Yahweh commands Aaron to make an offering to Satan.!!!!!!

We read from the  bible that Yahweh commanded  Aaron to give Satan an offering!. Now This may sound really absurd to Christian readers, but little did they know their very bible tells us Aaron made an offering to Satan by the command of Yahweh. First let's  Let's read this devilish act :

“And Aaron shall cast lots over the two goats, one lot for the LORD and the other lot for Azazel.” (Leviticus 16:8)

To the average bible reader he/she may see no problem with the above verse. Before we dwell into this problematic verse we need to understand what the context to this verse is. So in a nutshell Aaron was not allowed to enter the holy place of Yahweh until he brought a sin offering and presented it before the Lord. The verses go,on saying what type of offer he needs to bring and how to make it.

“This is how Aaron is to enter the Most Holy Place: He must first bring a young bull for a sin offering and a ram for a burnt offering. He is to put on the sacred linen tunic, with linen undergarments next to his body; he is to tie the linen sash around him and put on the linen turban. These are sacred garments; so he must bathe himself with water before he puts them on.From the Israelite community he is to take two male goats for a sin offering and a ram for a burnt offering.“Aaron is to offer the bull for his own sin offering to make atonement for himself and his household. Then he is to take the two goats and present them before the Lord at the entrance to the tent of meeting.. (Leviticus 16:3-7)

The Interesting part and the main topic of this paper is found in verse 8 (“And Aaron shall cast lots over the two goats, one lot for the LORD and the other lot for Azazel.”) we know from context Yahweh has commanded Aaron to offer two goats one to himself and the other to Azazel. You may wonder who's Azazel? Well if you read the KJV bible you'll notice it reads scapegoat?. The Hebrew text reads Azazel (עֲזָאזֵל) which has been translated in english as the scapegoat. 

The question is what does Azazel (עֲזָאזֵל) mean? Let's find our before we hit the nail: 

John Eadie who was Professor of Biblical Literature and Exegesis to the United Presbyterian Church writes:

“The language in the original is precise and peculiar. It reads “And Aaron shall cast lots on the two goats – ONE FOR JEHOVAH, ONE FOR AZAZEL.” What we are to understand by Azazel has been much disputed. The language appears to us to imply the personality of Azazel – “One for Jehovah, One of Azazel.” By Azazel we are inclined to understand Satan, as do almost all ancient versions, which leave the word, as they do the names of other persons, untranslated.” 

Professor Craig A. Evans writes:

“It was believed that in the last days Satan would be bound: “the Lord said to Raphael, ‘Bind Azazel hand and foot” (1 Enoch 10:4). Raphael is an archangel and Azazel is an archdemon, possibly Satan himself (cf. 1 Enoch 21:4, 6)”

Bishop of Natal Reverend John William Colenso writes:

“The acceptance of Azazel, v.8,10,26, as the name of a personal being placed in opposition to Jehovah, seems to be the only mode of justifying the relation in which the two lots stood to each other … The greater number of critics are inclined to take Azazel as the name of an evil spirit to whom the goat was sent…. Several Jewish traditions point to the same conclusion. The name Azalzel, easily corrupted from Azazel, is applied to a fallen angel in the book of Enoch, which was most likely written by a Jew about 40 A.C. … Origen expressly says that Azazel denoted the Devil…. ”

Barnes’ Notes of the Bible states that “the two goats formed a single sin-offering... Azazel is the pre-Mosaic name of an evil personal being placed in opposition to Yahweh. 

Jewish understanding 

The traditional Orthodox Jewish understanding of the word עזאזל, it's my personal belief that the Hebrew word עזאזל, which occurs four times in the Tanakh (Lev. 16:8 x1; Lev. 16:10 x2; Lev. 16:26 x1), is the proper name of a fallen angel, i.e. an evil spirit/ demon. This Hebrew name is very similar to one found in 1 Enoch.

For example  it is written in the book of Enoch 

And the whole earth has been corrupted hrough the works that were taught by Aza(z)el: to him ascribe all sin. (1 Enoch 10:8-9)

Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman (רמב"ן)

In his commentary on Lev. 16:8, Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman makes a similar assertion to Rabbi Ibn Ezra concerning the meaning of the word עזאזל. He writes :

Now the Torah has absolutely forbidden the acceptance of gods and all worship to them. However, the Holy One, blessed be He, commands us on Yom ha-Kippurim (the Day of Atonement) that we should release a goat in the wilderness, to the "prince" who rules over wastelands, and this (goat) is fitting for it because he is its master, and destruction and waste emanate from his power, which in turn is the cause of the stars of the sword, wars quarrels, wounds, plagues, division and destruction... Also in his portion are the devils called "destroyers" in the language of our rabbis, and in the language of our scriptures, "se'irim" (demons).

