This is my jihad (struggle) against ignorance. It's really sad to see such a vocal minority who have nothing better to do with their time than to attack Islam and Muhammad pbuh - it would be nice if they actually read the Quran or his biography, with an actual Islamic scholar, before jumping in front of a camera and forcing us to prove how ignorant they are.

But since there is no winning with the ignorant as they have no desire to know the truth - this response is more so an educational and informative insight into many of Islam's misconceptions for the vast majority of people - who are actually open to learn.

PS - we don't say peace be upon him as a desperate attempt to beautify him - for our words can never beautify him the way he deserves - rather our words become beautiful when we mention his name.

Love & Peace.

In depth look into Montesquieu's spirit of Laws
http://www.letmeturnthetables.com/2012/05/punishment-apostasy-islam-rationale.html

In depth analysis of apostasy in Islam:
http://www.constitution.org/cm/sol_14.htm


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuAqoKrtLcY

alBaghdadi, come and deal with this newbie

hopefulLandlord:
alBaghdadi, come and deal with this newbie

Salam!

Op very good video.. Subscribed and liked..

hopefulLandlord:
alBaghdadi, come and deal with this newbie

face the video or shut up.. Why calling for help?

lfleak:
Op very good video.. Subscribed and liked..face the video or shut up.. Why calling for help?

Salam! Thanks!

TalkIslam, are you a Nigerian?

branhampaul:
TalkIslam, are you a Nigerian?

Salam!

We are based in Sydney, AU.

hopefulLandlord:
alBaghdadi, come and deal with this newbie

I'm sorry dude, this has nothing to do with Christians.

It is Islam is atheism, so deal with him yourself. But if you can't, then it only buttresses our point that Islam and atheism are in the same league and under Satan's control. That's why they both love to attack Christianity.

Won't you have been all over this thread masturbation had it been it was a Christian thread?

alBHAGDADI:
I'm sorry dude, this has nothing to do with Christians.

It is Islam is atheism, so deal with him yourself. But if you can't, then it only buttresses our point that Islam and atheism are in the same league and under Satan's control. That's why they both love to attack Christianity.

Won't you have been all over this thread masturbation had it been it was a Christian thread?

Salam!

You can go through our previous videos:
https://www.nairaland.com/3928591/jesus-v-muhammed-muslim-response
https://www.nairaland.com/3928670/meaning-life-talk-islam

the thread stated muslim and atheist, why calling a christian? can't handle it?

hopefulLandlord:
alBaghdadi, come and deal with this newbie

hfeetham0:
the thread stated muslim and atheist, why calling a christian? can't handle it?

Salam!

Share the word.

TalkIslam:
This is my jihad (struggle) against ignorance.

In Islam, the word Jihad means HOLY WAR and not struggle like it means in Arabic so you either lied or just wanna be plain dishonest or again just lying to urself

edicied:

In Islam, the word Jihad means HOLY WAR and not struggle like it means in Arabic so you either lied or just wanna be plain dishonest or again just lying to urself

WHAT JIHAD IS?

1. The Arabic word "jihad" is often translated as "holy war," but in a purely linguistic sense, the word " jihad" means struggling or striving.
2. The arabic word for war is: "al-harb".
3. In a religious sense, as described by the Quran and teachings of the Prophet Muhammad (s), "jihad" has many meanings. It can refer to internal as well as external efforts to be a good Muslims or believer, as well as working to inform people about the faith of Islam.
4. If military jihad is required to protect the faith against others, it can be performed using anything from legal, diplomatic and economic to political means. If there is no peaceful alternative, Islam also allows the use of force, but there are strict rules of engagement. Innocents - such as women, children, or invalids - must never be harmed, and any peaceful overtures from the enemy must be accepted.
5. Military action is therefore only one means of jihad, and is very rare. To highlight this point, the Prophet Mohammed told his followers returning from a military campaign: "This day we have returned from the minor jihad to the major jihad," which he said meant returning from armed battle to the peaceful battle for self-control and betterment.
6. In case military action appears necessary, not everyone can declare jihad. The religious military campaign has to be declared by a proper authority, advised by scholars, who say the religion and people are under threat and violence is imperative to defend them. The concept of "just war" is very important.
7. The concept of jihad has been hijacked by many political and religious groups over the ages in a bid to justify various forms of violence. In most cases, Islamic splinter groups invoked jihad to fight against the established Islamic order. Scholars say this misuse of jihad contradicts Islam.
8. Examples of sanctioned military jihad include the Muslims' defensive battles against the Crusaders in medieval times, and before that some responses by Muslims against Byzantine and Persian attacks during the period of the early Islamic conquests.

