[Shasown]

Originally Posted by ElProximo

Why would you ask that question?

I asked that question because of this comment and the one sided bile you posted.

Originally Posted by ElProximo

In this case I might suppose that if the man is demonstrating more dedication to Islam then that is all the more reason to be afraid of him carrying out more violence in the future.

Thats a very bigotted view, have you for example studied the Qu'ran? I bet the answers no but you have read all the bile on certain anti-islamic sites. So you now know that a true Muslim wants to spread the word of Allah and kill all infidels, there are similar quotes in the bible about spreading the word of God.

Originally Posted by ElProximo

Most Muslims in the world will agree with, condone or 'prefer' most Islamic terrorist attacks.

Where did you get that nugget of non information from? You have statistics to back that up?

Originally Posted by ElProximo

The MORE the Christian follows his bible and the more seriously he adheres the less he will be motivated to explode a gay nightclub.

What garbage, a fundamental Christian following the bible can find sections of the bible that advocate the killing of homosexuals etc. There just isnt the promise of a hero's welcome and reward of 72 virgins. If you want to read up on some of the carnage created by "fundi christians" try an in depth study of Beirut and the Lebanon. Or you could start here http://www.jesus21.com/content/sex/index.php?s=mormon

Obviously you dont like Muslims, but it is pointless of tarring them all with the same brush. What you advocate is called religious bigotry, in some cases its covered by anti-racism and other anti social behaviour laws. It is no better than the rantings of fundamental Muslim mullahs.

[ElProximo]

Originally Posted by Shasown

I asked that question because of this comment and the one sided bile you posted.

So you ask nonsensical questions to counter something you dislike?
What an odd way to communicate.

Thats a very bigotted view, have you for example studied the Qu'ran? I bet the answers no but you have read all the bile on certain anti-islamic sites. So you now know that a true Muslim wants to spread the word of Allah and kill all infidels, there are similar quotes in the bible about spreading the word of God.

First, you should know that bile is essential to our bodies health and keeps us alive and well.

I haven't studied the entire Koran but I can tell you it says a lot of things and those do include plenty of encouragements to kill, slaughter, destroy and make war on infidels, in the name of Allah so they will submit to Allah.
however...
...Actually this is NOT as simple as reading it and then you ought to immediately murder the next Jew you see (as some Muslim sects would teach) but this is the 'last resort' and 'when expedient'.
If it were going to help you would.
IF Saudi Arabia COULD defeat the UK, take power and bring all Brits 'under the house of Islam' then they SHOULD do that,
but,
As long as it is better to reach that goal through immigration, evangelism and conversion then that is what you do.

So its really not complicated here - whatever means best bring that land and people to submit will be the preferred means.
Simple as that.

Where did you get that nugget of non information from? You have statistics to back that up?

Do you ever wonder why there was nothing but silence from the Islamic world following (nearly any) terrorist attacks?

Plenty of polls and stats were attempted across the Arab world and many with some very convoluted wording,
but,
the overall story is that majorities of Muslims in the Arab world DONT condemn these attacks and say they are 'better than nothing'.

You go fetch me the stats. I'm sure you can cherry-pick some select polls suggesting the opposite. Good luck!
I was with a group of Muslims who celebrated and cheered a suicide-bomb in Indonesia that killed mostly Australians.
You would have thought the home team just won the World Cup.

What garbage, a fundamental Christian following the bible can find sections of the bible that advocate the killing of homosexuals etc. There just isnt the promise of a hero's welcome and reward of 72 virgins. If you want to read up on some of the carnage created by "fundi christians" try an in depth study of Beirut and the Lebanon. Or you could start here http://www.jesus21.com/content/sex/index.php?s=mormon

Actually an Israelite could find an instruction to execute other Israelites who engaged in homosexuality.
I do not know if orthodox Jews still practice that within their own community but I suppose they simply 'shun' them now.

Iran regularly hangs homosexuals.

Obviously you dont like Muslims,

That is not obvious and I think you just accused me of that so to manipulate hatred against me.

In fact I happen to really love most Muslims I have met. Not all of them but most of them so far.
In fact, I think Iranians are some of the kindest, most polite, easy-going and genuinely friendly people on the planet.
In fact... I think the vast majority of Muslims deserve far better than the rubbish Mohammad gave them.
They are too good for that Koran. They are much bigger and better than what Islam offers them.

but it is pointless of tarring them all with the same brush. What you advocate is called religious bigotry, in some cases its covered by anti-racism and other anti social behaviour laws. It is no better than the rantings of fundamental Muslim mullahs.

I bet you would love to get my thoughts and opinions banned so that (you believe) nobody else will hear and agree with them,
but,
If there was anything wrong with what I'm telling you then you ought to welcome the opportunity to correct it.
IF you REALLY cared about the truth?

I have just told you that the vast majority of terrorist attacks in recent decades are mostly committed by men who want to adhere more strictly to Islam.
Sorry to tell you the truth.
If you really cared about Muslims you would want to stop this. So far these acts end up hurting... hurting other Muslims. Directly and indirectly.
and,
since you are so against 'hate crimes' then maybe you need to be concerned about how many dedicated Muslims study the Koran diligently and participate intensely before MURDERING JEWS, BUDDHIST, CHRISTIANS and many others BECAUSE they are those faiths and BECAUSE they are not Muslims.

Where is your 'anti-bigotry' now?

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by ElProximo

So you ask nonsensical questions to counter something you dislike?
What an odd way to communicate.

First, you should know that bile is essential to our bodies health and keeps us alive and well.

Thank you for reminding me, the word is also used to describe bitterness and hatred. Incidentally an odd way to communicate is to make claims then fail to provide supporting evidence when challenged. I call it a Loser's strategy, now I know what the El in El Proximo stands for.

Originally Posted by ElProximo

I haven't studied the entire Koran but I can tell you it says a lot of things and those do include plenty of encouragements to kill, slaughter, destroy and make war on infidels, in the name of Allah so they will submit to Allah.
however...

And of course the Bible doesnt advocate and exemplify the same actions? In fact isnt that exactly the actions taken in the name of the Christian church through history. If subverting the local pagans etc by taking over their feasts etc and incorporating them into christianity failed.(Essenes, Gnostics, Spanish Inquisition, Conquest of S and Central America... to name a few).

The Qur'an commands Muslims to stick up for themselves in a defensive battle -- i.e. if an enemy army attacks, then Muslims are to fight against that army until they stop their aggression. All of the verses that speak about fighting/war in the Qur'an are in this context.

There are some specific verses that are very often "snipped" out of context, either by critics of Islam discussing "jihadism," or by misguided Muslims themselves who wish to justify their aggressive tactics.

For example, one verse (in its snipped version) reads: "slay them wherever you catch them" (Qur'an 2:191). But who is this referring to? Who are "they" that this verse discusses? The preceding and following verses give the correct context:

"Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loves not transgressors. And slay them wherever you catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter... But if they cease, God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful... If they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression" (2:190-193).

It is clear from the context that these verses are discussing a defensive war, when a Muslim community is attacked without reason, oppressed and prevented from practicing their faith. In these circumstances, permission is given to fight back -- but even then Muslims are instructed not to transgress limits, and to cease fighting as soon as the attacker gives up. Even in these circumstances, Muslim are only to fight directly against those who are attacking them, not innocent bystanders or non-combatants.

Originally Posted by ElProximo

Do you ever wonder why there was nothing but silence from the Islamic world following (nearly any) terrorist attacks?

Probably because they feel shocked about the actions carried out in the name of Islam. There are plenty of Muslims who would condemn the atrocities if given the airtime.

Originally Posted by ElProximo

Plenty of polls and stats were attempted across the Arab world and many with some very convoluted wording, but, the overall story is that majorities of Muslims in the Arab world DONT condemn these attacks and say they are 'better than nothing'.

And you can of course prove this?

Originally Posted by ElProximo

You go fetch me the stats. I'm sure you can cherry-pick some select polls suggesting the opposite. Good luck!

A typical El Proximo answer: "I said it it must be true. I cant prove it because I... well I cant, you go do the legwork!"

Originally Posted by ElProximo

I was with a group of Muslims who celebrated and cheered a suicide-bomb in Indonesia that killed mostly Australians.
You would have thought the home team just won the World Cup.

Of course you were honey!

Originally Posted by ElProximo

This is not obvious and I think you just accused me of that so to manipulate hatred against me.

I dont need to do that, you are more than adept at doing that yourself

Originally Posted by ElProximo

In fact I happen to really love most Muslims I have met. Not all of them but most of them so far. In fact, I think Iranians are some of the kindest, most polite, easy-going and genuinely friendly people on the planet.

Including the Iranians who "regularly hang" homosexuals? Thats quite convulted in itself, isnt it? On one hand you say Muslims are quite blood thirsty, supporting terrorism etc and on the other but you love most of them so far.

Originally Posted by ElProximo

In fact... I think the vast majority of Muslims deserve far better than the rubbish Mohammad gave them.

That sort of comment has lead to a fatwah being pronounced on people. I can but dream eh? PMSL

Originally Posted by ElProximo

I bet you would love to get my thoughts and opinions banned so that (you believe) nobody else will hear and agree with them, but, If there was anything wrong with what I'm telling you then you ought to welcome the opportunity to correct it.
IF you REALLY cared about the truth?

Yes its simple really, you are ignorant and a bigot.

Originally Posted by ElProximo

I have just told you that the vast majority of terrorist attacks in recent decades are mostly committed by men who want to adhere more strictly to Islam.
Sorry to tell you the truth.

Yes you have told us, that doesnt make it true though, does it?

Originally Posted by ElProximo

About how many dedicated Muslims study the Koran diligently and participate intensely before MURDERING JEWS, BUDDHIST, CHRISTIANS and many others BECAUSE they are those faiths and BECAUSE they are not Muslims.

Where is your 'anti-bigotry' now?

I would suggest you educate yourself in World Terrorism over "recent decades" as you put it before making such claims. Because you appear to be basing said claims on information coming from anti-islam sites. Are you talking body counts or incidents?

Incidentally a suicide bomber doesnt care who he takes out, he has been brainwashed to believe if he and other muslims die in a good cause "fighting the good fight" they all go to the afterlife as heroes. They strike to create terror, thats why its called terrorism, to undermine people's belief in the current regime and also it creates publicity for their cause, it may even have a tactical or strategic value.

You might also want to look up the recent conflict in the Former republics of Yugoslavia and see who was on the wrong end of most of the Ethnic Cleansing. Mind you thats probably something you agree within your heart of hearts.

[ElProximo]

Originally Posted by Shasown

The Qur'an commands Muslims to stick up for themselves in a defensive battle -- i.e. if an enemy army attacks, then Muslims are to fight against that army until they stop their aggression. All of the verses that speak about fighting/war in the Qur'an are in this context.

There are some specific verses that are very often "snipped" out of context, either by critics of Islam discussing "jihadism," or by misguided Muslims themselves who wish to justify their aggressive tactics.

For example, one verse (in its snipped version) reads: "slay them wherever you catch them" (Qur'an 2:191). But who is this referring to? Who are "they" that this verse discusses? The preceding and following verses give the correct context:

"Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loves not transgressors. And slay them wherever you catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter... But if they cease, God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful... If they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression" (2:190-193).

It is clear from the context that these verses are discussing a defensive war, when a Muslim community is attacked without reason, oppressed and prevented from practicing their faith. In these circumstances, permission is given to fight back -- but even then Muslims are instructed not to transgress limits, and to cease fighting as soon as the attacker gives up. Even in these circumstances, Muslim are only to fight directly against those who are attacking them, not innocent bystanders or non-combatants.

Yes, it is common for Muslim apologists a 'mistaken passage' then show how it might be misunderstood.. then 'correct' what nobody has made incorrect.

The problem is that the Koran DOES start out with a few 'fair' sounding appeals.
Starts with some rules for the 'truth givers' to know how to 'decide' who shall be killed or who shall not.
As if it were for Muslims to 'decide' how to treat or kill or not,
but,
The Koran says other things as Mohammad gets more power and more enemies and more resistance.

Here is Mohammad having captured the Jews:

Ishaq:464

"The Jews were made to come down, and Allah's Messenger imprisoned them. Then the Prophet went out into the marketplace of Medina, and he had trenches dug in it. He sent for the Jewish men and had them beheaded in those trenches. They were brought out to him in batches. They numbered 800 to 900 boys and men. As they were being taken in small groups to the Prophet, they said to one another, 'What do you think will be done to us?' Someone said, 'Do you not understand. On each occasion do you not see that the summoner never stops? He does not discharge anyone. And that those who are taken away do not come back. By God, it is death!' The affair continued until the Messenger of Allah had finished with them all."

And of course Mohammad made sure some of the women were brought down to watch their husbands beheading.
Afterward;

Tabari VIII:38 "The Messenger of Allah commanded that all of the Jewish men and boys who had reached puberty should be beheaded. Then the Prophet divided the wealth, wives, and children of the Qurayza Jews among the Muslims."

But yeah, we can go over Koran verses and Hadith accounts all day and night if you want to 'clarify' these.
You can keep trying to reinterpret every single story into the most desperate attempts to look as if it was 'Self Defense',
but,
You know, having surrounded and captured Jews and slaughtering boys and men systematically, having the wives watching it, taking the wives and children as booty...
.......it is just better to admit they absolutely did force submission (islam) whenever possible.

Qur'an:8:65 "O Prophet, urge the faithful to fight. If there are twenty among you with determination they will vanquish two hundred; if there are a hundred then they will slaughter a thousand unbelievers, for the infidels are a people devoid of understanding."

Yeah.. no wonder nearly ALL terror attacks and deaths are from young men who intended to follow the Koran more closely.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by ElProximo

Yes, it is common for Muslim apologists a 'mistaken passage' then show how it might be misunderstood.. then 'correct' what nobody has made incorrect.

The problem is that the Koran DOES start out with a few 'fair' sounding appeals.
Starts with some rules for the 'truth givers' to know how to 'decide' who shall be killed or who shall not.
As if it were for Muslims to 'decide' how to treat or kill or not,
but,
The Koran says other things as Mohammad gets more power and more enemies and more resistance.

Here is Mohammad having captured the Jews:

Ishaq:464

"The Jews were made to come down, and Allah's Messenger imprisoned them. Then the Prophet went out into the marketplace of Medina, and he had trenches dug in it. He sent for the Jewish men and had them beheaded in those trenches. They were brought out to him in batches. They numbered 800 to 900 boys and men. As they were being taken in small groups to the Prophet, they said to one another, 'What do you think will be done to us?' Someone said, 'Do you not understand. On each occasion do you not see that the summoner never stops? He does not discharge anyone. And that those who are taken away do not come back. By God, it is death!' The affair continued until the Messenger of Allah had finished with them all."

And of course Mohammad made sure some of the women were brought down to watch their husbands beheading.
Afterward;

Tabari VIII:38 "The Messenger of Allah commanded that all of the Jewish men and boys who had reached puberty should be beheaded. Then the Prophet divided the wealth, wives, and children of the Qurayza Jews among the Muslims."

But yeah, we can go over Koran verses and Hadith accounts all day and night if you want to 'clarify' these.
You can keep trying to reinterpret every single story into the most desperate attempts to look as if it was 'Self Defense',
but,
You know, having surrounded and captured Jews and slaughtering boys and men systematically, having the wives watching it, taking the wives and children as booty...
.......it is just better to admit they absolutely did force submission (islam) whenever possible.




Yeah.. no wonder nearly ALL terror attacks and deaths are from young men who intended to follow the Koran more closely.

You just dont get it do you?

To take those verses, which incidentally are not the Qu'ran and quote them at me without even knowing the context of them just shows your ignorance and bigotry. They are commentaries, one from the "prophets and kings" which covers what it says on the lid in the Arab world from Adam to 915CE. The other is fragmentary passages from which a lot of Islamic commentaries are drawn.

Yes they are used by fundamental Muslims to excuse the beheading of captives, however, reading the previous verses and the subsequent verses kind of changes the context. (Given that Mohammed was directed to pursue that tribe of Jews by Allah through his messenger Gabriel). Its also used frequently by bigots, like yourself, attempting to show how Islam wants to take over the world and will behead all infidels as soon as they achieve their aim.

It was a tribe of the Jews not the Jews, as you had stated. Otherwise if they killed all males there would be no more Jews after this date.(Derrrrrrr) Sperm Banks werent as they are today back then.

The Qu'ran is believed to have been passed to man between 610-632 CE the commentaries you quote come from 915 CE (Tabari). the other commentary you quote is from Muḥammad ibn Isḥaq ibn Yasār (Ishaq) and they are fragments of the recensions of his work, in other words a student or students of his wrote them sometime after approx 700 CE

Ishaq:463/Tabari VIII:34 “When Sa’d reached the Messenger of Allah and the Muslims, the Prophet said, ‘Pass judgement on them.’ Sa’d replied, ‘I pass judgement that their men shall be killed, their women and children made captives, and their property divided.’ Allah’s Apostle proclaimed, ‘You have passed judgement on the Jews with the judgement of Allah and the judgement of His Messenger.’”


This is in reality no different to that of early biblical stories of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua and so on, where the tribes of Israel wandered round and had a few fights, they did of course totally annihilate entire cities and tribes. Incidentally try Judges:4 see what you make of Yael(Jael).

Its simply a way of showing that The tribes of Israel in the Bible and Mohammed in the Islamic faith are chosen of God and what they do is right by god.

Where do you get the bit about wives and children being made to watch? You mention it twice in your post but fail(again) to provide any evidence to back this up. Why were hangings public? Why were bodies left hanging or heads left on spikes at the Tower of London? That would indicate a deterrence factor in the punishment, deterrence to what I might ask?

Was it the "ProphetofDoom site you got your quotes from? Or another Islamaphobic site?

They really should learn to separate the Qu'ran from the commentaries.

[ElProximo]

Originally Posted by Shasown

You just dont get it do you?

Yes I do.

To take those verses, which incidentally are not the Qu'ran and quote them at me without even knowing the context of them just shows your ignorance and bigotry. They are commentaries, one from the "prophets and kings" which covers what it says on the lid in the Arab world from Adam to 915CE. The other is fragmentary passages from which a lot of Islamic commentaries are drawn.

Yep, this was from the Hadith but it is definitely not out of context. Even after the Muslim apologist makes the most desperate attempts to retell the story as if it were Jews that deceived and 'attacked' Mohammad - it shows you that defenseless captives most certainly were to be killed.. by the Prophet himself and as directed by his 'angel'.

Yes they are used by fundamental Muslims to excuse the beheading of captives, however, reading the previous verses and the subsequent verses kind of changes the context. (Given that Mohammed was directed to pursue that tribe of Jews by Allah through his messenger Gabriel). Its also used frequently by bigots, like yourself, attempting to show how Islam wants to take over the world and will behead all infidels as soon as they achieve their aim.

You complained about context but you did not give that fundamentalist Muslim any reason to change his mind.
Jews are oppressing Islam in Israel. Should a Muslim capture a Jew he CAN justify a beheading.
You just want to 'wave that off' but why should you?
I'd say this example is straight-forward.

It was a tribe of the Jews not the Jews, as you had stated. Otherwise if they killed all males there would be no more Jews after this date.(Derrrrrrr) Sperm Banks werent as they are today back then.

They did a nice job slaughtering other Jews but in fact 'All Jews' or 'The Jews' (as a people) are definitely despised and to be despised as taught in the Koran:

Yes, Prophetofdoom does a great job giving some segments of the Koran and Hadith dedicated to the apes.. er.. Jews:

Ishaq:250 "The bestial transformation occurred when Allah turned Jews into apes, despised."

(I agree that anyone interested should read the whole passages in their context to find out they really are as bad or even worse than the short-versions indicate)..

Qur'an 2:61 "Humiliation and wretchedness were stamped on the Jews and they were visited with Allah's wrath."

Qur'an 2:64 "But you [Jews] went back on your word and were lost losers. So become apes, despised and hated. We made an example out of you."

Ishaq:240 "The Jews are a nation of liars.... The Jews are a treacherous, lying, and evil people."

Qur'an 33:26 "Allah made the Jews leave their homes by terrorizing them so that you killed some and made many captive. And He made you inherit their lands, their homes, and their wealth. He gave you a country you had not traversed before."

(notice it does refer to them as 'The Jews')

Qur'an 4:55 "Sufficient for the Jew is the Flaming Fire!"

Ishaq:245 "Do you love Jews and their religion, you liver-hearted ass, and not Muhammad? Their religion will never march with ours.... Jews make false professions about Islam. So Allah sent down: 'Satan wishes to lead them astray."

Ishaq:262 "Some Muslims remained friends with the Jews, so Allah sent down a Qur'an forbidding them to take Jews as friends. From their mouths hatred has already shown itself and what they conceal is worse."

I wonder what a young man wanting to dedicate himself to Islam might think of Israel as taught to him by Mohammads examples?

Bukhari:V1B4N147 "People say, 'Whenever you sit for answering the call of nature, you should not face the Qiblah of Jerusalem.' I told them. 'Once I went up the roof of our house and I saw Allah's Apostle answering the call of nature while sitting on two bricks facing Jerusalem."

Here Mohammad 'schools' some Jews on Medical Sciences:

Ishaq:255 "Jewish rabbis came to the Apostle and asked him to answer four questions saying, 'If you do so we will follow you, testify to your truth, and believe in you.' They began, 'Why does a boy resemble his mother when the semen comes from the father?' Muhammad replied, 'Do you not know that a man's semen is white and thick and a woman's is yellow and thin? The likeness goes with that which comes to the top.' 'Agreed,' the rabbis proclaimed.... The rabbis said. 'But Muhammad, your spirit is an enemy to us, an angel who comes only with violence and the shedding of blood, and were it not for that we would follow you."

Bukhari:V2B23N457 "The Prophet went out after sunset and heard a dreadful voice. He said, 'The Jews are being punished in their graves.'"

This is in reality no different to that of early biblical stories of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua and so on,

Yes, the Koran reads just like it was written by an arrogant man who wanted to make his own version of the Bible and be an awesome warlord doing even greater military victories than Moses.

Its simply a way of showing that The tribes of Israel in the Bible and Mohammed in the Islamic faith are chosen of God and what they do is right by god.

Yes, this is why the young man who wants to spend more time in mosque, study the Koran, adhere more closely and practice Islam is MORE likely to blow up 10 Jews outside an Israeli Deli. This (like you say) will simply show that he is condoned by Allah.
It will prove he is doing Allahs will. (to his mind).

Was it the "ProphetofDoom site you got your quotes from? Or another Islamaphobic site?

Prophet of Doom. People can complain about his english translations but keep in mind its better than using the standard 'sweetened' and deliberately gentle and 'low-key' english translations.

They really should learn to separate the Qu'ran from the commentaries.

I do and I did. That is why you see 'Qu'ran' beside a quote but a commentators name beside another,
and,
I don't need to learn to do this. It is that man who decides he wants to take Islam more seriously and really learn and follow Islam with more dedication who will be reading the commentators as if they were 'Gospel accounts' and certainly as helpful in understanding the Koran.
This is who we are talking about - that guy.
Not me.

*I happen to think the Hadith are more reliable than the Koran but that is beside the point here.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by ElProximo

Yes I do.


Yep, this was from the Hadith but it is definitely not out of context. Even after the Muslim apologist makes the most desperate attempts to retell the story as if it were Jews that deceived and 'attacked' Mohammad - it shows you that defenseless captives most certainly were to be killed.. by the Prophet himself and as directed by his 'angel'.

Yes, Prophetofdoom does a great job giving some segments of the Koran and Hadith dedicated to the apes.. er.. Jews:


(I agree that anyone interested should read the whole passages in their context to find out they really are as bad or even worse than the short-versions indicate)..


Yes, the Koran reads just like it was written by an arrogant man who wanted to make his own version of the Bible and be an awesome warlord doing even greater military victories than Moses.


I don't need to learn to do this. It is that man who decides he wants to take Islam more seriously and really learn and follow Islam with more dedication who will be reading the commentators as if they were 'Gospel accounts' and certainly as helpful in understanding the Koran.
This is who we are talking about - that guy.
Not me.

*I happen to think the Hadith are more reliable than the Koran but that is beside the point here.

Once again you prove there really is no limit to your ignorance and intolerance, is it any wonder young Muslims turn to more extreme muslim teachers when they are met with such great examples of western virtues as yourself. Taking the odd line from a variety of Muslim sources totally out of context again.

Yeah ProphetofDoom is a wonderful site for the likes of yourself. In amongst the garbage I bet there is no mention of times when Mohammed spared the lives of his enemies.

As for your opinion that the Hadith is more reliable than the Qu'ran itself it simply shows your ignorance of what they both are. The Quran is the source of Allah's revelations to humanity, transmitted through his messenger, Muhammad. The Hadith is not considered a direct source of revelation; instead, it is supposed to contain the records of the traditions, practices and decision of the very earliest Muslim community. They are also a collection of the sayings and deeds of Muhammad. Unfortunately, the Hadith's accuracy and reliability is highly questionable. Even many Muslims disagree on the relative reliability of different Hadith collections.


Incidentally if Muslims are so bloodthirsty, how is it people who actually work with and amongst have nothing but respect for them?

What you should remember is throughout history even their enemies agree they are an honourable courteous chivalrous people. In Western history it is acknowledged that the example set by Muslim Warriors during the Crusades actually formed the basis of the Knights Code.

Ṣalāḥ ad-Dīn Yūsuf ibn Ayyūb (Arabic: صلاح الدين يوسف بن أيوب‎, Kurdish: سه*لاحه*دین ئه*یوبی, Selah'edînę Eyubî) (c. 1138 — March 4, 1193), better known in the Western world as Saladin, was a Kurdish Muslim who became the first Ayyubid Sultan of Egypt and Syria. He led Islamic opposition to the Franks and other European Crusaders in the Levant. At the height of his power, he ruled over Egypt, Syria, Mesopotamia, Hejaz, and Yemen. He led the Muslims against the Crusaders and eventually recaptured Palestine from the Kingdom of Jerusalem after his victory in the Battle of Hattin.

As such, he is a notable figure in Kurdish, Arab, Persian, Turkish and Muslim culture. Saladin was a strict practitioner of Sunni Islam. His chivalrous behavior was noted by Christian chroniclers, especially in the accounts of the siege of Kerak in Moab, and despite being the nemesis of the Crusaders he won the respect of many of them, including Richard the Lionheart; rather than becoming a hated figure in Europe, he became a celebrated example of the principles of chivalry.

Not only did he often give gifts to his prisoners before release, allowed knights to keeps arms and armour if they promised not to bear arms against him again prior to their release. He allowed passage for Christians into Jerusalem and other places of pilgrimage, he actively encouraged Jews to resettle in and around Jerusalem and other areas he recaptured from the Christians. Areas that the Christians had previously forced the Jewish peoples out of.

What a 'bad' Muslim you might say, but once again you would be wrong. In fact he followed the lessons of the Qu'ran to the letter. He exemplified the basic precepts of the Muslim Faith.

If you did read up on Islam you would know that just like there are many branches to Christianity, there are also several branches to the Muslim Faith, but hey its not my job to educate you. But please, when you start your next hate fuelled rants, include some real facts, not rubbish you picked up on a site set up simply to score points for its Christian owners.

[ElProximo]

Originally Posted by Shasown

As for your opinion that the Hadith is more reliable than the Qu'ran itself it simply shows your ignorance of what they both are. The Quran is the source of Allah's revelations to humanity, transmitted through his messenger, Muhammad. The Hadith is not considered a direct source of revelation;

My opinion is better.
The Koran is the fictitious novel. It is too obviously a megalomaniac writing what he thinks a version of the Old and New Testaments might look like. Written by someone who is immature enough to believe Israelites were like 'Action stars' and as if a 'Cowboy movie' where he wanted to make his own 'fighting gang'.
Its written by someone who never figured out the difference between the old and new covenant.
The Koran is written first as a sort of 'spiritual sounding' type of book until the writer was laughed at by Jews and got angry and then it becomes increasingly vicious and angry and eventually murderous and sick,
and,
It is then 'filled' with ancient knowledge from Greeks, Jews and Christians as if to give it factual credibility,
and,
is finally rewritten by some of the great Arab poets who tried to give it the most beautiful and eloquent 'sound' and 'feel' as if to show it was holy.

The Hadith are the accurate accounts. One reads the Hadith believing the authors are TRYING TO WARN PEOPLE by actually telling us the sickening mentally ill horrors this Mohammad wrought upon people.
Those are the legitimate books.

Incidentally if Muslims are so bloodthirsty...

You said that.
I never said that.
In fact, almost (most) of the Muslims I know are Iranians, Jordanians and they are a very kind type of people. Pleasant personalities and have a natural sort of gentleness.
This is why they are better than that disgusting murderer, serial killer, paedo, monster pirate Mohammad.
They are better than that violent death-cult religion they are stuck with.
They deserve a lot more than a racist, fascist, murder loving Koran they were raised with.

In Western history it is acknowledged that the example set by Muslim Warriors during the Crusades actually formed the basis of the Knights Code.

Nope.
The chivalry codes (and those were better days in the West) were all established after Christianity swept Europe and before Islam was discovered trying to take over Europe and everyone else by their swords.

...Saladin, was a Kurdish Muslim who became the first Ayyubid Sultan of Egypt and Syria. He led Islamic opposition to the Franks and other European Crusaders in the Levant.
...he won the respect of many of them, including Richard the Lionheart; rather than becoming a hated figure in Europe, he became a celebrated example of the principles of chivalry.

Saladin got respect because he was a rare example of a Muslim military leader who actually practiced honourable behavior,
and,
Its also worth mentioning that many a historian suggests Saladin was disinterested in Islam and likewise the religious leaders may not have liked him.
But Yes... Saladin DID attempt (and did succeed often) to take over non-Muslim peoples and making them submit to Islam.

But please, when you start your next hate fuelled rants, include some real facts, not rubbish you picked up on a site set up simply to score points for its Christian owners.

Truth is truth. Regardless of who it is from. There are plenty of websites from ex-Muslims happy to tell you these same things,
and,
plenty of Muslim scholars who AGREE that Islam ought to be doing exactly what Al Quaida does.
Plenty of them. IN fact they make some VERY GOOD arguments Al Quaida is who properly follows their Koran.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by ElProximo

My opinion is better.

BS BS BS

The make some VERY GOOD arguments Al Quaida is who properly follows their Koran.

You dont half write some crap. Do you really believe the garbage you post? Nah your just doing it for a laugh aint ya? You do provide proof to the saying Opinions are like ass holes, everyone has one but lots are full of s***

The Qu'ran was written well before the various commentaries that make up the Hadith. Historians and Theologists agree that it is possible all the Hadith were drawn from one source and bulked out in differing forms depending on the commentator, Ishaq being the fragmented original source, if this is the case it would mean all the Hadith drawn from the work of a student who got the commentary from his master who got the stories second hand, very accurate indeed, the same as the gospels of the new testament. Whereas the Qu'ran is dictated to a scribe by Muhammad.

If you view that "One reads the Hadith believing the authors are TRYING TO WARN PEOPLE " you really do show the messed up trains of your thought process, why would the Islamic Faith use books which warns against their Prophet, surely they would do the same as the Christians did with the Gnostic Gospels, attempt to destroy all evidence of their existence, including wiping out entire communities who believed in their veracity. Your logic escapes me, dont bother trying to explain it, though, I am not interested in the inner workings of a mind riddled with ignorance stupidity and intolerance.

Whilst it is true that Charlemagne tried to instil a code of honour amongst the knightly class, many knights merely paid lip service to it

The tradition of the chivalric "knight in shining armor" can be traced back to the Arabs, with notable figures like the Bedouin knight Antar The Lion (580 AD). He is believed to be the model of this tradition. Charles Reginald Haines noted traits "such as loyalty, courtesy, munificence...are found in eminent degree among the Arabs." Medieval Spain, which he calls the "cradle of chivalry", could bear that pre-modern title, due to the direct impact of Arab civilization in Al-Andalus. "Piety, courtesy, prowess in war, the gift of eloquence, the art of poetry, skill on horseback, dexterity with sword, lance, and bow" was expected of the elite Moorish knight.

Richard Francis Burton, when characterizing this strain of thought in the writings of Europe as a whole, maintained "were it not evident that the spiritualising of sexuality by imagination is universal among the highest orders of mankind", he continues, "I should attribute the origins of love to the influences of the Arabs' poetry and chivalry upon European ideas rather than to medieval Christianity."

The early Crusades helped to clarify the moral code of chivalry. The most refined code didnt appear until the Duke of Burgundy publicised what was expected of a knight in the 14th Century.


So al-Qaeda existed back in the 11th Century? Or they sent operatives back and wrote the Qu'ran themselves.

[bananarama]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

lol at Free Masons

do you get them in cornflakes?

No . Of course not. "Shredded wheat".

[bananarama]

Originally Posted by Recylopse

Religion is a very strange subject. A eye for a eye it should be.

It's not religion that is strange it is the religious........The utter rubbish people believe is the strangest thing on this planet......

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by bananarama

No . Of course not. "Shredded wheat".

Thats just so unfair, I didnt get a Mason in my Shredded Wheat I got a Nelson Mandela

[ElProximo]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Whereas the Qu'ran is dictated to a scribe by Muhammad.

I would not believe a word of that. It is a madman's 'insane dark version' of what he thought a Bible Book 'might sound like',
and,
was reworked by Arab poets (who were very good) to make these psychotic rantings sounds as much like 'eloquent beauty' as possible.

If you view that "One reads the Hadith believing the authors are TRYING TO WARN PEOPLE " you really do show the messed up trains of your thought process,

No, the truly screwy thinking is to ACTUALLY believe they are doing anything BUT warn you.
They read like 'Witnesses to a murder' who are trying to testify he REALLY DID THIS!
Aisha is TELLING PEOPLE he REALLY DID have sex with her when she was 9 years old.
Only a Muslim thinks that is 'helpful account' but to anyone else in the world it is CALLED A POLICE REPORT.
The others actually describe and confirm Mohammad REALLY DID behead Jewish boys. Really.
Any other people on earth call that Hadith A WAR CRIME TESTIMONY,
but,
You don't even see that.

The tradition of the chivalric "knight in shining armor" can be traced back to the Arabs, with notable figures like the Bedouin knight Antar The Lion (580 AD). He is believed to be the model of this tradition. Charles Reginald Haines noted traits "such as loyalty, courtesy, munificence...are found in eminent degree among the Arabs." Medieval Spain, which he calls the "cradle of chivalry", could bear that pre-modern title, due to the direct impact of Arab civilization in Al-Andalus. "Piety, courtesy, prowess in war, the gift of eloquence, the art of poetry, skill on horseback, dexterity with sword, lance, and bow" was expected of the elite Moorish knight.

To listen to Muslim apologists you think all you need to do is claim some 'unproven' era and that somehow cancels out what we do know about Mohammad's vicious bloodbath,
and,
that the Muslim world was and often still is full of brutality and ANYTHING but Chivalry.
In fact to this day Al Quaida and half the Muslim world cannot even understand why everyone else thinks their 'Heroes' are in fact the most cowardly and disgusting type of human there is - suicide bombers, kidnappers, terrorists.
The lowest and most cowardly un-chivalrous possibly extreme you can go.

But since you want to 'barter and haggle' truth with this imaginary 'golden age' of Islam nobody ever seems to substantiate then consider this:
- The Moors were the ones properly INSIDE Europe,
and,
Closest to the Europeans.
Think about that.
Now consider this further yet - at the best days the Moors are all but considered estranged and 'different' from the real core of the Islamic world deep in the Arab Peninsula.
Think about that.

I ask you to stop and think about that.
The 'best of Islam' was the FURTHEST BRANCH that was CLOSEST TO EUROPE.
Now Question?
Hmmmm... what does that tell you?
Hmmm... do you think that is a very good indicator that it was the Moors WHO TOOK FROM EUROPEANS?
Hmmm?
Yes it does.
IF you don't see why that 'makes sense' then don't talk and think longer.

"I should attribute the origins of love to the influences of the Arabs' poetry and chivalry upon European ideas rather than to medieval Christianity."

Yes, it is a big politically correct antiwestern (mostly by BBC liberal types) trend to now try and credit Muslims with everything,
but,
It is true that Arabia had (BEFORE MOHAMMAD) some of the worlds greatest poets AND definitely some of the most sexual and romantic poets (and other arts).
Before Islam.
Pakistan definitely had that too.
BEFORE ISLAM.

But chivalry.. well Mohammad didn't have it as he horrifically slaughtered and humiliated, robbed and raped his 'opponents'.
Keeping in mind 'opponents' was anyone from Jews to Pagans to some innocent caravan that 'Did Not' submit to him.
and,
The Muslim world didn't have it when the West showed up like 'Futuristic advanced aliens' into the third world wasteland that was the Muslim-Arab world,
and,
MORE important to this conversation is that those young men who decide to become more and more adherent to Islam fall into more and more disgustingly cheap and cowardly backstabbing behavior like hijacking planes into civilian buildings or poisoning subways of working people.
Absolutely the most shameful cowardly 'jihad' type behavior known to man.

So al-Qaeda existed back in the 11th Century? Or they sent operatives back and wrote the Qu'ran themselves.

Well in a very real sense Al Quaida IS about going back in time to the 6th and 7th century Arabia.
At that time the West was just about 'Christianised' and was just starting their advanced civilization that was founded on these ideals (we now call them 'romantic' sadly) about honour, mercy, justice,
and,
by the time of the Crusades had what has nearly been called one of the most peaceful, egalitarian, fair and just eras in the history of the human civilization.
(that might not be saying much considering how BAD humans have been),
but,
that was about as close as we got.

Of course 'chivalrous Islam' decided to just keep taking over Europe by sword and that did not work out too well for them.
They did try again - this time sending a more chivalrous guy like Saladin with more European attitudes and methods,
but,
You know.. again we are more worried about the 10 guys dedicated to Islam who will capture a Jewish reporter and 'moan' Koran verses as they film themselves slicing their heads off with a kitchen knife.
NO outcry or condemnation will come from the Muslim community either.
That tells you everything.

[ElProximo]

Originally Posted by bananarama

It's not religion that is strange it is the religious........The utter rubbish people believe is the strangest thing on this planet......

Really?
What do you believe about the origin of the Universe, the creation of human civilisation, the meaning and purpose of life and what will await you after death and for that matter the fate of the world?

I'm sure it's not strange because.. well because YOU believe it and you think most people must agree with it.
Right?