According to Pirḳe R. El. xlvi. (comp. Tos. Meg. 31a), the goat is offered to Azazel as a bribe that he who is identical with Samael or Satan should not by his accusations prevent the atonement of the sins on that day.

The fact that Azazel occupied a place in Mandæan, Sabean, and Arabian mythology (see Brandt, "Mandäische Theologie," pp. 197, 198; Norberg's "Onomasticon," p. 31; Reland's "De Religione Mohammedanarum," p. 89; Kamus, s.v. "Azazel" [demon identical with Satan]; Delitzsch, "Zeitsch. f. Kirchl. Wissensch. u. Leben," 1880, p. 182), renders it probable that Azazel was a degraded Babylonian deity. Origen ("Contra Celsum," vi. 43) identifies Azazel with Satan; Pirḳe R. El. (l.c.) with Samael; and the Zohar Aḥare Mot, following Naḥmanides, with the spirit of Esau or heathenism; still, while one of the chief demons in the Cabala, he never attained in the doctrinal system of Judaism a position similar to that of Satan. 

There you have it Yahweh commanded Aaron to make an offering of two goats one to  himself and Satan, imagine that! On top of that Christians fall into another dilemma because to them Jesus was also a scapegoat a sacrificial lamb. 

Now the ultimate question is if Jesus was a ransom as stated in Mark 10:45 to whom was the Ransom paid?. Was the ransom paid to Yahweh or Satan ? Could his so called alleged father be responsible for such a murder to set people free?, or does the the Ransom go  to Satan who eventually wins his way by killing the so called alleged son of God and walks away scoot free?.  We can conclude one thing and that is if Jesus of the bible was this scapegoat then his sacrifice was given to Satan.

Ibn Ezra

 *According Nahmanides what Ibn Ezra means is, if you count 33 verses you will understand why the goat was sent into the wilderness. If we count 33 verses we come to Lev. 17:7. The Torah there prohibits Israel from sacrificing to the se’irim (satyrs). According to I.E. the se’irim were demons that had the shape of goats. Now it is not clear what the purpose was of sending the goat to demons who were shaped like goats. According to Nahmanides the goat was a gift to Satan so that he would not interfere with Israel’s sacrifice. However, it is doubtful that I.E. had this in mind. Weiser suggests that the goat was sent to a place of demons so that the sins which it (literally or symbolically) bore would not contaminate people, for demons dwell in a place which is uninhabited.

Rebecca the jar and Camels busted

The fact that Rebecca was Isaac's child bride is so embarrassing for Christians they are finding it difficult not accept it. Even though we have proven from the Hebrew bible the language and academic biblical scholars that Rebecca was a child bride, Christians still play the blind game. What's worse they try to refute this fact by saying Rebecca could not have been a child bride because of a certain information found in the bible regarding Rebecca? Let's find out what this information is which Christians are latching on thinking they can debunk the proven fact that Rebecca was a child bride.

-----------------------

Before he had finished praying, Rebekah came out with her jar on her shoulder. She was the daughter of Bethuel son of Milkah, who was the wife of Abraham’s brother Nahor. The woman was very beautiful, a virgin; no man had ever slept with her. She went down to the spring, filled her jar and came up again.

Then the servant ran to meet her, and said, "Please let me drink a little water from your jar." She said, "Drink, my lord"; and she quickly lowered her jar to her hand, and gavehim a drink. After she had given him a drink, she said, "I'll draw water for your camels too, until they have had enough to drink." So she quickly emptied her jar into the trough, ran back to the well to draw more water, and drew enough for all his camels. (Genesis 24:16-20)

The above passage is a typical refutation made by Christians regarding Rebecca's age when she got married. Their claim is how can Rebecca be a Child/Infant (NAAR in Hebrew) when she was able to to carry jar/jug on her shoulder? 

A very weak and desperate attempt to challenge an irrefutable proof which destroys the notion that child marriage never took place in the bible. The problem is majority of Christians do not study their own bible nor do they want to learn from people who are experts in that field. Rather majority of Christians make up their own interpretations so it fits the way they find it convenient without having a proper understanding of the texts.

------------------------

Let's now show our Christian friends how carrying a jar of water and emptying it in a trough  so the camels can drink from could be problematic when it comes to new findings!

Archaeologists from the University of Tel Aviv, Israel, found that camels were not domesticated in Israel until the 9th century BC

They claim this shows that Biblical text was compiled long after the events described in it and challenges the Bible as a historical document

Researchers analysed the oldest known domesticated camel bones, found in the Aravah Valley in the southern Levant, to inform their research

Camels were not domesticated in Israel until centuries after the Age of the Patriarchs – when Abraham, Jacob and Issac are said to have lived - between 2,000 and 1,500 BC.

Dr Erez Ben-Yosef and Dr Lidar Sapir-Hen of Tel Aviv University's Department of Archaeology and Near Eastern Cultures used radiocarbon dating to pinpoint the moment when domesticated camels arrived in the southern Levant. They found camels came in the 9th century BC, not the 12th as previously thought. 

"This is a very good example that the stories were written at a much later time than they supposedly took place. The editor of these stories knew the camel was a draft animal used in his time for traveling across the desert, so of course Abraham, Jacob and David used camels. We call it an anachronism; he projected the reality that he knew at his own time," says Ben-Yosef.

Carol Meyers, a professor of religious studies at Duke University, about what such anachronisms tell us about the genesis of religious texts says :

"Pretty much so. In other words, stories about Abraham having a lot of camels, figuring in the story of Rebecca at the well - those stories are purported to take place hundreds of years before the camel was around, was on the scene as a domesticated animal. The storyteller who's shaping those legends is using what information he knows, which is after the camels are domesticated. And if he wants to show that Abraham is a very important, wealthy figure, what better way than to say that he's got the most expensive vehicle available? It'd be like saying he has a fleet of Jaguars or something like that today. We know that Jaguars didn't exist 200 years ago. We have an idea of our history of technology, but somebody formulating the story in, say, the 7th or 6th century BCE, they wouldn't have known that camel"

In short there was no camels in the same region as Abraham,Isaac, Jacob which means Rebecca could not have given water to the CAMELS?. If the scribes can make up such a lie just to improve the story it's obvious Rebecca would not have had carried the jar in the first place. Our Christian friend may say doesn't this also mean that Rebecca may not have been a child or even got married if the scribes can make up the Camels just to improve the story?.  That may not be the case since child marriage was very common those days and Rebecca was no exception to that. The fact that Rebecca married Isaac would not be doubtful to any historian, archeologist, but digging up the past as archeologist do could indeed change history as we know it. By finding out Camels were not present at a certain area does not dismiss two people  getting married.

So if any Christians bring up Rebecca carrying her jar to give the camels water inform him/her Camel did not exist at that region during the time of Rebecca.

According to the bible Breast feeding is allowed by men's How absurd is that!!

"Have I conceived all this people? have I begotten them, that thou shouldest say unto me, Carry them in thy bosom, as a nursing father beareth the sucking child, unto the land which thou swarest unto their fathers?" (Numbers 11:12)

Obviously, a nursing father is a sight that must have been at least occasionally seen during those times or else there would have been no point to the metaphor Moses was trying to construct.

"And kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers: they shall bow down to thee with their face toward the earth, and lick up the dust of thy feet; and thou shalt know that I am the LORD: for they shall not be ashamed that wait for me." (Isaiah 49:23)

Here's one more verse: "One dieth in his full strength, being wholly at ease and quiet. His breasts are full of milk, and his bones are moistened with marrow"

In this verse, breasts full of milk signify good health and full strength. Men, how is YOUR strength? (Job 21:24)

----------------------------------------------------------------

Christians are ignorant of the New Testament’s portrayal of Jesus; and they are ignorant of the documents hidden by the Church, namely the Gospel of Philip which records the love affair between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. The book of Revelation is probably the most degrading book; it contains a passage that describes Jesus having woman breasts!

And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks; And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps (mastos) with a golden girdle. (Revelations 1:13)

Let us analyze the passage closely; Jesus is described as having “paps” with a golden girdle. But what are paps? According to the Oxford Dictionary, it basically means the “breasts”.  There is evidence to show that “paps” exclusively refers to woman breasts.

Here is the lexicon for “paps”

Strong’s Number: 3149

Transliterated Word:

Mastos

 Phonetic

mas-tos' 

Definition:

the breasts

the breasts (nipples) of a man

breasts of a women

The word “paps” could refer to both male and female breasts, but the New Testament applies the Greek word “mastos” to woman only!

And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps (mastos) which thou hast sucked. (Luke 11:27)

For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps (mastos) which never gave suck. (Luke 23:29)

Since the New Testament never applies the word “paps” to males, the verse Revelation 1:13 does speak of Jesus having female breasts! Now if the author of Revelation wanted to say Jesus has MALE breasts, he should’ve used the Greek word “stethos”, which simply means “breast”.

And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast (stethos), saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. (Luke 18:13)

Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake. He then lying on Jesus' breast (stethos) saith unto him, Lord, who is it? (John 13:25)

Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast (stethos) at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee? (John 21:20)

The difference is that “stethos” defines any breast, but “mastos” only refers to female breasts. The perverted author of Revelations decided to use the word “mastos” and not “stethos”.

The scholar Tom Harper comments on Revelations 1:13

Revelation 1:13, in the King James Version, says, “And I saw in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of Man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle”. “Paps” is the archaic word for a woman’s breasts. In the Greek, the word used is the plural mastos, which the lexicon defines as “the breast, esp., of the swelling breast of a woman”. Rarely, the plural was used to refer to a man’s breasts, but the prevailing sense is female. The fact that the figure in this passage from Revelation wore a “girdle”, or cincture, about the breasts—the modern equivalent would be a brassiere—confirms that the breasts in question are female. Indeed, the New English Bible translates the plural as though it were a singular—“with a golden girdle round his breast”. The New Revised Standard Version tried to avoid any embarrassment by wrongly translating it as “chest”. (The Pagan Christ, p. 211)

It is interesting to note that Revelations also contains a passage that speaks of angels having breasts!

And the seven angels came out of the temple, having the seven plagues, clothed in pure and white linen, and having their breasts (stethos) girded with golden girdles. (Revelations 15:6)

Do angels have breasts? The passage doesn’t use the Greek word “mastos”, so the author is simply describing the breasts (non-female) of angels. Yet the verse Revelation 1:13 blatantly describes Jesus as a woman.

Genesis 30:21 read midrah leah had a boy who was changed into a girl Dinah

 

Yevamoth 64a/b states Abraham and Sarah non binary

 

Rabecca is called a he in genesis when she is first spoken to

 

Genesis 1:27 Adam is no binary read Midrash       

 

Esther 2:7, Question 1. Why does the verse use the strange word “omein” (“nursed”) to describe Mordechai’s care for Esther?

According to the bible Moses had horns coming out of his head?

Here's another example on when I ask Christians how well versed are you with the Hebrew bible, and how do you interpret the Hebrews texts?. The problems that we find it most Christians don't have a clue of their own bible. They don't know Hebrew nor have they been taught to read from the original language so what happens they get stuck on certain verses and passages which create a bigger problem when they start to interpret it their own way which is not the correct method the way the Jews interpret.

Take for instance this passage from the Torah :

And it came to pass, when Moses came down from mount Sinai with the two tables of testimony in Moses' hand, when he came down from the mount, that Moses wist not that the skin of his face shone while he talked with him. And when Aaron and all the children of Israel saw Moses, behold, the skin of his face shone; and they were afraid to come nigh him. (Exodus 34:29-30 KJV)

The above passage is a very bad English Translation, either the translators did not know Hebrew or they deliberately hid the actual Hebrew text to save themselves from embarrassment. You may wonder what's so extraordinary about the above passage? It seems pretty straight forward Moses got the tablets from mount Sinai and his face was shining?.  Let's show how Christians fail to understand the actual text since they are u aware of the Hebrew language. 

According to Exodus 34:29-30 Moses came down from Mount Sinai with the two tablets and his FACE WAS SHINING!. Was his face really shining? according to the Hebrew text it wasn't rather he had HORNS coming out of his Face the Hebrew text used in Exodus 34:29-30 is קָרַ֖ן ka·ran HORNS. 

Here's a literal translation of the texts :

And when Aaron and all the children of Israel saw Moses, behold, the skin of his face had HORNS; and they were afraid to come nigh him. (Exodus 34:30)

--------------------

Blue letter bible : קָרַן qâran, kaw-ran'; a primitive root; to push or gore; used only as denominative from H7161, to shoot out horns; figuratively, rays:—have horns, shine

Even the Latin vulgate Torah translates the texts as horns 

And when Moses came down from the Mount Sinai, he held the two tables of the testimony, and he knew not that his face was horned from the conversation of the Lord. And Aaron and the children of Israel seeing the face of Moses horned, were afraid to come near. (Exodus 34:29-30 Latin vulgate)

How about the same word being used in other books found in the bible:

And the LORD said unto Samuel, How long wilt thou mourn for Saul, seeing I have rejected him from reigning over Israel? fill thine HORN with oil, and go, I will send thee to Jesse the Bethlehemite: for I have provided me a king among his sons.

(1 Samuel 16:1)

And his brightness was as the light; he had HORNS coming out of his hand: and there was the hiding of his power. (Habakkuk 3:4) 

And it shall come to pass, that when they make a long blast with the ram's HORN, and when ye hear the sound of the trumpet, all the people shall shout with a great shout; and the wall of the city shall fall down flat, and the people shall ascend up every man straight before him. (Joshua 6:5)

And Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah made him HORNS of iron: and he said, Thus saith the LORD, With these shalt thou push the Syrians, until thou have consumed them.

(1 kings 22:11)

And thou shalt make the horns of it upon the four corners thereof: his HORNS shall be of the same: and thou shalt overlay it with brass. (Exodus 27:2)

The list goes on! This only shows that the actual english translation was hidden by the copyist. The golden question is why did he have HORNS coming out? No wonder it says Aaron and the children of Israel were afraid to come close to him? 

Again why did the copyist hide this?

 

According to Matthew, Jesus accused the Jewish leaders of murdering Zechariah son of Barachiah:

"...Zechariah son of Barachiah whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar." (Matthew23:35).

-----------------

Unfortunately, the Zachariah mentioned was slain in Jerusalem, 69 CE; so that Matthew makes Jesus refer to an event that occurred 39 years after his death in the past tense.

Referring to this passage, the Catholic scholar Dr. Hug says: "There cannot be a doubt, if we attend to the name, the fact and its circumstances, and the object of Jesus in citing it, that it was the same Zacharias Barouchos, who, according to Josephus, a short time before the destruction of Jerusalem, was unjustly slain in the temple."

Commenting on this passage, Prof. Newman says: "There is no other man known in history to whom the verse can allude. If so, it shows how late, how ignorant, how rash is the composer of a text passed off on us as sacred truth" (Religion not History, p. 46).

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges Commentary 

35. from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias] If the reading “son of Barachias” be retained (it is omitted in the Sinaitic MS.) a difficulty arises; for the Zacharias, whose death “in the court of the house of the Lord” is recorded 2 Chronicles 24:20-22, was the son of Jehoiada. The words, however, do not occur in Luke 11:51, and are possibly interpolated. Zechariah the prophet

Shockingly biblical scholars admit there is an INTERPOLATION !!!!!!!!!!

What a Shame!!!

Missionary lie exposed!

It's been a few times now I've come across on Facebook this new missionary lie which totally takes the biscuit. It's about a small child one version says boy another says girl who apparently asked an Imam a question with baffled him and he was unable to answer!. So what was this question posed by a child which the imam was shocked and unable to answer?

Believe it or not  the child asked the Imam after his Islamic lecture, where does the Quran say Allah love the sinner like her? Which apparently made the imam speechless?

Ask yourself this question have you ever heard of a small child going up to an imam and asking such a question!!! Seriously? And what's worse it had to be a Christian making mention of such an apparent situation. It seems to me that Christians have become to desperate they'll go to any means to make Islam look bad even if it's the road to lying!. 

Let's say for arguments sake this child even asked the Imam was the imam able to answer this child's  question? And the answer is YES let's clear this lie made by Christians and close this case for good.

Now unlike Christians who only accept and rely upon the bible (sets of books from the old and new testament making it into one), us Muslims on the other hand follow the Quran and Sunna (Teaching and sayings of Prophet Muhammed Pbuh found in books of Hadiths). Even the Jews have an oral tradition which they call inspired(Mishna/Talmud) but the Christians only solely follow the bible without any additional oral traditions. Let's use both Quran and sunnah I.e Hadith to clear up the lies the missionaries have created.

------------------

Say: "O my Servants who have transgressed against their souls! Despair not of the Mercy of Allah. for Allah forgives all sins: for He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

( Surah 39:53)

We read from the above verse that Allah Swt is speaking to his servants who have transgressed and sinned against their souls, sinned to the extreme beyond a limit who have done wrong Despair not the Mercy of Allah Swt as Allah Swt forgives All Sins.

Now imagine a disbeliever wether Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheist anyone who has constantly sinned and sinned Allah the Merciful will Forgive him providing he Repents why? Because Allah Swt Loves this person as the next verses will show

"But ask forgiveness of your Lord, and turn unto Him (in repentance): For my Lord is indeed full of mercy and loving-kindness." (Surah 11:90)

And He is the Oft-Forgiving, Full of Loving-Kindness,(Surah 85:14)

The above verses clearly reads Allah Swt is the Loving, We read in Surah 39:53 that No Matter how much you have sinned against your own soul despair not the Mercy of Allah Swt as he will forgive you why because he is the loving the kind as found in Surah  11:90 and Surah  85:14

There we have it Allah Swt loves everyone wether your a sinner or not a Jew, Christian, buddist, Hindu, atheist it does not matter as he's giving you a chance to free yourself from all the bad deeds you have committed no matter how much they may be it could reach the sky do not worry  by the Mercy of Allah Swt he will forgive you providing you repent as Allah Swt is the Loving and he Loves to Forgive Us.

Now let's read from Hadith 

In Saheeh Muslim it is narrated from Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “Allah has one hundred parts of mercy, of which He sent down one between the jinn, mankind, the animals and the insects, by means of which they are compassionate and merciful to one another, and by means of which wild animals are kind to their offspring. And Allah has kept back ninety-nine parts of mercy with which to be merciful to His slaves of the Day of Resurrection.” (Muslim, al-Tawbah, 6908) 

It was narrated that ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) said: “Some prisoners were brought to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), and there was a woman among the prisoners who was searching (for her child). When she found her child she embraced him and put him to her breast. The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said to us, ‘Do you think that this woman would throw her child in the fire?’ We said, ‘No, by Allah, not if she is able not to.’ The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, ‘Allah is more merciful to His slaves than this woman is to her child.’”  (Agreed upon)

Volume 9 / Book 93 / Hadith Number 577

Narrated by Abu Huraira

Allah's Apostle said, "If Allah loves a person, He calls Gabriel, saying, 'Allah loves so and so, O Gabriel love him' So Gabriel would love him and then would make an announcement in the Heavens: 'Allah has loved so and-so therefore you should love him also.' So all the dwellers of the Heavens would love him, and then he is granted the pleasure of the people on the earth." (See Hadith No. 66, Vol. 8) 

We can conclude that Allah Swt is the most Loving and Kind and Allah Swt Loves his creations and is The  Most Mercy Merciful to his Creation. Wether your a Jew, Christian, Hindu, buddist, Atheist Despair Not you will be forgiven providing you repent as Allah Swt is the most Merciful and Loving.

Wives of solomon had more power then yahweh (biblical God)

At Gibeon the LORD appeared to Solomon during the night in a dream, and God said, "Ask for whatever you want me to give you." (1 kings 3:5)

Give me an understanding heart so that I can govern your people well and know the difference between right and wrong. For who by himself is able to govern this great people of yours?" (1 kings 3:9)

I will do what you have asked. I will give you a wise and discerning heart, so that there will never have been anyone like you, nor will there ever be. (1 king 3 :12)

And God gave Solomon wisdom and understanding exceeding much, and largeness of heart, even as the sand that is on the sea shore. (1 kings 4:29)

King Solomon was greater in riches and wisdom than all the other kings of the earth. (1 Kings 10:23)

--------------------------------

From the Above verses it seems like solomon is a great king and yahweh has blessed him with all Wisdom, riches, discerning Heart, one who knows RIGHT FROM WRONG!!.. The Prefect man as the King on earth, imagine people of the world came to get his wisdom?. Surely if YAHWEH has blessed him from himself then this blessing will always remain in him.  After all Yahweh came to his dreams and asked him what he wants, It's not often yahweh comes in dreams.?

However Yahweh didn't even know what was coming to him. It's seems  like ya he got tricked by the wives of solomon!. They say the older you get the wiser you become, not in this case solomon was supposed to have been given wisdom at a very young age.    

-------------------------------

As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the LORD his God, as the heart of David his father had been.

(1 kings 11:4)

So solomon became a pagan? His wives  turned his HEART AWAY FROM GOD?.. How is that even possible when Yahweh himself granted solomon with such qualities of wisdom? A man who was blessed by God went against it? Can you imagine a Prophet of God became a pagan How could this be? Which begs the question why jews and Christians will have books written by a pagan I.e songs of Solomon and proverbs?

Yahweh commands stones as part of gifts

The Sacred Tent

1 The Lord said to Moses:

2 Tell everyone in Israel who wants to give gifts that they must bring them to you. 

3 Here is a list of what you are to collect: Gold, silver, and bronze; 

4 blue, purple, and red wool; fine linen; goat hair; 

5 tanned ram skins; fine leather; acacia wood; 

6 olive oil for the lamp; sweet-smelling spices to mix with the oil for dedicating the tent and ordaining the priests; 

7 and onyx stones for the sacred vest and the breastpiece. 

8 I also want them to build a special place where I can live among my people. 

9 Make it and its furnishings exactly like the pattern I will show you.

(Exodus 25:1-9)

-------------------

Take notice on verse 7 (and onyx stones for the sacred vest and the breastpiece.)

ONXY STONES!!!!

One wonders why Christians say Muslims worship black stone where in reality Muslims do not worship the black Stone. For us Muslims it's a Sacred Stone sent from heaven. And here we read from the very bible Christians cherish the ONXY stone must be used for the Sacred vest and breastpiece. Below we read Jacob using a rock to worship Yahweh?......

When Jacob got up early the next morning, he took the rock that he had used for a pillow and stood it up for a place of worship. Then he poured olive oil on the rock to dedicate it to God,

(Genesis 28:18 )

Sacrifice?

How can Jesus have sacrificed himself when God raised him back to life again? Let's examine this claim, Sacrificing something or someone only happens when you want something back in return? If God sacrificed himself what did he get in return when he already owns EVERYTHING? What could god possibly gain from sacrificing  himself when he Owns everything and do what he likes whenever he wants? What good will that do to him?

----------------

What does sacrifice mean?

sacrifice

ˈsakrɪfʌɪs/

noun

1. 1. 

   an act of slaughtering an animal or person or surrendering a possession as an offering to a deity.

   "they offer sacrifices to the spirits"

   synonyms:

   ritual slaughter, hecatomb, immolation, offering, oblation;  self-sacrifice, self-immolation "initiation ceremonies include the sacrifice of animals"

----------------

So God sacrificed himself to himself in order to forgive mankind from a sin which he created himself? And how can you say God sacrificed himself or his son whichever way you see it, when he brought himself or his son back to life again which means there was no sacrifice and nothing was lost ? It's like giving away your old car knowing you have a new one?

Thus Jesus could not have Sacrificed himself when he was brought back to life.. In reality Nothing was lost? So where's the sacrifice

The tradition of sacrifice is not that after a animal  is slaughtered it is raised back to life again, then the whole purpose of sacrifice is meaningless.

How can Jesus be a sacrifice when he was brought back to life again? Since when did the Jews sacrifice animals in the temple they took, saw them come back to life again? The entire sacrifice will have no meaning. A sacrifice is made to receive something in return so, your sacrifice is gone or given away not to return.

If Jesus came back to life after sacrificing himself that is according to Christians, than wheres the sacrifice if nothing is lost? So, in reality nothing was given up nor any sacrifice made.

That's whole point of giving a life i.e. animal for sacrifice. Christians claim God gave his son to redeem the sins of mankind as the perfect sacrifice, yet this son was brought life back so, how is it a sacrifice when the whole point is to give up this life?

Makes no sense Christians claiming a sacrifice was made.

---------------------

Leviticus 17:11 use on alter

Leviticus 1:2

Leviticus 5:11

Jonah 3:7-10 sins forgiven for Ninevites

Numbers 16:47  no blood needed

Numbers 31:50  no blood needed

Isaiah 6:6-7 sins purged.  Fire stops bleeding

Leviticus 4: 1-2 blood sacrifice done through unintentional sin no intentional.

Pre meditated sin wont for sins. Blood sacrifice is for accidental sin.

Numbers 15:30-31 sin on him

Numbers 5:6-7  sin on him and no blood sacrifice.  Confess the sin you have done.

Jeremiah 7:22-23 Yahweh said he never commanded blood sacrifice

Where does Yahweh say to do a blood sacrifice

Leviticus 1:1-2 the word used is "IF" not that yahweh commanded them to

Leviticus 4:32 sin offering lamb must be a female. Jesus was a male. Jesus of the bible was scorged and beaten so he wasn't blemish. Crown of thorns bleeds. Lamb doesn't know how to sin. Without blemish does not mean without  sin. Without blemish means no problem with your skin.

1 he was human

2 he was male not female

3 he was not blemish

Deuteronomy 12:30-31  following. Jews wanna follow the pagans after being saved. Human sacrifice is an abomination something he hates.

Jeremiah 19:4-6 human sacrifice was not commanded

------------

No sacrifice / statue

 

 

Put your burnt offerings unto your sacrifices, and eat flesh. For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices. Jeremiah 7:21-22

 

 

The showed gratitude by giving an offering not tat God asked them too. The command always starts with “If” you are to bring a offering, not that you must bring an offering.

 

 

No, God does not desire animal sacrifices.

The book of Psalms is the first book of the Bible to claim that God does not desire animal sacrifices.

Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire. Psalm 40:6

 

Will I eat of the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats? Psalm 50:13

 

For thou desirest not sacrifice ... thou delightest not in burnt offerings. Psalm 51:16

 

        Some prophets make the same claim.

 

I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats. Isaiah 1:11

 

He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man. Isaiah 66:3

 

Your burnt offerings are not acceptable, nor your sacrifices sweet unto me. Jeremiah 6:20

 

Put your burnt offerings unto your sacrifices, and eat flesh. For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices. Jeremiah 7:21-22

 

For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. Hosea 6:6

 

Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year old? Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams? Micah 6:6-7

 

         And then Jesus says the same thing a couple of times (quoting Hosea).

I will have mercy, and not sacrifice. Matthew 9:13, 12:7

 

 

 

Child sacrifice was commanded of the Israelites by Yahweh, the biblical God.

You shall not delay to offer from the fulness of your harvest and from the outflow of your presses. The first-born of your sons you shall give to me. You shall do likewise with your oxen and with your sheep: seven days it shall be with its dam; on the eighth day you shall give it to me. (Exodus 22:29-30)

The context of this passage concerns offerings and sacrifices, and it says God requires firstborn sons to be literally sacrificed to him. Later on we find Yahweh admitting he commanded this to Ezekiel

Moreover I gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not have life; and I defiled them through their very gifts in making them offer by fire all their first-born, that I might horrify them; I did it that they might know that I am the LORD (Yahweh). (Ezekiel 20:25-26)

Disturbing how Yahweh intentionally played with the Israelites to teach them a lesson, later admitting why did he did it.This again goes back to Ezekiel where Yahweh testifies he is a deceiver.

"If any prophets are DECEIVED into giving a false answer, it is because I, the LORD, have DECEIVED them... (Ezekiel 14:9)

In other words Yahweh deceived Moses the Prophet of the Jews and later tried to justify his deeds to what he did to his people. Interesting how Yahweh told Ezekiel of his evil scheme. could it be the later Jews were questioning child sacrifice to Yahweh?

 

also read Numbers 14:20 from context

Hosea 6 

Satan has an upper hand!

For God did not spare even the angels who sinned. He threw them into hell, in gloomy pits of darkness, where they are being held until the day of judgment. (2 peter 2:4)

------------------

Who are these Angels that sinned  that God didn't spare and threw them in Hell?

Here's the dilemma if God can throw Angels who sinned in hell, and leave them there till the day of judgement why is Satan still roaming on earth? Is Satan not an Angel according to the bible? Did Satan not sin when he disobeyed God and made Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit. What could be more worse then that. Why is Satan exempted from being thrown in hell like the rest of the Angels?

If it wasn't for Satan in the first place then those Angels would not have sinned by coming to earth and having sex with women's.. But how did those Angels sin when they married the women's they had sex with on earth?

When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. (Genesis 6:1-2)

Not like the Angels committed fornication? They liked what they saw I.e the daughters of men's on earth and Married them had sexual intimacy with their wives so how is that a sin? It doesn't makes sense you getting punished for having sex with your wife, whilst  the real culprit that is Satan goes scoot free for not only disobeying God but causing man to astray using deception.

Seems like Yahweh has given Satan special privileges where he can even go stand in from of God himself incite him and walk away.  

Then the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil. And he still maintains his integrity, though you incited me against him to ruin him without any reason." (Job 2:3)

Notice from the above verse Yahweh admits SATAN INCITED HIM!!! Can you imagine Satan didnt even leave Yahweh alone. He temps jesus and incites yahweh and makes job suffer yet Yahweh does not throw him in hell like he did to the other Angels? Also this Satan is the God of this world!.

Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don't believe. (2 Corinthians 4:4)

How ironic this Satan who is Evil, Deceptive, Corrupted is labeled as the God of the earth. Yet in the other hand the Angels who Married the woman's on earth and had Sex Legally and Condemned and thrown into Hell?

You call this justice!!!!!!

 

The Book of Esther is not historical rather is a work of fiction!.

How absurd a book inspired by God does not mention his name even Once!

The Book of Esther is supposed to be an inspired book. Yet In the entire book of Esther there is no mention of God. Not only does it not mention God once, it never mentions prayer to God or thanksgiving for deliverance how comes? It is a completely and brutally materialistic story of murder and robbery. How did this ever have into our Bible? According to the Jewish encyclopaedia the book 

----------------

As to the historical value of the foregoing data, opinions differ. Comparatively few modern scholars of note consider the narrative of Esther to rest on an historical foundation. The most important names among the more recent defenders of the historicity of the book are perhaps Hävernick, Keil, Oppert, and Orelli. The vast majority of modern expositors have reached the conclusionthat the book is a piece of pure fiction, although some writers qualify their criticism by an attempt to treat it as a historical romance. The following are the chief arguments showing the impossibility of the story of Esther:

In view of all the evidence the authority of the Book of Esther as a historical record must be definitely rejected. Its position in the canon among the Hagiographa or "Ketubim" is the only thing which has induced Orthodox scholars to defend its historical character at all. Even the Jews of the first and second centuries of the common era questioned its right to be included among the canonical books of the Bible (compare Meg. 7a). The author makes no mention whatever of God, to whom, in all the other books of the Old Testament, the deliverance of Israel is ascribed. The only allusion in Esther to religion is the mention of fasting (iv. 16, ix. 31). All this agrees with the theory of a late origin for the book, as it is known, for example, from Ecclesiastes, that the religious spirit had degenerated even in Judea in the Greek period, to which Esther, like Daniel, in all probability belongs.

Esther could hardly have been written by a contemporary of the Persian empire, because (1) of the exaggerated way in which not only the splendor of the court, but all the events described, are treated (compare the twelve months spent by the maidens in adorning themselves for the king; the feasts of 187 days, etc., all of which point rather to the past than to a contemporary state of affairs); (2) the uncomplimentary details given about a great Persian king, who is mentioned by name, would not have appeared during his dynasty.

It is difficult to go so far as Grätz, who assignsEsther to an adherent of the Maccabean party in the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes. The vast difference in religious and moral tone between Esther and Daniel—the latter a true product of Antiochus' reign—seems to make such a theory impossible. Nor is the view of Jensen, followed by Nöldeke, more convincing to the unprejudiced mind. He endeavors to prove that the origin of the whole story lies in a Babylonian-Elamitic myth. He identifies Esther with the Babylonian goddess Ishtar (Aphrodite); Mordecai with Marduk, the tutelary deity of Babylon; and Haman with Hamman or Humman, the chief god of the Elamites, in whose capital, Susa, the scene is laid; while Vashti is also supposed to be an Elamite deity. Jensen considers that the Feast of Purim, which is the climax of the book, may have been adapted from a similar Babylonian festival by the Jews, who Hebraized the original Babylonian legend regarding the origin of the ceremonies. The great objection to such a theory is that no Babylonian festival corresponding with the full moon of the twelfth month is known.

The object of Esther is undoubtedly to give an explanation of and to exalt the Feast of Purim, of whose real origin little or nothing is known. 

can Christians prove the book of Esther was inspired by God and not Satan? Would Satan mention God's name no?