"Religion of Peace?"

[Augustus]

How can a a building that is made of steel collapse after burning only for 1 hour?

Something to do with being hit by a plane travelling at 500 mph perhaps?

 

[sovietchild]

Something to do with being hit by a plane travelling at 500 mph perhaps?

“The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door—this intense grid—and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.”

FAQ #9: Were the Twin Towers Designed to Survive the Impact of the Airplanes?

 

[J2hapydna]

I LOVE what you have written ! But, is this reality ? I can't seem to be able to square your words with the hadith and koran, and history seems to tell a different story. Can you help me with this?

It squares with the Quran and is based on straightforward ideas contained in the Hadith and Sira. as well as reality. However what it doesn't square with is the usool of the Shariaists. However the usool is self contradictory. The usool also contradicts the Quran, reality and many traditions. This is why reasonable people have such a hard time understanding the Sharia

The Shariaist view contradicts the Quran. For example, none of the shariaists can reconcile their beliefs with Quran 28:48-50 and 3:199

The Shariaist view contradicts reality. For example it claims that the Jews and Christians colluded to modify the Bible and removed passages describing MP. Isn't that insane?

Similarly the Shariaist usool contradicts itself. For example, notice that the usool claims that no new practices can be added to Islam that werent instituted in the days of the Rashidun. Yet the usool itself was created after the Hadith texts were created that in turn were created after the Rashidun passed away. In other words the usool that helps determine which Hadith are sound etc is an innovation by its own standard.

Similarly, Hadith texts were recorded after the Umayyad rose to power and long after the Rashidun had passed away. So they too are an innovation according to the standards of the usool. In addition, notice that there is a sahih Hadith that says Muhammad had forbidden Muslims from writing down any religious texts after the Quran. Consequently, Umer refused to write down MPs last words (that MP believed were important advice) by claiming they were his personal opinions and Muslims only need the Quran. So how do believers in the usool reach the conclusion that sayings of MP -that were collected after the Rashidun passed away - could be a required part of the faith of Islam when Umer is refusing to even collect what MP was saying? So again and again we find the Sharia usool contradicts itself.

By the way, there is an entire group of Sunni Muslims known as Quranists who reject the usool, Sira and Hadith. The rationalists and deists such as Sunni Muslim Sir Syed rejected the Islamic methods of determining which Hadith are reliable and which were not (usool).

In conclusion it's not difficult to show that the Umayyads were sociopaths who didn't understand MP or his message as they were ex pagans who didn't like MP and hadn't spent much time with him. Also, it's not difficult to show that what they invented is a self serving philosophy, crudely based on the Quran but often contradicts it as well as contradicts itself and reality. In contrast the ideas I've presented are simple and straightforward fully reconcilable with the Quran, reality and the archaeological evidence

 

[hughwatt]

Some quick facts I also want to share.

Since you mentioned brutalizing women I will concentrate on women. It is true the Qur'an forbids a man to hurt a woman yet allows a man to strike his wife provided he doesn't cause any harm.

In my eyes it's impossible and if my wife even asked I would never get the slightest bit physically rough with her. So the one should logically, today if not then also, forbid the other.

Brutalization is not allowed. No verse could justify it in light of the command to not cause physical harm, pretty much leaving it to spanking or something, still not cool if you ask me but moving on.

It sounds crazy considering the images we recieve here, but Muslim women are not oppressed unless you are talking about certain countries, Saudi Arabia, which is controlled by Britain and America, and Iran.

Women have a very honored role in Islam.

You're either very ignorant about Islam, too embarrassed to admit what it teaches or using taqiyya/kitman.

Some quick facts about Islam from its own sources. ​

Surah 4:34 Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.

Volume 7, Book 72, Number 715: Sahih Bukhari

Narrated 'Ikrima:

Rifa'a divorced his wife whereupon 'AbdurRahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi married her. 'Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah's Apostle came, 'Aisha said, "I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!" When 'AbdurRahman heard that his wife had gone to the Prophet, he came with his two sons from another wife. She said, "By Allah! I have done no wrong to him but he is impotent and is as useless to me as this," holding and showing the fringe of her garment, 'Abdur-Rahman said, "By Allah, O Allah's Apostle! She has told a lie! I am very strong and can satisfy her but she is disobedient and wants to go back to Rifa'a." Allah's Apostle said, to her, "If that is your intention, then know that it is unlawful for you to remarry Rifa'a unless Abdur-Rahman has had sexual intercourse with you." Then the Prophet saw two boys with 'Abdur-Rahman and asked (him), "Are these your sons?" On that 'AbdurRahman said, "Yes." The Prophet said, "You claim what you claim (i.e.. that he is impotent)? But by Allah, these boys resemble him as a crow resembles a crow,"​

No harm caused? What was Muhammad's response? Was it to admonish the husband? No, he sent her back to her abusive husband.

 

[JustWondering]

Do you think anyone really cares what you think ?

What a Christ-like response. You are a true representative of Christianity.

 

[Notanumber]

And yet I still think the North Koreans way over there are a larger danger than ME migrants here.
Actually I think we are a bigger danger to ourselves than them.
Also fatty foods.
And smooth sided bath tubs.

What do you think about this?

It is not just terrorism that is the problem, but it should be openly discussed and not covered up by the media.

 

[hughwatt]

And yet I still think the North Koreans way over there are a larger danger than ME migrants here.
Actually I think we are a bigger danger to ourselves than them.
Also fatty foods.
And smooth sided bath tubs.

Yeah, and the next time you enter a airport don't look to see if any Muslim jihadists are lurking around look for the N Korean ones carrying backpacks.

Happy flying.

 

[JustWondering]

Christians don;t consider women the cause of original sin, I don't know where you got that idea. Suppressed ?

Genesis 3:12 and 3:16 gives a clear picture of what is thought of women in the bible.

Not part of the NT 1900 years ago. From Iraq come photo's of dead women half buried in the dirt with broken heads and faces, who did that ? So you can beat your wife, yet not brutalize her, hmmmmm, who decides if she has been brutalized ? Tell me about sharia and rape. Who is responsible for a rape ? how are the punished ? Tell me about moslem men raping non moslem women, in the true faith, what does that mean ?

The OT has similar passages, so you don't want to go down this road. Both Islam and CHRISTIANITY spring from bronze age cultures that had a deplorable way of doing things. All you are doing with this is showing your ignorance about your own culture/religion or you are not ignorant and just want to indulge your bigotry and smear Muslims/Islam.

Oh, one more thing, please tell me about honor killings of women and girls, what's that all about ? Are boys or men ever killed in honor killings ?

From what I understand honor killings are a cultural thing that have nothing to do with Islam. If I'm wrong feel free to tell me where in the Koran it says to perform honor killings.

 

[JustWondering]

Or a Shiite.

Or a foreign worker from the developing world (especially a maid).

Or someone takes a dislike to you and tells the authorities you are a sorcerer.

Way to go, you and icehorse COMPLETELY and intentionally ignored the point of my post. Guess you are more interested in continuing a monologue that bashes Muslims than have an actual discussion/debate. I'll leave you two to it then.

 

[JustWondering]

Have you read the koran and hadith ? If so , is it unclear to you ? If a true moslim believes they are the word and commands of allah, they must accept the behavior ordered at some level, right ? No, no moslem has ever used the context tactic with me what I have heard, when confronted with one of the perfectly clear texts is "you don't understand", with no attempt to help me understand or most recently being called a liar when allah calls for coercion, when I said it is the same as compel or force. I am constantly telling folks who equate the behavior of some Christians with the doctrines they say they believe. I would suggest you not do the same re moslems, people should be judged as individuals, a religion should be judged by it's "holy books" and doctrine. As to your alleged Biblical "genocides", I will address them in another post

If Christians actually followed Christ's doctrine of turning the other cheek and treating your neighbor with love and kindness the US wouldn't be systematically bombing civilians in 8-9 countries right now. The hypocrisy of Christians that want to point their fingers at Muslims and call them barbarians truly astounds me.

 

[JustWondering]

Absolutely right. In terms of people killed, if one wants to use that as a measuring stick, the Crusades were tiny in comparison. Lets not forget that many of today's moslem country's were Christian till assailed by islam. Huge swathes of india were stolen by moslems. Spain a Christian country , was invaded and occupied. Many eastern European countries were attacked, occupied, and Christianity was obliterated. Moslems drove for the heart of Europe, only being stopped at the gates of vienna in Austria. Lebanon, most recently, a Christian nation was "invaded" by hordes of moslems and the Christian Lebanese lost control of their own nation and are now marginalized. This is irrefutable history. The history of the religion of peace. There is much more, but I am tired of typing, the point is made

Sorry but you don't get to limit Christian aggression, greed, and bloodlust to the Crusades. I'm sure the Native Americans (those that survived) would be happy to tell you about how friendly and neighborly Christians are. Also, you do realize that 90% of the people killed in the continuous drone strikes the US (a "Christian" nation) performs in the middle east are civilians. The US (a "Christian" nation) has been the biggest warmongering country on the planet for the past five decades.

 

[JustWondering]

I think that's a false equivalence. The west is being asked to accept millions of immigrants from largely failed states. Pakistan is not in the same position.

Doesn't a BIG part of Christianity center around being generous, kind, and loving? The west starts the trouble that causes millions of people to flee their homes for their own safety then scoffs at having to help any of these same people afterward. Anyone who says the west is full of Christian nations that actually follow Christ's teachings is delusional.

 

[sovietchild]

You're either very ignorant about Islam, too embarrassed to admit what it teaches or using taqiyya/kitman.

Some quick facts about Islam from its own sources. ​

Surah 4:34 Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.

Volume 7, Book 72, Number 715: Sahih Bukhari

Narrated 'Ikrima:

Rifa'a divorced his wife whereupon 'AbdurRahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi married her. 'Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah's Apostle came, 'Aisha said, "I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!" When 'AbdurRahman heard that his wife had gone to the Prophet, he came with his two sons from another wife. She said, "By Allah! I have done no wrong to him but he is impotent and is as useless to me as this," holding and showing the fringe of her garment, 'Abdur-Rahman said, "By Allah, O Allah's Apostle! She has told a lie! I am very strong and can satisfy her but she is disobedient and wants to go back to Rifa'a." Allah's Apostle said, to her, "If that is your intention, then know that it is unlawful for you to remarry Rifa'a unless Abdur-Rahman has had sexual intercourse with you." Then the Prophet saw two boys with 'Abdur-Rahman and asked (him), "Are these your sons?" On that 'AbdurRahman said, "Yes." The Prophet said, "You claim what you claim (i.e.. that he is impotent)? But by Allah, these boys resemble him as a crow resembles a crow,"​

No harm caused? What was Muhammad's response? Was it to admonish the husband? No, he sent her back to her abusive husband.

Technically, men are in charge of women. Men have protected women for many years, from caves to gated villages, they protected them against tigers and invaders who were looking for women to take home. How do you think Mongolian Empire started? It all started with women being stolen. And, so Khan build a little army and took his woman back.

 

[JustWondering]

Muslims are far more likely to be fundamentalists than Christians. But in both cases, fundamentalists tend NOT to be open to honest criticisms of their religions.

And you base this on.......

 

[RESOLUTION]

Nobody said they did. Perhaps you have a reading comprehension problem.

The point is you would not write what you do, if you understood the truth of what I said. My comprehension
is fine. But yours appears sadly lacking when you write about matters relating to YHWH, Jews and Christians.
Hence the mumbo jumbo being of no relevance to the truth.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Yeah, and the next time you enter a airport don't look to see if any Muslim jihadists are lurking around look for the N Korean ones carrying backpacks.

Happy flying.

Racial profiling is more of a conservative thing.

 

[RESOLUTION]

One of the callers called from the cell phone when the airplane was at 30,000 feet cruising at 500 MPH.

And, what about the passport that was found? How can a a building that is made of steel collapse after burning only for 1 hour?

Faulty steel columns. No one expect debris to be flung at the building.
But they say it was a faulty column where the metal buckled and so caused the stability of the building to become unstable and collapse.
We do not know what the hijacking caused to the functions of the plane.
But we do know radio transmission can be made from the plane.

When disasters happen they are more informed after than before.
Truth is had the planes not hit two buildings then the rest could not have happened.

 

[shmogie]

Sorry but you don't get to limit Christian aggression, greed, and bloodlust to the Crusades. I'm sure the Native Americans (those that survived) would be happy to tell you about how friendly and neighborly Christians are. Also, you do realize that 90% of the people killed in the continuous drone strikes the US (a "Christian" nation) performs in the middle east are civilians. The US (a "Christian" nation) has been the biggest warmongering country on the planet for the past five decades.

As I have said at least a million times, a person or persons can call themselves anything. It is the quality of there actions related to what THEY SAY they believe which determines who and what they really are. Christ himself spoke of these people. No, the US is not a Christian nation.

 

[J2hapydna]

I LOVE what you have written ! But, is this reality ? I can't seem to be able to square your words with the hadith and koran, and history seems to tell a different story. Can you help me with this?

Why don't you give me an example of where you find history suggesting a different story? Thanks

 

[shmogie]

If Christians actually followed Christ's doctrine of turning the other cheek and treating your neighbor with love and kindness the US wouldn't be systematically bombing civilians in 8-9 countries right now. The hypocrisy of Christians that want to point their fingers at Muslims and call them barbarians truly astounds me.

The US is not a Christian nation. What astounds me is people who take a statement "turn the other cheek", thinking they know what it means, then imputing their meaning to others that they think aren't following the meaning they manufactured. No, the US is not "systematically bombing civilians".