Cable Forum - Who is Muhammad (peace be upon him)

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)

- Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)

- - Who is Muhammad (peace be upon him) (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33699914)

Re: who is Muhammad (peace be upon him)

Quote:

Originally Posted by truthspeaker (Post 35754208)

And about Freedom of Speech

We want to know the boundaries and limits to the term "Freedom of Speech" in the UK.

When Jews are ridiculed, it's Anti-semitism. When ethnic minorities are targeted, it's racism.
When Islam is defamed, it's "Freedom of Speech?
We call on the British Government to draw the lines for us, what's acceptable, what's not?
We want a common law for ALL.
We want to detach ourselves from these never-ending Double-standards.

No, it is not against the law to ridicule anyone. Offensive to some? Yep, in bad taste? Almost certainly. If such things were illegal we wouldn't see much comedy on TV, like ever.

If anyone states that they hate someone because of their religion, the colour of their skin or whatever, and want people to act on that hatred. That is incitement and is wrong, illegal and should be stopped.

Personally, I have massive skepticism about the validity of all religion, and it is my right to question anyone who conforms to them, as it is their right to believe and defend their beliefs in the same way I convey my views, which is in civil discourse.

Threats of violence over words is wrong and offensive, and if the threats have came due to questioning or ridicule, it is not the ones being targeted in the wrong.

If you want protection from people thinking your religion is nonsense, you're doing it wrong. Religion should be able to stand up to that, and it's no personal insult to anyone to call religion into question. If your beliefs are strong enough, you can ignore ridicule and criticism of your faith, safe in the knowledge that you are correct. By trying to shut people down for disagreeing with you, it is you who are trying to threaten freedom of expression.

The flip side? There are countries where it is illegal to be a certain religion, is that preferable? Especially if your religion is one that is banned in preference to another? Freedom of expression, including religion comes with the flipside that people are free to disagree with one another.

Re: who is Muhammad (peace be upon him)

"If any religion had the chance of ruling over England, nay Europe within the next hundred years, it could be Islam."

"I have always held the religion of Muhammad in high estimation because of its wonderful vitality. It is the only religion which appears to me to possess that assimilating capacity to the changing phase of existence which can make itself appeal to every age. I have studied him - the wonderful man and in my opinion far from being an anti-Christ, he must be called the Savior of Humanity."

"I believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness: I have prophesied about the faith of Muhammad that it would be acceptable to the Europe of tomorrow as it is beginning to be acceptable to the Europe of today."

George Bernard Shaw quoted accurately as making the above statement in a public speech by the authors. It was published in Singapore in 1936 and is rarely available in the USA or Europe today.

Re: who is Muhammad (peace be upon him)

Good for you... but do you have anything else to say on any other topics without your prophet or god getting in the way.

Re: who is Muhammad (peace be upon him)

Quote:

Originally Posted by truthspeaker (Post 35754194)

Islam don't tell Muslim to kill innocent people.

which kill innocent people, are committing a major sin.

Indeed. Just those who 'wage war' on Allah and 'cause corruption'.

Quote:

Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment,

Which could easily be taken to mean that I, for my comments on this forum, should be killed / crucified / amputated / exiled.

Those who are innocent, remain neutral, but don't believe are merely subjugated and taxed.

Quote:

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

---------- Post added at 15:49 ---------- Previous post was at 15:42 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by truthspeaker (Post 35754234)

"If any religion had the chance of ruling over England, nay Europe within the next hundred years, it could be Islam."

"I have always held the religion of Muhammad in high estimation because of its wonderful vitality. It is the only religion which appears to me to possess that assimilating capacity to the changing phase of existence which can make itself appeal to every age. I have studied him - the wonderful man and in my opinion far from being an anti-Christ, he must be called the Savior of Humanity."

"I believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness: I have prophesied about the faith of Muhammad that it would be acceptable to the Europe of tomorrow as it is beginning to be acceptable to the Europe of today."

George Bernard Shaw quoted accurately as making the above statement in a public speech by the authors. It was published in Singapore in 1936 and is rarely available in the USA or Europe today.

http://heavenslights.blogspot.co.uk/...ine-islam.html

Quote:

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Salaam Alaikum, for the naysayers out there... George Bernard Shaw did not write "The Genuine Islam" but he is quoted accurately as making the above statement in a public speech by the authors. It was published in Singapore in 1936 and is rarely available in the USA or Europe today. I have seen a copy in a library here in the Philippines.

I hope this clears up the confusion.

4/01/2008 8:23 AM

Let me help you out here.

George Bernard Shaw, 1933, in a letter to the Rev. Ensor Walters:

http://books.google.co.uk/books/abou...AJ&redir_esc=y

Quote:

Islam is very different, being ferociously intolerant. What I may call Manifold Monotheism becomes in the minds of very simple folk an absurdly polytheistic idolatry, just as European peasants not only worship Saints and the Virgin as Gods, but will fight fanatically for their faith in the ugly little black doll who is the Virgin of their own Church against the black doll of the next village. When the Arabs had run this sort of idolatry to such extremes [that] they did this without black dolls and worshipped any stone that looked funny, Mahomet rose up at the risk of his life and insulted the stones shockingly, declaring that there is only one God, Allah, the glorious, the great… And there was to be no nonsense about toleration. You accepted Allah or you had your throat cut by someone who did accept him, and who went to Paradise for having sent you to Hell.

Further: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nati...-1226676192844

Quote:

The suggestion that Shaw may have written a book entitled The Genuine Islam has its origins in an interview between Shaw and Muslim propagandist Maulana Mohammed Abdul Aleem Siddiqui published in a Muslim periodical in January 1936.

The interview took place in Mombasa, Kenya, some time between April 10 and 20, 1935, and copies of the periodical remain.

It contains a quotation which describes Mohammed as the "saviour of humanity" and Islam as having "wonderful vitality" and "the chance to rule of Britain, nay Europe, in the next hundred years", but these are not recorded as the words of Shaw.

The quotation appears in a separate quotation box without attribution, and not in the main body of the interview.

However, the main body of the interview does feature Shaw challenging Siddiqui from a rationalist perspective.

"How can you possibly present the picture of Heaven and Hell, which is portrayed in the Koran, in a manner convincing to persons conversant with science, whose minds are inured to accept nothing without visible or palpable proof?" Shaw asks.

Another account of the conversation between Shaw and Siddiqui, published in the Tanganyika Herald of May 3, 1935, does not mention the purported quotes from Shaw, but quotes him commenting on a lecture Siddiqui had given.

"You spoke on Philosophy of Peace, but as a Muslim it would have been more appropriate if you had delivered a lecture on the Philosophy of War, for Islam doubtless was spread at the point of the sword," Shaw is quoted as having said.

Next propaganda piece, please.

You appear to be struggling to make an independent point, are parroting other people's views without any kind of skepticism or criticism and, indeed, parroting their words verbatim.

I can't think why you'd be in the habit of doing that.

Re: who is Muhammad (peace be upon him)

Quote:

Originally Posted by truthspeaker (Post 35754234)

I'm sure you welcome the freedom you have to post that (and everything else you submit) here but what if another religious group took grave offence at it and demanded you be beheaded for blaspheming their God? Would that be OK by you or would your right to free speech trump their right to be mortally offended by it?

Any chance of a straight answer?

Re: who is Muhammad (peace be upon him)

It's a special bargain Mr Truthspeaker.

Not only have I corrected you on the misattribution of quotes to GB-S, I will even give you what is apparently the original transcript.

You're welcome.

Very interesting what a little general research rather than only looking for things which concur with one's own pre-conceived, or as I suspect may be the case here, pre-taught, notions can show.

Re: who is Muhammad (peace be upon him)

Quote:

Originally Posted by truthspeaker (Post 35754234)

are you on drugs

Re: who is Muhammad (peace be upon him)

Quote:

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35754258)

are you on drugs

What he's on is way more mind altering than drugs.

BTW For Muslims psychoactive drugs are a massive no-no so I presume the chap is quite sober :)

Re: who is Muhammad (peace be upon him)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35754261)

What he's on is way more mind altering than drugs.

BTW For Muslims psychoactive drugs are a massive no-no so I presume the chap is quite sober :)

then he needs his head looking at

Re: who is Muhammad (peace be upon him)

Quote:

Originally Posted by truthspeaker (Post 35754234)

Really, there are 2.8 million Islam followers in the UK out of a population of 64 million, explain how that would work then?

Re: who is Muhammad (peace be upon him)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Banana (Post 35754266)

Really, there are 2.8 million Islam followers in the UK out of a population of 64 million, explain how that would work then?

https://idlethink.wordpress.com/2008...iews-of-islam/

Can explain this.

The actual quote was:

Quote:

But the Europe of the present century is far advanced. It is beginning to be enamoured of the creed of Muhammad.

However there is no evidence that it can be attributed to George Bernard-Shaw.

Re: who is Muhammad (peace be upon him)

Quote:

Originally Posted by truthspeaker;35754234[B

]"If any religion had the chance of ruling over England, nay Europe within the next hundred years, it could be Islam."
[/B]
"I have always held the religion of Muhammad in high estimation because of its wonderful vitality. It is the only religion which appears to me to possess that assimilating capacity to the changing phase of existence which can make itself appeal to every age. I have studied him - the wonderful man and in my opinion far from being an anti-Christ, he must be called the Savior of Humanity."

"I believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness: I have prophesied about the faith of Muhammad that it would be acceptable to the Europe of tomorrow as it is beginning to be acceptable to the Europe of today."

George Bernard Shaw quoted accurately as making the above statement in a public speech by the authors. It was published in Singapore in 1936 and is rarely available in the USA or Europe today.

Actually, what he said in 1908 was

Quote:

"I believe the whole British Empire will adopt a reformed Mohammedanism before the end of the century

Seemed to have missed the boat on that one....;)

Re: who is Muhammad (peace be upon him)

who is Muhammad

Muslims tend to focus solely on the good characteristics of their prophet, and to completely ignore less admirable qualities. We have already seen that Muhammad began robbing caravans after leaving Mecca. As a result,greed soon became one of the primary factors in people’s rapid conversion to Islam. Indeed, Muhammad deliberately used the spoils of war to lure people to Islam. When he was criticized for the way he distributed his newfound wealth, he replied, “Are you disturbed in mind because of the good things of this life by which I win over a people that they may become Muslims while I entrust you to your Islam?”iv

Although Muhammad patiently endured persecution in Mecca, his attitude quickly changed when his numbers grew in Medina. Soon he would tolerate no criticism whatsoever. According to our earliest biographical source, a man named Abu Afak—who was more than a hundred years old—wrote a poem criticizing people for converting to Islam. Muhammad demanded he be killed, and Abu Afak was murdered in his sleep. When a woman named Asma heard that Muslims had killed such an elderly man, she wrote a poem calling for people to take a stand against Islam.Ibn Ishaq relates what happened next:

When the apostle heard what she had said he said, “Who will rid me of Marwan’s daughter?” Umayr bin Adiy al-Khatmi who was with him heard him, and that very night he went to her house and killed her. In the morning he came to the apostle and told him what he had done and he said, “You have helped God and His apostle, O Umayr!” When he asked if he would have to bear any evil consequences the apostle said, “Two goats won’t butt their heads about her,” so Umayr went back to his people.v

Muhammad’s violence was directed towards groups as well. Muhammad once said to his followers, “I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslims.”viThe Jews of Qurayza resisted Muhammad and attempted to form an alliance against him. When the alliance faltered, Muhammad acted quickly. His armies surrounded them and “besieged them for twenty-five nights until they were sore pressed and God cast terror into their hearts.”

Then they surrendered, and the apostle confined them in Medina. . . . Then the apostle went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches. . . . There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900.vii

Every male who had reached puberty was killed. Muhammad divided the women, children, and property among his men (taking a fifth of the spoils for himself).

But things get worse.As the Muslim armies raided town after town, they captured many women, who would often be sold or traded. Yet, since the Muslim men were a long way from their wives, they needed wisdom from Allah to guide them in their treatment of their female captives. It wasn’t long before Muhammad received a revelation allowing the soldiers to sleep with the women:

Allah’s Messenger sent an army to Autas and encountered the enemy and fought with them. Having overcome them and taken them captives, the Companions of Allah’s Messenger seemed to refrain from having intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being polytheists. Then Allah, Most High, sent down regarding that: “And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess (iv. 24)” (i.e. they were lawful for them when their ‘Idda period came to an end).viii

This verse of the Qur’an (4:24), along with others (23:1-6; 33:50; 70:22-30), granted Muslims the right to have sex with their female captives and slave girls, even those who were still married or who were going to be sold or traded.

Perhaps most disturbing of all is the fact that Muslims could have sex with girls who hadn’t even reached puberty. The opening verses of Chapter 65 of the Qur’an present Islamic rules for divorce. According to 65:4, if a Muslim divorces a girl who hasn’t yet reached puberty, he must wait three months to make sure she isn’t pregnant.

Muhammad himself had sex with a prepubescent girl. His courtship of Aisha began when she was only six years old.ix Muhammad had a dream about her, which led him to believe that God wanted him to marry the young girl.x Fortunately, Muhammad waited three years before having sex with her; nevertheless, Muslim sources report that Aisha still hadn’t reached puberty.xi Since Muhammad is the moral exemplar in Islam, his actions are still affecting young girls today.

Re: who is Muhammad (peace be upon him)

It is clear. Muslim men can engage in sex with prepubescent children.

Is this because the original pedo started it and said so?

Re: who is Muhammad (peace be upon him)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary L (Post 35754101)

Are you a nice Muslim
or a bad Muslim?

Well if he beheads you on the internet you will then have your answer :)