The thirteen tribes of Isreal - Atila the Hun??

Bismillahir Rahmaanir Raheem

It is well recorded that there were in fact 12 tribes of Isreal. However, is the Isreal of today, the one that claims heritage over SO much of Palestine (given by the UN and the balance taken by force) actually Isreal? You be the judge.. Perhaps, just perhaps, you may see Palestine in a different light!

***free gift at the end of this post

Please note:: lest you think this is islamic propaganda, please note that the writing below was written by christians -

Allow me to introduce you to the THIRTEEN tribes of Isreal.. where Rome is alive and well ..

The Thirteenth Tribe

by Arthur Koestler

---

THE KHAZAR EMPIRE AND ITS HERITAGE

This book traces the history of the ancient Khazar Empire, a major but almost forgotten power in Eastern Europe, which in the Dark Ages became converted to Judaism. Khazaria was finally wiped out by the forces of Genghis Khan, but evidence indicates that the Khazars themselves migrated to Poland and formed the cradle of Western Jewry. . .
The Khazars' sway extended from the Black Sea to the Caspian, from the Caucasus to the Volga, and they were instrumental in stopping the Muslim onslaught against Byzantium, the eastern jaw of the gigantic pincer movement that in the West swept across northern Africa and into Spain.
In the second part of this book, "The Heritage," Mr. Koestler speculates about the ultimate faith of the Khazars and their impact on the racial composition and social heritage of modern Jewry. He produces a large body of meticulously detailed research in support of a theory that sounds all the more convincing for the restraint with which it is advanced. Yet should this theory be confirmed, the term "anti-Semitism" would become void of meaning, since, as Mr. Koestler writes, it is based "on a misapprehension shared by both the killers and their victims. The story of the Khazar Empire, as it slowly emerges from the past, begins to look like the most cruel hoax which history has ever perpetrated."

ISBN 0-394-40284-7

THE KHAZAR EMPIRE AND ITS HERITAGE
Rise and Fall of the Khazars
I RISE
II CONVERSION
III DECLINE
EARLY RUSSIAN CULTURE BELITTLED
SOVIET HISTORIAN REBUKED
IV FALL
V EXODUS
VI WHERE FROM?
VII CROSS-CURRENTS
VIII RACE AND MYTH
SUMMARY
A NOTE ON SPELLING
A NOTE ON SOURCES
(A) ANCIENT SOURCES
(B) MODERN LITERATURE
THE "KHAZAR CORRESPONDENCE"
SOME IMPLICATIONS - ISRAEL AND THE DIASPORA
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

-oOo-

What the Critics have to say!

Finally Available To ALL - Absolute Historical Proof : Jews are not Israelites!
Research Proves "Jews" are non-Israelite Asiatics!
DATELINE U.S.A. (1977) -- In 1976 Random House published a book that should have hit the Christian Churches like a blockbuster, but instead they chose totally to ignore it. It dealt with the racial origin of the people in Communist and Christian countries who call themselves "Jews," and whom the Churches (and the Jews themselves) generally insist are "God's Chosen People," the Israelite descendants of Abraham. Since the late 1800's a small number of Bible Scholars, who were also students of History and Racial origins, have insisted the Church denominations were wrong; that instead of being Israelites, these Jews from Eastern Europe and Western Asia were descended from Mongolians and other Asiatic peoples who had adopted Judaism as their "religion" over 1,000 years ago and had become know as "Jews." These Bible scholars were ignored or condemned, and often called "cultists" or "anti-Semites."
Now, after many years of research, a well-known Jewish author, Arthur Koestler has published a 255 page book titled THE THIRTEENTH TRIBE in which he proves the same point; i.e. that these Eastern European "Jews" are neither Israelites nor "Semites," but are instead Khazars, Mongols, and Huns! Most major newspapers and magazines reviewed the book during 1976. Also, Random House, the publisher, advertised it extensively and began some of their ads with the following headline: WHAT IF MOST JEWS AREN'T REALLY SEMITES AT ALL? In addition, Random House quoted the following reviews:
"Mr. Koestler's excellent book...Is as readable as it is thought-provoking. Nothing could be more stimulating than the skill, elegance and erudition with which he marshals his facts and develops his theories..." Fitzroy Maclean, New York Times Book Review.
"You do not have to be Jewish to be interested... Are today's Western Jews really ethnic, Semitic, Biblical Jews, or are most of them descendants of converted Khazars?...This compact, interesting book...examines tragic-ironic implications in [this question] for modern history...It should fascinate." --Edmund Fuller, Wall Street Journal

"Koestler marshals the evidence in a clear and convincing way. He tells a good story, pulling together materials from medieval Muslims and Jewish travelers, scholarly controversy and the mysterious lore of the Khazars." --Raymond Sokolov, Newsweek

Robert Kirsch of the Los Angeles Times stated in his lengthy review that 'Arthur Koestler publicizes with his customary skills a daring hypothesis: that THE KHAZAR JEWS MIGRATED TO POLAND AND BECAME THE FOREBEARS OF EASTERN EUROPEAN JEWRY...' Then Kirsch quoted Prof. A. N. Poliak of Tel Aviv University, who stated that "The large majority of world Jewry is descended from the Jews of Khazaria." Then he again quoted Koestler in THE THIRTEENTH TRIBE, "If so, this would mean that their ancestors came not from the Jordan but from the Volga; not from Canaan but from the Caucasus, once believed to be the cradle of the Aryan race; and that GENETICALLY THEY ARE MORE RELATED TO THE HUN, UIGUR, AND MAGYAR TRIBES THAN TO THE SEED OF ABRAHAM, ISAAC, AND JACOB..." (emphasis added) We cannot stress enough how absolutely imperative it is for all Christian Americans to consider the startling proof in Arthur Koestler's book that today's Jews are not Israelites. The Jewish influence on American life has reached such a stage that no student of contemporary history can ignore it. Not only the news media are Jewish monopolies, but top positions in the U.S. government are largely filled by Eastern European Jews. The magazine and book publishing houses are in Jewish hands; and movies, television, and the other entertainment industries are dominated by Jews in all phases. America's government and most of her people's sources of information are controlled and directed by Jews. If these people were really "God's Chosen People," perhaps Americans would have little cause for concern -- BUT WHAT IF THEY ARE REALLY THE "HUNS" AND THEREFORE THE ANCIENT ENEMIES OF CHRISTENDOM? Since many Americans may not have an opportunity to read Koestler's book, we shall herewith submit our own index-style review.

THE THIRTEENTH TRIBE
(by Arthur Koestler, Random House)

Reviewed by Pastor Sheldon Emry

Page	Information
15	Khazars adopt Judaism as their religion in A.D. 740.
16	Majority of Eastern European Jews are Khazar and Japhetic in origin, not Semitic. Refers to 1973 Jewish Encyclopedia and A. N. Poliak, Professor, Medieval Jewish History, Tel Aviv University.
17	Jews more closely related to Hun, Uigur, and Magyrs than to the seed of Abraham Isaac and Jacob.
18	Khazars exacted tribute from subject peoples.
20	Identified them with the hosts of Gog and Magog.
22	German word Ketzer is our word for Khazar and means heretic or Jew.
23	Khazars were with Attila the Hun in 4th century.
37-39	Some were phallic worshipers, killed anyone thought to be extra intelligent and called it an offering to god.
46	Quotes 1,000-year-old Arab historian, "The Khazars and their King are all Jews...some are of the opinion that Gog and Magog are the Khazars."
47-50	Khazars were re-exporters of foreign goods, middlemen, inspectors of trade, goldsmiths, and silversmiths; and they exacted 10% tax on all trade.
59-63	Jews fled Rome and Greece to Khazaria to avoid forced conversion to Christianity. They adopted Islam when forced, repudiating it when safe.
72	Khazar King, in a letter, traced his people in Togarma and Japheth, the ancestors of all the Turkish tribes.
81	In A.D. 864 a monk wrote "there exists a people under the sky in regions where no Christians can be found, whose name is Gog and Magog, and who are Huns; among them is one called Gazari [Khazari?], who are circumcised and observe Judaism in its entirety."
93	Russian communists tried to hide Khazar-Jewish connection!
95-132	History of breaking up of Khazar Empire and integration of these Jews into Russia, Poland, etc.
135	Khazar kingdom known as a kingdom of "Red" Jews.
141	Khazars joined Ghengis Khan and retained their Judaism.
145	Interchangeable names --Khazar, Zhid (or Yid), and Jew
151	Majority of Jews in Middle Ages were Khazars.
152-154	Jews were mintmasters, royal treasurers, tax collectors, and money lenders. Principal source of income was foreign trade and the levying of customs dues and they practiced communal life.
159-161	They lost the name of Khazars and became known as Jews. During Dark Ages commerce largely in Jewish hands, including slave trade.
163-167	During Crusades whole families and towns of Jews committed suicide rather than accept Christianity.
167-171	Proves only a handful of Sephardim Jews were in Europe so the vast majority of Jews today are Khazar in origin.
172-174	Gives origin of Yiddish language. It is NOT Hebrew!
178	"The Jewish dark ages may be said to begin with the Renaissance." (Reviews comment: This remark by the Jew Cecil Roth, coupled with other information, is a sorrowful admission that the Jews were supreme in the Dark Ages but lost their dominion over Europe when the Light of God's Word brought about the Renaissance!)
180-199	Quotes from many sources to prove Jews NOT descended from Biblical Israelites, ending with this, ...evidence from anthropology concurs with history in refuting the popular belief in a Jewish race descended from the biblical tribe.
200-222	Refers to others who have written on the same subject.
223	Israeli's right to exist...not based on...the mythological covenant of Abraham with God; it is based on international law -- i.e., on the United Nations' decision of 1947. . .
224-226	Koestler ends his book by saying he believes many Jews have learned of their Khazar ancestry and now reject the Chosen-Race doctrine.

THE THIRTEENTH TRIBE proves beyond doubt that modern Jews are not Biblical Israelites. Every church member in America should insist that his Pastor investigate these claims. Are our Jewish politicians, publishers, movie makers, and opinion molders God's "Chosen People"? Or are they Mongol and Hun infiltrators of Christendom?
Is The Jews' "Chosen People" Masquerade Finally Over?
Shortly after World War I, Henry Ford, founder of the Ford Motor Company, assembled a staff of experts in Detroit to conduct research on the European Jews who had been entering America in large numbers since the 1880's. Ford provided the staff with several million dollars for this research, and in 1923 he published the results in a four-volume work titled "THE INTERNATIONAL JEW." It was Henry Ford's conclusion that very few of these people who called themselves "Jews" were descendants of the Bible Israelites. Ford further proved that these Jews, using all sorts of crimes while under the cloak of being the Chosen People of the Bible, were rapidly taking economic and political control of America. In the religious field, Ford claimed THE JEWS HAD SECRETLY GAINED CONTROL OF MOST PROTESTANT SEMINARIES AND CHRISTIAN BOOK- PUBLISHING HOUSES and had been able to remove almost all criticism of Jews from Christian literature. In summing up his findings, Henry Ford stated, "The Jews are not the Chosen People, though practically the entire Church has succumbed to the propaganda which declares them to be so." Ford's book caused a furor for a few years but soon disappeared from colleges, universities, and public libraries and became unobtainable at any price. The Churches continued to teach "The Jews are God's Chosen People, Israel," and the (by then) Jewish-dominated news media began to refer to Jews always as Israelites. Anyone opposing the increasing Jewish control of the nations was immediately branded "anti-Semitic;" and Jewish dominated Seminaries taught new ministers to quote Genesis 12:1-3 and sternly warn their flocks that anyone speaking unfavorably of the Jews would be "cursed by God." Jewish control of American society, politics, and religions continued to increase.
In 1951 retired U.S. Military Intelligence Officer, Col. John Beaty, published a scholarly 265-page book IRON CURTAIN OVER AMERICA. In it Col. Beaty gave overwhelming evidence this strange Race of Eastern European "Jews" were actually Khazar and Mongol Asiatics and had no racial ancestory in Israel at all.
He then proved that by 1951 these "Jews" had a stranglehold on American politics, on Banking and Credit, on all sources of news, on the entertainment industry, on America's education system, and that they were the predominant race as judges, lawyers, doctors, and in organized crime. The Jewish news media refused to review the book, Jewish book dealers refused to handle it, Christian book stores ignored it, and only a few thousand copies were distributed. Most Americans never heard of IRON CURTAIN OVER AMERICA. Now, because of renewed interest, both THE INTERNATIONAL JEW (in an abridged edition) and IRON CURTAIN OVER AMERICA have been reprinted and are available. (See ordering information below). The latest, and perhaps the most succinct book on this subject, is ISRAEL'S 5 TRILLION DOLLAR SECRET by Col. Curtis B. Dall, former son-in-law of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and a personal acquaintance of many high officials in the U.S. Govern ment since the 1930's. Col. Dall lives and works in the Washington, D. C. area, and his book, published in 1977. Col. Dall proves again, from reliable sources, that the Jews are NOT Israelites. In fact, Col. Dall calls their masquerade as "Israel" the greatest "hoax" of the last centuries! It should be read by every non-Jew.
You now know their false identity as "Israel" protects these "Jews" from being exposed as aliens and as anti-Americans. Read the books below. Give this sheet to your Minister. Tell him to preach the truth - or resign! Most preaching today is based on the "Jew-Israel" myth, and it is false.
"Fear them not therefore; for there is nothing covered that shall not be revealed: and hid, that shall not be known. What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye on the housetops" (Jesus, in Matthew 10:26,27).
 

*****************************

So, I'm just saying - when the truth is out there.. WHO is actually the "bad guy" in Palestine?... Make duah today.. that Allah may reveal what is already out there, and that hearts may listen, insh'Allah!

******************************** 

So where is the free gift? Well, the gift is a link to the entire book! - free!

http://www.fantompowa.info/13th%20Tribe.pdf

Should a woman greet a man?

Bismillahir Rahmaanir Raheem


It is considered rude in western society not to greet someone who arrives at your office or door.  "Equality in gender" dictates that regardless of your gender, social standing or professional rank you should always initiate a greeting or respond to it. Not to do so is a sign of disrespect.

Islam turns this entire social standard on its head, and to be honest the discovery of this makes me feel very priveledged (yet again) to be a muslim woman.

A married woman is seen as a jewel to her husband. Nobody walks around flashing their jewellery down-town; crime has simply become too rife. One simply cannot argue "I have the right to wear my most expensive jewellery and no, you don't have the right to covet it." erm.. a thief would beg to argue and unfortunately there are alot of thieves out there. It's not that we walk around in fear, but we must be realistic about the world we live in. The same thing could be said by the mini skirt brigade - "I have the right to not wear practically anything and you do not have a right to want to hurt me." Let's face it, whilst most men are probably not going to rape you, the incidence of rape is so high that chances are you might get raped. And hang on, but doesn't the bible say "if you have committed it in your heart then it is the same as if you had done it."? hmmm... well.. so moving on off that particular soapbox (I'll stash it for another day)..

As a woman in Islam, you are to be respected. That means that nobody who is legally (in islamic law that is) entitled to be comfortable with you may not do so. You are sheltered and protected and YOU decide who gets to see your hair/legs/whatever. It is hoped that you choose wisely of course, for your own good, and hence Allah has very clearly spoken about who is non-mahram (not allowed) and who is allowed. This goes all the way to your voice.

Ever felt uncomfortable as a woman walking down the street and found a man whistle at you or try to get "funny" with you? Well, you can't say "men are pigs" on one hand and then use the argument that they must control themselves so that you can wear anything (or nothing) you like. Similarly if you talk and chatter and chitter and chirp with all that is male, don't be surprised if they feel free to chirp and chatter and chitter right back, wether or not it is appropriate.

Islam does not require you to be rude, but it does advise you to be modest, not just in what you wear; and it gives women the right and the priveledge to share her surroundings, her life and her self with whomever SHE chooses. Why then, would I prefer to follow the guidelines of a law-less society?

That said - here is the ruling on greeting women with salaam and returning their greeting. The source is Islam QA http://islamqa.info/en/ref/39258 an excellent reference for maters concerning behaviours of a muslim; Does a women initiate salaam to a man that is not "lawful" to her (brother, father, husband, father in law; there is a specific list of those who ARE lawful) No. Why? Because they don't GET to even address her with "salaam" unless she choses, even if making "salaam" is the injunction on every muslim. When it comes to a woman, you respect the fact that she belongs to someone else and you stay away! Simple. Similarly, if you are a muslimah, you respect yourself enough to keep at arms length any MAN who does not automatically by virtue of nature or affinity (marriage) belong to your inner circle.  

Here is the ruling:

Ruling on greeting women with salaam and returning their greeting

 

Is it permissible for me to return the salaams of a woman who is a stranger to me, i.e., a non-mahram?.

Praise be to Allaah.  

Firstly: 

Allaah has commanded us to spread the greeting of salaam, and has enjoined us to return the greeting to all Muslims. He has made the greeting of salaam one of the things that spread love among the believers. 

Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): 

" When you are greeted with a greeting, greet in return with what is better than it, or (at least) return it equally. Certainly, Allaah is Ever a Careful Account Taker of all things "

[al-Nisa'4:86] 

 And it was narrated that Abu Hurayrah said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "You will not enter Paradise until you (truly) believe, and you will not (truly) believe until you love one another. Shall I not tell you something which, if you do it, you will love one another? Spread the greeting of salaam amongst yourselves." 

Narrated by Muslim, 54. 

Secondly: 

The command to spread the greeting of salaam is general and applies to all the believers. It includes men greeting men and women greeting women, and a man greeting his female mahrams(lawful, inner circle ladies - my insertion). All of them are enjoined to initiate the greeting of salaam, and the other is obliged to return the greeting

. 

But there is a special ruling that applies to a man greeting a non-mahram woman, because of the fitnah (temptation) that may result from that in some cases. 

Thirdly: 

There is nothing wrong with a man greeting a non-mahram woman with salaam, without shaking hands with her, if she is elderly, but he should not greet a young woman with salaams when there is no guarantee that there will be no fitnah (temptation). This is what is indicated by the comments of the scholars, may Allaah have mercy on them.  

Imam Maalik was asked: Can a woman be greeted with salaam? He said: With regard to the elderly woman, I do not regard that as makrooh, but with regard to the young woman, I do not like that. 

Al-Zarqaani explained the reason why Maalik did not like that, in his commentary on al-Muwatta': Because of the fear of fitnah (temptation) when he hears her returning the greeting. 

In al-Adaab al-Shar'iyyah (1/370) it says: Ibn Muflih mentioned that Ibn Mansoor said to Imam Ahmad: (What about) greeting women with salaam? He said: If the woman is old there is nothing wrong with it. 

Saalih (the son of Imam Ahmad) said: I asked my father about greeting women with salaam. He said: With regard to old women, there is nothing wrong with it, but with regard to young women, they should not be prompted to speak by being made to return the salaam. 

Al-Nawawi said in his book al-Adhkaar (p. 407): 

Our companions said: Women greeting women is like men greeting to men. But when it comes to women greeting men, if the woman is the man's wife, or his concubine, or one of his mahrams, then it is like him speaking to another man; it is mustahabb for either of them to initiate the greeting of salaam and the other is obliged to return the greeting. But if the woman is a stranger (non-mahram), if she is beautiful and there is the fear that he may be tempted by her, then the man should not greet her with salaam, and if he does then it is not permissible for her to reply; she should not initiate the greeting of salaam either, and if she does, she does not deserve a response. If he responds then this is makrooh. 

If she is an old woman and he will not be tempted by her, then it is permissible for her to greet the man with salaam and for the man to return her salaams. 

If there is a group of women then a man may greet them with salaam, or if there is a group of men, they may greet a woman with salaam, so long as there there is no fear that any of the parties may be tempted. 

Abu Dawood (5204) narrated that Asma' the daughter of Yazeed said: "The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) passed by us woman and greeted us with salaam." Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood. 

And al-Bukhaari (6248) narrated that Sahl ibn Sa'd said: "There was an old woman of our acquaintance who would send someone to Budaa'ah (a garden of date-palms in Madeenah). She would take the roots of silq (a kind of vegetable) and put them in a cooking pot with some powdered barley. After we had prayed Jumu'ah, we would go and greet her, then she should offer (that food) to us." 

Al-Haafiz said in al-Fath: 

Concerning the permissibility of men greeting women with salaam and women greeting men: what is meant by its being permitted is when there is no fear of fitnah. 

Al-Haleemi was quoted as saying: Because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was infallible and protected from fitnah. Whoever is confident that he will be safe from temptation may greet (women) with salaam, otherwise it is safer to keep silent. 

And al-Muhallab is quoted as saying: It is permissible for men to greet women with salaam and for women to greet men, if there is no fear of fitnah. 

And Allaah knows best.  

See Ahkaam al-'Awrah wa'l-Nazar by Musaa'id ibn Qaasim al-Faalih.

In other words, reader; when in doubt, LEAVE IT OUT. You are not obliged, dear sister to greet any non-mahram man with salaam.

How Muslims should deal with loss

Bismillahir Rahmaanir Raheem

Today I post an article which I discovered online, and from which I drew some solace. I give full credit to its author, and its origin. The original article can be found on:
http://www.helium.com/items/1101081-dealing-with-grief-in-islam
I have made minor editting changes which adress only the font and colour of the text.

Here it is: Dealing with Grief

How Islam tells us to deal with grief and loss 
by Z. Farrukh
Created on: July 03, 2008 Last Updated: August 04, 2012

"In the name of Allah Most Merciful, the All Compasionate

Starting with the basic concept of Islam; Allah (Subhanahu Wata'ala) has created this universe, and each and everything within it. As Allah says in the Quran, " Allah, it is He, Who has made for you the earth as a dwelling place and the sky as a conopy and He has given you shape and made your shapes good (looking) and has provided you with the good things. That is Allah, your Lord : so Blesses be Allah, the Lord of the Alamin (mankind, jinn and all that exists). [Chapter 40, Verse 64]

 

And thus, each and every one of our possessions is the blessing of Allah. As He alone is the creator and owner of everything. Life in this world is temporary' and it is a test for the Human Beings; for which we will be awarded in the everlasting' Hereafter. Allah (Jallah Shaanuhu) has created us for His Ibaadah ( worship ). He has prescribed rules for those who Believe in Allah; and those who abide by them, will succeed and prosper in the Hereafter.

 

Allah says in the Quran, "(It is He) who created death and life to test which of you is best in conduct; and He is the Mighty, the Forgiving." [Chapter 67, Verse 2]

 

Loss and grief is part of the test. When a person encounters loss or grief, it actually a test, which Allah is putting us through. Allah says, " Be sure, We shall test you through fear and hunger, some loss in goods or lives or the fruits (of your toil) but glad tidings to those who patiently persevere." [Surah Baqarah, Chapter 2, Verse 155]

It is natural to feel sorrow over a loss, whether it be concerning wealth and possesion or losing a loved one. But Islam teaches muslims to remain steadfast at all times. When a hard time befalls him, or a grief overwhelms him, a muslim should turn his attention to Allah Subhanahu Wata'ala, and should pray and supplicate. And Allah will give him the strength to endure the loss and pain.

Islam teaches us to remain patient in the greatest of losses and not to greive unnecessesarily over what has been lost; as life in this world is temporary. Eveything is bound to an end one day. Moreover, everything is predistined Allah Jallah Shanuhu has already written the "fate" of everyone, as Allah says in Surah Hadeed, " No calamity befalls on the earth or in yourselves but it is incribed in the Book of Decrees (Al Lauh ul Mahfooz) before We bring it into existance. Verily, that is easy for Allah. In order that you may not grieve at the things that you fail to get, nor rejoice over that which has been given to you. And Allah likes not prideful boasters. [Surah Al Hadeed, Verses 22-23]

 

A muslim should never complain about a loss he faces; as everything in this world belongs to Allah, and whatever happens is due to Allah's decision and whatever Allah has decided is, for the benefit of the muslim, whether the benefit is in this world or the hereafter, or both, this too is Allah's decision.

On the occasion of death, of Prophet Muhammad's (Sallallahu Alaihi Wassallam) son, Ibrahim, the Prophet said, "Our eyes our filled with tears, our hearts with grief but, we say nothing with our lips except that which pleases Allah Verily to Allah we belong and to Him we return."

This example from the life of the Holy Prophet(peace be upon him) as well as countless others from that of Sahabah (R.A), teach us to be patient and submit to the will of Allah, and accept His decision for us.

 

On dealing with sorrow, Shekih Al Sheraim said, a muslim must supplicate to Allah to ward off sorrow before it strikes him. But when it happens, a Muslim must be patient and Allah will reward him by forgiving his sins. He should also supplicate to Allah so that He removes the sadness from his heart and replaces it with happiness"

 

-end of article

 

So yeah, today's been a little hard and I've discovered a few "losses" I wasn't expecting. But indeed, Allah knows best..

 

My duah for today: Inna-lillahi wa'inna ilayhi raji'un. Allahumma-juri fi museebati wa akhlif li khairan minha To Allah we belong, and to Him is our Return. O Allah! Take me out of my plight and replace it with something which is better” [Muslim; 2:632]

 

"For indeed, with hardship, (comes) ease. Indeed, with hardship (will be) ease." (Surah ash-Sharh 94:5-6

 

 

 

 

 

Calling a stick a stick and a spade a spade

Bismillahir Rahmaanir Raheem

Today I want to share with you a little about my personal experiences with abuse.

I've always said that the problem with understanding both sides of an argument is that it makes it difficult to stand up for your own. You see, you can ALWAYS find a justification for abuse if you want to. You can always and I mean ALWAYS find some way to explain away a foul mouth and even the beatings. Why? Because abusers will either pick someone who is compassionate by nature or wear a person down until there is no backbone left in you and all you see is "their side". But if you get nothing else from this post, may it be this;

1) There is NO excuse for abuse. I don't care how you want to rationalise it, i don't care if you've done something wrong/stupid/silly/inappropriate. NOTHING justifies abuse. Fullstop.
2) Long term abusers don't change. Eventually, you turn into nothing, or you get out.

Let me qualify the last statement thus - how  you can get out, or why you get out,  what for you is the proverbial last straw, or the  when you get out. - THAT you must think about carefully and THAT must be planned. (Note - you must have tried to do everything in your power to stop the abuse before you walk out, otherwise you're not proving anything to anyone.)

That said; the only thing I've never had (and Insh'Allah never will have) is the physical beating. But whilst sticks and stones can break your bones, words can annihilate you so much that you never recover.

Abusive words etch themselves slowly, almost impercetibly, into your soul and self-image, until one day you wake up dead on the inside, you conform to the abuse, you accept all the excuses you've told yourself for what they do, and you can't imagine ever getting out. All sorts of reasonings and excuses and explanations (some learnt, some self-imposed) suddenly wash over you when another abuse crisis hits, and they all seem suddenly more important than even your own survival. Even alcoholism and drugs suddenly seem an easier option than leaving. If you've lived that long with abuse then at this stage the only thing that will help you is someone who can (just as patiently as the abuser has broken you), rebuild your self esteem. That someone can be you, by educating yourself on the practicalities of abuse, reading about the experiences of others, and re-learning all those wonderful things that made you awesome when you met the abuser. . Or it can be someone who loves you, or it can be a professional.

You see, if you are still in an abusive relationship your greatest strength and your greatest weakness is probably your sense of compassion. It's time you start being compassionate towards YOU, in little ways, until you're strong enough to tackle the beast and eventually, if you're strong enough, you can WALK AWAY to live, not just "exist".

My personal story:

In my first job i worked for a boss who had just moved to the country and was keen to make her mark;  You can imagine how I excused her every fault, me being so young and her being so new; she was new, she was adapting, she was "different", she needs to adjust, I knew all the excuses. Essentially she took credit for anything i did and would privately wittle away at my sense of personal achievement. Eager to learn, I excused it, until I literally and physically almost burnt out, medically. It built a little backbone in me to walk away, but it was extremely difficult. after all, I was young and I was afraid and I was taught to respect my elders. I wrote her a long letter after leaving as my healing process and then burnt the letter, imagining myself setting ME free all that negativity.  So, for a few jobs I was okay, I learnt to operate in the corporate world and to find my "voice" again, thanks to managers who heard that voice and were driven towards productivity, not childish games.

Then I walked into a job and a manager who would prove to be my "nemisis". In his mid 40's, this man destroyed anyone he came in contact with and took great pleasure in doing so. No, this was not apparent in an interview. He initially made me feel like I was someone with potential who needed to "earn" his approval with the application of my mind. I had become an intellectual sponge so I thought I could really prove myself with my work ethic. Well, that sponge was soon soaked in the vinegar of daily verbal abuse; "you're UNbelievably STUPID!" and "God, is that what you really hope to contribute?" but he was clever; just like any abuser e alternated the abuse with showers of praise for a job well done and promises of "speaking to management about the excellent work I was doing" and so like a sheep I strove harder and harder to prove my "worthiness". Well, hello!!... Wasn't I worthy enough to GET the job? That didn't strike me at the time, though.. Some staff members ended up being institurionalised, one committed suicide, and a few remain scarred for life. None of them ever left. I guess i was the lucky one who did. Allahuakbar.

At the same time I was "married" to an abuser. "Someone" (this is how we shall refer to this person) oscilated between seeing spirituality as stupid and seeing it as crazy, and I was part and parcel of the seeing. I was so tired of tackling the "work challenge" that I didn't immediately recognise the inciduous erosion of character "someone" was busy with. I pretended to wash off the "you're so stupid" laughing comments or the "Agh shutup what do you know" initially. It had to be ME, right?  Then the subtle punishments and erosion of character stepped up; when I didn't react, there was always a punishment. One day I reflected back to "someone" saying "are you aware that you're punishing me for attending a church service?" To which I was promptly told "yes." so I asked "why?" and was told "Because I can". And the sarcastic laughter dripped, silenced any further argument. Any comment was taken as worthless and arbitrary and well, stupid. I was stupid, regardless of any circumstance. In retrospect my only stupidity was not leaving sooner.

To make a very long sad story short, the mind games are part and parcel of abuse. If you've been abused, you know what I'm talking about. "Someone" would arrive but not say a word, practically hiding out of sight for hours without my knowing. Then "someone" would act surprised - "what's your problem", and eventually, you don't argue back anymore. Or things would be done or undone and I was made to feel as though I was either crazy or I had imagined it all. Eventually, anything I attempted to do as an individual in a personal or intellectual capacity was "doomed for failure" and reason for ridicule. If success was imminent, I'd soon loose that small flicker of hope from the continuous wearing down of my own self esteem.

Then, it became outright cruel. So reader, yes, I've been locked in a bedroom/bathroom/car because someone "didn't notice I was there" or "enter maniacal mocking laughter here". Heck, I've locked myself in too, just to avoid "someone". I've had things thrown, heard all the usual , had doors banged, lights flicked on and off continuously whilst I attempted to sleep (with no explanation just a stone cold stare, mind you). I've been robbed of any decision making capacity and had to explain every single dime spent over the last 3 months (in retrospect and as a test). And much more. So i probably have a good idea of what you're going through if you say there's emotional or psychological abuse going on.

What saved me? Islam. In short. It opened my eyes.

And then as a muslim Allah gave me my beloved husband Mohammed who from the time we met until today has made me feel worthy to be alive rather than just EXIST, and to whom I will always be grateful.

Studying about Islam, comparing it to my christian and catholic upbringing, to my sad reality (even if at the time I didn't acknowledge it was that bad) I couldn't believe that I'd been living this way without doing anything about walking out. I had lied to myself - alot - (SO much!) - and I regret to say to others, to cover up my personal abuse. It was only after I LEFT "someone" that I realised that I had been afraid - afraid beyond the word fear; the kind of afraid like a child afraid of ghosts she just KNOWS are under the bed, or the kind of afraid where you've been living in a war zone as a prisioner and then when you hear a firecracker you think you're dying? That kind of afraid. It was only after I was living on my own that I struggled with the quasi panic attacks and then had to talk myself down saying "nobody's coming in here, its okay, you're okay".

My point is this - don't tell me psychological abuse doesn't break you. Don't tell me it doesn't taint you the saddest shade of desperate you've ever been, and don't tell me it is "liveable"or "necessary". I have 0 (ZERO) tolerance for abusers of any shape or form, today. I have sympathy and empathy for those who are abused, yes.  And perhaps because of what I went through, I have even LESS tolerance for women abusers. Women who have kind, gentle souls for husbands. My husband today, my SoulMate, is such a man who is kind and gentle. A man who Allah sent to redeem my heart and save my soul, Alhamdolilah. If I am completely honest, had Allah not sent him I would today be either dead or have committed suicide. Sometimes, as i said in the beginning, it takes someone who will patiently and slowly piece together all the little bits of you until you can stand again. So what if you have a few cracks left behind? They are the soul wrinkles of experience, in my opinion! So if women out there have gentle souls as a spouse and are abusive to them, well, I have NO tolerance for that.

One day, one evening in fact, it hit me, whilst I was still living "there". It was over . My existance as a captive to this prisioner, it was just that - an existance. Not a life. The "life" I thought I'd been living was in fact an illusion, i had simply been surviving, in captivitity. Islam told me I wasn't a captive, so how could I be there, still? Islam told me there is only ONE God, so why was I accepting abuse from a tyrant - was this tyrant God? No. IT was time. I had to face up to the fact that abuse meant that the person I thought I'd known actually didn't exist. THat person NEVER existed. The only thing that existed was the role, the title, but the person? No. That was all an illusion. If you're reading this thinking about the person you are tied to as "not so bad" yet you are living with abuse, I ask you to consider; if you see this person through the hard cold reality of WHAT they are rather than the role YOU assigned to them, (mother/wife/companion/old friend) - if you see that person for WHAT THEY TRULY DO to you, and WHAT they truly are (abusers) then you will know what it's like to come face to face with the illusion.

IT is time, for you, perhaps, to turn to that "compassionate" person inside you who is always looking for excuses to dismiss the abuse, and see yourself  for your own brokenness, and see yourself with compassion, and your own need for compassion. If the abuse is new, get help. If it's old, get out. You do not owe it to your community, your family, your culture or anyone else to continue to be abused. That sense of "owing" is an illusion, quite possibly planted as a sense of loyalty by the abuser themself. You do not owe it to ALLAH to be abused because HE says.

"O My servants, I have forbidden oppression for Myself and have made it forbidden amongst you, so do not oppress one another.

An-Nawawi's Hadith No.24




Allah's Messenger (SAW) said:

"Beware of oppression, for oppression will be a darkness on the Day of Resurrection ." (Muslim)

      ****************************************   If the abuse is new, TELL SOMEONE - someone who will believe you, or tell someone UNTIL they believe you. Get help for YOUR OWN self esteem, to build yourself up. Take a course, do something to re-learn that you ARE a valid human being!   ***************************************   Food for thought:              In the name of Allah, the Most-Merciful, the All-Compassionate

Bismillah Walhamdulillah Was Salaatu Was Salaam 'ala Rasulillah

As-Salaam Alaikum Wa-Rahmatullahi Wa-Barakatuhu

 

On the authority of Abu Dharr al-Ghifari (may Allah be pleased with him) from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is that among the sayings he relates from his Lord (may He be glorified) is that He said:  -
"O My servants, I have forbidden oppression for Myself and have made it forbidden

amongst you, so do not oppress one another.

O My servants, all of you are astray except for those I have guided, so seek guidance

 of Me and I shall guide you.

O My servants, all of you are hungry except for those I have fed, so seek food of

Me and I shall feed you.

O My servants, all of you are naked except for those I have clothed, so seek

clothing of Me and I shall clothe you.

O My servants, you sin by night and by day, and I forgive all sins, so seek

forgiveness of Me and I shall forgive you.

O My servants, you will not attain harming Me so as to harm Me, and you

will not attain benefiting Me so as to benefit Me.
O My servants, were the first of you and the last of you, the human of you and the jinn

of you to be as pious as the most pious heart of any one man of you,

that would not increase My kingdom in anything.

O My servants, were the first of you and the last of you, the human of you and the jinn of you

to be as wicked as the most wicked heart of any one man of you,

that would not decrease My kingdom in anything.
O My servants, were the first of you and the last of you, the human of you and the jinn

of you to rise up in one place and make a request of Me, and were I to give everyone

what he requested,  that would not  decrease what I have, any more 

 than a needle decreases the sea if put into it.
O My servants, it is but your deeds that I reckon up for you and then recompense

 you for, so let him who finds good praise Allah

and let him who finds other than that blame no

one but himself."

  

 It was related by Muslim (also by at-Tirmidhi and Ibn Majah).

!! 'SUBHANALLAH' !!

'Never Despair Of The Mercy Of Allah'.

I had a dream..

Bismillahir Rahmaanir Raheem


Muslim or not, sometimes life runs away with you, and whilst you go about ibaada searching for Allah, sometimes we forget that to remember his messenger (pbuh) is to find yet another door to the Creator. I read about our beloved nabi(pbuh) again yesterday, and it took me back to the early days of my search, before I came to Islam, when I had so many quesions. I wanted to know the truth, because I no longer found in me what used to be my truth, you understand?

For every revert, there comes this day, I think. That day when you find yourself in suspended animation, unable to go back to what you've always held as comfort and spiritual belief, simply because it is no longer there. You cannot be convicted of it anymore because the very foundations of it have simply disappeared. A dark night of the soul, a spiritual culmination in which you truly NEED to know what is instead of what is generally believed, what IS versus what you've been taught, what you've held to be so with great conviction despite its lack of evidence. In those days, I had 3 dreams, which I will not share, but yesterday's return to the Prophet(pbuh) (and how simplistic a name is that for what he truly IS).. led me to remember just one moment in time. I'd like to share that today, in the form of a poem.

Before you think me blasphemous, it is important to remember that our Nabi (saw) was created for all of creation, a light unto the world. Let those who wish to look into that statement deeper do so, for I have only touched upon the skirt of that journey's beginning and I am left in awe..

I've called this poem simply, BELOVED, because that is our Nabi(saw). To us, muslims, and to Allah (swt) Creator of ALL that is and was and evermore shall be. If anything is given to you through this poem on a spiritual or intellectual level, I ask ALLAH to reward Muhammad (saw) for that tiny grain, and to ALLAH be all the glory. Insh'Allah and ameen..

BELOVED

I had a dream..

In which we sat beside the waters clear, the stream of life,

The laughter of the rippling water as it tumbled over polished forms

The silence of the moment rings, still, within my heart

The timbre bell of that peace resounding, gently, within my soul

I had a dream..

In which I stood and waited as a bride yet to meet her sweet betrothed,

And then, when I looked up, I saw your frame

Your steps that walked with quiet confidence,

Descending from heaven's clouds

As though the air itself held its breath that you may tread upon it’s dreams..

I had a dream,

And in that dream you smiled..

And in that moment both the sun and moon bowed low

Ashamed of their own light before your own

Ashamed of their own love before your own

Shy as a lover, standing naked on her first blessed night of union

Oh how I dreamed,

And how I fell in love with you,

Seated on that little bank beside the stream of life..

Filled throughout with the knowing of your presence

That presence filled with all the mysteries of the universe before it breathed its first day or night..

That presence filled with the light upon light and love upon love

Of a Creator I could not begin to know or understand

How could I know HIM?

How could I begin to encompass a little of HIS friendship,

When seated beside his closest companion it was as though my heart lay open,

like broken drawers of an empty chest yearning for just one more smile..

Oh how I dreamed..

And how I fell in love with you..

Oh blessed soul;

 who’s fragrance’s search still fills my every dream and waking moment since!

Oh blessed messenger;

who brought to this ragged, poor and wretched soul a touch of life,

Oh blessed messenger;

who’s love is such that your blessed feet did walk,

For the love of YOUR beloved,

That greatest stretch of eternal sky, from complete rest and peace,

 just to sit with me.

Quietly.

Beside a stream.

So that I may feel, just once, the breath of heavens possibility,

So that I may take, from your beloved hand in which all of creation sits recorded,

One tiny key..

One promise..

The answer to my "Purpose" in this dry and dusty road..

Yours then, and mine today…

ALLAH

Copywrite@2013(RC)http://yesI'mMuslimDealwithit.blogger.com - please reference if sharing

Who wrote the bible?

Bismillahir Rahmaanir Raheem

The wrote the bible - the greatest "WHODUNIT" of all time..



The following is part one of what is possibly the most important topic that I have found. It's claims are easily verified and the writing is easy to read. It does not stand in favour of or against the bible but simply states the facts. I'd like to do the same. Pelase set aside a good few minutes if this is a subject you are intersted in. Although I will be posting ALL parts of this discussion, you may visit the authors to view the other parts.

Note: this article is a total TRIP in history and theology- it deserves time to be propperly read through.

All credit  for the writing is given to: http://www.straightdope.com a non-denominational and educative site that offers information on a myriad of topics. The pictures are my own insertions.

A Staff Report from the Straight Dope Science Advisory Board

 

Who wrote the Bible? (Part 1)

January 7, 2002

Dear Straight Dope:

Who wrote the Bible? I hear the Catholics did some pretty heavy editorializing back in 300 A.D. or so. But where does the original text trace its origins to?

— Concerned Pagan

The answer is neither simple nor straightforward--just the way we at the Straight Dope like it. But this subject is complicated even for us. Rather than try to pack the answer into one article, we've decided to split it into sections and give a detailed account, to be presented over several days.

• Part 1 - Who wrote/compiled/edited (and when) the first five books of the Bible, called the Torah or Pentateuch or Five Books of Moses?

These reports were written bySDSTAFF Eutychus andSDSTAFF Dex, with valuable assistance from Straight Dope Message Board contributors tomndebb and CMKeller, and also from Dex's friend Pastor Allan, who has a Ph.D. in early Christian writings. Volumes have been written about this topic--the Cambridge History of the Bible alone is three large books. The answers are seldom clear cut. The best we could do is summarize and condense. We hope you enjoy.

Now to the first part of our story. Who wrote/compiled/edited (and when) the first five books of the Bible, called the Torah or the Pentateuch or the Five Books of Moses?

The five scrolls or books of the Pentateuch tell the history of the Israelites from the creation of the universe, through the exodus from Egypt and the revelation at Mount Sinai to their entry into the Promised Land. The first book, Genesis, contains most of the stories--the creation, Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, and Noah; and the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, etc., ending with the story of Joseph and the arrival of the Israelites in Egypt. The book of Exodus tells the story of the enslavement in Egypt, the exodus, the revelation of the Ten Commandments and the Law at Mount Sinai, the golden calf, and the construction of the Tabernacle (a portable house of worship, carried through the desert). The book of Numbers tells of the Israelites' wanderings in the desert and the legal and religious structure of their society. The book of Leviticus deals largely with the rules of the priesthood, sacrifice, and worship. The book of Deuteronomy is essentially Moses' farewell address to the Israelites as they are about to enter the Promised Land, recapping much of what was covered in the prior three books.

How did these books come to be written? There's a wide range of opinion. We'll only present the two most commonly held views--what we'll call the "traditional view" and the "scholarly view." This is perhaps misleading terminology, since there are many profound scholars on both sides. We use the term "scholarly" in the sense of "academic" or "scientific", although neither of those terms are right, either. Perhaps the best term is "documentarist", but that's cumbersome. So we shall stick to "traditional" and "scholarly", without implying lack of scholarship on the other side.

The traditional explanation is that the Five Books of Moses were written by Moses himself. There are several variants of this explanation:

• Traditional Judaism and fundamentalist Christianity believe that the text was dictated by God to Moses on Mount Sinai, letter for letter (or pretty much letter for letter).
• Other religious groups still ascribe authorship to Moses, but use words like "divinely inspired" rather than "dictated letter for letter."
• Still others say Moses was the sole author, but there's nothing "divine" about it except in the sense that all great works of literature and poetry are "inspired."

Mosaic authorship would mean the five books were written around 1280 to 1250 BC, the most commonly accepted range of dates for the exodus from Egypt, give or take 30 years.

It has long been recognized that there were a few problems with the traditional view of Moses as author. The text reports the death of Moses--how could Moses have written of his own death? It also describes Moses as "the most humble man who ever lived"--how could Moses write that about himself? But these are minor issues. Some say Moses' successor Joshua wrote the few lines that describe the death of Moses; others say that Moses himself was commanded to write that text before it happened. None of this represents a serious challenge to Mosaic authorship.

A listing of a FEW of the translations available, and from each of these have emerged many christian churches with many different takes of how to live as a christian.

As time went on, however, scholars became increasingly skeptical of the idea of Moses as single author. Among their objections:

• Several stories are repeated, with different characters or different emphasis (called "doublets"). For instance, there are two creation stories (Gen 1 and Gen 2). There are three stories of a patriarch traveling among pagans and pretending his wife is his sister. There are two stories of Moses striking a rock to produce water. There are two versions of the Ten Commandments (one in Exodus, one that Moses recaps in Deuteronomy) with slightly different wording. There are, in fact, a lot of these doublets.
• There are internal inconsistencies. The number of days of the Flood story don't add up right. At one point, Noah takes two of each animal; at another point, he takes two of some, seven of others. Joseph is sold into slavery to Ishmaelites in one verse, to Midianites a few verses later. The Mountain of Revelation is sometimes called Sinai and sometimes Horeb. Moses' father-in-law is sometimes called Yitro and sometimes Ruel, and so on.

Scholars in late 18th century Germany noted that in most of the duplicated stories, one set described God using the Hebrew word Elohim (usually translated "God") while the other set tended to use God's four-lettered Name Y-H-W-H (usually translated "Lord," sometimes miscalled "Jehovah.") This gave rise to the theory that there were two different authors, one called E and one called J (German for Y), whose works were somehow combined to form a single text.

Later analysis of the grammar, vocabulary, and writing style provided evidence for two other authors--called P for the Priestly author (mostly Leviticus, and lots of the genealogy) and D for the Deuteronomist, since the book of Deuteronomy seemed different (grammatically and politically) from the earlier books. The multiple-author view has come to be called the "Documentary theory."

We interject at this point to say that traditionalists have answers to all the points raised by Documentary scholars. The E-word for God is used when God's justice is predominant; the J-name is used when God's mercy is predominate. The doublet stories are complementary, offering different interpretations and insights. For example, each of the creation stories has a different emphasis, one on the physical universe and one on the pre-eminence of mankind. Textual differences (such as in the different versions of the Ten Commandments) make a point by comparison. For example, "Remember the Sabbath" and "honor the Sabbath" means to do both.

Another version of the bible, "flavoured" for New Age supporters.

 

Documentary theorists see a much more complicated story, with four different texts by four different authors (although some think "schools" of authors might be responsible for each text rather than a single author). These were later combined by an editor, called the Redactor. (my note - but NOBODY knows who that is.. so who are the people following who follow today's old testament?)  The Redactor sometimes put the different authors' stories one after the other (as with the creation stories) and sometimes interwove them (as with the two stories of Noah's Flood and of Joseph's mistreatment by his brothers). The Redactor also added comments like "Now it came to pass, after these things . . ." as a transition between sections.

Scholars differ on when the various authors wrote and when the Redaction occurred. No one today knows who the initial authors were--the predominant view is that many of the stories were handed down orally for generations before being written down. It's not clear which texts are older (although the Song at the Sea in Exodus 15:1-8 is usually acknowledged as among the oldest verses), or which author wrote which verses. Nor is there agreement on the gender of the authors. Some scholars believe the J-writer was a woman, as described in The Book of J by David Rosenberg and Harold Bloom (1990).

Our favorite interpretation of the Documentary theory is presented by Richard E. Friedman in his book, "Who Wrote the Bible?" It's a marvelous book, written for the lay person, and you feel like you're reading a detective story as Friedman disentangles various threads and ties the authorship to historical events. Friedman's version is summarized below (most dates are rough approximations).
 

1250 to 1000 BC - Conquest of the land of Canaan begins before 1200, and the tribes of Israel form a loose confederation. The histories of the tribes of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and Moses are told orally, handed down from generation to generation.

Around 1000 to 950 BC - The tribes are united under King David. Many of the stories are written down by the author J. These stories describe the creation of the universe, the birth and history of the tribes and their special relationship with God. The stories have an intense focus on morality, on examples of behavior, reward and punishment. Even the ancestral heroes are depicted as having human faults and weaknesses.

920 BC to 722 BC - following the death of Solomon (around 920 BC), the kingdom splits in two, Judah in the south with the royal capital at Jerusalem, and Israel/Ephraim in the north with major shrines at Shechem and Bethel. The J-stories primarily reflect the Davidic (southern) point of view. In the north, some stories begin to accumulate twists reflecting the political situation there. The stories from the south stress the importance of Jerusalem, Aaron and the priesthood, and the centralization of sacrifice. Those from the north are about sacrifices conducted anywhere and de-emphasize Aaron in favor of Moses.
 

The essence of the stories remains the same but the details vary. In the north, the mountain of significance is Horeb, not Sinai, and greater emphasis is placed on Joseph, his mother, and his son Ephraim (one of the largest of the northern tribes). In the southern version, Judah (head of the chief tribe of the south) saves Joseph from being killed by the other brothers; in the northern version, it's Reuben (head of the chief tribe of the north.)

The northern stories--let's call them E-stories--are written down and become the E-document. Northern prophets such as Amos (2:9) and Hosea (12:2-6) use the E-stories in their messages to the people. By the eighth century BC, then, we have two sets of stories, E-versions (northern) and J-versions (southern), both evolved from a single tradition.

722 BC - Israel is conquered by Assyria and the ten tribes of the north are scattered and exiled. Many refugees flee to Judah in the south. Although they are all Israelites, those from the north have somewhat different versions of stories from those in the south. Both texts are viewed as ancient and sacred, so someone combines the two to form a single document, called JE. As they're sitting around hearing the consolidated story read, the people from the north hear familiar phrases and elements and say, yep, that's the story my grandpa told me, all right. The people from the south, ditto. The combined text helps the process of social integration and tribal distinctions disappear.

The JE version subordinates the E-stories to the J-stories, since Judah (the southern kingdom) was politically dominant. Some of the E-stories may have been lost at this time--there aren't separate versions of all the stories. Perhaps in some cases there weren't any differences. Perhaps the southern authors who combined the stories dropped northern variants they couldn't accept. We don't know, and some say the absence of a complete E-document is a weakness in the Documentary theory.

770 BC to 600 BC - A third work appears, mostly concerned with Temple rites, sacrifices, priestly garb, genealogy (focused on the priestly tribe), etc. This is identified as the P-document. The P-stories in all likelihood are very old and handed down from oral tradition. Arguably many of them were compiled as a pro-Aaron response to the anti-Aaron slant of E. Where JE mentions God speaking to Moses, P mentions God speaking to Moses and Aaron. Where JE talks of the staff of Moses, P talks of the staff of Aaron. P accounts for the largest amount of text in the Torah, containing most of the legal sections, rules of sacrifice, genealogies, and priestly matters.

The dating of the P document is hotly debated among Documentary scholars. Some date P as late as Second Temple times (after 580 BC), but we find Friedman's argument compelling, that it appeared in response to JE.
 

640 BC to 609 BC - Reign of King Josiah. The book of II Kings describes (23:8-13) how a "lost" scroll of Moses was found by Halkiah around 622 BC and read to King Josiah. Most scholars argue (based on internal evidence) that this was the book of Deuteronomy--in fact, this was suggested by the early Church fathers, including Jerome. (Traditionalists usually say the entire written Torah had been lost, the people had strayed so far.) Deuteronomy largely recapitulates the other books, but also contains new material. The Documentary theory labels this last author D, the Deuteronomist.

The content of Deuteronomy is very old, although the literary style seems to be from the later period of Josiah. The D-author, in attributing the writings to Moses himself, certainly felt he was simply reviving Moses' teachings, as understood 600 years later. In much the same way a modern biographer might put together a collection of the sayings of Thomas Jefferson for a modern audience.

So at this point, there are three different texts: JE, P, and D. There were doubtless other texts as well (Genesis makes reference to the "Book of the Wars of the Lord," for example) which are long lost.

587 BC to 536? BC - The southern kingdom of Judah is conquered by Babylon in 587 BC. The people are exiled for 50 years, then return to Jerusalem to rebuild the Temple and restore their religion. There is no longer a king of the line of David, but a high priest. The process is not easy. Other exiled peoples were assimilated by their conquerors and disappeared; the Israelites remained faithful to their homeland and their God. But the religion had been weakened by the exile, and needed to be strengthened and consolidated. (yet again...some changes - my note)
 
 

Approximately 450 BC - This is perhaps the most remarkable part of the story, as the Redactor emerges on the scene. He  (WHO IS THAT??! my note)sees the need for religious revival and renewal, for strengthening and centralization. So he combines the three documents (JE, P, and D) into one smooth flowing narrative--the five books of Moses.

The Redactor did lots of cutting and pasting. Genealogies that probably started all together in a P-text were interspersed throughout JE, acting as bridging material or section dividers. Materials that told the same story from pro-Aaron and anti-Aaron viewpoints (for example) were neatly woven together.

The Redactor was respectful of his sources and kept them largely intact (largely.. hmm- my note). These were all sacred and ancient texts/traditions, so the Redactor presumably didn't drop material--duplication was preferable to omission. Sometimes he combined the different texts; sometimes he left the two stories side by side.

The single document became the center of the Israelite religion, under the prophets Ezra and Nehemiah. Authorship was ascribed to Moses. This wasn't deception. The Redactor in all likelihood knew nothing of the prior 500 year history of authorship and honestly believed the material he was editing had all been handed down from Moses. (Come on, now, you have to be giggling by now!! -my note) 

From 450 BC on the document was fixed--no more changes. The oldest existing parchments, the Dead Sea scrolls, date from around 100 BC. They're almost word-for-word identical to the versions we have today (although there are occasional transcription errors, most so small they would be noticed only by an experienced scholar). (my note - so a question arises - why do the christian bibles, totalling more than 28000 versions contain changes? - another question - if the Quran states that the original texts were changed, is this not proof so far that the Quran is telling us the truth?)

That's the story as viewed by Friedman, and we venture to say it comes closest to representing the consensus among Documentary scholars. We like Friedman's approach because he neatly connects the political history (as described in the text and as known to archaeology) with the religious and social history. He also draws on the grammar and vocabulary of the different authors to form a coherent explanation of the text's evolution.

Some Documentary scholars advocate different time lines. All agree on the four basic authors (J, E, P, and D) (versus one Quran, and one author) but some separate D into D1 (around 600 BC) and D2 (around 550 BC). Some say that P is older than D, some put E as oldest, some date all the documents much later. Archaeological finds occasionally shed some light (for instance, on the question of "household gods" in Genesis 31:19), helping to date the origin of a story or a phrase. But for the most part there's no firm evidence for one view over another. It's mostly a matter of trying to analyze internal elements such as writing style, vocabulary, and grammar--a highly subjective business. Arguments are waged over which author wrote which sentence.

Questions of provenance notwithstanding, the text is one of the great works of literature. It has endured for at least 2,500 years, parts of it for at least 3,200 years, and is still read today. There is hardly a work of art or writing in the western world that does not build from the five books or use images or phrases from them. Our notions of good and evil, of history as a linear process, of the relationship between the individual and morality, of the dignity of man ("created in the image of God"), all stem from this seminal work. The pagan nations surrounding Israel did not see anything wrong with mistreatment of animals, with leaving unwanted babies out in the woods, with working slaves without relief. The famous legal code of Hammurabi, often cited as a source for the laws of the Torah, declared that chopping off a man's hand was suitable punishment for stealing a loaf of bread. The Torah says the punishment must be proportionate to the crime. (However, the Torah also did not stop the killing of young girls who were buried alive because they were born GIRLS. Islam stopped this. The Torah did not give woman any rights - ISLAM gave them this. My note.. )
 

It's hard for us to consider the profound impact of this text on human history without thinking that there was a divine hand in its authorship, whether the human author was one or many.

BIBLIOGRAPHY BELOW:

 

Resources:

Who Wrote the Bible? by Richard Elliot Friedman, 1987

Understanding the Old Testament, by Bernhard W. Anderson, 1986

The Art of Biblical Narrative, by Robert Alter, 1981

The Religion of Israel, by Yehezkel Kaufmann (trans: Moshe Greenberg), 1948

Surpassing Wonder, by Donald H. Akenson, 1998

— Dex and Eutychus

LOOK OUT FOR PART 2 - coming soon... as well as WHO WROTE THE QURAN (just because we know, have proof, and can verify the facts)..