is no record of YHWH going back on Hu's Promise, though the Tanakh abounds with telling tales of the B'nei Yisrael breaking their Covenant with YHWH.

 

"And the Malak YHWH called unto Abraham out of the Shamayim (Heavens) the second time, And said, 'By myself have I sworn, says YHWH, for because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your son, your only son: That in Blessing I will bless you, and in multiplying I will multiply your seed as the stars of the Shamayim, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and your seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; and in your seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because you have obeyed My Qol (Voice)." Sefer Ha'Berashit 22:15-18

 וַיִּקְרָא מַלְאַךְ יְהוָה, אֶל אַבְרָהָם, שֵׁנִית, מִן הַשָּׁמָיִם. וַיֹּאמֶר, בִּי נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי נְאֻם יְהוָה:  כִּי, יַעַן אֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתָ אֶת הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה, וְלֹא חָשַׂכְתָּ, אֶת בִּנְךָ אֶת יְחִידֶךָ. כִּי בָרֵךְ אֲבָרֶכְךָ, וְהַרְבָּה אַרְבֶּה אֶת זַרְעֲךָ כְּכוֹכְבֵי הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְכַחוֹל, אֲשֶׁר עַל שְׂפַת הַיָּם; וְיִרַשׁ זַרְעֲךָ, אֵת שַׁעַר אֹיְבָיו. וְהִתְבָּרְכוּ בְזַרְעֲךָ, כֹּל גּוֹיֵי הָאָרֶץ, עֵקֶב, אֲשֶׁר שָׁמַעְתָּ בְּקֹלִי.

As well it is similarly stated in Berashit 22:2 that: "He said, 'Now take your son, your only son, whom you love, even Isaac, and go into the land of Moriyah. Offer him there for a burnt offering on one of the mountains which I will tell you of.'"

 

וַיֹּאמֶר קַח נָא אֶת בִּנְךָ אֶת יְחִידְךָ אֲשֶׁר אָהַבְתָּ, אֶת יִצְחָק, וְלֶךְ לְךָ, אֶל אֶרֶץ הַמֹּרִיָּה; וְהַעֲלֵהוּ שָׁם, לְעֹלָה, עַל אַחַד הֶהָרִים, אֲשֶׁר אֹמַר אֵלֶיךָ.

 

Clearly this is corruption of the Scribes! How can this child be Isaac when it plainly says "Now take your son, your only son, whom you love?" We have been told many times over that Isaac was not his only son. Some concealers of the Word of YHWH have pathetically attempted to claim that the Torah is here saying that Isaac is the only son that Abraham really loved! But we know this to be ridiculous and an insult to Abraham as a loving father of his children. The Torah says:

 

"Abraham was ninety-nine years old, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. Yishma'el, his son, was thirteen years old when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. In the same day both Abraham and Yishma'el, his son, were circumcised." - Sefer Ha'Berashit 17:24-26

 

וְאַבְרָהָם--בֶּן תִּשְׁעִים וָתֵשַׁע, שָׁנָה:  בְּהִמֹּלוֹ, בְּשַׂר עָרְלָתוֹ.  וְיִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ, בֶּן שְׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה:  בְּהִמֹּלוֹ--אֵת, בְּשַׂר עָרְלָתוֹ.  בְּעֶצֶם הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה, נִמּוֹל אַבְרָהָם, וְיִשְׁמָעֵאל, בְּנוֹ.

 

Are we to imagine that for all of those 13 years Abraham did not even love his first born son? A web spun of lies will eventually entrap the weaver. However, such absurdities and insults towards the Nevi'im are virtually second nature to those who accuse Noah of drunken ludity, Haam of homosexual gawking at his naked father, Lot of incest, Moshe of commanding the murder of infants and the rape of women, and the "lying pen of the Scribes" goes on and on...

Sarai and Hagar

"And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she had born unto Abraham, playing. Wherefore she said unto Abraham: 'Cast out this servant and her son; for the son of this servant shall not be heir with my son Yitzchaq.' And the thing was very grievous in Abraham's sight on account of his son. And El said unto Abraham: 'Let it not be grievous in your sight because of the boy, and because of your servant; in all that Sarah said to you, listen unto her voice; for in Yitzchaq shall seed be called to you. " - Sefer Ha'Berashit 21:9-12

 

וַתֵּרֶא שָׂרָה אֶת בֶּן הָגָר הַמִּצְרִית, אֲשֶׁר יָלְדָה לְאַבְרָהָם--מְצַחֵק וַתֹּאמֶר, לְאַבְרָהָם, גָּרֵשׁ הָאָמָה הַזֹּאת, וְאֶת בְּנָהּ:  כִּי לֹא יִירַשׁ בֶּן הָאָמָה הַזֹּאת, עִם בְּנִי עִם יִצְחָק.  וַיֵּרַע הַדָּבָר מְאֹד, בְּעֵינֵי אַבְרָהָם, עַל, אוֹדֹת בְּנוֹ.  וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים אֶל אַבְרָהָם, אַל יֵרַע בְּעֵינֶיךָ עַל הַנַּעַר וְעַל אֲמָתֶךָ--כֹּל אֲשֶׁר תֹּאמַר אֵלֶיךָ שָׂרָה, שְׁמַע בְּקֹלָהּ:  כִּי בְיִצְחָק, יִקָּרֵא לְךָ זָרַע.

 

Unfortunately this is where most Judeo-supremacists either close their Tanakh or start day dreaming about who is going to be playing Sunday afternoon football. The Torah continues this dialogue beyond this - Read!

 

"'And also of the son of the servant will I make a nation, because he is your seed.'" -Sefer Ha'Berashit 21:13

 

וְגַם אֶת בֶּן הָאָמָה, לְגוֹי אֲשִׂימֶנּוּ:  כִּי זַרְעֲךָ, הוּא

 

Again, YHWH reveals through Moses to the people that even though Hu now "remembered" Sarah, Hu had never forgotten the first born son of Abraham - through which B'rakah was passed. Sarah, the woman who laughed at YHWH, first told Abraham that he should marry and have a child with Hagar. Now, when she saw this little innocent child playing she was suddenly disgusted.

One might wonder at why she was suddenly disgusted. We read that she saw "the son of Hagar the Egyptian" playing and then sought to see that he would not share in the inheritance of her son. The reasoning lies in the wording here. The Tanakh does not say she saw "Yishma'el" nor merely "the son of Hagar." It says "the son of Hagar the Egyptian." This would be equivalent to saying "the son of Hagar the black woman." Suddenly the hatred and bigotry of Sarah is a little more clear. She did not have a problem with Nevi Abraham marrying "Hagar the Egyptian" because of the simple fact that she was black skinned and Sarah presumed that no African woman would be favored over her! Hagar was forced out of Abraham's home by Sarah's selfishness and bigotry. But YHWH told Abraham that it was Divine Will for him to send her away - because YHWH had the Plan for the B'nei Yishma'el that through them "all nations will be blessed."

 

There is a popular Jewish belief that one is only a Y'hudi if their MOTHER is. Thus, Ishmael and Isaac are seemingly "worlds apart" in the modern day Jewish mind. They are hardly "brothers" - for despite the fact that they have a common father, their mothers are different. This is directly the opposite of all traditional Semitic cultures which maintain that if your father is Semitic (Jewish, `Arab, etc.), then the child is as well. In like of what we have read in the Tanakh of Sarah, can you imagine where this myth of matrilineal descent originated?

 

The Tanakh even says that Sarai beat Hagar her African slave! (Berashit 16:6) "But Abram said unto Sarai: 'Behold, your maid is in your hand; do to her that which is good in your eyes.' And Sarai dealt harshly with her, and she fled from her face."

 

וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְרָם אֶל שָׂרַי, הִנֵּה שִׁפְחָתֵךְ בְּיָדֵךְ--עֲשִׂי לָהּ, הַטּוֹב בְּעֵינָיִךְ; וַתְּעַנֶּהָ שָׂרַי, וַתִּבְרַח מִפָּנֶיהָ.

 

These are the sorts distortions - of the "lying pens of the Scribes" - that white slave owners used to justify their exploitation and limitless brutality towards the African people they stole by the hundreds of millions. For Abram said: "Behold, your maid is in your hand. Do to her whatever is Tov (good) in your eyes." YHWH is Witness that Abraham never, never told anyone to beat an innocent women!

More numerous than the stars of the sky and the sand of the beach...

Many Jews erroneously claim that the phrase "in your seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed" (Genesis 22:15-18) means that all nations would merely be blessed by the contributions of Jews! Christians grasp for meaning with even more desperation, by claiming that this is a prophecy of Yashuah Ha'Mashiach, Jesus Christ! All of such subjective human interpretations are nothing but conjecture. If we allow the Torah to speak for itself we can see who God has revealed would be "the seed" through which "all the nations of the earth be blessed..."
 
