Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Why Does Iran Want To Copy The Usa?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Veteran Member

Christian Lady, Knowledge belongs to humanity as a whole and not a particular sect or race or religious group. Nuclear knowledge likewise. To assume otherwise is simply absurd and stupid.

Hello again Hussien,

It does not take intelligence, maturity, or integrity to insult people.

Most modern technology is a direct result of Western discovery/creativity/innovation. Copying the good aspects of Western technology is not bad. However, hopefully other nations, who are developing their technology, also learn from the evils the Western nations have done, and not follow in the same direction.

Peace and God bless you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that Western discovery/creativity/innovation was not built on thin air and on the accumulated knowledge of those prior to them. Remember that knowledge is cumulative. That if not for Muslims or Mongols, West would not be in the same place where it is today. Likewise, if not for Western breakthrough in knowledge today, China will not be able to continue with its development tomorrow.

I do not insult you but the persistent stupidity in you. Its because of people like you that religion is a laughing matter here in West.

Where would West be without Algebra, without astronomy, with math, without chemistry etc that were produced by Muslims, Hindus, and the Chinese?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

epiccheckmatei128602138176322610.jpg

Cradle of civilization - Mespotamia.

Forget about the Industrial Revolution.. without the Agricultural Revolution, mankind would still be nomadic, constantly in search of food and stuck within their own tribes and clans. Without this revolution, man would not have settled in one place, and lived off of his land, and formed cities thus socializing with other groups of humans from different tribes and clans.

Moreover, this enabled a situation to arise where society could have many specializations (which would have been impractical and impossible for a single nomadic tribe), be it the farmers, fishermen, blacksmiths, merchants, artisans, philosophers, doctors, clergymen, warriors, and monarchs. Once the food and water source has been permanently secured, it allows others to focus on other functions and tasks.

Edited by Propaganda_of_the_Deed
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Jewish people do not exist, they were invented, like all other people in the world. People do not belong to anything, they are individuals, who happen to be social animals, and lean towards identity creation.

Also, MAD brought about the most preposterous arms race and methods of first strike capability that terrified the world, Iran is not a bloodthirsty tyrant that wants to keep the world hostage like the American oligarchs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Hello again Hussien,

It does not take intelligence, maturity, or integrity to insult people.

Most modern technology is a direct result of Western discovery/creativity/innovation. Copying the good aspects of Western technology is not bad. However, hopefully other nations, who are developing their technology, also learn from the evils the Western nations have done, and not follow in the same direction.

Peace and God bless you

Peace Christianlady,

I have a problem with what you said, let me explain, God willing...

Most modern technology is a direct result of Western discovery/creativity/innovation. Copying the good aspects of Western technology is not bad. However, hopefully other nations, who are developing their technology, also learn from the evils the Western nations have done, and not follow in the same direction.

Technology is not the problem, rather how you use it. I think we agree on this.

But to say, "America built inter-continental missiles capable of destroying key objects in XYZ... if XYZ builds inter-continental missiles then they're evil like 'The West' and should stop copying 'The West'..."

What you're saying sounds like the following scenario...

  • This bully in school keeps beating up all of the children during play-time
  • None of the teachers stop him (maybe they fail to notice, or turn a blind eye)
  • When the bully raises his fists, we acknowledge he is doing wrong
    • But we won't protest against the bully, we'll focus on the kids being beaten up

    [*]If the kids being beaten up raise their fists to defend themselves

    • Then we must attack the intentions of those children
    • We must protest and point our fingers at those children

    [*]The children should lower their fists, lay down, and let the bully kick them on the ground

    • If the children do not comply with the beatings from the bully, then they are evil

This is some messed up, misinterpreted, twisted Roman-spun concept of "turn the other cheek" they used to subjugate the masses under an otherwise ungodly and obviously oppressive regime. They paint the regime up in godliness and say "being poor is good, it means you're a good Christian", and "carry your cross and get crucified like Jesus did", and "Turn the other cheek, Jesus was never angry or abusive, EVEN TO HIS ENEMIES".

But this concept is against all logic, all nature, and even against God Himself who doesn't forgive anyone in the Bible who wrongs Him, rather He drowns them and causes pestilence on their entire village and murders their children with bloodthirsty hordes.

Something is clearly wrong with this mentality, and even more wrong with the history and theology behind it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Peace Christianlady,

I have a problem with what you said, let me explain, God willing...

Hello Dawud Miqdad al-Amriki,

Sure. That is why discussion is important, to understand different sides.

Technology is not the problem, rather how you use it. I think we agree on this.

Yes, we agree on that point.

But to say, "America built inter-continental missiles capable of destroying key objects in XYZ... if XYZ builds inter-continental missiles then they're evil like 'The West' and should stop copying 'The West'..."

First of all, I did not say the above.

The USA did invent nuclear weapons and were the first (and only ones at the moment) to use them. My hope is that other countries learn from the evils the USA has committed and not do the same thing.

What you're saying sounds like the following scenario...

  • This bully in school keeps beating up all of the children during play-time
  • None of the teachers stop him (maybe they fail to notice, or turn a blind eye)
  • When the bully raises his fists, we acknowledge he is doing wrong
    • But we won't protest against the bully, we'll focus on the kids being beaten up

    [*]If the kids being beaten up raise their fists to defend themselves

    • Then we must attack the intentions of those children
    • We must protest and point our fingers at those children

    [*]The children should lower their fists, lay down, and let the bully kick them on the ground

    • If the children do not comply with the beatings from the bully, then they are evil

What I am saying does not follow the outline of the scenario you made above. What I am saying follows the scenario below:

  • This bully in school learned how to make weapons that kill many people (students, teacher, parents, grandparents, babies...)
  • This bully in school used those weapons to kill the students, parents,and their families in another school. :(
  • This same bully has used other advanced weapons in order to kill other students, their teachers, their families (including babies and grandmothers) in other schools. :(
  • Students in other schools should think about if they want to follow the pattern of the bully who has killed a lot of people in other schools.
  • If other schools make nuclear weapons and use them, they will be following the example of the bully of one school who killed the family members and people of another school.

This is some messed up, misinterpreted, twisted Roman-spun concept of "turn the other cheek" they used to subjugate the masses under an otherwise ungodly and obviously oppressive regime. They paint the regime up in godliness and say "being poor is good, it means you're a good Christian", and "carry your cross and get crucified like Jesus did", and "Turn the other cheek, Jesus was never angry or abusive, EVEN TO HIS ENEMIES".

Jesus was angry towards people who were hypocrites. Please read Matthew 22.

As for Jesus' teachings, if the USA had been following Jesus' teachings to love your enemies and turn the other cheek, the US government would not have invaded Afghanistan or Iraq, nor would they be thinking about war with Iran now, because Jesus did not command his followers to invade other countries.

But this concept is against all logic, all nature, and even against God Himself who doesn't forgive anyone in the Bible who wrongs Him, rather He drowns them and causes pestilence on their entire village and murders their children with bloodthirsty hordes.

Something is clearly wrong with this mentality, and even more wrong with the history and theology behind it!

Have you ever read Jonah? Jonah got mad at God for having mercy and compassion on the people of Nineveh after they repented from their evil. Please see the following passages below: I boldened some. Please feel free to read all of the book of Jonah, whether in the Tanakh or in the Christian Bible.

Jonah 1 (NIV)

" 1 The word of the LORD came to Jonah son of Amittai: 2 “Go to the great city of Nineveh and preach against it, because its wickedness has come up before me.”

3 But Jonah ran away from the LORD and headed for Tarshish. He went down to Joppa, where he found a ship bound for that port. After paying the fare, he went aboard and sailed for Tarshish to flee from the LORD."

Jonah 3 (NIV)

"1 Then the word of the LORD came to Jonah a second time: 2 “Go to the great city of Nineveh and proclaim to it the message I give you.”

3 Jonah obeyed the word of the LORD and went to Nineveh. Now Nineveh was a very large city; it took three days to go through it. 4 Jonah began by going a day’s journey into the city, proclaiming, “Forty more days and Nineveh will be overthrown.” 5 The Ninevites believed God. A fast was proclaimed, and all of them, from the greatest to the least, put on sackcloth.

6 When Jonah’s warning reached the king of Nineveh, he rose from his throne, took off his royal robes, covered himself with sackcloth and sat down in the dust. 7 This is the proclamation he issued in Nineveh:

“By the decree of the king and his nobles:

Do not let people or animals, herds or flocks, taste anything; do not let them eat or drink. 8 But let people and animals be covered with sackcloth. Let everyone call urgently on God. Let them give up their evil ways and their violence. 9 Who knows? God may yet relent and with compassion turn from his fierce anger so that we will not perish.”

10When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he relented and did not bring on them the destruction he had threatened."

Jonah 4 (NIV)

"1 But to Jonah this seemed very wrong, and he became angry. 2 He prayed to the LORD, “Isn’t this what I said, LORD, when I was still at home? That is what I tried to forestall by fleeing to Tarshish. I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity. 3 Now, LORD, take away my life, for it is better for me to die than to live.”

4 But the LORD replied, “Is it right for you to be angry?”

5 Jonah had gone out and sat down at a place east of the city. There he made himself a shelter, sat in its shade and waited to see what would happen to the city. 6 Then the LORD God provided a leafy plant[a] and made it grow up over Jonah to give shade for his head to ease his discomfort, and Jonah was very happy about the plant. 7 But at dawn the next day God provided a worm, which chewed the plant so that it withered. 8 When the sun rose, God provided a scorching east wind, and the sun blazed on Jonah’s head so that he grew faint. He wanted to die, and said, “It would be better for me to die than to live.”

9 But God said to Jonah, “Is it right for you to be angry about the plant?”

“It is,” he said. “And I’m so angry I wish I were dead.”

10 But the LORD said, “You have been concerned about this plant, though you did not tend it or make it grow. It sprang up overnight and died overnight. 11 And should I not have concern for the great city of Nineveh, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their left—and also many animals?”

Obviously, God does not always "... drowns them and causes pestilence on their entire village and murders their children with bloodthirsty hordes." Rather, He warns them and if they repent, forgives them, because of His mercy, grace, and compassion.

As Jonah says, God is a "gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity." (from Jonah 4:2)

Peace and God bless you

Edited by Christianlady
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Repenter,

Good. Could you please post any articles that say that Jewish people will never be able to know from which tribe (descendant of Jacob/Israel) they belong, and if so, why?

Does she believe that Jewish people will never be able, through science, to distinguish their tribe? If so, why?

Sadly, throughout the ages, there have been skeptics to breakthroughs through science. For example, in material inventions, the Wright brothers, as well others who have discovered scientific facts with which they used to invent modern technology, have experienced skeptism, but that didn't stop them. The following article is very interesting: (I boldened some.)

http://www.sces.info/skeptics.html

world no scientist would behave in such an intolerant way."

I don't think you understand that whether you accept a Jewish person being from the tribes of Israel(Jacob) or not, it does not matter. What matters is that God knows each person and each person's ancestors.

Could you please quote me where I said the above? Thank you.

We are all the Creation of God, that is true.

So, do you think that when God promised Abraham that nations would come from him, that this was a lie? To you think that when God promised "the Promised Land" to the children of Isreal, bringing them out of slavery in Egypt by Moses, and to the Promised Land, that this was a lie? Do you think that God's promise to King David, of the tribe of Judah, son of Israel (Jacob), son of Isaac, son of Abraham, that this is a lie?

When Rome destroyed Israel, many Jewish people fled to many areas, including the Soviet Union, Spain, Arabia, and so on. Sadly, they experienced persecution and prejudice in many places, including Europe, where my ancestors are from. :( For this, I am ashamed of my ancestors, for how they treated both Muslims and Jewish people.

Peace and God bless you

Good. Could you please post any articles that say that Jewish people will never be able to know from which tribe (descendant of Jacob/Israel) they belong, and if so, why?

I can't really bother to spend time to find all the articles and books i read throughout the years, because it has been plenty. It is your own responsibility to do so yourself before engaging in a debate.

But some that i can think of is:

1. Arthur Koestler(a jew) - THE THIRTEENTH TRIBE

2. Henry Ford - THE INTERNATIONAL JEW

3. Dr. Navras Jaat Aafreedi has plenty of articles and research papers on this issue

Does she believe that Jewish people will never be able, through science, to distinguish their tribe? If so, why?

No. The fact of the matter is that using ancestry timeline is a terrible academic excuse to claim the land of Israel. Science which you are a fan of, shows that many Muslim-Arabs have more genes in common with the ancient Jews, than many of the actual Jews now living in Israel. This goes to show that using genealogy as a requirement is void.

