Biden: "'...if you divert...north, you can unload it and we'll get the stuff into Gaza.' So what's the big deal...?" Land theft; war crimes!

Tom Usher said: Biden [US Vice President Joe Biden regarding the Gaza Freedom Flotilla]: "'...if you divert...north, you can unload it and we'll get the stuff into Gaza.' So what's the big deal...?" Land theft; war crimes! 12 hours ago via FriendFeed ·

Sayyeda S Ja'fri likes this.

Sayyeda S Ja'fri: Zionist stooge!
11 hours ago ·

Tom Usher


I have a request of you, Sayyeda. Please see this page:

I'd be interested in an analysis on "Khaibar, Khaibar, oh Jews! The army of Muhammad will return!" and various ways in which it can honestly be interpreted in Islam.

What I'm driving at here is the difference between the view as employed by Zionists that everything in Islam is always centered on jihad being physical as opposed to also encompassing the spiritual and non-flesh/immaterial "battle."

Any insight you might care to give on it would be appreciated.

If you find it interesting and a challenging and decide to write up a piece about it, perhaps adding a Facebook note or something, let me know, as I might want to link to it.

Of course, it has to be admitted that the chant can certainly apply to an actual war, but I'm not convinced that all the Turks on board had pre-planned and hoped for an opportunity to whack Zionists with wooden sticks and then be shot in the head. I do believe that they were prepared in case the Zionists boarded as they did.

Anyway, if Islam allows for violent jihad and respects martyrdom, which it does, and if the Zionist land theft and ethnic cleansing and war crimes are crimes, which they are, then what's the point in the Zionists pointing out that Muslims ready themselves to fight Zionists as being something that should motivate Canadians or citizens of the States to side with the Zionists? Of course, it's a rhetorical question.

Peace to you,

11 hours ago ·

Sayyeda S Ja'fri: Tom, the concept of jihad is quite misunderstood, and of course tainted in the mainstream media. In Islam, the only type of war that is permitted is self-defence. To be the AGGRESSOR is an absolute sin and cause for damnation. But in the time of the Prophet, the Muslims were severely persecuted by the idol-worshippers at the time and the Jews, as well. The Jews central point of power were the forts of Khaibar. When the Jews attacked the Muslims, they engaged in battle and the Muslims consequently conquered Khaibar. That's why this is a popular, morale-boosting chant in the Muslim world.

Again, jihad is only for the purposes of self-defence against an aggressor or enemy, after all other options have been exhausted. In the eyes of Islam, the truth is worth dying for. A noble and dignified death is more honourable than a humiliating existence under cruel, oppressive tyranny.

This is what Islam teaches. This is why the Palestinians, Lebanese and Iranians would much rather fight injustice and die miserably, than surrender to satanic superpowers. That, right there, is the concept of martyrdom (or jihad), which has been grossly misrepresented and distorted by this biased and corrupt media.

Hope that helps. :)
9 hours ago ·

Tom Usher

Thank you, Sayyeda, for your reply. Yes, it helps. It helps to have someone with a deep Islamic perspective state a succinct retort to Zionist spin about Islam.

I consider it a sin to withhold the full perspective of others. I consider it a sin not to accept the position of the other as that one's true position. One can argue/discuss (preferably in a manner that the both of us would consider "civil") after putting all the definitions on the table, so to speak. That, of course, is what has been lacking between the Zionists and the world and the US and the world and generally between and amongst the nations. There is excessive couching of every word. The so-called leaders (shepherds) run their minds ahead in anticipation of how not to be revealed. That's because they don't want to be seen for the evil, selfish intentions that lie at their cores. It's an easy trap into which to fall, as we all start out as babies and are all too often quickly subjected to incomprehensible wickedness. Breaking that cycle is the challenge.

So, if you looked at that website, you saw a Zionist mini-think-tank, propaganda mill that functions on the level I just described. I stake my life on it that they would quickly break off a probing, penetrating conversation. They would employ all the psychological tricks they could muster and if continually brought back to the main issues, would get up and walk away frustrated but having learned nothing of true value but rather spend their energy on thinking of how to bob and weave and duck and censor concerning any such probes or penetrations (exposure). Can that be broken? I say it can.

Of course, this back and forth between us lays out the fundamental difference between the teachings of Jesus versus Mohammed, provided one accepts the basics of the Sermon on the Mount for instance, which I do.

One also need believe that Jesus was taken in the flesh by the representatives of the Sanhedrin and then turned over to the Romans with the design of the scribes and Pharisees to kill Jesus, as Jesus is recorded as having said of them (their intentions). I realize that it was Mohammed's position that, that was all a spiritual, how would one describe it, illusion – that the actual Jesus was not the body of flesh that went to the cross.

To go deeper here, let me say that I can wrap my mind around Mohammed's conceptualization there. In fact, I will say that most Christians would agree that the Sanhedrin and the Romans didn't touch (corrupt) Jesus's soul. However, I will also say that I believe Jesus's spirit was in that body (incarnate) and did go through the human experience to show us just how deep our love for one another must go.

At this point, I'm wondering if you've ever read the Gospel of John. Are you allowed to read it? I should think you are, since Mohammed's Qur'an discusses the Bible inclusive of the Gospels. In it, John writes that Jesus gave his fleshly life so that we could learn the truth about how to avoid what would end up as ultimate hypocrisy.

How can human beings know when to take another human being's life in that how can we know who is beyond repentance? Jesus said not to harvest the flesh because you will take the good with the bad when it is only the essence of evil that must be rooted out of every heart.

Does that make sense? It does to me, obviously.

Now, there is the expression of "kill them all and let God sort them out," but that raises the question of what is offense in the most ultimate sense. Violence itself becomes the question. Did God the Holy Spirit resurrect Jesus because Jesus showed the greatest of trust and understanding concerning what God wants in the human heart? To highlight the whole issue of selfishness and elitism, etc., Jesus took pain and suffering that he did not deserve. That is my understanding of it. He atoned for others. That's giving one's life for his friends in the highest sense.

This sort of probing doubles back on itself in both Islam and Christianity and all other religions because everything in each is built upon what each considers an unbroken and unbreakable logic. So, the debate is over the question of what is the divine logic of God. My position is that fighting is a statement that violence is proper conflict resolution and that humans believe that they can un-hypocritically mete out the death penalty and other punishments; whereas, each of us has offended God and if our own standards are reflected back upon us in the form of soul searching (honest searching, not avoidance), we will realize that we deserve the punishment we mete out for it's deficiency in mercy and forgiveness.

Jesus said to forgive your brother 7 times 70 times (which is a figure of speech and not a statement that someone should make a mark for every time one forgives and then kill his brother upon the 7 times 70 plus one event). He did say that this applies when the brother is repentant (hopefully learning; growing one presumes). So what of the ones who refuse to repent? Well, this raises the question of why Jesus didn't raise an army and wipe out all those who would call him "enemy." He didn't do that, which no Muslim can rightly deny.

Yet, he said that the son of man would come and not one stone of the Herod temple or 2nd temple would remain one on the other, which if you believe it ever stood, and I do, actually is the evident case (no two stones were left on each other). Therefore, the wrath did come but not because Jesus was not merciful and forgiving but because the Jews didn't listen to their Messiah (the messenger from God) saying don't be Zealots but rather be Good Samaritans to each and all. Don't cast the first stone unless you are sinless and also know that casting that stone is not what God wants to see sinful people doing to each other for it is hypocrisy. Don't call down the wrath. Jesus didn't. Call everyone to rise above it.

What do you think? I hope you receive this in the spirit in which it is intended, with a complete absence of guile.
46 minutes ago

Sayyeda S Ja'fri: Thank you, Tom. I do understand what you're saying. We have always maintained that the teachings of Jesus and Mohammad were fundamentally the same - because they both were representatives of the same God. However, both of their circumstances were very different.

Mohammad spoke of forgiveness as DIVINE and preferred, however, the wronged one had RIGHTS to justice. The concept of justice is dominant in Islam, especially the rights of others. If someone struck Mohammad, or insulted or abused him, he would smile and "turn the other cheek". But when he witnessed the abuse of the Muslims at the hands of the enemy, the plundering of their property, the ravaging of their homes, the desecration of their dignity and honour, he took a stand and deemed self-defense to be acceptable. And when they attacked the Muslims, they fought back and engaged in battle. NEVER were they the aggressors. And you said, if the enemy is sincerely repentant and regretful, you MUST forgive and collectively achieve peace. Even after he won the war with the Jews, Mohammad allowed them to live in his society, under his laws after signing a treaty. They were free to practice their faith as they pleased. You'll see that example in Iran today, where over 80,000 Jews live freely in peace. Islam is NOT intolerant of other faiths. Another Zionist lie.

And yes, we are allowed to read the Bible; however, it's the Old Testament that we consider to be God's true word - unadulterated and pure. The subsequent testaments and versions of the original bible have been tampered with (if I'm not mistaken), which means the word of God has been altered by man, thus, not being the word of God any longer. Many Muslims have the Old Testament in their homes. :)

I don't know if all this makes sense, or if I'm even the right person to talk to, Tom. I am by no means an Islamic scholar. I just tell you what is logical and reasonable in Islam, which is frankly, a very logical and reasoanable is, in fact, this Zionist media which has demerited and demonized it so.
2 hours ago ·

Tom Usher

Thank you for your additional comment. I think you are wise to have said that you are not an Islamic scholar.

Islam holds that versions of the Old Testament are incorrect, corrupted, etc. The truth is that we don't have any physically surviving original Old Testament. We have physical copies. One goes on a degree of faith and trust concerning the copyists. We have the Dead Sea Scrolls to help us gauge the degree of copyist errors. The differences are remarkably few. I suppose you knew that, so I certainly give you the benefit of the doubt here. Feel free to add more clarifying/qualifying language.

Now, historically, concerning Jesus, we have the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament in addition to a few references to Jesus and the movement besides (some spurious); but that's it. Without the New Testament, Mohammed would likely have not known Jesus ever existed, unless one assumes Mohammed would have been informed by Gabriel. This is reasonably problematic for non-Muslims and perhaps Muslims as well. Of course, if Jesus had not been the inspiration for the Gospelists to record his words and deeds, would he have been anyone of note? The answer is no.

I do agree that if people living under Mohammed behaved themselves in terms Mohammed found fair and just, they would have gone unmolested. Christians have a problem with the taxes, but Christian pay taxes now anyway. We are also not polygamists; but being non-coercive ourselves, we really can't see forcing others not to engage in polygamy.

My theology or revelation goes much further than the bit I mentioned here, but I won't delve into it all here. I do hope you will avail yourself of the Gospel of John though. It is extremely sublime – the most sublime thing I've ever read.

Also, there is an unbroken continuity from John through Polycarp and Irenaeus. This gives that Gospel great, highly underestimated historical weight.


39 minutes ago ·

Sayyeda S Ja'fri: Very briefly, Tom, before I retire for bed:
We DO believe that Mohammad was the last and final prophet of God. He did receive revelations through Angel Jibraeel (Gabriel), so he did not need any other source to educate him on various dynamics. He knew of Jesus and all other prophets/apostles through Gabriel. All of this has been recorded in the Quran, word by word, unadulterated and unaltered.

Lol, vision is blurred from sleepiness....will chat later!

Peace and blessings,
~ S
27 minutes ago ·

Tom Usher

Yes, Sayyeda, from my various readings, including from the Qur'an, that's what I thought the Islamic position is.

Unfortunately for Muslims, this is tantamount to calling John, Polycarp, Irenaeus, etc., not credible witnesses to each other and, of course, John concerning Jesus directly.

This Christian finds that amazingly strange on Mohammed's part.

Also correct me if this is wrong, but I have been given to understand that Mohammed openly shared that there was a moment or there were moments he wondered whether it was Gabriel or an evil jinn (a demon or fallen angel) who was telling him the things he was receiving.

My further understanding is that Jesus never had such doubts.

Sleep well.
about a minute ago

Sayyeda S Ja'fri: No, Tom. That's not correct. He never had such doubts. :)

Hi Sayyeda,

Let me address a few things here that may consolidate our discussion(s).

1) Concerning Mohammed's first-revelation terror:

Your position, Sayyeda, or what you've been taught, is that the interpretation of his terror upon, as Mohammed put it, being squeezed three times by the angel, is an incorrect interpretation.

My reading of it is that Mohammed needed covering from his wife (counsel, reassurance, etc.) and that she sought additional input/assurances from a cousin held out to have been Christian. That last part makes no sense to Christians, as Mohammed's reported visions/revelations are adamantly anti-Gospel. There being no other source for that cousin other then the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament, why would that Christian have dispensed with his own belief in Jesus as Christ and son of God? That supposed Christian denied Jesus as the Messiah – the one. We aren't to take it here that, that purported Christian was informed by the same angel as was Mohammed or by another angel.

A straight reading of it is that Mohammed was unsure. This is the Christian interpretation. If Mohammed had been sure from the beginning, then Mohammed would not have required the bolstering of his wife or a turncoat-Christian cousin. In addition, it appears to me that he required reassurances concerning the whole thing from start to finish, including whether or not it was Gabriel at all. If not Gabriel, if there were any doubts at all, which there were of a sort hence the fear and bolstering, then Mohammed was speculating for at least a time, that it might not have been a good spirit/angel he'd heard of, namely Gabriel, but a liar.

When in the same position, Jesus stood with God and needed no man or woman to confirm it. That's how we Christians see it.

2) Concerning being allowed to read the bible:

Isn't it true that the New Testament isn't allowed in many places? This represents an unwillingness to compare the Gospels and the Qur'an side-by-side (along with other literature).

I understand censorship. I practice censorship myself in that there are types of materials I refuse to entertain. However, Mohammed makes basic claims against Christianity whereby reading the Gospels cannot somehow introduce new "corrupting" information. The concepts (albeit not in full-Gospel context, have already been introduced by Mohammed via the Qur'an).

If Mohammed were to have said that pornography is a slippery slope into sexual addiction and said don't go testing it, that sort of thing would make perfect sense. However, that's not analogous to the Good News (Gospel) that is the revelation of Jesus as the Christ.

Jesus is held out in the New Testament as teaching the highest, most moral law conceivable. To deny Muslims the Gospels strikes this Christian as a way for Islam to avoid being challenged, even while Mohammed put out, and Islam puts out, challenges to the New Testament.

I don't say this with any feelings of hostility but only in the interest of getting at truth. I am not afraid of side-by-side analyses and debates and discussions concerning the New Testament and the Qur'an. Why is that, whereas many high-ranking Muslims forbid it if not because they fear Muslims might convert freely?

If Christians convert freely (as much as that can even be the case) to Islam as a result of side-by-side free inquiry, so be it in my view. They'll end up wherever that takes them, but they won't have been denied the choice.

3) Concerning Christlikeness but not Mohammedlikeness:

If as you've said, Mohammed would turn the other cheek, then why don't his followers? Christians are to be as Christlike as possible. Jesus turned the other cheek, so we are to do likewise.

If Mohammed was the messenger of God and led the exemplary life from his revelation on, then if everyone had done as Mohammed (turn the other cheek), then Mohammed would have had no army to wage physical war.

Jesus teaches all his followers to turn the other cheek because none has been free of sin. If everyone were to follow Jesus, there would be no hitting or oppression in the first place. The fact that there have been those who have been unwilling to rise to that level does not make that level wrong. It rather means that the unwilling are offenders against that perfect condition.

If that is not correct, then arbitrary, moving lines may be drawn in making the case for war. Who's defined as being oppressed one day but not the next even though everything else has remained the same? Why is Gaza now more and more being acknowledged as having been under wrongful oppression? Why are the arguments of the Zionists not good when they appeal to claimed historical oppression of the Jews?

Mohammed's position leaves that all subject to debate. Jesus's position puts an end to it all.

How do you answer if you care to?



  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.