Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 3,156,108 members, 7,828,922 topics. Date: Wednesday, 15 May 2024 at 04:06 PM

Responding To Buhari's Declaration That Boko Haram Are Not Muslims. - Politics (4) - Nairaland

Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Politics / Responding To Buhari's Declaration That Boko Haram Are Not Muslims. (6709 Views)

Boko Haram Are Displacing More Nigerians - UN / Buhari's Claim That Boko Haram Is ‘Not Holding Any Territory’ Exaggerated / Report: Many Members Of Boko Haram Are Christians (2) (3) (4)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (Reply) (Go Down)

Re: Responding To Buhari's Declaration That Boko Haram Are Not Muslims. by Ivanspring(f): 3:35pm On Jul 11, 2015
true2god:
Sir I have a question for you. Can I carry a bible publicly in saudi arabia, the home of mohammed and the supreme headquaters of islam?

I'm also very interested in the answer to this question.
Re: Responding To Buhari's Declaration That Boko Haram Are Not Muslims. by Nobody: 3:45pm On Jul 11, 2015
The Muslim Jesus, Isa who by the way shares no linguistic link just as we have Ibrahim for Abraham, Musa for Moses, Marryam for Mary, Adamu for Adam, Daoud for David, Yakubu for Jacob and so forth is proof that Islam shares no link to the same God of the Judeo-Christian faith.

Here is a summary of what the Muslim Jesus in the Koran is and why non Muslims especially Christians and Jews should understand why Islam and Muslims have declared war on us.

1.      Jesus is said to return to the earth in the last-days near a mosque in Damascus.
2.      He will arrive at a time when the Mahdi and his army will be preparing to pray.
3.      He will be offered to lead the prayer by the Mahdi, but will decline in direct deference to the Mahdi who Jesus declares to be the leader of the Muslims.
4.      He will then pray behind the Mahdi as a subordinate.
5.      He will be a faithful Muslim
6.      He will make pilgrimage to Mecca.
7.      He will visit Muhammad’s grave, and salute Muhammad, whereby Muhammad will return the salute from the grave.
8.      He will destroy Christianity.
9.      He will repeal the jizyah tax thus causing the only option for Jews and Christians to convert to Islam or die.
10.  He will establish Islamic Shari’ah (Law) throughout the entire earth.
11.  He will kill the Antichrist and his followers made up largely of Jews and women.
12.  He will remain on the earth for roughly forty years, during which time he will marry, have children and then die.

1 Like 1 Share

Re: Responding To Buhari's Declaration That Boko Haram Are Not Muslims. by true2god: 3:47pm On Jul 11, 2015
Ahmed4002:


Jihād is not simply the waging of war, as most people today understand. Jihād of the hand includes struggle by the sword ( Jihādun bis-sayf ), as when one fights the aggressor who attack you in
combative war. (note ) read the statement with an open mind
While is the other form of jihad always ignored and people think jihad is all about war.

we have about 14 jihad
Jihad of the Hand – Development of Civil
Society and Material Progress
Jihād of the hand includes the struggle to build
the nation through material development and
progress, including building up civil society,
acquiring and improving every aspect of
technology and societal progress in general. This
form of Jihād includes scientific discovery,
development of medicine, clinics and hospitals,
communication, transportation, and all necessary
underlying infrastructure for societal progress
and advancement, including educational
institutions. Building also means to open
opportunities to the poor through economic
programs and self empowerment.



Yes the meaning of jihad is literarily war against the infidels. That is the primary meaning of jihad as known and taught by the arab religio-cultural supremacist who see their religion and culture as superior to the rest of the world. The rest of the world which must be subjugated until all religion will be for allahh alone and mohammed his messenger (quran 9:29-30).

However modern jihad is also flexible to accomodate the environment islam finds itself. In the west muslims are few and outnumbers hence they dont usually go for offensive and physical jihad. In the US muslims use legal jihad, supervised by CAIR, to silence islamic critics while at the same time discourage fellow muslims from providing implicative evidence against muslims.

In place like pakistan, muslims also use legal jihad in form of blasphemy law to keep non-muslims silent and to even get rid of potential non-muslim enemy. Any blasphemy against islam\mohammed\allahh is punishable by death in pakistan, iran, sudan, saudi arabia, etc.

We also have educational and cultural jihad. This is the most modern form of jihad whereby saudi oil monies are used in promoting arabian and islamic cultures worldwide thereby threatning any local culture that it comes accross. The cultural jihad involves building of islamic centres, madrassas, mosques in non-muslim countries. Almost all these centres and mosques are financed by saudi arabia (for sunnis) or iran (for shia).

Another form of jihad is rich muslim countries sponsor of muslim militia groups against a non-muslim govt (or different islamic ideologies), like we have in the phillipine, nigeria, yemen, burma etc. This is to ensure that non-compalint non-muslim govt is forcefully brought down and a muslim friendly govt enthrone for allahh and his apostle.

So the context of jihad has evrything to do with arab quest for world cultural domination and the forceful or legal imposition of halal arabic system on weak or gullible culture and people. The only language the arabs and muslims (by extension) understand is strength, strong will and force if any people want to survive islamic invasion.

The russian, the japanese and the chinese understand islam more than the rest of the world.

3 Likes

Re: Responding To Buhari's Declaration That Boko Haram Are Not Muslims. by abduljabbar4(m): 3:49pm On Jul 11, 2015
WombRaiders:


Story.

Why then did Shekau take the time to show us a video of the girls learning to recite the Koran?

You are getting tangled with your own lies.
Which lies? He was teaching the non-muslims. And its not every muslim that knows how to recite Qur'an. Shekau said the Qur'an told him to kill yet he can't prove it.
Re: Responding To Buhari's Declaration That Boko Haram Are Not Muslims. by Nobody: 3:54pm On Jul 11, 2015
abduljabbar4:

Which lies? He was teaching the non-muslims. And its not every muslim that knows how to recite Qur'an. Shekau said the Qur'an told him to kill yet he can't prove it.

So if he was teaching the non Muslims so that implies that all those purported abducted girls in the video are actually Christians

1 Like

Re: Responding To Buhari's Declaration That Boko Haram Are Not Muslims. by abduljabbar4(m): 3:58pm On Jul 11, 2015
WombRaiders:


So if he was teaching the non Muslims so that implies that all those purported abducted girls in the video are actually Christians
Oh my God! Can't he tell the muslims to read along? Sometimes I carry Qur'an and read a Surah that a 10 year old boy can read. A teacher can read out the alphabets and instruct his students to read after him
Re: Responding To Buhari's Declaration That Boko Haram Are Not Muslims. by true2god: 3:58pm On Jul 11, 2015
abduljabbar4:

Which lies? He was teaching the non-muslims. And its not every muslim that knows how to recite Qur'an. Shekau said the Qur'an told him to kill yet he can't prove it.
Shekau umderstands the quran, the hadith and the sunnah (of the prophet) more than you. See the following below, from a kafir like me:

Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4366: “It has been narrated by ‘Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) say: “I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim.”

Ibn Ishaq, Life of Muhammad (Karachi) p.553: …the Apostle of Allah said, “Kill any Jew that falls into your power.”

Bukhari Vol.4 Bk.52 No.176 Narrated ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar: Allah’s Apostle said,“You (i.e. Muslims) will fight with the Jews till some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, ‘O ‘Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)!There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.”

Quran-5.60 “…[the Jews] whom Allah has cursed and brought His wrath upon, and of whom He made apes and swine, and who served the Shaitan…”

Quran-5:72 “Surely, they have disbelieved who say: “Allah is the Messiah … and the Fire will be his abode and for the Zalimoon (polytheists and wrongdoers) there are no helpers.” [Not only does this verse say Christians burn in hell, it also equates them to “polytheists”, thus negating their “special status” as “people of the book”.]

Quran-9.29 “Fight against those who … acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and know themselves subdued.”

A kafir like me has no right teaching you islam. I dont think you have any understanding of islamic text and its principles of abrogations unknown to most non-muslim and muslims alike.

3 Likes

Re: Responding To Buhari's Declaration That Boko Haram Are Not Muslims. by amaben2020(m): 4:09pm On Jul 11, 2015
abduljabbar4:

You think you bastards can defeat muslims? Try it and see.

Islam is already dead, everyone hates you guys, oh what a pity, chai, sorry it's not my fault you are a Muslim

2 Likes

Re: Responding To Buhari's Declaration That Boko Haram Are Not Muslims. by chattelle(m): 4:14pm On Jul 11, 2015
WombRaiders:


Where is the copy pasta here?

I guess you mean these verses I have taken from the words of your Prophet


9:5 Slay the idolaters wherever you find them.

9:6 Those who submit and convert to Islam will be treated well. (Those who don't submit will be killed. See previous verse.)

9:7-9 Don't make treaties with non-Muslims. They are all evildoers and should not be trusted.

9:11 Treat converts to Islam well, but kill those who refuse to convert (see 9:5).

9:12-14 Fight the disbelievers! Allah is on your side; he will give you victory.

9:23 Don't make friends with your disbelieving family members. Those who do so are wrong-doers.

9:29 Fight against Christians and Jews "until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low."

9:33 The "Religion of Truth" (Islam) must prevail, by force if necessary, over all other religions.

9:41 Fight for Allah with your wealth and whatever weapons are available to you.

9:42 Those who refuse to fight for Allah (claiming they are unable) are liars who have destroyed their souls.

9:73 Fight the disbelievers and hypocrites. Be harsh with them. They are all going to hell anyway.

9:81-83 Those who refuse to give their wealth and lives to Allah will face the fire of hell.

9:85 Those who refuse to fight for Allah will be treated (along with their children) as unbelievers.

9:111 Believers must fight for Allah. They must kill and be killed. Allah will reward them for it.

9:123 Fight disbelievers who are near you, and let them see the harshness in you.
m a muslim even though m nt so religious,my parents are but before choosing islam i did some research on this religion of peace, The history of the prophet was written in the Qur'an and hadith,,i will really appreciate it if u can show me where in his history did d prophet (s.a.w) ever drew first blood,if ure able to,i swear i will quit this religion,he was tormented,stoned,chased,almost assasinated,Allahu Akbar and this man was still willing and forgave those who almost killed him if they were to accept islam. All the wars the prophet fought were defensive,he never ordered war on those who did not attack him and I swear he never ordered war except it was the last resort and his oponents did not accept peace. His soldiers were never! Given orders to kill unharmed oe innocent people.pls before cresting threads research very well the word 'islam' means peace. WHY DID BOXER MOHAMMED ALI REFUSE TO JOIN THE ARMY WHEN HE WAS SUMMONED? Assignment for you. I pray you realise ure on the wrong path before its too late. Bonus for you 'Assalam alaikun' means peace be unto you and Allah emphasizes the rewards of saying the above, Find a translated Qur'an and read pls

1 Like

Re: Responding To Buhari's Declaration That Boko Haram Are Not Muslims. by abduljabbar4(m): 4:15pm On Jul 11, 2015
amaben2020:


Islam is already dead, everyone hates you guys, oh what a pity, chai, sorry it's not my fault you are a Muslim
grin
Source
Re: Responding To Buhari's Declaration That Boko Haram Are Not Muslims. by Nobody: 4:25pm On Jul 11, 2015
abduljabbar4:

Where in the Qur'an did you read that muslims should force others to accept Islam? And please there's nothing hard to understand in the Qur'an. Somebody like shekau who claimed to be talking with Allah CANNOT be regarded as a muslim. Take a look at this quote

[s]Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.
— trans. Yusuf Ali, Quran 2:256[/s]
Re: Responding To Buhari's Declaration That Boko Haram Are Not Muslims. by Ahmed4002(m): 4:29pm On Jul 11, 2015
in addition to chattelle post.
As the persecution continued, it became harder and harder to bear, reaching its peak when the Quraysh conspired against the life of the Noble Messenger . At this time, it became imperative that he migrate from Makkah to Madīnah, both for his personal safety, for the very survival of the new faith, and in an effort to avoid war. Thus thirteen years after the commencement of Qur’ān’s revelation, the Prophet ordered his companions to emigrate to Madīnah. Here we see that the Prophet did not engage in repulsing the aggressive attacks against the Muslims by his tribesmen, but sought to avoid conflict and avoid their persecution by means of migration.
Re: Responding To Buhari's Declaration That Boko Haram Are Not Muslims. by Nobody: 4:32pm On Jul 11, 2015
Ahmed4002:
in addition to
chattelle post.

As the persecution continued, it became harder
and harder to bear, reaching its peak when the
Quraysh conspired against the life of the Noble
Messenger . At this time, it became imperative
that he migrate from Makkah to Madīnah, both
for his personal safety, for the very survival of
the new faith, and in an effort to avoid war.
Thus thirteen years after the commencement of
Qur’ān’s revelation, the Prophet ordered his
companions to emigrate to Madīnah.
Here we see that the Prophet did not engage in
repulsing the aggressive attacks against the
Muslims by his tribesmen, but sought to avoid
conflict and avoid their persecution by means of
migration.

Mohammed was never persecuted but riddiculed by his fellow Arabs following the Jews and Christoans denial of him being a prophet or evn know their scripture or doctrine.

This is why he fled Mecca out of shame and not for his life.

1 Like

Re: Responding To Buhari's Declaration That Boko Haram Are Not Muslims. by Nobody: 4:34pm On Jul 11, 2015
abduljabbar4:

Oh my God! Can't he tell the muslims to read along? Sometimes I carry Qur'an and read a Surah that a 10 year old boy can read. A teacher can read out the alphabets and instruct his students to read after him

WombRaiders:
The Muslim Jesus, Isa who by the way shares no linguistic link just as we have Ibrahim for Abraham, Musa for Moses, Marryam for Mary, Adamu for Adam, Daoud for David, Yakubu for Jacob and so forth is proof that Islam shares no link to the same God of the Judeo-Christian faith.

Here is a summary of what the Muslim Jesus in the Koran is and why non Muslims especially Christians and Jews should understand why Islam and Muslims have declared war on us.

1.      Jesus is said to return to the earth in the last-days near a mosque in Damascus.
2.      He will arrive at a time when the Mahdi and his army will be preparing to pray.
3.      He will be offered to lead the prayer by the Mahdi, but will decline in direct deference to the Mahdi who Jesus declares to be the leader of the Muslims.
4.      He will then pray behind the Mahdi as a subordinate.
5.      He will be a faithful Muslim
6.      He will make pilgrimage to Mecca.
7.      He will visit Muhammad’s grave, and salute Muhammad, whereby Muhammad will return the salute from the grave.
8.      He will destroy Christianity.
9.      He will repeal the jizyah tax thus causing the only option for Jews and Christians to convert to Islam or die.
10.  He will establish Islamic Shari’ah (Law) throughout the entire earth.
11.  He will kill the Antichrist and his followers made up largely of Jews and women.
12.  He will remain on the earth for roughly forty years, during which time he will marry, have children and then die.
Re: Responding To Buhari's Declaration That Boko Haram Are Not Muslims. by Ahmed4002(m): 4:41pm On Jul 11, 2015
true2god:
Yes the meaning of jihad is literarily war against the infidels. That is the primary meaning of jihad as known and taught by the arab religio-cultural supremacist who see their religion and culture as superior to the rest of the world. The rest of the world which must be subjugated until all religion will be for allahh alone and mohammed his messenger (quran 9:29-30).

However modern jihad is also flexible to accomodate the environment islam finds itself. In the west muslims are few and outnumbers hence they dont usually go for offensive and physical jihad. In the US muslims use legal jihad, supervised by CAIR, to silence islamic critics while at the same time discourage fellow muslims from providing implicative evidence against muslims.

In place like pakistan, muslims also use legal jihad in form of blasphemy law to keep non-muslims silent and to even get rid of potential non-muslim enemy. Any blasphemy against islam\mohammed\allahh is punishable by death in pakistan, iran, sudan, saudi arabia, etc.

We also have educational and cultural jihad. This is the most modern form of jihad whereby saudi oil monies are used in promoting arabian and islamic cultures worldwide thereby threatning any local culture that it comes accross. The cultural jihad involves building of islamic centres, madrassas, mosques in non-muslim countries. Almost all these centres and mosques are financed by saudi arabia (for sunnis) or iran (for shia).

Another form of jihad is rich muslim countries sponsor of muslim militia groups against a non-muslim govt (or different islamic ideologies), like we have in the phillipine, nigeria, yemen, burma etc. This is to ensure that non-compalint non-muslim govt is forcefully brought down and a muslim friendly govt enthrone for allahh and his apostle.

So the context of jihad has evrything to do with arab quest for world cultural domination and the forceful or legal imposition of halal arabic system on weak or gullible culture and people. The only language the arabs and muslims (by extension) understand is strength, strong will and force if any people want to survive islamic invasion.

The russian, the japanese and the chinese understand islam more than the rest of the world.


So Jihād in its combative sense did not come about
until after the Prophet and his Companions were
forced to leave theircountry and hometown of
Makkah, fleeing for safety to in Madīnah
after thirteen years of propagating the call to
the faith and calling for freedom of belief.
They were oppressed by their enemies and expelled by them from their homes unjustly for no reason except that they practice the religion of Allah and say, “Our Lord is Allah.” They then came under the obligation to take back the country from which they had been expelled.
there are fourteen
different categories of Jihād, only one of which
entails fighting. Since it is this, the combative
Jihād, which is now so much the focus of this
paper we will now speak on the principles of such
combat, who can declare combative Jihād and
the reasons Muslims fight.
Combative Jihād was authorized only after the
Prophet migrated along with his followers from
Makkah to Madīnah, having been persecuted and
finally expelled from their country running from
persecution and torture. This is not unlike what
we see today: people running from persecution
in their home countries, becoming refugees in
foreign nations. And the supporters, al-Anšār,
of Madīnah, welcomed the refugees al-
Muhājirūn, and shared with them all they
possessed of their wealth and their homes.
The struggle in the way of Allah, Jihādun fī
sabīlillāh, when the Prophet began by teaching
the Qur’ān in his country, Makkah, was primarily
one of enlightenment and education while in
Madīnah his message became the basis for a
model constitution for civic society and social
life. This is borne out by the emphasis the
Prophet made on caring for the poor, the
emancipation of slaves, giving rights to women
and building a civic society by levying taxes on
the rich to benefit the poor, establishing
community centers and community homes in
which people could meet. These teachings were
brought to a society in Makkah in which anarchy
ruled and for this reason the Prophet was
persecuted and fled to Madīnah. There he was
able to establish a nation-state based on
freedom of speech, and freedom of religion
where all religions flourished together without
conflict.
Re: Responding To Buhari's Declaration That Boko Haram Are Not Muslims. by Nobody: 4:47pm On Jul 11, 2015
Ahmed4002:



So Jihād in its combative sense did not come about
until after the Prophet and his Companions were
forced to leave theircountry and hometown of
Makkah, fleeing for safety to in Madīnah
after thirteen years of propagating the call to
the faith and calling for freedom of belief.
They were oppressed by their enemies and expelled by them from their homes unjustly for no reason except that they practice the religion of Allah and say, “Our Lord is Allah.” They then came under the obligation to take back the country from which they had been expelled.
there are fourteen
different categories of Jihād, only one of which
entails fighting. Since it is this, the combative
Jihād, which is now so much the focus of this
paper we will now speak on the principles of such
combat, who can declare combative Jihād and
the reasons Muslims fight.
Combative Jihād was authorized only after the
Prophet migrated along with his followers from
Makkah to Madīnah, having been persecuted and
finally expelled from their country running from
persecution and torture. This is not unlike what
we see today: people running from persecution
in their home countries, becoming refugees in
foreign nations. And the supporters, al-Anšār,
of Madīnah, welcomed the refugees al-
Muhājirūn, and shared with them all they
possessed of their wealth and their homes.
The struggle in the way of Allah, Jihādun fī
sabīlillāh, when the Prophet began by teaching
the Qur’ān in his country, Makkah, was primarily
one of enlightenment and education while in
Madīnah his message became the basis for a
model constitution for civic society and social
life. This is borne out by the emphasis the
Prophet made on caring for the poor, the
emancipation of slaves, giving rights to women
and building a civic society by levying taxes on
the rich to benefit the poor, establishing
community centers and community homes in
which people could meet. These teachings were
brought to a society in Makkah in which anarchy
ruled and for this reason the Prophet was
persecuted and fled to Madīnah. There he was
able to establish a nation-state based on
freedom of speech, and freedom of religion
where all religions flourished together without
conflict.

[size=18pt]The Myth: Muhammad was Persecuted by the Meccans for Preaching Islam[/size]

The Truth:

According to Muslim historians, the Meccans were actually quite tolerant of Muhammad preaching his new religion.  Mecca was an open society where different religions were respected.  Polytheists, Jews and Christians lived and worshipped side-by-side, especially during the holy months, when pagan pilgrims would travel long distances from beyond the city to perform their rituals at the Kaaba.

Muhammad brought on the resentment of the local people not by preaching Islam, but by breaking with Meccan tradition and cursing other religions:

When the apostle openly displayed Islam as Allah ordered him, his people did not withdraw or turn against him, so far as I have heard, until he spoke disparagingly of their gods.  When he did that, they took great offence and resolved unanimously to treat him as an enemy. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 167),
"[Muhammad] declared Islam publicly to his fellow tribesmen.  When he did so, they did not withdraw from him or reject him in any way, as far as I have heard, until he spoke of their gods and denounced them." (al-Tabari Vol.VI, p.93)

Although asked to stop, Muhammad continued to stir up trouble by “condemning” the local religion, causing the Meccans great anxiety:
[The Meccans] said they had never known anything like the trouble they had endured from this fellow.  He had declared their mode of life foolish, insulted their forefathers, reviled their religion, divided the community and cursed their gods (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 183).
"We [the Meccans] have never seen the like of what we have endured from this man [Muhammad].  He has derided our traditional values, abused our forefathers, reviled our religion, caused division among us, and insulted our gods.  We have endured a great deal from him." (al-Tabari, Vol.VI p.101)

Not only was this an insult to the people and their traditions, but it also threatened the local economy, which depended on the annual pilgrimage.  Still, they were so eager to live at peace, that they offered Muhammad money if he would stop stirring up trouble:
They decided to send for Muhammad and to negotiate and argue with him... When he came and sat down with them, they explained that that they had sent for him in order that they could talk together.  No Arab had ever treated his tribe as Muhammad had treated them, and they repeated the charges... If it was money he wanted, they would make him the richest of them all; if it was honor, he should be their prince; if it was sovereignty, they would make him king.  (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 188)
Further proof that the Meccans did not have a problem with Islam existing side-by-side with their own religion is found in the episode known as the Satanic Verses.  According to Muslim historians, Muhammad briefly agreed to their demand to cease disparaging the local gods and recognize the rights of others to their religion:
When [the Meccans] heard that, they rejoiced. What he had said about their gods pleased and delighted them, and they gave ear to him… When he came to the prostration and finished the chapter, he prostrated and the Muslims followed their prophet in it, having faith in what he brought them and obeying his command.  Those mushrikūn of Quraysh and others who were in the mosque also prostrated on account of what they had heard him say about their gods.  In the whole mosque there was no believer or kāfir who did not prostrate. (al-Tabari, the Tarikh Vol. 1)
The Meccans were clearly relieved that the unprecedented tension over religious beliefs was broken.  They rejoiced by praying alongside the Muslims at the Kaaba. They accepted the Muslims once Muhammad accepted them.
Unfortunately the period of peace and brotherhood was short-lived.  Muhammad soon reneged on his words after his own people began to question the contradiction between his previous claims and his new-found tolerance for other faiths.  This incident, particularly his about-face, had the effect of ratcheting up the tension and hostility all the more.

1 Like

Re: Responding To Buhari's Declaration That Boko Haram Are Not Muslims. by Nobody: 4:49pm On Jul 11, 2015
[size=18pt]The Myth: Muhammad was Tortured by the Meccans[/size]

The Truth:

This never happened.  Unlike some of his less fortunate followers, Muhammad enjoyed the protection of his powerful uncle, Abu Talib:
[The leading men of Mecca] went to Abu Tablib [and said] “Your nephew has cursed our gods, insulted our religion, mocked our way of life and accused our forefathers of error. Either you must stop him or you must let us get at him”
But Abu Talib would not relent:
The apostle continued on his way… In consequence, his relations with the Quraish [Meccans] deteriorated and men withdrew from him in enmity. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 168).
For thirteen years, the worst that ever happened to Muhammad at Mecca was that he had dust thrown on him by a heckler and was occasionally mocked while praying at the Kaaba.  He continued to provoke the Meccans, at one point telling them that he had come to bring them "slaughter" (Tabari Vol. IV, page 101)  This caused them to seize Muhammad in an attempt (by one named Uqba) to "throttle" him, but he was released unharmed almost immediately:
Then they left him. That is the worst that I ever saw the Quraish do to him. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 184).
I asked 'Abdullah bin 'Amr bin Al-'As to inform me of the worst thing the pagans had done to Allah's Apostle. He said: "While Allah's Apostle was praying in the courtyard of the ka'ba, 'Uqba bin Abi Mu'ait came and seized Allah's Apostle by the shoulder and twisted his garment round his neck and throttled him severely. Abu Bakr came and seized 'Uqba's shoulder and threw him away from Allah's Apostle and said, "Would you kill a man because he says: 'My Lord is Allah,' and has come to you with clear Signs from your Lord?" (Bukhari 60:339)

Though not injured, Muhammad would have his opportunity to forgive the man who had seized him when Uqba was captured following the Battle of Badr.  According to his biographers, the prophet of Islam chose instead to have him slaughtered even as the unarmed prisoner begged for his life.

The Hadith also confirms that Muhammad was not physically harmed by the Meccans:
Allah's Apostle said, "Doesn't it astonish you how Allah protects me from the Quraish's abusing and cursing?  They abuse Mudhammam and curse Mudhammam while I am Muhammad (and not Mudhammam)" (Bukhari 56:733)
As mentioned in several places, the worst indignity that Muhammad endured was an episode in which Abu Jahl and others mocked him while he was praying by putting the intestines of an animal on his back (Bukhari 4:241).  The men who did this were later killed by the Muslims.

Neither does the Quran provide any support for the contemporary thesis that Muhammad suffered physical abuse at Mecca, despite the many harsh things said about those who rejected him - the redundancy of which is so abundant in the Quran that it comprises the majority of the text. 
There is also an entire Sura is devoted to describing the gruesome and sadistic torture awaiting Abu Lahab and his wife in hell, who are the only people mentioned by name in the Qur'an (other than Muhammad, of course).  Yet, according to the authentic Hadith, their only crime was personal mockery of "the Messenger" at Mecca (Muslim 406, Bukhari 60:475).

1 Like

Re: Responding To Buhari's Declaration That Boko Haram Are Not Muslims. by Ahmed4002(m): 4:50pm On Jul 11, 2015
true2god:
Sir I have a question for you. Can I carry a bible publicly in saudi arabia, the home of mohammed and the supreme headquaters of islam?

go make research. how many Christian working with Saudi aramco and also those studying petroleum related courses in king fahad university. whether they prevent them from practising Christianity.

Their honor and rights are under the protection
of Islām and they are given freedom to the
right of deliberation and discussions within the
limits of reason and decorum, while adhering
to respect, good conduct and avoiding rudeness
and harshness.

This also shows that even if unbelievers come to
the Muslims, seeking to live and work in their
nation for any reason, it is ordered to grant
them safety and security to demonstrate the
great care and compassion Islam takes in the
care of others. Then such are free to move
where they like.
Re: Responding To Buhari's Declaration That Boko Haram Are Not Muslims. by Nobody: 4:52pm On Jul 11, 2015
[size=18pt]The Myth: Muhammad only Waged War in Self-Defense[/size]

The Truth:

The myth that warfare is only justified in Islam under the condition of self-defense is disproved by the account of the Battle of Badr, in which Muhammad sent his men out to raid caravans, then deliberately provoked a battle with the Meccan army sent out to defend them.  The case for aggressive warfare is also supported by the fate of the three Jewish tribes of Medina, who were cleansed because they had rejected Muhammad’s claims of prophethood (and because the Muslims wanted their possessions).

Consider the fate of the Banu Mustaliq, an Arab tribe:

"The Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives" (Bukhari 46:717)
Although there are many reliable accounts from the Hadith and Sira that mention the Mustaliq grazing cattle, not one mentions Muhammad making any effort at peacemaking.  In this case, Muhammad's men raped the women (with his approval) after slaughtering the men (Sahih Muslim 3371).  What does raping a female captive have to do with self-defense?

In many situations, Muhammad waged war for the purpose of revenge, such as the attack on the Lihyan, in which the people were clearly not prepared for war and saved themselves only by fleeing into the hills (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 718).  Muhammad also attacked the people of Taif as soon as he had the opportunity to avenge their rejection of him (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 280 & 872).

Also disproving the myth that Muhammad only fought in self-defense is the account of his first attack on the Christians.  There was no compelling reason for him to send an army to Muta (in Syria, where they met with disaster at the hands of the Byzantines).  Had this been a matter of self-defense, then the enemy would surely have followed the routed army back to Arabia, but this was not the case (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 791).

Near the end of his life, the prophet of Islam directed military campaigns for the mere purpose of spreading Islamic rule. He knew that some cities would resist and others would not. He left instructions to his people for dealing with each case:

The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: If you come to a township (which has surrendered without a formal war) and stay therein, you have a share (that will be in the form of an award) in (the properties obtained from) it.  If a township disobeys Allah and His Messenger (and actually fights against the Muslims) one-fifth of the booty seized therefrom is for Allah and His Apostle and the rest is for you. (Sahih Muslim 4346)
As can be seen, those who were not at war with the Muslims are to be subjugated anyway, and their property seized.  The only distinguishing factor is the extent of Muslim entitlement following the victory.

Military campaigns to extend Islamic domination include the raid on Tabuk, which was a second incursion into the Christian territory of Syria, in which Muhammad forced the local populace to pay him tribute after ambushing and killing local civilians to assert his authority (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 903).  Another example would be the “convert or die” mandate given to an Arab tribe, the Banu al-Harith:

Then the apostle sent Khalid bin Walid… to the Banu al-Harith and ordered him to invite them to Islam three days before he attacked them. If they accepted then he was to accept it from them, and if they declined he was to fight them. So Khalid set out and came to them, and sent out riders in all directions inviting the people to Islam, saying, “If you accept Islam you will be safe.” So the men accepted Islam as they were invited. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 959)
Obviously self-defense was not a factor in any of these cases (even though some Muslims are prone to embellish the record with imaginary details not found therein).  As with the capture of Mecca in 630, these early Muslims had clear military superiority and the target of their aggression was in no position to defend itself.

In fact, the first part of the 9th Sura, the most bellicose chapter of the Qur’an, was revealed shortly after the Muslims had established military dominance in Mecca.  Consider one of the more violent verses:

But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them (9:5)
The words, “when the forbidden months are past,” precludes the possibility that this was a matter of self-defense.  The Muslims had already been given the divine right to fight during the sacred months, and it is simply implausible that they would have suffered attacks over a four month period without defending themselves.  That they were not under attack is consistent with the historical context, in which the Haj period was a traditional time of peace and tolerance throughout Arabia.
Although not under attack from the pagans, Muhammad ordered his men to chase and kill the unbelievers following the Haj.  The pagans who agreed to become Muslim (ie. practice the pillars of Islam, zakat and salat) would be allowed to live following their conversion.  Verse 9:29 offers a separate rule for Jews and Christians, allowing them to keep their religion as long as they pay protection money to Muslims and acknowledge the inferiority of their faith.  Should they resist, then they should be killed.

One of the best documented examples of Muslim aggression during the lifetime of Muhammad is the attack on the peaceful community of Khaybar.  This followed the treaty of Hudaibiya between the Muslims and Meccans, which called for a period of peace between the two groups.  The treaty was controversial with Muslims, not only because it contradicted Allah’s prior mandate to “drive out” the Meccans with violent force (2:191), but also because Muhammad agreed not to be recognized as a prophet in the document (Muslim 4401).

Muhammad decided that it was prudent to attack the Jews at Khaybar in order to regain the respect of his people and placate their grumbling with military victory and (especially) the stolen wealth that followed.  This is embarrassing to modern-day Muslim apologists, who try to justify the siege by imagining that the sleepy farming community, located about 100 miles outside of Medina, posed some sort of necessary threat.

Unfortunately for contemporary apologists, not only is there no supporting evidence that the Muslims were under attack by the Khaybar, there are at least three historical references that flatly contradict any notion of self-defense on the part of Muhammad.  The first is a description of the initial attack by Ibn Ishaq/Hisham:

We met the workers of Khaybar coming out in the morning with their spades and baskets.  When they saw the apostle and the army they cried, “Muhammad with his force,” and turned tail and fled… The apostle seized the property piece by piece… (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 757)
The people of Khaybar were not attacking Muhammad.  They were farming their land with shovels and buckets, not even knowing that they were supposed to be at war.  This is further confirmed in the same text:

When the apostle raided a people he waited until the morning.  If he heard a call to prayer he held back; if he did not hear it he attacked.  We came to Khaybar by night, and the apostle passed the night there; and when morning came he did not hear the call to prayer, so he rode and we rode with him. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 757)
Muhammad attacked only after waiting to see if the people of Khaybar issued a morning call to prayer. This would have no possible relevance had they already been at war with him.

Perhaps the best proof that Muhammad was not acting in self-defense is the fact that his own people did not understand why they were marching to war.  His son-in-law, who was in charge of the military expedition, had to ask for justification:

Allah's Messenger called Ali [and said]: “Proceed on and do not look about until Allah grants you victory,” and Ali went a bit and then halted and did not look about and then said in a loud voice: “Allah's Messenger, on what issue should I fight with the people?”  Thereupon he (the Prophet) said: ”Fight with them until they bear testimony to the fact that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger…” (Sahih Muslim 5917)
The question Ali posed would have been unnecessary had the Muslims been under attack by the Khaybar or if the answer to the question were obvious.  As it is, Muhammad’s reply underscores the ostensible purpose of the campaign, which was to force the Jews into acknowledging the superiority of Islam.

Muhammad’s men easily captured Khaybar and divided up the loot.  The prophet of Islam tortured the community’s treasurer to extract information, then had him killed (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 764).  Muhammad then took the man’s widow, Saffiya, as his wife after trading two other captured women to one of his lieutenants (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 758).  The surviving Jews were allowed to stay on their land provided that they gave their Muslim masters an ample share of their crops.

Therefore, the rule of aggression in Islam, from the example set by Muhammad, is that it is proportional to the power held by Muslims, and not the persecution that they are under.  The rare verses of peace in the Qur'an were "revealed" in Mecca, when true oppression existed (in some cases).  The verses of violence that are revealed later correspond to Muslim military might even as any persecution of Muslims had largely dried up.
Re: Responding To Buhari's Declaration That Boko Haram Are Not Muslims. by Nobody: 4:53pm On Jul 11, 2015
[size=18pt]The Myth: Muhammad Would Never Approve of Murder[/size]

The Truth:

“Kill any Jew that falls into your power!”

This was the command that Muhammad issued following his people's murder of another Jew named Ka’b al-Ashraf.  From the nighttime assassination of Asma bint Marwan (a poet and mother of five) to the Christians killed at Tabuk, this is but one of many examples from the Sira that refute the silly idea that the prophet of Islam never approved of murder.

The successful and gory assassination of al-Ashraf convinced Muhammad that the time was right to assert his dominance in Medina.  He wanted to instill terror into the hearts of the local Jewish population, many of whom were having second thoughts about  allowing the Muslim immigrants into their community.  Muhammad had already begun killing and evicting them only eighteen months after arriving.

The intimidation campaign was particularly targeted at the the last two surviving Jewish tribes (the Nadir and Qurayza).  Gleeful over the successful assassination of the Nadir leader, al-Ashraf, the prophet of Islam immediately exhorted his men to a random murder spree that would further narrow down any opposition via terror and conversion.

Following Muhammad’s mandate to kill "any Jew that falls into your power," a Muslim follower stabbed his Jewish business partner to death.  The Muslim's brother was initially horrified by the crime, since they were not only on friendly terms with the victim, but the merchant was integral to their own livelihood:

The apostle said, “Kill any Jew that falls into your power.”  Thereupon Muhayyisa leapt upon Ibn Sunayna, a Jewish merchant with whom they had social and business relations, and killed him.  Huwayyisa was not a Muslim at the time, though he was the elder brother.  When Muhayyisa killed [the Jew] Huwayyisa began to beat him, saying, “You enemy of God, did you kill him when much of the fat on your belly comes from his wealth?”  Muhayyisa answered, “Had the one who ordered me to kill him ordered me to kill you I would have cut your head off.”  This was the beginning of Huwayyisa’s acceptance of Islam… [Huwayyisa] replied exclaimed, “By God, a religion which can bring you to this is marvelous!” and he became a Muslim. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 554)
The unbelieving brother is quite impressed with Muhammad’s ability to break the social contract and influence the killing even of one's own family.  As such, he accepts the “Religion of Peace” on the spot (assuming his conversion was not out of self-preservation).

Another example of Muhammad clearly approving of murder occurred following a botched attempt to assassinate a rival in Mecca.  Muhammad's hand-picked assassins were discovered before they could carry out their mission and had to hide in a cave.  An innocent man grazing his horse soon came their way:

While we were in the cave, up came Thuman bin Malik bin Ubaydullah al-Taymi cutting grass for a horse of his.  He kept coming nearer until he was at the very entrance of the cave... I went out and stabbed him under the breast with the dagger.  He shrieked so loud that the Meccans heard him.  (al-Tabari 1439)
After this, the killers later found themselves in another cave, into which a one-eyed shepherd haplessly entered while taking a break:

When he asked who I was I told him that I was one of the [Muslims].  Then he laid down beside me and lifting up his voice began to sing: "I won't be a Muslim as long as I live, nor heed to their religion give."
I said (to myself) 'you will soon know' and as soon as the badu was asleep and snoring I got up and killed him in a more horrible way than any man has been killed.  I put the end of my bow in his sound eye, then I bore down on it until I it out at the back of his neck. (al-Tabari 1440)

Amazingly, the murder spree was not yet finished.  The Muslims killed a third Meccan on the way back and took another prisoner.  Muhammad was told about the various murders, including that of the sleeping shepherd whose only "crime" was to say that he would never be Muslim.  His reaction:

{Muhammad] laughed so that one could see his back teeth.  He asked me the news and when I told him what had happened, he blessed me.  (Tabari 1441)
Even the devout Muslim historians could not help but note these and many other examples of Muhammad ordering or approving the killing of non-Muslims who were not guilty of capital crimes.  Since murder is defined in Islam as a person killing another member of their own class (see the Law of Equality, Qur’an 2:178), becoming a Muslim was the only way to ensure that one wasn’t murdered by Muhammad’s men at the time.  Hence the religion's early success.
Re: Responding To Buhari's Declaration That Boko Haram Are Not Muslims. by Nobody: 4:55pm On Jul 11, 2015
[size=18pt]The Myth: Muhammad Raided Meccan Caravans to Retrieve Stolen Property[/size]

The Truth:

After his eviction by the Meccans, Muhammad and his Muslims found refuge many miles away in Medina where they were not being bothered by their former adversaries.  Despite this, Muhammad sent his men on seven unsuccessful raids against Meccan caravans before finally finding one, whereupon they murdered the driver and plundered the contents. This particular caravan was especially vulnerable because the attack came during the holy months, when the merchants were least expecting it due to the generally agreed upon rule that the tribes of the area would not attack each other during that time:

[A Muslim raider] who had shaved his head, looked down on them [the Meccan caravan], and when they saw him they felt safe and said, "They are pilgrims, you have nothing to fear from them."  (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 424)
The shaved head caused the Muslims to look like pilgrims rather than raiders, which instilled a false sense of security in the drivers.  However, Islam was a different sort of religion than what the Meccans were used to:

[The Muslim raiders] encouraged each other, and decided to kill as many as they could of them and take what they had.  Waqid shot Amr bin al-Hadrami with an arrow and killed him...  (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 425)
According to Ibn Kathir, the Muslims living in Mecca did not dispute that their brethren in Medina had killed, captured and stolen from the Quraish, but they were reluctant to accept that this had occurred during the sacred months:

The Quraysh said that Muhammad and his Companions violated the sanctity of the Sacred Month and shed blood, confiscated property and took prisoners during it. Those who refuted them among the Muslims who remained in Makkah replied that the Muslims had done that during the month of Sha`ban (which is not a sacred month). (Ibn Kathir)
Faced with losing face by admitting his error, Muhammad went into his hut and later emerged with a convenient and timely revelation "from Allah" that provided retroactive permission for the raid (and, of course sanctioned the stolen possessions for his own use):

They ask you concerning the sacred month about fighting in it. Say: Fighting in it is a grave matter, and hindering (men) from Allah's way and denying Him, and (hindering men from) the Sacred Mosque and turning its people out of it, are still graver with Allah, and persecution is graver than slaughter (Qur'an 2:217)
Notice that the Qur'an does not say that the Meccans were guilty of killing Muslims, only that they were "persecuting" them by preventing them from the 'sacred mosque' (the Kaaba).  The killing of the Meccan driver by the Muslims was the first deadly encounter between the two adversaries.  This is of acute embarrassment to contemporary Muslim apologists, who like to say that Islam is against killing for any reason other than self-defense. 

For this reason, there has arisen the modern myth that the Muslims of that time were simply “taking back” what was theirs - rather than exacting revenge and stealing.  Contemporary apologists like to say that Muhammad and his followers were basically robbed by the Meccans on their way out of town.  (The 1976 movie, “The Message,” explicitly perpetuates this misconception as well).

Apologists are somewhat vague as to how property theft justifies killing (particularly on the part of someone they otherwise like to portray as the paragon of forgiveness), nor do they attempt to explain how the particular victims of subsequent Muslim raids (usually the caravan drivers and laborers) were directly responsible for this supposed theft.  This is the least of their problems, however, since not only is there no evidence to support the misconception that the Muslims were "taking back what was theirs" but it is specifically contradicted by the early historical record.

The event of the first attack on Meccan caravans is detailed quite well by Muhammad's biographer, Ibn Ishaq/Hisham, but nowhere does he mention the contents of the caravan as being Muslim property.  In fact Ishaq explicitly describes the goods as belonging to the Meccans:

A caravan of Quraish carrying dry raisins and leather and other merchandise of Quraish passed by...” (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 424)
Note also that the cargo plundered from the caravan specifically included raisins, which would have long since perished had they been from grapes grown and dried by the Muslim before they left Mecca nearly a full year earlier.  A fifth of the loot was also given to Muhammad as war booty, which would not have been the case if it rightfully belonged to another Muslim (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 425).

Most of the Muslims living in Mecca had few assets to begin with, having been drawn largely from the lower rungs of the social ladder, but those who did would have had several years to liquidate their assets or transport them to a new location.  As the instigator of the discord, Muhammad was the only Muslim literally forced to flee Mecca in the dead of night, but even his business affairs were sewn up on his behalf by Ali, his son-in-law:

Ali stayed in Mecca for three days and nights until he had restored the deposits which the apostle held.  (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 335)
So, if the Muslims at Medina weren't trying to recover stolen goods, why then were they plundering Meccan caravans?  Muhammad provides the real reason for the looting and the killing:

“If you have killed in the sacred month, they have kept you back from the way of Allah with their unbelief in Him, and from the sacred mosque, and have driven you from it when you were its people.  This is a more serious matter with Allah then the killing of those of them whom you have slain. ‘And seduction is worse than killing.’   They used to seduce the Muslim in his religion until they made him return to unbelief after believing, and that is worse with Allah than killing.” (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 426)
Thus, the justification for killing the Meccans and stealing their goods is purely religious. The only thing stolen from the Muslims was the ability to enter the sacred mosque (ie. complete the Haj ritual at the Kaaba).  The innocent caravan drivers were therefore fair game for Muhammad’s deadly raids simply because Muslims felt “kept back from the way of Allah” by the “unbelief” of the Meccan leadership.
This is all the more apparent by the next major episode in which Muhammad sent his men to plunder caravans, which precipitated the Battle of Badr:

When the Apostle heard about Abu Sufyan coming from Syria, he summoned the Muslims and said, “This is the Quraish caravan containing their property. Go out to attack it, perhaps Allah will give it as a prey.” (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 428)
In this case the Meccans were returning to Mecca from a business trip to Syria.  Any goods they were carrying would have been purchased from the Syrians. 
Over the next nine years, the principle source of income for Muslims was wealth forcibly extracted from others.  The targets of misfortune expanded well beyond the Meccans.  By the time Muhammad died, his men were finding excuse to raid and steal from many other Arab tribes, Jews and even Christians.  Like the mafia, a protection racket gradually evolved where other tribes were allowed to live peacefully provided they paid tribute to Muslim rulers.
Re: Responding To Buhari's Declaration That Boko Haram Are Not Muslims. by Nobody: 4:56pm On Jul 11, 2015
[size=18pt]The Myth: Muhammad Would Never Approve of Rape[/size]

The Truth:

It is against Islam to rape Muslim women, but Muhammad actually encouraged the rape of others captured in battle. This hadith provides the context for the Qur’anic verse (4:24):

The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain.  They met their enemy and fought with them.  They defeated them and took them captives.
Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers.  So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse: (Sura 4:24) "And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess." (Abu Dawud 2150, also Muslim 3433)

Actually, as the hadith indicates, it wasn't Muhammad, but "Allah the Exalted" who told the men to rape the women in front of their husbands - which is all the more reason not to think of Islam as being the same as other religions.

Note also that the husbands of these unfortunate victims were obviously alive after battle.  This is important because it flatly contradicts those apologists who like to argue that the women Muhammad enslaved were widowed and thus unable to fend for themselves.  (Even if the apologists were right, what sort of a moral code is it that forces a widow to choose between being raped and starving?)

There are several other episodes in which Muhammad is offered the clear opportunity to disavow raping women - yet he instead offers advice on how to proceed.  In one case, his men were reluctant to devalue their new slaves for later resale by getting them pregnant.  Muhammad was asked about coitus interruptus in particular:

"O Allah's Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interruptus?"  The Prophet said, "Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence.” (Bukhari 34:432)
As indicated, the prophet of Islam did not mind his men raping the women, provided they ejaculated within the bodies of their victims.

As one might imagine, Muhammad's obvious approval of raping women captured in battle and his own personal participation as recorded in many places is of intense inconvenience to the Muslim apologists of our time.  For this reason, some of them attempt to explain away these many episodes and Qur'anic references to sex with captives by pretending that these are cases in which women have fled bad marriages and sought refuge with the Muslims.  Some apologists even refer to them as "wives," even though the Qur'an makes a clear distinction between "those whom thy right hand possesses" and true wives (see Sura 33:50).

Beyond the desperation of the 21st century apologist however, there is absolutely nothing in the historical text that supports this rosy revision of Muslim history.  The women of the Banu Mustaliq were sold into slavery following their rape:

"We went out with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter" (Sahih Muslim 3371)

In fact, female slaves were traded like any other simple commodity by Muhammad and his band of devoted followers:

"Then the apostle sent Sa-d b. Zayd al-Ansari, brother of Abdu'l-Ashal with some of the captive women of Banu Qurayza to Najd and he sold them for horses and weapons." (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham/Hisham 693)
Is it Islamic to sell one's wife for horses?  Clearly these were not wives!

More importantly, by definition a "captured" woman is not one who is fleeing her husband.  She is fleeing her captor (ie. the Muslim slave raider).  This hadith describes a typical raid, in which the women and children are captured as they are attempting to flee the attacking Muslims:

“…and then we attacked from all sides and reached their watering-place where a battle was fought.  Some of the enemies were killed and some were taken prisoners.  I saw a group of persons that consisted of women and children [escaping in the distance].  I was afraid lest they should reach the mountain before me, so I shot an arrow between them and the mountain.  When they saw the arrow, they stopped.  So I brought them, driving them along” (Sahin Muslim 4345)
The Muslim narrator (who happens to be Muhammad's adopted son) sees the women trying to escape (following the massacre of their men) and cuts off their route by shooting an arrow into their path.  These aren't women trying to seek refuge with the Muslims.  They are trying to avoid capture by the Muslims.

The same hadith goes on to recount that Muhammad personally demanded one of the captured women for his own use:

I drove them along until I brought them to Abu Bakr who bestowed that girl upon me as a prize.  So we arrived in Medina.  I had not yet disrobed her when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) met me in the street and said: “Give me that girl.” (Sahih Muslim 4345)
The prophet of Islam and his companions used war to collect women for personal sexual use and for trading.  Unless she was arbitrarily declared as someone's wife, the woman became a sex slave.  In no case was her fate tied to anything that she had personally done, nor was she given a choice about Her future.
Re: Responding To Buhari's Declaration That Boko Haram Are Not Muslims. by Nobody: 4:58pm On Jul 11, 2015
[size=18pt]The Myth: Muhammad Never Killed Children[/size]

The Truth:

It is probably fair to say that Muhammad did not approve of the intentional killing of children.  A verse from the Qur’an laments the pre-Islamic Arab practice of infanticide against baby girls.  Other evidence from the Hadith suggests that he instructed his men not to kill children in battle, if it could be avoided, but to capture them for slavery. 

Children were often given a specific reprieve from the mandate to "kill those who disbelieve in Allah":

[Muhammad said] “Fight everyone in the way of Allah and kill those who disbelieve in Allah.  Do not be deceitful with the spoils; do not be treacherous, nor mutilate nor kill children.” (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 992)
But Muhammad’s definition of a child was not the same as our modern understanding.  Following the surrender of the Qurayza stronghold, he ordered the execution of every male child who had reached puberty.  His men had the boys drop their pants so that they could chop the head off of anyone with pubic hair (Abu Dawud 4390).

Keep in mind that many Muslims often insist that Aisha reached puberty at age nine, since that is the age that Muhammad began having sex with her.  If so, then the age for “manhood” among boys might have been considered around twelve.

Muhammad also played a bit loose with the lives of women and children during wartime.  As recorded in both Bukhari and Sahih Muslim:
It is reported on the authority of Sa'b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said: “They are from them.” (Sahih Muslim 4322, see also Bukhari 52:256)
This does not justify the targeted killing of women and children per se, but it does prove that collateral damage is entirely acceptable if it accomplishes the military goal of spreading Islamic rule. 

Muhammad used a catapult against he city of Taif, which kills indiscriminately.  The only crime the citizens were guilty of was evicting him are rejecting his claims of being a prophet.

Muhammad drew a distinction between Muslim and non-Muslim children and implied that it would be permissible to kill a child who has no prospect of accepting Islam:

The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) used not to kill the children, so thou shouldst not kill them unless you could know what Khadir had known about the child he killed, or you could distinguish between a child who would grow up to he a believer (and a child who would grow up to be a non-believer), so that you killed the (prospective) non-believer and left the (prospective) believer aside. (Sahih Muslim 4457)
After capturing Mecca, the prophet of Islam also ordered the execution of two “singing girls” who had mocked him in verse:

“…two singing-girls Fartana and her friend who used to sing satirical songs about the apostle, so he ordered that they should be killed…” (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 819)
Re: Responding To Buhari's Declaration That Boko Haram Are Not Muslims. by Nobody: 4:59pm On Jul 11, 2015
[size=18pt]The Myth: Muhammad Always Chose Peace over War[/size]

The Truth:

Actually, Muhammad rarely if ever opted for peace when he had the power to dominate.  As the Hadith records in many places, the prophet of Islam said that he had “been called to fight all men until they testify that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is His messenger.”  The goal of Islam is the rule of Islam.

Although originally invited to Medina to be a peacemaker (of all things) the prophet of Islam immediately brought war to this community of traders by first raiding Meccan caravans - which brought down foreign hostility on all residents - then later exploiting internal divisions for personal gain.  (See Myth: The Muslims were under Meccan Persecuted at Medina for a timeline of Muhammad's constant attempts to provoke war with the Meccans).

As we have detailed, Muhammad conquered each of the Jewish tribes at Medina as soon as he had the ability.  He also did what he could to provoke the Battle of Badr, forcing the Meccans to fight when they clearly did not want war.  Near the end of his life, he directed a continuous series of foreign military expeditions to attack people who were not attacking the Muslims, with the goal of obtaining tribute or conversions.

One example that refutes the myth that Muhammad chose peace over war is when a report came to him that a man named Usayr ibn Zarim was attempting to gather an armed force against the Muslims.  According to the true story of what happened (found in Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 981), Muhammad sent an armed band to Usayr's community, which convinced him that he would be guaranteed safe passage to a meeting with Muhammad to discuss peace.  However, once vulnerable, the leader and his thirty companions were easily slaughtered by the Muslim tricksters.

Another well-documented example is the series of events leading up to the taking of Mecca by his army in 630.  As we have shown, the Muslims were the first to break the treaty between themselves and the Meccans by not returning fleeing Muslims to Mecca (as stipulated in the agreement) as well as by raiding Meccan caravans and murdering the drivers (both before and after the treaty).  But when a tribe allied with the Meccans killed members of a tribe allied with the Muslims in revenge for an earlier murder, it was feared the Muhammad would not be so accommodating.

The leader at Mecca was a man named Abu Sufyan.  Anticipating that the Muslims might look for an excuse to attack his people, Abu Sufyan traveled to Medina to engage Muhammad in dialogue for the purpose of assuring peace between the two parties.  Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 807 details the poor man’s efforts to see the Muslim leader in a long passage that plainly indicates his mounting desperation for peace.

It is during this visit that Abu Sufyan enters the homes of a number of prominent Muslims, including Muhammad’s son-in-law and daughter.  Clearly he is not interested in harming them.  In the end, Abu Sufyan is rebuffed by Muhammad and does not gain the opportunity to talk peace.  The prophet of Islam is more interested in a surprise attack on Mecca:

[Muhammad] said, “Oh Allah, take eyes and ears from the Quraysh [Mecca] so that we may take them by surprise in their land,” and the men got themselves ready. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 808)
In that the other Meccans had no idea that they were supposed to be at war with the Muslims, Muhammad was entirely successful:

When the apostle had reached Marr al-Azhran, [the] Quraysh were completely ignorant of the fact and did not even know what he was doing. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 811).
When Abu Sufyan learned that Muhammad was marching on the city, he made one last effort to talk peace with him, this time attempting to use the Muslim leader’s wife as an intercessory.  The woman attempted to reason with Muhammad, referring to Abu Sufyan and his companion as Muhammad’s own “cousin and brother-in-law” (which he was).  Muhammad turned them away with this reply:

“I have no use for them. As for my cousin, he as wounded my pride; and as for my aunt’s son and my brother-in-law, he spoke insulting of me in Mecca.” (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 811)
Thus, according to his own biographer, the prophet of Islam chose to go to war against an unwilling party merely out of personal pride and personal offense.  After conquering Mecca he even ordered the executions of those who had insulted him, apparently oblivious to the hypocrisy, since it was a third-party revenge killing that he originally used as justification for his own attack on the city.
Re: Responding To Buhari's Declaration That Boko Haram Are Not Muslims. by Nobody: 5:01pm On Jul 11, 2015
[size=18pt]The Myth: Muhammad Rejected Conversions to Islam Made under Duress[/size]

The Truth:

The oft-quoted Qur’anic verse “let there be no compulsion in religion” (2:256) takes a serious beating against the reality of Muhammad’s later years.  The prophet of Islam had no real power when this seemingly tolerant passage was “revealed”.  Things were much different, however, by the time the ninth Sura was recited, which explicitly calls for forcing others into prayer and paying the jizya (9:29).

Examples from Muhammad’s life prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not opposed to forcible conversions and even ordered them once he had the military authority to do so,

Continuing the story of Abu Sufyan (see Myth: Muhammad always Chose Peace over War), when the Meccan leader visited the Muslim army camp in 630 in an attempt to convince Muhammad not to make war, he was chased into their prophet's presence at the point of a sword.  There he was “invited” to embrace Islam:

[Muhammad] said, “Woe to you, Abu Sufyan, isn’t it time that you recognize that I am Allah’s apostle?” He (Abu Sufyan) answered, “As to that I still have some doubt.” I (the narrator) said to him, “Submit and testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the apostle of Allah before you lose your head,” so he did so. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 814)
No word of admonishment from Muhammad is recorded.  The prophet of Islam fully accepted the “conversion” and immediately made use of Abu Sufyan to further his political goals.  (Abu Sufyan and his progeny had the last laugh, however, as they went on to inherit the Muslim empire and murder the prophet's favorite grandchildren... but that is a different story).

After he had conquered Mecca, Muhammad began ordering the executions of those who had insulted him or apostatized.  One of these was his former scribe, Abdullah bin Sa’d, who transcribed Muhammad's “revelations” from Allah, but lost his faith in the "prophet" when the latter adopted suggested editing (Allah’s word was supposed to be unalterable).  Abdullah saved himself by reverting back to Islam in Muhammad’s presence at Mecca as the prophet of Islam waited for someone to strike off his head:

The apostle remained silent for a long time til finally he said ‘yes.’  When Uthman [and Abdullah] had left, he said to his companions who were sitting around him, “I kept silent so that one of you might get up and strike off his head!”  One of the Ansar said, “Then why didn’t you give me a sign, O apostle of Allah?”  He answered that a prophet does not kill by pointing. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 819).
Several poets were murdered by Muhammad at Mecca for the crime of having mocked him.  Another such poet, named Ka’b bin Zuhayr, saved his own skin by converting to Islam after finding no other way to avoid execution. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 888-889).

The Hadith also records that many other Meccans converted to Islam under obvious duress.  As one apprehensive observer noted to Muhammad at the time:

(They embraced Islam because) they were defeated at your hands (and as such their Islam is not dependable). (Sahih Muslim 4453)
These sorts of conversions were fully recognized by Muhammad, as proven by this hadith, in which he rebukes a soldier for killing a person who had "converted" merely to save his life:

Allah's Apostle sent us towards Al-Huruqa, and in the morning we attacked them and defeated them.  I and an Ansari man followed a man from among them and when we took him over, he said, "La ilaha illal-Lah."  On hearing that, the Ansari man stopped, but I killed him by stabbing him with my spear.  When we returned, the Prophet came to know about that and he said, "O Usama! Did you kill him after he had said "La ilaha ilal-Lah?"  I said, "But he said so only to save himself."  The Prophet kept on repeating that so often that I wished I had not embraced Islam before that day.  (Bukhari 59:568)
(Note that Muhammad was not in the least bit concerned that the victims were slaughtered while fleeing the Muslim army.  This is another strike against the myth that Muslims are only supposed to fight in self-defense).

By this time Muhammad was spreading Islam by any means necessary.  He was even using captured wealth to buy loyalty:

Allah's Apostle gave (gifts) to some people to the exclusion of some others. The latter seemed to be displeased by that. The Prophet said, "I give to some people, lest they should deviate from True Faith” (Bukhari 53:373).
Muhammad actually captured a man’s wife and children, then used them as leverage to force his conversion:

The apostle told them to tell Malik that if he came to him as a Muslim he would return his family and property to him and give him a hundred camels. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 879)
Islam was being cheapened.  It was no longer a religion, but rather a political allegiance established by force.  Muhammad sent one of his men to Yemen with a military force, where a local pagan leader was told, “Testify that none has the right to be worshipped except Allah, or else I will chop off your neck." (Bukhari 59:643)

Neither was there any heartfelt religious conviction in the reluctant “conversion” of the Thaqif tribe, for example:

[The Thaqif leaders said to one another] “We are in an impasse. You have seen how the affair of this man [Muhammad] has progressed. All the Arabs have accepted Islam and you lack the power to fight them… don’t you see that your herds are not safe; none of you can go out without being cut off.” (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 915)
Their solution was to “accept Islam,” and so they sent their couriers to Muhammad to announce their conversion, ask for a promise that they would no longer by harassed by the Muslims, and request a grace period before they had to 'give up' their old religion:

The riders of Thaqif had come to make their submission and accept Islam on the apostle’s conditions provided that they could get a document guaranteeing their people and their land and animals… Among the things they asked the apostle was that they should be allowed to retain their idol al-Lat undestroyed for three years.  The apostle refused, and they continued to ask him for a year or two and he refused… (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 916)
Obviously the Thaqif were not acting out of a true belief in Islam, but rather from the desperation in which non-Muslims Arabs were finding themselves in the wake of Muslim aggression.  Muhammad had the power and he was directing his armies to wipe out those who would not submit to Islam.

“Fight everyone in the way of Allah and kill those who disbelieve in Allah,” were his instructions to one of his military leaders (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 992).  Muhammad also congratulated a faraway king on accepting Islam and “killing the polytheists” under his reign, even as he directed another military leader to “invite” a neighboring tribe to Islam and then slaughter them if they refused:

Then the apostle sent Khalid bin Walid… to the Banu al-Harith and ordered him to invite them to Islam three days before he attacked them. If they accepted then he was to accept it from them; and if they declined he was to fight them. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 959)
Khalid’s famous announcement, “If you accept Islam then you will be safe,” is echoed by Jihadists like Osama bin Laden to this day.
Re: Responding To Buhari's Declaration That Boko Haram Are Not Muslims. by Ahmed4002(m): 5:02pm On Jul 11, 2015
WombRaiders:
[size=18pt]The Myth: Muhammad was Tortured by the Meccans[/size]

The Truth:

This never happened.  Unlike some of his less fortunate followers, Muhammad enjoyed the protection of his powerful uncle, Abu Talib:
[The leading men of Mecca] went to Abu Tablib [and said] “Your nephew has cursed our gods, insulted our religion, mocked our way of life and accused our forefathers of error. Either you must stop him or you must let us get at him”
But Abu Talib would not relent:
The apostle continued on his way… In consequence, his relations with the Quraish [Meccans] deteriorated and men withdrew from him in enmity. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 168).
For thirteen years, the worst that ever happened to Muhammad at Mecca was that he had dust thrown on him by a heckler and was occasionally mocked while praying at the Kaaba.  He continued to provoke the Meccans, at one point telling them that he had come to bring them "slaughter" (Tabari Vol. IV, page 101)  This caused them to seize Muhammad in an attempt (by one named Uqba) to "throttle" him, but he was released unharmed almost immediately:
Then they left him. That is the worst that I ever saw the Quraish do to him. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 184).
I asked 'Abdullah bin 'Amr bin Al-'As to inform me of the worst thing the pagans had done to Allah's Apostle. He said: "While Allah's Apostle was praying in the courtyard of the ka'ba, 'Uqba bin Abi Mu'ait came and seized Allah's Apostle by the shoulder and twisted his garment round his neck and throttled him severely. Abu Bakr came and seized 'Uqba's shoulder and threw him away from Allah's Apostle and said, "Would you kill a man because he says: 'My Lord is Allah,' and has come to you with clear Signs from your Lord?" (Bukhari 60:339)

Though not injured, Muhammad would have his opportunity to forgive the man who had seized him when Uqba was captured following the Battle of Badr.  According to his biographers, the prophet of Islam chose instead to have him slaughtered even as the unarmed prisoner begged for his life.

The Hadith also confirms that Muhammad was not physically harmed by the Meccans:
Allah's Apostle said, "Doesn't it astonish you how Allah protects me from the Quraish's abusing and cursing?  They abuse Mudhammam and curse Mudhammam while I am Muhammad (and not Mudhammam)" (Bukhari 56:733)
As mentioned in several places, the worst indignity that Muhammad endured was an episode in which Abu Jahl and others mocked him while he was praying by putting the intestines of an animal on his back (Bukhari 4:241).  The men who did this were later killed by the Muslims.

Neither does the Quran provide any support for the contemporary thesis that Muhammad suffered physical abuse at Mecca, despite the many harsh things said about those who rejected him - the redundancy of which is so abundant in the Quran that it comprises the majority of the text. 
There is also an entire Sura is devoted to describing the gruesome and sadistic torture awaiting Abu Lahab and his wife in hell, who are the only people mentioned by name in the Qur'an (other than Muhammad, of course).  Yet, according to the authentic Hadith, their only crime was personal mockery of "the Messenger" at Mecca (Muslim 406, Bukhari 60:475).


To those against whom war is made, permission is
given [to fight] because they have been
oppressed and verily Allah is Most Powerful to
help them. [They] are those who have been
expelled from their homes without any basis,
only because they said: ‘Our Lord is Allah.’
Consequently, the Prophet never retaliated in
Makkah to the inhuman treatment which was
given to him as well as to some of his
Companions. He preferred to suffer and be
persecuted than to counter attack his enemies,
since Muslims at that stage had not fulfilled
this all important pre-requisite of combative
Jihād: establishment of a state.
Similarly, the earlier prophets were not allowed
by the Almighty to wage war unless they had
established their political authority in an
independent piece of land. For instance, the
Prophet Moses, as is evident from the Qur’ān,
was directed to wage war only after he had
fulfilled this condition. Since the Prophet Jesus
and his Companions were not able to gain
political authority in a piece of land, they never
launched an armed struggle to defend
themselves, despite intense persecution.
Re: Responding To Buhari's Declaration That Boko Haram Are Not Muslims. by Nobody: 5:03pm On Jul 11, 2015
[size=18pt]The Myth: Muhammad was a Forgiving Man[/size]

The Truth:

Muhammad did forgive, but his grace was conspicuously limited to those who accepted Islam (often under duress).  Modern-day apologists are prone to “forgetting” this as they attempt to make the case that their prophet was a sort of Christ-like figure.  Obscure details are cherry-picked from Muhammad’s early life and divorced from context even as more numerous and less ambiguous mitigating events are conveniently omitted.

Consider this little gem from CAIR’s Ibrahim Hooper:


“Even when the prophet was in a position of power, he chose the path of kindness and reconciliation.
When he returned to Mecca after years of exile and personal attacks, he did not take revenge on the people of the city, but instead offered a general amnesty.” (source)

Hooper’s definition of “general amnesty” is amazingly selective.  Muhammad’s biographer lists at least ten Meccans whom the prophet of Islam ordered put to death for personal insults or for apostasy (leaving Islam).  If the fact that an entire city wasn’t put to the sword after being conquered by a man against whom it did not want to fight is proof of forgiveness, then we would have to say that the bar is being set quite low.

In fact, we have noted elsewhere at least five good reasons to believe that Muhammad was not a forgiving man.

The fact that he attacked Meccan caravans that were not attacking him, literally killing innocent drivers because of their city’s previous rejection of him.
The brutal execution of 800 Jews at Qurayza who had killed no one but belonged to a tribe whose leader was pressed to switch loyalties in a time of conflict.
The killing of Uqba for the crime of mocking him at Mecca.
The executions ordered at Medina of those who had insulted him (here, here and here).
The executions ordered at Mecca of those who had insulted him.
It was Muhammad’s unwillingness to forgive the people of Mecca for rejecting him that drove him to attack them at every opportunity, even though they were not bothering him at Medina.  Though given ample opportunity to move on, he refused.  Instead the prophet of Islam incited his followers with verses ‘from Allah’ that demanded they “drive out” the Meccans from their own city – purely out of revenge, personal superiority and entitlement.

Those who were spared at Mecca, following its capture by an army of 10,000 Muslims, were allowed to live because they either had nothing to do with the former harassment of Muhammad or because they accepted Islam.  The allegiance of both groups was needed by the prophet of Islam to expand his political authority over surrounding tribes through military expansion.  In a matter of months, Muhammad was no longer in need of their services and ordered the eviction all those who refused to convert.  Anyone who declined to embrace his religion was chased from their own city at the point of a sword (see Qur'an Sura 9).

Interestingly, one of the neighboring towns that Muhammad opportunistically attacked after taking Mecca was Taif.  This is somewhat ironic because Muhammad’s earlier brush with the people of that town is actually noted by contemporary apologists as an example of his forgiving character!  Here, again, is Ibrahim Hooper’s version:

In another tradition, the prophet was offered the opportunity to have God punish the people of a town near Mecca who refused the message of Islam and attacked him with stones.  Again, the prophet did not choose to respond in kind to the abuse. (source)
It bears mentioning that neither the accounts of Muhammad's "stoning" nor Allah’s "offer" to Muhammad are recorded by the earliest and most reliable accounts of the episode.  Instead, they show that Muhammad was chased away from the city with verbal insults after showing up uninvited and abusing the local religion with insults. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 279-281).

Hooper is certainly right about Muhammad not responding in kind, however, since that would have meant insulting the residents and rejecting their religion (as they had done to him).  Instead, the prophet of Islam returned with an army ten years later and laid siege to the town, killing the defenders and enslaving their women and children.  His biographers provide no compelling reason for this other than their earlier rejection of him (unless you count a Muslim foot soldier’s desire to capture a girl from Taif and impregnate her – Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 874).

The fact that Muhammad returned with an army casts serious doubt on the later tradition that Hooper cites.  If Muhammad rejected the opportunity to call down Allah’s wrath on the town, then why did he return with military force as soon as he was able to do so?  The only thing that had changed in the interim was his position of power.

Even if the later (and more questionable) account of Allah's offer is taken at face value, it relies solely on Muhammad’s word.  Just as with the rest of his communication with Allah, no one else was there to witness the conversation.  Is it really credible that Muhammad actually had the power to call down divine punishment on a town?  Why then was a later siege necessary – particularly since it cost Muslim lives (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 876)?

According to biographers, Muhammad originally went to Taif with the hope of forming a new military alliance against the Quraish tribe of Mecca.  Interestingly,Muhammad later had people murdered for supposedly trying to do the same thing to him.  For this reasons, apologists often insist that it was necessary for reasons of self-defense.  But this makes no sense if Muhammad truly had the wrath of Allah at his beck and call.  Muslims cannot have it both ways.

Another example that proves both the scarcity of anecdote showing Muhammad to be a forgiving man - and the desperation of contemporary apologists to compensate - is the repetition of this legendary story (again, we quote CAIR's Ibrahim Hooper):

There was a lady who threw garbage in the path of the prophet on a daily basis. One day, she didn‘t do it. The prophet went to inquire about her health, because he thought she might be sick. This lady ended up converting to Islam. So, that‘s how you respond to people who attack you, with forgiveness and with kindness.
The story is legendary because it is a legend, which is why apologists do not quote the source.  In fact, the fictitious episode was invented nearly thirteen centuries after Muhammad died.  Not only that, but it was created as a means of defense against Islamic intolerance by Abdul Baha, a founding member of the Baha'i cult.  (It didn't work.  To this day his followers continue to suffer horrible persecution in Muslim countries).

The real story of what happened to the woman who insulted Muhammad is found in the Hadith:

A Jewish woman used to insult the Prophet and say bad things about him, so a man strangled her until she died, and the Prophet ruled that no blood money was due in this case.  (Abu Dawud 4349)
The mere fact that apologists like CAIR's Hooper substitute historical fact with suspect narrative, half-truth and outright deception to convince the rest of us that their prophet was a man of forgiveness is evidence that this is not the case.  Muhammad did not reason with people once he had power; he demanded strict obedience, whihc is confirmed by many episodes of violent retaliation and punishment.

After killing many of those who insulted him, Muhammad's own community was in such fear that they would even killed their own family members who were critical of him to avoid his vengeance.  One man actually killed his own wife in the presence of their young children:

A blind man had a slave-mother [his wife, the mother of his children] who used to abuse the Prophet (pbuh) and disparage him. He forbade her but she did not stop. He rebuked her but she did not give up her habit. One night she began to slander the Prophet (pbuh) and abuse him. So he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there.  Abu Dawud 38:4348.
Muhammad was told about the gruesome murder the next day and offered his approval.  The woman may have been a care-giver to the blind, but she had personally insulted him and therefore deserved to die.  That is the lesson in "forgiveness" that the prophet of Islam left his people.
Re: Responding To Buhari's Declaration That Boko Haram Are Not Muslims. by Ahmed4002(m): 5:09pm On Jul 11, 2015
Buhari have said it all. yes there are not Muslim.

The leader is the one who has been elected to administer the foreign policy of his nation, and he has been entrusted by the people to conduct the common affairs of the state, sign treaties, forbid wrong deeds, suppress criminals, fight aggressors, and settle people down in their homes and the like.
This specific duty can never devolve to a group
of people living in a country who come against a
government by terrifying innocent citizens. It is
not acceptable in Islam by any means for
someone to declare combative war if he is not in
the position of leadership.
The many aforementioned rulings of scholars
and the many verses of Qur’ān and hadith
citation expose the methods of the so-called
“Islamic parties”' who establish states within the
state and act as if they are the rightful rulers
of Muslims.
Their methodology is to initiate war by attacking
non-Muslims in their country or other countries,
and they do this without the permission of the
Muslim rulers or the Muslim nation and without
the consensus of its scholars. What happens
then? The result is that everyone suffers from
the disastrous consequences of their actions.

so disregard bokoharam as Muslim.
as they target everyone
Re: Responding To Buhari's Declaration That Boko Haram Are Not Muslims. by Nobody: 5:16pm On Jul 11, 2015
Ahmed4002:
Buhari have said it all. yes there are not Muslim.

The leader is the one who has been elected to administer the foreign policy of his nation, and he has been entrusted by the people to conduct the common affairs of the state, sign treaties, forbid wrong deeds, suppress criminals, fight aggressors, and settle people down in their homes and the like.
This specific duty can never devolve to a group
of people living in a country who come against a
government by terrifying innocent citizens. It is
not acceptable in Islam by any means for
someone to declare combative war if he is not in
the position of leadership.
The many aforementioned rulings of scholars
and the many verses of Qur’ān and hadith
citation expose the methods of the so-called
“Islamic parties”' who establish states within the
state and act as if they are the rightful rulers
of Muslims.
Their methodology is to initiate war by attacking
non-Muslims in their country or other countries,
and they do this without the permission of the
Muslim rulers or the Muslim nation and without
the consensus of its scholars. What happens
then? The result is that everyone suffers from
the disastrous consequences of their actions.

so disregard bokoharam as Muslim.
as they target everyone

Can you go and preach this sermon to Shekau and his gang?

1 Like

Re: Responding To Buhari's Declaration That Boko Haram Are Not Muslims. by Ahmed4002(m): 5:23pm On Jul 11, 2015
WombRaiders:


Can you go and preach this sermon to Shekau and his gang?

Creating mayhem (fitnah) might grow to
become a war or become a hate crime against
innocent people. That is why Allah said it is
worse than killing. Fitnah is the work of
munāfiqīn, hypocrites. This is in fact conspiracy,
the result of which may be a great war
instigated between one or more nations, which
may end up in the death of thousand or millions
of innocents.
the shekau would be shame soon.

am preaching this to you as you see no good in Islam just because of some actions of some terrorist who hide under the image of Islam.

I have noticed you. When ever I brought a true image of the terrorist and how they could be curb. you always gave a daft listening.
Re: Responding To Buhari's Declaration That Boko Haram Are Not Muslims. by nwadiuko1(m): 5:24pm On Jul 11, 2015
abduljabbar4:

So if boko haram was created to tarnish gej then what are they still doing now? And please boko haram was at first not created to cause any sectarian war.we know how they started. They were graduates who burnt their certificates and declared that western education is haram without any proof.
Boko haram will claim to be fighting christianity and bomb mosques

They claim to fight western education and yet bomb villages where there is no single school.
Let's stop decieving ourselves
those who created BH lost control of it a long time ago

1 Like

Re: Responding To Buhari's Declaration That Boko Haram Are Not Muslims. by true2god: 6:02pm On Jul 11, 2015
Ahmed4002:


go make research. how many Christian working with Saudi aramco and also those studying petroleum related courses in king fahad university. whether they prevent them from practising Christianity.

Their honor and rights are under the protection
of Islām and they are given freedom to the
right of deliberation and discussions within the
limits of reason and decorum, while adhering
to respect, good conduct and avoiding rudeness
and harshness.

This also shows that even if unbelievers come to
the Muslims, seeking to live and work in their
nation for any reason, it is ordered to grant
them safety and security to demonstrate the
great care and compassion Islam takes in the
care of others. Then such are free to move
where they like.
A usual lying muslim. I ask you again, can a christian freely carry his bible in public in saudi arabia? Yes or no.

2 Likes

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (Reply)

Diaspora Trust Fund Underway – Dabiri-erewa / Aregbesola Wants Fire Service Personnel Included In Defence College Training / #AtikuGate: Mr SPV, A Leopard Cannot Change Its Skin - Keyamo To Atiku

(Go Up)

Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket

Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 248
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.