What you should know about Islam

[Rigby5]

Of course, when Muslims are violent it's "always someone's else fault"...

Sure it can't be that first, he tried to convert them
and got laughed by the literate Meccans.


Now tell us,
did the Mongols write this?

"I will expel the Jews and Christians
from the Arabian Peninsula and
will not leave any but Muslim."

Sahih Muslim 1767a - The Book of Jihad and Expeditions - كتاب الجهاد والسير - Sunnah.com - Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم)

Hadith of the Prophet Muhammad (saws) in English and Arabic

sunnah.com

Possibly.
The Mongol invasion that wiped out the Islamic leadership at Baghdad happened around 1200 AD.
This Hadith was written around 1767.
So is well after the invasions and take over by the Mongols, Moghuls, Moors, Mamelukes, and Turks.
While I don't know who was responsible for stating that, it certainly was not Mohammad.
Mohammad never attacked anyone over religion.
And the Quran is quite clear, "there can be no compulsion over religion".
Nor was there ever any time I know of when Christians and Jews were expelled from the Arabian Peninsula?

 

[Rigby5]

Yeah at the end of the day all Abrahamic religions want to be 'like Judaism',
but that's also their fundamental difference, that Judaism is what you've
listed above and it's not a religion, while Islam is.

Simply put, there're atheist Jews,
but can there be an atheist Muslim?

But Judaism has an old foundation that needs to have things removed.
It is out of date.
We not only know better now, but have to work with much larger areas and groups of people.

And yes there are atheist Moslems.
Osama bin Laden and all the al Qaeda group were likely atheists.
Those who actually believe in God do not feel compelled to right wrong on earth because they feel they should let God do it, either on Earth or in the after life.
It is only atheists who want to right wrong here and now.

 

[Rigby5]

And they were given over half the mandate.

Wrong.
The Arabs were given 100% of the mandate.
The was the British Mandate for Palestine and the British Mandate for Jordan.
There was also a French Mandate for Lebanon.
There was never intended any country for Jews, and they were supposed to just be allowed to immigrate to the Arab Moslem Palestine.

 

[Lastamender]

Nonsense.
Everywhere in the Quran is says violence is bad and you can only used it in defense after being attacked.
And that is especially true with Jews and Christians that Mohammad called "Brothers of the Book", meaning the shared same Old Testament.
The WTC hijacking was done by atheists, and had nothing at all to do with religion.
Bin Laden was just angry about how we massacred civilians on the Highway of Death and how badly we treat the Palestinians.
We started it all.

You better do some reading. Start here.

Myth: Muhammad only Waged War in Self-Defense (Khaybar)

The story of Muhammad's conquest of Khaybar debunks the myth that Muslims only wage war in self-defense.

thereligionofpeace.com

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Wrong.
The forces that the British used to defeat the Ottoman Empire were Arab.
Remember Lawrence of Arabia?

The retreat of Iraqi forces were announced by the media before the massacre, so it is well established it was illegal murder by the US.
{...
The attacks became controversial to outsiders, with some commentators arguing that they represented disproportionate use of force, saying that the Iraqi forces were retreating from Kuwait in compliance with the original UN Resolution 660 of August 2, 1990, and that the column included Kuwaiti hostages[10] and civilian refugees. The refugees were reported to have included women and children family members of pro-Iraqi, PLO-aligned Palestinian militants and Kuwaiti collaborators who had fled shortly before the returning Kuwaiti authorities pressured nearly 200,000 Palestinians to leave Kuwait. Activist and former United States Attorney General Ramsey Clark argued that these attacks violated the Third Geneva Convention, Common Article 3, which outlaws the killing of soldiers who "are out of combat."[11] Clark included it in his 1991 report WAR CRIMES: A Report on United States War Crimes Against Iraq to the Commission of Inquiry for the International War Crimes Tribunal.[12]
...}

Highway of Death - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You totally do not know anything about the history of Palestine.
Jordan was never part of Palestine.
Palestine was part of Trans Jordan and Jordan was part of Trans Jordan.
Palestine was always west of the Jordan River and Jordan east of the Jordan River.
But in 1920 as the Allies were trying to uphold their promises to liberate Trans Jordan, the natives forced them to divide Trans Jordan into Palestine, where Jewish immigration would be allowed, and Jordan, where no Jewish immigration would be allowed.
If you want to look it up, it is the Treaty of San Remo and the Treaty of Sevres.

And no, there are no Arab Moslem killings that were not essential, in defense, after all else had failed.
You can find aggression by Turks who were not really Moslem but just pretended to convert.
You can find aggression by Moors who were not really Moslem but just pretended to convert.
But not by actual Moslems, who would also have to be Arab to not just be pretending to convert.

The the abuses at the Boston Marathon, in San Bernadino or at the Pulse nightclub were stupid, but more than justified.
The Highway of Death alone was so incredibly evil that it justifies the total destruction of the entire US.
And we can't claim the innocense of civilians because we all know it happened and yet never ever tried to punish the guilty.
We are all complicit.
We paid for the weapons, and we did not properly supervise what the military did with them.

The forces that the British used to defeat the Ottoman Empire were Arab.

How many were Palestinian? A dozen?

The retreat of Iraqi forces were announced by the media before the massacre, so it is well established it was illegal murder by the US.

So announced means negotiated?

You totally do not know anything about the history of Palestine.
Jordan was never part of Palestine.

Jordan was part of the Mandate.

The the abuses at the Boston Marathon, in San Bernadino or at the Pulse nightclub were stupid, but more than justified.

Justified? Tell me more.

And we can't claim the innocense of civilians because we all know it happened and yet never ever tried to punish the guilty.

Guilty of winning a battle?

 

[rylah]

Possibly.
The Mongol invasion that wiped out the Islamic leadership at Baghdad happened around 1200 AD.
This Hadith was written around 1767.
So is well after the invasions and take over by the Mongols, Moghuls, Moors, Mamelukes, and Turks.
While I don't know who was responsible for stating that, it certainly was not Mohammad.
Mohammad never attacked anyone over religion.
And the Quran is quite clear, "there can be no compulsion over religion".
Nor was there ever any time I know of when Christians and Jews were expelled from the Arabian Peninsula?

Umar b. al-Khattib, Muslim caliph, lived between 581-644.

Umar bin Al-Khattab - Wikipedia Bahasa Melayu, ensiklopedia bebas

ms.wikipedia.org

That you resort to lying so boldly
only reveal your deceitful manner
because you have nothing to refute.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Arabs were given 100% of the mandate.

Obviously not.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There was never intended any country for Jews,

Then what was the partition all about?

 

[Rigby5]

You better do some reading. Start here.

Myth: Muhammad only Waged War in Self-Defense (Khaybar)

The story of Muhammad's conquest of Khaybar debunks the myth that Muslims only wage war in self-defense.

thereligionofpeace.com

Your link is totally inaccurate.
It is just making things up.

But there was conflicts that came up, and there were traitors who did get attacked in retaliation for things like an assassination attempt.

{...
The Banu Qurayza (Arabic: بنو قريظة‎, Hebrew: בני קוריט'ה‎; alternate spellings include Quraiza, Qurayzah, Quraytha, and the archaic Koreiza) were a Jewish tribe which lived in northern Arabia, at the oasis of Yathrib (now known as Medina), until the 7th century, when the men were sentenced to death and women and children enslaved after they betrayed the pact made with the Muslims[1] following the Invasion of Banu Qurayza by Muslim forces under Muhammad.

Jewish tribes reportedly arrived in Hijaz in the wake of the Jewish-Roman wars and introduced agriculture, putting them in a culturally, economically and politically dominant position.[2][3] However, in the 5th century, the Banu Aws and the Banu Khazraj, two Arab tribes that had arrived from Yemen, gained dominance.[4] When these two tribes became embroiled in conflict with each other, the Jewish tribes, now clients[3][5] or allies[4] of the Arabs, fought on different sides, the Qurayza siding with the Aws.[6]

In 622, the Islamic prophet Muhammad arrived at Yathrib from Mecca and reportedly established a pact between the conflicting parties.[2][7][8] While the city found itself at war with Muhammad's native Meccan tribe of the Quraysh, tensions between the growing numbers of Muslims and the Jewish communities mounted.[6]

In 627, when the Quraysh and their allies besieged the city in the Battle of the Trench, the Qurayza initially tried to remain neutral but eventually entered into negotiations with the besieging army, violating the pact they had agreed to years earlier.[1] Subsequently, the tribe was charged with treason and besieged by the Muslims commanded by Muhammad.[9][10] The Banu Qurayza eventually surrendered and their men were beheaded.[9][10][11][12][13]

The historicity of this incident has been questioned by Islamic scholars[14][15][16] of the Revisionist School of Islamic Studies[17] and by some western specialists.[18][19]
...}

Banu Qurayza - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If you want to make a point, you have to at least provide something with the most minimal of fact checking, like wikipedia.
Just any old link without any fact checking at all is totally useless.

 

[rylah]

Muslim violence and degradation is

"always someone's else fault"...

 

[Rigby5]

Obviously not.

Obviously YES.
There is absolutely no doubt about that at all.
If you want it in writing, here is the Churchill Whitepaper of 1922 that says Jews are to have no autonomy or any role in government at all.

The Avalon Project : British White Paper of June 1922

{...
Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab deegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded `in Palestine.' In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development."

It is also necessary to point out that the Zionist Commission in Palestine, now termed the Palestine Zionist Executive, has not desired to possess, and does not possess, any share in the general administration of the country. Nor does the special position assigned to the Zionist Organization in Article IV of the Draft Mandate for Palestine imply any such functions. That special position relates to the measures to be taken in Palestine affecting the Jewish population, and contemplates that the organization may assist in the general development of the country, but does not entitle it to share in any degree in its government.

Further, it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status. So far as the Jewish population of Palestine are concerned it appears that some among them are apprehensive that His Majesty's Government may depart from the policy embodied in the Declaration of 1917. It is necessary, therefore, once more to affirm that these fears are unfounded, and that that Declaration, re affirmed by the Conference of the Principle Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sevres, is not susceptible of change.
...}

The Jews were a tiny minority in 1930 Palestine, and no one anticipated the vast immigration before WWII.
By 1948 Palestine became almost a third Jewish, so it was only then the UN decided to split Palestine into a Jewish and Moslem partitions.

 

[Rigby5]

Then what was the partition all about?

The partition of Trans Jordan into Jordan and Palestine was only to prevent any Jewish immigration into Jordan.
There was no partition allowing Jewish autonomy until the UN pulled it out of thin air in 1948.
And it likely was not legal.
The UN gave a third the population that was Jewish, over half of Palestine.

 

[Rigby5]

Muslim violence and degradation is

"always someone's else fault"...

If you think otherwise then give me an example?
Maybe I am wrong.
Could easily be, since humans make lots of mistakes.
But I just don't know of any evil Arab Moslem aggression off hand.
I do know of evil Mongol, Moghul, Turkish aggression that is blamed on Moslem Arabs however.

 

[Lastamender]

Your link is totally inaccurate.
It is just making things up.

But there was conflicts that came up, and there were traitors who did get attacked in retaliation for things like an assassination attempt.

{...
The Banu Qurayza (Arabic: بنو قريظة‎, Hebrew: בני קוריט'ה‎; alternate spellings include Quraiza, Qurayzah, Quraytha, and the archaic Koreiza) were a Jewish tribe which lived in northern Arabia, at the oasis of Yathrib (now known as Medina), until the 7th century, when the men were sentenced to death and women and children enslaved after they betrayed the pact made with the Muslims[1] following the Invasion of Banu Qurayza by Muslim forces under Muhammad.

Jewish tribes reportedly arrived in Hijaz in the wake of the Jewish-Roman wars and introduced agriculture, putting them in a culturally, economically and politically dominant position.[2][3] However, in the 5th century, the Banu Aws and the Banu Khazraj, two Arab tribes that had arrived from Yemen, gained dominance.[4] When these two tribes became embroiled in conflict with each other, the Jewish tribes, now clients[3][5] or allies[4] of the Arabs, fought on different sides, the Qurayza siding with the Aws.[6]

In 622, the Islamic prophet Muhammad arrived at Yathrib from Mecca and reportedly established a pact between the conflicting parties.[2][7][8] While the city found itself at war with Muhammad's native Meccan tribe of the Quraysh, tensions between the growing numbers of Muslims and the Jewish communities mounted.[6]

In 627, when the Quraysh and their allies besieged the city in the Battle of the Trench, the Qurayza initially tried to remain neutral but eventually entered into negotiations with the besieging army, violating the pact they had agreed to years earlier.[1] Subsequently, the tribe was charged with treason and besieged by the Muslims commanded by Muhammad.[9][10] The Banu Qurayza eventually surrendered and their men were beheaded.[9][10][11][12][13]

The historicity of this incident has been questioned by Islamic scholars[14][15][16] of the Revisionist School of Islamic Studies[17] and by some western specialists.[18][19]
...}

Banu Qurayza - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If you want to make a point, you have to at least provide something with the most minimal of fact checking, like wikipedia.
Just any old link without any fact checking at all is totally useless.

The link uses Islamic holy literature to prove itself. Deal with it. Islam is a violent hate filled religion.

 

[Rigby5]

The link uses Islamic holy literature to prove itself. Deal with it. Islam is a violent hate filled religion.

Wrong.
Your link used its own translations and left things out.
For example, the Qurayza turned traitor twice.
It is well recorded history.
So they deserved to be attacked.
If you leave out the part where they tried to assassinate Mohammad, then it appear to be aggressive, but that would be false.

 

[rylah]

But Judaism has an old foundation that needs to have things removed.
It is out of date.
We not only know better now, but have to work with much larger areas and groups of people.

Well, the foundation of the world is old,
by an appeal to a baby religion of an illiterate man it won't change.

That's where Islam still misses on monotheism,
in its true universal form, first in your denial of Islam as branch of Judaism,
and then in you competing on the Christian mistake of denial of eternity of G-d's word.

There's no out of date with eternity,
and Islam is incapable of producing a universal direction for humanity.
an appeal to a new baby religion of an illiterate man didn't even produce much for his own.

B"H most of earth's population
are too intelligent for the appeal of Islam.

And yes there are atheist Moslems.
Osama bin Laden and all the al Qaeda group were likely atheists.
Those who actually believe in God do not feel compelled to right wrong on earth because they feel they should let God do it, either on Earth or in the after life.
It is only atheists who want to right wrong here and now.

Osam Bin Laden was an "Atheist Muslim",
didn't believe in Allah or 'his prophet'?

See, a compulsion to just say the opposite of whatever,
when you have no morality or facts on your side,
is how you keep making my point.

 

[Lastamender]

Wrong.
Your link used its own translations and left things out.
For example, the Qurayza turned traitor twice.
It is well recorded history.
So they deserved to be attacked.
If you leave out the part where they tried to assassinate Mohammad, then it appear to be aggressive, but that would be false.

Bullshit. Apologists claim translation changes the meaning, it tries to hide it, but nothing can change it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Obviously YES.
There is absolutely no doubt about that at all.
If you want it in writing, here is the Churchill Whitepaper of 1922 that says Jews are to have no autonomy or any role in government at all.

The Avalon Project : British White Paper of June 1922

{...
Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab deegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded `in Palestine.' In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development."

It is also necessary to point out that the Zionist Commission in Palestine, now termed the Palestine Zionist Executive, has not desired to possess, and does not possess, any share in the general administration of the country. Nor does the special position assigned to the Zionist Organization in Article IV of the Draft Mandate for Palestine imply any such functions. That special position relates to the measures to be taken in Palestine affecting the Jewish population, and contemplates that the organization may assist in the general development of the country, but does not entitle it to share in any degree in its government.

Further, it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status. So far as the Jewish population of Palestine are concerned it appears that some among them are apprehensive that His Majesty's Government may depart from the policy embodied in the Declaration of 1917. It is necessary, therefore, once more to affirm that these fears are unfounded, and that that Declaration, re affirmed by the Conference of the Principle Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sevres, is not susceptible of change.
...}

The Jews were a tiny minority in 1930 Palestine, and no one anticipated the vast immigration before WWII.
By 1948 Palestine became almost a third Jewish, so it was only then the UN decided to split Palestine into a Jewish and Moslem partitions.

Obviously YES.
There is absolutely no doubt about that at all.

Big old Jewish country sitting there.

It's obvious that 100% of the land was NOT given to the Arabs.

If you want it in writing, here is the Churchill Whitepaper of 1922 that says Jews are to have no autonomy or any role in government at all.

And in 1948......they did.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The partition of Trans Jordan into Jordan and Palestine was only to prevent any Jewish immigration into Jordan.
There was no partition allowing Jewish autonomy until the UN pulled it out of thin air in 1948.
And it likely was not legal.
The UN gave a third the population that was Jewish, over half of Palestine.

The partition of Trans Jordan into Jordan and Palestine was only to prevent any Jewish immigration into Jordan.

The partition plan in Palestine, you silly Muslim.

There was no partition allowing Jewish autonomy until the UN pulled it out of thin air in 1948.

That was awesome!

And then the Arabs fucked it up, eh?

The UN gave a third the population that was Jewish, over half of Palestine.

And now how much do the Jews own?

 

[Rigby5]

Umar b. al-Khattib, Muslim caliph, lived between 581-644.

Umar bin Al-Khattab - Wikipedia Bahasa Melayu, ensiklopedia bebas

ms.wikipedia.org

That you resort to lying so boldly
only reveal your deceitful manner
because you have nothing to refute.

Wrong.
It would seem your own link says Umarb. al=Khattib respected Jews and Christians.

{...
In 637 CE, after the long siege of Jerusalem, the Islamic army succeeded in conquering the city. Jerusalem's great priest Patriarch Sophronius handed over the keys to Saidina Umar. He then urged Saidina Umar to pray in the christian grand church of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Saidina Umar refused and instead performed prayers not far from the church because it did not wish to tarnish the church's status as a Christian religious center.
...}