Heroes and Villains

That was the first thing I glanced at. I've done more research since then

Good, it doesnt take away the fact that you totally screwed up, this in itself indicates you were looking to be critical, and it is you who is unbending and easily lead



My great great great grandad was born roughly 150 years ago. Not 1350 years ago. It is generally accepted by anyone with any common sense that the further back documents go, the less reliable they are likely to be.

Not so, It depends on the chain of narration leading back to the witnesses and the original source. In terms of geneaology its not just about someone saying they were your great great (x whatever) grandfather, its people witnessing the sex that got the grandmother pregnant

There are different types of Hadith and they are unchanged


Now you're not reading things properly Fan! It seems I'm a bad influence. It was on that page I linked yesterday:
http://answering-islam.org/Muhammad/Enemies/sallam.html

Ok lets accept this for 1 second, so you believe this to be true right? based on this website and the source it uses (ibn Ishaq)? Why then not believe everything else this source has said? or is it just the bits that suit?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expedition_of_'Abdullah_ibn_'Atik

Poetry mentioned as a reason here

I am sure it does, but not the site you initially cited, which is what I was responding to. Further to this you dont want to accept sources that go back to the source and have not changed, yet accept wikki which says according to? not only that but the sealed nectar was written in 1979 so how many years later?

Also poetry being mentioned does not mean that was the reason he was killed


Why are these men "better" than you Fan? Because they know more about stories from the Dark Ages? They might abuse their wives, they might be cruel to their children. They could be regulars at their local brothel or even *****philes for all you know. Why does my choice of source make it "easier" for you? It's just a matter of opinion, you can't "win" this argument.

I believe them to be better than me in terms of ome of the knowledge they have. As for the other things I dont judge people on perceptions or assumptions based on what they maybe, more what I see.
As for the opinion bit, you can have an opinion whether the falklands were right or wrong, but that it took place is FACT, and your info is factually incorrect


Jews first, communists a close second. And it's not just based on what I know. Are you suggesting that more people, globally, know about this Abu Rafi character than know about Hitler? Seriously?!? I reckon a lot of Muslims don't even know about AR.

You would be suprised actually about how many know, The thing is AR is prominent because of Muhammad, just as hitler is associated with Jews, I acknowledge Hitler killed loads of others (see where I get called anti semetic for voicing this) however there were other tribes (some non muslim) who suffered because of AR
Believe it or not just because something is 'common knowledge' to you or eve in this country doesnt make it so elsewhere. Especially history


I never thought the statues were people. You can't demolish a person ffs. I thought they were places. And if no one defended them, why are these demolitions included in lists of Muhammad's military campaigns? As for length of time, of course it's important. A thousand years ago a lot of people still believed in Odin and Thor. Myths get debunked over time.

It sounded like you thought they were people, lets accept you meant places, fact is you were still wrong and as you like to use the 'current' rather than the 'past' as being factual this makes you wrong about everything as it happened in the last couple of days.
As for the military campaigns, you ask yourself that question, its your source that got you making the claim in the first place. I never said it was a military campaign because I dont believe it was. I also dont believe many other were
Yet you are adamant on keeping to the source that has mislead you
The difference between myths and reality is that there is no written evidence of Thor and Odin, yet there is eye witness statements etc about Muhammad and the topic we are discussing



You're infamous on here for ignoring points you can't answer and over-focusing on ones you can. I'm on my phone so I can't trawl back through your post history to prove this. And I did provide a meaning. You even addressed my claim by saying that he didn't only incite revolt.

What point have I ignored? There you go with that. I have done everything point by point in red. I missed the meaning you say you provided, where is it?
This is the tact that gets used when people have nothing to say. If you think I missed something do what I do, ask again

Wrong according to who? A witness from the time? Why is it not called the Execution of Abu Rafi then?

According to all historical documents that went back to the original source, It is called the execution of AR, just depends on who is translating. Either way the objective was to kill him and it wasnt poetry that lead to tat decision


Thanks for all that Fan, but you might as well have been trying to convince me that Jesus turned water into wine, or fed the 5000, or came back from the dead. Or that Romulus and Remus were suckled by a wolf. Or even that Perseus killed Medusa or Jason stole the Golden Fleece. This might all be widely accepted by Muslims and other scholars right now. But so was Genesis up until a couple of centuries ago. It's only recently that it's been asserted that the bible was falsified by the Holy Roman Empire. Hopefully, Muslims will also "see the light" at some point in the future.

and right there is yur problem. I am not trying to convince you of anything that is not historically documented. Look it up even on your own source ie wikkipedia
Its dated and there are multiple witnesses.
Its like saying you dont believe you have a dad because santa doesnt exist

The difference between the bible and the quran and hadiths is that it is well known the latter have stayed original

 

TBH dont know this Nadir Ahmed

and again TBH I will openly admit just because a person has a muslim name doesnt mean he isnt a numpty etc
But I cant believe you googled shamoun and found him to be 'liked'
even if he was correct the guy looks and sounds like a ****

This is the same with soem other things you have said eg the fatwa against rushdie etc. khomeini does not speak for the muslim nation in any way or form. In fact it could/is argued he want muslim

 

TBH it would be silly (imo) to dislike (or even like) any one based on this forum. I am sure most people would suprise us if we met them

Its strange with the kids thing, I always felt that in your case it was the child that kind of put the nail in the coffin regarding faith/god etc
Yet for me it reinforced it

As for what you thi9nk, I honestly dont have an issue with that or even get offended by that (my father in law is an ex catholic trainee priest turned hardcore athiest and we get on like a house on fire). What does get me is that there is so much anti Islamic feeling at the moment that even sane sensible people get taken in by it and accept stuff that is based on no foundation, never mind dodgy ones

 

Did you convert to Islam?

 

As for all the 'hate' for Islam I honestly believe a lot of it is because of the majority of Muslim's skin colour and the way they dress. People don't like what is different to them. There was a few Muslim lads in my year when I was at school, one of them was really 'hardcore' (not extremist) but dressed in a British way acted more like us, hung out at parties etc and seemed to be very accepted. But there was another lad who although not as strong in his beliefs sort of stuck to his own clique wore fairly Islamic clothes etc and didn't really follow western life, he seemed to be victimized a bit more and seemed like a bit more of an outcast. People on the whole I think don't mind Muslims they just often shun them because rightly or wrongly some don't make any effort with westerners and sort of segregate themselves creating an us vs them mentality.

 

He's as much a follower of Islam as I am.

 

I'm not easily led Fan. I don't even necessarily believe any of what I have quoted. I'm just trying to make a point. Just because you believe one particular source, doesn't mean it's right. And some sources suggest that your views on Britain are hypocritical.

Depends on the sources tbh, if they can point to what/where and when then fair enough. Most just say it because they have nothing else to say or simply dont understand the notion of hypocrisy.
I have never understood people who argue something they dont believe/accept.


But generally, historical records from the 1800s tend to be more accurate than those from the 600s.

Yeah but we are not talking generally, we are talking specifically. The hadiths have a process and a chain of narration, they are then categorised as weak or strong.
To be strong they have to go back to the prophet and witnessed by multiple people. Even then each person is written independently. So if 10 people heard it it is 10 hadiths, not turned into one based on what the writer assumed they meant

In fact I would go as far a to say that in todays society current affairs are misleading and innacurate although happening now


I don't think I believe any of it to be honest Fan, it all sounds a bit far-fetched. But if parts of it are true, it would mean you're a hypocrite.

Not sure how you reach that conclusion, I am not the one accepting what suits. FOr example lets say answering Islam is correct in what it says based on Ibn Ishaq. Ibn Ishaq also believe Muhammad was the messenger of Allah and that Allah is the true god. Answering Islam is anti religion. so accepting what suits from a guy who otherwise THEY say is lying
and you arguing it without believing it makes you worse IMO.


I think I've answered this above.

not sure you have, but ok



Well I know for a fact that Phil Jones is a cracking footballer, far, far better than me. That is all I know about him. But I wouldn't say that makes him a better bloke than me. Whereas you are claiming these experts are better than you just because they know a lot about Islam. I think you need to get out of their arse-holes, they're just blokes who've done a lot of reading and are good at arguing

That is kind of my point. I think they are better men than me in terms of this debate. Their personal lives are irrelevant. In terms of football I would argue that Phil Jones IS a better man than you. As for the other comment it doesnt deserve a response IMHO

As for the Falklands vs events of Mohammad's life, see video footage vs old bits of parchment. I know what I would trust.

Would you say the same about the video footage and documentation about the WMD in Iraq? Yet we know what weapons Muhammad had


But only Muslims (and maybe a few other scholars) will know about AR. I imagine not every Muslim knows about him. Muslims make up just over a fifth of the world's population. But I think virtually anybody with any education on the planet knows who Adolf Hitler is.

You know about him and you are neither. As does Sam Shamoun and his crew and they are neither. Inaccurate they are but know about it so youre incorrect
As for Hitler, you are basing this on what you believe is 'common knowledge'. Factually it is innacurate. Education is neither here nor there. As a kid growing up the first I heard of hitler was in school in england, I have been back to my country of origin and I assure you he is persona non grata


Like I said, why would I think the statues were people? Not that it's got me very far, but I've got a degree in English, and I know you can't "demolish" a person.
As for the whole "current vs past" thing, I've never said I don't believe anything that's happened in the past. Just that I'm a little dubious of biased accounts from centuries ago.
As for eye-witness accounts of Muhammad, there are also eye-witness accounts of Jesus healing the sick and lame, do you believe those too?

People or places, point is you wrote something you were clearly unaware of. There were no deaths etc
I can understan being dubious of things if they are not presented properly but I bet you have no issues with how the pyramids came into being and other philosophical concepts from centuries ago
As for the Jesus bit if you know of an account that has not been changed and comes witha chain f narration then I would be stupid not to believe it


I've not accused you of avoiding questions in this particular debate. Just that I've seen you do it in past debates with PnP. There was one in particular where he repeatedly asked you a question, only for you to repeatedly say that you would answer his question eventually

It sounded like it
As for the PNP debate you refer to my issue was that I had asked him a question and he hadnt answered but asked many subsequently. My response wasnt to answer eventually, It was a PROMISE to address ALL his if he just answered that 1 of mine (which I had asked first). Although I am curious as to why that is even relevant


Fair enough. But why not take him prisoner, try him in person, and execute him? Why hunt him down and kill him like a pack of wolves?

As mentioned on many occassions he was in hiding and being protected, the evidence against him was overwhelming and had he not ran he would have been executed



But how do you know the authors were telling the truth and reporting accurately? Dad vs santa is silly Fan, I know I have a dad, I only saw him the other day Whereas I've stayed up all night on Christmas Eve, and Santa never showed

The authors were not 'telling' anything, simply documenting. I can explain the hadith process but it is quite long, you are welcome to look it up. In simple terms if I wanted to do a collection of your sayings I would have to categorise it, so if it was heard by your mrs only then I would jot it down and reference it to MRS JJS, but this woulkd be weak as it was just 1 person. Then it would depend if I had spoken to mrs JJS personally or heard it via a friend of mrs JJS. If however i spoke to mrs JJS and 3 of your friends independently and they all said the same thing then it happened. But they all had to be present and be sane etc when you said it

Without being rude now the only way to prove your dad is your dad would be to have a dna test but santa was easily proven not to be real even by a young JJS

The structure and method for hadith is as accurate as a dna test

 

It doesnt help when people ignore the truth and bow to propaganda though. Remember Jackies iran/israel thread? He is called allsorts yet he never was anti either. what he presented were facts
Personally I think the world has less to fear from the likes of khomeini and his fatwas and more from the MCB who are the governments 'go to guys'

As I have said on a number of occassions the responses I give are in relation to the OP/thread. If its Iran and Israel why go on about saddam etc
I have views on muslims too, yet even the wrong views on here are innaccurate mostly

 

sort of I think

What I mean was that I was born in a muslim household but wasnt very practicing and knew very little about it as most people in this country are imo

 

I think I know what you mean, but that to a degree is normal. For example I was never in to rock music so hung in circles where non of my mates were rockers

I (and you will laugh) actually get on with more non muslims than muslims, yet I pray dont pub/club , wear islamic clothes etc Its never been an issue

For me liking or not liking someone for whatever reason is personal, even if shallow. I just think that the current climate of fear is based on innacuracies that are perpetuated to help the government in other areas

For example people think its laughable when I say that govt in trouble=terror arrests. Yet facts/figs show this to be the case with a large proportion of those arrsted being released without charge and even compensated. Yet it is hushed up

 

What I DO believe is that Britain is not as bad as you make out. And some of your criticisms of it, can be levelled at Muslims, going right back to Muhammad. That's where hypocrisy comes into it.

Am I making BRITAIN out to be bad, or the actions in Iraq and Ireland? When talking about SPECIFIC issues I dont meke it general. And the comment about muslims is more you making it 'them and us' not related to the thread, there were muslim soldiers in Ireland and I know pakistan etc sent soldiers to Iraq too.
and show me one war that Muhammad fought that was started on false premises such as the WMD



I'm not sure this Hadith system is as foolproof as you suggest Fan. What if all 10 witnesses are lying/exaggerating?

It is to me, unless you know of anything, You should know that for 10 people to give the same story would be an event initself. However there is more to it than that



Worse than this Shamoun character? But you called him a ****

I wouldnt call you that. But the point is valid. He has a 'crusade' going on.


Don't worry, I have

couldnt tell me where could you?


When I say "a better man" I mean morally. Otherwise I would say better footballer, debater, scholar etc.

we were talking about a specific thing here. I didnt deem it necessary to explain


The Iraq stuff was deliberately falsified for a reason. Just as the Bible was. The Hadiths may have been too.

Difference being the bible and the Iraq stuff can be proved to have been falsified/changed etc. The hadiths have remained the same


There is no way of proving who is more infamous, Rafi or Hitler. But I would suggest that Rafi is only really known in the Muslim world, Hitler is a familiar name in Europe, America, the Far East etc. By the way Fan, "persona non grata" means someone who is not welcome. Not someone who is unknown as I think you are implying.

TBH i think hitler IS more known generally, but that wasnt the argument.


To be honest, I am pretty dubious about the supposed creation of the pyramids.

They exist and we have seen them, yet cannot explain them. Doesnt take away their existence


It was relevant because you were accusing me of something I've seen you do before.

As explained it was not not explaining/answering on my part. i had asked a question that was unanswered, I simply wanted a reply. I had answered all questions before and even after. Yet mine wasnt on numerous requests so it became answer that first

Of course his stance was that i was avoiding, but the thread is there for all to see

Why not take him prisoner though and execute him properly?

It wasnt possible



But I look like my dad. So unless my mum had a fling with someone who looked like him, then he's my dad!

It was clearly just an example, and thats what you think

As for Hadith = DNA, don't be daft! Hadith writers can lie, DNA can't

They cant as there is more than one, but anyhow I meant it also as in the dna diagram, the chain of narration is the same

 

Personally I blame the Eskimos