The call to 'jihad' by Prophet Jesus (pbuh)

[Special_Ed]

After his descention (sic) on earth, Jesus will marry. He will have children, and he will remain on the earth 19 years after marriage. He will pass away and Muslims will perform his Funeral Prayer and bury him next to the Prophet Muhammad. 22

Summary

Now let’s review the various defining characteristics and actions of the Muslim Jesus upon his return to the earth:

1. Jesus is said to return to the earth in the last-days near a mosque in Damascus.
2. He will arrive at a time when the Mahdi and his army will be preparing to pray.
3. He will be offered to lead the prayer by the Mahdi, but will decline in direct deference to the Mahdi who Jesus declares to be the leader of the Muslims.
4. He will then pray behind the Mahdi as a subordinate.
5. He will be a faithful Muslim
6. He will make pilgrimage to Mecca.
7. He will visit Muhammad’s grave, and salute Muhammad, whereby Muhammad will return the salute from the grave.
8. He will destroy Christianity.
9. He will repeal the jizyah tax thus causing the only option for Jews and Christians to convert to Islam or die.
10. He will establish Islamic Shari’ah (Law) throughout the entire earth.
11. He will kill the Antichrist and his followers made up largely of Jews and women.
12. He will remain on the earth for roughly forty years, during which time he will marry, have children and then die.

As we have clearly seen, the Muslim Jesus, in both his nature and actions is far different than the biblical Jesus. Rather than coming to reign as King and Messiah over all the earth from Jerusalem, Jesus instead comes to convert the world to Islam or kill those who refuse to do so. Instead of coming to save and deliver faithful Christians and Jews, he comes instead to kill and slaughter them. We will discuss a bit more about what the Bible has to say about the return of Jesus in a later chapter.

 

[Reuben_J]

Ed, you have been spamming the thread with massive cut and paste. Please do us a favour - just summarize your message. This is only a forum. Nobody has the time for very long cut and paste.

Thanks bro.

 

[Reuben_J]

If Jesus was a prophet as you say and called for jihad and no one listened, what kind of prophet was he?

I suppose it has got to do with the mentality of many Muslims as a result of indoctrination by the Quran and the deeds of Mohammad. There is no doubt that they consider Jihad as violent struggle for the spread of Islam. As in all war strategy, any actions would be seen as strategies to further the cause of victory.

This may seem very silly to us Christians to ever think that Jesus was indeed making battle plan in Gethsemane! But for the Muslims with the sort of Quranic mentality that they are so entrenched in, this comes as no surprise. It is obvious here that Jihad to them, first and foremost, means violent struggle. It means war, killing, enslaving, subjugating, and humiliating the non-Muslims whom they always consider as the other side, the enemy.

Maybe we should not blame Hamba too much for his attitude. It is the Muslim mentality. But seeing the questions and the reasonings he has, it also shows how Muslims look at Christianity. Those Muslims who convert to Christianity, one whom I know personally, do have this kind of questions themselves as they grapple with the conflicting rationales in the two religions. Eventually they will be convinced that Mohammad cannot be right and that Jesus of the Bible is the real saviour.

 

[Special_Ed]

Ed, you have been spamming the thread with massive cut and paste. Please do us a favour - just summarize your message. This is only a forum. Nobody has the time for very long cut and paste.

Thanks bro.

I understand…
Nobody has time.

I didn’t have time to study Islamic and biblical prophecy when I saw a plane hit the second tower with my friend on it.
Now I do. And I have concluded that most christians don’t have time for anything except useless junk. That’s why I’m removing myself from this forum.

Bye

 

[Reuben_J]

I understand…
Nobody has time.

Bye

Thanks. Appreciate your posts. Long cut and paste takes up space. Giving us the sites would be equally good for those who want to look further.

Thanks and may God bless.

Peace.

Reuben

 

[ralphinal]

Ed,
I have enjoyed your participation in this and other discussions. Please continue to share with us. TO make peace between fellow posters, why don;t we use links when we can?

God bless you for spreading the truth about Christ.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Hamba2han,
if you will not listen to perfect reason given to you here these past weeks by many then you should listen to one of your own brother Muslims who converted to Christianity. He had to change his Arab name to protect his family from the retribution from fellow Arabs that he knew what happen. He is now in the USA under protection. Here is a link to this man who was at one time a committed Muslim imam and an Islamic scholar who converted to Christianity: Dr. Mark A. Gabriel, author of Islam and Terrorism

Here is a quote:
Mark Garbriel:

I finished memorizing the Quran at the age of 12 and went through Al-Azhar schools. At Al-Azhar University, I earned bachelor and master’s degrees and ended with a doctorate degree in Islamic History and Culture. At the age of 34, while serving as an imam and lecturing for the university, I began to openly question the validity of Islam. I was fired from the university, kidnapped, imprisoned, tortured, and released. I became a Christian after reading the Bible and ultimately came to the United States for religious asylum. Since coming to the United States, I have written four books: Islam and Terrorism, Islam and the Jews, Jesus and Muhammad, and Journey into the Mind of an Islamic Terrorist.

Here are some additional things that I will say too that give any man with “common sense” intelligence a reason to doubt anything Mohammad says.

1. Do you not find it “unreasonable” that Mohammad changed the law after some of his followers accused that his wife Aisha was unfaithful to require 4 witnesses to convict somone of a crime? Consider this in light of the fact that Mohammad only requires ONE witness (Mohammad) to preach his religion and to have you sell your immortal soul to him and to trust him. Why does Mohammad teach a higher justice standard for mere human punishments that are only for the mortal time on this earth when the higher standard should be for our immortal souls that are rewarded or punished eternally?!
2. This is a test of your reasoning power. If a man came to you and said “everything I tell you is a lie” would you trust him to be telling you the truth in that statement or walk away from him and not listen to him since his actions already invalidate everything he says or will say in the future? Now ask yourself why would any reasonable person who is not mentally ill listen to a man who has taught that it is always permitted to lie if it wins converts to Islam or makes it possible to kill one’s enemies? Mohammad was that man!!

Islamic Teaching Authorizing Lying:

There is an Islamic principal of “Al-Takeyya” that authorizes Muslims to do most anything to protect their belief and to deceive unbelievers (kafirs) and prevail against them in Jihad (war) and the struggle to win and force the entire planet to Islam.

Surah 3: 28 Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution (prevention), that ye may Guard yourselves from them (prevent them from harming you.) But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.

Surah 5:89 Allah will not call you to account for what is futile in your oaths, but He will call you to account for your deliberate oaths: for expiation, feed ten indigent persons, on a scale of the average for the food of your families; or clothe them; or give a slave his freedom. If that is beyond your means, fast for three days. That is the expiation for the oaths ye have sworn…

Surah 2: 225 Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness (vain) in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts; and He is Oft-forgiving, Most Forbearing.

Surah 16: 106 Any one who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters Unbelief, except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith - but such as open their breast to Unbelief, on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty.

Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn Abbas is one of the most prominent Sunni Tafsir, attributed to Abd-Allah ibn Abbas and hence called “Tafsir Ibn Abbas”. It was collected by Abu Tahir Muhammad ibn Yaqub al-Fayruz Aabadi. Listen to another learned Muslim convert to Christianty explain the hatred & compulsion to lie to and deceive non-Muslims in this Islamic teaching.
Allah ordering Muslims to Hate you and lie to you

It’s time to put a nail in the coffin and bury this thread with the conclusion "Only Islam commands Jihad and treachery against fellow humans. Jesus NEVER taught Jihad nor had the slightest tendency toward violence.

James

 

[ralphinal]

I suppose it has got to do with the mentality of many Muslims as a result of indoctrination by the Quran and the deeds of Mohammad. There is no doubt that they consider Jihad as violent struggle for the spread of Islam. As in all war strategy, any actions would be seen as strategies to further the cause of victory.

This may seem very silly to us Christians to ever think that Jesus was indeed making battle plan in Gethsemane! But for the Muslims with the sort of Quranic mentality that they are so entrenched in, this comes as no surprise. It is obvious here that Jihad to them, first and foremost, means violent struggle. It means war, killing, enslaving, subjugating, and humiliating the non-Muslims whom they always consider as the other side, the enemy.

Maybe we should not blame Hamba too much for his attitude. It is the Muslim mentality. But seeing the questions and the reasonings he has, it also shows how Muslims look at Christianity. Those Muslims who convert to Christianity, one whom I know personally, do have this kind of questions themselves as they grapple with the conflicting rationales in the two religions. Eventually they will be convinced that Mohammad cannot be right and that Jesus of the Bible is the real saviour.

I have seen other posters state that Islamic theology is “immature” in the sense that it is very physical, literal. Take the example of the virgins in Paradise. The concept that the faithful will be rewarded with something closer to an orgy in heaven is so foreign in Christianity. It is the same with Jesus calling to jihad. Jesus said that his kingdom was not of this world and that is why his followers were not fighting. Christians see things as physical and spiritual and that what is “good” for one may not be good for the other. I do not always see Islam the same way. It seems like the physical is the spiritual and that good for one is good for the other.

 

[Joyousguard]

I have seen other posters state that Islamic theology is “immature” in the sense that it is very physical, literal. Take the example of the virgins in Paradise. The concept that the faithful will be rewarded with something closer to an orgy in heaven is so foreign in Christianity. It is the same with Jesus calling to jihad. Jesus said that his kingdom was not of this world and that is why his followers were not fighting. Christians see things as physical and spiritual and that what is “good” for one may not be good for the other. I do not always see Islam the same way. It seems like the physical is the spiritual and that good for one is good for the other.

The part about the virgins is not in the Quaran. Many Muslims believe its true but its not actually there.

It’s interesting to watch Muslims create legends and sources to bollster the legitemacy of the Quaran. Teh Quaran is so full of holes that they must create outside sources to defend and explain what should be “perfect” of itself.

Islamic apologists don’t miss a beat, they have contradictions within contradictions that are the fruit of other contradictions and they simply brush them aside as if those who question otherwise are “fools”.

Politicians in this country have nothing on Islam when it comes to dancing, evasion and contradictions

Islam reminds me alot like Star Wars. A whole bunch of writers simply create things to fill in the gaps as they see fit. When something is a contradition, they either rewrite history or create some sort of explainaiton out of the blue.

 

[Reuben_J]

It’s time to put a nail in the coffin and bury this thread with the conclusion "Only Islam commands Jihad and treachery against fellow humans. Jesus NEVER taught Jihad nor had the slightest tendency toward violence.

James

Good post and good peace of information.

It has been very obvious but thank God that such a thread as this can put the nail in the coffin.

 

[Denis_Laplante]

Yes, Muslims have indeed such a wonder work… it is called the Qur’an, the timeless miracle that is the ultimate proof of the Truth of Islam.

However, there are also numerous other miracles that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) performed with the help of Allah and which have been recorded through isnad and the Science of Hadith.

This is just one of them:

On more than one occasion when people were in dire need of water, the blessing of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) saved them. In the sixth year after the he migrated from Mecca to Medina, Muhammad went to Mecca for pilgrimage. In the long journey through the desert, people ran out of all water, only the Prophet was left with a vessel with which he performed ablution for prayers. He put his hand in vessel, water began flowing from between his fingers. Jabir bin Abdullah, who witnessed the miracle, says of the fifteen hundred men, ‘We drank it and made ablution.’ This miracle has been transmitted with an unbroken chain of reliable scholars (hadith mutawatir).

The sprouting of water from human fingers is similar to Prophet Moses’ (pbuh) miracle of producing water from a rock.

Question is – Would non-Muslims believe the veracity of this miracle more than they would the Qur’an?

If not, then this just shows the futility of showing these other miracles of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) to those who simply do not want to believe.

The same question arises about the wonder works performed by some prophets of the Old Testament and by Jesus, and tha Apostles, and many saints! Extraordinary things are part of the ordinary lives those who have recourse to the one and true God.
It should be a stimulation for all of us to live a holy life pleasing to the Lord, shouldn’t it? I am sure that we both agree on this, don’t we?
Allah bless you!

 

[hamba2han]

Where did exactly you get the impression that the Roman soldiers who came and arrest Jesus? I came back to all 4 gospels and found no reference that any Roman soldiers who made the arrest.

Over the course of time, the words “Roman soldiers” have been changed to simply “soldiers” and from the word soldiers to now “band of men” and “the guard”.

"Judas then, having received a BAND OF MEN and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh there with lanterns and torches and weapons" … John 18:3

1. “Band of men”: here and in verse 12 following, the words in the so-called original manuscripts are speira and chiliarchos respectively. Both Roman military terms, meaning “cohort” and “tribune”. “That John is the first Evangelist to mention Roman soldiers among the party which went out to arrest Jesus. . .” See John Knox’s — “A New Testament Commentary”, page 260.

Somehow, I don’t think that there will be many biblical scholars or historians who will dispute that a squad of Roman soldiers went to Gethsemane to arrest Jesus (pbuh).

 

[Denis_Laplante]

I have pointed out this preparation for battle in this thread whereby Jesus (pbuh) leads his disciples after the “last supper” in the upper room.

He had proved himself a skilful strategist and planner, alert and resourceful. This was not the time to sit and twiddle thumbs; to be a sitting-duck, cooped up with his disciples in the upper-room! No, not for him. He leads his disciples, in the middle of the night, to Gethsemane — an olive press — a courtyard built of stone walls some 5 miles out of town.

You do not have to be a military genius to appreciate that Jesus (pbuh) deploys his forces as a master tactician. He places eight of the eleven disciples at the entrance to the courtyard, commanding them:

"… Sit ye here, while I go and pray yonder." … Matthew 26:36

The question is: – Why did they all go to Gethsemane? To pray? Could they not have prayed in the upper-room? Could they not have gone to the Temple of Solomon, a stone’s throw from where they were, if prayer is all that they wanted to do? No! They went to the Garden so that they might be in a better position to defend themselves!

Observe, Jesus does not take the eight with him to pray. He positions them strategically at the entrance to the courtyard; armed to the hilt, as the circumstances would allow:

"And he took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee. . .
Then saith he unto them. . .
tarry ye here and watch with me." … Matthew 26:37-38

Where is he taking Peter and John and James now? Further into the Garden! To pray? No! To make an inner line of defence — he had put eight at the Gate, armed with SWORDS, to "wait and watch " — TO KEEP GUARD! The picture is very vivid; Jesus leaves nothing to our imagination. A-n-d HE (alone) prayed!

Sorry I comment this e-mail rather of late, but I don’t per se own a computer and had to spend the weekend away from it…
Now, I don’t see this as a matter of war strategy: those three were the same Apostles who were taken when he reanimated the daughter of Jairus, and when Jesus was transfigured on a mountain, with Moses and the Prophet Elijah there with him. I don’t see what war tactics these two events would involve…

 

[Denis_Laplante]

Somehow, I don’t think that there will be many biblical scholars or historians who will dispute that a squad of Roman soldiers went to Gethsemane to arrest Jesus (pbuh).

Hum! I know there were guards of the Temple, though. And in front of the High Priest, after something Jesus said, one guard slapped him in the face, saying: “Is this how you are answering to the High Priest?”
How would a Roman guard care how Jesus answered to the High Priest?

 

[inJESUS]

Hamba2han, am still waiting for your answers in case you are still very convinced that Jesus and His disciples are jihadists par excellence.

 

[Werman]

We waste time debating with moslems. They serve a false prophet, a false god and a false religion. Full stop. We are fighting this false religion even now, and one day the world will realize that Islam is a threat to the very survival of mankind. This false religion is being used by Satan himself for the subjugation of the human race. Pray the rosary for the triumph of Christianity.

We must keep the Church doors open being the “Universal Church”. Perhaps one day common sense will take hold. Then Jesus will have saved another soul from purgatory!

Werman

 

[Joyousguard]

An excellent article I found that really hits the nail on the head with the issue of swords. Even though there are people on this thread requesting that articles not be put up, this one is too good not to. This is only a portion of the larger text which is well worth reading:

The first direction, the literal one, is inadequate for three reasons, based on v. 38, which says that two swords are enough. First, the obvious question is: enough for what? A physical fight to resist arrest? This is hardly the case because during Jesus’ arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane a disciple (Peter according to John 18:10) took out his sword and cut off the ear of the servant of the high priest (Malchus according to John 18:10). Jesus sternly tells Peter to put away his sword, ‘No more of this!’ and then he heals the servant, restoring his ear (Luke 22:49—51). Resisting arrest cannot be the purpose of the two swords. Second, were the two swords enough for an armed rebellion to resist the authorities and impose the new Jesus movement (as sociologists of the New Testament call it)? Jesus denounces this purpose in Luke 22:52, as the authorities were in the process of arresting him: ‘Am I leading a rebellion that you have come with swords and clubs?’ (New International Version). The answer is no, as he is seized and led away (22:54). Third, are the two swords enough after the death and Resurrection of Jesus for the disciples to go forth as a military army to force people to convert, die, or pay a special tax if they do not convert (Sura 9:29)? Early church history says no. Since a literal interpretation will not work, Jesus intended to teach a deeper meaning than a physical fight with only two physical swords.

In contrast to the literal interpretation, the three following nonliteral interpretations work smoothly in context so that all the pieces of the puzzle fit together.

First, Jesus reminds the disciples of his mission for them before he arrived in Jerusalem (Luke 9:3; 10:1—17). Did they need a purse, a bag, or extra sandals? No, because before Jerusalem those were days of relative peace. Now, however, he is in Jerusalem, and he has undergone the antagonism of religious leaders seeking to trap him with self—incriminating words. When the authorities are not present, they send their spies. The atmosphere is therefore tense, and the two swords—no more than that—symbolize the tension. Jesus’ mission has shifted to a clear danger, and the disciples must take note. However, he certainly did not intend for his disciples to use the swords, as we just saw in the literal interpretation, above. But the swords symbolizing tension fits perfectly with the context of Luke 22:36.

Second, by far the clearest purpose of the symbolism of two swords is found in 22:36—37, when Jesus refers to Isaiah’s prophecy (53:12) about being numbered with the lawless in the context of swords. He was destined to be falsely arrested like a criminal, falsely put on trial like a criminal, and even falsely crucified like a criminal. After all, he was hung on the cross between two thieves, which is a further fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy (Luke 23:32; 39—43). What are criminals known for carrying with them? Weapons, and to be numbered with them Jesus must also have weapons. That is why he said that only two swords would be enough—to fulfill this prophecy in a symbolic way.

 

[Joyousguard]

A little knowledge of first—century Greek, the original language of the New Testament, clarifies this interpretation. The Greek word gar (used as the first word in the translation of v. 37, above) means for, whose function and meaning is to explain the preceding clause. Here is an example in English: ‘I am bringing an umbrella, for it is raining.’ So the word for explains why I am bringing an umbrella—it is raining. This often works in New Testament Greek, as well. So in v. 36 Jesus tells the disciples to buy a sword: ‘And the one who has no sword must go out and buy one,’ but why must he buy one? Jesus explains why in the next clause: ‘For I tell you, this scripture must be fulfilled in me’ (v. 37). Thus, Jesus wants to go all the way in his identity with common criminals as predicted by Isaiah, and two swords alone would suffice. The use of swords outside of official and legal authority represents criminal behavior. However, Jesus would not let them be used when the time came for his arrest, for he was really not a criminal, but to use them would mean that he was; plus, he was destined to die as he himself predicted (Luke 18:31—33). So he immediately stops Peter’s misuse of his sword: ‘No more of this!’ (Luke 22:51).

A final nonliteral interpretation also explains why Peter or any follower of Jesus must not use swords to maim or kill sinners, unbelievers, or anyone else.

The third and final symbolic interpretation presents itself in addition to Isaiah’s prophecy and the tense atmosphere in Jerusalem. Jesus frequently used physical objects (seeds, lamps, vineyards, coins, lost sheep and so on) to teach nonphysical, universal truths, and the same is true with the two swords in this passage. Though Luke 22:36 is not a parable, Jesus is about to instruct the disciples, using two physical swords, on how not to behave when they go out into the highways preaching the gospel after his Resurrection. They will not need swords when Jesus is arrested, and they will not need them even if they suffer persecution later on. Hence, the physical swords teach a nonphysical and universal truth based on Jesus telling Peter to put away his sword: no violence should be used to spread the word of the true God. Tradition says that all of the original apostles but John were martyred as a direct result of persecution (John died from natural causes of old age, but he was imprisoned for his faith on the Island of Patmos), but none of them fought their way out of their fiery trials with swords. Evidently, the example of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane made an impression on them. To repeat, that is the message of Jesus when he tells Peter in the Garden, ‘No more of this!’ That is, ‘Never use a sword again!’

The early history of the church supports this symbolic meaning of swords in Luke 22:36 in its larger context. In the Book of Acts, which was written by Luke and records some of the history of the church after the Resurrection, the disciples never swing a sword. Bloody warfare is excluded as they spread the message of the kingdom of God, throughout the larger Mediterranean world by peaceful proclamation alone.

To sum up, the three symbolic interpretations fit together in both the historical and literary contexts of Luke 22:36. Jesus says that two swords are enough, but clearly they are not sufficient for a physical fight in the Garden of Gethsemane or anywhere else. They are enough, however, to do three symbolic things. First, they embody the tension of Jesus’ last days in Jerusalem. Second, they complement Jesus’ fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy that he would be numbered among criminals. A mere two swords would nicely fill out the picture of this prophecy, since criminals carried weapons with them. Third, they are enough for Jesus to rebuke Peter when he swings one of them and cuts off Malchus’ ear. Therefore, Jesus uses them as object lessons that the disciples should follow his example and not use swords—they must never swing them to bring about the kingdom of God by a holy war, even in the direst moment of Jesus’ life, his arrest in the Garden.

Peter interpreted Jesus’ words literally, but he was wrong, so Jesus rebuked him. Therefore, we should avoid the same mistaken literal interpretation of ‘sword’ in Luke 22:36, so we do not receive the same rebuke.

This symbolic use of swords in the Gospel of Luke stands in complete opposition to Muhammad’s real—life use of swords in Sura 8:12 and in many other verses in the Quran.

americanthinker.com/2005/04/did_jesus_or_muhammad_wield_th.html

 

[Denis_Laplante]

I agree with Hamba2han that we should remain with the topic “Jesus calls to Jihad”. Now, Hamba2han, if you are not a scholar like you said, why then do you insist and insist yourself about some secondary matters from the passages you quoted, and you don’t accept that we would do the same with passages from the Koran (or Qor’an)… Like it was said earlier in this thread, what bug the whole world about Jesus the Jewish Messiah and founder of Christianity are Jesus’claim that He is God the Son and that he died on the cross and has resurrected from the dead on the third day of his death. This most Jews don’t believe, and those who believe are not seen as Jews any more, even though they themselves claim they still are Jews but just happened to have come to another level of living their Jewish faith. Muhammad appeared to have experience the same level of rejection when he declared he would now serve the one and only God, not many gods any more.
And I think one Muslim who would declare he is becoming a Christian would have a great deal of opposition to deal with…
Muhammad didn’t believe Jesus died on the cross… had he seen it happen right in front of him, he probably would have face temporary despair like the disciples going to Emmaus (in the Gospel according to Luke).
Things like what Hamba2han asked at the beginning of this thread tends to prove he has dismissed the event of Jesus’death just like Muhammad did in the Qor’an. He dismissed it on the ground that God cannot abandon those who love Him and live according to His commandments… But why insist on the earthly, material war that Jesus never intended to do, and why consistently dismiss any commentary and explanation that shows this? You never commented on my commentary trying to answer your very question, Hamba2han?
For this reason, I can’t help wondering if you are not more interested in having the upper hand on this discussion that in accepting the truth whatever it truly is… I’d wish it isn’t the case, but whatever your careful logic looks like in your eyes, it seems not to accept certain very possible hypothesises…

 

[Denis_Laplante]

I am sorry to read that SpecialEd felt he had to leave the discussion. I found his pieces really interesting and worthwhile. Why not accept longer arguments from some? If they are too long for your taste, you can always go to the next number, can’t you?
Now, your (name removed by moderator)ut too is important, ReubenJ, and I don’t wish that you leave. We are still just on our way following Jesus and learning to become more and more in tune with Him, but as human beings we will fail every once in a while, so let’s get up once again and resume our journey, hum? God bless you both and everyone else on this thread…