"And Elohim heard the voice of the boy; and the Malak Ha'El called to Hagar out of Shamayim, and said unto her: 'What ails you, Hagar? fear not; for El has heard the voice of the boy where he is. Arise, lift up the boy, and hold him fast by your hand; for I will make him a great Nation.' And Elohim opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water; and she went, and filled the bottle with water, and gave the boy drink. And Elohim was with the boy, and he grew; and he dwelt in the Wilderness, and became an archer. And he dwelt in the Wilderness of Paran; and his mother took him a wife out of Eretz Mitzrayim." - Sefer Ha'Berashit 21:17-21

 

וַיִּשְׁמַע אֱלֹהִים, אֶת קוֹל הַנַּעַר, וַיִּקְרָא מַלְאַךְ אֱלֹהִים אֶל הָגָר מִן הַשָּׁמַיִם, וַיֹּאמֶר לָהּ מַה לָּךְ הָגָר; אַל תִּירְאִי, כִּי שָׁמַע אֱלֹהִים אֶל קוֹל הַנַּעַר בַּאֲשֶׁר הוּא שָׁם.  קוּמִי שְׂאִי אֶת הַנַּעַר, וְהַחֲזִיקִי אֶת יָדֵךְ בּוֹ:  כִּי לְגוֹי גָּדוֹל, אֲשִׂימֶנּוּ.  וַיִּפְקַח אֱלֹהִים אֶת עֵינֶיהָ, וַתֵּרֶא בְּאֵר מָיִם; וַתֵּלֶךְ וַתְּמַלֵּא אֶת הַחֵמֶת, מַיִם, וַתַּשְׁקְ, אֶת הַנָּעַר.  וַיְהִי אֱלֹהִים אֶת הַנַּעַר, וַיִּגְדָּל; וַיֵּשֶׁב, בַּמִּדְבָּר, וַיְהִי, רֹבֶה קַשָּׁת.  וַיֵּשֶׁב, בְּמִדְבַּר פָּארָן; וַתִּקַּח לוֹ אִמּוֹ אִשָּׁה, מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם.

 

YHWH promised to make Ishmael a "Great Nation." As well, we are told by Jews and Christians alike that in Genesis 22:15-18 YHWH is making a promise specifically regarding the child who was offered for sacrifice, though spared. So in light of the fact that we know this verse specifically claims that the child offered but spared was "your son, your only son, whom you love" then it serves to reason that the words "in your seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed" are speaking of the lineage of that same son. Moreover, the words "I will multiply your seed as the stars of the Shamayim, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore" refer to ALL of the children of Abraham. However, if we are to get into a comparison, there are easily countless millions more `Arabs than their are Y'hudim.

 

"The Malak YHWH said to her, 'Return to your mistress, and submit yourself under her hands.' The Malak YHWH said to her, 'I will greatly multiply your seed, that they will not be numbered for multitude.' The Malak YHWH said to her, 'Behold, you are with child, and will bear a son. You shall call his name Yishma'el, because YHWH has heard your affliction. He will live to the East of his brothers. His hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him. He will live to the east of all of his brothers.'" - Sefer Ha'Berashit 16:9-12

 

וַיֹּאמֶר לָהּ מַלְאַךְ יְהוָה, שׁוּבִי אֶל גְּבִרְתֵּךְ, וְהִתְעַנִּי, תַּחַת יָדֶיהָ.  וַיֹּאמֶר לָהּ מַלְאַךְ יְהוָה, הַרְבָּה אַרְבֶּה אֶת זַרְעֵךְ, וְלֹא יִסָּפֵר, מֵרֹב.  וַיֹּאמֶר לָהּ מַלְאַךְ יְהוָה, הִנָּךְ הָרָה וְיֹלַדְתְּ בֵּן, וְקָרָאת שְׁמוֹ יִשְׁמָעֵאל, כִּי שָׁמַע יְהוָה אֶל עָנְיֵךְ.  וְהוּא יִהְיֶה, פֶּרֶא אָדָם--יָדוֹ בַכֹּל, וְיַד כֹּל בּוֹ; וְעַל פְּנֵי כָל אֶחָיו, יִשְׁכֹּן.

 

Here the very Malak YHWH - the Chief of the ArchAngels, Met'at'ron - manifested to Hagar. Are we to imagine that this was a common women to whom YHWH sent Hu's very Representative! Obviously this was a Message of great importance, delivered to a significant woman. We are told that she knew the Name YHWH and called upon it! This is the Name which nearly all in this age are entirely ignorant of, yet here we see that Hagar had knowledge of It, and that YHWH responded to her call:

 

"She called the Name of YHWH who spoke to her, 'You are El who sees,' for she said, 'Have I even stayed alive after seeing him?' Therefore the well was called Be'er-Lachai-Ro'i. Behold, it is between Kadesh and Bered." - Sefer Ha'Berashit 16:13-14

 

וַתִּקְרָא שֵׁם יְהוָה הַדֹּבֵר אֵלֶיהָ, אַתָּה אֵל רֳאִי:  כִּי אָמְרָה, הֲגַם הֲלֹם רָאִיתִי--אַחֲרֵי רֹאִי.  עַל כֵּן קָרָא לַבְּאֵר, בְּאֵר לַחַי רֹאִי--הִנֵּה בֵין קָדֵשׁ, וּבֵין בָּרֶד.

