Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (585568)	9/14/2010 11:44:36 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576124

"Maybe. I hope I'm over-reacting. I'm surprised by your insistance I have a malicious motive for posting lies about Mohammed - on the contrary, ." It is an observation that I must insist upon based on your presentation to date. When I challenged you on your bias you admitted that it is your motive to prove Mohammad to be a criminal, which is what a biased prosecutor does not a person seeking understanding. "I have supplied what I think is the reason for that. Loyalty to a family faith that seeks for comforting rationalizations." I can't relate to your concept of comforting rationalizations. >>>"I think what I've posted is factual and I KNOW it comes from Islamic sira and hadiths." Well that is not completely true. You have posted parced excerpts from Islamic literature which have been taken out of context so an alternative interpretation can be applied, a slanderous one. Of course it is based on an actual piece of information, any credible slander contains some basis in fact, then you attach flawed inuendo, interpretive falsehood, refuse to address circumstance and attribute unsubstantiated motive... for example: "the attack on B.Fazara resulted in the capture of Umm Qirfa Fatima d. Rabi'a b. Badr. "She was a very old woman, wife of Malik." And she was murdered "by putting a rope to her two legs and to two camels and driving until they rent her in two So it would appear by your presentation that Mohammad found granny at her knitting or something and heinously murdered her for the fun of it. Gruesome heinous and senseless slaughter. "And she was murdered" "Muhammad's piecemeal, leisurely, butchery" But what else can we find about this story? Well I don't know honestly but by the way it was presented (the pointing finger of people with a preset agenda,) any objective person should smell the rat right off the bat. It does not pass the smell test. And I said without an understanding of the circumstance it just looks like slander based on fear and ignorance. I repeated the 'circumstances' and context qualifying requirement until I am now blue in the face. I've also told you repeatedly I am no spokesperson, nor am I an authority on this subject. But I now feel obligated to google it to get greater understanding myself. Not surprisingly I found many presentations from anti-Islamic web sites like your source. I found lots of explanation but very little that could be taken seriously and much of it was simply ignorant lies. One explained it as Mohammad's warning to any woman who would dare to take a leadership role. Do these people know that Mohammad worked for a Caravan owned by a business woman and married her years before the revelations began or that he declared women's equality in spite of the prevailing authority who regarded women as chattle? What idiots. So here is what I found from Islamic sources: "Umm Qirfa was an old Arab woman contemporaneous to Muhammad, the prophet of Islam. She belonged to a pagan tribe named Banu Fazara at Wadi Al-Qurra. This old woman who was also a chief of her clan "So not an idle old woman but the Chief of the enemy clan." "Zayd B. Haritha’s raid on Banu Fazara and the Death of Umm Qirfa huh???? Zayd B. Haritha's raid???? not the leisure fun of Muhammad??? How can that be? Well let's look at some more information. "Zayd also raided Wadi-l-Qurra where he met Banu Fazara and some of his companions were killed; he himself carried wounded from the field. Ahh so it was not an attack on innocent villagers. This tribe had met Zayd in an agressive action on some sort of battle field, killed his companians and wounded Zayd. Ward b. Amr b. Madash one of B. Sad b. Hudhayl was killed by one of B. Badr whose name Sa’d b. Hudhaym So Zayd is pissed that he was attacked by the Banu Fazara was wounded and lost his companions. "When Zayd came he swore that he would use no ablution until he raided B. Fazara; Something like I will not rest until I have avenged the death of my friends. "...and when he recovered from his wounds the apostle sent him against them with a force. Mohammad didn't even participate. He fought them in Wadi-al-Qura and killed some of them. Qays b. al-Musahhar al-Yamuri killed Mas’ada b. Hakama b. Malik b. Hudhayfa b. Badr and Umm Qirfa Fatima was taken prisoner. She was a very old woman, wife of Malik. "Her daughter and Abdulla b. Mas’ada were also taken. Zaid ordered Qays b al-Musahhar to kill Umm Qirfa and he killed her cruelly." So this outcome the retaliatory defeat of the combative enemy tribe and the killing of their chief was something Zayd was responsible for. There is the circumstance. No Muslim source claims the killing of the Chief was not done in a cruel manner. The circumstance are worthy of consideration and a far cry of what could be obtained from your presentations. There are of course two, actually three, perspectives a person could take depending on their bias. A Muslim apologist would immediately declare complete justification and innocence on the part of the Muslims. A Muslim hate source would immediatly declare ... well something like what you declared, and like other Muslim hate sites have declared... not matching one another but that is not what is important is it. An unbiased historian would notice the brutality of war during that period and the consider the anger of the leader Zayd over the loss of his close companions, which resulted from the previous battle with the Banu Fazara; also noting the brutality involved in the killing of the chief. You can hang your hat on this, as you have, and declare it as the example to be held up as a difference in the history of Christianity and Islam or as something especially revealing about Mohammad. It is an exceptionally brutal circumstance and an anomoly even in the furious war taking place at the time. Mohammad was not even involved except to tell Zayd to go ahead and retaliate when he recovered from his wounds. Not much more was ever said about it. Well, in authentic descriptive terms anyway. It certainly is not more brutal than the treatment of Christian leaders regarding innocent natives in colonial times. I don't feel the comparison is relevant except to note that such comparisons seems to be a main factor as it suits your needs. Or maybe you want to try convincing me again how what you KNOW this represents Muhammad's preferences in piece meal liesurely activity. "Thats how you see it. I think I've just posted unpleasant facts. So unpleasant you have to attack me as a hateful bigot." The story is unpeasant indeed but that is no excuse to attack you, we have plenty of unpleasantness even today, which we can talk about. You've done far more than present some of the facts. I provided reasons why Muslim extremests do awful things in modern times, in a post I presented to tejec today. Not excuses just the facts. I don't have a problem dealing with unpleasantness honestly. Not with this event you brought up, or any other. I simply require objectiveness and sincere attempts at open and honest discussion. You were not attacked, you provided a biased alternative interpretation of the circumstance which actually required you to post some relevent text, while deliberately ignoring the genuine circumstance. I encouraged you to look at circumstance (even though I didn't know the circumstance myself, it was the failed smell test that caused me to prompt you in that direction). When you refused, declaring your text to be the only proof needed, I labeled that behavior and the accompanying attitude as bigoted. No attack just a true and accurate description of the conduct. I've also continued to encourage you because I know you as a better person, but you've obstinately refused to give any thoughtful consideration to that possibility. And that is where we are at this point.