Yadda wrote on May 25^th, 2012 at 10:02pm:


Comfortable maybe, not big.

To make it big you need love.

Google: 1 Corinthians 13.

Love:

love  (lv)
n.
1. A deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward a person, such as that arising from kinship, recognition of attractive qualities, or a sense of underlying oneness.
2. A feeling of intense desire and attraction toward a person with whom one is disposed to make a pair; the emotion of sex and romance.
3.
a. Sexual passion.
b. Sexual intercourse.
c. A love affair.
4. An intense emotional attachment, as for a pet or treasured object.
5. A person who is the object of deep or intense affection or attraction; beloved. Often used as a term of endearment.
6. An expression of one's affection: Send him my love.
7.
a. A strong predilection or enthusiasm: a love of language.
b. The object of such an enthusiasm: The outdoors is her greatest love.
8. Love Mythology Eros or Cupid.
9. often Love Christianity Charity.
10. Sports A zero score in tennis.
v. loved, lov·ing, loves
v.tr.
1. To have a deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward (a person): We love our parents. I love my friends.
2. To have a feeling of intense desire and attraction toward (a person).
3. To have an intense emotional attachment to: loves his house.
4.
a. To embrace or caress.
b. To have sexual intercourse with.
5. To like or desire enthusiastically: loves swimming.
6. Theology To have charity for.
7. To thrive on; need: The cactus loves hot, dry air.
v.intr.
To experience deep affection or intense desire for another.
Idioms:
for love
Out of compassion; with no thought for a reward: She volunteers at the hospital for love.
for love or money
Under any circumstances. Usually used in negative sentences: I would not do that for love or money.
for the love of
For the sake of; in consideration for: did it all for the love of praise.
in love
1. Deeply or passionately enamored: a young couple in love.
2. Highly or immoderately fond: in love with Japanese painting; in love with the sound of her own voice.
no love lost
No affection; animosity: There's no love lost between them.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[Middle English, from Old English lufu; see leubh- in Indo-European roots.]
Synonyms: love, affection, devotion, fondness, infatuation
These nouns denote feelings of warm personal attachment or strong attraction to another person. Love is the most intense: marrying for love.
Affection is a less ardent and more unvarying feeling of tender regard: parental affection.
Devotion is earnest, affectionate dedication and implies selflessness: teachers admired for their devotion to children.
Fondness is strong liking or affection: a fondness for small animals.
Infatuation is foolish or extravagant attraction, often of short duration: lovers blinded to their differences by their mutual infatuation.

freediver wrote on May 26^th, 2012 at 4:09pm:


This is a typical lie of yours Freeliar. No non-combatants were killed.



falah wrote on May 26^th, 2012 at 2:35pm:


Osama declared war on the US. Does that count? [/quote]

If you declared war on the US would that give the US the right to invade Australia?


freediver wrote on May 26^th, 2012 at 4:09pm:


No Freeliar, if history has shown us anything, it is Christians and Jews who break their treaties.

Just have a read of the history of the Crusades, you will see that the Christians never kept their word.

freediver wrote on May 26^th, 2012 at 4:09pm:


Freeliar it is Israel which is attacking Muslims, and the whole world except you and the rest of the Jews knows this.


freediver wrote on May 26^th, 2012 at 4:09pm:


No non-combatants were killed.If it were as you suggested why would any of them stay at all? The fact is that quite a few Jews were so impressed by the mercy and generosity of the Muslims that that they voluntarily converted to Islam.

One of these Jews married Prophet Muhammed (God's peace & blessing upun him) after being given the option of staying or exile. If she felt that the Jews had been harshly treated would she likely have have  stayed in Madina, converted to Islam, married the leader of the Muslims, and become a great scholar of the Islamic religion?

freediver wrote on May 26^th, 2012 at 10:00pm:


Easy. He'd make one side strong enough to defeat the other in battle.

Common sense, innit.

freediver wrote on May 27^th, 2012 at 9:02am:


Freeliar/Yadda (whoever you are at the moment), I have already explained that the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah was violated by the pagan side not the Muslim side.

The pagans committed a sensless massacre which violated the terms of the treaty. Should Muslims be bound by a treaty that the other side violates?

Even after they pagans had violated the treaty, Muslims still left the door open topeace by offering the pagans an opportunity to pay compensation to the victims' families or terminate their alliance with the agressor parties. The pagans refused, so the Muslims were left without a choice but to consider the treaty null and void when it had cleartly been vioalted by the pagans..

freediver wrote on May 27^th, 2012 at 11:06am:


"Hudna" literally means something like "armistice agreement".

In Arabic there are other words for "treaty". For example, the Quran uses the word "meethaaq" which means "treaty".

freediver wrote on May 27^th, 2012 at 11:28am:


Freeliar, treaties generally are temporary, in that parties are free to withdraw from them at any time.

States are usually free to pull out of treaties any time they wish.

Freeliar it seems that your idea of "treaty" is not what is understood by rest of the world.

Quote:

Canada to withdraw from Kyoto Protocol

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16151310

Falah, you appear to be attempting to justify Islam's position on this while at the same time being too ashamed to actually admit what it is.

Is that correct?

Perhaps you would feel better about it if you could give an example of a peace treaty that Muhammed entered into that he did not later break?

falah wrote on May 28^th, 2012 at 12:06pm:

But, in fact, Muhammad was the first to violate the Treaty of Hudaibiya.  Even the Qur’an acknowledges this, which means any knowledgeable Muslim must as well.

The terms of the treaty specified that any Muslim who flees Mecca for Medina (where Muhammad resided) must be returned.  But when a group of Muslims did exactly that a few weeks after the treaty signing, Muhammad did not return all of them, but kept the women.  A verse from Allah arrived conveniently to justify his decision (60:10).

Today’s Muslims have only one answer for this: Allah gave Muhammad His personal permission to break the treaty.  It is an obvious double standard, but one that they are comfortable with, since Muslims believe their religion makes them superior.  (It remains unclear as to why Allah had Muhammad sign on to terms that were intended to be violated).

Eschewing technicalities at this point, the apologists then begin to talk of the seriousness of violations, claiming that the killing of those tribe members allied with the Muslims constituted a graver offense.  They are correct, of course, but there is yet another piece to the story that drives home the double standard all the more:

As it turns out, Muslims were murdering Meccans after the treaty signing and prior to the revenge killings between the allied tribes!

Bukhari 50:891 tells of a man named Abu Basir who embraced Islam and then killed a Meccan.  Muhammad sends the man to live on the coast, where he forms a group of seventy Muslims who support themselves by attacking Meccan caravans.  According to the Hadith, he and the other Muslims “killed them and took their property.”  Muir words it as follows, “They waylaid every caravan from Mecca (for since the truce, traffic with Syria had again sprung up) and spared the life of no one.”

Attacking and killing Meccans was an obvious violation of the treaty of Hudaibiya, but the victims did not want war with Muhammad and thus did not march against him.  Yet, Muhammad jumped on the first excuse to attack the Meccans, even though they were not threatening him.  His adversaries wanted peace, but he wanted power.  Needless to say, they had little choice but to surrender to him without a fight.

The dual ethics of Islam are ingrained in the faith, including the disparate treatment of unbelievers.  It should be no surprise that Muhammad held others to standards by which he was personally unwilling to abide.  In this case, he was the first to violate the treaty of Hudaibiya.  Thus did he establish an example for his followers: a promise to non-Muslims is not obligatory for the believer.  As Abu Bakr, himself a military leader, put it:

"If I take an oath to do something and later on I find something else better than the first one, then I do what is better and make expiation for my oath." (Bukhari 78:618)
Muhammad no doubt would have agreed:


"The Prophet said: 'War is deceit'." (Bukhari 52:269)