Originally posted by Azad Pashtunistan
View Post
If people start calling Putin a holy messenger of God for an example of all of mankind to follow, then we'll bring up his invasion of Ukraine to disprove them.
Perspective my failed canine friend, perspective. To the Russian ethnic population of East Ukraine he is a hero who is saving them from zealots in Kiev. To the ethnic Ukranians he is otherwise...
If people start calling Thomas Jefferson a holy messenger of God for all of mankind to follow, then we'll bring up his past of owning slaves to disprove them.
LOOOOL. Emotional logic does not trump actual logic. There is the concept of mutually exclusive parts of life. His leadership capability and thoughtfulness as well as foresight in drafting out governance for his people is rarely if ever analyzed in the light of owning slaves. So far as we know TJ was a product of his era and was not a John Calhoun type demagogue and bigot hell bent on keeping black people in chains. Therefore anyone with objectivity would be hard pressed to say Jefferson was "immoral" relative to his compatriots.
Mormons give some power hungry deceitful snake with many wives (similar to Muhammad) a holy status and their leader and religion has been criticized immensely on the topic.
LOOOOL. Have you read the number of wives Ahmad Shah Baba and his son Timur had? Fool, go read a book before you talk. Joseph Smith posited a history where Christ came to the US and met with native Americans. What he promulgated and the benefits he reaped are a far far far different thing then the semitic tradition of the Prophets of Israel and the shifting of the lineage to Ismail.
Since Muslims think Muhammad was a holy messenger of God with no imperfect actions, then he shouldn't be owning slaves or concubines or being a megalomaniac warlord.
Holy Messenger of God, yes. A human being, yes. You have your theology all wrong loser. Surah Abasa and the reprimand given to him for turning away from the poorer questioner as well as the Quran itself stating it was not sent to an angel (infallible) make it clear that he was a human of his time And for that time, even his adversaries neither stressed his marriages, his enlightened gradualism toward emancipation of slaves, or his defensive war posturing. They focused on his theology.
Fool, lol - if you want to bring men to task for owning slaves and the like and how they are to women and not have panoramic view of who they are then you better get to burning the Tarikh of Ahmad Shah, Khushal Khan Baba's diwan etc. And if your retort is "they didn't claim to be Prophets" thats not a cop out.. they claimed to be leaders of their people with a moral aptitude.
He can be just remembered as a man of history similar to Thomas Jefferson without being considered a prophet.
Understand?
Understand that you are grossly uninformed and stuck in the 1980s but somehow hypocritically now a secular capitalist after an era of being a marxist compatriot... I understand that but the rest of your bul-l sh-it is only comprehensible to other Quixotic losers
Perspective my failed canine friend, perspective. To the Russian ethnic population of East Ukraine he is a hero who is saving them from zealots in Kiev. To the ethnic Ukranians he is otherwise...
If people start calling Thomas Jefferson a holy messenger of God for all of mankind to follow, then we'll bring up his past of owning slaves to disprove them.
LOOOOL. Emotional logic does not trump actual logic. There is the concept of mutually exclusive parts of life. His leadership capability and thoughtfulness as well as foresight in drafting out governance for his people is rarely if ever analyzed in the light of owning slaves. So far as we know TJ was a product of his era and was not a John Calhoun type demagogue and bigot hell bent on keeping black people in chains. Therefore anyone with objectivity would be hard pressed to say Jefferson was "immoral" relative to his compatriots.
Mormons give some power hungry deceitful snake with many wives (similar to Muhammad) a holy status and their leader and religion has been criticized immensely on the topic.
LOOOOL. Have you read the number of wives Ahmad Shah Baba and his son Timur had? Fool, go read a book before you talk. Joseph Smith posited a history where Christ came to the US and met with native Americans. What he promulgated and the benefits he reaped are a far far far different thing then the semitic tradition of the Prophets of Israel and the shifting of the lineage to Ismail.
Since Muslims think Muhammad was a holy messenger of God with no imperfect actions, then he shouldn't be owning slaves or concubines or being a megalomaniac warlord.
Holy Messenger of God, yes. A human being, yes. You have your theology all wrong loser. Surah Abasa and the reprimand given to him for turning away from the poorer questioner as well as the Quran itself stating it was not sent to an angel (infallible) make it clear that he was a human of his time And for that time, even his adversaries neither stressed his marriages, his enlightened gradualism toward emancipation of slaves, or his defensive war posturing. They focused on his theology.
Fool, lol - if you want to bring men to task for owning slaves and the like and how they are to women and not have panoramic view of who they are then you better get to burning the Tarikh of Ahmad Shah, Khushal Khan Baba's diwan etc. And if your retort is "they didn't claim to be Prophets" thats not a cop out.. they claimed to be leaders of their people with a moral aptitude.
He can be just remembered as a man of history similar to Thomas Jefferson without being considered a prophet.
Understand?
Understand that you are grossly uninformed and stuck in the 1980s but somehow hypocritically now a secular capitalist after an era of being a marxist compatriot... I understand that but the rest of your bul-l sh-it is only comprehensible to other Quixotic losers



Comment