An aspiring theologian takes on Ibn Anwar


A Dialogue between John Fraiser and Ibn Anwar

The following is a follow up to the comments made by John Fraiser to this video which he commented(on the wrong post) here . Unfortunately, the Master in Divinity has abandoned ship!


Aspiring Theologian said

Well, it looks like I’ve got an angry Muslim on my hands with lots of insults to go along. I don’t mind disagreement, but insults are just rhetoric and do not an argument make. If you consider yourself so intelligent and consider yourself to be my instructor then you should know better than to use ad hominems such as implying that I’ve just come out of the jungle and asking me to answer whether I am stupid (this is a foolish question in its own right since a stupid person would be too stupid to know that they are stupid). Of course, the Qur’an says the much worse about me (98:6; 8:55; 7:176). It’s unfortunate that I have to waist this much in conversation to point out that you need to show respect to people who are taking your comments seriously and seeking to engage you.

My Response

Well, no I’m not angry. Just because someone calls another unintelligent or stupid does not automatically mean he’s angry. I am merely calling a spade a spade. I believe calling you stupid was about the only instance I “insulted” you. To say that you have on your hands a Muslim with “lots” of insults is a wee bit of an exaggeration don’t you think? No, I do not consider myself more intelligent than you or that I’m your instructor. I’m not sure where you got that from. The reason why I called you stupid and asked if you’ve just came out of the jungle is because you made a rather unintelligent, foolish, stupid call it what you want remark i.e. “most Muslims dislike non-Arab Muslims”. It is not an impossibility for a person ill-informed or stupid to recognise his state of being so long as he is not retarded. For example, if someone thought something to be true but is later corrected with the right information he will most likely realise that he’s been stupid all this while. So, for me to ask if you’re stupid isn’t really foolish after I’ve explained that what you said was stupid. In any case, what I called you is inconsequential and INSIPID compared to how your Lord and Saviour spoke to his people.

“You wicked and adulterous generation…” (Matthew 12:39)

“You whited sepulchres…” (Matthew 23:27)

“You generation of vipers…” (Matthew 23:33)

“You fools and blind!…” (Matthew 23:17)

“You fools…” (Luke 11:40)

So, if you have a problem with an “instructor” insulting his pupils, please take it up with Jesus first.

Aspiring Theologian said :

I apologize for commenting in the wrong thread, but since you didn’t relocate my comment and since you responded in the same thread, I’ll continue the conversation here as well.

As to whether the priest is a racist, let’s follow your logic.

1. “Well, to me the person’s indeed racist…”
What someone is in your eyes is irrelevant for what he actually is. Suppose, I said “to me” he’s not a racist, you wouldn’t accept that now would you?

2.” …because the black woman was attacked without provocation simply because she’s black…”

How do you know this? All you’ve got is a 35 second clip. You don’t know the context, you don’t know that the priest did not have another reason. You are simply demonstrating your bias against Christians here. I am not Roman Catholic, so I have reason to defend the priest here, but you’ve accused someone of racism in order to defame Christians and you don’t know enough about the situation to say this. Let’s suppose I create a website called “Unveiling Islam” (though there is already a book by that title by two former Muslims [to speak of “unveiling” makes more sense when applied to Islam than it does Christianity, btw]) and I put up videos of the many acts of terrorism committed by Muslims around the world and used that to defame Islam, would that be fair? No, because I have taken a narrow slice of a large religion and used it to defame the whole of it. This would be unfair to your faith. I disagree with your faith on theological grounds and would disagree with it no less even if a Muslim never cut off anyone else’s head.

3. The final reason you give for why to you this person is a racist is “this is not something new in Christianity.”

What kind of argument is this for why this priest is a racist? The fact that people in the past were racist is not an argument that establishes this man as a racist. You would never accept (nor should you) an argument that a Muslim is racist for hitting a black woman because other Muslims have hit black women.

Maybe the priest is a racist, but this cannot be determined by what we’ve seen in this video clip. Furthermore, suppose you make it your life’s mission to confirming that this priest is a racist and suppose it turns out to be true, how does this “unveil christianity”? Again, this is mere ad hominem. Christians and Muslims could go back and forth putting up clips of people doing misdeeds in the name of their religion and it wouldn’t serve as a valid argument against either religion. Besides, I would think that you wouldn’t want to go down this road, because it is a losing battle for you. Anyone can post videos of Muslims doing things that are much more horrifying than slapping a black woman. I’m sure you’re aware that Islam does not have a very positive reputation outside of Islamic countries (if you are not aware of this, don’t worry, I won’t be so asinine as to ask you if you’ve just come out of the jungle).

You need to own up to the fact that you’ve made accusations that you have not substantiated. You’re discrediting yourself when you make such empty arguments.

Your accusations that Christianity is racist is based on a gross misunderstanding of the history of Christianity. I don’t deny that Christians or people who claimed to be Christians have done racist things, but it does not establish a problem with Christianity itself. In fact, Christian doctrine has been a reason for racial reconciliation in many cases. Martin Luther King, Jr. for example, did not oppose racism by rejecting Christianity, he called racist Christians to be true to the doctrine they confess such as that all men are made in the image of God. He opposed racism WITH Christianity not by abandoning it. The same can be said of William Wilberforce in England whose influence led Parliament to abolish slavery in England. Anti-racism can also be found in Gal 3:28 “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

My Response

Thank you. You have convinced me that I was wrong to assume that the priest is racist..so I’m changing the title of the video. Again Ithank you and hopethat the new title appeases you. However, now that we’ve come to the issue of racism. Let’s discuss about it. First of all, I did not say that Christianity condones racism as what you claimed I said. All I said was “racism has always been in Christianity throughout the ages” in the sense that in the history of Christianity, many Christians like the Hindus have showed tremendous racist behaviour. This however, does not automatically mean Christianity teaches it or that all Christians are racist. It is simply an argument against those who may say Christians can not be racist. I wouldn’t have said this if you didn’t accuse Muslims of racism. It is no secret that Muslims despite our prejudices against each other are the least racist people on earth. No Muslim country have had personalities like Martin Luther King Jr. or Malcolm X or William Wilberforce, simply because we never experienced such bleak times. I do not doubt there are Muslims who are prejudiced against another race even when they belong to Islam. But that racialist feeling is kept in check due to the clear prohibition of racism in Islam as explained in my previous response.

Oh, one other thing, you said ,”Maybe the priest is a racist, but this cannot be determined by what we’ve seen in this video clip. Furthermore, suppose you make it your life’s mission to confirming that this priest is a racist and suppose it turns out to be true, how does this “unveil christianity”? Again, this is mere ad hominem.” Well , that’s all very fine. However, I believe I’ve clarified why I have such articles or videos on the blog. The reason I have the video on the blog is exactly the same reason why I have the brief expose’ on Sam Shamoun’s foul mouth. Need I repeat it again? All right, I’ll repeatit for you one last time. The reason why unruly behaviours of certain prominent Christians ae highlighted on this blog is to prove a very vital point to those Christians in missionary circles who have a tendency to play the “holier than thou” game. It is not simply to diparage or debase Christianity as a religion but to show Christians who are on cloud nine thinking they are immaculate that things are not really that lovey dovey[and throughout my 5 years of experience loads of Christians I’ve met have this sickness]. That’s about it. Thank you. Oh yes, and you are most welcome to highlight Muslim behaviors which you find upsetting or disagreeable on your webite. Insha’Allah if they are true, they should act as an impetus for Muslims in general to improve themselves.

 

Aspiring Theologian said:

Furthermore, the creation of a Jewish state garnered enormous support from the Christian community. There are many Christians who consider Israel God’s chosen people and believe that whoever curses Israel will be cursed by God, and whoever blesses Israel will be blessed by God (Gen 12:3).

Where do you account for any of this in your review of Christianity and race? It is clear that you are unfairly biased against Christianity.

 

My Response :

Let’s get the cat out of the bag, shall we? What is racism? dictionary.com defines it as :

1.a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

THE BIBLE DOES NOT TEACH THIS!!!! Really?

“For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth. “ (Deuteronomy 7:6)

Let’s see how Jesus treated people of other races.

22And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.

23But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.

24But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

25Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.

26But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs.

27And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.

28Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt.

Yes, this is indeed how you shall treat those outside the house of Israel. When they come to you for help, ignore and disrespect them the first time. The second time, continue to ignore. The third time, if they continue to beg for your help call them dogs. When they accept that they are dogs and bow down to your supremacy only then offer them help. It is because she was Caananite or a Greek woman as another Gospel records and not a fellow countryman is the reason for Jesus’ outrageous behaviour towards her. If this isn’t racism? What in the world is?

The creation of the Jewish state garnered enormous support from the Christian community, yes. However, how has this got anything to do with racism? The reason they are supported by Zionist CHristians like the late Rev. Jerry Falwell is because they the Christians believe that the land mass from the river Nile to the Euphrates belong to the Jews. However, they fail to recognise what Jesus said about these Jewish race :

“Therefore I say unto you, The Kingdom of God shall be taken away from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruit thereof” (Matthew 21:43).

The reason for this is because they never changed from the state they were in right from the time of Moses :

“And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished, That Moses commanded the Levites(Jews), which bare the ark of the covenant of the LORD, saying, Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee. For I know thy rebellion, and thy stiff neck: behold, while I am yet alive with you this day, ye have been rebellious against the LORD; and how much more after my death? Gather unto me all the elders of your tribes, and your officers, that I may speak these words in their ears, and call heaven and earth to record against them. For I know that after my death ye will become utterly corrupt, and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days; because ye will do evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger through the work of your hands. (Deuteronomy 31:25-29)”

 

Aspiring Theologian said :

The Qur’an verse which you attempt to explain is not one that I have in mind. Here are a few examples of the dehumanizing hatred that the Qur’an expresses toward Jews:

Say: “Shall I point out to you something much worse than this, (as judged) by the treatment it received from Allah? those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil;- these are (many times) worse in rank, and far more astray from the even path” (5:60)!

According to the Hadith, one of the last things Muhammad ever said on his deathbed was “May Allah curse the Jews and Christians” (Bukhari 8:427).

You wrote: “Had we been commanded to hate the Jews as you claim, we could have easily wiped the Jews from the face of the earth.”

You have been commanded by the Qur’an to do violence against Jews: “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (9:29).

“O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him” (9:123).

“Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies of Allah and your enemies and others besides, whom ye may not know” (8:60).

It’s not Christians that Jews have to fear doing violence to them. It’s not Christians that have sworn to wipe Jews off the face of the earth. Many Muslims on the other hand have sworn to do so.

With friends like Muslims, Jews don’t need enemies.

My Response:

You gave a verse and said that it conveys hatred towards Jews. Let’s read the verse in context and see what exactly is being conveyed.

O ye who believe! take not for friends and protectors those who take your religion for a mockery or sport,- whether among those who received the Scripture before you, or among those who reject Faith; but fear ye Allah, if ye have faith (indeed). When ye proclaim your call to prayer they take it (but) as mockery and sport; that is because they are a people without understanding. Say: “O people of the Book! Do ye disapprove of us for no other reason than that we believe in Allah, and the revelation that hath come to us and that which came before (us), and (perhaps) that most of you are rebellious and disobedient?” Say: “Shall I point out to you something much worse than this, (as judged) by the treatment it received from Allah? those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil;- these are (many times) worse in rank, and far more astray from the even path!” (Al-Ma’idah Chp. 5, verse 57 to 60)

You see the verse which you quoted is connected to several verses that came before it. Verse 57 to 59 explains who exactly is being admonished in verse 60 i.e. those who mock and ridicule Islam and disparage Muslims simply for believing in Allah. It is not a reference to every single Christian and Jew on the face of the earth. It admonishes those Jews and Christians like Sam Shamoun from the Christian side. So the verse actually admonishes both rebelling Christian and Jew and not just the latter as you claimed. If someone is a Christian or Jew and does not make a habit of debasing Islam then that someone does not fall into those addressed in verse 60 of Surah Al-Ma’idah.

You said,

“According to the Hadith, one of the last things Muhammad ever said on his deathbed was “May Allah curse the Jews and Christians” (Bukhari 8:427).”

Thank you for showing to us what a dishonest person you are by misquoting the hadith. Let us see what the hadith really says.

Volume 1, Book 8, Number 427:

Narrated ‘Aisha and ‘Abdullah bin ‘Abbas:

When the last moment of the life of Allah’s Apostle came he started putting his ‘Khamisa’ on his face and when he felt hot and short of breath he took it off his face and said, “May Allah curse the Jews and Christians for they built the places of worship at the graves of their Prophets.” The Prophet was warning (Muslims) of what those had done.

You see, the hadith speaks of those Christians and Jews who built places of worship at the graves of their prophets and what is implied is that they also perform worship there. This is what they are cursed for in the said hadith, not simply because they are Jewish or Christian. If there are Jews and Christians who do not do these, then they are not those addressed in the hadith. In any case, the hadith isn’t a green light for Muslims to terrorise Jews and Christians. Anyway, the Jews are cursed according to their own Tanakh. Refer to Deuteronomy 3:25-29 quoted earlier.

You said,

“You have been commanded by the Qur’an to do violence against Jews: “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (9:29).”

The verse above is about the “jizya”. It is a special tax imposed on non-Muslims residing in Muslim territories. What’s so bad about that? The verse is simply commanding Muslims to demand the tax from those who do not profess Islam because those who profess Islam has a different set of “taxes” due. In fact when compared what the dhimmi or protected non-Muslim has to pay with what the Muslims have to pay, they are dwarfed by comparison. Why don’t you read about the zakat that the Muslims are incurred with and see how significant it is compared to the jizya. After they are polled(those who are able) they are given certain autonomies and are exempted from military service. Indeed, their lives are held sacred and will be protected at all costs by Muslim lives. As John L. Esposito observes in Islam the Straight Path, Oxford University Press, Jan 15, 1998, p. 34. ,”In return, non-Muslim citizens were permitted to practice their faith, to enjoy a measure of communal autonomy, to be entitled to Muslim protection from outside aggression, to be exempted from military service and taxes levied upon Muslim citizens.” Refer also to Encyclopedia of Islam by CI. Cohen. Pay a small sum of money and have your life protected..sounds like a good deal to me. Some may question the part where it says,”…and feel themselves subdued”. Ah this is oppression! Far from it. What it means is that the jizya will act as a sign of their recognition of the state government i.e. that they are subjects of the land. That is all. If you have so much of a problem with taxation, why don’t you stop paying your taxes where you come from and let’s see what the government does to you. Even in America the most lenient means of reproach for failure to pay tax is jail time. And of course, we know that jail is no joke even in 5 star suite prisons in America. For better clarification on the issue of jizya proceed to http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-AAbout_Islam/AskAboutIslamE/AskAboutIslamE&cid=1123996016702

I do not wish to delve into verses 9:123 and 8:60 since anyone who’s really interested in the truth can have a look at the context and see what’s actually being said. In short, they are commands to Muslims to prepare themselves to fight against those who are fighting them. Surah Al-Tawbah by the way if you study the asbab al-nuzul or reason for revelation is a surah dedicated to those times when Muslims were at war with the Quraisy pagans..so it is only common sense that Allah commands the Muslims to prepare themselves for battle and fight the Quraisy pagans and their allies who intended to annihilate the Muslims and those protected under them including Jews, Christians and Magians(refer to the treaty of Madinah).

Let us see what the New Testament has to say about killing people who deserve killing :

Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done. Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They invent new ways of sinning, and they disobey their parents. They refuse to understand, break their promises, are heartless, and have no mercy. They know God’s justice requires that those who do these things deserve TO DIE, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too.” (1st Romans 20-32)

The above shows that not just Jews deserve TO DIE but anyone who does the things mentioned! WOW! How beautiful. I don’t think I need to quote the other beautiful verses from the Old Testament..you can read about there here http://unveilingchristianity.wordpress.com/2007/11/17/apostasy-and-killing-in-christianity/#more-34

Aspiring Theologian concluded:

Now again, I’m not saying that Islam is “unveiled” because of this violence, only that you can’t revise history to say that Christian history is full of racism and that Muslims are the least racist of all people.

If Muslims are so non-racist why then do so many swear to destroy Israel and why is there so much Muslim violence against Israel?

My Response:

You can find the answer to the above question in this book written by Jews themselves :

The Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict : http://www.ifamericansknew.org/history/origin.html

Now let’s read some beautiful examples of Muslims’ hatred towards Jews

“Jews enjoyed great privileges, and their communities prospered. There was no legislation or social barriers preventing them from conducting commercial activities. Many Jews migrated to areas newly conquered by Muslims and established communities there. The vizier of Baghdad entrusted his capital with Jewish bankers. The Jews were put in charge of certain parts of maritime and slave trade. Siraf, the principal port of the caliphate in the 10th century CE, had a Jewish governor.”

(Leon Poliakov in Poliakov pg. 68-71)

Albania’s 200 Jews were saved from the Holocaust by MuslimsAuthor: Esra’a (Bahrain) – October 31, 2007

I was reading Point of No Return this morning as we add their feeds on our ME Faith site.
I came across this post which I thought would be interesting to share here:
Albania’s 200 Jews were saved from the Holocaust by Muslims acting according to a traditional code of honour. The Jerusalem Post reports that Yad Vashem, Israel’s Holocaust memorial, is about to pay tribute to them with a special exhibition:
“The extraordinary story of Albania, where an entire nation, both the government and the population, acted to rescue Jews is truly remarkable,” said exhibition curator Yehudit Shendar. “Many, if not all, were heavily influenced in their choice by Islam… This very human story, told through these sensitive portraits, combine to highlight a little-known but remarkable aspect of the Holocaust.”
“This is a story that has rarely been publicized,” said Holocaust survivor Ya’acov Altarat, 74, from Tel Aviv, who escaped to Albania with his parents as a boy of eight in 1941 and found refuge there for the duration of the war.
“It is a story of a nation saving all of its Jews because of a code of behavior,” he said.
“Why did my father save a stranger at the risk of his life and the entire village?” asked Enver Alia Sheqer, son of Righteous Among the Nations Ali Sheqer Pashkaj, who is featured in the exhibition. “My father was a devout Muslim. He believed that to save one life is to enter paradise.”
The exhibit will be on display at Yad Vashem for two months and will then travel to New York, where it will be displayed at the United Nations headquarters on January 27 for International Holocaust Remembrance Day.
The Thursday morning opening ceremony will take place in the presence of Science, Culture and Sport Minister Ghaleb Majadle – Israel’s first Muslim cabinet minister – as well as Gershman, Chairman of the Commission for the Designation of the Righteous at Yad Vashem Ya’acov Turkel, Yad Vashem Chairman Avner Shalev and Honorary Consul of Albania in Israel Raphael Faust.
“What I found were good people who did good deeds,” said Gershman, who hails from Basalt, Colorado, and began the project four years ago after coming across pictures of Albanian Muslims who had been honored by Yad Vashem for saving Jews during the Holocaust.
He noted that the some of the Muslims he’d met in Albania had referred to the Koran when asked why they took in the Jews, while others talked about a culture of hospitality.
“This is a story that [shows] there are good Muslims in the world,” he said.
About 22,000 non-Jews have been recognized by Yad Vashem as Righteous Among the Nations since 1963, including 63 – predominantly Muslim honorees – from Albania.
To date, more than 70 Muslims have received the award, Yad Vashem spokeswoman Estee Yaari said.
No Arabs have received the honor, although one candidate, Khaled Abdelwahhab of Tunisia, in January became the first Arab to be nominated for the award.

http://www.mideastyouth.com/2007/10/31/albanias-200-jews-were-saved-from-the-holocaust-by-muslims/

Holocaust Survivor Says Turkish Muslim Saved His, Other Jews’ Lives
By Rudi Williams
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, April 23, 2002 – As a child on the island of Rhodes in the Aegean Sea, Bernard Turiel remembers listening to his parents and their friends talk about Jews being executed in concentration camps in Germany and Europe.
Turiel remembers the horror stories about Jewish people’s skin being made into lampshades and their bones being used to make soap. “These kinds of discussions left a fear and horrid impression on all of us,” he said.

Turiel survived the Holocaust, he said, thanks to Turks on Rhodes and because he and his family were Turkish citizens. During “Honoring the Turkish Rescuers,” a special program held recently at Washington’s Lincoln Theater, he talked about his World War II childhood experiences and how a Muslim saved his family and many others.

Rhodes today is Greek. From 1912 until 1945, however, the Aegean island, just off the southwestern coast of Turkey, was an Italian possession.

Italian dictator Benito Mussolini joined Germany in the war in 1940 and invited his ally to garrison troops in Italy and its possessions, including Rhodes, Turiel said.

He said the island in the 1920s and 30s had a flourishing Jewish community of about 5,500 Jews out of a population of about 35,000. Although many Jews fled in the 1930s, those who remained on Rhodes were harassed by the Italian administration but relatively safe until Mussolini was deposed in July 1943 and Italy’s provisional government declared an armistice with the Allies.

The Germans used the confusion to overwhelm their one-time allies and seize control the Italians’ “empire” in September 1943, he added.

“When the Germans took over, the adult males were asked to report to the headquarters offices,” Turiel said. “That created great concern as to what was going to happen.” The men were told to register and go home. This created a sense of relief, but also one of false security.

When the Germans began rounding up Rhodes’ Jewish community in July 1944, the men reported to the German headquarters again, Turiel said, but this time they were immediately incarcerated. Turiel and his father and brother were among the incarcerated. Two days after being detained, the men were standing in line waiting for transport to the continent and a concentration camp, Turiel recalled.

Enter 30-year-old Turkish Consul Selahattin Ulkumen, who approached the German general in charge and demanded that all Turkish subjects be released. He went further, demanding the spouses of Turkish citizens be released, invoking Turkish law that anyone married to a Turk is a Turk. The Germans assented.

Ulkumen was playing a dangerous game. He bluffed the Germans — there was no such law.

“He was fully aware of the dangers for the Jewish community in Europe and made a valiant effort to save as many Jews as possible, including non-Turkish citizens,” Turiel said. “He told my mother to go home and that our father would be released. My brother and I had acquired Turkish citizenship and had dual citizenship.”

Ulkumen’s bold personal action is credited with saving 42 families. But his bluff didn’t go unanswered. The Germans bombed his home in retaliation. His wife, nine months’ pregnant, was seriously injured and died of her wounds while giving birth to the couple’s son, Mehmet.

Turiel said 643 of Rhodes’ Jews were deported to Auschwitz; all but 151 were exterminated or died in the labor camps.

Ulkumen left Rhodes in August 1944 when Turkey ended diplomatic relations with Germany.

Again, Jewish men were ordered to report to German authorities, Turiel noted. Only a handful still lived on the island. Turiel said the island was isolated, and the Germans by this time seemed more concerned about survival than victory.

“They permitted us to eventually leave the island in January 1945,” said Turiel, a lawyer, who worked for the Federal Trade Commission from 1959 to 1966. He’s now an attorney in private practice in northern New Jersey.

The Turiels left Rhodes for Turkey in January 1945 and emigrated to the United States in July 1946. Turiel’s father joined his two brothers in their import-export business.

Turiel told the Lincoln Theater audience that Ulkumen was a man of great determination, courage and compassion. On June 11, 1988, the Anti-Defamation League presented Ulkumen its fourth annual “Courage to Care” award.

“He was brought to New York for the presentation and we were reunited with him,” Turiel noted. “My mother maintained correspondence with him over the years.”

In June 1990, Ulkumen was installed on the Avenue of the Righteous Gentiles at the Yad Vashem in Israel. “What used to be known as the Righteous Christians has been changed to the Righteous Gentiles because Mr. Ulkumen was the first non-Christian to receive the award. He is a Muslim,” Turiel noted.

“Mr. Ulkumen will always be remembered as a courageous, compassionate and righteous person,” Turiel said. “Today, he’s frail and living in an old age home in Turkey.”

Turiel said he and his family and other Holocaust survivors are extremely fortunate to have come to the United States.

“We’re grateful to live in this wonderful country where our forefathers had the great forbearance to think of the great democratic country and the need for a Bill of Rights,” he said. “The Bill of Rights has provided the type of government and style of life that we enjoy and cherish. We never take it for granted. Having experienced our lives in Europe, we’re most grateful to be in such a wonderful country as the United States.”

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=44140

Allah Knows Best

 

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

7 Responses to “An aspiring theologian takes on Ibn Anwar”

  1. Ibn Anwar says:

    And just by the way Fraiser…you said a proper debate involves ideological and theological exchanges and not ad hominem. I agree…and if you take a look at the blog you will see that articles exposing Christian behaviour do not surpass 10 posts. In fact, most of the articles on the blog which number almost 50 at present deal with the Christian scriptures, beliefs and doctrines…if you are truly interested to dialogue on these issues, please leave your feedback to the relevant articles. Thank you.

  2. Ibn Anwar says:

    I’m not sure why you preferred to correct me on misrepresenting a Catholic priest and not on issues like Jesus’ divinity. Which of the two are more important?

  3. Fraiser says:

    Ibn,

    You wrote:

    “I believe calling you stupid was about the only instance I ‘insulted’ you. To say that you have on your hands a Muslim with ‘lots’ of insults is a wee bit of an exaggeration don’t you think?”

    Incorrect. You insulted me more than once. Here are the places you insulted me: “have you just come out of the jungle?” “Are you seriously that stupid?” “So really Fraiser…go learn some more.”

    I don’t mind dialogue. I don’t mind disagreement. What I won’t tolerate is personal insult. So if you can’t dialogue with respect then I will not dialogue with you, plain and simple. So consider this a warning. I will not converse any further with you if you cannot do so with respect.

    “No, I do not consider myself more intelligent than you or that I’m your instructor. I’m not sure where you got that from.”

    Well, since you called me stupid, it logically follows that the only possible way you don’t consider yourself more intelligent than me is if you consider yourself as stupid or less stupid than you judged me to be. I presume that you don’t consider yourself to be as stupid as you accused me of being.

    “The reason why I called you stupid and asked if you’ve just came out of the jungle is because you made a rather unintelligent, foolish, stupid call it what you want remark i.e. ‘most Muslims dislike non-Arab Muslims.’”

    Had you simply stated that my comment was stupid, I wouldn’t be making this big of a deal about your comment. But you didn’t call my comment stupid, you called me stupid. You should recognize that even intelligent people make stupid comments, but this does not make them stupid. I will show you respect, but I demand that you do the same, and up to this point, all you’ve done is defend your insults and offer excuses.

    “In any case, what I called you is inconsequential and INSIPID compared to how your Lord and Saviour spoke to his people.”

    This is another attempt to excuse yourself. I’ll explain the difference between your insults and Jesus Christ’s insults: you are not the Lord of all creation, and you are not the judge of all things. However, Christ is. So if Christ calls someone a wicked and adulterous generation, this is not just insulting rhetoric (such as your comments), it is true. If Christ says that the Pharisees were “whited sepulchers” then his judgment is true. It is his place to pass judgment, not mine. It is his place to pass judgment, not yours. So Christ, and Christ alone, has this authority as the Judge, to make these judgments. So to say that since Christ judged people, I can’t object to your insults is a specious argument. Your argument makes about as much sense as saying that if God says “Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13), then he is not allowed to kill. God relates to his law as the lawgiver not the subject under the law.

    You quoted me as saying: “most Muslims dislike non-Arab Muslims.” This is a clear misquotation. I never said this. What I actually said was, “I find it ironic that you would call this priest a racist given the hatred that most muslims have for non-arabs.” I said that most muslims hate non-arabs, not non-arab muslims. So you have built up your own straw man and knocked him down, but what does that have to do with me?

    I now realize my statement is unclear, and see why you read it the way you did. But the statement is not incorrect. I did not say that most muslims hate ALL non-arabs, but the fact is that most muslims do hate Israelis, and Israelis are not Arab. So to say that most muslims hate non-arabs is correct since I don’t mean that they hate all non-arabs.

    You wrote: “You have convinced me that I was wrong to assume that the priest is racist..so I’m changing the title of the video.”

    I’m glad you have let go of the charge of racism, but you should just take the video down altogether. How does a video of a priest slapping a woman help your purpose of unveiling Christianity? Couldn’t I put a video of Muslims cutting off the head of American and European civilians? Isn’t it much more heinous to behead someone than to slap someone? If you approve of this method of defaming a religion then Islam will come out on the losing end by far.

    “It is no secret that Muslims despite our prejudices against each other are the least racist people on earth.”

    You may believe that Muslims are “the least racist people” on earth, but this claim is controversial almost to the point of shock to those who hear it. It is not Christians who have produced maps with whole countries removed from it (such as maps of Israel that some Muslims produce). It is not Christians who make threats on civilians (such as many Muslim terrorists have done). The complaints over racism in America during the 1960’s were largely over segregated schools, separate drinking fountains and discriminating hiring practices. As wrong as this racism is, there are actions performed by Muslims that are far worse than this. Jews are a hated race by many Muslims and to say otherwise is simply to revise history and ignore the facts. Too many Muslims have sworn the destruction of Israel and Jews who seek to live as Jews in their land.

    You wrote: “I do not doubt there are Muslims who are prejudiced against another race even when they belong to Islam.”

    So then how can you claim that Muslims are the least racist people? There are many Muslims who fit this description. You say that this “racialist [sic] feeling is kept in check due to the clear prohibition of racism in Islam” but not all Muslims agree with your version of Islam. They think you misinterpret the Qur’an. They think that Muslims are called to do violence against Jews.

    Perhaps they are just taking the Qur’an at it’s word: “O believers! Take not the Jews or Christians as friends. They are but one another’s friends. If anyone of you takes them for his friends, he is surely one of them” (5:56).

    “Make war upon such of those to whom the Scriptures have been given as believe not in Allah, or in the last day, and who forbid not that which Allah and His Apostle have forbidden, and who profess not the profession of the truth” (9:29).

    Tell me, where in the Bible Christians are commanded to kill those who of other religions or make war against those who do not believe as they do?

    There is a Muslim organization called “The International Islamic Front for Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders.”

    Tell me, what comparable organization exists in Christianity that calls for war against a race like this group does?

    Tell me, what children’s television program in Christianity calls for the death of civilians like these Muslim children’s program calls for the death of Americans, Danes, and Jews? (the second video actually uses a rather poor rip-off of Mickey Mouse).

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related

    What these videos teach is nothing short of sick, twisted and wicked.

    Official school textbooks of the Palestinian Authority contain songs and poems such as this: “Draw your sword, death will call upon you, and your sword will go wild. Palestine, the young will redeem your land” and “Cherish the jihad fighters who quench the earth of Jerusalem with their blood” and “Jews welcome their own persecution because it is profitable” (Norman Doidge, “The Palestinians’ little bombers: School textbooks teach children to admire the martyr,” National Post [November 9, 2000]).

    Tell me, what Christian school textbooks teach anything like this?

    Hamas runs a Muslim boys school in Gaza City. Here’s what the boys are instructed to recite: “I will make my body a bomb that will blast the flesh of Zionists, the sons of pigs and monkeys. I will tear their bodies into little pieces and cause them more pain than they will ever know” (Jack Kelley, “Devotion, desire drive youths to ‘martyrdom,’” USA Today [August 5, 2001]).

    Tell me, what evidence do you have that children in Christian schools are taught to say and believe things like this?
    My point is not that Islam is false because of the racism in it, my point is that you can’t claim that Muslims are the least racist of all people. I don’t propose to know who the least racist religious group is, but it is most certainly not Islam.
    If you want to believe this lie, you are certainly free to do so, but the facts do not support your claim. There is no religion on this planet that is more violent than Islam and no religion that is more at war with itself than Islam. Islam will have to be at peace with itself before it can ever convince the world that it is a peaceful religion.

    “The reason why unruly behaviours of certain prominent Christians ae [sic] highlighted on this blog is to prove a very vital point to those Christians in missionary circles who have a tendency to play the ‘holier than thou’ game.”

    Prominent Christians? Was the priest you accused of racism and which you still have up on your blog a prominent Christian? No one even knows who he is. VenomFangX? He’s just some kid with a webcam on youtube. Me? I’m no prominent Christian and yet you’ve devoted two posts to criticizing me. So who are these prominent Christians that you are highlighting? Besides, if you have Christians playing the holier-than-thou game why not simply tell them that pointing out the behavior of certain Muslims without criticizing the faith of Islam doesn’t get us anywhere. Obviously you can post videos of Christians (or I should say, people claiming to be Christians) on your blog, but so what? There are videos of Muslims doing far worse things. When it comes to posting stories and videos of religions doing violent and terrible things, Islam is going to lose that contest.

    “Oh yes, and you are most welcome to highlight Muslim behaviors which you find upsetting or disagreeable on your webite [sic].” Thank you for your permission, but I don’t need it. I know that I am free to run my blog how I choose, but I choose not to waste my time making specious, useless arguments like you do. I choose not to engage in ad hominem attacks.

    You wrote: “Let’s get the cat out of the bag, shall we? What is racism? dictionary.com defines it as :
    1.a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
    THE BIBLE DOES NOT TEACH THIS!!!! Really?
    ‘For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.’ (Deuteronomy 7:6)”

    This verse does not teach that the race is superior or has the right to rule over others. The Lord has judged Israel for thinking this. Rather, the Lord showed unmerited favor on the Jews, because of who he is, not because of who they are. Salvation according to the Bible does not come from individual achievement. It is the Lord’s work in saving us. So to apply a definition of racism to the Bible such as: “a belief…that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement” simply doesn’t apply to what the Bible says about Israel. In fact, the history of Israel in the Old Testament is largely a history of their obsession with the cultural achievements of other races. They often worshipped their gods and married their people. Racism does not apply here.

    Then you quote a passage from Matthew 15 (though you don’t cite it) and claim that it indicates that Jesus Christ was a racist. Jesus knew exactly what he was going to do for this woman. However, there was a lesson to be taught. In calling her a dog, he is simply using a term for Gentiles commonly used by Jews which referred to their failure to observe the dietary restrictions which the Jews followed. It was not a derogatory term. The term used is kynarion which is not used of a wild dog but of a house dog or personal pet. This fact is also clear from the usage here since the woman speaks of a dog that eats the crumbs from the table of the master. So, in calling her a dog, Jesus is not saying that her race is inferior, but saying that as a Jew he was sent to Jews. The woman recognizes that she is a Gentile asking for a salvation from the Jewish Savior when she calls him “Son of David” (Matt 15:22). Jesus commends her for her faith and rewards her for it, not because she is Jewish but because she has faith. Thus demonstrating that what matters is faith not race. Notice also that Jesus doesn’t do what the disciples propose that he do: “Send her away.” No, he grants her what she asks in faith.

    “If this isn’t racism? What in the world is?” I’ll tell you. The hatred of Jews by millions of Muslims.

    “The creation of the Jewish state garnered enormous support from the Christian community, yes. However, how has this got anything to do with racism?”

    This has everything to do with racism. If these Christians hated Jews, they would not help them receive land. The point is to highlight the way that many Muslims hate Jews and to contrast that with the way that Christians have helped Jews. And many Muslims hate Christians for this.

    “The reason they are supported by Zionist Christians [sic] like the late Rev. Jerry Falwell is because they the Christians believe that the land mass from the river Nile to the Euphrates belong to the Jews.”

    Ok, fine. But if they hated them like many Muslims do they wouldn’t speak so highly of Israel.

    “However, they fail to recognise what Jesus said about these [sic] Jewish race. ‘Therefore I say unto you, The Kingdom of God shall be taken away from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruit thereof’ (Matthew 21:43).”

    Now you are simply arguing against their theology. So what if they arrive at there view according to a misunderstanding of Scripture? The point I made was that Christianity has a large pro-jewish segment and that Jews don’t have no reason to fear Christians, but they do have a reason to fear Muslims. Regardless of their reasons, they are nevertheless pro-jewish.
    You’ve argued that they misinterpret Scripture, but this has nothing to do with the racism question.

    You wanted to put the verse I quoted that shows racism in the Qur’an in context. But the context doesn’t make what is said any better or any less racist.

    “O ye who believe! take not for friends and protectors those who take your religion for a mockery or sport,- whether among those who received the Scripture before you, or among those who reject Faith; but fear ye Allah, if ye have faith (indeed). When ye proclaim your call to prayer they take it (but) as mockery and sport; that is because they are a people without understanding. Say: ‘O people of the Book! Do ye disapprove of us for no other reason than that we believe in Allah, and the revelation that hath come to us and that which came before (us), and (perhaps) that most of you are rebellious and disobedient?’ Say: ‘Shall I point out to you something much worse than this, (as judged) by the treatment it received from Allah? those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil;- these are (many times) worse in rank, and far more astray from the even path!’” (Al-Ma’idah Chp. 5, verse 57 to 60)”

    Then you try to explain that this shows that it is not speaking of Christians or Jews as a people, but only refers to those who mock Allah and Muhammed. However, the verses which you say provide the context refer to “a people without understanding” and “people of the Book.” This is obviously then not simply a reference to just a segment of Christians and Jews. Because all Christians and all Jews are people of the Book. And then the Qur’an dehumanizes these people by saying that Allah has transformed some of them into apes and swine (this is the verse that the boy from the Hamas school I quoted above is referring to when he calls Zionists “pigs and monkeys”). So here we have the Qur’an saying that Muslims are not have Jews as their friends.

    Of course, the Qur’an says the same thing elsewhere: “O believers! Take not the Jews or Christians as friends. They are but one another’s friends. If anyone of you takes them for his friends, he is surely one of them” (5:56).

    You also took exception to my quotation of the Hadith: “Thank you for showing to us what a dishonest person you are by misquoting the hadith. Let us see what the hadith really says.
    You see, the hadith speaks of those Christians and Jews who built places of worship at the graves of their prophets and what is implied is that they also perform worship there. This is what they are cursed for in the said hadith, not simply because they are Jewish or Christian. If there are Jews and Christians who do not do these, then they are not those addressed in the hadith. In any case, the hadith isn’t a green light for Muslims to terrorise Jews and Christians. Anyway, the Jews are cursed according to their own Tanakh. Refer to Deuteronomy 3:25-29 quoted earlier.”

    So how did I misquote the Hadith? I may not have quoted as much as you did, but this doesn’t mean I misquoted it. I quoted what the Hadith says. Now you may seek to explain the part I quoted, but what I quoted is correct. You call me dishonest. Your accusation is groundless. You attribute a motive to me that you cannot know. How do you know that not quoting as much of the passage as you would like me to quote makes me dishonest. I didn’t attribute dishonesty to you when you misquoted me as saying: “most Muslims dislike non-Arab Muslims.” How would I know if your misquotation was out of dishonesty. Maybe you simply made a mistake or were lazy in your reading of my words. Either way, there are other possible explanations besides dishonesty.

    You also try to pass off Jizya as simple taxation, and compare it to American taxation. Here are some key differences. First, if someone doesn’t pay taxes in America, the Bible does not command me to “fight them.” In fact the Bible forbids me to do violence against others. Punishment is the responsibility of the state, not the responsibility of the individual Christian (Romans 13). Second, our taxes are not based on religious affiliations. If we were to charge Muslims a special tax (whether higher or lower) it would be a form of discrimination which our constitution forbids. Furthermore, the American government does not care about people “feeling themselves subdued.”
    However you explain the Jizya, the point I made was that the Qur’an commands violence against Jews: “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth [Islam], even if they are of the People of the Book…”

    You wrote: “Even in America the most lenient means of reproach for failure to pay tax is jail time.”

    Not true. The most lenient penalty for tax evasion is fines and interest charges. Jail time is the maximum penalty.

    You wrote: “Let us see what the New Testament has to say about killing people who deserve killing :
    Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done. Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They invent new ways of sinning, and they disobey their parents. They refuse to understand, break their promises, are heartless, and have no mercy. They know God’s justice requires that those who do these things deserve TO DIE, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too.’ (1st Romans 20-32)”

    There is no book of First Romans. There is a first chapter in Romans, but the way you cite it isn’t how you’re supposed to cite it. You have twisted this verse to fit your bias. This passage describes every person that has ever lived on this planet, not just a few people. We have all been envious, greedy, wicked, sinful, hateful, quarrelsome, deceptive, malicious, and gossips. We have all been proud and boastful. And yes, we all deserve to die. But where does the verse command that we “fight those who believe not” as we do? I deserve to die for the sins that I have done and so do you, but God has had mercy on me by trusting in Jesus Christ and not in myself. He can have mercy on you too, if you put faith in the work of Jesus’ conquering of death in his crucifixion and resurrection. But this verse no where tells the Christian to put anyone to death. In fact, the same book of Romans that you quote commands me to be at peace with all people and not to owe anyone anything other than love:

    Romans 12:14-21
    “14Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.
    15 Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn.
    16 Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited.
    17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody.
    18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.
    19 Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay,’ says the Lord.
    20 On the contrary: ‘If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.’
    21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

    I challenge you to find a verse in the Qur’an that says anything like this about dealing with one’s enemies.

    “The above shows that not just Jews deserve TO DIE but anyone who does the things mentioned! WOW! How beautiful.”

    Yes, you are right that all deserve to die. But this is not racism. It doesn’t single out a particular race that has this problem. Scripture says that we are all in the same boat. We are all guilty before God: Jew and Gentile, Christian and Muslim, male and female. But contrary to what you say, this is not beautiful. The beautiful part is that Christ can save us from this wrath and this death sentence by his work on our behalf but we must look to him. How beautiful!

    You go on to include several stories of Muslims helping Jews during WWII. I don’t doubt that this is true. I was unaware that Muslims were helped by Jews at this time. But this hardly demonstrates Muslims to be the least racist of all people. Jews certainly don’t feel protected by Muslims today. It’s not Christians that are threatening to wipe Jews from the face of the earth.

    You were bothered that I didn’t answer your comments on my blog but instead deleted them. Later I responded quickly to your comments on your own blog and then you said the following:

    “ Well..finally, at long last…the prodigal son returns.”

    I am not prodigal and I am not your son. I have no obligation to return to your site. You have not asked me for a reason for the hope that is within me. So 1 Peter 3:15 doesn’t apply to my dealing with you in this way. Actually there is a different verse from 1 Peter that gives me advice in dealing with you: “Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult.” (3:9). Consequently, I have not insulted you or repaid your evil with evil.

    “You have no time to respond to my comments which is an obligation laid on you according to 1st Peter 3:15, yet have sufficient time to give no less than 3 responses under your ‘Was Christ Forsaken by His Father’ with 59 lines of words in all and an entire post called ‘There’s Humor in Theology 24’?…. Surely, reasonably speaking if you have time to compose a whole brief essay of 59 words along with a new post in the span of time I waited for a response from you, you would have been able to give some sort of feedback”

    Yes, I suppose I’d also have time to respond to you if I quit my job, too. Maybe I should abandon all of my prior engagements to make sure I answer you in the time you determine. You are obsessed with debating with me to the point of counting the number of lines in a comment I made on my own blog on a post that has nothing to do with you. This is highly abnormal. You actually took the time to count each line? How strange.

    “I respect the way you govern your blog, but is it chivalrous to just delete away my invitation to you and ignore me for several days and only return when I composed the article which exposes your seemingly ‘cowardly’ behaviour?”

    If I run my blog in a respectable way when I delete your comments, then why are you complaining about it? If I can find your site the first time, I can find it again. I don’t need you to come on my blog and tell me that you have responded to my comment. Your comments were off topic and were not useful to anyone else. Once I see your comment why do I need to leave it up there? It was only meant for me, I read it and it served your purpose in informing me so naturally I would take it down. Besides, you have my email address. If you want to tell me that you’ve responded, just email me. The number of hits to your blog may indicate that you are new to the blogosphere. If so, you should know that I did what almost any other blogger would do. When you don’t post on topic or are involved in a personal matter, your comment gets deleted. Oh, btw, haven’t you heard, chivalry is dead. Besides, even when it was alive, chivalry was shown to women.

    “There is no need to analyse my ‘ad hominems’…”

    So then you admit that you engage in ad hominems. Enough said.

    “And I am still waiting for your response as to why you chose to question the video post on the Catholic Priest which I alleged to be racist but not on those articles which deny and question Jesus’ divinity?”

    The reason is quite simple. It was the first post I came to on the blog. It was a rather short process. I saw a couple of posts and made a couple of comments. I didn’t see any post on Jesus divinity. I have since looked at it and it is not worthy of respect because you don’t cite a single Christian source that makes the arguments you claim Christians make. In all my years of being a Christian and fellowshipping with Christians I have never heard anyone make the arguments that you attribute to Christians except the “I am” argument. Do you have any sources for your claims? Unless you do, I’m not going to defend straw men that you have made.

    Furthermore, even if I had chosen to question your take on the video of the Catholic priest and deliberately ignored the other posts, what’s the point? Am I obligated to post on the most significant post on your site? Isn’t it fitting that I point out that you are attacking individual Christians (or people who claim to be Christians) when you claim to be unveiling Christianity?

    “It is evident that the latter is of more importance and significance, thus again I invoke 1st Peter 3:15 and demand that you provide clarifications lest you be seen as incompetent by the readers.”

    1 Peter doesn’t really apply here, but even if it did, it wouldn’t mean that I have to reply to you. I spend a lot of my time in apologetic response. I simply can’t engage everyone. Suppose that 500 people ask me for the reason for the hope within me in 500 different ways. The constraints of time and energy make it impossible that I should respond to all of them. I do my best and leave the rest to God.

    Ibn, I do not hate you or disrespect you. I think you have bought into the lie of Islam and are deluded by Satan. But Christ loves you and will have mercy on you. My job is to show love toward you but also to challenge your false doctrine. If you want to engage civilly, and I am willing to continue to do so and would like to stick to the issues and not to personal attacks. I am trying to establish that you need to let go of personal attacks on Christians since it doesn’t get us anywhere. I do not want to engage in personal attacks on Muslims because it doesn’t show that Islam isn’t true. We should discuss the doctrine of Christianity and the doctrine of Islam and perhaps we can at least reach clarity on some matters.

  4. Ibn Anwar says:

    My response to the above comments can be found here http://unveilingchristianity.w.....n-blogger/

  5. Mukhtar says:

    Brother anwar,you forgot to mention about the jews in iran.JEWS IN IRAN:Iran is a islamic republic.it means that Quranic and sharia law is followed there.among all the muslim nations,iran is the one most opposed to israel.inspite of that iran has the highest number of jews in middle east after israel.they are granted full rights and they are even represented in parliament.not even a single anti jewish riot happened in iran.you can refer to jews in iran on wikipedia and youtube

  6. rob says:

    “However, there was a lesson to be taught. In calling her a dog, he is simply using a term for Gentiles commonly used by Jews which referred to their failure to observe the dietary restrictions which the Jews followed. It was not a derogatory term.”

    YOU stupid PIGLET for christ. jeezuz CALLED her ILL DAUGHTER A DOG. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ILL JEWISH GIRL AND AN ILL GENTILE GIRL? WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE? DID YOUR god in MEAT EVER SIT ON THE SAME TABLE WITH A GENTILES AND ENJOYED A MEAL WITH THEM? NO, because he THOUGHT that jewish LAWS MADE him (your god in meat) a BETTER PERSON CONTRADICTING the pagan PAUL. why CALL HER ILL DAUGHTER A DOG, DID HER DAUGHTER KNOW WHAT THE phuck was “dietry LAWS” ? you would THINK MERCY AND COMPASSION would KICK IN AND , jesus the christ would THINK PAST “DIETRY LAWS” AND immediately feel sorry for an ILL GENTILE girl, but no, jesus the christ needs to use “dietry laws” to decide whom to help? even those who observed “dietry laws” treated him WORSER THAN A PIGLET. they used the PAGANS to SCREW, BLUE AND TATOO jesus the krist, they GOVERned jesus LOL .

    THE QUESTION IS this , would the GENTILE woman who was DESPERATE , really like jesus’ UNNEIgBOURLY behaviour TOWARDS her? did she enjoy hearing that she and HER ILL DAUGHTER was LAWLESS dog?

    “The term used is kynarion which is not used of a wild dog but of a house dog or personal pet.”

    THE QUESTION HERE IS THIS,
    did jesus THINK THAT THE ill GENTILE DOG belonged to the children?

    `I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.’

    no he DIDN’T .the dog was not FROM his house.

    it is THE WOMAN, THE DESPERATE gentile WOMAN, who is trying o make a link between herself and the CHILDREN , not jesus LOL

    “Sir, even the dogs under the table get to eat scraps dropped by children!”

    ” This fact is also clear from the usage here since the woman speaks of a dog that eats the crumbs from the table of the master. ”

    think about it PAGAN,

    this is what we learn from the story

    1. jesus IGNORES A desperate WOMAN LOOKING for help for her daughter “but he ANSWERED HER not a word”
    2. SHE IS CALM AND COMPOSED and tries to USE jesus DECIPLES AS INTERMEDIARIES
    she asked his DECIPLES to mediate on her behalf but they (deciples) follow jesus’ EXAMPLE, they ALSO ignore her

    ” SEND HER AWAY , SHE CRIETH AFTER US”

    HOW MANY times she “crieth after” the deciples to MEDIATE on her behalf? the text DOES NOT TELL US, but what we do learn from the deciples is : HOW TO IGNORE A POOR AND HELPLESS non-jewish woman who seek HELP for her ILL DAUGHTER , who according to jesus is AN ILL DOG!

    jesus ADDRESSES his DECIPLES

    `I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.’

    TELL HER TO BUZZ OFF, I DON’T WANT TO HELP HER, I WANT TO HELP those who will SCREW , BLUE AND TATOO ME, they will use pontius pilate to DECIDE MY FATE. even though, according to me and paul, the JEWISH laws DON’T MAKE YOU A BETTER person, i will still help those who are obsessed with USELESS LAWS lol.

    compare jesus’ behaviour TOWARDS jairus

    THE WOMAN then BOWS downs and asks jesus, like a desperate lady would ask on BEHALF of her daughter , ” PLEASE help me…”

    jesus’ is ONE OF THOSE people who would LET A gentile little girl get run OVER BY A CAR, because the gentile LITTLE DOG/BITCH, DOESN’T BELONG TO his yard.

    the DESPERATE WOMAN IS ON THE FLOOR BEGGIN FOR HELP, AFTER SHE IS IGNORED , SHE DESPERATELY BEGS FOR MORE HELP, BUT the UNIEHBOURLY, UNCOMPASSIONATE jesus the krist said /broke his SILENCE addressed her DIRECTLY

    “IT IS NOT GOOD TO TAKE THE childrens bread and to cast it to dogs”

    WHY NOT, WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A ILL GENTILE LITTLE GIRL/DOG AND JEWISH LITTLE GIRL? WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE? WHAT DOES AN ILL LITTLE GIRL KNOW ABOUT JUDAISM OR LAWLESS GENTILES, SHE WAS POSSESED BY EVIL AND SHE WOULD NOT KNOW ANYTHING. WHICH mother would WANT TO HEAR A STUPID RESPONSE like jesus’ RESPONSE?

    you would think that the WOMAN DEMONSTRATED HER faith by STAYING CALM AND OBSORBING all the INSULT, IGNORING ECT

    BUT ONLY WHEN SHE DESTROYS jesus in her REBUTTAL does she CHANGE jesus’ ABUSIVE mind LOL

    “Sir, even the dogs under the table get to eat scraps dropped by children!”

    NOTICE that she is MAKING A LINK BETWEEN HERSELF and the children? notice that jesus did not think this? he already told her that he did not come for her but the JEWS , SO she is not , according to jesus , a dog who belongs in the childrens house

    but friends realise something, she tells jesus that she and her ILL DAUGHTER ARE dogs (any DESPERATE WOMAN WOULD DO that, considering the fact that GENTILES WERE NOT TREATED kindly in israel in jesus’ time and the woman according to matthew, said

    ” a Canaanitess, from those borders having come forth, did call to him, saying, `DEAL KINDLY with me,”

    deAL KINDLY with me… hahahaha we saw how much KINDNESS was shown to the woman by jesus and his deciples. )

    it is only after she blasts jesus, i.e THINK jesus WHEN YOU eat CRUMS NATURALLY fall unto the floor and a LOW STATUS gentile like me , UNDER THE TABLE, near THE FEET OF THE CHILDREN, WILL BENEFIT from the BITS AND PIECES

    NOTICE THAT TODAY this would be an EQUAL RIGHTS ISSUE
    jesus clearly WAS NOT FOR EQUAL RIGHTS !

    “So, in calling her a dog, Jesus is not saying that her race is inferior, but saying that as a Jew he was sent to Jews. The woman recognizes that she is a Gentile asking for a salvation from the Jewish Savior when she calls him “Son of David” (Matt 15:22).” Jesus commends her for her faith and rewards her for it, not because she is Jewish but because she has faith.”

    how much HURT did jesus CAUSE this woman when he and his deciples both IGNORED her. imagine a DOCTOR does what jesus did to a BLACK african woman. if the WOMAN DID NOT COME OUT WITH A CLEVER REFUTATION and did NOT ADMIT TO BEING A DOG, WOULD jesus the krist help her? just imagine she was on the floor and did not have a CLEVER rebutal to jesus’ STUPID response about not giving childrens bread to the gentiles, would jesus have helped her? her “faith” involved her calling herself and HER ILL daughter a dog UNDER THE TABLE. EATING OFF THE FLOOR I.E LOW STATUS, BELOW THE JEWS .NOT EQUAL IN gODS EYES.ONLY this RESPONSE TRIGGERS A CURE , BUT she did all GYMNASTICS BEFORE her clever rebuttal , but jesus couldn’t detect any “faith” ? wha t the?

    if jesus’ had used his COMMON SENSE may be he would have REALISED that his stupid response

    `It is not good to take the children’s bread, and to cast to the little dogs.’

    WAS AMUNITION FOR THE non -jewish WOMAN?

    YOU KNOW the woman WAS CALM AND THINKING gentile, UNLIKE your god in meat who let his anger take over when he observed how DESPERATE THE LADY was getting. i am sure he was getting angry when she was bowing LIKE A DOG AND continuosly kept on bothering him and his deciples.

    ” Thus demonstrating that what matters is faith not race. Notice also that Jesus doesn’t do what the disciples propose that he do: “Send her away.” No, he grants her what she asks in faith.”

    maybe after realising that jesus was CORNERED by a gentile woman and realising that jesus had no response to a desperate women who refuted him, jesus FELT GUILTY for his sins OF ignoring the gentile woman and then CHANGED his mind. i’m saying that the gentile woman MANAGED TO CHANGE your god in meat MIND. talking about “faith” did the DECIPLES get nailed along side jesus? did the cured and ill and ressurected protest against jewish crowds who wanted jesus’ meat nailed to a stick? WHAT WAS HER FAITH? ar se hole?

    her FAITH IN believing that she and her ill DAUGHTER AND HER PEOPLE are DOGS ?jesus was PLEASED TO HEAR that she BELIEVED what jesus SAID ABOUT her and her PEOPLE? WHAT IF she called jesus a dog? what if she laughed and poked fun at jesus while he was bleeding on the cross?

    those who live by insults shall die by insults

    what were the romans doing to jesus when they were wipping him?

  7. rob says:

    “What these videos teach is nothing short of sick, twisted and wicked.”

    what you religion teaches is nothing short of sick twish s hit.
    you tell your children who have no knowledge of VIOLENCE thAT THE only way god could calm and cool down was by using violence on his meat. he had to then get glued to a stick before that he had to get whipped beaten ect.
    you teach s hit like this to your kids?
    think about it, when you see a cross what do you see? the first thing i see is what i would see when i see an electric chair or a knife.
    the cross is the symbol of DEATH AND destruction and the jews saw many of thier brothers nailed to crosses , i bet they were disgusted when they saw christians worshipping DEATH AND DESTRCTION
    your god WAS MURDERED on a cross and you teach shi t like this to your children. you DECORATE a stick was DEATH A ND destruction?

Leave a Reply