Genocide by Israel

[+and-then]

Posted 17 December 2013 - 01:33 PM

RavenHawk, on 17 December 2013 - 01:26 PM, said:

No, I'm saying that Muslim extremists read the Quran and obey it to the letter.

So what you're saying is, that we should be reasonable people and not follow to the letter these old 'holy' books?

Everyone is welcome to reply to anything I post, I jabbed at you because you were quick to answer the first question on And Then's behalf, but didn't answer the follow up question. ("So what you're saying is, that we should be reasonable people and not follow to the letter these old 'holy' books?")

My whole point of the post was to ridicule the thought that following any of these old fantasy books to the letter is ridiculous. You somewhat agreed, but then added "However, there are some things that are indeed set in stone. One of those is the Covenant GOD has with Israel through the lineage of Abraham – Isaac – Jacob (Israel) and that is a promise to the land. This Covenant does not run through Ishmael but GOD did promise to make his seed great and he has." Really, any other citation for this covenant other than a book that is biased towards the Jews?

I don't know what the rest of your post is going on about; my post was satirical generalizations about how fundamental christians act. You citing specific sources about what you and another poster were talking about had nothing to do with my post. The satire was mostly directed at a couple other posters.

I don't care how 'honest' someone is with their violence. I didn't know if I was 'honest' about hurting someone, that would make it acceptable.

I would also love to hear how there is more credibility christianity or islam over ancient greek beliefs. I have a feeling I'll be waiting indefinitely on that one.

Throwing all beliefs in God into a group and ridiculing them is your right but you seem to be excusing what is done in the name of the Qur'an in the same breath. The implication is that modern evil is excused by previous - sometimes LONG previous evil acts by other religions. Somehow I think that if these current manifestations ever affected you personally your attitude would quickly change.

[green_dude777]

Throwing all beliefs in God into a group and ridiculing them is your right but you seem to be excusing what is done in the name of the Qur'an in the same breath. The implication is that modern evil is excused by previous - sometimes LONG previous evil acts by other religions. Somehow I think that if these current manifestations ever affected you personally your attitude would quickly change.

I don't agree with either. Where did I ever even make a slight implication that I agreed with anything in the Qur'an, or done in the name of the Qur'an?

[Yamato]

As I've repeatedly learned the hard way, the Cognitive Dissonance in his position between the policy and the prophecy makes Muslims of us all. Again demonstrating a stranger disconnect between religions and the sleazy politics that are being played over those religions. Talk about the violation of Separation of Church and State! I can't separate one from the other when they're as deliberately intertwined as they are.

[RavenHawk]

Everyone is welcome to reply to anything I post, I jabbed at you because you were quick to answer the first question on And Then's behalf, but didn't answer the follow up question. ("So what you're saying is, that we should be reasonable people and not follow to the letter these old 'holy' books?")

I’ve posted things that as soon as I hit return, there seems to be an immediate response. I wonder how can that be frick’n possible? It is. It’s all about timing and being at the right moment to see any particular post and knowing what you want to say already. I didn’t followup because I was called away and didn’t get back for a few hours. I’m not sitting there just waiting for your reply. Just because you don’t get a reply doesn’t mean that a particular person is unable or unwilling to respond. Perhaps just uninterested.

My whole point of the post was to ridicule the thought that following any of these old fantasy books to the letter is ridiculous. You somewhat agreed, but then added "However, there are some things that are indeed set in stone. One of those is the Covenant GOD has with Israel through the lineage of Abraham – Isaac – Jacob (Israel) and that is a promise to the land. This Covenant does not run through Ishmael but GOD did promise to make his seed great and he has." Really, any other citation for this covenant other than a book that is biased towards the Jews?

Yes, I agree that people shouldn’t follow these books literally. At least that’s not the Bible’s purpose. Bishop Ussher’s timeline is one hard example. But that doesn’t mean that they are fantasy either. They are important guidebooks but only guidebooks. Dogma should be followed wisely not blindly. “Biased towards” is a poor description of the Torah. It is a people’s history and law. It [Covenant] doesn’t need to be mentioned in other books, but it wouldn’t have hurt. At least I am not aware of an example. We do have Egyptian, Hindu, Roman, and Babylonian texts that place the Jews in the land at that time. The Torah amounts to staking a claim on the land. And that is recognized in English Law and the Mandate was under English administration.

I don't know what the rest of your post is going on about; my post was satirical generalizations about how fundamental christians act. You citing specific sources about what you and another poster were talking about had nothing to do with my post. The satire was mostly directed at a couple other posters.

It’s a response to you. It didn’t look like a satirical generalization, but kewl. Then we both agree about how fundamental Christians act. Although we disagree with the source of their beliefs. The source is fine, it’s the way they act on it. Then let me not interfere any further with your satire of the other posters.

I don't care how 'honest' someone is with their violence. I didn't know if I was 'honest' about hurting someone, that would make it acceptable.

It’s not about being acceptable. Violence just is. It is a fact of life. All of these holy books do say to use violence to kill your enemy, etc. I was saying that a Christian would boast to the rest of the world that that is what GOD commanded him to do. A Muslim will deny that the Quran commands them to kill and subdue the non believer and then turn around and do it. And that denial is what we’ve been seeing with Third_eye and Jeem. And my reply was originally to counter that Israel was not committing genocide and that the Palestinian have been violent against Israel. You bring that up and you get attacked as part of the deception.

I would also love to hear how there is more credibility christianity or islam over ancient greek beliefs. I have a feeling I'll be waiting indefinitely on that one.

Basically, what we understand as what the Greek Gods were is only a fraction of what the belief system was. I consider the Greek Gods as entities that predate modern organized religions. Some may contend that the Greek Gods are the Nephilim or perhaps even the Anunnaki. But others say that Zeus is a direct correlation to GOD. It gets more confusing as Baal may have derived from the Nepilim and then later morphed into Hubal. But these origins may never be known. But it’s clear that from these origins, Egyptian, Hindu, Babylonian, Taoism established themselves and from these, Judaism and Buddhism further evolved. Then Christianity derived from Judaism and Islam out of opposition. But through this process, scholars have peered into the meaning of life as these religions stabilized and allowed study and enlightenment to occur. What makes it more credible is that we’ve had thousands of years for scholars to contemplate the meaning of the scriptures. There is substantially more understanding of the religions of today than those of the ancients.

[green_dude777]

I've posted things that as soon as I hit return, there seems to be an immediate response. I wonder how can that be frick'n possible? It is. It's all about timing and being at the right moment to see any particular post and knowing what you want to say already. I didn't followup because I was called away and didn't get back for a few hours. I'm not sitting there just waiting for your reply. Just because you don't get a reply doesn't mean that a particular person is unable or unwilling to respond. Perhaps just uninterested.

Yes, I agree that people shouldn't follow these books literally. At least that's not the Bible's purpose. Bishop Ussher's timeline is one hard example. But that doesn't mean that they are fantasy either. They are important guidebooks but only guidebooks. Dogma should be followed wisely not blindly. "Biased towards" is a poor description of the Torah. It is a people's history and law. It [Covenant] doesn't need to be mentioned in other books, but it wouldn't have hurt. At least I am not aware of an example. We do have Egyptian, Hindu, Roman, and Babylonian texts that place the Jews in the land at that time. The Torah amounts to staking a claim on the land. And that is recognized in English Law and the Mandate was under English administration.

It's a response to you. It didn't look like a satirical generalization, but kewl. Then we both agree about how fundamental Christians act. Although we disagree with the source of their beliefs. The source is fine, it's the way they act on it. Then let me not interfere any further with your satire of the other posters.

It's not about being acceptable. Violence just is. It is a fact of life. All of these holy books do say to use violence to kill your enemy, etc. I was saying that a Christian would boast to the rest of the world that that is what GOD commanded him to do. A Muslim will deny that the Quran commands them to kill and subdue the non believer and then turn around and do it. And that denial is what we've been seeing with Third_eye and Jeem. And my reply was originally to counter that Israel was not committing genocide and that the Palestinian have been violent against Israel. You bring that up and you get attacked as part of the deception.

Basically, what we understand as what the Greek Gods were is only a fraction of what the belief system was. I consider the Greek Gods as entities that predate modern organized religions. Some may contend that the Greek Gods are the Nephilim or perhaps even the Anunnaki. But others say that Zeus is a direct correlation to GOD. It gets more confusing as Baal may have derived from the Nepilim and then later morphed into Hubal. But these origins may never be known. But it's clear that from these origins, Egyptian, Hindu, Babylonian, Taoism established themselves and from these, Judaism and Buddhism further evolved. Then Christianity derived from Judaism and Islam out of opposition. But through this process, scholars have peered into the meaning of life as these religions stabilized and allowed study and enlightenment to occur. What makes it more credible is that we've had thousands of years for scholars to contemplate the meaning of the scriptures. There is substantially more understanding of the religions of today than those of the ancients.

So to sum up, although people shouldn't follow these old 'holy' books to the letter, the covenant is valid because the Jews holy book says so.

You also didn't establish any more credibility for any religion over another, just provided a little historical timeline for the religions from the Levant. Knowing the history of a religion more than another doesn't make it 'true', it just shows you can trace its history a little better.

[Yamato]

You summed it up well green_dude.

Might Makes Right

Justice == Just Is

.

[Yamato]

I have no particular ax or axe to grind for any side; just that, as I said a moment ago, looked at entirely dispassionately, Palestine does seem to have a stronger case in that the people have been there for centuries, whereas there was no significant Jewish presence in the Holy Land for a long time prior to the setting up of Israel. Just because there wasn't an actual nation called Palestine is neither here nor there; the same people had been there for years.

But according to the prophets apparently, there must be a STATE in order for there to be legitimacy. And these Zionists can't understand the "Statist" label. That's all they're about. Nationalism and Statehood, masquerading as a religion.

If it's not a "nation", it has no rights, it has no freedoms, it has no bearing on policy but to delegitimize every claim to the land there ever was before or after 1948 (except for the ones that support their State, of course).

If we are actually going to go back hundreds or thousands of years and study the minutia of this state and that in order to find out what we really think about this issue, we might just ignore the way human beings are being treated today.

[+and-then]

But according to the prophets apparently, there must be a STATE in order for there to be legitimacy. And these Zionists can't understand the "Statist" label. That's all they're about. Nationalism and Statehood, masquerading as a religion.

If it's not a "nation", it has no rights, it has no freedoms, it has no bearing on policy but to delegitimize every claim to the land there ever was before or after 1948 (except for the ones that support their State, of course).

If we are actually going to go back hundreds or thousands of years and study the minutia of this state and that in order to find out what we really think about this issue, we might just ignore the way human beings are being treated today.

Yam you are the one stressing over labels. For the people of Israel to have a place of safety in the world is NOT too much to ask. For them to truly be safe for the long term then they must be recognized as a state - a state of essentially Jewish character. They can (and have) opened their doors to others and lived together with them democratically. The people of Israel were given the land by the Brits and the UN. They ACCEPTED an offer that the Palestinians and all their neighbors REFUSED. The Palestinians felt justified to refuse and that was their choice. But after so many years and so much bloodshed one would think that reasonable human beings could see the truth and make peace. But they STILL refuse. So be it. When Oby and Kerry force Israel into giving up most of the Jordan Valley and the Palestinians start arming and shooting from the high ground this will signal the end of any further delusion by the Israeli left. Then it's going to be ON and my guess is the Palestinians are going to lose everything they think they've gained. And THEN some...

[RavenHawk]

So to sum up, although people shouldn't follow these old 'holy' books to the letter, the covenant is valid because the Jews holy book says so.

And you couldn’t be more wrong. These holy books contain many different aspects. Some are history, parables, law, relationships, psalms, poetry, commands, miracles, promises, etc. The portions of the Bible that are allegorical shouldn’t be taken literally. Most of the law in the Bible does not apply to Gentiles and therefore should not be followed. The Covenant GOD has with the Jews as recorded in the Torah is similar as marking land by use of a stake. I.e. the 1895 land rush in Oklahoma.

You also didn't establish any more credibility for any religion over another, just provided a little historical timeline for the religions from the Levant. Knowing the history of a religion more than another doesn't make it 'true', it just shows you can trace its history a little better.

Actually that was my point in this case. If you’ve spent anytime studying religion, today’s religion is for more credible than its ancient predecessors. But considering the way you reference Holy Scripture shows that you really don’t *get it*. Now you don’t have to believe in it, but you should try to understand it and from what I’m getting from you, you haven’t tried to even get a feeling of what billions of people understand deep down.

[Frank Merton]

No matter how inspired or holy a given scripture may be, it can't avoid being written by men and transcribed by men and translated by men and in the end when we read it, we read it with out interpretations and our ideas. Therefore the idea that scripture is ever "literally" interpreted is a sick joke.

[jeem]

I didn't go anywhere. Right now I have two major work projects that take most of my time. I'm lucky if I get one reply a day. This is the thread I got stuck on and I'm trying to stay sequential.

just a welcome for your long absence.

The meaning I am conveying is that Mohammed may not have physically written it, but he is considered the human author of it. Just as Musa is considered the writer of the Pentateuch but more than likely, he only assembled it together from other writers. After memorizing the ayahs, Mohammed had scribes write it down. If he wasn't [the author] then he wouldn't even be a prophet. Whatever it would actually be is non sequitur for this sequence. My claim is suppose to be only a tangent to the op, yet these tangents to the tangent is getting way off base. I believe that a thought should be complete but this tangent of authorship should end here.

Ok but Quran is direct message from Allah not from any man

It doesn't allow crime. It says what to do when a specific crime occurs. And it distinguishes what a crime is and what isn't. It's not like the Quran that would have the damsel stoned to death for the transgression and allow the man to walk away. The Bible acknowledges that the man is the responsible party.

When the damsel is virgin bible say the victim must marry the oppressor how humiliating is that

You do when you are deceptive and dishonest.

When you follow Qur'an you can not be dishonest

Using your wording, in essence, that is what I was asking you. Turning it around on me is not a counter. You're looking at the paint job (peaceful ayahs) and not caring about the bad engine (violent ayahs).

Actually you are not accepting their(violent ayahs) explanation from scholar who really understand them

Yes, I know what you are saying but it has nothing to do with refuting my claims (other than a context setter). There's a lot more to discuss about your statement here but that has to be for another post.

Ok I am waiting

OK, fine. You weren't fully explaining as much as defending or concealing.

I said what the expert of the scripture said.

I don't want to spend too much time on this but I feel that I should at least try. It's an important concept to understand. We are talking about the nature of GOD/Allah. We mere mortals really can't comprehend that but we can get close. Indeed, in one view point (child like one), there are three separate entities, hence Polytheism. But that would not be the full picture. Each entity is but one aspect of the whole or how it appears to us. To really understand this, you need to have a somewhat solid foundation in physics, mathematics, and astronomy. There is a series on the Science Channel entitled "Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman" (I don't know if you can access it, it is available online). It explores many subjects and offers examples and analogies to explain complex concepts. The one dealing with dimensions (don't recall the episode title at the moment) shows what a shadow of a three dimensional object on a two dimensional surface looks like. If you have a cube and cast a shadow *straight on* then you see a square. If you rotate that same object just a little bit, it is no longer a square. It appears to be a completely different object. Here is a clip I found that explains it in a different way.

[media=]

[/media]

There are others if you wish to watch. But the opening of this clip makes reference to "Flatland". Flatland was written by EA Abbott. He was a high school math teacher and he wrote this story for his students. Here is a link (http://www.geom.uiuc...choff/Flatland/) if you want to read it. But is discusses things like how does a 3D person appear to a 2D person (you need to watch the above clip to get in the right frame of mind). It has some really interesting spiritual aspects.

So the point here is that GOD/Allah exists outside or beyond all of these dimensions (beyond our plane of existence). In order to interact with us, he must transcend these dimensions or you can think of it then as casting a/(multiple) shadow(s). But also as a Flatlander sees cross sections of GOD walking through Flatland, we would think we are seeing several distinct entities. So if I've done a good job in explaining and you comprehend this example, then you don't see Polytheism but Monotheism. I also think that the Hindu Triune of Brahma/Shiva/Vishnu is equivalent to GOD/Jesus/Holy Spirit. They are all different aspects of the same entity.

So do you think that an illiterate merchant is going to understand that? I don't think many people understand this at all anyway. But if you want to take this further, then definitely start a new thread.

We have enough differences that cause strife between us. And I don't suspect that we will ever get beyond that. But when you study religions long enough, it doesn't take long to realize that they are all from the same origin and they all have part of the answer. Mohammed knew this but he saw (incorrectly) that Islam was the only answer. It is counterproductive to see one religion belittle and dominate the others like Islam does. And I'm not saying that the others don't but Islam makes an art of it. That creates hatred.

Ok in that case the shadow is made of the same thing or their internal structure is same.Father and son structure is same ok.But Holy spirits structure is not same

Or in other words, the Jews and Christians have corrupted the true Religion and that makes them the target to be mocked and belittled. Islam is highly xenophobic. Only Muslims are equal. Anything not Muslim is subordinate. If it is dominated under Islam then it's not equal and is separate. If it is opposed to Islam, then forget about it.

I hope I was not implying *forceful conversion* as an independent process. But they do refuse to pay extortion. "Fight until they are humbled" has only one meaning. That's forceful submission and then conversion comes later. But it's my understanding that rules on Dhimmi are no longer that strict?? The Jizya is no longer a requirement. It's up to the local ruler to impose or not. But with that said, there must be something else that takes its place. And I think we see that in the laws against proselytizing. And perhaps in today's modern world we are starting to see the beginnings of actual reform in Islam. This may explain the increase in Islamic extremism, because there is push back to this reform (if that is what it is)

No take a look at this Hadith

The Prophet said: Beware! Whosoever oppresses a Muahid (i.e. Non-Muslim living in Muslim land with agreement) or snatches (any of) his rights or causes him pain which he cannot bear, or takes anything from him without his permission, Then “I WILL FIGHT AGAINST SUCH A (MUSLIM) ON THE DAY OF JUDGEMENT” [sunnan Abu Dawud, Volume No. 3, Page No. 170, Hadith No. 3052]

The Prophet (Peace be upon him) said: To protect the rights (of non-Muslims) is amongst the primary duties of mine [sunnan Baihaqi, Volume No. 8, Page No. 30]

In another hadith the Prophet (Peace be upon him) is more explicit, he said: If any Muslim killed a Muahid (i.e. non-Muslim living in Muslim land with agreement) then he (muslim) shall not even smell the fragrance of Paradise although the fragrance of Paradise would have been perceived from the distance of travelling for 40 years [sahih Bukhari, Volume No. 3, Hadith # 2995]`

The Prophet (Salallaho alaihi wasalam) said: Najran (i.e. Christian land) and its leaders are assured the security from Allah and his Apostle. Their lives, their legislation, land, wealth, near and far away people, their worship places will be protected. No priest from his religious post, no officer of his official post shall be removed [Tabaqat Ibn Saad, Volume No. 1 Page No. 228]

Edited December 21, 2013 by jeem

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Yam you are the one stressing over labels. For the people of Israel to have a place of safety in the world is NOT too much to ask.

And they were offered that 60 odd years ago.

A dozen or so options, and they forced, they pushed and demanded that land in Palestine.

[+and-then]

And they were offered that 60 odd years ago.

A dozen or so options, and they forced, they pushed and demanded that land in Palestine.

Is there any point in trying to discuss why they wouldn't have preferred a home somewhere else? I think not. They did, they got the land and they are there and are going to stay there and I think you know that. To be concerned about the injustice of this episode while minimizing or ignoring much worse similar episodes through history is just blatantly unfair. It just IS. The Palestinians got a bum deal but they made it MUCH worse and continue to press toward a disaster. When it all falls in on them it's going to be very difficult to have sympathy for them.

[Yamato]

"It's difficult to have sympathy" for millions of innocent people and children suffering from genocide because of all the blah blah blah from history they had nothing to do with that we can't stop excusing it with. How could I forget after I hear the same Zionist hatred and animosity repeated 300 times?

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Is there any point in trying to discuss why they wouldn't have preferred a home somewhere else? I think not. They did, they got the land and they are there and are going to stay there and I think you know that. To be concerned about the injustice of this episode while minimizing or ignoring much worse similar episodes through history is just blatantly unfair. It just IS. The Palestinians got a bum deal but they made it MUCH worse and continue to press toward a disaster. When it all falls in on them it's going to be very difficult to have sympathy for them.

You're excusing mass slaughter!

GOOD GRIEF MAN re-read what you just wrote.

I am pro-Israel.

Hell, I'm more then happy to say "yes, they're the people God chose to shepard nations" but they're not doing a very good, or Godly, job.

Old Testament Prophets were the ones who said "change your ways or bad will happen", well I'm more then happy to be in the same group as them in holding Israel and the people of Israel to a higher standard then other nations and peoples. They're not acting as if they're worthy of God's protective hand.

[+and-then]

You're excusing mass slaughter!

GOOD GRIEF MAN re-read what you just wrote.

I am pro-Israel.

Hell, I'm more then happy to say "yes, they're the people God chose to shepard nations" but they're not doing a very good, or Godly, job.

Old Testament Prophets were the ones who said "change your ways or bad will happen", well I'm more then happy to be in the same group as them in holding Israel and the people of Israel to a higher standard then other nations and peoples. They're not acting as if they're worthy of God's protective hand.

NONE of us are Sir. And again I will try to explain myself. We may well disagree but I respect that you at least try to understand. First of all, what is happening in the ME today is NOT mass slaughter. But second, I EXCUSE nothing that either side are doing in this conflict. I am simply stating that for a couple of millennia up to the formation of the UN and the rules that came down from that entity it was a common practice for the winner to take spoil, make slaves and so on. Not moral but it was recognized as what was done. Now the rules have indeed changed for the better. But there had to be SOMEONE on the hook when the change occurred, I guess, and that one seems to be Israel. The whole world is looking back at 1948 and condemning what was done because they are judging it by modern mores. Regardless their protestations about Zionism, I believe it simply is the latest version of the old hatred. What is coming is horrible and sometimes I like to be in denial myself and say it is avoidable but I really think it is no more so than was what happened in Egypt prior to the Hebrews leaving. I don't understand why God has decided to structure such a hatred between two groups that it cannot be bridged but I do trust that He knows best for us. Understand - I am not saying that he created the hate. Just that he created a situation where it is brought to the fore and cannot die without some violent resolution. I believe he knows our nature better than we do ourselves and is doing what is best.

[Likely Guy]

I just wish that the moderates on both sides would deport their own radicals.

In my simplistic mind, 'problem solved'.

[SHaYap]

THe problem with that is that the 'radicals' are the ones calling the shots and the moderates are the fearful and silent majority ~

[RavenHawk]

WEll you do seem to have need for it ... not that i am lecturing ... far from it ... just dis agreeing with you ... you contradict yourself there ... Islam just wants to be left alone and practice their faith .... not to be lectured by the likes of you on how to make their faith more acceptable to the likes of you ... see ?

No, I don’t seem to have need for it. What I need is respect but I won’t even demand that since I am getting from you exactly what I would expect. To *disagree* would take on a different air. I’m not contradicting myself here. Saying that Islam wants to be left alone is the second biggest mistruth made this year. To practice Islam is to dominate others. So yes, I can see why it wants to be left alone. It can’t operate in the open, but see… the internet keeps it in the open. For me to point out the truth is not lecturing Muslims on their faith. But if they expect to have an equal role on this planet, they need to learn how to play nice like all the others have learned.

The Gospels and scriptures according to you ? Why don;t you throw in a few of your made up miracles and declare yourself prophet ?

Would you like to be canonized too ? Would Sunday next week at 0800 be fine for you ? No need to rent a tux ...

No, not according to me. These are just some of the things that have been revealed already. What made up miracles? We are all prophets. GOD speaks to us all. An insecure religion cannot deal with that concept. He selects a few from age to age to carry a message to the people. It always takes the form of the local sensibilities. But the problem with all religions is that they view themselves as the only right religion. At least Christianity is beginning to see the light on that.

According to you ... many qualified and more learned Historians do not 'see' it your way ... chaotic ...

You would make a very good High Supreme Inquisitor I'll give you that ... can't wait to go on another crusade eh ?

That’s the thing with historians, the more you have the more learned view points you have. But the message of Jesus spread from town to town (not by the sword BTW). Each taking what was important to them. So one town would follow one set of scripture and the next town over would follow another set. Did that make either wrong? Absolutely not. Jesus desired to get away from dogma and focus on our individual relationship with him. That is what separated him from all other deities. All other religions required conformity. In the Roman or Catholic mindset, this was just too chaotic and starting at the Council of Nicaea, began to standardize the faith into a religion of conformity. And that produced mixed blessings that we are still dealing with today. But since Martin Luther, an enlightenment has slowly spread across the religion. Today, I think we are seeing the next step in evolution. And it is leaving Islam behind. There’s still a schism in Islam that hasn’t settled, so how can it find enlightenment?

Criticise Religion ... by what right and by what authority ? That's part of the reason why this whole pile of fecal matter hit the fan ...

You pick it to your pleasure ... here is where the saying 'A little knowledge is a dangerous thing' not lecturing mind you ... just saying

My own authority and Jesus’ desire for us to become companions not robots. Robots that conformity produces. I guess conformity works well for an illiterate body. But that is no longer the case in the Western world. No, it hit the fan because I was showing that Israel was not committing genocide. I broke up the Jew hatefest and certain people didn’t like it.

So it only works as acceptable when its in your books by your choices and prerogative ? Fairplay ? Apparently not ...

No. There’s only one distasteful entry in the Constitution and that has been corrected. I know there are those in our leadership that would like to see it all revoked but it’s a good document to be indoctrinated in. The Quran is filled with more than its fair share of such distasteful structures and this doesn’t exclude the Torah and Bible either. But as I’ve stated before, the distasteful part in the Quran isn’t the violence, it’s the dishonesty.

Sure ... you keep saying that ... try telling yourself that once in a while ...

If I keep saying that then maybe I haven’t had it answered yet, uh? I am still seeking. Are you familiar with Anjem Choudary? You and Jeem seem to be carbon copies. Am I off? Honesty is not an issue with me. You want to bring up something distasteful with Christianity? Go ahead, I will probably agree with you. But take it to another thread.

Due ? Repo man or debt collector now ? How do you like your pound of flesh ? Try not to make mess will you ?

Try karma. I firmly believe in it. What goes around comes around. And the seeds Mohammed sowed long ago are coming to fruition today. Whose flesh do you want? It’ll either be Palestinian children or Israeli children. There is not room for both. The compassionate thing to do is to allow the Palestinian children to move on as their ancestors moved on from their prior predicament to come to the Levant long ago. As long as Islam remains unreformed, Palestinian children will be taught to hate and look down on anyone not Muslim. I seem to remember Hamas using Mickey Mouse as a means to spread hate. As I pointed out with what else David Hacohen said, which has gone curiously without comment? It seems that the Muslim thinking is that if it is ignored, then it never happened.

Why ? Reading facts is too painful for your sensibilities ? I don't sieve and censure what I want and what I am accepting of ... read the whole thing and all the things included then make up your own mind ... I did ... why not you ?

Well, if you want to support your point, you should be more specific. Are we getting to the point soon? Or since you have no point, you’re just going to continue to attack everything in my post? Which is fine because that just supports my claim. Lack of honesty when it comes to calling what Israel is doing as genocide. I still haven’t seen mass graves or rows of ovens or the Jordan filled with bodies.

Tell me oh great and enlightened one ... tell me which faith teaches inferiority and subordination to all others so I can embrace it and be a good believer of a good faith of your eye ... ?

That’s not what religion should be teaching. The history of religion is indeed filled with abuse. But if you want the best answer, I would say you need to convert to Buddhism. If the level of dishonesty were a scale, Buddhism being the least dishonest and Islam would be the most. To be a good faith in my eye would require acceptance, tolerance, and reform. Most religions are on this path (journey) but Islam. It is the doctrine of Islam that prevents it from starting this journey and this is the reason that Israel does what she is doing and it is not genocide.

Every Religion is peaceful ... by choice or not by choice ... it is not the religion but the flock of 'believers' that turns to violence ... by choice or by lack of a choice ... it is your incapacity to see it as such ... not inability ...

I see this very well. Every religion has elements of being peaceful and at certain levels. You are right in that it is the members of that religion that make it violent or not. And that can be actively participating or passively. Moderates in Islam enable the radicals to drive the bus. And it is simply due to the doctrine of Islam that puts the Muslim above the non Muslim and that anything not equal must be dominated. In comparison, the radicals in Christianity don’t even come close to driving the bus. Jesus teaches to make disciples out of every nation. The worst you get are annoying Bible thumpers.

Well you haven't been exactly anything but derogatory and dismissive and disparaging and scornful among other things in everything that you care to say have you ?

I’ve tried not to but when faced with denial, trying to be firmer just pushes the limits. And I think I’ve been only critical. But the bottom line is what can you do when you call a spade a spade? Being dishonest is being dishonest. And Islam teaches its members to be dishonest (Taqiya).

Criticise constructively requires Critical Thinking ...

Absolutely! But what happens when the thing that is being criticized and doesn’t learn, takes it as an attack and uses that as a defense? Islam can play the victim card very well.

not just biased and bigot opinions based on shallow understanding ... I apologise if I seem to be lecturing but just saying ... y'know ?

Well, you’d have to show that I am biased and a bigot. Just because I am critical of Islam and have articulated why, doesn’t make me either. You have not proved to my satisfaction that my claims are wrong. If Islam was a religion of peace and tolerant, its track record would have easily proved it. There has been no proof, only deception.

What about the 'burn in hell' part eh ? THat's not part of your grand scheme of 'seeking honesty' ? Didn't care to revel in that part of the equation eh ?

The Strawman can dance ! Let's see a proper rap then .. go'on ...

Like this one 4:56 “Indeed, those who disbelieve in Our verses - We will drive them into a Fire. Every time their skins are roasted through We will replace them with other skins so they may taste the punishment. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted in Might and Wise.”

My comment was on the splitting of hairs you made when you said that “worthy of death” is wrong and that it was “not worthy of salvation”. For all practical purposes, this is the same. It still belittles the non Muslim. And your comment is just another distraction.

~ edit - being as honest as possible ....

That I believe.

[RavenHawk]

"The Jew" can defend themselves in the United States.

Could they defend themselves in Russia? Could they defend themselves in Germany? Can they defend themselves in a Muslim nation? Of course not.

Read the Constitution, dude.

I do and? The Constitution is more than just a piece of paper. It is only as good as those patriots that defend her. For the past 100 years, that foundation has been crumbling. To think that what has happened in other nations can’t happen here is the epitome of ignorance.

You balk the Constitution so badly, you can't even understand that Article 1 Section 8 is about the Congress and not the President.

And what does that have anything to do with it?

Because my own country, that I am responsible for, doesn't do anything to harm your special interest group and does plenty to solve all your manufactured problems, I am under no duty to provide for the welfare of strangers half the world away.

Don't Tread On Me.

You realize that this is complete gibberish! If you are going to try to be involved in a discussion then show that you have some kind of comprehension. Is that too much to ask?

[RavenHawk]

Ok but Quran is direct message from Allah not from any man

As soon as Mohammed uttered a vowel, it is from man. But all Holy Scripture is from man, inspired by GOD. Either written or spoken. The minute it comes out in any kind of language it is filtered through a creation of man. Each language has its unique constructs. And that is ok. GOD speaks to us in this manner. GOD spoke to Musa in Hebrew. The language GOD spoke to Adam and Noah isn’t really known but it is different than anything we know today. If all religions are equal in the sight of GOD, then it must be this way.

When the damsel is virgin bible say the victim must marry the oppressor how humiliating is that

It could be humiliating in one situation but it could also be a way around tradition. In most arranged marriages which are usually a business deal, neither the bride nor groom is willing participants. One way around this would be for another man to have sex with the betrothed. The thing being that these two want each other. So this verse has more to do with legal matters and not crime.

When you follow Qur'an you can not be dishonest

Actually I understand that. If the Quran teaches deception and its followers abide by it to the letter, then the believer cannot be dishonest.

Actually you are not accepting their(violent ayahs) explanation from scholar who really understand them

Violence is violence. There is nothing special needed to understand. Make war on the non believer until they submit cannot be misunderstood like legalities around betrothal.

Ok I am waiting

If you want to you can start one. This is not the focus of my claim.

I said what the expert of the scripture said.

Well then the expert on the scripture wasn’t fully explaining it (for non believer consumption only).

Ok in that case the shadow is made of the same thing or their internal structure is same.Father and son structure is same ok.But Holy spirits structure is not same

The concept is Holy Spirit (singular). So why is it not the same? Again, to answer that, you should create a new thread.

No take a look at this Hadith

The Prophet said: Beware! Whosoever oppresses a Muahid (i.e. Non-Muslim living in Muslim land with agreement) or snatches (any of) his rights or causes him pain which he cannot bear, or takes anything from him without his permission, Then “I WILL FIGHT AGAINST SUCH A (MUSLIM) ON THE DAY OF JUDGEMENT” [sunnan Abu Dawud, Volume No. 3, Page No. 170, Hadith No. 3052]

Ok fine. Then how do you explain state sponsored pogroms. What is the punishment for proselytizing? What happens to apostates? What happens to those that partner authority (with other deities) with Allah? What happens when the Ummah is threatened?

The Prophet (Peace be upon him) said: To protect the rights (of non-Muslims) is amongst the primary duties of mine [sunnan Baihaqi, Volume No. 8, Page No. 30]

In another hadith the Prophet (Peace be upon him) is more explicit, he said: If any Muslim killed a Muahid (i.e. non-Muslim living in Muslim land with agreement) then he (muslim) shall not even smell the fragrance of Paradise although the fragrance of Paradise would have been perceived from the distance of travelling for 40 years [sahih Bukhari, Volume No. 3, Hadith # 2995]`

The Prophet (Salallaho alaihi wasalam) said: Najran (i.e. Christian land) and its leaders are assured the security from Allah and his Apostle. Their lives, their legislation, land, wealth, near and far away people, their worship places will be protected. No priest from his religious post, no officer of his official post shall be removed [Tabaqat Ibn Saad, Volume No. 1 Page No. 228]

This strikes me just so much of the Treaty of Hudaibiya. There are other restrictions placed on the Muahid such that given human nature, even the smallest violation will occur. This violates the treaty (with agreement part) andclears the road for the Muslim to retaliate.

[SHaYap]

No, I don't seem to have need for it. What I need is respect but I won't even demand that since I am getting from you exactly what I would expect. To *disagree* would take on a different air. I'm not contradicting myself here. Saying that Islam wants to be left alone is the second biggest mistruth made this year. To practice Islam is to dominate others. So yes, I can see why it wants to be left alone. It can't operate in the open, but see… the internet keeps it in the open. For me to point out the truth is not lecturing Muslims on their faith. But if they expect to have an equal role on this planet, they need to learn how to play nice like all the others have learned.

YOu see ... your prejudiced views cloud your intentions ... as noble as you believe your revelation are ... it is but your opinions ... it does not in any way makes them 'truth'

And playing nice requires all players to play the same kind of nice .... and on all levels ...

No, not according to me. These are just some of the things that have been revealed already. What made up miracles? We are all prophets. GOD speaks to us all. An insecure religion cannot deal with that concept. He selects a few from age to age to carry a message to the people. It always takes the form of the local sensibilities. But the problem with all religions is that they view themselves as the only right religion. At least Christianity is beginning to see the light on that.

Exactly ... to you ... and most if not all of your views is applicable to you only ... GOD speaks to us all ?

Apparently not ... remember Moses' kid brother ?

And yes I agree - "But the problem with all religions is that they view themselves as the only right religion."

Which is the irony here as you are doing the same here with your version of 'truth' and 'honesty'

That's the thing with historians, the more you have the more learned view points you have. But the message of Jesus spread from town to town (not by the sword BTW). Each taking what was important to them. So one town would follow one set of scripture and the next town over would follow another set. Did that make either wrong? Absolutely not. Jesus desired to get away from dogma and focus on our individual relationship with him. That is what separated him from all other deities. All other religions required conformity. In the Roman or Catholic mindset, this was just too chaotic and starting at the Council of Nicaea, began to standardize the faith into a religion of conformity. And that produced mixed blessings that we are still dealing with today. But since Martin Luther, an enlightenment has slowly spread across the religion. Today, I think we are seeing the next step in evolution. And it is leaving Islam behind. There's still a schism in Islam that hasn't settled, so how can it find enlightenment?

Tell that to the 'Heretics' ... and if you read the Historical Mohammed SAW ... he was persecuted and was running up and down the land. and if there were swords involved it was to defend ... kinda like JC's call to :

10:33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

...

26:51 And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear.

26:52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword

....

(King James Bible, Matthew)

22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

(King James Bible, Luke)

Organised religion .. man ... fairplay ... you can only speak from whatyou know for what you know ... it does not make it the only thing that is known ...

My own authority and Jesus' desire for us to become companions not robots. Robots that conformity produces. I guess conformity works well for an illiterate body. But that is no longer the case in the Western world. No, it hit the fan because I was showing that Israel was not committing genocide. I broke up the Jew hatefest and certain people didn't like it.

No. There's only one distasteful entry in the Constitution and that has been corrected. I know there are those in our leadership that would like to see it all revoked but it's a good document to be indoctrinated in. The Quran is filled with more than its fair share of such distasteful structures and this doesn't exclude the Torah and Bible either. But as I've stated before, the distasteful part in the Quran isn't the violence, it's the dishonesty.

If I keep saying that then maybe I haven't had it answered yet, uh? I am still seeking. Are you familiar with Anjem Choudary? You and Jeem seem to be carbon copies. Am I off? Honesty is not an issue with me. You want to bring up something distasteful with Christianity? Go ahead, I will probably agree with you. But take it to another thread.

Apparently you don;t know JC very well or as like before you have your buffet of facts in front of you and all you can see is those you find palatable ...

There was no Jew hatefest ... you just wanted a soap box for your bellowing ... which stems from your dishonesty ... yes ... yours

and this is where one will take you for a bigot ... take one and paint all and the rest with the same brush ...

WE are brought up to respect ALL religions ... yes even JC and the Bible ... the Bible mind you ... not the comic book abridged versions ..

Try karma. I firmly believe in it. What goes around comes around. And the seeds Mohammed sowed long ago are coming to fruition today. Whose flesh do you want? It'll either be Palestinian children or Israeli children. There is not room for both. The compassionate thing to do is to allow the Palestinian children to move on as their ancestors moved on from their prior predicament to come to the Levant long ago. As long as Islam remains unreformed, Palestinian children will be taught to hate and look down on anyone not Muslim. I seem to remember Hamas using Mickey Mouse as a means to spread hate. As I pointed out with what else David Hacohen said, which has gone curiously without comment? It seems that the Muslim thinking is that if it is ignored, then it never happened.

And those stems were sown from years before and before and before ... you don't even know what karma means ...

Reformed ? arrogant much ? Why not you start with your own 'reformation' and show us your integrity of your 'honesty' ?

Too perfect for any ? We remember differently ... you never listen to anything that shows the fragility of your 'infallibility'

Well, if you want to support your point, you should be more specific. Are we getting to the point soon? Or since you have no point, you're just going to continue to attack everything in my post? Which is fine because that just supports my claim. Lack of honesty when it comes to calling what Israel is doing as genocide. I still haven't seen mass graves or rows of ovens or the Jordan filled with bodies.

Just as you don't see much of other things and yet ... to you it is and only that is ,,, 'truth'

Point ? Attack ? Everything ??????

Wanna do the waltz ? 'its alright Ma , I'm only thinking' ( apologies to Bob Dylan )

NOt my words ... Zionist Government is practicing Genocidal Policies ... and it is proven in a International Court of Justice ...

The point is your 'truth' holds very little that is true ...

That's not what religion should be teaching. The history of religion is indeed filled with abuse. But if you want the best answer, I would say you need to convert to Buddhism. If the level of dishonesty were a scale, Buddhism being the least dishonest and Islam would be the most. To be a good faith in my eye would require acceptance, tolerance, and reform. Most religions are on this path (journey) but Islam. It is the doctrine of Islam that prevents it from starting this journey and this is the reason that Israel does what she is doing and it is not genocide.

Now you are just being comedic right ?

No ? such a tragedy ... you are hilarious ...

Now I know for sure you read nothing and understands naught of the points of what you attempt to read ....

~ no longer relevant ~

That I believe.

At least you now know now that I know that I did knew from the very beginning ... you are just on a pre programmed scripted mind stuck ferris wheel ...

And no that was not an attack or did I meant it as denigrating ... just an observation ...

.

[jeem]

It could be humiliating in one situation but it could also be a way around tradition. In most arranged marriages which are usually a business deal, neither the bride nor groom is willing participants. One way around this would be for another man to have sex with the betrothed. The thing being that these two want each other. So this verse has more to do with legal matters and not crime.

That does not convince me without giving any punishment you are encouraging him for further rape.

Violence is violence. There is nothing special needed to understand. Make war on the non believer until they submit cannot be misunderstood like legalities around betrothal.

But Islamic teaching doesn't support your view but they refuse it.

If you want to you can start one. This is not the focus of my claim.

You were supporting your claim with this

Well then the expert on the scripture wasn't fully explaining it (for non believer consumption only).

Wasn't fully explaining for people like you

The concept is Holy Spirit (singular). So why is it not the same? Again, to answer that, you should create a new thread.

Need farther explanation

Ok fine. Then how do you explain state sponsored pogroms.

Islam doesn't support that and if you claim yes then show proof

What is the punishment for proselytizing?

What happens to apostates? What happens to those that partner authority (with other deities) with Allah?

Well Quran do not talk about any earthly punishment but refers to punishment by Allah

What happens when the Ummah is threatened?

So you are threatening me and do not expect me to show reaction

This strikes me just so much of the Treaty of Hudaibiya. There are other restrictions placed on the Muahid such that given human nature, even the smallest violation will occur. This violates the treaty (with agreement part) andclears the road for the Muslim to retaliate.

Support your claim

[Frank Merton]

I don't think people, nor governments, nor gods for that matter, have any right to "punish" people. For society to function and for people to be reasonably safe, some acts have to be discouraged and those who do them need to be put out of circulation, but this should not be seen as a punishment or some sort of justice but just as something that has to be done. Only properly instituted authorities acting under properly enacted laws should carry this sort of thing out, not ever individuals.

[RavenHawk]

YOu see ... your prejudiced views cloud your intentions ... as noble as you believe your revelation are ... it is but your opinions ... it does not in any way makes them 'truth'

What prejudiced? Knowing what to expect form you is not clouding my intentions. My intentions are clear. To get an honest answer or expose the reason why. Only truth can come out of that. And I’m succeeding in the latter. If not then why are you trying your best to turn this around on me? You just don’t have a counter so you’re grabbing at any and all straws you can. I hadn’t intended on it, but the little rope I give you, you are hanging yourself with it and not even realizing it.

And playing nice requires all players to play the same kind of nice .... and on all levels ...

That is exactly right and I don’t appreciate being deceived. Islam doesn’t play nice, it plays for keeps. And there is nothing wrong with that. But that mindset will also be Islam’s downfall.

Exactly ... to you ... and most if not all of your views is applicable to you only ... GOD speaks to us all ?

Apparently not ... remember Moses' kid brother ?

Well, that’s what I’ve been saying. This view is only applicable to non Muslims. The Muslim attitude is that “Hey we live this way; it should be good for everyone else. In fact we insist.”

I take it that you don’t talk to GOD? That was the whole point of Jesus. To show that we don’t need an intermediary to come before GOD. It eventually took until Martin Luther to make that point clear.

What about Aaron? And wasn’t Aaron the older brother??

Which is the irony here as you are doing the same here with your version of 'truth' and 'honesty'

That is completely wrong. I see all the major religions pretty much the same. I’m not comparing which one is better. Although, what is coming out of this is that Islam thinks it is better. And also showing that one is more honest with sharing its dogma than the other. And that is the crux of my claim.

