chatanga1 Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 bahadur you avioded the 2nd part of my post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaheediyan Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 You sound surprised..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chatanga1 Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 and anotyher fact the bahadur probably duznt know aboutn is that, even in palestine b4 1967, jews were not allowed to worship at the first temple. Their most important shrine was forbidden to them. So much for his multi-religous state! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mithar Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 You seem to forget a bit of of the Congres- Muslim League relations history, especially Jinnah's membership in Congress before he left when he saw the increasing Hinduisation of the Congress because of Gandhi's mixing of Neo-Hinduism with politics. Had the Congress party remained a secular party things would probably not have turned that way. In any case there is nothing Islamic or dharmic in massacring innocent people on both sides. So you admit it your self! The British only partitioned because the Muslims demanded it. So much for blaiming the Brits for everything. You are just aping what the Muslim league's Hindu Phobic propaganda is saying. What the Muslims did to the Hindus and Sikhs in Pakistan was exactly if not worse than what the Zionists did to the Palestinians. But at least about 1/5 of Israel is still Muslim, we can't say the same about the minorities in the Islamic state of Pakistan. I have a feeling that the same would happen to the Jews if the Jews decided tomorrow to create a Multi religious state of Israel by absorbing the Palistinians of the West Bank and Gaza. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morghe Sahar Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 Chatanga1: 1. Jews as per their own laws are not allowed on the Temple mount. 2. They have always been allowed access to the wailing wall as far as I can recollect. But sure is from the Orthodox Jewish point of view: Jews cannot go on the Temple Mount until the Meshiah has arrived. Zionists of course disagree but then again Zionists are not even real Jews. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morghe Sahar Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 Mithar one more thing: If you have issues with Pakistan go to the Pakistani embassy. I am not Pakistani, in fact I am not even from that region and I have no interest in defending Pakistanis. As I said before in my experience of both communities in the UK I find you both despicable except for some individuals. What you're blabbering about is something you shoul adress to Pakistanis. Just so we're clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyhp32 Posted January 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 Rape fantasies! Not mine but those of the Hadiths and the interpreters of the Quran. If your Shia sect has a different set of rule and doesn't allow the rape of captured non-Muslim women then please enlighten us. You false outrage at the Israeli actions against civilians is just a display of hypocrisy. The Jews should be able to do much worse than the things you accuse them off were they to follow the 'ethical' system you follow. But then the Jews act as human being and not animals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morghe Sahar Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 Tonyhp32, I grew up with Holocaust survivors as neighbours and let me tell you what they say: The Zionists have used our suffering to justify their atrocities. But I have to give Zionists one thing. I hate their ideology but at least they fight for what they believe is right. Zionists fromn all over the world go every year to do their military service in Israeli although they're not Israeli nationals. They give up their comfortable lives to fight for their idealm as wrong as it may be. You are not even worth the sole of the shoes of a Zionists. You want Khalistan? Simple: get off this computer return to Panjab get a gun or create a party. Until then you're not even worth to be compared to a Zionist. I can understand that many Jews may want a safe home because of all the stuff they still go through due to antisemitism. But the solution is not to be found at the expense of another people's land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyhp32 Posted January 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 The so-called outrage of holocaust survivors is a recent gimmick used by Islamists to try and show that not all Jews want Israel. The fact is that a large number of holocaust survivors went to Israel in order to set up the state for the Jews. The fact that a few 'rent a quote' holocaust survivors mainly from outside Israel can be wheeled out by Islamists doesn't prove anything. So now you are an admirer of Jewish prowess and determination in war? Better not let your Shia friends find that out, the only good Jew according to Islam is a dhimmi Jew. You didn't dispute my contention about how Muslims would be allowed to deal with Jews should the Arabs ever achieve the impossible and beat Israel in a conventional war. Can I take silence to mean agreement with my contention? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morghe Sahar Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 1. Rape is a sin and a crime punished by death under shari'a law. At least in our sources. 2. I never talked about prowess. I talked about Zionists (not Jews) actually putting their ideas into actions. 3. Holocaust Jews have been complaining for a long time about the abuses of the Zionists well before you were even born. And so have Sephardic Jews who were used for medical experiments by European Zionists. This was very well documented on a recent programm on an Israeli channel. I may disagree with Zionists but I can't deny the few qualities you have which you lack completely. If you hate Muslims and Islam, do something about it: create a group, get guns, but put your thoughts into actions instead of whining like a 14yo cheerleader whose favourite book is called "not without my daughter". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chatanga1 Posted January 29, 2009 Report Share Posted January 29, 2009 Chatanga1: 1. Jews as per their own laws are not allowed on the Temple mount. 2. They have always been allowed access to the wailing wall as far as I can recollect. But sure is from the Orthodox Jewish point of view: Jews cannot go on the Temple Mount until the Meshiah has arrived. Zionists of course disagree but then again Zionists are not even real Jews. Bahadur, is this written in one of thier books? if yes by whom? If yes, also, why would sum1 build a temple of worship to their God, and forbid everyone from worshipping there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morghe Sahar Posted January 29, 2009 Report Share Posted January 29, 2009 Search the website all the info is in there. THe prohibition to return to Israel until the arrival of the Meshiach is in the Talmud and confirmed by passages of the Tanach. The reason why God condemned the Jews to exile is because they disobeyed His Laws and persecuted His prophets. Jews are supposed to repent, return to His laws and be an example for the other nations until the Meshiach returns. This is what the Talmud and the Tanach say and confirmed by 20 centuries of rabbinical tradition, until the secular Zionists sponsored by mainly British Christian Zionists and German antisemites created the project of a state for Jews by Jews in Palestine as a vanguard of Western civilization in the Middle East as described in the writings of Theodor Herzl such as Der Judenstaat. This project has been rejected as pure heresy by the majority of orthodox rabbis until the majority of them got eliminated during the Holocaust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyhp32 Posted January 29, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 29, 2009 Is rape in war allowed? Since Mohammed allowed his followers to rape women in war then I doubt that rape is war is not allowed. Didn't Ali have the daughters of the Persian king taken as a prisoner to Mecca? Although there's some fanciful fable weaved about how they chose the sons of Ali as their husbands but 7th century being what it was it was more likely that these women were raped. So are you saying that Shias do not share the same 'ethics' in war as the Sunnis? I doubt that too. But then again your Islam is a hotch potch of new age beliefs. You pick and choose what takes your fancy. You who cry yourself hoarse about the killings of Muslims by Sikhs in 1947 are now advising me to start up some kind of terrorist group to kill Muslims! I leave the terrorism to the followers of the 'mercy to makind' prophet! Where have I said I hate Muslims? Islam is the disease and Muslims, yes even you are the victims! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mithar Posted January 29, 2009 Report Share Posted January 29, 2009 Tony Jee, what is that story about the Prophet allowing the Muslims to rape as long as they use the "azl" method of intercourse to prevent pregnancy? So even when it comes to rape, they do use some ethics dont' they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyhp32 Posted January 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 That's actually a misreading of the hadith. It is the followers of Mohammed who want to use the azl method to prevent pregnancy amongst the captured women but the 'mercy to mankind' disallowed the azl method stating that nothing happens without Allah's will. So if a captured woman get pregnant after a rape by a follower of Mohammed then that is Allah's will!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SURYADEV Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 what is AZL METHOD? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaheediyan Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 "But the solution is not to be found at the expense of another people's land." Seriously, although I am not taking sides here as I see innocents dying and henious acts on both sides, how can you come up with the above statement knowing how the Islamic Empire expanded, they didn't exactly get invited to rule half the word (by invading other lands) at one time did they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morghe Sahar Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 "Seriously, although I am not taking sides here as I see innocents dying and henious acts on both sides, how can you come up with the above statement knowing how the Islamic Empire expanded, they didn't exactly get invited to rule half the word (by invading other lands) at one time did they?" Palestine was Christian NOT Jewish when Omar ibn al Khattab invaded it. Then again the Dharmashastras make conquest the duty of the raja. That is precisely the reason for the ashvamedha ritual of which your 10th master talks about in Dasam Granth. Doesn't your Karni Namah talk about conquest too`? During Imam Ali's rule no invasion took place. And yes there were people who did invite the Muslims armies to bring some order into chaos: my ancestors. Tony32hp and mithar, decency forbids me to find the appropriate word to qualify you both.I pray you both never set foot in an Islamic country that has blasphemy laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaheediyan Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 "Palestine was Christian NOT Jewish when Omar ibn al Khattab invaded it. Then again the Dharmashastras make conquest the duty of the raja. That is precisely the reason for the ashvamedha ritual of which your 10th master talks about in Dasam Granth. Doesn't your Karni Namah talk about conquest too`? During Imam Ali's rule no invasion took place. And yes there were people who did invite the Muslims armies to bring some order into chaos: my ancestors." You totally evaded my question, why don't you try reading it again. I didn't mention Imam Ali (or his era), I was speaking about the invasions by Islamic armies (thereafter). I also didn't talk about nor defend invasions in the Indic traditions, we are talking about Islamic invasions in relation to your hypocritical stance on 'Land' issues. I don't know what your obsession is with Karni Nama, most Sikhs haven't even heard of it, and it certainly isn't canonical, so may you should stop pulling at imaginery straws and start providnig some real substance in your arguements. I am not even saying that Sikhs didn't expand territory, that is not the issue, the issue is your denial of accepting Islamic armies over many centuries did what you are complaining about re 'Zionists'. The lands Islamic armies invaded hadn't previously belonged to Islam, had they? The religious history means nothing. The stronger exist, as they always do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyhp32 Posted January 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 During Imam Ali's rule no invasion took place. And yes there were people who did invite the Muslims armies to bring some order into chaos: my ancestors. That's believable. Your Visigothic/Roman ancestors of course were under so much oppression that they invited a religion with a reputation of intolerance to come to their aid! You theory is of course nonsense, why did the Copts in Egypt revolt a number of times against the Arabs if Arab rule was so great? Tony32hp and mithar, decency forbids me to find the appropriate word to qualify you both.I pray you both never set foot in an Islamic country that has blasphemy laws. To be honest I didn't really expect you to defend the hadiths about the rape of women prisoners. Sometimes even the biggest apologist can be lost for words and I think you take the right course. Some actions just cannot be defended. Both Mithar and I did of course make up all those hadiths and we forced the Sunnis over 13 centuries to accept these hadiths as genuine! Jattboot Azal is coitus interruptus. Do a google search. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morghe Sahar Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 As I said before, rape is forbidden in Islam.Quoting Sunni hadiths to me won't change anything.In terms of Islamic law you are guilty of blasphemy against Hazrat Mohammad (pbuh) , Hazrat Amir ol Momineen Ali ibn abi Talib (as) as well as against Hazrat Shahr Bano (as), daughter of Yazdegard III , wife of Imam Hussain (as) and mother of Imam Zainol Abedeen (as). The punishment may only be enacted in a country that applies Islamic law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyhp32 Posted January 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 So is quoting a Salih Hadith of Bukhari a blasphemy? Wow have you informed your Sunni 'brothers' who accept this hadith as genuine? Are you also declaring war on them as well and when can we expect a 'pataka' outside a sunni mosque? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morghe Sahar Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 1. The Quran forbids rape with any woman. 2. It further forbids sex with slave girls without their consent and forbids using them as sex slaves. 3. Sunni hadiths even the Sahi ones have problems in terms of ilm ul rajal in terms of their chain of narrators. 4. Rape is a crime punished by death in Shi'a fiqh and that is the also the case in Iran. You went actually further than just quoting a Sunni hadith. And as for dealing with Sunnism, I guess the way the Safavids dealt with Sunnis speaks volumes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amardeep Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 why would a slave girl/captive of war want to have sex anyway? If her husband and family has been killed, why would she want to have sex with the ones who killed them? i've always puzzled on this issue of right hand possesions.. .but i guess thats another topic so we dont go off-topic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyhp32 Posted January 31, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 1. The Quran forbids rape with any woman. Apart from slaves captured by the Muslim as we shall see.. 2. It further forbids sex with slave girls without their consent and forbids using them as sex slaves. No it does not. It forbids forcing slaves girls into prostitution by their owners. Nice try. Here is the tafsir of Ibn Kathir (And force not your slave-girls to prostitution...) Among the people of the Jahiliyyah, there were some who, if he had a slave-girl, he would send her out to commit Zina and would charge money for that, which he would take from her every time. When Islam came, Allah forbade the believers to do that…..] 3. Sunni hadiths even the Sahi ones have problems in terms of ilm ul rajal in terms of their chain of narrators. Sunnis would contest that and say your Shia hadiths place too much reliance on a hadith because it was from one of Ali's descendants rather than from hadith compilers who were closer in time to Mohammed than your Imams. 4. Rape is a crime punished by death in Shi'a fiqh and that is the also the case in Iran. Not for a master raping his slave girls. You are comparing apples and oranges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts