freediver
Gold Member
Offline
www.ozpolitic.com
Posts: 50566
At my desk.
|
mothra wrote on Mar 31 st, 2017 at 9:59am: freediver wrote on Mar 31 st, 2017 at 7:39am: mothra wrote on Mar 29 th, 2017 at 9:13pm: freediver wrote on Mar 29 th, 2017 at 7:55pm: mothra wrote on Mar 29 th, 2017 at 6:25pm: freediver wrote on Mar 29 th, 2017 at 6:06pm: mothra wrote on Mar 29 th, 2017 at 5:51pm: freediver wrote on Mar 29 th, 2017 at 5:32pm: Quote:It was ordained when Muslims were a targeted and persecuted minority. Crap. Muhammad preached peace and tolerance when Muslims were a minority. He preached rape and pillage as soon as they gained enough military strength. Overly siplistic, as no doubt Karnal and Gandalf have told you many, many times. At the time this Surah was ordained, the Muslims had left Mecca where they were persecuted, to arrive in Medina. The Meccans sent an army after them. The small settlement of Muslims in Medina were under siege conditions. The only option for the Muslims was to either accept domination or fight for their beliefs. The Meccans sent an army after them because Muhammad was using Medina as a base from which to rob Meccan caravans. The "accept domination" schtick is BS. The Meccans wanted to stop Muhammad robbing caravans. After one battle that they won, the went back to Mecca rather than pressing their advantage because they thought Muhammad was dead and that would be the end of it. It was not the culture at the time for one religion to dominate another. Muhammad introduced that. It was literally a multicultural and multireligious society. Had they not been beholden to a giant douchebag, they would have seen the clear option of not robbing Meccan caravans. Alas, you probably believe all of that. An oft cited claim of anti-Muslim hate sites. History tells a different story though. The Muslims sought to raid caravans to disrupt the enemies war making capabilities. Mohammed preached against plundering and stopped them. How many times has Gandalf tried to explain this to you? So, they spent ten years robbing Meccan caravans in an attempt to stop the Meccans from retaliating over the constant caravan raiding? Or was it a grand scheme by the Muslims so they could later attack Mecca? Muhammad did not preach against plundering. He lead the plundering. Again, you prove to be wrong on every single count Mothra. Where on earth did you pull 10 years from? The Muslims went to Medina in 622. The first raid on Medina was in 623, and there were other skirmishes. The Battle of Badr itself was in was in early 624. 10 years? Not even close. The raids were to interrupt the war-making capabilities and to interrupt Quraish trade routes that were passing too close to Medina. But listen FD, if they were plundering, would it not be justified? As the Meccans had seized all of their property an wealth and sold off everything they seized for financial benefit? But anyway, i digress. There are several Hadiths that refer specifically to plundering: The thief is not a believer while he is stealing. The plunderer is not a believer while he is plundering and the people are watching him.Source: Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī2343 Whoever plunders the wealth of others is not one of us.Source: Sunan al-Tirmidhī 1123 Whoever is notorious for plunder is not one of us.Source: Sunan Abī Dāwūd 4391 Verily, plunder is unlawful.Source: Sunan Ibn Mājah 3938 Yes Mothra we know Muhammad was a hypocrit. He robbed Meccan caravans when he was poor. When he was rich he started cutting the hands and feet of thieves. I think they even decided highway robbery should attract the death penalty. The raids were to steal stuff, pure and simple. At the time the idea of going to war was ludicrous. Muhammad had no army. He eventually used the thievery to make one. And WTF is this BS about "passing too close to Medina"? Is that like saying you broke into a car because it was parked too close to your house? You're sure of that, are you FD? As sure as you were when you said Mohammed was raiding caravans for 10 years before the battle of Badr? LOL! Face it, your understanding of Mohammed is as sophisticated as your understanding of Islam ... that is, not very. You should broaden your horizons. You should take note of the level of general intelligence of those that agree with you FD. Let that be your first clue. As for the comparison to breaking into a car that is parked too close to your property, well that's just absurd. A non sequitur. I'll leave it with to work out why. It shouldn't take you long. As for your shifting the goal posts again (as you did when proved that there was no ordinance for executing apostates in the Quran) by bringing up cutting off hands and feet, you once again show your bias and your ignorance. I urge you to read: http://misconceptions-about-islam.com/cut-off-hands-theft.htmBut i'll leave you with this: Quran 5:38: "As to the thief, Male or female, cut off his or her hands: a punishment by way of example, from Allah, for their crime: and Allah is Exalted in power."Quran 5:39 "But whoever repents after his wrongdoing and reforms, indeed, Allah will turn to him in forgiveness. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful."
|
Forum
Pages: 
