Muhammad @ MindSay 
Always there are some persons which these persons don’t afraid to speak about Big and also taboo things, I can not imagine this world without them; I want a life full of the happiness and Longevity for all of these persons
I'm glad the birthday of my blog is in a same time with fitna the movie (read in wikipedia)
Muslims sent many e mails to host of the Fitna site and Network Solutions with some law or maybe with money of Arabs , has blocked the Fitna site
Please if you believe in this type of movies which are needs for minds of people, send
An e mail to this website and support film customerservice@networksolutions.com
Watch movie in Google
Good news at these days, an Iranian in Netherlands
Mr.Ehsan Jami is realizing a cartoon
About Muhammad and his 9 year old wife,(released on 20th April) I bet it will be great film, Muslims must know who was their holy prophet
I would to know how the 50 year old prophet was lover of a 9 year old girl
I must say, i don't hate Muslims, I have many Muslim friends and they were good friends, but I believe their religion can be worth danger for humanity and future of the world.
The Prophet, The Paraclete, Is Muhammad :
Up to the time of Jesus (peace be upon him), the Jews were still awaiting for the prophet like Moses prophesied in Deuteronomy 18:18. When John the Baptist came, they asked him if he was Christ and he said, “I am not the Christ.” They asked him if he was Elijah, and he said, “I am not.” Then, in apparent reference to Deuteronomy 18:18, they asked him, “Are you the Prophet?” He answered, “No.” (John 1:19-21).
In the Gospel according to John (Chapters 14, 15, 16 KJV), Jesus spoke of the “Paraclete” or comforter who will come after him, who will be sent by God, who will teach new things which the contemporaries of Jesus could not bear. While the Paraclete is described as the spirit of truth, (the meaning of which resembles Muhammad’s famous title al-amin, the trustworthy), he is identified in one verse as the Holy Ghost (John 14:26 KJV). Such a designation is however inconsistent with the profile of that Paraclete. In the words of the Dictionary of the Bible (Ed. J. Mackenzie), “These items, it must be admitted do not give an entirely coherent picture.”
Indeed history tells us that many early Christians understood the Paraclete to be a man and not a spirit. This might explain the followers who responded to some who claimed, without meeting the criteria stipulated by Jesus, to be the awaited “Paraclete.”
It was the Prophet Muhammad who was the Paraclete, Comforter, helper, and admonisher sent by God after Jesus. He testified of Jesus, taught new things which could not be borne at Jesus’ time, he spoke what he heard (the Holy Quran), he dwells with the believers (through his well-preserved teachings). Such teachings will remain forever because he was the last messenger of God, the only Universal Messenger to unite the whole of humanity under God, upon the path of preserved truth. He told of many things to come which came to pass in the minutest detail, meeting the criterion given by Moses to distinguish between the true prophet and the false prophets (Deuteronomy 18:22 KJV). He did “convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment.” (John 16:8).
Blessings of Ishmael And Isaac:
Abraham is widely regarded as the Patriarch of monotheism and the common father of the Jews, Christians and Muslims. Through His second son, Isaac, came all Israelite prophets including such towering figures as Jacob, Joseph, Moses, David, Solomon and Jesus. May peace and blessings be upon them all. The advent of these great prophets was in partial fulfillment of God’s promises to bless the nations of earth through the descendants of Abraham (Genesis 12:2-3).(1) Such fulfillment is wholeheartedly accepted by Muslims whose faith considers the belief in and respect of all prophets an article of faith.
Was the first born son of Abraham (Ishmael) and his descendants included in God’s covenant and promise? A few verses from the Bible may help shed some light on this question:
1) Genesis 12:2-3 speaks of God’s promise to Abraham and his descendants before any child was born to him.
2) Genesis 17:4 reiterates God’s promise after the birth of Ishmael and before the birth of Isaac.
3) In Genesis, ch. 21, Isaac is specifically blessed, but Ishmael was also specifically blessed and promised by God to become “a great nation,” especially in Genesis 21:13, 18.
4) According to Deuteronomy 21:15-17, the traditional rights and privileges of the first born son are not to be affected by the social status of his mother (being a free woman such as Sarah, Isaac’s mother, or a “maidservant” as Hagar, Ishmael’s mother). This is only consistent with the moral and humanitarian principles of all revealed faiths.
5) The full legitimacy of Ishmael as Abraham’s son and “offspring” and the full legitimacy of his mother, Hagar, as Abraham’s wife, are clearly stated in Genesis 21:13 and 16:3.
After Jesus, the last Israelite messenger and prophet, it was time that God’s promise to bless Ishmael and his descendants be fulfilled. Less than 600 years after Jesus, came the last messenger of God, Muhammad , from the progeny of Abraham through Ishmael. God’s blessings for both of the main branches of Abraham’s family tree were now fulfilled.
Was The Shift of Religious Leadership Prophesied:
Following the rejection of the last Israelite prophet, Jesus, it was about time that God’s promise to make Ishmael a great nation be fulfilled (Genesis 21:13, 18).
Jesus said: “Therefore I tell you that the Kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit.” (Matthew 21:43). Those people among Ishmael’s descendants (the rejected stone in Matthew 21:42) who were victorious against all superpowers of their time as prophesied by Jesus: “He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed.” (Matthew 21:44).
Muhammad’s Migration Prophesied in the Bible:
Indeed the incident of the migration of the Prophet and his persecuted followers is vividly described in Isaiah 21:13-17. That section foretold as well about the battle of Badr, in which the few ill-armed faithful miraculously defeated the men of Kedar, who sought to destroy Islam and intimidate their own folks who turned to Islam.
Out of Context Coincidence:
Is it possible that the numerous prophecies cited here are, individually and combined, all out of context misinterpretations? Is the opposite true, that such infrequently studied verses support each other consistently and clearly, pointing to the advent of the man who changed the course of human history, the Prophet Muhammad ? Is it reasonable to conclude that all of these prophecies, appearing in different books of the Bible and spoken by various prophets at different times, were all coincidence?
As was mentioned before, God has said about the prophet mentioned in Deuteronomy 18, who is Muhammad : “If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account.” (Deuteronomy 18:19).(2)
Note: Please print and distribute.
_____________________________
Footnotes:
(1) All of the verses on this page have been taken from The NIV Study Bible, New International Version, except where noted as being KJV which means King James Version.
(2) This article has been taken from the pamphlet entitled, “Muhammad in the Bible” by Dr. Jamal Badawi, with some editing.
So, in case you didn't know, our trip took us first to the UP of Michigan. I had never been there before - and it didn't dissapoint. We stopped at a place called Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore, it runs along a stretch of Lake Superior, where dunes meet sheer rock cliffs, and natural arches carved by the pounding of an inland sea. 
Go a few hundred yards inshore, you can find lush forest streams with beautiful waterfalls, still slightly obscured by the fog rolling in from Superior
By the way, it is extremely cold there in early June - the water does not warm up much, and the early summer fog stays with you throughout the day. You can camp right near the lake, or move down shore to camp around a bunch of inland glacial ponds. Au Sable light is also there, a graveyard to many 19th century ships that to this day still litter the lakeshore, testimony to a more dangerous time.
It was here we took our first 10+ mile hike, and we were so unprepared I thought I was going to die of starvation. Little did I know that by the end of the trip, 10-14 miles a day would become the norm. There is a beautiful loop trail by Au Sable that follows the lakeshore - highly recommended for anyone who makes a visit up there.
I'm writing about Michigan because I don't think many people are aware how beautiful the UP is. Driving away from the lake, you are free of Interstates and strip malls and you run through some of the most beautiful land I've ever seen in the populous east. Straight, flat roads that lead through deciduous forests and marsh, as you barrel off towards Wisconsin and the Boundary Waters of northern Minnesota.
The trip began on the Interstate system because we had no other way to quickly leave New York and get through Canada to Michigan. But once we left that first stretch - we hardly returned. I would estimate 80% of our entire journey of 20,000 plus miles was spent on state and county road. As I have traveled across the country twice before soley on the Interstates, I can testify to what a difference it makes when you leave the 4 lane paved nightmares that have homogenized the country into a giant strip mall. Rural America, replete with locally owned stores and shops is still alive in the places the Interstate system has failed to touch.
We met a nice couple that had traveled to Alaska before, and had offered to take us Walleye fishing that night. Unfortunately, we were leaving for the warmer climates of Minnesota (yes, Minnesota was warmer by far) that night. As we talked to them, they told us about Alaska - places to stop - as well as filling our heads with fears about Grizzly bears (which, by the way, turned out to be no problem at all, even though they were everywhere. One only has to be mindful and careful about how you act in bear country and you should have no trouble at all).
After we left, we went to Voyageurs National Park, which is a unique water-based park straddling the Minnesota/Canada border - a place still full of wolves, bears, and beautifully lacking of people...
[Caption: See, here he is. Did you ever notice that he is always called The Great Prophet Muhammad, as if we weren’t sure to which prophet they were referring and weren’t positive that he was, in fact, great at it?]
The Muslim community seemed to have no problem with this. Maybe because the Muslim community doesn’t typically watch "South Park." I’m just throwing it out there.
And yet, on Wednesday, Comedy Central refused to air an image of Muhammad, thereby censoring a group that has said “shit” 162 times in one episode, showed hardcore sex with penetration, and had Jesus Christ defecate on George Bush and the American flag. Oh sure, you can make the case that the Super Best Friends episode aired prior to 9/11, and prior to the Danish comics debacle, and that the world is different now. That’s fine, except I’d say that post 9/11, having Jesus poop on the flag is much more offensive to America than showing Muhammad (When did America start caring more about other countries than it did about its own? Where did our selfishness go?).
Oh, and one more thing:
Muhammad was in the opening credits of the episode in which he “wasn’t allowed” to be shown. They did portray the image of Muhammad. And nobody seems to care.
[Caption: As seen on Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Southparkseason10opening.png]
What’s my point? Why am I telling you this? Other than to stir up controversy, it’s because when you write your fiction book, you need to keep in mind that it’s all about the details, and it’s all about consistency. If you become a hypocrite in your book, or if you write one thing and then a few hundred pages later contradict it, you will lose your reader. You will lose your credibility. You have to remain consistent with your message.
In a similar event, Morgan Spurlock, the award-winning director of the Oscar nominated documentary Super Size Me, spoke at a school a few weeks ago. During his speech, he dropped the “F” bomb twice, and when he couldn’t hear a kid’s question, he called himself retarded and then pretended that he was mentally challenged for a moment.
In the following days, the Associated Press, Washington Post, New York Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, and other credible newspapers reported that there were mentally challenged kids wearing helmets in the back of the auditorium. The stories then went on to say that Morgan singled out those kids and picked on them, and that they were immediately escorted out of the building. That never happened. The newspapers printed faulty information.
I was listing to a sports talks radio show in my area the morning after, and the host said, with great certainty as if he had been there and witnessed it for himself, that every third word out of Morgan’s mouth was the “F” bomb. That was wrong. He reported faulty information.
Now I can’t trust that show. Whenever the host of the morning show is talking about a news story, I can’t believe that he is getting the facts right. The next time I read an article in the New York Times, I can’t be sure that what I am reading is true. I can’t trust those media sources anymore.
What’s my point? you ask again. My point is that the same theory holds true for fiction work. Yes, you are inventing characters and fabricating a story, but you still need to get facts and information right. If you are referencing a true event, make sure you reference it correctly. If you are mentioning a real place, make sure you describe it accurately. Otherwise, the readers’ BS detectors will start squawking, and you will lose their interest. Readers want to get lost in the story. Even though they know it is fiction, they want to get sucked into it, and believe it, as if it were true. If you get information wrong and they realize it, it will pull them out of the story. They will become aware of you as a writer and what you are trying to accomplish and they will be taken out. Your story won’t work.
I traveled to Paris last summer, partly because I wanted to be in Paris with my girlfriend, but partly because I wanted to conduct research for my next book. I wanted to study the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre first hand, so that I could write about these two structures more accurately.
In the book, I’m going to have a couple eat at the Jules Verne restaurant in the Eiffel Tower. For the book, I wanted to know what that restaurant looked like inside. I wanted to know the views a patron has outside the glass walls. I wanted to know what it smells like and how the wait staff interacts and whether the male customers get handed menus with prices and the women customers don’t (that’s true, I didn’t know that until I ate there). Reading books and seeking information on the Internet couldn’t tell me these things. I had to witness them for myself.
But my friend, when he heard what I was doing, said, “you need to make sure you have all the details right for a made up story? That doesn’t make sense.” This may be true. Maybe I don’t need to get my facts straight when writing a fictional story. However, when I discussed Angel of Life with him I told him I was dissecting religion, he said, “Have you done enough research? You better make sure you have everything right.”
Why? Why does it not matter what the Jules Verne looks like inside, but I better make sure I get every last detail of my religious references correct? Because everyone cares about the detail of something. He might not care about the consistencies of my descriptions of a restaurant in Paris, but he is a history major, and I bet he’d be infuriated if I had one character telling another about an incident during WWII, and I got information wrong. He’d think I couldn’t be trusted. Thus, he wouldn’t be able to trust the rest of my story. He wouldn’t buy it. He wouldn’t get it. He would be lost to me.
Similarly, if I got the name of the Eiffel Tower's restaurant wrong, or if I printed wrong facts about the Morgan Spurlock incident, you wouldn't bother paying attention to any other points I make. I would lose my credibility.
The details are really what matters. One way to make yourself and your story seem more credible is to include small details. If one of your characters is driving in a car, name the make and model of the car and give it a real color. Mention an Apple or a Dell instead of just writing “a computer.” Call a cooking pot a Williams-Sonoma edition 18/10 stainless steel All Clad sauté pan. If your story is taking place in a particular city, include real streets and real locations. Make your story true, even when it's made-up.
The details keep the story more believable. Even though it is fiction, the readers need to understand the world. They need to believe it and be absorbed into it. They need the details.
Do you think if Dan Brown described the Mona Lisa incorrectly in The Da Vinci Code that anyone would have cared what he said about anything else? Tell me when he reveals that the person sitting next to Jesus in The Last Supper is a redheaded woman you didn’t run to the nearest computer and search for an image of the picture. If an effeminate looking redhead were not sitting next to Jesus, your interest in the rest of the story would wane. Do you think if he had gotten some of the minor facts about Catholicism wrong that an entire nation would have believed his revelations? Do you think millions of people who have bought into his story's mythology? No, his book would have been completely ignored. There would be no need for other books called Breaking the Da Vinci Code and Cracking the Da Vinci Code and The Truth Behind the Da Vinci Code to exist.
It’s all about credibility. For me, when the most important newspapers in the country printed a story without getting all their facts straight, or when Comedy Central refused to show an image of Muhammad even though in the opening credits they were showing an image of Muhammad, they lost credibility for me. The newspapers have no excuse, but Comedy Central seemed to think that the audience is so dumb that because they didn’t say, “this is Muhammad, take a look at him,” that nobody knew or cared that it was him.
And sadly, they were right. Don't make the same mistake in your fiction.
*By the way, you know how the blogging software always suggests tags for you based on your entry? One of the suggested tags was Muhammad Ulmer. Do you find that to be a little weird?*
First, let's talk hypocrisy:
Walid el-Salab, Student Union President at the American University in Cairo, and, might I add, the organizer of a peaceful rally against the Danish cartoons, has been quoted as saying, "The word Islam is derived from peace. You cannot just go and attack people. But honestly, I feel that if I were to see the Danish Prime Minister, I might kill him myself without thinking."
Wow, great way to be a leader for peace. And just for clarification, Mr. el-Salab, you do realize that the Prime Minister didn't draw any of the cartoons, right? Why exactly should he be on your hit list? He hasn't actually done anything against your religion laws.
Second, let's talk irony:
Remember when Americans started saying "freedom fries" and "freedom toast" instead of "French fries" and "French toast"? Well, citizens of the Middle East are now saying "Rose of the Prophet Muhammad" instead of "danish" (as in the tasty food, not the name for people from Denmark).
Seriously, that's 100% true. Now, is that really so bad?
Well, besides the minor nuisance ofo it being slightly harder to say, "Give me a medium black coffee and a cheese Rose of the Prophet Muhammad," no, not necessarily. Except for two things.
1) You aren't allowed to exploit the image of the great prophet, but you can exploit his name by turning his legacy into a pastry?
2) What an interesting choice to call the pastry a Rose considering the editor of the Danish paper that originally ran the offensive cartoons is named Flemming Rose.
In my opinion, having the name of the man behind these comics and the name of the prophet portrayed in these comics mentioned in the same title is soooooo much more offensive than the original offense of drawing Muhammad with a bomb on his turban, which, might I add, is a pretty clever method for depicting the truth that some Muslims use their religion as an excuse for violence. Oh, and by the way, in response to these cartoons, some Muslims are using their religion as an excuse for violence.
Third, let's start a jihad on these protestors:
Hey, all you Muslims who are acting out against these comics. I actually read the Koran, and nowhere in it does it state that you cannot portray an image of your prophet. In fact, in the early days of the religion, wealthy men displayed their wealth through paintings and busts of Muhammad.
And Muslims, while I have your attention, did you read Flemming Rose's article on why he ran the comics? If not, you can find it at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021702499.html. You should read it, because in it, he makes an absolutely fantastic point:
"We have a tradition of satire when dealing with the royal family and other public figures, and that was reflected in the cartoons. The cartoonists treated Islam the same way they treat Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism and other religions. And by treating Muslims in Denmark as equals they made a point: We are integrating you into the Danish tradition of satire because you are part of our society, not strangers. The cartoons are including, rather than excluding, Muslims."
Would your argument to this be that you don't have to abide by the same rules and standards the Western world does? Hmm, that's a really interesting point. Well, it would be, except for another one of Rose's great points:
"Has Jyllands-Posten [the publication] insulted and disrespected Islam? It certainly didn't intend to. But what does respect mean? When I visit a mosque, I show my respect by taking off my shoes. I follow the customs, just as I do in a church, synagogue or other holy place. But if a believer demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect, but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy."
If you don't have to abide by our customs, why do we have to abide by yours?
Oh, that's right, we don't. So how about instead of pushing your beliefs on us (you know, the same thing that you hate about what we do to you), you just not look at the comics? How about you just not view the offensive but not religiously forbidden images of your man who had some conversations with your God, who, consequently, is also our God?
How about you just snicker to yourselves and talk about how all us infidels, all multiple billions of us, will be condemned to Hell? I mean, really, why can't you just be content in thinking that you are right instead of demanding that we acknowledge that we are wrong, even when are beliefs don't tell us that we are?
Will your argument to this be to ask me why I don't do the same thing I am asking of you? Well, my argument against that would be that I haven't caused any deaths. You can call me contradictory for doing exactly what I am preaching against if you'd like, but really, all I'm asking you to do is follow your Pillars of Faith. Namely, to do as Allah decreeds and "refrain from gossip" as well as "foster in the quality of sacrifice that rids one of selfishness, greed, and vanity."
You may be mad at us for not following Allah's will. But you aren't either, and we aren't the ones who have to answer to Him.
At least, not according to you, since you don't acknowledge that they are the same God, even though when Muhammad told the wise man of his village that a voice spoke to him and declared himself as being the one true God, the wise man, who had traveled to the west and learned all about Judaism and Christianity, believed this voice to be that of the westerner's God. This, then, is what he told Muhammad. And thus, our one true God became your one true God. Funny how that works.
But that isn't really the issue at hand. The important matter is whether our society was wrong for printing those comics. To end that discussion I will again reference Mr. Rose (of the magazine, not the prophet):
"This is exactly why Karl Popper, in his seminal work The Open Society and Its Enemies, insisted that one should not be tolerant with the intolerant. Nowhere do so many religions coexist peacefully as in a democracy where freedom of expression is a fundamental right. In Saudi Arabia, you can get arrested for wearing a cross or having a Bible in your suitcase, while Muslims in secular Denmark can have their own mosques, cemeteries, schools, TV and radio stations.
"I acknowledge that some people have been offended by the publication of the cartoons, and Jyllands-Posten [the publication] has apologized for that. But we cannot apologize for our right to publish material, even offensive material. You cannot edit a newspaper if you are paralyzed by worries about every possible insult.
"I am offended by things in the paper every day: transcripts of speeches by Osama bin Laden, photos from Abu Ghraib, people insisting that Israel should be erased from the face of the Earth, people saying the Holocaust never happened. But that does not mean that I would refrain from printing them as long as they fell within the limits of the law and of the newspaper's ethical code. That other editors would make different choices is the essence of pluralism."
Showing 1 - 5. [ Next ]