BF2S Forums Israelis raid "Aid" Convoy

Beduin wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:

You're religion regards them as the the word of Allah, just like the Quran.

Hadith are narrations originating from the words and deeds of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. Hadith are regarded by traditional schools of jurisprudence as important tools for understanding the Qur'an and in matters of jurisprudence.[1] Hadith were evaluated and gathered into large collections mostly during the reign of Umar bin Abdul Aziz during the 8th and 9th centuries. These works are referred to in matters of Islamic law and history to this day.

It is NOT the Quran, not the words of Allah, just to get it clear.

I know it isn't the Quran., something that was implied in my previous post. I also know most Hadith aren't considered the words of Allah. However, the line in question is from the Sacred Hadith, which is considered the word of Allah.

Hadith Qudsi' (or Sacred Hadith) are a sub-category of hadith, which are sayings of Muhammad. Muslims regard the Hadith Qudsi as the words of God (Arabic:Allah), repeated by Muhammad and recorded on the condition of an isnad. According to as-Sayyid ash-Sharif al-Jurjani, the Hadith Qudsi differ from the Qur'an in that the former were revealed in a dream or through revelation and are "expressed in Muhammad's words", whereas the latter are the "direct words of God".

It's clear they are different, yet they are both attributed directly to your deity. Is one somehow less holy than the other?

nukchebi0 wrote:

The point was to illustrate how a desire to kill the Jews is ingrained in the teaching of Islam.

The hadith is about one of the signs of judgment day, hence the end of the world/life we know. I am pretty sure Christians and Jews have their own theory about non-Jews and non-Christians on judgement day.

The Muslims however have sharia law to obey in this life, and there is nothing about killing non-muslims in sharia.

Thats why I fail to see your point.

Sharia encompasses all the teachings, practices, and principles of Islam?

Beduin wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:

It's clear they are different, yet they are both attributed directly to your deity. Is one somehow less holy than the other?

Yes, depends on the teaching of different sects in Islam. You see, you cant use it on all muslims, but you can however use the Quran, cause it is only ONE book, the words of Allah.

The overwhelming majority of Muslims consider hadith to be essential supplements to and clarifications of the Qur'an, Islam's holy book, as well as in clarifying issues pertaining to Islamic jurisprudence.

Is wikipedia wrong? You might want to edit that, then.

nukchebi0 wrote:

Sharia encompasses all the teachings, practices, and principles of Islam?

Yes.

First of all, it obviously doesn't, because you just tried to claim the hadith only governs judgement day, yet it seems the hadith are seen as essential aspects of the Muslim faith by the majority of its adherents.

Secondly, read the following source's section on "Arab world's historical subjugation and mistreatment of Jews
attributed to the Prophet Muhammad": http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/koran.html#3

Note all the Quran verses. Does sharia cover those?

I would just like to put out here that a devout Muslim would probably know more about specific Islamic teachings etc...

Shahter wrote:

this is starting to look like that notorious FM versus FEOS "discussion" about jets. lemme get my pop-corn can, brb.

gweh? Neither FM or FEOS have posted for a page...

Spark wrote:

Shahter wrote:

this is starting to look like that notorious FM versus FEOS "discussion" about jets. lemme get my pop-corn can, brb.

gweh? Neither FM or FEOS have posted for a page...

i was talking about "Real world Facts: F4B Phantom" thread where FM was arguing with FEOS about jets. the thread's been deleted unfortunately.

rdx-fx wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

They seem to care, only so far as they can use the Palestinians as a proxy pawn to poke at Israel.

You're swallowing the bogus line that the arabs poke Israel - because they hate the jews - because they're 'anti-semitic'.

Its simply not true, they object to the Zionists stealing Arab land and displacing the Palestinians.
Prior to the foundation of Israel all the neigbouring countries had significant jewish populations which had lived without trouble for thousands of years.

The idea that arabs 'hate the jews' is simply propaganda and incitement of race hate.

Someone should tell these protesters that, Dilbert - they appear to be off-message then.
They also apparently didn't get the official party line memo that threats of genocide don't go over very well with the Hebrews.

I wonder what the turks would do if these activists made a humanitarian aid convoy to the kurds in Turkey...

i think the american funding of palestine is a bit of a cover for the fact that israel is america's middle-eastern rent boy

shit you're talking about declared funding and public, known spending.

i bet in 50 year's time when the records are released america/CIA spending in the middle-east will start to look a hell of a lot like the south american 'funding' in the last century. don't be so easily duped.

Uzique wrote:

i think the american funding of palestine is a bit of a cover for the fact that israel is america's middle-eastern rent boy

shit you're talking about declared funding and public, known spending.

i bet in 50 year's time when the records are released america/CIA spending in the middle-east will start to look a hell of a lot like the south american 'funding' in the last century. don't be so easily duped.

which benefits the palestinians more?  money sent from the west or 50 year old cold war munitions given to militias that warrant israeli heavy handedness.

Last edited by eleven bravo (2010-06-06 11:36:03)

Does anyone else find it terribly amusing that the people who whine, piss and moan when all Muslims are stereotyped as deranged Wahhabists will go ahead and treat all Israelis as if they are Zionists?

JohnG@lt wrote:

Does anyone else find it terribly amusing that the people who whine, piss and moan when all Muslims are stereotyped as deranged Wahhabists will go ahead and treat all Israelis as if they are Zionists?

remind me, whaen exactly has anybody been treating israelis as if they were all zionists in this thread?

Harmor wrote:

Anyone talk about how the terrorists on the "hate" boat captured 4 Israeli soldiers and kept them hostage?  Or that they tore up the boat's railing to make metal spears and clubs?  (that was all caught on UAV video before the raid).

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177613

No wonder they got shot

nukchebi0 wrote:

Someone here needs a lesson in differentiating objectively reported facts from inserted personal opinions. Describing their background as "extremely religious" and "conservative" based on reality is factual reporting. Trying to defend them as simple people providing humanitarian aid is subjective and wishful thinking, no different than what you are doing. Discussion gets very dangerous when you start using subjective interpretations as facts on which to base you own.

Why do people suicide bomb? Stupid question.

I've posted evidence and reasoned analysis, you've posted substanceless doubting clearly swayed by your irrational biases. Please disprove me, rather than merely saying I'm wrong.

No, I'm trying to approach the situation impartially, which you'll notice I noted in the first post. I don't think logically Israel would "fuckup" like that, because they absolutely no incentive to. I'm sorry you don't understand the reasoning, but I can't make it any simpler for you.

As noted, activists intending to just help Palestine would accept the offer of Israel unloading the goods and transporting them to Palestine. Activists intending to injure Israel's international image (that is, fight against Israel as a country) would try to goad the IDF into fighting, because any bloodshed makes Israel look bad, regardless of how justified such violence was.

Defining someone you've never met as extremely religious and conservative is not factual reporting, it's a load of bollocks. Especially when you've never met the person you're referring to. Not to mention the fact that their religious beliefs have nothing to do with the case at hand and they're just mentioned to portray them in a negative light - specifically what the reporter is trying to do is link those men with religious fundamentalists and extremists although nothing in their behavior suggests that. As for the "simple people providing humanitarian aid", it is subjective only as far as the epithet "simple" goes. The rest is fact.

Regarding the rest of your post, all I have to say is that you probably haven't read your own links because they provide no evidence at all. Instead they're hughly speculative and they reach no conclusion. In fact your second link - which seems as the most reliable of the two - despite the initial sentiment it tries to bestow, concludes by saying the exact opposite of what you're supposing.

As for reasoning, let's see how yours works. You're always assuming things. You take it for granted for some reason thet the Israeli government is incapable or erring, you seem certain as to how a "normal" activist would act in the given situation, and worst of all you seem certain that these people would easily sacrifice themselves in order to make Israel look bad. All those assumptions you make just seem to me like a desperate attempt to take the blame off the Israeli government and I can't help but ask why.