 |
| |
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:29
|
|
And an example of taking quotes out of context:
quote:
Quran 9: 5 Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolators wherever ye find them and take them captive, and besiege them and prepare for them each ambush |
http://www.submission.org/suras/sura9.htm
quote:
[9:4] If the idol worshipers sign a peace treaty with you, and do not violate it, nor band together with others against you, you shall fulfill your treaty with them until the expiration date. GOD loves the righteous.
[9:5] Once the Sacred Months are past, [(and they refuse to make peace) - explination by the site] you may kill the idol worshipers when you encounter them, punish them, and resist every move they make. If they repent and observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat), you shall let them go. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.
[9:6] If one of the idol worshipers sought safe passage with you, you shall grant him safe passage, so that he can hear the word of GOD, then send him back to his place of security. That is because they are people who do not know. |
and:
quote:
Sura 8:40: And fight them (nonmuslims) until there is no persecution and religion is wholly to Allah. But if they desist, then surely Allah is Watchful of what they do. |
http://www.submission.org/suras/sura8.htm
quote:
[8:39] You shall fight them to ward off oppression, and to practice your religion devoted to GOD alone. If they refrain from aggression, then GOD is fully Seer of everything they do.
[8:40] If they turn away, then you should know that GOD is your Lord and Master; the best Lord and Master, the best supporter. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Az
|
 |
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000
time: 07:29
|
|
I find it very stupid you people are even having this argument.
The "true" nature or the history of religions are good for one thing, and one thing only: for feelings of indignation and moral superiority/ inferiority.
Even if Mohammad preached the eating of babies, or, on the contrary, developed a cure for cancer, it doesn't matter at all. Sacred texts are as fertile grounds for re-interpretation and scewing as any other, like countless laws and constitutions all around the world.
Give it a ****ing rest.
Islam, today, is evil. I would rather have it gone.
Same could be said to varying degrees about all ( most, since I don't know them all) religions, including Judaism, and I haven't even got to the part that lying to some of the believers a part of the time is a natural part of every religion.
Islam is not the only cultural problem of the arab world.
Give it a rest, people. You agree on the basics, after all.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:29
|
|
The only (sort of) relevant stuff to the argument:
quote:
INVADING BANU QURAIZA:
The next were the Banu Quraiza. Soon after the Battle of the Trench was over, Muhammad claimed that the Archangel Gabriel had visited him "asking that he should unsheathe his sword and head for the habitation of the seditious Banu Quraiza and fight them. Gabriel noted that he with a procession of angels would go ahead to shake their forts and cast fear in their hearts." (2) Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 443
It is not clear why the Archangel needed Muslim's help to wipe out the Jews if he had "a procession of angels" who would shake their forts. Nevertheless, "the Messenger of Allâh immediately summoned the prayer caller and ordered him to announce fresh hostilities against Banu Quraiza," (2)
Muhammad headed an army of three thousand infantry men and thirty horsemen of Ansar (Helpers) and Muhajireen (Emigrants).
The Banu Quraiza was attacked for not supporting Muhammad when the Quraish attacked Medina. Ali sworn that he would never stop until he either storms their garrisons or be killed. This siege lasted 25 days. Finally the Banu Qurayza surrendered unconditionally. Muhammad ordered that the men be handcuffed, while the women and children were isolated in confinement. Thereupon Al-Aws tribe interceded begging the Prophet to be lenient towards them. Muhammad suggested that Sa‘d bin Mu‘adh, a former ally, be deputed to give verdict about them, and they agreed.
Sa'd's verdict who had received as a serious wound in the previous Battle of the Confederates was "that all the able-bodied male persons belonging to the tribe should be killed, women and children taken prisoners and their wealth divided among the Muslim fighters." Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 280
One wonders why Muhammad who claimed to be the messenger of Allah and in contact with him needed the judgment of a human. Yet this most cruel verdict was precisely what pleased him and he "accepted his judgment saying that Sa‘d had adjudged by the Command of Allâh."
Al-Bubarapouri adds that "In fact, the Jews deserved that severe punitive action for the ugly treachery they had harbored against Islam, and the large arsenal they have amassed and which consisted of one thousand and five hundred swords, two thousand spears, three hundred armours and five hundred shields, all of which went into the hands of the Muslims." (4)
The Muslims historians have been quick to bring the same baseless alibis to justify their raids against their victims like, they were "mischievous", causing "sedition" or being "treacherous" and "harboring against Islam". However no specifics exists as of the nature of those sins to warrant such a sever punishment and their total genocide.
Trenches were dug in the bazaar of Madinah and a number of Jews between six and nine hundred were beheaded therein.
Huyai, Ibn Akhtab, the chief of the Bani Nadeer and Safiyah’s father was captured in this siege and brought to the Prophet with his hands tied to his neck with a rope. In an audacious defiance he rejected Muhammad and preferred to be beheaded than submitting to his Religion by force. He was ordered to sit down and was beheaded on the spot.
To separate men from the boys, the youngsters were examined and if they had grown any pubic hair, it was enough to behead them.
Sunan Abu-Dawud Book 38, Number 4390
Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi:
I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair.
If anyone cannot see that this is NOT how a messenger of God should behave cannot claim to have grasped the meaning of humanness. I believe the cruelty of what the Prophet did to the Jews of Arabia are self-explanatory and any fair-minded person would acknowledge that. It is inconceivable that a messenger of God could kill between 600 to 900 people and banish thousands more with no feelings or compassion.
The man we call the Prophet, was full of hate. He thought of nothing but killing, brought nothing but death, taught nothing but vengeance. Muhammad was not a "mercy of God to mankind" but the curse of devil to humanity. Not only in his life he killed and banished all the Jews he could lay hand on, in his dead bed he instructed his followers to continue with the ethnic cleansing that he had initiated.
Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 288
The Prophet on his death-bed, gave three orders one of them was to Expel the pagans from the Arabian Peninsula.
Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 176
Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar:
Allah's Apostle said, "You (i.e. Muslims) will fight with the Jews till some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, 'O 'Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.' "
This man was a hoodlum not a messenger of God, he was a thief, a gangster and a highway robber. He enriched himself with the wealth of his victims.
Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 176
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
People used to give some of their datepalms to the Prophet (as a gift), till he conquered Bani Quraiza and Bani An-Nadir, whereupon he started returning their favors.
If you still believe that Muhammad was a messenger of God. Think to yourself what has happened to your humanity.
I am not going to go into details on the massacre of the Banu Qurayza because there is a great detailed and revealing article on them that you can read in the following link.
What really happened to the Banu Qurayza?
The article in the above link describes the massacre of the Banu Quraiza and the reason why the Prophet chose Sa'd bin Mu'adh as the arbitrator. This is a must read to understand Muhammad and his true character. It should be read is sequence.
Part 1: The siege, the surrender & the intercession of al-Aus
Part 2: Who is Sa`d bin Mu`adh?
Part 3: Appointment of Sa`d bin Mu`adh, his judgment, its execution and conclusions |
First thing to note is that there is absolutely no Qurannic source for the genocide of the Medinan Jewish tribe. In other words, you were full of ****. The reason why this is really, really important is because the Quran was written contemporanously with the alleged genocide.
Second thing to note is that the Atiyyah al-Qurazi account was originally transcribed by Ishaq. Dawud (and others) came a century later, taking Ishaq's account. As I said, a lone source writing a century and a half after the fact don't constitute "well-established fact."
Then there's a bunch more stuff taken outside of their context.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:29
|
|
Heresson:
Nope. I know religion is something very important in the construction of collective mentalities, and it has a very longlasting influence even on societies that have sopped being religious.
However, as you know, religion is closely intertwined with tradition. Most Christian or Jewish beliefs of today have nothing to do with the obvious literal message contained in the scripture. And that's fortunate, considering that a part of this scripture (mostly, some parts of the Old Testament) are outrageous to our modern minds.
When religion poses a problem, it doesn't really come from scripture, but from the religious beliefs that are held in its name. When the mainstream religion has an enlightened interpretation of the scripture (such as dismissing calls to genocide or to public stoning, for example), it poses much fewer problems than when it's mainstream to accept all or most of the scripture literally.
Christianty and Judaism are less plagued by fundamentalism than Islam (although I think any Christian should be really watchful of what's happening in the US and subsaharian Africa). Islam suffers more from the school of thought that scripture should be observed literally.
Thus, the difference between western and Arabic socieites doesn't come merely from scripture (the OT is worse than the koran anyway), but from the use of scripture by the religionists (there's a boatload of other cultural factors that have nothing to do wth religion as well, but they're for another thread). Scripture and religion isn't the same thing.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
beingofone
|
|
U.S.A.
Apr 2003
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hueij
The problem with this is that we have accounts for Caesar, Alexander and Darius from contemporary witnesses. All we have on Jesus is from much later. Maybe Caesar didn't cross the Rubicon but we know he did exist for certain. |
It depends on what scholar you ask. If they want to believe say in Caesar, then the manuscripts are current with the life of Caesar. If they are trying to discredit him - then the manuscripts were written much later than his life, if you see what I mean.
BTW - Only Caesar`s account was contemporary. So if we are going to use textual criticism with these rules -
Then only Caesar actually existed out of the thousands of historical persons. The rest were pure fiction - follow me?
Textual criticism is very subjective, if a historian doesn`t like the results of the text, he just dates the manuscript much later. An example would be " I do not believe the city of Athens could support 500,000 people so the text is wrong, or it was written much later."
So when the historian disagrees with the account, it is the text that is wrong. 
There is more proof in all forms for the scripture on ancient history then any other texts, yet because it cannot be 100% proven it is unreliable? Hmm
"The benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, not arrogated by the critic to himself"- Aristotle
This should be a rule of thumb, including the scripture.
Here are some non- Biblical authors who quoted scripture as history.
Clement of Rome 96 A.D.
Ignatious- 70-110 A.D.
Polycarp- 70-156 A.D.
Irenaeus- 156 A.D.
Tatian- 170 A.D.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
beingofone
|
|
U.S.A.
Apr 2003
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
Heresson:
Nope. I know religion is something very important in the construction of collective mentalities, and it has a very longlasting influence even on societies that have sopped being religious.
However, as you know, religion is closely intertwined with tradition. Most Christian or Jewish beliefs of today have nothing to do with the obvious literal message contained in the scripture. And that's fortunate, considering that a part of this scripture (mostly, some parts of the Old Testament) are outrageous to our modern minds.
When religion poses a problem, it doesn't really come from scripture, but from the religious beliefs that are held in its name. When the mainstream religion has an enlightened interpretation of the scripture (such as dismissing calls to genocide or to public stoning, for example), it poses much fewer problems than when it's mainstream to accept all or most of the scripture literally.
Christianty and Judaism are less plagued by fundamentalism than Islam (although I think any Christian should be really watchful of what's happening in the US and subsaharian Africa). Islam suffers more from the school of thought that scripture should be observed literally.
Thus, the difference between western and Arabic socieites doesn't come merely from scripture (the OT is worse than the koran anyway), but from the use of scripture by the religionists (there's a boatload of other cultural factors that have nothing to do wth religion as well, but they're for another thread). Scripture and religion isn't the same thing. |
For the most part Spiffor - well said.
If people could realize that when most scripture was written, the world and its ways were much different.
There are some Christian denominations that believe it is a sin for a woman to cut her hair because of a passage in 1st Corinthians.
Paul was talking to ancient Greeks and it would take not only a study of that society but also that paticular city state to understand why he might have said that.
I will say that some of the authors of scriptural texts are brilliant people. Sandskrit, Bible, Tao etc.
I agree with you - get the meaning behind the words and quite getting stuck on the words and you will gain much from some of the keenest and brightest minds that have graced our world.
Especially and including Jesus. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Oerdin
|
 |
of Internet Music.
Sep 2001
time: 21:29
|
|
Ramo, you know I already said I made a mistake and the source was not the Koran. Muhammad, true to form, tried to hide his crimes just as he destroyed the original treaty of Medina and had his followers substitute a obviously fake treaty. I already said this and I can only guess that you keep harping on this one case because you have nothing else to support your contention that Muhammad wasn't a filthy thief, rapist, and mass murder.
I've shown a great many crimes commited by Muhammad and which are perfectly allowed, even encouraged, by the Koran killing nonbelievers, raiding & bandatry, murder, raping women, beating wives, Muhammad's pediophilia, the genocide of the Jews of Arabia, and several other things. You avoided all but one of those charges. I guess you just don't have anything to combat the truth about the other half dozen or else you would have done so.
Just face the facts Muhammad was an evil and immoral man who deserves to be remember as the same type of person as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or Saddam. That he codified the commiting of these crimes in the Koran is why Islam is the worst & most violent of the monotheistic religions.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by beingofone
Pliny the Younger
|
Not contemporary with Jesus. All he does is states that there were Christians in Rome after 100 AD. Well duh, nobody disputed that. That doesn't prove anything other than that there were Christians around 100 AD.
Ditto.
Ditto.
Ditto
You omitted the response to this when you copied the source from wikipedia (you do know it is bad form to cut n paste without giving a source, don't you?)
quote:
While the passage is often cited as proof of Jesus' existence, most critical scholars hold that it is a forgery or has at least been heavily edited by a later hand. Several reasons are given for this. First, the text contains several hapax legomena, which is often evidence of a different author. Second, the text as it stands could only have been written by a Christian, not a Jew like Josephus. Third, the logical flow between two paragraphs is interrupted by the "Jesus passage", though it must be admitted that Josephus' logical flow is not always exemplary in the rest of his writings.
|
Fraudulent texts, both. You're dishonesty here is obvious, since it clearly states in the article that you plagiarized that this was the case:
quote:
Virtually all scholars dispute the attribution of the texts to Herod or Pilate, and consider them pure (and obvious) propaganda. Early commentators stated that Justus had no mention of Jesus. Both pagan leaders are depicted as fervent Christians in contrast with the picture given by history; furthermore, the details of the deaths in Herod's family or the crumbling of statues of the emperors do not conform with historical reality. Even stylistically, Pilate would have been unlikely to refer to "Justinus, one of the writers that were in the days of Augustus and Tiberius and Gaius", when he himself was from that time. The additional sources seem to be completely out of place, and even suggest doctrines that were far from widespread in the early Church. Finally, Pilate's character as it appears in the letter shows no relation to the image that history paints of him.
|
I have a hard time taking your arguments seriously when you play such dishonest games.
quote:
No serious scholar doubts the existence of the historical Jesus. |
This is simply false, and the article you plagiarized clearly states as such. There is indeed a scholarly debate over the existence of Jesus. Scholars who doubt his existence are certainly in the minority, but claiming they are not "serious" is bull.
quote:
The reason no serious scholar doubts the existence of a historical Jesus is because you (based on this logic) would have to deny the existence of Caeser, Alexander the Great, Darius, etc. There is more historical textual proof for Jesus than Caeser crossing the Rubicon. |
This is a distortion. We do have first-hand corraborative evidence for the existence of all three men. For Caesar, we have contemporary statues and monuments, coinage, and scores of contemporary Roman documents about him. For Alexander and Darius, we also have abundant archaeological evidence in the form of monuments, inscriptions, coins, etc.
Nothing of the kind exists for Jesus. Not a scrap. We only have the gospels, which are accounts written many decades after the supposed events took place and by authors whose true identity we don't know.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Oerdin
|
|
of Internet Music.
Sep 2001
time: 21:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DinoDoc
Are you people through pwning the bigot yet? |
You are such a funny little man.
Me: Muhammad commited many evil acts and the Koran is filled with remarks extolling the faithful to commit violence.
DD: You are a bigot!
Me: Here, here, and here are examples of crimes Muhammad commited and here are some more quotes of the Koran extolling people to commit acts of violence. Please note Muhammad is a bad man for what he did not who he was.
DD: You are a bigot!
Me: OK, we'll try again. Here are yet more examples of horrible things Muhammad did and here is yet more quotes of him commanding followers to commit terrible crimes. Yet again I must say he was a bad man for what he did not because of his religion.
DD: You are a bigot.
Why do I wast time with you? You never actually respond to anything and just keep repeating the same tired and refuted claims. Now I know why you have such a bad reputation.
Ramo: I responded very fully to Imran please learn to keep up with the debate.
Last edited by Oerdin on 30-03-2005 at 11:56
|
|
| |
|
|
|
beingofone
|
|
U.S.A.
Apr 2003
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Not contemporary with Jesus. All he does is states that there were Christians in Rome after 100 AD. Well duh, nobody disputed that. That doesn't prove anything other than that there were Christians around 100 AD. |
How were there Christians in Rome with no Christ?
quote:
You omitted the response to this when you copied the source from wikipedia (you do know it is bad form to cut n paste without giving a source, don't you?) |
I did say I quoted the source and did not give the source, you are right. It was easier than looking in my books. I will give the source from now on if I get it on the internet. That was the first time I have done that. It is because it is common in many books. So what?
Wikipedia is not the only source, and the information they used comes from other sources, should I track the other sources down to? That way I won`t miss anyone. This info is in hundreds of sources Boris.
quote:
Fraudulent texts, both. You're dishonesty here is obvious, since it clearly states in the article that you plagiarized that this was the case: |
If you read my post again, you will see I did say it was weak, it is not known if it is fraudulent, that is you making an assumption. And again, I have the same information in say - Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell, Biblical Achaeology Society, etc. Should I mention every book that I have read to?
quote:
I have a hard time taking your arguments seriously when you play such dishonest games. |
What are you talking about?
quote:
This is simply false, and the article you plagiarized clearly states as such. There is indeed a scholarly debate over the existence of Jesus. Scholars who doubt his existence are certainly in the minority, but claiming they are not "serious" is bull. |
It is not false at all - name a respected scholar who does not believe in the historical Jesus. Good luck
quote:
This is a distortion. We do have first-hand corraborative evidence for the existence of all three men. For Caesar, we have contemporary statues and monuments, coinage, and scores of contemporary Roman documents about him. For Alexander and Darius, we also have abundant archaeological evidence in the form of monuments, inscriptions, coins, etc.
Nothing of the kind exists for Jesus. Not a scrap. We only have the gospels, which are accounts written many decades after the supposed events took place and by authors whose true identity we don't know. |
Are you sure I am the one being dishonest?
We only have the evidence of thousands of Christians around the known Western World who were willing to die for their faith.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by beingofone
How were there Christians in Rome with no Christ?
|
I can't believe you would write this. 
How were there worshippers of Osiris in Egypt with no Osiris?
How were there worshippers of Mithra in Persia with no Mithra?
How were there Hindus in India with no Vishnu?
Since this is your logic, I suppose you are a pantheist, yes? Any group's religious beliefs must be correct, by the fact that they exist?
quote:
I did say I quoted the source and did not give the source, you are right. |
No, you didn't. You never said "I'm quoting a source." You cut and pasted with no attribution, which gives the impression it's your own writing. That's called plagiarism.
quote:
Wikipedia is not the only source, and the information they used comes from other sources, should I track the other sources down to? That way I won`t miss anyone. This info is in hundreds of sources Boris. |
That's not the issue--the issue is that copied from a source and didn't cite it. What's more, you selectively omitted paragraphs from the source that undermined your argument. So you didn't source it because you knew that by doing so, you were "hiding" facts contrary to your claims. 
quote:
If you read my post again, you will see I did say it was weak, it is not known if it is fraudulent, that is you making an assumption. |
Bullshit! Did you even read your own source?
"Virtually all scholars dispute the attribution of the texts to Herod or Pilate, and consider them pure (and obvious) propaganda."
From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
"There exists a puerile correspondence consisting of a pretended Letter of Herod to Pilate and Letter of Pilate to Herod."
Even the Catholic church acknowledges these letters are frauds. They are quite obviously so. The only folks who believe these letters could possibly be genuine are fanatics who are desperate to prove their case.
quote:
What are you talking about? |
Your dishonesty. I've cited two examples of it in this post alone. It's really unbecoming of one purporting to be a Christian.
quote:
It is not false at all - name a respected scholar who does not believe in the historical Jesus. Good luck |
Respected by who? You? I've no doubt you have no respect for anyone who disagrees with your beliefs in this matter.
How about :
Gerald Massey, Egyptologist and historical scholar
Elaine Pagels, Professor of Religion at Princeton University
Arthur Drews
John M. Robertson
Dr. Robert Price
To name a few. Thanks for the wish of luck, I'm sure that helped.
quote:
Are you sure I am the one being dishonest? |
Yep. What was dishonest in what I said?
quote:
We only have the evidence of thousands of Christians around the known Western World who were willing to die for their faith. |
So? We have people in every faith who are willing to die for it. People are willing to die for even non-religious beliefs. The fact that people will die for a cherished belief is not evidence that the belief is true. Same fallacy as the first comment you made.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-03-2005 02:39
|