Some say that the high god's name is yahweh, or yehowah, and other say that it is elohim, which is the frist name of God to appear in the Bible (Gen. 1.1)

As I have said before, I believe that elohim and yahveh are different, one being the Son of the Father.

In all His dealings with the human family Jesus the Son has represented and yet represents Elohim His father in power and authority.

This is true of Jesus Christ in His preexistent, pre-emortal, in which He was known as Jehovah, and also during His embodiment in the flesh, and during His ministry as a disembodied spirit in the realm of the dead; and since that period in His resurrected state.

To the Jews He said: "I and my Father are one" (John 10:30; see also 17:11, 22).

Yet He declared "My Father is greater than I" (John 14:28); and further, "I am come in my Father's name" (John 5:43; see also 10:25).

Jesus was and is both Jehovah and Messiah, God the Son, the Creator and Savior of the world, working at all times in complete harmony and oneness with Elohim, God the Father, in whose likeness man was created.

The Father called him "My beloved Son," and Jesus said, "My Father is greater than I."

He is also called the "Only begotten in the flesh," and the "Firstborn."

These passages, and many others, show the subordination of Jesus to God the Father, or Elohim. In the garden on resurrection morning, Jesus told Mary thathe had "not yet ascended to [his] Father in heaven" telling her to inform the brethren that he was going to go to "[His] Father and their Father, and to [His] God, and their God."

That is why I say that the name of God the Father is Elohim. In addition, he has other styles or titles that appear in the scriptures. That is why I believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and is not himself God the Father.

I thought to explain my posiiton for those who believe the fourth century (and later) creeds that determine that The Father and Son and Holy Ghost are only one person.

If Jesus, the resurrected Jesus Christ, had not yet gone up to His Father, but was soon to do so, he could not by any stretch of the imagination be one and the same person. He could not be the Father and the Son who had not met each other since the Crucifixion, or else Jesus would not need to go anywhere to see his Father.

In spite of the statement of Jesus that "I and my Father are one," he could not have had reference to personal, material unity (which discussion was the bane of the early Church and led to bloodshed!), but could only have meant that they had a unified purpose.

Said Jesus to his Father, "Not my will, but thy will de done." This conflict of individual and directionally oppsed wills was resolved by Jesus being subordinate and obedient to his Father's will, suppressing his own desires.

I hope that I have made my position clear without stepping on anyone's toes, or irritating them.

That is my position. Here I stand. I can do no other.

MORGANITE

Thanks for you explanation.
In Jesus statement that He and the Father are one tells me that they are together.
Also please note that Elohim is a plural word.
I believe that when Scripture speaks of the Spirit of God and Jesus as the Word of God through whom all was created along with the Father it testifies to the reality of the Holy Trinity of the One True God Almighty.
It is not as difficult to grasp as some may think
After all each of us is a trinity of body, mind, and spirit.
Take away any one of those and we are incomplete.
Each member works together with the others.
In my case my body is Fred, my mind is Fred, and my Spirit is Fred all together we are the complete Fred.
The same for the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Each is God and all together is one God.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)
:)

"did you know that people used to actually believe that stars where gods floating around in space, like Zeus, diana or isis was the moon etc?"

This is absolutely not so. They associated the names of the planets and constellations with their gods, they didn't think the planets were the gods.
Do some research, please!

Sin was associated with the moon.
Aphrodite with Venus.
Some gods were associated with the constellations hence the statues of gods with bull's heads, lion's heads, the sphinx, etc.

Jehovah Is A Prefix To About Maybe A Half Dozen Other Names, Such As Jehovah-jireh, Jehovah-tsid Kennu, Jehovah-shalom, Etc. If One Takes All These Names In To Account, God Is Telling You By His Names That He Is Everything You Need At Any Time You Need Him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keenu

"did you know that people used to actually believe that stars where gods floating around in space, like Zeus, diana or isis was the moon etc?"

This is absolutely not so. They associated the names of the planets and constellations with their gods, they didn't think the planets were the gods.
Do some research, please!

Sin was associated with the moon.
Aphrodite with Venus.
Some gods were associated with the constellations hence the statues of gods with bull's heads, lion's heads, the sphinx, etc.

---

Yeah I did allot of research

Isis- moon -egyption Goddes after the moon
Zues- God of Jupitor, Roman God
India also has many Gods in sync with the constallations.