Tell that to the 'Heretics' ... and if you read the Historical Mohammed SAW ... he was persecuted and was running up and down the land. and if there were swords involved it was to defend ... kinda like JC's call to :

I really don’t see where your reply here is referring to my comment?? What does “Heretics” refer to? Shiites? Christians? I consider myself as a Heretic Christian. Knowing something about the historical Mohammed is needed for this discussion but this is old news. The non believer gets hammered with his origins left and right in an attempt to make us feel sorry for him. The Muslim concept of defense is protection from opposition defending their lands while Muslims grab it. And again, I see nothing wrong with that. But saying “if there were swords involved it was to defend” is very dishonest. What you are not understanding is that I have nothing against Mohammed doing what he did. It’s simply that Islam has spread as far as it’s going to. When it pushed East, it halted because of Hinduism. In the West, it stopped because of Christianity. And now with the internet, its secrets become revealed. Its tactics are too well known these days.

Organised religion .. man ... fairplay ... you can only speak from whatyou know for what you know ... it does not make it the only thing that is known ...

I thought we covered this already?? Maybe it was with Jeem? I am not pointing out how violent the Quran is and ignoring how violent the Bible is. I’ve already established that both are. What I said is that Christians don’t hide what they are doing. If they think that GOD commanded them to kill the infidel, they did so with pride. Muslims will be deceitful and deny the violence that the Quran commands them to do to non believers and then turn around and do it because it’s done to the non believer.

Apparently you don;t know JC very well or as like before you have your buffet of facts in front of you and all you can see is those you find palatable ...

At least I will question myself how well I know Jesus. Can you even question Mohammed and Allah without sinning? And I believe that I have all the facts before me and they are all palatable, at least to non Muslims.

There was no Jew hatefest ... you just wanted a soap box for your bellowing ... which stems from your dishonesty ... yes ... yours

and this is where one will take you for a bigot ... take one and paint all and the rest with the same brush ...

Oh, so saying Israel is committing genocide is not a hatefest? It seems to me that I just usurped your soapbox. You really shouldn’t be talking about dishonesty and bigotry without looking into the mirror first. If I recall, I was the one standing up speaking against the dishonesty and bigotry I was seeing.

WE are brought up to respect ALL religions ... yes even JC and the Bible ... the Bible mind you ... not the comic book abridged versions ..

Yes, I understand how the Muslim respects subordinate religions. They are respected until they get in the way or threaten the Ummah.

So I don’t hear any denial of me equating you to Anjem Choudary and his beliefs?

And those stems were sown from years before and before and before ... you don't even know what karma means ...

Reformed ? arrogant much ? Why not you start with your own 'reformation' and show us your integrity of your 'honesty' ?

Too perfect for any ? We remember differently ... you never listen to anything that shows the fragility of your 'infallibility'

However you refer to it, they were sown by Mohammed 1400 years ago. If you want to believe that I don’t know what karma is, then be my guest. I realize that this is just another attempt to distract from the argument.

Well, the Church did go through something called the Reformation after the schism caused by Martin Luther that divided the Church between Catholic and Protestant. There was a lot of violence in the name of GOD and eventually unofficially ended with the Peace of Westphalia. Each side (grudgingly in some cases) basically accepted the other. And began a period where conversion at sword point and inquisitions were dwindling. There has been no *Peace of Westphalia* for Sunni and Shiite has there? But from here Reform took on a growing of faith and enlightenment. Today, the faith challenges itself as in popular culture. When Andres Serrano exhibited his “p*** Christ”, it caused riots for some but for the majority, it was an awakening. Kevin Smith released the movie “Dogma” which was an attack on the Church but it didn’t cause it to collapse. It allowed us to look retrospectively into our own faith and pull strength from it. And that has allowed a change in mindset all the way up to the Pope. Then Dan Brown released the “Da Vinci Code” and the interest in lost scripture has wetted our curiosity in an attempt to learn more about Jesus. Then a gentleman of the name of Salman Rushdie writes “The Satanic Verses” and he has to fear for his life under a fatwa. Let’s not forget the Jyllands-Posten Mohammed cartoons. Yes, Islam is far from being reformed. People are hungry to seek the truth and Islam is not it.

The fragility of *my* infallibility is not in question. So far the fragility as been exhibited on your side. I’m asking you to show me where I’m wrong but you have not. Showing counter peaceful ayahs just doesn’t do it. And trying to make it look like Islam has been the victim doesn’t do it. There is only one answer and you haven’t even shown the ability to comprehend that answer. I know the answer and I’ve been giving you all the time in the world to express it but you can’t and that is typical for *ANY* Muslim! And by dancing around it as you are obviously doing is supporting my claim.

And still no comment on Hacohen’s observations.

Just as you don't see much of other things and yet ... to you it is and only that is ,,, 'truth'

Point ? Attack ? Everything ??????

Oh, I’ve seen much of the other things you are trying to do and I’m just not letting it distract me.

Wanna do the waltz ? 'its alright Ma , I'm only thinking' ( apologies to Bob Dylan )

That’s what you’ve been doing (dancing around) and I’ve been very tolerant.

NOt my words ... Zionist Government is practicing Genocidal Policies ... and it is proven in a International Court of Justice ...

I understand your kind of proof. Then this International Court of Justice has presented the evidence of mass graves or rows of ovens or the Jordan filled with bodies?

The point is your 'truth' holds very little that is true ...

Then it shouldn’t be too hard for you to prove me wrong. If I’ve been wrong, you sure are acting to the contrary. If I was wrong, my words would not be so sharp. I understand that in the Muslim mindset as it relates to the non Muslim, you have proven me wrong. But that is not good enough. I’m a non Muslim in a non Muslim medium, so you need to prove it as if being in a world court.

Now you are just being comedic right ?

No ? such a tragedy ... you are hilarious ...

Now I know for sure you read nothing and understands naught of the points of what you attempt to read ....

At least you now know now that I know that I did knew from the very beginning ... you are just on a pre programmed scripted mind stuck ferris wheel ...

And no that was not an attack or did I meant it as denigrating ... just an observation ...

You asked me a question and I answered you. If you don’t like it then you can respond in another thread. Attacking my credibility at this stage is more evidence that I am getting too close to the quick.

That was a left handed jab. I’m not the one pre programmed. I understand that you are. I’m not the one trying to defend the indefensible.