₦airaland Forum

Welcome, Guest: Join Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 2,038,248 members, 4,366,397 topics. Date: Saturday, 21 July 2018 at 02:51 PM

Why History Says Jerusalem Belongs To The Jews - Religion (8) - Nairaland

Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Why History Says Jerusalem Belongs To The Jews (30067 Views)

TB Joshua Arrives Israel. Deputy Major Of Jerusalem Said This About Him (pics) / #plstellooni: the GOD Of The Yorubas -(Olodumare) Is Not The Same god, The Jews / Buhari’s Ministerial List Shows That He Belongs To Somebody – Cardinal Okogie (1) (2) (3) (4)

(0) (1) (2) ... (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (Reply) (Go Down)

Re: Why History Says Jerusalem Belongs To The Jews by Chukazu: 9:05am On Jan 01
bahaushe1:

No doubt Jerusalem is the third holiest city on earth and so shall it be till the end of time. The current controversies over the status of the city will not change anything.

Mr Trump and his advisers failed to realise the connection to the city of the world three major religions. There must a reason why 128 UN member nations voted against Trump's decision aside from religion.

Religiously, many of us fail to fully understand the history of the city and its connection to a number of religions. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam were meant to be one continuous religion from a single divine source. Somehow things happened along the line and we ended up with three different religions opposed to each other in fundemental ideology.

Islam recognizes the intimate connection between Jerusalem and Prophets of the Jews but the religious significance of the city isnt racial but the acts of piety and worship of the Allaah. All the three holy cities on earth have historical connection to noble Prophets and Messengers of Allaah.

Makkah and the Holy Ka'aba

Makkah is the holiest city on earth and it host the holiest place on earth - the Ka'aba. Many believe that the place where Ka'aba stands today is the point where Allaah was first worshipped on earth (by the Prophet of Allaah Adam, alayhis salam). Ka'aba was built by Prophets of Allaah Abraham and his son Ishmael. And Allaah accepted the work by these noble servants, blessed it, blessed the city that surrounds it, and blessed its people, food and water.
by side with the status of Jerusalem to be decided in a negotiation by both parties. But Israel backed by US want to take all.

Adam left garden of Eden to go worship in Saudi Arabia? Eden located in Saudi Arabia?

2 Likes

Re: Why History Says Jerusalem Belongs To The Jews by Olu317(m): 9:09am On Jan 01
NotComplaining:



I agree that Abram was neither a jew or a xtian. He Abram was one who submitted to the will of God and that in arabic is 'Tasleem', and the one who submits is a Muslim. Abram was a Muslim as Islam was was the first of all religions on the planet.

Culturally, Abram was a persian. His name originates from the persian Farsi language, not Hebrew, Aramaic or Latin. So linguistically you christians have no claim to the name neither does the Torah, Thalmud or New Testament.

Whenever you mount an attack on Islam and Muslims you are mounting a greater attack on xianity. Jesus never ever called his followers christians! Remember he was always a jew!

Christianity is not a way of life, we know this because Jesus only came to implement the laws that came before him. So you mean Judaism is a way of life. And we know today that Judaism is obsolete, irrelevent and unrobust.

All the people of the past were Muslims. You cant bring a point without showing bias. Why cant we call Jesus a Muslim?

And Jesus spoke of one that will come after him that his name will be Ahmed (praise worthy) and Muhammed is the praise worthy one. Is Ahmed not mentioned in Barnabos gospel? How many Ahmeds came after Jesus that achieved the feat of Muhammed?

You guy lack sincerity and dont know history.

Please dont let me start because if I do you will run..If you dont know your religion abstain from debate.
Abram was not a Persian. If you don't know ,you can google it. He was from Chaldean origin and his ancestors migrated From Africa. The ancient chaldean language was classified as Afro—Semitic. Study and stop missing up fact with emotions. If you were born Muslim, doesn't take away the truth that the Bible is older than Quran . If I am a Christian or not, does not take away archaeological evidence that proof Abram as not a Muslim. The religion of Abram entails many forms of sacrifices. And He did sacrificed White Ram once to God in exchange for his son. But on the part of Islam,it is annually done, can you genuinely inform me why Abram didn't do that through out his lifetime for his son? Did you even know Abram didn't eat that Ram? Where then do now see Abram as a Muslim? Study and stop being emotional about religion.

2 Likes

Re: Why History Says Jerusalem Belongs To The Jews by AgentOfAllah: 10:01am On Jan 01
yellow237:
maybe for ur Islamic demented brain it is not preaching,but to we Christians u ar just trying to brainwash us,so plss take it to were u will be welcomed without insult....
If you practice any religion, you're already brainwashed!
Re: Why History Says Jerusalem Belongs To The Jews by AgentOfAllah: 10:03am On Jan 01
ArewaFanatic:


Your interesting twist of facts is quite funny and very sadly shallow. Given the length of your post however, I will not waste my time refuting any of it. It will be better if you can read a real Muslim view of what happened. The article below might be of help:

https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/01/01/re-examining-banu-qurayzah-incident/

Could you point out, specifically, which facts I twisted? It's not helpful to just make accusations without highlighting where I went wrong.
Re: Why History Says Jerusalem Belongs To The Jews by bahaushe1: 10:35am On Jan 01
Chukazu:


Adam left garden of Eden to go worship in Saudi Arabia? Eden located in Saudi Arabia?

