abu_rashid wrote on Aug 24^th, 2009 at 12:56pm:



IS THAT STATEMENT [above] TRUE?

Grendel,

What abu declares above is true [AND, also false!].

Those words, are yet another deception, from another moslem.

How so?

Because, surprise, surprise, abu [as per usual], is telling a half truth,
...to un-informed, naive, non-moslems, in this forum.



The important questions we all should ask here are,

Q1.
For what reason, if it does, does ISLAM specifically forbid the killing of non-combatants?

Q2.
And, is this 'prohibition' [genuinely] because ISLAM is concerned about the 'welfare' of non-combatants?  [...as is being portrayed]

Reading ISLAMIC texts selectively, i.e. reading [only] verses presented to us by good moslems, the texts may suggest such a commendable attitude by moslem combatants, towards non-combatants.

E.G.....

The Hadith declare,

"During some of the Ghazawat of the Prophet a woman was found killed. Allah's Apostle disapproved the killing of women and children."

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith...

AND,

"During some of the Ghazawat of Allah's Apostle a woman was found killed, so Allah's Apostle forbade the killing of women and children."

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith...

On the face of it, "...Allah's Apostle forbade the killing of women and children."

But those verses do not infer, or reveal,

the motive/reason

, for that 'prohibition'.

I suggest that we should seek out those motives!







For some deeper understanding of this whole issue [the 'welfare' of non-combatants], let us read some further Hadith verses, related to this issue,

"The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." "

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith...

Here, clearly, Mohammed expressed no care, whatsoever, for the 'welfare', or safety, of those non-combatants [women and children, who were non-moslems].

So, how can we resolve these seemingly inconsistent positions, from different Hadith verses?







I will suggest that the 'care' Mohammed expressed for the 'welfare' of non-combatants [who were non-moslems], was a 'care' extended for the purpose of, and related specifically to,

their material worth [ALIVE] as booty

.

i.e.
Dead non-moslem, non-combatants [women and children] are, war booty, ....LOST.

A further verse in the Hadith, makes clear the fate of [women and children] 'non-combatants', after the wholesale surrender of a particular community, which Mohammed and his henchmen besieged,

"......Sa'd said, "So I give my judgment that their warriors should be killed and their women and children should be taken as captives." [i.e. war booty] The Prophet said, "You have judged according to the King's (Allah's) judgment." "

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith...

N.B. And this was no community [full] of 'warriors', as is suggested above.

This was a [wealthy] Jewish community of, mostly, metal workers, artisans, and goldsmiths.







MORE.....

You're a nutter.

The Islamic ruling is quite clear (you've quoted the clear statements yourself), women and children (non-combatants) must not be targetted.

As for the specific case of the nighttime skirmishes, the reason he said "They are from them" was because they were brought with them into battle, and therefore their safety is the responsibility of those who brought them into a battlefield. At nighttime, like with an aerial bombing, it's impossible to distinguish combatants from non-combatants... you should know all this, since the Western nations constantly use it to justify killing Muslim civilians.

Again, the Islamic ruling is clear, the only deception here is on your part.

And as you say yourself, when you quote texts that support your ideas.. ".....ARE ALL DERIVED FROM ISLAMIC TEXTS, AND SOURCES."

Funny how the texts you think support your view are clear Islamic texts and sources, whilst those which don't support your view are just lies and half truths. It seems the Islamic texts only tell the truth when they say what you want them to say... otherwise we have to rely on your interpretation of people's intentions... Rather than what the text says..

abu_rashid wrote on Aug 25^th, 2009 at 11:22am:


abu,

That is your opinion.

My opinion, is that you are an out-and-out deceiver, and a good moslem.








Quote:

There Can Be No End to Jihad'
Islamist Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad, in an exclusive interview, discusses the rationale for 9/11, the Christians he most respects, and the Jesus he defends.
posted 11/05/2007
....Any weapons are legitimate in jihad. Even animals may be used as "suicide bombers"! It is not restricted by target—even Muslims or children, if used by the enemy as human shields, can be killed.
....Killing women and children never was and never will be part of the jihad in Islam, whether that be the women or children of the Muslims or non-Muslims. So if Chechen mujahedeen killed women and children in Beslan, I would condemn it. The children of non-Muslims, such as those at Beslan, who die in such circumstances go to Paradise.
....Women and children [i.e. boys under 15] or Muslims are not legitimate targets—nor are any noncombatants [clergy, disabled, insane, elderly, etc.]. Not even Israeli children or women, unless they serve in the military, which most do, or live in properties taken from dispossessed Palestinians (Muslim or Christian), which virtually all do.
However, if children are killed, the fault lies with the adult occupiers who brought them into a battlefield situation.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/februaryweb-only/22.0.html

"However, if children are killed, the fault lies with...",

....somebody else of course, with non-moslems.
....never, never, ever, with ISLAM.

Islamic Dictionary for Infidels
"......[resorting] to force to disseminate Islam is not war (harb), a word that is used only to describe the use of force by non-Muslims. Islamic wars are not hurub (the plural of harb) but rather futuhat, acts of "opening" the world to Islam and expressing Islamic jihad. Relations between dar al-Islam, the home of peace, and dar al-harb, the world of unbelievers, nevertheless take place in a state of war, according to the Qur'an and to the authoritative commentaries of Islamic jurists. Unbelievers who stand in the way, CREATING OBSTACLES FOR THE DA'WA, ARE BLAMED FOR THIS STATE OF WAR, for the da'wa can be pursued peacefully if others submit to it. IN OTHER WORDS, THOSE WHO RESIST ISLAM CAUSE WARS and are responsible for them.
.....Aggression is something only infidels do.
.....it is not seen as aggression or war when Muslims attack non-Muslims. On the contrary, it is seen as aggression when non-Muslims resist the Islamization of their lands and thus "place obstacles in the way" of the spread of Islam. They are defying the will of Allah.......subjugation to Islam alone can bring peace.....
......[To the ISLAMIST mind, 'aggression' is...] When non-Muslims do anything to preserve their culture and resist the Islamization of their country."

http://wolfgangbruno.blogspot.com/2006/07/islamic-dictionary-for-infidels.html





Just a little more, of exposing the duplicity of moslems,

ISLAMIC 'religious' doctrine

, divides the world into two camps.

DIVISIONS OF THE WORLD, ACCORDING TO ISLAM,

Dar al-Islam = = the house of Islam, house of Peace [those places where Sharia has authority].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dar_al-Islam#Dar_al-Islam

Dar al-Harb = = "house of war", those countries where Sharia does not rule.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dar_al-Islam#Dar_al-Harb

Harbi = = "one under a declaration of war", a non-moslem, WHO DOES NOT LIVE UNDER MUSLIM RULE.

".........A harbi has no rights, not even the right to live."

[a direct quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harbi

Google,
"A harbi has no rights, not even the right to live."
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=%22A+harbi+has+no+rights%2C+no...i Quote:


True.

More on Harbis, succinctly and, eloquently put here,




http://kwelos.tripod.com/harbis.htm

ROTFLMAO
What a load of cobblers Aboo.

No no and NO....

Christians who kill people know what they are doing is wrong.
It is condemned by their fellow Christians...

In your case re Islam this is far from the case.

Today even as we speak... Muslims use the Koran and verses from Islamic teachings to justify their actions.

There is no such justification going on in Christianity.

soren,

Quote:


You're confusing issues. If a Muslim double parked in front of your car, I'd most definitely rebuke him for doing something against you.

But people fighting to expel invading armies from their land are beyond my condemnations, whether they be Muslims or non-Muslims, who am I to tell them they are wrong for expelling invaders from their homes? If you were the one being invaded, do you think it'd be right that people half way round the world condemn you for just protecting yourself?

Quote:


I don't know that any of them said they don't recognise the court of the country.. Did you actually hear this? Or are you just making it up as you go along?

As far as I'm aware they did not stand up because Islam forbids it, even to stand for Muhammad (pbuh): "Abu Umamah narrated: The Messenger of God (peace_be_upon_him) came out to us leaning on a stick. We stood up to show respect to him. He said: Do not stand up as foreigners do for showing respect to one another."

Quote:


This just highlights the extent of your bigotry. The people who conduct the outreach ceremony, are in your mind guilty of a terrorist act, simply because they happen to share the same religion as those who conduct the terrorist attack. This is just ridiculous and is nothing but an indication of a very small minded person.

Quote:


I never said I'd cheer any expulsion/rebellion/resistance. I merely said I wouldn't condemn it. Please stick to my words, leave your imagination at the door. No I would not have condemned Christians in the Iberian peninsula resisting the invading Muslims. They were just trying to prevent an invasion, and had a right to do so.

Quote:


No. Again, nowhere did I mention "welcome". Besides those countries are all majority Muslim now anyway. Much like Europe is now Christian majority. Do you think Christians should be expelled from Europe and sent back to Bethlehem?

Quote:


As I've pointed out to you before, there's a helluva lot more pre-Islamic culture still extant in Muslim lands than there is pre-Christian culture in Europe.

As for your maps... since when did the Turks expand into Western Africa? This is just garbage. Like with most material from jihadwatch, part truth and a lot of concoction.

Quote:


If that's the case then what's that big head you posted above? Wouldn't be Abu Hol (ie. the Sphinx), that pre-Islamic structure still standing Egypt after 1350 years of Islamic rule? Or how about the pyramids? or the millions of other artefacts still there. Not to mention the thousands of Christian churches... no of course not, all figments of our imagination. Btw, can you point me to a Druid temple in France??  

Quote:


There's plenty of Buddhist artefacts still in Afghanistan, and in other Muslim countries there's still Buddhists, indicating we didn't wipe them out. Can you show me any Christian country that has a living Druid? Not one.

Quote:


Actually most of Baghdad's Jews flocked there when it was the capital of the Abbasid Caliphate (the Babylonian captivity tale is touching though, didn't you know Baghdad was a city built by the Abbasids??). And they remained there until the 1960's when the CIA-installed dictator, Saddam Hussein, in retaliation for the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their homes (to rally Arab nationalist fervour)... so for 1300 years of rule under the shade of the Islamic Caliphate, the Jews were not expelled from Baghdad. Surely you're not presenting Mr. Warner's claims as a valid argument??

Quote:


Israel is Christian Europe?

Quote:


The "Tomb of Joseph" was a mosque, with a tomb for an Islamic scholar named Sheikh Yussef Dwaik, Yussef is the Arabic/Hebrew word from which the English Joseph is derived. When the Zionists invaded Palestine, they found the Palestinians calling this mosque the "Tomb of Yussef" and thought it referred to the Biblical Yussef, and so they comandeered it and forbade Muslims from entering it (a mosque mind you). So the fact is it's a mosque, not a Jewish tomb. Does the building look to you like it's 4000 years old?  

Also something you failed to mention is that those Palestinian rioters were responding to the Zionists building tunnels under the Masjid al-Aqsa to de-stabilise and eventually demolish it.

This is a case of the Jews stealing an Islamic building of worship.

Quite interesting, that you've got pretty much no example of any Islamic destruction of holy sites, for the 1300 years that Islam actually ruled. All of your examples come from the post-Islamic period, when mostly secular governments/states rule over the Islamic lands, and as we saw, some of them are actually cases of others stealing and renaming Islamic sites.

There's 1300 years of history there for you... show me an example. Even if you can show 10 examples, that doesn't show Islam wipes out other cultures, it just shows there were incidents. Unlike Europe where they DID wipe out all cultural/religious predecessors. You are struggling to find examples of Islam even erasing culture, let alone completely wiping out, and you know it's impossible to show any example extant in Europe. Your position is just futile... admit it.

Christian pots are doing a lot of 'black calling' against the much much whiter Muslim kettles.