Sunday, January 31, 2010

Unigirl : Dignity On Sale

It's funny how modernity as we call it, change the behaviour of the most intelligent life form on planet earth. During the spice trade, food was considered the most valuable thing can ever be possessed by man, so the substance that could help preserve it would be precious, like the ring in the Lord of the Ring. And with it, the Silk Road was established, the West met the East, and trade was made possible by honest merchants.

But then, someone started to get greedy and dominant. Sovereign nations were forced to trade or open up their market only to the monopoly of the uninvited guest. The Shoguns of Japan were forced at gun point to open up their port. Admiral Perry from the land of the free came with four warships and long before that, Melaka fell to the Portuguese in 1511.

Then they got even greedier. Spice was no longer considered as a valuable commodity. Opium started to take over as the most sought after. And China fell to her knees and the kingdom of the dragons for a thousand years crumbled and China was never to be the same ever again.

What can all the nations do at that time. Might is right. It always has been, it will continue to be so. But there is a hidden cost. A never ending fear and sleepless night, having to pay more and more just to make sure you live through the next day, unscratched and unabated, of course.

Well, welcome to the world of the borderless. It's a new dawn of a new day. With the same old lame exploits as ancient as sex itself. The most sought after in a world where free sex is available well, freely. As always, there is a hidden cost unknown to most of us. Explicit sexual transmitted diseases, that will haunt those who dared to indulge themselves in an act that even a serama chicken won't do. Sex for the sake of fun and porn. No humanity, dignity or whatever is holy is involved. Only the cold, empty and cruel lust fulfilling activities with no string attached. Don't worry, some part of the West is not naturally unknown to be available, if not crowded with smart doctors to take care of the by-products. In the lands of the Malay, inhumane beings just tossed the babies in streams or the lucky ones got hanged on gates like unwanted litter of kitten. Privatised doctors, being so intelligent, if not that demonic, can't help to intervene and follow the examples of the highly civilised North and South poles. Don't worry. The cows and the cockerel won't say anything. It's not in their nature to meddle in the sophisticated highly modernised way of life of a monkey that thinks he's human, in which, that even a pride of lions would not do to their cubs, except when another dominant male killed or defeated the standing champion, with a bite through the forehead, of course.

It is sad that people like to go against their nature. The way of the human being. The way of dignity and self respect. Like opium in China in the day of the Boxers, sex is very tempting. And like opium, they only had enough when their obsession would be the ultimate reason of their demise. Like always.

When would the West start their polling of outlawing such an act of humiliation? They seemed to have no problem in halting the force and inhumane Inquisition to spread obscurity, ops, Islam from Europe. Any idea Ali Sina? Geert Wilders? Daniel Pipes? Oh, I forgot to tell you the hidden cost of such an expensive free sex trade. Millions of babies would be another source of industry in some of the heavily industrialised country of the West. The abortion industry that started with, as always, the lie of the century. And that, God willing, I'll be publishing in my next posting.

Hmm. I don't think these girls ever watched Indecent Proposal.

Disclaimer: As we, Muslims, won't like it when people over generalise us with inhumanity act of stupidity and cruelty, it wouldn't be wise and rather immature to generalise the West for a few misfits of Science.

Further readings:

Saturday, January 30, 2010

The Opening of Makkah

The Muslims prepared to enter Makkah, "The Mother of the Towns". The Prophet said to his uncle `Abbas, "Go and hold Abu Sufyan at the narrow path of the valley so that the army of Allah passes by him and he can see them." Al`Abbas had a good wit and diplomatic speech, so he said, "Messenger of Allah, Abu Sufyan is proud, so give him a privilege over his people."

So the Messenger ~, who had a good understanding of the hearts and souls, said, "He who enters the house of Abu Sufyan is safe. He who enters the house of Hakim ibn Hizam is safe. ­

He who enters the Sacred Mosque is safe, and he who keeps himself indoors is safe."

Al-'Abbas "Abul Fadl" took Abu Sufyan "Abu Hanzhalah" and confined him at the narrow path of the mountain where the Prophet ordered. As the tribes passed by Abu Sufyan ibn Harb, he wondered, "Who are these?"

Abul Fadl said to him, "Declare your faith."

Abu Sufyan said, "Why should I?" Then he repeated, "Who are these?"

"The tribe of Juhainah."

"What do I have to do with Juhainah?"

Then the tribe of Ghifar passed by and he asked the same question. Afterwards, Sa'd ibn Hadhim passed by, and Abu Sufyan exclaimed as before. Then a select, distinguished brigade passed by.

"Oh, Abul Fadl! Who are these?"

"This is the Messenger of Allah accompanied by the Ansar (Helpers of Madinah)."

"No one can defeat such a group."

He then looked at the green brigade and shook with fear for the Quraish. He was astonished by the great army mustered by the Prophet ~. He turned to Abul Fadl and said, "By Allah, Abul Fadl, your nephew's power has become great!"

"Oh, Abu Sufyan! It's the prophethood."

Sa'd ibn 'Ubadah carried the standard of the Prophet, and when he passed by Abu Sufyan, he said to him, "Abu Sufyan! Today is the day of the battle. Today Allah will humiliate the Quraish."

When the Prophet himself ~ passed by Abu Sufyan, the latter said, "Messenger of Allah, did you order the murder of your own kinsmen? Sa'd ibn 'Ubadah and his company said upon passing by me that he will kill us! Oh, Messenger of Allah! For the sake of Allah, I beg you to be merciful with your people, for you are the most beneficent, merciful and tender of them all."

'Uthman ibn 'Affan and `Abdul Rahman ibn 'Auf said, "Messenger of Allah, we do not guarantee that Sa'd will not attack the Quraish."

The Prophet ~ said, "Abu Sufyan, Sa'd lied. Today is the day of mercy and today Allah will honor the Quraish."

The Prophet of mercy ~ sent to Sa'd ibn 'Ubadah to have the standard taken from him and given to his son Qais ibn Sa'd ibn 'Ubadah. Sa'd refused to hand over the standard except by a clear indication from the Prophet.

The Prophet ~ sent him his turban, so Sa'd gave the standard over to his son Qais.

Abu Sufyan ibn Harb Advises His People

Al-' Abbas said to Abu Sufyan, "Advise your people to secure themselves."

Abu Sufyan mounted his horse and dashed to Makkah. On entering, he shouted loudly, "People of the Quraish! Muhammad is coming to you with a tremendous army that you cannot resist. Yet he who enters the house of Abu Sufyan is safe."

His wife Hind bint 'Utbah was furious with him. Blinded with rage, she grabbed his beard and cried, "Tribe of Ghalib! Kill the crazy old man!" Then she added, "You're the worst bearer of tidings." People rushed to her and she said, "Will you fight to defend yourselves and your city?"

Abu Sufyan said sharply, "Shut up and go in your house!" Then he looked at the people and said, "Woe to you! Don't be deceived by her. He has come with a mighty army that you cannot confront. He who enters the house of Abu Sufyan is safe, and he who enters the Sacred Mosque is safe and he who keeps himself indoors is safe."

The people then dispersed.

The Messenger of Allah Enters Makkah

The Prophet ~ arrayed the army and its generals and troops and ordered them to meet at Mount Safa and not to fight unless they were attacked first.

The Prophet ~ entered Makkah from the north with his head lowered in awe to Allah while reciting Surat Al-Fath. He leaned his head on his camel in humbleness to Allah. He did not enter it as a triumphant blood-thirsty general who violates the people and plunders their property. He advanced with his group till he reached Hujun, where he ordered his standard to be fixed.

The left flank of the army did not face any resistance, but the right flank led by Khalid ibn Al-Walid was confronted by some young men of the Quraish. They clashed with Khalid's men and threw spears at them, then fled to the mountains and roads. The Prophet ~ entered the Sacred Mosque and, starting from the Black Rock, circumambulated the Ka 'bah.

Purifying the Ka' bah of the Idols

Three hundred sixty idols -one for each tribe of the Arabs -Were set up in the Ka 'bah.

They were fixed by lead at the base. The Prophet ~ brought a rod and struck every idol till it fell on its face while he recited {And say, "Truth has Come and falsehood has vanished, indeed falsehood is bound to vanish."} (Isra' 1 7: 81)

The idol named Hubal remained inside the Ka'bah. When it was night, the Prophet ~ said to 'A1i ibn Abi Ta1ib, "Get on my shoulders and destroy the idol." 'Ali said, "Messenger of Allah, you get on me, for it is not honorable of me to be over you." The Prophet ~ said, "No! You mount."

So the Prophet ~ sat down and `Ali got up onto his shoulders. Then the Prophet ~ stood up, raising `Ali to the top of the Ka' bah. 'Ali managed to move the idol and throw it to the ground, where it broke into pieces.

Abu Sufyan was present and reported that the Prophet ~ recited the same verse of the Qur'an as earlier.

Al-Zubair ibn Al-'Awwam looked at Abu Sufyan and said, "So Hubal was destroyed, and on the day of Uhud you were arrogant when you claimed that it is a source of blessing."

Abu Sufyan said, "Leave me alone and don't rebuke me, for if there were another god with the God of Muhammad, things would have been otherwise."

The Messenger of Allah Enters the Ka'bah

After purifying the Ka 'bah of idols, pagans and filth, the Messenger of Allah ~ wanted to enter it. He sent Bilal ibn Rabah to 'Uthman ibn Abi Talhah to bring the key of the Ka'bah.

Because it was crammed with idols, statues and pictures, the Prophet ~ did not enter it till it was emptied. When it was cleared, he entered and found remains of pictures on its walls. He ordered a bucket of water, threw the water and started to rub out the drawings with his honored hands saying, "May Allah fight the people who draw what they cannot create." (Narrated by Tiyalsi and Diya' from Usama ibn Zaid)

The Free

The Prophet ~ stood and said, "There is no god but Allah. He has no partner. He has fulfilled His promise, granted victory to His servant and defeated the allies alone.

"People of the Quraish, Allah has purified you from the arrogance of the Period of Ignorance and its flattering with ancestry. People are descended from Adam, and Adam was created out of mud." Then he recited

{O mankind! We have created you from a male and a female, and made you nations and tribes, that you may know one another. Surely the most honorable of you in the sight of Allah is the most pious of you.Indeed Allah is All Knowing, All Aware.} (Al-Hujurat 49: 13)

The Prophet ~ placed his hands on the doorknobs and said, "What do you think I will do to you?"

They said, "Good."

One of them said, "We say it is good and believe it to be good. You are a good brother and a good nephew, though you have power over us."

The Prophet ~ said, "I will say to you what my brother Yusuf said: {... "No reproach shall this day be upon you, and Allah will forgive you, He is the Most Merciful of those who have mercy."} (Yusuf 12: 92) Go, you are free."

Providing water for the pilgrims was the responsibility of the tribe of 'Abdul Muttalib, and Al-'Abbas ibn 'Abdul Mutalib was in charge of it. The Prophet ~ asked, "Where is 'Uthman ibn Abi Talhah?"

'Uthman replied, "At your service, Messenger of Allah!"

