How a non-believer can agree to things in which one has faith?. Then what is need on the part of a non-believer to seek discussion about what is written in Quran.
Once he do not believe then he totally disagree with all what is written it is absured to talk about individial laws and issues.

Ukba, many thanks. I've enjoyed chatting, sparring, disagreeing, and agreeing with you too. I salute your style and substance.

Onofrio,

I saw that same comment in other threads; and I am not sure what the person is talking about. However there is nothing about you that come close to describing you as a new atheist. I am familiar with that term and actually read the book by Chris Hedges ‘I Don't Believe in Atheists’ where he discusses his disdain of the new stand of atheists. I thought it was a good book and recommend it to anyone. Again you are a graciuos person and it was nice chatting with you.

Manoo

Regarding your remarks:

"THE NEO-ATHEISTS and their “innocent” quest for religious knowledge

The neo-atheist which is a new “religion” is a form of “militant atheism” which is against all the religions. There questions to you on this forum are not as innocent and they seem to be. They come here with a mission to create doubts about all religions may it be Islam, Christianity or Judaism.

Before you answer their questions about your religion is it not befitting to have the introduction of the person i.e. what he himself believes in. Internet do not mean you hide a dagger to attack other religions while you hide yourself."

As one who has raised numerous questions on this thread, (and has had them robustly answered) I suspect I may have been tarred with your broad brush.

For the record, I am not a militant neo-atheist, like Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, et al. I come from a Christian background, but no longer identify with it. But that does not mean I have ditched God entirely. Yes, I have asked critical, even pointed questions of different Abrahamic faiths represented on this thread, but that does not constitute hatred, and I refute any such imputation. The bases of my questions are sometimes curiosity, sometimes honest indignation, sometimes a sense of playfulness amongst so much fulmination. I do not identify with the currently fashionable, scientistic, populist atheism, nor do I endorse savage anti-religious diatribes of the ignorant. But I do uphold my own genuine motive to ENGAGE with the various religious OTHERS. I have been as gracious as I can be, while remaining true to myself.

IN OPPOSITION IS TRUE FRIENDSHIP (William Blake)

And regarding any metaphorical "dagger" you may think I'm hiding, I assure you, that is "but a dagger of the mind, proceding from [your own] heat oppressed brain" (apologies Shakespeare). You have God's truth - I am just one voice of dissent. What has your vast tradition to fear from honest questions?

I do not create doubts. But I do prod the places where they may be lying dormant. If any here doubt, let them own their doubts. Surely, God is greater?

Manoo

Thank you your post is a eye-opener.

Now i understand what is going on, on this forum and why there are so many hate filled comments about three main religions.
Among them are infidels too.

Astoria
Ukba

THE NEO-ATHEISTS and their “innocent” quest for religious knowledge

The neo-atheist which is a new “religion” is a form of “militant atheism” which is against all the religions. There questions to you on this forum are not as innocent and they seem to be. They come here with a mission to create doubts about all religions may it be Islam, Christianity or Judaism.

Before you answer their questions about your religion is it not befitting to have the introduction of the person i.e. what he himself believes in. Internet do not mean you hide a dagger to attack other religions while you hide yourself.

Atheism is a rejection of all religion, or at least of all theistic religion, and since Islam is usually considered a theistic religion, atheism is in principle opposed to it. However, as a phenomenon with its roots in Europe, atheism has concentrated its opposition to religion on Christianity. The new atheism, by contrast, emphasizes Islam as a particularly virulent form of religion that must be opposed. Often, the new atheists claim that because of the events of 9/11, they feel compelled to take a strong stand against religion in general and Islam in particular. Because of this, atheists who focus primarily on Islam, such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, may also be considered to be a part of, or at least allied with, the neo-atheists.

Atheists do not have anything new to offer. The neo atheists tend to show no interest in professional philosophy, religion, or theology and target the mass market. The arguments against the existence of God are generally versions of scientism, the view that all of life's problems may be solved by appeal to the natural sciences, and the moral argument against religion, that religion brings out the worst in people. They hide under humanism and pretend to be kinder species. There aim is just to confuse those who have faith in God and religion.

Peace and regards.

Ukba pontificates to Onforio thus:
“The other point I would like to clarify is in the Quran there is neither mention of Jesus returning to earth to bring the end of times nor any credence to the idea of Jesus being a judge of any sort. In the Quran, God is the sole judge.”

This Ukba person is either ignorant or take us for idiots.

Quran 43:61! . And he ['Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary)] shall be a known sign for (the coming of) the Hour (Day of Resurrection) [i.e. 'Iesa's (Jesus) descent on the earth] . Therefore have no doubt concerning it (i.e. the Day of Resurrection). And follow Me (Allâh) (i.e. be obedient to Allâh and do what He orders you to do, O mankind)! This is the Straight Path.

Hadith (attributed sayings to the prophet of the Muslims) confirms that Jesus will come as a just ruler and will judge the world:
004.055.657 - Prophets - Narrated Abu Huraira
Allah's Apostle said, "By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, surely (Jesus,) the son of Mary will soon descend amongst you and will judge mankind justly (as a Just Ruler); he will break the Cross and kill the pigs and there will be no Jizya (i.e. taxation taken from non Muslims). Money will be in abundance so that nobody will accept it, and a single prostration to Allah (in prayer) will be better than the whole world and whatever is in it.

onofrio,

I say Amen to that. You have been a graciuos fellow.

peace

Hey Ukba,

I wouldn't characterise Mark, Matthew, and John as "more authentic" than Luke. I'm sure you know already, but it's worth reiterating that Mark is the core gospel, which Matthew and Luke bookend with birth and resurrection narratives (of questionable historicity) and buttress with Q-sayings (original Jesus logia?), while "John" goes off on its own distinctive Jesus pesher, with all those proto-Trinitarian formulations that most Christian god-man belief is based on. Not that Luke is thereby off the hook in questions of accuracy. "Dr" Luke has done a fair bit of "creative" historiography, to say the LEAST. If I've made Qur'anic gaffes - apologies - we'll call the score even, deal?

Ukba, much respect for your argumentation! You're spot on about the mystery of the whole question of "What happened to Jesus?" Wouldn't it be great if all the warring parties could just bracket it off as inexplicable, and get on with the Tikkun Olam raised by Farnaz, and try not to dance on each other's toes?

ONOFRIO,

You wrote: “I have to admit there's something vaguely appealing in the rather inconclusive Islamic treatment of Jesus' ultimate fate. He just dies somewhere and exits the stage of history rather discretely - no humiliating execution, but last days return still guaranteed …There seems to be an indeterminacy in the Islamic portrayal of Jesus - on one hand, he's a regular (albeit very great) prophet who died like other mortals. On the other hand, he still wears a rather otherworldly aura as virgin-born, and Word of God, and apocalyptic harbinger, and end-times judge.”

In the Quran, it is clear that Jesus died; the way he died and what happened to his body is not stated nor explained. So, I’ll have to leave it at that. To me personally, it is not really important but I am curious what exactly happened to him. The Christian bible does not shed more light on the subject either.

The ascension is not mentioned in the more authentic gospels of Mark, Matthew, and John. The most reliable manuscript of the gospel of Luke ends with: “Then he led them out as far as Bethany, and lifting up his hands he blessed them. While he blessed them, he parted from them. And they returned to Jerusalem with great joy, and were continually in the temple blessing God.”

As you can see it is not clear what really happened to Jesus.

Acts is presumably written by the same person who wrote the gospel according to Luke. In Acts we read:

“To these he also presented himself alive(I like that word ALIVE)after his suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God … And after he had said these things, he was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received him out of their sight. And as they were gazing intently into the sky while he was going, behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them. They also said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched him go into heaven."

If we believe the writer, Jesus is taken up physically in clouds body and clothes. I think it is more of a legend with no historical facts; it is a fabrication of a person who was trying to explain the disappearance of Jesus.

In conclusion, the Quran does not give a satisfactory account of what happened to Jesus’ body and neither do the gospels.

The other point I would like to clarify is in the Quran there is neither mention of Jesus returning to earth to bring the end of times nor any credence to the idea of Jesus being a judge of any sort. In the Quran, God is the sole judge.

Thomas Baum,

Thanks for the responses, O no-longer-doubting, prophetic, apostolic tree. I don't doubt the efficacy of images in evangelising pre-literate peoples, and in shaping the faith of literate ones as well. And the best of Christian imagery is undoubtedly powerful, at least to those within the Christian cultural matrix, like me. Thomas, I'm no iconoclast.

It's a sign to me of the profound Hellenistic colonisation of Jesus (aided and abetted by Greek gospels) that the faith based on him has such a strong iconographic tradition. It's the visual complement of the fundamentally pagan genius of the great Christian distinctives - the dying-rising God-man, the perichoretic divine Triad, and the "mother of God" (thankyou Isis).

I wonder, when that Jewish fisherman made his great confession to his thaumaturgic rabbi, whether he could have imagined Sistine ignudi and sybils, golden crowned queens of heaven half-alive in the candle-light, solar wafers (broken suns), gold-plated croziers, and sky-stabbing spires.

What hath God wrought?

Part II

You also wrote, "But don't you think that the strong aniconographic stance of both Judaism and Islam (and some strands of Protestantism) in relation to divine images is actually closer to Jesus the JEW than is current Catholic practice?

Considering the fact that the Jews and the Muslims do not believe that God became One of Us, I can see why they can think that.

Also considering the FACT that God is a BEING OF PURE LOVE, I believe the reason that God said that no one should make an image of Him is that it would be impossible for someone to make an image of PURE LOVE.

When Jesus said, "Phillip, how long have you been with Me, if you have seen Me, you have seen the Father", I believe that if we take Jesus at His Word then making an Image of God-Incarnate, even tho we do not know exactly what He looked like but we do know that He became One of Us is not only alright to do but can be very helpful in presenting the story of Jesus's Life and mission on earth.

It wasn't all that long ago that most people were illiterate and that all written material had to be hand-written so for people to come up with other aids in telling about Jesus and His Mission were Divinely-Inspired.

In the Old Testament times people used auditorial images to speak about God and in the New Testament times people use both auditorial images and visual images to speak about God.

When I speak of Old Testament times and New Testament times, I am speaking of a continuity not that the Old Testament has been cancelled, because it has not, the Covenant with the Jews, as God has said, is everlasting, but that God's Plan is just further along.

Thank you for your comments and your questions.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

ONOFRIO Part I

You wrote, " Methinks a case could be made that traditional Eurocentric Catholic imagery subtly aids and abets historic Catholic anti-Semitism, because it effectively un-Jewifies the Jewish Christ, his mother, and his "foster" father.".

A case can be made and has been made by many different people to justify their bigotries not just their anti-Semitic bigotry. Even tho people in the "West" are probably more familiar with "traditional Eurocentric Catholic imagery" there is also Far-Eastern imagery from the Far-East and African imagery from Africa and other imagery from other places.

One of the things that a lot of people, including a lot of Catholics, may have not noticed is that Pope John Paul II went around the entire world making public penances for the sins of the Catholic Church and I point out, the Church, not individual people in the Church but the Church itself.

Jesus said, "Simon, thou art Peter and upon this rock, I will build MY Church and the gates of the nether world shall not prevail against it".

Jesus also said, "I am the vine, you are the branches", He did not say branch.

Jesus said that it was HIS Church, He did not say that it was Peter's. Jesus also spelled out the whole mission of the Church when He said, "the gates of the nether world shall not prevail against it". We are all called to be "rocks", living stones, in this Church, not just Peter. Also Jesus never said that the Church would be perfect but that HIS Church had a mission.

UKBA

I follow your comments on this blog.
You are trying to argue with the non-believers.
Even if you prove them one thing they will come up with the other as their intention is never to heed to the divine message.
You believe what your prophet says and what your book says becuse you trust them. How you can make a non-believer to do the same?
ONLY GOD IF HE WILLS.
If they tell you Abraham , Moses , jesus and Muhammad were ghosts then?
Jesus was born by the will of God without a father you can agree but those who do not beleive they will not agree?

There knowledge over which they boast is that of a frog in a well.

Salves who enjoys ammenities of inner house of a jew master, while rest of the world are slave workers working on his farms. What a high life style.?????/ Ha Ha Ha.

you believe in the day of judgement but they dont
aethists are no more different then those who used to live in the past.How progressive - Ha Ha

I appreciate your efforts to make others understand but it is not the matter of simple reasoning and proves rather it a will to accept or not to accept the divine guidance.

Where there is will there is way
otherwise here and there one sway

enjoy peace

Ukba sets us straight thus:

“****Thus, the Qur’an categorically denies the story of the crucifixion of Jesus.”

The same Quran claimed that Mary the daughter of Imram was the mother of Jesus and that Haman was a minister of Pharoah and the Samaritans lived during the time of Moses and that Alexander the Great was a believer in Allah etc. My question to those who cite the Quran to back up their assertions of historical events is this; how credible a source you believe it is?

Just for the record, Farnaz, I wouldn't want to insult the faith of Arminius, T.Baum, and devout others by including my Resurrection-and-Trinity denying self among their ranks. Among Christians, I identify as non-Christian (or even pagan, when I'm in the mood to shock), but in the context of this blog, I'll accept the assignation to the Christian "camp" (apologies Christians) given that inherited Christian culture is the unavoidable frame of all my references, even as I reject it.

Unfortunately, I still have too much residual affection for divinity to really qualify as a committed atheist.

What a fence-sitter!

I warm to the notion of religious faith as perpetual interpretation -and I appreciate the ancient "postmodernist" genius of Judaism - deconstruction of idols appears to be an age-old specialty.

Still searching out all the facets of that great Hamlet analogy.

Onofrio:

Cont'd

It's not just a question of locution. Even the Tanakh is not Jewish "Scripture." It's merely the first step. Judaism is interpretive in its self-understanding. Then there are the interpretations of the interpretations. In some ways it has been postmodern since antiquity.

Minimally, Jewish Scripture would have to include Tanakh and Talmud.

Onofrio:

No need to apologize. It's just so odd for Judaism to be in this peculiar position. I posted to you earlier asking if you'd read Levinas and Girard. If so, we have a way of speaking about this. If not, we could still use them, but I fear others will misunderstand. Then, of course, as you posted earlier, Christians have a vested interest in not understanding.

But then we can use also use Said. What Judaism is is colonized. And Spivak: the subaltern pace Jews cannot speak.

You are the only Christian to blog on this thread to have demonstrated some insight into the relations of the two religions to Judaism. Frightening. And I include self-proclaimed atheists of Christian descent.

In a way Jews feel like Hamlet, to Islam and Christianity's Gertrude:

Christians and Muslims: Hamlet, thou hast thy father much offended.

Jews (Moi, in this case): Mother, you have my father much offended.

Farnaz,

Sorry to have deployed the terms so sloppily. It stems from a desire to be more precise, inexpertly handled in my case. I didn't intend to offend, just to distinguish a particular trajectory of Judaism from others, like say pre-exilic, Temple, or diaspora Judaism. Many Christians (and others) think of Judaism in fairly monolithic terms, and using qualifiers like "rabbinic" - though somewhat clinical I know - is a way of mitigating this somewhat. Or perhaps just adding to the ignorance :( With regard to scriptures, I do like to use the term Tanakh, but in certain circles it just elicits blank looks, besides suggesting an erudition I do not actually possess. Dumb, but true.

Sorry once again for becoming a shining example of outsider irksomeness.

On the matter of Levinas - I haven't read his books, but I have read summaries of his philosophy in the comprehensive cribs that are my staple diet. But how's this for synchronicity - just yesterday, while I cycled to work, the thought popped into my head "I really ought to read some Levinas." I kid you not. So I'll consider your post the second witness and get started.

Onofrio:

It occurs to me that using the phrase rabbinic Judaism is redundant. Although there are Kairites, their number is few, and they, too, are interpretive, though they would deny it to a human. Hence, to all extents and purposes, rabbinic Judaism is Judaism, which makes most Christians, Muslims, et al, say about what Jews "believe" alternatively irritating and amusing.

Not to mention silliness like Jewish or Hebrew Scriptures.

Ukba,

I really appreciate the philologically detailed responses you've made to points I've raised - and that's no pun intended. I have to admit there's something vaguely appealing in the rather inconclusive Islamic treatment of Jesus' ultimate fate. He just dies somewhere and exits the stage of history rather discretely - no humiliating execution, but last days return still guaranteed. Given that Islam has a well-developed concept of the martyr, I would have thought that Jesus' crucifixion could be construed as the ultimate martyrdom of the good Muslim, and his "exultation" or "raising up" to Allah (not necessarily the same as the dead-man-walking event of the gospels) as the ultimate vindication of his righteousness. But clearly that's unlikely to be the case.

There seems to be an indeterminacy in the Islamic portrayal of Jesus - on one hand, he's a regular (albeit very great) prophet who died like other mortals. On the other hand, he still wears a rather otherworldly aura as virgin-born, and Word of God, and apocalyptic harbinger, and end-times judge. Is he a man, or some sort of angel? It's hard to tell. What an enigma that man was/is.

With regard to the Qur'anic denial that "the Jews" succeeded in killing Jesus - Islam manages to hit both Jewish and Christian raw nerves - it concurs with the gospels' account that the Jews were primarily responsible for Jesus' execution (Jews say "ouch"), yet then implies that the execution never took place (Christians say "ouch"). Zounds, I reel without a reel in an Abrahamic labyrinth! Ariadne...help!

Seriously, Ukba, thanks for providing the non-Muslim readers of this thread with an insight into the complexities of interpretation and translation, and into the depth of erudition that is brought to bear in Muslim scriptural commentary.

Truly, the devil is in the details, bless him!

Astoria

Thanks for your comments.
Any great religion cannot be moulded as per the perception of a single person. Christianity gave concessions according to the needs of the time and lost its originality.
We in Islam are proud to claim that not a single iota is changed in the Quran and its universal message is for all the humanity who so ever want to be benefitted.
The laws of Quran are revelant even to present day society. The sufferings of present day are because we you not heed to the devine message.
For me it is a joke if someone claim he is more faithful to the king than the king himself.
Such is the case of self proclaimed "free thinkers".God is kind to its creation including human beings, the claim of "free thinkers" is false.

Peace and regards

Astoria

Thanks for your comments.
Any great religion cannot be moulded as per the perception of a single person. Christianity gave concessions according to the needs of the time and lost its originality.
We in Islam are proud to claim that not a single iota is changed in the Quran and its universal message is for all the humanity who so ever want to be benefitted.
The laws of Quran are revelant even to present day society. The sufferings of present day are because we you not heed to the devine message.
For me it is a joke if someone claim he is more faithful to the king than the king himself.
Such is the case of "free thinkers".

Peace and regards

Onofrio. Part 2:

So in effect Jesus died like every other human being as it is written in the Quran: “Every soul will taste of death.” And I totally disagree with Yusuf Alis’ translation. It comes as no surprise then when Muhammad Assad translates the word ‘rafaa’ in chapter four as exalt and honor and not raise up or lift up like Yusuf Ali did:

4: 157) and their boast, "Behold, we have slain the Christ Jesus, son of Mary, [who claimed to be] an apostle of God!" However, they did not slay him, and neither did they crucify him, but it only seemed to them [as if it had been] so;**** and, verily, those who hold conflict¬ing views thereon are indeed confused, having no [real] knowledge thereof, and following mere con¬jecture. For, of a certainty, they did not slay him:

(4:158) nay, God exalted him unto Himself***** - and God is indeed almighty, wise.

(4:159) Yet there is not one of the followers of earlier revelation who does not, at the moment of his death, grasp the truth about Jesus;****** and on the Day of Resurrection he [himself] shall bear witness to the truth against them.

***The calumny referred to is the popular Jewish assertion that Jesus was an illegitimate child.

****Thus, the Qur’an categorically denies the story of the crucifixion of Jesus. There exist, among Muslims, many fanciful legends telling us that at the last moment God substituted for Jesus a person closely resembling him (according to some accounts, that person was Judas), who was subsequently crucified in his place. However, none of these legends finds the slightest support in the Qur’an or in authentic Traditions, and the stories produced in this connection by the classical commentators must be summarily rejected. They represent no more than confused attempts at "harmonizing" the Qur’anic statement that Jesus was not crucified with the graphic description, in the Gospels, of his crucifixion.

*****Cf. 3:55, where God says to Jesus, "Verily, I shall cause thee to die, and shall exalt thee unto Me." The verb rafa ahu (lit., "he raised him" or "elevated him") has always, whenever the act of raf’ ("elevating") of a human being is attributed to God, the meaning of "honoring" or "exalting". Nowhere in the Qur’an is there any warrant for the popular belief that God has "taken up" Jesus bodily, in his lifetime, into heaven. The expression "God exalted him unto Himself" in the above verse denotes the elevation of Jesus to the realm of God's special grace - a blessing in which all prophets partake, as is evident from 19:57, where the verb rafa nahu ("We exalted him") is used with regard to the Prophet Idris. The "nay" (bal) at the beginning of the sentence is meant to stress the contrast between the belief of the Jews that they had put Jesus to a shameful death on the cross and the fact of God's having "exalted him unto Himself".--- Translation and commentary by Muhammad Assad.

Onofrio,

Part 1:
You wrote: "In any case, I find it far more probable that Jesus was executed than the vague "God took him to himself" Qur'anic account. That seems like a rather coy avoidance strategy to me, influenced by Docetic and Gnostic beliefs that Jesus was a spiritual being, who could not suffer and die in a shameful and brutal execution. It's as if the Qur'an implies an ascension to heaven without an intervening death - like Elijah in the fiery chariot. That's even more !unbelievable! (one of your favoured exclamations) than the Christians' dead-man-walking."

I reread the verses from the Quran and I can see why the misunderstanding might occur.

The verse in question is: ‘God took him up to Himself.’ What I quoted was Yusuf Ali translation and I should have been more careful as to as to what he wrote. Because what he translated as “took him up to himself’, in Arabic rafaa, can have different meanings depending on the context of the sentence.

The word in question then is ‘rafaa’ which has different shades of meanings in Arabic; it can mean: to raise up, lift, exalt, hoist, extol, take away, honor, show regard to, elevate… raise in dignity.

Yusuf Ali chose the meaning raise up and lift up; which is fine if there is no other way to narrow down the meaning of the word. However in chapter three of the Quran the question is settled and we can give the right meaning of the word in chapter four. Chapter three, and here I am using Muhammad Assad’s translation, reads:

3:54 And the unbelievers schemed [against Jesus];* but God brought their scheming to naught: for God is above all schemers.

*Lit., "they schemed" - here referring to those among the Jews who refused to acknowledge Jesus as a prophet and tried to destroy him.

3:55 Lo! God said: "O Jesus! Verily, I shall cause thee to die, and shall exalt thee unto Me, and cleanse thee of [the presence of] those who are bent on denying the truth; and I shall place those who follow thee [far] above those who are bent on denying the truth, unto the Day of Resurrection. In the end, unto Me you all must return, and I shall judge between you with regard to all on which you were wont to differ.*

*This refers to all who revere Jesus (i.e., the Christians, who believe him to be "the son of God", and the Muslims, who regard him as a prophet) as well as to those who deny him altogether. Regarding God's promise to Jesus, "I shall exalt thee unto Me", see surah 4, note 172.

Jamil you stated-

"YOURS IS A SYSTEM BASED UPON WISHES AND OURS ON FULFILLING THE NEEDS."

Wow- that is incredibly succinct and potent in it's expression.

The difference between wants and needs, and the motivation that drives them.

I have taken a little break from this forum because of the vitriol it descended into = but am still reading your comments.

Thanks for trying to link Dr. Zakir Naid.

And thanks for your patience, informative posts- and always reasonable and adult responses.

significance of places,stones and times.

why 3 million people from all over the planet earth leave their homes ,childerns,wifes,bussiness ,spend at least 5000 $ to travel to a baren land ,to circumference around a piece of stone 7 time and haste between 2 mountain 7 times?

what is more interesting they kiss a specific stone at specific place , a few days later they thro specific number of stones at a specific piece of stone at specific time??

what is even more interesting why abrahaim leave the frutifull land of palastine to travel to a barren arab none but rocks and dirt land and leave his baby boy and mother ???

islam is about submission and folowing commands ,the commands here is from the allmighty creator of this universe.

this is the highst civilization mankind can attain .

worthy to mention here that the tora and ingel was revealed way after the time of abrahaim ,he was no jew nor christian, moses and jesus came from the lineage and heritage of abrahaim .

mecca is the first place of worship on this planet earth.

those who are interesting in studying the history of mecca can call or right to the national library in riyad/saudi arabia .

And we still await the answer, is Farnaz an a "born again" member of the Jewish religion?? To say the least her brainwashing in said religion is going to be tough to break.

Considering the small global population of practicing Jews, does it really matter??

Halozcel1:
Abhab
CCLN
All the above of you are religion-less persons whose comments are so cheap that they need no replies.

In continuation to my previous post:

What is the Punishment for changing religion in Judaism Christianity and Hindus.?

Here are some abstracts:
The Torah states:
Deuteronomy 13:6-10:
If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which [is] as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; [Namely], of the gods of the people which [are] round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the [one] end of the earth even unto the [other] end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.[12]

The Byzantine Emperor Justinian I instituted the punishment of death for apostasy in the Corpus Juris Civilis (Body of Civil Law), directed towards Jews, Samaritans, Manichæans, and other heretics (10 c., "De pag.", I, 11). This legal statute formed the basis of Western European law for several centuries.
Before the 12th century, the Western Christian Church already suppressed what it saw as heresy, usually through a system of ecclesiastical proscription or imprisonment, but also resorting to torture or executions as this form of punishment had many ecclesiastical opponents, although some non-secular countries punished heresy with the death penalty. [2][3]
In the 13th century, Pope Gregory IX (reigned 1227-1241) assigned the duty of carrying out inquisitions to the Dominican Order. Inquisitors acted in the name of the Pope and with his full authority. They used inquisitorial procedures, a legal practice commonly used at the time. They judged heresy alone
A 1578 handbook for inquisitors spelled out the purpose of inquisitorial penalties: ... quoniam punitio non refertur primo & per se in correctionem & bonum eius qui punitur, sed in bonum publicum ut alij terreantur, & a malis committendis avocentur. [Translation from the Latin: "... for punishment does not take place primarily and per se for the correction and good of the person punished, but for the public good in order that others may become terrified and weaned away from the evils they would commit."][6]

Halozcel1:
Abhab part 2
CCLN
All the above of you are religion-less persons whose comments are so cheap that they need no replies.

In continuation to my previous post:

In the Bhagavad Gita, righteous destruction of the wicked is commended as meritorious and fulfillment of caste duty:
"When justice is crushed, when evil is triumphant, then I come back. For the protection of the good, for the destruction of evil-doers, and for the establishment of dharma, I am born age after age." (VI, Verses 7-8)
In spite of liberal modernist mawkishness, death punishment for conscienceless murderers and sexual deviants has always been part of the Hindu sanatana dharma. The Indian fundamentalist teacher A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada sums up his views on "righteous lethality" and "detached violence":

Those who try to demonise Islam should take note of the above writings.
Many religions lost their original message due to changes made by them.
Heed to what your Lord says, we can talk another time about the "limitations of wisdom" of which we are so proud of.

CCNL, Great Catholicizing Jewish Muslim Hindu Buddhist Scholar, and Bagel:

As you know I did a search to help you with your flatulence problem, which, I see (or smell), you have yet to look into.

Once again, I lend a sisterly hand, albeit from a distance. Here are search results on Alcoholics Anonymous in Philadelphia.

http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=navclient&gfns=1&q=Alcoholics+anonymous+in+Philadelphia

There's no shame in setting off to rid yourself of this debilitating sickness. It may even eliminate the need for psychotherapy.

But never fear! I shall return with info. on therapy, Buddhist retreats, etc.

Hang in there, or, preferably, out there, until you have progressed in treating your hot and foul smelling air emissions problem

Onofrio,

Quite right on all accounts. I must tell you, it is pleasant to have a Christian know something of rabbinic Judaism, not that I haven't had the experience before, but never on this blog. There is also a certain comfort in not being perceived as a threat, in seeing a Christian "perceive" Judaism as a religion in its own right, in not being attacked, stereotyped, often in bizarre ways, in not having anxious Christians and others (scroll down to the latest from CCNL) project their insecurities onto others.

Speaking of which, have you read Levinas? And Girard? An odd pairing, I confess, but I must ask before I go on, later today or tomorrow, I'm afraid.

Jamil51,

You are telling/writing very good tales.
1-Does islam know what economy is ?
2-Is there any economy in islamic countries ?
3-You are telling myth about Saudi Arabia.I ask;imagine,
If there is no any huge oil revenue in Saudia,what would Saudia be ? What would Saudi and Islamic Republic Iran economy be ? and other Gulf countries?

*Yours(I think you mean Civilization) is a system based upon wishes and Ours(islam) on fulfilling thr Needs* Which NEEDS ???
A-What is the Health Care Needs in islamic countries ?
B-What is the Education Needs ?
C-What is the working class Needs ? (is there working class indeed)
D-What is the Environment Needs ?
In islamic Countries people are starving or living in Poverty(except e few oil rich countries)

*Islam is against interest(not interest,but Reeba) economy.Reeba means *usury*,not Bank interest and there was not any Bank at the time of islam founder.

Onofrio:
You remark to me
“You clearly have an axe to grind with Muslims”
I do not look at it exactly that way. I know a lot about the ideology of Islam and can’t help myself from correcting what seems to me to be a blatant misinterpretation with the intent of deception. It is, I suppose, the educator in me. There is a principle in their religion called Taqqiyah whereby it is halal (allowed) to lie in a number of situations including one where it is deemed to further the cause of their religion. When they assert that Islam means peace and that their religion respects the freedom of conscience and that their prophet elevated the status of women, I feel a profound insult to my intelligence as a reader .
You further add
“So these "irtada" texts you've kindly cited don't appear to be a prime motivator for many Muslims. Why is that, do you think? “
If you are referring to the Mumbai massacre as well as all those similar terrorist actions, those have their motivator in many verses other than the ones I had quoted earlier , as well as the example of their prophet. Such verses as cited below lay down the concept of Jihad and its ultimate aim.
Sura 9.19-21, 40; Sura 48.28; Sura 2.216 says: ‘Fighting is prescribed upon you, and you dislike it, but it is possible that you dislike a thing which is good for you, that you love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knows and you know not.’ etc.

jamil, jamil, jamil,

It is obvious that you are trapped in the breeding, birth and brainwashing in/of Islam. For you and your fellow Muslims, we offer this Five Point Program for Escaping the Grip Of Islam:

Are you ready?

Using "The 77 Branches of Islamic "faith" a collection compiled by Imam Bayhaqi as a starting point. In it, he explains the essential virtues that reflect true "faith" (iman) through related Qur’anic verses and Prophetic sayings." i.e. a nice summary of the Koran and Islamic beliefs.

"1. Belief in Allah"

aka as God, Yahweh, Zeus, Jehovah, Mother Nature, etc." should be added to your cleansing neurons.

"2. To believe that everything other than Allah was non-existent. Thereafter, Allah Most High created these things and subsequently they came into existence."

Evolution and the Big Bang or the "Gib Gnab" (when the universe starts to recycle) are more plausible and the "akas" for Allah should be included if you continue to be a "creationist".

"3. To believe in the existence of angels."

A major item for neuron cleansing. Angels/devils are the mythical creations of ancient civilizations, e.g. Hittites, to explain/define natural events, contacts with their gods, big birds, sudden winds, protectors during the dark nights, etc. No "pretty/ugly wingy thingies" ever visited or talked to Mohammed, Jesus, Mary or Joseph or Joe Smith. Today we would classify angels as fairies and "tinker bells". Modern devils are classified as the demons of the demented.

"4. To believe that all the heavenly books that were sent to the different prophets are true. However, apart from the Quran, all other books are not valid anymore."

Another major item to delete. There are no books written in the spirit state of Heaven (if there is one) just as there are no angels/"pwtfft"s to write/publish/distribute them. The Koran, OT, NT etc. are simply books written by humans for humans.

Prophets were invented by ancient scribes typically to keep the uneducated masses in line. Today we call them fortune tellers.
Prophecies are also invalidated by the natural/God/Allah gifts of Free Will and Future.

"5. To believe that all the prophets are true. However, we are commanded to follow the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) alone."

Mohammed spent thirty days fasting in a hot cave before his first contact with Allah aka God etc. via a "pretty wingy thingy". Common sense demands a neuron deletion of #5. #5 is also the major source of Islamic violence i.e. turning Mohammed's "fast, hunger-driven" hallucinations into horrible reality for unbelievers.

Accept these five "cleansers" and we guarantee a complete recovery from your Islamic ways and you will also be joining the Great Convergence of Religious Thinking!!!

Onofrio:

Your comments were as anticipated- thanks.

When one is seeking truth then he should be straight forward and honest. I have shown you how we perceive certain offences and what are there penalties and what flexibilities and tolerances available.
You have noticed the harshness of penalties but not thought of the results which it could have on the society.
I do not claim that at present, we have exemplary socio-economic system based on Islamic principles and laws but where ever and when they are implemented the results shows their positive aspects.
In Saudi Arabia at the times of prayers, five times a day, through out the year the shops laden with goods and gold remain open, do you see all the Saudi’s with amputated hands?, because the penalty for theft is such.
One night black out in NY and you know what happened?.
Is it a lesser crime to be unfaithful for a husband or wife towards each other and to commit adultery? The results are obvious – family life in the west is shattered. Look at the figures where the population graph is going? Young people lost trust in a family life.
How many children are born out of wedlock? Many thousand,- what type of trust we will reap among the human beings.
How many cases of stoning to death you listen? Rather it is a stress uponthe faithful that how heinous this crime is - and our societies are not promiscuous as you find in the west.
Look at Alcohol and gambling related crimes? You find the same conditions in a Islamic society?
In our society it is shameful to send the parents to the old age houses or they are left alone - In west you can enjoy your youth while parents go to the markets to pick their food and they could not even walk.
Are all these acceptable to you? are all these things fruit of the freedom of choice you have or they occur because you do not have any foundation under your foot.
Islam is against interest based economy. How this system of interest has enslaved the whole humanity can you comprehend? The famine in Bengal killed 200000 because the British wanted opium crops to smuggle to china where thousands were killed by this drug.Killings outside is allowed?
How many died in Iraq because the west wants to capture the oil resources.
We are against all sort of exploitations whether they are social or economical.
Unfortunately as we are raised in different environment hence the east probably will never meet the east.
YOURS IS A SYSTEM BASED UPON WISHES AND OURs ON fulfilling the NEEDS.
You may have read Quran and studied different religions but to know the ocean you have to jump into it - and unless you do not travel in a direction you cannot see the next horizon.

I thank you for having such a thought provoking discussion with me in a befitting manner which should be a message to those who fill this forum with filthy insults..

Abhab,

You clearly have an axe to grind with Muslims (says I who grind my axe with all) ;)

Thanks for the rather alarming references on "irtada". I'm sure Muslim posters on this blog have probably already addressed such thorny issues, and as with all such scripture duelling, there will be plenty of counter-interpretation and relativising that can be applied. There seem to be lots of devout Muslims who don't go around slaughtering infidels, and some have posted on this thread to express heartfelt solidarity with those bereaved by the Mumbai rampage. So these "irtada" texts you've kindly cited don't apear to be a prime motivator for many Muslims. Why is that, do you think?

Hello Jamil,

Thanks once again for such a careful, patient, and comprehensive reply. It has helped crystallise my thought on several points:

- There is, as you say, a certain practical flexibility in Islam, deriving no doubt from its fusion of the spiritual and the political. Indeed, there appears to be no distinction in Islam between state and religion. It's clear in what you've written that for an individual to leave Islam is identical to the crime of treason against the state, like spying for a wartime enemy or something. This will continue to be one of the great sources of disagreement between Muslims and non-Muslims. I know it may be hard for you to appreciate, but to many non-Muslims, changing one's inherited religion, though a serious matter for the individual involved, should never be seen as a matter of treason. It used to be, hundreds of years ago, but we've left those times behind. And when Muslims extol death-for-apostasy under Islamic rule, it just seems like a return to a bad dream for folk like me. For the Islamic claim of "no compulsion" in religion to hold true, then it should apply to those who forsake Islam.

- I realise that for you, the adultery story you cite is a wonderful example of the ideal mixture of merciful tolerance and severe purity in Islam, exemplified by the Prophet himself. Personally, although I find the story compelling, its moral point is quite alien to me. I could never endorse, even only in theory, such an horrific penalty as stoning-to-death. For me, adultery, though painful to those immediately affected, can never deserve such a severe judicial response. I feel that for me to submit to Allah would mean that I must sanction such severity, which I simply can't do. If God really is that severe, then as far as I'm concerned, we've been born into a universe that is already hell.

- Also, I'm not that impressed with the Prophet's effusiveness about the executed woman's penitence. I suppose it matters in Islamic culture that having a great reputation after one's death is worth being stoned to death for, but that sort of honour-shame attitude is alien to me and to many non-Muslims. The way the story is told, it's as if the stoning was what the poor woman wanted - a sort of cathartic death-wish to expiate her sense of shame. I'm concerned at the precedent such a story sets, that some Muslims would see it as a green light from God that adulterous women should be stoned. There should not be any stonings of any women anywhere!

Jamil, I'm trying to express honestly and respectfully to you how Islam can seem to a non-Muslim. I don't intend the points I've made to be taken as a blanket rejection of Islam. But these are the sorts of objections Islam will have to deal with if it is to make progress among non-Muslims today.

Peace to you.

Onofrio:

To your question whether there is freedom of religion in Islam
Jamil quotes;
"There is no compulsion in religion. True guidance has become clearly distinct from error. -- (Qur'an, 2:256)"
Moi: This oft quoted verse was abrogated(rendered obsolete) by a later verse which commands “ Fight those who believe not in Allah and His prophet Mohammad…………(Quran 9:29).”
Later on he adds
“In a Islamic society you are not compelled to adopt to Islam that means you have the freedom of conscience and freedom of religion of your choice.”
Moi:
“And if they break their pledges after their treaty (hath been made with you) and assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief -- Lo! they have no binding oaths in order that they may desist. (Quran 9:11,12)”

It will be sufficient to quote what the standard commentary of Shrikh Baidhawi says on the ABOVE passage: "Whosoever turns back from his belief (irtada), openly or secretly, take him and kill him wheresoever ye find him, like any other infidel.
Mufradat-gharib-ul-Quran-lil Sheikh-ar-Raghib, p.191.

In the past, we have provided to the Muslim readers of this blog our Five Point Program for Escaping the Grips of Islam. Ditto for orthodox Catholics/Christions for Escaping the Grips of Orthodox Christianity. We apologize for not providing the same service for the Orthodox Jews out there and now correct that oversight with the following Five Point Program for Escaping the Grips of Orthodox Judaism (also useful for Born Again Jews):

1. There was no Adam and Eve.

2. There was no Abraham and no Noah or Moses.

3. Therefore there was no Garden of Eden, Arks or Parting of the Red Sea.

4. The OT/Torah/Tanakh are human documents written by humans with no direction from any god or singularity.

5. It is obvious therefore that Judaism is not God's chosen religion.

Accept these Five Points and you will be joining the Great Convergence of Religious Thinking!!!

Onofrio:

Your first question :
What happens to those who do not fulfil provisos a) and b)? In other words, if I were a Muslim living under Muslim rule, and I wanted to leave Islam for another religion or none at all, what would happen to me?
Islam do has its own penal code.
Quran it-self do not prescribed any punishment for Abandonment of Islam by a Muslim. At the times of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) there were a group of people who proclaimed Islam but in fact they have no faith in Islam. Among such a group, few of them were prominently known to the prophet and his followers, but while they claim that they are Muslims, no action was taken against them.
Here you can find the tolerance shown in the system of Islam.
A woman came to the prophet telling that she has committed adultery and presents herself for the punishment. The Prophet turn his face to the otherside, she repeated the same thing again and again. As she was pregnant, she was told to come after giving birth to the child, she did come and stoned to death.
The prophet led her funeral. Some among the Muslims objected why the prophet is leading the prayers? While she is sinful, he replied to them, her repentance is so huge that if it is divided among you, 70 of you can get blessed.
Flexibility is there,the prophet tried to avoid her announcement, but when it comes to implement the Laws then no hesitation was shown.
I know myself some Muslims who became communists kept their freedom of expression. After the death of Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) many tribes left Islam as they do not want to pay a tax on their wealth (There is no income tax in Islam), it was treated as treason or rebellion and a war was waged against them. Even in modern times treason and rebellion against the state do have capital punishment.
Apostasy is equivalent to treason or rebellion. The point of capital punishment arises when one pronounces his rebellion and challenges to be penalized.
Otherwise you are free to do what ever you like then the matter is between you and your God.

You said:
The culture and historical trajectory in which I've grown up values freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. Does Islam have a place for these values?
There is no compulsion in religion. True guidance has become clearly distinct from error. -- (Qur'an, 2:256)
Forcing people to believe in a religion or to adopt its forms of belief is completely contrary to the essence and spirit of Islam. According to Islam, true faith is only possible with free will and freedom of conscience. Islam do allow the others to keep their religion. In a Islamic society you are not compelled to adopt to Islam that means you have the freedom of conscience and freedom of religion of your choice.

Farnaz, thanks for the Ruether referral - I'll check it out. I'm sure you already know this, but for the benefit of other spectators of this thread: I think that the Christian neglect of Akiva and his rabbinic cohorts originates in the gospels' devaluation of the Pharisees - another case of injustice perpetuated in holy writ. There is a sense among Christians (speaking broadly here Arminius, T.Baum, et al - pace) that rabbinic Judaism is just more "Pharisaism", and that the Jesus of the gospels(and Paul)had given the definitive respone to that already - why explore further? Another motive for the neglect is a sense of unease about Jews who were indifferent to the early Christian movement. It looks bad for a movement when so few of the founder's own people are impressed by him. Because Christianity has placed so much emphasis on an internalised "faith" commitment, anything that causes doubts is rife with hellfire - if you haven't got "blessed assurance", you could be on a slippery slope. The persistent vitality of rabbinic Judaism has often sown that unwelcome doubt in Christian minds - at some times and places more than others, obviously.

Ah, Onofrio,

You might wish to read read Rosemary Ruether's Faith and Fratricide, if you have not already done so. Ruether, a Catholic, formerly of Harvard, is one of many who notes the probable lack of crowds downtown gathered around JC. They, prophets, were everywhere.

It is highly unlikely that men such as Akiva or any of the sages would have been aware of his existence, and Akiva was murdered by the Romans. They were busy with scholarship, with matters textual, with matters interpretive and ethical, with putting an end to temple culture as peacefully as possible. Most Christians are clueless about who they were. Odd.

As for the Sadducees, we have only what the Pharisees said of them since the former left nothing in writing, and, again, the likelihood of their knowing of JC is slim, not with prophets everywhere, a general who cares, hands off policy.

I'm not convinced JC didn't exist, nor am I convinced that the Romans didn't execute him. They killed a lot of people, including Akiva, before they were done. But then Simon Bar Kohkba
(שמעון בר כוכבא‎) gave them a run for their money, did he not?

"We came, we saw." That famous last phrase ("we conquered") was missing from the Romans' account of that war with those desperate Jews.

"The terrorists of Mumbai stole many things - lives, property, tranquility. Add an opportunity to educate the world about Islam on the occasion of the Hajj and Eid to the list"

Oh I think those terrorist did a fine job of educating the world about, not only Islam, but about the endless horror caused by all religion.

Thanks for your responses to my posts, Ukba, much appreciated. I can relate to your suspicions about the whole fourfold death-and-rising-of-Jesus story, but unlike you I think that the crucifixion is the least dubious aspect of it. It makes perfectly good sense to me that the Romans would want to snuff out a potential Messianic firebrand, in a city teeming with pilgrims full of Passover fervour. Jesus had shown he could sway crowds, and had even created a stir in the Temple courts hard by the Roman garrison. To the Romans, Jesus would have seemed just another troublemaker, one with a very destructive potential if allowed to continue with his preaching. Perhaps they consulted with the Jewish authorities about him, to determine the level of threat. Or perhaps they seized him far more suddenly than the Gospels indicate. In any case, I find it far more probable that Jesus was executed than the vague "God took him to himself" Qur'anic account. That seems like a rather coy avoidance strategy to me, influenced by Docetic and Gnostic beliefs that Jesus was a spiritual being, who could not suffer and die in a shameful and brutal execution. It's as if the Qur'an implies an ascension to heaven without an intervening death - like Elijah in the fiery chariot. That's even more !unbelievable! (one of your favoured exclamations) than the Christians' dead-man-walking.

Arminius,

Don't be so modest! Bagel needs all the help he can get.

F

CCNL, Great Catholicizing Jewish Atheistic Scholar,

"Sometimes she acts like she works for the JDL."

_________________________

Sometimes, you act like you work for the American Nazi Party. Sometimes, you act like you work for the KKK.

Mostly, you just act like an alcoholic OCD with flatulence.

Now, haven't I tried to steer you in all the right directions? Meditation, AA, Psychotherapy.
And, look, how I'm trying to help you stop this infernal breaking of wind.

All we ask is that you take the first step to try and help yourself.

Bun-Bun,

Since you are so infatuated with flatulence, perhaps you will enjoy this entertaining link:
http://www.heptune.com/farts.html

To Farnaz: good replies to Bun-Bun. Better than mine.

Now, Ukba,

If you read this thread, you'll notice CCNL's post and my reply to him, which includes a bracketed comment to you.

Note too the way this in his post is ignored in a comment on his post.

"One wonders where the Islamic scribes got these rules from. The OT/Torah/Tanakh???"

Note the question. How does one ignore it? With all those question marks, too.

CCNL, Great Catholicizing Jewish Atheistic Scholar,

I'm stunned at your learned self's failure to comment on this evening's Talmud study. Now, you shall have to deal with both this midrash and one far more complex next time.

So sorry you have problems with gas (not that I hadn't noticed the hot air, but I wouldn't have raised the subject, myself).

Please don't take this the wrong way, but could you see your way clear to breaking wind at a measurable distance from this blog? It's getting kind of thick around here. Perhaps you could take your New Testicle (Observer12)and read it in the Klondike. [CASE IN POINT, UKBA]

At any rate, to demonstrate my unending good will, I have done a search for you. The results are, how shall I say it, overwhelming.

http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=navclient&gfns=1&q=how+to+stop+farting

There's even a YouTube that might help you with your flatulence.

All good luck to you with your ever-breaking wind.

Well, congratulations, Bun-Bun, you have achieved a new low with your post on Islamic farts. I hope you have enough surviving gray cells left to realize that this strengthens the growing belief here that you are anal-erotic. Please come out of the closet - there is no shame in it, and if you do, you will, for once, gain respect.

And we ask again, Farnaz is now a "born again member of Judaism"?? Hmmm!!!! Sometimes she acts like she works for the JDL.

More on Islam and farting from a non-Rushdie source:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/1503931/Prayer-Recitation-of-Quran-and-Ablution-or-Bath?query2=islam%20fart

"Farting is problematic in Islam. During prayer, a worshipper must not fart. Sahih Bukhari (1.4.137) writes that Allah will not accept a Muslim’s prayer if he/she passes wind during the ritual.

The exception occurs if the worshipper farts silently, or the fart does not smell. In such a case, he/she may continue with the prayer (ibid, 1.4.139).Sunaan Nasai (1.162) writes that if you fart during a prayer you must redo ablution. Sahih Bukhari (9.86.86) says that for a “farter” Allah will not accept his/her prayer until he/she performs another ablution."

One wonders where the Islamic scribes got these rules from. The OT/Torah/Tanakh???

UKBA:

Last post for this evening. Like you I feel bad writing negative things about Christianity, but like you, I do it for the same reason.

Now, I have just had the pleasure of reading an email from a close friend, a Pakistani who lives in Islamabad. She is writing a book on Rabia Rabi'ah al-Adawiyya, and I'd asked her to post on this thread. She'd told me she would, but has now changed her mind. She, like all of us, sees only what is written in these posts. She had read your Genesis post, and was not a happy camper, but I assured her of your good will, certain you would understand my points. Well, I still hope you will and that she'll reconsider.

Oh, well. Nothing on Rabia from her for now. I don't want to say so much for comparative religion. Maybe, another day....

Shalom, Salaam,
Farnaz

UKBA:

Another clarification: When I mentioned bloggers declaring the "OT" [sic] myth, I wasn't referring to Thomas Baum.

My friend, having reread all the relevant posts, I will say that your comments to me aren't even a question of the pot calling the kettle black. The kettle, in this case, is closer to yellow.

What happened?

Farnaz

UKBA:

As a point of information:

May I say that having read Genesis for my entire life, I am in accord with the view that he would have been thirty-five at the time of the binding.
(One actually need only read it once to see this.)
If you are interested, I will show you how these calculations were reached, in both Hebrew and English.

But I did not get the impression that that is what interested you in your Genesis post. What interested you was making a case. If you want to make a case with Christians, kindly omit the Tanakh, which is our sacred text written by us for us as you point out.

If you are going to use it and cannot quote it in Hebrew, use the Steinsaltz translation, since whatever you used is inaccurate.

To better understand where I'm coming from reread your own post.

Reread your own post: December 10, 2008 6:41 PM

Christians depict Isaac as a baby, although Christian scholars now know this would have been impossible. This, of course, invalidates the historic Christian view, developed through Jerome's translation, etc., etc. Happily, more educated Christian clergy recognize the problem for their historic theology.

They also know, that the Hebrew word for "sacrifice" does not occur in the context of the binding. But then we are speaking of more educated people, more familiar with the text.

Frankly, I'm at a loss here, Ukba. Maybe, you can either rethink what you wrote, or better explain it.

I have no intention or desire to engage with you in a polemic discussion about the Tanakh and the
UKBA:
Quran. The Hebrew bible is dear to me and I am sorry if I offended you.

The problem happens when someone, take for example Thomas here, keeps insulting Islam and offending Muslims including me. You may not see it my way and that’s understandable because he is not as aggressive in his attack on Judaism as he is with Islam. It could be that you don’t mind his rudeness as long as he is attacking other people and not you.
_____________________________________
I don't know if I would say I was offended, perhaps, surprised at the insensitivity I perceived in your post on Genesis, the "inconsistencies" you noted, your "skewering" as another blogger called it.

As I posted earlier, I have no interest in competitive religion. Quite the contrary. However, one can note inconsistencies in Quoran and in the Christian Testament with just as much ease as one can in the Tanakh. The question you must ask yourself, my friend, is why you felt the need to tackle Genesis. That is what you did. And not well, I'm afraid. Unsurprising since I doubt you have studied it from as many perspectives, read as much secular and religious scholarship on it as I have. And my guess is you didn't read it in Hebrew.

We Jews are aware of the inconsistencies, have scholarly explanations for them from both a rabbinic and secular perspective. The inconsistencies do not invalidate them since the text is interpretive.

I did not seek to "prove" anything. You did.

"It could be that you don’t mind his rudeness as long as he is attacking other people and not you."

This is disappointing. Disappointing. Not only have I frequently defended Islam, but only a few posts below I took on CCNL for his totally erroneous comments on Rushdie.

Further, if you read Thomas Baum's posts you would see his views of Judaism, which I have chosen not to respond to. Someone else did.

My problem is with bloggers who feel they can say anything they wish about other people's sacred texts, calling it the OT, for example, relegating much of it to the myth pile (and I'm not referring to either you or CCNL here), but get all hissy when it comes, for example, to the Christian Testament or....

I'm surprised at what you have written to me Ukba.
I have said nothing about Quoran on this thread, about Quoran, which I have read in both Arabic and English many times, noting some remarkable translation differences, btw.

Frankly, I don't know what else I can say. I'm disappointed.

Arminius,

Good to hear from you and I am grateful to read your comments. Take care.

Peace

Hello, Ukba,

Thank you for the compliment. Please note that I am not always polite, particularly when it concerns obnoxious posters. You are not obnoxious.

I have not been offended by your posts, but I have been a bit confused. I shall try to read them more carefully. You are right about discussions about religious texts - this can be done, if tempers and judgments are held in check. And, of course, it can be very instructive.

Concerning Thomas Baum - I don't believe he means to insult. He states what he believes, and says it strongly. But he tries, and usually succeeds, to say it without judging. I've had a few differences with him, all discussed in a civil manner. On the other side of the spectrum, if you want to read real hate-filled pseudo-Christian madness, take a look at Spidey's garbage.

Onofrio - Part 2:
When I read the gospels about Jesus’ crucifixion, I couldn’t help but notice the great differences and inconsistencies in their narratives. Each has their own story to tell with no harmony between them. But you can have a general idea about the episode. One thing clear is that “all the disciples forsook Him and fled” including Peter himself.

Jesus’ trial happened in a dubious way on the eve of Passover. They were quick to set up a trial for him and a judgment came at dawn. They were in a hurry to put on the cross and quick to get him down from the cross because that day being the eve of very important holyday. They put him in a tomb and not a grave, mind you.

Two days later Jesus is alive and well. He is walking, talking and eating with his entourage as if nothing happened. He was not of course doing all that in plain view but always in hiding. To me, as an objective reader, it seems like he was not dead after all. If the result of crucifixion is a sure death and Jesus was alive, then it is reasonable to say he was not crucified.

I might just call it a crucifiction but not crucifixion. Maybe the whole story was sham. I don’t know.

If someone told you that a certain person you know very well was shot dead last night while he was walking his dog. Two days later you run into that same person in the park with his dog. What will you make of what the other guy had told you? Well, you obviously conclude he was wrong, and thank God that he was.

Onofrio writes: “Here's something to consider as you deploy your polemical arsenal, Ukba. You're keen to quote Peter against Jesus' divinity. What about Peter's testimony to Jesus' execution? If Peter is right about the first, how does Islam know he's wrong about the second?”

Part 1:
I am not implying that what’s in Acts happened as told; all I was doing was using their own scripture to prove a point. What Peter said is not really important to me. And it is not for me to decide whether it was true or not. But I’ll go along and see where it takes us.

I think you are alluding to the Quran and what it says about Jesus’ crucifixion. God in the Quran narrates that Jesus was not killed by his fellow Jewish people and that’s enough for me. I really don’t have to go any further imaging what really happened because the Quran is not explicit in this case. The verses in question are addressed not to the Christians but to the Jewish people:

---- And because of their disbelief and of their speaking against Mary a tremendous calumny; And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, God's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain. But God took him up unto Himself. God was ever Mighty, Wise.
Yet there is not one of the followers of earlier revelation who does not, at the moment of his death, grasp the truth about Jesus; and on the Day of Resurrection he [himself] shall bear witness to the truth against them. ---- Quran 4:155-158

Hello Farnaz,

You wrote: “Sorry old friend, but one could go through Q'ran page by page noting endless inconsistencies just as one can in the Tanakh and in the Christian Testament.”

I have no intention or desire to engage with you in a polemic discussion about the Tanakh and the Quran. The Hebrew bible is dear to me and I am sorry if I offended you.

The problem happens when someone, take for example Thomas here, keeps insulting Islam and offending Muslims including me. You may not see it my way and that’s understandable because he is not as aggressive in his attack on Judaism as he is with Islam. It could be that you don’t mind his rudeness as long as he is attacking other people and not you.

And that’s what I like about Arminius; he is always fair and a gentleman. And I feel bad that he, or any other Christian for that matter, read the negative things I wrote about Christianity. I don’t mind Thomas’ relentless repetitive preaching sermons; I don’t care about what someone else believes and finds reasonable and fulfilling spiritually to them.

I wish there was a way where people can engage in polemics in a private room where only the concerned parties can be in there to vent their frustrations. Having said that, I don’t mind engaging in a reasonable discussion about the Hebrew bible, the Quran or the Christian bible if we all can learn from each other and appreciate the other’s point of view.

Halozcel1:

Dear Soja John Thaikattil,
Nasrani,Arab Catholic.

You say *Happy Eid(ul Adha/Votive)* and *don't slaughter cows*.

But,Eid ul Adha means to slaughter cows.

*Happy Eid(ul Adha),but don't slaughter cows*
Can we say *contradiction* ?

December 9, 2008 8:06 AM

________________________________

Afterthought 2:

Nazrani is also meant to refer to those in Kerala who worshipped Jesus of Narareth. All these terms came into existence in association with Thomas Christians.

And to those who claim, Apostle Thomas could not have converted any Kerala Hindu Nambudiri Brahmin because Nambudiri Brahmins did not exist until the 7th century, here some thoughts to ponder:

1. Did Hinduism come to Kerala only in the 7th century (along with Islam)?

2. Did Hinduism exist in pre-7th century Kerala without Brahmins? If so what kind of Hinduism was it?

3. The rest of India claim Hinduism is at least 5000 years old, and the oldest Hindu Scripture are the Vedas. Is this honor being denied to the Nambudiri Brahmins from Kerala? Nambudiri Brahmins are known to be the most orthodox of Hindu Brahmins, who follow only the three oldest Vedas. It means that they are the oldest Hindus, who follow the most ancient Hindu Scripture. It has be reasonably assumed that since Kerala remained isolated from the rest of India due to its geography, the later developments in Hinduism did not filter back to Kerala. Hence, the oldest Hindu Scripture continued to be used - only the Vedas and that too only the first three.

4. No Hindu can assume a caste for themselves. They are born into it. Hindus do not confer caste on anyone, leave alone to a non-Hindu. So who would come to this ridiculous conclusion that somehow Hindus endowed caste on Christians in Kerala out of the blue in the 7th century, or that after having been casteless for seven centuries, Christians suddenly decided to assume Hindu castes?

5. Hindu converts to Christianity RETAINED their Hindu caste and their Hindu social practices, while at the same time practicing another religion. Hindus identify themselves with their family names, and family names give an indication of the caste. Christian converts do the same.

testing

Jamil, thankyou for your detailed and careful responses to my rants. You have shown great forbearance to this unbeliever, and provided myself and the readers of this blog with a fine summary of Islam.

I'd still like to obtain your views on one particular issue:
"1.Your[i.e. Onofrio's]question about doctrinal dissenters:
Qur'an is not against healthy difference of opinion in the interpretation of its injunctions, provided that (a) there is agreement on the basic principles of Islam among those who differ and (b) they remain united within the fold of the Muslim Community."

What happens to those who do not fulfil provisos a) and b)? In other words, if I were a Muslim living under Muslim rule, and I wanted to leave Islam for another religion or none at all, what would happen to me? The culture and historical trajectory in which I've grown up values freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. Does Islam have a place for these values?

To me, "there's the rub" with regard to Islam.

Zounds! What a long side-trip we've taken from Eid and the Hajj. Thomas Baum, do you, as a Catholic, ever sense a disconnect between the Jewishness of Jesus and the "Holy Family" - which you have fulsomely acknowledged - and their traditional depiction in Catholic iconography? You know, when I consider Jesus' Jewishness, I often wonder what he would make of this lush pictorial succession of chesnut-haired, crowned virgins and nobly resigned, somewhat eroticised cross-affixed versions of himself. To me, such images, though sometimes moving when well-executed, seem contrary to the spirit of Judaism that Christ supposedly fulfils. Methinks a case could be made that traditional Eurocentric Catholic imagery subtly aids and abets historic Catholic anti-Semitism, because it effectively un-Jewifies the Jewish Christ, his mother, and his "foster" father. I and other readers are probably faniliar with standard Catholic and Orthodox arguments supporting their iconographic traditions, so no need to to reiterate them. But don't you think that the strong aniconographic stance of both Judaism and Islam (and some strands of Protestantism) in relation to divine images is actually closer to Jesus the JEW than is current Catholic practice?

FARNAZ2

You wrote, "Human has a tendency for error, that is all.", sounds like an understatement. Doesn't reality sometimes say that this "tendency" can sometimes be rather "horrific" to put it mildly?

Then you wrote, " Hashem does not demand, will not abide, WILL NOT ABIDE human sacrifice."

First, I had to look up Hashem and found out that it is another name for God. God chose to become One of Us. Remember God is One even tho God is a Trinity, He is One.

I am just a messenger, it doesn't matter if anyone believes me, my "job" is to speak, as it says, "Remember I have chosen you, you have not chosen Me", I take God at His Word and I have said YES.

Remember Abraham and Isaac, Abraham said, "God will provide" and He did. Who am I or you or anyone else to tell God what He can and cannot do? Just because we might not understand God's Ways and God's Thoughts that does not give us the right to tell God what He can and cannot do, which is ultimately for our own Good and by "our", I do mean it in it's total inclusiveness.

How many of the prophets were killed and/or treated bad, how many of the "canonized" saints were killed and/or treated, how many of those with God that are not "canonized" saints were killed and/or treated badly sometimes by the church itself? Just because we, human beings, have killed the messengers and then the Message, Himself, how do you equate that with "human sacrifice", because I don't. Remember when Jesus said, "Fathe forgive them, they know not what they do".

God did not ask us to understand and/or figure out His Plan but one of the things He asked us was to trust Him, that is a decision that we can make.

Jesus told those He asked to be His followers to remember how He was treated and not to be surprised it their treatment wasn't up to snuff, so to speak.

God somehow took ALL OF THE WRONGDOING OF ALL OF HUMANITY upon Himself and just because we don't quite understand it, we tell God that He can't be God unless He does things that we find acceptable even tho His Plan is for ABSOLUTELY EVERYONE, but honestly how many people want all to be in the Kingdom?

All God asks is 100% and if you feel that you are doing what God wants you to do, go for it. We don't have to understand God or His Plan, He is God, we aren't, I have a speaking part and He will see me thru.

See you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom.

God is a lot nicer than so many people seem to think, He really is a BEING OF PURE LOVE and He does know what He is doing and I thank God for that because I would have never chosen me but God did.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

CCNL, Confused Catholicizing Jewish Atheistic Scholar and Bagel,

I await your reply on Akiva. Jews all over the world await you, CCNL, Son of Crossan.

CCNL, Great Jewish Scholar:

We begin this evening's Talmud study with this very famous midrash on R. Akiva, mentioned by Farnaz (moi) in an earlier post on this thread. This is a rough, but lovely translation.

I await your learned reply.


The Sages Return to the Temple Mount

Rabbi Akiva's Laughter

"Once, several years after the destruction of the Holy Temple, Rabban Gamliel, Rabbi Eliezer ben Azarya, Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva were going up to Jerusalem. When they reached Mt. Scopus, the site of the Temple came into view, and they tore their garments. When they reached the Temple Mount, they saw a fox dart out from the spot where the Holy of Holies had stood in the Holy Temple. The other rabbis began to weep, but Rabbi Akiva laughed. They said to him: "Akiva, you never cease to amaze us. We are crying, and you laugh!" But Rabbi Akiva said, "And you, why are you crying?"

The rabbis responded: "What? Shall we not weep? The place about which Scripture states (Numbers 1:51), 'And the stranger who draws close shall die,' has become a den of foxes? Indeed, this is a fulfillment of the verse, 'For Mt. Zion which lies desolate, foxes prowl over it."

Rabbi Akiva answered them: 'This is exactly why I laugh. For just as we have seen the prophecies of Jerusalem's destruction have come to pass, so too, know that the prophecies of her future consolation shall also be fulfilled. I laughed because I remembered the verses (Zachariah 8:4-5), 'Old men and old women will once again sit in the streeets of Jerusalem, each with his staff in his hand because of advanced age; and the streets of the city will be filled with boys and girls playing in its streets.' The Holy One, blessed be He, has declared that just as the first prophecies have been fulfilled, so shall the latter. I am joyous that the first have already come to pass, for the latter shall be fulfilled in the future.'

Said the rabbis, 'You have comforted us, Akiva, you have comforted us. May you be comforted by the footsteps of the messenger.'"

And Farnaz is now a "born again member of Judaism"?? Hmmm!!!!

Halozcel1:

Dear Soja John Thaikattil,
Nasrani,Arab Catholic.

You say *Happy Eid(ul Adha/Votive)* and *don't slaughter cows*.

But,Eid ul Adha means to slaughter cows.

*Happy Eid(ul Adha),but don't slaughter cows*
Can we say *contradiction* ?

December 9, 2008 8:06 AM

-----------------------------------------------

An afterthought Halozel1:

The word Nazrani means Nazarene (meaning a person from Nazareth) in Malayalam (my mother tongue, the language of Kerala).

Kerala had a small Jewish community living there long before the birth of Jesus, who came along the well established spice trade route linking Kerala to ME. It is believed Apostle Thomas did not choose Kerala all that randomly, he came to preach also to his small Jewish community. Some Jews converted to Christianity, others remained Jewish. There is a Synagogue in Cochin as reminder of their presence in India. Most of the earliest Thomas Christian churches were built in the style of Jewish synagogues.

After Israel was established after WW II, almost all the young left Kerala. There are only a handful of old Jews left.

Kerala used to be known as Malabar, hence Syro-Malabar Catholic refers to the Thomas Christians of Kerala who are in communion with the Roman Catholic Church but follow the Syrian Rite. There are four groups of Thomas Christians in Kerala who follow the Syrian rite, only two of which came in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church while retaining their Syrian-rite. My Church, which came in communion with RCC four hundred years ago, is one of them. It is the largest group and has a cardinal in the Vatican. The first Indian saint, Alphonsa, is a member of the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church.

Dear God,

Please send psychiatric help for "Thomas, the Hallucinator and Moses of the NT, Baum" ASAP.

Thankyou

SPARROW4

You wrote, "And while he has explained, sort of, his initial comment made it sound as though Jews were invented only for Christ to be born."

I really cannot understand this statement, here Almighty God picked and formed a people so that He could become One of Us to Save All of Us and this is what you think of God's Plan.

So what do you think of the Church that Jesus founded which is to "Proclaim the Good News" and maybe, in His own words, be treated with contempt and abandonment and whatever, "Remember how I have been treated, don't be surprised at how you are treated".

Think about what I have written and see what Jesus offered to His followers. How many times have I said that knowing God's Name does not necessarily make one a "Christian", this is not a question, this is just a statement of fact.

Why do you think that God made humanity in the first place? Do you think it is so that so many of us could treat each other so terrible? Do you think that it is for all of us to suffer heartache of one kind or another if we have a heart?

God has a Plan and it is for everyone to be with Him in His Kingdom and it seems as if very few people wish it to be.

You could almost say that God is going to save ALL OF US in spite of ourselves. Something to think about: How many want ALL OF HUMANITY in the Kingdom?

Forgive how many times? unlimited, are you serious Jesus?

You also wrote, " Although he doesn't mean it to be insulting, at some level it is because it overlooks Judaism as a faith in and of itself."

I have no idea how anyone could call it an insult, Almightly God became a Jew when He walked this planet and it was Jews that raised and cared for God-Incarnate and it was Jews that He picked to spread the "Good News" and you think that it is just a "faith".

It even says that there will be a remnant and there is, it also says to let the Jews know that their service is nearing an end and that they have been repayed twice over for their wrongdoing, it says a lot in the bible.

To call it merely a "faith" rather than an honor bestowed upon the Jews by God to be the Chosen People should be the "insult".

A lot of people talk about worshipping God, to me "to worship God" means to say, THANK YOU.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

AVP 65

You wrote, " The fantasy, argues London based writer Ziauddin Sardar, rests on those very metaphysical catastrophes that are the root cause of Muslim paralysis: The elevation of the Shari’ah to the level of the Divine (not true, only the Quran can be divine for Muslims)".

There are also people that call the bible the Word of God when in reality the bible is about the "Word of God" and the "Word of God" is LOVE and the "Word of God" earthly name was and is Jesus.

God is God, no book is God even a book that is divinely inspired is not God.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Dr Zakir Naik defends the denial to all non-Muslims the right to practice their faith in Saudi Arabia saying: Because “only Islam is a true religion in the eyes of God”, “we Muslims” are fully justified in preventing non-Muslims from building shrines, practicing or preaching their religion in an Islamic state

The dream world of any Islamist today can be summed up in a sentence: ‘An Islamic state run along the principles of divine Shariah laws’. The fantasy, argues London based writer Ziauddin Sardar, rests on those very metaphysical catastrophes that are the root cause of Muslim paralysis: The elevation of the Shari’ah to the level of the Divine (not true, only the Quran can be divine for Muslims), the consequent removal of agency from the believers (ours is but to blindly follow what was decided a thousand years ago), and the equation of Islam with the state (an ‘Islamic state’ is nothing but a theological garb for authoritarianism).

http://pakteahouse.wordpress.com/2008/11/14/muslims-in-introspection-mode%E2%80%A6-now-a-fatwa-on-dr-zakir-naik/

And none knows its interpretation save Allah, and those firmly rooted in knowledge. They say (those firmly rooted in knowledge) it is all from our Lord. And none mind except men of reason and understanding.” (3:6)

http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~rtavakol/engineer/8.htm

Hi, Friend Sparrow,

One thing about Thomas Baum - he means no offense to anyone. He's even kind to Spidey and CCNL, to whom I definitely am not so kind. But, of course, differences will arise. I've had my own with him, but the conversations have always been civil.

yes- I was a little upset about his comment that Jews were formed to provide a safe haven for G-d to become Christ. And while he has explained, sort of, his initial comment made it sound as though Jews were invented only for Christ to be born. Plainly I disagree with that, but I understand it comes from his religious beliefs. Although he doesn't mean it to be insulting, at some level it is because it overlooks Judaism as a faith in and of itself.

(I can't imagine ever getting po'ed at you arminius.)

Sparrow,

Oops... apparently your comments about Judaism were directed at Thomas Baum. Sorry for the confusion.

SPARROW4

You wrote, "I understand ( and respect) your intense religious belief but I do find this incredibly dismissive of Judaism. I hardly think Judaism is simply the forerunner to Christianity or Islam"

I do not, in the least, think of Judaism as a forerunner of Christianity.

They are part of God's unfolding Plan for HUMANITY AND CREATION.

Then you wrote, "And since Jesus considered himself a Jew, I'd think twice about blowing off his faith in so highhanded a manner.

Jesus didn't just consider Himself a Jew, HE WAS A JEW. I have many, many times said that the Jews are the Chosen People, as in not only were but are. The Jews were chosen and formed by God and yes there do seem to be some that "blow off His faith in so highhanded a manner" or a politically correct manner but it isn't me.

The Jews being the Chosen People does not mean that they are better or anything to that effect, it just means that they are the Chosen People because GOD CHOSE THEM and I might add formed them.

Not only was Jesus a Jew but Mary, who by an act of her free will gave permission for God to become One of Us, is also a Jew.

God does not force Himself on us, if He did then our free will would not be free.

And Joseph who by listening to an angel instructing him to get Mary and Jesus safely to Egypt thus sparing Jesus's Life was also a Jew.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Sparrow,

I meant no put-down of Judaism, none whatsoever. If I came across that way, please accept my apologies. What did I write that prompted your kind critique?

As for Spidey - he continually 'prophesies' nuclear war, defending this with totally vague references to the bible. His puerile glee in doing this is painfully obvious - he is obsessed with violence against the 98% of humanity that he apparently hates. Hence, 'Who would Jesus bomb?' seems to fit him well.

UKBA

You put some verses of the bible from Genesis on your post but it seems that you skipped some, I looked the verses up on bible.com and they seem to be interesting, here are a couple:

9 Sarah noticed the son whom Hagar the Egyptian had borne to Abraham playing with her son Isaac;
10 so she demanded of Abraham: "Drive out that slave and her son! No son of that slave is going to share the inheritance with my son Isaac!"
11 Abraham was greatly distressed, especially on account of his son Ishmael.
12 But God said to Abraham: "Do not be distressed about the boy or about your slave woman. Heed the demands of Sarah, no matter what she is asking of you; for it is through Isaac that descendants shall bear your name.
13 As for the son of the slave woman, I will make a great nation of him also, since he too is your offspring."

Thanks for bringing these to my attention, it seems as if Ismael and Isaac, even tho there was the age difference that you mentioned, got along quite well.

As Sparrow4 alluded to it was the petty jealosy of Sarah that got Hagar and Ismael booted out and as it says Abraham was quite distressed and even tho it might not say it, I imagine that Ismael and Hagar were also feeling, to say the least, abandoned.

Even tho Abraham really felt bad about this, God said, "see verse 12 & 13".

Can you honestly say that the koran flows from this?

God has worked and continues to work thru "flawed" people, as I have said, God has a Plan and has had His Plan since before creation and His Plan will come to Fruition.

You also wrote, "It does not sound like a seventeen year old man. It is a major problem if you try to make sense of it all."

I am not Ismael and you are not Ismael but for someone to be loved very much by someone, as it appears that Abraham and Ismael loved one another very much as father and son considering that Abraham was "greatly distressed", and then at seventeen to be booted out with your mother, how do you think he and Hagar felt and how Ismael and Hagaar reacted is not for us to judge. It seems that they both felt, maybe so forlorn and abandoned, that God saw fit to send an angel to comfort them.

I would imagine that there very well could have been some tears shed by Abraham also and that is why God said to him to be not distressed and that God would look after the both of them and to "make a great nation of him also".

These were real people and they had to cope with the situation that they, all of them, were thrust into.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

arminius- I don't think spidey is refering to Jesus, do you? I know he thinks he does, but slapping the name "Jesus" on evil still doesn't change its face, no?

thomasbaum wrote:"Whether or not anyone believes what I say, the reason that God chose and formed the Jews was to make it safe enough by the obedience of a few for God to become One of Us and live long enough to do what He came for."

I understand ( and respect) your intense religious belief but I do find this incredibly dismissive of Judaism. I hardly think Judaism is simply the forerunner to Christianity or Islam. It's obviously a faith that has proven rich and viable over thousands of years, and not stage one of either religion, now to be discarded since you believe your religions have "completed us."

That's the height of arrogance, thomasbaum.It's why Christianity and Islam cause so much grief and pain in the world. Because neither seem able to respect other faiths. they pay lip service- but that's it. And since Jesus considered himself a Jew, I'd think twice about blowing off his faith in so highhanded a manner.

Since I have taken Jesus as a role model for my path through life, trying to follow, best I can, his teachings - I see nothing wrong with "What would Jesus do?". Could not one also say, on occasion, "What would Gandhi do"? Hey, could be worse, remember poor Spidey, who thinks in terms of "Who would Jesus bomb?".

Thomas Baum,

Another thing to consider when thinking against Judaism is idolatry, by which it does not exclusively mean statues.

Worshiping a person is idolatry. It would be insane for a Jew to ask "What would Moses do?" Moses is not a model for Jews. There are no human models. There are the principles, the way, and the purpose.

To ask, "What would God to," would render said Jew certifiable.

Thomas Baum,

Atheist or no, I believe in free will. Free will is the sine qua non of Judaism which does not hold with the idea of a fall as Catholicism does. Human has a tendency for error, that is all. Hashem does not demand, will not abide, WILL NOT ABIDE human sacrifice.

Regards,
Farnaz

CCNL:

Now, I see that Brucetherealtor has, on another thread, posted on Rabbi Akiva of blessed memory. He was explaining a midrash from Talmud. Although I've posted some references to Talmud before, it never occurred to me to go into it in depth.

Amongst my favorite midrashim is Akiva's laughter, more on which later....

Just think, CCNL, how much you will learn with all of us from so many different religions around to teach you, perhaps every hour on the hour. Who can say?

FARNAZ2

You wrote, "The signal purpose of Judaism is Tikkun Olam, healing or repairing the world. It does not seek converts, but welcomes all who wish to convert and join in its mission."

I looked up the word or words, Tikkun Olam, because I did not know what it meant and this is the definition that was given, "Tikkun olam (Hebrew: תיקון עולם‎) is a Hebrew phrase that means "repairing the world" or "perfecting the world."".

There are places in the bible that has God saying, "I, Myself, will make all things new" and phrases to that effect such as, "new heavens and a new earth".

We will not "perfect" the world but that does not let us off the hook, so to speak, to try to make the world a better place for ALL of God's children and I might add All of God's brothers and sisters since He became One of us.

I would also like to add that whether someone believes in God or not, they should still think of all of humanity as their brothers and sisters, not just their clan, tribe, nation, race, or whatever division someone comes up with.

Many of the prophets in the Hebrew Scriptures or as some of us call them the Old Testament speak of this.

Jesus, Himself, said, "My Kingdom is not of this world".

Other places in the New Testament speak of this, such as the one that I mentioned, "the new heavens and the new earth", in the Book of Revelation.

Just because God, Himself, is going to completely renew ALL OF CREATION does not mean that we should not do our part, whatever it may be, to live the way that God wants us to, and if God choses us for a specific job that one should at least try to do it to the best of one's ability.

Whether or not anyone believes what I say, the reason that God chose and formed the Jews was to make it safe enough by the obedience of a few for God to become One of Us and live long enough to do what He came for.

We have free will and God with His Self-imposed limits cannot stop someone from doing something because then it is not free will but He can thwart their efforts.

Something to think about even if someone does not believe it: It says that someone gave an executive order to kill all Jewish boys 2 years and younger and if not for the obedience of Joseph in taking Mary and Jesus to Egypt, then Jesus would have been killed as an infant.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

CCNL:

It's one thing when you at least know Something, but you my friend know nothing and refuse to read or learn. You won't look at any text that you cannot twist to your own views.

It seems we've eliminated Rushdie, on whom your ignorance was less frightening than your silly pronouncements on Judaism, which do not speak well for the human mind. Likewise on the other religions.

You have no literacy in other religions, no experience with practitioners, nada. Less than nada

Living in a Wonderbread world makes knowledge, let alone wisdom impoassible.

First: Vispanna meditation or progressive relaxation

Next: Knock off the booze.

Finally: Seek treatment

CCNL:

You can note what you'd like, but false attributions such as those you make will be challenged.

On another note, I've never really understood your point in cutting and pasting on religions of which you know absolutely nothing, or less than nothing, as in the case of Hinduism and Buddhism.

Your "purified" Catholicism is only "purified" in your own mind and perhaps in the minds of a few others. All religions are interpretive; the certain you seek doesn't exist, Q Gospelly speaking and otherwise.

Hmmm, Farnaz says she is an atheist. Strange commentaries from an atheist!!!!

And what is wrong with noting what Conservative Jewish rabbis and other religious exegetes have said vs what inexperienced, religious/atheist "wannabees" have to say??

The signal purpose of Judaism is Tikkun Olam, healing or repairing the world. It does not seek converts, but welcomes all who wish to convert and join in its mission.

All religions have signal words, phrases. For Judaism,"Hear O Israel, the Lord, the Lord is one."

The Lord was always present, and is without precedent.

The Lord is singular and indivisible

The Lord is the all-knowing, the all-giving, the all just, all merciful, all loving, all powerful.

Abraham (initially Abram) was chosen by the Lord because he was righteous in his generation.

Moses was the prophet to whom the deity showed as much of "Himself" as a human being could take in, and to whom he gave the principles.

The principles contain the way, the path to Tikkun Olam.

CCNL:

Your paste simply verifies my points. Good enough. This way I won't have to bother.

Onofrio,

Bun-Bun (aka CCNL) is a pain, for sure. We have endured his pasted nonsense for a long time. He is best ignored, in general - he will never discuss, he only keeps repeating his crap in his obsessive-compulsive way. I am puzzled, however, how some other posters have decided that he has an alcohol problem.

Regarding heaven: I like the Flying Spaghetti Monster heaven - hard to beat beer volcanoes and stripper factories!

Ukba argues against the Divinity of Jesus by quoting from the Gospels thus:

"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone. Mark 10:17-18
Here Jesus does not even want to be called good and you claim he is god.

Moi:
Your Quran states in 4:171 the following “Jesus the son of Mary is the spirit of Allah and His Word…….” It further admits that he raised the dead and will return to be the judge on Judgment day. This is all the proof you need if you wish to prove He is God. On the other hand you could quote other passages from the Quran to negate this and buttress them, as happened here, with incidental phrases from the Gospels. The reason for all the confusion in the minds of the Muslims is that their book resembles a huge salad bar from which people can pick whatever agrees with their taste.

Astoria

I hope you will find Dr.Zakir Naik lecturers on youtube. I wanted to give you adds of his website but i found it blocked.
Normally I dont visit sites to post comments but i was encourged by your presence.
regards

Onofrio

To understand the Quran, whether one believes it or not,he has to consider, the claim put forward by Quran and its bearer Muhammad (PBUH) that this is divine guidance.

1.Your question about doctrinal dissenters:
Qur'an is not against healthy difference of opinion in the interpretation of its injunctions, provided that (a) there is agreement on the basic principles of Islam among those who differ and (b) they remain united within the fold of the Muslim Community.

2. As we trust in Islam what we learn from Quran about Prophet Abraham is sacred and important to us. We commemorate his sacrifice.

3.As a matter of fact, this Book is not irrelevant anywhere with regard to is Subject, its Central Theme and its Aim. From its very beginning to its end, the different topics it deals with are so intimately connected with its Central Theme that they may be likened to the beautiful gems of the same necklace, despite their different colors and sizes. The Qur'an keeps the same object in view, whether it is relating the story of the creation of the earth or of the Heavens or of man or is referring to the manifestations in the universe or stating events from human history. As the aim of the Qur'an is to guide man and not to teach nature study or history or philosophy or any other science or art, it does not concern itself with these latter subjects. The only thing with which it is concerned is to expound the Reality, to remove misunderstandings and misconceptions about it, to impress the Truth upon the minds, to warn them of the consequences of wrong attitudes and to invite humanity to the Right Way. The same is true of the criticism of the creeds, of the moral systems, of the deeds of men and communities and of its discussions of the problems of metaphysics etc. That is why it states or discusses or cites a thing only to the extent relevant to its aims and objects and leaves out unnecessary and irrelevant details and turns over and over again to its Central Theme and to its invitation round which every other topic revolves.

Onofrio

Part2

The Prophet (p.b.u.h.) was entrusted with a special mission and had to appeal both to the emotions and to the intellect; he had to deal with people of different mentalities and cope with different situations and various kinds of experiences during the course of his mission.

the style of the discourses that Allah sent down to His Messenger had to be what suited the requirements of a Movement
Quran mainly discusses those things which appealed to the taste of the Arabs and were linked with their environment, history and customs
We should examine the question closely and decide whether what it says regarding the blasphemous people of Arabia is or is not equally true of every period and every place, and whether we can or cannot apply the same arguments with equal force to refute the blasphemy of every time and every place, and whether we can or cannot use everywhere, with minor changes, the same arguments that the Qur'an puts forward for the Unity of Allah.

origin: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20E1EFE35540C7A8CDDAA0894DA404482

New Torah For Modern Minds

"The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, which represents the 1.5 million Conservative Jews in the United States, has just issued a new Torah and commentary, the first for Conservatives in more than 60 years. Called ''Etz Hayim'' (''Tree of Life'' in Hebrew), it offers an interpretation that incorporates the latest findings from archaeology, philology, anthropology and the study of ancient cultures. To the editors who worked on the book, it represents one of the boldest efforts ever to introduce into the religious mainstream a view of the Bible as a human rather than divine document.

''When I grew up in Brooklyn, congregants were not sophisticated about anything,'' said Rabbi Harold Kushner, the author of ''When Bad Things Happen to Good People'' and a co-editor of the new book. ''Today, they are very sophisticated and well read about psychology, literature and history, but they are locked in a childish version of the Bible.''

''Etz Hayim,'' compiled by David Lieber of the University of Judaism in Los Angeles, seeks to change that. It offers the standard Hebrew text, a parallel English translation (edited by Chaim Potok, best known as the author of ''The Chosen''), a page-by-page exegesis, periodic commentaries on Jewish practice and, at the end, 41 essays by prominent rabbis and scholars on topics ranging from the Torah scroll and dietary laws to ecology and eschatology.

These essays, perused during uninspired sermons or Torah readings at Sabbath services, will no doubt surprise many congregants. For instance, an essay on Ancient Near Eastern Mythology,'' by Robert Wexler, president of the University of Judaism in Los Angeles, states that on the basis of modern scholarship, it seems unlikely that the story of Genesis originated in Palestine. More likely, Mr. Wexler says, it arose in Mesopotamia, the influence of which is most apparent in the story of the Flood, which probably grew out of the periodic overflowing of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. The story of Noah, Mr. Wexler adds, was probably borrowed from the Mesopotamian epic Gilgamesh.

Equally striking for many readers will be the essay ''Biblical Archaeology,'' by Lee I. Levine, a professor at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. ''There is no reference in Egyptian sources to Israel's sojourn in that country,'' he writes, ''and the evidence that does exist is negligible and indirect.'' The few indirect pieces of evidence, like the use of Egyptian names, he adds, ''are far from adequate to corroborate the historicity of the biblical account.''

For more on Conservative Judaism and their Torah, see http://www.uscj.org/Etz_Hayim_Torah_Comm5714.html

onofrio, onofrio, onofrio,

What is it about the following that you do not understand??

----(for those eyes that have not seen)

Halozcel1:

Dear Soja John Thaikattil,
Nasrani,Arab Catholic.

You say *Happy Eid(ul Adha/Votive)* and *don't slaughter cows*.

But,Eid ul Adha means to slaughter cows.

*Happy Eid(ul Adha),but don't slaughter cows*
Can we say *contradiction* ?

December 9, 2008 8:06 AM

______________________________________

Dear Halozel

Sorry to disappoint you. I'm not exotic at all, which is what I would be if I were a Nazrani Arabic Catholic from Kerala, India. No, unfortunately, I'm an ordinary, "pure bred" Syro-Malabar Catholic from a remote village in Kerala, India. I'm descended from arranged marriages on both sides of my family line (including my parents), partners chosen within a 50 KM radius of my father's remote village, where his mortals remains lie buried. The only "exotic" thing my family tradition ever boasted about, like some families in Kerala do, is about belonging to a tiny group of Kerala Hindu Nambudiri Brahmins who were converted to Christianity by Apostle Thomas in 52 AD. Hindu Nambudiris hotly dispute this long held tradition among some Thomas Christians of course, but we do not ask for their permission, or seek their approval, to believe in our long held tradition.

However I understand that there is a small, exclusive group of Christians in Kerala who claim to be Nazarene Jewish (not Arab!) converts to Christianity. There is yet another group which claim to have migrated from Narareth, as Christians, to Kerala (again not Arabic!).

As far as I'm aware there are no Arabic Catholics in Kerala at all.

Re Eid and slaughter of cows in India:

Hindus do not slaughter cows because cows are considered sacred. It is revered for its gentle, all giving nature. Indian Muslims decided to forgo slaughtering cows this Eid out of respect for their Hindu brothers and sisters. The gesture is very generous because goats/sheep they would then be forced to slaughter to celebrate Eid, is comparatively much more expensive than cows. Indian Muslims have kept Eid celebrations very low key this year, in mourning for their own dead, 40 Indian Muslims were killed in Mumbai 26/11, and to express their committed solidarity to their motherland.

"Comparisons----(for those eyes that have not seen)"

As if there are any eyes still open that have not encountered your doleful Litany, CCNL! Though your cant of "pretty wingie thingies" and your acerbic tone were once entertaining in small amounts, I'm well over your tiresome cut-and-paste reiteration of the unabridged same-old-same-old. You do your cause no favours. But since you seem so compelled to broadcast this Litany of yours, perhaps you should wind it onto one of those Tibetan prayer wheels, and anytime you want to, just spin it around, and correct the religion-skewed universe with nourishing spirals of your vitriol. It will have far more effect than your current broken-record method.

Fair go.

"Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circumstances of his life. e.g. Buddha by one legend was supposedly talking when he came out of his mother's womb."

At least he wasn't cutting and pasting as someone we all know was doing. (Smith, Gregory, and Elizabeth Choi. "Cutting and Pasting at Birth: CCNL, Man, Myth, and Legend." Bantam, 2006)

CCNL:

First try Vispanna meditation or progressive muscle relaxation.

Next: Knock off the booze.

Next: Seek counseling from specialists in OCD with anti-social religious tendencies. Psychotherapists, psychiatrists, social workers, etc., with this area of expertise are available throughout greater Philadelphia.

More on your condition (the compulsive component):

Compulsions:

1. Repetitive behaviors or mental acts that the person feels driven to perform in response to an obsession, or according to rules that must be applied rigidly.
2. The behaviors or mental acts are aimed at preventing or reducing distress or preventing some dreaded event or situation; however, these behaviors or mental acts are not actually connected to the issue, or they are excessive.

Many of the 1.5 million Conservative Jews and many of their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT.

Name fifty such rabbis and specifiy precisely what they have so relegated. These questions are precise.

Name eight who use the term "OT."

This site says nothing about "the [sic] Jews" being or not being "Realization that the Jews are not god's chosen people."

www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

Moses, the "Tablet-Man"

Tablets hadn't been invented yet, and, at all events he suffered from no aches and pains, as CCNL did not yet exist.

"Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant/ carpenter/simple preacher man"

I heard he ran a pizza parlor on the lower East Side.

Comparisons----(for those eyes that have not seen)

1. Abraham founder/father of three major religions was either the embellishment of the lives of three different men or a
mythical character as was mythical Moses, the "Tablet-Man" who talked to burning bushes and made much magic in Egypt.

Many of the 1.5 million Conservative Jews and many of their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT.

Current crisis:

Realization that the Jews are not god's chosen people.
www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

2. Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant/ carpenter/simple preacher man who suffered from hallucinations and who has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics.
http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/Works_Cited

For added "pizzazz", Catholic/Christian theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".

Current crises:

Pedophiliac priests, atonement theology and original sin!!!!

3. Luther, Calvin, Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingie thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

Current crises:

Adulterous preachers, "propheteering/ profiteering" evangelicals and atonement theology.

4. Mohammed was an illiterate, womanizing, lust and greed-driven, warmongering, hallucinating Arab, who also had embellishing/hallucinating/ plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

This agenda continues as shown by the assassination of Bhutto, the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/ mosque bombers, the Islamic bombers of the trains in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani “koranics”, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, and the Filipino “koranics”.

And who funds this muck and stench of terror? The warmongering, Islamic, Shiite terror and torture theocracy of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil and also the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

Current crises:

The Sunni-Shiite blood feud and the warmongering, womanizing (11 wives), hallucinating founder.

5. Hinduism (from an online Hindu site)

- "Hinduism cannot be described as an organized religion. It is not founded by any individual. Hinduism is God centered and therefore one can call Hinduism as founded by God, because the answer to the question ‘Who is behind the eternal principles and who makes them work?’ will have to be ‘Cosmic power, Divine power, God’."
The caste/laborer system and cow worship/reverence are problems when saying a fair and rational God founded Hinduism."

Current crises:

The caste system and cow worship/reverence.

6. Buddhism- "Buddhism began in India about 500 years before the birth of Christ. The people living at that time had become disillusioned with certain beliefs of Hinduism including the caste system, which had grown extremely complex. The number of outcasts (those who did not belong to any particular caste) was continuing to grow."
"However, in Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama (fifth century B.C.):"

Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circumstances of his life. e.g. Buddha by one legend was supposedly talking when he came out of his mother's womb.

Bottom line: There are many good ways of living but be aware of the hallucinations, embellishments, lies, and myths surrounding the founders and foundations of said rules of life.

A whole clutch of truths from a weary head - well said, Farnaz. Rest ye.

There is no reason why dialogues on Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, including the many varieties of the three religions cannot proceed.
Other religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism,
Paganism(s), Animism(s) can and should also be discussed.

The key is, and this is imperative, that these discussions proceed on a comparative, not a competitive basis. Sadly, some have no problem showing the problems with one religious text, but scream discrimination when their own is called into question.

That is not comparative; it is competitive, offensive, and pointless. Please understand: I'm not accusing anyone.

All we have to do is look at recent events to see where this sort of logic can ultimately lead. If one's own religious beliefs hinge on discrediting those of another people, the consequences will be deadly as they have always been.

UKBA,

Well there you have it. This is what happens to a human mind when its owner goes without sleep.

I wrote: "Most importantly, I'd strongly recommend competitive rather than comparative religion"

Meant to write "I'd strongly recommend comparative rather than competitive religion."

UKBA,

Sorry old friend, but one could go through Q'ran page by page noting endless inconsistencies just as one can in the Tanakh and in the Christian Testament.

Also, I always wonder, indeed many Jews and Christians wonder at the misreadings. How do some people figure that Isaac was an infant when he and Abraham went to the binding? (What some call the "sacrifice," mistranslating?)

The Tanakh was written by several authors as was the Christian Testament. I'm holding off on Q'ran for the moment.

Most importantly, I'd strongly recommend competitive rather than comparative religion. It places us in an unholy microcosm.

Arminius writes:

"Perhaps Muhammad(PBUH) and his followers sincerely believed that the Jewish texts were in error, and that it was really Ishmael that was the potential sacrifice"

He may well have believed both this and that Jesus Christ was erroneously depicted as having been executed and interpreted as the "Son of God."
________________________________
Certainly, as I posted earlier no Jew in history would consider G-d to be given to incarnation, indulge in the blood/wine, bread/flesh stuff (a Greek thing). The Pharisees weren't interested in the endless numbers of prophets dropping from the trees in anguished response to Roman occupation. They were interested in the sages and in keeping them alive. The Q & A stuff is a Greek textual device developed centuries earlier. Etc., etc., etc.

The many inconsistencies, obvious errors, incorrect attributions in the Christian Testament have been noted again and again and again and again and again. For centuries. Scroll down.

Added to this, there is no evidence that JC existed.

UKBA writes to Thomas:
There might some truth in there but the whole story cannot be taken at face value. It is a tale for the Jews written by the Jews for their own consumption. So why should anyone take your covenant claim as truth. I sure don’t.

The Tanakh is written by us for us, not for Christians or Muslims, as UKBA points out. The same is true of the Christian Testament.

To use Onofrio's word, I have "skewered" its arguments, but then again so have hundreds of others: clergy, linguists, historians, anthropologists, etc.

Again, I ask, so what? Those who wish to believe or who can derive good from their interpretations by doing good are giving something to this world. Those who do not are not.

ABHAB, love your description of the Islamic paradise:

"It describes an afterlife gardens with rivers of wine and honey and brimming with young black eyed receptive beauties..."

And that's a problem? Man, that's my kind of paradise! If the lovelies there are anything like the beauties I've seen in the Middle East...please, let me in! Except I wouldn't be happy there for long if I knew that comparable delights did not also await good Muslim ladies. Are there handsome black-eyed youths waiting to embrace them?

CCNL:

I take what you write with the utmost seriousness.
Read the last paragraph in Wikipedia on this text. Look at the study guide. Read up on magical realism, etc.

This is a very learned text by an author operating at an extremely high and difficult level of textual level of hybridity. If you haven't read his earlier work, I can't imagine how you could see what he was about.

"Verses" is extremely dense with allusions, not only to apocrypha, but to myth, Q'ran, postcolonialism, postcolonialist writers. Amazon and Kirkus Review won't do it.

It's a tough, tough read--for anyone. It concerns dislocation, estrangement, etc., of Asian Muslims.

Hi, Onofrio,

Please keep posting - you are a brighter light here among a lot of very dim bulbs.

Ukba chides Thomas thus::
Thomas in his usual ignorant way says “The koran is not something that flows from the bible, the koran is saying that the bible, both old and new testament, is a lie.”
Then adds:
“The Quran does not say such a thing; maybe you should read it before making such a ludicrous statement.”
Moi:
I have read the Quran a number of times in the original Arabic and its English translations. What I found is a book with no chronology of events or a sustained theme other than a supremacist diatribe and incitement against the other. It is riddled with inconsistencies and outright contradictions. It lists legends from Arab and Persian pagans as the literal words of the Creator along with embellished stories from the Old and New Testaments. It is full of scientific heresies, geographical errors, historical blunders, grammatical mistakes and logical fallacies. The book talks of flying horses, speaking ants and arguing birds. It describes an afterlife gardens with rivers of wine and honey and brimming with young black eyed receptive beauties placed there simply to service the believers and Jihadists.

Hey, you're welcome Arminius. You're an honest soul, to be sure. God bless your gospel wrestling!

Peace.

Hi, Onofrio,

You delightfully wrote,
"Step right up! Christian versus Christian over the Qur'an. In the corner to my right - Thomas Paul Moses Baum: sincere augur of Rome and personal acquaintance of the Trinity; in the corner to my left, Arminius: paragon of earnest inclusivity and mild curmudgeonry. Who will stoop to anathema first? What! A spectator has entered the ring - why, it's Ukba, flinging textual criticism to right and left...oh, the humanity!'

ME: Well, I've been laughing for about 5 minutes! 'Mild curmudgeonry' indeed! I'm a full-blown proud curmudgeon, and proud of it! (Still laughing.) Yes, I try to be inclusive, it is part of what I believe, thanks. I have great respect for Thomas Baum, but I disagree with him here. IMHO, all of the Christian bible was written by men, and, as Paul said, '...we see through a glass darkly". (Actually the proper translation is 'mirror' - shades of Plato's cave?) Anyway, the true heart of the bible, to me, is in the Gospels. Yes, I am very aware of the problems! I continue to wrestle with them.

Yeah, Ukba has made it pretty interesting, to be sure.

Thanks!

Ukba, on your Acts citation:
"In acts Peter says: “Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. Acts 2:22"

Here's something to consider as you deploy your polemical arsenal, Ukba. You're keen to quote Peter against Jesus' divinity. What about Peter's testimony to Jesus' execution? If Peter is right about the first, how does Islam know he's wrong about the second?

And you haven't answered my question about whether you apply this sort of text-critical method to the Qur'an.

What's good for the goose...

Step right up! Christian versus Christian over the Qur'an. In the corner to my right - Thomas Paul Moses Baum: sincere augur of Rome and personal acquaintance of the Trinity; in the corner to my left, Arminius: paragon of earnest inclusivity and mild curmudgeonry. Who will stoop to anathema first? What! A spectator has entered the ring - why, it's Ukba, flinging textual criticism to right and left...oh, the humanity!

In acts Peter says: “Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. Acts 2:22

Poor Peter he did not know who Jesus Was.

In Mark we read: As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone. Mark 10:17-18

Here Jesus does not even want to be called good and you claim he is god.

I know you fond of John’s gospel, but read this:

Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.' " John 21:17

What do you know, Jesus has a god. So how can a god have god. Please tell me. I want to know. Unbelievable.

Thomas,
You wrote: “Jesus flat out said that He Was God in quite a few places.”

I see just claims and nothing to back them up with. I want to see one verse from your twenty seven books where Jesus says those words clearly with no implying this or implying that, where Jesus says clearly “I am a god.” It is that simple, really. And why is it you always quote from John’s gospel. If what you claim is true then I should find it also clearly stated in Mark, Matthew and Luke. If this creed is so central to Christianity it should be stated as clearly as possible with not a shadow of a doubt. But there is no such thing.

However, you have it in your records where Jesus declares his total subordination to God, and his total submission to the father and prays to him call him ‘my God.’ His disciples over and over again refer to him as teacher, master and rabbi. There is not one place where they refer to him as YHWH, Elohim, God or god incarnate. We can assume that his disciples know him more than anyone else including you. Unless you are saying that they did not know who he was and they were kept in the dark about who Jesus was, but somehow you know his real identity.

You wrote: “Jesus wasn't kidding and there are many, many places where He claimed not only His Divinity but also His Humanity.”

That definitely defies any logic and reasoning a person might have. You have two opposite statements which you claim to be true at the same time. I’ll give one but not the other. If you claim that Jesus is a god; fine but don’t tell me he is human too. You can tell he is human but don’t tell me he is a god too. You can have one but not both. It’s one or the other. It is that simple. How can the nonmaterial be material at the same time? How can the infinite be finite and occupies space at the same time? You can have one but not the other. You can understand what I mean by a simple thought experiment. Suppose Jesus was walking and someone stabs him. Will he die or not. If he dies he is not a god but if he lives he is not human. It’s one or the other.

ARMINIUS

Jesus asked, "Who do you say that I AM?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

ARMINIUS

You wrote, " Perhaps Muhammad(PBUH) and his followers sincerely believed that the Jewish texts were in error, and that it was really Ishmael that was the potential sacrifice."

What does Mumammad and his followers beliefs have to do with it, these were supposed to be divine revelations, were they not?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Hi, Thomas Baum,

I must disagree with you about the Qu'ran interpretation of the Abraham story. First, is not a lie a conscious and intentional falsehood? Perhaps Muhammad(PBUH) and his followers sincerely believed that the Jewish texts were in error, and that it was really Ishmael that was the potential sacrifice. I do not possess the wisdom to know the answer. But I believe that one should not accuse the holy book of Islam as lying.

With respect,

Arminius

Hey, Ukba. I like your textual criticism of the Ishmael material in Genesis. Top work. You've skewered both Jewish and Christian traditions with a single kebab. I wonder, do you apply the same critical rigour to the Qur'an, or is that exempt from your intellect?

"God wins, satan loses, a tie is unacceptable."

What a stupid comment. What's God fighting for to win. What's there to win. What is this, a cage fight. Maybe you should play referee or something. Unbelievable.

Jamil, I appreciate your mention of Dr.Zakir Naik-
his youtube lectures are such an inspiriation and balanced spiritual blessing.
Thanks for the reasonable and well consdiered post- your calm is not unnoticed.

Thomas,
Here some polemics you might find interesting; take for instance the story of Ishmael and Isaac as told in Genesis:

So Hagar bore Abram a son, and Abram gave the name Ishmael to the son she had borne. Abram was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore him Ishmael. Genesis 16:15

Abraham gave the name Isaac to the son Sarah bore him… Abraham was a hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him. Genesis 21:3-5

The child grew and was weaned, and on the day Isaac was weaned Abraham held a great feast. But Sarah saw that the son whom Hagar the Egyptian had borne to Abraham was mocking, and she said to Abraham, "Get rid of that slave woman and her son, for that slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with my son Isaac." Genesis 21:8-10

Accordingly, since Isaac was weaned we can give him an age of at least three when the episode with Sarah happened. It follows then since Ishmael was fourteen years older than Isaac that Ishmael was a seventeen year old man. However, something happens in the next chapter; here Ishmael is treated as an infant, unable to walk or care for himself and is carried by his mother. It is like two stories meshed together.

Early the next morning Abraham took some food and a skin of water and gave them to Hagar. He set them on her shoulders and then sent her off with the boy. When the water in the skin was gone, she put the boy under one of the bushes. Then she went off and sat down nearby, about a bowshot away, for she thought, "I cannot watch the boy die." And as she sat there nearby, she began to sob… God heard the boy crying, and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven and said to her, "What is the matter, Hagar? Do not be afraid; God has heard the boy crying as he lies there. Lift the boy up and take him by the hand, for I will make him into a great nation." Then God opened her eyes and she saw a well of water. So she went and filled the skin with water and gave the boy a drink. Genesis 21:14-18

It is clear from the above verses that Ishmael is a baby. He was thirsty and was crying so his mother put him under a bush to shield him from the elements. It does not sound like a seventeen year old man. It is a major problem if you try to make sense of it all.

There might some truth in there but the whole story cannot be taken at face value. It is a tale for the Jews written by the Jews for their own consumption. So why should anyone take your covenant claim as truth. I sure don’t.

Sparrow and Thomas the Hallucinator,

Why debate the Isaac/Ismael story?? As noted before, it is one of the greatest hoaxes ever pulled on humankind.

It is comparable to the "pretty/ugly, wingie, thingie hoax.

Note that the foundation of Islam is dependent on both hoaxes.

It crashes to even finer dust as does Judaism since Abraham was a myth as per a thorough analysis by many Jewish historical and archeological exegetes.

Farnaz, Farnaz, Farnaz,

Au Contraire!!

I did read Sir Salman Rusdie's Satanic Verses and I did present one of his pages as being an honest appraisal of the Islamic/koran's obsession with rules to include how to address farting.

A professional book review was presented since you would challenge anything I said about said book.

jamil51 :
"Onofrio
Twice I responded in details to your comments and lost them as the system didt permit.
Very briefly I submit answers to all the points you raised: I will avoid quotations."

Thankyou, Jamil for taking the time to respond to my post, and for addressing the matters I raised regarding gender relations and the relativity of morals. I can appreciate the moral compass that your faith gives you and millions of your fellow believers. As with all belief systems, I'm interested in how they treat doctrinal dissenters - Christianity calls them heretics. I don't know what they are called in Islam.

Accepting that Mohammed completes the program of Abrahamic religion requires that I accept the authority and value of Abraham in the first place, which I do not. To me, he is like Moses, Homer, Pythagoras, Zoroaster, or King Arthur - a shadowy figure half-real, half-legend, about whom all sorts of stories have accumulated. If some of those stories claim that the god of the universe had conversations with Abraham about his domestic affairs - what is that to me? If Abraham had something to do with a black stone cube in Arabia - what is that to me? Whether Isaac or Ishmael was offered up as sacrifice - what is that to me but another ancient tale, like the fall of Troy, or the death of Orpheus? Why are such things necessary to my eternity, Jamil?

The believer/non-believer polarisation remains the main difficulty for me. In my experience, correct beliefs and righteous action do not always go together. Some of the most vital, just, and compassionate people I've known have been indifferent in matters of religious faith, and some of the more self-deceived, dishonest, and spiteful people I've encountered have been religiously motivated. Yet it seems to me that, ultimately, for God/Allah correct beliefs about him are more important than righteous behaviour. Do you believe it is possible for a person to be approved by your God if they are just, fair, morally upright, and compassionate, but are indifferent to the Prophethood of Mohammed?

UKBA

You wrote, "Thomas in his usual ignorant way says “The koran is not something that flows from the bible, the koran is saying that the bible, both old and new testament, is a lie.”

The bible says that God told Abraham to take Isaac ... . The koran says that Abraham took Ismael ... does it not?

It seems pretty obvious that not only does it not flow but it is completely different in who Abraham took, does it not?

I have seen on these posts, "Islam defines Trinity as Father,Son and Mary.Is this Trinity ?", is this what Muslims think the Trinity refers to?

That is not the Trinity, the Trinity is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Jesus flat out said that He Was God in quite a few places. Jesus said, "I Am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father except thru Me", notice that He did not say to God but to the Father. Jesus also said, "I will send the Holy Spirit to guide you into all Truth". There, among many others, is where the Trinity is referred to.

As I have said, God is a searcher of hearts and minds not of religious affiliations or lack thereof, God is not the egomaniac that some seem to think that He Is.

I have met God the Father, He came into my heart, I have met God the Holy Spirit, He came into my body and revealed to me that the Catholic Eucharist is Jesus which the manna in the desert is a prefiguring of and Isaac is a prefiguring of Jesus.

Jesus is God-Incarnate and if He wasn't then there would not be any Christianity.

You also wrote, " He wears the self righteousness and mister nice guy coat but underenath he is a jerk. I really don't care much for him.", it doesn't matter what anyone thinks of me, I am just a messenger and I know that I am a sinner and as I have said before, I used to believe that Jesus died for everyone except me well close but no cigar, what I not only believe but stake absolutely everything on is that Jesus died for everyone including me.

Jesus also claimed to forgive sins and the religious authorities of his day did not cotton to this one bit, as a matter of fact they said "who but God can forgive sin?". Jesus wasn't kidding and there are many, many places where He claimed not only His Divinity but also His Humanity.

God's Plan is for ALL OF HUMANITY to be with Him in His Kingdom, the new heavens and the new earth, on the seventh day, we are in the sixth day and have been for quite some time and night is coming but the dawning of the seventh day will surely arrive.

God wins, satan loses, a tie is unacceptable.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Also- why claim the koran says the bible is lying if it has a different interpretation? I accept that the koran interprets the bible differently than I do. But everyone interprets the bible- just look at the gay marriage or abortion issue. Are we not fighting over interpretation?

I won't condemn anyone's holy book or their religious beliefs. I will condemn people for evil actions though.

Again thomas, who Abraham almost sacrificed is not what formed the basis of who became Israelites. It only has to do with which son. I really don't think the point of the story changes, do you?

SPARROW4

You wrote, "And the koran does not claim the bible is a lie - the bible is part of the koran's heritage and neither I, a Jew, nor you, a Christian, are really qualified to decide what the koran really says or not."

The bible says it was Isaac, the koran says it was Ismael, seems to me that the koran is saying the what is written in the bible is untrue, isn't that what a lie is?

I am not saying what the koran says but there have been plenty of people on here and some have said that they are Muslim and they have said that that is what the koran says, have they not?

You also wrote, "I do indeed know where the word "Israelite" comes from. Did I say anything that would make you think otherwise? I don't think so.", what I am saying is if the line, so to speak, went thru Ismael instead of Isaac then wouldn't it be Ismael's decendants instead of Isaac's?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Jamil- I find your posts informative but I do have to say I don't believe Islam completes the Abrahamic faiths. I think they are all branches from the same root and too many of us feed into the tensions between faiths by claiming only ours is right or best.

I think every religion follows its own path to G-d, and I don't see how an all-knowing, all-loving G-d would turn from anyone who lived according to the golden rule. But that's just me :-)

CCNL:

So, you are posting on a book you haven't read. Your guide for living has a decent article on the text, which includes the consensus view.

Try reading it yourself before you quote in ways comprehensible to yourself alone. There are numerous study guides on the web. You may, however, wish to look up magical realism, Gramsci, and a heck of a lot more.

Here's one fairly good guide should you decide to actually read and comprehend the book. Not being a member of a minority group (being unique doesn't count), you may find it difficult to understand why some found it offensive, but that isn't the point. God knows what your point is.

http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/anglophone/satanic_verses/intro.html

Jamil noted "Therefore no need for another prophet except Prophet Jesus who will come near the end of times".

Hmmm, Jesus was a simple preacher man. Paul et al made him into a deity and prophet/profit to perpetuate Judasism and increase their status in first century Palestine overwhelmed by the brutality and taxes of the Romans i.e. the Paul "et alers" were first media evangelists.

Paul even predicted the second coming in his lifetime. Still waiting!!! Heaven if it exists is a spirit state, no bodies there and therefore no need or possibility of a second coming.

Mahound and his scribes basically borrowed/plagiarized from the words/rules of the pagans (e.g. The Code of Hammurabi- 1792–1750 BC), the OT and NT and then said some pretty wingie thingie named Gabriel "revealed" it all to them in a koranic burst of hallucination . They added some koranic words of Islamic world dominion and oppression of women to give credence to their warmongering, looting and oppression of women.

As HALOZCEL1 asked:
1-Who changed Bible and when ?
The belief is that slowly by certain people who would rather not have the rightous beliefs, and make it a bit more relaxing,and also by the passage of time. Do we know if this is even close to what was originally revealed? No,but the rightous beliefs in it help us no that it is not completely changed.
2-Do only muslims know this change ? Dont Jews and Christians know this change on their own Books ?
As stated above,it was a slow change. And perhaps they don't. Maybe there was a lapse in which the generation changed it completely,and there was no way to get the original,so the following generations made it as good as possible.
3-Is it muslim duty to judge whether the Bible/Torah is true or not ?
No but God has right to do so,and so we follow what God tells us.
4-Judaism was nearly 2500 year-old and Christianity was almost 600 year-old whem islam was founded.Is it logical and rational to say *Bible/Torah is not true*
They are true,but not in completeness. And that time frame furthur promotes the idea that the Books did change.
God said that since The Prophet was the last messenger,the book revealed to him would not be changed,since no other messengers would be given revelation. The only messenger that will come down after,to counter the Anti-Christ or Dajjal,will not bring a new revelation,and will follow the Quran.

1-Does islam know what Trinity is ?
Yes,from the Christian idea,but does not believe in it at all.
2-Islam defines Trinity as Father,Son and Mary.Is this Trinity ? Not in the current belief,but this is likely to be what the original idea is,or what was believed at that time.

3-5.72 says *blaspheme* who say Allah is Christ.Isnt it *curse* as well ?
"They surely disbelieve who say : Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. The Messiah (himself) said : O Children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Lo! whoso ascribeth partners unto Allah, for him Allah hath forbidden Paradise. His abode is the Fire. For evildoers there will be no helpers."

The other translations that I double checked don't
say anything about cursing or blaspheming those who believe that Allah is Christ. Maybe you were talking about another verse.

Thanks

Onofrio

Twice I responded in details to your comments and lost them as the system didt permit.
Very briefly I submit answers to all the points you raised: I will avoid quotations

The religion of prophet Abraham finally got completed in the times of Prophet Muhammad.
Therefore no need for another prophet except Prophet Jesus who will come near the end of times.

As the moral and virtues dont change with time therefore what is said in 7 century about moral and virtues are true even today, however issues arising with the change of time is taken care by the consensus of learned men.
Quran is sometimes called FURQAN which means it makes a clear demarcation between the rightous and wrong-doers therefore you find a redical polarisation "Us/Them believers/non-believers."

Good with toxic baggage - not at all - reading the text of different religion and seeing the next horizon while to practice it is quite a different experience.
God best knows his creation hence for man is man-like things to be done and for women their like.
As human beings they are equal.
To keep the sanctity of a family unit,upon which the health of whole society depends, for organisational reasons one of the partner has to head it, may it be a woman or a man.
Family is based upon mutual trust, faithfulnes and senceriety. Doubts could ruin a family.
Women do make friends and normally do not take require any approval while the secred trust is there. In practice we do not experience any difficulty. In a home the decision are make with mutual concent and sometimes one bows to the wishes of the other.
I appreciate your well composed comments.

For further information you can see some video of Dr.Zakir Naik on Youtube.

Farnaz, Farnaz, Farnaz,

And you read Satanic Verses?

A review in case you have not:

"Amazon.co.uk Review

No book in modern times has matched the uproar sparked by Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses, which earned its author a fatwa from Iran's Ayatollahs decreeing his death. Furore aside, it is a marvellously erudite study of good and evil, a feast of language served up by a writer at the height of his powers and a rollicking comic fable. The book begins with two Indians, Gibreel Farishta ("for fifteen years the biggest star in the history of the Indian movies") and Saladin Chamcha, a Bombay expatriate returning from his first visit to his homeland in 15 years, plummeting from the sky after the explosion of their jetliner, and proceeds through a series of metamorphoses, dreams and revelations. Rushdie's astonishing powers of invention are at their best in this Whitbread Prize winner.

Review
A key novel of this century and one of the most controversial. Amid the myriad characters in this dream within fiction is one based on the prophet Muhammad, which throws him and his transcriptions of the Koran in a dubious light. As a result, the book was condemned by the Ayatollah Khomeini and Rushdie's execution demanded. Only in 1998 was the fatwa lifted, enabling the author to come out of hiding. (Kirkus UK)

This controversial novel, banned in India for its alleged blasphemy against the Prophet Mohammed, is a surreal hallucinatory feast

Rushdie (Midnight's Children; Shame, etc.), long a magical realist, turns finally to Islam for his jumping, off point, and his inventiveness never flags. Satan, according to an epigraph by Defoe, has no fixed place to settle, and the difficulty of telling good from evil, the way that one reincarnates into the other, is the theme of this epic tale - which contains stories within stories, dreams within dreams. It begins with the explosion of a hijacked jumbo jet; Gibreel Farishta, a Bombay movie star, and Saladin Chamcha, an exile who lives in Britain, survive their free fall from the plane. Gibreel then presides over the dream/stow worlds of his "arehangelic other self" after he and Saladin are transformed into angelic or satanic opponents. (They are never certain which is which.) The central story concerns Mahound, the Prophet of Jahilia who founds the religion of "those who submit," which parallels Islam; another is about Ayesha, a contemporary visionary who leads a group of villagers to the sea, where she promises that the waves will part before them (they all drown, of course); yet another dream-story involves the Imam, a sort of grim Ayatollah. Such a summary does the book a disservice, however, because all of these stories and many others besides are woven together with cross-references, psychic communications, brisk farces and satires, and interconnected picaresque. Rushdie does for Islam what Mark Helprin did (a little less successfully) for New York in his Winter's Tale: peoples it with fantastic figures that always seem close to some ineffable imaginative truth - even as Rushdie fast-cuts to the next scene in his phantasmagoric dream-time world. Whether it all finally holds together or not is almost beside the point: this is an entertainment in the highest sense of that much-exploited word. (Kirkus Reviews)"

Farnaz2
Feel free to copy and paste your 'evidence' if you have any from your link. I've already followed your links twice previously and found nothing.
As for your personal attacks, I'm not interested or insulted. Feel free to waste your time in some more productive way. Most of us don't have so much free time to kill.

Marcedward:

Last try: If you follow the link below to a US government report, click "Enter," and then click on the tabs at the right, you may find some enlightenment.

I mean no disrespect, but if you have difficulty manipulating the internet, any librarian can help you. Surely you can see that no blogger can paste an entire sixty-five page government report here, and this is only one of them; moreover, it focuses exclusively on campus antiJewish racism, only one type discussed in recent studies, the links to which you have been referred to by others. Note Bill Clinton's remarks in this one.

Good luck!

http://www.usccr.gov/campusanti-semitism.html

Farnaz2
You are a religious, anti-Islamic bigot and a bit of a liar. You have no evidence to back up your statements, and you clearly don't even read the links you post.
You have the same credibility as a Holocaust denier, so your personal attacks carry no weight. Better luck next time!

CCNL:

No time now. I'll say only this. Rushdie's intent in Satanic Verses was not to write a satire about Q'ran; he was writing about displacement, the estrangement from self and culture experienced by Asian Muslims in Europe.

What your point is in the Rushdie and all other pastes eludes me, but what else is new. I recommend Vispanna meditation.

Marcedward: Part I

Here is my previous post to you, to which I append more recent considerations:

"You're mistaken on two counts: first, I did provide evidence as did Jeff-in-DC, Observer, and others. Second, I did not "call names." That, I'm afraid, is your forte, and it is another reason why I suggested you may suffer from a learning problem.

Then, too, there is this sort of thing:

game
set
match
:-)

You do this repeatedly with everyone for whom you lack the wherewithal to engage on their level, and resorting to childish taunts is a sign of LD. Unsurprisingly, it occurs as a compensatory strategy, and one should not take it personally. Please understand: Suggesting that you may suffer from such a disability is in no way "name calling." Many brilliant people can say the same.
It occurs to me that you may already know you have some limiting or inhibiting intellectual condition.

You give every sign of one: reading difficulties, resorting to name calling, false accusations, denying facts, etc.. All are common LD strategies meant to fill in for various skills that are missing or under-developed.

As for me, my experience in this domain is limited. I can only say that every referral I've made for diagnosis has panned out. However, I'm in no way qualified to recommend where you may receive help, if you are not yet getting it.

I wish you well."

________________________________________

"That was it - some public fights, some drunks yelling at people, and one boy who was suspended from school for evil and illegal behavior. This is hardly widespread antisemitic violence. Your source concluded that the local Jews faced greater threats from local skinheads, who are hardly Islamic!

you
lose
again

You make accusations, and when caught lying you start calling names. You are a rather pathetic person and a bit of a liar, but I forgive you. One hopes you'll grow up someday."

Marcedward: Part II
As I mention above, I meant and mean no disrespect in suggesting that you may have a reading and/or other learning disability. Many fine minds have suffered from such maladies, one of whom was Einstein.

To repeat what i said earlier,
"You give every sign of one: reading difficulties, resorting to name calling, false accusations, denying facts, etc.. All are common LD strategies meant to fill in for various skills that are missing or under-developed."

You have done it again. I am in no position to counsel you, and I fear the more I reply to you the more desperate you will become. That was not my intent. So, from this point forward, since you either will not or cannot read the links supplied to you by Jeff-in-DC, the EU, US, and UK reports Observer referred you to, the links I provided, I see no point in continuing to post to you.

Most importantly, you either know you are LD and refuse to deal with it and rethink what you're doing or you don't and can't face it. If the latter, I'm merely feeding into your unwillingness to seek help.

As I said earlier, and I doubt you will be able to take this into account because it requires engaging complexity, Muslims are hardly alone in this. Hardly. Take Brazil for instance where the anti-semites are mainly skinheads and neo-fascists.

But, again, I doubt you'll be able to take this in. The LD suggestion in no way was or is meant to be offensive, my friend, only to suggest that there are explanations for your difficulties in understanding. You may be brilliant in other areas. If you got help, you'd be able to comprehend better and develop the wherewithal to communicate constructively.

I wish you well.

Farnaz2 writes
'You're mistaken on two counts: first, I did provide evidence'

No you didn't.
You claimed widespread anti-Jewish Islamic violence in North and South America. You provided one link to a story in Canada which failed to mention Islam or Muslims (I guess you were too lazy to read your own post?). You provided another link which said the following about attacks in 2006, during Israel's invasion of Lebanon.
'On 26 March a group of some 20 Palestinians, aged 25−28, shouted antisemitic slogans and tried to beat up eight boys in their late teens, four of them from the Jewish community.
Many incidents were recorded during the war. One of the most serious occurred in the Liceo Manuel Salas school in Santiago, where a boy held a knife to the throat of a girl, on 8 August, saying, “I will kill you because you are a Jewess.” The boy was suspended for two days and then for the year 2007.
Three drunkards tried to hit a security guard in front of the Jafetz Jaim community synagogue on 26 August and shouted “Dirty Jew. Long live Palestine. We will kill you.” The three, of Palestinian origin, were eventually arrested in their homes in the neighborhood.'

That was it - some public fights, some drunks yelling at people, and one boy who was suspended from school for evil and illegal behavior. This is hardly widespread antisemitic violence. Your source concluded that the local Jews faced greater threats from local skinheads, who are hardly Islamic!

you
lose
again

You make accusations, and when caught lying you start calling names. You are a rather pathetic person and a bit of a liar, but I forgive you. One hopes you'll grow up someday.

Onofrio

Twice I posted detailed rely to your comments but the system ate it up.

Will write again

sparrow4 writes
'marcedward- what's the deal with CAIR? I've heard it funds terrorists, I've heard it's a great organization. any more info?'

I only heard about CAIR (C-Islamic-American-Relations, not sure what the C stands for cause I'm too lazy to go by their site at the moment) through (of all things) FOX news. They seem to be a fairly positive organization, but I only know about them through their web site. They have been accused of a lot of things (because there are a lot of people who don't want any positive ideas about Islam to go unchallanged) and they actually have an 'urban legends' page. Again, go by www.cair.com and look at it yourself. They certainly claim they don't fund terrorists. Some other American orginazations have given money to Hamas, but not CAIR as far as I know.

'My point was really that timing is everything. even you would have to admit Muslim terrorist have dominated international news'

I totally agree. And I think they picked the time and place of their attacks because of the season.

'to complain about the media not saying much about Hajj just after Mumbai is disingenuous and a little naive. I'm also sick of Muslim-bashing, gay-bashing, Israel-bashing, etc.'

I totally agree. I'm rather sensitive to any bigotry because I'm a bit on the old side, and I have vivid memories of the 1960s and 70s and the poor race relations and riots we had here in the USA. I've been successful enough raising kids that they are more prone to notice hair color than skin color.

'I believe in Mr. Patel's good intentions and interfaith work, I think he may be asking a bit too much of us right now'

He might be. The attacks were horrific, and the torture of Jewish victims makes the attacks all the worse. I tend to be more angry at the Saudis than Muslims in general. After all only 20% of Muslims are Arabs, but it's the Saudis who fund the Wahhibi schools, it's the Saudis who fund Al Qaeda, and among the terrorists who were attacking Iraqis during the occupation, most of them were Saudis. It troubles me that the Saudis get away with a lot while we have a President who has family ties to the Saudi 'royal' family.

'But then, so is the Mormon Church when they expect us to swallow their "we're not the bad guys on Prop 8."'

Yeah, I'm not too happy with the Mormons at the moment. I try to restrice my ire to the leadership, as I do with the RCC or the Pro-life movement. I try not to blame the rank-and-file.
Have a nice day!

TMS2,

You say *It is not what we have now that is true Bible/Torah according to Muslims.This(Bible) has been changed.*

1-Who changed Bible and when ?
2-Do only muslims know this change ? Dont Jews and Christians know this change on their own Books ?
3-Is it muslim duty to judge whether the Bible/Torah is true or not ?
4-Judaism was nearly 2500 year-old and Christianity was almost 600 year-old whem islam was founded.Is it logical and rational to say *Bible/Torah is not true*

You also say *The Trinity is believed to be one of the mistakes in Christianity.Islam does not *curse* son of God*
1-Does islam know what Trinity is ?
2-Islam defines Trinity as Father,Son and Mary.Is this Trinity ?
3-5.72 says *blaspheme* who say Allah is Christ.Isnt it *curse* as well ?

*Are you saying that Jesus Christ founded Islam*
No,I am not saying this.
I say *Bible says,Jesus is the last Messenger,but islam says the founder of islam is the last one.Which one is correct and how can it be continuation*

From Sir Salman Rushdie who has read all the variations of the koran:

From his satirical book, The Satanic Verses:

an excerpt:

"The faithful lived by lawlessness, but in those years Mahound - or should one say the Archangel Gibreel? - should one say Al-Lah? - became obsessed by law.

Amid the palm-trees of the oasis Gibreel appeared to the Prophet and found himself spouting rules, rules, rules, until the faithful could scarcely bear the prospect of any more revelation, Salman said, rules about every damn thing, if a man farts let him turn his face to the wind, a rule
about which hand to use for the purpose of cleaning one's behind.

It was as if no aspect of human existence was to be left unregulated, free. The revelation - the recitation- told the faithful how much to eat, how deeply they should sleep, and which sexual
positions had received divine sanction, so that they leamed that sodomy and the missionary position were approved of by the archangel, whereas the forbidden postures included all those in which the female was on top.

Gibreel further listed the permitted and forbidden subjects of conversation, and earmarked the parts of the body which could not be scratched no matter how unbearably they might itch. He vetoed the consumption of prawns, those bizarre other-worldly creatures which no member of the faithful had ever seen, and required animals to be killed slowly, by bleeding, so that by experiencing their deaths to the full they
might arrive at an understanding of the meaning of their lives, for it is only at the moment of death that living creatures understand
that life has been real, and not a sort of dream.

And Gibreel the archangel specified the manner in which a man should be buried, and how his property should be divided, so that Salman the Persian got to wondering what manner of God this was that soundedso much like a businessman.

This was when he had the idea that
destroyed his faith, because he recalled that of course Mahound himself had been a businessman, and a damned successful one at that, a person to whom organization and rules came naturally, so
how excessively convenient it was that he should have come up with such a very businesslike archangel, who handed down the management decisions of this highly corporate, if noncorporeal, God."

More on Islam and farting:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/1503931/Prayer-Recitation-of-Quran-and-Ablution-or-Bath?query2=islam%20fart

"I know I'm not directly addressing your points. I guess I don't know how to."

Much more edifying for me that you haven't, Farnaz. When I learn of such personal syncretisms, selectivities, and what some would call "inconsistencies", I feel encouraged, and also somewhat foolish for being so intense in my apostate polemic. It's good to be reminded of the real lives behind the usual trenches. I would like to be moderately observant and dismiss the afterlife, like your friend. Oh, and highly educated too!

Onofrio:

"But there ain't nothin' clean."

My closest friend, my sister, really,
is a Pakistani Muslim who lives in Islamabad. She's moderately observant, extremely well educated. Not too long ago, I asked her if she believes in an afterlife.

She said, "I mean I'm not an idiot."

There are many Islams although many Muslims would say I'm being ridiculous; others would say I'm being blasphemous. But I can compare my female friend's Islam with my friend Numan's Islam. Both are Sunni, both moderately observant. My Pakistani friend is fond of Hindu scripture, from a literary perspective. Numan likes the Tanakh.

They are from different countries, have different customs--his is much more liberal, but he will not read Hindu scripture, probably believes in an afterlife. I know I'm not directly addressing your points. I guess I don't know how to.

CCNL, Lunatic,

Excellent treatment for alcohol-related OCD with anti-social religious tendencies is available throughout Philadelphia.

Onofrio,

Thanks for your reply. I'm not convinced there was no Jesus either. However, there are numerous errors in the Christian Testament, misattributions, as even CCNL, Son of Crossan, will admit.

I don't know what version of Q'ran you read, but some English translations actually include things not in the Arabic. Hopefully, you consulted some secondary sources as all of this is interpretive, by which I mean all sacred texts.

The thing is one just never gets anywhere in these discussions. My problem is that I don't know why CCNL drives me to this much distraction. One question I have is how he miraculously appears whenever one of his subjects come up. He might be a the next Joe Smith. :)

Back to the topic with some reiterated poetry:

O Islam, Islam, violent Islam,
Moha, illiterate and hallucinating,
O Islam, Islam, violent Islam,
Moha greed and lustful, womanizing,
Was he too,

O Islam, O Islam, violent Islam,
Moha, warmongering and hateful,
Was he too,

O Islam, O Islam, violent Islam,
Sunnis of hate, Shiites of late,
Even Pretty Wingie Thingies cannot
Save us from O Islam's hate.

Save us from these Islamic FEMS,
Flaws, Errors, Muck and Stench,
As they ooze from the rocks of earth,
Like worms of death and wrench.

Born, Bred, and Brainwashed too,
Whatever, whatever to do?
Truth, Truth, History and Truth,
Let it Ring True, Freedom, Freedom
Freedom at Last and much left to do!!!

Farnaz2 :
"Onofrio:
And then you get into that other question, which will surely bring edification from CCNL."

...and he kicked just like a knee-jerk. Pace, CCNL, with lots of pretty wingie thingies.

I appreciate your response to my post, Farnaz. I'm not yet entirely convinced of the Jesus-as-invention argument that you've summarised so cogently. However, it certainly bears serious consideration. In any case, it demonstrates how tenuous the supposedly "historic" bases for faith can be.

"I don't know about you, but I have read the Qu'ran."

I have too, Farnaz. Twice, though of course only in translation. And I read it attentively, without any particular fault-finding agenda. I'm aware that nuances and harmonies of the original have been lost in translation. And even in mere English there are diamonds in the rough, to be sure, but the rough - to me - is very rough indeed. Besides the whole notion of a specially appointed, final and definitive prophet - which I find highly dubious - I object mainly to the frequent us/them radical polarisation between true believers and the outsider. Though the Qur'an is not alone in this, it does seem to get fairly vehement on this score, and fairly often. It’s as if the tribal and religious ferment of 7th century Arabia is preserved as the norm for all subsequent human interactions. I don’t agree that this particular time and place should so directly determine our own times. Same goes for 1st century Roman Palestine, and Late Bronze Age Canaan.

My apostasy from Abrahamism does not originate in any lately-found rationalist bias against religion. I am not closed to the reality of God, but I do find that the glimmers of light, hope, and wisdom expressed in the so-called “revealed” religions come with a whole lot of toxic baggage attached, and it seems to me that you can’t have the former without the latter. Or at least, I can't. So I try to find my glimmers of light, hope, and wisdom elsewhere.

But there ain't nothin' clean.

CCNL,

From Wikipedia:

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a chronic mental disorder most commonly characterized by intrusive, repetitive thoughts resulting in compulsive behaviors and mental acts that the person feels driven to perform, according to rules that must be applied rigidly, aimed at preventing some imagined dreaded event. In severe cases, it affects a person's ability to function in every day activities. The disorder is often debilitating to the sufferer's quality of life. Also, the psychological self-awareness of the irrationality of the disorder can be painful. For people with severe OCD, it may take several hours a day to carry out the compulsive acts.

CCNL:

If Vispanna meditation doesn't do it, try medieval Jewish poetry. More to come. You are my project.

Hymn for Tabernacles

Thy praise, O Lord! will I proclaim
In hymns unto thy glorious name.
O thou Redeemer, Lord and King,
Redemption to thy faithful bring!
Before thine altar they rejoice p. 354
With branch of palm and myrtle stem,
To thee they raise the prayerful voice--
Have mercy, save and prosper them.

Mayst thou, in mercy manifold,
Dear unto thee thy people hold,
When at thy gate they bend the knee,
And worship and acknowledge thee.
Do thou their hearts' desire fulfil,
Rejoice with them in love this day,
Forgive their sins and thoughts of ill,
And their transgressions cast away.

They overflow with prayer and praise
To him, who knows the future days.
Have mercy thou, and hear the prayer
Of those who palms and myrtles bear.
Thee day and night they sanctify,
And in perpetual song adore;
Like to the heavenly hosts they cry:
"Blessed art thou for evermore."

Moses ben Nachman

For those interested in NT and other first to third centrury literature concerning Palestine history:

Added suggested readings:

1. Historical Jesus Theories, earlychristianwritings.com/theories.htm -- the names of many of the contemporary historical Jesus scholars and the titles of their over 100 books on the subject.

2. Early Christian Writings, earlychristianwritings.com/
-- a list of early Christian documents to include the year of publication
30-60 CE Passion Narrative
40-80 Lost Sayings Gospel Q
50-60 1 Thessalonians
50-60 Philippians
50-60 Galatians
50-60 1 Corinthians
50-60 2 Corinthians
50-60 Romans
50-60 Philemon
50-80 Colossians
50-90 Signs Gospel
50-95 Book of Hebrews
50-120 Didache
50-140 Gospel of Thomas
50-140 Oxyrhynchus 1224 Gospel
50-200 Sophia of Jesus Christ
65-80 Gospel of Mark
70-100 Epistle of James
70-120 Egerton Gospel
70-160 Gospel of Peter
70-160 Secret Mark
70-200 Fayyum Fragment
70-200 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
73-200 Mara Bar Serapion
80-100 2 Thessalonians
80-100 Ephesians
80-100 Gospel of Matthew
80-110 1 Peter
80-120 Epistle of Barnabas
80-130 Gospel of Luke
80-130 Acts of the Apostles
80-140 1 Clement
80-150 Gospel of the Egyptians
80-150 Gospel of the Hebrews
80-250 Christian Sibyllines
90-95 Apocalypse of John
90-120 Gospel of John
90-120 1 John
90-120 2 John
90-120 3 John
90-120 Epistle of Jude
93 Flavius Josephus
100-150 1 Timothy
100-150 2 Timothy
100-150 Titus
100-150 Apocalypse of Peter
100-150 Secret Book of James
100-150 Preaching of Peter
100-160 Gospel of the Ebionites
100-160 Gospel of the Nazoreans
100-160 Shepherd of Hermas
100-160 2 Peter

3. Historical Jesus Studies, faithfutures.org/HJstudies.html,
-- "an extensive and constantly expanding literature on historical research into the person and cultural context of Jesus of Nazareth"

4. Jesus Database, faithfutures.org/JDB/intro.html--"The JESUS DATABASE is an online annotated inventory of the traditions concerning the life and teachings of Jesus that have survived from the first three centuries of the Common Era. It includes both canonical and extra-canonical materials, and is not limited to the traditions found within the Christian New Testament."

5. Josephus on Jesus mtio.com/articles/bissar24.htm

6. The Jesus Seminar, mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/seminar.html#Criteria

7. Writing the New Testament- mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/testament.html

8. Health and Healing in the Land of Israel By Joe Zias
joezias.com/HealthHealingLandIsrael.htm

9. Economics in First Century Palestine, K.C. Hanson and D. E. Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus, Fortress Press, 1998.

10. 7. The Gnostic Jesus
(Part One in a Two-Part Series on Ancient and Modern Gnosticism)
by Douglas Groothuis: equip.org/free/DG040-1.htm

CCNL,

I must go. Also try Vispanna Buddhism.

Suggested references for those interested in the historic Jesus- cont.

11. The interpretation of the Bible in the Church, Pontifical Biblical Commission
Presented on March 18, 1994
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER.HTM#2

12. The Jesus Database- newer site:
wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php?title=Jesus_Database

13. Jesus Database with the example of Supper and Eucharist:
faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb016.html

14. Josephus on Jesus by Paul Maier:
mtio.com/articles/bissar24.htm

15. The Journal of Higher Criticism with links to articles on the Historical Jesus:
mtio.com/articles/bissar24.htm

16. The Greek New Testament: laparola.net/greco/

17. Diseases in the Bible:
etd.unisa.ac.za/ETD-db/theses/available/etd-08022006-125807/unrestricted/02dissertation.pdf
18. Religion on Line (6000 articles on the history of religion, churches, theologies,
theologians, ethics, etc.
religion-online.org/

19. The Jesus Seminarians and their search for NT authenticity:
mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/seminar.html#Criteria

20. The New Testament Gateway - Internet NT ntgateway.com/

21. Writing the New Testament- existing copies, oral tradition etc.
ntgateway.com/

22. The Search for the Historic Jesus by the Jesus Seminarians:
members.aol.com/DrSwiney/seminar.html

23. Jesus Decoded by Msgr. Francis J. Maniscalco (Da Vinci Code review)jesusdecoded.com/introduction.php

24. JD Crossan's scriptural references for his book the Historical Jesus separted into time periods: faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan1.rtf

25. JD Crossan's conclusions about the authencity of most of the NT based on the above plus the conclusions of other NT exegetes in the last 200 years:
faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan2.rtf

26. Common Sayings from Thomas's Gospel and the Q Gospel: faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan3.rtf

27. Early Jewish Writings- Josephus and his books by title with the complete translated work in English :earlyjewishwritings.com/josephus.html

28. Luke and Josephus- was there a connection?
infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/lukeandjosephus.html

29. NT and beyond time line:
pbs.org/empires/peterandpaul/history/timeline/

30. St. Paul's Time line with discussion of important events:
harvardhouse.com/prophetictech/new/pauls_life.htm

31. See www.amazon.com for a list of JD Crossan's books and those of the other Jesus Seminarians: Reviews of said books are included and selected pages can now be viewed on Amazon. Some books can be found on-line at Google Books.

32. Father Edward Schillebeeckx's words of wisdom as found in his books.

33. The books of the following other On Faith panelists: Professors Marcus Borg, Paula Fredriksen, Elaine Pagels, Karen Armstrong and Bishop NT Wright.

34. Father Raymond Brown's An Introduction to the New Testament, Doubleday, NY, 1977, 878 pages, with Nihil obstat and Imprimatur.

35. Luke Timothy Johnson's book The Real Jesus,

CCNL,

Oh, well, I mean if Crossan and Watts say so, it must be true.

For Crossan, I will say this; the man is a good prose stylist. Try imitating some of his sentences, and your own writing will improve.

As for your thinking, you'll have to work on that independently.

Knocking off the booze could help.

From some of the NT and historic Jesus exegetes to include five members of the On Faith Panel starting with Professor JD Crossan concerning the existence of the simple preacher man aka Jesus:

From Professors Crossan and Watts' book, Who is Jesus.

"That Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate, as the Creed states, is as certain as anything historical can ever be.

“ The Jewish historian, Josephus and the pagan historian Tacitus both agree that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea. And is very hard to imagine that Jesus' followers would have invented such a story unless it indeed happened.

“While the brute fact that of Jesus' death by crucifixion is historically certain, however, those detailed narratives in our present gospels are much more problematic. "

“My best historical reconstruction would be something like this. Jesus was arrested during the Passover festival, most likely in response to his action in the Temple. Those who were closest to him ran away for their own safety.

I do not presume that there were any high-level confrontations between Caiaphas and Pilate and Herod Antipas either about Jesus or with Jesus. No doubt they would have agreed before the festival that fast action was to be taken against any disturbance and that a few examples by crucifixion might be especially useful at the outset. And I doubt very much if Jewish police or Roman soldiers needed to go too far up the chain of command in handling a Galilean peasant like Jesus. It is hard for us to imagine the casual brutality with which Jesus was probably taken and executed. All those "last week" details in our gospels, as distinct from the brute facts just mentioned, are prophecy turned into history, rather than history remembered."

See also Professor Crossan's reviews of the existence of Jesus in his other books especially, The Historical Jesus and also Excavating Jesus (with Professor Jonathan Reed doing the archeology discussion) .

The other On Faith panelist and historic Jesus exegetes (Professors Borg, Fredriksen, Wright, Pagels, and Armstrong) have written similar books. .

See also Wikipedia's review on the historical Jesus to include the Tacitus' reference to the crucifixion of Jesus.

From ask.com,

"One of the greatest historians of ancient Rome, Cornelius Tacitus is a primary source for much of what is known about life the first and second centuries after the life of Jesus. His most famous works, Histories and Annals, exist in fragmentary form, though many of his earlier writings were lost to time. Tacitus is known for being generally reliable (if somewhat biased toward what he saw as Roman immorality) and for having a uniquely direct (if not blunt) writing style.

Bagel, Dear,

I am profoundly grateful that you accept the complete historicity of the Tanakh. However, it is irrelevant to the current discussion as is your second post.

Prior to cutting and pasting replies, I recommend reading what you are cutting and pasting in reply to. Then read the pastes. Call it a Jewish thing.

Onofrio:

From my earlier post:
"And then you get into that other question, which will surely bring edification from CCNL."

:)
_________________________
CCNL:

For goodness sake. What took you so long? I posted a poem for you on Jacoby's thread.

What did you think of it? If you don't tell me, I'll start posting sources to back up each of my points. :-0

NT and other scripture references to the crucifixion of the simple preacher man aka Jesus

Crucifixion of Jesus 1) 1 Cor 15:3b; (2a) Gos. Pet. 4:10-5:16,18-20; 6:22; (2b) Mark 15:22-38 = Matt 27:33-51a = Luke 23:32-46; (2c) John 19:17b-25a,28-36; (3) Barn. 7:3-5; (4a) 1 Clem. 16:3-4 (=Isaiah 53:1-12); (4b) 1 Clem. 16.15-16 (=Psalm 22:6-; (5a) Ign. Mag. 11; (5b) Ign. Trall. 9:1b; (5c) Ign. Smyrn. 1.2.

Farnaz, Farnaz, Farnaz,

Where should we start? The biblical atrocities so well-described in the Jewish scriptures that were and are used by many to include contemporary Islamics to give credence to their own atrocities?

Good as place as any:

Exodus 32: 3,000 Israelites killed by Moses for worshipping the golden calf.

Numbers 31: After killing all men, boys and married women among the Midianites, 32,000 virgins remain as booty for the Israelites. (If unmarried girls are a quarter of the population, then 96,000 people were killed.)

Joshua:

Joshua 8: 12,000 men and women, all the people of Ai, killed.

Joshua 10: Joshua completely destroys Gibeon ("larger than Ai"), Makeddah, Libnah, Lachish, Eglon, Hebron, Debir. "He left no survivors."

Joshua 11: Hazor destroyed. [Paul Johnson, A History of the Jews (1987), estimates the population of Hazor at ?> 50,000]

TOTAL: if Ai is average, 12,000 x 9 = 108,000 killed.

Judges 1: 10,000 Canaanites k. at Battle of Bezek. Jerusalem and Zephath destroyed.

Judges 3: ca. 10,000 Moabites k. at Jordan River.

Judges 8: 120,000 Midianite soldiers k. by Gideon

Judges 20: Benjamin attacked by other tribes. 25,000 killed.

1 Samuel 4: 4,000 Isrealites killed at 1st Battle of Ebenezer/Aphek. 30,000 Isr. k. at 2nd battle.
David:

2 Samuel 8: 22,000 Arameans of Damascus and 18,000 Edomites killed in 2 battles.

2 Samuel 10: 40,000 Aramean footsoldiers and 7,000 charioteers killed at Helam.

2 Samuel 18: 20,000 Israelites under Absalom killed at Ephraim.

1 Kings 20: 100,000 Arameans killed by Israelites at Battle of Aphek. Another 27,000 killed by collapsing wall.

2 Chron 13: Judah beat Israel and inflicted 500,000 casualties.

2 Chron 25: Amaziah, king of Judah, k. 10,000 from Seir in battle and executed 10,000 POWs. Discharged Judean soldiers pillaged and killed 3,000.

2 Chron 28: Pekah, king of Israel, slew 120,000 Judeans

TOTAL: That comes to about 1,283,000 mass killings specifically enumerated in the Bible. The battle of 2_Chron_13 is so much larger than all the others that we probably should doubt it.

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm

Onofrio:

And then you get into that other question, which will surely bring edification from CCNL.

There is no, repeat no, independent confirmation of a historic Jesus. Josephus has been largely discredited; Tacitus cribbed from Josephus, etc, etc. See all earlier posts on this.

As numerous scholars, including CCNL's favorite, have pointed out the last supper could never have happened. Never would any Jew on the face of the earth at any time do the blood/wind, bread/flesh thing. Not possible. A simple stroll through the Tanakh should make this abundantly clear. That was a Greek thing.

Equally clear, is the radical impossibility of a Sanhedrin convening during Passover. (That would be PASSOVER.) Then you have the fake Pharisees whose q & a is a typical Greek textual device but who could never have raised the questions attributed to them. They did not think in such terms and were occupied elsewhere, for example in putting an end to temple culture, protecting the lives of the sages.

If Jesus existed, and that is a huge if, he was one among many, many prophets of the time. With the Roman occupation, prophets were falling from the trees. The Pharisees of blessed memory had already proclaimed an end to the age of prophecy, since it stood to reason that there were just so many who could be prophets. On the other hand, self-proclaimed prophets were not to be harmed. (What harm could they do?)

I don't know about you, but I have read the Qu'ran. It depicts historically verified aggression against Jews. It says things I wish it didn't with respect to Christians. But then the Christian Testament says things one wishes it didn't about Jews, and notable Protestant, Catholic, and now twelve Orthodox Christian clergy have called for the Christian Testament's reform.

Point of it all? Let it go. None of this can be resolved except, perhaps, from a moral and scholarly perspective. So long as religion is ideologically rooted and it is, sectarian competition and aggression will continue.

A better way might be to have comparative religion courses taught by humane and enlightened people.

Ukba to Thomas Baum
"I know you have problem with the Quran declaring that the doctrine of trinity is absurd and blasphemous; well it is stupid and illogical and Jesus never taught such a dogma. I read your books and there is nothing there that supports such a convoluted teaching. Jesus never claimed to be god and I can find it nowhere from the lips of Jesus saying: I am God, worship me. So I say if you have a problem with that: tough, live with."

Ukba, I appreciate your consternation about the Trinity/divinity of Jesus. Most Christians have a hard time getting their heads around it too. I do not claim to be a Christian, so I have no interest in endorsing trinitarian doctrine. But, against your stated view, I have to admit that the Trinity - or at least the divine sonship of Christ - is implied in a significant number of New Testament passages. Just a few (off the top of my head):

"He who hath seen me hath seen the Father."
"I tell you, before Abraham was, I AM."
"I and the Father are one."

Now it may the case that such words were put into Jesus' mouth by his gospel- and epistle-writing followers, but the question begs: What was it about Jesus that made his followers attribute divinity to him in the first place, even from the very beginnings of the Christian movement?

You can counter by reiterating the standard Islamic polemic that the gospel/Injil has been falsified, but this fails to really deal with the problem I've identified. How could Jesus' followers have misunderstood him so utterly? And if they were wrong about his divinity, how can we trust anything else they say about him? If Islam grants that the Injil is falsified, what are the criteria by which the true bits can be detected and salvaged?

It seems to me that if Christianity has misunderstood and falsified Jesus, then Islam has also, for does not Islam maintain Jesus of Nazareth was NOT crucified by the Romans? You'll need more than the testimony of the Prophet to establish the historicity of that particular "truth". Of course, there are radical scholars who also claim Jesus didn't die on the cross, but that's because they see him as an entirely invented, mythical figure. And there were also Christian heretical movements, such as Docetists and some Gnostics, who taught that Jesus' death on the cross was an illusion. But they also had a rather high view of his divine nature. Indeed, for them, he was not a human prophet at all, but a wholly spiritual being. Maybe Mohammed had some chats with these types.

So you see, Ukba, it's not only the Christians who distort the truth about Jesus!

Hello Farnaz,

You wrote "Thomas Baum appears to be a good person." I agree, he might very well be a good person; but he gets under my skin. He wears the self righteousness and mister nice guy coat but underenath he is a jerk. I really don't care much for him.

As for you be good and have a good night.

Peace

Hi Ukba,

Here's the thing. Like you, Thomas Baum appears to be a good person. Yet, once we get into these theological arguments we lose sight of who we are.

And then we are, all of us, dealing with more than scriptures. Judaism, for instance, has the Talmud, which has a great deal to say on Hagar, who is revered. My baby niece is named Hagar, which is actually a fairly common name among Sfardim and Mizrahi Jews. Catholicism has the church fathers, etc.

As for Islam and Judaism, the simple fact is that they are closer to one another than either is to Christianity as any Religious Studies, Islamic Studies, Catholic Studies, or Judaic Studies scholar will tell you.

Still the two religions differ. Religions differ between and within one another. There are branches of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

Thomas Baum has repeatedly indicated that what he thinks is most important is that people be good, do good. I think you feel the same way, Ukba. Of course, we may define "good" differently, but if we can, at least, agree on this, we three share some common ground.

It would be good if a Muslim, a Catholic, and a Jew could engage one another! We seem okay in pairs...!

Farnaz

Yes, every night I see these PSA's on tv teaching about Christmas, Hannukah and Kwanzaa.
But never a mention of Eid.
It really is an invisible holiday in America.
The same during Ramadan, which lasts a full month.
No recognition at all.

Thomas in his usual ignorant way says “The koran is not something that flows from the bible, the koran is saying that the bible, both old and new testament, is a lie.”

The Quran does not say such a thing; maybe you should read it before making such a ludicrous statement. The Quran in many places tells the reader that this is not a new religion but a continuation of what had been revealed before it. Abraham, the Jewish prophets and many other people of God are mentioned just about in every chapter specially Moses and Jesus. And personally if I were not Muslim I would definitely choose Judaism and the reason is there is nothing in Judaism in general that I disagree with or find unreasonable. In general I don’t have any problem with what Jesus was supposed to have said in what is known as the Christian bible. The problem I have is with dogmas and doctrines of faith that were added years after Jesus’ death; doctrines that Jesus as Jewish rabbi and teacher never taught nor prescribed to.

Just a scant reading from the Quran will show you what I mean:

God! There is no god save Him, the Alive, the Eternal. He has revealed unto you (Muhammad) the Scripture with truth, confirming that which was (revealed) before it, even as He revealed the Torah and the Gospel aforetime, a guidance to mankind; and has revealed the Criterion of right and wrong. Quran chapter 3

Say (O Muhammad): We believe in God and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed unto Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes, and that which was vouchsafed unto Moses and Jesus and the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and unto Him we have surrendered. Quran chapter 3

The same did Abraham enjoin upon his sons, and also Jacob, (saying): O my sons! God has chosen for you the (true) religion; therefore die not save as men who have surrendered (unto Him). Or were you present when death came to Jacob, when he said unto his sons: What will you worship after me? They said: We shall worship thy God, the God of thy fathers, Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac, One God, and unto Him we have surrendered. Those are a people who have passed away. Theirs is that which they earned, and yours is that which you earn. And you will not be asked of what they used to do. Quran chapter 2

I know you have problem with the Quran declaring that the doctrine of trinity is absurd and blasphemous; well it is stupid and illogical and Jesus never taught such a dogma. I read your books and there is nothing there that supports such a convoluted teaching. Jesus never claimed to be god and I can find it nowhere from the lips of Jesus saying: I am God, worship me. So I say if you have a problem with that: tough, live with.

And here...

(CNN) -- The pilgrimage that brings more than 2 million Muslims to Mecca every year tends to make them more religiously observant and also more tolerant, a huge study of Pakistani pilgrims suggests.

Muslims who undertake the hajj "return with more positive views towards people from other countries," are more likely to say "that people of different religions are equal," and are twice as likely as other religious Muslims to condemn Osama bin Laden, the study found.

"People become more orthodox yet more tolerant," one of the study's authors, Asim Ijaz Khwaja of Harvard University, said of hajjis -- those who make the pilgrimage.

He described the study's findings Monday, as this year's annual pilgrimage reached its climax, the symbolic stoning of the devil on the festival of Eid al-Adha, an Islamic holiday that traditionally marks the end of the hajj.

This year's hajj ends Wednesday.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/12/08/hajj.tolerance/index.html

Hey, Eboo... coverage of the Hajj here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28137066/

Happy Eid!

thomasbaum- I do indeed know where the word "Israelite" comes from. Did I say anything that would make you think otherwise? I don't think so.

And the koran does not claim the bible is a lie - the bible is part of the koran's heritage and neither I, a Jew, nor you, a Christian, are really qualified to decide what the koran really says or not.

I have, for one, always been disturbed by the abandonment of Hagar and Ishmael. For all we seem to revere Abraham, he abandoned a woman who had his son in the desert, at the behest of a jealous wife. Anyone find this rather tacky for the father of Judaism? I certainly don't think there was a great lesson to be learned- about responsibility, compassion or the sanctity of marriage.
----------------------------------------
arif2- I am sure I will be just as horrified as you. I was responding to your comment about cows, and seeming to define Hajj simply as the killing of cows. the Muslim gesture of refraining from killing them this year seems to be an attempt at reaching out to Hindus who consider cows to be sacred animals.
--------------------------------------------
marcedward- what's the deal with CAIR? I've heard it funds terrorists, I've heard it's a great organization. any more info?

My point was really that timing is everything. even you would have to admit Muslim terrorist have dominated international news, and not in a good way. to complain about the media not saying much about Hajj just after Mumbai is disingenuous and a little naive. I'm also sick of Muslim-bashing, gay-bashing, Israel-bashing, etc. but as much as I believe in Mr. Patel's good intentions and interfaith work, I think he may be asking a bit too much of us right now. But then, so is the Mormon Church when they expect us to swallow their "we're not the bad guys on Prop 8."

Hi Ukba,

Yes, you have said more than enough. Thank you, my friend.

Farnaz

MarkEdward:

You're mistaken on two counts: first, I did provide evidence as did Jeff-in-DC, Observer, and others. Second, I did not "call names." That, I'm afraid, is your forte, and it is another reason why I suggested you may suffer from a learning problem.

Then, too, there is this sort of thing:

game
set
match
:-)

You do this repeatedly with everyone for whom you lack the wherewithal to engage on their level, and resorting to childish taunts is a sign of LD. Unsurprisingly, it occurs as a compensatory strategy, and one should not take it personally. Please understand: Suggesting that you may suffer from such a disability is in no way "name calling." Many brilliant people can say the same.
It occurs to me that you may already know you have some limiting or inhibiting intellectual condition.

You give every sign of one: reading difficulties, resorting to name calling, false accusations, denying facts, etc.. All are common LD strategies meant to fill in for various skills that are missing or under-developed.

As for me, my experience in this domain is limited. I can only say that every referral I've made for diagnosis has panned out. However, I'm in no way qualified to recommend where you may receive help, if you are not yet getting it.

I wish you well.

Farnaz2
'Regarding MarkEdwards most recent "comments."
I am not a Reading or Learning Disabilities Specialist'

Perhaps you ought to get one as you lack the wit to even spell my name right. For one who claims a talent in speaking French, it's odd that you keep English-izing my name.

'If he had comprehended what I posted'

I comprehend English rather well.You made assertions and failed to back them up and I called you on it. That makes you the 'loser'. You claim widespread Islamic anti-semitism and Islamic anti-Jewish violence in North and South America. You failed to provide any evidence. Your citation about Canada failed to mention Islam or Muslims even once. Now you hide from your false claims with weak flames.
The only thing you are capable of is calling names, and your abilities in that department are rather limited.

game
set
match
:-)

JAMIL51
"READERS: Don’t believe twisted cut/pastes about Islam. Read the Holy Book Quran your self."

It's the "Holy Book Quran" - or rather absolute adherence to all its content - that concerns me, Jamil. You've quoted a large slab of Mohammed's own words, so let me show you why I have problems with it. While the attitude to women in this valedictory speech is relatively enlightened by the standards of the 7th century, it remains morally questionable in today's terms.

He says: "Do treat your women well and be kind to them for they are your partners and committed helpers."

This seems fair enough, even admirable - I've got nothing against treating women kindly - but there's a strong subtext of male domination. This passage is addressed specifically to men as the superiors in any male-female partnership. Women are assumed to be the possessions of men, to be treated fairly, but at male discretion. The possessive pronoun "your" confirms that women are male property - valuable property, with rights, but property nonetheless.

He says: "And it is your right that they do not make friends with any one of whom you do not approve, as well as never to be unchaste."

This one really stirs me up. It tacitly panders to male jealousy, giving males the right to control women's relationships. Women can only befriend those "approved" by their supervising male. Can wives, daughters, and sisters veto the relationships of their men like this? This passage suggests a causal link between independent female relationships and sexual promiscuity, as if one leads to the other. Not only does this false correlation cast a slur against the social interaction of women, it denies them the possibility of developing as independent moral agents. And it gives divine endorsement to some of the darker currents of male sexuality - domination, obsession, possessiveness, and jealous rage. It's as if this passage was composed specifically in the interests of suspicious, controlling men who view women as their precious chattels, to be hoarded away. Maybe that was somehow necessary in Arabian tribal culture, but it just doesn't fit urban-based, pluralistic, post-industrial culture. The gender relations of the 7th century should not be normative for today.

Jamil, I'm not suggesting that there is nothing of value in the Qur'an. But I am saying that in order for it to be taken seriously in today's cultural milieu, it has to be read critically. In my experience, many Muslims are highly resistant to that, and get very offended by it, as do many Christian conservatives with regard to the Bible. Are not these holy books robust enough to take some honest probing from outsiders. Do I deserve death for questioning the Prophet?

Hi Farnaz,

Their murder was wrong and undefensable. It was a terrible thing and I felt real sad when I saw it in the news of what happened to them. It was a shame and sad thing to have happened. May their souls rest in peace and may God comfort those they left behind. That's all I can say. I wish there was more that can be done.

ukba:

Hello, my friend. I'm glad to see you back. Now, Observer will have someone to speak with in French. If you scroll down, you will see that my posts don't concern any of the matters you take up. Bien sûr vous ne voulez pas louer les meurtres de Gavriel, Rivka et les autres.

Kindly, read what I write as it may spare you the need to accuse. Surely, I can harbor anger for what was done to us in Iran, but would it be acceptable for me to hate all Muslims? Mon ami, as I said, I married one.

Salaam,
Farnaz

I see Farnaz is at it again. She sees everyone as Jewish or antisemite; nothing in between. Anyone who criticizes the apartheid like policies of those cruel and fanatic zionisits in the so called Jewish state is antisemitic and anti-Jewish. Heck even former president Carter was called antisemite for writing his book 'Palestine Peace Not Apartheid.' Did it occur to you people might have a beef with the Jews in Israel not because of who they are but simply beacuse of their and what they are doing to their fellow human beings. See this if you disagree.

http://www.ccun.org/Documents/The%20Gaza%20Holocaust%20Israeli%20Attacks%20on%20Jabalia%20February%2027-March%203,%202008.htm

Folks:

Regarding MarkEdwards most recent "comments."

I am not a Reading or Learning Disabilities Specialist. If he had comprehended what I posted, followed the links Observer provided, downloaded the reports, and understood them, he would see that they include both Christian (generically speaking) and Islamic anti-Jewish racist violence.

The differences are as I have noted. This is his game with several bloggers such as Jeff-in-DC, I thought. Now, I suspect it may not be a game, but the result of a disabling problem.

Therefore, if anyone can assist him in this, s/he would be doing a good deed. Many, many people suffer from such problems, and have made remarkable progress. I've been blessed to have some of them as students over the years.

Best to all,
Farnaz

Farnaz2 writes
'One example from South America. Reports on 2006, but more recent reports on South American anti-Jewish racism are available.'

Your claims of widespread Islamic antisemitism in North and South America are unsupported. Even your link provides next to nothing, as nearly every 'incident' (and the report even includes Jews being insulted or a car window smashed) is in response to Israeli military aggression. Certainly such acts are uncivil, but in nearly every case the perp was arrested!
It seems you're trying to turn a discussion on Islam into a discussion on anti-semitism in general, which is rather off-topic!

Better luck next time - maybe you can find an argument where you actually have some evidence!

Farnaz2 writes
Markedward writes:

'"Blah, blah, blah - you make an assertion and cannot back it up"
------------------------------

Anti-Semitic incidents in Canada hit record high in 2007'
There's no point in denying reality'

I totally agree. And if you're asserting ISLAMIC anti-Jewish violence, you might try to get a citation that backs up your assertion. As it is you point out a rise in antisemitic violence that has NOTHING to do with Islam or Muslims.
You claim widespread ISLAMIC anti-semitism in South America, yet not only do you fail to back that up but my own quick searches can find nothing.

'particularly if the reality is evil.'

And claiming persecution where none exists and using blaming another religios group is also evil.
You're the modern-day boy who cried wolf!

Halozcel1 said:

TSM2(Arminius?),

*Muslims believe that the Quran is a continuation of the Bible and Torah*
No,wrong.What you write is against islam.Submission/islam rejects Bible and Torah.
Besides,Bible say Trinity,but islam curses Trinity.Bible says Son of God,but islam curses Son of God.Bible says Second Coming(that means the last one was Jesus),but islam says *last one is the founder of islam* Which continuation ?

*The circumcision is done as a health thing* you say.This is a muslim palaver and myth.On the contrary,islamic circumcision is a trauma on a little boy.Denmark is thinking to ban circumcision.
*Killing of an animal*(it is beheading) has no any correlation with affording food to the Poors,if so,you could buy meat from the markets and donate to the Poors.

First, you can't expect everything to be the same.
It is not what we have now that is the true Bible/Torah according to Muslims. This has been changed. This is the reason that Jesus Christ was sent, to recorrect what the followers of Moses had changed slowly. And that is also why Muhammad was sent,to correct what had been slowly changed by the Followers of Jesus Christ.The Trinity is believed to be one of the mistakes in Christianity.
Islam does not "curse" son of God, it says that it makes no sense that God can have a son.

Second, it says that The Prophet founded Islam, and that he was the last prophet to receive revelation. Are you saying that Jesus Christ founded Islam?

If you're saying that circumcision is not beneficial to health, you are refuting what many people believe in. How is it a "trauma"? It is done for the benefit, and it was done as painlessly as possible. And now, it is even less painful,what with technology.

As for the sacrifice, some people do buy it from a market. But most believe it should be done by you,or by someone you expressly requested to do it for you. This ensures that it is done exactly as the Muslims believe it to be done, and it has a bit of a personal touch,saying that YOU did it for God's sake,and no one else.

I hope that clears things up,and
Thank You for reading.
(BTW,i wish this was in a forum,so we could discuss in a easier fashion.)

In my previous post, I wrote:

"It is simply inaccurate to say that only some Muslims are antisemtic."

Meaning, of course, that it is not only some Muslims who harbor racism.

Arif2

What a angry man you are. I am left in no doubt that you are a "wise" man.

You know what my Allah and Prophet says

now tell me about yours what they say?

I am sure like rest of your clan you will never come up with any answer.

If you dont believe in Quran then you should not quote to me about it. I can teach you each and every thing from Quran but if you stop playing blind.

Back to the topic with some reiteration:

Hear Ye, Hear Ye!!!

What the press really needs to do is emphasize that the Abraham-Isaac/Ishmael story is one of the biggest hoaxes ever pulled on humankind!!!!

One example from South America. Reports on 2006, but more recent reports on South American anti-Jewish racism are available.

http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2006/chile.htm

I would like to emphasize, that as anyone who actually downloaded the reports Observer12 posted on would know, significant violence and racism is harbored by Christians, carried out by them. The Times a few years ago took the nation of France to task for blaming all its antiJewish racist violence on its Muslim nationals. It is simply inaccurate to say that only some Muslims are antisemtic.

That said, to the best of my knowledge it is only Islamic terrorists who seek out Jewish victims worldwide, folks like Gavriel and Rivka, tortured to death in front of their baby son. Let us not lose sight of recent events.

Nor should we forget that the pervasive antisemitism in the Muslim world is not all-encompassing, not total. In fact, there are some Muslims, even in Pakistan, one of whom writes for the Times, who continually speak out against it.

Racism never does the racist any good. No one who harbors evil sentiments or who perpetrates evil benefits spiritually.

This holy season for Muslims would seem to be a good time for them to reflect on cultural changes that could increase their religious tolerance.

Otherwise well-intentioned Muslims could, at this sacred moment, ask whether such hatred is consistent with Islam and if it is not, what action they may take to oppose it.

Markedward writes:

"Blah, blah, blah - you make an assertion and cannot back it up"
------------------------------

Anti-Semitic incidents in Canada hit record high in 2007

By Rhonda Spivak
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/989445.html
Tue., June 03, 2008 Iyyar 29, 5768

WINNIPEG - Anti-Semitic incidents in Canada hit a record high in 2007, according to a recently released report by the League of Human Rights of B'nai Brith Canada.

The group recorded 1,042 anti-Semitic incidents in Canada in 2007, up 11.4% since 2006. A 59.1% increase was noted on Canadian college and university campuses.

In Montreal, anti-Semitic incidents increased 16 percent from 2006 to 2007, and regional Quebec showed a significant increase of 282 percent from the previous year.

The study also showed that over the past 10 years anti-Semitic incidents have jumped 400 percent in Canada.

Nearly 30 percent of all incidents in 2007 were attributed to internet activity. Of these, nearly one-third involved threatening or harassing communications.

Synagogues were targeted in 22 incidents, in Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Richmond British Columbia, Hamilton and Barrie, Ontario. There were 28 incidents of violence in 2007, down from 30 in 2006. Incidents of harassment were up from 588 in 2006 to 699 in 2007.

"The 2007 findings indicate that anti-Semitism is not just at the fringes of Canadian society," Frank Dimant, executive vice-president of B'nai Brith Canada said in a news release. He also noted that incidents are no longer "primarily confined to urban centers."

-------------------------------
There's no point in denying reality, particularly if the reality is evil. We are a nation committed to fighting racism. The same is true of many other nations where such events have occurred, often with more frequency.

Farnaz2 writes
'markedwards writes'

'Last week or the week before Observer12 posted the links for Tony Blair's Commissioned Report'

Blah, blah, blah - you make an assertion and cannot back it up with evidence. You claim widespread mistreatment of Jews by Muslims in South America, get called on it, than start yammering about some link so some massive PDF document (yeah, I saw Observers link, went to it, and found it rather useless). If you know something to be true, one would think you could refer to where you learned of it.

'One can either find the links in the archives or google the reports. They are all available for download.'

So you can't back up what you say. I'm not the least bit surprised.

'there are a lot of Muslims in North America'

So what? I live in the USA and I don't hear about all these attacks by Muslims against Jews.

'And this sacred time would be an auspicious one for Muslims to reflect upon anti-Jewish racism'

And for some Jews to reflect on their anti-Islamic bigotry and anti-Palestinian racism.
BTW, crying wolf is not a strategy I'd recommend.

This coming from a person whose practical ability to apply intelligence relies upon a self proclaimed "prophet", one who claimed to have seen a Jewish mythical creature over the period of 22 years to reveal a book of gibberish. This poetry in a now outdated language serves as a guide for salvation to you.

"sense of being knowledgeable is sometimes illusion"

It doesn't take knowledge to easily see how stupid in all aspects a random verse such as this taken from your holy book can be.

"Perished be the two hands of Aby-Lahab and he is already perished. His wealth and what he earned availed him not. Now he enters into a blazing fire. And his wife too, carrier of firewood. There is a rope of palm fiber in her neck."

How does a creator write such crap? Creator holds vengeance and a grudge for his own creation? Doesn't even spare the mans wife? Intelligent indeed.

markedwards writes-"Jews have faced racist terrorism at the hands of Muslims in Europe, North and South America? In Europe the Jews suffered a lot under the Christians. I didn't know there were a lot of Muslims in South and North America - maybe you're mistaken? Your assertion sounds unlikely - you souldn't cry wolf when there is no wolf."

December 9, 2008 12:31 PM

Last week or the week before Observer12 posted the links for Tony Blair's Commissioned Report on antisemitism in the UK, George Bush's Report on antisemitism in the US, and the EU Report's Commissioned Report on anti-Semitism in EU nations.

One can either find the links in the archives or google the reports. They are all available for download.

For reports on Asian antisemitism, Middle Eastern antisemitism, additional information on US antisemtism, reports on anti-semitism in African nations, etc., one can either contact the Simon Wiesenthal Center or google. There are other sources as well.

Yes, there are a lot of Muslims in North America. Note: the US is in North America as is Canada, a lot in South America, a lot in Europe.
Demographics are available on the web.

Anti-Jewish racism is not off course the special province of Muslims today, as is indicated in the reports. However, it is pervasive in the Muslim world. Terrorism doesn't develop in a vaccuum.

And this sacred time would be an auspicious one for Muslims to reflect upon anti-Jewish racism, which, like all evils, never does the ones who harbor it any spiritual good.

Arif2

please dont rely on your new found"knowledge".
cognitive domain do need refinement and still there are other human faculties too.
sense of being knowledgeable is sometimes illusion.

Sparrow;
Your suggestion that I go to a slaughterhouse, I have. A very good vegan friend educated me about meat processing in the US. It took me two years to become a vegetarian myself. I still love meat but refuse to consume from anything that is slaughtered or processed the way it is in the West.
Your suggestion to me was I hope in good spirits, hope you take up my offer. Please visit for yourself an Islamic country of your choice on Eid and witness thousands of animals killed "humanly". The reason some have suggested it feeds the poor is rubbish at best. The poor need more than one days meat supply. Kosher laws or Islamic laws, we as educated humans know that there are better alternatives to killing animals the way we do for consumption. The Jains, Hindus and Buddhists knew this all along.

Jamil;
The name Arif is most probably pre-Islam (I really don't care), its no doubt an Islamic name now. However since it dates to the Jahallaya period and many Jaahils may have born the name Arif, I too share that name. Its the name my father gave me and I'm not about to change it for your satisfaction-remindes me of a song.
Having said that how do you know that I don't know God intimately? I only doubt Mohammeds interpretation of God. I doubt very much his legitimacy and I question almost everything he says in his koran. I doubt there was a Gabriel, I doubt Creators write books let alone such faulty ones. Hajj is a stupid ritual, pelting the devil!

There comes a time in all human life when one questions the myths taught to them over their growing years. Only the gullible succumb to thought control, some day you may reach that stage if you are lucky.

This my dear Jamil is what I'm talking about, quoting you;

"That day is always coming near when all of us have to leave this world- death."

Negative comments are so many on this forum but what is the message of Hajj no one mentioned that very important aspect.

Here is Prophet Muhammad’s Farewell Sermon:

After praising, and thanking God he said:

"O People, lend me an attentive ear, for I know not whether after this year, I shall ever be amongst you again. Therefore listen to what I am saying to you very carefully and TAKE THESE WORDS TO THOSE WHO COULD NOT BE PRESENT HERE TODAY.

O People, just as you regard this month, this day, this city as Sacred, so regard the life and property of every Muslim as a sacred trust. Return the goods entrusted to you to their rightful owners.
Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you. Remember that you will indeed meet your Lord, and that He will indeed reckon your deeds.

God has forbidden you to take interest, therefore all interest obligation shall henceforth be waived. Your capital, however, is yours to keep. You will neither inflict nor suffer any inequity. God has Judged that there shall be no interest and that all the interest due to (Prophet's uncle) shall henceforth be waived...

Beware of Satan, for the safety of your religion. He has lost all hope that he will ever be able to lead you astray in big things, so beware of following him in small things.

O People, it is true that you have certain rights with regard to your women, but they also have rights over you. Remember that you have taken them as your wives only under Allah's trust and with His permission. If they abide by your right then to them belongs the right to be fed and clothed in kindness. Do treat your women well and be kind to them for they are your partners and committed helpers. And it is your right that they do not make friends with any one of whom you do not approve, as well as never to be unchaste.

READERS: Don’t believe twisted cut/pastes about Islam. Read the Holy Book Quran your self.

Part 2 continue fm part 1

O People, listen to me in earnest, worship God, say your five daily prayers , fast during the month of Ramadan, and give your wealth tax. Perform Hajj if you can afford to.

All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action.

Learn that every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood. Nothing shall be legitimate to a Muslim which belongs to a fellow Muslim unless it was given freely and willingly. Do not, therefore, do injustice to yourselves.

Remember, one day you will appear before God and answer your deeds. So beware, do not stray from the path of righteousness after I am gone.

O People, no prophet or apostle will come after me and no new faith will be born. Reason well, therefore, O People, and understand words which I convey to you. I leave behind me two things, the QURAN and my example, my examples and if you follow these you will never go astray.

All those who listen to me shall pass on my words to others and those to others again; and may the last ones understand my words better than those who listen to me directly. Be my witness, O God, that I have conveyed your message to your people".

READERS: Don’t believe twisted cut/pastes about Islam. Read the Holy Book Quran your self.

Part 1

Dear Readers

Negative comments are so many on this forum but what is the message of Hajj no one mentioned that very important aspect.

Here is Prophet Muhammad’s Farewell Sermon:

After praising, and thanking God he said:

"O People, lend me an attentive ear, for I know not whether after this year, I shall ever be amongst you again. Therefore listen to what I am saying to you very carefully and TAKE THESE WORDS TO THOSE WHO COULD NOT BE PRESENT HERE TODAY.

O People, just as you regard this month, this day, this city as Sacred, so regard the life and property of every Muslim as a sacred trust. Return the goods entrusted to you to their rightful owners.
Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you. Remember that you will indeed meet your Lord, and that He will indeed reckon your deeds.

God has forbidden you to take interest, therefore all interest obligation shall henceforth be waived. Your capital, however, is yours to keep. You will neither inflict nor suffer any inequity. God has Judged that there shall be no interest and that all the interest due to (Prophet's uncle) shall henceforth be waived...

Beware of Satan, for the safety of your religion. He has lost all hope that he will ever be able to lead you astray in big things, so beware of following him in small things.

O People, it is true that you have certain rights with regard to your women, but they also have rights over you. Remember that you have taken them as your wives only under Allah's trust and with His permission. If they abide by your right then to them belongs the right to be fed and clothed in kindness. Do treat your women well and be kind to them for they are your partners and committed helpers. And it is your right that they do not make friends with any one of whom you do not approve, as well as never to be unchaste.

READERS: Don’t believe twisted cut/pastes about Islam. Read the Holy Book Quran your self.

Farnaz2 writes
'Racist terrorism such as that which Jews have faced at Muslim hands throughout the Middle East, Europe, North and South America, etc., is particularly ugly.'

Jews have faced racist terrorism at the hands of Muslims in Europe, North and South America? In Europe the Jews suffered a lot under the Christians. I didn't know there were a lot of Muslims in South and North America - maybe you're mistaken? Your assertion sounds unlikely - you souldn't cry wolf when there is no wolf.

sparrow4 writes
'You said this was a time for Muslims to reach out to educate non-Muslims, yet I see very little on that front from Muslims. where is the outreach?'

If you go by the CAIR website you might find some of what you're looking for (think it's cair.com).
Assuming you're in the USA, it's no surprise that we don't see this kind of outreach, same way here in North Carolina there is no 'Jewish outreach' or 'Hindu Outreach'.

'nd on a strictly human level, maybe people are sick right now of reading about Muslims in the paper.'

Really? Sounds to me like an excuse for laziness (on the part of the general public, not on your part). Partly because of recent history, partly because of the Post's 'Onfaith' section I've been reading a lot more about Islam (books, not online) than I ever did in my life. I can't be the only one who likes learning.

'Muslim extremists have given Islam a terrible reputation, and the majority of Muslims have been slow to reach out to non-Muslims'

Agree with the first part, not sure what they are supposed to do about the 2nd part. The 'news' isn't interested in educating people nearly so much as it's interested in using sensational stories to sell advertising. Again, CAIR seems to be interested in reaching out to non-Muslims, just not so much as the Mormons are interest4ed in reaching out to non-Mormons.

'and often even to condemn attacks'

Actually CAIR is rather quick to condemn such attacks.

'I am disturbed by the seeming lack of introspection and horror over the things being done in the name of Islam'

I don't see Christians having any public introspection about the killings and bombings in the name of Jesus - there was no "is this the face of Jesus?" questions after the OK city bombing. Nor do I see Jews having any public introspection about the immoral behavior of Israeli settlers or the torture and detention of Palestinians by the Israeli government. I don't even see the ASPCA publicly apologizing for the actions of ELF, Earth First or PETA.
Maybe you're asking for a bit much?

SPARROW4

You wrote, "halozcel- actually it is the feast of sacrifice, commemorating the sacrifice of a sheep in place of Abraham's son (which son depends on the bible or the koran)."

The bible says that it was Isaac, the koran says that it was Ishmael, either one or the other is true or they are both false because both of them are not true.

In the bible the son of Isaac was Jacob, whose name was changed to Israel. Where do you think the term "Israelites" came from?

You also wrote, "Jews and Muslims share a common history and heritage. we branch off, but Muslims are not plagiarizing from the bible. They are part of it and entitled to it."

There is no "branching off" and this is no case of "plagiarism", like I said: either one or the other is true or they are both false.

Yes, there are Israelites and there are Ismaelites. God's "chosen people" are the Israelites and in the bible, God did say to Hagar that He would look after Ismael and his decendents, but the "chosen people" are the Jews and Jesus was a Jew.

As it has also been mentioned, the god of islam does not like Jesus being called the Son of God and the god of islam really gets upset at the Trinity, you can come to your own conclusion why.

Not only is Jesus, Who Is God-Incarnate, the Son of God but since God became One of us that means that we are ALL sons and daughters of God and brothers and sisters of God.

I imagine that this gets the god of islam upset too.

The koran is not something that flows from the bible, the koran is saying that the bible, both old and new testament, is a lie.

Truth is Truth, almost or some truth is not the truth but is a lie and most people should know that something that has some truth or a twisted truth can be harder to see thru than something that is a 100% lie.

The best liars use some truth, do they not?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Interesting slant Eboo. You realize, of course, that the Wahabi financiers of these terrorist ventures are none other than the custodians of the very same mosques where Hajj is performed. Ironic, eh? Wonder what their motivation could be? And just how is educating the world about Islam going to help, in the circumstances?

Arif2

You seems to have denied your religion Islam but you need to change your name too. Arif is an Islamic name which means one you knows God intimately.
That day is always coming near when all of us have to leave this world- death. What will happen when these worldly benefits will come to end.
Just think.

The media story I saw about the Hajj was how all the pilgrims were shouting "Death to America!" "Death to Israel!" No one was criticizing the terrorists that killed people in Mumbai in the name of Islam. If you want to promote Islam in a good light, it's probably wise that the media skipped covering the Hajj this year.

"Abraham never ventured south of Ber Sheva in the Sinai desert. Many Greek and Roman historians visited that part of the Peninsula and mentioned names of tiny hamlets around where Mecca is but never mentioned Mecca before the 4th Century AD. Abraham lived almost 35 hundred years before Mecca came into being."

This is correct and would have made it difficult for him to get to Mecca. However, relition is not always logical or rational.

Neither is reality. Take the case of Gavriel, Rivka, and their two-year-old son, Moshe who were able to get to Mumbai. The racially motivated torture to death of the parents in front of the son is theft of many kinds, going well beyond "lives, property, tranquility."

It is peculiar that none of the panelists, particularly, one who claims to be committed to interfaith understanding, have mentioned this racist atrocity. Terrorism of any kind is reprehensible. Racist terrorism such as that which Jews have faced at Muslim hands throughout the Middle East, Europe, North and South America, etc., is particularly ugly.

This holy season for Muslims would seem to be a good time for them to reflect on cultural changes that could increase their religious tolerance. The Muslim terrorist hatred of Jews does not exist in a vacuum; it is pervasive in the Middle East, Asia, and parts of Africa.

Otherwise well-intentioned Muslims could, at this sacred moment, ask whether such hatred is consistent with Islam and if it is not, what action they may take to oppose it.

Hear Ye, Hear Ye!!!

What the press really needs to do is emphasize that the Abraham-Isaac/Ishmael story is one of the biggest hoaxes ever pulled on humankind!!!!

halozcel- actually it is the feast of sacrifice, commemorating the sacrifice of a sheep in place of Abraham's son (which son depends on the bible or the koran). Usually they sacrifice goats and sheep. In India, the cow is a sacred animal so the gesture to not sacrifice cows was in recognition of that.

So- no contradiction. And please get your terms straight.

Dear Soja John Thaikattil,
Nasrani,Arab Catholic.

You say *Happy Eid(ul Adha/Votive)* and *dont slaughter cows*.
But,Eid ul Adha means to slaughter cows.
*Happy Eid(ul Adha),but dont slaughter cows*
Can we say *contrdiction* ?

Dear Dr Patel

Happy Eid!

I'm deeply moved by Indian Muslims who have acted decisively in the face of Mumbhai 26/11: refusing to bury the terrorists as an act of rejecting violence done in the name of Islam, wearing a black band for Eid in mourning and as a sign of solidarity with all victims of the terrorist attack, keeping Eid celebrations low, refusing to slaughter cows as a sign of respect to Hindus, their declarations of fierce patriotism which brings back what I have read about the united struggle for Indian independence. Mumbhai 26/11 has united Indians in a way nothing else has since those days of common struggle for independence. Wonderful things are sure to emerge from the collective spiritual strength of the nation.

Rejoice that the terrorists of Pakistan (not Mumbai!) who attacked Mumbai did not steal everything. They gave something precious to Indians which they didn't intend to do - a sense of unity and purpose, a deep sense of the need to examine the workings of the Indian public systems and correct the wrongs, a readiness to start looking for ways to do their part to avoid such an attack in the future, or at least handle it better if terrorists should slip through the net.

Wishing you success in your work as always.

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

Walking around a stone on a pedestal,risking trampling?
What am I missing?

I'm a charter member of People for the Ethical Treatment of Brussels Sprouts- a much maligned vegetable.

I am a card carrying member of People for the Ethical Treatment of Wheat. What did these poor wheat kernels do to deserve such horrible treatment as evidenced by being ground between huge stones followed by chemical bleaching. A pox on all of you wheat eaters!!!

Re: Abraham
This Hajj or Pilgrimage to Mecca is a relic from pagan days. The cubical structure around which the pilgrims ambulate was where the idols of the pagans were stored. Lending an Islamic character on the ritual as well as on the monument and place was the major compromise that the founder of the Muslim religion made with the pagans of Mecca. They accused the Arab prophet and his teachings of ruining their livelihood by delegitamizing the festival that drew tribesmen from around the Arabian peninsula. Most of the Meccans relied on the pilgrims for trade, commerce as well as by providing them with the necessary pilgrimage services.
Abraham never ventured south of Ber Sheva in the Sinai desert. Many Greek and Roman historians visited that part of the Peninsula and mentioned names of tiny hamlets around where Mecca is but never mentioned Mecca before the 4th Century AD. Abraham lived almost 35 hundred years before Mecca came into being.

arminius- me too. I eat beef only very rarely now, but fish, chicken and turkey much more. I would love to be vegetarian but sigh....

Hi, Sparrow,

If I understand correctly, kosher and halal are almost interchangeable. One difference,of course, is that with kosher, a rabbi must officiate.

The production of meat in America, and elsewhere, is disgraceful. (Note here, I am a happy omnivore.) The treatment of animals is sad, it uses a disproportionate amount of our grain production, and it, strange to say, is a major producer of greenhouse gases. We should all eat much less meat. I am trying to do that. Mixed results....

halozcel- yes. I did mix them, and you are technically correct. but i think we do understand what I mean and that most Arabs and/or Muslims do trace their heritage back to the bible. (If I am incorrect on that point, I would ask someone who really knows, to please tell me.)

Sparrow4,

You mix muslims and Arabs.
Correct sentence,*Jews and Arabs(both semitic) share a commen history* and dont mix *real history* with *Legends*.Both Arabs and Jews had existed before Abraham.
Islam is a Cult that was founded 1400 years ago.
Judaism is a religion which lasted since nearly 4000 years.
You say *They(muslims?) are part of it(Bible?)*
If you mean so,where are islam and muslims mentioned in Bible ??

TSM2(Arminius?),

*Muslims believe that the Quran is a continuation of the Bible and Torah*
No,wrong.What you write is against islam.Submission/islam rejects Bible and Torah.
Besides,Bible say Trinity,but islam curses Trinity.Bible says Son of God,but islam curses Son of God.Bible says Second Coming(that means the last one was Jesus),but islam says *last one is the founder of islam* Which continuation ?

*The circumcision is done as a health thing* you say.This is a muslim palaver and myth.On the contrary,islamic circumcision is a trauma on a little boy.Denmark is thinking to ban circumcision.
*Killing of an animal*(it is beheading) has no any correlation with affording food to the Poors,if so,you could buy meat from the markets and donate to the Poors.

Arminus,

Islam/submission honors muslim christ(whoever he is),not Jesus.In islam,there is Christ,not Jesus.
Arminius,you dont know Christianity and difference between Jesus and Christ.Jesus was not a prophet,but Son of God and islam curses Son of God.

Thanks Tsm2- I wasn't aware of that in regards to feeding the poor.

Arif2- I suggest you go to an American slaughterhouse or look at the PETA website before you condemn anyone. Just because we get it all neatly packaged in the freezer of our local grocery store doesn't mean there was no blood. And if you know anything about slaughterhouse conditions or how food animals are raised, you might actually get the impression the sacrifice during these ceremonies is far more humane and quick than what animals suffer in American slaughterhouses.

I do eat meat- but I also support efforts to treat animals humanely whether they are in labs or slaughterhouses. Kosher laws have rules on the ethical treatment of food animals and I assume halal does as well. Compare them to how a calf is raised for veal.

On Stealing Eid; You did not miss much folks/kafirs/countrymen here is a brief synopiss...

A typical "American" Muslim who goes to Hajj pays around $10,000.00(USD) for the experience. The experience entails "sacrificing" an animal and stoning the devil among other things, stoning can be fun but sometimes proves fatal; thats only when the devil wins. I may be wrong but herds of animals are shipped from Australia to Mecca be beheaded all on one day. The animal’s throats are slit by the faithful while other faithful hold down the animal. Blood flows freely in drains etc. There is stench of death all around. From where I come; Pakistan-land of the terrorist formally Land of the Pure, On Eid, millions of goat/sheep/cows and now Yaks are slaughtered. The stench of blood is everywhere and it flows freely in drains and on the streets. The death fly is also happily busy buzzing around overjoyed. Lots of animals die and many people eat nothing but meat that day.

I wonder sometimes if there is a connection between slaughtering goats and humans by our Islamic terrorist friends. In both slaughters Allah's name is invoked, the method is the same, on one hand we have an unwilling animal on the other a terrified human. The animal is usually always consumed but the human is always wasted.

Tsm2,

I think you make some good points here.

I can appreciate that Muslims are afraid of being outspoken. Perhaps they can get on the internet, where they could vent without too much fear.

As to the goats, what's the point of I48998, I wonder. How many turkeys are slaughtered for our American thanksgiving? How many other animals are killed every day for our hunger for beef? (note that I am not a vegetarian.)

Yes, Islam honors both the Jewish tradition and the Christian one - with reservations, which can be expected. I wonder how many Americans realize that Jesus is honored by Islam as being one of the most important messengers/prophets?

For the record, I am Christian.

To I48998: The point of slaughtering them, is to send to the poor. It is NOT eaten by the Muslims buying it.

To HALOZCEL1: In addition to what Sparrow said, Muslims believe that the Quran is a continuation of the Bible and Torah,and that we believe the same fundamentals,which we do.
The circumcision is done as a health thing,and other religous practices do it as well. And it is done a few days after the birth, or never.
The killing of an animal is to give it to the poor who cannot afford food, all over the world.
To the last thing, I believe that iz just venting.

Okay,

To Sparrow4: Muslims want to outreach, but are unnaturally afraid. They now fear that every word will be taken in a different way than they intend.
Muslims fume,but still feel afraid. We need to grow out of that. And the idea of a religous festival, in my family, is that we take a break to refresh ourselves, and then continue with renewed effort, hopefully in righteous things.

To I48998: The point of slaughtering them, is to send to the poor. It is NOT eaten by the Muslims buying it.

To HALOZCEL1: In addition to what Sparrow said, Muslims believe that the Quran is a continuation of the Bible and Torah,and that we believe the same fundamentals,which we do.
The circumcision is done as a health thing,and other religous practices do it as well. And it is done a few days after the birth, or never.
The killing of an animal is to give it to the poor who cannot afford food, all over the world.
To the last thing, I believe that iz just venting.

Thank you very much for reading.

Peace.

Halozcel-

Jews and Muslims share a common history and heritage. we branch off, but Muslims are not plagiarizing from the bible. They are part of it and entitled to it.

Dear Panelist says *Prophet Abraham to sacrifice his son Ishmael at God's comment(Jews and Christians SHARE the story but believe the son was Isaac)*

Jews dont SHARE the Legend/story,IT IS A JEWISH LEGEND and muslims had plagiarized Jewish Legend(such as many other things)
Jewish Prophet Abraham(if he had been a person) had lived 38 centuries B.P(Before Present)
Islam was founded 14 centuries B.P.
It is an absolute Jewish Legend written in The Law.
2400/2500 years after Abraham,someones say *No,he was not Isaac,but Ishmael*
Which logic is this ? Which reason is this ? Which rationality is this ?

Aid ul-Adha/Votive(definitely Stone Age tradition) is the Feast of Beheading/Festival of Sacrifice
1-When a muslim boy is six/seven years old,they cut his penis(circumcision).Blood....
2-When he grows up,he beheads votive/ram.Blood....
3-When his brain washed,he murders infidels/non-muslims.Blood....,Blood....,Blood.....

Eboo: "deliberately divert attention away from a positive story"

Eboo, I'm a fan, but pardon me for saying this, what's so positive about slaughtering unmeasurable number of animals to eat on this day?

I'm pretty fair I think about not condemning entire populations for the work of a few, but honestly, this is a bit like crying with a loaf of bread in your mouth.

You said this was a time for Muslims to reach out to educate non-Muslims, yet I see very little on that front from Muslims. where is the outreach? where is the welcome?

And on a strictly human level, maybe people are sick right now of reading about Muslims in the paper. Muslim extremists have given Islam a terrible reputation, and the majority of Muslims have been slow to reach out to non-Muslims, and often even to condemn attacks. We have gotten such a schizophrenic view of the Muslim world that maybe you can understand this year, seeing how the Mumbai attacks were so recent, that the papers don't rush to feature an article on EID.

I did read (and very much appreciated ) Mr. Pasha's article on his pilgrimage. at the same time I am disturbed by the seeming lack of introspection and horror over the things being done in the name of Islam. Millions of Muslims on a sacred pilgrimage- all looking forward and basking in good feelings about themselves and Islam- yet Mumbai was just days ago. 9/11 7 years ago, and all the attacks in between. Maybe we're just weary.

You might want to check out the front page of the website of the newspaper you're published in before complaining about lack of coverage. See, for example, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/gallery/2008/12/05/GA2008120503178.html?hpid=sec-religion, or http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/07/AR2008120700548.html?hpid=sec-religion. These are the only two "Religion" items posted on the front page.

I realize facts are stubborn things, but by all means keep the victimhood thing going. I know what a great feeling righteous indignation can be. But can you seriously imagine an editor thinking "Gee, we've already covered Islam this week with the Mumbai attacks. Bump the Hajj story"? You don't think much of your colleagues, I guess.

Eboo notes: "because Muslims share the basic Abraham story with Jews and Christians, the mainstream press likes to write about that too".

What the press really needs to do is emphasize that the Abraham-Isaac/Ishmael story is one of the biggest hoaxes ever.

Many Conservative Jews and their rabbis have seen the light. Time for Muslims, orthodox Jews and Christians to become equally enlightened.

To wit:

"New Torah For Modern Minds
By MICHAEL MASSING (NYT)

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20E1EFE35540C7A8CDDAA0894DA404482

New Torah For Modern Minds

Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation.
Such startling propositions -- the product of findings by archaeologists digging in Israel and its environs over the last 25 years -- have gained wide acceptance among non-Orthodox rabbis. But there has been no attempt to disseminate these ideas or to discuss them with the laity -- until now.

The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, which represents the 1.5 million Conservative Jews in the United States, has just issued a new Torah and commentary, the first for Conservatives in more than 60 years. Called ''Etz Hayim'' (''Tree of Life'' in Hebrew), it offers an interpretation that incorporates the latest findings from archaeology, philology, anthropology and the study of ancient cultures.

To the editors who worked on the book, it represents one of the boldest efforts ever to introduce into the religious mainstream a view of the Bible as a human rather than divine document. "