Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 25 of 25

Thread: The connecting link

  1. #21
    God bless the USA. Ack!! Bill the Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Central VA
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    16,709
    Amen (Given)
    8258
    Amen (Received)
    8800
    Quote 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.


    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 ---

  2. Amen Chrawnus amen'd this post.
  3. #22
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Faith
    general theist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    53
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    6
    Quote 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???

  4. #23
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Faith
    Muslim
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,092
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    48
    "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....?..........

  5. #24
    God bless the USA. Ack!! Bill the Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Central VA
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    16,709
    Amen (Given)
    8258
    Amen (Received)
    8800
    Quote 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.


    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 ---

  6. #25
    God bless the USA. Ack!! Bill the Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Central VA
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    16,709
    Amen (Given)
    8258
    Amen (Received)
    8800
    Quote 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.


    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 ---

  7. Amen theophilus amen'd this post.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •