Welcome to Talk Chelsea

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About DCS1984

  • Rank
  • Birthday 12/20/1984

Profile Information

  • Gender Male
  • Location North West
  • Favourite Chelsea Player Nemanja Matic
  1. Moussa Sissoko

    He's been really good against us but he's not really a right winger though. He's more of a centre mid. Doubt he'd be long term but been wrong plenty of times in the past! Cuadrado must be the better option for us or even waiting out it until the summer and moving Salah and probably Schurrle on.
  2. Dennis Wise

    One of the most underrated players of the premiership and one of my favorites but what a terrible haircut!
  3. Politics & Stuff

    The Aztecs fought wars to gain Human sacrifices. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flower_war The Inca's practiced human sacrifice when their emperors died. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sacrifice_in_pre-Columbian_cultures#Inca_culture Then again morality is subjective
  4. The English Football Thread

    One of the worst games ever in a bar full of Spurs fans, don't remind me Though I did see Makelele score that day!
  5. The English Football Thread

    RIP Sir Jack Hayward of Wolves. Watching him with his team like Jack Walker with Blackburn always brought a smile to me, their love and passion for their team and city could never be doubted. A fantastic man and a credit to himself and football at all times :blue scalf:
  6. Politics & Stuff

    As with you I have cut down all the quotes out in the interests of the members here as we maybe overtaking this thread. If anyone has offended it is myself with my almost snide references to "faulty lines of transmission" , "right hands possess", the "Houri's" joke on one of your favourite Surah's (I will say that the video is still incorrect) and the Hell comments as they really shouldn't have been made by myself despite the accompanying hadiths as evidence, it was in poor taste. So I would ask also for your forgiveness for those words if I have offended. Yeah we'd have a great deal to discuss and debate as we are very far apart in many aspects in what we have written and more importantly our interpretation. I feel it is of great credit to you that you took what I wrote and put your own interpretation on what I had wrote instead of going to Ibn Kathir et al. The manner of writing and patience to take the time to research your answers is again a great credit to yourself at only 19 years old. This could quite easily turned into you refuting my arguments with a and a mocking reply and visa versa. The passion that you have shouldn't trouble you, it's fantastic. I present to you a debate between an ex Muslim (though he was an Ahmadi Muslim, which is lets say not mainstream) in Dr Nabeel Qureshi and Mufti Sulaiman Hashim which is done in the greatest of respect between the two men. They help each other find passages and are far removed from the debates with say Sam Shamoun and Nadir Ahmed ( who's style does him no credit ) You are right I do value the historical record greatly, it is one of Islam's greatest weaknesses for me as the oral tradition maybe one of it's greatest strengths for you. I won't go further in this post. While it might not surprise you that I don't agree in some of what you have written, I am more than happy to end this debate on your request It may surprise you to find out you haven't been speaking to a member of the Ahl al-Kitāb perhaps I should have revealed that over Pizza! though my investigation into religion(s) is pointing me in that direction due to it's message/historical strength and the character of it's final prophet (I use that term loosely) Finally if you ever wish to discuss something about Christianity/Judaism and not very well on my own knowledge Zoroastrianism then feel free to PM me at anytime. It would be my pleasure Best wishes David P.s the best football club in the world is Tottenha......
  7. Politics & Stuff

    Thank you again for your excellent well written reply. I pointed out the secrecy actually failed as the leader of the Meccans Abu Sufyan found out about the attack from literally the date trail of Muhammad's allies. Again, I stress Muhammad, Umar (not surprisingly) and Abu Bakr (who later had more problems with Abu Sufyan) did not even try diplomacy for the events with the two tribes. He even get kicked out of his daughters house for trying to sit on her rug! If I was to venture further, the fact they had 10,000 men (who probably weren't all Muslims but were after plunder as shown by the later Ridda wars) means a great deal of time and organizing had to be done. 10,000 men for Arabia was a lot of men in late antiquity and a mammoth army for Arabia. Remember the Quraysh only attacked Mecca with 1000/2000 men in the previous battles. Usually countries can spare 1/10th to 2/10ths at most of their population for War so Mecca would have a population of about 10,000 at the time (My maths!) so Muhammad is attacking Mecca with a battle hardened army, the same size as their entire population! No wonder, Abu Sufyan who was not normally known for his humility understood that the game was up and surrendered. The Quraysh from the Muslim sources (none of theirs exist, actually nothing of them exists in outside sources) seem to pretty poor fighters anyway. Ali was about 10-0 (if you include Shi'a hadiths, he was probably more) against them in single combat! It was hardly a glorious victory. I remember my Indian friend telling me about the glorious (re)conquest of Goa in 1961 on the same terms until I showed him the numbers and he compared it to an elephant and a fly Now we're going a little deeper, I hope you don't mind. I believe it is incredibly important that he renounced his title even for a second. He is the last apostle, the exemplar of conduct, the light to all nations, even to put with God in the Shahadah. If his conduct fails to live up to those titles then the Qu'ran may not be an accurate revelation from God through Jibril. I believe that would be acceptable to you? I can't believe that someone who is held up to the greatest man who lived could give up what gave him "for a mere formality" for even a second. As I compared to Umar and Moses they would never have done this. Moses could have easily done something similar as I made up in a scenario. Remember when he went to Mecca at this point, he didn't have an army with him, he only had his companions with him ( In the Sirat, he has 700 men, 10 for each Camel, also they were in grave danger of being caught in a pincer movement if you believe that to be true as the Quraysh cavalry was behind him, in antiquity you definitely didn't want that) . He was vastly outnumbered and the Quraysh could have easily killed him. As much as Umar and Ali ( and perhaps Khalid was there too but he's not referenced) were great fighters, they couldn't stand against all the Quraysh outside Mecca. Why do you think he made the treaty that was so weighted against him, he (the historical Muhammad) had little choice, there weren't going to let him in to do the pilgrimage. He was miles from home, without supplies and without an army that could realistically beat the Quraysh without extremely heavy losses unlike the next time, he came back in overwhelming force. He had to make this treaty while he could as the Quraysh would have been afraid of the possibility of Medinan assistance and the blood ties that still ran strong despite their superior position. I know as you say he doesn't say "Ha I fooled you silly mushrikūn!" but he lies (taqiyya) to God about the position given him for simply put a human affair. He should have done the pilgrimage or died trying, he wouldn't have done it if he wasn't commanded too but he fails to. He fails all those he has told that they will go to Mecca and perform it, in essence, he has committed a false prophecy to at least Abu Bakr, Ali, Uthman and Umar. He told them they would perform it and well they didn't, so it's no wonder they're so disappointed. I'd struggle to accept that any prophet of God, especially one as important to humankind as to be the example to all would do this. If it was a tribal leader, then fair enough, they haven't been chosen to be an example and can conduct themselves accordingly to the flows of human lives at this time but can he? If God asked him "did you erase your prophetic calling that I gave you and only you to the people of the entire world at any time for even a second?" what would he have to say "well it worked out well in the end" again only my opinion but that isn't the conduct of the example for humanity. Again, he should have never erased that, it weakens his position as a prophet by lowering himself to the demands of this world. Just me though Yeah, the Arabs of Jahiliyyah were prone to this but then again isn't the Sunni - Shi'a split at the heart a massive blood feud over the succession? Probably not for us to discuss for the moment. I'd recommend Lesley Hazelton's "After the Prophet - The story of the Sunni-Shi'a split" to read if you want. However surely by your correct logic of "the one who raised his hand be responsible" shouldn't the Banu Khu'uzah raise their hands for the original incident? The one that leads with the women not being returned to the conquest of Mecca above, both of these incidents are not originally from the Quraysh to begin with, the second one is open to interpretation at least but is it cause for war never-mind a sneaky surprise attack? Remember the verses 6:29 were revealed before the expedition not after according to Ibn Kathir. Muhammad was wanting battle with the Romans (The Byzantines still called themselves Romans up to 1453) as he believed there was an invasion of an enormous army of 40,000 to 100,000 soldiers. Sadly the chain of transmission was faulty (sorry couldn't resist) and the army didn't exist. The idea that the Byzantines could get an army of 100,000 soldiers in 630 is sadly hilarious if you know a) the numbers involved in the previous war of life and death with the Sassaninid Persians were a lot less and The Byzantines were barely functional in the middle east after the 14yr Persian occupation of their lands in the Levant and Egypt so at this point so to raise any army from here would have been a miracle of epic proportions. For Arabic accounts of numbers of battle, it's always best to take a 0 off both sides So while nothing happened, the instruction from God hasn't changed unless the Qu'ran isn't eternal and only context specific? If it is context specific, it really should say as it is "fully explained" 6:114 and "free from imperfection and expounded in detail" 11:1 This was the last one to be revealed after all, the law of Abrogation says you should always refer to the most recent revelation. Just had a revelation (of sorts) Jibril is revealing in 6:29 how to fight the Christian Byzantine/Ghassanid soldiers that don't even exist! Surely God could have told Muhammad, this whole expedition you are preparing for and sent up to Tabouk.... well it's not there. It's funny if I offered something without chain of transmission outside of Bukahiri, Muslim and Abu Doud that was negative to Islam they wouldn't accept it so I won't either Only kidding, I am surprised someone as educated in the world as Umar couldn't tell the difference between a Jew and a Christian in 634-44 even if they were a beggar. If he did do this for this man and other beggars then good on Umar, he gets a lot of bad press if you compare him to modern day society. The execution (stoning) of the adulteress is very unflattering to him and Muhammad if you compare it to Jesus' teaching on the subject. Just an observation but there is no time, date (I guessed 634-44 as he would have had the power to do so but Umar was an intimating man so could have been earlier) or written at the time record of this (it was written in sometime in the mid 750s) so there is no way to prove this happened academically. Thank you, the reason I use the Ezra is because there is no evidence that they did. It's important for me as God is going after the completely the wrong people, I have to imagine God wants everyone to be on the right path, so he should have gone after the majority and given the best possible evidence that they (the Jews) were wrong but instead God for some reason makes a very strange statement for the best possible argument. I see the hand of man (Muhammad) here, not the hand of God. Just to reinforce my argument, that Allah in 6:30 mean THE Jews. Here is Muhammad's declaration to the Jews for why they have turned God's anger on them on the day of Judgement. “Then it will be said to the Jews, "What did you use to worship?' They will reply, 'We used to worship Ezra, the son of Allah.' It will be said to them, 'You are liars, for Allah has neither a wife nor a son. What do you want (now)?' “ Bukhari 6:60:105 You said above you don't know their history which I accept, once you read some of the Bible you'll understand how crazy this accusation is. I can see the Jews of the world looking something like this There is no historical evidence that the King Sahama (Al-Najashi) existed in the time of Islam never mind that he converted. Islamic sources even have "Hercules" not Heraclius converting to Islam but being forced by popular opinion to change back etc. Take it with a pinch of salt some of these claims. I hope he isn't there permanently too but remember unless you commit Shahid then YOU are going to hell too hopefully you will be delivered "Then, surely it is We who are most knowing of those most worthy of burning therein. No one of you there is, but he shall go down to it (hell); That for thy Lord is a thing decreed, determined. Then We shall deliver those that were god-fearing; and the evildoers We shall leave there, hobbling on their knees." -- Sura 19:71-72 "Verily the creation of each one of you is brought together in his mother's womb for forty days in the form of a seed, then he is a clot of blood for a like period, then a morsel of flesh for a like period, then there is sent to him the angel who blows the breath of life into him and who is commanded about four matters: to write down his mean of livelihood, his life span, his actions and whether happy or unhappy" Bukhari and Muslim. I won't go into it in more detail of course as it's not my belief in Qadr or Predestination in anyway. I may be wrong on the matter but I haven't met anyone who has disagreed on the principle - Shi'a is different though. Though perhaps this was the true Shahada to save us all from the from the fire? The Prophet said, "If anyone testifies that None has the right to be worshipped but Allah Alone Who has no partners, and that Muhammad is His Slave and His Apostle, and that Jesus is Allah's Slave and His Apostle and His Word which He bestowed on Mary and a Spirit from Him, and that Paradise is true, and Hell is true, Allah will admit him into Paradise with the deeds which he had done even if those deeds were few." (Junada, the sub-narrator said, " 'Ubada added, 'Such a person can enter Paradise through any of its eight gates he likes.") Bukahri - 4:55.644 Sorry it posted my above for some reason, probably was bored with all my typing Sorry couldn't resist but the Quraysh had the right to do what he liked with Bihal whether he was a Muslim or not by their (immoral IMO) law as he was his slave/property. "I wish you luck on your book. You can even read up Surah Ar-Rum, for it does touch upon that kingdom as well, if you want. The Muslims used to cheer for the Romans, while the polytheists used to cheer for the persians, because of their likeness in terms of religion. There's even a tradition of Abu bakr betting on the Romans to come out as winners because of the Surah, back when betting wasn't made forbidden yet." Many thanks for the kind words about the book, it's kind of hiatus as I am struggling with how to put the Elephant in the room into context. I know the Surah Ar-Rum it was one of the first I turned to. It seems to be from 619 from the end (628 was the end of the war) but doesn't make much sense in dating at all, it should be from 612 as that was when the Byzantines were trounced at the battle of Antioch and subsequently the middle east and Egypt fell. It's a very strange prediction if I'm honest. 3 to 9 years is weird in the context of the Sassanid/Byzantine war which must have affected the Arabs greatly in trade. Why would God send down such a imprecise revelation? If you are pushing literalism, was the Byzantine/Sassanid war always destined to happen from the beginnings of time? It's hard to find this chapter in history to be truthful. Oh boy, you've spent so much time on reasearching this religion and have never done the listening-to-the-recitation-while-reading-the-subtitles thing? Reading the translation now feels kinda like eating a wet sandwich, to me. The benefit is there, but the feel is just so...not as good as it should be. I present to you one of the favorite surahs of Muslims from the Quran, I hope you take out some time to have a look at is, at least the start (I love it, personally). I recommend headphones. I've heard some of the Surah's being recited but I have honestly never gone out of my way to hear them. This is a bit of fun - I was watching/listening to this and I was "I remember this Surah" and then it dawned on me, I'm going to see the Houri's!! Wooo! "In them will be fair (Maidens), good, beautiful Maidens restrained (as to their glances), in (goodly) pavilions;- Whom no man or Jinn before them has touched " But they weren't there, story of my life! Loved the video, lack of Houri's aside there was some brilliant photography, shooting of the video was excellent. Really makes you wonder about the world. Have to admit I wasn't overly moved by the words (orally or on the page), though I did reflect on them. I'll give you that this one is one of the better ones. I like Surah 90 "Al Balad" myself, if I could change the last two lines to something a bit more hopeful of redemption then it would be a fine piece of advice. Lol, and another failure in length. [] There's nothing to thank me for. I'm kinda obligated to respond to you in a better way (Quran 16:125). And in your case, responding to you in a better manner than yours is not easy, since you're quite well-mannered as it is, if not more. So thanks for making this more difficult for me. [] Disaster for me in length too lol! Ah so you are doing Dawah to me.... I'm no fan of Islam as you can gather but there is a lot more to be gained by discussing these things rationally than shouting the loudest. I remember the first time, with my friend Khalid when I felt comfortable he wouldn't attack me lol! I was scattergun "don't you know about Aisha, Safiya, Zaynab, "right hands" then Kaybar, Ezra, the trinity, the dating of the Qu'ran, the non complete Qu'rans before the 13th century the first Qiblas don't face Mecca etc " he was getting machine gunned fired what was completely new to him. He is an educated man (degree in French law) and was quite taken aback as his former footy buddy had turned into Robert Spensor like Dr.Jeckel lol! Fortunately we actually chatted a bit about it and had some interesting discussions, he helped me a lot with interpretation, pronunciation and to try and keep me on track as I hope we have and hopefully this will continued to be well mannered and in the spirit of communication between two people of opposite ideas. Many thanks David
  8. Politics & Stuff

    Thank you for your excellent reply. The man was Khatib ign Abi Balta'ah that wrote the letter and Muhammad forgave him as he had participated in the battle of Badr. So Muhammad was attempting a surprise attack on the Quraysh? While it is fine strategy, is it not deceit or could he not meet the Quraysh head on like they did? At the battle of Badr, they (the Quraysh) fought head on, at Ubud they fought head on and at the Trench, Muhammad and Salman fought an victorious defensive battle against them. Perhaps "War is deceit" after all. To be honest, I'm not quite sure how Muhammad was going to surprise the Quraish with an Army of 10,000 men as Abu Sufyan quickly found out and went to Medina to attempt to keep to the 10 year treaty with the Muslims. Sadly for Abu Sufyan "Muhammad wouldn't not speak to him, that he got no good from Abu Bakr and that he found Umar an implacable enemy, he had found Ali to be the most helpful though he didn't know if it would do any good" So no diplomacy with Abu Sayfan or paying of the blood price here: Muhammad was preparing for war. It's no wonder when you see that the treaty of Hudaybiyya was such a disaster for the Muslims that had come to do the pilgrimage. "Then the Apostle summoned Ali and told him to write "In the name of Allah the Compassionate, the Merciful." Suhayl said, "I do not recognize this; but write, "In thy name, O Allah"." The apostle told him to write the latter and he did so. Then he said: "Write "This is what Muhammad the apostle of God has agreed with Suhayl b. Amr."" Suhayl said, "If I witnessed that you were God's apostle I would not have fought you. Write your own name and the name of your father." The apostle said: "Write "This is what Muhammad b. Abdullah has agreed with Suhayl b. Amr: they have agreed to lay aside war for ten years during which men can be safe and refrain from hostilities on condition that if anyone comes to Muhammad without the permission of his guardian he will return him to them; and if anyone of those with Muhammad comes to Quraysh they will not return him to him. We will not show enmity one to another and there shall be no secret reservation of bad faith ..." Sirat -504 (747) "Narrated Al-Bara bin 'Azib: When Allah's Apostle concluded a peace treaty with the people of Hudaibiya, Ali bin Abu Talib wrote the document and he mentioned in it, "Muhammad, Allah's Apostle." The pagans said, "Don't write: 'Muhammad, Allah's Apostle', for if you were an apostle we would not fight with you." Allah's Apostle asked Ali to rub it out, but Ali said, "I will not be the person to rub it out." Allah's Apostle rubbed it out and made peace with them on the condition that the Prophet and his companions would enter Mecca and stay there for three days, and that they would enter with their weapons in cases." - Bukhari 3.862 "While the apostle and Suhayl were writing the document, suddenly Abu Jandal appeared walking in fetters, having escaped to the apostle. The apostle's companions had gone out without any doubt of occupying Mecca because of the vision which the apostle had seen, and when they saw the negotiations for peace and a withdrawal going on and what the apostle had taken on himself they felt depressed almost to the point of death. When Suhayl saw Abu Jandal he got up and hit him in the face and took hold of his collar, saying, "Muhammad, the agreement between us was concluded before this man came to you." He replied "You are right". He began to pull him roughly by his collar and to drag him away to return him to Quraysh, while Abu Jandal shrieked at the top of his voice, "Am I to be returned to the polytheists that they may entice me from my religion O Muslims?" and that increased the people's dejection. - Sirat page 505. As you can see, Muhammad was quite happy to erase his title of Prophet given to him by God ( and he was the last one too) for a treaty. Can you imagine Umar doing the same? I can't. Umar would have died trying to complete the pilgrimage not renounce everything they believed in. Read the horror that Ali feels, the man he has believed to be the prophet is asking him to erase that from an official document. They did gain more followers as people could now go to Mecca and Yuthrib if their guardians allowed it but was it worth renouncing his title given to him by God himself? Can you see Jesus saying in the Temple saying to the Temple hierarchy "When I said, "Before Abraham I AM, I meant Before Abraham I am in reverence?" and leaving to live his life to come back later and say "was only tricking you" or "circumstances forced my hand to lie about my calling"? It would destroy the Christian faith completely. Putting it into another context, imagine Moses and Aaron infront of Pharaoh at the exodus "Let my people go!" "No!" Moses and Aaron see that they are two amongst the whole of Egypt - Much like Muhammad was vastly outnumbered by the Meccans at Mecca at this point "Let the tribe of Benjamin go!" Pharaoh thinks on it as he doesn't want to offend the god of the Israelites who have caused some plagues on his land and the tribe of Benjamin are the least "....ok, here's a treaty sign here" Moses signs on behalf of the one and only god Pharaoh says "Don't write: 'Moses, Servant of the one true god', for if there was one true God we would not fight with you." Moses asked Aaron to rub it out, but Aaron said, "I will not be the person to rub it out." So Moses rubbed it out and made peace with them on the condition that the tribe of Benjamin could leave to the promised land Later Moses calls it a victory and comes back with Aaron and the tribe of Benjamin and frees the other 11 tribes. That's the closest, I could get in a Jewish version, I doubt Judaism would have kept Moses in such a high regard if he erased his monotheistic God's name when he was with Pharaoh. The victorious army that conquered Mecca did take the city and it was probably a lot less bloody than it could have been if not for Abu Suyfan's "conversion". The four months after the conquest is for the Polytheists to leave Mecca, they are no longer to stay in the city or they will be killed. It was theological cleansing. Which of the polytheist leaders survived and kept their faith? "According to Ibn Humayd – Salamah – Ibn Ishaq, who said: After sending his expedition to Mut’ah, the Messenger of God stayed in Medina during Jumada II and Rajab. Then the Banu Bakr b. ‘Abd Manat b. Kinanah assaulted [the tribe of] Khuza’ah while the latter were at a watering place called al-Watir belonging to Khuza’ah in Lower Mecca. The cause of the strife between Banu Bakr and the Banu Khuza’ah was a man from the Banu al-Hadrami named Malik b. ‘Abbad. This man of the Banu al-Hadrami had a covenant of protection at that time with al-Aswad b. Razn. Malik set out on a journey as a merchant. When he was in the middle of Khuza’ah territory, THE KHUZA’AH ASSAULTED HIM, KILLED HIM, AND TOOK HIS PROPERTY. The Banu Bakr therefore attacked and killed a man from Khuza’ah. Just before Islam, the Khuza’ah in turn assaulted Salma, Kulthum, and Dhu’ayb, the sons of al-Aswad b. Razn al-Dili – they were the leading men and dignitaries of the Banu Bakr – and killed them at ‘Arafah, by the border markers of the sacred territory. According to Ibn Humayd – Salamah – Muhammad b. Ishaq – a man from the Banu al-Dil, who said: In pagan times two payments of blood money would be paid for each of the sons of al-Aswad, while a single payment of blood money would be paid for us; and that because of their excellence [compared with us]. Matters stood thus between the Banu Bakr and Khuza’ah when Islam intervened to separate them and occupy people’s minds. When the peace of al-Hudaybiyah was concluded between the Messenger of God and Quraysh (this information is according to Ibn Humayd – Salamah – Muhammad b. Ishaq – Muhammad b. Muslim b. ‘Abdallah b. Shihab al-Zuhri – ‘Urwah b. al-Zubayr – al-Miswar b. Makhramah, Marwan b. al-Hakam, and other learned men of ours), among the terms they imposed on the Messenger of God and that he granted to them was that whoever wanted to enter into a treaty and pact with the Messenger of God might do so, and whoever wanted to enter into a treaty with Quraysh might do so. The Banu Bakr entered into a pact with Quraysh, and Khuza’ah entered into a pact with the Messenger of God. The truce having been concluded, the Banu al-Dil of the Banu Bakr took advantage of it against Khuza’ah. To RETALIATE for the sons of al-Aswad b. Razn they wanted to kill the persons from Khuza’ah WHO HAD KILLED THEIR MEN. Nawfal b. Mu’awiyah al-Dili set out with the Banu al-Dil (at that time he was a leader of the Banu al-Dil, though not all the Banu Bakr followed him). He made a night raid on the Khuza’ah while the latter were at their watering place of al-Watir, and they killed a man [of the Khuza’ah]. They tried to drive each other away and fought. Quraysh aided the Banu Bakr with weapons, and some members of Quraysh fought on their side under cover of darkness until they drove Khuza’ah into the sacred territory. According to al-Waqidi: Among the members of Quraysh who helped the Banu Bakr against Khuza’ah that night, concealing their identity, were Safwan b. Umayyah, ‘Ikrimah b. Abi Jahl, Suhayl b. ‘Amr, and others, along with their slaves. Resumption of the account of Ibn Ishaq, who said: When they reached the sacred territory, the Banu Bakr said: "Nawfal, we have entered the sacred territory. Be mindful of your God! Be mindful of your God!" To which he replied blasphemously: "Today he has no God! Banu Bakr, TAKE YOUR REVENGE! By my life you steal in the sacred territory; WILL YOU NOT TAKE YOUR REVENGE IN IT?" The night that the Banu Bakr attacked the Khuza’ah at al-Watir, they killed a man of Khuza’ah named Munabbih. Munabbih was a man with a weak heart. He had gone out with a tribesman of his named Tamim b. Asad. Munabbih said to him: "Tamim, save yourself! As for me, by God, I am a dead man whether they kill me or spare me, for my heart has ceased beating." Tamim ran away and escaped; Munabbih they caught and killed. When the Khuza’ah entered Mecca, they took refuge in the house of Budayl b. Waqa’ al-Khuza’i and the house of one of their mawlas named Rafi‘. When Quraysh leaguered together [with Banu Bakr] against Khuza’ah and killed some of their men, breaking the treaty and covenant that existed between them and the Messenger of God by violating the Khuza’ah, who had a pact and treaty with him. ‘Amr b. Salim al-Khuza’i, one of the Banu Ka‘b, went to the Messenger of God in Medina. This was one of the things that prompted the conquest of Mecca… (The History of Al-Tabari: The Victory of Islam, translated by Michael Fishbein [state University of New York Press (SUNY), Albany, 1997], Volume VIII, pp. 160-163) Who started this feud? Why was Muhammad in alliance with people who would attack a man under protection? This was one of the worst crimes that you could do in 7th century Arabia as was killing in the holy place, though the Banu Bakr seemed to have been taunted by the Khuza'ah member (not an excuse though). It was before a battle to encourage his men to fight/show no quarter against the Romans/Byzantines and Ghassanids in the Tabouk expedition that ended up being much ado about nothing as there was no fighting. Who were these Jews? Where were they? Where they numerous? Have the left their mark on history?Do you have their writings, the Jews are probably the greatest recorders of their histories?Would Jews around the world in 630 also slay those that claimed Ezra was the Son of God in the same context as Christians put Jesus as the verse states?The text says THE Jews (alyahoodu) not a small heretical sect somewhere in the middle of no-where. Why would God focus on these people and ignore the vast majority of Jews that have evidently displeased him?"And indeed, among the People of the Scripture are those who believe in Allah and what was revealed to you and what was revealed to them, [being] humbly submissive to Allah . They do not exchange the verses of Allah for a small price/miserable gain. Those will have their reward with their Lord. Indeed, Allah is swift in account." 3.199 Sahih International & Yussef Ali for the alternate. This isn't as accepting as you make it out once you put the part you missed in. Without it it's a great passage, with it in my opinion, the Qu'ran has caused problems like what we have above with Ezra and the Qu'ranic view of the trinity as they would be those exchanging the verses from the Taurat and the Injeel for the "wrong ones". If the Qu'ran is accusing Jews of making Ezra "The Son of God" for a small price and it's wrong what does that mean? Do you have a source? I have never heard of this If by suicide, you mean charging into the midst of the battle on unequal terms, I could easily see Umar doing this but a suicide attack not so much. 1. Bukhari :: Book 2 :: Volume 23 :: Hadith 442; Al-Janaa’iz Narrated Said bin Al-Musaiyab from his father: When the time of the death of Abu Talib approached, Allah’s Apostle went to him and found Abu Jahl bin Hisham and ‘Abdullah bin Abi Umaiya bin Al-Mughira by his side. Allah’s Apostle said to Abu Talib, “O uncle! Say: None has the right to be worshipped but Allah, a sentence with which I shall be a witness (i.e. argue) for you before Allah. Abu Jahl and ‘Abdullah bin Abi Umaiya said, “O Abu Talib! Are you going to denounce the religion of Abdul Muttalib?” Allah’s Apostle kept on inviting Abu Talib to say it (i.e. ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah’) while they (Abu Jahl and Abdullah) kept on repeating their statement till Abu Talib said as his last statement that he was on the religion of Abdul Muttalib and refused to say, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.‘ (Then Allah’s Apostle said, “I will keep on asking Allah’s forgiveness for you unless I am forbidden (by Allah) to do so.” So Allah revealed (the verse) concerning him (i.e. It is not fitting for the Prophet and those who believe that they should invoke (Allah) for forgiveness for pagans even though they be of kin, after it has become clear to them that they are companions of the fire (9.113). He didn't turn to Islam on his death bed so he went to hell basically. 2. Muslim :: Book 1 : Hadith 413; Kitab Al-Iman Ibn ‘Abbas reported: The Prophet (may peace be upon him) said: Among the inhabitants of the Fire Abu Talib would have the least suffering, and he would be wearing two shoes (of Fire) which would boil his brain. Poor Abu Talib after keeping Muhammad alive from all those that wished to kill him, showing his protection at every turn, raising him when he was orphaned, ending the boycott, for all this he has the best spot in the Fire If you are Shi'a they believe differently. I assume you are Sunni though. Please correct me if you aren't Here I was wrong, I had completely forgotten about Bilal and the rock being placed on him in Ibn Ishaq 127. Not a being dragged through the street though. Still you are right, this was a terrible thing. Admittedly for the time, Bihal's owner had the right to do what he wanted as his "right hand possessed" him but you are right that the embargo wasn't the worst thing. Abu Bakr emancipates Bihal which leads to some interesting conversations after Muhammad's death later.... Do you have a source for the carcass story? "The boycott was a hard piece of business for the Quraysh. Mecca was a small town, and many of those being boycotted were friends and family by marriage or kin. Just as with all boycotts there had been subtle cheating and help for those being boycotted. It was hard to eat well, buy new clothes and marry, all the while knowing others in the small town were suffering from the boycott. Because many didn't want friends and family to suffer, they began to hold clandestine meetings on the subject. A large meeting was held at the Ka'aba, where the boycott document was still posted. A boycott needs a very large majority to succeed and there wasn't one in Mecca. The Quraysh were too soft hearted to press the issue and the boycott failed" Ibn Ishaq 248,249 - This is from the Abridged version - I have the full Ibn Ishaq/Hisham but it does make for hard reading in comparision. This I have to thank you for, the book I was writing for the Byzantine/Persian war and the rise of Islam narrative history will find use for this. I have watched the first episode and there is some mistakes, especially with the Byzantines and the Ghassanid's relationship. They were both Christian but the Ghassanid's were in the Byzantines eyes heretical followers of the Monophiyiste faith (Jesus only had once nature - Divine) they would not be talking about the same Church. They hated each others faith, think Sunni/Shi'a, things in common but miles apart. Syrian Arabs were far away from the the Pan Arabism (Nasser would be proud ) that the show showed, for example it's likely that Umar and the Ghassanid chief would be speaking Aramaic, then Greek and the Arabic as there was no reason at all for the Syrians to learn Arabic nevermind the Quraysh dialect. The Ghassanid's were not the vassal rulers of Damascus at all but located in Tabouk which I pointed out earlier that Muhammad was going on to attack in 630. Fortunately no one seems to care that the Persians were ravaging the lands around Damascus at the time either but I guess that will be addressed later. Aside from that it is very good, I enjoyed the first episode and hopefully will find the time to watch the remaining 30! Hearing the Qu'ran recited and seeing how much I could understand was good too, though I am very very poor in Arabic. Does Muhammad appear though, won't it be difficult not to show him? There is a lot to look forward to in this I hope. Ali's reaction to Abu Bakr's raising to Caliph should be good. Alas I have failed also thank you for your kind comments on my knowledge, many of my questions on Islam really need answering, I agree Thank you for keeping this civil and while I maybe asking questions of the Qu'ran and Muhammad, hopefully I have tried to make you understand my doubts about the validity of their/his claims. Many thanks David
  9. Politics & Stuff

    Thanks for your questions, but please bear in mind that I'm no expert on this, nor would I even call myself a student of knowledge in anyway. I've only turned towards this faith relatively recently despite being born a muslim, primarily because of my utter lack of knowledge of it beforehand. It's sad how little regard I've given to the actual understanding of the religion, a case very common there with many others too. Despite being born muslim in a muslims country. My belief is much greater living in the west than it was there, which is kinda funny. Anyway, both the Surahs are historically revealed very closely, with 9 (at-tawbah) preceding 60 (Al-mumtahanah). The context of the first verse should be clear enough from the beginning verse of it's Surah. Which is, 9: 1 This is a declaration of] disassociation, from Allah and His Messenger, to those with whom you had made a treaty among the polytheists. 9:2 So travel freely, [O disbelievers], throughout the land [during] four months but know that you cannot cause failure to Allah and that Allah will disgrace the disbelievers. Can't get it to quote, the above is from Sal. Many thanks to you for your responses and your belief that you should be more than the title of just "Muslim" but someone who investigates their faith and it's contexts, finally for your well written response Hopefully you will take the time to read my response to what you have written as I have you However Surah 9 doesn't precedes Surah 60. It is Surah 9 that is the second last one to be revealed or the last. Look at Islamic history, Surah 60 is after the treaty of Hudaybiyah however Surah 9 is revealed after the capture of Mecca and incursions into Ghassanid/Byzantine territory so at least two years has passed between the Surahs. So you may wish to read more about the order in which the Qu'ran is or even wonder why is it longest to shortest? We can read not just recite. Read your favorite novel longest to shortest and see what happens? Perhaps you could investigate your faith by reading a Qu'ran in order and a copy of Ibn Ishaq/Hisham Sirat Rasulallah and wonder at the connections to an eternal book? Interestingly the polytheists, you have inferred from the text are the Quraysh which is correct but have you not considered what is going on in those four months? They are given a set time of four months to leave Mecca/convert or well die. "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful." 9-5 Think who would take the property and possessions of those that left in exile or death? Is this the act of God's eternal tablet or is it the action of men? Also the Polytheists were now barred from the Kabba and making their pilgrimages to Mecca, once the "freedom from obligations" was over i.e. the specified treaty Sahil Bukari 1-365 On the Day of Nahr (10th of Dhul-Hijja, in the year prior to the last Hajj of the Prophet when Abu Bakr was the leader of the pilgrims in that Hajj) Abu Bakr sent me along with other announcers to Mina to make a public announcement: "No pagan is allowed to perform Hajj after this year and no naked person is allowed to perform the Tawaf around the Ka'ba. Then Allah's Apostle sent 'All to read out the Surat Bara'a (At-Tauba) to the people; so he made the announcement along with us on the day of Nahr in Mina: "No pagan is allowed to perform Hajj after this year and no naked person is allowed to perform the Tawaf around the Ka'ba." Does this sound like no compulsion to the polytheists of Arabia or coercion in their religion? Who broke the treaty? Was it the Quraish or is it Muhammad? The terms of the treaty said that any Muslim that had fled to Yuthrib (Medina) would be returned. Where they returned or was Surah 60:10 revealed in response by God or man? Is this the literal words of God that has always existed or is it Muhammad reacting to situation of weakness, remember the treaty of Hudaibiya was seen at the time as a disaster for the Muslims and Muhammad's own companions that went to Mecca. Bukari 3.891 Umar bin Al-Khattab said, "I went to the Prophet and said, 'Aren't you truly the Apostle of Allah?' The Prophet said, 'Yes, indeed.' I said, 'Isn't our Cause just and the cause of the enemy unjust?' He said, 'Yes.' I said, 'Then why should we be humble in our religion?' He said, 'I am Allah's Apostle and I do not disobey Him, and He will make me victorious.' I said, 'Didn't you tell us that we would go to the Ka'ba and perform Tawaf around it?' He said, 'Yes, but did I tell you that we would visit the Ka'ba this year?' I said, 'No.' He said, 'So you will visit it and perform Tawaf around it?' " Umar further said, "I went to Abu Bakr and said, 'O Abu Bakr! Isn't he truly Allah's Prophet?' He replied, 'Yes.' I said, 'Then why should we be humble in our religion?' He said, 'Indeed, he is Allah's Apostle and he does not disobey his Lord, and He will make him victorious. Adhere to him as, by Allah, he is on the right.' I said, 'Was he not telling us that we would go to the Kaba and perform Tawaf around it?' He said, 'Yes, but did he tell you that you would go to the Ka'ba this year?' I said, 'No.' He said, "You will go to Ka'ba and perform Tawaf around it. Remember 9:29 is about slaying the people of the book, the Ahl al-Kitāb (Jews and Christians) not the Polytheists around Arabia. The Muslims were treated in the worst way imaginable in our history? Well that would be accepted if it was so far. Even Karen Armstrong, whose writings, I enjoy but are incredibly selective doesn't point to anything resembling "the worst way treated in their history" . I'd say one day as a Shia under IS is much worse. There was only one recorded death in Mecca of a Muslim between 610-622 of Umm Summayah who may have been speared by Abu Jahl but where is this found, not the Sirat, not the Qu'ran? What is your source for a suicide attack by the Quraish? It's not in the Sirat unless I missed it Think on it, why would the powerful people of Mecca need to do such a thing when they were numerous and powerful while the Muslim only numbered 100-200 people at most before the Hijra? The Quriash were at a loss on what do with him, they couldn't kill him (which no doubt some of them would have wanted to, Umar did, however if you believe the Qu'ran is eternal, then they actually couldn't no matter what they did to him) due to his ties with Abu Talib (in my opinion, the real hero of the Meccan period of Islamic history, he must have had the patience of an saint when it came to both Muhammad and his tribes' opinion of him, unless you're Shi'a then it's a great shame where he is now ) so they tried to negotiate with him They decided to send for Muhammad and to negotiate and argue with him... When he came and sat down with them, they explained that that they had sent for him in order that they could talk together. No Arab had ever treated his tribe as Muhammad had treated them, and they repeated the charges... If it was money he wanted, they would make him the richest of them all; if it was honor, he should be their prince; if it was sovereignty, they would make him king. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 188) To Muhammad's credit, he rejects them and sticks to his faith but this later leads on to the revelation of the Satanic verses but that's outside of our discussion which is Muhammad & Allah's treatment of the Ahl al-Kitāb and the Mushrikūn So far we have a disagreement 60 1-12 and 9:29 - 30 don't go together and don't have commonality in historical context as they have 2 years between them 628 and 630/1 9:29 is about the people of the book not the polytheists of 60 1-12 The Quraish didn't like Muhammad but weren't treating the Muslims the worst they've ever been treated in their 1400 year history. After the death of Abu Talib then things got worse but that was 620 not 610 when he started preaching. They worst they got was embargoed by the Quraish.Now you'll notice I've put 9:30 there too as it is often missed when 9:29 The Jews say, "Ezra is the son of Allah "; and the Christians say, "The Messiah is the son of Allah ." That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded? 9:30 Believe me, go into a synagogue and tell the Jews that they believe Ezra is the son of God. Or tell them at one point they rose up Ezra to be the son of God. Read the Bible, you may have been told it has been corrupted and we could have a great debate about that but on Ezra really, the Jews changed that back after Muhammad? Remember, if this was a man saying these words i.e. Muhammad who may have heard some Jews in the area of Yuthrib exalting Ezra but this is God who knows everything speaking to Muhammad. Is this true? If this is incorrect, then does the Qu'ran fall? These are the questions I asked myself when I started to try and find what ever is out there (if you ever can). You have a mind for knowledge/religion and I liked your ideas on virtue and faith. You say you are no expert but no one is but we can try to find out the truth no matter how where it leads us. Hopefully you read and investigate what I have written, I could be wrong I look forward to hearing your opinions on this. David P.s Sorry for the length too, just seen it lol!
  10. Politics & Stuff

    Greetings to you, hopefully you'll allow me to ask you a few questions in response to your post. I'll try and keep it a tighter context as we maybe able to discuss this in good spirit. You have said 9:29 was revealed for a very specific time and place in human history which is unlike 60:8. Would you care to give time and context for 9:29? Also if it has been revealed for a place and time is it not then an eternal message to the whole of human kind? If 9:29 is context of it's time, is 60:8 not reliant on 60:9-10 for it's historical context of the effects of the treaty of Hudaybiyah and not a religious war of fighting at this exact time. Many thanks
  11. Demba Ba

    Hope the Besiktas fans know the song!
  12. Fernando Torres

    Going to see him play when I'm in Rome. Going to be in the Roma section, not quite sure if I should give him extra stick or not? Though Milan can't possibly be sending him back can they?
  13. Politics & Stuff

    Hey sorry girlfriend was down and didn't have time for long messages with her here. You know what my point is, but you have avoided it. Has or does Hezbollah condoned or actively participated in actions that we agreed to be the definition of terrorism? You often mis-direct to the U.S and Israel but the original point do you believe that Hezbollah's principles and actions to be acceptable? I find it very unlikely that Israel has killed the most civilians since 1945 (47) to be unlikely with the much bloodier conflicts in that time. The US has a lot of blood on it's hands in Vietnam, Korea et al and that can't be denied by anyone. I think you are mistaking me for someone who wholeheartedly agrees with American/UK/Soviet/Israeli subversive acts which I don't. The Vietnam War was a senseless waste of lives on boths sides. Black Sunday is a good book for the way the Americans abandoned South Vietnam if you're interested. That is a lot of specific incidents such as the Sabra and Shatila massacre which I hadn't heard of, so I'll have a look at that and as I've said before (and you've responded to below) I'd like to read more on the Lebanese Civil War/ Israeli interventions. As for the above (not all as there is too many) incidents, do you believe they were done with the express intent of killing civilians or do you believe that their deaths wasn't part of their plan? As you say, the laws on legitimate warfare are there so that individuals wherever they are do sleep easier if their government/country is in conflict can sleep easier knowing that they are not targeting civilians. Do those that cause civilian deaths that could have been avoided be punished of course and there is ways of doing this, you may deny that it will ever happen but the framework is there. However for Hamas/Hezbollah et al there is no framework. They target without specifics and have no authority to do so. As far as I can see and I've tried the major news outlets that no-one has confirmed that it was Al-Baghdadi in the picture. So far I've found confirmed reports that there was Salim Idris there and Mouaz Moustafa (excutive director of Syrian Emergency Task Force) the others seem to be unconfirmed. If it had been Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi who at the time was affiliated with Al-Queda why would he be there? Just think, this was only last year. John McCain was an easy target. Think of the damage any of the groups could do? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22683261 Do I know what was going through McCain's head? No. Do I think he went on a official capacity? It doesn't seem that way. Personally I think he went there to talk to Salim Idris and to he thought was against Assad, not to promote ISIS or a conspiracy. It would fit with what we know of him and his subsequent actions. Would I deal with the North Storm Brigade. No. You may call these meaningless technicalities but these are what separates Nations (Lebanon and Israel) from groups. You haven't found a declaration of war between Israel and Lebanon because there wasn't one. Lebanon is a special case as you well mention as it imploded as a state in the 70s and 80s and is still recovering. Before the civil war there was no restrictions on what you can and couldn't not do militarily and you had tanks and aircraft much superior to the former French Colonial forces. Hezbollah more than likely still have superior firepower than the Lebanese state still. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_Ground_Forces_Equipment I haven't found independent verification for those numbers but I'm running out of time before work. I'll look into that later. Sorry will respond to this later. Will try and watch some of this at work. Thanks, I am interested in Lebanon and it's place in the middle east. Possibly this book might interest you. It's more of a travel journal than anything theological. It's a bit old too but a good read. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Holy-Mountain-Journey-Shadow-Byzantium-ebook/dp/B0088NCE3W/ref=sr_1_5?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1416915074&sr=1-5&keywords=william+dalrymple Will respond to your other points later too. Sorry.
  14. Petr Cech

    We need to sell him abroad, seeing him playing for Arsenal or like when Cudicini went to Spurs is not the answer. I know Cudicini wasn't playing at all when he went but he was a fantastic keeper for us and it looks like a case of history repeating itself. I actually felt sorry for him when he was in goal when we thrashed Spurs 5-1 at Wembley. Wouldn't like to see it happen to Cech too. Hopefully he can stay but I think we're all resigned to him leaving by the start of next season.
  15. Politics & Stuff

    No that isn't true Choulo, you know full well what the point I'm making and are trying to trying to move it away. When you have the USA, Canada and the European Union designating the group to be either a terrorist organization or having members with intention of carrying out warfare against Civilians then there is evidently a problem within the organization and it's principles. You are insulting your own intelligence and are missing my points again so I'll repeat them. The State of Israel, the UK and the US are all responsible for their acts in war. Hamas and Hezbollah are responsible to who exactly? When they put rockets in schools/hospitals and fire into civilian area who are they responsible to? Which one of these is Abu Bakr Al-Baghadi? It wasn't ISIS it was Northern Storm Brigade (who have had an off and on relationship with ISIS and their previous AQI), not someone I'd want to want to debate with but you are provide false information to the people here. Again not true, they were not officially wars between Lebanon and Israel. Go find the state of war between Israel and Lebanon and post it here. They are modern conflicts that you should easily be able to find these documents. Do you remember any battles between the Lebanese Army and the Israeli's? Again you know full well that the 1948 partition and subsequent war was not a case of a British trained extremist Jewish militias and subsequently re-enforced by new waves of Jewish citizens with the express purpose of displacing the Palestinians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War Always? You speak so often in definates. It isn't always. If the Israeli's fired live ammunition every time then there would have been massacres liked at Amritsar in India. Live ammunition should never be used ever against demonstrators. Ever. Again, no mention of any diplomatic effort. No talk of both sides trying to work this through. What do I think of Israel's military operations in Gaza? The state of Israel shouldn't be in Gaza. I understand why the Israeli's are still technically the occupying power and their concerns about the threat to their safety. Are the settlements illegal, without a doubt. I believe the Palestine State and the leaders of it have incited a lot of the troubles and caused roadblocks in the path to a solution (the Israeli's are also guilty of this) What I have read about the Israeli invasion in 1982 so far does not put the Israeli's in a good light at all. Though Lebanon was a mess at this time going though it's terrible civil war which I have been meaning to read more about. If you know any good impartial books then please list them. The Israeli's didn't leave until the following August after that bombing. You know more than me about Lebanon but can you really say that what happened 1982 made Beirut and Lebanon a safe place?