Muhammad Rasheed's Blog, page 7

[BATTLE MODE] Gervonta Davis Converts to Islam

 

[original cartoon pending]

CITATION
Rasheed, Muhammad. "[BATTLE MODE] Gervonta Davis Converts to Islam." Cartoon. The Official Website of Cartoonist M. Rasheed 00 Date 2024.  [cartoon pending] Pen & ink w/Adobe Photoshop color.

CLICK & SUBSCRIBE  below for the Artist's Description of this #MRasheedCartoons image:
M. Rasheed on YouTube!

M. Rasheed on BitChute!
*************************************
Diamond Adams - 🥊🥊 TANK DAVIS CONVERTS TO ISLAM; CHANGES HIS NAME TO ‘ABDUL WAHID’ 🥊🥊
The superstar boxer has chosen the name Abdul Wahid, which translates to 'Servant of The One.' The change has now finalized his conversion to Islam. Davis' conversion took place on Christmas Eve, December 24, and represents an important step in his new personal and religious journey as a Muslim. 
Tony Rudd - Guess if that support network gives him what he needs that's great. Not sure the Arabic name, is that to reflect his heritage?
Muhammad Rasheed - @Tony... Black Americans usually have the name of their former slave masters, and take on the Arabic name with their conversion as a symbol of returning to wholeness, since many of the captured Africans on the Middle Passage journey were Muslim. This was a practice started under Elijah Muhammad's original Nation of Islam organization.
Tony Rudd - @Muhammad... original slaves weren't Muslim at all where did that come from, 9out of 10 slaves came from West Central Africa.........👀 Orisha was the main religion in West Africa.....
Muhammad Rasheed - Most of the original slaves were Muslim, since nearly all of the old Christian tribes had converted, other than in the far East. The European slave traders preferred Muslim Africans anyway because they didn't believe in suicide. Pagan Africans were the ones who would dive off the side of the ships if given a chance.
Tony Rudd - rubbish, most of the slaves were Orisha not Muslim and they certainly weren't Christian prior to that 🤣
Muhammad Rasheed - It is as I've said. I'm sorry you're in the habit of spreading misinformation about the topic. I notice you're in New Zealand. Where are your people originally from?
Tony Rudd - Gondwanaland originally, you don't have to be from somewhere to know history.
Tony Rudd - African slave religions, 1400–1790
Muhammad Rasheed - Tony wrote: "you don't have to be from somewhere to know history"
People's background does tend to explain the reasons behind their penchant for lying about certain topics though.
The problem with Johnson's narrative is that the European Christian missionaries assumed that Christianity had never touched the region, since all the former Christian tribes had converted to Islam by that time. The Kongo and Ndongo kingdom religious decisions reflected their alliances with the Portuguese traders.
Tony Rudd - and you will choose what you want to believe.....where as If I take an impartial approach to research i would tend to Believe someone with hi credentials (and a Black man) rather than yours... lol In the Kongo who was Nzambe?
Muhammad Rasheed - Tony wrote: "and you will choose what you want to believe..."
It sounds like you expected me to just blindly accept what you wanted to spoonfeed me. Is that the treatment you are used to from the New Zealanders? What is your original native ethnic group again?
Tony wrote: "..where as If I take an impartial approach to research"
Who in their right mind would be so foolish as to believe that of you?
Tony wrote: "i would tend to Believe someone with hi credentials (and a Black man)"
You would rather 'believe' the opinion of a hand-picked communist black guy to push an agenda that you personally favor. How very droll. And you consider this an "impartial" position from one such as you, eh? lol
Chris Lipton - @Muhammad... bro most of the slaves were not Muslim. They practiced traditional African religions. Information about the ancestry of African Americans is widely available.
Muhammad Rasheed - @Chris... A lot of misinformation is certainly widely available.
There's a reason the classic white racist figure is so against Islam, and why jim crow era Western Intelligence went out of their way to prevent a pure form of the religion from reaching the Black American former slave class.
Chris Lipton - To be honest, Islam confuses me they preach and boast about how Islam is not racist to black people but their actions don't show it.
Do you know the African tribe that most African Americans descended from?
Muhammad Rasheed - Chris wrote: "To be honest, Islam confuses me they preach and boast about how Islam is not racist to black people but their actions don't show it."
I would also be confused if I didn't study the material for myself, but only relied on the actions of flawed humans to inform me of what was going on with a belief system. As a Black American, it would be very easy for me to throw Christianity away because of the actions of white Christian Americans against my people over the centuries, instead of looking into the teachings from the source texts to see what the religion is really about. Obviously, I cannot use the example displayed by whites to determine what Christianity is really about since they obviously don't believe in being "Christ like" and are Christian by shallowly-chosen title alone.
Chris wrote: "Do you know the African tribe that most African Americans descended from?"
Black Americans are an eclectic mixture of various ethnic tribes seized and sold to European traders over an approximate three century time span. The number of people captured are estimated in the tens of millions, so the idea that the majority of them came from one particular tribe is at best a myth.
Tony Rudd - nope read lots of peoples opinions, even yours, and I picked to read his work among others including Okri and Ogundipe as well. Still don't know why he wouldn't find his ancestral "homeland" and choose a name that fits, especially if as you say his ancestors were pretty much Muslim by the time they were stolen. (and assuming his ancestors were actually slaves?????)
Muhammad Rasheed - Tony wrote: "Still don't know why he wouldn't find his ancestral 'homeland' and choose a name that fits"
During the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, entire tribal clans would be seized, branded and sold to VOC. The only DNA we would realistically have on the continent, would belong to distant relatives found within enemy clans. We no longer have a home in Africa.
Tony Rudd - you never did, Your ancestor did. You are from the USA unless you weren't born there. The difference between you and I is that my parents left the country that abused their "class" to give their children a better life, yours kept you in the USA 👍 where in general to this day equal is based on 💲
Muhammad Rasheed - Tony wrote: "you never did, Your ancestor did."
I'm talking about my ethnic group. It's genuinely stupid to reference individual lives in these kinds of general population movement discussions.
Tony wrote: "You are from the USA unless you weren't born there."
If you don't know for sure, what's the point of attempting to proclaim stuff about me? Why are you trying to force a general discussion to be personal and anecdotal?
Tony wrote: "The difference between you and I is that my parents left the country that abused their 'class' to give their children a better life, yours kept you in the USA"
You volunteered the info that your people took you to someone else's land to be a parasite off of someone else's story. Weird. The difference between us is that my family stayed to fight in our sacred freedom struggle to put in the work to make our country better, while your people ran from your problems. You should probably keep stuff like that to yourself since being a runner parasite doesn't really show you in a positive light.
Tony wrote: "where in general to this day equal is based on [money]"
Being equal is an economic social status manipulated with political grifts by legacy family racketeer criminals.
Tony Rudd - the need to be a part of tribe..... Need the weight of us not I? Have you heard of Claude Mckay "If a man is not faithful to his own individuality, he cannot be loyal to anything."
Muhammad Rasheed - Tony wrote: "the need to be a part of tribe..."
lol The secret to humanity's success is our social groups.
Tony wrote: "Need the weight of us not I?"
Are you trying to pretend your own runner-parasite expatriate/immigrant isn't its own tribe? You all certainly act the same wherever ye are found leaching off someone else's history.
Tony wrote: "Have you heard of Claude Mckay"
He's Jamaican. Don't care.
Tony Rudd - haha triggered a little, I have a heritage don't need to leach, or cry poor because of it, the only groups I have are the ones society labels (and obviously you) me with, like the one in my passport. Nb if the boat stopped in Jamaica first, he could be a relative haha....
Muhammad Rasheed - Tony wrote: "haha triggered a little"
History is quite triggering unless you're dead inside (or the actual root cause of the mischief in the earth).
Tony wrote: "I have a heritage don't need to leach"
A heritage of leeching. That's why you prudently decided to hide it from me.
Tony wrote: "or cry poor because of it"
My ethnic group has been artificially impoverished, probably by a cousin of yours, so I will protest the foul treatment as I like.
Tony wrote: "the only groups I have are the ones society labels (and obviously you) me with, like the one in my passport."
And by "society," you mean you and your cousins. Right.
Tony wrote: "Nb if the boat stopped in Jamaica first, he could be a relative haha...."
He's literally a different ethnic group with their own lineage & heritage. 🙄 That's his entire point of calling himself a "Jamaican-American" to differentiate himself from my group. smh
Tony Rudd - history should teach us how to be better, it can't be changed but more recently people seem to want to re write it. I don't leach I work, and read.
Couldn't be my historical cousins, they were slaves in their own special way.... Probably by the same people you protest about. By society, I mean people and governments 
And Nope black Jamaicans were slaves too... Same boats, same slavers, different bunch of arsehole "owners"
Muhammad Rasheed - Tony wrote: "history should teach us how to be better"
It SHOULD, but for some it only teaches how to perfect the criminal art of running-parasite. A shame.
Tony wrote: "it can't be changed"
The narrative can be changed. And further evidence unearthed can provide a more accurate picture.
Tony wrote: "but more recently people seem to want to re write it"
lol Rarely is the victor's initial version accurate. History should be re-written/updated like any other science, as further facts/truths are revealed. This is reasonable. hahahaha
Tony wrote: "I don't leach I work, and read."
You leech as work, and read about how to leech more and more efficiently.
Tony wrote: "Couldn't be my historical cousins, they were slaves in their own special way..."
Oh, here we we go with more nonsense. 🙄 Are you trying to get up the courageous to actually share your background with me, so I may have the pleasure of weaponizing it against you finally? lol
Tony wrote: "Probably by the same people you protest about"
🙄
Tony wrote: "By society, I mean people and governments"
That's what I said. By "society" you mean the racketeering monopoly you and your ilk have over the world governments. Right.
Tony wrote: "And Nope black Jamaicans were slaves too..."
The Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade is an aspect of our heritages we hold in common, but we are still completely separate ethnic groups with our own completely separate lineages & heritages. As a member of the political identity group who invented the concept of collapsing ethnic groups into a monolithic, race-based economic political group that you exclusively benefit from, I can understand how you could (pretend) to not understand the separation in context. 😏
Tony Rudd - the world needs to know how terrible it is to be born a black American, no other ethnic group suffered like yours, or was as disadvantaged as yours, and through this you continue to suffer, economic injustice isn't race based, it's greed based in that wonderful capitalist system loved by the "free" and espoused as the right way to be, not my ilk by any standard. Context not genetics?
Tony Rudd - Three generations ago my family had no schools, Two generations ago they were forced economic slaves and pushed to fight in rich men's wars, One generation ago they escaped, My generation was the first that dared a tertiary education, My children have opportunity....
Were you also the first in your family (extended) to go to a tertiary establishment?
Muhammad Rasheed - Tony wrote: "the world needs to know how terrible it is to be born a black American"
Agreed. Though I suspect they already know, but have taken on a gas lighting sub-culture as a commitment to the exploitation models & tactics of the runner-parasite.
Tony wrote: "no other ethnic group suffered like yours, or was as disadvantaged as yours, and through this you continue to suffer"
This sounds suspiciously like a strawman effigy logical fallacy. Does another person's suffering somehow negate my own? I certainly don't believe this, so why does it appear as if you are trying to give this argument to me? Or, are you saying I have no right to focus on my own people's issues because someone else has issues? This would also be a strange and illogical position for you to try to pin on me, since I reject the concept.
Tony wrote: "economic injustice isn't race based"
In my country, the light-skinned descendants of the European ethnic tribes decided to permanently delegate the enslaved Africans to a hereditary, chattel bondsman class. This was encoded into law according to physical racial phenotype. So, from the 1600s to 1965, economic injustice in the USA was absolutely race-based. Now it is lineage-based.
Tony wrote: "it's greed based"
The point of it is greed, but it targets a specific lineage group for exploitation to uphold another group.
Tony wrote: "in that wonderful capitalist system loved by the 'free' and espoused as the right way to be"
Here in the Second Gilded Age, there's very little of the current system that can be classified as "capitalist." That era appears to be long over.
Tony wrote: "not my ilk by any standard."
lol Of course it's by your ilk.
Tony wrote: "Context not genetics?"
The context is lineage-based which of course implies genetics.
Tony Rudd - your own?
Muhammad Rasheed - I am representative of the American Descendants of Slavery ethnic group. I happen to be the most exploited, plundered, economically excluded group in my country — surrounded by hostile, running-parasites who collude to keep me in a state ripe for further exploitation and plunder.
A big part of their tactics involves false narratives of history, fast-talking/gas lighting and mind games, all of which are displayed here within your own discourse ("Talks like a duck"), which is how I know these are your cousins, even if only in economic "spirit." 😉
Tony Rudd - ahhh you are the hero representative of the victims? But only those from slavery? But not the Caucasian ones or the Asian ones or the Hispanic ones, and not even the black Jamaicans ones. You say the modern tool is economics... Driven by the terrible white folk, all white folk by their whiteness, disregarding their struggles because in your country that is the definitive measure. I would think more its the economics of education, and while there are always a few exceptions what else stops people from reaping rewards where the streets are paved with not gold but blood.
Muhammad Rasheed - Tony wrote: "ahhh you are the hero representative of the victims?"
I'm a representative of the group that you are in discussion with. You inserted "hero" in what appears to be another strawman effigy.
Tony wrote: "But only those from slavery?"
This sounds like yet another strawman if you mean ALL slavery ever throughout the history of the species. Specifically, I an a descendant of the U.S. American chattel slavery that my ancestors went through, the legacy of which continues to keep us economically excluded from the benefits of full citizenry today. THAT slavery.
Tony wrote: "But not the Caucasian ones"
lol No.
Tony wrote: "or the Asian ones"
Hell no.
Tony wrote: "or the Hispanic ones"
The Portuguese and Spanish initiated the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, chief.
Tony wrote: "and not even the black Jamaicans ones."
Currently, the Jamaicans are working with other Caribbean and Afro-Latin ethnic groups to secure their own version of reparations under the "CARICOM" program. Please note that my own group is pointed excluded from this.
Tony wrote: "You say the modern tool is economics..."
The primary tool is politics; the spoils of war are economic.
Tony wrote: "Driven by the terrible white folk"
They should work to be less terrible.
Tony wrote: "all white folk by their whiteness"
By their political actions. "Whiteness" is the political identity they've named and given themselves under the economic caste system they created and benefit from.
Tony wrote: "disregarding their struggles because in your country that is the definitive measure."
Their "struggles" involved enslaving, exploiting and plundering me, so of course I disregard them. At least from your angle. lol
Tony wrote: "I would think more its the economics of education"
You would be wrong. Deliberately withholding quality education from my identity group is part of the history of U.S. systemic racism. Look up the white community's response to the Brown v Board of Education (1954) Supreme Court decision.
Tony wrote: "what else stops people from reaping rewards"
Weaponizing the state's institutions against me using racketeering, organized crime tactics by the molestation of our political processes.
Tony Rudd - plundered you are....or the group you represent, as the descendants?
Muhammad Rasheed - lol This is a general, political discussion about the history of groups. This is not an anecdotal/individual discussion, Mr. Logical Fallacy.
Tony Rudd - again with the name calling and finger pointing, Did you learn your debating style from Trump and his MAGA bullies, 😂
Muhammad Rasheed - Tony wrote: "again with the name calling and finger pointing"
Do you think that's worse than your attempts to pass fabricated history off as real? Your "economics of education" item in particular stands out as a sly attempt to use that "low IQ" racial slur line on me. Just because you frame insults in a performatively "civil/nice" way, do you believe that keeps them from being insulting?
Tony wrote: "Did you learn your debating style from"
Is this your way of responding to my calling you out for all of your logical fallacies? If you actually knew how to debate, you wouldn't use them.
Tony wrote: "Trump and his MAGA bullies"
Ironically, those are the same clowns you just wanted me to feel sorry for because they claim to have gone through "Caucasian slavery" or whatever. Now you're mocking them. #tribalism
Tony Rudd - 😂 sorry because you use words I don't have to accept them as fact, I see nothing in anything I have written to suggest you feel sorry for any group, especially not Trump's mob, especially his pawns 👍.
Muhammad Rasheed - Tony wrote: "sorry because you use words I don't have to accept them as fact"
We're finally on the same page, I see. lol Between the two of us, your group is the one on record for using lying as a formal part of your whiteness culture ("speaks with forked-tongue").
Tony wrote: "I see nothing in anything I have written to suggest you feel sorry for any group"
When I said I was representative of the American Descendants of Slavery (ADOS) ethnic group, what was the point of naming off all of those other identity groups when only the Black American fits the ADOS description? It seems like you were trying to guilt me for my not caring a damn about anyone else's experiences with slavery. No?
Tony Rudd - From what I have read here you just want to be the most important and first in line for the handouts if they come 🤣, good luck with that in a country that cant even get political consensus on keeping the federal government running..... 🤣 noting that your "first hand" experience with slavery is not your own. And going back to my original post, taking the name of those who probably were his ancestral slavers is quite ironic really (if his family came from slavery).
Muhammad Rasheed - Tony wrote: "From what I have read here you just want to be the most important and first in line"
Exactly right.
Tony wrote: "for the handouts"
My complicit government owes me a debt for the centuries of accrued discrimination that plundered my people of our inheritance wealth and handed it to whites. It's not a "handout." You certainly don't go around calling the Holocaust reparations "handouts," do you? You save all of your disrespect for my group. The free handout 'GibMeDats' you're talking about were what the European runner-parasites were gifted just for showing up in this country that my people built with our exploited slave labor.
Tony wrote: "if they come 🤣, good luck"
Thanks.
Tony wrote: "noting that your 'first hand' experience with slavery is not your own"
Irrelevant. The unaddressed, multi-generational, economic effects of slavery are mine. 
Tony wrote: "And going back to my original post, taking the name of those"
I have a Palestinian work colleague who points out that Black American Muslims don't have real "Arabic" names, since we mix & match them based on how subjectively good they sound and whether we like the meaning or not, etc. For example, my own name is never put together like this among actual Arabic-speaking peoples. So, our taking on generic Muslim names is symbolic of a spiritual wholeness that involves the former slave class having agency over our own lives as the next level up from legal slavery abolishment. The practice is more of a sub-cultural significance to our group, than a literal taking on the name of centuries old people that no longer exist.
Tony wrote: "who probably were his ancestral slavers"
lol Our ancestral slavers were hostile neighboring African ethnic groups and the more successful of the African traders in direct partnership with VOC.
Tony Rudd - M. Rasheed wrote: "that no longer exist" 
wtf are you saying that you now have no ancestral links to Africa, as to the name the people serving you up you have already said we're Muslim Arabs..... I'm impressed with your decisive rhetorical answers.....
Muhammad Rasheed - Tony wrote: "'that no longer exist' wtf are you saying that you now have no ancestral links to Africa"
The only DNA of mine on the continent is to be found among the vastly distant relatives within enemy ethnic groups. The survivors of my entire family clan were seized, branded and shoved into those great stinking ships, as was the procedure. 400 yrs later, what would the thoroughly colonized and war-torn "Africa" mean to me? Especially considering I'm neither a foolish pan-africanist, nor a worthless communist. 
Tony wrote: "as to the name the people serving you up you have already said we're Muslim Arabs..."
No, I didn't. Copy/paste here what you are referring to. The African ethnic group[s] who sold us to VOC were probably Muslim. My own people were probably Muslim back then, too. I'm not talking about the Ishmaelites specifically.
Tony wrote: "I'm impressed with your decisive rhetorical answers"
Thanks. I'm not impressed with your oft-repeated anti-Black American comments at all. I'm frankly tired of hearing that tripe. You should try a new angle since that one doesn't work on me.