Oldest evidence is that during Abrahamic times, the chaldians worhiped false gods which correspond in sync with .the constallations, they used the solar system to guide them and believed these Gods actually existed and spoke like humans, especially the greeks after these times who mastered mtyhs and thoerys, aka ideas with out facts.

So lets get on with the facts, only a ignorant person who is addicted to the idea of powers to munipulate his sinfull world lacks the rightiousness to pray to the one true God humbly to open doors in this world, the god Abraham met who told him gave all mankind the faculty of seen, hearing and understanding. but of course some people do not believe there is only one god because they are racist.

The fact is many polythiests who are ignorant to believe in all these Gods ( and they indeed 100 % correspond to astrology) still use the systems today for all kinds of sinfull addictions, like spells to charms and other cowrdley faithless reasons they can not ever connect to the one true universal God of all creation who cntrols all the constalltions.

And the reasons they can never connect with them is because God only accepts the prayers of rightious people, not people who seek to use prayers as rituels, sacrifices and other people or things to fool the universal laws which God alone controls, but tell these people this and they aill argue with you because they do not want to believe it, so what do you do, let them be.

So you should read the Torah aka old testament for yourself since God allmighty says the first most sinfull commandment is to not take false Gods for wortship, he is the one God of all. and jesus also said to fallow every one commandment if you want to enter paradise, he called himself the new law because jews diverted the children of israel from the path.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G4-450

so you should read the Torah aka old testament

---

Dear G,

The Torah is not "The Old Testament." The Old Testament is the Tanak, comprising Torah, Nabiim, and Haggorah, hence TNK or Tanak.

Torah means 'teaching,' (with the understanding that what is being taught is the Law of God, although it contains much more than legal matters),and refers to the Mosaic books only.

I am sure that is what you meant to say.

:)

MORGANITE

Hello again.

It is never as good idea to call people ignorant, even when you think they are.[U]

It makes you look like a cross patch, and I am sure you are not.


MORGANITE

:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morganite

Dear G,

The Torah is not "The Old Testament." The Old Testament is the Tanak, comprising Torah, Nabiim, and Haggorah, hence TNK or Tanak.

Torah means 'teaching,' (with the understanding that what is being taught is the Law of God, although it contains much more than legal matters),and refers to the Mosaic books only.

I am sure that is what you meant to say.

:)

MORGANITE

---

Of course that is why I said it, most people in the west (christians ) do NOT know this either.

Again, Abraham and the Chaldians, who spoke, wrote and read Chaldian (not hebrew) worhiped many Gods, all syncronized with the constallations.

Abraham rejected this after many trials and errors which led him to the evidance that these where false Gods and not worthy of worship for there is one true God.

Its very simple. Abraham founded religion of One God, all man kind and the bible is full of stories that people keep bending this idea and prophets have to come to guide them, Abraham is the father of faith of all prophets who came after him to guide everyone back to the one true God.

So the fanatical megalomaniac polythiests who insist that a masiah is coming have missd it already, it was Jesus, even the koran called him christ, and the koran states that even if his fallowers where to believe jesus was the son as adam who also had no mother as well as a mortal father, he still had a job to do like all apostals, which was to guide people back to God.

This is clearly proving that polythiests fanstasized jesus like superman and diverted the simple truth which he came to bring to the jews who where the lost children of israel.


So again, back to the topic, its not important what name you think god has unles syou understand that god is not like a man or anything he creates.

So all the other so called man made Gods whether they are ideas deriving from the solar system ot wooden objest, or even a son still are not worthy of worship as jesus said the one true God in the heavens is, worship God the creator not his creations in vain.

Peace

[QUOTE=chrisl You wrote to G-Man:

You obviously respect the Quran and accept what it says as the truth. If the Bible were corrupt at the time the Quran was written, would the Quran call it "truth" and recommend it be used for "guidance"?

Chris[/QUOTE]

Your argument only works if the Koran is accurate, as does Muslim acceptance of it as a perfect book. If it is not it casts doubt on everything it supports. The Bible has been held up to critical enquiry for centuries. The Koran has never been held to the same standards.

The questions the Koran must answer are:

1. How did the Koran come to us. —That is the compilation and the transmission of the Koran.

2. When was it written, and who wrote it?

3. What are the sources of the Koran? Where were the stories, legends, and principles that abound in the Koran acquired?

4. What is the Koran? Since there never was a textus receptus ne varietur of the Koran, we need to decide its authenticity.