The Prophet said, "Take your key, 'Uthman, for today is a day of beneficence and fulfillment." Then he gave him the keys and said, "Take the keys, ibn Abi Talhah, for they will be your everlasting duty not to be taken except by a transgressor.

Then the responsibility of providing water was given to 'Abbas ibn ' Abdul Muttalib.

Taken from

Further readings:

Friday, January 29, 2010

The Last Sermon

Prophet Muhammad's Last Sermon

After praising and thanking Allah the Prophet 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 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. Allah has forbidden you to take usury (interest), therefore all interest obligations shall henceforth be waived. Your capital is yours to keep. You will neither inflict nor suffer any inequity. Allah has judged that there shall be no interest and that all the interest due to Abbas ibn 'Abd'al Muttalib [the Prophet's uncle] be waived. Every right arising out of homicide in pre-Islamic days is henceforth waived and the first such right that I waive is that arising from the murder of Rabiah ibn al Harithibn.

O People, the unbelievers indulge in tampering with the calendar in order to make permissible that which Allah forbade, and to forbid that which Allah has made permissible. With Allah the months are twelve in number. Four of them are holy, three of these are successive and one occurs singly between the months of Jumada and Shaban.

Beware of Satan, for the safety of your religion. He has lost all hope of that he will 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 anyone of whom you do not approve, as well as never to be unchaste. O People, listen to me in earnest, worship Allah, say your five daily prayers, fast during the month of Ramadhan, and give your wealth in Zakat. 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 a black nor a black has any superiority over a 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 belogs to a fellow Muslim unless it was given freely and willingly. Do not therefore do injustice to yourselves. Remember one day you will meet Allah 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 my words which I convey to you.

I leave behind me two things, the Qur'an and my Sunnah 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 Allah, that I have conveyed Your message to Your people."

In international communication and Globalization, Oliver Boyd- Barrett stated that cultural studies has a great deal to offer in the study of how global texts work at a local level…The prophet Muhammad directed his last speech to all mankind. He was addressing his speech to the loving and the sincere Muslims who were with him at that that time, but he was speaking to all mankind. He was speaking to all mankind through those Muslims. For this reason He said to them: O people or O mankind. He used this terminology eight times in the same speech. He never used the terminology of: O Muslim! Or even O Believers! His message was and is still to every person everywhere in the world irrespective of his religious or political affiliation.

Taken from

Further references:

The Letters Of A Prophet to The World

Ahh, found it.

Findings - Review of literature

The prophet sent ambassadors to:

1. Heraclius, Emperor of Bayzantines ( Eastern Roman Empire)

2. Chosroes II ( Emperor of Persian Empire)

3. Negus, King of Abyssinia

4. Muqawqis, Ruler of Egypt

5. Harith Gassani, Governor of Syria

6. Al- Mundhir bin Sawa, Ruler of Bahrain

The dominion, prestige, splendour and might of the above kings and rulers who devided the world among themselves during the seventh century, would indicate what a memorable step was taken by the prophet.

The wording of the Prophet’s letters was similar. The text of the letter sent to Heraclius was as follows:

“In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful. This letter is from Muhammad the slave of Allah and his Apostle to Heraclius, the ruler of the Byzantines. Peace be upon him who follows the right path. Furthermore, I invite you to Islam and if you become a Muslim you will be safe, and Allah will double your reward, and if you reject this invitation of Islam you will be committing a sin by misguiding your subjects. And I recite to you Allah's statement:

“O People of the Scriptures! Come to a word common to you and us that we worship none but Allah and that we associate nothing in worship with Him, and that none of us shall take others as Lords beside Allah. Then if they turn away, say: Bear witness that we are Muslims (those who have surrendered to Allah). (Qur’an: Surah 3, Ayah 64).”

All the Prophet's letters were stamped with the words: “Muhammad Rasul-ullah" (Muhammad the Messenger of Allah). Three of the Prophet’s letters have been preserved.

The reactions of the Monarchs were deferent. Heraclius, Negus and Muqauqis received the letter from the Prophet with all due respect that each gave a courteous reply. Negus and Muqauqis showed the highest regard to the envoys. Chosroes II was indignant, he tore the letter into pieces, saying, “My slave dares to write me thus” when his reply was conveyed to the prophet, he said, “ even so shall God shatter his kingdom to pieces.” Choroes II wrote to Badhan, who was his governor in Yemen, to get the prophet sent to him in Ctesiphon. Badhan deputed Babwayh to tell the prophet what Choroes II had written to him and that he had come to take him to the king. But when Babwayh came to Medina, the prophet told him. “ God has given Sherveh power his father and he has killed Choroes II.” The prophecy of the prophet was the reason that the ruler of Yemen became a Muslim, when the news came to him afterwards identical to what the prophet stated.

Taken from

Further references:

The Beginning of A Terror?

A missed conversation..

Blogger srizals said...

Thank you for the explanation Blogger DDIM 'n HOFFI.

But like all things that existed, there must be point A or a beginning. If I may explain to you, if not accepted, maybe it is worth hearing in understanding things that are spinning around us, almost out of control.

You see, Muslims are actually a peaceful not caring much for someone else's country or affairs. But the West, specifically Great Britain has been meddling with our affairs now and then, not going too far, Iraq is a near example of the West meddling that creates resentment on the Muslim's side.

If you look into history, the West was a dominating imperialist that had done much misery and plundered the wealth of all nations, Muslim nations being the highly prized. Your great country built itself on our blood and wealth, let say if there isn't any tin or iron ore from my homeland to help the lack of resources much needed back then, the industry revolution won't be that revolutionary.

Is anyone being forced to submit to Muslims or Islam perception of the truth, now in your country that had caused all the resentment? As you have your own perception of the truth, so does a Muslim. Differences are unavoidable. Conflict is. Everyone is afraid of Muslim’s domination. In reality, your troops are crusading in Iraq and Afghanistan. Both are Muslim nations. Many Muslims were dead and are dying. Majority of them are unarmed civilians, especially babies. Why not call back your troops and eliminate the reason for Muslims’ resentment. Can’t we coexist?


Anonymous Anonymous said...

There was a beginning, it was when your Prophet Mohammed sent a letter to the Byzantium Emperor and the Persian Emperor telling them to accept Islam, submit to his will or die, as The Byzantium Emperor was the only known head of Christianity to Mohammed that was the start of it.

Muslims are not peaceful, but I do agree with you that you do not care for someone else's country or affairs, if their non-Muslims you do not care about them at all, you only care as much as you can attack them take them over and make them submit to Islam. During your first and greatest period of expansion which was only stopped by Charles Martel at Poitiers you did not care about the people you raided, killed, raped and enslaved.

Those of us that know our history see the Crusades as counter attack, just as the Spannish reconquest was a counter attack. The second wave of Islamic conquest was stopped outside of Vienna. Lets take a view on some of the meddling you talk about, have you heard of the Barbary prirates, these were the Muslims corsairs based in North Africa, who raided continiously, took ships, held people to ransom, enslaved perhaps a million people over an extended period, so evantually the British destroyed the main fleet and not long after France invaded to clean the place up, so much for your meddling. Perhaps your talking about us meddling in India which stopped your meddling there, I understand that until we stopped you Muslims you were going great guns at killing off the Hindu's just like you had killed all the Bhuddists and most of the Sikhs... So you call us the West Imperialists, but Islam is even worse, it is an Imperialist religion. And yes I have looked into your history, I know it better than you...

Did you know that the word for a black man in Arabic is the word for slave, what happened to the millions of slaves you pundered from black Africa, I know, the men were castrated or worked to death, while the women were used as sex slaves and when a child was born, that child had its head smashed in, that is why there are no blacks living in Arabia. You think that you backward countries hold any value to us, it was only oil that changed the equation and that did not start the industrial revolution, that was iron and coal which we had in the UK, your history is poor indeed.

You ask if anyone is being forced to submit to Muslim or Islams perception of the truth, well yes we are, the OIS is pushing at this very moment trying to make it illegal to criticize your religion and for me that is the biggest resentment I can ever have against antone or anything, removing my god given freedom. Conflict between us and your people has happened ever since Mohammed told the Byzantium Emperor to surrender or die, and of course what about the verse of the swords.

We cannot coexist, because you refuse to in every act of supremacy that you unfailingly carry out.

srizals -(Have to refer to my Prophet's letters now, I seemed to have misplaced them)

30 December 2009 17:51
Anonymous len said...

If Islam is such a "religion of peace," why do they have to keep reminding us? Nobody's running around saying "Christianity is a religion of peace" – because it is not in doubt.

If Islam is a religion of peace and love, as well as a benefactor of humanity why do they have to keep saying it? Perhaps because the vision of a compassionate Islam is so often obscured by explosions, flying body parts, collapsing skyscrapers, rolling heads, and rabid imams preaching hate the Jews, hate the Christians, hate America, hate the West, etc.
30 December 2009 18:31
Blogger DDIM 'n HOFFI said...

It was going so well to begin with. Never mind, we are all doomed now in any case. Islam is to Labour what water is to a naughty child who has flooded the house after leaving the bath taps fully open. He now seeks to highlight the insignificance of water in order to distract from the glaringly obvious culpability of negligence, stupidity and gross inadequacy. He does this by attempting to highlight the crucial life-giving qualities of water, without which we would all be doomed, but typically of a deranged and immature mind, he fails to address the obvious fact that we are not aquatic or amphibious life forms and therefore cannot exists for too long in an aquatic or even semi aquatic environment.

The same goes for Islam, similar to water, it is safe in small quantities but under no circumstances is it desirable to flood the fucking entire house. Islam has Jihad and Christianity has the 'turning of the other cheek', these things are not compatible. The turning of the cheek is something that takes tremendous effort in order to achieve because it strains all the natural selfish instincts. I struggle with turning the other cheek, I struggle with turning the other cheek, no matter how many time I say it nothing changes. But there are Christians who are much better than I could ever hope be like. There are worse ones also: the wrath of politicians and the priesthood has no license to dish out hell any more though, they have far surpassed me in any levels of hypocrisy I could even dream of. It is written that God's wisdom installs our governors, and I have to live with this notion, all I can do is apologise for their conduct, but only to those I deem worthy of apology.
30 December 2009 18:33
Anonymous len said...

Different Kinds Of Muslims,
The secular Muslims. This is a good description of Muslims all over the world. They believe in the nice parts of Islam, but they reject the call to jihad. They take on the cultural trappings of the message, but they are not living it out completely. These Muslims may be very dedicated to their system of thought, even though it does not represent true Islam. The majority of Muslims around the world –both in the East and in the West—fall into this category.

The traditional Muslims. There are two types of traditional Muslims…first…those who study Islam, know it and practice it, but they have a stumbling block with the concept of jihad. Some consider jihad to be a spiritual battle, like the Muslim Sufism movement…second…people who know that jihad is fighting non-Muslims, but they do not take action…

The fundamentalist Muslims. These are the ones who perpetrate terrorism…Their goal is to practice Islam as Muhammad did. Though we call them radicals, they are practicing true Islam.
30 December 2009 19:1

Will address this later, God willing Foolster41. You see, my mind is not at ease. I'm going to see my son tomorrow. It's his first time to be far away from home in a boarding school. He's my right hand and now I'm all alone to do lots of things all by myself. And my ultratoddlers aren't helping much.


Burn in Hell you deniers of the Holocausts!
Ha! Call me a sell-out if you like, but I've decided to join with those who demand that history not be questioned. I now condemn all those who deny the Holocaust. And as a man not given to half measures I'm upping the ante. It is no longer good enough to condemn those who question the Holocaust. Since there were two Holocausts, both of them must be sacrosanct. Both of them demand that anyone who questions any aspect of either of them deserves to be jailed, broken, and have their life ruined. One is not good enough. It's both or nothing.

What two Holocausts you say? Fact is, there was a Holocaust in each of the World Wars. Before the Holocaust of WWII was the Holocaust of WWI. If you're wondering why you've never heard of it, you need merely look to the anti-Semitic media. As we all know, Jews never get an even break in the media. If only they had a voice! A means to tell us of their suffering!

Never fear, I shall be their voice!

To dwell on the Holocaust of WWII alone is not enough. Any right thinking person must also acknowledge the Holocaust of WWI. To not do so is to dishonour the memory of the victims of a Holocaust. Every aspect of German wickedness delivered upon the innocent Jewish victims was present in both events. Both had gas chambers. Both had soap rendered from human victims. Both had lampshades made from human skin. And crucially both had six million victims. 6,000,000! To not scream in shrill indignation over both of these events is the absolute height of moral depravity.

Consider the enormity of those who only discuss one of these two Holocausts. For mine, it's the moral equivalent a Palestinian mother who had ten children shot by the Israelis but only wants to talk about the five that she liked. Admit the truth you dreadful woman! The Israelis shot all ten of your children and all that rubbish about choosing five is just embroidery to, a) slur the good name of the Israelis and, b) save you acknowledging the five children you never liked anyway. Honestly, was there ever a people more deserving of their genocide than the Palestinians? The media is right to perpetually paint them as villains. How dare they resist their righteous Jewish masters!? Bloody untermenschen!

Where was I? Oh yes - as in all topics deserving of shrill moral condemnation, silence equals complicity. I'll say it again - Silence Equals Complicity. Anyone who wants to pretend that the first Holocaust isn't the equal of the second may as well just lather up with human soap, settle down in bed next to a human-skin lamp, and read AJP Taylor's History Of The First World War. I read this hateful tome and it appallingly failed to contain a single mention of gas chambers or 6,000,000 Jewish victims. Taylor is a denier pure and simple, and if he isn't dead already, he certainly deserves to be.

And for those who want to start bleating about any other Holocausts, I spit in your face. I have no time for such piss weak 'moral equivalency' arguments. Fuck the massacre of the Armenians under the Donmeh Turks. Fuck the mass starvation of the Kulaks under the Bolsheviks. Were Jews involved in any of these? As victims, that is? NO. As we all know it's only genocides directed at Jews that are worthy of shrill condemnation. And since here we have two Jewish Holocausts with identical features it follows that the shrillness must be doubled. Subsequently those who deny that two Holocausts took place are twice as condemnable as those who only deny one. Don't argue, the logic is bullet proof.

It's always a beautiful thing to have the moral high ground. I am now one up on those who only ever seem to bang on about the Holocaust, as if there was only one of them. Their moral unimpeachability is now laid bare as a sham, a hollow thing of no substance. Anything they say in their defence, ie: it never happened; the numbers don't add up; there's no evidence etc etc, falls at the first hurdle. As they've said themselves in their one-Holocaust campaign, to argue the point is to be a denier - the Worst Thing In The World! Shrillness is all they deserve. Don't argue with them. Just scream '6,000,000 Victims!' How dare they dishonour Their memory! Sickening.

And besides, anyone who disputes this, instantly disappears up their own clacker. What does it mean if one Holocaust is true and the other isn't? That the Jews merely imagined the first one? That they just made it up? What mad inhuman creatures would do this? What possible reason could Jews have for marching around America telling people that they'd been victims of an unparalleled injustice? Why would they do that? I can't think of a single reason. To even suggest that such a thing is possible is a tremendous slur against Jews. A clear case of anti-Semitism. Me - I reject anti-Semitism, I reject Holocaust denial, I embrace all that I am meant to.

Anyone who objects to the 'facts' of the first Holocaust, whether they like it or not, legitimises the questioning of the 'facts' of the second one. Both Holocausts carry nearly identical features - both were conducted against the Jews by the Germans, both had six million victims, both involved the same monstrous atrocities of lampshades, soap, and gas chambers. Between the two alternatives: that Jews concocted two identical stories to paint themselves as the world's greatest victims; or that Germans are the world's greatest monsters who pull the same shit over and over, only one of these is permissible.

As anyone who's been to the cinema knows, Jews are always victims and Germans are always villains. We cannot flip this coin and reverse these descriptions. To do so would be to say that all those Holocaust movies were a load of shit. Perish the thought! Jews cannot be fraudulent villains who've tricked the world. Germans cannot be the victims of a colossal hoax. The very idea is monstrous. Thus we have no choice but to double the charges. Therefore Jewish victimhood climbs to ever greater Olympian heights (of the God-like variety not the sporting one) and German villainy doubles again, plunging to a whole new nadir.

Is Dante still alive? Someone should get in touch with him and tell him to rewrite his Inferno with an added 34th circle of hell reserved just for Germans. God knows they deserve it.

So! I stake out my territory. I take the highest of high moral ground. I refuse, unlike all those other people who question unquestionable orthodoxies, to deny anything. It's all or nothing. Either both are true, or both are questionable. And I reject the latter. No fence sitting! Silence Equals Complicity. And so, I point my finger - J'Accuse! Acknowledge both Holocausts or be hoist on your own petard of Holocaust denial. Ignorance is no excuse! Anything other than accepting the truth of both Holocausts is no different to pushing that gas chamber button. Twice!

Burn in Hell you deniers of the Holocausts!
Posted by nobody at 10:05 AM

Thursday, January 28, 2010

Rehmat's World

Holocausts – Too many to remember
February 7, 2009 ·

Personally, I tends to agree with Dr. Norman Finkelstein mother’s interpretation of Holocaust: “Jews or anyone else doesn’t has the monopoly over Holocaust.”

Jewish religious text mention two Jewish Holocausts carried out by Romans. According to Jewish holy book Talmud (Gittin 57b): “Four billion Jews were killed by the Romans in the city of Bethar – While Gittin 58a claims that sixteen million Jewish children were wrapped in scrolls and burned alive by the Romans. The Book of Esther tells the story behind Jewish festive holiday of Purim, which is based on the slaughter of 75,000 non-Jewish Persians on the order of King Ahasueros (Xerxes) on the advice of his Jewish Queen Esther and Jewish prime minister Mordecai.

After entering Jerusalem on July 15, 1099 – the Christian Franks under the command of Godfrey of Bouilion slaughtered the entire Muslim and Jewish population (over 70,000) during the next three days.

Between 15th – 17th century, European settlers killed between 100 to 180 million Natives in Americana. Later, Europeans killed more than 80 million Africans in process of their Black slave trade.

In 1492, when Crusaders captured the last Muslim state in Spain, Garanada – they killed 3-5 million Muslims and 173,000 Jews as part of Inquisition.

Between 1891 and 1911 – some 10 million Africans perished in the course of Europe’s exploitation of Congolese ivory and rubber resources.

“The same Europe that we are now trumpeting as a model of pacifism has been built by wars, down to the last stone. The two World Wars, only recently fought – caused 100 million deaths including 60 million civilians. The Russian and Chinese Revolutions caused at least 50 million more deaths; actually, historians have recently revised it upward to 100 million. As far the 146 little wars since 1945, they have discreetly exterminated close to 30 million people – 75% of them civilians in the name of world power….” – Phillipe Delmas writing in “The Rosy Future of War”.

On western hypocrisy on building tax-payers funded Holocaust Museums to highlight Jewish sufferings at the hands of Nazi regime - professor Norman Finkelstein said: “Imagine the wailing accusations of hypocrisy here, if German were to build a national museum in Berlin to commemorate not the Nazi genocide but American slavery or the extermination of Native Americans.”

According to Canadian columnist, Eric Margolis (May 9, 2005), Stalin (a Jew) was resposible for the killing of more than 30 million Christian and Muslims between 1941-1953 – while Hitler killed around 12 million Gypsies, Christians and Jews.

During WW II – British colonialists created Bengal famine, which resulted in the death of 4 million Bengali Muslims and Hindus.

Between 1932-33, Stalin and his communist thugs were responsible for the murder of over 9 million Ukrainian Christian men, women, children and farmers.

As the aftermath of India’s partition in August 1947 – over one million Muslim men, women and children were killed and over 15,000 Muslim girls abducted by Hindu-Sikh extremists.

Since 1991 Gulf War – more than 2 million Iraqi civilians have been killed by American wars, occupation and sanctions for the benefit of Israel.

Since 1998 Congo War – 5.4 million people have died.

While most of those non-Jewish Holocaust have been errased from history books – any challenge to the numbers of Jews killed under Nazi regime – has been declared a crime in Germany, France, Australia, and Israel. In fact Zionist entity and its western collaborators have been using the Holocaust as a political asset against their Palestinian victims.

Zionist regime predicted the recent Gaza Holocaust in March 2008.

Nobody blog posted an interesting post Burn in Hell you deniers of the Holocausts!

Knowledge Seeker

A tired week for me indeed. Try to go bankai and increase my reitsu and break my limit but using so much energy within a short period of time sure is taxing afterwards. But before I retreat, got to post this one. Very interesting.

Taken from Islam save the United Kingdom by her example?

Blogger bluedog said...
Your Grace

An alliance with Islam would be a fatal error for the Christian churches. Pope Benedict possesses a first-class mind and is a theologian with few, if any rivals. His Regensburg Address was a modern attempt to draw a distinction between Islam and Christianity and predictably aroused the fury of the Islamists. Benedict quoted the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologos who famously said "Show me just what Mahommed brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman". This was in 1392 and nothing has changed.

John Quincy Adams, diplomat and sixth president of the United States had an equally profound understanding of Islam. He wrote, "In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar (mohammed), the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent god; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE...Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant...While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon the earth, and good will towards men".

Would that the current president of the United States could bring himself to repeat those words.

Anyway, once again, nothing has changed other than that this wisdom is ignored by western secularists and socialists. These fools do not understand that if Islam triumphs in the West their freedom even to talk about their sterile beliefs will be denied.

They will live in Dhimmitude, like the remaining Christians.

Sadly their conceit is such that this is beyond their imagining and their understanding.

Your Grace, I am surprised that you even entertain the thought of bringing Islam into the British power structure. See the uncomfortable words of Abdullah @ 10.17 if you doubt me.

28 January 2010 11:23
Anonymous TheGlovner said...
"One of the most outstanding characteristics of our age is that ideas, even false and unworkable ideas, even ideas which are no longer believed in by their official guardians, rule the affairs of men and ride roughshod over stubborn facts. Ideas of enormous destructiveness, cruelty, and impracticality retain the allegiance of elites that benefit from them. The empirical record seems not to jut through into consciousness to break their spell. The class of persons who earn their livelihood from the making of ideas and symbols seems both unusually bewitched by falsehoods and absurdities and uniquely empowered to impose them on hapless individuals."

Funnily enough taking that quote out of context it could quite easily apply to religion, oh the irony.

28 January 2010 13:42
Blogger Knowledge Seeker said...

Dear not a machine

Regarding your comment on the 28 January 2010 01:51

I will try as briefly as I can.

Muslims believe in Jesus (peace be upon him):

“ Say: "We believe in Allah, and in what has been revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and in (the Books) given to Moses, Jesus, and the prophets, from their Lord: We make no distinction between one and another among them, and to Allah do we bow our will (in Islam)." (The Holy Quran, 3: 84)

In his miraculous birth:

God created Jesus (peace be upon him) as a sign for mankind.

“And We made the son of mary and his mother as a Sign: We gave them both shelter on high ground, affording rest and security and furnished with springs.” (The Holy Quran, 23: 50)

“Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to Allah.” (The Holy Quran , 3:45)

Muslims believe in the miracles which he performed with God’s permission. And Among his miracles in the Quran that he was given by God, was to be able to talk already as a baby in the cradle, and speaking in defence of his mother Mary, when she was faced with false accusations. God taught him the torah and the Gospel. Jesus (peace be upon him) displayed knowledge and wisdom, and was sent for the children of Israel.

“Then will Allah say: "O jesus the son of Mary! Recount My favour to thee and to thy mother. Behold! I strengthened thee with the holy spirit, so that thou didst speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. Behold! I taught thee the Book and Wisdom, the the Taurat and the Gospel and behold! thou makest out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, by My leave, and thou breathest into it and it becometh a bird by My leave, and thou healest those born blind, and the lepers, by My leave. And behold! thou bringest forth the dead by My leave. And behold! I did restrain the Children of Israel from (violence to) thee when thou didst show them the clear Signs, and the unbelievers among them said: 'This is nothing but evident magic.'” (The Holy Quran, 5: 110)

However, Muslims believe that Jesus (peace be upon him) was not crucified but rather, God raised him up to heaven to himself, saving him from the intended crucifixion. Jesus (peace be upon him) characteristics were put over another man, and that man was crucified instead.

“That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.;- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not”( The Holy Quran, 4:157)

“Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise” (The Holy Quran, 4:158)

Jesus (peace be upon him) the messiah, will return before the end of times.

“And (Jesus) shall be a sign (for the coming of) the Hour (of Judgment): therefore have no doubt about the (Hour), but follow ye Me: this is a Straight Way.”
(The Holy Quran , 43:61)

His return will be one of the major signs which will occur, other signs will include the emergence of the anti-christ or “dajjal” whom Jesus will confront and defeat, and after he will rule for a period of peace and prosperity.

28 January 2010 13:59
Blogger Knowledge Seeker said...

Muslims also believe that God has no sons, daughters or associates.

“Say: He is Allah, the One and Only; Allah, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him.” (The Holy Quran , 112: 1-4)

Jesus (peace be upon him) called for the worship of the one and only God of the Ten Commandments: “I am the Lord, your God.... you shall have no other gods before me, or in Hosea 13:4: “I am the Lord your God from the land of Egypt: you know no god but Me, and besides Me there is no saviour”. In addition, in Matthew 5:17-19 “Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them”.

“And remember, Jesus, the son of Mary, said: "O Children of Israel! I am the apostle of Allah (sent) to you, confirming the Law (which came) before me, and giving Glad Tidings of an Messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad (the praised one)." But when he came to them with Clear Signs, they said, "this is evident sorcery!" (The Holy Quran, 61:6)


Answers to common questions

28 January 2010 14:01

American English Teacher Assistant

Received a surprise visit from an interesting group yesterday. With not much information beforehand of what to prepare and present, I had to make do with whatever I have at hand, the annoying me. With their colourful eyes, hair and skins, Americans are certainly beautiful people. Most are in their early twenties, still very young and quite innocent but their will to be here for almost a year in one of the land of the Malay, to help us improve our students' English, certainly is astonishing. How they carry themselves made me forget my ugly encounters with the haters and liars in the Worldwide Web. They remind me of how just beautiful and plainly human all of us really are.

To all my kind readers, thank you for being here with me. I'm sorry if I give the impression of neglecting your comments. To Maria, Peter, Sara, Lixue, Lance, J Jones and others, thank you for being here. It helps me of not thinking I'm getting mad talking to myself in this blog of mine.

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

King Of The Fools

A Song for U and me.

Dedicated to Jihadwatchadists, Danielpipes lookalike Smartie pants, the not so sexy but rather ugly Union of Infidels.blogspot and last but not least, Foolster41. Mooo? Are you still watching your fancy international tv?

Twisted Sister

Look around me all I see
Thousands of faces wanting me
How can I lead?
How can I rule?
When I'm the king of the fools

What kind of kindom have no throne?
No crown or castle do I own
I don't have silver, gold or jewels
Yet I'm the king, king of the fools

And I can't help believin'
The world is on my side
No, I can't help believin'
In my heart
But I can't stop this feeling
That I should run and hide
So before I die I'll sit and wonder why
Oh, I wonder why
King of the fools
Who face the world defiantly
King of the fools
Understanding less than me
King of the fools
Oh, I'm the king, king of the fools

The outside world can't understand
Just who we are or what I am
Well, we don't want their life or rules
I'll be the king, king of the fools

King of the fools
I proudly rule for all to see
King of the fools
There's nothing else I'd rather be
King of the fools
Yes, I'm the king, king of the fools
King of the fools
King of the fools

And I can't help believin'
The world is on my side
No, I can't help believin'
In my heart
But I can't stop this feeling
That I should run and hide
So before I die I'll sit and wonder why
Oh, I'll wonder why

King of the fools
I hear them laugh and shout at me
King of the fools
They shake their heads in disbelief
King of the fools
Oh, I'm the king, king of the fools

King of the fools
Who are these people to cast stones
King of the fools
Better a fool than just a clone
King of the fools
Yes, I'm the king, king of the fools
King of the fools
King of the fools

Swiss Minaret?


show details 8:26 AM (9 minutes ago)

Urgent Reply Needed From Bank UBS Switzerland.
Mr.Kevin William. I am an investment consultant working with Bank UBS AG Zurich at their offshore department Zurich Switzerland . I will be happy to work this deal out with you if you have a corporate or personal Bank Account and if you are capable to keep TOP SECRET. I need strong Assurance that you will never let me down, if I transfer this money to your account. During one of our periodic auditing I discovered a dormant accounts with holding balance of US$ 232,000.000.00 {Two hundred and Thirty Two million US Dollars only} Sometimes a person will open a bank account, deposit money, and then disappear into the tin air. Banks are not always able to find out what has become of these silent customers, or to know whether they should follow up on requests from people who claim to be heirs to the accounts. The main problem is that the customer resides abroad and, due to bank secrecy, the bank cannot publish notices in the international press to locate the depositaries. This has led the majority of Swiss banks to refrain from opening small-deposit accounts for foreign customers; for fear that they will forget that the account exists.

It has happened in the past, however, that customers pass away and their heirs can neither prove the death, nor their heir ship. This was a frequent occurrence during the wartime periods, and the banks have now set up a simple, rapid resolution procedure operating to their customers' advantage. Dormant assets are defined as any assets deposited with a bank (i.e. an account, a custody account or a safety-deposit box) for which there has been no contact with the customer in the bank's files for the last ten years or more. I am constrained to issue more details about this business until your response is received. If you know that you are capable to handle large or small amount on trust and can keep secret and ready to take 40% of any amount I transfer to your account from the dormant account and I will take 60%, send your account information's by return mail. Tell me more about yourself, while I look forward to receive the above information. Please you can write me to my most private email address

I want to re-assure you that this business is risk free and you can send an empty account to receive the funds, provided that the account is capable to receive incoming funds. Thank you for your time and attention.

Warmest regards,
Mr.Kevin William.

Stop harassing Muslims and maybe I'll consider your offer dude!

Flash Of The Blade

By Iron Maiden

As a young boy chasing dragons with your wooden sword so mighty,
You're St. George or you're David and you always killed the beast.
Times change very quickly,
And you had to grow up early,
A house in smoking ruins and the bodies at your feet.

You'll die as you lived
In a flash of the blade,
In a corner forgotten by no one.
You llived for the touch
For the feel of the steel
One man, and his honour.

The smell of resined leather
The steely iron mask
As you cut and thrust and parried at the fencing master's call.
He taught you all he ever knew
To fear no mortal man
And now you'll wreak your vengeance in the
Screams of evil men.

Monopoly: Winner takes all

to info

show details 5:21 AM (14 minutes ago)

TICKET NUMBER:023-1111-790-458

This email is to notify you that your email address was randomly selected
and entered into our free Third Category draws of Microsoft promotion.
You have subsequently emerged a winner of our users reward scheme and
therefore entitled to a substantial amount of 150,000.00 Pounds and three
Laptops computer system. To claim your prize,
kindly confirm receipt of this email,by forwarding Your Details
as stated below to our agent in UK for claims

claims Agent on
Email :
Name : Mr Nelson Kelvin


(a) Your full Name:
(b) Contact address:
(c) Your Telephone and fax numbers:
(d) Your Age:
(e) Your occupation:
(f) Your country of origin:
(g) Your present country:

Congratulations to you!

Yours Sincerely,
Microsoft Payment Team
Copyright © 2010 Microsoft

El Diablo

show details 1:23 AM (4 hours ago)

Greetings From Mr. Diallo.

Dear Friend,

For your kind attention.I will be very glad if you do assist me to relocate this sum of ( US$10.2M ) to your account for the benefit of our both families

This is a genuine business,only I cannot operate it alone without using a Foreigner who will stand as a beneficiary to the money, that is why I decided to contact you in a good manner to assist me and also to share the benefit together with me. (N I thought all Westerners hate foreigner)

You will be entitled to 40 % of this money as foreign partner, since you provide an account for the claim,5 % will be set aside for expenses incured during the business and 55 % will be for me.

By indicating your interest I will send you the full details on how the business will be executed.

Please keep this proposal as a top secret and delete it, if you are not interested.

Mr. Diallo.

Sunday, January 24, 2010

UnIslamic Spammer?

President of Islamic Woman Association

show details Jan 23 (1 day ago)

Assalamu alaikum!

This message is from the office of Madam Marian Ahmed the president of
Islamic Woman Association London/England.


I have a donations sum of USD$3.6 (Three million & Six Hundred Thousand
United State Dollars) for the development of your entire community, and
for the support those privileges in your Region.

Now I am presently in the hospital because of the condition of my sickness
and old age, so I need your full information’s, such as full name, bank
account, passport and private Mobile for security purpose before my bank
will release the funds to your care.

Just get back to me with your information’s so that my bank can transfer
the funds over to your account. And again I will have my heart surgery
operation within 4 working days according to my doctor, so try all your
possible best to follow my directions in order to transfer the funds to
your account before I will enter inside theatre.

