is the one
Maulana Jalaludin Rumi (RA)
- The Roses Are In Bloom (justsimplyinlove.wordpress.com)
is the one
Maulana Jalaludin Rumi (RA)
Allah, Anger, Boyle, Bush, Francis Boyle, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, God, Hate, Human, Iraq, Iraq War, Islam, Israel, Jews, Kuala Lumpur, Life, Lord, Men, Nazi Israel, Nazis, Nazism, Palestine, Peace, religion, Shia Islam, Syria, United States, USA, Victory, Videos, Wars, Women, World, Youth, Zionism, Zionists
Nazi Israel get the fuck out of Palestine ;
Just fuck off Susan, we had enough of you…..
You better check your own back yard, Mr. Zio-Nazi bastard Net….
we do not even have the body counts from Libya and you baby killers are onto Syria already …. who will help stop you and rid the world of YOUR terrorism …
Francis Boyle quotes M. Albright who said that 500,000 dead Iraqi’s was worth it
Approximately 3.3 million Iraqis, including 750,000 children, were “exterminated” by economic sanctions and/or illegal wars conducted by the U.S. and Great Britain between 1990 and 2012, an eminent international legal authority says.
The slaughter fits the classic definition of Genocide Convention Article II of, “Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part,” says Francis Boyle, professor of international law at the University of Illinois, Champaign, and who in 1991 filed a class-action complaint with the UN against President George H.W. Bush.
The U.S. and U.K. “obstinately insisted” that their sanctions remain in place until after the “illegal” Gulf War II aggression perpetrated by President George W. Bush and UK’s Tony Blair in March, 2003, “not with a view to easing the over decade-long suffering of the Iraqi people and children” but “to better facilitate the U.S./U.K. unsupervised looting and plundering of the Iraqi economy and oil fields in violation of the international laws of war as well as to the grave detriment of the Iraqi people,” Boyle said.
In an address last Nov. 22 to The International Conference on War-affected Children in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Boyle tallied the death toll on Iraq by U.S.-U.K. actions as follows:
# The slaughter of 200,000 Iraqis by President Bush in his illegal 1991 Gulf War I.
# The deaths of 1.4 million Iraqis as a result of the illegal 2003 war of aggression ordered by President Bush Jr. and Prime Minister Blair.
# The deaths of 1.7 million Iraqis “as a direct result” of the genocidal sanctions.
Boyle’s class-action complaint demanded an end to all economic sanctions against Iraq; criminal proceedings for genocide against President George H.W. Bush; monetary compensation to the children of Iraq and their families for deaths, physical and mental injury; and for shipping massive humanitarian relief supplies to that country.
The “grossly hypocritical” UN refused to terminate the sanctions, Boyle pointed out, even though its own Food and Agricultural Organization’s Report estimated that by 1995 the sanctions had killed 560,000 Iraqi children during the previous five years.
Boyle noted that then U.S. Secretary of State Madeline Albright was interviewed on CBS-TV on May 12, 1996, in response to a question by Leslie Stahl if the price of half a million dead children was worth it, and replied, “we (the U.S. government) think the price is worth it.”
Albright’s shocking response provides “proof positive of the genocidal intent by the U.S. government against Iraq” under the Genocide Convention, Boyle said, adding that the government of Iraq today could still bring legal action against the U.S. and the U.K. in the International Court of Justice. He said the U.S.-U.K. genocide also violated the municipal legal systems of all civilized nations in the world; the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child; and the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and its Additional Protocol 1 of 1977.
Boyle, who was stirred to take action pro bono by Mothers in Iraq after the economic sanctions had been imposed upon them by the Security Council in August, 1990, in response to pressure from the Bush Senior Administration. He is the author of numerous books on international affairs, including “Destroying World Order” (Clarity Press.)
and the world still ask what this ???…. yes this happened in Palestine all the time !
What you can see in common? You decide??? WTF civilization ???
U.S. soldier, Spc. Jeremy N. Morlock, posing with the bloodied and partially naked corpse of Gul Mudin, an unarmed Afghan civilian.
Killing 1 person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy.
Killed by US Christians uniformed invaders gangs.
Like Father Like Son… You Decide ?
Anti-Shia terrorist raped her, cut all her hair and left her on the side of the street without any cloth.
We strongly condemn this inhumane action and urges the different groups in Syria to issue a statement and ask the entire members to respect the Shia Muslim and stop any violence toward them.
Arrest of four activists, including the BassimTamimi
Today 10/24/2012 … a group of Palestinian and international activists storming the mall (Rami lave ) calling for boycott of Israeli goods
مجموعة من النشطاء الفلسطينيين والدوليين يقومون باقتحام المركز التجاري رامي ليفي المقام على اراضي فلسطينيية مطالبين بمقاطعة المنتوجات الاسرائيلية
Modern design of War… You Decide???
Zionist Lobby of America and Nazi Israelis Zionists are debating about ways to kill All Muslims!
Constantine the greatest Roman Emperor
Anti-Trinitarians falsely portray Constantine as a pagan sun worshipper who had no faith in Christ and was practically the sole author of the Nicene creed. They paint the Nicene council as being run by a pagan with “no understanding” of Christian doctrine and then imply that Constantine drafted the final Nicene text and used his power to banish only those who opposed. These are all lies and deliberate misrepresentations of history!
|In this document:||Constantine’s Anti-Pagan stance as good as any “good” Old Testament King of Judah
Constantine’s Anti-Pagan stance as good as any “good” Old Testament King of Judah
Constantine’s Conversion and Genuineness of Faith
The fact that Constantine murdered his son is no proof that Constantine was not a Christian.
Constantine’s had a good knowledge of Doctrine
Where did the key Nicene term “homoousios” (of one substance) come from? Ossius‘ influence on Constantine
Opposition to the Nicene creed
Nicea opposition same as we see in Luther
Constantine’s role as a Godly peacemaker
Constantine’s impartiality in dealing with Arius and Athanasius
Constantius (Constantine’s son) exiled and crushed by force, the Trinitarians
Arius triumphed for 50 years after Nicea, then was defeated till the 19th century.
Lies vs. Facts on the life of Constantine:
|How Anti-trinitarians misrepresent facts of history||True facts of history|
|Constantine was a pagan who worshipped the sun until just before he died.||
|Constantine’s conversion to Christianity was nothing more than a political move and was not genuine as evidenced by the fact he was not baptized until just before his death.||
|Constantine had no knowledge of Christian doctrine.||
|Constantine, (a pagan sun worshipper who knew nothing about Christian Doctrine) was the author of the Nicene creed.||
|Anti-Trinitarians irresponsibly portray Constantine as a faithless sun-god pagan idol worshipper with no understanding of Christianity who single-handedly introduces trinity to Christianity from the pagans and is almost the author of the Nicene creed.||
|The majority opposed the Nicene creed because they viewed Jesus as a creature, not God.||
|Constantine favoured Athanasius over Arius in the Nicene council.||
When Constantine came upon the temple mount in Jerusalem, he destroyed the temple of Jupiter that had been built in 135 AD by Hadrian. In building the “Church of the Holy Sepulchre” in 325 AD, Eusebius records how Constantine even removed the soil on the site and dumped it far away. Hadrian had built a temple to Venus on the site and Constantine destroyed and removed every trace of this pagan idolatry. This evidence proves that Jehovah’s Witnesses deliberately misrepresent Constantine as a pagan. Eusebius wrote in 325 AD: “How Constantine Commanded the Materials of the Idol Temple, and the Soil Itself, to Be Removed at a Distance: Nor did the emperor’s zeal stop here; but he gave further orders that the materials of what was thus destroyed, both stone and timber, should be removed and thrown as far from the spot as possible; and this command also was speedily executed. The emperor, however, was not satisfied with having proceeded thus far: once more, fired with holy ardor, he directed that the ground itself should be dug up to a considerable depth, and the soil which had been polluted by the foul impurities of demon worship transported to a far distant place.” (Eusebius , The Life of the Blessed Emperor Constantine, book 3, ch 27)
|Constantine’s Anti-Pagan stance as good as any “good” Old Testament King of Judah||
|Constantine’s Conversion and Genuineness of Faith||
|The fact that Constantine murdered his son is no proof that Constantine was not a Christian.||
|Constantine’s had a good knowledge of Doctrine||
|Where did the key Nicene term “homoousios” (of one substance) come from?Ossius’ influence on Constantine||
|Opposition to the Nicene creed||
|Nicea opposition same as we see in Luther||
|Constantine’s role as a Godly peacemaker||
|Constantine’s impartiality in dealing with Arius and Athanasius||
|Constantius (Constantine’s son) exiled and crushed by force, the Trinitarians||
|Arius triumphed for 50 years after Nicea, then was defeated till the 19th century.||
Other texts of interest:
“The Nicene Solution: In June 325 a general council met at Nicea. The number of bishops was apparently somewhere between 250 and 300. The most important of the Eastern bishops were present, but the West was poorly represented; the bishop of Rome did not attend but sent two presbyters in his place. The emperor at first gave the council a free hand, but was prepared to step in if necessary to enforce the formula that his advisor Hosius had agreed on with Alexander of Alexandria. Apparently a fairly large percentage of the delegates were not theologically trained, but among those who were, three basic “parties” were discernible: Arius and the Lucianists, led by Eusebius of Nicomedia; the Origenists, led by Eusebius of Caesarea, already highly reputed; and Alexander of Alexandria, with his following. The Lucianists, who fully expected to prevail, without previously conferring with the Origenists, put forth a rather blunt statement of their beliefs. To their considerable surprise, this was summarily rejected. It was then their hope that the Eusebian position, which was something of a midpoint between the Arian and the Alexandrian parties, would prevail. Indeed, Eusebius put forth a creed, which was unanimously pronounced to be orthodox by those present. Those of the party of Alexander, however, were not fully satisfied. They were favored by the emperor, and followed the strategy of accepting the Creed of Caesarea while demanding a more precise definition of some of its key terms. The emperor favored the inclusion of the word homoousios, as suggested to him by Hosius. The Alexandrian party then presented a carefully worked out statement, which they said was a revised form of the Creed of Caesarea, with certain steps taken to close loopholes that could be interpreted in Arian fashion. The Origenists had considerable reservation about some elements of the creed, fearing that phrases such as “out of the Father’s substance” and “of the same substance as the Father” could be interpreted in a material sense, could be understood as Sabellian, and were not of biblical origin. The emperor exerted considerable influence, saying that there was a desire to preserve the spirituality of the Godhead. Consequently, the statement was approved by all except three members of the council. Even most of Arius’s allies abandoned him, and as Pelikan says, “saluted the emperor, signed the formula, and went right on teaching as they always had.” The creed read as follows: We believe in one God, the FATHER Almighty, Maker of all things, visible and invisible; And in one Lord JESUS CHRIST, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, [the only-begotten, that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance (homoousios) with the Father; by whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth]; who for us men, and for our salvation came down and was incarnate and became man; he suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; from whence he will come to judge the quick and the dead. And in the HOLY GHOST. [But for those who say: "There was a time when he was not"; and, "He was not before he was made"; and "He was made out of nothing," or "He is of another substance" or "essence," or "The Son of God is created," or "changeable," or "alterable"-they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church .] The statement is significant both for what it affirmed and what it denied. The word homoousios, which was to carry such great significance in the years ahead, is especially interesting. There was some suspicion of this word on the part of the orthodox because of its earlier association with Gnosticism and even Manicheism. Even its defenders experienced some embarrassment about this term because of its identification with the condemned ideas of Paul of Samosata. This term, however, upon which Constantine insisted, was given a special turn of meaning here. What was being affirmed and insisted upon was that the Son is different, utterly different, from any of the created beings. He is not out of any other substance, but out of the Father. The condemnations attached to the confession also spoke very emphatically to the Arian position, specifically rejecting its major affirmations. Arius refused to sign this statement and was apparently joined by only two other members of the council. The rest, including those supposedly supportive of Arius’s position, signed the creed. It is generally agreed that this was a triumph for the views of Alexander, and that the primary architect of it was Athanasius, strongly supported by Amphilocius and Didymus in the East and Ambrose and Hilary in the West. One question that then must be raised, however, pertains to just what the council meant by this statement. On the one hand, the usual meaning of the word homoousios, as used by Origen, for example, was generic, namely, “of the same nature.” In that sense, it could signify the kind of substance or stuff common to several individuals of a class, as would be true of a collection of humans, for example. On the other hand, it could connote an individual thing as such. While a large number of scholars have contended that the council used the term in this latter sense, there are good grounds for questioning such a conclusion. Both J. N. D. Kelly and G. L. Prestige argue that whether that is properly the terms meaning, it was this more modest version that they had in mind. Among their reasons are the fact that Arius, prior to the council, objected to the term homoousious, but it is apparent that he was repudiating the Son’s alleged divinity, rather than the unity of God. Further, the issue before the council, it is virtually universally agreed, was not the unity of the Godhead but rather the coeternity of the Son with the Father, and his full divinity, as contrasted with the creaturehood that the Arians attributed to him. In addition’ if Eusebius and his allies had thought that homoousios was being used to teach the doctrine of numerical unity of substance, they would have seen this as a concession to Sabellianism and would have vigorously resisted it. Finally, we know that later the most orthodox theologians continued to use the term in the sense of generic unity.” (God in Three Persons, Millard J. Erickson, p82-85)
“THE COUNCIL OF NICEA: In 325 a Council was convoked by Constantine the emperor at Nicea in Bithynia. The names of over 220 of those in attendance known. Most of these came from the East. Five or six came from the West, among these Hosius of Cordova and the priests Vitus and Vincent, who represented Pope Sylvester. There is no record of the acts of the Council. Only its Creed, 20 canons, and a synodal letter condemning Arius are extant (Denz 125-130). The Nicene Creed says simply: We believe in one God, the Father almighty, creator of all things both visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten born of the Father, that is, of the substance of the Father; God from God, light from light, true God from true God; begotten, not created, consubstantial with the Father; through Him all things were made, those in heaven and those on earth as well…. And we believe in the Holy Spirit. As for those who say: ‘There was a time when He did not exist’ and ‘before He was begotten, He did not exist’ and ‘He was made from nothing, or from another hypostasis or essence,’ alleging that the Son of God is mutable or subject to change such persons the Catholic and apostolic Church condemns (Denz 125-126). What the Creed rejected is clear enough. It was Arius’ doctrine that the Son is not true God but a creature, that He was not begotten of the substance of the Father but was made from nothing, that He was not eternal but rather that ‘there was a time when He did not exist.’ What was affirmed was a belief in one God, the Father almighty, creator of all things; and in one Lord Jesus Christ. through whom all things were made and who is the Son of God, the only-begotten of the Father, born of the substance of the Father. true God from true God, begotten not created, consubstantial with the Father; and in the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is merely mentioned together with the Son and the Father, to indicate belief in the Triad of Father and Son and Holy Spirit, but He is given no further attention. All the conciliar stress was on the Son, His status, and His relation to the Father. Somewhat surprisingly the Council still used the words ousia and hypostasis as synonyms. Several points stand out. The Council Fathers did not use the term Logos for Christ but the more evangelical word Son. They stressed that He was not created but begotten, not made from nothing but born from the substance of the Father, thus indicating that His was not a metaphorical or adoptive sonship but a real, metaphysical sonship that entailed consubstantiality or community of divine nature between the Father and the Son. They emphasized His divinity by saying He was not only born of the Father and not created but also was eternal and was God from God, true God from true God. But the word that has continued to stand out most of all is the word consubstantial or homoousios. What does it mean in the Nicene Creed? Before Nicea it generally meant ‘of generically the same substance. For later Catholic theologians it means ‘of identically the same substance.’ For a long time it had been widely assumed that the specific teaching of Nicea was that the Son as consubstantial with the Father had identically the same substance as the Father, and that the Council had thus taught not only the divinity of the Son but also His numerical identity of substance with the Father. But in recent years there has developed a growing tendency to question and reject this assumption. It is clear that the Council did not explicitly affirm that the Son was ‘consubstantial with the Father’ had the one same identical divine substance as the Father, and hence this was not its specific or formal teaching. But when it said the Son was ‘consubstantial with the Father,’ it meant at least that He is ‘utterly like the Father in substance,’ ‘utterly unlike creatures in substance,’ that He is ‘of the Father’s substance’ and ‘of no other substance.”" But if the Council did not explicitly affirm numerical consubstantiality of Son and Father, was the idea of numerical consubstantiality prominent in the minds of the Nicene Fathers? Today there is a tendency to doubt or deny this also, and for a variety of reasons . It is urged that if the word consubstantial up to Nicea had only meant generic identity or likeness of substance, it would not suddenly be accepted as meaning numerical identity of substance. and if it had been so understood then the Eusebians would have cried out ‘Sabellanism.’ Further, it is argued that since the great issue at Nicea was the Son’s full divinity and coeternity and not the unity of the Godhead, the word consubstantial would have been understood to signify the Son’s full divinity, His total likeness in substance to the Father and total unlikeness to creatures in substance. It is pointed out also that later on when the numerical identity of substance was fully acknowledged, some orthodox theologians still used the word consubstantial in the sense of generic unity. All this seems to make an impressive case for the view that the Nicene Fathers generally understood ‘consubstantiality’ as likeness in substance. But perhaps an even stronger case can be made for the traditional view that they understood consubstantiality as identity of substance. Could they have failed to realize that if the Son was ‘of the Father’s substance,’ then He must be like the Father in substance? Why, then, would they add consubstantial if it merely meant ‘like the Father in substance’? Again, it would seem to be unnatural” for monotheists to admit two divine ousiai. And yet the Fathers must have realized that they would be doing just that if they said the Son was only ‘like the Father in ousia.’ Further, why is it logical to say that the Fathers used ‘consubstantial’ in its Origenist sense of ‘like the Father,’ when they must have known that for Origen it meant ‘like but inferior to the Father,’ while they were intent on affirming the Son’s equality with the Father? Again, why should the Fathers be unready to accept a new meaning instead of the traditional meaning of this term, if they were ready to use this ‘new’ term itself instead of a traditional Biblical term? Again, if Hosius of Cordova influenced the adoption of the term, would he have failed to indicate to the Nicene Fathers that for him and the West it signified ‘identity of substance’? Finally. to all this we might add Athanasius’ declaration that it was the intention of the Nicene decree to go beyond mere likeness and touch identity (De decr. nic. syn. 20). SUMMARY In the New Testament the eternity and divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit were indicated clearly enough but nowhere formally declared. There was no formal doctrine about Christ’s origin. nature, relation to the Father and to the Holy Spirit. There was no formal doctrine about a Triune God. But the elements for such a doctrine were there. In their somewhat infelicitous attempts to explain the Son’s divine status and His relation to the Father by a two-stage theory of a preexistent Logos, the Apologists obscured if they did not deny the eternal personality and the eternal generation of the Son. Clement and Origen rejected the two-stage theory of the Apologists and maintained the eternal generation of the Son. But Origen, in his attempt to combine strict monotheism with a hierarchical order in the Trinity, ended up by making the Son and the Holy Spirit not precisely creatures but ‘diminished gods,’ inferior to the Father who alone was God in the strict sense. The stage was set for Arius. He saw in Scripture, the Apologists, and especially Origen two interwoven ideas, one that the Son was God, the other that the Son was subordinate and inferior to the Father in divinity. He saw a tension between these two ideas that the Father alone was God in the strict sense and that the Son was a ‘diminished god’ but not a creature, and he was not satisfied with the tension. He felt it must be resolved, and so he put a blunt question: Is the Son God or creature? He answered his question just as bluntly: The Son is not God. He is a perfect creature, not eternal but made by the Father out of nothing. And thus the subordinationist tendency in the Apologists and in Origen had reached full term. The question that Arius put and answered so bluntly was a ‘live’ question, of vital importance to the Christian and trinitarian faith of the Church and one that was deeply disturbing. The Church had to face up to the Arian question and go on record for or against the Arian answer. It did this at Nicea. Though there may be doubt about the understanding of ‘consubstantial’ at Nicea, there can be no doubt about the historical and dogmatic importance of the Council itself. For there the Church definitively rejected the answer that Arius gave to the question he put: Is the Son God or creature? The Council firmly rejected Arius’ contention that the Son was a creature, not eternal, and made out of nothing. It firmly declared that He was begotten, not made, was born of the Father’s substance. was true God from true God, was consubstantial with the Father. It did more. In the New Testament affirmations about the Son were largely functional and soteriological, and stressed what the Son is to us. Arians willingly recited these affirmations but read into them their own meaning. To preclude this Arian abuse of the Scripture affirmations Nicea transposed these Biblical affirmations into ontological formulas, and gathered the multiplicity of scriptural affirmations, titles, symbols, images, and predicates about the Son into a single affirmation that the Son is not made but born of the Father, true God from true God, and consubstantial with the Father. A definitive answer was given to the question of Arius not in the empirical categories of experience, the relational category of presence, or even the dynamic categories of power and function but in the ontological category of substance, which is a category of being. Nicaea did not describe; it defined. It defined what the Son is, in himself and in his relation to the one God the Father. The Son is from the Father in a singular, unshared way, begotten as Son,, not made as a creature. The Son is all that the Father is. except for the Name of Father. This is what homoousion means. This is what the Son is. . . . The Nicene definition … formally established the statute of the ontological mentality within the Church. It was the precedent for the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, which resolved the issue of the internal constitution of Christ, the Son Incarnate, in the ontological categories of nature and person. . . . By its passage from the historical-existential categories of Scripture to the ontological or explanatory categories exhibited in the homoousion Nicaea sanctioned the principle of the development of doctrine . . . of growth in understanding of the primitive affirmations contained in the New Testament revelation.” (The Triune God, Edmund J. Fortman, p 66-70)
Angels (Arabic: ملائكة malāʾikah; singular: ملاك malāk) are heavenly beings mentioned many times in the Quran and hadith. Unlike humans or jinn, they have no free will and therefore can do only whatGod orders them to do. An example of a task they carry out is that of testing of individuals by granting them abundant wealth and curing their illness. Believing in angels is one of the six Articles of Faith in Islam. Just as humans are made of clay, and jinn are made of smokeless fire, angels are made of light. Reality of Angels In common folklore, angels are thought of as good forces of nature, hologram images, or illusions. Western iconography sometimes depicts angels as fat cherubic babies or handsome young men or women with a halo surrounding their head. In Islamic doctrine, they are real created beings who will eventually suffer death, but are generally hidden from our senses. They are not divine or semi-divine, and they are not God’s associates running different districts of the universe. Also, they are not objects to be worshipped or prayed to, as they do not deliver our prayers to God. They all submit to God and carry out His commands. In the Islamic worldview, there are no fallen angels: they are not divided into ‘good’ and ‘evil’ angels. Human beings do not become angels after death. Satan is not a fallen angel, but is one of the jinn, a creation of God parallel to human beings and angels. Angels were created from light before human beings were created, and thus their graphic or symbolic representation in Islamic art is rare. Nevertheless, they are generally beautiful beings with wings as described in Muslim scripture. Angels form different cosmic hierarchies and orders in the sense that they are of different size, status, and merit. The greatest of them is Gabriel. The Prophet of Islam actually saw him in his original form. Also, the attendants of God’s Throne are among the greatest angels. They love the believers and beseech God to forgive them their sins. They carry the Throne of God, about whom the Prophet Muhammad, may the mercy and blessings of God be upon him, said: “I have been given permission to speak about one of the angels of God who carry the Throne. The distance between his ear-lobes and his shoulders is equivalent to a seven-hundred-year journey.” (Abu Daud) They do not eat or drink. The angels do not get bored or tired of worshipping God: “They celebrate His praises night and day, nor do they ever slacken.” (Quran 21:20)
How many angels there are? Only God knows. The Much-Frequented House is a sacred heavenly sanctuary above the Kaaba, the black cube in the city of Mecca. Every day seventy thousand angels visit it and leave, never returning to it again, followed by another group.
Muslims believe in specific angels mentioned in the Islamic sources likeJibreel (Gabriel), Mika’eel (Michael), Israfeel, Malik - the guard over Hell, and others. Of these, only Gabriel and Michael are mentioned in the Bible.
The angels possess great powers given to them by God. They can take on different forms. The Muslim scripture describes how at the moment of Jesus’ conception, God sent Gabriel to Mary in the form of a man: “…Then We sent to her Our angel, and he appeared before her as a man in all respects.” (Quran 19:17) Angels also visited Abraham in human form. Similarly, angels came to Lot to deliver him from danger in the form of handsome, young men. Gabriel used to visit Prophet Muhammad in different forms. Sometimes, he would appear in the form of one of his handsome disciples, and sometimes in the form of a desert Bedouin. Angels have the ability to take human forms in some circumstances involving common people. Gabriel is God’s heavenly messenger to mankind. He would convey the revelation from God to His human messengers. God says: “Say: whoever is an enemy to Gabriel – for he brings down the (revelation) to your heart by God’s will…” (Quran 2:97)
Some angels are put in charge of executing God’s law in the physical world. Michael is responsible for rain, directing it wherever God wishes. He has helpers who assist him by the command of his Lord; they direct the winds and clouds, as God wills. Another is responsible for blowing the Horn, which will be blown by Israafeel at the onset of the Day of Judgment. Others are responsible for taking souls out of the bodies at the time of death: the Angel of Death and his assistants. God says: “Say: the Angel of Death, put in charge of you, will (duly) take your souls, then shall you be brought back to your Lord.” (Quran 32:11) Then there are guardian angels responsible for protecting the believer throughout his life, at home or traveling, asleep or awake. Others are responsible for recording the deeds of man, good and bad. These are known as the “honorable scribes.” Two angels, Munkar and Nakeer, are responsible for testing people in the grave. Among them are keepers of Paradise and the nineteen ‘guards’ of Hell whose leader is named ‘Malik.’ There are also angels responsible for breathing the soul into the fetus and writing down its provisions, life-span, actions, and whether it will be wretched or happy. Some angels are roamers, traveling around the world in search of gatherings where God is remembered. There are also angels constituting God’s heavenly army, standing in rows, they never get tired or sit down, and others who bow or prostrate, and never raise their heads, always worshiping God. As we learn from above, the angels are a grandiose creation of God, varying in numbers, roles, and abilities. God is in no need of these creatures, but having knowledge and belief in them adds to the awe that one feels towards God, in that He is able to create as He wishes, for indeed the magnificence of His creation is a proof of the magnificence of the Creator. Islam is clear on the nature of angels. The functions that the angels perform vary, one of the most prominent of these functions is their function as messengers. The angel Jibraaiyl (Gabriel) is the most important (prominent) messenger angel, as in Islam, he delivers the message of God (Allah) to theIslamic prophets. Angels cannot be seen as they are heavenly beings but that can take on different forms, including human. One well known example is when God sent the angel Jibreel (Gabriel) to Maryam (Mary) in the form of a man, as God says in the Quran:
…then We sent her our angel, and he appeared before her as a man in all respects. —Quran, sura 19 (Maryam), ayat 17
Similarly, angels also came to Abraham (ʾIbrāhīm) in human form, and he was not aware that they were angels until they told him so. Lot (Lūṭ) also had angels come to him to warn him of the impending doom of his people. All angels praise and glorify God and they never become tired of doing this.
They celebrate His praises night and day, nor do they ever flag or intermit. —Quran, sura 21 (Al-Anbiya), ayah 20
…for in the presence of thy Lord are those who celebrate His praises by night and by day. And they never flag (nor feel themselves above it). —Quran, sura 41 (Fussilat), ayah 38
There are angels standing in rows, who never get tired or sit down, and others who bow or prostrate, and never raise their heads. Abu Dharr al-Ghifari is quoted as saying:
“The Messenger of Allah (Peace & Blessings of Allaah be upon Him) said: ‘I see what you do not see and hear what you do not hear. The heaven makes a noise like groaning, and it has the right to (or it is no surprise), for there is no space in it the width of four fingers, but there is an angel there, placing his forehead in sujood(prostration) to Allaah. By Allaah, if you knew what I know, you would laugh little and weep much, you would not enjoy your relationships with women and you would go out in the street praying to Allaah.’” —Abu `Isa Muhammad ibn `Isa at-Tirmidhi, Jami` at-Tirmidhi
No angel is able to disobey God due to the way God created angels. For this reason, Islam does not teach that Iblīs or Shayṭan (the Devil or Satan) was a fallen angel, rather he was one of the jinn.
O ye who believe! save yourselves and your families from a Fire whose fuel is Men and Stones, over which are (appointed) angels stern (and) severe, who flinch not (from executing) the Commands they receive from Allah, but do (precisely) what they are commanded. —Quran, sura 66 (At-Tahrim), ayah 6
The Quran also mentions that angels have qualities that may be typified by the word wings:
Praise be to Allah, Who created (out of nothing) the heavens and the earth, Who made the angels, messengers with wings,- two, or three, or four (pairs):… —Quran, sura 35 (Fatir) ayah 1
The preceding sentence does not imply that all angels have two to four wings. Most notably, archangels (namely Gabriel and Michael) are described as having thousands of wings. However, according to hadith collected by Muhammad al-Bukhari, Muhammad said that Gabriel had 600 wings;
Narrated Abu Ishaq-Ash-Shaibani: I asked Zir bin Hubaish regarding the Statement of Allah: “And was at a distance Of but two bow-lengths Or (even) nearer; So did (Allah) convey The Inspiration to His slave (Gabriel) and then he (Gabriel) Conveyed (that to Muhammad). (53.9-10) On that, Zir said, “Ibn Mas’ud informed us that the Prophet had seen Gabriel having 600 wings.” —Muhammad al-Bukhari, Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, Number 455
The angels also accompanied Muhammad up to Jannah (Heaven) when he received commands from God. Instead of riding on an angel, Muhammad rode a creature called a Buraq whose stride spans from horizon to horizon. Angels are not equal in status and consequently they have been delegated different tasks to perform. The names and roles of some angels have been mentioned to us:
These angels take no pity on punishing them as they do what the Lord has commanded them to precisely and perfectly. A verse stipulates this:
O ye who believe! save yourselves and your families from a Fire whose fuel is Men and Stones, over which are (appointed) angels stern (and) severe, who flinch not (from executing) the Commands they receive from Allah, but do (precisely) what they are commanded. —Quran, sura 66 (At-Tahrim), ayah 6
The following is a Quranic verse that mentions the meeting of an angel with Mary, mother of Jesus (ʿĪsā):
Behold! the angels said: “O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to Allah; —Quran, sura 3 (Ali-Imran), ayah 45
Muhammad, speaking of the magnitude of the angel Gabriel, has said that his wings spanned from the eastern to the western horizon.
Narrated Aisha: Whoever claimed that (the Prophet) Muhammad saw his Lord, is committing a great fault, for he only saw Gabriel in his genuine shape in which he was created covering the whole horizon. —Muhammad al-Bukhari, Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, Number 457
Verses in the Quran that directly name angels Gabriel (Jibreel) and Michael (Mikaa’eel) are mentioned early on the Quran in sura Al-Baqarah:
Say: Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel-for he brings down the (revelation) to thy heart by Allah’s will, a confirmation of what went before, and guidance and glad tidings for those who believe,- Whoever is an enemy to Allah and His angels and messengers, to Gabriel and Michael,- Lo! Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith. —Quran, sura 2 (Al-Baqara) ayat 97-98
Another angel, Maalik is defined in the Quran as a being who is the warden of Hell. However Maalik is not an evil angel, nor a fallen one, a notion Islam rejects, rather Maalik is merely doing what he is commanded to do by God. In Islam, Iblīs or Shayṭan (the Devil or Satan) is considered by many to be a jinn rather than a fallen angel, since he questioned God when He ordered the angels to prostrate themselves before Adam, an act that suggested he possesses free will. An alternative view holds that rather than “defying” God, Iblis was acting in a manner predetermined by God.
They will cry: “O Malik! would that thy Lord put an end to us!” He will say, “Nay, but ye shall abide!” —Quran, sura 43 (Az-Zukhruf ) ayah 77
Two other angels are also mentioned directly in the Quran: Haaroot and Maaroot (Harut and Marut):
…and such things as came down at Babylon to the angels Harut and Marut. —Quran, sura 2 (Al-Baqara) ayah 102
Several angels such as Azrael, Israfil, Munkar and Nakir are not mentioned directly in the Quran but are explained further in the hadiths of Muhammad.
Allah, Arab, Death, Fred Skolnik, Hate, Heart, Human, Islam, Israel, Land of Israel, Life, Lord, Men, Palestine, Peace, Relationship, religion, Skolnik, United Nations Special Rapporteur, Victory, Wisdom, Women, World, Youth, Zionism
Challenging Israel’s Myths;
A carefully cultivated mythology sustains Israel’s territorial claims to Palestine and rationalizes Israel’s ethnic cleansing of millions of Palestinians from the land. Challenges to those myths are typically met with fierce counterattacks.
Soon after my Nov. 4 analysis, “In Defense of Richard Falk” was published by Media with a Conscience (MWC), the site editor forwarded to me an unusual chastising response. Unusual because it came from a relatively well-known scholar and writer by the name of Fred Skolnik.
Mr. Skolnik is the editor in chief of a 22-volume Encyclopedia Judaica (second edition), a work that won the Dartmouth Medal in 2007. He is also the author of numerous works of fiction all concerning life in Israel. It is not rare for Zionists to take me to task, and Skolnik is most certainly a Zionist. Yet it is rare that those who chastise are of Skolnik’s stature. And so, a reply is in order.
Mr. Skolnik does not like Dr. Falk who, the reader might remember, is the present United Nations Special Rapporteur for the Palestinian Territories. And, because I defend Falk, he does not like me either. Indeed, as far as Skolnik is concerned I am part of “an army of Israel haters … churning out endless … venomous half truths” about the Land of Israel. Nonetheless, Skolnik has taken the time to write a three-page commentary to set me and my readers straight.
He says, “I will state Israel’s case in as few words as possible, though you of course may not choose to publish this in order not to lose the effect you are aiming at.” Well, that is silly. I have no objection to my readers seeing Mr. Skolnik’s response. Here is how you can do so: go to the MWC site; search for Davidson; go to “In Defense of Robert Falk;” and scroll down to Skolnik’s comment.
That being said, here is my analysis of elements of Mr. Skolnik’s case for Israel.
1. Skolnik: “There is no historic Palestine that has anything to do with the Arabs, nor is there an “indigenous’ or native Muslim population there.” Skolnick’s assertion is a very old fantasy or myth that has been developed over the years to allow radical Zionists and violent settlers to rationalize their historical absorption of Palestinian land.
Quoting from the Wikipedia entry for Palestinian People, an entry which reflects the latest research into this subject of who was where and when, including genetic analysis, we find that Palestinians are the “modern descendants of those who have lived in Palestine over the centuries and today are largely culturally and linguistically Arab. … Genetic analysis suggests that a majority of the Muslims of Palestine, inclusive of the Arab citizens of Israel, are descendants of Christians, Jews and other inhabitants of the southern Levant whose core reaches back to prehistoric times.”
Furthermore, “a study of high-resolution haplotypes [DNA sequences] demonstrated that a substantial portion of Y chromosomes of Israeli Jews (70%) and of Palestinian Muslim Arabs (82%) belong to the same chromosome pool.”
What all this means is that the ancestors of those Palestinians who are now culturally and linguistically Arab have been in Palestine for time immemorial. Over the ages, the population fragmented, acquired differing religious, linguistic and cultural traits. Indeed, those indigenous Palestinians, Jews and local Christians as well, are basically the same people gone in somewhat separate cultural ways.
Poor Mr. Skolnik. It is a shock that he is so ardently supporting the ethnic cleansing of his own cousins.
2. Skolnik: “Most of the Arabs with ‘roots’ in the Land of Israel migrated there from other parts of the Arab world in the 19th and early 20th centuries while the Jews have been continuously present in the Land of Israel for well over 3000 years.”
This is another myth that was most prominently put forth in a book by Joan Peters, published in 1984, and entitled From Time Immemorial. Her argument and evidence were meticulously taken apart and shown to be false by Norman Finkelstein in his Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict (1995).
3. Skolnik: “The displacement of the Arabs in the Land of Israel during Israel’s war of Independence … was paralleled by the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Jews living in Arab lands at the time whose lives were made unbearable under vindictive Arab rule.” Subsequently, the Israelis “received their Jewish brethren with open arms” while the Arab countries that received Arab refugees “herded them into camps and treated them like animals.”
For an editor of a 22-volume encyclopedia Skolnik shows a deplorable tendency to slip into generalizing, stereotyping and lumping together multiple events with multiple outcomes. Here are some counterpoints:
–Actually, the exodus of Arab Jews from their countries of residence went on over an extended period of time and in some cases, such as Algeria, had nothing to do with the events in Palestine. In other cases where the Arab country found itself at war with Israel, as with Egypt, Jewish immigration was a direct result of the Zionist expulsion of Arabs. And in the case of Morocco, the government tried hard to assure the Jews safety and prosperity to counter Zionist propaganda urging them to leave.
–Sometimes the “displacement” was hastened, as in Iraq, by Zionist agents committing violent acts of sabotage against local Jewish communities.
–The reception the Arab Jews got in Israel wasn’t quite the “open arms” picture Skolnik paints. They were received by their European Jewish “brethren” with racial prejudice. Even today, Ashkenazi and Sephardic/Mizrachi relations in Israel are strained.
–As for the Arab refugees who were allegedly “treated like animals” by their fellow Arabs, this is an exaggeration. The situation differed country to country. For instance, treatment in Lebanon was bad; in Jordan it was good. In none of the refugee camps in Arab countries were conditions worse than those in the tent cities and “development towns” in the Negev Desert into which the Israelis herded 80 percent of the Arab Jewish refugees.
4. Mr. Skolnik has other points which time and space do not allow me to address. The interested reader can find them in his response to my essay on Dr. Falk. If you read and consider them please take the time to follow up with other sources of information, such as the works of the Israeli historians Ilan Pappe and Benny Morris as well as the journalistic pieces of Amira Hass and Gideon Levy (both of whom work for the Israeli newspaper Haaretz), and the reports of Israel’s human rights group B’Tselem. These are all Israeli sources, but they tell a very different story than does Skolnik.
From Skolnik to Gaza
As Mr. Skolnik so aptly demonstrates, we all live within our own world. These are usually constructed for us by our upbringing: our families, our peers, our schools, our friends and the level of attachment we develop to the community. This attachment is usually sustained and deepened by the reinforcing information environment that the community provides for us.
These environments at once transform us into “good” citizens and simultaneously narrow our views of the world so they conform to acceptable political and cultural paradigms. The process usually works quite well. Nevertheless, it is still true that in any community you get a continuum of acceptance and devotion ranging from the skeptic to the true believer. For the latter, the community can do no wrong and its behavior can always be rationalized. When it comes to Israel, Skolnik is a true believer.
In a country like Israel, one that has armed itself to the teeth yet feels perennially insecure, and where the true believers are in charge, the situation is made dangerous in the extreme. Over the years Israeli leaders, generally believing the same things that Fred Skolnik believes, have dispossessed and ethnically cleansed the Palestinians, pushing them into ever smaller areas of concentration.
Gaza is the worst example of these cases. It is a virtual “open air prison” of a million and half people squeezed into 139 square miles, the most densely populated place on earth. There, with the compliance of the United States and the European Union, the Israelis have proceeded to reduce most of the Gazans to abject poverty.
When, periodically, these people strike out at their tormenters, usually in ineffective ways, they are labeled terrorists and, again with Western blessing, attacked furiously and disproportionately by the Israelis. You can now witness the latest onslaught live on the web.
Under these circumstances Skolnik’s assertions that the Jews were in Palestine first and the Arabs only came later as interlopers is really besides the point. Let us say, just for the sake of argument, that he is correct, that the Jews, even in their European guise, are the real indigenous Palestinians, having come back to the homeland after an extended absence of a couple of thousand years.
Even granted this fiction, does any of that give today’s Israeli Jews the right to treat the Palestinians as they do? Does it justify the creation of an apartheid environment in the occupied West Bank? Does it give them the right to reduce a million and half Gazans to a calculated impoverishment and then provoke them until they respond, whereupon Israelis indulge themselves in self-righteous mass murder?
I don’t believe any of Skolnik’s pseudo-history. I also don’t give a damn who lived in or controlled Palestine 3,000 years ago. The ones who control it now are, by their actions, no better than barbarians. And the leaders in the West who back them have Palestinian blood on their hands.
When it comes to behaviors like ethnic cleansing and cultural genocide, the claim of self-defense is ludicrous. Nor can the fantasies of Fred Skolnik justify such on-going crimes.
Lawrence Davidson is a history professor at West Chester University in Pennsylvania. He is the author ofForeign Policy Inc.: Privatizing America’s National Interest; America’s Palestine: Popular and Official Perceptions from Balfour to Israeli Statehood; and Islamic Fundamentalism.
by Prof. Lawrence Davidson
NOVEMBER 20, 2012
Allah, Anger, Beauty, Benjamin Netanyahu, Current Issues, Death, Gaza, Gaza Strip, God, Hamas, Hate, Heart, Human, Islam, Israel, Israel Defense Forces, Life, Lord, Love, Men, Palestinian people, Peace, Recomendations, Relationship, religion, RT (TV network), Save Children, Victory, Wars, Women, World, Youth
or Call 020 7593 3232
Call 0800 520 0000
or Call 020 7593 3232
Call 0800 520 0000
Allah, Anger, Archbishop of Canterbury, Bishop of Leicester, Bishop of Manchester, Christianity, Church of England, Current Issues, Death, God, Hate, Islam, Justin Welby, Life, Lord, Men, Nigel McCulloch, Ordination of women, Recomendations, religion, Victory, Wars, Women, World, Youth
I am quite pissed of of this Islam has done this and that rather then saying a typical culture of the clans in different parts of the world. Googling is easy but googgling in the positive way is important. I am just wondering now anyone dare to argue this; the asshole so call themselves men and bitches so call themselves respectable or what ever women shit they say. Would any one would be prick enough to comment on this; As they always point finger on Islam rather a Muslims So should I be questioning the Christian faith or the followers……… Think!
Anyone talk about Islam without having knowledge of Islam, I can understand if any follower of Islam does any act or something bad the individual should be responsible but not Islam……. So my humble advise to you is honorable Ladies and Gentlemen, if you don’t have knowledge of Islam it means not Fox News bloody Taliban and CNN stuff and some other bla bla blaa. I meant if you haven’t read the the translation of Quar’an then get yourself a duct tape and conveniently place it on your big mouth and it may help. I bet not many of you read the Bible yourself and the other references.
The Church of England has voted not to let women become bishops after the ballot did not receive the two third majority it needed to go ahead.
The House of the Bishops and the House of the Clergy were in favour of female bishops, with 44 votes to three and 148 votes to 45 respectively. But the Laity recorded 132 votes for and 74 against. Just two bishops abstained.
Over the course of the day, more 100 speeches were made both for and against the move.
Those who voted for female bishops wanted women to be treated equally in the church, while those against said female bishops contravened scripture.
Tim Stevens, the Bishop of Leicester, wanted the Synod to back the measure, in order “to speak for millions who want to see us do this”.
The next Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, urged support for the motion. “It is time to finish the job and vote for this measure,” he said. “The Church of England needs to show how to develop the mission of the church in a way that demonstrates we can manage diversity of view without division. Diversity in amity; not diversity in enmity.”
The legislation to allow women to be bishops was backed by 42 out of the 44 CoE dioceses, but to pass it, there needed to be a two-thirds majority.
It was considered to be the biggest decision the Synod has had to make since it approved female priests two decades ago.
The debate was hotly contested.
Those in favour said there was a general consensus within the Church that the role of bishop should be open to women. They added that women priests made up a third of the clergy.
Unity with Roman Catholics
But opponents argued that Jesus chose only men to be his apostles, therefore the spiritual leadership of the CoE should be by men only.
Others said that ordaining women bishops would prevent unity with Roman Catholics.
Prior to the vote, it was speculated that the ballot result would be close.Those in favour said that if the vote did not pass, the Church would be in danger of fading away into irrelevance.
Canon Rosie Harper said: “As a church for the whole country we will be seen to have failed to do what is right and honourable. A church with lower moral standards than the rest of society risks its right to comment on other issues.
“Secondly, it will inevitably be seen as the act of a dying church more wedded to the past than committed to hope for the future.”
Rev Rod Thomas, vicar of St Matthew’s Elburton, Plymouth and leader of Evangelical group Reform, said the vote itself was forcing CoE members to “accept something that we do not believe the Bible teaches”.
It is thought that it could be 2019 before another vote on the issue takes place.
Allah, Anger, Children, Christians, Death, God, Human, Islam, Israelis, Life, Lord, Malala, Muslims, Nazis, Nobel Peace Prize, Nobel Prize, Pakistan, Palestine, religion, Swat Pakistan, Taliban, Victory, Videos, Wars, Women, World, Youth, Yusufzai, Zionists
Malala been shoot for Education by doubtful Taliban.. enough that report to make the world humanity awake from Her and so many prizes for her. What a Humanity of us for a innocent girl. Ahaa our tears made this universe teary and her blood made all specially the setting sun bloodier. Some said it’s not a sun the blood of Malala..