If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)

Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Life of Muhammad - BBC2 : 9.00pm

MagicMarker · 2011-07-11 18:07:17

Anyone going to watch this? A whole series on Muhammad, telling us how amazing he is. I wonder if they mention the whole pedo thing?

Options

11-07-2011 7:07pm

#1

MagicMarker

Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: April 2007

Posts: 32179

Anyone going to watch this? A whole series on Muhammad, telling us how amazing he is. I wonder if they mention the whole pedo thing?

1

Comments

Options
#2 11-07-2011 7:22pm
Knasher

Registered Users Posts: 2,370 ✭✭✭

Join Date: July 2005

Posts: 2341

Probably not, but I am a little bit curious to be honest.

Is it going to be just a series of interviews describing the stuff he has done or will they do dramatisations. Because if they don't like people drawing Muhammad then surely having somebody who looks vaguely like him call himself Muhammad is 100 times worse.

0
Options
#3 11-07-2011 8:29pm
Wibbs

Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,104 Mod ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: March 2005

Posts: 59033

The paedo aspect is cultural and arguable by some as far as dates and ages go. Though I personally consider her age as correctly reported as it was repeated often enough in centuries following and not considered odd. The rejig of her age at marriage is a recent tweak in response to western notions. Indeed it's not that long ago that in the west boys and especially girls were married off very young, barely in their teens. Jerry Lee Lewis' career was put on the skids when he showed up to tour England with his new bride. A cousin of his and all of 13 years old and he 23.

I'll be more interested to see if there's any talk about the camel raids and battles and enslavements or massacres of prisoners after such battles or religious and political killings. All headed and condoned by Muhammed. Interesting for a "religion of peace" not spread at the point of a sword. I'll put good money it will be not mentioned/glossed over/explained as defence or context.

Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.

0
Options
#4 11-07-2011 11:05pm
Wibbs

Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,104 Mod ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: March 2005

Posts: 59033

Having just seen it and bearing in mind the chap presenting is a muslim it was balanced enough to be fair, though a couple of things were glossed over or approached sideways.

EG the early non islamic sources for Muhammed. Their detail is up there with the early non christian sources for Jesus and few non Christians give them much historical weight. For a start they dont call him a new prophet of a new faith(IIRC they reckon Christian). Nor do they mention anything about the Quran etc.

The second point about Mecca not showing up in any ancient sources was also glossed over. "Oh it was off the beaten track you know". Precisely. Not exactly the best place to have a major trading area. In any event the Greeks/Byzantines for example did go off said beaten track (in search of spices and frankincense) and leave us good references to the areas in question and still make no mention of Mecca, though do reference other towns equally remote.

Another issue is the ban on the depiction of humans in art. That evolved long after Muhammeds death. Evidenced by the heads of Islamic rulers on the earliest coinage of the empire. At some point there was some iconoclastic movement that took hold. It wasn't original to the movement.

Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.

0
Options
#5 11-07-2011 11:40pm
GCU Flexible Demeanour

Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭

Join Date: January 2011

Posts: 2229

Wibbs wrote: »

The second point about Mecca not showing up in any ancient sources was also glossed over. "Oh it was off the beaten track you know". Precisely. Not exactly the best place to have a major trading area. In any event the Greeks/Byzantines for example did go off said beaten track (in search of spices and frankincense) and leave us good references to the areas in question and still make no mention of Mecca, though do reference other towns equally remote.

I don't follow the precise issue here. Is that Mecca may have been known by some other name, or wha?

0
Options
#6 12-07-2011 9:37am
pH

Registered Users Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭

Join Date: July 2001

Posts: 4077

I zapped to it, watched 5 minutes of "Muslims don't believe the whole Satanic verses thing so let's just say it never happened" and zapped on.

0
Advertisement
Options
#7 12-07-2011 9:44am
Morlar

Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭

Join Date: June 2006

Posts: 8900

pH wrote: »

I zapped to it, watched 5 minutes of "Muslims don't believe the whole Satanic verses thing so let's just say it never happened" and zapped on.

I thought that part was particularly nasty. It came across as the journalist basically condoning it.

0
Options
#8 12-07-2011 9:48am
Siuin

Closed Accounts Posts: 1,659 ✭✭✭

Join Date: July 2011

Posts: 1600

Looking forward to the next episode of how Muhammad slaughtered the Jews of Medina. Not sure how they'll downplay genocide, but I'm sure they'll find a way.

0
Options
#9 12-07-2011 12:28pm
Wibbs

Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,104 Mod ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: March 2005

Posts: 59033

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I don't follow the precise issue here. Is that Mecca may have been known by some other name, or wha?

According to Islamic sources Mecca/Makkah goes all the way back to Abraham thousands of years before and was this really important cultural, religious and commercial centre in the region. Basically they big it up as a historical fact. A history that has zero historical, geographical or archaeological basis outside of islamic texts.

Siuin wrote:

Looking forward to the next episode of how Muhammad slaughtered the Jews of Medina. Not sure how they'll downplay genocide, but I'm sure they'll find a way.

Yep that will be interesting alright. I wonder will they mention the political and religious assassinations condoned by him too. There seem to have been "two" Muhammeds. The one before his first wife died. The quieter peaceful preacher. Then the one after she dies, the far more aggressive and martial and strict.

pH wrote:

I zapped to it, watched 5 minutes of "Muslims don't believe the whole Satanic verses thing so let's just say it never happened" and zapped on.

The satanic verses part is interesting alright. While as he said the background story is considered weak today in the hadeeth(stories of early Islam) part, it's clear that historically the early Muslim commentators in the first 200 years of Islam did think it happened. Unusual for one reason, why include something so damning of a prophet if it wasn't regarded as true and in need of recording? This principle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criterion_of_embarrassment applied to Christian texts could be applied here. Basically "If something is awkward for an author to say and he does anyway, it is more likely to be true".
To be fair to Islamic scholars at the time and after, they were remarkably open about not avoiding the dodgy stuff about Muhammed. It's only quite recently they've become more fundamentalist and literal about such things.

Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.

0
Options
#10 12-07-2011 8:54pm
goose2005

Registered Users Posts: 4,798 ✭✭✭

Join Date: October 2004

Posts: 4771

Wibbs wrote: »

Yep that will be interesting alright. I wonder will they mention the political and religious assassinations condoned by him too. There seem to have been "two" Muhammeds. The one before his first wife died. The quieter peaceful preacher. Then the one after she dies, the far more aggressive and martial and strict.

It's seems not to be a Before Kadijah/After Kadijah split - rather a Before Power/After Power split. He only advocated tolerance initially because he only had a tiny number of followers.

0
Options
#11 14-07-2011 12:50pm
Wibbs

Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,104 Mod ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: March 2005

Posts: 59033

Oh I agree G that's a huge chunk of it. I was mentioning the death of his first wife as another factor in this as the martial Muhammed comes out around that time. This is a man who saw his own mother die in front of him when he was a child, who then goes on to marry an older more socially powerful woman who he loves for 20 years. A strong woman who supports him even when he's coming out with what must have been uncomfortable, even blasphemous things for the time(he would have burnt at the stake in a Christian controlled area. A woman who then dies just as he's becoming more widely recognised. That must have been a huge emotional wrench. I imagine that's a scenario a psychologist would have a field day with.

Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.

0
Advertisement
Options
#12 14-07-2011 3:15pm
fontanalis

Closed Accounts Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭

Join Date: January 2010

Posts: 3566

Wibbs wrote: »

Having just seen it and bearing in mind the chap presenting is a muslim it was balanced enough to be fair, though a couple of things were glossed over or approached sideways.

EG the early non islamic sources for Muhammed. Their detail is up there with the early non christian sources for Jesus and few non Christians give them much historical weight. For a start they dont call him a new prophet of a new faith(IIRC they reckon Christian). Nor do they mention anything about the Quran etc.

The second point about Mecca not showing up in any ancient sources was also glossed over. "Oh it was off the beaten track you know". Precisely. Not exactly the best place to have a major trading area. In any event the Greeks/Byzantines for example did go off said beaten track (in search of spices and frankincense) and leave us good references to the areas in question and still make no mention of Mecca, though do reference other towns equally remote.

Another issue is the ban on the depiction of humans in art. That evolved long after Muhammeds death. Evidenced by the heads of Islamic rulers on the earliest coinage of the empire. At some point there was some iconoclastic movement that took hold. It wasn't original to the movement.

Isn't one of the ideas about the emergence of Islam that it came from a christian sect (I'll try to find a link to where I read it)?

0
Options
#13 14-07-2011 5:15pm
Wibbs

Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,104 Mod ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: March 2005

Posts: 59033

Yea that seems to have some currency alright. There were a number of early Christian "heretical" groups knocking about. Quite a number of them with quite similar aspects to Islam. They questioned/denied the Trinity, the divinity of Jesus and a couple of other similarities. The Ebonites(sp)* were one such group and were knocking about in mid milliennium Arabia too. They were more a Jewish sect with Christian overtones. They saw Jesus as a Jewish prophet chosen by god, but not divine. They were into ritual daily bathing/purification and saw Jerusalem as the holy city and focus of their beliefs(as did the earliest Muslims who prayed in that direction rather than at Mecca). IIRC one of the first converts to Islam was an ebonite monk.

*I'm running on memory here so

Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.

0
Options
#14 15-07-2011 6:22am
dead one

Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,320 ✭✭✭

Join Date: February 2011

Posts: 1312

Wibbs wrote: »

Yea that seems to have some currency alright. There were a number of early Christian "heretical" groups knocking about. Quite a number of them with quite similar aspects to Islam. They questioned/denied the Trinity, the divinity of Jesus and a couple of other similarities. The Ebonites(sp)* were one such group and were knocking about in mid milliennium Arabia too. They were more a Jewish sect with Christian overtones. They saw Jesus as a Jewish prophet chosen by god, but not divine. They were into ritual daily bathing/purification and saw Jerusalem as the holy city and focus of their beliefs(as did the earliest Muslims who prayed in that direction rather than at Mecca). IIRC one of the first converts to Islam was an ebonite monk.

See, the beauty here, Wibbs, describing Prophet Muhammad after 1400 years on base of incomplete record/ distorted history... Infact, he/she has faith in distorted history but he/she can't see how Prophet Muhammad change the world through his character... ...... Wibbs doesn't know, all what he has learned, is result of twisted brains/twisted history...... and history is full of liars---- full of arrogance---full of pride...... Now he considers himself as genius and thinks all the companions of Prophet who suffered pain/prison/dungeons were fool..... Would you kindly bear 10 stripe, Wibbs..... I am sure, you would change your religion on first stripe.....Even 100 stripes couldn't change minds of companion of Prophets....... why? because they had cured themselves from corruption, Clearly, i can see you only prefer that history which matches with your hypothesis because it is your wish not to believe.... and with the passage of time your wishes become the wishes of twisted brains
The world knows that the companion of prophet died in the way of Allah. They suffered troubles and hardships in support of truth and in establishing and propagating the principles of Justice

Wibbs wrote: »

They were into ritual daily bathing/purification and saw Jerusalem as the holy city and focus of their beliefs

as i have pointed again and again Islam isn't new religion, Every Prophet preached Islam in his time, that's why you see a lot similarity between these religion......His message got corruption with the passage of time due to interpretation of people..... You ,your bias and the twisted history can't whitewash the truth which is written so clear on the face of history.......

fontanalis wrote: »

Isn't one of the ideas about the emergence of Islam that it came from a christian sect (I'll try to find a link to where I read it)?

Corruption can't provide cure.Make some sense comrade?...

0
Options
#15 15-07-2011 9:42am
Wibbs

Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,104 Mod ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: March 2005

Posts: 59033

dead one wrote: »

See, the beauty here, Wibbs, describing Prophet Muhammad after 1400 years on base of incomplete record/ distorted history... Infact, he/she has faith in distorted history but he/she can't see how Prophet Muhammad change the world through his character...

Oh indeed I do see how he changed the world through his character alright.

Wibbs doesn't know, all what he has learned, is result of twisted brains/twisted history......

All what I have learned is through reading more than just one book. That's the difference. If one book says X and ten say Y then is it not logical to think the ten more likely to be correct?

and history is full of liars---- full of arrogance---full of pride......

Sometimes yes, but rather than label historians as "liars" which is aggressive and unhelpful, I prefer to see recorded history as the history of viewpoints. The more and different viewpoints one has the better one can seek the truth. Again why thinking just one book is the "truth" is narrow minded. Killing people because of that one book is beyond primitive. I don't care which book it is either. Christians were killing people because of their book and Jews because of theirs.

OK if the viewpoint is based on faith I say fine and I hope it brings happiness to that person and doesn't bring unhappiness to others(the latter is the trick of course).

Now he considers himself as genius

Where did I claim any such thing? This is what debate looks like Dead One.

and thinks all the companions of Prophet who suffered pain/prison/dungeons were fool..... Would you kindly bear 10 stripe, Wibbs..... I am sure, you would change your religion on first stripe.....Even 100 stripes couldn't change minds of companion of Prophets....... why? because they had cured themselves from corruption, Clearly, i can see you only prefer that history which matches with your hypothesis because it is your wish not to believe.... and with the passage of time your wishes become the wishes of twisted brains
The world knows that the companion of prophet died in the way of Allah. They suffered troubles and hardships in support of truth and in establishing and propagating the principles of Justice

Eh what's with all the whipping? Actually since many religions are based on fear to some degree or other fear is a common meme within them. By the way, just because someone suffers for a cause it does not mean it's a righteous cause. EG Supporters of Hitler* suffered torture and prison and even death before he rose to power. He himself was shot and imprisoned. Literally millions fought and died in his name and in the name of his cause. Does this mean his and his cause was a righteous one? Of course not. Other examples? Some Muslims suffered terribly and died for their faith at the hands of Christians and Jews and Hindus, some Christians suffered terribly and died for their faith at the hands of Muslims and Romans etc, some Jews suffered and died for their faith at the hands of Christians and Muslims. Were all their causes righteous and correct? Again it's all down to viewpoint. BTW I am NOT comparing Nazism to Islam, I'm simply suggesting that just because an individual or group suffers torture or even death for a belief it doesn't add or subtract any truth from that belief.

as i have pointed again and again Islam isn't new religion, Every Prophet preached Islam in his time, that's why you see a lot similarity between these religion......His message got corruption with the passage of time due to interpretation of people.....

Or each new faith was an evolution of the previous. I've asked this before but I'll try again... All faiths before Islam were corrupted yes? Islam is incorrupted, yes? OK why didn't god protect his previous revelations from corruption? Simple question. Why did it take a few tries at it?

You ,your bias and the twisted history can't whitewash the truth which is written so clear on the face of history.......

Your face of history, from your book. Just one book. If you like I can walk in your shoes and just quote that one book and point out inconsistencies and aggression and all of that. Of course that would likely be pointless as you'll come back with "context" and "interpretation". No doubt how this documentary will "explain" mass killing of prisoners of war.

*Sorry for the Godwin folks, but if ever a case was apposite.

Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.

0
Options
#16 15-07-2011 11:24am
dead one

Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,320 ✭✭✭

Join Date: February 2011

Posts: 1312

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh indeed I do see how he changed the world through his character alright.

He was a social reformer.....There are three pillars upon which social justice in Islam is built: the absolute freedom of conscience, the complete human equality and the firm social symbiosis, and each one of these pillars is built upon the others.... His message gave the idea of he absolute freedom of conscience, the complete human equality and the firm social symbiosis to the world.....If you turn your eyes from truth then truth won't come to you...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice#Islam

Wibbs wrote: »

All what I have learned is through reading more than just one book. That's the difference. If one book says X and ten say Y then is it not logical to think the ten more likely to be correct?

The mob is the mother of tyrants. If ten books say "Y".... Doesn't it mean "y" is truth..... Think, why ten are saying "Y"..... The first reaction to the truth is always hatred (that is why 10 are saying "y":))....See, how Jesus spoke ("X" )against tyranny ("Y") of Roman government...... So your logic is flawed why? .... It seems "y" is logical but doesn't mean "Y" is the truth..... Just for example watch this movie as example http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050083/. In this movie 11 are saying "Y" and only one is saying "X" but in the end, the one with "X'' was true........ You prefer to believe in "Y"..... It doesn't mean, because ten are saying "Y" or the one is saying "Y"

Wibbs wrote: »

, but rather than label historians as "liars" which is aggressive and unhelpful, I prefer to see recorded history as the history of viewpoints. The more and different viewpoints one has the better one can seek the truth. Again why thinking just one book is the "truth" is narrow minded. Killing people because of that one book is beyond primitive. I don't care which book it is either. Christians were killing people because of their book and Jews because of theirs.

See, there are good also historian but majority in historian had written history to praise kings---- to earn money---- to feed their hunger, For this purpose they invented in lies in the history and you are using the same history to find truth........ For this purpose God has preserved Quran till judgement day.......There is difference between history and revelation..... Revelation can't be history... Revelation can only be history if it is corrupted by human ideas..... As quran has no human ideas so it is pure revelation and this revelation carries weight our all the historian of all the world..... The reason for this is simple because it is unchangeable, where views of the historian are changeable with the passage of time. God cannot alter the past, though historians can.
"A history in which every particular incident may be true may on the whole be false. ''

Wibbs wrote: »

OK if the viewpoint is based on faith I say fine and I hope it brings happiness to that person and doesn't bring unhappiness to others(the latter is the trick of course).

and faith isn't blind--- right..... Faith is a torch which provides you the light to find what is truth if Ten are saying "Y" and if one is saying "X"

Wibbs wrote: »

Where did I claim any such thing? This is what debate looks like Dead One.

Your language is your mirror, i can see you in the mirror......

Wibbs wrote: »

Eh what's with all the whipping? Actually since many religions are based on fear to some degree or other fear is a common meme within them. By the way, just because someone suffers for a cause it does not mean it's a righteous cause. EG Supporters of Hitler* suffered torture and prison and even death before he rose to power. He himself was shot and imprisoned. Literally millions fought and died in his name and in the name of his cause. Does this mean his and his cause was a righteous one? Of course not.

How many follower Hitler has today........

Wibbs wrote: »

Or each new faith was an evolution of the previous. I've asked this before but I'll try again... All faiths before Islam were corrupted yes? Islam is incorrupted, yes? OK why didn't god protect his previous revelations from corruption? Simple question. Why did it take a few tries at it?

The simple answer is..... All past prophets and revelations were limited in their authority. Their purpose is only to guide limited people..... As Jesus was sent only for children of Israel...... Islam is for the whole world and there is no prophet after Muhammmad, so God has preserved his revelation till judgment day...... We believe that all prophets gave guidance and instruction to their people about how to properly worship God and live their lives and all the prophet were muslims....
Your history, from your books. Just one bias. If you like I

Wibbs wrote: »

can walk in your shoes and just quote that one book and point out inconsistencies and aggression and all of that. Of course that would likely be pointless as you'll come back with "context" and "interpretation". No doubt how this documentary will "explain" mass killing of prisoners of war.

See, understanding islam and quran through twisted history/ twisted brain/twisted documentaries,won't bring you closer to truth. Do you know in UK islam is at peak, So these types of documentary are necessary to control folks like you....because it torches your reason to believe what you prefer to believe..... I ain't saying you must admit Islam as truth what i am saying'''At least distinguish between truth and lies".... you are exploring truth in the book of lies and propagating those lie in the name of justice....

0
Options
#17 15-07-2011 12:58pm
Wibbs

Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,104 Mod ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: March 2005

Posts: 59033

dead one wrote: »

He was a social reformer.....

That he was, but that can go both ways.

There are three pillars upon which social justice in Islam is built:

OK.

the absolute freedom of conscience

Yet the punishment for apostasy from Islam is death? You may chose to ignore it as the majority of Muslims do, but it's there in black and white. That among the most vile of crimes and punishments is disbelief? How long would an openly atheist man or woman last in your perfect Islamic state? Where's the "freedom" there? Allah even says he directly blinds disbelievers just so he can punish them 2:7 Allah hath sealed their hearing and their hearts, and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be an awful doom. So this is a "god" who purposely makes people unbelievers just to burn them in hell? Niiice.

the complete human equality

Yet a woman's witness is worth half a mans, her inheritance is less, that her husband is allowed hit her if other punishments don't work, where she can't travel freely without a man, how the very workings of her reproductive organs render her unclean and a sickness to the man who even touches her? Men are "a degree above women". 2:228 Where's the "equality" there?

and the firm social symbiosis,

Where every aspect of ones life to an obsessive compulsive degree is mapped out? Where attack is the order of the day? Where turn the other cheek is sadly lacking?

The mob is the mother of tyrants. If ten books say "Y".... Doesn't it mean "y" is truth..... Think, why ten are saying "Y"..... The first reaction to the truth is always hatred (that is why 10 are saying "y":))....See, how Jesus spoke ("X" )against tyranny ("Y") of Roman government...... So your logic is flawed why? .... It seems "y" is logical but doesn't mean "Y" is the truth..... Just for example watch this movie as example http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050083/. In this movie 11 are saying "Y" and only one is saying "X" but in the end, the one with "X'' was true........ You prefer to believe in "Y"..... It doesn't mean, because ten are saying "Y" or the one is saying "Y"

I agree. And that's where objectivity and logic comes in. To have objectivity one cannot start from the point that is predetermined.

See, there are good also historian but majority in historian had written history to praise kings---- to earn money---- to feed their hunger, For this purpose they invented in lies in the history and you are using the same history to find truth

And Muslim historians didn't do this? Are you serious? The example of Mecca is a good one. To every other culture in the area it's completely unknown, yet according to Muslim sources it's this very important trading and cultural centre? Doesn't make sense. It makes even less sense when the other cultures would have had no issue with reporting such a place before Muhammed even existed and the Quran claims it was founded by Abraham 1000's of years before and the Kaaba is the oldest building on earth built by Adam himself. Yet all the cultures in the 1000's of years don't notice it? The Quran states that Pharaohs in ancient Egypt crucified criminals. Crucifixion is a later Roman invention.

For this purpose God has preserved Quran till judgement day.......There is difference between history and revelation..... Revelation can't be history...

This is where we part in logic.

Revelation can only be history if it is corrupted by human ideas.....

Right, so even some of the very dubious history in the Quran backed up by evidence elsewhere doesn't matter?

As quran has no human ideas

Really? So God only speaks in 7th century Arabic(with words borrowed from other languages)? God decrees that men and women should dress like 7th century Arabs?

so it is pure revelation and this revelation carries weight our all the historian of all the world..... The reason for this is simple because it is unchangeable, where views of the historian are changeable with the passage of time. God cannot alter the past, though historians can.

IE It's right because we say it's right.

Your language is your mirror, i can see you in the mirror......

Spooky

How many follower Hitler has today........

Quite a few unfortunately. Look no further than finding copies of Mein Kampf on open display on the streets of a few Islamic countries.

The simple answer is..... All past prophets and revelations were limited in their authority. Their purpose is only to guide limited people..... As Jesus was sent only for children of Israel...... Islam is for the whole world and there is no prophet after Muhammmad, so God has preserved his revelation till judgment day...... We believe that all prophets gave guidance and instruction to their people about how to properly worship God and live their lives and all the prophet were muslims....

Nope that avoids the question entirely.

See, understanding islam and quran through twisted history/ twisted brain/twisted documentaries,won't bring you closer to truth.

And blindly believing one book will?

Do you know in UK islam is at peak,

Really? The many many millions of non Muslim British people might just disagree with you there. Indeed I would fear for their country should Islam ever take over. Among the poorest most backward nations on this planet are Muslim and the more religious they are the more backward and poor they become. The rich ones? Wait until the oil runs out.

So these types of documentary are necessary to control folks like you....

And here we have it. All about the control, by any means necessary. Yea in Europe we're familiar with that one in the past and we shook it off in the past. One reason why the Islamic world became so backward after an all too brief flowering of culture.

because it torches your reason to believe what you prefer to believe..... I ain't saying you must admit Islam as truth what i am saying'''At least distinguish between truth and lies".... you are exploring truth in the book of lies and propagating those lie in the name of justice....

Funny I could say exactly the same of you and I think more would agree with me than with you.

Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.

0
Options
#18 15-07-2011 2:11pm
fontanalis

Closed Accounts Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭

Join Date: January 2010

Posts: 3566

dead one wrote: »

Corruption can't provide cure.Make some sense comrade?...

What's the point?

0
Options
#19 15-07-2011 2:12pm
fontanalis

Closed Accounts Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭

Join Date: January 2010

Posts: 3566

dead one wrote: »

He was a social reformer.....There are three pillars upon which social justice in Islam is built: the absolute freedom of conscience, the complete human equality and the firm social symbiosis, and each one of these pillars is built upon the others.... His message gave the idea of he absolute freedom of conscience, the complete human equality and the firm social symbiosis to the world.....If you turn your eyes from truth then truth won't come to you...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice#Islam

The mob is the mother of tyrants. If ten books say "Y".... Doesn't it mean "y" is truth..... Think, why ten are saying "Y"..... The first reaction to the truth is always hatred (that is why 10 are saying "y":))....See, how Jesus spoke ("X" )against tyranny ("Y") of Roman government...... So your logic is flawed why? .... It seems "y" is logical but doesn't mean "Y" is the truth..... Just for example watch this movie as example http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050083/. In this movie 11 are saying "Y" and only one is saying "X" but in the end, the one with "X'' was true........ You prefer to believe in "Y"..... It doesn't mean, because ten are saying "Y" or the one is saying "Y"

See, there are good also historian but majority in historian had written history to praise kings---- to earn money---- to feed their hunger, For this purpose they invented in lies in the history and you are using the same history to find truth........ For this purpose God has preserved Quran till judgement day.......There is difference between history and revelation..... Revelation can't be history... Revelation can only be history if it is corrupted by human ideas..... As quran has no human ideas so it is pure revelation and this revelation carries weight our all the historian of all the world..... The reason for this is simple because it is unchangeable, where views of the historian are changeable with the passage of time. God cannot alter the past, though historians can.
"A history in which every particular incident may be true may on the whole be false. ''

and faith isn't blind--- right..... Faith is a torch which provides you the light to find what is truth if Ten are saying "Y" and if one is saying "X"

Your language is your mirror, i can see you in the mirror......

How many follower Hitler has today........

The simple answer is..... All past prophets and revelations were limited in their authority. Their purpose is only to guide limited people..... As Jesus was sent only for children of Israel...... Islam is for the whole world and there is no prophet after Muhammmad, so God has preserved his revelation till judgment day...... We believe that all prophets gave guidance and instruction to their people about how to properly worship God and live their lives and all the prophet were muslims....
Your history, from your books. Just one bias. If you like I

See, understanding islam and quran through twisted history/ twisted brain/twisted documentaries,won't bring you closer to truth. Do you know in UK islam is at peak, So these types of documentary are necessary to control folks like you....because it torches your reason to believe what you prefer to believe..... I ain't saying you must admit Islam as truth what i am saying'''At least distinguish between truth and lies".... you are exploring truth in the book of lies and propagating those lie in the name of justice....

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Syria get pally with a certain Nazi due to his role in killing juwes?

0
Options
#20 18-07-2011 10:34pm
Wibbs

Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,104 Mod ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: March 2005

Posts: 59033

Siuin wrote: »

Looking forward to the next episode of how Muhammad slaughtered the Jews of Medina. Not sure how they'll downplay genocide, but I'm sure they'll find a way.

Historical context apparently. Quelle surprise. Context, the harbour for the morally ambivalent, built for them by the otherwise moral faithful, who refuse to see the obvious. I also noted how they have so far nicely avoided his extra wives and slaves and caravan raiding and killing and further enslavement. It wasn't just the battle of the trench where his questionable beliefs and actions took place.

In fairness some commentators laboured the point that it was the first Jewish "holocaust". Touch of the modern martyr there in light of recent history IMHO. If it had been a Christian or Samite tribe I'm pretty sure the same would have happened. He still would have had them killed. it just happened to be Jews. Indeed under early Islam the Jews had a far happier and more equal lot in life than under Christians at the same time or later. Christian nations have had a far far worse record of Jewish persecution than Islamic nations ever had. Dubious though I find the later martial and frankly to my mind dangerous to be around Muhammed, I really don't see him as anti semitic. On the other hand too many Muslims today and Muslims a few generations away from the source I would. In that respect a couple of the Muslim commentators were right.

Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.

0
Options
#21 19-07-2011 4:58am
Siuin

Closed Accounts Posts: 1,659 ✭✭✭

Join Date: July 2011

Posts: 1600

Wibbs wrote: »

Historical context apparently. Quelle surprise. Context, the harbour for the morally ambivalent, built for them by the otherwise moral faithful, who refuse to see the obvious. I also noted how they have so far nicely avoided his extra wives and slaves and caravan raiding and killing and further enslavement. It wasn't just the battle of the trench where his questionable beliefs and actions took place.

Wow, I'm not in the country at the moment so couldn't watch it myself, but while it's disgusting that they allow the broadcasting of such obviously selective material, it's hardly surprising. People need to censor it in their minds so that they don't feel like creeps for following such a perverted religion. I had an argument with two Muslims in Jerusalem who were attempting to convert me because I told them that I wouldn't join a religion where the penalty for leaving was death. They refused point blank to acknowledge that such a law existed and simply started screaming at me and going nuts. Truth hurts, I guess. But if people wish to believe that Muhammad isn't morally culpable for mass murder because of 'historical context' (since apparently slaughter is not so bad given an adequate amount of time) then that is simply proof of their warped mentality.

0
Advertisement
Options
#22 19-07-2011 9:40am
Wibbs

Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,104 Mod ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: March 2005

Posts: 59033

Siuin wrote: »

I had an argument with two Muslims in Jerusalem who were attempting to convert me because I told them that I wouldn't join a religion where the penalty for leaving was death. They refused point blank to acknowledge that such a law existed and simply started screaming at me and going nuts. Truth hurts, I guess.

Just as likely they themselves didn't know this S. Or vaguely heard it somewhere, but because the vast majority of people in the world are decent and this wouldn't compute just ignored it. Like Christians who will happily think of the forgiving and loving Jesus all day long while avoiding the old testament stuff where apparently the same god is a murderous psycho and tormentor of men women and kids for shíts and giggles. Jews do the same or more. Passover is a great occasion for family and celebrating freedom(and a great boozeup to boot), the part about their god slaughtering one presumes innocent children is naturally left out.

But if people wish to believe that Muhammad isn't morally culpable for mass murder because of 'historical context' (since apparently slaughter is not so bad given an adequate amount of time) then that is simply proof of their warped mentality.

Or just the above self deceit. Though it is funny where context is used. So killing POW's is ok in context and for the time. Ditto for middle aged men marrying children. It was the times you know(and it was). But how does that square with it being a religion for all times and all cultures? It doesn't.

Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.

0
Options
#23 19-07-2011 10:42am
dead one

Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,320 ✭✭✭

Join Date: February 2011

Posts: 1312

Wibbs wrote: »

Yet the punishment for apostasy from Islam is death?

There is a misconception about this issue. Punishment for apostasy in islamic interpretations is death. Holy Quran doesn't provide the death sentence for those who leave Islam.

Wibbs wrote: »

You may chose to ignore it as the majority of Muslims do, but it's there in black and white. That among the most vile of crimes and punishments is disbelief? How long would an openly atheist man or woman last in your perfect Islamic state?

If you look upon quran, it clearly says, there is no compulsion in religion. Again-- if people aren't following orders of God, then it is fault of people not God/Religion.

Wibbs wrote: »

Where's the "freedom" there? Allah even says he directly blinds disbelievers just so he can punish them 2:7 Allah hath sealed their hearing and their hearts, and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be an awful doom. So this is a "god" who purposely makes people unbelievers just to burn them in hell? Niiice.

Submission to the will of God is the source of all freedom. It liberates the nature of human from the evil influences of the world. It guides mankind overcome dictators,tyrants, unjust laws, greed/lusts, deviation and psychological complexes which enslave his will. The freedom which you are looking for isn't freedom at all.... It is slavery...... So, your concept of freedom is totally different than of Islamic concept of Freedom. Now come to the point why Allah has blinded disbeliever?, See human nature becomes corrupt if it involves with corruption. Those who have disbelieved they have chosen corruption instead of cure..... Islam clearly says there are two paths, Path X and Path Y and also mentions that Path Y isn't good, If a person chooses path Y with clear guidance then problem is with person not the message.

Wibbs wrote: »

Yet a woman's witness is worth half a mans, her inheritance is less, that her husband is allowed hit her if other punishments don't work, where she can't travel freely without a man, how the very workings of her reproductive organs render her unclean and a sickness to the man who even touches her? Men are "a degree above women". 2:228 Where's the "equality" there?
Where every aspect of ones life to an obsessive compulsive degree is mapped out? Where attack is the order of the day? Where turn the other cheek is sadly lacking?

See, "a degree above women".... It is example of great dishonesty which you are portraying on innocent minds...... "a degree above women" doesn't mean men are better than women or women are superior than women... It means men are more responsible for their family than of women. It is responsibility of man to feed his wife, her children etc... Women isnt responsible for that....... This is how God has favored women, Responsibly isn't superiority. See house/home is like an organisation. An organisation can't have to heads at the same time..... So, head of house as per God teaching is man... It doesn't mean man is superior than woman, it means man is more responsible than women.... Now if any member of organization breaks or violate the rules God has ordered man to punish him........ It is same as criminal being punished in courts..... Why societies in west have broken family system, it is because they dont have perfect family systems.... What provides perfect family system, that is Islam.

Wibbs wrote: »

And Muslim historians didn't do this? Are you serious?

where i said, even majority of muslim historians were of also corrupt,

Wibbs wrote: »

The Quran states that Pharaohs in ancient Egypt crucified criminals. Crucifixion is a later Roman invention.

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/crucify.html

Wibbs wrote: »

This is where we part in logic. Right, so even some of the very dubious history in the Quran backed up by evidence elsewhere doesn't matter?Really? So God only speaks in 7th century Arabic(with words borrowed from other languages)? God decrees that men and women should dress like 7th century Arabs? IE It's right because we say it's right.

Is their any universal language which you understand?

Wibbs wrote: »

And blindly believing one book will? Really? The many many millions of non Muslim British people might just disagree with you there. Indeed I would fear for their country should Islam ever take over. Among the poorest most backward nations on this planet are Muslim and the more religious they are the more backward and poor they become. The rich ones? Wait until the oil runs out. And here we have it. All about the control, by any means necessary. Yea in Europe we're familiar with that one in the past and we shook it off in the past. One reason why the Islamic world became so backward after an all too brief flowering of culture. Funny I could say exactly the same of you and I think more would agree with me than with you.

Muslim are poor because they have left the teaching of islam.... Fault isn't with Islam, fault is with muslims...... Right...... See, this video might help you to understand what i am trying to say..... what is purpose of such distorted documentaries..... Like "Life of Muhammad".... What is purpose of banning Islamic scholar?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUphBjiTfXo

0
Options
#24 19-07-2011 12:18pm
Wibbs

Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,104 Mod ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: March 2005

Posts: 59033

dead one wrote: »

If you look upon quran, it clearly says, there is no compulsion in religion. Again-- if people aren't following orders of God, then it is fault of people not God/Religion.

No compulsion in religion eh? Yet another example of contradiction in this book. Set against the no compulsion part we have;

If they ... assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief. ...
Fight them! Allah will chastise them at your hands, and He will lay them low and give you victory over them 9:12-14

Slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. 9:5

They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve ... take them and kill them wherever ye find them. 4:89

And there's a lot more where that came from. In the main hadeeth, the ones considered the most correct and having the best lines of transmission Muhammed clearly and more than once says apostasy = death.

See, "a degree above women".... It is example of great dishonesty which you are portraying on innocent minds.....

Hmmm, not superior you say? OK then what about this;

Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. 4:34

4:98 Except the feeble among men, and the women, and the children, who are unable to devise a plan and are not shown a way.

Add to this that women have much less freedom or movement without a mans permission and escort.

OK dead one, answer me this if you can.
Do you think men and women should be able to work together in an office or other workplace?
Do you think women should be engineers, doctors, lawyers? Do you think women should play sports?
Do you think women should be in government?
Do you think women should be allowed to travel on their own or with other women or men?

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/crucify.html

More of the same trying to squeeze a square peg into a round hole. Even better using the Islamic sources to prove... yep you guessed it, the Islamic sources.

Is their any universal language which you understand?

A simple concept is easily transmissible in pretty much any language. Even highly complex concepts are. As we speak there are people exchanging ideas and building science and technology that impacts all our lives and doing so in many different languages. The truth is translatable.

Muslim are poor because they have left the teaching of islam.... Fault isn't with Islam, fault is with muslims...... Right......

This is a common explanation alright. Problem being that there's never been a perfect Islamic state. Even the state under the prophet had problems. You would think that such a perfect set of instructions would lead to Muslims of all people to build a better state. The christians managed it. Not because they were christians, but because at a very low level christianity is separate from the state. Oh the churches tried to rule, but there was always the theological/philosophical separation. Straight from their prophets mouth "give all to Caesar that is Caesars/My kingdom is not of this earth". That made them far more flexible and adaptable. EG The Islamic world had access to the invention of printing before christian Europe. Yet what did they do with it? Nothing. The first printed bible? 1456. The first printed Quran? 1798 three and half centuries later. Even then it was printed in Russia not in an Islamic country. Then there was a german one printed by a German in the mid 1800's. The first widely standardised Quran in print produced by an Islamic country? 1925. In Egypt. Compare and contrast. The rigidity in Islamic thinking save for a brief flowering in early Islam(as much to do with their access to Greek and other texts lost to the west) has kept Islamic nations far behind on the world stage. Again not what one would expect of a perfect system.

See, this video might help you to understand what i am trying to say..... what is purpose of such distorted documentaries..... Like "Life of Muhammad".... What is purpose of banning Islamic scholar?

Well they did have Islamic scholars in the documentary. Did you actually watch it or are you doing the usual trick of assuming the worst?

And you post a video by Zakir Naik? He's a Wahabi for a start. The version of Islam that has given the rest of the Muslim world such a bad name since its inception. Even among Wahabi's he's considered a bit over the top. He's supported Bin Laden and quite a few Islamic terrorists/freedom fighters(depending on viewpoint) have cited him as an influence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bxk5AAA5FbI&feature=player_embedded
Islam is terror among other beauties. I suppose that's context though....
His opinions on women are at the extreme of Islamic thought. He also states apostates should be killed. He farcically states that other religions should be banned in muslim countries(against the Quran and Islamic law), but of course other countries should allow Islam. Plus he can't even read Arabic, so how is he in any way a scholar?

TBH if you're coming from the same position as Naik, I'm outa here. It's says too much for me. Real dangerous stuff.

Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.

0
Options
#25 19-07-2011 9:24pm
Galvasean

Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: September 2006

Posts: 29410

Wibbs wrote: »

Historical context apparently.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfrO6LJyhII

0
Options
#26 20-07-2011 8:15am
dead one

Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,320 ✭✭✭

Join Date: February 2011

Posts: 1312

Wibbs wrote: »

No compulsion in religion eh? Yet another example of contradiction in this book. Set against the no compulsion part we have;

Slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. 9:5

let me clear this first, non-muslims, at the time of Prophet muhammad, were worst enemies of Islam, .they kept an eye on prophet being hypocrite by calling them selves believer/Muslims. ......but they were disbelievers in heart..Allah has knowledge of everything..... Allah warned muslims against them

If they ... assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief. ...
Fight them! Allah will chastise them at your hands, and He will lay them low and give you victory over them 9:12-14

The verses were revealed in context when nonbelievers broken a peace treaty by killing innocent Muslims at time of night... The reason was, islam was spreading in Arabia. In responding their act God had revealed this chapter by ordering muslim to kill those non-believer who had done this dirty act..... Now, why you are being dishonest..... What do yo want to prove by picking verses and then making your own context to fool mankind...... Why you don't ask to yourself..... Is this honesty?, what you are doing in the name love....... Please clarify me? what makes you to do that, Isn't it your belief which you prefer to believe....

They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve ... take them and kill them wherever ye find them. 4:89

You put verses out of context to make people fool about quran and Islam.......Your sole purpose is to spread misconception for Islam..I don't know what makes you to do such acts......because you know any human after listening this that kill any non-believer will immediatly go against Islam..see you can try these tricks,but infact you are tricking yourself....Now understand why God has blinded disbeliever.... Now understand why they are deaf and dumb ...... That is what dishonesty what you have learned from anti Islamic material/sites/programs/twisted minds..... God has given you brain and conscience why you don't use it....

And there's a lot more where that came from. In the main hadeeth, the ones considered the most correct and having the best lines of transmission Muhammed clearly and more than once says apostasy = death.

We prefer book of Allah, Book of Allah doesn't say anything about it even you will find, prophet was symbol of mercy and love..... He forgave his enemies then why should i believe those hadiths which say he liked killing in his own name....... See, it doesn't make any sense...

Wibbs wrote: »

Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. 4:34

4:98 Except the feeble among men, and the women, and the children, who are unable to devise a plan and are not shown a way.

You are charge of your women/family...... It is man, head of family, So he is charge of his family /his wife/his sons/ and daughters... Now apply this context to whole families in the world....... It is man, head family who can control his family from evils..... If a man as head of family guides what is best for his family then i am sure..... There will be no strips club/sex scenes/porn movies/sale girls/ blonde/models in the world.... No woman will display her beauty to attract customers....Quran provides you the solution..... See this is beginning of well disciplined society. Only person bold can guard fair sex.... This is universal reality....... Why you don't see in your society, where children are born without fathers and even they don't know the names of their father in their whole lives.... This is because men aren't charge of women...... Even your media is corrupting Muslim societies as well.... Do you think, Is this all right?

Wibbs wrote: »

Do you think men and women should be able to work together in an office or other workplace?

No, you don't know outcomes, men working with women.....See, you can't control natural human desires...... Women and men can only work together if they are perfect in controlling their desires..... but it is impossible.... You see, Wibbs, God doesn't make woman for strip clubs/casino/ porn movies/advertisement/sex object in offices. Fate doesn't butcher her and destiny doesn't feed her to those ainimal. It is the same man who is charge of women and misusing his charge to feed his desires........... This is how men are charge of women..

Wibbs wrote: »

Do you think women should be engineers, doctors, lawyers? Do you think women should play sports?

See, i ain't against education of women, or her jobs she can do whatever she wish but within context by following God's order... Now if you don't follow that context then outcomes are there you can see....open your eyes wibbs and see how free women are in your society and same media is corrupting innocent minds..... Where every born thought is imprisoned in dungeon of sex...
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056275829

Wibbs wrote: »

Do you think women should be in government?
Do you think women should be allowed to travel on their own or with other women or men?

Do you think it is safe for women to travel in a society which portrays her as sex object.... .See, wibb, you can't ignore reality......

Wibbs wrote: »

A simple concept is easily transmissible in pretty much any language. Even highly complex concepts are. As we speak there are people exchanging ideas and building science and technology that impacts all our lives and doing so in many different languages. The truth is translatable.

concept is very simple, believe in Allah, in his books---- his messengers--- and follow what is right.... So where is problem..... Has science been wrong before? answer is "yes" that's why God didn't use science.....Science is research to find truth about God and his words..... You see, wibbs, science has disproved claims in the bible why because science is eliminating models of God not God....

And you post a video by Zakir Naik? He's a Wahabi for a start. The version of Islam that has given the rest of the Muslim world such a bad name since its inception. Even among Wahabi's he's considered a bit over the top. He's supported Bin Laden and quite a few Islamic terrorists/freedom fighters(depending on viewpoint) have cited him as an influence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bxk5AAA5FbI&feature=player_embedded
Islam is terror among other beauties. I suppose that's context though....
His opinions on women are at the extreme of Islamic thought. He also states apostates should be killed. He farcically states that other religions should be banned in muslim countries(against the Quran and Islamic law), but of course other countries should allow Islam. Plus he can't even read Arabic, so how is he in any way a scholar?

i ain't fan of zakir naik.... i posted the video only to convery message
BTW: would kindly you give me reference for the bold font....i mean where you have learned this from.... Please give me the reference of exact videos in which doctor Zakir naik has made all above claims........... As far as, I know he has no support for Osama bin Ladin, he only said as he doesn't know Osama so he can't say nothing about him..... I don't know what makes you do that.... Why you aren't using your own brain.... Is their any problem with your own brain....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?

You see wibbs, if i pick a phrase from your quote then try to explain people, people will not understand your thoughts , they won't able to learn your thought..... You posted 59 second video... The video has context which explains why muslim should be a terrorist.... The context is that muslim put terror in the hearts of thieves/tyrants/dictators/criminal.s... this is how a muslim should be terrorist.... That's why doctor Zakir is explaining in the video but you posted 59 seconds to make your own context.... It is example of great dishonesty..... I can see, Mr wibbs what you can't see.... why i am seeing because i ain't selfish.... the reason i ain't selish is, because i don't surrenderer myself to desires but to the will of Allah..... I hope Mr..wibbs .....you will be honest one day and try to understand what i am saying....... You will soon see Mr wibbs.

0
Options
#27 20-07-2011 8:50am
Delirium

Moderators Posts: 51,726 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: March 2008

Posts: 50715

dead one wrote: »

Slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. 9:5

let me clear this first, non-muslims, at the time of Prophet muhammad, were worst enemies of Islam, .they kept an eye on prophet being hypocrite by calling them selves believer/Muslims. ......but they were disbelievers in heart..Allah has knowledge of everything..... Allah warned muslims against them

Thats not what that verse is about according to any searches I've done. It actually is saying that the best way to be safe from Muslims is to convert, otherwise you run the risk of being attacked by them.

The verses were revealed in context when nonbelievers broken a peace treaty by killing innocent Muslims at time of night... The reason was, islam was spreading in Arabia. In responding their act God had revealed this chapter by ordering muslim to kill those non-believer who had done this dirty act..... Now, why you are being dishonest..... What do yo want to prove by picking verses and then making your own context to fool mankind...... Why you don't ask to yourself..... Is this honesty?, what you are doing in the name love....... Please clarify me? what makes you to do that, Isn't it your belief which you prefer to believe....

That is just what Muslim apologists have come up with to try and explain away the more violent passages of the quaran. If they were being attacked, why would they need to be inspired to go to war?

According to some studies of the quaran, Muhammad was attempting to redefine persecution in order to convince the Muslims that they were under it.

You put verses out of context to make people fool about quran and Islam.......Your sole purpose is to spread misconception for Islam..I don't know what makes you to do such acts......because you know any human after listening this that kill any non-believer will immediatly go against Islam..see you can try these tricks,but infact you are tricking yourself....Now understand why God has blinded disbeliever.... Now understand why they are deaf and dumb ...... That is what dishonesty what you have learned from anti Islamic material/sites/programs/twisted minds..... God has given you brain and conscience why you don't use it....

We could make the same point that someone who uses just one book to define their world view also hasn't switched on the brain;)

We prefer book of Allah, Book of Allah doesn't say anything about it even you will find, prophet was symbol of mercy and love..... He forgave his enemies then why should i believe those hadiths which say he liked killing in his own name....... See, it doesn't make any sense...

the same Allah that promised to send Muslims to hell if they didn't pick up the sword against the infidels?

You are charge of your women/family...... It is man, head of family, So he is charge of his family /his wife/his sons/ and daughters... Now apply this context to whole families in the world....... It is man, head family who can control his family from evils..... If a man as head of family guides what is best for his family then i am sure..... There will be no strips club/sex scenes/porn movies/sale girls/ blonde/models in the world.... No woman will display her beauty to attract customers....Quran provides you the solution..... See this is beginning of well disciplined society. Only person bold can guard fair sex.... This is universal reality....... Why you don't see in your society, where children are born without fathers and even they don't know the names of their father in their whole lives.... This is because men aren't charge of women...... Even your media is corrupting Muslim societies as well.... Do you think, Is this all right?

again with the "women are corrupting humanity" nonsense? :rolleyes::rolleyes:

No, you don't know outcomes, men working with women.....See, you can't control natural human desires...... Women and men can only work together if they are perfect in controlling their desires..... but it is impossible.... You see, Wibbs, God doesn't make woman for strip clubs/casino/ porn movies/advertisement/sex object in offices. Fate doesn't butcher her and destiny doesn't feed her to those ainimal. It is the same man who is charge of women and misusing his charge to feed his desires........... This is how men are charge of women..

So men have to control women because islam views men as unable to treat women as equals? If you tell men (as islam seems do by the content of your posts) that they control women, how do you expect them to treat them as equals?

See, i ain't against education of women, or her jobs she can do whatever she wish but within context by following God's order... Now if you don't follow that context then outcomes are there you can see....open your eyes wibbs and see how free women are in your society and same media is corrupting innocent minds..... Where every born thought is imprisoned in dungeon of sex...
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056275829

You're contradicting yourself now. You're not against education of women, as long as they don't break the orders of god. That's not freedom to pursue any education they like, it's just a very long leash.

Do you think it is safe for women to travel in a society which portrays her as sex object.... .See, wibb, you can't ignore reality......

Do you think it is safe for women to travel in a society where she runs the risk of being stoned to death for being accused of adultery, even if it's a lie?

concept is very simple, believe in Allah, in his books---- his messengers--- and follow what is right.... So where is problem..... Has science been wrong before? answer is "yes" that's why God didn't use science.....Science is research to find truth about God and his words..... You see, wibbs, science has disproved claims in the bible why because science is eliminating models of God not God....

you don't understand what science is based on the quote above.

If you can read this, you're too close!

0
Options
#28 20-07-2011 3:12pm
Wibbs

Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,104 Mod ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: March 2005

Posts: 59033

dead one wrote: »

let me clear this first, non-muslims, at the time of Prophet muhammad, were worst enemies of Islam,

Right. All those in Mecca who had every chance to kill him at the start, or those non muslims in Medina who welcomed him? Amazing how he survived for so long with all those "enemies".

The verses were revealed in context when nonbelievers broken a peace treaty by killing innocent Muslims at time of night... The reason was, islam was spreading in Arabia. In responding their act God had revealed this chapter by ordering muslim to kill those non-believer who had done this dirty act.....

Other prophets and holy men didn't need to kill to protect their faith. Many died for it and still their faith survived. You speak of context and of the time, but nowhere does the Quran say those verses are abrogated. Nowhere does it say this happened then but only then. Nowhere.

Now, why you are being dishonest..... What do yo want to prove by picking verses and then making your own context to fool mankind......

Irony, thy name is dead one.

Why you don't ask to yourself..... Is this honesty?, what you are doing in the name love.......

Under the guidance of your prophet 1000's died. Where is the "love" there?

You put verses out of context to make people fool about quran and Islam.......Your sole purpose is to spread misconception for Islam..I don't know what makes you to do such acts......because you know any human after listening this that kill any non-believer will immediatly go against Islam..see you can try these tricks,but infact you are tricking yourself....Now understand why God has blinded disbeliever.... Now understand why they are deaf and dumb ...... That is what dishonesty what you have learned from anti Islamic material/sites/programs/twisted minds..... God has given you brain and conscience why you don't use it....

If you are correct and this faith is all about peace, love and compassion, how is it that many scholars, respected scholars among your faith would agree with me?

We prefer book of Allah, Book of Allah doesn't say anything about it even you will find, prophet was symbol of mercy and love..... He forgave his enemies then why should i believe those hadiths which say he liked killing in his own name....... See, it doesn't make any sense...

The book of Allah contains page after page of intolerance and calls to aggression. I invite anyone to read it for themselves. There are far more intolerant passages than tolerant ones. Allah curses others more than he praises. There are more references to killing, fighting and death than there are references to prayer.

Only person bold can guard fair sex....

You see civilisations reduce the savage in us. Women don't require "bold men" to protect them.

This is because men aren't charge of women......

Yes cos the poor women are too stupid to be in charge of themselves.
Basically women are inferior to men. We get this. Hey even the Quran points this out as far as compensation goes;
2:178 O ye who believe! Retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the murdered; the freeman for the freeman, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female.Women come last after slaves(I'd put money the word slave in this case means male slave, though even a female slave s worth more cash than a "free" woman). If a woman was equally valued a male would compensate. Never mind how primitive this is as a notion of law or justice.

No, you don't know outcomes, men working with women.....See, you can't control natural human desires...... Women and men can only work together if they are perfect in controlling their desires..... but it is impossible....

So no then. Women shouldn't work in offices with men.

You see, Wibbs, God doesn't make woman for strip clubs/casino/ porn movies/advertisement/sex object in offices.

What sort of daft experiences have you had in offices? You do know that women actually work in them. Maybe ins some odd sex fantasy offices are hotbeds of perversion or maybe Muslim men can't control themselves(more on that later), but reality is very different.

See, i ain't against education of women, or her jobs she can do whatever she wish but within context by following God's order...

So basically she can educate herself, but can't work outside the home. Yea I can see how that fulfills her wishes. This folks is how primitive some of this guff is.

Now if you don't follow that context then outcomes are there you can see....open your eyes wibbs and see how free women are in your society and same media is corrupting innocent minds..... Where every born thought is imprisoned in dungeon of sex...
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056275829

Jesus.:rolleyes:

Do you think it is safe for women to travel in a society which portrays her as sex object.... .See, wibb, you can't ignore reality......

Millions of women travel millions of miles every day without any problems what so ever. You know, free women in more equal cultures, not backward ones.

Though in those more equal countries some Muslims it seems have difficulty with leaving non Muslim women alone. The recent and ongoing cases in the UK where "asian" men were raping and prostituting non asian women. That's an insult to Asian men. It wasn't Seikhs or Hindus or Buddhists doing this, it was Muslim men. Of course the media ever cautious about insulting Islam or any other culture rarely points this out, but that's what happened. To these Muslim men, non Muslim women are whores. That's the mentality behind this BS. Lets look at Norway, a very liberal and advanced society. In Oslo in 2010 all reported sexual assaults and rapes were carried out by Muslim men on non Muslim women. Not a majority, not a minority, ALL. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_rHFKRwv5Y&NR=1 Again the media tries to be sensitive about it, but watch the video and see for yourselves. This has been reported in other areas of Europe with high Muslim populations. Western women are more in danger from Muslim men than they are from those liberal infidels. No wonder dead one suggests a woman needs a "person bold" to protect her. Well in a faith where a woman who is raped is as likely to end up being whipped or thrown in Gaol for reporting rape. Where the only way she can be proven right is if 4 witnesses come forward to back her up. 4 male witnesses by the way. So unless you have clinically depressed suicidal rapists it's not very likely. Oh then her family will likely disown her or even kill her, for not defending her honour. So even if you're a Muslim woman who is raped it's worse than if you're a western woman. Are Muslim men rapists? Hell no, but it gives more of an excuse to the ones that are. Well if the Quran says you can have intercourse with captured women after a battle, I'm not surprised.

i ain't fan of zakir naik.... i posted the video only to convery message
BTW: would kindly you give me reference for the bold font....i mean where you have learned this from.... Please give me the reference of exact videos in which doctor Zakir naik has made all above claims........... As far as, I know he has no support for Osama bin Ladin, he only said as he doesn't know Osama so he can't say nothing about him.....

Watch the video. He deflects the question by saying he doesn't know him, but also says that if he's fighting terrorists/America then he supports him.

I don't know what makes you do that.... Why you aren't using your own brain.... Is their any problem with your own brain....

Irony again.

Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.

0
Options
#29 21-07-2011 3:52am
Siuin

Closed Accounts Posts: 1,659 ✭✭✭

Join Date: July 2011

Posts: 1600

Wibbs wrote: »

Though in those more equal countries some Muslims it seems have difficulty with leaving non Muslim women alone. The recent and ongoing cases in the UK where "asian" men were raping and prostituting non asian women. That's an insult to Asian men. It wasn't Seikhs or Hindus or Buddhists doing this, it was Muslim men. Of course the media ever cautious about insulting Islam or any other culture rarely points this out, but that's what happened. To these Muslim men, non Muslim women are whores. That's the mentality behind this BS. Lets look at Norway, a very liberal and advanced society. In Oslo in 2010 all reported sexual assaults and rapes were carried out by Muslim men on non Muslim women. Not a majority, not a minority, ALL. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_rHFKRwv5Y&NR=1 Again the media tries to be sensitive about it, but watch the video and see for yourselves. This has been reported in other areas of Europe with high Muslim populations. Western women are more in danger from Muslim men than they are from those liberal infidels. No wonder dead one suggests a woman needs a "person bold" to protect her. Well in a faith where a woman who is raped is as likely to end up being whipped or thrown in Gaol for reporting rape. Where the only way she can be proven right is if 4 witnesses come forward to back her up. 4 male witnesses by the way. So unless you have clinically depressed suicidal rapists it's not very likely. Oh then her family will likely disown her or even kill her, for not defending her honour. So even if you're a Muslim woman who is raped it's worse than if you're a western woman. Are Muslim men rapists? Hell no, but it gives more of an excuse to the ones that are. Well if the Quran says you can have intercourse with captured women after a battle, I'm not surprised

I can vouch for this 100%. Never had I experienced so much ass groping, inappropriate comments or just plain outright pervertedness as I did strictly within the Muslim quarter of Jerusalem. In any of the other 3 (Jewish, Armenian, Christian- the majority being Arab Christians, might I add) there were absolutely no problems, but the Muslim men felt as if they'd some kind of god given right to terrorise any vaguely young Western woman that walked through. I later complained, and the immediate response from another Muslim man was to ask me what I had been wearing- women are always, always to blame (and for the record, even a western woman can wear their full head to toe covered dealie and it still doesn't matter.) It's only when you put the religions side by side in a small area that you truly recognise the problem.

0
Options
#30 21-07-2011 1:15pm
Wibbs

Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,104 Mod ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: March 2005

Posts: 59033

Basically because of all the Abrahamic religions, mainstream Islam sexualises women more. EG they cover up in the time of their lives when they're "available". Technically speaking an old woman doesn't have to cover up, neither does a young girl. Women are second class citizens. They're below the "head of the household" the man. They're below him in witness and in law. Especially anything to do with sexual law. As you say it's the woman's fault. Reading the texts, womens place in society is to be wives, mothers and concubines or booty. It also believes men are uncontrollable sexual beings and even the merest sight of a woman will inflame dangerous sexual passions. Considering the cultural climate where it sprang up, this is not that unsurprising and Siuin's experiences show this still holds in the cultural psyche. It indirectly takes away men's responsibility for their own actions. By covering up women it fetishises those uncovered women. It marks them out as not "pure" or "faithful" so it's a double whammy. The non faithful are the worst people of all, which is repeated ad nauseum in the Quran(the most accepted hadeeth are even worse on this score and are beyond primitive when it comes to women). So a woman already a degree below men is in trouble, so a non muslim uncovered women is open season. Like I said this does not mean Muslim men are rapists or mysoginists, but it does make them much more likely to be.

Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.

0
Advertisement
Options
#31 21-07-2011 3:23pm
LondonIrish90

Closed Accounts Posts: 882 ✭✭✭

Join Date: August 2010

Posts: 873

dead one wrote: »

Do you know in UK islam is at peak

I take it you have never been to Britain then? I expect you would be incredibly surprised and hopefully quite disgusted at the state of modern British society.

Women are for the most part given the utmost respect. People have religious, sexual, political, and cultural freedoms. In fact, in terms of civil liberties afforded to Brits then it is about as far from an islamic state as you can get.

If Islam did ever become "peak" in Britain then I'd expect a civil war.

Also, just to put it in perspective, there are more daily mail readers than muslims in Britain

0