Monday, November 9, 2009

Fort Hood Shooter's Imam Applauds the Slaughter

It now appears that Major Hasan had an imam who formerly lived in Virginia, and this imam is praising the slaughter of the troops and civilians at Fort Hood. This Muslim leader calls Hasan a "hero" and is noted as saying that "he did the right thing." He goes on:

“He is a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people... The only way a Muslim could Islamically justified serving as a solider in the U.S. Army is if his intention is to follow the footsteps of men like Nidal.”

Notice the espousal of taqiyya, the Islamic doctrine of deception, inherent in his statement.

I wonder if it will be any shock to mainstream America when they find out that political correctness does not cure the worlds' woes.

P.S. For those of you who might be wondering "Why do the guys on Acts17/Answering Muslims always focus on radicals and current events instead of Islam?" here's our point: Islam's teachings, historically, are violent. This is why Muslims can refer to chapter 8 verse 60 of the Qur'an, as this man did, to justify terrorism. That is why Muslims can refer to chapter 9 verse 29 of the Qur'an to fight Jews and Christians. Although we're glad many, if not most, Muslims consider Islam a peaceful religion, it seems they have ignored the clear teachings of the Qur'an, ahadith, and sirah. We seek to expose these violent teachings so that people may be aware of the true Islam, not a watered down one.


Ali said...

Nabeel, we're not all shia's. You dont need to throw in taqiyya every time.

Try reading from 8:56. 8:58 is the main verse that tells it all.
Any group, tribe country that betrays/attacks you, we fight back.
I'm not understanding, why do we point to muslims. Can I same the same for KKK and LRA?

9:29 is talking about an islamic state. All Jews, Christians who live there MUST abide by islamic laws. No bars, night/strip clubs etc. They cant bring any un-islamic values or traditions.
Can someone find me any government in the world that WONT fight its citizens who refuse to pay tax?
I have to pay tax. If i dont the government will take my house, car away. Pretty much all public buildings pay tax, except of course for churches. Christians will always have discounts in their nation.
Have a look at this:

Ali said...

True teachings of islam?
Can i ask a question? Since the holy spirit, that guides and controls all for honesty, truth and sincerity that the bible clearly says, why is it failing so many christians?
Of course its wrong to label any person's actions to their faith, but unfortunatley we do not have a spirit guiding and controlling us.
And by "failing" i mean the christians in the 80% christian nation of America.

David Wood said...

Nice try, Ali. Upon receiving this verse, Muhammad marched out to war against the Byzantine Empire. Which Islamic state were the Byzantines part of again?

So let me get this straight. In a comment in which you pretend that only Shias are permitted to deceive unbelievers, you attempt to deceive unbelievers.

BTW, is 3:28 only in Shia Qur'ans? Was Ibn Kathir a Shia? Were Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim written by Shias?

IslamSINS said...

There is a precious apostate from Sudan, now living in Canada. He's been apostate since 1989, and he's very well educated. I don't know when he received his degrees, but he's accumulated five of them, including a PhD. I said all that to say this: This is a man, intelligent and well spoken, but living for 28 years as a Muslim, he had little idea of Islam's teachings. He is obviously capable of learning, and his degrees seem evidence of his love of study. Yet, when he came into PalTalk, he heard things that he never knew before. Aisha's tender young age, Muhammad's adultery with Maria the Copt, the theft of his adopted son's wife, and on and on. When questioned, he said because Sudan is such a poor country, he had no access to the books of Bukhari or Muslim. No Tafsirs were within his grasp, so his mosque depended entirely on the teachings of the Imam. We can't know if the Imam was "teaching" - and I use that term very loosely - from a point of ignorance or deceit.

So, reading the Koran in Arabic taught this now scholar nothing. He learned from non-Muslims, all the filth of Muhammad's behavior, and though he was long out of Islam, there was still some resentment that he had been born into a country where Islam's ignorance was foisted on him, and the violence and depravity were kept in the closet. This is how Islam has always managed to stay afloat, on darkness, deceit, and ignorance.

This is how I learn about Islam, from its books and its apostates. The books reveal enough to make a civilized person nauseated. The accounts of the apostates give us a vicarious experience in Islamic countries, and the suffocation of Muhammad's dark and deceitful teachings.

Islam is a living horror movie. Those of us fortunate enough to NOT have been born to a Muslim family, can only look with loathing on a cult so Satanic, the script could have only been concocted in the mind of a lunatic.

In Sura 34:50 Muhammad says, "If I go astray, I go astray only to my own loss," This man is a vile liar. His loss is the loss of every Muslim, and YHWH only knows how many souls he's dragged to an eternity in hell.

To be rid of the Satanic verses, the entire Koran would need to be used to kindle a fire.

Oh, and by the by, Dr. Wood, this site is so much better since you assigned Osama to his proper place, the outer limits. We all owe you a debt of gratitude.

Ali said...

[3:28] The believers never ally themselves with the disbelievers, instead of the believers. Whoever does this is exiled from GOD. Exempted are those who are forced to do this to avoid persecution. GOD alerts you that you shall reverence Him alone. To GOD is the ultimate destiny.

I dont see where taqiyya appears here.

Ali said...

Okay David can you give me hadiths (reliable) that talk about taqiyya, in a NON persecutionary way?

David Wood said...

Nice try again, Ali.

"Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers. Whoso doeth that hath no connection with Allah unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them, taking (as it were) security. Allah biddeth you beware (only) of Himself. Unto Allah is the journeying."

You aren't allowed to be friends with non-Muslims, unless you're pretending to befriend them in order to protect yourself.

Since you said you don't see Taqiyya in this verse, check the Arabic for "taking security" and tell me what it is.

Then read the commentary of Ibn Kathir (SUNNI Islam's greatest commentator) and tell me what it says.

Isn't it shocking that you're learning more about Sunni Islam on this website than you're learning in the mosque?

David Wood said...

Of course it's precautionary. You lie to us in order to protect yourselves and your religion. That's what Taqiyya is, and that's what Muslims do (including Sunni Muslims).

Indeed, when Sunni Muslims say that Taqiyya is only a Shia practice, the Sunnis are practicing Taqiyya!

Fernando said...

Ali saide: «They cant bring any un-islamic values or traditions.
Can someone find me any government in the world that WONT fight its citizens who refuse to pay tax?»

1) Whate woulde happen iff muslims could nott live withe thairs un-human traditions and values in civilized countries?

2) Whate woulde happen iff a muslim would nott pay tax in the US? Is this equivalent to whate woulde happen to a non-muslim who reffused to be considered as a second-class person in a muslim country?

Ali... your analogies are only another futtile attempt to defend islam... butt you habe only managed to show how un-human are islamic values and traditions...

Abdullah said...

Hmm David, I think you lie about Muslims lying, furthermore I think that we cannot trust entirely what you say, because Christians lie in the service of propagating their faith, and you are most certainly possessing a bias in this aspect. Let's see if there is a possible Biblical support for lying:

Paul says:

1 Corinthians 9

19Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. 22To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. 23I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

Saint John Chrysostom (c. 347–407) archbishop of Constantinople, was an important Early Church Father. He is known for his eloquence in preaching and public speaking, his denunciation of abuse of authority by both ecclesiastical and political leaders, the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, and his ascetic sensibilities. After his death (or, according to some sources, during his life) he was given the Greek surname chrysostomos, meaning "golden mouthed", rendered in English as Chrysostom.

He said in his work: ‘On the Priesthood’ in a commentary on 1 Corith 9:19
: ‘Great is the force of deceit, provided it is not excited by a treacherous intention’

So Christians can lie, twist the truth and make false propaganda AS LONG as they have 'good intentions' (i.e. propagting their doctrines and attempting to refute anything they view as falsehood. Surely in the war on falsehood, Christians have no limits).

Abdullah said...

But let's see an example of Paul in action - does Paul say one thing to some, and do another thing to others?

Acts 15 – Council of Jerusalem

5Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses."
6The apostles and elders met to consider this question.

19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from FOOD POLLUTED BY IDOLS, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath."

But then Paul writes to the Corinthians about Food sacrificed to Idols:

1 Corinth 8

4So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one. 5For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), 6yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

7But not everyone knows this. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat such food they think of it as having been sacrificed to an idol, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. 8But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.

9Be careful, however, that the EXERCISE OF YOUR FREEDOM does not become a stumbling block to the weak.

1 Corinthians 10:23-24; “All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful; all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify”

So for Paul, all things are lawful, although he said the council of jerusalem that he follows the Law, and he told the Corinthians that they are FREE To eat food sacrificed to Idols, even though he AGREED that gentiles had to at least follow that command. Nice one Paul, now Christians will certainly learn from your example of saying and doing different things...

Fernando said...

So Abdullah, Ali and ashraf are all pretending to say that Paul lied or said he lied... foonie indeed...

now, seriously: can anyone off you presente any verse wher Paul did (say he) lie? Thanks in advance...

Fernando said...

Abdullah... so: you're now reading the Fathers of the Church... they habe, not eben to the Catholics, any authoritative rule in the exegesis they made... they are not infalible as the Biblical text is... Chrysostom's words are only thate: the words off some Christian bishop... nothing more... woulde you like, please, to present the other Church Fathers texts where they sai clearly thate Paul is not using deception? Thanks for your efford in advance...

by the way... nowhere in "On the Priesthood" does Chrisostomous sais this... how devious (or ignorant) can someone bee... Abdullah: iff you present thate I'm wrong I'll become a muslim again...

by the way... nowhere in "On the Priesthood" does Chrisostomous comment 1Cor. 9... how devious (or ignorant) can someone bee... Abdullah: iff you present thate I'm wrong I'll become a muslim again...

by the way... in the imediate sentence off the text you shoulde habe referred the author says: «In fact action of this kind ought not to be called deceit, but rather a kind of good management, cleverness and skill, capable of finding out ways where resources fail, and making up for the defects of the mind»... the author is talking aboutt a procedour analogous to the Socratic maieuthical procedour where the sage, pretending he does nott know something, invites the learner to recognize the truth for his own (the learner) benefit...

butt ounce again: coulde you present ANY biblical text where lying is aplauded? thanks...

CosmicBoy said...

@ Ali,

Many moslems contries have bars dan night clubs even strips club.

So, what are you talking about?


To show that moslems don't condone these evil things.

I am not stupid, you know.

The Fat Man said...

The more I read about this the more disgusted I get. Not with Major Hasan, but with the FBI, and other US intelegence organizations.

If I fail to let my dog out and the dog goes on the floor, then who's fault is that, mine or the dogs?

In the same way if a muslim decides to share his faith in Islam with the people of the United States. And the FBI is aware of this muslims contact with a Al Quida Iman and decides to do nothing. Then who's fault is that, the muslim who is just sharing his faith or the FBI's for not doing anything to stop him?


"U.S. military officials said intelligence agencies intercepted communications between Hasan and Anwar al-Awlaki, a former imam at the Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church, Virginia, a Washington suburb. Al-Awlaki, who left the United States in 2002 and is believed to be living in Yemen, was the subject of several federal investigations dating back to the late 1990s, but was never charged.

Military officials told CNN on Monday that intelligence agencies intercepted communications from Hasan to al-Awlaki and shared them with other U.S. government agencies. But federal authorities dropped the inquiry into Hasan's communications after deciding that the messages warranted no further action, one of the officials said

According to the FBI, investigators from one of its Joint Terrorism Task Forces determined "that the content of those communications was consistent with research being conducted by Maj. Hasan in his position as a psychiatrist at the Walter Reed Medical Center [in Washington]."

Abdullah said...

@ Fernando, you said:

"by the way... nowhere in "On the Priesthood" does Chrisostomous sais this... how devious (or ignorant) can someone bee... Abdullah: iff you present thate I'm wrong I'll become a muslim again"

Ooooh, you said so much in so little a paragraph, we'll I can hardly refuse such a sumptuous feast of a challenge, so here goes:

". And not only those who heal the body but those also who attend to the diseases of the soul may be found continually making use of this remedy. Thus the blessed Paul attracted those multitudes of Jews: Acts 21:26 with this purpose he circumcised Timothy, although he warned the Galatians in his letter Galatians 5:2 that Christ would not profit those who were circumcised. For this cause he submitted to the law, although he reckoned the righteousness which came from the law but loss after receiving the faith in Christ. Philippians 3:7 For great is the value of deceit, provided it be not introduced with a mischievous intention."
John Crysostom - On the Priesthood
(Book 1)

Oh, still don't believe me? Well then you can find this quote also here:

It's a online database of Christian texts. You'll find a lot of materials here for research (you see, we Muslims are helpful).

But wait a second, Fernando said:

"Abdullah: iff you present thate I'm wrong I'll become a muslim again"

Excellent, so when can I expect your conversion? Do you want to say your declaration of Faith online or at the nearest mosque (choice is yours ;P ).

Abdullah - your friendly neighbourhood Muslim :)

p.s. Fernando: "how devious (or ignorant)", Me: "do not look for the speck in another's eye..."

Fernando said...

Hi Cosmic Boy...

I'm bery glad to see you are ok and back arounde here again...

may God bless you and your family...

minoria said...

To respond to Andalusi,I am really surprised he has not seen the phrase LAW 0f GOD=LAW of MESSIAH in 1 COR 9:21 and its significance.

I mean here Paul says he is under it.In other places he tells us that "the Law" is "love your neighbor as yourself".In fact he even says that whatever RULES there are like "do not commit this and that" are summed up in "love your neighbor..."


One of the rules of Mosaic law was "do NOT lie".Certainly Andalusi has heard of Paul's idea of "the Law" or law of God.If YOU do not want to be lied to then YOU should not lie to others.


THEIR slogan was "Be all things to all men" got from 1 COR 9.But they and anybody else knew that it was within a certain limit given by the LAW of the MESSIAH.In other words,Paul is only saying he is willing to adapt to other cultures as long as it is not contrary to the faith...just like the Jesuits did.

They leaned the languages of the area,adopt local dress and food customs,study its literature.

Fernando said...

Hi Abdullah...

the text you presented was: "Great is the force of deceit, provided it is not excited by a treacherous intention"...

I saide it once, I'll say it again:

by the way... nowhere in "On the Priesthood" does Chrisostomous sais this... how devious (or ignorant) can someone bee... Abdullah: iff you present thate I'm wrong I'll become a muslim again...

and here's the precise link you presented... can you show where its presented there? thanks... and as I promised: iff you present thate I'm wrong I'll become a muslim again...

Fernando said...

Hi Abdullah...

perhaps you, as myself, habe problems withe english... "force" and "value" are two different things... would you not think so?... hummmm...

and where is thate the author was commenting on 1Cor 9:19 as you stated? hummm....

Fernando said...

Hi Abdullah...

once againe... iff your english is not as bad as mine, then you could explaine me iff "provided" and "excited" mean the same...

butt the point persist... Chrisostomous opinion as as much value as your own... no more, no less, and we all know thate your opinion as no value whatesoever...

ounce again... prove me thate Chrisostomous in his "On the Priesthood" does say thate "Great is the force of deceit, provided it is not excited by a treacherous intention" and I'll become a muslim ounce again...

butt as a good scoolar you pretend to bee, perhaps you can present here a transliteration off the original greek text... then we'll see the real meaning off Chysostoumous words...

oh... I'll eben help you...

here's the key sentece you shoulde habe transliterated:

«pollè gàr e tês apatês isxus, mogon mè metà dolerãs prosagesthô tês proairéseôs»

I eben presented in a black fount the key word... coulde you, please, read in your schholarly dgreek dictionary yhe meaning off "apatês"? Thakes...

oh... I'll eben help you...

"apatês": intact; safe and sound; something or somehow that as not been experimented; insensible...

oh... I see... you'll now say the problem in your ignorant argumentation was due to a bad translation into english... I would bitte thate iff you woulde not through the same tactic when others comment on the qur'an and the hadiths...

butt eben when ignoring your ignorance on the original text (thate can be seen here:,_Iohannes_Chrysostomus,_De_Sacerdotio_Libri_VI_%28MPG_048_0623_0652%29,_GM.pdf) you failled to show thate:

#1: Chrisostomous in his "On the Priesthood" does say thate "Great is the force of deceit, provided it is not excited by a treacherous intention"

#2: Chrisostomous was commenting on 1Cor 9:19...

so... how devious (or ignorant) can someone bee...

Fernando said...

Hi Abdullah...

here's the link for the original greek text thate was cut in mie previous post...,_Iohannes_Chrysostomus,_De_Sacerdotio_Libri_VI_%28MPG_048_0623_0652%29,_GM.pdf

minoria said...


As I said before when you do TEXTUAL ANALYSIS of a person's writings and ideas you take INTO CONSIDERATION his PRINCIPAL ideas.

Putting together almost all the objections given by Andalusi and others we have:

ROM 13:8-10:

Here Paul talks of the LAW being in summary love your neighbor as yourself.He ALSO(very important)gives EXAMPLES of certain rules in the law:no adultery,no murder,no stealing,no coveting.Undeniably another of those rules is NO lying.

ROM 3:3-7:

By ROM 13:8-10(in the SAME letter by the way) we know Paul was against lying.So in ROM 3:3-7 Paul is talking in a SARCASTIC way.He writes "I speak in the manner of men".

ABOUT GALAT 5:2 and ACTS 21:26

We know from 1 COR 9
that Paul was willing to adapt to local customs.Timothy was Jewish through his mother,but his father was Greek.So for Timothy to be preach about Jesus in the synagogues as a Jew it was fitting for him to be circumscised.


In PHILIP 1:17 Paul says Christ was annonced by BAD people who wanted him harm,so in 1:18 he says it doesn't matter as long as the message of Jesus was spread.

1 COR 9:21 AND ROM 13:8-10

They show Paul was against lying,since in 1 COR 9:21 he says he is UNDER the Law of God=law of Christ and we know from ROM 13:8-10 that meant not to lie.

So 1 COR 10:23-24 where Paul says "all things are lawful for me" he meant WITHIN the limits set by the Law of Christ of 1 COR 9 (in the SAME letter by the way).


In ROM 3:5-8 he says SARCASTICALLY "If our INJUSTICE establishes the JUSTICE of God...I speak in the manner of men"
(note:meaning it was not God's message).

And "and if by my LIE the TRUTH of God shines why should we not do EVIL in order to get GOOD,like some,who CALUMNY US(note:calumny means to tell a LIE about somebody else) say so?

The CONDEMNATION of those people (note:of the calumniators,liars) is JUST."

Notice he is being sarcastic,referring to those who were telling lies about him saying he was preaching evil and lies.

Now I don't think there is any reason for Fernando to change to Islam,since he put forth as a condition that PAUL ALSO be proved to preach lying.He did not.I am surprised Andalusi does not take into consideration the whole ideas of Paul.

minoria said...

To continue with Paul,in ROM 3:8 he EXPLICITELY condemns CALUMNIATORS (liars).There you have it.He was against lying.

Now for 1 COR 8:1-13 he says food offered to the gods is not in itself bad(1 COR 8:8-9).That is logical.


In JUDAISM you can eat pork if you are starving.Just like you can work on the Sabbath if it is absolutely necessary.

So what if a friend offers you food offered to the gods?You can still eat it.You don't want to be rude.The Jews in the Council of Jerusalem,following the Jewish tradition,would have agreed.But to actively search out food offered to the gods was another thing.

That is what Paul meant "by your freedom" in 1 COR 8:9.The freedom to be flexible,to adapt according to what later appears in 1 COR 9.

Fernando said...

whate do you, fellow U.S. brothers, off whate Obama saide aboutte islam not endorcing violent actions? Do you think he is, inmediatelly, closing a posible direction off investigation? is he sayingue thate the conclusion cannot say thate islam as anything to do withe wate happened in Fort Wood?

Abdullah said...


I know you made a vow to become Muslim if I demonstrated that John Chysostom allowed lying (for good intentions) based upon the teachings of Paul, you'd become Muslim - so you are quite eager to vindicate yourself when I have shown you otherwise. Let me list my arguments you need to address to prove your point.

Argument 1 – Subject matter of the first two books of ‘on the priesthood’

I’d like you to tell everyone the subject matter and the point John Chrysostom was putting across in his first TWO BOOKS. Virtually the entire two books, he speaks about the use of deceit to aid the cause of Good. The books are virtually dedicated to proving this by use of reference to scripture. Even if you could prove that the translations I use were faulty, you can’t disprove the subject matter of the two books! Let’s put it this way, John Crysostom’s argument was compelling, and I’m using his proofs to expose Christians who have been proven to be ‘disingenuous’ in their argumentation, of the reason they resort to ‘any means necessary’ in their ‘war on falsehood’.

Argument 2 – Lack of producing a corrected translation

I think it is conspicuous that you attack the translation I have presented (from two source texts) but you have not advanced a different meaning to the one I have presented.

As for your quoting of the line:

«pollè gàr e tês apatês isxus, mogon mè metà dolerãs prosagesthô tês proairéseôs»

The translations I have read say: “great is the force of deceit…”

You say that ‘Apates’ does not mean deceit…really? Are you sure of that? Well check this out then:

apatê - a trick, fraud, deceit
- apatês (noun; imperfect, present tense, active voice)


Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon
William J. Slater, Lexicon to Pindar
Georg Autenrieth, A Homeric Dictionary

The rest of the line translates as:

Pollè –great, many

Gàr – indeed

E tes – is the

apatês - a trick, fraud, deceit

Isxus - inherent strength; strength that is applied; power to do something

I have not seen why I am wrong. I am using Greek-English dictionaries with Ancient Greek words. The onus is still upon you to prove all the translations wrong in this (usually when David Wood or Nabeel use inaccurate translations, we usually provide proof for denouncing their translations, by using English-arabic lexicons, we hope you would do the same against us).

Argument 3 – Biblical interpretation

If a great speaker and church father could come up with the interpretation of the Bible that justifies lying, this proves that there exists a strong chain of logic that can be used to prove the Bible justifies lying. How do we know that those Christians who deny this, aren’t lying themselves? I guess we don’t…Perhaps they are lying about lying lol

Btw – before you say ‘the bible condemns lying’, well so does the Quran. But just like you Christians argue that ‘Taqiyya’ for Muslims is an exception to the rule, so I could argue that ‘Deceit for the battle against falsehood, and the realisation of truth’ is also an exception for Christians from the rule. And hey, we all know that St. Paul loved telling so many people about the different exceptions to the rule (even for Food sacrificed to idols!!) ;)

I hope you found my response, illuminating


minoria said...

Abdullah,you have read in the NT that Paul condemned CALUMNIATORS,that is to say liars in ROM 3:8?


That in itself is enough.But when you add the Golden Rule Paul gives in GALAT 5:14 and ROM 13:8-10(referred to as "the Law=love your neighbor as yourself"),which he in 1 COR 9:21 calls LAW of GOD=LAW of CHRIST,and you have Law of Christ also in GALAT 6:1-2,then Paul was against lying.


Paul took the trouble to define it in 1 COR 13:1-8/13(in the SAME letter where is the "be all things to all men" phrase).Not there we have "love...does nothing DISHONEST...".

Lying would also be a dishonesty,not telling the TRUTH

minoria said...


I had given a bad translation of 1 COR 13:6 due to a technical confusion which I realized seconds later.OK,the phrase is "LOVE...rejoices with the TRUTH".

So "love your neighbor as yourself" by Paul includes TRUTH(as opposed to LYING)in its very definition( of love as given by Paul).If anybody still actually thinks Paul was preaching lying then what can I do?