 |
| [original cartoon pending] |
Freeman Grey -
Muhammad Rasheed - In his ‘The Religious Instruction of the Negroes in the United States,’ author Charles Colcock Jones, Jr. pointed out that one of the barriers he faced in trying to convince his fellow slave holders to provide Christianity to the slave populace, was they believed the religion of God was inherently empowering and if the slaves were believers, they would no longer be able to control them, nor justify their continued greed-fueled enslavement. What they ended up doing, because they knew slavery was very wrong and feared for their souls in the afterlife, was to cobble together just enough of the Word and religion to enable the slave to be saved, but without the empowering part (and tellingly without the Exodus story).
The joke was on them though, since the slave class had long ago taught themselves to read and to learn the bible, secretly teaching the religion across the colonies. The most noteworthy slave uprisings of the time period were all led by bible-expert churchmen.
Muhammad Rasheed - Honestly, you folks should stick to the topics you actually know. All of your religious "hot takes" are just uninformed foolishness.
Jeffrey Stark - @Muhammad... in all seriousness you are literally one out of 150 million people named Muhammad or some variation of it. Your opinion means literally nothing compared to all those other opinions
Muhammad Rasheed - @Jeffrey... My name is "Muhammad," and there are a lot of people whose name is "Muhammad," therefore, I don't have an opinion of value based on diligent study because of all the other people out there named "Muhammad."
And you somehow consider this a serious post. 🤨
Jeffrey Stark - that’s your mistake right there. You think your opinion is valued and respected more than all the other peoples opinions on facebooks. There is literally millions of people named Muhammad and they probably all have an opinion of what is or isn’t foolish. To be perfectly honest, it’s foolish to think anyone should stop and listen or care what you alone post when I can find millions of duplicates of you everywhere talking about the exact same things.
I mean this in all honesty, WHAT MAKES YOU SO SPECIAL compared to all the other Muhammad’s in the world. NOTHING is the answer
Muhammad Rasheed - The difference in value is informed opinion versus uninformed opinion. The meme's message is based on uninformed opinion and lacks value. Those who are equally uninformed 'Like' it because they lack discernment.
Jeffrey Stark - unfortunately just telling us you have a superior informed opinion to others does not make it so. You must first prove that your opinion is set apart and superior from the others, otherwise you are one in the same as the sea of other voices online drowning out the silence with endless voices
Muhammad Rasheed - I already posted the actual background of Christianity during the slave era. U.S. white slave owners trying to force the slaves into "believing in Jesus" is a myth.
Jeffrey Stark - and what does that matter or prove at the end of the day? Many slaves still believed in Christianity which carries over to this very day with the descendants of black American slaves. Slaves were also exposed to Christianity by U.S. white slave owners. The slave owners being forced to believe in Jesus may as well be myth, but it changes NOTHING as far as the outcomes of Christianity slaves and slave owners. Slave owners forced slaves to work. And slaves were exposed to the Christ God from slave owners. They’d have no reason to know about them if they weren’t enslaved. The details change nothing
Muhammad Rasheed - Jeffrey wrote: "and what does that matter or prove at the end of the day?"
People (afrocentrics, pan-africanists, communists) are trying to vilify Christianity by spreading false information about how the slave class were introduced to the religion. The difference between truth and falsehood always matters.
Jeffrey Stark - it does not matter because outcomes of what happened to the descendants of black American slaves were the same tho. They were still enslaved and used as tools when they were in fact people and the slave masters knew this. The slaves learned of the. Bible and Christianity through these same slave master.
How can someone who believes In a Christ God use people as tools when they knew all men were created equal. Under God. In fact the early abolitionists struggled with these same topics.
In fact the early. Christians have A LOT to answer for.
Honestly dont these early Christianity deserve to be vilified anyways ?
Yes the exact truth of what happened is important, but ultimately vilifying those Christians is a necessary part of coming to terms with our history.
Those white Christians KNEW those slaves were PEOPLE and they treated them like tools or looked the other way as the atrocities occurred.
Jeffrey Stark - the “people” have the right answer, but they are coming about it the wrong way.
Yes the exact details are important. Those those early white Christians committed unspeakable horrors while also claiming to be God fearing Christians. Some struggled with this hypocrisy and became powerful
White abolitionists, but many other turned their back to the suffering and were collaborators to the injustices. Not every white Christian was part of the resistance. And this needs to be known and understood.
There is something called Americas Black Holocaust Museum located in Milwaukee Wisconsin. They are doing the good work of education
Muhammad Rasheed - Jeffrey wrote: "it does not matter because outcomes of what happened to the descendants of black American slaves were the same tho."
So? This is a completely separate topic. Vilifying the religion because of what white racists decided to do makes no sense.
Jeffrey Stark - it’s vilifying the white racists by why of the hypocrisy of their religion. Yes you can vilify what white racists do. But you can also vilify everyone white racist that was in ever one of those churches. Especially the pastors and priests. Saying Jesus Christ is their lord and savior while torturing these poor people with atrocities akin to a Holocaust.
A Christian white racist is worse than a regular white racist. They are condemned to hell. When they die God is to say “be gone i do not know you as one of my own.” Yet they all committed these horrible sins against God and Man.
We must vilify the religion these white racist men taught to make people aware of the horrible hypocrisies that occured during that time frame. 🥹. The. Church. Must acknowledge what they did. During. That. Timeframe
Muhammad Rasheed - Jeffrey wrote: "by why of the hypocrisy of their religion [...] We must vilify the religion"
This doesn't make sense. They aren't abiding by their religion. The Christ would never condone what they are doing, and they know this. The abolitionist tactic was to admonish the slave holders through their religion. They weren't being hypocritical, they were being willfully wicked.