Limitations Inherent Within a Human-Developed Quality Check Process

 

[original cartoon pending]

CITATION
Rasheed, Muhammad. "Limitations Inherent Within a Human-Developed Quality Check Process." Cartoon. The Official Website of Cartoonist M. Rasheed 00 Date 2024.  [cartoon pending] Pen & ink w/Adobe Photoshop color.

CLICK & SUBSCRIBE  below for the Artist's Description of this #MRasheedCartoons image:
M. Rasheed on YouTube!

M. Rasheed on BitChute!
************************************* Q: If atheists are good at criticising Christianity and the Bible, why is it so hard for them to criticise Muhammad and the Islamic texts, since there is so much low hanging fruit for ammunition such as Muhammad’s pedophilia?
Krister Sundelin (atheist) - There are several reasons.
The first is that many atheists in the west have no real knowledge about Islam. We live, after all, mostly in countries dominated or formerly dominated by Christianity. Not only that, but many Christians are very in your face about their Christianity, just like you are. So we know more about Christianity than Islam.
The second is again a consequence of living in countries dominated or formerly dominated by Christianity. While many Christians spread their faith to any and everyone regardless if the audience wants it or not, Muslims in the west is a minority, and therefore mostly keep their religion to themselves as to not stand out so much and offend the host country.
The third is a corrollary to the second: the reason that we criticise Christianity is that you push it on us all the time. That merits a response. Muslims generally do not push their religion on anyone else, but when they do, they get the same kind of response.
I am also a bit surprised about your hangup on Muhammad’s pedophilia, and just gloss over the pedophilia of about a gazillion Christian priests – something which is still happening and which is even lower-hanging fruit than Muhammad’s.
You know, John 8:7, Matthew 7:5 and so on.
Ian MacKinnon - How old was Aisha when she got married? As for the Catholic priests, reprehensible no doubt, but their actions don't excuse pedophilia by others-pure "whataboutism, no?
Jake Mikelson - Aisha was 6 when married and 9 when the marriage was consummated. In today’s world we find this disgusting and reprehensible. However this was fairly standard in the ancient world.
The issue is that Muhammad is meant to be “the most perfect human” and so we should follow his example. Of course this is ridiculous and he was a product of his environment and time.
Starbuck - There are numerous misconceptions regarding Aicha's age.
Before she married the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), Aicha was already betrothed to a polytheist named Jubayr ibn Mutim, which can only suggest she was much older than the hadith would have us believe.
The Qur'an which has an authoritarian character and does not mention the age of marriage, it forbids if a person lacks biological maturity as well as emotional, psychological, intellectual, and moral maturity.
And this is evident from the following verse;
"Test the orphans' ability until they reach marriageable age. Then if you think they are capable of sound judgment, return their wealth to them. And don't consume it wastefully and hastily before they grow up to demand it. If the guardian is right" ~(Qu'ran 4:6)
In Bukhari we read: “O young men, whoever of you is able to bear the responsibilities of marriage, may he/she enter into marriage. This will lower his gaze and keep him/her chaste. Whoever is unable, let him/her fast. Because fasting reduces (physical) desire.” ~(Bu. 62:4)
The Holy Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said also:
"The widow and the divorced woman should not be given in to marriage until an order is received from her, and the virgin should not be given in marriage until permission has been obtained from her" ~(Bu. 67:42)
So we see that Allah the Exalted protects individuals who are not intellectually capable of bearing the obligation of a marriage.
In summary, someone who thinks rationally understands that Aicha must have been far older than the given age.
Partly because Aisha would not have joined the combat in Uhud if the Prophet had not issued a ruling requiring everyone wishing to fight to be at least 15 years old.
This including Abdullah ibn Umar, Zaid ibn Thabit, Usama ibn Zayd ibn Harithah, Abu Saeed al Khudri, and Zaid ibn Arqam. They all were sent away, except for Raf'i ibn Khadij who was 14 years, he was asked to remain because he was an excellent archer.
Jake Mikelson - The majority of Muslims scholars do not contest the age of Aisha and is a somewhat recent approach by modern Muslims to try and come to terms with the concept that their prophet married and had sex with a 9 year old child.
However, if you say that the Quran and Muhammed was from a time long long ago then that is a different story. These types of marriages to young girls was not uncommon. But in today’s modern society this is disgusting and reprehensible which is why Muslims try to bury it or make up excuses or stories that she was much older.
Starbuck - Let's assume for the sake of argument that what the Hadith states is true, then we are left with the question of why the Prophet was not accused of this act?
For his enemies, the polytheists sought every opportunity to discretize him, he was accused of a liar, a madman, a sorcerer yet never was he accused of marrying a 9 years old, why is that?
Jake Mikelson - There is no need to assume for the sake of argument. The Hadiths are considered Sahih so they are authentic and accurate.
Starbuck wrote: "we are left with the question of why the Prophet was not accused of this act?"
There is nothing to “accuse” him of. Marriage of young girls was fairly common 1,400 years ago, so what would they accuse him of? However, so was slavery if you want to make that case.
As I stated, even Zainab the daughter of Muhammed was around 10 when she was married. His daughter Ruqqaya was also betrothed when she was 9.
So the issue is not specially that Muhammed married a 9 year old, but that Muhammed is supposed to be the prophet of God! Is this the behavior and example you would expect from the chosen one of God? And to be held up as the perfect human and an example for all mankind for all time?!
Muhammad Rasheed - Jake wrote: “The Hadiths are considered Sahih so they are authentic and accurate”
“Sahih/authentic” means that the person being interviewed passed the hadith collector’s quality check test. It doesn’t mean the content of the hadith really came from the person.
Jake Mikelson - As you say, it passed the quality control of the interviewer to determine that the person that has memorized the hadith is honest and trustworthy, along with the chain of narration.
It doesn’t mean that the person himself said the words (hadith), but it can be reliably traced back to the source (i.e. Muhammad).
The stamp of “sahih” is the highest grade a hadith can be given, therefore it should be taken as accurate.
Muhammad Rasheed - Again, all that Sahih/authentication means is that the hadith collector had a checklist they used to determine if the person being interviewed could be trusted or not. They could not verify whether the interviewee was passing along a false hadith or not, only that as far as the interviewee themselves knew, it was real and they weren’t deliberately passing along false info.
“Sahih/authentication” is only a limited QC tool, it is not proof that the hadith did in fact come from the prophet and the sahaba. Other methods need to be used to determine that next level of QC, including whether the hadith align to the letter and/or spirit of the Word of Allah (Qur’an).
Jake Mikelson - I agree with most of what you said. However, determining what is really real and not would prove almost impossible. If a person has been deemed trustworthy, honest and a keeper of hadith, that is as close as we could possibly get. I understand Bukhari had a very strict grading system and would only accept hadith from the highest quality of people, even 1 small concern caused him to disregard many.
It seems to me, from discussions I've had with Muslims, they will reject hadith that make Muhammad look bad and only accept positive ones.
This is intellectual dishonesty.
If a hadith has been graded as sahih then you would need a very compelling argument to disregard it.
Muhammad Rasheed - Jake wrote: “I agree with most of what you said.”
I’m sure you have your own special reasons for doing so.
Jake wrote: “However, determining what is really real and not would prove almost impossible.”
Well, I’m actually Muslim and have the Qur’an as my guide — it’s on earth for that very purpose, so the task isn’t impossible, one just has to care.
Jake wrote: “If a person has been deemed trustworthy, honest and a keeper of hadith, that is as close as we could possibly get.”
There’s a clear difference between being an honest and trustworthy person and reciting something that didn’t actually come from the prophet and his companions that you assumed did come down from the prophet.
Jake wrote: “I understand Bukhari had a very strict grading system and would only accept hadith from the highest quality of people, even 1 small concern caused him to disregard many.”
It’s true, but what’s important here is that the method he chose to formulate his quality checklist still possessed elements of arbitrariness, for one, and for two, the body of hadith literature never pretends to be anything but a work of mere men doing their best to collect the numerous sayings of the prophet as passed down in a couple of generations at that point. it’s not a divinely protected work. It’s strength is that there are a LOT of them collected, and the most numerous ones are of the most strongly supported class of material — which backs up the pillars & tenets of Islam commanded in the Qur’an. The weakest hadith are the ones rarely mentioned in the body of hadith and are the most obscure, which gain the fascination of our enemies & rivals.
Jake wrote: “It seems to me, from discussions I've had with Muslims, they will reject hadith that make Muhammad look bad and only accept positive ones.”
Which makes sense considering the prophet’s actual reputation and character known during his lifetime. There are far more accounts that support him being trustworthy and an exemplary human being than otherwise.
Jake wrote: “This is intellectual dishonesty.”
I would think that a hostile outsider expecting me to blindly accept as true poorly-supported things that claim the prophet of Allah was a degenerate, just because our enemies want to think that of him and push to pretend those items represent truth, as an example of intellectual dishonesty.
Jake wrote: “If a hadith has been graded as sahih then you would need a very compelling argument to disregard it.”
Not aligning to the Word of God is a very compelling argument. But as a strict monotheist, I am, of course, biased in this regard.
Jake Mikelson - M. Rasheed wrote: "I’m sure you have your own special reasons for doing so."
I agree that the hadith cannot be 100% verified that they came from Muhammad. But a sahih hadith is as close as possible. And I have no reason to doubt those that are graded sahih. It has nothing to do with whether it makes Muhammad look good or bad. We must take it as authentic and accurate.
M. Rasheed wrote: "There’s a clear difference between being an honest and trustworthy person and reciting something that didn’t actually come from the prophet and his companions that you assumed did come down from the prophet."
That’s a contradictory statement. If you are deemed to be an honest and trustworthy person, then there is no reason not to accept the hadith to be accurate.
M. Rasheed wrote: "The weakest hadith are the ones rarely mentioned in the body of hadith and are the most obscure, which gain the fascination of our enemies & rivals."
I am only focusing on hadith graded as sahih. You cannot have a weak sahih hadith, that is nonsensical.
M. Rasheed wrote: "Which makes sense considering the prophet’s actual reputation and character known during his lifetime. There are far more accounts that support him being trustworthy and an exemplary human being than otherwise."
Here is where we diverge. There are numerous sahih hadith that show Muhammad to have done some terrible things.
M. Rasheed wrote: "I would think that a hostile outsider expecting me to blindly accept as true poorly-supported things that claim the prophet of Allah was a degenerate, just because our enemies want to think that of him and push to pretend those items represent truth, as an example of intellectual dishonesty."
Nobody expects you or anyone else to “blindly accept” anything. Check the many Muslim sources yourself, Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Rashid, Ibn Hisham, al-Waqidi, Ibn Sa’d, al-Baladhuri and al-Tabari. They don’t pretend to know why Muhammad did anything, but in describing what he did, they paint a remarkably consistent picture. Let alone the hadith in Bukhari and Muslim.
But I am going off topic.
If a hadith is graded sahih, then it should be taken as accurate and that it came from Muhammad or a companion as recorded in the chain.
Muhammad Rasheed - Jake wrote: “I agree that the hadith cannot be 100% verified that they came from Muhammad. But a sahih hadith is as close as possible.”
Meaning that the best that the hadith collectors could do was at least try to ensure that the people they interviewed were not deliberately lying, whether the hadith they quoted were true or not.
Jake wrote: “And I have no reason to doubt those that are graded sahih.”
Agreed. With “graded sahih” meaning that the interviewee wasn’t lying as far as the determination of the hadith collector’s QC check.
Jake wrote: “It has nothing to do with whether it makes Muhammad look good or bad.”
If the hadith really was originally fabricated before it reached the interviewee who recited it, then it ultimately does matter which is why further QC checks are required — it’s not wise to take all of the hadith at face value since we agree that the hadith cannot be 100% verified that they came from the prophet and the sahaba.
Jake wrote: “We must take it as authentic and accurate.”
We must take it that it passed the level of the hadith collector’s limited QC check, but to pretend that represents true authenticity & accuracy after we both agreed that the hadith cannot be 100% verified that they came from the prophet and the sahaba is unreasonable.
Jake wrote: “That’s a contradictory statement.”
No, it’s not.
Jake wrote: “If you are deemed to be an honest and trustworthy person, then there is no reason not to accept the hadith to be accurate.”
The only honest & trustworthy being in existence who doesn’t make mistakes is God. Well-meaning humans accidentally pass along false info they mistakenly assumed was correct all the time.
Jake wrote: “I am only focusing on hadith graded as sahih. You cannot have a weak sahih hadith, that is nonsensical.”
Again, sahih/authentic hadith are those that were collected from interviewees determined to be trustworthy according to the hadith collector’s QC checklist. The method cannot verify whether the hadith really came from the prophet and the sahaba, therefore, of the body of sahih hadith, some are stronger than others.
Jake wrote: “Here is where we diverge. There are numerous sahih hadith that show Muhammad to have done some terrible things.”
Those hadith are in the minority of collected hadith. The majority of collected hadith are those that show the prophet as truthful, of exemplary character, and affirm the tenets and pillars of the faith.
Jake wrote: “Nobody expects you or anyone else to ‘blindly accept’ anything.”
Your last post gives the impression that you want ‘sahih’ to mean that all of the hadith so labeled should be accepted as authentic & accurate, despite it 1) not being possible to verify whether the sayings really were uttered by the prophet and 2) the fact that ‘sahih’ is only a reference to the QC method developed to determine the interviewees trustworthiness and not the content of the hadith itself.
Jake wrote: “Check the many Muslim sources yourself, Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Rashid, Ibn Hisham, al-Waqidi, Ibn Sa’d, al-Baladhuri and al-Tabari. They don’t pretend to know why Muhammad did anything, but in describing what he did, they paint a remarkably consistent picture. Let alone the hadith in Bukhari and Muslim.”
My point was that, of the vast collection of ahadith, those that show the prophet in a poor light are in the minority and are the least supported. There’s no reason to give extra attention to them since they are less likely to be accurate. The biased opponents of Al-Islam would like to take the opposite approach for obvious reasons, but objectively that wouldn’t make any sense.
Jake wrote: “If a hadith is graded sahih, then it should be taken as accurate and that it came from Muhammad or a companion as recorded in the chain.”
It should be as long as it agrees in letter and/or spirit with the revelation of the One God (Qur’an). If it does not, then it clearly fails the next level of authenticity quality check, which was a method not included in the collection processes of the original hadith collectors.

Rogue Moderators: Official Abuse of Social Media Power

 

[original cartoon pending]

CITATION
Rasheed, Muhammad. "Rogue Moderators: Official Abuse of Social Media Power." Cartoon. The Official Website of Cartoonist M. Rasheed 00 Date 2024.  [cartoon pending] Pen & ink w/Adobe Photoshop color.

CLICK & SUBSCRIBE  below for the Artist's Description of this #MRasheedCartoons image:
M. Rasheed on YouTube!

M. Rasheed on BitChute!
*************************************
Alamin Hossain - Jesus declared, “Surely Allah is my Lord and your Lord, so worship Him ˹alone˺. This is the Straight Path.” ~(Holy Qur'an 19:36)
Nazarenes Caller - Who? When? How did 6th century Muhammad came to know what Jesus said 600 years before? If you say Isa ibn Maryam the cousin of Haroon and Musa said - we would not care dear. Prove things with historical evidences.
Alamin Hossain - This is the matter you should think deeply that after 600 years before and from 1000 miles away an Arab guy how and why he was guided to talk about Jesus.Firstly Muhammad wouldn’t know anything about Jesus birth, whether he was killed or not etc. Quran is revealed to him by Allah thus he know about Jesus.
Muhammad Rasheed - Nazarenes wrote: "How did 6th century Muhammad came to know what Jesus said 600 years before?"
Divine revelation came to the prophet of God.
Nazarenes Caller - @Muhammad... does this look like natural causes? Or muhammad the false prophet died of poison from the Jewish lady eventually after a terrible 3 years. Can you laugh now abdool? https://sunnah.com/bukhari:4428
Muhammad Rasheed - Nazarenes wrote: "from the Jewish lady"
So, a Jew fabricated a hadith (or a portion of the ahadith) and you decided you should enthusiastically believe it without any critical scrutiny whatsoever, huh?
Is that why you believe that particular hadith should be unquestionably believed with pure blind faith like it was Jesus himself? lol
Tell me why, out of ALL THE OTHER HADITH that are far, far better supported, that you decided to have PURE BLIND FAITH — the same exact pure blind faith you give to your "divine son Jesus" concept — to this hadith? lol
Please explain. I'm sure this will be a great story.
Nazarenes Caller - Sahih Bukhari fabricated by jews now? Abdool, you are really deluded, ask your Imam next time you go to mosque 
Muhammad Rasheed - "Sahih" means that Bukhari, Muslim, etc., used a particular quality check method to evaluate the trustworthiness of the people interviewed. It doesn't mean that the content of the narrations themselves are guaranteed to be what they say they are.
FYI.
Nazarenes Caller - Bring evidence for the nonsense you wrote right now in 3mins or you are going on the corner, means getting suspended
Muhammad Rasheed - 
Muhammad Rasheed - Nazarenes wrote: "you are really deluded"
For some reason, a hostile outsider who hates my religion with his entire raggedy soul (such as it is) expects me to hold the same values and beliefs about my religion that he has.
Curious.
Muhammad Rasheed - I honestly think you are doomed to hellfire because of everything you've typed in this FB chat group. Just in case you weren't clear.
Instead of expecting me to also be an idiot and partner with you in foolishness, I strongly suggest you repent and convert to Al-Islam before it's too late for you.

**** Nazarenes Caller abused his Admin/Moderator powers to ban me from from the Christianity and Islam religious debates chat group because he lost a debate ****

[BATTLE MODE] Muslim versus the Xenophobic Hate Troll

 

[original cartoon pending]

CITATION
Rasheed, Muhammad. "[BATTLE MODE] Muslim versus the Xenophobic Hate Troll." Cartoon. The Official Website of Cartoonist M. Rasheed 00 Date 2024.  [cartoon pending] Pen & ink w/Adobe Photoshop color.

CLICK & SUBSCRIBE  below for the Artist's Description of this #MRasheedCartoons image:
M. Rasheed on YouTube!

M. Rasheed on BitChute!
*************************************
Q: Why in Islam is Allah called the best of deceivers?
Muhammad Rasheed - lol Allah is not called “the best of deceivers” in Islam, He’s only called that as a disingenuous slur by the anti-Islamic xenophobe crowd.
Atheist, Jewish, Christian and Hindu chat group debaters collude to shamelessly fashion a ‘shadow Islam’ strawman effigy, composed of carefully cherry-picked-out-of-context Qur’an quotes, deliberately twisted Islamic principles and sayings, upholding poorly-supported and obscure hadith, pretending certain secular Arabian societal norms were inherently religious, and as shown within this very Question, purposely mistranslating Qur’anic verses using synonyms with negative connotations and pretending it’s the most correct translation in order to smear the religion. Apparently, our debate opponents find it safer to maintain their delusions by arguing at their conjured ‘shadow Islam’ strawman, instead of risking a candid & courageous truth-seeking discussion with the game proponents of Al-Islam.


James Chambers - Because allah=devil?
Think about it. The religion dominates its population, allows acts of brutality against nonbelievers, etc.
Muhammad Rasheed - James wrote: “Because allah=devil? Think about it.”
In the Qur’an, Allah explains why the arrogant satan rebelled and fell from heaven, warns humanity to avoid the creature’s treacherous promises, and has the believers seek refuge with Allah from satan in everyone of our prayers. So, when I “think about it” as you suggest, it appears that you like to type without any facts/truth to support your claims.
James wrote: “The religion dominates its population”
Does it? I’m a lifelong practicing Muslim and I’m not “dominated” by Islam. It’s a willing, voluntary walk along the Path because I choose to believe the promises of my Guardian Lord are true. In fact, as a member of the Black American (ADOS) ethnic group, the only religion that literally and brutally dominated me throughout my family’s history in my country is that of the former slave holder’s identity group.
James wrote: “allows acts of brutality against nonbelievers”
Like what?
James wrote: “etc.”
???
Smedley Farnsworth - I would like you to comment on what is below.
Here are but a few non-tolerant verses of the koran that moslems follow This is what moslems believe about the rest of the worlds population:
"Kill the Jews and the Christians if they do not convert to Islam or refuse to pay Jizya tax.” Koran 9:29“Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them.” Koran 2:191“Make war on the infidels living in your neighborhood.” Koran 9:123“When opportunity arises, kill the infidels wherever you catch them.” Koran 9:5“Any religion other than Islam is not acceptable.” Koran 3:85“The Jews and the Christians are perverts; fight them.” Koran 9:30“Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize Islam” Koran 5:33“The infidels are unclean; do not let them into a mosque.” Koran 9:28“Punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water; melt their skin and bellies.” Koran 22:19“Do not hanker for peace with the infidels; behead them when you catch them.” Koran 47:4“The unbelievers are stupid; urge the Muslims to fight them.” Koran 8:65“Muslims must not take the infidels as friends.” Koran 3:28“Terrorize and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Qur’an.” Koran 8:12“Muslims must muster all weapons to terrorize the infidels.” Koran 8:60Muhammad Rasheed - I saw these on a meme card somewhere earlier. I’ll address them one-by-one since you’ve asked nicely, but your questions about it would clear up immediately if you just read the Qur’an for yourself and saw what they actually said in context. Some of them aren’t even real and were invented by the original sneaky meme creator as some kind of exegesis from a hostile, propagandist outsider.
Stand by…
Smedley Farnsworth - It is quite common to hear the argument from Muslims and apologists of Islam, the old standby of, “you have quoted out of context.” Or that you have not read all of the book.
Just what is out of context with "Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the latter day and who do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden and who do not adopt Islam, (even if they are) of the People of the Book - [fight] until they humbly pay the Jizyah and have been subdued." ~Quran 9:29
It seems very clear to me like these ones.
“Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them.” Koran 2:191“Make war on the infidels living in your neighborhood.” Koran 9:123“When opportunity arises, kill the infidels wherever you catch them.” Koran 9:5
Then of course there is the practice of koranic "abrogation"; It refers to the practice whereby contradictory material within, the koran — is resolved by superseding or cancelling the earlier verse with the later one. Thus the “good” verses are trumped by the later hateful ones.
Muhammad Rasheed - Smedley wrote: “It is quite common to hear the argument from Muslims and apologists of Islam, the old standby of, ‘you have quoted out of context.’”
You literally posted a list of cherry-picked verses isolated out of context. Since this is a common fallacy trait of anti-Muslim critics, why wouldn’t I point it out when you do it?
Smedley wrote: “Or that you have not read all of the book.”
The rest of the Book is where the context of the verses lay that you left out, yes? lol
Smedley wrote: “Just what is out of context with 'Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the latter day and who do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden and who do not adopt Islam, (even if they are) of the People of the Book - [fight] until they humbly pay the Jizyah and have been subdued.' - Quran 9:29"
I answered that one further down in this thread, but I’ll repost the context here, too:

Again, this is talking about cleansing the Holy City specifically of hostile disbelievers while the peace treaty was in place.
Smedley wrote: “It seems very clear to me”
You don’t study the religion though and are uninformed.
Smedley wrote: “like these ones. [Koran 2:191, Koran 9:123, Koran 9:5]"
I already answered those above.
Smedley wrote: “Then of course there is the practice of koranic ‘abrogation.’ It refers to the practice whereby contradictory material within, the koran — is resolved by superseding or cancelling the earlier verse with the later one. Thus the ‘good’ verses are trumped by the later hateful ones.”
None of this is true. Scriptural abrogation refers to the Qur’an abrogating the previous revelation and being a fuller explanation of the Book of Moses (pbuh).
Smedley Farnsworth - Are you being deliberately obtuse, yes of course you are. You are using Taqiyya. Taqiyya is where moslems say what they want infidels to believe. In other words – moslems lie all the time to conceal the true evil intent of islam.
Moslems do it all the time. The biggest deception is that “islam is a religion of peace”.
Muhammad Rasheed - Smedley wrote: “Are you being deliberately obtuse, yes of course you are.”
Because I don’t blindly accept the hostile opinion of an enemy of my faith?
Smedley wrote: “You are using Taqiyya.”
You’re using a term generally known to be stressed by the shia sect (I am not a shiite), but used mostly by Western anti-Islam propagandists to smear Islam. You’re presenting it as if you are an expert on the religion of Al-Islam, and not just a hostile troll who gets all of his shady lore from hate sites.
Smedley wrote: “moslems lie all the time to conceal the true evil intent of islam.”
Funny. I happen to be a member of the ever-maligned Black American former slave class ethnic group who subscribes to the religion. In my people’s experience, one would get the impression that white men invented lying, as I still find myself struggling for economic inclusion as a full citizen in my own country because of the diabolical political manipulations of the white identity group. I am not interested in your shallow attempts to smear my adopted faith since it is no secret what your true motives are. Notice you are pretending that your short list of cherry-picked verses and half interpreted verses are the entirety of the Qur’an and when I demonstrate the greater context and message the verses come from, you accuse me of lying about it. You are the one committing the cherry-picking fallacy, but you claim I’m lying for pointing out YOUR xenophobic propagandist deceptions. This is a classic, no-frills performance of the white male I know in history.
Smedley wrote: “Moslems do it all the time.”
Do we, white man? How are you tracking that data exactly?
Smedley wrote: “The biggest deception is that ‘islam is a religion of peace.’”
It is a religion of peace, as its practitioners are commanded to uphold the truth and protect the vulnerable. The last thing you would need is for the people at large to be so empowered, since it would sabotage your goals of total domination with zero competition on the world stage.
Muhammad Rasheed - Smedley posted: “’Kill the Jews and the Christians if they do not convert to Islam or refuse to pay Jizya tax.’ Koran 9:29″
For context, the Muslims had just reclaimed the Holy City of Mecca after many years of exile. They were about 10,000 strong but not a drop of blood was shed. Even though the Muslims were all dressed in pilgrim garb, determined to complete the Hajj ritual, their pagan foes were intimidated by their numbers alone.
There was a peace treaty in play up to that point, but one of the pagan tribes had blatantly violated their side of the bargain, and these are the ones Allah had the prophet announce aloud that the believers were commanded to run them out of the city and slay them if they were found hiding. The other pagan tribes who hadn’t broken the treaty were to be treated with kindness in hopes they would convert by the contract’s expiry. If not, then the Holy City of Mecca was for the believers in Allah alone and even the Jews and Christians had to leave. This restriction is only for Mecca and not for any other Muslim majority place; Jews and Christians can live in peace under Muslim rule as long as they pay the jizya.

Muhammad Rasheed - Smedley posted: “’Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them.’ Koran 2:191”
The early Muslims who fled persecution from the pagan Meccas by going to Medina started off as a vulnerable, pitiful little band. Their number were steadily growing though, with the strict monotheist message eventually threatening the peace-of-mind of the powerful polytheist tribes who controlled the pilgrimage revenue, who made the decision to wipe the Muslims out completely which they tried and failed at a few times.
The Qur’an’s controversial “war verses” are only defensive in nature, and the take the righteous position as a guide for those who believe.

Smedley Farnsworth - Thank you for proving my points.
Muhammad Rasheed - lol I’m not done yet, but how did I prove your point exactly? What is your point?
Smedley Farnsworth - I am exposing the flaws and violence of islam and the lengths you go to hide it from non moslems. (Until it is to late).
Muhammad Rasheed - Smedley wrote: “I am exposing the flaws”
Are you? Because from here it looks like a textbook cherry-picking fallacy performance.
Smedley wrote: “and violence of islam”
The fact that the so-called “violence of Islam” is no different than the violence of the biblical prophets, but without the problematic corrupt parts your scribes and Constantinian councils added later, means you’re trying to make a mountain out of a sand divot.
Smedley Farnsworth - It looks like cherry-picking to you because you are looking from the viewpoint of being inside islam and you don’t want the truth exposed.
What about the violent passages in the Bible?
First, violent Biblical passages are irrelevant to the question of whether Islam is violent and is simply “whataboutism” on your part in a failed attempt to deflect away from the fact of islamic violence.
Second, the violent passages in the Bible certainly do not amount to a standing order to commit violence against the rest of the world. Unlike the koran, the Bible is a huge collection of documents written by different people at different times in different contexts, which allows for much greater interpretative freedom. The koran, on the other hand, comes exclusively from one source: Muhammad. It is through the life of Muhammad that the koran must be understood, as the koran itself says. His wars and killings both reflect and inform the meaning of the koran. Furthermore, the strict literalism of the koran means that there is no room for interpretation when it comes to its violent injunctions. As it is through the example of Christ, the "Prince of Peace," that Christianity interprets its scriptures, so it is through the example of the warlord and despot Muhammad that Muslims understand the koran.
You problem is, that I, a non moslem, do understand the true nature of islam and both reject it and expose it.
Muhammad Rasheed - Smedley wrote: “It looks like cherry-picking to you because you are looking from the viewpoint of being inside islam”
Meanwhile, it looks like cherry-picking to me because you literally use a short list of isolated verses that you (and the original meme writer you pulled them from) are trying to pretend mean something different from the Qur’an’s actual messaging context. lol
Smedley wrote: “and you don’t want the truth exposed.”
Ha! Sure, I do. I love it. More than you know, white man.
Smedley wrote: “What about the violent passages in the Bible?”
That’s not what I said. That makes this is a strawman effigy.
Smedley wrote: “First, violent Biblical passages are irrelevant to the question of whether Islam is violent and is simply ‘whataboutism’ on your part in a failed attempt to deflect away from the fact of islamic violence.”
I didn’t commit the WhatAboutism fallacy. In Islam, we believe in the pillar “BELIEF IN THE PROPHETS” which means we are commanded by God to treat all the prophets exactly the same. Allah said they all had the same mission and all performed excellently, and so we aren’t to treat any of them any different than any other. So, far from deflecting from the topic as you falsely claimed, what I actually said was that Muhammad functioned with his violence no different than the prophets before him — he stood in the righteous position of defense to protect his community from the enemies of Islam. A criticism against the violence performed by Muhammad is a criticism against all of the prophets at one and the same time.
Smedley wrote: “Second, the violent passages in the Bible certainly do not amount to a standing order to commit violence against the rest of the world.”
That’s arguable. There’s a reason that I did NOT say “the violent passages in the bible,” but pointedly said the violence of the biblical prophets themselves, which is an altogether different kettle of fish. The bible is a notoriously fabricated document according to your own believing Christian scholars—corrupt beyond repair—and horrendous acts were shoved into the text by people pushing un-Godly political agendas. I was talking about the actions performed by the prophets of olde according to the spirit of the Word and God’s message, not whatever your corrupt bible literally says about violence. That’s the real reason you are protesting talking about the bible’s violence in a comparative manner, because you realize you would not come out on top in such a contest. Did I not demonstrate the true context of the Qur’an’s so-called ‘war verses?’ The only context of the bible passage violence is corruption.
Smedley wrote: “Unlike the koran, the Bible is a huge collection of documents written by different people at different times in different contexts, which allows for much greater interpretative freedom.”
“Interpretive freedom” meaning you are in the habit of conjuring lies to grift the community with a fabricated pagan doctrine pretending to be from God. I’m quite aware of what you hold and what you do with it. I suggest you repent.
Smedley wrote: “The koran, on the other hand, comes exclusively from one source: Muhammad.”
It comes from Allah. Muhammad (pbuh) is merely the mouthpiece, commanded to only speak the Words that the Lord thy God put into his servant’s mouth and commanded him speak, as described in Deut. 18:18. ;)
Smedley wrote: “It is through the life of Muhammad that the koran must be understood”
It’s weird watching hostile outsiders proclaim false things about material they have never studied with such tissue-thin confidence. lol
Smedley wrote: “as the koran itself says.”
Be so kind as to provide the verse that says this, please, if ye are truthful.
Smedley wrote: “His wars and killings”
lol They were not his wars and killings, since there was an active bad guy on the stage who initiated all conflicts. The Muslims stood only in the righteous position of defense.
Smedley wrote: “both reflect and inform the meaning of the koran.”
I’ll accept this. If you will notice, the full context of the message that your cherry-picked verses conspicuously left out did provide direct instruction as to how the believers were to act in wartime.
Smedley wrote: “Furthermore, the strict literalism of the koran”
lol This is yet another example of you violently proclaiming something about Islam that is patently not true. The Qur’an often uses a poetic style of expression, generously providing similes, metaphors and similitudes of things:

You would know this if you ever bothered to read the Book for yourself. Then you would have the benefit of actually knowing what you were talking about instead of embarrassing yourself as a committed xenophobic hate-peddling troll.
Smedley wrote: “means that there is no room for interpretation when it comes to its violent injunctions.”
So, to be clear, you’re saying that you—in your role as the hostile outsider who demonstrably has no idea what he’s talking about—has the authority and leeway WITHIN ISLAM to legitimately invent/conjure/concoct meanings for the Qur’anic verses as you see fit, and they will be equally as real (and more so!) than the actual context of the message itself. lol Is that what you are saying to me, with a straight face, no less? Honestly, I think you deserve to be arrested for the suggestion as a crime against truth itself.
Smedley wrote: “As it is through the example of Christ, the ‘Prince of Peace’"
Show me in the New Testament where Jesus (pbuh) is ever called the Prince of Peace, please. Your emboldened use of quotations there amused me, so I’ll go ahead and call your bluff.
Smedley wrote: “that Christianity interprets its scriptures”
Christians interpret their so-called “scriptures” in a way that defies both logic and common sense. You ignore the unambiguous, explicit sayings of Jesus, to instead use ambiguous, implicit verses to cobble together the pagan-influenced tripe you are famous for. Your clumsy attempts to use the same cock-eyed flimflammery on the Qur’an are rejected out of hand as the sputtered ravings of a crackpot.
Smedley wrote: “so it is through the example of the warlord and despot Muhammad”
The prophet of Islam was neither a warlord, nor a ‘despot.’ If he was, then certainly so was both Moses (pbuh) and Joshua (pbuh).
Smedley wrote: “that Muslims understand the koran.”
You think I understand the Qur’an through the eyes of a hostile propagandist troll, do you? I think one would just have to read my responses to see if that were objectively true or not. Do you honestly believe that you give the impression that you really know Islam to outsider eyes, especially since everything you say can be found on the typical anti-Islam hate site meme graphics?
Smedley wrote: “You problem is, that I, a non moslem, do understand the true nature of islam and both reject it and expose it.”
If this is true, then please begin to provide proof/evidence of your claims. So far, in providing the greater context of your isolated, cherry-picked verses, the truth is firmly upon my side of the argument and you didn’t have a firm comeback.
Muhammad Rasheed - Smedley posted: “Make war on the infidels living in your neighborhood.’ Koran 9:123”
This verse is for those Muslims who are surrounded by active hostile enemies who have waged war upon them. Allah is reminding the believers that they have Him on their side, while the unbelievers only have sociopathic greed and the whispers of the satan.

Muhammad Rasheed - Smedley posted: “’When opportunity arises, kill the infidels wherever you catch them.’ Koran 9:5″
This took place when the Muslims returned to Mecca from exile and took Mecca without bloodshed while wearing the pilgrimage garb. This announcement was letting the pagans who broke the peace treaty know that war would be waged upon them lest they fled or converted, while the pagan tribes who upheld the terms of peace would be granted leniency until the contract expired, then they would be required to leave the Holy City, too, lest they converted.

Muhammad Rasheed - Smedley posted: “’Any religion other than Islam is not acceptable.’ Koran 3:85″
The All-Powerful One God, Supreme Creator of reality and Master of the Day of Judgment sent His final revealed scripture (Qur’an) and perfected His religion (Al-Islam) as a universal message for humanity, so why would He accept anything else from someone who believed and then rejected it?


Muhammad Rasheed - Smedley posted: “’The Jews and the Christians are perverts; fight them.’ Koran 9:30”
If you’re feeling some kind of way about being called out by the Lord of the worlds for your perverting of the faith of the prophets of olde, then it should stand to reason that you would try to fix your perverted state instead of complaining that you got called out for your wrongdoing.

Muhammad Rasheed - Smedley posted: “’Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize Islam’ Koran 5:33”
There’s nothing in the verse you’re supposed to be referencing that says anything about killing for “criticizing” Islam; this is clearly a message of instruction during active war time.

Muhammad Rasheed - Smedley posted: "’The infidels are unclean; do not let them into a mosque.’ Koran 9:28″
This bullet of yours is pretending people aren’t allowed in ANY mosque, when it’s in fact talking about restrictions around THE mosque — al-Masjid al-Ḥarām that encircles the Ka’aba in Mecca. The infidels are the ones who filled the House of Allah with 300+ idols, remember? Clearly, they don’t need to be anywhere NEAR the most sacred site in Al-Islam. I don’t even understand why you included this bullet, other than deliberately pretending the verse said something it didn’t say. Staying away from the Ka’aba is different from visiting a local mosque in Columbus OH, right? lol

Muhammad Rasheed - Smedley posted: “‘Punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water; melt their skin and bellies.’ Koran 22:19”
This is clearly a description of the torment of hell, not a command for the believers to torture anyone. lol smdh You have zero credibility. I hope you realize that.

Muhammad Rasheed - Smedley posted: “’Do not hanker for peace with the infidels; behead them when you catch them.’ Koran 47:4”
This one is instructing the believers in how to treat the defeated enemy during individual battles within a greater war campaign. Making them sign a strict contract and giving the leeway to be either generous with them or offer ransom depending on their behavior during this period. That’s the literal opposite of what your bullet claimed.

Muhammad Rasheed - Smedley posted: “’The unbelievers are stupid; urge the Muslims to fight them.’ Koran 8:65”
lol This one is 99% accurate. The only part you’re missing is that the pagan Meccan forces were on their way to Medina to wipe the Muslims out, and Allah gave the prophet permission to tell the believers to defend themselves. Allah sent down a company of angels to help them, so they shouldn’t fear.


Muhammad Rasheed - Smedley wrote: “’Muslims must not take the infidels as friends.’ Koran 3:28″
Accurate. ‘Nuff said. Do you think all of the lies and slander you’ve put forth against my sacred belief system this day qualify you as friendship material? Alright then. Shaddap.

Muhammad Rasheed - Smedley posted: “’Terrorize and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Qur’an.’ Koran 8:12”
This is another of Allah’s after-battle-briefings where He explains to the believers the nature of the Help he provided for the Battle of Badr. Again, this was when the pagan Meccan forces came to Medina with the intention of completely annihilating the Muslims and Allah didn’t allow it. With His help, 300 Muslim fighting men defeated 1,000 pagans. Note how none of this has anything to do with attacking people who “believe in scriptures other than the Qur’an” which was clearly a lie. Aren’t you the one who brought up the jizya tax? You all should think your lies through so there is at least some consistency. smh

Muhammad Rasheed - Smedley posted: “’Muslims must muster all weapons to terrorize the infidels.' Koran 8:60"
This is only describing normal, common sense battle preparation. What’s the matter? Does the idea of the God-fearing oppressed preparing to strike back against a long-time enemy disturb you, white man? I think we both know that very imagery is the root cause for your hatred against Al-Islam. It’s VERY different from what the old slave holders taught to my ancestors from your doctored-up version of Christianity, isn’t it? You SHOULD be in terror as you’ve earned it. I suggest you repent.

Norman Jones - M. Rasheed quoted: "and the best of planners is Allah."
Thanks for your answer. So what you are saying is that Allah also plotted and planned and Allah is the best plotter and planner. I just don't understand why you contradict yourself.
Muhammad Rasheed - The Omniscient One God by definition is the Best Tactician — His power to know literally everything makes God the Most Skilled at planning tactics. The usage of the word “deceiver” or to imply that “planner” in your own usage above has a negative connotation from your biased position doesn’t make sense in context outside of anti-Islam hate propaganda.
Norman Jones - Islam is full of contradictions, read the Quran with an open mind and you will see for yourself . Abrogated versus make no sense. An all known God would not change his mind.
Muhammad Rasheed - Norman wrote: “Islam is full of contradictions”
lol No, it’s not.
Norman wrote: “read the Quran with an open mind”
I did. That’s why I’m a practicing Muslim.
Norman wrote: “and you will see for yourself”
Are you supposed to be pretending that you’ve read the Qur’an before? Skimming cherry-picked quotes on your favorite anti-Islam hate site is not the same as reading the Qur’an for yourself, bud.
Norman wrote: “Abrogated versus make no sense.”
The Qur’an abrogates the previous scriptures and is a fuller explanation of the Law of Moses. That’s what Allah was talking about.
Norman wrote: “An all known God would not change his mind.”
The problem with that line is it inappropriately reflects up towards God instead of inward towards yourself. It’s an arrogant position to take. God does what He does to guide and test us. That’s the entire point of scripture and the history of the Word on earth.
Norman Jones - Islam is brainwashed and your a good example. Please provide proof of your assumption, and don't say the Quran, which has no proof of anything,except that it is a badly written book. Harry Potter makes more sense. Flying horses don't exist.
Muhammad Rasheed - Norman wrote: “Islam is brainwashed and your a good example.”
You don’t appear to know what “brainwashed” actually means. So far, you’ve proven that all you know how to do is blindly parrot hate propaganda. You don’t have a cohesive position you are capable of defending, you just say stuff you heard without understanding. This is what it looks like when someone is brainwashed.
Norman wrote: “Please provide proof of your assumption, and don't say the Quran”
lol Well, I’ll say the Qur’an anyway, thanks. You’ve never read it, and I’ll wager you’ve never even tried. Do you think I can’t tell the difference between someone who is actually informed on the topic and holds well-thought out criticisms he’s willing to explain versus someone like you who’s only heard something somewhere and wants to shout at people from across the street with no certain knowledge? Why are you even on Quora? This platform isn’t for one such as you. TikTok is down the hall to the left.
Norman wrote: “which has no proof of anything”
Sure, it does.
Norman wrote: “except that it is a badly written book.”
How would YOU know?
Norman wrote: “Harry Potter makes more sense.”
Does it? The Qur’an says to worship only the One God who made you, do good, reject evil and repent when you mess up. Is that alien to you?
Norman wrote: “Flying horses don't exist.”
Explain to me—in your own words—what “flying horses” have to do with the religion of Al-Islam, if you please. Take your time.

A Slow Leakage in Your False Confidence

 

[original cartoon pending]

CITATION
Rasheed, Muhammad. "A Slow Leakage in Your False Confidence.'" Cartoon. The Official Website of Cartoonist M. Rasheed 00 Date 2024 [cartoon pending]. Pen & ink w/Adobe Photoshop color.

CLICK & SUBSCRIBE  below for the Artist's Description of this #MRasheedCartoons image:
M. Rasheed on YouTube!

M. Rasheed on BitChute!
*************************************************
Clinton Mannathoko - As a non-Muslim I admire the fact that Islam seems to be spot on, the Muslims memorise the Quran, they pray 5 times a day, they practice their faith a lot, but if you ask us Christians we go to church once a week and sin every hour we can, Islam is a force

Itß Yœùñg Mõõßã Munowelenkhu - I wonder because if someone goes to work he / she go every day but we forget to worship to God gave us everything for Free but choose to work every day for world material.

Clinton Mannathoko - @Itß... its human of us we forget but Muslims just make it a point to make this apart of who they are

Anthony McCullough - @Clinton... You speak for All Christian now 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Clinton Mannathoko - @Anthony... it’s my view, you could always add your input. They are a resilient people and you see that in them with the genocide in Gaza, no people would stand that psychological and mentally it’s just horrible but they stand strong cause of the constant implementation of their faith

Anthony McCullough - you stated Christiana like you are the spokesperson for all Christians. You can't possibly have a view about what all Christians do or believe stop kidding yourself

Zak Bungwon - @Clinton... Admiration adds nothing of value; why not become one, if you think you can be guaranteed of life here, & in the hereafter!

But, remember that, even Muhammad (saw) died with the uncertainty of not knowing what would be done with him, let alone with his companions & followers! Shine your eyes!🙏

Clinton Mannathoko - @Zak... yes and that follows his belief that he isn’t God and he is merely a man, I see nothing wrong there

Zak Bungwon - Yes, you may see nothing wrong with it, if you too don't know what will be done with you! So, why not just become what you admire, since there's no law of apostasy forcing you to remain where you now are?!🤷‍♂️

Clinton Mannathoko - I find it hard sometimes to understand the Nigerian Dialogue it throws me off a little but fear not my brother I am putting it together. So your statement is that Muhammad did not know what is to happen to him? And I admire a religion that doesn’t give guarantee of heaven by just having faith alone but by works they resemble their faith, I think that’s what you are sayijg

Zak Bungwon - No, I actually mean you should be what you admire, if there's nothing superior about what you now are, and there's nothing forcing you to be where & what you now are!

Muhammad Rasheed - Clinton wrote: "So your statement is that Muhammad did not know what is to happen to him? And I admire a religion that doesn’t give guarantee of heaven by just having faith alone but by works they resemble their faith, I think that’s what you are sayijg"

In the Qur'an, numerous times Allah told the prophet that he was doing a great job and his reward was assured. Allah also told the prophet ("Say:") to tell the people that he was only a warner who had no insider knowledge of the unseen. Our debate opponents like to use the latter part of that to pretend that the prophet didn't know whether he was going to paradise or not, when that's clearly not the case.


Clinton Mannathoko - @Muhammad... I admire Him and from the start I mentioned that Islam is undoubtedly the religion to go to. Quran seems to have things straight and we Christians attack two things about Islam first being his marriage to little Aisha at 6 years of age and 2 the virgins that Muslims are promised if they die in war

Muhammad Rasheed - Clinton wrote: "his marriage to little Aisha at 6 years of age"

I don't even understand why the African community are even bringing it up, considering many of their own cultures mimic that of the two Semite nations when it comes to the Age of Consent. In the numerous cultures around the globe and throughout history that greatly valued having a LOT of children in their families, marrying women off the second they hit puberty is the go-to move. This is not even a religious item they are griping over, it was just the societal norm in 7th century Arabia. In addition to this, the prophet and his close inner circle—the four members of the proto-Rashidun Caliphate (Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman & Ali)—all agreed to marry into one another's families to tighten their deep friendships with ties of kinship. I honestly thought that was pretty cool (albeit alien to my 21st century USA sensibilities). I think it's petty for atheists and Christians to attempt to make a big deal about it. The fact that the Jews are conspicuously quiet as church mice on the issue amuses me.

Clinton wrote: "and 2 the virgins that Muslims are promised if they die in war"

I can't even pretend to understand what the argument against that is. I just got killed in a war I stood up in FOR GOD, but I can't have a couple of magical, immortal wives that no one else touched? In heaven? Why not? lol
Bong Dee - @Clinton... As a Christian we advise you to stay away from the teachings of a sinful man like Muhammad. No pervert pedophile adulterer womanizer murderer and false prophet like Muhammad goes to heaven.
Muhammad Rasheed - Bong wrote: "As a Christian we advise you to stay away from the teachings of a sinful man like Muhammad."
His teachings were to worship the One God of Abraham (pbuh) alone, to do good, reject evil and repent when you mess up. You hate that, huh?
Bong wrote: "No pervert"
The prophet wasn't a pervert.
Bong wrote: "pedophile"
The prophet wasn't a pedophile.
Bong wrote: "adulterer"
The prophet wasn't an adulterer.
Bong wrote: "womanizer"
The prophet wasn't a womanizer.
Bong wrote: "murderer"
The prophet wasn't a murderer.
Bong wrote: "and false prophet"
The prophet wasn't false. His teachings were to worship the One God of Abraham (pbuh) alone, to do good, reject evil and repent when you mess up. Does that sound "false" as an Abrahamic theist?
Bong Dee - @Muhammad... see you really don't read the Bible to know the truth. I am sorry for you because your going to hell and you don't know who are you dealing. Why is he a pervert, an adulterer, a pedophile, a womanizer and a false prophet.
So let's start, Jesus and Moses taught that a man and a woman can marry the two will be one. Muhammad said you abdools can marry 4, this is in fact against Jesus and Moses teachings so this is a perversion of their teachings. Furthermore he married more than 4 so his indeed a pervert and an adulterer. What is more demonic he married little Aisha that pedophilia and that's why his a false prophet because Jesus and Moses never taught that a man can marry a little girl. Only with a woman so that age is about 14 to 18 years old. He married Aisha when she was 6 yrs old only a pervert will marry a little girl 😂😂😂😂
Clinton Mannathoko - @Bong... you aren’t judge to say where someone is going so don’t pass out verdicts, here we are men and we let God do what he does.
Conversations need to be conversations and not taken personal if you can do that you can converse, if you can’t then kindly just follow the topic or exit with peace
Bong Dee - @Muhammad... 😂🤣😂 thats a fact and the truth. Truth will set me free. If you can't take it then leave
It's better they know the truth. So when Judgment day come they had been warned about Muhammad, that includes you.
Muhammad Rasheed - Bong wrote: "see you really don't read the Bible to know the truth."
Meanwhile, I've read the KJV of the bible from cover-to-cover twice.
Bong Dee - @Muhammad... good you've read it. But did you listen to Jesus?
Bong Dee - @Clinton... no we are taught to warn others of a false prophets and their teachings. You think im passing judgment. No! that's not my task, that's Jesus task during Judgment Day. And if you don't warn others about false prophet Muhammad then it will be against you...
Muhammad Rasheed - Bong wrote: "I am sorry for you"
Because I bear witness that there is no god but the One God and Muhammad (pbuh) is His messenger? Weird.
Bong wrote: "because your going to hell"
Do you still worship a human being as a co-deity in perfect imitation of the pagans? Oh, okay.
Bong wrote: "and you don't know who are you dealing."
Psh. Trust me, I do. lol
Bong wrote: "Why is he a pervert, an adulterer, a pedophile, a womanizer and a false prophet."
He's not.
Bong wrote: "So let's start, Jesus and Moses taught that a man and a woman can marry the two will be one."
How would YOU know? Your book is compromised according to your very own scholars, so...
...yeah. You may as well be passing along National Inquirer rag gossip.
Bong wrote: "Muhammad said you abdools can marry 4"
The One God granted permission to marry up to four during certain strict circumstances, and never for lust.
Bong wrote: "this is in fact against Jesus and Moses teachings"
How would YOU know? lol
Bong wrote: "Furthermore he married more than 4 so his indeed a pervert and an adulterer."
He was allowed to marry more as the leader of the community, with the perks that come from being the leader of the community.
Bong wrote: "What is more demonic he married little Aisha that pedophilia"
Pedophilia is illegal. It clearly wasn't illegal in 7th century Arabia.
Bong wrote: "and that's why his a false prophet because Jesus and Moses never taught that a man can marry a little girl."
What did that have to do with the prophethood? It's not even a religious item.
Bong wrote: "Only with a woman so that age is about 14 to 18 years old."
Both Semite nations married off women as soon as they reached puberty. You're talking out of your neck.
Bong Dee - @Muhammad... brainwashed is done for you and your going to hell because your stuuupid to believe Muhammad instead of Jesus of the Bible. We have been telling you Muhammad is a false prophet no pedophile can enter heaven ...only hell with Satan. And yeah your going there too...
Muhammad Rasheed - Bong wrote: "because your stuuupid to believe Muhammad instead of Jesus"
The Islamic Pillar called "BELIEF IN THE PROPHETS" means I actually believe in them both equally. 😉 But thanks for playing!
Bong Dee - and i bear witness that the Father in heaven is not your allah. And Jesus is the Son of God who became like man to bring the good news from the Father in heaven.
Muhammad Rasheed - Bong wrote: "and i bear witness that the Father in heaven is not your allah."
Allah says otherwise, and He is the All-Powerful Master of the Day of Judgment. Should I accept His Word, or yours?
Bong wrote: "And Jesus is the Son of God who became like man"
Based on what? 🤨 Why do you believe this clear pagan tripe?
Bong Dee - 🤣😂🤣allah is useless against a hungry goat who ate part of Quran 🤣😂🤣
Muhammad Rasheed - Do you believe that particular hadith is worthy of your pure blind faith to believe it was actually true? 🤔 Is that what all the giggling emojis mean?
Do you think your 'divine son Jesus' lives in that hadith to make it worthy of your unquestionable, uncritical pure blind faith in it? Why?
Bong Dee - 🤣😂🤣 so you mean to say hadiths are not reliable? Just like Muhammad and his heresies and lies in Quran?... same 💩💩💩🤣🤣🤣
We don't need you hadiths or Quran bcoz all are 💩💩🤣🤣🤣tons of lies and heresy no truth.
My faith is with Jesus and the bible because the most of the writers of the NT bible and especially the Gospels were actual eyewitness of Jesus🤣🤣😂😂
Muhammad Rasheed - Bong wrote: "so you mean to say hadiths are not reliable?"
The collected volumes of ahadith represent the most material about an historical figure ever compiled. From the, we have a nearly complete picture about the entire life of Muhammad (pbuh), something we can't say about any of religious founder. Not everything said about the prophet is true (the hadith are scholarly works collected from the memories of the people passed down from the prophet's day and never pretend to be revealed from God), but much of it is impressively accurate.
Bong wrote: "Just like Muhammad and his heresies and lies in Quran?... same"
There are no heresies and lies in the Qur'an. Unlike the body of hadith literature, the Qur'an is the inerrant Word of God and is pure revelation preserved.
Bong wrote: "We don't need you hadiths or Quran bcoz"
You do need it if you hold hope of winning through to heaven. It will be impossible for you to do so without repenting and converting to Al-Islam.
Bong wrote: "My faith is with Jesus"
Jesus was Muslim, as were all the prophets of God. Your faith is a twisted pagan distortion authorized by Constantine's councils.
Bong wrote: "and the bible"
The bible is a corrupt fabricated document written by anonymous evangelicals centuries after Jesus' mission. Your people have failed you and that's why the Qur'an was revealed.
Bong wrote: "because the most of the writers of the NT bible and especially the Gospels were actual eyewitness of Jesus"
lol Your actual believing New Testament scholars disagree with you (see attached graphic). You lack any support whatsoever for your tissue paper beliefs.

Muhammad Rasheed - Now please explain why you keep bringing up the "hungry goat" hadith as if you 100% believe it is real despite it being poorly supported in the Islamic literature.
It seems to mean a lot more to you (who continuously cites it) than it does to the actual Muslims. Why?
Bong Dee - 🤣😂😂did it mention who witnessed Muhammad and Jesus talking to each other? Did it mentioned who witnessed Muhammad in Jerusalem? 😂😂😂
Bong Dee - 😂😂🤣😂and you would rather believe this pedophile illiterate pervert Muhammad more than those who saw Jesus with his disciples with their own eyes? 😂🤣😂
Bong Dee - 😂🤣😂its not only the story of the hungry goats because you have no complete old Quranic manuscripts. You have six but none is complete. The one you read was based on the hafs 1924 canonized quran which the Saudi government as Cairo to print into a book😂😂😂
And they are based on 6 of Quran manuscripts these are not even the Utthman version. 😂😂😂
Muhammad Rasheed - Bong wrote: "🤣😂😂"
I'm going to assume all of this random giggling is related to fentanyl.
Bong wrote: "did it mention who witnessed Muhammad and Jesus talking to each other? Did it mentioned who witnessed Muhammad in Jerusalem?"
It's also genuinely weird to see a supposedly believing Christian blindly parrot an atheist argument point. I could just as easily ask you who witnessed Paul's Damascus Road vision, or the satan trying to tempt the Christ (pbuh), right? I won't go there because it would make me an idiot, too.
Bong wrote: "😂😂😂"
You should try checking into one of those drug rehabilitation clinics. They can fix you.
Muhammad Rasheed - Bong wrote: "😂😂🤣😂"
More fentanyl?
Bong wrote: "and you would rather believe this pedophile"
Why would I believe he was a pedophile? That doesn't even make sense in context. Do you expect me to just side with my pagan mortal enemy and take your hostile, biased, and xenophobic interpretation of my stuff? Why would I do that? You demonstrably hate the truth.
Bong wrote: "illiterate"
He needed to be illiterate to fulfill the Deut. 18:18 prophecy. That's why so many of the learned Jews converted to Islam in the earliest days.
Bong wrote: "pervert"
??? Do you even know what that means? How does that slur apply to the prophet of God? 🤨
Bong wrote: "Muhammad more than those who saw Jesus with his disciples with their own eyes? 😂🤣😂"
You're giggling off another fentanyl hit like I'm the one who made up that your book is compromised. You should actually read the placard I provided. Those are believing Christian scholars admitting that everything you were led to believe about the new testament is actually a fiction. This is the Christian scholarship official position, not the mean ole Muslim position. Clean your own house.
Bong Dee - 🤣😂😂 I'm not a zombie like you who take drugs. Atheist who? You think i will just copy them without doing my own research? Your stuuupid assumption only prove your low IQ😂😂😂😂 i laugh and this emoji tells it because your low IQ validated that you are a slave of Muhammad lies😂😂😂
Here you are attacking me instead of answering and defending Muhammad if he really meet Jesus and who were the witnesses. Only prove your low IQ😂🤣😂
Muhammad Rasheed - Bong wrote: "😂🤣😂"
You're going to overdose on Facebook in front of everybody. lol
Bong wrote: "its not only the story of the hungry goats"
This is not a true story. You haven't answered why you have such intense blind faith in it.
Bong wrote: "because you have no complete old Quranic manuscripts."
Of course we do. lol
Bong wrote: "You have six but none is complete."
You don't even know what that means in context. You just heard a piece of misinformation on an anti-Islam hate site and you are now blindly parroting it without even being able to defend it.
Bong wrote: "The one you read was based on the hafs 1924 canonized quran which the Saudi government as Cairo to print into a book"
You don't know what "haf" means and you don't realize you're making yourself a fool in public.
Bong wrote: "😂😂😂"
lol smh
Bong wrote: "And they are based on 6 of Quran manuscripts these are not even the Utthman version. 😂😂😂"
You have no idea what any of that means.
Muhammad Rasheed - Bong wrote: "🤣😂😂 I'm not a zombie like you who take drugs."
Then why are you giggling for literally no reason like a drug addict, hm?
Bong wrote: "Atheist who? You think i will just copy them without doing my own research?"
That describes the behavior of every single Christian in these 'debate' chat groups. I doubt you even know what research even means.
Bong wrote: "Your stuuupid assumption"
This is experience, son.
Bong wrote: "only prove your low IQ😂😂😂😂 i laugh and this emoji tells it because your low IQ validated that you are a slave of Muhammad lies😂😂😂"
Is this the extent of your counter-response? Because it seems like its all you have.
Bong wrote: "Here you are attacking me"
It's not my fault you don't have a real argument, and think that a normal debate question is an "attack."
Bong wrote: "instead of answering"
Why do you believe that "goat eating" hadith is actually real? Why do you have total blind faith in it when the Muslims themselves don't? Can you answer?
Bong wrote: "and defending Muhammad if he really meet Jesus and who were the witnesses."
I don't have to "defend" that at all. It doesn't even make sense to ask that question from theist-to-theist. This is literally an atheist's argument.
Bong wrote: "Only prove your low IQ😂🤣😂"
Who were the witnesses to Paul's Damascus Road vision? Who were the witnesses to the satan tempting Jesus (pbuh)? 🙄
Bong Dee- 🤣🤣😂because i pity your intelligence you seems intelligent by why follow and illiterate? Worst his a pedophile pervert 🤣😂
Tell me can Muhammad read Arabic? How can he read Greek and Hebrew? Because the Bible were written in Hebrew and Greek.
Muhammad Rasheed - Bong wrote: "🤣🤣😂because i pity your intelligence"
You're saying this while conspicuously ducking all the debate questions you're afraid to answer. I see.
Bong wrote: "you seems intelligent by why follow and illiterate?"
God needed him to be illiterate. If he was educated, he would try to put his own spin on the revelation instead of only "speaking the Words that God put in his mouth and commanded him to speak" per the Deut. 18:18 prophecy.
Bong wrote: "Worst his a pedophile pervert 🤣😂"
He was neither of these.
Bong wrote: "Tell me can Muhammad read Arabic?"
Nope.
Bong wrote: "How can he read Greek and Hebrew?"
He couldn't.
Bong wrote: "Because the Bible were written in Hebrew and Greek."
The prophet wasn't learned in scripture at all. He only spoke what was revealed for him to speak.
Bong Dee - Deuteronomy 18 18 speaks about the prophet to come and he must be an Israelite like Moses. Is Muhammad an Israelite? No! So Muhammad is not the prophet they know will come.
Continue Deuteronomy 18 19 its says you must listen to him or be accountable or curse if not. Question who was the prophet whom we must listen? Muhammad? No! Because can't even show himself or talk to Muhammad.
Is it Jesus? Yes! Because God the Father twice in the gospels told his Jesus disciples to listen to Jesus. Twice, first during Jesus baptism by John the Baptist and second during Jesus transfiguration. The voice from heaven told John the Baptist, Peter, John, and James to listen to Jesus...see verse below...
"While he was still speaking, a bright cloud covered them, and a voice from the cloud said, 'This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!'" ~(Matthew 17:5)
Muhammad Rasheed - Bong wrote: "Deuteronomy 18 18 speaks about the prophet to come"
lol He already came. That was Muhammad (pbuh).
Bong wrote: "and he must be an Israelite like Moses."
Not so. Muhammad fit the "like Moses" criteria.
Bong wrote: "Is Muhammad an Israelite? No!"
No need.
Bong wrote: "So Muhammad is not the prophet they know will come."
Sure he is.
Bong wrote: "Continue Deuteronomy 18 19 its says you must listen to him or be accountable or curse if not."
I listen to Muhammad, but you don't. That means, you are cursed.
Bong wrote: "Question who was the prophet whom we must listen? Muhammad?"
Of course.
Bong wrote: "No! Because can't even show himself or talk to Muhammad."
lol You could if you lived in the time/place he showed up in.
Bong wrote: "Is it Jesus?"
No. Jesus was not like Moses. See graphic.

Bong Dee - 😂🤣😂 I don't need to explain to fools like you🤣🤣😂no you've read Deuteronomy 18:18-19. And had shown you the verse that you must listen to Jesus. The accountability is now on you if you still deny Jesus.
And Muhammad was never a brethren or brothers to Israelites his an Arab you fool🤣😂😂
How is Jesus same like Moses ..see below😂🤣😂 Muhammad is a false prophet 😂🤣😂😂a pedophile like Muhammad is a💩💩💩 to the society 😂🤣😂
Muhammad Rasheed - Bong wrote: "I don't need to explain to fools like you"
That's called cowardly ducking the questions in a debate, while pretending it's something else. Should I blame that on your fentanyl addiction, too?
Bong wrote: "🤣🤣😂"
😏
Bong wrote: "no you've read Deuteronomy 18:18-19."
Sure, did.
Bong wrote: "And had shown you the verse that you must listen to Jesus."
That is a fiction.
Bong wrote: "The accountability is now on you if you still deny Jesus."
In the Qur'an, God explains what He revealed to Jesus, and He quoted the summary of what Jesus taught. There's a reason God mentions Jesus a lot in the final revelation and it corrects the errors that your people were falsely led to believe.
Bong wrote: "And Muhammad was never a brethren or brothers to Israelites his an Arab you fool🤣😂😂"
The Arab nation under Ishmael (pbuh) are the brethren nation under Isaac (pbuh).
Bong wrote: "How is Jesus same like Moses"
I already explained how using my chart.

Bong Dee - 😂😂😂tell me, Muhammad's prophesy in Quran. If his a true prophet he must pass Deuteronomy 18:20. Otherwise, his just a false prophet and deserve to die like 💩😂😂😂
Bong Dee - 😂😂😂 Moses can speak to YHWH face to face see Exodus 33 11 😂😂😂 Muhammad who saw him talked to allah face to face? A flying donkey? 😂😂😂
Muhammad Rasheed - Bong wrote: "tell me, Muhammad's prophesy in Quran"
The Roman Byzantines just lost a battle with the Persian Sassanids, but the Qur’an made a bold claim stating (30:1-5) "that the Byzantines would make a huge comeback against the Sassanids within 3 to 9 years. Of course, the prophecy did come true despite this. After about 7 years from the Byzantines defeat, they made a huge comeback and started to take back all of the lands they lost (bit.ly/4ah9O0Z)" even though at the time of the Qur'an prediction, the feat seemed impossible.


Muhammad Rasheed - Bong wrote: "If his a true prophet he must pass Deuteronomy 18:20. Otherwise, his just a false prophet and deserve to die like 💩"
You mean the way Paul died? 🤔

Bong Dee - 😂😂😂paul never claimed his a prophet 😂😂😂but Muhammad says he is... You only posted one stuupid prophesy 😂😂😂you think i can just accept it only one your a joke like your stuuupid prophet 😂😂😂😂
Bong Dee - 😂😂😂the Romans defeated when? It's just 💩💩💩 and who is Alif. Lam. Mim? 😂😂😂
Muhammad Rasheed - Bong wrote: "the Romans defeated when?"
620 A.D.
Muhammad Rasheed - Bong wrote: "paul never claimed his a prophet"
Didn't he claim to receive visions from God? Doesn't your "holy book" consist mostly of Paul's letters that you believe are the "divinely-inspired Word of God?"
Bong Dee - 😂😂😂are you crazy defeated by who? 620 AD 😂😂😂When did Muhammad became a prophet? Do you understand what is a real prophet of the bible?
Bong Dee - 😂😂😂 boy there are divine ministry it's not prophesy. Like Paul his a preacher and a teacher too. Others like gift of healing, other like Solomon is gift of wisdom. David had kingship, leadership and humility. There are many more. You need to read the Bible to understand it...
Muhammad Rasheed - Bong wrote: "defeated by who?"
The Persian Sassanids.
Muhammad Rasheed - Bong wrote: "When did Muhammad became a prophet?"
When he was 40 yrs old.
Bong wrote: "Do you understand what is a real prophet of the bible?"
Do you understand anything at all? It honestly doesn't seem like it.
Bong wrote: "there are divine ministry it's not prophesy"
You're babbling. Why do you think I would value your opinion of your corrupted book? I don't care what you think about religion and spirituality. You're not a smart person.
Bong Dee - 😂 at what age was Muhammad when he did this prophesy or at what year this prophesy was told? When did it came true?
Muhammad Rasheed - Bong wrote: "at what age was Muhammad when he did this prophesy"
The prophet was 50 yrs old at the time of that revelation.
Bong wrote: "When did it came true?"
A few years later.
Bong Dee - if Muhammad was 50 that means to say this happened in 620AD. But the Persian defeated the Romans in 613AD. So you mean this is the fulfillment of his prophesy. Do you agree?
Muhammad Rasheed - Bong wrote: "Do you agree?"
lol Are you trying to finagle the dates I chose to fake prove the historical event didn't actually happen?
Bong Dee - that's why i am checking the timeline if i am not wrong? My estimate maybe wrong do enlighten me...
Muhammad Rasheed - Bong wrote: "My estimate maybe wrong do enlighten me..."
Remember in the beginning of this bit, when you assumed the prophet Muhammad didn't make any predictions that were revealed by Allah in the Qur'an, and you giggled until you found out you were wrong? And now you find yourself desperately trying to figure out how to fix the dates of the Byzantine–Sasanian War to prove it wrong in your mind somehow?
This is the part that's most interesting to me -- watching your cognitive dissonance eat away at your anti-Islam worldview.

Muhammad Rasheed - Hey, where did all of your giggling emojis go? Hm?
Bong Dee - 😂😂😂i told you already 1 prophesy doesn't make him a true prophet 😂😂😂 my emojis are still there.
Bong Dee - and you didn't give answer to my question. So do you agree that he prophesied it in 620 AD? When Muhammad was about 50 yrs old. Do you agree?
Muhammad Rasheed - He actually made lots of prophecies. That one is most highlighted because it was an actual big deal—literally NO ONE thought the Byzantines could recover from that defeat—and put in the Qur'an itself for everyone to marvel at. Earlier, you didn't know he had made ANY prophecies, so even one prophecy that came true, that secular university historians discuss regularly, is quite significant. Your effort to downplay that significance only demonstrates your confirmed lack of personal integrity.
Muhammad Rasheed - I see the emojis came back right on cue. 😏
Muhammad Rasheed - They seem to lack the same gleeful mirth as before. I wonder why?
Bong Dee - 😂😂 my emojis are always there.
Bong Dee - so answer me. Did Muhammad prophesied that the Persian will defeat the Romans in 620AD, his about 50 yrs old. Do you agree?😂😂
Muhammad Rasheed - Bong wrote: "my emojis are always there"
Always? Here's the exact moment when they disappeared, where you got noticeably uncomfortable at the realization that you are 100% wrong about the prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

Muhammad Rasheed - Even just before that, they dropped down from an average of six to one. lol
Muhammad Rasheed - How does this feel? To find out you were literally wrong about EVERYTHING and actually chose the wrong religion? Huh?
Do you feel the butterflies in your stomach churning around? Tell me.
Bong Dee - 😂😂😂 you can't answer the question because your prophet is a false prophet😂😂😂
Muhammad Rasheed - He's still a 'false prophet' even though he went around prophesizing events that came true, huh? Interesting how the Christian mind works, isn't it? Huh. #Fascinating
Bong Dee - 😂😂😂 Persians defeated the Romans in 613AD. So if Muhammad prophesied it in 620AD. That means it's already past. So it means his a false prophet💩💩 😂😂😂
By the time he prophesied the Romans had decisively defeated the Persians in 620AD. So his prophesy is still wrong 😂😂😂😂
Muhammad Rasheed - Bong wrote: "Persians defeated the Romans in 613AD. So if Muhammad prophesied it"
You're confused (again). After the Persians defeat them, the Qur'an predicts that the Byzantines will come back and win. THAT'S the prediction. Pay attention, please.
Obviously, you're so desperately trying to figure out how to save face, it's making you even sloppier than you are normally.

Familial Disapproval versus the Divine Command

 

[original cartoon pending]

CITATION
Rasheed, Muhammad. "Familial Disapproval versus the Divine Command.'" Cartoon. The Official Website of Cartoonist M. Rasheed 00 Date 2023 [cartoon pending]. Permanent marker w/Adobe Photoshop color.

CLICK & SUBSCRIBE  below for the Artist's Description of this #MRasheedCartoons image:
M. Rasheed on YouTube!

M. Rasheed on BitChute!
*************************************************
Majid Al Kushi - Why do the Followers of The illiterate Prophet cry when we post their resources?!!!
Babatola Emmanuel Abioye - The truth is that certain truths about Islam and the 'holy prophet' hurt Muslims. They call such truths blasphemy, and have shed a lot of blood for it, and are ready to shed more.
Muhammad Rasheed - Babatola wrote: "The truth is that certain truths about Islam and the 'holy prophet' hurt Muslims"
Like what? 🤔
Muhammad Rasheed - The real truth of the matter is that Christians don't know their own religion as well as they should. The flock is unfortunately content to allow the self-serving clergy to spoonfeed them pre-packaged ideology loosely based upon the bible.
If Christians truly studied to show themselves approved as they were commanded, then they would find themselves reverting to Islam in a smooth logical transition.
Majid Al Kushi - M. Rasheed wrote: "Like what?"
like jumping on Aisha the 9 years old. Like lusting after his daughter in law and divorcing her from his son and taking her for himself
Muhammad Rasheed - Majid wrote: "like jumping on Aisha the 9 years old"
What does the age of marital consent have to do with his prophethood and the religion? It's not even mentioned in the Qur'an. This is one of those items that can quickly become a hypocritical thing for you since it's based purely on subjective cultural norms, so I suggest you tread carefully.
Majid wrote: "Like lusting after his daughter in law and divorcing her from his son and taking her for himself"
You're interpreting the event from the position of an ignorant disbelieving outsider, so how would your opinion matter at all? Zayd was not a blood relation of the Prophet (pbuh) and Allah encouraged the union to enforce His commands about blood ties over friendship ties. Our human traditions treat "step-children" relations as if they are blood, but God said that's not a thing, because it creates unnecessary drama within the inheritance rights.
Majid Al Kushi - 

Behold! Thou didst say to one who had received the grace of Allah and thy favour: "Retain thou (in wedlock) thy wife, and fear Allah." But thou didst hide in thy heart that which Allah was about to make manifest: thou didst fear the people, but it is more fitting that thou shouldst fear Allah. Then when Zaid had dissolved (his marriage) with her, with the necessary (formality), We joined her in marriage to thee: in order that (in future) there may be no difficulty to the Believers in (the matter of) marriage with the wives of their adopted sons, when the latter have dissolved with the necessary (formality) (their marriage) with them. And Allah's command must be fulfilled.

Muhammad Rasheed - That's the one! lol
Majid Al Kushi - why was he hiding ii
Muhammad Rasheed - Majid wrote: "why was he hiding ii[sic]"
Because it was human tradition to treat "step-children" as if they are actual blood ties and the Prophet knew that the people would have an issue with it and it would be a difficult sell. Allah revealed that there was no issue since the friendship tie pretending to be a blood tie is unacceptable in His Eyes, so He used the revelation to make the Divine Position clear on the matter, that's why Allah had His prophet go through with it so we would definitively know what the correct guidance about it was with Allah.
Muhammad Rasheed - Allah actually wants us to STOP calling adopted children "sons & daughters" and instead call them by their actual parents' names. If this is not possible, then call them our brothers & sisters in Faith instead.
People have a problem with this, and uphold human traditionalism over the commands of the One God.
Muhammad Smith - 


What's your #HardTruth ?
Robert Asmar Pelaez - At least she expose the truth. It’s the sneaky hypocrites. That’s the worst but pork is not as bad as people make it to be. Its just Harram for those who know better. so there may be room for conversation with her about it maybe some intervention invention
Muhammad Rasheed - Robert wrote: "but pork is not as bad as people make it to be"
God said don't eat it.
Robert Asmar Pelaez - @Muhammad... God also said make it 1000 excuses for your Muslim family but really the only reason I made the comment is because  it’s a delicate situation when you’re dealing with your mother. And it’s not the port that’s bad as the disobedience to the Lord of all the world, and she may be innocent of that so there’s a reason for patience.
Muhammad Rasheed - Robert wrote: "it’s a delicate situation when you’re dealing with your mother"
God also mentions several times to be kind to parents but DON'T let them pressure you into disobedience to God's commands.
Robert wrote: "And it’s not the port that’s bad"
God said not to eat the flesh of swine. It wasn't designed for human consumption. It sounds suspiciously like you eat it all the time and cooked up justifications for your own disobedience. Is this true?
Robert Asmar Pelaez - God also said don’t fornicate he also said don’t drink wine or bad. Things gonna happen, many ways, but life and death means nothing without the obedience of your Lord  therefore, if you’re not at fault, and someone like your mother gave pork to them self, or to someone else, that’s not the main issue the issue is to get her on the side of the leash not to argue with her about how bad pork is
Muhammad Rasheed - Robert wrote: "God also said don’t fornicate he also said don’t drink wine or bad. Things gonna happen"
The guidance is to repent and do it no more.
Robert wrote: "many ways, but life and death means nothing without the obedience of your Lord"
Agreed. God said don't eat it, so don't eat it.
Robert wrote: "therefore, if you’re not at fault, and someone like your mother gave pork to them self, or to someone else, that’s not the main issue"
The point of Bro. Smith's meme, is that a hostile relative made it known that she would disrespect the tenets of your faith. If you send your Muslim child to that household unsupervised knowing this, you are in the wrong.
Robert wrote: "the issue is to get her on the side of the leash not to argue with her about how bad pork is"
The issue is to guard the members of your household from the unrepentant hellbound.

The Holy Relics: Respect-by-Example versus Worship

 

[original cartoon pending]

CITATION
Rasheed, Muhammad. "The Holy Relics: Respect-by-Example versus Worship.'" Cartoon. The Official Website of Cartoonist M. Rasheed 00 Date 2023 [cartoon pending]. Permanent marker w/Adobe Photoshop color.

CLICK & SUBSCRIBE  below for the Artist's Description of this #MRasheedCartoons image:
M. Rasheed on YouTube!

M. Rasheed on BitChute!
*************************************************
Majid Al Kushi - Jesus is alive today in heaven. Where is the founder of Islam?
Muhammad Rasheed - What an odd question. It is irrelevant where any of the prophets of the One God reside today. What matters is that the One God is watching us all in preparation for Judgment Day.
Majid Al Kushi - Read Quran 46: 9
Muhammad Rasheed - What does that have to do with my point? Even if Jesus is in heaven and it were true that Muhammad (peace be upon the prophets) is in the grave waiting to go to heaven, why would that be relevant to my own faith walk on earth today?
Majid Al Kushi - Muhammad didn't know what is his destinations or Muslims destinations?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Why do you follow him??!!!!!
Muhammad Rasheed - lol I don't understand what all the exclamation marks are for. 46:9 is Allah telling His prophet to tell the people that he is preaching the enduring scripture of the ages and not a brand new religion. He's explaining that he is only preaching what was revealed to him by the One God. Just like the Deut. 18:18 prophecy said, Muhammad (pbuh) was only preaching what was put in his mouth by God and nothing extra. That's what 46:9 confirms.
Will you not then believe? Repent and bow down as a Muslim and save your soul.
Muhammad Rasheed - (46:9) Say: "I am no bringer of new-fangled doctrine among the messengers, nor do I know what will be done with me or with you. I follow but that which is revealed to me by inspiration; I am but a Warner open and clear."
Muhammad Rasheed - (Deuteronomy 18:18) "I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee [Moses], and will put my words in his mouth [i.e., Bismillah]; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him."
Majid Al Kushi - You better follow the Quran, which tells you about a claimed prophecy attributed to Jesus (a prophet will come after me named Ahmed) show it to me please in the Injeel
Muhammad Rasheed - The "Injeel" mentioned by Allah in the Qur'an was the revelation that the Christ Jesus (peace be upon the prophet) preached during his lifetime. This literature does not exist in the modern day (outside of what Allah quotes from Jesus in the Qur'an).
What the people of the book do have is the Christian version of 'hadith' about Jesus. Perhaps you mean to ask me for something else?
Majid Al Kushi - or the other possibility is Muhammad was a false prophet. He didn't know what he was talking about
Muhammad Rasheed - Why would a "false prophet" tell the pagan Meccans to stop worshiping idols and worship the one God of Abraham instead? 🤔That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
It's far more likely that this false prophet you're looking for was actually Paul of Tarsus, who encouraged people to perform the great sin of worshiping the very human final Hebrew prophet in the line of Isaac (pbuh) alongside the Lord thy God. That's clearly the culprit who deserves the charge.
Majid Al Kushi - He claims revelation, so he had to teach something new to the pagans. But he kept the worship of the black stone
Muhammad Rasheed - Majid wrote: "He claims revelation, so he had to teach something new to the pagans"
Sure, it was new to the pagan Arabs, but it wasn't a new message. It was the return of the pure faith of Abraham himself (peace be upon him).
Majid wrote: "But he kept the worship of the black stone"
You don't seem to know what "worship" means. No one worships the Black Stone. It's regarded with respect as a relic from the smoking gun catalyst of the Great Deluge of Noah (pbuh), but it's not worshiped.
Majid Al Kushi - Muhammad kissed it during Hajj. He said it will come in the day of judgement and testify on behalf of the Muslim who worships it
Muhammad Rasheed - Majid wrote: "Muhammad kissed it during Hajj"
So? Did he pray to it, asking it for favors and mercy? lol You need to look up the definition of "worship," bro.
Majid wrote: "He said it will come in the day of judgement and testify on behalf of the Muslim who worships it"
In the Qur'an, Allah said literally everything will be given the power to speak, bear witness and testify, including our very own individual body parts. Does that mean we worship them, too? 😏
Majid Al Kushi - read your answer and judge if it makes sense
Muhammad Rasheed - English is my mother tongue. How about you run it through Google Translate so you don't remain so confused.
Muhammad Rasheed - There were no doubt pagans from the days of ignorance who really did worship the Black Stone. We can reasonably expect the Stone to bear witness against those fools on the Last Day, sure. No Muslim worships it though, so you don't have an argument here.
What else do you have?
Majid Al Kushi - kissing a stone in the most holy place of Islam hoping it will testify for in the last day is pure paganism
Muhammad Rasheed - Kissing the Sign of Allah is an act of respect for one of the relics, it's not an act of worship. lol Do you worship your parents, wife & kids when you kiss them?
Majid wrote: "hoping it will testify"
I don't "hope" it will testify, I expect it to testify per the Word of the One God who sent the thing to earth to activate the Great Flood's destruction.
Muhammad Rasheed - "Pure paganism" is worshiping the very, very human son of Mary as a divine entity. You may want to knock it off.
Majid Al Kushi - I don't kiss them to forgive my sins. As for kissing Idols as an act of worship here is a reference
‭(I Kings‬ ‭19:18‬ ‭NKJV‬) Yet I have reserved seven thousand in Israel, all whose knees have not bowed to Baal, and every mouth that has not kissed him.”
Muhammad Rasheed - Majid wrote: "I don't kiss them to forgive my sins"
Me neither. I kiss it because my prophet kissed it as a sign of respect towards his Lord's relic. lol
Majid wrote: "and every mouth that has not kissed him"
What does kissing Baal's idols in actual pagan worship have to do with Muslims kissing the Black Stone in non-worshipful respect of the One God's holy relic? You appear to have confused yourself again.
Muhammad Rasheed - For example, the Ark of the Covenant contains the Rod of Aaron (pbuh), the Tablets of the Commandments and other relics of God. We Muslims would kiss all of them (if the Ark wouldn't zap us for the presumption) for the same reason we kiss the Black Stone. These are all Signs of the Supreme Creator and they deserve our respect as proof of our belief. That respect is not worship. lol
There are no people on earth more anti-idolatry than us Muslims. No one recognizes this more than you Christians, since we've been giving you guys flack over your very pagan worship of the final Hebrew prophet for the last 1400 yrs. Trust me, we know the difference between worship versus respect and certainly more than you do.
Muhammad Rasheed - Majid wrote: "you better follow the Quran, which tells you about a claimed prophecy attributed to Jesus (a prophet will come after me named Ahmed) show it to me please in the Injeel"
lol You didn't want to follow up on this? I only asked you to rephrase it since nobody in their right mind actually believes that the collected letters of Paul the False with the anonymously-written four Pauline Gospels are actually the divinely revealed Injeel preached by Jesus. Those are two completely different works.

A Flabby Flex Attempt

 

[original cartoon pending]

CITATION
Rasheed, Muhammad. "A Flabby Flex Attempt.'" Cartoon. The Official Website of Cartoonist M. Rasheed 00 Date 2023 [cartoon pending]. Permanent marker w/Adobe Photoshop color.

CLICK & SUBSCRIBE  below for the Artist's Description of this #MRasheedCartoons image:
M. Rasheed on YouTube!

M. Rasheed on BitChute!
*************************************************
Q: Is it possible that the United States could have abolished slavery in a gradual manner that would have prevented a war?
Chris Bast - Anything's possible, but in this case it would have taken a much longer time. Like, multiple generations long.
Realistically slavery would have eventually faded away no matter what happened. Industrialization makes slavery inevitably unprofitable. But that would have taken so long we might have gone well into the 20th century before slavery finally ended for good.
To accelerate the process, we would have to engineer, essentially, an industrial revolution in the Southern states. Someone would have had to convince the South AND the North that a grand program of economic reform was necessary and practical. That could have, in theory, weaned the South off of slavery. But like I said, it would take a long time. A lot of elections would have to go right for this to work.
Although that doesn't address the cultural problem. Making slavery unprofitable doesn't make blacks and whites equal, socially speaking. You might have ended slavery but you'd probably still have something resembling Jim Crow for a very long time.
The Civil War was unfortunate, but compared to the several generations of work that could have gone wrong at multiple points, I think it was the lesser evil.
Muhammad Rasheed - Chris wrote: “Realistically slavery would have eventually faded away”
Realistically, no one would willingly give up free slave labor. It would never just fade away; people have to be forced to stop doing wrong when they lack the moral fabric to do the right thing.
Chris Bast - M. Rasheed wrote: "Realistically, no one would willingly give up free slave labor."
Nonsense. There's no such thing as “free” labor. Even slaves have to be fed, clothed, and housed. Machines don't. They cost less money and take up less space. And they don't ever revolt.
People will absolutely willingly give up “free” slave labor when the alternative is probably cheaper.
Muhammad Rasheed - Chris wrote: “Nonsense. There's no such thing as ‘free’ labor.”
That’s the formal definition. You’re right though that EVERYTHING costs something as your very misplaced pedantic point.
Chris wrote: “Even slaves have to be fed, clothed, and housed.”
True. So, the pre-Civil War version of U.S. chattel slavery was replaced with the mass incarcerate state, where the U.S. gov paid for the overhead of the convict leasing modern version of slave labor and businesses pay a fee to use that labor force.
Chris Bast - Oh please. A minuscule percent of the labor in this country is done by prisoners.
Knock that racial chip off your shoulder and join us in the real world.
Muhammad Rasheed - Chris wrote: “Oh please. A minuscule percent of the labor in this country is done by prisoners.”
A minuscule percentage of the pre-Civil War populace owned slaves, too, but the nation still ran on the chattel slave economy. You don’t have a point. Checkmate.
Chris wrote: “Knock that racial chip off your shoulder”
I don’t actually have a “racial chip” on my shoulder, since the weaponization of African & Caribbean immigration reveals that America’s “peculiar” systemic racism legacy is actually xenophobe-based discrimination against my American Descendants of Slavery ethnic group and not racial after-all.
Chris wrote: “and join us in the real world.”
Based on the strength of your argument (such as it is), I can’t say I understand what you mean by that. I doubt it means you are a fan of the Tate Bros. lol
Chris Bast - Okay, you realize we can all see who you are replying to, right? You don’t have to keep repeating who you’re quoting like a child.
M. Rasheed wrote: "the nation still ran on the chattel slave economy."
Not even close to true.
M. Rasheed wrote: "I don’t actually have a 'racial chip' on my shoulder"
You’re only lying to yourself.
Muhammad Rasheed - Chris wrote: “You don’t have to keep repeating who you’re quoting like a child.”
This must be a form of the Tone Police Fallacy. lol
Chris wrote: “Not even close to true.”
It’s quite true.
Chris wrote: “You’re only lying to yourself.”
Since you’ve resorted to fallacies and willfully ignorance denials that we both know you have zero evidence for, it’s clear which one of us is actually lying to ourselves with a reddened face. lol
Chris Bast - M. Rasheed wrote: "This must be a form of the Tone Police Fallacy. lol"
That’s…not a fallacy.
M. Rasheed wrote: "It’s quite true."
I know you really want to believe that, but…
M. Rasheed wrote: "Since you’ve resorted to fallacies"
I’m convinced you don’t know what that word means.
Muhammad Rasheed - Chris wrote: “That’s…not a fallacy.”
Geez. Do you know anything at all? Your existence must be pretty sad living in a fact/knowledge/truth void.


Chris wrote: “I know you really want to believe that, but…”
…somehow you believe that no one wanted to use free slave labor in a free slave labor economy. smdh I think you have a ‘being wrong fetish.’ You love it. lol
Chris wrote: “I’m convinced you don’t know what that word means.”
hahahahaha At this point, you should delete your account.
Chris Bast - M. Rasheed wrote: "Do you know anything at all?"
Do you? Just because some idiot wrote it up on a blog and it got thrown into the google algorithm doesn’t make it a formal (or informal) fallacy.
Besides, you are not in a position to complain about fallacies since your every comment is full of them. Indeed, you are using that very “fallacy” (which is not really a fallacy) right now.
M. Rasheed wrote: "smdh I think you have a ‘being wrong fetish.’ You love it. lol"
Ad hominem fallacy.
M. Rasheed wrote: "hahahahaha At this point, you should delete your account."
Appeal to ridicule fallacy.
I guess you either really don’t know what fallacies are, or you really really like them.
Muhammad Rasheed - Chris wrote: “Do you?”
I certainly know more than you do on the topic of U.S. race relations. You appear to solely rely upon a foundation of white supremacist emotionalism as your evidence sources.
Chris wrote: “Just because some idiot wrote it up on a blog and it got thrown into the google algorithm doesn’t make it a formal (or informal) fallacy.”
True. Fortunately for our purposely, this blog is actually the structured explanation of fallacies using the book Logically Fallacious by Dr. Bo Bennett as the source text. So, we don’t need to fear being taken by “some idiot” who doesn’t know what he is talking about, as the title is itself well-sourced and peer-reviewed in the proper fashion.
Chris wrote: “Besides, you are not in a position to complain about fallacies”
“Complain” isn’t the appropriate term here. “Amused” would be more accurate, since I’m watching you flip around like a beached fish desperately trying to save face. lol
Chris wrote: “(which is not really a fallacy)”
To be clear, “tone policing” is indeed an official logical fallacy, and described as such within every definition from any source you’d care to use, since you hate blogs published by the “idiot” at the top of my casual Internet search for the term.
Anyway, I’m not guilty of tone policing you at all and have managed to skillfully address your actual (weak) message content. I challenge you to demonstrate HOW I’m guilty of the charge, if ye are truthful. ;)
Chris wrote: “Ad hominem fallacy.”
For example, in order to successfully prove that I’m guilty of the ad hominem, you’d have to show where I purposely ignored the content of your claim to instead attack you as a person. At no point have I done this, and in fact, I instead fully addressed your content point-by-point, using my signature style that you attacked with your tone policing faux-complaint. After I made my counter-point, and it was clear you had nothing to offer to defend your position, then I was free to tease you all I liked. Were I to have committed the ad hominem fallacy, I would have attacked your person INSTEAD of addressing your point, while pretending I addressed your point.
You see, you’ll need to first take the time to understand what the fallacies actually are, and know what they mean, before you are able to use them to call out your opponent’s trip ups. Your argument level is not that advanced, I’m afraid. Did you somehow believe it was? Based on what exactly? I’ll admit bafflement at your misplaced confidence based on what you’ve demonstrated thus far.
Chris wrote: “Appeal to ridicule fallacy.”
Again, the fallacy claim is only true if the opponent ridicules you instead of addressing your content. I did nothing of the sort. All of my ridicule came after you proved incapable of defending your position and were thoroughly checkmated and thus, butthurted, as we see demonstrated here in your enthusiastic fish-flopping exercise.

Smearing Your Ethnic Crazy-Town on a Whole Race

 

Become an M. Rasheed Patreon Subscriber!

CITATION
Rasheed, Muhammad. "Smearing Your Ethnic Crazy-Town on a Whole Race." Cartoon. The Official Website of Cartoonist M. Rasheed 02 Oct 2023.  Water Soluble Marker w/Adobe Photoshop color.

CLICK & SUBSCRIBE  below for the Artist's Description of this #MRasheedCartoons image:
M. Rasheed on YouTube!

M. Rasheed on BitChute!









________________________________
Get a signed copy of M. Rasheed's first novel!

Notes While Observing #20: Cosplay as a Social Engineering Tool

 

Elijah Muhammad mimicking Jiddu Krishnamurti (top)
and Shahid Bolsen mimicking Malcolm X 

A few days ago, I saw a clip of this Shahid Bolsen character and my first impression was that someone told AI to mimic Malcolm X using a white dude. Everybody has spent sometime being fascinated with Bro. Malcolm — I'm certainly no exception — so, of course I would recognize an effort to deliberately mimic how he came across in his old 1960s television appearances. I went to this Bolsen dude's YouTube channel to investigate, to see if his account really was set up as an AI platform. It wasn't, but you can see, while scrolling through his video backlist thumbnails, the exact moment when the creative decision was made to begin deliberately mimicking Malcolm X in the aesthetic. 

I felt an instant flash of anger, thinking at first this was yet another "Wallace Fard" agent trying to misdirect my people into some more bullsh*t. Did we come full circle? At first, real Islamic missionaries were prevented from converting the abused and dejected jim crow era American Descendant of Slavery (ADOS) ethnic group, and were instead replaced by a succession of grifters pretending to be exotic ideological gurus. That's why Elijah Muhammad's handlers had him mimicking Krishnamurti's accent and going on about the "Asiatic Black man" concept. So, is this Malcolm X impression a white dude's mimicry designed to make him a "guru" from the other direction?  

According to Bolsen's channel description, the message is supposed to promote the interests of Muslim majority countries, he just decided to exploit a popular ADOS figure to do it. Unless, like Marcus Garvey, his intention is to attract a bunch of Muslim ADOS followers that he can exploit for his own foreign goals? To successfully pull that off, in addition to fabricating a familiar Malcolm X identity to attract the target group, he would have to build upon a generation of anti-USA/Western rhetoric as provided by the pan-africanists. So, in order to successfully build an ADOS army, Bolsen, like Garvey, would have to convince us that our own interests in our own country weren't worth fighting for, which is 100% how pan-africanists talk.  

Interestingly, according to another video of his, Bolsen appears to believe that the racial issues that Malcolm X fought against were fictions invented by Western liberals even as he performs his cosplay of an anti-racism, civil rights leader. How offensive is that? In that, it's similar to whites fabricating a fictional 'white' version of Malcolm X's story to give white youth a socially engineered motivation.

Spike Lee's Malcolm X film was studied to
make the plastic American History X,
because whites don't want to use
their own culture's figures for stuff.
I also wonder, if he is indeed trying to attract ADOS with this performance, if it's similar to white entrepreneurs (like DJ Vlad) who will often court the interest of ADOS to give their product a numbers boost to enable them to leverage into bigger investments later. 

A sampling from hundreds of
white-owned, fake "black"
platforms infesting social media

See Also:

Notes While Observing #19: Return of the Master Race
Notes While Observing #18: Quantum Thought...?

Notes While Observing #17: How Systemic Racism Works

Notes While Observing #16: The Exclusive White Male Homosexual Club

Notes While Observing #15: Playing the Coon Card

Notes While Observing #14: The Toxicity of Unsolicited "Advice"

Notes While Observing #13: Breaking the Chains of Plunder

Notes While Observing #12: The Sloppiest Cover-Up of All

Notes While Observing #11: Driving the Narrative of 'Whiteness'

Notes While Observing #10: The White Establishment's Plan for Profiting From Black Reparations

Notes While Observing #9: The Descendants of Yakub

Notes While Observing #8: The 1972 Gary Convention

Notes While Observing #7: Strategies of the Discrimination Olympics

Notes While Observing #6: The GOP's International War on Black America

Notes While Observing #5: The Case of the Old Switcheroo

Notes While Observing #4: Risk Responses of the Racial Contract Beneficiary

Notes While Observing #3: Pig Blood, Clinton vs Alton, & Black Twitter

Notes While Observing #2: The Crack in the Musical Bedrock

Notes While Observing #1: Stephen King (Carrie) & Barbra Streisand (Yentl Mendel)
________________________________
MEDIUM : Scanned pen & ink cartoon drawing w/Adobe Photoshop color.

SUBSCRIBE and receive a FREE! Weapon of the People eBook by M. Rasheed!