Today's Iraqi jihad update. From AP, with thanks to Jeffrey Imm:
IRBIL, Iraq (AP) -- An Iraqi carrying hidden explosives set them off outside a police recruitment center Wednesday where people were applying for jobs, police said. The U.S. military said at least 50 Iraqis were killed, making it the deadliest insurgent attack in Iraq in more than two months.State-owned TV in Iraq and Al-Arabiya television gave even higher casualty figures, saying 60 were killed and as many as 150 wounded.
At least seven cars parked near the center were destroyed by the blast in Irbil, a Kurdish city 220 miles north of Baghdad. Several nearby buildings were damaged.
Pools of blood formed on the street outside the center as ambulances and cabs raced to the chaotic scene to take casualties to hospitals.
Well, Robert,
Looks like we need more money and troops to combat the war on "terror". That should do the trick.
And maybe some outreach so that they start to learn which verses are the true Islam and which ones are false.
OT:
As many of you know, I contend that science will explain human consciousness and subsequently explain the universal gravitation towards religion by human beings as exhibited throughout human history. As is obvious to anyone who studies history, thousands of religions have come and gone (some followed by millions and millions of people at the heart of major civilizations such as the polytheisms of Rome and Egypt); however, even though religions come and go, the basic human need for some sort of religion has not gone away. I have also said that, like research regarding cancer, the quest to explain human consciousness is proceeding a baby step at a time as consciousness is a very complex biochemical system. Today, another potential piece of the puzzle was announced by scientists studying the neural mechanism related to impulsive decision-making in pidgeons.
I suggest that you read it as it gives you an idea of the enormous scientific strides being made in this area. In my opinion, scientists will soon be able to explain biochemically why some people are so prone to giving up all their personal identity to join a cult or believe in weird things such as therapeutic touch or conspiracy theories. I have talked to thousands of people in my life now and I really do believe that there is a genetic component to fanatical religious belief (in addition to the obvious cultural conditioning that comes from being raised in a fanatical religious setting). In any case, here is the article:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/print.php?url=/releases/2005/05/050502191959.htm
Worth The Wait? A Neural Mechanism Related To Impulsive Decision-making
Researchers at the Ruhr-University Bochum in Germany and the University of Otago in Dunedin, New Zealand, have identified single neurons in the pigeon forebrain that play a role in controlling impulsive decisions -- in the pigeons' case, the preference for a small, immediate reward over a large, delayed reward.
In contrast to assumptions made by many economic theories, decisions by humans and other animals are often not rational, and their actions are not always exclusively directed toward the maximization of gain. A prominent example of such sub-optimal choice behavior is impulsive decision-making, in which case an immediate but disadvantageous reward may be preferred over a delayed but more advantageous reward.
In their new work, Tobias Kalenscher and colleagues trained pigeons to choose between a small and a large reward. At the beginning of a session, both rewards were delivered immediately after the choice was made, but the delivery of a large reward was increasingly delayed as the session progressed. At first, pigeons preferred the large reward, but once the preceding delay exceeded a critical threshold of duration, they switched to preferring the small but fast reward. Reward preference in this task therefore depended on both reward amount and time-to-reward.
Using single-cell electrophysiological recordings from freely moving pigeons, the authors provided evidence that single neurons in the avian forebrain showed increased activity in anticipation of an upcoming reward. This reward-related activation was greater when the pigeons expected a large reward than when they expected a small one. But most importantly, the degree of activation decreased as the delay between the choice and the large reward increased, until this degree of activation dropped below that of activation related to the expectance of a small reward. This drop in neural activation coincided with the pigeons' preference shift from the large, delayed reward to the small, fast reward. The neurons thus integrated reward amount and time-to-reward, and, as predicted by impulsive choice theory, the relative activation level correlated with the pigeons' reward preference.
These findings not only shed light on impulsive decision-making, but they may also aid the understanding of neuropathologies, such as drug addiction, gambling, frontal lobe syndrome, and attention-deficit disorders, that are characterized by a decreased ability to wait for a large reward.
###
The researchers include Tobias Kalenscher, Sabine Windmann, Bettina Diekamp, and Onur Güntürkün of the Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience at Ruhr-University Bochum; and Jonas Rose and Michael Colombo of the Goddard Laboratories at University of Otago. This study was supported by a Royal Society of New Zealand Marsden grant and grants from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft through the priority program Executive Functions and the G.-A. Lienert Stiftung.
Publishing in Current Biology, Volume 15, Number 7, April 12, 2005, pages 594-602. http://www.current-biology.com
OT:
As many of you know, I contend that science will explain human consciousness and subsequently explain the universal gravitation towards religion by human beings as exhibited throughout human history. As is obvious to anyone who studies history, thousands of religions have come and gone (some followed by millions and millions of people at the heart of major civilizations such as the polytheisms of Rome and Egypt); however, even though religions come and go, the basic human need for some sort of religion has not gone away. I have also said that, like research regarding cancer, the quest to explain human consciousness is proceeding a baby step at a time as consciousness is a very complex biochemical system. Today, another potential piece of the puzzle was announced by scientists studying the neural mechanism related to impulsive decision-making in pidgeons.
I suggest that you read it as it gives you an idea of the enormous scientific strides being made in this area. In my opinion, scientists will soon be able to explain biochemically why some people are so prone to giving up all their personal identity to join a cult or believe in weird things such as therapeutic touch or conspiracy theories. I have talked to thousands of people in my life now and I really do believe that there is a genetic component to fanatical religious belief (in addition to the obvious cultural conditioning that comes from being raised in a fanatical religious setting). In any case, here is the article:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/print.php?url=/releases/2005/05/050502191959.htm
Worth The Wait? A Neural Mechanism Related To Impulsive Decision-making
Researchers at the Ruhr-University Bochum in Germany and the University of Otago in Dunedin, New Zealand, have identified single neurons in the pigeon forebrain that play a role in controlling impulsive decisions -- in the pigeons' case, the preference for a small, immediate reward over a large, delayed reward.
In contrast to assumptions made by many economic theories, decisions by humans and other animals are often not rational, and their actions are not always exclusively directed toward the maximization of gain. A prominent example of such sub-optimal choice behavior is impulsive decision-making, in which case an immediate but disadvantageous reward may be preferred over a delayed but more advantageous reward.
In their new work, Tobias Kalenscher and colleagues trained pigeons to choose between a small and a large reward. At the beginning of a session, both rewards were delivered immediately after the choice was made, but the delivery of a large reward was increasingly delayed as the session progressed. At first, pigeons preferred the large reward, but once the preceding delay exceeded a critical threshold of duration, they switched to preferring the small but fast reward. Reward preference in this task therefore depended on both reward amount and time-to-reward.
Using single-cell electrophysiological recordings from freely moving pigeons, the authors provided evidence that single neurons in the avian forebrain showed increased activity in anticipation of an upcoming reward. This reward-related activation was greater when the pigeons expected a large reward than when they expected a small one. But most importantly, the degree of activation decreased as the delay between the choice and the large reward increased, until this degree of activation dropped below that of activation related to the expectance of a small reward. This drop in neural activation coincided with the pigeons' preference shift from the large, delayed reward to the small, fast reward. The neurons thus integrated reward amount and time-to-reward, and, as predicted by impulsive choice theory, the relative activation level correlated with the pigeons' reward preference.
These findings not only shed light on impulsive decision-making, but they may also aid the understanding of neuropathologies, such as drug addiction, gambling, frontal lobe syndrome, and attention-deficit disorders, that are characterized by a decreased ability to wait for a large reward.
###
The researchers include Tobias Kalenscher, Sabine Windmann, Bettina Diekamp, and Onur Güntürkün of the Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience at Ruhr-University Bochum; and Jonas Rose and Michael Colombo of the Goddard Laboratories at University of Otago. This study was supported by a Royal Society of New Zealand Marsden grant and grants from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft through the priority program Executive Functions and the G.-A. Lienert Stiftung.
Publishing in Current Biology, Volume 15, Number 7, April 12, 2005, pages 594-602. http://www.current-biology.com
OT:
As many of you know, I contend that science will explain human consciousness and subsequently explain the universal gravitation towards religion by human beings as exhibited throughout human history. As is obvious to anyone who studies history, thousands of religions have come and gone (some followed by millions and millions of people at the heart of major civilizations such as the polytheisms of Rome and Egypt); however, even though religions come and go, the basic human need for some sort of religion has not gone away. I have also said that, like research regarding cancer, the quest to explain human consciousness is proceeding a baby step at a time as consciousness is a very complex biochemical system. Today, another potential piece of the puzzle was announced by scientists studying the neural mechanism related to impulsive decision-making in pidgeons.
I suggest that you read it as it gives you an idea of the enormous scientific strides being made in this area. In my opinion, scientists will soon be able to explain biochemically why some people are so prone to giving up all their personal identity to join a cult or believe in weird things such as therapeutic touch or conspiracy theories. I have talked to thousands of people in my life now and I really do believe that there is a genetic component to fanatical religious belief (in addition to the obvious cultural conditioning that comes from being raised in a fanatical religious setting). In any case, here is the article:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/print.php?url=/releases/2005/05/050502191959.htm
Worth The Wait? A Neural Mechanism Related To Impulsive Decision-making
Researchers at the Ruhr-University Bochum in Germany and the University of Otago in Dunedin, New Zealand, have identified single neurons in the pigeon forebrain that play a role in controlling impulsive decisions -- in the pigeons' case, the preference for a small, immediate reward over a large, delayed reward.
In contrast to assumptions made by many economic theories, decisions by humans and other animals are often not rational, and their actions are not always exclusively directed toward the maximization of gain. A prominent example of such sub-optimal choice behavior is impulsive decision-making, in which case an immediate but disadvantageous reward may be preferred over a delayed but more advantageous reward.
In their new work, Tobias Kalenscher and colleagues trained pigeons to choose between a small and a large reward. At the beginning of a session, both rewards were delivered immediately after the choice was made, but the delivery of a large reward was increasingly delayed as the session progressed. At first, pigeons preferred the large reward, but once the preceding delay exceeded a critical threshold of duration, they switched to preferring the small but fast reward. Reward preference in this task therefore depended on both reward amount and time-to-reward.
Using single-cell electrophysiological recordings from freely moving pigeons, the authors provided evidence that single neurons in the avian forebrain showed increased activity in anticipation of an upcoming reward. This reward-related activation was greater when the pigeons expected a large reward than when they expected a small one. But most importantly, the degree of activation decreased as the delay between the choice and the large reward increased, until this degree of activation dropped below that of activation related to the expectance of a small reward. This drop in neural activation coincided with the pigeons' preference shift from the large, delayed reward to the small, fast reward. The neurons thus integrated reward amount and time-to-reward, and, as predicted by impulsive choice theory, the relative activation level correlated with the pigeons' reward preference.
These findings not only shed light on impulsive decision-making, but they may also aid the understanding of neuropathologies, such as drug addiction, gambling, frontal lobe syndrome, and attention-deficit disorders, that are characterized by a decreased ability to wait for a large reward.
###
The researchers include Tobias Kalenscher, Sabine Windmann, Bettina Diekamp, and Onur Güntürkün of the Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience at Ruhr-University Bochum; and Jonas Rose and Michael Colombo of the Goddard Laboratories at University of Otago. This study was supported by a Royal Society of New Zealand Marsden grant and grants from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft through the priority program Executive Functions and the G.-A. Lienert Stiftung.
Publishing in Current Biology, Volume 15, Number 7, April 12, 2005, pages 594-602. http://www.current-biology.com
Sorry for the multiple posts; the Jihadwatch server kept on saying that I could not post before.
I guess the bomber never got his candygram from C.A.I.R. telling him that Islam is now a certified "Religion of Peace".
Damned Western Union! (I knew the West had to be at fault somehow for this massacre.)
Guys:
Read this article at LGF:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=15718_What_Is_He_Dracula#comments
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_death_042905,00.html?ESRC=army.nl
Akbar Gets Death Sentence
Associated Press
April 29, 2005
FORT BRAGG, N.C. - A military jury sentenced a soldier to death Thursday for a grenade and rifle attack on his own comrades during the opening days of the Iraq invasion, a barrage that killed two officers and that prosecutors said was driven by religious extremism.
Muslims killing muslims - because they hate non-muslims...??? How is that this "great civilization" had been forgoten for the past 600 years?
With apologies for the OT, but I found this in one of Shurki's old postings and I thought I ought bring it to everyone's attention. NOTE IN PARTICULAR the last comments of this moderate muslim about "aggression" and "superiority":
So Shurki seems to like to have some rational basis for belief - doesn't think it "reasonable" for God to have experienced life as a man; and why not? Well, because in islam, he's already been programmed that it's not reasonable. Personally, I might wonder why one would need a flying camel to take one to Jerusalem for a single night, or why one ought dunk a fly in one's food, or why one might force women to wear a veil, or prevent them from worshipping as men, or why one would need to induce epileptic fits to transmit divine knowledge, or why one would marry a six-year old girl and have sex with her when she's nine, or why a religion that claims to follow a god instead of a man would put the man's word's on par with that of their God's (Q 4:80), and probably well over three or four thousand other things in the Quran and the hadiths that suggest they're following a deity not entirely "reasonable" in his own light, but perhaps I digress.
"I have not found anything in Islam that does not make sense."
It is written: look not, and ye shall not find. =D
"I am already a humanist."
No, you are not. Humanism is a secular philosophy, and you are not a secularist. You are in fact, a radical islamicist.
"your ignorance of the life of the Prophet Muhammad...and the apparent fact that you are getting information about him from his enemies, which is hardly a fair thing to do to anybody."
Like, for example, getting information about Jesus Christ from islam.
Shurki might actually have had a point there - if, of course, the posters here had been getting information from neo-Nazis or anti-muslims. Unfortunately for Shurki, all our information comes from a) the Quran, b) the hadiths, c) the tradtions, d) islamic philosophers and e) muslims themselves.
"Actually, as demonstrated by the famous atheist who recently concluded that there is a creator of some sort"
He must have been INTENSELY famous, for me never to have heard of him/her, and for you not to be able to post his/her name. Incidentally, one could prove that God wasn't necessary to explain creation - which, under Okham's Razor, is tantamount to non-existence.
"Terminator, all of those lands pretty much have the descendants of the original inhabitants. To my knowledge, there is no case where Muslims institutionally wiped out the rightful owners of a land in order to take over."
Except in Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and so forth.
"Terminator, tiny tiny Israel has created over a million Palestinian refugees."
Lest we forget, Israel is about 15 km deep and 100 long. There's no room left in all the Middle East, high and low, for anyone other than muslims?
"please provide me with a terrorist attack, just one, where the perpetrators allege that Islam is the sole motive."
