Wave of attacks in Baghdad kill at least 150 - video

originally posted by: MGaddafi
a reply to: TinfoilTP

So this is a statement implying your correct ? Who told you these things you say ?

They are as historically accurate as Napoleon's conquests, or in ancient times Alexander the Great's. Mohammad falls way in between, his conquests are well known. You should study history to know these things not the words of imams from a man created religion that deifies the subject. That would be like relying on Napoleon's diaries for the only account of his actions.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

And wasn't he the one who was fighting a non believer who's band attacked him unjustly ? Muhammad was about to kill him in battle when the non believer spat in Muhammad's face. This angered Muhammed and he threw down his sword and did not kill his enemy because he couldnt kill in anger and he knew it would be murder in gods eyes.

Is this the same man you speak of ?

Handsome is as handsome does I always say....but still from this neck of the passage these people seem little better than a death cult or the Hashassins....sic, or Pol Pots merry men for that matter......

originally posted by: MGaddafi
a reply to: TinfoilTP

And wasn't he the one who was fighting a non believer who's band attacked him unjustly ? Muhammad was about to kill him in battle when the non believer spat in Muhammad's face. This angered Muhammed and he threw down his sword and did not kill his enemy because he couldnt kill in anger and he knew it would be murder in gods eyes.

Is this the same man you speak of ?

No but it makes for good fairy tale story telling.

This one has multiple historical sources,

The Expedition of Abdullah ibn Unais, also known as the Assassination of Khaled bin Sufyan was the 1st attack against the Banu Lahyan, which took place in the month of Muharam in the year 4 A.H. it was reported that Khaled bin Sufyan Al-Hathali (also known as Hudayr, the chief of the Banu Lahyan tribe), considered an attack on Madinah and that he was inciting the people on Nakhla or Uranah to fight Muslims. So Muhammad sent Abdullah ibn Unais to assassinate him. After cutting off Sufyan bin Khalid's head at night,[3] Unais brought it back to Muhammad

After killing ibn Khalid, he cut off his head, brought that to Muhammad,[3] Muhammad gave him his staff as a reward and said:


This will function as a sign of recognition for you and me, on the day of resurrection Musnad Ahmad 3:496[1][6][7]

He sends out an assassin, receives his head, gives a great gift, then promises reward in afterlife.
Not much niceness going on there.

Source

a reply to: TinfoilTP

So not only do you use mistranslations of the Quran, you also ignore the previous verse...

It says nothing about beheading people...

Quran 47:4
So when you encounter those who disbelieve (those who wage war), then aim at the necks, until you have broken their strength thoroughly...
Then tie fast the bond, by making them captives, either as a favour (shown to them), or (after receiving) ransom, until the war throws down its load of arms.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Ah I see you have done your research my friend good on you.

a reply to: MGaddafi

I'm a Sunni my friend...
& Tinfoil is known for littering Middle Eastern threads with hyperbole and disingenuous vitriol...

I will from now on ignore him/her on these threads...



I don't know why I bother trying to teach them!
They clearly have an agenda against Islam!

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: TinfoilTP

So not only do you use mistranslations of the Quran, you also ignore the previous verse...

It says nothing about beheading people...

Quran 47:4
So when you encounter those who disbelieve (those who wage war), then aim at the necks, until you have broken their strength thoroughly...
Then tie fast the bond, by making them captives, either as a favour (shown to them), or (after receiving) ransom, until the war throws down its load of arms.

The interpretation of Ibn Kathir, the most prominent Mufassir of the Qur'an reveals the ever popular 'context' argument which is used to defend Islam, to be fraudulent. Here in context, a war has just ended and one of the companions of Muhammad is relaxed, since he no longer need to fight. NO, says Muhammad correcting him as if to put focus on the importance of his words to the person who was about to retire, unfortunately its universal appeal can easily be seen today.

“There will always be a group in my community (Muslims) dominant over others" (Muhammad’s Islam is supposed to be dominant over all other faiths and their adherents. This notion is flowing out here as Muhammad uses the word “dominant”) "Allah will turn some people away from truth" (i.e. Islam) "so, my community of believers will fight them" Muhammad speaks of this as a incessant process which should inevitably carry through to the end of times with a blessing of war booties to the holy fighters. If there still remains a claim to context for verse 47:4 of the Qur'an (which spews pure violence and hatred against disbelievers to the point where Allah deems it necessary to pinpoint the body part of an unbeliever which believers should attack); claimants should admit that they are going against their own cherished sources and their own cherished scholars, not modern apologetical pseudo-scholars, but true scholar who lived close to Muhammad’s period and have been (and still are) hailed as the most reliable among Qur'an interpreters, or admit the fact that the Qur'an does prescribe perpetual violence against those who don’t believe in Allah and Muhammad.

Source

Islam is violent against unbelievers

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Unbelievers are people like ISIS...
Not atheists...
That's a common misconception!!!


An unbeliever is somebody who has seen the signs, knows what is right, & still fights against Islam...

Even as backward as your indoctrination has been, you're not an unbeliever...

If you decided to fight against Islam then you'd become an unbeliever!!!

But I'm done with you seeing as you know it all!

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: TinfoilTP


An unbeliever is somebody who has seen the signs, knows what is right, & still fights against Islam...

That is the most ignorant statement of the thread.

What signs? Magic signs in the sky? Voices in your head? Magic etcha sketch doodles?

An unbeliever is exactly what the word means, to not believe. There are no special stipulations it is simply not believing in something, in this case a fairy tale dreamed up by a bloodthirsty conquering warlord to keep his enslaved people in line over a millennia ago.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Signs can mean intuition as well.

a reply to: samsamm9

I agree with you and, in my limited understanding of Islam, believe that ISIS are not representative of the Muslim faith.

However, many in the Muslim world do believe in the legitimacy of ISIS and their 'caliphate'.

If this small cross section of young Muslims demonstrates anything it is that there is a broad spectrum of varying views on this subject.