ISIS is repeating what Mohammed did a 1400 years back.

[icehorse]

You're not that bright are you. I was done telling you that it cannot be a massacre because they have not killed the women and children rather it was military aged men that were slaughtered which by the way committed massive treason to the state they pledged to.

Pay attention here Sees, you could learn a thing or two.

 

[Sees]

Pay attention here Sees, you could learn a thing or two.

Yeah, before I thought everyone knew there was a difference between massacre and genocide...now I know that isn't the case.

Additionally, someone whispering in your ear that so and so has plotted against you makes it totally reasonable to have all the boys and men of a large tribe lined-up, stripped-down, then proceeding to behead those with pubic hair.

Having tons of women for the right hand to possess or for trading as goods is also a completely reasonable bonus.

No motives, of course. All is well.

 

[Noa]

Yes, the Muslim world had a golden age and yes, much of the rest of the world benefited technologically and philosophically from that golden age.

And the Muslim-majority world is still vibrant, productive, multi-faceted, and beautiful.

 

[Rival]

Those defending the massacre of the Jews just make it look like Muhammad had no diplomatic skills whatsoever and was a raging warlord.

Mostly because that's exactly what he was, so fair enough to them.

 

[Sees]

the quryzi tribe sold weaponry and information to the enemy. In addition they vowed not to help in any shape or form to the defense of the city.

I realized this wasn't actually addressed yet...what sources do you have for those statements?

I haven't seen any of that mentioned outside of modern apologetics - and the weapons part is new even as far as that is concerned.

Also the Meccans weren't coming for the city - they were coming for the Muslims themselves, who were raiding incoming and outgoing caravans - taking the loot and killing if need be.

 

[Sabour]

Isis is slaughtering and torturing Yazdies for their religious beliefs. Every other religions are their targets.
Mohammed too did the same -mercilessly butchered other then existing peaceful and more morally developed civilizations. Raped even kids. Many islamic countries say Isis is not muslim - but for me it is like saying "Prophet Mohammed" is not islamic.

Freedom of thought is suppreseed under islamic rules with a thousand restrictions and uncivilized and barbaric punishments.

Today i doubt - Did islam truly had a golden age? or did it stole the science and technology and arts from other civilizations and marketed as theirs?

If in the future and if their strategy works and the world is ultimately populated with muslims alone and a few hundred years after they achieve this "feat" - when things are as civilized as 400 AD, they would be claiming that they sent a man to the moon back in 1969.

Read the life of the prophet from an Islamic source and learn what Islam is before making judgements.

 

[icehorse]

Read the life of the prophet from an Islamic source and learn what Islam is before making judgements.

Been there, done that.

 

[RAYYAN]

Hi RAYYAN,

These discussions often turn to questions of philosophy. I can tell you that I believe in universal human rights. And I would agree from a philosophical perspective that that belief of mine is an opinion. More specifically, I believe that the world would be a far better place if we all agreed to the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights (UNDHR). Over the last 50 years or so, political leaders in the Muslim world have rejected the UNDHR. Instead they created the "Cairo Declaration on Human Rights". In my opinion that the UNDHR is morally and ethically far superior to the Cairo Declaration.

I would be interested to know if you've compared these two documents and if you have opinions about them.

Sorry icehorse,
I don't know much about it and don't know much about politics

 

[Britedream]

Hi Britedream,

So you asked:



We have two moments to discuss. As far as Bill Warner is concerned, I do not think we can call that video "opinion". It is based on years and years of research of historical documents. Now you can claim that his research is flawed, but these aren't opinions.

Next we can discuss my thoughts. Again, I would say that my arguments are based on weeks and weeks of actual study. I never claimed to be an expert like Warner, but it's NOT the case that I'm simply rendering opinions without any evidence.

As far as your "American" example goes, I would hold it up to the same analysis. In this case, I would agree to some degree. I think that America has some huge problems. In many ways I would agree that there are aspects of America that are uncivilized! (But you should know, that I never use America as my basis for comparison, instead I measure everything against the systems I think are the best, such as ideas like secularism and humanism.)

Thank you IceHorse.

You are not answering my question, my question was " is it a valid argument?"; it is about the argument.

We will pass on that, I have put this question few times, and no need to go on about it any further.

Sorry IceHorse, I couldn't find a better way to put it, but your studies and knowledge about Islam, that led you to use this so called facts, are dead wrong, and the following is the prove.

The next step is to take the Sira and weave it into the Koran to give the Koran a context. For example, there is a verse that says that it was proper to burn the palm trees. For someone who reads this verse, a question arises: what palm trees are being talked about? The Koran gives no context. But in the day of its creation, everyone who heard the verse knew that the previous week, Mohammed had attacked some Jews who were date farmers and had destroyed their date palm trees in violation of Arabic war customs. When the story of Mohammed (from the Sira) is woven into the Koran, then the context of the attack on the Jews is clear.

"there is a verse that says that it was proper to burn the palm trees. "

Did you see the smaller quote in the larger quote. that is a fabrication, no such Ayah (verse) in the Quran. Did you notice that he did not put any Sura or Ayah number, simply it does not exist. This man didn't study the Quran, nor he is quoting from the Quran.

This alone throws out the credibility of your evidence. but I will show more.

Let us be clear here that the very best way to obtain the complete meaning is to edit (edit does not mean change the meaning, but to order, rearrange and collect) the texts and then proceed from the edited text. The Koran is famously difficult. However, if the necessary editing is done, the Koranis a very straightforward document. The first editing steps are to put the Koran in order with respect to time. In this way when you turn the page, you advance in time, just as you would in a history book. This time line order has been known since the first days of Islam. The next step is to collect all of the variations of the same story. As an example, the story of Moses and the Pharaoh is told 39 times. If they are all collected under one category, then the Koran is easier to read and less boring.

In the quote above, he admits that he edited the Quran.

The usual response to this difficulty is to skip the editing and offer up some verses from the Koran. But “verse” is a biased word in that it invokes a religious overtone. In almost every case, a verse is nothing more than a sentence. There is no other field of study in which individual sentences are given so much weight.

The above quote proves his ignorance about the Quran.

The word "Verse" is not a Quranic word, nor it is an arabic one for that matter. The Quran word is "Ayah" and it means a sign. why God call them signs, God revealed them to his Prophet challenging his people to produce something like it, as their inability to do so, is a sign for his truth.

*The translations are not the Quran*. Please always keep that in mind.

In the above Quote he indicated that Quran is difficult.

God didn't think so, nor the Arabs; including the disbelievers for that matter.

16:103 "We know indeed that they say ' Human that teaches him', The tongue of the one they hint to, is non Arabic, while this is Arabic pure and clear"

In the Ayah above God said the Quran is clear, All the parties at the time did in fact acknowledge that, So difficulties is not an issue here, beside the Quran is not stories, nor history, So his time arrangement for the Quran is wrong.



By the way, The man is enjoying Business with this, he is selling three editions, two hours Quran, simple Quran, Bridged Quran.

I just gave some samples of his trust worthy knowledge, you can get a lot more by reading his site from the link below.

Here is the link to his site where the above info was copied from:http://www.politicalislam.com/statistics-and-the-meaning-of-islam/

 

[icehorse]

Hi Britedream,

As far as I know, there is no central authority in Islam. Do you know of one? If I'm right, then I'd say that all we have is your opinion against mine. It's clear for example that since the beginning of Islam, Muslims cannot even agree amongst themselves. So some Muslims would agree with my interpretation and some with yours... who's correct?

And once again, you MUST separate the messenger from the message. You might not like Warner (he's not my favorite either), but it doesn't matter. Either there were 500 battles in the first 300 years or there weren't.

 

[icehorse]

Hi Britedream,

I'm not trying to avoid your question! You said:

You are not answering my question, my question was " is it a valid argument?"; it is about the argument.

We will pass on that, I have put this question few times, and no need to go on about it any further.

Can you repeat exactly what question it is you think I have not answered. If you do, I will answer it!

Thanks

 

[Britedream]

Hi Britedream,

As far as I know, there is no central authority in Islam. Do you know of one? If I'm right, then I'd say that all we have is your opinion against mine. It's clear for example that since the beginning of Islam, Muslims cannot even agree amongst themselves. So some Muslims would agree with my interpretation and some with yours... who's correct?

And once again, you MUST separate the messenger from the message. You might not like Warner (he's not my favorite either), but it doesn't matter. Either there were 500 battles in the first 300 years or there weren't.

Thank you IceHorse.
I have shown you the inaccuracy of your knowledge about Islam, that concluded our argument, so is not helpful to jump to another new point, there is no end to this. But all I want you to know, it is not a matter of an opinion; opinions don't count, all are about facts and proofs.

All the best.

 

[Sabour]

Been there, done that.

If you did it and share the same opinion as in the OP than you are reading from an extremely biased source

 

[icehorse]

Thank you IceHorse.
I have shown you the inaccuracy of your knowledge about Islam, that concluded our argument, so is not helpful to jump to another new point, there is no end to this. But all I want you to know, it is not a matter of an opinion; opinions don't count, all are about facts and proofs.

All the best.

I disagree. I presented facts, you disagreed. I asked you how many other sources of facts you would need to see before you agreed, you did not respond. You presented facts and I countered you.

None of this is a matter of opinion. I know the difference between facts and opinions. That said, when it comes to historical research, it's often difficult to determine when facts are or are not completely accurate. Now you *could* claim that you feel your scholars have better facts than mine. That could be an interesting discussion.

From what I saw in your video, your scholars committed "sins of omission". In other words what they said was largely true, but they left out many facts that would be hard for them to explain, given that they were attempting to apologize for Islam. For example they could have said something like "many scholars report that the first 300 years of Islam were quite violent, but we disagree." Instead, they just ignored that claim altogether.

So, you are under no obligation to respond, but I would say you're fooling yourself if you think you've presented facts and I have not. I am happy to continue this conversation with you.

 

[icehorse]

If you did it and share the same opinion as in the OP than you are reading from an extremely biased source

As I have mentioned before, the translation of the Quran that I read is the translation that has been most repeatedly reprinted throughout the world. You might not like that translation, but 260 MILLION copies have been printed and distributed (by Muslims!), so you can't very well ignore it.

 

[Shad]

The whole tribe were ready to invade from behind as soon as the enemy Qurysh tribe from Mekka entered from the front. That was the plan of the jewish tribe quryza at the time were thinking. They clearly knew the consequence of their actions, they were not fools. Breaking a treatise and committing treason is punishable by death back then and now.

Then it was premeditated murder in which certain people were selected for execution while others were not.

 

[Sabour]

I disagree. I presented facts, you disagreed. I asked you how many other sources of facts you would need to see before you agreed, you did not respond. You presented facts and I countered you

You did this by saying "been there done that" ?

Sorry I couldn't understand what you are stating based on these two words.

Have a nice day

 

[Britedream]

I disagree. I presented facts, you disagreed. I asked you how many other sources of facts you would need to see before you agreed, you did not respond. You presented facts and I countered you.

None of this is a matter of opinion. I know the difference between facts and opinions. That said, when it comes to historical research, it's often difficult to determine when facts are or are not completely accurate. Now you *could* claim that you feel your scholars have better facts than mine. That could be an interesting discussion.

From what I saw in your video, your scholars committed "sins of omission". In other words what they said was largely true, but they left out many facts that would be hard for them to explain, given that they were attempting to apologize for Islam. For example they could have said something like "many scholars report that the first 300 years of Islam were quite violent, but we disagree." Instead, they just ignored that claim altogether.

So, you are under no obligation to respond, but I would say you're fooling yourself if you think you've presented facts and I have not. I am happy to continue this conversation with you.

Hi IceHorse,
You seem to be a nice man, But sorry, you talk out of ignorance, and you lacked the ability to put a correct argument; either you do not know , or you do not have. Facts are indisputable, your disagreement to it, is irrelevant. Can you void the fact that the Jews went where the Islam rules, and flourish, in the link I provided?. This alone destroys any argument that claims the Islam is violent and intolerant, but you did not have a valid argument to begin with. your source is invalid by any measure. you brought a source that uses fabrication, and I proved that to you; by showing you the fabrication. So your claims became your facts, and their source is your head.

Sorry, I can not go on in circle with you.
Thank you.

 

[icehorse]

Hi Britedream,

Perhaps I see the problem here... When I say Islamic history is violent, that does NOT mean it was 100% violent, 100% of the time. Of course I'm happy to agree with you that SOMETIMES Islamic conquest was not violent. For example, I'd be happy to grant you that your story about that particular situation with one group of Jews occurred exactly as you claim.

But that one example of yours does NOT disprove the larger claim of violence. When we say Islamic conquest is violent, we mean that it's *often* violent, or *frequently* violent. We do not mean that it's *always* violent.

Let me give you an analogy. Let's imagine a man who is 40 years old, and during his life he has committed 3 murders. I would be correct to claim that this man *is* a murderer, even though most of the time he doesn't murder people. Similarly, in history Islamic conquest has been violent, even though sometimes it's not.

Does that make sense?

 

[icehorse]

Read the life of the prophet from an Islamic source and learn what Islam is before making judgements.

Hi One-answer,

Earlier my answer was "been there, done that". Apparently that answer caused confusion, so let me try again:

I HAVE studied the life of Muhammad and I have studied the Quran from Islamic sources. When I make a judgment, it is because of those studies I have already made.

I think perhaps the bigger point here is that there is no central authority in Islam. I suspect that you would not agree with the translation of the Quran that I used for most of my studies. But I picked that translation BECAUSE MUSLIMS have printed and distributed that version of the Quran 260 MILLION times. So I have to say that I'm studying from Islamic sources, correct?