Exposure of the big LIE of Hitler being atheist.

[Diagoras]

Everything you've stated has already been refuted on this very forum, many a time before.

Not a word of it has been found wanting despite your tired and frankly boring efforts of refutation. When are you going to wake up to the fact that what you choose to believe or not believe is not binding on everyone else. You are one little voice wholly dependent on attacking the individual and not the content and thus you do not irritate by virtue of your knowledge of contradictory facts but by being such a quintessential juvenile brat who can never admit any error on his part. On this thread now it has been clearly demonstrated that to call Mao or Stalin atheists is factually inaccurate and the only reason for such a venture is as a sanction to reduce the undeniable truth that many many millions have died in the name of religion. Deflection, misdirection, outright lies... you are a model Muslim!

 

[c0de]

Not a word of it has been found wanting despite your tired and frankly boring efforts of refutation. When are you going to wake up to the fact that what you choose to believe or not believe is not binding on everyone else. You are one little voice wholly dependent on attacking the individual and not the content and thus you do not irritate by virtue of your knowledge of contradictory facts but by being such a quintessential juvenile brat who can never admit any error on his part.

u sound upset...

me thinks someone needs a kitkat ; )

On this thread now it has been clearly demonstrated that to call Mao or Stalin atheists is factually inaccurate

Actually, to deny they were atheists, is "factually inaccurate," despite the desperate attempts to the contrary.

that many many millions have died in the name of religion...

No they died in the name of power, land, wealth, etc.

you are a model Muslim!

why thank U kind sir

 

[Waleed]

Code

Are you aware that punishment was suggested by a Jewish leader of their own tribe (the only one who honored the non-aggression pact with the Muslims)?

Thats a nice excuse.
1) If I suggest you dont deserve to live and someone comes and murders you, whose to blame? The one who did the actual crime. People wish for the death of others all the time. They're not criminals unless they planned it and had it executed. More importantly:
2) Whats your source? I've never heard of that. Please cite your sources. It sounds stupid, highly suspicious and unlikely that a jewish leader would suggest 900 of their own men should be beheaded and their women and children should be enslaved.

 

[c0de]

2) Whats your source? I've never heard of that. Please cite your sources. It sounds stupid, highly suspicious and unlikely that a jewish leader would suggest 900 of their own men should be beheaded and their women and children should be enslaved.

Banu Qurayza - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

there's a lot of sources in this article. The Jews chose the leader of their allied tribe (who according to shia sources was also Jewish) to arbitrate.

1) If I suggest you dont deserve to live and someone comes and murders you, whose to blame? The one who did the actual crime. People wish for the death of others all the time. They're not criminals unless they planned it and had it executed.

What makes you think the people who were beheaded were innocent?

do you even know what happened during the battle of the trench?

 

[Waleed]

You're wrong. The arbitrator was a Muslim (according to his wikipedia bio page, if you had cared to see it) and was appointed by Mr. Muhammad himself. The link says:

Muhammad then appointed Sa'd ibn Mua'dh to decide the fate of the Jewish tribe.

This Sa'd guy said the adult men should be killed and the women and children should be enslaved.

Whoever made the suggestion, the whole thing (900 men beheaded, and their women and children enslaved) was carried out under Muhammad's supervision.

So whats your point?

What makes you think the people who were beheaded were innocent?

If you have a battle, should the captured men be beheaded and their women and children enslaved? Is that what you're saying?

 

[Snoopy]

:: This thread is officially closed ::

You a mod, then?

s.

 

[c0de]

You're wrong. The arbitrator was a Muslim (according to his wikipedia bio page, if you had cared to see it)

My mistake. The dude had already converted by that time.

and was appointed by Mr. Muhammad himself.

And this appointment was agreed to by the Banu Q.

So whats your point?

That the arbitrator that they themselves agreed to, pronounced the judgment.

If you have a battle, should the captured men be beheaded and their women and children enslaved? Is that what you're saying?

Did you read what the Banu Q. actually did?

Do you realize their betrayal almost made an end of -all- early Muslims?

 

[Waleed]

What did they do? Does that matter? Does it justify what was done to them? Was that the best way to proceed?

It doesnt matter who agreed to it. The fact is as I mentioned before:

900 men of the Banu Qurayza tribe were beheaded, and their women and children were enslaved under the direct orders, supervision and approval of Muhammad, the prophet of Islam.

Sure says a lot about the religion of peace and the final prophet, the best role model.

You're saying that was the perfect thing to do because you're a Muslim. I understand you have to justify all the crimes that Muhammad initiated, directed and executed because you think he's your role model and your born into the religion so you're unable to see things for what they are.

 

[c0de]

What did they do? Does that matter?

err... yea, it matters. (duh!)

when you critique a punishment, it's probably a good idea to look at the crime.

Does it justify what was done to them?

According to 7th century standards? Completely.

 

[Waleed]

They didnt do any crime and you failed to make that connection between the "crime" and the punishment and you failed to make your case. Its easy to make false claims. Its your attempt to justify henious war crimes committed under the orders of your prophet, Muhammad.

Islam was OK according to 7th century standards, yes, but not according to 21st century standards. Thats what I'm saying. Its 2011. Leave Islam. Stop following a 7th century religion that grossly violates and ignores human rights and standards of this century. Lets talk about stoning to death too - its all supported by Sahih hadith and still being done in Iran. So:

900 men of the Banu Qurayza tribe were beheaded and their women and children were enslaved under the orders of Muhammad.

You can keep ignoring that but its all out there for other people to see what Islam is really about.

If I stayed here for any amount of time, people would stop defended Islam. No one here really knows how to deal with Islam. Its a small forum though as I pointed out before so whatever happens here is not a big deal in any case.

 

[c0de]

Islam was OK according to 7th fentury standards, yes, but not according to 21st century standards. Thats what I'm saying. Its 2011. Leave Islam. Stop following a 7th century religion that grossly human rights and standards of this century.

That ruling had nothing to do with Islam itself, or the Quran.
It was a ruling to deal with a 7th century problem by a 7th century leader.
You should take things in their proper context.

900 men of the Banu Qurayza tribe were beheaded and their women and children were enslaved under the orders of Muhammad.

using the "bold" option doesn't actually improve your reasoning...

So you might not want to repeat a point that's already been countered.

You can keep ignoring that but its all out there for other people to see what Islam is really about.

I don't really care what "other people see"

 

[bob x]

According to 7th century standards? Completely.

And why should we pay any attention to 7th century standards?

 

[c0de]

And why should we pay any attention to 7th century standards?

cuz they come in handy when arguing about 7th century history.

Certain events are purely historical, while others have a bearing on contemporary religious practice. This event has no bearing on anything other then what occurred in in the 7th century (for it was within normality during the period) as Muslims are free to observe the Geneva convention today without any contradictions occurring.

Also, imo, critiquing the early Muslims on the rules of warfare is a very weak starting point for the opposition, considering their armies were among the most, if not the most, humane in history up till that point.

 

[Muslimwoman]

And why should we pay any attention to 7th century standards?

because we are discussing a 7th century event

 

[bob x]

because we are discussing a 7th century event

If Muhammad has no relevance except as a typically barbaric figure from the barbaric past, fine. But it is sometimes claimed that his behavior has continued relevance as a model for present behavior.

 

[c0de]

If Muhammad has no relevance except as a typically barbaric figure from the barbaric past, fine.

"Barbaric" according to who? You're applying our standards to completely acceptable punishments for that time period.

But it is sometimes claimed that his behavior has continued relevance as a model for present behavior.

His mission was the delivery of the Quran. That's all that Muslims should be basing their behavior on. And there is nothing in the Quran which says that Muslims can not adapt to the times, as long as they don't conflict with the Quranic principles.

 

[bob x]

"Barbaric" according to who? You're applying our standards to completely acceptable punishments for that time period.

It was a barbaric time period.

His mission was the delivery of the Quran. That's all that Muslims should be basing their behavior on.

It's an ambiguous book in an archaic language. All you can base yourself on is your choice of how to decide what it means, and your own system for translating it seems to be purely arbitrary. Most Muslims choose its meaning based on what is passed down about what the people of that time period understood it to mean, and particularly how Muhammad himself, who should know what it meant if anybody did, conducted himself-- but that means staying tied to the barbaric practices of that day.

And there is nothing in the Quran which says that Muslims can not adapt to the times, as long as they don't conflict with the Quranic principles.

You can adapt as long as you don't really change anything?

 

[c0de]

It was a barbaric time period.

again with the moral equivalence...

It's an ambiguous book in an archaic language. All you can base yourself on is your choice of how to decide what it means, and your own system for translating it seems to be purely arbitrary. Most Muslims choose its meaning based on what is passed down about what the people of that time period understood it to mean, and particularly how Muhammad himself, who should know what it meant if anybody did, conducted himself-- but that means staying tied to the barbaric practices of that day.

Keep the lexical stuff on the other thread please.

You can adapt as long as you don't really change anything?

Yep!

; )

 

[Diagoras]

Again we see our members infected with the Islam meme stoop to the ridiculously fragile battlement of historical context! Try to fudge out of the relevance of JEW HATE in modern Islamic culture...as though its root were unconnected. Even blame it all on a traitor....who has to be really a Jew!
I am left with nothing but a despairing laugh at the ridiculousness islamists employ to prop up their own corruption.

 

[Dream]

Aside:

Let's not confuse Islam and Islamism. I would expect there to be some camaraderie between Muslim countries naturally without 'Islamism', and to equate comraderie with Islamism creates confusion. Muslims in different countries might get along well sometimes. They tend to make alliances, but that does not mean they would fuse all of their governments together under a single potato-head. Even if it did happen the concept of Islam would still be a separate idea, and there is value in using separate words for separate ideas.