February 25, 2007
ONTARIO, Calif., Feb. 24 /Christian Newswire/ — Former Sultan Ali El-Shariff and Pastor George Saieg, founder of Arabic Christian Perspective, will be available for interviews on Saturday March 3rd, 10:00am – 12:00pm at a to-be- announced location, call 866-533-6659 for details.
The following comments are from Pastor George Saieg, founder of Arabic Christian Perspective.
A Call for African Unity:
African Americans choose this day which side you are on. Will you side with your Black Sudanese brothers who are being killed in genocide of Holocaust proportions, or will you side with those who oppress them and who sold you into slavery?
Former Sultan Ali El-Shariff has forsaken Islam and his earthly kingdom to stand in unity with his Black African brothers. Will you join with him in calling for an end of the genocide, or will you join Islam, the religion that sold Black African Americans into slavery and is selling Black Sudanese into slavery today.
A Call for Christian Unity:
The Bible tells us that those who love the Lord are one body, and when one member of the body suffers, we all suffer too. Under the intense persecution mandated by Islam many faithful Christian martyrs have chosen death and suffering than denying Jesus as their Lord. Some Christians escaped death by paying a heavy tax, others loving this world rather than the next, renounced their faith under threat of death and became Muslims, damning themselves and their offspring to a dark existence. How painful it must have been for these weak apostates, to see their children grow up to be just like their misguided enemies.
This cycle can be broken, Ali El-Shariff was a Sultan in Sudan, but like Moses he left his earthly kingdom for a heavenly one, and like Moses he seeks to lead his people to freedom. Let us stand in support of our brother in his assault against the gates of Hell. Jesus promised that these gates could not stand against His church, let us therefore go forth boldly loving not our own lives and for the sake of our brothers and sisters endure all hardship.
Brother Ali El-Shariff will speak on Saturday March 3rd at 7:30pm at the Mt. Zion Baptist Church 224 West California Street, Ontario, CA 91762
The Former Sultan Ali El-Shariff and Pastor George Saieg founder of Arabic Christian Perspective will be available for interviews on Saturday March 3rd at 10:00am- 12:00pm, call for location.
February 18, 2007
WASHINGTON, Feb. 16 /Christian Newswire/ — America’s newest Christian network, GOD TV today announced that it will be screening world-renowned Evangelist, Reinhard Bonnke’s latest mass crusade – LIVE from West Africa to the USA and across the globe next week. (February 22 – 25, 2007)
This is the first time that an evangelistic broadcast of this magnitude has been attempted, and will mean beaming a signal from Oshogbo, Nigeria to GOD TV’s broadcast HQ in Jerusalem, Israel and from there onto 15 satellites to reach the four corners of the earth.
Evangelist Bonnke, who heads up Christ for All Nations (CFaN) is known throughout the world for his passionate preaching and fiery crusades which draw crowds of hundreds of thousands of people – now millions more will be able to join in by way of television.
The LIVE broadcasts can be watched daily on DIRECTV channel 365 or via webstreaming at http://www.god.tv from Thursday February 22 through Sunday February 25 at 11.45 am Eastern. They will also be available on GOD TV’s other six regional channels worldwide.
“It is a privilege for us to take such an extraordinary event around the globe,” said GOD TV co-founder, Wendy Alec, who heads up programming, “Never has the message been more needed or the results so remarkable!
“CFaN has received more than three million decision cards for Jesus Christ in one mass crusade, can you imagine the response next week as we harness the power of the media with the passionate preaching of Reinhard Bonnke. I believe it is going to set millions of hearts alight.”
Christ for all Nations is primarily known for it’s crusades in Africa and other third world countries but also seeks to inspire and equip Christians worldwide for evangelism through conferences, literature, videos and television.
Established in the UK in 1995 by Rory & Wendy Alec, GOD TV is available to 125 million homes worldwide, on a multiple satellite platform and is presently looking at increasing its distribution in America through it’s attendance at this month’s annual NRB Convention.
About CFaN: http://www.cfan.org
It is now over 30 years since Reinhard Bonnke founded the international ministry of Christ for all Nations (CfaN), which currently has offices in the United States, Canada, Germany, United Kingdom, Africa, Singapore, and South America. Since the start of the new millennium, through a host of major events in Africa and other parts of the world and with a goal of seeing 100 million souls record a decision for Jesus Christ in this decade, some 42 million have already responded to the Gospel call.
About GOD TV: http://www.god.tv
One of the world’s fastest-growing faith-based media organizations in the world – GOD TV – was founded in the UK in 1995 by Christian media pioneers Rory & Wendy Alec. Today the network beams a broad spectrum of international programming free-to-air from it’s global broadcast center in Israel. The only Christian broadcaster to transmit from Jerusalem to the nations of the world, GOD TV’s powerful signal is carried via multiple satellites into 125 million connected television homes. This represents a potential viewing audience of 440 million people who can watch 24-hours-a-day. GOD TV maintains studios in the UK, USA and Israel, as well as regional outreach offices in England, Germany, Denmark; South Africa, India, Hong Kong and Florida. GOD TV’s central office is situated in Washington, DC. GOD TV also finances projects in developing countries including water projects, hospitals and orphanages through its charity arm, Angel Aid.
Contact: Jeffrey Levinson, GOD TV North America Regional Office,
375 Douglas Ave Suite, 1008, Altamonte Springs, FL 32714.
Telephone (407) 862-5084, cell (386) 547-3533, fax (407) 8628156, e-mail; firstname.lastname@example.org,
GOD TV Central Office:
Suite 905, 1730 M Street, NW, Washington DC, 20036, USA
Tel: 001 202 223 4023, Fax: 001 202 223 4027. Web: http://www.god.tv
GOD TV Broadcast HQ:
PO Box 7159, Jerusalem 91071, Israel
International offices: Africa, Asia & Middle East, Europe, Scandinavia, UK & Ireland
Angel Christian Television Trust, Inc is a Not-For- Profit Florida Corporation with 501 ( C ) ( 3 ) tax- exempt status from the IRS.
February 14, 2007
Read it HERE.
February 14, 2007
Two weeks of nothing, then my inbox gets slammed. Thanks, friends!
“This case has the potential to make a horrible judicial edict that suggests that the only thoughts and words allowed in a public workplace are those that support the homosexual agenda.” — Attorney Richard Ackerman
TEMECULA, Calif., Feb. 14 /Christian Newswire/ — On Thursday morning, in a special session being held at the Stanford University Law School campus a critical First Amendment case is being argued before the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The case deals squarely with the issue of whether Christians have a right to use neutral language in the workplace to talk about same-sex marriage and other issues at the forefront of national debate.
Attorneys Scott Lively and Richard D. Ackerman will be arguing the case before the Ninth Circuit on behalf of an African- American Christian woman who was threatened with termination at her job with the City of Oakland. The City of Oakland claims that references to the “natural family, marriage and family values” constitute hate speech which is scary to city workers. The Ninth Circuit panel of judges includes two women and one man.
Back in February of 2005, United States District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled the city of Oakland had a right to bar two employees from posting a Good News Employee Association flier promoting traditional family values on an office bulletin board. According to the lawsuit, gay and lesbian city workers had already been using the city’s e-mail, bulletin board, and written communications systems for promoting their views to other workers, including the plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs, Regina Rederford and Robin Christy posted the flier in response to an e-mail to city employees announcing formation of a gay and lesbian employee association. The two responded with a promotion of their own — the start of an informal group that respects “the natural family, marriage and family values.”
But supervisors Robert Bobb, then city manager, and Joyce Hicks, then deputy director of the Community and Economic Development Agency, ordered removal of the flier, stating it contained “statements of a homophobic nature” and promoted “sexual- orientation-based harassment,” even though it made no absolutely no mention of homosexuality.
A July 2003 lawsuit by Rederford and Christy claimed the city’s anti-discrimination policy “promotes homosexuality” and “openly denounces Christian values.”
U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker dismissed the case in February 2005, ruling the two women did not have their First Amendment rights violated and that federal anti-discrimination protections afforded to gender, race, and religion did not apply to the women plaintiffs.
City Attorney John Russo said in a previous statement the city “will fight vigorously to defend the policies and practices which protect employees from any form of discrimination.” Attorneys for the plaintiffs say they fails to see how it is that mere references to “the natural family, marriage and family values” can amount to discrimination when such words could have just as easily been used by same-sex marriage advocates in describing related issues.
Messrs. Lively and Ackerman said the case is significant, because a decision against the employees could silence debate about homosexuality and related issues in the entire Western United States since the Ninth Circuit controls a large region of the United States and its rulings are binding on millions of employees whose speech is subject to punishment by employers who promote agendas that defy Judeo- Christian values.
The flier in question was posted Jan. 3, 2003, on an employee bulletin board where a variety of political and sexually oriented causes are promoted. Titled, “Preserve Our Workplace with Integrity,” the entire text said:
Good News Employee Associations is a forum for people of Faith to express their views on the contemporary issues of the day. With respect for the Natural Family, Marriage and Family values.
If you would like to be a part of preserving integrity in the Workplace call Regina Rederford @xxx-xxxx or Robin Christy @xxx-xxxx
The flyer was removed the same day, however, by order of Hicks.
In a memo announcing a newly revised workplace anti-discrimination policy, Hicks noted recent incidents of employees “inappropriately posting materials” in violation of that policy. At the time she noted, “Specifically, flyers were placed in public view which contained statements of a homophobic nature and were determined to promote sexual orientation- based harassment.”
Attorney Richard Ackerman says, “This case has the potential to make a horrible judicial edict that suggests that the only thoughts and words allowed in a public workplace are those that support the homosexual agenda. The city of Oakland has interpreted this district court’s ruling to mean that Christianity has no place in our society and should be subject to punishment. I want to believe that our Supreme Court will ultimately decide this case on the values and instructions set forth in motion by the nations Founders.”
Richard Ackerman, whose public-interest law firm Ackerman, Cowles & Lindsley represents the two women, said this case has drained significant financial and time resources because of the fight put up by the City of Oakland in defending its aggressive censorship of the plaintiffs. The Pro-Family Law Center has been funding the case from donations made by Christians and others for the defense of the First Amendment and family values. According to Ackerman, protecting the most basic rights of Rederford has cost thousands of dollars to litigate. Abiding Truth Ministries, also founded by Scott Lively has assisted in underwriting the costs on appeal.
February 14, 2007
(Sent to me by friend, written by Ali Sina)
One of the most obvious mathematical mistakes of the Quran can be found in the division of the inheritance.
The laws of inheritance are spread out in several Suras. One can find references to them in Al-Baqarah(2), Al-Maidah(5) and Al-Anfal(8). But the details of these laws are spelled out in the Surah Nisa (4).
“Allah (thus) directs you as regards your Children’s (Inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females: if only daughters, two or more, their share is two-thirds of the inheritance; if only one, her share is a half. For parents, a sixth share of the inheritance to each, if the deceased left children; if no children, and the parents are the (only) heirs, the mother has a third; if the deceased Left brothers (or sisters) the mother has a sixth. (The distribution in all cases (‘s) after the payment of legacies and debts…”
Q. 4: 12
“In what your wives leave, your share is a half, if they leave no child; but if they leave a child, ye get a fourth; after payment of legacies and debts. In what ye leave, their share is a fourth, if ye leave no child; but if ye leave a child, they get an eighth; after payment of legacies and debts…”
“If it is a man that dies, leaving a sister but no child, she shall have half the inheritance: If (such a deceased was) a woman, who left no child, Her brother takes her inheritance: If there are two sisters, they shall have two-thirds of the inheritance (between them): if there are brothers and sisters, (they share), the male having twice the share of the female. Thus doth Allah make clear to you (His law), lest ye err. And Allah hath knowledge of all things.”
Despite the fact that it says “Allah made them clear”, these laws are far from clear.
Verse 4:11 says that if a man has only one daughter, she gets half of the inheritance irrespective of other heirs. But since the same verse says that the portion of the male is twice that of the female, her brother is supposed to get all the inheritance. Isn’t this a discrepancy? Certainly there is an error in how this law is written. Yet the problem is aggravated further when the share of other heirs like parents and wives are taken into consideration.
There are cases when the total of the shares assigned to the heirs exceeds the patrimony. Take for example the following.
According to the above verses, if a man dies leaving behind a wife, three daughters and his two parents,
His wife’s share of his inheritance is 1/8. (In what ye leave, their share is a fourth, if ye leave no child; but if ye leave a child, they get an eighth)
His daughters would receive 2/3 (if only daughters, two or more, their share is two-thirds of the inheritance;)
and his parents each will get 1/6 of his inheritance. (For parents, a sixth share of the inheritance to each, if the deceased left children;)
When you add all these fractions the sum is more than the total of inheritance.
