Empiree:
you should keep shut already. We know what he said when he was alive. So get lost

Samunique:
honesty, you lack maturity !

Are you his maker/ judge ?

Or you're the chief prosecutor of the Almighty God

OLUWABIG:



@samunique if there is one thing I like about empiree it is behavioral display he is displaying perfectly what Muhammad taught them all Muhammad know is anger camel urine and pussy sucking

Samunique:
And you think u are better than him ?

Moreover, is this the hallmark of all Muslims ?

You cannot make a simple sentence without abuses ?

Islam ?

plainbibletruth:
DID MOHAMED REFLECT ALLAH'S "MERCY" AND "GRACIOUSNESS" ? (7)

If a man claims to be one thing but his actions REPEATEDLY show him to be the opposite, can that man's words be taken at their face value or the man regarded as genuine? That is the decision each person has to make in the light of all these revelations about the life of Mohamed.

“Abu Afak was one of B. Amr b. Auf of the B. Ubayda clan. He showed his disaffection when the apostle killed al-Harith b. Suwayd b. Samit… The apostle said, ‘Who will deal with this rascal for me?’ whereupon Salim b. Umayr, brother of B. Amr b. Auf one of the ‘weepers’, went forth and killed him…When Abu Afak had been killed she (Asma b. Marwan) displayed disaffection… When the apostle heard what she had said he said, ‘Who will rid me of Marwan’s daughter?’ ‘Umayr b. Adiy al-Khatmi who was with him heard him, and that very night he went to her house and killed her. In the morning he came to the apostle and told him what he had done and he said, ‘You have helped God and His apostle, O ‘Umayr!’ When he asked if he would have to bear any evil consequences the apostle said, ‘Two goats won’t butt their heads about her,’ so Umayr went back to his people.” (Pages 675-676)

Here are yet two more innocent people who were ordered to be killed by Mohamed. What was their crime? They wrote poetry against him. Yes, that’s right. They dared to write poetry against him! Any wonder then about the reactions of Moslems when cartoonists who draw Mohamed are threatened with death.

Clearly, do these actions portray mercy or graciousness?

Did Mohamed who is said to be "the mercy to all mankind" exhibit mercy in all these instances?

Why is it that Allah, said to be the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful, never prevailed on his prophet to exercise restraints and show mercy?

plainbibletruth:
Empiree

RESPONSE TO EMPIREE ON QUERY OF ABU AFAK'S STORY (PART 1)
Empiree, I can see that you are willing to go into some detail in order to get to the truth of matters. So, as we look at these issues about the RELIABILITY or otherwise of these Moslem source documents I hope OBJECTIVITY and HONESTY will be expressed.
Now, your contention is simple: Moslems have a methodology they use in ascertaining the trustworthiness of any Islamic historical document. One of these is that there must be a traceable chain of narrators for events or stories to accept them as valid. Other criteria were also stated.
My response:
1. Islam double-speaks on most if not virtually ALL issues.
2. This means Islam can apply double standard as it suits it.
3. Consequently, the same Moslem apologists like yourself who will easily run to Ibn Ishaq’s work that we are looking here when it presents Mohamed in a good light, will almost immediately REJECT him using the “METHODOLOGY” above when he presents Mohamed in a ‘bad’ light.
4. Moslem historians HAD NO REASON to lie against Mohamed. No Moslem writer, at the time these were written, would have wanted to write something about Mohamed that they thought were not genuine. Remember that theses were MOSLEM WRITERS, not non-Moslem writers.
5. Mohamed was in the PLAIN VIEW of history. Because his followers BELIEVED that he was from Allah they simply did not question anything he did. Even in the koran Allah seem to approve of all that Mohamed did. So, the followers and writers NEVER saw these as flaws in Mohamed but as a sign of his DOMINANCE. That was why the usual tendency to cover up a leader’s errors and weaknesses was not done by these writers. If this were not so Moslems who venerated Mohamed so much would have ensured that those negatives about him were erased from history long before now.
6.What we therefore find is that where the story is generally accepted by Moslems, no validity of chain of narrators is challenged. Even from the same source document some things can be picked while others are discarded at will.
7. In the eyes of early followers of Mohamed, who perhaps lived a shielded life from other people groups, whatever his lifestyle was made no difference to them. It was later Moslems who, when now being confronted by other civilizations as to the morality and civility of many of these questionable acts of Mohamed, now felt they needed to find ways out the quagmire Islam has placed itself.
8. If, like the source you pasted said, "the biographies (of Mohamed) contain all kinds of reports, both true and false", who put the "false" there? If this is taken at its face value then can we REALLY trust the entire documents? Should they not all be simply discarded? If documents written closest to Mohamed's time are found wanting can we TRULY trust later Moslems scholars who want to tell us which portion to accept and which not to?

plainbibletruth:
Empiree

RESPONSE TO EMPIREE ON QUERY OF ABU AFAK'S STORY (PART 1)
Empiree, I can see that you are willing to go into some detail in order to get to the truth of matters. So, as we look at these issues about the RELIABILITY or otherwise of these Moslem source documents I hope OBJECTIVITY and HONESTY will be expressed.
Now, your contention is simple: Moslems have a methodology they use in ascertaining the trustworthiness of any Islamic historical document. One of these is that there must be a traceable chain of narrators for events or stories to accept them as valid. Other criteria were also stated.
My response:
1. Islam double-speaks on most if not virtually ALL issues.
2. This means Islam can apply double standard as it suits it.
3. Consequently, the same Moslem apologists like yourself who will easily run to Ibn Ishaq’s work that we are looking here when it presents Mohamed in a good light, will almost immediately REJECT him using the “METHODOLOGY” above when he presents Mohamed in a ‘bad’ light.
4. Moslem historians HAD NO REASON to lie against Mohamed. No Moslem writer, at the time these were written, would have wanted to write something about Mohamed that they thought were not genuine. Remember that theses were MOSLEM WRITERS, not non-Moslem writers.
5. Mohamed was in the PLAIN VIEW of history. Because his followers BELIEVED that he was from Allah they simply did not question anything he did. Even in the koran Allah seem to approve of all that Mohamed did. So, the followers and writers NEVER saw these as flaws in Mohamed but as a sign of his DOMINANCE. That was why the usual tendency to cover up a leader’s errors and weaknesses was not done by these writers. If this were not so Moslems who venerated Mohamed so much would have ensured that those negatives about him were erased from history long before now.
6.What we therefore find is that where the story is generally accepted by Moslems, no validity of chain of narrators is challenged. Even from the same source document some things can be picked while others are discarded at will.
7. In the eyes of early followers of Mohamed, who perhaps lived a shielded life from other people groups, whatever his lifestyle was made no difference to them. It was later Moslems who, when now being confronted by other civilizations as to the morality and civility of many of these questionable acts of Mohamed, now felt they needed to find ways out the quagmire Islam has placed itself.
8. If, like the source you pasted said, "the biographies (of Mohamed) contain all kinds of reports, both true and false", who put the "false" there? If this is taken at its face value then can we REALLY trust the entire documents? Should they not all be simply discarded? If documents written closest to Mohamed's time are found wanting can we TRULY trust later Moslems scholars who want to tell us which portion to accept and which not to?

QUR'AN says


“Certainly you have in the Messenger of Allah an excellent example/pattern for him who hopes in Allah and the last day and remembers Allah much” (33:21).

Therefore, I am not bound by them especially in this day and age of technology where they can easily edit them electronically. So keep your Ibn Ishaq with you, buddy.

plainbibletruth:
[/size]

[size=3pt]Did you see my Point 1? You are CONFIRMING it right here!
See how:
“I barely quote Ibn Ishaq”

“he appeared to be complicated individual and he was a Jew”

“And yes, he did write nice things too”

“Written historical docs by humans are bound to have hearsays and not only third party but they got infos from 20th party, too. Therefore, anything they said that are questionable … …”

“for someone to make up stories that our prophet killed someone without a just cause, such individual must be doubted.”

“There is a hadith narration which states that anything narrated by the Jews and Christians in history should be treated as neither true or false”

“But when it comes to our prophet and they cooked up stories against him, regardless of how great historian the person is, if his narrations are against characteristics of the prophet in the Qur’an, we throw it out.”

“Yes, I can quote Ibn Ishaq if he narrated good stories about our messenger”

“So history books, Hadith etc are bound to have misconceptions, interpolation, corruption, distortion”

“Therefore, I am not bound by them especially in this day and age of technology where they can easily edit them electronically.”

So, in short Moslems can pick and choose whatever they like from whichever source they want. That’s exactly what I stated. One can immediately begin to see confusion for the rational mind which only the “Moslem mind” can accept as clear.

If a Moslem historian is not “pure” Arab his word may be taken with a pinch of salt. His loyalty to Islam becomes questionable. If ANY of his statements or position FURTHERS the Islamic course it is accepted as true. Where his position CONFLICTS with ‘Islam’ the truth of it is no longer the issue; it must be rejected, his personal integrity notwithstanding.

Men other than Mohamed WROTE the koran right down to the copy you have today. Have you used the same criterion for “written historical documents” for it? Were these men who eventually DOCUMENTED the koran “INSPIRED”? Did Allah commission them to do the work? if he did, what are the implications? If he didn’t, what are the implications?

Moslems like yourself may claim that the koran is what you hold in high esteem yet MOST of what you practice DO NOT come from the koran but these same other Islamic sources. When you are asked if these sources are equally “divine” revelations you begin to give shifty answers.
Can you honestly say that ALL that you seek to pattern your life with about the life of Mohamed comes from the Koran?

Man, is it only electronic copies of these texts that are available today? Do Islamic sites not also have even these electronic copies; can you not trust even those sites? Come on, buddy!

Empiree:
Bro, what part of what i said you don't understand?. Ibn Ishaq himself collected infos he wrote from people. He was himself NOT actually eyewitness to many things he wrote, just like Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. This is why their stories about Jesus and many other things contradict themselves. The same thing apply to any history.

You are simply looking for what suits your needs and that's your problem. It is too late now to tell us otherwise about prophet Muhammad(Allah's blessings and peace be upon him). Imagine after you die and some people who dont even know you start writing unfounded stories about you?. Is that difficult for you to understand? Ibn Ishaq did not meet prophet Muhammad. Why are christian evangelists and missionaries so attached to Ibn Ishaq?. Can you answer that?. Even wikipedia confirmed edited copy of Ibn Ishaq collections.

So i am sorry man. You can't define my prophet for me. I am not move an inch by your antics. Yes, we can scrutinize, choose and pick whatever anybody wrote about our religion. They are not the authority of islam. Quran is. Understand?. Quran is the criteria we use to judge any books including bible because NO BOOK on earth except Quran is shield from corruption including bible which pretty much has loads of unknown authors and writers. This is why you guys are very confused about the Bible. Up till this moment, none of you can tell us the basic doctrines in your religion but you got the nerve to point to islam?. I am sorry buddy, if you need to say anything about islam you must first off start with Quran. This is foundation of truth, not stories. Islam is not base on stories but revelation. And in the Quran, it made no mentioned of trash talk about our prophet. We are not required to believe any book 100% apart from Furqan (Quran), you understand?.



And if you obey most of those upon the earth, they will mislead you from the way of Allah. They follow not except assumption, and they are not but falsifying. (Q6:116)

proudkafir:
It is quite ridiculous that Nigerians now understand Islam/Mohammed than Ibn Ishaq himself, a 9th century biographer of the prophet of Islam.

Ibn Ishaq is from Mecca, born and raised in Mecca,

Empiree:
Hello Mr. Kufar Question is, why are you guys so much concerned about Ibn Ishaq?. Why are you trying to force his collection on us?.

You guys probably know Ibn Ishaq more than your parents and my understanding is that Ibn Ishaq was from Iraq from Christian/Jewish background. Could that be the reason you guys decide to force his narration on us?.

I'm sorry buddy, collections of his book are not REVEALATION. It was hearsays just like Mathew, Mark, Luke and John

proudkafir:
Ibn ishaq was born in Medina (his ancestral home) but died in Baghdad, Iraq. He is not an Iraqis; don't deny your own.

Since you have decided to throw Ibn Ishaq under the bus, do you now accept Imam Bukhari (from Uzbekistan) hadith as the authentic Islamic source document? How can an Uzbek's man (born 250 years after Mohammed) give us authentic report about your prophet? Is hadith not about rumours, gossips and Chinese whispers?

plainbibletruth:
[size=6pt][/size]

It is obvious you are unable to respond to each of my points clearly. You seem to prefer to muddle things up. Just something i noticed. You don't have to respond to this.

plainbibletruth:
RESPONSE TO QUERY OF ABU AFAK’S STORY – (PART 2)

Empiree – “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities” (Voltaire)

1. Incidentally the Sira of Ibn Ishaq is one of the earliest written sources on Mohamed’s life. If Ibn Ishaq, who was writing closer in time to Mohamed, is questionable then what makes us assume that the documents – the hadiths, etc – written long after Mohamed’s time are any more reliable?
2. Contrary to what you modern day Moslem apologists want us to believe Ibn Ishaq has historically been respectably regarded as a genuine and honest historian of the facts he presented. He could simply have omitted details that may not have been generally well accepted; he didn’t. The subsequent editor of his work – Ibn Hisham – CLEARLY ADMITTED that he (the editor Ibn Hisham) REMOVED certain portion he found unpalatable. That should certainly speak to us about how those early writers viewed this work.
3. Another narrator of the same event
It is worthy of note that another important early historical book of Islam – Kitab Al-tabaqat Al-Kabir by Ibn Sa’d – also narrated this same story.
- Is this book also ‘faulty’ in some respect especially where it ‘paints’ Mohamed in bad light by ordering the killing of this 120 year old man - Abu Afak?
- Are we now being told these stories are ‘lies’ and ‘fabrications’ simply because these “Islamic” values do not line up with today’s values for human rights and moral standards?
- Again, if these materials such as this one are called to question, then what right do Islamic apologists like yourself have to reference them on other matters – is it simply because they agree with your position on those other matters?
I wonder what scholars of Islam say about this writer too. Is his own rendition of this same story ‘fabricated’ also? Maybe Empiree can give us his take on this.
4. What of other Moslems who agree with these writers?
Now, other Moslem scholars and writers, both past and present, do not question the historicity of these murders and have no problems citing them as genuine events in Mohamed’s life. Are we to believe that these people are less Islamic than those on the other side? Is so on what basis?
Are we to believe that it is now modern-day apologists, who want to whitewash Mohamed, who suddenly discovered that these men, writing centuries before now, had a ‘hidden agenda’ against Mohamed either because they were ‘Jewish Moslems’ or where they are not Jewish, perhaps had reasons to deliberately discredit Mohamed?
Btw, Jews occupied several parts of Arabia until Mohamed sacked them from their communities and took over their wealth and properties to enrich himself and drive Islam.
5. Does the Koran help?
Many Moslem apologists are quick to run to portions of the koran that appear to advocate ‘peace’ with others and claim that Mohamed couldn’t have gone contrary to these. Unfortunately, Islam which speaks from both sides of the mouth, has portions of the koran which contradict the so called ‘peaceful’ portions. E.g.:
Fight those who believe not in God and the Last Day and do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden -- such men as practise not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book -- until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled. Q. 9:29 Arberry
But (even so), if they repent, establish regular prayers, and practise regular charity, - they are your brethren in Faith: (thus) do We explain the Signs in detail, for those who understand. But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and taunt you for your Faith, - fight ye the chiefs of Unfaith: for their oaths are nothing to them: that thus they may be restrained. Q. 9:11-12 Y. Ali
This Q. 9: 11-12 specifically justifies classifying the issue that Abu Afak was killed for (TAUNT) as worthy of being ‘fought’.
6. Abrogation?
For Moslems who claim some or all the verses advocating violence were abrogated the question is: How come Allah, in giving a replica of the mother of books in heaven, did not deem it fit to give a final position on matters but was shifting grounds?
7. Hadith?
Narrated As-Sab bin Jaththama:
The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." I also heard the Prophet saying, "The institution of Hima is invalid except for Allah and His Apostle." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 256)
This tradition shows that some of Mohamed's fighters had apparently a more sensitive conscience. They felt uneasy about night raids and the consequence of killing innocent people during those attacks. Mohamed disregarded this concern and explicitly allowed their killing despite the objection of some of his followers.
ACCORDING TO THIS HADITH: Mohamed had no regard for either women or children! Their lives were secondary to the course of Islam! It was whatever was expedient that mattered!
8. To what conclusion?
We see it every day in the media that politicians and UNESCO say whatever is expedient at the time. They can say one thing today and another thing tomorrow. When Mohamed says at one time one thing and at another time takes an opposite stand it simply shows that Mohamed acted like all politicians, looking how he can get all he can get, sometimes by talking about high principles and another time discarding them. It shows that he was not acting in obedience to a moral God with clear and unchanging principles, but that he was acting as most politicians and military leaders do to gain or to keep or extend his power. Some of his followers today have learnt very much from him.

