Showing posts with label dawa. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dawa. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 22, 2018

Giveaway: ebook on Understanding Islam

Bismillahir Rahmaanir Raheem


Free gift: Please click on the download link to download. 







                                Book Title: A Brief Illustrated Guide to Understanding Islam

File Size: 4.84 MB
Pages: 80
Language: English
Format: PDF
Author: I.A Ibrahim
Published Year: N/A

Tuesday, January 29, 2013

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.

Monday, January 28, 2013

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
 
 
 
 
 

Tuesday, January 8, 2013

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?
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


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

Friday, December 28, 2012

Muslims say Jesus is Coming

Bismillahir Rahmaanir Raheem

Surprised? It's true. Essa (as) as we call him WILL, indeed, return. Here's an explanation of what we believe, better than I could ever put it! What will happen? How will it happen? Whether christian or muslim, you're bound to enjoy this.



Subhaan'Allah !

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Why say NO to Christmas?

Bismillahir Rahmaanir Raheem




It is the "Silly Season" and let's face it, it's no secret that christians are so divided among themselves that they cannot agree on even the most basic of principles from wether or not a woman can preach to wether a christmas tree is "scriptural". There's no need to re-invent the wheel and try to find the answers to various christmas related questions. So here's an article written by a christian to christians, regarding christmas. Erm... need I say more?


PLEASE NOTE: I do not advocate the beliefs the writer advocates, I include extracts of his article here, simply because it is well researched and basically shows how the bible itself speaks against "christmas"..

All rights of the extracts of this article to its author David C Pack .

"Catholic Encyclopedia, 1911 edition, under “Christmas”: “Christmas was not among the earliest festivals of the Church…the first evidence of the feast is from Egypt.” Further, “Pagan customs centering around the January calends gravitated to Christmas.” Under “Natal Day,” Origen, an early Catholic writer, admitted, “…In the Scriptures, no one is recorded to have kept a feast or held a great banquet on his birthday. It is only sinners (like Pharaoh and Herod) who make great rejoicings over the day in which they were born into this world” (emphasis mine).

The Encyclopedia Americana, 1956 edition, adds, “Christmas…was not observed in the first centuries of the Christian church, since the Christian usage in general was to celebrate the death of remarkable persons rather than their birth…a feast was established in memory of this event [ Jesus's birth] in the fourth century. In the fifth century the Western Church ordered the feast to be celebrated forever on the day of the Mithraic rites of the birth of the sun and at the close of the Saturnalia, as no certain knowledge of the day of Christ's birth existed.”

It was 300 years after Christ before the Roman church kept Christmas, and not until the fifth century that it was mandated to be kept throughout the empire as an official festival honoring “Christ.”

Can "Christ" Be Honored by Christmas?

The most common justification that one will hear regarding Christmas is that people have replaced old pagan customs and intents by asserting that they are now “focusing on Christ.” I have heard many say that they are “honoring Christ” in their Christmas-keeping. The problem is that God does not say this is acceptable to Him! Actually, He plainly commands against it! Keeping Christmas dishonors Christ! He considers everything about it to be an abomination! We will soon see why.

"Christ" said, “But in vain they do worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” (Matt. 15:9). Christmas is not a command of God—it is a tradition of men. "Christ" continued, “Full well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your own tradition” (Mark 7:9). Every year, throughout the world, on December 25th, hundreds of millions do just that!

We will see that God plainly commands, “Follow not the way of the heathen.” But most people do not fear God, and He allows them to make their own decisions. Human beings are free moral agents—free to obey or disobey God! (...)

Was "Christ" Born on December 25th?

"Christ" was born in the fall of the year. Many have mistakenly believed He was born around the beginning of winter—December 25th! They are wrong! Notice the Adam Clarke Commentary, volume 5, page 370, New York edition: “It was custom among Jews to send out their sheep to the deserts about the Passover [early spring], and bring them home at the commencement of the first rain.” The first rains began in early-to-mid fall. Continuing with this same quote: “During the time they were out, the shepherds watched them night and day. As…the first rain began early in the month of March-esvan, which answers to part of our October and November [begins sometime in October], we find that the sheep were kept out in the open country during the whole summer. And as these shepherds had not yet brought home their flocks, it is a presumptive argument that October had not yet commenced, and that, consequently, (Jesus) was not born on the 25th of December, when no flocks were out in the fields; nor could He have been born later than September, as the flocks were still in the fields by night. On this very ground, the nativity in December should be given up. The feeding of the flocks by night in the fields is a chronological fact…See the quotations from the Talmudists in Lightfoot.”