5. Where is the original Koran?

According toMuslims, the Koran was revealed to Muhammad, usually by an angel, over a period of years until his death in 632 C.E. It is not clear how much of the Koran had been written down by the time of Muhammad’s death, but there was no single manuscript in which the Prophet himself had collected all the revelations. There are traditions which describe how the Prophet dictated this or that portion of the Koran to his secretaries.

According to one tradition, during Abu Bakr’s brief caliphate (632-634), ‘Umar, who himself was to succeed to the caliphate in 634, became worried at the fact that so many Muslims who had known the Koran by heart were killed during the Battle of Yamama, in Central Arabia. There was a real danger that parts of the Koran would be irretrievably lost unless a collection of the Koran was made before more of those who knew this or that part of the Koran by heart were killed.

Abu Bakr eventually gave his consent to such a project, and asked Zayd ibn Thabit, the former secretary of the Prophet, to undertake this daunting task. So Zayd proceeded to collect the Koran "from pieces of papyrus, flat stones, palm leaves, shoulder blades and ribs of animals, pieces of leather and wooden boards, as well as from the hearts of men." Zayd then copied out what he had collected on sheets or leaves (Arabic, suhuf).

Once complete, the Koran was handed over to Abu Bakr, and on his death passed to ‘Umar, and upon his death passed to ‘Umar’s daughter, Hafsa.

There are however different versions of this tradition; in some it is suggested that it was Abu Bakr who first had the idea to make the collection; in other versions the credit is given to Ali, the fourth caliph and the founder of the Shias; other versions still completely exclude Abu Bakr.

Then, it is argued that such a difficult task could not have been accomplished in just two years. Again, it is unlikely that those who died in the Battle of Yamama, being new converts, knew any of the Koran by heart. Even so, the Koran under Abu Bakr once made was not treated as an official codex, but as the private property of Hafsa.

The next step was under ‘Uthman (644-656). One of ‘Uthman’s generals asked the caliph to make such a collection because serious disputes had broken out among his troops from different provinces in regard to the correct readings of the Koran.

‘Uthman chose Zayd ibn Thabit to prepare the official text. Zayd, with the help of three members of noble Meccan families, revised the Koran comparing his version with the "leaves" in the possession of Hafsa, ‘Umar’s daughter; and as instructed, in case of difficulty as to the reading, Zayd followed the dialect of the Quraysh, the Prophet’s tribe.

The new versions, were sent to Kufa, Basra, Damascus, and perhaps Mecca, and one was, of course, kept in Medina. All other versions were ordered to be destroyed.

But, the Arabic found in the Koran is not a dialect. The number of people working on the commission with Zayd varies, and in included are the names of persons who were enemies of ‘Uthman, and someone known to have died before these events!

Modern scholars accept the establishment of the text of the Koran was under ‘Uthman between 650 and 656. They accept the traditional account of the ‘Uthmanic collection, without giving a single reason for accepting this second tradition as opposed to the first under Abu Bakr. There is a massive gap in their arguments, or rather they offer no arguments at all.

We can apply the same arguments to dismiss the ‘Uthmanic story as were used to dismiss the Abu Bakr story. We can argue that the ‘Uthmanic story was invented by the enemies of Abu Bakr and the friends of ‘Uthman; political polemics can equally be said to have played their part in the fabrication of this later story.

It also leaves unanswered so many awkward questions. What were these "leaves" in the possession of Hafsa? And if the Abu Bakr version is pure forgery where did Hafsa get hold of them? Then what are those versions that seemed to be floating around in the provinces? When were these alternative texts compiled, and by whom? Can we really pick, at our own will, from amongst the variants, from the contradictory traditions?

There are no compelling reasons for accepting the ‘Uthmanic story and not the Abu Bakr one; after all they are all gleaned from the same sources, which are all exceedingly late, tendentious in the extreme, and all were later fabrications.

When listening to these accounts, some very common- sensical objections arise which no one seems to have dared to ask. First, all these stories place an enormous burden on the memories of the early Muslims. Indeed, scholars are compelled to exaggerate the putatively prodigious memories of the Arabs. Muhammad could not read or write according to some traditions, and therefore everything depends on him having perfectly memorized what God revealed to him through His Angels.

Some stories in the Koran are enormously long; the story of Joseph takes up a whole chapter of 111 verses. Are we really to believe that Muhammad remembered it exactly as it was revealed?

Similarly the Companions of the Prophet are said to have memorized many of his utterances. Could their memories never have failed? Oral traditions have a tendency to change over time, and they cannot be relied upon to construct a reliable, scientific history. Second, we seem to assume that the Companions of the Prophet heard and understood him perfectly.

Almost without exceptions Muslims consider that the Quran we now possess goes back in its text and in the number and order of the chapters to the work of the commission that ‘Uthman appointed. Muslim orthodoxy holds further that ‘Uthman’s Quran contains all of the revelation delivered to the community faithfully preserved without change or variation of any kind and that the acceptance of the ‘Uthmanic Quran was all but universal from the day of its distribution.

The orthodox position is motivated by dogmatic factor, but it cannot be supported by the historical evidence.

While modern Muslims may be committed to an impossibly conservative position, Muslim scholars of the early years of Islam were far more flexible, realizing that parts of the Koran were lost, perverted, and that there were many thousand variants which made it impossible to talk of the Koran.

For example, As-Suyuti (died 1505), one of the most famous and revered of the commentators of the Koran, quotes Ibn ‘Umar al Khattab as saying:

"Let no one of you say that he has acquired the entire Quran, for how does he know that it is all? Much of the Quran has been lost, thus let him say, ‘I have acquired of it what is available’"
(As-Suyuti, Itqan, part 3, page 72).

A’isha, the favorite wife of the Prophet, says, also according to a tradition recounted by as-Suynti, "During the time of the Prophet, the chapter of the Parties used to be two hundred verses when read. When ‘Uthman edited the copies of the Quran, only the current (verses) were recorded" (Ibid, age. 73).

Since there was no single document collecting all the revelations, after Muhammad’s death in 632 C.E. many of his followers tried to gather all the known revelations and write them down in codex form.

Soon we had the codices of several scholars such as Ibn Masud, Uba ibn Ka’b, ‘Ali, Abu Bakr, al-Aswad, and others (Jeffery, chapter 6, has listed fifteen primary codices, and a large number of secondary ones). As Islam spread, we eventually had what became known as the metropolitan codices in the centers of Mecca, Medina, Damascus, Kufa, and Basra.

'Uthman tried to bring order to this chaotic situation by canonizing the Medinan Codex, copies of which were sent to all the metropolitan centers, with orders to destroy all the other codices.

‘Uthman’s codex was supposed to standardize the consonantal text, yet we find many of the variant traditions of this consonantal text survived well into the fourth Islamic century. The problem was aggravated by the fact that the consonantal text was unpointed, that is to say, the dots that distinguish, for example, a "b" from a "t" or a "th" were missing.

Several other letters (f and q; j, h, and kh; s and d; r and z; s and sh; d and dh, t and z) were indistinguishable. In other words, the Koran was written in a scripta defectiva. As a result, a great many variant readings were possible according to the way the text was pointed (had the dots added).

The point is that if you judge the standard of one book of scripture by the standard of a second book of scripture and the second book is shwow not to be reliable, it cannot be used to support the truth of the first book of scripture.



MORGANITE



:)

THE COUP DE GRAS... THANK YOU!

The point is that if you judge the standard of one book of scripture by the standard of a second book of scripture and the second book is shown not to be reliable, it cannot be used to support the truth of the first book of scripture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G4-450

The free masons believe in the one supreme being, in arabic the name ELI or ALLAH, fits the translation., and not Ala the moon God which the enemies of Abraham try to mix Islam with.
is clear to state all generations after him who fallow his covenant are basically Muslims, maybe not the same way we see them today but at-least by VERB... which means doing Gods will, and even the Koran states that Christians, Jews and Magis (free masons) wilkl not suffer at the least in this life as long as they believe in God's will and do rightious deeds.

---

The Freemason's god is revealed in their rites as JAH-BUL-ON ...



MORGANITE


:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morganite

Your argument only works if the Koran is accurate, as does Muslim acceptance of it as a perfect book. If it is not it casts doubt on everything it supports.

---

I hope no one gets the impression I view the Quran as having the same authority as the Bible! I do not. I hold that the Bible is God's only inspired word. But I do respect someone's right to hold their own beliefs and opinions in this matter.

I was only attempting (vainly) to reason with him based on what he believed. I hoped that if he truly respected the Quran he would respect what it said about the Bible. But events obviously proved otherwise...

