Tuesday, January 31, 2017

Way of the Godless Fish-Flopper

Tasia P Johnson - God already knows upon creating an individual, whether they're destined for heaven or hell. He then goes on to create the hellbound anyway. How is this justifiable?

Tasia P Johnson - We have no free will and everything that happens could be represented by a mathematical function. We are all a product of genetics and environment.

Where is the free will of someone who has never even been exposed to Christianity or Islam? Heaven by default? Hell by default?

Sean Moore - Thinking to much. It's not by default it's by choice. Has nothing to do with an all knowing God

Tasia P Johnson - Am I thinking too much? Or are you not thinking enough.

Sean Moore - No. I did more thinking than I care too when getting my degree in biblical theology. In my 47 years I've learned that sometimes it's just not that deep.

Tasia P Johnson - A biblical theology degree   Or did you mean biblical & theological studies? Or perhaps just a theology degree?

Ansley Vaughn - Religion has always been "deep". Why do you think it's so many debates and arguments on it alone? Especially breaking down holy trinity and Jesus himself. Biblical theology or the Bible as a whole is not deep then why try to convert so many to Christianity. It's like a bad, low budget car commercial you keep getting hounded into it because no other religion matters right? Or no other religion will reward you heaven or condemn you to hell without repentance?

Sean Moore - You talking bout religion. I'm talking about relationship. That's the difference.

Mon Crockett - Hard, scientific research shows that "free will" is most likely bullshit.
If you think your are controlling the countless processes in your brain, you need to quit kidding yourself.

Sean Moore - That was ignorant

Mon Crockett - Though not as arrogant as thinking you have volition when it comes to the countless processes in your brain which go on without your knowledge & permission.

Muhammad Rasheed - Tasia P Johnson wrote: "We have no free will..."

You are free to choose whether you believe in God or not. No one makes you believe or not believe. This is Free Will.

Tasia P Johnson wrote: "Where is the free will of someone who has never even been exposed to Christianity or Islam? Heaven by default? Hell by default?"

In the Qur'an, God said it isn't about the actual religions. As long as you believe in the Supreme Creator, do more good than evil in life, then you will win heaven. The conscious choice to do this is your Free Will in action.

Tasia P Johnson - @Muhammad Rasheed… Why do you believe this over .... say.. Christianity, or Hinduism. Everyone can't be right, what makes Islam the chosen doctrine for you?

Muhammad Rasheed - Well, Abrahamic religion is composed of two aspects:

1) The belief in spirit part, that cannot be scientifically measured through any reliable, or universally agreed upon degree using the tools of Western society. In scripture, God says "just believe" and that's the only way you can approach something that cannot be physically proven. All three of the Abrahamic doctrine have this in common. Within this aspect there is the concept of the One God revealing His message to mankind through the prophet-messengers.

2) Then there's the scientifically verifiable history of Abrahamic scripture on earth. Scientists use various disciplines (linguistics, archaeology, etc.) to verify whether the three religions' claims about the history of the scripture they hold is true or not. Within that record we discover that the Jews deliberately hid/altered their scripture, and rejected several of the prophets, in order to tell their egotistical preferred narrative of God's message that artificially upholds them as specially favored over the rest of mankind. Within the Christian doctrine we discover that Paul usurped the message of the Christ Jesus from the messenger's hand-picked heir to spread his own pagan-tainted message for his own agenda. Over the millennia the church continued to tweak/perfect Paul's message further and further away from the Christ's original, which we find in the records was little different from what we know of Al-Islam. The problems we find in Islam's doctrine are found to be artificially tacked on in the form of 'hadith' that are easily proven to be fraudulent, as well as lazy and biased misreadings of the Qur'an, from a egotistical 'scholar class' that appoints themselves as priestly middle men, directly at odds with the verse & spirit of the Qur'an itself. Between the three faiths, Islam is the only one with its source scripture from God still intact, and (despite what the "official scholars" believe) is 100% open for scrutiny and independent study by whoever has the will and discipline to do so. This alone sets Islam's claims high above what the two older faiths hold. to me

Mon Crockett - EXCEPT ... the "scripture from God" part is assertion only.
Speaking it matter-of-factly does not make it fact.

You can't demonstrate this. You can only assert it. You may as well make up anything about anything. It will be no more or less valid.

Muhammad Rasheed - That's why I carefully separated the 'Matters of Faith' from the archaeology aspect of what the historical record shows. Of course I cannot prove that the source of sacred scripture was the One God (nor would I make the attempt). Other than my own personal belief, what actually has me choose Al-Islam over the other two is what I described in bullet 2 above, and those items are available in public record.

Mon Crockett - Bullet 2 wasn't compelling at all to me. But ... whatever.

I've studied Islamic history, read the Qur'an, etc. I regard it as laughably barbaric, savage, backward gibberish.

But don't mind me ... I ain't woke Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…

Muhammad Rasheed - I didn't write it to be "compelling," but to answer Tasia's question. I consider someone who approaches the material with a hardened heart, who casually dismisses the major claims as fictions just because they don't want to put in any effort, to be the literal opposite of "woke." The atheist is the most narrow-minded person among us, in my experience.

Muhammad Rasheed - This response of yours here demonstrates you aren't even trying to wrap your mind around the concepts. I'm left with the conclusion that you are intellectually incapable of doing so because of arrogant willfulness.

Mon Crockett - @Muhammad Rasheed… nigga I already owned my opposite-of-wokeness. I told you that, remember?

Like with your faith-based shit, your "don't want to put in any effort" poppycock is baseless. Tell me SPECIFICALLY what your evidence of of me not putting in effort.

AAAAAAND ... effort to do what ... specifically?

Mon Crockett - :D  " ... aren't even trying to wrap your head around the concepts." :D
Nigga please.

This shit ain't complex, deep, or none of that.
It's "just believe it real hard since there's zero evidence."

Muhammad Rasheed - lol Once again you are demonstrating that you are mouthing off about material that you don't understand on even the most fundamental level. You believe you are 'smart' because you casually dismiss topics you have never tried to understand, even from an academically objective viewpoint.

Muhammad Rasheed - Let me assure you this is the very opposite of intelligence.

Muhammad Rasheed - It's embarrassing watching you flop around like a fish.

Jerode Blanks - Well.... God grants every human with the gift "Free Will" so technically everyone is granted a chance for Heaven. Some chose the opposite direction.

Tasia P Johnson - God creates free will, hell, the system that will send humans to hell, sin, a sinful human body, and Satan to tempt man. He is omnipresent omnipotent and omniscient (all present, all powerful, and all knowing).

Why not create a utopia instead?

