Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Never Forget...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
    Except when you apply even a little exegesis, you quickly run into it being a lot more complex than "kill the infidel", you run into a historical situation where conversion is almost never under threat (Wahabi Islam is a very recent phenomenon). You can look above to Rogue06, who has to argue specifically for the order of revelation happening in a certain way, in order to argue that forced conversion is to be norm.

    So no, you're not applying any context, nor are you trying to learn about what Muslim scholars in the West are arguing. It just looks like to me that you want to do quote-mining on Islam, and use that against them in exactly the same way that atheists quote mine the Bible.
    So Mohammad and Muslims for the majority of the religion's history simply misinterpreted the Koran?
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
      So Mohammad and Muslims for the majority of the religion's history simply misinterpreted the Koran?
      On the contrary, its the opposite to what you're claiming. For the majority of history conversion to Islam has not been under threat. Wahabi Islam is a relatively recent phenomenon, otherwise, you only find it in various local conquests in history. In most cases, you'd be as safe as any person of a foreign religion who journed to a Christian country and settled there.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
        On the contrary, its the opposite to what you're claiming. For the majority of history conversion to Islam has not been under threat. Wahabi Islam is a relatively recent phenomenon, otherwise, you only find it in various local conquests in history. In most cases, you'd be as safe as any person of a foreign religion who journed to a Christian country and settled there.
        I'm sorry Leonhard, screw Islam...
        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

        Comment


        • #94
          I was at home getting ready for work with the news on my T.V. had turned it on to see them talking about the plane hitting the first tower and like most folks just thought it was an accident but when moments later the 2nd one hit I knew we were under attack. I called my Mom and my Brother and told them turn on the news then finished getting ready for work.

          It as not until I got to work I heard about the Pentagon and saw the first tower go down while I was watching the news in our break room. I will never forget the reaction of everyone in the break room as well as mine.

          "Never Forget"

          Comment


          • #95
            As many of you know I was a paid firefighter for a decade. This picture is from today, one of the houses I used to work at. To the right is an I beam from the towers, and one flag for every FDNY firefighter that was lost:

            69839624_454123035183856_2115979276904824832_n.jpg
            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
              On the contrary, its the opposite to what you're claiming. For the majority of history conversion to Islam has not been under threat. Wahabi Islam is a relatively recent phenomenon, otherwise, you only find it in various local conquests in history. In most cases, you'd be as safe as any person of a foreign religion who journed to a Christian country and settled there.
              ...as long as you kept your head down, avoided wearing the wrong clothes, and paid your extra taxes like a good little dhimmi, and managed not to make too much money, sure. The Martyrs of the Turkish Yoke (largely pre-Wahabi), the victims of the Armenian genocide (not Wahabi-related), etc., would beg to differ with your blandishments.
              Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

              Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
              sigpic
              I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                ...as long as you kept your head down, avoided wearing the wrong clothes, and paid your extra taxes like a good little dhimmi, and managed not to make too much money, sure.
                And Jews were forced, pressured, coerced and persecuted systematically under Christian rule, from the Church Fathers (which both the Eastern Orthodox and Catholics raise to the altars). Or I could talk about how gloriously righteously the natives of America were treated by the conquistadores. If you wish to browse by instances there are plenty of cases where you can find people of the Christian persuasion abusing their power, and doing evil.

                What modern day states do we have that have implemented jizya? Taliban dominated areas of Pakistan, areas occupied by Daesh and Islamic State?

                The Martyrs of the Turkish Yoke (largely pre-Wahabi), the victims of the Armenian genocide (not Wahabi-related), etc., would beg to differ with your blandishments.
                If you have to go back six hundred years to support current-day islamophobia your case is pretty much dead. And if the Armenian genocide condemns Muslims, then expect God to ask you to do penance for what the Hutu did to the Tutsi.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                  And Jews were forced, pressured, coerced and persecuted systematically under Christian rule, from the Church Fathers (which both the Eastern Orthodox and Catholics raise to the altars). Or I could talk about how gloriously righteously the natives of America were treated by the conquistadores. If you wish to browse by instances there are plenty of cases where you can find people of the Christian persuasion abusing their power, and doing evil.

                  What modern day states do we have that have implemented jizya? Taliban dominated areas of Pakistan, areas occupied by Daesh and Islamic State?



                  If you have to go back six hundred years to support current-day islamophobia your case is pretty much dead. And if the Armenian genocide condemns Muslims, then expect God to ask you to do penance for what the Hutu did to the Tutsi.
                  It still remains that that those who do practice beating their wives, killing infidels and converting by the sword are obeying the Quran, and are the orthodox muslims, while those who don't are the unorthodox. While the opposite is true for Christians. Those Christians who mistreat their wives, convert by the sword, and kill non-believers are not obeying Christ or the bible and are unorthodox.

                  What you are arguing is that the peaceful muslims in Europe are unorthodox and that is a good thing. We agree, but it doesn't change the fact that Islam is a religion that is based on violence built right in.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    ...it doesn't change the fact that Islam is a religion that is based on violence built right in.
                    The strict daily rituals was something Mohammad used to build military discipline into his followers.
                    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                    Than a fool in the eyes of God


                    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                      And Jews were forced, pressured, coerced and persecuted systematically under Christian rule, from the Church Fathers (which both the Eastern Orthodox and Catholics raise to the altars). Or I could talk about how gloriously righteously the natives of America were treated by the conquistadores. If you wish to browse by instances there are plenty of cases where you can find people of the Christian persuasion abusing their power, and doing evil.

                      What modern day states do we have that have implemented jizya? Taliban dominated areas of Pakistan, areas occupied by Daesh and Islamic State?
                      What modern day states do not? I assume you can readily provide evidence.
                      If you have to go back six hundred years to support current-day islamophobia your case is pretty much dead. And if the Armenian genocide condemns Muslims, then expect God to ask you to do penance for what the Hutu did to the Tutsi.
                      The Turkish Yoke is all of a century or two past. And what does the Huto genocide of the Tutsi have to do with the price of tea in China?
                      Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                      Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                      sigpic
                      I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                        But this begs the question if I show you a majority of scholars in the West saying that its al-Nasr, you'll argue that they're employing a secret strategy of lying. After all this notion that taqqiya is applied universally by Muslims as a get out of jail free card, is in itself an act of islamophobia. And borders on the kind of conspiracy theories Christians used to have about the jews.
                        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        I'll get back to this later with examples but I'm likely not going to be able to do so tonight.
                        Sorry, I let this slip my mind, but it isn't some sort of secret conspiracy as you insinuate but an accepted practice going back to Muhammad when dealing with "non-believers." It is something that is taught matter-of-factly -- but not to non-Muslims though.

                        They are engaging in deliberate, willful deception when they act bewildered about the concept of abrogation, and tell the gullible that taqqiya/idtirar is some sort of intra-Muslim insult.

                        While the latter started out as a way for Muslims to avoid persecution by lying (compare and contrast that to early Christian martyrs) but it was rather quickly greatly expanded to include situations where no danger is involved but when it merely serves their interests with the justification that Muhammad regularly employed deception against infidels. A line in the most revered of the Hadiths, the Sahih al-Bukhari is usually cited in order to legitimize the practice, which states that Abu Darda, one of the companions of Muhammad and later governor of Syria reminded the faithful that they should "smile in the face of some people [infidels] although our hearts curse them."

                        Another example is how they regularly pretend that the word "Islam" means "peace." This is a deliberate falsehood since it actually means "submission" or "surrender." Sure you could say that surrendering brings peace, but that is not what the definition is. Muhammad did not teach peace and tolerance, but instead led armies and ordered the assassination of his enemies. Muhammad and his followers initiated offensive wars against peaceful nations in order to impose Islam by force as well as seize the abundance of those lands. From its inception there was nothing "peaceful" about Islam.

                        They engage in similar deception when they insist that jihad has nothing whatsoever to do with waging Holy War.

                        For instance the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) regularly proclaims that jihad "does not mean ‘holy war.’" Likewise at the U.N. panel on "Islamophobia" toward the end of 2004, Ahmed Kamal Aboulmagd, an Egyptian judge and law professor at Cairo University, told the "infidels" there that the notion of Holy War doesn’t exist in Islam:

                        In Islam and in Islamic literature there is no such thing as ‘a holy war.’ This is [a] Western invention that was attributed to us I don’t know how and why and when.


                        He was obviously counting on nobody actually reading the Qur'an or the Hadiths.

                        Still my personal favorite is when Farid Eseck, a visiting Professor at Auburn Theological Seminary, declared that jihad is really all about things like protecting women's rights (as they have a long and illustrious history of defending them ).


                        Another example could be recently seen on the Muslim Brotherhood's websites put up in English as compared to the one for Arabic with starkly different even contradictory messages. In the former it was all about "peace" and "freedom" with a picture of a young girl in a white hijab whereas on the site in Arabic, the one for their fellow Muslims, this was nowhere to be seen but instead featured crossed swords with the words "Make Ready" underneath. "Make ready" is a reference to Surah Al-Anfal [8:60]:

                        Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.


                        Give the gullible infidels a message of peace and freedom while telling your fellow Muslims to prepare for battle against them.

                        Another one was when one of the supporters of the "Ground Zero Mosque" went to Egypt where he delivered a speech in which he mocked his and others claims made here that it would be a symbol of religious unity and cooperation pretty much saying it was amazing that the idiot infidels had fallen for that line (I posted about this in a pre-crash thread and am still looking for the info again).

                        I suggest that you start looking into what the Muslims say to each other and what they teach as opposed to the message that they present to non-Muslims. Over the years the Israelis have done a splendid job translating radio and TV broadcasts that they picked up that were meant for internal consumption. The differences between them and the messages provided to outsiders are stark and unsettling.


                        Here's one more example of taqqiya/idtirar in action that hopefully will suffice in making my point.

                        It took place right after the beheading of radio tower repairman Nicholas Berg by Islamic terrorists in Iraq when Muslims emphatically insisted such actions had no precedent in the Qur'an or Islamic tradition. For instance, Imām Mohammed Adam El-Sheikh, co-founder and then chief cleric at the Dar Al Hijrah mosque in Falls Church, Virginia and now the head of the Islamic Judiciary Council of the Shari’ah Scholars’ Association of North America, solemnly insisted that "Beheadings are not mentioned in the Qur'an at all."

                        Similarly, Yvonne Haddad, a professor in the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding in the School of Foreign Service and the Department of History at Georgetown University, proclaimed "There is absolutely nothing in Islam that justifies cutting off a person's head."

                        Likewise, Asma Afsaruddin, while an associate professor of Arabic and Islamic studies at the University of Notre Dame (now a professor in the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Cultures at Indiana University in Bloomington and chair of the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy board of directors), declared "Just because a certain group claims it is behaving in accordance with Islamic conduct, that does not mean we should believe that. There is absolutely no religious imperative for this."

                        Really?

                        A quick look at the Qur'an reveals this to be nonsense. For instance, Surah Al-Anfal [8:12]

                        [Remember] when your Lord inspired to the angels, "I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip."


                        Or more clearly stated in the Shakir translation (same source)

                        When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.


                        And there is also Surah Muhammad [47:4]

                        So when you meet those who disbelieve [in battle], strike [their] necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them


                        This time the Muhammad Sarwar translation is clearer

                        If you encounter the disbelievers in a battle, strike-off their heads.


                        What's more during the massacre of the Jewish Banu Qurayza tribe, which lived in northern Arabia at the present site of Medina, by a force led by Muhammad, Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad’s earliest biographer, wrote in his Sīratu Rasūli l-Lāh ("Life of the Messenger of God")

                        The apostle went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for [the men of Banu Qurayza] and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches.


                        Al-Tabarani, widely considered the most important hadith scholar of the 10th century states that between 600 to 900 were executed.

                        So Mohammad himself over saw mass decapitations and puts the lie to the explanation sometimes offered of the quranic verses that it was only a reference to fighting in battle since what happened to the Jews was after they had surrendered.

                        And a couple decades after Muhammad's death, when various factions started fighting (resulting in the Sunni-Shiite split), Muhammad's favorite grandson, Husayn ibn Ali, had his head chopped off after the battle of Karbala[1] in central Iraq (along with most of his family and companions, including Husayn's six month old son), at the behest of the caliph Yazid I. The head of Husayn and the 71 others also decapitated were first sent to Allah ibn Ziyad the Governor of Basra and Kufa at the latter location and subsequently Husayn's was placed upon a silver platter and sent to Yazid in Damascus, and finally sent to Cairo for inspection by the Governor of Egypt.

                        Nope. No tradition of decapitations in Muslim tradition.

                        And it is one that has continued into modern times and not just by terrorist groups. In 1992, the Iranian government sent a "specialist" to assassinate Shapour Bakhtiar, the deposed shah's last prime minister, in Suresnes, a suburb of Paris. While most news reports simply state that he was killed with kitchen knives, he was in fact decapitated with them. When the news broke, Hashemi Rafsanjani, then president of the Islamic Republic, publicly thanked Allah for having allowed "the severing of the head of the snake."






                        1. Shiite Muslims commemorate the battle during a 10-day period of mourning often marked by such things as self-flagellation
                        Last edited by rogue06; 09-15-2019, 06:21 AM.

                        I'm always still in trouble again

                        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post


                          They engage in similar deception when they insist that jihad has nothing whatsoever to do with waging Holy War.

                          For instance the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) regularly proclaims that jihad "does not mean ‘holy war.’" Likewise at the U.N. panel on "Islamophobia" toward the end of 2004, Ahmed Kamal Aboulmagd, an Egyptian judge and law professor at Cairo University, told the "infidels" there that the notion of Holy War doesn’t exist in Islam:

                          In Islam and in Islamic literature there is no such thing as ‘a holy war.’ This is [a] Western invention that was attributed to us I don’t know how and why and when.


                          He was obviously counting on nobody actually reading the Qur'an or the Hadiths.
                          I want to get into this part in more detail.


                          To start, let's look at what Ayatollah Khomeini who spoke on the subject of "Peace" and "Jihad," said and made clear what the orthodox (Shiite) view is on the matter:

                          Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled and incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of other [countries] so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world. But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world ... Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured [by the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them [non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us? Islam says: Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean we should surrender to the enemy? Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Quranic] psalms and Hadiths urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.


                          Let’s see, "Those who know nothing pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless." and "Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword." Seems pretty clear[1]

                          But since he was a Shiite, let's throw in a Sunni, Sheikh Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid (d.1981), who was the Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia and Imam of the Grand Mosque of Mecca, who delivered a sermon on the history of jihad as recorded by Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan of the Islamic University of Medina, where he said that for Muslims, fighting (with weapons, that is) is "obligatory" against "all those who worship others along with Allah." That includes Christians and Jews. "The unbelievers among the People of the Book and the pagans shall burn forever in the fires of Hell. They are the vilest of all creatures."


                          It should be noted that often when they will admit to non-Muslims that jihad means Holy War they insist that is the "lesser" meaning and that "the greater Jihad" is all about an internal, spiritual struggle citing a passage from a hadith.

                          Upon his return from battle Muhammad said, "We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad (i.e. the struggle against the evil of one's soul).


                          But what they don't say is that this is a later saying and not only is not found in the Hadiths considered sahih ("reliable")[2] and that this source is considered at best suspect and generally viewed as spurious if not outright fraudulent (a Maudu (Fabricated) Hadith). The noted 11th century Hadith expert Imām al-Bayhaqi dismissed it saying it did not originate from Muhammad but from Ibraaheem bin Abee Ablah, a Taabi’ee, who is considered a weak source. Ibn Taymiyyah[3] rejected it outright saying

                          This hadith has no source, nobody whomsoever in the field of Islamic Knowledge has narrated it. Jihad against the disbelievers is the most noble of actions, and moreover it is the most important action for the sake of mankind


                          For more see Silsilah Ahaadeeth ad Da'ifah wal-Mawdu'ah written by 'Abdu l-Lah Ibnu Mani' Ar-Rooqi.

                          Moreover, if Jihad primarily means inner struggle, then why does the Qur'an exempt the disabled (or injured) from jihad in Surah An-Nisa [4:95-96]? Obviously if it means inner struggle then the disabled would have no difficulty participating, but if jihad refers to Holy War (combat) then excusing them is perfectly understandable.

                          The fact is that Muhammad calls the highest Jihad to be the spilling of blood fighting the unbelievers, not some inner struggle. This is attested to multiple times by the sahih Hadiths. For instance the two most trusted of them Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih al-Muslim both contain the following passage:

                          I asked the Prophet, "What is the best deed?" He replied, "To believe in Allah and to fight for His Cause."


                          They both also declare

                          The Prophet said, "A single endeavor (of fighting) in Allah's Cause in the forenoon or in the afternoon is better than the world and whatever is in it.


                          As well as:

                          Allah's Apostle said, "Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords."


                          Sahih al-Bukhari reports the following and later reiterates it:

                          Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshiped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform a that, then they save their lives an property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah."


                          Sahih al-Muslim confirms this reporting the following and later reiterates it:

                          It is reported on the authority of Abu Huraira that he heard the Messenger of Allah say: I have been commanded to fight against people, till they testify to the fact that there is no god but Allah, and believe in me (that) I am the messenger (from the Lord) and in all that I have brought. And when they do it, their blood and riches are guaranteed protection on my behalf except where it is justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah.


                          The Hadith Abu Dawud also confirms it stating:

                          The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: I am commanded to fight with men till they testify that there is no god but Allah, and that Muhammad is His servant and His Apostle, face our qiblah (direction of prayer), eat what we slaughter, and pray like us. When they do that, their life and property are unlawful for us except what is due to them. They will have the same rights as the Muslims have, and have the same responsibilities as the Muslims have.


                          And the Sahih al-Muslim declares that:

                          It has been reported on the authority of Jabir that a man said: Messenger of Allah, where shall I be if I am killed? He replied: In Paradise. The man threw away the dates he had in his hand and fought until he was killed (i. e. he did not wait until he could finish the dates).


                          And while not a Hadith, Musnad Ahmed, a celebrated collection of hadith sayings, written by Imām Ahmad ibn Hanbal, the founder of the Hanbali school which is one of the four traditional Sunni Islamic schools of jurisprudence (fiqh) and called "True Shaykh of Islam," "Proof of the Faith," and "Seal of the Mujtahid Imams," as well as being described as "the most significant exponent of the traditionalist approach in Sunni Islam," contains the following:

                          A man asked [the prophet]: "..and what is Jihad?" He replied: "You fight against the disbelievers when you meet them (on the battlefield)." He asked again: "What kind of Jihad is the highest?" He replied: "The person who is killed whilst spilling the last of his blood."


                          So much for jihad as Holy War being the lesser jihad.

                          I'll finish by citing someone more modern, Abul A'la Maududi, a Pakistani Muslim philosopher, jurist and imām, founder of the Jamaat-e-Islami, the then largest Islamic organisation in Asia and instrumental in the foundation of Pakistan, in his Al Jihad fil-Islam ("Jihad in Islam") (2006) in which he instructed followers to employ force in pursuit of a Shari'a-based order:

                          These [Muslim] men who propagate religion are not mere preachers or missionaries, but the functionaries of God [so that they may be witnesses for the people], and it is their duty to wipe out oppression, mischief, strife, immorality, high handedness, and unlawful exploitation from the world by force of arms.


                          And

                          Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam, regardless of the country or the nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a state on the basis of its own ideology and programme, regardless of which nation assumes the role of the standard-bearer of Islam or the rule of which nation is undermined in the process of the establishment of an ideological Islamic State. Islam requires the earth—not just a portion, but the whole planet. ... Towards this end, Islam wishes to press into service all forces which can bring about a revolution and a composite term for the use of all these forces is 'Jihad'. ... the objective of the Islamic 'jihād' is to eliminate the rule of an un-Islamic system and establish in its stead an Islamic system of state rule.









                          1 It should be noted that Shaul Bakhash, an Iranian born Jew who is a noted Middle Eastern historian has said he doubts the authenticity of the quote but AFAICT has never given any reason for why he has doubts. It may be due to the fact that one of those who has cited it, Amir Taheri, does have a history of providing quotes that cannot be substantiated but FWIU he is not the only source (though the most frequently cited one).

                          2. Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Abu Dawud, al-Sughra, Tirmidhi and Ibn Majah with the first two having the highest status.

                          3. While unpopular during his time and the centuries immediately after for his condemnation of the practice of ziyara (pilgrimages to tomb-shrines of family members or close associates of Muhammad) he has since become one of the most influential medieval writers in contemporary Islam

                          I'm always still in trouble again

                          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                          Comment

                          Related Threads

                          Collapse

                          Topics Statistics Last Post
                          Started by Electric Skeptic, Today, 10:28 AM
                          0 responses
                          17 views
                          1 like
                          Last Post Electric Skeptic  
                          Started by Whateverman, Yesterday, 05:50 PM
                          10 responses
                          104 views
                          1 like
                          Last Post Stoic
                          by Stoic
                           
                          Started by LiconaFan97, Yesterday, 05:19 PM
                          3 responses
                          24 views
                          0 likes
                          Last Post Starlight  
                          Started by Kate22, Yesterday, 08:56 AM
                          26 responses
                          227 views
                          1 like
                          Last Post rogue06
                          by rogue06
                           
                          Started by Reepicheep, Yesterday, 08:06 AM
                          4 responses
                          67 views
                          0 likes
                          Last Post Reepicheep  
                          Working...
                          X