Luke 2:8 explains that when "Christ" was born, “there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.” Note that they were “abiding” in the field. This never happened in December. Both Ezra 10:9-13 and the Song of Solomon 2:11 show that winter was the rainy season and shepherds could not stay on cold, open fields at night.

Numerous encyclopedias plainly state that "Christ" was not born on December 25th! The Catholic Encyclopedia directly confirms this. In all likelihood, "Christ" was born in the fall! A lengthy technical explanation would prove this point.

Since we now know that December 25th was nowhere near "Christ's" actual birthdate, where did the festival associated with this date come from?

Now read this quote under “Christmas”: “In the Roman world, the Saturnalia (December 17) was a time of merrymaking and exchanging of gifts. December 25 was also regarded as the birthdate of the Iranian mystery god Mithra, the Sun of Righteousness. On the Roman New Year (January 1), houses were decorated with greenery and lights, and gifts were given to children and the poor. To these observances were added the German and Celtic Yule rites when the Teutonic tribes penetrated into Gaul, Britain and central Europe. Food and good fellowship, the Yule log and Yule cakes, greenery and fir trees, gifts and greetings all commemorated different aspects of this festive season. (..)” (Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th ed., vol. II, p. 903).

A final quote about the selection of December 25th as the birthdate of "Christ" is necessary. Note an article in The Toronto Star, December 1984, by Alan Edmonds, entitled, “We owe a lot to Druids, Dutch”: “The Reformation cast a blight on Christmas. By then, of course, clever ecclesiastical politicians had adopted the Pagan mid-winter festival as the alleged birthdate of Jesus, of Nazareth, and thrown in a few other Pagan goodies to make their takeover more palatable.”

December 25th was not selected because it was the birth of "Christ" or because it was even near it. It was selected because it coincided with the idolatrous pagan festival Saturnalia—and this celebration must be carefully examined. In any event, we do not know the exact date of "Christ's" birth. (...)

What About Santa Claus?

Parents reason that they owe the whole Christmas myth to their children! Christmas traditions are focused primarily on kids, and they are certainly the center of most of what happens. I know because I kept seventeen Christmases. My older sister and younger brother and I were the recipients of much and the givers of very little on that day—and it all started with the Santa Claus lie.

Some years ago, a priest in New Jersey told his Sunday school class that Santa was a myth. The outrage from parents and his supervisors was swift. He had “killed Santa!” He had “destroyed family tradition!” He had “usurped family authority,” the article continued. He was officially censored by his superiors for being “overzealous and insensitive.”

His crime? He told the truth!

According to Langer's Encyclo-pedia of World History, (article “Santa”), “Santa” was a common name for Nimrod throughout Asia Minor. This was also the same fire god who came down the chimneys of the ancient pagans and the same fire god to whom infants were burned and eaten in human sacrifice among those who were once God's people.

Today Santa Claus comes from “Saint Nicholas.” Washington Irving, in 1809, is responsible for remaking the original old, stern bishop of this same name into the new “jolly St. Nick” in his Knickerbocker History of New York. (Most of the rest of America's Christmas traditions are even more recent than this.) “Old Nick” has long been recognized as a term for the devil.

In Revelation 2:6 and 15, we read about a “doctrine of the Nicolaitanes,” which Christ twice tells His Church “[He] hates.” Let's analyze the word Nicolaitane. It means “follower of Nicholas.” Nikos means “conqueror, destroyer.” Laos means “people.” Nicolaitanes, then, are people who follow the conqueror or destroyer—Nimrod. If you have believed that following Christmas is an innocent Christian custom, let this truth sink in!

Is It "Scriptural" to Exchange Gifts?

Merchants regularly report that over 60% of their annual retail sales occur during the Christmas shopping season. This represents a tremendous amount of gift buying. Most today believe that gift-giving comes from the Bible example of the “three wise men” (the Bible gives no number) presenting gifts to Christ. Is this true? Where did exchanging gifts come from, and what does God's Word say about it?

The Bibliotheca Sacra states, “The interchange of presents between friends is a like characteristic of Christmas and the Saturnalia, and must have been adopted by Christians from the pagans, as the admonition of Tertullian plainly shows” (Vol. 12, pp. 153-155).

Like every other aspect of Christmas, the shocking truth is that even this supposed Christian custom does not come from the Bible. It is an irony that people love to believe they are following the custom of the wise men giving to Christ, when actually they are giving almost exclusively to each other! What hypocrisy! Christ is completely forgotten.

The Bible actually teaches that Christians should not keep birthdays. Numerous scriptures make this principle clear. (...) However, what if you went to a birthday party that had been prepared for you and everybody gave gifts to each other and you were left out? The idea is ridiculous! If this happened, you would say that people were being selfish and forgetting you. In fact, most people give to others on Christmas merely because they expect to receive gifts themselves!

Let's briefly return to the “wise men” who gave gifts to Christ. The scripture describing this is Matthew 2:1-11: “Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, saying, Where is He that is born King of the Jews?…And when they were come into the house, they saw the young Child with Mary His mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto Him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh.”

It is commonly supposed that these were birthday presents for “baby Jesus.” But is this what the Bible actually says? Absolutely not! First, it is important to note that they did give the gifts to Jesus. They did not stand in his presence and exchange gifts among themselves or give them to others. The gifts were “presented unto Him.” Also, they arrived well after his “birthday.” This is another reason these could not have been “birthday presents.” (...)


Origin of the Christmas Tree

No article about Christmas is complete without some explanation of the “Christmas tree.” We have touched on it without directly focusing on it. The modern Christmas tree originated in Germany. But the Germans got it from the Romans, who got it from the Babylonians and the Egyptians.

The following demonstrates what the Babylonians believe about the origin of the Christmas tree: “An old Babylonish fable told of an evergreen tree which sprang out of a dead tree stump. The old stump symbolized the dead Nimrod, the new evergreen tree symbolized that Nimrod had come to life again in Tammuz! Among the Druids the oak was sacred, among the Egyptians it was the palm, and in Rome it was the fir, which was decorated with red berries during the Saturnalia!” (Walsh, Curiosities of Popular Customs, p. 242).

Frederick J. Haskin's Answers to Questions states, “The Christmas tree is from Egypt, and its origin dates from a period long anterior to the Christmas Era.” Did you know this—that the Christmas tree long preceded Christianity?

Most aspects of Christmas are not referred to in the Bible. Of course, the reason is that they are not from God (The reader should remember this article was written by a christian writer, not by the blogger yesimmuslimdealwithit) (...) The Christmas tree, however, is directly mentioned in the Bible! Turn to Jeremiah 10:2-5, “Thus says the Lord, Learn not the way of the heathen…For the customs of the people are vain: for one cuts a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not. They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good.”

This plain description of the modern Christmas tree is clear. (The bible )directly refers to it as “the way of the heathen.” Just as directly, He commands His people to “learn not the way of the heathen,” calling these customs “vain.” Verse 23 adds a remarkable and powerful statement: “O Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walks to direct his [own] steps.” God must teach people how to live. Man simply cannot figure out God's ways for himself. (Note from yesImMuslimDealwithit - please read this again - Christians will tell muslims that they do not need laws because they are set free.. so no, I'm not agreeing with the writer in all he says, but I want readers to note what christians themselves say about christmas - their OWN bible denounces it.)

There is no room in Jeremiah 10 to believe, as some have tried to suggest, that because these trees are powerless of themselves, it is not really forbidden to have a Christmas tree. God condemns the putting up of pagan (Christmas) trees with this plain Bible command!

The Source of Holly Wreaths, Yule Logs and Mistletoe


The Encyclopedia Americana states, “The holly, the mistletoe, the Yule log…are relics of pre-Christian time.” In other words, paganism! The Yule log was commonly used in a rite of Teutonic nature worship.

Frederick Haskin further states, “The use of Christmas wreaths is believed by authorities to be traceable to the pagan customs of decorating buildings and places of worship at the feast which took place at the same time as Christmas.”

The Encyclopedia Britannica, under “Celastrales,” exposes the origin of the holly wreath: “European pagans brought holly sprays into their homes, offering them to the fairy people of the forests as refuge from the harsh winter weather. During the Saturnalia, the Roman winter festival, branches of holly were exchanged as tokens of friendship. The earliest Roman Christians apparently used holly as a decoration at the Christmas season.”

There are dozens of different types of holly. Virtually all of them come in male and female varieties—such as “Blue Prince and Blue Princess” or “Blue Boy and Blue Girl” or “China Boy and China Girl.” Female holly plants cannot have berries unless a nearby male plant pollinates them. It is easy to see why the holly wreath found its way into pagan rituals as a token of friendship and fertility!

Christmas is incomplete to many unless it involves “kissing under the mistletoe.” This pagan custom was natural on a night that involved much revelry done in the spirit of drunken orgies. Just like today, this “kissing” usually occurred at the beginning of any modern Saturnalia/Christmas celebration. I will never forget having to always kiss my friends' mothers upon entering each of their houses every Christmas. It was the first thing that we did. I hated it—but it was something I “had to do”! Mistletoe was considered to have special powers of healing for those who “reveled” under it.

The Encyclopedia Britannica, under “Santalales,” states, “The European mistletoe is thought to have had special ritual significance in Druidical ceremonies and lives in folklore today, its special status as the Christmas mistletoe having come from Anglo-Saxon times.” Mistletoe is a parasite that lives on oak trees. (Recall that the Druids worshipped in oak tree groves.) The ancient Celtics (associated with the Druids) used to give mistletoe as an herbal remedy to barren animals to make them fertile. It is still referred to as “all healer” in Celtic. (Yesimmuslimdealwithit comment - and yes, it is a medicinal herb, but it should not be used for any spiritual purpose for only ALLAH heals!)

Like mistletoe, holly berries were also thought to be sacred to the sun god. The original “sun log” came to be called the yule log. “Yule” simply means “wheel,” which has long been a pagan representation of the sun. No wonder people today commonly speak of the “sacred yule-tide season.”

What Should You Do?

Finally, let's examine what God told His people they should do and the way they ought to teach their children.

Human beings do not want to obey God (Rom. 8:7). They would rather follow their own “imagination.” They do not understand that God wants their lives to go “well.” He wants happiness, joy and blessings to flow into people's lives. All these are the results of obeying Him.

God inspired Moses to warn parents of the grave responsibility that they have in what and how they teach their children. Notice His instruction in Deuteronomy 6:1, 6-7, 20-21, 25: “Now these are the commandments…which the Lord your God commanded to teach you, that you might do them in the land where you go to possess it…And these words, which I command you this day, shall be in your heart: And you shall teach them diligently unto your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise up…And when your son asks you in time to come, saying, What mean the testimonies, and the statutes, and the judgments, which the Lord our God has commanded you? Then you shall say unto your son, We were Pharaoh's bondmen in Egypt; and the Lord brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand…And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the Lord our God, as He has commanded us.”

God took Israel out of Egypt—out of the customs of the world around them and revealed His Law to them. He does not want His people going back to the traditions, customs and ways from which He has called them. (note by yesimmuslimdealwithit - the writer sounds like a muslim, doesn't he? After all, he's basically saying one should submit to the laws of Allah, as written in the thorah, right? Submission to Allah's will, to the will of God, has a name - its translated in arabic as "ISLAM".)

When all of the interconnected traditions, filled with the symbolism of worshipping an ancient pagan, humanly devised god, are taught, this is not worshipping the true Creator.

The prophet Isaiah was inspired to write, “Cry aloud, spare not, lift up your voice like a trumpet, and show My people their transgression” (58:1). I have done this.

Notes from yesimmuslimdealwithit - why would the writer weep for the transgressions of the christians, aren't christians free from all transgressions because of "the cross"  - oh wait - the cross is also a pagan symbol - !!
Wether you are christian or not, christmas is not. Wether you are christian or not, you should not be hanging up christmas trees, exchanging gifts or participating in anything remotely christmassy. May our muslim brothers and sisters who participate "FOR THE FUN OF IT" take heed - Shirk is not a game, and since christmas is actually orignated in PAGAN and IDOLATROUS beliefs, is it not, then, idolatry? May Allah guide us all, and grant us the truth, always, for truly if the christians believed that the truth would set them free, they would seek the truth. CONVENIENCE is not the same as faith.





Thursday, September 13, 2012

Questionable AUTHENTICITY

Bismillahir Rahmaanir Raheem,

Further to my last post, i simply HAD to post this - Somebody needs to phone the Pope and tell him that he's in trouble, according to christians. Remember, this is not ME, a muslim, saying so. I respect the Pope. I think he's living as best he can the principles he's been taught and those in his version of the book. But you see, the Pope has an Apocrypha... and here's what christians have to say about it -

Please bear in mind my previous post - that quote from the bible which says that NOTHING WILL BE CHANGED FROM THE LAW of GOD/teachings of Moses/ Written word until ALL is accomplished (one assumes this includes the book of revelations since most bibles still have that one in it) I've taken the liberty of commenting in PURPLE.. The bold print is also mine. All rights to this auther, Cooper Abrams, whoever he/she is..

The Apocryphal BooksAre they lost books of the Bible?
by Cooper Abrams

The fifteen Apocryphal books which the Roman Catholics have included in their Bibles,(christians will say its all the same) come from a collection of about eighteen or more books written during the Inter-testamental Period. This period of four hundred years began with God giving the last book of the Old Testament which was Malachi. The Inter-testamental period ended with the coming of Christ and the writing of the New Testament. During this four hundred years God sent no prophets to Israel and was silent giving no written revelation. (Wasn't the TORAH revelation enough?)
         The word "apocrypha" means "of questionable authenticity." (please see my old post - WHICH BIBLE EXACTLY is authentic, by ANY standards? What measurement has been used to say that these books of the apocypha are not authentic versus the others?)
These are called non canonical books because when the canon of Scriptures (the sixty six books of the Old and New Testaments) was accepted by the early Christians they recognized that these books contained spurious material and therefore were not inspired of God. (erm - I beg to differ - the earliest ORGANISED church after the bible was composed was the ROMAN CATHOLIC and the GREEK ORTHODOX and BOTH recognised these as part of the bible!)

Other names for these books are "hidden" or "deuterocanonical" books. These books are also called "pseudepigraphal", meaning "false writings" (as opposed to true writings measured by whom?) to designate them as spurious and unauthentic books of the late centuries B. C. and early centuries A. D. These books contain religious folklore and have never been considered inspired of God by biblical Christians from the earliest times of churches. ( it was SO CONSIDERED inspired by God that even catholics today have them! - SOMEBODY PHONE THE POPE!)         

Some (who's that? didnt you just say they've never been considered?) have referred to these books as the missing books of the Bible and conclude they are new discovers which are part of God's revelation. Nothing could be further from the truth. (who's truth?) The sixty six books that comprise the Old and Testament are God's revelation to man (so erm.. why change 'em?) and when John completed the Book of Revelation, God's word to man was complete. (Clearly not - its still been changing) God has not added to His revelation since. (But MAN, has!) The content of these spurious books shows them to be inspired of man...not God.  (so all the versions are inspired by whom, EXACTLY!?)  

It is also noteworthy that the Roman Catholic church which is a false church with false doctrines and pagan teachings (OUCH!! the smoke at the Vatican has just dipped - !) accepts these books as scripture. (note to self - the writer will soon say it doesn't.. read on..)

Further, some of the cults including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints,(who call themselves christians and have a bible just like this writer!) the Mormons, also accept them as scripture.

No biblical Christians or churches have ever accept them as such. (BINGO - She done it! the POPE isn't biblical? Isn't the Catholic church established because of that quote in the bible "ON THIS ROCK I BUILD MY CHURCH" (referring to Peter) and isn't the POPE the replacement for PETER? LMAO!!)   

The fact is there are no lost books of the Bible. (erm - YES, there are - the gospel of Barnabas, the gospel of Thomas, the gospel of Jude, the gospel of Niccodemus - weren't these DISCIPLES, according to christianity, of Jesus? Why then, are they not in the bible? OH WAIT _ It's because they say JESUS WAS A PROPHET!)           

These books or writings from the Apocrypha that the Roman Catholic Church claims are inspired are Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Letter of Jeremiah, additions to Esther, Prayer of Azariah, Susanna (Daniel 13), and Bel and the Dragon (Daniel 14). (let's get this straight, brothers and sisters, The WISDOM OF SOLOMON is not biblical Ecclesiastes 1 is christian but not Ecclesiastes 2 OR ecclesiasticus written by the same person, and DANIEL - the guy in the lion's den - can't be in the bible? hmm...)  

Three other Apocryphal books in the Septuagint, the Prayer of Manasseh, and 1 & 2 Esdras, are not considered to be inspired or canonical by the Roman Catholic Church. (I forget, didn't he just say the catholic church accepted them?) These books were not accepted by the Roman Catholic church until 1546 in the Council of Trent. Therefore for over 1300 years, since the inception of the Roman Church in the fourth Century, even they did not considered them inspired. (and TODAY's bible has not been "accepted" since the latest edition/revision. And today's BIBLE has not been in existance until along came the king - to argue for a bible who has undergone the same type of change is pure hypocrisy!)         

 Why do non-Catholic authorities reject the Apocrypha as being a part of the sixty six books of the canon?
      There are mainly four reasons: 1. They abound in historical and geographical inaccuracies and anachronisms. 2. They teach doctrines which are false and foster practices which are at variance with inspired Scripture. 3. They resort to literary types and display an artificiality of subject matter and styling out of keeping with inspired Scripture. 4. They lack the distinctive elements which give genuine Scripture their divine character, such as prophetic power and poetic and religious feeling.   Here's the real reason - BECAUSE they know that it doesn't say what they want it to say - they know there are gaps in their own scripture. They cannot judge the prophetic power and religious feeling which are subjective to the WRITER and the READER... the catholics will say only a catholic can understand the apocrapha "in the spirit".. Shukr there's no such problems with the QURAN  - it IS what it IS - God said it, Muhammad (saw) by-hearted it - and EVERY SINGLE THING ABOUT HIS LIFE is "authenticated", very painstakingly.
        Why do biblical Christians and churches reject the Apocrypha as being inspired of God?:  Its the old thing of "mine's better than yours"... that's why!
      1. These books existed before New Testament times, (NEW TESTAMENT didn't exist before NICENE council times, but the gospel of BARNABAS did! So did the gospel of Thomas, etc etc etc) yet there is not one single quotation from the Apocrypha is in the New Testament. (actually, there is.. quite a few..but it depends on your definition of "quotation". since the new testament was written AFTER * see the first paragraph - IT should be quoting Jesus not the other way, right?)
        Jesus quoted from twenty four of the Old Testament books, (lol - he had "left the building" by then!) and the New Testament quotes from thirty four books of the Old Testament. Introductory phrases like "it is written" or "thus says the Lord" are totally absent from the books and therefore the books themselves do not claim to be inspired of God.  (BUT these quotes ARE existant in the gospel of JESUS, the gospel of THOMAS, the gospel of BARNABAS) The books of 1st and 2nd Maccabees have historical significance, but when they are compared to the Bible they shown to not be the inspired Word of God. (in other words, they don't fit the mould made by... you guessed it... that king yonks back.. or is the writer comparing it to the LUTHERAN bible? hmm...) Even though they have some historical value these books are clouded by the contradictions found in their text. (Oh yeah,... like the bible doesnt contradict itself over 100 times? READ IT!!) For example, in 1st and 2nd Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places. 2. Although some of the early church fathers quoted from these writings, and even accepted them as inspired, this does not mean they were inspired. (Wait- didn't you say it was never accepted by any christian?...)The majority of the early church writers rejected these books as being inspired.(oh, so now its just the majority - great you cleared that up for us) Clearly in the Second Century and afterward there were many false teachers and heretics. It is important to know that Jesus nor any of the Apostles quoted from or mention any of these books. (Clearly... and it is important to know that JESUS wrote his own GOSPEL too.. and it ain't tying in with any of this hogwash you're on about!) 3. Some early Greek manuscripts contain the Apocrypha, (HANG ON NOW!! DIdn't you just say the majority didn't accept it? Jeez this is like reading version 16 of the bible!) along with the Septuagint.(the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament). The Septuagint was translated in Alexandra, Egypt which was a hot bed of heresy. (unlike the king, of courseFrom Alexandra also came the corrupted manuscripts of Alpeh, A, B upon which all modern English translations are based (the Westcott-Hort text). (so, in other words, ALL translations are corrupted - didn't I say that already? Isn't it in the Quran?)   They including of several of these books in the LXX, (Septuagint) was the natural result of the spirit of heresy and false teaching in Egypt. However, none of these books were ever included in the Hebrew Bible and were never accepted by the Jews. Further no Greek manuscript contains the apocryphal books Go back a paragraph to point 1 "some early greek manuscripts contain the apocrapha" - eish! I can't go on - readers may continue reading and make their own decision..  as does the Roman Catholic Bible. Moreover, not a single ancient manuscript contains all of the apocryphal books. Lastly, only four of the apocryphal books are found in copies of the LXX and these manuscripts date to the fourth century A.D. No copy of the Septuagint before that time has any Apocryphal books included which reflect the progression of heresy in Egypt. 4. The Jews are the ones who canonized the Books of the Old Testament and they did not include them. (Are you saying the THORA has been altered?) They have always excluded these Apocryphal books because the material in these books is heretical and contains gross doctrinal errors. Some of these gross doctrinal errors are; prayers for the dead. Ameen ( 2 Macc. 12:45-46) and salvation by works. (Tobit 12:9). Praying for the dead is not biblical as Hebrews 9:27 plainly states, "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment." It is, if you're catholic! Wether you read the catholic bible with the apocrapha or not, the doctrinal teachings are that prayer can save a man. There is no second chance after death. Ephesians 2:8-9 clearly states that salvation is not by works or merited by man. "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." Yes, but the bible also says that "FAITH WITHOUT ACTIONS IS DEAD." erm...            The stories in the Apocryphal books are extra biblical, fanciful and clearly pure fiction. (Like a lot of the bible, yep yep!) For example the story of Bel and the Dragon is clearly a fairy tale. The tale says that a pagan priest of Bel tried to deceive Daniel by using a trap door to consume food left for the idol Bel. This pagan priest was seeking to convince Daniel that Bel was a real god who ate and drank everyday. How is this fanciful - were you there - or did you forget the story of Adam and Eve and the temptation of the snake? hmm... Another fanciful tale relates that Daniel was miraculously fed by the prophet Habakkuk, who was caught up by an angel in Judea, and taken to help Daniel in the lion's den in Babylon. Daniel lived hundreds of years before this spurious book titled "Bel and the Dragon" was written. Well obviously one writes about history, not about the future!          Another such tale is found in Tobit. Tobit, a blind father who supposedly lived in Nineveh, sends his son Tobias on a journey to collect a debt. On a journey Tobias is led by an angel in disguise named Raphael. The angel leads him to the house of a virgin who had been married seven times, but whose husbands were all slain by a demon on their wedding night. Tobias marries the girl and drives away the demon by burning the heart of a certain fish in the bedroom, with the help of Raphael. He returns home with the money and his bride, and then heals his father's eyes with the fish's gall. You need to read about Jinnatti... really, dude!          Some of the teachings in these books are colored and some are immoral. In Judith 9:10,13, it says that God, assisted Judith in the telling of lies. The Apocryphal books of Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom teach that morality is based on expedience. In other words, according to these books it is right to sin in some situations. I'm speachless - these are in the Catholic bible, remember, the original "modern christian faith" - the Pope definately needs a phonecall. but maybe I'm not "understanding it in the spirit" as the Catholic says - Alhamdolilah. La illa il Allah.            The Book of Wisdom 11:17 teaches that God made the universe out of pre-existing matter instead of "ex nihilo" (out of nothing) as Genesis 1:1-2, John 1:1-3 and Hebrews 11:3 plainly state. (erm - is HE not pre-existing... did HE not create the DUST, from which we are all made? When scientists go to God claiming they don't need him and can make man, he will tell them "get your own dust"...          There are also historical errors Tobit claimed that he was alive when the Assyrians conquered Israel in 722 B. C. and when Jeroboam revolted against Judah in 931 B. C. However it records his total life span as 158 years. These two events were actually 859 years apart.And Noah lived over 980 years according to the bible - what's your point? Judith also mistakenly states that Nebuchadnezzar reigned in Nineveh instead of Babylon. (and we all know there was only ever ONE) There are many other gross historical errors as well.
      No true Bible believing church as has ever accepted the books as canonical for these reasons. In order for a book to be considered inspired of God and included in the canon it must satisfy the follow requirements.
         
        1. It must have been written by a prophet of God. None of the Apocryphal books claim they were. Dear writer, are you saying that Paul was a prophet of God? or Ruth? or MAthew, Mark, Luke or John were?
        2. It must come with the authority of God. Isn't the authority given to some disciples given to ALL - like Barnabas and his gospel, or Thomas, or Judas?
        These spurious books are strikingly absence of the ring of authority. None of them come up to or compare in any way to the character and quality of the sixty six Books of the Bible. 3. It must demonstrate that the power of God rests on the book. There is nothing transforming about these books. 4. It must tell the truth about God, man, history, science, etc. The books are full of contradictions, errors and even heresies. The Apocryphal books are full of untruth. 5. It must be accepted by biblical Christians as inspired of God. The Apocryphal books completely fail this final and fatal test. lmao.... I say no more... 
         
      Why did the Catholic church accept them as canonical.          In a nutshell, the Roman Catholic church has never had any biblical support for its teachings such as purgatory, prayers for the dead, works for salvation, etc. Actually it has - it makes reference to the book of Revelations in which much of the apocrapha stuff is found. Things in the Apocrapha also tie into alot of what's in the bible, except of course those things that already contradict each other like the role of women in the church (to be worshipers but not teachers, to cover their hair, etc, etc)   The events of the Reformation brought the Roman Catholic heresies into question and they had not scriptural authority for teachings. And the events of the Reformation got their scriptural authority from whom, exactly? However, these false teachings are found in the Apocryphal books, so the Council of Tent in 1546, canonized them proclaiming them to be "sacred" books. This ruse gave them support for there erroneous teachings. It is always the clear mark of a cult or false church to add extra biblical revelations to the Bible in order to seek to justify their false teachings. THE READER WILL NOTE THIS LAST SENTENCE - so.. when the bible is ultered more than 28000 times, this is not a mark of a cult? When there are denominations that live polygamy and others that don't, this is not a sign of a cult? When some "eat the body of christ" and others eat bread "as the body of christ" this isn't a cult? Where does it stand in the bible to eat his body? SO many, SO SO many contradictions. Historically, the Roman Catholic church did not accept these books for the first 1300 years of their history. Clearly, the reason they changed their position was that during the Reformation the teachings of Catholicism came under scrutiny by people who were studying God's word, they could find no mention in the Bible of a place called Purgatory, prayers for the dead, paying of indulgences and other practices of the Roman church.         The Apocryphal books themselves show they are not inspired of God and mostly fictional works. They have never been truly accepted by biblical Christians as part of God's word.          The Roman Church practice of accepting of money, called "indulgences" for the payment of sins especially came under attack as being unbiblical. History shows that accepting indulgences brought a great deal of money into the coffers of the Roman Catholic Church. A Roman Catholic could actually purchase a indulgence in advance and then go out an commit his sin. It was this unbiblical practice that was one of the reasons that Martin Luther wrote his "Ninety-five Thesis" and tacked it to the door of the Wittenburg church door. His action sparked the Reformation which began in 1517 which was the also the beginning of Protestantism. There is a statement found in 2 Maccabees 12:43-45, which says "2,000 pieces of silver were sent to Jerusalem for a sin-offering...Whereupon he made reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin." On this brief statement the Roman Catholic church has hung its teachings of Purgatory and paying for indulgences for payment of sins. However, nowhere in God's word is there found any mention of a prayer or a sin offering for the dead. Hebrews 9:27 says "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment" (Hebrews 9:27. In God's word, there is no place called Purgatory or any prayers offered for dead men. When a man dies his fate is sealed. If a man is a believer, he as a child of God, goes to heaven, if he is a lost man he will go to hell. There is no second chance after death. Paul clearly states that a Christian goes immediately into the presence of God when he dies, "We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord." (2 Corinthians 5:8)          The false doctrines, historical, cultural, and scientific error, which are contrary to the teachings of the sixty six books of the Bible, show the Apocryphal books are not inspired of God.          The inclusion of the Apocrypha in the original printing of the King James Bible strictly for historical reasons.DIDN't YOU JUST SAY IT WAS NEVER PUT THERE? I rest my case..  They were included like the materials in many of our modern Bibles for reference. These books were written during the Inter-testamental period between the Old and New Testaments. They contained for example the books of 1st and 2nd Maccabees which record the of rebellion of the Jews against Syria leading to Roman occupation of Israel during the time of Christ. During this 400 year period many changes occurred among the Jews such as the beginning of worship in synagogues, the rise of the sects of the Pharisees and Sadducee's, the rabbinical writings of the Talmud, etc.