Jerode Blanks - @Tasia P Johnson… Only God knows that true answer to that question. There's a reason for everything.

Mon Crockett - The hypothesis that "god" gives us free will shoots itself in the foot.
We weren't even allowed to freely choose whether or not we want free will.

Mon Crockett - Plus ... he knows, WITHOUT A DOUBT, that a future baby rapist will use his free will to rape babies, yet he/she/it creates the baby rapist anyway.
What kinda sadistic, evil shit is that???

Tasia P Johnson - @Mon Crockett… nobody is ready for you  :D

Muhammad Rasheed - Tasia P Johnson wrote: "Why not create a utopia instead?"

The Supreme Creator did create the utopia. God created it first, and then created the earth and the contest between righteousness & evil. In the end the people who win that contest will populate God's utopia. As a human who is limited by the ebb and flow of linear time, I can sit back and wonder why God didn't skip the drama and make sure utopia was filled with who He wanted it filled with from the beginning, but God isn't bound by time. God created time for us. So it doesn't make sense to me to judge how He does things from our limited perspective. We can only see certain finite angles, while God sees ALL the angles. That's why God gets to be God.

Mon Crockett - @Tasia P Johnson… I'll do the judging then.

This "god" nigga (if that is his real name) is obviously a retarded ass, rape-/murder-/torture-/malaria-/still-birth/etc.-loving sadist.

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to trick niggas into calling him "god" then have you think being an asshole is "a mystery" when it comes to "god's" asshole behavior.

Muhammad Rasheed - Mon Crockett wrote: "I'll do the judging then."

lol By what authority do you judge God with a straight face? From where do you judge a being that can create a universe from scratch?

By its nature, life on earth is full of struggle and hardship. In scripture God explains that how we individuals deal with that hardship determines the quality of life ever-lasting we will have on the other side of this finite existence. So however hard our time here can get, it will still be temporary, and as long as you dig as deep as you need to to overcome it according to God's rules, you will win the contest. This is the nature of life. Your opinion of the matter is exactly the opinion that one loses from.

Tasia P Johnson -

Mon Crockett - By authority of being nonfiction Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…

Muhammad Rasheed - The Supreme Creator who knows all said He is not a fiction, but a tiny, disbelieving and thus hellbound piece of His creation said that He is a fiction. Which should I then take seriously? lol

Mon Crockett - @Muhammad Rasheed… now ...

  • DEMONSTRATE that "The Supreme Creator" said this
  • But before that, DEMONSTRATE that his/her/its word is to be trusted
  • But before that, DEMONSTRATE that he/she/it actually exists ... is indeed not a fiction ... rather than some long-ago nigga wrote it and easily got you to believe yada, yada, yada.

I'll be over here not woke & waiting Zzzzzzzzzzzzz…

Muhammad Rasheed - 1) God's revealed scripture on earth is that very demonstration you seek. Accept it.

2) By His nature, the Supreme Creator of the heavens and the earth, who made you and gave you life, is the very definition of Trustworthy. This is a common sense item.

3) No. That's why I very carefully separated 'Matters of Faith' from scientifically verifiable aspects of the Abrahamic historical record. Only the narrow-minded insist upon terrestrial realm evidence to prove the immaterial. This demonstrates someone expressing opinions of work far above their intellectual grade (while giggling w/emojis).

Mon Crockett - Hahahahaha Bunch of non-falsifiable gobbledygook.

Your premises wreak of a multitude of logical fallacies. Sooooo ... I'm gonna leave you to that while I continue my opposite-of-wokeness ... thanking Allah for putting God Emperor Donald the Merciful in office to keep those rapey, terrorist-descent inbreeds, who take that Qur'an shit to heart, out of this country. #Alhamdulillah

Muhammad Rasheed - 1) Name the first logical fallacy I've committed for analysis, please.

2) What "Qur'an shit" are you specifically referring to?

Mon CrockettZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…

Muhammad Rasheed - Naturally I'll interpret this as you cannot provide this material because you don't know how, and/or were only bluffing. Figures.

Muhammad Rasheed - At this point I'm confused as to why you are even following me around in this thread to begin with...

Mon Crockett - Embrace the confusion my child. It builds character.

Muhammad Rasheed - No thank you. I reject foolishness as a lifestyle choice. You should learn to do the same. Then you won't do so much fish-floppin' as you've so proudly demonstrated here.

Mon CrockettZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…

Muhammad Rasheed - lol

Good night, crazy.

Olympic Nazi Punching

Muhammad Rasheed - Neo-Nazi Richard Spencer Got Punched For The Second Time And Twitter Is Losing It


Leo Aromaa -

Muhammad Rasheed - I'm pretty sure anticipating public abuse is part of his bootcamp hate training.

Brett Barton - ^not that I recall, mostly arts and crafts...some marching, a bit of hand waving. Oh, and we roasted ummm....marshmallows....yeah marshmallows over camp fire.

Melody Winfield - Punch Trump!

Dan Bennett - Only if you really enjoy jail food.

Melody Winfield - Punch Trump!

Melody Winfield - When it's all said and done, you'll probably be right next to me for doing less than that.

Dan Bennett - Conspiracy to Loiter or Aggravated Mopery?

Melody Winfield - That's what you're guilty of Dan Bennett? My, my.

Melody Winfield - Makes no sense to punch this fool. Then again, maybe they were trying to knock some sense into him.

Dan Bennett - Do you often feel this urge to punch people?

Melody Winfield - I didn't 't say I was going to punch anybody. Do you always misinterpret peoples words?

Muhammad Rasheed - Dan is just reacting to the concept of even the most rudimentary form of karmic payback, and it's making him freakout, Melody. This is normal, and you may safely ignore him.

Dan Bennett - Actually I'm freaking out from seeing a Muslim talking about karma. That's pretty unorthodox, isn't it? I don't want to hear of a mullah somewhere calling for you to be done in. The frustration of being unable to tell you "I told you so": would be almost unbearable.

Dan Bennett - Ah, I take it you were simply urging *others* to punch Trump, from which I take that you lack the will, the opportunity, or both, to do it yourself., And there would be significantly unpleasant consequences for acting on your suggestion, the very least of which is that Trump might punch you back. Probably prudent to take the "let's you and him fight" approach instead.

Melody Winfield - You are insignificant, Dan. You don't matter.

Muhammad Rasheed - Dan, I'm not surprised that the 'karma' comment causes you confusion, since you're still struggling to wrap your mind around the idea of 'One God' being interpreted in languages that you hate from a Supremacist point of view. The Abrahamic idea of 'reaping what you sow' is the same as karma. You're welcome for the lesson. You may continue your regularly scheduled freakout.

Melody Winfield - LOL! 😀

Melody Winfield - Get him Muhammad Rasheed!

Dan Bennett - And FWIW, I had to google Richard Spencer to see who he is. From what I read, I might well have punched him myself.

Muhammad Rasheed - Does watching your boy get punched make you tear up? awww...

Dan Bennett - Didn't read the post you replied to, didja? C'mon, it was short, and your lips wouldn't have gotten very tired. *LOL*

Dan Bennett - BTW, I have managed to keep my resolution not to lynch anyone, how are you doing on not blowing up school buses?

Muhammad Rasheed - You might have a point if you can find the Qur'an verses that support your GOP opinions of "islamic terrorism." Of course you will find no such a thing since the concept was invented by CIA/Mossad agents that trained those US Gov created groups. Try harder.

Dan Bennett - Wow, seems like a lot of CIA and Mossad spooks go off to their eternal rewards hollering "Allahu ahkbar!" just to keep up the illusion that Muslims are committing mass murders on a fairly regular basis,huh? Talk about dedication! Hey, didja see the vid of the ISLAMIC State swine burning the Turkish (probably Muslim) soldiers? I'll bet God was really happy about that. "God is great! (Light the ropes, Achmed...)

Muhammad Rasheed - You just typed "Allahu ahkbar!" [sic] so does that magically mean that you are a Muslim according to your cock-eyed, xenophobic belief system? hahaha

Muhammad Rasheed - You don't know how the intelligence agencies function, hm?

Muhammad Rasheed - What DO you know, Dan?

Dan Bennett - Well, as Christ said, "By their works you will know them." The works of Islam are manifest, aren't they? Typified by that very Muslim invention, the dynamite belt.

Muhammad Rasheed - Again, find the Qur'anic verses that back up what the CIA/Mossad train those brainwashed saps to do. Only then will you have a point. Also find suicide bombings among Muslims from before the secular Tamil Tigers started doing it.

Dan Bennett - Oh yeah, it's always the fault of someone else but the one that done it, isn't it? "Yeah, Muslims murder people in droves in the name of God, but someone else made ';em do it." Right, But sorry I improperly attributed the invention of the dynamite belt. If the Tamils hold patent on that device, they should be rich off the royalties due them from Muslim "martyrs" who've used them to murder thousands of people while blasphemously shouting "God is great!"

Dan Bennett - BTW, you realize, of course, that Islam is simply a heretical offshoot of Christianity, right?

Dan Bennett - Right up there with Mormonism, but with more homicidal tendencies.

Muhammad Rasheed - Okay, now that you've thoroughly revealed you have no idea what you are talking about, what do you want? You don't know the origins of suicide bombing, when the practice first started going "viral" in the Arab world and why, and you have no clue as to the modus operandi of the world intelligence agencies.

Why do you think your opinions of Islam would mean anything to me since they conflict directly to what an actual, real life Muslim actually believes? lol

Muhammad Rasheed - That's like saying Christianity is "just a" heretic offshoot of Judaism. Are you even a little bit familiar with the history of Abrahamic religion in general, or does your "knowledge" begin & end at WASP-ism?

Dan Bennett - Christianity would have been precisely that but for the Resurrection, at which point it became something altogether different. Islam, however, is, like Mormonism , a case where the founder took Christianity as his starting point, and then claimed "new revelation"as authority to doctor it up to suit himself and to insure that he was in charge. I suspect that Joseph Smith may have been influenced by the founding of Islam. Both he and Mohammed claimed to have been given their revelation by an angel, although Mohammed claimed he'd been visited by Gabriel, the Herald of God, while Smith just made a name up from whole cloth. As for the origins of suicide bombing, who cares? The Japanese used it too, as I recall, but that doesn't make them responsible for the atrocities of the Muslim "martyrs" who go around blowing up innocents "to the glory of God". And, yeah, I;m very sure that most, if not all, the Muslim outrages are really committed by the CIA, Mossad, MI5, the KGB, the AFL-CIO, the NAACP, NATO, the Trilateral Commission, the International Zionist Conspiracy, and possibly the National Model Railroading Association. Couldn't be Muslims, That's Just What They Want Us To Believe. They're the same people who are responsible for St. Hillary losing the election to Dr. Evil, and every other Bad Thing that has happened since the Fall. Handy to believe so, anyway, especially if it looks like some of your folks have decided that nice guys finish last.

Muhammad Rasheed - Dan, you can stop with these worthless rants. Your opinion of Islam and its founder does not align with the historical record, as is true of most cock-eyed GOP opinions. Notice that you are so passionately convinced that suicide bombing is a part of the faith of Al-Islam itself, yet when pushed, you magically don't care about the practices origins? That's the universal sign that you are 100% full of crap and there is no truth in you. Naturally I've recognized that in you from the first day you started stalking my posts with your foolishness.

Al-Islam is a religion of the One God of Abraham. You've demonstrated that you know nothing about it at all, but are very opinionated about it from a very biased, very partisan stance, and yet you expect me to take you seriously. You can stop now.

Melody Winfield - Dan Whatchamacallit is as addle brained as Trump. Are they related?

Muhammad Rasheed - Yes.

Melody Winfield - Thought so.

Muhammad Rasheed - lol

Dan Bennett - Run along, Melody. Grown folks are talking here.

Muhammad Rasheed - It's adorable that you think you are 'grown,' Danny Boy.
Go mow your lawn.

Dan Bennett - Ya know, I think maybe Salman Rushdie was on to something. What if an angel really did visit Mohammed, but it wasn't Gabriel, it was Satan, and the whole thing was a diabolical fraud from the beginning. Of course, I;m sure y'all aren't allowed to contemplate such an idea.

Dan Bennett - And yeah, I'm an adorable kinda guy. To know me s to love me!

Muhammad Rasheed - Okay, so once again -- after having already demonstrated that you literally know nothing about the religion/history of Al-Islam -- here you go upholding foolishness as if it is a truth, with passionate bias. This is not a bragging point, Dan.

Muhammad Rasheed - lol Who told you I'm not allowed to "contemplate such an idea?" Where did you get that? Tell me?

Dan Bennett - Hey, Rushdie had to go on the run for publishing the book because people were looking to off him for it. I reckon it might be taken badly if you were to say, publicly, "Ya know, what if he was right?" Muslims seem pretty quick to reach for their guns when they get offended.

Dan Bennett - I mean, Charlie Hebdo sucks, but so far no Anglicans have felt the need to go and murder the staff there, nor even Presbyterians for that matter. And the dudes who chased that cartoonust out of his house in Aarhus weren't Buddhists as I recall.

Muhammad Rasheed - Rushdie was on the run from a very specific class of opinionated folk, who operate from a very specific viewpoint within the greater body of the Muslim world. Your bias blinds you to the parallels within your own Christian body. And no one "reaches for their guns" when they get offended more than your demographic, chief. Grow up, and try not to have your toddler accidentally shoot you while mowing your lawn.

Muhammad Rasheed - Notice that in your blatant hypocrisy, you don't have a problem separating Christians into all their various sub-groups, but you STILL pretend that all Muslim groups are the same entity? I'm not an Arab, Dan, I'm African-American. That's where my culture and family creeds lie, so my religion of Al-Islam is derived from the scriptural source materials, not Arabian tribal cultural traditions like their "shariah." I don't expect you to understand me since you prefer your partisan biased "vilification of the Other" opinion.

Dan Bennett - My toddler is 27 now, and can shoot the hair off a gnats butt at 50 yards. (Both redneck and Korean genes in full effect). But she also knows you don't shoot folks except in defense, and in the gravest extreme. Not because they have religious differences.

Muhammad Rasheed - I don't believe you. Should I? Considering you've proven in this thread that the Bennett's never grow out of toddler-hood.

Dan Bennett - @Muhammad Rasheed… The only Muslims I know other than from news reports of the latest homicidal outtrage perpetrated by Muslims are some Pakkstanis who run the subway next door to my store. They're Ahmadiyya Muslims, good folks to all appearances. They got run out of their country after suffering physical oppression from their more orthodox Muslim neighbors.

Dan Bennett - @Muhammad Rasheed… Looks ;like you'll believe anything but the truth, so hey, go for it.

Muhammad Rasheed - Were they run off because of their beliefs, or because of their cultural differences? Think about the historical relationship between the Black and White Christians in our own nation before you answer.

Dan Bennett - But I;m sure that was just another isolated incident and meant nothing, right? Religion of Peace, yessirree.

Dan Bennett - @Muhammad Rasheed… He said becaue they were Ahmadiyya . I had no reason not to believe him.

Dan Bennett - @Muhammad Rasheed… And I;ve never been wronged by a black Christian, for cultural reasons or otherwise.

Muhammad Rasheed - Dan. lol You have no idea what the religion itself instructs, but you know all about political strife among the ethnic groups on the political stage. What does "religion of peace" have to do with it at all? Do you even know? Is Christianity a "religion of peace" as compared to what Jesus taught? What about the doctrine of Moses?

Muhammad Rasheed - The difference between us is that I HAVE been wronged by White Christians. This was because of cultural/socio-political differences not religious. I know this because I know about Christianity. The attackers could not say the same because -- like you -- they only think they know about Islam.

Dan Bennett - @Muhammad Rasheed… Jews follow Moses, Christians do not. . And "religion of peace" is pretty dang ironic considering ho much time Muslims as a whole seem to spend shooting folks or blowing them up or cutting off their heads or lighting them on fire. Only a politician could say it with a straught face.

Dan Bennett - @Muhammad Rasheed… And of course, all white people are Christians by default, right?

Muhammad Rasheed - That's a straw man. I'm talking about your specific demographic.

Dan Bennett - What about my demographic? Old white Southern Christian male? The last Evil People?

Muhammad Rasheed - That's the demographic that keeps vilifying and attacking my demographic. lol My opinion of you as a whole comes directly from how you've historically treated me.

Dan Bennett - I haven't historically treated you any way at all. Sounds to me like you just admitted to bigotry against People Like Me. Congratulations, yiou have become what you beheld.

Muhammad Rasheed - Why do you think "Muslims as a whole" engage in the battle skirmishes of a very specific area of the world?

Dan Bennett - Very specific areas like Chattanooga? Or San Berdoo? Or New York? Yeah, 'splain tha to me.

Muhammad Rasheed - So you are denying the documented history of the American slave trade, jim crow, White Supremacist terrorism, economic exclusion and voter suppression against my people?

Dan Bennett - So you hate white people for what no white people have ever done to you. Got it.

Muhammad Rasheed - You're literally pretending your demographic hasn't done these things, and my bringing it up is somehow bigotry against you? Is that your official stance?

Dan Bennett - As he t-short says, "Haters gonna hate".

Muhammad Rasheed - I swear you make less and less sense the more you type...

Dan Bennett - So you hate me for what "my demographic" did to "your demographic".. Once again, got it.

Dan Bennett - Does Islam give you a framework for that hatred?

Muhammad Rasheed - You've decided that me just asking you about it is an expression of "hate."

Muhammad Rasheed - That all by itself reveals a lot about you, too, Dan.

Dan Bennett - Isn;t it?

Muhammad Rasheed - Why WOULD it be?

Muhammad Rasheed - I don't have a history of lynching you and denying you rights, but asking you about these clear acts of pure hatred is somehow ME hating YOU?

Dan Bennett - Hey, you're the one who described me as "evil", presumabky because I'm white and say things you don;t like.

Dan Bennett - I don';t have a history of lynching either nor does anyone in my family. So your hatred is purely racial.

Muhammad Rasheed - You aren't saying things I "don't like." You're proclaiming as true things that aren't true that you've never bothered to even research to find out if they are true. But you believe them anyway. That's the attitude that fueled your slavery, lynching, voter suppressions, etc.

Muhammad Rasheed - You don't think I should be alarmed at the fact that you are demonstrating the exact same behavior that fueled your history of hatred?

Dan Bennett - In iothed words, my whiteness. Racial hatred, pure and simple.

Muhammad Rasheed - Your people invented the concept of "race-based hatred and discrimination" in America. That's you. I'm bringing it up because it has never stopped being a relevant topic, but you are backing away from it in a weird attempt to pin the negativity of it upon me.
How do you justify this?

Dan Bennett - He said, whupping out the Offended Black Man card. OK, that's where itt ends, and it's midnight here anyway. I will betake my Evil White Self to bed, and ; bid your Offended Black Self good evening.

Muhammad Rasheed - Is that really your official response? Running?

Muhammad Rasheed - Wow.

Muhammad Rasheed - That sounds like you're ashamed and don't want to confront the issues that are directly parallel to the Islamic ones you were enacting a minute ago.

Dan Bennett - In the Evil White Southern Male Vernacular it's called "Old White Man Who Has To Work In The Morning Going To Bed" Probably a form of Micro Aggression.

Muhammad Rasheed - Dan Bennett wrote: "Hey, you're the one who described me as "evil,"

Let the record show that a word search reveals you to be the only person to type the word 'evil' in this entire thread. That was a clear 'freudian slip' on your part.

