tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4793384866525609075.post830862847093219359..comments2023-12-29T00:19:54.130-08:00Comments on Liberated: Why do Muslims despise Jews so much?Liberated Onehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12033054482768383889noreply@blogger.comBlogger168125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4793384866525609075.post-890145027482329262012-09-27T11:28:23.991-07:002012-09-27T11:28:23.991-07:00Speak with proof which will reveal truthSpeak with proof which will reveal truthSmart Thahahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14472374944212510581noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4793384866525609075.post-18487079505079592252012-03-30T19:05:37.163-07:002012-03-30T19:05:37.163-07:00im offensive and i find this muslimim offensive and i find this muslimAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4793384866525609075.post-23694484309179343372012-01-29T01:58:37.159-08:002012-01-29T01:58:37.159-08:00allah gave Palestine to the Jews:
surah 10:93 And...allah gave Palestine to the Jews:<br /><br />surah 10:93 <i>And certainly We lodged the children of Israel in a goodly abode and We provided them with good things; but they did not disagree until the knowledge had come to them; surely your Lord will judge between them on the resurrection day concerning that in which they disagreed.</i><br /><br />surah 17:104 <i>And We said to the Israelites after him: Dwell in the land: and when the promise of the next life shall come to pass, we will bring you both together in judgment.</i>Trying to follow Jesushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00644146981315117455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4793384866525609075.post-16910748679599540262012-01-23T16:12:08.585-08:002012-01-23T16:12:08.585-08:00Shakila.
Great post once again. So informing abou...Shakila.<br /><br />Great post once again. So informing about woman in Islam and their twisted fate. Funny enough the oppressed appear to enjoy oppression. Why are they still calling for Sharia Law here in the West!. <br /><br />To those who doubted your apostasy in the beginning, your posts have now made your journey very clear to our hearts. <br /><br />I am amazed by the darkness of this evil cult which billions follow.The ignorant and disregard of life itself regardless of gender. Woman being treated as second class brainless sex objects by these tribal men with long long ropes and some clean-shaved Osama in sheep skin. We need you to stay safe, so please take good care of yourself. Keep writting. God Bless you.Kingdomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08724244507350488362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4793384866525609075.post-44948599346538124322012-01-22T06:21:55.479-08:002012-01-22T06:21:55.479-08:00Traeh said :
"You say the map is secondary a...Traeh said :<br /><br />"You say the map is secondary and the territory is primary. <br />Is the distinction between map and territory part of the map or part of the territory?"<br /><br />Both. <br />The distinct nature of our human consciousness (sense-perception, concept-integration principles forming our intellect, etc.) is a part of the "territory" (reality).<br />Our understanding of this nature is a part of the "map", of course.<br /><br />Again, reality ("territory") is primary and science ("map") is secondary.Kafir Ibn al-Shaitanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03622002941245153471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4793384866525609075.post-46108442636474579732012-01-19T23:27:33.597-08:002012-01-19T23:27:33.597-08:00addendum:
Well, Muhammad himself didn't rip aw...addendum:<br />Well, Muhammad himself didn't rip away those huge regions of the earth, of course. His successors did.Traehhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09997009621742454158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4793384866525609075.post-54748507430190874982012-01-19T23:23:41.530-08:002012-01-19T23:23:41.530-08:00Excellent comment, Hesperado.
Yes, Scott repris...Excellent comment, Hesperado. <br /><br />Yes, Scott reprises several centuries of the evolution of the scholarly debate -- including the debate between Pirenne and opponents about whether the Islamic invasions caused the European Dark Ages. The Dark Ages are remarkably controversial. The mystery and dispute about them is exciting. We are talking about a time period not all that far away from us historically (the first millennium AD and, more narrowly, several centuries within that millennium), a period large and integral to the main trunk of Western history. It's really remarkable how undecided is the debate about major features of that time -- the Dark Ages -- such as what brought it about, when it started, when it ended, did it happen at all! It almost makes one feel as though one didn't have a solid narrative chain of previous events and history to "stand on," but rather only a mysterious wind blowing up and supporting one in mid-air over an immense dark void! <br /><br />Scott, having reprised some main outlines of the history of the debate on the Dark Ages, looks at a wider field of evidence than Pirenne or his opponents down to the present seem to have done or been able to do. Scott argues that the wider field of evidence he presents -- and I can't detail it now as I'm still absorbing it -- shows that, minus certain important details of Pirenne's views, Pirenne was largely right, and his opponents have been wrong. <br /><br />Good of you to remind us that North Africa and the Middle East had been part of the pagan, and later Christian, Roman Empires for centuries before Muhammad ripped those huge regions of the earth away from the West. <br /><br />You spoke of the Muslim conquests transforming the Mediterranean into a barrier and becoming an impetus eventually for the discovery by Europeans of the Americas. Certainly a commonly cited reason for Columbus' desire to find in a western direction a new route to India, was that the Muslim conquest of Constantinople in 1453 cut off or made difficult the land route east to India. <br /><br />I'm not even half way through the book.Traehhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09997009621742454158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4793384866525609075.post-91001707623340401822012-01-19T10:23:24.656-08:002012-01-19T10:23:24.656-08:00Traeh,
I haven't read that book yet, but two ...Traeh,<br /><br />I haven't read that book yet, but two important things to note:<br /><br />The first you probably knew before you began reading the book, and/or surely have learned by now from the author, but perhaps you didn't mention it for brevity's sake -- namely, that the overarching thesis of the book was first proposed by the Belgian historian Henri Pirenne back in the 1920s. Apparently, his thesis fell into disfavor by historians later on (I don't know how long later), so that by the time of the first decade of our century, even Hugh Fitzgerald would declare that the Pirenne thesis was no longer tenable. I recall patiently reminding Hugh that it was by no means a done deal, and that historians often undergo revisionism which subsequently turns back around in their favor with new evidence, etc. One metaphor of Pirenne's I particularly liked was when he said the Muslims had "turned the Mediterranean into a wall" -- where previously, and right up to the 7th century in an uninterrupted process of centuries, it had been a vibrant productive conduit of cultures and economies. (Indeed, the transformation by the Muslims of the Mediterranean into a hostile barrier was likely one major impetus for European eventually (after all, it takes a long time to stupendously progress as the West did slowly but surely throughout the Middle Ages) to discover the Americas -- for the East, which used to be a cross-cultural part of the West for centuries, even millennia, had become a perilous place to go when Muslims began establishing their networks of conquests (conquering Persia, India and great chunks of central Asia).<br /><br />The second point I'd like to make about your post above concerns your apt description from the book, that:<br /><br />"...the Muslim invasions of North Africa, the Levant, Persia, Syria, and the Mediterranean realm, following Muhammad's death, were the cause of the Dark Ages in Europe."<br /><br />My point is just a reminder (if not for you, then in case some readers here don't realize this historical fact) that the entire Middle East and all of North Africa had already been an integral part of the Roman Empire -- both the pagan Roman Empire and the Christian Roman Empire (which began in the 4th century A.D.) -- for several centuries before the Mohammedans stormed out of the desert and began wreaking their pillage, rapine and brutal conquests. I.e., North Africa was already part of the West for centuries before Islam came along to tear it away (as they did Spain for a good 800 years). While the West never formally and definitively re-conquered the Middle East and North Africa (but, as they say, "never say never"), the West did become spectacularly progressive enough to at least colonize it beginning in earnest in the 18th century and increasing throughout the 19th and then early 20th centuries, providing those areas devastated (in every sense of the word) by the bleak monstrosity of Islam with at least a brief window of time and delimited geographical spaces (mostly urban) with some semblances of the free air of civil rights and intellectual and cultural opportunities; which, of course, the vast majority of the Muslims concerned -- from Indonesia to India to the Middle East to North Africa -- did not appreciate nor absorb sufficiently by which to wake up their souls to the normal human response of recoiling from and rejecting the spiritual, intellectual and psychological cancer into which they were born and in which they were inculcated.Hesperadohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10394374828751466705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4793384866525609075.post-15751350093034509322012-01-18T12:53:17.196-08:002012-01-18T12:53:17.196-08:00Would be fun to see a post on why the commies, the...Would be fun to see a post on why the commies, the nazis and the christians hate the jews. Whats up with this whole jew hating thing anyway?ptitzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00875254264026034811noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4793384866525609075.post-32640982273600249742012-01-18T12:52:21.362-08:002012-01-18T12:52:21.362-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.ptitzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00875254264026034811noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4793384866525609075.post-65979084134396450312012-01-18T12:51:39.292-08:002012-01-18T12:51:39.292-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.ptitzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00875254264026034811noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4793384866525609075.post-22200831328556300142012-01-18T08:57:03.243-08:002012-01-18T08:57:03.243-08:00Right now I'm reading on Kindle this new book ...Right now I'm reading on Kindle this new book by Emmet Scott:<br /><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Mohammed-Charlemagne-Revisited-History-Controversy/dp/0578094185/ref=sr_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1322311742&sr=1-8" rel="nofollow"><b>Mohammed and Charlemagne Revisited: The History of a Controversy</b></a><br /><br />So far it's fascinating. I can't do it justice, but I'll give a brief summary of what I recall from a quick reading of the intro and first couple of chapters. <br /><br />The author quickly reviews the great progress and shifts in scholarship and archaeology over the last few centuries with regard to what caused the "Dark Ages" and when they happened and if they happened. <br /><br />Following on that review of the various arguments that have been made and the archaeological and textual data that has piled higher and higher especially in recent decades, the author presents a lot of evidence, in a very scholarly but very interesting way, that the Muslim invasions of North Africa, the Levant, Persia, Syria, and the Mediterranean realm, following Muhammad's death, were the cause of the Dark Ages in Europe. <br /><br />It wasn't the end of the Western Roman Empire that caused the European Dark Ages. The end of the Western Empire didn't actually change things very much, nor did the invasions of Germanic barbarians, who largely integrated themselves into Roman culture and laws and customs and who after the end of the Western Empire saw themselves as representatives of the Eastern Roman Empire. <br /><br />Archaeological and other evidence shows that classical civilization continued and economic life remained urban based and flourishing until around the time the Arab Muslims burst out of Arabia in the 7th century. It was around that time that all the archaeological and documentary indications of a serious decline emerge -- economic, agricultural, cultural. That was when classical civilization ended and the Dark Ages and the medieval period began in Europe. <br /><br />For one thing, literacy and economic life declined drastically in Europe because the importation of papyrus from Egypt was cut off by the Muslim invasions of North Africa and by Muslim piracy on the southern European coasts. And contrary to the myth, it was not just Europe that fell into a Dark Age at the time of the first Islamic conquests -- but the areas of the Middle East and North Africa conquered by Islam entered a Dark Age at the same time. So much, it seems, for that Islamic Golden Age we keep hearing about. <br /><br />In the late 9th century both Europe and the Islamic world began to emerge from the Dark Ages, according to the evidence of archaeology and the documents of the time. <br /><br />In the 10th century, the author says, Islamic civilization is more advanced than the European, but based on what I've read so far, I'm pretty sure the author will at some stage in the book point out that the eastern Mediterranean and Middle Eastern areas conquered by Islam were also significantly more advanced, populous, and much wealthier than Europe before the Muslims entered and conquered those Middle Eastern lands. Thus the fact that they would emerge from the Dark Ages more advanced than Europe is probably due to the pre-existing advanced civilization in those places, which the Muslims had only partly Islamized by the start of the 10th century. <br /><br />When you read the evidence presented by the author about the causes of the Dark Ages in Europe, it suddenly seems obvious. This book could be, or at any rate should be, a major paradigm shifter.<br /><br />You can read the intro <a href="http://www.newenglishreview.org/Emmet_Scott/Mohammed_%26_Charlemagne_Revisited%3A_An_Introduction_to_the_History_of_a_Controversy/" rel="nofollow"><b>here</b></a>.Traehhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09997009621742454158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4793384866525609075.post-32210430997836200522012-01-18T08:37:38.240-08:002012-01-18T08:37:38.240-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Traehhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09997009621742454158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4793384866525609075.post-92109644119177428302012-01-18T06:54:59.208-08:002012-01-18T06:54:59.208-08:00Hesperado,
What Reilly says is a bit different. ...Hesperado,<br /><br />What Reilly says is a bit different. As I understand him, he thinks the Asharite school is well-grounded in the Hadith, but that its grounding in the Qur'an is more of a maybe. Reilly does not pretend the Hadith don't matter in Islam. In his book he is far from saying Islam itself is hunky-dory. He doesn't say the whole problem is due to the Asharite school. Nor does he seem to think reform has much of a chance. And he doesn't claim the liberal Mutazilite school was as well-grounded in Islam as the Asharite school. <br /><br />However I partly acknowledge your point and think there may be some truth in it. Still, even if his focus on the Asharite school is to a degree an example of the kind of BS to which you refer, his book and his thinking about Islam are fascinating and profound. <br /><br />It's interesting that the first philosophical/theological school of the Muslims was that of the liberal Mutazilites. They were very influential and favored by ruling authorities, but only lasted a generation or two, before the Asharites rose and crushed them. The Mutazilites had said the Qur'an was merely created (not uncreated), and according to Reilly, they accepted reason as the ultimate arbiter, above religious revelation. <br /><br />Reilly says the Muslims developed the Mutazilite philosophical/theological school basically as a reaction to Christian, Persian, and classical philosophy and theology in the great civilizations the Muslims conquered. <br /><br />I would hazard that the reason the first philosophical school of the Muslims was accepting of reason is that the invading Muslims had been sufficiently innocent of and barren of philosophy that when they first really encountered it, among the Byzantine Greek Christians, the Muslims had little option but to imitate like children the rational spirit of what they encountered. They had little means to judge it or resist it, since they had no significant philosophical tradition of their own. But after that child-like initiation or first blush was over, the Muslims soon employed reason to attack reason. Thus al-Ghazali wrote <i>The Incoherence of the Philosophers</i>. Thus and through similar cultural trends the Muslims of that time could revert to the spirit of their own revelation, which does not countenance freedom of thought. Thus the Asharite school and similar developments arose to suppress the Mutazilites, and reason committed suicide, aborting itself in its nascency. <br /><br />In any event, Reilly, without being pollyannish about it, somewhere mentions Almuslih.org, and says it's a website where Muslims promote a return to the spirit of the Mutazilites. I haven't checked it out.Traehhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09997009621742454158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4793384866525609075.post-38943154148375840472012-01-16T11:42:00.724-08:002012-01-16T11:42:00.724-08:00Traeh..
"Robert Reilly attributes many Musli...Traeh..<br /><br />"Robert Reilly attributes many Muslims' strong proclivity for conspiracy thinking to the rejection of reason by the Asharite school of Islam about a thousand years ago."<br /><br />I've noticed this particular asymptotic meme bandied about the anti-Islam movement: Islam was hunky dory once upon a time ("before the gates of ijtihad were closed", during its "golden age", blah blah blah), then subsequently became the Islam that plagues the world.<br /><br />Pure horseshit, pardon my Arabic (or should I say camelshit). It's just another desperate way to save Islam from the utter condemnation and damnation it deserves from top to bottom, inside out, through and through, forwards, backwards, sideways, essentially, intrinsically, ontologically, absolutely, unequivocally -- until there is nothing left but the charred ashes and glop of categorical incineration.Hesperadohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10394374828751466705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4793384866525609075.post-40899875865611932142012-01-16T08:16:54.700-08:002012-01-16T08:16:54.700-08:00As much as you don't want to acknowledge it, K...As much as you don't want to acknowledge it, Kafir, Jews are not every other nation. Unless we start self actualizing, and stepping up in the way we're meant to, there won't be peace for anyone. The religious mumbo-jumbo can remain that, or the Torah and what it's asking us, can be used to shape us into kind and thriving humans, whole and powerfully real, who can teach the world how get back to where we all want to be. If you're in Israel, you're lucky, since there are plenty of Torah teachers there that are definitely NOT about mumbo jumbo. I just returned from a visit there, though, and I was so broken to experience how lost we seem to be now. The most basic principals that we are all brothers and sisters and we need to treat everyone with respect and dignity seem to be forgotten again. That's why the 2nd Temple was destroyed, and unless we can figure out how love each other, even when we disagree, what good can come from us?KarenBBirdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13479134382885592703noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4793384866525609075.post-17917985783945391912012-01-15T16:33:12.624-08:002012-01-15T16:33:12.624-08:00Hesperado,
Robert Reilly attributes many Muslims...Hesperado, <br /><br />Robert Reilly attributes many Muslims' strong proclivity for conspiracy thinking to the rejection of reason by the Asharite school of Islam about a thousand years ago. The thinking of that school or extensions of that thinking became and remain predominant in the Sunni Islamic world. With the rejection of reason (and the equation of Allah to pure power and will) goes the rejection of cause and effect series in nature. Allah causes everything at each moment and is bound by no causal laws in doing so. Allah is not even bound by his own word in the past. Allah is bound only by his pure will, which determines anew at each moment what happens in the world. There are no causal chains in nature and the world. Into the void left by the rejection of natural cause and effect go numerous, endless, wild conspiracies promulgated by Muslims.Traehhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09997009621742454158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4793384866525609075.post-77887692704675876612012-01-15T16:17:35.785-08:002012-01-15T16:17:35.785-08:00Kafir Ibn al-Shaitan,
You say the map is secondar...Kafir Ibn al-Shaitan, <br />You say the map is secondary and the territory is primary. <br /><br />Is the distinction between map and territory part of the map or part of the territory?Traehhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09997009621742454158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4793384866525609075.post-15613947327911882152012-01-14T14:47:51.341-08:002012-01-14T14:47:51.341-08:00Oh, man ...
Traeh, thanks for your response.
I jus...Oh, man ...<br />Traeh, thanks for your response.<br />I just don't think that this is the right place for a philosophical discussion, so I will avoid the temptation.<br />It is very interesting though.<br /><br />Just a few minor points:<br /><br />"Do you mean that words only designate physical items?"<br /><br />Certainly not. Language is not structured this way.<br />"Words have meaning" should not be understood as "words designate physical items".<br /> <br />"The parents don't know the child yet, but they pick a name for it. As one gets to know the child, the name acquires a meaning."<br /><br />Still, parents use that name to designate their particular child and not a random child. :)<br /><br />"Let's skip over artificial intelligence."<br /><br />Of course, since it's not available (at least not yet). I'm a techie geek, very interested in this, so I know that for a fact.<br /><br />"Insisting on "rationality" is great, provided one doesn't imagine that the world perfectly conforms at any point to rational ideas of it."<br /><br />The world doesn't conform. That's exactly my point.<br />As Francis Bacon said: "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed." Our rationality must conform to reality, not the other way around. Our mental "map" of the world depicts the "territory" (reality). Reality is the primary and our understanding of it is secondary. Whenever we have problems with our "maps", it doesn't mean that there's any problem with "the territory".<br /><br />Also I admit that I'm not a Kantian subjectivist (but not a Randian "objectivist" either, even though she had many sound and hugely important ideas that I do respect.)<br /><br />"There is no "collective" consciousness -- but two people, for example two close friends, while retaining their two individualities, at the same time incarnate a third thing between them, and that third thing is more than just the sum of the two of them."<br /><br />But this is all about communication, isn't it ? Individuality isn't lost. Both friends still have separate minds.<br /><br />What's a "non-physical" world ? You mean all that which pertains to our consciousness and often called "spiritual world" ?<br />The yes, I agree (that consciousness exists).<br /><br />"Objective. Yes, so long as one means striving for objectivity. One never perfectly attains it."<br /><br />But we have to admit that adopting such a general direction in our attitudes is a noble and ultimately rewarding one.<br />We don't have omniscience, of course. But being reasonable is a good thing, no matter what confused and despirited modern subjectivists and pseudointelletuals claim.<br /><br />"Well, if he "allows" it as you say..."<br /><br />Yes, because thinking is a personal responsibility. Just look at how many prefer not to think at all and live their disorganised empty lives according to their vague whimsical "feelings".<br />(libtarded hippie subjectivists, various deranged cultists, etc.)<br />No wonder that the world is so fucked up.Kafir Ibn al-Shaitanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03622002941245153471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4793384866525609075.post-78726349268824565942012-01-14T12:54:26.854-08:002012-01-14T12:54:26.854-08:00David,
Islam inculcates a kind of conspiracy thin...David,<br /><br />Islam inculcates a kind of conspiracy thinking -- about everything, and also particularly about Jews.<br /><br />Their conspiracy thinking about Jews is comprised of the following beliefs:<br /><br />1) Yahweh was Allah.<br /><br />2) The Jews were chosen by Allah to be his people and spread His Guidance (i.e., Islam) throughout the world.<br /><br />3) However, the vast majority of the Jews tended to be corrupt and wicked, and disobeyed Allah/Yahweh, among other things corrupting His Guidance's writ in the form of the Torah such that whatever truths were in there were severely compromised and obfuscated for centuries, leading succeeding generations astray.<br /><br />4) A small handful of Jews obeyed Allah/Yahweh (mostly the OT Prophets), and they were therefore ipso facto Muslims, or proto-Muslims = followers of Allah's Guidance = Islam.<br /><br />5) Jesus was the penultimate in a line of Good Jews who obey Allah, and he tried to bring Allah's Guidance to the Jews, and by extension to Mankind; but again, Jews and Mankind were too corrupt and wicked to receive it.<br /><br />6) Finally, Allah said "Enough's enough: I'm sending my final Prophet who will be entrusted with my Guidance in the form of a book -- a book that will finally clear up what was obscured by the wicked corruption by wicked Jews and Christians of my previous books, the Torah and Injil; and which will form a people who will, by hook or by crook, spread my Guidance throughout the Earth until the Last Days when I will come along to, with the help of Jesus/Issa, clean up the mess of history definiively and throw all the non-Muslims into eternal hell, and place all my good servants in eternal Paradise."<br /><br />7) Meanwhile, history chugs along, and, as you say, Jews obviously excel in all levels of life while Muslims flounder in their filth, toxic fanaticism, diseased hatred and inferiority on all levels of life.<br /><br />8) Because of fanatically believing in #1-6, Muslims take the data of #7 and conclude that Satan (Shaytan) is helping Jews to excel, and that for mysterious reasons Allah is perhaps testing Muslims -- perhaps this humiliating disparity of Jews and Western Infidels being so obviously superior to Muslims is meant by Allah to be a <i>motivation</i> and <i>inspiriation</i> to FIGHT and KILL and DIE more (cf. Koran 9.111) for the cause of Allah, for Jihad. Otherwise, less active Muslims who decide not to explode (today) shuffle along with their Inshallah fatalism, blame the Jews and Americans for all ills of existence, and continue in various ways to contribute to the abject inferiority and sick pathologies of their societies.<br /><br />Any other way of looking at the facts of reality is simply not possible for the vast majority of Muslims, stuck as they are in their mass psychosis that insinuates its dark and slimy tendrils deep into their psychic viscera choking nearly all the life of the heart and mind out of them with the help of profoundly dysfunctional families and surrounding society passing on the disease. And that's why they are, and have been for centuries, doing their damndest to make life for others Hell on earth -- in the process, of course, ironically doing the same for their own lives; but then, that's the real goal and delight of their true master, who is not Yahweh at all, but his aeonic nemesis, the Serpent, Lucifer, Satan.Hesperadohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10394374828751466705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4793384866525609075.post-17330494773830670012012-01-14T12:45:40.038-08:002012-01-14T12:45:40.038-08:00Then what is the meaning of this ayah?
S.98:6 Ind...Then what is the meaning of this ayah?<br /><br />S.98:6 Indeed, they who disbelieved among the People of the Scripture and the polytheists will be in the fire of Hell, abiding eternally therein. Those are the worst of creatures.<br /><br />Muslim men can marry Jews and Christians but Muslim women are not allowed to marry them.<br /><br />S.5:51 O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.hugh watthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15485318279390149754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4793384866525609075.post-34875598665370352522012-01-14T12:31:53.400-08:002012-01-14T12:31:53.400-08:00I was Muslim, and did not hate Jews. I think that&...I was Muslim, and did not hate Jews. I think that's more in the culture of those who are raised Muslim.<br /><br />Christians rejected Islam as well, so they should be just as misaligned as Jews. <br /><br />Although in the Quran Jews and Christians are called The People of The Book, and Muslim men can marry them, so they have a certain status above the Pagans and others.<br /><br />AnisahAnisahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11095028817264943486noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4793384866525609075.post-57036233413837201332012-01-14T11:07:52.888-08:002012-01-14T11:07:52.888-08:00Simple.
5,000,000 Israeli Jews achieve more than 1...Simple.<br />5,000,000 Israeli Jews achieve more than 1,500,000,000 Muslims.<br />In their jealous rage, Muslims yell, "It can't be us. It must be them. Their god can't be superior to ours, can it?"Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06329483576009124614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4793384866525609075.post-45664646149877022392012-01-14T03:15:54.330-08:002012-01-14T03:15:54.330-08:00Hesperado, I believe I'm a panentheist, not a ...Hesperado, I believe I'm a panentheist, not a pantheist (though I may fall into pantheism when poorly navigating some philosophical shoals).Traehhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09997009621742454158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4793384866525609075.post-71755219708008394672012-01-14T03:00:09.004-08:002012-01-14T03:00:09.004-08:00Hesperado, Having thought further about it, I agre...Hesperado, Having thought further about it, I agree that "like one of us" could be a way of extending the royal plural. <br /><br />Also, as you say, under my earlier interpretation of the phrase, it could mean "like a particular one of us," which would indeed be an odd result. <br /><br />But I note that "like one of us" could also indicate no such distinction among the members of that "us." For example when, say, a fraternity or other group initiates a new member into the group and someone says, "he's one of us now." In that usage, the person who says it obviously doesn't mean the new member is like one particular member of the fraternity. "Like one of us" in the Genesis verse could have a similar approach to plurality, couldn't it? "He's like one of us gods now." However, I don't insist it's likely, since I'm no biblical exegete. I'm just ruminating in my novice fashion. <br /><br />I know that some much more serious Christian exegetes have claimed to find many similar indications of Trinity in the Old Testament and argued those could not be considered examples of royal plural.Traehhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09997009621742454158noreply@blogger.com