From professional.debater2020 at gmail.com Tue Feb 25 19:23:23 2020 From: professional.debater2020 at gmail.com (Mustafa Almahdy) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2020 21:23:23 +0200 Subject: [BlindVet-Talk] Wiltshire Avenue, Terrorism in essence Message-ID: Hello, I hope you are keeping really well. At its inception, this is John Smith. Second, subsequent to my e-mail discussing the terribly perpetrated terror assault on the two Masjids in Christchurch New Zealand last March, someone suggested that the Australian who carried this callous assault reacted to Moslem terrorism. He also claimed, that terror ideology is predominately dependent on Islamic related text, pointing, that terror atrocities are often justified in Shariah based jural. With this proposition, he has impinged on the actual definition of terrorism. It is the act of perpetrating or subjugating innocent civilians to violence or threaten them with doing so. This is done through intimidation for essentially ideological motives. What he suggests explicitly incentivizes terrorists in general to attempt justify their heinousnesses. Terrorists are wholly insentient, they are perfectly frigid. Shariah jural principles are not prompting detest nor racial disparity. Nonetheless, Israeli terrorism is barely criticised within the international community. Despite its strict prohibition by international law, Israel uses white phosphorus to ruthlessly murder defenceless Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank on virtually a periodical basis, yet, it has never been condemned nor sanctioned for this. While when the Syrian regime awfully inflicted its nation with the usage of chemical and biological weapons, the United States led an air strike on the country, utterly destroying much of its major infrastructure and carelessly killing dozens of innocent civilians. The west and America in particular enforce what we may possibly call double standard as it deals with these issues. Israel has the right to unlimitedly defend itself while Palestinians must be invaded, persecuted, completely sabotaged and still be satisfied. Where is justice in this plainly discriminative disposal that is based on much of racial aversion which is sufficient to fill an ocean? The United States isn't eligible to lead a genuine democratic entity. Trump the misanthropic, the gravely scathing and scoundrel chief is immensely prosecutable. He is yet endorsed by many of those white supremacists who often attend his enormously opprobrious rallies across the country, warmly cheer and spat out of total favorable reception to what he does and says. How is that not expected to chronologically incite retaliation and consistently prompt despise of the States here in the Muslim world? The United States incessantly instigates motivational retaliation as it relentlessly stands by oppression. It stands by Israel, backs potentates and their rise in our countries and then, well, it strangely scolds us for not having democracy settled properly. Isn't that just so louzy? I certainly do not propose the hate of all westerns nor even Americans. I knew many people in America and the west in genral who wholeheartedly decline what politics does. One of them is Professor Mark of South Bent Indiana, who has visited my home recently. Unfortunately, they just like us, couldn't do much as we are mutually trammeled in this situation. We are here just attempting to treat ourselves yet we knew the miserable condition is unlikely to get changed. I would like to furthermore mention, that the Shariah doesn't give permission to the killing of innocent civilians in any manner. Moreover, we have a very intriguing fatwa issued by Imam Malik, the prominently recognised scholar of Medina, that if a woman is armed, Muslim fighters shall attempt to the best of their capability to avoid engaging with her in the battlefield. She hasn't been meant to fight, even if she is armed, he illustrates. I suppose he means commonly, typically or ordinarily. What about those who are defenceless? If combatants have their weapons disposed, they are not to be assaulted. They are to perhaps be taken into incarceration and treated leniently. They are then to either be ransomed, freed at no charge or executed for committing murder previously. Torture of war prisoners is absolutely forbidden in Shariah, and Da'ish, which is a viciously fringe element surely doesn't represent its jural spirit. I attempted very concisely, to summarise some of the major rulings regarding combat mission in Islamic Shariah. I welcome questions from viewers. I just may ask people not to misquote text of the Koran, Hadith or cut them out of context with witching scissors to make it say what it doesn't meant to. Impeachment of terror has been intrinsically exclusive to us. This callous act has no affiliation with any faith, notion or conviction. It has rather been tied to exorbitant unconscionableness. Thence, the most threatening type of terror is that of governmental arrangement, fascism, fanaticism and counterfeit patriotism. The latter, however, is broadly imposed by the de facto coup based tyrannic military regime of my country. It surely doesn?t respect basics of human rights, yet, it is majorly endorsed by the United States government. Terror of Israel in Palestine is also backed by the latter. How could the United States then be considered the globally primal guardian of democratic tenets? This question is challengingly crucial and it therefore must be tackled thoroughly. I just wish, that some of us may have got sufficient courage to do so. Israel has the right to defend itself. This is the typical phrase, often uttered by pro Zionist Protestants. Israel may murder innocent civilians as of women and children in the sake of that cause. Still, it emphatically has the right to defend itself, in the manner deemed appropriate. This is how they insensately fend for Israel. They may justify it killing civilians but if Hamas strikes back on Israeli transgressors, they are terrorists. This is how paradoxical these people are. Your implementation of this already repudiated adherence of double standard is plainly visible and concurrently condemnable. We?re facing a major crisis on that regard. Unfortunately, your condemnation of terror is essentially slanted. Thence, it?s not equally apprised. So for instance, if someone of Muslim descent committed a grave criminal offence as of murdering dozens of innocent civilians, which is surely condemnable in Islam, the matter, however, is intently twisted and the focus wholly becomes on Islam inciting such brutal act. But, when this Aussie felon committed this monolithic massacre at a temple of worship, no one called this man a terrorist nor even described Christendom with bearing terror disposal. Well, this is the problem I have with you. It?s quite factual, that you?re coping with such subjects unfairly. So, when your veterans infested Iraq and killed plenty of innocent civilians, was that considered terrorism or championship? I recognise though, that the answer to that question is a bit odd, unless someone is fair and ethically consistent. You must wholly fathom then, that we?re not exclusively impeached of conducting terror. This idiotic notion became so old and rather possibly tedious. Thence, you may look for any other excuse upon which you can base your racial disparity toward us. The matter lies beyond political orientation. It?s of religious affiliation. Your infatuation of Trump has a reason folks. He consistently resembles your racial secernment of others. Honestly, Trump is incomparably the dumpiest guy I ever encountered. He reflects misanthropy in its worst instance. He?s terribly abhorrent. He viciously takes advantage of his people?s mass nescience. This is John Smith of Cairo, thanks and, best wishes. From professional.debater2020 at gmail.com Thu Feb 27 19:53:15 2020 From: professional.debater2020 at gmail.com (Mustafa Almahdy) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 21:53:15 +0200 Subject: [BlindVet-Talk] Missouri Avenue, Christ revealed Message-ID: Hello, this is Mustafa and I am interested to speak to you folks about your faith. I would like to start with basic elements. Although the tale of Adam and Eve in Eden is initially mentioned in Genesis, the current concept of Original Sin as known by Christians nowadays and yesterday has been initially and essentially developed by Saul of Tarsus whom Christians generically refer to as, Saint Paul. This concept is basically the backbone of Christian faith as we know it today. Unlike the Koran, the Bible is thought to be majorly parted to Old and New Testaments. In the Old Testament, God is clearly one and such concepts of Jesus being divine, the Trinity etc, haven?t been mentioned there. True, Christian apologists unsuccessfully attempt to strangely interpret things like, let?s make man in our immage and so on, still, that doesn?t explicitly speak of what has been later inserted by Paul and other authors. There are 29 verse of Jesus praying throughout the parables. I just don?t know folks, where could I go with Luke 6:12 as it says: ?It was at this time that He went off to the mountain to pray, and He spent the whole night in prayer to God.? How could he be divine afterward? How are you folks able to intently dispose of such plain evidence and falsely stick to what is implicitly construed? It is quite odd for me to be deceitful of myself as such. Jesus has been plainly portrayed as someone who devotes himself to submit in full recognition and obeisance to Allah glory be to Him. Had he been divine, he would have not demanded to implore onto the most High. At his time of cataclysm, he prayed onto his Lord to help him. In Matthew 26:39, it says: ?And He went a little beyond them, and fell on His face and prayed, saying, "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will." Is this the disposal of an exalted being? Muslims therefore believe, that Jesus, peace be upon him was sent to people by God to deliver His message to them. That was the same mission of Moses, David, Solomon, John, Zechariah, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, Jacob and so on. Implicit in that, Islam is the religion of all those prophets, as they have been sealed by Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him. In Islam, God doesn?t need someone to die on the Cross to forgive us. He glory be to Him is providentially Omnipotent and eminently Self-sufficient to do so. The Christian concept of redemption is intellectually purblind. As plainly stated in the parables, Jesus has unappeasably implored to God in seclusion. That?s the common temperament of the pious. He thence couldn?t be worshipping and being worshipped simultaneously. I urge you folks to seek the truth and deferentially comply to it. Despite the consequences, truth is loud and worthy to be unconditionally consecrated. Let us just be impartial as we view such critical matters. I sternly urge you to substantially reassess and redress your theological belief. Basically, everything you hold up to is invented by Saul, the former Jewish persecutor of Christ?s actual disciples. Someone has just to be an oaf and a moron to allegedly entrust Saul of Tarsus, this awful ratter, kidder, slicker and immense chiseller. I can see how and why you might had felt outraged. Nonetheless, it isn?t my destined intent to provoke your offence. Basically, I have been demanded by some to read the Bible. Well, after I read its whole books and chapters couple of times, I caught the main theme and its obviously contradicting narrative. I haven?t done so because I am anxious or tentative about Islam. I was just kind of curious and, theology in genral is concurrently my major and passion. I therefore am quite settled regarding my convictions of Islam being the true and uniquely proper faith. I am scholarly motivated. I thence have noticed and kind of disliked how missionary activists tend to approach incompetent Muslim individuals and unethically pose misconceptions to them. Why do you deliberately evade confronting those of adequate status in the field? Aren?t you confident enough about your disposition? Ultimately, up until now, you all are shamefully paltering about the alleged proclamation of Christ?s deification in the scripture. Throughout the four Gospels, Jesus never explicitly, declared his divinity. To the contrary though, he has constantly attributed primacy and exhibited full submission and obedience to the Father, in other word, God in Jewish traditional terms. John 11:41-42, ?So they took away the stone. Then Jesus looked up and said, "Father, I thank you that you have heard me. I knew that you always hear me, but I said this for the benefit of the people standing here, that they may believe that you sent me.? So, had he been truly divine, he would have straightly said, I am God incarnate, as Christians claim. So, we?re addressing here a crucial factor. Christians allegedly assert that Jesus claimed to be God. I say fine, where is that in the Bible? They then either quote sayings of Jesus that are implicit, in other words, competent of being broadly interpreted and discerned or, rely on what has been said by this liar, Paul. The latter is conspicuously notorious of being the primal persecutor of Christ?s actual disciples. All of a sudden, on his way to Damascus, he allegedly had a vision whereas Jesus has eh, appeared to him. Is that a credible figure for you? I noticed that some of you assume that prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him has lied about God. Well, I tell you this, inevitably, all Hadith, which is a tradition based on reports of the sayings and activities of prophet Muhammad peace and blessings be upon him, his companions and their apprentices, known terminologically as the followers, is essentially grounded on immense integrity, relevance and high application of morality. So, someone who relates something about the prophet, his companions or even the generation after them has to be trustworthy, accurate, credible, and of eminent excellence. Is any of that applied to the path which through the Bible has been transmitted? So for instance, this man Mark, what is his full name? We knew the proper biographical record of the leastwise of any vector in a chain of reporters that pertained to any Hadith. His birth, upbringing, his teachers, reputation, reliance and even his death date and region. Do you know the full biography of Luke? The process of the two texts is substantially different. I wish to see someone with sufficient courage to tackle this challenging concern. Look everyone, I knew all about this. All converts to Christianity are doing so for immigration, visa issuance and permanent residence purposes. For them, the States is a final destination. Nonetheless, as of myself, I am of different disposal. I wish to make you bear witness against yourselves for intently disposing those of sufficient adequacy and seeking to raptly pick out people of zero caveat and of extreme poverty and ignorance to gradually proselytise to them. This constantly occur in majorly developing nations and refugee camps. It troubles me indeed, seeing bungling individuals poorly taken advantage of as such. I sternly look forward to someone of the missionary or the pastoral arena responding to this sort of allegation I am afraid. Neglecting me though, shall make this accusatory proposition more firm and confirmed. Let us be honest and plain. I unfortunately have wholly exposed evangelist?s vicious shenanigan. Some may go to college campus and opt Muslim students who are not sufficiently aware of theological matters to pose misconceptions to them. These detrimental notions are often affiliated with racial disparity. Well, such as, what brought you here? Go back to your country and so on. Calling a Church the white flag reflects this intrinsical assumption of allegedly favouring Caucasian race. Hasn?t it been essentially based on superiority complex of their own complexion, they would have not been so denotative. I delt for awhile with southern Christians. Thus, I knew what I am talking about. They measuredly derogate those of darker complexion. This ethical scandal is broadly known about them. That?s why they fond Trump, despite his evil character. I respectfully demand you folks to confront me. Whether the ranking staff of Alpha and Omega or the White Flag, you both are mutually addressed with this strident rhetoric. I challenge you to show me in the whole Bible, just one statement, clearly uttered on the lips of Jesus Christ, openly demanding divinity. I urge you to look for this in the whole scripture and it won?t ever be found, basically because, it just doesn?t exist. If I ever caught this as described above, I shall then be christened instantly. What does Matthew 14:23 say? ?After he had dismissed them, he went up on a mountainside by himself to pray. When evening came, he was there alone.? Honestly, is that the disposal of someone with divine nature? With this criticising rhetoric, I address someone?s basic intellect. Obviously, Jesus ate, slept and prayed. With this in mind, how could he be divine then? Well, it was in the fourth ecumenical council of Chalcedon, when the Hypostatic union doctrine has been ultimately professed. This is an essential factor to think of. Typically, people of pastoral devotion tend to intently evade conversing about such subjects. Basically, these philosophical discernments have appeared later in Christian theological history. Well, common pastors etc won?t admit that. They will simply attempt to palter. Well, that?s the problem, they don?t want to admit their absolute failure on that regard. I therefore call pastors truth avoiders. They deliberately mislead their audience. In order to attain their religious objective of converting mortals, they tend to deceive, evade and prettify. Jesus is plainly divulged in the parables. Throughout them, he never expressed divinity of himself. Not once folks, not once. Well, how is that conveniently disposed? I honestly don?t know, how are they capable of reposing their conscience as such? Each and every wording spoken by Jesus confirms the fact that he is a prophet of God. He certainly has spoken with divine inspiration rather than essence. Well I hope after this lengthy demonstration, I?ll be confronted by someone who has sufficient courage and proper knowledge to deeply converse with me concerning what I proposed. This is theologian Mustafa from Cairo Egypt. I keenly look forward to hearing from someone with deferent characteristics to thoroughly speak with.