As a matter of fact, most Jews living today have more genes in common with the Khazar emipre, whom in the dark ages "converted" to Judaism. The empire was wiped out by the Mongolians, who also converted to Judaism, just like they converted to Islam in Afghanistan and Persia. The polish and the former soviet empire are actually the majority of the ancestors of WW2 Jews from eastern Europe.

There are plenty of journals about this, i suggest you spend time researching it.

Sadly, throughout the ages, there have been skeptics to breakthroughs through science. For example, in material inventions, the Wright brothers, as well others who have discovered scientific facts with which they used to invent modern technology, have experienced skeptism, but that didn't stop them. The following article is very interesting: (I boldened some.)

It's fine that you try to use science as an argument. But that would be more debatable if you actually showed signs of having some basic knowledge about the science relevant to this subject.

I don't think you understand that whether you accept a Jewish person being from the tribes of Israel(Jacob) or not, it does not matter. What matters is that God knows each person and each person's ancestors.

I don't disagree with that there are people who are from the tribes of Israel. I do however claim that those Jews living in Israel who claim to be from those tribes don't know it themselves, and they probably don't know that many of the arabs living around them probably have more relations too those tribes than they do. After all, they are using their genes as a green card to Israel.

What God knows is one thing, what he cares about is another.

Could you please quote me where I said the above? Thank you.

No I can't. The search function has a timeout and i don't have the patience for it. But it's pretty evident that you believe this, i don't see a purpose in actually proving it.

So, do you think that when God promised Abraham that nations would come from him, that this was a lie? To you think that when God promised "the Promised Land" to the children of Isreal, bringing them out of slavery in Egypt by Moses, and to the Promised Land, that this was a lie? Do you think that God's promise to King David, of the tribe of Judah, son of Israel (Jacob), son of Isaac, son of Abraham, that this is a lie?

I have discussed the point of ancestory genes in my previous answers, that should suffice. I don't believe God promises anyone any land. And if he ever did, i'm pretty sure he wouldn't approve of some random people starting a genocide over it 5000 years later.

When Rome destroyed Israel, many Jewish people fled to many areas, including the Soviet Union, Spain, Arabia, and so on. Sadly, they experienced persecution and prejudice in many places, including Europe, where my ancestors are from. :( For this, I am ashamed of my ancestors, for how they treated both Muslims and Jewish people.

In that case, i suggest you start by giving your home, appartment, land back to the Indians. God didn't promise that land to the Christians did he?

Edited by repenter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

I can't really bother to spend time to find all the articles and books i read throughout the years, because it has been plenty. It is your own responsibility to do so yourself before engaging in a debate.

But some that i can think of is:

1. Arthur Koestler(a jew) - THE THIRTEENTH TRIBE

2. Henry Ford - THE INTERNATIONAL JEW

3. Dr. Navras Jaat Aafreedi has plenty of articles and research papers on this issue

Hello Repenter,

When engaging in debate, it is important to remember how the debate begin. You were the person to change the subject of this thread. In case you forgot, this thread is about the question of why does Iran want to copy the USA. You brought up Jewish people not knowing from what tribe they are from, not me, so it is you who needs to prove that Jewish people will never know from what tribe they come.

Please see your post, post #48

Posted 08 February 2012 - 06:33 PM

@Christianlady

Quote

That is an oxymoron. Hate does not equal compassion and having a heart.

Also, please remember that Israel is the name God gave to Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham. The Jewish people (who make up the nation of Israel) are descendants of the 12 tribes of Israel (Jacob).

I'll change my religion to monkeyism today if you can find me 1 jew, just one single jew that can tell me which tribe he/she is from. Or better yet, if they can prove to me that they are actually from one of the 12 tribes.

PS: we are talking about Israel the government, not what the name means. If you wan't to discuss an issue, please don't treat people like children, and don't spew biblical quotes without it being relevant to the subject, you are not the only one here who have read the bible.

No. The fact of the matter is that using ancestry timeline is a terrible academic excuse to claim the land of Israel. Science which you are a fan of, shows that many Muslim-Arabs have more genes in common with the ancient Jews, than many of the actual Jews now living in Israel. This goes to show that using genealogy as a requirement is void.

As a matter of fact, most Jews living today have more genes in common with the Khazar emipre, whom in the dark ages "converted" to Judaism. The empire was wiped out by the Mongolians, who also converted to Judaism, just like they converted to Islam in Afghanistan and Persia. The polish and the former soviet empire are actually the majority of the ancestors of WW2 Jews from eastern Europe.

Read closely. I asked "Does she believe that Jewish people will never be able, through science, to distinguish their tribe? If so, why?"

Please answer the question. In real debate, one answers the question and gives the reasons why. Just saying no does not answer why she does not believe that Jewish people will never be able, through science to distinguish their tribe.

It's fine that you try to use science as an argument. But that would be more debatable if you actually showed signs of having some basic knowledge about the science relevant to this subject.

It would be more debatable if you actually answered my questions. So, please tell me why does your wife believe that Jewish people will never be able, through science, to distinguish from which tribe their ancestors belong.

I don't disagree with that there are people who are from the tribes of Israel. I do however claim that those Jews living in Israel who claim to be from those tribes don't know it themselves, and they probably don't know that many of the arabs living around them probably have more relations too those tribes than they do. After all, they are using their genes as a green card to Israel.

It does not matter that they don't know exactly from which tribe they belong ... at the moment. However, do you deny that there are scientists working on figuring that question out, and that it is possible for them to someday have a breakthrough?

As to who lives in Israel, from time immemorial, those who conquered lived there. When God led Moses and the children of Israel into the "Promised Land", what do you think they did to the people who lived there at that time?

What God knows is one thing, what he cares about is another.

Everything God knows, He cares about. That's why He judges, because He knows and cares about everything people think, do, and say. He also knows their situations, their ancestry, their DNA, every hair that falls from their head, every health issue, everything.

No I can't. The search function has a timeout and i don't have the patience for it. But it's pretty evident that you believe this, i don't see a purpose in actually proving it.

In debate, providing proof is important. If you truly saw it, you would know where to look for it. The search function excuse is not a good one, because I can, for example, look for and quote from a person without using the search function. How do I do that? When in my thread of "Was King David the first zionist?", I answered a question using the definition of Zionist that was not my own, but rather was Shia_Debater's definition. How did I know his definition? Because I knew what thread he wrote it in, and I went back to that thread, without using the search help, and found it, easy as pie. I just did it again now, and his definition, which I agree with, is post #8 of my thread, "Why do Some Muslims hate Jewish people?"

Concerning who the people of God are, I believe that both Jewish people and Gentile people who love God are the people of God. Note that includes both Jews and Gentiles with the criteria of "who love God." I know that there are Jewish people (and Gentile people) who do not love God, and I do not consider them to be included as "people of God." However, I do consider anyone, regardless of if they love or do not love God, to be God's Creation, because God created everyone.

I have discussed the point of ancestory genes in my previous answers, that should suffice. I don't believe God promises anyone any land. And if he ever did, i'm pretty sure he wouldn't approve of some random people starting a genocide over it 5000 years later.

What do you believe happened to the people who currently lived in the "Promised Land" when God led the children of Israel into that land? What do you think happened to all of the people of Jericho, except Rahab and her family? What do you think happened to the people in Jerusalem, the Jebusites, when King David conquered it? So then, you do not believe that God promised the children of Israel the land that He led them out of Egypt to through Moses and Moses' successor, Joshua? Why do you not believe that? Just curious. What do you think Moses did? Bring them to a land where there were no people currently living?

In that case, i suggest you start by giving your home, appartment, land back to the Indians.

Actually, that is a good idea, but sad to say, there are some extreme issues with that idea. They include the following:

1. Most of the Native Americans are no longer alive. :( Why? Because most were killed or died through sickness against which they did not have immunity.

2. The government of the USA is not going to do that. Why? Because they don't care.

3. If I offered the Native Americans my apartment, they would look at me like I was crazy. Why? Because they know that just a few descendants of the Europeans giving them their property is not going to change their circumstances.

4. I have no home in the UK. Why? Because even though my ancestors are from the Great British Empire, I have never been to the UK, and my ancestors came here a long time ago and my grandparents and great grandparents do not even know the when our ancestors migrated from the UK, though we know our ancestors are from the UK. You could say we have lost our tribe, if you wish, which frankly, is why I think it's great that Iranian-Americans keep their connection to their mother country. Iranian Americans should never lose their connections to Iran, which is why it bothered me that an Iranian American was condemned to die in Iran. I have empathy for the Mom of that man, and hope the Iranian government has mercy on one of their own, even though his family moved to the USA.

5. If all the descendants of European immigrants to the USA and Canada moved to Europe, do you think there would be enough space for the current Europeans, including the immigrants to European countries from the Middle East, Africa, and Asia? That would be interesting, wouldn't it? What do you think would happen?

God didn't promise that land to the Christians did he?

No, God did not promise any earthly land to followers of Jesus(Christians) and it was wrong of Christians to invade and colonize other lands in the name of Jesus, though they did not know that it was wrong. However, immigration is not wrong, as long as it does not hurt the native people in the land.

Peace and God bless you

Edited by Christianlady
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Repenter,

When engaging in debate, it is important to remember how the debate begin. You were the person to change the subject of this thread. In case you forgot, this thread is about the question of why does Iran want to copy the USA. You brought up Jewish people not knowing from what tribe they are from, not me, so it is you who needs to prove that Jewish people will never know from what tribe they come.

Please see your post, post #48

..........

When engaging in debate, it is important to remember how the debate begin. You were the person to change the subject of this thread. In case you forgot, this thread is about the question of why does Iran want to copy the USA. You brought up Jewish people not knowing from what tribe they are from, not me, so it is you who needs to prove that Jewish people will never know from what tribe they come.

Don't even try it, you asked for reference, i gave you 3, and told you that i can't be bothered to give you a full list of books/articles i've read.

And No, actually in a debate, it is vital that one analyses the motives of a person. I personally believe you are a good person, but I also have a strong feeling about your motives and agenda behind the posts you make. You are a pro-israelli and pro-american. So the posts you make always have these two points as a backbone. That's why i bring it up, and so far you have caught the bait.

Read closely. I asked "Does she believe that Jewish people will never be able, through science, to distinguish their tribe? If so, why?"

Please answer the question. In real debate, one answers the question and gives the reasons why. Just saying no does not answer why she does not believe that Jewish people will never be able, through science to distinguish their tribe.

It would be more debatable if you actually answered my questions. So, please tell me why does your wife believe that Jewish people will never be able, through science, to distinguish from which tribe their ancestors belong.

I answered the question. Your question was void, because it has already been proven that many people other than Jews have more connection to the tribes than most of the Jews themselves. Wether she believes that one day in the future you can find a couple of people that have a 100% genetic match to one of the tribes is irrelevant. Science that is existing today shows that this is impossible. And the struggle we have in the middle east today is in fact today, not 100 years in the future. And even if it did so in the future, still doesn't give them property rights.

It does not matter that they don't know exactly from which tribe they belong ... at the moment. However, do you deny that there are scientists working on figuring that question out, and that it is possible for them to someday have a breakthrough?

As to who lives in Israel, from time immemorial, those who conquered lived there. When God led Moses and the children of Israel into the "Promised Land", what do you think they did to the people who lived there at that time?

I certainly don't believe the Prophet of God ordered them to slaughter and throw people out of their homes. That is a twisted mindset

Everything God knows, He cares about. That's why He judges, because He knows and cares about everything people think, do, and say. He also knows their situations, their ancestry, their DNA, every hair that falls from their head, every health issue, everything.

No, that is your opinion. Does God care if you are Black or White when judging you? You examples are flawed. We are talking about "judging". God does not care how you look, what your DNA is, nor how much hair you have when judging you as a human being. And he certainly doesn't give out property rights because of your genes. If you believe that, you are automatically saying God is unjust.

In debate, providing proof is important. If you truly saw it, you would know where to look for it. The search function excuse is not a good one, because I can, for example, look for and quote from a person without using the search function. How do I do that? When in my thread of "Was King David the first zionist?", I answered a question using the definition of Zionist that was not my own, but rather was Shia_Debater's definition. How did I know his definition? Because I knew what thread he wrote it in, and I went back to that thread, without using the search help, and found it, easy as pie. I just did it again now, and his definition, which I agree with, is post #8 of my thread, "Why do Some Muslims hate Jewish people?"

Oh come on. Your own bible OT says that they are the chosen people. And you have said you believe in it as a word of God. This is a pointless point in the debate. Go ahead and say that you don't believe that they are the chosen people of God end it then. I'll accept and apologize if you say that you don't believe it. The very essence of the things you write points to this fact, so no, in a debate where there is an audience, i don't need to spend time going back and quoting you on things.

What do you believe happened to the people who currently lived in the "Promised Land" when God led the children of Israel into that land? What do you think happened to all of the people of Jericho, except Rahab and her family? What do you think happened to the people in Jerusalem, the Jebusites, when King David conquered it? So then, you do not believe that God promised the children of Israel the land that He led them out of Egypt to through Moses and Moses' successor, Joshua? Why do you not believe that? Just curious. What do you think Moses did? Bring them to a land where there were no people currently living?

You keep repeating your questions. Again, i don't believe that Moses or any prophet would approve throwing people out of their homes. It's as easy as that. I don't believe in your Bible and i believe it has flaws. Reason i believe this i that i look at God as fair and just. I don't believe he ever, ever approves of throwing people out of their home, and give land to someone else. You questions are stories you have read from the bible which you hope to catch me on when I answer. You forget that i don't even believe in your Bible, so we have to keep the debate on a common understanding of God. You don't see me quoting Quran to you do you?

1. Most of the Native Americans are no longer alive. :( Why? Because most were killed or died through sickness against which they did not have immunity.

Doesn't matter, most jews are not alive either. But they sure got hold of a good chunk of land didn't they? Those who are alive are actually still getting paid by the german government for the crimes of WW2. Is the American Government paying the surviving Indians for their crimes? btw, how do we know that native indians are no longer alive? Pretty sure many americans have Genetic connection to the Native indians no? ;)

2. The government of the USA is not going to do that. Why? Because they don't care.

So? You can use your energy to go help Indians can't you? After all you are using energy on shiachat to defend the jews. I suggest you start in your own back yard. Rent a room out to a homeless Indian person.

3. If I offered the Native Americans my apartment, they would look at me like I was crazy. Why? Because they know that just a few descendants of the Europeans giving them their property is not going to change their circumstances.

Ahhhh, of course. But it's still the right thing to do no?

4. I have no home in the UK. Why? Because even though my ancestors are from the Great British Empire, I have never been to the UK, and my ancestors came here a long time ago and my grandparents and great grandparents do not even know the when our ancestors migrated from the UK, though we know our ancestors are from the UK. You could say we have lost our tribe, if you wish, which frankly, is why I think it's great that Iranian-Americans keep their connection to their mother country. Iranian Americans should never lose their connections to Iran, which is why it bothered me that an Iranian American was condemned to die in Iran. I have empathy for the Mom of that man, and hope the Iranian government has mercy on one of their own, even though his family moved to the USA.

Oh, so you would say it's ok that you go back to England and claim a piece of land, because your great great great grandfather was from the UK?

5. If all the descendants of European immigrants to the USA and Canada moved to Europe, do you think there would be enough space for the current Europeans, including the immigrants to European countries from the Middle East, Africa, and Asia? That would be interesting, wouldn't it? What do you think would happen?

Of course it would be space. Just do like the Israellis did. Throw the majority of the Europeans out of Europe, and then oppress the rest.

I delight the Irony of your questions, you are practically answering your own arguments.

No, God did not promise any earthly land to followers of Jesus(Christians) and it was wrong of Christians to invade and colonize other lands in the name of Jesus, though they did not know that it was wrong. However, immigration is not wrong, as long as it does not hurt the native people in the land.

Exactly. That is the difference between me and you. I believe Moses DID in fact promise a land to the Israellis. But the difference is that you believe God gave Israellis property rights, i believe he gave them a promise of a lnd they could migrate too, not throw people out and take over. Honestly, which of these two do you think is more attributed to God?????

Edited by repenter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Don't even try it, you asked for reference, i gave you 3, and told you that i can't be bothered to give you a full list of books/articles i've read.

Hello Repenter,

What you did not do is answer my question concerning why your wife does not believe that Jewish people can someday, through science, distinguish from which tribe they are from. Merely writing 3 names does not answer the question. Most debaters understand the importance of quoting specifically from a person's speech or article in order to prove their point, not merely mentioning a name (or 3 names.)

And No, actually in a debate, it is vital that one analyses the motives of a person. I personally believe you are a good person, but I also have a strong feeling about your motives and agenda behind the posts you make.

Do you deny that in a debate, providing correct quotations is necessary? I personally believe you are a good person too. I have nothing against you. I do understand that since you are a member of the Muslim community (though I do not know where you live), and I am a Christian who lives in the USA, you would naturally question my motives. Many Americans question the motives of people who are different from them too. That is only natural.

You are a pro-israelli and pro-american. So the posts you make always have these two points as a backbone. That's why i bring it up, and so far you have caught the bait

I am pro peace. I do not want Israelis to kill Palestinians and I don't want Palestinians to kill Israelis. I do not want Americans to kill Iranians and I don't want Iranians to kill Americans. The reason is because I believe God created us all and loves us all, and that we should care for, love, and respect each other, despite our differences.

I certainly don't believe the Prophet of God ordered them to slaughter and throw people out of their homes. That is a twisted mindset

What do you think he did with them? Do you think Joshua, the man God chose to be Moses' successor, politely asked all the people in Jericho to leave, and they said sure and went on their merry way?

No, that is your opinion. Does God care if you are Black or White when judging you?

God cares about everything about everyone. He cares if someone hates someone and judges them on the color of their skin, and He judges people for the evil they do to others, no matter what color of their skin.

You examples are flawed. We are talking about "judging". God does not care how you look, what your DNA is, nor how much hair you have when judging you as a human being.

God cares about everything. Why do you think God made a beautiful, diversified Creation? Is it because He doesn't care about diversity?

And he certainly doesn't give out property rights because of your genes. If you believe that, you are automatically saying God is unjust.

I believe God keeps His promises.

Oh come on. Your own bible OT says that they are the chosen people. And you have said you believe in it as a word of God. This is a pointless point in the debate. Go ahead and say that you don't believe that they are the chosen people of God end it then. I'll accept and apologize if you say that you don't believe it. The very essence of the things you write points to this fact, so no, in a debate where there is an audience, i don't need to spend time going back and quoting you on things.

If you are going to say I said something, you need to prove I said it. I did not say that Jewish people are people of God, because I believe that both Jewish people and Gentiles who love God are the people of God, not only Jewish people. Now, you can most definitely prove that the Bible says that the descendants of Abraham, isaac, and Jacob are chosen by God in order to be His people. Why? Because you can quote it. Why? Because that's what the Bible (not me) says: You should quote from the Bible, instead of putting words in my mouth. I boldened some of what Moses told the children of Israel:

Deuteronomy 7 (NIV)

" 1 When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations—the Hittites, Girga[Edited Out]es, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you— 2 and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally.[a] Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. 3 Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, 4 for they will turn your children away from following me to serve other gods, and the LORD’s anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. 5 This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles[b] and burn their idols in the fire. 6 For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession.

7 The LORD did not set his affection on you and choose you because you were more numerous than other peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples. 8 But it was because the LORD loved you and kept the oath he swore to your ancestors that he brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the land of slavery, from the power of Pharaoh king of Egypt. 9 Know therefore that the LORD your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments. 10 But

those who hate him he will repay to their face by destruction;

he will not be slow to repay to their face those who hate him.

11 Therefore, take care to follow the commands, decrees and laws I give you today.

12 If you pay attention to these laws and are careful to follow them, then the LORD your God will keep his covenant of love with you, as he swore to your ancestors. 13 He will love you and bless you and increase your numbers. He will bless the fruit of your womb, the crops of your land—your grain, new wine and olive oil—the calves of your herds and the lambs of your flocks in the land he swore to your ancestors to give you. 14 You will be blessed more than any other people; none of your men or women will be childless, nor will any of your livestock be without young. 15 The LORD will keep you free from every disease. He will not inflict on you the horrible diseases you knew in Egypt, but he will inflict them on all who hate you. 16 You must destroy all the peoples the LORD your God gives over to you. Do not look on them with pity and do not serve their gods, for that will be a snare to you.

17 You may say to yourselves, “These nations are stronger than we are. How can we drive them out?” 18 But do not be afraid of them; remember well what the LORD your God did to Pharaoh and to all Egypt. 19 You saw with your own eyes the great trials, the signs and wonders, the mighty hand and outstretched arm, with which the LORD your God brought you out. The LORD your God will do the same to all the peoples you now fear. 20 Moreover, the LORD your God will send the hornet among them until even the survivors who hide from you have perished. 21 Do not be terrified by them, for the LORD your God, who is among you, is a great and awesome God. 22 The LORD your God will drive out those nations before you, little by little. You will not be allowed to eliminate them all at once, or the wild animals will multiply around you. 23 But the LORD your God will deliver them over to you, throwing them into great confusion until they are destroyed. 24 He will give their kings into your hand, and you will wipe out their names from under heaven. No one will be able to stand up against you; you will destroy them. 25 The images of their gods you are to burn in the fire. Do not covet the silver and gold on them, and do not take it for yourselves, or you will be ensnared by it, for it is detestable to the LORD your God. 26 Do not bring a detestable thing into your house or you, like it, will be set apart for destruction. Regard it as vile and utterly detest it, for it is set apart for destruction."

You keep repeating your questions. Again, i don't believe that Moses or any prophet would approve throwing people out of their homes. It's as easy as that.

The reason I keep repeating my questions to you is because you have not given me answers specific to my questions.. Then what happened to the people who were currently living there?

I don't believe in your Bible and i believe it has flaws. Reason i believe this i that i look at God as fair and just. I don't believe he ever, ever approves of throwing people out of their home, and give land to someone else.

Do you believe the Quran, and that God approved of Muhammad and his followers killing those who didn't agree with him?

Do you believe that God approved of the following: (or do you think that Muhammad and his followers did not do what is written in the following article?): I boldened some:

http://explorethemed...ohammed.asp?c=1

" Since Muhammad had arrived in Medina, he had turned the city into a base for his caravan raids on the Meccans, this was naturally causing friction with the original inhabitants of Medina and the relations between the Jews and the Muslims in Medina were getting progressively worse. As previously mentioned the Jews of Medina were divided into 3 tribes. The first tribe to get into trouble with Muhammad and his followers were the Banu Qaynuqa. Shortly after the Battle of Badr, Muhammad gave the Banu Qaynuqa an ultimatum:

“O Jews! beware lest God bring upon you the vengeance that He brough upon the Quraysh and become Muslims.” (
Ibn Ishaq pg. 545
)

But the Banu Qaynuqa refused to convert and instead barricaded themselves inside their fortress. Muhammad besieged them and after 15 days the Banu Qaynuqa surrendered. Muhammad ordered that all the men of the tribe should be tied up. At this point Abd-Allah ibn Ubayy, a new Muslim convert who was a former friend and ally of the Banu Qaynuqa begged Mohhamed to be lenient with them (Ibn Ishaq pg. 546), so Muhammad simply confiscated their property and possessions and told them that as long as they left Medina within 3 days they would not be harmed. The Banu Qaynuqa fled first to Wadi Al Qura, and then out of Arabia to Syria. (See Map 3 – 624 AD).

Muhammad also turned on Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf, one of the chiefs of another Jewish tribe: the Banu Nadir: Ka’b was a poet who had written a number of poems considered offensive to the Muslims. He had lamented the execution of prisoners after the Battle of Badr, he is recorded to have said “...if Muhammad has indeed struck down those people, then it were better to be buried in the earth than to walk upon it.” (Ibn Ishaq, pg. 549 ) Muhammad accused Ka’b of liaising with the enemy Quraysh at Mecca and he called upon his followers to murder him. Muhammad ibn Maslamah and four other Muslims went to Ka’b’s fortress and tricked him into thinking that they had decided to turn against Muhammad, once Ka’b came out of his fortress to meet them they killed him.

In the following year, the Meccans came back to exact revenge on Muhammad and his followers for their defeat at the Battle of Badr. Muhammad and the Muslim army met them at the Battle of Uhud, here the Muslims were forced to retreat. Muhammad told his men that the reason for their defeat was that Allah had punished them for their lack of discipline and disobeying orders. (Koran 3.152) In order to maintain moral, Muhammad needed a quick victory, so the next day he ordered that the survivors from the Battle of Uhud march back out to face the Meccans at the Battle of Hamra al-Asad. This time the Muslim forces were victorious. (See Map 4 - 625 AD)

Upon returning to Medina, Muhammad once again turned on the Jews. This time he claimed that the Angel Gabriel had informed him that the Banu Nadir tribe were plotting his assassination. (Al-Mubarakpuri) We should remember that Muhammad had already killed their chief Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf, so they may well have been plotting revenge. He gave the Banu Nadir an ultimatum: they must leave Medina within 10 days or they will be beheaded. The Banu Nadir refused to leave and barricaded themselves in their fortress. Muhammad ordered that their fortress be besieged and their crops be destroyed. (Koran 59.5) After a few days the Banu Nadir surrendered and agreed to leave Medina. Muhammad seized their weapons, land, houses, and wealth (Ibn Ishaq, pg. 654). (See Map 4 - 625 AD)

The Battle of the Trench

Having been expelled from Medina, the Banu Nadir sent ambassadors to the various surrounding tribes to build a coalition against Muhammad and his followers, included within this coalition was the Quraysh of Mecca, Muhammad’s own tribe and his age old enemies. The forces of this coalition marched on Medina in 627 AD. The Muslims had dug defensive trenches around Medina which neutralized the coalition’s cavalry. The coalition were thus reluctant to press on with a siege of the Muslim defensive position. Instead they sent Huyayy ibn Akhtab, chief of the exiled Jewish tribe of Banu Nadir to attempt to negotiate with the final remaining Jewish tribe of Medina: the Banu Qurayza. Huyayy attempted to persuade the Banu Qurayza to join the coalition against Muhammad, reminding them of what had happened to the other two Jewish tribes of Medina. The Banu Qurayza eventually consented to join the coalition. However before the siege could begin, Muhammad planted agents among both the coalition and the Banu Qurayza to sow distrust amongst them. This is where Muhammad showed his true brilliance in playing off the weaknesses of his opponents. Muhammad recognized that the Banu Qurayza were in an awkward position, as their fortress and homes were just outside Medina, if the coalition at any point abandoned the siege, the Banu Qurayza would have to face the Muslims by themselves. The planting of agents proved to be a very effective tactic, the Banu Qurayza began to mistrust the coalition and worried that they would pull out of the siege and abandon them to the wrath of Muhammad. They therefore demanded that the coalition supply them with hostages as an assurance that they would not be abandoned. The coalition refused to supply them with hostages so the Banu Qurayza withdrew their support. Eventually the remaining coalition began to run out of supplies and withdrew from Medina, the incident is known as the Battle of the Trench, though no real battle took place.

The Massacre of the Banu Qurayza

After the coalition withdrew from Medina, the worst fears of the Banu Qurayza were realized. Muhammad was now free to deal with them without outside interference. According to Sahih Bukhari, it was the Angel Gabriel that actually commanded Muhammad to attack them (Sahih Bukhari, book 52, #68). In revenge for their planned treachery, Muhammad ordered a siege of their fortress. After 25 days they were forced to surrender. Muhammad then ordered that ditches be dug in the main square of Medina, all of the men of the tribe were then tied up and brought out in front of Muhammad and his companions in batches, they were beheaded one by one and thrown into the ditches. (Abu Dawud 38:4390) Between 600-900 male members of the tribe were beheaded in this way. (Tabari, vol viii, pp.35-36, Ibn Ishaq, pg. 690) Also amongst them was the chief of the Banu Nadir, Huyayy ibn Akhtab. He remained defiant to the end, before he was beheaded he was led in front of Muhammad with his hands tied to his neck, he told Muhammad that he did not regret being his enemy.(Ibn Ishaq, pg. 690) Only one of the women of the Banu Qurayza was killed, (Abu Dawud 14:2665) the rest were taken as slaves along with the children. Muhammad himself took Rayhana as his slave, he proposed that she convert to Islam and marry him, but Rayhana refused the proposal and instead kept her Jewish faith, remaining Muhammad’s slave and concubine. (Ibn Ishaq, pg. 693)

The massacre of the Banu Qurayza is the event in Muhammad’s life that has aroused the most controversy in modern times. However we should remember that it was not considered controversial throughout the Medieval period, which explains why it was documented so well. Whilst some today have used the event as evidence that Muhammad hated the Jews, it seems much more likely that Muhammad was motivated not by any hatred but by cool-headed planning and well thought out military tactics. When Muhammad had previously expelled the Jewish Banu Nadir tribe from Medina, they immediately went around stirring up animosity towards the Muslims and forming a new coalition against them. This led to the invasion of Medina and the Battle of the Trench. After the Battle of the Trench, the Muslims must have been terrified that the coalition would return again and that expelling the Banu Qurayza would just make the enemy stronger. Muhammad must have felt that the extermination of the tribe was necessary not just to weaken the enemy coalition, but also to raise the morale of his own men at a critical juncture, the Muslims needed a symbolic victory and to feel that they were in control of the situation. Muhammad was an exceptionally talented tactician; he knew exactly when to be compassionate and when to be ruthless.

Muhammad turns North

With the destruction of the final Jewish tribe in Medina and with the Quraysh licking their wounds back in Mecca, Muhammad felt that his base was now secure. However, he was still not strong enough to invade Mecca, instead he turned his attention to the north of Medina. Here there were a number of Arab settlements with large numbers of Jewish and Christian converts. Muhammad sent his armies north to conquer these lands. (See Map 5 - 628 AD) According to Ibn Ishaq, these were Muhammad’s orders:

“Fight everyone in the way of God and kill those who disbelieve in God. Do not be deceitful with spoils, do not be treacherous, nor mutilate, do not kill children. This is God’s ordinance and practice of his prophet among you.” (
Ibn Ishaq, pg. 992
)

When Muhammad’s army arrived at the Christian settlement of Dumat Al-Jandal, many of the inhabitants agreed to convert to Islam, whilst others agreed to pay the Jizya, a special tax that Christians and Jews could pay to allow them to continue to practice their religion. However, at the Jewish settlements of Khaybar and Wadi Al-Qura, the people were not so submissive to Muhammad, many of the Jews that had been expelled from Medina had settled in these areas and had warned the inhabitants about Muhammad.

When Muhammad’s troops were conducting a raid on Wadi Al-Qura, they were attacked by the Banu Fazara, a Pagan Arab tribe led by a woman named Umm Qirfa. The Muslims were forced to retreat but came back again and slaughtered the Banu Fazara, Umm Qirfa and her daughter were taken back to Medina as prisoners. At Medina, Umm Qirfa was executed, according to Al-Tabari, each of her limbs was attached to a camel so that she was split in two. (Al-Tabari, Vol 8, Pg 95-97). Ibn Hisham's edited version of Ibn Ishaq only mentions that she was killed cruelly but does not elaborate on the method. (Ibn Hisham/Ishaq, pg. 980) Umm Qirfa’s daughter was enslaved and later traded to the Meccans for hostages. (Sahih Muslim 19, #4345)

The Jews of Khaybar were another thorn in the side of Muhammad. Years earlier, their chief Abu Rafi had maintained good relations with Muhammad’s enemies and had written satirical poems about the Muslims. In 624 AD, Muhammad had successfully sent assassins to kill Abu Rafi. (Sahih Bukhari Book 59, #369) But Muhammad was equally suspicious of the new chief that had replaced him: Al-Yusayr ibn Rizam. Muhammad again sent assassins to Khaybar, but this time the Jews were alert and would not let them in. Muhammad then sent 30 men to the gates of the city to negotiate, they promised that Muhammad wanted to support Yusayr ibn Rizam and requested that he accompany them to visit Muhammad in Medina. Yusayr ibn Rizam consented and came out with a number of his men. However, on the way to Medina Yusayr became suspicious of a trap and attempted to flee, at this point Yusayr and the other Jews were killed.

Shortly after the assassination, Muhammad ordered a full frontal assault on Khaybar. Muhammad had assured his southern border by signing a peace treaty with the Quraysh of Mecca in March of 628 and was therefore able to dedicate all his efforts at Khaybar to the north. The Jews of Khaybar were divided into separate clans with their own fortifications in a similar way to which the Jews of Medina were divided. This allowed the Muslims to besiege them one by one. The Jews eventually surrendered on condition that they would not be killed. The Jews were to evacuate the area and surrender their wealth. Some of the Jews offered to continue to work the orchards and hand over half of their produce to Muhammad. Muhammad accepted this offer, some of the Jews would remain but the land now belonged to the Muslims. One of the leaders of the Banu Nadir, Kinana ibn al-Rabi, was beheaded on Muhammad’s orders. According to Ibn Ishaq, he was also tortured before his death for refusing to reveal the location of the buried treasure of the Banu Nadir. (Ibn Ishaq, pg. 764 ) However no other source mentions the torture. Muhammad took the executed man’s wife as a slave, her name was Safiyya bint Huyayy, (Sahih Bukhari Book 8, #367) incidentally she was also the daughter of Huyayy ibn Akhtab, the former chief of the Banu Nadir who Muhammad had executed during the massacre of the Banu Qurayza. Just as Muhammad had offered his slave Rayhana to be his wife after he had killed her family, he again gave Safiyya the exact same offer. However, unlike Rayhana, Safiyya accepted Muhammad’s offer, she converted to Islam and became his 8th wife. (Sahih Bukhari Book 14, #68) The incident is bizarre because not only had Muhammad killed her father and husband, but he had also executed all the male members of her tribe of birth: the Banu Qurayza. However we should remember that she was only 17 at the time, and if she had rejected the proposal, she would have remained his slave.

The Final Destruction of Paganism

Muhammad had agreed to a 10 year peace with the Quraysh at Mecca. The treaty not only prohibited the Quraysh from waging war on the Muslims and vice-versa, it also stipulated that none of the allies of either party should engage in war with one another. Pre-Islamic Arabia was a place full of intricate tribal alliances and feuds, which meant that a peace treaty binding the allies was perhaps destined to failure from the start. In 630 AD, just 2 years after the treaty was signed, the Banu Bakr, allied with the Quraysh, attacked the Banu Khuza'a, allied with Muhammad in response to a pre-treaty attack by the Khuza'a. Muhammad considered the Banu Bakr attack a breach of the treaty and war with the Quraysh was resumed.

Realizing that the Quraysh were no longer strong enough to face the Muslims, Abu Sufyan, the leader of the Quraysh went back and forth from Mecca to Medina trying to reinstate the peace treaty but Muhammad refused his pleas, he was told to convert to Islam or lose his head. (Ibn Ishaq, 814) Then Muhammad assembled 10,000 soldiers and ordered that they attack the city of Mecca. To save the city, Abu Sufyan finally agreed to convert to Islam and a siege was avoided. Thus the City of Mecca was captured without very much bloodshed, though Muhammad did order that 10 people should be killed, (Ibn Sa`d "Tabaqat", Vol 2, page 168) including 2 polytheist singing girls that used to sing satirical songs about Muhammad. (Abu Dawud: 14, #2678) Only some of these people were executed, others escaped.

After 8 years of fighting, Muhammad was finally returning to his home city in triumph. He went straight to the Kaaba and proceeded to smash up all of the pagan idols whilst shouting:

“Truth has come and Falsehood has vanished." (
)

Thus Paganism was wiped out from the city of Mecca, the Kaaba was converted into a Mosque and to this day no Pagan deity has ever been worshipped there since. After the conquest of Mecca, Muhammad sent his armies out across Arabia to destroy every Pagan temple they could find. (See map 6 - 630 AD and Map 7: 632 AD) At Dhul-Khalasah there was another Kaaba, known as the “Southern Kaaba”, Muhammad sent Jarir with 150 men to destroy it and kill those that were present there. (Sahih Bukhari Book 59, #641) However, not everyone was willing to submit to Muhammad and his new religion without a fight. Muhammad called on the Muslims to remain steadfast and prepare for battle:

"Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them. Know that God is with the righteous." (
)

The Banu Thaqif lived at the city of Taif just to the South of Mecca. They worshipped the Goddess Allat and had a great bejeweled statue of her. The Goddess of Allat had been worshipped in Arabia for at least 1,000 years, we know this because Herodotus mentions her as an Arabian Goddess back in the 5th century BC. (Herodotus - Histories I:131) Whilst Muhammad was becoming more and more powerful, it was not easy for him to persuade the Arabs to give up belief systems that had become so steeped in tradition.

The Banu Thaqif were prepared to defend their city and Muhammad ordered the Muslims to besiege it. The siege was a long drawn out affair with casualties on both sides, the Muslims did manage to breach the walls of Taif by using a catapult, however each time the Muslims tried to get through the breach, the Pagan defenders pushed them back. (Husayn, pg. 279) The siege had lasted one month and the sacred months in which no fighting is allowed was about to begin. Muhammad gave up on the siege, he destroyed the vineyards and orchards around Taif (Haykal) and retreated, but he vowed to resume his war with Taif after the sacred months were over. (Haykal & Koran 9.5)

In the meantime, the Banu Thaqif sent peace delegations to Muhammad. Muhammad would not accept peace until they agreed to accept Islam and destroy the temple of the Goddess Allat. The Banu Thaqif were willing to accept Islam but asked that they be allowed to keep their temple of Allat for three years, Muhammad rejected this condition. Then they reduced the period to two years, one year and finally to one month. (Husayn, pg. 280 & Haykal) But this was one area that Muhammad would not accept any negotiation. For Muhammad, surrender to him meant surrendering to Allah and that meant that no Pagan religion could be tolerated whatsoever. Muhammad is reported to have replied:

“You accept Islam, or else I shall send one to you who is from me. He will cut your necks and enslave your women and children and confiscate your wealth and property.” (
, Vol 2, Pg. 477
, cited in
)

The Banu Thaqif finally consented on the condition that they themselves would not have to be the ones to destroy their temple. This Muhammad could agree to, he appointed Abu Sufyan (his former enemy who had adopted Islam to avoid a battle during the conquest of Mecca) to go to Taif and destroy the idol. Abu Sufyan and his men destroyed the temple whilst the women of the Banu Thaqif watched moaning and crying, but noone dared to stop the Muslims. (Haykal, & Ibn Ishaq, pg. 916-918)

At around the same time, Muhammad sent Khalid to destroy the temple of the Goddess Al-Uzza at Nakhla. According to Hisham Ibn Al-Kalbi, Khalid ransacked the temple, cut down the sacred trees and killed two people there: Dubayyah al-Sulami, the custodian of the sanctuary, and a naked Ethiopian woman whom Khalid beheaded. Khalid took the Ethiopian woman’s jewelry back to Muhammad. Muhammad is said to have stated that the naked Ethiopian was herself Al-Uzza and now that she was dead, no one would ever worship her again. (Ibn Al-Kalbi pg. 21-22)

The Wars of Apostasy

As Muhammad's fame was spreading throughout Arabia, many others saw the power and wealth he was accumulating. Some took the cynical attitude that if Muhammad can be a prophet then perhaps so can they. A number of other 'would-be prophets' began to spring up all over Arabia, so that by 631 AD, anybody who was of any importance in Arabia was claiming to be a prophet of God. History has recorded the names of at least four of these self proclaimed prophets: Aswad Ansi in Yemen, Musaylimah in Yamamah, Tulayha in Bukaza, and even one female prophetess known as Sajjah.

Musaylimah became a prophet in Eastern Arabia at about the same time as Muhammad. In the first years of Muhammad's prophethood, the Pagan Arabs used to accuse Muhammad of being a disciple of Musaylimah, (Ibn Ishaq pg. 189 & 200) which suggests that Musaylimah probably claimed prophethood before Muhammad. In 630 AD, Musaylimah wrote a letter to Muhammad which began “From Musaylimah, Messenger of Allah, to Muhammad, Messenger of Allah”, in the letter Musaylimah suggested that the two prophets share Arabia between them. However Muhammad was uninterested in the proposal, he sent a letter of rejection back to Musaylimah which began “From Muhammad, the messenger of Allah, to Musaylimah, the arch-liar”. (Al-Tabari, pg.107)

In 632 AD, Muhammad died. After his death, many of the Arab tribes began renouncing their conversion to Islam and refusing to pay taxes to the Islamic State. The 'would-be prophets' at this time also rose up in rebellion against the Muslims. Muhammad's father-in-law, Abu-Bakr, led the faithful Muslims in a war to crush these rebellions, known as the Wars of Apostasy. (See map 8 – 633 AD) The most bloody of these conflicts occurred in East-Central Arabia against Musaylimah, who was finally defeated and killed at the Battle of Yamamah in December of 632.

With the final victory over the apostates and 'would-be prophets', the whole of Arabia was under Muslim rule. The stage was now set for the armies of Islam to sweep out of Arabia and overwhelm the remnants of the once great superpowers of Persia and Rome, but that is another story. The final chapter in the Muslim domination of Arabia occurred 9 years later, before Muhammad had died he had vowed to expel all the Christians and Jews from Arabia. (Sahih Muslim 19, 4366) So when Umar became Caliph of the Muslims, he finaly carried out Muhammad's wishes. (See map 9 – 642 AD) The remaining Jews and Christians were expelled and emigrated to Iraq and Syria, where Caliph Umar provided them with new land as compensation for their expulsion. (Hitti, pg. 61)

Muhammad: A Man of his Time

Whilst it is easy to criticize Muhammad for his actions as seen from a modern perspective, it should be remembered that Muhammad was a man of his time. The massacre of prisoners of war and civilians was relatively commonplace in the ancient and medieval world. During the Peloponnesian War, the Athenians did the exact same thing to the island of Melos as Muhammad did to the Banu Qurayza: they killed all of the males and they enslaved the women and children. (Thucydides) Yet the Athenians are admired today for their art, culture, and democracy. In fact, in terms of numbers, the executions done by the Muslims under Muhammad pail in comparison to the most gruesome massacres of the ancient and medieval world. According to a Greek account, in 415 BC, the Carthaginian general Hannibal Mago killed 15,000 Greek citizens and captured another 5,000 when he conquered Selinus in Sicily. (Diodorus Siculus) The Ancient Assyrians were recorded to have massacred the entire civilian population of a number of cities that refused to surrender, as did the Mongols during the Medieval period. Neither should the destruction of Pagan temples under Muhammad be considered an out of the ordinary act of the time. In the 2 centuries prior to Muhammad, the Christians had done the exact same thing to the Pagan temples across the Roman World. "

You questions are stories you have read from the bible which you hope to catch me on when I answer. You forget that i don't even believe in your Bible, so we have to keep the debate on a common understanding of God. You don't see me quoting Quran to you do you?

You can definitely quote the Quran, if you want. I understand that the Quran is what you believe, and I respect your right to believe in it. If you would quote from the Quran, I could understand your position better, since I know your belief is important to you, same as my belief is important to me.

Doesn't matter, most jews are not alive either. But they sure got hold of a good chunk of land didn't they? Those who are alive are actually still getting paid by the german government for the crimes of WW2. Is the American Government paying the surviving Indians for their crimes? btw, how do we know that native indians are no longer alive?

The American government of today actually does pay Native Americans, though there is no way to truly reimburse them on the crimes their ancestors have suffered. Most Native American live on reservations. How we know that Native Americans of the past are no longer alive is because there is documented evidence that they died, many by being killed, and many by dying by disease. :(

Pretty sure many americans have Genetic connection to the Native indians no? ;)

Why the wink? No winking allowed in discussions with ladies! Remember, I am a lady; I am not a man to "smackdown."

There are some who do. The Cherokee nation, a tribe of Native Americans, had an easier time relating with the English colonists than other tribes did. However, the Spanish conqistadores raped and lived with many Native Americans, predominately in Central and South America. Their children with the Native American women are called Mestizos today. My husband is a Mestizo, though he does not really like that term. He is not all that fond of the Spanish conquistadores of the past.

So? You can use your energy to go help Indians can't you? After all you are using energy on shiachat to defend the jews. I suggest you start in your own back yard. Rent a room out to a homeless Indian person.

Well, that is a good idea, but I cannot do that. My husband, who is a descendant of Native Americans and Spanish conquistadores, and I do not have a room to rent, though I have shared his apartment with him since we got married. So, I guess you could say that a descendant of Native Americans is sharing his room with me and paying for our rent. :)

Anyways, my husband would heartily say amen to your idea. He doesn't understand my fascination with Muslims, Jewish people, political stuff, and has no interest in them himself, and he has noticed my recent addiction to shiachat, which he considers to be a waste of time in many aspects, though he likes that I like to think. So, you are right in that I should spend less time on shiachat. Should I not answer you again?

Ahhhh, of course. But it's still the right thing to do no?

That is a good question to ask them. I don't know. The only time I have talked with Native Americans is at Native American pow-wows and on a reservation, as well as when one Native American came to teach about Native Americans at my school when I was younger. I think what they want most right now is respect and the right to govern themselves (they consider themselves for the most part separate from immigrants from any other country) and the right to be left alone: freedom from the white man.

Oh, so you would say it's ok that you go back to England and claim a piece of land, because your great great great grandfather was from the UK?

Let's say there are Iranians who move to the USA, Canada, and the UK. Would it be ok with the Iranians if the great great great ... grandchildren of those Iranians who moved to other countries decided to move to Iran someday? Or is that not ok?

Of course it would be space. Just do like the Israellis did. Throw the majority of the Europeans out of Europe, and then oppress the rest.

So the Europeans won't share, even though we're like cousins? :(

I delight the Irony of your questions, you are practically answering your own arguments.

Hey, I'm a good person, remember? :) I'm also objective. I'm not discussing with you in order to "smackdown" . I'm not a warrior, either a literal warrior or physical one. I'm a lady, and I like learning from people who have different beliefs/opinions than me, and that includes you. I have learned from you, and I have no intention on harming you nor any Muslim. I am learning from y'all, though I don't agree with everything you believe of course.

Exactly. That is the difference between me and you. I believe Moses DID in fact promise a land to the Israellis. But the difference is that you believe God gave Israellis property rights, i believe he gave them a promise of a lnd they could migrate too, not throw people out and take over. Honestly, which of these two do you think is more attributed to God?????

Do the Palestinians believe that Moses did in fact promise the land to the Israelis?

This will be the last time in a while that I can write to you, because it is true I am spending way too much time on shiachat, so I will try to cut that time down and put more effort in helping people around me instead of discussing with people more than likely far away from me? Anyways, I hope you know that my goal in asking questions and commenting is not to offend you or hurt anyone. I appreciate the time you have given in discussing with me. Of course we will not agree on everything, but I do learn a lot through discussion.

Peace and God bless you

Edited by Christianlady
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

If you guys want to be realistic.

If you want to use the term "Israeli" as a nationality of a specific region.

Then by theory we can add that Palestinians are Muslim Israelis.

They never left these lands.

So yes, "Israel" belongs to Muslim Israelis known as Palestinians.

Even some of these Palestinians resemble the Ancient Israelites.

They are a diverse group of people. They're neither Arabs nor Jews.

Edited by ShiaBen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Christianlady, peace,

I think you've reached the point of understanding that America should remove its troops from foreign countries and step back and say "Yeah we messed up, big time, may God have mercy on us for our sins against humanity." And not worry about other countries, which is what got America in this position to begin with. Stop thinking hypothetically (what if they use atom bombs on other countries like America did), it's like the alcoholic wife beater who is still pointing fingers at everyone else around him and not focusing on the real problem--himself.

I noticed you quoting some various snippets from the history of Muhammad (pbuh). You've probably taken your understanding of Islamic history from non-Shi'a perspectives.

I advise you to read this book to better understand our perspective:

http://www.al-islam.org/restatement/

The Prophet then read the following verse from Qur’an:

O People! We created you from a male and a female and distributed you among tribes and families for the facility of reference only. But in the sight of God only those people have a place of honor who are God-fearing and God-loving. Verily, God is knowledgeable and understanding. (Chapter 49; verse 13)

This verse is the Magna Carta of the equality and brotherhood of all men in Islam. There cannot be any distinction between men on the grounds of race, color, nationality, family or wealth. But whereas Islam destroys all other distinctions, it upholds a distinction of its own, and that is the distinction of faith and character.

Muhammad then posed a question to the Quraysh: "How do you think, I am going to treat you now?" They said: "You are a generous brother, and the son of a generous brother. We expect only charity and forgiveness from you." He said: "I will tell you what Joseph said to his brothers, 'there is no blame on you today.' (Qur’an. Chapter 12; verse 92). Go now; all of you are my freedmen."

The Prophet declared a general amnesty in Makkah. The amnesty extended even to the apostates. He forbade his army to plunder the city or to seize anything that belonged to the Quraysh. Quraysh had left nothing undone to compass his destruction, and the destruction of Islam; but in his hour of triumph, he condoned all their crimes and transgressions.

The Quraysh, at first, were incredulous. They could not believe their own ears. How could Muhammad resist the temptation to kill them all, after all that they had done to him in more than two decades, and especially now that he had so much power in his hand? The unwillingness of Muhammad to use his power was something that utterly surpassed the comprehension of the polytheists of Makkah. Considerable time passed before the meaning of the intent of Muhammad sank into their minds, and the amnesty began to look possible and real to them.

The aim of Muhammad, the Apostle of Peace, was to capture Makkah without bloodshed, and in this he was successful. It was here that he revealed himself, in the words of Al-Qur’an al-Majid "a mercy for all mankind." History cannot furnish an example of such forbearance. Not only the pagans were not exterminated; not only they did not have to pay any penalty for their crimes of the past; they were not even disturbed in the possession of the houses which the Muhajireen had left in Makkah, and which they had occupied.

A Restatement of History of Islam, Chapter 32, Conquest of Makkah

So you really cannot even begin to compare the Mercy and justice of Muhammad (pbuh) to anyone else in history, especially not the brutal savages that have come out of the West in the past 300 years, murdering, raping, pillaging everyone who wasn't "white/anglo-saxon" (I'm White/anglo-saxon myself so I can say this confidently supported by facts of history without being racist.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

What trashy cliché polemics are you bringing for us christianlady? For a person who has (supposedly) been personally given a biography of the Prophet to read, you don't seem to exhibit any knowledge about the background and context of the events you quote. Please read the following carefully, so I don't have to repeat my points septillion times:

The first tribe to get into trouble with Muhammad and his followers were the Banu Qaynuqa. Shortly after the Battle of Badr, Muhammad gave the Banu Qaynuqa an ultimatum:

“O Jews! beware lest God bring upon you the vengeance that He brough upon the Quraysh and become Muslims.” (
Ibn Ishaq pg. 545
)

But the Banu Qaynuqa refused to convert and instead barricaded themselves inside their fortress. Muhammad besieged them and after 15 days the Banu Qaynuqa surrendered. Muhammad ordered that all the men of the tribe should be tied up. At this point Abd-Allah ibn Ubayy, a new Muslim convert who was a former friend and ally of the Banu Qaynuqa begged Mohhamed to be lenient with them (Ibn Ishaq pg. 546), so Muhammad simply confiscated their property and possessions and told them that as long as they left Medina within 3 days they would not be harmed. The Banu Qaynuqa fled first to Wadi Al Qura, and then out of Arabia to Syria. (See Map 3 – 624 AD).

Rubbish, there was already a war between them and the muslims which they provoked. Read the following from Mubarakpuri's "The Sealed Nectar" (a detailed biography of Prophet Muhammad):

Seeing that Allâh sided with the believers and granted them a manifest victory and

perceiving the Muslims’ awesome presence in Madinah, the Jews could no longer

contain themselves or conceal indignation. They started a series of provocative and

harmful deeds publicly. The most wicked amongst them were the tribe of Banu

Qainuqa‘, who lived in quarters within Madinah named after them. As for jobs, they

took up goldsmithery, blacksmithing and crafts of making household instruments,

that is why war weaponry was available in large quantities in their houses. They

counted 700 warriors, and were the most daring amongst the Jewish community in

Arabia, and now the first to breach the covenant of cooperation and non-aggression

which they had already countersigned with the Prophet [pbuh]. Their behaviour grew

too impolite and unbearable. They started a process of trouble-making, jeering at

the Muslims, hurting those who frequented their bazaars, and even intimidating their

women. Such things began to aggravate the general situation, so the Prophet [pbuh]

gathered them in assemblage, admonished and called them to be rational, sensible

and guided and cautioned against further transgression. Nevertheless they remained

obdurate and paid no heed to his warning, and said: "Don’t be deluded on account of

defeating some Quraishis inexperienced in the art of war. If you were to engage us

in fight, you will realize that we are genuine war experts."

The answer of Banu Qainuqa‘ amounted, as seen, to war declaration. The Prophet

[pbuh] suppressed his anger and advised the Muslims to be patient and forbearing

and wait for what time might reveal.

The Jews, went too far in their transgression, presumptuous behaviour and licentious

practices. One day a Jewish goldsmith provoked a Muslim woman whose genitals

become uncovered when he had tied the edge of the garment to her back. A Muslim

man happened to be there and killed the man; the Jews retaliated by killing that

Muslim. The man’s family called the Muslims for help and war started.[ibn Hisham 2/47,48]

On Saturday, Shawwal 15th, 2 A.H., the Prophet [pbuh] marched out with his

soldiers, Hamzah bin ‘Abdul Muttalib, carrying the standard of the Muslims and laid

siege to the Jews’ forts for 15 days. Allâh cast fear into their hearts, and they were

obliged to defer to the Messenger[pbuh]’s judgement on their lives, wealth, women

and children; their hands were tied behind their backs.

At this point, ‘Abdullah bin Ubai bin Salul started his hypocritical role and began to

intercede for them persistently on grounds of former alliance between those Jews

and His tribe Khazraj. Muhammad [pbuh] dealt with this man as being a Muslim --

He had faked conversion into Islam for only one month, by that time -- and so he

granted him his request; for Islam accepts people at their face value. Banu Qainuqa‘

handed over all materials, wealth and war equipage to the Prophet [pbuh], who set

aside one fifth and distributed the rest to his men. After that they were banished out

of all Arabia to Azru‘a in Syria

Had you remained awake whilst reading the prophetic biography, you would have noticed that after these sequence of events two jewish tribes were allowed to remain in Medina until further hostilities were stirred.

Please wait as I edit more of my post to answer the remainder of your quote...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Repenter,

What you did not do is answer my question concerning why your wife does not believe that Jewish people can someday, through science, distinguish from which tribe they are from. Merely writing 3 names does not answer the question. Most debaters understand the importanc........

What you did not do is answer my question concerning why your wife does not believe that Jewish people can someday, through science, distinguish from which tribe they are from. Merely writing 3 names does not answer the question. Most debaters understand the importance of quoting specifically from a person's speech or article in order to prove their point, not merely mentioning a name (or 3 names.)

You asked for refrences, i gave you references. I can't go and buy the books for you and write it down for you. Read the books i gave reference too, then we can debate about it.

DATELINE U.S.A. (1977) -- In 1976 Random House published a book that should have hit the Christian Churches like a blockbuster, but instead they chose totally to ignore it. It dealt with the racial origin of the people in Communist and Christian countries who call themselves "Jews," and whom the Churches (and the Jews themselves) generally insist are "God's Chosen People," the Israelite descendants of Abraham. Since the late 1800's a small number of Bible Scholars, who were also students of History and Racial origins, have insisted the Church denominations were wrong; that instead of being Israelites, these Jews from Eastern Europe and Western Asia were descended from Mongolians and other Asiatic peoples who had adopted Judaism as their "religion" over 1,000 years ago and had become know as "Jews." These Bible scholars were ignored or condemned, and often called "cultists" or "anti-Semites."

Does this remind you of someone?

Do you deny that in a debate, providing correct quotations is necessary? I personally believe you are a good person too. I have nothing against you. I do understand that since you are a member of the Muslim community (though I do not know where you live), and I am a Christian who lives in the USA, you would naturally question my motives. Many Americans question the motives of people who are different from them too. That is only natural.

I have lived in America too, and my wife is American. And yes, i do question your motives.

I am pro peace. I do not want Israelis to kill Palestinians and I don't want Palestinians to kill Israelis. I do not want Americans to kill Iranians and I don't want Iranians to kill Americans. The reason is because I believe God created us all and loves us all, and that we should care for, love, and respect each other, despite our differences.

No one is refuting pro peace.

What do you think he did with them? Do you think Joshua, the man God chose to be Moses' successor, politely asked all the people in Jericho to leave, and they said sure and went on their merry way?

I don't believe that the jews were allowed to kill and oppress people, throw them out of their homes while Prophet Moses was still alive. You logic is flawed. You have the opinion that just because the jews moved to a new place, they had to throw people out. No, if i move to the US today, i don't have to throw you out to live there do i?

God cares about everything about everyone. He cares if someone hates someone and judges them on the color of their skin, and He judges people for the evil they do to others, no matter what color of their skin.

First you say God cares about everything, then you say "no matter what color of their skin". Oxymoron. If God cares about everything, then he should certainly take skin color into concideration, and according to you, he also cares about peoples ancestry timeline. I don't agree with you on the point that God cares about everything when judging people for their actions, what is so hard to understand about this?

I believe God keeps His promises.

Good, and God gave a promise to be just long before he supposedly started handing out property rights.

If you are going to say I said something, you need to prove I said it. I did not say that Jewish people are people of God, because I believe that both Jewish people and Gentiles who love God are the people of God, not only Jewish people. Now, you can most definitely prove that the Bible says that the descendants of Abraham, isaac, and Jacob are chosen by God in order to be His people. Why? Because you can quote it. Why? Because that's what the Bible (not me) says: You should quote from the Bible, instead of putting words in my mouth. I boldened some of what Moses told the children of Israel:

You are openly defending the rights of the "jews with connection to the tribes" to live there because God said so. I don't need to prove anything.

You bolded something that i don't believe in, which makes it irrelevant. And it's frankly too much to read, and too messy to involve in a debate.

The reason I keep repeating my questions to you is because you have not given me answers specific to my questions.. Then what happened to the people who were currently living there?

While Moses was alive, nothing as far as he could help it. When he went away, just like when he went away into the mountain, God knows what the jews did in the name of Moses.

Do you believe the Quran, and that God approved of Muhammad and his followers killing those who didn't agree with him?

Do you believe that God approved of the following: (or do you think that Muhammad and his followers did not do what is written in the following article?): I boldened some:

First of all, you need to educate yourself on Islam. You are in SHIACHAT, not SUNNICHAT. You are basically quoting from a random site, using sunni references whilst talking to a shia.

And to answer your question, no i don't believe that God approved of Muhammad killing those who didn't approve with him, nor do i believe Muhammad did such a thing, just like i don't believe Moses approves of the actions of Israellis.

What ones prophets followers do and did does not always reflect what they stood for.

You can definitely quote the Quran, if you want. I understand that the Quran is what you believe, and I respect your right to believe in it. If you would quote from the Quran, I could understand your position better, since I know your belief is important to you, same as my belief is important to me.

Because it is irrelevant. Why would i quote from something you don't regard as truth?

But i will quote this even though it's irrelevant:

Regarding Christians and Jews and their books(OT and NT)

There is among them a section who distort the Book with their tongues: (As they read) you would think it is a part of the Book, but it is no part of the Book; and they say, "That is from Allah," but it is not from Allah (3:78)

They change words from their context and forget a part of that whereof they were admonished (5:13/14).

But the transgressors changed the word from that which had been given them (2:59)

Among them are unlettered folk who know the Scripture not except from hearsay. They but guess. Therefore woe be unto them who write the Scripture with their hands and then say, "This is from Allah," that they may purchase a small gain therewith (2:78-79)

The American government of today actually does pay Native Americans, though there is no way to truly reimburse them on the crimes their ancestors have suffered. Most Native American live on reservations. How we know that Native Americans of the past are no longer alive is because there is documented evidence that they died, many by being killed, and many by dying by disease. :(

Ahh, of course. So there is no one alive with Genes from the Indians you can give your land and house too?

Why the wink? No winking allowed in discussions with ladies! Remember, I am a lady; I am not a man to "smackdown."

There are some who do. The Cherokee nation, a tribe of Native Americans, had an easier time relating with the English colonists than other tribes did. However, the Spanish conqistadores raped and lived with many Native Americans, predominately in Central and South America. Their children with the Native American women are called Mestizos today. My husband is a Mestizo, though he does not really like that term. He is not all that fond of the Spanish conquistadores of the past.

Good, excellent. Do all Mestizos get free land? I suggest you take it by force.

Well, that is a good idea, but I cannot do that. My husband, who is a descendant of Native Americans and Spanish conquistadores, and I do not have a room to rent, though I have shared his apartment with him since we got married. So, I guess you could say that a descendant of Native Americans is sharing his room with me and paying for our rent. :)

Anyways, my husband would heartily say amen to your idea. He doesn't understand my fascination with Muslims, Jewish people, political stuff, and has no interest in them himself, and he has noticed my recent addiction to shiachat, which he considers to be a waste of time in many aspects, though he likes that I like to think. So, you are right in that I should spend less time on shiachat. Should I not answer you again?

You can do as you please. I'm just glad you are giving back the Indians their land back. Though they shouldn't pay rent for their own land. Do all Gentiles and Jews who you know and are men of the bible also let people with Indian genes give their house away for free? By the way, would you be upset if someone with Indian decent comes and throws out your neighbors because it used to be their land 400 years ago?

That is a good question to ask them. I don't know. The only time I have talked with Native Americans is at Native American pow-wows and on a reservation, as well as when one Native American came to teach about Native Americans at my school when I was younger. I think what they want most right now is respect and the right to govern themselves (they consider themselves for the most part separate from immigrants from any other country) and the right to be left alone: freedom from the white man.

Well i suggest you find out then, you are after all living on their land, whilst they are living in reservations and in the streets.

Let's say there are Iranians who move to the USA, Canada, and the UK. Would it be ok with the Iranians if the great great great ... grandchildren of those Iranians who moved to other countries decided to move to Iran someday? Or is that not ok?

You are a lady, but you are a tricky lady. Why don't you answer my question first? But since you obviously didn't want to answer, i can answer yours.

Yes it would be perfectly ok for them to move back. What would not be ok, is if they moved back and threw people out of their homes, killed them, and made a new government. See where i'm getting at?

So the Europeans won't share, even though we're like cousins?

Do/did the israellis share? I mean considering all the bulldozers and guns, settlements etc.

Do the Palestinians believe that Moses did in fact promise the land to the Israelis?

This will be the last time in a while that I can write to you, because it is true I am spending way too much time on shiachat, so I will try to cut that time down and put more effort in helping people around me instead of discussing with people more than likely far away from me? Anyways, I hope you know that my goal in asking questions and commenting is not to offend you or hurt anyone. I appreciate the time you have given in discussing with me. Of course we will not agree on everything, but I do learn a lot through discussion.

All Muslims do. It's in the Quran. He promised a land the Israelis can live in, not a land they can occupy and act like bullies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

To continue from my last post...

Had you remained awake whilst reading the prophetic biography, you would have noticed that after these sequence of events two jewish tribes were allowed to remain in Medina until further hostilities were stirred.

We should remember that Muhammad had already killed their chief Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf, so they may well have been plotting revenge. He gave the Banu Nadir an ultimatum: they must leave Medina within 10 days or they will be beheaded. The Banu Nadir refused to leave and barricaded themselves in their fortress. Muhammad ordered that their fortress be besieged and their crops be destroyed. (Koran 59.5) After a few days the Banu Nadir surrendered and agreed to leave Medina. Muhammad seized their weapons, land, houses, and wealth (Ibn Ishaq, pg. 654). (See Map 4 - 625 AD)
a) Kab ibn Ashraf was a jewish poet who sided with the pagan meccans and would always incite them to wage war against the muslims by composing fierce poetry. People who cause sedition and fighting are evidently committing treason, and it's no surprise the Prophet sent Maslama to kill him. b ) Their palm trees were cut after being beseiged so that they would surrender, no crops were destroyed. They were allowed to keep any movable property with the exceptions of weapons of war, the latter which was confiscated for very obvious reasons. Again I give you Mubarakpuris biographical account:

The Prophet [pbuh] accepted their request and allowed them to carry as

much luggage as their camels could lift, arms were exceptional. Of course, they had no

choice but to carry out the orders, so they took with them everything they could

carry even the pegs and beams of ceilings.

Shortly after the assassination, Muhammad ordered a full frontal assault on Khaybar. Muhammad had assured his southern border by signing a peace treaty with the Quraysh of Mecca in March of 628 and was therefore able to dedicate all his efforts at Khaybar to the north. The Jews of Khaybar were divided into separate clans with their own fortifications in a similar way to which the Jews of Medina were divided. This allowed the Muslims to besiege them one by one. The Jews eventually surrendered on condition that they would not be killed. The Jews were to evacuate the area and surrender their wealth. Some of the Jews offered to continue to work the orchards and hand over half of their produce to Muhammad. Muhammad accepted this offer, some of the Jews would remain but the land now belonged to the Muslims. One of the leaders of the Banu Nadir, Kinana ibn al-Rabi, was beheaded on Muhammad’s orders. According to Ibn Ishaq, he was also tortured before his death for refusing to reveal the location of the buried treasure of the Banu Nadir. (Ibn Ishaq, pg. 764 ) However no other source mentions the torture. Muhammad took the executed man’s wife as a slave, her name was Safiyya bint Huyayy, (Sahih Bukhari Book 8, #367) incidentally she was also the daughter of Huyayy ibn Akhtab, the former chief of the Banu Nadir who Muhammad had executed during the massacre of the Banu Qurayza. Just as Muhammad had offered his slave Rayhana to be his wife after he had killed her family, he again gave Safiyya the exact same offer. However, unlike Rayhana, Safiyya accepted Muhammad’s offer, she converted to Islam and became his 8th wife. (Sahih Bukhari Book 14, #68) The incident is bizarre because not only had Muhammad killed her father and husband, but he had also executed all the male members of her tribe of birth: the Banu Qurayza. However we should remember that she was only 17 at the time, and if she had rejected the proposal, she would have remained his slave.
What a ridiculous distortion of the facts, I almost vomited after reading this nonsense. Abu Rafi wasn't merely reciting satirical poems, but he would fund the bedouin tribes of the desert to wage war against the muslims. In fact, he was the main supplier behind the battle of the trench (which was a coalition of all the arab tribes in the hope of launching a genocidal attack against the muslims living in Medina). William Montgomery Watt in his book "Muhammad in Medina" elaborates on the fact that the raid against Khayber was launched due to the fact that it was a base for Banu Nadir which would fund arab tribes to wage war against Muhammad (they also contributed along with Abu Rafi in funding the coalition of arab tribes in the battle of the Trench). There is no chain of narrators at all for any 'torture' , the myth is righteously rejected by muslim and non-muslim scholars as a mythical rumor that has no source at all. The idiots who wrote this article have confused the actual storyline into a chaotic mumbo jumbo, as: a) Safiyyah wasn't even part of the Banu Quraiza tribe, she was a member of the Banu Nadir tribe whose farmers remained in the land of Khaiber as long as they would pay tribute. b ) The revenue supplied by the farmers was redistributed for the muslims, they weren't kept with the Prophet. The last sentence is the most horrendous slander these homos would have written against the Prophet, as the facts of the story say something else entirely. She had the option of conversion and marriage or being freed and returned to her people: He [the Prophet Muhammad - Ed.] then told Safiyyah that he was prepared to set her free, and he offered her the choice between remaining a Jewess and returning to her people or entering Islam and becoming his wife. "I choose God and His Messenger," she said; and they were married at the first halt on the homeward march. - Martin Lings, Muhammad: His Life Based On The Earliest Sources , p. 269) Their was a treaty after the battle which stipulated that the Treasury would be placed in the hands of the muslims (which was formerly used to fund the bedouin tribes to fight the muslims). Safiyyah's husband broke this treaty to scheme against the muslims and was killed as per the regulations of the treaty. There's still more to respond to, but frankly I don't have the time right now.

You should be ashamed of yourself for being so pathetic as to frantically google random articles written by a bunch of illiterate haters. You really should be more honest and refer to the biography that was given to you, and stop digressing next time to justify zionist atrocities by quoting an article that is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Edited by La'nat Ma Man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

You should be ashamed of yourself for being so pathetic as to frantically google random articles written by a bunch of illiterate haters. You really should be more honest and refer to the biography that was given to you, and stop digressing next time to justify zionist atrocities by quoting an article that is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Hello La'nat Ma Man,

Wow. Endless Endeavor is so right. I no longer have any desire to write to Shia Muslims. My husband is right; it's an extreme waste of time.

From Why your Little Daughter Should Wear Hijab, in post #79

snapback.pngEndlessEndeavor, on 10 February 2012 - 02:26 PM, said:

Once again, the manners of people on this forum is appalling. Particularly during these days, where Muslims celebrate the birth of the Prophet (SAW) the man with the greatest manners.

La'nat Ma Man, you are in my prayers, but I no longer have the desire to write you or any other Shia Muslim, with the exception of a few.

Endless Endeavor, I just want to thank you once again for standing up for me. I appreciate your kindness and courtesy, patience, and tolerance to someone who believes differently than you.

Christianlady, peace,

I think you've reached the point of understanding that America should remove its troops from foreign countries and step back and say "Yeah we messed up, big time, may God have mercy on us for our sins against humanity." And not worry about other countries, which is what got America in this position to begin with. Stop thinking hypothetically (what if they use atom bombs on other countries like America did), it's like the alcoholic wife beater who is still pointing fingers at everyone else around him and not focusing on the real problem--himself.

I noticed you quoting some various snippets from the history of Muhammad (pbuh). You've probably taken your understanding of Islamic history from non-Shi'a perspectives.

I advise you to read this book to better understand our perspective:

http://www.al-islam.org/restatement/

So you really cannot even begin to compare the Mercy and justice of Muhammad (pbuh) to anyone else in history, especially not the brutal savages that have come out of the West in the past 300 years, murdering, raping, pillaging everyone who wasn't "white/anglo-saxon" (I'm White/anglo-saxon myself so I can say this confidently supported by facts of history without being racist.)

Hello Dawud Miqdad al-Amriki,

Thank you so much for your kindess to me. I greatly appreciate it. My feelings are hurt right now, so I am not in an emotional position to respond, but if you would like, could you please email me your email so later on I will reply? I am no longer wanting to be a part of shiachat, because of the rudeness to me.

Peace and may God bless Shiachat, both the mean, rude Shia members and the kind, courteous Shia members, as well as the Sunnis and Christians and Jewish people and Atheists and anyone else who is a member of Shiachat.

Edited by Christianlady
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Hello La'nat Ma Man,

Wow. Endless Endeavor is so right. I no longer have any desire to write to Shia Muslims. My husband is right; it's an extreme waste of time.

From Why your Little Daughter Should Wear Hijab, in post #79

La'nat Ma Man, you are in my prayers, but I no longer have the desire to write you or any other Shia Muslim, with the exception of a few.

Endless Endeavor, I just want to thank you once again for standing up for me. I appreciate your kindness and courtesy, patience, and tolerance to someone who believes differently than you.

Hello Dawud Miqdad al-Amriki,

Thank you so much for your kindess to me. I greatly appreciate it. My feelings are hurt right now, so I am not in an emotional position to respond, but if you would like, could you please email me your email so later on I will reply? I am no longer wanting to be a part of shiachat, because of the rudeness to me.

Peace and may God bless Shiachat, both the mean, rude Shia members and the kind, courteous Shia members, as well as the Sunnis and Christians and Jewish people and Atheists and anyone else who is a member of Shiachat.

Are you really this emotional as to be unable to stand any heavy-handed criticism? No insults were thrown at you, you brought it upon yourself by wasting your time googling a ridiculous hate page that is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Who knows whether there's actual emotion, or this is being taken as an opportunity to walk away in a (perceived) legitimate manner? There's got to be some place where these guys have their presence: http://www.guardian....social-networks

Thankyou for the article ali, she (he?) certainly does seem to be a fishy presence; especially when we consider the repetitive format of her replies akin to a bot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Thankyou for the article ali, she (he?) certainly does seem to be a fishy presence; especially when we consider the repetitive format of her replies akin to a bot.

I don't think that she is really all that fishy - just a standard "Christian Zionist" type - whose arguments (such as they are) are based on stylized history, and a rather odd understanding of the issues of the current middle east, mixed in with some of the most idiotic jibberish emanating from places like Fox News.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I don't think that she is really all that fishy - just a standard "Christian Zionist" type - whose arguments (such as they are) are based on stylized history, and a rather odd understanding of the issues of the current middle east, mixed in with some of the most idiotic jibberish emanating from places like Fox News.

...and also likes to completely go off-topic by linking everyone to a random anti-islamic article and then cries foul at the outrage directed at her.

She could have been either of the two (as she does advocate peace, which kind of makes her neutral lol), but it's a damn shame she ran away from it all. Oh well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

...and also likes to completely go off-topic by linking everyone to a random anti-islamic article and then cries foul at the outrage directed at her.

She could have been either of the two (as she does advocate peace, which kind of makes her neutral lol), but it's a damn shame she ran away from it all. Oh well.

Hello La'nat Ma Man,

I don't appreciate people being mean to me. I try not to be mean to others. Have I ever been mean to you? If so, how? Why be mean to me?

Anyways, if you do not agree with the article that I posted, please kindly go to to http://explorethemed.com/Maps.asp

As far as I know, it's an objective learning site. If you think that the article contains errors, why insult me for it? I didn't write it. I am not encouraging you to insult the author, but I do encourage you to please kindly go to http://explorethemed...ohammed.asp?c=1 which is just one section of explorethemed, and kindly tell the admin what exactly the errors are, ok? Because if Muslims don't correct with adequate proof as to their corrections what they think is wrong, Non Muslims are not going to know. Why? Because it is not our history. And just telling Non Muslims to only read what Muslims write is not going to fly. Why? Because some Non Muslims are objective and like to learn history from all sides, not just one side.

And yes, I am neutral, but I am still not very happy with you at the moment, but I forgive you, because Jesus commands me to. Also, of course I'm a female. Also, the idea of me being a spy is absurd. I can't even keep a secret from my husband. How could I be a good spy? If you don't believe me, if you wish to be facebook friends and are not a crazy person, I'm willing to be facebook friends. Also, even though I like fish, I'm not fishy. I'm just a regular person who happens to like learning about people who are different than me. If that's fishy to you, then well - go jump in a lake!

And to Repenter, I'm not tricky. I just think differently than you.

And to Greg, I'm not a Zionist. I do however have ties to Jewish people because my Savior, Jesus, is Jewish, and Mary, Jesus' mother, is Jewish. And the apostles, who Jesus chose who walked and talked with him (which I would have so loved to do... if I could have chosen in what time and where to be born, I would have chosen to be born during the time of Jesus and have the opportunity to hear him teach and heal people!!!) are Jewish. That's different than being a Zionist... it's holding dear a people who I have heard about all my life. As for the Palestinians (Arabs and any other group of people) and the Jewish people, I hope they stop killing each other and start caring for and respecting each other. So I am not a Zionist. I want both groups to be ok. Is that so horrible?

Peace and God bless you

Edited by Christianlady
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christianlady, you had said ShiaChat was a waste of time. Why are you back?

People being 'mean' is a good excuse you've come up with, I expect you'll go for real now :)

By the way, for La'nat Ma Man and Greg: I don't know if it's a bot either, normally bots can't twist arguments that much heheh. It might well be a 'sock puppet' profile though (one of the 10 that an operative can maintain, as the Guardian news article said), using interventions every now and then. One of the most clear examples of pro-American propaganda was the 'American leaders talk the language of advancement' line or something to that effect a day or two ago. Someone forgot to add nuance to that statement :) and so it's no longer hidden.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Hello La'nat Ma Man,

I don't appreciate people being mean to me. I try not to be mean to others. Have I ever been mean to you? If so, how? Why be mean to me?

Anyways, if you do not agree with the article that I posted, please kindly go to to http://explorethemed.com/Maps.asp

As far as I know, it's an objective learning site. If you think that the article contains errors, why insult me for it? I didn't write it. I am not encouraging you to insult the author, but I do encourage you to please kindly go to http://explorethemed...ohammed.asp?c=1 which is just one section of explorethemed, and kindly tell the admin what exactly the errors are, ok? Because if Muslims don't correct with adequate proof as to their corrections what they think is wrong, Non Muslims are not going to know. Why? Because it is not our history. And just telling Non Muslims to only read what Muslims write is not going to fly. Why? Because some Non Muslims are objective and like to learn history from all sides, not just one side.

And yes, I am neutral, but I am still not very happy with you at the moment, but I forgive you, because Jesus commands me to. Also, of course I'm a female. Also, the idea of me being a spy is absurd. I can't even keep a secret from my husband. How could I be a good spy? If you don't believe me, if you wish to be facebook friends and are not a crazy person, I'm willing to be facebook friends. Also, even though I like fish, I'm not fishy. I'm just a regular person who happens to like learning about people who are different than me. If that's fishy to you, then well - go jump in a lake!

And to Repenter, I'm not tricky. I just think differently than you.

And to Greg, I'm not a Zionist. I do however have ties to Jewish people because my Savior, Jesus, is Jewish, and Mary, Jesus' mother, is Jewish. And the apostles, who Jesus chose who walked and talked with him (which I would have so loved to do... if I could have chosen in what time and where to be born, I would have chosen to be born during the time of Jesus and have the opportunity to hear him teach and heal people!!!) are Jewish. That's different than being a Zionist... it's holding dear a people who I have heard about all my life. As for the Palestinians (Arabs and any other group of people) and the Jewish people, I hope they stop killing each other and start caring for and respecting each other. So I am not a Zionist. I want both groups to be ok. Is that so horrible?

Peace and God bless you

Are you completely oblivious to the fact that you posted an article that had nothing to do with the topic at hand ? I've already visited explorethemed before, and i'm sorry to tell you that article was riddled with very basic errors and is reminiscient of the typical christian polemics propagated throughout the internet. The writers are so confused they couldn't even state the most easily discernable fact that Safiyyah (one of the wives of Prophet Muhammad) belonged to the Banu Nadir tribe and not the Banu Qureiza tribe. Evidently there would be something very flawed to the core in this article, and what i'm even more angry at you for is your failure to realize this considering you've been given a biography of the Prophet to read for yourself . Why bother googling up a random article about the Prophet's life then? With all the knowledge at your hand, you should already know the internet is not always the most reliable source of information. Objectivity is more likely with unbiased academics from the non-muslim circle, and i'm sorry to tell you this article does not belong to that academic circle and its objectivity.

Also don't play dumb and innocent, you yourself preceded the quotation with a retarded rhetorical question that lends support to the same article itself. Now please go back to my previous posts and read my response carefully (you'll notice I quoted a book authored by a non-muslim), and if you are still skeptical as to what I say then I suggest you purchase "The Life of Muhammad" by Alfred Guillaume; the book is a translation of the earliest biography written about the Prophet's life. I also referenced the book Muhammad in Medina in my response to you, but since I dont have the book with me right now I suggest you read it too. It is authored by William Montgomery Watt, and both he and Alfred Guillaume are Oxford University graduates (and they're not converts either lol).

Now let's get back to the topic at hand, shall we?

Edited by La'nat Ma Man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Are you completely oblivious to the fact that you posted an article that had nothing to do with the topic at hand ?

Hello La'nat Ma Man,

Repenter said the following, in post 81 of this thread:

"I don't believe in your Bible and i believe it has flaws. Reason i believe this i that i look at God as fair and just. I don't believe he ever, ever approves of throwing people out of their home, and give land to someone else."

I replied as follows in post #82, in response to what Repenter said:

"Do you believe the Quran, and that God approved of Muhammad and his followers killing those who didn't agree with him?

Do you believe that God approved of the following: (or do you think that Muhammad and his followers did not do what is written in the following article?): I boldened some:"

And then I posted the article. Now, if God wills, I will see about the books you mentioned and see if there is anything about Muhammad and his followers confiscating the property and homes of people who were against him.

I've already visited explorethemed before, and i'm sorry to tell you that article was riddled with very basic errors and is reminiscient of the typical christian polemics propagated throughout the internet.

I do not think explorethemed is Christian. The reason I don't think so is because in the Rise of Christianity article, the author does not specifically give the historic account of Jesus or praise Jesus, which is what a Christian site would do.

The writers are so confused they couldn't even state the most easily discernable fact that Safiyyah (one of the wives of Prophet Muhammad) belonged to the Banu Nadir tribe and not the Banu Qureiza tribe.

Then you should prevent evidence to this very important fact to the admin. Have you done that?

Evidently there would be something very flawed to the core in this article, and what i'm even more angry at you for is your failure to realize this considering you've been given a biography of the Prophet to read for yourself .

I am a free person. I can read about Muhammad from any source I want, thank you very much. Be as angry as you like about it, but it's true.

Why bother googling up a random article about the Prophet's life then? With all the knowledge at your hand, you should already know the internet is not always the most reliable source of information. Objectivity is more likely with unbiased academics from the non-muslim circle, and i'm sorry to tell you this article does not belong to that academic circle and its objectivity.

Have you asked a Non Muslim if this site is objective, or is it merely your opinion, as a Muslim, that the site is not objective?

Also don't play dumb and innocent, you yourself preceded the quotation with a retarded rhetorical question that lends support to the same article itself.

You are very rude sometimes. Rude means the following, according to http://dictionary.re...com/browse/rude

rude

1.

discourteous or impolite, especially in a deliberate way: a rude reply.

2.

without culture, learning, or refinement: rude, illiterate peasants.

3.

rough in manners or behavior; unmannerly; uncouth.

4.

rough, harsh, or ungentle: rude hands."

When you are being rude, I do not enjoy writing with you, nor do I tend to take anything you write seriously, except for the rude adjectives you are so fond of using when writing me. Now, I ask myself, what should I expect from a rude person? I should expect discourteous and impolite comments. Do I want to continue writing a rude person? No. So, until you put off your rude ways, this will be the last time I write you. Now, of course you can continue to be as rude as you like, but I will no longer desire to respond to your rudeness.

There is another poster on shiachat who likes to stalk me and try to provoke me, but just as I refuse to answer him when he failed to refute Joshua's article like I asked him to, and of course I can only expect him to continue his stalking, so I can refuse to engage in discussion with a rude person who I can expect to continue to insult me.

Now please go back to my previous posts and read my response carefully (you'll notice I quoted a book authored by a non-muslim),

After I saw your rudeness, I had no desire to read what you wrote. Now, if you had courteously written without throwing in the negative adjectives at me, I would most definitely have read it and replied. If you want someone of a different belief to continue to write you, being courteous helps. Rudeness just shuts the door.

and if you are still skeptical as to what I say then I suggest you purchase "The Life of Muhammad" by Alfred Guillaume; the book is a translation of the earliest biography written about the Prophet's life. I also referenced the book Muhammad in Medina in my response to you, but since I dont have the book with me right now I suggest you read it too. It is authored by William Montgomery Watt, and both he and Alfred Guillaume are Oxford University graduates (and they're not converts either lol).

Why didn't you write like that before? You see, in this paragraph above, you have no insults at me or anyone!!!... imagine that! Wow! You can courteous and not rude when you have a mind to be! So, just because there is no insults in the above paragraph (as well as in other parts of your tirade above), and the authors are objective (not being Muslim in this case), then yes I will see about reading them, thank you. You see how nice and easy it is to be polite? If God wills, I'll get back to you on them, and see what they say concerning if Muhammad and his followers ever threw people (who were against them) out of their homes.

Now let's get back to the topic at hand, shall we?

The topic of this thread is why Iran wants to copy the USA in attaining nuclear power. I have received many polite replies that answered my question, thank you. I only hope that the USA does not use atomic bombs again and that the nations who follow in the US' footsteps in regards to technology, do not follow the US' footsteps in regards of using them to kill people. Only God knows, however, what will happen.

Peace and God bless you

Edited by Christianlady
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Sigh..........I smell a big fat troll :D

...

Hmmph.

Hello ShiaBen,

Wow, how anyone can think being rude is intelligent or mature or of a person of integrity is beyond me. I feel bad for being rude to you, so I erased it. I'm sorry for being rude. I was trying out your rudeness on you, and I don't like it. :( I would rather have people be rude to me than for me to be rude back.

Peace and God bless you

Edited by Christianlady
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is another poster on shiachat who likes to stalk me and try to provoke me, but just as I refuse to answer him when he failed to refute Joshua's article like I asked him to, and of course I can only expect him to continue his stalking, so I can refuse to engage in discussion with a rude person who I can expect to continue to insult me.

So you're now not only claiming that I stalk you, but also that I like doing it. Wow, just wow. There's no limit to how low you can go, is there?

You're trying to escape from responding to people who are able to find the mistakes in your arguments, by bringing random articles and insisting they respond to those random articles (else you won't communicate with them anymore).

Not responding when presented with logic shows your weakness (which is what one can expect from someone who has to maintain several fake profiles actively).

...

Hmmph.

Hello ShiaBen,

Wow, how anyone can think being rude is intelligent or mature or of a person of integrity is beyond me. I feel bad for being rude to you, so I erased it. I'm sorry for being rude. I was trying out your rudeness on you, and I don't like it. :( I would rather have people be rude to me than for me to be rude back.

Peace and God bless you

LOL! What are you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Christianlady is a Christian who has come here to talk about her views and to learn.

I'm not sure what she said or did that has upset or confused anyone.

Let's get back on track with the topic and not point fingers at her or behave in any way that upsets her when it isn't warranted. She isn't Aisha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

How about making crazy allegations without basis and refusing to talk about the topic at hand?

She has been talking about the topic at hand, she has posted A LOT, and has had to respond to too many people, I think she deserves respect for writing so much and being open minded. I've seen her concede to several points we have made, it even appears that her opinion has changed since her original post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...