WHO DIES FOR A STINKING LIE?

Posted: July 22, 2011 in Islam
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Now many Moslems will argue that the Bible was tampered with and therefore it can’t be relied upon,
and yet they will try to use the Bible to prove Islam.  Now if the Bible was that corrupted why use it to prove anything
.

Why attack the Bible?

 Rom 1: 16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth;
to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

 The Bible has always been the main stay of the gospel message.  Upon this ground we either stand or fall.

  Math 7: 24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

 Jesus stated this clearly.  Those who hear and obey what he says, he is liken to a man who has built his house upon a rock.  He will not be moved and he will certainly not be shifted.  So through the centuries man has tried to attack this word.  Men have stood on that word despite all that has been thrown at them.

 All cults try to either change the Bible or reject it.  All cults throw the accusation that the Bible has been changed, or corrupted.   Fundamentally cults cannot allow their own followers to actually read the Bible because they just might get saved by it.  So they will reject it in order to drum up their own version of it.  If their own followers were to read it they might come to the realisation that what they were being told by cult leaders was wrong.  So all cults will drum into their followers the lie that the Bible has been changed.

Let’s look at some of the arguments.

The Jews corrupted the Bible.

Now if you were to personally write a book about yourself would you present yourself in terms that would make sure no one would buy the book.  Would you not present yourself in the most positive image you could imagine?  Yet when we look at the Bible it does not present the Jewish people in a positive image.  In fact it paints a picture that is totally negative.

God calls the Jews and exposes this nation in a way that you would never want the national tabloids to get a hold off.

Incest

Drunks

Idolaters

Stiff necked people.

Whores,

Your father the devil,

Prostitutes

Adulterous,

backsliding,

killers of the
prophets,

Murderers.

Even their heroes come in for some stick. King David was a murderer.  Moses was a murderer. Gideon set up a golden fleece that people landed up worshipping.  Samson could not get away from heading down to the house of prostitutes and eventually sacrificed his own life to take down the enemies of Israel.  Most of Israelis kings were all corrupt kings.   Solomon had more wives than he should.

That is not how to influence people and win friends.  So on that basis the idea of the Jews tapering with the Bible just falls flat.

The disciples changed the Bible

 Now if the disciples wanted to change the Bible the first thing they would have done is make their new-found religion Jewish
friendly.  The Jews would have embraced them, and they would have led a contented life.   Many Pharisee came in as believers.  That is not to say they stayed.  However all the disciples had to do was add circumcision and the keeping of the Law of Moses.  There would have been no persecution and no fuss.  But that did not happen either.  They got filled with the Holy Spirit and this scared bunch of disciples, many of which were already heading home where suddenly changes anointed and became firebrands.  Such was the power that they were accused, persecuted and some were even killed by Herod.  The local Jewish authorities became very upset and tried to get the disciples beaten up and imprisoned.  But the message of the gospel and the resurrection of Jesus could not be stopped.    Now if these frighten disciples changed the message would they have not change it so that there would not have incurred any persecution.  Make the message a nice user-friendly.  Because the message they took to the streets would not make them rich or famous.  Now who in their right mind starts preaching a message that they know was a lie.  The facts that almost all the apostles bar John were martyred for the gospel.  John himself was exiled for a period on Patmos, which we know is where the Roman Empire sent undesirables to dig rock.  No one in his right mind would preach a message that they know was a lie.  Nor would they preach a message that they knew was more than likely to get them killed.

2 TIM 3: 12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution

 The Bible makes it clear  “ALL “that will live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer “persecution” and every believer knows and can testify to the reality that he is in Christ Jesus.  Today countless believers have found these verses to be true.  But even as persecution grows those who have received know that the message of the gospel is real, and truthful.  More than anything else the believer has proven to themselves  that what the Bible teaches is true.

 Acts 1`2: 1-2 Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth [his] hands to vex certain of the church. And he killed James the brother of John with the sword.

Moslems believe that Jesus never died on the cross.

 Moslems believe that Jesus did not die on the cross, but was secretly swapped for Judas or some other look-alike.  However if God did indeed do this would this not be considered a deception?  Is God into deceiving people and for what purpose?
Would that not make God into a liar?  Again the theory just does not fit the facts.  There were just too many people who
interacted with Jesus that it would be impossible for such a deception to be carried out.

Num 23: 19 God [is] not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do [it]? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

So such an accusation simply does not express the reality that God cannot lie or decieve people.  The man who died on the cross was indeed Jesus.  This is also backed by many verses.

Rev 5:12      Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing.  

There can be no doubt that the LAMB who was slain is now the object of heavens worship.

  Paul changed the Bible.

  Now when that fails the Moslems will head for the New Testament and accuse the apostle Paul.  He changed and corrupted the teachings of Jesus.  Now again the question any person would ask is WHY?  Why would this man change the teachings of Jesus?

Theory : He wanted a following?

Now if Paul wanted to be famous and rich how would Paul have gone about it.  Well he would have kept circumcision.  The moment Paul preached circumcision the Jewish religious hierarchy would have been on board.  The gentiles would have embraced it and Paul would soon be rich and famous.  All Paul had to do was keep the message of the Bible seeker friendly.  But that is not what he did.

Paul a Roman was a Pharisee among Pharisees    To all intent Paul had it made.  He did not need to become famous because he was already famous in his own circles.  He would be accepted by both the Jews and the Romans.  Instead he preaches a message
that brought anything but riches and fame.  Instead it brought persecution from the Jews and eventual death in Rome.  Now Paul went to the Jerusalem church and submitted himself to the apostles in case he preached another gospel.  The facts are that he was welcomes and given the right of fellowship.  There was no dispute between what the apostles were teaching and what Paul was teaching.

Rom 8 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? [shall] tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?

Acts 13: 15 But the Jews stirred up the devout and honourable women, and the chief men of the city, and raised  persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them out of their coasts

2 cor 6: 5 In stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labours, in watchings, in fastings;

 Gal 1: 10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should
not be the servant of Christ
.

So again this theory that Paul deliberately changed the gospel just does not pan out. 

Many of today’s TV evangelists have in many ways done the very thing Paul and the rest of the disciples did not.  They did not merchandise their experiences to get money.  They did not do seek to establish a seeker sensitive church   In all things they went out to please the one who saved them.  By pleasing him they would not please man.  So by pleasing God they brought persecution and even death down upon their heads.  Unless a man is convinced of what he has seen he will never give his life in the service of a lie.   Had they compromised to save themselves then the accusation that they had compromised the truth might have had some validity,  But they did not.

Advertisements
Comments
  1. God tells us how to find knowledge and how to understand the Bible Isa 28:9-10 It is by precept on precept, line upon line, here a little and there a little. In the Old Testament there was not truth or grace John 1:17. The Bible is the book of the knowledge of good and evil Gen 3:22, 2 Cor 11:15. The word of God must be rightly divided 2 Tim 2:15. The bible says the Lord will create a new thing on the earth Jer 31:22 where a woman shall compass a man. This man is Satan Isa 14:16. A woman shall bruise Satan at the heel of time Gen 3:15. Satan has deceived the whole world Rev 12:9, until this bruise of the true word John 1:1 is delivered to the whole world Rev 12:5, 13 as a witness and a warning.The bruising of Satan is now taking place at http://minigoodtale.blogspot.com If you strive to live by every word of God you will want to read his true word. Satan will not win even one child of God, love never fails. Every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess each in their own order, all are learning the knowledge of good and evil to become a god Ps 82:6, Gen 3:22.

  2. YO BABE,

    Mohammedans are not all wrong!

    To understand the Old Testament we need to understand Jewish thinking. Why did Jesus condemn Talmudic Judaism aka The Leaven of the Pharisees, Oral Tradition (Matthew ch 15; ch 23; John ch 8).

    THE “HOLY” BABYLONIAN JEWISH TALMUD

    The Talmud is Judaism’s holiest book (actually a collection of books). Its authority takes precedence over the Old Testament in Judaism. Evidence of this may be found in the Talmud itself, Erubin 21b (Soncino edition):

    “My son, be more careful in the observance of the words of the Scribes than in the words of the Torah (Old Testament).”

    Jewish scholar Hyam Maccoby, in “Judaism on Trial,” quotes Rabbi Yehiel ben Joseph:
    “Further, without the Talmud, we would not be able to understand passages in the Bible … God has handed this authority to the sages and tradition is a necessity as well as scripture. The Sages also made enactments of their own … anyone who does not study the Talmud cannot understand Scripture.”

    The Talmud (and not the Scriptures) is the legal/canonical text which obligates those who follow the Jewish religion. It is from the Talmud that laws, regulations, and world views are drawn. In practice, the everyday life of the modern religious person is drawn and influenced by the Talmud.

    Second century Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai, one of Judaism’s very greatest rabbis and a creator of Kabbalah, sanctioned pedophilia—permitting molestation of baby girls even younger than three! He proclaimed,

    “A proselyte who is under the age of three years and a day is permitted to marry a priest.” 1
    Yebamoth 60b,
    Subsequent rabbis refer to ben Yohai’s endorsement of pedophilia as “halakah,” or binding Jewish law. 2 Yebamoth 60b

    Has Rabbi ben Yohai, child rape advocate, been disowned by modern Jews? Hardly. Today, in ben Yohai’s hometown of Meron, Israel, tens of thousands of orthodox and ultra-orthodox Jews gather annually for days and nights of singing and dancing in his memory.
    References to pedophilia abound in the Talmud. They occupy considerable sections of Treatises Kethuboth and Yebamoth and are enthusiastically endorsed by the Talmud’s definitive legal work, Treatise Sanhedrin.

    The Pharisees Endorsed Child Sex

    The rabbis of the Talmud are notorious for their legal hairsplitting, and quibbling debates. But they share rare agreement about their right to molest three year old girls. In contrast to many hotly debated issues, hardly a hint of dissent rises against the prevailing opinion (expressed in many clear passages) that pedophilia is not only normal but scriptural as well! It’s as if the rabbis have found an exalted truth whose majesty silences debate.
    Because the Talmudic authorities who sanction pedophilia are so renowned, and because pedophilia as “halakah” is so explicitly emphasized, not even the translators of the Soncino edition of the Talmud (1936) dared insert a footnote suggesting the slightest criticism. They only comment: “Marriage, of course, was then at a far earlier age than now.” 3

    In fact, footnote 5 to Sanhedrin 60b rejects the right of a Talmudic rabbi to disagree with ben Yohai’s endorsement of pedophilia:
    “How could they [the rabbis], contrary to the opinion of R. Simeon ben Yohai, which has scriptural support, forbid the marriage of the young proselyte?” 4
    1 Yebamoth 60b, p. 402.
    2 Yebamoth 60b, p. 403.
    3 Sanhedrin 76a.
    4 In Yebamoth 60b, p. 404, Rabbi Zera disagrees that sex with girls under three years and one day should be endorsed as halakah.

    Out of Babylon

    It was in Babylon after the exile under Nebuchadnezzar in 597 BC that Judaism’s leading sages probably began to indulge in pedophilia. Babylon was the staggeringly immoral capitol of the ancient world. For 1600 years, the world’s largest population of Jews flourished within it.
    As an example of their evil, Babylonian priests said a man’s religious duty included regular sex with temple prostitutes. Bestiality was widely tolerated. So Babylonians hardly cared whether a rabbi married a three year old girl.
    But with expulsion of the Jews in the 11th century AD, mostly to western Christian lands, Gentile tolerance of Jewish pedophilia abruptly ended.
    Still, a shocking contradiction lingers: If Jews want to revere the transcendent wisdom and moral guidance of the Pharisees and their Talmud, they must accept the right of their greatest ancient sages to violate children. To this hour, no synod of Judaism has repudiated their vile practice.

    Sex with a “Minor” Permitted

    What exactly did these sages say?
    The Pharisees justified child rape by explaining that a boy of nine years was not a “man” Thus they exempted him from God’s Mosaic Law:
    “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination” (Leviticus. 18:22)
    One passage in the Talmud gives permission for a woman who molested her young son to marry a high priest. It concludes,

    “All agree that the (sexual) connection of a boy aged nine years and a day is a real connection; whilst that of one less than eight years is not.” Sanhedrin 69b 5

    Because a boy under 9 is sexually immature, he can’t “throw guilt” on the active offender, morally or legally. 6

    “…the intercourse of a small boy is not regarded as a sexual act.” 7
    The Talmud also says,

    “A male aged nine years and a day who cohabits with his deceased brother’s wife acquires her (as wife).”8
    Clearly, the Talmud teaches that a woman is permitted to marry and have sex with a nine year old boy.
    5 Sanhedrin 69b.
    6 Sanhedrin 55a.
    7 Footnote 1 to Kethuboth 11b.
    8 Sanhedrin 55b.

    Sex at Three Years and One Day

    In contrast to Simeon ben Yohai’s dictum that sex with a little girl is permitted under the age of three years, the general teaching of the Talmud is that the rabbi must wait until a day after her third birthday. She could be taken in marriage simply by the act of rape.
    R. Joseph said: Come and hear! A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition and if her deceased husband’s brother cohabits with her, she becomes his. (Sanhedrin 55b)

    A girl who is three years of age and one day may be betrothed by cohabitation. . . .(. Yebamoth 57b)

    A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition, and if her deceased husband’s brother cohabited with her she becomes his. (Sanhedrin. 69a, 69b, also discussed in Yebamoth. 60b)

    It was taught: R. Simeon b. Yohai stated: A proselyte who is under the age of three years and one day is permitted to marry a priest, for it is said, But all the women children that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves, and Phineas (who was priest, the footnote says) surely was with them. (Yebamoth. 60b)

    [The Talmud says such three year and a day old girls are] . . . fit for cohabitation. . . But all women children, that have not known man by lying with him, it must be concluded that Scripture speaks of one who is fit for cohabitation. (Footnote to Yebamoth. 60b)

    The example of Phineas, a priest, himself marrying an underage virgin of three years is considered by the Talmud as proof that such infants are “fit for cohabitation.”

    The Talmud teaches that an adult woman’s molestation of a nine year old boy is “not a sexual act” and cannot “throw guilt” upon her because the little boy is not truly a “man.” 9 But they use opposite logic to sanction rape of little girls aged three years and one day: Such infants they count as “women,” sexually mature and fully responsible to comply with the requirements of marriage.

    The Talmud footnotes 3 and 4 to Sanhedrin 55a clearly tell us when the rabbis considered a boy and girl sexually mature and thus ready for marriage. “At nine years a male attains sexual matureness… The sexual matureness of woman is reached at the age of three.”
    9 Sanhedrin 55a.

    No Rights for Child Victims

    The Pharisees were hardly ignorant of the trauma felt by molested children. To complicate redress, the Talmud says a rape victim must wait until she was of age before there would be any possibility of restitution. She must prove that she lived and would live as a devoted Jewess, and she must protest the loss of her virginity on the very hour she comes of age. “As soon as she was of age one hour and did not protest she cannot protest any more.” 10
    The Talmud defends these strict measures as necessary to forestall the possibility of a Gentile child bride rebelling against Judaism and spending the damages awarded to her as a heathen – an unthinkable blasphemy! But the rights of the little girl were really of no great consequence, for,

    “When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this (three years and a day) it is as if one put the finger into the eye.” The footnote says that as “tears come to the eye again and again, so does virginity come back to the little girl under three years.” Kethuboth 11b.

    In most cases, the Talmud affirms the innocence of male and female victims of pedophilia. Defenders of the Talmud claim this proves the Talmud’s amazing moral advancement and benevolence toward children; they say it contrasts favorably with “primitive” societies where the child would have been stoned along with the adult perpetrator.

    Actually, the rabbis, from self-protection, were intent on proving the innocence of both parties involved in pedophilia: the child, but more importantly, the pedophile. They stripped a little boy of his right to “throw guilt” on his assailant and demanded complicity in sex from a little girl. By thus providing no significant moral or legal recourse for the child, the Talmud clearly reveals whose side it is on: the raping rabbi.

    Pedophilia Widespread

    Child rape was practiced in the highest circles of Judaism. This is illustrated from Yebamoth. 60b:
    There was a certain town in the land of Israel the legitimacy of whose inhabitants was disputed, and Rabbi sent R. Romanos who conducted an inquiry and found in it the daughter of a proselyte who was under the age of three years and one day, and Rabbi declared her eligible to live with a priest.

    The footnote says that she was “married to a priest” and the rabbi simply permitted her to live with her husband, thus upholding “halakah” as well as the dictum of Simeon ben Yohai,

    “A proselyte who is under the age of three years and one day is permitted to marry a priest.” 12
    These child brides were expected to submit willingly to sex. Yebamoth. 12b confirms that under eleven years and one day a little girl is not permitted to use a contraceptive but “must carry on her marital intercourse in the usual manner.”

    In Sanhedrin 76b a blessing is given to the man who marries off his children before they reach the age of puberty, with a contrasting curse on anyone who waits longer. In fact, failure to have married off one’s daughter by the time she is 12-1/2, the Talmud says, is as bad as one who “returns a lost article to a Cuthean” (Gentile) – a deed for which “the Lord will not spare him.” 13 This passage says:

    “… it is meritorious to marry off one’s children whilst minors.”

    The mind reels at the damage to the untold numbers of girls who were sexually abused within Judaism during the heyday of pedophilia. Such child abuse, definitely practiced in the second century, continued, at least in Babylon, for another 900 years.
    10 Kethuboth 11a.
    11 Kethuboth 11b.
    12 Yebamoth 60b.
    13 Sanhedrin 76b.

    A Fascination with Sex

    Perusing the Talmud, one is overwhelmed with the recurrent preoccupation with sex, especially by the most eminent rabbis. Dozens of illustrations could be presented to illustrate the delight of the Pharisees to discuss sex and quibble over its minutest details.

    The rabbis endorsing child sex undoubtedly practiced what they preached. Yet to this hour, their words are revered. Simeon ben Yohai is honored by Orthodox Jews as one of the very greatest sages and spiritual lights the world has ever known. A member of the earliest “Tannaim,” rabbis most influential in creating the Talmud, he carries more authority to observant Jews than Moses.
    Today, the Talmud’s outspoken pedophiles and child-rape advocates would doubtlessly spend hard time in prison for child molestation.

    The Oedipus complex was the invention of Sigmund Freud!

    Freud originally discovered, in the treatments partially conducted under hypnosis, that all his Jewish patients, both male and female, had been abused children and recounted their histories in the language of symptoms. After reporting his discovery in Jewish psychiatric circles, he found himself completely shunned because none of his fellow Jewish psychiatrists was prepared to share the findings with him. Freud could not bear the isolation for long. A few months later, in 1897, he described his patients’ reports on sexual abuse as sheer fantasies attributable to their instinctual wishes.

    Freud’s father was a pedophile! In a letter to his friend Wilhelm Fliess, he wrote:

    “Unfortunately, my own father was one of these perverts and is responsible for the hysteria of my brother (all of whose symptoms are identifications) and those of several younger sisters. The frequency of this circumstance often makes me wonder.”

    Fliess’s son, Robert Fliess exposed his own father as being another pedophile who had sexually abused him when he was a child.

    The Babylonian Talmud wasn’t written down until about 600 AD & wasn’t printed in English until 1937, so only a few scholars who attempted to study the 35 volumes, knew what was in it. Over 99% of Christians are ignorant of the LEAVEN OF THE PHARISEES, the Babylonian Talmud.
    Yet, Jesus warned his disciples about it!

  3. YO BABE,

    There is no way Jesus would have anything in common with the Babylonian Jew Ezra & his Nazi tactics. It was because of Ezra & the Pharisees that racism against the Samaritans was widespread, by the time Jesus came on the scene.

    EZRA & THE BLOODLINE

    Racism was invented by the Jewish Priest Ezra!

    Ezra & Hitler are in total agreement

    “it was against the will of the Eternal Creator. . .Nations that make mongrels of their people or allow their people to be turned into mongrels sin against the Will of Eternal Providence.”
    Mein Kampf, p. 186 . . . p.162

    The Book of Ezra is the Mein Kampf of the Bible

    In 587 B.C. Jerusalem was conquered by the Babylonians. The town and the Temple were razed to the ground and the Jewish people were exiled to the land of their captors. But fifty years later Cyrus, King of Persia, conquered the conquerors and established his own rule in Babylon. He was well-disposed toward the Jewish people living there and issued an edict allowing them to return to their own country. But not everyone wanted to go.

    Although the siege of Jerusalem had been brutal, once the people were settled in their land of exile, living conditions kept improving. Ultimately, they were given the opportunity to become contributing members of the Empire and encouraged to retain their own Jewish culture. By the time Cyrus came to power, the majority of Jewish people did not want to exchange a prosperous lifestyle for the uncertainty of returning to a country that had been lying in ruins for half a century. But they were quite generous in their financial and moral support of those who were willing to go back and resettle their homeland.

    When the first group of exiles arrived back in Jerusalem, circa 537 B.C., they found things were even worse than expected. The countryside was desolate and rebuilding loomed as a monumental task. And other problems faced the returnees. They had come back ready to reclaim Jerusalem and institute their own agenda. But when they arrived they found that the ruins of the city were inhabited by the descendants of poor peasants who had hidden out in the hills during the Babylonian siege. They had escaped capture while the wealthy merchants, landowners and priests who had substantial lands and other holdings, had been rounded up and deported by their conquerors.

    During the years of Exile, the peasants left behind had made a life for themselves that centered around Jerusalem. They built homes for their families and for many years had eked out a living in the barren countryside. And during those years, the peasant survivors of the southern kingdom of Judah had made common cause with those left alive after the takeover of the northern kingdom of Israel. [1] The bitter rivalry that had once divided the Jewish tribes had been healed by the misfortunes they suffered and by the need for mutual aid if any of them were going to survive.

    But those who first returned from Babylonian Exile, under the leadership of the High Priest Jeshua, had nothing but contempt for those who had been left behind. They were considered ignorant; the dregs of society, because without the leadership of the exiled priests and scribes, they would not have properly fulfilled the religious rules and regulations that were supposed to govern daily life. Therefore, they were ritually unclean and were to be shunned. Of course, ritual impurity can be remedied over a period of time by observing every jot and title of the Law but this remedy was not applied to those who had been left behind. Their impurity stemmed from intermarriage with mixed-race Jews. They had mixed the pure blood line of Abraham through intermarriage with those of impure lineage and their offspring had been contaminated.

    So, although the resident survivors around Jerusalem thanked God for the return of the Exiles and wanted to help them rebuild the Temple site, they were not allowed to do so. They presented themselves to Jeshua and other leaders saying

    “We would like to build with you, for we seek your God as you do and we have sacrificed to him since the time of Esarhaddon” [2]

    Their offer was refused, they were unworthy; unclean. They reacted to this bigotry by harassing the returnees as they undertook the reconstruction of the Temple.

    But despite various problems, the altar was reestablished and dedicated to God by a massive slaughter of animals that provided a great feast for the people. In a total rejection of the oracles of the Latter Prophets, who condemned killing animals in the name of God, one hundred bulls, 200 sheep, 400 lambs and 12 goats were sacrificed and slaughtered on the altar site. [3]

    In the generations that followed, the descendants of those who returned from exile married, raised families and centered their religious life around the altar at Jerusalem. And for those who married other pure-blooded Jews there were no problems. However, some of them were marrying those whose bloodlines had been tainted by intermarriage. The religious leaders were very disturbed by this trend, but were unable to do anything about it until a priest named Ezra arrived in Jerusalem.

    Ezra was a scribe as well as a hereditary priest. As a scribe he was trained in the minutiae of religious law and was qualified to translate and interpret those laws. In Babylon he had been the equivalent of a minister for Jewish affairs at the Persian Court and he used that position to secure letters of authority from the king. He had himself sent to Jerusalem as a political and religious leader, empowered to collect money, appoint judges and punish with death, banishment, confiscation or imprisonment any Jew who did not obey the laws he expounded.

    Armed with that power, Ezra arrived in Jerusalem almost a hundred years after the first returnees had come back from Babylon and lost no time in instituting a policy of ethnic cleansing. He, and other like-minded leaders, were determined to get rid of those half-breeds who were the offspring of several generations of unions between pure-blood Jews and the impure resident survivors.

    In ancient Israel mixed marriages had been allowed, but eventually they came into disfavor. Foreign women were blamed when Jewish men failed to fulfill their religious obligations or fell into idolatrous worship. The reaction against such marriages was an attempt to avoid influences that might dilute or corrupt Judaism.

    However, those foreigners who were willing to renounce their pagan worship and follow all the requirements of Jewish law and worship could be accepted into Judaism.

    But Ezra introduced a new element into his ban on intermarriage. The issue was not whether or not a spouse was willing to worship the one God; beliefs did not matter. The issue was whether or not a person was a pure-blooded Jew. For the first time, one group of people viewed other groups as a contaminating influence – – a source of racial or ethnic impurity – – regardless of how they lived or what they believed.

    Ezra began his purge with a lengthy speech-prayer that he gave in the Temple court-yard. For the benefit of God and the assembled people, he gave a synopsis of Israelite history and then told the Lord how angry He was going to be about what was taking place in the present. Because the chosen people had intermarried “with wicked people. . . You will be so angry that You will destroy us completely and let no one survive.”[4] Not surprisingly, the assembled men were terrified by the message that God would completely destroy them if they did not cast off their contaminated wives and children. And this time no one would escape; Abraham’s descendants would be wiped out.

    This public speech-prayer, threatening the extermination of an entire people, is universally praised by religious spokesmen who echo the sentiments of the Inter-national Bible Commentary:

    “Ezra’s prayer is one of the most moving of all the prayers which are recorded in Scripture.”[5]

    Having established the threat of annihilation, Ezra took the next step in implementing his purge. He issued a proclamation demanding that all the Jewish people come to a meeting in Jerusalem. By now they were scattered about the countryside and under ordinary circumstances many would not have bothered to come. But this was not an ordinary situation; Ezra used the extraordinary powers given to him by the Persian King to insure full attendance.

    “A proclamation was issued throughout Judah and Jerusalem for all the exiles to assemble in Jerusalem. Anyone who failed to appear within three days would forfeit all his property. . .and would himself be expelled from the assembly.”[6]

    Under the impetus of that threat, all the Jewish males assembled in the Temple square. There they were given details of the purge that was about to take place. They were to turn in any members of their family who were tainted by non-Jewish blood. They were informed that committees would be set up to investigate all reports of the existence of such undesirables. There was no way to avoid detection. There was no escape.

    “Ezra the priest selected men who were family heads, one from each family division and all of them designated by name. On the first day of the tenth month they sat down to investigate the cases and by the first day of the first month they finished dealing with all the men who had married foreign women.”[7]

    It took three months for this systematic purge to identify all the undesirables.

    Not only did Ezra demand that the foreign wives of Jewish men be cast off, he demanded that all the children of such marriages be sent away. His edict was multi-generational. Children, grandchildren and great grandchildren were to be cast off, never again to see their families. [8] And wives, who had been with their husbands only a few years, as well as those who had spent a lifetime with their mates, must also be sent away. No one whose blood was contaminated with non-Jewish blood could stay.

    Of course, there was no place for most of them to go. In that day and time women, children, the frail and the elderly, had no way to sustain themselves. The homes from which they were banished were the only homes they had known. They were sent out into a hostile environment with no resources and few skills. For many of them, Ezra’s proclamation was a death sentence.

    The fate of women and children without male protection was well-known among the Hebrew people. The Prophets had repeatedly spoken of God’s concern for the oppression they suffered at the hands of their own people and the oft-repeated Psalm 146, clearly told of the Lord’s special concern for them;

    “(God) protects the strangers who live in our land and helps widows and orphans. . .he judges in favor of the oppressed.” [9]

    Ezra’s threats of retribution forced the acceptance of his purge in spite of such demands for the care of the powerless from both the psalmist and the prophets. Unless the assembled men did what he demanded, they themselves would become outcasts; they would lose their property and be banished from their homes. Faced with such drastic consequences, it is not surprising that the Bible reports only four of the assembled men protested Ezra’s demands. [10]

    In Ezra’s time there was no precedent for the kind of massive purge he wanted to institute and the men of Israel may not have been aware of the extent of the suffering he was about to unleash on so many people. But it is difficult to understand how Ezra’s policy of ethnic cleansing can continue to receive religious endorsement in a post-Holocaust world. Yet modern Christian scholars continue to endorse Ezra’s purge because the scribe who wrote the biblical account claimed that “God’s holy people had become contaminated” by marrying those whose bloodlines were not pure.”[11]

    Consequently, modern commentators have turned the victims, who were banished from their homes into the villains. Ezra is applauded for his courage in demanding that the national and religious purity of his people be maintained and those who lost everything in the purge are seen as transgressors who had taken part in what the Evangelical Commentary calls “the reprehensible sin of intermarriage.” [12]

    And a Catholic scholar notes that in Ezra’s “concern for racial purity” can be seen as a religious reason for the banishment of undesirable children and wives. Another scholarly note says

    “if (Ezra’s) reforming measures seem severe, it is because his zeal was great, and the need to protect his community, urgent.” [13]

    Because all the protagonists in the story of Ezra’s purge were male and because Bible scholars are usually male, some people of faith have hoped that with the inclusion of female exegetes a more comprehensive and compassionate understanding of the scriptures might emerge. Unfortunately, the publication of The IVP Women’s Bible Commentary has momentarily dashed those hopes. [14] Typical, is the comment regarding Ezra and his emphasis on the need for a pure lineage:

    “(Ezra’s) radical emphasis on pure lineage. . .was timely and vital for the continuation of pure religion.”

    The commentator goes on to claim that had he not instituted this ethnic cleansing, the Jewish people would have become extinct.

    Jewish apologists, as well as their Christian counterparts, continue to insist that Ezra’s purge was an absolute necessity. Rabbi Bernard M. Caspar, Dean, University of Jerusalem, writes that

    “the great problem which faced Ezra upon his arrival in Jerusalem was the danger of assimilation for the newly established community. During the period of the Babylonian exile. . .a small nucleus of original Israelites from the North of the country were now mixed with other (impure) colonists not only in blood but also in cultural standards.” [15]

    This contemporary support for the divine right of a people to rid themselves of the culturally and ethnically undesirable is not limited to religious spokesmen. A best selling, 20th century author, supported Ezra’s concept, writing that

    “The loss of racial purity will wreck inner happiness for ever. It degrades men for all time to come. And the physical and moral consequences can never be wiped out.”

    He also said that the result of mixing a pure-blooded people with those who are mixed, always results in the degeneration of the pure-bred. And although he did not claim or affirm the biblical claim that intermarriage with undesirables would ultimately lead to the destruction of an entire people and their culture because

    “it was against the will of the Eternal Creator. . .Nations that make mongrels of their people or allow their people to be turned into mongrels sin against the Will of Eternal Providence.” [16]

    His book became just as popular as the Bible. By 1933 Mein Kampf was alternating with the Bible for the number one spot on Germany’s best seller list. In his book, Adolph Hitler did not introduce a new concept to the people of Germany; he built on the foundation of the Judeo-Christian acceptance of Ezra’s purge as a necessary and godly undertaking.

    Although horrified by the Holocaust, traditional Christians and Jews continue to endorse the purge that was instituted by Ezra. And as long as they attribute that ancient, man-made reign of terror to God, Western civilization is threatened by a foundational belief that ethnic cleansing can be a godly undertaking, necessary for the survival of a nation. Unless it is repudiated, this potentially destructive belief, usually concealed beneath the surface of everyday life, will continue to erupt in terrible ways that cannot be predicted.

    [1] Survivors of the Northern kingdom of Israel came to be called Samaritans. Their kingdom fell to the Assyrians in 722 B.C.

    [2] Ezra: 4:2 JB

    [3] Ezra 6:16, 17 JB

    [4] Ezra 9:14 TEV

    [5] IBC p. 495

    [6] Ezra 10:7, 8 NIV

    [7] Ezra 10:16, 17 NIV

    [8] The policy instituted by Ezra was more severe and contradicted the Deuteronomic Law which said: “You shall not detest an Edomite… you shall not detest an Egyptian…The sons of the third generation who are born to them enter the assembly of the Lord.” Deuteronomy. 23:8

    [9] Psalm 146 is the first of a third Hallel: Ps 146 – 150 (JB note p. 927

    [10] Ezra 10:15 TEV

    [11] Ezra 9:2 TEV

    [12] Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, p. 295

    [13] Jerusalem Bible, Old Testament, p. 495

    [14] InterVarsity Press, 2002

    [15] An introduction to Jewish Bible Commentary, Rabbi Bernard M. Caspar, Dean, The Hebrew University Jerusalem. Publ: Thomas Yoseloff, NY © 1960 World Jewish Congress.

  4. THE MOHAMMEDAN CONSTITUTION:

    RELIANCE OF THE TRAVELLER:
    A CLASSIC MANUAL OF ISLAMIC SACRED LAW
    Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri

    09.0 JIHAD
    (0: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad. As for the greater jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self (nafs), which is why the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said as he was
    returning from jihad,

    “We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad.”

    The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus (def: b7) is such Koranic
    verses as:

    (1) “Fighting is prescribed for you” (Koran 2:216);
    (2) “Slay them wherever you find them” (Koran 4:89);
    (3) “Fight the idolators utterly” (Koran 9:36);

    and such hadiths as the one related by Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:

    “I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights ofIslam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah”;

    and the hadith reported by Muslim,

    “To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it.”

    Details concerning jihad are found in the accounts of the military expeditions of the
    Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), including his own martial forays and those on which he dispatched others. The former consist of the ones he personally attended, some twenty-seven (others say twenty-nine) of them. He fought in eight of them, and killed only one person with his noble hand, Ubayy ibn Khalaf, at the battle of
    UhuJ. On the latter expeditions he sent others to fight. Himself remaining at Medina, and these were forty-seven in number.)

    THE OBLIGATORY CHARACTER OF JIHAD

    09.1 Jihad is a communal obligation (def: c3.2). When enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others (0: the evidence for which is the Prophet’s saying (Allah bless him and give him peace), “He who provides the equipment for a soldier in jihad has himself performed jihad,”
    and Allah Most High having said:

    “Those of the believers who are unhurt but sit behind are not equal to those who fight in Allah’s path with their property and lives. Allah has preferred those who fight with their property and lives a whole degree above those who sit behind.
    And to each. Allah has promised great good”
    (Koran 4:95).

    If none of those concerned perform jihad, and it does not happen at all, then everyone who is aware that it is obligatory is guilty of sin, if there was a possibility of having performed it. In the time of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) jihad was a communal obligation after his emigration (hijra) to Medina. As for subsequent
    times, there are two possible states in respect to non-Muslims.
    The first is when they are in their own countries, in which case jihad (def: 09.8) is a communal obligation, and this is what our author is speaking of when he says, “Jihad is a communal obligation,” meaning upon the Muslims each year.

    The second state is when non-Muslims invade a Muslim country or near to one, in which case jihad is personally obligatory (def: c3.2) upon the inhabitants of that country, who must repel the non-Muslims with whatever they can).

    09.2 jihad is personally obligatory upon all ‘those present in the battle lines (A: and to flee is an enormity (dis: pH)) (0: provided one is able to fight. If unable, because of illness or the death of one’s mount when not able to fight on foot, or because one no longer has a weapon, then one may leave. One may also leave if the opposing non-Muslim army is more than twice the size of the Muslim force).

    09.3 Jihad is also (0: personally) obligatory for everyone (0: able to perform it, male or female, old or young) when the enemy has surrounded the Muslims (0: on every side, having entered our territory, even if the land consists of ruins, wilderness, or mountains, for non-Muslim forces entering Muslim lands is a weighty matter that cannot be ignored, but must be met with effort and struggle to repel them by every possible means.
    All of which is if conditions permit gathering (A: the above-mentioned) people, provisioning them, and readying them for war. If conditions do not permit this, as when the enemy has overrun the Muslims such that they are unable to provision or prepare themselves for war, then whoever is found by a non-Muslim and knows he will be killed if captured is obliged to defend himself in whatever way possible. But if not certain that he will be killed, meaning that he might or might not be, as when he might merely be taken captive, and he knows he will be killed ifhe does not surrender, then he may either surrender or fight. A woman too has a choice between fighting or surrendering if she is certain that she will not be subjected to indecent act if captured. If uncertain that she will
    be safe from such an act, she is obliged to fight, and surrender is not permissible).

    WHO IS OBLIGED TO FIGHT IN JIHAD
    09.4 Those ealled upon (0: to perform jihad when it is a communal obligation) are every able bodied man who has reached puberty and is sane.

    09.5 The following may not fight in jihad:
    (1) Someone in debt, unless his creditor gives him leave:
    (2) or someone with at least one Muslim parent. until they give their permission;
    unless the Muslims are surrounded by the enemy, in which case it is permissible for them to fight without permission.

    09.6 It is offensive to conduet a military expedition against hostile non-Muslims without the caliph’s permission (A: though if there is no caliph (def: 025), no permission is required).

    09.7 Muslims may not seek help from non Muslim allies unless the Muslims are considerably outnumbered and the allies are of goodwill towards the Muslims.

    THE OBJECTIVES OF JIHAD

    o9.R Thc caliph (025) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non Muslim poll tax (jizya, def: 01 L4)-which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself-while remaining in their ancestral religions) (0: and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (0: in accordance with the word of Allah Most High,
    “Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden-who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book-until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled” (Koran 9:29), the time and place for which is before the final descent of Jesus (upon whom be peace). After his final coming, nothing but Islam will be accepted from them. for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus’ descent (upon him and our Prophet be peace), which is the divinely revealed law of Muhammad, The coming of Jesus does not entail a separate divinely revealed law, for he will rule by the law of Muhammad, As for the Prophet’s saying (Allah bless him and give him peace),

    “I am the last, there will be no prophet after me,” this does not contradict the final coming of Jesus (upon whom be peace), since he will not rule according to the Evangel, but as a follower of our Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace)).

    09.9 The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim (0: because they are not a people with a Book, nor honored as such, and are not permitted to settle with paying the poll tax (iizya») (n: though according to the Hanafi school, peoples of all other religions, even idol worshippers, are permitted to live under the protection of the Islamic state if they either become Muslim or agree to pay the poll tax, the sale exceptions to
    which are apostates from Islam and idol worshippers who are Arabs, neither of whom has any choice but becoming Muslim (al-Hidaya sharh Bidaya al-mubtadi’ (y21). 6.48–49)).
    THE RULES OF WARFARE

    09 .10 It is not permissible (A: in Jihad) to kill women or children unless they are fighting against the Muslims. Nor is it permissible to kill animals, unless they are being ridden into battle against the Muslims, or if killing them will help defeat the enemy. It is permissible to kill old men (0: old man (shaykh) meaning someone more than forty
    years of age) and monks.

    o9.11 It is unlawful to kill a non-Muslim to whom a Muslim has given his guarantee of protection (0: whether the non-Muslim is one or more than one, provided the number is limited, and the Muslim’s protecting them does not harm the Muslims, as when they are spies) provided the protecting Muslim has reached puberty, is sane, and does
    so voluntarily (0: and is not a prisoner of them or a spy).

    09.12 Whoever enters Islam before being captured may not be killed or his property confiscated, or his young children taken captive.

    09.13 When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled.

    09.14 When an adult male is taken captive, the caliph (def: 025) considers the interests (0: of Islam and the Muslims) and decides between the prisoner’s death, slavery, release without paying anything, or ransoming himself in exchange for money or for a Muslim captive held by the enemy. If the prisoner becomes a Muslim (0: before the caliph chooses any of the four alternatives) then he may not be killed, and one of the other
    three alternatives is chosen.

    09.15 It is permissible in jihad to cut down the enemy’s trees and destroy their dwellings.

    TRUCES

    09.16 (0: As for truces, the author does not mention them. In Sacred Law truce means a peace treaty with those hostile to Islam, involving a cessation of fighting for a specified period, whether for payment or something else. The scriptural basis for them includes such Koranic verses as:

    (1) “An acquittal from Allah and His messenger…” (Koran 9:1);
    (2) “If they incline towards peace, then incline towards it also” (Koran 8:61);

    as well as the truce which the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) made with Quraysh in the year of Hudaybiya, as related by Bukhari and Muslim.

    Truces are permissible, not obligatory. The only one who may effect a truce is the Muslim ruler of a region (or his representative) with a segment of the non-Muslims of the region, or the caliph (025) (or his representative). When made with other than a portion of the non-Muslims, or when made with all of them, or with all in a particular region such as India or Asia Minor, then only the caliph (or his representative) may effect it, for it is a matter of the gravest consequence because it entails the nonperformance of jihad, whether globally or in a given locality, and our interests must be looked after therein, which is
    why it is best left to the caliph under any circumstances, or to someone he delegates to see to the interests of the various regions.
    There must be some interest served in making a truce other than mere preservation of the
    status quo. Allah Most High says,

    “So do not be fainthearted and call for peace, when it is you who are the uppermost” (Koran 47:35).

    Interests that justify making a truce are such things as Muslim weakness because of lack of numbers or materiel, or the hope of an enemy becoming Muslim, for the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) made a truce in the year Mecca was liberated with Safwan ibn Umayya for four months in hope that he would become Muslim, and he entered Islam before its time was up.
    If the Muslims are weak, a truce may be made for ten years if necessary, for the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) made a truce with Quraysh for that long, as is related by Abu Dawud. It is not permissible to stipulate longer than that, save by means of new truces, each of which does not exceed ten years.
    The rulings of such a truce are inferable from those of the non-Muslim poll tax (def: 011); namely, that when a valid truce has been effected, no harm may be done to non-Muslims until it expires.)

    010.0 .THE SPOILS OF BATTLE

    010.1 A free male Muslim who has reached puberty and is sane is entitled to the spoils of battle when he has participated in a battle to the end of it.
    After personal booty (def: 010.2), the collective spoils of the battle are divided into five parts.
    The first fifth is set aside (dis: 010.3), and the remaining four are distributed, one share to each infantryman and three shares to each cavalryman.
    From these latter four fifths also, a token payment is given at the leader’s discretion to women, children, and non-Muslim participants on the Muslim side.
    A combatant only takes possession of his share of the spoils at the official division. (A: Or he may choose to waive his right to it.)

    010.2 As for personal booty, anyone who. despite resistance, kills one of the enemy or effectively incapacitates him, risking his own life thereby, is entitled to whatever he can take from the enemy, meaning as much as he can take away with him in the battle, such as a mount, clothes, weaponry, money, or other.

    010.3 As for the first fifth that is taken from the spoils, it is divided in turn into five parts, a share each going to:

    (1) the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), and after his death, to such Islamic
    interests as fortifying defenses on the frontiers, salaries for Islamic judges. muezzins, and the like;
    (2) relatives of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) of the Bani Hashim and Bani Muttalib clans, each male receiving the share of two females;
    (3) orphans who arc poor;
    (4) those short of money (def: h8.11);
    (5) and travellers needing money (h8.18)

    011.0 NON•MUSLIM SUBJECTS OF THE ISLAMIC STATE (AHL AL-DHIMMA)

    011.1 A formal agreement of protection is made with citizens who are:

    (1) Jews;
    (2) Christians;
    (3) Zoroastrians;
    (4) Samarians and Sabians, if their religions do not respectively contradict the fundamental bases of Judaism and Christianity;
    (5) and those who adhere to the religion of Abraham or one of the other prophets (upon whom be blessings and peace).

    011.2 Such an agreement may not be effected with those who are idol worshippers (dis: o9.9(n:», or those who do not have a Sacred Book or something that could have been a Book. (A: Something that could have been a Book refers to those like the Zoroastrians, who have remnants resembling an ancient Book. As for the psuedoscriptures of cults that have appeared since Islam (n: such as the Sikhs, Baha’is, Mormons, Qadianis, etc.), they neither are nor could be a Book, since the Koran is the final revelation (dis: w4).)

    011.3 Such an agreement is only valid when the subject peoples:

    (a) follow the rules ofIslam (A: those mentioned below (011.5) and those involving public behavior and dress, though in acts of worship and their private lives, the subject communities have their own laws, judges, and courts, enforcing the rules of their own religion among themselves);
    (b) and pay the non-Muslim poll tax Gizya

    THE NON-MUSLIM POLL TAX

    011.4 The minimum non-Muslim poll tax is one dinar (n: 4.235 grams of gold) per person (A: per year). The maximum is whatever both sides agree upon.
    It is collected with leniency and politeness, as are all debts, and is not levied on women, children, or the insane.

    011.5 Such non-Muslim subjects are obliged to comply with Islamic rules that pertain to the safety and indemnity oflife, reputation, and property. In addition, they:
    (1) are penalized for committing adultery or theft, though not for drunkenness;
    (2) are distinguished from Muslims in dress, wearing a wide cloth belt (zunna:r);
    (3) are not greeted with “as-Salamu ‘alaykum” ;
    (4) must keep to the side of the street;
    (5) may not build higher than or as high as the Muslims’ buildings, though if they acquire a
    tall house, it is not razed;
    (6) are forbidden to openly display wine or pork, (A: to ring church bells or display crosses,) recite the Torah or Evangel aloud, or make public display of their funerals and feastdays;
    (7) and are forbidden to build new churches.

    011.6 They are forbidden to reside in the Hijaz, meaning the area and towns around Mecca, Medina, and Yamama, for more than three days (when the caliph allows them to enter there for something they need).

    011.7 A non-Muslim may not enter the Meccan Sacred Precinct (Haram) under any circumstances, or enter any other mosque without permission (A: nor may Muslims enter churches without their permission).

    011.8 It is, ohligatory for the caliph (def: 025) to protect those of them who are in Muslim lands just as he would Muslims, and to seek the release of those of them who are captured.

    011.9 If non-Muslim subjects of the Islamic state refuse to conform to the rules of Islam. or to pay the non-Muslim poll tax, then their agreement with the state has been violated (dis: 0 I l.1 I) (A: though if only one of them disobeys, it concerns him alone).

    011. IO The agreement is also violated (A: with respect to the offender alone) if the state has stipulated that any of the following things break it, and one of the subjects does so anyway, though if the state has not stipulated that these break the agreement,
    then they do not; namely, if one of the subject people:
    (1) commits adultery with a Muslim woman or marries her:
    (2) conceals spies of hostile forces;
    (3) leads a Muslim away from Islam;
    (4) kills a Muslim;
    (5) or mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and
    give him peace), or Islam.

    011.11 When a subject’s agreement with the state has been violated, the caliph chooses between the four alternatives mentioned above in connection with prisoners of war (09.14).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s