32,000 Virgins in Judeo-Christian Paradise, by Jalal Abualrub

Рет қаралды 423

IslamLife

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 7

@matthewzavadil Ай бұрын

The camera looks so good now! Barakallahu feek ya shaykh

@mznxbcv12345 Ай бұрын

The Aramaic word for God is "Alaha" too sounds familiar? Written without the confusing vowels it is written A-L-H ܐ ܠܗܐ (alap-lamed-he) as found in Targum or in Tanakh (Daniel, Ezra), Syriac Aramaic (Peshitta), reduced from the Arabic original (of which Aramaic is a dialect continuum as will be explained) it is written in the Arabic script 'A-L-L-H' (Aleph-Lam-Lam-Ha) add an A before the last H for vocalization. The word God in another rendition in Hebrew ʾĕlōah is derived from a base ʾilāh, an Arabic word, written without confusing vowel it is A-L-H in the Arabic script, pronounced ilah not eloah. Hebrew dropped the glottal stop and mumbled it, aramic mumbled a little less and it became elaha. Infact both are written written A-L-H in Arabic, it is pronounced i in Arabic and not A because it is an Alef with hamza below (إ أ ) They are two different forms of Alef. And it mean "a god", it is the non definitive form of A-L-L-H, in which the Alef is without a glottal stop/hamza,(ا), but this kind of nuance is lost in the dialect continua. infact "YHWH" itself is an Arabic word as discussed by Professor. Israel Knohl (Professor of Biblical studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem) in the paper" YHWH: The Original Arabic Meaning of the Name." jesus as his name is often misspelled due to the lack of the ayin sound in Greek, which was rendered to Iesous, coupling the nearest sound to ayin, same letter found in 'Iraq', which sounds entirely different in Arabic form 'Iran' in Arabic, with the -ous Greek suffix that Greeks typically add to their names 'HerodotOS', 'PlotinUS', 'AchelOUS' and later mumbled into a J. The yeshua rendition of Isa (his name in the Qur'an) PBUH which is purported to be the name of Jesus is KNOWN to had been taken from greek. Western Syriac also use "Isho". Western Aramaic (separate from Syriac which is a dialect of Eastern Aramaic) use "Yeshu". Western Syriac has been separate from Western Aramaic for about 1000 years. And sounds don't even match up. Syriac is a Christian liturgical language yet the four letters of the name of Jesus «ܝܫܘܥ» [ = Judeo-Babylonian Aramaic: «ישוע» ] sounds totally different in West vs East Syriac, viz. vocalized akin to Christian Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic «ܝܶܫܽܘܥ» (Yēšūʿ) in West Syriac, but pronounced more akin to Muslim Arabic Quran character name Isa in East Syriac «ܝܑܼܫܘܿܥ» (ʾĪšōʿ). The reason for this confusion is their dropping of phonemes. Only someone that has no idea what the letters are or how they sound would have a name ending in a pharyngeal fricative like the ayin, if it were to be used in a name it would have had to be in the beginning, thus the Arabic rendition is the correct one. An example in English is how the appended -d is a common error amongst the English pronouncing Gaelic names. The name Donald arose from a common English mispronunciation of the Gaelic name Donal. Just how it is with donal becoming donald and the two becoming distinct and the original being regarded as something seperate so too did Isa PBUH turn to Iesous turn to jesus and when they tried going back to the original they confused it for yeshua ( ysu is how it is actually written) for Isa PBUH ( 3'eysah ) Schlözer in his preparation for the Arabia expedition in 1781 coined the term Semitic language: "From the Mediterranean to the Euphrates, from Mesopotamia to Arabia ruled one language, as is well known. Thus Syrians, Babylonians, Hebrews, and Arabs were one people (ein Volk). Phoenicians (Hamites) also spoke this language, which I would like to call the Semitic (die Semitische)." -Before Boas: The Genesis of Ethnography and Ethnology in the German By Han F. Vermeulen. He was only half right though, Arabic is the only corollary to "proto-semitic", infact the whole semitic classification is nonsensical as will be shown. "protosemetic" Alphabet (28), Arabic Alphabet (28), Latin transliteration, hebrew (22) 𐩠 𐩡 𐩢 𐩣 𐩤 𐩥 𐩦 𐩧 𐩨 𐩩 𐩪 𐩫 𐩬 𐩭 𐩮 𐩰 𐩱 𐩲 𐩳 𐩴 𐩵 𐩶 𐩷 𐩸 𐩹 𐩺 𐩻 𐩼 ا ب ت ث ج ح خ د ذ ر ز س ش ص ض ط ظ ع غ ف ق ك ل م ن ه و ي A b t ṯ j h kh d ḏ r z s sh ṣ ḍ ṭ ẓ ʿ ġ f q k l m n h w y א ב ג ד ה ו ז ח ט י כ ל מ נ ס ע פ צ ק ר ש ת Merged phonemes in hebrew and aramaic: ح, خ (h, kh) merged into only kh consonant remain س, ش (s, sh) merged into only Shin consonant remaining ط, ظ (ṭ/teth, ẓ) merged into only ṭ/teth consonant remaining ص, ض (ṣ, ḍ/Tsad ) merged into only ḍ/Tsad consonant remaining ع, غ (3'ayn, Ghayn) merged into a reducted ayin consonant remaining ت, ث (t/taw, th) merged into only t/taw consonant remaining The reason why the protoS alphabet here is 28 and not 29, is because the supposed extra letter is simply a س written in a different position, but it was shoehorned to obfuscated. In Arabic letter shapes are different depending on whether they are in the beginning , middle or end of a word. As a matter of fact, all of the knowledge needed for deciphering ancient texts and their complexity was derived from the Qur'an. It was by analyzing the syntactic structure of the Qur'an that the Arabic root system was developed. This system was first attested to in Kitab Al-Ayin, the first intralanguage dictionary of its kind, which preceded the Oxford English dictionary by 800 years. It was through this development that the concept of Arabic roots was established and later co-opted into the term 'semitic root,' allowing the decipherment of ancient scripts. In essence, they quite literally copied and pasted the entirety of the Arabic root. Hebrew had been dead, as well as all the other dialects of Arabic, until being 'revived' in a Frankensteinian fashion in the 18th and 19th centuries. The entire region spoke basically the same language, with mumbled dialect continuums spread about, and Arabic is the oldest form from which all these dialects branched off. As time passed, the language gradually became more degenerate, Language; When one looks at the actual linguistics, one will find that many were puzzled by the opposite, that is, how the other "semetic" languages were more "evolved" than Arabic, while Arabic had archaic features, not only archaic compared to bibilical Hebrew, Ethiopic, "Aramaic" contemporary "semetic" languages, but even archaic compared to languages from ancient antiquity; Ugaritic, Akkadain. What is meant here by Archaic is not what most readers think, it is Archaic not in the sense that it is simple, but rather that it is complex (think Latin to pig Latin or Italian or Old English, which had genders and case endings to modern English), not only grammatically, but also phonetically; All the so called semitic languages are supposed to have evolved from protosemetic, the Alphabet for protosemitic is that of the so called Ancient South Arabian (which interestingly corresponds with the traditional Arabic origins account) and has 28 Phonemes. Arabic has 28 phonemes. Hebrew has 22, same as Aramaic, and other "semitic" languages. Now pause for a second and think about it, how come Arabic, a language that is supposed to have come so late has the same number of letters as a language that supposedly predates it by over a millennium (Musnad script ~1300 BCE). Not only is the glossary of phonemes more diverse than any other semitic language, but the grammar is more complex, containing more cases and retains what's linguists noted for its antiquity, broken plurals. Indeed, a linguist has once noted that if one were to take everything we know about languages and how they develop, Arabic is older than Akkadian (~2500 BCE). And then the Qur'an appeared with the oldest possible form of the language thousands of years later. This is why the Arabs of that time were challenged to produce 10 similar verses, and they couldn't. People think it's a miracle because they couldn't do it, but I think the miracle is the language itself. They had never spoken Arabic, nor has any other language before or since had this mathematical precision. And when I say mathematical, I quite literally mean mathematical. Now how is it that the Qur'an came thousands of years later in an alphabet that had never been recorded before, and in the highest form the language had ever taken? The creator is neither bound by time nor space, therefore the names are uttered as they truly were, in a language that is lexically, syntactically, phonemically, and semantically older than the oldest recorded writing. In fact, that writing appears to have been a simplified version of it. Not only that, but it would be the equivalent of the greatest works of any particular language all appearing in one book, in a perfect script and in the highest form the language could ever take. It is so high in fact, that it had yet to be surpassed despite the fact that over the last millennium the collection of Arabic manuscripts when compared on word-per-word basis in Western Museums alone, when they are compared with the collected Greek and Latin manuscripts combined, the latter does not constitute 1 percent of the former as per German professor Frank Griffel, in addition all in a script that had never been recorded before. Thus, the enlightenment of mankind from barbarism and savagery began, and the age of reason and rationality was born from its study. God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.

@mznxbcv12345 Ай бұрын

eye opening? Christendom was always an empirial religion, born under the auspices of constantine, the subjects were converted at the edge of the sword and rendered into slaves for his majesty, often referring to him as their lord. In Islam such slavery is unthinkable. The only lordship is that of the creator, no station into which man was brought into the lands of Islam was to any degree as bad as the repugnant chattel slavery brought by the primitive tribalism inherent in their texts, for example, the word עוֹלֵל, ʿôlēl which means 'Babe, infant, little one, a suckling' occurs 21 King James Bible Verses Of these verses: “Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.” -Psalm 137:9 “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.” -1 Samuel 15:3 “Therefore I am full of the fury of the LORD; I am weary with holding in: I will pour it out upon the children abroad, and upon the assembly of young men together: for even the husband with the wife shall be taken, the aged with him that is full of days.” -Jeremiah 6:11 “Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath 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.” -Hosea 13:16 The other verses are not much different. Infact it is always in association with violence. Indeed these verses are the reason why in the Crusades the sense of pious rejoicing at massacre does not appear to be the product of later theologizing; it is also found, in the account of the eye-witness Raymond of Aguilers: “in the Temple and porch of Solomon, men rode in blood up to their knees and bridle reins. Indeed, it was a just and splendid judgment of God that this place should be filled with the blood of the unbelievers, since it had suffered so long from their blasphemies.” In fact, Raymond continues, “This day, I say, will be famous in all future ages, for it turned our labours and sorrows into joy and exultation; this day, I say, marks the justification of all Christianity, the humiliation of paganism, and the renewal of our faith.” Another account by a chronicler and eyewitness-priest, Albert of Aachen, describes the killing of fleeing women, and depicts crusaders as:: “seizing [infants who were still suckling] by the soles of their feet from their mothers’ laps or their cradles…and dashing them against the walls or lintels of the doors and breaking their necks […] they were sparing absolutely no gentile of any age or kind.”The incoherence inherent in a stranger to Abraham calling the children of Abraham gentiles notwithstanding, this account evokes the very same Psalm 137:9 imprecation against Babylon, in Latin, “beatus qui tenebit et adlidet parvulos tuos ad petram.” Albert describes a massacre occurring, in cold blood, on the second day following the conquest, painting a scene that is as horrific as it is realistic and detailed: "Girls, women, matrons, tormented by fear of imminent death and horror-struck by the violent murder wrapped themselves around the Christians’ bodies in the hope to save their lives, even as the Christians were raving and venting their rage in murder of both sexes. Some threw themselves at their feet, begging them with pitiable weeping and wailing for their lives and safety. When children five or three years old saw the cruel fate of their mothers and fathers, of one accord they stepped up the weeping and pitiable clamour. But they were making these signals for pity and mercy in vain. For the Christians gave over their whole hearts to murder, so that not a suckling little male-child or female, not even an infant of one year would escape the hand of the murderer". Evoking several of these verses in practice: - (Num 31:17-18) Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. - (Deut 7:2, 9:3, Num 21) thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them... - (Deut 20:16-17) thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth - (Josh 6:21, 8:24-27, 10:, 11:11-14,21-22) And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword... And cut off their thumbs and their great toes... He left none remaining: - (Judg 18:27) And they took [the things] which Micah had made ...and came unto Laish ...and smote them with the edge of sword burnt city fire. - (1 Sam 15:1-9) 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. - (1 Sam 27:9,11) And David smote the land and left neither man nor woman alive ... - (Esther 8:11, 9:1-19) Wherein the king granted the Jews which were in every city to gather themselves together and to stand for their life to destroy to slay and to cause to perish all the power of the people and province that would assault them both little ones and women and to take the spoil of them for a prey... . - (Ezek 9:6) Slay utterly old [and] young both maids and little children and women: but come not near any man upon whom [is] mark begin at my sanctuary. This is the polar opposite in the Quran in Surah Al-Tanwir, literally "The Englightenining" Surah, Aya 8-9, we have the death of a newborn is mentioned amongst the penultimate signs of the end of times, emphasizing the gravity of such an action. That child, now resurrected, is asked for what wrong doing was she murdered. This is to emphasize that she had done nothing wrong, for she had done nothing wrong and this is the day of retribution where those who omitted the evil are to be punished. This is the polar opposite in the Qur'an, Surah Al-Baqara Aya 190, which exhorts to fight unbelievers and not be "Aggressors", in the commentary of what it means to be aggressors, this was stated Al-Hasan Al-Basri stated that transgression (indicated by the Ayah): "includes mutilating the dead, theft (from the captured goods), killing women, children and old people who do not participate in warfare, killing priests and residents of houses of worship, burning down trees and killing animals without real benefit." This is also the opinion of Ibn `Abbas, `Umar bin `Abdul-`Aziz, Muqatil bin Hayyan and others. Muslim recorded in his Sahih that Buraydah narrated that Allah's Messenger said: "Fight for the sake of Allah and fight those who disbelieve in Allah. Fight, but do not steal, commit treachery, mutilate, or kill a child, or those who reside in houses of worship." It is reported in the Two Sahihs that Ibn `Umar said, "The Prophet forbade killing women and children." بابتداء القتال أو بقتال من نهيتم عن قتاله من النساء والشيوخ والصبيان والذين بينكم وبينهم عهد أو بالمثلة أو بالمفاجأة من غير دعوة "To kill those whom you were forbidden to from women, elderly, children and those whom betwixt you is a treaty or custom or by surprise or without cause" -Tafsir Al-Zamakshari of the meaning of Aggressors in the Aya More hadith from Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah: حَدَّثَنَا حُمَيْدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ، عَنْ شَيْخٍ، مِنْ أَهْلِ الْمَدِينَةِ مَوْلَى لِبَنِي عَبْدِ الْأَشْهَلِ، عَنْ دَاوُدَ، عَنْ عِكْرِمَةَ، عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ كَانَ إِذَا بَعَثَ جُيُوشَهُ قَالَ: «§لَا تَقْتُلُوا أَصْحَابَ الصَّوَامِعِ» "Do not kill the dwellers of monasteries" حَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ فُضَيْلٍ، عَنْ جُوَيْبِرٍ، عَنِ الضَّحَّاكِ قَالَ: كَانَ «§يُنْهَى عَنْ قَتْلِ الْمَرْأَةِ، وَالشَّيْخِ الْكَبِيرِ» سَعْدٍ قَالَ: «§نَهَى رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ عَنْ قَتْلِ النِّسَاءِ وَالذُّرِّيَّةِ، وَالشَّيْخِ الْكَبِيرِ الَّذِي لَا حَرَاكَ بِهِ» "The prophet forbids the killing of women, children, and the elderly" This is the polar opposite in the Qur'an, Surah Al-Anfal Ayah 61 in which even oath breaking deniers/unbelievers are allowed to sue for peace states if the unbelievers they ask for peace, give it to them. The modifiable testament testament commands indiscriminate killing, genocide, plunder, mutilation, enslavement, or torture of enemies, including women, on the other hand.Surah Al-Baqara Aya 190 limits war to those who fight against Muslims, prohibits transgression, and implies respect for human dignity and life Indeed it is what precedes the famous "sword verse", always cited out of context. God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.