Wife1/8 = 3/24
Daughters 2/3 = 16/24
Father 1/6 = 4/24
Mother1/6 = 4/24
Total = 27/24
Now take another example. Say a man is survived by his wife, his mother and his sisters.
The wife receives 1/4 of the inheritance, (In what ye leave, their share is a fourth, if ye leave no child;)
the mother 1/3 (if only one, her share is a half. For parents, a sixth share of the inheritance to each, if the deceased left children; if no children, and the parents are the heirs, the mother has a third;)
and the sisters 2/3. (If there are two sisters, they shall have two-thirds of the inheritance (between them)
When we add up these fractions they too are more than the total.
Wife1/4 = 3/12
Mother 1/3 = 4/12
Sisters 2/3 = 8/12
Total = 15/12
In the above examples, the shares apportioned to the heirs exceed the total of the inheritance. In both cases the total of the inheritance sums to exactly one BEFORE taking into account the wife’s share.
What should be done if a man has two wives, one with children and the other without children? Does the one with children receive 1/8 and the one without children 1/4? And is this justice?
Now suppose a woman dies leaving a husband and a brother:
Husband receives half (In what your wives leave, your share is a half, if they leave no child.)
Brother receives everything (If (such a deceased was) a woman, who left no child, Her brother takes her inheritance.)
Does this mean that the parents, sisters and husband do not get anything? In that case where is the justice and if they do how can the brother get everything?
Husband, (1/2) = 1/2
Brother (everything) = 2/2
Total = 3/2
This verse does not specify that the brother gets everything only when there are no other heirs. It just says when there are no children he gets everything. In the same verse it says that if a man dies leaving a sister, she gets half. What will happen to the other half?
Here is another example: A woman leaves behind a husband, a sister and a mother.
Husband, (1/2) = 3/6
Sister (1/2) = 3/6
Mother (1/3) = 2/6
Total = 8/6
We can conclude that the Quran in matters of inheritance is very obtuse. It is so obtuse that Shiites and Sunnis practice this law differently. For example:
If a man leaves a wife and the two parents, the Shiits will give the wife 1/4 and then distribute the remainder as 1/3 for the mother and 2/3 for the father, i.e. they will receive 1/4 and 1/2 of the original estate (see #2741). Sunnis give the wife 1/4, the mother 1/3 and the father as the nearest male relative the rest, i.e. 5/12. As one can witness, the Quran is anything but clear.
In order to solve these problems the Islamic doctors of law have devised a complex “science” called “Al-Fara’id”. It contains rules of “Awl” and “Usbah,” and the laws of “Usool” of the Fara’id, the laws of “Hajb wa Hirman,” and many other issues relating to this matter.
The laws of “Awl” (accommodation) deals with cases when the inheritor’s shares exceed or “overshoot” the sum of the total inheritance. In such case the shares are adjusted to accommodate everyone. This is how it works:
Wife1/8 = 3/24 is changed to 3/27
Daughters 2/3 = 16/24 is changed to 16/27
Father 1/6 = 4/24 is changed to 4/27
Mother1/6 = 4/24 is changed to 4/27
Total = 27/24 27/27
and for the second case,
Wife1/4 = 3/12 is changed to 3/15
Mother 1/3 = 4/12 is changed to 4/15
Sisters 2/3 = 8/12 is changed to 8/15
Total = 15/12 15/15
Thus the problem is solved thanks to human ingenuity but the portions are not the same as indicated in the Quran. Each party has to waive part of his or her share in order to make this law work. This is a clear case in which the words of Allah needed human intervention in order to become applicable.
There are yet cases when the shares of the inheritors do not sum to a whole 100% and there is a surplus left.
Take for example a man who dies and leaves his wife and his parents.
Parents 1/3 = 4/12
Wife 1/4 = 3/12
Total = 7/12
Who will receive the balance 5/12 of the inheritance?
The following are other cases that after the distribution, there is a surplus of Inheritance::
scenario fund distributed surplus
Only a wife: = 1/4 3/4
Only a mother: = 1/3 2/3
Only a daughter = 1/2 1/2
Two daughters = 2/3 1/3
Only a Sister = 1/2 1/2
A mother and a sister = 1/3 + 1/2 = 5/6 1/6
A wife and a mother = 1/4 + 1/3 = 5/12 7/12
A sister and a wife = 1/2 + 1/4 = 3/4 1/4
In all these cases and many other combinations there is a surplus. What will happen to this surplus? Who will inherit it?
To deal with this problem the law of “Usbah” comes to effect. This law is to regulate the unclaimed shares, which have no corresponding people to receive them. Of course if the Quran was clear with no errors, there would have been no need for all these “sciences” and amendments.
The law of Usbah is based on the following Hadith.
Sahih Bukhari 8. 80. 724
Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas:
The Prophet said, “Give the Fara’id (the shares of the inheritance that are prescribed in the Qur’an) to those who are entitled to receive it. Then whatever remains, should be given to the closest male relative of the deceased.”
According to this law, a man who dies and is survived by only his daughter with no other close male relative except a second cousin, his daughter will receive half of his inheritance and the other half will go to the man’s second cousin. This seems quite unfair to the daughter, but it would be especially unfair if the man had a needy aunt or a female first cousin that would receive nothing because they are of the wrong gender.
Now suppose that a man has no other heir except his wife and a distant male relative. The wife will receive 1/4 and the distant male relative gets the balance, i.e. three times the inheritance that his widowed wife gets. Is this justice?
What if the deceased has no male relative at all? What will happen to the rest of his inheritance? What happens in the reverse case when a wife has no relatives? The husband will receive half of her inheritance; who will get the other half?
Note that in the Quran there is no priority for the distribution of the inheritance. In nowhere it says “first give to these and from what is left, give to those”. Even if we had to reinterpret these laws and prioritize them in the order that they are mentioned, it still does not work because in that case, each subsequent inheritor will have his or her share shrunk. Also in most cases the total inheritance will never be used up.
This is the fallacy in which Mr. Sami Zaatari engages. In an attempt to refute this article Mr. Zaatari wrote: “If A [ the deceased] left a widow or widower, the widow’s or widower’s share would first be calculated as in the first half of verse 4:1”
Mr. Zaatari must show us this instruction in the Quran. There is no provision in the Quran to pay certain inheritors first and divide the rest among other heirs. The fact remains that the Quran in matters of the division of the inheritance is wrong mathematically.
The obtuseness of these laws of inheritance is further emphasized in the following example. Consider the case of a man with only one daughter and 10 sons. According to the Quran, the daughter receives half while all the sons must share among themselves the other half. So each will receive not more than 1/20 of the inheritance. But this would contradict the other ruling that a male is to receive twice the share of the female.
Of course for 1400 years Muslims have practiced Islam and somehow they managed to make these confusing laws work. How they did it? They reinterpreted, adjusted and compromised to make sense of these nonsense laws. They put all the inheritance in a pool and gave to each male child twice the share of their female siblings. This solution, though satisfies one of the ruling of the Quran about the inheritance, it contradicts the other.
Despite all these incongruencies and errors the real problem with these laws is not the fact that they do not add up. The problem is in the inherent injustice that they embody. A fair minded person cannot avoid but to question, why daughters should receive half of what the sons receive? Why sisters receive less than brothers? And why a widower is entitled to double the share than a widow? Why the Quran states “to the male, a portion equal to that of two females”? (4:11). Think of a man with four wives. All the wives have to share the ¼ of his wealth, if he has no children and 1/8 if he has. In the first case each wife will receive 1/16 of the inheritance and in the second case 1/32. How a woman who may not be young enough to remarry can survive with such meager share in a male dominated society as Islamic countries? On the other hand a man who loses all his four wives will inherit half to ¼ of every wife’s wealth. Isn’t this the formula to enrich the men and impoverish the women? It is easier to forget the mathematical errors of the Quran than forgive its injustice.
The verse (4:175) claims that “Thus doth Allah make clear to you (His law), lest ye err. And Allah hath knowledge of all things.” As we saw, the above laws are anything but clear. They do not add up, the portions are not clearly defined, and the shares are distributed unfairly. It is up to Muslims to decide whether Allah, does not have the “knowledge of all things”, cannot add simple fractions, is confused and unfair or that the Quran is mistaken, and Muhammad was not a prophet of God. It is one or the other. You decide.