 |
|
|
|
 Youcef Nadarkhani, born to Muslim parents in the northern Iranian town of Rasht, converted to Christianity when he was 19.
July 10th, 2012
02:39 AM ET
State Dept: Release pastor jailed for 1,000 days, sentenced to death in IranBy Ed Payne, CNN (CNN) - It has been more than 1,000 days since a Christian pastor was thrown into an Iranian jail for leaving Islam and sentenced to death for, as the U.S. State Department put it, "simply following his faith." On Monday, the agency once again called on Iran to release Youcef Nadarkhani. "Pastor Nadarkhani still faces the threat of execution for simply following his faith, and we repeat our call for Iranian authorities to release him immediately," said a statement from State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland. His next scheduled court date is September 8.
« Previous entryStudy: People tweet more about church than beer
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
My husband and i got abeulotsly excited when Peter could round up his analysis from your precious recommendations he discovered from your very own web pages. It's not at all simplistic just to choose to be freely giving guides that some people might have been trying to sell. We remember we have you to thank for that. All of the illustrations you've made, the straightforward web site navigation, the relationships you will give support to create it's got most astounding, and it's really leading our son in addition to our family reckon that this concept is interesting, which is certainly unbelievably essential. Many thanks for the whole lot!
Prayer changes things
Prayer does not; you are such a LIAR. You have NO proof it changes anything! A great example of prayer proven not to work is the Christians in jail because prayer didn't work and their children died. For example: Susan Grady, who relied on prayer to heal her son. Nine-year-old Aaron Grady died and Susan Grady was arrested.
An article in the Journal of Pediatrics examined the deaths of 172 children from families who relied upon faith healing from 1975 to 1995. They concluded that four out of five ill children, who died under the care of faith healers or being left to prayer only, would most likely have survived if they had received medical care.
The statistical studies from the nineteenth century and the three CCU studies on prayer are quite consistent with the fact that humanity is wasting a huge amount of time on a procedure that simply doesn’t work. Nonetheless, faith in prayer is so pervasive and deeply rooted, you can be sure believers will continue to devise future studies in a desperate effort to confirm their beliefs:!
Pray to God, he will help you. And if you die, then you were not a good Christian.
Amen
He has nothing to worry about with the power of the Lord.
Amen
Cybil still has that wrath blinding her I see phony heavensent.
Yousef is part of the Jesus Only Movement, which does not embrace the doctrine of the Trinity. Do some research and learn what the truth is.
If he were back here in the states you would never call him a true xtian.
I find it interesting that one of the organizations listed, the ACLJ, claims to fight for religious freedom and yet consistently fights against Muslim's freedom of religion, e.g. the so-called "Ground zero mosque" ("The ACLJ is fighting back aggressively in court to halt the planned construction of an Islamic mosque at Ground Zero... ")
@ME II"..ACLJ, claims to fight for religious freedom ..."
=>ACLJ claims it is defending every religions rights?
Really?
where?
I'm sure you did some research before hand to make sure what you were saying was accurate, so if you could be so kind as to provide a link...
ACLJ mission statement:
The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) and its globally affiliated organizations are committed to ensuring the ongoing viability of freedom and liberty in the United States and around the world.
By focusing on U.S. constitutional law, European Union law and human rights law, the ACLJ and its affiliated organizations are dedicated to the concept that freedom and liberty are universal, God-given and inalienable rights that must be protected.
The ACLJ and its worldwide affiliates engage in litigation, provide legal services, render advice to individuals and governmental agencies, as well as counsel clients on global freedom and liberty issues. They also support training law students from around the world in order to protect religious liberty and safeguard human rights and dignity.
As a non-profit organization, the ACLJ does not charge for its services and is dependent upon God and the resources He provides through the time, talent, and gifts of people who share our concerns and desire to protect our religious and constitutional freedoms.
The ACLJ is a religious (christian and judeaic) group who fights for the right to put their religion wherever they see fit.
They are opposed to any group who would remove religious references from governmental, or state sponsered events or organizations and opposed to anyone who is not christian or jewish. They are a hate group, with a law-changing agenda.. They are extrememly one-sided.If you have ever listened to their radio program, it is amazing the amount of venom in their voices anytime they use the word atheist. The ACLJ and others like it should be banned from meddling in legal matters because their aganda goes against the first amendment.
Chad, lol that vauge mission statement was meant to dupe gullible people like you.
@Chad,
The article stated, "The American Center for Law and Justice - a group 'specifically dedicated to the ideal that religious freedom and freedom of speech are inalienable, God-given rights'"
Their mission statement, as you quoted, states, "By focusing on U.S. consti.tutional law, European Union law and human rights law, the ACLJ and its affiliated organizations are dedicated to the concept that freedom and liberty are universal, God-given and inalienable rights that must be protected."
Unless you are claiming that the term "religious" refers only to Christianity, it seems to me, that by referencing US and EU law, which refer to all religions, they are also referring to all religions.
If I am incorrect please indicate where they specify which religious people they support and which people they feel do not have a right to freedom of religion.
@wayne "Chad, lol that vauge mission statement was meant to dupe gullible people like you."
=>ah.. ok, then perhaps you have a link to where the ACLJ claims it is fighting for the religious freedom of all religions?
Wathc their show, listen to their radio program. Get the source from them.
They occasionally will fight for lesser fights in many religions, but they are christian and jewish. They will fight for others as long as it doesn't interfere with their agenda.
Watch their show and listen to their radio.... I cringe everytime these bozos go in front of real courts on issues like, the 1950's change to a religious based national motto and pledge.
For all you atheists/agnostics/iconoclasts/freethinkers....watch these guys. You want to see the face of the enemy to your freedoms, the ones who want to make this a thoecracy...these guys are it.
@Chad, their mission statement is purposefully dishonest. They'd be better of stating that by God they mean the christian one, and that religion is nothing more than a synoym for their particular death cult. Honestly isn't really a chrisitan trait these days.
@Who invited me? "For all you atheists/agnostics/iconoclasts/freethinkers....watch these guys. You want to see the face of the enemy to your freedoms, the ones who want to make this a thoecracy...these guys are it."
=>Really?
so, you are contending that they are seeking to change rather than preserve the law as it stands today? So, you are claiming for example that they dont fight to allow the ten commandments to remain as a display in courthouses, rather they are fighting to have it displayed in courthouses where it doesnt exist currently?
Example please 😉
@wayne "their mission statement is purposefully dishonest."
@Chad "Really?? exactly how?
===========
@wayne "They'd be better of stating that by God they mean the christian one"
@Chad "so, you are saying that they claim somewhere to support a general notion of "god" but not specifically the Judeo/Christian God?
Where do they do that?
I'm sure you wouldnt say something that can't be backed up.. could you provide a link? thanks
===========
@wayne "and that religion is nothing more than a synoym for their particular death cult. Honestly isn't really a chrisitan trait these days."
@Chad "example please? "death cult"?? example of how Christians are dishonest?
I'm sure you wouldnt say something that can't be backed up.. could you provide a link or supporting info? thanks 🙂
Who,
I listen to the Jay Seculo(sp?) show almost every day and you are right on. These guys are self serving a holes who just want your donations. I would love to see where their money goes.
Chad
Yes these guys are my emeny.
When they fight to keep the LIE that is the new motto "in god we trust", they trample the first amendment
Same when they fight to keep "under god" in the pledge that is supposed to be for everyone, they trample the first amendment.
Whenever the stand against an atheist, you can hear the hatred and loathing in their voices when they say the word atheist, yes they prove to me that they are the face of my enemy, the ones who would fight to keep the unconst i tutional religious laws alive, then Yes CHAD, they are my emeny
@Who invited me? "Yes these guys are my emeny."
@Chad "I couldnt care less if you consider them your enemy or not, what I care about is whether or not you can back up your original claim with any data at all, or you were just spouting rubbish..
you claimed that they were trying to make this country a theocracy.
Fighting to keep things the way they are currently is not "making this country a theocracy".
right?
======
@Who invited me? "When they fight to keep the LIE that is the new motto "in god we trust", they trample the first amendment
Same when they fight to keep "under god" in the pledge that is supposed to be for everyone, they trample the first amendment.
@Chad "LOL, you should try reading the first amendment 😉
Additionally, my question remains. By fighting to keep things the way they are, how precisely are they attempting to "make this a theocracy"?
data?
do you have some?
@Chad,
Was I incorrect?
Was the ACLJ not trying to imply, by referring to the US and EU laws, that they support freedom of religion for all religions?
Chad.
the record is one of public record. They have stood before the SCOTUS so just look there for there "tesimony"
I fully understand the first amendment.
When Congress passed into law the Lie that is the"In God We Trust" motto and started printing it on money, they asked and answered the question of "is there a god'. Gods only exist in religion, so congress passed a law the respects the establishment of religion., Same with when they changed the pledge. They asked and answered the religious question, and violated my rights via the first amendment.
I have payed very close attention to the ACLJ because they are a religious biased legal arm,something that is very dangerous to MY freedoms.
@ME II "I find it interesting that one of the organizations listed, the ACLJ, claims to fight for religious freedom and yet consistently fights against Muslim's freedom of religion"
@ME II "Was the ACLJ not trying to imply, by referring to the US and EU laws, that they support freedom of religion for all religions?
@Chad "so, are you backing off from your original claim (that the ACLJ claims to support religious freedom for all religions, but doesnt)?
@Who invited me? "[no information provided to demonstrate that ACLJ is attempting to create a Christian theocracy]" – paraphrase mine.
@Chad "ok, so you were just talking rubbish.. fine..
============
On to your next topic:
@Who invited me? "When Congress passed into law the Lie that is the"In God We Trust" motto and started printing it on money, they asked and answered the question of "is there a god'"
@Chad "that question was asked and answered long before that.. 😉
"... We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..." The Declaration of Independence JULY 4, 1776
@Chad,
"so, are you backing off from your original claim (that the ACLJ claims to support religious freedom for all religions, but doesnt)?"
I guess I never thought to make a distinction between what they wanted to imply and what they were actually claiming. If you are saying that they implied that they support religious freedom for all but yet don't actually make that claim, then, perhaps we can agree that they are being deceitful at some point.
Either they are 1) claiming something they don't support, or
they are 2) implying a claim that they are not making.
Either is intentionally misleading and is, to me, a distinction without a difference.
@Chad,
Normally I would try to step in and clarify things, but in this case there is no reason to. Who Invited Me and MeII are very clearly adressing your points, and you are failing to answer theirs. Either you are having trouble with reading comprehension today or you are being intellectually dishonest, either way I don't care, but you should know that to anyone else reading this, you're not making the points you hope you are. I suggest you read their responses more closely and try again.
Chad
What the hell does that quote have to do with anything. So the drafters of the const i t ution believed in a god...so what. They were smart enough to know not to force their opinion on others. Just because the drafters of the const i t ution said that about the "creator" doesn't make it true.
The lie that is the motto "in god we trust" has no business on OUR money.
under god has no place in OUR pledge of loyalty
As far as the theocracy bit...don't harp on that so much...it is my opinion after having listened to them for years that they WOULD put ever more religious laws on the books if they thought they could, and it is their ilk (again..opinion) that over enough tiime, would bring us closer to a theocracy
@BRC: it's pretty simple, if someone is making a claim that an organization is attempting to turn this country into a theocracy, it would be necessary to demonstrate that said organization was changing/introducing new laws.
Fighting to retain existing "religious" displays, or legal interpretations could ONLY be claimed to be a retention of an existing theocracy, not an introduction of a new one. By definition.
pretty simple.. right? If I fight to keep things the way they are, it can hardly be argued that I am attempting to introduce something new.
@Chad,
If what already exists is wrong to begin with, you don't have to introduce anything new. If your end goal was to make this country a theocracy, it would certainly be in your best interest to maintain those laws and elements that are already in place that were drawn from the theology you're pushing,
@Who invited me? "What the hell does that quote have to do with anything:
@Chad "it establishes that the framers of the DOI believed in God, believed that man's rights came from God, and that it was the duty of the govt to enforce those rights."
==========
@Who invited me? "As far as the theocracy bit...don't harp on that so much...it is my opinion after having listened to them for years that they WOULD put ever more religious laws on the books if they thought they could"
@Chad "AH
ok, so you are speculating... I get it..
😉
@ME II "Either they are 1) claiming something they don't support, or they are 2) implying a claim that they are not making.
Either is intentionally misleading and is, to me, a distinction without a difference."
@Chad "nice false dichotomy 😉
you left one out
3) ME II is trying to create a situation of deceitfulness that doesnt exist.
@Chad,
"nice false dichotomy
you left one out
3) ME II is trying to create a situation of deceitfulness that doesnt exist."
Sorry, I was as.suming that you agreed that they were indeed making an implication. Do you disagree with me that ACLJ's statement implies support for freedom of religion for all religions?
If not, as I already asked, please indicate where they specify who, i.e. which religious group, has such a right and which don't.
If you do agree that they were making that implication, then the dichotomy is not false as it covers all options, 1) the implication was intended to make a claim or 2) the implication was not intended to make a claim. What other options are there?
I don't see the word "God" in the DOI, Chad. I see 'Creator'. If the framers meant "God", that's what they'd have written.
@ME II "Do you disagree with me that ACLJ's statement implies support for freedom of religion for all religions?
If not, as I already asked, please indicate where they specify who, i.e. which religious group, has such a right and which don't."
@Chad "nice attempt at shifting the burden! 🙂
you made the original assertion, you defend it, or back away from it..
@ME II"..ACLJ, claims to fight for religious freedom ..."
=>ACLJ claims it is defending every religions rights?
Really?
where?
I'm sure you did some research before hand to make sure what you were saying was accurate, so if you could be so kind as to provide a link...
@Chad,
As I replied the first time, to which you did not respond:
"Unless you are claiming that the term 'religious' refers only to Christianity, it seems to me, that by referencing US and EU law, which refer to all religions, they are also referring to all religions.
If I am incorrect please indicate where they specify which religious people they support and which people they feel do not have a right to freedom of religion.
July 10, 2012 at 10:58 am | Report abuse |"
@ME II "I find it interesting that one of the organizations listed, the ACLJ, claims to fight for religious freedom and yet consistently fights against Muslim's freedom of religion"
@Chad "ACLJ claims it is defending every religions rights? Really? where?"
@ME II "Unless you are claiming that the term 'religious' refers only to Christianity, it seems to me, that by referencing US and EU law, which refer to all religions, they are also referring to all religions"
@Chad "I think you'll have to do whole lot better than that to establish a claim on the part of the ACLJ to be an organization that advocates on behalf of all religions equally.
@ME II "If I am incorrect please indicate where they specify which religious people they support and which people they feel do not have a right to freedom of religion."
@Chad
1. "you havent met your burden of proof establishing that the ACLJ claims to advocate for all religions equally.
2. Requiring that I do anything to establish they dont make that claim is a shifting of the burden.
3. If (I'm not saying you have, I'm saying IF you do) you attempt to say something along the lines of "well, since you havent established that they dont make that claim, it's only logical to assume they do, that would be a logical fallacy"
@Chad,
"I think you'll have to do whole lot better than that to establish a claim on the part of the ACLJ to be an organization that advocates on behalf of all religions equally."
Seriously, that's your response? "you'll have to do whole lot better" Might I point out that you didn't actually refute my point.
Additionally, however, I would point out that (in your particular way of viewing things, I think) I did not actually make the claim that ACLJ was claiming to fight for all religions. If you look a my words, I said, " ...claims to fight for religious freedom... ." I did not say, "advocates on behalf of all religions equally."
In light of defending my statement, I again refer you to the article in question which quoted ACLJ as saying it was, "specifically dedicated to the ideal that religious freedom.... [is] inalienable...". If you want to now debate the distinction between "fights for" and "dedicated to", go right ahead.
This is just semantic BS, my point is essentially, I think, the very point that you are also making, that they are defending the Christian's right to religious freedom, while espousing the "God-given" "ideal" of religious freedom which relates to everyone, not just Christians.
To me, this seems misleading, if not deceitful. That is all I'm saying.
I'll keep it short:
This is your entire point, right?? That if the ACLJ "claims to fight for religious freedom", then they have to advocate equally for all religions, if they dont then they are being misleading/deceitful.
yes or no?
@Chad,
No.
What I am saying is that if they claim to advocate for "religious freedom" which, according the their own references, entails all religions, then I would not expect them to advocate against other religion's freedoms, e.g. Islam, since that would be counter to "religious freedom".
Advocating 'for' Christian's freedoms is in-line with "religious freedom," but advocating 'against' Islam's is not, hence the "...yet [the ACLJ] consistently fights against Muslim's freedom of religion..." in my original post. That is what I am calling misleading or deceitful.
@ME II "What I am saying is that if they claim to advocate for "religious freedom" which, according the their own references, entails all religions, then I would not expect them to advocate against other religion's freedoms, e.g. Islam, since that would be counter to "religious freedom"."
@Chad "ah, ok, fair enough. In response then:
A. ACLJ has no duty to defend everyone's religion, it isnt making the claim that they do anywhere that I see, and it doesnt sound like you are saying they have that duty.
B. ACLJ can certainly take on a case opposing a religious viewpoint if they feel that in doing so, they help advance the cause of "freedom and liberty" (a duty they assume in their charter)
C. Opposing radical Islam DOES advance freedom and liberty, as it is opposed to both.
From CARM.org's own website:
Jesus Only Movement
This is a movement in some Pentecostal circles. It is an error in the understanding of the nature of the Trinity. The biblical Trinity consists of three persons simultaneously and eternally existing in one God. The Jesus Only Movement maintains that there is only one person in the Godhead: Jesus. One view held in the Jesus only movement is that the person of the Father became the person of the Son who then became the person of the Holy Spirit and that the persons are consecutive not simultaneous. Another view is that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not consecutive, but are manifestations of the one person that occurs at different times and situations.
This movement is heretical. Additionally, they mistakenly believe that baptism is necessary for salvation and that tongues are evidence of true conversion. See the Plurality Study for an article that helps to refute the idea that the Father became the Son who became the Holy Spirit. Another term used to deny the Trinity is Oneness theology.
Also known as Oneness Penecostal. They don't represent the views of the entire Penecostal faith. Same goes for the Serpent Handling Penecostal churches. Some folks are quick to lump them all together, not saying you are. Our Assembly of God church stands strong on the Holy Trinity as three persons, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We know that scripture says not to test God, so you will find no serpents in our church, at least not the cold blooded slithering kind. We know that tounges is a spiritual gift, as is translation of tounges, faith, and prophesy, and is a sign of being baptized by the Holy Spirit, and speaking in tounges is not necessary for salvation, neither is baptism. Baptism is an outward, public declaration of you giving your life to Christ. As it says in the bible, profess your faith with your mouth.
Thanks for your post. I would also love to say that your health inurasnce brokerage also works best for the benefit of the actual coordinators of any group inurasnce policy. The health agent is given an index of benefits searched for by somebody or a group coordinator. Exactly what a broker will is seek out individuals as well as coordinators which will best fit those wants. Then he provides his tips and if all sides agree, the particular broker formulates binding agreement between the 2 parties.
He's not even a real xtain.
Yousef is part of the Jesus Only Movement, which does not embrace the doctrine of the Trinity. Do some research and learn what the truth is.
Modalism is no more wack than trinitarianism. Both have horribly obvious logic holes in their beliefs about the nature of their god. The only Xtians that seem to resolve any holes around gawd's nature are Unitarians.
Also, while you assert this fellow isn't even Xtian, technically he still is. Although you are correct in asserting that the varying sects of Xtianity won't normally claim that different sects are actual Xtians (unless, of course, those sects are needed for number comparisons against other religions/or non-religions).
This guy knew the laws when he converted from one irrational and illogical belief to another.
He violated the law of the country, and deserves the punishment. Just because you disagree with the law does not mean you get to change another countries judicial system.
It was his choice to change beliefs, his choice to make it public, his choice to sit in jail until they execute him.
This man is no martyr, he is a fool.
Who invited me? You have the mark of the beast. Meaning you listen to folks who killed Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, believing yourself to be intelligent.
Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:
1 Thessalonians 2:15
You need to stop being lazy and read Jesus' truth (the Bible) on your own ... for the rest of your life.
HS
I do not have the mark of any beast fool. This man broke the law in his country, and should be punished according to that law.
I am opposed to the law because it is as rediculous as the ancient words you like to spew. But he knowingly violated the law, you cannot dispute that fact.
And by the way HS, you spew your venom on people all day in the name of your god, but it is obvious from your posts that you haven't learned a thing from the teachings.
try a little love thy neighbor, those who are without sin, do unto others and stop spewing scripture. it only shows you do not comprehend it.
Do some research HS, you dont know what your talking about only what you've been told to believe. Just like most xtians.
@Who invited me?,
To a small extent, I agree with you, e.g. following the law, etc., however if you read the full article it states that even Iran's own consti.tution protects minority religions.
p.s.
"And while apostasy is not an offense codified in Iranian law, converts from Islam often face the death penalty, Amnesty International said."
ME II
Iranian law does protect minor religions, BUT...It does not protect you if you convert away from islam. To them it is a capital offence. If he was born, raised christian, that is one thing, but to convert...
You have to remember that you are dealing with religios people, and as such will not be rational.
Who invited me, Your post is damning him for not changing his belief in Jesus Christ and that he should be punished for it. Doesn't sound righteous to me. Not that I believe you to be righteous.
And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men: for all [men] have not faith.
2 Thessalonians 3:2
Amen.
@Who Invited Me,
It doesn't garauntee protection, but Converting away from Islam is not against the law (that's what apostacy is). The point their making is that executions are happening for something that isn't against the written law. Now, he should have seen it coming, and should have known the dangers given the situation, so if he dies it's because he's choosing to be a martyr; but that doesn't make the execution any less barbaric or stupid.
HS Do not put words in my mouth...you do not understand so pay attention
My post is not damning him for not changing his belief in jesus christ. You do not comprehend even the easiest of concepts.
He converted from Islam to xtianity...a crime in his country. He knowingly and with forthought violated his countries laws and should be punished for that. Just because you disagree with the reason, does not change the fact that he is a criminal in his country.
I can see you still haven't learned anything from your book. I suggest re-reading some of the apostles works.Maybe you will realize thatyou are not fit to judge me or anyone else and you will remove the venom from your posts.
And again, stop quoting scripture in your posts. It shows you do not comprehend their meanings when you do because the context you use them in is inappropriate.
HS thinks she's doing God's work and providing a public service.
BRC
You are correct that it is not a crime in const it utional law as it were, but Iran is a dual society. They have laws and a president, but the religious actually run everything. They believe the religious laws (as they see them), supercede the laws of men. The religion police ( and yes they DO have them) will punish him for the crimes, and the governing body will let it happen.
@Who Invited Me,
Very true.
@Who invited me?,
That's a good point about the dual sets/systems of laws, although that weakens the point about him knowing the consequences of his actions.
It doesn't really weaken the point. If you grow up in that society, you understand the two groups. The religion police are not hidden, they are right out in the open and are everywhere. He was fully aware of the repercussions of his actions. He likely believes that he will be "saved by his new faith, or if he dies, that god will take him to heaven. Understand the way many people are taught in their society, that everything you do is only in preparation for the afterlife,nothing else is of consequence. It is a totally different mindset than in America.
Make no mistake, he knows EXACTLY what the deal is.
Who invited me? First, I am not on this blog all day long. Some days, yes. Most days, no. As for spewing nonsense. I have never told anyone to go to hell. I have however, posted Jesus' truth. If you don't know that my handle has been hi-jacked to spew nonsense, that's your problem. If you have objections with my post, write it to me, but, don't cut and paste one of the phony heavensent's post and put the blame on me. It's their chaos, not mine.
As for Tommie, Tom. You give me a headache with your non-belief stand ... no matter what day it is ... SKIP.
Poor HS gets a headache from skipping my posts.
Then has to post about it.
Cybil? Are you there Cybil? I guess not.
HeavenSent, I assume you are baiting the person who's posting under your 'handle' (which apparently is what you are here doing most of the time). You seem to think that it's me. I'm guessing that because you're posting in response to me.
I'm not "Cybil" or 'Sybil', you paranoid nut. And I don't post under your handle.
God bless this man for being so faithful and true to his faith. God speed Youcef.
This guy is a member of a non-trinitarian Brahamian cult. If he were in the States you would be calling him a heritic, pharesee, or worse.
He broke the law in the country that he was in and will pay the penalty.
Amen JA.
Dear Citizens of Iran,
From the studies of Armstrong, Rushdie, Hirsi Ali, Richardson and Bayhaqi----–
The Five Steps To Deprogram 1400 Years of Islamic Myths:
( –The Steps take less than two minutes to finish- simply amazing, two minutes to bring peace and rationality to over one billion lost souls- Priceless!!!)
Are you ready?
Using "The 77 Branches of Islamic "faith" a collection compiled by Imam Bayhaqi as a starting point. In it, he explains the essential virtues that reflect true "faith" (iman) through related Qur’anic verses and Prophetic sayings." i.e. a nice summary of the Koran and Islamic beliefs.
The First Five of the 77 Branches:
"1. Belief in Allah"
aka as God, Yahweh, Zeus, Jehovah, Mother Nature, etc. should be added to your self-cleansing neurons.
"2. To believe that everything other than Allah was non-existent. Thereafter, Allah Most High created these things and subsequently they came into existence."
Evolution and the Big Bang or the "Gi-b G-nab" (when the universe starts to recycle) are more plausible and the "akas" for Allah should be included if you continue to be a "crea-tionist".
"3. To believe in the existence of angels."
A major item for neuron cleansing. Angels/de-vils are the mythical creations of ancient civilizations, e.g. Hitt-ites, to explain/define natural events, contacts with their gods, big birds, sudden winds, protectors during the dark nights, etc. No "pretty/ug-ly wingy thingies" ever visited or talked to Mohammed, Jesus, Mary or Joseph or Joe Smith. Today we would classify angels as f–airies and "tin–ker be-lls". Modern de-vils are classified as the de-mons of the de-mented.
"4. To believe that all the heavenly books that were sent to the different prophets are true. However, apart from the Quran, all other books are not valid anymore."
Another major item to delete. There are no books written in the spirit state of Heaven (if there is one) just as there are no angels to write/publish/distribute them. The Koran, OT, NT etc. are simply books written by humans for humans.
Prophets were invented by ancient scribes typically to keep the un-educated masses in line. Today we call them for-tune tellers.
Prophecies are also invali-dated by the natural/God/Allah gifts of Free Will and Future.
"5. To believe that all the prophets are true. However, we are commanded to follow the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) alone."
Mohammed spent thirty days "fasting" (the Ramadan legend) in a hot cave before his first contact with Allah aka God etc. via a "pretty wingy thingy". Common sense demands a neuron deletion of #5. #5 is also the major source of Islamic vi-olence i.e. turning Mohammed's "fast, hunger-driven" hallu-cinations into horrible reality for unbelievers.
Walk these Five Steps and we guarantee a complete recovery from your Islamic ways!!!!
Unfortunately, there are not many Muslim commentators/readers on this blog so the "two-minute" cure is not getting to those who need it. If you have a Muslim friend, send him a copy and help save the world.
Analogous steps are available at your request for deprogramming the myths of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism and Paganism..
Imagine no religion...
You are aware that religion played a massive role in getting humans to start civilizations by laying down common rules, right? You are also aware that some of the most impactful pieces of art and expression were based on religious works, right?
A world with no religion is not a happy and rosy place, my friend.
A world with Islam:
The Islamic terror and aggression via a Partial and Recent and Not So Recent Body Count
As the koranic/mosque driven acts of terror and horror continue:
The Muslim Conquest of India – 11th to 18th century
■"The likely death toll is somewhere between 2 million and 80 million. The geometric mean of those two limits is 12.7 million. "
and the 19 million killed in the Mideast Slave Trade 7C-19C by Muslims.
and more recently
1a) 179 killed in Mumbai/Bombay, 290 injured
1b) Assassination of Benazir Bhutto and Theo Van Gogh
2) 9/11, 3000 mostly US citizens, 1000’s injured
3) The 24/7 Sunni-Shiite centuries-old blood feud currently being carried out in Iraq, US troops killed in action, 3,480 and 928 in non combat roles. 102,522 – 112,049 Iraqi civilians killed as of 9/16/2011/, mostly due to suicide bombers, land mines and bombs of various types, http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ and http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf
4) Kenya- In Nairobi, about 212 people were killed and an estimated 4000 injured; in Dar es Salaam, the attack killed at least 11 and wounded 85.[2]
5) Bali-in 2002-killing 202 people, 164 of whom were foreign nationals, and 38 Indonesian citizens. A further 209 people were injured.
6) Bali in 2005- Twenty people were killed, and 129 people were injured by three bombers who killed themselves in the attacks.
7) Spain in 2004- killing 191 people and wounding 2,050.
8. UK in 2005- The bombings killed 52 commuters and the four radical Islamic suicide bombers, injured 700.
9) The execution of an eloping couple in Afghanistan on 04/15/2009 by the Taliban.
10) – Afghanistan: US troops 1,385 killed in action, 273 killed in non-combat situations as of 09/15/2011. Over 40,000 Afghan civilians killed due to the dark-age, koranic-driven Taliban acts of horror
11) The killing of 13 citizen soldiers at Ft. Hood by a follower of the koran.
12) 38 Russian citizens killed on March 29, 2010 by Muslim women suicide bombers.
13) The May 28, 2010 attack on a Islamic religious minority in Pakistan, which have left 98 dead,
14) Lockerbie is known internationally as the site where, on 21 December 1988, the wreckage of Pan Am Flight 103 crashed as a result of a terrorist bomb. In the United Kingdom the event is referred to as the Lockerbie disaster, the Lockerbie bombing, or simply Lockerbie. Eleven townspeople were killed in Sherwood Crescent, where the plane's wings and fuel tanks plummeted in a fiery explosion, destroying several houses and leaving a huge crater, with debris causing damage to a number of buildings nearby. The 270 fatalities (259 on the plane, 11 in Lockerbie) were citizens of 21 nations.
15 The daily suicide and/or roadside and/or mosque bombings in the terror world of Islam.
16) Bombs sent from Yemen by followers of the koran which fortunately were discovered before the bombs were detonated.
17) The killing of 58 Christians in a Catholic church in one of the latest acts of horror and terror in Iraq.
18) Moscow airport suicide bombing: 35 dead, 130 injured. January 25, 2011.
19) A Pakistani minister, who had said he was getting death threats because of his stance against the country's controversial blasphemy law, was shot and killed Wednesday, 3/2/2011
20) two American troops killed in Germany by a recently radicalized Muslim, 3/3/2011
21) the kidnapping and apparent killing of a follower of Zoraster in the dark world of Islamic Pakistan.
22) Shariatpur, Bangladesh (CNN 3/30/2011) - Hena Akhter's last words to her mother proclaimed her innocence. But it was too late to save the 14-year-old girl. Her fellow villagers in Bangladesh's Shariatpur district had already passed harsh judgment on her. Guilty, they said, of having an affair with a married man. The imam from the local mosque ordered the fatwa, or religious ruling, and the punishment: 101 lashes delivered swiftly, deliberately in public. Hena dropped after 70 and died a week later.
23) "October 4, 2011, 100 die as a truck loaded with drums of fuel exploded Tuesday at the gate of compound housing several government ministries on a busy Mogadishu street. It was the deadliest single bombing carried out by the al Qaeda-linked al-Shabab group in Somalia since their insurgency began. "
o 24) Mon Jun 4, 2012 10:18am EDT
BAGHDAD (Reuters) – A suicide bomber detonated an explosive-packed car outside a Shi'ite Muslim office in central Baghdad on Monday, killing at least 26 people and wounding more than 190 in an attack bearing the hallmarks of Iraq's al Qaeda affiliate.
The bombing on a Shi'ite religious office comes at a sensitive time, with the country's fractious Shi'ite, Sunni and Kurdish blocs locked in a crisis that threatens to unravel their power-sharing deal and spill into sectarian tensions."
doctor zero, John is on the wrong side of the divide (gulf) in heaven. He will have to wait until the day of the Lord. I'm sure he loves Jesus and will love and follow Jesus' truth ... then spend eternity with Him.
And you?
@Flamespeak'
"You are aware that religion played a massive role in getting humans to start civilizations by laying down common rules, right?"
It was my understanding that the first codified laws, like Hammurabi's and Ur-Nammu's, while covering some religious laws, were primarily secular in origin, i.e. the human rulers created them.
"You are also aware that some of the most impactful pieces of art and expression were based on religious works, right?"
People get inspiration from the world around them; the greatest advancements in western art, e.g. the Renaissance, happened during times in Europe when the Church was dominate in government and pervasive in society, had that not been the case, I posit, we would still have similar great works of art, but the themes wouldn't be religion, but something else. Case in point, the Renaissance's greatest works, David, Mona Lisa, etc. often had more to do with realism than religion.
@Flamespeak
Ohh I am sure religion has held humanity back like nothing else; We can still see it today, religion standing in the way of human rights and progress.. The magic man says in his magic book that he does not like this and that..
Your Christianity was even worse than Islam is today.. Things get better the farther we get away from religion.
Ohh Dont start on Stalin etc.. He wanted to be godlike, he acted godlike, he commanded godlike..
The U.S. is preoccupied with installing Muslim Brotherhood governments across the middle east. This 'objection' to Iran's tyranny is unfortunately just feel-good media fluff plied in an attempt to keep Barry from looking like a complete Muslim tool (not that he doesn't already.) The cherry on Iran's sundae is to use this Christian as a political pawn now that the U.S. announced that we're "concerned" about the outcome.
"You wait and see, you American pigs!! Iran will close Hormuz -and- kill the infidel Christian, and the fault will be yours!"
I've often wondered why no one has ever built a canal to bypass the Hormuz Strait.
@Pearson,
Becasue it would be a massive undertaking and you would neet the cooperation of the very nations that currently control the Strait.