It has been practiced on these forums for years from almost every Muslim who haunts. You lose the bet.
New Book: The Hidden Origins of Islam
- Thread starter Michael
- Start date
It has been practiced on these forums for years from almost every Muslim who haunts. You lose the bet.
When a Muslim is defending Islam or himself, he is told to lie in order to "keep the peace" as it were. Muslim's have little concept of this great error in logic and rationale and produce one lie after the other as they've lost all perspective of the world around them.
Really? Every Muslim? That's funny considering it's only a Shi'i practice and Sunnis are usually against the practice outright. Not only that, here is a quote by you demonstrating your own ignorance:
The practice of taqiyya is not in any way how you depict it. Not only that the fact the you used this term in reference to this post:
Further demonstrates your ignorance and how your bastardizing the term. This post can in no way indicate that the member in question is practicing taqiyya. They are not concealing their religion because they feel they are in physical danger, for example. Nor does the post indicate dissimulation, at all.
.
ah, i see, while islam is against lying, but, some times lying is ok, for example, your friends showed you a painting he painted, so, you told him, wow it's beautifull, while it suck! white lies that don't do anything, or small lies, so you don't make your friend sad or make him don't want to paint again, is ok, anyway, ok ok, i got what you mean, but, not sure that i understood it exactly.
ah, i see, while islam is against lying, but, some times lying is ok, for example, your friends showed you a painting he painted, so, you told him, wow it's beautifull, while it suck! white lies that don't do anything, or small lies, so you don't make your friend sad or make him don't want to paint again, is ok, anyway, ok ok, i got what you mean, but, not sure that i understood it exactly.
I would say that's probably debatable but I don't wish to discuss this here seeing as we're talking about the Hidden Origins book and the historicity of Muhammad (saw) and the early ummah. Thus in terms of this conversation it's irrelevant even though I understand the comparison you're trying to make.
Might I also remind you of the story the city of Troy. For a long time it was believed that the city of Troy was nothing more than a legend, a myth, talked about by Homer and so on. However due to archaeological discoveries in the 1800's we now know it was a factual city. But it's not like we don't already have archaeological evidence for Muhammad (saw) and the early ummah of which I have posted numerous evidences.
But we're not talking about Xenu nor are we talking about God or the existance thereof. Again, we are talking about the historicity of Muhammad (saw) and the early ummah. Thus all these references to Scientology is just silly in terms of this conversation and is a distraction from the subject at hand.
How is that in anyway comparable to the historicity of Muhammad (saw) and the early ummah? You keep talking about Deity but that has nothing to do with the conversation at hand. Nor could you even compare my rejection of the deity of Amaterasu to you're rejection of the historical Muhammad (saw) and the early ummah, there IS evidence for them and I posted a barrage of material for a specific reason. We are talking about people. Humans in history. Not the eldritch gods of Japan.
There was only one gold coin, the other was a copper coin. I, at the present time, can't find sources for these two specific coins however that isn't to suggest that such coins do not exist during this period, infact I have posted a whole list of coins under the Umayyad caliph al-Malik. Muhammad (saw) died in 10 A.H./632 C.E. The coins coming from the era of caliph al-Malik are dated 65 A.H./685 C.E. and so on. A mere 50 years difference. Also, if you're talking about the drachm of 'Abd al-Malik ibn 'Abd Allah that was dated 66 A.H./685-6 C.E. and it says the following:
Not only that the tombstone I posted was dated 71 A.H./691 C.E. Again, the difference of years between this artifact and the death of Muhammad (saw) is a mere 60 years. The artifacts that I have posted are all dated shortly after the death of the prophet within the very early years of Islam and the ummah. Also, from now on, the coins you are mentioning, mention them by name or provide the associated link so I know what coin you are talking about specifically. Otherwise I don't think we can rightfully talk about this proper.
Last edited:
They aren't "little white lies" to save someones feelings. They are blatant lies that Muslims will go to war over and fight to the death. It's bad enough we have to put up with their so-called truths, but we must also endure the lies, too.
RE: Coins
I'll take a look.
But, even from your last post, a 50 year window from death is not contemporary and is at least a full two 25-year generations of people - from death. If Mohammad lived to be as old as is purported (most people carked-it at half his age) then we're looking at an easy 3 generations from within his lifetime. Possibly 3.5 to 4 generation of people could have been born, lived, and died. That's a hell of a lot of time to make up and embellish a story. Not to mention, if you're talking about "Islam" - well, now we're talking 6+ generations from death.
Regardless, I'm going to research the coins when I have time as well as flesh out the authors theories. They've spend a good two decades working on this problem lets see what they got.
I'll take a look.
But, even from your last post, a 50 year window from death is not contemporary and is at least a full two 25-year generations of people - from death. If Mohammad lived to be as old as is purported (most people carked-it at half his age) then we're looking at an easy 3 generations from within his lifetime. Possibly 3.5 to 4 generation of people could have been born, lived, and died. That's a hell of a lot of time to make up and embellish a story. Not to mention, if you're talking about "Islam" - well, now we're talking 6+ generations from death.
Regardless, I'm going to research the coins when I have time as well as flesh out the authors theories. They've spend a good two decades working on this problem lets see what they got.
Big Chiller
Registered Senior Member
Life wasn't as fast back then as it is today.
The first caliph of the Umayyad dynasty, Muawiyah I, was born in 602 C.E. and died in the year 680 C.E. and assumed the title of caliph in 661 C.E. after the death of the last of the Rashidun caliphate Imam 'Ali ibn Abi Talib (as) whom was killed in 661, thus marking the end of the Rashidun caliphate and the emergence of the Umayyad dynasty. The lifetime of the prophet (saw) is from 570-571 C.E. to 632 C.E. It's easy to see that, easily, a lot of this would be first hand accounts. The Rashidun caliphate starts in the year 632 C.E. the same year as the death of Muhammad (saw) starting with the first caliph Abu Bakr who ruled from 632-634 C.E.
Last edited:
People also passed the time telling (and embellishing) lots and lots of stories about the Gods
True, but it takes a lot more than a story to capture the faith of a billion people and keep it, a thousand and some years on.
Mohammed is easily the most influential man in the world today, 1400 years after he died.
The removing of ones head makes for ample persuasion.
So was Hitler, but he didn't screw 9 year old girls.
Argumentum ad populum
Within 10 years a billion people worshiped Mao.
I'll look at the coins when I have time
And now they don't. Argumentum ad persistum :blbl:
.
i didnt mean the serious things, i meant, when it's not serious, like, your friend maked a painting, or, drawed something, anyway, but if for example had used drugs, then, you're not going to lie and say good or great! you will differently say the truth, even if it hearts, what i meant is, small simple things, is ok for a white lie, a white lie is like i said, a painting and you say it's good while you hate it, well, also not always, but i agree trith is always better, but about lying and being ready to die for that lie? no this not a white lie, and this is insane. and don't tell me you never lied. [(out of relegion talking)]
i didnt mean the serious things, i meant, when it's not serious, like, your friend maked a painting, or, drawed something, anyway, but if for example had used drugs, then, you're not going to lie and say good or great! you will differently say the truth, even if it hearts, what i meant is, small simple things, is ok for a white lie, a white lie is like i said, a painting and you say it's good while you hate it, well, also not always, but i agree trith is always better, but about lying and being ready to die for that lie? no this not a white lie, and this is insane. and don't tell me you never lied.
[(out of relegion talking)].
naturully, barbaric??? who are you talking about first? and what a hell is that we are naturally barbaric???
naturully, barbaric??? who are you talking about first? and what a hell is that we are naturally barbaric???