Announcement

Collapse

Islam Guidelines

Theists only.

This forum is a debate area to discuss issues pertaining to Islam. This forum is generally for theists only, and is not the area for debate between atheists and theists. Non-theist may not post here without first obtaining permission from the moderator of this forum. Granting of such permission is subject to Moderator discretion - and may be revoked if the Moderator feels that the poster is not keeping with the spirit of the World Religions Department.



Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The connecting link

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    If you really think Muhammad didn't spread Islam by war, then you are exactly the troll others believe you to be.

    Source: http://www.historynet.com/muhammad-the-warrior-prophet.htm


    The idea of Muhammad as a military man will be new to many. Yet he was a truly great general. In the space of a single decade he fought eight major battles, led eighteen raids, and planned another thirty-eight military operations where others were in command but operating under his orders and strategic direction. Wounded twice, he also twice experienced having his positions overrun by superior forces before he managed to turn the tables on his enemies and rally his men to victory. More than a great field general and tactician, he was also a military theorist, organizational reformer, strategic thinker, operational-level combat commander, political-military leader, heroic soldier, and revolutionary.

    In his thinking and application of force Muhammad was a combination of Karl von Clause*witz and Niccolo Machiavelli, for he always employed force in the service of political goals. An astute grand strategist, he used non*mili*tary methods (alliance building, politi*cal assassination, bribery, religious appeals, mercy, and calculated butchery) to strengthen his long-term position, sometimes even at the expense of short-term military considerations.

    © Copyright Original Source

    Wow did you even bother to read my comment??? I said muhammad did not spread Islam by the sword does not mean that muhammad did not go to war. Yes of course Muhammad went to war and the Quran explains this. It also explains that they were defensive wars and if people didn't want to convert to Islam during war or any other time they didn't have to in order to live. The difference between us is I showed proof from the bible that God in the old testament wanted the religion spread by the sword. I didn't use a historians research or opinion. Can you show Quranic proof Islam ordered people to convert or die?

    Funny thing is islamophobes go on about how evil Isis is for killing people if they don't convert (which theyvare right) but don't say a word about the very same tactic in the bible.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by mrcurious View Post
      Wow did you even bother to read my comment??? I said muhammad did not spread Islam by the sword does not mean that muhammad did not go to war.
      To spread Islam.

      Yes of course Muhammad went to war and the Quran explains this. It also explains that they were defensive wars and if people didn't want to convert to Islam during war or any other time they didn't have to in order to live.
      That's a truckload of BS.

      "The Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives" (Bukhari 46:717)

      [Muhammad] said, “Woe to you, Abu Sufyan, isn’t it time that you recognize that I am Allah’s apostle?” He (Abu Sufyan) answered, “As to that I still have some doubt.” I (the narrator) said to him, “Submit and testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the apostle of Allah before you lose your head,” so he did so. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 814)

      (They embraced Islam because) they were defeated at your hands (and as such their Islam is not dependable). (Sahih Muslim 4453)

      The apostle told them to tell Malik that if he came to him as a Muslim he would return his family and property to him and give him a hundred camels. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 879)

      “Testify that none has the right to be worshipped except Allah, or else I will chop off your neck." (Bukhari 59:643)

      Then the apostle sent Khalid bin Walid… to the Banu al-Harith and ordered him to invite them to Islam three days before he attacked them. If they accepted then he was to accept it from them; and if they declined he was to fight them. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 959)

      The difference between us is I showed proof from the bible that God in the old testament wanted the religion spread by the sword.
      No you didn't. There was no indication that Judaism was being spread in the verse you puked up. Non-Jews were forbidden from converting unless they voluntarily chose to do so. Forced conversion was an abomination to YHWH.

      I didn't use a historians research or opinion.
      Which is plain sloppy.

      Can you show Quranic proof Islam ordered people to convert or die?
      Yes.

      Funny thing is islamophobes
      Please show from the DSM-5, which lists all currently diagnosed phobias, what page the diagnosis "islamophobia" is on.

      go on about how evil Isis is for killing people if they don't convert (which theyvare right) but don't say a word about the very same tactic in the bible.
      The Bible lists NO compulsion to convert to Judaism in any of the decrees to destroy enemies.
      That's what
      - She

      Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
      - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

      I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
      Stephen R. Donaldson

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
        To spread Islam.
        Umm..No, go read verse 9:13 of the Quran, that verse for example, states that the Muslims were attacked first by the pagans and thus why they were fighting them. It also states earlier in the sura of the pagans that did not attack the muslims they were not to be harmed.



        That's a truckload of BS.

        "The Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives" (Bukhari 46:717)

        [Muhammad] said, “Woe to you, Abu Sufyan, isn’t it time that you recognize that I am Allah’s apostle?” He (Abu Sufyan) answered, “As to that I still have some doubt.” I (the narrator) said to him, “Submit and testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the apostle of Allah before you lose your head,” so he did so. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 814)

        (They embraced Islam because) they were defeated at your hands (and as such their Islam is not dependable). (Sahih Muslim 4453)

        The apostle told them to tell Malik that if he came to him as a Muslim he would return his family and property to him and give him a hundred camels. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 879)

        “Testify that none has the right to be worshipped except Allah, or else I will chop off your neck." (Bukhari 59:643)

        Then the apostle sent Khalid bin Walid… to the Banu al-Harith and ordered him to invite them to Islam three days before he attacked them. If they accepted then he was to accept it from them; and if they declined he was to fight them. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 959)
        Here is your problem NOT ONE QURANIC VERSE! Hadith, if it contradicts the quran is rejected.

        4:90
        Except for those who take refuge with a people between yourselves and whom is a treaty or those who come to you, their hearts strained at [the prospect of] fighting you or fighting their own people. And if Allah had willed, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So if they remove themselves from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not made for you a cause [for fighting] against them.


        Do you think I'm going to quote the Gospel of Philip or the Gospel of Mary Magdalene to reference Jesus or Christianity? Nope.

        No you didn't. There was no indication that Judaism was being spread in the verse you puked up. Non-Jews were forbidden from converting unless they voluntarily chose to do so. Forced conversion was an abomination to YHWH.
        Did you not read the verses? It clearly stated those who wanted to worship other gods and told their people to go and worship other gods, if true, were to be killed. That's having no freedom of religion and getting killed if your beliefs differed from the old testament.


        Yes.
        There is no point of even dealing with you. You don't know the difference between hadith and quran. I told you give me QURANIC proof of forced conversion. Not Hadith.



        Please show from the DSM-5, which lists all currently diagnosed phobias, what page the diagnosis "islamophobia" is on.
        I'll show this instead:
        islamophobia (or anti-Muslim sentiment) is the prejudice against, hatred towards, or fear of the religion of Islam or Muslims. The term entered into common English usage in 1997 with the publication of a report by the Runnymede Trust condemning negative emotions such as fear, hatred, and dread directed at Islam or Muslims.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia

        The Bible lists NO compulsion to convert to Judaism in any of the decrees to destroy enemies.
        You're right there is no compulsion, its just kill the enemy that doesn't believe in the God of the Jews (reference to the old testament). Just to be clear, you are ok with God of the Old Testament to order the killing of people who wanted to worship other Gods besides him.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by mrcurious View Post
          Umm..No, go read verse 9:13 of the Quran, that verse for example, states that the Muslims were attacked first by the pagans and thus why they were fighting them. It also states earlier in the sura of the pagans that did not attack the muslims they were not to be harmed.
          So, their "great prophet" didn't bother following the very instructions given him by God?



          Here is your problem NOT ONE QURANIC VERSE! Hadith, if it contradicts the quran is rejected.
          The Hadiths are historical records, so no. They aren't rejected as records of what happened, so

          4:90
          Except for those who take refuge with a people between yourselves and whom is a treaty or those who come to you, their hearts strained at [the prospect of] fighting you or fighting their own people. And if Allah had willed, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So if they remove themselves from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not made for you a cause [for fighting] against them.


          Do you think I'm going to quote the Gospel of Philip or the Gospel of Mary Magdalene to reference Jesus or Christianity? Nope.
          If they were reliable as far as a historical event was concerned, then it would be absolutely proper to cite it.


          Did you not read the verses? It clearly stated those who wanted to worship other gods and told their people to go and worship other gods, if true, were to be killed. That's having no freedom of religion and getting killed if your beliefs differed from the old testament.
          It's not spreading Judaism by war though, so



          There is no point of even dealing with you. You don't know the difference between hadith and quran. I told you give me QURANIC proof of forced conversion. Not Hadith.
          I gave you historical recordings of where "Convert or die" was mandated by Muhammad himself. The fact that you refuse to admit error shows who is the unreasonable one...



          I'll show this instead:
          WIKIPEDIA??? Islamophobia is on the same intellectually bankrupt level as "homophobia". Both words are complete misnomers, and are insulting to those who have legitimately diagnosed phobias.


          You're right there is no compulsion, its just kill the enemy that doesn't believe in the God of the Jews (reference to the old testament).
          Therefore, not like Islam. Thank you for admitting that.

          Just to be clear, you are ok with God of the Old Testament to order the killing of people who wanted to worship other Gods besides him.
          Yes, at that time. Because it was literally "kill or be killed" in that era. But that would take more than just a basic surface level understanding of the ANE in the Bronze Age that you don't seem to want to pursue.
          That's what
          - She

          Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
          - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

          I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
          Stephen R. Donaldson

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
            So, their "great prophet" didn't bother following the very instructions given him by God?
            He absolutely did, the polytheists who kept their oath and abided by the agreed upon treaty were not harmed. The quran describes this and all Muslims believe the Quran to be divine and without error or dispute.


            The Hadiths are historical records, so no. They aren't rejected as records of what happened, so
            You realize not all Hadiths are accepted??? There are hadiths that are considered "weak" and narrators who are "not reliable." Its actually quite pathetic how you cherry picked hadiths. You quoted 3 of them from Ibn Ishaq who, amongst scholars, was rejected. You also quoted a partial hadith from a woman named Umm Sulaim who gave her opinion about the polytheists converting to Islam because they were defeated. And you quoted a hadith about the surprise attack on Banu Mustaliq, had you done any research, would have known that they were mounting an attack on the muslims before the Muslims attacked them since they aligned with the Quraish who were enemies of the Muslims at the time. Your problem is you take ANY hadith that supports your claims. There are hadiths of peace I can throw here, but the Quran is good to debate you.

            If they were reliable as far as a historical event was concerned, then it would be absolutely proper to cite it.
            You haven't shown any evidence that they are reliable. Muslims believe that if a hadith contradicts the Quran it is to be rejected. Besides many of the hadith books were compiled hundreds of years after the death of Muhammad.


            It's not spreading Judaism by war though, so
            You can make all the faces you want to make yourself feel better the fact is, there was no freedom of religion at the time and anyone who wanted to worship other Gods was to be killed. That is what I call barbaric and very ISIS like.


            I gave you historical recordings of where "Convert or die" was mandated by Muhammad himself. The fact that you refuse to admit error shows who is the unreasonable one...
            No you didn't, in fact you gave NO hadiths that were direct words of Muhammad. And I told you Ibn Ishaq is not reliable.

            The most widely discussed criticism of his sīra was that of his contemporary Mālik ibn Anas.[3] Mālik rejected the stories of Muhammad and the Jews of Medina on the ground that they were taken solely based on accounts by sons of Jewish converts.[21] These same stories have also been denounced as "odd tales" (gharāʾib) later by ibn Hajar al-Asqalani.[21] Mālik and others also thought that ibn Isḥāq exhibited Qadari tendencies, had a preference for Ali (Guillaume also found evidence of this, pp. xxii &xxiv),[3] and relied too heavily on what were later called the Isrā'īlīyāt. Furthermore, early literary critics, like ibn Sallām al-Jumaḥī and ibn al-Nadīm, censured ibn Isḥāq for knowingly including forged poems in his biography,[3] and for attributing poems to persons not known to have written any poetry.[13] The 14th-century historian al-Dhahabī, using hadith terminology, noted that in addition to the forged (makdhūb) poetry, Ibn Isḥāq filled his sīra with many munqaṭiʿ (broken chain of narration) and munkar (suspect narrator) reports.[22]

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Is...ABl_All.C4.81h

            WIKIPEDIA??? Islamophobia is on the same intellectually bankrupt level as "homophobia". Both words are complete misnomers, and are insulting to those who have legitimately diagnosed phobias.
            I stick by the definition I cited about what Islamophobia is and I believe that definition applies to many of the people on these forums.


            Therefore, not like Islam. Thank you for admitting that.
            Way to make your case...You are saying that being killed for believing in another God is not what Islam teaches and thus different from the Old Testament. Yes I will gladly admit that. The teachings of the Old Testament are barbaric.



            Yes, at that time. Because it was literally "kill or be killed" in that era. But that would take more than just a basic surface level understanding of the ANE in the Bronze Age that you don't seem to want to pursue.
            Well we have it very clear, you support the death of people who simply wanted to believe and practice a different ideology than the one of the Old Testament at that time. I don't care about which era it was in, the principal of no freedom of religion is disgusting and you support it. What is the difference between those Old Testament verses I quoted and the ideology of ISIS who also kill people just because they don't believe in their version of Islam?

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by mrcurious View Post
              He absolutely did, the polytheists who kept their oath and abided by the agreed upon treaty were not harmed. The quran describes this and all Muslims believe the Quran to be divine and without error or dispute.
              They had 4 options. 1) Convert, 2) Leave their land, 3) Pay a heavy tax, or 4) Die. Those who refused to do the first three suffered the fourth. Those who agreed to the Jizya, but later declined to pay were enslaved and their women sold into sex slavery. And Muhammad on multiple occasions commanded the Muslim armies to attack unsuspecting enemies.


              You realize not all Hadiths are accepted???
              Of course. But that's quite vague and useless as a means to reject someone's recording of history.

              There are hadiths that are considered "weak" and narrators who are "not reliable."
              I didn't quote them all, so please hurl that elephant in another direction.

              Its actually quite pathetic how you cherry picked hadiths.
              It's pathetic how you duck and dodge every attempt to pin down just what you believe and don't believe.

              You quoted 3 of them from Ibn Ishaq who, amongst scholars, was rejected.
              Since you only seem to recognize Wiki:

              Source: Wikipedia

              According to Ibn Khallikan, a once prominent theologian, Ibn Ishaq was seen as a sure authority in the traditions by his contemporary scholars Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri, Sahih al-Bukhari, Al-Shafi‘i, Sufyan ibn `Uyaynah and Shobba Ibn Al-Hajjij

              © Copyright Original Source



              You also quoted a partial hadith from a woman named Umm Sulaim who gave her opinion about the polytheists converting to Islam because they were defeated.
              Correct.

              And you quoted a hadith about the surprise attack on Banu Mustaliq, had you done any research, would have known that they were mounting an attack on the muslims before the Muslims attacked them since they aligned with the Quraish who were enemies of the Muslims at the time.
              Bologna. Muhammad heard rumors that the Jews of Banū al-Muṣṭaliq were planning on attacking jim, so he sent a spy. The Jews discovered him and sent a spy of their own, who the Muslims discovered, executed, and proceeded to sneak-attack and kill the Jews' fighting men. But you keep on believing that romanticized version of history...

              Your problem is you take ANY hadith that supports your claims.
              And you dismiss any that cast Muhammad in a bad light.

              There are hadiths of peace I can throw here, but the Quran is good to debate you.
              Please throw them out... It shows that my initial claim was correct, and that Muhammad didn't live by what he preached.



              You haven't shown any evidence that they are reliable.
              And you have hand waved them with not so much as a single reliable dissent.

              Muslims believe that if a hadith contradicts the Quran it is to be rejected.
              Which is called circular reasoning. If something accurately records an event, no amount of hubris or romanticizing can invalidate it.

              Besides many of the hadith books were compiled hundreds of years after the death of Muhammad.
              And many weren't. Hurl that elephant!


              You can make all the faces you want to make yourself feel better the fact is, there was no freedom of religion at the time and anyone who wanted to worship other Gods was to be killed. That is what I call barbaric and very ISIS like.
              The Jews never wanted world domination/subjugation like ISIS does. They wanted all polytheism removed from the Holy Land. They did not seek to conquer any more territory than the Lord gave them. Outsiders were free to do what they wanted as long as they remained outside Israel. Comparing the two is just plain nonsense.


              No you didn't, in fact you gave NO hadiths that were direct words of Muhammad. And I told you Ibn Ishaq is not reliable.
              He was to the theologians of hi day. It wasn't until later that he was rejected because of how bad Muhammad's actions made him look.


              I stick by the definition I cited about what Islamophobia is and I believe that definition applies to many of the people on these forums.
              And I stick by my mocking morons like you who use it.


              Way to make your case...You are saying that being killed for believing in another God is not what Islam teaches and thus different from the Old Testament. Yes I will gladly admit that. The teachings of the Old Testament are barbaric.
              From your ivory tower of 3,000 years later, I'm sure it looks that way. In 500 years, the world's current support for abortion will probably be seen as barbaric.


              Well we have it very clear, you support the death of people who simply wanted to believe and practice a different ideology than the one of the Old Testament at that time.
              Because of what came with those beliefs, which nearly universally included child sacrifice. But if you will notice, the Jews never invaded Egypt in response to Egypt's polytheism, did they?

              I don't care about which era it was in, the principal of no freedom of religion is disgusting and you support it.
              Do you support freedom of religion for those who practice child sacrifice? Who "offer their children to the fires of Moloch"?

              What is the difference between those Old Testament verses I quoted and the ideology of ISIS who also kill people just because they don't believe in their version of Islam?
              Because ISIS wants to dominate the entire world. The Jews didn't.
              That's what
              - She

              Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
              - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

              I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
              Stephen R. Donaldson

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                They had 4 options. 1) Convert, 2) Leave their land, 3) Pay a heavy tax, or 4) Die. Those who refused to do the first three suffered the fourth. Those who agreed to the Jizya, but later declined to pay were enslaved and their women sold into sex slavery. And Muhammad on multiple occasions commanded the Muslim armies to attack unsuspecting enemies.
                Really? Because nowhere in the Quran is option 1 considered, in fact the Quran contradicts this:
                Sura 109:
                In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.
                Say: Oh you who turn away
                I do not worship what you worship,
                nor do you worship what I worship.
                And I will not worship what you worship,
                Nor will you worship what I worship.
                Your way is yours, and my way is mine.

                So I have a question, if your claims is that the non-believers need to convert or die, why does this chapter titled "the unbelievers" Muhammad says you won't worship what I worship, your way is yours and my way is mine??? Why doesn't is say if you don't convert you need to leave your land? Why doesn't it say pay a heavy tax? And why doesn't it say if you don't do any of these we take you as sex slaves to support your claim???




                Of course. But that's quite vague and useless as a means to reject someone's recording of history.
                What do you mean someone's recording of history??? You have no clue who any of these narrators of hadith are, how accurate they are. The Quran is the only book that is undisputeable. In fact the Shia reject all sunni books and sunni's reject the shia books of hadith. I guess I'll start quoting the gospel of barnabas, without knowing anything about it like you know nothing of the history, context, or personalities of the hadith, I'll says its "historically accurate" to quote other books besides the bible and you can't refute it.

                It's pathetic how you duck and dodge every attempt to pin down just what you believe and don't believe.
                Not at all, if you quote the Quran then I can't dodge anything. But you haven't. Supposedly the quran is evil and corrupt, so go and quote it if its so bad.

                Since you only seem to recognize Wiki:

                Source: Wikipedia

                According to Ibn Khallikan, a once prominent theologian, Ibn Ishaq was seen as a sure authority in the traditions by his contemporary scholars Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri, Sahih al-Bukhari, Al-Shafi‘i, Sufyan ibn `Uyaynah and Shobba Ibn Al-Hajjij

                © Copyright Original Source

                Wow. You really are quite deceptive. Why didn't you quote the rest of that paragraph??? Let me do that for you.

                In hadith studies, ibn Isḥaq's hadith (considered separately from his prophetic biography) is generally thought to be "good" (ḥasan) (assuming an accurate and trustworthy isnad, or chain of transmission)[28] and himself having a reputation of being "sincere" or "trustworthy" (ṣadūq). However, a general analysis of his isnads has given him the negative distinction of being a mudallis, meaning one who did not name his teacher, claiming instead to narrate directly from his teacher's teacher.[29] Because of his tadlīs, many scholars including Muhammad al-Bukhari hardly ever used his narrations in their sahih books.[30] According to al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī, all scholars of ahadith except one no longer rely on any of his narrations, although truth is not foreign to him.[31] Others, like Ahmad ibn Hanbal, rejected his narrations on all matters related to fiqh.[3] Al-Dhahabī concluded that despite his good qualities any narration solely transmitted through him should probably be considered as containing munkar, for there is an issue with his memorizing. He added that some Imams mentiond him, including Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj, who cited five of Ibn Ishaq's ahadith in his Sahih.[22] According to Ibn Khallikan, a once prominent theologian, Ibn Ishaq was seen as a sure authority in the traditions by his contemporary scholars Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri, Sahih al-Bukhari, Al-Shafi‘i, Sufyan ibn `Uyaynah and Shobba Ibn Al-Hajjij.[32]
                So not only was he born over 100 years after Muhammad died, not all scholars, and even Bukhari who supposedly has the most "accurate" book after the quran in sahih Bukhari rejected a majority of his narrations. Please, at least quote in context, you're capable of doing so.

                Correct.
                And Umm Sulaim isn't Muhammad, so I don't know why you are quoting her if your whole tirade is what Muhammad is saying. At least quote Muhammad.


                Bologna. Muhammad heard rumors that the Jews of Banū al-Muṣṭaliq were planning on attacking jim, so he sent a spy. The Jews discovered him and sent a spy of their own, who the Muslims discovered, executed, and proceeded to sneak-attack and kill the Jews' fighting men. But you keep on believing that romanticized version of history...
                Bologna? I'm going to back up my statement:

                From the proofs of the tribe of Al-Mustaliq’s awareness of the call to Islam and readiness and preparation for engaging in a war with the Prophet (peace be upon him) is the narration of Ibn Sa’d in his Tabaqat. He said:[19]

                The tribe of Al-Mustaliq is from Khuza’ah, who are the allies of the tribe of Madlaj. They used to congregate at a water well they owned called Marisi’. Between the well and a tributary was about a day’s travel, and between the tributary and Medina were about three nights. Their leader and patron was al-Harith bin Abi Darar. He used to walk among his people and call whoever he found to fight in a war against the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). So his people answered and they began to march. This news reached the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) and he dispatched Buraidah bin al-Husaib al-Aslami who was aware of the situation. Buraidah met al-Harith bin Abi Darar and spoke to him. Buraidah returned to the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) and informed him of what was learned. The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) lamented at the news and sped up his march and prepared the horses.

                Al-Waqidi narrated something similar in his Maghazi, saying:[20]

                The tribe of Al-Mustaliq was from Khuza’ah and was from the allies of Mudlaj, and they were scattered up and down the tributary. Their leader was al-Harith bin Abi Darar, and he used to walk among his people and whoever from the Arabs he could reach and call them to engage in a war against the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). They bought horses and weapons and began their march toward the Messenger (peace be upon him).

                So the cavalrymen proceeded along the tributary and made their advance known, and word reached the Prophet (peace be upon him). Buraidah bin al-Husaib al-Aslami, who was aware of what was happening, sought permission from the Prophet (peace be upon him) to speak to them. That permission was granted, and Buraidah traveled until he found a huge group of haughty people coming together in large numbers. The people asked Buraidah who he is, and he answered: A man from you; I came here because of what I heard about your mobilization against this man (meaning the Prophet), and I walk among my people as our hand is one so that we may wipe him out. Al-Harith bin Abi Darar said (to Buraidah): That’s what we’re aiming for as well.

                http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/th..._fighting_them
                Now you can back up your claim that the Muslims executed the jewish spy...

                [quote[And you dismiss any that cast Muhammad in a bad light.[/quote]

                Nope. Quote the quran, really simple, if you can quote the quran IN CONTEXT to show "convert or die" or "no freedom of religion" then there isn't much I can argue. But hadith is highly debateable.



                Please throw them out... It shows that my initial claim was correct, and that Muhammad didn't live by what he preached.
                I don't think you can handle them. And like I said, the quran is not debateble in terms of accuracy or not, Muslims believe its divine. Use the Quran...if you can



                And you have hand waved them with not so much as a single reliable dissent.
                Go read my last post, I hand waved them for reason. Your hadiths did not even quote Muhammad! You quoted other people!

                Which is called circular reasoning. If something accurately records an event, no amount of hubris or romanticizing can invalidate it.
                You have not shown any evidence that the hadiths you provided are accurate, and like I said, they aren't even Muhammad's words.

                And many weren't. Hurl that elephant!
                Well the ones you quoted were over 100 years after Muhammad died.


                The Jews never wanted world domination/subjugation like ISIS does. They wanted all polytheism removed from the Holy Land. They did not seek to conquer any more territory than the Lord gave them. Outsiders were free to do what they wanted as long as they remained outside Israel. Comparing the two is just plain nonsense.
                How do you know that you weren't around? With verses like kill people who don't believe in your God, I think that's domination. So instead of just expel them from the holy land, it was kill them. Its sad how you are trying to justify this just because its in the bible it must mean its true. Even logic tells you its barbaric and here you are trying to justify not having freedom of religion.


                He was to the theologians of hi day. It wasn't until later that he was rejected because of how bad Muhammad's actions made him look.
                Really? He was rejected because of how Bad Muhammad's actions made him look? Back it up, provide a source please.


                And I stick by my mocking morons like you who use it.
                I love it when you result to personal attacks. It exposes you to everyone in this forum what type of person you are and what kind of respresentative of your religion you are. I'll pray for you to clean up your behavior.


                From your ivory tower of 3,000 years later, I'm sure it looks that way. In 500 years, the world's current support for abortion will probably be seen as barbaric.
                No, I'm sorry, regardless of how many thousands of years have passed, wrong is wrong. Killing for different beliefs is wrong! The Quran doesn't promote it, but the bible does.


                Because of what came with those beliefs, which nearly universally included child sacrifice. But if you will notice, the Jews never invaded Egypt in response to Egypt's polytheism, did they?
                Now you're trying to make things up to justify your claims?! Brother. The verses I quoted said NOTHING about child sacrifice. All it said was people who said lets go worship other Gods were to be killed. Just for that alone. Lets go worship other Gods. I quoted in context and there was nothing to support your claims.



                Do you support freedom of religion for those who practice child sacrifice? Who "offer their children to the fires of Moloch"?
                No I absolutely don't, now please show me where in Deu 13 there was a mention of child sacrifices.


                Because ISIS wants to dominate the entire world. The Jews didn't.
                There was no freedom of religion! How do you not see that as a form of domination and persecution???

                Comment


                • #23
                  "Do you support freedom of religion for those who practice child sacrifice?"
                  ---interesting statement......

                  As I understand it, freedom of speech is to allow both good and bad ideas because the underlying assumption is that if good and bad ideas compete with each other, humanity will naturally gravitate towards the good and the decent and so bad ideas will naturally not survive.....

                  If we allow for this assumption for freedom of religion---then it would mean that no Parent is going to be part of any religion that calls for the sacrifice of their children...which means, even if such a cult existed...it would soon die when its members became parents, and leave....?..........

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by siam View Post
                    "Do you support freedom of religion for those who practice child sacrifice?"
                    ---interesting statement......

                    As I understand it, freedom of speech is to allow both good and bad ideas because the underlying assumption is that if good and bad ideas compete with each other, humanity will naturally gravitate towards the good and the decent and so bad ideas will naturally not survive.....

                    If we allow for this assumption for freedom of religion---then it would mean that no Parent is going to be part of any religion that calls for the sacrifice of their children...which means, even if such a cult existed...it would soon die when its members became parents, and leave....?..........
                    Many religions in the past relied on child sacrifice. And some of those surrounded Israel in the Bronze age.
                    That's what
                    - She

                    Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                    - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                    I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                    Stephen R. Donaldson

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by mrcurious View Post
                      Really? Because nowhere in the Quran is option 1 considered, in fact the Quran contradicts this:
                      Sura 109:
                      In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.
                      Say: Oh you who turn away
                      I do not worship what you worship,
                      nor do you worship what I worship.
                      And I will not worship what you worship,
                      Nor will you worship what I worship.
                      Your way is yours, and my way is mine.

                      So I have a question, if your claims is that the non-believers need to convert or die, why does this chapter titled "the unbelievers" Muhammad says you won't worship what I worship, your way is yours and my way is mine??? Why doesn't is say if you don't convert you need to leave your land? Why doesn't it say pay a heavy tax? And why doesn't it say if you don't do any of these we take you as sex slaves to support your claim???






                      What do you mean someone's recording of history??? You have no clue who any of these narrators of hadith are, how accurate they are. The Quran is the only book that is undisputeable. In fact the Shia reject all sunni books and sunni's reject the shia books of hadith. I guess I'll start quoting the gospel of barnabas, without knowing anything about it like you know nothing of the history, context, or personalities of the hadith, I'll says its "historically accurate" to quote other books besides the bible and you can't refute it.



                      Not at all, if you quote the Quran then I can't dodge anything. But you haven't. Supposedly the quran is evil and corrupt, so go and quote it if its so bad.



                      Wow. You really are quite deceptive. Why didn't you quote the rest of that paragraph??? Let me do that for you.



                      So not only was he born over 100 years after Muhammad died, not all scholars, and even Bukhari who supposedly has the most "accurate" book after the quran in sahih Bukhari rejected a majority of his narrations. Please, at least quote in context, you're capable of doing so.



                      And Umm Sulaim isn't Muhammad, so I don't know why you are quoting her if your whole tirade is what Muhammad is saying. At least quote Muhammad.




                      Bologna? I'm going to back up my statement:



                      Now you can back up your claim that the Muslims executed the jewish spy...

                      [quote[And you dismiss any that cast Muhammad in a bad light.

                      Nope. Quote the quran, really simple, if you can quote the quran IN CONTEXT to show "convert or die" or "no freedom of religion" then there isn't much I can argue. But hadith is highly debateable.





                      I don't think you can handle them. And like I said, the quran is not debateble in terms of accuracy or not, Muslims believe its divine. Use the Quran...if you can





                      Go read my last post, I hand waved them for reason. Your hadiths did not even quote Muhammad! You quoted other people!



                      You have not shown any evidence that the hadiths you provided are accurate, and like I said, they aren't even Muhammad's words.



                      Well the ones you quoted were over 100 years after Muhammad died.




                      How do you know that you weren't around? With verses like kill people who don't believe in your God, I think that's domination. So instead of just expel them from the holy land, it was kill them. Its sad how you are trying to justify this just because its in the bible it must mean its true. Even logic tells you its barbaric and here you are trying to justify not having freedom of religion.




                      Really? He was rejected because of how Bad Muhammad's actions made him look? Back it up, provide a source please.




                      I love it when you result to personal attacks. It exposes you to everyone in this forum what type of person you are and what kind of respresentative of your religion you are. I'll pray for you to clean up your behavior.




                      No, I'm sorry, regardless of how many thousands of years have passed, wrong is wrong. Killing for different beliefs is wrong! The Quran doesn't promote it, but the bible does.




                      Now you're trying to make things up to justify your claims?! Brother. The verses I quoted said NOTHING about child sacrifice. All it said was people who said lets go worship other Gods were to be killed. Just for that alone. Lets go worship other Gods. I quoted in context and there was nothing to support your claims.





                      No I absolutely don't, now please show me where in Deu 13 there was a mention of child sacrifices.




                      There was no freedom of religion! How do you not see that as a form of domination and persecution???
                      I've lost interest in this discussion. It's devolved to whose sources are more reliable, and I simply don't trust the whitewashing of Muhammad's history by his friends and family. And I will not respond further to this thread, so your response will fall on deaf ears.
                      That's what
                      - She

                      Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                      - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                      I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                      Stephen R. Donaldson

                      Comment

                      Related Threads

                      Collapse

                      Topics Statistics Last Post
                      Started by rogue06, 11-13-2020, 09:15 AM
                      44 responses
                      266 views
                      0 likes
                      Last Post siam
                      by siam
                       
                      Started by Christian3, 10-25-2020, 07:17 AM
                      8 responses
                      67 views
                      0 likes
                      Last Post Trucker
                      by Trucker
                       
                      Started by Trucker, 10-23-2020, 11:09 AM
                      51 responses
                      350 views
                      0 likes
                      Last Post Trucker
                      by Trucker
                       
                      Started by JohnnyP, 01-23-2014, 04:30 PM
                      5 responses
                      7,409 views
                      1 like
                      Last Post Dan Zebiri  
                      Working...
                      X