U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Islam
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-10-2016, 07:43 PM
 
Location: Jewel Lake (Sagle) Idaho
27,550 posts, read 17,637,711 times
Reputation: 15620

Advertisements

One of the better discussions of Muhammad...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ln5fVgM0gLQ
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-10-2016, 08:08 PM
 
Location: Logan Township, Minnesota
15,511 posts, read 13,282,205 times
Reputation: 7407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake View Post
One of the better discussions of Muhammad...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ln5fVgM0gLQ
all I will say is that is not how I view Islam or the Qur'an. also seems she is not very familiar with Ahadith and is assuming they can be understood as stand alone statements.

to be fair because of my very poor hearing I could not understand much of what she was saying.
__________________
When posting as a MOD my posts will be in red

No advertising, no copyrighted material, no personal attacks


MODERATOR OF: Buddhism: Judaism: Paganism:

When in doubt read the TOS MOD LIST FAQ's
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2016, 08:37 PM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,583,450 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khalif View Post
In tennis, you have games, sets, matches and the championship. Games are elements of the sets and the sets are elements of the match (battle). Muhammad lost no match, therefore, no battle was lost by Muhammad or else he would have been out. He managed to complete his mission (the championship).

It is nonsense to claim that Muhammad lost at Uhad. There were two leaders of Meccan army at Uhad. One (Khalid bib Waleed) joined Muhammad (loser in your view) soon after the battle and the other (Sufiyan) later on after the second failed attempt to beat Muhammad at the Trench. They did so because they knew that they could not beat Muhammad in any battle. There was no battle when the war against Meccan was won because the Meccan had lost all battles with Muhammad in Madina.
I think this is an issue of semantics. I had defined battle as the same as the tennis "sets" with a "match" to refer to "battles" in "War" respectively.
Note the often quoted phrase "won the battle but not the war" or "lost the battle but eventually won the war"


Muhammad lost the battle due to mistakes made by some of his men.
If Muhammad has won the battle, typically he would have slaughtered all the Meccan or took them for ransom or as slaves.
In the Battle of Uhud, his men made mistakes in their strategy and they lost the battle and have to retreat. This is reflected in the Quran where Muhammad [speaking as Allah] has to lick his wounds and he scolded his soldiers for failing to obey his orders.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2016, 02:27 AM
 
3,166 posts, read 1,037,948 times
Reputation: 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
Note the difference between "battles" and the "war".
For examples the Allies won World War II but they lost many battles during the full period of the war.
I don't deny Muhammad won the War ultimately over the Meccans, Jews and Christians with his terrible aggressions and the supposedly "assistance" [power and invisible armies] from Allah.

However there is no denying he lost at the Battle of Uhud when some of his followers did not follow his orders properly.
Like in a game of tennis, Muhammad won the match [War] at 3-1 i.e. won 3 sets [battles] and lost 1 set [battle of Uhud].

That Muhammad won the War over the Meccans, Jews and Christians with so much aggression and evils is the basis of an established a martial ethos for Islam with Muhammad as an exemplar that inspire SOME [not all] evil prone Muslims who are influenced by the evil laden elements in the Quran to commit terrible evils and violence around the world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
I think this is an issue of semantics. I had defined battle as the same as the tennis "sets" with a "match" to refer to "battles" in "War" respectively.
Note the often quoted phrase "won the battle but not the war" or "lost the battle but eventually won the war"


Muhammad lost the battle due to mistakes made by some of his men.
If Muhammad has won the battle, typically he would have slaughtered all the Meccan or took them for ransom or as slaves.
In the Battle of Uhud, his men made mistakes in their strategy and they lost the battle and have to retreat. This is reflected in the Quran where Muhammad [speaking as Allah] has to lick his wounds and he scolded his soldiers for failing to obey his orders.
You are not using here your own standard of winning or losing criterion regarding a battle between Muhammad and Meccan army. If you think that Muhammad would have slaughtered all Meccan or took them for ransom or slaves if he had won then why don't you think the same way in case of Meccan travelling 325 miles to Madina to attack Muhammad and Muslims with him in Madina to slaughter them all? They had come to attack Madina and completely destroy Muslims. They retreated after heavy losses only because they could not win the battle. Keep in mind that it was the Meccan who had attacked; not Muhammad. Muhammad and Muslims with him were trying to protect Madina from the Meccan attack. They managed to do just that and thus did not lose the battle and protected Madina.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2016, 03:56 AM
 
8,102 posts, read 7,071,630 times
Reputation: 1433
These barbaric groups of isis boko haram and then others are more of the values of satan, than a loving God of Abraham........
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2016, 05:58 AM
 
Location: Jewel Lake (Sagle) Idaho
27,550 posts, read 17,637,711 times
Reputation: 15620
Quote:
Originally Posted by hljc View Post
These barbaric groups of isis boko haram and then others are more of the values of satan, than a loving God of Abraham........
As an atheist I regard all religions as equally...irrational. However, that doesn't mean I can't evaluate the example of their "messenger". The Christian message exemplified by Jesus is one of tolerance, forgiveness, love and respect.

The message exemplified by Muhammad is one of conquest, betrayal, slaughter, female subjugation, rape of women and children and slave ownership.

The bigger issue is that Islam is first and foremost a political system, one that embraces and enforces those acts. The religion is a marketing arm.

As I said in the OP, that doesn't mean all Muslims are bad people. There are many that don't actually follow the example of Muhammad.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2016, 06:35 AM
 
Location: Wisconsin
2,202 posts, read 1,425,584 times
Reputation: 1363
I guess we need to look into lineage of ISIS and those involved although a few are non Arab mercenaries needing work and willing to kill, mutilate or whatever is commanded. ISIS is of the lineage of the Asyrians and Analekites, whereas Boko dates back to a lineage of Kanuri's and of Kanem-Bornu who were essentially terroists. . Since many ISIS are pychopaths they will kill ISIS terrorists in a second over a better cut of goat meat. Boko and ISIS follow themselves under the guise of following Mohammad and Quran. They are more about gaining wealth via pillaging and the whole Mhadi nonesense is a mockery of Islam. Their only savior is and will be Satan as satan minions ( already in the house)are having a field day with these morons. God will perpetually fry them trust me!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2016, 01:28 AM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,583,450 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khalif View Post
You are not using here your own standard of winning or losing criterion regarding a battle between Muhammad and Meccan army. If you think that Muhammad would have slaughtered all Meccan or took them for ransom or slaves if he had won then why don't you think the same way in case of Meccan travelling 325 miles to Madina to attack Muhammad and Muslims with him in Madina to slaughter them all? They had come to attack Madina and completely destroy Muslims. They retreated after heavy losses only because they could not win the battle. Keep in mind that it was the Meccan who had attacked; not Muhammad. Muhammad and Muslims with him were trying to protect Madina from the Meccan attack. They managed to do just that and thus did not lose the battle and protected Madina.
From what I have read of the various views of Muslim commentators, most agreed Muhammad lost the Battle of Uhud and lessons has to be learned. This is implied in the Quran which did not mention Uhud specifically.


Here is an example to explain my point;
If two armies [A and B] of 1,000 men each met in a battle.
IF all the soldiers of A were killed and only 1 general of B is left, then logically B has won the battle.
But because there is only 1 general left, the general can proceed forward to fight further, thus has to go back to base.

Comparing points by points based on various criteria, Muhammad lost because of a serious weakness of the group of archers.
Strategy wise, the Meccan won but did not pursue because they did not have the strength to move forward.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2016, 02:29 PM
 
3,166 posts, read 1,037,948 times
Reputation: 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
From what I have read of the various views of Muslim commentators, most agreed Muhammad lost the Battle of Uhud and lessons has to be learned. This is implied in the Quran which did not mention Uhud specifically.


Here is an example to explain my point;
If two armies [A and B] of 1,000 men each met in a battle.
IF all the soldiers of A were killed and only 1 general of B is left, then logically B has won the battle.
But because there is only 1 general left, the general can proceed forward to fight further, thus has to go back to base.

Comparing points by points based on various criteria, Muhammad lost because of a serious weakness of the group of archers.
Strategy wise, the Meccan won but did not pursue because they did not have the strength to move forward.
That is not the correct way to look at the battle of Uhad.

First of all, you need to take into account he goal each side wanted to achieve before the battle began. The attacking army failed to kill Muhammad but Muslims protected Madina.

Second, the invader had no strength left to kill Muhammad and the Muslims with him who were still alive.

Third, the battle was in two parts, before he archers left the upper ground (I have actually stood on that ground which is now not so high) and after the archers left that ground seeing that the enemy on the ground has been defeated. Most of the 70 Muslims on the ground were killed by Khalid bin Waleed's cavalry attacking the Muslims from behind. Khalid had come back to Muslims (unarmed) soon ater the battle of Uhad, accepted Islam and joined Muhammad. Do you think he did so because Muhammed had lost the battle?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2016, 09:43 PM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,583,450 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khalif View Post
That is not the correct way to look at the battle of Uhad.

First of all, you need to take into account he goal each side wanted to achieve before the battle began. The attacking army failed to kill Muhammad but Muslims protected Madina.

Second, the invader had no strength left to kill Muhammad and the Muslims with him who were still alive.

Third, the battle was in two parts, before he archers left the upper ground (I have actually stood on that ground which is now not so high) and after the archers left that ground seeing that the enemy on the ground has been defeated. Most of the 70 Muslims on the ground were killed by Khalid bin Waleed's cavalry attacking the Muslims from behind. Khalid had come back to Muslims (unarmed) soon ater the battle of Uhad, accepted Islam and joined Muhammad. Do you think he did so because Muhammed had lost the battle?
Not accomplishing the original mission do not imply losing the battle.
Such events are very common in the various wars in history.
As I mentioned we need to review the situation in various perspective.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Islam
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top