I still cannot understand his position--I can find no consistency in it--but I'm not interested in arguing so I gave up.

Chris

Chris:

There is something odd about his understanding and responses. He cuts and pastes at will and fights unseen enemies like don Quixote tilting at windmills, not undertanding what he does but serious in his purposes. He is beyond reach.





MORGANITE


:cool:

Speaking for yourself again, you're a clear hypocrite for always stirring of the subject instead of facing it.

AS well as anti semitic as usual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chrisl

I hope no one gets the impression I view the Quran as having the same authority as the Bible! I do not. I hold that the Bible is God's only inspired word. But I do respect someone's right to hold their own beliefs and opinions in this matter.

I was only attempting (vainly) to reason with him based on what he believed. I hoped that if he truly respected the Quran he would respect what it said about the Bible. But events obviously proved otherwise...

I still cannot understand his position--I can find no consistency in it--but I'm not interested in arguing so I gave up.

Chris

---

Chris

The Koran states the laws of the Torah (10 commandments) are to be obeyed clearly, and also further more that Jesus was sent to the lost sheep of Israel (judah) with 12 helpers to replace the children of Israel from what we know as capitol take over of the rest of its brother tribes and committing genocide to all the prior Prophets which he mentioned in the Bible and who they where sent to with the same message, only Jesus was there Messiah.

Anyone who runs with a sentence claiming that the koran states the bible is perfect has to look at all the facts with man made laws and there desires to of chosen some of the books out of over 60+ thousand other scriptures that where part of the bible, and destroyed as well.

The enemies of God are people who actually believe they are above the law, this is where I stand up for the koran, it stands for unity of mankind, against oppressors and tyrants.

Who ever uses the word terror is actually the sinner, terror is what God ordered in the torah as well against materialistic tyrants.

This is where I stand, no one should use force against another in a un authorized way for there own personal gain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G4-450

Speaking for yourself again, your a clear hypocrite for always stirring of the subject instead of facing it.

AS well as anti semitic as usual.

---

You are apostate. You do not offer the respect to others that the Koran insists you do.

Read this, and learn how it applies to you:


SANAA, YEMEN - When Judge Hamoud al-Hitar announced that he and four other Islamic scholars would challenge Yemen's Al Qaeda prisoners to a theological contest, Western antiterrorism experts warned that this high-stakes gamble would end in disaster.

Nervous as he faced five captured, yet defiant, Al Qaeda members in a Sanaa prison, Judge Hitar was inclined to agree. But banishing his doubts, the youthful cleric threw down the gauntlet, in the hope of bringing peace to his troubled homeland.

"If you can convince us that your ideas are justified by the Koran, then we will join you in your struggle," Hitar told the militants. "But if we succeed in convincing you of our ideas, then you must agree to renounce violence."

The prisoners eagerly agreed.

Now, two years later, not only have those prisoners been released, but a relative peace reigns in Yemen. And the same Western experts who doubted this experiment are courting Hitar, eager to hear how his "theological dialogues" with captured Islamic militants have helped pacify this wild and mountainous country, previously seen by the US as a failed state, like Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Since December 2002, when the first round of the dialogues ended, there have been no terrorist attacks here, even though many people thought that Yemen would become terror's capital," says Hitar, eyes glinting shrewdly from beneath his emerald-green turban. "Three hundred and sixty-four young men have been released after going through the dialogues and none of these have left Yemen to fight anywhere else."

"Yemen's strategy has been unconventional certainly, but it has achieved results that we could never have hoped for," says one European diplomat, who did not want to be named. "Yemen has gone from being a potential enemy to becoming an indispensable ally in the war on terror."

To be sure, the prisoner-release program is not solely responsible for the absence of attacks in Yemen. The government has undertaken a range of measures to combat terrorism from closing down extreme madrassahs, the Islamic schools sometimes accused of breeding hate, to deporting foreign militants.

Eager to spread the news of his success, Hitar welcomes foreigners into his home, fussing over them and pouring endless cups of tea. But beyond the otherwise nondescript house, a sense of menace lurks. Two military jeeps are parked outside, and soldiers peer through the gathering dark at passing cars. The evening wind sweeps through the unpaved streets, lifting clouds of dust and whipping up men's jackets to expose belts hung with daggers, pistols, and mobile telephones.

Seated amid stacks of Korans and religious texts, Hitar explains that his system is simple. He invites militants to use the Koran to justify attacks on innocent civilians and when they cannot, he shows them numerous passages commanding Muslims not to attack civilians, to respect other religions, and fight only in self-defense.

For example, he quotes: "Whoever kills a soul, unless for a soul, or for corruption done in the land - it is as if he had slain all mankind entirely. And, whoever saves one, it is as if he had saved mankind entirely." He uses the passage to bolster his argument against bombing Western targets in Yemen - attacks he says defy the Koran. And, he says, the Koran says under no circumstances should women and children be killed.

If, after weeks of debate, the prisoners renounce violence they are released and offered vocational training courses and help to find jobs.

Hitar's belief that hardened militants trained by Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan could change their stripes was initially dismissed by US diplomats in Sanaa as dangerously naïve, but the methods of the scholarly cleric have little in common with the other methods of fighting extremism. Instead of lecturing or threatening the battle-hardened militants, he listens to them.

"An important part of the dialogue is mutual respect," says Hitar. "Along with acknowledging freedom of expression, intellect and opinion, you must listen and show interest in what the other party is saying."

Only after winning the militants' trust does Hitar gradually begin to correct their beliefs. He says that most militants are ordinary people who have been led astray. Just as they were taught Al Qaeda's doctrines, he says, so too can they be taught more- moderate ideas. "If you study terrorism in the world, you will see that it has an intellectual theory behind it," says Hitar. "And any kind of intellectual idea can be defeated by intellect."

The program's success surprised even Hitar. For years Yemen was synonymous with violent Islamic extremism. The ancestral homeland of Mr. bin Laden, it provided two-thirds of recruits for his Afghan camps, and was notorious for kidnappings of foreigners and the bombing of the American warship USS Cole in 2000 that killed 17 sailors. Resisting US pressure, Yemen declined to meet violence with violence.

"It's only logical to tackle these people through their brains and heart," says Faris Sanabani, a former adviser to President Abdullah Saleh and editor-in-chief of the Yemen Observer, a weekly English-language newspaper. "If you beat these people up they become more stubborn. If you hit them, they will enjoy the pain and find something good in it - it is a part of their ideology. Instead, what we must do is erase what they have been taught and explain to them that terrorism will only harm Yemenis' jobs and prospects. Once they understand this they become fighters for freedom and democracy, and fighters for the true Islam," he says.

Some freed militants were so transformed that they led the army to hidden weapons caches and offered the Yemeni security services advice on tackling Islamic militancy. A spectacular success came in 2002 when Abu Ali al Harithi, Al Qaeda's top commander in Yemen, was assassinated by a US air-strike following a tip-off from one of Hitar's reformed militants.

Yet despite the apparent success in Yemen, some US diplomats have criticized it for apparently letting Islamic militants off the hook with little guarantee that they won't revert to their old ways once released from prison.

Yemen, however, argues that holding and punishing all militants would create only further discontent, pointing out that the actual perpetrators of attacks have all been prosecuted, with the bombers of the USS Cole and the French oil tanker, the SS Limburg. All received death sentences.

"Yemeni goals are long-term political aims whereas the American agenda focuses on short-term prosecution of military or law enforcement objectives," wrote Charles Schmitz, a specialist in Yemeni affairs, in 2004 report for the Jamestown Foundation, an influential US think tank.

"These goals are not necessarily contradictory, with each government recognizing that compromises and accommodations must be made, but their ambiguities create tense moments."

Some members of the Yemeni government also hanker for a more iron-fisted approach, and Yemen remains on high alert for further attacks. Fighter planes regularly swoop low over the ancient mud-brick city of Sanaa to send a clear message to any would-be militants.

An additional cause of friction with the US is that while Yemen successfully discourages attacks within its borders on the grounds that tourism and trade will suffer, it has done little to tackle anti-Western sentiment or the corruption, poverty, and lack of opportunity that fuels Islamic militancy.

"Yemen still faces serious challenges, but despite the odd hiccup, we sometimes have to admit that Yemenis know Yemen best," says the European diplomat. "And if their system works, who are we to complain?"

As the relative success of Yemen's unusual approach becomes apparent, Hitar has been invited to speak to antiterrorism specialists at London's New Scotland Yard, as well as to French and German police, hoping to defuse growing militancy among Muslim immigrants.

US diplomats have also approached the cleric to see if his methods can be applied in Iraq, says Hitar.

"Before the dialogues began, there was only one way to fight terrorism, and that was through force," he says. "Now there is another way: dialogue."


You must abandon anti Allah terror.

Whether the Koran is reliable or not has nothing to do with the reliability of the Holy Bible.
There are several excellent books and tapes that demonstrate that the Bible is reliable.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura) :)

Well I wish I could agree but I am trying my best to be honest and I find the same teaching in the Koran as the Bible, a bit more clear and not man made washed up for man power or control, I came to realizing this after I learned Mohammed dies only 2 years after taking Meca. the rest is history.

This link here cross references the Bible and Koran, they are very mush the same God and words to guide people, only one in simple arabic while the other origionaly in Aramaic (also arabic) and hebrew.
http://www.jews-for-allah.org/Jews-and-Muslims-Agree/
Jews and Muslims Agree

"Behold! Allah took the covenant of the prophets, saying: "I give you a Book and Wisdom; then comes to you a messenger, confirming what is with you; do ye believe in him and render him help." Allah said: "Do ye agree, and take this my Covenant as binding on you?" They said: "We agree." He said: "Then bear witness, and I am with you among the witnesses." Holy Koran 3:81

Scripture

The Ten Commandments in the Holy Quran

Names and Attributes of God in the Bible and Koran
Abraham to Zechariah
The Koran is a Book for Jews

Dietary

Halal is Kosher: Jewish - Muslim dietary laws compared

Why we Don't eat pork

Belief

Jewish and Muslim prayers

Jews didn't kill Jesus

Monotheists against Trinity

Monotheists against Pharaoh

Rite

Sabbath according to Islam

Women and the veil

Why men are circumcised

Jews and the Hajj Pilgrimage

Afterlife

Heaven in Judaism and Islam

Please use the link above to see the details.
Anyone who disputes with the Qur'an containing God's Commandments wether they believe its was forged or not has a Anti Semitic Problem because no one but god claims credit for it, even Mohammed was clearly told that he is just a messenger and has not authority over anyone.


And I do agree with "something" Morgatide has said, people have there own capacity to understand the bible or koran and I agree with this because they have there own deeds to live with. but he said this to claim Islam forces people to do what the torah taught them then in practice amnd not theory, I guess he has a problem with this.

Saying this I also have to mention others that I can not see where in the bible that it stated NOT to expect another prophet,
* Paul was NOT a prophet or even nearly had anything to share like prior prophets or at all or considered one,

Also, he was a repenter, a ex jew who persecuted and murdered many early ethnic christians and some say sold the ideologies of Christianity to pagan rome with the trinity tossed in there years after Jesus teachings.

I again remind people to look at some links with out prejudice;
http://www.themodernreligion.com/com...ristianity.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morganite

You are apostate.

---

Give up politics Morganite, they are for liars and your not a good one for sure :)


You're a simple been anti semitic and racist, as anti semitic you claim jew haters are, you also never admitted that some who call themselves jews are also anti semitic and believe in ethnic cleansing israel brings them closer to there Goals, which are??

And they also twist things to avoid confrontations which exposes them as we see many on websites just like you, spending there entire time on distorting Gods words to people to create a political propaganda smokescreen in covering up there anti Semitic views to provoke hate trends between arabs (both of the jewish and muslim faiths).

OR of course, trying to get there web site more hits for add money.

Whatever your case, you sold out your own soul and you have your own deeds, I again want the truth to be opened.

So stop your ANTISEMITIC JEWISH AND MUSLIM HATRED and move on Morgetide, GET A LIFE Already.

By the way, Freemasons and their god baale believe in the supreme Being as well (God) but fallow Solomon's rituals but certain degrees vow to the prince of light AKA LUCIFER, and you can see by the rings they where if they are 33 degree scottish masons or not, like G W Bush or his cousin Kerry who all practice occult beliefs, and all bow like abraham but to LUCIFER .

God only accepts from righteous people no matter what kind of hoaxes they do, so there rituals mean nothing to believers, and God allow Satan to attack disbelievers in God, for God promised Salvation only to those who keep his commandments.

Here you go kid;http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/masons.htm

And this is from a jewish free mason who says they are the best in controlling ameriKKKa and the foregn policy,

We used to be free masons, but we can't afford it anymore. Now were Low-Monthly-Fee Masons.
http://www.entu.cas.cz/fyziol/freetime/eternity/jew.jpg

See? Religious nuts are all about conflict.