Gee, maybe killing Allah's enemies is just an added bonus. Of course, Shurki's excuse doesn't really explain why Jews and Christians - native ones - are being terrorized in modern-day Islamic countries, nor why apostates are killed and harassed. Or are they foreigners also? And when will Jews driven from islamic countries receive their own property back? Have they no "right of return"?
This one is my favourite:
"Islam abhors those who do not believe, and this is reiterated numerous times throughout the Qur'an."
Shurki: "To deny and disbelieve in God, who has blessed us with all of the blessings that we take for granted, is the height of AGGRESSION and injustice. Those who believe in God will, in reality, always be superior to those who disbelieve."
And there, ladies and gentlemen and Shurki, is the essence of Shurki's islam laid open: disbelieving is aggression. And what, even in Shurki's basest argument, is the excuse for Sura 9? Well, it's "defense from aggression", of course (although of course the Sura's hardly just about defense, but rather offense, against unbelievers).
So Shurki essentially is exactly like all the rest: he'd gladly kill unbelievers, and that means you. And yet he claims he represents a "moderate muslim". A "moderate" who considers refutation and refusal of this mythical 'allah' to be "aggression". So, by his definition, Christians, Jews and the like are guilty, by reason of their existence, of "aggression" against islam - and of course we know what islam does to "aggressors", now don't we?
How about this, Shurki?: 'fornicate' you.
Idiot. I, unlike you, am not a violent person (no madrassa education, you understand) but if I met you on the street, I find myself wondering what I would teach you about "aggression", and how long such a lesson might take.
Geoff
CGW, 700+ comments outraged at the inhumanity of these muslim monsters shows people are fed up, comment 41 is cool.
So Shurki seems to like to have some rational basis for belief - doesn't think it "reasonable" for God to have experienced life as a man; and why not? Well, because in islam, he's already been programmed that it's not reasonable. Personally, I might wonder why one would need a flying camel to take one to Jerusalem for a single night, or why one ought dunk a fly in one's food, or why one might force women to wear a veil, or prevent them from worshipping as men, or why one would need to induce epileptic fits to transmit divine knowledge, or why one would marry a six-year old girl and have sex with her when she's nine, or why a religion that claims to follow a god instead of a man would put the man's word's on par with that of their God's (Q 4:80), and probably well over three or four thousand other things in the Quran and the hadiths that suggest they're following a deity not entirely "reasonable" in his own light, but perhaps I digress.
"I have not found anything in Islam that does not make sense."
It is written: look not, and ye shall not find. =D
"I am already a humanist."
No, you are not. Humanism is a secular philosophy, and you are not a secularist. You are in fact, a radical islamicist.
"your ignorance of the life of the Prophet Muhammad...and the apparent fact that you are getting information about him from his enemies, which is hardly a fair thing to do to anybody."
Like, for example, getting information about Jesus Christ from islam.
Shurki might actually have had a point there - if, of course, the posters here had been getting information from neo-Nazis or anti-muslims. Unfortunately for Shurki, all our information comes from a) the Quran, b) the hadiths, c) the tradtions, d) islamic philosophers and e) muslims themselves.
"Actually, as demonstrated by the famous atheist who recently concluded that there is a creator of some sort"
He must have been INTENSELY famous, for me never to have heard of him/her, and for you not to be able to post his/her name. Incidentally, one could prove that God wasn't necessary to explain creation - which, under Okham's Razor, is tantamount to non-existence.
"Terminator, all of those lands pretty much have the descendants of the original inhabitants. To my knowledge, there is no case where Muslims institutionally wiped out the rightful owners of a land in order to take over."
Except in Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and so forth.
"Terminator, tiny tiny Israel has created over a million Palestinian refugees."
Lest we forget, Israel is about 15 km deep and 100 long. There's no room left in all the Middle East, high and low, for anyone other than muslims?
"please provide me with a terrorist attack, just one, where the perpetrators allege that Islam is the sole motive."
Gee, maybe killing Allah's enemies is just an added bonus. Of course, Shurki's excuse doesn't really explain why Jews and Christians - native ones - are being terrorized in modern-day Islamic countries, nor why apostates are killed and harassed. Or are they foreigners also? And when will Jews driven from islamic countries receive their own property back? Have they no "right of return"?
This one is my favourite:
"Islam abhors those who do not believe, and this is reiterated numerous times throughout the Qur'an."
Shurki: "To deny and disbelieve in God, who has blessed us with all of the blessings that we take for granted, is the height of AGGRESSION and injustice. Those who believe in God will, in reality, always be superior to those who disbelieve."
And there, ladies and gentlemen and Shurki, is the essence of Shurki's islam laid open: disbelieving is aggression. And what, even in Shurki's basest argument, is the excuse for Sura 9? Well, it's "defense from aggression", of course (although of course the Sura's hardly just about defense, but rather offense, against unbelievers).
So Shurki essentially is exactly like all the rest: he'd gladly kill unbelievers, and that means you. And yet he claims he represents a "moderate muslim". A "moderate" who considers refutation and refusal of this mythical 'allah' to be "aggression". So, by his definition, Christians, Jews and the like are guilty, by reason of their existence, of "aggression" against islam - and of course we know what islam does to "aggressors", now don't we?
How about this, Shurki?: 'fornicate' you.
Idiot. I, unlike you, am not a violent person (no madrassa education, you understand) but if I met you on the street, I find myself wondering what I could teach you about "aggression", and how long such a lesson might take.
Geoff
Good article Mentat... the rational resistance to an unwise urge is, I think, a halllmark of being human. To think not just "How much will I enjoy this?" but also "Will enjoying this now cause regret later?" In Utilitarian "Hedonistic Calculus" Bentham et al. describes this as "secondary effects." So yeah, it might make you happy to eat nothing but butter, candy, and ice cream, but will it be worth the pain of the ill health that will likely crop up later? (And to hell with Immanuel Kant.)
****************************************
EXCELLENT deconstruction, Geoff!
***************************************
CGW... I read that at LGF DAYS ago. Pretty disgusting.
*****************************************
I posted the following long letter at the "Billboard" comments section, but since there is already over 100 comments there, I wanted to post it here as well (hoping that everyone will read it.)
Re: The Billboard
Dear Mr. Spencer:
The anti-liberal spew to which I referred was from a commenter known as "Cross." I thought I made that clear. It seems to me that you should have addressed your letter to Cross. He/she is the one that started the whining about the ACLU.
I didn't say anything political; I didn’t insult Dub, Dick, Condi, or Coulter. I only tried to make Cross understand that the ACLU is politically neutral. They have one client: The US Constitution. Why else would they be fighting to keep Limbaugh out of prison? This is especially true when considering that Limbaugh has done--and audaciously CONTINUES to do!--more to traduce, vilify and excoriate the ACLU than anyone ever has.
I stated that the majority of people that see the billboard will be liberals... this should be apparent considering the location of said billboard in Los Angeles, California. It should follow that the majority of curious newcomers that are brought here by the billboard (in Los Angeles, California) will also be liberals.
What if someone wanders in here and sees a bunch of anti-lib, anti-ACLU anger? Do you think that they would
A) Be inclined to just ignore that bit and focus on learning the truth about Islam, Jihad, and Sharia? Or
B) Think that since the people that are resisting the Jihad hate liberals and the ACLU, and that they, as liberals, should not try to resist the Jihad?
If in fact liberals are gullible, prone to irrational decisions, and easily deceived, why fan the fire with irrelevant opinion intended to offend them?
I don’t mean you personally. I was only talking to Cross, but now I see that “Truth” has thrown his/her hat into the ring, because it is vitally important to him that we all know how much he hates the ACLU. And maybe by the time I finish and post this letter there will be some more.
Again I tell you that I have no personal desire for an outcome in this matter (which you mocked in a way in your previous comment) except the furtherance of Jihad awareness. Go back and read my previous post. I didn’t say that liberals were great, or that conservatives were bad. Only that anti-lib tripe was going to harm THE MISSION. Do you think I lay awake at night and think to myself that somebody on the internet is saying mean things about me or people like me? Ha. (Well, I do lay awake and worry at night, just not about THAT.) I really, really don’t want to see people TRY to learn the truth about Islam, stumble into this site, click on the comments, and see a bunch of lies that will turn them away.
I’m not telling you how to run your site or gain support. I don’t know how to run a website, and I don’t know how to educate more people (more than I already do, that is) on the dangers posed by Islamic fundamentalism. But I DO KNOW how to turn people off: insult them (or let your followers insult them) and/or their ideological kin. The futility involved in this matter is especially sad because LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES ALIKE SHOULD RESIST THE JIHAD.
Please try to understand me. I’m not just addressing Mr. Spencer, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Warraq, and the rest of the board, but everyone here. As the billboards become more common, this should be recognized as a very important issue, because the simple fact is that if you intend to get the biggest bang for your buck, you're not going to rent billboards in Sand Lake, Idaho or Okeefenokee, Georgia. You will rent billboards in densely populated areas so that many people will see them. I would guess that NYC, DC, Chicago, Philly, Miami, and San Francisco would be on the short list after LA. Go back to the red-blue votes by county map and look at these cities. (Mayhap my good conservative friend Gary will kindly provide a link; as I recall it was at newsmax.com.) Notice that the map is basically a population density map.
If my intention was to anger or counter as many conservatives as possible, I wouldn’t even come here. I would spend all my time commenting at freerepublic.com, lgf.com, and the other three-hundred-odd right wing blogs.
My intention is to further the cause of jihad awareness and alert people to the truth. I hope that you, Mr. Spencer, believe this. DC Watson, Colt Walker, anyone… does anyone else here feel the way I do?
fanorollins@yahoo.com
Gah! Big double post. My login seems to be working damned strangely. I shall have to sacrifice my family to Allah to fix it; inshallah that will work.
Sheik Geoff
What say you Shurki, it has been pointing out that you said being a non believer is aggression.
I would like append Geoff and Shukri's tete-a-tete:
"I have not found anything in Islam that does not make sense."
How about making people do what they don't really want to do?
"your ignorance of the life of the Prophet Muhammad...and the apparent fact that you are getting information about him from his enemies, which is hardly a fair thing to do to anybody."
They say the same crap about David Koresh.
It has nothing to do with ignorance, to the contrary, the more one learns about Mohammed the more they SHOULD be his enemy.
"Actually, as demonstrated by the famous atheist who recently concluded that there is a creator of some sort"
"A creator of some sort" doesn't mean "There is only one God and Mohammed is His prophet."
Terminator, all of those lands pretty much have the descendants of the original inhabitants. To my knowledge, there is no case where Muslims institutionally wiped out the rightful owners of a land in order to take over."
Perhaps you've never heard of India, Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Persia, India, Bangladesh, Egypt, and Sudan.
"Terminator, tiny tiny Israel has created over a million Palestinian refugees."
Liar. 600,000 "palestinians" left Israel as 800,000 Jewish refugees fled the rest of Islamdom. The "refugees" are the descendants of refugees, urged to have 10, 15, even 20 children each by Arafat and his overlords in Riyadh and Mecca. It was basically a population shift, just like the ones all over the world after World War Two. Unfortunately, the "palestinians" were granted special recognition by the UN, so that their children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren would all automatcally qualify as "refugees."
"please provide me with a terrorist attack, just one, where the perpetrators allege that Islam is the sole motive."
There have been thousands, maybe even millions, begining with Mohammed's murder of the Jewish tribes of Arabia and his detractors (the poets e.g.) continuing on through the rape of Persia, Syria, Lebanon, Morroco, and Anatolia; the sack of hundreds of Hindu and Buddhist kingdoms in what is now India, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Bangladesh; and the complete wipeout of thousands of animist and Christian cultures of northern Africa, Indochina, and Indonesia.
"To deny and disbelieve in God, who has blessed us with all of the blessings that we take for granted, is the height of AGGRESSION and injustice. Those who believe in God will, in reality, always be superior to those who disbelieve."
It's not that anyone disbelieves in God per se. The problem is that "we" don't trust people that THINK that they know what God "wants."
"Superior" this, dumbass.
He's probably trying to get hold of his fellow arch-villian "Brownfinger" at the moment to decide what to write.
Don't expect any response for a while. Brownfinger can't talk to Shurki as he's busy dealing with "Number 2"; things are a little blocked-up in the 'moonbase' right now.
Geoff
Pardons for gratuitous Austin Powers referencing. I count three gastrointestinal references in my post above; I could have put in more, but didn't want to be anal.
ROTFLMAO, the internet cafe must have driven into a tunnel and picked up a little static but it seems ok now. LOL
kj, on your Shukri stuff, I am pleasantly surprised to be in 99% agreement.
Geoff, you do Niiice work!
Regarding the bombing please note:
Ansar al-Sunna took responsibility for the attack in an Internet posting. "This operation is in response to our brothers who are being tortured in your prisons," its statement said, according to a translation by Reuters, "and in response to the infidel pesh merga forces which surrendered themselves to the crusaders and became a thorn in the side of Muslims." - Source
I.e: They are targetting those who collaborate with the invading Occupiers.
Because God is God and man is man. And God has revealed to us that he is unique and without partner. Hence, why would one imagine that God is a man? Nowhere in the Biblical scriptures does Jesus, peace be upon him, ever claim to be God.
"God will say: O Jesus,son of Mary! did you say to men, "Take me and my mother for two gods besides Allah" [Jesus] will say: Glory be to Thee, it did not befit me that I should say what I had no right to (say); if I had said it, Thou wouldst indeed have known it; Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I do not know what is in Thy mind, surely Thou art the great Knower of the unseen things."
"Never said I to them aught except what Thou didst command me to say, to wit, 'worship God, my Lord and your Lord'; and I was a witness over them whilst I dwelt amongst them; when Thou didst take me up Thou wast the Watcher over them, and Thou art a witness to all things." Quran: 5:116-117
It is reasonable to worship fellow man?
Messengers of God are divinely inspired. Whatever they say is because God inspired them to say it. That is why God commands obedience to both God and his messengers.
Humanism: Concern with the interests, needs, and welfare of humans.
I am a humanist.
We are not the enemies of Jesus, peace be upon him. We acknowledge that he is one of the Prophets of God and he has high status, peace be upon him.
You are being told by the enemies of Islam what Islam is. Given their unsavory methods in deliberately choosing out of context, one-sided quotes, they have no trouble in misleading people who do not have a sense of fairness in how they approach another group of people.
I was previously informed that JW was a "scholarly site". Hence I assumed that scholars would know something about Antony Flew.
Occam's Razor, in my understanding, essentially means "use the simplest explanation". Considering the extremely complex and harmonious nature of the world, the simplest explanation IS God. And since we are informed through revelation that God exists, why --- there is no problem.
Proof, please?
I hope that you do understand that you are attempting to justify theft.
Equivalent: Let me kick you out of your home at gunpoint and take over. Surely your hundreds of neighbors can take care of you.
They certainly do have right of return. However lest we forget, it was only after the Haganah and Stern gang (modern day IDF) kicking out the inhabitants did the Arabs start expelling Jews. Also, regarding oppression of non-Muslims: The most oppressed in the countries where Christians and Jews are targetted are the "Islamists". This has nothing to do with Muslims oppressing non-Muslims.
I had hoped that you would heed my previous request not to put words in my mouth. There is nothing in Islamic Sacred Law which requires the killing of atheists, simply because people are free to believe whatever they want and we do not judge people's hearts. It is God who will punish those who reject Him perhaps in this life and definitely on the Day of Judgment.
God creates human beings and then blesses them with LIFE, the senses, sight, hearing, sense of smell, breath, water, food, material pleasures and so many other blessings that it boggles the mind to think of them.-- And then man rejects God! Is this not the highest transgression?
Ahh, veiled threats. I, unlike you perhaps, would turn the other cheek and be on my way.
Peace.
P.S: The name is Shukri. =)
mister shukri
the jihadi who prides himself
on killing words,
your sword is dull and rusty
and needs to be honed and polished.
Trying to abolish truth
with lies defies the definition
of reason and brings shame on one's good name.
kj~ Yes, you are correct, I finally went to NewsMax to look, and there was the map you suggested.
And btw, we are in complete agreement: liberals and conservatives should be fighting the Jihad, in all it's guises. Therefore the following articles which I forgot to post the morning, on some of Jihad's more subtle attacks:
Today’s Extras on Jihad’s 5th Column:
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17950
http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1931
Evening all!
No Shurki, You said,
"To deny and disbelieve in God, who has blessed us with all of the blessings that we take for granted, is the height of AGGRESSION and injustice. Those who believe in God will, in reality, always be superior to those who disbelieve."
Now you backpedal and say,
“God creates human beings and then blesses them with LIFE, the senses, sight, hearing, sense of smell, breath, water, food, material pleasures and so many other blessings that it boggles the mind to think of them.-- And then man rejects God! Is this not the highest transgression?”
You tried to downgrade aggression to transgression. I'm almost embarressed to point it out it's so obvious.
Another question I would ask you is this.
Who are muslims and you to stick your noses into God’s business. It’s between individual humans and God to work things out. God will settle all scores on judgment day and doesn’t need muslims down here playing like their Gods own district attorney.
Hey Shukri,
13When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"
14They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
15"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ,[b] the Son of the living God."
17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter,[c] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[d] will not overcome it.[e] 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[f] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[g] loosed in heaven."
Then how about this one?
54Jesus replied, "If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. 55Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and keep his word. 56Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad."
57"You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!"
58"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" 59At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.
Jesus told the people in parables and in plain speech who he was.
Some refused to believe Jesus.
42Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. 43Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me? 47He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God."
'Veiled threats' and dingleberries
--------------------------------
(apologies for long post, but it was rather fun - RasulaGeoff)
Dearest Shurki,
Regarding the bombing, it seems almost like you missed the entire second half of the quote:
"and in response to the infidel pesh merga forces which surrendered themselves to the CRUSADERS and became a thorn in the side of MUSLIMS."
(I have added capitals for emphasis.) I.e. they are actually targeting those who work with the evil outsider Christians. Was the miss selective or accidental? So hard to tell sometimes, isn't it?
"God is God and man is man. And God has revealed to us that he is unique and without partner."
Well, 'God' has revealed that to muslims, assuming that Mohammed was ever in contact with God and that he got the message right. (Human instruments, you know, make many errors - never before but in talking to you has this been made more clear to me.) Hence, it is puerile assumption to imagine that God 'has' revealed anything at all to you; you merely have a different impression of this divine being. (One in which it's all right to slay in his name and so forth; a version the Christians and the Jews seem loath to accept. But I digress.)
In fact, I could also equally say - and I will - that the Christian Scriptures in fact reveal that God has revealed Himself to have a Son, who is also Him, (no offense meant to our Jewish readers). This is the actual state of truth on this matter, although it might be more accurate to say that He has no 'partner'; i.e. that Jesus is not a 'partner', being part of the same Being.
"Nowhere in the Biblical scriptures does Jesus, peace be upon him, ever claim to be God."
I'm sorry, but this is false. It's liberally throughout Mark and Luke, as I recall. Jesus does in fact claim to be God. "Let those who have eyes see". The Quran is, of course, not a suitable text for comment on this matter, since it is neither divinely inspired nor accurate, and since it has a clear bias in favour of false opinion.
By contrast, Mohammed places his own words on par with those of Allah in Q 4: 80 and in at least one hadith, as I recall - as you like to say, more on that later. =)
"It is reasonable to worship fellow man?"
"Whatever [Messengers of God] say is because God inspired them to say it."
Really? 'Whatever' they say is from God?
It is certainly NOT reasonable to worship Mohammed, as if the only things he ever said were from this 'Allah', whoever he is. Thus, for Mohammed to put his words on par with Allah's would be shirk in Mohammedanism and merely heretical in other religions. While if God had any messengers, certain of their words would be divinely inspired, it goes without saying that not ALL their words would be divinely inspired.
For example:
"Akbar, please pass the dates."
"Are these the words of Allah, O Mighty Prophet?!?" [excited]
"No, I just want some dates. Also, you may rape your slave girl tonight."
...and so forth. So for Mohammed to say that he should be obeyed AS Allah (Q 4: 80) is shirk, or the assumption of incorrect authority.
"Humanism: Concern with the interests, needs, and welfare of humans.
I am a humanist."
Wrong. Humanism is a philosophy in which "man is the measure of all things. This statement is commonly understood to mean that PEOPLE, NOT OBJECTIVE OR ABSOLUTIST FACTORS, determine a thing’s worth. Democratic societies in which the CITIZENS THEMSELVES choose the laws and values that govern them are founded on this humanist principle"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism
Thus, since you support sharia and therefore base all acceptance of right and wrong on an external, absolutist factor - a god, which may or may not exist - and not on democratic weight of decision nor on humanistic elements within such, that you are not a humanist. (Was it you who was advocating the Protocols of Zion on here? A common perception of many muslims I've met; this would make you a racist, which admittedly is another "-ist", but not a humanist, since Jews are humans. Ia, also, would be a racist in this manner.) Further, since you attach no value to the predetermination of the "citizens themselves" in making civil (or presumably federal) law, this also means that you are certainly not a humanist, whatever else you might wish to call yourself. But it was a pleasure to review your position and clarify as to why it was greatly lacking.
"We are not the enemies of Jesus, peace be upon him. We acknowledge that he is one of the Prophets of God and he has high status, peace be upon him."
Unfortunately, this is based on the assumption that islam has actually gotten anything right about Jesus, which, given Mohammed's influencing by specific sects of Christians which (for unfortunate political reasons) were driven out of the eastern Orthodox empires. Any additional 'information' that Mohammed might have had prior to formulating his thesis about Jesus is either i) not known, since one of the major supports for his position are the so-called 'Scriptures of Issa (Jesus)', which have never been found nor even hinted at (being thus most likely fictional) or ii) based on an additional several hundred years' temporal distance from the actual events of the New Testament (NT). This would immediately categorize Mohammed as being an exceedingly poor source of information about Jesus and his times; the deliberate misrepresentation of elements of the NT as being about a "revolutionary event" are clearly indicative of the same sort of post-event reshuffling of dogma and scripture to fit a pre-existing format but with an altered view of events from that interpretable prima facie in the text itself, that being the NT. Similar biases are seen in the attempts to pass off Quranic/hadithic/traditional islamic passages as representative of some sort of "preternatural scientific knowledge", not as a legitimate refutable hypothesis for scientific understanding, but rather with the express purpose of supporting religious source material; that being the Quran in specific and islam in general. (Other forms of "religious science" are similarly flawed, but it is my belief that the authors of other such claptrap have at least the good graces to realise that it is in fact nonsense, though they pony it up readily enough. Again, I digress.)
"You are being told by the enemies of Islam what Islam is. Given their unsavory methods"
Who are these enemies of islam? (And what would you do to them, since refusing to accept islam itself - without actually opposing it on religious or moral grounds! - is the "highest aggression" possible? I can only imagine; it is needless to say that it would be violent, of course, despite all contrary 'joli-amie' and da'wa.)
"who do not have a sense of fairness in how they approach another group of people."
Fairness from an islamicist who believes in forced sharia and, apparently, the destruction of non-believers, strikes me as a little bit ironic. The fairness is paramount; islam is being judged here by the actions of its followers. Not believing in any such nonsensical 'allah', and possibly not any deity at all, my own interpretation of the 'fairness' of your deity - and that, moreover, of the theistic "kuffir" here - is functionally limited to what I can experience here in the material world. If your coreligionists present fair words but an evil heart and a malicious hand, it is not our fault at all. Again, as this Issa you claim to love would tell you: remove the plank in your eye.
Shurki: "I was previously informed that JW was a "scholarly site". Hence I assumed that scholars would know something about Antony Flew."
I assumed - momentarily, anyway - that I was arguing with a rational thinker, or so I was led to believe by the proclamations of selfsame. Hence, I would expect one to actually post the name of the individual for discussion: "bring your proofs, if ye are truthful", I think someone once said. Be that as it may, I'm actually quite glad that you bring Dr. Flew's name to the table. Allow me to post his direct statement:
"I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and FAR AND AWAY FROM THE GOD OF ISLAM, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental DESPOTS, cosmic SADDAM HUSSEINS," [Dr. Flew] said. "It could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose."
...err, oopsie. Funnily, I share some of Dr. Flew's opinions, though not all of them. Can you guess which ones? =) Be that as it may, the end-of-life opinion shift of a single professor of the humanities (meaning no insult to othersuch of the humanities, or humanists, or humans in general) is of no consequence to me: Charles Darwin was for some time trained as a pastor, before becoming an avowed atheist. Given my own peculiar training biases, I'm afraid I must rate the latter's opinion as more relevant to me, to say nothing of Ford (the biologist, not the fellow-racist car builder), Wright, Haldane and so forth. Fisher was a Christian, as I recall, however - but not a very good one, I'm sorry to say - a reflection of the peculiar division of religious opinion in the evolutionary/genetic branches of biology and agriculture/animal science.
"Occam's Razor, in my understanding, essentially means "use the simplest explanation". Considering the extremely complex and harmonious nature of the world, the simplest explanation IS God."
Ah - the key phrase in your statement is "in [your] understanding". The existence of an all-powerful, Orientalist "despot" (to use the words of Dr. Anthony Flew, a philosophy professor who recently changed his world-view from atheist to tenatively theistic; have you heard of him? =) ) whose metaphysical fabric reaches into every aspect of material existence, who controls every event from fire burning (which, I'm reliably informed, is a great Quranic "discovery" - truly, Mohammed seems to have been well, er, BEHIND his time, actually) to the Brownian motion of molecules to the creation of billions and billions of angels to do his bidding (which is odd, in that he's already omnipotent, and that some of the angels were apparently flawed, which is strange for an all-powerful being) is, frankly, NOT the most simple explanation possible. Random motions of particles, simple application of thermodynamic laws and obvious interpretations of evolutionary process are far, far simpler than such an elaborate mock-up as a moon-god hiding in a Meccan rock.
NOW: that being said, I'm all one for presentory evidence: the Christian account (and the Jewish one, come to think of it) can, in my view, actually be said to have some "eyewitness accounts". I like the JudeoChristian worldview; it is inherently passive (or at least the message always has been) and it has an interesting premise: that this God made people because, essentially, he wanted to be a father. I like that; I also enjoy being a father. If we are "made in his image", this does suggest a certain similarity of psychology (be it not, I hope, too heretical to write such a thing). The Gnostic philosophy also has appeal: this "flawed world", the intention of a "lesser god", behind whom and unknownst to whom stands a greater. At any rate, my mind is open; I reject nothing outright unless it be senseless. Speaking of senseless, back to Shurki.
As for the "ownership issue", I think I might refer to the fact that the Middle East was conquered by the sword, and that prior to that it was a collection of different nationalities, none of which were muslim. Of course, why discuss proof with one such as Shurki, for whom no proof at all would satisfy? I rather ask him/her/it to bring its own proofs, be it truthful.
Me: "Lest we forget, Israel is about 15 km deep and 100 long. There's no room left in all the Middle East, high and low, for anyone other than muslims?"
Shurki: "I hope that you do understand that you are attempting to justify theft."
I suppose one would have to justify theft over outright murder; given the two ought one not take the lesser of two evils? But of course, it's to Shurki first to define what is meant by theft - that the Israelis 'stole' the land? When exactly did that occur? Was it before or after their kind and benevolent muslim neighbours began shooting at them (1948 and before), or before or after the massacres of Jews in so-called "Palestine". And why did Israel get made a "nation" - was it on its own merit, or was it because they were calling for international help (which came only haltingly, like a man only prising the hand of a strangler one finger at a time off your throat) after being attacked, invaded, and butchered? And who "owned" the land prior to that - or was it simply not in use. One might well complain that even without legitimate ownership - satisfied, frankly, after their taking the land following the first aggressive invasion by muslims around them - Israel is forced to concede it has only "squatters" rights - but concede them to who? The Jordanian-Egyptians? Or the original, mythical, "Palestinians", no record of which exists prior to, what, 1967?
The true equivalent is this: You Jews can live next to us, but if there get to be too many of you, we'll kill you all. Hey, you beat us in war even though you were undermanned and underarmed! No fair! Get out of that land, or we'll invade again, although this time it'll have to be from like 15 kilometers away. Oh, so you're booting out the muslims who set up cities next to you, since you're less despotic than their home governments? Well, you take them back - in fact, let us return all the potential saboteurs we like, and then we can live in peace with you once you're all dead. Allah knows best, you know.
Shurki: "They certainly do have right of return. However lest we forget, it was only after the Haganah and Stern gang (modern day IDF) kicking out the inhabitants did the Arabs start expelling Jews."
Of course, lest we forget, it was only because Jews were being attacked and massacred by muslims that they started kicking muslims out of the nation they were forced to establish because of the threat - and reality - of invasion. Lest us not forget, Shurki; and lest us not forget in entirety.
"Also, regarding oppression of non-Muslims: The most oppressed in the countries where Christians and Jews are targetted are the "Islamists"."
Well, that must explain why so many of those islamicists are eager to come to the West and kill us here. Good point. Here at least, we give all kinds of idiots free reign to talk, or post da'wa on website boards.
There's so much that could be said about Shurki's next bit. I'll hit the statements one at a time, like he likes.
"I had hoped that you would heed my previous request not to put words in my mouth."
Rather, I took them out of your mouth. And "heed"? You're not one to give me orders, Shurki. You're one to ask for favours - none of which will be granted by me because i) I can think and say as I like, and ii) because you've earned none. Don't give me orders again.
"There is nothing in Islamic Sacred Law which requires the killing of atheists"
*cough* Sura 9 *cough*
"simply because people are free to believe whatever they want"
*cough* Sura 9 *cough*
"It is God who will punish those who reject Him perhaps in this life and definitely on the Day of Judgment."
*cough*...well, you get the picture. Classic usage of the "Shurki Defense Singular": simply deny. 'Denial' ain't just a river tainted by the blood of hundreds of thousands of innocent Christians, Jews and others. How exactly does it explain this great willingness of muslims to kill apostates, too, or those that "insult" (however that might occur, accidentally or otherwise) their vaunted "Prophet". I invite Shurki to go to his place of origin - or better yet, Iraq or Saudi Arabia or Iran or Indonesia or Jordan or Pakistan or maybe that great islamic democracy, the United Emirates of Neveroccuria - and state, aloud, in the square, "I reject the concept of Allah and his Messenger; I am an APOSTATE from Islam" and to mark down, if he could, the time until his arrest, and imprisonment or execution. One can cry all day about how punishment is "up to allah"; it seems, however, that modern islam is big on early sentencing. Or perhaps they're merely "facilitating prisoner transfer".
Lastly (O Geoff! What a road you doth take your readers on, highs and lows, to great and small! And you know best!), to comment on my refuting his "moderacy" (stonings ONLY with four reliable witnesses now, or maybe two men and four women?), Shurki whines about how "God blesses humans with LIFE, the senses, -- And then man rejects God! Is this not the highest transgression?"
Thanks for proving my point. You don't mention what you'd do to such a person (though you whine about how I might rough you up for having the temerity to offer the same arguments in your last posting, you murderous muckraker), but what can we draw from me pointing out that you would use violence against apostates and other "kuffar", and then you responding "But, God blesses Man with LIFE - and then Man rejects God! Is this not the highest transgression?"
That is called: indirect pleading.
And that, nimrod, is argument, point, and philosophical victory to me - the Lion of Man. You would use violence against "kuffar", including Jews, Christians, apostates, atheists and the lot in the name of your non-existent God. I would not. Done. You lose.
"And how much greater, O Mohammed, is the Lion of Man, for he has slain the arguments of the Lion of 'Allah', and the Lion of Man exists, and Allah exists not! and maybe it is that Geoff knows best, and you do not, and that you do not like doing some things or believing some things, but that Geoff knows best and knows what is good for you."
- Book of Geoff, 9:5.
See, I don't believe in your killer moongod; he holds no relevance for me, except as an object of ridicule.
"Ahh, veiled threats. I, unlike you perhaps, would turn the other cheek and be on my way."
Apparently not. I offer you no peace; your words are as empty as your head, as the shifting sands, as a foul smell in the air, and you desire peace for none save yourself.
Peace off.
Geoff
"PS: The name is Shukri. =)"
PS: I got your name wrong? Gee, sorry about that. I'll do much better from now on, Shirki.
Cross, aggression and transgression are interchangeable since both their meanings fit the situation. I.E: Those who deny God are aggressors and transgressors.
???...I am only stating what I believe has been revealed to us by God through his Prophets. And God almighty has obligated those who have been given the message to inform others of it.
Carolyn2,
"does the Bible quote Jesus as claiming equality with God? Bible texts are produced to show that Jesus used the terms, son of man, son of God, messiah and saviour. But each of these terms is applied to other individuals in the Bible. Ezekiel was addressed as son of man. Jesus himself spoke of the peacemakers as sons of God." - Divinity of Jesus
To prove the point above, you can clear see from the above quote that Jesus, peace be upon him is not claiming to be God, rather he is claiming to be a Messenger sent by God.
Peace.
Geoff and Kj and all of you:
Thanks for taking care of Shukri who is well in the footsteps of Mohammed Atta and the "magnificent 19"-
As you can see, Muslim reasoning defeats reason & gravity. Superstition becomes 'science'. A 'famous atheist' found Allah, but we never heard of him. Not "accepting Mohammeds dirty book" becomes in itself "agression"- and pointing out the evil that Islam is and does becomes "demonization"- Day becomes
night and visa-versa, history becomes a convenient fairy- tale, everything goes as long as it serves the cause.
Communism and its propaganda was not so different...
Geof,
Was Moses righteous, what is wrong with killing apostates? The Bible God in the Torah, the Gospel or NT punishes apostates. Just because the NT waits until Armageddon to punish those who dont believe doesnt mean that it isnt a punishment. Good grief!
BTW Its Brownwonder, not Brownfinger.
8Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us."
9Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? 10Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me
Geoff,
“ Personally, I might wonder why one would need a flying camel to take one to Jerusalem for a single night,”
Allah (swt) will simply but. We Muslims hear and obey we don’t debate or vote on it. A consequnce of being a true worshipper.
“..or why one ought dunk a fly in one's food,”
Because of the hadith that states on one wing is the disease and on the other there is a cure.
“…or why one might force women to wear a veil,”
The female companions (ra) wore viels and they were the best of women. And honorable women should only be seen by their related men folk. It encourages modesty and chastity for both men and women. Like the Quran says people ought to lower their gaze.
“or prevent them from worshipping as men,…”
Men and women worship the same. Men receive more rewards by worshipping in the Mosque and even more in the Mosque of the Prophet (saw) in the KSA and women receive more rewards for worship in the house. Women have to cover more of their bodies when they pray.
“…why one would marry a six-year old girl and have sex with her when she's nine,…”
After her previous engage was broken off and probably to make a tribal tie Prophet Muhammed (saw) married Umm- Mumin Mother of the believers Ayesha (ra) and consummated the marriage at nine when she became an adult in Islam. After signs of puberty are present.
“Unfortunately for Shurki, all our information comes from a) the Quran, b) the hadiths, c) the tradtions, d) islamic philosophers and e) muslims themselves.”
Sorry but Islam is the Quran the sunnah and the understanding of the Companions. Muslim opinions, philosophies attitudes, poll results don’t meant anything in Islam. Every innovation is a misguidance and every misguidance is a going astray and every going astray is in the hell fire.
Everything else in your post was just to dam redundant. You kafur are such arrogant people. Reminds me of Shaitan.
Carolyn,
Bible Jesus was a strange guy, knowing the the punishment for blasphemy is deathy why did he commit it, why did he reject the punishment?
"58"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" 59At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds."
And this guy was supposed to be a good Jew?
That's amazing, Brownfinger. You have mindless faith. It must be very simple for you to follow such a creed.
Quick question: any proof of all this? Of course not. Silly me for asking if you have any proof of a non-existent deity. Must be my "kaffirian arrogance" that dares allow me to speak my own mind. Shurki, Ia, anything to say to your coreligionist? No, of course not. A muslim speaks; to you, it must all be true.
"Sorry but Islam is the Quran the sunnah and the understanding of the Companions. Every innovation is a misguidance and every misguidance is a going astray and every going astray is in the hell fire."
Good point - now, since you don't like innovations, log off the computer and go farm. No computers in the Quran! Dolt.
"Everything else in your post was just to dam redundant. You kafur are such arrogant people. Reminds me of Shaitan. "
So - show me what was redundant, Mohammedan. The height of arrogance, of course, is to present an argument with no proof. Bring them - unless you have no proof?
Sheik Geoff
The other thing, Brownfinger, is how you justify Jesus having committed blasphemy, seeing as how he was also God.
Byes!
Sheik Geoff
How about science in the qur'an? Semen is produced in the...spine?
http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Science/semenproduction.htm
I am laughing my a$$ off at this comment,
"You kafur are such arrogant people. Reminds me of Shaitan. "
You call us kafur and WE are arrogant?
BTW, all - Brownfinger's a Wahabbi. He posted the "Wahhabi apologetic" way way back, about how good muslims don't reject aaaaaaaany prophet, no they don't, laws no.
I tell him now, that it may be that Allah likes a thing that Brownfinger does not like, and that Brownfinger should probably shut up.
Imam Geoff
All of this back and forth see-sawing of quote-counter-quote dogmatics is making me see stars.
Here's a little verse riddle for all those finding everything in God's mind so limpid and simple:
What Am I?
"On a Milkweed Leaf"
I want a green coffin
with golden nails
A silent tomb
of living scales
that wings away
on markless trails
from one Death to another.
Forever turning stillness
to flight,
darkness to light,
blindness to sight.
In tickless Time
with song as strong
as spider silk or Rhyme.
*****************************
Just a little break from the polemics.
This is supposed to be Jihadwatch/Dhimmiwatch, not:
"Cut-and-Paste MY GOD IS BIGGER THAN YOUR GOD!", Watch.
Freedom of thought will defend us.
Scripture, of any shade, will not.
Its adherents tend to get into a deathlock with an equivalent dogmatist and they wrestle ineffectually into eternity, beating Absolute Certainties over one another's heads until Judgment Day.
It doesn't say much for the intelligence of God to have set up such a bunch of tunnel-vision followers who ignore the exposed Cosmos in favor of a human blot of ink on a page, and rage forever about its meaning.
Children need food. The sick need help. The sorrowful need comfort. The lonely need attention. The world needs caring.
Those concerns answered will defeat jihad -while a billion years of exegesis and argument will not.
Those human concerns. And honesty about our limitations in, and as, consciousness.
O.K. BigSleep. But...My G-D is bigger than your god! (I'm running away like I was 5 years old LOL)
Geoff,
Jesus was god, Astagfirullah.....What a mistake to make creation the creator. How disgusting. You think a noble Prophet like Esa ibn Maryam (as) the messiah was Allah (Swt)? No he was a noble slave of Allah (swt) who called to tawheed.Look it up!
BTW I am female.
Geoff,
Dont call me a wahhabi, I dont practice taqleed which is bling following of a particular madhab- school of thought, or scholar or imam, or anyone. I follow the truth to the exclusion of falsehood. Muhammed Ibn abdul Wahhab never called people to follow him but called people to the straight path.
Geoff,
Jesus was god, Astagfirullah.....What a mistake to make creation the creator. How disgusting. You think a noble Prophet like Esa ibn Maryam (as) the messiah was Allah (Swt)? No he was a noble slave of Allah (swt) who called to tawheed.Look it up!
BTW I am female.
Posted by: brownwonder
Obviously Islam, being backward, cannot fathom that:
1) We cannot take this vessel we live in (our body) to that dimension/s of the new heaven and new earth
2) That our bodies are nothing more than a bunch of chemicals, put together by intelligent life. When we die, our soul lives on. YHWH cannot judge us in this life if he was Allah. Allah has never been in our shoes. Yeshua has been. None can say to Yeshua "but you don't know what it was like to be a human". YHWH comming as Christ shows that HE is not a hipocrite, that is, that HE would put us here as part of some sick little game (as in Greek Mythology). He loved us so much HE was willing to put himself in OUR shoes.
3) There are more dimensions than just Height Width, Breath, Time. Mohammed was an illiterate moron who could not fathom this, let alone read and write. When YHWH was on earth he was as Christ. When in the dimension of heaven HE is YHWH. When here on earth as spirit, he is the Holy Spirit. The Koran is so lacking in depth its no wonder that it could not admit to these extra dimenions. Christ proved these extra dimensions when he came back in his perfect resurected body - passing through walls - yet eating food. There was more to Him, than what our current earthly bodies have.
As for Islam - it tends to concentrate on all the sex you get in heaven if you die killing infidels.
Question:- Wouldn't having 72 virgins be more like hell than heaven? I mean seriously, after showing the first 10 how to have good and enjoyable sex, well it would start to be bloody frustrating doing it another 62 times with complete novices!
"Jesus was god.....What a mistake to make creation the creator. How disgusting. You think a noble Prophet like Esa ibn Maryam (as) the messiah was Allah? No he was a noble slave of Allah who called to tawheed. Look it up!"
I did. He said he was God in Mark and Luke and a couple other Chapters. What are you on about, Brownfinger - how is this a mistake? It's plain as day. Do you want me to post the relevant chapters? Why is this disgusting to you? Jesus was God. It's very simple, really.
As I recall, your sect says that if you don't know about something, you're not supposed to talk about it, or else you'll recieve a double punishment. So are you a believer or not, then?
"BTW I am female."
Yes, but not very.
"Dont call me a wahhabi, I dont practice taqleed which is bling following of a particular madhab- school of thought, or scholar or imam, or anyone. I follow the truth to the exclusion of falsehood. Muhammed Ibn abdul Wahhab never called people to follow him but called people to the straight path."
Ergo, as my searches indicate, you're a Wahabbi. Why so adverse to stating it? It's just a particular sect, like any other, right? But with less brains.
I admit I've never heard of this "bling-bling" following of yours. And who are you referring to when you talk about taqleed? The Sunnis or the Shiites? Or both?
Imam Geoff
3rdtimelucky,
Lol, YHWH was invited to a Halloween party here on earth and came as his own son, hee hee! Just kidding.
kj?
I agree with a lot that you said.
I have considered it before. [have even posted a page about this very issue on my own site]
Here we are - with Denocrats and Republicans at each others throats [no matter who is more right or wrong] and there is this stranger in the house. A serious deadly stranger.
I believe it is time for the two parties to stop taking bites out of each other and to start looking at the real teeth! teeth that have designs to bite BOTH the Democrats AND the Republicans.
A house divided is a house that is going to fall...even without a stranger who is within.
WOW - Wonderful post Geoff!
but what can we draw from me pointing out that you would use violence against apostates and other "kuffar", and then you responding "But, God blesses Man with LIFE {{{and that right there is one of the greatest [if not - the greatest] hypocricies of Islam!
Thank you Geoff
Love it!
That is why God commands obedience to both God and his messengers.
Shukri? The New Testament NEVER claimed for men to worship men. NEVER!
Neither does the Old Testament - but you keep forgetting that death reigned from Adam to Moses. The first death - that is.
The Old Testament is a record of the reapers...
Look - and ponder...
Rth 2:3 And she [Ruth] went, and came, and gleaned in the field after the reapers: and her hap was to light on a part of the field belonging unto Boaz, who was of the kindred of Elimelech.
A field is a world SEE} Mat 13:38
Now how much time do you think went by from Moses to Ruth?
2Ki 4:18 And when the child was grown, it fell on a day, that he went out to his father to the reapers. [The reapers are the angels - not men]
Mat 13:39 the reapers are the angels.
You have yet to prove that Moses was a human.
In the Bible - angels are often called men. Mighty men - in some cases.
Rev 13:6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven. {Did you catch that Shukri?
The God of the Bible speaks to the heavens AND the earth - to the visible AND the invisible.
How are you able to prove that Moses was human - if no man [human] ever spoke to God face to face - and yet - Moses did?
Or am I going to deep here for you shukri?