Sweetnecta:

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 violated 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, ,

Your IQ is below room temperature.

divinereal:

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 don’t think you want to know what happened or actually did not happen to banu qarayza.you already “know”.so good for you.

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

As at that time,the saying of David Lloyd George on the greatness of Hitler is valid.then,on September 17,1936,when George said the above praise on hitler,hitler had not showed his ugliness.

But the sayings and praises on Muhammad (sa) I presented to you are sayings on his greatness even after the death of Muhammad (sa).the fact remains that you will find no sane human being today praising hitler.but you have important men like Ghandhi and Lamartine and Thomas Carlyle all praising Muhammad (sa) centuries later.

So there is no parallel as you are trying hard to tarnish the image of our Prophet (sa).

Your likes started out in this thread from page #1 by attempting to misuse the Quran and bring verses from here and there.when they failed and their attempts were disproved and dismissed intellectually,you now turn on the person of the Prophet (sa).again,I tell you,you’re a loser and you’re bound to fail.

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)

Again please take look at the date Winston Churchill is talking.

If you find a british or Indian PM today praising hitler that would be the end of his political career.but we have statesmen and prominent western intellectual praising and pointing out the outstanding personality Muhammad (sa) was.all you do is to bring up the conflicts he faced and won to analyze them in a biased way which lacks objectivity and try to feed the unsuspecting with BS.

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)

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

History which the man above is talking about has proved him long.Hitler has perished and Nazism is outlawed.he was born to meet Islam and he died to leave it behind.Islam outlived him and it will also outlive you and no idi.ot can object to that.the pedigree and high esteem of the admirers of Muhammad (sa) by far outweigh a westerner who can be described from his judgement as a “stray bullet”.

We have heard worse from westerners who did not read about the life of our beloved Prophet and Messenger of God (sa).what this man failed to tell us is the similarity he is hinting at.our Prophet (sa),far from being a racist married a jew and a Christian.and his Quran tells us that no race or color is superior to the other:

Holy Quran (49: 13)
"Lo! the noblest of you, in the sight of God-Almighty is the best in conduct."

Holy Quran (7: 35)
Then  whosoever refrainth from evil and amendeth -there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve.”

Holy Quran (3:186)
But if ye persevere and ward off (evil}, then that of the steadfast heart of things."

Holy Quran (7:26)
But the best raiment is the raiment of righteousness."

Holy Quran (3:138)
This is a declaration for mankind, a guidance and an admonition unto those who ward off evil."

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

After Knut Hamsun said the above praising hitler he was examined in a psychiatric hospital and was found to have “impaired mental faculties” and even charges of treason against him were dropped.

You’re quoting a mad man!

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

Ezra Pound was a self-acclaimed fascist.so what do you expect?

Is Mahatma Ghandhi praising Muhammad (sa) a muslim?
Is Lamartine an arab?

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

The above Vietnamese military junta you’re quoting was not even respected by his own people.he was regarded a “hooligan”.these sort of men with bad reputation are only quoted by your likes.

A Pact with the Jews

The Holy Prophet not only welded the Ansar and the Muhajirun into one Brotherhood, but he set himself to the task of establishing a stable society, a commonwealth based on equality of rights and on the concept of universal humanity. Granting equality of status and rights as well as full freedom of religion and of conscience to the Jews, he invited them to enter into a pact with the Muslims. He drew up a charter, which has been reproduced by the historian Ibn Hisham thus:



In the name of the Most Merciful and the Compassionate God. Granted by Mohammed, the Prophet, to the Believers, whether of Quraish or of Yathrib, and all individuals of whatever origin who have made common cause with them, all these shall constitute one nation.



Then, after regulating the payment of the diyah (blood money) by the various clans and fixing some wise rules regarding the private duties of Muslims among themselves, the document proceeds thus:



The state of peace and war shall be common to all Muslims; none among them shall have the right of concluding peace with, or declaring war against, the enemies of his co-religionists. The Jews who enter into this covenant shall be protected from all insults and vexations; they shall have an equal right with our own people to our assistance and good offices. The Jews of the various branches of 'Awf, Najjar, Harith, Jashm, Tha'labah, Aws, and all others domiciled in Yathrib shall form with the Muslims one composite nation. They shall practice their religion as freely as the Muslims. The clients and allies of the Jews shall enjoy the same security and freedom. The guilty shall be pursued and punished. The Jews shall join the Muslims in defending Yathrib (Medina) against all enemies. The interior of Yathrib shall be a sacred place for all those who accept this Charter. The clients and allies of the Muslims and of the Jews shall be as respected as the principals. All Muslims shall hold in abhorrence anyone found guilty of a crime, injustice, or disorder. None shall uphold the culpable, even if he may be his nearest in kinship.



Then, after some other provisions regarding the internal management of the State, this extraordinary document concluded thus:



All future disputes between those who accept this Charter shall be finally referred, after God, to the Prophet.



The Jews of Medina accepted this Pact. After some time, the neighboring Jewish tribes of Banu Nadhir and Banu Quraizah joined it, too. But, as later events proved, it was only expediency that had dictated this course of action to the Jews. There was no change of heart on their part and they secretly nursed the same hostile feelings against the Aws and the Khazraj as before and viewed the growing confederation of the Muslims with grave concern and animosity. In the course of time, they started taunting and abusing the Muslims, frequently quarrelling with them and resorting to treachery and sedition. Some people of the Aws and the Khazraj who had become lukewarm converts assisted them: the Munafiqun (hypocrites). These were headed by 'Abdullah ibn Ubay who had his own designs to become the ruler of Medina and, together with the Jews, they became a constant source of danger to the newborn religion and to its adherents.



The Jews, who had business connections with the Quraish of Mecca, conspired with them to eradicate the infant religion before it assumed formidable proportions. As the head of the religion, and "a general in a time of almost continual warfare," Muhammad was the guardian of the lives and liberty of the people. The very existence of the nascent religion was in serious peril. Islam preaches the brotherhood of mankind; it insists upon toleration of all religions and creeds; it enjoins kindness and compassion, but it does not preach monasticism, nor does it permit its followers to submit to the forces of disintegration.



Being in league with the Jews and the Munafiqun, the Meccans started harassing the Muslims. Under the leadership of Karz ibn Jabir al-Fahri, they started raiding up to the very outskirts of Medina, destroying fruit-bearing trees and carrying away flocks. News began pouring into Medina that the Meccans were allying with other tribes to launch a massive attack against the Muslims. Muhammad sent out small missions to these tribes to contract alliances and treaties. One of them entered into a treaty with the Banu Zamra. The terms of the treaty were as follows:



This is the document of Muhammad, Messenger of God, for Banu Zamra. Their lives and property are safe. If they are attacked by anyone, they will be assisted except when they themselves fight against the religion. In return, they will come to the help of the Prophet when called upon by him.



A similar pact was made with the Banu Madlaj at Dhul­'Ashirah. The Quraish had sent a threatening letter to 'Abdullah ibn Ubay who was the chief of his tribe before the arrival of the Prophet:



"You have given shelter to our man (Muhammad). You should either kill him or turn him out of Medina or else we swear that we will attack you and, killing all the males, we will capture and enjoy your women."



The attack was considered so imminent, and the small band of Muslims was in such peril, that the Prophet used to remain awake throughout the night. Al-Darmi and al-Hakim have recorded that: "When the Prophet and his companions came to Medina and the Ansars sheltered them, the Arabs decided to attack them. The Prophet's companions used to sleep holding to their weapons."



Some Reconnoitering Parties

The Quraishites were extremely furious about Muhammad (s.a.w.) slipping away from their hands, having made all preparations to kill him. The news that Islam was rapidly gaining hold in Medina did nothing to pacify their rage and enmity. Several times news reached Medina that they were planning to attack the Muslims. As a result, the Holy Prophet had to send out reconnoitering parties now and then to find out the designs and movements of the Quraish and to watch the routes to prevent any sudden attack.



Once, thirty Muslims (under the command of Hamza, the Holy Prophet's uncle) met a party of 300 riders (under the command of Abu Jahl) at Saiful-Bahr. The Meccans were eager to massacre the small group; of thirty, but Majd ibn 'Amr al-Juhni (who had a covenant with both groups) prevailed upon both groups and convinced them to go back to their respective places. Thus, a battle was averted.



Some time later, a patrolling party of 60 or 80 Muslims, under the command of 'Ubaidah ibn Harith (a cousin of the Holy Prophet) reached Rabigh and found 200 riders of Quraish under the command of 'Ikrimah ibn Abu Jahl or Mukriz ibn Hafs. The Quraishites started the battle with their bows and arrows. Then, someone thought that the Muslims could not come with such a small force to face a group of warriors so superior in number unless they had a great army hidden somewhere. This idea spread, and they fled away.



A small party of twelve persons under the command of 'Abdullah ibn Jahsh (a cousin of the Prophet) was dispatched to Nakhlah, a spot between Taif and Mecca, with sealed orders to be opened after two days' journey a precaution against espionage which was rife. The letter, as quoted by al-Tabari on page 1275 of his Tarikh, stated:



"Stay at Nakhlah; gather information about the designs of Quraish and communicate."



It was only incidentally that the party met some Meccan traders and that one of them, 'Amr ibn al-Hadhrami, was killed at the hands of 'Abdullah. History has not recorded what altercation ensued between the two parties and which provoked the other. Whatever the immediate cause might have been, 'Abdullah had acted beyond his instructions, and this incident aggravated the situation. Except for this isolated incident, in none of the numerous expeditions listed by Arab historians as saraya was there any skirmish or a question of looting and plundering. They were sent out either to make alliances with neighboring tribes, or they were reconnaissance patrols, for news was reaching Medina that, the Meccans might strike any day.

http://www.al-islam.org/lifeprophet/13.htm

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE BANU QAURAYZA?THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE JEWS OF MEDINA WITH THE PROPHET MUHAMMAD (SA).


In A.D. 70, the Roman general, Titus, captured Jerusalem and put an end to the Jewish rule of Palestine. Following the Roman conquest, many of the Jews left their homeland and wandered into other countries. Some Jewish tribes crossed the Syrian desert and entered the Arabian peninsula where they settled in Hijaz. In course of time they built up numerous colonies in Medina and between Medina and Syria. They are also said to have converted many Arabs to Judaism.
At the beginning of the seventh century A.D., there were three Jewish tribes living in Medina (Yathrib). They were Banu Qainuka'a, Banu Nadhir and Banu Qurayza. All three tribes were rich and powerful, and also, they were more civilized than the Arabs. Whereas the Arabs were all farmers, the Jews were the entrepreneurs of industry, business and commerce in Arabia, and they controlled the economic life of Medina (Yathrib). The two Arab tribes – Aus and Khazraj – were debt-ridden to the Jews perennially.

Besides Medina, the strong centers of the Jews in Hijaz were Khyber, Fadak and Wadi-ul-Qura. The lands in these valleys were the most fertile in all Arabia, and their Jewish cultivators were the best farmers in the country.

The migration of Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam, from Makkah to Medina (then Yathrib), brought him into contact with the Jews for the first time. At the beginning they were friendly to him. He granted them the famous Charter of Medina, and they acknowledged him the ruler of their city, and agreed to abide by his decisions in all disputes. They also agreed to defend the city in the event of an invasion by an enemy.

But, unfortunately, this friendship did not last long. It soon became obvious that the Jews had given their friendship to Muhammad with many reservations. In their own interest, they ought to have acted their part of the agreement faithfully but they did not. For this change in their attitude, there were many reasons, among them:

1. When Muhammad arrived in Medina, he reformed the life of the Arabs or whoever became a Muslim. He taught them to be temperate and moderate in everything, and taught them the value of discipline in life. They stopped drinking and gambling both of which were the causes of their ruin in the past; and they gave up taking loans at high rates of interest from the Jews. When the Arabs stopped taking loans and paying interest on them, a rich source of revenue suddenly dried up for the Jews, and they bitterly resented this. They could now see that their grip on the economic life of Medina was beginning to loosen.

2. The Jews also realized that Islam was an enemy of the system of exploitation, and of the capitalist system. They began to see Islam as a threat to their economic interests.

3. The Jewish priests hated Muhammad as much as the Jewish money-lenders. He had shown to the Jews how their priest followed deviant interpretations of their scriptures, and how they distorted their text. The priests, on their part, tried to convince their flocks that Muhammad did not have knowledge of their scriptures, and they tried to point out to them the "errors" in the Qur’an.

The Jews also believed that they were safe only as long as the two Arab tribes of Medina, the Aus and the Khazraj, were fighting against each other. Peace between the Aus and the Khazraj, they thought, would pose a threat to their survival in Arabia. For this reason, they were always fomenting trouble between them.

Of the three Jewish tribes of Medina, the Banu Qainuka'a and the Banu Nadhir had already been expelled after the battles of Badr and Uhud respectively, and they had left with all their baggage, and herds of animals, and had resettled in Khyber.

The third and the last tribe of the Jews in Medina was the Banu Qurayza. According to the terms of the Charter of Medina, it was their duty to take an active part in defending the city during the siege of A.D. 627. But not only they did not contribute any men or materials during the siege but were actually caught conspiring with the enemy to compass the destruction of the Muslims. Some Jews even attacked a house in which many Muslim women and children had taken refuge as it was considered a safer place for them than their own houses. If Amr ibn Abd Wudd had overcome the resistance of the Muslims, the Jews would have attacked them from the rear. Between the pagans of Makkah and the Jews of Medina, the Muslims would have been massacred. It was only the presence of mind of Muhammad and the daring of Ali that averted such a disaster.

R.V.C. Bodley-In the Words of A Westerner

The Jews were not at first inclined to listen to Abu Sofian's proposal (to attack Muslims from the rear), but after a while they compromised and agreed to betray the Moslems when the time seemed opportune. (The Messenger – the Life of Mohammed)

The conduct of the Jews during the siege of Medina was high treason against the State. Therefore, when the confederate army broke up and the danger to Medina was averted, the Muslims turned their attention to them.

The Jews shut themselves up in their forts and the Muslims besieged them. But some days later, they requested the Prophet to raise the siege, and agreed to refer the dispute to arbitration.

The Prophet allowed the Jews to choose their own arbitrator. Here they made a very costly blunder. They should have chosen Muhammad himself – the embodiment of mercy – to be their judge. If they had, he would have allowed them to depart from Medina with their baggage and their animals, and the incident would have been closed.

But the Jews didn't choose Muhammad as their judge. Instead, they chose Sa'ad ibn Muadh, the leader of their former allies, the Aus. Sa'ad was a man who was utterly reckless with life – his own as well as that of others.

Sa'ad had received a mortal wound during the battle of the Trench, and in fact died soon after he had passed judgment on the fate of the Jews. He declared treason to be an unpardonable offense, and his verdict was inexorable. He invoked the Torah, the Scripture of the Jews, and sentenced all men to death, and women and children to slavery. His sentence was carried out on the spot.

The Jews of the tribe of Qurayza were massacred in the spring of A.D. 627. From this date, the Jews ceased to be an active force in the social, economic and political life of Medina.


http://www.al-islam.org/restatement/27.htm

The Battle of Khandaq And the Role the Jews of Medina Played Against the Muslims

The Battle of Khandaq: 4th year of Hijra, 626 AD: At the end of the battle of Ohud when Abu Sofian was unable to hurt the Holy Prophet, he returned to Makka after promising that he will come back next year and will take revenge for the defeats of Badr and Ohud. This time it was not only the non believers of Makka who were with him. He had also taken the help of the Jews of Madina to defeat Islam for ever. The Jewish tribes of Madina promised to help in two ways, one to send soldiers to fight in the battlefield and two to create fear among the women and children who were left in the town unprotected. The Prophet’s companion Salman Farsi suggested that the muslims must dig a moat on the unprotected side of the town. The muslims took this advice and the moat was ready within 3 days in which the Prophet himself took part. When the enemy forces arrived at the scene they were unable to enter the city due to the newly dug moat and they stayed on the outerside. But one of their most famous soldier's named Amr Ibne Abde Wud jumped the moat with his horse and challenged the muslims to fight with him. When The Prophet asked his bravest to go and fight Amr none of them was eager to come out. Omar Ibne Khattab even suggested that this man was so brave that he fought one thousand men alone and defeated them. Ali was eager as ever to fight this man and he came out with the blessings of the Holy Prophet who said, ‘Today the whole faith has come out to fight the whole infidelity. ”Ali was able to kill the enemy soon and when the Prophet saw Ali victorious he uttered the words “ Verily one blow of Ali’s sword on the day of Khadaq is superior to the worship of all beings until the Day of Judgement.”

Amr was killed, but the battle was not over. Armies of non believers were on the other side of the ditch while the muslims were inside the city almost besieged without any provisions. After a while with the prayers of the Holy Prophet a storm blew up that frightened the army of the non believers and they ran away never to come back again.

http://www.al-islam.org/kaaba14/2.htm#The Battle of Khandaq

The Battle of Khaybar-A Jewish Fortress Close to Medina

The Battle of Khyber

The Jews of Madina ever since their treachery during the battle of Khandaq, were always on the look out for some mischief to hurt Islam. This mischief mongering increased so much so that they were banished from the city to live outside Madina. They had extensive lands and had built strong fortresses where most of the jewish community lived. The fort of Khyber was a strong fort built of stone with an iron gate. It was the strong hold of the jews who invaded muslim lands and villages around the area. They killed muslims and looted their property. Warnings were given to the Jews of Khyber to stop their mischievous deeds but they did not bother even to acknowledge their misdeeds. The Holy Prophet proceeded to stop this problem for the muslims. Muslim forces encamped outside this fort. It was in the month of Muharram in the 7th year of Hijra. On the First day Abubakr led the muslim forces to fight the jews. The Jews came out of the fort. A furious battle was fought, muslims could not break the jews onslaught and retreated back to their camp. The Next day Omar Ibne Khattab took the flag and tried to defeat the jewish forces without success. That night the Prophet announced,” Tomorrow I will give the flag of Islam to a man who is brave and does not run away from the battlefield, he loves Allah and the Prophet of Allah and Allah and His Prophet love him.” The Next day, after morning prayers the Prophet called for Ali (AS) and gave the Flag in his hands. Ali (AS) holding the flag in his hand went towards the fort. Noticing that only one man was coming towards the fort the jews did not come out in the open field. Reaching the gates of the fort Ali fixed the pole on a hard stone slab. Noticing the fixing of the flag on a hard stone, a jew who was a learned scholar, asked from the top of the wall, " who are you? ”Ali replied, “I am Ali son of Abu Talib.” Hearing the name the learned scholar turned towards his people and told them, “I have read in the sacred bothat a man of this name will defeat you." In accordance with the convention of the Arabs, Ali announced his challenge and demanded the bravest of them to come out and fight him in single combat. Merhub, one of the brave and skilled warriors came out and was killed by Ali (AS) in one blow.

His brother Anter came out and he was also killed in a single blow of Ali’s SwZulfiqar. Once these brothers were killed Ali went towards the iron gates and brought them down. Once the gates were open muslims entered the fort and soon the jews were defeated. This was a great victory for muslims, for the jews were a mischievous lot and had been giving a lot of trouble to muslims of Madina and those living around. Most of the jewish land came into the muslims hands. It was at this time that a Palm orchard called Fadak also came into the muslim hands. The Prophet of Islam took this orchard for himself and later gave it to his daughter Fatimah.

The battle of Khyber was a turning point in the defeat of the jews of the Province of Hejaz and victory for Islam.

http://www.al-islam.org/kaaba14/2.htm#The Battle of Khyber.

The Battle of Khandaq (Moat) or Ahzab and the Jewish Tribe of Banu Nadir


Upon settling down at Khaybar, the Banu Nadhir decided to seek revenge against the Muslims. They contacted the Meccans, and 20 leaders from the Jews and 50 from the Quraish made covenant in the Ka'bah that so long as they lived, they would fight Muhammad. Then the Jews and the Quraish contacted their allies and sent emissaries to a number of tribes. Banu Ghatfan, Banu Asad, Banu Aslam, Banu Ashja', Banu Kinanah and Banu Fizarah readily responded and the coalition contributed ten thousand soldiers who marched upon Medina under the command of Abu Sufyan.



When news of these preparations reached Medina, the Holy Prophet consulted his companions. Salman al-Farsi advised to dig a moat on the unprotected side of Medina.



Muslims were divided into parties of 10, and each party was allotted 10 yards to dig. The Holy Prophet himself participated in this task. The khandaq (moat) was completed in nick of time: just 3 days before the host of the enemies reached Medina. The Muslims could muster only three thousand men to face this huge army.



Huyaiy ibn Akhtab, head of Banu Nadhir, met secretly with Ka'b ibn Asad, head of Banu Quraizah, a Jewish tribe still in Medina. Banu Quraizah, on his instigation, tore down the treaty, which they had concluded with the Muslims.



This treachery and danger from inside Medina, when Muslims were surrounded by the combined armies of pagans and Jews of all of Arabia on the outside, had a telling effect on the Muslims. As a meager safeguard, Salimah ibn Aslam was deputed with only two hundred men to guard the city from any attack by Banu Quraizah. The enemy was astonished to see the moat because it was a new thing for the Arabs. They camped on the outside for 27 (or 24) days. Their number increased day by day, and many Muslims were extremely terrified, as the Qur'an gives us the picture. Surah al-Ahzab describes various aspects of this siege. For example, see the following verses:



When they came upon you from above you and from below you, and when the eyes turned dull, and the hearts rose up to the throats, you began to think diverse thoughts about Allah. There, the believers were tried, and they were shaken a tremendous shaking. (Qur'an, 33:10-11)



At that time, many hypocrites, and even some Muslims, asked permission to leave the rank of the Muslims and to return to their homes:



And when a party of them said:O people of Yathrib! There is no place for you to stand, and a party of them asked permission of the Prophet saying: Verily our houses are exposed, and they were not exposed; they only desired to fee away. (Qur'an, 33:13)



The bulk of the army, however, steadfastly bore up the hardship of inclement weather and rapidly depleting provisions. The coalition's army hurled arrows and stones at the Muslims.



Finally, a few of the Quraish's more valiant warriors, 'Amr ibn 'Abdwadd, Nawfil ibn 'Abdullah ibn Mughirah, Dhirar ibn Khattab, Hubairah ibn Abi Wahab, 'Ikrimah ibn Abi Jahl and Mirdas al-Fahri, succeeded in crossing the moat.



'Amr called for battle; nobody responded; he was considered equal to one thousand warriors. History accounts state that all the Muslims were as though birds were sitting on their heads: they were too afraid to raise their heads.



Three times did the Holy Prophet exhort the Muslims to give battle to Amr. Three times it was only 'Ali who stood up. In the third time, the Holy Prophet allowed 'Ali to go. When 'Ali was going to the battlefield, the Holy Prophet said:



"The whole faith is going to fight the whole infidelity."



'Ali invited 'Amr to accept Islam, or to return to Mecca, or to come down from his horse since 'Ali had no horse and was on foot. 'Amr alighted from his horse and a fierce battle ensued. For a while, so much dust covered both warriors that nobody knew what was going on. Once 'Amr succeeded in inflicting a serious cut on 'Ali's head, yet after some time, 'Ali killed 'Amr. Concerning this battle, the Holy Prophet said:



"Verily, one attack of 'Ali in the Battle of Khandaq is better than the worship of all human beings and jinns, up to the Day of Resurrection."



This killing of 'Amr demoralized the pagans, and all his companions fled away except Nawfil, who was also killed by'Ali.



The Muslims were short of provisions. The Holy Prophet had to tie a stone on his stomach in order to lessen the pangs of hunger. Abu Sa'eed al-Khudri said: "Our hearts had reached our throats in fear and desperation." On the other hand, the besieging army was getting restive; it could not put up any further with the rain and cold; its horses were perishing and provisions nearing exhaustion. The Holy Prophet went to the place where the Mosque of Victory (Masjid-ul-Fath) now stands and prayed to Allah. A fierce storm raged which uprooted the tents of the enemies; their pots and belongings went flying in all directions; an unbearable terror was cast in their ranks. The Meccans and the pagan tribes fled away. The first to flee was Abu Sufyan himself who was so upset that he tried to ride his camel without first untying its rope. This episode is referred to in the Qur'an in this ayat:



O ye who believe! Remember the bounty of Allah unto you when came upon you the hosts, so We sent against them a strong wind and hosts that ye saw not: and Allah is seeing all what you do (Qur'an, 33:9)



And also in ayat 25 which says:



And God turned back the unbelievers in their rage; they did not achieve any advantage, and Allah sufficed for the believers infighting, and

Allah is Strong, Mighty. (Qur'an, 33:25)



'Abdullah ibn Mas'ud was interpreting this ayat in (Tafsir ad-Durrul-Manthur) thus:



"And God sufficed the believers (through 'Ali ibn Abi Talib) in their fight"



As a direct result of this defeat of the infidels' combined forces in the Battle of Ahzab, the influence of the Quraish waned, and those, tribes who were till then hesitating to accept Islam out of their fear of Quraish began to send deputations to the Prophet. The first deputation came from the tribe of Mazinah, and it consisted of four hundred persons. They not only accepted Islam but also were ready to settle down at Medina. The Prophet advised them to return to their homes.



Likewise, a deputation of a hundred persons came from the Ashja' and embraced Islam. The tribes of Juhainah lived near them and were influenced by their conversion. One thousand of their men came to Medina and entered the fraternity.



Elimination of the Bann Quraizah

According to the terms of the treaty which the Banu Quraizah had contracted with the Muslims, they were bound to assist the Muslims against outside aggression. But, not to speak of assisting the Muslims or even remaining neutral, they had sided with the Meccans and joined the besieging foe. What was worse, they had tried to -attack the fortress where Muslim women and children had been lodged for safety. Living in such a close proximity to Medina, they had become a serious menace. As soon as the siege of their own town was lifted, the Muslims surrounded the Banu Quraizah's fortress. For some time they resisted but they ultimately opened the gates of their fortresses on the condition that their fate should be decided by Sa'd ibn Ma'adh, chief of the Aws. Basing his judgement upon the direction contained in the Old Testament itself, Sa'd ruled that the fighting men should be killed and their women and children made captive. The sentence was carried out. It was in this connection that the following ayats were revealed:



And He drove down those of the people of the Book who backed them from their fortresses, and He cast awe into their hearts: some you killed and you took captive another part (of them). And He made you inherit their land and their dwellings and their properties, and (to) a land which ye have not yet trodden, and God has power over all things. (Qur'an, 33:26-27)



Many critics had described this punishment as harsh. But what other punishment could be meted out to them? They had violated the pact and, instead of helping the Muslims, they joined the forces of their enemies and had actually besieged the Muslims. There were no prisons where prisoners of war could be detained nor any concentration camps where they could be put to forced labor, and the capture of women and children, thoughk appaling to the notions of the present age, was probably the only method known in those days to provide sustenance to them when the earning members of their families had lost their lives. At any rate, this was the customary aftermath of a war.

http://www.al-islam.org/lifeprophet/16.htm

The Battle of Khaibar and the Jewish Tribes


The banishment of the Jewish tribes of Banu Nadhir and Banu Qinaqa' from Medina had accentuated the animosity of the Jews towards the Muslims. These tribes had settled down at Khaibar at a distance of about eighty miles from Medina. "Khaibar" means: "fortified place". It was a Jewish stronghold comprised of seven fortresses: Naaim, Qamus (on a hill of the same name), Katiba, Shiqu, Natat, Watih and Sulalim, of which Qamus was the most fortified.



These tribes were instigating other tribes to join them in a conclusive assault upon the Muslims. The Battle of Ahzab was the first attempt in which the Jews had participated for the siege of the Muslims. The reverses they had suffered had not deterred them. Their chief, Usir ibn Razam, collected all the Jewish tribes and solicited the aid of Ghatfan for a final showdown. To demonstrate their strength, Ghatfan sent a posse, which captured twenty camels of the Prophet after killing their herdsman and capturing his wife.



The news of the preparation of the Jews was reaching Medina frequently. At last, the Holy Prophet decided to crush them before they could destroy the Muslims. It was the "near victory" foretold in the Sura of "Victory" revealed just after the truce of Hudaibiyah:



Indeed God was well pleased with the Believers when they swore allegiance to thee under the tree, and He knew what was in their hearts, so He sent down tranquility on them and rewarded them with a near victory. (Qur'an, 48:18)



By the middle of Muharram, 7 A.H., the Holy Prophet marched on Khaibar with 1,400 persons. In about seven days, six of the Jewish fortresses were overrun by the Muslims. Then Qamus was besieged. Abul Fida says the following in his book of history: (Tarikhu 'l-mukhtasar fi Akhbari 'l-basha):



In those days, the Prophet sometimes used to suffer from migraine. As a matter of chance, on the day he reached Khaibar, he suffered from the same. Abu Bakr, therefore, took the banner and went out to fight but returned unsuccessful. Then Umar took the standard and fought hard, more than his predecessor, but returned equally unsuccessful. When the Prophet came to know of these reversals, he said, "By Allah, tomorrow I will give the standard to a man who loves Allah and His Messenger and whom Allah and His Messenger love, one who is constant in onslaught and does not flee, one who will stand firm and will not return till victory is achieved." Having heard this, both the Immigrants and the Helpers aspired for the flag. When the day dawned, having said the morning prayer, the Prophet came and stood among his companions. Then he called for the banner. At that moment, every companion was engrossed in the hope and desire of getting the flag, while the Prophet called for 'Ali who was suffering from red eyes. The Prophet took some of his own saliva on his finger and applied it to 'Ali's eyes. The eyes were at once cured and the Prophet handed over the standard to him.



Shaikh 'Abdul-Haqq Muhaddith Dehlavi (traditionist) writes in his Madarijun-Nubuwwah as follows:



"Then 'Ali started with the flag in his hand and, reaching under the fort of Qamus, planted the standard on a rock. A Rabbi who was watching from the fort asked, 'O standard-bearer! Who are you?' 'Ali replied, 'I am 'Ali son of Abu Talib.' The Rabbi called unto his people, 'By the Torah, you will be defeated! This man will not go back without winning the battle."'



The author of Madarijun-Nubuwwah, states the following:



"Perhaps that Jew was well informed of 'Ali's valor and had seen his praises in the Torah."



He further states in his afore-mentioned book:



"Harith, brother of Marhab, first sallied forth from the fort with a huge spear whose point weighed about 3 mounds (a measure of weight, varying from a few lb. to 84 lb. according to the custom of the area). In his immediate attack, he killed a number of Muslim veterans. Then 'Ali proceeded towards him and dispatched him to hell. in one stroke. When Marhab was informed of his brother's plight, he rushed out of the fort accompanied by some of the bravest soldiers from the Khaibar garrison to avenge his brother's death. It is said that Marhab was the strongest, tallest, and the most fierce among the warriors of Khaibar and that none equalled him in his might. That day, he was armed twice over, wearing double armor with two swords dangling by his sides. He was also wearing two turbans with a helmet over and above. He marched ahead in the battlefield singing about his own valor. Nobody among the Muslims dared to fight him in the battlefield. 'Ali, therefore, darted out, reciting about his own valiance in response to Marhab's. Taking the initiative, Marhab attacked 'Ali with his sword. But 'Ali avoided the blow and rendered with Dhul-Fiqar such a forceful blow on Marhab's head that it cut through the latter's helmet, the double turban, the head, till it reached the man's throat. According to some narratives, it is said that he was cut up to his thigh, in others that it tore him into two parts upon the saddle. Marhab took his way to hell in two pieces. Then the Muslims under the command of 'Ali began fighting the Jews. 'Ali himself killed seven generals of the Jewish forces everyone of whom was considered to be most valiant. After these had been killed, the remnants of the Jewish troops ran helter-skelter towards their fort. 'Ali followed them in hot pursuit. In this rush, one Jew delivered a blow to 'Ali's hand wherein he carried his shield. The shield fell down. Another Jew picked it up and made good with his booty. This infuriated 'Ali, who was now strengthened with such a spiritual force and divine strength that he jumped across the moat and came straight to the door of the iron gate. He dislodged it from its hinges, held it up as a shield, and resumed fighting."



According to Ibn Hisham's Sirat, and according to Al-Tarikh al-Kamil and Abul Fida's Tarikh, Abu Rafi' is cited saying:



"When the Prophet gave the flag to 'Ali and bade him fight the forces of Khaibar, we, too, accompanied him. When 'Ali was a short distance from the fort, fighting all along, a Jew struck a blow on his hand with such a force that the shield 'Ali was holding fell down. 'Ali at once pulled out a part of the gate of Khaibar, held it up as a shield and fought till Allah granted him a clear victory. Once the fighting was over, he threw it away. It was so heavy that eight men from among us could hardly turn it over from one side to the other."



An agreement was reached with the Jews of Khaibar. Their lands and movable property were left in their hands. They were allowed to practice their religion freely. In return for the protection they would receive, they were required to pay the Muslims half the produce of their lands. The Prophet maintained the right to turn them out of their lands whenever he so decided. The battle of Khaibar is important as it put an end to the Jewish resistance and, for the first time, a non-Muslim people were made "Protected Persons" of the Muslim commonwealth.



On the same day, Ja.'far ibn Abi Talib returned from Ethiopia. The Holy Prophet said:



"I do not know on which blessing of Allah I should thank Him more: on the victory of Khaibar or on the return of Jaf'ar!"



Fadak

The Holy Prophet then sent an expedition with 'Ali ibn Abi Talib to a Jewish tribe living in Fadak. Without any battle, they agreed to the same terms as the people of Khaibar had.



