Muhammad Rasheed's Blog, page 192

The Shadow Left

Ron Wiseman - Who will you supposedly support in the 2020 US presidential election? Do you know?

This might blow your mind. I really am hoping that the Democratic party will regain my affiliation—I left the party (#DemExit) over Hillary Clinton cheating Bernie Sanders out of the nomination. If Bernie runs, of course I’ll support him, I wouldn’t care if he’s 100 years old. Otherwise...

I’d like to support Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) for the Democratic nomination.

Muhammad Rasheed - To be fair, Hillary didn’t “cheat” Sanders. He was an outsider that tried to usurp their party for his own agenda (the same way Ron Paul tried to usurp the GOP back in 2008) and they fought back. They had a right to defend against a hostile takeover.

Ron Wiseman - They cheated. Loud and proud. That’s why they’re being sued.

Bernie is a Democrat the same way Patrick Leahy is a Democrat. Neither of them are registered Democrats because in Vermont there’s no party registration. Both of them “caucus” with the Democrats and both of them support and raise funds for Democrats in the same way. They both vote the same pretty much all the time.

The only difference is that Leahy describes himself as a Democrat and Sanders describes himself as an independent, but that’s the only difference.

I agree that the DNC could have denied Sanders the nomination—it was their right to do that. But they gave him permission to run as a Democrat and they told us all it would be a fair and evenhanded process. Based on that, we donated hundreds of millions of dollars to the Sanders campaign.

The DNC rigged the system while taking our money. That’s fraud by every legal definition.

Muhammad Rasheed - Ron, you wasted 159 words just to admit what I said was true: Sanders did NOT consider himself a Democrat. He was a manipulative outsider who attempted — like Ron Paul before him — to usurp the party for his own agenda. Nice try using the actual proudly self-proclaimed Democrat Leahy as a flashy deception tool to wave around in my face though, and all while charging others of cheating. You must be of Russian stock, wot? ;)

Solving Clayborn

In early June of 1997, in what now seems like a forever ago, I remember actively solving a problem. In my first, humble but official ‘art job’ after college I found myself struggling to capture the likeness of beautiful women.

As a new Kaman’s Art Shoppes caricature artist working at Cedar Point Amusement park in Sandusky, Ohio, I had already completed the 2-week orientation/training, and was actually doing pretty well pulling customers and getting back positive feedback. Except for that one thing:

“Do you think THAT looks like me? I don’t think that looks like me.”

“Oh, I’m not paying for that. You weren’t even looking at me.”

“Uhhh… who is THAT supposed to be???”

My issue was that I would go into a google-eyed, quasi-drooling daze whenever a beautiful woman would sit in my customer seat, like I was a sex-starved nerd in one of those teen exploitation movies like Porkies, or American Pie. Naturally this would prevent me from focusing in on the technical structure of the face necessary for achieving anything like the “likeness” needed for a successful cartoon portrait. It was also causing a significant blow to my artistic ego.

Fortunately there was an easy fix. All I had to do was draw a lot of beautiful women until I would get used to the feeling, and eventually get past the stomach butterflies or whatever. Or better yet, target one particular beautiful woman and convince her to allow me to draw her a million times until I’d worked pass the artist’s block.

I knew just the one I wanted to ask.

Kaman’s Art Shoppes kept us in the park in company-provided housing. The dormitory I stayed in (the name of it has long since left me), had a security desk that required all who entered to scan in their employee identification card. Often manning the desk during the night shift, there was this gorgeous young woman who always took my breath away. She kept her hair in a small, ponytail/bun, was around 5’ 6”, had this smoldering, almond-eyed stare when she was annoyed, and also had the reputation as “The Mean Girl.”

I had borne witness to this so-called “mean” once or twice before. So I was not intimidated by THAT part. I had “mean” people in my circles after-all, and they have always been nice and reasonable people if you weren’t messing up their work areas and stuff. Once when tasked to keep order during the obligatory fire drill, she was extremely no-nonsense, and refused to allow tomfoolery and shenanigans on HER watch. With her arms folded and eyes flashing, she generously dispensed razor sharp retorts and humbling sarcasm to all who supplied dumb questions and pushback. I watched fascinated, and noted that though she was obviously irritated, she still kept her composure, and successfully met mission. Another time there was an unusually long line of people coming into the dorm (or maybe it was just my first time experiencing the evening rush…?) and she was one of two desk security staff making sure all those ID badges got scanned. The line was moving quickly, and I found myself straining to catch her name on her own badge…  

"Hey! I said, ‘Next!’”

Oops! That was me. I handed her my badge and smiled at her. She smiled back and her eyes softened. I knew then that she wasn’t mean; that’s just what the immature and lazy called people who took their jobs seriously (“Cmon, man! Loosen UP! Let me get away with XYZ just this once.”).

One day, I got up determined to ask her to be my training partner to help me work out this problem. I grabbed a pencil, my trusty sketchbook, and made my way to the lobby. On the way to the front desk I chickened out, and decided to sit off to the side and sketch her in a perfect imitation of a serial caricaturist stalker creep. Fortunately, this cowardly scheme failed, as she was too far away to get the details of her face I needed for any serious drawings, and I caught her eye often enough to regain the courage I had when I first got out of bed.

Alright. I walked over to the front desk to catch her in mid-comedic banter with Tom, her co-nightshift security partner. They responded to my “Hi,” and then neatly folded me into their banter, each jokingly asking me to ‘Amen’ their quick-witted ribbing of the other. I took advantage of the moment to enjoy her in a relaxed state, flashing her gorgeous smile while the two of them simultaneously played “Go Fish!” with a deck of Tom’s novelty cards. During a break in their dialogue, I formerly introduced myself, and finally got her name.

“Katina.”

Was a prettier name ever uttered? I doubt it. Not in THAT moment, surely.

Amused, Katina listened to my spiel, and agreed to allow me to sketch her. Her composure changed noticeably, as she took on what I imagine she considered her “model look.” Complete with a ‘bedroom eyes’ accessory, she did a great job in my humble opinion. Whatever little rudimentary crush I had developed by that time was now a raging fire of head-over-heels super crush.


I drew several sketches of her over about 12 pages in the next hour. She provided the same disappointed feedback of my previous beautiful victims, and I had to remind her of the whole reason for this late night drawing assignment in the first place. She conceded with a smile and an apology, and then a remarkable thing happened. We spent the next three hours of her shift talking… wait, was it just “talking?” No. We CONJURED up a magical friendship that lasted until the end of her life. That night I was so inspired by her intelligence, the expressed assurance of career plans for her future, and everything about her. It was obvious to me that on that night, I was in the presence of true greatness. As I became her closest confidant all the way until 2009, when circumstances necessarily required boundaries on our precious friendship, I genuinely looked forward to seeing her in her fully-realized state of awesome. I wasn’t the only one who felt that way about Katina, as she shared the details of the raise her other dear friends heaped upon her, especially her Slippery Rock University alma mater crew.

In the end though, I’m not sure she really felt that way about herself.

We lost Katina Maria Clayborn suddenly to breast cancer on 14 May 2017 at only 43 years old. It is a terrible and very sad thing.

Beyond the pain of her death, there was also the pain of witnessing her beat up on herself, and paralyze herself into inactivity based on a desperate over-analysis of her plans. She spent the majority of her adult life fretting and pessimistic, in shocking contrast to the confident and self-assured superstar I met at Cedar Point. Perhaps she was TOO good at selling people on her talents and capabilities, to the point that our expectations of her had become a form of idolatry? If so, then this was of course a situation that she could not possibly live up to, which quickly broke her from the supernatural pressure.

I truly loved Katina Clayborn with all my heart – and in addition to many other things – I wish she could have lived the life she wanted to live in her ultimate vision before she passed away. Her story is a lesson for us all. Fretting, second guessing oneself, not taking chances based on what MIGHT happen, etc., isn't worth playing with since none of us is promised tomorrow. Go hard and burn bright while we are here. Otherwise, what are we doing? Fear is just a tool, not a road block.

Rest in peace, my beloved “Babyhead.” May God have mercy upon your sweet soul.

Your friend for eternity,

Muhammad Rasheed

The Most Beautiful Nation

Rafay Khawaja - Which country has the most beautiful women?

Muhammad Rasheed - That’s easy. It’s the United States of America, of course.



American Women are not only the MOST super gorgeous in the world, but the sheer amount of hatertude they receive from their rivals is as legendary as it is comically sad.






American Women are looked at with mock-disdain and over-the-top disrespect, but all the while it is their beauty, swag, and style that are mined/stolen by the world’s industries.



Even when American Women try the styles of others, they create a whole new standard, and blow everyone else away. Afterwards you can ONLY see the American Women’s version!





American Women are very diverse, as you can see here within my own family’s example (wife & 2 daughters):


From button cute, to fresh-faced pretty, to the irresistible sexy swag of the seasoned tigress, American Women have it ALL.

Rafay Khawaja - Very biased answer.

Muhammad Rasheed - bias - inclination or prejudice for or against one person or group, especially in a way considered to be unfair.

I do have an inclination towards the women of my own group. Very much so. lol Thank you for your amazingly astute observation, genius.

Egi Vila - Im sorry, but why did you only show Black women? American Women consists of many other races and ethnicities.

Muhammad Rasheed - I don’t consider ALL American Women to be beautiful from my subjective view point. As diverse as the country is, that would not be realistic. I posted the images of women that were of the apex of beauty to me. If you feel other types of women are more beautiful then when you answer the question, please feel free to post the images of those you prefer. I don’t understand why you are confused by this.

Egi Vila - The question refered to what country has the most beautiful women, you said American women which consists of a lot more races and ethnicities then black. The question didn’t ask others what race or ethnicity has the most beautiful women. If i would say Russia, I would put all ethnicities and races of women in Russia. Your answer was very biased and also incorrect.

Muhammad Rasheed - My answer is very correct. The most beautiful women in the world are found in the USA, as the samples I posted demonstrated. Women happen to be represented within the categories of “race” and “ethnicity” it turns out, so you may notice that all of the Quora Answers to this question provide women of certain races and ethnic groups. :)

Tell me, if I had avoided the American races and ethnic groups that you yourself dislike when I made my choice, would you magically consider my post “fair” then?

Bahram Amiri - Good answer , but why did you neglect whiter skinned American women ?

Muhammad Rasheed - I didn’t “neglect” them since I focused on the ones most beautiful to me personally. Why do you care since white-skinned people are well represented in the other 81 Answers. They don’t need my help or interest, so why is it bothering you that they don’t have yet another prominent spot within my own listing? Tell me.

Dolu Divine - Omg ikr!!

Bahram Amiri - Because you used Americans and Americans don't mean the black ones. It was fair to make your answer non-biased. I didn't check other answers. If they only represented specific Americans, then they were biased too.

I don't know , maybe you're right by doing the same.

Muhammad Rasheed - “Maybe?” lol

Since all the samples I used ARE Americans, I don’t understand the problem you believe you see. Did you wish me to post pictures of all 150 million American women so my post would be artificially “fair?” lol Please be reasonable.

Bahram Amiri - Good, no objection!

Muhammad Rasheed - Well, I’m certainly glad my personal, subjective opinions regarding loving my own people have your official stamp of approval, Mr. Whoever-You-Are. lol

I swear that sometimes I can’t tell whether I’m reading you all’s comments on Qurora, or on YouTube. smh

Muhammad Rasheed - Bahram wrote: “…and Americans don't mean the black ones.”

I’m still thinking about this comment. Are you saying you think that native-born Blacks in the United States of America are somehow NOT US citizens? Please explain the true message of your comment and presence in this thread.

Sibling Rivalry

Salman Khan - Mankind was presumably unable to produce "anything like" a certain portion of the Qur'an, thus proving it is the word of Allah. Is that a valid claim?

Whether some text is “like” some other text is obviously subjective. If there is no objective method to determine that one text is like another text, then the claim must be false. Does this not therefore prove the opposite of what is claimed?

Muhammad Rasheed - All you'd have to do is pull the bulleted known facts from the Qur'an's history and use them as a checklist, seeking to duplicate the Qur'an by matching the conditions that produced it. This would be a reasonably objective contest despite the Questioner's complaints.

For example, the Qur'an was:

1.) preached from the mouth of an illiterate man with no formal schooling at all.
2.) revealed in a single segmented draft over a 22 year period into a completed work without revisions.
3.) preached by a man who was known by all who knew him best as being so honest, his nickname was "the trustworthy."
4.) received with such reverence, that everyone moved by it would immediately commit the verses to memory.
5.) recognized by friend and critics alike as being a magnificent work of Muhammad's native language... so much so that it elevated Arabic to a language of high literature and inspired generations of poets, artists, scientists, etc.

Duplicate these clearly miraculous conditions to also produce such a work, and you will have met the challenge of the One God of Abraham, Author of the Holy Qur'an.

Shmuel Beckerman - The challenge was only for Arab pagans though. Why is it that the majority of Jews and Christians are unimpressed by the Qur’an? Especially Arabian Jews who saw all of the flaws, inconsistencies, and contradictions in Qur’anic content and simply laughed at Muhammad and quickly rejected him. From the Jewish perspective, Muhammad spread monotheism to non-Jews, and soon the whole world will be united in serving God together as the Jews lead the way. Christianity and Islam are dependent on Judaism, but Judaism is independent of both.

Muhammad Rasheed - 1.) The challenge was for any and all disbelievers who doubted the fact that Muhammad (pbuh) really was the messenger of Allah, and that the Qur'an was indeed revealed by Him.

2.) The majority of Jews and Christians are unimpressed by the Qur’an because they are either ignorant of it, or disingenuous and arrogant.

3.) The Arabian Jews famously covenanted with Muhammad along with the other Yathrib tribal leaders, and later betrayed the prophet resulting in an intense humiliation that is now recorded in history to their shame. There is NO excuse for one who proclaims belief in the One God of Abraham to side with savage pagans against another believer in that same One God. The faux-critiques of the Jews, in the form of "kidnapped rabbis" and denying his illiteracy, gave away the true reasons behind their rejection of the Qur'an. It was no less than ethnic sibling rivalry, and a younger brother's pouting in his false belief that he holds some kind of monopoly over the special favor of Allah.

4.) Allah Himself perfected Al-Islam for humanity, and since He is the Source, the Muslim is dependent upon the One God alone. Your empty arrogance is showing again. I suggest you check it, and bow down to the Lord thy God and give Him the Glory that you seem to covet for yourself.

Shmuel Beckerman - Your second point is ignorant, biased, arrogant, and insulting. The Jews in Muhammad’s time and today, were and are unimpressed by the Qur’an not because of its flowery, eloquent language and strict/pure monotheism. Jews admire Muhammad for spreading monotheism to pagans, but he claimed he was a prophet for the Jews, openly contradicted the Torah, and slaughtered them like the violent fool that he was! Judaism was an ancient religion even in the 7th century, and the Jews had their established scripture! Had Muhammad left the Jews alone he would never have faced rejection! What an idiot. A power hungry, obsessive, maniacal warlord and control freak who’s best audience was the Arab pagans and no one else. And of course even they rejected him, he was a real outcast and a loser with low self esteem in his own abilities. Initially, he refused to believe he was a prophet himself!

He sabotaged his cause and shot himself in the foot by seeking their approval and caused his own problems. But even if he was rejected he should have taken it like a man, sucked it up and moved on. He didn’t because his character/personality was weak. What a lousy role model, the best example for all Muslims.

Therefore, Muhammad was arrogant, narcissistic, and stupid enough to intrude on the religious beliefs of other people. Muhammad accomplished an amazing feat by spreading monotheism to pagans and that’s undeniable but he was an utter, and total fool in other ways.

He was utterly stupid to assert that he was a prophet to the Jews, and openly contradict the Torah, while they read the Torah in their daily lives to disprove him. Jews strictly and firmly believe Moses is the last prophet, so Muhammad’s teachings contradict the Torah and don’t confirm it as he arrogantly claimed. Thus, the Jews didn’t accept him for legitimate reasons of faith and certainly not for the ignorant, biased and arrogant reasons you stated which are insults to the Jews.

The Torah is for the Jews and the Qur’an is for the Muslims. Muhammad was an insecure, narcissistic, hypocrite who couldn’t leave well enough alone. He needed an ego boost from the Jews to confirm him as a prophet, he needed their approval which says a lot about his true character! He couldn’t handle rejection and he had an inferiority complex among other mental issues.

He slaughtered Jews because they refused to accept him as a true prophet for their own reasons and that offended his fragile ego, what a damn, pathetic shame! He was a walking, talking contradiction. And Muslims who say he was humble, kind and the best of humans or best of creations are lying. If he was the best example for Islamic behavior, its clear why many Muslims are walking, talking contradictions themselves. He spread monotheism to pagans but he was certainly not a good person. He was a violent false prophet.

Muhammad Rasheed - This new post of yours functions as little more than a tantrum, the details of which conflict with the facts of history.

1.) The Jews of Muhammad's day – specifically the three major tribes of Yathrib – covenanted with him and agreed to aid the prophet in exchange for (among other things) mediation between the groups of that city. They even said they recognized him as the messenger, and betrayed him later.

2.) The One God of Abraham is EVERYONE'S God; He's the Lord of all those who agree to worship Him and accept the message of His prophets as true, and the Qur'an is for all of mankind. Don't pretend that there is anything left of the original revealed scripture of Moses left in the scrolls you carry, since we BOTH know better. The Jews hold no monopoly over Allah's favor... the "chosen people" concept as they hold onto it is a fiction. Allah promised the patriarchs that because of their own individual unflinching righteousness and good service, He would make their progeny more numerous than the stars in the sky. This fact alone is responsible for Allah's enormous amounts of Self-Restraint in the face of the children of Israel's continuous betrayals and disrespect during the Exodus journey. Not because they themselves were anointed as specially favored. No. The leaders of the Jews early on made up their own rules, and decided on their own they would no longer accept the prophets who were raised up to admonish them as true. They attacked and slaughtered Allah's messengers from among their own nation, as well as those from alien ethnic groups, so it should be no surprise that they would attack the final prophet who was raised up from the nation of their oldest rivals. There is only one reason, and one reason only that they reject the Qur'an. Bile-fueled jealousy.

3.) "Leaving the Jews alone" was not an option, as it was the prophet's job to preach the message of God to whomsoever he was instructed to preach it to by that very same God. Perhaps you have grown overused to playing loose & free with the narrative of sacred scripture, until you somehow believe the prophets could do whatever they wanted? Know you that they were NOT in charge. Only Allah is in charge, and it is your job to listen to what the Lord thy God commands and obey Him. God is NOT your peer, and His messengers were His agents to be obeyed, not maligned and killed because they did not aid and abet your foolishness. When you attacked and disobeyed the prophets, you attacked and disobeyed God Himself.

4.) The Banu Qurayza slaughtered themselves by siding with the pagan enemy of fellow believers in the One God, lying about it, and refusing to repent once they were called out. Hard-hearted, prideful, and stubborn until the end, they refused to repent of their wrong and preferred the ultimate humiliation instead. Note that both the Banu Nadir and the Banu Qaynuqa were allowed to leave with their lives after they wisely decided to repent, thus demonstrating it was pride alone that ended the treacherous lives of the Qurayza, not Muhammad.

5.) So he was both power hungry and had low self-esteem? lol Which was it? Do you all ever try to make sense? In his lifetime, Muhammad prevailed over the enemies of God, consolidated the tribes of Arabia, and ended his days as the prophet-king of the peninsula, leaving behind a strong and growing body of believers that would go on to conquer nearly the entire Old World. Because of this, all of your talk of 'rejection' and 'his problems' comes across as babbling nonsense. I did notice that his enemies (particularly anyone within the body of believers who were only pretending to be Muslim as they worked their way to positions of power) waited until after the messenger of Allah was safely away from the material realm before they worked their revenge schemes.

6.) A random Jew on the Internet called Muhammad a 'fool,' yet the Lord thy God said, within His enduring scripture of the ages, that the prophet was indeed of most excellent character, a sublime believer whose behavior He commanded we all emulate (especially you). Which one of you should I believe then?  ;)

Shujaur Rehman - Also insert the so called ‘violent verses’ in a book which are often quoted in the case of islam by it’s critics(out of context ofcourse) to assert their understanding of it being a violent cult responsible for almost all the unrest in the world today and then try to seek followers of that ideology like over 2 billion(and growing) in the case of this faith let’s see how many one is able to garner…that an illiterate bedouin who lived in Arabia over 1400 yrs ago has been able to do so(allegedly)makes him a time tested genius that none can even try to emulate

Muhammad Rasheed - 1.) Muhammad's genius was that he threw all his chips in with the One God and completely submitted his whole will to Him, just as his ancestor Abraham did (peace be upon the messengers). The prophet had the brilliant idea to bet it all on the One who made him, and was rewarded in this life with the prophethood anointing. The Qur'an itself is the work of Allah, not Muhammad, hence why no human will be able to match its feat.

2.) The 'war verses' of the Qur'an are defensive in nature.

3.) The unrest in the world has nothing to do with Al-Islam, and is in fact part of the extended legacy of European colonialism, and the diabolical machinations of Western intelligence agencies and their mega-corporation partners. Wake up, please.

Duel Accepted!

"I accept your challenge, infidel.  En garde!"
Jim Ashby - How do peaceful Muslims who condemn terrorism interpret the list of killings ordered or supported by Muhammad?

Just like the Bible, the Quran and the oral traditions that grew up around it contain stories, statements, or even apparent commandments that are unacceptable today. How do "modern" Muslims deal with these, especially given the very strong animus against any sort of historical-critical interpretation of the Quran?

Jim Ashby - I have the definite impression that Muslims are like Christians where their scriptures are concerned . . . namely, many of them have never read (much less, studied) their own holy scripture. Their understanding of Islam is based on what they've been told, so they have a positive impression of their religion.

It's possible they could read the Quran and retain a positive impression -- after all, Christians are often unfazed by the content of their Bible -- but it's also possible that reading the Quran might set them on the path to apostasy (as often happens with Christians and their Bible).

The Quran says there should be no compulsion in religion, yet Muhammad converted entire towns at the point of a sword. So do you favor the tolerant suwar or the militarisitic suwar? It's up to you. Islam, like Christianity, is what adherents make of it. Currently, Islam is getting a very bad rap because a significant number of Muslims have made Islam a bloody and intolerant religion.

To me, it's undeniable that Islam needs to disassociate itself from violence of ALL kinds. Violent Jihad, violent protests, violent punishments under sharia law, violent threats, violent antisemitism and violent anti-gay penalties.

Maybe then they'll stop killing each other . . . and us.

Muhammad Rasheed - Jim wrote: "...yet Muhammad converted entire towns at the point of a sword."

Tell me why do you believe that, please. What is the source of that comment's assertion?

Jim wrote: "To me, it's undeniable that Islam needs to disassociate itself from violence of ALL kinds."

Remember after 9/11 when President Bush started a war in a Muslim majority nation that intelligence said didn't have anything to do with the NY tragedy? I'm going to assume you voted for Bush, and support his political party, Jim. That's the party of dedicated war profiteers, who destroy entire counties for profit. Your own dedicated "anti-Islamism" stance is only a reflection of your party's war mongering propaganda. The radicalized militant "terrorist" activities in the middle east is directly caused by the West's power monopoly empire building and their greed-fueled foreign policies. Dipping as far back as the origins of Islam to find justifications for your xenophobia is disingenuous, as it ignores centuries of peace between all three Abrahamic faiths as they lived among each other under Muslim rule. The problems of the Muslim World that are currently headline news are all your fault, not theirs. Everyone has the right to defend themselves from greedy foreign agitators such as yourselves.

Jim Ashby - After capturing Mecca, Muhammad consolidated his power in the Hijaz and declared rule by divine law. He and his Muslims had established themselves as the dominant force in Arabia. Over the next year or so, as Muhammad extended Islam to the rest of the Arabian Peninsula, “most of the remaining tribes and states hastened to submit to Muhammad”.

Here’s the chronologically final, farewell, sura (An-Nasr) of the Quran in its entirety:

When the victory of Allah has come and the conquest, and you see the people entering into the religion of Allah in multitudes, then exalt [Him] with praise of your Lord and ask forgiveness of Him. Indeed, He is ever Accepting of repentance.

Muhammad Rasheed - Please note that the Muslims "captured Mecca" while wearing pilgrim garb, with not a single drop of blood shed. The tribes of Arabia hurried to join the new ruling order for a variety of reasons, but none of those involved being forced to do so at sword point. The world was ready for the perfected final message of the One God of Abraham.

Jim Ashby - LoL . . . you’re confusing the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah with the Conquest of Mecca.

Lord, please give me SOMEBODY who knows what they’re talking about.

Muhammad Rasheed - Let the record show that you led your response with “After capturing Mecca,” in which case I pointed out that the capture of Mecca happened “while wearing pilgrim garb, with not a single drop of blood shed.” Since this happened after the pagans willingly decided to cancel the truce of Hudaybiyyah, perhaps you’d like to start demonstrating that you know what you are talking about?

Jim Ashby - Like I said, you’re confused.

These are two separate and distinct historical events.

Use your head, for Christ’s sake! Do you really think Muhammad’s army of 10,000 soldiers approached Mecca from four different directions DRESSED IN PILGRIM GARB?

LoL . . . I get the most ridiculous comments here!

I have no doubt that if it were a slumber party instead of pilgrim season, you’d claim they approached in their pajamas.

Muhammad Rasheed - They weren't soldiers, they were pilgrims, hence the "pilgrim garb" and why no blood was spilled. You're trying to interpret those events based on how a White Supremacist European war monger thinks, but Muhammad (peace be upon him!) was nothing like that. This explains your confused, cocked-eyed interpretation of the historical events. No blood was spilled, because it wasn't soldiers that showed up 10,000 strong, but pilgrims for the hajj season... and ALL Muslims. The pagans were confused (as much as you are demonstrating here), frightened at the audacity, but sapped of their own mojo since the Muslims had decisively bested them in every major battle in the previous 20 years, despite having less resources. They didn't know what to think of this hajj, but they wouldn't dare try the Faithful with arms. Those among them that did not fall on their faces to submit their meager wills to Allah, wisely fled.

Muhammad Rasheed - Please stop pretending you know my faith better than I. Thank you.

Jim Ashby - It’s not faith I know better. It’s the Quran. I’ve already thoroughly debunked you but you’re apparently incapable of recognizing that fact. How? Let me repeat for those slow on the up-take:

LoL . . . you’re confusing the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah with the Conquest of Mecca.

Lord, please give me SOMEBODY who knows what they’re talking about.

It was posted, last Wednesday, here.

Any further denialism will result in you being blocked.

Muhammad Rasheed - I didn’t ‘deny’ anything, Jim. I did point out that the conquest of Mecca (in pilgrim garb) didn’t happen until AFTER the pagans willingly cancelled the truce of Hudaybiyyah. This fact means I’m not confusing anything with anything. lol

Are you going to address that and explain why you seem unaware of it since you believe you know the Qur’an, or are you going to block me like a coward and pretend that you won the debate when I can no longer see your posts to counter? :)

btw, smile for the camera. ;)

Jim Ashby - And I quote:

"I did point out that the conquest of Mecca (in pilgrim garb) didn’t happen until AFTER the pagans
willingly cancelled the truce of Hudaybiyyah."

Oh REALLY, Muhammad? Please cite (quote yourself) exactly where that happened.  I’ll give you a day. If you fail to do so, I’ll block you for dishonesty in your exchanges with me.  It’s time to put up or shut up. :-)

I look forward to your reply. There’s no telling what you’ll dream up next. I’m on the edge of my
seat . . .

P.S.
We know how to use the edit log . . . just saying . . .

Muhammad Rasheed - Yes, really. This thread isn't even that long. lol All you have to do is scroll up. Or were you so busy reading your own biases into my post that you failed to comprehend what I wrote? tsk. Here:

M. Rasheed wrote: "Since this happened after the pagans willingly decided to cancel the truce of
Hudaybiyyah, perhaps you’d like to start demonstrating that you know what you are talking about?"

Please note that I wrote that in the very next post after your amusingly shallow & silly comment
containing the Hudaybiyyah and Meccan conquest links. Maybe you should have actually read them,
chief. :)

P.S.
Are you going to threaten to block me in EVERY response now, or just the ones where you realize you messed up? Asking for a friend. :P

Jim Ashby - Yes. I should have blocked you already. Upon reviewing my previous posts, I see I’ve
already threatened to block you. But you’re providing too much fodder for our readers for me to pass up.

Are you daff? Hold on . . . will be citing the encyclopedia of Islam in a few minutes.

Muhammad Rasheed - I don't mind if you block me, since I'll just add your coward head to my trophy wall, but I'd prefer to trade with you and expose what you pass off as an 'intellect" as the
ineffective mush it really is, and in front of all your atheist pals (although I did appreciate the
stance you took in that Malala Yousafzai thread, which reveals you perhaps do have at least some
traces of non-jackass swimming around somewhere in you).

Jim Ashby - By your own admission the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah (in 628 A.D.) preceded the Conquest of Mecca (in 629 A.D.).

As I stated to begin with, you’re confusing/conflating the two. The Treaty of Hudaybiyyah was
negotiated when Muhammad and his followers were prevented from entering Mecca, as pilgrims. The Conquest of Mecca, on the other hand, as the name implies, was a military operation in the following year.

• Treaty of Hudaybiyya = pilgrims.
• Conquest of Mecca = soldiers.

You've been wrong all along.

Put that on your blog too.

NOW I’m ready to block you.

Go ahead, make my day.

P.S.
I’ve copied the entire thread . . . in case readers of your blog would like the source material.

Muhammad Rasheed - *cracks fingers*

Jim Ashby - Bring it on, Muhammad. Put up or shut up.

Muhammad Rasheed - Okay, you were right. Even though the conquest of Mecca was achieved without a war, only a small skirmish as Khalid ibn Walid's team encountered the most hostile of the pagans when the 10,000 Muslim forces entered the holy city, they were not pilgrims. The image of the final scene in the film 'The Message' (1976) is what colored my memory of that event.

Enjoy your victory.

When Art and Corporate Meet

Ambrose Quintanilla IV - ABC is bringing back the sitcom Roseanne with the original cast (even though Dan is dead). So here's the question...Which classic sitcom would you want to see come back. And before you say Friends or Seinfeld, those two are off the table. Also, any show where any of the actors have passed on since the show ended are not eligible. No Three's Company, No Happy Days, No Everybody Loves Raymond...etc. Okay? Okay. GO!

Muhammad Rasheed - Not a single one. Only all original content moving forward. Create NEW classics.

Ambrose Quintanilla IV - Yeah, but they canceled Two Broke Girls (said sarcastically).

Muhammad Rasheed - Most television shows are allowed to doddle along well pass their natural lifespan until they become caricatures of themselves, and actually painful to watch (looking at you, Simpsons).

Its better to move forward and create all new content. I hate bringing shows back, reboots, and "prequel" trends. Just stop.

Ambrose Quintanilla IV - But seriously Muhammad, I miss the days when a Stand up would work his/her way up the ladder and land a Sitcom and let the next person do the same.

Muhammad Rasheed - Working his/her way up the ladder involved a whole lot of political schmoozing, and was rarely fair who got to have a show and who didn't. It certainly wasn't tied to who was the funniest. "Who plays the loaded game better" is the name of that tune.

We need better platforms than what the Hollywood cartel allows. I wish my people would open their eyes past their petty squabble tendencies and SEE what Tyler and Oprah are putting together for real...

Ambrose Quintanilla IV - The people who got shows worked hard and of course met the right people. Were they always the funniest? No. But they worked hard and networks worked to get them in shows. The networks don't do that anymore. That's why there are so many comics still touring and playing clubs when they should have been on or had their own shows. There were a lot of comics that got shows based on their talent and following that were a$$holes and didn't play the political game.

Muhammad Rasheed - I'm sure some of them didn't get the deals they wanted because they refused to play the game and/or were asshole divas. Most of them didn't get the deals they wanted because the executives were the assholes, and didn't want to give their art a boost because it didn't fit THEIR corporate-political vision. Hence all the bs ethnic stereotypes that have infested the markets for the last 100 yrs. That's propaganda.

Muhammad Rasheed - "I'm sorry, but you're just not Latin/Black enough. Could you be a little more buffoonish?"

"I'm sorry, but we just don't think America is ready for what you're selling."

Ambrose Quintanilla IV - Regardless. I miss sitcoms from Stand up comedians. I have a lot of friends that should have opportunities to create a show but they are just not there anymore in the amount they used to be. They do guest spots here or there but can't pitch for themselves like they used to.

Muhammad Rasheed - Yes. That's why we need alternate platforms from the Hollywood cartel. Coming up with solutions to the problem is part of the hustle & grind. How WILL you stand out from the pack in a competitive market with fewer distribution opportunities?

Muhammad Rasheed - I remember a comic I used to follow back in the '90s named Mystro Clark. His shtick was very funny, and original, with a million directions it could go in, from a rock solid base of talent. He ended up getting a pilot made, but when the journeyman writers got a hold of him, they turned him into an empty "universal appeal" mess no different than most of what that stock television template churns out. I was extremely disappointed even back then, and wished there were alternate platforms to showcase a wide variety of stand-up art in its purest state.

When art meets corporatism, it often means the death of art.

A Goodly & Virtuous Atheist...?

Ravi P - What would Allah do? A Muslim and non Muslim both follow live virtuously. In addition, the atheist eats pork, worships idols. The Muslim prays five times a day. Both do everything else that is kosher like follow ten commandments, help the poor and needy etc.

What happens when they meet Allah?

Muhammad Rasheed - atheism equals hellfire.

There is no 'virtuous' life without belief in the One God who made both you, and the rules of morality/ethics. God is the Author of what is righteous and what is not; without Him all of humankind would surely be lost.

Is not belief in Him the first in all Commandments and Pillars of Faith? Take heed.

Ravi P - With a scientic mind, i cannot accept anything that is not subject to scientific inquiry. My opinion is God is just an imaginary being to counter the insecurities of man when he encounters something unknown to him or that he cannot control( lightning, rain, drought). Religion was also a good mechanism to bring some rules to society so that people dont kill each other.

I dont think there is a god frowning upon me for believing that he does not exist. If he realy wanted all of us to worship him, he would have made a frequent appearance showing he exists and guiding us in his direction.

In this century, Religion has no place. It has become a tool to scare people into getting manipulated. Atheist=going to hell? I fell out of my chair reading this. There is no hell, no heaven.

Muhammad Rasheed - With my own love for logic & reason, I cannot accept your claim of possessing a scientic mind [sic], since the limitations of the techniques, processes and procedures of science are by no means universally applicable to all aspects of our reality. An objective, rational being with an actual scientific mind would recognize that.

"I don't know" is an accepted and reasonable tool within the true scientist's repertoire when he finds himself at the end of his powers of understanding. Your insistence that your narrow-minded, uninformed opinion regarding matters of faith should be considered worthy of respect in any way, shape or form is quite ridiculous, and equally so is your amusing pretense to be a person of science.

A true scientific mind, Ravi, is both open, and far more humble than your performance here. There's a reason why the truly smart among us tend to use "The more I learn, the more I realize how much I DON'T know!" as their motto. Please take the hint.

Ravi P - See this is the result of being Brain washed thoroughly. I just stated my opinion. The issue i have with people like you is that you accuse what you exactly are. You are being a religious bully!

Muhammad Rasheed - I deliberately took on the Islamic belief system through willing self-study, Ravi. There is no brainwashing here on my part. I did find it interesting that your self-proclaimed scientific mind responded to my counter-response with a kneejerk emotional accusation instead of logic & reason.

Do you plan to ever level up, or will you continue to fill my post comments with this same poor quality of emotional responses while claiming that I'm 'bullying' you?

Ravi P - So having studied Islam on your own, do you just ignore the negative aspects of Islam?

People who are born into it might have no choice, but took a concious decision to join it? What did you find in Islam that was not there in christianity or Judaism? Dont mean to ask it as a sacastic comment. Just wondering why people join Islam when there are many negative aspects to it. Seems like a very rigid system to me and some of the verses seem to be conveniently revealed.

Muhammad Rasheed - Well, a huge benefit to actually studying the material of a belief system, as opposed to being born into a cultural religious tradition, is that I actually gain the ability to discern between the tenets of the faith versus the numerous eclectic ethnic traditions that are falsely attributed to Islam. I haven't found any negative aspects to the religion itself, and the message of the One God is surprisingly simple. Bureaucratic elitists of course have a vested interest in making the material more complex than it actually is, but that's not the religion, and I have zero interest in equating Arabism with the religion of Allah.

The major item that Islam has over both Christianity and Judaism is the Qur'an itself. Many scholars and laypeople are used to thinking that the bible is the counterpart to the Qur'an, but that isn't true. Remember, Islam was kind enough to separate the believers' narrative of what happened to the prophets/patriarchs from the Divine Word of God in His Own Voice... these are two completely different texts. In Islam the former is called "hadith," and the latter is the Qur'an. The hadith isn't the work of Muhammad (pbuh), but is what the believers said about him after the fact. The hadith discuss Muhammad and the other companions of the prophet in the past tense as a narrative tale as remembered or passed down by them. Nearly the entire bible functions this way (if the Torah was supposed to be writ by Moses, then why does the voice of the books sound like other humans writing about the prophet after he was gone?) The Qur'an on the other hand is God talking directly to humankind in His Voice, either to His prophet, or to all of us. When tales of prophets past are told, it is God Himself doing the telling from His own point of view! The Qur'an is God point blank instructing humans as to His requirements, explaining who He is in relation to us as the created, and setting the record straight as to what the other"gods" worshipped by disbelievers actually are. To me this was an obvious incredibly powerful concept, and no other religion can possibly compete with that.

Many verses were absolutely "conveniently" revealed, and I would argue they all were. Considering the whole point to the Qur'an is to guide humans into the path of righteousness, particularly within a believing community. The religion was perfected as the people performed it with God providing instruction during the forming! "Conveniently revealed" is a mercy from Allah for those who are wise, Ravi, not an insult.

Return to the FRAY!

Rex May - Thanks for adding me. I've done a few blog posts on Jack Vance. Here's the latest.



John Justin Green - Excellent posts Rex May. Vance was certainly devoted to reality and not any idiology. And yes indeed we are at war with an enemy which is Alien to us. Dispationate analysis will always be called hate by the enemy and its allies. This is not even a war based on reason. It is nothing more than a basis animal struggle of primates dominating other primates. That is why the most absurd arguments are given ground as they are always backed by intimidation. The intimidation is the true determining factor. But here we can at least entertain our ideas without fear. But we even had a period here in this group when the Rashid our devout Muslim member was mirroring our posts on his own blog. This was intimidating because it made members private group statements public. This is not welcome. But feel free to venture to Rashid's blog and post if you want. I did do for a time.

Read my post about the effect of slavery on inherited biology. I have not pursued it but if you are interested I will likely continue it.

Muhammad Rasheed - The fact that you so carelessly misspelled "ideology" says everything that I needed to know about both your thought process and the quality of this post. lol

Muhammad Rasheed - Re: "this is not welcome"

Just curb your itch for wanting to spew the n-word whenever you get frustrated, and control your batshit tendency to make up "we bred you negro bucks & wenches back when America was GREAT!" type comments, and you can relax.

Muhammad Rasheed - By the way, you aren't at war with an alien enemy. You're at war with the caricatured effigy you substituted for your demonized rival, in order to justify your exploitation system with a manufactured synthetic free conscience.

John Justin Green - I don't think you have the brains for discussion. Are you trying to come across unanchored, swimming in complex delusions?

I'm not sure if you are referring to my use of Alien or the use in Rex's blog. But Islam and western ccivilization are incompatable and the relationship is fairly called alien. And by western I mean the basis of it being the emancipation of the individual from being a subject. Surely you are not going to pretend Islam consists of a similar basis.

John Justin Green - Rashid you must not be paying attention. I've explained more than once now that the effect on biologic inheritance from slavery was done over much greater time than blacks have lived in this land. I'm not give western culture much of the credit for what has been done to you.

Muhammad Rasheed - 1.) It's difficult to take your "Islam and Western civilization are incompatible" comment seriously since Islam/Qur'an were part of the toolkit used to build the republic by the founding fathers. Your ignorance of this fact is just as telling as your anti-Islam xenophobic biases.

2.) Your explanations regarding the Black race, which come directly out of White Supremacist Ideology, mean just as much to me as specialized temptations of satan for sins I happen not to have a propensity for. lol Why do you sound so confused when I casually dismiss racist rhetoric as if it is nonsense?

Can you somehow believe it isn't nonsense? How is that?  ;)

John Justin Green - 1) Show me. I dont believe that. In fact I think they were pretty ignorant about Islam.

John Justin Green - 2) I have not yet explained anything so whatever you thing is from something you cal White Supremacy Ideology of which I have no clue about is coming not from me but from your own dark mind.

Muhammad Rasheed - 1.) I'm not surprised, since you oft demonstrate a tendency to project your own ignorance upon others. Why would the original architects of the republic escape your poo throwing?  Here:  The Founding Fathers and Islam

Muhammad Rasheed - 2.) Did I just discover arguments on the Internet? Was the computer invented yesterday? John, I am in constant battle in various forums, message boards, private messages, and social media threads. Some of you lot are better at masking the racism in your heart than others, but you all wear the same tells.

HINT: The wordier you are, O Jack Vance fan, the more likely you are to give away your true thoughts.  ;)

John Justin Green - I am trying to give away my thought you imbecile. Thanks for enlightening me. What I know is there was not an understanding of your doctrin. That was made clear by the reports about what was a revelation to the US leaders during the Barbary Pirate problem. Thier notes suggest they had no idea Islam was so vile.

Rex May - @Muhammad Rasheed…



John Justin Green - My suspicion was not negated by the historical document Muhammad Rasheed offered as it confirmed there were pro Islamic argument but does not detail the argument at all and offers no clue as to what depth of knowledge they had. So the logical speculation is they were not aware of how the totalitarian nature of Islam as that would have been obviously incompatible with the civil rules they were developing.

Muhammad Rasheed - I've detailed the argument for you on numerous occasions, and revealed that both you, and your Churchill, can see no further than your quasi-deformed olfactory appendage.

Muhammad Rasheed - So you think that the extremely well-read founding fathers were somehow LESS informed about Islam than you are? lol

How many countries did you create from scratch btw, John?

John Justin Green - Or they hoped all the safeguards would prevent the problem. But they did not expect this to last anyway.

John Justin Green - Yes I have more history to view. It is reasonable because the historical evidence of Marxism and communism was not available. And Islam has been doctoring the books for appearances. So I'm not at all confident they got you.

Muhammad Rasheed - Doctoring what books, John?

Rex May - I've been saying for years, islam has its good points and its bad points. Incompatibility with Western Culture and other cultures is one of the bad ones.



John Justin Green - Doctoring as in fixing. With flame. Redacting your main public consumption book. Controlling what is allowed to be written. We can only imagine what was erased from history. And of ccoursethe massing thought control effort Islam makes is effective. We can only imagine what was destroyed. And of course this manipulation is hoped to be kept behind the scenes. But truth is hard to hide to such a degree.

John Justin Green - Today we have seen many authors in hiding or killed. You do not allow any critical detailing if you can stop it. The poor founding fathers did not have a chance to know you IMO. Today information is much harder to control.

Muhammad Rasheed - @Rex... How is it incompatible with the West exactly? Give me three examples, please.

Muhammad Rasheed - @John... What proof do you have of this doctoring? Or is this a case of you believing what your team just made up in your propaganda? Do you have any proof?

Rex May - @Muhammad Rasheed… blsdphrmy laws, polygamy, criminalization of apostasy.

John Justin Green - Doctoring is a metaphor for trying to effect the message. So I am wondering why you would ask for proof after my answer. Do you deny writings are destroyed or that the purpose is for other than effecting perception? Maybe they burned the books just for a nice warm fire? Are you denying the consequence has been intimidation and murder for authors who produce works critical of Islam? Was the Koran not redacted? You are posting like your own life depends on being an all out propagandist if you can not not accept such an obvious thing.

John Justin Green - @Rex… it has always seemed that he just cant accept anything other than what he desires in dialog. I have never seen him acknowledge a point critical of Islam. His arguing has become absurd to avoid acknowledgement. I wish he would try acknowledging reasonable criticisms but instead he keeps fighting like the black knight missing all his limbs. But it could be worse as he doesn't insist the Earth is flat.

John Justin Green - Of course the nice thing about burning and murder is that ashes and dead men tell no tales. There seems to be a reliance on this deniability and the response of 'prove it' to be the common reliable shelter of the criminal.

John Justin Green - Noncupatory...

Muhammad Rasheed - Rex May wrote: "blsdphrmy laws, criminalization of apostasy"

Well, those two items have nothing to do with the religion, and are actually cultural taint from the legacy of European colonialism. So you have no argument against Islam itself.

Why Blasphemy Laws Are Actually Anti-Islamic

Muhammad Rasheed - Rex May wrote: "polygamy"

Allah allowed up to four wives under very specific circumstances, and even within those conditions, He still advised to only have one wife as the best practice for those who are righteous.

In other words, polygamy is actually discouraged in the faith itself by God's decree (4:2-5 "Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with them, then only one..."). So you have no argument against Islam on that score either.

What else do you have? I've been Muslim nearly all of my life, and I've had no problems living in the USA, except when some xenophobic bigots attacked my family. The issue was with them, you see, not with me.

Muhammad Rasheed - John Justin Green wrote: "I have never seen him acknowledge a point critical of Islam."

As the posts above demonstrate, it's because everything you think about my religion is wrong. Wishing it wasn't so hasn't really helped your position. lol

Muhammad Rasheed - John Justin Green wrote: "So I am wondering why you would ask for proof after my answer."

'Proof' is a synonym for 'evidence.' This is the material that determines if an assertion is either a fact or a fiction, based on whether it is available or not, and it performs in this function thus and so:

If an assertion has proof to support it, then it is a fact. If an assertion does not have proof to support it, it is a fiction.

Criticisms cannot be considered reasonable without the evidence that supports their accusations. Please try harder. What books were supposed to have been burned?

John Justin Green - Evidence of burned books, redaction, intimidation? You really think denying there is evidence is not absurd? You are either pathologically stuck as a propagandist or delusional. This conversation is noncupatory.

Rex May - @Muhammad Rasheed… And polygamy is prohibited in the Book of Mormon, but the Mormons practiced it anyway. It's what Muslims actually do that counts, not what the Koran says.

Muhammad Rasheed - @John... Notice that I didn't deny evidence, I merely asked you to provide it. That means it's in YOUR court whether such material is denied or not.

Can you provide it? Yes or no?

Muhammad Rasheed - @Rex... You're being silly. If the religion doesn't condone a practice, but the people do it anyway, how is the practice rationally still being blamed on the religion? hahaha

Do you ever try to make sense? Obviously it's impossible for you to see pass your xenophobic bias.

Rex May - The fact that one piece of scripture contradicts a widespread practice within the religion does not mean that the religion 'doesn't condone' it. And you know that very well.



Rex May - This reminds me of communists who say that Marx didn't condone mass murder, therefore, communism as a movement can't be held responsible for mass murders.

John Justin Green - Prove? You mean post internet links to reports about Rushdie, or murdered cartoonists or regarding the edits in the Koran or on book burning? If you do not believe any of this occurs now with such common news I guess I can not satisfy you and more effort is pointless except for you to enjoy watching me dance for you. So once again, what you post is now absurd. noncopatory

John Justin Green - I am not thinking Rasheed knows at a deeper level he can not defend or nagate our points but has a pathologic psychology that demands he post some pretense of an effective counter. He always talks about sword play. In sword play the children must agree on wether the strike was effective. So a persistent child can get the others to agree he won just to shut him up. I believe this is his strategy. But it would be better to not thing of a battle but of an exchange of ideas.

John Justin Green - So I suspect if we just don't respond to his repetitive absurd denials he can feel it means we lost. Haha

John Justin Green - Funny that I am truly a Mormon. Polygamy is not condoned by the Church of Later Day Saints. The Mormons who do this are outside the church. It's not canon. And I am just on the books baptised as a child. I do not follow them. I am Orthodox Catholic. The original Christian church.

Rex May - I was referring to the original Mormons, who were indeed polygamists despite the prohibition in the Book of Mormon.

Rex May - It's not jusr Muslims. Many groups are inxompatible with the Wesr.



John Justin Green - I am not sure if polygamy was ever put in writing to be a acceptable practice or not. Just like Islam, Mormons created a system of government which was used when they were on their own in the West. I would not be surprised if polygamy was not written down as policy somewhere. Islam also has other references on governing and rules on life and it is pretty comprehensive. But if Rasheed says polygamy is not advised I believe it.

Rex May - @John Justin Green… Can you define Orthodox Catholic so I'll know jusr what you mean…

John Justin Green - Before the great split where the archdiocese in Rome left the church and morphed into the Roman Catholic Church. The original orthodox Church remians and is known commonly by the various archdiocese - Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox , Antiochian Orthodox..

Rex May - Got it. Thanks.

Muhammad Rasheed - @Rex... Please don't say "And you know that very well" since we think fundamentally differently about literally everything. Such comments are nonsensical coming from you lot.

That "one piece of scripture" is the divine Word of God, you ninny. If it contradicts a practice, then by default, that means the practice is falsely attributed to the religion.

Especially when the disbelieving hellbound, such as yourself, is the one performing the attribution.  :)

There is no priesthood in Islam. Attempts to claim such positions are by no means universally accepted by the body.

Muhammad Rasheed - John wrote: "But if Rasheed says polygamy is not advised I believe it."

The quote I posted was from the Qur'an. It was God telling us this restriction; I didn't make it up.

Muhammad Rasheed – John wrote: “reports about Rushdie”

Rushdie wrote an old rumor into a novel and several Islamic communities got upset about it. A few leaders from the shia sect called for his death. I am not of the shia sect, so your reference means nothing to me at all as a Muslim. Should it? I posted the link where the guy explained to you that the 'blasphemy laws' aren't of Islam, did I not? So why do you prefer to hold onto falsehoods about my faith when it is well documented that what you believe about it is indeed just falsehood?

John wrote: “murdered cartoonists”

Those dumb cartoonists were murdered by militant extremists that they deliberately baited. Again what does that have to do with me, especially when I already posted the proof that 'blasphemy laws' aren't supported in Islam itself? What the extremist militants did was wrong; people have a right to be stupid as hell without getting slaughtered for it.

John wrote: “edits in the Koran/book burning”

What edits and burnings are you supposed to be referencing, John? Spill it out.

John Justin Green - Seems to me you are claiming there is a pure form of Islam which, if practiced would not be totalitarian and would be respectful of other belief without treating people outside Islam with claims or abuses. If that was true then it is not incompatible, but then the practical problem is that too many are following these totalitarian beliefs you would say are not Islam. These forms of Islam or false Islam if you will should be recognized refused the privileges we give based on religious freedoms. Id like you to explain the writings I have read tht are clearly incompatible and then you could try to show some biblical statement you think is similar. Let's see.

John Justin Green - Is it not a great problem that the totalitarians hide this from us when not able to dominate and pretend to be what you say is the true Muslim? And when the proper Muslims like yourself are neglecting this problem it makes the rest of us think you are conning us too.

John Justin Green - It reminds me of the mote in your eye Jesus mentioned.

John Justin Green - Lets all police ourselves

John Justin Green - Im am lost in a sea of persausive argument against Islam trying to find redaction but found so many other problems I am overwhelmed by www.thereligionofpeace.com and www.politicalislam.com and both are mountainous. The efforts to create more internal consistency and better perception by abrogation are not the only effort that suggests to me a learned man 250 years ago would have a good chance to not get Islam. Oddly I have trouble finding anything on this word 'redacted'. I wonder about my own memory. But it is clear there is a great deal of trouble finding the truth about Islam and both these sites and the constant arguments by so many now that we have this internet makes it clear. So I see no reason to assume the founding fathers got Islam.

John Justin Green - So with so much argument I have to retreat to actual Islam, to decide if it is compatible with the West. Rex said it is more about actions than words. The history of what hapens where Islam takes hold of minds is far from what you say or what is written. It is horrible. I believe this is for the same fundamental reason that there is such a contract between what a Marxist(socialist communist etc) says or writes and what actually occurs.

Muhammad Rasheed - The 'religionOfPeace' and 'politicalIslam' sites are anti-Islam propaganda sites, John. They aren't news sites. You've already demonstrated that you don't know enough about Islam to tell what's real or not, so why do you assume these known propagandists are telling you the truth?

John Justin Green - They sound reasonable to me. So does the pro Islam sites. You can't avoid bias either way. So stop using that as argument.

Muhammad Rasheed - Again, since you've already demonstrated that you don't know enough about Islam to discern between reality and propagandic falsehood, by what measure are you determining that these sites are reasonable?

John Justin Green - Stop. You attack mmessengersto avoid attending message. Even my message is missed. Any site may likely include misrepresentation on this subject and propaganda is a name your favorite sites may deserve. Im sure there are aspects of truth no matter the direction of bias. You are not proceeding along any discover by asking me to detail the way I find reason in reading sites. I will not even try to give such details. It is a rope a dope. Please stop this silly direction. As it is I find plenty of reason to reject Islam as a tolitarian system by its actual reality and this over rules writings even if there was no confusion about your books. Actions and words. We were arguing if my suspicion the Constitution was written with a lack of understanding of Islam was reasonable. So you are getting off on a side road which you enjoy that being making me the subject. Stop. I am boring.

John Justin Green - Just accept on this subject every source is considered propaganda by the opposing opinion holders. You need to read those site because if you do not know what the opposition argues then there is a good argument that you must not know your own position either.

Muhammad Rasheed - John, the Qur'an is the source text of Al-Islam. Allah instructed the believers to follow the way of Muhammad (peace be upon him) in how to walk out the tenets of the Qur'an. This is Al-Islam in totality: The Word of God, and the example of His prophet. If you are 100% ignorant of both of those items and what they actually teach, then by what measure do you use to determine whether any other source is reasonable or not?

John Justin Green - How would like to be bored by my repeatedly demanding you explain what makes you call a site propaganda. Think about it.

Muhammad Rasheed - Throughout this entire thread, a fool is continuously asking me to accept his proudly-uninformed ignorant opinion about my religion as truth.

That is the very definition of unreasonable.

John Justin Green - Bull shit! I never told you to accept anything I say as truth. Asshole. I dont even know for sure what the truth is. You are the most stuck up self inflated fantasist Ive come across.

John Justin Green - 100% ignorant is absurb but colorful. Ive read the Koran and get it the way I get it. What am I supposed to do ? Accept from you that I can't understand what I read and whateevr you say is how it is? Well Im listening. At least Im not calling you ignorant. But that is becasue I am the one here with respect for the other.

John Justin Green - Why don't you go make you noise at my biology idea I posted for you.

Muhammad Rasheed - John wrote: "I don't even know for sure what the truth is."

Then what measure are you using to determine whether these sites you love are reasonable?

John Justin Green - Korans are all over the place. Many free apps on Google play. Ive owned it for years

John Justin Green - Now you add another fantasy about what I love? Fuck off.

John Justin Green - Truth and reason are not the same things

Muhammad Rasheed - John wrote: "But that is because I am the one here with respect for the other."

You've been insulting my sacred belief system since I met you. You stated here that known enemy websites are "reasonable" in their slander, while admitting you are too ignorant of the topic to know whether that is true one way or another.

Is that respect?

John Justin Green - Read the sites for yourself and you will find them reasonable and muslins in arguments there. Reason is just a process to help navegate reality. It is not a garantee you manage it wihtout error

Muhammad Rasheed - I'm well acquainted with both of those sites, sir, since my Internet enemies cite both those AND that 'answeringIslam' drivel all the time.

Muhammad Rasheed - That is the nature of my questions to you.

John Justin Green - Respect is in regarding boudaries. If you consider my critism of Islam a boudary of your then I understand that would not be respectful to you. But in my mind how I treat you and more personally known boundaries has more improtance. We can not place ideas as boudaries or we can not have free exchange.

Muhammad Rasheed - What are you using to accept those sites at face value, but causes you to reject the message of the One God at face value?

Those site don't have a paradise nor a hell to put you in, but Allah certainly does.

Take heed.

John Justin Green - NO ! you make dangerous errors. I said those sites SOUND reasonable.

Muhammad Rasheed - John wrote: "But in my mind how i treat you and more personally known boundaries has more improtance."

You are comparing my relationship to God with my relationship with a random disbeliever on Facebook?

>:(

John Justin Green - I am not at all convinced I can trust the Koran is from the Word. If it is, it has been horribly misunderstood.

Muhammad Rasheed - They don't SOUND reasonable to me at all, John, but I KNOW better. I KNOW the source materials that they slander, and can ACTUALLY discern truth from falsehood within my OWN religious texts because of that knowing.

>:(

John Justin Green - NO. You know I do not hold Islam in mind as you do. To me it is an idea that must be explored. To you my exploration of its critism is some evil act. Well, sorry but that is not the case in my perspective.

Muhammad Rasheed - Thus far you haven't demonstrated any such "exploration." You've uncritically swallowed – hook, line, and sinker – everything that known enemy sites have spewed based on whether it 'SOUNDED' good to you or not. Based on what metric? You don't even know.

>:(

John Justin Green - OK then if you KNOW you can pass on to me what is wrong there. I did not accept it as truth. I did find the arguments reasonable but hold acceptance as I know they can have false premises in the working o fit. So I would love for you to point out an example. I respond well to actual discussion like that. But if you simply call it propaganda it has no real impact.

John Justin Green - History, present day sattes cosilogy news, listening to Mulas, talking with Muslin associates. Lots of exploration. Name calling form you has not helped.

Muhammad Rasheed - I'm calling it what it is. It's part of the Western Military Industrial Complex propaganda arm to drum up support for greed-fueled war.

John Justin Green - Titles name calling. You deserve your own critism the way you present ideas

Muhammad Rasheed - *shrug*

Muhammad Rasheed - We hold different ideologies in numerous arenas. I'm not likely to partner with you in very many of them. When you say such things, I generally take it as a mark of me being on the right track. lol

John Justin Green - Look, we can take one point at atime andjst get facts ironed out. That would be the best use of time. Declaring what names we call things and our current established opinions as if deriving them is obvious and needs no explanation is what gets us no where.

John Justin Green - OH right. I am of that same opinion. SO then what, should we just wait til we face each other in combat? To the victor goes the whatever. You dont really have that little hope for exchange or you would not be here.

Muhammad Rasheed - You would be better off ignoring both my hyperbole, and my labeling, and just jumping right into the points you wish to address. If I don't respond deep enough, then just ask me to clarify.

You know. Normal human discourse tools. :S

John Justin Green - I do try as you know. If you wnt discourse go explore my biology idea. I often think you just like to fight.

Muhammad Rasheed - Wasting a million posts to complain about my hyperbole and labels – neither of which I am likely to change – is the actual root cause of your annoyances.

John Justin Green - OK you slef gradizing fool, go count how many posts I have made that ignore your junk. then compare that to the number of posts with your junk and if my ignores outnumber your then Im the better man

John Justin Green - No more for tonight. 1;20 am. YOu are a terrible influence

John Justin Green - I want to ask this, are there any criticisms you acknowledge as reasonable regarding Islam itself as written? Or is there any site you would call fair that criticizes Islam? If not I have to say propaganda as a label you apply just means all critical thought regarding Islam. But maybe with a certain perspective Islam becomes perfect and no criticism is applicable. That would to be consistent with you so far.

John Justin Green - Now 1;30 am so serious this time

Muhammad Rasheed - There's two types of Islamic criticism (as far as we two are concerned)...

Muhammad Rasheed - 1.) Criticism from an informed well of knowledge based on the mind of one who has read the Qur'an from cover-to-cover, and thus can determine which hadith are false or not based on Allah's direct instruction to His prophet and to the believers. Such criticisms are real, and actually challenge me in my faith.

Muhammad Rasheed - 2.) Fake "criticisms" are from people who have no idea what Islam is actually about, but only think they do based on self-reinforced group discussions with people who think the misinformed way that they do.

Rex May - Seriously, it's not a question of what islam is about as it is of what self-identified Muslims THINK it's about. Right? Otherwise we wander off into 'no true Scotsman' territory.

John Justin Green - FUnny Rex. And if we don't like what we see about how they are going on about their argument Im sure they would bark at us that we can not have a meaningful opinion, not having any qualifications as Scotsmen ourselves. Actually the Scots have soem similarities in the stereotypes.

John Justin Green - Is this reasonable? "An Arabic word has only one root. The root word for Islam is “al-Silm,” which means “submission” or “surrender.” There is no disagreement about this among Arabic or Islamic scholars. al-Silm (submission) does not mean the same thing as al-Salaam (peace), otherwise they would be the same word.

Submission and peace can be very different concepts, even if a form of peace can be brought about by forcing others into submission. As the modern-day Islamic scholar, Ibrahim Sulaiman, puts it, "Jihad is not inhumane, despite its necessary violence and bloodshed, its ultimate desire is peace which is protected and enhanced by the rule of law."

Muhammad Rasheed - The problem with this philosophy is that there are almost a billion Muslims in the world, and they all don't think the same way in all areas. This is normal for humans btw. lol

What you are asking me to do is accept what hostile White Christians think about Muslims, and accept wishy-washy Muslim opinions about Allah's instructions as if it WERE the religion. lol Neither of these are acceptable. The opinions of other Muslims only matter if they align to what Allah said. In your case, the opinions of hostile disbelievers that are notoriously biased against Islam, never count under ANY circumstance.

So you two might as well let that go.

Muhammad Rasheed - John, the "submission/surrender” aspect has nothing to do with war between humans, but everything to do with the believer's decision to willingly surrender his/her own will to that of Allah's Will. Obedience to the commands of Abraham's God is how you win at life, and only by surrendering your little will to His can you do that.

God commanded the believers to be at peace, and make not mischief in the land. If hostile people attack them or other innocents, then they are to fight the oppressor until conditions of peace are regained.

Notes While Observing: The 1972 Gary Convention

1.) The National Black Political Convention was hosted by Mayor Richard Hatcher in Gary, Indiana, 10-12 March 1972. Black delegates from all fifty states were there, as well as many notable Black personalities. While the community still mourned the assassinations of major African-American leadership in the previous decade, and while the US government’s diabolical COINTELPRO program continued its infiltration and dismantling of pro-Black groups like the Black Panther Party, the convention was formed with the spirit “The society we seek cannot come unless Black people organize to advance its coming.” The goal was to come together as an independent Black political movement, with a focused Black Agenda Checklist, and use the support of the same as the criterion by which the Black community would endorse candidates, and hold them accountable.

"Getting the right to vote in 1965 was the beginning of a process, but the convention in Gary solidified the sense of focus.” ~Jesse Jackson

2.) “It’s Nation Time! It's Nation Time!” was the enthusiastically shouted motto of the event, notable since representatives of every Black tribe sub-group were there, from every ideology, religion, political preference, and more.

“The who’s who of Black America from Civil Rights/Human Rights leaders, elected officials, Nationalists/Pan Africanists, business leaders, artists and entertainers gathered in Gary — Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, Congressman Walter Fauntroy, Queen Mother Audley Moore, Owusu Sadaukai, Betty Shabazz, Coretta Scott King, Congressman John Conyers, Dick Gregory, Richard Roundtree, Isaac Hayes, Nikki Giovanni … but most importantly thousands of ordinary people from all walks of life from Black America. It was a magnificent sight to behold all these beautiful Black people together in one place charting a path for the future of Africans in America and the world.”

3.) “The Convention was not without its tensions and controversies. Despite the appeals to unity, divisions remained. One of the deepest was between Black groups that chose to participate in the convention and those that did not. One prominent no-show was The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, which avoided the meeting because whites were not allowed to participate.”

“Resolutions within the Agenda calling for 'community control of education' and less emphasis on bussing to achieve “integration” and another that essentially demanded that Israel revert to a secular state called Palestine with the right of return of displaced Palestinians sent shock waves through the ranks of the more moderate organizations and leaders, many of whom quickly rushed to the mainstream media to disavow these positions in the document. There was also disagreement over whether to call for a “Black Political Party” as Rev. Jesse Jackson and Mayor Hatcher had hinted during speeches to the Convention. Nationalists/Pan Africanists were fully supportive of the idea of a Black Party, but most elected officials were fiercely resistant. The compromise was the creation of a National Black Political Assembly as the continuations mechanism for the Convention with Baraka, Hatcher and Diggs continuing in their roles as the tripartite leadership.”

4.) The continuous (and predictable) heated squabbling between the Black Tribes threatened to prematurely disband the convention before the goals were met, as several delegations started making moves to abandon the event. Poet-activist Amiri Baraka stepped up and INSISTED everyone stay until they were able to collect all the data needed to put together the Black Agenda.

"You know, it was a very striking kind of thing. When we got there, Hatcher had put these red, black and green flags on all the sign posts down there. It was very exciting. It was one of the most exciting things I’ve ever been to in my life. There were Black delegates there from all 50 states, just like it was a convention for the Democratic or Republican party.” ~Amiri Baraka

Miraculously, that’s exactly what happened! Feeding upon Baraka’s determined energy, and his bold & courageous leadership, the convention held until all objectives were met. On 06 May 1972, the main deliverable from the Gary Convention was published: The National Black Political Agenda

Black people are not a hive-minded entity. They are composed of several tribes, each with their own goals, loves, etc. Together they are the Black Nation, united by their common ancestry back to Africa, and their shared experiences in the New World starting from the events of the Atlantic Slave Trade. What makes them different is enough to keep them in a state of petty squabbles, but what they have in common has been enough to unite them against common foe for their survival. The National Black Political Agenda was the tool created to help in that survival.

After the Agenda was published, some of the critics of the pro-Black focus of the Gary Convention said they were going to 'tweak' the document's focus and make it even better. Of course they started trying to shove every other special interest group's issues into it immediately in a clear act of sabotage... which would only water down the entire point of The National BLACK! Political Agenda, keeping the African-American people in a state of disenfranchisement. Increasing contentions eventually caused them to abandon the Agenda altogether, and the Congressional Black Caucus decided that it would substitute it's "Black Bill of Rights" document in it's place.

5.) “Controversies notwithstanding, thousands of Black people left Gary energized and committed to making electoral politics a more relevant/meaningful exercise to promote Black interests. And, by the end of the decade the number of Black elected officials had quadrupled.”

Be that as it may, the entire point of the Gary Convention and its one deliverable, The National Black Political Agenda, was neutralized, and thus the reason why the Black politician has been considered an impotent group of sellouts by the Black community ever since. If the proliferation of Black politicians in the wake of the Gary Convention -- whether Democrat or Republican -- haven't pushed a Black Agenda for us by us, then what WERE they doing for the African-American community in the last 40 years?

The Black Dem Agenda News