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 08-08-2019, 02:38 AM
 
3,233 posts, read 1,086,119 times
Reputation: 296

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
Please realize that - Abu Talib, Mohammad’s uncle was about 75 years old - nearly an 80 year old man when his own son - " Ali " converted to Islam.

There is not very much that a nearly 80-year-old man can do to prevent his son from converting to Islam.
What would one expect from a 75 year old man - when his son is converting to another religion ?
He had approved it.
Anyhow, is that the best excuse you could come up? I am sure a fit 75 year old man, leader of his tribe, could stop his 9 year old son from converting if he wanted to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
However, we also find that " Abu Talib " had said to Mohammad = "Spare me and yourself and put not burden on me that I can’t bear".
He did bear the burden of his son converting and also of protecting Muhammad for 10 years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
In other words, Abu Talib could not bear the violent situation that Mohammad was putting him through.
What violence? Who was violent at the time?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-08-2019, 06:29 AM
 
3,233 posts, read 1,086,119 times
Reputation: 296
It's much easier to watch this full length film abut the Message of Islam and the story of it from the beginning and as it folded later on.

It is to be noted that Muhammad had no monetary interest in establishing worship of One God at the Ka'aba and in Mecca. He had returned to Madina to live there and died there within a year.

Here is the Link again if anyone is interested in watching the film. Click on the address if you want to watch in full screen.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHcNzpmB3MM
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2019, 01:43 PM
 
3,233 posts, read 1,086,119 times
Reputation: 296
After watching the film, if anyone is interested in seeing the recent photos of the place where Ka'aba is and where over 3 million people have gone for hajj this week, below is a Link for it:

https://www.google.com/search?q=Masj...mC0Oh4M:&vet=1
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2019, 01:48 PM
 
19 posts, read 1,835 times
Reputation: 11
Dearest Khalif.

You ask me the question

“ What violence? Who was violent at the time? “ as if you are unaware of the violence, hostility and problems that existed for Abu Talib's clan and the rest of the Quraish tribe. ?

are you not aware that -

The Meccan’s were warning Abu Talib and insisting that he put a stop to Muhammad's preaching of their pagan deity “ Allah “ existing as the only single god. The Mecca’s warned him that he would be faced with severe hostility.

Their hostility and threats demanded a break between Abu Talib's clan - Banu Hashim and the rest of the entire Quraish that was causing great distress to his uncle - Abu Talib. They wanted to kill Mohammad for disrupting their business and had asked Mohammad to leave multiple times and to stop disrupting their business at the temple.

It is obvious that Mohammad was calling for the destruction and complete ruination, damnation, cursing and demolishing of their property and they knew that this is what he had planned and was attempting to do.

It just seems that Muslims attempt to somehow completely ignore the fact that - The Arabs in Mecca knew exactly and precisely what Judaism and the Jews believed and that the Jews believed that all of their Idols were to be destroyed and smashed into pieces.

But the Jews were not invading their property; the Jews were not there in or near the Kaaba or anywhere heaping insults of damnation, curses and threats of a God that demanded that every place of worship is to be torn down and all idols and images completely destroyed. - this was Mohammad.

The Arabs in Mecca knew very well that the goal and plan for anyone claiming to serve the God of Abraham, was to completely destroy every single last part of their entire civilization and culture and demolish all of their property. And this is exactly what Mohammad had planned and they knew it. And this is exactly what he did.

Muslims leave all of this out of their storyline and attempt to paint Mohammad as some sort of alternative peaceful victim who never meant to cause any harm to their culture and city.

The Jews knew that the Arabians had rights and the choice was their own, to live and worship as they pleased. The Arabians would have had the right to have driven the Jews out of Mecca had the Jews attempted to disrupt and threaten their way of life. Just by proselytizing and spreading their Hebrew religion among the Mecaan’s But this is not what Judaism is about - nor has it ever been about.

The Jews respected and treated the Mecca’s with dignity and did not attempt to push their religion on them. Because in the eyes of the Jews, the worshipers of the God of Abraham - the faith, LAW - RULE - DEMAND and ONLY OPTION - is that all of the Idols of the Kaaba were supposed to be destroyed and Mohammad was there in their city, on their property preaching and demanding that they follow a religion that always destroys all other idols.. This is a must when following the God of Abraham.

The Mecca’s knew all of this. They did not name their son “ ABD - ALLAH “ in order to represent the one true, one and only deity for Jewish customers who passed by Mecca . They named him “ ABD - ALLAH “ to represent the pagan deity “ AL - LAAH “ / “ AL - LAAH “ had never been the God of Abraham. This was a creation of paganism and their business in the Kaaba.

Abu Talib sent for Muhammad and told him the news, " Spare me and yourself and put not burden on me that I can’t bear "

The Meccan Quraish then brought Ammarah ibn Walid, the son of the powerful and rich war-clan leader Walid ibn al-Mughira and a brother of the undefeated general Khalid ibn al-Walid

This man - said DIRECTLY to Abu Talib - We have brought you a smart boy still in the bloom of his youth, to make use of his mind and strength and take him as your son in exchange for your nephew, who has run counter / opposed to your religion, who has brought about social discord / conflict, AND found faults and problems with your way of life, so that we kill him and rid you of his endless troubles.

They wanted to kill Mohammad and exchange him with his uncle - for another man - just man for man.
Abu Talib replied “ You give me your son to bring him up and I give you my son to kill him!

Mut`im ibn `Uday, a member of the delegation, said that that the Quraish had been fair in that bargain because: "they meant only to rid you of that source of hateful trouble.

The Quraish said: - Your nephew has insulted our gods, called our great men as insane and reckoned our fathers to be deviated ones. Therefore, you surrender him to us or else, there shall occur a war between us.

But - Abu Talib was completely unable to protect Mohammad physically and afterward Utaibah bin Abi Lahab shortly afterward approached Mohammad and shouted at him, "I disbelieve in: "By the star when it goes down." "I do not believe in any of the Qur’ân." He then laid a violent hand on him, tore his shirt and attempted to spit in his face.

The Quraish said: to Abu Talib - If you don’t stop him we will fight against you until one side perishes / is destroyed.

And again - Khalif.

Violence and aggression and bloodshed did break out and people began to attempt to stop Mohammad and drive him out of Mecca. Abu Talib did make threats to harm and fight against the Quraish if they continued to attempt to drive Mohammad out but Abu Talib never physically did a single thing to participate in defending Mohammad.

Abu Talib could not do a single thing to physically protect Mohammad. Abu Talib was simply an influential protector. Someone who rejected Islam but still wanted to protect his family member with is a political influence. Abu Talib on multiple occasions literally begged and pleaded with Mohammad to stop causing him problems.

Abu Talib then died in 619 AD and Abu Lahab became the leader of the Banu Hashim clan and afterward, no one spoke and was vocal about anything concerning protecting Mohammad or allowing him to continue to live in Mecca while harassing and antagonizing, provoking and disrupting the business and temple worship of the Mecca’s.

In 622 AD Muhammad and his followers migrated to Yathrib in the Hijra because Mohammad did not have a large enough fighting men to overtake and completely destroy the Mecca’s. Mohammad was driven out as the Meccan’s protected their temple and business from a violent intruding, an obtrusive lunatic who sought to disrupt everything in the temple that he disliked.

The livelihood, wealth, occupation, business and way of making a living for the Quraish depended on the Kaaba and they simply were guarding their own property - the Kaaba.

The fact is that there were fights, violent interactions and heated exchanges between Mohammad and his men and the Quraish - in Mecca before Mohammad was driven out. And Abu Talib was incapable to do a single thing to prevent all of this. He only verbally protected Mohammad and eventually the Muslims killed a man in Mecca who was attempting to remove the intruders from their city and Mohammad was forced to leave.

Mohammad and his followers did not own the Kaaba nor the land in Mecca. The Mecca’s knew exactly what Mohammad was attempting to do, they knew exactly what his plans were and what he was attempting to do in rousing and provoking people in Mecca to also go around disrupting and destroying their business and economic system. Mohammad was intrusive, destructive and rude as he intruded in the personal business of people around him. Mohammad was attempting to take over the affairs and business of the Meccan people

Muslims make the claim that Mohammad’s immediate family were the first to accept Islam but this is only referring to his wives and children and one single uncle of Mohammad named Ḥamzah. Muslims take someone like “ a little baby / child as Aisha “ who was only six years old, a little kid - when she married Mohammad and somehow this is a conversion.

This has nothing to do with his mother and fathers family, his cousins and uncles. Mohammad in fact had no “ immediate family “ he had no mother and father nor brothers or sister – called immediate family - who ever had accepted Islam.

Yet Muslims go about claiming that his immediate family had accepted Islam. The fact is his entire family on both his mothers and fathers side never converted to Islam, except for a single uncle - Ḥamzah ibn His wives and children who were easily manipulated and under his command, control and domination - they are the immediate family converts.

“ Ḥamzah ibn - the doubtful acclaimed uncle of Mohammad he was the only family member who converted to Islam outside of the wives and children of Mohammad.

If Mohammad was demanding that - the Quraish - in Mecca had deviated and moved away from following the religion of Judaism and serving only one God - why would Muslims today assume or pretend that the Meccan’s did not understand or know that Mohammad was attempting to cause people around him to destroy and break and vandalize the property of the Meccan’s ? This is a law in the religion that Mohammad claimed they had departed from.

Muslims are ok with pretending that the Jews would be justified to go into Mecca, onto other peoples property, in their temple and demand that they convert to a religion that calls for the complete and total destruction of every last idol in the entire city ? This seems to be one of the many, many political movements that Islam projects upon Abraham and his God. But this is not something that scriptures portray...

- the Jews in scripture and history, never went into other peoples properties and cities and demanded to them that they stop serving Idols and Images by insulting, cursing, abusing, rilling, irritating, exasperating people. And then next - go about murdering, killing and exterminating those who drove them OUT and AWAY from their personal property and cities The Jewish prophets, the Apostles and Disciples and Preachers accepted that they were in the private places of pagans and accepted that they were in other peoples temples and even though they would be insulted and pushed away by little insults - such as Mohammad received, they would not insult back, they did not escalate the violence and attempt to call on the POLITICAL BODIES of others to defend them.

They would not demand and manipulate the situation - that force POLITICAL IDENTITIES and political operators and political motives to intervene and fight, kill and commit violence for them. The Prophets, Apostles Disciples and Preachers of the scriptures " WHEN WITNESSING AND PREACHING ABOUT THE
GOD OF ABRAHAM " when entering into other peoples property, lands, and cities and even though they were persecuted, they did not call for their persecutors to be violently killed, murdered and exterminated and all of their property destroyed or confiscated - and for them to be forcibly converted or die while they take their wives and marry them. This is called hijacking. When you enter into a peaceful city that has done no harm to you and attempt to witness and preach and when they get offended and upset you expect that you have the rights and duty to attack them back and kill, in order that your faith will become dominate.

This is exactly what Islam does and has done from the beginning. This is why political subjects are not allowed in Islamic dictation - because Muslims do not allow others politics nor even Biblical data to be a part of their discussion - unless they can wield it, unless they hold firmly upon the handle and swing it how they want it to swing, unless they can fully control the content of the entire discussion to cut aside and hack away at all reality that does not produce and manufacture their faith. Anything concerning facts
- that disagrees with Islam is labeled as politics. Because everything about Islam is completely political.



Last edited by Imposcemathem; 08-09-2019 at 02:06 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2019, 04:44 AM
 
3,233 posts, read 1,086,119 times
Reputation: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
Dearest Khalif.

You ask me the question

“ What violence? Who was violent at the time? “ as if you are unaware of the violence, hostility and problems that existed for Abu Talib's clan and the rest of the Quraish tribe.
Perhaps you didn’t bother to watch the film, watch it and you will see the violence against the Muslims. Meccan Pagans had started it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
The Meccan’s were warning Abu Talib and insisting that he put a stop to Muhammad's preaching of their pagan deity “ Allah “ existing as the only single god. The Mecca’s warned him that he would be faced with severe hostility.
So the hostile party was not the Muslims or Muhammad but the Pagan Meccans.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
Their hostility and threats demanded a break between Abu Talib's clan - Banu Hashim and the rest of the entire Quraish that was causing great distress to his uncle - Abu Talib.
It wasn’t Muhammad threatening Abu Talib but the Pagan Quraish.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
They wanted to kill Mohammad for disrupting their business and had asked Mohammad to leave multiple times and to stop disrupting their business at the temple.
Muhammad was for several years preaching about One God only to a very small group of people, and even that only in secret. He knew that Pagan Quraish would be hostile to his preaching. He was “preaching” and not “disrupting their business”.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
It is obvious that Mohammad was calling for the destruction and complete ruination, damnation, cursing and demolishing of their property and they knew that this is what he had planned and was attempting to do.
This is a lie, he had never planned ruination of the Ka’aba.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
It just seems that Muslims attempt to somehow completely ignore the fact that - The Arabs in Mecca knew exactly and precisely what Judaism and the Jews believed and that the Jews believed that all of their Idols were to be destroyed and smashed into pieces.
You keep bringing in Jews and Judaism in this forum. What do you want me to do with Judaism and Jews in this forum?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
But the Jews were not invading their property; the Jews were not there in or near the Kaaba or anywhere heaping insults of damnation, curses and threats of a God that demanded that every place of worship is to be torn down and all idols and images completely destroyed. - this was Mohammad.
Did I say that Jews were doing that? Do you want us to talk about Judaism and Jews in this forum?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
The Arabs in Mecca knew very well that the goal and plan for anyone claiming to serve the God of Abraham, was to completely destroy every single last part of their entire civilization and culture and demolish all of their property. And this is exactly what Mohammad had planned and they knew it. And this is exactly what he did.
I see! Muhammad demolished their property Ka’aba???

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
Muslims leave all of this out of their storyline and attempt to paint Mohammad as some sort of alternative peaceful victim who never meant to cause any harm to their culture and city.
Well, history is witness that, due to Muhammad, there has been peace in Mecca for the past 1400 years. And the Ka’aba is still there and the business has flourished many times over.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
The Jews knew that the Arabians had rights and the choice was their own, to live and worship as they pleased. The Arabians would have had the right to have driven the Jews out of Mecca had the Jews attempted to disrupt and threaten their way of life. Just by proselytizing and spreading their Hebrew religion among the Mecaan’s But this is not what Judaism is about - nor has it ever been about.
We don’t want to know about your preaching about Judaism in this forum.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
The Jews respected and treated the Mecca’s with dignity and did not attempt to push their religion on them. Because in the eyes of the Jews, the worshipers of the God of Abraham - the faith, LAW - RULE - DEMAND and ONLY OPTION - is that all of the Idols of the Kaaba were supposed to be destroyed and Mohammad was there in their city, on their property preaching and demanding that they follow a religion that always destroys all other idols.. This is a must when following the God of Abraham.
I am sure Moses too was following God of Abraham when he came down the Mountain, destroyed the golden calf idol they were worshipping and had 3000 worshippers killed in just ONE DAY.

Don’t insist on talking about Jews and Judaism in this forum. This is not the right forum, and not because we don’t know anything about Judaism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
The Mecca’s knew all of this. They did not name their son “ ABD - ALLAH “ in order to represent the one true, one and only deity for Jewish customers who passed by Mecca . They named him “ ABD - ALLAH “ to represent the pagan deity “ AL - LAAH “ / “ AL - LAAH “ had never been the God of Abraham. This was a creation of paganism and their business in the Kaaba.
Allah is not “AL-LAAH” but “AL-ILAH”. It will make no sense if it were “AL-LAAH”. “AL” in Arabic is “THE”. “THE LAAH” will make no sense unless there were more than one LAAH.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
Abu Talib sent for Muhammad and told him the news, " Spare me and yourself and put not burden on me that I can’t bear "
You have already told me so. And I have responded to it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
The Meccan Quraish then brought Ammarah ibn Walid, the son of the powerful and rich war-clan leader Walid ibn al-Mughira and a brother of the undefeated general Khalid ibn al-Walid

This man - said DIRECTLY to Abu Talib - We have brought you a smart boy still in the bloom of his youth, to make use of his mind and strength and take him as your son in exchange for your nephew, who has run counter / opposed to your religion, who has brought about social discord / conflict, AND found faults and problems with your way of life, so that we kill him and rid you of his endless troubles.

They wanted to kill Mohammad and exchange him with his uncle - for another man - just man for man.
Abu Talib replied “ You give me your son to bring him up and I give you my son to kill him!
And you left out what else he said next.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
Mut`im ibn `Uday, a member of the delegation, said that that the Quraish had been fair in that bargain because: "they meant only to rid you of that source of hateful trouble.

The Quraish said: - Your nephew has insulted our gods, called our great men as insane and reckoned our fathers to be deviated ones. Therefore, you surrender him to us or else, there shall occur a war between us.
I know where you have copied the above. You should have given here the source.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
But - Abu Talib was completely unable to protect Mohammad physically and afterward Utaibah bin Abi Lahab shortly afterward approached Mohammad and shouted at him, "I disbelieve in: "By the star when it goes down." "I do not believe in any of the Qur’ân." He then laid a violent hand on him, tore his shirt and attempted to spit in his face.
Violence towards Muhammad was of course started by the Meccan Pagans first.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
The Quraish said: to Abu Talib - If you don’t stop him we will fight against you until one side perishes / is destroyed.
Threat of violence?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
And again - Khalif.

Violence and aggression and bloodshed did break out and people began to attempt to stop Mohammad and drive him out of Mecca.
Exactly my point that the violence began from Meccan Pagans first.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
Abu Talib did make threats to harm and fight against the Quraish if they continued to attempt to drive Mohammad out but Abu Talib never physically did a single thing to participate in defending Mohammad.
So you do admit here that Muhammad was subjected to violence from the Meccan pagans first.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
Abu Talib could not do a single thing to physically protect Mohammad. Abu Talib was simply an influential protector. Someone who rejected Islam but still wanted to protect his family member with is a political influence.
It is still a protection from violence of Meccan pagans.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
Abu Talib then died in 619 AD and Abu Lahab became the leader of the Banu Hashim clan and afterward, no one spoke and was vocal about anything concerning protecting Mohammad or allowing him to continue to live in Mecca while harassing and antagonizing, provoking and disrupting the business and temple worship of the Mecca’s.
Abu Lahab was the main enemy of Muhammad. He had died attacking Muhammad and his followers at Badr, 300 miles away from Mecca.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
In 622 AD Muhammad and his followers migrated to Yathrib in the Hijra because Mohammad did not have a large enough fighting men to overtake and completely destroy the Mecca’s.
Another proof from yourself that Muhammad and his small followers could not have started the violence against the mighty Quraish of Mecca!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
Mohammad was driven out as the Meccan’s protected their temple and business from a violent intruding, an obtrusive lunatic who sought to disrupt everything in the temple that he disliked.
You are refuting your own argument. Muhammad with his small number of followers were too weak to do anything you are claiming here. It’s a senseless accusation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
The livelihood, wealth, occupation, business and way of making a living for the Quraish depended on the Kaaba and they simply were guarding their own property - the Kaaba.
Ka’aba was not only THEIR property. It was also Muhammad’s property. Muhammad was born only a few yards from the Ka’aba. And Muhammad never wanted to destroy Ka’aba. Ka’aba is guarded to this day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
The fact is that there were fights, violent interactions and heated exchanges between Mohammad and his men and the Quraish - in Mecca before Mohammad was driven out.
All was from the Meccan pagans. Muhammad and his followers were in no position at the time to do that. They had to migrate twice from there to save their lives from violent Meccan pagans.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
And Abu Talib was incapable to do a single thing to prevent all of this. He only verbally protected Mohammad and eventually the Muslims killed a man in Mecca who was attempting to remove the intruders from their city and Mohammad was forced to leave.
It is a lie that Muslims killed a man in Mecca before they were forced to leave. You will have to do better than that if you want a serious discussion here in this forum.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
Mohammad and his followers did not own the Kaaba nor the land in Mecca.
They never wanted to “OWN” the Ka’aba or the land in Mecca. Muhammad, in fact, had even left Mecca and went to live in Madina after he had repossessed the Ka’aba from the Pagans.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
The Mecca’s knew exactly what Mohammad was attempting to do, they knew exactly what his plans were and what he was attempting to do in rousing and provoking people in Mecca to also go around disrupting and destroying their business and economic system.
Even when they were weak and were trying to save their lives?
Muhammad and Muslims left Mecca because the Pagans of Mecca wanted to kill them. I am sure you are aware of that fact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
Mohammad was intrusive, destructive and rude as he intruded in the personal business of people around him. Mohammad was attempting to take over the affairs and business of the Meccan people
Nonsense!
Why did Muhammad leave Mecca after taking over the affairs and business if that’s what he really wanted from the beginning?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
Muslims make the claim that Mohammad’s immediate family were the first to accept Islam but this is only referring to his wives and children and one single uncle of Mohammad named Ḥamzah. Muslims take someone like “ a little baby / child as Aisha “ who was only six years old, a little kid - when she married Mohammad and somehow this is a conversion.
You are not really serious debater here. Muhammad had only ONE wife (the first one) at the time she accepted Islam, and not “wives”.
He did not marry Aisha until many years later.
Anyhow, if even his family members didn’t accept Islam then it proves that he didn’t have a big army of followers to dislodge Pagans from Ka’aba. It was the Pagans who had subjected him to violence first.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
This has nothing to do with his mother and fathers family, his cousins and uncles. Mohammad in fact had no “ immediate family “ he had no mother and father nor brothers or sister – called immediate family - who ever had accepted Islam.
Wife, two daughters, nephew Ali and the adopted son Zaid were the first ones to accept Islam. Abu Bakr was the first one outside his family to accept Islam.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
Yet Muslims go about claiming that his immediate family had accepted Islam. The fact is his entire family on both his mothers and fathers side never converted to Islam, except for a single uncle - Ḥamzah ibn His wives and children who were easily manipulated and under his command, control and domination - they are the immediate family converts.
Can’t you think that they must have heard about the Qur’an revelation first?
And Umar was on his way to kill Muhammad. Yet, when he saw Muhammad next, he accept Islam. Do you know why?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
“ Ḥamzah ibn - the doubtful acclaimed uncle of Mohammad he was the only family member who converted to Islam outside of the wives and children of Mohammad.
He was a strong man in the tribe. A very honest man. So your claim that his entire family did not accept Islam is pointless here.

You are here merely looking to criticise Islam and Muslims. Any more bright ideas to that effect?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
If Mohammad was demanding that - the Quraish - in Mecca had deviated and moved away from following the religion of Judaism and serving only one God - why would Muslims today assume or pretend that the Meccan’s did not understand or know that Mohammad was attempting to cause people around him to destroy and break and vandalize the property of the Meccan’s ? This is a law in the religion that Mohammad claimed they had departed from.
You are bringing in Judaism here once more. I am not allowed in this forum to discuss Judaism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
Muslims are ok with pretending that the Jews would be justified to go into Mecca,
Did I say that? If you insist, did Muhammad say to the Jews to kill 3000 Jews for worshipping the golden calf right under the nose of God of Abraham?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2019, 03:25 AM
 
514 posts, read 423,106 times
Reputation: 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khalif View Post
In every last detail? In every aspect?
Perhaps you are referring to Old Testament, New Testament and the Last Testament.
I don't mean to interrupt the discussion you two are having yet your reference to the Old, New, and Last testament makes me wonder if either one of you two are familiar with the three tabernacles referenced in Matthew 17:4, Mark 9:5 and Luke 9:33 and if so, what are your thoughts about these three tabernacles and what they represent?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2019, 02:44 PM
 
3,233 posts, read 1,086,119 times
Reputation: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by deadwood View Post
I don't mean to interrupt the discussion you two are having yet your reference to the Old, New, and Last testament makes me wonder if either one of you two are familiar with the three tabernacles referenced in Matthew 17:4, Mark 9:5 and Luke 9:33 and if so, what are your thoughts about these three tabernacles and what they represent?
We are to discuss Islam here and not the Gospels according to the rules and the moderators. But I will be honest with you, if the guy who said it did not know himself what he had said then others will be fools to say what he meant.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2019, 03:14 AM
 
19 posts, read 1,835 times
Reputation: 11

How is it possible to exclude the Torah and Gospels when discussing Islam.

Islam itself, makes the claim / demands that its very message and content are the same exact message as that which is written in " the Torah and Gospels.

If the message of the Quran is found in the Torah and Gospels - are we not already discussing the Torah and Gospels - when we discuss the Quran. Muslims believe that everything in the Quran is already existing in the Torah and Gospels.

But when they are discussed, Muslims only want to rely upon the Trinitarian Version / perversion of the rendered Scriptures. The Trinitarians are who the Muslims trust in to dictate and render what the original Hebrew says.

If the Muslims had translated the Torah and Gospels into Arabic - there would be another version of the bible that Muslims could turn to when attempting to parallel and compare it to their Quran.

The only reason that Muslims did not preserve any Torah and Gospels is because - that they do not have any value or meaning to a group of people pretending to be descendants of Ishmael. Especially when this ancestry claim is solely and only based upon Spiritual revelation, Spiritual Prophecy and Spiritual claims.

Dearest Khalif. Thank you for taking valuable time in your day to reply. I will do my best to not disturb the entire universe in the thin bubble with Bible verses.

I did watch some of the movie, it was very well played. The actors were great and the plot is very thoughtful.

The movie is a very entertaining and a well-acted script where the actors act out many events that could have or could not have occurred in Mecca.

May I kindly ask you - How can you say that Mohammad was not “ disrupting the business of the Meccan’s ”.

When - Ibn Kathir clearly narrated - one of the Meccan adversaries as saying, "Once he has gone, we shouldn't care where he ends up or what happens to him. So long as he is gone, we'll be rid of him and we'll be able to restore our affairs as they were before." (Vol.2 p.152).

If the Meccan’s are having problems with their business and affairs and the Meccan’s are saying that they are to have to remove Mohammad from among them so that they can RESTORE their lives , "Once he has gone, Saying “ and we'll be able to restore our affairs as they were before. "

Obviously, Mohammad in fact was disrupting their affairs and business - this means that Mohammad had caused great problems in the relationships connections and associates of the Meccan’s in their business. Once Mohammad was removed, they could RESTORE their broken and damaged lives……………….

Their way of life the culture that was ingrained in their history - a history that had existed for hundreds of years. This is exactly why they wanted him to stop going around inciting people to follow a religion that demands that all Idols to other gods - are to be destroyed.

Are we to believe that the Meccan’s had no knowledge concerning Mohammed's plans.

And this is exactly what he later did. He destroyed everything in their temple. This was what they were driving him out and away for - to prevent him from rabble-rousing the misfits and lower levels of society into attacking their business and destroying their property.

The goal of one following the religion of Abraham - removes all Images and Idols from their homes.
But - the history shows that the followers of Mohammad were the first side to kill and murder someone that disagreed with.

When Sa’d bin Abu Waqqas - picked up a camel’s jawbone and struck a polytheist who was impolitely interrupting a group of Muslims who were in prayer. This is the very first known case where blood was spilled in Islam - (Ibn Ishaq / Hisham - 166).

Also again - Mohammad's uncle, Hamza, struck a Meccan leader named Abu Jahl with his bow for speaking out in an insulting manner way to Muhammad: - (Ibn Ishaq / Hisham 185).

It is true that after that the Muslims had killed one of the Meccan’s, the Meccan’s THEN began to use forceful violence to drive Mohammad’s followers away from their properties and place of worship.
After the Muslims were driven out of Mecca - they conducted routine raids against Quraish merchant caravans and again, continued violently attacking and continually killing the innocent unsuspecting citizens of Mecca.

These merchant caravans were not out hunting for Muslims to attack - they were peacefully traveling along their routes to trade and make a living. The Muslims killed the men of the wives and kidnapped and their women and proceeded to have sex with them, then enslaved and force converted all younger people and married women who he allowed to live.

The very man who was the first to draw blood or KILL someone in Mecca, also was the first to later shoot an arrow at the Meccan’s. That was the first arrow shot for Allah’s cause after the begnning of Islam. (Ibn Kathir v.2 p.235)

Of course, Mohammad intended the ruination of the Ka’aba.

Are we to ASSUME and PRETEND that Mohammad destroyed the the Ka’aba - only for the soul and the single reason that the Maccan’s were trying to protect the Ka’aba. Or for some other alternative reason ? Of course, Mohammad intended the ruination of the Ka’aba.

This is exactly why he followed through with his plan - this is what he did and always wanted to do since he decided their Idols and Images were evil and forbidden in his mind.
But Mohammad did not introduce the religion of Abraham. There was no recorded history of Abraham attacking other people for serving Idols and Images and destroying their property. This was all something Mohammad received as a spiritual revelation concerning Abrahams behavior.

The Arabs in Mecca knew very well that the true goal and plan for the Muslims who continually were the persistent day after day gathering, assembling rousing up people around them to insult then and antagonize them into denouncing their religion. And exactly as Mohammad had planned - this is exactly what he did.

How can you say that - there has been peace in Mecca for the past 1400 years ?

But this is completely false. - Muslims have been fighting one another in many, many wars - inside Mecca but - mostly outside of Mecca for 1400 years. After Muhammad died, the Muslims immediately fell into war with each other. Muhammad's daughter Fatima died of stress from the persecution of fellow Muslims only six months after her father died. She even miscarried Muhammad's grandchild after having her ribs broken by the man who became the second Islamic caliph.

Aisha - Mohammad’s wife started a massive war against her very own fellow Muslims, led by her husband Ali . - 10,000 Muslims were killed in just a single battle, this war lasted nearly 25 years after Muhammad died. The fourth caliph named (Ali) was stabbed to death after a dispute with the fifth. The fifth caliph poisoned one of Muhammad's grandsons. The other grandson was later beheaded by the sixth caliph.

Within 50 years after Mohammad died, the KAABA, which had stood for centuries in the hands of pagans, lay in ruins from internal Muslim civil war. In just 25 years after Muhammad died Muslim armies had captured land and people within the borders of over 28 countries outside of Saudi Arabia.

Are we to believe that your claim that Mohammad never intended to destroy or ruin the Kaaba pagan temple is somehow true. Are we to believe that Mohammad’s demand to fight unbelievers is somehow not when Mohammad really intended and planned for Muslims to really do ? .

Muslims believe they are following Mohammad and they follow his example.

The Kaaba was showered with stones in the second siege of Mecca in 692, as Umayyad’s armies were led by al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf. Mecca went through a long civil war.

Abdu l-Malik had the remnants of al-Zubayr's Kaaba razed (i.e, completely destroyed), and rebuilt on the foundations set by the Quraysh. The Kaaba was rebuilt and returned to the original cube shape.
The Kaba has been reconstructed up to 12 times.

During the Hajj of 930 CE, the (Shi'ite Muslims ) attacked Mecca and stole the Black Stone, taking it to an oasis in Eastern Arabia called = al-Aḥsāʾ, where it remained until other Muslims paid a ransom for it in 952 CE.

60 percent of all conflicts for the last few decades - are in Muslim countries. With Muslims fighting and killing other Muslims. Most wars across the world today are taking place in a majority-Muslim country - with Muslims fighting each other

The Muslims have been fighting against one another since one of Mohamad’s men first spilled the very first drop of blood in Mecca. Since that day Muslims have been fighting one another and when they launch attacks and violence upon others around them, they come together in peace, long enough to destroy others who reject their religion.

You can go to this website right now and see the list of hundreds upon hundreds of battles going back from 700 AD - to the 20 th century.

http://materiaislamica.com/index.php...2%80%94c._1999)

Just 30 years after Mohammad, the Muslims conquered the entire Persian Empire and much of the Byzantine, They conquered Egypt, Syria, Iran, Iraq, and most of Afghanistan and Baluchistan.
The people conquered by the Muslims were usually given four choices. They could renounce their religion and convert to Islam, pay a tax to continue practicing their beliefs, become a slave, or be executed.

There have been over 18,000 deadly terror attacks committed explicitly in the name of Islam in just the last ten years.

Please consider the fact that the Quran states that Mohammad will provide no miracles, no signs and nothing will be proven to show that Mohammad is a prophet, nor to prove that his message is true.

This is a major difference between the true religion that is vindicated by miracles and signs. For a man to demand that people are to be killed for disobeying his God - but no miracles, no signs and wonders are given and the man demands that “ NO MIRACLES WILL EVER BE GIVEN “ - this is a major difference between Islam and the religion of the God Of Abraham.

Also, the Meccan’s were not Hebrews, there was no history of Hebrew Torah Laws in their society.

Concerning the subject that you raised about the situation - where 3000 people were killed by Moses.

If you look at the original Hebrew manuscripts instead of relying upon the Trinitarian Translators, you will find that the people had gathered in a conflict to force and compel Aaron to make them an Idol of a golden calf. You will see that the original manuscripts tell also - that certain people were violent and had taken Aaron and stripped Aaron from his clothing and made him naked to shame him.

The story in the Original Hebrew explain that - And when the people saw that Moses delayed to come down out of the mount, THE PEOPLE GATHERED THEMSELVES TOGETHER “ AGAINST / UPON H5921 - עַל - ‛al - “ AARON, and said unto him, - make us gods, which shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him.
This Hebrew word H5921 - עַל - ‛al - Meaning = Over, upon, or against ( to attempt the charge or control of. -

Against - it would be used in the following meanings…….

they gather themselves together “ AGAINST / UPON H5921 - עַל - ‛al - “ me, and slay me; and I shall be destroyed, I and my house.

If you go to war in your land “ AGAINST / UPON H5921 - עַל - ‛al - “ the enemy that oppresseth you.

You thought evil “ AGAINST / UPON H5921 - עַל - ‛al - “ me;

The story says that - Joshua heard the noise of the people as they shouted, he said unto Moses, There is a noise of war in the camp.

Moses declared that It is not the voice of them that shout for victory, neither is it the voice of them that cry for being overcome: but the noise of the aflicted I hear.

Also the story says that - Moses saw that the people were naked; and Aaron was naked by hostile enemies.

This is how the story reads in the original language. The Trinitarian Translators did their very best to change the history of the Jews into the most barbaric, sadistic, harsh, vindictive, sour and unlawful and the most unkind, callousness, ruthless and violent storyline as they possibly could.

The passage is simply mistranslated and the violent attack against Aaron is completely removed.
Muslims have never translated the Bible into Arabic - so when anyone discusses the Bible with Muslims, it has no meaning to them, Muslims simply are very content to rely upon the Trinitarian Translators of Europe to dictate and tell the Muslim what the original manuscripts say.

For every single last word of the Torah and Gospels, Islam relies strictly upon Trinitarians to explain and show what the original says. Muslims refuse to even translate a single word from the original. I think that this explains everything you need to know to the fact that Islam has not a single shred of any concern about the origins of any truth

The history of Islam is filled with so many contradictions, opposing claims and conflicting storylines that even up to five people could all be right when they make five different claims about one single event. Muslims did not even put the Quran in any chronological order. The entire storyline is a scattered series of events that appear behind or ahead of one another in the Quran.

This is not a story nor a history, nor even a book that tells you how the Quran could have even been the same message as the Torah and Gospels. The world has no clue as to how the Quran was the same as the Bible. The entire content has been reshuffled like a deck of cards and the hadith and narrations of early Muslims are filled with contradictions - as if the missing pieces of information in Mohammad's message are to be a flip of multiple coins in the palm of one's hands.


Last edited by Imposcemathem; 08-12-2019 at 03:37 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2019, 05:29 AM
 
3,233 posts, read 1,086,119 times
Reputation: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
How is it possible to exclude the Torah and Gospels when discussing Islam.
Do you want to discuss Islam here or Judaism and Christianity?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
Islam itself, makes the claim / demands that its very message and content are the same exact message as that which is written in " the Torah and Gospels.
Where does Islam itself make that claim/demand?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
If the message of the Quran is found in the Torah and Gospels - are we not already discussing the Torah and Gospels - when we discuss the Quran.
I don’t read the Torah and the Injeel when I read the Qur’an. When I read the Qur’an, I read the Qur’an.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
Muslims believe that everything in the Quran is already existing in the Torah and Gospels.
Muhammad is messenger of Allah in the Qur’an. Is he also messenger of Allah in the Torah and the Gospels?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
But when they are discussed, Muslims only want to rely upon the Trinitarian Version / perversion of the rendered Scriptures.
How many versions are there? Which one is authentic? And which version do you rely on?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
The Trinitarians are who the Muslims trust in to dictate and render what the original Hebrew says.
You decide between yourselves first as to which one is authentic. I will just watch your antics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
If the Muslims had translated the Torah and Gospels into Arabic - there would be another version of the bible that Muslims could turn to when attempting to parallel and compare it to their Quran.
I have enough versions to compare to each other to see the difference. All are later versions. The original ones do not exist anymore.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
Dearest Khalif. Thank you for taking valuable time in your day to reply. I will do my best to not disturb the entire universe in the thin bubble with Bible verses.
Nobody is stopping you to quote Qur’an verses here when discussing Islam.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
I did watch some of the movie, it was very well played. The actors were great and the plot is very thoughtful.

The movie is a very entertaining and a well-acted script where the actors act out many events that could have or could not have occurred in Mecca.

May I kindly ask you - How can you say that Mohammad was not “ disrupting the business of the Meccan’s ”.
For several years, he used to go out of Mecca for praying or pray at home. How can you say that he was “disrupting the business of Mecca’s”?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
When - Ibn Kathir clearly narrated - one of the Meccan adversaries as saying, "Once he has gone, we shouldn't care where he ends up or what happens to him. So long as he is gone, we'll be rid of him and we'll be able to restore our affairs as they were before." (Vol.2 p.152).
“Restore our affairs” from what? What had changed regarding their affairs?
And please note that Ibn Kathir wasn’t there at the time. So, it may have been said or it may not have been said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
If the Meccan’s are having problems with their business and affairs and the Meccan’s are saying that they are to have to remove Mohammad from among them so that they can RESTORE their lives , "Once he has gone, Saying “ and we'll be able to restore our affairs as they were before. "
Is it about “restoring their affairs” or “restoring their lives”?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
Obviously, Mohammad in fact was disrupting their affairs and business - this means that Mohammad had caused great problems in the relationships connections and associates of the Meccan’s in their business. Once Mohammad was removed, they could RESTORE their broken and damaged lives……………….
So now it’s not only about “restoring their affairs”, “restoring their lives” but also about “restoring their broken and damaged lives”. Just one man breaking and damaging lives of the mighty Quraish?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
Their way of life the culture that was ingrained in their history - a history that had existed for hundreds of years. This is exactly why they wanted him to stop going around inciting people to follow a religion that demands that all Idols to other gods - are to be destroyed.
The religion doesn’t want idols to be destroyed but guides us not to commit shirk (worshipping more than One God) by worshipping the idols.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
And this is exactly what he later did. He destroyed everything in their temple. This was what they were driving him out and away for - to prevent him from rabble-rousing the misfits and lower levels of society into attacking their business and destroying their property.
They were first attacked and then expelled from their homes in Mecca for worshipping ONE GOD. He came back AFTER 10 years in exile, and guess what, the business in Mecca flourished after all the idols disappeared.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
The goal of one following the religion of Abraham - removes all Images and Idols from their homes.
But - the history shows that the followers of Mohammad were the first side to kill and murder someone that disagreed with.
No. The history shows that Muslims were attacked first for worshipping One God.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
When Sa’d bin Abu Waqqas - picked up a camel’s jawbone and struck a polytheist who was impolitely interrupting a group of Muslims who were in prayer. This is the very first known case where blood was spilled in Islam - (Ibn Ishaq / Hisham - 166).
So you do admit now that it was the Meccan polytheist who had first attacked and interrupted a group of Muslims “who were in prayer”. When they were “in prayer”, were they trying to disrupt Meccan business and damage Meccan lives or Meccan affairs?
No. They were outside Mecca minding their own business of praying to One God. And they were attacked there.
I had responded to your false claim of Muslims killing Meccan man first:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khalif View Post
It is a lie that Muslims killed a man in Mecca before they were forced to leave. You will have to do better than that if you want a serious discussion here in this forum.
You then responded:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
Also again - Mohammad's uncle, Hamza, struck a Meccan leader named Abu Jahl with his bow for speaking out in an insulting manner way to Muhammad: - (Ibn Ishaq / Hisham 185).
This has nothing to do with any Muslim killing a man in Mecca.
You still need to show me where a Muslim had killed a Meccan first in Mecca before they migrated to Yasrib. I will keep reminding you about this if you don’t.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
It is true that after that the Muslims had killed one of the Meccan’s, the Meccan’s THEN began to use forceful violence to drive Mohammad’s followers away from their properties and place of worship.
It is not true.
You still haven’t answered my question. Your claim is a false one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
After the Muslims were driven out of Mecca - they conducted routine raids against Quraish merchant caravans and again, continued violently attacking and continually killing the innocent unsuspecting citizens of Mecca.
LOL!
Can’t you see that in your eagerness to blame the Muslims you are contradicting yourself?
After the Muslims were driven out of Mecca, how could they attack and kill citizens of Mecca when they were 325 miles away in Madina (then Yasrib)?
Who did they kill in Mecca before they were driven away?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
These merchant caravans were not out hunting for Muslims to attack - they were peacefully traveling along their routes to trade and make a living.
After driving out Muslims from Mecca, the Meccans had looted all their belongings from their homes after breaking in. The Meccans were then loading their caravans with the belongings of Muslims and selling them in Syria. Muslims had the right to get their belongings back. No Muslim and Islam hater will talk about the Meccans taking Muslims’ belongings from their homes in Mecca. It won’t suit their agenda in these forums.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
The Muslims killed the men of the wives and kidnapped and their women and proceeded to have sex with them, then enslaved and force converted all younger people and married women who he allowed to live.
Are we still talking about Muslims killing a Meccan first or are you now moving away from that and back on your real agenda of criticising the same Muslims even after they were “literally forcibly, violently kicked out of Mecca”?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
The very man who was the first to draw blood or KILL someone in Mecca, also was the first to later shoot an arrow at the Meccan’s. That was the first arrow shot for Allah’s cause after the begnning of Islam. (Ibn Kathir v.2 p.235)
You still haven’t backed up your point of Muslims killing a Meccan in Mecca first before they were “literally forcibly, violently kicked out of Mecca”.

Here is a verse of the Qur’an that you may be familiar with:

[2.190] And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.
وَقَاتِلُوا فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ الَّذِينَ يُقَاتِلُونَكُمْ وَلَا تَعْتَدُوا ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يُحِبُّ الْمُعْتَدِينَ


Muslims are commanded to fight with only those who fight them first. Muslims attacking anyone first would be exceeding the limit set in the Qur’an.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
Of course, Mohammad intended the ruination of the Ka’aba.
He never did that in his life. It’s pointless you repeating the same thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
Are we to ASSUME and PRETEND that Mohammad destroyed the the Ka’aba - only for the soul and the single reason that the Maccan’s were trying to protect the Ka’aba. Or for some other alternative reason ? Of course, Mohammad intended the ruination of the Ka’aba.
Once again, you repeat the same thing again. Muhammad never wanted to destroy Ka’aba. All he wanted was worshipping One God. Once he achieved his goal, even then he did not destroy the Ka’ba but went back to Madina.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
This is exactly why he followed through with his plan - this is what he did and always wanted to do since he decided their Idols and Images were evil and forbidden in his mind.
That is not ruination or destruction of the Ka’aba.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
But Mohammad did not introduce the religion of Abraham.
Would you kindly tell us here what was the religion of Abraham?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
There was no recorded history of Abraham attacking other people for serving Idols and Images and destroying their property. This was all something Mohammad received as a spiritual revelation concerning Abrahams behavior.
Muhammad also did not attack other people first for serving idols. The idol serving people had attacked him first.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
The Arabs in Mecca knew very well that the true goal and plan for the Muslims who continually were the persistent day after day gathering, assembling rousing up people around them to insult then and antagonize them into denouncing their religion. And exactly as Mohammad had planned - this is exactly what he did.
It was Meccans who were doing all these things against Muhammad and Muslims. You should watch that film in full.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
How can you say that - there has been peace in Mecca for the past 1400 years ?

But this is completely false. - Muslims have been fighting one another in many, many wars - inside Mecca but - mostly outside of Mecca for 1400 years.
Mostly outside Mecca is, I am sure, not a slip of the tongue (or your fingers).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
After Muhammad died, the Muslims immediately fell into war with each other. Muhammad's daughter Fatima died of stress from the persecution of fellow Muslims only six months after her father died. She even miscarried Muhammad's grandchild after having her ribs broken by the man who became the second Islamic caliph.
Not in Mecca.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
Aisha - Mohammad’s wife started a massive war against her very own fellow Muslims, led by her husband Ali .
Her husband Ali???
Nowhere near Mecca.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
- 10,000 Muslims were killed in just a single battle, this war lasted nearly 25 years after Muhammad died.
Not in Mecca.
And details you quoted are incorrect.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
Within 50 years after Mohammad died, the KAABA, which had stood for centuries in the hands of pagans, lay in ruins from internal Muslim civil war.
It was a political conflict. There still was no killing in Mecca. Fighting and Killing in Mecca is forbidden in the Qur’an. Ka’aba was damaged but it was restored by the Muslims. In fact, it has been rebuilt many times. The last time was around 1996.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
In just 25 years after Muhammad died Muslim armies had captured land and people within the borders of over 28 countries outside of Saudi Arabia.
That’s another issue and not an issue of peace in Mecca.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
Are we to believe that your claim that Mohammad never intended to destroy or ruin the Kaaba pagan temple is somehow true.
He never did it. So it is true. And it doesn’t matter to me whether you believe it or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
Are we to believe that Mohammad’s demand to fight unbelievers is somehow not when Mohammad really intended and planned for Muslims to really do ?
The Qur’an is clear, “fight those who fight you and do not exceed the limits” (the Qur’an 2:190).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
Muslims believe they are following Mohammad and they follow his example.
Muslims also believe that they follow Abraham and his people as example.
Do you know what is then meant by “example”?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
The Kaaba was showered with stones in the second siege of Mecca in 692, as Umayyad’s armies were led by al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf. Mecca went through a long civil war.
It was a siege. They knew that fighting and killing is forbidden in Mecca.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
Abdu l-Malik had the remnants of al-Zubayr's Kaaba razed (i.e, completely destroyed), and rebuilt on the foundations set by the Quraysh. The Kaaba was rebuilt and returned to the original cube shape.
The Kaba has been reconstructed up to 12 times.
So what? It is still there, isn’t it? It was rebuilt several times. The last one as late as 1996.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
During the Hajj of 930 CE, the (Shi'ite Muslims ) attacked Mecca and stole the Black Stone, taking it to an oasis in Eastern Arabia called = al-Aḥsāʾ, where it remained until other Muslims paid a ransom for it in 952 CE.
Any idiot can cause problem there. There have been other cases where some idiots have tried to take over the Ka’aba but paid the price for their act.
Keep in mind that Mecca is a peace sanctuary according to the Qur’an and fighting and killing there is forbidden. This doesn’t mean that some idiot won’t try it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
60 percent of all conflicts for the last few decades - are in Muslim countries. With Muslims fighting and killing other Muslims. Most wars across the world today are taking place in a majority-Muslim country - with Muslims fighting each other

The Muslims have been fighting against one another since one of Mohamad’s men first spilled the very first drop of blood in Mecca. Since that day Muslims have been fighting one another and when they launch attacks and violence upon others around them, they come together in peace, long enough to destroy others who reject their religion.
According to the Qur’an, accepting or rejecting the religion does not mean fighting anyone. It is when they “fight” and attack Muslims that Muslims are to fight back. Initial aggression from Muslims is forbidden in Islam. If some Muslims initiate aggression, it is against the Islamic teachings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
You can go to this website right now and see the list of hundreds upon hundreds of battles going back from 700 AD - to the 20 th century.
The battles between people began with one son of Adam killing the other. Non-muslims are no angels. WWI and WWII were not between Muslims. WMDs haven’t been created by Muslims.
No point in criticising Muslims only. The rest are no saints either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
The people conquered by the Muslims were usually given four choices. They could renounce their religion and convert to Islam, pay a tax to continue practicing their beliefs, become a slave, or be executed.
Is that what happened when they got to Jerusalem? Did they convert the Christians? Did they convert the Jews? Did they execute them?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
There have been over 18,000 deadly terror attacks committed explicitly in the name of Islam in just the last ten years.
I haven’t done any terror attack in the name of Islam. Do you know why? And 18000 terror attacks mean around 1,499,982,000 Muslims did no terror attack. Why not if you think Islam requires them to do that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
Please consider the fact that the Quran states that Mohammad will provide no miracles, no signs and nothing will be proven to show that Mohammad is a prophet, nor to prove that his message is true.
Quote the verses of the Qur’an to back up your claim here!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
This is a major difference between the true religion that is vindicated by miracles and signs. For a man to demand that people are to be killed for disobeying his God - but no miracles, no signs and wonders are given and the man demands that “ NO MIRACLES WILL EVER BE GIVEN “ - this is a major difference between Islam and the religion of the God Of Abraham.
Islam does not demand killing of people if they disobey God or worship the golden calf. Many Muslims too disobey God today and are not killed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
Also, the Meccan’s were not Hebrews, there was no history of Hebrew Torah Laws in their society.
What’s your point?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
Concerning the subject that you raised about the situation - where 3000 people were killed by Moses.

If you look at the original Hebrew manuscripts instead of relying upon the Trinitarian Translators, you will find that the people had gathered in a conflict to force and compel Aaron to make them an Idol of a golden calf. You will see that the original manuscripts tell also - that certain people were violent and had taken Aaron and stripped Aaron from his clothing and made him naked to shame him.

The story in the Original Hebrew explain that - And when the people saw that Moses delayed to come down out of the mount, THE PEOPLE GATHERED THEMSELVES TOGETHER “ AGAINST / UPON H5921 - עַל - ‛al - “ AARON, and said unto him, - make us gods, which shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him.
This Hebrew word H5921 - עַל - ‛al - Meaning = Over, upon, or against ( to attempt the charge or control of. -

Against - it would be used in the following meanings…….

they gather themselves together “ AGAINST / UPON H5921 - עַל - ‛al - “ me, and slay me; and I shall be destroyed, I and my house.

If you go to war in your land “ AGAINST / UPON H5921 - עַל - ‛al - “ the enemy that oppresseth you.

You thought evil “ AGAINST / UPON H5921 - עַל - ‛al - “ me;

The story says that - Joshua heard the noise of the people as they shouted, he said unto Moses, There is a noise of war in the camp.

Moses declared that It is not the voice of them that shout for victory, neither is it the voice of them that cry for being overcome: but the noise of the aflicted I hear.

Also the story says that - Moses saw that the people were naked; and Aaron was naked by hostile enemies.

This is how the story reads in the original language. The Trinitarian Translators did their very best to change the history of the Jews into the most barbaric, sadistic, harsh, vindictive, sour and unlawful and the most unkind, callousness, ruthless and violent storyline as they possibly could.

The passage is simply mistranslated and the violent attack against Aaron is completely removed.
Muslims have never translated the Bible into Arabic - so when anyone discusses the Bible with Muslims, it has no meaning to them, Muslims simply are very content to rely upon the Trinitarian Translators of Europe to dictate and tell the Muslim what the original manuscripts say.

For every single last word of the Torah and Gospels, Islam relies strictly upon Trinitarians to explain and show what the original says. Muslims refuse to even translate a single word from the original. I think that this explains everything you need to know to the fact that Islam has not a single shred of any concern about the origins of any truth
WOW!
That was a long-winded attempt on explanation of 3000 Jews being killed in just one day by the Jews themselves (not ordered by Muhammad of course) but strangely you didn’t even mention the killings. Instead you just danced around it and still keep blaming the Muslims.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
The history of Islam is filled with so many contradictions, opposing claims and conflicting storylines that even up to five people could all be right when they make five different claims about one single event. Muslims did not even put the Quran in any chronological order. The entire storyline is a scattered series of events that appear behind or ahead of one another in the Quran.
The Qur’an does not spoon-feed you as if you are little children and it has to be like a story at bedtime. You have to study it and YOU have to put together everything on the same subject, topic and issue to get to the heart of the matter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
This is not a story nor a history, nor even a book that tells you how the Quran could have even been the same message as the Torah and Gospels.
Of course the Qur’an is not a story book, history book or the Torah or the Gospels!
It is the Qur’an.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imposcemathem View Post
The world has no clue as to how the Quran was the same as the Bible. The entire content has been reshuffled like a deck of cards and the hadith and narrations of early Muslims are filled with contradictions - as if the missing pieces of information in Mohammad's message are to be a flip of multiple coins in the palm of one's hands.
That’s why not everyone with closed mind to the Qur’an will have a clue about it. A closed mind will think the hadith books are the same as the Qur’an. One needs to have open mind to understand the Qur’an.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2019, 07:06 PM
 
3,980 posts, read 2,126,853 times
Reputation: 5363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khalif View Post
That’s why not everyone with closed mind to the Qur’an will have a clue about it. A closed mind will think the hadith books are the same as the Qur’an. One needs to have open mind to understand the Qur’an.

Wow, you just made me realize that some of the NT books are probably the hadith of the Bible and that's why they don't really flow with the rest of the material. Not trying to turn this discussion away from the Quran. Just wanted to thank you.
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

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