Sharia Law

kumate_champ07

imported_guy wrote: »

no check the link, i know its wikipedia, but not everything on there is incorrect.

I checked that and a few others. whats the deal with the belief he was poisoned?

imported_guy

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

I checked that and a few others. whats the deal with the belief he was poisoned?

ive heard no such conspiracy... links?

kumate_champ07

imported_guy wrote: »

ive heard no such conspiracy... links?

http://www.thespiritofislam.com/text/Q16.html

I closed the other links/tabs but can try find them if u want

imported_guy

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

http://www.thespiritofislam.com/text/Q16.html

I closed the other links/tabs but can try find them if u want

strong use of proper grammar in that website, lol, im trying to comprehend it all give me a sec.

edit

lol i wouldnt take any notice of that website mate... i stopped at

Mohammed ate a little piece and stopped. And then they discovered that it was poisoned, but the poison started to work in the body of Mohammed until he died. And he died on the lap of his wife Aysha. She was the youngest one. He married her when she was six years old, and he was 53. And he had intercourse with her when she was 9, and he was 56. And she was the most beloved, because she was the most beautiful of his wives, the youngest, of course.

all this has been proven otherwise on this very forum on many occasions.

kumate_champ07

In th Hadith it says :

Narrated 'Aisha: The Prophet in his ailment in which he died, used to say, "O 'Aisha! I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 713)

He (Anas) said: I felt (the affects of this poison) on the uvula of Allah's Messenger.(Sahih Muslim, Book 026, Number 5430)

kumate_champ07

imported_guy wrote: »

strong use of proper grammar in that website, lol, im trying to comprehend it all give me a sec.

I wasnt sure if the guy was pro islam or against while reading the text, english is prob not his first language

was shocked that it said he married a 9yr old.

which lead me to this
http://www.muslimhope.com/AishaNine.htm

it shows arguments for and against that alleged fact, havent read it all

kumate_champ07

anyway I cant really comment as Im not too well versed in the life of Muhammad, and its not really in line with the topic of this thread.

mickol

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

I wasnt sure if the guy was pro islam or against while reading the text, english is prob not his first language

was shocked that it said he married a 9yr old.

which lead me to this
http://www.muslimhope.com/AishaNine.htm

it shows arguments for and against that alleged fact, havent read it all

I read those articles and am i correct in saying that he married a 6yr old child and had sex with her when she was 9. If this is true then that would make him a paedophile . So why wasnt he stoned to death ?

I think a lot of religions are made by one person who wants to suit themselves.. Loook at Henry the 8th ...defender of the catholic faith until he decided he wanted a divorce and a nice new young bride so he left and formed his own church

Tom Dunne

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

I wasnt sure if the guy was pro islam or against while reading the text, english is prob not his first language

was shocked that it said he married a 9yr old.

which lead me to this
http://www.muslimhope.com/AishaNine.htm

it shows arguments for and against that alleged fact, havent read it all

Do you believe everything you read on the internet? Do you take everything at face value? Do you not question the rationale behind statements made by individuals and what their agenda might be?

Further reading that website reveals this nugget:

Dear Muslim reader, my prayer is that as you browse through the material on this site, that you would see Islam for what it really is, a corruption and counterfeit of truth, and the Bible for what it really is, the Word of God that He is able to preserve. My hope for you, dear Muslim, is that you and I will together please God as we dwell together in Heaven, saved through the precious blood of Jesus.

So there you go. No agenda there.

Mark Hamill

Tom Dunne wrote: »

Do you believe everything you read on the internet? Do you take everything at face value? Do you not question the rationale behind statements made by individuals and what their agenda might be?

Further reading that website reveals this nugget:



So there you go. No agenda there.

They might have an agenda, but I dont htink that Sahih al-Bukhari does:

Volume 5, Book 58, Number 236 wrote:

Narrated Hisham's father:
Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married 'Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed that marriage when she was nine years old.

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64 wrote:

Narrated 'Aisha:
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88 wrote:

Narrated 'Ursa:
The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).

(Referenced from note 6 on the wikipedia page on Aisha, which links to the article, as well as more examples from Sahih Muslim and Sunan Abu Dawood )

kumate_champ07

Tom Dunne wrote: »

Do you believe everything you read on the internet? Do you take everything at face value? Do you not question the rationale behind statements made by individuals and what their agenda might be?

Further reading that website reveals this nugget:



So there you go. No agenda there.

did I say I believed it?

imported_guy

Mark Hamill wrote: »

They might have an agenda, but I dont htink that Sahih al-Bukhari does:



(Referenced from note 6 on the wikipedia page on Aisha, which links to the article, as well as more examples from Sahih Muslim and Sunan Abu Dawood )

http://www.scribd.com/doc/7567922/10-Easy-Steps-Refuting-Slander-Against-Prophet-Muhammed-pbuh-Marriage-to-Aisha

have fun, proves most of your points otherwise, im just replying to inform you because ive seen you bring this argument up 1000000000000000 times, and this thread has gone way offtopic now

colrow

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/ian-odoherty/i-have-no-respect-or-tolerance-for-sharia-1235057.html

imported_guy

colrow wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/ian-odoherty/i-have-no-respect-or-tolerance-for-sharia-1235057.html

shouldnt take anything written by the indo too seriously, most muslims dont condemn osama because they think it was an inside job and he had nothing to do with it, and we are still waiting for the US government to prove how the building "just walloped" as they say (lol) the writer insults islam and sharia law throughout the article and then says he has nothing against islam or muslims ? am i missing something or does he sound retarded?, + usually indo bash anything to do with islam, nazism, fascism, catholicism, and praise homosexuality, free speech and the like which is pretty absurd.

irishconvert

imported_guy wrote: »

shouldnt take anything written by the indo too seriously, most muslims dont condemn osama because they think it was an inside job and he had nothing to do with it, and we are still waiting for the US government to prove how the building "just walloped" as they say (lol) the writer insults islam and sharia law throughout the article and then says he has nothing against islam or muslims ? am i missing something or does he sound retarded?, + usually indo bash anything to do with islam, nazism, fascism, catholicism, and praise homosexuality, free speech and the like which is pretty absurd.

The FBI don't even list 9/11 as one of the crimes Bin Laden is wanted for on their website. The reality is there is no evidence linking him to it.

irishconvert

colrow wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/ian-odoherty/i-have-no-respect-or-tolerance-for-sharia-1235057.html

Colrow, is there any reason you are posting a link to an Islamophobic article in which the ignorant author obviously has no idea about Sharia apart from what his mates told him over a few pints down the pub?

colrow

well at lwat hw can post that in a free country,

old_aussie

af_thefragile wrote: »

Its quite a pity that most muslims themselves have no clue about what the Sharia actually is and how the Islamic state was run during the early Islamic age which was centuries ahead of any other civilization in the world.

Muslims may have been centuries ahead, but they failed to advance and stayed in the past.

Most people don't give a rats ass about ya muslim law, because they are NOT muslims and don't give a **** about a violent religion that lives in the past, and imposes itself by fear and violence.

What good things have muslims done for the world?

kumate_champ07

irishconvert wrote: »

Colrow, is there any reason you are posting a link to an Islamophobic article in which the ignorant author obviously has no idea about Sharia apart from what his mates told him over a few pints down the pub?

I will agree that Ian O Doherty is a bit of a loudmouth but he does have make good points sometimes.

I dont like how certain muslims view violence as ok if they can wipe out all non muslims/infidels/the enemy which will lead to a world with only muslims and therefor great peace, the end justifies the means?

then again christians today kill many but its not in the name of religion, its in the name of 'democracy' which is just aother word for capitalism, so that richer nations can benefit from countries with abundant natural resources.

A world with a religious based law would be scary. There are terrible crimes against humanity in the name of Christianity happening in Nigeria to children, witchcraft is a big deal to some of them. but its actually against the law for them to kill/beat innocent kids but nobody wants to talk to the authorities about it.

imported_guy

old_aussie wrote: »

Muslims may have been centuries ahead, but they failed to advance and stayed in the past.

Most people don't give a rats ass about ya muslim law, because they are NOT muslims and don't give a **** about a violent religion that lives in the past, and imposes itself by fear and violence.

What good things have muslims done for the world?

old_aussie the problem is your focusing on the things in life that don't really matter(staying in the past). When I was a kid I had hopes and dreams (of world peace). We all did. But over time, the daily grind gets in the way and you miss the things that really matter(like doing good things for this world), even though they are right in front of you, staring you in the face. I think the next time you should ask yourself "Am I on the right track here?". I don't mean to be rude but people like you I really pity. So maybe you could use the few brain cells you have and take advantage of the knowledge I have given you now. Good luck.

edit

why are you posting these statements that are obviously both absurd and ridiculous? was it with the intention of facilitating the notion that sacrificing ones life for another is virtuous and/or aristocratic? well this in fact, compromised by the notions of expertise, has altered my mortality to such a degree, that I now have as much "feeling" and "compassion" as a can of frozen turnip greens. this is now resting on your shoulders. to answer the question already formed in your simple little mind, no. no as in my first priority when making a post in not always the hyperbolic expression of my feelings towards a person of your nature.

Hobbes

I have better things to be doing then warning/banning people. For the new people welcome and read the charter before posting. If you have a beef with Islam, this is not the forum for you (try politics, humanities).

Further posts where it is clear people are posting to complain about Islam rather then ask honest questions will be temp banned.

Be civil with other posters. Thanks.

irishconvert

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

I will agree that Ian O Doherty is a bit of a loudmouth but he does have make good points sometimes.

I dont like how certain muslims view violence as ok if they can wipe out all non muslims/infidels/the enemy which will lead to a world with only muslims and therefor great peace, the end justifies the means?

I think you will find the vast majority of suicide bombers do it because their lands are occupied by countries from the west (I don't support their methods BTW). It is politicial, nothing to do with spreading Islam. Although the powers that be would like you to believe that all these Muslims are crazy, hate our way of life in the west and want to wipe us off the map, etc etc. They churn this nonsense out to keep the masses supporting their illegal wars.

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

then again christians today kill many but its not in the name of religion, its in the name of 'democracy' which is just aother word for capitalism, so that richer nations can benefit from countries with abundant natural resources.

Bush and Blair did say God guided them in their wars on Iraq and Afganistan.

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

A world with a religious based law would be scary. There are terrible crimes against humanity in the name of Christianity happening in Nigeria to children, witchcraft is a big deal to some of them. but its actually against the law for them to kill/beat innocent kids but nobody wants to talk to the authorities about it.

I think you are confusing humans with their religion.The crimes you mention in Nigeria are against Christianity. You can't claim that it is Christian teaching to kill children. It is just evil people using Christianity as an excuse. They are not Christians at all.

Son Of A Vidic

Irish Moderator rightly mentioned how Bush and Blair mentioned the influence of god in their decision making. Remember Bush's famous statement in 2001 - "this crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take awhile''. Crusade - what a choice of word to use. Jews, Muslims and Christians happily shared Jerusalem until the Barbaric 'Crusades' were launched against the Holy Land. When the Moors ruled Spain, one quarter of the Moorish army in Spain were Christians - a little known fact of course. Science, Art and religious tolerance flourished, until the Christian North eventually brought 'Christian' rule and all it's savagery.
Us Irish should know very well about racial stereotypes, we're not all Beer swilling, drunken and fighting constantly, with IRA bomb making skills now are we? So we Irish should avoid stereotyping Islam and all Muslims in a similar fashion now shouldn't we.

eblistic

medicman2009 wrote: »

Us Irish should know very well about racial stereotypes, we're not all Beer swilling, drunken and fighting constantly, with IRA bomb making skills now are we? So we Irish should avoid stereotyping Islam and all Muslims in a similar fashion now shouldn't we.

I'm confused. Are the following misunderstandings or the result of "stereotyping" or are they actual elements of Sharia law as it is practiced in the world today?

Stoning to death as punishment for adultery.
Aputation of body parts as punishment for certain crimes.
Flogging as a punishment for certain crimes.
A ban on criticism of Muhammad.
A ban on criticism of Islam.
Death penalty for practicing homosexuals.
A ban on muslim women marrying a non-muslim.

How much of this stuff would be essential to an implementation of Sharia law?

kumate_champ07

irishconvert wrote: »

I think you will find the vast majority of suicide bombers do it because their lands are occupied by countries from the west (I don't support their methods BTW). It is politicial, nothing to do with spreading Islam. Although the powers that be would like you to believe that all these Muslims are crazy, hate our way of life in the west and want to wipe us off the map, etc etc. They churn this nonsense out to keep the masses supporting their illegal wars.


Bush and Blair did say God guided them in their wars on Iraq and Afganistan.


I think you are confusing humans with their religion.The crimes you mention in Nigeria are against Christianity. You can't claim that it is Christian teaching to kill children. It is just evil people using Christianity as an excuse. They are not Christians at all.

I said certain muslims not all

bush and blair may have claimed to have been guided by god but it was/is a war based on corruption not religion, altho they both tend to interrelate


why dont Christians do something about it then?

irishconvert

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

I said certain muslims not all

bush and blair may have claimed to have been guided by god but it was/is a war based on corruption not religion, altho they both tend to interrelate

Not according to Tony Blair who said part of the reason to go to war in Iraq was Islam:

Tony Blair would still have led the country to war in Iraq even if he had known that it had no weapons of mass destruction.

The former Prime Minister has confessed that he would have had to use different arguments to justify toppling Saddam Hussein. But he says in an interview to be broadcast tomorrow morning that he would still have taken steps to remove the Iraqi dictator from power.

He also put the decision to go to war in Iraq in the context of a wider battle over Islam. He said: “I happen to think that there is a major struggle going on all over the world, really, which is about Islam and what is happening within Islam.” He said that this struggle had a “long way to go”.

From http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6954043.ece

And what about Bush who referred to the war on terror as a crusade?

Vice President Dick Cheney, speaking on NBC's Meet the Press, echoed Rumsfeld's comments about the length of the effort at hand. "I think this is going to be a struggle that the United States is going to be involved in for the foreseeable future," he said. "There's not going to be an end date when we're going to say, 'There, it's all over with.' It's going to require constant vigilance on our part to avoid problems in the future, but it's also going to require a major effort and obviously quite possibly the use of military force," he said.

Bush made the same point during his remarks at the White House. "This crusade, this war on terrorism is gonna take awhile. And the American people must be patient. I'm gonna be patient," Bush said.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/gen.bush.terrorism/

old_aussie

imported_guy wrote: »

old_aussie the problem is your focusing on the things in life that don't really matter(staying in the past). .

I'm not staying in the past, it's mislims living on their laurels who are living in the past