LagosShia:

go back to your sagamu hut.senseless man.as if those bombs cannot be turned against you the way our ancestors were enslaved and our countries are still dominated and under western hegemony.

No, it is made specifically for dumb terrorists who conduct terrorism or support it as a religious duty!

You can hate western hegemony as much as you like, but it is, by and large, better and more progressive and it is here to stay despite your silly boko haram sentiments.

@ajigglin; and you didn't apply 'in context' to Islamic scripture. what does that say about your process of argument? hypocrisy has a way of letting honest mind detects that insincerity is on the prowl.

And sagamite thinks peaceful community live was developed by the west. he needs to read the charter of the city of Madina under the Messenger [as]. women had their privileged, then, something the west has not been able to meet because, believe it or not, after they burned their bras [and it is not compulsory that women should wear bras, anyways], they find the glass ceiling which they are yet to break.

if Islam forbids anything, you will find a greater evil in it, while in your rage, all you focus on is the less good that you don't have to use any sense to deduce.

ajigglin:

smh.
lagosshia, i answered your questions and came back to expect a response, but all i see are pages and pages of your cut and paste debate tactics. that is not how you debate. you make a point, provide evidence, then conclude. you don't just go and pull scripture left right center, ESPECIALLY when you don't provide the context.
anyway, the rest of you carry on. this debate is just spiraling downward.
safe.

thanks but no thanks.

i didnt ask for your lecture on how to debate.i brought you verses that are specific and not general from the bible;so they need no context.while all that the critics of islam do is to bring general and specific verses,mix them up and take them out of context.what "cut and paste" are you talking about?is it hard to read the bible?or you think i dont have one at home?it is not rocket-science reading the bible.

what question are you talking about?i must have unknowningly skipped it.

Sweetnecta:

@ajigglin; and you didn't apply 'in context' to Islamic scripture. what does that say about your process of argument? hypocrisy has a way of letting honest mind detects that insincerity is on the prowl.

And sagamite thinks peaceful community live was developed by the west. he needs to read the charter of the city of Madina under the Messenger [as]. women had their privileged, then, something the west has not been able to meet because, believe it or not, after they burned their bras [and it is not compulsory that women should wear bras, anyways], they find the glass ceiling which they are yet to break.

if Islam forbids anything, you will find a greater evil in it, while in your rage, all you focus on is the less good that you don't have to use any sense to deduce.

You are talking about sense. You did not have any sense to think women are not allowed to drive or cannot walk alone in Medina before you pulled out the Medina is "pioneer of women's right" trump card out of your arse?

Your delusional denials suggest you are an Aro patient.

Sagamite:

You are talking about sense. You did not have any sense to think women are not allowed to drive or cannot walk alone in Medina before you pulled out the Medina is "pioneer of women's right" trump card out of your arse?

Your delusional denials suggest you are an Aro patient.

so in all the countries that allow women to drive including islamic iran and elsewhere,you only single out saudi arabia and make it the sole image of islam.

infact all the terrorism committed in the world,saudi salafists have a hand.salafism is extremism that is giving islam and muslims a bad image.but you're wrong to mistake them as the sole image of islam or to blame islam for their problems.

i would suggest for the seond time you take a look at my posts in the thread below to understand what salafism stands for:

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-659269.0.html

LagosShia:

so in all the countries that allow women to drive including islamic iran and elsewhere,you only single out saudi arabia and make it the sole image of islam.

infact all the terrorism committed in the world,saudi salafists have a hand.salafism is extremism that is giving islam and muslims a bad image.but you're wrong to mistake them as the sole image of islam or to blame islam for their problems.

i would suggest for the seond time you take a look at my posts in the thread below to understand what salafism stands for:

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-659269.0.html

I don't negotiate with Terrorists!

Sagamite:

I don't negotiate with Terrorists!

Mumu!

LagosShia:

Mumu!

Cretin!

Sagamite:

Cretin!

i dont negotiate with mumus!

Thoughts on Jihad[/b]5/21/2011

In the west we often interpret “jihad” as “waging war in the name of Allah”. This is not without justification, but it also annoys and upsets many Muslims who see jihad as a “supreme effort” to lead a “godly personal and social life”.

Thus Muslim scholar Mahmoud Ayoub states that “The goal of true jihad is to attain a harmony between Islam (submission), iman (faith), and ihsan (righteous living).”

[b]Again, Pakistani scholar and professor Fazlur Rahman Malik has used the term to describe the struggle to establish “a just moral-social order“.

Whilst these definitions seem utterly innocuous, it has to be remembered that in the eyes of Islam – and thus its scholars – “righteous living” and “a just moral-social order” can only be found when living in a society ordered by Sharia Law, thus for non-Muslims perhaps these definitions are not quite so harmless as they might at first appear.


Whilst many Muslim apologists would like us to believe that Jihad has only non-violent connotations, it is worth noting that from the word “Jihad” (root = jhd) we get words such as “Mujahid” and “Mujahideen” meaning (in practice at least) “fighter/soldier” and “band of fighters/soldiers” respectively, which rather belies the “peaceful only” interpretation of jihad.

Furthermore Muslim jurists explained that there are four kinds of jihad fi sabili Allahi (“jihad in the way of Allah”):

Jihad of the heart (jihad bil qalb/nafs) is concerned with combating the devil and in the attempt to escape his persuasion to evil, i.e. the “internal” jihad.
Jihad by the tongue (jihad bil lisan) is concerned with spreading the word of Islam with one’s tongue and the verbal defence of Islam.
Jihad by the hand (jihad bil yad) refers to choosing to do what is right and to combat injustice and what is wrong with action, e.g. protest, demanding “special consideration” etc.
Jihad by the sword (jihad bis saif) refers to qital fi sabili Allahi ([armed] fighting in the way of Allah, or holy war), this is the most common usage by Salafi and Wahhabi Muslims and the most ancient. For example, Sahih Bukhari (the pre-eminent Hadith collection of Sunni Islam) has almost 200 references to jihad and every one of them refers to it in the sense of armed warfare against non-Muslims.

Thus whilst jihad is not only warfare, it most certainly encompasses warfare, as history comprehensively demonstrates.

Indeed, within classical Islamic jurisprudence jihad is the only form of warfare permissible under Sharia law, and consists of wars against non-Muslims, apostates, rebels, dissenters renouncing the authority of Islam (i.e. heretics) and (curiously) highway robbers. Thus all war carried out by Muslims is (or should be) jihad(1).

It is also worth noting that the primary aim of sword-jihad is not the conversion of non-Muslims to Islam by force, but the expansion of the Islamic state (K13:41) and its defence, as is well attested in history (e.g. the Eastern Christian, now part of the Islamic, world). This fact belies the “defence only” interpretation also used by some apologists.

That jihad is not primarily intended to convert needs a little further explanation. Whenever Islam conquered territory it generally allowed its subjugated peoples three choices:

To convert.
To accept the third-class status of dhimmi.
To face a merciless war of annihilation.
Strictly, the second choice is only available to “People of the Book” (Jews and Christians) and, according to some authorities, Zoroastrians; but where a war of annihilation was not readily practicable it was extended to other peoples (e.g. the Hindus and Buddhists of the Indian sub-continent who’s numbers were too vast to be readily annihilated by the Muslim conquistadors).

A side note:

Many Muslims will thus claim that “Islam was not spread by the sword”, but this depends on precisely what is meant. In Europe, Arabia, Persia, the Levant, Anatolia, India and Africa jihad bis saif was used to conquer the lands, and the oppressive dhimmitude system was used to gradually convert their peoples, since (generally) one could not be a citizen without being Muslim and the dhimmi lived with great uncertainty and fear. (Let me state that this was not invariably so and history relates that in several periods of the Islamic hegemony non-Muslims -usually Jews or Christians- did indeed rise to prominence. Equally, there were also periods of pogrom and active persecution, which regrettably continue to today in some parts of the Dar-ul-Islam.)

[b]Thus, in general, Islam did not “convert by the sword” in the sense of offering the choice “become Muslim or I will kill you”, but it did do so in the sense that it used the “sword” to gain territory and then set up a system that so discriminated against the non-Muslim that gradual conversion under social, economic, legal and political pressures inevitably followed, albeit with various degrees of success worldwide.[/b]- – - -

From the point of the non-Muslim it is perhaps relevant to note that of the four forms of jihad, three are aimed at non-Muslims.


An amplification and (partial) exemplification of these forms follows:

Jihad by the tongue (jihad bil lisan). This might sound like simple proslytisation, but there is more involved in that (in essence) Islam recognises any method including lying or dissimulation (see the doctrines of Taqiyya/Muda’rat and Kitman and also tayseer) to “spread Islam” either in terms of actually winning converts, or gaining acceptance for Islam within a host society, or disguising elements of Islam (hence the oft repeated statement that “Islam is a religion of peace” despite much evidence to the contrary from both its texts and its actions). It would also include attempting to silence criticism of Islam by labelling critics as “racists” or “Islamophobes” or any verbal means to promote/defend Islam and/or silence opposition and critics.

[b]Jihad by the hand (jihad bil yad). It is important to realise that “what is right and to combat injustice and what is wrong” must be understood from the point of view of Sharia Law, which defines “right and wrong” by law (thus what is actually defined is “lawful” and “unlawful” which stands in place of the morality of right and wrong) and Sharia Law defines “injustice” as anything that interferes with or prevents muslims living their lives in a fully Sharia-compliant manner and the instruments of that “injustice” as “oppressive”.[/b]Thus hand-jihad would include demands for time off work for prayer; special washing facilities; Muslim or Muslim-women-only sessions in swimming baths, libraries and other Public facilities; that women doctors be available to treat Muslim women throughout the Healthcare system; that Halal food be supplied by default in public institutions; that Muslims be permitted not to handle “haram” things such as pork or alcohol in shops/businesses when all other employees would be required so to do; that Sharia Courts be set up for Muslims; that the Police show special care and consideration when entering muslims’ houses. Please note that the above are all things which have been demanded by UK Muslims and acquiesced to by UK governments, councils and, in the case of “special treatment of Muslim homes”, the Police Authorities (ACPO guidelines). That criticism of Islam be forbidden (see “vilification of religion” – U.N. resolution, proposed by the Organization of the Islamic Conference) or at least heavily curtailed legally. It would also include staging (violent) protests against anything giving “offence” to Muslims – from Remembrance Day and returning troops to anything derogatory about Mohammed, the Koran, or Islam in general; e.g. books, cartoons, films etc. Another aspect of this (though it seems a mostly American one) is “lawfare”- legal warfare – where someone who makes “defamatory” comments about Islam (etc.) is sued in the Courts. This always has the effect of tying them up in legal matters and may also bankrupt them. Thus the threat of lawfare adds to the pressure to silence criticism. In Europe, things may be even worse. In several European Countries the State has taken over the job of “lawfare” against its own majority population. In these cases the criticism of Islam brings, not a civil law-suit, but criminal persecution (sorry, that’s “prosecution”) by the state – even if what is said is true. Examples include Geert Wilders (Holland), Lars Hedegaard (Denmark), Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff (Austria) to name three high-profile cases. And conviction has followed, thus proving that the truth and fact are no defence (a position perfectly consonant with Islamic Sharia, see conditions set in the “Pact of Umar”.).
A further element to this could involve something as simple as the building of large mosques, preferably on high-ground so that the building (or its minaret) symbolically “dominates” the surrounding landscape thus making sure that people have to “look up to Islam”. If this last sounds ridiculous, remember that in non-Muslim Countries the Christian Church (etc.) many not be higher than, nor built within a given radius of , a Mosque. Thus in Islamic Countries the relative heights of Church (or temple etc.) and Mosque are used to show the dominance of Islam.

It is worth pointing out that both the two types of Jihad referred to above are at least as effective at spreading Islam as is warfare. Some Western commentators refer to these forms of Jihad as “stealth Jihad”, an apt description since both lead to the gradual acceptance of (elements of) Sharia Law as normative within a host society, generally without any fuss (or even awareness) on the part of the larger community, amongst whom it is passed off as “religious tolerance”, see examples above.

Jihad by the sword (jihad bis saif), or more simply, sword-jihad. According to Muslim Jurists this refers to “qital fee sabeeli Allahi.” This phrase means “fight[ing] in the way of Allah”. This is significant since it equates, depending on context, the Koranic phrase “jahadooona fee sabeeli Allahi” “strive hard [lit: make jihad] in the way of Allah” with “fight [qital]in the way of Allah”.Thus (again) jihad encompasses fighting and the “qital” verses in the Koran have to be considered in the light that to “fight in the way of Allah” is “jihad” – or (more precisely) a part thereof.The question that then arises is what forms of “war” are permitted. As already stated, the primary aim of sword-jihad is to expand the Islamic state. That, ipso facto, makes sword-jihad offensive in nature, rather than defensive and means that Muslims; or, more accurately, the Islamic state, thinks it has a god-given right to attack non-Muslim countries. Indeed, it goes beyond this: Jihad is declared an obligatory religious duty and thus the Islamic state has a duty (strictly) to attack its nearest non-Muslim neighbours (K9:123, 21:43-44) – except during a period of “hudna” or truce. Another duty placed on Muslims is to wage war on “oppressors” (K4:75). Islam regards as “oppressive” and “unjust” anything that interferes with the Islamic life. Thus from the Islamic point of view, any state that is not based on Sharia law is an “oppressive” state vis-a-vis any Muslim minority within its borders, no matter how liberal that state may be in fact(4).

[font=Lucida Sans Unicode][b]The final element I wish to elucidate under this head is that of suicide bombing and whether or not this is permissible in Islam. On this, Islamic opinion itself is split, depending on the jurisprudential school to which you refer; so the short answer is both “yes” and “no”. Those that say “yes” refer to the verse K9:5 which includes the phrase “ lie in ambush for them in every stratagem of war”, claiming that the suicide bombing is encompassed within the “every stratagem” and “ambush” of the verse. They also refer to K9:111 which contains the phrase “they fight in the way of God; they kill, and are killed” claiming this is a description of a “suicide” attack. Those that say “no” point out that in Islam suicide is forbidden (as well as offering alternative exegesis of the verses involved). Thus there is no clear answer. What is clear, however, is that significant strands within Islam, namely Wahhabism and Salafism and their modern derivatives, do believe this technique is justified, much to the sorrow of the whole world, Muslim and non-Muslim alike. [/b] [/font]


This is what may be termed the “offensive jihad as defensive war” theory, outlined below.

[b]The polemicist starts out by making a case that Islam is (somehow) “oppressed” by the “kaffirs”(that’s non-Muslims) of the West. This is rather ironic in fact, since in many respects Muslims (especially if from a minority sect within their “home” Country) have more freedom to practice their religion in the West than they often do in their Country of origin. But nevertheless, the argument is made that since the west is not governed by the ‘god-given’ tenets of Sharia Law it is “oppressing” the Muslims within it(4). Argument 1.

They also make the claim that the west is “oppressing” Muslims by interfering in Islamic countries, though the exact nature of this interference and why it is “oppressive” is seldom elucidated – except in the manner of a conspiracy theory or argument 1. Argument 2

Their final polemical argument is that since the West invaded Iraq and Afghanistan the West is fighting against Islam and has killed “thousands of innocent Muslims” (I have even seen some polemicists claiming “millions” rather than thousands). Argument 3

- – - -

Side note:[/b]

This latter-most claim is risible, since the evidence from within the Islamic world is that it is overwhelmingly the Muslims themselves who are joyously slaughtering their co-religionists. [size=12pt]Indeed the Sunni-Shia fratricide has been part and parcel of the fabric of Islamic society since its earliest days and more recently the more “extreme elements” (who would be better called the more traditional and orthodox elements, or Islamists) in Sunni Islam (in particular) have also turned on their more liberal “brothers”, not to mention “sisters”. In particular Wahhabi and Salafi Sunni Islam has shown great willingness to carry out terrorist atrocities against its own in, for instance, Pakistan; which in 2010 suffered (in round terms) some 10,000 terrorist attacks which killed over 12,000 persons and injured many more, the vast majority of the victims being (naturally enough) Muslim. (Source BBC)

Pakistan is a largely Muslim Country that, with the passing of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, underwent a period of rapid Islamification that accelerated under Zia ul-Haq and which continues to this day.

Yet this Islamification has not been great enough nor fast enough for the Wahhabis in the Country and thus terror attacks are now commonplace in the Country which currently (2011) teeters on the brink of political and social collapse.

The most high-profile attack was the assassination of the Benazir Bhutto, the Pakistan Peoples’ Party (PPP) Presidential candidate in the 2007 election. The main motive for her assassination was the orthodox Islamic view that no woman may rule a Country or people, thus she gave great offence to the orthodox Muslims (and, according to them, broke god-given Laws) when she “dared” to stand for high office. She therefore “deserved” to be executed.

- – - -

Thus, goes the polemicist’s argument, the “West” has the blood of Muslims on its hands, which in turn means that it has “attacked Islam” and it is also oppressing Muslims both within the dar-ul-Islam (Islamic world) and the dar-ul-harb (literally “the world of war”, meaning here the non-Islamic world) and thus it is an obligatory duty on all Muslims to wage a defensive sword-jihad against the oppressors until all oppression of Muslims is stopped throughout the World and (in some views) all those involved in killing Muslims have themselves been killed (Sharia law admits only the death penalty for a non-Muslim who kills a Muslim).

Hence, it follows, that Muslims have the “right” to launch attacks on the kaffir west in order to “defend” themselves from “oppression” and revenge bloodshed.

To the Western mind these arguments are irrational since, taking our polemicist’s arguments in turn:

Muslims choose to immigrate to the West and no one is stopping them leave if they feel “oppressed”.
The oppression of Muslims in Islamic Countries is by their own dictatorial governments, rather than the West itself, hence the recent (2011) Mid. East unrest directed at those governments rather than the West.
a. [b]The vast majority of the Muslim casualties are Muslim on Muslim killings, bombings, honour killings, etc.
b. The West had suffered terror attacks at the hands of “Islam” for nearly fifty years prior to its major interventions in Muslim lands.

Setting aside this rather curious and convoluted polemical argument (the only real value of which is a matter of self-justification and obfuscation as to motive in killing people) we in the West are faced with the three facets of the Jihad doctrine that are aimed squarely at the non-Muslim.

Of these three sword-jihad is the least worrisome, at least in its current “terror attack” form.

That is not to minimise the trauma of its victims and their relatives. However, its impact on society is minor in terms of overall life loss or damage to the economy. (It is worth pointing out that even 9/11 with its ~3000 fatalities, the death-toll was less than 10% that of the annual loss of life on America’s roads, according to US government figures.)

Where it is effective, however, is in creating a certain level of fear that may well facilitate the other forms of jihad (“hand” and “tongue”) in terms of getting special treatment for Muslims and acceptance of elements of Sharia as normative within our non-Islamic societies.

And that is the danger.[/b]

The Crusades

The Muslim Game:

Muslims love talking about the Crusades… and Christians love apologizing for them. To hear both parties tell the story, one would believe that Muslims were just peacefully minding their own business in lands that were legitimately Muslim when Christian armies decided to wage holy war and "kill millions.”

The Truth:

Every part of this myth is a lie. By the rules that Muslims claim for themselves, the Crusades were perfectly justified, and the excesses (though beneath Christian standards) pale in comparison with the historical treatment of conquered populations at the hands of Muslims.

Here are some quick facts…

The first Crusade began in 1095… 460 years after the first Christian city was overrun by Muslim armies, 457 years after Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim armies, 453 years after Egypt was taken by Muslim armies, 443 after Muslims first plundered Italy, 427 years after Muslim armies first laid siege to the Christian capital of Constantinople, 380 years after Spain was conquered by Muslim armies, 363 years after France was first attacked by Muslim armies, 249 years after the capital of the Christian world, Rome itself, was sacked by a Muslim army, and only after centuries of church burnings, killings, enslavement and forced conversions of Christians.

By the time the Crusades finally began, Muslim armies had conquered two-thirds of the Christian world.

Europe had been harassed by Muslims since the first few years following Muhammad’s death. As early as 652, Muhammad’s followers launched raids on the island of Sicily, waging a full-scale occupation 200 years later that lasted almost a century and was punctuated by massacres, such as that at the town of Castrogiovanni, in which 8,000 Christians were put to death. In 1084, ten years before the first crusade, Muslims staged another devastating Sicilian raid, burning churches in Reggio, enslaving monks and raping an abbey of nuns before carrying them into captivity.

In 1095, Byzantine Emperor, Alexius I Comneus began begging the pope in Rome for help in turning back the Muslim armies which were overrunning what is now Turkey, grabbing property as they went and turning churches into mosques. Several hundred thousand Christians had been killed in Anatolia alone in the decades following 1050 by Seljuk invaders interested in 'converting' the survivors to Islam.

Not only were Christians losing their lives in their own lands to the Muslim advance but pilgrims to the Holy Land from other parts of Europe were being harassed, kidnapped, molested, forcibly converted to Islam and occasionally murdered. (Compare this to Islam’s justification for slaughter on the basis of Muslims being denied access to the Meccan pilgrimage in Muhammad’s time).

The Crusaders only invaded lands that were Christian. They did not attack Saudi Arabia (other than a half-hearted expedition by a minor figure) or sack Mecca as the Muslims had done (and continued doing) to Italy and Constantinople. Their primary goal was the recapture of Jerusalem and the security of safe passage for pilgrims. The toppling of the Muslim empire was not on the agenda.


The period of Crusader “occupation” (of its own former land) was stretched tenuously over about 170 years, which is less than the Muslim occupation of Sicily and southern Italy alone - to say nothing of Spain and other lands that had never been Islamic before falling victim to Jihad. In fact, the Arab occupation of North Africa and Middle Eastern lands outside of Arabia is almost 1400 years old.

Despite popular depiction, the Crusades were not a titanic battle between Christianity and Islam. Although originally dispatched by papal decree, the "occupiers" quickly became part of the political and economic fabric of the Middle East without much regard for religious differences. Their arrival was largely accepted by the local population as simply another change in authority. Muslim radicals even lamented the fact that many of their co-religionists preferred to live under Frankish (Christian) rule than migrate to Muslim lands.

The Islamic world was split into warring factions, many of which allied themselves with the Frankish princes against each other at one time or another. This even included Saladin, the Kurdish warrior who is credited with eventually ousting the "Crusaders." Contrary to recent propaganda, however, Saladin had little interest in holy war until a rogue Frankish prince began disrupting his trade routes. Both before and after the taking of Jerusalem, his armies spent far more time and resources battling fellow Muslims.

For its part, the Byzantine (Eastern Christian) Empire preferred to have little to do with the Crusader kingdoms and went so far as to sign treaties with their Muslim rivals on occasion.

Another misconception is that the Crusader era was a time of constant war. In fact, very little of this overall period included significant hostilities. In response to Muslim expansion or aggression, there were only about 20 years of actual military campaigning, much of which was spent on organization and travel. (They were from 1098-1099, 1146-1148, 1188-1192, 1201-1204, 1218-1221, 1228-1229, and 1248-1250). By comparison, the Muslim Jihad against the island of Sicily alone lasted 75 grinding years.

Ironically, the Crusades are justified by the Quran itself, which encourages Holy War in order to "drive them out of the places from whence they drove you out" (2:191), even though the aim wasn't to expel Muslims from the Middle East, but more to bring an end to the molestation of pilgrims. Holy war is not justified by New Testament teachings, which is why the Crusades are an anomaly, the brief interruption of centuries of relentless Jihad against Christianity that began long before and continued well after.

The greatest crime of the Crusaders was the sacking of Jerusalem, in which at least 3,000 people were said to have been massacred. This number is dwarfed by the number of Jihad victims, from India to Constantinople, Africa and Narbonne, but Muslims have never apologized for their crimes and never will.

What is called 'sin and excess' by other religions, is what Islam refers to as duty willed by Allah

LagosShia:

i dont negotiate with mumus!

Only cretins will give lame Boko Haram excuses to defend evil.

Sagamite:

Only cretins will give lame Boko Haram excuses to defend evil.

i dont know when boko haram have become the exclusive owners of islam and the Quran.nor do i know that defending my religion from missionary attacks and lies is giving excuses to boko haram.

golamike:


9:5 ", 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) , "

@Sweetnecta, this wha am talkin about. u fellas exterminated n massacred the Quraysh tribe who wer the true inhabitants of Mecca-Medina and the true owners of the Ka'aba temple of idols. Today theres no such thing as the Quraysh tribe, because they are EXTINCT. 






By the Gods, there will come a day when u will repent.

What about the Banu Qurayza in Yathrib (modern day Medina), such wickedness!!!!! This prophet of doom was a mass enslaver and genocidal maniac! Look at the leader of the religion and then you wonder why some members of the adherants are a bit looney!

The Banu Qurayza (Arabic: بني قريظة; بنو قريظة‎ alternate spellings include Quraiza, Qurayzah, Quraytha, and the archaic Koreiza) were a Jewish tribe which lived in northern Arabia, at the oasis of Yathrib (presently known as Medina), until the 7th century, when their conflict with Muhammad led to their demise, after the Invasion of Banu Qurayza, took place in the Dhul Qa‘dah, 5 A.H i.e. in February/March, 627 AD.[1] The siege lasted 25 days, after which all male members of the tribe were beheaded, the Muslim jurist Tabari quotes 600-900 being executed.[2] The Sunni hadith do not give the number killed, but states that all male members were killed and 1 woman.[3]

Jewish tribes reportedly arrived in Hijaz in the wake of the Jewish-Roman wars and introduced agriculture, putting them in a culturally, economically and politically dominant position.[4][5] However, in 5th century, the Banu Aws and the Banu Khazraj, two Arab tribes that had arrived from Yemen, gained dominance.[6] When these two tribes became embroiled in conflict with each other, the Jewish tribes, now clients[5][7] or allies[6] of the Arabs, fought on different sides, the Qurayza siding with the Aws.[8]

In 622, the Islamic prophet Muhammad arrived at Yathrib from Mecca and reportedly established a compact between the conflicting parties.[4][9][10] While the city found itself at war with Muhammad's native Meccan tribe of the Quraysh, tensions between the growing numbers of Muslims and the Jewish communities mounted.[8]

In 627, when the Quraysh and their allies besieged the city in the Battle of the Trench, the Qurayza entered into negotiations with the besiegers.[11] Subsequently, the tribe was charged with treason and besieged by the Muslims commanded by Muhammad.[12][13] The Banu Qurayza were overtaken and most of the men, apart from those who surrendered (many of whom converted to Islam in order to save their lives), were beheaded, while all the women and children were taken captive and enslaved.[12][12][13][13][14][15][16] Although there are early Islamic sources [such as Sahih Bukhari and Muslim] account that only the Men warriors were killed while women and children were taken captives.[17][18][19]

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

women wer r.aped. its as simple as that. disgusting.

@divinereal

Testimonies by Prominent Non-Muslims on the Greatness of Muhammad (sa):

1.) "History makes it clear however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever repeated"-De Lacy O'Leary in "Islam at the Crossroads",London,1923,page 8.

2.) "the sword indeed: but where will you get your sword! every new opinion, at its starting, is precisely in a minority of one. In one man's head alone, there it dwells as yet. One man alone of the whole world believes it; there is one man against all men. That he take a sword, and try to propagate with that ,will do little for him. You must first get your sword! On the whole, a thing will propagate itself as it can. We do not find, of the Christian religion either, that it always disdained the sword, when once it had got one. Charlemagne’s conversion of the Saxons was not by preaching"-Heroes and Hero Worship, page 80.

3.)"the creed of Muhammad is free from the suspicions of ambiguity and the Quran is a glorious testimony to the unity of God"-Gibbon in his "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.

4.) "the more I study the more I discover that the strength of Islam does not lie in the sword"-Mahatma Ghandhi.

5.) “they (Muhammad’s critics) see fire instead of light, ugliness instead of good. They distort and present every good quality as a great vice. It reflects their own depravity. The critics are blind. They cannot see that the only ‘sword’ Muhammad wielded was the sword of mercy, compassion, friendship and forgiveness-the sword that conquers enemies and purifies their hearts. His sword was sharper than the sword of steel”-Pandit Gyanandra Dev Sharma Shastri .

6.) “He preferred migration to fighting his own people, but when oppression went beyond the pale of tolerance he took up his sword in self-defense. Those who believe religion can be spread by force are fools who neither know the ways of religion nor the ways of the world. They are proud of this belief because they are long, long way away from the truth”-A Sikh Journalist in “Nawan Hindustani”,Delhi,17 November, 1947.

7.) “if greatness of purpose, smallness of means and astounding results are the criteria of human genius, who could dare to compare any great man in modern history with Muhammad?, -philosopher, orator, apostle, legislator, warrior, conqueror of ideas, restorer of rational beliefs, of a cult without images: the founder of twenty terrestrial empires and of one spiritual empire, that is Muhammad. As regards by which all human greatness may be measured, we may well ask, is there any man greater than he?-Lamartine,” Historie de la Turquie”, Paris 1954.

8.) “he was an enthusiast in that noblest sense when enthusiasm becomes the salt of the earth, the one thing that keeps men from rotting whilst they live.

Enthusiasm is most often used despitefully, because it is joined to an unworthy cause, or falls upon barren grounds and bears no fruit. So was it not with Muhammad. He was an enthusiast when enthusiasm was the one thing needed to set the world aflame, and his enthusiasm was noble for a noble cause.

He was one of those happy few who have attained the supreme joy, of making one great truth their very life-spring.

He was the messenger of the One God; and never to his life’s end did he forget who he was, or the message which was the marrow of his being. He brought his tidings to his people with a grand dignity sprung from the consciousness of his high office, together with a most sweet humility, whose roots lay in the knowledge of his own weakness”-Stanley Lane Poole

9.) “he was Caesar and pope in one; but he was pope without the pope’s pretentions, and Caesar without the legions of Caesar: without a standing army, without a bodyguard, without a palace, without a fixed revenue; if ever any man had the right to say he ruled by the right  divine, it was Muhammad, for he had all the powers without its instruments and without its supports”-R. Bosworth Smith, ”Muhammad and Muhammadanism”, London 1874,Page 92.

10.) “there are more professing Christians in the world than professing Muslims, but there are more practicing Muslims than practicing Christians”-R.V.C. Bodley (the American) in “The Messenger: The Life of Muhammad”, U.S.A. 1969.

"Let there is no compulsion in religion; for truth stands out clear from error"-Holy Quran 2:256

Islam remains a path to absolute DEATH.

Christ Jesus leads to endless eternal LIFE.


Two options.

Chose Islam and you end up with curses and DEATH.

Choose Jesus and you end up with blessings and LIFE.

frosbel:

Islam remains a path to absolute DEATH.

Christ Jesus leads to endless eternal LIFE.


Two options.

Chose Islam and you end up with curses and DEATH.

Choose Jesus and you end up with blessings and LIFE.

LOL,

frosbel:

Islam remains a path to absolute DEATH.

Christ Jesus leads to endless eternal LIFE.


Two options.

Chose Islam and you end up with curses and DEATH.

Choose Jesus and you end up with blessings and LIFE.

wrong. choose either n ur gnna have another Hiroshima/Nagasaki.

PAGAN 9JA:


@Sweetnecta, this wha am talkin about. u fellas exterminated n massacred the Quraysh tribe who wer the true inhabitants of Mecca-Medina and the true owners of the Ka'aba temple of idols. Today theres no such thing as the Quraysh tribe, because they are EXTINCT.  

By the Gods, there will come a day when u will repent.

Save us your crocodile tears.winch!

Holy Quran 8:32-34:
"They also said, "Our god, if this is really the truth from You, then shower us with rocks from the sky, or pour upon us a painful punishment."

However, GOD is not to punish them while you are in their midst; GOD is not to punish them while they are seeking forgiveness.

Have they not deserved GOD's retribution, by repelling others from the Sacred Masjid, even though they are not the custodians thereof? The true custodians thereof are the righteous, but most of them do not know".

you're talking as if the entire Quraysh was killed and no muslim was killed. or the muslims from Quraysh fell from outerspace or the Qurayshis never embraced islam.till this day,in saudi arabia you have the arabian tribes in existence. why are ignorant people bent on spreading falsehood and ignorance?

LagosShia:

@divinereal

Testimonies by Prominent Non-Muslims on the Greatness of Muhammad (sa):

1.) "History makes it clear however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever repeated"-De Lacy O'Leary in "Islam at the Crossroads",London,1923,page 8.

2.) "the sword indeed: but where will you get your sword! every new opinion, at its starting, is precisely in a minority of one. In one man's head alone, there it dwells as yet. One man alone of the whole world believes it; there is one man against all men. That he take a sword, and try to propagate with that ,will do little for him. You must first get your sword! On the whole, a thing will propagate itself as it can. We do not find, of the Christian religion either, that it always disdained the sword, when once it had got one. Charlemagne’s conversion of the Saxons was not by preaching"-Heroes and Hero Worship, page 80.

3.)"the creed of Muhammad is free from the suspicions of ambiguity and the Quran is a glorious testimony to the unity of God"-Gibbon in his "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.

4.) "the more I study the more I discover that the strength of Islam does not lie in the sword"-Mahatma Ghandhi.

5.) “they (Muhammad’s critics) see fire instead of light, ugliness instead of good. They distort and present every good quality as a great vice. It reflects their own depravity. The critics are blind. They cannot see that the only ‘sword’ Muhammad wielded was the sword of mercy, compassion, friendship and forgiveness-the sword that conquers enemies and purifies their hearts. His sword was sharper than the sword of steel”-Pandit Gyanandra Dev Sharma Shastri .

6.) “He preferred migration to fighting his own people, but when oppression went beyond the pale of tolerance he took up his sword in self-defense. Those who believe religion can be spread by force are fools who neither know the ways of religion nor the ways of the world. They are proud of this belief because they are long, long way away from the truth”-A Sikh Journalist in “Nawan Hindustani”,Delhi,17 November, 1947.

7.) “if greatness of purpose, smallness of means and astounding results are the criteria of human genius, who could dare to compare any great man in modern history with Muhammad?, -philosopher, orator, apostle, legislator, warrior, conqueror of ideas, restorer of rational beliefs, of a cult without images: the founder of twenty terrestrial empires and of one spiritual empire, that is Muhammad. As regards by which all human greatness may be measured, we may well ask, is there any man greater than he?-Lamartine,” Historie de la Turquie”, Paris 1954.

8.) “he was an enthusiast in that noblest sense when enthusiasm becomes the salt of the earth, the one thing that keeps men from rotting whilst they live.

Enthusiasm is most often used despitefully, because it is joined to an unworthy cause, or falls upon barren grounds and bears no fruit. So was it not with Muhammad. He was an enthusiast when enthusiasm was the one thing needed to set the world aflame, and his enthusiasm was noble for a noble cause.

He was one of those happy few who have attained the supreme joy, of making one great truth their very life-spring.

He was the messenger of the One God; and never to his life’s end did he forget who he was, or the message which was the marrow of his being. He brought his tidings to his people with a grand dignity sprung from the consciousness of his high office, together with a most sweet humility, whose roots lay in the knowledge of his own weakness”-Stanley Lane Poole

9.) “he was Caesar and pope in one; but he was pope without the pope’s pretentions, and Caesar without the legions of Caesar: without a standing army, without a bodyguard, without a palace, without a fixed revenue; if ever any man had the right to say he ruled by the right  divine, it was Muhammad, for he had all the powers without its instruments and without its supports”-R. Bosworth Smith, ”Muhammad and Muhammadanism”, London 1874,Page 92.

10.) “there are more professing Christians in the world than professing Muslims, but there are more practicing Muslims than practicing Christians”-R.V.C. Bodley (the American) in “The Messenger: The Life of Muhammad”, U.S.A. 1969.

"Let there is no compulsion in religion; for truth stands out clear from error"-Holy Quran 2:256

i agree with all the above points in bold.

LagosShia:
"the more I study the more I discover that the strength of Islam does not lie in the sword"-Mahatma Ghandhi.

true. d strength of islam lies with brainwashing & propaganda.

LagosShia:
“if greatness of purpose, smallness of means and astounding results are the criteria of human genius, who could dare to compare any great man in modern history with Muhammad?, -philosopher, orator, apostle, legislator, warrior, conqueror of ideas, restorer of rational beliefs, of a cult without images: the founder of twenty terrestrial empires and of one spiritual empire, that is Muhammad."

and u forgot: pedo.phile, murderer, betrayer of his tribe, enslaver of children, r.apist, plunderer, woman harasser/sexist, etc.

LagosShia:

Save us your crocodile tears.winch!

Holy Quran 8:32-34:
"They also said, "Our god, if this is really the truth from You, then shower us with rocks from the sky, or pour upon us a painful punishment."

However, GOD is not to punish them while you are in their midst; GOD is not to punish them while they are seeking forgiveness.

Have they not deserved GOD's retribution, by repelling others from the Sacred Masjid, even though they are not the custodians thereof? The true custodians thereof are the righteous, but most of them do not know".

you're talking as if the entire Quraysh was killed and no muslim was killed. or the muslims from Quraysh fell from outerspace or the Qurayshis never embraced islam.till this day,in saudi arabia you have the arabian tribes in existence. why are ignorant people bent on spreading falsehood and ignorance?

yes u have Arabian tribes lyk the Rashidis, Dahm, Al bu Falahi, Manahil, Kindah, Manasir, Banu Yam,etc. but there jus NO QURAYSH LEFT. it was a genocide.

PAGAN 9JA:

yes u have Arabian tribes lyk the Rashidis, Dahm, Al bu Falahi, Manahil, Kindah, Manasir, Banu Yam,etc. but there jus NO QURAYSH LEFT. it was a genocide.

if it was a genocide,how come do all these tribes you mentioned still exist?

these r different tribes. They r not Quraysh. Tribes lyk for e.g. the Hashidis of the Hadhramut at first resisted conversion to islam but after eventually being forced to convert, they remained neutral and though sympathysing with other Pagan hill-tribes trying to resist conversion, the cowards neither sided with the Pagans or muslims and this saved them. they still exist today and remain one of the leading political tribes of Yemen.

@Golamike; If you accuse me of any evil, I will demand from Oluwaseun Osewa the owner of nairaland to gve me you details, so that I can sue you for defamation of character.

You can run, you can't hide. The Yorubas say, "taba faa gburu, gburu aa fa gbo". Seun has your details, and this world is global village, now.

when you say i am a sleeper cell, you are now making a statement that you may have to back up with facts; Islam does allow me to seek a redress.

if i accuse you I will be able to go to court and prove my accusation. you just can't open your mouth and empty whatever in it without proof. I live in the US, and a law abiding citizen. when i was younger, i didn't get into anything evil, at my present age, i will not let you lie against me.

The arms of laws will trap you and drag you to proof yourself. nigeria or where ever you maybe has rules that guide what a person says of another.

That being said; verse 9.5 should be read and understood in context. it applied then, and it may apply in the future if the then prevailing conditions prevail in the future.

Was 9.5 in isolation then and isolation for the future use? No.

Did Allah just say to believers to attack the "peaceful, non threatening pagans" just because they were not muslims? No.

Why did Allah reveal this verse 9.5, then? So that muslims who have been oppressed and the oppressors did not cease to oppress can now ward off the oppressions of the oppressors. Afterall, muslims died in these wars and the messenger [as] was feared killed n Gazwatu Huud.Below is 9.5 in Scriptural context;


[Quote]9;1 [This is a declaration of] disassociation, from Allah and His Messenger, to those with whom you had made a treaty among the polytheists.

9;2 Sahih International
So travel freely, [O disbelievers], throughout the land [during] four months but know that you cannot cause failure to Allah and that Allah will disgrace the disbelievers.

9:3 Sahih International
And [it is] an announcement from Allah and His Messenger to the people on the day of the greater pilgrimage that Allah is disassociated from the disbelievers, and [so is] His Messenger. So if you repent, that is best for you; but if you turn away - then know that you will not cause failure to Allah . And give tidings to those who disbelieve of a painful punishment.

9:4 Sahih International
Excepted are those with whom you made a treaty among the polytheists and then they have not been deficient toward you in anything or supported anyone against you; so complete for them their treaty until their term [has ended]. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him].

9:5 Sahih International
And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

9:6 Sahih International
And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah . Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know.

9:7 Sahih International
How can there be for the polytheists a treaty in the sight of Allah and with His Messenger, except for those with whom you made a treaty at al-Masjid al-Haram? So as long as they are upright toward you, be upright toward them. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him].

9:8 Sahih International
How [can there be a treaty] while, if they gain dominance over you, they do not observe concerning you any pact of kinship or covenant of protection? They satisfy you with their mouths, but their hearts refuse [compliance], and most of them are defiantly disobedient.

9:9 Sahih International
They have exchanged the signs of Allah for a small price and averted [people] from His way. Indeed, it was evil that they were doing.

9:10 Sahih International
They do not observe toward a believer any pact of kinship or covenant of protection. And it is they who are the transgressors.

9:11 Sahih International
But if they repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, then they are your brothers in religion; and We detail the verses for a people who know.

9:12 Sahih International
And if they break their oaths after their treaty and defame your religion, then fight the leaders of disbelief, for indeed, there are no oaths [sacred] to them; [fight them that] they might cease.

9:13 Sahih International
Would you not fight a people who broke their oaths and determined to expel the Messenger, and they had begun [the attack upon] you the first time? Do you fear them? But Allah has more right that you should fear Him, if you are [truly] believers.

9:14 Sahih International
Fight them; Allah will punish them by your hands and will disgrace them and give you victory over them and satisfy the breasts of a believing people[/Quote]can anyone tell me if there is a verse that is not part of the essay of instruction, above, anyone of them before and or after 9.5? as i read it, i find that a person who simply takes out 9.5 as the beckon of his agenda has done an awful thing. he would have been better for him to have said of buster douglas that he saw mike tyson in tokyo japan and he just hithim with rapid jabs and uppercuts and mike was flat on the floor. or to day of evander holyfield that he saw the same mike tyson many years later off the las vegas strip and couldn't help himself to to hit him so hard and flattened him. a boxing aficionado will laugh such a storyteller[s]. the truth the whole world knew, except the storyteller[s] were either blind to truth or mere stooges against truth.

i could have presented more verse to show the flow of the 'stories' and instructions in the Quran. but i may just be dealing with hardened minds who are determined to be deceitful, anyways. God knows the Truth, and He strengthened the heart of believers to accept it.

PAGAN 9JA:

these r different tribes. They r not Quraysh. Tribes lyk for e.g. the Hashidis of the Hadhramut at first resisted conversion to islam but after eventually being forced to convert, they remained neutral and though sympathysing with other Pagan hill-tribes trying to resist conversion, the cowards neither sided with the Pagans or muslims and this saved them. they still exist today and remain one of the leading political tribes of Yemen.

what is "Quraysh"?

and where did these different tribes originate from?

resist conversion? the fact remains that no one was forced into islam by the Prophet (sa).the Quran says:"no compulsion in religion".forced conversion is the myth we are forced to believe by your likes.so you should start acting and stop preaching:stop forcing us to believe your myth.

[Quote]« #281 on: Today at 12:32:05 AM »

these r different tribes. They r not Quraysh. Tribes lyk for e.g. the Hashidis of the Hadhramut at first resisted conversion to islam but after eventually being forced to convert, they remained neutral and though sympathysing with other Pagan hill-tribes trying to resist conversion, the cowards neither sided with the Pagans or muslims and this saved them. they still exist today and remain one of the leading political tribes of Yemen.[/Quote]the pagan guy can preach his deceit all day long. a mere 600 years or so ago, in spain, the muslims ruled it for almost 800 years and there were christians and jews in this very spain, at that time.

it was when christianity dominated it that not just ruling or expulsion was enough, but inquisition by inquiring to the lives of individuals to know who was not a christian was applied to kill of islam, until the 20th century when it begins to return because of migration or immigration.

a group that rule another for almost 800 years could have annihilated its subject, if it was its moral duty to not allow to remain anyone other than his type to exist. the situation in spain then is a testament now, to what slam truly is.

we can use india before england came in. india was also rule for almost 800 years without forcing non muslims to convert or die. and there was no time in the middle east that no non muslims exist. maybe people are dubiously mistaken islam for judaism or christianity. islam is neither.

Funny how the apologists are yet to to explain what happened to the Jews of Banu Qurayza (Medina) but have gone into another strawman argument about quotes on the greatness of Muhammed . Here's what people said about Hitler:

I have never met a happier people than the Germans and Hitler is one of the greatest men. The old trust him; the young idolise him. It is the worship of a national hero who has saved his country.
David Lloyd George: Daily Express, September 17, 1936

One may dislike Hitler's system and yet admire his patriotic achievement. If our country were defeated, I hope we should find a champion as indomitable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations.
Winston Churchill, "Hitler and His Choice" in The Strand Magazine (November 1935)

We cannot tell whether Hitler will be the man who will once again let loose upon the world another war in which civilisation will irretrievably succumb, or whether he will go down in history as the man who restored honour and peace of mind to the Great Germanic nation.
Winston Churchill, "Hitler and His Choice" in The Strand Magazine (November 1935)

We do not know whether Hitler is going to found a new Islam. He is already on the way; he is like Mohammad. The emotion in Germany is Islamic; warlike and Islamic. They are all drunk with wild god. That can be the historic future.
Carl Jung, The Symbolic Life, 1939


He was a warrior, a warrior for mankind, and a prophet of the gospel of justice for all nations.
Knut Hamsun, upon hearing of Hitler's death

Adolf Hitler was a Jeanne d'Arc, a saint. He was a martyr. Like many martyrs, he held extreme views.
Ezra Pound, in an interview with Edd Johnson, published in The Chicago Sun (9 May 1945)[6]

People ask me who my heroes are. I admire Hitler because he pulled his country together when it was in a terrible state in the early thirties. But the situation here [Vietnam] is so desperate now that one man would not be enough. We need four or five Hitlers in Vietnam.
Nguyen Cao Ky, July, 1965 interview with the Daily Mirror

^^^^^^^^ some are lackeys, naturally.

[Quote]« #285 on: Today at 02:27:11 AM »

Funny how the apologists are yet to to explain what happened to the Jews of Banu Qurayza (Medina) but have gone into another strawman argument about quotes on the greatness of Muhammed . Here's what people said about Hitler:[/Quote]if Muhammad [as] were to have been alive when hitler raised his ugly head, divine guidance of the Commandment of The Owner of All Power would have guided the noblest of messenger [as] to mount just effort against him, to bring back hitler to the community of human, or perish him for extreme evil. hitler was an evil man and a true disbeliever.

Quran; 9.1 to 9.14 truly speak to believers to fight disbelieving evil doers. in the first half of the last century, there was no greater disbelieving evil doer than hitler. verse 9.6 encourages believers to show mercy on a disbeliever who is separating himself from evil as the believers are becoming very successful in just conflict against the community of evil doers, to establish justice in the land.

it is shameful to think you can bring hitler to the table to discuss the quality of the messenger of God.

and since this man wanted us to talk about ban qurayza, below is what anti islamic entered about them, before they began the efforts to criticize the messenger [as]. one should ask what would Moses of the bibles [used to kill everything that moved and all living thing that was stationary [moses was the man commanded every follower of his to follow, even as he had followed moses]], could have done in this case?; www.answering-islam.org/Muhammad/Jews/BQurayza/banu1.html - Cached
After a 25 days siege, they surrender unconditionally. , We will not argue the Banu Qurayza are 100% innocent angels, ,


i can post islamic website on the same issue, however the opponents will not argue that criminals should not be punished for their crimes. especially if they are muslims, the whole world muslims will be blamed, too. however, if it is muslim who who is going to punish the non muslm criminal, the role changes. the criminal now needs protection and the muslim becomes the boogie man; www.answering-christianity.com/, /counter_rebuttal_to_quennal_g, - Cached
So, the people set out, and the time for the prayer came while they were still , Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. , 1- The execution of the men of the Banu Qurayza tribe was legit and not a crime , Note, Wherever sin has gone before judgement will follow after; and, ,