Why not war against Islam?

[Toontown]

False. My criticisms were made from a position of having read the posts I criticized. Having read the posts and found them wanting, I did not need to know every little irrelevant tedious detail of all the various conflicting beliefs of billions of Muslims, Christians, or whatever.

I'm sure you belive that. But your ability to understand the posts in question is impaired by your ignorance of those 'tedious' details.

I'm sure you believe that. And yet you offer no example, which suggests you might not really believe that at all.

Perhaps you figure it's safe to make that bald assertion. The thread has gotten sufficiently long that you may have calculated that no one will bother going back through my posts to find the ones you're talking about. Or perhaps you've lazily allowed Antpogo's misrepresentations to lead you astray.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Osama bin Laden did not represent a lunatic fringe of Islam. There is nothing inconsistent between Islam and anything Osama bin Laden every did in his lifetime.(now, I know you are going to probably stop here and respond with a post without reading further. Nothing supporting this will be read below by you)

This is not what we want to believe. But it is the truth.

Muslims are taught to emulate the prophet Muhammad Ibn Abdullah (yes, that is his name). What Osama bin Laden did was what Muhammad Ibn Abdullah would have done. I can cite several battles: the Battle of Badr and the War with the Meccans are two examples.

Osama bin Laden was regarded worldwide as a man of peace and compassion until he went home to Saudi Arabia after helping the Afghans drive the soviets out and he saw American troops in Saudi Arabia. Muhammad would have responded the same way to the presence of infidels.

Back during the era when he was helping the US drive the soviets out during The Cold War, the American TV program 60 Minutes had an story about Osama bin Laden and described him as a great, heroic, brave man who was loyal to an honorable religion. When did he change? Did he change?

I have asked some Muslim friends of mine to draw that line. At what point did Osama bin Laden start doing things contrary to the teachings of Islam. Let me guess. You are going to say Islam forbids the killing of innocent people. Well, according to Islam, there is no such thing as an innocent non-muslim. Islam does prohibit killing innocent people. Unfortunately, you don't qualify. My muslim friends cannot draw the line between the good Osama bin Laden period of time and when he - for lack of a better term -- was seduced by the dark side.

The subject line of this discussion thread is "Why not war against islam?". To me it means "post here defending Islam if you are not educated or informed enough to know we are already at war with Islam". The Taliban shot down a US chopper a few days ago. Here is the kicker. The Taliban are not Afghan. The Taliban are not fighting foreign invaders. The Taliban ARE the foreign invaders. They don't tell this enough in the news media. The Taliban ARE NOT fighing for political cuases. The Taliban are fighting for purely religious reasons. The Taliban is not the name of a political group like "Democrat" or "Republican". The word "Taliban" means "students of Islam". The Taliban came from Pakistan. We are already at war with Islam.

 

[FireGarden]

I'm sure you believe that. And yet you offer no example, which suggests you might not really believe that at all.

Perhaps you figure it's safe to make that bald assertion. The thread has gotten sufficiently long that you may have calculated that no one will bother going back through my posts to find the ones you're talking about.

No. I found an example easily enough:

You are asking why the rather small minority of Mulsims who take the call for war against infidels literally, be surprised that infidels attack them?

The call for jihad is the centerpiece of the religion. If the majority of Muslims disagree, then why do they even bother with the ancient benighted belief system? Are they afraid their Muslim brothers will murder them if they renounce Islam?

Later in the thread, ANTPogo offered this choice:

Would you like to address what I said in post 222, Toontown? Or are you satisfied with your "Hah, hah, look at those liberal dupes who have actually studied what Muslims themselves say and believe regarding their religion, rather than simply reading what crackpot Islamophobes like Robert Spencer write on the Internet!" stance?

By doing the first, you would learn something. Such as there really ARE Muslims who disagree with the cited minority. But you prefer the 2nd option.

Or perhaps you've lazily allowed Antpogo's misrepresentations to lead you astray.

I've seen no misrepresentation. You are proud of your ignorance on the matter -- a request for you to address the actual facts which support ANTPogo's position was: a presumptuous demand on your time.

The details of WHY ANTPogo holds the position he/she holds and makes the posts he/she makes are too tedious for you to bother with. But you want to attack the posts anyway.