No one is defining your prophet for you. On the contrary you are the one trying VERY HARD to redefine your prophet. I’ve shown you how Islam double speaks. These are from ISLAMIC SOURCES including the Koran! The supposed authority of Islam, the Koran, had trash talk about your prophet!

Are the verses of the Koran I quoted above also ‘fake’?

Anyone who desires the truth MUST be willing to have an open mind to look at FACTS OBJECTIVELY.
If you honestly search for the TRUTH you will find HIM because he himself said “ I am the way, and the TRUTH, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through me” John 14:6

Empiree:



Yes, I can quote Ibn Ishaq if he narrated good stories about our messanger (saw) because even Satan speaks the truth at some point. So history books, Hadith etc are bound to have misconceptions, interpolation, corruption, distortion just like your bible. They are not protected speeches. Therefore, I am not bound by them especially in this day and age of technology where they can easily edit them electronically. So keep your Ibn Ishaq with you, buddy.

Samunique:
Pls I want you to reread what u wrote here and judge your own double standard and hypocrisy !

Little wonder that u apply the same principle to the bible. Any verse which you can manipulate to support your lies you Cherri pick while treating the ones that expose the ingenuity of your prophet as fake and corrupt.

Now tell me what is special about your Qur'an ? is it,
Plagiarism ?
Repetitive ?
Disjointed ?
Contradictions and so many blunders ?

You know what ? if Muhammad had laid his hand on any copy of the Quran before his death i would have taken u serious. But the fact that the Quran was copy after him, and the first copy of it which was in circulation amongst the early Muslims was ordered to be destroyed before this current one completely erase the muslims acclaimed perfect nature of the Qur'an.

Lastly, you Muslims claim that the Bible has many authors, hence he cannot be trusted, well, I started hearing that from my Alfa since 1983 when I started attending what we call "ile kewu" to learn Qur'an. But I will tell u something today, that it's better to believe the testimony of many witnesses than that of a man who went to the cave and claimed to av seen an angel and received revelations without any other witnesses except himself and Allahh, who could only witness through no one to confirm the message but this same man ( Muhammad ).

As Christians, we know that anyone can claim to be a prophet but not all prophets are from God, not all angels are holy angels, not all voices are of God, so all revelations are not from him.

