I know what islam is really about

[Sunni Man]

Mr Fitnuts you ain't got a clue; and by the way you are going, I don't think you ever will

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Mr Fitnuts you ain't got a clue; and by the way you are going, I don't think you ever will

Thanks, coming from you that is reassuring .
You are deluding yourself if you think anyone who follows these types of thread has not taken notice of the fact you have failed to offer a single substantive argument and are merely a persistent practitioner of personal insults.
The reason for this is transparent,there is no substantive argument to be made.
You are an excellent tool.

 

[GHook93]

Not shocked you ignore this list of facts! You ignore that Moe conquested Arabia by the SWORD! He personally forced conversions! You are some how OK with Aisha! Why am I not shocked!

Because I unlike many here, know its REAL history of blood lust, conquest, conversion, and plans for world domination since its inception and mohammeds death.

I will not be lied to, or fooled by pro muslim propaganda.

I want to hear all about it.

It sounds interesting.

Please elaborate

Let's do a FACT CHECKER:

Fact 1: Moe lead raids and mass murder on the Mecca People!
Fact 2: Moe lead the raid, mass murder and forced conversion of the Jews of Medina.
Fact 3: Moe lead the conquest of Arabian Pennisula, which included mass murder, forced conversions and political assassinations.
Fact 4: Moe forced into marriage many women of the conquested people he conquered
Fact 5: Moe married Aisha at age 5-7 and STOLE her viriginity at 9-10! That is child molestation for any time period
Fact 6: Moe stated the Islamic Crusades Caliphates, but died during the beginning.
Fact 7: Unfortunately the Islamic Crusades/Caliphates didn't die with Moe, they lived on to conquest Bablonyia (Iraq), area known as Turkey, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan to part of India; Persia (Iran), Israel/Palestine (actually conquered by Moe), Assyria, Egypt, All of North Africa pushing down to Sudan and even into Europe conquering Portugal and Spain. During these conquest many people were raped and murdered and whole populations were forced to convert! It is not a coincidence that the countries where Islam makes up 90-100% of the population were victims of the Islamic crusade, which Moe himself started.

It is not twisting history in the least, to characterize Moe as:
(1) Warlord
(2) Political Assassin
(3) Jingoist
(4) Raider
(5) Intolerant of Other Religion (although in Israel/Palestine he was actually very good to the Jews - but not to them in Arabia)
(6) Polygimist
(7) Child Molester

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Islam Question and Answer - Was Islam spread by the sword?
Islam Question and Answer - Was Islam spread by the sword?

 

[Kalam]

Exactly as I stated.

No. You have the reading comprehension of a pre-schooler.

But the reference in the above verse is to the abrogation, not of the Qur'anic verses but of the previous Divine messages or revelations, consequent upon revelation of the Qur'an. The context shows this clearly to be the case, for the opponents are here made to say that the Prophet was a forger. He was so accused by the opponents not because he announced the abrogation of certain verses in the Qur'an but because he claimed that the Qur'an was a divine revelation which had taken the place of previous revelations. They argued that it was not a revelation at all: "Only a mortal teaches him" (16:103). According to them the whole of the Qur'an, and not merely a particular verse of it, was a forgery. The theory of abrogation, therefore, cannot be based on this verse which speaks only of one revelation or one law taking the place of another.

The other verse which is supposed to lend support to the theory runs thus: "Whatever message we abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or one like it" (2:106). A reference to the context will show that the Jews or the followers of previous revelations are here addressed. Of these it is said: "they say: We believe in that which was revealed to us; and they deny what is besides that" (2:91). So they were told that if a certain revelation was abrogated, it was only to give place to a better one. And there is mention not only of abrogation but also of something that was forgotten. The words "or cause to be forgotten" cannot refer to the Qur'an at all because no portion of it could be said to have been forgotten so as to require a new revelation in its place. There is no point in supposing that God should make the Prophet forget a verse and then reveal a new one in its place. Why not, if he really had forgotten a verse, remind him of the one forgotten? But even if it is supposed that his memory ever failed in retaining (which really never happened), that verse was quite safely preserved in writing, and the mere failure of memory could not necessitate a new revelation.​

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Exactly as I stated.

No. You have the reading comprehension of a pre-schooler.

You are intellectuality dishonest ,You have cropped the piece to exclude the point the author was trying to make, which clearly shows I have a firm grasp of the argument he is trying to make ,
You are so dishonest you cannot not give an affirmative answer of something that is plain.
We are only dealing with the first logical fallacy

Your source of understanding
It is a fact that details of the Islamic law were revealed at Madinah and it is in relation to these details that the theory of abrogation has been broached. Therefore, a Makkah revelation would not speak of abrogation. But the reference in the above verse is to the abrogation, not of the Qur'anic verses but of the previous Divine messages or revelations, consequent upon revelation of the Qur'an.

My distillation of those thoughts into my own words

Really? is not his argument that the first alleged abrogation verse was uttered in mekka before the laws of Islam were reveal so there fore he had to be talking about something else?

A clear logical fallacy by Maulana Muhammad Ali.

 

[Kalam]

Fact 1: Moe lead raids and mass murder on the Mecca People!

Raids were led on Makkan trade caravans because the Makkans oppressed Muslims, taking their property and destroying their livelihood. Making a living by raiding their oppressors' caravans was absolutely justified and logical. No "mass murder" ever took place.

Muhammad (SAWS) and the Makkans signed a peace treaty in 628. Under this treaty, it was made clear that the agreement would be dissolved if either party or its allies attacked the other party or that party's allies. The Banu Bakr (allied with the Makkans) and the Banu Khuza'ah (allied with the Muslims) had been feuding on and off before the treaty was drafted. After it was signed, though, the Banu Bakr blatantly disregarded the treaty and attacked the Banu Khuza'ah, even slaughtering them in the Kaaba. The Quraish aided the Banu Bakr, so the treaty was obviously nullified. At a disadvantage, the Quraish attempted to coax the Muslims into drafting another treaty, but the Muslims rejected their hollow promises. Abu Sufyan, the leader of the Quraish, renounced his heathenism and converted to Islam. The next day, Muhammad (SAW) and the Muslims entered Makkah and met no resistance whatsoever. Summarily, emissaries arrived from throughout Arabia, pledging their tribes' allegiance to Allah (SWT) and his messenger (SAW).

More information:
Treaty of Hudaibiya

Fact 2: Moe lead the raid, mass murder and forced conversion of the Jews of Medina.

None of these events ever took place. Oppressed by the Quraysh and faced with threats of assassination, Muhammad (SAW) and his followers were forced to flee to Madinah after some of them had sought refuge in Axum. Muhammad had actually been invited to Madinah, then called Yathrib, and established peace and justice between the warring tribes upon his arrival there. Eventually, Madinah was besieged by the Quraysh. The Muslims and their allies successfully repelled the invaders, though it was discovered that the Banu Qurayza had betrayed their Muslim and Jewish brothers by secretly negotiating with the Quraysh. It is they specifically whose deaths Sa'd ibn Mua'dh supposedly ordered; they had, after all, deferred to his judgment. However, no archaeological evidence exists of their supposed execution and Ibn Ishaq's account of it has been traced back to tall tales told by certain Madinan Jews.

Information about the relocation to Madinah (the Hijra):
http://i-cias.com/e.o/hijra.htm

A comprehensive account of the Messenger's relationship with Jewish tribes:
Muhammad: Legacy of a Prophet . Muhammad and Jews of Medina | PBS

The Constitution of Madinah:
"Constitution" of Medina (Dustur al-Madinah)

An examination of the dubious claims surrounding the execution:
New Light on the story of Banu Qurayza

Fact 3: Moe lead the conquest of Arabian Pennisula, which included mass murder, forced conversions and political assassinations.

Muhammad (SAW) neither carried out mass murders nor forced conversions. Assassinations were only carried out against those who posed a legitimate threat to the newly established order. In fact, Islam under the Messenger spread mostly due to various tribes submitting to him after hearing of his victory over the Quraysh.

Fact 4: Moe forced into marriage many women of the conquested people he conquered

None of the prophet's wives were "forced" into Marriage. Marriage in Islam is a contract that must be consented to by both parties.

Nikah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fact 5: Moe married Aisha at age 5-7 and STOLE her viriginity at 9-10! That is child molestation for any time period

As I've said repeatedly, the fact that Aishah was 14-15 at the time of her betrothal and 19 at the time of her marriage can be confirmed using multiple sources.

Her age was lowered in that report so that no questions would be raised about her virginity, and by extension, the legitimacy of Muhammad's offspring through her.

Source: "All of these specific references to the bride's age reinforce Aisha's pre-menarcheal status and, implicitly, her virginity. They also suggest the variability of Aisha's age in the historical record." - D. A. Spellberg, Politics, Gender, and the Islamic Past.

In reality, she had been betrothed to Jubair Ibn al Mut'am, a pagan, before her engagement to Muhammad. Jubair eventually annulled their engagement. In at least two separate sources it is pointed out that Asma bint Abi Bakr, Aisha's half-sister, was 100 years old when she died in 73 AH. That would make Aisha 90 in 73 AH.

Source: "Asma died in 73 A.H. at the age of one hundred years. She was ten years older than her sister Aisha." - Ibn Kathir, Al-bidayya wal-nihaya

"She was the sister of Aisha Siddiqa, wife of the Holy Prophet, and was ten years older than her. … In 73 A.H. … Asma died at the age of one hundred years." - Mishkat al-Masabih

Fact 6: Moe stated the Islamic Crusades Caliphates, but died during the beginning.

Muhammad (SAW) attacked tribes that initiated hostilities with Muslims. Unprovoked conquest took place after he died.

Fact 7: Unfortunately the Islamic Crusades/Caliphates didn't die with Moe, they lived on to conquest Bablonyia (Iraq), area known as Turkey, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan to part of India; Persia (Iran), Israel/Palestine (actually conquered by Moe), Assyria, Egypt, All of North Africa pushing down to Sudan and even into Europe conquering Portugal and Spain. During these conquest many people were raped and murdered and whole populations were forced to convert! It is not a coincidence that the countries where Islam makes up 90-100% of the population were victims of the Islamic crusade, which Moe himself started.

This has nothing to do with Muhammad (SAWS) or Islam and is so filled with half-truths and outright fallacies that I won't bother responding to it.

 

[Kalam]

You are so dishonest you cannot not give an affirmative answer of something that is plain.
We are only dealing with the first logical fallacy

I'm not intellectually dishonest in the least; you're simply a moron. You're focusing on a minor detail of his argument and, predictably, refusing to address the substance of what he wrote.

Really? is not his argument that the first alleged abrogation verse was uttered in mekka before the laws of Islam were reveal so there fore he had to be talking about something else?

That wasn't his argument, Kepler. He mentioned that the specifics of Islamic law were revealed at Madinah and goes on to prove that, according to the specific textual context of each verse, both passages refer to the Qur'an's abrogation of previous scriptures. That you are either unable to see this or unwilling to admit it makes you either incredibly dishonest or hopelessly stupid.

A clear logical fallacy by Maulana Muhammad Ali.

Another of Fitnuts' many brain-farts.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Fact 1: Moe lead raids and mass murder on the Mecca People!

Raids were led on Makkan trade caravans because the Makkans oppressed Muslims, taking their property and destroying their livelihood. Making a living by raiding their oppressors' caravans was absolutely justified and logical. No "mass murder" ever took place.

.

Islam/"kalam" justifies theft.
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 163(a):
Narrated Ibn 'Umar:

That the Prophet said, "My livelihood is under the shade of my spear (from war booty), and he who disobeys my orders will be humiliated by paying the Jizya.

Islam is a street gang not a revelation from God.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

False claim of "oppression" are an insufficient excuse for theft and murder.

 

[Kalam]

We do not live by The Old Testament.

Then you do not follow the words you attribute to Jesus Christ and shouldn't consider yourselves Christians.

Wrong.

Tell it to Jesus. It's written in red letters, cousin.

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. - Matthew 5:17-19 (NIV)​

 

[Kalam]

Islam/"kalam" justifies theft.

Wrong, liar. The property and lives of oppressors are forfeit; all others are protected.

As for the thief, whether man or woman, cut his hand as punishment from God for what he had done; and God is all mighty and all wise. But those who repent after a crime and reform shall be forgiven by God, for God is forgiving and kind. - 5:39-40​

 

[Kalam]

False claim of "oppression" are an insufficient excuse for theft and murder.

Only a true ignoramus would deny that Muslims were oppressed under the Quraysh.

Persecution of Muslims by the Meccans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Let me guess: the Muslim women in Bosnia weren't raped, they "deserved it."

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

You are so dishonest you cannot not give an affirmative answer of something that is plain.
We are only dealing with the first logical fallacy

I'm not intellectually dishonest in the least; you're simply a moron. You're focusing on a minor detail of his argument and, predictably, refusing to address the substance of what he wrote.

Really? is not his argument that the first alleged abrogation verse was uttered in mekka before the laws of Islam were reveal so there fore he had to be talking about something else?

That wasn't his argument, Kepler. He mentioned that the specifics of Islamic law were revealed at Madinah and goes on to prove that, according to the specific textual context of each verse, both passages refer to the Qur'an's abrogation of previous scriptures. That you are either unable to see this or unwilling to admit it makes you either incredibly dishonest or hopelessly stupid.

.

We are addressing each claim independently .
His first argument which I focused on is not a minor point, it is the point .
He accomplishes your proof by using a logical fallacy, which you swallow without a quantum of uncertainty. No everyone does.
That someone disagrees with you does not make them a moron or dishonest.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Islam/"kalam" justifies theft.

Wrong, liar. The property and lives of oppressors are forfeit; all others are protected.

As for the thief, whether man or woman, cut his hand as punishment from God for what he had done; and God is all mighty and all wise. But those who repent after a crime and reform shall be forgiven by God, for God is forgiving and kind. - 5:39-40​

Is there an Arabic word for these oppressors ?

http://www.answering-christianity.c...1&rodwell=1&transliteration=1&all=1&B1=Search

Seems there is little doubt as to the use of the word oppressor in this verse.
In the Arabic the word is Zâlimûn
Polytheists and wrong-doers and unjust.

The Noble Quran's Search Results:

Apparently the same arabic word is used to describe oppressors in 2:193 and 2:254

Quraan Transliteration

That means disbelief is oppresion

 

[Intense]

Then you do not follow the words you attribute to Jesus Christ and shouldn't consider yourselves Christians.

Wrong.

Tell it to Jesus. It's written in red letters, cousin.

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. - Matthew 5:17-19 (NIV)​

I'm telling You because You asked. I tell it to Jesus Every day, You did not ask if I follow the Law of The Spirit. You asked If I am a Slave to Other Peoples Manipulation of Scripture. My Law is to seek God first in All Things. Not to play with words in order to bend People to My Will. When You place Anything Written Above God, You Sin. Others before You have Corrupted The Living Word, both intentionally and Unintentionally. When in Doubt, Choose Conscience, the Tool You were born with. Even a Misapplication of a Multi Level understanding of Passage, will be accounted for. I will Not Murder or Rape or Enslave in God's Name, nor do I Justify Any of You, except in Self Defense or To Save Life, and Property for those that can't be turned away. Know when You are being Played.

 

[PixieStix]

Islam/"kalam" justifies theft.

Wrong, liar. The property and lives of oppressors are forfeit; all others are protected.

As for the thief, whether man or woman, cut his hand as punishment from God for what he had done; and God is all mighty and all wise. But those who repent after a crime and reform shall be forgiven by God, for God is forgiving and kind. - 5:39-40
​

Anyone who is not Muslim nor bows to Allah, ARE the oppressors

Dhimmis, and those who are Muslim are the ONES who are protected under Islam



" Islam forbids the killing of innocent people"

Innocent people are Muslims and dhimmis, unbelievers are not innocent according to Islam

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allāh) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allāh (Alone). But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zālimûn (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.) (Al-Baqarah 2:193)

O you who believe! Spend of that with which We have provided for you, before a Day comes when there will be no bargaining, nor friendship, nor intercession. And it is the disbelievers who are the Zālimûn (wrong-doers, etc.). (Al-Baqarah 2:254)

Quraan Transliteration

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

2:106. Whatever a Verse (revelation) do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allâh is able to do all things?

As to the second verse MM Ali supposes that Mohammad had to be talking about prior scripture since .

1. Mohammad a perfect unfailing memory confirmed by the Quran .

8:76. We shall make you to recite (the Qur'ân), so you (O Muhammad (Peace be upon him)) shall not forget (it),​

This kind of proof is a logical fallacy called Circular Reasoning
Fallacy: Begging the Question
2.The ayats he revealed were written down promptly .

The fact the the Quran was or was not written down promptly does not add to the argument .
The prior scripture were without a doubt in existence before during and after mohamads time.
What was written is not forgotten in an eternal sense, it can be refered to and what mohammad brought it neither similar nor better so the idea of them being the topic strains credulity .

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

"KALAM"

yak yak yak

You can have your own opinions, but you can not have your own facts.

Please

A. Address the Maulana's argument directly and explain specifically why it is incorrect.
B. Fuck off.

You are not required to agree,
Im just illustrating it is possible to have a rational by which to disagree .You do not a quantum of uncertainty about abrogation.
Others do and they can do so with out being morons, liars or idiots.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/1564501-post154.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/1564804-post159.html
If you feel you can convince them to stop teaching abrogation at Oxford please apply for a position there.
I dont think they will take you on.