 

[DC]

Osama bin Laden did not represent a lunatic fringe of Islam. There is nothing inconsistent between Islam and anything Osama bin Laden every did in his lifetime.(now, I know you are going to probably stop here and respond with a post without reading further. Nothing supporting this will be read below by you)

This is not what we want to believe. But it is the truth.

Muslims are taught to emulate the prophet Muhammad Ibn Abdullah (yes, that is his name). What Osama bin Laden did was what Muhammad Ibn Abdullah would have done. I can cite several battles: the Battle of Badr and the War with the Meccans are two examples.

Osama bin Laden was regarded worldwide as a man of peace and compassion until he went home to Saudi Arabia after helping the Afghans drive the soviets out and he saw American troops in Saudi Arabia. Muhammad would have responded the same way to the presence of infidels.

Back during the era when he was helping the US drive the soviets out during The Cold War, the American TV program 60 Minutes had an story about Osama bin Laden and described him as a great, heroic, brave man who was loyal to an honorable religion. When did he change? Did he change?

I have asked some Muslim friends of mine to draw that line. At what point did Osama bin Laden start doing things contrary to the teachings of Islam. Let me guess. You are going to say Islam forbids the killing of innocent people. Well, according to Islam, there is no such thing as an innocent non-muslim. Islam does prohibit killing innocent people. Unfortunately, you don't qualify. My muslim friends cannot draw the line between the good Osama bin Laden period of time and when he - for lack of a better term -- was seduced by the dark side.

The subject line of this discussion thread is "Why not war against islam?". To me it means "post here defending Islam if you are not educated or informed enough to know we are already at war with Islam". The Taliban shot down a US chopper a few days ago. Here is the kicker. The Taliban are not Afghan. The Taliban are not fighting foreign invaders. The Taliban ARE the foreign invaders. They don't tell this enough in the news media. The Taliban ARE NOT fighing for political cuases. The Taliban are fighting for purely religious reasons. The Taliban is not the name of a political group like "Democrat" or "Republican". The word "Taliban" means "students of Islam". The Taliban came from Pakistan. We are already at war with Islam.

you refuse to learn details about a religion, but then go on and claim you do know the details of the religion. and you even know it much better than the vast majority of Muslims......

this is so laughable, you have a very paranoid worldview.

 

[Bill Thompson]

We look back at what people believed 3 thousand years ago and think that people back then had some pretty strange religious customs and beliefs.

But those ideas were replaced with better, more sensible and more compassionate (hopefully) religions.

It is not illogical to assume that 3 thousand years from now, people will look back at us and think that we too had some strange religions. And the religions we have today were also replaced.

It is going to happen with Islam.

 

[Bill Thompson]

you refuse to learn details about a religion, but then go on and claim you do know the details of the religion. and you even know it much better than the vast majority of Muslims......

this is so laughable, you have a very paranoid worldview.

You don't really answer my questions. Was Osama bin Laden a good man? It is a simple yes or no question. Was he at one time a good man? At what point did he turn bad?

I know Mormonism better than the vast majority of Mormons. Most of them have no idea of the racist details and past of their religion. And yet you suppose I have no idea about Islam. Funny, this "you have no idea" comment might also come from a Mormon I might debate.

Anyway, answer my questions.

I am waiting

By the way, when the Germans and the Israelis were sending messages to Condi Rice on Monday, September 8, 2011 that Muslims were going to perform a kamakazi style attack on the USA, her respons was that they were so paranoid it was laughable.

 

[DC]

You don't really answer my questions. Was Osama bin Laden a good man? It is a simple yes or no question. Was he at one time a good man? At what point did he turn bad?

I know Mormonism better than the vast majority of Mormons. Most of them have no idea of the racist details and past of their religion. And yet you suppose I have no idea about Islam. Funny, this "you have no idea" comment might also come from a Mormon I might debate.

Anyway, answer my questions.

no

 

[A'isha]

Muslims are taught to emulate the prophet Muhammad Ibn Abdullah (yes, that is his name). What Osama bin Laden did was what Muhammad Ibn Abdullah would have done. I can cite several battles: the Battle of Badr

You mean the Battle of Badr where Muhammad ordered all the captured Qurayshi soldiers to be released unharmed, over the objections of his own advisers? Side note: the assertion that Muhammad provoked the battle and forced the unwilling Meccans to fight is not only laughable, its contradicted in all the available sources. The Medinan army was outnumbered by the Qurayshi by something like 3 to 1, and even in the Qur'an Muhammad says that the Medinans wanted to strike at the smaller vanguard of the Qurayshi army (precisely because the Medinan force was so small), but Allah instead willed that they fight the larger army.

and the War with the Meccans are two examples.

You mean the war that ended with the peaceful surrender of the city and the deaths of less than thirty people?

thereligionofpeace.com is one of the most insane Islamophobic sites on the web, surpassed only by sites like the Timecube-level-crazy prophetofdoom.net (try reading this entire essay, I dare you).

Naturally,, thereligionofpeace.com links to the above site, calling it an "excellent resource for discovering what the Qur'an and Hadith have to say about a variety of issues," which gives you a good idea of just how little they care about things like accuracy, reliability, or even sanity when it comes to supporting their prejudices.

Back during the era when he was helping the US drive the soviets out during The Cold War, the American TV program 60 Minutes had an story about Osama bin Laden and described him as a great, heroic, brave man who was loyal to an honorable religion. When did he change? Did he change?

Got a link to a clip or transcript?

I have asked some Muslim friends of mine to draw that line. At what point did Osama bin Laden start doing things contrary to the teachings of Islam. Let me guess. You are going to say Islam forbids the killing of innocent people. Well, according to Islam, there is no such thing as an innocent non-muslim. Islam does prohibit killing innocent people. Unfortunately, you don't qualify. My muslim friends cannot draw the line between the good Osama bin Laden period of time and when he - for lack of a better term -- was seduced by the dark side.

That's funny, I distinctly remember quoting a number of Muslim religious thinkers about this very topic right in this very thread. The above site quotes...well, zero Muslims, instead settling for bare assertion about what "Muslims really believe".

The subject line of this discussion thread is "Why not war against islam?". To me it means "post here defending Islam if you are not educated or informed enough to know we are already at war with Islam".

Actually, it seems to mean "post here decrying Islam if you are not educated or informed enough to know...well, pretty much anything regarding the subject".

The Taliban shot down a US chopper a few days ago. Here is the kicker. The Taliban are not Afghan. The Taliban are not fighting foreign invaders. The Taliban ARE the foreign invaders. They don't tell this enough in the news media. The Taliban ARE NOT fighing for political cuases. The Taliban are fighting for purely religious reasons. The Taliban is not the name of a political group like "Democrat" or "Republican". The word "Taliban" means "students of Islam". The Taliban came from Pakistan. We are already at war with Islam.

Bzzt! Wrong! The Taliban is made up almost entirely of Pashtuns (ie, ethnic Afghanis). The word "taliban" is even a Pashtun word, formed of an Arabic loanword root and an Indo-Iranian suffix (the Pakistanis speak mostly Urdu).

The Taliban emerged in Afghanistan, and while Pakistan has supported them and there are foreign fighters in their ranks, they're a Pashtun Afghani movement, with heavy nationalist undertones to their religious fundamentalism.

 

[Bill Thompson]

no

No, what, Man of little words? No Osama bin Laden was never a good man. That is not really true. Why are there a multitude of children in Afghanistan named after him?

I think you mean, no, you will not answer my questionis.

Do you think everyone can get along in the world?

 

[Bill Thompson]

You mean the Battle of Badr where Muhammad ordered all the captured Qurayshi soldiers to be released unharmed, over the objections of his own advisers? Side note: the assertion that Muhammad provoked the battle and forced the unwilling Meccans to fight is not only laughable, its contradicted in all the available sources. The Medinan army was outnumbered by the Qurayshi by something like 3 to 1, and even in the Qur'an Muhammad says that the Medinans wanted to strike at the smaller vanguard of the Qurayshi army (precisely because the Medinan force was so small), but Allah instead willed that they fight the larger army.

