Muhammed, the Muslim prophet

[Book of Ruthcaptain of 100]

I just have to add my two cents here:

Muhammed- born 570 AD, married wealth Roman Catholic Woman Khadija. They had four daughter one of which was named Fatima. Sound familiar? Yep, the Lady of Fatima who appeared in Fatima Portugal to 3 catholic children. Whom gave the 3 prophecies, 2 have been made public, the last one held by the pope, regarding the last world war.

Muhammed left for Middle East after the death of his wife very wealthy. Then we have the the start of Islam. Funded by the Roman Catholic's. Illumianti!!!

These two groups alone, catholics and muslims are approx. 4 billion people. There are only 6 billion on the earth. They are being highly controled, and the Middle Eastern Anti-Christ and the Roman False Prophet have some pretty strong ties.

570 AD + 1260 spoken of by Daniel= 1830 Coming forth of the Book of Mormon.

Very few people know of this connection, but it's no coincidence. We must preach the gospel to ALL the world.

[linj2flycaptain of 1,000]

My responses are in blue

I just have to add my two cents here:

Muhammed- born 570 AD, married wealth Roman Catholic Woman Khadija.

According to Muslim tradition:

Khadija was a wealthy (trades-woman) widow who was not polytheistic. It is not known for sure what her religion was in pre-islamic Arabia. There were three (minorities) monotheistic religions available at the time according to Dr. Daniel Peterson (http://rsc.byu.edu/pubDPetersonUnderstandingIslam.php): Christianity, Judaism, and Zoroastrianism. Khadija's uncle was christian.

They had four daughter one of which was named Fatima.

Mohammad and Khadija had a daughter named Fatimah (who married her father's cousin, Ali; this is the man which the minority sect, Shia, believes was Mohammad's rightful successor. However, Abu Bakr, succeeded Mohammad. This line of succession was/is supported by the Sunni's.)

Fatimah is a very popular muslim name. Khadija's mother's name was Fatimah as well.

Fatimah, Portugal: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ourém_Municipality#History[/url]

Under the Muslims, the village was apparently called Abdegas, but during the times of the Reconquista (12th century) it was called Portus de Auren, from which the name Ourém was later derived. According to popular myth, the name of the village is actually derived from a Moorish Princess who converted to Christianity under the name of Oureana.

The legend of the name of the village and Oureana is retold by Friar Bernardino de Brito in his Chronicle of the Order of Cister (1602): In a surprise attack on the St John's Day in 1158, a Christian knight, Gonçalo Hermigues and his companions kidnapped a Moorish princess with the famous Arab name of Fatima. The knight took Fatima to a small village of the recently-created Kingdom of Portugal, in the Serra de Aire hills. The princess fell in love with the Christian knight and decided to become herself a Christian, taking the name of Oureana. They got married and the princess received as prize the town which she called Ourém, after her name.
The name of the parish of Fátima of Ourém is probably related to this legend.

Sound familiar? Yep, the Lady of Fatima who appeared in Fatima Portugal to 3 catholic children. Whom gave the 3 prophecies, 2 have been made public, the last one held by the pope, regarding the last world war.

Our Lady of Fátima is a famous title given to the Blessed Virgin Mary as she appeared in apparitions reported by three shepherd children at Fátima in Portugal. These occurred on the 13th day of six consecutive months in 1917, starting on May 13. The three children were Lúcia dos Santos and her cousins Blessed Jacinta and Francisco Marto.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_of_Fatima

Muhammed left for Middle East after the death of his wife very wealthy. Then we have the the start of Islam. Funded by the Roman Catholic's. Illumianti!!!
The whole idea of the Roman Catholics having some part in the beginnings of Islam is refuted on this Sunni Forum: http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/printthread.php?t=3150
Apparently, the anti-catholic activist, Alberto Rivera is responsible this accusation. Read more about him here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Rivera#Allegations_that_the_Church_created_Islam
It includes his accusations, as well as the cornerstone expose on him. Is this the source from which you are repeating claims, book of ruth? Or is there another source I am missing?

These two groups alone, catholics and muslims are approx. 4 billion people. There are only 6 billion on the earth.
Yea, we've got our work cut out for us. Please permit me to kindly suggest that learning about our billions of other brothers and sisters from their own mouths/hearts will get us much further along in such a work than what is represented in your post. And if you are going to post something like that please provide sources.

They are being highly controlled by dictators who are installed/supported by western govts to protect said western govts' (political, military, and business) interests and the Middle Eastern Anti-Christ and the Roman False Prophet have some pretty strong ties.Please substantiate.

570 AD + 1260 spoken of by Daniel= 1830 Coming forth of the Book of Mormon.

Very few people know of this connection, but it's no coincidence. We must preach the gospel to ALL the world.

[pritchet1captain of 1,000]

Please look at the other posts we did regarding the promotion of Shariah Law, the Pedophelia of Muhammad, the other writings and links we posted regarding the writings of Muhammad, the constant accounts of the "Religion of Peace" destroying Christian peoples around the world, the true meaning of "Allah", Taquia and how to lie to Christians to subjugate them and what "gentiles are called" by Muslims, how we as western people are to be assimulated or destroyed, how Muslims who convert to Mormonism have to be 'hidden', so as not to be killed by their relatives, the concept of honor killings (justified murder), ad nauseum. Yadayadayada.

Yes, we need to learn their culture and traditions, so as to help them understand the fullness of the Gospel today.

Oh and when a Muslim family invites you to eat, take them up on it. Tradition is that when you do, you are no longer in the "enemy" camp, but are then protected by them from other Muslims intent on your destruction.

We do not need to be apologists for Islam. We do need to be mindful of the hornet's nest we walk into and how to protect ourselves.

When we get a temple in Saudi Arabia and the Book of Mormon is openly accepted in Islamic States, then I will accept Islam as the "Religion of Peace". Sharia Law is totally and completely antithetical to the Constitution of the United States and should not exist within the borders of the United States.

And yes, the POTUS is Muslim and represents Taquia at its best.

[linj2flycaptain of 1,000]

Please look at the other posts we did regarding the promotion of Shariah Law, the Pedophelia of Muhammad, the other writings and links we posted regarding the writings of Muhammad, the constant accounts of the "Religion of Peace" destroying Christian peoples around the world, the true meaning of "Allah", Taquia and how to lie to Christians to subjugate them and what "gentiles are called" by Muslims, how we as western people are to be assimulated or destroyed, how Muslims who convert to Mormonism have to be 'hidden', so as not to be killed by their relatives, the concept of honor killings (justified murder), ad nauseum. Yadayadayada.

Yes, we need to learn their culture and traditions, so as to help them understand the fullness of the Gospel today.

Oh and when a Muslim family invites you to eat, take them up on it. Tradition is that when you do, you are no longer in the "enemy" camp, but are then protected by them from other Muslims intent on your destruction.

We do not need to be apologists for Islam. We do need to be mindful of the hornet's nest we walk into and how to protect ourselves.

When we get a temple in Saudi Arabia and the Book of Mormon is openly accepted in Islamic States, then I will accept Islam as the "Religion of Peace". Sharia Law is totally and completely antithetical to the Constitution of the United States and should not exist within the borders of the United States.

And yes, the POTUS is Muslim and represents Taquia at its best.

I knew this was coming. Pritchet1, it's strikes as highly ironic that Mormons are engaging in practices that anti-mormons do. (i.e. repeating speculative [as in Book of Ruth's case] or making charges against Muslims that are still hotly debated today). I could insert Joseph Smith and Mormonism into several of the of the claims made of the Islamic faith, and it would be of the same tone and making as anti-Mormon literature. All I'm trying to encourage here is an application of the Golden Rule.

As I said earlier, I appreciate Krister Stendahl's rules of interfaith dialogue

I recall the words of Krister Stendahl, Lutheran Bishop of Stockholm, Sweden, and Dean of Divinity Emeritus, Harvard University. At a press conference in 1985 he offered three rules for interfaith discussion. The event was related by Truman G. Madsen, professor at Brigham Young University who was in attendance at the press conference (see video).

Madsen: “Professor Krister Stendahl, of Harvard Divinity School, became the Bishop of Stockholm, in Sweden. During a visit we made there, he called a press conference, invited various of his friends, and then said the following;

“He said, ‘I have three rules for interfaith discussion, to wit:

Number one: If you’re going to ask the question, what do others believe, in their various faiths, ask them – not their critics, not their enemies.’” (see also Mauss Interview)

Stendahl: “Because what one religious tradition says about another is usually a breach against the commandment, ‘Thou shalt not bear false witness’.”

Madsen: “‘Number two: if you’re going to compare, don’t compare your bests with their worsts, but compare bests with bests.’”

Stendahl: “Most people think of their own tradition as it is at its best and they use caricatures of the others.”

Madsen: “And then number three, he said, ‘Leave room for holy envy’ and then he said, ‘Let me give you an example of my holy envy for the Latter Day Saints: We Lutherans, when we lose our loved ones, we have funerals, we have cemeteries, but that ends our concern with those who have gone before. But the Latter-Day Saints care about their forebearers to the point that they want to bring the blessings of Christ’s atonement to them, so they build temples, and according to Paul’s instruction in First Corinthians, they perform baptisms for the dead,’ and then he smiled and said, ‘I have holy envy for that.’”

Stendahl: “In a world where we finally have learned what I call the “holy envy”, it’s a beautiful thing; I could think of myself as taking part in such an act, extending the blessings that have come to me in and through Jesus Christ. That’s generous, that’s beautiful, and should not be ridiculed or spoken badly of.” Citied from “Between Heaven and Earth” DVD, 2002, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Yes, I've heard all the things that you stated in your first paragraph. I understand the suspicion and fear regarding sharia law. But as far as I can ascertain, these things are being said from the viewpoint of Islam's enemies, whether they be non-muslim or ex-muslim. We certainly don't like it when non-mormons and ex-mormons speak for us, nor do we wish for people to view us through their lens. How many Muslim voices have you listened to on these issues. Have you given them equal time?

[sourcedistcaptain of 100]

Dalin H Oaks speaks on tolerance.. in this talk he also cites Islam.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICyPwr3Y-ZI

[Book of Ruthcaptain of 100]

If my comments were interpreted as being against anyone, that was absolutely not my intent, and I'm sorry. It is hard to convey conjuncture in writing.

One of my very good friends in Sunni. He has attended LDS meetings, and the most common difficulties when investigating the church did not phase him a bit. (i.e. polygamy) He quit understood how the position of the Prophet fell to Brigham Young, and not to Joseph's son.

Here is my point, is the religion of Islam false? Yes. Is the Catholic church false? Yes. Are they both the "Mother of Abominations"? Yes. Is Satan behind both? Yes. Are there very good people who belong to both of these organizations? Yes. They are both being controled by Satan.

The Fourth Samaritan Revolt against Byzantium (The Byzantine Empire (or Byzantium) was the Eastern Roman Empire during the periods of Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, centred on the capital of Constantinople. Known simply as the Roman Empire) results in great reduction of the Samaritan community, their Israelite faith is outlawed. Neighbouring Jews, who mostly reside in Galilee, are also affected by the oppressive rule of the Byzantines.
Browning, Robert (1992). The Byzantine Empire. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press. ISBN 0-8132-0754-1.

Islam is the answer to Romes Jewish problems. Haven't you ever wondered why they hate the Jews so much, and that they call for their destruction? How they cannot co-exist? This is same warfare that is constantly used today. Problem, Reaction, Solution.

**And I completely agree with the western backed dictators being placed in power. That is what I am saying happened with the creation of Islam

[linj2flycaptain of 1,000]

If my comments were interpreted as being against anyone, that was absolutely not my intent, and I'm sorry. It is hard to convey conjuncture in writing.

Understood. I apologize for misunderstanding your intent.

One of my very good friends in Sunni. He has attended LDS meetings, and the most common difficulties when investigating the church did not faze him a bit. (i.e. polygamy) He quit understood how the position of the Prophet fell to Brigham Young, and not to Joseph's son. These are points I find interesting because they share a familiar narrative.

Here is my point, is the religion of Islam false? Yes. Is the Catholic church false? Yes. Are they both the "Mother of Abominations"? Yes. Is Satan behind both? Yes. Are there very good people who belong to both of these organizations? Yes. They are both being controled by Satan.

So I don't misunderstand you, are you saying that these organizations, as far as precepts concerned, are 100% false, or are you talking about authority/leadership? I agree with you as far as authority goes, but if you are talking about precepts, then that is where we disagree. I believe there are portions of truth to be found in other religions, and that these can be bridges of understanding (and, therefore, the beginnings of a better relationship) between people of our faith and theirs. I believe as the first presidency stated, that Mohammad was given a 'portion of light,' and that is what I look for in their religion. I do believe that Satan is behind the perverting of truth to bring about the spiritual and physical destruction of God's children. I think he has been very successful with this throughout world history, including, but certainly not limited to, Christian, Judaic, and Islamic nations.

The Fourth Samaritan Revolt against Byzantium (The Byzantine Empire (or Byzantium) was the Eastern Roman Empire during the periods of Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, centred on the capital of Constantinople. Known simply as the Roman Empire) results in great reduction of the Samaritan community, their Israelite faith is outlawed. Neighbouring Jews, who mostly reside in Galilee, are also affected by the oppressive rule of the Byzantines.
Browning, Robert (1992). The Byzantine Empire. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press. ISBN 0-8132-0754-1.
This happened in 556, before Muhammad was born. Again, to clarify, are you saying that the Samaritans/Jews were the 'problem' the Eastern Roman Empire was having? And that creating Islam is how they attempted to solve it? If so, the conquerors were surely having a problem with the native population, but to jump to the conclusion that Islam is how they solved it is still a jump based on speculation. How do you reconcile your view with this--specifically the part where it says that 'morals truths were given to them by God...':
http://emp.byui.edu/SatterfieldB/FDINT203/FIrst%20Presidency%20Statement%20Feb%201978.html

Islam is the answer to Romes Jewish problems. Haven't you ever wondered why they hate the Jews so much, and that they call for their destruction? How they cannot co-exist? This is same warfare that is constantly used today. Problem, Reaction, Solution. Does your Sunni friend concur with this assessment? Why or why not?

[LDSguycaptain of 100]

There are only 6 billion on the earth.

I just wanted to add that there are now approx. 7 billion people on Earth.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2011-10-30/world-population-hits-seven-billion/51007670/1

[LDSguycaptain of 100]

I agree that

570 AD + 1260 spoken of by Daniel= 1830 Coming forth of the Book of Mormon.

I'm just not sure how that relates to your history lesson on Muhammad other than the church was restored in 1830 after 1260 years prophesied by Daniel since 570 AD and since the restoration has occurred we need to preach the gospel to the 4 billion Catholics/Muslims you talked about.

Maybe I missed something?

[Book of Ruthcaptain of 100]

linj2
So I don't misunderstand you, are you saying that these organizations, as far as precepts concerned, are 100% false, or are you talking about authority/leadership? I agree with you as far as authority goes, but if you are talking about precepts, then that is where we disagree.
[color=#FF0000]I'm talking about authority.
I believe there are portions of truth to be found in other religions, and that these can be bridges of understanding (and, therefore, the beginnings of a better relationship) between people of our faith and theirs.
Yes, I believe they have a portion of truth, that is what muddies the waters, they do not have the full truth. This is exactly how Satan does it so well, he mixes truth with lies.

I believe as the first presidency stated, that Mohammad was given a 'portion of light,' and that is what I look for in their religion. I do believe that Satan is behind the perverting of truth to bring about the spiritual and physical destruction of God's children. I think he has been very successful with this throughout world history, including, but certainly not limited to, Christian, Judaic, and Islamic nations. [/color] Full Agreement

The Fourth Samaritan Revolt against Byzantium (The Byzantine Empire (or Byzantium) was the Eastern Roman Empire during the periods of Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, centred on the capital of Constantinople. Known simply as the Roman Empire) results in great reduction of the Samaritan community, their Israelite faith is outlawed. Neighbouring Jews, who mostly reside in Galilee, are also affected by the oppressive rule of the Byzantines.
Browning, Robert (1992). The Byzantine Empire. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press. ISBN 0-8132-0754-1.
This happened in 556, before Muhammad was born. Yes, I know. This problem was before the coming of the Savior.

Again, to clarify, are you saying that the Samaritans/Jews were the 'problem' the Eastern Roman Empire was having? And that creating Islam is how they attempted to solve it? If so, the conquerors were surely having a problem with the native population, but to jump to the conclusion that Islam is how they solved it is still a jump based on speculation. How do you reconcile your view with this--specifically the part where it says that 'morals truths were given to them by God...':
http://emp.byui.edu/SatterfieldB/FDINT203/FIrst%20Presidency%20Statement%20Feb%201978.html
Moral truths does not equal true religion.

Islam is the answer to Romes Jewish problems. Haven't you ever wondered why they hate the Jews so much, and that they call for their destruction? How they cannot co-exist? This is same warfare that is constantly used today. Problem, Reaction, Solution. Does your Sunni friend concur with this assessment? Why or why not?[/quote][/quote]
This is a lengthy answer.

[Book of Ruthcaptain of 100]

More detail in the Muhammed timeline. Rome had problems with the Jews for centuries prior to Muhammed's birth. In AD 70 Rome destroyed the temple in Jerusalem. This should of squashed the Jews, and they should of stopped up-risings and they should of done whatever Rome told them to, and be the slaves they should of been. (over simplifying I know) But they didn't bow to Rome. Then you have another group, the Christians. They rebelled and no matter how many Rome killed, they kept preaching Christianity. So..... Rome gave them Christianity in its adulterated form--Catholicism. Now the Roman Empire had control over the church and state so to speak. We know Christians kept preaching, but for the most part this passified them so that they would quit rebelling. But what about the Jews? They would not leave Jerusalem, this is their Holy City where the Messiah would come. So..... A new religion, one that would build upon the place where the Jewish temple once stood should surely humiliate the Jews once and for all. And this new religion was set-up to destroy the Jews.

About my friend the Sunni, he's in America for a reason. Sunni is Osama Bin Laden and the Muslim Brotherhood. Shi' is 12 imam which is hastened through wiping the little and great Satan's off the map. My Sunni friend is kind and happy, his mother will pick out a bride for him in his home country, and if she (the bride) does not please him, his mother will continue to pick out wives for him. All women do not have rights in his belief system, they are property meant to serve the men. He is a regular Sunni, and he has friends here, but he knows that the infidels will have to die by Allah.

[linj2flycaptain of 1,000]

Book of Ruth:
Yes, I believe they have a portion of truth, that is what muddies the waters, they do not have the full truth. This is exactly how Satan does it so well, he mixes truth with lies.

Agree with this general statement.

But this is why I brought up the First Presidency's statement, which is saying he received a 'portion of light' and 'moral truths' from God. He did not receive the 'portion' from Satan as you seem to be saying in the above statement and with your thesis that Islam is a creation of the Catholic Church. So which is it? Can it be both? How? As I've said in previous posts, religion is the oft exploited means by which conquest and killing is justified. I know they don't have a pretty picture and neither do we on this account. No argument about this aspect of history, but you have not proven anything beyond conjecture and speculation regarding a Roman Catholic Connection. Is it possible? Maybe. Is it possible that Mohammad was inspired by God (which is already affirmed by the 1st pres so far as light is concerned) and that it devolved from there....yea. It's not like that's an isolated pattern.

This problem was before the coming of the Savior.

(Agreed)

Moral truths does not equal true religion.

---I never argued that....I was merely pointing out from whom he received light...as opposed to some satanic plot/influence from the Roman Catholic church. That is why I asked you to reconcile it. How do you think they can both be true?

[pritchet1captain of 1,000]

The First Presidency was being politically correct on this one. Just like they can't condemn Communism nay longer since by doing so, it shuts down operations in Communist states around the world. So now we ARE a Communist state and apparently soon to be a Muslim state the way things are going.

Welcome to the new Caliphate in DC (or Michigan or...)

http://www.dhimmitude.org/

How's that Dhimmitude doing for you anyway?

Dhimmitude: the Islamic system of governing populations conquered by jihad wars, encompassing all of the demographic, ethnic, and religious aspects of the political system. The word "dhimmitude" as a historical concept, was coined by Bat Ye'or in 1983 to describe the legal and social conditions of Jews and Christians subjected to Islamic rule. The word "dhimmitude" comes from dhimmi, an Arabic word meaning "protected". Dhimmi was the name applied by the Arab-Muslim conquerors to indigenous non-Muslim populations who surrendered by a treaty (dhimma) to Muslim domination. Islamic conquests expanded over vast territories in Africa, Europe and Asia, for over a millennium (638-1683). The Muslim empire incorporated numerous varied peoples which had their own religion, culture, language and civilization. For centuries, these indigenous, pre-Islamic peoples constituted the great majority of the population of the Islamic lands. Although these populations differed, they were ruled by the same type of laws, based on the shari'a.

This similarity, which includes also regional variations, has created a uniform civilization developed throughout the centuries by all non-Muslim indigenous people, who were vanquished by a jihad-war and governed by shari'a law. It is this civilization which is called dhimmitude. It is characterized by the different strategies developed by each dhimmi group to survive as non-Muslim entity in their Islamized countries. Dhimmitude is not exclusively concerned with Muslim history and civilization. Rather it investigates the history of those non-Muslim peoples conquered and colonized by jihad.

Dhimmitude encompasses the relationship of Muslims and non-Muslims at the theological, social, political and economical levels. It also incorporates the relationship between the numerous ethno-religious dhimmi groups and the type of mentality that they have developed out of their particular historical condition which lasted for centuries, even in some Muslim countries, till today.

Dhimmitude is an entire integrated system, based on Islamic theology. It cannot be judged from the circumstantial position of any one community, at a given time and in a given place. Dhimmitude must be appraised according to its laws and customs, irrespectively of circumstances and political contingencies.

For books by Bat Ye'or, see www.dhimmi.org

[AussieOicaptain of 1,000]

So you're telling me then that Dallin Oak's comment re Income tax was just being PC to the govt? I don't have to really believe that

What abou tour opposition to Prop 8? Or the queer Exec Sec? shall I go on?

We've had this thread 3 times before. Went for 40 pages or whatever

everything brought up about islam and sharia law i countered with quotes from christ (i bring not peace but a sword, mother against daughter)
female circumcision is bad but apparently male circumcision is acceptable?
i mean thats the biggest joke of them all

here in Australia only religious freaks and Jews circumcise their sons. why? because it is sheer butchery.
and as LDS we have it in black and white, from GOD himself, that circumcision IS DONE AWAY with, in christ
it isn't needed anymore
it is about a jewish covenent

and yet americans are the #1 butcher of their sons penis', and LDS are up there with the highest %
and it is butchery
utter butchery
soe of you rabbit on about hygeine what rubbish
do you lift your arm-pit to wash or cut your arms off? what about your butt-cheeks? do you lop those off also

and come on here and tell me that islam are butcher, and oppress their women

tell me, how long ago did women get the vote again?
how long ago could they borrow?
weren't they a "chattel" of their husbands?


extreme islam is probably what the USA looked like when those religious extremist nutjob pilgrims arrived 400 years ago
i seem to remember they drowned a few girls as being witches no?

give islam 300 years to compare it please.

i could go on but we did this conversation 50 times

the Baptist pastor
USA wars in Iraq, i mean slaughters

and yet Jews reside comfortably in Iran and did in Iraq...oh, until the USA came in there.


and ou send your boys to die for corporate greed and they kill the moderates, the ones_without_a state religion, and your country buddies up with the #1 oppressive state of them all, saudio arabia.
but apparently its about womens freedom?

meanwhile, over on MTV...

these threads pander to inherent prejudice which never appears to develop

[pritchet1captain of 1,000]

Did we hit a hot button Aussie?

[linj2flycaptain of 1,000]

I do not think they were being polite. It was not an isolated comment, and they did not have to make such a statement. Further...President Faust affirms this teaching (found at the same link).

I will add one more witness, that of Pres. Howard, who also affirms Elder Orson Whitney's teaching:

Our Heavenly Father loves all his children and so should we. It should be manifestly evident to members of the Church that our Father loves all of his children. He desires all of them to embrace the gospel and come unto him. Only those are favored who obey him and keep his commandments.

As members of the Lord's church, we need to lift our vision beyond personal prejudices. We need to discover the supreme truth that indeed our Father is no respecter of persons. Sometimes we unduly offend brothers and sisters of other nations by assigning exclusiveness to one nationality of people over another.

We have members of the Church in the Muslim world. These are wonderful Saints, good members of the Church. They live in Iran, Egypt, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and other countries. Sometimes they are offended by members of the Church who give the impression that we favor only the aims of the Jews. The Church has an interest in all of Abraham's descendants, and we should remember that the history of the Arabs goes back to Abraham through his son Ishmael.

Imagine a father with many sons, each having different temperaments, aptitudes, and spiritual traits. Does he love one son less than another? Perhaps the son who is least spiritually inclined has the father's attention, prayers, and pleadings more than the others. Does that mean he loves the others less? Do you imagine our Heavenly Father loving one nationality of his offspring more exclusively than others? As members of the Church, we need to be reminded of Nephi's challenging question: "Know ye not that there are more nations than one?" (2 Nephi 29:7). (79-01, p. 35)

Love of God and man is the fundamental commandment of Christians. "And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

"And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these." (Mark 12:30-31.)

The logic of this is simple, clear, and unequivocal: the proof of love of God is love of one's brother. This becomes the fundamental commandment of Christianity. This was the religion taught by the Master. How happy would society be were these two plain, rational precepts properly observed: Love me, and love thy fellows.

The living of this commandment by all men would restore peace to the earth. It would cause them to love the Lord and thereby keep his commandments; thus the troubles of our age would vanish, and man's happiness in a moral world would result. (66-03, p. 517)

A cabinet minister of Egypt once told me that if a bridge is ever built between Christianity and Islam, it must be built by the Mormon Church. In making inquiry as to the reason for his statement, I was impressed by his recitation of the similarities and the common bonds of brotherhood.

Both the Jews and the Arabs are children of our Father. They are both children of promise, and as a church we do not take sides. We have love for and an interest in each. The purpose of the gospel of Jesus Christ is to bring about love, unity, and brotherhood of the highest order. Like Nephi of old, may we be able to say, "I have charity for the Jew. I also have charity for the Gentiles." (2 Nephi 33:8, 9.) (79-01, p. 36)

All of mankind share an inheritance of divine light. We believe there is a spiritual influence that emanates from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space (see D&C 88:12). All men share an inheritance of divine light. God operates among his children in all nations, and those who seek God are entitled to further light and knowledge, regardless of their race, nationality, or cultural traditions.

Elder Orson F. Whitney, in a conference address, explained that many great religious leaders were inspired. He said: "[God] is using not only his covenant people, but other peoples as well, to consummate a work, stupendous, magnificent, and altogether too arduous for this little handful of Saints to accomplish by and of themselves.

"All down the ages men bearing the authority of the Holy Priesthood—patriarchs, prophets, apostles and others, have officiated in the name of the Lord, doing the things that he required of them; and outside the pale of their activities other good and great men, not bearing the Priesthood, but possessing profundity of thought, great wisdom, and a desire to uplift their fellows, have been sent by the Almighty into many nations, to give them, not the fulness of the Gospel, but that portion of truth that they were able to receive and wisely use." (In Conference Report, April 1921, pp. 32-33.) (91-04, p. 19)

Love of God and love of our fellowman are inseparable. Eternal life, God's life, the life we are seeking, is rooted in two commandments. The scriptures say that "on these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets" (Matthew 22:40). Love God and love your neighbor. The two work together; they are inseparable. In the highest sense they may be considered as synonymous. And they are commandments that each of us can live. (86-03, p. 34)

(All of these quotes are found in "The Teachings of President Howard W. Hunter," Ch. 7)

So far as I can tell, 6 prophets and apostles have affirmed this teaching; that passes the law of witnesses, and finally....

Missionary work cannot succeed long term without Charity. People don't care what you know until they know that you care.

[pritchet1captain of 1,000]

Apologize yourself out of this Taquia activity -

http://pjmedia.com/blog/stonewall-napol ... -elibiary/

It’s been nearly five weeks since I broke the story exclusively at PJ Media: Homeland Security Advisory Council member Mohamed Elibiary downloaded sensitive Texas Department of Public Safety reports from the Homeland Security State and Local Intelligence Community of Interest (HS SLIC) database, then shopped them to at least one left-leaning media outlet. Elibiary claimed the reports represented a pattern of “Islamophobia” under GOP presidential hopeful Rick Perry’s watch.

As I reported, the publication declined to publish anything on the leaked materials — which were marked “For Official Use Only” (FOUO) — after finding that there was no “Islamophobia” to be found. TX DPS Director Steve McCraw confirmed to me that Elibiary had in fact accessed and downloaded his agency’s reports on the HS SLIC. Elibiary also serves on the TX DPS Advisory Council.

In the five weeks since, neither Secretary Napolitano nor the Department of Homeland Security has commented on the matter.

Before publishing the original article, I spoke with DHS spokesman Chris Ortman. After grilling me about the nature of my source, he immediately terminated the conversation after I asked him how and when Elibiary got access to the HS SLIC system, telling me he would have to get back to me.

Needless to say, I’m still waiting for that return phone call, despite follow-up emails.

The questions I am looking to get answered:

1) When did Elibiary get access to the HS SLIC system, and who approved it?

2) Why was Elibiary the only member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council — he is one of 26 members — to get access to that system?

3) What is the status of the investigation requested by TX DPS Director McCraw into Elibiary’s leaking his agency’s documents to the media?

4) What other sensitive government databases did/does Elibiary still have access to, since he works with other agencies (e.g., FBI, National Counterterrorism Center, Office of the Director of National Intelligence)?

5) Is there evidence that Elibiary leaked sensitive documents and reports to other media outlets?

Admittedly, I’m not alone in failing to get answers about the matter. When Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) questioned Napolitano about Elibiary when she was before the House Judiciary Committee the day my initial report appeared, Napolitano feigned ignorance (we know her senior aides had been briefed by TX DPS the night before):

Gohmert: Secretary, were you aware that a week ago today, from his home computer, he accessed the SLIC database, got information off and has been shopping a story to national media on islamophobia … [inaudible] … at the Governor of Texas and the security folks in Texas. Were you aware of that?

Napolitano: No.

Gohmert: I’m telling you, it happened. Do we need to appoint somebody or will you have that investigated yourself, and if so, by whom?

Napolitano: Well, since I don’t know the facts, I’ll have to look into that.

In the video, Napolitano seemed unfazed that one of her top advisers was being accused of leaking sensitive intelligence for partisan political purposes, with corroborating evidence being given by the director of one of the top state homeland security agencies in the country. Was she lying about not knowing? If she wasn’t, it doesn’t speak well of her staff that they failed to inform her. Perhaps that’s something for Congress to take a look at as well.

But it isn’t just Congress that’s being stonewalled on the Elibiary matter.

I'm just really surprise (NOT) at the ignorance in supporting a quasi-religion based on lying cheating, stealing, sex with minors, murdering and saying their God is Allah - who is in fact Satan - and is totally, unequivocally opposed to free agency and the Constitutional principles we supposedly defend.

When you offer an Olive Branch and the other individual is holding a sword, don't be surprise if the last thing you see is the arm missing from your body, still holding the Olive branch as you bleed to death.

[Tribunalcaptain of 1,000]

linj2fly, have you actually experienced Muslims in Muslim countries where a vast majority of the people are Muslim? If so where? And this doesn't include Michigan.

[pritchet1captain of 1,000]

Let me know when the policy of the church changes regarding baptizing a person who is in a Muslim family (Not Black Muslims in the USSA, but those from Islamic states). Current policy is to keep it secret, so as not to cause the person being baptized from being killed by those who profess the "Religion of Peace" after he or she joins the church. These killings are not "extremism", they are standard practice that has gone on for centuries.

[AshleyBcaptain of 1,000]

Great thread linj2fly. I had a muslim friend in high school and she was one of the sweetest, meekest people I ever met. In fact if it wasn't for her tutoring me I wouldn't have done as well in our math class as I did. But I would often ask her questions about her religion and she would always very kindly and patiently answer any questions I had. I came away with the conclusion that you just can't broadly generalize people. And before I became lds I looked into a few religions. I still have good friends who worship Meher Baba and though I disagree with a good portion of their religion I found that there were many other things we had in common and still lots of good truths within their religion and all the people I met were very kind. I think it's so important to try and look for the good in all people and religions and not focus so much on disagreements and spend time judging people when we are not equipt to make such judgments. Of course there are evil or "extreme" people out there in every religion, race, and culture. But spending time focusing on those things and being so intolerant of other's just breeds more evil. We don't have to be naive but we don't have to be cynical about the world either. My dad was so cynical about so many things and I saw how unhappy it made him. It's a big part of the reason why I went so opposite and probably partly why I am now LDS. There is some bit of truth in all religions. And Iv'e always felt that there are still things I can learn from people even if they aren't lds. If more people of differing faith's could learn to be more accepting and loving and even open minded we wouldn't have many of the problems we do and the gospel would spread much faster. It doesn't mean we have to always agree with each other but we don't have to focus on those disagreements and look down on someone else because of those differences. We are all children of the same loving Father and we are all on equal ground. I think many people will be surprised at how many people who were muslim or catholic or baptist while on the earth will end up in the celestial kingdom. That's just my 2 cents.

[7cylon7captain of 1,000]

Book of Ruth:
Yes, I believe they have a portion of truth, that is what muddies the waters, they do not have the full truth. This is exactly how Satan does it so well, he mixes truth with lies.

Agree with this general statement.

But this is why I brought up the First Presidency's statement, which is saying he received a 'portion of light' and 'moral truths' from God. He did not receive the 'portion' from Satan as you seem to be saying in the above statement and with your thesis that Islam is a creation of the Catholic Church. So which is it? Can it be both? How? As I've said in previous posts, religion is the oft exploited means by which conquest and killing is justified. I know they don't have a pretty picture and neither do we on this account. No argument about this aspect of history, but you have not proven anything beyond conjecture and speculation regarding a Roman Catholic Connection. Is it possible? Maybe. Is it possible that Mohammad was inspired by God (which is already affirmed by the 1st pres so far as light is concerned) and that it devolved from there....yea. It's not like that's an isolated pattern.

This problem was before the coming of the Savior.

(Agreed)

Moral truths does not equal true religion.

I see you have the koolaid in front of you just don't drink it. Any course about Islam given is going to be super kind to their faith so as not to get the death sentence pronounced on them like the guy who did one comic strip about him. Dead. That is a religion of peace of yes. Book of Ruth has more truth than you do my friend. Islam was created by the Roman Empire or the Roman Church to rid themselves of the Jews. All men have the portion of light given to them. Satan has a portion of light for pete sake. You take a small statement and take it way out of proportion (from the first presidency). What little light Islam had it is now buried and gone. They are even now being used to provoke the US and Israel and WWIII is being set up. They are true masters at deception. They have all the money and power and go to the best schools. They make the rules that we have to follow. The US constitution tried to keep Satan at bay but only good men following it will uphold it or else it falls.

---I never argued that....I was merely pointing out from whom he received light...as opposed to some satanic plot/influence from the Roman Catholic church. That is why I asked you to reconcile it. How do you think they can both be true?

[pritchet1captain of 1,000]

Lucifer=Lightbearer, Son of the Morning (Dawn), Morning Star, no? Maybe the color of the light matters.

[paper facecaptain of 100]

He was a Son of the Morning before, not after, his rebellion. Meaning that his light was bright and pure. He used to be on our side.

But he was reborn through darkness. Darkness is a womb, you see. Just like a font. Once you come out of the womb, you get a new name. You take on a new identity.

Vengeance is also a womb. Once you pass through it, you are never the same person. You are endowed with all the power that hate affords. It changes your speech, your countenance, and the way you see.

Did you ever read Moby Dick? Few Americans have, and that's too bad because it's 500 pages+ long, and all about what happens to people when they succumb to vengeance. Just like the Book of Mormon. Both carry a message about vengeance that is so vital to their continent of origin, yet few there be that ever take the plunge.

Ahab was a projectionist. He projected all of the accumulated anger, bile and hatred within him onto the "screen" that was the whale. He was like a madman attacking the silver screen in a movie theater with a harpoon in the middle of a film. Was the whale guilty of all of that stuff? No. But Ahab stabbed him anyway. What people don't get is that we all do this, we all project what we choose on to others.

I forgive Islam for having bad apples. I forgive the generalities concerning the West that their general populace may or may not espouse. I don't care about their traditions of war, or Jihad. I'm more interested in how we can relate to them, and as a Mormon, I think it begins with the fact that their women have veiled faces.

[liberty_bellecaptain of 100]

This has been a very great thread, has added insight to my enquiring mind. A couple of thoughts

1. Has anyone read the Talmud?

I am in the process of trying to read it. All I can say is WOW, the Quran has nothing on the Talmud. I had no idea!

2.

by Book of Ruth » Mon Nov 28, 2011 7:44 pm
I just have to add my two cents here:

Muhammed- born 570 AD, married wealth Roman Catholic Woman Khadija. They had four daughter one of which was named Fatima. Sound familiar? Yep, the Lady of Fatima who appeared in Fatima Portugal to 3 catholic children. Whom gave the 3 prophecies, 2 have been made public, the last one held by the pope, regarding the last world war.

Muhammed left for Middle East after the death of his wife very wealthy. Then we have the the start of Islam. Funded by the Roman Catholic's. Illumianti!!!

These two groups alone, catholics and muslims are approx. 4 billion people. There are only 6 billion on the earth. They are being highly controled, and the Middle Eastern Anti-Christ and the Roman False Prophet have some pretty strong ties.

570 AD + 1260 spoken of by Daniel= 1830 Coming forth of the Book of Mormon.

Very few people know of this connection, but it's no coincidence. We must preach the gospel to ALL the world.

About 6 months ago I watched a seminar from Prof Veith who talks about this very thing. That was astounding and has been something that has really caused me a great deal of scriptural study into this very thing. There are a ton of ideas about who is the Anti-Christ, etc.... so when I learned this connection it really made me wonder just how this will play out in the end.

Then, as I stated on the Israel thread, I started doing research into that whole set up (Rothschilds behind the formation of the State of Israel)....found out that 90% of those who are Jews are actually not from the House of Israel. They come from the Khazar Kingdom (of which the Rothschilds are descendants of) and converted to Judaism embracing the Pharasiac Law, The Talmud (which is also an instruction manual for all kind of deviance, read up on Kol Nidre Prayer before the Day of Atonement).

I am have been thinking for the past few weeks about how all this plays a role together. The bottom line, I separate the People from the Governments because we are used for the agenda. However, by their deceits we end up becoming products of these evil entities.

I would love any information you could share that can shed light on either of these subjects. Thanks

[Book of Ruthcaptain of 100]

Liberty Belle- thanks so muchfor your post. I whole heartly agree, seperate the people from the manipulation of Governments/Bankers and the world starts making more sense.

I wanted to post this: I just spent a Q & A hour long session with a very good Shi'a. I didn't hold back on any of my questions, and he didn't hold back on his answers, and it was very educational. This is taken from my very recent memory of 3 hours ago, so it is still fresh, but know this is from a conversation that I had with someone, and their answers.

Me: Who is Jesus?
Shi'a: He is a very good prophet who ran into a cave when the soldiers came to arrest him. They did not crucify him, he is not the Son of God. They crucified the wrong man, and Jesus went to heaven. He will return with the Mahdi.

Me: What is the Shi'a line of authority?
Shi'a: Muhommed then to Ali (Fatimah's husband) cousin to Muhommed. This will be the lineage of the Imam.

Me: Why does Ahmadinejad keep calling for the return of the Mahdi, and can he hasten it?
Shi'a: All Shi'a pray for the Mahdi to return soon so that we can be in his army. Ahmadniejad is not the one we listen to he cannot hasten the Mahdi, it is Ayatollah Khamenei that we listen too.

Me: Is the US the "Great Satan", and Israel the "Little Satan, and will Israel be annihilated?
Shi'a: The US government has caused great crimes against Muslims. Israel is very bad, and they have displaced many Palestinians. The Israelites came to Arabia from Egypt from Moses then scattered and went to Jerusalem. When the crusades came, the Jews chose to abandon Jerusalem rather than fight. They went to Europe, and they are Europeans. When WWII no one wanted the Jews, and they put them right in the Muslims Holy land, the largest insult you could give to Muslims.

Me: So in the end, does Israel have to go?
Shi’a: They are very bad.

Shi’a: Islam is very specific, that if you are not at war with someone they are your brother. Killing them would be as killing yourself. You must have declared war before you fight, then you fight with everything you ever have or can think of.

There is more, but this is really long already. It just finally made sense why all the provocation. They must have war declared, then no holds bar, and all of Islam will fight until the return of the Mahdi when they can fight in his army. (I have more info on this specifically)

[liberty_bellecaptain of 100]

Book of Ruth: Awesome! Post as soon as you can.

So basically what I get from his answer about Israel is that when they had the opportunity to fight for their land, they didn't. They abandoned the land and therefore lost their "rights" to the land?

Another thing of interest was his statement about how Israel came back into the land and their treatment of the Palastinians who lived there. It reminds me of a couple of things.

1. The People of Ammon needed a place to live and the Nephites consulted together and together came the voice that they would give the Land of Jershon to them. Now you know that the people living there are the ones that offered it willingly. It was not taken from them by force. They also were not forced to accept a colonized people. As a result there was peace within the Nephite Nation because they became part of the Nephites and worked with them.

2. Kirtland and Nauvoo days where the people paid for their lands and did not just take what they wanted. Even today, when the Church obtains any property it either freely donated or they pay fair price for it.

I think that there is a real principle here. the Balfour Declaration of 1917 expressed to Herzel that the Jews could go to Palestine on the condition:

His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.[

Even though this document became hotly debated, it seems clear to me that its intent was to protect all those who already lived there.

I am not a trusting fan of wikipedia but this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration_of_1917 does have some excellent parts of letters that really tells a story of just how the Palastinians basically had no choice in the matter.

Now, I wonder how any of us feel if we were in the Palastinians and Arab's position? Needless to say I believe they have a legitimate complaint. The Palastinians have been/are treated very badly. The sacntions and forced removal from their homes is aggressive behavior. I guess what I am learning from all of this is that we have to be careful to not judge because there is always two sides to every story. I am just not comfortable with believing the way the State of Israel was obtained is exactly how the Lord would have commanded it to be done....hmmm, more thinking to do, I guess

[Oldemandaltoncaptain of 1,000]

Liberty Belle, “Khazar Jews” is a myth along the same lines as “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”.

Book of Ruth;
Liberty Belle- thanks so muchfor your post. I whole heartly agree, seperate the people from the manipulation of Governments/Bankers and the world starts making more sense.

Credibility is lost when the “Jews” or “Zionists” are blamed for the world’s ills. This is what has led to the 100s of pogroms of the past several century’s and the holocaust. I feel that another one is just around the corner. I have noticed in the news that Anti-Semitism is on the rise again.

I wanted to post this: I just spent a Q & A hour long session with a very good Shi'a. I didn't hold back on any of my questions, and he didn't hold back on his answers, and it was very educational. This is taken from my very recent memory of 3 hours ago, so it is still fresh, but know this is from a conversation that I had with someone, and their answers.

Me: Who is Jesus?
Shi'a: He is a very good prophet who ran into a cave when the soldiers came to arrest him. They did not crucify him, he is not the Son of God. They crucified the wrong man, and Jesus went to heaven. He will return with the Mahdi.

Just curious but did you get a chance to bear your testimony of the Savior and His Atonement or were you just making small talk to get to know his religion better?

Me: What is the Shi'a line of authority?
Shi'a: Muhommed then to Ali (Fatimah's husband) cousin to Muhommed. This will be the lineage of the Imam.

I guess it would have been inappropriate to point out the fact that we have a prophet here on earth today. Is he interested in learning about the restored Church?

Me: Why does Ahmadinejad keep calling for the return of the Mahdi, and can he hasten it?
Shi'a: All Shi'a pray for the Mahdi to return soon so that we can be in his army. Ahmadniejad is not the one we listen to he cannot hasten the Mahdi, it is Ayatollah Khamenei that we listen too.

I heard that the Shi’a believed that when the Mahdi returns it will be a time of great chaos and war. If someone could help create this chaos/war would that not help hasten his return?

Me: Is the US the "Great Satan", and Israel the "Little Satan, and will Israel be annihilated?
Shi'a: The US government has caused great crimes against Muslims.

The Muslims have been attacking Americans long before Beirut, Iraq, or Afghanistan. Muslim pirates were taking our ships before we were even a nation and soon after.

Israel is very bad, and they have displaced many Palestinians. The Israelites came to Arabia from Egypt from Moses then scattered and went to Jerusalem. When the crusades came, the Jews chose to abandon Jerusalem rather than fight. They went to Europe, and they are Europeans.

Over a million Jews were killed and 100,000 were carried away as slaves from the sack of Jerusalem by Titus and the Roman army in 70 AD. The survivors fled in order to avoid their friends and family’s fate, so I guess you can say they “went to Europe”. Living as exiles without a country does not make them Europeans. They kept their culture and religion separate which of course caused more persecutions and death among their “fellow” Europeans.

When WWII no one wanted the Jews, and they put them right in the Muslims Holy land, the largest insult you could give to Muslims.

The Muslims occupied the land that God gave to the tribes Israel and, in these the Latter Days, to the Jews. See my first posts on this thread that prove that the Holy Land is for the return of the Jews in these the Last days.

Me: So in the end, does Israel have to go?
Shi’a: They are very bad.

There is no Palestinian organization or Arab state which believes that Israel has the right to exist.

Shi’a: Islam is very specific, that if you are not at war with someone they are your brother.

Who is Islam NOT at war with? They are fighting; Russia, China, India, Africa, America, Israel, Philippines, Europe, Bangladesh, Indonesia. Did I miss anyone? I wonder if your Shi’a friend came to America to escape the turmoil in the ME and else where.

Killing them would be as killing yourself. You must have declared war before you fight, then you fight with everything you ever have or can think of.

There is more, but this is really long already. It just finally made sense why all the provocation. They must have war declared, then no holds bar, and all of Islam will fight until the return of the Mahdi when they can fight in his army. (I have more info on this specifically)

Very interesting, Book of Ruth, to see how the other side sees us.

I have been interested in how the Mahdi fits into the LDS prophesies and would be like to learn more. One theory I have read is that the Mahdi is the mirror image of the Savior. I wonder how the Shi’a thinks of this theory.

When Christ returns to save the Jews from destruction and split the Mount of Olives, 1/5 of the Armies of Gog will survive the destruction of Gog. Mostly being made up of Muslim countries, will these Islamic soldiers think that the Savior is the Mahdi at first just as the Jews will believe that He will be the Promised Messiah who has finally come to save them? I imagine that the Muslims will be just as shocked as the Jews to find out that their Messiah/Mahdi is Jesus Christ.


OMD

[Book of Ruthcaptain of 100]

Just to reinterate that the statements I made were part of a conversation I had with a Shi'a and his opinions/beliefs are obviously NOT mine, seeing how I'm LDS and absolutely believe in the Savior Jesus Christ. So, opinons expressed, not my opinions, just the other side of the coin.

Cont of questions:
Me: So if the Mahdi is to bring peace to the world, then why would he need an army?
Shi'a: The Mahdi will be so great that everyone will want to join his army. It will be a privledge to serve in his army.

Me: Normally and army is used for war, so why an army?
Shi'a: The Mahdi will be so great eveyone will want to join him.

Me: What if someone does not want to join him?
Shi'a: The Mahdi will rule the earth, everyone will join him

Me: What happens to someone if they don't
Shi'a: They will there will not be anyone who has not joined the Mahdi.

I pushed this answer really hard, I got back that everyone will convert to Islam, or die. He believes this every bit as much as I know that the Savior is the Son of God.

[durangoutcaptain of 1,000]

Yes; very interesting Ruth. Thanks. It confirms exactly what is in the book I suggested be read: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam.

Speaking of politically incorrect: The DOJ just labled the Fort Hood Massacre (You remember it. It was where Mgr Hasan killed in the name of Allah) as "workplace violence". If I call it "terrorism" then I'm the bad person and a fool, right?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12 ... kers-warn/


Sen. Susan Collins on Wednesday blasted the Defense Department for classifying the Fort Hood massacre as workplace violence and suggested political correctness is being placed above the security of the nation's Armed Forces at home.

During a joint session of the Senate and House Homeland Security Committee on Wednesday, the Maine Republican referenced a letter from the Defense Department depicting the Fort Hood shootings as workplace violence. She criticized the Obama administration for failing to identify the threat as radical Islam.


April 9, 2010: FILE - This file photo provided by the Bell County Sheriff's Department shows U.S. Major Nidal Hasan at the Bell County Jail in Belton, Texas. Hasan was charged in the Fort Hood shooting rampage.

Thirteen people were killed and dozens more wounded at Fort Hood in 2009, and the number of alleged plots targeting the military has grown significantly since then. Lawmakers said there have been 33 plots against the U.S. military since Sept. 11, 2001, and 70 percent of those threats have been since mid-2009. Major Nidal Hasan, a former Army psychiatrist, who is being held for the attacks, allegedly was inspired by radical U.S.-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who was killed in a U.S. drone strike in Yemen in late September. The two men exchanged as many as 20 emails, according to U.S. officials, and Awlaki declared Hasan a hero.

The chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, Connecticut independent Sen. Joe Lieberman, said the military has become a "direct target of violent Islamist extremism" within the United States.

"The stark reality is that the American service member is increasingly in the terrorists' scope and not just overseas in a traditional war setting," Lieberman told Fox News before the start of Wednesday's hearing.

In June, two men allegedly plotted to attack a Seattle, Wash., military installation using guns and grenades. In July, Army Pvt. Naser Abdo was accused of planning a second attack on Fort Hood. And in November, New York police arrested Jose Pimentel, who alleged sought to kill service members returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Both Pimentel and Abdo also allegedly drew inspiration from al-Awlaki and the online jihadist magazine Inspire, which includes a spread on how to "Make a Bomb in the Kitchen of Your Mom."

Rep. Peter King of New York, the Republican chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said military service members are "symbols of America's power, symbols of America's might."

"And if they (military personnel) can be killed, then that is a great propaganda victory for al Qaeda," King told Fox News.

King said there is also evidence that extremists have joined the services.

"There is a serious threat within the military from people who have enlisted who are radical jihadists," King said. "The Defense Department is very concerned about them. They feel they're a threat to the military both for what they can do within the military itself and also because of the weapons skills they acquire while they're in the military."

The witnesses testifying before the joint session include Paul N. Stockton, assistant secretary of defense for homeland defense; Jim Stuteville, U.S. Army senior adviser for counterintelligence operations and liaison to the FBI; Lt. Col. Reid L. Sawyer, director of the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, and Darius Long, whose son, Army Pvt. William Andrew Long, was shot and killed at an Arkansas military recruitment center in 2009.

A second private was also injured in the Arkansas attack. Both victims had just finished basic training and had not been deployed. They were outside the Arkansas recruitment center when the shooter opened fire from a passing truck. The shooter, Carlos Bledsoe, pleaded guilty to the crime earlier this year.

In a letter to the court, Bledsoe said he carried out the attack on behalf of al Qaeda in Yemen -- the group that was behind the last two major plots targeting the U.S. airline industry.

"My faith in government is diminished. It invents euphemisms ... Little Rock is a drive by and Fort Hood is just workplace violence. The truth is denied," Long testified.

King said the web is the driver of the new digital jihad.

"It enables people -- rather than having to travel to Afghanistan to learn about jihad or to be trained, they can do it right over the Internet," he said. "And this is a growing role."

And while Awlaki and his colleague Samir Khan, who was behind the magazine Inspire, were killed in a CIA-led operation in September, King warned against overconfidence that al Qaeda in Yemen was done.

"This is a definite short-term victory for us. There's no doubt they are going to regroup, that there will be others who will be providing Internet data, inspiration to jihadists in this country, instructions on how to make bombs," he said.

While King was heavily criticized, in some quarters, for launching his hearings 10 months ago on homegrown terrorism, the congressman said the joint session shows the threat is legitimate, and recognized as such by other members of Congress.

"To me it's a validation of what I've been trying to do all year," King emphasized. "There's a definite threat from Islamic radicalization in various parts of our society, including within the military, and we can't allow political correctness to keep us from exposing this threat for what it is."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12 ... z1fsaEzAdT

[Oldemandaltoncaptain of 1,000]

liberty_belle
Book of Ruth: Awesome! Post as soon as you can.

So basically what I get from his answer about Israel is that when they had the opportunity to fight for their land, they didn't. They abandoned the land and therefore lost their "rights" to the land?

Another thing of interest was his statement about how Israel came back into the land and their treatment of the Palastinians who lived there. It reminds me of a couple of things.

1. The People of Ammon needed a place to live and the Nephites consulted together and together came the voice that they would give the Land of Jershon to them. Now you know that the people living there are the ones that offered it willingly. It was not taken from them by force. They also were not forced to accept a colonized people. As a result there was peace within the Nephite Nation because they became part of the Nephites and worked with them.

2. Kirtland and Nauvoo days where the people paid for their lands and did not just take what they wanted. Even today, when the Church obtains any property it either freely donated or they pay fair price for it.

I think that there is a real principle here. the Balfour Declaration of 1917 expressed to Herzel that the Jews could go to Palestine on the condition:
His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.[


Even though this document became hotly debated, it seems clear to me that its intent was to protect all those who already lived there.

I am not a trusting fan of wikipedia but this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_De ... on_of_1917 does have some excellent parts of letters that really tells a story of just how the Palastinians basically had no choice in the matter.

Now, I wonder how any of us feel if we were in the Palastinians and Arab's position? Needless to say I believe they have a legitimate complaint. The Palastinians have been/are treated very badly. The sacntions and forced removal from their homes is aggressive behavior. I guess what I am learning from all of this is that we have to be careful to not judge because there is always two sides to every story. I am just not comfortable with believing the way the State of Israel was obtained is exactly how the Lord would have commanded it to be done....hmmm, more thinking to do, I guess

As noted in my post above the Jews did not “abandoned the land” but were massacred and enslaved by the Romans. The rest fled to avoid the same fate.

The Jews DID pay for the land but just like our Missouri their Arab neighbours opposed this and rioted and persecuted their Jewish neighbours.

Zionist Land Acquisition and Dispossession in Palestine


We turn our attention now to the arrival of Jewish immigrants to Palestine and their contribution to the dispossession of Palestinian Arabs. These immigrants started arriving in successive waves starting in the 1880s and continued through the creation of the state of Israel. Given the fact that an Arab-Arab conflict never took shape before the Jews arrived, it would be understandable to conclude that there must have been something especially harsh about the dispossession resulting from Zionist methods of land accumulation.

One would expect to see commonplace examples of Jews stealing, strong-arming, swindling, blackmailing; basically resorting to any trick up their sleeve to pry land out of Arab hands. In reality, the Jewish technique of accumulating land was simple ... they bought it. Both the concern and the complaints of Jews dispossessing Arabs centered on how much land the Jews were purchasing, not stealing, from land owners:

•The British investigation into the Arab riots during 1936-39 identifies "Arab alarm at the continued Jewish purchase of land"1, not Jewish theft of land, as one of the motivating factors.

•"Conversely, the main Ottoman and Arab complaint against the Zionists was about land sales ..."2

•"Meanwhile, Jewish land purchase continued apace, exacerbating Palestinian disquiet."3

•"Arab discontent on account of Jewish immigration and the sale of lands to Jews which has been a permanent feature of political opinion in Palestine for the past ten years, began to show signs of renewed activity from the beginning of 1933, developing in intensity until it reached a climax in the riots of October and November."4

•"In the beginning of the 1930s, the national value of the land and its transfer from one people to the other became one of the main issues in the political conflict between the two communities. The Arabs insisted that His Majesty's Government put an end to land purchase by the Jews, claiming that it threatened their national existence."5

•"Though they had profited from the enhanced trade and employment opportunities generated by the new Jewish settlements, Palestinian Arabs had grown increasingly concerned about the rise of Jewish immigration and land purchases."6

•"An article published in July 1911 by Mustafa Effendi Tamr, a teacher of mathematics at a Jerusalem school" reads, "You are selling the property of your fathers and grandfathers for a pittance to people who will have no pity on you, to those who will act to expel you and expunge your memory from your habitations and disperse you among the nations. This is a crime that will be recorded in your names in history, a black stain and disgrace that your descendants will bear, which will not be expunged even after years and eras have gone by. ... Opposition to land sales was one of the principal focal points around which the Arab national idea in Palestine coalesced."7

•"Of course, the Zionists bought the land from Arab landholders, who moved to cities or even left the country. They were all too willing to sell, for the price paid by the purchasers was often many times more than anyone else would or could pay."32

•King Abdallah of Jordan complains several times in his memoirs about Jews acquiring land in Palestine. Not once does he accuse the Jews of stealing it from the Arabs. Each time he mentions it, the complaint is how much land they are buying:

"... the fears of the Arab political leaders are supported by the fact that the sale of land continues unrestricted and every day one piece of land after another is torn from the hands of the Arabs.8

"According to my information the Jews have requested the continuance of the mandate so that they can buy up more land and bring in additional immigrants. No other country has gone through such a trial as Palestine."9

"Or are you among those who believe that there is no harm in continuing the present deleterious mandate despite the Jewish usurpers it has brought and despite the demonstrated inability of those Palestinians now at the political helm to prevent their compatriots from selling their land? Furthermore, it is made quite clear to all, both by the map drawn up by the Simpson Commission and by another compiled by the Peel Commission, that the Arabs are as prodigal in selling their land as they are in useless wailing and weeping."10

•"‘Know each of you that in the end every Arab who sells land of the Arab patrimony or who pimps for the Jews will soon receive his due, which is certain death.’ The placards were signed by an organization calling itself ‘Revenge.’ ‘Our problem is the outcome of the sale of our land. The amazing thing is that we sell to the Jews and then scream and wail and ask for the government’s help,’"11

Not only was the land being legally purchased, it was being purchased at drastically inflated prices. Arab land owners were making a killing selling their land during the waves of Jewish immigration in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Despite the animosity against selling land to Jews coming from elitist Arabs, it simply made good economic sense for landlords to sell while they could exploit the thriving market Jewish demand was creating. Sometimes the land being purchased was nothing more than sand dune, malarial swamps and marshes, or other unattractive plots of waste. Even so, it was payday for many landlords; a day many hadn't seen in a long time and one that wouldn't come again:

•"Until 1936 ... the Jews acquired about 25,000 dunam in the Beit-Shean Valley ... The soil was of the poorest quality, in scattered parcels of land, and it was impossible to establish even one settlement on it. The Jewish purchasers paid the full price for these lands; in addition the Government compelled them to cover all the outstanding debts that the sellers had accumulated. (In most cases not one penny of these bad debts had been paid for years.)"12

•"The Jewish authorities have nothing with which to reproach themselves in the matter of the Sursock lands. They paid high prices for the land, and in addition they paid to certain of the occupants of those lands a considerable amount of money which they were not legally bound to pay."13

•"He [the Arab] may sell his land for a fantastic price and add to the congestion in the other zones by moving there. An Arab living a short distance away, just across the zone boundary, cannot obtain anything approximating the same sum for land of equal quality.”14

•"The Jews were paying exorbitant prices to wealthy landowners for small tracts of arid land. “In 1944, Jews paid between $1,000 and $1,100 per acre in Palestine, mostly for arid or semiarid land; in the same year, rich black soil in Iowa was selling for about $110 per acre."15

•"The settlers were ready to pay much more than the economic value of the land. The same or better land is available a few kilometers to the east or north of the Palestine frontiers at one tenth or less of the Palestinian price."16

•“Between 1880 and 1914 over sixty thousand Jews entered Palestine … Many settled on wasteland, sand-dunes and malarial marsh, which they then drained, irrigated and farmed. In 1909 a group of Jews founded the first entirely Jewish town, Tel Aviv, on the sandhills north of Jaffa. The Jews purchased their land piecemeal, from European, Turkish and (principally) Arab landlords, mostly at extremely high prices.”17

•“By 1925 over 2,600 Jews had settled in the [Jezreel] valley, and 3,000 acres of barren hillside had been afforested. This previously uncultivated land, bought at highly inflated prices, became the pattern of all subsequent Jewish National Fund settlements in Palestine.”18

•"In his 'note of reservations' to the Report of the Woodhead Commission, Sir Alison Russel says: 'It does not appear to me that to permit an Arab to sell his land for three or four times its value, and to go with the money to a different part of the Arab world where land is cheap, can be said to "prejudice" his rights and position.'"19

•"The average price paid by Jews for the rural land they bought in Palestine during 1944 amounted to over $1000 per acre or about $250 per dunam (including the value of buildings, orchards and other improvements). These prices are, of course, highly inflated …"20

•"... land brokers sometimes purchased their shares or parcels at a very low price and sold them at ten and twenty multiples to Jewish buyers. Peasants who were in musha' villages were particularly incensed at landlords, land brokers, or agents after learning that they had been swindled."21

• "Aharon Danin of KKL told of an interesting conversation he had at the beginning of the 1940s with Khaled Zu’bi (brother of Sayf al-Din), who helped him buy land in the Zu’biyya villages east of Nazareth: He [Zu’bi] said, ‘Look, who knows better than me that your work is pure. You pay money for everything, top dollar, many times more than what the land is worth. But that doesn’t change the fact that you are dispossessing us. You are dispossessing us with money, not by force, but the fact is that we are leaving the land.’ I say to him: ‘You are from this Zu’biyya tribe which is located here, in Transjordan, and in Syria, what difference does it make to you where you are, if you are here or if you and your family are there? …’ He said: ‘It’s hard for me to tell you, but in any case the graves of my forefathers are here. I feel that we are leaving this place. It’s our fault and not yours.’"30

"The Arab large landowner quickly recognized that he could now do much better business with his land than continuing to have it worked by tenants. ... It was valid to sell it to the newly arrived [Jewish and German] colonist and indeed for the highest possible price. What was to happen to the renter for whom the land was ... sold from under his feet concerned the effendi very little. The tenant was just tossed out onto the street and had to take to his heels. So the colonization became an uninterrupted source of tenant tragedies. On the other hand, the price of land rose in an unimaginable manner."22

In addition to the inflated land value, Jewish buyers were also making numerous and substantial (some might say extortionist) payments to see the deal through from beginning to end. "Initial sums were usually paid to lubricate the selling motive. Local village notables, tenants in occupation, mukhtars, intermediaries, brokers, short-term squatters, and land registry officials often received persuasive sums. The owner or owners also received a sum of money prior to signing the contract. This could mean paying several similar or different sums to members of one family who owned portions of a large land area. A subsequent payment was sometimes made when all the title deeds available were collected and condensed into one large parcel. Another payment was made when a portion of the land was legally transferred or prior to the land being considered free of tenants and agricultural occupants. Still another sum was paid when possession was taken (this to avoid squatting by transient fellaheen), and then periodically as stipulated in a contract."31

A Bit of Hypocrisy

It was the Arab political leadership that was screaming the loudest about stopping these land sales: "The Arab Press lost nothing of its virulence in inveighing against ... the transfer of land to Jews ... The Arab leaders have been more outspoken and less compromising in their hostility ..."23 Of course, rendering these protests utterly disingenuous was the fact these same Arabs continued selling their land to immigrating Zionists. These elitist hypocrites wanted to reserve the right to profit from the suddenly valuable land in Palestine while denying other debt-ridden land owners the same option.

•"The historian's eye has also been caught by the ambivalent position of the Arab national leadership which, while publicly demanding an end to Zionist expansion, privately continued to sell land to the Jews."24

•"Here one cannot ignore the continuous sale of land by Arab landowners to Jews in the 1930s, which was so crucial to the success of Zionism. This can be treated in the context of the social fragmentation of Arab society in Palestine: some Arabs sold land for profit and thus deprived other Arabs of their only means of livelihood. Moreover, some of the national leaders themselves profited from land sales, despite their national consciousness."25

•"Throughout the Mandate, the leading Arab families, including Husseinis and Opposition figures, sold land to the Zionists, despite their nationalist professions. Jewish landholding increased between 1920 and 1947 from about 456,000 dunams to about 1.4 million dunams. The main brake on Jewish land purchases, at least during the 1920s and 1930s, was lack of funds, not any Arab indisposition to sell."26

•"And a giant question mark hangs over the “nationalist” ethos of the Palestinian arab elite: Husseinis as well as Nashashibis, Khalidis, Dajanis, and Tamimis just before and during the Mandate sold land to the Zionist institutions and/or served as Zionist agents and spies."27

•"Muhammad Nimer al-Hawwari, who headed the Najjadah, took the microphone at a rally in Jaffa and said, ‘For twenty years we have heard talk against land brokers and land sellers, yet here they sit in the front rows at every national gathering.’ The rally’s organizers reacted swiftly; they turned off the loudspeakers."28

•"The rural elite, with their large landholdings, were accused of opportunism by fellahin, who declared: ‘They, the effendis, sold their lands to the Jews, they are the intermediaries between us and the Jews in the sale of land, they exploit us with usurious interest and head the gangs that abused us.’"29

An initial contrast between the way Arab money lenders and merchants acquired land through economic oppression and trickery versus the way Zionist immigrants acquired land through paying exorbitant sums of money offers no answers for why conflict erupted. In fact, considering only the methods of land acquisition apart from any issue it would seem the arrival of Jewish immigrants and their money would have ended hostilities that should have already been in place. It cannot be suggested by any reasonable account that Jewish land purchases oppressed or dispossessed the legal owners of the land being sold. That was a willful agreement reached between two parties. The catch here was the tenant farmers that lived and worked the land being sold. These were often times the previous owners who had already been dispossessed of their ownership before Jewish immigrants arrived. Now with interested Jewish buyers available, the same Arabs guilty of demoting these farmers to tenant status were selling the land out from under them to turn a profit.

The reason this was such a concern was that Jewish buyers wanted the land free of tenant farmers. Unlike absentee Arab landlords living in Damascus, Beirut, and Cairo, the Jews desired to live and work on the plots they bought. Certainly the new Jewish owners were within their rights to expect the land they had spent so much money for would not have to be shared, but we are looking to explain why this dispossession led to conflict, not to justify owners' rights which do not require a defense.

Perhaps the physical act of relocation was of greater psychological consequence than losing intangible ownership and therefore accounts for why conflict only arose against the Jews. Yes, it was the Arab elite who stripped them of this ownership through a series of oppressive measures and then in a second pass sold away the land they used, but it was typically not until the Jews arrived that the Arabs faced the physical consequences of relocation. The next section in this series explores the extent to which this form of Zionist dispossession took place.
http://www.middleeastpiece.com/dispossession_jewishmethods.html

When the UN Partitioned Palestine they created TWO states, one Jewish and one Arab. The jews accepted the plan the Arabs rejected it. THERE WAS A TWO STATE SOLUTION OVER 60 YEARS AGO! The Arabs rejected it then and they still do so now.

The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was a recommendation for partition by the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine in 1947 to replace the British Mandate for Palestine with "Independent Arab and Jewish States" and a "Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem" administered by the United Nations. It was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 29 November 1947 as Resolution 181.

The proposed plan was accepted by the leaders of the Jewish community in Palestine, through the Jewish Agency. The plan was rejected by leaders of the Arab community (the Palestine Arab Higher Committee etc.), who were supported in their rejection by the states of the Arab League.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine