Palestinian prof says Jews have no ties to Western Wall

Here's a sane antidote to this ongoing risible nonsense and mendacity from the Arabs. The valiant Mordechai Kedar speaks truth to neanderthals.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHpMhAzj-Tk

حَنِيفًا مُّسْلِمً
The translation for this is "Upright Muslim."

Does this mean a pious Muslim, or one who isn't raping sex slaves as allowed in the Koran (Koran 4:23-24)?

Why is there no Arabic word for "pedophile" in the Google translation?

Speaking of Arabic, if the Koran wasn't changed at all from the time of Mohammed, what's with the Arabic "Hamza" that wasn't written or spoken when Mohammed lived?

If "educated Professors" can so easily deny documented archeological history, that doesn't give us much hope for the "uneducated" Muslims.

Doesn't Islam also consider the Big J to be a Muslim, when he was in fact Jewish?

Alaskan Infidel says...

islam leaves no lie untold, no sexual perversion unexplored and no excuse for murder unexploited.

islam is a lie and
Truth is killing it.

"Islam largely did not consider the area holy or important until the late 19th century...."

By "area," do you mean Jerusalem or the Western Wall?

"Islam largely did not consider the area holy or important until the late 19th century...."

By "area," do you mean Jerusalem or the Western Wall?

This muslim misfit needs to be slapped around to wake him up to reality! No wonder muslims hate so much because of the lies and distortions of thier vitamin deficient moon worshipers!

More Muslim chicanery - no doubt related to the Arafat-touted 'al-Aqsa' deception.

Muslims have little or no legitimate claim to Jerusalem, let alone the Western Wall.

The Dome of the Rock - supposed 'third-holiest site in Islam' was actually built on expropriated Jewish sacred ground.

Even their name for it, 'al-Quds', is an abbreviation of al-Beit al-Muqaddas ('Temple of the Jews') - which was used even in the period the city was under Arab rule.

Pathetic liers and thieves,foundation of this religion.

They made false claims and called the 'Al-Burak Wall' the 'Wailing Wall...

OK. So the magical horse is reality but history and archaeology are fantasy. This is beyond stupid. Mohamaetanism is a mental disease.

nabi ZK (pbum)

It's much easier to believe Muhammed took off on a flying horse to heaven from the Temple Mount then to believe something documented by historians and archaeologists.

Very well said, Alaskan

Oh, I love it when some moon god worshippers lecture me on Jewish history. The Kotel a tying post for a winged horse, a great joke. Did the self-appointed prophet ride on a winged horse or was it the Easter bunny?

When the Arabs invaded Jerusalem for the first time, they asked the people where the Jewish place of worship was. They were told that it was the temple mount, and they desecrated the place by building the al Aqsa mosque. Jewish archeologists have all the rights to dig under that stupid building.

Unless the jews get tough, ASAP, they will have no western wall, or no Jerusalem, or no Israel......

This is exactly what our President wants: confidence building measures on both sides.

Abraham...Put the A on the back end and drop the 'a' between h/m and you get Brahma...Abram...Brama...What does it all mean? I have no idea, but someone a long time ago was playing with words...

Islamic ownership of everything...Allah created the world for Mahoundians and not kufr...All kufr, including Jews, especially Jews, are trespassing...
It all belongs to Allah, and kufr is evicted...

Islamic scholarship is the Fantasyland of academia.

"The Jewish Zionists had no choice but to invent an excuse [about Jerusalem] to spread among the Zionists or the Jews in Europe, to connect to something concrete from the past about Jerusalem."

Pure projection--once again, the ever-lying Muslims are projecting their own criminal motives and methods when fraudulently describing the motives of others.

Contrast: "Islam largely did not consider the area holy or important until the late 19th century...."

Jew_Lover:"Why is there no Arabic word for "pedophile" in the Google translation?"

Maybe because the words "pedophile" and "pedophilia" did not exist in the English language before 1886 and was rarely used in English before the 1950s.

The concept itself - sexual relation with children - had achieved a negative connotation since late Antiquity and especially since "childhood" was constructed as a special social class in need of protection and the child as a non-sexual creature after the year 1700. From the 1920s the concept of "sexual CHILD ABUSE" was used in British and American surveys.

In Islam the concepts of "pedophilia" and "sexual child abuse" does not exist. As is the case with the other two monotheistic religions Islam did not specify a minimum legal age for girls. But from the Qu´ran and the Sunnah of Muhammad a minimum age of 9 years for girls (in legal marriage) can be deducted.

The word pedophilia originates from the Greek words paidos, meaning child, and philia, meaning love. A pedophile is characterized by sexual attraction to and maybe love for children. The first scientist to use the concept was the German sexologist and physician Richard Krafft-Ebing. In his monograph Psychopatia Sexualis, published in 1886, he defined pedophilia as a psychosexual perversion, open to cure. This was in sharp contrast to the prevailing religious and moral judgment on sexual relations between adults and children. To Krafft-Ebing, pedophilia could be caused by senility or other mental deficiencies. Around 1906, his British counterpart Havelock Ellis presented pedophilia as an extreme version of normal masculine sexuality. Currently, pedophilia is understood as a divergence of personality, caused by psychological damage in early childhood. This concept was rarely used in English before the 1950s.

It is generally believed that pedophiles vary as much as any other group of human beings. The majority consists of men, who seek contact with children, mainly boys, in early puberty. Some wish to stimulate the child, some seek mutual stimulation, and others want to have intercourse with the child. A minority, who get most of the press coverage, are fascinated by sadistic elements in their relation to children, as was the case among a group of pedophiles in Holland and Belgium who were discovered during the 1990s in a widely publicized case.

A cultural paradigme is a set of assumptions, concepts, values, moral and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them.

The difference between the Islamic cultural paradigme and the Western is so pronounced that a translation of concepts or words is often impossible.

To call Muhammad a "pedophile" or "Child molester" is not only meaningless for a Muslim, but seen as an insult to what they believe in.

The Temple Mount is illegally occupied by the Arabs and has been since the 7th century when they invaded, sacked, plundred and occupied Jerusalem. Jerusalem is not mentioned once in the Koran and was only designated a holy place to Muslims 300 years after Mohammed's death for political reasons. The Arabs have absolutely no claim to the Mount or Jerusalem.Their position is entirely fraudulent and indeed psychotic.
I was on the Temple Mount last week and refused entry to both the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa being told in a most aggressive manner that entry was for Muslims only. Hordes of Jewish and Christian visitors and pilgrims are now denied access to what is originally the sacred rock where Abraham took Isaac for sacrifice and purportedly where Christ rose to heaven(it's the primacy that counts here not the veracity. I argued with the guardian (stating that he is allowed into churches and synagogues) and ...God forbid...a Franciscan friar who was present and who sided with the Muslims, claiming they were experiencing tension with the Israeli authorities after Sharon's visit to the Mount in 2000. As if that had anything to do with the many visitors who want to admire the architecture of the Dome.
I also spoke to 3 israeli policeman on the Mount asking them what they were doing on a Muslim controlled site. They informed me they were there to stop Muslims throwing rocks at the Jews below praying at the Western Wall.
Israel should reclaim the Mount,flatten the Dome and Al Aqsa, deal with the ensuing riots ruthlessly and then build the Third Temple.

From above: To call Muhammad a "pedophile" or "Child molester" is not only meaningless for a Muslim, but seen as an insult to what they believe in.

They probably had no concept of child abuse, but that did not stop them from engaging in it just the same...Islam is still engaging in it...A lot more than we know about most likely...So it would appear that in Islam, there is still no concept of child abuse...In fact some high muckymucks have written that sexual contact with an infant, or even animals is halal...Mahounds behavior plays a huge roll in all this, especially for those Mahoundians who attempt to emulate Mahound in every way...Child exploitation/abuse is just one stepping stone along the way...

Muslims lie and deceive in everything to get what they want, trying to alter history to suit themselves.
Their so-called religion is like the devil`s charter, I will never understand how they can believe that what is in the quran could come from God and that this muhammed could possibly be sent from God because of the way he behaved and the abominable things he did.
No wonder his followers do the things they do if they are taking it literally because they are just obeying muhammed`s instructions but surely you would think rationally that Almighty God wouldn`t want you to behave in this manner.
I just don`t get it!

Beyond stupid. Amen, Nabific One.

duh_swami: "They probably had no concept of child abuse, but that did not stop them from engaging in it just the same...Islam is still engaging in it...A lot more than we know about most likely."

As I wrote neither did the Jews or Christians and for that matter the Greeks of Antiquity.

Because the Judeo-Christian cultural paradigme changed and evolved moraly quite significantly over time and the Islamic paradigme remained unchangeable and eternal the moral concepts gradually came wider apart.

Both cultures claims moral superiority over the other so how do we solve this conflict?

In my view it cannot be solved on the basis of religious belief - that is subjective truths.
In a secular culture build on reason and rationality the task is to formulate a truly universal ethics logicaly deduced from our existential situation. Based on what can consistantly be proven to be true and not just believed to be true.

Such an attempt was made in 1948 with the declaration of universal human rights. It is a step in the right direction but from a philosophical point of view the declaration contains a number of inconsistencies.
We should however not be surprised of these defects because the declaration was a political compromise primarily between the US and the USSR. And true to their cultural paradigme Saudi Arabia refused to sign the declaration.

Abraham was not a Jew but his grandson Jacob was. King Saul, the 1st king of Israel was. Solomon built the temple that the Roman destroyed in 66 ce and again in 135 ce. Arabs were in Jordan. Arabs did nothing to make Israel livable
as they always did after someone else buil;t it up along came Islam, saying its mine.lool

Send them back to Jordon, a land where they were evicted.

someone give Alawneh a DNA test ...

Tilly,

Abraham was a Muslim just as all Prophets were, just as all people were who followed the Prophets of their respective times as well as abided by the revelations from those Prophets…even Moses, even Jesus were Muslims…they submitted their wills to that of God.

“Send them back to Jordon, a land where they were evicted.”

Why not send the Israelis back to the first land they emigrated to, Egypt?

They evacuated the holy land and followed Joseph into Egypt where they remained for 400 years. Who was living in the holy land before their arrival, during their stay, and after they left? Phillistines, among others…it isn’t as if they had sole dominion…they existed as a tiny kingdom between larger nations left largely alone…that is until the Romans came along…then heads got cracked and cities got sacked…on went the chains and collars and down came the temples.

She would be fine and left alone, I believe, if Israel would end the occupation and get behind her wall. After all, no one could have any complaint if she responded in force then if the attacks continued. They should get out of the occupied territories and withdraw their forces behind their wall.

Peace
Abdullah

"Islam largely did not consider the area holy or important until the late 19th century...."

Who authored this?

It is mentioned in the Quran, in the hadiths, it was the direction of the first Qibla...

I guess this shouldn't suprise me, knowing the average level of scholarship in Islam here hardly rises above the headlines of little screamers RS pumps out regularly....

Peace
Abdullah

Abdullah,

You wrote: "They should get out of the occupied territories and withdraw their forces behind their wall."

I actually agree with you on this one, but then you continued:

"She would be fine and left alone, I believe, if Israel would end the occupation and get behind her wall."

I totally disagree. The attacks will never stop and complaints against Israel's retaliations will never end until Israel no longer exists. Just look at the interview with Fatah posted here:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/027287.php#respond

"We do not recognize that artificial entity, the state of Israel, which sooner or later will be removed from the land of Palestine, Allah willing."

They want it obliterated, and they're the so-called "moderate" force in Palestine.

P.S. The above post was by Mo Foe #1

Moe,

If you re-read it, it makes perfect sense, what I stated.

"After all, no one could have any complaint if she responded in force then if the attacks continued."

I have no problem with the existence of Israel, she has as much right to exist as any other nation. The problem is the way they are treating their neighbors.

Israel invests in her own mysery...invasionl, occupation, setting up ghettos, kidnapping citizens en-masse, assassinations...I think she has not been responded to properly for all that.

But, personally, I'd have no complaint if she withdrew from the occupied territories behind her walls and waited it out...if she got attacked then who could blame her for responding?

And if she initiated attacks on any another country unprovoked or assassinated any individual then I have no problem seeing her turned into a smoking ruin.

Live and let live...so far, no one has tried it like that.

Peace
Abdullah

Moe,

"They want it obliterated, and they're the so-
called "moderate" force in Palestine."

In response to that, there is talk and there is action.

What nation exists with the mantra that they own it all by right of God and actively pursues genocide to accomplish the "obliteration?"

The same nation is an undeclared nuclear power.

The same nation is at the forefront of research and use of biological weapons of mass destruction.

The same nation is hypocritical for decrying any other nation that states out loud what they actually have put into practice.

So don't get morally relativistic with me... the Israelis and the Palestinians are the same from that point of view... they both believe the other is standing on what belongs to them and neither will budge an inch without blood.

Are we agreed?

Peace
Abdullah

All of the land in "dispute" in that part of Middle East has been Jewish for the last 3000 years. Kedar is right on the dot there. Just because Jews were driven out of there by successive invaders does not diminish their legitimate claims to their ancestral land, including Jerusalem. Muslims are the outsiders there and should get out. Long live Israel and Jews!
Jewish-Hindu solidarity for ever!!

The ancient Hebrews apparently originally came from lower Mesopotamia in the Sumeria region. It is possible that even before this they originated from somewhere in the Arabian peninsula but this is highly speculative. The next migration was to roughly what is now Israel and surrondings and after that a portion (not all) of the Jews, for whatever reason or reasons, migrated to Egypt (Goshen).

The archeological record shows that another portion of the Jews remained behind and did not go to Egypt sometime in the middle of the second millennium B.C. When Jews returned from Egypt, again for whatever reason or reasons, while the nineteeth dynasty was ruling over the Nile river valley, these Jews encountered a very fluid situation. Other Semitic peoples occupied the Promised Land and shorlty thereafter (c.1200 B.C.) Philistines arrived in the Gaza area, probably coming from Asia Minor, but this too is not known for a certainty. By 1000 B.C. or so the ancient Hebrews had established a unified kingdom and ruled an area more extensive than Israel and the West Bank today. The timing was fortuitous for such a polity because neither Egypt nor any power in Mesopotamia was predominant then (the Egyptians had slipped into the Post-Imperial period beginning with the twennty-first dynasty and Assyrian power was in a lull at the time). Thereafter (c. 900 B.C), the Jews split into two kingdoms, probably due to dynastic and tribal rivalries. Disunified as they were and with the rise of the Assyrian Empire and then Chaldean power, the northern kingdom of the Jews disappeared from history, as did its people (c. 720 B.C.), while the southern kingdom was done in by the Chaldeans around 586 B.C. Thereafter followed the brief but tragic Babylonian Captivity of the Jews, the return to Palestine under the auspices of Persians who were far more tolerant than those running Iran today and the beginning of the construction of the Second Temple, the First having been destroyed by the Chaldeans in the early sixth century B.C.

After about two hundred years of Persian rule, the Jews were briefly goverened by Alexander the Great, then the Ptolemies till about 200 B.C. and then the Seleucids until the Maccabaean Revolt in 167 B.C. This revolt was successful and the Jews had their last independent state until 1948 A.D. when the Romans took over Palestine under Pompey's generalship in 63 B.C. Thereafter followed a turbulent Roman rule, replete with two Jewish revolts, one in the first century A.D., when the the Second Temple was destroyed by Titus, the wailing wall being a remnant of this, and the other was in the second century A.D. led by Bar Kochba, and this too was put down by the Romans during the time of the Emperor Hadrian. Following this the real Diaspora began and only in the late nineteenth century did large number of Jews begin to filter back into the Holy Land, ruled unproductively for centuries by the Ottoman Turks and their Arab subjects. The Jews bought land from absentee Turkish and Arab landlords, often at exorbitant prices. They didn't steal it as many would have it. Following Ottoman defeat in WWI the British Mandate was set up to run a goodly section of the former Ottoman Empire. In 1922 about 78% of the Mandate was sectioned off and Transjordan was born. Jews were forbidden to remain or settle in it. That left about 22% of the original British Mandate, approximately half of which became the state of Israel in 1948.

The Arab position even before Israel was created was outright hostility to any Jewish state and violence against the Jews began in the 1920s at the instigation of a truly malevolent man, the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, a great admirer of Hitler it might be added. For self-defense purposes the Jews organized the Haganah (there were proto-groups even before this). Unfortunately, some Jews did turn to terror, particularly the Stern Gang, but it is important to note that the Jews themselves eventually eradicated these elements, quite a contrast from the inability of Arabs to rid themselves of their own extremists. Numerous Arab-Israeli conflicts followed, most notably the Six-Day War in June of 1967. It is important, in fact inmperative, to understand that Jews only wished to live in peace from 1948 onwards when awarded three sections of Palestine by the UN the previous year (three other setions going to the Arabs). But the Arab Muslim world wanted no Jewish state and herein lies the real reason for the ongoing tragedy to this day. It is also important to grasp that terror against Jews long preceded the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967. The idea that if only the Jews would leave the occupied areas (occupied I might add out of the necessity of war) there would be peace is complete bullshit. So is the idea that Abraham, Jesus, et al. were really Muslims all along. This is Muslim fantasy, not reality. In any case, if even only one square mile of Israel remained it would still be too much for the bulk of the Arab Muslim world. No Isreal is what the Arabs really want. I wrote all this because I am tired of lies and half truth being told about the Jews and the present conflict in the Middle East. Terror preceded occupation, not the other way around and anyone who says otherwise is either ignorant or mendacious. And Muslim distortion of the past represents just one more egregious wrong by the Islamic world at large, a world which is dysfunctional in the extreme and a burden to all mankind.

That's a very interesting observation, duh_swami, I haven't found any indication of Hindu influence in the Hebrew Bible nor the talmud, but you never know, I'm not a scholar, just an ordinary liberal Jewess. But I think that the Christian idea of trinity was inspired by Hinduism's trinity, Brahma, Wishnu and Shiva. The Christians changed that idea dramatically to accomodate monotheism. Where did Jesus go to in the years the Christian Bible doesn't tell anything about? My guess is he went to India. Anyway, Hinduism is the oldest religion that is still observed today, so there must be some influence.

Micky, you're talking rubbish, as usual, but it's amusing to have you back. Abraham was the first Jew, he's got nothing to do with Islam. Your self-appointed child molesting mass murdering prophet wasn't born at that time. No Islam in sight. Moses is the one who brought us G*d's law, we call our faith Mosaic. Jesus was an observant Jew as well, none of them had anything to do with Islam, your ideas are simply preposterous. Your self-appointed prophet wanted jump on the bandwagon of monotheism, Judaism and Christendom, that's why he wanted to usurp the first Jew, Abraham, the Jewish prophets, teachers and Jesus.

As for Jerusalem, you're right, Mo ruled first the direction of prayer should be towards Jerusalem. He wanted all the Jews in Arabia and there were quite a few, to convert to his silly faith, see above bandwagoning. But G*d's chosen people refused and Mo changed his strategy and made the Kaaba in Mecca the direction of prayer. That meteorite is the home of your moon god, anyway.

Usually they kill you before writing you out of the history books.

Hi IndianTiger, great long live our solidarity, unity is strength!

I agree, epistemology. I truly believe that a US/Israel/India alliance can obliterate islamic insolence. It might interest you to know that some Jewish tribes have lived in my country for the last 2700 years completely unmolested by Hindus. It is only with filthy islam that we have had conflicts with.

Live and let live...so far, no one has tried it like that.....

dullard you are talkin' like a total infidel here. Just sayin'.

nabi ZK (pbum)

Zk,

Not realy...if you only understood Islam instead of learning about it on pages like these...but hey, there's hope yet.

I have been told that what I say about Mohammad and Islam is more like what folks here heard about what Jesus said and did... it's true...

There is the hand of peace and love within Islam, but there is also a right for that hand to become a fist and the right of self defence, one is supossed to be at balance in this life and not be extreme...

Peace
Abdullah

Peddle your islamic taqiya elsewhere, Abdullah. You claim "There is the hand of peace and love within Islam, but there is also a right for that hand to become a fist and the right of self defence". Was it self-defense or islamic lust for blood that caused the biggest holocaust in human history when millions of Hindus were murdered in Hindu Kush (Afghanistan)? Samuel Huntington was absolutely right in stating "Islam has always had bloody borders".

Not realy...if you only understood Islam instead of learning about it on pages like these...but hey, there's hope yet....

Actually the nabific one learned about mohamaetanism from conversations online with sympathizers with the Chechen rebels. The nabi learned by talking to people at kavkazcenter. Perhaps you may also recall that azzam communications started the conversation after 9/11 by asking if the prophet (of islam, as if) executed war prisoners. This nabi agrees with them. He did. He was a war criminal. On the other hand you make great efforts to exonerate your prophet and that is to be expected. Difference of opinion there. It is still clear to the nabific one that what most people call islam is a mental disease.

nabi ZK (pbum)

IndianTiger,

Hindu's are no shining white example of tolerence ...your own people were heating tea (illegally) on that train that caught fire. hte media spun it into a "terrorist" attack ( instead of some ignorant Hindus cooking tea on an open flame ) and those reports lead to the riots in gujarat.

The Hindu government is complicit in opression and murder of Muslims... etc. blah blah blah.

And you are unable to even tell me accurately how many people were killed in WWII and this in the modern age... yet you and other yahoos on this site often spew about "the bajillion people killed by (insert phobia)"

You should not be throwing stones at someone just because of your own bias and prejudice.

Peace
Abdullah

ZK,

Comne on? Cut me some slack...

"sympathizers with the Chechen rebels. "

Now that wouldn't be a polarzed discussion would it? : ) I am sure you would get all the references for why they are allowed to do what they are doing, fighting, right?

Big picture, don't focus on the ragged edges...

I am interested in where you come up with the execution of prisoners? I know of some criminals who were executed after capture, I know of some who conspired murder who were executed after capture, and I know of some who committed high treason in time of war and were executed after capture ( look up UCMJ apparently we agree with it...) but I know of no single act of "crime of war"

Please induldge me with the discussion off line?

challengingreddyneck@yahoo.com

Peace
Abdullah

ZK,

Just looked at kavkazcenter... oh, yeah, I understand what kind of exposure you must have gotten there.

Nah, man, they wouldn't be biased towards the extreme end of the "we have the right to fight everyone" theme, would they.

Give me a break, ay?

You couldn't learn about anything universal and balanced from an enviroment like that.... well, maybe how to re-load in the proper manner...

Peace
Abdullah

Actually they were moderates. They argued for Chechen independence and not for world caliphatization or whatever. But they had a mental disease when it came to Russians. They could not see the humanity of their opponents. It was quite sick really. They never disavowed terrorism directed at "Ruthless Moscovites". Our conversation ended after Beslan when there was no longer any ground for them to stand on. They folded their forum section and no longer were interested in chit chat.

nabi ZK (pbum)

If all one knew about Islam was that its founder when in his fifties had sexual intercourse with a nine-year old girl, nothing more need be learned about the religion respecting whether such a person was the last and greatest of the prophets, blah, blah, blah. After all, if someone told you that James Monroe was the first President of the United States and not George Washington, why bother to listen to anything else such a person would have to say about American history? Sometimes knowing just one thing is all one needs to know about a certain matter or person.

Of course, there is so much other rot in Islam that it boggles the mind at times that anyone would want to be a Muslim. But Mohammed's shameful, lecherous, perverted activity with Aisha is enough to discredit Islam in and of itself. Others may choose to admire such a wretched man but I will never be one of them. Case closed.

They said that my nabific understanding of islam was excellent and that on occasion the nabi had defended islam better than they could. Indeed the nabi does understand islam, in an agnostic kind of way, but what is incomprehensible is that any religion or god should need a defense.

Most of what they believed in or fought (struggled) for was acceptable to this nabi. Certainly their adversaries wer quite mean to them and it was natural for them to take umbrage. But the war crimes made it impossible to actually endorse. Once someone said that "War crimes in jihad is like adultery in marriage. It's not supposed to happen. But it does." Well that didn't quite cut the mustard did it? And so again. after Beslan this conversation ceased.

nabi ZK (pbum)

ZK,

"Well that didn't quite cut the mustard did it?"

After reading your post and seeing their site I'd not be waving the credential they bestowed upon you around so much...

"but what is incomprehensible is that any religion or god should need a defense."

And you are absolutely right on the nail head there...God does not need any defense, neither does Islam.

What needs to be done, however, is correct people's misunderstanding of what they "think" Islam is... that is the only real problem.

I have no problem with people rejecting Islam, not believing in the Prophet, nor believing in God and rejecting it all...

The problem I have is when they hold up a reason that is nothing to do with Islam, and based on that, go off on a tear.

Mr "adultery isn't supposed to happen" is an idiot. God will put into hell those who act as such...and even comments on them:

Surah Al Baqara:

174 "Verily, those who conceal what Allah has sent down of the Book, and purchase a small gain therewith (of worldly things), they eat into their bellies nothing but fire. Allah will not speak to them on the Day of Resurrection, nor purify them, and theirs will be a painful torment.

175 Those are they who have purchased error at the price of Guidance, and torment at the price of Forgiveness. So how bold they are (for evil deeds which will push them) to the Fire.

176 That is because Allah has sent down the Book (the Qur'an) in truth. And verily, those who disputed as regards the Book are far away in opposition."

Mr. "adultery isn't supposed to happen" is an idiot... I would treat his endorsement like the plague and run from it if I were you.

Peace
Abdullah

How ridiculous.

AbdullahMikail signs his posts "Peace"...when what he really wants is for every single one of us on this planet to become the slaves of islam.
He wants us to "know the peace of Landru." Mindless zombies...slaves to ayatoilets who care nothing for this life or those in it. It's all about the afterlife...the 12th imam and all the rest of the fairy tales of islam.

He wants us to give up our free will for sharia law, which allows no freedom of choice...no music, no art.
You may say that slavery is not your aim, but you support the slavery of islam and all the evil that goes with it.
You are my enemy AM. You would see me slave instead of a free man. I know this because you defend the religion of slavery, blood and death on a regular basis here...for all to see.

Peace my ass. I know you for what you are. An enemy of freedom...of the United States and the freedom it represents. All your words are meaningless and without value in that light.

Traitor.

islam is a lie and
Truth is killing it.

AM, Islam is best learned from two sources. (1) The Muslims' own scriptures, e.g. Ahmed Ali's translation of the Koran with English and Arabic in parallel columns. (2) The Muslims' behavior, including the sophistries they peddle in defense of their cult and the rationalizations they offer in defense of their crimes.

For example, there was the Muslims' plan to attack and to rob a caravan in March 624. Do you remember that story, AM? Meccans got word of the plan, evaluated it in light of the reputation for brigandage already earned by Muslims, organized what we may call a posse, and then the great battle of Badr ensued. Muslims are still proud of the Muslims' victory then, as you'd expect perverse people to be. Maybe the pseudoscholar Shamekh Alawneh is one such perverse person.

Now, the Islamic idea of a "hand of peace and love within Islam" that you mentioned earlier is, among other things, for Muslims to play the victim and to spit venom at enemies which they make on account of their own bad character. Thus Muslims have a self-serving term like Dar al-Harb to smear nonmuslims against whom the Koran's "hand of peace and love" enjoins enmity (4:101) and fighting (9:122). There is your own habitual closing, "peace", which reads like hollow marketing and p.r. claptrap, which, of course, it is. And on and on it goes.

You know, your cult would be relatively uninteresting (apart from the lessons we can learn from it about antisocial mentalities and from the startling contrast of Allah speaking in both 1st pers. singular and pl.) if not for the fact that it's plausible to suppose that the founder really did hear the voice of a spirit, not unlike a deranged priest in my family who heard voices and thought that Jesus was talking to him. He even filled a notebook with what Jesus supposedly told him. Anyhow, when investigating Islam, an important question is, what evilminded spirit was Halabi listening to if not to the messenger of a wannabe cosmic overlord whose only law is its own will? Some might reply, "The Devil!", but I don't think the matter can be resolved so simply.

AbdullahMikey, you wrote that "neither does Islam [need any defense]."

Ok, so from now on you are going to shaddup while Islam is sliced, diced, skewered, and roasted...like a tasty hot pepper, for Islam needs no defense.

When you retort once again, and I'll wager that you do, thus implicitly contradicting your own claim about Islam, we will have a reminder that Muslims are some of the best people from whom to learn about Islam.

The salvation of a bit of the Muslims' low reputation would come from learning that you are not actually a Muslim.

dullard. You can hardly deny that these people are or were muslims. No, Mr. "adultery" did not endorse any specific nabific positions about islam. Only that I, nabifically imbued, could explain their point of view in English. The advice was always to go to the Qur'an when in doubt. That is islam is it not? Yes, a just god might well consign this Mr. "adultery" person to hell. The nabi has no special information on that one however.

But do not assert that the nabi got his view of the mohametan cult system from this site. I remember concluding that mohamaet was but a johnny come lately wanna be set in permanent hostility towards the ones who cane before and who were in fact his betters. This while studying world religions in 7th grade. I was already an equal opportunity doubter at that time.

nabi ZK (pbum)

epistemology - re Jesus and India. I doubt it. I doubt it very much. He spent his early childhood hidden, with his parents, within the large Jewish community in Alexandria in Egypt. (As our priest once pointed out, in a sermon about the Flight into Egypt, they *must* have gone to Alexandria...the obvious and simplest way to 'disappear' from any potential pursuit by Herod).

And at age twelve he is recorded as being in the temple in Jerusalem at Passover season...which pilgrimage his family seem to have made regularly. There are passages in John's Gospel that seem to imply that he continued that practice; that it was normal for him (and the rest of the family) to celebrate Passover (and the related festivals) in Jerusalem.

At age 30 he's in the synagogue at Nazareth "as was his custom".

The folks at Nazareth know all about him, and are not that impressed - he's the carpenter (so he would have had to be trained in that trade, and plied it), the son of Joseph, and (pace the Catholics, I am afraid) the brother of James and Joses and Simon and of 'sisters' (number unspecified, at least two).

My assumption is the simplest and most natural: that he spent age 12 to age 30 working diligently, as the dutiful eldest son of a large and devout lower-middle-class Jewish family in Galilee (especially if his dad died fairly early on), supporting his mother and younger siblings, making sure his brothers learned a useful trade and their letters and had their bar mitzvahs (or whatever the equivalent was in first-century Judea) and doubtless also assisting his mother to organise, at suitable times, good marriages for his younger sisters. (I don't know what role an older son would play in that, if his mother were widowed). Indeed, I kind of wonder whether he took off at age 30 because it wasn't till then that the last little sister was safely provided for...:)

And during those 18 years, like any devout young Jewish man, he was praying and studying the scriptures and dutifully attending the synagogue worship every Sabbath. And going up to Jerusalem each year, every one of those 18 years, for the Passover.

If he had spent those 18 years 'being there' for his widowed mother and siblings, then one can understand their obvious consternation when - all of a sudden - he's not there anymore. When he's asking them, in effect, to let him go; to surrender him to others.

PS - Something that has always struck me about the gospel accounts of his three years itinerant ministry in Judea and Samaria and Galilee, is this: that it *was* itinerant. Precisely at a time when the Land was occupied and ruled by the pagan Roman Empire, this man chooses to walk up and down and around, from village to village to village (and sends his followers to do the same). He doesn't even omit the Samaritans, those mestizo descendants of remnant Israelites and imported Gentiles.

It's so simple and obvious we don't 'see' it.

But what if one must read this as a deliberate reiteration of the Patriarchs' journeying through the land of Canaan? Compare Genesis 13: 17 - YHWH says to Abraham, 'Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it unto thee".

I, who see in Yeshua of Nazareth both Son of David and living Word of the living G-d, when I see him doing this, see a deliberate act of defiance of imperial Rome; a restatement of nothing less than the divine Ownership of the Land of Israel.

Dumbledoresarmy: You wrote:

"...I, who see in Yeshua of Nazareth both Son of David and living Word of the living G-d, when I see him doing this, see a deliberate act of defiance of imperial Rome; a restatement of nothing less than the divine Ownership of the Land of Israel."

Well put! Now, why didn't I think of that?

Re Abraham and Jerusalem:

What does Abraham's not being a Jew (and, Paul the Apostle compares Gentile believers to Abraham in the letter to the Romans)have to do with one branch of his family laying claim to Jerusalem? It is clear that David conquered the city, and Solomon built a temple there on Mt. Moriah. I've seen musty old photos taken in late Ottoman times of Jews praying at the Western Wall. Makes sense if it's all that's left of Solomon's Temple. More later.

AM=>

It seems you like every muslim I met have fallen prey to the age old misunderstanding that muslims can do no wrong. About the train burning incident you mention I must ask if you have ever seen an Indian railroad wagon? The things got four exits, 2 emergency exits and 2 vestibule tubes- 8 exits. The wagon has a capacity of 72. Now you would assume that in event of a fire starting from "heating tea" most if not all would have time to vacate the coach and escape with minor injuries. But no,57 people died from "heating tea" that day. This probably makes sense only to a muslim. Open your eyes. But for you a muslim can do no wrong..

As for your audacity to bring up this not so comprehensive example of "hindu violence" in response to a post about islamic conquest of India, it only reveals your insecurity about the massive injustice (words fail me here) that your faith has committed not just to Hindus but all non-muslims. Only a muslim would obfuscate the catastrophic islamic invasion of India a millenium ago with something that happened 7 years ago (and in no way proves anything beyond muslim penchant for having bloody borders). I guess you know what the name Hindukush means. Its name is Islamic in origin by the way.

"It is mentioned in the Quran, in the hadiths, it was the direction of the first Qibla..."

Abdullah, you're absolutely correct. This inaccuracy is no big deal to Robert Spencer, though. He knows the bulk of his readers don't value critical thinking or serious research.

Ladies and gentlemen, besides the Mohammedtroll or shall I call it, dementor, Abdullah Mikail, we appear also to have acquired another, 'scoreboard'.

