i'd like you all to tell me 2 or 3 things:.
1- were you raised a witness or not?.
2-if you were, was your family very "theocratic" or not so much?.
1- Were you raised a witness or not? Yes, 4th gen.
2-If you were, was your family very "theocratic" or not so much? Very, although stepdad was inactive due to mental health issues.
3- Where do you stand on religion now? Christian, pagan, atheist/agnostic, undecided...Eclectic pagan many years, then christian mystic, now muslim.
~Merry
greetings friends,.
getting older has its benefits.
i just don't take things so hard any more.
Please excuse me for saying so, CoCo, but with your every post I feel increasing affection for you. Your soul seems to me a true star that touches this board with gentle grace. Whenever you are alone, my wish is that you will feel from your own presence what we feel from it when you are here. May you find something there that never fades!
I spent much of my earlier life alone, whether with others or not, and content with my own company... prefering it, actually. So much less complicated. But now I am not so content. I am often restless and frustrated. I know how to make acquaintances but am at a bit of a loss when it comes to actual friends. I do not know how to engage or remain engaged. Maybe I don't want it bad enough to do whatever it is that requires of me. I don't know.
I have two friends, one a female I rarely see as she is very busy and prefers different entertainment and environment than I, but we can always count on each other. The other is a Viet Nam vet who lives in an alternate reality. I don't see him very often either, but my soul treasures his, and when we are together there is peace.
And then there is my daughter, the sweetest friend there is, but a child, and sometimes I crave adult company and there is none. So I walk by the river with my camera and that usually helps me feel less lonely and depressed.
~Merry
dear family:.
i want to apologize for my long-term absences.
i miss communicating with all of you.
What a wonderful surprise!!! Blessings, Mario. I wish you peace and all good things
~Merry
courthouse.
3:30. thought i'd tell my "family" here.
thanks for being the friends you are.
Best Wishes!
~Merry
adam- sura 1:1 "{allah} only you we worship.
" however, surah 2:25,26 allah tells the angels to worship adam since he can name all the animals.
one angel refused and became satan.??
Oh, and quickly, the serious and important stuff for Oompa:
There are only two specific sexual acts not allowed in Islam that I know of, and oral sex isn't one of them. One is sex during menstruation, the other is anal penetration. Generally speaking, in regard to everything else, sexual acts should be performed in ways that aren't hurtful, damaging or that would introduce impurity/dirt inside the body.
That's about it.
~Merry
adam- sura 1:1 "{allah} only you we worship.
" however, surah 2:25,26 allah tells the angels to worship adam since he can name all the animals.
one angel refused and became satan.??
I just wish more people - PEOPLE (that is all people not just Muslims) would be more open minded and willing to read other sources
Me too!!! When I first began investigating Islam I had no desire to restrict my resources or to limit myself to certain perspectives, and I still feel that way. I love to dig...and, if anything, I am far more inclined to jump to questions than to jump to conclusions. That is to say, the first answer I find to anything rarely satisfies me and generally triggers an avalanche of ongoing questions.
Assuming that you wanted me to answer what you posted (if you didn't, feel free to ignore):
Common Logical Fallacies Made By Muslims
Dr. Robert Morey
Christians must be prepared to answer the typical objections made against the Gospel. Most of the objections are based on simple logical fallacies. The following is a list of some of the most common fallacies used by Muslims.
Note: The average Muslim does not know that his arguments are logically erroneous. He is sincere in his beliefs. Thus you must be patient and kind in sharing with him why his arguments are invalid.1. The Fallacy of False Assumptions:
In logic as well as in law, "historical precedent" means that the burden of proof rests on those who set forth new theories and not on those whose ideas have already been verified. The old tests the new. The already established authority judges any new claims to authority.
Since Islam came along many centuries after Christianity, Islam has the burden of proof and not Christianity. The Bible tests and judges the Qur'an. When the Bible and the Qur'an contradict each other, the Bible must logically be given first place as the older authority. The Qur'an is in error until it proves itself.
Some Muslims violate the principle of historical precedent by asserting that Islam does not have the burden of proof and that the Qur'an judges the Bible.So the Bible's being older than the Qur'an automatically gives it historical precedence as an established authority against which the Qur'an must be judged??? If not, how has the Bible been verified as an acceptable authority? Is it proven to be trustworthy? Was Christianity similarly tested and judged against Judaism? When the old and new testaments contradict each other do Christians (other than JWs LOL) logically give the old testament first place as the older authority? Is not this first argument an example itself of The Fallacy of False Assumptions?
2. Arguing in a circle:
If you have already assumed in your premise what you are going to state in your conclusion, then you have ended where you began and proven nothing. Agreed. Quite worthless.If you end where you began, you got nowhere.
Examples:
#1 Proving Allah by the Qur'an and then proving the Qur'an by Allah.
#2 Proving Muhammad by the Qur'an and then proving the Qur'an by Muhammad.
#3 Proving Islam by the Qur'an and then proving the Qur'an by Islam.#1 I believe in One God, One Creator, one Controller, because it makes sense to me to do so, not because the Qur'an told me to. I believed in God long before I believed the Qur'an was the final message from God. I call God by the name Allah because that is the Arabic name for God and I pray in Arabic. Believing in Allah because the Qur'an tells me to and believing in the Qur'an because it tells me that Allah tells me to would indeed be foolish and circular. Same for the Bible or anything else. It is also an unnecessary mistake as their are other proofs for both (which have been satisfactory to me but not to everyone).
#2 When it became clear to my mind that the Qur'an was the final message from God, I had no choice to but to believe that Muhammad was God's final messenger since it was to him that it was revealed. Nothing circular in my beliefs there either. And I am not inclined to rely on the circular arguments of others (that I am aware of).
#3 Islam is based on what was revealed through the Qur'an. I have recently said that all expressions of Islam should be judged by the Qur'an and not vice versa. The Qur'an delineates what Islam is meant to be and is the final authority to which we should turn as Muslims.
3. False Analogy:
Comparing two things as if they are parallel when they are not really the same at all.
Examples:
#1 Many Muslims erroneously assume that Muslims and Christians share the same concepts of God, revelation, inspiration, textual preservation, the Bible, prophethood, biblical history, conversion, etc...Those could indeed be erroneous assumptions, and not ones shared by me or any of my Muslim friends as far as I know. They seem to be well aware of the differences. But we do often wish to find common ground for peaceful and respectful discussion, and so we do mention that we accept and honor many of the same prophets that Jews and Christians do, even though we feel differently about how they are sometimes portrayed and how their messages have been preserved.
#2 Because a false analogy is drawn between Islam and Christianity, some Muslims think that any argument which refutes the Qur'an will likewise refute the Bible; any argument which refutes Muhammad will also refute Jesus Christ, etc...
See above.
#3 For example, many Muslims claim that Muhammad and all prophets were sinless. They even deny that Abraham was an idol worshipper. Thus when a Christian points out all the wicked things that Muhammad did (mass murder, child abuse, lying, etc.), the Muslims will say,
"If you are right, then you must also reject your biblical prophets for doing wicked things as well."
What he is really saying is, "If you reject my prophet, then you must reject your prophets as well. If Muhammad was a false prophet, then your prophets are false as well." How can you be sure that is what he is really saying? Maybe you have misunderstood him.The root problem is that the Muslim concept of prophethood is not the same as the Christian concept of prophethood. We teach that prophets sin like anyone else. Thus while Islam is refuted by the sins of Muhammad, Christianity is not jeopardized at all. The Muslim is guilty of setting up a "false analogy."
Whenever a Muslim responds to a Christian attack on the Qur'an, Muhammad, or Allah by flipping the argument around and applying it to the Bible, Jesus or the Trinity as if Islam and Christianity either stand or fall together, he is guilty of the fallacy of false analogy. Islam can be false and Christianity be true at the same time. Ok, I can see how a Muslim might think that Christians should logically reject the Biblical prophets for doing bad things if they are going to reject Muhammad for doing bad things, but them trying to use that line of reasoning on the Christian does not mean they believe that Muhammad did the bad things of which he is accused. As mentioned, we also do not believe that any of the earlier prophets did the bad things that they have been portrayed in the Bible as doing, so I don't really see where this example is going. Christians believe the prophets did wicked things (all except for Jesus pbuh) and they still accept them as prophets (all except for Muhammad pbuh). Muslims believe none of the prophets did wicked things (including Muhammad). So even if Christians think he did bad things, they can't rejected him on that basis unless they are willing to reject the other prophets similarly. And you would have to prove to a Muslim beyond the shadow of a doubt that Muhammad did bad things and was thus not a prophet in order for him/her to give up Islam (and me thinks that's not an easy thing to do). So this seems like a dead end area to me.4. The Fallacy of Irrelevance:
When you introduce issues which have no logical bearing on the subject under discussion, you are using irrelevant arguments.
Examples:
#1 Some Muslims argue, "The Qur'an is the Word of God because the text of the Qur'an has been preserved perfectly." This argument is erroneous for two reasons:a. Factually, the text of the Qur'an has not been preserved perfectly. The text has additions, deletions, conflicting manuscripts, and variant readings like any other ancient writing. We believe it has been preserved as perfectly as is necessary for it not to be invalidated, and what we use now is not significantly different from the earliest manuscripts and fragments available for comparison.b. Logically, it is irrelevant whether the text of the Qur'an has been preserved because preservation does not logically imply inspiration. A book can be perfectly copied without implying its inspiration. I do not think the preservation of the Qur'an is irrelevant but it also cannot stand alone in defense of the Qur'an. It is just one aspect worthy of our appreciation. Taken together the different points support and enhance each other IMO.
#2 When Muslims attack the character and motives of anyone who criticizes Islam, they are using irrelevant arguments. The character of someone is no indication of whether he is telling you the truth. Good people can lie and evil people can tell the truth. Thus whenever a Muslim uses slurs such as "mean," "dishonest," "racist," "liar," "deceptive," etc., he is not only committing a logical fallacy but also revealing that he cannot intellectually defend his beliefs. Muslims aren't the only ones to do this by any means, but should they? No. Should anyone? No. Let's all do our best to avoid personal attacks which are as abhorrent as they are irrelevant! It seems to be one of the easiest misteps to make, and it can be difficult to refrain from responding in kind when it happens, but things usually rapidly degenerate from there.
#3 When confronted with the pagan origins of the Qur'an, some Muslims defend the Qur'an by answering,
"But Christians celebrate Christmas and it was originally a pagan holiday! Thus both Muslims and Christians get their rites from the pagans."
Again, I would be very surprised to hear a Muslim defend the Qur'an by accepting that it is ok for it to be of Pagan origin because so are Christian holidays. It's an absurd violation of our basic beliefs, and probably another misunderstanding. They might point out that Christians accept Pagan rites as part of their own celebrations, but not to justfy using Pagan rites, just to point out what appears to be hypocrisy. Muslims do not accept that any rites commanded by the Qur'an are of Pagan origin although Pagans may have adopted them or something like them from earlier Divine revelations previous to the Qur'an.
This argument is erroneous for several reasons.
a. It is a false analogy to parallel the pagan origins of the rites commanded in the Qur'an with the present day holidays nowhere commanded in the Bible. What some modern day Christians do on Dec. 25th has no logical bearing on what the Qur'an commands Muslims to do (eg. the Pilgrimage, the Fast, etc.).
b. It is irrelevant that some Christians choose to celebrate the birth of Christ. Since the Bible nowhere commands it, it is a matter of personal freedom. But Muslims are commanded in the Qur'an to believe and practice things many things which came from the paganism of that day.
c. The Muslim by using this argument is actually admitting that the Qur'an was not "sent down" but fabricated from pagan sources. This means he has become an unbeliever (Surah 25:4-6).#4 Some Muslims argue that the Qur'an is the Word of God because it contains some historically or scientifically accurate statements. This argument is irrelevant. Just because a book is correct on some historical or scientific point does not mean it is inspired. You cannot take the attributes of a part and apply it to the whole. A book can be a mixture of true and false statements. Thus it is a logical fallacy to argue that the entire Qur'an is true if it makes one true statement.
When a Muslim argues that history or science "proves" the Qur'an, this actually means that he is acknowledging that history and science can likewise refute the Qur'an. If the Qur'an contains just one historical error or one scientific error, then the Qur'an is not the Word of God. Verification and falsification go hand in hand. Again, the authenticity of the Qur'an does not stand upon this point alone, it is just a part of what Muslims appreciate about it.#5 The present meaning of a word is irrelevant to what it meant in ancient times. The word "Allah" is a good example. When confronted by the historical evidence that the word was used by pagan Arabs in pre-Islamic times to refer to a high god who was married to the sun-goddess and had three daughters, some Muslims will quote dictionaries, encyclopedias, etc. to prove (sic) that "Allah means God." They are thus using modern definitions to define what the word meant over a thousand years ago! What "Allah" means now has no bearing on what it meant before Muhammad. Huh? Why wouldn't the Pagan Arabs called their "high god" "The God" (Allah)? Makes perfect sense to me. Does the author have proof that it meant something else? Do Christian Arabs fear their worship was or is tainted by using it? How does the way Pagans used this name have any bearing on the way the Qur'an used it (i.e. telling them there is no god, nothing in creation, that is worthy of worship. Only The God, the Creator and Sustainer of the heavens and earth is worthy of that. Also that no images should be created to try to represent the unseen Creator, and that the One cannot be divided into many, or even three, and still be The One God, nor is He comparable to any of His creation)?
5. The Fallacy of Equivocation:
If we assume that everyone has the same definition of such words as God, Jesus, revelation, inspiration, prophet, miracle, etc., we are committing a very simple logical fallacy.
#1 When a Muslim says, "Christians and Muslims worship the same God," he is committing the fallacy of equivocation. While Christians worship the Triune God of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Muslims worship a Unitarian deity. Obviously, they are worshipping different Gods. We believe in one God, one Creator, who sent the prophets, including Jesus, to mankind with messages of hope and warning. We believe that those who originally followed the teachings of Jesus Christ also believed this and so we certainly worship the same God as them. Truly we do not worship a triune God but we do wish to point to unity of origin in some of our beliefs, to help in understanding where things got off track and how they need to be rectified.#2 When a Muslim says, "We believe in Jesus too," he is committing the fallacy of equivocation. The "Jesus" of the Qur'an is not the Jesus of the Bible. Islam preaches "another Jesus" (II Cor. 11:4). The Jesus of the Bible is God the Son who died on the cross for our sins. But the "Jesus" of the Qur'an is not God the Son and he did not die on the cross for our sins. Thus it is erroneous for Muslims to tell Christians that they believe in Jesus too. Before I became Muslimah I was quite surprised when my first Muslim friend told me he also believes in and honors Jesus pbuh. Then I was offended when he said that Jesus was only a prophet--a very important prophet, but not more--not the Son of God nor God the Son, but a man highly blessed. I was even more concerned that he would accept Jesus but not his sacrifice. But the more I researched it and contemplated it, the more it made sense, and the more honor it gave to God with genuine respect for those He sent. I do not believe my friend commited any Fallacy of Equivocation when he said that to me, although I may done have when I heard him say it.
#3 When a Muslim assumes that Christians have the same concept of revelation as Muslims, he is guilty of the fallacy of equivocation. According to Islam, the Qur'an was written in heaven by Allah and has no earthly sources. When we prove that it comes from earthly sources, this threatens the inspiration of the Qur'an.
On the other hand, the Bible does not claim that it dropped out of heaven one day. It openly quotes from earthly sources. It uses pre-existing sources without any difficulty whatsoever. Thus while the Qur'an is threatened by historical sources, the Bible is actually confirmed by them. He can prove it comes from earthly sources? I'll have to check into that.#4 When a Muslims tells you that the word "Allah" has only one meaning: "the one, true, universal God," he is assuming a fallacy. The word "allah" has many different meanings. Oh? Different meanings or different uses?a. It can be used as a generic term like the English word "God." Thus it can be applied to any god or goddess regardless if if a true or false god is in view. (ex. The "Allahs" of Hinduism.) No, it can't. It can't be used as gender specific and their is no plural form of it. It always means "The God." The word the author is looking for here would be "illah." Thus, in the shahadah we say, "La illaha illAllah"--"There is no god but the God"--testifying that there is no god worthy of worship instead of or in addition to The God who created all. b. The Nation of Islam uses it to refer to Wallace Dodd Ford, Elijah Muhammad, and Louis Farrakhan as "Allah" and teaches that all black people are "Allahs." If that's true it sounds blasphemous to me. And Malcolm X did have good reason for leaving the Nation of Islam apart from that.c. It has been used by some Christians in Arabic speaking countries as a generic name for the Holy Trinity. It still means "The God."d. It was used in pre-Islamic times by pagan Arabs to refer to the moon-god who was the father of al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat. It still means "The God"even if what "The God" means and who it is applied to in the minds of various people may differ.e. It is used by Muslims to refer to their god. Because it means "The God" and is how God refers to Himself in the Qur'an.
Islam and Christianity do not worship the same God. The Christian worships the Holy Trinity (not all Christians) while the Muslim worships a unitarian deity. This always puzzles me though. I may be entirely wrong here, but I can't help but feel that most people who believe in an Ultimate Source, a Creator who cares about the creation, really do at least endeavor to worship the same God. Maybe because I've been a JW, an eclectic Pagan, and a non-denominational Christian mystic before I was a Muslimah.
6. The Fallacy of Force:
The Qur'an commands Muslims to wage war against non-Muslims and apostates (Surah 5:33; 9:5, 29). If attacked or oppressed.Some Muslims use a false analogy to answer this argument. They respond by saying, "Well, what about the Crusades? You Christians use violence just like Muslims." Again, possibly an attempt to bring attention to hypocrisy--"If not using violence is a criteria why did/do Christians use it?"--but this still doesn't answer the question and should not be relied upon to do so or to avoid doing so.It is logically erroneous to set up a parallel between Muslims killing people in obedience to the Qur'an and Christians killing people in disobedience to the Bible. While the Qur'an commands Jihad, the New Testament forbids it. So does the author of this article believe that Christians should never fight in any war, defensive as well as offensive? What about self-defense or on behalf of one's family? Does the author understand what Jihad is and what the well-defined rules for war are in Islam? But if he believes in no fighting under any circumstance I guess that wouldn't matter to him. What are the rules that Christians are to follow when attacked or oppressed?7. The Fallacy Of Confusing Questions of Fact with Questions of Relevance:
Whether something is factually true is totally different from the issue of whether you feel it is relevant. The two issues must be kept separate. Agreed. Keep them seperate.
Examples:
#1 When a Christian argues that some of the beliefs and rituals of the Qur'an came from pre-Islamic Arab paganism, the Muslim will deny it at first. But as more and more evidence is given, the Muslim will often do a flip-flop and begin arguing, "So what! Didn't you Christians get Christmas from the pagans?" The Muslim has now committed three fallacies:a. The "So what!" argument is dealing with the issue of relevance, not fact. You must stop the Muslim at that point and ask him, "Since you are now dealing with the issue of whether the pagan origins of the Qur'an are relevant, does this mean that you are now agreeing to the fact of the pagan origins of Islam?"
b. The Muslim has also committed the fallacy of equivocation. The Bible is not threatened by historical sources. It freely refers to them and even quotes them (Acts 17: 28). But the Qur'an denies that it has any earthly historical sources (Surah 25:4-6).
c. He also committed the fallacy of false analogy. The Bible and the Qur'an are two totally different books. The inspiration of the Bible does not depend upon the fate of the Qur'an because what Muslims claim for the Qur'an is not what Christians claim for the Bible.No "evidence" I have seen on this proved pagan origin to me.
8. Phonic Fallacies:
The phonetic sound of a word should not be used to twist its meaning. Agreed. For example,
a. Some Muslims try to prove that the word "Allah" is in the Greek New Testament because of the Greek word alla. But while the word is pronounced "alla," it only means "but" in Greek. It has nothing to do with the Arabic "Allah."
b. Some Muslims have claimed that the word "Allah" is in the Bible because the Biblical word "Allelujah." They then mispronounce the word as "Allah-lujah!" But "Allelujah" is not a compound Arabic word with "Allah" being the first part of the word. It is a Hebrew word with the name of God being "JAH" (or Yahweh) and the verb "alle" meaning "praise to." It means "praise to Yahweh." The Arabic word "Allah" is not in the word.
c. The same error is found in the Muslim argument that the word "Baca" (Psa. 84:6) really means "Mecca." The valley of Baca is in northern Israel.
d. Some Muslims have tried to go from "Amen" to "Ahmed" to "Muhammed!" Such nonsense is beyond belief.I don't doubt that this has been done, I've seen some pretty silly though well-meaning apologetics, but I have not felt any need or desire to play with words in the Bible in this way myself. It should be recognized, however, that Arabic and Hebrew are both Semitic languages and closely related.
9. "Red Herring" Arguments:
When a Muslim is asked to defend the Qur'an, if he turns around and attacks the reliability of the Bible, the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the Crusades, etc., he is introducing irrelevant issues that have no logical bearing on the truthfulness of Islam. He is trying to divert attention from Islam to other issues.
Furthermore, he is assuming that if he can refute the Bible, then the Qur'an wins by default. If he can refute the Trinity, then Allah wins by default. But this is logically erroneous. You cannot prove your position by refuting someone else's position. The Bible and the Qur'an could both be wrong. Muslims must prove their own book.Also agreed. Proving the Qur'an is a seperate issue from disproving the Bible.
10. Straw Man Arguments:
When you put a false argument into the mouth of your opponent and then proceed to knock it down, you have only created a "straw man" argument. Muslims sometimes either misunderstand or deliberately misquote the arguments Christians give them.
Example:
Some Muslims have built a "straw man" argument that claims that we teach,"The Qur'an teaches that Allah is the Moon-god and that Muslims knowingly believe in and worship the Moon-god and his daughters."
They then knock down this "straw man" argument and claim victory. Of course, we never said such nonsense. What we have said is that while the Qur'an claims that Allah is God and Muslims think they are worshipping the one true God, in reality they are worshipping a false god preached by a false prophet according to a false book. So then pre-Islamic Arab Jews and Christians, as well as current ones, were/are also worshipping a false god because they too use(d) the name Allah? Bad news for them, I guess. Has anyone told them (the current ones, I mean)? I am curious--can you unknowingly believe in and worship the Moon-god and his daughters or anyone else??? How does that work? How can something that actively forbids Pagan worship be seen as ensuring it?
Conclusion
The average Muslim has been deceived by Muslim apologists who use such logical fallacies without regard to reason, fact or honesty. But there are many Muslims who want to be rational in their religion and thus have an open mind to rational discourse. Once they see that their arguments are based on logical fallacies, they will be open to the wonderful news that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who died for our sins on the cross.
Well, thank you for showing me the errors of someone else's ways.Still, some good basic points to review and remember when engaging in such discussions, lest I get too cocky.So a genuine thank you for that, Stilla. You're patience and willingness to remain engaged is much appreciated.
~Merry
adam- sura 1:1 "{allah} only you we worship.
" however, surah 2:25,26 allah tells the angels to worship adam since he can name all the animals.
one angel refused and became satan.??
Thank you, stillaI will read them.
~Merry
hard to believe that jackson browne wrote this piece twenty-two years ago.
hard to believe just how apt it is for the modern america.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpfdbklumqk&feature=related.
laura nyro - save the country.
Thanks sademo!
And thanks, HS. But that last Dolphins bit brought me close to putting my eyes out. At least you didn't embed a music video too...I might not have recovered from that.
~Merry
hard to believe that jackson browne wrote this piece twenty-two years ago.
hard to believe just how apt it is for the modern america.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpfdbklumqk&feature=related.
laura nyro - save the country.
I am familiar with some of the songs mentioned and have been viewing/listening to links for some of the others. Many of them are very emotionally moving and mentally awakening and action inspiring...or so I hope.
I like this thread and all the contributions to it! But it is not enough to sit and weep or shake our heads or congratulate ourselves on our shared empathy...is it? Most of the time I just feel weak and lost, wondering what I can do, and then when I get tired of feeling that way, I start looking for ways to help change things for the better, generally by supporting those who are actually doing something, through political action, charity work, education, unembedded journalism, stuff like that. Not sure what else to do...any ideas?
Here's an Iraqi protest song that always gives me chills: Baghdad
and from Marine Corps Iraq War Veteran Josh Hisle: Purple Hearts
a Native American protest song: Heart of the Eagle
~Merry
hard to believe that jackson browne wrote this piece twenty-two years ago.
hard to believe just how apt it is for the modern america.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpfdbklumqk&feature=related.
laura nyro - save the country.
My favorite (and I don't like rap ordinarily): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqbDiN2uYcQ
Meen Er Habi (Who's the Terrorist?) by DAM
English Lyrics:
Who's the terrorist?
I'm the terrorist?!
How am I the terrorist
when you've taken my land?
Who's the terrorist?
You're the terrorist!
You've taken everything I own
while I'm living in my homeland.
You're killing us like you killed our ancestors.
You want me to go to the law?
What for?
You're the Witness--the Lawyer--and the Judge!
If you're my Judge I'll be sentenced to death.
You want us to be the minority?
To end up the majority in the cemetery?
In your dreams!
You're a Democracy?
Actually it's more like the Nazis!
Your countless raping of the Arab's soul
finally impregnated it,
gave birth to your son.
His name is Suicide Bomber.
And then you call him the terrorist.
You attack me but still you cry out.
When I remind you it was you who attacked me
you silence me and shout:
"But you let small children throw stones!"
"Don't they have parents to keep them at home?"
WHAT!?
You must have forgotten you buried our parents
under the rubble of our homes.
And now while my agony is so immense
you call me the terrorist?
Who's the terrorist?
I'm the terrorist?
How am I the terrorist
when you've taken my land?!
Who's the terrorist?
You're the terrorist!
You've taken everything I own
while I'm living in my homeland.
Why terrorist?
Because my blood is not calm...
It's Boiling!
Because I hold my head high for my homeland.
You've killed my loved ones.
Now I'm all alone.
My parents driven out
but I will remain to shout out.
I'm not against peace.
Peace is against me.
It's going to destroy me,
erase my culture.
You don't listen to our voices.
You silence us and degrade us.
And who are you?
And when do you become __?
Look how many you've killed
and how many orphans you've created.
Our mourners are crying,
our fathers are in anguish,
our land's disappearing,
and I'll tell you who you are!
You grew up__.
We grew up in poverty.
Who grew up with freedom?
And who grew up __?
We fight for our freedom,
but you've made that a crime.
And you the terrorist--call me the terrorist!
Who's the terrorist?
I'm the terrorist?!
How am I the terrorist
when you've taken my land?
So when will I stop being a terrorist?
When you hit me and I turn the other cheek.
How do you expect me to thank
the one who harmed me?
I tell you what!
You tell me how you want me to be!
Down on my knees with my hands tied up,
my eyes to the ground,
surrounded by bones,
houses destroyed,
families driven out,
our children orphaned,
our freedom chained up.
You oppress.
You kill.
We bury.
We'll remain patient.
We'll suppress our pain.
Most important you feel secure.
Just relax and leave us all the pain.
You see, our blood is like that of dogs.
NOT EVEN
When dogs die they receive sympathy.
So our blood is not as valuable as a dog's.
No--My blood is valuable
and I will continue defending myself
even if you call me a terrorist.
"These were my olive trees, all over here...
All of this land was full of olive trees
all of it...
Look! Look what they did to these trees--
the poor thing...
They came and uprooted them.
A tree like this is 200 years old.
For two hundred years
we lived from its olives
and they just come and destroy them."
~Merry