 

The words of the Malak YHWH to Hagar are quite revealing: "I will greatly multiply your seed, that they will not be numbered for multitude."

 

Recall that YHWH told Abram: "Behold, the Word of YHWH came to him, saying, 'This man will not be your heir, but he who will come forth out of your own body will be your heir.' YHWH brought him outside, and said, 'Look now toward the sky, and count the stars, if you are able to count them.' He said to Abram, 'So shall your seed be.'" - Sefer Ha'Berashit 15:4-5

 

וְהִנֵּה דְבַר יְהוָה אֵלָיו לֵאמֹר, לֹא יִירָשְׁךָ זֶה:  כִּי אִם אֲשֶׁר יֵצֵא מִמֵּעֶיךָ, הוּא יִירָשֶׁךָ.  וַיּוֹצֵא אֹתוֹ הַחוּצָה, וַיֹּאמֶר הַבֶּט נָא הַשָּׁמַיְמָה וּסְפֹר הַכּוֹכָבִים--אִם תּוּכַל, לִסְפֹּר אֹתָם; וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ, כֹּה יִהְיֶה זַרְעֶךָ.

 

It is clear, to all who have eyes to see, that this promise to Abraham was through all of his children. If we are to imagine that Hagar herself was somehow despised by God, while the bigoted (Genesis 21:9), brutal (Genesi 16:6) Sarai - who beat a pregnant woman (Genesis 16:11) was favored, then we cannot believe that the God of the Tanakh is a Just God, but rather one who favors the oppressor. Knowing that the oppressive Zionists believe such a bastardization of the words of the Nevi'im it is no wonder why they are so genocidally brutal towards their equally Semitic `Arab brothers and sisters in Palestine!

 

Truth is manifest from falsehood. YHWH is not a god of contradiction, nor are the words of His prophets words which say one thing and mean another. If there is contradiction found in the Tanakh, it is as Jeremiah said, because it was written there by "the lying pen of the scribes [which] has handled it falsely."

 

But just as the sun may be covered over by clouds, rays of Light do still shine through. And it is by the illumination of that Light that the Righteous walk upon the Straight Path. It is for those who cloak the Truth in ignorance and distortion to walk in the crooked paths of blindness and sin. This is the generation in which the whole of the Torah of Moses will be returned to the 72 and 1 nations of the world.

Conclusion

Time and time again Christians and Jews will point the finger at fabrications about the Prophet Muhammad. They will tell you that he was a child molester, taking one fabricated "Sunni" Hadith that said one of his wives was 9 over the many "Shi'a" ones which say other older ages like 14, 16, 19 and even 20 as the age. Sirat Ibn Hisham and Yaqubi, the earliest historians, even before the Hadith, write that `Aisha was at least the same age as `Ali bin Abu Talib, (`Ali bin Abu Talib was 22 at the time of hijra).

Regardless, how ironic that Jews and Christians believe Lot could have a Ménage ل Trois with his own daughters (who he had formerly offered to be gang raped), and still be a prophet, but Muhammad cannot because of conflicting oral traditions about what age his wife was when they got married.

They will tell you that Muhammad "plagiarized" from the Bible, yet they will not stop to claim that the Qur'an is a book of lies. Were that the case then would not these "lies" in fact be from the Bible which they claim it was plagiarized from?

They will tell you that the Qur'an is unscientific, when in fact they are not paying attention to their own unscientific Biblical claims and are instead contorting the words of the Qur'an to imply unscientific things that it does not in fact say.

Jesus Christ said: ^"Judge not or else you will be judged. For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why do you look at the speck of dust that is in your brother's eye, but consider not the beam that is in your own eye? Or how will you say to your brother, 'et me pull out the mote out of your eye; and, behold, a beam is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of your own eye; and then you will see clearly to cast out the mote out of your brother's eye." Luke 7:1-5

mh krinete, ina mh kriqhte: en w gar krimati krinete kriqhsesqe, kai en w metrw metreite metrhqhsetai umin. ti de blepeiV to karfoV to en tw ofqalmw tou adelfou sou, thn de en tw sw ofqalmw dokon ou katanoeiV; h pwV ereiV tw adelfw sou, afeV ekbalw to karfoV ek tou ofqalmou sou, kai idou h dokoV en tw ofqalmw sou; upokrita, ekbale prwton ek tou ofqalmou sou thn dokon, kai tote diableyeiV ekbalein to karfoV ek tou ofqalmou tou adelfou sou.

So while they point at the `aqida, the ideology and practice of Islam and say it has a speck of dust in it's eye, they do not deal with the huge plank, the board that is obstructing their own view! How foolish they are. If they were sincere in their quest for truth and certainty then they would not ignore this board in their eye. They would not ignore the board of Paul telling slaves to obey their masters, and telling people to obey the satanic empire of Emperor Nero. They would not ignore the disregard for women's rights in the Bible. They would not ignore the tales of rape, incest and other perversions. They would not ignore the accounts of murder from their hands of the people they recognize as prophets. If they were sincere in their quest for truth then they would be busy dealing with this board and not with the speck of saw dust in Islamic `aqida. How unfortunate for them. For if one's view is so obstructed by a board, how then can they walk forward on the Straight Path towards salvation? Does their founder Paul himself not say: "How can we escape if we neglect so great salvation?"

These are not people characteristic of the followers of Jesus Christ. They will tell you the "nature of Christ" selectively. They will tell you only those impressions left upon them by the "Epistles" of Paul, of a man who never even walked and talked with Jesus Christ; of a man who claims only to have met Jesus once, and then to be told to stop murdering and imprisoning his followers.

"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you. Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and you shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asks shall receive; and he that seeks shall find; and to him that knocks it shall be opened. Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?" Luke 7:6-11

mh dwte to agion toiV kusin, mhde balhte touV margaritaV umwn emprosqen twn coirwn, mhpote katapathsousin autouV en toiV posin autwn kai strafenteV rhxwsin umaV. aiteite, kai doqhsetai umin: zhteite, kai eurhsete: krouete, kai anoighsetai umin. paV gar o aitwn lambanei kai o zhtwn euriskei kai tw krouonti anoighsetai. h tiV estin ex umwn anqrwpoV, on aithsei o uioV autou arton mh liqon epidwsei autw; h kai icqun aithsei mh ofin epidwsei autw

Why then have we asked for the Truth and Christianity gave us a serpent instead of the fish which they have promised; which they have worn as iconography on their t-shirts, cars, hats and anything and everything else? Why have they promised us a book of peace, and instead upon closer examination we find a book of war and oppression?

Why do we have the serpent religion of the man whose eyes became covered over with scales when confronted by Jesus Christ? Why do we have this when they promise us the religion of Jesus whom they do not know? If a father when asked by his son for a fish gives him a fish, then what are we to assume of Christianity when they give us lies when we ask for truth? We can assume only one of two things: either they do not have the truth to give us, or they deny the truth and chose a lie instead.

Christianity is the religion of those content with the lying pens of the Scribes. Judaism is the religion of those content with the lying pens of the Scribes. Islam admits that these books were, in the original states, prophetically revealed. However, Islam not only claims Biblical corruption, it also points out specific theological errors which the Ahl'ul-Kitab, the People of the Book have fallen into. What you chose is up to you, corruption or correction, pens that have "handled falsely" the words of the Prophets, or a recitation of Divine Revelation that has proven throughout the ages to have been uncorrupted.

These are only a few of the lying pens of the Scribes. This is not intended to give you an exhaustive understanding of all of the errors of the Bible, but this will give you a glimpse into these errors, so that here your study may continue.

The Qur'an tells us that there is to be no compulsion in the din, in religion. Verily the Truth is manifest from falsehood. These are truths being presented, being manifested for your edification. Should you chose to reject them, to you be your way and to us be ours. Far be it from us to forcibly save you from self destruction.

"Say: 'O unbelievers! I do not serve that which you serve, Nor do you serve Him Whom I serve: Nor am I going to serve that which you serve, Nor are you going to serve Him Whom I serve: You shall have your religion and I shall have my religion.'" Al-Qur'an, Sura al-Kaffirun 109:1-6

قُلْ يَا أَيُّهَا الْكَافِرُونَ لَا أَعْبُدُ مَا تَعْبُدُونَ وَلَا أَنتُمْ عَابِدُونَ مَا أَعْبُدُ وَلَا أَنَا عَابِدٌ مَّا عَبَدتُّمْ وَلَا أَنتُمْ عَابِدُونَ مَا أَعْبُدُ لَكُمْ دِينُكُمْ وَلِيَ دِينِ