The income from Khaibar was for all Muslims in general, whereas the income from Fadak was exclusively for the Prophet because it was taken without any use of force. Jalaluddin al-Suyuti states in Ad-Durr al-Manthur on the authority of Bazaar, Abu Yaala and Ibn Abi Hatim who have taken the tradition from Abu Sa'eed al-Khudri that when the verse: Wa aati dhal-Qurba Haqqahu (Qur'an, Chap. 17, V. 26), ("and give thy kinsfolk their dues" was revealed, the Prophet gave the property of Fadak as a gift to Fatimah. Ibn 'Abbas has narrated that:



"When the verse And give thy kinsfolk their dues' was revealed, the Prophet assigned the Fadak property to Fatimah."



A Visit to Mecca

According to the terms of the treaty with the Meccans, the Muslims could visit Mecca the next year. Towards the end of the seventh year of Hijra (March 629 C.E.) the Prophet, accompanied by about two thousand Muslims, proceeded to Mecca to make the lesser pitgrimage (the 'umrah). The Quraish left their houses and watched the Muslims from their tents pitched on the heights- of the surrounding hills. After three days' sojourn, the Muslims retired strictly in accordance with the terms of the treaty.


http://www.al-islam.org/lifeprophet/18.htm

Islamic religion is not the only one guilty of violence- even in modern times. Other religions have had their fair share of violence . As far as I know only atheists seem to be innocent. Saying anyone religion is guilty of violence to me smacks of intellectual infantilism. there were cultural, political and economic factors that were involved. One should read the history books dispassionately to get the facts right.

Uyi Iredia:

Islamic religion is not the only one guilty of violence- even in modern times. Other religions have had their fair share of violence . As far as I know only atheists seem to be innocent. Saying anyone religion is guilty of violence to me smacks of intellectual infantilism. there were cultural, political and economic factors that were involved. One should read the history books dispassionately to get the facts right.

even the communists and the "un-godly" countries/people fight wars to defend themselves.

true or false?

This single Hadith that I quoted Earlier will continue to refute your baseless lies against Islam, if a Muslim does bad he should be judge according to Islamic laws and ethics, unless you want us to pick all the evil Christians, atheist, humanist (humus) etc and then use them as a standard for judging you people. Only Mad people defend


Abu Huraira (May Allah be pleased with him) reported: The Prophet (peace be upon him) said, "By Allah, he is not a believer! By Allah, he is not a believer! By Allah, he is not a believer.'' It was asked, "Who is that, O Messenger of Allah?'' He said, "One whose neighbor does not feel safe from his evil". (Al-Bukhari and Muslim)

Indeed a lot of burden has ALLAH placed upon Muslims, It is the duty of Muslims to make their non muslims neighbour live in peace

RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE

The booty collected by the Muslims in the battle of Khaybar included not a few copies of the Jewish scripture. The Jews requested the Prophet (sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam) for their retrieval to which the Prophet (sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam) acceded and ordered that they should be given back to them. (Tarikh al-Khamis, Vol. II, p. 60)

A Jewish scholar, Dr. Israel Welphenson, reviewing the conquest of Khaybar, refers to the magnanimous treatment of the Prophet (sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam) towards the Jews in these words:

“The event shows what a high regard the Prophet (sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam) had for their scriptures. His tolerant and considerate behavior impressed the Jews who could never forget that the Prophet (sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam) did nothing to degrade their sacred scriptures. The Jews knew how the Romans had, when they captured Jerusalem in 70 B.C., burnt their scriptures and trampled them underfoot. The fanatic Christians persecuting the Jews in Spain had likewise consigned their scriptures to fire. This is the great difference we find between these conquerors and the Prophet (sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam) of Islam.”(Al-Yahud fi Balad il’-‘Arab, p. 170)

[quote ]
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1121/p09s01-coop.html

Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history
RANCHO SANTA FE, CALIF.

In recent months, a spate of atheist books have argued that religion represents, as "End of Faith" author Sam Harris puts it, "the most potent source of human conflict, past and present."

Columnist Robert Kuttner gives the familiar litany. "The Crusades slaughtered millions in the name of Jesus. The Inquisition brought the torture and murder of millions more. After Martin Luther, Christians did bloody battle with other Christians for another three centuries."

In his bestseller "The God Delusion," Richard Dawkins contends that most of the world's recent conflicts – in the Middle East, in the Balkans, in Northern Ireland, in Kashmir, and in Sri Lanka – show the vitality of religion's murderous impulse.

The problem with this critique is that it exaggerates the crimes attributed to religion, while ignoring the greater crimes of secular fanaticism. The best example of religious persecution in America is the Salem witch trials. How many people were killed in those trials? Thousands? Hundreds? Actually, fewer than 25. Yet the event still haunts the liberal imagination.

It is strange to witness the passion with which some secular figures rail against the misdeeds of the Crusaders and Inquisitors more than 500 years ago. The number sentenced to death by the Spanish Inquisition appears to be about 10,000. Some historians contend that an additional 100,000 died in jail due to malnutrition or illness.

These figures are tragic, and of course population levels were much lower at the time. But even so, they are minuscule compared with the death tolls produced by the atheist despotisms of the 20th century. In the name of creating their version of a religion-free utopia, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong produced the kind of mass slaughter that no Inquisitor could possibly match. Collectively these atheist tyrants murdered more than 100 million people.

Moreover, many of the conflicts that are counted as "rel[b]igious wars" were not fought over religion. They were mainly fought over rival claims to territory and power. Can the wars between England and France be called religious wars because the English were Protestants and the French were Catholics? Hardly.[/b]

The same is true today. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not, at its core, a religious one. It arises out of a dispute over self-determination and land. Hamas and the extreme orthodox parties in Israel may advance theological claims – "God gave us this land" and so forth – but the conflict would remain essentially the same even without these religious motives. Ethnic rivalry, not religion, is the source of the tension in Northern Ireland and the Balkans.
Blindly blaming religion for conflict

Yet today's atheists insist on making religion the culprit. Consider Mr. Harris's analysis of the conflict in Sri Lanka. "While the motivations of the Tamil Tigers are not explicitly religious," he informs us, "they are Hindus who undoubtedly believe many improbable things about the nature of life and death." In other words, while the Tigers see themselves as combatants in a secular political struggle, Harris detects a religious motive because these people happen to be Hindu and surely there must be some underlying religious craziness that explains their fanaticism.

Harris can go on forever in this vein. Seeking to exonerate secularism and atheism from the horrors perpetrated in their name, he argues that Stalinism and Maoism were in reality "little more than a political religion." As for Nazism, "while the hatred of Jews in Germany expressed itself in a predominantly secular way, it was a direct inheritance from medieval Christianity." Indeed, "The holocaust marked the culmination of , two thousand years of Christian fulminating against the Jews."

One finds the same inanities in Mr. Dawkins's work. Don't be fooled by this rhetorical legerdemain. Dawkins and Harris cannot explain why, if Nazism was directly descended from medieval Christianity, medieval Christianity did not produce a Hitler. How can a self-proclaimed atheist ideology, advanced by Hitler as a repudiation of Christianity, be a "culmination" of 2,000 years of Christianity? Dawkins and Harris are employing a transparent sleight of hand that holds Christianity responsible for the crimes committed in its name, while exonerating secularism and atheism for the greater crimes committed in their name.

Religious fanatics have done things that are impossible to defend, and some of them, mostly in the Muslim world, are still performing horrors in the name of their creed. But if religion sometimes disposes people to self-righteousness and absolutism, it also provides a moral code that condemns the slaughter of innocents. In particular, the moral teachings of Jesus provide no support for – indeed they stand as a stern rebuke to – the historical injustices perpetrated in the name of Christianity.
Atheist hubris

The crimes of atheism have generally been perpetrated through a hubristic ideology that sees man, not God, as the creator of values. Using the latest techniques of science and technology, man seeks to displace God and create a secular utopia here on earth. Of course if some people – the Jews, the landowners, the unfit, or the handicapped – have to be eliminated in order to achieve this utopia, this is a price the atheist tyrants and their apologists have shown themselves quite willing to pay. Thus they confirm the truth of Fyodor Dostoyevsky's dictum, "If God is not, everything is permitted."

Whatever the motives for atheist bloodthirstiness, the indisputable fact is that all the religions of the world put together have in 2,000 years not managed to kill as many people as have been killed in the name of atheism in the past few decades.

It's time to abandon the mindlessly repeated mantra that religious belief has been the greatest source of human conflict and violence. Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history.

• Dinesh D'Souza is the Rishwain Fellow at the Hoover Institution. His new book, "The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11," will be published in January.
[quote][/quote]

Now you might not agree in total with all his analysis, but shows clearly that we must be able to understand a conflict and its' causes before labelling them Islamic or religious. I hope the heathen hordes of atheist on NL can learn to think properly, i have lost hope in the Christians in NL thinking well, since they are only interested in repeating their ill - conditioned illogical thoughts.

@Martian; « #288 on: Today at 06:16:45 AM »

Quote from: Sweetnecta on Today at 05:12:26 AM
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 violated 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, ,

Your IQ is below room temperature.[quote][/Quote]thank Allah for this. the outcome is that when this IQ argues with you, Allah supports me with my brother's post above. i didn't present only islamic viewpoint. my brothers presented even what jews said as they looked at what non jews did to the jews when they conquer them. if i looked at what jewish leaders, their prophets did to non jews in wars, and what jesus as yahweh did to non children of israel by the hands of children of israel, my beloved Messenger [as] is the best conqueror a man or woman can ask for. and no sane soul will say that there is no crime that does not warrant punishment. a crime can be so horrifying that punishment must be metered.

sometimes, in the summer, the room temperature may rise up to the unbearable 150 or more degrees. imagine if the house catches fire. the room temperature will easily be higher.

Let me understand this, so slaughtering prisoners of war and enslaving their children and wives is just and legal? Ok, ok, I get your drift. I guess since the US is the most powerful country that mankind has ever known it must be from God and therefore they can slay the men and enslave the women and children of the nationals that are against them including the Pakistanis that harbored OBL and the Afghans, Sudanese and Yemenis that harbored Al Qaeda? What about the Somalis that dragged US soldiers through the streets that were simply providing Humanitarian assistance to them in 1991? In my humble opinion, No religion or ideology has the right to under any context to massacre and enslave people. 


Additionally, using your premise I guess the Israelis have the right to oppress the Palestinians since they are destabilizing the region and causing trouble.  Anyway back to the topic on why the Islamic Religion is linked with violence and terror. I will continue to provide scripture and stories of Muhamed that provide evidence of the violence, relgious bigotry and warfare that  is ingrained in the very doctrine of the religion and without reformation the ideology will continue to be violent.



Volume 4, Book 52, Number 280:
Narrated Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri:

When the tribe of Bani Quraiza was ready to accept Sad's judgment, Allah's Apostle sent for Sad who was near to him. Sad came, riding a donkey and when he came near, Allah's Apostle said (to the Ansar), "Stand up for your leader." Then Sad came and sat beside Allah's Apostle who said to him. "These people are ready to accept your judgment." Sad said, "I give the judgment that their warriors should be killed and their children and women should be taken as prisoners." The Prophet then remarked, "O Sad! You have judged amongst them with (or similar to) the judgment of the King Allah."

Muhammed on his death bed commanding his followers to expel the pagans from Arabia:

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 288:
Narrated Said bin Jubair:

Ibn 'Abbas said, "Thursday! What (great thing) took place on Thursday!" Then he started weeping till his tears wetted the gravels of the ground . Then he said, "On Thursday the illness of Allah's Apostle was aggravated and he said, "Fetch me writing materials so that I may have something written to you after which you will never go astray." The people (present there) differed in this matter and people should not differ before a prophet. They said, "Allah's Apostle is seriously sick.' The Prophet said, "Let me alone, as the state in which I am now, is better than what you are calling me for." The Prophet on his death-bed, gave three orders saying, "Expel the pagans from the Arabian Peninsula, respect and give gifts to the foreign delegates as you have seen me dealing with them." I forgot the third (order)" (Ya'qub bin Muhammad said, "I asked Al-Mughira bin 'Abdur-Rahman about the Arabian Peninsula and he said, 'It comprises Mecca, Medina, Al-Yama-ma and Yemen." Ya'qub added, "And Al-Arj, the beginning of Tihama."


Here are instructions from Muhammed to fight people of different civilizations for no apparent reason but them not being muslims:

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 175:
Narrated Khalid bin Madan:

That 'Umair bin Al-Aswad Al-Anasi told him that he went to 'Ubada bin As-Samit while he was staying in his house at the sea-shore of Hims with (his wife) Um Haram. 'Umair said. Um Haram informed us that she heard the Prophet saying, "Paradise is granted to the first batch of my followers who will undertake a naval expedition." Um Haram added, I said, 'O Allah's Apostle! Will I be amongst them?' He replied, 'You are amongst them.' The Prophet then said, 'The first army amongst' my followers who will invade Caesar's City will be forgiven their sins.' I asked, 'Will I be one of them, O Allah's Apostle?' He replied in the negative."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 176:
Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar:

Allah's Apostle said, "You (i.e. Muslims) will fight wi the Jews till some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, 'O 'Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.' "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177:
Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 178:
Narrated 'Amr bin Taghlib:

The Prophet said, "One of the portents of the Hour is that you will fight with people wearing shoes made of hair; and one of the portents of the Hour is that you will fight with broad-faced people whose faces will look like shields coated with leather."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 179:
Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Turks; people with small eyes, red faces, and flat noses. Their faces will look like shields coated with leather. The Hour will not be established till you fight with people whose shoes are made of hair."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 180:
Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Prophet said, "The Hour will not be established till you fight with people wearing shoes made of hair. And the Hour will not be established till you fight with people whose faces look like shields coated with leather. " (Abu Huraira added, "They will be) small-eyed, flat nosed, and their faces will look like shields coated with leather."

More edicts to fight unbelievers
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 192:
Narrated Sahl bin Sad:

That he heard the Prophet on the day (of the battle) of Khaibar saying, "I will give the flag to a person at whose hands Allah will grant victory." So, the companions of the Prophet got up, wishing eagerly to see to whom the flag will be given, and everyone of them wished to be given the flag. But the Prophet asked for 'Ali. Someone informed him that he was suffering from eye-trouble. So, he ordered them to bring 'Ali in front of him. Then the Prophet spat in his eyes and his eyes were cured immediately as if he had never any eye-trouble. 'Ali said, "We will fight with them (i.e. infidels) till they become like us (i.e. Muslims)." The Prophet said, "Be patient, till you face them and invite them to Islam and inform them of what Allah has enjoined upon them. By Allah! If a single person embraces Islam at your hands (i.e. through you), that will be better for you than the red camels."

More Murder:

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 286:
Narrated Salama bin Al-Akwa:

"An infidel spy came to the Prophet while he was on a journey. The spy sat with the companions of the Prophet and started talking and then went away. The Prophet said (to his companions), 'Chase and kill him.' So, I killed him." The Prophet then gave him the belongings of the killed spy (in addition to his share of the war booty).


Volume 4, Book 52, Number 196:
Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah 's Apostle said, " I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,' and whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,' his life and property will be saved by me except for Islamic law, and his accounts will be with Allah, (either to punish him or to forgive him.)"

More murder and mayheim

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 270:
Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah:

The Prophet said, "Who is ready to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has really hurt Allah and His Apostle?" Muhammad bin Maslama said, "O Allah's Apostle! Do you like me to kill him?" He replied in the affirmative. So, Muhammad bin Maslama went to him (i.e. Ka'b) and said, "This person (i.e. the Prophet) has put us to task and asked us for charity." Ka'b replied, "By Allah, you will get tired of him." Muhammad said to him, "We have followed him, so we dislike to leave him till we see the end of his affair." Muhammad bin Maslama went on talking to him in this way till he got the chance to kill him.

And the argument that christians, atheists and whatever non islamic ideology had killed killed more people than Muhammad does not in any way exonerate Muhammad of his murders?Killing hundreds of people is still mass murder.And no,it was not self defence.The mere act of Muhammad taking their wives,children & goods as war booty is proof that he was the aggressor.

^^^^^^^^^^^^ a man who killed 100 worst of 1,000,000 bad people, when he could have easily and justifiably killed all of them, is a just and measured person when we compared him to a person in less strenuous condition, killed 2,000,000 people, women and children and old, all of them are defenseless people just because of one terrible man among them, worse just because they are not like him.

even melotzavitch of old chec republics gave the muslim kids candies, robbed hands on their head to show some affection and killed their fathers after that. he is a christian and the world stood still until the blood of islam was flowing like wine in a sailors convention. jesus as yahweh, under moses did not allow any jew to spare the lives of animals in some cases.

i don't know if you are married, regardless or less in love you may be with your unattractive wife, you will not allow a gang of armed robbers to ride her, one after the other, while they instruct you to fan them down because they are sweating in the act. as worse as you may be willing to spare their lives, if you had a gun, because this may just be your turn on, most people will fight even when they are coward at heart. all of the above is not like a sin committed against a city state; and madina was a city state.

[Quote]Volume 4, Book 52, Number 280:
Narrated Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri:

When the tribe of Bani Quraiza was ready to accept Sad's judgment, Allah's Apostle sent for Sad who was near to him. Sad came, riding a donkey and when he came near, Allah's Apostle said (to the Ansar), "Stand up for your leader." Then Sad came and sat beside Allah's Apostle who said to him. "These people are ready to accept your judgment." Sad said, "I give the judgment that their warriors should be killed and their children and women should be taken as prisoners." The Prophet then remarked, "O Sad! You have judged amongst them with (or similar to) the judgment of the King Allah."

Muhammed on his death bed commanding his followers to expel the pagans from Arabia:

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 288:
Narrated Said bin Jubair:

Ibn 'Abbas said, "Thursday! What (great thing) took place on Thursday!" Then he started weeping till his tears wetted the gravels of the ground . Then he said, "On Thursday the illness of Allah's Apostle was aggravated and he said, "Fetch me writing materials so that I may have something written to you after which you will never go astray." The people (present there) differed in this matter and people should not differ before a prophet. They said, "Allah's Apostle is seriously sick.' The Prophet said, "Let me alone, as the state in which I am now, is better than what you are calling me for." The Prophet on his death-bed, gave three orders saying, "Expel the pagans from the Arabian Peninsula, respect and give gifts to the foreign delegates as you have seen me dealing with them." I forgot the third (order)" (Ya'qub bin Muhammad said, "I asked Al-Mughira bin 'Abdur-Rahman about the Arabian Peninsula and he said, 'It comprises Mecca, Medina, Al-Yama-ma and Yemen." Ya'qub added, "And Al-Arj, the beginning of Tihama."[/Quote]a book with no indication the title; is it bukhari, or muslim, or what? and no book is 100% correct unless its parts agrees with Quran. king Allah? finally a man narrates a hadith, he forgets the meat of the hadith, the 1/3 of the essence of it, but remembers it was when the messenger [as] was sick. none of the true narrations of the time that the messenger's last sickness that ended his life [as] forgets what he heard. a person who heard and remembered to tell us that the messenger who could not write, asked for writing material will not forget 1 of the 3 things that the prophet said, as t was going to be a thing that will guide you from being astray.

@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.

sweetnecta, what the hell are you talking about?!?!? look here-don't come running your mouth about things you don't have a clue about. when did i even reference islamic scripture? lagosshia asked me questions and i answered them. go back and read my posts. in the future, never address me again. you are not worthy. this will be the first and last time i address you.

lagosshia, go back and read what i wrote. how can you ask questions, i take the time to answer them, and you don't even read the responses? this, combined with the fact that you don't know how to debate, is the reason why your points are not resonating with anyone. and yes, contrary to what you think, context is VERY important, not just for the bible, but for the koran, and for all religious texts.

smh.

Disclaimer: I am not trying to get into back and forth rancor with any of the participants in this debate but I am providing evidence from my point of view that shows the violence inherent in the holy books, culture and doctrine of the religion of Islam. I do not hate muslims and see them as human beings like myself. However, it is the ideology that I am examining and critiquing.  I am not advocating christianity, judaism or atheism as an alternative to Islam just offering supporting evidence that inherently links the religion of islam to violence. Neither am I denying that other religions and ideologies have ccommittedviolent acts to humanity and unfortunately so has Islam and it is continuing to be a scourge in the modern age along with other problems that humanity faces.

That being said, the aformentioned quotes in my earlier posts are from The translation of Sahih Bukhari, Book 52:Fighting for the Cause of Allah (Jihaad).

Finally, in my opinion we should not hold men that ccommittedviolence in such moral high esteem except as maybe great warriors. There are several non violent people that moved humanity forward without lifting a violent finger to harm others including Ghandi, MLK etc. Others started with violence and put their arms  down and made change the peaceful way for eg Mandela.

[Quote]« #304 on: Today at 06:28:02 PM »

Quote
@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.

sweetnecta, what the hell are you talking about?!?!? look here-don't come running your mouth about things you don't have a clue about. when did i even reference islamic scripture? lagosshia asked me questions and i answered them. go back and read my posts. in the future, never address me again. you are not worthy. this will be the first and last time i address you.

« #141 on: June 28, 2011, 03:34 PM »

what people fail to realize is this-PEOPLE are violent. not the religion they practice. a MAN wrote the quran. MEN wrote the bible. human beings. are we not the descendants of animals at the end of the day? people should stop blaming religion for their own failings as human beings and stop using religious texts and figures to justify murder, torture and cruelty. enough is enough.

« #148 on: June 28, 2011, 04:02 PM »

my other problem with some people arguing here is that they don't even understand christianity. Jesus Christ came to save sinners both on earth and those to come after. it was the best way God could show his love and his willingness to absolve all atrocities-past, present, and future. you are supposed to leave the old testament BEHIND. why do you think it is called old testament? a christian is supposed to walk in the ways of Christ, who is the epitome of peace, love, and understanding. so, stop quoting from the old testament in reference to what christians do or don't do. and for those of you who claim to be christian, i advise you to actually understand the religion that you practice.

« #184 on: June 28, 2011, 07:36 PM »

Quote from: LagosShia on June 28, 2011, 04:11 PM
since you have brought up a religious topic and you're trying to preach,please answer the following if you can:

1.) the God that you believe "inspired" the "old testament" is He not the same God that you believe also "inspired" the "New Testament"?did He change His mind?

2.) can you show me one verse in the bible where the word "old testament" appears?can you also show me in the bible where the word "bible" appears?can you tell us why these two words are not found int the bible?!!!

3.) christians pray,fast,do not eat blood (and many more laws as commanded in the "old testament".can you tell us how you determine which law to follow from the "old testament" and which to "leave behind"?according to Jesus:

MATHEW 5:

The Fulfillment of the Law
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

you can also check this:

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-651674.0.html



[b]what does any of this have to do with what i said? don't worry, though-i'll appease you. afterwards, answer sagamite's questions:

1. in a nutshell, the new testament talks of the birth, life, and death of Jesus Christ. it also talks about the building of the churches in various cities and some of their trials and tribulations. since i believe Jesus Christ to be the son of God, then yes, he did inspire that testament.

2. why would those words be in the bible? what a silly question. what are you trying to prove here?

3. this is all you need to know:

"When asked what the "greatest commandment" is, Jesus is portrayed by the Gospels of Mark[12:28–34] and Matthew[22:34-40] as stating that the first two commandments, and the greatest, are
"Love your God": One should love God with one's entire heart, soul, mind, and strength
"Love your neighbour": One should love one's neighbour as one would love oneself"

oya, over to you. be sure to answer sagamite's questions, okay?[/b]
[/Quote]a person who has an opposition view to islam, do quote contrary what Islam says. such a person, if he quotes will quote the Islamic scriptures out of context.




@divinereal; « #305 on: Today at 07:09:50 PM »
[Quote]Disclaimer: I am not trying to get into back and forth rancor with any of the participants in this debate but I am providing evidence from my point of view that shows the violence inherent in the holy books, culture and doctrine of the religion of Islam. I do not hate muslims and see them as human beings like myself. However, it is the ideology that I am examining and critiquing. I am not advocating christianity, judaism or atheism as an alternative to Islam just offering supporting evidence that inherently links the religion of islam to violence. Neither am I denying that other religions and ideologies have ccommittedviolent acts to humanity and unfortunately so has Islam and it is continuing to be a scourge in the modern age along with other problems that humanity faces.

That being said, the aformentioned quotes in my earlier posts are from The translation of Sahih Bukhari, Book 52:Fighting for the Cause of Allah (Jihaad).

Finally, in my opinion we should not hold men that ccommittedviolence in such moral high esteem except as maybe great warriors. There are several non violent people that moved humanity forward without lifting a violent finger to harm others including Ghandi, MLK etc. Others started with violence and put their arms down and made change the peaceful way for eg Mandela.[/Quote]it is interesting to note that Muhammad [as] is the only leader in history that says women should not be harmed. that statement includes all non combatants; males and females, young and old alike. it was Muhammad [as] who gave rules of engagements in each of the wars under him, for muslims and if mankind follows it, mass murder in wars will not happen. america, the leading country invaded iraq, at just moments before the ground troop enters.


he told them to forget all the rules they have learned and that was that. you saw what happened. ghandi, mlk, etc, including mandela, all of them combined n their best day, their showing mercy when in position of authority, would not be equal to when Muhammad [as] is considered worthy of reminded of his value in surah abasa. imagine what ghandi would have done if he had power and the british were slaughtering his people of india? imagine what mlk would have done if he had power and the kkk were hanging blacks, openly?


if no powerful leader reacts to injustice, what kid of peace is he advocating other than stupidity? a true lover of peace is the powerful who forgave when all would have punished. the weak who forgives a powerful oppressor has no choice because his mercy or peaceful gesture is so because it helps him to safe his own skin, because may actually get killed if he raises to much of an opposition.

[b]My Mujahadeen brother (Joke) that's incorrect, Mandela had power and could have easily expelled the whites/Boers from South Africa upon being elected and that would be a moral and just decision. He chose a path of truth and reconciliation something that many in his own party the ANC and supporters resisted. I am drawn to such exemplary acts of forgiveness and unity rather than war and mischief displayed by the prophet of Islam. Mandela displayed the true essence of pure humility and leadership. Lest not forget Mandela was imprisoned for 27 years and came out of jail and forgave real aggressive oppressors not  perceived ones. This is something that we all witnessed (not sure how old you are). [/b]So with examples like these I definitely have an affront for stories about some medievial figure being of exemplary character when I read about the opposite and witness the opposite in reality (terrorism in the name of Allah). Even though I don't consider myself a christian, the mythical stories of Jesus and buddha are so much better than big Mo' out of Arabia.  And before you jump the gun, I am aware that Mandela was considered a "terrorist" by the Afrikaans govt (which was illegitimate btw) but was instead a true freedom fighter.
Not everybody was raised to pick up the sword (or resort to violence) when they feel oppressed or maligned, there in lies the difference. Many are taught to outsmart your enemies with intelligence, love or dexterity not brute force. Haven't you heard the saying the pen is mightier than the sword
We are all human beings and whether or not we like it we all need to coexist on this planet. But unfortunately for the Islamists, the odds are stacked against them. The West and other civilized nations have the technological and economic might that orientalist could only fathom. Its Modern Miltaries with drones, satellites, B52s, cluster bombs vs. Ak 47s, IUDs, RPGs & suicide bombers (what a primitive bunch of losers)!

The Tolerance Displayed by Islam to the People of Book

In 70 AD, Jews were expelled from Palestine, their homeland they had dwelled for thousands of years, by the pagan Roman Empire and for the remaining 19 centuries lived in diaspora, that is in exile. Throughout this period, they were subjected to oppression and cruelty in most of the Christian countries. They were exiled and even mass executed. During this period, they found the most peaceful and secure environment in the lands of Islam. In the world of Islam, anti-Semitism never flourished; Jews (and Christians) were always allowed to follow their own faiths and even observe their own law, free of any form of oppression and cruelty.

The main reason of this spirit of tolerance and security is the Koranic morality. In the Koran, Jews and Christians are named “the People of the Book” and Muslims are advised to establish friendly relations with the People of the Book. The Koran allows Muslims to marry the women of the People of the Book and to accept an invitation to a meal. (Surat al-Maida:5) These commands show that bonds of kinship may be established as a result of the marriage of a Muslim with a woman from the People of the Book, and that both sides of the union can accept each other’s invitation to a meal. These are the fundamentals that will ensure the establishment of equitable human relationships and a happy communal life.

In the Koran, God commands Muslims to ensure the security of even the idolaters who do not comply with the revelations of God: “If any of the idolaters ask you for protection, give them protection until they have heard the words of God. Then convey them to a place where they are safe.” (Surat at-Tawba: 6) Meanwhile, Muslims must show more respect, tolerance and goodness to the People of the Book who, compared with idolaters, harbor a faith very similar to those of Muslims.

In another verse, God commands Muslims to be good to all non-Muslims – including the People of the Book – provided that they do display enmity towards Muslims:

God does not forbid you from being good to those who have not fought you in the religion or driven you from your homes,or from being just towards them. God loves those who are just, (The Koran, 60:

Consequently, Muslims are responsible for establishing very warm neighbourly relations with Jews and Christians living in the same community. In a country where Muslims are in majority, the People of the Book are entrusted to Muslims. Making them live in peace and security and protecting them against any danger is a religious duty on Muslims. As was witnessed many times in history, targeting Jews only because of their beliefs, depriving them of their civil rights, sending them to horrible concentration camps is a great cruelty. In the same way a Muslim condemns such cruelty, so must he do his best to prevent it.

Ignorant people are obsessed by “holding prejudice against those who are not like them”. That is the reason why numerous accusations and hearsay were spread about Jews both in the past, particularly in the medieval Europe, and today. Still today, under the conditioning of such myths, some people subconsciously hold prejudice and feel antipathy towards Jews. A Muslim can never assume such a crude outlook and attitude. God relates us the existence of the “People of the Book” as a fact, explained us the issues about which they hold misconceptions yet also commanded us to treat them well.

Nietzsche

The definitive representative of this strand of European atheism is Friedrich Nietzsche, who alongside Feuerbach is often regarded as the best known modern atheist. It is striking, then, that the New Atheists fail to engage with his thought (Nietzsche does not appear in Dawkins' The God Delusion or Hitchens' God is Not Great; he is only mentioned in a footnote in Sam Harris' The End of Faith and only in passing in Dennett's Breaking the Spell). As Winfried Schroeder notes, the late Nietzsche, like De Sade, explicitly encouraged violence; according to him, the superior type of human being (or Übermensch) was entitled (indeed, obliged) to exercise cruelty and violence over his inferiors. Nietzsche believed that morality constituted a 'capital crime' against life, by which he meant that it frustrated those forms of individual behaviour by which (according to him) the superior sorts of people most authentically express themselves - such as sexuality, greed, the will to dominate, and cruelty. As such, it stood in the way of the realisation of a future elite race of 'supermen'.

Marx and Marxist-Leninism

Another very influential strand of atheism which condoned violence was Marxist dialectical materialism. Marxism and Marxist-Leninism undoubtedly permitted violence as a means to an end, namely, the establishment of the communist society. The Marxist theory of ideology, as well as Marxist-Leninism which interpreted Marx faithfully in this respect, regarded morality as a mere ideological product or epiphenomenon of material conditions prevailing within a given society. It saw in morality no binding reason not to exercise violence in the achievement of its political ends, since the ideological critique had supposedly exposed morality and its claims to universal validity as the mere expression of particular interests.[14]

[b]It is for this reason that Dawkins appears to be wrong in claiming that the insinuation that Stalin and Hitler 'did their terrible deeds because they were atheists' is 'false'.[15] Just as the connection between Nietzsche's atheism and his amoralism lies in his supposed exposure of Judeo-Christian morality as a mere disguised expression of its essentially partial will to power, equally the connection between Marx's atheism and his amoralism lies in his similar exposure of bourgeois Enlightenment morality as a mere disguise for the pursuit of the partial socio-economic interests of a particular class (the bourgeoisie). It can be argued that Lenin was only being consistent in regarding morality as just one more instrument in the political struggle. It was not immoral to commit violence, since morality was just ideology, and could be ignored in pursuing the aims of the communist revolution; as Schroeder notes, the events post-1917 in Russia were merely a consistent application of the atheistic and amoral principles of dialectical materialism[/b]

2. Nazism and Communism.

In the 20th century alone, more people were slaughtered under secularist governments and in the name of secularist ideologies, such as Nazism and communism, than in all the religious persecutions within western history combined! Most people know that Hitler killed 6,000,000 Jews alone (that is, apart from the other groups which his henchmen slaughtered on a vast scale, including Poles), what is probably far less well-known is that as many as 110-120 million people have been killed by communism alone – in eastern Europe, Africa, Central and South America, southeast Asia and China (the true figures for the massacres and governmentally-caused famines of the Chinese 'Cultural Revolution' and 'Great Leap Forward', for example, are only just emerging and historians have been stunned. Anything from ten to forty million people perished in China).

Communism and Nazism are clearly atheistic, if you were to sum up all the deaths caused by atheism and compare it to religious "inspired" deaths, you will conclude that atheism is inhumane and pure evil.

divinereal:

The West and other civilized nations have the technological and economic might that orientalist could only fathom. Its Modern Miltaries with drones, satellites, B52s, cluster bombs vs. Ak 47s, IUDs, RPGs & suicide bombers (what a primitive bunch of losers)!

The same west that keeps producing Nuclear weapons, biological weapons, chemical weapons etc are the civilised in your sight? right! this only proves that you suffer from delusional inferiority complex, these advanced society are only interested in building weapons they can use in destroying entire civilization like in Nagzaki and hiroshima, you are indeed a fool, if you sat down and analysed the west, you will come to the conclusion that a system without God, will sow horror and reap terror. In the entiore history of humanity only the US has used Nuclear weapon on such a scale, yet they seemed not to have learnt any lessons, during the Iraq war they reportedly used DUS-Depleted Uranium shells, this shells are known to release radiation and in places like where they were used they are known to have caused deformity in children and cancer in adults, yes they are civilised indeed only in the face of Humanist scum like yourself.

divinereal:

[b]My Mujahadeen brother (Joke) that's incorrect, Mandela had power and could have easily expelled the whites/Boers from South Africa upon being elected and that would be a moral and just decision. He chose a path of truth and reconciliation something that many in his own party the ANC and supporters resisted. I am drawn to such exemplary acts of forgiveness and unity rather than war and mischief displayed by the prophet of Islam. Mandela displayed the true essence of pure humility and leadership. Lest not forget Mandela was imprisoned for 27 years and came out of jail and forgave real aggressive oppressors not perceived ones. This is something that we all witnessed (not sure how old you are). [/b]So with examples like these I definitely have an affront for stories about some medievial figure being of exemplary character when I read about the opposite and witness the opposite in reality (terrorism in the name of Allah). Even though I don't consider myself a christian, the mythical stories of Jesus and buddha are so much better than big Mo' out of Arabia. And before you jump the gun, I am aware that Mandela was considered a "terrorist" by the Afrikaans govt (which was illegitimate btw) but was instead a true freedom fighter.
Not everybody was raised to pick up the sword (or resort to violence) when they feel oppressed or maligned, there in lies the difference. Many are taught to outsmart your enemies with intelligence, love or dexterity not brute force. Haven't you heard the saying the pen is mightier than the sword
We are all human beings and whether or not we like it we all need to coexist on this planet. But unfortunately for the Islamists, the odds are stacked against them. The West and other civilized nations have the technological and economic might that orientalist could only fathom. Its Modern Miltaries with drones, satellites, B52s, cluster bombs vs. Ak 47s, IUDs, RPGs & suicide bombers (what a primitive bunch of losers)!

it is really sick when someone tries to rewrite or deny history.no matter how many slaughters against the agitators of muslims took place,the fact remains that there are clear guidelines in the Quran which guide muslim action.the guidelines are simple:if they fight us,we have the right to defend ourselves.and if they desist,we should show mercy.also,God does not forbid the muslims from showing kindness to non-muslims who have not done anything bad against us.i have quoted those verses many times but you still bring up half-stories from here and there without explaining to us indepth what really happened in those incidents.


someone started by bringing hitler into the discussion and that comparison of hitler was stopped with facts.

now you're bringing mandela.the fact is mandela was not the "prophet of the blacks" in south africa.true he had broad support even when in prison.you cannot deny that no clashes between whites and blacks took place.the only factor that restrained the blacks from freeing themselves from white oppression was for the fact that power was not in their favor to use it.they were outclassed in terms of force.any attempt to use force would have given them the image of rebels and the white government would have trampled over them and send the “rebels” into extinction.

when talking about forgiveness,you should know well that Muhammad (sa) was not only persecuted and his followers were not only killed but they tried on more than one occassion to assasinate him and he later was in exile from Makkah.this is a man that could have condemned everyone from Quraysh when he captured Makkah and defeated his enemies,in his home town from which he was driven out.rather than taking revenge and feeling soar about what has being done to him,he declared a general amnesty.his chief enemy who fought wars against him in the name of Abu Sufyan was forgiven and was not killed.if you know the pain abu sufyan and his family inflicted upon the muslims and the Prophet (sa) personally,you'd no doubt come to appreciate the mercy and forgiving spirit of the man called Muhammad (sa) who the Quran describes as "mercy to mankind".

@divinereal; « #307 on: Today at 01:26:17 AM »
[Quote]My Mujahadeen brother (Joke)[/Quote]every true believer is a mujahed, at least fighting against the evil in him.


[Quote] that's incorrect, Mandela had power and could have easily expelled the whites/Boers from South Africa upon being elected and that would be a moral and just decision.[/Quote]mandela had no such power. his power was not even enough within his anc that no one could show any dissension. the world would have cried foul and got rid of him. this is not the case with Muhammad [as]. when he spat, his companions [ra] rushed to get it and rub it on themselves as a thing of baracka.

and when he defeated makkans without shooting a single arrow, he could have sacked every pagan who have stood in opposition to both the establishment of the religion chosen by God for mankind which was in the process of being completed under the only universal messenger, a man they knew to be the most honest and trusted among them and the individual rights of each of the muslims. yet, the messenger in his God given mercy and kindness gave them universal amnesty.

he left the people of taif alone, too, as he had done when he was weak that they pelted him with stones. look. mandela didn't have any angel coming to him, asking if he will want him to kill all the whites, by the Authority given by God, if he wanted it. Muhammad [as] had divine army as an angel waiting for him to bring just punishment. he chose forgiveness even then. and remember that your hero mandela was once a fighter?



[Quote]He chose a path of truth and reconciliation something that many in his own party the ANC and supporters resisted. I am drawn to such exemplary acts of forgiveness and unity rather than war and mischief displayed by the prophet of Islam. Mandela displayed the true essence of pure humility and leadership. Lest not forget Mandela was imprisoned for 27 years and came out of jail and forgave real aggressive oppressors not  perceived ones. This is something that we all witnessed (not sure how old you are).[/Quote]i was a father children in grade schools before mandela was released in 1990. i watched him coming out live in early morning from the city of san francisco. mandea is a christian. i am now convinced that you make him better than jesus his God who before becoming a human commanded Moses to lay waste many nations and their wealth. when he became human fighting very early in his life, just like mandela.

when in later part of his life he spoke about bringing sword, not peace and commanding tree to die and spoke about slaying those who resisted a king [which the christian says he is] be brought forward and be slain, mandela chose a different route. now lets consider the power and influence of mandela while i give what i know of Muhammad [as]; mandela real sphere of influence is south africa. Muhammad's sphere of influence was a civilization, so much so that he was able by divine command wrote to kings and rulers and emperors of the time to accept Islam under him and they will have divine safety. this invitation in itself is mercy and just, instead of justice in way Moses had dealt with disbelievers.

and only a bastard leader that saw a war that will decimate his community that will mount an opposition to defend his people. no one attacked south africa while mandela was a leader. from the moment Muhammad spoke the truth by inviting his people to worship God, alone, even his uncles became his enemies. did anyone from mandela's family supported the opposition? Muhammad and his supporters were rejected and no one did anything with them by agreement posted on the wall of kaaba. it was a prison in the open desert because the were told to live outside city limit with almost nothing including adequate food. khadija [ra] was with them, suffering just as well.

mandela was fed in robin island ans winnie struggled inside south africa. mandela was able to not let bygone be bygone and he exchanged winnie for lady samora machel. Muhammad stay with his wife, even when she passed [as], it was divine order that forced him to remarry, a thing so practical that allows one to know that life can be restarted all over after the loss of a spouse. not just having a girl friend at old age as if you are grade school kid. and you spoke about mischief.

a person whose yes is yes and his no is no cant be considered to be mischievous especially when he is under divine guidance. his turning his face from a person wanting his attention called for his Lord to remind him of his 'position'. what mischief did he do? if a man had attempted the life of mandela when he became the president, that man was as good as already dead. yet in a battle Ali [ra] walked away without killing a man because if he had, he said it would have been for person reason. who do you think influenced Ali other than Muhammad [as]?



[Quote]So with examples like these I definitely have an affront for stories about some medievial figure being of exemplary character when I read about the opposite and witness the opposite in reality (terrorism in the name of Allah). Even though I don't consider myself a christian, the mythical stories of Jesus and buddha are so much better than big Mo' out of Arabia.  And before you jump the gun, I am aware that Mandela was considered a "terrorist" by the Afrikaans govt (which was illegitimate btw) but was instead a true freedom fighter.[/Quote]could you define terrorism from any dictionary or source of your choice. anyone who says he does any deed for the sake of Allah, if such a deed is not within what Allah accepts, is he really going to be rewarded for his deed that is unacceptable?  a woman becomes a prostitute so that she may support an orphanage. is that a morally acceptable support, in your own mind? and i will ignore how the afrikaans saw mandela in his struggling time.



[Quote]Not everybody was raised to pick up the sword (or resort to violence) when they feel oppressed or maligned, there in lies the difference. Many are taught to outsmart your enemies with intelligence, love or dexterity not brute force. Haven't you heard the saying the pen is mightier than the sword[/Quote]i hope you heard the expression ' oppression is worse than killing'? and this ' give me liberty or give me death'? or even this 'if you can't die for a noble cause, you live for nothing'? or this 'a life without God given freedom is not worth living'? there are many more expression and pen is mightier than sword in a limited way; not in nigeria, not between israel and palestinians because the zionists have used sword to silent any pen the palestinians can write with.

the un is not able to read the invisible ink on the white paper. america didn't use pen on afghanistan or iraq, but major sword. i amnot an advocate for violence. but i am an advocate for freedom. resistance must be legal, from my islamic point of view; no suicide, no killing of innocent. and when you fight for a noble cause, with noble mindset, and be God conscious.



[Quote]We are all human beings and whether or not we like it we all need to coexist on this planet. But unfortunately for the Islamists, the odds are stacked against them. The West and other civilized nations have the technological and economic might that orientalist could only fathom. Its Modern Miltaries with drones, satellites, B52s, cluster bombs vs. Ak 47s, IUDs, RPGs & suicide bombers (what a primitive bunch of losers)![/Quote]orientalist is not a muslim. i wonder what you are talking about. and above all of the weaponry is the heaven[s]. the Owner of Heavens s the Owner of the earth. Between them He owns, too. imagine His own weaponry! divinereal does not know how devastating divine intervention can be. go and study how Moses defeated pharaoh who had the power to build pyramid. it was by divine intervention that abraha and his army was also defeated. learn, maaannn.

“Muslims only kill in self-defense.”

The Muslim Game:

Muslims often claim that their religion only orders them to kill in self-defense (ie. when their own lives are in danger).

The Truth:

In fact, self-defense is just one of several conditions under which Muslims are permitted to take the lives of others. The myth of killing only in self-defense is easily disproved from the accounts of Muhammad’s own life as recorded in Islam’s sacred texts (with which Muslim terrorists are only too familiar).

Muhammad’s career of killing began with raids on merchant caravans traveling between Syria and Mecca. His men would usually sneak up on unsuspecting drivers and kill those who defended their goods. There was no self-defense involved here at all (on the part of the Muslims, at least). This was old-fashioned armed robbery and murder – sanctioned by Allah (according to Muhammad, who also demanded a fifth of the loot for himself).

The very first battle that Muhammad fought was at Badr, when a Meccan army of 300 was sent out to protect the caravans from Muslim raids. The Meccans did not threaten Muhammad, and (turning this Muslim myth on its ear) only fought in self-defense after they were attacked by the Muslims. Following the battle, Muhammad established the practice of executing surrendered captives – something that would be repeated on many other occasions.

The significance of this episode can hardly be overstated, because it lies at the very beginning of the long chain of Muslim violence that eventually passed right through the heart of America on September 11th. The early Muslims were not being threatened by those whom they attacked, and certainly not by those whom they had captured. They staged aggressive raids to eventually provoke war, just as al-Qaeda attempts to do in our time.

Muslims try to justify Muhammad's violence by claiming that he and his followers “suffered persecution” at the hands of the Meccans in an earlier episode, in which Muhammad was evicted from the city of Mecca and had to seek refuge at Medina. But even the worst of this persecution did not rise to the level of killing. Nor were Muhammad and his Muslims in any danger at all in their new home of Medina. They were free to get on with their lives.

Even Muhammad’s own men evidently questioned whether they should be pursuing and killing people who did not pose a threat to them, since it seemed to contradict earlier, more passive teachings. To convince them, Muhammad passed along a timely revelation from Allah stating that “the persecution of Muslims is worse than slaughter [of non-Muslims]” (Sura 2:191). This verse established the tacit principle that the authority of Muslims is of higher value even than the very lives of others. There is no larger context of morality against which acts are judged. All that matters is how an event impacts or benefits Muslims.

Under Muhammad, slaves and poets were executed, captives were beheaded, and adulterers were put into the ground and stoned. None of these were done during the heat of battle or necessitated by self-defense. To this day, Islamic law mandates death for certain crimes such as blasphemy and apostasy.


Following his death, Muhammad’s companions stormed the Christian world - taking the Middle East, North Africa and parts of Europe. They attacked and conquered to the East as well, including Persia, Central Asia, and well into the Indian sub-continent. Few, if any, of these campaigns involved the pretense of self-defense. They were about Jihad.

@divinereal

the stu.pidity of some writers and their lack of knowledge is just too disgusting.it is a fact that the migration of the Prophet Muhammad (sa) to Medina from Mecca was prompted by an assasination plan after a long process of persecution and boycott of the muslims in the hands of the Makkans.the makkan plan to assasinate him and ofcourse by divine will and knowledge,it was made known to him.in their attempt to assasinate him,he fled to medina placing his cousin and son-in-law,Imam Ali (as),on his own bed in order that no one would suspect his absence.his passage from Makkah to Medina was ensured by divine intervention and two miracles,namely:his passing amidst his enemies unnoticed and his hiding in the cave where a spider spun its web and a bird layed its eggs in the entrance of the cave to conceal any human presence.this all happened after the Makkan pagans failed in their attempt to stop his preaching work.

upon his arrival in Medina were he was received and greeted and he layed down the principles and guidelines to form a state,he attracted many more supporters even Makkans who left their pagan liefstyle to embrace islam in Medina.his presence in Medina also upset the jews.in this the pagans still continued by following him to Medina and allying with the jews to make assaults on muslims and in particular muslim women.in that process,the stage was set for the first battle against the Makkans,the battle of badr.

the verse that says that "persecution is worse than killing" does not contain the additional words of "muslim" and "non-muslim".adding those two words was deliberate and meant to distort and give the verse another meaning.the author of the above write-up copied by "divinereal" added those two words and the verse became:"persecution of muslims is worse than killing of non-muslims".that is the trick missionaries and ill-intended persons play while they accuse the muslims of playing tricks.perhaps they feel that the Quran can be corrupted like the bible has being.the verse simply lays down a principle which says:"perseuction is worse than killing".it does not use the word "non-muslim".the verse can be applied to anyone.the verse also teaches muslims not to persecute others.and along with the verse 2:256 which says "there shall be no compulsion in religion",prove that no one would be maltreated by muslims based on his beliefs.those two extra words by the author of the write-up are interpolations by the author of the write-up with the aim of distorting the Quranic meaning just the way the phrase "only begotten son of God" is an interpolation in the bible.people that are used to corrupting their own "holy" book will not suprise us with their dishonesty against islam and the Holy Quran.

as for apostacy,it is a fact that the death penalty for apostacy is found in the bible and not in the Holy Quran.punishment were only spelled out against those who committed crimes against innocent muslims particularly murder.as for storming of europe and parts of the middle east and north africa,the romans and persians also bear responsibility for those confrontations.those were two mighty empires both of which were defeated and the course of history was changed for good as islam spread like wild-fire across the world in those times as the peoples of those lands conquered from the hands of roman and persian authorities and administrations embraced islam and have remained muslims to this day after no trace of an arab soldeir can be found in those lands.the peoples of those lands were conquered peoples under the romans and even under the persians too.islam and the arabs gave them a religion to embrace and an identity to uphold up to this day and forever.

@divinereal; « #315 on: Today at 08:48:31 PM »
[Quote]“Muslims only kill in self-defense.”
The Muslim Game:
Muslims often claim that their religion only orders them to kill in self-defense (ie. when their own lives are in danger).
The Truth:
In fact, self-defense is just one of several conditions under which Muslims are permitted to take the lives of others. The myth of killing only in self-defense is easily disproved from the accounts of Muhammad’s own life as recorded in Islam’s sacred texts (with which Muslim terrorists are only too familiar).[/Quote]the muslim gave and the truth, both according to divinereal and his type, both enemies of islam, clearly today's 'hamaan' of the court of pharaoh again Musa [as]. is there a rule that in self defense, your enemy who started hostility against you must no die? show us in the haige law books, divinereal.



[Quote]Muhammad’s career of killing began with raids on merchant caravans traveling between Syria and Mecca. His men would usually sneak up on unsuspecting drivers and kill those who defended their goods. There was no self-defense involved here at all (on the part of the Muslims, at least). This was old-fashioned armed robbery and murder – sanctioned by Allah (according to Muhammad, who also demanded a fifth of the loot for himself).

The very first battle that Muhammad fought was at Badr, when a Meccan army of 300 was sent out to protect the caravans from Muslim raids. The Meccans did not threaten Muhammad, and (turning this Muslim myth on its ear) only fought in self-defense after they were attacked by the Muslims. Following the battle, Muhammad established the practice of executing surrendered captives – something that would be repeated on many other occasions.

The significance of this episode can hardly be overstated, because it lies at the very beginning of the long chain of Muslim violence that eventually passed right through the heart of America on September 11th. The early Muslims were not being threatened by those whom they attacked, and certainly not by those whom they had captured. They staged aggressive raids to eventually provoke war, just as al-Qaeda attempts to do in our time.[/Quote]Allah is the Owner of truth and He has exposed divinereal lies by the two bold; the muslims [both muhajiruun and ansaru] were slightly over 300, the figure you gave to the makkans, while they were actually about few men shy of 1,000 men. will makkan in all her previous killings and tortures of the muslims in makka come with the insignificant and mere of 300 men army when it is beneficial for them to route out the young but growing strong near faraway madina? america made a collision and went to afghanistan and then iraq with overwhelming force. this is exactly what makkans did except Allah shamed them at Badr.

the other thing is that if 9/11 is a noble muslim event, would it not have happened from muslims in america, with over 6 to 10 millions stagnated number for the past 30 plus years? every native muslim in america wants to collect good deed, since they truly believe in islam. their not involving themselves in 9/11 type or other suicidal activities tell me that killing of innocent or committing suicide and mini genocide, are unislamic.



[Quote]Muslims try to justify Muhammad's violence by claiming that he and his followers “suffered persecution” at the hands of the Meccans in an earlier episode, in which Muhammad was evicted from the city of Mecca and had to seek refuge at Medina. But even the worst of this persecution did not rise to the level of killing. Nor were Muhammad and his Muslims in any danger at all in their new home of Medina. They were free to get on with their lives.[/Quote]islamic quiz and its answer for you divinereal; The first woman martyr of Islam was? Sumayya, in makka before hijra.



[Quote]Even Muhammad’s own men evidently questioned whether they should be pursuing and killing people who did not pose a threat to them, since it seemed to contradict earlier, more passive teachings. To convince them, Muhammad passed along a timely revelation from Allah stating that “the persecution of Muslims is worse than slaughter [of non-Muslims]” (Sura 2:191). This verse established the tacit principle that the authority of Muslims is of higher value even than the very lives of others. There is no larger context of morality against which acts are judged. All that matters is how an event impacts or benefits Muslims.[/Quote]every revelation is timely, otherwise it will false like many unfulfilled after the time[s] have elapsed many centuries, as we see in the return of jesus, as an example from the bible. and we see that divinereal has revealed his own devilreal revelation. Alhamdulillah, muslims have already challenged his lies and thrown his revelation away. 'persecution is was than killing' in islam and it covers all mankind, and even all animals; its better to kill an animal than torture it without any end, the reason you have peta organization.



[Quote]Under Muhammad, slaves and poets were executed, captives were beheaded, and adulterers were put into the ground and stoned. None of these were done during the heat of battle or necessitated by self-defense. To this day, Islamic law mandates death for certain crimes such as blasphemy and apostasy.[/Quote]talking like a parrot without any evident will not work. you must give us names and places and events leading to the killing of slaves and poets and captives just for being slaves, poets and captives. i agree with the second bold if there are 4 witnesses seeing the event all at the same time, willing to swear the fourth oath that the wrath of God is upon them, if they lied, and the accused refused to swear a fourth oath to refute them.

or the adulterer comes in to confess and asked that the judgment be carried out on him. is there a law in the book similar to this where the accused can be guilty as long as he does not confess it is free to go, and those who accused him will not be allowed to act as witnesses in any situation, for life?



[Quote]Following his death, Muhammad’s companions stormed the Christian world - taking the Middle East, North Africa and parts of Europe. They attacked and conquered to the East as well, including Persia, Central Asia, and well into the Indian sub-continent. Few, if any, of these campaigns involved the pretense of self-defense. They were about Jihad.[/Quote]is there a story/history book you can show us how they stormed india or malaysia? i wanna read this 'jihadi' book. the christian guy is crying foul, forgetting that arab christians remained from then till now. so were jews even when jerusalem was captured.

^^^^^^
Alhamdulillah, sweetnecta, you exposed the frudulent humanist goon, bovinereal, "the unbelievers seek to extinguish the light of Islam yet ALLAH perfects it even more". He continue to prove why Humanism, has no moral principle except to lies, its' ethics are filled with misguidance. Yet the most astounding thing is that every post yu send only shows the depths of your Ignorance of Islam, and more shameful is that you do not bring criticsm that you have ponder upon. Typically you bring verbose articles that hardly makes sense, but I thank God we muslims have continue to belittle your poorly thought out posting by countering them with the truth.

in addition
1) in addition to the lies that the Meccans varied only 300 fighters (rather 1000), you ignorance failed to indicate that the Meccans had confiscated the properties of the Muslims, thereby making life difficult, they had also prevented free commerce in medina to the extent that the Muslims starved there. Again this only shows how illogical you actually are that you need lies to prove your point.

2. It seems the Bovinereal simply likes Misquoting the Qur'an, whereby the Qur'an says oppression is worst than killing, he interprets it as being speaking of only muslims when it nevers says so, it sets a moral precedence to muslims too, just as reading the story of children of Israel in ancient egypt, where the jews were oppressed to very extreme levels, drives home why oppression should not be practiced by any including Muslims.

3. You said the oppression never reached the level of killing, to prove what exactly? that you are good at lies? yet you have been shown that at the very lest the pagans martyred a woman, yet Oppression denies people of their dignity, as Muslims were tortured, driven from their home.

4. your claim that muslims stormed the christian world, I ask when would you read? the Roman had enslaved most of arabia, to the extent that they their fellow christian preferred the muslim to them, in faact the muslims repelled the Roman dictators far away from arbia. Muslims repelled a people that were not wanted in the region because they were seen as oppressors.

People like sweetnecta and LagosShia are the biggest problem of muslims and the primary people to blame for the emergent global dislike for Islam.

All good muslims need to say "NO" to these terrorists and their supporters.

Going about ranting about humiliation of muslims will not be taken seriously when you are the same person that keeps quiet when a muslim is brutally slaughtering innocent others as a religious duty in Pakistan, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Holland, USA, UK, Spain, Turkey, Egypt, Sudan, France and so on and so on.

The religion of peace and tolerance is the only one known for violence, terror and intolerance because of the likes of these two and some other millions of their likes.