Extremist gunmen ? 12 at Paris newspaper. Revenge for cartoon prophet satire. (video)
Options
Comments
-
not_osirus_jenkins wrote: »This ? muhamand is the ultimate hypocrite a muslim man is limited to having 4 wives this ? had like 9-12.
Quran (4:3) - "Marry of the women, who seem good to you, two or three or four; and if ye fear that ye cannot do justice (to so many) then one (only) or (the captives) that your right hands possess."
Bukhari (62:6) - "The Prophet used to go round (have sexual relations with) all his wives in one night, and he had nine wives."
These are some of his wives but he had more
Sawda ? Zam'a
Aisha ? Abi Bakr
Hafsa ? Umar
Hind (Umm Salama) ? Abi Umayya
Zaynab ? Jahsh
Zaynab ? Khuzayma
Rayhana ? Zayd ibn Amr
Ramlah (Umm Habiba) ? Abi Sufyan
Juwayriyah ? Al-Harith
Moses, Abraham, Solomon and Lamech had multiple wives. And their bible says that was pagan practices.
Moses, abraham and soloman were jews not christians they had no bible ( old and new testament) they only had the torah which is the old testament and the laws as practiced in it were for jews not christians
If jesus told christians not to marry more than one wife and had 12 wives himself then you would have a point. Muhammand had 11 wives but the koran says to have 4 so he himself was not following the word of allah.
Muhammed received revelations at various times, his first came at age 40. Just add perspective because, it's obvious you just spout off anything you hear or read.
To add some perspective here. There was no law prohibiting the number of wives a Muslim could have until Muhammed was the age of 60.
So, lets look at this.
Until age 25 Muhammed was single.
Age 25 he marries and has only one wife (who then passed) until age 50.
Age 50-52 he is single while mourning the death of his first wife.
Age 53-60 he marries multiple times. But never has more then 4 at a time after the verse was revealed limiting a Man to 4. The prophet divorced 5 of his wives, contractually only binding him to the limit of 4. Upon the advice of the community the prophet's ex-wives continued to live in his home and were provided for.
Age 60 he receives the revelation. "It is not lawful for thee (to marry more) women after this, nor to change them for (other) wives, even though their beauty attract thee, except any thy right hand should possess (as hand maidens) and Allah doth watch over all things ". [Al-Qur’an 33:52]
The prophet passes away at age 63.
So, this notion that the prophet was running around with multiple wives while others couldn't or didn't is simply your imagination.
To add on. While multiple wives are indeed acceptable. Here's what the Quran says on the matter.
{Marry women of your choice, two, or three, or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one.} (An-Nisaa’ 3:3)
{Ye are never able to be fair and just as between women} (Al-Nisaa’ 3:129)
This sounds like an excuse for hypocrisy. Muhammand died with more than four wives so clearly he thought he could deal with them fairly not to mention that he also had slaves that he most likely ? , You really don't have a leg to stand on in this issue. Not to mention the fact that he basically stole his step sons wife.
AFTER SEEING how pretty she was he all of a sudden gets this revelation sura 33:37
Behold! Thou didst say to one who had received the grace of Allah and thy favour: "Retain thou (in wedlock) thy wife, and fear Allah." But thou didst hide in thy heart that which Allah was about to make manifest: thou didst fear the people, but it is more fitting that thou shouldst fear Allah. Then when Zayd had dissolved (his marriage) with her, with the necessary (formality), We joined her in marriage to thee: in order that (in future) there may be no difficulty to the Believers in (the matter of) marriage with the wives of their adopted sons, when the latter have dissolved with the necessary (formality) (their marriage) with them. And Allah's command must be fulfilled.
now it's one thing for a common solider or even king to have sex slaves back then. A prophet of ? with slaves gtfoh. which prophet before him had sex slaves
Your simplistic version of events is laughable. The Quran is guidance for mankind. Why you pretend to know the meaning of it ,as if you have studied is disgusting. Notice I have not posted any scripture from the Bible. Why? Because, I will not pretend know what they refer too, why they were revealed etc. Interesting you pretend to be well versed in Islam but have no knowledge of your own religion. In fact you resorted to cursing and blaming others. Typical. Anyways.
The Random Ayat is giving Guidance to those that were engaging in ? or marrying women who they were prohibited to marry. The Quran lays out who we can and cannot marry. Muhammed being the best of example of carrying out Gods commands is used as the subject.
Muslims do not worship Muhammed. Muhammed described himself as a warner and messenger. ? describes Mahammed as such. So, you are entitling Muhammed to a position that knowledgeable Muslims do not
(18:110) Say (O Muhammad): "I am no more than a human being like you; one to whom revelation is made: 'Your Lord is the One and Only ? .' Hence, whoever looks forward to meet his Lord, let him do righteous works, and let him associate none with the worship of his Lord."
Servitude and Slavery is permitted in Islam. This is true. However, there are many guidelines and when not followed by Muslims or otherwise the punishment is quite clear for those who transgres.. That's an all together different topic which, I don't care to discuss in this thread.
I do commend your zeal to discredit though. With that said, though. Do not throw stones if you live in a glass house.
? can not have an evil prophet he would never bless an evil man to be a prophet of ? , if the actions of muhammad are evil then he cannot be a prophet. Prophets don't have to be perfect but the things muhamand did clearly puts him off the prophet list. -
The Christian doctrine is peaceful violent Christians are those who don't follow the example of Christ. Jesus clearly said not to be violent and never
Did violence himself.
Muhammad on the other had fought wars attacked trade caravans and owned slaves.
Lol @ this ?
Yeshua said that the commandments of the old testament were still in tact and that he had not come to contradict those laws. Christian doctrine is just as murderous and imperial as Islam. -
soul rattler wrote: »The Christian doctrine is peaceful violent Christians are those who don't follow the example of Christ. Jesus clearly said not to be violent and never
Did violence himself.
Muhammad on the other had fought wars attacked trade caravans and owned slaves.
Lol @ this ?
Yeshua said that the commandments of the old testament were still in tact and that he had not come to contradict those laws. Christian doctrine is just as murderous and imperial as Islam.
I keep going over this with people on hear over and over I get tired of saying the same thing. Jesus fulfills the ot do you know what that means???? -
@ zombie
the personal respect that your father either got or he gave is meaningless to the argument you know very well i was talking about the respect/protection religiously ordered to people of the christian faith in an islamic state as proscribed by the quran. I am not interested in what the actual followers of the religion do i am comparing the actually doctrines of the religion.
My fathers story nor mine is unique. Many Muslims live this day to day. Which, is a direct reflection on Islamic doctrine as written in Quran.
allah means ? but to muslims it's not just ? it's ? as described by the quran which was given by muhammad. so all the bolded is really saying is that christians have to believe in a ? as muslims see him and if we don't then we are unbelievers " Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely Allah, He is the Messiah, son of Marium; and the Messiah said: O Children of Israel! serve Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Surely whoever associates (others) with Allah, then Allah has forbidden to him the garden, and his abode is the fire; and there shall be no helpers for the unjust." quran 5:75.
I'll just point out to you that Arabic speaking Christians also refer to ? as Allah. So, you are wrong. Yet again.
AND a LOT OF THOSE quotes that seem peaceful toward christians are abrogatted because other verses on unbelievers that came after them contradict the peaceful ones.
You have no proof of this so, I ask that you cease from spreading lies.
The Jews call Ezra a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth! quran 9:30.
you see at first muhammad praises christians in some verses then he curses us in others. muhammad also considered christians to be a form or unbeliever and this is what he thinks should happen to unbelievers who oppose muhammad.
Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them." This because they contended against Allah and His Messenger: If any contend against Allah and His Messenger, Allah is strict in punishment. (8:12-13)
Muhammed is revealing a message from ? and warning believers and disbelievers alike. The Christians and Jews or any other believer who maintained their belief in the Oneness of ? are exempt. Muhammed is relaying the punishment of ? not his own to carry out.
You have your own take on what these prophets said so in every way that actually counts the muslim version of these people is not the same. jews don't believe in christ that's the difference between us and them but we accept the prophets sent to them as they do and believe in them as the jews do.
muslims believe in all the prophets and jesus but you contort the previous revelations to fit your understanding so really the quran is a distortion. I will say that the quran does say to respect your non muslim parents which is a good thing but what about the rest of us and sorry i had to cut some of your post off about this.
Differing stories doesn't change who the person being spoken about is. There are various stories of MLK, and Marcus Garvey. This changes nothing about them or their mission. Islam doesn't slander any Prophet or Messenger sent before Muhammed. So, arguing over who's story is more accurate is asinine. They all carry value.
You can play semantics until you are blue in the face. What the Muslim believes is, All of Allah's Prophets were sent to deliver the message of ? , to be guides for people, to warn of impending happenings, to spread good tidings amongst the people and other things to assist mankind in this life while preparing for the next.
-
I guess this situation has come to an end. It's a shame hostages lost their lives but I guess police had no choice but to bust in blazin'. That girl that was with the hostagetaker in the Jewish deli Amedy role in this is still unclear. Where is she? This story might not be over yet...
Off topic. @zombie Are you gonna post something on topic or nah? I haven't seen you express sympathy with the victims. Where's that 'brotherly love' christians pride themselves on having? I only see you getting into childish "my prophet/ idol/ religion > your ? / religion." Like ok we get it, you don't like muslims. Grow up...
i don't believe this thread has a central topic it really started as just news, what i am saying is relevant to the events that happened because going forward unless people can recognize that islam is an ideology that is incompatible with the west things like this will only continue. The best way to morn those people and show sympathy would be by making sure these things do not happen again and you do so by exposing the truth of the doctrine.
I see reporters on tv lying, saying that murder is not part of islam when the truth is muhammad ordered murder, the acceptance of evil is not a sign of maturity accepting lies is not a sign of growing up. ALSO I BEGAN A RELIGIOUS DEBATE so naturally so naturally there is going to be comparisons between the founders of both religion.
Your lies and deceit and distortion of Islamic doctrine has been proven wrong. What has been exposed is, your hate and jealousy of Muslims thus your proliferation of lies will continue. Thanks for playing though.
No where within Islamic doctrine are Muslims ordered to ? innocents or retaliate violently against anyone who slanders the Prophet Muhammed.
“Whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as though he had killed all of mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind.” (Al-Mai’dah 5:32).
“Whoever killed “Muaahadan” (a term used in Islamic state to refer to non-Muslim citizens), will not smell Paradise. And its scent can be smelled from a distance of 40 years (a term in Arabic means “far distance”).” (Narrated by Al-Nasaie)
“Do not practice treachery or mutilation. Do not uproot or burn palms or cut down fruitful trees. Do not slaughter a sheep or a cow or a camel, except for food.” (Al-Muwatta)
“If one fights his brother, (he must) avoid striking the face, for ? created him in the image of Adam.” (Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim)
“Do not ? the monks in monasteries, and do not ? those sitting in places of worship.” (Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal)
“Do not destroy the villages and towns, do not spoil the cultivated fields and gardens, and do not slaughter the cattle.” (Sahih Bukhari; Sunan Abu Dawud)
“Do not wish for an encounter with the enemy. Pray to ? to grant you security, but when you (are forced to) encounter them, exercise patience.” (Sahih Muslim)
“No one may punish with fire except the Lord of Fire.” (Sunan Abu Dawud)
“Accustom yourselves to do good if people do good, and do not do wrong even if they commit evil.” (Al-Tirmidhi)
-
not_osirus_jenkins wrote: »This ? muhamand is the ultimate hypocrite a muslim man is limited to having 4 wives this ? had like 9-12.
Quran (4:3) - "Marry of the women, who seem good to you, two or three or four; and if ye fear that ye cannot do justice (to so many) then one (only) or (the captives) that your right hands possess."
Bukhari (62:6) - "The Prophet used to go round (have sexual relations with) all his wives in one night, and he had nine wives."
These are some of his wives but he had more
Sawda ? Zam'a
Aisha ? Abi Bakr
Hafsa ? Umar
Hind (Umm Salama) ? Abi Umayya
Zaynab ? Jahsh
Zaynab ? Khuzayma
Rayhana ? Zayd ibn Amr
Ramlah (Umm Habiba) ? Abi Sufyan
Juwayriyah ? Al-Harith
Moses, Abraham, Solomon and Lamech had multiple wives. And their bible says that was pagan practices.
Moses, abraham and soloman were jews not christians they had no bible ( old and new testament) they only had the torah which is the old testament and the laws as practiced in it were for jews not christians
If jesus told christians not to marry more than one wife and had 12 wives himself then you would have a point. Muhammand had 11 wives but the koran says to have 4 so he himself was not following the word of allah.
Muhammed received revelations at various times, his first came at age 40. Just add perspective because, it's obvious you just spout off anything you hear or read.
To add some perspective here. There was no law prohibiting the number of wives a Muslim could have until Muhammed was the age of 60.
So, lets look at this.
Until age 25 Muhammed was single.
Age 25 he marries and has only one wife (who then passed) until age 50.
Age 50-52 he is single while mourning the death of his first wife.
Age 53-60 he marries multiple times. But never has more then 4 at a time after the verse was revealed limiting a Man to 4. The prophet divorced 5 of his wives, contractually only binding him to the limit of 4. Upon the advice of the community the prophet's ex-wives continued to live in his home and were provided for.
Age 60 he receives the revelation. "It is not lawful for thee (to marry more) women after this, nor to change them for (other) wives, even though their beauty attract thee, except any thy right hand should possess (as hand maidens) and Allah doth watch over all things ". [Al-Qur’an 33:52]
The prophet passes away at age 63.
So, this notion that the prophet was running around with multiple wives while others couldn't or didn't is simply your imagination.
To add on. While multiple wives are indeed acceptable. Here's what the Quran says on the matter.
{Marry women of your choice, two, or three, or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one.} (An-Nisaa’ 3:3)
{Ye are never able to be fair and just as between women} (Al-Nisaa’ 3:129)
This sounds like an excuse for hypocrisy. Muhammand died with more than four wives so clearly he thought he could deal with them fairly not to mention that he also had slaves that he most likely ? , You really don't have a leg to stand on in this issue. Not to mention the fact that he basically stole his step sons wife.
AFTER SEEING how pretty she was he all of a sudden gets this revelation sura 33:37
Behold! Thou didst say to one who had received the grace of Allah and thy favour: "Retain thou (in wedlock) thy wife, and fear Allah." But thou didst hide in thy heart that which Allah was about to make manifest: thou didst fear the people, but it is more fitting that thou shouldst fear Allah. Then when Zayd had dissolved (his marriage) with her, with the necessary (formality), We joined her in marriage to thee: in order that (in future) there may be no difficulty to the Believers in (the matter of) marriage with the wives of their adopted sons, when the latter have dissolved with the necessary (formality) (their marriage) with them. And Allah's command must be fulfilled.
now it's one thing for a common solider or even king to have sex slaves back then. A prophet of ? with slaves gtfoh. which prophet before him had sex slaves
Your simplistic version of events is laughable. The Quran is guidance for mankind. Why you pretend to know the meaning of it ,as if you have studied is disgusting. Notice I have not posted any scripture from the Bible. Why? Because, I will not pretend know what they refer too, why they were revealed etc. Interesting you pretend to be well versed in Islam but have no knowledge of your own religion. In fact you resorted to cursing and blaming others. Typical. Anyways.
The Random Ayat is giving Guidance to those that were engaging in ? or marrying women who they were prohibited to marry. The Quran lays out who we can and cannot marry. Muhammed being the best of example of carrying out Gods commands is used as the subject.
Muslims do not worship Muhammed. Muhammed described himself as a warner and messenger. ? describes Mahammed as such. So, you are entitling Muhammed to a position that knowledgeable Muslims do not
(18:110) Say (O Muhammad): "I am no more than a human being like you; one to whom revelation is made: 'Your Lord is the One and Only ? .' Hence, whoever looks forward to meet his Lord, let him do righteous works, and let him associate none with the worship of his Lord."
Servitude and Slavery is permitted in Islam. This is true. However, there are many guidelines and when not followed by Muslims or otherwise the punishment is quite clear for those who transgres.. That's an all together different topic which, I don't care to discuss in this thread.
I do commend your zeal to discredit though. With that said, though. Do not throw stones if you live in a glass house.
? can not have an evil prophet he would never bless an evil man to be a prophet of ? , if the actions of muhammad are evil then he cannot be a prophet. Prophets don't have to be perfect but the things muhamand did clearly puts him off the prophet list.
You're just trolling and saying anything at this point to save face. Clown.
-
soul rattler wrote: »The Christian doctrine is peaceful violent Christians are those who don't follow the example of Christ. Jesus clearly said not to be violent and never
Did violence himself.
Muhammad on the other had fought wars attacked trade caravans and owned slaves.
Lol @ this ?
Yeshua said that the commandments of the old testament were still in tact and that he had not come to contradict those laws. Christian doctrine is just as murderous and imperial as Islam.
I keep going over this with people on hear over and over I get tired of saying the same thing. Jesus fulfills the ot do you know what that means????
You don't even know what that means. And your explanation is what you are claiming the Quran and Islam is. A distorted and abrogated version of Gods word.
Dude you officially graduated from clown to full out Hypocrite.
-
@Muhannad can you deny that muhammad ordered murder??? or that he had slaves or that he had more than four wives at the same time while he was alive.
in what context can you arrange ordering murder as being the actions of a prophet??? now i am talking about murder not killing someone in war.
Yes, and I have done that already. Your distortion of conflicts and war have been addressed.
No. A Muslim doesn't deny this. Slavery is allowed in Islam and under very strict guidelines which if violated carry a very steep penalty. So, I ask that you not assert the Christians permission and version chattel slavery upon us Muslims.
No. A Muslim doesn't deny the Prophet as well as other Muslims had more than four wives at one time. Once the restriction was in place to only have four wives all Muslims included Muhammed adhered. I addressed this earlier and for you to continue lying and distorting is quite cowardly.
You have no idea of what you are talking about. War, Peace, or otherwise. You are an ignorant imbecile. Your hatred is blinding you from admitting the simple fact that unless you are a student of a religion your opinion on it's doctrine holds no weight.
-
soul rattler wrote: »The Christian doctrine is peaceful violent Christians are those who don't follow the example of Christ. Jesus clearly said not to be violent and never
Did violence himself.
Muhammad on the other had fought wars attacked trade caravans and owned slaves.
Lol @ this ?
Yeshua said that the commandments of the old testament were still in tact and that he had not come to contradict those laws. Christian doctrine is just as murderous and imperial as Islam.
I keep going over this with people on hear over and over I get tired of saying the same thing. Jesus fulfills the ot do you know what that means????
How? And where are the requirements to fulfill the ot stated? I would like to read them. And i dont want no inferred ? . I want actual written factuals, not anyones interpretation on this. -
yall religious nuts fucced this thread up
Don't be a coward as well. Zombie fucced this thread up. The killings and circumstances surrounding this incident are terrible and reprehensible.
To sit allow someone like Zombie to add fuel to an already burning flame by proliferating distortion and lies shouldn't be tolerated.
-
He was the catalyst to this thread going way off-topic but people kept feeding him.yall religious nuts fucced this thread up
Don't be a coward as well. Zombie fucced this thread up. The killings and circumstances surrounding this incident are terrible and reprehensible.
To sit allow someone like Zombie to add fuel to an already burning flame by proliferating distortion and lies shouldn't be tolerated.
-
I barely read this thread but i don't think it's ? up. I barely get to hear it from the side of a Muslim. Usually people are throwing the entire group under the buss, but i have to wonder how so many people become Muslim even when war wasn't a factor? It's usually Christian vs Christian doctrine or some sudo religion being argued here, but i barely see people really break down the Koran on here. Religion plays a heavy role on what's going on in Paris. This topic isn't only being discussed in this context here. At the end of the day, it's all ? to me, but, there is some truth buried inside.
-
FuriousOne wrote: »I barely read this thread but i don't think it's ? up. I barely get to hear it from the side of a Muslim. Usually people are throwing the entire group under the buss, but i have to wonder how so many people become Muslim even when war wasn't a factor? It's usually Christian vs Christian doctrine or some sudo religion being argued here, but i barely see people really break down the Koran on here. Religion plays a heavy role on what's going on in Paris. This topic isn't only being discussed in this context here. At the end of the day, it's all ? to me, but, there is some truth buried inside.
This could be attributed to early Muslims being traders and Mecca being a trading hub. There were also Muslim explorers who traveled to Throughout Europe and Africa. Mecca according to ancient History was always a sacred land which people made pilgrimage too.
-
I guess this situation has come to an end. It's a shame hostages lost their lives but I guess police had no choice but to bust in blazin'. That girl that was with the hostagetaker in the Jewish deli Amedy role in this is still unclear. Where is she? This story might not be over yet...
Off topic. @zombie Are you gonna post something on topic or nah? I haven't seen you express sympathy with the victims. Where's that 'brotherly love' christians pride themselves on having? I only see you getting into childish "my prophet/ idol/ religion > your ? / religion." Like ok we get it, you don't like muslims. Grow up...
i don't believe this thread has a central topic it really started as just news, what i am saying is relevant to the events that happened because going forward unless people can recognize that islam is an ideology that is incompatible with the west things like this will only continue. The best way to morn those people and show sympathy would be by making sure these things do not happen again and you do so by exposing the truth of the doctrine.
I see reporters on tv lying, saying that murder is not part of islam when the truth is muhammad ordered murder, the acceptance of evil is not a sign of maturity accepting lies is not a sign of growing up. ALSO I BEGAN A RELIGIOUS DEBATE so naturally so naturally there is going to be comparisons between the founders of both religion.
Your lies and deceit and distortion of Islamic doctrine has been proven wrong. What has been exposed is, your hate and jealousy of Muslims thus your proliferation of lies will continue. Thanks for playing though.
No where within Islamic doctrine are Muslims ordered to ? innocents or retaliate violently against anyone who slanders the Prophet Muhammed.
“Whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as though he had killed all of mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind.” (Al-Mai’dah 5:32).
“Whoever killed “Muaahadan” (a term used in Islamic state to refer to non-Muslim citizens), will not smell Paradise. And its scent can be smelled from a distance of 40 years (a term in Arabic means “far distance”).” (Narrated by Al-Nasaie)
“Do not practice treachery or mutilation. Do not uproot or burn palms or cut down fruitful trees. Do not slaughter a sheep or a cow or a camel, except for food.” (Al-Muwatta)
“If one fights his brother, (he must) avoid striking the face, for ? created him in the image of Adam.” (Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim)
“Do not ? the monks in monasteries, and do not ? those sitting in places of worship.” (Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal)
“Do not destroy the villages and towns, do not spoil the cultivated fields and gardens, and do not slaughter the cattle.” (Sahih Bukhari; Sunan Abu Dawud)
“Do not wish for an encounter with the enemy. Pray to ? to grant you security, but when you (are forced to) encounter them, exercise patience.” (Sahih Muslim)
“No one may punish with fire except the Lord of Fire.” (Sunan Abu Dawud)
“Accustom yourselves to do good if people do good, and do not do wrong even if they commit evil.” (Al-Tirmidhi)
lol hahahahahahahah you ? muslims are so deceived that it make me laugh but maybe i should cry for you people because you don't know any better. All those quotes sound nice but actions speak louder than words muhammad said one thing and does the other whenever in suited him.
Muhammad the murder:
The Prophet said, "Who is ready to ? Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has really hurt Allah and His Apostle?" Muhammad bin Maslama said, "O Allah's Apostle! Do you like me to ? him?" He replied in the affirmative. So, Muhammad bin Maslama went to him (i.e. Ka'b) and said, "This person (i.e. the Prophet) has put us to task and asked us for charity." Ka'b replied, "By Allah, you will get tired of him." Muhammad said to him, "We have followed him, so we dislike to leave him till we see the end of his affair." Muhammad bin Maslama went on talking to him in this way till he got the chance to ? him. sahih bukhari 4:52 270
The Prophet said, "Who is ready to ? Ka'b bin Ashraf (i.e. a Jew)." Muhammad bin Maslama replied, "Do you like me to ? him?" The Prophet replied in the affirmative. Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say what I like." The Prophet replied, "I do (i.e. allow you)." sahih bukhari 4:52 271
I mean what the ? kind of behavior is this from a so called prophet of ? ???? giving the OK to lie and ? and this happened outside of battle so you cannot use that as an excuse.
Now for those of you wondering what Ka'b bin ashraf did that got him killed, he wrote poems that disrespected muhammad and for that he was murdered. This murder that was given the ok by muhammad set the prescedet for these ? terrorist in 2015 to be murdering people for drawing cartoons that disrespected muhammad. -
yall religious nuts fucced this thread up
Don't be a coward as well. Zombie fucced this thread up. The killings and circumstances surrounding this incident are terrible and reprehensible.
To sit allow someone like Zombie to add fuel to an already burning flame by proliferating distortion and lies shouldn't be tolerated.
As i just proved the killings are directly linked to islamic ideology. What should not be tolerated is you muslims pretending that all this fighting is not part of the RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE of islam. -
not_osirus_jenkins wrote: »soul rattler wrote: »The Christian doctrine is peaceful violent Christians are those who don't follow the example of Christ. Jesus clearly said not to be violent and never
Did violence himself.
Muhammad on the other had fought wars attacked trade caravans and owned slaves.
Lol @ this ?
Yeshua said that the commandments of the old testament were still in tact and that he had not come to contradict those laws. Christian doctrine is just as murderous and imperial as Islam.
I keep going over this with people on hear over and over I get tired of saying the same thing. Jesus fulfills the ot do you know what that means????
How? And where are the requirements to fulfill the ot stated? I would like to read them. And i dont want no inferred ? . I want actual written factuals, not anyones interpretation on this.
in Another thread i am literally sick of going over it -
kingblaze84 wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »^^^
Foolish words from you....do you remember these specific words from Jesus?
I have come to cast fire upon the Earth; and how I wish it were already kindled! But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished! Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law. (Luke 12:49–53)
And keep this in mind with the many times the Bible ? DID support extermination and the killings of even children. Are those words peaceful to you? Haha NO. Slaves being raised in slavery loving, Christian America for 300 years were treated like good, good people I bet.
lol here we go again ....smh do you understand that in luke 12:49 jesus is talking about the final judgement and the splitting of the jewish faith THAT would come about as a result of his teachings and he is not endorsing violence among family members in this verse. Come on son is this the best you can do???? The bible ? supported the destruction of certain people in the ancient middle east. He never commanded christians in america to enslave anyone they chose to do so on their own.
Is that so? So why did so many American politicians historically use the direct words of the Bible to support slavery and even have the backing of many pastors, reverends, and priests, even Popes? Coincidence? ? no, the proof is in the pudding, no Bill Cosby. Check out what your fellow Christians thought of the Bible and slavery and mistreatment of others
http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl.htm
"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty ? ...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America. 1,2
"There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral." Rev. Alexander Campbell
"The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example." Rev. R. Furman, D.D., Baptist, of South Carolina
"If we apply sola scriptura to slavery, I'm afraid the abolitionists are on relatively weak ground. Nowhere is slavery in the Bible lambasted as an oppressive and evil institution: Vaughn Roste, United Church of Canada staff.
(Saint) Paul had every opportunity to write in one of his Epistles that human slavery -- the owning of one person as a piece of property by another -- is profoundly evil. His letter to Philemon would have been an ideal opportunity to vilify slavery. But he wrote not one word of criticism of the institution of slavery.
--Your past, fellow Christians would strongly disagree with you. Coincidence Christians used the Bible to justify the above for hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds of years? NOPE!
Everything you said in this post ultimately means ? nothing because anyone can misuse words to justify their own wrong doing get that through your thick skull. What your doing like like blaming karl marx for stalinism
I don't give a ? what past christians did if it contradicted the teaching of christ their actions cannot be attributed to his teachings all the comment of THE SO CALLED pastors and leaders you posted are loaded with clear fallacies and contradictions you don't have a ? argument that's why you keep using the same flawed logic over and over again.
You want to know why these people did these things and misused the bible to do evil???? the love of wealth and power for them trumped faith in ? . those rich crackers who fought the civil war did not do so based on christians values they did that ? so they could keep there power. religion is always and after thought that's twisted to fit an intended purpose. You always bring up the fact the christians were involved in black slavery but you never bring up the fact the abolition was also lead of christians. some did it on an economic basis but most where primarily religiously motivated
You don't want to look at the truth of history or religion you already have your narrative and you are sticking to it even if your conclusions are based on lies and half truths.
LMAO. You can't be serious?
Just take the L ? . Followers of every and any religion do exactly this. More importantly anyone can copy and paste random verses, and pretend they know the meaning of them. You should really ? at this point.
I'll pretty much leave it at that, I won't even argue with him in this thread further, unless I'm annoyed at something he says....he refuses to see the words I've shown to him. -
FuriousOne wrote: »I barely read this thread but i don't think it's ? up. I barely get to hear it from the side of a Muslim. Usually people are throwing the entire group under the buss, but i have to wonder how so many people become Muslim even when war wasn't a factor? It's usually Christian vs Christian doctrine or some sudo religion being argued here, but i barely see people really break down the Koran on here. Religion plays a heavy role on what's going on in Paris. This topic isn't only being discussed in this context here. At the end of the day, it's all ? to me, but, there is some truth buried inside.
war was almost always a factor muhammad goes to war all the ? time before he died he told his followers to expel all not muslims from arabia. how the ? are you going to do that without war. -
Swiffness! wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »Foolish words from you....do you remember these specific words from Jesus?
Well.....
The difference is that Jesus was repeatedly depicted in the Gospels as rejecting worldly power and politics etc. His only other occupation was carpenter iirc.
Muhammed on the other hand......dude was a hustler, military general, diplomat, political leader, and founder of one of the greatest empires the world has ever seen. Also owned slaves btw. Also ordered torture to find out where a guy was hiding gold once because CASH RULES.
Really, these two guys might as well have been night and day. Makes sense that the religion that was launching military invasions of superpowers a century after its founding might tend to produce a certain type of extremist.
I get WHY people make this argument. Its important to make that argument because the Islamophobe ? wanna reduce a billion Muslims to sub-human status........but I'm just sayin'.
Oh trust me, I understand where you're coming from. Many actions some Muslims do in revenge terror attacks won't help most Muslims but I wish nations like America and its allies stop egging on the Muslim population, going hard for Israel brings the west more enemies then necessary and the war in Iraq radicalized these same people, including the Black guy. Neither side is completely innocent, but yeah I feel where you coming from. The west holds a ton of blame for this situation too though.
My issue with Jesus, as good a man as he was in many ways, is his sad support of the Old Testament. That in itself radicalized and gave birth to Christian terrorists that murdered people all over Africa and the Middle East for resources and used religion to get others to support them. But I give Jesus credit for not having slaves, but at the same time Muhammed freed his slaves later on to his credit. -
Word is ISIS is claiming joint responsibility with Al-Qaeda? Anyone else here about this?
-
kingblaze84 wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »^^^
Foolish words from you....do you remember these specific words from Jesus?
I have come to cast fire upon the Earth; and how I wish it were already kindled! But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished! Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law. (Luke 12:49–53)
And keep this in mind with the many times the Bible ? DID support extermination and the killings of even children. Are those words peaceful to you? Haha NO. Slaves being raised in slavery loving, Christian America for 300 years were treated like good, good people I bet.
lol here we go again ....smh do you understand that in luke 12:49 jesus is talking about the final judgement and the splitting of the jewish faith THAT would come about as a result of his teachings and he is not endorsing violence among family members in this verse. Come on son is this the best you can do???? The bible ? supported the destruction of certain people in the ancient middle east. He never commanded christians in america to enslave anyone they chose to do so on their own.
Is that so? So why did so many American politicians historically use the direct words of the Bible to support slavery and even have the backing of many pastors, reverends, and priests, even Popes? Coincidence? ? no, the proof is in the pudding, no Bill Cosby. Check out what your fellow Christians thought of the Bible and slavery and mistreatment of others
http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl.htm
"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty ? ...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America. 1,2
"There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral." Rev. Alexander Campbell
"The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example." Rev. R. Furman, D.D., Baptist, of South Carolina
"If we apply sola scriptura to slavery, I'm afraid the abolitionists are on relatively weak ground. Nowhere is slavery in the Bible lambasted as an oppressive and evil institution: Vaughn Roste, United Church of Canada staff.
(Saint) Paul had every opportunity to write in one of his Epistles that human slavery -- the owning of one person as a piece of property by another -- is profoundly evil. His letter to Philemon would have been an ideal opportunity to vilify slavery. But he wrote not one word of criticism of the institution of slavery.
--Your past, fellow Christians would strongly disagree with you. Coincidence Christians used the Bible to justify the above for hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds of years? NOPE!
Everything you said in this post ultimately means ? nothing because anyone can misuse words to justify their own wrong doing get that through your thick skull. What your doing like like blaming karl marx for stalinism
I don't give a ? what past christians did if it contradicted the teaching of christ their actions cannot be attributed to his teachings all the comment of THE SO CALLED pastors and leaders you posted are loaded with clear fallacies and contradictions you don't have a ? argument that's why you keep using the same flawed logic over and over again.
You want to know why these people did these things and misused the bible to do evil???? the love of wealth and power for them trumped faith in ? . those rich crackers who fought the civil war did not do so based on christians values they did that ? so they could keep there power. religion is always and after thought that's twisted to fit an intended purpose. You always bring up the fact the christians were involved in black slavery but you never bring up the fact the abolition was also lead of christians. some did it on an economic basis but most where primarily religiously motivated
You don't want to look at the truth of history or religion you already have your narrative and you are sticking to it even if your conclusions are based on lies and half truths.
LMAO. You can't be serious?
Just take the L ? . Followers of every and any religion do exactly this. More importantly anyone can copy and paste random verses, and pretend they know the meaning of them. You should really ? at this point.
I'll pretty much leave it at that, I won't even argue with him in this thread further, unless I'm annoyed at something he says....he refuses to see the words I've shown to him.
I SAW THE WORDS YOU SHOWED TO ME IT'S YOUR CONCLUSIONS FROM THOSE WORDS I DISAGREE WITH, the truth is my argument is very tight you don't have much of a rebuttal to what i say so it's best for you to keep quite.
all you are going to do is bring up christian history which is a weak arguing position because the brutal history of christianity in not in question but that history reflects the opposite of what jesus taught. and if you do bring up christian doctrine you are going to say that jesus co-signed the old testament laws but you are going to leave out the fact that he said he fulfilled the old law. I've been through this with you already and i don't feel like doing it again right now, I AM SURE we will talk about that in another thread a few day from now and you still will refuse to listen or attempt to properly disprove me on what the doctrine actually says -
FuriousOne wrote: »I barely read this thread but i don't think it's ? up. I barely get to hear it from the side of a Muslim. Usually people are throwing the entire group under the buss, but i have to wonder how so many people become Muslim even when war wasn't a factor? It's usually Christian vs Christian doctrine or some sudo religion being argued here, but i barely see people really break down the Koran on here. Religion plays a heavy role on what's going on in Paris. This topic isn't only being discussed in this context here. At the end of the day, it's all ? to me, but, there is some truth buried inside.
war was almost always a factor muhammad goes to war all the ? time before he died he told his followers to expel all not muslims from arabia. how the ? are you going to do that without war.
Calm down ? . There are Muslims all over the world that converted without war being a factor. i was trying to get some insight into that. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »Word is ISIS is claiming joint responsibility with Al-Qaeda? Anyone else here about this?
ISIS is basically Al-Qaeda anyway. They just had a difference in opinion but the same ultimate goal. -
So basically ? was specifically told if they did something enough times they'd get killed for it and they proceeded to do said thing and got killed for it?
A lto of this is white western arrogance. Only crackers go out of their way to offend people and call it "satire." Nah ? you was just clownin...but cuz crackers is doing it it's political all the sudden. FOH...
I dont think them crackers deserved to die but I also dont feel sorry for them. You know Islamic ? is crazy just like I know Cops is crazy and trigger happy so I aint gonna approach one and shove him in the chest talkin bout "bet you wont ? me ? !"
Shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiidddd.... -
It's a bit of an oversimplification to say they died over a cartoon and it wasn't like it happened just once. They kept doing it over and over and escalating it. I'm not sure how they thought that ? would end or what their goal was besides antagonizing a whole religion but I bet they won't do it again.
Who cares what they kept doing? Its call freedom of speech. Its the basis of western society fool. I guess we should all just ? and not say ? ever again. Ever listen to rap music? Freedom of speech. Without it we wouldn't even be on this website talking about this ? . Wake up.
Freedom of speech is absolutely not the basis of "western" society you simpleton. In fact, in France (where this actually happened if you're paying attention)...The laws forbid any communication which is intended to incite discrimination against, hatred of, or harm to, anyone because of his belonging or not belonging, in fact or in fancy, to an ethnicity, a nation, a race, a religion, a sex, or a sexual orientation, or because he or she has a handicap.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_France
What this means is that this paper was actually breaking the law by publishing those cartoons and articles. Do your googles next time you're about to call someone a fool.
The law is based around hatred you "simpleton" who the ? are you to tell anybody that these cartoons weren't just humorous cartoons and in no way designed for hate. Just because you draw something in a certain shape doesn't necessarily mean its made to spread a message of hatred.
The cartoons were satirical in nature. Do your googles next time and read a dictionary.
sat·ire
/ˈsaˌtī(ə)r/
noun
noun: satire
the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.
So you're saying nobody about there can use humor and be critical of anything just because it might offend somebody? gtfoh.
And why the ? do you think we participated in WW2 if it wasn't for freedom, fool. That's what we stand for, fool.
Land of the free, fool.
The fact that you're even defending this ? is ridiculous to begin with.
You from France?