WHAT JIHAD IS NOT?

1. Jihad is not a violent concept.
2. Jihad is not a declaration of war against other religions. It is worth noting that the Koran specifically refers to Jews and Christians as "people of the book" who should be protected and respected. All three faiths worship the same God. Allah is just the Arabic word for God, and is used by Christian Arabs as well as Muslims.
3. Military action in the name of Islam has not been common in the history of Islam. Scholars says most calls for violent jihad are not sanctioned by Islam.
4. Warfare in the name of God is not unique to Islam. Other faiths throughout the world have waged wars with religious justifications

Peace!

TalkIslam:


WHAT JIHAD IS?

1. The Arabic word "jihad" is often translated as "holy war," but in a purely linguistic sense, the word " jihad" means struggling or striving.
2. The arabic word for war is: "al-harb".
3. In a religious sense, as described by the Quran and teachings of the Prophet Muhammad (s), "jihad" has many meanings. It can refer to internal as well as external efforts to be a good Muslims or believer, as well as working to inform people about the faith of Islam.
4. If military jihad is required to protect the faith against others, it can be performed using anything from legal, diplomatic and economic to political means. If there is no peaceful alternative, Islam also allows the use of force, but there are strict rules of engagement. Innocents - such as women, children, or invalids - must never be harmed, and any peaceful overtures from the enemy must be accepted.
5. Military action is therefore only one means of jihad, and is very rare. To highlight this point, the Prophet Mohammed told his followers returning from a military campaign: "This day we have returned from the minor jihad to the major jihad," which he said meant returning from armed battle to the peaceful battle for self-control and betterment.
6. In case military action appears necessary, not everyone can declare jihad. The religious military campaign has to be declared by a proper authority, advised by scholars, who say the religion and people are under threat and violence is imperative to defend them. The concept of "just war" is very important.
7. The concept of jihad has been hijacked by many political and religious groups over the ages in a bid to justify various forms of violence. In most cases, Islamic splinter groups invoked jihad to fight against the established Islamic order. Scholars say this misuse of jihad contradicts Islam.
8. Examples of sanctioned military jihad include the Muslims' defensive battles against the Crusaders in medieval times, and before that some responses by Muslims against Byzantine and Persian attacks during the period of the early Islamic conquests.

WHAT JIHAD IS NOT?

1. Jihad is not a violent concept.
2. Jihad is not a declaration of war against other religions. It is worth noting that the Koran specifically refers to Jews and Christians as "people of the book" who should be protected and respected. All three faiths worship the same God. Allah is just the Arabic word for God, and is used by Christian Arabs as well as Muslims.
3. Military action in the name of Islam has not been common in the history of Islam. Scholars says most calls for violent jihad are not sanctioned by Islam.
4. Warfare in the name of God is not unique to Islam. Other faiths throughout the world have waged wars with religious justifications

Peace!

Please answer these TRUTHFULLY:
1. Why did your prophet Mohamed attack Khaybar?
2. Did he lead an expedition to Khaybar or was it Khaybar that went against him?

hopefulLandlord:
alBaghdadi, come and deal with this newbie

U lie
Deal with the Op yourself

cc: AgentofAllah ...
op.. he's an atheist.. i believe you can have the debate with him

Lol
Fanatics still trying to justify the religion of pisspeace
But we know it for what it really is
Urine

Wilgrea7:
cc: AgentofAllah ...

op.. he's an atheist.. i believe you can have the debate with him

Salam!

jonbellion:
Lol
Fanatics still trying to justify the religion of pisspeace
But we know it for what it really is
Urine

Peace.

plainbibletruth:

Please answer these TRUTHFULLY:
1. Why did your prophet Mohamed attack Khaybar?
2. Did he lead an expedition to Khaybar or was it Khaybar that went against him?

Do you want to Learn or Criticize?

TalkIslam:
Salam!

We are based in Sydney, AU.

You must be joking.

What are you doing here? Does it look like Nigeria needs more islam? Nigeria is far more religious than Australia.

Why don't you got and preach in your country?

TalkIslam:
Do you want to Learn or Criticize?

Is asking questions not a part of learning?
Please educate us more on these:

Please answer these TRUTHFULLY:
1. Why did your prophet Mohamed attack Khaybar?
2. Did he lead an expedition to Khaybar or was it Khaybar that went against him?

JackBizzle:



You must be joking.

What are you doing here? Does it look like Nigeria needs more islam? Nigeria is far more religious than Australia.

Why don't you got and preach in your country?

We are on a "Jihad" against ignorance, also we're not limited to Nigeria alone.

plainbibletruth:

Is asking questions not a part of learning?
Please educate us more on these:

Please answer these TRUTHFULLY:
1. Why did your prophet Mohamed attack Khaybar?
2. Did he lead an expedition to Khaybar or was it Khaybar that went against him?

Both questions are interrelated and will be answered together.

When the Muslims fled persecution from Makkah to Madinah, they made treaties with the Banu qaynuqa, Banu Nadir, and other tribes. It was stipulated that they would not help any enemy against the Muslims.

To recap, in previous years, the Banu Qaynuqa were expelled due to waging war against the Muslims and giving the Quraysh military supplies.

The Banu Nadir on the other hand, gave over information to the Quraysh on the weak spots of the Muslims, at the battle of Uhud. So as to give the Quraysh advantage over the Muslims. And they further, also tried assassinating the Prophet (p). With these treacheries committed by them, the Prophet (p) expelled them.

With them getting expelled, some among Banu Qaynuqa and many of the Banu Nadir’s leaders settled in Khaybar. Having the enmity and hatred towards the Muslims, they hatched up plots, and incited other tribes in Arabia to attack the Muslims. Let me just highlight few instances before, where they attacked and killed Muslims, while they were in Khaybar:

1. The people of Khaybar were also involved in the Battle of Trench, when the Muslims were attacked in Madinah with ten thousand troops, again here they sided and waged war against the Muslims.

2. They made the Banu Qurayzah break their pact, and made them side with enemies in attacking the Muslims.

3. Al-Yusayr Ibn Rizam, one of their leaders gathered Banu Ghatafan to attack the Muslims.

We see from the above, that these people were not a peaceful lot. Instead of moving to Khaybar for peace, and get on with life, they used Khaybar as a military headquarters to attack and kill Muslims.

When the Jews of Khaybar hired soldiers from banu Ghatafan to attack Madinah, this was the last straw, and as result a decision was made by Prophet Muhammed pbuh to engage the enemy on their land, and put a stop to their attacks once and for all.

TalkIslam:

Both questions are interrelated and will be answered together.

When the Muslims fled persecution from Makkah to Madinah, they made treaties with the Banu qaynuqa, Banu Nadir, and other tribes. It was stipulated that they would not help any enemy against the Muslims.

To recap, in previous years, the Banu Qaynuqa were expelled due to waging war against the Muslims and giving the Quraysh military supplies.

The Banu Nadir on the other hand, gave over information to the Quraysh on the weak spots of the Muslims, at the battle of Uhud. So as to give the Quraysh advantage over the Muslims. And they further, also tried assassinating the Prophet (p). With these treacheries committed by them, the Prophet (p) expelled them.

With them getting expelled, some among Banu Qaynuqa and many of the Banu Nadir’s leaders settled in Khaybar. Having the enmity and hatred towards the Muslims, they hatched up plots, and incited other tribes in Arabia to attack the Muslims. Let me just highlight few instances before, where they attacked and killed Muslims, while they were in Khaybar:

1. The people of Khaybar were also involved in the Battle of Trench, when the Muslims were attacked in Madinah with ten thousand troops, again here they sided and waged war against the Muslims.

2. They made the Banu Qurayzah break their pact, and made them side with enemies in attacking the Muslims.

3. Al-Yusayr Ibn Rizam, one of their leaders gathered Banu Ghatafan to attack the Muslims.

We see from the above, that these people were not a peaceful lot. Instead of moving to Khaybar for peace, and get on with life, they used Khaybar as a military headquarters to attack and kill Muslims.

When the Jews of Khaybar hired soldiers from banu Ghatafan to attack Madinah, this was the last straw, and as result a decision was made by Prophet Muhammed pbuh to engage the enemy on their land, and put a stop to their attacks once and for all.

Can you quote your sources?
What you wrote up there appear to be COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from what I've read on the Khaybar matter.

The video in this post is titled "Muslim vs Atheist". The format of the video suggests it's the Muslim's response to a specific atheist critic in an ongoing debate. Given the format, it is probably better that the duo in the discussion continue at it with each other, so that responses are kept in context. However, I will just make some quick generic observations on the 7 themes which the apologetic in this video touched upon.

1) On the marriage age of Aisha at time mark 1:57: I do agree with the apologetic that to criticise the prophet on this account is a pointless exercise in historian's fallacy. Truth is, it wasn't the morally reprehensible act then, that it is today! The apologetic however, went on to criticise the idea of evolving morality as subjective, claiming that "We [Muslims] have our own OBJECTIVE moral code". Of course, a remark like "Our own objective moral code" is an oxymoron. It is cognitively dissonant to acknowledge the existence of several moral codes and in the same breath, claim that such a thing as objective morality exists. However, what I found particularly disconcerting is his apparent glorification of immutable morality. I don't think a set of 1400 yr old moral codes is something to brandish with pride. It rather speaks to his inability to adapt to the ever evolving realities of existence. The uncomfortable truth for him is that evolution waits for no one, and if we are to learn anything from history, it is that those who don't adapt will extinct. So, by all means, he should feel free to adhere to his anachronistic moral codes with pride.

2) On the cause of the universe at time mark 3:19: He seem to suggest the universe has a cause, therefore, that cause is [his] god. In so far as he has not shown the link between the premise and the conclusion, there is nothing logical about that claim. It is just as much a leap of faith as saying the universe came from nothing.

3) On the doctrine of Jihad at time mark 3:54: Yes, he's right again! The concept of jihad in Islam is more nuanced than the caricatured nonsense about holy wars

4) On the doctrine of Martyrdom at time mark 5:27: His argument about Muslims having a greater incentive to die fighting for justice is as foolish as it is bizarre. Yes, paradise might be a great incentive for Muslims to martyr themselves. An atheist cannot be incentivised to martyrdom with paradise, no doubt, but they could very well be incentivised by the belief it will make life better for their friends/families/countrymen. Only a person who believes paradise is real in the first place can also believe that the pursuit of paradise is greater than the pursuit of comfort for one's own family and so on. Any incentive is only valuable in the mind of its beholder. Ergo, it is absurd to claim one is greater than another if the end result for both is the same.

5) On apostasy at time mark 6:31: The claim that apostasy "does not limit private conscious decisions" is pure unblemished BS. It does! When someone is arrested and tried for apostasy in an Islamic state, the options are: (i) become a Muslim again or (ii) face the sword. It was practiced then, and it is practiced now, in every country that claims sharia as its law. There was never the option of "feel free to practice whatever religion you want, just don't carry out treasonous activities against the state", however loosely they choose define that term. He described this as "Natural Justice". This is a gross perversion of the meanings of both words! There is nothing natural about forcing people to commit to your religion after leaving it, nor can that be said to be just. The hadiths are unequivocal on how apostates should be treated, and they do NOT prescribe mercy.

6) On Muhammed as an example for mercy 8:20: He cited the conquest of Mecca. It is not true that Muhammed was entirely merciful. He certainly didn't forgive everyone when he conquered Mecca. This fact is also recorded in several hadiths.

7) On the use of violence by godless societies at time mark 9:08: This is a very awkward hole to dig himself into. There are far more examples of tyrannical govts in godly societies, playing the role of gods (or claiming to speak for one) than ever can be accounted for in godless societies. The problem here, of course, is bad leadership, and while bad leadership isn't the exclusive preserve of any group, it is far easier to commit heinous acts when god can be used to justify them, than when one knows that the responsibility for such acts is solely their's to bear.

AgentOfAllah:
The video in this post is titled "Muslim vs Atheist". The format of the video suggests it's the Muslim's response to a specific atheist critic in an ongoing debate. Given the format, it is probably better that the duo in the discussion continue at it with each other, so that responses are kept in context. However, I will just make some quick generic observations on the 7 themes which the apologetic in this video touched upon.

1) On the marriage age of Aisha at time mark 1:57: I do agree with the apologetic that to criticise the prophet on this account is a pointless exercise in historian's fallacy. Truth is, it wasn't the morally reprehensible act then, that it is today! The apologetic however, went on to criticise the idea of evolving morality as subjective, claiming that "We [Muslims] have our own OBJECTIVE moral code". Of course, a remark like "Our own objective moral code" is an oxymoron. It is cognitively dissonant to acknowledge the existence of several moral codes and in the same breath, claim that such a thing as objective morality exists. However, what I found particularly disconcerting is his apparent glorification of immutable morality. I don't think a set of 1400 yr old moral codes is something to brandish with pride. It rather speaks to his inability to adapt to the ever evolving realities of existence. The uncomfortable truth for him is that evolution waits for no one, and if we are to learn anything from history, it is that those who don't adapt will extinct. So, by all means, he should feel free to adhere to his anachronistic moral codes with pride.

2) On the cause of the universe at time mark 3:19: He seem to suggest the universe has a cause, therefore, that cause is [his] god. In so far as he has not shown the link between the premise and the conclusion, there is nothing logical about that claim. It is just as much a leap of faith as saying the universe came from nothing.

3) On the doctrine of Jihad at time mark 3:54: Yes, he's right again! The concept of jihad in Islam is more nuanced than the caricatured nonsense about holy wars

4) On the doctrine of Martyrdom at time mark 5:27: His argument about Muslims having a greater incentive to die fighting for justice is as foolish as it is bizarre. Yes, paradise might be a great incentive for Muslims to martyr themselves. An atheist cannot be incentivised to martyrdom with paradise, no doubt, but they could very well be incentivised by the belief it will make life better for their friends/families/countrymen. Only a person who believes paradise is real in the first place can also believe that the pursuit of paradise is greater than the pursuit of comfort for one's own family and so on. Any incentive is only valuable in the mind of its beholder. Ergo, it is absurd to claim one is greater than another if the end result for both is the same.

5) On apostasy at time mark 6:31: The claim that apostasy "does not limit private conscious decisions" is pure unblemished BS. It does! When someone is arrested and tried for apostasy in an Islamic state, the options are: (i) become a Muslim again or (ii) face the sword. It was practiced then, and it is practiced now, in every country that claims sharia as its law. There was never the option of "feel free to practice whatever religion you want, just don't carry out treasonous activities against the state", however loosely they choose define that term. He described this as "Natural Justice". This is a gross perversion of the meanings of both words! There is nothing natural about forcing people to commit to your religion after leaving it, nor can that be said to be just. The hadiths are unequivocal on how apostates should be treated, and they do NOT prescribe mercy.

6) On Muhammed as an example for mercy 8:20: He cited the conquest of Mecca. It is not true that Muhammed was entirely merciful. He certainly didn't forgive everyone when he conquered Mecca. This fact is also recorded in several hadiths.

7) On the use of violence by godless societies at time mark 9:08: This is a very awkward hole to dig himself into. There are far more examples of tyrannical govts in godly societies, playing the role of gods (or claiming to speak for one) than ever can be accounted for in godless societies. The problem here, of course, is bad leadership, and while bad leadership isn't the exclusive preserve of any group, it is far easier to commit heinous acts when god can be used to justify them, than when one knows that the responsibility for such acts is solely their's to bear.

Salam!

TalkIslam:
Salam!

carry this your thread to Islamic section. thanks.

Humanistme:


carry this your thread to Islamic section. thanks.

It doesn't engage a "muslim" or "muslimah" alone.

Peace!

AgentOfAllah:
The video in this post is titled "Muslim vs Atheist". The format of the video suggests it's the Muslim's response to a specific atheist critic in an ongoing debate. Given the format, it is probably better that the duo in the discussion continue at it with each other, so that responses are kept in context.

exactly. he is probably looking for subscribers for the channel.

TalkIslam:
It doesn't engage a "muslim" or "muslimah" alone.

Peace!

well Muslims here are so tolerant that they don't want to engage with anybody except themselves that's why they have a whole section to themselves.