Total Posts:78|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why do Muhammadans hate peace?

celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2015 5:41:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
All through these boards where Muhammadans are posting one sees no Muhammadans talking about peace and how to achieve it even though they supposedly have a "religion of peace".

What is it about peace that so upsets Muhammadans? Is it due to peace being a place where everyone is feeling free of oppression and mental slavery? The word, "salaam", derived from shalom, refers to that time of day at dusk where it's quiet and everything's settling in for the night and the day's concerns are over, this was the special time that God uses for guiding humanity to peaceful conditions. Muhammadans make a mockery of peace every day and its not about honoring any god only known to one man but about God known to all men and women, clearly known all through the ages no matter what the culture or what the religious structure. Not any man, only God, can do this. Speak clearly to anyone at any time anywhere without need of self-selected human intercession.
XVIII18
Posts: 71
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2015 5:47:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/17/2015 5:41:11 PM, celestialtorahteacher wrote:
All through these boards where Muhammadans are posting one sees no Muhammadans talking about peace and how to achieve it even though they supposedly have a "religion of peace".

What is it about peace that so upsets Muhammadans? Is it due to peace being a place where everyone is feeling free of oppression and mental slavery? The word, "salaam", derived from shalom, refers to that time of day at dusk where it's quiet and everything's settling in for the night and the day's concerns are over, this was the special time that God uses for guiding humanity to peaceful conditions. Muhammadans make a mockery of peace every day and its not about honoring any god only known to one man but about God known to all men and women, clearly known all through the ages no matter what the culture or what the religious structure. Not any man, only God, can do this. Speak clearly to anyone at any time anywhere without need of self-selected human intercession.

Your western peace differs greatly from the peace Islamists speak about in their holy texts. Again, just because some people aren't always preaching about your favored peace does not mean they do not want it.
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2015 5:59:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Quite simply because Muhammad did *not* preach peace. They worship a man who built the religion of Islam on violence.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2015 9:51:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/17/2015 5:41:11 PM, celestialtorahteacher wrote:
All through these boards where Muhammadans are posting one sees no Muhammadans talking about peace and how to achieve it even though they supposedly have a "religion of peace".

What is it about peace that so upsets Muhammadans? Is it due to peace being a place where everyone is feeling free of oppression and mental slavery? The word, "salaam", derived from shalom, refers to that time of day at dusk where it's quiet and everything's settling in for the night and the day's concerns are over, this was the special time that God uses for guiding humanity to peaceful conditions. Muhammadans make a mockery of peace every day and its not about honoring any god only known to one man but about God known to all men and women, clearly known all through the ages no matter what the culture or what the religious structure. Not any man, only God, can do this. Speak clearly to anyone at any time anywhere without need of self-selected human intercession.

Why do Christians? Would you kill in self defense? Would you kill in war?
uncung
Posts: 3,453
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2015 10:12:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/17/2015 5:41:11 PM, celestialtorahteacher wrote:
All through these boards where Muhammadans are posting one sees no Muhammadans talking about peace and how to achieve it even though they supposedly have a "religion of peace".

What is it about peace that so upsets Muhammadans? Is it due to peace being a place where everyone is feeling free of oppression and mental slavery? The word, "salaam", derived from shalom, refers to that time of day at dusk where it's quiet and everything's settling in for the night and the day's concerns are over, this was the special time that God uses for guiding humanity to peaceful conditions. Muhammadans make a mockery of peace every day and its not about honoring any god only known to one man but about God known to all men and women, clearly known all through the ages no matter what the culture or what the religious structure. Not any man, only God, can do this. Speak clearly to anyone at any time anywhere without need of self-selected human intercession.

what do you want from us muslims?
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2015 11:14:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/17/2015 5:59:20 PM, Emilrose wrote:
Quite simply because Muhammad did *not* preach peace. They worship a man who built the religion of Islam on violence.

- Are you working for an Anti-Islamic corporation or something.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 4:07:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Poopoo's afraid now for Muhammadans to post responses to me because he knows I can rip Muhammadan arguments to shreds in seconds, them being so blatantly unspiritual and reeking of man-made violence and complete Gentile ripoff of my people's religious beliefs.

Still I have many Muslim friends and do respect them because they all are trying to be good people. But their religion sucks although Ahmadiyyahs have miraculously transformed Muhammad's words into a true religion of peace. (They are taught by their Messiah to ignore the violent satanic verses in Muhammad's book, the Quran and concentrate on the peaceful teachings).

I love the spiritual concept of "Islam" but the beginning revelation of it is as fatally flawed with man-made territorial politics of social control as our Mosaic Law was which no Jew can obey fully without landing in jail for such things as murder of one's child for smart-mouthing.
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 4:11:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I could have used some Mitzvot law for my uppity son actually..

Anyway, Muhammad clones, I don't hate you but I have no use for your idols, Muhammad and his book. Please stop being idolators in the 21st Century. It just makes you Muhammadans look like barbarians when you can't tell right from wrong and consistently side on violent men's rules instead of compassion and mercy for your fellow human beings.
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 8:31:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/17/2015 11:14:14 PM, YassineB wrote:
At 1/17/2015 5:59:20 PM, Emilrose wrote:
Quite simply because Muhammad did *not* preach peace. They worship a man who built the religion of Islam on violence.

- Are you working for an Anti-Islamic corporation or something.

Nope, just stating the facts. How exactly is attacking tribes and endorsing violence "preaching peace"? He is precisely where Islamic terrorists get their inspiration from.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
Fatihah
Posts: 7,741
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 8:43:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 8:31:15 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 1/17/2015 11:14:14 PM, YassineB wrote:
At 1/17/2015 5:59:20 PM, Emilrose wrote:
Quite simply because Muhammad did *not* preach peace. They worship a man who built the religion of Islam on violence.

- Are you working for an Anti-Islamic corporation or something.

Nope, just stating the facts. How exactly is attacking tribes and endorsing violence "preaching peace"? He is precisely where Islamic terrorists get their inspiration from.

Response: Neither the Qur'an or Sunnah says to kill an innocent person or attack first, but rather says not to fight those who are peaceful (8:61), there is no compulsion in religion (2:256) and clearly states how the non-Muslims attacked first (9:13). Thus the test and context of Islam shows that the Prophet fought in defense and to defend yourself from an attack is not an act against peace. It is a just act that restores peace.
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 11:03:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 8:31:15 AM, Emilrose wrote:
Nope, just stating the facts. How exactly is attacking tribes and endorsing violence "preaching peace"? He is precisely where Islamic terrorists get their inspiration from.

- Every time you bring that up, I falsify you. Why do you keep bringing it up?
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 11:13:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 11:03:06 AM, YassineB wrote:
At 1/18/2015 8:31:15 AM, Emilrose wrote:
Nope, just stating the facts. How exactly is attacking tribes and endorsing violence "preaching peace"? He is precisely where Islamic terrorists get their inspiration from.

- Every time you bring that up, I falsify you. Why do you keep bringing it up?

You have not falsified my once. You've barely given any counter-arguments and actually ignore most of my points.

I bring it up because I'm entitled to, and because it's a "fact". If you know what that is.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 11:18:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 11:13:36 AM, Emilrose wrote:
You have not falsified my once. You've barely given any counter-arguments and actually ignore most of my points.

- I went through all your points & thoroughly, with counter-arguments that made yours utterly false.

I bring it up because I'm entitled to, and because it's a "fact". If you know what that is.

- I like how you put 'fact' in quote-unquote! Because that's exactly what you do, you bring falsehoods, not facts.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 12:07:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 11:18:20 AM, YassineB wrote:
At 1/18/2015 11:13:36 AM, Emilrose wrote:
You have not falsified my once. You've barely given any counter-arguments and actually ignore most of my points.

- I went through all your points & thoroughly, with counter-arguments that made yours utterly false.

Liar, you didn't even provide any proper counter-arguments and most of what I said (about Abu Afak, etc) was completely unaddressed. Like the Israel debate you commented on, when you can't think of a response you just ignore points made.

I bring it up because I'm entitled to, and because it's a "fact". If you know what that is.

- I like how you put 'fact' in quote-unquote! Because that's exactly what you do, you bring falsehoods, not facts.

Nothing I have stated has been a "falsehood". It's correct that Muhammad used violence to expand Islam and that he had people killed.

Evidently you're just ignorant of your own religion.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 1:23:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/17/2015 11:14:14 PM, YassineB wrote:
At 1/17/2015 5:59:20 PM, Emilrose wrote:
Quite simply because Muhammad did *not* preach peace. They worship a man who built the religion of Islam on violence.

- Are you working for an Anti-Islamic corporation or something.

Can you give us an example of an "Anti-Islamic corporation" and why it is anti-Islamic?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 1:46:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/17/2015 5:47:49 PM, XVIII18 wrote:
At 1/17/2015 5:41:11 PM, celestialtorahteacher wrote:
All through these boards where Muhammadans are posting one sees no Muhammadans talking about peace and how to achieve it even though they supposedly have a "religion of peace".

What is it about peace that so upsets Muhammadans? Is it due to peace being a place where everyone is feeling free of oppression and mental slavery? The word, "salaam", derived from shalom, refers to that time of day at dusk where it's quiet and everything's settling in for the night and the day's concerns are over, this was the special time that God uses for guiding humanity to peaceful conditions. Muhammadans make a mockery of peace every day and its not about honoring any god only known to one man but about God known to all men and women, clearly known all through the ages no matter what the culture or what the religious structure. Not any man, only God, can do this. Speak clearly to anyone at any time anywhere without need of self-selected human intercession.

Your western peace differs greatly from the peace Islamists speak about in their holy texts. Again, just because some people aren't always preaching about your favored peace does not mean they do not want it.

What is a Isamist peace? Are Islamists at peace when woman have less rights ans there is no freedom of religion ?
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 2:04:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 8:43:36 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 1/18/2015 8:31:15 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 1/17/2015 11:14:14 PM, YassineB wrote:
At 1/17/2015 5:59:20 PM, Emilrose wrote:
Quite simply because Muhammad did *not* preach peace. They worship a man who built the religion of Islam on violence.

- Are you working for an Anti-Islamic corporation or something.

Nope, just stating the facts. How exactly is attacking tribes and endorsing violence "preaching peace"? He is precisely where Islamic terrorists get their inspiration from.

Response: Neither the Qur'an or Sunnah says to kill an innocent person or attack first, but rather says not to fight those who are peaceful (8:61), there is no compulsion in religion (2:256) and clearly states how the non-Muslims attacked first (9:13). Thus the test and context of Islam shows that the Prophet fought in defense and to defend yourself from an attack is not an act against peace. It is a just act that restores peace.

Fatihah, you post Muhammad's lies that "there is no compulsion in religion" which is nullified by Muhammad's demand that no one can worship God and will be put to death if they try except through Muhammad as self-appointed human being intercessor between believers and God. If this isn't the most obvious compulsion to believe in God only Muhammad's way, I don't know what to tell you Muhammadans other than what I do tell you with most every post: you are all IDOLATORS who have placed idol worship in place of worship of God. The idols are two: Muhammad and his book. These are not spiritual things but one a human being and the other his writings coming only from him as far as anyone outside can tell, Muhammadans themselves excluded from witnessing due to brainwashing erasing critical judgment in Muhammadan brains. We non-Evangelical Christians do not look to Evangelical idols for our spiritual guidance and neither should Muslims look to their idols for spiritual guidance. It's quite easy to see and judge what is of God and what isn't. Any set of words that contain commands to cut off your neighbor's head just because he won't believe in God your way is patently not of God but of some warped man's idea of using God for fascist enslavement which is what Muhammad and Muhammadism does to poor Muslims taught to swallow every single word from the IDOLS without question. Questioning is TABOO as all idols demand and Muhammadans look and act exactly like primitives raging after civilized people accidently knock over their wooden idol and they go berserk with rage and demand blood in revenge. Very immature people being made to stay that way by the severest of Abrahamic brainwashing, the stuffing of Muhammad's words into Muhammadan minds five times a day, quite enough to erase any ability to think critically about Muhammad. I'm sorry but until the IDOL is toppled from worship, Muhammadans are lesser human beings prone to violence without moral cause, only narcissistic egos who have never learned the schoolyard wisdom of children: "sticks and stones may break one's bones but words will never hurt you." They are air and that's all.
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 2:39:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 12:07:57 PM, Emilrose wrote:
Liar, you didn't even provide any proper counter-arguments and most of what I said (about Abu Afak, etc) was completely unaddressed. Like the Israel debate you commented on, when you can't think of a response you just ignore points made.

- I wrote 15,000 characters as a response, or have you just ignored it, & pretended it didn't happen.

Nothing I have stated has been a "falsehood". It's correct that Muhammad used violence to expand Islam and that he had people killed.

- I am loving how you put things in quote-unquote, says a lot about your motive :) , Except everything you said IS falsehood.

- Yes, he had people killed, you're making sound like killing is an inexistent phenomenon invented by Muhammad, or as it the people who were killed were innocent from crime.

Evidently you're just ignorant of your own religion.

- Says the LIAR jew.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 3:50:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Where is there any proof against Jews of crime or is "crime" not giving into Muhammad's demands?

Idol worshipers don't care about truth at all--only rationalizations for evil behavior commandments of primitive people and their primitive religious beliefs--always ready for violence against their neighbors as this is the mark of primitive human beings. They are savages because they act like savages. Even today this primitive savagery is given green light in Muhammadism and we should always expect Muhammadans to act savagely when they think they are cornered or their egos bruised one way or another, another mark of primitive people, macho behavior and no ability to deal with critics and criticism other than violently.
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 7:33:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 2:39:22 PM, YassineB wrote:
At 1/18/2015 12:07:57 PM, Emilrose wrote:
Liar, you didn't even provide any proper counter-arguments and most of what I said (about Abu Afak, etc) was completely unaddressed. Like the Israel debate you commented on, when you can't think of a response you just ignore points made.

- I wrote 15,000 characters as a response, or have you just ignored it, & pretended it didn't happen.

Oh, who's the liar now? I used more characters in the entire thread than you did. Instead of actually using any rebuttals or counter-arguments, the only things that you presented were accusations of liar, which does not count as an actual argument. You're the one who ignores my points, including the ones I made on the Israel debate last week, when you accused me of being part of the "JIDF".

You just ran away! There's a good reason why you won't debate things in a formal setting.

Nothing I have stated has been a "falsehood". It's correct that Muhammad used violence to expand Islam and that he had people killed.


- I am loving how you put things in quote-unquote, says a lot about your motive :) , Except everything you said IS falsehood.

In case you're not aware (maybe you didn't receive an education?), inadvertent commas are used when someone (example, you) state something. If you are quoting someone then you are grammatically required to use commas in the English language. Once again, your response is totally weak. Nothing I have stated is a falsehood as it directly quoted in your Islamic texts. You're a liar because you refuse to admit this, either that or you just don't know anything about your religion.

- Yes, he had people killed.

Oh! That's precisely what I've been stating all along and what you've accused me of being a "liar" for. The fact you've actually confessed entirely negates your argument and proves mine.

you're making sound like killing is an inexistent phenomenon invented by Muhammad, or as it the people who were killed were innocent from crime.


Nope, I'm stating that killing was committed by Muhammad which thus does not make him a peaceful person. Ibn Ishaq suggests that the reason Abu Afak was killed was because of satirical poetry written about Muhammad, how exactly does this classify as a "crime"? A 120 man writing a poem? Such an excuse is completely without validity. Moreover, why did he attack three Jewish tribes when the Hadiths state that they were ready to submit? Hmm? There was another old person he had killed as well, who was torn in half.

What a nice "prophet" ;)

Evidently you're just ignorant of your own religion.

- Says the LIAR jew.

Why do you feel the need to mention my religious identify? This sentence says a lot about what you actually think about the Jewish people and confirms how biased you are. You're a liar, but I haven't called you a "liar Muslim".
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 8:10:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 7:33:35 PM, Emilrose wrote:
Oh, who's the liar now? I used more characters in the entire thread than you did.

- Check: http://www.debate.org... - post: 107-108 <<< That's what I meant by 15,000 characters.

Instead of actually using any rebuttals or counter-arguments, the only things that you presented were accusations of liar, which does not count as an actual argument. You're the one who ignores my points, including the ones I made on the Israel debate last week, when you accused me of being part of the "JIDF".

- What I mean by liar is someone who tells lies repeatedly, maybe you have good intentions, maybe you're just ignorant of the facts. Nonetheless, what you say is false, & thus you're a liar since you kept on saying false things. If this upsets you, I won't call you a liar, & you too shouldn't keep giving false information.

- It wasn't an accusation, it was a suggestion.

You just ran away! There's a good reason why you won't debate things in a formal setting.

- I've tried my luck with zionists before, bad experience, I don't think that's a good idea. Unless you wanna debate me in something other than Israel, than I am open to it.

In case you're not aware (maybe you didn't receive an education?), inadvertent commas are used when someone (example, you) state something. If you are quoting someone then you are grammatically required to use commas in the English language. Once again, your response is totally weak.

- Obviously I know that, still, it's funny, because it works both ways.

Nothing I have stated is a falsehood as it directly quoted in your Islamic texts. You're a liar because you refuse to admit this, either that or you just don't know anything about your religion.

- You haven't referenced any of the stuff you said, you just went & looked for new quotes from an Islamic Text, & made conclusions upon them, which I refuted thereafter.

Oh! That's precisely what I've been stating all along and what you've accused me of being a "liar" for. The fact you've actually confessed entirely negates your argument and proves mine.

- Killing doesn't necessarily imply murder, Muhammad was the head of the State, the head of Judicature. The killings he ordered are in accordance with the Law, & so those that breach the Law, & tried & charged of High Treason or Murder are punished by the death penalty. If the death penalty takes place in the U.S. it doesn't mean the President is a murderer!!!

Nope, I'm stating that killing was committed by Muhammad which thus does not make him a peaceful person.

- You're shifting your position here, & you define peaceful as pacifist, it's not the same thing. If you mean by peaceful as in keeping the peace, then obviously Muhammad is peaceful, & I dare you to challenge that.

Ibn Ishaq suggests that the reason Abu Afak was killed was because of satirical poetry written about Muhammad, how exactly does this classify as a "crime"? A 120 man writing a poem? Such an excuse is completely without validity.

- Ibn Ishaq doesn't suggest, he reports. & I have written a full response to that report in: http://www.debate.org... - post: 107-108
- Plus, the 120 years claim was reported by al-Waq'di, (it's not in the original Ibn Ishaq), & it's a weak narration.

Moreover, why did he attack three Jewish tribes when the Hadiths state that they were ready to submit? Hmm? There was another old person he had killed as well, who was torn in half.

- The three jewish tribes had different stories, you are taking here about Banu Qurayza. Banu Qurayza betrayed Muhammad, joined the ranks of his enemies, while he was in siege, & then when the enemy went away, Muhammad sieged Banu Qurayza & then they 'submitted', then they asked that Muhammad leaves their fate with the Aws, their ally for long generations, & the leader of the Aws ordered their execution.

" At last, they surrendered themselves to the Holy Prophet on the condition that they would accept whatever decision Sa'd ibn Mu'adh, the chief of the Aus, would give. They had accepted Sa'd as their judge because in the pre-Islamic days the Aus and the Quraizah had been confederates and they hoped that in view of the past ties he would help them quit Madinah as had happened in the case of the Bani Qainuqa and the Bani an-Nadir before. The people of the Aus themselves wished that Sa'd treat their previous allies leniently. But Sa'd had just experienced and seen how the two Jewish tribes who had been allowed to leave Madinah previously had instigated the other tribes living around Madinah and summoned the united front of ten to twelve thousand men against the Muslims. He was also aware how treacherously this last Jewish tribe had behaved right on the occasion when the city was under attack from outside and threatened the safety of the whole of its population. Therefore, he decreed that all the male members of the Quraizah should be put to death, their women and children taken prisoners, and their properties distributed among the Muslims. The sentence was carried out duly. When the Muslims entered their strongholds they found that the treacherous people had collected 1,500 swords, 300 coats of mail, 2,000 spears and 1,500 shields in order to join the war. If Allah's succor had not reached the Muslims, all this military equipment would have been used to attack Madinah from the rear right at the time when the polytheists were making preparations for a general assault on the Muslims after crossing the Trench. After this disclosure there remained no doubt that the decision of Sa'd concerning those people was absolutely correct." [http://www.englishtafsir.com...]

- About the woman who was torn out, I wrote a full response as well: http://www.debate.org... - post: 108

What a nice "prophet" ;)

- Thanks.

Why do you feel the need to mention my religious identify? This sentence says a lot about what you actually think about the Jewish people and confirms how biased you are. You're a liar, but I haven't called you a "liar Muslim".

- Calm down, sorry :). I mentioned Jew because you claimed you knew better than me in Islam though you're a Jew!
- How would you know what I think about jewish people? I wouldn't make such a staggering generalisation from one person to an entire race & religion!!! On the contrary, we muslims believe in Judaism, & believe it's a true religion, & respect the people of the book.
- Why am I a liar then?
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 8:34:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago

- What I mean by liar is someone who tells lies repeatedly, maybe you have good intentions, maybe you're just ignorant of the facts. Nonetheless, what you say is false, & thus you're a liar since you kept on saying false things. If this upsets you, I won't call you a liar, & you too shouldn't keep giving false information.

- It wasn't an accusation, it was a suggestion.

It was an accusation, you did not suggest I was a "liar" but accused me of being one. By stating otherwise, you're the one that's lying.

You just ran away! There's a good reason why you won't debate things in a formal setting.

- I've tried my luck with zionists before, bad experience, I don't think that's a good idea. Unless you wanna debate me in something other than Israel, than I am open to it.

Oh, could that be because they won by any chance? Most likely you just couldn't provide any rebuttals or credible counter-arguments of your own. IF you were that assured you were right about Israel, then you'd have no issue in debating the topic.

After all, wouldn't be a form of support to all the oppressed Palestinians?

In case you're not aware (maybe you didn't receive an education?), inadvertent commas are used when someone (example, you) state something. If you are quoting someone then you are grammatically required to use commas in the English language. Once again, your response is totally weak.

- Obviously I know that, still, it's funny, because it works both ways.

Then why state another reason for why I use inadvertent commas?

Nothing I have stated is a falsehood as it directly quoted in your Islamic texts. You're a liar because you refuse to admit this, either that or you just don't know anything about your religion.

- You haven't referenced any of the stuff you said, you just went & looked for new quotes from an Islamic Text, & made conclusions upon them, which I refuted thereafter.

Yes I did. Both the chapter and verse/comment numbers were referenced. You have not refuted anything as I know exactly what Ibn Ishaq wrote about Abu Afak (as well as the Jewish and Arab tribes that were violently attacked by Muhammad.

Oh! That's precisely what I've been stating all along and what you've accused me of being a "liar" for. The fact you've actually confessed entirely negates your argument and proves mine.

- Killing doesn't necessarily imply murder, Muhammad was the head of the State, the head of Judicature. The killings he ordered are in accordance with the Law, & so those that breach the Law, & tried & charged of High Treason or Murder are punished by the death penalty. If the death penalty takes place in the U.S. it doesn't mean the President is a murderer!!!

As Muhammad ordered for people to be killed, that thus makes him a murderer. The killings he ordered were not in accordance with any law as they were against innocent parties. Such as unarmed tribes and old men. The president analogy totally fails.

Nope, I'm stating that killing was committed by Muhammad which thus does not make him a peaceful person.

- You're shifting your position here, & you define peaceful as pacifist, it's not the same thing. If you mean by peaceful as in keeping the peace, then obviously Muhammad is peaceful, & I dare you to challenge that.

Nope, Muhammad caused violence so did not keep any peace.

Ibn Ishaq suggests that the reason Abu Afak was killed was because of satirical poetry written about Muhammad, how exactly does this classify as a "crime"? A 120 man writing a poem? Such an excuse is completely without validity.

- Ibn Ishaq doesn't suggest, he reports. & I have written a full response to that report in: http://www.debate.org... - post: 107-108
- Plus, the 120 years claim was reported by al-Waq'di, (it's not in the original Ibn Ishaq), & it's a weak narration.

That's gonna get destroyed soon ;)

Moreover, why did he attack three Jewish tribes when the Hadiths state that they were ready to submit? Hmm? There was another old person he had killed as well, who was torn in half.

- The three jewish tribes had different stories, you are taking here about Banu Qurayza. Banu Qurayza betrayed Muhammad, joined the ranks of his enemies, while he was in siege, & then when the enemy went away, Muhammad sieged Banu Qurayza & then they 'submitted', then they asked that Muhammad leaves their fate with the Aws, their ally for long generations, & the leader of the Aws ordered their execution.

No, Muhammad ordered their execution.

" At last, they surrendered themselves to the Holy Prophet on the condition that they would accept whatever decision Sa'd ibn Mu'adh, the chief of the Aus, would give. They had accepted Sa'd as their judge because in the pre-Islamic days the Aus and the Quraizah had been confederates and they hoped that in view of the past ties he would help them quit Madinah as had happened in the case of the Bani Qainuqa and the Bani an-Nadir before. The people of the Aus themselves wished that Sa'd treat their previous allies leniently. But Sa'd had just experienced and seen how the two Jewish tribes who had been allowed to leave Madinah previously had instigated the other tribes living around Madinah and summoned the united front of ten to twelve thousand men against the Muslims. He was also aware how treacherously this last Jewish tribe had behaved right on the occasion when the city was under attack from outside and threatened the safety of the whole of its population. Therefore, he decreed that all the male members of the Quraizah should be put to death, their women and children taken prisoners, and their properties distributed among the Muslims. The sentence was carried out duly. When the Muslims entered their strongholds they found that the treacherous people had collected 1,500 swords, 300 coats of mail, 2,000 spears and 1,500 shields in order to join the war. If Allah's succor had not reached the Muslims, all this military equipment would have been used to attack Madinah from the rear right at the time when the polytheists were making preparations for a general assault on the Muslims after crossing the Trench. After this disclosure there remained no doubt that the decision of Sa'd concerning those people was absolutely correct." [http://www.englishtafsir.com...]

Again, they were unarmed upon attack and the reason for their killing was the fact they had rejected Muhammad.

- About the woman who was torn out, I wrote a full response as well: http://www.debate.org... - post: 108

What a nice "prophet" ;)

- Thanks.


It's not compliment. You have a pedophile and a murderer, as well as a totally false prophet.

Why do you feel the need to mention my religious identify? This sentence says a lot about what you actually think about the Jewish people and confirms how biased you are. You're a liar, but I haven't called you a "liar Muslim".

- Calm down, sorry :). I mentioned Jew because you claimed you knew better than me in Islam though you're a Jew!

No you didn't. You mentioned Jews because you have a bias. Which is hence why you also accused me of being part of the "JIDF".

- How would you know what I think about jewish people? I wouldn't make such a staggering generalisation from one person to an entire race & religion!!!

Of course you wouldn't.

On the contrary, we muslims believe in Judaism, & believe it's a true religion, & respect the people of the book.
- Why am I a liar then

You're a liar because you've falsely accused me of being a "liar" and have continuously denied the real reasons as to why Muhammad attacked Jewish and Arab tribes and why Abu Afak was killed, which I can easily prove yo
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 9:04:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Murder of Abu Afak:

I'll just briefly outline that this is the actual reason (unlike what the user YassineB has argued) the Jewish man Abu Afak was killed:

Abu was an old man reported to be 120 years, he was a member of the Jewish tribe "Banu Ubayda. As has been totally disregarded by the above user, his official creed was actually poetry (thus supporting my argument.)

Abu refused to believe that Muhammad was a prophet and was said to be in dismay over his murder (yep, another killing) of al-Harith bin Suwayd bin Samit, this was one of the main reasons in his writing of a poem on Muhammad.

The event of his murder and why it occurred is all outlined by Ibn Ishaq is "Sirat Rasul Allah", the biography of Muhammad.

It states:

"Abu Afak was one of the B. Amr b. Auf of the B. Ubayda clan. He showed his disaffection when the apostle killed al-Harith b. Suwayd b. Samit and said:"

(Abu Afaks poem)

"Long have I lived but never have I seen
An assembly or collection of people
More faithful to their undertaking
And their allies when called upon
Than the sons of Qayla* when they assembled,
Men who overthrew mountains and never submitted,
A rider who came to them split them in two (saying)
"Permitted," "Forbidden," of all sorts of things.
Had you believed in glory or kingship
You would have followed Tubba."


This particular passage by Ibn Ishaq further states:

"The apostle said, 'Who will deal with this rascal for me?' Whereupon Salim b. 'Umayr, brother of B. 'Amr b. 'Auf, one of the 'weepers', went forth and killed him. Umama b. Muzayriya said concerning that":

"You gave the lie to God's religion and the man Muhammad!
By him who was your father, evil is the son he produced!
A hanif gave you a thrust in the night saying
"Take that Abu 'Afak in spite of your age!"
Though I knew whether it was man or jinn
Who slew you in the dead of night."


The story is also highlighted in Kitab al Tabaqat al Kabir (11:31)

"Then occurred the sariyyah of Salim Ibn Umayr al-Amri against Abu Afak, the Jew, in [month] Shawwal in the beginning of the twentieth month from the hijrah [when they went to Mecca/Medina], of the Apostle of Allah. Abu Afak, was from Banu Amr Ibn Awf, and was an old man who had attained the age of one hundred and twenty years. He was a Jew, and used to instigate the people against the Apostle of Allah, and composed (satirical) verses about Muhammad."

Salim Ibn Umayr (one of his killers) stated this:

"I take a vow that I shall either kill Abu Afak or die before him." He waited for an opportunity until a hot night came, and Abu Afak slept in an open place. Salim Ibn Umayr knew it, so he placed the sword on his liver and pressed it till it reached his bed. The enemy of Allah screamed and the people who were his followers, rushed to him, took him to his house and interred him."

Therefore, the argument that Abu Afak' was killed only because of aligning with another side (the excuse that is presented in all YB's posts), he was killed because he refused to follow Muhammad and wrote a poem about him. This is something that one cannot deny as the poem is explicitly referred to.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 9:05:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 8:34:28 PM, Emilrose wrote:
It was an accusation, you did not suggest I was a "liar" but accused me of being one. By stating otherwise, you're the one that's lying.

- I was talking about the JIDF part.

Oh, could that be because they won by any chance? Most likely you just couldn't provide any rebuttals or credible counter-arguments of your own. IF you were that assured you were right about Israel, then you'd have no issue in debating the topic.

- Nah, not really. It was because they usually had dogmatic positions, & thus arguments didn't work. & even for those that argue, it usually ends up two ways:
> 'Yeah, but the Holocaust'
> 'Yeah, but the IDF said'
=> & so I gave up.

After all, wouldn't be a form of support to all the oppressed Palestinians?

- You mean to say a debate on a website may help Palestinians?!

Then why state another reason for why I use inadvertent commas?

- It's like a pun, only with quotes, that's why it's funny.

Yes I did. Both the chapter and verse/comment numbers were referenced.

- NO you didn't, & I asked for them constantly & you still haven't provided the chapter/verse.

You have not refuted anything as I know exactly what Ibn Ishaq wrote about Abu Afak (as well as the Jewish and Arab tribes that were violently attacked by Muhammad.

- I did, check the link where I responded to you, which you haven't responded to up till now.

As Muhammad ordered for people to be killed, that thus makes him a murderer. The killings he ordered were not in accordance with any law as they were against innocent parties. Such as unarmed tribes and old men. The president analogy totally fails.

- The problem with that claim is the non-veracity of 'innocent parties'. & I proved thoroughly that they are not innocent.

Nope, Muhammad caused violence so did not keep any peace.

- What's your proof?

That's gonna get destroyed soon ;)

- What?!

No, Muhammad ordered their execution.

- You sure, because you claim to have read Ibn Ishaq' & then you say stuff that are opposite to what he reports!

Again, they were unarmed upon attack and the reason for their killing was the fact they had rejected Muhammad.

- You mean to say they weren't executed because of High Treason? If so, why is it that Ibn Ishaq said so? If you wish to reject the Treason of Banu Qurayza in the account of Ishaq, then why accept the account of their execution?
- Now, just answer me strait: did Banu Qurayza commit High Treason, yes or no? If either, why do you think so?

It's not compliment. You have a pedophile and a murderer, as well as a totally false prophet.

- You are aware you're a jew, such claims don't hold much water if done but someone who believes in Judaism.

No you didn't. You mentioned Jews because you have a bias. Which is hence why you also accused me of being part of the "JIDF".

- I didn't accuse you, no you're accusing me of being bias by speculating on what I said.

Of course you wouldn't.

- Of course.

You're a liar because you've falsely accused me of being a "liar" and have continuously denied.

- The fact that you lied repeatedly is a FACT, & I have thoroughly proved it.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 9:29:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 9:04:44 PM, Emilrose wrote:
Murder of Abu Afak
- Copied/pasted from Wiki, :) .

=> Rebuttal:

* The unsourced mentions in my text can be found in Ibn Ishaq.

- Abu Afak was definitely not killed because he wrote satirical poetry, & that's because:

1- If that were true, then all those that composed poetry against Muhammad or insulted him would"ve also suffered the same fate, or else what"s the point of shutting one person & leaving thousands others!!!

2- Abu Afak along with Kab Ibn Ashraf were the two jews that were ordered by the Prophet to be killed.
> The latter was killed because he allied with Quraysh to attack Muhammad, signed a treaty with them to that effect, plotted to kill him (with other jews), insulted him, insulted his companions, insulted the muslim women. . . while his tribe was under the Constitution of Medina & thus he was charged with high treason.
> The former, we don't know much about, expect that he too was among those that publicly & politically incited the jews against Muhammad & the muslims ; & we know that he also composed poetry for that purpose, especially when one of his clan members, al-Harith Ibn Suwayd (an ex-jew from the Bani "Awf who became muslim), was tried for murder (of al-Mujdir Ibn Zyad a muslim who killed his father before Islam) and punished for it (death penalty). Abu Afak was from the clan of Bani "Awf, one of the jewish clans that signed the Constitution of Medina with Muhammad, which states:
>> " The Jews of Bani Awf will be treated as one community with the Believers. They shall be guaranteed the right of religious freedom along with the Muslims. The right shall be conferred on their associates as well as themselves except those who are guilty of oppression or the violators of treaties. They will bring evil only on themselves and their family."
=> & thus by Analogy, the killing of Abu Afak suggest that he did as much harm as Kab Ibn Ashraf, or was one those that plotted to attack Medina.

3- All the killings the Prophet ordered (which number 10, 4 took place & 6 were pardoned) concern High Treason, such as:
> Ibn Khatal a muslim who was sent with another by the Prophet to Mecca, when they were at the middle of the road Ibn Khatal killed his companion, apostatised & fled to Mecca.
> Maqis Ibn Subaba who had a muslim brother that was killed by accident by another muslim, so he came to the Prophet, pretended to be a muslim, asked for blood-money & when the Prophet paid him, he went & killed the one that killed his brother anyway.

4- Muhammad didn't order the killing of any person outside Medina (not under the Constitution of Medina), even those that plotted against him or insulted him.
+ Eg. : Quraysh, Ghatafan, Thaqif. . . none of the citizens of these tribes was killed, except those that were once under the covenant of Muhammad & fled, like: Ibn Khatal, & Maqis. <<< which indicates that the killings have to do necessarily with High Treason against the state (the Constitution of Medina), & have nothing to do with poetry.

5- There were other jews & non-jews who did much more than insult the Prophet & they weren"t punished, such as:
> Lubayd Ibn al-Asam a jewish man who casted a spell on the Prophet which affected his memory, he wasn't punished at all.
> Uqbah Ib Abi Waqqas, Malik Ibn Sinan & Abdulallh Ibn Qamiah: the three that injured Muhammad cracked his skull & broke his jaw in the battle of Uhud, they weren't punished: the first survived & when Muhammad conquered Mecca he pardoned him, the second became a muslim, & the third died of disease.
> Safwan Ibn Umayyah one of the foremost enemies of Muhammad, he insulted him, attempted to assassinate him, incited an army of Quraysh against him (Uhud), killed allies of Muhammad while under Treaty . . . & even after all that, when the Prophet conquered Mecca, Safwan fled & Muhammad sent for him to come back for he is pardoned.
> Hind bint Utbah, she was one of the harshest public advocates against Muhammad, she participated in battle against him, paid a slave to kill his uncle (in Uhud), mutilated his body & chewed his liver. . . When the Prophet conquered Mecca she too was pardoned.
> Zayd Ibn Sana a jew who loaned the Prophet some money for a term, then demanded the immediate return of the loan a few days before the term, he tugged at the mantle around the Prophet"s shoulders, & jibed that the progeny of Abd Al-Muttalib (grandfather to the Prophet) were always defaulters. Umar not being able to tolerate this misbehaviour on the part of the Jew, started berating him, and was on the point of beating him when the Prophet said to the Jew, smiling: "There are still three days to go before the promise has to be fulfilled." & to Umar he said: "We might have had better treatment from you. You could have advised me to be more careful about the return of loans and you could have advised the Jew to be more courteous in demanding repayment." He then requested Umar to get some dates so that the loan could be repaid, and to give the Jew an extra forty kilograms for the rebuke he had been given. [^ash-Shamayl #233]
=> Here is a clear example of how Muhammad does not punish people for offending him, rather for breaking the Law (or the Constitution): Zaynab bint Al-Harith a jewish woman who poisoned a lamp cooked it & offered it to Muhammad with his companions, when he realised it was poisoned some of his companions already took bites from it. Zaynab was pardoned then, even though she attempted to kill Muhammad, for there was no real harm done. However, after a while & when one of the companions who ate from the lamb died from its poison, she then received the death penalty as retribution.
=> Another clear example of the Prophet's policy is that of Abdullah ibn Ubayy one of the chiefs of Medina & a traitor who was actively opposing Muhammad & inciting some people against him, but Muhammad never harmed him, on the opposite he generally honoured him, because his actions never actually caused real harm to the state of Medina. Umar reported: When Abdullah bin Ubayy died, the Prophet was called upon to offer his funeral prayer. When he stood up to offer the prayer, I got up quickly and said, "O Allah's Apostle! Are you going to pray for Ibn Ubayy and he said so and so on such and such occasions?" And started mentioning all that he had said. The Prophet smiled and said, "O Umar! Go away from me." When I talked too much he said, "I have been given the choice and so I have chosen (to offer the prayer). Had I known that he would be forgiven by asking for Allah's forgiveness for more than seventy times, surely I would have done so." [^al-Bukhari #1366]

5- The character of Muhammad as seen through his Biography & the Legacy he left (the Qur'an, the Hadith, & the Companions) completely contradict the alleged acts of violence, even the soft type, let alone the extreme type such as killing for no reason. I'll just give three examples of his character:
> "I saw the Prophet talking about one of the prophets whose nation had beaten him and caused him to bleed, while he (Muhammad) was cleaning the blood off his face and saying, "O Allah! Forgive my people, for they do not know"" (at the battle of Uhud when he was severely injured) [^al-Bukhari 3477]
> When Muhammad conquered Mecca where all his life long enemies live, he said to them (Quraysh):
"I speak to you in the same words as Joseph spoke to his brothers. This day there is no reproof against you; Go your way, for you are free."

6- The Islamic Law that is based on the Qur'an & the authentic Hadith do not allow such actions, so it's absurd to think that the one whose words & actions are the Law (for muslims) can act & say things that are not in the Law which he set.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 9:40:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 9:05:15 PM, YassineB wrote:
At 1/18/2015 8:34:28 PM, Emilrose wrote:
It was an accusation, you did not suggest I was a "liar" but accused me of being one. By stating otherwise, you're the one that's lying.

- I was talking about the JIDF part.

A (false) group invented only to those who seek to undermine those who support Israel.

Oh, could that be because they won by any chance? Most likely you just couldn't provide any rebuttals or credible counter-arguments of your own. IF you were that assured you were right about Israel, then you'd have no issue in debating the topic.

- Nah, not really. It was because they usually had dogmatic positions, & thus arguments didn't work. & even for those that argue, it usually ends up two ways:
> 'Yeah, but the Holocaust'
> 'Yeah, but the IDF said'
=> & so I gave up.

No, it's more like you could not find valid arguments of your own. If they're arguments only revolved around the Holocaust or what "the IDF said", then they're not exactly taking dogmatic positions and it should not be hard for you to provide a decent counter-argument.

After all, wouldn't be a form of support to all the oppressed Palestinians?

- You mean to say a debate on a website may help Palestinians?!

No, but you'd be expressing your "support" in more than a forum. My point is that if your views are so strong about Israel, then technically you should be up for a debate. Fact is though there's little credible evidence to support your position.

Then why state another reason for why I use inadvertent commas?

- It's like a pun, only with quotes, that's why it's funny.

No pun, it was only the direct quotation of your points; such as me being a "liar".

Yes I did. Both the chapter and verse/comment numbers were referenced.

- NO you didn't, & I asked for them constantly & you still haven't provided the chapter/verse.

They were! The argument I've just posted now for example has included the Chapter and verse number. When I provided them to the other argument, you just came up with the same excuses and allegations such as "out of context", "fabricated", "liar". Once again you denied their meaning and continued with lying.

You have not refuted anything as I know exactly what Ibn Ishaq wrote about Abu Afak (as well as the Jewish and Arab tribes that were violently attacked by Muhammad.

- I did, check the link where I responded to you, which you haven't responded to up till now.

Oh, it's responded to. [check this thread] I have a bunch of notifications when I log on.

As Muhammad ordered for people to be killed, that thus makes him a murderer. The killings he ordered were not in accordance with any law as they were against innocent parties. Such as unarmed tribes and old men. The president analogy totally fails.

- The problem with that claim is the non-veracity of 'innocent parties'. & I proved thoroughly that they are not innocent.

You proved nothing, and what you did state I have totally negated. How is writing a poem a "crime" or "not being innocent"? Or the old woman that was cut in half for example, what exactly was she not "innocent" of? The only thing she was doing was escaping Muhammad's militants.

Nope, Muhammad caused violence so did not keep any peace.

- What's your proof?

Technically, for him to commit murder (something classified as a violent act) he was not "keeping peace". He ordered the killings of innocent people therefore his actions are the opposite of peaceful. I'll state again that they were innocent, unlike you continue to fallaciously claim. Muhammad conquered the cities of Mecca and Medina not by "keeping peace" (as YOU claim), but by using violent force. This is precisely how Islam was developed and how it gained its followers.

That's gonna get destroyed soon ;)

- What?!

Check the my recent post, all your false accusations against Abu Afak' have been responded to and negated. This man merely refused to accept Muhammad as a prophet, along with his poem that is why he got brutally murdered.

No, Muhammad ordered their execution.

- You sure, because you claim to have read Ibn Ishaq' & then you say stuff that are opposite to what he reports!

It's a fact, who was it who ordered for the entire men of the Banu Qurayza tribe to be beheaded? He is the one that ordered the attacks and he is the one that executed people from these groups.

Again, they were unarmed upon attack and the reason for their killing was the fact they had rejected Muhammad.

- You mean to say they weren't executed because of High Treason? If so, why is it that Ibn Ishaq said so? If you wish to reject the Treason of Banu Qurayza in the account of Ishaq, then why accept the account of their execution?
- Now, just answer me strait: did Banu Qurayza commit High Treason, yes or no? If either, why do you think so?

As stated, Banu Qurayza would've submitted. When they were attacked it was completely unprovoked and they were posing no military threat. What is the justification for having 900 men killed? More importantly, why did Muhammad then enslave the women and children? I also pointed out how their property was stolen.

It's not compliment. You have a pedophile and a murderer, as well as a totally false prophet.

- You are aware you're a jew, such claims don't hold much water if done but someone who believes in Judaism.

We don't have false prophets. As for pedophilia and murder, the topic is about Muhammad.

No you didn't. You mentioned Jews because you have a bias. Which is hence why you also accused me of being part of the "JIDF".

- I didn't accuse you, no you're accusing me of being bias by speculating on what I said.

It's obvious you have bias by accusing me that I was part of the "JIDF", this and your additional posts on Israel confirm that you have a bias.

Of course you wouldn't.

- Of course.

You're a liar because you've falsely accused me of being a "liar" and have continuously denied.

- The fact that you lied repeatedly is a FACT, & I have thoroughly proved it.

No it is NOT. The only thing you have repeatedly proved is that [1.] you're a liar and [2.] you have no valid counter-arguments. Literally the only things you can respond with a "liar" (which I've shown I'm not) and that my arguments are "fabricated" (which I've shown they're not.)

You're gonna have to work a bit harder.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 9:44:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 9:40:42 PM, Emilrose wrote:

- Let's cut to the chase, & let's make a debate about these so called violent acts of Muhammad.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 9:46:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 9:44:30 PM, YassineB wrote:
At 1/18/2015 9:40:42 PM, Emilrose wrote:

- Let's cut to the chase, & let's make a debate about these so called violent acts of Muhammad.

Oh, you mean you'll actually debate? Sure.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 9:50:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 9:46:06 PM, Emilrose wrote:
At 1/18/2015 9:44:30 PM, YassineB wrote:
At 1/18/2015 9:40:42 PM, Emilrose wrote:

- Let's cut to the chase, & let's make a debate about these so called violent acts of Muhammad.

Oh, you mean you'll actually debate? Sure.

- Not about Israel, about this topic Abu Afac & such.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.