You are officially crazy. lol

Muhammad Rasheed - Oh, and shooting up heroin doesn't count as "work," Dan. Try to get an actual job.

Muhammad Rasheed - Please note for the record that simply bringing up the topic of race-based atrocities committed by Whites against Blacks in America made Dan so uncomfortable, that he interpreted it as an act of hatred against him as if he was actually being oppressed.

Salvant Breaux - Man Im loving it I wish I could punch his ass

Dan Bennett - And pull back a nub? *Laugh*

Salvant Breaux - bruh I fight better than you....younger than you stronger than you faster better looking and much more talented and gifted both athletically and with fighting tyles if these two clowns could land a punch i would have landed three or four

Dan Bennett - @Salvant Breaux… Oh, I thought you were talking about punching *me*. No worries, punch Spencer all you like, he sounds like a creepazoid.

Muhammad Rasheed - I thought you came to defend him? lol

Dan Bennett - A guy who's into Nazi shit? My dad fought the Nazis, and I have mongrelized the white race, don'tcha know. Sopencer can get stuffed.

Dan Bennett - I came in on the stupidity of the ":Punch Trump" comment. Good night.

Muhammad Rasheed - American soldiers fought the Nazis because the government conspired to trick them into the war effort, not because the American people wanted to do it. Don't pretend your dad did it because he was "eager to save the world" because nothing in history proves that to be true.

And remember, the discrimination hatred doctrine of the Nazis was derived directly from the hate literature and practices of American White Supremacy, so please don't start preaching fake patriotic self-righteous nonsense to ME. Please. I haven't the stomach for it.

Why is "Punch Trump" talk stupid exactly? Tell me.

Is it Good to Have a Businessman for POTUS?

Rasheed, Muhammad. "A Business Government." Cartoon. The Official Website of Cartoonist M. Rasheed 31 Jan 2017. Brush & ink w/Adobe Photoshop color.

Muhammad Rasheed - The free open markets destroy attempts to monopolize industry and discourage/prevent the stifling of the economic competition that enables capitalism to function. The only way for big companies to maintain their greedy stranglehold is if they can convince the government to partner with them and pass laws that make it impossible, or illegal, for smaller businesses to compete with them. So it's a good thing when the government actually does its job and refuses these partnerships, prevents companies from monopolizing industry, and prevents companies from merging into competition-stifling cartels. That's what the gov is SUPPOSED to do, as former President Obama did.

But you can't underestimate the power of greed on the world stage. As an ambitious, gluttonous corporate leader, getting the government to help you shut down the open markets in your favor is often the difference in USD between mere hundreds of thousands & millions versus billions & trillions. History has shown that people are willing to do literally anything at all, to whoever, when that kind of mega-wealth is at stake. So for over a century now (at least), we've witnessed politicians name their price and receive payouts from corporate interests in exchange for policies, laws and regulations that aid powerful, household-name conglomerates monopolize industries, and we've witnessed legions of former mega-corporate CEOs receive dubious high-ranking political positions in Washington D.C. 

Both of these horrifying, and very unAmerican scenarios are responsible for our broken socio-economic systems that have caused so much pain and divisiveness among our citizens, and throughout our communities. Everyone knows that it's wrong for government officials to lie in bed with business interests this way, and even though the average citizen political layperson has been conditioned to dismiss it, and treat it like it's just normal business, the politicians themselves have still maintained a very cautious screen that they perform this dirt behind. In general, they rarely do such deals blatantly without at least some token effort to downplay the activity. They KNOW they aren't supposed to do it. Over the decades, corporate leaders have had to very carefully cultivate networks within government, and very slowly get their special interest agendas tweaked through the system, causing the corresponding slow economic destruction we've experienced along the way.

Despite this, people are somehow under the impression that if the politicians were out of the way altogether, that the corporatist leaders would be for the people if they sat directly in the US gov driver's seat. Even the corrupt politician would provide at least SOME effort at buffering the greed of their business partners, and only make incremental changes, but there is no way the businessman himself would ever provide such restraint were he to wield such power alone, without this middle man. Can you imagine? He would slash regulations designed to control corporate over-reach apart like a madman, whereas before he would at least be slowed down and forced to negotiate such changes. A selfish, wealth-hoarding swine under normal circumstances, if a raw businessman were the president, he would give up all pretense of pretending to care about the people. He would only be focused on himself and his direct peers; if he actually did something to help the little guy it would only be by accident. A greedy corporatist in the White House would be the worst idea EVER. He would not help the economy, he would only dramatically increase the wealth gap between the rich and poor which is his classes' normal modus operandi. How could it possibly be otherwise?

Monday, January 23, 2017


Graham Nolan

Muhammad Rasheed - Voter suppression was used by the GOP to fraudulently throwaway over 3 million minority Democrat-voting ballots so Trump could win.

That sounds protest worthy to me.

Trentus Magnus - Muh suppression, muh voter turnout.

lol, Democrats

Muhammad Rasheed -

Muhammad Rasheed -

Muhammad Rasheed - The old Democrats are the new GOP. Mindsets never change.

lol Republicans.

Trentus Magnus - Spare me. Bush was the most threatened President ever. Any time you liberals would have one of your little LARP parties where you pretend you're edgy with your hipster beards, inevitably you'd threaten his life

Go munch your granola someplace else, hippy.

Muhammad Rasheed - Do you think proclaiming "Bush was the most threatened President ever!" will come true by the shear force of your elephantine GOP magic? awww. That's adorable, but this is the real world, GOPpy. Grow up.

Muhammad Rasheed - In fact, that's probably you in your photo. smh

Muhammad Rasheed  - Voter Suppression Tactics 2016

Trentus Magnus - Here's a link for you too, boy genius.

Muhammad Rasheed - Oh, look... I linked to an award-winning investigative journalist, and you linked to a BS blog from a guy named "zombie."

Keep going, GOPpy. I'm RIVETED. *rolls eyes*

lol, Republicans.

Ed Hannigan - Bullshit.

Muhammad Rasheed - I agree it was complete bullshit for the GOP to use evil voter suppression techniques to steal the election for Trumpamania. It's horrible,

Ed Hannigan - @Muhammad Rasheed… It never happened. Absolute nonsense.

Muhammad Rasheed - lol So the investigative journalist demonstrates that it did happen, but "Ed" proclaims that it didn't using the power of wishes & feelings.

I guess you win that contest, huh? hahahahaha

lol, Republicans.

Trentus Magnus - Liberals- "Waaaaaaah, voter suppression, my side lost and I can't handle it."

Go find a safe space and play with your coloring books, losers.

Muhammad Rasheed - lol Meanwhile, my side didn't lose. The GOP cheated.

Again. #NoIntegrityForGOP

Muhammad Rasheed - How does it feel, Ed & Trentus, to be of the Villain Party?

Ed Hannigan - @Muhammad Rasheed… Go away, idiot.

Muhammad Rasheed - Uhhh... You're the one responding inside of my Master Comment, remember, "Ed?"

You are dismissed.

Here, take this with you.

Trentus Magnus - Ooh, Muhammad whipped out a new hashtag. Well, now the gloves truly are off. A new hashtag, golly, what ever shall I do?

I've got a safety pin somewhere, would you like a hug? Here's a bottle of shampoo just for you.

Muhammad Rasheed - Hmmm... I'm pretty sure your over-the-top reaction to my hashtag counts as some form of straw man effigy. You may wish to reel that in before you scratch yourself on it. You GOP freaks have more than enough weird-ass fetishes.

Trentus Magnus - Dry your eyes, Muhammad. Everything will be just fine.

Muhammad Rasheed - Do you dry your eyes with safety-pins, chum? I think I'm starting to see the real problem here. lol

Does your mom keep a cork on the end of your dinner forks?

Trentus Magnus - Dude, we won. Just accept it.

Muhammad Rasheed - Accept your cheating? Why would I do that?

Ah. You think I lack integrity such as yourself. I see.

I'm not a Trumpamaniac, Trentus.

James Evans - @Trentus Magnus… he did not win the popular vote that is the only vote that matters to me he is an illegitimate office holder as far i am concerned. Consent is given by the governed remember and here consent was not given. If you cannot tell i am not a fan of representative government

Chester Erickson - @Muhammad Rasheed… nicely done :D

Graham Nolan - @Muhammad Rasheed… your "side" lost because you put up the worst possible candidate in history. In fact you put up the only one Trump could possibly win against. So thank you!

James Evans - @Graham Nolan… but thats the point he did not win the popular vote of the people he lost. Clinton was not my choice of candidates in fact both of mine were excluded from the debates even the one who was on the ballot in all 50 states. Were Johnson to actually get in the debates i believe neither trump nor clinton would have had a shot as most people voted for clinton because they hated trump and voted for trump because they hated clinton I've seen both cases. Its the way the system is rigged polar opposites limited choices the illusion of freedom

Graham Nolan - @James Evans… popular vote doesn't matter. The Founding Fathers instituted the Electoral College for a reason. So that densely populated states couldn't dictate who wins thereby giving no voice to smaller mores rural states. Clinton blew it by not focusing and campaigning in those states.

James Evans - The people's vote always matters regardless of where they live otherwise we are not governed by consent but by a concentration of power invested in a small group of people which can be easily bought and as we've seen politicians are bought every day.

Graham Nolan - @James Evans… that is true. Now imagine it WITHOUT the Electoral College.

James Evans - Clinton would have won which i would not have approved of either since it would be a coerced choice by excluding 3rd party candidates. I would like to see the elimination of the parties or open debates. I find the parties divisive, people end up looking for a d or r at the end of their name instead of what they said. The one republican candidate i approved of ron paul was marginalized the democrat bernie sanders was sabotaged by clinton and the dnc. Ralph Nader was viewed as a spoiler by democrats even though their candidate wasn't that great. Ross Perot was the last third party candidate to get on the general debates and that was 1992

Muhammad Rasheed - Graham Nolan wrote: "your 'side' lost because you put up the worst possible candidate in history."

That would have only mattered if your side hadn't cheated. Meanwhile, she received more votes, won the presidency, but you cheated. #votersuppression #voterfraud

Graham Nolan - @Muhammad Rasheed… whatever fantasy helps you sleep at night.

Muhammad Rasheed - Investigative journalism is "fantasy" now? That certainly explains a lot about the GOP, huh?

Muhammad Rasheed - Here ya go:  Election Experts Explain How The 2016 Presidential Election Was Stolen

James Evans - @Muhammad Rasheed… clinton would not have been much better yeah she's slightly socially tolerant but not by much. She voted for a bailout of banks that should have went under, supported a war we never should have been in orchestrated the Libyan coup supported bad trade policies and openly lied about emails. She also does not support Edward Snowden's whistleblowing on government coverup. She refused to decriminalize marijuana and other drugs at the federal level so that we quit the revolving door of incarceration.

Muhammad Rasheed - She would have been MUCH better than President Cheeto monster, and in addition, she would have supported the Obama Agenda to continue to build up our middle class using science/math/tech. You can reasonable expect the Trumpster to destroy the country and enrich his own gold-plated vaults further (like Romney would have).

Muhammad Rasheed - Hillary is a different person, so her personal agenda that she would have been fighting for wouldn't have 100% aligned with everything you or I would want, this is true. But It would have aligned MUCH closer than anything Trumpamania will conjure from hell.

James Evans - Yeah i saw she rode on his coat tails when she was criticized. I wasn't a fan of Obama either. Didn't like his drones, bailouts, invasion of Libya or nsa spying and he refused to stand up to the insurance companies to work on creating a single payer full coverage medicare system at the very least from the state level

James Evans - Not really shes a flip flopper she will say what she has to say to get elected, she parroted sanders platform and as i said rode on the coat tails of Obama's accomplishments

James Evans - I didn't trust her to keep her word.

Muhammad Rasheed - I trust Trump to actively attempt to destroy the Republic while enhancing the wealth hoards of Trumpamania.

I guess that's the same.  :(

James Evans - The bailout, she chose the banks over the people the war she chose to sacrifice the people to lies. If it were up to me shed be in jail

Muhammad Rasheed - @ James...

  1. We bailed out the banks because we HAD to, it is the law. Under the Federal Reserve Act, we are massively indebted to the Big Banks by design. Whenever they overextend themselves and create these very routine bubbles, they just call in that debt and we have to pay up. Nothing short of Revolutionary War 2.0 will change this, so pinning it on Hillary is crazy. Obama had the stones to use the ACA to take potshot-jabs at the banks from the outside -- removing them as middle men from the college loan process which of course INFURIATED them -- but no one politician team is going to take down that monster. We'll ALL have to do it.
  2. A lot of Democrats who initially didn't want us to get into the war ended up throwing their hats into the 'War on Terror' pot once it looked like the Bush admin was going to get its way anyway. Especially considering they had no idea the conflict would break records for dragging on and on and on. Plus you have to consider that post 9-11 time period was VERY emotional, and very scary, and the GOP propaganda designed to build support for Bush's war machine was just as effective in getting the citizens to jump on board as their equally effective campaign to get everyone on board the "Hate Hillary!" train. Case in point.
  3. The entire Western world came together to aid Qadaffi's enemies in overthrowing the Libyan gov. America just helped. This wasn't Hillary's baby like you are implying. The US gov acted on the intelligence reports they count on from the field, and decided to buy into the narrative that Col. Qadaffi was a monster that didn't deserve to be left alone. It's not right to imply that Hillary was some mastermind of the Libyan coup when she was just a cog in that international effort.
  4. President Obama, with his documented efforts to build up the middle class with a solid, long-term vision, led the effort to fast track the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The TPP is Barack Obama's promised effort to renegotiate NAFTA, so I'm confused as to why you are saying it is 'bad.' Are you saying that just because it has the word "trade" in the subtitling or what? The parts of the TPP that Obama added makes the trade agreement part of his economic reform agenda to enable the USA to compete on the global stage again in science/math/tech. Of course, as a compromise bill, it has some no doubt shitty GOP items tagging along in it, too, but the President was confident that his parts would help the people in the long-term. You should have trusted him.
  5. Contrary to popular belief, the sole reason why the FBI didn't prosecute Hillary over the email controversy is because every single Secretary of State, both Democrat and Republican, who had access to email technology had poor cybersecurity handling practices. Every single one of them. In fact, out of that entire group, Hillary turned out to have better security than the average. lol In the end, the GOP and their allies decided not to set a precedent in prosecuting her that would have bitten them in the butt as well. In other words, the whole "But her emails!!" controversy was a fake one, used hypocritically as a political tool during election season. But you knew that.
  6. During the presidential election campaign, WikiLeaks demonstrated that they believed in transparency for Hillary, but not for Trump. Obviously they are not what they present themselves to be (or are being pulled in several directions by rival cliques jockeying for leadership position), and Hillary's stance is probably the correct one in this case. Get a REAL objective whistleblower group instead of this shitty partisan one working for Putin, and then you might have a point.
  7. Since she 100% supports 'medical marijuana' programs, Hillary favors removing the drug from the Schedule I category of the Controlled Substances Act. The DEA's refusal to downgrade marijuana is based on their need to see more documented evidence that it does provide medicinal value, and since THAT is the organization that 'yea' or 'nays' the change in status, Hillary is waiting for the evidence to be compiled for the DEA's criteria just like the rest of us.

James Evans - Sure so did Obama but he never did it in 8 yrs neither did bill

Graham Nolan - We're done here. Take this over to your own pages.

James Evans - Will do Graham Nolan

Muhammad Rasheed - @ Graham...

Thursday, January 19, 2017

Close of the Canon

It's Muslim tradition to read 1/30 of the Qur'an every day of the thirty day fasting month of Ramadan. As is the nature of Sacred Scripture, I learn something new every time I read it no matter what age group I find myself. 

The Qur'an is the human language translation of the final part of the Divine message to mankind, revealed to the unlettered Arabian prophet Muhammad ibn Abdullah (peace be upon him) about 1400 years ago. This book was designed to be recited allowed, per the translation of the word "Qur'an" (recitation), and it closes the canon on Sacred Scripture -- there will be no more Divine Revelation after it, and Muhammad is the final messenger of the One God of Abraham. 

The content is composed of the One God talking directly to the prophet regarding what He commands him to tell us, often talking directly to the believing reader, talking directly to those disbelievers listening to the recited verses and those reading it for themselves, and to the People of the Book (the followers of Christ and the children of Israel). Like the previous books in the Divine message of God, the Qur'an also confirms & fulfills the previous scripture, as well as corrects those areas the previous guardians allowed their charges to go astray. For example, it confirms that the Christ Jesus, son of Mary was indeed sent by Him, and that the Nazarene messenger was created in his mother's womb by scratch without the seed of a male figure. But He also explains that Jesus was true to his mission and never, ever told the people to worship him as a deity... that the claims of "divine sonship" and "trinity" were but fictions invented by men.

The essence of the Qur'an's message is a warning to those who love performing evil, and a good news to those who love doing good. God commands all of mankind to believe and worship Him alone, perform good deeds, reject evil deeds, and repent when they mess up, as the high-level greater message, broken down into numerous community-building rules for how believers must conduct themselves among each other, and with the greater world community. The Qur'an is a mixture of very straightforward verses, along with allegorical ones to meditate on -- both types enable all peoples of all classes to understand what their Lord requires of them for prosperity in this world and the next. 

The Qur'an has become controversial in the mainstream conversation since the tragedy of 11 Sep 2001, with Westerners desperate to know more about the mindset of the alleged terrorists that instigated the event. As THE source text of Al-Islam... the literal Word of Allah on earth... often Westerners who were desperate to find justification for what happened zeroed in on the book's co-called "war verses." The One God instructed the believers as to how to conduct themselves in all aspects of life, including during war.  Even though God's commands on that topic only limit the believer to a defensive position during battle/war: 

"Say to the Unbelievers, if now they desist from Unbelief, their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already a matter of warning for them. And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do." ~The Holy Qur'an 8:38-39

...many Westerners were unfortunately all too willing to believe that the very presence of the war topic in the Qur'an -- regardless of the actual context -- authorized the Muslim to indiscriminately kill any and everyone at will. This is far from the case, as an open-minded study from an objective mind will easily demonstrate.

I highly recommended the Qur'an for those with a sincere interest in Truth who, like the rich young ruler who inquired of the Christ, wish to know how they may be saved and in their Lord's favor so that they may achieve paradise.

Tuesday, January 17, 2017

BOOK REVIEW - Master of the Name: The Story of the Ba'al Shem of London

Over the years I've come across a handful of fascinating short biographical summaries of the powerful cabbalist-mystic known as the Ba'al Shem of London, Dr. Hayyim Samuel Jacob Falk. Most notable were the descriptions written of him within Nesta Webster's work Secret Societies and Subversive Movements, in Charles Mackay's Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, and as a profile entry within the highly-praised 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia edition, with all works revealing a figure consistent with the mystic rebels that thrived during the Age of the Magicians of his time. Arguably, Dr. Falk may have been the greatest of them all.

In addition to having great personal charisma, connections with the Freemasons, access to enormous sums of wealth from an unknown source, and the ability to perform "miracles," Dr. Falk was also one of those very rare magicians to have earned the title "Master of the Name" or "Ba'al Shem" in Hebrew. As the title suggests, Dr. Falk was able to perform his most impressive miracles by writing the revealed characters of the lost Name of God -- the Name having being revealed to him through a special combination of his exemplary piety, and his mastery of the cabbalist sciences. I always found the bio summaries about him to be frustratingly short as they displayed the legends and rumors of the amazing feats Dr. Falk possessed, so when I saw the book Master of the Name: The Story of the Ba'al Shem of London by Irene Roth available in Amazon I pounced on it.

Irene Roth happened to be an actual descendant of the title character of her book, and she used the opportunity to play with the possible relations within the Falk household she imagined in a novelization of her ancestor's life. Unfortunately for me, the gossip, scandals and intrigues of the mundane civilians she wove AROUND the Ba'al Shem were far more important to her than the powers and abilities he commanded. Roth also gave the impression that she was uncertain whether to present him as a charlatan grifter, or the skilled mystic he presented himself as. The end result was a novel that lacked any of the interest generated by the original bio sketches of Webster and Mackay, and despite the potential for a truly great speculative genre work such as Jack Vance would've penned, Ms Roth's book came across more like the fan-fiction novelization of a period piece soap opera.

For a much better treatment of similar historical figures authored by a top-notch scholar, please check out Mystic Rebels by Harry C. Schnur instead.


Daniel Lipson - Hi Muhammad. I just read your interesting review about this book. I have been doing some research into the Baal Shem of London and believe that I have read most of the literature including a few pages about him in Irene Roth's biography of her husband. Unfortunately i never came across this book. "Master of the name" seems to be a very rare publication. It's 350$ on Amazon and 900$ on abebooks. Worldcat shows only one copy in libraries worldwide (LC)! Do you have any idea why this is? I guess I won't get to see the book but I'm wondering if the author refers to the famous picture which she owned. She has written a little about it before. From my research it has been going around the world for the last century. Thanks

M. Rasheed - Hi Daniel,

Your interest is no surprise since the legend of the Ba’al Shem of London (and the concept of “Ba’al Shem” in general, really) is a genuinely fascinating one to all but the inherent boor. lol Though I’m probably biased.

From the hints and pieces I’ve pulled from the forward, introduction, and even the first leaf’s hand-written autograph/signature (“To Carol, with gratitude and appreciation. ~Joshua Ambush”), the reason it is so rare and expensive is that it appears to be a labor of quite a specialized love intended only for a very narrow readership: The descendants of the Ba’al Shem of London himself, and their friends per Mrs. Roth’s instruction. It was Irene Roth’s dream to publish such a book based on her own wishes and creative vision, and while blind and on her sick bed, managed to secure the generous favor of a publisher, a Mr. Lawrence Ambush. Apparently, Lawrence created the corporation ‘Moody & Bickerstaff’ for the sole purpose of publishing this book for her, and she dictated it to him from her bed. I can’t tell whether Irene or Lawrence passed away first, but Lawrence’s son Joshua is the one that finished publishing it. Who knows? Perhaps Lawrence had greater ambitions for Moody & Bickerstaff, but it doesn’t seem that Joshua shared them, as the publisher was dissolved afterwards.

To answer your question about the painting, Irene mentions in the epilogue to the afterword that she did acquire the painting from a “Mr. Fisher” for a modest but undisclosed sum. Bearing in mind this book was published in 1999, and I've since seen a 2013 auctioneer’s description which may interest you, assuming you haven’t already read it:
“The painting was in Falk’s personal possession upon his death, whereupon it subsequently passed into the custody of the financier Aaron Goldsmid, a patron of Falk. According to Irene Roth (wife of historian Cecil Roth) the painting ultimately found its way back to the descendants of Falk’s star pupil and son-in-law Hirsch Kalisch – now with the Anglicized surname ‘Collins’ - maiden name of Irene Roth’s maternal grandmother. It remained in the Roth household, journeying from Oxford, to Jerusalem, to Manhattan’s Central Park West, until it was acquired following Irene Roth’s death by the late Daniel M. Friedenberg; and subsequently sold in the dispersal of Friedenberg’s collection (Sotheby’s New York, 18th March 2004 Lot 250). The past few years it has resided in a religious museum, but doctrinal differences have insisted that the painting be deaccessioned.”

Daniel Lipson - Hi Muhammad

Thanks for your reply and all the information!

I'm a reference librarian at the National Library of Israel and I came across the story by chance in an article I saw. I followed up on the story with a bit of research. A number of scholars have written about him over the last 100 years or so.

After reading about the Baal Shem of London I realized that his picture has been attributed by mistake to the famous Baal Shem Tov. This got me interested in the picture itself, its provenance and it's whereabouts today. I too came across the information in the 2013 Kestenbaum auction catalog. On there website it says that it was sold for $75000.

I think I've collected enough information to write a short article on the topic. If this ever happens I'll send you a copy.

M. Rasheed - You're very welcome, Daniel. And good luck!

Daniel Lipson - Were you considering writing about the Baal Shem of London? As a kind of super-powered hero?

M. Rasheed - Well, not directly. Not necessarily. My Monsters 101 universe deals with magic and mysticism pooled from my general interest in those topics since I was a kid. So, the magician figures represented by Dr. Falk's group of mystics, alchemists, etc., have always inspired me to peak creativity. I wasn't specifically planning to fictionalize Dr. Falk, though a cameo of him wouldn't be out of the question. I did add Joseph 'Cagliostro' Balsamo into my story's continuity, as many fantasy writers have done over the years, of course. As I am a subscriber to the doctrines of the Abrahamic religious family, it shouldn't be a surprise that the most powerful magicians I've created do demonstrate some version of the ba'al shem power/technique. When I revisit the story's extended universe eventually (Insha'Allah), I'll get a chance to flesh those concepts out more. I'll admit that my disappointment in Mrs. Roth's approach to your book has got me thinking of trying my hand at creating and introducing a character that functions more like what I was actually expecting Master of the Name to be like in my imagination.

Daniel Lipson - Perhaps the Maharal of Prague and the Golem may fit in. Not really a Baal Shem but definately some kabalistic stuff there. The Golem after all was some kind of (good) Monster

M. Rasheed - The original character I have in mind would be a Muslim scholar, perhaps born before the infestation of the hadith fabrication era really started getting out of hand. Consequently, he'll have to be around well before The MaHaRal's time. It'll be a challenge to develop the believable conditions in which a Muslim mystic would be free of the corrupting influence of the expansionists' and later European Imperialist's politics -- enough so that he would be given the power of the Lost Name. I was thinking of maybe basing the character on an al-Farabi template, as described by Charles Mackay, the description of which impressed me mightily.

Daniel Lipson - Wow! Not easy but definitely interesting. If I think of any possible potential cameo figures I'll let you know. Good luck!

M. Rasheed - Thank you so much! And thanks for 'listening.' :D