Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel

[MUQ]

Which “Sword” the Prophet Used against his enemies: Part-55

There were cases in which “All Swords” the prophet used to have at his disposal failed and one can say that he failed to “enslave” some people. There were some who faced Muslim army in the battle field and were slain, and there were a few cases which were executed on the order of prophet (which we shall take up in the next episode).

The Case of : MARBA’ BIN QAIDHI, THE BLIND MAN OF MADINA

MARBA’ BIN QAIDHI was a blind man, who lived outside Madina in a garden that lay along the route of Mount of OHUD.

He was one of the party of Hypocrites of Madina, supporter of Abdullah Bin UBAI, the hypocrite in Chief.

On the day of Battle of OHUD, when prophet started with an army of 1000, and after going a short distance Abdullah bin UBAI, the hypocrite along with his 300 followers, deserted Muslim army and went back to Madina, claiming that “prophet did not accept his advice, but accepted advice of young lads of Madina”.

Prophet marched with remaining 700 of his followers to the plains of OHUD, on the way they passed the gardens of this MARBA’ BIN QAIDHI the blind Hypocrite, He heard the commotion and came out of his hut and shouted “O Mohammad! I do not give you permission to pass thru my land. If you are a Messenger of Allah, then you will not pass thru my land without permission”

Then he took a handful of sand and threw it towards prophet saying “By Allah, if I knew this will reach your eyes, I would have done so”!

Companions of prophet became very angry and went forward to punish him…

“Leave him Alone” said the Prophet “He is blind in his eyes and in his heart”

That was all what prophet did to him and went ahead.

There are some people on which “No sword” is really effective. The sword of patience and mercy of prophet had little effect on such blind people!!

http://www.scribd.com/doc/122191862

Source: Companions of Prophet: by Talib Hashmi

[MAAT]

HughBe wrote:

<quoted text>
Much love from JJ

that term had better not incude 2 o's

[MAAT]

Eric wrote:

<quoted text>
I love it when lay people talk law.

I find it fascinating.
So would such a LLC only be allowed to operate in CT with CT clients?
And when business from elsewhere comes knocking is an LLC that sorted under an umbrella, cq. sister-organisation?
Then how would the liabiity be spread between LLC, umbrella and insurance? Does that involve a standard contract?

[MAAT]

Just proving that you tube is no match for Eric...
otherwise you're out of a job Eric.

[MAAT]

Hmm voluntarist.
If you are considering it.
You had better have the LLC carry the insurance, since though you are a pass-through non-entity, you could however be exposed to reversed piercing.

Eric having the time of his life now.:)

[MAAT]

Clarification: reversed ego piercing.

Americans invented all of this i.e. company as seperate identity.
I frankly have not gotten to the entire US and LLC's. I would certainly get legal advise first!

[MAAT]

The only JJ that rings a bell:
http://www.citeulike.org/user/jjray/article/1...

[MAAT]

Daft bunch over at Allah's.

Therefore:
HB wrote:
HughBe--- My dear Maat, your strong affection for me has blinded you to the fact that I am not a Judahite or member of Judaism. So, your secret code "f.i" is appropriate for Frijoles but not me.

end quote

F.I. FOR INSTANCE

Found in the English language, and is this thus not a secret jewsi codeword between me and Frijoles.

I also a.o. use at times:
I.E. id est
E.G. example given
etc. etcetera- a.s.o. and so on
a.o. amongst other(s)

[MUQ]

Eric wrote:

01. Now you changed your tirade. Your original position was that the Messianic should be able to live wherever they wanted. When I pointed out to you that the Messianic couldn't live in Mecca, now you are on another tirade that has nothing to do with your original point.

Make up your mind, please.

2

Damn-it, MUQ, this is where we started. The Arabs got 2/3 and the Israelis got 1/3. The Arabs didn't want that. They started a war and lost. They refused to negotiate peace even when the Israelis in 1950 offered to negotiate new border lines. The ARABS wanted it all. The Israelis wanted a state. The ARABS didn't want to allow them one. The Arabs have suffered ever since because of their intransigence.

Make up your mind.

Ans.

01. My mind is already made up. I said if Messianic Jews believe what their name signifies then they are the True Jews and True Christians.

But if they picked up this Title just as a "show" piece then they are like hundreds and thousands of so many sects and denominations in Judaism and Christianity.

Since when the question of their domicile came? Since they say Jew, so they should be welcome to live in Israel.

It was YOU who suggested that we take them in Makkah, I have no problem if they fulfill the Visa requirement for coming to Makkah.

It is you who should make up your mind.

02. do not damn us, but damn yourself, whom you are trying to fool by saying that Arabs got 2/3rd of Palestine in UNO award?

Since Jews constituted less than 10 % of population of Palestine in 1917, they should get only 10 % of the land, how they got 34 %(if we go by your logic)?

Giving 34 % land to 10 % of population was a grave injustice.

Since Jews were living without any state for 2000 years, they had forgotten all about how to run it. They thought that by being a bully is the best way to live.

It is not and it never pays. They should have formed friends with Arabs, but now it is too late.

My mind is already made up. Any state based on tyranny, injustice, mischief and bias has but a short leash of life.

Just check up if the Zionist state of Israel has any of these qualities.

[MUQ]

Jim wrote:

01. sincerely pray ask Jesus sincerely if he was God in the flesh, and died for our sins , to please help you, knock and the door will be open, seek and you will find,

02. Allah is not the same he is a fake, trust me millions know im telling the truth, the only true god is the jewish God, you should love your jewish brothers, if you truly hate the Zionist Jews God will never be close to anyone who does so, not Christian or Muslims,

Ans.

01. You are making claims about Jesus which he never made or was never even aware of.

So you are in fact dictating to Jesus what authority he should claim.

02. Allah is in Arabic what YHWH is in Hebrew and what God is in English.

The only difference is that Jews have soiled YHWH to make Him as their "racial God" that has special relationship with them.

The Christians have soiled their God by inserting two of God's Creations to share God-head with Him. One of these is a "human" Jesus and another is an "angel" of God called "Holy Spirit".

It is only Muslims that have pure concept of God, without any deviation or adulteration.

[MAAT]

All states have that. going by your definition.

second line from the bottom.

[JOEL]

MUQ TYPED:

Allah is in Arabic what YHWH is in Hebrew and what God is in English.

JOEL - These are not the synonyms of the same being as evidenced in their different characteristics/teachings.

[MAAT]

No but would they notice!

If you steal then claim it, but never state it's just the copy of the original hanging on your wall.
And soil it when the original owner comes to look.

Than blame him for 'the accident'. And for his exclusive relation.

[Voluntarist]

In a recent article published on the website of the
Brookings Institution, 30 year CIA veteran and current
Brookings senior fellow, Bruce Riedel talks false flag ops in
relation to Algerian counter-terrorism units. In his article
Algeria a Complex Ally in War Against al Qaeda, Riedel
gives a description of the Algerian counter-terrorism unit
DRS and its methods:
“(The) DRS is (…) known for its tactic of infiltrating
terrorist groups, creating “false flag” terrorists and trying
to control them.”, Riedel writes.“Rumors have associated
the DRS in the past with the Malian warlord Iyad Ag Ghali,
head of Ansar al Dine AQIM’s ally in Mali, and even with
Mukhtar Belmukhtar, the al-Qaeda terrorist who
engineered the attack on the natural gas plant.”
Here the CIA-vet admits that the Algerian intelligence
agency is in the business of “creating false flag terrorists”,
and that this agency is “rumored” to have ties to terrorist
attacks in North Africa. This statement is quite interesting,
as the very concept of “false flag” is usually labeled as
some outrageous conspiracy theory. We of course know
that false flag terrorism is standard modus operandi of
intelligence agencies all over the world. We are also
aware of the fact that the Brookings Institution is one of
the think tanks that warm to the idea of using false flag
attacks to attain public support for an invasion of Iran.

http://www.infowars.com/30-year-cia-vet-talks...

[rabbee yehoshooah adam]

JOEL wrote:

MUQ TYPED:
Allah is in Arabic what YHWH is in Hebrew and what God is in English.
JOEL - These are not the synonyms of the same being as evidenced in their different characteristics/teachings.

well i don't know what language yhwh is, but it most certainly is not Eevreet. and i know what YHVH means, and it don't mean All-h. and i do not think, yhwh is all german either. since that, would be pronounced: jhvh. and jehovah is not any where close to, what the tetragrammen means either. but in english, it would be RSHAS. but it gets really complex, in other languages.

[rabbee yehoshooah adam]

JOEL wrote:

MARRIAGE NEED NOT BE SANCTIFIED THROUGH A RELIGIOUS CEREMONY:
1) Marriage or living together sans marriage as the case may be are mere psychological, emotional, physical and material contracts between partners and this union as a result forges a close link in consciousness and energy between them which can be strong or feeble depending on the attachment and commitment between the partners.
2) Infidelity is simply breach of trust in the relationship and is on par with say violating the terms and conditions of a business contract.
3) Infidelity indicates lack of concentricity in the being which means that the balance of forces in the being are not centered or stable enough and tend to scatter or be attracted to other sources of attraction other than one's own and to the object of one's alliance.
4) Exchange of wows in religious ceremonies do not sanctify a union between partners by which I mean there's nothing "divine" or "sacred" about it - it's simply bringing into the individual and collective consciousness of both the partners the need to stay loyal and to nurture each other till the end. It is an act of counselling. Nothing deeper should be attached to religious ceremonies.

rabbee: worldly ceremonies, are for vain showing. they do not, sanctify any marriage. the only question than need be truly answered, is do you or do you not want to spend the rest of eternity with me?

being married to the rules of any organization, not really true to G-D. shall only result in tragic consequences.

and if you get married, for money, power, or material wealth, or sex then it is just plain prostitution, with an alleged long term john commitment.

[idgaf]

Frijoles wrote:

<quoted text>
You are correct that HISTORICALLY Israel has received enormous amounts of aid.
But CURRENTLY, this is no longer true for the factors already cited (Iraq, the development of the modern Israeli economy etc etc). Time has moved on, and Israels dependency has moved as well.
That past vs present is an important distinction.
So when people start discussing the issue of aid to Israel, often in my experience its either that they are unaware of the actual current facts, OR they are pushing a political agenda that supercedes any fact. In your case I assumed it was the former, not the latter.
I agree that our American geo-strategic concerns are more than oil. Our concerns are about global stability and terrorism. The middle east as a crossroads has always been an unstable place, and the delineation of post-colonial borders without regard to the natural peoples has exacerbated this instability. As a large nation-state I would hope that it is in our interest to do anything that fosters global stability. That includes allying with states with common interests in democracy and western values, as they are obvious partners with a common stake.

I think we are in violent agreement for the most part. I have no hidden agenda. These are serious questions that people tend not liking to answer. As for stability in the area, it comes back to American interests in the area which tend to be natural resources. I've been around long enough to understand that we don't do anything out of the goodness of our hearts or for our neighbors. There's always an interest. We can agree to have differing opinions. One question for you. You menationed somewhere back "Our". Are you dual citizenship? I'm assuming that you are an American-Jew and not a Jewish-American. America first, correct?

[JOEL]

WAS ADAM A MUSLIM AS ALLEGED BY RABID MUSLIMS?

Anyone who surrenders to a higher or lower principle as the case may be cannot be a follower of Islam since surrender is an impersonal and a universal trait, while the surrender demanded by Islam is to be specifically directed to a being called Allah.

Islamic surrender, as a religion, specifically enjoins or indicates the surrender of a human being to a supraphysical being called Allah.

Thus, if a man surrenders to a higher principle he is not following Islam in the narrow religious sense since submission is a common feature of the human consciousness.

A believer may submit to a saint, to a prophet, to an animal, to a whore, to a friend, to an employer, to the absolute, to the higher self, to Hashem, Vishnu, Allah, Lucifer or to any supraphysical being.

To consider every surrendered believer a Muslim is misleading since the object of surrender in each case may be different.

Only the exclusive surrender of a person to Allah can specifically be called Islam.

All other forms of surrender are forms of surrender in a non-Islamic sense as Allah is not the object of submission.

So, to label Adam a Muslim is incorrect since he surrendered to his personal G-d, YHVH/Hashem that is not the same as say Muhammad surrendering to his personal God called Allah.

If it can be proven that Hashem is the same as Allah then and then only can it be concluded that Adam was a Muslim or a surrendered follower of the being, Allah.

However, by any yardstick, it can easily be shown that the characteristics and teachings of Hashem, the Hebrew deity, are very different from those of the Muslim deity, Allah.

So, Adam was not a Muslim but simply a surrendered soul who made the surrender of his psychic to a being other than Allah who he knew as Hashem or YHVH.

[rabbee yehoshooah adam]

JOEL wrote:

WAS ADAM A MUSLIM AS ALLEGED BY RABID MUSLIMS?
Anyone who surrenders to a higher or lower principle as the case may be cannot be a follower of Islam since surrender is an impersonal and a universal trait, while the surrender demanded by Islam is to be specifically directed to a being called Allah.
Islamic surrender, as a religion, specifically enjoins or indicates the surrender of a human being to a supraphysical being called Allah.
Thus, if a man surrenders to a higher principle he is not following Islam in the narrow religious sense since submission is a common feature of the human consciousness.
A believer may submit to a saint, to a prophet, to an animal, to a whore, to a friend, to an employer, to the absolute, to the higher self, to Hashem, Vishnu, Allah, Lucifer or to any supraphysical being.
To consider every surrendered believer a Muslim is misleading since the object of surrender in each case may be different.
Only the exclusive surrender of a person to Allah can specifically be called Islam.
All other forms of surrender are forms of surrender in a non-Islamic sense as Allah is not the object of submission.
So, to label Adam a Muslim is incorrect since he surrendered to his personal G-d, YHVH/Hashem that is not the same as say Muhammad surrendering to his personal God called Allah.
If it can be proven that Hashem is the same as Allah then and then only can it be concluded that Adam was a Muslim or a surrendered follower of the being, Allah.
However, by any yardstick, it can easily be shown that the characteristics and teachings of Hashem, the Hebrew deity, are very different from those of the Muslim deity, Allah.
So, Adam was not a Muslim but simply a surrendered soul who made the surrender of his psychic to a being other than Allah who he knew as Hashem or YHVH.

rabbee: muhammed surrendered to an angel, not to G-D. and i know for a fact that not all angels, are as goodie goodie as you think. and there is even, a difference between Angels and angels. you should never assume, all angels represent G-D here in TheStory of Physical Creation. and assuming an angel is TheAngel Gabreeel after the fact, is an extreemly poor judgement.

[Frijoles]

idgaf wrote:

<quoted text>
I think we are in violent agreement for the most part. I have no hidden agenda. These are serious questions that people tend not liking to answer. As for stability in the area, it comes back to American interests in the area which tend to be natural resources. I've been around long enough to understand that we don't do anything out of the goodness of our hearts or for our neighbors. There's always an interest. We can agree to have differing opinions. One question for you. You menationed somewhere back "Our". Are you dual citizenship? I'm assuming that you are an American-Jew and not a Jewish-American. America first, correct?

violent agreement? lol...thats pretty strong words there

I dont have dual citizenship - I am American, but as I Jew I sometimes refer to Jews (Judaism, unlike Christianity, is a tribal religion which refers to a people). I flit back and forth probably between our meaning American and our meaning Jewish.

I think the natural resource you are alluding to is really the quality "stability" so as to allow us to pursue natural resources in other places of the world. Israel has nothing "natural" to offer us Americans except perhaps Ahava beauty products, and various food items like Israeli couscous and humus. If we(Americans) were truely in search of natural resources we would blow off Israel entirely and pursue the Arabs with their oil.

How much snow did you get?