Believe It Or Not?

The Israhelli Deceit...Hidden Truths Revealed

2014-08-04T16:58:00.001-07:00

Alison Weir - The Hidden History of How the US Was Used to Create Israel

Innocence of Muhammad

2014-06-17T19:44:00.001-07:00

http://www.tubeislam.com/video/11623

1Islaam: Uniting the Ummah upon the Qur'aan and Sunnah

2014-01-07T14:28:00.001-08:00

Assalaamu Alaykum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barrakaatoh.

I have recently acquired the the two domains of 1Islaam.com / 1Islaam.net.

I have started working on the website and in time I will start to put material up.

The main aim of the site is to unite the Muslims based on the Qur'aan and Sunnah as the title suggests. The site will endeavor to provide clear and concise information with authentic references In Shaa Allaah into may of the issues which are dividing our Ummah.

Their will always be deviants out there who see the religions as a money making scheme and their will always be the ignorant who just follow. But by the will of Allaah, if He allows it this site will be a free reference to correct misconceptions and doubts in peoples minds.

The goal as suggested by the title is 1 Islaam. Specifically in terms of acts of worship. There will always be a difference of opinions and ijtihaad in fiqh matters and this is an accepted fact, however there should never be any doubts or differences in the acts of worship as found in the Qur'aan and Sunnah as performed by the most noble Messenger Muhammad (peace be upon him) and his Companions (may Allaah be please with them all).

A possible secondary goal is to have an online reference library of known bodies of works and their authenticity classification to make it easier for students of knowledge to look for information.

A possible third goal would be to provide Qur'aan (1Quraan.com / 1Quraan.net) references and tafseers and Hadeeth and classifications of hadeeth in a clear and concise way (1Sunnah.com / 1Sunnah.net).

In Shaa Allaah, I will endeavor to make the site as simple as possible and provide a mobile formatted version. As time goes on and once the basic structure is ready I will be looking for volunteers, who are able to research content and, develop the site further. May Allaah make it successful and easy if our intentions are pure and guide us as we all need guidance in this day and age more than ever.

Wassalaamu Alaykum.

Mawlid: It's Bid'ah Time of the Year Again

2014-01-07T13:59:00.001-08:00

So I'm sitting on the bus reading some of the many sites I subscribe to. Some of them arguing for the Mawlid others argue against it. Subhanallah how the Muslims lie and deceive and mistranslate against Allah and his Messenger(p) (wal 'iyaadu Billah) and make up their own interpretations of Qur'aan and Sunnah, and even twist clear statements by many scholars to justify the mawlid. Even someone with no knowledge whatsoever will read this and say how do they get the validity of the mawlid from such statements. Keep in mind 3 things. The prophet did not celebrate his birth nor did he teach it and he was the one who said he had conveyed the message completely and made it clear to us. The companions never practiced it and they are the ones who loved and knew and imitated the prophet better than any of the creation. The Tabi'een never practiced it and even if they did that would not have made them correct since the prophet said those who are on the correct path are those who follow him and his companions. Bottom line is the prophet said we will follow in the footsteps of the Christians and Jews and we do. Christians don't know the actual birth date of Jesus (p) and neither do Muslims know the birth date of Muhammad. so they set a date that they feel would be good to celebrate on. The prophet never had any such gatherings for any reason as acts of worship. His companions who were the best in Islam didn't do it. Neither is there any evidence, not even vaguely within the Qur'aan and Sunnah for it. So I ask you Muslims. Who are you following today? Who are you imitating? Yes you may mean good by this celebration but as the best of creation the noble prophet said repeatedly without doubt and clearly narrated countless times, "whoever introduces into this matter of ours (Islaam) that which is not part of it will have it rejected". The Mawlid of anyone has never been celebrated as part of Islaam. Such a clear and beautiful statement compared to the non-existent evidences provided for the Mawlid. I guess our love for the Prophet today is not as strong as we may think. Since we would prefer to follow the deviants and ignore the most righteous. May Allah guide us all.

As a Muslim I am not offended

2011-03-17T16:11:00.000-07:00

Priest Forced to Give Up 40 days of Muslim Lent

Thursday March 17, 2011

Categories: RNS, faith, news

FERGUSON, Mo. (RNS) The Rev. Steve Lawler should have just given up chocolate or television for Lent.
Instead, Lawler, the part-time rector of St. Stephen's Episcopal Church, decided to adopt the rituals of Islam for 40 days to gain a deeper understanding of the faith.
Two days after it began, he faced being defrocked if he continued in those endeavors.
"He can't be both a Christian and a Muslim," said Bishop George Wayne Smith of the Episcopal Diocese of Missouri. "If he chooses to practice as Muslim, then he would, by default, give up his Christian identity and priesthood in the church."
Lawler didn't foresee such problems when he came up with the idea. He merely wanted to learn more about Islam, he said, especially in light of the ongoing congressional hearings on the radicalization of the faith.
On Ash Wednesday, the first day of Lent, he began performing "salah" five times a day, by facing east, toward Mecca, and praying to Allah. He also started studying the Quran and following Islamic dietary restrictions by abstaining from alcohol and pork.
During Holy Week, he planned to fast from dawn to sunset as Muslims do during Ramadan.
But in Smith's eyes, the exercise amounts to "playing" at someone else's religion and could be viewed as disrespectful.
Plus, he said, "One of the ways (Lawler) remains responsible as a Christian leader is to exercise Christianity and to do it with clarity and not with ways that are confusing."
It's not the first time the Episcopal Church has confronted a priest over dabbling in Islam; in 2009, the Rev. Ann Holmes Redding was defrocked two years after she embraced Islam because, her bishop said, "a priest of the church cannot be both a Christian and a Muslim."
Smith said Lawler would face punitive actions if he continued with the rituals.
Lawler said he only planned to take his idea so far -- he did not intend to embrace one of the Five Pillars of Islam that requires Muslims to declare a belief in the oneness of God and to accept Muhammad as God's prophet.
On his second day of seeing Lent through Muslim eyes, Lawler issued a press release promoting his unique way of spending Lent. Speaking to a reporter that afternoon, he had no problem reconciling his Episcopal views with those of Islam.
"I could have sat down and read scholarly literature on Islam, but that's still stepping back from it rather than encountering it," he said, over a cup of tea in the office of St. Stephen's Church. "You can think about doing something, but once you do it, you really reflect on it."
Lawler, who has been at St. Stephen's for eight years, was born and raised in the Roman Catholic Church but left during his early 20s because he didn't care for its conservative viewpoints.
"The Episcopal church is a fairly open church," he said. "If I was the pastor at a very conservative church, I could come in one day and have the locks changed (for doing the Islamic rituals)."
Lawler learned the Episcopal church is more rigid than he had thought. After hearing the objections of the bishop, Lawler reversed course, giving up the Islamic rituals.
"I believe what he's trying to accomplish or says he's trying to accomplish, which is to deepen his understanding of Islam, is admirable," the bishop said. "But you dishonor another faith by pretending to take it on. You build bridges by building relationships with neighbors who are Muslim."
- CYNTHIA BILLHARTZ GREGORIAN, St. Louis Post-Dispatch

125 persons convert to Islam in Dubai

2010-09-28T18:09:00.001-07:00

2010-08-28 21:23:58
WAM DUBAI, Aug. 28th, 2010: 122 ladies and 3 men, all expatriates from the Philippines, converted to Islam in Dubai in a lecture by popular Muslim Filipino orator and preacher Omar Penalbar.
Penalbar was lecturing on tolerance in Islam and the message of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) who is a mercy to all mankind when he was asked by the ladies to elaborate on Islam and its teachings.
The lecture was organized in a Ramadan tent in Al Twar area in Dubai by the Dubai Department of Tourism and Commerce Marketing (DTCM).
The preacher said the previous largest number of people to convert to Islam in the Philippines in one night with his help was 99. A new record has been set today when the 125 individuals declared their conversion to Islam, he added.
Emarati families played a role in this when they accompanied the Filipino individuals to the Ramadan forum, according to Mohammed Al-Hashimi, who oversees the forum.
WAM/MMYS

One Church’s Reasons to Hate Islam, Challenged by an Expert

2010-09-28T18:07:00.000-07:00

In the centuries-old conflict between Christianity and Islam, tolerance has generally outpaced antagonism. But with a proposed Islamic center two blocks from ground zero reigniting an international debate about the compatibility of Islam with Western democracy and Christian teachings, some of the old battle lines are being redrawn.
Terry Jones, the pastor of the Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Fla., is clearly at the extreme end of the Christian perspective. His plan to burn hundreds of copies of the Koran on Sept. 11 has been condemned not only by Muslim leaders in Egypt and Indonesia, but also by the National Association of Evangelicals here in the United States, which urged Mr. Jones to “call it off in the name and love of Jesus Christ.”
And yet, Mr. Jones’ core argument — that Islam is an enemy — has found its way into the mainstream. Politicians, pastors and activists are all now arguing against the ancient faith of Muhammad even as they knowingly or unknowingly combine theology with their own particular view of its politics and current events. Is it just election year posturing?
Maybe, but experts like John Esposito, a professor of religion and international affairs at Georgetown University who has consulted for the State Department, worry that a sense of collective blame is being developed — something similar to what appeared during World War II, when Japanese-Americans were interned because they were believed to be sympathizers with Japan.
The proposed Islamic center in New York, he said, “has revealed a deep-seated Islamophobia across the country, in fact given it permission to go viral.”
In the United States and Europe, he added, “the danger, and I am not exaggerating, is that this social cancer spreads and impacts a community, as happened to the Japanese and historically to Jews due to a Christian theology of collective guilt, which then infected politics and society.”
Ignorance, of course, is often a foundation of such misunderstandings — and Mr. Jones’s church is a clear example. Even though Mr. Jones told me he had “no experience whatsoever with the Koran,” he and his congregation have put together a list called “10 Reasons to Burn a Koran” that offers a window into the views of not just Mr. Jones, but also of many others (as seen in hundreds of supportive e-mails sent to the church and thousands of fans on Facebook).
To understand some of this reasoning and what it might be leaving out, I asked Professor Esposito — a scholar who has studied both Christianity and Islam; a former president of the Middle East Studies Association of North America — to read through the list and comment.
Below are some of the arguments and Professor Esposito’s responses (edited slightly for clarity and style), which focus on the issue that seems to have gripped the nation: where Islam intersects with politics.
REASON 6: Islamic law is totalitarian in nature. There is no separation of church and state. It is irrational. It is supposedly immutable and cannot be changed. It must be accepted without criticism. It has many similarities to Nazism, Communism and Fascism. It is not compatible with Western civilization.

JOHN ESPOSITO: Not true. Even the best of non-Muslim scholars who would not subscribe to Islamic law or see problems would not deny the level of scholarship and reasoning, which is often comparable in its intellectual sophistication (however much one might not agree or follow it) with canon law and many other systems of law. I am not speaking here of its abuses and its distortions, but the law over all. Historically, Islamic law did change, and certainly today there are many scholars — Muslim and non-Muslim — addressing these issues.

REASON 8: A Muslim does not have the right to change his religion. Apostasy is punishable by death.
JOHN ESPOSITO: There are certainly such abuses. This position developed at a time when apostasy was seen as treason and punished as such. It continues to be operative in some though not all Muslim countries, and we have seen the effects of these abuses in Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere. At the same time, today, reform-minded Muslim scholars and senior Muslim religious authorities, like the Grand Mufti of Egypt and others, have spoken out against such practices.
REASON 9: Deep in the Islamic teaching and culture is the irrational fear and loathing of the West.

JOHN ESPOSITO: Where? Despite their grievances regarding the denigration of Islam and Muslims (something this minister seems to excel at) and some American foreign policies, majorities of Muslims in some 35 countries admire the democratic principles and values of the West, its freedoms, rule of law, etc., as well as our technological, educational and economic accomplishments. They want greater democratization and better relations with the West, although many think we have a double standard regarding the promotion of democracy and human rights — given many of the authoritarian governments we have and continue to support. During George W. Bush’s second term, his administration — in moving to a policy to promote democracy and legitimate the invasion of Iraq — acknowledged that historically, U.S. presidents, Democrat and Republican, have practiced what the State Department called “democratic exceptionalism.” This is documented fact, not assertion.
REASON 10: Islam is a weapon of Arab imperialism and Islamic colonialism. Wherever Islam has or gains political power, Christians, Jews and all non-Muslims receive persecution, discrimination, are forced to convert. There are massacres, and churches, synagogues, temples and other places of worship are destroyed.
JOHN ESPOSITO: Only 23 percent of the world’s Muslims are Arab. No doubt some Muslim rulers used religion to justify their wars of imperial expansion. But where today? Regarding the history of religious colonialism, who has been more successful — from 312 under Constantine, when Christianity became associated with empire, to the conquistadors, European colonialism and the use and misuse of religion by politicians and hard-line Christian ministers of the Christian right — especially in the first term of President Bush?
Problems of religious pluralism and tolerance have plagued both Islam and Christianity, past and present. But what, historically, was the policy and track record of official Christianity regarding other Christians (denounced as schismatics and heretics)? What about Christianity’s intolerant policy and treatment of Jews and Muslims (convert, flee or be killed)?
In contrast, though not always followed, the position of Islamic law, based on the Koran, and under many though certainly not all Muslim rulers, was that Jews and Christians were people of the book and protected people (dhimmi). In exchange for a poll tax, they could practice their religions, etc. By today’s standards this would be second-class citizenship and unacceptable; relative to its times, Islam was more tolerant than Christianity towards religious minorities.

Pope Became Infalible (God-like) in 1870

2010-09-28T18:02:00.000-07:00

Jonathan Sale

Sunday 5 September 2010 20.00 BST

Is the pope a Catholic? A real Catholic? There are those who have their doubts about the man arriving on our shores next week. To so-called "Old Catholics", the pope in Rome has been under suspicion since their big split with His (then) Holiness in 1870, after he was declared "Infallible".
The announcement launched what could be called a campaign for real Catholicism. "Rome has gone on a side road, which is now a motorway," declares the Right Reverend Richard Palmer, who in 1999 became the Bishop of what is known as the Reformed Liberal Catholic Church (Old Catholics). "We would maintain that we are the continuation of Roman Catholicism as it was prior to Papal Infallibility," agrees Father Jerome Lloyd, whose "mission", based in Brighton, is part of the Old Roman Catholic Church in Europe headed by the Metropolitan Bishop of the United Kingdom, Bishop Denis Beveers of Barnsley.
Since the schism from Rome, Old Catholics have been splitting from each other and now worship in a loose communion of separate "jurisdictions": "I would say in the UK there are about 50," says Palmer. He puts the total number of Old Catholics at around 5,000.
However, Lloyd disagrees with this – suggesting that some who claim to be Old Catholics don't count, on the grounds that they accept homosexuality and women priests, and estimates the membership to be in the low hundreds. Old Catholics, he says, agree with Rome in their condemnation of contraception, abortion and homosexuality but are "less obsessed" over sexual matters.
As for divorces, "If people repent, that's it: they are re-admitted to the Sacrament." Another big difference is over celibacy: their clergy can marry. Many have day jobs, full-time or part-time. One bishop is believed to support himself as an author and exorcist.
Like Palmer, Father Jerome would be happy for the pope to make it possible for them to return to the bosom of the Catholic church: "We are very pro the papacy per se. If the pope said, 'I Infallibly declare myself Fallible – will you come home?' we would say, 'Yes, Holy Father'."
As for the pope's visit, "We would love to have tickets," he laughs.

Every Congregation? No Way

2010-09-28T17:55:00.000-07:00

The Catholic clergy are meant to be the best of the best of in Catholicism. Yet when it becomes hard to find one congregation that has not been plagued by child sexual abuse I think one needs to start questioning absolutely everything about the catholic church.

Maybe it is also time to search else where for God because clearly he will not be found within the Catholic church.

'No congregation' escaped Belgian sex abuse

Posted Sat Sep 11, 2010 6:25am AEST

A Belgian Catholic Church-backed commission has released harrowing testimony from around 500 cases of alleged sex abuse involving more than 100 victims, 13 of whom were driven to suicide.

The testimony from victims of clergy and church workers reveals 13 suicides and six attempted suicides "in relation to sexual abuse by a cleric", said the report published by the Commission on Church-related Sexual Abuse Complaints, set up by the Catholic Church.
The commission, headed by independent child psychiatrist Peter Adriaenssens, said it had looked into 475 complaints between January and June this year.
"Almost every institution, every school, particularly boarding schools, at one time harboured abuse," Mr Adriaenssens said.
"It's the Church's Dutroux," he said, referring to the mid-1990s trauma caused in Belgium by the arrest of serial rapist and killer Marc Dutroux - serving life for six rapes and four murders.
The scale of the abuse has stunned the church.
"We realise that we were totally misinformed and that we weren't aware of the gravity of the situation and that these victims were hurt for life," the Bishop of Tournai, Guy Harpigny, said.
"Some committed suicide. This is extremely serious. Mindsets are changing and I think the church authorities are also ready to act towards change," added the bishop, who has been tasked with looking at paedophilia in the church.
Most of the complaints received by the commission were related to charges of sexual abuse committed between the 1950s and the late 1980s by Catholic clergy, but also by teachers of religion and adults working with youth movements.
The victims are today aged between 50 and 60.
The 200-page report which contains testimonies from some 124 anonymous "survivors" - as they are called - reveal that the sexual abuse for most victims began at age 12, although one was two years old, five were aged four, eight aged five and 10 aged seven.
While the description of the alleged sex abuser is often imprecise, where verification had been made 102 were found to have been members of some 29 religious orders, the report said.
"We can say that no congregation escapes sexual abuse of minors by one or several of its members," the report's authors wrote.
Two-thirds of the alleged victims were male.
The commission said it received most of its testimony after the forced resignation in April of the bishop of Bruges, Roger Vangheluwe, who admitted having sexually abused his nephew between 1973 and 1986.
A woman in the report testified that she was abused at age 17 by a priest and tried to seek help from a bishop in 1983.
"I told him 'I have a problem with one of your priests'. He told me: 'Ignore him and he will leave you alone'," she said.
- AFP

Islam: Environmentally friendly

2010-09-28T17:37:00.000-07:00

Finding the true green of Islam

By Bhawana Kamil
ABC Environment | 14 Sep 2010

The association of green with Islam is not simply a colour. Bhawana Kamil says care for the environment is a guiding philosophy for Muslims.

ISLAM'S 'GREEN' MESSAGE is not a recent production of religious scholars in response to our contemporary environmental crisis. It is a message that stems from the core of the faith - the Qur'an and the Sunnah (the manners and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad that were intended to be a source of guidance for people). The Prophet Muhammad, and Muslims in general, were concerned with the environment long before there was need for concern.
Creation

In the Qur'anic creation story, God relates that Adam was created from clay, while other forms of creation were created from light (the angels) or fire (the jinn). Iblis, a jinn who would later become Satan, considered fire superior to clay and therefore refused to honour Adam. God reprimanded Iblis for his refusal, and confirmed the honour and nobility of Adam, and that from which he is created. From the early history of humans, God confirms the purity and nobility of clay, or earth.

This sentiment is repeated in a saying of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, when he stated, "All of the earth has been made for me and my nation a pure place of prayer." Prayer, in Islam, in addition to being a spiritual and mental act, is a physical one, including bowing and prostrating on the ground. While Muslims usually pray in their homes or in congregational mosques, they do not hesitate to pray outdoors and in public spaces. Muhammad confirmed the permissibility of doing so by confirming that while Muslims are required to pray in pure places, the earth is inherently such a place.
Nature is Muslim?

The Islamic concept of the environment reminds us what it means to be Muslim, literally. The word 'Muslim', like 'Islam', comes from the tri-letter root s-l-m conveying both peace and submission. A Muslim is one who achieves peace through submission.

Muslims believe that God created laws for the entire universe. Some of these laws are apparent in nature in the form of laws of physics, chemistry, or biology. Plants, animals, and planets have no choice but to 'submit' to these laws. In doing so, the universe functions in beautiful order and harmony. Nature achieves peace through submission.

Human beings have no choice in submitting to some of God's 'laws of nature'. "And unto God falls in prostration whoever is in the heavens and the Earth, willingly or unwillingly, and so do their shadows in the mornings and in the afternoons," says the Qur'an (13:15).

However, there are other laws, contained within the theological, moral and legal prescriptions of the Qur'an and Sunnah, which humans have a choice about obeying. If one chooses to accept and submit to these laws and thereby becomes Muslim, she achieves peace with her Lord and herself, and brings herself into harmony with the rest of the Universe.

Nature, then, is a reminder for Muslims of the state of harmony we are trying to achieve through an acceptance of God's laws. They see nature in a constant state of glorification of God, a state which they try to achieve. But the obedience to God by a human is the most valuable obedience, because it is done through choice and free will.
Signs from Nature

Religious scholars in Islam often refer to two books given to humans by God: the written and the displayed. The written book is scripture revealed to Prophets, most recently the Qur'an given to Muhammad. The displayed book is nature - the environment. Just as scripture serves as a source of guidance and a reminder of our Lord, reflection upon the beauty and order of nature is meant to serve as a reminder of the glory of God, draw us closer to God, and increase our faith and spirituality.

There is even an analogy of the terms we use in each case. When God describes and asks us to reflect upon natural phenomena, He refers to these phenomena as ayaat, or signs, for those who reflect, contemplate or take heed.

"And He has made subservient to you, [as a gift] from Himself, all that is in the heavens and on earth: in this, behold, there are messages indeed for people who think!" (Qur'an 45:13)

Interestingly, the word used in the Qur'an and by Muslims to refer to what is typically translated as the 'verses' of the Qur'an is the same word -'ayaat', or signs. And so just as the Qur'an is a collection of ayaat intended to remind us of our relationship with our Creator and proper conduct of our lives, nature is a collection of ayaat that serve the same purpose. Nature, when put in proper perspective, is a source of guidance and is God's other book.
Sustainability

With increasingly frequent and extreme abnormal natural phenomena, the world's attention has shifted towards climate change and humans' role in the rapid destruction of our environment. The question has become, "What do we do?" Islam addressed this question before we were forced to stare it in the face.

Islam teaches us that God created and owns everything.

"All that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth glorifies God; unto Him belongs Sovereignty and unto Him belongs praise, and He is Able to do all things." (Qur'an 64:1)

Everything given to us by God is given as a custodianship or stewardship. This applies to our bodies and our wealth. As Muslims, we are not permitted to intoxicate our bodies and inhibit the functioning of our brains because we are charged their care. We cannot use our money in ways that oppress others or support evil, and we are obligated to share part of it with those who are less fortunate. We have no choice in the matter because it is not completely ours but rather a trust.

This stewardship applies to the environment as well. God has given us a degree of control and authority over the Earth with our intellect and creativity.

Like all forms of authority in Islam, with power comes responsibility. The power we have over the environment charges us to responsibly care for it. As such, Muslims have a spiritual and moral responsibility towards all of Creation - human, animal, and inanimate.

Aside from general exhortations, the Qur'an and Sunnah contain specific injunctions related to the environment. In the Qur'an, God says, "But waste not by excess, for God loves not wasters." (Qur'an 7:31)

The Prophet Muhammad also directed his followers, "When doing the prayer wash (ablution), do not waste even if you are using water from a flowing river."

What is significant about these words is that they came at a time when the depletion of natural resources was not an issue. That one should not waste water even if by a river, even when the availability of water is not an issue, shows us that Islam's aversion to waste is not simply instrumental, but fundamental.

Even in times of war, in which Muslims are allowed to engage for defence against aggression or oppression, Muslims should not needlessly destroy trees and other environmental features. Muhammad addressed his followers with the following rules for warfare:

"Stop, O people, that I may give you ten rules for your guidance in the battlefield. Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy's flock, save for your food..."

Islam recognises the lasting and long-term benefits of such environmental features, and protects them even in times of violence.

In addition to these specific exhortations, the general injunction of human stewardship of the Earth, as in several other faith traditions, guides a Muslim to adopt sustainable environmental practices. In a world when so much must be done by each individual to help rectify the situation, we can learn something from Muhammad's saying: "God loves those acts which are consistent, even if they are small."

All of us must start by doing something, and doing it consistently. No act is too small, and the hope is that the consistency will lead to progress and growth in our capacity for change.

Bhawana Kamil is president of the Bay Area Muslim American Society and a member of the Muslim Green Team, a US based organisation devoted to educating the Muslim community on how to live greener lives and demonstrating to the general public the Islamic environmental message.

Letter to Israel

2010-09-28T17:33:00.000-07:00

Yusha Evens - How I cam to Islam

2010-09-28T17:31:00.000-07:00

Former Pastor talks about Jesus and Islam

2010-09-28T17:25:00.000-07:00

By Anam Siddiq on Jan. 29, 2007

‘Jesus, ibn Maryam, the son of Mary, came with the message, or risaleh, [an] epistle of good news, Injil, and what was it? That you should submit, surrender, and obey in sincerity and peace Almighty Allah. All of this we substantiated from the Bible and the Qur’an.’
This statement, which was said to be justified in two of the gospels of the New Testament as well as in the Qur’an, was one of many made by former minister of music and preacher of the Gospel Sheikh Yusuf Estes last Wednesday. The event was sponsored by the Muslim Student Union, who invited Sheikh Estes to speak at a program titled ‘Islam: The True Message of Jesus.’
The purpose of this one-hour event was, in Estes’ words, to ‘find some of the similarities and draw some parallels between what is being taught to Muslims and what is being taught to Christians as well.’ The goal was to bring together members of all faiths to examine these similarities.
The program began with Estes giving a brief description of his conversion to Islam, after which he started his comparison of the portrayal of Jesus and his message in Islam and Christianity.
By quoting many Biblical and Quranic verses, Estes clearly showed that both Islam and Christianity carry the same essential message that was preached by Jesus: to submit to the one God. He showed how this message was found in the religious texts of both religions through the etymological examination of many terms, including ‘Jesus,’ ‘Benjamin,’ ‘peace,’ ‘Islam,’ ‘Allah,’ ‘God’ and ‘Muslim.’
Emphasizing that examining these words in the original Aramaic of the Bible and Arabic of the Qur’an was essential to the effectiveness of the message of the scriptures, Estes repeatedly stressed the fact that his main purpose was to point out the similarities and draw parallels between the religions, because too often people focus on the differences when in fact there are more similarities than differences.
Estes’ style of speaking was relaxed and humorous. He presented his points clearly and kept his audience engaged. The program was followed by a brief question and answer session. However, due to time constraints, many of the questions went unanswered.
In order to receive more complete answers to the questions and those that were unanswered, Estes gave the following Internet addresses: http://www.yusufestes.com (which includes his conversion story), http://www.shareislam.com, and http://www.islamcode.com.
Many members of the audience said that the program was interesting and they appreciated the fact that Estes was well-informed about both Christianity and Islam, and could therefore provide accurate evidence from both religions’ scriptures and histories.
They also appreciated that Estes, as one student put it, found ‘middle ground’ in his discussion of this topic.
However, those in the audience who had heard Estes speak at prior events, although satisfied with the event, agreed he was not up to his usual self, and were slightly disappointed that this had not been one of his better days.
Nevertheless, the event was still enlightening and highlighted many points that members of the audience had not considered before. Estes ended the program by reiterating that ‘the point that we are delivering here is Jesus, or Isa, peace be upon him, came with a message, [to] submit to God on his terms,’ and whoever does that would be considered a Muslim.

Life is just a game to some US Soldiers

2010-09-28T17:13:00.000-07:00

'Kill team' soldier in video confession

By Washington correspondent Craig McMurtrie

Updated Tue Sep 28, 2010 11:51am AEST

In what is being described as one of the worst crime cases out of Afghanistan, five US soldiers have been accused of the premeditated murder of three randomly selected civilians.

The five soldiers, who were stationed in the country's south, are accused of forming their own "kill team".
Prosecutors say the soldiers kept body parts of their victims and three of the accused men have confessed.
In a video, one of the accused - Corporal Jeremy Morlock - tells investigators his sergeant randomly picked out Afghan civilians to be killed with grenades.
"He pulled out one of his grenades, American grenade you know, popped it, throws it, tells me where to go to wax this guy, kill this guy, kill this guy," he said.
The 22-year-old says the sergeant, Calvin Gibbs, boasted of doing the same thing in Iraq.
And he says Gibbs kept fingers as souvenirs and threatened his own men to keep them quiet.
"If Gibbs knew that I was sitting in front of this camera right now there's no doubt in my mind that he'd f****ing take me out if he had to."
Prosecutors say members of the platoon also posed for photos with the bodies.
Investigators also say they found widespread use of hashish at the base - which was blamed on combat stress.
Morlock's lawyers argue that he was under Afghanistan the influence of painkillers and sleeping pills when he was questioned.
And Emma Winfield, the mother of one of the other accused soldiers, says her son posted Facebook messages with warnings about the sergeant, but she says her phone calls to the army were ignored.
"We put them on notice and told them this is a travesty," she said.
"Look what's happening. Not only is your soldier at risk, but you have innocent Afghan civilians that are at risk. And they chose to just turn a deaf air."
Seven other soldiers have been charged with covering up the killings.
The hearing will decide if the five accused of murder will face a court martial, where, if convicted, they could face life imprisonment or the death penalty.

The Devils Have Come

2010-08-30T15:35:00.000-07:00

Not guilty. The Israeli captain who emptied his rifle into a Palestinain schoolgirl

· Officer ignored warnings that teenager was terrified
· Defence says 'confirming the kill' standard practice

Chris McGreal in Jerusalem
The Guardian, Wednesday 16 November 2005
Article history

An Israeli army officer who fired the entire magazine of his automatic rifle into a 13-year-old Palestinian girl and then said he would have done the same even if she had been three years old was acquitted on all charges by a military court yesterday.
The soldier, who has only been identified as "Captain R", was charged with relatively minor offences for the killing of Iman al-Hams who was shot 17 times as she ventured near an Israeli army post near Rafah refugee camp in Gaza a year ago.
The manner of Iman's killing, and the revelation of a tape recording in which the captain is warned that she was just a child who was "scared to death", made the shooting one of the most controversial since the Palestinian intifada erupted five years ago even though hundreds of other children have also died.
After the verdict, Iman's father, Samir al-Hams, said the army never intended to hold the soldier accountable.
"They did not charge him with Iman's murder, only with small offences, and now they say he is innocent of those even though he shot my daughter so many times," he said. "This was the cold-blooded murder of a girl. The soldier murdered her once and the court has murdered her again. What is the message? They are telling their soldiers to kill Palestinian children."
The military court cleared the soldier of illegal use of his weapon, conduct unbecoming an officer and perverting the course of justice by asking soldiers under his command to alter their accounts of the incident.
Capt R's lawyers argued that the "confirmation of the kill" after a suspect is shot was a standard Israeli military practice to eliminate terrorist threats.
Following the verdict, Capt R burst into tears, turned to the public benches and said: "I told you I was innocent."
The army's official account said that Iman was shot for crossing into a security zone carrying her schoolbag which soldiers feared might contain a bomb. It is still not known why the girl ventured into the area but witnesses described her as at least 100 yards from the military post which was in any case well protected.
A recording of radio exchanges between Capt R and his troops obtained by Israeli television revealed that from the beginning soldiers identified Iman as a child.
In the recording, a soldier in a watchtower radioed a colleague in the army post's operations room and describes Iman as "a little girl" who was "scared to death". After soldiers first opened fire, she dropped her schoolbag which was then hit by several bullets establishing that it did not contain explosive. At that point she was no longer carrying the bag and, the tape revealed, was heading away from the army post when she was shot.
Although the military speculated that Iman might have been trying to "lure" the soldiers out of their base so they could be attacked by accomplices, Capt R made the decision to lead some of his troops into the open. Shortly afterwards he can be heard on the recording saying that he has shot the girl and, believing her dead, then "confirmed the kill".
"I and another soldier ... are going in a little nearer, forward, to confirm the kill ... Receive a situation report. We fired and killed her ... I also confirmed the kill. Over," he said.
Palestinian witnesses said they saw the captain shoot Iman twice in the head, walk away, turn back and fire a stream of bullets into her body.
On the tape, Capt R then "clarifies" to the soldiers under his command why he killed Iman: "This is commander. Anything that's mobile, that moves in the [security] zone, even if it's a three-year-old, needs to be killed."
At no point did the Israeli troops come under attack.
The prosecution case was damaged when a soldier who initially said he had seen Capt R point his weapon at the girl's body and open fire later told the court he had fabricated the story.
Capt R claimed that he had not fired the shots at the girl but near her. However, Dr Mohammed al-Hams, who inspected the child's body at Rafah hospital, counted numerous wounds. "She has at least 17 bullets in several parts of the body, all along the chest, hands, arms, legs," he told the Guardian shortly afterwards. "The bullets were large and shot from a close distance. The most serious injuries were to her head. She had three bullets in the head. One bullet was shot from the right side of the face beside the ear. It had a big impact on the whole face."
The army's initial investigation concluded that the captain had "not acted unethically". But after some of the soldiers under his command went to the Israeli press to give a different version, the military police launched a separate investigation after which he was charged.
Capt R claimed that the soldiers under his command were out to get him because they are Jewish and he is Druze.
The transcript
The following is a recording of a three-way conversation that took place between a soldier in a watchtower, an army operations room and Capt R, who shot the girl
From the watchtower "It's a little girl. She's running defensively eastward." "Are we talking about a girl under the age of 10?" "A girl about 10, she's behind the embankment, scared to death." "I think that one of the positions took her out." "I and another soldier ... are going in a little nearer, forward, to confirm the kill ... Receive a situation report. We fired and killed her ... I also confirmed the kill. Over."
From the operations room "Are we talking about a girl under the age of 10?"
Watchtower "A girl about 10, she's behind the embankment, scared to death."
A few minutes later, Iman is shot from one of the army posts
Watchtower "I think that one of the positions took her out."
Captain R "I and another soldier ... are going in a little nearer, forward, to confirm the kill ... Receive a situation report. We fired and killed her ... I also confirmed the kill. Over."
Capt R then "clarifies" why he killed Iman
"This is commander. Anything that's mobile, that moves in the zone, even if it's a three-year-old, needs to be killed. Over."

One Church’s Reasons to Hate Islam, Challenged by an Expert

2010-08-25T21:31:00.000-07:00

August 25, 2010, 8:46 pm

By DAMIEN CAVE

# Killed: US vs Muslims

2010-07-25T14:37:00.000-07:00

Why they hate us (II): How many Muslims has the U.S. killed in the past 30 years?

Posted By Stephen M. Walt Monday, November 30, 2009 - 5:38 PM

Tom Friedman had an especially fatuous column in Sunday's New York Times, which is saying something given his well-established capacity for smug self-assurance. According to Friedman, the big challenge we face in the Arab and Islamic world is "the Narrative" -- his patronizing term for Muslim views about America's supposedly negative role in the region. If Muslims weren't so irrational, he thinks, they would recognize that "U.S. foreign policy has been largely dedicated to rescuing Muslims or trying to help free them from tyranny." He concedes that we made a few mistakes here and there (such as at Abu Ghraib), but the real problem is all those anti-American fairy tales that Muslims tell each other to avoid taking responsibility for their own actions.
I heard a different take on this subject at a recent conference on U.S. relations with the Islamic world. In addition to hearing a diverse set of views from different Islamic countries, one of the other participants (a prominent English journalist) put it quite simply. "If the United States wants to improve its image in the Islamic world," he said, "it should stop killing Muslims."
Now I don't think the issue is quite that simple, but the comment got me thinking: How many Muslims has the United States killed in the past thirty years, and how many Americans have been killed by Muslims? Coming up with a precise answer to this question is probably impossible, but it is also not necessary, because the rough numbers are so clearly lopsided.
Here's my back-of-the-envelope analysis, based on estimates deliberately chosen to favor the United States. Specifically, I have taken the low estimates of Muslim fatalities, along with much more reliable
figures for U.S. deaths.
To repeat: I have deliberately selected "low-end" estimates for Muslim fatalities, so these figures present the "best case" for the United States. Even so, the United States has killed nearly 30 Muslims for every American lost. The real ratio is probably much higher, and a reasonable upper bound for Muslim fatalities (based mostly on higher estimates of "excess deaths" in Iraq due to the sanctions regime and the post-2003 occupation) is well over one million, equivalent to over 100 Muslim fatalities for every American lost.
Figures like these should be used with caution, of course, and several obvious caveats apply. To begin with, the United States is not solely responsible for some of those fatalities, most notably in the case of the "excess deaths" attributable to the U.N. sanctions regime against Iraq. Saddam Hussein clearly deserves much of the blame for these "excess deaths," insofar as he could have complied with Security Council resolutions and gotten the sanctions lifted or used the "oil for food" problem properly. Nonetheless, the fact remains that the United States (and the other SC members) knew that keeping the sanctions in place would cause tens of thousands of innocent people to die and we went ahead anyway.
Similarly, the United States is not solely to blame for the sectarian violence that engulfed Iraq after the 2003 invasion. U.S. forces killed many Iraqis, to be sure, but plenty of Shiites, Kurds, Sunnis, and foreign infiltrators were pulling triggers and planting bombs too. Yet it is still the case that the United States invaded a country that had not attacked us, dismantled its regime, and took hardly any precautions to prevent the (predictable) outbreak of violence. Having uncapped the volcano, we are hardly blameless, and that goes for pundits like Friedman who enthusiastically endorsed the original invasion.
Third, the fact that people died as a result of certain U.S. actions does not by itself mean that those policy decisions were wrong. I'm a realist, and I accept the unfortunate fact that international politics is a rough business and sometimes innocent people die as a result of actions that may in fact be justifiable. For example, I don't think it was wrong to expel Iraq from Kuwait in 1991 or to topple the Taliban in 2001. Nor do I think it was wrong to try to catch Bin Laden -- even though people died in the attempt -- and I would support similar efforts to capture him today even if it placed more people at risk. In other words, a full assessment of U.S. policy would have to weigh these regrettable costs against the alleged benefits to the United States itself or the international community as a whole.
Yet if you really want to know "why they hate us," the numbers presented above cannot be ignored. Even if we view these figures with skepticism and discount the numbers a lot, the fact remains that the United States has killed a very large number of Arab or Muslim individuals over the past three decades. Even though we had just cause and the right intentions in some cases (as in the first Gulf War), our actions were indefensible (maybe even criminal) in others.
It is also striking to observe that virtually all of the Muslim deaths were the direct or indirect consequence of official U.S. government policy. By contrast, most of the Americans killed by Muslims were the victims of non-state terrorist groups such as al Qaeda or the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. Americans should also bear in mind that the figures reported above omit the Arabs and Muslims killed by Israel in Lebanon, Gaza, and the West Bank. Given our generous and unconditional support for Israel's policy towards the Arab world in general and the Palestinians in particular, Muslims rightly hold us partly responsible for those victims too.
Contrary to what Friedman thinks, our real problem isn't a fictitious Muslim "narrative" about America's role in the region; it is mostly the actual things we have been doing in recent years. To say that in no way justifies anti-American terrorism or absolves other societies of responsibility for their own mistakes or misdeeds. But the self-righteousness on display in Friedman's op-ed isn't just simplistic; it is actively harmful. Why? Because whitewashing our own misconduct makes it harder for Americans to figure out why their country is so unpopular and makes us less likely to consider different (and more effective) approaches.
Some degree of anti-Americanism may reflect ideology, distorted history, or a foreign government's attempt to shift blame onto others (a practice that all governments indulge in), but a lot of it is the inevitable result of policies that the American people have supported in the past. When you kill tens of thousands of people in other countries -- and sometimes for no good reason -- you shouldn't be surprised when people in those countries are enraged by this behavior and interested in revenge. After all, how did we react after September 11?

Liar! Liar! It's clear he wasn't Muslim, but is he actually Christian?

2010-07-14T00:10:00.000-07:00

Protect America...

2010-07-11T15:56:00.000-07:00

What If?

2010-07-07T15:41:00.000-07:00

BEWARE of Imran Siddiqui and group

2010-06-28T16:35:00.000-07:00

Assalamu Alaakum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatoh

I had the pleasure which turned into DISPLEASURE of attending a couple of lectures of this so called caller to Islam. What I saw with my own two eyes and experienced really shocked me. In fact it was personal as I will explain below, and I know I am not the only one that felt this way. I would even be bold enough to say that maybe hundreds of the attendees felt the same way.

Unfortunately it is a shame that there are people like Imran Siddiqui who claim to represent Islam in the global community. I sort of had left the issue behind after attending his second lecture in Brisbane, Australia, however after hearing from a few people of what happened after this I strongly believe that people should be strongly WARNED to be weary of him and his group.

HikmahWay had organised to bring I.S. (Imran Siddiqui) out from India to give some lectures to Muslims and non-Muslims as well as hold some dawah courses in Australia. Mashallah, they did an excellent professional job with the organisation of almost the entire tour. But what happened next shocked me and I am sure will shock, you, the reader of this post.

First a disclaimer. I have not been authorised nor asked by anyone to write this post. This is solely my view and what I see as representing the views and what I perceived as the views of others whom I have spoken to.

I attended the Lecture held at Lutwyche Mosque. I remember thinking Mashallah he has such an amazing memory to memorize all those verses and verse numbers regarding many topics from the Quran and Bible and quote them at the speed of a bullet. Then something happened which I brushed to the side. A small child had locked himself out from the ladies section and was trying to get in. The noise he made was really negligible. However I.S. turned towards the child and in a half frustrated semi angry manner asked someone to let the child through the door. I didn't pay to much attention to it.

The next thing during Q&A he got angry at a non-muslim who asked him questions regarding the existence of God and was persistent on why should he believe in God. I made the excuse for I.S. that he didn't realise that this person was a non-muslim and when he did his attitude changed slightly.

I went home telling my wife that his lecture was excellent and she should attend the next one at University of Queensland.

So we attended this lecture. He started to speak, and about 10 mins in turned around to yell at one of the staff for adjusting the lighting and settings in the room. Ok then maybe it was a bit distracting. He has a point. Since I mean he wants people to focus on how much he is full of himself and how much of a photographic memory he has. Then next thing I know is I hear a child making some noise up the back of this huge lecture theater. Oh no that is my son making that noise. Then their is a silence which seemed like it went for 5 minutes but was really a matter of seconds. My wife was on the way out with my son and he and everyone else could clearly see this, but he had to make it known to the hundreds of Muslims and Non-Muslims in the room and single my wife out just as she was walking out the door so that everyone could actually turn around and look at her. In an angry voice saying take that child out of here and close the door or something along those lines to the point that the other women in the back began pleading with my wife to hurry up and save her self further embarrassment. The staff apologising to my wife on the way out for I.S's behaviour.

I have attended many lectures given by various speakers and there have been infants crying, kids running up and down the isles. Never have I seen or heard a speaker complain regarding this. The only time they have said anything is when an Adults mobile phone rings in the middle of the lecture after they had already been asked to turn them off or put the phones on silent.

However it does not end there. Later on that week I hear about some incidents regarding the Dawah course that was being held at Griffith University, which I had registered to attend but canceled the night before due to the previous incidents. I.S. had some demands such as students are not allowed to bring water in the room and are not allowed to leave or enter the room once the door is closed to the point that he was refusing to lecture unless his demands were met.

To keep it short for you the reader the issues just got worse in Sydney, Melbourne, Perth including but not limited to the following:

Telling more people off in regards to their children making some noise during his lectures
Refusing to teach in certain places
Breaking away from the organisers and saying that they had nothing to do with I.S. coming to Australia and that they shouldn't claim that they organised his visit but only after waiting till all the flyers had been handed out and all the halls had been booked which cost thousands of dollars.
Canceling talks hours before the scheduling then still holding them under a different organisation's name.
Accusing the organisers of trying to sabotage the lectures even though they brought him out, spent thousands on advertising, refreshments, lecture hall bookings, travel and accommodations.
Treating I.S's long time friend in Perth, who they used to help with the lectures in Perth, just as badly as they treated the organisers, to the point that it was made clear to I.S. and his people who so arrogantly, unislamiclly and rudely caused all these problems for all to stay away from the Islamic community in Perth.

I reminded myself after the UQ lecture I attended was that the prophets way to teach was with dignity, respect, honour and humility and always displaying good manners, and these people clearly do not represent the prophet nor the organisers of the lectures. Yes the prophet had pride when he taught Islam to those who were Muslims and those who were not, however he himself did not display pride in awe of his own self as I.S clearly did.

I.S. came across as the opposite of what the prophet taught. He lacked any dignity in the way he came across to the audience. It seemed he only had respect for himself and absolutely no humility and no good manners towards others. He seemed to get frustrated and angry from the slightest little thing that 99.9% of the population would not even notice. He came across as a show off of the knowledge that he has attained trying to impress the audience with the speed at which he can quote the numbers of the verses in the bible and quran. He had no patience with the smallest of attendees nor with the largest of them. He seemed very arrogant and full of himself at certain points in his lectures.

Unfortunately I don't like to speak out about others since not only is it haraam but because I would not like others to speak about my faults. But had I been a public figure behaving in the same manner that I.S. and his group did then I would expect someone to warn the community about me. There is no place in Islam for such arrogance and behaviour. What makes it worse is the people from his group who magnified the problems dramatically that it came down to even legal issues forgetting that the contract they had with the organisers was already legally binding in front of the Creator Allah (swt). I was speechless at the things that were said and the things that were being posted on forums regarding the organisers which were clearly not true.

I made a promise to myself that I would not take knowledge from such people. They may teach you some Islam but they will also teach you bad manners and how to behave un-islamicly.

I'm sorry to say but Imran Siddiqui and his group seem to fail the following 10 hadiths by the prophet (saw). Please take note of the first hadith.

Rasulullah (SAW) said, “He who does not show mercy to our young or show esteem for our elders is not one of us.” (Al-Bukhari)

Abu Darda (RA) reported that Rasulullah (SAW) said, “Nothing is weightier on the Scale of Deeds than one’s good manners.”(Al-Bukhari)

Abu Hurairah (RA) said, “I heard Abu al Qasim (Rasulullah (SAW)), say, ‘The best among you in Islam are those with the best manners, so long as they develop a sense of understanding.” (Al-Bukhari)

Rasulullah (SAW) said: “The most beloved of Allah’s servants to Allah are those with the best manners.” (At-Tabarâni and Albani authenticated it in Silsilatul-AHaadeethis-Saheehah

Abd Allah ibn ‘Amr said, “Rasulullah (SAW) was never obscene or coarse. Rather, he used to tell us that the best among us were those with the best manners.” (Al-Bukhari)

Anas (RA) said, “I served Rasulullah (SAW) for ten years. During that time, he never once said to me as much as ‘Oof’ if I did something wrong. He never asked me, if I had failed to do something, ‘Why did you not do it?,’ and he never said to me, if I had done something wrong, ‘Why did you do it?” (Al-Bukhari)

Abu Hurairah (RA) said that Rasulullah (SAW) said, “If one has good manners, one may attain the same level of merit as those who spend their nights in prayer.” (Al-Bukhari)

Abu Hurairah reported that Rasulullah (SAW) said, “And what is most likely to send people to Paradise? Being conscious of Allah and good manners.” (Al-Bukhari)

Nawas ibn Sam’an reported that Rasulullah (SAW) was asked about doing good and evil. He replied, “Doing good is having good manners. Doing evil is what troubles you inside and what you would not like others to know about.” (Al-Bukhari)

Abu Hurairah (RA) reported that Rasulullah (SAW) said: “Richness does not lie in the abundance of (worldly) goods, but richness is the richness of the soul (heart, self).”
(Muslim)

The value of a woman in Islam

2010-06-21T20:15:00.001-07:00

The value of a woman in Islam

This couldn't be said more beautifully....

Be careful if you make a woman cry,
because Allah counts her tears

A woman came out of a man's rib,
not from his feet to be walked on, not from his head to be superior
over, but from his side to be equal Under the arm to be protected and
next to the heart to be loved.

Pass this on to all exceptional women that you know...And to men too
so they know the value of a woman in Islam!

Top Catholic Priest Accused of Sexually Abusing His Own Sons

2010-06-21T16:12:00.000-07:00

I have been putting of writing a post regarding the Catholic Church pedophile scandal which I have been following for quite a while now. It seems like every country in the world that has a catholic church in it, has priests who are either Gay/Bisexual/Pedophiles/Players/Pimps or any combination of all of those.

I have collected hundreds of articles and news reels regarding the topic and then I decided you know there is no point blogging this because the whole world already knows this.

However today I came across the article that is linked and reproduced below and I realised something that people who try to cover up this scandal or make excuses for the accused or whatever have got it all wrong. I used to think that the priests/fathers/brothers etc of the catholic church behaved like this due to celibacy however now I think that I might be hugely wrong.

Now I know it must be a requirement to be a pedophile before becoming a priest in the catholic church. It seems like 95% if not all of them are. It wouldn't surprise me if the popes where too. In fact we know the history of past popes and the things they got up to even though the church tried its best to cover up the situation.

Back to the article about this priest, who had 3 wives/mistresses and still felt the urge to sexually assault his own children, along with others. It is clear that the church preaches no to premarital sex however the priests have no issue in practicing premarital sex. Is it because they believe they are saved? Is it because they don't really believe in God but use God as a cover for the things that they do and in order to become one of them you need to have an inclination towards these kind of behaviors? I believe it is both of these and many more like them.

When will people wake up and come back to God and realise that if Christianity was really the correct way to believe in God then these kind of things would not have happened or may be single incidents by some sick people.

It is clear that the type of person that chooses this job does it because it is just a lifestyle choice, a position of power, to be looked up to by people, to be able to tell people what goes and what doesn't yet be exempt from it yourself, to even make great money and be able to sleep around with whoever you want until you get caught but only after the church has been covering up for you for as long as they could. Even after you get caught the church pays money to keep people quite or to try and make the problem go away for you. Or the other reason is that only true pedophiles and sexual deviants go for such a job because there is no better way to get closer to children than to pretended to be the father of a flock and guide them the way your sexual desires want.

To the people who still believe what these pedophiles tell them to do. I say time to find the true religion and stop deluding yourselves. Do what seems to be a common practice today amongst Christians. Search religions of the world and eventually as they do (those who look into Islam last) accept Islam. Or maybe look into it first and save your self the hassle and time.

Go Here For Resources On Islam

The full article and another here

A prominent Catholic priest, praised by Pope John Paul II as "an efficacious guide to youth," Father Marcial Maciel, sexually abused not only young seminarians under his control but also abused his own children, according to a lawsuit filed today in Connecticut by a man who claims to be Maciel's son.
In an interview to be broadcast Monday evening on ABC News Nightline, the priest's son, Raul Gonzalez, 30, says he thought his father worked for the CIA or an international oil company, until he saw the priest's picture in a 1997 magazine article detailing allegations of sexual abuse.

"My mom said, 'Is that you?' and my dad said, 'No, it's not me' and my mom said, 'Yeah, it's you,'" recalled Gonzalez in the interview, conducted by Jason Berry, an investigative journalist who first reported on widespread sexual abuse by Maciel at the Legion of Christ and writes for the National Catholic Reporter.

The Legion of Christ has acknowledged that Father Maciel fathered at least one child as a priest. Under Father Maciel, the Legion of Christ became one of the Roman Catholic Church's most prominent, conservative and financially successful orders. Among its many supporters is Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim.

The lawsuit claims Vatican ignored reports of sexual abuse by Maciel since the 1950s, until he was forced out of the Legion by Pope Benedict XVI in 2006. Citing his age, the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith declined to put Maciel on trial but he was ordered to a "life of prayer and penitence." "Pope Benedict in 2006 moved my father, my daddy, or Marcial Maciel to rest. To pray. Why didn't he bring him to jail?" Gonzalez asked in the interview.

The lawsuit filed by Maciel's alleged son claims the Vatican and the presiding Pope from the 1950's until 2002 "engaged in a conspiracy to conceal their knowledge of Maciel's serial delicts, including the repeated sexual abuse of children."

The lawsuit claims Maciel "gained influence and protection from the Vatican through giving substantial monies to Vatican officials" and providing other benefits and gifts.
There was no immediate comment from the Vatican or the Legion of Christ.

In his interview, Gonzalez said his father was protected by Pope John Paul II.

"My dad told my mom that when John Paul II dies, he was going to be in trouble," Gonzalez said.

Gonzalez said when he was nine, his father took him to Rome for a private mass celebrated by John Paul II.

"I kissed [John Paul's] ring," Gonzalez said.

Father Maciel was 60 when he fathered Gonzalez with a 20-year old Mexican woman, Blanca Gutierrez Lara, Gonzalez said.

They lived a life of comfort in Cuernavaca, Mexico with money secretly funneled by Father Maciel. Gonzalez said his father had a second mistress in Spain, with whom he fathered a daughter. Published reports contend Father Maciel had a third mistress and family in Switzerland.
Gonzalez said his father began to abuse him and his half-brother, Omar, on a trip to Madrid when he was ten years old.
"He told me that his uncle sometimes made him masturbate him and basically the idea of my dad was to transmit that idea to me," said Gonzalez.

His father also instructed him to take photographs with a Polaroid camera.

"My feeling is those photos maybe were passing to other people, like pornography," Gonzalez recounted during the interview in which he broke down and cried when describing the abuse by his father.

"He would always tell us how to kiss, and we had to kiss him because that was the way we were going to learn how to kiss a girl when we grew up," Gonzalez said.

Gonzalez says that over nearly a decade of repeated abuse, he never confronted his father about the sex acts or the revelation that he was a prominent priest.

He said his father, even after acts of abuse, always told him, "'Go to mass, don't smoke, don't drink.'"

"I didn't have the words to confront my dad at seventeen years old," he said.
Gonzalez says when his father's health began to fail, Maciel talked to him about going to a bank in Switzerland where there was money for him in an account.

But Gonzalez says his father never provided him with the details. According to the National Catholic Reporter, a trust fund Maciel set up for his family in Mexico turned up empty.
Gonzalez says he has met several times with officials of the Legion of Christ about a possible financial settlement, demanding $26 million.

Gonzalez's lawyer, Jeffrey Anderson, who has represented hundreds of people who have alleged sexual abuse by Catholic priests, says this case represents a new chapter of depravity in the church.
"We are here to tell the truth," Anderson told ABC News. At a press conference Monday, Anderson asked how the Vatican could explain its failure to act. "How could Vatican officials allow such a dangerous predator to roam the landscape and the globe with the power given to him as the founder of the Legion of Christ?"

Anderson is listed as one of the financial contributors to Berry's documentary film about Maciel and the Legion of Christ, "Vows of Silence."

Terrorist State (Naz)israel Rejects UN inquiry into flotilla raids

2010-06-06T11:28:00.000-07:00

Israel rejects UN call for international inquiry into flotilla raids

Amabassador to US dismisses Ban Ki-moon's suggestion but says Israel is willing to work with Washington

Harriet Sherwood in Gaza City, Adam Gabbatt and agencies
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 6 June 2010 17.01 BST

The UN secretary general called today for a multinational investigation of Israel's raid on the Gaza-bound aid flotilla that left nine dead but the proposal was swiftly rejected by the Israelis.

Ban Ki-moon proposed that the inquiry be headed by the former New Zealand prime minister Geoffrey Palmer and include representatives from Turkey – under whose flag many of the ships in the aid convoy sailed – Israel and the US, an official from Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu's office said.

But Michael Oren, Israel's ambassador to Washington, told Fox News: "We are rejecting an international commission. We are discussing with the Obama administration a way in which our inquiry will take place."

Netanyahu discussed the proposal for a multinational panel with Ban in a telephone call yesterday but told cabinet ministers from his rightwing Likud party today that Israel was exploring other options, political sources said.

Ban's proposal came after Israel risked a fresh wave of international condemnation yesterday by detaining a boat carrying humanitarian aid attempting to break the blockade of Gaza and forcibly diverting it to the port of Ashdod. Israel has said that most of those aboard the MV Rachel Corrie will be deported today.

Israeli leaders have spoken publicly about setting up an internal inquiry with foreign observers into the interception of the Turkish-flagged Mavi Marmara last week.

A statement on the UN's website said Ban held telephone discussions with the prime ministers of Turkey and Israel on "options for moving forward with the investigation called for by the United Nations security council". Last week, the council called for a "prompt, impartial, credible and transparent investigation".

Five days after the botched assault on a six-boat flotilla ended with Israeli troops shooting dead eight Turkish activists and one US citizen, naval commandos boarded the MV Rachel Corrie in international waters about 20 miles from the coast of Gaza.

Yesterday's operation was mounted despite growing calls for Israel to ease significantly its siege of Gaza. The US, Israel's staunchest ally, pointedly repeated that the blockade was "unsustainable and must be changed" – a call Netanyahu again rejected. Israel said it had met no resistance in stopping the 1,200-tonne Rachel Corrie.

However, Greta Berlin of the Free Gaza Movement, an organisation behind the flotilla, said passengers and crew had four times refused to accede to Israeli demands to voluntarily divert to Ashdod, resulting in the raid.

"There's no way that 20 people are going to resist a fully armed force," she said. "The fact that Israel boarded a civilian boat in international waters is a violent act."

She expected that the 11 passengers – including the Nobel peace laureate Máiread Corrigan – and nine crew would be treated "with kid gloves. The world is watching". There had been no contact with the boat since early yesterday, she added.

Tomorrow, Britain will say £19m in aid will be given to refugees in Gaza. The money, to be spent on healthcare, education and other services, will be announced by the international development secretary, Andrew Mitchell. It will go to the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), on which about 70% of Gazans rely to meet their basic needs.

The support comes amid heightened international concern about Israel's blockade. The latest detention of a ship bound for Gaza came as the last of the Turkish citizens wounded in last week's assault on the Mavi Marmara was repatriated. It coincided with a warning from the UN's commissioner for human rights, Navi Pillay, that Israel's embargo was illegal. "International humanitarian law prohibits starvation of civilians as a method of warfare and it is also prohibited to impose collective punishment on civilians," Pillay said.

According to Israeli military accounts, commandos boarded the Rachel Corrie – named after an activist crushed to death by an Israeli bulldozer in Gaza in 2003 – from naval vessels alongside rather than winching troops from helicopters as happened in Monday's operation.

The boat, carrying medical supplies and construction materials, was towed into Ashdod. Israel said it would unload the aid and transfer it to Gaza.

The passengers – from Ireland and Malaysia – would be immediately deported, Ygal Palmor, spokesman for the Israeli foreign ministry, said.

Israel has spent the past five days struggling to contain a diplomatic crisis. Relations with its regional ally Turkey have sunk to an unprecedented low.

Autopsy reports on the dead activists yesterday revealed that five had gunshot wounds to the head. The US joined the growing international chorus for the siege to be eased. Yesterday the Free Gaza Movement said it was planning another flotilla. "We will continue until we break the siege of Gaza," Berlin said.

Zionist Nazi Israeli Terrorists Execution Style. The Holocoust is Back

2010-06-06T11:14:00.000-07:00

Autopsies reveal 9 men on Gaza aid boat shot, 5 in head
By Ivan Watson and Talia Kayali
June 4, 2010 -- Updated 1445 GMT (2245 HKT)

ommandoes aboard the humanitarian convoy that had planned to dock in Gaza died of gunshot wounds.

The autopsy results give clues about how the violence unfolded after Israeli commandoes stormed the Turkish ship Mavi Marmara in the pre-dawn hours on Monday.

Five of the men died with bullet wounds to the head, said Dr. Haluk Ince, the director of Istanbul's Medical Examination Institute, said Friday.

One casualty, a 19-year-old dual national Turkish-American citizen named Furkan Dogan, was found to have bullet wounds in his head and multiple bullets in his body, Ince said.

According to the U.S. State department, Dogan was born in Troy, New York and had been living in Turkey. American diplomats have been extending consular services to the deceased's family.

In one case, Ince said, a gunshot victim had been shot at extremely close range.

"From the analysis of the bullet distance on one of the bodies," Dr. Ince said, "the gun was fired between 2 and 14 centimeters' distance from the victim's head."

In one month, the forensic report will be submitted to an Istanbul prosecutor's office. There have already been petitions from families of Turkish activists this week, submitted to state prosecutors to sue the government of Israel on charges of murder.

The dead activists were treated like fallen heroes at a mass funeral held at Istanbul's Fatih Mosque on Thursday. Crowds gathered in a courtyard, below the domes of the centuries' old Ottoman mosque, in front of the coffins, which were wrapped in Turkish and Palestinian flags. In one case, a flag from the Palestinian movement Hamas lay over a casket.

"We will remember this, what Israel did," said a young Turkish volunteer named Muhamed Sahin, who was helping hold back the surging crowd. "Everybody has to learn what is going on in Gaza, on the ship, what Israel did."

Periodically, the crowd chanted "Israel, terrorist" and "Damn Israel."

The bodies of the 9 dead, as well as more then 460 surviving passengers from the convoy arrived at Istanbul airport before dawn on Thursday. They were treated to a hero's welcome, particularly Bulent Yildirim, the chairman of the Islamist, fiercely pro-Palestinian Turkish charity the Humanitarian Relief Foundation (IHH). IHH was one of the main groups organizing the blockade-busting flotilla.

In remarks to the press, Yildirim said his colleagues fought Israeli troops in self-defense aboard the Mavi Marmara. He added that in the early stages of the clashes, his activists captured several Israel commandoes, as well as their weapons, and took them below decks.

The Israeli troops were given water, Yildirim said. He insisted none of the activists fired the captured Israeli guns.

Israeli officials have accused the protesters of firing captured weapons during the battle at sea. The Israeli military has also shown images of a commando being beaten with a plastic chair, as well as photos of knives, metal poles, slingshots and marbles as evidence that the Mavi Marmara was a "ship of hatred" full of terrorist sympathizers rather then a "love boat" filled with peace-loving human rights activists.

"The defense of the boat was quite well organized," said Espen Goffeng, a 38-year-old activist from Norway who sailed aboard the Mavi Marmara. "There was a plan to keep soldiers off the boat."

Goffeng said passengers aboard the lead ship Mavi Marmara at first successfully repelled Israeli troops on boats. Then, he said, soldiers began their helicopters assault on the vessel.

"They started off with some kind of paintball bullets with glass in them that left terrible soft tissue wounds. And then rubber bullets. And then live ammunition afterwards. And that's when things started to get really dangerous," Goffeng added.

Despite the tears and sobbing at Istanbul's Fatih Mosque on Thursday, many of the people gathered for the activists' funeral called this week a "victory," because it brought international attention to Israel's 3-year blockade of Gaza.

Turkey, once Israel's closest Muslim ally in the Middle East, has accused Israel of committing an act of international piracy.

"From now on, Turkish-Israeli ties will never be the same," Turkish President Abdullah Gul said on Thursday. "The incident has left a deep and irreparable scar."

According to a spokesman for the Turkish Foreign Ministry, Ankara has issued 3 demands to Israel: apologize for the raid, organize an independent investigation, and lift the blockade of Gaza.