Busily projecting, of course, as it declares aggressively that the majority of us who regularly post here "don't value critical thinking or serious research."

Scoreboard - have you read Plato? Have you read Aristotle's Ethics and Politics? Have you read *all* of the Divine Comedy? Have you read, even once, even a long time ago, Maimonides' Guide for the Perplexed?

Because: *I* have.

Full disclosure, ladies and gentlemen. How many of us here have completed not only high school but a good quality tertiary degree? Quite a few, I suspect. How many of us always made a habit of reading around' our topics, even when we were in high school, and even more so when turned loose on a university campus with access to a *really* big library? And even of those of us who don't have formal qualifications - the mavericks, people like Chickcartoonist and Davegreybeard and Wreckerboy - how many have a tottering pile of all kinds of Old Books heaped on the bedside table, right now?

But in any case - as we see from the posted article, as well as from 'scoreboard' and 'abdullah mikail' - the objective truth or falsehood of a given statement, whether it be about the history of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, or about the educational qualifications and character and intelligence of those who regularly post here - are *completely irrelevant* to the average Muslim.

All that matters is that a perceived opponent, the person or group targeted for subjugation and/or annihilation, should be put on the defensive. And that is very neatly achieved by the brazen and aggressive use of Really Big Lies, for they are the verbal equivalent of beheadings and mutilations. Rhetorical terror raids.

I suspect Tamimi and the others know perfectly well, on some level, that the Jewish claim to the temple mount is historical fact. And I suspect 'scoreboard' may know that its claim about the intellectual calibre of the jihadwatch regulars, is also objectively false.

But all that matters is that Islam should increase in power; Islam *must* dominate; and they will say *whatever* they think will assist in that process, no matter how simply false and mad their words may sound to those of us who come from a truth/ falsehood culture rather than from the Islamic honor-shame + zero-sum culture in which 'honor' involves gaining, having and exercising (with absolutely no moral limits whatever) dominance over others.

Great post dumbledoresarmy, I think you have spoken on the behalf of all our co-posters. These trolls amuse me, but they can be a pain in the ass sometimes. Your riposte is really elegant, eloquent and appropriate. Cheers and lechaim!

NAKAL,
context and meaning… it isn’t everything, but it ranks up there with oxygen. When the ignorant are defeated in argument they resort most often to violence, such as NAKAL just did…

“I would call this MORON Abdullah a f**king idiot”

NAKAL, the only idiot in this exchange is you.

“ONCE AGAIN-JERUSALEM IS NOT MENTIONED IN THE QURAN (PLEASE PROVIDE THE STANZA NUMBER FOR THE RELEVANT SURA IF YOU RIDICULOUSLY CLAIM IT IS..)”

There is only an entire chapter named after the journey to Baitul Maqdis…but here's an outtake just for you to prove you are absolutely wrong: Surah Al-Isra, 17:1

“..to the farthest Mosque [Baitul Maqdis, Jerusalem], whose precincts We did bless,- in order that We might show him some of Our Signs:

There Masjid Al Aqsa (Baitul Maqdis, Jerusalem) is noted as a holy place blessed by God for believers.

(… and furthermore it is mentioned in 17:7 as well as Al Baqrah 2:58, and Al Araf 7:161, ….are you getting the message yet NAKAL?)

There is no denying that Jerusalem is mentioned in the Quran…only the ignorant argue otherwise...not even Robert Spencer will argue that it is not.

“SECONDLY, THE REASON…”

You shouldn’t write falsehoods while attempting to prove your case…just makes you look stupid:

Surah Al Baqrah 142 “The fools among the people will say: "What hath turned them from the Qibla to which they were used?" Say: To Allah belong both east and West: He guideth whom He will to a Way that is straight.”

143 “…, only to test those who followed the Messenger from those who would turn on their heels (From the Faith). Indeed it was (A change) momentous, except to those guided by Allah. And never would Allah Make your faith of no effect….”

“There is ABSOLUTELY NO QURANIC INJUNCTION
ANYWHERE IN ALL OF THE QURAN THAT MENTIONS JERUSALEM…“OR PROVIDES ANY ISLAMIC LEGAL
BASIS FOR CLAIMING ANY PORTION OF JERUSALEM
OR PROVIDING A JUSTIFICATION FOR WHY QIBLAT
REVERTED TO FACING MECCA FROM FACING JERUSALEM
AND ANY MUSLIM WHO SAYS OTHERWISE IS A BLOODY
MORON AND LIAR.”

Nakal, your position was thoroughly disproven above...your false premise destroyed.

I don’t even need to go into the hadiths and the sunnah surrounding Jeruslem.

NAKAL, you are wrong….and you have just validated my former statement:

“…, knowing the average level of scholarship in Islam here hardly rises above the headlines of little screamers RS pumps out regularly....

All the same, have a good weekend...

Peace
Abdullah

Dumbledoresarmy,

“Really Big Lies” prove anything I have stated is a really big lie, and I will go away from here, period.

You can not do it, because I don’t tell lies…I prove what I write, and if I am in error in my opinion about current politics and conflict I admit it…no lie there.

So, your eloquent self embellishment not withstanding, I will defend anything I write here about Islam against you toe to toe and you will be defeated.

Yes, I am sure you have studied somewhat of the Quran and the Hadiths, but, from your writing on the subject, I feel it safe to say you have not studied it anywhere near to the depth that I have. But then again, I have read Plato, and Aristotle, and many other scholars, historians, poets…etc. all from the dusty shelves of the library of Western culture and I was unimpressed…and I have most likely not studied them in the depth that you have. Fair enough for you to make that claim of superiority in the knowledge of those over me…I don’t hold it against you, and I don’t fault myself for not being more well read in them…I have more important things to study.

And I for one have NEVER argued that there was not a temple in Jerusalem.

There absolutely was, and it was dedicated to the worship of One God by the Jews…history proves what existed and what followed….and, much like when the Kabba was cleaned out from the idols and re-dedicated to it’s initial purpose, the worship of One God in Masjid Al Aqsa (Baitul Maqdis)was renewed. That is where it is today.

“, no matter how simply false and mad their words may sound to those of us who come from a truth/ falsehood culture”

I lay the challenge to you, any time you think I have uttered a falsehood concerning Islam, fiqh, hadiths, etc. and think you can prove it, I welcome you to the matt…it will be my pleasure to prove what I say to you.

Truth will destroy falsehood every time.

Peace
Abdullah Mikail

Abdullah:

You are much more of a moron than I thought. I raised questions about your constant "islam is peaceful" rubbish. Instead, like a typical muslim, you obfuscate the issue by asking how many were killed in WW II. What has muslim genocide in Hindu Kush got to do with WW II?

Again, like a typical muslim, you bring up "Hindus did it to themselves" nonsense about the train burning in Gujarat, just like you did it after Mumbai assault by islamic barbarians. Heating tea in a coach is the typical excuse used by islamists for their misdeeds. As another post (by infidel) points out, each coach on the Indian railways has a seating of 72 and 8 exits in total. If "heating tea" was the cause of fire, majority of the passengers would have escaped with minor injuries. Instead, they were roasted alive because muslim goons not only poured gasoline into the coach and lit it, they formed a crowd outside and attacked those passengers who tried to escape. The Nanavati Commission of Enquiry took almost six years to furnish its report after interviewing more than 600 witnesses. Its conclusion: the fire was set by Godhara muslims as part of a conspiracy. The subsequent payback by Gujarat muslims was perfectly justified and I hope Hindus elsewhere in India do the same to show muslims that their violence has severe consequences. You know in your heart that islam is bloody and that's why you obfuscate the real issues. BTW, I don't need your peace because I am at war with islam.

In the previous post, I had a typo. It should read "The subsequent payback by Gujarat Hindus was perfectly justified.....".

I don't give a damn if AM thinks Hindus are not peaceful. But for all masters of taqiya, Abdullah included, I have a simple question: how is it that Hindus, Jews, Zorastrians (who escaped from islamic scum in Persia), and Tibetan Buddhists have NEVER had a conflict in India? It is only with muslims that we have had real conflicts. So, go figure, AM.

Indiantiger,

You wrote: “ Instead, like a typical muslim, you obfuscate the issue by asking how many were killed in WW II. What has muslim genocide in Hindu Kush got to do with WW II?”

No, you idiot, you pulled a fantasy number out of your butt to use as an intellectual club…but you are unable to substantiate it at all…and my reference to modern statistics on a recent conflict wsa to call your pea brain back to some rationality.

I admitted to my initial error in the Mumbai massacre. Get over it.

Indiantiger and more of his lies: “Instead, they were roasted alive because muslim goons not only poured gasoline into the coach and lit it, they formed a crowd outside and attacked those passengers who tried to escape.”

“Heating tea in a coach is the typical excuse used by…”

You idiot… look at the photos of the train, and read up on it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4180885.stm

“Retired Supreme Court judge Umesh Chandra Banerjee, who is leading the government inquiry, dismissed suggestions that inflammable liquid could have been thrown at the train from outside.

"There has been a preponderance of evidence that the fire in coach number S6 originated in the coach itself without any external input," he said."

"The possibility of an inflammable liquid having been used is completely ruled out as there was first a smell of burning, followed by then smoke and flames thereafter."

Indian Tiger, Retired Supreme Court judge Umesh Chandra Banerjee says you are a liar, and I to agree with him.

“BTW, I don't need your peace because I am at war with islam."

Oh yeah, a real tiger that needs to be worried about... : )

Nakal true. Indians need to ask the UN for reparations from Saudis for the murder of 80 million Indians and straling the temples and covering them up as a mosque. The Taj Mahal is the most known. The Taj Mahal was a temple for the Hindi god Shiva stole by a Muslims ruler. Muslims couldnt build such magestic building. They were Bedoins. The king was an Iranian convert to Islam and Iranians were builders and had a great nation until Arabs came. Iran left the Jews leave Babylon in 539 BCE, but the Muslims killed as many as possible due to hatred and jealousy. WHY DID MUHAMMAD HATE JEWS MORE? They laughed at him and refused to follow him. They were smarter than Arabs and they made sure Muhammad couldnt steal their family tradition and replace it with Muhammad's tribal ones like killing Job's men and stealing his cattle. So Muhammad practiced Alinsky long before the Islamomarxist do today. He demonized, isolated and then he destroyed the Jews. Jews still WON.
GO JEWS. ARABS STILL LOST. MUSLIMS ARE IN BED WITH COMMUNIST TO DESTROY AMERICAN CONSTITUTION AND REPLACE IT WITH the Communist manifesto/Sharia, which would mean Blacks would return to slavery. The 13th amendment freed black slaves. All black descendents from the African slaves would return to slavery and all Africans also as allah said he made Africans black to be slaves to whites and after slavery hellfire. If blacks dont read, they will never know. Asians ones were not even included except studying in China. China once thought black was beautiful until Arabs Muslims took African slaves to China, Then the kunlun word was borne, an ugly word or the same as the N word. White nonp-muslims were slaves too and were called Mamluks, while black slaves were called abeds. WAke UP BLACK AMERICA/WAKE UP AMERICA. SAVE AMERICA FROM SHARIA EVIL. Nigeria and somolia are beheading pastors right now and where is the outcry or coverage on the news. Instead we are sending Ramadan messages out to the world. Well no thanks.
Ramadan was stolen from Sabeans Arabs who served the Ramadan before Muhammad was born and it was a moon allah thing.