How Marx turned Muslim

[3bdushakur]

How Marx turned Muslim

Not ancient, but modern: John Gray argues that Islamist militants have Western roots
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/how-marx-turned-muslim-185940.html

Some years ago -- just over a dozen, to be exact -- there was a good deal of talk about the collision of East and West. In the media and academy, the Cold War was routinely described as a clash between western liberal democracy and something else (Russian despotism, perhaps) that was definitely not western. In fact, the communist system from Lenin to Gorbachev was one of several attempts to turn Russia into a western society that the country had experienced since Peter the Great.

Soviet Marxism did not spring from an Orthodox monastery. It was one of the finest flowers of the European Enlightenment. Equally, the USSR was nothing if not an Enlightenment regime. The Soviet state was the vehicle of a westernising project from start to finish. The Cold War was a family quarrel among western ideologies, in which rival versions of political universalism struggled for hegemony.

Today, we are watching a rerun of that uncomprehending struggle. Of course, much has changed. Unlike communism, political Islam does not purport to be secular. For that reason alone, it is a puzzle for the many who still hold to the atavistic 19th-century faith that secularisation is the wave of the future. But the view that something called "the West" is under attack from an alien enemy is as mistaken now as it was in the Cold War.

Islamic fundamentalism is not an indigenous growth. It is an exotic hybrid, bred from the encounter of sections of the Islamic intelligentsia with radical western ideologies. In A Fury for God, Malise Ruthven shows that Sayyid Qutb, an Egyptian executed after imprisonment in 1966 and arguably the most influential ideologue of radical Islam, incorporated many elements derived from European ideology into his thinking. For example, the idea of a revolutionary vanguard of militant believers does not have an Islamic pedigree. It is "a concept imported from Europe, through a lineage that stretches back to the Jacobins, through the Bolsheviks and latter-day Marxist guerrillas such as the Baader-Meinhof gang".

In a brilliantly illuminating and arrestingly readable analysis, Ruthven demonstrates the close affinities between radical Islamist thought and the vanguard of modernist and postmodern thinking in the West. The inspiration for Qutb's thought is not so much the Koran, but the current of western philosophy embodied in thinkers such as Nietzsche, Kierkegaard and Heidegger. Qutb's thought -- the blueprint for all subsequent radical Islamist political theology -- is as much a response to 20th-century Europe's experience of "the death of God" as to anything in the Islamic tradition. Qutbism is in no way traditional. Like all fundamentalist ideology, it is unmistakeably modern.

Political Islam emerged partly from an encounter with western thought, but also from revulsion against the regimes founded in Egypt and elsewhere in the aftermath of European colonialism. In Jihad, Gilles Keppel argues al-Qa'ida turned to global terrorism because, like fundamentalist groups in other countries, it has failed to achieve its revolutionary goals on home territory. In a magisterial study of the rise and decline of political Islam, Keppel maintains that Islamist movements have never gained sufficient support to produce a sustainable alternative to democracy. He argues compellingly that the failed Khomeinist revolution in Iran gained much early support from western-educated Marxists "projecting the messianic expectations of communists and Third World Peoples on to revolutionary Shiism".

The aspirations of these westernising radicals were defeated when Khomeini set about constructing a theocratic regime. That regime proved highly repressive, but -- if we credit recent reports of pro-western demonstrations -- it failed to eradicate the yearning for a more pluralist government.

The political failures of radical Islam in Iran and elsewhere leads Keppel to conclude that "the Islamist movement will have much difficulty in reversing its trail of decline". Here he may be optimistic. As he notes in his analysis of the Saudi regime, a major source of Islamist strength comes from the growing numbers of dislocated young men in the Gulf. The Gulf States are rentier economies, dependent on a single depleting resource to sustain exploding populations. Fuelled by an insoluble Malthusian dilemma, Islamist movements may well gain enough momentum to overturn pro-western regimes. The likely outcome is chronic instability for the region.

In the first and last chapters of The Clash of Fundamentalisms, a hastily assembled collection of autobiographical vignettes and commentaries on Islamic themes, Tariq Ali writes that he is not a believer. The veteran leftist need not be taken literally. What he means is that he has rejected Islam for another faith: a rather crude version of Enlightenment humanism.

The Clash of Fundamentalisms is well worth reading, if only because it shows that the harshest critics of fundamentalism are often exponents of a rival fundamentalism. Tariq Ali performs a valuable service by reminding us that Islam was once a tolerant and pluralist religion, more intellectually advanced than anything Christendom had to offer. Ironically, though, he seems to pine not for the complex culture that Islam once animated, but for that monument to Enlightenment fundamentalism, the former Soviet Union.

Here Ali unwittingly testifies to an important truth. A common error of western commentators who seek to interpret Islamism sympathetically is to view it as a form of localised resistance to globalisation. In fact, Islamism is also a universalist political project. Along with neo-liberals and Marxists, Islamists are participants in a dispute about how the world as whole is to be governed. None is ready to entertain the possibility that it should always contain a diversity of regimes. On this point, they differ from "non-western" traditions of thinking in India, China and Japan, which are much more restrained in making universal claims.

In their unshakeable faith that one way of living is best for all humankind, the chief protagonists in the dispute about political Islam belong to a way of thinking that is quintessentially western. As in Cold War times, we are led to believe we are locked in a clash of civilisations: "the West" against the rest. In truth, the ideologues of political Islam are western voices, no less than Marx or Hayek. The struggle with radical Islam is yet another western family quarrel.

[cracky.]

There is no god.  We are monkeys walking upright on a spinning rock hurtling through space.

[3bdushakur]

There is no god.  We are monkeys walking upright on a spinning rock hurtling through space.

Yes, you are a monkey, walking up right on a spinning rock hurtling through space.

Why anyone would adopt that self-degrading belief is beyond me.

As for me, then I believe:

You [true believers in Islamic Monotheism, and real followers of Prophet Muhammad and his Sunnah (legal ways, etc.)] are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind; you enjoin Al-Ma'ruf (i.e. Islamic Monotheism and all that Islam has ordained) and forbid Al-Munkar (polytheism, disbelief and all that Islam has forbidden), and you believe in Allah. And had the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) believed, it would have been better for them; among them are some who have faith, but most of them are Al-Fasiqun (disobedient to Allah - and rebellious against Allah's Command). [3:110]

As for you:

And had We willed, We would surely have elevated him therewith but he clung to the earth and followed his own vain desire. So his description is the description of a dog: if you drive him away, he lolls his tongue out, or if you leave him alone, he (still) lolls his tongue out. Such is the description of the people who reject Our Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.). So relate the stories, perhaps they may reflect. [7:176]

And surely, We have created many of the jinns and mankind for Hell. They have hearts wherewith they understand not, they have eyes wherewith they see not, and they have ears wherewith they hear not (the truth). They are like cattle, nay even more astray; those! They are the heedless ones. [7:179]

You are more like a dog or cattle (in general), not so much as a monkey. I think it would be better, and more concise, in your belief, to refer to yourself as an animal.

[3bdushakur]

@cracky.

And you may say that your beliefs apply to everyone, and this is fine (since this is your belief).

And I believe Islam is Superior, as Allah says:

It is He Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam), to make it superior over all religions even though the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) hate (it).

In that case, you may see me as a monkey (or an animal) but from my perspective I see you as part of the human race, from mankind (even if your beliefs do not allow you to accept that as fact). Which means you have the potential to be elevated from your animal state (of unconsciousness) to being of those who are raised up as an example to the rest of mankind (hibernating in their animal state), conscious of the Truth.

Until then, you are an animal (by your own choosing) beneth that of man, subjugated to servitude (a slave of man if you will).

[cracky.]

You are a monkey as well.  It's only a degrading if you were under the assumption that you are something more. 
Religion is a great story... however the most plausible explanation is that religion was invented as a form of social conditioning for the masses.

You are quoting the nonsense cultist lingo of other monkeys

[3bdushakur]

You are a monkey as well.  It's only a degrading if you were under the assumption that you are something more. 
Religion is a great story... however the most plausible explanation is that religion was invented as a form of social conditioning for the masses.

You are quoting the nonsense cultist lingo of other monkeys

Like I stated, you will percieve the world based on your beliefs (saying I am a monkey as well), but since Islam nullifies, and invalidates such a belief, it is discarded (because I am Muslim and my foundation is the Qur'aan and Sunnah; not Darwin or Dawkins or Hawkings and their like).

So, in your case, it is not degrading because you can't fathom being more than a mere animal with no conscience? You live life under the assumption that you will always be a mere animal?

What story is religion telling? I mean, the term "Religion" is vague and doesn't cover the purpose, nor does it accurately explain the details. It is more of a means to avoid a larger part of human existence due to either fear or ignorance.

Your most plausible explanation has no valid foundation, neither does your assumptions that the Qur'aan is cultist "lingo" of other members of your tribe.

however the most plausible explanation is that religion was invented as a form of social conditioning for the masses.

What I find interesting about this commonly held belief (among the masses) is the failure to acknowledge that this is in reality, cultist ideology. Because it removes you away from the foundation of Human society (morality i.e. "Religion" i.e. more specifically, belief in Allah [God]), and reduces man to an animal (as a slave for the people who feed you this idea i.e. secularists, atheists, and so forth) who then become mere cogs in the machine and become cheap labor for massive corporations and secularist societies (despite the rampant corruption that takes place in so-called religious countries).

I mean, you have been socially conditioned to believe you are an animal, on a rock floating in space, a miserable existence, pointless, meaningless. And if this is the case of your belief, then you in turn become meaningless, pointless, of zero consequence.

Sounds like a good ideology for social enslavement at the hands of a few, wealthy, let's say bankers, as an example, who fund the Secularist agenda in schools (Seperation of "Religion" and state), and the science that is funded by their universities, advertised in their media. The same media that then manipulates and controls all your perception (no, you are not a "free thinker" if you regurgitate such beliefs), ridicules you (calling you a monkey or an animal and saying, "This is you, nothing but a monkey to be tested in, you and your family and your friends and everyone, for us to test on"), ridicules believers (by forcing secularism and atheism in school, movies and so forth, and reinforcing these miserable ideas into your mind), ridicules Prophets (by way of "Freedom of Speech") and so on.

In turn, you become even more worthless when you become apathetic to your condition (believeing you are an animal with the assumption that being human is a lie). Your humanity is literally taken away from you, robbed from you by criminal ideologies.

Why do you choose this? Who told you this was correct? Who told you you were nothing but a monkey?

[3bdushakur]

@cracky.

Actually, both systems are systems of slavery (there is no such thing as freedom).

You are a slave of either Allah [God] or you are a slave to creation, such as other deities or man (including yourself), or even inanimate objects like idols or money.

So you chose the latter. This is the simplest way of explaining it. Christians and Jews, choose the latter as well. Because it is not about belief alone but about obligatory actions.

And this is the purpose of mankind:

And I (Allah) created not the jinns and humans except they should worship Me (Alone). [51:56]

Worship is not just belief or faith. It is obligatory action such as prayer and fasting (for Ramadhaan) and so on. So Islam is as the name states, submission to the Lord of all that exists, Allah. Slaves of Allah. In other words, anything other than this is submission to the creation of Allah.

Slavery in Islam frees you from the shackels of polytheism, idolatry and worshipping men or prophets or saints or money or the stars or the universe or the sun, or the moon, or yourself. It lifts slavery from men, from the systems of men, to unite mankind under the banner of their creator.

Slavery outside of Islam, well, becomes quite obvious. You become an animal, a slave to whims, desires and conjecture. You become a slave to yourself. A slave to other men (revolutions are the result of this, protesting and so on), their systems (such as central banks, Masonic institutions and Academia), you become a slave to the alleged mandates of the universe, which has no power anything whatsoever but is under Allah's control. You become a slave to sex and drugs (both kinds). You become a slave to mental illness and the issuing authorities over your perception. You become a slave to the television, and entertainment (calculate how much money you waste). You become a slave to money.

[cracky.]

So, in your case, it is not degrading because you can't fathom being more than a mere animal with no conscience? You live life under the assumption that you will always be a mere animal?

 
Well you falsely assume that if you are not religious you don't have a conscience.  I can fathom being more than an evolved animal...  I don't lack the inability to imagine or dream but I'm a realist and someone that bases the bulk of my knowledge on what can and can't be proved from a scientific standpoint.

What story is religion telling? I mean, the term "Religion" is vague and doesn't cover the purpose, nor does it accurately explain the details. It is more of a means to avoid a larger part of human existence due to either fear or ignorance.

  Any ideology you would devote your life to rooted in belief instead of fact.  In your case that god exists and gives a shit.

Your most plausible explanation has no valid foundation

Please tell me what valid foundation your religion has

What I find interesting about this commonly held belief (among the masses) is the failure to acknowledge that this is in reality, cultist ideology. Because it removes you away from the foundation of Human society (morality i.e. "Religion" i.e. more specifically, belief in Allah [God]), and reduces man to an animal (as a slave for the people who feed you this idea i.e. secularists, atheists, and so forth) who then become mere cogs in the machine and become cheap labor for massive corporations and secularist societies (despite the rampant corruption that takes place in so-called religious countries).

The majority of the worlds population is religious with atheists/agnostics a minority, please correct me if i'm wrong?  If the masses are "cogs in the machine", as you put it, then the non-religious would be the free thinkers, no? 

I mean, you have been socially conditioned to believe you are an animal, on a rock floating in space, a miserable existence, pointless, meaningless. And if this is the case of your belief, then you in turn become meaningless, pointless, of zero consequence.

  This is illogical/untrue

I don't have the time to respond to the other 6 pages of material you put out there.

[cracky.]

Religion is the cause of most wars and is responsible for countless deaths throughout history.  The Muslim brand is particularly barbaric and the human race would probably be better off as a whole without it.

I am not religious yet I have no desire to lie/cheat/kill/steal as your doctrine would have you believe. I am nobody's slave and nobody is my slave.

[3bdushakur]

@cracky.

You said:

Well you falsely assume that if you are not religious you don't have a conscience.  I can fathom being more than an evolved animal..

I assumend you have no conscience because you said you were a monkey (an animal). I never said that because you "are not religious" you have no conscience. I was going by what you stated. And you bluntly stated that you believe you are a monkey (an animal). Human beings have a conscience, animals do not, and this is what seperates us from animals. If you identify as an animal, how can you have human characteristics?

I asked, what story is "religion" telling? You didn't give an answer, you gave an opinion.

The valid foundation of Islam is the Qur'aan and Sunnah. Now, it is your turn, what valid foundation does your outlook have? You say "proof" and "facts", like what?

The worlds population may be religious, but I am not making a case for religion (as a whole and vague term), I am explicitly talking from the Islamic perspective, in which case, every other "religion" is totally invalid, and is disbelief. As explicitly stated in the Qur'aan.

Atheism and agnosticism are reactionary oppositions to traumatic experiences with religion. If you were raised "religious" (Whatever that means), and you later abandon such beliefs, it is usually due to some trauma. The trauma is blamed on religion and 'science' is adopted as a complete revolt, with alleged "proofs" and "facts" (in regards to the metaphysical, not the physical, because I know people in this disposition like to play games).

Nevermind the fact that I was discussing secularist movements (which are about obscuring knowledge by seperating it from public perception), not full-blown atheism and I never mentioned agnosticism.

Regardless, the reason I didn't explicitly discuss atheism is because, from the Islamic perspective, atheism, agnosticism, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Mormonism, Scientology, Secularism and so on fall under one category: Kufr (disbelief).

So no, only "1.6 billion" people of this world are religious, and they are known as Muslims. As for the heresy and secterianism, and deviation within Islam, then as per the authentic hadeeth, that within Islam itself, there will be 73 sects, all of which are in the fire of Hell except for 1 and that one is what the Prophet and his Companions were upon.

How is my final statement untrue? YOU said it, I am just going by the end result. It's a principle we apply to everything. You have adopted an empty belief, and this empty belief is the foundation of your life (unless Allah has Mercy on you and guides you to Islam) as of today. If your foundation is empty, wherein you consider yourself a monkey (or just at the level of animal), then what value is there to you life really? You believe you are merely on a some floating rock in space. That is all you are a monkey on a floating rock in space. What value is there to you or your existence that transcends your chosen animalistic state? What is the purpose?

How is my line of questioning illogical and your assertion that you are a monkey logical? How can you be a monkey (an animal) and then believe you have humanity (which is reserved for man, a conscious being). Perhaps you should really sit down and re-consider your beliefs about yourself and about your enviornment. I mean, unless you were raised like Mowgli, and you took Rudyard Kipling as your creator...even then, Mowgli becomes a man (and this shows how the Freemasons believe they can play the role of Allah, with literature).

You don't have time to "respond to the 6 pages of material"?

Why did you respond to it in the first place? I mean, even your response in this thread had absolutely NOTHING to do with the thread itself.

[3bdushakur]

Religion is the cause of most wars and is responsible for countless deaths throughout history.  The Muslim brand is particularly barbaric and the human race would probably be better off as a whole without it.

I am not religious yet I have no desire to lie/cheat/kill/steal as your doctrine would have you believe. I am nobody's slave and nobody is my slave.

More glittering generalites regurgitated by laymen with no knowledge whatsoever. Why won't everyone settle in their place, when they know that they know not?

It's like the saying goes:

Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one

You keep failing to realize that the term "religion" holds no weight. "Religion" the way you are using it is a vague term that can apply to anything. So, to say religion is the cause of war is not entirely wrong, but, you have to be explicit in identifying the ideologies and the reasons for war. Because it isn't just "religion" as you vaguely put it. It is politics, intrigue, wealth, power, fame, honor, glory, and a whole mess of desires that have little to do with "religion", much less, Islam.

If you really want to say something, you have to be intelligent about it, and by obligation, you have to know what you are actually talking about.

The Qur'aan doesn't say that the disbeliever only lies/cheats/kills and steals. "As my doctrine would have me believe", my man, you don't know my doctrine. I know my doctrine.

You are a slave to your own whims and desires and conjecture, and to that of other men. I am a slave of Allah.
And if you have children, and you teach them this, then they become your slaves, ideologically.
But I get it, you're thinking of negroe style slavery. You have to think deeper, utilize the human mind and free it from the monkey brain.

[cracky.]

Saying we are all monkeys is an obvious simplification.  I didn't think I needed to explicitly state that humans are more physically/mentally evolved.  Do you deny the similarities between man and ape?

I don't know what story your religion is telling you?  I assume something about how there is a god that created you and the universe and he cares about your day to day life?

I haven't ready the Qur'aan or the Sunnah but I will venture a guess that both are filled with stories that nobody can verify from a guy that claims god spoke to him. 

What facts do you want from me?  Regarding evolution?  As a Muslim I'm going to assume you deny evolution which is puzzling this day in age.  I mean I can state hundreds of examples of evolution.  Neanderthal/Australopithecus fossil record?  You can put bacteria under ultraviolet light and watch it evolve right in front of you.

I never said that life was "meaningless, pointless, of zero consequence"  I actually never said that and it is illogical to assume because I am not religious.

[3bdushakur]

Saying we are all monkeys is an obvious simplification.  I didn't think I needed to explicitly state that humans are more physically/mentally evolved.  Do you deny the similarities between man and ape?

I don't know what story your religion is telling you?  I assume something about how there is a god that created you and the universe and he cares about your day to day life?

I haven't ready the Qur'aan or the Sunnah but I will venture a guess that both are filled with stories that nobody can verify from a guy that claims god spoke to him. 

What facts do you want from me?  Regarding evolution?  As a Muslim I'm going to assume you deny evolution which is puzzling this day in age.  I mean I can state hundreds of examples of evolution.  Neanderthal/Australopithecus fossil record?  You can put bacteria under ultraviolet light and watch it evolve right in front of you.

I never said that life was "meaningless, pointless, of zero consequence"  I actually never said that and it is illogical to assume because I am not religious.

Do I deny the similarities between man and ape? Well, let's see, what similarities do we have with apes? Anatomical? Because physical build is totally different and at best resemble each other, like arms, legs, head, organs and muscles. We definitely do not have similar societies nor do we share the same level of intellect or cognitive understanding. So we are many degrees above ape in that regard and this is the dividing line. This is the key aspect that makes us absolutely different.

And yes, I know what you were getting at, but no, I still do not subscribe to that theory or ideology. I won't reduce myself and my intellect to be fed some nonsense that I descended from apes, becasuse that implies that I am still an ape, regardless of what you think technological evolution or societal evolution attempts to prove otherwise.

Again, you will continue with your guess work and assumptions, or you will go out of your way to know. The choice is yours.

I deny the theory of evolution (yes, it is still a theory), and yes, as I said, as a Muslim, I do not believe in that tripe. I believe we come from Adam, and Adam was created by Allah. You believe in the theory of evolution.

So it shouldn't matter what I believe, if you can produce concret, undeniable, unquestionable evidence for your beliefs, how could I deny them? But you don't, which is why your response was other than directly addressing the request. If I were in your shoes, I would have responded with the proof and evidence I was able to acquire to make my case.

And it is Allah who opens the hearts to whomever He wills to guide them and to know the truth and to ponder upon His creation. The Sunnah is explanation and legislations of rituals and Law.

As for the "hundreds" of proofs you can bring, none of those have you confirmed yourself. You were sold on the idea by specialists and you adopted them as your own, which is why you believe them to be fact, the same way I believe Islam to be superior over all other beliefs and religions (including your own).

And no, I can't put bacteria under untra-violet light and watch it evolve right infront of me. I do not have the money or resources to engage in that sort of research, so that means I would have to accept it from whatever source you would provide, funded and paid for by whoever, to convince me that it is the truth and anyone who denies it must be crazy, "in this day and age". Nor do I have the technology to date and study fossils, to come across the "fact" you provided. And reading some other man-made book telling me otherwise is not proof, it requires faith (it is a religious doctrine disguised as science). So we base life on what we choose to believe.

Have you actually done these experiments, gone out on excavations and have a lab to verify these claims?

Again, I didn't assume anything because you "are not religious", my assumptions were based on your beliefs that you are a monkey (or descendent of one, monkeys are your ancestors then), will you keep overlooking this fact? So if we were to really look up your family tree, we would find neanderthals or australopithecus and further up that tree we would find monkeys [and then single celled organisms? And then what? Nothing? And after all this, after death, do you believe there is nothing? That is it, dead and rotted, worm food? Then what real meaning or worth does you life have?]....right before you human lineage begins?

[cracky.]

I have to work so I don't have the time to properly respond to this but in regards to:

Have you actually done these experiments, gone out on excavations and have a lab to verify these claims?

Yes and no.  I don't do excavations but I have isolated and grown bacteria colonies and then exposed them to a growth medium containing antibiotics both before and after ultraviolet radiation exposure.  Colonies did not grow on the medium pre-exposure yet growth was seen in the post exposure samples.  It's a pretty simple experiment that shows genetic mutation as a form of evolution.

[LiveFreeorDie]

I haven't been keeping up with these threads but peeked in this one.

Both of you are wrong in your beliefs.

The universe did not come from an uncaused, unwitnessed explosion of nothing. It is not logical to believe that something can come from nothing for no reason or that creation can give birth to itself. Something within creation can't be the source of creation. A natural explanation for the universe is impossible. A supernatural explanation is also impossible in terms of "natural laws" that were implemented by a lawgiver who is outside of creation, but a supernatural source is required since a natural source is logically impossible.

It's also not logically sound to say that bacteria have been observed to lose or scramble genetic information, therefore bacteria can turn into elephants and bananas.

All genetic mutations involve a LOSS or scrambling of genetic information, and almost always, these are very harmful to the organism. Even mutations that offer a short term benefit, such as bacteria losing information that makes antibiotics unable to attack a part they don't have, still makes the mutated bacteria sicklier and weaker than normal bacteria in the long run. It is not progress.

Information added to the genetic code has never been observed. New featured like lungs, wings, heart, skin, brain have never been observed to be added to a creature that did not previously have them.

That is a fairy tale. It does not happen in real life.

All so called evolution that has been observed is variation within a kind. That happens. Finches produce a variety of finches. Horses produce a variety of horses. Dogs produce a variety of dogs.

Cows do not produce whales and dolphins. Bacteria do not produce human beings. These ideas are only accepted because people are brainwashed from a young age with these concepts over and over again.

There is a Creator.

But it's not Allah. The true God did not tell us lies. The sun does not set in a pool of water. Camel urine is not a great snack. Beating up and raping little girls and women is evil. Cutting out a little girl's genitals while she screams is evil. Killing everyone who does not want to be a Muslim is evil.

Jesus did say He was God. Jesus could NOT possibly be a "good human prophet" because good prophets don't LIE going around saying they are God.

Jesus is God and the ONLY way for sinful man to be saved. Jesus paid the price for the sin of all humans and He loves all people, both men and women, old and young. The true God is a holy God of justice but also loving, merciful, and compassionate, coming here Himself as a human to die for our sins. We are all sinners. We all do wrong. None of us are innocent.

Jesus is the only way to heaven.

John 14:6

I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me.

1 Corinthians 15:3-6

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living.

Jesus death and resurrection are historically verifiable events in history.

The Muslim explanation that someone who "looked like Jesus" and fooled everyone was the one that died is poppycock. It's laughable, like a lot of Islamic doctrines are, if only they weren't so busy butchering their own girls and women, along with Christians, Jews, and everyone who refuses to submit to the lies of Muhammad, which kind of kills the humor.

I know you want me dead. The Qu'ran calls for my death, probably with bonus humiliation, since I check off in all kinds of hated categories. I'm a woman. I'm a Christian. I am willing to speak against the lies of Muhammad, and I don't wear a garbage bag over my head.

I may one day be killed for my beliefs, but we all have to die someday. I would rather go down knowing I spoke the truth about things that matter while I was alive.

Nothing in life matters more than knowing Jesus and having faith in what He did for us when He took all our sin away.