Kindly refer to your scriptures. Prophet Adam (pbuh) and his wife Eve descended from Garden of Eden to earth where they lived their lives and eventually died.

The purpose of creating mankind is to test him. And the greatest test of all is the act of worship. Adam (pbuh) indeed worshipped Allaah like all other Prophets and Messengers and enjoyed by his children to do same.
Re: Why History Says Jerusalem Belongs To The Jews by bahaushe1: 10:46am On Jan 01
kamsiyo9:
d last time i check my Bible told me that Solomon built the synagogue n there is Bible b4 so call koran n who told u that macca or what ever u call it is the holiest place on earth cos thats for muslems not Christians bros n not for Hindus or rhe entire world speak for islam not every one

There is only ONE God. He is God of Adam (pbuh), God of Noah (pbuh), God of Abraham (pbuh), God of Moses (pbuh) and all the Prophets of children of Israel, God of Jesus (pbuh) and all his 'followers', God of Muhammad (pbuh) and all his followers, and God of everything on earth and heavens.

So if this God (Allaah) says Makkah is the holiest city on earth so be it for there is no god other than Him.

As for Prophet Solomon (pbuh) building the Al-Aqasa mosque rather than Prophet Jacob (pbuh), if true, it still doesn't change my narrative. Prophet Solomon (pbuh) was a noble Prophet of Allaah among the Prophets of the children of Israel. And Muslims are closer to him (in the principle of his teachings and acts of worship) than any Jew or Christian.
Re: Why History Says Jerusalem Belongs To The Jews by Chukazu: 11:12am On Jan 01
bahaushe1:


Kindly refer to your scriptures. Prophet Adam (pbuh) and his wife Eve descended from Garden of Eden to earth where they lived their lives and eventually died.

The purpose of creating mankind is to test him. And the greatest test of all is the act of worship. Adam (pbuh) indeed worshipped Allaah like all other Prophets and Messengers and enjoyed by his children to do same.

So you claimed they worshipped" first" in SAUDI ARABIA, so I asked how did they leave garden of Eden to go worship in SAUDI ARABIA?

WAS garden of Eden located in Saudi?

My Bible by tell me that God usually comes down "in the cool of the day to "fellowship with them" right in the garden ,so how else do you want me to prove to you?

1 Like

Re: Why History Says Jerusalem Belongs To The Jews by Olu317(m): 11:17am On Jan 01
Chukazu:


Oga your plunder is claiming Jews where slaves an captive to the Romans. Jews were captives and slaves to other nations you mentioned , that means they were captured and taken to those places but the ROMAN EMPIRE didn't operate that way ...they had colony right within Jewish nation that's why you had , Pontius Pilate as a Roman rep,..was is not the Romans that crucified Christ ,so why your claim? Or did they crucify in Rome?. Don't twist history

The cities of Gaza and Judea and Samaria(west bank) was Philistine cities but The people you called Palestinians today are mainly Jordanian and Lebanese descendants they have nothing to do with Philistines do prober research yourself...and if insist they were then it makes your argument even void because "Philistines " were mainly Invaders who had not inheritance in Jewish Land ...do your research not emotions
Jordan is of whose ancestors land? Lebanon is of whose ancestors land? These two places you mentioned existed but each group had its limited landscape. The philistines were a neighbour to Israelis. In fact, the Hebrew had no real king while every other tribes had king over them. So, I don't understand what you mean by invaders. The Hebrews were fist known after the red sea account of them as they claimed God helped them killed king pharaoh warriors by submergence inside water after the cross over to the other side of it. If you think you know the reason Roman Empire invaded Jerusalem? The Roman you mentioned captured Hebrews and killed thousands before establishment of their city as a colony. Little did you know that Hebrew language had disappeared and while Aramaic was what was spoken. Where did the speakers of the language went? Princes of the house of David had been taken to different part of the world, especially to Africa. Why was Jesus Christ taken to Egypt at birth? You think, to be killed by Herod? If you don't know, then like I had mentioned earlier that you need to read the killings of the Hebrews by the Pagan Romans and establishment of Jerusalem as a colony. Go and read more about the 'Maccabees'. Perhaps you would have added more to what you know after you finish reading about whom was referred as 'HONIAS' .
Re: Why History Says Jerusalem Belongs To The Jews by ArewaFanatic(m): 11:48am On Jan 01
AgentOfAllah:


Could you point out, specifically, which facts I twisted? It's not helpful to just make accusations without highlighting where I went wrong.


Fine then. Here are a few of them:
1. Sa'ad Bn Mu'adh (RA); the companion who passed judgment on the Jews of Qurayza was not appointed by Muhammad (saw). The Jews themselves selected him (thinking he would be lenient) since he was formally their ally.
2. Prophet Muhammad (saw) never demanded that Medinite Jews recognize Islam as superior to their own religion. Long before even he entered the town, he had always extolled Jewish prophets claiming he was a successor in the line of prophethood (gentile prophets included).
3. All of the Qurayza Jews were not punished. Repentant ones who came and sought forgiveness got pardon. The article I provided a link to explains that in detail.
4. The strategy of the Meccan pagans was not that Qurayza finish off the Muslims. They are too few and isolated for that. All that was their job in the war was to collect intelligence and create divisions within the many groups in the town.
The Meccans in fact launched direct attacks and tried to take over the town. Muhammad's (SAW) cousin led an Army which defeated them several times.

It would appear these are enough sir. Go get yourself some knowledge of history in seventh century Arabia. Half baked analysis are not helpful at all.
Re: Why History Says Jerusalem Belongs To The Jews by Olu317(m): 12:18pm On Jan 01
Chukazu:


ButJacob came back from Lebanon house before going to Egypt during famine
Yes,he did. There is no iota of doubt that Jacob was born along with his twin brother and escaped to Laban's place for safety from his twin brother, which also heralded his marriage to two daughters of Laban,where it was located in Paddam Aram in Mesopotamia .This location is somewhere in west of the Euphrates river in the Levant (western and southern Syria). And all these people were somehow migrants from Africa according to human history. And it was easy for Language to be similar which could be as a result of interaction and clans' relationship.
Re: Why History Says Jerusalem Belongs To The Jews by unitysheart(m): 12:46pm On Jan 01
ArewaFanatic:
I have often struggled to contain my surprise whenever 'anti-saracenism' apologists quote the Quran and Hadith to justify the theft of Jerusalem as well as the ongoing apartheid in Palestine and Israel. While watching a discussion on Jerusalem aired by RT (Russia Today) a few days ago, I had to question my dad if he could think of any reasons (other than theological) which justify the horror and injustice being meted out on Palestinians. As expected, none came to his mind. Theology which was meant to guide humans and make them ambassadors of justice is now being used the wrong way.

In my own view, there should be little space for all of these nonsense in the debate. Historically, before the Jews and Arabs came onto the scene, Jerusalem was peopled by Cananite tribes. Through ethnic cleansing (in the eleventh century BC) however, Jews took control of it and maintained it for a millennium before losing it to Romans finally in 70AD (they lost it temporarily several times before this). Arabs only came there in the seventh century after seizing it from the Romans.

Given the history of how nations are born, it is rather inane to even suggest that Jews have a right to Jerusalem (except maybe the religious right to their temple). As one activist explained, the argument of the Zionists that it was the land of their forefathers and therefore their own is nonsensical. Following such a line of reasoning, Turks could fight for a new Turkey to be carved out of China and Probably Japan. The mongols of Iran as well could annex the regions of China they originate from and rename it Mongolia (as it was known before). No human being with a grain of sanity will of course support this. It would be condemned by all. The creation of Israel should be judged that way as well. It was no surprise Professor Shlomo Ben Ami (a former Israeli ambassador) called it 'a nation born in sin'.
There is today a good number of Jews who have thrown themselves into the struggle for Palestinian rights. Prominent among them are Amira Hass, Miko Peled, Professor Avi Shlaim and Rachel Shabi.

Admittedly, Palestinians have made several mistakes in their relations with Jews. It will be evil however to deny them their just due. East Jerusalem (which is all they demand for now) is theirs and should be given to them. Theology and whatever else can follow that. #Free Palestine.

NB: The descendants of the Cananites who lived there before Jews and Arabs are still very much around. The chief negotiator for the Palestinian Authority Dr Saab Erekat is one of them.

I hope you know that this fallacy about Erekat being a descendant of the Canaanite of old has been refuted and countererd.
Re: Why History Says Jerusalem Belongs To The Jews by bahaushe1: 12:56pm On Jan 01
Chukazu:


So you claimed they worshipped" first" in SAUDI ARABIA, so I asked how did they leave garden of Eden to go worship in SAUDI ARABIA?

WAS garden of Eden located in Saudi?

My Bible by tell me that comes usually comes down "in the cool of the day to "fellowship with them" right in the garden ,so else do you want me to prove to you?

I can't remember using Saudi Arabia in my entire post. I said the point where Ka'aba stands today is believed to the place where Allaah was first worshipped on earth. And that act of worship was by Prophet of Allaah Adam (pbuh). When he descended on earth his first act of worship to Allaah was at that point. I think this is clear enough.
Re: Why History Says Jerusalem Belongs To The Jews by AgentOfAllah: 3:17pm On Jan 01
ArewaFanatic:

Fine then. Here are a few of them:
1. Sa'ad Bn Mu'adh (RA); the companion who passed judgment on the Jews of Qurayza was not appointed by Muhammad (saw). The Jews themselves selected him (thinking he would be lenient) since he was formally their ally.
The question of who it was that appointed Sa'ad is not exactly as clear cut as you claim. This much is captured even in Islamic sources. See pp. 250 of "Muhammad: His Character and Conduct" by Adil Salahi, where it is stated that:

"When the siege started to bite hard at them, the Qurayzah sent a message to the Prophet, which stated that they were willing to surrender and accept whatever ruling he made against them. The Muslims of the Aws spoke to the Prophet, pleading for the Qurayzah because they were their allies. The Prophet said to them: “Will you be happy if a man from among you gives the judgement?” They said: “Yes, we will.” The Prophet then assigned this task to Sa'd ibn Muadh. A different report mentions that the Prophet told the Qurayzah to choose their judge from among his Companions, and they chose Sa'd, because he was their ally and they hoped that he would be lenient."

What is clear from the above is that the Muhammad only allowed that they chose a judge from among the Muslims, who was also a member of banu Aws. The reason I am inclined to believe that Muhammad influenced the choice of Sa'd, aside from the fact that one of Aisha's narrations clearly states this much, is that from a political viewpoint, Muhammad was well aware of what needed to be done to banu Qurayzah. Before this event, he had previously banished other Jewish tribes with which pretexts for grievances existed. There would probably have been a fear that the leniency of banishment could have passed a message that the Muslims were weak, if not outrightly encourage cooperation amongst the banished tribes to dislodge the Muslims from Medina. Whatever be the case, Muhammad knew that the punishment had to be harsh as a deterrence. His history with Sa'd was also an assurance that Sa'd had become more Muslim than Aws. The prophet, knew, in essence, what banu Qurayzah and the interceding members of banu Aws didn't; that Sa'd wouldn't be lenient in his judgement. So, he must have deftly played everyone to agree to the preponderance of chief of Aws' judgement.

2. Prophet Muhammad (saw) never demanded that Medinite Jews recognize Islam as superior to their own religion. Long before even he entered the town, he had always extolled Jewish prophets claiming he was a successor in the line of prophethood (gentile prophets included).
I don't recall mentioning that Muhammad demanded such.

3. All of the Qurayza Jews were not punished. Repentant ones who came and sought forgiveness got pardon. The article I provided a link to explains that in detail.
While all of Qurayzah Jews were not executed, it is absolute nonsense that repentant ones who came and sought forgiveness got pardoned. The ones that were pardoned were either ones perceived not to be "involved in the treachery" or ones on whose behalf some of the prophet's companions interceded. This much is written in the link you shared. There was no room for repentance on that day. It was antecedence, not repentance that saved the ones that didn't die. Nevertheless, it is recorded that those who were executed were in the hundreds.

4. The strategy of the Meccan pagans was not that Qurayza finish off the Muslims. They are too few and isolated for that. All that was their job in the war was to collect intelligence and create divisions within the many groups in the town.
The Meccans in fact launched direct attacks and tried to take over the town. Muhammad's (SAW) cousin led an Army which defeated them several times.
Banu Quarayzah were also expected to physically attack the Muslims. I'm not sure you read the link you provided. Check section 4. It is clear from Ibn Ishaq's account that the Meccans expected banu Qurayzah to also fight alongside them.

It would appear these are enough sir. Go get yourself some knowledge of history in seventh century Arabia. Half baked analysis are not helpful at all.
It appears we both need to get ourselves some knowledge of history.
Re: Why History Says Jerusalem Belongs To The Jews by Chukazu: 4:39pm On Jan 01
bahaushe1:


I can't remember using Saudi Arabia in my entire post. I said the point where Ka'aba stands today is believed to the place where Allaah was first worshipped on earth. And that act of worship was by Prophet of Allaah Adam (pbuh). When he descended on earth his first act of worship to Allaah was at that point. I think this is clear enough.

And where exactly is the so called Ka'aba standing if not in present day Saudi Arabia?
And I asked was Eden in the present day Saudi?

There's hypothesis, theory and law...if Adam worshipped God "first" in Ka,Aba, which now in Saudi, that means Eden was in Saudi there's nothing in History to suggest that...at least the Euphrates river mentioned in Bible as relating to Eden is between IRAQ and Syria and not Saudi Arabia... that is my point
Re: Why History Says Jerusalem Belongs To The Jews by ArewaFanatic(m): 6:03pm On Jan 01
[quote author=AgentOfAllah post=63797138]
The question of who it was that appointed Sa'ad is not exactly as clear cut as you claim. This much is captured even in Islamic sources. See pp. 250 of "Muhammad: His Character and Conduct" by Adil Salahi, where it is stated that:
Re: Why History Says Jerusalem Belongs To The Jews by ArewaFanatic(m): 6:42pm On Jan 01
AgentOfAllah:

The question of who it was that appointed Sa'ad is not exactly as clear cut as you claim. This much is captured even in Islamic sources. See pp. 250 of "Muhammad: His Character and Conduct" by Adil Salahi, where it is stated that:

"When the siege started to bite hard at them, the Qurayzah sent a message to the Prophet, which stated that they were willing to surrender and accept whatever ruling he made against them. The Muslims of the Aws spoke to the Prophet, pleading for the Qurayzah because they were their allies. The Prophet said to them: “Will you be happy if a man from among you gives the judgement?” They said: “Yes, we will.” The Prophet then assigned this task to Sa'd ibn Muadh. A different report mentions that the Prophet told the Qurayzah to choose their judge from among his Companions, and they chose Sa'd, because he was their ally and they hoped that he would be lenient."

## What I intended to show from my own end was that a second opinion exists regarding the selection of Sa'ad. Your initial claim that the prophet selected it himself was a sweeping one which carries only half the truth.
Now that it has been conceded, there is really no point pushing ahead on this front.


What is clear from the above is that the Muhammad only allowed that they chose a judge from among the Muslims, who was also a member of banu Aws. The reason I am inclined to believe that Muhammad influenced the choice of Sa'd, aside from the fact that one of Aisha's narrations clearly states this much, is that from a political viewpoint, Muhammad was well aware of what needed to be done to banu Qurayzah.

## Any man would surely be aware that they had to be gotten rid of (through either banishment or execution). It hardly requires a genius to discern that.

Before this event, he had previously banished other Jewish tribes with which pretexts for grievances existed.

## Could you list any WHOLE TRIBE that was expelled? I am certainly not aware of any.

There would probably have been a fear that the leniency of banishment could have passed a message that the Muslims were weak, if not outrightly encourage cooperation amongst the banished tribes to dislodge the Muslims from Medina. Whatever be the case, Muhammad knew that the punishment had to be harsh as a deterrence. His history with Sa'd was also an assurance that Sa'd had become more Muslim than Aws. The prophet, knew, in essence, what banu Qurayzah and the interceding members of banu Aws didn't; that Sa'd wouldn't be lenient in his judgement. So, he must have deftly played everyone to agree to the preponderance of chief of Aws' judgement.

## While I must admit that your view is a well grounded and coherent one, there are other equally logical views. I would argue that it was obvious to even the Qurayza that Sa'ad will judge them harshly. His history with Muhammad (saw) was after all not hidden to them. He had fought on the prophet's side before. They probably regarded him as better than all the others (given that he was an ally). Sa'ad however shocked them prefering the safety of Madina over alliance. To suggest that the prophet was 'deftly playing everyone' therefore will be too much of a gross misrepresentation.

I don't recall mentioning that Muhammad demanded such.


## Why not visit what you wrote earlier then? You surely made a statement along the lines of "Muhammad extolled their prophets highly but picked up fight when they refused to acknowledge the superiority of his religion" (This is a paraphrase by the way. I'm having troubles loading the verbatim wording)

While all of Qurayzah Jews were not executed, it is absolute nonsense that repentant ones who came and sought forgiveness got pardoned. The ones that were pardoned were either ones perceived not to be "involved in the treachery" or ones on whose behalf some of the prophet's companions interceded. This much is written in the link you shared. There was no room for repentance on that day. It was antecedence, not repentance that saved the ones that didn't die. Nevertheless, it is recorded that those who were executed were in the hundreds.


## Of course there was room for repentance. The article itself listed two men (Zabir Thabit and Amr ibn Su'd) who repented and were granted amnesty. It will do you a lot of good to read it again.
I'm willing to concede that the whole tribe might not receive a state pardon if they had repented. Granting them one would sure have been a daft political move. There is no reason to think they would not have betrayed the state again.
As a side note, I find the hyperboles in your statement a bit funny. They seem to point toward a sort of 'machine gun tactic'. Those spared were not 'perceived' to be innocent, they were 'proven' to have been. The 'hundreds' executed were traitors who would have received a similar judgement in any society (even a modern one).

Banu Quarayzah were also expected to physically attack the Muslims. I'm not sure you read the link you provided. Check section 4. It is clear from Ibn Ishaq's account that the Meccans expected banu Qurayzah to also fight alongside them.


## It really is not clear at all sir. Ibn Ishaq's statement 'they sided the Quraysh and fought against the prophet' was a general one. Providing arms and intelligence (which the Qurayza did) could be viewed as one way of fighting against the prophet. This was pretty much explained in section 5 of the article.


It appears we both need to get ourselves some knowledge of history.

It will appear so sir. Good evening.


#My responses to you have been merged with your earlier statements. Read whatever is in the box as well please. I have placed a (#) before each of mine to distinguish them from yours.
Re: Why History Says Jerusalem Belongs To The Jews by kolawoleibukun: 8:54pm On Jan 01
you are a very uzeless hediot the person way open this thread. I just day look you with one eye you just day type rubbish from your rotten finger.
Re: Why History Says Jerusalem Belongs To The Jews by buffalowings: 9:18pm On Jan 01
AgentOfAllah:


Personally, I believe everyone should be free to pick whatever fairy tale sails their boat. I happen not to subscribe to any myself, because I feel dumbed down by them, all together. I just hope that, by your logic, you're Jew, not a christian. Otherwise, you risk being seen as a hypocrite.

I'm agnostic cool
So your beliefs are fairy tales sad
Re: Why History Says Jerusalem Belongs To The Jews by bahaushe1: 9:54am On Jan 02
Chukazu:


And where exactly is the so called Ka'aba standing if not in present day Saudi Arabia?
And I asked was Eden in the present day Saudi?

There's hypothesis, theory and law...if Adam worshipped God "first" in Ka,Aba, which now in Saudi, that means Eden was in Saudi there's nothing in History to suggest that...at least the Euphrates river mentioned in Bible as relating to Eden is between IRAQ and Syria and not Saudi Arabia... that is my point

Oh! I see! I now understand where you are heading to. Garden of Eden (Garden of Eternity) is not on earth, it is a description of heaven (paradise) where Adam (pbuh) and his wife Eve lived before they were sent to the earth. It is more general description is "....... garden of eternity beneath which rivers flow......". Quran 98:8.
Re: Why History Says Jerusalem Belongs To The Jews by AgentOfAllah: 10:24am On Jan 02
ArewaFanatic:

## What I intended to show from my own end was that a second opinion exists regarding the selection of Sa'ad. Your initial claim that the prophet selected it himself was a sweeping one which carries only half the truth.
Now that it has been conceded, there is really no point pushing ahead on this front.
(1) Choose your words carefully. My words were that "he appointed the leader of banu Aws who had converted to Islam". These are similar words used in the Hadith by Aisha. Just because you do not agree with this version of events doesn't mean I was putting out half truths. No matter who suggested Sa'd, the buck stopped with Muhammad. He wasn't just some dispassionate bystander observing things unfurl. He was actively involved, and, was the most influential player in the decision making process.
(2) If it was your goal to show that there is another version of events, then you weren't forthcoming about that goal. You instead accused me of twisting facts, yet, you failed to show which facts I twisted. So, even though you claim "it has been conceded", I find no concession to make on this note, as there was nowhere I denied the existence of alternate versions!

## Any man would surely be aware that they had to be gotten rid of (through either banishment or execution). It hardly requires a genius to discern that.
No, not any man! Just a man well versed in the art of statesmanship in 7th century Arabia; and a skilled statesman, Muhammad was!

## Could you list any WHOLE TRIBE that was expelled? I am certainly not aware of any.
Prior to the extermination of Qurayzah, he had previously banished banu Qaynuqa and banu Nadir from Madina.

## While I must admit that your view is a well grounded and coherent one, there are other equally logical views. I would argue that it was obvious to even the Qurayza that Sa'ad will judge them harshly. His history with Muhammad (saw) was after all not hidden to them. He had fought on the prophet's side before. They probably regarded him as better than all the others (given that he was an ally). Sa'ad however shocked them prefering the safety of Madina over alliance. To suggest that the prophet was 'deftly playing everyone' therefore will be too much of a gross misrepresentation.
According to the version of events that you support, it was not obvious to banu Qurayzah that Sa'd would judge them harshly. They apparently thought otherwise. And no, I don't think it is too much of a gross misrepresentation, or any kind of misrepresentation to suggest Muhammad deftly played everyone, because that is exactly what he did. That's what anyone skillful in the arts of statesmanship would do, should the opportunity present itself. The use of deception in war was not foreign to him. That was how the battle of the trench was won, after all.

## Why not visit what you wrote earlier then? You surely made a statement along the lines of "Muhammad extolled their prophets highly but picked up fight when they refused to acknowledge the superiority of his religion" (This is a paraphrase by the way. I'm having troubles loading the verbatim wording)
Your paraphrasal shows you misunderstood that point. You seem to think I suggested Muhammad tried to force the Jews to become Muslims, but this wasn't at all my meaning. My point was that he proselytised to them, and often engaged them in debates, but they simply didn't take his religious claims seriously. They, in fact, enjoyed ridiculing him because they knew his knowledge of their religion was quite superficial. Naturally, this made him frustrated with them. He could never have attempted to compel them to become Muslims, as this would have outrightly violated the Medina constitution and put him in a bad place. The point here was not to show that he fought them because they rejected his religion, but to show that there was already conflict brewing between his community and theirs. These events contribute to a more comprehensive sketch of the campaign against the Jews of Medina.

## Of course there was room for repentance. The article itself listed two men (Zabir Thabit and Amr ibn Su'd) who repented and were granted amnesty. It will do you a lot of good to read it again.
I'm willing to concede that the whole tribe might not receive a state pardon if they had repented. Granting them one would sure have been a daft political move. There is no reason to think they would not have betrayed the state again.
I think you meant Zabir ibn Bata? In the case of Zabir, he never repented or anything of the sort. Thabit interceded on his behalf because of a favour Zabir had done for him in the past. In fact, after his pardon, he still insisted to be killed, and he was killed. As for Amr, he wasn't pardoned because he sought penitence. He was pardoned because someone had heard him argue against his tribe's betrayal of Muhammad when it was in vogue to do otherwise. Read your own source carefully!

As a side note, I find the hyperboles in your statement a bit funny. They seem to point toward a sort of 'machine gun tactic'. Those spared were not 'perceived' to be innocent, they were 'proven' to have been. The 'hundreds' executed were traitors who would have received a similar judgement in any society (even a modern one).
The emboldened is preposterous! There are several hadiths in which it was said that the executed individuals were selected based on whether they had developed pubic hair or not. Now, even if we are to assume that all the grown ups of banu Qurayzah were willing traitors in this unfortunate turn of events (this is of course, statistically impossible), are we to also believe that young boys who didn't know any better were also traitors because they already had pubic hair? It is not even conceivable that all the grown ups who were executed were traitors either. We know of the case of Amr who was spared because he was a dissenting voice. In fact, this only happened because someone heard him dissent. This does not mean his was the only dissenting voice. There might have been others whom history has no record of. The victors (Muslims) wrote most of the story. We have no real historical recollection of what all the executed members of Banu Qurayzah thought or said. They weren't individually given fair trial. The leadership of their tribe was tried, and they were all guilty by association. How dare you casually accuse them of being traitors without any consideration given to the lack of evidence? I'm shocked by your nonchalance! It is simply a blatant lie that the same would happen in a modern society. I, for one, am pleased that our formal sense of justice has evolved to the extent that we don't decimate tribes by their associations with guilty parties; and I certainly am pleased people like you aren't the ones formulation our legal codes.

## It really is not clear at all sir. Ibn Ishaq's statement 'they sided the Quraysh and fought against the prophet' was a general one. Providing arms and intelligence (which the Qurayza did) could be viewed as one way of fighting against the prophet. This was pretty much explained in section 5 of the article.
"Then they (the Quraish) resolved: ‘Send to B. Qurayza that we will not give them a single man, and if they want to fight let them come out and fight.’"

The text above is an excerpt from Ibn Ishaq's account. Twist it how you want, but it only implies one thing: The Meccans expected banu Qurayzah to physically fight the Muslims.

It will appear so sir. Good evening.
Good evening!

2 Likes

Re: Why History Says Jerusalem Belongs To The Jews by AgentOfAllah: 10:28am On Jan 02
buffalowings:

I'm agnostic cool
Good for you

So your beliefs are fairy tales sad
I don't have any (religious) beliefs.
Re: Why History Says Jerusalem Belongs To The Jews by Hati13(m): 2:42pm On Jan 02
jeruzi:
The Hebrew language was already being spoken before their going into Egypt. There might have being some influence though, just as we have it today where some language use english words inbetween their sentence.
True
Re: Why History Says Jerusalem Belongs To The Jews by Chukazu: 5:02pm On Jan 02
bahaushe1:


Oh! I see! I now understand where you are heading to. Garden of Eden (Garden of Eternity) is not on earth, it is a description of heaven (paradise) where Adam (pbuh) and his wife Eve lived before they were sent to the earth. It is more general description is "....... garden of eternity beneath which rivers flow......". Quran 98:8.

"Garden of Eternity" ba woo undecided

So where did the four Rivers flow from, the rivers flowed from Earth upward to eternity? embarassed

Very strange reasoning...
Re: Why History Says Jerusalem Belongs To The Jews by Hati13(m): 6:20pm On Jan 02
Olu317:
Do you really think Abram descendants spoke Berber's language related language? My friend, Egyptian had a more detailed inscription about their past glory and both archeology and Bible mentioned the reign of pharaoh's existence in the Bible. How can you identify the Berber's language of ancient times, when Egyptians language was the dominant language? The Egyptians, somewhere along the line enslaved Israelis. And this was how their story begun in a dynamically way. Despite the fact that Abram was called out of his ancestors house whose ancestors migrated to the different part within the Mesopotamia area around 10BC before settling down. The point here is that, if you as a man moved out of your original land and migrated to a new place, then it is certain, your third generation will likely loose your original mother tongue to the new environment they now occupy . This is a simple logic without. As far as I have see and done research on this subject matter, everything about Israel point to them as developing a language through Egyptian's. If you think, the Egyptians is absolutely different from Israelis or don't have any connection,then let me ask you some questions: what language did Moses spoke with pharaoh?,What language did Joseph spoke in Egypt? What language did Abram spoke in Egypt? What language did Jacob spoke with his in-law Laban that he served for many years?
You are getting what I said wrong. I didn't said that Abraham descendants spoken Berber, but Just that Semitic languages are more related to Berber languages than ancient Egyptian.

And I've said that Abraham and his descendants spoke with Egyptians either using Egyptian or other mutual languages.

I don't know the exact answers for the question you asked me. I don't know much about Israelis like you do. Yes, Egyptians are very related with Israelis since they both spoke an Afroasiatic languages, but what I said in a greater Berber-Semitic languages relation is true and you can check linguistic researchs on this online.
Re: Why History Says Jerusalem Belongs To The Jews by Olu317(m): 8:28pm On Jan 02
Hati13:

You are getting what I said wrong. I didn't said that Abraham descendants spoken Berber, but Just that Semitic languages are more related to Berber languages than ancient Egyptian.

And I've said that Abraham and his descendants spoke with Egyptians either using Egyptian or other mutual languages.

I don't know the exact answers for the question you asked me. I don't know much about Israelis like you do. Yes, Egyptians are very related with Israelis since they both spoke an Afroasiatic languages, but what I said in a greater Berber-Semitic languages relation is true and you can check linguistic researchs on this online.
Oh k I understand you. However, I know Cush had more strength and domination before Berbers in the ancient past. Ethiopia was closely related to Cush. The Berbers were a later group. Anyway I agree with you that Afro Asiatic as being mentioned was the language spoken by the two groups at first before slight difference that has to do with YHWH. And the beginning of new Hebrew people after the exodus out of this people out of Egypt. wink
Hati13:

You are getting what I said wrong. I didn't said that Abraham descendants spoken Berber, but Just that Semitic languages are more related to Berber languages than ancient Egyptian.

And I've said that Abraham and his descendants spoke with Egyptians either using Egyptian or other mutual languages.

I don't know the exact answers for the question you asked me. I don't know much about Israelis like you do. Yes, Egyptians are very related with Israelis since they both spoke an Afroasiatic languages, but what I said in a greater Berber-Semitic languages relation is true and you can check linguistic researchs on this online.
Oh k I understand you. However, I know Cush had more strength and domination before Berbers in the ancient past. Ethiopia was closely related to Cush. The Berbers were a later group. Anyway I agree with you that Afro Asiatic as being mentioned was the language spoken by the two groups at first before slight difference that has to do with YHWH. And the beginning of new Hebrew people after the exodus out of this people out of Egypt.

1 Like

Re: Why History Says Jerusalem Belongs To The Jews by Hati13(m): 8:53pm On Jan 02
Olu317,

If I ask,
- why is Ethiopia/Cush the first ppl to be mentioned in the Old Testament?
- why is Ethiopia mentioned more times than another ppl or nation?
- why is there a saying in the Old Testament that says "Ethiopia shall stretch out it's hand to God"?

I ask because the Old Testament was written by Israelis and it should have talked more about Israel than Ethiopia, but it isn't.

You are very knowledgeable on many things, but you are still a Christian? Why is it?
Re: Why History Says Jerusalem Belongs To The Jews by bahaushe1: 1:14pm On Jan 03
Chukazu:


"Garden of Eternity" ba woo undecided

So where did the four Rivers flow from, the rivers flowed from Earth upward to eternity? embarassed

Very strange reasoning...

The description of paradise in the Quran has always been "garden beneath which rivers flow". No one has ever attempted to name the rivers or their direction of flow. Neither the Jews nor the Muslims did that; it got to be the Christians.

The names of the rivers, their number, and direction of flow is part of the knowledge of the unseen which only God knows. Ours is just Believe.
Re: Why History Says Jerusalem Belongs To The Jews by Chukazu: 4:58pm On Jan 03
bahaushe1:


The description of paradise in the Quran has always been "garden beneath which rivers flow". No one has ever attempted to name the rivers or their direction of flow. Neither the Jews nor the Muslims did that; it got to be the Christians.

The names of the rivers, their number, and direction of flow is part of the knowledge of the unseen which only God knows. Ours is just Believe.

That is your Koran ...my Bible is plain and clear. And the Rivers are still traceable till date .
Re: Why History Says Jerusalem Belongs To The Jews by frosbel2: 5:12pm On Jan 03
Israel wants all Africans out and please do not forget they also supported Apartheid - cheesy

Only blinded brainwashed fanatics support the Israel government and their racism and lust for war.
Re: Why History Says Jerusalem Belongs To The Jews by Olu317(m): 7:34pm On Jan 03
Hati13:
Olu317,

If I ask,
- why is Ethiopia/Cush the first ppl to be mentioned in the Old Testament?
- why is Ethiopia mentioned more times than another ppl or nation?
- why is there a saying in the Old Testament that says "Ethiopia shall stretch out it's hand to God"?

I ask because the Old Testament was written by Israelis and it should have talked more about Israel than Ethiopia, but it isn't.

You are very knowledgeable on many things, but you are still a Christian? Why is it?
If you ask me as a personal question, I will infer that Ethiopia was a prosperous group of people, whom were powerful and made a great mark on earth. The ancient Ethiopians were Nubians. And from which Israelis intermarried with. In fact the ancient Hebrews, couldn't be differentiated from Egyptians. And the ancient groups of Egypt were also an offshoot of Ethiopian people. The Bible didn't categories Ethiopia as a group the ancient Hebrews should fight and take over spoil from them, likewise Egypt. Biblically, Ethiopia represent the Ham's Race. And they are people of God as well but they need to find him. However, knowing the God of Hebrews is a choice because many Hebrews till infinity will not accept him through Jesus Christ. Then, on my background as following the faith in Jesus Christ is totally different from the way you see the Bible and me . If you have come across different religious book, you can either accept to follow any or let go of all. My ancestors had a way of worshipping God and were ardent followers of IFA tradition. And this tradition has in them different account of things that had happened in the past, such as who God was, the first word spoken by God etc. Being a Christian doesn't not take away the ritual way of sacrifice done by ancestors from my father neither will it take it away from me nor my descendants as well as those who identify with Odua—Oranmiyan etc lineage. Life is about choice.
N. B: I am not as vast you may think because Eledumare(God of heaven and earth) is the one that bless everyone he allowed to exist as humans. And I am like you too.


Cheers

1 Like

Re: Why History Says Jerusalem Belongs To The Jews by noblefrank31(m): 8:49pm On Jan 03
Re: Why History Says Jerusalem Belongs To The Jews by bahaushe1: 11:40pm On Jan 03
Chukazu:


That is your Koran ...my Bible is plain and clear. And the Rivers are still traceable till date .

Good luck!

(0) (1) (2) ... (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (Reply)

T.B. Joshua Predicted Missing Airasia Flight QZ8501 / Man Says He’s Been To Heaven Four Times, Draws Map / Cell Phone Vs. Bible

(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: (0) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2018 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 409
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.