First how does that possibly relate to the common sense statement that not all terrorists are muslim?
Are you saying all terrorists are muslim? That being a non-muslim means you can't be a terrorist?
I just can't see how it relates.
Second, the sentence structure still doesn't make any sense. I gave an example of the odd verb usage, but I knew that wasn't "are" and that it should be "or". The rest still doesn't make any sense.
Let me explain by breaking it down:
"...can you point to any single incidence of violence, attack, or war against non-Muslims or Muslims alike anywhere in the world and during any period of time..."
From this, you look like you are asking about any act of violence, attack or war perpetrated against any people, anywhere, ever in history.
"...when the Muslims involved..."
See, the part above basically states any attack against any people during any time any where. This would include native american wars in teh past. Of course in such a case muslims would not be involved. So I don;t get the lack of agreement.
Terrorism is a very, very new concept. It did not exist until the 20th century. Targetting civilians was the norm for all people before that time, and was the norm for the US as recently as Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to name a couple of trifling incidents.didn't resort to the tactics of terrorism in emulation of their prophet, Muhammad
Terrorism could not have been preached in the Koran or by Muhammad because the concept didn't even exist.
Again, a very recent creation, and not exactly something religiously adhered to by even the US today. I doubt I can accurately show a single instance of any group abiding by tehse conventions without incident, let alone a group that wasn't a signatory of that treaty (i.e. a religion)and instead where the Muslims involved abided by the rules of engagement as set forth in the Geneva Conventions?"
So the question makes no sense. It asks questions that are unanswerable. In fact, it is a loaded question, which is a logical fallacy, because it can't be answered for any group of people based on religious reasons. You cannot cite a single example of christians, Atheists, Jews, hindus, Pagans or satanists abiding by the geneva conventions.
After the Hirja, which marks Muhammadís migration from Mecca to Medina and the beginning of Islam and the Islamic calendar in 622 CE, Muhammad became a terrorist leader who led the Muslims in over 70 Razias (jihads) before he died in 632 CE."Muslims" who blow **** up use bombs. No bombs when Prophet Mohammed existed, nor guns
Muhammad was hardly a holy man. He first began his career in Medina as a terrorist leader by robbing the Meccan caravans in revenge for being ousted from Mecca. Then soon enough Muhammad graduated from robbing caravans to attacking the kafirs (non-Muslims) living in Arabia. His trademark calling card was he always used deceit to deceive his enemies to attack them when they least expected it and when they were least prepared to defend against it.
His modus operandi was to kill all the adult males, rape and then enslave the women and the children. Indeed, the Muslims adored young boys as much as they adored the women. Thatís why in addition to the 72 young virgins in Allahís version of carnal paradise, there are also 72 young boys for those Muslim martyrs who adore young boys.
Additionally, Muhammad even turned against the Jewish tribe that first provided the hospitality for him to live in Medina after he was ousted from Mecca. By the time Muhammad died in 632 CE, virtually the entire Arabian Peninsula had been conquered by Muhammad and his then new religion of Islam, and then the Muslims went on to conquer a third of the world.
Muhammad also would get his early Muslim followers to kill everyone who criticized him, and that is why criticizing Muhammad is the worse form of blasphemy in the Islamic world today, as all those that are guilty of it are to be killed immediately without an opportunity provided to repent.
I believe it is safe to assume that had bombs and guns existed and been available back then, that Muhammad and his crew of Muslims would have put them to good use.
Suicide/Homicide martyrdom operations have certainly been sanctioned by a small army of Imams in the Islamic world including the head of Al Ahzar University, Sheik Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, which is analogous to the Pope, and as a matter of fact in places like Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan we see that Suicide/Homicide martyrdom operations have become the weapon of choice.Suicide is forbidden, so hell no one would dare try and off themselves infront of the Prophet (MPBUH)
That is a one way ticket to hell. Not refundable.
Nice story but that does not refute my point
I can assume alot of things but you have no evidence.
Suicide is forbidden in the Qu'ran. End of. There is no debating what is in the Qu'ran
Whoever purposely throws himself from a mountain and kills himself, will be in the (Hell) Fire falling down into it and abiding therein perpetually forever; and whoever drinks poison and kills himself with it, he will be carrying his poison in his hand and drinking it in the (Hell) Fire wherein he will abide eternally forever; and whoever kills himself with an iron weapon, will be carrying that weapon in his hand and stabbing his abdomen with it in the (Hell) Fire wherein he will abide eternally forever
My slave has caused death on himself hurriedly, so I forbid Paradise for him
No wiggle room here. No if or buts. SUICIDE IS FORBIDDEN.
Find a Priest crazy enough and he can also sanction murder, does not mean the religion itself teaches it.
Last edited by Laila; 07-28-09 at 09:19 PM.
Jihad can be defined as anything that removes all the obstacles to the eventual imposition of Sharia. The word jihad in Arabic literally means to struggle and jihad also refers to the internal struggle that goes on inside each Muslimís life to be a better slave of Allah. That form of jihad is known as the greater jihad.Wait, i forgot the good part. Define Jihad or what you think it is to Muslims ...