Jeffrey Stark - let me try again to explain what I mean because I do appreciate you not using any insults and responding with humanity. What I mean to say is that while abolitionists called out white slave owners for their hypocrisy and wicked deeds nothing has been done by society to address the hypocrisy of the Christian white slave owners, and members of the church and clergy for knowing God‘s laws and actively disobeying them.  if you think of things in terms of America’s black Holocaust that helps put it in the right mind frame and mindset. These atrocities were so vile that the church had an obligation to call out the sins from the past just like the pope called out the sins that occurred by the pope and the church during World War II, the  Christian Church has an obligation to call out members from the past and say they should’ve done more and we are disgusted by their behavior and we will never forget what happened only then can the church fully reconcile what happens and allow people who were descendants of black American slaves to really have a conversation about what the church did in regards to enslaving their ancestors and the atrocities that took place that museum in the heart of Milwaukee in really a rundown part of Milwaukee helps people understand what the heck happened and try to put words and imagery to this holocaust that America refuses to use the term
Jeffrey Stark - the idea is for the average white slave owner. Yes, they are wicked and yes, abolitionists pointing out their hypocrisy would be enough, but within that group there are those of the clergy, the religious order the ones who went to seminary the ones who are educated at least enough to know that they speak not only for themselves but also for the church and also forgot in a way. The church must make amends for what those pastors and members in the church did on behalf of the church in the name of God as far as I’m aware no organized efforts have been done by any churches in Christianity to make reparations and repair
Muhammad Rasheed - Jeffrey wrote: "nothing has been done by society to address the hypocrisy of the Christian white slave owners"
That's because it is the descendants of the slave holders who are currently in power (with their 400-years of amassed hoards of plundered ADOS wealth), and then as now they care more about maintaining their dominant economic position than they do adherence to the word and spirit of their religion's teachings. That's why they would often write "and free all my slaves" in their Last Will & Testament as a weak effort to try and cheat God after a lifetime of debauchery. Another reason why it's silly to vilify Christianity in this context. If the people had followed their religion as the Christ Jesus described, then the American Descendants of Slavery wouldn't be in our current wealthless bottom caste position.
Muhammad Rasheed - Jeffrey wrote: "as far as I’m aware no organized efforts have been done by any churches in Christianity to make reparations and repair"
The Western Church in function is just another arm of white supremacy. Like the industry monopolist, the church leaders care only about maintaining the current balance of power and only pretend to care about the state of their souls.
Muhammad Rasheed - If they were strictly following their religion to the letter, then it would make sense to vilify Christianity. But this is not at all the case.
Jeffrey Stark - I actually agree with you and since Christianity in the west is nothing more than a cover, vilifying Christianity, the Christian God, and the people who support it.
I do believe there may be misguided and good. Intentions people within this corrupt system, so let them come. Forward and discuss. The sins of the past and the sins today.
Vilifying Christianity makes perfect sense If it's nothing more than a tool for white. Supremacy. You hurt nothing by going after a tool only. Used. To oppress people
Muhammad Rasheed - Jeffrey wrote: "Vilifying Christianity makes perfect sense If it's nothing more than a tool for white"
No, because there are other people who follow it. The fact that the abolition movement and the civil rights movement were led by the Black Church nullifies your argument. There were also many individual cases of runaways successfully arguing the bible's tenets to win their freedom in court.
Jeffrey Stark - but according to your own logic western Christianity is first and foremost a tool uses to enforce the status quo and white. Supremacy which I agree with. It only as the facade of concern over people's souls and caring for the sick or needy
Where I disagree is that vilifying the entire concept and Institution is more harmful than good. Yes you have. Individuals who are mother Theresa types, and individuals who have done good works through it. However, if it is ultimately a tool used for. Oppression and whit supremacy, it must be broken dismantled and remade anew.
It's simply a game of numbers. How many people back then as well as today oppressed by the church by direct and indirect forms or white supremacy? That number is incalculateable.
Versus what is the number of civil rights movement abolitionists helping some runaways and doing good works. Large but not as large as the first.
I don't see the concern of misrepresenting the truth if necessary in order to go to the heart of the matte which is the evils of church. The end justifies the means. Those who. Propagate a myth do so for honorable reasons, white supremacy must end and a runaway slave getting freedom in court does not justify the enslavement of an entire race of people and the pastors and priests that are the men of the cloth who have respect and authority and speak for more than themselves make the church culpabile
Muhammad Rasheed - Jeffrey wrote: "but according to your own logic western Christianity is first and foremost a tool uses to enforce the status quo and white."
No, I said that the Western Church and its leadership's focus represents all of that, not the actual religion.
Jeffrey wrote: "Where I disagree is that vilifying the entire concept and Institution is more harmful than good."
Vilifying "the concept" is ignorant, since it's the people who molest and set aside the concept to do wrong. You can vilify the corrupt institution as you like. Perhaps it will force them to change by some queer twist of fate.
Jeffrey wrote: "I don't see the concern of misrepresenting the truth if necessary"
That means I can't partner with you, as this is the mindset of those who work to achieve Godless anarchy and just want everything to burn into chaos. Anything that even remotely sounds like that is my enemy.
Jeffrey Stark - let me ask you this. How many years has black Americans suffered under the tyranny of white racists and white supremacy? How long have they been under the thumb of the oppressive white race?
Did it ever occur that your desire to parse out the differences between the religion and the people and slicing everything into specific nuances slows the process to a crawl and prevents change?
Wouldn’t the ends justify the means to end white superiority by any cost? Why are you so worried about these particulars as opposed to uniting with those steadfast in ending this oppression and madness and worry about correcting the details later?
Is it not the most noble endeavor to prevent young black males from being murdered by the police indiscriminately and more important than worrying about what the specific church stands for when it’s been used as an instrument of death among the most wicked and corrupt?
Once these murders stop in our street with police interactions, then you can discuss the what and the why. Telling someone’s family who lost a loved one that we must first be clear of the distinctions between religious doctrine and personal sins is an insult to those who have lost their loved ones and will never seen them again.
Can you not see that sometimes, propaganda is necessary as a means for the greater good, and the cost of that misinformation is not greater than preventing an even greater tragedy from occurring by inaction?
Muhammad Rasheed - Jeffrey wrote: "How many years has black Americans suffered under the tyranny of white racists and white supremacy?"
We're tracking 400+ years.
Jeffrey wrote: "Did it ever occur that your desire to parse out the differences between the religion and the people and slicing everything into specific nuances slows the process to a crawl and prevents change?"
No, because the change I want is based on truth & justice, not on some mysterious group's anarchist goal that wants to throw the baby out with the bath water. A wild, kneejerk reaction version of an abstract "change" is rarely the answer outside of a roll-the-dice fluke.
Jeffrey wrote: "Wouldn’t the ends justify the means to end white superiority by any cost?"
No. As a practicing theist, I actually take offense at an atheist communist asking this of me. That's the type of question that sits out in front of Nazi-like eugenics programs, sterilizing ADOS without their knowledge, and the Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male. I know too much about history for such a question to sound anything but ominous.
Jeffrey wrote: "Why are you so worried about these particulars"
Everything the human species has that is good (morals, ethics) came from our religious tradition. Everything we have that is bad came from selfish, ambitious individuals who made it their mission to overthrow the open free markets, governments and religions to replace them with their singular vision of maniacal greed.
Jeffrey wrote: "as opposed to uniting with those steadfast in ending this oppression and madness and worry about correcting the details later?"
Oppression and madness were the sole fruit of the rise of communism in the Old World during the 20th century. Why would want to unite with the folk who sabotaged my own people's sacred liberation struggle to turn us into a welfare state experiment to fund government black ops and white wealth increases?
Jeffrey wrote: "Is it not the most noble endeavor to prevent young black males from being murdered by the police indiscriminately and more important than worrying about what the specific church stands for when it’s been used as an instrument of death among the most wicked and corrupt?"
The most noble endeavor is to save the good in human society so it can be readily used as the human fuel to make the changes that objectively benefit the people. The bad guys are winning because they are specifically targeting the tools that proved effective in the previous era, hence the vilification of religion at the rise of communism in the late 19th century.
Jeffrey wrote: "Can you not see that sometimes, propaganda is necessary as a means for the greater good"
Sure, but only when wielded by those who honestly have the people's best interests at heart. Not everyone who shallowly make the claim represent that.
Jeffrey wrote: "and the cost of that misinformation is not greater than preventing an even greater tragedy from occurring by inaction?"
You only think that because you may not know what religion actually is. You either blindly believe whatever you read on Grey's stupid FB memes, or you DO know and you are hiding your knowing because, you know, international agent provocateur stuff.
Jeffrey Stark - thank you for the detailed explanation. The one burning question I have is 400 plus years of waiting, is not knee jerk anarchist goal better than another 400 years with relatively no change? In 400 years we have not had the truth and justice type of change you desire. Is waiting another 400 Years really preferable to radical anarchism? Isn’t action preferable to inaction?
Muhammad Rasheed - Jeffrey wrote: "400 plus years of waiting"
It looked more like 400+ years of uprisings & liberation movements that were sabotaged by the people with all the money and power. "Waiting" is offensive if your only solution is to destroy everything on behalf of one of the interconnected power groups that have only been playing 'Good Cop/Bad Cop' games with their rivals to socially engineer the people.
Jeffrey wrote: "In 400 years we have not had the truth and justice type of change you desire"
Your proposed solution sounds like the same mass murders, reigns of terror that heralded the usual suspects jockeying for position only to give us conditions even worse than we had before as they set up 'dictators-for-life' cults-of-personality figures for us to worship as representatives of the all-powerful State you want to replace my religion with.
Jeffrey Stark - what I propose is giving power land and resources back to the descendants of slaves. Giving reparations now. Tangible cash benefits. We need to cut the check! Since you appreciate history, you understand the importance of black Wall Street and the devastation that occured in Tulsa Oklahoma.
If you talk to the people in that area they want to have conversations, dialogue, and most importantly reparation.
Allow the black community to rebuild how they see fit, to make their own decisions, to have autonomy.
To many people that is anarchy. So be it
Muhammad Rasheed - Jeffrey wrote: "what I propose is giving power land and resources back to the descendants of slaves. Giving reparations now. Tangible cash benefits. We need to cut the check!"
I think you're just saying what you think I want to hear and you don't actually mean it at all. "Give land and resources back to the PEOPLE!" is the same social-engineering chant that heralded putting Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Il-sung, etc., in power and f*cking up the Old World for the next hundred years. #FoolMeTwiceShameOnMe
Jeffrey wrote: "Since you appreciate history"
More importantly, I appreciate not repeating the same mistakes of history over again.
Jeffrey wrote: "Allow the black community to rebuild how they see fit, to make their own decisions, to have autonomy."
What does that have to do with your demonstrated rabid hatred against the very religion that kept the Black Family together and served us during both abolition and the civil rights movements? You want to get rid of the very tool that genuinely conflicted the slave holder and got him to the verge of doing what's right before the rise of King Cotton and its endless wealth flows hardened his selfish heart beyond all repair.
Jeffrey wrote: "To many people that is anarchy. So be it"
Anarchy isn't the ADOS community achieving their full freedoms and autonomy. It's the destruction of all we've built—followed by an unknown period of people starving to death in the streets—to allow a mysterious group that's currently helping to pull the strings of the status quo getting to have its turn at leading the same ole oppression but under the diabolical flag of the sickle & hammer. No, thanks.
Jeffrey Stark - for the record I find it offensive that you think I would just say something you want to hear. I’ve actually researched the topic and came to my own conclusions on this before we’ve ever met. And it’s not just me saying it. Here is a non-biased article talking about deeding the land as well as what reparations look like from the residents mouth. And we need to listen to them. They are in the best position to tell us how we can rebuild
Any yes some people would find this as complete anarchy. I don’t
Tulsa marks 100 years since race massacre as Black leaders demand reparations | CBS News
Jeffrey Stark - and for the record I support activists like the black authority. If you think he’s dangerous, radical and unhinged so be it. Here’s a link to one of his many videos
Democrats Pushing Reparations: Do They Really Mean It? | The Black Authority
Jeffrey Stark - you need to listen to this video. He breaks down the falsehood of not aligning with any party
Do We Trust Donald Trump? | The Black Authority
Jeffrey Stark - @Muhammad... is he speaking about you I wonder? Would you rather have the group go nowhere than the group go somewhere and you not get your way? I wonder 🤔
Can Young Democrats Overthrow The Old Democrat Leadership? | The Black Authority
Muhammad Rasheed - Jeffrey wrote: "for the record I find it offensive that you think I would just say something you want to hear."
Yeah? You also reject the Godhead, believe in "the means justify the ends," and you believe in anarchy. These are all villainous traits.
Muhammad Rasheed - Jeffrey wrote: "and for the record I support activists like the black authority."
He's not an "activist." He's a clown. Anyone sporting the B1, FBA, freedmen, etc., hashtags is an active enemy of my people and are probably lackeys to the PD.
Jeffrey wrote: "If you think he’s dangerous, radical and unhinged so be it"
He's a c00n cosplaying as a pro-black activist.
Muhammad Rasheed - Jeffrey wrote: "you need to listen to this video"
No, the f*ck I don't. lol
Muhammad Rasheed - Jeffrey wrote: "is he speaking about you I wonder?"
Don't care. Jason Black® is trash.
Jeffrey Stark - you know, for someone who values education and civility, you calling the black. Authority a coon for white people and making him out to be an uncle Tom character is disgusting. If you have issue with him discuss the facts, but you using slavery imagery against a fellow black person is DESPICABLE. Whats next? Are you going to call him a charcoal baby? Are you going to call him crispy because of his dark skin?
You've brought yourself to the lowest of the low with that namecalling
Muhammad Rasheed - Jeffrey wrote: "you calling the black. Authority a coon for white people and making him out to be an uncle Tom character is disgusting"
Meh. Pick better influencers.
Jeffrey wrote: "against a fellow black person"
This is the one who keeps himself anonymous.
Jeffrey wrote: "Whats next? Are you going to call him a charcoal baby? Are you going to call him crispy because of his dark skin?"
If anything, I would call him a white man hiding behind an anonymous fake 'black' account. I'll settle for "clown" for this post, since I'm not devoting any serious attention to that portion of the Internet.
Jeffrey wrote: "You've brought yourself to the lowest of the low with that namecalling"
The atheist is the-lowest-of-the-low, followed closely by the red commie anarchist.
Jeffrey Stark - there is no reason for you to ever use the word coon to another black person. He has 169 thousand subscribers. He has to keep. His identity hidden so someone doesnt try to kill him. You seem educated. How would you feel if someone called you a coon based on your education. You are just cooning for the white man. You would hate it. SO DONT DO IT TO SOMEONE ELSE
Jeffrey Stark - we got a guy who has 169 thousand subscribers an has thousands to listeners every broadcast and weve got another guy who is heard by no one and his voice will remain unheard tearing the other guy down. It seems to me that is justification enough for where your hate comes from
Muhammad Rasheed - Jeffrey wrote: "It seems to me that is justification enough for where your hate comes from"
It's easy to hate white supremacist lackeys pretending to be pro-black activists when you're Black.
Jeffrey Stark - he is not a white supremacist Lackey. He's.a black man doing something you don't like. By that Logic, anyone who hates you for doing anything they don't like is justified in calling you any name in the book. All social graces and manners go out the window and you can call him a monkey, the n word and every name in the book huh?
Guess what. That weakens your credibility, not his!
Muhammad Rasheed - Jeffrey wrote: "he is not a white supremacist Lackey."
lol Sure, he is.
Jeffrey wrote: "He's.a black man"
Doubtful.
Jeffrey wrote: "doing something you don't like."
True. He's a talking head distraction from the true activism by design. He's probably one of your commie agents.
Jeffrey wrote: "By that Logic"
I don't think you know what that means anyway.
Jeffrey wrote: "anyone who hates you for doing anything they don't like is justified in calling you any name in the book."
Why would I give a sh*t? 🤨
Jeffrey wrote: "All social graces and manners go out the window"
To recap, you are Godless, believe in "the means justify the ends," and believe in anarchy. You also believe that shallow, performative 'niceness' defines whether someone is trustworthy and worth taking seriously. lol
Mask of War: The Greatest Show on Earth by M. Rasheed | #MRasheedCartoonsJeffrey Stark - so you use the words and the language that white. Slave masters used to enslave an entire black race against another black person?
Instead of building your own program to spread your. Own message, you tear down another man.
He's a black man until YOU prove otherwise. Sayint doubtful means nothing. He has a right to. Protect his identity, there are zealots who call him coons and would. Wish harm and death on him.
You using this language emboldens others to use this language as well. How about you stand for something and refuse to use the language of slavers?
Sounds to me like you wish for another American Holocaust for black America. Where black people own and enslave other black. People.
You yourself are a black slaver since you so. Easily use their language.
Muhammad Rasheed - Jeffrey wrote: "so you use the words and the language that white. Slave masters used"
This is my language. The USA is my home country. American English is our official language. My family has been in North America since before the Revolutionary War.
Jeffrey wrote: "to enslave an entire black race against another black person?"
Between the two of us, you're the only one going around claiming that the Jason Black® character is puppeteered by a Black person.
Jeffrey wrote: "Instead of building your own program"
No need.
Jeffrey wrote: "you tear down another man."
He tore himself down by volunteering to be the loyal lackey of white supremacy.
Jeffrey wrote: "He's a black man"
Doubtful.
Jeffrey wrote: "until YOU prove otherwise."
You're free to believe whatever you like about the matter. Just don't expect me to partner with your foolisness.
Jeffrey wrote: "He has a right to. Protect his identity"
Sure.
Jeffrey wrote: "How about you stand for something and refuse to use the language of slavers?"
Did I somehow give the impression that I respect you? I apologize. I thought I was actually clear in this regard. I did use the word "villainous" at least twice...
Jeffrey wrote: "Sounds to me like you wish for another American Holocaust for black America."
That's what you red commie anarchists want on behalf of your mysterious handlers.
Jeffrey Stark - how do we know that YOU yourself not a loyal. Lackey of white supremacy.
You use the word coon. You'd use the N word. You'd use the words uncle Tom. You'd use the words charcoal baby. You'd use the word crispy.
You are unwilling or unable to convey the message without using those words. I would never use those words BECAUSE ITS NOT REQUIRED to convey a message or ideas. It's not about nice or polite training, it's that you would sell a black man to his death as a black slaver and then blame another black man. Calling a black man a coon and saying he's a sellout, you have all the hatred for. Other blacks and act just like the white man selling a black man OUT with your language
Jeffrey Stark - let me get this straight. I'm a vile person because I said the ends justify the means and action ove inaction and we need to get reparations paid out.
Whats your plan? Wait for another 400 years. Hope and pray for change. Argue with everyone who trys to make real change.
I'd rather have radical change then sit with you and do nothing and sit on my hands for another 400 years.
Every step forward has had a step back with Trump and his regime.
And while ROME BURNS 🔥you sit and play the fiddle. Typical
Muhammad Rasheed - Jeffrey wrote: "how do we know that YOU yourself not a loyal. Lackey of white supremacy."
You're free to believe whatever you like about that matter, as well. Knock yourself out.
Jeffrey wrote: "You use the word coon."
I remember that. This fact is documented in this very thread. I used "c00n" because it holds a very specific meaning that was applicable in context, but only if I were to assume the puppeteer behind the Jason Black® character is actually Black (which I don't). But you're free to harp on it at length as you like. Perhaps your performance will translate into a cartoon.
Jeffrey wrote: "You'd use the N word. You'd use the words uncle Tom. You'd use the words charcoal baby. You'd use the word crispy. You are unwilling or unable to convey the message without using those words."
So, I didn't use those words, but you have an essay about if I used them? What are you talking about now?
Jeffrey Stark - my essay is if you used the word coon you'd use the others. Under no. Circumstances should that word. Coon be used. It does not matter what the context is. Due to the history of. The word. You can and. Should. Use other words!!!
Muhammad Rasheed - Jeffrey wrote: "let me get this straight"
You don't know how to use that phrase correctly, nor "By your logic."
Jeffrey wrote: "I'm a vile person because I said the ends justify the means"
Yes. Killing off half the human population to see some 'cult-of-personality' political-economic goal come to fruition that would be controlled by The State's clique-ish, hereditary leadership is objectively evil.
Jeffrey wrote: "and action ove inaction"
Evil action over inaction is evil.
Jeffrey wrote: "and we need to get reparations paid out."
I don't trust what your definition of "reparations" is. When I say Reparations, I mean the debt owed to the American Descendants of Slavery by my ever-complicit government for 400+ years of accrued discrimination.
Jeffrey wrote: "Whats your plan?"
Partnering with the hardcore dedicated activists in their political advocacy.
Jeffrey wrote: "Wait for another 400 years. Hope and pray for change."
My favorite part is that your so-called "research" stopped at the first lackey idiot you found, and you don't even recognize the clues I've dropped along the way. Or you're just pretending, the same way Jason Black® (and others) recently started ripping off the talking points of the hardcore serious activists he hates. lol
Jeffrey wrote: "Argue with everyone who trys to make real change."
Is that what you're pretending to represent?
Jeffrey wrote: "I'd rather have"
Don't care.
Jeffrey wrote: "a step back with Trump and his regime. And while ROME BURNS 🔥"
Did you sound like this when Joe Biden and his 1994 Crime Bill built the mass incarcerate state that targets my demographic, or did you only bring up our criminal justice system earlier in a social engineering attempt to recruit me into your demonic red commie bullsh*t?
Jeffrey Stark - that's your problem. Dropping hints here. Dropping hints there. Just say What the hell you are going to say. Do I have to. Wait 400 years to answer the question "What are we going to do about white supremacy Muhammad."
Your response "I am going to go to that black church over there and I'm going to hope and I'm going to pray. Because church is good. And one day, something will happen. You'll see. Just keep sitting in that church."
Yeah great advice. Thanks for nothing
Muhammad Rasheed - Jeffrey wrote: "Under no. Circumstances should that word. Coon be used."
You realize I recognize that your identify group is the one who sabotaged my civil rights movement and replaced my Reparations & economic inclusion goal with "n-word is bad so don't say it ever," right?
You are my active enemy in the earth.
Muhammad Rasheed - Jeffrey wrote: "that's your problem"
My problem is racist white people and their army of loyal lackeys.
Jeffrey wrote: "Just say What the hell you are going to say."
I already did. But thanks for confirming that the "research" that led you to Jason Black® was a joke.
Jeffrey wrote: "Your response 'I am going to go to that black church over there'"
Strawman caricatures from you of all people don't mean anything to me. You asked me what my plan was, I told you, and then you ignored it to conjure a fake point for me to mock me. lol That's perfect.
Jeffrey Stark - it’s not a strawman. It’s what you’re actively doing. You’re stopping people from making progress by trying to insult them and humiliate them. You go after Freeman Grey you go after Jason Black. You go after me people that are trying to get things done. and when we ask, what are you doing to support the cause you vaguely show characters and little cartoons that you do it’s not good enough you are an obstructionist. Your goal is to oppose things first and foremost unless you get your way. there will be a day when your loyalties will be questioned whether you’re going to support a black first agenda or whether you’re going to support Allah. perhaps your Muslim faith clouds your judgment on the matter where do your loyalties really belong with
Muhammad Rasheed - Jeffrey wrote: "it’s not a strawman."
Oh, you don't know what that means either. Okay. Strawmanning is when someone invents a fake point for you, for them to argue against, while pretending it's what you actually said. You asked me what my plan was, I told you, then you ignored it to conjure something for me about a Black church.
Jeffrey wrote: "It’s what you’re actively doing."
Now you are gaslighting.
Jeffrey wrote: "You’re stopping people from making progress"
By posting comments in a fb thread you can simply ignore. lol
Jeffrey wrote: "by trying to insult them"
"Trying?" 🤔
Jeffrey wrote: "and humiliate them."
Stop being a stupid jackass and you won't feel humiliated when I call out that identity group for being stupid jackasses in the thread comments you are 100% free to ignore. 😏
Jeffrey wrote: "You go after Freeman Grey"
You mean, I contributed my opinion in the threads under his posts? Like that? 🙄 He usually ignores me, too.
Jeffrey wrote: "you go after Jason Black."
Did I really "go after him?" or did you try to force that bullsh*t down my throat and I rejected it?
Jeffrey wrote: "You go after me"
At anytime you could stop responding to my comments. You don't know how social media works, huh? Or do you find yourself compelled to post against your will after you allowed Fauci an'nem to put that covid 'gene-therapy' mess in you?
Jeffrey wrote: "people that are trying to get things done"
You want anarchy to reign so the survivors can be handed over to whoever your handlers are, who lust to be the next 'cult-of-personality.' You are not a serious person.
Jeffrey wrote: "and when we ask, what are you doing to support the cause you vaguely show characters and little cartoons that you do it’s not good enough you are an obstructionist."
I didn't post my cartoon in response to your "What's your plan?" query. I posted it to mock your 'performative niceness' pet ideology.
Jeffrey wrote: "Your goal is to oppose things first and foremost unless you get your way."
Fake goals invented for me by white far-left sociopaths don't mean anything to me.
Jeffrey wrote: "there will be a day"
During your anarchy thing? lol
Jeffrey wrote: "when your loyalties will be questioned whether you’re going to support a black first agenda or whether you’re going to support Allah."
I'm Muslim first. FYI.
Jeffrey wrote: "perhaps your Muslim faith clouds your judgment on the matter where do your loyalties really belong with"
Obviously, being white racist from the leftist branch clouds your judgment on literally everything.
Muhammad Rasheed - Jeffrey wrote: "a black first agenda"
The wording sounds like some fake bullsh*t Jason Black® came up with. I'm fighting for Reparations for my ethnic group specifically, as well as a Black Political Agenda for all black Americans.
Jeffrey Stark - and what have you done specifically to advance the Goal of reparations? How long have you been working on this goal and why has it taken so long and youve made such little progress towards your goal. They are legitimate questions everyone should be asking
Jeffrey Stark - Jason black. Paid for billboards asking about Breonna Taylor. Came out of his own pocket. Helped the family obtain a settlement. Then he bailed out any black Lives matter protestors who were unfairly arrested to keep the movement going.
His first priority Is black Americans. His first priority is not to the Quran, he believes in having ONE WIFE. But you probably have multiple wives and you probably married those other women without even telling your first wife you married another women and those kids have brothers and sisters.
Your wonderful Quran allows for you to marry and impregnate all these women without even having a discussion. Disgusting hypocrisy. Muslim first.
Jeffrey Stark - the Quran allows for a man to marry more than one woman as long as he can financially and emotionally support the woman and any children involved. So you can have a secret double life. No requirement to tell your first wife you have another wife. No requirement to tell the children they have half brothers or sisters in the world. No requirement to allow the family to know the connections they have with other people. A child could potentially even date his half sister or brother.
And this is perfectly acceptable to you. And why would these men have secret double life instead of tell their wife they have another wife? Because they KNOW the first wife will not be happy. They KNOW the first wife will be jealous.
Why do I bring this up? Because the Quran allows for this dishonesty, this underhanded cruel lifestyle to exist.
I’m a vile anarchist , yet I do not lie to my wife everyday like you. I do not lie to my kids like you. “No you don’t have any other brothers or sisters” “no I was just working late”
Over and over and over lies and lies and lies and the Quran has no issue with this behavior. As long as the man makes the decision, as the head of the household, he’s allowed to lie and be dishonest
And before you twist my words : We know of no evidence suggesting that Islamic Sharee'ah obliges the husband to inform his first wife of his intention to have a second wife. Please refer to Fatwa 86395
Muhammad Rasheed - Jeffrey wrote: "And this is perfectly acceptable to you"
There's actually all kinds of requirements.
Jeffrey wrote: "Why do I bring this up?"
Because you're an uninformed jackass who enjoys spreading misinformation. I already pointed out you were villainous.
Jeffrey wrote: "And before you twist my words"
Yet you're using your words to twist Islam into deceitful propaganda based on the individual foul deeds of some lustful knucklehead Muslims you may have talked to.
Muhammad Rasheed - Jeffrey wrote: "We know of no evidence suggesting that Islamic Sharee'ah obliges the husband to inform his first wife of his intention to have a second wife"
There's plenty of verses throughout the Qur'an where Allah instructs the believers to be truthful, avoid shameful deeds, etc. More importantly, He only allows up to four wives if the intention is to financially support the widow and her orphans, not for lust. And even under those objectively noble reasons, God STILL says that it is best to only have one spouse.
It's best that you confine your accusatory discussions to topics you've actually studied, since you were the goon complaining about my humiliating the narrow-minded.
Jeffrey Stark - don’t twist my words and pretend a second wife is not valid without telling the first wife. the marriage itself is considered “valid” if it is witnessed by two male witnesses (shahidayn), or one male and two female witnesses in addition to the other basic requirements of an Islamic marriage contract being fulfilled, and the couple will not be guilty of involvement in an unlawful illicit relationship. If only two male witnesses were aware of a couple’s marriage and no other person, their marriage is Islamically valid. This is the position of most classical jurists, including the Hanafi, Shafi’i and Hanbali Schools. The Walima is also a Sunna and not a pre-requisite for the validity of one’s marriage. (See for the Hanafi School: Radd al-Muhtar 3/21-22, for the Maliki School: Hashiyat al-Dasuqi ala ‘l-Sharh al-Kabir 2/342-343), for the Shafi’i School: Mughni al-Muhtaj Sharh al-Minhaj 3/194, and for the Hanbali School: Kashshaf al-Qina’ 4/60)
Now how many wives do you have ?!?
Jeffrey Stark - I am not a villainous jackass I’m pointing out your hypocrisy. You say I know nothing about the topic and yet you admitted you can have up to four wives. I ask how many wives you have and you fall silent. I tell you it’s not required to tell the first wife and it does not in invalidate the second marriage and you fall silent on that fact.
What you say is “there are a large number of requirements in the Quran about being honest” I DIDNT ASK THAT I asked specifically about telling the first wife when you get married to the second wife. NO REQUIREMENT TO TELL ANYTHING. As far as I’m concerned you could be spreading STD to the second wife as there is NO REQUIREMENT YOU CANNOT HAVE SEX WITH THE SECOND WIVE. If it was only for protecting orphans why did they not forbid you from having sex? The problem is in the sex with the second wife.
Now the question remains. How many wives do you have (1 through 4) and how many kids do you have with each of those wives. What’s it like to have a double Muslim life ? Or did you do the HONORABLE thing and ask your first wife it’s okay (EVEN THO YOU DONT HAVE TO TELL HER AT ALL) not telling her villainous a jackass move lustful disgusting sinful act. Maybe that’s what you are taking on secret wives 🤷♂️
Jeffrey Stark - M. Rasheed wrote: “There's plenty of verses throughout the Qur'an where Allah instructs the believers to be truthful, avoid shameful deeds, etc. More importantly, He only allows up to four wives if the intention is to financially support the widow and her orphans, not for lust."
If it’s not for lust then why is sex not forbidden with the second wife? There are lots of things forbidden under the Quran why not this?
M. Rasheed wrote: “propaganda based on the individual foul deeds of some lustful knucklehead Muslims you may have talked to”
Why does the Quran not account for lustful individual knuckleheads and prevent sex with the second through fourth wife? Why doesn’t Islamic law account for or do anything about lustful knuckleheads? If you don’t prevent the behavior and look the other way, you can’t blame the knuckleheads it’s a failing of your religious leaders
Jeffrey Stark - M. Rasheed wrote: “He only allows up to four wives if the intention is to financially support the widow and her orphans, not for lust. And even under those objectively noble reasons, God STILL says that it is best to only have one spouse."
If God says it’s best to have one wife why not make it a requirement and follow the best outcome? If the second wife is designed only to support the widow and orphans, why not make it so you cannot have sex with the second wife. You just said it’s about financial support not sex. But there’s no requirement against sex. Very villainous
Jocelyn Psikla - @Jeffrey... so by your logic we should also disregard you, Jeff. There are millions of Jeffs out there or some variation of it, so your opinion means literally nothing compared to all the other opinions. 😂
@Muhammad... Sorry you’re facing this next level stupidity and ignorance. The have nothing substantive to say so they attack personally. Waiting for the imminent misogynistic attacks on me because that’s all they’ve got.
Muhammad Rasheed - Jeffrey wrote: "don’t twist my words and pretend a second wife is not valid without telling the first wife."
lol Your words are already twisted. I don't live in a country that holds such rules. My position is based on what God said about the matter in the Qur'an—source text of my religion. You digging around in competing classical jurist school arguments about it, that some Muslim majority nations use in their courts while others don't, means nothing to me. Why would it?
Jeffrey wrote: "the marriage itself is considered 'valid'”
Well, this is the rub right here. Considered valid to whom? To a random clerk in a random sovereign nation on the other side of the planet? Why would that matter to me? God said a very specific thing about marrying more than one woman, so why would I accept a random human's opinion over what God said?
Muhammad Rasheed - Jeffrey wrote: "I am not a villainous jackass"
Sure, you are. The three tenets of your personal belief system are objectively evil.
Jeffrey wrote: "I’m pointing out your hypocrisy."
I'm a hypocrite because I haven't confirmed a false item you're trying to pin me to? lol Is that how hypocrisy works?
Jeffrey wrote: "You say I know nothing about the topic"
So far, you seem to only have interest in peripheral items that you can use to play "gotcha!" with on certain unscrupulous individuals who are led by their lusts in violation of scripture. Naturally, your reason behind this interest is related to the white leftist spy tactic of blackmailing Epstein Island guests, amirite?
Jeffrey wrote: "and yet you admitted you can have up to four wives."
As a Muslim, I'm allowed to have up to four wives only under very limited parameters that are nearly impossible to meet. Those limiting parameters are often ignored by those led by their lusts.
Jeffrey wrote: "I ask how many wives you have and you fall silent. I tell you it’s not required to tell the first wife and it does not in invalidate the second marriage and you fall silent on that fact."
As an American citizen, I'm only allowed to have one wife by law, so the point behind your weirdly excitable badgering is moot.
Jeffrey wrote: "What you say is 'there are a large number of requirements in the Quran about being honest' I DIDNT ASK THAT"
You didn't have to ask it. I volunteered the information in response to what you claimed the Qur'an didn't say about the specific topic you want to harp on.
Jeffrey wrote: "I asked specifically about telling the first wife when you get married to the second wife. NO REQUIREMENT TO TELL ANYTHING."
The Qur'an lists the categories of people to whom the believer should be charitable. One of those is 'the companion by your side,' i.e., your spouse. Not springing a surprise second wife on her when you know she would be quite upset about such an arrangement, would reasonably be considered charity. lol
Jeffrey wrote: "As far as I’m concerned you could be spreading STD to the second wife as there is NO REQUIREMENT YOU CANNOT HAVE SEX WITH THE SECOND WIVE. If it was only for protecting orphans why did they not forbid you from having sex? The problem is in the sex with the second wife."
A benefit of a "wife" is that you get to have sex both legally and morally. God said you can have more than one wife if the primary reason you want to do it is to care for the widow and her orphans, not to just have sex with more than one women.
Muhammad Rasheed - Jeffrey wrote: "If it’s not for lust then why is sex not forbidden with the second wife?"
Why would it be? If she's your wife you can have sex with her without penalty as a believer.
Jeffrey wrote: "There are lots of things forbidden under the Quran why not this?"
Why should it be forbidden to have sex with your own wife?
Jeffrey wrote: "Why does the Quran not account for lustful individual knuckleheads and prevent sex with the second through fourth wife? Why doesn’t Islamic law account for or do anything about lustful knuckleheads? If you don’t prevent the behavior and look the other way, you can’t blame the knuckleheads it’s a failing of your religious leaders"
God said that more than one wife is permitted under certain strict parameters. The people who ignore that and do what they want to do anyway outside of those parameters—which includes any conflicting rulings by classical jurists and et cetera—will have to answer for their deeds to God. It seems straight and plain to me.
Muhammad Rasheed - Jeffrey wrote: "If God says it’s best to have one wife why not make it a requirement and follow the best outcome?"
Some people are actually able to meet those parameters, and God knows best, so He allowed this. It seems obvious by the wording. To me.
Jeffrey wrote: "If the second wife is designed only to support the widow and orphans, why not make it so you cannot have sex with the second wife."
I still don't understand the point of this. You can legally & morally have sex with a wife.
Jeffrey wrote: "You just said it’s about financial support not sex. But there’s no requirement against sex."
No, I pointed out that the Qur'an says up to four wives are allowed if the reason you want to have that arrangement is to be able to help the widows and their orphans. It is forbidden if the actual reason you want to do it is so you can have sex with more people than just your wife. If that is your PRIMARY motivation then you are being led by your lusts, not to do the right thing. If you're doing it for the right reasons as stated by God then the situation is lawful. being able to have sex with your new wife[s] is just part of the marriage duty and there's no reason to punish you for doing it.
Muhammad Rasheed - Jocelyn wrote: "sorry you’re facing this next level stupidity and ignorance"
It comes with the "arguing on the Internet" territory and I engage willingly with no issue. Even though Jeffrey can often get on my nerves as a real life villain pretending to be an ally to my people, he does approach the material in a way different than I am used to, and I find myself enjoying the exchange.
In a best case scenario, I may be able to mine the argument for material to caricature for my editorial cartoon folio.
************************************
CITATION
Rasheed, Muhammad. "Spycraft: Decoding the White Left." Cartoon. The Official Website of Cartoonist M. Rasheed 00 Date 20XX. Pen & ink w/Adobe Photoshop color.
________________________________