Bro if u like try till tomorrow, no real Christian will take Muhammad as the prophet of God nor the so call Angel jubril ( Gabriel ) who he claimed gave him the revelations as the real Gabriel of the Bible was said Jesus shall be called the "Son of God".

Moreover, the holy Bible tells us that any spirit that deny that Jesus is the Son of God is the spirit of Antichrist. So u see why we Christians reject your prophet as God's prophet ?

2:21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.

2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

2:23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. 1 John 2:21-23.

OLUWABIG:




@samunique don't mind empiree jareh how can the same angel that brought the good news now come again too discard it I laugh when I hear them argue

Samunique:
.
Islam and confusion,

Samunique:
.
Islam and confusion,

Samunique:
[size=2pt] Pls I want you to reread what u wrote here and judge your own double standard and hypocrisy !

Little wonder that u apply the same principle to the bible. Any verse which you can manipulate to support your lies you Cherri pick while treating the ones that expose the ingenuity of your prophet as fake and corrupt.

Now tell me what is special about your Qur'an ? is it,
Plagiarism ?
Repetitive ?
Disjointed ?
Contradictions and so many blunders ?

You know what ? if Muhammad had laid his hand on any copy of the Quran before his death i would have taken u serious. But the fact that the Quran was copy after him, and the first copy of it which was in circulation amongst the early Muslims was ordered to be destroyed before this current one completely erase the muslims acclaimed perfect nature of the Qur'an.

Lastly, you Muslims claim that the Bible has many authors, hence he cannot be trusted, well, I started hearing that from my Alfa since 1983 when I started attending what we call "ile kewu" to learn Qur'an. But I will tell u something today, that it's better to believe the testimony of many witnesses than that of a man who went to the cave and claimed to av seen an angel and received revelations without any other witnesses except himself and Allahh, who could only witness through no one to confirm the message but this same man ( Muhammad ).

As Christians, we know that anyone can claim to be a prophet but not all prophets are from God, not all angels are holy angels, not all voices are of God, so all revelations are not from him.

Bro if u like try till tomorrow, no real Christian will take Muhammad as the prophet of God nor the so call Angel jubril ( Gabriel ) who he claimed gave him the revelations as the real Gabriel of the Bible was said Jesus shall be called the "Son of God".

Moreover, the holy Bible tells us that any spirit that deny that Jesus is the Son of God is the spirit of Antichrist. So u see why we Christians reject your prophet as God's prophet ?

2:21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.

2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

2:23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. 1 John 2:21-23.




[/size]

Empiree:
..

Empiree:
This is your homework. Who is Jesus?

Human being

God

Holy spirit

All to above.



Easy question, isn't?.



If you ask a muslim who is Muhammad?. He will reply " he is human being and messanger of God. Simple isn't?. Why is yours complicated?.

Please answer that question above. Thanks

Empiree:
I am never taking you serious. You know why?. Because you know little to nothing about your bible. I can tell from your writing. But you wanna hide behind your fellow christians and shoot your shot. I am not falling for that crap. Besides, we have discussed many things you had to say 3-4 years ago. Some of them you can find in this thread.




If you are intelligent enough you would have realised that the folks you are praising failed to defend their christian doctrines. So i am not taking you serious. You left ile keu (if that was true at all) bcus you are one of those retarded, lazy, angry rhetoric students who would not hesitate to beat up teachers.

And thank goodness you confirmed that there are many unknown writers of your bible. This proves it is not a Divine Book but collections of books. Your bible is better graded at the level of 10x inferior to our hadith. Quran however revealed by On source, GOD. So we dont have multiple writer of Quran.


“Say: ‘If all mankind and the jinn would come together to produce the like of this Quran, they could not produce its like even though they exerted all and their strength in aiding one another.’” (Quran 17:88)


Also you said multiple reporters of the bible is a proof. You are so ignorant. If this is a proof of its authenticity, i wonder why you have so many contradictory reports - Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. Well, i have no time for you man. Help yourself with links

Empiree:
Maybe you (Samunique) can answer this question that your brothers couldn't answer?