Cherry Picking is a logical fallacy. Picking one honorable thing out of a stack of facts to support a claim is a logical fallacy. I mean The Battle of Badr where: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Muhammad/myths-mu-self-defense.htm

The Myth:

Muhammad only Waged War in Self-Defense
The Truth:​

The myth that warfare is only justified in Islam under the condition of self-defense is disproved by the account of the Battle of Badr, in which Muhammad sent his men out to raid caravans, then deliberately provoked a battle with the Meccan army sent out to defend them. The case for aggressive warfare is also supported by the fate of the three Jewish tribes of Medina, who were cleansed because they had rejected Muhammad’s claims of prophethood (and because the Muslims wanted their possessions).
Consider the fate of the Banu Mustaliq, an Arab tribe:

"The Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives" (Bukhari 46:717)​

Although there are many reliable accounts from the Hadith and Sira that mention the Mustaliq grazing cattle, not one mentions Muhammad making any effort at peacemaking. In this case, Muhammad's men raped the women (with his approval) after slaughtering the men (Sahih Muslim 3371). What does raping a female captive have to do with self-defense?
In many situations, Muhammad waged war for the purpose of revenge, such as the attack on the Lihyan, in which the people were clearly not prepared for war and saved themselves only by fleeing into the hills (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 718). Muhammad also attacked the people of Taif as soon as he had the opportunity to avenge their rejection of him (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 280 & 872).
Also disproving the myth that Muhammad only fought in self-defense is the account of his first attack on the Christians. There was no compelling reason for him to send an army to Muta (in Syria, where they met with disaster at the hands of the Byzantines). Had this been a matter of self-defense, then the enemy would surely have followed the routed army back to Arabia, but this was not the case (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 791).
Near the end of his life, the prophet of Islam directed military campaigns for the mere purpose of spreading Islamic rule. He knew that some cities would resist and others would not. He left instructions to his people for dealing with each case:

The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: If you come to a township (which has surrendered without a formal war) and stay therein, you have a share (that will be in the form of an award) in (the properties obtained from) it. If a township disobeys Allah and His Messenger (and actually fights against the Muslims) one-fifth of the booty seized therefrom is for Allah and His Apostle and the rest is for you. (Sahih Muslim 4346)​

​

​

As can be seen, those who were not at war with the Muslims are to be subjugated anyway, and their property seized. The only distinguishing factor is the extent of Muslim entitlement following the victory.
Military campaigns to extend Islamic domination include the raid on Tabuk, which was a second incursion into the Christian territory of Syria, in which Muhammad forced the local populace to pay him tribute after ambushing and killing local civilians to assert his authority (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 903). Another example would be the “convert or die” mandate given to an Arab tribe, the Banu al-Harith:

Then the apostle sent Khalid bin Walid… to the Banu al-Harith and ordered him to invite them to Islam three days before he attacked them. If they accepted then he was to accept it from them, and if they declined he was to fight them. So Khalid set out and came to them, and sent out riders in all directions inviting the people to Islam, saying, “If you accept Islam you will be safe.” So the men accepted Islam as they were invited. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 959)​

​

​

Obviously self-defense was not a factor in any of these cases (even though some Muslims are prone to embellish the record with imaginary details not found therein). As with the capture of Mecca in 630, these early Muslims had clear military superiority and the target of their aggression was in no position to defend itself.
In fact, the first part of the 9th Sura, the most bellicose chapter of the Qur’an, was revealed shortly after the Muslims had established military dominance in Mecca. Consider one of the more violent verses:

But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them (9:5)
​

The words, “when the forbidden months are past,” precludes the possibility that this was a matter of self-defense. The Muslims had already been given the divine right to fight during the sacred months, and it is simply implausible that they would have suffered attacks over a four month period without defending themselves. That they were not under attack is consistent with the historical context, in which the Haj period was a traditional time of peace and tolerance throughout Arabia.
Although not under attack from the pagans, Muhammad ordered his men to chase and kill the unbelievers following the Haj. The pagans who agreed to become Muslim (ie. practice the pillars of Islam, zakat and salat) would be allowed to live following their conversion. Verse 9:29 offers a separate rule for Jews and Christians, allowing them to keep their religion as long as they pay protection money to Muslims and acknowledge the inferiority of their faith. Should they resist, then they should be killed.
One of the best documented examples of Muslim aggression during the lifetime of Muhammad is the attack on the peaceful community of Khaybar. This followed the treaty of Hudaibiya between the Muslims and Meccans, which called for a period of peace between the two groups. The treaty was controversial with Muslims, not only because it contradicted Allah’s prior mandate to “drive out” the Meccans with violent force (2:191), but also because Muhammad agreed not to be recognized as a prophet in the document (Muslim 4401).

Muhammad decided that it was prudent to attack the Jews at Khaybar in order to regain the trust of his people and placate their grumbling with military victory and (especially) the stolen wealth that followed. This is embarrassing to modern-day Muslim apologists, who try to justify the siege by imagining that the sleepy farming community, located about 100 miles outside of Medina, posed some sort of necessary threat.
Unfortunately for contemporary apologists, not only is there no supporting evidence that the Muslims were under attack by the Khaybar, there are at least three historical references that flatly contradict any notion of self-defense on the part of Muhammad. The first is a description of the initial attack by Ibn Ishaq/Hisham:

We met the workers of Khaybar coming out in the morning with their spades and baskets. When they saw the apostle and the army they cried, “Muhammad with his force,” and turned tail and fled… The apostle seized the property piece by piece… (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 757)​

The people of Khaybar were not attacking Muhammad. They were farming their land with shovels and buckets, not even knowing that they were supposed to be at war. This is further confirmed in the same text:

When the apostle raided a people he waited until the morning. If he heard a call to prayer he held back; if he did not hear it he attacked. We came to Khaybar by night, and the apostle passed the night there; and when morning came he did not hear the call to prayer, so he rode and we rode with him. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 757)​

Muhammad attacked only after waiting to see if the people of Khaybar issued a morning call to prayer. This would have no possible relevance had they already been at war with him.
Perhaps the best proof that Muhammad was not acting in self-defense is the fact that his own people did not understand why they were marching to war. His son-in-law, who was in charge of the military expedition, had to ask for justification:

Allah's Messenger called Ali [and said]: “Proceed on and do not look about until Allah grants you victory,” and Ali went a bit and then halted and did not look about and then said in a loud voice: “Allah's Messenger, on what issue should I fight with the people?” Thereupon he (the Prophet) said: ”Fight with them until they bear testimony to the fact that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger…” (Sahih Muslim 5917)​

The question Ali posed would have been unnecessary had the Muslims been under attack by the Khaybar or if the answer to the question were obvious. As it is, Muhammad’s reply underscores the ostensible purpose of the campaign, which was to force the Jews into acknowledging the superiority of Islam.
Muhammad’s men easily captured Khaybar and divided up the loot. The prophet of Islam tortured the community’s treasurer to extract information, then had him killed (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 764). Muhammad then took the man’s widow, Saffiya, as his wife after trading two other captured women to one of his lieutenants (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 758). The surviving Jews were allowed to stay on their land provided that they gave their Muslim masters an ample share of their crops.
Therefore, the rule of aggression in Islam, from the example set by Muhammad, is that it is proportional to the power held by Muslims, and not the persecution that they are under. The rare verses of peace in the Qur'an were "revealed" in Mecca, when true oppression existed (in some cases). The verses of violence that are revealed later correspond to Muslim military might even as any persecution of Muslims had largely dried up.

 

[Bill Thompson]

You mean the war that ended with the peaceful surrender of the city and the deaths of less than thirty people?

Is your real mane "Cherry Picker"? By the way, if you clicked on the links I put in my post you would not be so confused about what I mean

No I mean tthe war where:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Muhammad/myths-mu-peace-war.htm

The Myth:

Muhammad Always Chose Peace over War
The Truth:​

Actually, Muhammad rarely if ever opted for peace when he had the power to dominate. As the Hadith records in many places, the prophet of Islam said that he had “been called to fight all men until they testify that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is His messenger.” The goal of Islam is the rule of Islam.
Although originally invited to Medina to be a peacemaker (of all things) the prophet of Islam immediately brought war to this community of traders by first raiding Meccan caravans - which brought down foreign hostility on all residents - then later exploiting internal divisions for personal gain. (See Myth: The Muslims were under Meccan Persecuted at Medina for a timeline of Muhammad's constant attempts to provoke war with the Meccans).
As we have detailed, Muhammad conquered each of the Jewish tribes at Medina as soon as he had the ability. He also did what he could to provoke the Battle of Badr, forcing the Meccans to fight when they clearly did not want war. Near the end of his life, he directed a continuous series of foreign military expeditions to attack people who were not attacking the Muslims, with the goal of obtaining tribute or conversions.
One example that refutes the myth that Muhammad chose peace over war is when a report came to him that a man named Usayr ibn Zarim was attempting to gather an armed force against the Muslims. According to the true story of what happened (found in Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 981), Muhammad sent an armed band to Usayr's community, which convinced him that he would be guaranteed safe passage to a meeting with Muhammad to discuss peace. However, once vulnerable, the leader and his thirty companions were easily slaughtered by the Muslim tricksters.
Another well-documented example is the series of events leading up to the taking of Mecca by his army in 630. As we have shown, the Muslims were the first to break the treaty between themselves and the Meccans by not returning fleeing Muslims to Mecca (as stipulated in the agreement) as well as by raiding Meccan caravans and murdering the drivers (both before and after the treaty). But when a tribe allied with the Meccans killed members of a tribe allied with the Muslims in revenge for an earlier murder, it was feared the Muhammad would not be so accommodating.
The leader at Mecca was a man named Abu Sufyan. Anticipating that the Muslims might look for an excuse to attack his people, Abu Sufyan traveled to Medina to engage Muhammad in dialogue for the purpose of assuring peace between the two parties. Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 807 details the poor man’s efforts to see the Muslim leader in a long passage that plainly indicates his mounting desperation for peace.
It is during this visit that Abu Sufyan enters the homes of a number of prominent Muslims, including Muhammad’s son-in-law and daughter. Clearly he is not interested in harming them. In the end, Abu Sufyan is rebuffed by Muhammad and does not gain the opportunity to talk peace. The prophet of Islam is more interested in a surprise attack on Mecca:

[Muhammad] said, “Oh Allah, take eyes and ears from the Quraysh [Mecca] so that we may take them by surprise in their land,” and the men got themselves ready. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 808)​

In that the other Meccans had no idea that they were supposed to be at war with the Muslims, Muhammad was entirely successful:

When the apostle had reached Marr al-Azhran, [the] Quraysh were completely ignorant of the fact and did not even know what he was doing. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 811).​

When Abu Sufyan learned that Muhammad was marching on the city, he made one last effort to talk peace with him, this time attempting to use the Muslim leader’s wife as an intercessory. The woman attempted to reason with Muhammad, referring to Abu Sufyan and his companion as Muhammad’s own “cousin and brother-in-law” (which he was). Muhammad turned them away with this reply:

“I have no use for them. As for my cousin, he as wounded my pride; and as for my aunt’s son and my brother-in-law, he spoke insulting of me in Mecca.” (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 811)​

Thus, according to his own biographer, the prophet of Islam chose to go to war against an unwilling party merely out of personal pride and personal offense. After conquering Mecca he even ordered the executions of those who had insulted him, apparently oblivious to the hypocrisy, since it was a third-party revenge killing that he originally used as justification for his own attack on the city.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Got a link to a clip or transcript?

It was before the internet.

Like John Kerry's book "Winter Solder" it is not something they like to keep in circulation.

I remember it.

I will ask CBS about it.

By the way, do you doubt me? That is amusing. Do you think the usa dis NOT consider Osama bin Laden to be a great and honorable man at one time?

 

[Bill Thompson]

That's funny, I distinctly remember quoting a number of Muslim religious thinkers about this very topic right in this very thread. The above site quotes...well, zero Muslims, instead settling for bare assertion about what "Muslims really believe".

Do you think what most Christians really believe has a lot to do with Christianity?

Do you think what most Mormons really believe has a lot to do with Mormonism?

Do you think what most Scientologist's really believe has a lot to do with Scientology?

Do you think what most Catholics really believe has a lot to do with Catholicism?

 

[DC]

No, what, Man of little words? No Osama bin Laden was never a good man. That is not really true. Why are there a multitude of children in Afghanistan named after him?

I think you mean, no, you will not answer my questionis.

Do you think everyone can get along in the world?

no he was not a good man, well for a while the US believed him to be a good guy.

but i think you are totaly crazy now. really.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Bzzt! Wrong! The Taliban is made up almost entirely of Pashtuns (ie, ethnic Afghanis). The word "taliban" is even a Pashtun word, formed of an Arabic loanword root and an Indo-Iranian suffix (the Pakistanis speak mostly Urdu).

Not the power base. Not the part that makes the Taliban what it is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban

The Taliban's allies include the Pakistani army as well as Arab and Central Asian militants.[12][13][14] Al Qaeda supported the Taliban with regiments of imported fighters from Arab countries and Central Asia. In the late period of the war, of an estimated 45,000 force fighting on the side of the Taliban, only 14,000 were Afghans.[13][15] Today the Taliban operate in Afghanistan and northwest Pakistan. US officials say one of their headquarters is in or near Quetta, Pakistan.[16] The Taliban engage in terrorism against the civilian population of Afghanistan. According to a report by the United Nations, the Taliban were responsible for 76% of civilian casualties in Afghanistan in 2009.[17]

Your interpret facts and connect dots to support what you want to believe. But it is not the whole picture.

 

[A'isha]

Do you think what most Christians really believe has a lot to do with Christianity?

Do you think what most Mormons really believe has a lot to do with Mormonism?

Do you think what most Scientologist's really believe has a lot to do with Scientology?

Do you think what most Catholics really believe has a lot to do with Catholicism?

Do you think that each of those things exists independently of their communities of believers?

 

[Bill Thompson]

no he was not a good man, well for a while the US believed him to be a good guy.

but i think you are totaly crazy now. really.

An answer. Well, part of one. I am impressed. When did he change from a good man to a bad man?

Wait, do you think that because the US believed him to be a good guy the US was wrong. Can you be specific?

Brushing someone off by name-calling is a logical fallacy. It is called Ad Hominem(SP?). Don't do it if you want poeple to think you study your subject matter unbaisedly.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Do you think that each of those things exists independently of their communities of believers?

Do you know the difference between Islam and Muslims? Do you attack someone for what they belief? Are you the kind of person who would like to "kill Rush Limbaugh" for what he believes?

See, I can answer your questions with questions too. Is this the game you want to play?

 

[A'isha]

And as for your thereligionofpeace.com copypasta (you already posted links, why are you spamming the thread with the text?), you'll note how they heavily quote from Ibn Ishaq's biography of Muhammad, with a sprinkling of brief bits from the Qur'an and the two main hadith of Bukhari and Muslim. Note how they always list it as "Ibn Ishaq/Hisham".

That's because what they're quoting is Alfred Guillaume's 1955 reconstruction of Ishaq's book, formed by translating what Ibn Hisham quoted and said about what Ishaq wrote, with a few other quotations of Ishaq's work made by other medieval Arabic writers. He had to do that because Ishaq's original is long since lost, and only exists as quotations by other Muslim authors. Almost no Muslim authorities treat any part of the works quoted as authoritative in any way (that is, the hadiths that Ishaq wrote), because they're considered almost entirely unreliable. His work is also filled with errors and contradictions to other, more authoritative, sources, further impeaching its credibility as a historically accurate work.

In other words, as a source for what Muslims actually believe Muhammad said and did in his lifetime, it's useless. Even Ishaq's contemporaries like Malik bin Anas Bin Malik bin Abu Amir Al-Asbahi considered him a liar and fraud.

Only Islamophobes like thereligionofpeace.com cite it as any kind of reliable testimony regarding the life and deeds of Muhammad. That's why they cite it over and over, and never any other contemporary Muslim writer, nor any modern historical scholarship.

EDIT: As an odd side note, one of the authors who quoted Ishaq that Guillaume used in his reconstruction/translation was al-Tabari - who was also responsible for first repeating the tale of the "Satanic Verses", the very tale that Salman Rushdie used as an element in his infamous novel of the same name.

 

[Bill Thompson]

ANTPOGO,

I showed you respect by addressing each point you made in this post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7462486&postcount=548

It is only natura that l I expect you address my points.