Yes, it is so very much so, as Henry Kissinger warned way back in the late 1960s -

Allowing Israel to go militarily nuclear will not only upset the balance of power in the Middle East, but will place Israel in the position of not only a dangerous nation iself, but will place her in danger from other Middle East nations.

For years up till right now, we have had the danger of Iran going Nuko, and we could well ask, would such be happening if Israel had not become a ME danger to other ME fellow nations herself?

Only hope Obama uses true wisdom and understanding concerning this problem caused by strong but politically stupid nations shutting their eyes and ears at the time.

Good article.Thanks.

One must go to the heart of the zionist core beliefs where all actions are born.

"Talmud states that there are two types of souls exist, a non-Jewish soul comes from the satanic spheres, whilst the Jewish soul stems from holiness " say influential Jewsw like Israel Shahak and Norton Mezvinsky.
They also go on to say:" Gush Emunim rabbis have continually reiterated that Jews who killed Arabs should not be punished" Relying on the Code of Maimonides and the Halacha, Rabi Ariel stated " A Jew who killed a non-Jew is exempt from human judgement and has not violated the prohibition of murder."

About half of the Jewish community subscribe to Gush Emunim.

This is the view of Shahak and Mezvinsky.

All Israeli action proceeds fromsuch values.How the hell can you get these people to compromise and reach any peace accord.

Bushbred,

looking to Obama is hopeless. The mans a hollow puppet. His Chief of staff, his first appointment is a bloke by the nane of Rahm Emanuel. Chief iten on his CV is that he was an Israeli Armed Forces conscript.

Why didn't you understand Obama's position on Israel and Palestine before his election?
Sure he was friends with a former public relations agent of the PLO but now I guess you'll understand his mode of operating. Create an impression while camoflaging his true positions. Expect much more of the same over the next 4 years.

The Palestinians can expect little change from Obama.

However once Obama pulls the troops out of Iraq expect the Israeli's to bring about their own destruction, for they'll launch an nuclear attack on Iran.

Courage Sonja. It always prevails over bullies. Just look to history and observe Israel's comrades in methods: the Nazi's and Hitler, the Communists with Stalin and Mao, the English in Ireland. History is littered with them. They all reaped what they sowed.

Sorry to dissappoint you Sonja...but

-the settler movement is growing...
-Religious Jews are increasing...
-Jerusalam will never be part of a Palestinian state.(Specially East)
-God gave the land from the Red sea to the Eurphrates to Israel....

If you'd like to take issue with that last point.. just have a read of the Hamas charter

<<Palestine is an Islamic Waqf throughout all generations and to the Day of Resurrection. Who can presume to speak for all Islamic Generations to the Day of Resurrection? This is the status [of the land] in Islamic Shari’a, and it is similar to all lands conquered by Islam by force, and made thereby Waqf lands upon their conquest, for all generations of Muslims until the Day of Resurrection.>>

Notice those words "conquered by force"?

Well..guess what? The historical chickens have come home to roost and the Jews have taken BACK what was taken FROM them by Invading Arab Muslims.

The only difference now is that the shoe is on the other foot..the Muslims are whining that they have lost territory..WHICH they gained through illegal conquest anyway.

So...the establishment of Israel is in fact an act of righting the crimes of the past perpetrated by Arab Muslims.. with Mr Omar bin Khattab being the chief criminal. (he led the Muslim procession in to Jerusalem)

Well..I suppose there are a lot of Jews who also remember KHAYBAR and now.. as they reflect on the words of Mohammad..who allowed them to work on the land after conquering them.. (at 50% gross tax) but of course they no longer owned the land.... HE did... aaah.. I guess now they (the settlers) are giving the middle finger to any bright spark to tries to tell them that the land is anyone's other than THEM!

You reap what you sow.. sometimes it takes a few centuries.. but if you sow conquering..don't be surprised if you reap being conquered.

Poly if you posted under a new username every day we could all play 'find DB'.

You rant. It stands out a mile.

Keith. Sarah lost and has gone into oblivion with her invisible friend. Sorry mate!

Hey! Boaz David why did you change your sign in? That often indicates a lack of confidence in oneself!

an interesting link
that has some discusion about the book from which not a letter is allowed to be cut
[very interesting info about the nights of zion]
and their black heart book

http://www.biblestudysite.com/factsarefacts.htm

it explains a lot about how zionism highjacked judism
of course more info is found at jew watch

while we are at it know israel means wars with god

so we have gods own people
yet they know him not

in the intrests that they do
i reveal the living god is love
light ,love ,life [logus]

there is one life GIVER
the living life giver who's sure sign is life [good /god]

we chose to know the voice of the life giver
[living to love god and love neighbour]

or obey the small voice of hate/fear ie the life taker
[killing to eliminate all life
[thus not of god][the life GIVER/sustainer;love]

jesus reveals by their deeds will we know them#
[ie who serve's love [life]
or hate , fear [death]

the disaster ,wrought by those who war against god
is designed to bring the destruction of armogedon
[to bring their MESSiah][out of his pit]
to realise his hell on gods earth

it dosnt matter if you believe it
they do

[they isnt all jews , not even most,
only those subverted [decieved]to serve zion]
while we are at it realise jesus WAS OFFERED this realm
#[and refused it]

[why should the peacemaker return till WE bring peace ,

[besides the gate through which jesus is to emerge is sealed and the exit has been turned into a cemetry]

Kipper Snacks... my monica is probably going to change again :)

I am intending to use my nick as an educational tool.

Why not look up Polycarp ? (Bishop of Smyrna) Find the circumstances of his demise....
he was a real person..and had a personal relationship with John the author of the 4th Gospel.. getting quite close to some serious history there you know.

Read the book of Ruth... and the story of David...

All worth while exercises :)

I assure you it is not lack of confidence that I manage my nick in a certain way.

It is also useful to see how much opposition one gets simply because of the nick... rather than the issue at stake :)
You might call it 'research'.

BENNIE :) not a bad idea.. could make OLO more intersting eh.

Actually.. that last bit wasn't a 'rant' it was just a clear statement of history.

Oops..wait.. the 'Jerusalem will never be' bit.. aah..now that was a rant :) granted.. The rest is simply factual.

There is an element of 'stick it to em' in there.. because I hate it when people justify their historic crimes with theology "Ever since.. taken by force by the Muslims" Israel, according to them.. became an "Islamic" waqf until the day of resurrection.. HAH! well.. the Hamas/Palestinians can try all they like.. just like the Philistines did in the past...to re-take Israel.. personally I think they have a snowflakes chance in hell of doing it.

But hey..don't let nuclear equipped enemy get in the way of a good theological/military story eh :)

yeah well Poly there are three sides to this and every story. Yours, theirs, and the truth in between.

Aw Boazy, don't change your "monica" (sic) again - Porkycrap suits you so well!

Poly old boy,
Again you your out of tune two sting fiddle is playing untrue notes.
I suggest that you read a bit more archeological history into the origins of the jews.
Your self referencing reasoning only defeats 'the featless' ("Zorro the gay blade" movie).
What puzzles me is why you bother flogging a dead horse (either RSPCA or kinky movie site stuff. You're as likely to gain a convert as me becoming Pope. Even the camel eye of a needle (BIG blender) is more likely

Yet another example of self-delusion, Boaz.

>>Polycarp was a real person..and had a personal relationship with John the author of the 4th Gospel.<<

As you very well know, Boaz, an honest person would say:

"Polycarp was a real person, who some believe had a personal relationship with the John who some scholars consider to be the author of the 4th Gospel."

Repeating it to yourself does not make it any truer, Boaz. Yours is one opinion amongst many, as I have pointed out to you before.

"Who wrote John’s Gospel? James Charlesworth says, 'The apostle Thomas.' Ben Witherington believes it was Lazarus. And Esther de Boer contends the author of John’s Gospel was Mary Magdalene. Many others believe the author was in fact a committee of unknown authors, editors, and redactors—the Johannine community" [Dr Andreas Kostenberger.]

As I am sure that you are also aware, there even remain doubts that John appointed Polycarp bishop.

While Irenaeus reported that Polycarp lived in Ephesus until "the time of Trajan" (98-117), Ignatius wrote in 110 from Ephesus without a single mention. Given that John was supposed to be alive at the time (or very recently deceased), you would have thought that Ignatius would have seized the opportunity to discuss him with Polycarp, would you not?

You can add to that the contradictory evidence of Papias, and the existence of two separate versions of the succession of Bishops in Smyrna, for good measure.

I'm not saying your understanding of the position is incorrect. Just that there is considerable room for reasonable doubt. Your assertions should reflect this, if you want to present an honest picture, and not be accused of self-aggrandizement.

Thanks for the info' on Obama re' Immanuel, Keith.

You seem to know more than our Murdoch School of Humanities, mate.

Only hope you'd still not prefer, Bush, Cheney and Co.

You could also be right about an outcome of Israel nuking Iran, especially if it is true that Iran already has nuclear warheads supplied secretly from somewhere.

Why not Putin's Russia, or even China, as a Canadian report has given rumour to?

Cheers, BB, WA.

Bushbred,

Yes I read the Murdoch humanities. They give me balance as I seem to read the leftie humanities in every other media outlet on this earth.

Within 4 years I bet you'd be praying for a return to the times of prosperity and security we've experienced under George Bush.

I thought we'd already agreed on the likelihood of Iran having nukes.

I saw Rham interviewed on Fox two days ago. He really really scares the crap out of me.

Indeed in an "UnPromised Land," the story of the attempted evacuation of Euro Jews pre Holocaust, it is suggested that Zionist Promised Land delusions and alleged opposition to repatriation in W.A.'s north formed part of the deliberations of the crown which in turn led to the overturning of the will of the Australian people and ultimately the refusal to grant sanctuary. Well worth a read. U.W.A. has copies from memory as does the Holocaust Museum in Melbourne.

" ... I suggest that you read a bit more archeological history into the origins of the jews. ... "

The most recent thing I heard in relation to this was at the time of the so called Promised Land, archaeological evidence suggests that the local people and incoming Moses crew lived together, and happily one assumes. Can anyone informed reveal more on this?

*bOAZy* I'm shocked. Only the other day U were preaching sugar and spice and all things nice - Love, 4giveness etc etc

Yr last post hear sounded very supportive of an Eye for an Eye. Makes me wonder, is there perhaps some Greater Truth that U wld like to share with us? Do u have a Messianic concept perhaps?

Dreamy :) yes.. I totally understand how my post sounds.

My personal faith based view is..that it will all pan out in the end, with the Almighty doing what He sees fit.

When I report historical points such as "God gave the Israelites the land from the Red sea to the Eurphrates"..I am reporting historical fact, (based on Old Testament scriptures) This does not however mean, that I myself want Israel to suddenly go on a huge land grab for that territory. BUT...I would understand it..... now.. the difference might not be apparent..but it is definitely there. To me.. if God is calling his people back to the land.. nothing will stop it.(Ezekiel Ch 37 please have a look)

When I comment "The Arab Muslims conquered Israel in the past..and now the Jews are taking it back".. yes..I do support this retaking in principle... for the simple reason it is no different from any turn of history, and it seems they have 'right' on their side..
a) It was theirs.
b) Arab Muslims stole it. (as did the Romans)
c) They are now reclaiming stolen property.

It can be argued of course that they took it originally from the Canaanites, but we must also remember they didn't just 'decide' to grab that land..they were INSTRUCTED to take it by the Almighty.

We can dispute that if we like, but I doubt it would change the view of the Zionists or Israeli settlers :) which is the crucial point.

I confess..I have a lingering human resentment against any historical outworking of Surah 9:29 (please read it) and the ill treatment of peoples in the name if Islam. (I also am repulsed by UnChristlike treatment of vulnerable peoples by the so called Church) The NEXT verse (9:30) should assist you in understanding the reasons for this. if you are still in doubt, then please read surah 19:88-91 and see how Christians are specifically vilified.

Note..the Hamas Charter only says what it does (and it only CAN) because of... SURAH 9:29 :)

Nowwwww to pesky Pericles....

Dear P... I don't know if you realise it, but your last post demonstrated a number of important points.

1/ When it comes to your anti Christian crusade.. you will goto considerable lengths to research and show by evidence that the Christian claim is wrong.
In the case of the authorship of John's gospel you showed this.

You also said "An honest person would say"...

But this is the problem.. An honest person (me) read the rest of that article you quoted from and found THIS!

<<In several publications, I have surveyed the external and internal evidence with regard to Johannine authorship. I have documented that the Church, from the second century until around 1790, has universally held that the apostle John wrote the Gospel that bears his name. When the apostolic authorship of John’s Gospel was questioned, and the tide turned against Johannine authorship, this occurred not because the evidence supported a different outcome, but because in the wake of the Enlightenment scholars reacted against traditional ecclesiastical dogma, and Johannine authorship became one of the many casualties of critical scholarship.>>

Which of course, makes your point about 'some believe' rather moot.
It was only questioned from 1790 onward..and this questioning is about as useful as a member of the public saying about a trial verdict of GUILTY "oh.. SOME people believe he was guilty"

2/ But when you are in 'Whack a MozzieWhacker' mode.. aaaaah..then all research and evidence goes flying out the window.. and you attack with 'rabble rouser'.. 'creating fear and loathing' etc.. not a scrap of actual research on the issue underpinning the whole "Islam is dangerous" mantra which I so often espouse..nope..just name calling.

IF.. you were as honest as you claim to be, you would exercise the same effort of research in understanding the 9th surah of the Quran..in historical context..and subsequent application and actually discuss it.

But...I'm not going to hold my breath for that refreshing dabble in honesty :) Still..I'll try to shame you into it over time.

cheers

Not that song again, Boaz.

>>When it comes to your anti-Christian crusade...<<

You pretend to believe that I am anti-Christian. It makes you feel better

You like to pretend that your religion is persecuted. It makes you feel important.

Both are figments of your imagination.

The fact that you clearly need the comfort that Christianity brings to your life is not a problem for me. And it is obviously important for you to believe in its certainty. But I do object when you use it – as you frequently do - as a weapon against other religions.

In order to do so, you claim for Christianity the mantle of infallibility.

>>An honest person (me) read the rest of that article you quoted from and found THIS!<<

So what? Unlike you, Dr Kostenberger - clearly an honest man - was being completely upfront about the fact that there are many different versions of the authorship of John's gospel.

He happens to disagree with them, which is his prerogative. He then puts forward his own theory.

One, as he is well aware, of a number of competing theories.

You seem to be claiming that all arguments have ceased, and that there are no dissenting voices any more, which is far from being the case.

Even Wikipedia, while not in any way an authority on which version may be correct, reports that...

"Scholars have debated the authorship of the Johannine works... since at least the third century. Beasley-Murray notes, 'Everything we want to know about this book [the Gospel of John] is uncertain, and everything about it that is apparently knowable is matter of dispute'"

You hold a dissenting view:

>>the Church, from the second century until around 1790, has universally held that the apostle John wrote the Gospel that bears his name<<

It might be useful to remind yourself that for this entire period, they also believed the sun revolved around the earth.

>>you would exercise the same effort of research in understanding the 9th surah of the Quran<<

And no, I'm not interested in your views on bloody surah bloody nine.

Keith, if you read the Murdoch Humanities, surely you don't hangout in our progressive West?

Though the crops are pretty good this year, could say most of the dollars are coming from what us old cockies used to call quarry economics and pitstock politics.

Though could say Kerry Stokes who now just about owns our our only newspaper, is the only one different to billionaire Forrest, who certainly wins making money out of holes in the ground.

Finally, really surprised to learn that you admire Bush, especially as he's uttered nary a word during Obama's easy win in the election.

Personally, I never backed Bush, anyhow, even well before he attacked Iraq. Would certainly like to know more about the reason for your admiration?

Regards, BB, Buntine, WA.

For all youse hoping the black knight in very dull armour is going to put things right in the ME need to consider the three sobering facts:

1) The first thing Obama does even BEFORE the elections was to appoint Widen as his running mate and we all know that Joe has a public record of hardline anti-palestinian prejudice. He hates them.

2) A woman of Indian extractuion, Ms Sonal, is far too close as a confidant to Obama.Who is she ? She belongs to the VJP a fascist right wing pollie whose party is guilty of massacring Christians and Muslims and the outcaste converts to Christianity in many states in India. She does not inspire me with any confidence that her advice will be ameliorating on ANY ethnic policies.

3) And as for Rahm Emmanuel...well,everyone knows he has a grand record for hardline anti-Palistinian policies and activities having fought them in Palestine before coming to USA. He is unforgiving. Recently whilst discussing these problems in the ME at a cafe with colleagues he stabbed at the table 3 times shouting "Death ,death, death"
Scraes the hell out of me.

How many more closet anti-Palestinians and neo-fascists are there in the Democratic armory?
Does this thread worry any one ...even a teensy weensy bit? IT SHOULD

socratease

So typical...can't you people see anything else than your own tribal nonsense?

The writer blames Israel. It means one of two things (because I've analysed all the arguments for and against and know that Israel does everything it can to promote peace.

It even lets Hamastan (who was voted in by a racist, genocidal Palestinian public - the nonsense that it was a protest vote can go to hell - we all seen them cheering on 9/11, and whenever Arab racists launch cowardly rockets at women and kids - and no, when Israel kills Hamas filth, the reason their kids and multiple wives and mistresses cop it is because they are so weak and uncivilised they want their women and kids there as shields! And the Israeli military has actually avoided killing some targets when there have been too many kids and wives around, that is sooo wrong!)

I actually think even the marches with green Hamas (Nazi) flags should be carpet bombed. Well, actually, given that Israel is the only democratic nation (and by democracy i don't mean mob rule like Hamastan where minorities like Christians are treated like animals - as they are anywhere in Muslim dominated places, even Merrylands and Auburn here - where shopkeepers have been run out of town due to this filth) in the region - where even Palestinians flee to when they kill each other. Why not flee to Egypt? No dole there.

Israel angers Arabs because it is a success story when all they've done with the money we've given them (we developed the oil anyway, they're tribal and no nothing since Islam came - their civilisation went downhill in 7th century).

Arabs are jealous, bitter, aparthied states whose people are largely racist, misogynistic, Jew-hating, western-hating, bigots.

The militaries of the west should force them to live like us. They want to anyway, judging by the numbers who flee such tribal backward dumps for the superior, civilised west anyway.

aaah Pericles... a number of serious weaknesses in your last post.

1/ You claim 'a number of views' on Johanine authorship. But you fail to recognize the 'predominant' view which existed until 1790.. and only after which.. (due to the rise of form criticism/documentary hypothesis and it's associated presuppositions) did it become seriously challenged.

2/ There is a very strong traditional view.. and a very flimsy highly speculative opposing view. As I said.. when the Jurors have made their decision.. the parents of the offender will often still say "But he is innocent"

Your hypocrisy on a study of Surah 9 is only exceeded by your diligence in attacking Christianity.

No..it's not about 'me' though to read the personal attacks from some, one might think so.

Your apathy about the "War Surah" is matched by your pedantic, and systematic reseach into things which raise questions about anything supporting Christianity.

If you did study Surah 9, and see not what MY views on it are, but

a) What it actually says ..
b) What respected Muslim commentators say about it....

We probably wouldn't be having so many squabbles.

BENJAMIN (Netanyahu?) says:

"Israel angers Arabs because it is a success story"

Possibly Ben, but it goes much deeper than that mate. (IMHO)
It is theological. The claim that the land is now an "Islamic" waqf that is the source of the intense hatred among supporters of Hamas, the PLO might have more secular views.

Then there is the history.. the Temple mount, Jerusalem.. etc
If it was just a question of 'land'...then the Palestinians would accept an equivalent in other places..but we know what they would say to that...don't we?

ben used'Hamastan'

wiki says hamastan;..is a neologism,

merging'Hamas',a Palestinian militant organization and political party,and'-stan',a Persian suffix meaning"home of/place of".

The term emerged during the days of Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in 2005,'suggestive'of Hamas'Islamist ideology and political ties with Iran.

Since 2007,the term has been used to refer to its 2007 victory in Gaza over Fatah in the inter-Palestinian conflict

In Arabic the word"Hamas"translates roughly to"enthusiasm,zeal, élan,or fighting spirit"


In Hebrew,the cognate term,hamas,literally means"To pillage, to corrupt"
(Old Testament,Job,Verse 15:33),

indicating a coincidental linguistic symmetry to the views of Palestinians and Israelis on the organization

i feel your post reflects this double speak as well
[remembering israel means wars with god]

The word Islam means"submission",or the total surrender of oneself to God
An adherent of Islam is known as a Muslim,meaning "one who submits [to God]"
The word Muslim is the participle of the same verb of which Islam is the infinitive

if only we could understsand each other[eh]

i understand your words clearly

<<.at women and kids-and no,when Israel kills Hamas filth,

the reason their kids and multiple wives and mistresses cop it is because they are so weak and uncivilised

they want their women and kids there as shields!And the Israeli military has actually avoided killing'some'targets

when there have been too many kids and wives around,that is
sooo wrong!)

I actually think even the marches with green Hamas(Nazi)flags should be carpet bombed.

..Israel is the only democratic nation(and by democracy i don't mean mob rule like Hamastan..>>

yeah i get it[your words are very clear]

demon-autocratic?
wars on god,upon those accepting it as gods will,using cluster bombs
peace eh benjamin
Meaning:Son of my right hand

the hand that is on the right side,or the side opposite that where the heart is.

dont you know gods throne is in our heart?

The superstition isas follows:"If the palm of your right hand is itchy,it fortells that money is coming to you,but don't scratch it as that stops the money from coming!

If it's your left palm that is itchy,then scratch away,as that means that you'll soon be paying money.

There is a simple reason for this, Boaz.

>>Your apathy about the "War Surah" is matched by your pedantic, and systematic reseach into things which raise questions about anything supporting Christianity.<<

Your methodology is to claim for yourself the right to judge the scriptures of others, on the basis that your scripture is somehow infallible.

I have always questioned this right, and will continue to do so.

All that I am doing here is asking the questions that you have never have the courage to ask yourself.

Prime amongst these is "How can I be so sure?"

Of course, you are perfectly entitled to maintain this certainty at a personal level, that your interpretation of both the Bible and the Qur'an are both correct and irrefutable. It is, after all only faith, not logic, that maintains this belief, and since it is faith that provides you with your defence against fear and doubt, it would be cruel to take this away.

However, instead of keeping it to yourself, you choose to proclaim it's infallibility to the rest of the world. Not satisfied with that, you then insist that since you are right, everyone else must be wrong. And in the process, you have decided that Muslims are evil, and bent upon destroying our civilization.

So, as part of my objections to your whack-a-mozzie activities, I find it necessary to point out that there are other views apart from your own. Which you so often find impossible to understand, let alone accept.

Once again, it is not Christianity that I object to, nor the fact that you choose to be a Christian.

It is simply that every time you claim for yourself or your religion some kind of privileged status that you do not deserve, I will question it.

Since you clearly never do.

>>There is a very strong traditional view.. and a very flimsy highly speculative opposing view.<<

As I said before, the "strong traditional view" was held for the same length of time as the belief that the sun revolved around the earth.

Many people would find this significant.

" ... My personal faith based view is..that it will all pan out in the end, with the Almighty doing what He sees fit. ... "

Alas dear *bOAZy* it seems U r being converted by stealth.

Is not the above the same as saying:
"In Sha'a Allah"
(If El GoddO wants/If it is the Will of El GoddO)
[snicker, snicker]

"Bism Illaha Al Rahman Al Raheem"
In the name of El GoddO, the most gracious, the most merciful

"Assalam Alikum"
(Peace be upon you)

"Hag Mabrur"
(Congratulations on your pilgrimage)

9:29 Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

Now *bOAZy* u must appreciate
1. This is a translation and easily bastardised with shifting subtlety of meaning
2. In what context was it said?
3. Was it when the early Muslims were being hounded and persecuted over and over by those with clear genocidal intent?

(Eventually the prophet allegedly consulted with Heaven and Heaven said OKei, fair go ey resist them by force of arms but do not transgress the limits. Mayhaps the prophet (May peace be his portion) was latent schiz and when subjected to prolonged stress began to hallucinate. Yung also apparently had this problem. Even so, if the history of their persecution is true, it still demonstrates considerable tolerance in the face of acute adversity.)

4. All the rest is politics mate, so as a more evolved *bOAZy* I shld like to see U consider redirecting some of yr examinations at the scurrilous politicians on all sides who take advantage of not just the "Holy Books" but whatever means, in varying shades of grey, to inflame the prejudice of the flocks to have them fight it out when the so called "princes" of the world struggle over limited resource and geo poltical influence.

Benjam1n - your username is under a day old and is already synomymous with mud. Your posts are a disgrace and contribute nothing. Take your silly rants elsewhere.

As for the Yahudis & the Palestinians, ..
What's it all about?

I think that from an Israeli perspective, as the self appointed guardians of the holocaust survivors, they will not under any circumstances give anyone, Palestinian or otherwise, the opportunity to attempt to kill one of their own. Their security policy seems to reflect this. Some of u may recall the napalming of the n.american war boat in the end stages of WWII?

This issue seems to hinge upon the fact that the representatives of Islam refuse to make a "Covenant of Luv," for want of a better term, disavowing any desire to attempt to take vengeance or retribution against any "Israeli," irrespective of the fact that there are amongst the Israelis some who are every bit as "wicked" as any on the planet.

For the Islamic part, they cite the issue of mass denial of access to the *hOLy sITEs* and as such such a Covenant cannot be given, to which the Yahoodees reply, well, but U will not let us do Head banging at all the sites Holy to us and thus, stalemate.

And of course, there are those that are implacable on both sides and these violent minorities seem to be able to circumvent security at whim to the extent of causing ongoing disruption of the so called peace process.

Here again, a peron whom I have known for more than 30 yrs had no problem running drugs between Egypt and Israel so it makes it all look a bit suss to me but however, ..

Irrespective, my view is that collective punishment is abhorrent and that Islam as a whole, without renouncing their claims, ought relocate the people until there is a resolution, that their cries of suffering may not continue to ring out upon Heaven & Earth. Surely Allah has blessed U with more than sufficient means as to care for them, and care for them in a grand manner, becoz it seems quite plain that the Israelis will not.

Pericles first:

<<"Your methodology is to claim for yourself the right to judge the scriptures of others, on the basis that your scripture is somehow infallible.">>

No dear P, I claim to be able to read english..and make general sense of what Islamic writers themselves write. I could say ALL that I say about the 9th Surah as a complete atheist. Because it is based on the Surah itself..not my 'Biblical' interpretation of it. The point at which my own faith takes me from 'impartial observer' to 'passionate opponent' is the bit which says (9:30)
-"May Allah destroy them" (or..Allah's curse be on them) meaning Jews and Christians.
-"Subjugate them" (9:29)

Were I not a Christian, I'd probably not care much one way or the other about it.. BUT.. and it is a most important but, that would not alter the fundamental meaning of the Surah as it stands in historical context and in Islamic jurusprudence to this day.

I don't know how many times I need to point this out..but my understanding of 9:29 and 30 is entirely consistent with that of Islamic scholars who most Muslims look up to..i.e..Ibn Kathir.

DREAMY... some answers to your points are included above.

POINT 1) Bastardize/meaning: I defer to the tafsir of Ibn Kathir..

POINT 2 & 3) Context: ditto, but THAT is what Pericles needs to study. You were a crafty boy :) You merged the historical context of surah TWO with that of surah 9 :) naughty naughty.

Surah 2= Mohammad weak...Community small.. driven out of Mecca.

Surah 9= Mohammad strong.. community strong.. most of Arabian peninsula subjugated...

You might try Maududi's introduction/commentary about that also.

Surah 2 http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/maududi/mau2.html

Surah 9 http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/maududi/mau9.html

For Pericles benefit..I'm quite happy to accept this Islamic statement of the conditions of the day. Is he?

So(Dreamy).... NO.. he was not being attacked by genocidal hoardes in surah 9..HE WAS the genocidal hoarde..ask the Jews of Bani Qurayza - Oh wait.. you can't..because he systematically sliced and diced off the heads of every man and enslaved the women and children.

You flatter yourself Boaz.

>>I claim to be able to read english..and make general sense of what Islamic writers themselves write<<

You do not make "general sense" of anything. You very specifically insist that bloody surah bloody nine needs to be taken literally, and that it applies verbatim to the twentyfirst century.

So how do you explain the fact that some scholars disagree with your interpretation? Is it perhaps for the same reason that you have decided that your version of "who wrote the John gospel" is the only one?

Could it also be, that to believe otherwise would be uncomfortable for you? It is clear that you accept nothing short of absolute certainty, therefore anything that requires original thought would be an object of fear for you.

>>I could say ALL that I say about the 9th Surah as a complete atheist<<

For what possible reason would an atheist bother to interpret the Qur'an in the manner that you have? It is a religious document, and as such has no intrinsic validity to an atheist. It would be like asking a forensic accountant to justify your horoscope - there would be absolutely no credible basis for their answer whatsoever.

The only people qualified to determine the impact of the contents of the Qur'an in the twentyfirst century are Muslims. Show me one who justifies killing people on the basis of bloody surah bloody nine, and I'll show you a terrorist.

You are simply using the terrorists' language to tar the entire religion with the brush of fear and loathing, Boaz, and it simply will not wash.

>>Were I not a Christian, I'd probably not care much one way or the other about it.<<

Damn right about that.

>>...but, that would not alter the fundamental meaning of the Surah as it stands in historical context and in Islamic jurusprudence to this day.<<

In your very personal, highly one-eyed and heavily prejudiced evangelical Christian view.

You might think about adding that last line to all your opinions, Boaz. At least it would demonstrate a modicum of intellectual honesty.

Hi Bushbred,

I admire George, yes. Here a few things he's done that I especially like.

The first role of a US president is to keep the population secure. He's had spectular success at that.

He oversaw the greatest and longest period of wealth creation and distribution in the history of mankind.

(The current fiasco isn't of his making, although I hold him responsible for not enforcing the Senate oversight of Banking. See my article:
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8053).

Surprisingly a few reputable academics agree with my views in the article.

He's done more to eliminate AIDs in the world's poorest countries than all the word spouting lefties put together.

He's appointed more Afro American officials in senior Government positions than any previous US president and has thereby assisted with the wider acceptance of Afro Americans in American society. I think Obama might just be a tad thankful to him.

I predict, if Obama doesn't cause it's failure, democracy may take root in Iraq and spread throughout the mid-east. Peace and curtailment of Israel's expansion will result if that occurs. Peace in the Mid East might be his greatest legacy.

And finally he's the only US president in 60 years, since Roosevelt/Truman, to have actually led the US to a winning position in a hot war. (Let's not forget accolades to my hero Ronnie for winning the Cold War.)

Benjam1n you are a cowardly racist.

Spout you hate amongst you own types, don't share it with us. We despise that type of behaviour.

If you had a modicom of courage you'd use your own name and no doubt you'd face charges of inciting racisl hatred here in Australia.

So tell us Keith, wld it change yr opinion if u knew that Ben also supports g.w.bush turkey?

Assuming he does, why do u think the likes of Ben, especially visa vi the Israeli issue wld b attracted rather to bush turkey as opposed to Obama?

Do u have a position on bush turkey's proliferation and ongoing developement of nuclear weapons, inc but not limited to mini nukes etc etc

Do u say approve of the use of spent fuel rods being used as munitions?

Do u have a view on the on the HUGE amount of civilian life lost due to the militant policies of g.dubya?

Do u think that it's nice that Iran hasn't used BIO WMD's on n.american marines considering that u armed Saddam to do the same to them?

Do u think that it was reasonable to execute Saddam b4 he cld testify internationally about his rise to power on the shoulders of auntie sam?

Dear Pericles

most of what you said.. the approach you took in that last post can be explained in terms of your limited appreciation for the dimensions of the Islamic world today.

I don't mean to sound arrogant in saying that, but it does stand out.

The question you should be asking is 'which' scholars disagree with the commands of surah 9 and why? Just like you need to ask the same questions about Johanine authorship of the 4th Gospel.

It does matter you know.

I see things in the big picture, not the 'muslim neighbour' zone.

Some questions will help to position your viewpoint.

Q. Which branch of Islam is very active world wide today?
A. Hizb Ut tahrir.

Q What are their objectives ?

A. Establishment of the Caliphate.

Q On what basis does a Caliphate operate?
A. On a literal.. yes.. literal interpretation of the Quran.(and Hadith and Sunnah)

Your perspective does not allow for the very nature of Islam itself.

You see.. if "Allah says(jump)" (which is how most Muslims will describe the Quran) the Muslims only legitimate response is to ask "How high"

I think you simply look at nominal Christianity and maybe nominal any religion..and project that onto Muslims.. and thus you feel they are not a danger.. and criticism of their faith is just rabble rousing/hate speech.

How about you try this. On the 27th-29th of November there is another MindBodySpirit festival in Melbourne. There will be an Islamic stand.
They will have a DVD called "The blessings of Islam".. why not come along and get it straight from the horses mouth?
You can watch me as I ask "Please read this verse" and then ask "Does this apply to today" and "Is your understanding the predominant one in the Muslim world?" and you can just note their answers.

You could arm yourself with a 'scholarly opinion' which differs from mine and bounce it off them :)

Oh.. seeing as you made the assertion that 'some scholars' disagree with my understanding of Surah 9, care to name 3 and give links?

Pericles.. another thing you miss.. is this.

When I refer to such content (surah 9)... I am showing the nature of original Islam.

Feel free to wax eloquent about how many nice Muslims you know.. or how Islam might have morphed into something else.. less dangerous, but ultimately, you will, like all, be confronted with the purest form of the religion.. as it originally was.

Then.. you simply have to work out which category of Muslim you are dealing with....

a) Those who follow the original faith.
b) Those who have just enough religion to give them a meaning in life.

Category b is not particularly dangerous. But the "a" group will seek to bring them into line with intimidation (for which there is ample evidence)

Here is oodles of discussion of:

1/ Original sources (Quran, Hadith Histories)
2/ Scholarly opinion (various shades)

http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/swordverse.htm

I was reading a Sufi thing the other day, and they way this bloke spoke.. it was if he had never heard of the Quran.. or read it.

He spoke as one who simply idealised Mohammad as all the best things a man could ever be..and asserted that he was so.. totally neglecting his vial murder of various political opponents and numerous other horrific acts..such as dismembering people.

You, like him.. seem to be simply in denial.

Polycarp

'I was reading a Sufi thing the other day...'

Good God, Poly I thought you only had relevations ...

I thought I liked you, Keith, but very suprised you support a leader more with God on his side than scientific
commonsense.

So you reckon all the Americans who have backed Obama instead of McCain have been been wrong, Keith.

Guess time will tell, mate, but If had some spare cash, I know which side I'd put my money on.

So like Bush you would also still support the modern free-market, mate, with banks now backing customers nearly 100 per cent, whereas after WW2, Aussies cockies, anyway, were lucky to get 25% _
, and generally with a bank field officer with hsi eye on the paddocks as well.

Hi Bushbred,

I'm judging Bush on his actions and outcomes not his beliefs. Personally I'm irreligious and my son reckons 'violently' so.

Look I disagree with Bush and the Democrats and Kevin and anyone else who thinks it is Government's role to interfere in the free market. Such behaviour is only going to deepen and prolong the depression.

A read of my article shows where the blame for the current fiasco lies: Government and Central Bank interference.

The bailout was a gift to the Central Bankers an d nothing else.

Bailing out and propping up inefficent industries is short term and they will eventually fail anyway.

I'm a believer in the free market and base my beliefs in the 'Austrian School' of Mises and von Hayak. They are a good read but I'd read Hulme before I started on them.

I always thought friendship transcends political views unless of course you're a communist... in which case any sort of relationship is controlled.

*bOAZy*

Yr a disgrace. ;-)

U have already admitted that all Christians do not advocate for inquisition or crusade and that those things are a perversion and not indicative of the essence of Christianity.

And obviously, all Muslims do not associate FIGHT~JIHAD with violence. Some sects interpret the Holy War to be a battle to overcome the limitations of Self, in order to bring about a change in consciousness more conducive to commune with the Divine.

Does a little sip of wine at Mass to induce a state change ring any bells?

So, why u persist to demonise the whole for the violence of a few only in the case of Islam and not Christianity appears to be more and more disingenuous the more I hear. I presume in the *bOAZy* bible u wld remove a number of old testament books? Wld u also add the Apocrapha and Gospel of Mary?

A contradiction, similar to another *Pericles* recently pointed out.

And in the "Holy" texts, there are contradictions in all of them. U cld say as I earlier cited say, well, the earlier verses trump the later and if they honour all the prophets then gross inconsistencies with say what JC or Moses had to say are then obviously political bastardisations, which, most Muslims don't ascribe to.

U r choosing only to "see" the bits which support yr own conclusions, after the manner of all good *Agents of Chaos*

In seeking to deny Mosques here u make yrself no different from those who deny Churches in other parts.

Now if U Luv yr Enemy and seek to treat them as YrSelf, then U wld not deny them so, no? And as u know, Islam, Judaism and Christianity all track back to the same root and same GoddO, so what exactly is the real nub of what u r trying to achieve?

DreamOn - I think I mostly agree with the stuff you post here, but it would be much easier to understand if you were to write it in ordinary English.

Is your idiosyncratic spelling some kind of statement? Personally, I find it detracts from understanding what you're saying, to the point where I often skim over your posts.

I often get this complaint *CJ* but mostly from people who don't like what I have to contribute and who choose to attack style over substance.

I do of course speak a second language at home and have found over the years speaking other languages:
english, japanese, thai and indonesian

that each has its own unique advantages and recourse to one only is very limiting.

Of course, SMS shorthand is very popular here and in OZ also I note amongst the younger generation, whose minds are quick and agile. It has to do with how many clicks of the mouse, keyboard/pad u have to make to empart meaning.

Of course, when I first arrived here, I was pretty clueless when it came to the shorthand, but instead of asking people to come down to my lvl, I chose rather to adapt and learn new ways, and believe, that it has not detracted from my language skills over all as a consequence.

YrSelf ~ Your Self
U ~ You

Why don't u come up for a visit, and we'll line u up in a restaurant where they chew yr food for u with a bit of goozey as a bonus.

;-) ~ Nudge Nudge, Wink, Wink