Warning, don’t reply this message if you are not the owner of this email

Best Regard,

From Madam Marian Ahmed.

President of Islamic Woman Association. Location: Brunel Road , Newton
Abbot-Devon /TQ12 4PB, London-England/ United Kingdom .

For all its worth, at least I've managed to attract millions of money from spammers and exposed their mammers here. Well, for starters, spammers are not that smart see; you don't have to give your personal details to strangers, ever!

If someone is sincere enough to help you from out of the blue, (like one in a million kind of probability) he would just be asking for your account number, that's all. Second, they don't give you any warning or asked you to keep it a secret. Third, what's the rush? If you'll die, you'll die. That's it. Fourth, trust in yourself. Fifth, try not to lie so frequently or make yourself a believer of whatever people told you without any analytical or criticism or some deep self review or a certain degree of sceptism. You owe no one any respect that they don't deserve. If they aren't showing us any, why should we?

Last but not least, don't be like the greedy and stingy proudest person ever lived on planet earth. Help those in need. True happiness comes from giving and sharing. True misery comes from taking and having everything all to yourself, no matter how legalised it maybe. You'll be haunted of losing what is not rightfully yours for the rest of your life and polluted your offspring's happiness with the same anguish and fear for almost eternity.

Abu Dzar

I want to share with you a story that touched my heart no matter how many times I heard of it. It is a story of Abu Dzar, one of the Prophet companion, loyal and trustworthy. You see, a man was convicted in killing a man unlawfully, out of rage. As the syariah system in Islam, a life taken must be paid with the ultimate price, the life of the killer himself.

But this killer had some unfinished agenda that he must resolve before being executed. So he asked the court to spare him for a while to do what he had to do as a final request. The court agreed but in one condition. Someone had to take his place and if he didn’t return, that person would be executed in his place instead. When he asked the gathering crowd to help him out, no one dared to heed to his cry for help, except Abu Dzar. Everyone was surprised and asked him not to do it, but he insisted.

The man went off and Abu Dzar was his guarantor. When the appointed day of execution came, the man did not return. Everyone was sad in knowing that a beloved Prophet’s companion was about to be executed in a place of not just a killer but a liar. But a promise is a promise, so everyone took their place, even Abu Dzar. Just in a nick of time, the man came back to everyone’s surprise. When asked by the people there, why did he returned when he was already safe from death, the man replied, I would not want it to be written in history that a Muslim lied and let his Muslim brother to die in his place. When Abu Dzar was asked why did he took the place of the killer, he replied, I don’t want it to be written in history, when a Muslim asked the help of his brothers, he was let down by them.

In witnessing the sincerity of what was happening in front of them, the sons of the slain one decided to use their right in syariah to spare the life of their father’s killer.

When asked by the people there why did they do it. They replied, we don’t want it to be written down in history that once upon a time, two Muslims had the chance to forgive his brother’s err but chose not to.

So my Muslim brothers, sisters and dear siblings of the human race. How do we want our actions to be written down in the pages of history?

Friday, January 22, 2010

21 Guns

By Green Day

Do you know what's worth fighting for?
When it's not worth dying for?
Does it take your breath away and you feel yourself suffocating?

Does the pain weigh out the pride?
And you look for a place to hide?
Did someone break your heart inside,you're in ruins

One, 21 Guns
Lay down your arms
Give up the fight

One, 21 Guns
Throw up your arms into the sky
You and I ...

When you're at the end of the road
And you lost all sense of control
And your thoughts have taken their toll
When your mind breaks the spirit of your soul

Your faith walks on broken glass and the hangover doesn't pass
Nothing's ever built to last, you're in ruins

One, 21 Guns
Lay down your arms
Give up the fight

One, 21 Guns
Throw up your arms into the sky
You and I ...

Did you try to live on your own?
When you burned down the house and home?
Did you stand too close to the fire?
Like a liar looking for forgiveness from a stone

When it's time to live and let die
And you can't get another try
Something inside this heart has died, you're in ruins

One, 21 Guns
Lay down your arms
Give up the fight

One, 21 Guns
Throw up your arms into the sky
You and I ...

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Proof of Jesus 2

Galatians 3

3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
3:7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
3:9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

Romans 4

4:1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. (4:5-6, 13)
4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
4:7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
4:8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
4:9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
4:10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
4:12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.

Proof of Jesus

9.) "Jesus Christ was only sent to the Israelite. Not to the rest of the human race. " I recommend you read your bible more. Try John 4, Acts 10, Galations 3:6-9 and Romans 4:1-12.

At your disposal

4:19 The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet. 4:20 Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. 4:21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. 4:22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

4:44 For Jesus himself testified, that a prophet hath no honour in his own country.

10:36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:)

Try to post Galations 3:6-9 and Romans 4:1-12, tomorrow, God willing. Too tired to think and wait for the page to reload, almost like forever like at Jihadwatch of whatever.

Monday, January 18, 2010

Final Say On Foolster41

Before I go, we finally have agree on something.

To summarize, you unaquvilicly praise terrorist organizations, goverments that support terrorism and oppressive sharia law on non-beleivers, you show little concern for the death of Jews, you praise and you say Mohammad is a good example, only compared to mass murders (Mo was after all, a mass murderer himself!).

5. Yes, compared to Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, Radovan Karadzic, Mao, Roman emperors that built coliseum to witness people killed each other for their amusement, watching gladiators died and cheered in a drunken manner, most US president, Western leaders that toasted babies, lied repeatedly, broke treaties and said it had to be done and et cetera and et cetera.

Most US Presidents are mass murders.

Unfooled Foolster41

Author Profile Page srizals | December 26, 2009 8:09 PM | Reply

One more if I may,do you know about the cease fire arrangement between Israel and Hamas prior to the rocket firings?
Author Profile Page Foolster41 | January 13, 2010 10:37 PM | Reply

Sorry it took so long to reply.

It takes me usually a few minutes, I don't think any more than 5 or so minutes at worst. for a post to go through usually.

"Ok, first of all, what made you think that Gaza is not a concentration camp?"

YOU are the one making the positive claim, it makes no sense to turn it around to ask ME for proof that it ISN'T happening.

"Set aside the concentrated Palestinians there, with their homes and lands being taken by the Zionists at Deir Yassin and etc."

"One more if I may,do you know about the cease fire arrangement between Israel and Hamas prior to the rocket firings?"
I know of it, yes. I'm not sure where you're going with this.
"What's your logic of believing otherwise?"

This is a leading question, it is phrased with the assumption that you are right and I'm ignoring the bleeding obvious without actually stating it that way without actually presenting facts to show you are right.

Facts, not rhetoric please.
Author Profile Page Foolster41 | January 14, 2010 3:49 PM | Reply

Rats my note didn't post. It usualy takes a few minutes.

"Ok, first of all, what made you think that Gaza is not a concentration camp? Set aside the concentrated Palestinians there, with their homes and lands being taken by the Zionists at Deir Yassin and etc. You like to ask for logical explanation against your common belief. What's your logic of believing otherwise? "

Firstly, this makes no sense. YOU are making the positive claims, not I and so to try to turn it around to "prove that my claim is false" is silly and illogical.

Secondly, your question? statement? is leading and dishonest. All you are saying it "you're wrong, and idiot who is defying logic (by, might I add, only asking for PROOF)." without actually saying it.

Now that is out of the way, perhaps we should attack the individual issues. What do you think of the wall? HAMAS cries about it being a "war crime", but perhaps that's because HAMAS is angry they can't get their suicide bombers through to kill more Israli citizens (It is after all, them who has called for Israel's destruction in statements and in their charter and has spread VILE DISGUSTING BLOOD LIBEL AND HATE, to CHILDREN nonetheless through the TV station Al-Jazereea(sp?).

If you need examples of such blood libel that can be called nothing less than aspirations for GENOCIDE check out here:

And there are many more!
Author Profile Page Foolster41 | January 15, 2010 7:31 PM | Reply

Sorry for the double post, my first was delayed, and I thought it wasn't going through.

You never did answer some of my questions.
1.)What do you think of HAMAS? Do you see it as:
a.)very bad
b.)somewhat bad
c.)neither good nor bad
e.)very good
2.)Same question as 1 but about the government of Iran.
3.)You keep dancing around this, I want a straight answer on this. If someone is firing from behind a civilian, and people are being harmed as a result, do you think it is morally wrong for a person to strike back in order to stop him, knowing the civilian MAY be killed (who happens to share the gunman's hatred for the people being shot, though he may disagree with his particular role as shield), and knowing that if he doesn't take action more of his own people will be killed?
Some new questions:
4.)Are you a Muslim? If so, what sect? (I apologize if you already said this, this has been a long conversation, and I can't find it from a search.)
5.)Do you beleive Mohammad was a good example as a man?
6.)Do you beleive there is in the core teachings of Islam things that need to be changed?
(These are for if you answered YES to #5)
7.)Do you beleive non-Muslims should be punished for criticizing or mocking Mohammad and Islam? If so, what should the punishment be?
8.)What do you think about amputations and floggings as punishments?
9.)Do you beleive that ultimately Islam should rule the world, not by merely preaching it, but by force of the sword and trying to change laws to conform to sharia?

I may think of more questions. Thank you.
Author Profile Page srizals | January 16, 2010 7:01 AM | Reply

Hi Foolster41, yes it's been a long talk n frankly speaking I'm quite lost, but I'll try to focus on your recent questions with the time I have at hand. If I forgot to address any important issues, please remind me later.

1. Hamas is very good. But like any other human organisation, unlike the angels, flaws are inevitable. With so many brains and desires, just like the US army and CIA. Remember private Green that gang raped and killed the entire family of the victim, chopped her to pieces and burnt her meat while framing the jihadist of doing it? Does it represent the US army in general? Excuse us for not being perfect like you guys.

2. Iran is very good too. But not perfect just like anyone of us. The US nuked, poisoned and firebombed almost the entire race of the human kind, indiscriminately, in almost all four corners of the world, but that still doesn't make it a 100% evil terminator.

3. He should use his wits rather than his balls to lure, wait and just kill the killer without hurting the killer's relatives, babies and et cetera. What's the rush? Don't you know about SWAT rules of engagement? Like the Palestinians. You got them cornered with gigantic walls, mini guns and inhumane blockade. What's your Christian view on this one?

4. I am a Muslim. We are one, so any Muslims that follow the ways of Muhammad, as in the Sunnah, Al Quran and Al Hadith shown and continued by his trustworthy companions and Muslim scholars and adhere to the 5 principles of Islam and 6 pillars of faith are my brothers n sisters.

5. Yes, compared to Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, Radovan Karadzic, Mao, Roman emperors that built coliseum to witness people killed each other for their amusement, watching gladiators died and cheered in a drunken manner, most US president, Western leaders that toasted babies, lied repeatedly, broke treaties and said it had to be done and et cetera and et cetera.

6. Which one? On abortion? On sex without marriage? On killing Japanese civilians to avenge Pearl Harbour? On taking creatures as gods besides the One True God? On confirming the ten commandments?

7. Yes, in court of his choice, according to his term and conditions and the right to speak his mind why he thinks Islam is bad and Muhammad is a liar compared to what went down in history and current slayers of Palestinian civilians. He must present his case so that everyone would bear witness to the lies of the century, Islam, abortion, sex slaves, sex magazines, porn industries and killers of humanity. Syariah is just for Muslims. Non Muslims are not entitled to it.

8. Good. Spare the rod; spoil the brat kind of thing. With so much killing, raping and Madoff wannabe happening around us. What's your solution in dealing with the ever increasing crime rate? Make abortion, killing the helpless and sex trade unlawful? Preaching pornography like in the US? You guys tortured suspected terrorists for fun and have the guts to question how Islam deals with criminals? Christians gutted alive those who committed crimes against the church, burnt them alive in inquisitions just for the suspicion of heresy. What do you have to say about them? Besides, according to Syariah, four trustworthy witnesses known for their piousness must be present at the scene of the sex crime, which made it almost impossible for the judge to execute the maximum penalty. Even the slightest doubt would annul the charge. And most of the conviction requires the offender to confess without being slowly torn to pieces on the rack, a special device of medieval torture machine invented by Christian church. One more, all the doors to the evil must be closed by the Muslim community to make the Syariah worked. So any tempting conditions or situations must be addressed first through education and implementing laws and regulations to promote and make it easy for anyone wished to get married and get a life.

9. Peacefully and intellectually, yes. So that none would complain in the hereafter that the message of the truth didn't reach him and not forgetting free will. Also to stop another crazy human being, especially non Muslims from being another ungodly humangod like Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, Karadzic, Mao, Pol Pot, Sharon, leaders of Irgun and Lehmann and et cetera and et cetera. Not by force. Not like the Romans that brought Roman Catholic all over Europe and destroyed the British resistance led by Boudica. By the way, did you know the early history of Christianity? I mean the crucification of the Christians by the Romans before miraculously embraced the same faith of their gladiators? The same gladiators that killed and died in front of a cheering crowd like in a football stadium nowadays. Muslims must convey the word of God to all mankind. Jesus Christ was only sent to the Israelite. Not to the rest of the human race. Just like Prophet Musa to the Israelite and not to the Egyptians. And even then, he was rejected by his people and the Romans tried to kill him, remember? Only a handful accepted him and became Christians without trinity.
Author Profile Page srizals | January 17, 2010 3:39 AM | Reply

By the way, have you watched Keanu Reeves in The Day The Earth Stood Still? Awesome aint it? I mean the human questions brought up in the movie.
Author Profile Page Foolster41 | January 17, 2010 10:56 PM | Reply

1.)You support a TERRORIST RACIST ORGINIZATION. They constantly call for the elimination of Isreal/Jews and act towards that means (as I have earlier shown). It is ILLEGAL to donate money to them, and to do so is to fund terrorism, a federal crime.

2.)You support a SUPPRESIVE RACIST REGIME who called for wiping out Isreal, and opresses non-muslims and funds TERRORISM.

3.)"What's the rush?" What's the rush?!! Read closely what I wrote. JEWS (PEOPLE!) ARE BEING KILLED. Aparently it's not that big a deal to you when jews die, and they can just take their time. Their just Jews, right? Angyway, who is the swat? The UN who contenues to throw out meaningless declerations and seems intent on treated Isreal as just as guilty (or even worse)? You're anti-semetism is showing.

4.)Not really surprised from what you've posted so far that you're a muslim.

5.)From your own lips! Only comparedto MONSTERS is Mohammad a good example! Thank you for your honesy.

6.)Double speak and typical Muslim distraction. I ask about Islam's call to dominate the world through the sword and impose sharia, and a muslim goes into "blame mode"

7.)"Non Muslims are not entitled to it". A lie. If this is true, why is sharia imposed on non-muslims in muslim majority nations?

8.)You praise HARSH BARBARIAC practices. I am not against capital punishment for severe crimes, but there is a line between keeping the law and being a barbarian.

9.) "Jesus Christ was only sent to the Israelite. Not to the rest of the human race. " I recommend you read your bible more. Try John 4, Acts 10, Galations 3:6-9 and Romans 4:1-12.

Never seen earth stood still. Frankly, I don't really like Keanu Reaves. That someone who supports the things you do above thinks it's awesome is even more reason to stay away from it.

To summarize, you unaquvilicly praise terrorist organizations, goverments that support terrorism and oppressive sharia law on non-beleivers, you show little concern for the death of Jews, you praise and you say Mohammad is a good example, only compared to mass murders (Mo was after all, a mass murderer himself!).

Thanks for showing what peace loving "moderate" Muslims look like! I'm going to fight politcaly all the more to make sure people who think like you do not get power in the west! Who needs "Islamaphobes" to discredit Islam when Muslims do such a good job themselves?

I think I'm done here, I don't think I have any more to say to you, so Good bye. Please get out of the west and go to somewhere where Sharia law is appreciated. May I recommend Iran?

If you do choose to follow the path of Jihad (You certaintly don't sound you have any moral problems with it!) then may your bombs all prematurely detonate.
Author Profile Page srizals | January 18, 2010 5:07 AM | Reply

7.)"Non Muslims are not entitled to it". A lie. If this is true, why is sharia imposed on non-muslims in muslim majority nations?

You forgot to back it up with proof, unbias of course. Are you eating your own words again?
Author Profile Page srizals | January 18, 2010 5:13 AM | Reply

7.)"Non Muslims are not entitled to it". A lie. If this is true, why is sharia imposed on non-muslims in muslim majority nations?

You forgot to back it up with proof, unbias of course. Are you eating your own words now foolster41?
Author Profile Page srizals | January 18, 2010 5:18 AM | Reply

Don't ridicule my prophet without unbias accepted universal truth proof, foolster41, don't make me angry, you won't like it if I'm angry. I might end up being an incredible hulk or something. Did you watch it foolster41? What kind of movies that interest you anyway?
Author Profile Page srizals | January 18, 2010 5:26 AM | Reply

Err, you need a tutor too to help you out, in spelling I mean. Catch you later foolster41, stay cool n unfool if possible. Cheerio.

A Born Winner?

Your ref:...Date: 18/01/2010

Spam X


Rt Hon Gordon Brown MP

show details 9:14 PM (5 minutes ago)


Our ref: ATM/13470/IDR
Your ref:...Date: 18/01/2010


I am The Rt Hon Gordon Brown MP,Prime Minister British Government. This letter
is to officially inform you that (ATM Card Number 048000101775550) has been
accredited with your favor. Your Personal Identification Number is 477.The
VISA Card Value is £2,000,000.00(Two Million, Great British Pounds Sterling).

This office will send to you an Visa/ATM CARD that you will use to withdraw
your funds in any ATM MACHINE CENTER or Visa card outlet in the world with a
maximum of £5000 GBP daily.Further more,You will be required to re-confirm the
following information to enable;The Rt Hon David Miliband MP Secretary of
State for Foreign and Commonwealth Office. begin in processing of your VISA CARD.

(1)Full names: (2)Address: (3)Country: (4)Nationality: (5)Phone #: (6)Age:
(7)Occupation: (8) Post Codes

Forward Reply To:

TAKE NOTICE: That you are warned to stop further communications with any other
person(s) or office(s) different from the staff of the State for Foreign and
Commonwealth Affairs to avoid hitches in receiving your payment.


The Rt Hon Gordon Brown MP
Prime Minister

The Day The Earth Stood Still

Watched a much awaited movie yesterday. It is actually a remake of a movie in the 50s I think but the question is just about the same. The destructive nature of the supreme race on this planet earth, deadlier than the dinosaurs, more efficient in exterminating and less efficient in saving and solving famine and wanton killing all across the globe.

Now, Klaatu or Keanu Reeves came down to planet earth to do some last minute checking before unleashing a sinister force that would eradicate man and all his litters from polluting the dying planet that is destined to doom anyway, by erasing everything out of existance. But he's still in doubt. Somehow he got to try and convince the leaders of the human race at the UN to stop what they are doing and save every living thing that shared the planet with them.

As always, the US secretary, with her ladylike figure, much more like a queen control freak to me, was poking her nose to show who's in charge while the actual boss is somewhere, tuck in safely with his neat tuck in fancy white long sleeved shirt. Women! Once they got the boss position, you'll learn what is the definition of bossy really means. But little Napoleon kind of guy is still in the range of nuisance. Now, being so destructive, they can't help it but to destroy things they can't comprehend easily in order to investigate and to quench their thirst of knowing what would happen if a person actually got hit by Willy Pete or depleted uranium bombs. Curiosity kills the cat, remember?

Well, Klaatu didn't come alone of course. He got a super bionic terminator never seen before but interestingly only react in the face of violence and it would react viciously violent against the violent aggressors, as always, of course.

In the end, just in a nick of time, Klaatu saw what he needed to see in completing his hypothesis. He decided we should be given a second chance, (for the hundredth of time.) There is another side of us that might give us a second chance after all. The question is, do we deserve it?

Wow, glad it is just in the movie. If it is in the real world, I don't think that Klaatu alien guy would be so easily convinced, don't you think so?

Bye Bye

Verify Your Google Account

Inbox X


Google Account
to info.accountve.

show details 9:29 PM (21 hours ago)

We are shutting down some email accounts and your account was automatically chosen to be deleted. If you are still interested in using our email service please fill in the space below for verification purpose by clicking the reply button and fill the form below. Learn more

Birth date:

Warning!!! Account owner that refuses to update his or her account within Seven days of receiving this warning will lose his or her account permanently.

Thank you for using Gmail !

The Gmail Team

Me stupid man and easily fooled by the smartie pants all around the globe. Me Mooslim right? Me not so smart. Duuhhh...What are you laughing at? Duuuhhh...

Sunday, January 17, 2010

Hyam Maccoby: The Problem of Paul

The Problem of Paul
excerpt from: The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity
by Hyam Maccoby

* Return to Historical Index
* Return to Atheism and Awareness (Editorials)
* Home to Positive Atheism
* See also: Jesus and the Jewish Resistance by Hyam Maccoby
* See also Paul's Bungling Attempt At Sounding Pharisaic by Hyam Maccoby
* See also: What Is Said Of The Persecutions Of Paul? by John E. Remsberg


As a Talmudic scholar, I have found that knowledge of the Talmud and other rabbinical works has opened up the meaning of many puzzling passages in the New Testament. In my earlier book on Jesus, Revolution in Judaea, I showed how, in the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus speaks and acts as a Pharisee, though the Gospel editors have attempted to conceal this by representing him as opposing Pharisaism even when his sayings were most in accordance with Pharisee teaching. In the present book, I have used the rabbinical evidence to establish an opposite contention: that Paul, whom the New Testament wishes to portray as having been a trained Pharisee, never was one. The consequences of this for the understanding of early Christianity are immense.

In addition to the rabbinical writings, I have made great use of the ancient historians, especially Josephus, Epiphanius and Eusebius. Their statements must be weighed in relation to their particular interests and bias; but when such bias has been identified and discounted, there remains a residue of valuable information. Exactly the same applies to the New Testament itself. Its information is often distorted by the bias of the author or editor, but a knowledge of the nature of this bias makes possible the emergence of the true shape of events.

For an explanation of my stance in relation to the various schools of New Testament interpretation of modern times, the reader is referred to the Note on Method, p. 206.

In using the Epistles as evidence of Paul's life, views and 'mythology', I have confined myself to those Epistles which are accepted by the great majority of New Testament scholars as the genuine work of Paul. Disputed Epistles, such as Colossians, however pertinent to my argument, have been ignored.

When quoting from the New Testament, I have usually used the New English Bible version, but, from time to time, I have used the Authorized Version or the Revised Version, when I thought them preferable in faithfulness to the original. While the New English Bible is in general more intelligible to modern readers than the older versions, its concern for modern English idiom sometimes obscures important features of the original Greek; and its readiness to paraphrase sometimes allows the translator's presuppositions to colour his translation. I have pointed out several examples of this in the text.

In considering the background of Paul, I have returned to one of the earliest accounts of Paul in existence, that given by the Ebionites, as reported by Epiphanius. This account has been neglected by scholars for quite inadequate and tendentious reasons. Robert Graves and Joshua Podro in The Nazarene Gospel Restored did take the Ebionite account seriously; but, though they made some cogent remarks about it, their treatment of the matter was brief. I hope that the present book will do more to alter the prevailing dismissive attitude towards the evidence of this fascinating and important ancient community.

Part I
Saul Chapter 1
The Problem of Paul

At the beginning of Christianity stand two figures: Jesus and Paul. Jesus is regarded by Christians as the founder of their religion, in that the events of his life comprise the foundation story of Christianity; but Paul is regarded as the great interpreter of Jesus' mission, who explained, in a way that Jesus himself never did, how Jesus' life and death fitted into a cosmic scheme of salvation, stretching from the creation of Adam to the end of time.

How should we understand the relationship between Jesus and Paul? We shall be approaching this question not from the standpoint of faith, but from that of historians, who regard the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament as an important source of evidence requiring careful sifting and criticism, since their authors were propagating religious beliefs rather than conveying dispassionate historical information. We shall also be taking into account all relevant evidence from other sources, such as Josephus, the Talmud, the Church historians and the Gnostic writings.

What would Jesus himself have thought of Paul? We must remember that Jesus never knew Paul; the two men never once met. The disciples who knew Jesus best, such as Peter, James and John, have left no writings behind them explaining how Jesus seemed to them or what they considered his mission to have been. Did they agree with the interpretations disseminated by Paul in his fluent, articulate writings? Or did they perhaps think that this newcomer to the scene, spinning complicated theories about the place of Jesus in the scheme of things, was getting everything wrong? Paul claimed that his interpretations were not just his own invention, but had come to him by personal inspiration; he claimed that he had personal acquaintance with the resurrected Jesus, even though he had never met him during his lifetime. Such acquaintance, he claimed, gained through visions and transports, was actually superior to acquaintance with Jesus during his lifetime, when Jesus was much more reticent about his purposes.

We know about Paul not only from his own letters but also from the book of Acts, which gives a full account of his life. Paul, in fact, is the hero of Acts, which was written by an admirer and follower of his, namely, Luke, who was also the author of the Gospel of that name. From Acts, it would appear that there was some friction between Paul and the leaders of the 'Jerusalem Church', the surviving companions of Jesus; but this friction was resolved, and they all became the best of friends, with common aims and purposes. From certain of Paul's letters, particularly Galatians, it seems that the friction was more serious than in the picture given in Acts, which thus appears to be partly a propaganda exercise, intended to portray unity in the early Church. The question recurs: what would Jesus have thought of Paul, and what did the Apostles think of him?

We should remember that the New Testament, as we have it, is much more dominated by Paul than appears at first sight. As we read it, we come across the Four Gospels, of which Jesus is the hero, and do not encounter Paul as a character until we embark on the post-Jesus narrative of Acts. Then we finally come into contact with Paul himself, in his letters. But this impression is misleading, for the earliest writings in the New Testament are actually Paul's letters, which were written about AD 50-60, while the Gospels were not written until the period AD 70-110. This means that the theories of Paul were already before the writers of the Gospels and coloured their interpretations of Jesus' activities. Paul is, in a sense, present from the very first word of the New Testament. This is, of course, not the whole story, for the Gospels are based on traditions and even written sources which go back to a time before the impact of Paul, and these early traditions and sources are not entirely obliterated in the final version and give valuable indications of what the story was like before Paulinist editors pulled it into final shape. However, the dominant outlook and shaping perspective of the Gospels is that of Paul, for the simple reason that it was the Paulinist view of what Jesus' sojourn on Earth had been about that was triumphant in the Church as it developed in history. Rival interpretations, which at one time had been orthodox, opposed to Paul's very individual views, now became heretical and were crowded out of the final version of the writings adopted by the Pauline Church as the inspired canon of the New Testament.

This explains the puzzling and ambiguous role given in the Gospels to the companions of Jesus, the twelve disciples. They are shadowy figures, who are allowed little personality, except of a schematic kind. They are also portrayed as stupid; they never quite understand what Jesus is up to. Their importance in the origins of Christianity is played down in a remarkable way. For example, we find immediately after Jesus' death that the leader of the Jerusalem Church is Jesus' brother James. Yet in the Gospels, this James does not appear at all as having anything to do with Jesus' mission and story. Instead, he is given a brief mention as one of the brothers of Jesus who allegedly opposed Jesus during his lifetime and regarded him as mad. How it came about that a brother who had been hostile to Jesus in his lifetime suddenly became the revered leader of the Church immediately after Jesus' death is not explained, though one would have thought that some explanation was called for. Later Church legends, of course, filled the gap with stories of the miraculous conversion of James after the death of Jesus and his development into a saint. But the most likely explanation is, as will be argued later, that the erasure of Jesus' brother dames (and his other brothers) from any significant role in the Gospel story is part of the denigration of the early leaders who had been in close contact with Jesus and regarded with great suspicion and dismay the Christological theories of the upstart Paul, flaunting his brand new visions in interpretation of the Jesus whom he had never met in the flesh.

Who, then, was Paul? Here we would seem to have a good deal of information; but on closer examination, it will turn out to be full of problems. We have the information given by Paul about himself in his letters, which are far from impersonal and often take an autobiographical turn. Also we have the information given in Acts, in which Paul plays the chief role. But the information given by any person about himself always has to be treated with a certain reserve, since everyone has strong motives for putting himself in the best possible light. And the information given about Paul in Acts also requires close scrutiny, since this work was written by someone committed to the Pauline cause. Have we any other sources for Paul's biography? As a matter of fact, we have, though they are scattered in various unexpected places, which it will be our task to explore: in a fortuitously preserved extract from the otherwise lost writings of the Ebionites, a sect of great importance for our quest; in a disguised attack on Paul included in a text of orthodox Christian authority; and in an Arabic manuscript, in which a text of the early Jewish Christians, the opponents of Paul, has been preserved by an unlikely chain of circumstances.

Let us first survey the evidence found in the more obvious and well-known sources. It appears from Acts that Paul was at first called 'Saul', and that his birthplace was Tarsus, a city in Asia Minor (Acts 9:11, and 21:39, and 22:3). Strangely enough, however, Paul himself, in his letters, never mentions that he came from Tarsus, even when he is at his most autobiographical. Instead, he gives the following information about his origins: 'I am an Israelite myself, of the stock of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin' (Romans 11:2); and '... circumcised on my eighth day, Israelite by race, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born and bred; in my attitude to the law, a Pharisee....' (Philippians 3:5). It seems that Paul was not anxious to impart to the recipients of his letters that he came from somewhere so remote as Tarsus from Jerusalem, the powerhouse of Pharisaism. The impression he wished to give, of coming from an unimpeachable Pharisaic background, would have been much impaired by the admission that he in fact came from Tarsus, where there were few, if any, Pharisee teachers and a Pharisee training would have been hard to come by.

We encounter, then, right at the start of our enquiry into Paul's background, the question: was Paul really from a genuine Pharisaic family, as he says to his correspondents, or was this just something that he said to increase his status in their eyes? The fact that this question is hardly ever asked shows how strong the influence of traditional religious attitudes still is in Pauline studies. Scholars feel that, however objective their enquiry is supposed to be, they must always preserve an attitude of deep reverence towards Paul, and never say anything to suggest that he may have bent the truth at times, though the evidence is strong enough in various parts of his life-story that he was not above deception when he felt it warranted by circumstances.

It should be noted (in advance of a full discussion of the subject) that modern scholarship has shown that, at this time, the Pharisees were held in high repute throughout the Roman and Parthian empires as a dedicated group who upheld religious ideals in the face of tyranny, supported leniency and mercy in the application of laws, and championed the rights of the poor against the oppression of the rich. The undeserved reputation for hypocrisy which is attached to the name 'Pharisee' in medieval and modern times is due to the campaign against the Pharisees in the Gospels -- a campaign dictated by politico-religious considerations at the time when the Gospels were given their final editing, about forty to eighty years after the death of Jesus. Paul's desire to be thought of as a person of Pharisee upbringing should thus be understood in the light of the actual reputation of the Pharisees in Paul's lifetime; Paul was claiming a high honour, which would much enhance his status in the eyes of his correspondents.

Before looking further into Paul's claim to have come from a Pharisee background, let us continue our survey of what we are told about Paul's career in the more accessible sources. The young Saul, we are told, left Tarsus and came to the Land of Israel, where he studied in the Pharisee academy of Gamaliel (Acts 22:3). We know from other sources about Gamaliel, who is a highly respected figure in the rabbinical writings such as the Mishnah, and was given the title 'Rabban', as the leading sage of his day. That he was the leader of the whole Pharisee party is attested also by the New Testament itself, for he plays a prominent role in one scene in the book of Acts (chapter 5) -- a role that, as we shall see later, is hard to reconcile with the general picture of the Pharisees given in the Gospels.

Yet Paul himself, in his letters, never mentions that he was a pupil of Gamaliel, even when he is most concerned to stress his qualifications as a Pharisee. Here again, then, the question has to be put: was Paul ever really a pupil of Gamaliel or was this claim made by Luke as an embellishment to his narrative? As we shall see later, there are certain considerations which make it most unlikely, quite apart from Paul's significant omission to say anything about the matter, that Paul was ever a pupil of Gamaliel's.

We are also told of the young Saul that he was implicated, to some extent, in the death of the martyr Stephen. The people who gave false evidence against Stephen, we are told, and who also took the leading part in the stoning of their innocent victim, 'laid their coats at the feet of a young man named Saul'. The death of Stephen is described, and it is added, 'And Saul was among those who approved of his murder' (Acts 8:1). How much truth is there in this detail? Is it to be regarded as historical fact or as dramatic embellishment, emphasizing the contrast between Paul before and after conversion? The death of Stephen is itself an episode that requires searching analysis, since it is full of problems and contradictions. Until we have a better idea of why and by whom Stephen was killed and what were the views for which he died, we can only note the alleged implication of Saul in the matter as a subject for further investigation. For the moment, we also note that the alleged implication of Saul heightens the impression that adherence to Pharisaism would mean violent hostility to the followers of Jesus.

The next thing we are told about Saul in Acts is that he was 'harrying the Church; he entered house after house, seizing men and women, and sending them to prison' (Acts 8:3). We are not told at this point by what authority or on whose orders he was carrying out this persecution. It was clearly not a matter of merely individual action on his part, for sending people to prison can only be done by some kind of official. Saul must have been acting on behalf of some authority, and who this authority was can be gleaned from later incidents in which Saul was acting on behalf of the High Priest. Anyone with knowledge of the religious and political scene at this time in Judaea feels the presence of an important problem here: the High Priest was not a Pharisee, but a Sadducee, and the Sadducees were bitterly opposed to the Pharisees. How is it that Saul, allegedly an enthusiastic Pharisee ('a Pharisee of the Pharisees'), is acting hand in glove with the High Priest? The picture we are given in our New Testament sources of Saul, in the days before his conversion to Jesus, is contradictory and suspect.

The next we hear of Saul (Acts, chapter 9) is that he 'was still breathing murderous threats against the disciples of the Lord. He went to the High Priest and applied for letters to the synagogues at Damascus authorizing him to arrest anyone he found, men or women, who followed the new way, and bring them to Jerusalem.' This incident is full of mystery. If Saul had his hands so full in 'harrying the church' in Judaea, why did he suddenly have the idea of going off to Damascus to harry the Church there? What was the special urgency of a visit to Damascus? Further, what kind of jurisdiction did the Jewish High Priest have over the non-Jewish city of Damascus that would enable him to authorize arrests and extraditions in that city? There is, moreover, something very puzzling about the way in which Saul's relation to the High Priest is described: as if he is a private citizen who wishes to make citizen's arrests according to some plan of his own, and approaches the High Priest for the requisite authority. Surely there must have been some much more definite official connection between the High Priest and Saul, not merely that the High Priest was called upon to underwrite Saul's project. It seems more likely that the plan was the High Priest's and not Saul's, and that Saul was acting as agent or emissary of the High Priest. The whole incident needs to be considered in the light of probabilities and current conditions.

The book of Acts then continues with the account of Saul's conversion on the road to Damascus through a vision of Jesus and the succeeding events of his life as a follower of Jesus. The pre-Christian period of Saul's life, however, does receive further mention later in the book of Acts, both in chapter 22 and chapter 26, where some interesting details are added, and also some further puzzles.

In chapter 22, Saul (now called Paul), is shown giving his own account of his early life in a speech to the people after the Roman commandant had questioned him. Paul speaks as follows:

I am a true-born Jew, a native of Tarsus in Cilicia. I was brought up in this city, and as a pupil of Gamaliel I was thoroughly trained in every point of our ancestral law. I have always been ardent in God's service, as you all are today. And so I began to persecute this movement to the death, arresting its followers, men and women alike, and putting them in chains. For this I have as witnesses the High Priest and the whole Council of Elders. I was given letters from them to our fellow-Jews at Damascus, and had started out to bring the Christians there to Jerusalem as prisoners for punishment; and this is what happened....

Paul then goes on to describe his vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus. Previously he had described himself to the commandant as 'a Jew, a Tarsian from Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city'.

It is from this passage that we learn of Paul's native city, Tarsus, and of his alleged studies under Gamaliel. Note that he says that, though born in Tarsus, he was 'brought up in this city' (i.e. Jerusalem) which suggests that he spent his childhood in Jerusalem. Does this mean that his parents moved from Tarsus to Jerusalem? Or that the child was sent to Jerusalem on his own, which seems unlikely? If Paul spent only a few childhood years in Tarsus, he would hardly describe himself proudly as 'a citizen of no mean city' (Tarsus). Jews who had spent most of their lives in Jerusalem would be much more prone to describe themselves as citizens of Jerusalem. The likelihood is that Paul moved to Jerusalem when he was already a grown man, and he left his parents behind in Tarsus, which seems all the more probable in that they receive no mention in any account of Paul's experiences in Jerusalem. As for Paul's alleged period of studies under Gamaliel, this would have had to be in adulthood, for Gamaliel was a teacher of advanced studies, not a teacher of children. He would accept as a pupil only someone well grounded and regarded as suitable for the rabbinate. The question, then, is where and how Paul received this thorough grounding, if at all. As pointed out above and argued fully below, there are strong reasons to think that Paul never was a pupil of Gamaliel.

An important question that also arises in this chapter of Acts is that of Paul's Roman citizenship. This is mentioned first in chapter 16. Paul claims to have been born a Roman citizen, which would mean that his father was a Roman citizen. There are many problems to be discussed in this connection, and some of these questions impinge on Paul's claim to have had a Pharisaic background.

A further account of Paul's pre-Christian life is found in chapter 26 of Acts, in a speech addressed by Paul to King Agrippa. Paul says:

My life from my youth up, the life I led from the beginning among my people and in Jerusalem, is familiar to all Jews. Indeed they have known me long enough and could testify, if they only would, that I belonged to the strictest group in our religion: I lived as a Pharisee. And it is for a hope kindled by God's promise to our forefathers that I stand in the dock today. Our twelve tribes hope to see the fulfilment of that promise.... I myself once thought it my duty to work actively against the name of Jesus of Nazareth; and I did so in Jerusalem. It was I who imprisoned many of God's people by authority obtained from the chief priests; and when they were condemned to death, my vote was cast against them. In all the synagogues I tried by repeated punishment to make them renounce their faith; indeed my fury rose to such a pitch that I extended my persecution to foreign cities. On one such occasion I was travelling to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests....

Again the account continues with the vision on the road to Damascus.

This speech, of course, cannot be regarded as the authentic words addressed by Paul to King Agrippa, but rather as a rhetorical speech composed by Luke, the author of Acts, in the style of ancient historians. Thus the claim made in the speech that Paul's career as a Pharisee of high standing was known to 'all Jews' cannot be taken at face value. It is interesting that Paul is represented as saying that he 'cast his vote' against the followers of Jesus, thus helping to condemn them to death. This can only refer to the voting of the Sanhedrin or Council of Elders, which was convened to try capital cases; so what Luke is claiming here for his hero Paul is that he was at one time a member of the Sanhedrin. This is highly unlikely, for Paul would surely have made this claim in his letters, when writing about his credentials as a Pharisee, if it had been true. There is, however, some confusion both in this account and in the accounts quoted above about whether the Sanhedrin, as well as the High Priest or 'chief priests', was involved in the persecution of the followers of Jesus. Sometimes the High Priest alone is mentioned, sometimes the Sanhedrin is coupled with him, as if the two are inseparable. But we see on two occasions cited in Acts that the High Priest was outvoted by the Pharisees in the Sanhedrin; on both occasions, the Pharisees were opposing an attempt to persecute the followers of Jesus; so the representation of High Priest and Sanhedrin as having identical aims is one of the suspect features of these accounts.

It will be seen from the above collation of passages in the book of Acts concerning Paul's background and early life, together with Paul's own references to his background in his letters, that the same strong picture emerges: that Paul was at first a highly trained Pharisee rabbi, learned in all the intricacies of the rabbinical commentaries on scripture and legal traditions (afterwards collected in the rabbinical compilations, the Talmud and Midrash). As a Pharisee, Paul was strongly opposed to the new sect which followed Jesus and which believed that he had been resurrected after his crucifixion. So opposed was Paul to this sect that he took violent action against it, dragging its adherents to prison. Though this strong picture has emerged, some doubts have also arisen, which, so far, have only been lightly sketched in: how is it, for example, that Paul claims to have voted against Christians on trial for their lives before the Sanhedrin, when in fact, in the graphically described trial of Peter before the Sanhedrin (Acts 5), the Pharisees, led by Gamaliel, voted for the release of Peter? What kind of Pharisee was Paul, if he took an attitude towards the early Christians which, on the evidence of the same book of Acts, was untypical of the Pharisees? And how is it that this book of Acts is so inconsistent within itself that it describes Paul as violently opposed to Christianity because of his deep attachment to Pharisaism, and yet also describes the Pharisees as being friendly towards the early Christians, standing up for them and saving their lives?

It has been pointed out by many scholars that the book of Acts, on the whole, contains a surprising amount of evidence favourable to the Pharisees, showing them to have been tolerant and merciful. Some scholars have even argued that the book of Acts is a pro-Pharisee work; but this can hardly be maintained. For, outweighing all the evidence favourable to the Pharisees is the material relating to Paul, which is, in all its aspects, unfavourable to the Pharisees; not only is Paul himself portrayed as being a virulent persecutor when he was a Pharisee, but Paul declares that he himself was punished by flogging five times (II Corinthians 11:24) by the 'Jews' (usually taken to mean the Pharisees). So no one really comes away from reading Acts with any good impression of the Pharisees, but rather with the negative impressions derived from the Gospels reinforced.

Why, therefore, is Paul always so concerned to stress that he came from a Pharisee background? A great many motives can be discerned, but there is one that needs to be singled out here: the desire to stress the alleged continuity between Judaism and Pauline Christianity. Paul wishes to say that whereas, when he was a Pharisee, he mistakenly regarded the early Christians as heretics who had departed from true Judaism, after his conversion he took the opposite view, that Christianity was the true Judaism. All his training as a Pharisee, he wishes to say -- all his study of scripture and tradition -- really leads to the acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament. So when Paul declares his Pharisee past, he is not merely proclaiming his own sins -- 'See how I have changed, from being a Pharisee persecutor to being a devoted follower of Jesus!' -- he is also proclaiming his credentials -- 'If someone as learned as I can believe that Jesus was the fulfilment of the Torah, who is there fearless enough to disagree?'

On the face of it, Paul's doctrine of Jesus is a daring departure from Judaism. Paul was advocating a doctrine that seemed to have far more in common with pagan myths than with Judaism: that Jesus was a divine-human person who had descended to Earth from the heavens and experienced death for the express purpose of saving mankind. The very fact that the Jews found this doctrine new and shocking shows that it plays no role in the Jewish scripture, at least not in any way easily discernible. Yet Paul was not content to say that his doctrine was new; on the contrary, he wished to say that every line of the Jewish scripture was a foreshadowing of the Jesus-event as he understood it, and that those who understood the scripture in any other way were failing in comprehension of what Judaism had always been about. So his insistence on his Pharisaic upbringing was part of his insistence on continuity.

There were those who accepted Paul's doctrine, but did regard it as a radical new departure, with nothing in the Jewish scriptures foreshadowing it. The best known figure of this kind was Marcion, who lived about a hundred years after Paul, and regarded Paul as his chief inspiration. Yet Marcion refused to see anything Jewish in Paul's doctrine, but regarded it as a new revelation. He regarded the Jewish scriptures as the work of the Devil and he excluded the Old Testament from his version of the Bible.

Paul himself rejected this view. Though he regarded much of the Old Testament as obsolete, superseded by the advent of Jesus, he still regarded it as the Word of God, prophesying the new Christian Church and giving it authority. So his picture of himself as a Pharisee symbolizes the continuity between the old dispensation and the new: a figure who comprised in his own person the turning-point at which Judaism was transformed into Christianity.