So...Can you take it again, cause i fail to see the relationship between a crazy pakistani guy who killes his wife and the situation mentioned above.Kmarion wrote:
So I've read.Beduin wrote:
There were a treaty between the Prophet (May peace be upon him) and Bani Qurayza, that Bani Qurayza broke.
Where did I say there was? When you jump into the convo make sure you understand the full context of the discussion. It helps.Beduin wrote:
So...Can you take it again, cause i fail to see the relationship between a crazy pakistani guy who killes his wife and the situation mentioned above.Kmarion wrote:
So I've read.Beduin wrote:
There were a treaty between the Prophet (May peace be upon him) and Bani Qurayza, that Bani Qurayza broke.
I have to make a prestenation today on Charges on conductors, so i just skimmed the thread... My bad thenKmarion wrote:
Where did I say there was? When you jump into the convo make sure you understand the full context of the discussion. It helps.Beduin wrote:
So...Can you take it again, cause i fail to see the relationship between a crazy pakistani guy who killes his wife and the situation mentioned above.Kmarion wrote:
So I've read.
No prob.. I do the same sometimes .Beduin wrote:
I have to make a prestenation today on Charges on conductors, so i just skimmed the thread... My bad thenKmarion wrote:
Where did I say there was? When you jump into the convo make sure you understand the full context of the discussion. It helps.Beduin wrote:
So...Can you take it again, cause i fail to see the relationship between a crazy pakistani guy who killes his wife and the situation mentioned above.
Didn't know you were into conductors KmarionKmarion wrote:
No prob.. I do the same sometimes .Beduin wrote:
I have to make a prestenation today on Charges on conductors, so i just skimmed the thread... My bad thenKmarion wrote:
Where did I say there was? When you jump into the convo make sure you understand the full context of the discussion. It helps.
I thought you were in my fan club? Your slackin.Varegg wrote:
Didn't know you were into conductors KmarionKmarion wrote:
No prob.. I do the same sometimes .Beduin wrote:
I have to make a prestenation today on Charges on conductors, so i just skimmed the thread... My bad then
wut ?Kmarion wrote:
I'm trying to get a copy of "Life of Muhammad : A Translation of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah".. will be good reading and also a good way to put this to rest. Not avail on kindle . Rest assured I'm going straight for 461.mafia996630 wrote:
What makes you think he is a credible source in relation to "Sahih al-Bukhari" ? Of all the names that are mentioned on the wiki link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahi_Bukhari), i have yet to find Ibn Ishaq. Also what does the 1st paragraph you posted have to do with anything ?Kmarion wrote:
Muslims consider him credible.
Sahi Buchari Hadiths #143, page-700 : Sulaiman Ibne Harb…Aannas Ibne Malek (ra) narrated, "in the war of Khaiber after the inhabitants of Banu Qurayza was surrendered, Allah's apostle killed all the able/adult men, and he (prophet) took all women and children as captives (Ghani mateer maal).. Among the captives Rayhana a beautiful young Jewish girl was taken by Allah's Apostle as booty whom He married after freeing her and her freedom was her Mohr."
"Sirat A, Rasul"page 464
"When Banu Qurayza Jewish tribe was surrendered (627 A.D.) unconditionally, the apostle confined them in Medina in the quarter of al-Harith, a woman of B. al-Najjar. Then the apostle went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches tying theirs both hands with their necks. This beheading went on until the apostle made an end of them. There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900. Apparently Muhammad himself worked on the digging of the trench into which the massacred Jews were to be thrown. But he (Muhammad) did not only take part in those preparations, the formulation of the text states but also participated himself in beading of at least two of the leading Jews."
As for the second paragraph, which was probz gotten from [http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/skm/beheading.htm] I was reading it until i read
"Apparently Muhammad himself worked on the digging of the trench into which the massacred Jews were to be thrown. But he (Muhammad) did not only take part in those preparations, the formulation of the text states but also participated himself in beading of at least two of the leading Jews.""
WTF, where the fuk did apparently come from ? When writing about someone life, you don't write apparently he did that/this. Did it say that on page 464 of that book or did someone add it in when writing that article. For some reason that bit sounds fishy.
http://i39.tinypic.com/wj809u.png
We can get through this together mafia.
A bit late butMacbeth wrote:
The fuck I hope that is sarcasm.mafia996630 wrote:
Thanks for providing a source.Kmarion wrote:
You know this isn't exactly late breaking news.. It appears that the revisionist have successfully lobbied to change the caption.
Luckily they missed a spot.
http://i41.tinypic.com/2u4tt2r.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_ … _of_Medina
Ibn Ishaq is the source.
We would want the truth to offend anyone now would we?
Lets me say firstly, i am simply debating the fact that Muhammad ordered the beheading of however many people. Firstly, approved is different from ordered (not a strong point).
Second, the source Ibn Ishaq is dismissed because he is considered to be a "Qadariyah". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Ishaq) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qadariyah). Now apparently these people think "Allah cannot know a man's actions in advance" and "Qadaris also deny other core tenants of Sunni belief including the belief in the Punishment of the Grave", Now we all know Muslims and similar religions think of God as all knowing & some of us know that 75 percent of world's muslims are Sunni (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Islam). Essentially what I am trying to say is that the dude in question is not really a muslim and therefore has lost credibility as a source.
It is stupid on so many levels.
From the Fox News story:destruktion_6143 wrote:
ted meant, fox news is not a credible source for islamic material.Warhammer wrote:
?FatherTed wrote:
1) Islamic experts - lol
2) foxnews?
"The fierce and gruesome nature of this murder signals it's an honor killing," said Dr. Phyllis Chesler, an author and professor of psychology at the Richmond College of the City University of New York. "What she did was worthy of capital punishment in his eyes."
Chesler, who wrote "Are Honor Killings Simply Domestic Violence?" for Middle East Quarterly, said some Muslim men consider divorce a dishonor on their family.
"This is not permitted in their culture," said Chesler, whose study analyzed more than 50 reports of honor killings in North America and Europe. "This is, from a cultural point of view, an honor killing."
That's what happens when you ignore the content based solely on the reporting source. You miss little things like facts that are independent of the organization writing the story.M. Zuhdi Jasser, founder and chairman of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, agreed with Chesler.
"It certainly has all the markings of [an honor killing]," Jasser told FOXNews.com. "She expressed through the legal system that she was being abused, and at the moment she asked for divorce, she's not only murdered — she's decapitated."
You can come up with a 1,000 bullshit excuses. You can try and dismiss it as isolated. You can squirm all you want, but you can not change the FACT that this IS ISLAM.FEOS wrote:
From the Fox News story:destruktion_6143 wrote:
ted meant, fox news is not a credible source for islamic material.Warhammer wrote:
?"The fierce and gruesome nature of this murder signals it's an honor killing," said Dr. Phyllis Chesler, an author and professor of psychology at the Richmond College of the City University of New York. "What she did was worthy of capital punishment in his eyes."Chesler, who wrote "Are Honor Killings Simply Domestic Violence?" for Middle East Quarterly, said some Muslim men consider divorce a dishonor on their family.
"This is not permitted in their culture," said Chesler, whose study analyzed more than 50 reports of honor killings in North America and Europe. "This is, from a cultural point of view, an honor killing."That's what happens when you ignore the content based solely on the reporting source. You miss little things like facts that are independent of the organization writing the story.M. Zuhdi Jasser, founder and chairman of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, agreed with Chesler.
"It certainly has all the markings of [an honor killing]," Jasser told FOXNews.com. "She expressed through the legal system that she was being abused, and at the moment she asked for divorce, she's not only murdered — she's decapitated."
so what. modern times. deal with the now. dont compare to the past.Varegg wrote:
we infact have an equally violent history
islam. ISLAM ISLAM. god cant you read?12/f/taiwan wrote:
Lowing do you fear Muslims are a threat to the world and society?
Quote the whole sentence and not just bits of it ... it said violent history and present ... so I kinda compared it both to the past and the present ...usmarine wrote:
so what. modern times. deal with the now. dont compare to the past.Varegg wrote:
we infact have an equally violent history
I consider Islam a threat to the world especially to western society. It would appear Muslims should fear Islam as well.12/f/taiwan wrote:
Lowing do you fear Muslims are a threat to the world and society?
Last edited by lowing (2009-02-18 08:59:51)
I'm saying when I have a copy if page 464 sitting in front of me we will know exactly what was documented. I've already given you sources telling you what was documented in the book but of course that isn't good enough. Your evidence consist of "something is fishy". I'm bringing you the historical accounts from Islam's most notable scholars (recognized by MUSLIMS as such). You've offered no counter evidence. Your "truth" is just speculation based on your feelings.mafia996630 wrote:
wut ?Kmarion wrote:
I'm trying to get a copy of "Life of Muhammad : A Translation of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah".. will be good reading and also a good way to put this to rest. Not avail on kindle . Rest assured I'm going straight for 461.mafia996630 wrote:
What makes you think he is a credible source in relation to "Sahih al-Bukhari" ? Of all the names that are mentioned on the wiki link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahi_Bukhari), i have yet to find Ibn Ishaq. Also what does the 1st paragraph you posted have to do with anything ?
As for the second paragraph, which was probz gotten from [http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/skm/beheading.htm] I was reading it until i read
"Apparently Muhammad himself worked on the digging of the trench into which the massacred Jews were to be thrown. But he (Muhammad) did not only take part in those preparations, the formulation of the text states but also participated himself in beading of at least two of the leading Jews.""
WTF, where the fuk did apparently come from ? When writing about someone life, you don't write apparently he did that/this. Did it say that on page 464 of that book or did someone add it in when writing that article. For some reason that bit sounds fishy.
http://i39.tinypic.com/wj809u.png
We can get through this together mafia.
So you agree something is fishy ? or are you dismissing me off as someone who can't see the truth when its in front of my eyes ? Or are you saying your gone get back to me ?
Lands and power have been shifting between Islam and Christianity for hundreds of years. Holy wars are dotted throughout history. We are in one now. Its ppl who subscribe to the far right of both religions that took us down the path of every holy war.usmarine wrote:
islam. ISLAM ISLAM. god cant you read?12/f/taiwan wrote:
Lowing do you fear Muslims are a threat to the world and society?
and yes, islam is a threat. look at pakistan. everybody dismissed radical islam nutters 10 years ago as being impossible to take over a country. they said the same thing some idiots said on this forum "zomg mooslims taking over the world look out." burying their head in the sand or completely misunderstanding the severity of the problem. well now look, ten years later they are about to control that country oh and guess what? they have lots of nukes. so good job world. keep dismissing it as a minor issue and compare to pipe bombs in mail boxes. one day we will all learn i guess. and that day is close.
FIXEDlowing wrote:
I consider Wahabism a threat to the world especially to western society. It would appear Muslims should fear Wahabism as well.12/f/taiwan wrote:
Lowing do you fear Muslims are a threat to the world and society?
A,B & C eh.Kmarion wrote:
I'm saying when I have a copy if page 464 sitting in front of me we will know exactly what was documented. I've already given you sources telling you what was documented in the book but of course that isn't good enough. Your evidence consist of "something is fishy". I'm bringing you the historical accounts from Islam's most notable scholars (recognized by MUSLIMS as such). You've offered no counter evidence. Your "truth" is just speculation based on your feelings.mafia996630 wrote:
wut ?Kmarion wrote:
I'm trying to get a copy of "Life of Muhammad : A Translation of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah".. will be good reading and also a good way to put this to rest. Not avail on kindle . Rest assured I'm going straight for 461.
http://i39.tinypic.com/wj809u.png
We can get through this together mafia.
So you agree something is fishy ? or are you dismissing me off as someone who can't see the truth when its in front of my eyes ? Or are you saying your gone get back to me ?
I agree.I'm saying when I have a copy if page 464 sitting in front of me we will know exactly what was documented
If Ibn Ishaq was "Islam's most notable scholar", why was his narratives hardy used in the Sahi Bukhari (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahi_Bukhari) ? Also note Sahi Bukhair has been regarded as ""The most authentic book after the Qur'an!". Like i said before, Ibn wasI've already given you sources telling you what was documented in the book but of course that isn't good enough. Your evidence consist of "something is fishy". I'm bringing you the historical accounts from Islam's most notable scholars (recognized by MUSLIMS as such). You've offered no counter evidence. Your "truth" is just speculation based on your feelings.
That was why I was putting a "?". Every news source seems to have a bias, but you can get straight facts out of some them like comments for instance. Islamic experts were also in that article. idk what you were trying to get at, FatherTed.FEOS wrote:
From the Fox News story:destruktion_6143 wrote:
ted meant, fox news is not a credible source for islamic material.Warhammer wrote:
?"The fierce and gruesome nature of this murder signals it's an honor killing," said Dr. Phyllis Chesler, an author and professor of psychology at the Richmond College of the City University of New York. "What she did was worthy of capital punishment in his eyes."Chesler, who wrote "Are Honor Killings Simply Domestic Violence?" for Middle East Quarterly, said some Muslim men consider divorce a dishonor on their family.
"This is not permitted in their culture," said Chesler, whose study analyzed more than 50 reports of honor killings in North America and Europe. "This is, from a cultural point of view, an honor killing."That's what happens when you ignore the content based solely on the reporting source. You miss little things like facts that are independent of the organization writing the story.M. Zuhdi Jasser, founder and chairman of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, agreed with Chesler.
"It certainly has all the markings of [an honor killing]," Jasser told FOXNews.com. "She expressed through the legal system that she was being abused, and at the moment she asked for divorce, she's not only murdered — she's decapitated."
Making the old testament obsolete ?Warhammer wrote:
JahManRed, remember that some of the old testament rules changed in the New Testament, and it was different during those times back in the Old Testament.
