I would not give this verse for the whole world…

The Messenger of God said,

“I would not give this verse for the whole world: O My servants who have transgressed against their souls, do not despair of God’s Mercy.” (Surah 39:53)

 

(Ahmad)



Categories: Hadith, Wisdom

72 replies

  1. Exactly. God forgives whenever He chooses. He doesn’t need blood to be spilled to be satiated, like some false pagan god.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Fail

      “God forgives whenever He chooses.”

      And in so doing allows injustice to go unpunished. Your god is morally imperfect.

      “He doesn’t need blood to be spilled to be satiated, like some false pagan god.”

      Someone should tell all of those halal butchers who are slaughtering goats, cows and lambs by hanging them upside down and slitting their throats and allowing them to flail about for a long time as the lifeblood pours from their veins and they immense immense pain, fear and suffering.

      LOL!! Your god doesn’t need blood to be spilled! LOL!!! You are making me laugh – you are the muslim woody allen! You don’t even know your own religious practices.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. D

    Your God constantly allows injustice and responds by sacrificing an innocent person in their place. Many of this Gods followers are responsible throughout history of causing immense suffering to all kinds of people. Glass houses dear boy…

    D by the way are you a vegetarian? If not could you explain how you manage to criticize Halal while at the same time chowing down on a chicken leg?

    Like

    • Patrice

      Once again in your smug attempts to come across as knowledgeable, you expose your ignorance.

      Christians believe that it was god who took suffering upon himself out of his love for mankind. Surely, even after all this time of having CHristians explain it to you, you must get it by now? It is not hard.

      And what does vegetarianism have to do with anything I wrote? Does christianity call for the painful killing of animals for meat? Does your local butcher slice animals’ throats and leave them hanging in agony for up to thirty minutes while they flail about in pain and terror? Your god demands that animals be sacrificed in this way, yet Fail claims that your god does not require sacrifice.

      Don’t blame me that you don’t know your own religion.

      Like

    • Patrice is not a Muslim. Do try and pay attention, he has said this several times already

      Like

    • Paul

      Be that as it may, he has still adopted your god and positioned himself as his defender.

      Like

    • Don’t forget that Jesus willingly gave up his life. Normally, when someone sacrifices their life for another, we consider it heroism. So why the hostility and straw man against Jesus?

      Like

    • Paulus

      “Don’t forget that Jesus willingly gave up his life. Normally, when someone sacrifices their life for another, we consider it heroism.”

      For some reason, muslim apologists just seem incapable of comprehending this simple doctrine. Patrice is a good example of this – several people have explained it to him, but he just can’t get it!

      Like

    • You just don’t get it. God does not need a human sacrifice to forgive sins. God is merciful just as Jesus and Muhammad taught. It’s irrelevant if in your doctrine Jesus dies willingly or not. It was not necessary either way.

      Liked by 2 people

  3. Paulus doesn’t Jesus plead with God to take the cup away from him? That doesn’t sound like he was doing it voluntarily.

    Besides Jesus never taught that he would die for anyones sins. If he did one would have conclude that he failed miserably as people still sin all the time. Christians especially

    Liked by 3 people

    • Yes, Jesus was very upset over the great responsibility that was given to him. He was certainly willing to be free of the task ahead. Not voluntary at all.

      Like

    • Also, why didn’t the Father offer himself up? It seems vulgar to have one’s “son”, even if that “son” is “God”, to suffer and die so that the “Father” may forgive mankind’s sins.

      Like

    • Patrice

      Jesus laments that there is no other way, that’s all. And how does this even remotely suggest that jesus’ actions aren’t voluntary? I think you are reading what you want to see into the text. It just isn’t there.

      “Besides Jesus never taught that he would die for anyones sins.”

      Really, patrice? This again?!! LOL!! What is going on in between you guys’ ears? It is becoming painful to watch.

      You guys are starting to remind me of Zoolander! LOL!!!

      Like

    • Yes he does, but you only cite half of that text, “but your will be done”. Further, it is clear throughout the gospels that Jesus was willingly heading to the cross. He explained that many times.

      Your second point is answered by the theological distinction between justification and sanctification. And remember even if someone was to agree with you, the Christian corpus is bigger than the canonical gospels so no need to limit ones theology to only the gospels as you seem to be hinting at.

      We don’t limit Muslims to the Meccan Surahs for example, so I’m sure Christians would ask for the same courtesy with their scriptures

      Like

    • Paulus the point is that while Jesus (according to Mark) aware of his impending death however during his final moments lamented that he had to do it, he did so because it was the will of God and he submitted to that.

      Your point regarding justification and sanctification misses the point that Jesus’ death for sin lacked any effect whatsoever as the ‘justified’ continue to sin so therefore are not ‘sanctified’ at all. Most importantly of course is that why would God require his son to die in order to justify people? Why not just forgive?

      Like

    • NB The incident in Marks Gospel also demonstrates a rather clear picture of God being above Jesus as far as his death is concerned. In fact Marks Gospel makes that distinction throughout as many of the core Christian beliefs are not present there such as his deity, death for sin etc…

      Like

    • Hi Patrice.

      Sanctification is considered a life long process generally so I don’t think your objection actually works. Theologically speaking I mean. You might have more of a case practically speaking.

      Again, Christian theology is derived from the entire corpus of scripture, so if doctrine A is not taught in Mark’s gospel but taught elsewhere then what’s the problem?

      Like

    • Because the later Gospels are largely embellishments of the earlier and more authentic text (Mark) as well as Q and other sources unique to these texts. It is very obvious that Matthew and Luke add material to the Markan stories in order to avoid Jesus’ apparent falilibility take the story of the fig tree for example.

      You would think that if the death and resurrection of Jesus were somehow pivotal for salvation that the earliest account of his life and teachings would focus on it but the curious fact is it does not. Rather the message of Christ in Marks Gospel is the coming Kingdom of God and to guide his people Israel via obedience to the Torah. Nothing about faith in him as God or anything else.

      Liked by 2 people

    • That’s a very narrow view of literature in my opinion. The gospels are a particular genre. Theological treatise they are not, so why would we expect them to elaborate theological themes? We see those type of things in the epistles whereas the gospels are ancient bio. And I don’t personally find that particular argument about the other gospels attractive- it appears to be a 20th century approach applied to very ancient texts, rather than attempting to understand ancient bio, it’s purpose, genre, themes, etc. in other words, I prefer doing history that tries to deal with texts in their own setting, contra the approach you highlight.

      Are you this narrow and harsh with Islam? Do you demand that all theology, practice and sunnah be found in one part of the Quran?

      Like

  4. LOL!! Fido and Paulus still can’t seem to understand that their god resembles a pagan god by requiring blood sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins! In contrast, the true God forgives sins when the person is sincerely repentant. No need for blood! You repent and amend your ways. You get forgiveness. Moreover, the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) taught that a person who shows forgiveness to others will be shown forgiveness by Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He). There are so many ways to seek forgiveness and redemption in Islam. And none of them require the spilling of blood. Alhamdulillah!

    Poor Fido and Paulus. It seems they might as well worship Zeus or Chemosh. These pagan deities are not much different in their lust for blood than the Christian god.

    And Paulus, you can keep your “voluntary” sacrifice to yourself. I don’t need or want someone else to pay for my sins. My sins are my own. I will be responsible for them. I have faith that my God will forgive me.

    Liked by 1 person

    • “I have faith that my God will forgive me.”

      You forgot something, “inshallah”

      Like

    • My point was only that we represent the Christian position properly since Christians believe it was voluntary. That is common courtesy in discussions.

      Like

    • voluntary or not it is still immoral. It violates Ezekiel 18. Go read..

      Like

    • Fail

      Why does your merciful-god-who-doesn’t-like-sacrifice require that you inflict agonizing sacrificial death on poor innocent animals by hanging them upside down and having your butchers slit their throats and let them slowly and painfully flail and writhe for a very long time in fear and agony until every last drop of blood is drained from their bodies?

      Sounds very much to me like your god revels in the spilling of blood and literally demands it from you. LOL!!!

      You are even more ignorant of your own religion than you are of mine. LOL!!!

      Like

    • So it is immoral for a man to lay down his life for others?

      Like

  5. D

    You said;
    Fail

    Why does your merciful-god-who-doesn’t-like-sacrifice require that you inflict agonizing sacrificial death on poor innocent animals by hanging them upside down and having your butchers slit their throats and let them slowly and painfully flail and writhe for a very long time in fear and agony until every last drop of blood is drained from their bodies?

    Sounds very much to me like your god revels in the spilling of blood and literally demands it from you. LOL!!!

    You are even more ignorant of your own religion than you are of mine. LOL!!!

    I say;
    D. Where did you get this information from? You lied. Some animals are food for us and others are not food. The animals that are food are to be treated humanely.

    -It is obligatory for Muslims to treat all animals including the food animals humanely.
    -A very sharp knife must be used when slaughtering an animal and the name of only one God of Abraham who is only 1 and not 3 Persons must be recited before slaughtering the animal with a sharp knife and where at the oesophagus where sudden death is expected.

    -Nature demands certain animals feed on others and it is not sin.

    //It is sin to kill a human being except a murderer or criminal according to the Bible

    //It is a sin to kill the innocent in place of the guilty according to the Bible
    Bible

    //It is a sin to cause a human being to suffer by other human beings

    So, it is a sin for the 3 persons God of the Trinity to allow His part or His Son to be deliberately beaten to death while he(Jesus) was pleading. It was not voluntary but child abuse by the other persons of Trinity.

    Jesus said he was sent and so he did not come voluntarily to die for any one’s sin.

    Christians don’t understand sent?

    Jesus said he was sent and so he did not come voluntarily to die for any one’s sins.

    Thanks.

    Like

    • Intellect

      “It is obligatory for Muslims to treat all animals including the food animals humanely.
      -A very sharp knife must be used when slaughtering an animal”

      LOL!!!

      Then why not just cut their head off cleanly and put them out of their misery instead of making them hang there in pain and agony, flailing about and in terror as the blood drains form them?

      Do you really believe this is humane? Why does your god demand this kind of sacrifice?

      Like

    • NB it is not considered a sacrifice

      Like

    • D

      You said;
      Then why not just cut their head off cleanly and put them out of their misery instead of making them hang there in pain and agony, flailing about and in terror as the blood drains form them?

      Do you really believe this is humane? Why does your god demand this kind of sacrifice?

      I say;
      I asked you to prove where Islam teaches “hang animals in pain and agony and terror”. You did not. In Islam the knife must be shape to slit the oesophagus immediately. The whole head must not need to be chopped off for sudden death but the oesophagus, throat etc.

      The one slaughtering the animal must make sure the knife goes in the exact position to slaughter the animal for sudden death.

      Jews Korsher has similar slaughter and sanctioned by the only true one God of Abraham who is not 3 person but only one and alone God.

      Thanks.

      Like

    • Paul it is most definitely considered a “korban” (sacrifice) by Indonesian Muslims during idul adha

      Like

    • Paul Williams

      “NB it is not considered a sacrifice”

      Are you defiled if you eat non-halal meat when you don’t have to? Does your god require this manner of slaughter that anyone can see is barbaric and brutal? If he requires this from you, then he is asking that blood be spilled in a very painful manner so that your food does not defile you.

      In other words, beasts have to shed blood and suffer so that you are not defiled. It doesn’t matter what you call it.

      Like

  6. correction: the knife must be sharp…………

    Like

  7. Fido barked:

    “Fail

    Why does your merciful-god-who-doesn’t-like-sacrifice require that you inflict agonizing sacrificial death on poor innocent animals by hanging them upside down and having your butchers slit their throats and let them slowly and painfully flail and writhe for a very long time in fear and agony until every last drop of blood is drained from their bodies?

    Sounds very much to me like your god revels in the spilling of blood and literally demands it from you. LOL!!!

    You are even more ignorant of your own religion than you are of mine. LOL!!!”

    LOL!!! How ignorant you are! Halal slaughter and kosher slaughtering are very similar, and in fact, they are quite humane:

    “There is ample scientific evidence that religious slaughter is at least as humane as conventional mechanical slaughter. Research in the UK and the US, including by Dr Temple Grandin – one of the authorities on animal welfare – have supported this view. By contrast, many of the studies that suggest that religious slaughter causes unnecessary pain have been agenda-driven and methodologically flawed, stretching data in a distinctly unscientific fashion to unsupported conclusions” (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/06/jewish-muslim-slaughter-animal-welfare-humane).

    Get your head out of your rear-end, you pathetic chihuahua! LOL!!!

    Like

    • Fail

      You lousy douchebag of a man. Mocking mentally handicapped people isn’t enough for you – now you make an apologetic for barbaric slaughter practices.

      Here, enjoy……Allahu Akbar!!!!!!!…….

      Go Islam!!!

      Like

    • An opinion piece?

      Like

    • D

      You will search the internet to bring anything against Islam, without researching. Find below the Islamic prescription on slaughter. It is just like the Jewish Korsher sanctioned by the Only One true God of Abraham who is not a 3 persons God.

      Learn the Islamic Halal and Korsher before copying any production line on the internet.

      Islam did not teach production line slaughter but to prepare the animal for slaughter in a humane way and use a sharp knife to slaughter the necessary parts of the neck that will bring instant death to the animal. Science will tell you that it is not necessary to chop the whole head off. You must research on science a little bit about instant death with regards to slaughter.

      Besides, God created other animal to feed on other animals and you may find it barbaric but it is not so.

      Human sacrifice is barbaric and abomination said the Bible and that is what Jesus Christ went through.

      Thanks.

      Like

    • D

      Some Muslims will not eat production line meat and most Halal Slaughter house do not use production line slaughter but the traditional way of preparing the animal according to Islam for slaughter with sharp knife.

      Thanks.

      Like

    • Fail

      Did you watch the video? LOL!!

      Allah the merciful. LOL!!!!

      Like

    • Intellect

      But your god requires the shedding of blood so that animals are purified and you are not defiled.

      That first video you posted is clearly bs. It’s what happens after the throat is slit that makes it barbaric. Why didn’t they show the part where the animal writhes in agony and terror? You can’t seriously be asking me to believe that those animals just lay there after they’ve had their throats slit and doze off happy and peaceful?

      Like

  8. Paulus said:

    “So it is immoral for a man to lay down his life for others?”

    As payment for someone else’s sins? Absolutely!

    Liked by 1 person

    • Oh dear…

      Sahih Muslim 6668—Allah’s Messenger [said]: There would come people amongst the Muslims on the Day of Resurrection with as heavy sins as a mountain, and Allah would forgive them and He would place in their stead the Jews and the Christians.

      Liked by 1 person

    • So? It does not teach that a man or a god has to die before God forgives sins. It does not teach substitutionary atonement.

      Why does you god require human sacrifice to forgive just like the Aztecs?

      Like

    • Paulus,

      Substitutionary atonement is that Jesus die then God forgives the sins of others – meaning Jesus has to die first.

      However in Sahih Muslim 6668 , Allah forgives the sinners , place the Jews and Christians in the vacated space – meaning Allah forgives unconditionally

      In short
      ** In the case of Jesus dying for your sins
      – Jesus die
      – God forgive the sins

      ** In the case of Sahih Muslim 6668
      – Allah forgives the sinners
      – fill up the vacated space with the Jews and Christians

      There is a tad bit of difference in the sequence and context. Therefore substitutionary atonement is not equal to sahih muslim 6668.

      This is not the first time such argument has been used. Care to explain why you think sahih muslim 6668 is equivalent to substitutionary atonement?

      Like

    • Faiz said it is immoral for someone to die for another’s sins. In this Hadith Jews and Christians are punished “in their stead”. That’s clearly substitution. And they don’t just fill a vacant space, Allah actively punishes them in the stead of Muslims

      Like

    • did you not read the article buy Faiz where this is discussed? Sounds like you didn’t bother

      Like

    • Actually I did. But he never discusses the key issue that they are put in hell “in their stead”. He essentially says what is already mentioned here- that they fill a spot they were already allocated. Perhaps, but such an idea does not exclude the principle of substitution. Both could equally be true, so appeal to one does not exclude the other.

      Thus his logic fails and his conclusions don’t follow from his premises

      Like

    • no it is not ‘equally true’. Remember the entire Quranic teaching and that of the Prophet excludes the Christian idea of human sacrifice and substitutionary atonement. You are just mischief making.

      Like

    • Paulus ,

      Hmmm , you latch onto the phrase ‘in their stead’ and conclude that it is substitutionary atonement equivalent to Jesus dying for the sins of others. Sorry , I think you are wrong.

      In the case of Jesus and according to the trinitarian doctrine , Jesus need to die for God to forgive the sins of others (ie. Jesus need to be tortured and killed first then God forgives the sins of others)

      However in Sahih Muslim 6668 , Allah forgives the sins , takes the person out of hell and place the Jews and Christians in the vacated place (ie. Allah forgives the sinners unconditionally , takes them out of hell first then place the Jews & Christians in the vacated space).

      Therefore the phrase ‘in their stead’ when taken in context of the said hadith is that the Jews / Christians fill up the space vacated by the sinner whom Allah had already forgiven.

      How can Sahih Muslim 6668 be substitution atonement as Allah forgives unconditionally?

      Like

    • Sam. Your argument just isn’t substantiated. We know from other ahadith that the intended meaning of that phrase is a transfer of sins, not just filling an empty spot.

      Sahih Muslim 6665—Abu Musa reported that Allah’s Messenger said: When it will be the Day of Resurrection Allah would deliver to every Muslim a Jew or a Christian and say: That is your rescue from Hell-Fire.

      Notice that the Jews and Christians are a “rescue” for the Muslims. And again,

      110 Hadith Qudsi—Allah’s Messenger said: On the Day of Resurrection, my Ummah (nation) will be gathered into three groups. One sort will enter Paradise without rendering an account (of their deeds). Another sort will be reckoned an easy account and admitted into Paradise. Yet another sort will come bearing on their backs heaps of sins like great mountains. Allah will ask the angels though He knows best about them: Who are these people They will reply: They are humble slaves of yours. He will say: Unload the sins from them and put the same over the Jews and Christians: then let the humble slaves get into Paradise by virtue of My Mercy.

      Notice that the sins of Muslims are unloaded and put on the back of the Jews and Christians.

      This is clearly some form of substitution. Granted, not the same as Christianity, but enough to prove Faiz wrong.

      And no Paul, not mischief, just demonstrable evidence

      Like

    • Paulus ,

      You did not even address the issue of non substitution atonement of Sahih Muslim 6668. It clearly states that the sins of the person has been forgiven unconditionally by Allah. Unconditional forgiveness means that there is no substitution atonement. The Quran has already stated that no one would bear the burden of another ; Quran 6:164 (sahih international)

      ‘..Say, “Is it other than Allah I should desire as a lord while He is the Lord of all things? And every soul earns not [blame] except against itself, and no bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another. Then to your Lord is your return, and He will inform you concerning that over which you used to differ.”…’

      Your argument is just a copy paste from Answering Islam which has been addressed over and over again.

      This is why you run off to the 2 other hadiths , Sahih Muslim 6665 & 110 Hadith Qudsi to try to justify your argument when your appeal to Sahih Muslim 6668 has failed.

      The response to your copy paste argument is available here

      (sahih muslim 6665)
      ‘…Al-Nawawi’s explanation:

      Apparently, it does seem like what this shameless Sam Shamoun suggests, however, as the Muslim scholars have explained, this is not the case. And yes, these are the classical scholars and not modern “Muslim apologists”.

      Imam al-Nawawi (d. 676 A.H.) comments on these narrations;

      ومعنى هذا الحديث ما جاء في حديث أبي هريرة لكل أحد منزل في الجنة ومنزل في النار فالمؤمن إذا دخل الجنة خلفه الكافر في النار لاستحقاقه ذلك بكفره ومعنى فكاكك من النار أنك كنت معرضا لدخول النار وهذا فكاكك لأن الله تعالى قدر لها عددا يملؤها فإذا دخلها الكفار بكفرهم وذنوبهم صاروا في معنى الفكاك للمسلمين

      And the meaning of this Hadith is like what is reported in a narration from Abu Hurayrah that, “For everyone there is a place in Paradise and a place in Hell” So if the believer enters paradise his place in Hellfire will be occupied by a disbeliever, due to (the fact that) he himself deserves it because of his disbelief. And the meaning of [the words] ‘Your rescue from Hell’ is that you were susceptible to entry into Hell and this (disbeliever) is (as such) your rescue for Almighty Allah has destined for Hell a number that will fill it and (the number will be completed) when the disbelievers enter it due to their disbelief and sins. This is referred to as rescue for Muslims.”
      (Sharah al-Nawawi, Dar Ehia al-Tourath al-Arabi, Beirut 1392 A.H.vol.17 p.85)…’

      (110 Hadith Qudsi)
      ‘…The sentence that is most important here is;

      فيقول: حطوها عنهم واجعلوها على اليهود والنصارى وأدخلوهم برحمتي الجنة

      The translation reproduced by Sam puts it as;

      “He will say: Unload the sins from them and put the same over the Jews and Christians: then let the humble slaves get into Paradise by virtue of My Mercy.”

      Now this is definitely a grossly mistaken translation. There is nothing in the Arabic text to suggest “put the SAME.” This Hadith means exactly the same as Narration 3. And the scholarly comments given under that equally apply to this narration.

      Therefore, the correct translation of the relevant last part of the narration is;

      “He will say: Unload the (burden of) sins from them. (However) put it on the Jews and Christians. And let them (the humble servants) enter Paradise by My Mercy.”
      (Mustadrak al-Hakim Hadith 193, vol.1 p.126)

      The last part of the narration that about humble servants of Allah to be made to enter Paradise by the MERCY of Allah is also suggestive of the fact that their sins will be obliterated and not shifted on to someone else….’

      I know that you are uncomfortable of the fact that us muslims are criticising your doctrine of substitution atonement. However appealing to the arguments from Answering Islam is not the answer. You are not doing yourself any favour by appealing to such polemics of zero scholarship.

      I am sure you are more than capable to read and understand issues by yourself instead of copy pasting arguments which can easily be refuted by another copy paste.

      Lets face it , the doctrine of substitutionary atonement is central to your faith being a Trinitarian Christian whether you like it or not. Tu Quoque type of argument is not the way to go. The position of us muslims is pretty clear with Quran 6:164.

      Liked by 1 person

    • To be fair substitution theory of the atonement is one that originated in the 16th century under John Calvin. The earliest view of the atonement was Christ victory over Satan.

      Not much better considerin the theological implications of God having to battle Satan but there is no mention of Christ being a sacrifice for sin.

      Liked by 1 person

  9. Many mainstream churches today agree with Muslims that Jesus didn’t have to die “for other people’s sins”

    Like

    • There are many atonement theories that date back centuries and have been debated in house ad nauseum. Nothing new.

      Like

    • But Jesus taught the sins could be freely forgiven, without human sacrifice. Islam agrees.

      Like

    • There are many atonement theories that date back centuries that say Jesus’ death is not necessary?

      Like

    • Paul, you know full well that Jesus lived under the Old Covenant and therefore was an active participant in the scrificial system. You also know full well that his death and resurrection established a New Covenant.

      You are being selective and deceptive in isolating individual texts from their historical and theological context. Christophobia at its finest.

      Like

    • FACT: Jesus taught that sins could be freely forgiven, without human sacrifice. You are in deep denial about this. Go read the Sermon on The Mount dear boy.

      Liked by 1 person

    • He taught no such thing since as a Torah abiding Jew he participated in the sacrificial system. Ergo, any statement about sins being forgiven MUST be understood within this religio-cultural context. How can you disagree with this?

      Further Jesus also taught

      “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom”

      When we combine the two points (and add a third in highlighting what the earliest Jewish followers taught in the epistles) your point is readily dismissed as gross fabrication and distortion.

      Like

    • So under the Torah how were sins usually forgiven?

      Like

  10. The fundamentalist Christian missionary insists that God cannot have imperfect sinners in his presence.

    But he also believes that this “same God” (incarnate as Jesus) embraced the lowliest and most sinful and sought them in his presence.

    One cannot logically believe that Jesus was God, that God cannot abide the presence of sinners, and that Jesus embraced, touched and love sinners in his presence.

    Liked by 1 person

    • A whopping contradiction!

      Like

    • Burhanuddin1

      “But he also believes that this “same God” (incarnate as Jesus) embraced the lowliest and most sinful and sought them in his presence.”

      LOL!!!

      That is just so dumb, you are making Fail look like an Einstein. LOL!!!

      Jesus was “incarnate” and fully human – it is not hard. How many times do people need to explain that to you before you stop embarrassing yourself with these stupid “objections”.

      Like

    • D

      You said;

      D

      May 28, 2016 • 5:59 am

      Burhanuddin1

      “But he also believes that this “same God” (incarnate as Jesus) embraced the lowliest and most sinful and sought them in his presence.”

      LOL!!!

      That is just so dumb, you are making Fail look like an Einstein. LOL!!!

      Jesus was “incarnate” and fully human – it is not hard. How many times do people need to explain that to you before you stop embarrassing yourself with these stupid “objections”.

      I say;
      incarnate? where is “God incarnate into man” in the Bible? If you are not able to provide “God incarnate into man” or “God-Man” in the Bible then you are an idol worshiper like all the idol worshipers like Rastafarians, Hindus worshiping a God-Man Sai Baba and all thousands of idol worshipers worshiping God Man as their saviour.

      Again, by incarnate, you mean God changed? and is no more God again? The Bible clearly said God does not change and God is the same. Who is dump? You who added a man part to God or a Muslim who follows the Bible that God does not change and God is not a man?

      Tell me who is dump here? It is obviously you and all Christians who have your believe and will not change no matter how they see the truth here.

      Besides, God cannot incarnate into man, it is impossible as God said in the Bible God is not a man. You can not find God incarnated into man from the whole Bible.

      Again, by God incarnate, do you mean to say God is no more God? God has dropped some of his attributes? if so, tell us where He kept the attributes. We will guide the attributes for Him because, you know Satan will steal the attributes of God if God dropped them somewhere without proper guidance. Then Satan will use that attributes stolen from God to deceive us into thinking God can incarnate into man.

      Any idol worshiper believes God incarnates into other things. The idea of incarnation is idolatry like any idol worship that believes God can and incarnates into something like snakes for voodoos, monkeys and elephants for Hindus etc.

      Jay Smith in debate with Shabbir at speakers corner said Christians believe God can do what He want to do and can incarnate into Goat, monkey etc.

      It is against the Bible because God said nothing is comparable to Him and He is not a Man and He is one and nothing is besides Him alone who has no partners.

      Thanks.

      Like

  11. “D”, grandmaster of hypocrisy says:
    “But your god requires the shedding of blood so that animals are purified and you are not defiled.”

    “Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood” Acts 15:20

    Like

    • Burhanuddin1

      Once again you don’t make any sense. What is your point?

      I’m not the hypocrite here – you guys are.

      You claim your “god” doesn’t require barbaric bloody sacrifices, yet he command that you slit the throats of live animals and make them suffer in pain and terror, as they flail about, are hung upside down, braying and screeching and left to dangle, writhing and in agony until all the blood has flowed from their bodies. That is not merciful, that’s barbaric.

      Furthermore, you are commanded to kill apostates – which involves the shedding of blood. You figure that one out, the ramifications are horrifying.

      Like

  12. Paulus referred to Sa high Muslim 6668. Oh dear…I have already been discussed thus hadith on my blog:

    http://quranandbible.blogspot.com/2016/05/does-islam-teach-substitutionary.html?m=1

    Liked by 1 person

  13. LOL, Fido the douchebag chihuahua with ADD ignores the fact that scientific studies have already established that halal and kosher slaughtering is humane and instead posts some random video! I don’t have time right now to get into the details, but when i do, I will post some studies which discuss this issue, inshaAllah.

    Get ready for some more humiliation douchebag, or is it douchedog? LOL!!!

    Like

  14. D

    You said;

    D

    May 28, 2016 • 5:59 am

    Burhanuddin1

    “But he also believes that this “same God” (incarnate as Jesus) embraced the lowliest and most sinful and sought them in his presence.”

    LOL!!!

    That is just so dumb, you are making Fail look like an Einstein. LOL!!!

    Jesus was “incarnate” and fully human – it is not hard. How many times do people need to explain that to you before you stop embarrassing yourself with these stupid “objections”.

    I say;
    incarnate? where is “God incarnate into man” in the Bible? If you are not able to provide “God incarnate into man” or “God-Man” in the Bible then you are an idol worshiper like all the idol worshipers like Rastafarians, Hindus worshiping a God-Man Sai Baba and all thousands of idol worshipers worshiping God Man as their saviour.

    Again, by incarnate, you mean God changed? and is no more God again? The Bible clearly said God does not change and God is the same. Who is dump? You who added a man part to God or a Muslim who follows the Bible that God does not change and God is not a man?

    Tell me who is dump here? It is obviously you and all Christians who have your believe and will not change no matter how they see the truth here.

    Besides, God cannot incarnate into man, it is impossible as God said in the Bible God is not a man. You can not find God incarnated into man from the whole Bible.

    Again, by God incarnate, do you mean to say God is no more God? God has dropped some of his attributes? if so, tell us where He kept the attributes. We will guide the attributes for Him because, you know Satan will steal the attributes of God if God dropped them somewhere without proper guidance. Then Satan will use that attributes stolen from God to deceive us into thinking God can incarnate into man.

    Any idol worshiper believes God incarnates into other things. The idea of incarnation is idolatry like any idol worship that believes God can and incarnates into something like snakes for voodoos, monkeys and elephants for Hindus etc.

    Jay Smith in debate with Shabbir at speakers corner said Christians believe God can do what He want to do and can incarnate into Goat, monkey etc.

    It is against the Bible because God said nothing is comparable to Him and He is not a Man and He is one and nothing is besides Him alone who has no partners.

    Thanks.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Fido,

    Ready to be humiliated again? Here we go!

    I will be using the following two sources:

    Report by Dr. Joe Regenstein, Cornell University: http://asknoah.org/wp-content/uploads/HollandPreliminaryReport052311.pdf
    American Meat Institute – Animal Handling: Religious Slaughter: http://www.animalhandling.org/ht/a/GetDocumentAction/i/7786

    First, let’s discuss Dr. Regenstein’s report. He comments on a YouTube video posted by the Dutch Animal Party’s Scientific Bureau purporting to show a “religious slaughter” that demonstrates the cruelty involved in the process:

    “The video shows some really bad religious slaughter (although it is questionable if this was religious slaughter since some important rules related to halal religious requirements seemed to have been violated along with the very poor animal handling) and this is actually recognized as such by some of the commentators in the video. They show one clip (twice) of an animal being properly stunned without dealing with the fact that stunning can often go bad, which is ignored. The bad handling is just that, bad handling and is unacceptable. It needs to be dealt with but in fact the video does not deal with the actual issue of the humaneness of the religious slaughter act.”

    He also comments further on the US law which has declared religious slaughter humane:

    “…the US Congress in 1958, after investigating the matter, including the science available at that time, declared that religious slaughter was one of the ways to undertake humane slaughter. The specific law is Public Law 85-765 and it says as follows: “Either of the following two methods of slaughter and handling
    are hereby found to be humane…. (b) By slaughtering in accordance with the ritual requirements of the Jewish faith or any other religious faith that prescribes a method of slaughter whereby the animal suffers loss of consciousness by anemia of the brain caused by the simultaneous and instantaneous severance of the carotid arteries with a sharp instrument.””

    Now, let’s move on to the article by the AMI.

    First, It is recognized that both halal and kosher methods of animal slaughter are humane. According to the AMI:

    “The Humane Slaughter Act acknowledges that Kosher and Halal slaughter can be performed humanely.”

    So, in America, it has been accepted by the law that both halal and kosher slaughter is humane, so long as it is done properly. Therefore, it is important that the individual slaughtering the animal is properly trained.

    The AMI also states:

    “Halal slaughter involves cutting the throat in a manner that induces rapid and complete bleeding and the quickest death possible.”

    It also notes that the practice of hoisting animals during the process of slaughter was actually starting due to “regulatory requirements””

    “The American Meat Institute Foundation’s guidelines recommend that all religious slaughter be performed on animals in the upright position. Historically, to meet regulatory requirements, Kosher and Halal animals were hoisted prior to slaughter, a practice that can be extremely stressful, especially for larger animals like cattle.”

    It also notes that this practice has largely been replaced in U.S. plants with the “upright position”, thereby reducing the stress on the animal.

    It then concludes:

    “Specially designed upright restraint devices have now found widespread acceptance in the religious
    communities. These restraints enable religious officials to perform a cut swiftly and painlessly that causes rapid unconsciousness while the animal is standing. Once the cut is performed and the animal is unconscious, it can then be hoisted. Some Muslims are accepting a “reversible head only” type of stunning
    which causes temporary unconsciousness. This type of stunning is only acceptable to Muslims if it allows an
    animal to regain consciousness within a minute and to eat within five minutes. This process is adequate to ensure that animals are insensible to pain, if only temporarily.”

    So, we can see that there is nothing “inhumane” about halal or kosher slaughtering.

    So, there you go! Once again, you are exposed as an ignorant Gentile dog who does poor research! LOL!!! You really are a douchedog chihuahua with ADD who just barks, but has no bite! LOL!!!

    Like

    • Here is a list of requirements under Islamic law regarding animal slaughter:

      ” Any Moslem having reached puberty is allowed to slaughter after saying the name of Allah and facing Makkah (Mecca).

      The animal should not be thirsty at slaughter time.

      The knife must be sharp, to minimize the time and hence save the animal pain associated with the slaughtering process.

      The knife must not be sharpened in front of the animal because it may cause undue stress to that animal.

      The slaughter is to be done by cutting the throat of the animal or by piercing the hollow of the throat, causing the quickest death with the least amount of pain.

      The name of Allah has to be mentioned before or during slaughtering, since the Creator is the granter and taker of life; the name must be said by a member of the Moslem faith.

      Meat slaughtered by people of the Jewish or Christian faith (People of the Book) may also be eaten.

      The blood must be completely drawn from the carcass.Saud Twaigery and Diana Spillman, An Introduction to Moslem Dietary Laws, Food Technology, February, 1989.”

      http://meat.tamu.edu/ansc-307-honors/kosher-halal/

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: