Iraq war III...???

First topic message reminder :




Iraq is breaking up. The Kurds have taken the northern oil city of Kirkuk that they have long claimed as their capital. Sunni fundamentalist fighters vow to capture Baghdad and the Shia holy cities further south.
Government rule over the Sunni Arab heartlands of north and central Iraq is evaporating as its 900,000-strong army disintegrates. Government aircraft have fired missiles at insurgent targets in Mosul, captured by Isis on Monday, but the Iraqi army has otherwise shown no sign of launching a counter-attack.
The nine-year Shia dominance over Iraq, established after the US, Britain and other allies overthrew Saddam Hussein, may be coming to an end. The Shia may continue to hold the capital and the Shia-majority provinces further south, but they will have great difficulty in re-establishing their authority over Sunni provinces from which their army has fled.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iraq-crisis-islamist-militants-warn-battle-will-rage-after-seizing-mosul-and-tikrit-9530899.html



There have been reports that the army have just stripped off uniform dropped weapons and just run away!!!



In Mosul there were supposed to be about 14,000 soldiers and they have run from a couple of thousand militants.




Another thing that gets me, is that when these rebels were in Syria we kept hearing how we should be supporting them, but now they are in Iraq we should be helping fight against them.....!?

Didge wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

didge deflects because he sees how ridiculous his answer is

its not the army of god raping women for not paying the jizya its Muslims

Hilarious, you have made a claim on how you view certain extremists as true followers of Islam thus by your illogical view you surely believe that Christian identity and the Army of God are the only true advocates of Christianity then.

That is why your view is so flawed as seen, and really daft

thats once again your straw man argument didge, and YOUR mistake

i do not categorize Muslims into "moderate" or "extremist" that is purely your world view and i do not subscribe to it because it is incorrect

i categorize Muslims into those who try to emulate and live by the example set by Muhammad and adhere to the qur'anic teachings - i call them muhhamadans, you call them "extremists" (ironic isnt it)

the second group of Muslims are those who do not activley seek to emulate the example of Muhammad but rather live life by the Islamic culture which is defined by the qur'an and Muhammads examples

these Muslims are the ones who stand by and watch rather than participate in the beheadings and stonings and believe it to be the will of allah

you call them "moderates", i call them "just a few"

neither groups is incorrect in their views and practices

ISIS simply fall into the first category

the failure of your argument comes into play when you cannot accept that ISIS are Muslims and dont understand and cannot accept that their actions are perfectly in line with Islamic teachings, and that the only difference between ISIS and the rest of the Muslims is that ISIS activley ACTS on the teachings of their religion where as others Muslims are simply content to sit and watch

this is also addressed by the qur'an, Muhammad knew that not all his followers would be violent psychopaths and that not all of them would fight,

in this sura Muhammad acknowledges the difference, and tries to coax his less violent followers to war by telling them that there is a special reward for them if they fight

Quran (4:95) - "Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-

in terms you understand using the moderate/extremist model you work on

"those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt" = "moderates"

"those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons." = "extremists"

ISIS are simply "those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons."

Hilarious again, your argument hang by a thread on the action of extremists and not miillion of Muslims, showing how utterly flawed it is and when we apply your same illogical view point to other extremists from other religions you shy away from answering and just come out with yet more bullshit.

None of what you state even goes into why people are drawn to terrorism, and as seen most do so out of acts that have happened, wrongs done or vengeance, showing again hoiw little you understand terrorism itself.

For example here is a good book for you to read;





This book charts the author’s attempts to understand why terrorists act violently. Through recounting events in conflict zones around the world, it shows the exciting side of academia whilst at the same time developing an important argument showing how religion is not the cause of wars. Atran’s argument is that strong group cohesion (even from people who play football together, for example) is more important than ideological promises of virgins, or heaven. He demonstrates the importance of sacred values to those groups, but is careful to point out that these values need not be religious. This is an important book, grounded in serious anthropological research, for people looking to find out what it is that matters for violent terrorists.

Publisher’s description

Scott Atran has spent years talking to terrorists – from Gaza and Afghanistan, to Indonesia and Europe. Here he argues persuasively that to understand religious violence we need to consider terrorists’ close relationships, with family and friends, as much as the causes they espouse. He delivers a fascinating journey into the mindsets of radicalised people in the twenty-first century, and deep insights into the history of all religions.


http://www.radicalisationresearch.org/research/talking-to-enemy/


So again you are just talking bullshit because you yourself are an extremist and believe stupidly in your own daft beliefs, one that seeks to entice the world into a war, because you wish everyone to fear Islam, again because you have been indoctrinated with bullshit, it shows you cannot think for yourself, it is why I have been able to easily rebuke your claims as absurd and continue to do so

 ::smthg:: 

you're so fucked you cannot even argue for yourself anymore

you have to use other peoples ideas to hide behind

considering how you created a dual personality for the ISIS in Iraq who rape those women its no wonder you relying on others to think for you

smelly_bandit wrote: ::smthg:: 

you're so fucked you cannot even argue for yourself anymore

you have to use other peoples ideas to hide behind

considering how you created a dual personality for the ISIS in Iraq who rape those women its no wonder you relying on others to think for you

Game over

You are back to talking about me.

PMSL, that was easy

Let me know when you have evidence from the beginnings of Islam to back your claim, until then you are as you always do going around in circles.

Good luck

tell me didge

do you believe that ISIS are the first Muslims in history to go against Islam??

smelly_bandit wrote:tell me didge

do you believe that ISIS are the first Muslims in history to go against Islam??

Goodness no, you never heard of the Assassins?


Just one example really, you never heard of the old man of the mountain?

Didge wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:tell me didge

do you believe that ISIS are the first Muslims in history to go against Islam??

Goodness no, you never heard of the Assassins?


Just one example really, you never heard of the old man of the mountain?  

didge i dont care about your stories, im trying to give your your "evidence"

so its not a new thing what ISIS are doing

cool

now that we have established its not new, i think you have your answer and your evidence about the early days of Islam buddy

unless of course you care to provide the first documented case for when Muslims started going rogue and ignoring the teachings of Islam??

smelly_bandit wrote:

Didge wrote:


Goodness no, you never heard of the Assassins?


Just one example really, you never heard of the old man of the mountain?  

didge i dont care about your stories, im trying to give your your "evidence"

so its not a new thing what ISIS are doing

cool

now that we have established its not new, i think you have your answer and your evidence about the early days of Islam buddy

unless of course you care to provide the first documented case for when Muslims started going rogue and ignoring the teachings of Islam??

Fuck me, that was even funnier, I just gave you one example, what does it matter when, if as seen some Muslims hold extreme views, talk about hilarious.

The Assassins were much later, not the beginnings of Islam smelly, never mind.


Dear me, are you going to post any evidence that refutes my claims or refutes what the vast majority of Muslims themselves believe happens in the beginnings of Islam?

Sorry you have failed to answer this after 10 pages, and getting bored at your poor excuses

it doesn't matter when??

what>???

you've been crying your little eyes out for ten pages now asking for evidence of what the earliest practices of Islam were

you've acknowledged that ISIS are not the first

so when was the first break from Islamic teachings??

i understand why you are worried about when it happened, because the reality is that there is no break from the teachings

muhhamd himself raped many women, in one instance he captured a non Muslim man, then demanded he give up his treasure, when the man did not , he killed the man and raped his wife

sounds very similar to what ISIS did in Iraq to that family, except for one thing - they didn't kill the man

so i guess you are correct ISIS are not following Muhammads example

they should have killed the man and THEN raped his female relatives

they let him live though,

what a bunch of extremists going against islamic teachings like that and showing mercy

Oh dear, still no evidence.

Try again

When Muhammad sent his army to overrun the peaceful farming community of Khaybar, he was not satisfied with the plunder and felt that the town’s treasurer might be holding out on him. He had the man brought to him:

Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 764

When he [Muhammad] asked him about the rest he refused to produce it, so the apostle gave orders to al-Zubayr bin al-Awwam, “Torture him until you extract what he has.” So he kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead. Then the apostle delivered him to Muhammad bin Maslama and he struck off his head.”

(As a happy side note to the story – the man’s brutal murder left a beautiful young widow named Saffiya, whom Muhammad was then able to “marry”. As his biographer tells it, on the day he had her husband killed, the prophet of Islam "passed the night with her in a tent of his." (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 517)

Ishaq:517 "When the Apostle married [using a word designed to convey the nature of a moral and loving relationship to this situation is repulsive] Safiyah on his way out of town, she was beautified and combed, putting her in a fitting state for the Messenger. The Apostle passed the night with her in his tent. Abu Ayyub, girt with his sword, guarded the Apostle, going round the tent until he saw him emerge in the morning. Abu said, 'I was afraid for you with this woman for you have killed her father, her husband, and her people."

eny more evidence of muhhamad raping women??

looks like rape murder raiding and torture are all part of the religion of peace

smelly_bandit wrote:When Muhammad sent his army to overrun the peaceful farming community of Khaybar, he was not satisfied with the plunder and felt that the town’s treasurer might be holding out on him. He had the man brought to him:

Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 764

When he [Muhammad] asked him about the rest he refused to produce it, so the apostle gave orders to al-Zubayr bin al-Awwam, “Torture him until you extract what he has.”  So he kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead.  Then the apostle delivered him to Muhammad bin Maslama and he struck off his head.”

(As a happy side note to the story – the man’s brutal murder left a beautiful young widow named Saffiya, whom Muhammad was then able to “marry”.  As his biographer tells it, on the day he had her husband killed, the prophet of Islam "passed the night with her in a tent of his." (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 517)

Ishaq:517 "When the Apostle married [using a word designed to convey the nature of a moral and loving relationship to this situation is repulsive] Safiyah on his way out of town, she was beautified and combed, putting her in a fitting state for the Messenger. The Apostle passed the night with her in his tent. Abu Ayyub, girt with his sword, guarded the Apostle, going round the tent until he saw him emerge in the morning. Abu said, 'I was afraid for you with this woman for you have killed her father, her husband, and her people."

eny more evidence of muhhamad raping women??

looks like rape murder raiding and torture are all part of the religion of peace

Oh is this now a valid Islamic source but mine is not, one moment:

 ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: 


Fuck me, you cannot make it up how funny that is..

Again evidence that jiyza was charged to all Non-Muslims at the beginnings of Islam, which your claim to the verse hinges on.


Try again

Phillipa wrote:

Kaka cum-bum is bored with Flop, aww.

Kaka want somefin to pway wiff today?

Hello allakaka, and do you have anything to add or have you just come to copy and post back to Flap?

Joy Division wrote:

Phillipa wrote:

Kaka cum-bum is bored with Flop, aww.

Kaka want somefin to pway wiff today?

Homophobe.

In hadith studies, ibn Isḥaq's hadith (considered separately from his prophetic biography) is generally thought to be "good" (ḥasan) (assuming an accurate and trustworthy isnad, or chain of transmission)[28] and himself having a reputation of being "sincere" or "trustworthy" (ṣadūq). However, a general analysis of his isnads has given him the negative distinction of being a mudallis, meaning one who did not name his teacher, claiming instead to narrate directly from his teacher's teacher.[29] Because of his tadlīs, many scholars including Muhammad al-Bukhari hardly ever used his narrations in their sahih books.[30] According to al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī, all scholars of ahadith except one no longer rely on any of his narrations, although truth is not foreign to him.[31] Others, like Ahmad ibn Hanbal, rejected his narrations on all matters related to fiqh.[3] Al-Dhahabī concluded that despite his good qualities any narration solely transmitted through him should probably be considered munkar.[22]




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Ishaq


Oh dear

Didge wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:When Muhammad sent his army to overrun the peaceful farming community of Khaybar, he was not satisfied with the plunder and felt that the town’s treasurer might be holding out on him. He had the man brought to him:

Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 764

When he [Muhammad] asked him about the rest he refused to produce it, so the apostle gave orders to al-Zubayr bin al-Awwam, “Torture him until you extract what he has.”  So he kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead.  Then the apostle delivered him to Muhammad bin Maslama and he struck off his head.”

(As a happy side note to the story – the man’s brutal murder left a beautiful young widow named Saffiya, whom Muhammad was then able to “marry”.  As his biographer tells it, on the day he had her husband killed, the prophet of Islam "passed the night with her in a tent of his." (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 517)

Ishaq:517 "When the Apostle married [using a word designed to convey the nature of a moral and loving relationship to this situation is repulsive] Safiyah on his way out of town, she was beautified and combed, putting her in a fitting state for the Messenger. The Apostle passed the night with her in his tent. Abu Ayyub, girt with his sword, guarded the Apostle, going round the tent until he saw him emerge in the morning. Abu said, 'I was afraid for you with this woman for you have killed her father, her husband, and her people."

eny more evidence of muhhamad raping women??

looks like rape murder raiding and torture are all part of the religion of peace

Oh is this now a valid Islamic source but mine is not, one moment:

 ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: 


Fuck me, you cannot make it up how funny that is..

Again evidence that jiyza was charged to all Non-Muslims at the beginnings of Islam, which your claim to the verse hinges on.


Try again

yours is not invalid it is unreliable, since it references a sunnah that states only men should be charged

do you know what the sunnah are??

probably not which accounts for you confusion

secondly

either way your argument fails didge, because the above hadiths show Muhammad as a rapist and murderer

you would have us believe him to some twisted sinner/saint who would happily murder a womans husband and then happily rape the wife afterwards but would never stoop so low as to charge them the jizya because in your eyes Muhammad the rapist is too much of a gentleman to force the jizya on women but will sure as shit give em a good raping if their husbands dont pay up

sure pal

smelly_bandit wrote:

Didge wrote:


Oh is this now a valid Islamic source but mine is not, one moment:

 ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: 


Fuck me, you cannot make it up how funny that is..

Again evidence that jiyza was charged to all Non-Muslims at the beginnings of Islam, which your claim to the verse hinges on.


Try again

yours is not invalid it is unreliable, since it references a sunnah that states only men should be charged

do you know what the sunnah are??

probably not which accounts for you confusion

secondly

either way your argument fails didge, because the above hadiths show Muhammad as a rapist and murderer

you would have us believe him to some twisted sinner/saint who would happily murder a womans husband and then happily rape the wife afterwards but would never stoop so low as to charge them the jizya because in your eyes Muhammad the rapist is too much of a gentleman to force the jizya on women but will sure as shit give em a good raping if their husbands dont pay up

sure pal

Dickhead alert goes to smelly, what a fuckwit, he argues over the authenticity of works then cannot back his when mine is backed by Muslims and his is not

Epic fail, now go and crawl away you pathetic little worm, you are not even worth debating and just amuse me when it suits my pleasure



[quote="Didge"]In hadith studies, ibn Isḥaq's hadith (considered separately from his prophetic biography) is generally thought to be "good" (ḥasan) (assuming an accurate and trustworthy isnad, or chain of transmission)[28] and himself having a reputation of being "sincere" or "trustworthy" (ṣadūq). However, a general analysis of his isnads has given him the negative distinction of being a mudallis, meaning one who did not name his teacher, claiming instead to narrate directly from his teacher's teacher.[29] Because of his tadlīs, many scholars including Muhammad al-Bukhari hardly ever used his narrations in their sahih books.[30] According to al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī, all scholars of ahadith except one no longer rely on any of his narrations, although truth is not foreign to him.[31] Others, like Ahmad ibn Hanbal, rejected his narrations on all matters related to fiqh.[3] Al-Dhahabī concluded that despite his good qualities any narration solely transmitted through him should probably be considered munkar.[22]




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Ishaq

im not arguing over the authenticity of the works didge

im simply pointing out that the evidence you presented is flawed due to the fact that it makes reference to a sunnah that says only men are to be charged

where is this referenced sunnah that claims only men are to be charged to be found??

it would of course help us if you even knew what a sunnah was

maybe then you would realize why your evidence is unreliable

smelly_bandit wrote:im not arguing over the authenticity of the works didge

im simply pointing out that the evidence you presented is flawed due to the fact that it makes reference to a sunnah that says only men are to be charged

where is this referenced sunnah that claims only men are to be charged  to be found??

it would of course help us if you even knew what a sunnah was

maybe then you would realize why your evidence is unreliable

Really, you argued for pages that what I posted was not authentic.


Hilarious, you now contradict yourself

Didge wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:im not arguing over the authenticity of the works didge

im simply pointing out that the evidence you presented is flawed due to the fact that it makes reference to a sunnah that says only men are to be charged

where is this referenced sunnah that claims only men are to be charged  to be found??

it would of course help us if you even knew what a sunnah was

maybe then you would realize why your evidence is unreliable

Really, you argued for pages that what I posted was not authentic.


Hilarious, you now contradict yourself

desperation causing you to lie now didge

where did i say it was unauthentic??

stop using big words and trying to sound intelligent didge, you clearly dont know what the words mean

your evidence may be authentic but it is unreliable since it references another piece of evidence which cannot be found

are you really so thick that you dont understand the flaw in your "evidence" or simply desperate to address it because you have seen it??

So you admit it is authentic then what I posted and that women, children etc were exempt after all then, excellent, but what a waste of a debate when you admit it is authentic where you provide no evidence from the beginnings of Islam to refute this and now admit it is authentic, what a right dummy you are smelly


Oh well, you could have saved everyone so much time without boring them all to death with your bollocks.

Oh well this is well and truly over then.

Conclusion

Verse 9:29 does not mean to kill all Non_Muslims

Didge wrote:So you admit it is authentic then what I posted and that women, children etc were exempt after all then, excellent, but what a waste of a debate when you admit it is authentic where you provide no evidence from the beginnings of Islam to refute this and now admit it is authentic, what a right dummy you are smelly


Oh well, you could have saved everyone so much time without boring them all to death with your bollocks.

Oh well this is well and truly over then.

Conclusion

Verse 9:29 does not mean to kill all Non_Muslims

authenticity doesn't mean reliability you simpleton

you haven't provided R E L I A B L E evidence

smelly_bandit wrote:

Didge wrote:So you admit it is authentic then what I posted and that women, children etc were exempt after all then, excellent, but what a waste of a debate when you admit it is authentic where you provide no evidence from the beginnings of Islam to refute this and now admit it is authentic, what a right dummy you are smelly


Oh well, you could have saved everyone so much time without boring them all to death with your bollocks.

Oh well this is well and truly over then.

Conclusion

Verse 9:29 does not mean to kill all Non_Muslims

authenticity doesn't mean reliability you simpleton

you haven't provided R E L I A B L E evidence

Bless someone is upset, ha ha ha ha ha ha

So now you claim it is not reliable, yet you post something about Muhammad raping and claim that is reliable, fuck me, you really make yourself look such a dick,

 ://?roflmao?/:  ://?roflmao?/:  ://?roflmao?/:  ://?roflmao?/: 


Again post your evidence to refute mine, which shows at the beginnings of Islam women and children were exempt from the Jiyza. Its pathetic your attempts here, even the vast majority of scholars back this same view and back the view it was only able bodied men, making you look yet again such a dick.

Try again

Didge wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

authenticity doesn't mean reliability you simpleton

you haven't provided R E L I A B L E evidence

Bless someone is upset, ha ha ha ha ha ha

So now you claim it is not reliable, yet you post something about Muhammad raping and claim that is reliable, fuck me, you really make yourself look such a dick,

 ://?roflmao?/:  ://?roflmao?/:  ://?roflmao?/:  ://?roflmao?/: 


Again post your evidence to refute mine, which shows at the beginnings of Islam women and children were exempt from the Jiyza. Its pathetic your attempts here, even the vast majority of scholars back this same view and back the view it was only able bodied men, making you look yet again such a dick.

Try again

correct didge

if you are having trouble understanding re-post your "evidence" and i will happily explain why it is unreliable

once you finally understand why its unreliable you will realize how much a fool you have fool you have made of yourself

Wow so after 10 pages you thus admit nothing you have said makes any sense even though you claimed to have already and are just going around in circles.

Again you offer no evidence yourself from the beginnings and are just boring me silly now, you are just stringing this out is some vain attempt where already you have been proven wrong on the verse.

Mate you know naff all about historicity, so spare me what you think is authentic after your last gaff with the claim of Muhammad raping, as seen that is not even taken as reliable by Muslims and that was really funny by the way.

As I say its boring when you fail to provide the evidence I requested, until you do you have nothing to back your claim



In hadith studies, ibn Isḥaq's hadith (considered separately from his prophetic biography) is generally thought to be "good" (ḥasan) (assuming an accurate and trustworthy isnad, or chain of transmission)[28] and himself having a reputation of being "sincere" or "trustworthy" (ṣadūq). However, a general analysis of his isnads has given him the negative distinction of being a mudallis, meaning one who did not name his teacher, claiming instead to narrate directly from his teacher's teacher.[29] Because of his tadlīs, many scholars including Muhammad al-Bukhari hardly ever used his narrations in their sahih books.[30] According to al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī, all scholars of ahadith except one no longer rely on any of his narrations, although truth is not foreign to him.[31] Others, like Ahmad ibn Hanbal, rejected his narrations on all matters related to fiqh.[3] Al-Dhahabī concluded that despite his good qualities any narration solely transmitted through him should probably be considered munkar.[22]




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Ishaq

Didge wrote:Wow so after 10 pages you thus admit nothing you have said makes any sense even though you claimed to have already and are just going around in circles.

Again you offer no evidence yourself from the beginnings and are just boring me silly now, you are just stringing this out is some vain attempt where already you have been proven wrong on the verse.

Mate you know naff all about historicity, so spare me what you think is authentic after your last gaff with the claim of Muhammad raping, as seen that is not even taken as reliable by Muslims and that was really funny by the way.

As I say its boring when you fail to provide the evidence I requested, until you do you have nothing to back your claim



In hadith studies, ibn Isḥaq's hadith (considered separately from his prophetic biography) is generally thought to be "good" (ḥasan) (assuming an accurate and trustworthy isnad, or chain of transmission)[28] and himself having a reputation of being "sincere" or "trustworthy" (ṣadūq). However, a general analysis of his isnads has given him the negative distinction of being a mudallis, meaning one who did not name his teacher, claiming instead to narrate directly from his teacher's teacher.[29] Because of his tadlīs, many scholars including Muhammad al-Bukhari hardly ever used his narrations in their sahih books.[30] According to al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī, all scholars of ahadith except one no longer rely on any of his narrations, although truth is not foreign to him.[31] Others, like Ahmad ibn Hanbal, rejected his narrations on all matters related to fiqh.[3] Al-Dhahabī concluded that despite his good qualities any narration solely transmitted through him should probably be considered munkar.[22]




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Ishaq

you're an utter retard and obviously terrified to post up your evidence

have you realized the flaw??

have you spotted how im going to own you??

smelly_bandit wrote:

Didge wrote:Wow so after 10 pages you thus admit nothing you have said makes any sense even though you claimed to have already and are just going around in circles.

Again you offer no evidence yourself from the beginnings and are just boring me silly now, you are just stringing this out is some vain attempt where already you have been proven wrong on the verse.

Mate you know naff all about historicity, so spare me what you think is authentic after your last gaff with the claim of Muhammad raping, as seen that is not even taken as reliable by Muslims and that was really funny by the way.

As I say its boring when you fail to provide the evidence I requested, until you do you have nothing to back your claim



In hadith studies, ibn Isḥaq's hadith (considered separately from his prophetic biography) is generally thought to be "good" (ḥasan) (assuming an accurate and trustworthy isnad, or chain of transmission)[28] and himself having a reputation of being "sincere" or "trustworthy" (ṣadūq). However, a general analysis of his isnads has given him the negative distinction of being a mudallis, meaning one who did not name his teacher, claiming instead to narrate directly from his teacher's teacher.[29] Because of his tadlīs, many scholars including Muhammad al-Bukhari hardly ever used his narrations in their sahih books.[30] According to al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī, all scholars of ahadith except one no longer rely on any of his narrations, although truth is not foreign to him.[31] Others, like Ahmad ibn Hanbal, rejected his narrations on all matters related to fiqh.[3] Al-Dhahabī concluded that despite his good qualities any narration solely transmitted through him should probably be considered munkar.[22]




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Ishaq

you're an utter retard and obviously terrified to post up your evidence

have you realized the flaw??

have you spotted how im going to own you??

PMSL, you are the one who after 10 pages has failed to do so, blimey, you cannot make it up how funny this is, go back to page 7/8 if you want to see mine again.

Man you make me laugh, as yes I have spotted a long time ago, how dim you are, even more so on history 


Here I will give you a hand:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_early_Islam

come on matey boy play the game

re-post the hadith you claim shows that women children are exempt

be brave didge, have the courage of your conviction

you say you have evidence that proves your right??

show me and ill show you why its unreliable

unless you're too much of a scaredy cat??

too much of a chicken shit??

too much of a pussy???

too much of a yellow belly???

aint got the minerals??

nay balls??

come on gobshite, lets see your evidence agian

Breaking news:

Israeli PM Netanyahu endorses Kurdish independence citing chaos in Iraq

http://rt.com/news/169252-netanyahu-kurds-independence-iraq/


ISIS declares creation of Islamic state in Middle East, shortens name to ‘IS’

ISIS announced that it should now be called 'The Islamic State' and declared its chief, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, as "the caliph" of the new state and "leader for Muslims everywhere," the radical Sunni militant group said in an audio recording distributed online on Sunday. This is the first time since the fall of the Ottoman Empire in 1923 that a Caliph – which means a political successor to Prophet Muhammad – has been declared. The decision was made following the group’s Shura Council meeting on Sunday, according to ISIS spokesman Abu Mohammed al-Adnani.

http://rt.com/news/169256-isis-create-islamic-state/

oh dear oh dear

here we go

lol so funny, I have made my case and understand historicity, you are the one just stalling now even more which is hilarious

Didge wrote:lol so funny, I have made my case and understand how historicity, you are the one just stalling now even more which is hilarious

whatever didge

ive given you ample opportunity to prove your case and you haven't

you're boring me now

smelly_bandit wrote:

Didge wrote:lol so funny, I have made my case and understand how historicity, you are the one just stalling now even more which is hilarious

whatever didge

ive given you ample opportunity to prove your case and you haven't

you're boring me now

 ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: 
 ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: 


Fucking hilarious, you have failed to do anything I have proven you talk horseshit, so crawl away you pathetic worm if you cannot post the evidence I requested
Ha Ha ha Ha

boring

smelly_bandit wrote:boring

Yes you are, ten pages of requesting evidence from the beginning of Islam, and you have attempted poorly to get out of doing so!

It shows you are a complete idiot and the one boring everyone !

Ive achieved what i wanted to achieve didge

you've been a huge help, i honestly couldn't have done it without you, but there really isn't any more to talk about.

i told you before didge, i only engage you in conversation when i want to use you to help me prove a point, you've played your part and now its back to me ignoring you until i need to wheel you out again

think about it didge, have you ever been able to NOT take the bait when i throw it out to you??

   :/pwn://: 

Hilarious, smelly doing what he does best, deflection and just more horseshit, ha ha ha and fails to prove his claim on a verse.

my name is didge do this  ---->  ::attn::  or i will bore you to death with this -----> :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-:

Epic fail from smelly, all he can fo is talk about me and not the subject, because he always gets schooled ha ha ha ha ha

 ::D:: 

still biting eh??

Church Bells Fall Silent in Mosul as Iraq’s Christians Flee
The advance of ISIS has ended over a thousand years of Christian worship in Mosul—the latest chapter in the long decline of Christianity in the Middle East.

Last Sunday, for the first time in 1600 years, no mass was celebrated in Mosul. The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) seized Iraq’s second largest city on June 10, causing most Christians in the region to flee in terror, in new kinship with the torment of Christ crucified on the cross. The remnant of Mosul’s ancient Christian community, long inhabitants of the place where many believe Jonah to be buried, now faces annihilation behind ISIS lines. Those who risk worship must do so in silence, praying under new Sharia regulations that have stilled every church bell in the city.

The media has largely ignored the horrifying stories that are emerging from Mosul. On June 23, the Assyrian International News Agency reported that ISIS terrorists entered the home of a Christian family in Mosul and demanded that they pay the jizya (a tax on non-Muslims). According to AINA, “When the Assyrian family said they did not have the money, three ISIS members raped the mother and daughter in front of the husband and father. The husband and father was so traumatized that he committed suicide.”

   “I just want to get out of this hell.”

Although few reports from ISIS-occupied Iraq can be corroborated, the group’s record of torture chambers, public executions, and crucifixions lends credibility to nightmarish accounts from the ground. Since the fall of Mosul, a litany of evils has replaced the liturgies of the Christians there: a young boy ripped from the arms of his parents as they ran from the ISIS advance and shot before their eyes, girls killed for not wearing the hijab.

Small wonder that since the fall of Mosul, tens of thousands of defenseless civilians have fled the ISIS onslaught, including the region’s Christians, whose presence on the Nineveh plains dates back to the earliest centuries of Christianity. Most have left their homes with nothing but the clothes on their backs.

Steven and his wife Babyl, two Christian refugees now living in Erbil, left their home in Hamdaniya, in the Mosul area, which ISIS plagued for years before its recent conquest. In late 2013, ISIS sent Steven a letter that threatened him with beheading unless he left the city. At first, unwilling to let extremists uproot his life, he ignored the warning. But ISIS gunmen shot at him several times, their bullets accomplishing what their letter could not: persuading Steven and his wife—then newly pregnant—to flee to Jordan.

Despite the grave risk, the young couple returned to Hamdaniya in early June. Babyl had taken ill, and Steven, unable to find work in Jordan, desperately needed money for her medical care.

Several days later ISIS conquered Mosul. For a second time, Steven and Babyl, now eight months pregnant, fled their home. Their harrowing escape to Erbil has ended in a precarious and hardscrabble existence. They fear for their unborn child, a baby girl who will be born into a family with no belongings, no money, and little food. Steven summed up the situation at the end of an email: “I just want to get out of this hell.”

This human tragedy has its foundation in political instability. The idea of Iraq was conceived of by foreign policy elite in London; the last to cling to it are the foreign policy elite in Washington. As the Obama administration and State Department scramble to save Iraq, a reality that many on the ground have known for years is coming into focus: Iraq is falling apart. In the north, Kurdistan—a nation that may not be found on any western map—holds the greatest hope for those who seek the most fundamental freedoms. Since 2003, Christians have been fleeing to Kurdistan’s Nineveh plain. The Sunni Kurds, who tend to be secular in their politics, have offered them a helping hand in recent years.

As the horrors unfolded in Iraq, back in Washington, in the briefing room of a presidential hopeful, an Iraqi bishop made a desperate plea for help via phone as a delegation of Iraqi Christians seeking greater support for the Kurds. “We have no food, no petrol, no [means] to protect ourselves. Where are America’s values? Where is our dignity?” Many in Washington are keen to see greater Kurdish autonomy, viewing them as the prudent third way between the Sunni states that have supported Islamist militants (Turkey, Saudi, Qatar) and Shia Iran and its puppets. The Kurds represent not only the best hope for an American ally in an increasingly Islamist-dominated region, but also the best hope for the survival of Christians and other religious minorities in the Middle East.

Just a few years ago, no one could have imagined a militant Islamist emirate stretching across the Fertile Crescent, threatening to expand into neighboring countries like Lebanon and Jordan. Today, it is difficult to imagine how ISIS will be defeated. Iraq's post-colonial borders have collapsed over the past two weeks as ISIS has consolidated and expanded an emirate from the Euphrates to within striking distance of Bagdad. Now it commands territory nearly as vast as that of either the Iraqi or Syrian governments. Barbarism and strategy are not mutually exclusive. ISIS will likely consolidate its gains near Baghdad, waiting for either the Maliki government to crumble or for the Shia militias to leave the capital.

The crisis of Iraqi Christianity precipitated by ISIS’s advance, which is critical in areas like Mosul, is the latest chapter in the dramatic decline of Christianity in the Middle East. Muslim (let alone Islamist) homogeneity in the region would be a cultural catastrophe with global consequences and national security implications for America. Lack of attention in the Western press is an indictment of a journalistic and political establishment that is mostly indifferent to one of the great human rights crises of our time.

The story of Christianity in Iraq is long and has entered its most difficult chapter to date. But ISIS will not have the last word. Although the future appears bleak, Steven and Babyl hope for the day when they can return home—the day when the church bells of Mosul can ring out once more.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/29/church-bells-fall-silent-in-mosul-as-iraq-s-christians-flee.html

losing your grip on reality eh sassy??

or are you just smoking some of JD's dope???

BEIRUT: A powerful jihadist group known for its ruthless tactics and systemic abuses in the Syrian and Iraqi conflicts announced Sunday the establishment of a "caliphate", or Islamist state.

In an audio recording distributed online, the Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS) declared its chief Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi "the caliph" and "leader for Muslims everywhere."

The jihadists said they would impose their caliphate on areas they have conquered in Syria and Iraq.

"The Shura (council) of the Islamic State met and discussed this issue (of the caliphate)... The Islamic State decided to establish an Islamic caliphate and to designate a caliph for the state of the Muslims," said ISIS spokesman Abu Mohammad al-Adnani.

"The jihadist preacher Baghdadi was designated the caliph of the Muslims," said Adnani, adding that the caliphate will extend "from Aleppo (in northern Syria) to Diyala" in Iraq.

Baghdadi "has accepted this allegiance, and has thus become the leader for Muslims everywhere."

"The words "Iraq" and "Greater Syria" have been removed from the name of the Islamic State in official papers and documents," Adnani said, describing the caliphate as "the dream in all the Muslims" hearts" and "the hope of all jihadists."

Ever since the Prophet Mohammad's death, a caliph was designated "the prince" or emir "of the believers."

After the first four caliphs who succeeded Mohammad, the caliphate lived its golden age in the Omayyad empire from the year 661 to 750, and then under the Abbasids, from 750 to 1517.

It was abolished when the Ottoman empire collapsed in 1924.

In the recording, Adnani demanded that "all Muslims all pledge allegiance to the caliph."

An activist in Raqa, the bastion of ISIS, told AFP via the Internet: "Large convoys of ISIS members arrived in the city just as the declaration was issued, to celebrate their caliphate.

"There was very intense gunfire. ISIS supporters were shooting in the air with joy," Hadi Salameh said.

"I even saw seven ISIS members come into Raqa on horseback."

Another activist, Abu Ibrahim, said via Facebook: "ISIS members in Al-Naim Square (in Raqa) are calling on all residents to pledge their loyalty."

Opposed to ISIS, both Salameh and Abu Ibrahim said they feared the consequences of the declaration.

"More jihadists will be drawn to join ISIS, and they will become stronger. It's crazy," said Abu Ibrahim.

In Syria, ISIS' fighters control large swaths of territory in Deir al-Zor near the Iraq border, Raqa in the north, as well as parts of neighbouring Aleppo province.

In Iraq, it has spearheaded a lightning offensive in recent weeks, capturing sizeable territories in the north and west of the conflict-torn country.

Once welcomed in Syria by rebels seeking President Bashar Assad's ouster, ISIS quickly earned the wrath of the Syrian opposition because of its systematic abuses.

On a near-daily basis, reports have emerged of ISIs jihadists summarily executing political and military rivals, as well as average civilians.

It has kidnapped thousands of people, including many rebels seeking Assad's overthrow.

ISIS' announcement was met with intense celebratory gunfire in Raqa in northern Syria, according to an activist in the jihadist-controlled town.

Read more: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2014/Jun-29/262019-isil-jihadists-declare-islamic-caliphate-from-aleppo-to-diyala-in-iraq.ashx#ixzz368iVhuop
(The Daily Star :: Lebanon News :: http://www.dailystar.com.lb)

Lone Wolf wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:
Mine was from a comparative site If you go there is say how many tank etc and rates moral and fighting capacity. Iraq is potentially strong but internal division means it may not be able to coordinate the military resources.
The only way you could get close to 900,000 is by including the reservists   

  
"TOMMY MONK" is such an ignorant fool...
AND seems to be getting more stupid (and senile ?) by the day..
DOES anybody on here really believe all of his fantasy Army career tales anymore, after the way he keeps tripping himself up on issues like this ?
MORE likely he did his three years, and left quietly without having learnt anything..  

What is this idiot flea keeper talking about yet again...???


I have never claimed to have served in the armed forces.



And how am I tripping myself up by quoting a piece from a respectable newspaper article...????