Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Poll Poll
Question: Should Israel Take Compensation From Germany

No. Nazis stole stuff fair and square    
  0 (0.0%)
No. It seems too Islamic    
  0 (0.0%)
Yes. People have a right to compensation    
  5 (83.3%)
No. Jews should let bygones be bygones    
  1 (16.7%)
No. People should be free to persecute minorities    
  0 (0.0%)




Total votes: 6
« Last Modified by: True Colours on: Aug 2nd, 2013 at 4:05pm »

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... 12
Send Topic Print
Muhammed the thief (Read 38490 times)
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Muhammed the thief
Reply #75 - Jul 31st, 2013 at 8:18pm
 
freediver wrote on Jul 31st, 2013 at 8:05pm:
Gandalf, Baron's link has Muhammed's last raid in 632, the year of his death. I was one year out, you were 200. So who should be embarrassed?


Don't be silly. You didn't say he had been caravan robbing for 10 years, you said the Meccans had ignored his raiding for 10 years. They didn't - they launched their first invasion of Medina less than 1 year after the raiding began - not 10 years later.

freediver wrote on Jul 31st, 2013 at 8:05pm:
. He made no apparent attempt to lift standards.


Apart from the whole rules of warfare thing.
Back to top
 

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 50662
At my desk.
Re: Muhammed the thief
Reply #76 - Jul 31st, 2013 at 9:49pm
 
Quote:
They didn't - they launched their first invasion of Medina less than 1 year after the raiding began


Can you explain why you use the word "invasion" to describe a caravan travelling to Mecca?
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Baronvonrort
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 19469
Gender: male
Re: Muhammed the thief
Reply #77 - Jul 31st, 2013 at 9:55pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 31st, 2013 at 8:18pm:
freediver wrote on Jul 31st, 2013 at 8:05pm:
. He made no apparent attempt to lift standards.


Apart from the whole rules of warfare thing.


The Book of Jihad by Ibn Nuhaas says male POW are to be executed all their wealth can be stolen and the remaining women and children can be sold into slavery.

Are muslims proud of The Book of Jihad by Ibn Nuhaas which outlines all these rules?

Thread here with a link to download the book-
www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1295682624
Back to top
 

Leftists and the Ayatollahs have a lot in common when it comes to criticism of Islam, they don't tolerate it.
 
IP Logged
 
True Colours
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2837
Gender: male
Re: Muhammed the thief
Reply #78 - Aug 1st, 2013 at 7:30am
 
Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 31st, 2013 at 9:55pm:
[quote author=gandalf link=1374276604/75#75 date=1375265917]

The Book of Jihad by Ibn Nuhaas says male POW are to be executed all their wealth can be stolen and the remaining women and children can be sold into slavery.

Are muslims proud of The Book of Jihad by Ibn Nuhaas which outlines all these rules?

Thread here with a link to download the book-
www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1295682624


Wrong. The book says that the leader of the Muslims should do what is in the best interests of the Muslims - and this includes the option to free POWs in order to create goodwill between Muslims and their enemies.

The book even goes on to say that a Muslim who unlawfully kills a POW can be punished:

Quote:
If a Muslim kills a POW, the Amir [commander] has the right to punish him by Ta’zeer...[this means the commander has several options in punishment including jailing or lashing]




What is the secular Western way of dealing with the enemy? Shall we take Hiroshima and Nagasaki as the standard? Perhaps the napalming of villagers?

The Western way of doing war:


...

...

...

...

...



...


...


...
Back to top
« Last Edit: Aug 1st, 2013 at 7:37am by True Colours »  
 
IP Logged
 
Yadda
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 22264
A cat with a view
Re: Muhammed the thief
Reply #79 - Aug 1st, 2013 at 9:45am
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 31st, 2013 at 8:18pm:
freediver wrote on Jul 31st, 2013 at 8:05pm:
Gandalf, Baron's link has Muhammed's last raid in 632, the year of his death. I was one year out, you were 200. So who should be embarrassed?


Don't be silly. You didn't say he had been caravan robbing for 10 years, you said the Meccans had ignored his raiding for 10 years. They didn't - they launched their first invasion of Medina less than 1 year after the raiding began - not 10 years later.

freediver wrote on Jul 31st, 2013 at 8:05pm:
. He made no apparent attempt to lift standards.



Apart from the whole rules of warfare thing.








Mohammed didn't give a damn about the welfare of infidels in combat areas.

Mohammed's 'rules of warfare thing' was;

Don't damage the war booty.



Yadda wrote on Aug 25th, 2009 at 10:41am:

"During some of the Ghazawat of Allah's Apostle a woman was found killed, so Allah's Apostle forbade the killing of women and children."

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith...

On the face of it, "...Allah's Apostle forbade the killing of women and children."

But those verses do not infer, or reveal,
the motive/reason
, for that 'prohibition'.

I suggest that we should seek out those motives!







For some deeper understanding of this whole issue [the 'welfare' of non-combatants], let us read some further Hadith verses, related to this issue,

"The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." "

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith...

Here, clearly, Mohammed expressed no care, whatsoever, for the 'welfare', or safety, of those non-combatants [women and children, who were non-moslems].


Back to top
 

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31
 
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Muhammed the thief
Reply #80 - Aug 1st, 2013 at 11:14am
 
Yadda wrote on Aug 1st, 2013 at 9:45am:
Mohammed didn't give a damn about the welfare of infidels in combat areas.


Abu answered your smear pretty well in the thread you linked. Basically, when civilians are used as human shields, the responsibility for any subsequent collateral deaths is on the people using them a human shields.

this is gold:

Abu wrote:
Quote:
Funny how the texts you think support your view are clear Islamic texts and sources, whilst those which don't support your view are just lies and half truths. It seems the Islamic texts only tell the truth when they say what you want them to say.


to which Yadda replied:

Quote:
True.


Back to top
 

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
Yadda
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 22264
A cat with a view
Re: Muhammed the thief
Reply #81 - Aug 1st, 2013 at 11:38am
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 1st, 2013 at 11:14am:
Yadda wrote on Aug 1st, 2013 at 9:45am:
Mohammed didn't give a damn about the welfare of infidels in combat areas.


Abu answered your smear pretty well in the thread you linked. Basically,

when civilians are used as human shields, the responsibility for any subsequent collateral deaths is on the people using them a human shields.





gandalf,

It seems funny to me [not ha ha], that at times you don't seem to understand much about mainstream ISLAMIC doctrine [Koranic and Hadith based], and yet you confidently quote straight from ISLAM's Jihad 'playbook'.




Google;
"However, if children are killed, the fault lies with the adult occupiers who brought them into a battlefield situation"


....but never, ever, ever, with ISLAM/moslems.



Quote:
There Can Be No End to Jihad'

Islamist Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad, in an exclusive interview, discusses the rationale for 9/11, the Christians he most respects, and the Jesus he defends.
posted 11/05/2007
....Any weapons are legitimate in jihad. Even animals may be used as "suicide bombers"! It is not restricted by target—even Muslims or children, if used by the enemy as human shields, can be killed.
....Killing women and children never was and never will be part of the jihad in Islam, whether that be the women or children of the Muslims or non-Muslims. So if Chechen mujahedeen killed women and children in Beslan, I would condemn it. The children of non-Muslims, such as those at Beslan, who die in such circumstances go to Paradise.
....Women and children [i.e. boys under 15] or Muslims are not legitimate targets—nor are any noncombatants [clergy, disabled, insane, elderly, etc.]. Not even Israeli children or women, unless they serve in the military, which most do, or live in properties taken from dispossessed Palestinians (Muslim or Christian), which virtually all do.
However, if children are killed, the fault lies with the adult occupiers who brought them into a battlefield situation.

Google




In reading the next news item, bear in mind the inflection created, from the moslem assertions, in the news item above....

Quote:
7 November 2007
Afghanistan mourns bomb victims
......President Karzai said about 35 people had been killed - most of them children, teachers and MPs - while the provincial governor told the BBC there had been 41 deaths.
......But our correspondent says many questions remain, including that of responsibility.
The Taleban have denied that they carried out the attack, but they and al-Qaeda are the only ones known to use suicide bombs in Afghanistan so far.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7082481.stm








Quote:
June 25, 2008
Canadian parliamentary committee hears:
Jihadists crucifying children to terrorize their Christian parents into fleeing Iraq
"It's part of a systemic -- and very effective -- campaign to ethnically cleanse the area of any non-Muslims."
Islamic Tolerance Alert.....
    ......Muslim militants are crucifying children to terrorize their Christian parents into fleeing Iraq, a parliamentary committee studying the persecution of religious minorities heard yesterday.
    ......One infant was snatched, decapitated, burned and left on his mother's doorstep, the committee was told.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/021516.php

BUT THESE MONSTERS ARE NOT REAL MOSLEMS!


Back to top
 

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 50662
At my desk.
Re: Muhammed the thief
Reply #82 - Aug 1st, 2013 at 5:54pm
 
freediver wrote on Jul 31st, 2013 at 9:49pm:
Quote:
They didn't - they launched their first invasion of Medina less than 1 year after the raiding began


Can you explain why you use the word "invasion" to describe a caravan travelling to Mecca?


Gandalf? Where are you getting this BS from?
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
True Colours
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2837
Gender: male
Re: Muhammed the thief
Reply #83 - Aug 1st, 2013 at 7:39pm
 
Yadda it is a fact isn't that Christian Iraqis lived in peace in Iraq until Christian Americans and Australians decided it would be a good idea to invade the country?

Obviously the blame for chaos in that country lies with the idiot Christians like Bush and Howard who lied about WMDs and invaded the country totally removing the government.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Yadda
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 22264
A cat with a view
Re: Muhammed the thief
Reply #84 - Aug 1st, 2013 at 8:11pm
 
True Colours wrote on Aug 1st, 2013 at 7:39pm:

Yadda it is a fact isn't that Christian Iraqis lived in peace in Iraq until Christian Americans and Australians decided it would be a good idea to invade the country?

Obviously the blame for chaos in that country lies with the idiot Christians like Bush and Howard who lied about WMDs and invaded the country totally removing the government.





Yadda paraphrases True_Colours post;

'The violence against Iraqi Christians, is an instance where collective punishment is justified.'


Correct TC ?
Back to top
 

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 50662
At my desk.
Re: Muhammed the thief
Reply #85 - Aug 1st, 2013 at 8:12pm
 
Do you see anyone silly enough to believe that GWB is God's messenger on earth?

So why do so many people fall for Muhammed's BS? And why is the point that no-one else worships warmongers so unfathomable to them?
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Muhammed the thief
Reply #86 - Aug 2nd, 2013 at 1:10am
 
freediver wrote on Aug 1st, 2013 at 5:54pm:
Gandalf? Where are you getting this BS from?


What BS? Fielding ~1000 soldiers against the muslims is just a caravan passing through is it?  Grin Or are you still attempting to maintain your silly claim that the Meccans "ignored" Muhammad for 10 years?  Cheesy
Back to top
 

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 50662
At my desk.
Re: Muhammed the thief
Reply #87 - Aug 2nd, 2013 at 12:28pm
 
Where did you get the 1000 number from?

They sent the soldiers to defend the Caravan. It was standard practice at the time. Obviously extra defense was needed given the liklihood of Muhammed attacking. They did not "invade" anything or attack Medina. So why would you label it an invasion?
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Muhammed the thief
Reply #88 - Aug 2nd, 2013 at 2:26pm
 
freediver wrote on Aug 2nd, 2013 at 12:28pm:
Where did you get the 1000 number from?


2 second google search. Try it.

freediver wrote on Aug 2nd, 2013 at 12:28pm:
So why would you label it an invasion?


OK, I may have been a little overzealous. Chalk that down to another devious muslim lie  Tongue

They fielded 1000 soldiers to destroy the muslim raiders that were waiting. My assumption was that upon defeating the muslims, they would pursue them into Medina and crush the small movement once and for all. Of course I could be wrong, and yes I shouldn't jump to conclusions.

Point is (again), this disproves the idea that they "ignored" the muslims for 10 years.
Back to top
 

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 50662
At my desk.
Re: Muhammed the thief
Reply #89 - Aug 2nd, 2013 at 3:19pm
 
Obviously they attempted to defend their caravans. I did not mean to say that they did not notice being robbed all the time. However your claim that they were out to get him from the beginning, to kill them all (and that this justifies the robberies) does not make sense. Surely if you really wanted to slaughter a group of people, you would not sit back, year after year, watching them grow bigger and stronger by stealing from you.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... 12
Send Topic Print