Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by Got Robber (U21234)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by ManUtdDaredevil (U9612)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by Got Robber (U21234)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by ManUtdDaredevil (U9612)
posted 1 minute ago
Why does the person need to be brainwashed if they are following their religion?

After all their religion says those things. Why the need to brain wash them?

Who is doing the brain washing, the religion or someone else?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Mudd, you do realise that religion itself is man brainwashing someone else?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually it is not, there is no compulsion in religion
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sigh

You're either wumming or you just don't have the brains to understand why people are brainwashed by religion.

I'm out guys!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for not answering the question

Me too. Muds had some kind of stress related wobble

Il await Kung Fu's thoughts.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by Reddevilsdouble - confident of a top 4 finish (U12215)
posted 5 hours, 51 minutes ago
Kung fu - were all the people killed by Mohammed trying to kill him specifically ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

They were trying to kill Muslims because they didn't like the fact that a new a religion was in town.

So they tried to kill him and his followers.

People talking about being brainwashed...

The very definition of being brain washed is watching your country turn Iraq and Afghanistan into massive blood filled craters and then allowing the same elite to help do the same with Syria and Libya.

These things happened because of people trying to force across their OWN idea of what freedom and democracy is.

These things were literally done in the name of freedom and democracy (even though we know it was for resources) but we won't hear people label freedom and democracy as wrong.

Why? Because we know without the corrupt defining what these things mean, the world can be a better place.

Sadly the same isn't thought of about religion because people think they have individual faith's figured out without researching a single one.

But did each of those killed by Muhammed try and kill him. On the raiding of the caravan for example..

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Is King Fu not British and therefore brainwashed as well ?

comment by Galvs. (U10415)
posted 4 minutes ago
Totally different things Kung Fu....even though a lot of what you say I agree with........................you say 'allowing' tho....like we have a choice.
We have a media with an agenda who tells us who the bad guys are and who to be afraid of and sadly it is followed blindly creating even more hate....and it's not the elite who sufferes,, rather the poor of one country hating onthe poor of another whilst the priviledged say thank you very much
----------------------------------------------------------------------

What I meant was, let them do it without demonstration of any kind.

I was born in England and I'm a citizen, I can't do anything about it either besides try and make my voice heard.

So you identify as English then?

comment by Reddevilsdouble - confident of a top 4 finish (U12215)
posted 10 minutes ago
But did each of those killed by Muhammed try and kill him. On the raiding of the caravan for example..
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's pretend non of them attacked Muhammad (pbuh)...

As a leader why wouldn't he be obligated to protect them?

comment by Reddevilsdouble - confident of a top 4 finish (U12215)
posted 3 minutes ago
So you identify as English then?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

English/Moroccan

I owe a debt to both countries.

You said the fellow in the truck the other day wasn't acting Islamically as those he killed weren't immediately attacking him.

I was therefore trying to understand if Muhammed had acres Islamic ally km seeking out and killing during the raid on the caravans.

Or do the roles not apply to him?

RDD

Here is something you should read about the caravan raids... I'm afraid that it's obvious that you only visit anti islamic webpages to learn about Islam.

Can you give me the link to the webpage where you learnt about the caravan raids?

"Critics of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) often bring up his caravan raids against the Makkans as a means to attack him; they argue that these caravan raids made the Prophet Muhammad a ‘bandit’ and a ‘thief’ amongst many other accusations.

The caravan raids by the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) need to be put in their proper context, which as usual, the critics have not done. The critics as usual have only decided to concentrate on the act, the act of the caravan raids, while completely detaching the raids from their proper and appropriate context.

So in this article we shall give the context behind the caravan raids, once doing so, the Prophet Muhammad’s (pbuh) actions will be seen as quite appropriate and fair.

Now anyone who studies Islamic history will learn that the early Muslim community that began in the city of Makkah, was heavily persecuted and oppressed by the Pagan Makkans. Muslims in Makkah were verbally abused, physically beaten, tortured, as well as killed. The situation for the Muslim minority in Makkah got so bad at the hands of pagan persecution that many of the Muslims eventually left Makkah, and emigrated elsewhere. The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) also eventually emigrated and left Makkah alongside his companion Abu Bakr, making way for the city of Madinah, where the Muslim community were settling.

Now when many of these Muslims emigrated from Makkah, the Makkans had taken their properties and the belongings they left behind, and sold what the Muslims had left behind. The properties and belongings obviously didn’t belong to the Makkan pagans, yet they took it anyway, and decided to financially benefit from it. Not only did the pagans unlawfully take what was not theirs, some of the Muslims who emigrated, such as the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and his companions such as Abu Bakr, Umar, and others. Were also successful merchants and traders involved in the caravan trade industry. And when they emigrated, they had to leave their successful businesses behind, and all of this was down to the persecution of the pagan Makkans.

So the Muslims were financially hit by the Makkans, it was the Makkans who had originally hurt the finances of the Muslims. Now when the Muslim community were settled in Madinah, and for the first time in a long time, were able to defend themselves and fight back, decided to do so. And just like the pagans had hit the finances of Muslims, the Muslims began to do the same to the pagans. Muslims weren’t only hitting the pagans at their finances, but the Muslims were taking back what they lost, and what they deserved. They were taking what was unlawfully taken away from them, at the hands of the pagan Makkans.

Furthermore, The Muslims were defending their community against the Makkan pagans who had oppressed them for several years, and in a conflict, one will often go after their enemies finances, hit them where it hurts the most. If the Muslims were able to financially hurt the Makkans, this would have a very negative affect on them, and would hurt them in their efforts to fight and oppress the Muslim community.

It is very important to mention that the Muslims did not instigate the fight, the caravan raids was the response of the Muslims towards the pagan persecution against them, and this is what the critics always like to ignore. The critics like to pretend that it was the Muslims who began hostilities with the act of the caravan raids, when this is not at all the case. As we had earlier mentioned, the Muslim community in Makkah were heavily oppressed by the pagans, they were beaten, verbally abused, tortured and killed. The oppression got so bad Muslims had to emigrate away from their homes to be safe from persecution, and in the process of this emigration, they had left their properties and belongings behind, including their own successful business’ in the caravan-trade industry.

So the caravan raids was to financially hurt the pagans just as they had done to the Muslims, and to also take back what was taken from the Muslim community. It also served the strategic purpose of financially weakening the pagan opposition as the two sides were now in open war, and when you’re in open war with an enemy, you seek to hurt your enemy’s finances. Modern civilized and democratic countries do this all the time when they’re in war or conflict with another nation or entity, hurting their enemies finances and assets, yet the critics of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) who love to praise how civilized and great the west is, like to condemn the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) for engaging in a similar act!

So a critic of the caravan raids, like Robert Spencer, has no problem when America seizes the assets of other politicians or people deemed to be extremists or terrorists, this is all fair and good, Spencer will not speak a word against it, and you can bet he will praise and support it. And this only highlights the double standards and inconsistency of the critics of Islam; they have one standard for themselves, and another standard for everybody else."

http://muslimdebate.org/theological-arguments/answering-islamophobic-claims/271-the-prophet-muhammad-pbuh-and-the-caravan-raids

This isn't a quick copy and paste job either, I've talked with people at the MDI, lunched with them and the athiests and Christians they debated and worked with them as well.

If you want to learn more they have a contact page, don't be afraid they won't bite. It might actually help if you meet a Muslim and talk to him/her in person.

You have got to love the same old bsht arguments everytime a tragedy like this happens.. let's blame a religion of 1 billion... sad truth is the media and elite have their own agendas.... resources, power, oil and might just to name a few...

comment by Reddevilsdouble - confident of a top 4 finish (U12215)
posted 3 minutes ago
You said the fellow in the truck the other day wasn't acting Islamically as those he killed weren't immediately attacking him.

I was therefore trying to understand if Muhammed had acres Islamic ally km seeking out and killing during the raid on the caravans.

Or do the roles not apply to him?

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

I don't understand the question because of the typos.

Regardless I'd like you to copy and paste what you have read and the link to the website?

It is very important to mention that the Muslims did not instigate the fight, the caravan raids was the response of the Muslims towards the pagan persecution against them, and this is what the critics always like to ignore. The critics like to pretend that it was the Muslims who began hostilities with the act of the caravan raids, when this is not at all the case. As we had earlier mentioned, the Muslim community in Makkah were heavily oppressed by the pagans, they were beaten, verbally abused, tortured and killed. The oppression got so bad Muslims had to emigrate away from their homes to be safe from persecution, and in the process of this emigration, they had left their properties and belongings behind, including their own successful business’ in the caravan-trade industry.

___________________

This... boom.

Im not visitkng ang anti islan pages mate, not that the sourcr shoulf matter I'm simply asking you, the board expert the difference between the fella driving his truck into Berlin and those seeking out and Killing those of the caravan.

King fu - you said the fella in Berlin was not acting in self defence as he was not immediately under attack.

Neither where those that sort out the caravans and attacked and killed them.

I'm therefore asking the difference if the fella in Berlin felt he had been oppressed by the west and therefore felt his attack on Berlin was legitimately self defence

Red Devil,

You have got a comprehensive answer to your caravan question / query.. you haven't dwelled in its answer and have merely come back with "I'm not visiting anti Islam websites"... course you're not.. your constant bull articles suggest otherwise... if your not interested in genuine answers you get why ask the question??? Stick to sport you moron

What articles are they then?

And I am intetested, hence the questions.

comment by Reddevilsdouble - confident of a top 4 finish (U12215)
posted 16 minutes ago
King fu - you said the fella in Berlin was not acting in self defence as he was not immediately under attack.

Neither where those that sort out the caravans and attacked and killed them.

I'm therefore asking the difference if the fella in Berlin felt he had been oppressed by the west and therefore felt his attack on Berlin was legitimately self defence
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Did the people in Berlin help kill Muslims?

Did the people on the caravans help persecute and kill Muslims?

Also the source is very important, so I'd like the link please. This isn't a hard request to full full. Just copy and paste the link.

I've made every effort to answer all of your questions so stop evading my request.