Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 106 to 114 of 114

Thread: Ali Sina's Letter to Mankind

  1. #106
    Khalid
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by ygalg1
    no it's not. it's about spreading islam by sword.
    you're being very biased here ygalg, do you want me to post the previous verses of that sura as well, you would see nothing that'll support your accusation, but if you like to be like the little guy ibliz here, a bigot i will not respond at all, I will only respond to people that enjoy a civil debate, hence the civilized people only.

    is there anything of islamic, cosistent with historical facts at all?
    your hero was ready to execute the verdict on the jews and Christians, jews gave him an offer he won't refuse
    history is speaking for itself, history is reality!

    during Mohammads life in Medina the jews were never asked to leave the city, it was only during Not even Abubakr but Omar's time, that the jews were asked to leave the city!(fact)

    secondly, there were other tribes than banu qurayza who had helped quraish during its battles against Yatrib, they were only exiled by Mohammad!
    did Mohammad have the right to execute them all?

    yes.(based on every rule of war)

    did he?

    No.

    why didn't he?

    thread///(fact)

  2. #107
    ygalg1
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Khalid
    you're being very biased here ygalg, do you want me to post the previous verses of that sura as well, you would see nothing that'll support your accusation, but if you like to be like the little guy ibliz here, a bigot i will not respond at all, I will only respond to people that enjoy a civil debate, hence the civilized people only.
    read them. I'm not onvinced.

    history is speaking for itself, history is reality!
    History is not pleasantness to a muslim.

    during Mohammads life in Medina the jews were never asked to leave the city, it was only during Not even Abubakr but Omar's time, that the jews were asked to leave the city!(fact)
    and my argument was not over muhammad; did or did not expell the jews. but over fighting the jews for their belief.

    1: Section: The Expulsion of the Jews from Madina
    Book Number: 45, Hadith Number: 45.5.18
    Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Two deens shall not co-exist in the Arabian Peninsula."

    Malik said that Ibn Shihab said, ''Umar ibn al-Khattab searched for information about that until he was absolutely convinced that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, had said, 'Two deens shall not co-exist in the Arabian Peninsula,' and he therefore expelled the jews from Khaybar."
    this the part of the legacy of Muhammad! deal with it.

    secondly, there were other tribes than banu qurayza who had helped quraish during its battles against Yatrib, they were only exiled by Mohammad!
    did Mohammad have the right to execute them all?

    yes.(based on every rule of war)
    only if they were the attackers. but they were not! he was.

    did he?

    No.

    why didn't he?
    bribe.
    1: Volume: 3, Book Number: 39, Hadith Number: 531
    Narrated Ibn 'Umar:
    Umar expelled the Jews and the Christians from Hijaz. When Allah's Apostle had conquered Khaibar, he wanted to expel the Jews from it as its land became the property of Allah, His Apostle, and the Muslims. Allah's Apostle intended to expel the Jews but they requested him to let them stay there on the condition that they would do the labor and get half of the fruits. Allah's Apostle told them, "We will let you stay on thus condition, as long as we wish." So, they (i.e. Jews) kept on living there until 'Umar forced them to go towards Taima' and Ariha'.

  3. #108
    ShimonG
    Guest
    You are wasting your breath, ygalg1. those with mohammadan blinkers will justify and deny every vile act of his including theft, political assassination (murder), torture and rape.

    But, keep posting. it is important that non-moslems get a whiff of what evil this mohammad perpetrated on humanity.

  4. #109
    Khalid
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by ygalg1
    read them. I'm not onvinced.
    well i was more so talking about you, because i have read it, we are all trying to learn from each other, but if i decide not to learn, would you be able to help me? of course not.
    In the Quran God clearly explains that fighting in the way of God, is only limited in self defense, now you can argue that many muslims do not follow that, and i agree with you, Now please read verses 2.190, or i can just post it here:002.189
    YUSUFALI: They ask thee concerning the New Moons. Say: They are but signs to mark fixed periods of time in (the affairs of) men, and for Pilgrimage. It is no virtue if ye enter your houses from the back: It is virtue if ye fear Allah. Enter houses through the proper doors: And fear Allah: That ye may prosper.
    PICKTHAL: They ask thee, (O Muhammad), of new moons, say: They are fixed seasons for mankind and for the pilgrimage. It is not righteousness that ye go to houses by the backs thereof (as do the idolaters at certain seasons), but the righteous man is he who wardeth off (evil). So go to houses by the gates thereof, and observe your duty to Allah, that ye may be successful.
    SHAKIR: They ask you concerning the new moon. Say: They are times appointed for (the benefit of) men, and (for) the pilgrimage; and it is not righteousness that you should enter the houses at their backs, but righteousness is this that one should guard (against evil); and go into the houses by their doors and be careful (of your duty) to Allah, that you may be successful.

    002.190
    YUSUFALI: Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.
    PICKTHAL: Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.
    SHAKIR: And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.

    002.191
    YUSUFALI: And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.
    PICKTHAL: And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.
    SHAKIR: And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.

    002.192
    YUSUFALI: But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
    PICKTHAL: But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
    SHAKIR: But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

    002.193
    YUSUFALI: And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression.
    PICKTHAL: And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers.
    SHAKIR: And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.

    002.194
    YUSUFALI: The prohibited month for the prohibited month,- and so for all things prohibited,- there is the law of equality. If then any one transgresses the prohibition against you, Transgress ye likewise against him. But fear Allah, and know that Allah is with those who restrain themselves.
    PICKTHAL: The forbidden month for the forbidden month, and forbidden things in retaliation. And one who attacketh you, attack him in like manner as he attacked you. Observe your duty to Allah, and know that Allah is with those who ward off (evil).
    SHAKIR: The Sacred month for the sacred month and all sacred things are (under the law of) retaliation; whoever then acts aggressively against you, inflict injury on him according to the injury he has inflicted on you and be careful (of your duty) to Allah and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).

    002.195
    YUSUFALI: And spend of your substance in the cause of Allah, and make not your own hands contribute to (your) destruction; but do good; for Allah loveth those who do good.
    PICKTHAL: Spend your wealth for the cause of Allah, and be not cast by your own hands to ruin; and do good. Lo! Allah loveth the beneficent.
    SHAKIR: And spend in the way of Allah and cast not yourselves to perdition with your own hands, and do good (to others); surely Allah loves the doers of good.

    I also didn't take this out of context, you can see i posted all the before and after verses of the one verse which gets into the conditions of battle for a muslim.

    there are many more verses that also get into the condition of battle for a muslim.(if you like i will post those as well)

    History is not pleasantness to a muslim.


    and my argument was not over muhammad; did or did not expell the jews. but over fighting the jews for their belief.
    not true please provide a source!
    more so i like to see an anti islamic source, that way we can both have a better and a more clear discussion on those issues.
    this the part of the legacy of Muhammad! deal with it.
    then why didn't he expell the jews?....history is not consistent with that hadith.
    only if they were the attackers. but they were not! he was.
    I'm sure you know that if an american today supports Al Qaida, or perhaps an american supporting the Nazis during the WW2 has and had punishment as death penalty, now Mohammad 1400 years ago did not punish two of the jewish clans who had openly and actively supported the forces of quraysh, going so far as to provide them with weapons and supplies, and Mohammad only exiled them, he had every right to send them to the cemetery, but he did not, he mohammad the person that you hate so much, only exiled them for such crime, and as for the faith of banu Qurayza, he wasn't the hakim, and wasn't pick as a hakim either, Sa'd was the hakam, and he made the last decision regarding banu qurayza.

  5. #110
    ygalg1
    Guest
    The Treaty
    It was an Arab custom and it is also practiced everywhere else, even to this day, that two feuding parties agree on someone to act as the arbitrator. Muhammad who was at first considered to be an outsider and therefore impartial was called to act as an arbitrator in one of these conflicts. It is important to note that the conflict in Yathrib was not between Muslims and Jews; otherwise Muhammad could not have acted as the arbitrator. Also as we saw earlier there were no religious disagreements in Yathrib. However Jews were part of the treaty because of their alliances with the Arab tribes.

    This must have been a golden opportunity in the prophetic carrier of Muhammad, which changed his fortune and turned the odds in his favour. As part of the pledge, they were to protect the Prophet as they would protect their women and children if he were attacked by the Meccans.

    The numbers of the Muslims in Yathrib grow thanks to the tolerance of the Jews and their error in giving the immigrants a safe haven. Jews did not foresee that the man to whom they give asylum today would be so ungrateful that would turn against them and eventually would be the cause of their destruction.

    The treaty did not give Muslims a mandate to govern. Ibn Hisham reports part of that treaty. But as we shall see this treaty must have been forged. It states.

    "The Jews must bear their expenses and the Muslims their expenses. Each must help the other against anyone who attacks the people of this document. They must seek mutual advice and consultation, and loyalty is a protection against treachery. They shall sincerely wish one another well. Their relations will be governed by piety and recognition of the rights of others, and not by sin and wrongdoing. The wronged must be helped. The Jews must pay with the believers so long as the war lasts. Yathrib shall be a sanctuary for the people of this document. If any dispute or controversy likely to cause trouble should arise, it must be referred to God and to Muhammad the Apostle of God; Quraish and their helpers shall not be given protection. The contracting parties are bound to help one another against any attack on Yathrib; Every one shall be responsible for the defence of the portion to which he belongs" (lbn Hisham, vol. ii, pp. 147 to 150).

    There are several clues that make us realize that this treaty is altered. The most obvious is that the Jews could not have signed a document, which would have acknowledged Muhammad to be the Apostle of God. This would have meant acceptance of Muhammad’s claim by the Jews, which obviously never happened. So the above document is most likely forged. Also there are contradictions in the context of the document. It starts as a treaty signed by two sovereign nations (tribes) with equal rights and powers. However the phrases “The Jews must pay with the believers so long as the war lasts” and “If any dispute or controversy likely to cause trouble should arise, it must be referred to God and to Muhammad the Apostle of God;”
    contradict that notion of equality.

    These sentences are more likely inserted later. They give Muslims superiority, which is in conflict with the rest of the document that gives an impression of an agreement between two equals. But the most important point is how could Muhammad be the arbitrator if he is the beneficiary in this treaty? It is amazing that Muslim scholars have read this document for centuries and it has never occurred to them to ask how could Muhammad be the arbitrator if he is part of the treaty? But that is exactly the point. A religious mind is shackled. Although they would laugh if a similar story is said about another group, they do not seem to have any difficulty is accepting it when it is about their own religion.

    These are telltales that the above treaty is not authentic. Yet, since Muhammad and his ready-to-assassin followers destroyed the real document, along with the Jews who were a part of that treaty, we are left with nothing, but this lame document to find the truth. Which makes our task not unlike trying to find a needle in a haystack.
    link

  6. #111
    ygalg1
    Guest
    Holy Wars!
    After the incident of Badr that Muhammad’s men ambushed a merchant caravan, and brought the booty his fortunes changed. He was enriched by the stolen booty, and his popularity grew. He promised wealth and slave girls to those how took part in his armed robberies and paradise with houries and rivers of wine to those who were killed. For an ignorant fanatic and at the same time greedy Arab this was a proposition hard to resist. If he survived he would have his share of booty including women and if he died he would go to paradise and have more of the same plus the pleasure of Allah. It is interesting that the Arabs had some kind of decency when they captured married women but the prophet of Allah did away with that decency and proclaimed that it is lawful for a man to have sexual intercourse with a women captured in war. (Q. 4: 24) Jews, having a religion of their own, could not accept Muhammad’s pretentious claim of prophethood. They probably derided at him and at his followers. This is perfectly understandable. How would Muslims react, if someone in their midst call himself a messenger of God and start a new religion? Does the persecution of the Baha'is give us a clue?
    link

  7. #112

  8. #113
    ygalg1
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Khalid
    In the Quran God clearly explains that fighting in the way of God, is only limited in self defense
    I read the verses and cannot decide as it refers to particular matter not generally and use allegorical language
    not true please provide a source!
    more so i like to see an anti islamic source, that way we can both have a better and a more clear discussion on those issues.
    then why didn't he expell the jews?....history is not consistent with that hadith.
    1: Section: The Expulsion of the Jews from Madina
    Book Number: 45, Hadith Number: 45.5.18
    Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Two deens shall not co-exist in the Arabian Peninsula."

    Malik said that Ibn Shihab said, ''Umar ibn al-Khattab searched for information about that until he was absolutely convinced that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, had said, 'Two deens shall not co-exist in the Arabian Peninsula,' and he therefore expelled the jews from Khaybar."

    then why didn't he expell the jews?....history is not consistent with that hadith.
    1: Volume: 3, Book Number: 39, Hadith Number: 531
    Narrated Ibn 'Umar:
    Umar expelled the Jews and the Christians from Hijaz. When Allah's Apostle had conquered Khaibar, he wanted to expel the Jews from it as its land became the property of Allah, His Apostle, and the Muslims. Allah's Apostle intended to expel the Jews but they requested him to let them stay there on the condition that they would do the labor and get half of the fruits. Allah's Apostle told them, "We will let you stay on thus condition, as long as we wish." So, they (i.e. Jews) kept on living there until 'Umar forced them to go towards Taima' and Ariha'.

  9. #114
    Trial Membership
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    lucknow,india
    Posts
    1

    Re: Ali Sina's Letter to Mankind

    Excellent
    We have to defeat fanatic islam to save innocent

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Speech by Haim Harari - War on Terror
    By Reffo in forum Global Terrorism
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 01-27-2005, 04:43 AM
  2. Ruth Matar's controversial letter, the fallout and the response.
    By Mediocrates in forum Israeli Politics
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 11-01-2004, 08:45 AM
  3. Call for a letter burning campaign from Yesha
    By KSO in forum In The News
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 09-21-2004, 10:59 AM
  4. A letter to the French "people"
    By Gilgamesh in forum In The News
    Replies: 74
    Last Post: 07-11-2003, 01:07 PM
  5. Anonymous letter warns of bio-attacks in Europe
    By L@mplighterM in forum In The News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-22-2002, 02:43 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •