Page 3 of 6

Re: Was the Middle East in Muhammad's time really so barbari

Posted: Wed Feb 12, 2014 3:46 pm
by uncung
Nosuperstition wrote: O.K,let me make it clear.This is what you said

Hey uncung,you said that Islam is a poison for filthy minds.Now which sort of a mind would you consider as filthy?
oh it turns to be boomerang for me. filthy depend on the cases.

Re: Was the Middle East in Muhammad's time really so barbari

Posted: Wed Feb 12, 2014 4:48 pm
by sum
Hello uncung

Your quote -
assume i am a dummy guy. which barbaric acts he (had had) commited?

Ordering people to be stoned and having people assassinated.

Now tell me if a muslim who doubts the prophet hood of Muhammad because of these deeds has committed a sin.

sum

Re: Was the Middle East in Muhammad's time really so barbari

Posted: Wed Feb 12, 2014 4:57 pm
by uncung
sum wrote:Hello uncung



Ordering people to be stoned and having people assassinated.

Now tell me if a muslim who doubts the prophet hood of Muhammad because of these deeds has committed a sin.

sum
you do mean punishment?
doubting of prophet is a big sin.

Re: Was the Middle East in Muhammad's time really so barbari

Posted: Wed Feb 12, 2014 5:06 pm
by sum
Hello uncung

Your quote -
doubting of prophet is a big sin.

Does this make the doubter an apostate or hypocrite?

sum

Re: Was the Middle East in Muhammad's time really so barbari

Posted: Wed Feb 12, 2014 5:11 pm
by uncung
sum wrote:Hello uncung



Does this make the doubter an apostate or hypocrite?

sum
either ignorance or arrogance.

Re: Was the Middle East in Muhammad's time really so barbari

Posted: Wed Feb 12, 2014 6:04 pm
by sum
Hello uncung

Your quote -
either ignorance or arrogance.

This does not answer my question.

If it is a big sin to doubt the prophet hood of Muhammad, does it, or does it not, make the sinner an apostate or hypocrite?

sum

Re: Was the Middle East in Muhammad's time really so barbari

Posted: Wed Feb 12, 2014 6:33 pm
by Hombre
uncung wrote:
Hombre wrote: Persians were not barbaric - only Muslim invaders had made them barbaric. A wound which lasted to this day.
They were.
You know! Farsi Iranians known to loath the Arabs, and look down at them. Consider them (including Mohammad himself) as barbaric Bedouin, who came from the deserts of Arabia and ruined their country?.

Besides, In Judaism, eating Lizards are not Kosher and forbidden to eat. So how those 3 Jewish Tribes in Madinah & Yatrib could eat non-Kosher food?.

Re: Was the Middle East in Muhammad's time really so barbari

Posted: Wed Feb 12, 2014 6:43 pm
by uncung
Hombre wrote: You know! Farsi Iranians known to loath the Arabs, and look down at them. Consider them (including Mohammad himself) as barbaric Bedouin, who came from the deserts of Arabia and ruined their country?.

Besides, In Judaism, eating Lizards are not Kosher and forbidden to eat. So how those 3 Jewish Tribes in Madinah & Yatrib could eat non-Kosher food?.
The Roman–Persian Wars were a series of conflicts. They were ended by the Arab Muslim invasions.
--
Lizards are halal but are not suggested, we muslims dont consume it.

Re: Was the Middle East in Muhammad's time really so barbari

Posted: Wed Feb 12, 2014 6:57 pm
by sum
Hello uncung

Please answer my question above then tell me what right did the muslims have to invade, conquer and subjugate the Persians?

sum

Re: Was the Middle East in Muhammad's time really so barbari

Posted: Wed Feb 12, 2014 7:13 pm
by uncung
sum wrote:Hello uncung

Please answer my question above then tell me what right did the muslims have to invade, conquer and subjugate the Persians?

sum
the invation reason was propagating islam.

Re: Was the Middle East in Muhammad's time really so barbari

Posted: Wed Feb 12, 2014 8:24 pm
by manfred
uncung wrote: the invation reason was propagating islam.
You mean INVASION.

Well you are mixing up "reason" with "excuse".

The REASON was LOOT, expansion of power, slaves, territory, new subjects, more taxes.

The EXCUSE to do the immoral and attack people for such reasons is "Propagating Islam". The Persians did not want Islam. They got it forced on them, like all currently Islamic countries.

They were the losers. They have been conquered.

So you too are defending not your own culture but a to your people alien ideology your ancestors tried to fend off but lost. What a good slave you are... defending your masters in everything without giving it a thought.

I wish I could break your chain and set you free.

Re: Was the Middle East in Muhammad's time really so barbari

Posted: Wed Feb 12, 2014 8:33 pm
by uncung
manfred wrote:
You mean INVASION.

Well you are mixing up "reason" with "excuse".

The REASON was LOOT, expansion of power, slaves, territory, new subjects, more taxes.

The EXCUSE to do the immoral and attack people for such reasons is "Propagating Islam". The Persians did not want Islam. They got it forced on them, like all currently Islamic countries.

They were the losers. They have been conquered.

So you too are defending not your own culture but a to your people alien ideology your ancestors tried to fend off but lost. What a good slave you are... defending your masters in everything without giving it a thought.

I wish I could break your chain and set you free.
the loot is another benefit of invasion.

Re: Was the Middle East in Muhammad's time really so barbari

Posted: Wed Feb 12, 2014 8:55 pm
by manfred
uncung wrote:
sum wrote:Hello uncung



Does this make the doubter an apostate or hypocrite?

sum
either ignorance or arrogance.

And a man who refuses to doubt is not ignorant?

I want to show you a little passage about doubting in St John's gospel (chapter 20)

One of the disciples, Thomas, did not believe in the resurrection, and he wanted proof:
25 So the other disciples were saying to him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.”

26 After eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst and said, “Peace be with you.”

27 Then He said to Thomas, “Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.”
Jesus later says it would have been better to believe the testimony of his friends, but he does not condemn the doubter. In fact, he indulges him and lets him see.

Doubting is not a bad thing, it is what we do to arrive at the truth.

Being gullible is not a virtue.

Re: Was the Middle East in Muhammad's time really so barbari

Posted: Wed Feb 12, 2014 9:08 pm
by manfred
uncung wrote:the loot is another benefit of invasion.
well, that depend how you look at it...

Ordinarily people would not simply attack their neighbours to get loot. That is was ROBBERS do.

"Propagating Islam" is the excuse to make robbery, extortion and slave runs acceptable to those with remnants of a conscience.

Islam brought no benefit to any country it was "propagated" to.

It only brought benefits to the conquerors.

Re: Was the Middle East in Muhammad's time really so barbari

Posted: Wed Feb 12, 2014 9:40 pm
by uncung
manfred wrote:
well, that depend how you look at it...

Ordinarily people would not simply attack their neighbours to get loot. That is was ROBBERS do.

"Propagating Islam" is the excuse to make robbery, extortion and slave runs acceptable to those with remnants of a conscience.

Islam brought no benefit to any country it was "propagated" to.

It only brought benefits to the conquerors.
it is disbelievers fault. if they submited to muslims then they dont need to be attacked. and their belongings/goods would be saved.

Re: Was the Middle East in Muhammad's time really so barbari

Posted: Wed Feb 12, 2014 9:44 pm
by uncung
manfred wrote:

And a man who refuses to doubt is not ignorant?

I want to show you a little passage about doubting in St John's gospel (chapter 20)

One of the disciples, Thomas, did not believe in the resurrection, and he wanted proof:
[]
25 So the other disciples were saying to him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.”

26 After eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst and said, “Peace be with you.”

27 Then He said to Thomas, “Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.”[/]

Jesus later says it would have been better to believe the testimony of his friends, but he does not condemn the doubter. In fact, he indulges him and lets him see.

Doubting is not a bad thing, it is what we do to arrive at the truth.

Being gullible is not a virtue.
doubting of religion/truth is a part of disbelieving. it is one of the reason why people are tortured in hell.
i guess (my opinion) it is because they are either arrogant or lazy.

Re: Was the Middle East in Muhammad's time really so barbari

Posted: Wed Feb 12, 2014 10:09 pm
by manfred
uncung wrote: it is disbelievers fault. if they submited to muslims then they dont need to be attacked. and their belongings/goods would be saved.
Well....

In England the lived a long time ago a highway robber, his name was Dick Turpin. He stopped coaches with a gun and gave passengers the choice "your money or your life".

If you ever visited someone like that in prison, what do you think he would say if you asked "how could you just kill people for money?"? I tell you would he would say, I have heard it many times: "They had it coming, the idiots. Why did they have to be so stubborn? They only needed to give me the money."

Mohammed gave a similar grim ultimatum: "Your freedom or your life and property"

And you are making the same excuse for him as the robber in prison.

Re: Was the Middle East in Muhammad's time really so barbari

Posted: Wed Feb 12, 2014 10:31 pm
by uncung
manfred wrote: Well....

In England the lived a long time ago a highway robber, his name was Dick Turpin. He stopped coaches with a gun and gave passengers the choice "your money or your life".

If you ever visited someone like that in prison, what do you think he would say if you asked "how could you just kill people for money?"? I tell you would he would say, I have heard it many times: "They had it coming, the idiots. Why did they have to be so stubborn? They only needed to give me the money."

Mohammed gave a similar grim ultimatum: "Your freedom or your life and property"

And you are making the same excuse for him as the robber in prison.
they can keep owning the belongings/money/goods if they submit to muslims troops. muslims will not attack nor bother them. moreover it is haram to hurt them. they only need to adhere islamic rule.

Re: Was the Middle East in Muhammad's time really so barbari

Posted: Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:02 pm
by manfred
Well, as I said...
"Your freedom or your life and property"

Re: Was the Middle East in Muhammad's time really so barbari

Posted: Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:18 pm
by sum
Hello uncung

Your quote -
they can keep owning the belongings/money/goods if they submit to muslims troops. muslims will not attack nor bother them. moreover it is haram to hurt them. they only need to adhere islamic rule.

uncung, your Islamic indoctrination has destroyed your morality and empathy. Islam has dragged you into the gutter.

If you are an example of the muslim frame of mind there can never be any compromise or peaceful outcome for any dispute with Islam. You are condemning mankind to a final conflict where one side will have to destroy the other completely. I do not want this to happen but it is my prediction.

I hope that true civilisation wins otherwise civilisation will be destroyed for ever. Muslims are brain, mind and morally damaged goods who, in turn, damage each following generation. It is self perpetuating like a cancer. You are so far gone that you do not have the slightest insight into your condition.

sum