Downstrike/islam

These are titles, not names.

From the page:

"The Bible says Moses was instructed by GOD to go to the pharoah of Egypt and tell him to let his people go, but the Bible never mentions the name of this phaorah. What was his name? Biblical scolars say Moses freed his people around 1313 B.C.E. How come the Egyptian people at that time have no mention of Moses in their records?"

"Ahmose 1. This Pharaohs body is on display at a museum in Egypt. The name means brother of Moses. Many think it was Ramses but that is incorrect for Ramses was the father."

This page would make Islam seem like Jehovah's Witnesses, if only they would use God' name.

From the page:

"If you were a god (almighty, of course), would you create evil, suffering, sin, hell?

If you would, what for?"


"No. If I were God Almighty; omnipotent and omniscient, I would have created everything perfect, and when I perfectly created man in my own image, then one of my perfectly created other creatures would have tempted himself and envied me for having something created in my own image.

Then, once he desired what was not his, he would undertake to remake what I created in my own image, into his own image instead. Since the biggest difference between him and me is that he envies, to remake them, he would tempt those created in my image to envy, like he does:

He would show them the one thing that I have forbidden to them, to tempt them to envy me for having that. However, he would not stop there. He would then tell them that if they decide for themselves what is good and evil, instead of dying, they will become like me; heaven and all.

Then they would desire and take what is not theirs. Once they started dying, like I told them they would if they decided for themselves what was good and evil, he would cover up his lie: He would inspire religions that teach men that they are entitled to decide for themselves what is good and evil all their lives, and then go to heaven
to be like me, instead of dying.

Just in case some of his false religions figured out that it doesn't make sense to be rewarded for doing evil, he would also make up some nonsense called Hell, just to make me seem hateful."

Being omniscient and perfect, I would foresee all that would befall my creation, before it all happened, but I would love creation so much that I create it anyway. I'd know it will all turn out well in the end.

Further information, prompted by further question from the Asker:

Thank your considering what I had to say.

I don't think God created evil, but evil is simply a risk, (or certainty), He took for the sake of creating creatures in Heaven and on Earth.

Setting a simple limit on human behavior was an opportunity that God gave to man, to obey or disobey, however man would choose. That way, man had a chance to choose to love his Creator. Without something forbidden, man would have no choice. He might as well be a robot, with no choice, except to follow programming.

If man had chosen to obey, evil and suffering would have been snuffed on the spot. God could have dealt with the envious creature summarily, or perhaps the envious creature could have been shamed by the contrast between his envy and man's faith, and repented. Either way, we humans could have lived the past 6,000 years in the paradise God originally created. Sadly, that's neither here nor there.

Here's a parallel experience, in case it helps to understand: From the age of 11 to 15, my girlfriend and I were a faithful couple. Then one day, I overheard her telling a friend, "I liked him when I was younger, but he's so faithful to me that for a long time, I've felt obligated to love him. It makes me wish he would be unfaithful just once, so I could break up with him, and have a choice to like other boys."

She was unhappy, because she felt she didn't have any choice, just like Adam and his missing rib would have felt, if they had been unable to choose whether or not to obey God. I was now unhappy too, because as much as I wanted to keep this girlfriend, what I loved about her most, was that she chose me.

That was no longer true. Perhaps it never had been true, because the consequence of choosing me at such a young age was that she felt she could never get acquainted with all the other choices life had to offer her.

I loved her enough that I had to set her free. In my comparatively small way, I showed that my kind was created in God' image, because I did find a way to set her free, just like God found a way to set man free, (although I can't remember now whether I understood that at the time).

That was in 1974.  It wasn't until 1979 that I saw a motivational poster with a picture of hands releasing a butterfly, that said, "If you love something, let it go. If it returns to you, it's yours. If it doesn't, it never was".  It was like looking into a mirror that displayed who I was, instead of what I look like.

How I set her free was a whole other heartbreak, but I did it, and anything I can do, God can do better.

From the page: "The work advances the thesis that the content of critical sections of the Qu'ran has been broadly misread by succeeding generations of readers through a faulty and exclusive reliance on the assumption that classical Arabic formed the foundation of the Qu'ran whereas linguistic analysis of the text suggests that the prevalent Syro-Aramic language up to the 7th century formed a stronger etymological basis for its meaning."

I'm Christian, so I can't speak for most people who call themselves Muslim, but I would want nothing to do with a movement that would delete verses from my holy text, just because some apostate corrupted those verses into excuses to commit crimes against man and God.

However, my faith has been sufficiently open-minded and concerned by corruption in the Tawrat, Injil, and other prophecies accepted by Christians that, rather than accept the corruption committed against the book by Christendom and Judaism, we bypassed all the corrupted translations, and translated them anew, from the earliest available manuscripts, from before the time of Muhammad.

As Muslims may anticipate, we found differences, and gained better understanding, especially of verses that had been corrupted to excuse crimes against man and against God.

We know, as Muslims do, that God is one, not three, and that Isa was sent by God. Although by the time Muhammad encountered Christendom, God's true name was already removed from the book, the older copies of it have His name, and His great name has taught us more about who He is.

Would you like to see the Tawrat and Injil, cleaned of corruption? watchtower.org/bible/ [watchtower.org/bible/]

Surely, Muslims also love Allah enough to want to have the best possible understanding of the Quran. Just think what you could learn about Him by translating it anew from the earliest available copies of the rasm, using the best available translating techniques. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Syro-Ar [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Syro-Ar] ...

Then you could compare your new translation with what you already have, and choose which translation makes more sense. However, if you do not make the effort to translate the Quran anew, you will have no opportunity to choose.

Perhaps you would learn more about God, like we did. You can certainly learn more about Him, if you examine the new translation of the Tawrat and Injil: watchtower.org/bible/ [watchtower.org/bible/]

This must be about 7 years old... 
Can it really have been that long?

From the page: '"I've had enough of Islam in the Netherlands; let not one more Muslim immigrate," he wrote in the paper. "I've had enough of the Quran in the Netherlands: Forbid that fascist book."

Prosecution spokeswoman Hanneke Festen said Wilders' statements were allowable under Dutch law, which forbids inciting hatred against groups on the basis of their race or creed but also grants leeway to freedom of speech."'

Sure, you have freedom of speech.

However, consider the consequences before you speak.  You're bad-mouthing a culture that glorifies childish retaliation.  If you promote banning their beliefs, they're going to promote banning your beliefs.  What's more, even though your government is too "civilized" to act on such bigotry, theirs isn't.

When you promote banning their beliefs in your country, all you're likely to do is get your beliefs banned in their country.  Then again, bigots like you have been around for centuries, so your beliefs are probably already banned in their country.