Was Muhammad a good man?

[AmbiguousGuy]

I have personally experience Christ directly.

If you think that qualifies you to discuss the historical Jesus, we'll just have to disagree. To educate yourself about the historical Jesus, you'll have to actually read about and study the historical Jesus, an activity which you might or might not have done, but you have certainly not demonstrated that knowledge here on this board.

I am still curious why you refuse to joine historical-Jesus threads. My suspicion is that you don't feel qualified to do that.

The majority of the people who should know, agree that Jesus was a historical figure.

If you mean biblical scholars, I disagree. They are the last people I would trust to give me an unbiased opinion about the historicity of Jesus.

How about you? Would you expect any Quranic scholars to conclude that Mohammad didn't really exist?

 

[1robin]

Sooo..can you name a single outside (non-Christian) source then?

I have given you at least 40 of them twice so far. However in what way are the 20 or so Biblical authors illegitimate because they are biblical authors. They did not even know each other in most cases and lived in completely different cultures spread out over 1800 years. Are you suggesting they were all in on some gag? Many died for their claims.

 

[1robin]

Though I could be wading into waters I'd rather not tread, I am fairly sure that 1robin means to say is, though there is no direct evidence of Christ, the vast majority of scholars do agree that he was likely an authentic historical figure. For the record, the same is true of Muhammad. Though there is no physical evidence that there ever was a historical person called Muhammad, that brought a new religion to the Arabian Peninsula, the vast majority of academics/scholars believe that he was indeed a historical figure.


If I have this wrong, 1robin is welcome to correct me.

There is no direct evidence (actually there might be a little). As with almost every historical character (especially ancient historical characters) there is only testimonial evidence, and Christ has more than any figure in ancient history of any type.

Another doctrinal point.
In Christianity you get proof at the entrance point of faith. The Bible claims every single person who actually believes receives spiritual experiential proof. Islam nor Muhammad claimed this. You can have Islamic faith your entire life and will never know your wrong until it is too late. A Christian (according to billions of testimonials and biblical doctrine) receives confirmation at the threshold of faith. Their is a world of difference in that concept.

 

[1robin]

Well I would have agreed if he had phrased it like that.

Of couse the majority of biblical scholars tend to think of the Bible/gospels as historical. They'd be out of jobs if not.

That is completely false. That is why I made statement after statement about it not mattering which side they were on. A lot of NT scholars are not Christians. They grant Christ existed (which was the point) but have not accepted him as savior. A person does not have to believe a word of the Bible is true to specialize in it. I swear I am talking into the wind half the time.


Again most NT scholars (no matter what side they are on) grant Christ's historicity and many other historical claims in the Bible. The admission of hostile witnesses carries much weight.

 

[Sees]

That is all hype with no substance. People of any and all faiths can get that Holy Ghost feeling deep in their bones and feel ecstatic to see/know truth of their faith.

Jesus' being a historical person is much less probable than several ancient figures.

 

[FearGod]

Do you know anything about military history? You do not even adopt it when given. The Bombs dropped on Hiroshima were not dirty bombs and apparently you do not know the difference. Dirty bombs are what terrorist are trying their best to produce because they do not require much in the way of technology (and Islam is deficient in technology). They are cheap and do not require sophisticated hardware. They are essentially a regular bomb which expended uranium or plutonium is simply placed on top of. All they are supposed to do is kill people the cheapest way possible. Our weapons as those used in Japan are NOT that kind at all. They are very sophisticated detonation weapons designed to break atoms off, or split them from the orbital shells of atoms.

IMO the bomb used in Japan is the dirtiest of all bombs but don't think that because it is sophisticated then only the US can make it as it is already produced in Pakistan and ask the funny netanyahu if Iran did it or not as he warned the world that if Iran produced it then it will be the end of the world and that USA will be in real danger and of course what he said was nonsense.

[youtube]NsZ8xN6TeWg[/youtube]
Netanyahu Draws a Cartoon 'Bomb' at United Nations! - YouTube

[youtube]8n8Elfq_18k[/youtube]
Netanyahu Uses Looney Tunes Cartoon Bomb in UN Speech?! - YouTube

Why should I supply historical facts if they are not accepted by you. Ignorance is very excusable. willful ignorance is not. I will supply briefly the basic facts involved with our use of atomic weapons.

The historical facts that US was excused to kill 250000 of the civilians but the prophet was a bad man for killing warriors holding swords.

Yes I believe that willful ignorance isn't excusable and even is a sort of stupidity.

The prophet had forbidden killing the innocents in any wars,that is a recorded fact,but are you willing to believe it, of course not.


The prophat's advice to warriors during wars
“I advise you ten things| Do not kill women or children or an aged, infirm person. Do not cut down fruit-bearing trees. Do not destroy an inhabited place. Do not slaughter sheep or camels except for food. Do not burn bees and do not scatter them. Do not steal from the booty, and do not be cowardly.”


Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab that a son of Kab ibn Malik (Malik believed that ibn Shihab said it was Abd ar-Rahman ibn Kab) said, “The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, forbade those who fought ibn Abi Huqayq (a treacherous jew from Madina) to kill women and children. He said that one of the men fighting had said, ‘The wife of ibn Abi Huqayq began screaming and I repeatedly raised my sword against her. Then I would remember the prohibition of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, so I would stop. Had it not been for that, we would have been rid of her.’”

1. The casualty estimates I gave are exactly what can be found in any history book worth reading. Japan had demonstrated their will to find to the death (of everyone) because they thought their empower was a God. Our causality estimates were around 500,000 and theirs around 2 million or more. Look them up.
2. We used atomic weapons for sheer shock value. We knew the only hope to save millions was to scare the heck out of the Japanese. Most would have fought on until their entire race was annihilated. Thank God the empower had enough sense to see the futility of taking us on in a final showdown. He renounced his divinity and surrendered. It literally saved millions, that apparently you think would have been better to have killed.
3. I guess your bizarre point is that those bombes were just too powerful and were there for somehow immoral. There were dozens of bombing raids that killed far more people on all sides. Ours against Tokyo and Dresden killed 4 or 5 times as many. The Japanese raped and killed more people in China alone than died in the atomic bombs. Exactly how many people can be killed by one weapon and it be justifiable? By what standard do you arbitrarily claim atomic weapons are just too much? Either all bombs are bad, or all bombs can be used justifiably, it usually works out only those so backwards as to not be able to invent as big a bomb says the other guys are wrong.
4. If the US was some kind of blood thirsty tyrants why did we never use them again even when losing battles? We could have taken over the world in 1946, could have won the cold war in 1960, could have reduced Vietnam to a waste land in 1970, could have pretty much done as we please until 1980 but didn't.
5. It is not a bog stick in a moral man's hands you need fear, it is a small one in a immoral nation's hands. That is why Israel will take Iran's head off the moment they have the capacity to create a nuclear weapon.
6. No known nuclear "dirty bomb" has ever been used and it is only some small Islamic nation's and terrorists groups that have shown interest in them. They are for poor militant groups that have no technological capacity of their own and only wish to hurt people without strategic gain.


I can get into as much detail on any of these issues as you like but if you will not accept historical or technological facts if they do not fit your narrative what is the point?

The point is hypocrisy.

You make many silly points in defending and pointing to the reasons for killing the innocents in Japan while you claim that terrorists are owning primitive dirty bombs and then the worst of all that you are saying that the bombs used in killing the Japaneses wasn't dirty but was a sophisticated advanced bomb.
I think hubris is kind of mental illness

For some reason you seem to value Muhammad's military skill. He is mediocre at best and never fought battles like the world's greats throughout history. Not even close. One of my favorites (he is a favorite because of his military skill as a general not as a prophet) was a guy named Stonewall Jackson. He was a General in the Us civil war on the southern side. He was a Christian but he stated one time he would take no prisoners and kill every soldier he could (the block flag) until it was over. That always stuck me as an odd thing for so pious a man to say. I ran across an explanation not long ago. He said he would have done so because the war could not have lasted 6 months that way, tens of thousands instead of millions would have died and 3.5 years of suffering and misery have been avoided. There is even mercy in necessary brutality at times. That was just a bonus.

The summary:
1. We have never used a dirty bomb, ever.
2. Only Islamic radicals are perusing dirty bombs.
3. In no category can you prove our use of nuclear weapons in Japan was unjust in a war, nor can you show it did not directly save the lives I claim it did.
4. I of course wish no bombs were necessary but I (unlike many) live in the real world with real bad people that want to deny other nations rights to exist.

it is not about Christianity,Islam,Judaism,Hundaism,Atheism ...etc but it is about humanity the way it should be.

[youtube]3DOgWuGYGeo[/youtube]
The Truth About War - Who Are The Real Terrorists? - YouTube

 

[1robin]

IMO the bomb used in Japan is the dirtiest of all bombs but don't think that because it is sophisticated then only the US can make it as it is already produced in Pakistan and ask the funny netanyahu if Iran did it or not as he warned the world that if Iran produced it then it will be the end of the world and that USA will be in real danger and of course what he said was nonsense.

It is impossible to debate terms based on the definitions you invent in your head. Dirty bombs are actual things, they are not what was dropped on Japan. Debates take place on the grounds of proper terminology not your opinion, which is wrong. A dirty bomb is a cheap device that uses a conventional explosion to spread radioactive material around for the sole purpose of causing misery. They are used by no one so far but are being sought out by Islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups. I know of no other group looking for a way to get them, though there might be a few. A nuclear device has the exact same purpose as conventional bombs, but uses a very sophisticated and complicated method of stripping electrons from covalent shells. Their purpose is to reduce the capacity of the enemy to effectively fight a war.

In summary:
1. Your opinion is irrelevant and it is wrong about dirty bombs.
2. A nuclear bomb has exactly the same function as a conventional bomb.
3. Why do you allow one weapon but based on some irrational and arbitrary basis consider another immoral? Are some explosions moral and others immoral? What is the standard? Where did you get it?
4. Dirty bombs do not have the same purpose as nuclear devices. They only cause terror and misery. They do almost nothing to stop an army's ability to fight. They are only desired by cowardly terrorists trying to increase suffering without the slightest chance of producing military victory.
5. The Bombs dropped on Japan literally saved millions of Japanese and Americans. We did not start the war, they did. We did not want to drop huge bombs on anyone, their insane devotion to their emperor (very similar to the terrorists devotion to Muhammad) forced us to take extreme measures. They used germ warfare, we did not. They tortured and killed prisoners of war, we did not. They perpetuated the greatest act of rape and torture in known history, we did not. We whipped them, rebuilt their nation, and protected their nation for decades. On what basis do you condemn that?
6. You can't justify Muhammad's actions and then condemn another nations far more justifiable actions just because we happen to be far better at winning than Islam is. You would think that if Allah actually did fight for Muslims they would be better at it and not so cowardly about it. No I am not linking you with them.

[youtube]NsZ8xN6TeWg[/youtube]
Netanyahu Draws a Cartoon 'Bomb' at United Nations! - YouTube

[youtube]8n8Elfq_18k[/youtube]
Netanyahu Uses Looney Tunes Cartoon Bomb in UN Speech?! - YouTube

This is typical. Muhammad kills thousands of helpless people and that is fine but a Jewish leader draws a cartoon that kills no one and he is condemned. This is pathetic. Israel is surrounded by immoral nations that have tried to deny their right to exist at all, many times. I bet you do not realize that in the six day war, on day three, Israel targeted every major Islamic city in the middle east and warmed up their missiles. They would have melted them all if the Muslims could actually fight. On day 4 the Islamic armies fell apart (as usual) and Israel cooled off their nukes. Those Mullah's just do not know who they are messing with even after loosing a hundred battles.

Regardless, for the 101st time I can't watch utube videos. I want a rational basis why you condemn our dropping bombs on Japan. I will get to the rest of this later.

So far it is either that you dislike the fact we always win and Islam almost always looses or it is because it is scary having someone with that much lethal power when it is not your own nation. I am not sure which, but so far you have not provided any actual reason to condemn our actions if you ever justify using force for anyone.

 

[1robin]

The historical facts that US was excused to kill 250000 of the civilians but the prophet was a bad man for killing warriors holding swords.

Not one thing above was either claimed by me or relevant. At what point are the amount of deaths ok? How many people are you allowed to kill if they invade your nation or threaten it's survival? You are making up non-existent standards. The atomic bombs did not kill 250,000 people. They killed less than 200,000. However Stalin killed 20 million of his own people. Hitler (with Muslims fighting for him) led to the deaths of 50 million. Fire bomb raids on Germany and Japan killed way more people than the atomic bombs did alone, not to even mention the thousands of tons of conventional bombs. In what way are atomic bomb deaths any less moral or justifiable than other deaths? Is Muhammad chopping off hands and feet (and even refusing to cauterize them) better that instant death? Is chopping the heads off of bound prisoners until Muhammad was exhausted good? Either warfare is justifiable or not. IMO almost all of Muhammad's battles were unjustified, but history records that many were not for a fact. War is not a good thing but warfare can be justifiable, and numbers have nothing to do with it. If any act of war in history can be justified it would be first the Jewish wars against Arabs, and second our wars with Germany and Japan, and what weapon was used does not change that fact.

Yes I believe that willful ignorance isn't excusable and even is a sort of stupidity.

Then why do you insist on versions of history that are not true even when exhaustively explained to you. No dirty bomb was used on Japan, no dirty bomb is known to have been used, ever. No one is looking for them outside radical Islam. Why are you still using that word?

The prophet had forbidden killing the innocents in any wars,that is a recorded fact,but are you willing to believe it, of course not.

History records he killed innocent people, in his own words and that of his companions. I do not care what a person says if they do the opposite.

The prophat's advice to warriors during wars
“I advise you ten things| Do not kill women or children or an aged, infirm person. Do not cut down fruit-bearing trees. Do not destroy an inhabited place. Do not slaughter sheep or camels except for food. Do not burn bees and do not scatter them. Do not steal from the booty, and do not be cowardly.”

If he violated his own rules (and history gives countless examples, then what use are his words outside more evidence he was no prophet. Why (even if wrong) do so many Muslim's (tens of thousands) think the Quran ordered them to kill unbelievers in general? Was Allah not aware of what his words would be used to do? No one was chanting death to Iraq when we invaded them, however thousands chanted death to America in Islamic nations when a lunatic flew planes into a building. They all say peaceful Muslims are wrong. Why is the Quran either so violent, or so easy to interpret that way. We spend billions and loose lives by the hundreds checking and double checking targets, we can not even shoot until fired upon most times, we do everything we can to limit collateral damage even against those that are deny the right to exist to others. Any standard that could even hint at condemning the US or Israel would condemn Islam's actions by many orders of magnitude.

Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab that a son of Kab ibn Malik (Malik believed that ibn Shihab said it was Abd ar-Rahman ibn Kab) said, “The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, forbade those who fought ibn Abi Huqayq (a treacherous jew from Madina) to kill women and children. He said that one of the men fighting had said, ‘The wife of ibn Abi Huqayq began screaming and I repeatedly raised my sword against her. Then I would remember the prohibition of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, so I would stop. Had it not been for that, we would have been rid of her.’”

Words do not fix this:

It is reported on the authority of Sa'b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said: “They are from them.” (Sahih Muslim 4322, see also Bukhari 52:256)

This does not justify the targeted killing of women and children per se, but it does prove that collateral damage is entirely acceptable if it accomplishes the military goal of spreading Islamic rule.

Muhammad used a catapult against he city of Taif, which kills indiscriminately. The only crime the citizens were guilty of was evicting him are rejecting his claims of being a prophet.

Muhammad drew a distinction between Muslim and non-Muslim children and implied that it would be permissible to kill a child who has no prospect of accepting Islam:

The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) used not to kill the children, so thou shouldst not kill them unless you could know what Khadir had known about the child he killed, or you could distinguish between a child who would grow up to he a believer (and a child who would grow up to be a non-believer), so that you killed the (prospective) non-believer and left the (prospective) believer aside. (Sahih Muslim 4457)

After capturing Mecca, the prophet of Islam also ordered the execution of two “singing girls” who had mocked him in verse:


“…two singing-girls Fartana and her friend who used to sing satirical songs about the apostle, so he ordered that they should be killed…” (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 819)
Myth: Muhammad Never Killed Children

Trenches were dug in the bazaar of Medina and between 600 to 900 men were beheaded and their bodies dumped in them.

Huyai Ibn Akhtab, the chief of the Banu Nadir whose married daughter, Safiya, Muhammad took as his share of the booty when he invaded Khaibar, was among the captives. He was brought to the victor with his hands tied from behind. In an audacious defiance he rejected Muhammad and preferred death to submission to this brute man. He was ordered to kneel and was beheaded on the spot.

To determine who should be killed, the youngsters were examined. Those who had grown pubic hair were bundled with the men and beheaded. Atiyyah al-Quriaz, a Jew who had survived this massacre later recounted: “I was among the captives of Banu Quraiza. They (the Muslims) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair.”[5]
Sina's Challenge: Muhammad a Mass Murderer

The point is hypocrisy.

You make many silly points in defending and pointing to the reasons for killing the innocents in Japan while you claim that terrorists are owning primitive dirty bombs and then the worst of all that you are saying that the bombs used in killing the Japaneses wasn't dirty but was a sophisticated advanced bomb.
I think hubris is kind of mental illness

There is nothing true in that statement at all. I never said terrorist groups owned dirty bombs. They probably do but I never said it. I said the defense agencies around the world know of only Islamic terrorists interested in dirty bombs. They do so because they are cheap and easily detonated. They do not have the technology to make actual nuclear weapons for the most part, this is the next best thing for those who's only desire is misery. It is not hypocrisy to condemn unjustifiable acts or murder and torture as Muhammad did and to justify actual acts of ware against belligerent nations committed to death rather that peace. It is however hubris, mental, illness, and cognitive dissonance to condemn the acts of war of a nation attacked without reason and then defend beheading helpless prisoners of war based on Muhammad's desires alone.

it is not about Christianity,Islam,Judaism,Hundaism,Atheism ...etc but it is about humanity the way it should be.

I guess your bizarre point being that unless the garden of Eden exists then all acts of war are wrong unless Muhammad did them. I have no idea what that even means.

[youtube]3DOgWuGYGeo[/youtube]
The Truth About War - Who Are The Real Terrorists? - YouTube

For the 102nd time. I can't watch utube and no person interested in truth would exclusively use it as their only source. Try quoting a peer reviewed book every now and then.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

That is completely false. That is why I made statement after statement about it not mattering which side they were on. A lot of NT scholars are not Christians. They grant Christ existed (which was the point) but have not accepted him as savior.

You seem confused about the issue. Do you think I'm arguing that all biblical scholars are Christians?

I suggest that you do some reading about the historical Jesus. And if you are feeling ready, try posting to some of the threads about it. Try arguing for your belief that Jesus actually lived as a human in 30 CE Jerusalem.

A person does not have to believe a word of the Bible is true to specialize in it.

How on earth could 'not of word of the bible be true'?

Try digging into the history of the Bible. I'm thinking you'll be shocked.

Again most NT scholars (no matter what side they are on) grant Christ's historicity....

Yeah. And most Quranic scholars (no matter what side they are on) grant Mohammad's historicity.

We've already been through this. Why do you keep repeating what we've already agreed upon?

 

[FearGod]

It is impossible to debate terms based on the definitions you invent in your head. Dirty bombs are actual things, they are not what was dropped on Japan. Debates take place on the grounds of proper terminology not your opinion, which is wrong. A dirty bomb is a cheap device that uses a conventional explosion to spread radioactive material around for the sole purpose of causing misery. They are used by no one so far but are being sought out by Islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups. I know of no other group looking for a way to get them, though there might be a few. A nuclear device has the exact same purpose as conventional bombs, but uses a very sophisticated and complicated method of stripping electrons from covalent shells. Their purpose is to reduce the capacity of the enemy to effectively fight a war.

Dirty is a word that describes things and has nothing to do with terminology.
So yes the nuclear bombs are a dirty weapons and who use it to kill innocents is a dirty person as well

In summary:
1. Your opinion is irrelevant and it is wrong about dirty bombs.

That's not true.

2. A nuclear bomb has exactly the same function as a conventional bomb.

No it isn't similar.
Nuclear bombs cause mass destruction,not to mention the death due to cancer and the environment damage.

3. Why do you allow one weapon but based on some irrational and arbitrary basis consider another immoral? Are some explosions moral and others immoral? What is the standard? Where did you get it?

I get it from the word dirty bombs(your terminology) which is immoral in your standards,but as I can see that the nuclear bomb to you is sophisticated and good to win wars by causing mass destruction plus killing many innocents and civilians during the war,that looks moral to you.:yes:

4. Dirty bombs do not have the same purpose as nuclear devices. They only cause terror and misery. They do almost nothing to stop an army's ability to fight. They are only desired by cowardly terrorists trying to increase suffering without the slightest chance of producing military victory.

Yes dirty bombs (your terminology) cause terror and misery,but the nuclear dirty bombs don't cause terror and misery but it produce military victory.:sarcastic

So in your logic it is OK to use nuclear weapons to kill innocents in order to achieve victory.

5. The Bombs dropped on Japan literally saved millions of Japanese and Americans. We did not start the war, they did. We did not want to drop huge bombs on anyone, their insane devotion to their emperor (very similar to the terrorists devotion to Muhammad) forced us to take extreme measures. They used germ warfare, we did not. They tortured and killed prisoners of war, we did not. They perpetuated the greatest act of rape and torture in known history, we did not. We whipped them, rebuilt their nation, and protected their nation for decades. On what basis do you condemn that?

The US embargo caused crisis in Japan and I think that is a sufficient reason for Japan to start a war.

The issue is why to kill more than 200000 innocents of the children and babies of the Japanese whom are the same lovely Japanese of nowadays whom are known for their kindness and for their support to the poor all over the world.

Japan launches $100m initiative to develop drugs for poorest nations


Japanese Panel Urges More Help for Poor Nations

6. You can't justify Muhammad's actions and then condemn another nations far more justifiable actions just because we happen to be far better at winning than Islam is. You would think that if Allah actually did fight for Muslims they would be better at it and not so cowardly about it. No I am not linking you with them.

The prophet fought with the poor against the oppressors.

This is typical. Muhammad kills thousands of helpless people and that is fine but a Jewish leader draws a cartoon that kills no one and he is condemned.

That is irrelevant and a silly comment.

This is pathetic. Israel is surrounded by immoral nations that have tried to deny their right to exist at all, many times. I bet you do not realize that in the six day war, on day three, Israel targeted every major Islamic city in the middle east and warmed up their missiles. They would have melted them all if the Muslims could actually fight. On day 4 the Islamic armies fell apart (as usual) and Israel cooled off their nukes. Those Mullah's just do not know who they are messing with even after loosing a hundred battles.

Israel can't even win a war against a small city in Palestine,read about Gaza and how their warriors rained Tel Aviv with rockets.


[youtube]m9FmYbew0Ls[/youtube]
Israel is the Real Terrorist State - YouTube

Regardless, for the 101st time I can't watch utube videos. I want a rational basis why you condemn our dropping bombs on Japan. I will get to the rest of this later.

It isn't my problem that you don't have an advanced mobile which even my little child owns one

So far it is either that you dislike the fact we always win and Islam almost always looses or it is because it is scary having someone with that much lethal power when it is not your own nation. I am not sure which, but so far you have not provided any actual reason to condemn our actions if you ever justify using force for anyone.

I dislike the fact that you think the prophet was a bad man because of his wars while you are defending the reason for killing more than 200000 innocents in Japan not to mention other places in the world.

 

[FearGod]

Not one thing above was either claimed by me or relevant. At what point are the amount of deaths ok? How many people are you allowed to kill if they invade your nation or threaten it's survival? You are making up non-existent standards. The atomic bombs did not kill 250,000 people. They killed less than 200,000. However Stalin killed 20 million of his own people. Hitler (with Muslims fighting for him) led to the deaths of 50 million. Fire bomb raids on Germany and Japan killed way more people than the atomic bombs did alone, not to even mention the thousands of tons of conventional bombs. In what way are atomic bomb deaths any less moral or justifiable than other deaths? Is Muhammad chopping off hands and feet (and even refusing to cauterize them) better that instant death? Is chopping the heads off of bound prisoners until Muhammad was exhausted good? Either warfare is justifiable or not. IMO almost all of Muhammad's battles were unjustified, but history records that many were not for a fact. War is not a good thing but warfare can be justifiable, and numbers have nothing to do with it. If any act of war in history can be justified it would be first the Jewish wars against Arabs, and second our wars with Germany and Japan, and what weapon was used does not change that fact.

Muslims Who Saved Jews in WWII

I advise you to read Reliable historical books and not just the biased ones.

Muslims and Jews: a historical perspective that reveals surprises

Then why do you insist on versions of history that are not true even when exhaustively explained to you. No dirty bomb was used on Japan, no dirty bomb is known to have been used, ever. No one is looking for them outside radical Islam. Why are you still using that word?

Good bombs is OK to you or Sophisticated ones,but to me it is described as dirty and evil ones.

History records he killed innocent people, in his own words and that of his companions. I do not care what a person says if they do the opposite.

Which opposite,just study history and look yourself how muslims bring the light to Europe through Spain and not destruction.

If he violated his own rules (and history gives countless examples, then what use are his words outside more evidence he was no prophet. Why (even if wrong) do so many Muslim's (tens of thousands) think the Quran ordered them to kill unbelievers in general? Was Allah not aware of what his words would be used to do? No one was chanting death to Iraq when we invaded them, however thousands chanted death to America in Islamic nations when a lunatic flew planes into a building. They all say peaceful Muslims are wrong. Why is the Quran either so violent, or so easy to interpret that way. We spend billions and loose lives by the hundreds checking and double checking targets, we can not even shoot until fired upon most times, we do everything we can to limit collateral damage even against those that are deny the right to exist to others. Any standard that could even hint at condemning the US or Israel would condemn Islam's actions by many orders of magnitude.

Please don't fool us,the 9/11 is already exposed by many educated smart Americans,many already understood it to be an inside dirty job,but believe it to be the work of Muslims if that makes you feel happy.

[youtube]UFx1WaK54Vo[/youtube]
9/11 EXPOSED, Researched facts and analysis- Full Documentary. - YouTube

Also it is false that Muslims were celebrating the death of people in the US,show your evidence if that was true.

Celebration can be like this,even though I don't believe that Bin Laden was killed and his body was thrown in the ocean.

[youtube]bc32Rn_2FF4[/youtube]
USA Celebrates Osama Bin Laden's Death - YouTube

Words do not fix this:

It is reported on the authority of Sa'b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said: “They are from them.” (Sahih Muslim 4322, see also Bukhari 52:256).

No that's entirely not true,it isn't allowed to kill children and I am just astonished how you think that people will love a man who allowed the killing of children.

Muslims believe the Quran as the words of God that is kept unchanged.

AND FIGHT in God's cause against those who wage war against you, but do not commit aggression – for, verily, God does not love aggressors. (2:190)

This does not justify the targeted killing of women and children per se, but it does prove that collateral damage is entirely acceptable if it accomplishes the military goal of spreading Islamic rule.

No that's not true,show me one example in Spain that Muslims killed women,children or any awful deeds.

What they brought to Spain is well recorded in the history,knowledge,advancement and civilization.

Muhammad used a catapult against he city of Taif, which kills indiscriminately. The only crime the citizens were guilty of was evicting him are rejecting his claims of being a prophet.

Yes that's why people love him,because he through them by the catapult,sounds logic to you.

Muhammad drew a distinction between Muslim and non-Muslim children and implied that it would be permissible to kill a child who has no prospect of accepting Islam:

The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) used not to kill the children, so thou shouldst not kill them unless you could know what Khadir had known about the child he killed, or you could distinguish between a child who would grow up to he a believer (and a child who would grow up to be a non-believer), so that you killed the (prospective) non-believer and left the (prospective) believer aside. (Sahih Muslim 4457)

Yes,Muslims are doing the same till today,any one born from disbelievers is killed.:sarcastic

That's nonsense, The uncle of the prophet died as a disbeliever and the prophet was loving him so much and the prophet asked his uncle to accept faith before death but he died as a disbeliever and the prophet loves him and God sent the verse to the prophet

Lo! thou (O Muhammad) guidest not whom thou lovest, but Allah guideth whom He will. And He is Best Aware of those who walk aright. (28:56)

After capturing Mecca, the prophet of Islam also ordered the execution of two “singing girls” who had mocked him in verse:


“…two singing-girls Fartana and her friend who used to sing satirical songs about the apostle, so he ordered that they should be killed…” (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 819)
Myth: Muhammad Never Killed Children

Trenches were dug in the bazaar of Medina and between 600 to 900 men were beheaded and their bodies dumped in them.

Huyai Ibn Akhtab, the chief of the Banu Nadir whose married daughter, Safiya, Muhammad took as his share of the booty when he invaded Khaibar, was among the captives. He was brought to the victor with his hands tied from behind. In an audacious defiance he rejected Muhammad and preferred death to submission to this brute man. He was ordered to kneel and was beheaded on the spot.

To determine who should be killed, the youngsters were examined. Those who had grown pubic hair were bundled with the men and beheaded. Atiyyah al-Quriaz, a Jew who had survived this massacre later recounted: “I was among the captives of Banu Quraiza. They (the Muslims) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair.”[5]
Sina's Challenge: Muhammad a Mass Murderer

Show me where in the history that people loved an oppressor till our day.

If you show me one person that have been loved by his people because he was oppressing them then i'll agree with you that such propaganda against the prophet is due to real stories and not just fake ones.

 

[FearGod]

There is nothing true in that statement at all. I never said terrorist groups owned dirty bombs. They probably do but I never said it. I said the defense agencies around the world know of only Islamic terrorists interested in dirty bombs. They do so because they are cheap and easily detonated. They do not have the technology to make actual nuclear weapons for the most part, this is the next best thing for those who's only desire is misery. It is not hypocrisy to condemn unjustifiable acts or murder and torture as Muhammad did and to justify actual acts of ware against belligerent nations committed to death rather that peace. It is however hubris, mental, illness, and cognitive dissonance to condemn the acts of war of a nation attacked without reason and then defend beheading helpless prisoners of war based on Muhammad's desires alone.

You did bring nothing here to discuss,what I see here is just some silly statements that don't worth discussing

I guess your bizarre point being that unless the garden of Eden exists then all acts of war are wrong unless Muhammad did them. I have no idea what that even means.

For the 102nd time. I can't watch utube and no person interested in truth would exclusively use it as their only source. Try quoting a peer reviewed book every now and then.

Youtube can be seen by others if you can't watch them for one reason or the other,you know it isn't one to one debate.

 

[1robin]

Muslims Who Saved Jews in WWII

I did not realize some Muslims saved a few Jews. I guess the fact that entire divisions of the Wauffen SS (21st Waffen Gebirgs Division der SS ìSkanderbegî), were Muslim and committed atrocities against 100s of thousands of civilians does not matter. I guess it is irrelevant that the first time Hitler made a public statement about his policy of Jewish Genocide it was in the company of a (The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin el-Husseinifrom Jordan).

Bosnian Muslims played a role in the Holocaust and the genocide committed against Serbs during World War II in the NDH, the Croat Nazi puppet state. The “architect of the Holocaust”, Heinrich Himmler was filmed and photographed with the Bosnian Muslim Nazi SS troops. Himmler was committed to forming a Bosnian Muslim statelet under Nazi control. The Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal declared that the SS was a criminal organization and found that all members of the Waffen SS were guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity. The Bosnian Muslims had two Nazi SS Waffen SS Divisions during World War II, the 13th Waffen SS Division “Handzar/Handschar and the 23rd Waffen SS Division “Kama”. There were approximately 20,000 Bosnian Muslim Nazi SS troops in these two SS Divisions.
Carl Savich Column on Serbianna.com | Front Page

I advise you to read Reliable historical books and not just the biased ones.

You are truly one of a kind. I give peer reviewed scholarly resources and you give me utube and the Washington report, then suggest I need to improve my resource. Amazing. Let's recap so far.

1. You said we used a dirty bomb in Japan. That is 100% wrong.
2. You condemned the use of bombs that saved millions of lives on the arbitrary basis you think they were too big. 100% wrong and 100% arbitrary.
3. You said because some Muslims helped some Jews we should I guess just ignore the genocides actual Muslim Wauffen SS committed and were condemned in Nuremburg as war criminals. That is 100% biased, 100% cherry picking, and 100% wrong.
4. Apparently you have even swallowed 911 conspiracy crap because it suites your narrative. I know of no conspiracy theory so juvenile, devoid of merit, and just plain dumb as that 911 crap. Apparently you just choose what reality suits you regardless of the evidence from metallurgists, air traffic controllers, cockpit recorders, independent multi volume investigations employing every expert imaginable, even international investigations. I do not have time for that level of insanity.

Muslims and Jews: a historical perspective that reveals surprises

Would you say a serial killer was a good person if I posted some "surprising" good things he has done? When the planes flying into civilians, bombs blowing up marathons, all the people looking for actual dirty bombs, and all the threats about another cultures right to exist all come from one religion, it will not make any difference to point out a few good things it has done. Even Hitler and Stalin did good things. Are they good?

Good bombs is OK to you or Sophisticated ones,but to me it is described as dirty and evil ones.

When you have to lie about what another person claims (and I rarely use that term) to have something to argue with then you are just wasting everyone's time. I never ever said anything about good bombs of any kind. I explained what the difference is between a nuclear bomb and a dirty bomb. I did say one has a justifiable use in winning a war, and the other has no justification because they can't be used to win wars but I never said either was good or that sophistication had anything to do with justification. This is so typical. tyrannical regimes like Japan, Germany, Islamic middle eastern nations keep poking the sleeping tiger, the moment he gets tired of it and tears them to pieces the ones who started the whole thing yell foul because the tiger has far larger claws than they do.

Which opposite,just study history and look yourself how muslims bring the light to Europe through Spain and not destruction.

We have already went around and around on that. I supplied list after list after list of the greatest scientists, discoveries, and advancements in history. Islam does not appear in any of them nor anything a Muslim did. It obviously made no difference because just as I said you are signing the same false tune as before. You can't wish reality into existence nor wish reality out of existence. Your wasting our time with this cognitive dissonance. History does not agree with you as I have show a hundred times.

Please don't fool us,the 9/11 is already exposed by many educated smart Americans,many already understood it to be an inside dirty job,but believe it to be the work of Muslims if that makes you feel happy.

Once a person says this you really can't take them seriously any longer.

[youtube]UFx1WaK54Vo[/youtube]
9/11 EXPOSED, Researched facts and analysis- Full Documentary. - YouTube

You really don't read anything in other people's posts do you? I must have said over 100 times I do not watch utube and can't watch utube and some Msulim sitting in his living room telling me how history is all wrong is not much of a source anyway. Why can't you get this? I have run out of patience.

If you mention:
1. Utube videos I can't watch again.
2. Mention dirty bombs we have never used and no one but Islamic terrorist want to use.
3. Or mention Islam's negligible impact on science and technology again after all the information I have provided. I have a degree in science, do you? I had to go through the history and the great thinkers in the history of mathematics and physics. Not one Muslim was even mentioned in 5 years of school nor appears on any of those top ten and top 100 lists I supplied.

I will stop responding for at least the time being. I do not have the time to waste with a person who ignores fact.

Also it is false that Muslims were celebrating the death of people in the US,show your evidence if that was true.

I knew it. You simply refuse to accept anything inconvenient no matter how well evidenced or obvious. Good Lord man did you not ever watch a news program in the last decade. There must be over 100 videos on your wonderful utube of them doing what I said. Just type in Muslims celebrate (just the 9/11 attacks alone) and you will get 1 million 200 thousand hits. Take your pick I am not digging up stuff for you to ignore. It is becoming pointless.

Continued below:

 

[1robin]

Celebration can be like this,even though I don't believe that Bin Laden was killed and his body was thrown in the ocean.

What a surprise, books, seal teams, international investigations, and thousands of witnesses say one thing and you say another. When our souls are on the line I do not see how a false reality will help you in the end. I knew people on that aircraft carrier, I was stationed on it in my first reserve enlistment. I know it happened.

However lets examine this yet again.

1. I claim as did every news service outside and most inside the middle east that Muslims by the thousands were chanting death to America and dancing in the streets after 9/11. You deny it, yet it exists in film and picture proof.
2. You deny reality but offer a picture of Americans celebrating the death of a man who had killed 3000 innocent people as some kind of proof of what exactly. That we should not be glad when justice is carried out.

You are truly remarkable.

[youtube]bc32Rn_2FF4[/youtube]
USA Celebrates Osama Bin Laden's Death - YouTube

How did Osama get into this conversation? I am glad he was killed, I am glad Hitler was killed, I am glad Stalin died, I am glad Japan was stopped, etc. I hate evil and am glad when justice is poured out. I wish it were not necessary but people like Osama make it so. It is not wrong to appreciate the evil being punished as a reflection of God's justice carried out by a righteous act against pure evil. There is something very wrong with demonstrations celebrating the death of thousands on innocent people, and why you do not get the difference is beyond me.

Instead, bin Laden divides the world into believers and non-believers, that is, Muslims and infidels. He believes Islam needs to be purified and turned back a thousand years. He has identified himself and his followers as adoring death. He told a Pakistani interviewer after 9/11: "We love death. The U.S. loves life. That is the big difference between us."

Read more: Osama bin Laden and the Idea of Progress - TIME Osama bin Laden and the Idea of Progress - TIME

Read more: Osama bin Laden and the Idea of Progress - TIME Osama bin Laden and the Idea of Progress - TIME

The man that said that is pure evil, defending that man is evil, resenting his just punishment is evil. A world that tolerates that garbage would be completely evil. I thank God a few nations have the moral clarity to exact justice against evil. If not it would consume us all as the Quran commands and the Bible forbids.

No that's entirely not true,it isn't allowed to kill children and I am just astonished how you think that people will love a man who allowed the killing of children.

People loved Hitler and Stalin. People love killing it's self. people love more wrong things than good things. There is no limit to what a person can love. As Osama said "Muslims love death, and the US loves life".

Muslims believe the Quran as the words of God that is kept unchanged.

And they are absolutely wrong. It is proven by Uthman's burning all competing Quran's, and the fact that different versions of the Quran still exist today. Islam almost self destructed specifically because different Quran's and interpretations existed when Muhammad died. It is a verifiable absolute fact the Quran is not a pure document. Not even close.

AND FIGHT in God's cause against those who wage war against you, but do not commit aggression – for, verily, God does not love aggressors. (2:190)

Then Allah does not love Muhammad. He transgressed about as fast as humanly possible.

Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot.

Quran (9:14) - "Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace..."

Apparently Allah did not punish Israel but instead punished Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, and every other nation that has attacked Israel. Whatever side Allah is on I want to be on the opposite. He can't fight for crap.
The Quran's Verses of Violence

No that's not true,show me one example in Spain that Muslims killed women,children or any awful deeds.

Tell my why only Spain may be considered first (that's is just weird) then I will give you what you asked for. I did not mention Spain.

What they brought to Spain is well recorded in the history,knowledge,advancement and civilization.

That is of no help to you or Islam.

Yes that's why people love him,because he through them by the catapult,sounds logic to you.

Quit using my statements in ways they were never intended. Islam has a long history of using violence against innocent people and a catapult that simply kills whoever it happens to hit by accident is one of a thousand examples (like the rockets aimed at Israel and the kidnapping of children and women, or sniping at civilians) that occur almost every day. The fact that a man who inspired 1500 years still being loved of these things is proof of the moral insanity involved in much of Islamic faith.

Continued below:

If you show me one person that have been loved by his people because he was oppressing them then i'll agree with you that such propaganda against the prophet is due to real stories and not just fake ones.

NO you will not. I will give you several but you will do any other thing possible but agree. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Genghis Kahn, and Caesar were all loved by people who were worse off for their rule.


Let me explain something you do more than anyone I have ever debated or seen debate, anything, ever. It is called a dismissal of reality by death of a thousand qualifications. Apparently you have been at it so long and it is such a part of Islam you do not even realize you are doing it. It involves arbitrarily inserting qualifications into places they do not belong in order to restrict the possibility of having to admit inconvenient facts.

1. Instead of asking for evidence Muhammad killed women and children you ask for evidence it occurred in Spain (which was not mentioned). BTW Muhammad was not in Spain so it is irrelevant as well.
2. You use celebrations over the death of one of histories greatest mass murderes to contend with celebrations (far more and far larger) over the killing of innoscent people. What universe does that work in? He loved death and we gave him what he loved.
3. You specify arbitrary dates for things that have no reason. You dismiss Islam's technological and scientific stagnation and futility in recent history with some untrue claims about the 7th century.
4. You use a peaceful verse (even though it was abrogated by many more violent verses) as a counter to the far more emphatic and numerous violent verses.
5. You mistakenly apply definitions to weapons that do not belong based on inaccurate and irrelevant opinions.
6. You misquote or misapply my claims to suite your agenda.
7. You use far less scholarly historical resources but insist I should read history. This is ridiculous.
8. I have told you over and over I can't and should not watch utube, yet you post utubes over and over and over. Why can't you get this? I can only conclude your not reading my posts well at all.

This is not debate or argumentation, it is propaganda and cognitive dissonance. You are taking a lot of time and your bias renders any resolution impossible because you ignore or dismiss historical evidence as fast as I can supply it. please pick it up or I can't justify this much longer.

 

[1robin]

Yes,Muslims are doing the same till today,any one born from disbelievers is killed.:sarcastic

They certainly are. At the present just from memory, there is a Christian missionary who was providing food in Iran to starving people who is in a maximum security prison there, a teacher in Iran who has the death penalty for conversion to Christianity, and a teacher who had the class name a teddy bear (THEY chose Muhammad). Their were marches in the streets in (the Sudan) demanding she be beheaded. In Islamic Juris prudence conversion out on Islam has the death penalty available.

That's nonsense, The uncle of the prophet died as a disbeliever and the prophet was loving him so much and the prophet asked his uncle to accept faith before death but he died as a disbeliever and the prophet loves him and God sent the verse to the prophet

That was an accepted Islamic source, not me. His uncle had a corrupted second hand version of the Bible. That is why Muhammad got almost all Biblical events screwed up so bad. I have no idea if he loved his uncle and it is irrelevant.

Lo! thou (O Muhammad) guidest not whom thou lovest, but Allah guideth whom He will. And He is Best Aware of those who walk aright. (28:56)

The Quran has more violent verses than peaceful ones so you will lose any surah battle you wish to start. Not only that most of the few peaceful surah's come from his days when he has no military strength and was trying to convert people that could defeat his small band. The moment he was given soldiers to use then he spewed nothing but violence. In fact many scholars consider the Quran two books (the medina Quran and the Meccan Quran). It gets even worse because the later violent verses abrogate the earlier peaceful verses. It gets even worse. His peaceful first 12 years he had 250 followers, the following 10 violent years he gained 100,000. Peace may sell but Muslims were not buying any.

Show me where in the history that people loved an oppressor till our day.

There are still groups that idolize Hitler. Show many any reason people (especially people that have almost no chance to do anything else) can't and have not loved the most evil things and people in history. That is the worst argument I have ever heard in Islam.

 

[1robin]

You did bring nothing here to discuss,what I see here is just some silly statements that don't worth discussing



Youtube can be seen by others if you can't watch them for one reason or the other,you know it isn't one to one debate.

Until you even attempt to supply evidence that a single claim I made about nuclear or dirty bombs is even the slightest bit inaccurate, THEY STAND AS THEY ARE. If truth is not important to you then fine, but you cannot carry on a debate with someone who thinks it is by dismissing it. What I said is factual.

The post utube links to them or in general. They serve no purpose in response to my specific claims. Your just trying to explain away why you keep doing what I have told you is pointless.

 

[FearGod]

I did not realize some Muslims saved a few Jews. I guess the fact that entire divisions of the Wauffen SS (21st Waffen Gebirgs Division der SS ìSkanderbegî), were Muslim and committed atrocities against 100s of thousands of civilians does not matter. I guess it is irrelevant that the first time Hitler made a public statement about his policy of Jewish Genocide it was in the company of a (The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin el-Husseinifrom Jordan).

Hitler hates Jews and that has nothing to do with Muslims as Hitler was Christian besides that Christians in Europe didn't want Jews to stay in their countries and that is the reason that they were expelled from Europe to Palestine and I can add if the Jews were glad in Europe then there was no reason for them to leave Europe.

Saul Friedländer writes that: "Not one social group, not one religious community, not one scholarly institution or professional association in Germany and throughout Europe declared its solidarity with the Jews."

Bosnian Muslims played a role in the Holocaust and the genocide committed against Serbs during World War II in the NDH, the Croat Nazi puppet state. The “architect of the Holocaust”, Heinrich Himmler was filmed and photographed with the Bosnian Muslim Nazi SS troops. Himmler was committed to forming a Bosnian Muslim statelet under Nazi control. The Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal declared that the SS was a criminal organization and found that all members of the Waffen SS were guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity. The Bosnian Muslims had two Nazi SS Waffen SS Divisions during World War II, the 13th Waffen SS Division “Handzar/Handschar and the 23rd Waffen SS Division “Kama”. There were approximately 20,000 Bosnian Muslim Nazi SS troops in these two SS Divisions.
Carl Savich Column on Serbianna.com | Front Page

Jews lived in peace in the Muslim world with no harm unlike in Europe

After the expansion of Islam into the Middle East from the Arabian Peninsula, Jews, along with Christians and Zoroastrians, typically had the legal status of dhimmi.[1] As such, they were accorded certain rights and generally not persecuted for their religious beliefs, unlike many other parts of Medieval Europe.[2]

Reference : History of the Jews under Muslim rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are truly one of a kind. I give peer reviewed scholarly resources and you give me utube and the Washington report, then suggest I need to improve my resource. Amazing. Let's recap so far.

1. You said we used a dirty bomb in Japan. That is 100% wrong.

In your terminology, but to me it is a dirty and evil bomb.
I have already explained it to you dirty is a descriptive word.

For example if I told you Mr X is a dirty man, should that mean that his cloths were dirty, or his morals was so.

So what I said was 100% right

2. You condemned the use of bombs that saved millions of lives on the arbitrary basis you think they were too big. 100% wrong and 100% arbitrary.

Wars can be avoided by peace talks and not by killing more than 200000 of innocents.

Was that the teaching of Jesus to kill innocents to stop wars

3. You said because some Muslims helped some Jews we should I guess just ignore the genocides actual Muslim Wauffen SS committed and were condemned in Nuremburg as war criminals. That is 100% biased, 100% cherry picking, and 100% wrong.

The crimes and genocides of the holocaust was done by Christians and not Muslims

4. Apparently you have even swallowed 911 conspiracy crap because it suites your narrative. I know of no conspiracy theory so juvenile, devoid of merit, and just plain dumb as that 911 crap. Apparently you just choose what reality suits you regardless of the evidence from metallurgists, air traffic controllers, cockpit recorders, independent multi volume investigations employing every expert imaginable, even international investigations. I do not have time for that level of insanity.

What about the witnesses ?

What about the collapse of the buildings which even any ignorant can realize it to be due to explosives in its basis and not by a plane.

What about that you believe the written stories about the prophet which supposed to be before 1400 years ago to be telling the truth,isn't that crap

Would you say a serial killer was a good person if I posted some "surprising" good things he has done? When the planes flying into civilians, bombs blowing up marathons, all the people looking for actual dirty bombs, and all the threats about another cultures right to exist all come from one religion, it will not make any difference to point out a few good things it has done. Even Hitler and Stalin did good things. Are they good?

You are mixing up things here.
Regarding the plane and marathons, sorry I don't believe it to be true and yes I swallowed the conspiracy crap if you want to call it crap.

Comparing Hitler to prophet Mohammed is silly and meaningless.

When you have to lie about what another person claims (and I rarely use that term) to have something to argue with then you are just wasting everyone's time. I never ever said anything about good bombs of any kind. I explained what the difference is between a nuclear bomb and a dirty bomb. I did say one has a justifiable use in winning a war, and the other has no justification because they can't be used to win wars but I never said either was good or that sophistication had anything to do with justification. This is so typical. tyrannical regimes like Japan, Germany, Islamic middle eastern nations keep poking the sleeping tiger, the moment he gets tired of it and tears them to pieces the ones who started the whole thing yell foul because the tiger has far larger claws than they do.

The word dirty is a descriptive word and can be used to describe anything including bombs.

But if you mean that you have been taught in school that the cheaper one using radioactive material and causing less far damage than the fission bombs is called a dirty bomb,then you are a good student.:yes:

We have already went around and around on that. I supplied list after list after list of the greatest scientists, discoveries, and advancements in history. Islam does not appear in any of them nor anything a Muslim did. It obviously made no difference because just as I said you are signing the same false tune as before. You can't wish reality into existence nor wish reality out of existence. Your wasting our time with this cognitive dissonance. History does not agree with you as I have show a hundred times.

You show nothing but the nonsense.

History is very clear in that point, Europe was in the dark ages when Islam reached Spain.

You only believe all bad things about Islam.
That is confirmation bias at work.

Any discussion with you is useless because your mind is already programmed and fixed to refuse anything good about Islam.

You really don't read anything in other people's posts do you? I must have said over 100 times I do not watch utube and can't watch utube and some Msulim sitting in his living room telling me how history is all wrong is not much of a source anyway. Why can't you get this? I have run out of patience.

Is it my problem that you can't or forbidden to see utubes.

If you mention:
1. Utube videos I can't watch again.

Not my problem

2. Mention dirty bombs we have never used and no one but Islamic terrorist want to use.

Yes I know that what terrorist use is dirty including their bombs

3. Or mention Islam's negligible impact on science and technology again after all the information I have provided. I have a degree in science, do you? I had to go through the history and the great thinkers in the history of mathematics and physics. Not one Muslim was even mentioned in 5 years of school nor appears on any of those top ten and top 100 lists I supplied.

It is normal that you'll refuse to accept anything good done by Muslims due to your case of confirmation bias and hubris

I will stop responding for at least the time being. I do not have the time to waste with a person who ignores fact.

The same for me,debating is useless while you are only in one side

I knew it. You simply refuse to accept anything inconvenient no matter how well evidenced or obvious. Good Lord man did you not ever watch a news program in the last decade. There must be over 100 videos on your wonderful utube of them doing what I said. Just type in Muslims celebrate (just the 9/11 attacks alone) and you will get 1 million 200 thousand hits. Take your pick I am not digging up stuff for you to ignore. It is becoming pointless.

Yes I found thousands of Muslims celebrating the death of the Americans.:sarcastic

i searched utube and found the nonsense similar to your claims.

 

[1robin]

Hitler hates Jews and that has nothing to do with Muslims as Hitler was Christian besides that Christians in Europe didn't want Jews to stay in their countries and that is the reason that they were expelled from Europe to Palestine and I can add if the Jews were glad in Europe then there was no reason for them to leave Europe. [/quote Apparently your just no going to listen or care what history actually records, ignore what I show history actually says, and keep making bizarre irrelevant comments so I wil be very brief in my response. Little reason to straighten out something if it will always be ignored.

1. Hitler was not a Christian. He wanted the Catholic churches influence so he tried to act agreeable with them. They refused and he instantly turned on them, God, and Christ. His diaries record scathing attacks on all three. Hitler's religion (he was a actually a hybrid materialist/mytic/pantheist).
2. I said Muslim's fought on Hitler's side. That has nothing to do with his faith or what Jews did nor did not do. Entire Muslims divisions fought for the most evil man in history and acted so wickedly they were condemned by war tribunals.
3. What does whether Jews are happy in Europe have to do with anything. For the record they stayed in Europe until they were rounded up and worked to death or simply killed by Hitler with Islamic help.

Saul Friedländer writes that: "Not one social group, not one religious community, not one scholarly institution or professional association in Germany and throughout Europe declared its solidarity with the Jews."

IN a world that has rejected God is it any wonder that it has rejected his people. However God has not, which is why they always come out on top in the end against Islam, Germany, Russia or whoever. This has no relevance what so ever to anything I have said anyway.

Jews lived in peace in the Muslim world with no harm unlike in Europe

From day one Muhammad killed them by the hundreds and thousands. He even executed them in cold blood while bound and helpless. The fighting has not stopped for 1500 years.

After the expansion of Islam into the Middle East from the Arabian Peninsula, Jews, along with Christians and Zoroastrians, typically had the legal status of dhimmi.[1] As such, they were accorded certain rights and generally not persecuted for their religious beliefs, unlike many other parts of Medieval Europe.[2]

On December 30, 1066, Joseph HaNagid, the Jewish vizier of Granada, Spain, was crucified by an Arab mob that proceeded to raze the Jewish quarter of the city and slaughter its 5,000 inhabitants. The riot was incited by Muslim preachers who had angrily objected to what they saw as inordinate Jewish political power.

Similarly, in 1465, Arab mobs in Fez slaughtered thousands of Jews, leaving only 11 alive, after a Jewish deputy vizier treated a Muslim woman in "an offensive manner." The killings touched off a wave of similar massacres throughout Morocco.(6)

Other mass murders of Jews in Arab lands occurred in Morocco in the 8th century, where whole communities were wiped out by Muslim ruler Idris I; North Africa in the 12th century, where the Almohads either forcibly converted or decimated several communities; Libya in 1785, where Ali Burzi Pasha murdered hundreds of Jews; Algiers, where Jews were massacred in 1805, 1815 and 1830 and Marrakesh, Morocco, where more than 300 hundred Jews were murdered between 1864 and 1880.(7)

Decrees ordering the destruction of synagogues were enacted in Egypt and Syria (1014, 1293-4, 1301-2), Iraq (854-859, 1344) and Yemen (1676). Despite the Koran's prohibition, Jews were forced to convert to Islam or face death in Yemen (1165 and 1678), Morocco (1275, 1465 and 1790-92) and Baghdad (1333 and 1344).(8)
The Treatment of Jews in Arab/Islamic Countries | Jewish Virtual Library

Your history and actually history never seem to line up.

Continued:

 

[1robin]

Reference : History of the Jews under Muslim rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url

I thought of a way we can actually resolve this. For every Jewish leader who you can quote as denying Arab rights to exist I will provide 3 from Arabs that deny Israel's right to exist. If I do so then there is no way, no how, not ever your claim could be right. Deal? Israel is the only nation in the middles east that offers voting rights and full citizenship to the opposite faith, while Mosques' exist in Israel and the United states, synagogues and church's are torn down and outlawed in many Islamic nations.

In your terminology, but to me it is a dirty and evil bomb.
I have already explained it to you dirty is a descriptive word. For example if I told you Mr X is a dirty man, should that mean that his cloths were dirty, or his morals was so. So what I said was 100% right

No you are not. In a debate words mean what the common ground of official definitions mean. No one debates on the ground of what you invent in your head to sell a story. If I think blue is a sound or loud is a color, I can't very well expect my opponent to agree. Dirty bombs are not what was dropped on Japan. Their only purpose is misery, not winning a war. They are sought by Muslim's alone. You are wrong.

A dirty bomb is a speculative radiological weapon that combines radioactive material with conventional explosives. The purpose of the weapon is to contaminate the area around the dispersal agent/conventional explosion with radioactive material, serving primarily as an area denial device against civilians. It is however not to be confused with a nuclear explosion, such as a fission bomb, which by releasing nuclear energy produces blast effects far in excess of what is achievable by the use of conventional explosives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_bomb

You cannot get any more wrong nor I any more right.

Wars can be avoided by peace talks and not by killing more than 200000 of innocents.

For God's sake the war had been going on for 4 years when the Bombs were used. The Japanese attacked without warning to start it, they had refused to surrender at every attempt, they had threatened to fight to the last man even when we offered them peace before we invaded their nation, they refused. The talking was over.

Was that the teaching of Jesus to kill innocents to stop wars

This is not the United States of Jesus. Jesus instruction are intended for personal use, not in national defense. However Muhammad's answer to everything was attack and subdue and it was intended for state systems.

The crimes and genocides of the holocaust was done by Christians and not Muslims

You are living in a loony tune world. The Germans were killing because they were ordered to by Hitler and the Nazi party. The Muslims actually served in the concentration camps and helped kill helpless Jews but they did so because their religion ordered them to do so. The Catholics condemned Hitler officially in 1940.

What about the witnesses ?

What about the collapse of the buildings which even any ignorant can realize it to be due to explosives in its basis and not by a plane.

What about that you believe the written stories about the prophet which supposed to be before 1400 years ago to be telling the truth,isn't that crap

I am not debating 9/11 conspiracy garbage with you. There are entire forums filled with experts that will demolish your claims before you can type them. I am not interested. What does 1400 years have to do with anything I said?

You are mixing up things here.
Regarding the plane and marathons, sorry I don't believe it to be true and yes I swallowed the conspiracy crap if you want to call it crap.

I do not care what you can believe. They have the people on tape admitting their involvement. They have witnesses, all the evidence points in a single direction, they have letters, they have testimony from associates. What you believe unfortunately has nothing to do with reality. I cannot believe anyone can be that biased.

Comparing Hitler to prophet Mohammed is silly and meaningless.

This is nuts. You said to name any other tyrant in history that oppressed but was still loved. I did. You lose.

The word dirty is a descriptive word and can be used to describe anything including bombs.

No it is not. It is a technical term applied officially to a certain type of weapon.

But if you mean that you have been taught in school that the cheaper one using radioactive material and causing less far damage than the fission bombs is called a dirty bomb,then you are a good student.:yes:

I was taught by weapon experts and military anylists in the military what a dirty bomb is and it has an official international definition. I never said they cause more damage (they cause far less damage). I said their only purpose is misery and civilian suffering. They do not and can not win wars they are only terror weapons and are only used by terrorist. Actually non have been detonated but the only three known to have been created have been found in Islamic groups. Still nothing you have said about them has been accurate.

You show nothing but the nonsense.

History is very clear in that point, Europe was in the dark ages when Islam reached Spain.

You only believe all bad things about Islam.
That is confirmation bias at work.

Any discussion with you is useless because your mind is already programmed and fixed to refuse anything good about Islam.

My bias or lack there of did not produce those Quran verses, did not produce what goes into secular education (European scientists and mathematicians NOT MUSLIM ones are what are taught), it did not produce al those secular lists of great scientists and great inventions. My claims are facts, if you dismiss them your the one with a bias beyond anything I have seen and I have seen a lot. In fact I am done here. This is just too absurd. You do not know anything about military, technical, or scientific history and what is far worse you will not admit it.

 

[FearGod]

What a surprise, books, seal teams, international investigations, and thousands of witnesses say one thing and you say another. When our souls are on the line I do not see how a false reality will help you in the end. I knew people on that aircraft carrier, I was stationed on it in my first reserve enlistment. I know it happened. .

We didn't see him arrested, we didn't see him dead.

Why I should believe you ?

However lets examine this yet again.

1. I claim as did every news service outside and most inside the middle east that Muslims by the thousands were chanting death to America and dancing in the streets after 9/11. You deny it, yet it exists in film and picture proof.

Show me one photo showing thousands celebrating the incident.

2. You deny reality but offer a picture of Americans celebrating the death of a man who had killed 3000 innocent people as some kind of proof of what exactly. That we should not be glad when justice is carried out.

You are truly remarkable..

Show me an evidence of the Muslim's celebration as I had already showed you 2 of yours.

How did Osama get into this conversation? I am glad he was killed, I am glad Hitler was killed, I am glad Stalin died, I am glad Japan was stopped, etc. I hate evil and am glad when justice is poured out. I wish it were not necessary but people like Osama make it so. It is not wrong to appreciate the evil being punished as a reflection of God's justice carried out by a righteous act against pure evil. There is something very wrong with demonstrations celebrating the death of thousands on innocent people, and why you do not get the difference is beyond me.

I don't know what makes you to believe such stories about bin Laden.

The amazing thing that US is against Bashar the president of Syria while supporting the rebellions whom known as Al Qaeda the same thing with Lybia.

Syria: CIA Link To Al-Qaeda becomes a Fact - SyriaNews

Instead, bin Laden divides the world into believers and non-believers, that is, Muslims and infidels. He believes Islam needs to be purified and turned back a thousand years. He has identified himself and his followers as adoring death. He told a Pakistani interviewer after 9/11: "We love death. The U.S. loves life. That is the big difference between us."

Read more: Osama bin Laden and the Idea of Progress - TIME Osama bin Laden and the Idea of Progress - TIME

Read more: Osama bin Laden and the Idea of Progress - TIME Osama bin Laden and the Idea of Progress - TIME

I said to you I don't believe about that man living in the deserts of Afghanistan had planned to destroy the WTC.

Is it that easy to strike such important locations in the US.
How if China or Russia planned something else if only a simple man succeed to strike US in its heart.

The man that said that is pure evil, defending that man is evil, resenting his just punishment is evil. A world that tolerates that garbage would be completely evil. I thank God a few nations have the moral clarity to exact justice against evil. If not it would consume us all as the Quran commands and the Bible forbids.

That man was known to work for the US and no one respects him in the Muslim world.

Why he stayed in Afghanistan, if for Russia then the war had ended long time ago and there were no more enemies.

That story of Al Qaeda doesn't make any sense to me.

People loved Hitler and Stalin. People love killing it's self. people love more wrong things than good things. There is no limit to what a person can love. As Osama said "Muslims love death, and the US loves life".

How do you know that people loved Hitler and Stalin?
Do you know what is in people's hearts?

Does the quran say that Muslims don't love life ?

And they are absolutely wrong. It is proven by Uthman's burning all competing Quran's, and the fact that different versions of the Quran still exist today. Islam almost self destructed specifically because different Quran's and interpretations existed when Muhammad died. It is a verifiable absolute fact the Quran is not a pure document. Not even close.

The quran was memorized by heart from the beginning till our recent days.

[youtube]cdb_xbaPPVs[/youtube]
Throwing ALL Religious Books in the Ocean - YouTube

Then Allah does not love Muhammad. He transgressed about as fast as humanly possible.

Does God love Moses ?

Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot.

You are entirely ignorant about the quran and its history.

Quran (9:14) - "Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace..."

Apparently Allah did not punish Israel but instead punished Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, and every other nation that has attacked Israel. Whatever side Allah is on I want to be on the opposite. He can't fight for crap.
The Quran's Verses of Violence

Moses murders an Egyptian after making sure that no one is looking. 2:11-12

God decides to kill Moses because his son had not yet been circumcised. 4:24-26

Moses and Aaron ask the Pharaoh to let all the Israelites go into the desert to pray for three days, or else God will kill them all "with pestilence, or with the sword." 5:3

"For I will at this time send all my plagues upon thine heart, and upon thy servants, and upon thy people; that thou mayest know that there is none like me in all the earth." Who else but the biblical god could be so cruel? 9:14

God wants to be remembered forever for the mass murder of little children. 10:2

God will kill the Egyptian children to show that he puts "a difference between the Egyptians and Israel." 11:7

After God has sufficiently hardened the Pharaoh's heart, he kills all the firstborn Egyptian children. When he was finished "there was not a house where there was not one dead." Finally, he runs out of little babies to kill, so he slaughters the firstborn cattle, too. 12:29

Joshua, with God's approval, kills the Amalekites "with the edge of the sword." 17:13

If you make God angry enough, he will kill you and your family with his own sword. 22:24

God tells the Israelites to "chase" their enemies and make them "fall before you by the sword." He figures five of the Israelites will be able to "chase" a hundred of their enemies, and a hundred will be able to "put ten thousand to flight." 26:7-8

"When ye have taken the city [Ai] ... ye shall set the city on fire: according to the commandment of the LORD. 8:8

"They smote them, so that they let none of them remain or escape." 8:22

"When Israel had made an end of slaying all the inhabitants of Ai in the field ... all the Israelites returned unto Ai, and smote it with the edge of the sword." 8:24

Tell my why only Spain may be considered first (that's is just weird) then I will give you what you asked for. I did not mention Spain.

That is of no help to you or Islam.

Because Spain is in Europe and then we can see if Islam was bad for Spain or was an advantage

Quit using my statements in ways they were never intended. Islam has a long history of using violence against innocent people and a catapult that simply kills whoever it happens to hit by accident is one of a thousand examples (like the rockets aimed at Israel and the kidnapping of children and women, or sniping at civilians) that occur almost every day. The fact that a man who inspired 1500 years still being loved of these things is proof of the moral insanity involved in much of Islamic faith.

Catapult kills whoever it happens to hit by accident,so Mohammed was bad
US used Nuclear bomb to kill as many as possible in order to stop the war, so US was good in using the dirty nuclear bomb.

NO you will not. I will give you several but you will do any other thing possible but agree. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Genghis Kahn, and Caesar were all loved by people who were worse off for their rule.

How did you know that people loved them ?
did you ask them or do you read what is in people's minds ?