Israel Harvested Organs In ’90s Without Permission
MARK LAVIE, Associated Press Writer
JERUSALEM (AP) ― Israel has admitted that in the 1990s, its forensic pathologists harvested organs from dead bodies, including Palestinians, without permission of their families.

The issue emerged with publication of an interview with the then-head of Israel’s Abu Kabir forensic institute, Dr. Jehuda Hiss. The interview was conducted in 2000 by an American academic, who released it because of a huge controversy last summer over an allegation by a Swedish newspaper that Israel was killing Palestinians in order to harvest their organs. Israel hotly denied the charge.

Tafsir al-Jalalayn>>
You, O Muhammad (s), will truly find the most hostile of people to those who believe to be the Jews and the idolaters, of Mecca, because of the intensity of their disbelief, ignorance and utter preoccupation with following whims; and you will truly find the nearest of them in love to those who believe to be those who say ‘Verily, we are Christians’; that, nearness of theirs in love to the believers is, because some of them are priests, scholars, and monks, devout worshippers, and because they are not disdainful, of following the truth, as the Jews and the Meccans are.

Once there was a city, the inhabitants of which were all blind. They had heard of elephants and were curious to see [sic] one face to face. They were still full of this desire when one day a caravan arrived and camped outside the city. There was an elephant in the caravan. When the inhabitants of the city heard there was an elephant in the caravan, the wisest and most intelligent men of the city decided to go out and see the elephant. A number of them left the city and went to the place where the elephant was. One stretched out his hands, grasped the elephant’s ear, and perceived something resembling a shield. This man decided that the elephant looked like a shield. Another stretched out his hands, grasped the elephant’s trunk, and perceived something resembling a club ['amud]. This man decided that the elephant looked like a club. A third stretched out his hands, grasped the elephant’s leg, and perceived something like a pillar [`imad]. He decided that the elephant looked like a pillar. A fourth stretched his hands, grasped the elephant’s back, and perceived something like a seat [takht]. He decided that the elephant looked like a seat. Delighted, they all returned to the city. After e one had gone back to his quarter, the people asked: “Did see the elephant?” Each one answered yes. They asked: “What does he look like? What kind of shape has he?” Then one I in his quarter replied: “The elephant looks like a shield. And the second man in the second quarter: “The elephant looks like a club.” The third man in the third quarter: “The elephant looks like a pillar.” And the fourth man in fourth quarter: “The elephant looks like a seat.” And inhabitants of each quarter formed their opinion in accord; with what they had heard.

Now when the different conceptions came into contact with one another, it became evident that they were contradictory. Each blind man found fault with the next, and began to advance proofs in support of his own view and in confutation of the views of the others. They called these proofs rational and scriptural proofs. One said: “It is written in war the elephant is sent out ahead of the army. Consequently the elephant must be a kind of shield.” The second said: “It is written that in war the elephant hurls himself at the hostile army and that the hostile army is thereby shattered. Consequently the elephant must be a kind of club.” The said: “It is written that the elephant carries a weight thousand men and more without effort. Consequently the elephant must be a kind of pillar.” The fourth said: “It is written that so and so many people can sit in comfort on an elephant. Consequently the elephant must be a kind of seat.”

Now you yourself consider whether such proofs they can ever penetrate to the object of demonstrations, the elephant, and whether with such proofs they can ever arrive at the correct conclusion. Every rational man knows that the more proofs of this sort they advance, the farther they will be from knowledge of the elephant they can never arrive at the object of their demonstrations, the elephant, and consequently that the conflict in opinions will never be relieved, hut will become more and more pronounced.

But know this: Suppose by the grace of God one of them is made seeing so that he perceives and knows the elephant as it really is, and says to them: “In what you have said of the elephant, you have indeed grasped some aspect of the elephant, but you do not know the rest. God has given me sight, I have seen and come to know the elephant as it really is.” They will not even believe the seeing man, but will say: “You claim that God has given you sight, but that is only your imagination. Your brain is defective, and madness assails you. It is we who are the seeing.” Only some few accept the word of the seer, for it is written in the Koran: “But few of my servants are the thankful” [Sura 34:13]. The others persist in their stupidity coupled with arrogance, refuse to be in-structed, and call those among them who hear and accept the word of the seer, and who agree with the seer, unbelievers and heretics. But this only shows that “to hear about a thing is not the same as to see it for yourself.”

#Indian Metaphor

#al ghazali: Ihya Ulumuddin vol IV p.6

#The Mathnawi of Jalaluddin Rumi,

For those interested I found this recently that presents another view of the Faith that contradicts these previosly addressed idiots, arabpubescaughtinmyteethturk and his special “friend” hal(couldn’tbe)dumber. It isn’t necessarily what I believe but it definitely is interesting.

With the collapse of Ja’far Al Sadiq’s empire in Iran and Ibn Hanbal’s slow demise in Saudi Arabia, the tide is turning and the fictitous sects that emerged during the Abbasid Empire knows as the Sunni and Shia sects and others who follow man made revelations known as hadiths are slowly collapsing. Malik’s Empire in Sudan is collapsing and Abu Hanifa’s Empire in Pakistan is turning upside down. The so called Islamic states have proven to be ideologically obsolete and in the wrong side of history. The sects are on life support and the Koranist will take over. So who are the Koranist?

The Koranist believe only the Koran should speak for Islam.

WHAT IS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ISLAM AND TODAY’S PRACTICES?

In comparing the teachings of Islam as derived from the Book of God to the practices taught and enforced by the popular Sunni and Shia faiths (1.2 Bn followers), we find that the list is quite extensive, with some of the highlights as follows:

In Islam, the requirement to be a Muslim is to simply accept and live according to the �Straight Path� (6:151-153), Vs. the Sunni or Shia 5-pillars which come from unauthorized books�

In Islam, abolishing Slavery is taught to be an act of righteousness (90:12-13), Vs. Sunni and Shia teachings which encourages slavery under war�

In Islam, women are never forbidden from praying or fasting during Menstruation (2:222), nor is there a specific dress code (i.e. the Headscarf) imposed on them beyond modesty, Vs. the Sunni and Shia which teach the undermining of women and forcing them to cover their hair and avoid praying or fasting at certain times…

In Islam, a man or women may leave a Will, after settlement of debt (4:12), Vs. Sunnis who refuse to accept wills if there are any direct descendants…

In Islam, Monogamy is the basis for normal relationships, while polygamy is only allowed in cases involving marrying the mothers of orphans under the man�s guardianship (4:3), Vs. Sunnis where a man may be a polygamist simply if he can afford to, and Shia which allow sex for pleasure (Mut�a)…

In Islam, Divorce is enforceable only after a two-phase period, and it may be made nullified if the couple reconcile before the end of this period (65:1, 65:4), Vs. Sunni teachings that destroy families by allowing a divorce to occur on the spot with no waiting period and no nullification…

In Islam, Thieves do not have their hands cut-off, but are made to work until they return that which is stolen (12:76), Vs. Sunni and Shia teachings which brutally amputate the hands causing disability…

In Islam, no one is allowed to be killed or Stoned for adultery (24:2), Vs. Sunni and Shia laws of stoning married adulterers to death…

In Islam, absolute Freedom of Faith is allowed (2:256, 10:99; 18:29; 88:21-22), Vs. Sunni and Shia requiring apostates to be killed and rejecting the practice of other faiths…

In Islam, people are acknowledged as being diverse and each is to be respected for his/her level of spiritual growth. A Submitter �Muslim� must work to attain the status of Faithful �Mumin� (49:14), Vs. Sunni and Shia teachings that all followers of their religion must think, act, and even look the same (cult syndrome)…

In Islam, War can only be declared in cases of self-defence – no offensives (2:190), Vs. Sunni and Shia teachings allowing raids and attacks on any people who are considered non-Muslim by their standards…

In Islam, Pilgrimage is a centre for gathering of nations and for all to witness the benefits of being together (22:27-28), Vs. Sunni and Shia bringing in polytheistic rituals and superstition (touching of black stone, circling 7 times, etc..)…

In Islam, a Year is a luni-solar count made of 365-days (17:12, 9:36), with all the seasons fitting-in-place Vs. Sunnis teaching it to be a lunar one based on 354 days which creates confusion of seasons and time�

In Islam, males and females are not required to be Circumcised (32:7), Vs. Sunni and Shia teachings requiring all males to be circumcised and females in some cases…

In Islam, music, statues, gold and silk are all Lawful(7:32-33, 16:116), Vs. Sunni beliefs forbidding silk & gold for men, and forbidding music & statues for all…

In Islam, rule of Government is under the constitution of the Qur’an through consultation and free-speech (5:48, 42:38). Vs. Sunni teachings which allow the rise of dictators or monarchs, and Shia teachings which uphold self-appointed religious leaders based on genealogy.

Real Islam is only Quran. Quran is peace.

Stoning adulterers is not in the Quran. The Sunni sects believe this verse was stolen by a goat who ran away with the verse which was written on paper

and yeh if we are scum, then so are you as you claim you are a muslim who believes in evolution.

and ill keep my name realturk becoz i am proud of our heritage. to josh, we are great warriors and we kicked western armies asses many times. i will not change my name bcoz i dont believe mustafa kemal is a great turk. fukin homo.

And again he drew some more lines joining that line
A devil sitting on each of these, calling people to join.
So people, never stray leaving the True Way.
If you do, your own soul you betray.

Such an easy and clear path he showed
The Mercy of Allah on which is bestowed.
So dear people why should one stray?
When the road to success is before us lay.

This Straight Path of Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wassalam) is our only way,
Only the corrupt and despicable ignore it, and the one that heeds is wise.

You really are thick(dumb) my boy. Can’t tell the difference between a complete and utter lack of respect based on the drivil you and your little buddies post, and hatred. You are not so important that I would bother to hate you. You post idiousies so I call you what you are if that hurts?…. Well that’s your problem, I have absolutely no respect for morons, who think as you, that’s not hatred, it’s comtempt, tied with a little pity. MY stupidity is in either bothering to responed to you infantile degenerates, or in allowing shitheads like you to infect my community, with your simplistic, fabricated perhaps even satanic interpretations of Islam.