Muhammad - Prophet or Profiteer of God?

Originally posted by kangjia57

You guys sound like you just wana bring me down,not Islam!Feels like you guys just using Islam as an excuse to humiliate me! Now I find that more funny LOLLLL!!!!

Islam only exists as a religion because of people who believe in it- you believe in it and are defending it, including chopping off people's hands for shoplifting, don't get excited when people then point such facts out.

If you feel humiliated I can offer no explanation, perhaps a time for reflection on your belief system brother?

Reply to Grenade

The notion that 100% of the Muslims in the UK think this punishment is better than our own laws doesnt worry you? That 40% of young Muslims would actually like the laws of the UK to be changed, when remembering that these young Muslims will father the future generation of the fastest growing minority in the UK? Remember that these people are walking around thinking that beheading, limb removal etc is justice for crimes we punish through the courts by fines and imprisonment.

Personally i think our system is a much more peaceful and less violent way of dealing with crime. Maybe i am delusional.

Why should it worry anyone? Muslims are not forcing anything onto the British population!Wouldnt you like all Muslims to become like you? Muslims are walking around thinking Sharia law is fair but they don’t go around chopping people up. So stop making things sound so extreme!

Muslims personally also think and know what they like and prefer, so please learn to respect their views?

reply to post by blueorder


But you're the one who brought up Bush into the discussion. And now you've brought up "KILL ALL JEWS" into the discussion as well. What is your purpose in this thread?

Originally posted by Odium
reply to post by Grenade

 

Grenade, how many criminals have you met in life?

Lots, i was brought up in a council estate in the suburbs of Glasgow. I have been in contact with the heads of some of the biggest crime families in Scotland including the late Arthur Thompson. What is your point?

I don't think cutting their hands off with solve the situation, nor do I support it. But at the same point, I don't support letting people who kill several people live because it is a waste of tax payers money.

Islam isn't perfect, but you use god awful quotes that many Muslims don't believe to attack it. The whole point of this website is to deny ignorance, not to go spreading it and that is all you do.

Please point out my "god awful quotes". I think i am being fair and using reliable sources when quoting anything. Other than that i am simply stating my opinions. Afterall without personal opinion wouldnt we all be ignorant?

Originally posted by Beachcoma
But you're the one who brought up Bush into the discussion. And now you've brought up "KILL ALL JEWS" into the discussion as well. What is your purpose in this thread?

You seem to be surpressing debate ( or maybe you are just not keeping up with discussions?)


BUsh was mentioned as many muslims like to call him a warmonger- I merely point out the irony that they follow muhammad who fought many more wars

The fellow odium was saying a threat is only valid if you can kill every single person it relates to- hence my ridiculing that someone saying "KILL ALL JEWS" at a rally would not be prosectued because he obviously could not physically kill all Jews

Happy to help you with any other enquiries

blueorder - they were arrested on charges of incitement to cause violence, soliciting the murder of those who insulted Islam but not threatening behaviour.

I also do believe, they did not go to prison on the charge. I can't remember it isn't directly the field of law I deal with. But they were not charged with threatening behavious.

Sad thing was, the chairman of the Muslim Public Affairs Committee said the protesters "did not represent British Muslims".

You do realise that threatening someone and incitement are different things?

Again, I am waiting on this list that shows Mohammed having been at war for a larger period of time as a leader then Bush.

reply to post by blueorder


So you're doing the same thing you're accusing Odium of here:

Originally posted by blueorder
it is no excuse for lazy extreme relativism, just because you do not see perfection in the US- the US is MUCH, MUCH BETTER, than the Sudan

Merely pointing out the irony...

Heyho again, Grenade! Just addressing some points made:

Originally posted by Grenade
Women can be divorced merely by their husbands reciting "I divorce you" three times, their testimony is worth less than that of men and they cannot marry a non-Muslim man - although it is permissible for a Muslim man to marry a non-Muslim woman.

Just something to note, the whole 'saying "I divorce you" thing' is an abuse of Islamic law. Islam says that a married couple can divorce and still get back together later on, unless they marry and divorce, and marry and divorce and marry and divorce (three times). This is why some people try to divorce completely by saying "I divorce you" 3 times. Problem is, it doesn't work like that.
Another point: I'm not sure why the focus is on "Muslim men can divorce their wives so easily!". Muslim women are also allowed to divorce their husbands. Of course, the whole practice of divorce is kept as a last resort.

Originally posted by Grenade
To cut off a hungry mans hand for stealing a loaf of bread in todays world. Come on man, is there really that much of a bread shortage in Islamic countries? And these extreme punishments dont seem to stop or deter rape and murder in Muslim countries? Or else women wouldnt be punished for being raped?

Another misconception: That the automatic punishment for theft is cutting off of hands. This scenario you outlined already happened during the time of Muhammad. Guess what was done? He was let off, and given food by Muhammad. The cutting off of hands is done only as a last resort, when other reforms have failed. As for the second point, let me assure you, there is no such law or ruling in Islam to punish a person who got raped.

reply to post by Odium



I refer you to page 2. Please review the link i provided about the list of battles.

Muhammad was at war for 10 years. Im sure with your extensive knowledge of the man you already knew this? As far as im aware Bush hasnt been in power for 10 years yet so that closes that topic.

Although as i said previously i dont see what relevance Bush has to this topic.

Originally posted by Odium
[/QUOTE]

Erm incitement to violence is threatening behaviour, never in all my puff, you can only get arrested for inciting violence if you get involved in threatening behaviour- I mean a perfect example of "threatening" behaviour would be standing in public with a placard calling for people to be beheaded


Several were jailed


I don't care what the "Muslim Public Affairs Committe" said, I have no idea that the 40%+ Sharia supporters at the very least "understood" such behaviour, regardless of the waffle these committees come off with


You can wait all you want, no one has yet answered how many battles Muhammad has fought, nor can anyone answer me why bush is a warmonger and muhammad a bringer of peace

reply to post by Grenade


Grenade, like I said, many of those weren't even battles, and many weren't with Muhammad involved. Also, I don't see how you can say Muhammad was at war for 10 years. He was in Medinah for the last 10 years of his life, and he was definitely not at war for all that time. At least the discussion is coming back to Muhammad now. It is all moving so fast, and so far off tangent.

reply to post by Beachcoma




You pointed out no irony, you merely asked questions

[edit on 6-12-2007 by blueorder]

Originally posted by babloyi
Grenade, like I said, many of those weren't even battles, and many weren't with Muhammad involved. Also, I don't see how you can say Muhammad was at war for 10 years. He was in Medinah for the last 10 years of his life, and he was definitely not at war for all that time. At least the discussion is coming back to Muhammad now. It is all moving so fast, and so far off tangent.

the point is he was involved and actively led several battles, so ironic that he is proclaimed as the dude of peace while Bush is a warmonger- lovely touch I feel

reply to post by Grenade


From that link where you got that list you posted we can also find this:

Ibn Ishaq continues: "He actually fought in nine engagements: Badr; Uhud; Al-Khandaq; Qurayza; al-Mustaliq; Khaybar; the occupation; Hunayn; and al-Ta'if."

As well as this (to be fair and balanced and all..)

Casualties

The sum total of all casualties on all sides in all the battles of Muhammad range from 1200 to 1500 dead according to the most authoritative sources

Emphasis mine.


Are we cutting out the parts that do not fit an agenda here?

[edit on 6-12-2007 by Beachcoma]

reply to post by Beachcoma


good so people died in battles led by muhammad - prince of peace ha ha

Originally posted by blueorder
good so people died in battles led by muhammad - prince of peace ha ha

Much less than the total casualties on both side of all Bush-led wars, which you brought up

reply to post by blueorder


As far as I know, Bush has never led any battle, and yes, Muhammad led a few (I'm not sure if this is an accurate gauge of 'warmongering' in this day and age, though). Still, I don't see who (or why) is comparing Bush to Muhammad. Nobody ever claimed that Muhammad never fought in a battle.

Reply to blueorder

the point is he was involved and actively led several battles

All the battles were defensive!If someone attacked you, what would you do? I am sure you are not gona stand and watch and say matey please have mercy on me while hes about to stab you? Or are you?

Originally posted by Beachcoma
reply to post by Grenade

 

From that link where you got that list you posted we can also find this:

Ibn Ishaq continues: "He actually fought in nine engagements: Badr; Uhud; Al-Khandaq; Qurayza; al-Mustaliq; Khaybar; the occupation; Hunayn; and al-Ta'if."

As well as this (to be fair and balanced and all..)

Casualties

The sum total of all casualties on all sides in all the battles of Muhammad range from 1200 to 1500 dead according to the most authoritative sources

Emphasis mine.


Are we cutting out the parts that do not fit an agenda here?

[edit on 6-12-2007 by Beachcoma]

Not at all, thats why i provided the Source.

1. It cuts down the bandwidth usage on ATS
2. People are more likely to research the facts for themselves.

Seems like people have the wrong impression of me now, ive stated multiple times im not looking to cause offence. I also find your input valid and i take it into consideration. As i said i want this thread to tell both sides of the story.

Originally posted by Beachcoma


Much less than the total casualties on both side of all Bush-led wars, which you brought up

Yeah, the muslims didnt have AK47s and bombs back then, just as well eh!

My point was criticise Bush all you want and call him a warmonger, but dont be surprised when people laugh at the notion of muhammad being a bringer of peace (the same people also call Bush a warmonger)

BUSH & MUHAMMAD- both warmongers