Also add to that what ‘Umar said: “Fear God concerning farmers so long as they don’t wage war on you” (authentic, al-Bayhaqi, Sunan, 9/155) This refutes the nonsense that Sam Shannon, Richard Spencer, Sam Harris and other Islamophobes portray that “yes, children and women aren’t to be killed in war but there’s nothing about non-combating males!”.
I also think many people are forgetting this VERY IMPORTANT principle that absolutely refutes the idea that terrorism is somewhat justifiable by “extremists” within Islam:
Ibn Qudamah wrote about Muslims entering dar al-harb with a pledge of security, saying: ‘As for behaving treacherously towards them, this is expressly forbidden. For they only granted him security on condition that he not betray them and that they be safe from his harm: if this is not stipulated explicitly, it is implicitly set forth … This being so, it is unlawful for us to be treacherous to them: for this is betrayal and our religion has no place for betrayal. The Prophet ﷺ said: “Muslims fulfil their contracts (al-muslimun ‘inda shrutihim).”‘ (from https://thehumblei.com/2013/05/23/terrorism-is-to-jihad-as-adultery-is-to-marriage/ ) And he’s talking about dar al-harb, i.e. a land with which there’s no treaty and a state of war (harb) is assumed, then what about a land in which Muslims have a treaty with?????? (all those ‘?’ are for you Richard Spencer) If this is the case for those entering the country, it’s even more so the case for those who are born or reside here!!
“Only in 1938 did French women attain full capacity before the law, managing to acquire rights that the architects of the Shariah had granted women as early as the seventh century.” from Misquoting Muhammad, p.11
It is narrated on the authority of ‘Abdullah that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) ordered the date-palms of Banu Nadir to be burnt and cut. These palms were at Buwaira. Qutaibah and Ibn Rumh in their versions of the tradition have added: So Allah, the Glorious and Exalted, revealed the verse:” Whatever trees you have cut down or left standing on their trunks, it was with the permission of Allah so that He may disgrace the evil-doers”
Sahih Muslim Book 19 Verse 4324
2. Don’t kill a child
Narrated As-Sab bin Jaththama:
The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, “They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans).” I also heard the Prophet saying, “The institution of Hima is invalid except for Allah and His Apostle.”
Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 256
Also..
The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) used not to kill the children, so thou shouldst not kill them unless you could know what Khadir had known about the child he killed, or you could distinguish between a child who would grow up to he a believer (and a child who would grow up to be a non-believer), so that you killed the (prospective) non-believer and left the (prospective) believer aside.
Sahih Muslim 19 verse 4457
3. Don’t kill old people..
Muhammad sent him with an army against the Fazarah settlement. He met them in Qura and inflicted casualties on them and took (old lady) Umm Qirfah prisoner. He also took one of Umm’s daughters and Abdallah bin Mas’adah prisoner. Zyad bin Harithah ordered Qays to kill Umm, and he killed her cruelly. He tied each of her legs with a rope and tied the ropes to two camels, and they split her in two.
Tabari Vol.8: Page.96
Corroborated here..
She was a very old woman, wife of Malik. Her daughter [and another] were also taken. Zayd ordered Qays to kill Umm Qirfa and he killed her cruelly by putting a rope between her legs and to two camels and driving them until they rent her in two).
Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 980
Also …
Narrated ‘Abdullah bin Masud :
The Prophet recited Suratan-Najm (103) at Mecca and prostrated while reciting it and those who were with him did the same except an old man who took a handful of small stones or earth and lifted it to his forehead and said, “This is sufficient for me.” Later on, I saw him killed as a non-believer.
Narrated Abdullah ibn Mas’ud: Ibrahim said: Ad-Dahhak ibn Qays intended to appoint Masruq as governor. Thereupon Umarah ibn Uqbah said to him: Are you appointing a man from the remnants of the murderers of Uthman? Masruq said to him: Ibn Mas’ud narrated to us, and he was trustworthy in respect of traditions, that when the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) intended to kill your father, he said: Who will look after my children? He replied: Fire. I also like for you what the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) liked for you.
Dawud Book 14, Hadith 2680 Chapter: To Kill A Captive While Imprisioned
7. Don’t kill who runs away….from your attempts to kill them? LOL!!
8. Don’t kill a woman..LOL!!
Narrated Sa’id ibn Yarbu’ al-Makhzumi: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: on the day of the conquest of Mecca: There are four persons whom I shall not give protection in the sacred and non-sacred territory. He then named them. There were two singing girls of al-Maqis; one of them was killed and the other escaped and embraced Islam.
Dawud 14 Verse 2678
9. Don’t kill a sick person…anyone who accepts the true lord does not need to be told this.
10. Don’t kill a monk or priest….why kill people at all?
11. Don’t disfigure the dead…why kill people at all?
12. Don’t kill an animal except for eating…
Narrated ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar: Allah’s Apostle ordered that the dogs should be killed.
Bukhari : Vol. 4, Book 54, Hadith 540
Ibn ‘Umar (Allah be pleased with them) reported:
Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) ordered to kill dogs, and he sent (men) to the corners of Medina that they should be killed.
Sahih mUslim : Book 10, Hadith 3810
Narrated AbuSa’id al-Khudri:
The Prophet (ﷺ) was asked which of the creatures a pilgrim in sacred state could kill. He replied: The snake, the scorpion, the rat;
Dawud Book 10, Hadith 1844
13. Be good to prisoners and feed them
Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi:
I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair.
Dawud Book 39, Hadith 4390
14. Don’t enforce islam..
It has been narrated on the authority of Abdullah b. ‘Umar that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer, and pay Zakat and if they do it, their blood and property are guaranteed protection on my behalf except when justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah.
Muslim Book1, Number 0033
It has been reported from Sulaiman b. Buraid through his father that when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him to fear Allah and to be good to the Muslims who were with him. He would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war, ………When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. Then invite them to migrate from their lands to the land of Muhairs and inform them that, if they do so, they shall have all the privileges and obligations of the Muhajirs. If they refuse to migrate, tell them that they will have the status of Bedouin Muilims and will be subjected to the Commands of Allah like other Muslims, but they will not get any share from the spoils of war or Fai’ except when they actually fight with the Muslims (against the disbelievers). If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them.
muslim Book 19, Number 4294:
There are countless hadith that show your prophet did not agree with this point.
9. Don’t kill a sick person…anyone who accepts the true lord does not need to be told this.
10. Don’t kill a monk or priest….why kill people at all?
11. Don’t disfigure the dead…why kill people at all?
12. Don’t kill an animal except for eating…
I say;
Joel asked, why kill people at all?
Ask Jesus Christ who says kill people.
Proof:
Luke 19:27
New International Version
But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them–bring them here and kill them in front of me.'”
And Christians claim they accept the true lord but they kill. Crusaders, kkk, Christians killing Jews and Catholics, Mormons and black slaves in the USA.
-Christians killing everyone in Europe until war that kill almost have the population of Germany to stop the Christian killings.
-John Calvin, Martin Luther, Thomas Aquinas etc. kill and/or inspire killings, hatred and anti semetism. These are Holy Christian figures. According to you they do not accept true lord.
You are so stupid not to know some of the killings is in war for self defense and also for criminals so that there will be peace, equal rights and justice.
Your dishonesty is beyond imagination, just take the “2. Don’t kill a child” example, do you realize that Muslim – the guy who put that hadith in there – put it under the chapter of “Chapter: Permissibility of killing women and children in night battles, so long as it is not done deliberately”, i.e. this is only permissible when it’s impossible to distinguish between combatants and civilians with them? Moreover night battles were later on prohibited: as Anas b. Malik relates: “the Messenger of God went out to Khaybar, he arrived there at night, and when he came upon a people by night, he did not attack until morning.”
“12. Don’t kill an animal except for eating…” The other exception being animals from which some harm is feared such as the very hadith you mentioned that enumarates “the snake, the scorpion, the rat”;
“13. Be good to prisoners and feed them” The example you give doesn’t contradict that, all combatants from Banu Qurayza agreed to accept Sa’d verdict.
“14. Don’t enforce islam..” This only shows your petty or non-existent knowledge of Arabic, the verb used in the hadith is uqātil and not aqtul and there’s a big distinction between them as al-Buti explains on an occasion after citing Ibn Hajar exegesis of that hadith,
“The verse commands qitāl (قتال) and not qatl (قتل), and it is known that there is a big distinction between these two words … For you say ‘qataltu (قتلت) so-and-so’ if you initiated the fighting, while you say ‘qātaltu (قاتلت) him’ if you resisted his effort to fight you by a reciprocal fight, or if you forestalled him in that so that he would not get at you unawares.”
Jesus does not command us to kill. I think you know this.
You are being dishonest.
Why don’t you address my points?
Clearly, the example of your prophet refutes the taquiya lies of the article – if you do not view these actions of mohammed as great examples, then you are an apostate and blasphemer.
Proof:
Luke 19:27
New International Version
But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them–bring them here and kill them in front of me.’”
Jesus as God also command the killings of babies and livestock. Jesus became angry(sinfulness in Jesus) because according to Ken Temple anger is sinfulness. then Jesus destroyed tables. Just imagine if he was a ruler but not under the Romans what he would have done to the Pharisees. He would have killed them as he said above.
That verse from the “Gospel” of “Luke” you quoted is a bit out of context. What’s being said there is by a character in a narrative allegedly being told by Jesus `alayhi salām.
Just so we’re all on the same page. Okay, maybe not all… Joel always seems to be on his own page 😂
True. He was a pacifist in the gospels. Are you a pacifist? Very, very few Christians follow Jesus at this point. Most probably find it unrealistic.
But in your theology Jesus commanded the Jews to kill women, children, babies and animals in the Jewish Bible: see 1 Samuel 15.
Furthermore, according to the last book in the NT he will no longer be the pacifist of the gospels but will be back to the wholesale slaughtering of his enemies again. See Revelation 19:11-21.
So my question to you: do you support & follow the pacifist Jesus or the genocidal Jesus?
Islam chooses the middle path between unworldly pacifism (Christianity) and genocidal violence (Jewish Bible).
Why have you changed the subject? Your post has been refuted.
As for jesus commanding divine punishment – it is his prerogative, he is god, god issues divine punishment.
Still, what do you think about most of those points in your post being refuted by your own scriptures? Mohammed killed women, kids, old people, dogs, animals, captives, and destroyed churches and temples by converting them to mosques.
“Islam chooses the middle path between unworldly pacifism (Christianity) and genocidal violence (Jewish Bible).”
We are on earth for a fleeting moment – jesus prepares you for eternal bliss, mohammed teaches management of people’s actions for what they already are by nature: greedy, vicious, violent, covetous, xenophobic, intolerant and aggressive.
Christ is about transcending human failures, mohammed is about nursing human bestiality.
LOL, yet another cut and paste job by a moronic Google scholar!
There were general rules of war. It doesn’t mean they were non-negotiable. For example, cutting down the palm trees was meant as a way to punish those waging war against Muslims.
The other ahadith you mentioned are either quoted out of context or are not authentic. What a shock, given that we are dealing with Coco the dancing monkey!
Hey Coco, what did you find out about menstruation? 😉
LOL!! Poor tampax boy can’t follow a simple line of reasoning. You just can’t get any more dumb, you imbecile.
Paul’s article claims that mohammed did not cut nor permit the cutting of trees – yet your own scriptures show that this is not the case. That’s why you have to move the goalposts, you moron.
“The other ahadith you mentioned are either quoted out of context or are not authentic.”
You lying imbecile.
“Hey Coco, what did you find out about menstruation?”
I found out that mohammed permitted oral sex on women when they are menstruating, and that he disrespected the word of your goat so much that he recited it inches away from menstrual blood.
LOL!! Poor qb is about to get butt-hurt and angry from getting owned so many times.
Joel, sorry fo the late reply brother, i was tired yesterday, exams are near on top of that lecturers are being hard nowadays….i’ll be putting the hadith number and book instead of quoting them…
Bukhari volume 4, Book 52 number 256:
Imam Ibn Hajar Al Asaqalani says in Fath Al- Baari that the point is not to target the women and children intentionally but if there is absolutely no other way to kill the enemy than by injuring the women and children because they are mixed with the men then there is no other choice.
Imam Nawawi says in his tafseer of Saheeh Muslim that women and children are only killed only if they cannot be distinguished. But because it was so dark and they could not be distinguished, the Muslims had not choice.
As far as i know, even Israel use this kind of explanation everytime…
Sahih Muslim 19 verse 4457:
It is talking about the knowledge Khadir possessed, no human can have this knowledge…it is said that khadir was an angel according to commentaries…
Tabari vol 8: page 96
This is talking about Umm Qirfa, she was the Queen of Xenomorphs in simple words the leader of the tribe of Fazara, she did some pretty nasty things if you’d ask me…here’s a summary i found on a website…
1- Zaid bin Harith (RA) went on a trading journey to Syria and with him was the merchandise for Companions of the Prophet (PBUH). While he was near Wadi’l Qura’ he encountered people from the Tribe of Badr of Fazara, whose leader was Umm Qirfa. They attacked him and his companions and snatched all they had of merchandise.
2- Some of his fellows were killed and he himself was carried wounded from the field. Zaid vowed that he would not wash his head for ritual purity (i.e. he vowed to abstain from sexual intercourse) until he fought the people of Fazara.
3- When he recovered from his wounds the Holy Prophet (PBUH) sent him to punish the treacherous people and ordered them to move by the night and rest by the day as a stratagem.
4)Zaid went and fought the Fazara in Wadi’l Qura, killed some of them. Qais bin Musahhar killed Mas’ada bin Hakama. Umm Qirfa, her daughter and Abdullah bin Mas’ada were taken as prisoners. Zaid ordered Qais bin Musahhar to kill Umm Qirfa and Qais killed her by putting a rope in her two legs, tying it to two camels and driving them in opposite directions until she was killed, ripped apart.
(Tabaqaat Ibn Sa’d 2/90 & Sirat Ibn Hisham 2/617)
5- Further we learn that Umm Qirfa in her capacity of being the tribal leader plotted to harm the Holy Prophet (PBUH) in person (Ar-Raheeq al-Makhtum p.457). In Sirat Halabiyya it is stated that;
“Zaid bin Harith ordered the killing of Umm Qirfa for she used to revile the Prophet, on whom be peace and blessings of Allah, and because she had prepared thirty riders from amongst he children and grand children and had asked them to attack Medina and kill Muhammad (PBUH).” (Sirat Halabaiyya 3/251)
Bukhari volume 2 Book 19 number 173:
This man was killed in the battle of Badr, he was among those who engaged the Muslims, his name is Umaia bin Khalaf…
Abu Dawud book 14, hadith 2680 chapter: ( ͡° ◡ ͡°) who wrote that bro?
Anyway this one is talking about Uqba, a Quraysh leader he was a nasty douchebag if you’d ask me….he threw really dirty wastes on the Prophet when he was praying(i really mean dirty), he also spat on his face, he tried to kill the Prophet by squeezing his neck….according to Safi-Ur-Rahman al-Mubarakpuri, Uqba used to persecute muslims….i mean muslims were in trouble against the Quraysh during those days…
Abu Dawud book 14 number 2678:
I guess it’s talking about Fartana and her friend. They used to mock the prophet in their songs and trigger revolts against muslims…anyway this hadith is weak…visit this link…
They broke the pact and they were judged according to their own holy book…
Muslim book 19 number 4294
The website does not quote the full hadith, the missing text clearly says not to kill any kid and stuff….most websites have already explained it anyway…
I’d love to see a psychological analysis from an expert after examining why Muslims like Paul have to create an entirely fabricated version of Islam.
Most Muslims simply don’t have a clue what is in the Hadith. Fair enough too- it’s a huge corpus to try and base a religion on. The result is that people like Paul become pawns of his ulemas. They have no option but to believe what their leaders tell them.
Hopefully one day their indignant rejection of their own sources will click and they will adandon the sinking ship
Paulus, how exactly? you guys are judging a simple illustration which contains no details about context…if you have any disagreements about my points then you can simply put it here so we can discuss about it….
one question for you, if i tell you that the U.S Army killed Bin Laden, so the U.S army is Bad…would you agree with me? of course not, because we have to look at the background right?
The websites that brother Joel used didn’t take context into consideration at all, they just wanted to Portray the Prophet in a negative way, so i just explained the context one by one to fix the situation…Joel is not to be blamed for that, the websites are…
Muslims can’t go around talking about how great Muhammad’s war strategy was like in the OP if it clearly contradicts Islamic sources.
I have no problem with you giving context to why muhammad cut down trees or on occasion killed elderly people, but since you admit these things happened, how can you justify your fellow
Muslim posting the meme? It’s completey false and deliberately meant to mislead non Muslims. Your admittance of these events falsifies the claim that muhammad never did them.
Paulus, if you’ve properly read my response you would have understood that there are exceptions that are made for examples Umm Qirfa and Uqba who both did some pretty nasty stuff…the illustration is simply pointing out the general rules…i thought it was not hard for you to understand Paulus….
Paulus, it doesn’t contradict the Islamic sources, those who seriously deserve punishment such as Uqba they will will get it otherwise muslims will have to follow the general rules instead of going out on the street and shooting like hell…”completely false” & “mislead” are not the proper words i guess…
Who determines what is and what isn’t a “general” rule?
The meme didn’t attempt to make a distinction. It’s typical of western Muslims to favour those that suit there already western moralism. Then to publicise only half the data is indeed deceptive.
Erasmus have you even read the OT? God commands Israel to use the most brutal violence imaginable. God even commands the killing of women, children, babies and animals for crimes they didn’t commit.
1 Samuel 15
Saul Defeats the Amalekites but Spares Their King
15 Samuel said to Saul, ‘The Lord sent me to anoint you king over his people Israel; now therefore listen to the words of the Lord. 2 Thus says the Lord of hosts, “I will punish the Amalekites for what they did in opposing the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt. 3 Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.”’
Let me see if I can nip this Amalikite(Also Noah’s flood, Sodom & Gomorrah, etc) issue in the bud.
Have a butchers at this short video which sheds light on the background of the story, the context, and God’s justice. If you’re a sincere person looking for an explanation then hopefully this video can provide it and you come to a firmer understanding of the situation.
You Muslims seem to have this preconceived notion that the Amalikites were these harmless sweet and innocent tribe of people who kept themselves to themselves and God unfairly picked on them and decided one day to wipe them out for his own self gratification.
These people were sacrificing their own children and terrorising the Israelites without provocation. God gave them 400 years to repent of their crimes. They didn’t repent and God dished out justice.
“Where does the NT command christians to kill amalakites?
You are an imbecile. Don’t get mad, we can’t help it that your religion is so stupid that you embarrass yourself everytime you try to defend it.LOL!!”
LOL!! Coco, you imbecile! I was referring to Erasmus’ idiotic comment that in the OT, the command was “thou shalt not kill”. I pointed out that this was not always upheld. Your god changed his mind on numerous occasions.
Don’t get mad Coco. I know you have been embarrassed too many times to count. But I can’t help it that your religion is so stupid that you embarrass yourself every time you try to defend it. LOL!!
So Coco, what about that menstruation thing? Your embarrassment never ends, it seems!
“Let me see if I can nip this Amalikite(Also Noah’s flood, Sodom & Gomorrah, etc) issue in the bud.
Have a butchers at this short video which sheds light on the background of the story, the context, and God’s justice. If you’re a sincere person looking for an explanation then hopefully this video can provide it and you come to a firmer understanding of the situation.”
LOL, bad samaritan thinks that he can “nip” the Amalekite issue, as if killing babies is something that can be excused! What is with you idiots and defending infanticide? You guys really need psychiatric help!
What is really hilarious is how this moron says “if you’re a sincere person…” ROTFL!! This is coming from a douche who excuses Biblical genocide but then complains about the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) killing his enemies! Oh yeah, you’re real sincere!
It seems Christianity is a religion for morons. No wonder millions leave it every year. They realize they are not morons, but will be if they remain Christians.
1. Only the combatants were killed, not children.
2. No one, including Christians, accused Muhammad of having sex with a child until the 20th century. And the mother of Ignoramus’ savior was probably in her early teens when she married Joseph.
3. Old people who fought with the enemy were killed. It’s not like they were decrepit. Otherwise, they would not be fighting in battle.
4. The Kaaba was a mosque. The pagans had converted it into a repository for their idols.
5. Bani Qurayza had already been given leniency before. They continued to break their obligations with Muhammad (pbuh).
6. LOL, just like the Israelites did with God’s approval in Deut. 21. In contrast, Muhammad (pbuh) urged the kind treatment of prisoners of war. Many were actually freed.
Samaritan, did Jesus teach you the lawfulness of lying? So why are you forging stuff here?
> Muhammad did sanction the killing of the children of Banu Qurayza.
Their childs weren’t killed.
_______________
> Muhammad had sex with a child.
Aisha reached puberty at age 9 as stated by al-Tabari. Jonathan A.C. Brown, Muhammad: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press. p. 78. Quote: “Muhammad’s decision to consummate his marriage to a ten-year-old would have been based on the same criteria as most pre-modern societies: Aisha’s sexual maturity and readiness to bear a child. Consummation of the marriage would have occured when she had menstruated and started puberty. As the great Muslim historial al-Tabari (d. 923) reported, ‘At the time of her marriage contract Aisha was young and not capable of intercourse.’ Three or four years later, however, she was able. Aisha herself would later remark that a girl can menstruate as young as nine and thus ‘become a woman’.”
_______________
> Muhammad sanctioned the execution of old people.
Wrong, Imam Abū Dāwūd narrates on the authority of Anas b. Mālik that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Do not kill any feeble old man, or any infant or young child or woman’.¹ Imam Ibn Abī Shayba narrates on the authority of al-Ḍaḥḥāk who said, ‘The Prophet ﷺ used to forbid the killing of women and feeble old men’.² Imam Ibn Abī Shayba also narrates on the authority of Rāshid b. Saʿd who said, ‘The Messenger of God ﷺ forbade the killing of women, children and the infirm’.³ Imam al-Bayhaqī narrated a hadith from ʿAlī , that when the Prophet ﷺ would dispatch an army, he would advise them, ‘Do not kill a young boy, a woman or an old man. Do not cause fountains to dry up and do not destroy any trees, except those which cause hindrance during war. Mutilate neither a human nor an animal, and do not break a promise or breach a trust’.⁴
¹ : Narrated by Abū Dāwūd in al-Sunan: Kitāb al-jihād [The Book of Martial Jihad], 3:37 §2614; Ibn Abī Shayba in al-Muṣannaf, 6:483 §33118; and al-Bayhaqī in al-Sunan al-kubrā, 9:90 §17932.
² : Narrated by Ibn Abī Shayba in al-Muṣannaf, 6:484 §33133.
³ : Narrated by Ibn Abī Shayba in al-Muṣannaf, 6:484 §33135.
⁴ : Narrated by al-Bayhaqī in al-Sunan al-Kubrā, 9:90 §17934.
____________
> Muhammad did kill those who surrendered. Notably the Banu Qurayza.
As Ibn Umar states: The Jews of Banu Nadeer and Banu Quraiza waged war against the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, so he expelled Banu Nadeer but he allowed Banu Quraiza to stay and he granted them favor until they also waged war after that. (Sahih Muslim, 1766)
All their combatants agreed to the verdict of Sa’d ibn Mu’adh, regardless of what it would be. In the end Sa’d made the judgement upon the fighting men according to the law of the Torah. More importantly, all those who didn’t commit treachery during the Battle of the Trench were left to leave during the entire period of the besiege.
Even the Western scholars of the Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān like Dr. Marco Schöller don’t dismiss that fact:
> The Muslim attack and siege of the Qurayẓa was a response to their open, probably active support of the Meccan pagans and their allies during the battle (of the trench).
Sa’d judged only that “their fighting men” (muqatilatahum) should be executed as an act of self-defense for the Muslim community. The women and children were taken into custody due to the fact that they would have no one to care for them; to abandon them would have itself been a death sentence.
Sometimes I think Paul Williams is just trolling with some of these ridiculous memes he posts. He clearly doesn’t seem to put much thought into it beforehand.
LOL, brainwashed Christian zombies copy and paste from Google and then pat each other on the back , only to get refuted and then run away with their tails between their legs.
“1. Only the combatants were killed, not children.”
Show me where it says the pubescent boys killed were combatants.
“2. No one, including Christians, accused Muhammad of having sex with a child until the 20th century”
There was a lot of shit done in the past which was considered acceptable. But that does not make them any more moral or right. Besides your prophet is supposed to be a perfect example for all times.
Aisha was a 9 year old child who was still playing with dolls, QB. Stop defending blatant child molestation you degenerate.
“3. Old people who fought with the enemy were killed. It’s not like they were decrepit. Otherwise, they would not be fighting in battle.”
I was referring to Mo’s orders of the murdering of Abu Afak who was an elderly poet.
“4. The Kaaba was a mosque. The pagans had converted it into a repository for their idols.”
LOL! Taqiyya…
“5. Bani Qurayza had already been given leniency before. They continued to break their obligations with Muhammad ”
Beside the point. Muhammad contradicted his own commands. One minute he’s outlawing the killing of those who surrender. The next he’s genociding the Banu Quaryza after their surrender.
Muhammad did not order the killing of the men of the Banu Quaryza. You are quite mistaken.
Here is a good account of the circumstances that lead up to their execution:
The circumstances of the Qurayza’s demise have been related by Ibn Ishaq and other Muslim historians who relied upon his account. According to Watt, Peters and Stillman, the Qurayza surrendered to Muhammad’s judgement[40][48][49][50] – a move Watt classifies as unconditional.[40] The Aws, who wanted to honor their old alliance with the Qurayza, asked Muhammad to treat the Qurayza leniently as he had previously treated the Qaynuqa for the sake of Ibn Ubayy. (Arab custom required support of an ally, independent of the ally’s conduct to a third party.) Muhammad then suggested to bring the case before an arbitrator chosen from the Aws, to which both the Aws and the Qurayza agreed to. Muhammad then appointed Sa’d ibn Mua’dh to decide the fate of the Jewish tribe.
According to Hashmi, Buchanan and Moore, the tribe agreed to surrender on the condition of a Muslim arbitrator of their choosing.[56] According to Khadduri (also cited by Abu-Nimer), “both parties agreed to submit their dispute to a person chosen by them”[57][58] in accordance with the Arabian tradition of arbitration.[58] Muir holds that the Qurayza surrendered on the condition that “their fate was decided by their allies, the Bani Aws”.[53][59]
In all accounts, the appointed arbitrator was Sa’d ibn Mua’dh, a leading man among the Aws. During the Battle of the Trench, he had been one of Muhammad’s emissaries to the Qurayza (see above)[53] and now was dying from a wound he had received later in the battle.[48][49][50][55] When Sa’d arrived, his fellow Aws pleaded for leniency towards the Qurayza and on his request pledged that they would abide by his decision.[9] He then decreed that “the men should be killed, the property divided, and the women and children taken as captives”. Muhammad approved of the ruling, calling it similar to God’s judgment.[48][49][50][55] Chiragh Ali argued that this statement may have referred to “king” or “ruler” rather than God.[60]
Sa’d dismissed the pleas of the Aws, according to Watt because being close to death and concerned with his afterlife, he put what he considered “his duty to God and the Muslim community” before tribal allegiance.[40] Tariq Ramadan argues that Muhammad deviated from his earlier, more lenient treatment of prisoners as this was seen “as sign of weakness if not madness”,[54] Peterson concurs that the Muslims wanted to deter future treachery by setting an example with severe punishment.[9] Lings reports that Sa’ad feared that if expelled, the Qurayza would join the Nadir in the fight against the Muslims.[13]
According to Stillman, Muhammad chose Sa’d so as not to pronounce the judgment himself, after the precedents he had set with the Banu Qaynuqa and the Banu Nadir: “Sa`d took the hint and condemned the adult males to death and the hapless women and children to slavery.” Furthermore, Stillman infers from Abu Lubaba’s gesture that Muhammad had decided the fate of the Qurayza even before their surrender.
“Muhammad did not order the killing of the men of the Banu Quaryza. You are quite mistaken.”
True, Sa’d ordered the killing, this was mohammed’s reaction….
Some people (i.e. the Jews of Bani bin Quraiza) agreed to accept the verdict of Sa`d bin Mu`adh so the Prophet (ﷺ) sent for him (i.e. Sa`d bin Mu`adh). He came riding a donkey, and when he approached the Mosque, the Prophet (ﷺ) said, “Get up for the best amongst you.” or said, “Get up for your chief.” Then the Prophet (ﷺ) said, “O Sa`d! These people have agreed to accept your verdict.” Sa`d said, “I judge that their warriors should be killed and their children and women should be taken as captives.” The Prophet said, “You have given a judgment similar to Allah’s Judgment (or the King’s judgment).
ACCORDING TO MOHAMMED IT WAS ALLAH’S WILL THAT MUSLIMS COMMIT GENOCIDE ON THE JEWS AND TAKE WOMEN AND CHILDREN AS SLAVES. ARE YOU ARGUING THAT ALLAH DISOBEYED THE WILL ALLAH BY CONDEMNING THE DECISION TO MASSACRE THE JEWS?
“Show me where it says the pubescent boys killed were combatants.”
Brother Paul already refuted you on this point.
“There was a lot of shit done in the past which was considered acceptable. But that does not make them any more moral or right. Besides your prophet is supposed to be a perfect example for all times.
Aisha was a 9 year old child who was still playing with dolls, QB. Stop defending blatant child molestation you degenerate.”
LOL, so when your god chose a young Mary to be his mother and said nothing about her marriage to Joseph, it was not “moral or right”? Why did your god allow this “blatant child molestation” you moronic degenerate?
“I was referring to Mo’s orders of the murdering of Abu Afak who was an elderly poet.”
Oh yes, that story that has been shown to be based on spurious reports and which no scholar takes seriously. Thank you once again proving what an idiot you are!
“LOL! Taqiyya…”
LOL! No Response…
“Beside the point. Muhammad contradicted his own commands. One minute he’s outlawing the killing of those who surrender. The next he’s genociding the Banu Quaryza after their surrender.”
LOL, Muhammad (pbuh) had no reason to not allow exceptions to the rules. He was at war, fighting for the lives of his followers and himself. Sometimes, exceptions were needed especially when dealing with treacherous thugs like the Bani Qurayza.
He’s done nothing of the sort. But your shift in responsibility is telling. Evasion noted.
“LOL, so when your god chose a young Mary to be his mother and said nothing about her marriage to Joseph, it was not “moral or right”? Why did your god allow this “blatant child molestation” you moronic degenerate?”
There’s a reason false equivalence is considered a logical fallacy, dummy.
1) Mary was not a child
2) Mary gave her consent
3) There was no sexual intercouse invilved.
How desperate can you Muhammadans be to even attempt to compare the two to justify your dodgy prophet?
“Oh yes, that story that has been shown to be based on spurious reports and which no scholar takes seriously”
It’s recorded in your earliest sources and going by everything else we know about Mo, this incident seems very much in keeping with his character and what he was capable of. Just like the satanic verses it’s far more likely that this account was an accurate historical event.
“LOL! No Response…”
Sometimes no response is necessary. You’re statement was demonstrably false bs. You’re a true taqiyya artist, QB, Mo would be proud of you.
“LOL, Muhammad (pbuh) had no reason to not allow exceptions to the rules. He was at war, fighting for the lives of his followers and himself. Sometimes, exceptions were needed especially when dealing with treacherous thugs like the Bani Qurayza.”
Translation: Muslims are mindless morons who have to simply have to accept and not question Mohammad even when he’s blatantly making shit up as he goes along, contradicting himself and breaking his own rules and regulations. LOL
“1) Mary was not a child
2) Mary gave her consent
3) There was no sexual intercouse invilved.”
1) Yes she was. She was 12.
2) So are you implying that Aisha didn’t give her consent?
3) No but that’s not the point. If one is to young to have sex then that one is MOST DEFINITELY TOO YOUNG to have a child.
“How desperate can you Muhammadans be to even attempt to compare the two to justify your dodgy prophet?”
How desperate can you crosstians be to try and justify atrocious genocides of babies ffs ordered by your pagan god who came out of a vagina?
“It’s recorded in your earliest sources and going by everything else we know about Mo, this incident seems very much in keeping with his character and what he was capable of. Just like the satanic verses it’s far more likely that this account was an accurate historical event.”
Being early means in no way that a story is reliable. This is what you idiots don’ want to understand. I don’t care if that story was written 200 years later or 20 years later or even 20 minutes later neither do scholards. If you don’t have reliable testimony then that doesn’t mean anything. The same goes for the satanic verses bullshit. It doesn’t even have ONE reliable account. This is EXACTLY why your bible scholars are ripping apart the NT as we speak and it’s glorious to watch!!!
We try and figure out what happened instead of just taking everything as authentic like brainwashed fundamentalist crosstians do with the bible and who are having the hardest time putting two brain cells to use.
“Sometimes no response is necessary. You’re statement was demonstrably false bs. You’re a true taqiyya artist, QB, Mo would be proud of you.”
And of course the taqiyya card is being presented as if that refutes anything. When crossworshipers can’t refute something, just do what any 21st century politician does: abuse a hijacked word (which doesn’t even apply to sunnis).
I said it many times and I’ll say it again: if there is a religion that has taqiyya in it then it’s the pagan cult which we now as crosstianity.
1 Corinthians 9:20-22
“To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some.”
Nice chameleon!
“Translation: Muslims are mindless morons who have to simply have to accept and not question Mohammad even when he’s blatantly making shit up as he goes along, contradicting himself and breaking his own rules and regulations. LOL”
The idiot calls others ‘mindless morons’ while he can’t even put it in a proper sentence.
And your comment actually goes against the bible god more than anyone else. He says ‘thou shall not kill’ but then thinks ‘Nahhhhh screw it, hey Israelites wth are you standing there go kill some babies and animals’.
The idiot sama will start bitching in 3, 2, 1 …
As much as you’re desperate for that to be the case, but, NO, pedephile apologist, she wasn’t. Sorry to disappoint you.
“2) So are you implying that Aisha didn’t give her consent?”
I know you’re as daft as a brush, but I honestly gave you more credit than to be stupid enough to believe a 6-9 year old is mentally and physically mature enough to consent to something like that. What kind of vile piece of shit are you, Partridge?
“3) No but that’s not the point. If one is to young to have sex then that one is MOST DEFINITELY TOO YOUNG to have a child.”
Then you agree 9 year old Aisha was far too young for your despicable false prophet to be consummating a marriage with. You’re finally starting to see sense.
Now all you have to do is stop being a disingenuous little creep regarding Mary’s age.
“abuse a hijacked word (which doesn’t even apply to sunnis).”
Yeah you sunnis keep insisting this. No ones buying. We see through it for what it is, just more taqiyya!!!
From my experience of interracting with sunnis and Shias down the years. I found sunnis to be more dishonest people, especially in regards to their silly cult.
“He’s done nothing of the sort. But your shift in responsibility is telling. Evasion noted.”
LOL, sure if you say so, it must be true. Sigh…some people just love to be humiliated. Masochism seems to be a common theme in Christianity. I mean your god deliberately allowed himself to be beaten and humiliated! Here you moron:
” Narrated Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri:
The people of (Banu) Quraiza agreed to accept the verdict of Sa`d bin Mu`adh. So the Prophet (ﷺ) sent for Sa`d, and the latter came (riding) a donkey and when he approached the Mosque, the Prophet (ﷺ) said to the Ansar, “Get up for your chief or for the best among you.” Then the Prophet (ﷺ) said (to Sa`d).” These (i.e. Banu Quraiza) have agreed to accept your verdict.” Sa`d said, “Kill their (men) warriors and take their offspring as captives, “On that the Prophet (ﷺ) said, “You have judged according to Allah’s Judgment,” or said, “according to the King’s judgment.”” (Bukhari)
Face it sammy. You truly are a moron!
“There’s a reason false equivalence is considered a logical fallacy, dummy.
1) Mary was not a child
2) Mary gave her consent
3) There was no sexual intercouse invilved. ”
1. LOL!! Mary (as) was not a child? How so? In those times, girls were married shortly after puberty. By today’s standards, she WAS a child. Nice try, though.
2. So you’re suggesting that Aisha (ra) did not give her consent? LOL!!
And even if Mary gave her consent, it’s all irrelevant because by today’s standards, she would still be considered a minor and thus her “consent” is not valid.
3. ROTFL! Yet your god still impregnated her, right? Imagine a 12 year old getting pregnant in modern times! Oh the scandal that would start!
She also eventually had children with Joseph, didn’t she stupid? How much younger were they than your savior?
“It’s recorded in your earliest sources and going by everything else we know about Mo, this incident seems very much in keeping with his character and what he was capable of. Just like the satanic verses it’s far more likely that this account was an accurate historical event. ”
LOL, what a typical Google scholar type argument!
No sammy, there is no historical evidence that these incidents actually happened. Even western scholars reject the historicity of the so-called “Satanic verses”. Get your head out of your rear-end. You’re embarrassing yourself.
“Sometimes no response is necessary. You’re statement was demonstrably false bs. You’re a true taqiyya artist, QB, Mo would be proud of you. ”
Bwhahaha, you keep proving over and over again how much of an idiot you really are, and the type of “research” you do. It all proves that you are not a very sincere person who is genuinely interested in the truth. You just want to justify your own idiotic beliefs by demonizing islam.
When you use words like “taqiyya”, it just proves that you are a loser who is not interested in learning about Islam like a sincere person.
“Translation: Muslims are mindless morons who have to simply have to accept and not question Mohammad even when he’s blatantly making shit up as he goes along, contradicting himself and breaking his own rules and regulations. LOL”
Translation: I don’t have any response to this, so I’ll just just pretend that I know more than Muslims. LOL!!
Let’s go over this again slowly, moron. Rules are supposed to be of a general nature. It does not mean that they cannot be modified based on the situation. Thus, while cutting down trees is GENERALLY not allowed, it could be done when facing a powerful enemy as a stratagem of war. No military analyst would disagree with this.
Of course, some rules are more strict than others and cannot be easily broken. Thus, the rule prohibiting the killing of children is set in stone. It is not allowed to deliberately kill children or put them in harm’s way when it can be avoided.
In contrast, your old man from Canaan said “thou shalt not kill” but then changed his mind and said “kill all the Amalekites”. He even mercilessly commanded the killing of old people, men, women and children as a way to punish the Israelites for their sins (Ezekiel 9). So, who are you to complain, stupid? You do realize that you come off as a hypocrite, right? And it shows people that this is the fruit of Christianity? It’s no wonder your religion is dying a slow death.
“”Sa`d said, “Kill their (men) warriors and take their offspring as captives””
So young pubescent boys who had not even fought any Muslims least of all done any harm to them were warriors who deserved to be executed huh?! This is why your arguments are a joke and no one outside of your silly cult buys your bs.
LOL, what a pathetic response! Bad samaritan can hardly offer a whimper after his humiliation, when before he was barking like a mad dog!
Now that you have been refuted, in a fashion typical of moron Christian trolls, you change gears and harp about “young pubescent boys”!
The irony is that one of the source which you idiots use so often to malign Islam, Ibn Ishaq’s Sira (one of the “earliest sources”) says clearly that only those who participated in the treachery were killed. In other words, those who were adults and participated in the plot against Muhammad (pbuh) were killed:
“The Apostle had ordered that every adult (who participated in treachery) of theirs should be killed. Shu’ba b. al-Hajjaj told me from Abdu’l-Malik b. Umayr from Atiya al-Qurzai: The Apostle had ordered that every adult of B. Qurayza should be killed. I was a lad and they found that I was NOT AN ADULT and so they let me go.”
The hypocrisy of Christianity knows no bounds. Look at how these imbeciles foam at the mouth about the Bani Qurayza incident, when their Bible has this brutality:
“As I listened, he said to the others, “Follow him through the city and kill, without showing pity or compassion. 6 Slaughter the old men, the young men and women, the mothers and children, but do not touch anyone who has the mark. Begin at my sanctuary.” So they began with the old men who were in front of the temple.”
You can’t make this stuff up. Christians have their heads so far up their rear-ends that they make excuses for Biblical barbarism but foam at the mouth like rabid dogs over far less in Islam.
As much as you’re desperate for that to be the case, but, NO, pedephile apologist, she wasn’t. Sorry to disappoint you.
“2) So are you implying that Aisha didn’t give her consent?”
I know you’re as daft as a brush, but I honestly gave you more credit than to be stupid enough to believe a 6-9 year old is mentally and physically mature enough to consent to something like that. What kind of vile piece of shit are you, Partridge?
“3) No but that’s not the point. If one is to young to have sex then that one is MOST DEFINITELY TOO YOUNG to have a child.”
Then you agree 9 year old Aisha was far too young for your despicable false prophet to be consummating a marriage with. You’re finally starting to see sense.
Now all you have to do is stop being a disingenuous little creep regarding Mary’s age.
“abuse a hijacked word (which doesn’t even apply to sunnis).”
Yeah you sunnis keep insisting this. No ones buying. We see through it for what it is, just more taqiyya!!!
From my experience of interracting with sunnis and Shias down the years. I found sunnis to be more dishonest people, especially in regards to their silly cult.”
““1) Yes she was. She was 12.”
As much as you’re desperate for that to be the case, but, NO, pedephile apologist, she wasn’t. Sorry to disappoint you.”
Just denial. SO common among cross worshipers.
Give us a SINGLE quote from ANYONE before the 20th century that criticized the Prophet for marrying Aisha at a young age (**). You don’t have anything. So you use the current view to try and vilify the Prophet.
But sorry my dear piece of shit you fail one again. No one here cares for your emotional bullshit. Give us at least ONE quote of anyone criticizing the prophet before the 20th century regarding Aisha’s marriage, if you can’t do that then go read your porn book know as the bible.
“I know you’re as daft as a brush, but I honestly gave you more credit than to be stupid enough to believe a 6-9 year old is mentally and physically mature enough to consent to something like that. What kind of vile piece of shit are you, Partridge?”
Wahahahaha. O the emotional card is being played again. Just like with zero evidence for (**) here you have NO evidence at all. Give us evidence or just go masturbate reading porn verses from the bible. Here I’ll help you out:
“How beautiful your sandaled feet, O prince’s daughter! Your graceful legs are like jewels, the work of a craftsman’s hands. Your navel is a rounded goblet that never lacks blended wine. Your waist is a mound of wheat encircled by lilies. Your breasts are like two fawns, twins of a gazelle. Your neck is like an ivory tower. Your eyes are the pools of Heshbon by the gate of Bath Rabbi”
Ezekiel 23:20 “There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.”
Song of Songs 4:5 “Your two breasts are like two fawns, like twin fawns of a gazelle that browse among the lilies.”
Song of Songs 1:13 “My lover is to me a sachet of myrrh resting between my breasts.”
Now don’t these verses just make you feel horny? I want to throw up after reading this disgusting porn bullshit but you surely love reading these over and over again.
“Then you agree 9 year old Aisha was far too young for your despicable false prophet to be consummating a marriage with. You’re finally starting to see sense.”
Where did I say that? Nowhere. You see this is one of the major problems with crosstians: you are stupid.
You can’t read a sentence without even understanding basic logic used in it.
“If one is to young to have sex then that one is MOST DEFINITELY TOO YOUNG to have a child.”
A 12 year old is too young to have a child.
“Yeah you sunnis keep insisting this. No ones buying. We see through it for what it is, just more taqiyya!!!
”
Yea but we don’t care what ‘you’ see. You can’t even see that your pagan mangod being in a womb for 9 months and then in a vagina is filthy and sick. What kind of vile piece of shit are you, Samaritan?
Do you then really think we care about your worthless crosstian opinion? You’re even more moronic then I thought. And since you are a crosstian, that’s saying something.
“I found sunnis to be more dishonest people”
Coming from a loser who believes in the potato of tarsus who lied trough his teeth to convert people to his wicked filthy bullshit called xtianity. And missionaries copy his behavior.
“So you believe the boys were ‘warriors’ even though the Banu Quaryza never actually even fought any battles against the Muslims?”
“Narrated Ibn `Umar:
Bani An-Nadir and Bani Quraiza fought (against the Prophet (ﷺ) violating their peace treaty), so the Prophet exiled Bani An-Nadir and allowed Bani Quraiza to remain at their places (in Medina) taking nothing from them till they fought against the Prophet (ﷺ) AGAIN. Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith 4028”
“LOL, except when you are told to actually kill (e.g. kill the Amalekites and their babies). The lies of Christianity…(smacks forehead)”
Yes, exactly. When God tells someone audibly to kill this overrides the law. I don’t think anyone has heard his voice since the time that Saul or Samuel killed the Amalekites.
” “both parties agreed to submit their dispute to a person chosen by them”[57][58] in accordance with the Arabian tradition of arbitration.[58] Muir holds that the Qurayza surrendered on the condition that “their fate was decided by their allies, the Bani Aws”.[53][59]”
As long as the Jews do not attack Mohammed, which they did not, no human being has the right to attack and kill them.
So in point of fact they kept their biblical obligation to Mohammed. In return Mohammed broke this obligation by attacking and killing them.
Genesis 9 v 5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man’s brother will I require the life of man.
6 Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.
“As long as the Jews do not attack Mohammed, which they did not, no human being has the right to attack and kill them.”
“The chief criminal of Bani Nadir, Huyai, headed for the habitations of Banu Quraiza to incite their chief Ka’b bin Asad Al-Qurazi, who had drawn a PACT with the Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] to run to his aid in times of war. Ka’b, in the beginning resisted all Huyai’s temptation, but Huyai was clever enough to manipulate him, speaking of Quraish and their notables in Al-Asyal, as well as Ghatfan and their chieftains entrenched in Uhud, all in one mind, determined to exterminate Muhammad [pbuh] and his followers. He, moreover, promised to stay in Ka’b’s fort exposing himself to any potential danger in case Quraish and Ghatfan recanted. The wicked man went on in this manner until he later managed to win Ka’b to his side and persuade him to BREAK his COVENANT with the Muslims. [Ibn Hisham 3/337] Banu Quraiza then started to launch WAR operations against the Muslims especially the secluded garrisons that housed the women and children of the Muslims. On the authority of Ibn Ishaq, Safiyah [R], daughter of ‘Abdul Muttalib happened to be in a garrison with Hassan bin Thabit as well as some women and children. Safiyah said: “A Jew was spotted lurking around our site, which was vulnerable to any enemy attacks because there were no men to defend it. I informed Hassan that I was suspicious of that man’s presence near us. He might take us by surprise now that the Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] and the Muslims are too busy to come to our aid, why don’t you get down and kill him? Hassan answered that he would not do it, so I took a bar of wood, went down and struck the Jew to death. I returned and asked Hassan to loot him but again Hassan refused to do that.[ibid 2/228] This event had a far reaching effect and discouraged the Jews from conducting further attacks thinking that those sites were fortified and protected by Muslim fighters. They, however, went on PROVIDING THE IDOLATERS WITH SUPPLIES in token of their support against the Muslims.
On hearing this bad news, the Messenger [pbuh] despatched four Muslim prominent leaders Sa’d bin Mu’adh, Sa’d bin ‘Ubada, ‘Abdullah bin Rawaha and Khawat bin Jubair for investigation but warning against any sort of spreading panic amongst the Muslims and advising that they should declare in public that the rumours are groundless if they happen to be so. Unfortunately the four men discovered that the news was true and that the Jews announced openly that NO PACT OF ALLIANCE EXISTED ANY LONGER with Muhammad [pbuh]. (Saifur Rahman al-Mubarakpuri, Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum (THE SEALED NECTAR), Chapter: Al-Ahzab (the Confederates) Invasion, Source)”
And you know what’s funny? The Quraiza tribe even after that were allowed to stay and were left alone and for that they even attacked a SECOND time. They were treacherous TWICE.
“Narrated Ibn `Umar:
Bani An-Nadir and Bani Quraiza fought (against the Prophet (ﷺ) violating their peace treaty), so the Prophet exiled Bani An-Nadir and allowed Bani Quraiza to remain at their places (in Medina) taking nothing from them till they fought against the Prophet (ﷺ) AGAIN. Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith 4028”
Where are you Christians getting the idea the jewish tribes didn’t attack the Muslims?
“Yes, exactly. When God tells someone audibly to kill this overrides the law. I don’t think anyone has heard his voice since the time that Saul or Samuel killed the Amalekites.”
Ignoramus, you don’t know your Bible, or you are just lying. Read Ezekiel 9, idiot.
“Now the glory of the God of Israel went up from above the cherubim, where it had been, and moved to the threshold of the temple. Then the Lord called to the man clothed in linen who had the writing kit at his side 4 and said to him, “Go throughout the city of Jerusalem and put a mark on the foreheads of those who grieve and lament over all the detestable things that are done in it.”
5 As I listened, he said to the others, “Follow him through the city and kill, without showing pity or compassion. 6 Slaughter the old men, the young men and women, the mothers and children, but do not touch anyone who has the mark. Begin at my sanctuary.” So they began with the old men who were in front of the temple.”
Hmm, here is a clear-cut command from your god yet again to kill almost every living thing, whether the elderly, women and children!
Since there are clearly some uninformed people here–mainly Christians rehashing the same debunked nonsense–let me educate you a bit:
______________
## The Unlawfulness of Killing Non-Muslim Women
Many people are killed in non-Muslim countries, in addition to Muslim countries, in the unending wave of terrorism. The terrorists invoke the anti-Islamic actions of non-Muslim countries to justify their terrorism, and contend that since these governments play a role in either killing Muslims or getting them killed through different means, they are justified in killing their citizens in retaliation. This argument is contrary to the fundamental teachings of Islam and contravenes the character of Islam. Islam does not allow the killing of peaceful non-Muslims in times of war–much less in times of peace. Islam’s jurisprudential tradition has articulated what is called in the West, the Just War Theory, and has detailed regulations that guide the conduct of its soldiers during war. Thus, the killing of women during war is prohibited.
ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar said,
‘A woman was found slain in one of the expeditions. Upon this the Messenger of God ﷺ forbade the killing of women and children’.¹
Ibn Baṭṭāl and Imam al-Nawawī have both supported this standpoint in Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (5:186) and Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim (12:37), respectively, and declared that killing women is in direct contravention to Islamic teachings. There is also a hadith narrated by ʿAbd al-Razzāq in his Muṣannaf, al-Shāfiʿī in his al-Musnad, al-Ṭaḥāwī in Sharḥ maʿānī al-āthār and al-Bayhaqī in al-Sunan al-kubrā from the son of Kaʿb b. Mālik who mentioned that when the Prophet ﷺ dispatched an army to Ibn Abī Ḥaqīq, he forbade the killing of women and children.² Abū Thaʿlaba said,
‘The Messenger of God ﷺ prohibited the murder of women and children’.³
¹ : Narrated by al-Bukhārī in al-Ṣaḥīḥ: Kitāb al-jihād wa al-siyar [The Book of Martial Jihad and Battles], chapter: ‘Killing Women in War’, 3:1098 §2852; Muslim in al-Saḥīḥ: Kitāb al-jihād wa al-siyar [The Book of Martial Jihad and Battles], chapter: ‘The Unlawfulness of Killing Women and Children during War’, 3:1364 §1744; al-Tirmidhī in al-Sunan: Kitāb al-siyar [The Book of Military Expeditions], chapter: ‘What Has Come to Us About the Killing of Women and Children’, 4:136 §1569; Ibn Mājah in al-Sunan: Kitāb al-jihād [The Book of Martial Jihad], 2:947 §2841; and Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal in al-Musnad, 2:22 §4739.
² : Narrated by ʿAbd al-Razzāq in al-Muṣannaf, 5:202 §9385; al-Shāfiʿī in al-Musnad, p. 238; cited by al-Ṭaḥāwī in Sharḥ maʿānī al-āthār, 3:221; and by al-Bayhaqī in al-Sunan al-kubrā, 9:77 §17865.
³ : Narrated by al-Ṭabarānī in al-Muʿjam al-awsaṭ, 7:113 §7011.
______________
## The Unlawfulness of Killing the Children of Non-Muslims
The strict and total prohibition prescribed against killing peaceful non-Muslim children is another humane principle of Islam. Compare and contrast the actions of the self-proclaimed defenders of Islam with those of the Prophet ﷺ; the reality will be laid bare for everyone to see and the intentions of these terrorist elements will become clear. Would that they had held the prophetic traditions in due esteem and felt shame while shaping their destructive designs!
Quoting a letter of Ibn ʿAbbās , Imam Muslim wrote in his collection:
‘Indeed, the Messenger of God ﷺ did not kill children; so you must not kill them either’.¹
In another hadith, the Prophet ﷺ forbade the Companions– with very harsh words–from killing the children of non-Muslims, and repeated his prohibition for effect. Aswad b. Sarīʿ said,
‘We were once in a battle and gained the upper hand and killed many of the pagans, including some children. News of this reached the Messenger of God ﷺ and he said, “What is wrong with some people that they went so far as to kill children? Beware! Do not kill children at all! Beware! Do not kill children at all!” Someone asked, “Why, O Messenger of God? Are they not the children of the pagans?” He ﷺ replied, “Are the best amongst you not from the children of pagans?”’²
In another narration it reads: ‘A man said, “O Messenger of God! They are only the children of the pagans!” He ﷺ replied,
“The best of you are children of pagans. Beware! Children must not be killed”.’³
Regarding the prohibition of killing non-Muslim women, children and elderly folk during war, the respected Ḥanafī jurist, Imam al-Sarakhsī, wrote in his magnum opus, al-Mabsūṭ:
The Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Do not kill children [walīd]’. In the [Arabic] language, the word walīd means one who is born [mawlūd]; and every human being [ādamī] is born; however, customarily this word is only used for young children. Therefore, in it is proof that it is impermissible to kill the young children amongst them [the non-Muslims], as long as they are not fighting. It is mentioned in a hadith that the Prophet ﷺ forbade the killing of women and children, and said, ‘Kill the [warring] elders of the pagans [during the state of war] and keep alive their subordinates’. What is meant by ‘elders’ are the adults amongst them, and what is meant by ‘subordinates’ are their followers amongst the young and the womenfolk. To ‘keep alive’ here means to take them as captives. God says, ‘And they kept their women alive’.⁴ 1 And it is mentioned in Abū Bakr’s g dictated commands to Yazīd b. Abī Sufyān: ‘Kill neither a feeble old man nor a fragile young child’; in other words, an elderly man and young child do not fight.⁵
¹ : Narrated by Muslim in al-Ṣaḥīḥ: Kitāb al-jihād wa al-siyar [The Book of Martial Jihad and Battles], 3:1444 §1812.
² : Narrated by al-Nasāʾī in al-Sunan al-kubrā: Kitāb al-siyar [The Book of Military Expeditions], chapter: ‘The Prohibition of Killing the Children of the Pagans’, 5:184 §8616; al-Dārimī in al-Sunan, 2:294 §2463; al-Ḥākim in al-Mustadrak, 2:133–134 §§2566–2567; and al-Ṭabarānī in al-Muʿjam al-kabīr, 1:284.
³ : Narrated by Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal in al-Musnad, 3:435 §§1562615627; and al-Bayhaqī in al-Sunan al-kubrā, 9:77 §17868.
⁴ : Qurʾān 40:25.
⁵ : Al-Sarakhsī, al-Mabsūṭ, 10:5–6.
______________
## The Unlawfulness of Killing Elderly Non-Muslims
Islam has strictly and unequivocally forbidden the killing of the elderly during war. This principle is illustrated in many prophetic traditions.
Imam Abū Dāwūd narrates on the authority of Anas b. Mālik that the Prophet ﷺ said,
‘Do not kill any feeble old man, or any infant or young child or woman’.¹
Imam Ibn Abī Shayba narrates on the authority of al-Ḍaḥḥāk who said,
‘The Prophet ﷺ used to forbid the killing of women and feeble old men’.²
Imam Ibn Abī Shayba also narrates on the authority of Rāshid b. Saʿd who said,
‘The Messenger of God ﷺ forbade the killing of women, children and the infirm’.³
Imam al-Bayhaqī narrated a hadith from ʿAlī , that when the Prophet ﷺ would dispatch an army, he would advise them,
‘Do not kill a young boy, a woman or an old man. Do not cause fountains to dry up and do not destroy any trees, except those which cause hindrance during war. Mutilate neither a human nor an animal, and do not break a promise or breach a trust’.⁴
Jubayr b. Nufayl said,
‘A man passed by Thawbān , so he [Thawbān] asked him, “Where do you intend to go?” The man said, “I want to wage battle in the path of God”. Thawbān then said to him, “If war booty comes your way, do not steal from it, and do not kill an old man or a young boy”. Upon hearing this, the man asked him, “From whom did you hear this?” Thawbān replied, “From the Messenger of God ﷺ”.’⁴
¹ : Narrated by Abū Dāwūd in al-Sunan: Kitāb al-jihād [The Book of Martial Jihad], 3:37 §2614; Ibn Abī Shayba in al-Muṣannaf, 6:483 §33118; and al-Bayhaqī in al-Sunan al-kubrā, 9:90 §17932.
² : Narrated by Ibn Abī Shayba in al-Muṣannaf, 6:484 §33133.
³ : Narrated by Ibn Abī Shayba in al-Muṣannaf, 6:484 §33135.
⁴ : Narrated by al-Bayhaqī in al-Sunan al-Kubrā, 9:90 §17934.
⁵ : Narrated by Ibn ʿAsākir in Tārīkh Dimashq al-kabīr, 27:404.
______________
## The Unlawfulness of Killing the Religious Leaders of Non-Muslims
Islam has forbidden its adherents from killing the religious leaders of non-Muslims during the course of war and after the battles have ceased. There is no justification for fighting against non-Muslim religious leaders and children if they do not engage in war. The perpetrators are putting to shame the great values of Islam and its culture of toleration. Imam Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal quoted Ibn ʿAbbās who said that the Prophet ﷺ would issue clear instructions when dispatching an army to go into battle. He ﷺ would say,
‘Break no promise, steal not from the spoils of war and do not mutilate bodies or slay children or monks’.¹
Imam Ibn Abī Shayba mentions another hadith from Ibn ʿAbbās in which the Prophet ﷺ said as he dispatched an army,
‘Do not kill those who tend to the monasteries’.²
Imam Ibn Abī Shayba also quotes Thābit b. Ḥajjāj al-Kilābī, who reported that Abū Bakr stood up, praised God and said to people,
‘Beware, no [non-combatant] priest tending to his monastery should be killed’.³
Imam al-Bayhaqī narrates that Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab reported that Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq would always say to the Islamic army as he dispatched it for legitimate warfare,
‘Do not drown or burn date-palm trees. Do not kill any animal. Do not cut down a fruit-bearing tree. Do not demolish a church. And do not kill any children or old people or women. Soon you shall you come upon people who have secluded themselves in cloisters; you must leave them to engage in that for whose sake they have secluded themselves’.⁴
Likewise, another tradition reported by Ṣāliḥ b. Kaysān and narrated by Imam al-Bayhaqī mentions that Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq said as he was dispatching the Islamic army towards Syria,
‘You shall soon come upon people who have secluded themselves in monasteries; you must leave them to engage in that for whose sake they have secluded themselves. Do not kill an old, feeble man or a woman or a child. Do not damage any populated area. Do not cut down trees needlessly. Do not kill animals unless it is for a benefit [to feed others]. Do not burn down date-palm trees or drown them. Do not commit any treachery. Do not mutilate (anyone). Do not behave cowardly. And do not take anything without right when distributing the spoils of war’.⁵
In the light of these clear injunctions that prohibit killing the religious leaders of non-Muslims, what interpretation can one give to the self-styled and the misplaced religious concepts of those who murder Islamic religious scholars, destroy the mosques of those who adhere to other schools of thought and burn down the shrines of the Sufis? Not only do these people consider these actions justified, but they also invoke religion by claiming to take guidance from the Qurʾān and the Sunna!
¹ : Narrated by Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal in al-Musnad, 5:358 §2728.
² : Narrated by Ibn Abī Shayba in al-Muṣannaf, 6:484 §33132; Abū Yaʿlā in al-Musnad, 5:59 §2650; al-Ṭaḥāwī in Sharḥ maʿānī al-āthār, 3:225; and al-Daylamī in Musnad al-firdaws, 5:45 §7410.
³ : Narrated by Ibn Abī Shayba in al-Muṣannaf, 6:483 §33127.
⁴ : Narrated by al-Bayhaqī in al-Sunan al-kubrā, 9:85 §17904.
⁵ : Narrated by al-Bayhaqī in al-Sunan al-kubrā, 9:90 §17929.
______________
## The Unlawfulness of Killing Non-Muslim Traders and Farmers
Islam has given complete protection to farmers, traders and businessmen, and forbade killing them, because they are associated with the economy and financial survival of humanity. There are several prophetic narrations that speak of this. Imam Ibn Abī Shayba and Imam al-Bayhaqī narrated on the authority of Jābir b. ʿAbd Allāh who said,
‘They [the Muslim soldiers] did not kill the merchants amongst the pagans’.¹
Imam Ibn Abī Shayba also narrated on the authority of Zayd b. Wahb that ʿUmar sent him a letter in which he said,
‘Do not take anything without right when distributing the spoils of war, and do not commit any treachery or kill children. And fear God regarding farmers’.²
Imam al-Bayhaqī’s version of this report reads,
‘Fear God regarding the farmers and do not kill them’.³
Ibn al-Qayyim said,
‘Indeed, when the Companions of the Prophet ﷺ opened (fataḥū) the various lands, they did not kill them [farmers and merchants] because the latter did not fight [against them], and so in that sense they [the civilians] resembled the elderly and the religious leaders’.⁴
Imam al-Awzāʿī took a similar view and said,
‘Farmers are not to be killed [during war] if it is known that they are not from the combatants’.⁵
And Ibn Qudāma al-Maqdisī stated,
‘As for the farmer who is a non-combatant, he should not be killed, because it was narrated from ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb that he said, “Fear God regarding the farmers who do not wage war against you”.’⁶
¹ : Narrated by Ibn Abī Shayba in al-Muṣannaf, 6:484 §33129; al-Bayhaqī in al-Sunan al-kubrā, 9:91 §17939; and cited by Ibn Ādam al-Qurashī in al-Kharāj, 1:52 §133.
² : Narrated by Ibn Abī Shayba in al-Muṣannaf, 6:483 §33120; and cited by Ibn Ādam al-Qurashī in Kitāb al-Kharāj, 1:52 §132.
³ : Narrated by al-Bayhaqī in al-Sunan al-kubrā, 9:91 §17938.
⁴ : Ibn al-Qayyim, Aḥkām ahl al-dhimma, 1:165.
⁵ : Ibn al-Qayyim, Aḥkām ahl al-dhimma, 1:165.
⁶ : Ibn Qudāma al-Maqdisī, al-Mughnī, 9:251.
______________
## The Unlawfulness of Killing Non-Muslim Service Personnel
Islamic laws are to regulate the conduct of the Muslim soldiers during the course of war and restrain them from killing non-Muslim professionals and those tasked with the delivery of services. Rabāḥ b. Rabīḥ said,
‘We were with the Messenger of God ﷺ in one of the battle expeditions, when he saw some people gathered around something. He sent a man out, saying, “Go and see what they are gathering around”. The man returned and informed him, saying, “They are gathering around a slain woman”. The Prophet ﷺ said, “She was not amongst those who fight!” At the head of the group was Khālid b. Walīd, so the Prophet sent a man to go and inform Khālid: “Neither an [idolatrous] woman nor a hired servant should be killed”.’ [In one report:] ‘Do not kill children or hired servants’.¹
In fact, non-Muslim employees working in the households of non-Muslim employers in the conquered areas are not to be killed and no kind of tax can be imposed upon them. Ibn al-Qayyim stated the same thing, quoting ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar :
‘The blood of a servant is inviolable, and is thereby similar to that of women and children’.²
Likewise, Ibn al-Mundhir cited a consensus amongst the scholars that, like the unemployed, the old, the sick, the destitute and women and children of non-Muslims–no tax can be levelled on the servants under their responsibility and care.³
¹ : Narrated by Abū Dāwūd in al-Sunan: Kitāb al-jihād [The Book of Martial Jihad], chapter: ‘The Killing of Women’, 3:53 §2669; Ibn Mājah in al-Sunan: Kitāb al-jihād [The Book of Martial Jihad], 2:948 §2842; Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal in al-Musnad, 3:488 §16035; al-Nasāʾī in al-Sunan al-kubrā, 5:186–187 §§8625, 8627; and al-Ḥākim in al-Mustadrak, 2:133 §2565.
² : Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, Aḥkām ahl al-dhimma, 1:172.
³ : Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, Aḥkām ahl al-dhimma, 1:172.
______________
## The Unlawfulness of Killing Non-Muslims Who are Non-Combatants
Islam holds that the sanctity of life is superior to the sanctity of the Kaʿba. That is why shedding blood unjustly has been condemned in the harshest possible terms. The only enemies who are allowed to be killed are those who actively take part in combat. A large part of population, which is non-combatant, including children, women, the old, the sick and the disabled, have been excluded from this. On the day of the conquest of Mecca, the Prophet ﷺ ordered that those who were not fighting should run away to save their lives, and shut their doors, and he ordered that those who were injured should not be attacked.
Imam Muslim narrated on the authority of Abū Hurayra that the Messenger of God ﷺ said on the day of the conquest of Mecca,
‘Whoever enters Abū Sufyān’s house is safe, and whoever lays down his weapon is safe and whoever shuts his door is safe’.¹
All of these steps convey the message of peace and protection.
It is reported in ʿAbd al-Razzāq’s Muṣannaf that ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib said,
‘The injured person or prisoner should not be killed, and the one who flees should not be pursued’.²
According to another narration recorded by ʿAbd al-Razzāq, Juwaybir reported that a woman from the tribe of Banū Asad told him that she heard ʿAmmār declare after ʿAlī had finished the Battle of the Camel,
‘Do not kill an injured person and do not enter the house of someone who has laid down his arms, for he is considered safe. Similarly, the one who shuts his door is considered safe’.³
¹ : Narrated by Muslim in al-Ṣaḥīḥ: Kitāb al-jihād wa al-siyar [The Book of Martial Jihad and Military Expeditions], chapter: ‘The Conquest of Mecca’, 3:1407 §1780; Abū Dāwūd in al-Sunan: Kitāb al-kharāj wa al-imāra wa al-fayʾ [The Book of Land Tax, Leadership and the Spoils Acquired without Fighting], 3:162 §3021; and al-Bazzār in al-Musnad, 4:122 §1292.
² : Narrated by ʿAbd al-Razzāq in al-Muṣannaf, 10:123 §18590.
³ : Narrated by ʿAbd al-Razzāq in al-Muṣannaf, 10:124 §18591.
______________
## The Unlawfulness of Waging Night Offensives against Non-Muslims
The military code of conduct enshrined in the Shariah holds that enemies should not be attacked at night. Military forces should wait until dawn when launching their offensives so that non-combatants, such as women, children, the old and the sick, do not become frightened and have their sleep disturbed.
Imam al-Bukhārī and Imam Muslim narrated on the authority of Anas b. Mālik who said,
‘The Messenger of God ﷺ came to Khaybar at night, and when he came to a people [a force] at night, he would not attack them until daybreak’.¹
Contrast the prophetic laws concerning war with the methods of the modern-day terrorists who bomb populated areas without any care for peaceful life.
¹ : Narrated by al-Bukhārī in al-Ṣaḥīḥ: Kitāb al-maghāzī [The Book of Military Expeditions], chapter: ‘The Campaign of Khaybar’, 4:1538 §3961; Muslim in al-Ṣaḥīḥ: Kitāb al-jihād wa al-siyar [The Book of Martial Jihad and Expeditions], chapter: ‘The Campaign of Khaybar’, 3:1427 §1365; and al-Tirmidhī in al-Sunan: Kitāb al-siyar [The Book of Military Expeditions], 4:121 §1550.
______________
## The Unlawfulness of Burning Non-Muslims
In the pre-Islamic days of ignorance, a man would go to such extremes in revenge and enmity against his opponents during war that he would burn them alive. The Prophet ﷺ forbade Muslims from resorting to this barbaric tactic.
ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAbd Allāh quoted his father as saying that once they were on a journey and the Prophet ﷺ went to relieve himself. After he left, the Companions saw a sparrow with two of her young hatchlings. When they took the hatchlings, the sparrow, greatly upset, came and began to spread out her wings. When the Prophet ﷺ returned he said,
‘Who has tormented this bird by taking her young ones? Give them back to her’.¹
In another report the Prophet ﷺ saw an anthill that was burned and declared,
‘It is not fitting that anyone but the Lord of the fire should punish with the fire’.²
If Islam has forbidden the burning of ants, how can it allow the burning of human beings? Likewise, when the Prophet ﷺ sent his Companions for war, he ordered them to avoid burning their enemies.³ But in the wake of the recent bomb blasts and suicide attacks that burn the harmless people and tear them to pieces, the so-called Muslim terrorist groups that accept responsibility for these attacks convey to the world that the Muslims’ concept of jihad is barbaric and oppressive. The opposite, however, is true and Islam has nothing to do with any of this.
¹ : Narrated by Abū Dāwūd in al-Sunan: Kitāb al-jihād [The Book of Martial Jihad], chapter: ‘The Abhorrence of Burning the Enemy’, 3:55 §2675.
² : Narrated by Abū Dāwūd in al-Sunan: Kitāb al-jihād [The Book of Martial Jihad], chapter: ‘The Abhorrence of Burning the Enemy’, 3:55 §2675.
³ : Narrated by al-Bukhārī in al-Ṣaḥīḥ: Kitāb al-jihād wa al-siyar [The Book of Martial Jihad and Expeditions], chapter: ‘May He Not Suffer the Chastisement of God’, 3:1098 §2853; al-Tirmidhī in al-Sunan: Kitāb al-siyar [The Book of Military expeditions], chapter 20, 4:137 §1571; Abū Dāwūd in al-Sunan: Kitāb al-jihād [The Book of Martial Jihad], chapter: ‘The Abhorrence of Burning the Enemy’, 3:54 §2674.
“I found out that mohammed permitted oral sex on women when they are menstruating, and that he disrespected the word of your goat so much that he recited it inches away from menstrual blood.”
ROTFL!!! What a complete imbecile! Are you still clinging to this? I refuted you on this and you ran away like a wounded simian. Poor, poor Coco. Still licking your wounds?
Still not answering the question, I see! Are Christians permitted to have intercourse during menstruation? Your first two attempts to answer this were just too pathetic. You were humiliated so much that you ran away…twice! So come on, little Coco. Try again!
Yes Paulus, we are people from this age and we have been indoctrinated by the secular values of this age. This indoctrination does affect what one may feel.
But in contrast to you we are able to get away from this indoctrination. So even if there is some weird emotion about the Prophet’s marriage about Aisha it is the rational thinking that should overcome it.
Rationally you and we know that there is nothing in the Old Testament that speaks against this marriage. So for us everything in this issues is cleared.
Amazing this coming from a crosstian who tries to justify genocides of babies ordered by a pagan god who (in all his so called glory) went through a vagina to be further spit upon. Sick people!
Porky has a theme. He pretends to be an expert on every topic via google and then projects that onto Christians. He then claims to refute everything despite providing some of the most clear cut examples of illogical reasoning seen on this blog. Then he says people run away not realising that the Muslim administrators continually block and moderate Christian comments.
He then repeats this ad nauseum. I think it’s time someone makes a meme about this swine
Yes, it is horribly sad. To see people here trying to justify what he did as the greatest example to humanity only demonstrates how very little Muslims have progressed. I can only attempt to appreciate and understand the immense pressure put on Muslims by the Islamic community to adhere to its practices and doctrines. I’m not even convinced that the majority of commentators here actually believe what they defend. Deep down I think you all know how truly evil muhammad was but it is incredibly difficult to break free from the Islamic community, so I understand why you pretend to defend it
LOL, you sound mad Cerbie. I can understand. You have been neutered multiple times on this blog.
It’s hilarious how you whine about the moderators. Didn’t I invite you to my blog and promised that I wouldn’t block your posts, as long as you didn’t use foul language? You ignored my invitation. Running is what you do idiots do. You cut and paste nonsense from the Internet, get refuted, then go back to Google to do more cut and paste, run away again, then complain about the moderators! LOL!!
Don’t get mad, Cerbie. Foaming at the mouth will not solve your problems. It will only expose you further as the neutered dog of hell that you are. 😉
“Yes, it is horribly sad. To see people here trying to justify what he did as the greatest example to humanity only demonstrates how very little Muslims have progressed. I can only attempt to appreciate and understand the immense pressure put on Muslims by the Islamic community to adhere to its practices and doctrines. I’m not even convinced that the majority of commentators here actually believe what they defend. Deep down I think you all know how truly evil muhammad was but it is incredibly difficult to break free from the Islamic community, so I understand why you pretend to defend it”
LOL, we’re not the ones who make excuses for your Canaanite god’s genocidal commands. Most of the things that you morons complain about are actually in your Bible. Let me give you an example.
Whereas the laws of Islam prohibit killing civilians and non-combatants (with some exceptions as we have seen already), your god commanded the exact opposite. Ezekiel once again demolishes your hypocrisy. But I know your tactic. You will say that Ezekiel was not a role model for Christians or that those commands were for that time. But role model or not and for that time or not, the fact still remains that you idiots WILL make excuses for that behavior and then simultaneously criticize Muhammad (pbuh) for doing far less!
Let’s go to Ezekiel 9. I showed this to your brother in stupidity Ignoramus:
“As I listened, he said to the others, “Follow him through the city and kill, without showing pity or compassion. 6 Slaughter the old men, the young men and women, the mothers and children, but do not touch anyone who has the mark. Begin at my sanctuary.” So they began with the old men who were in front of the temple.”
WOW!! The brutality of your god is beyond measure! How can ONE VERSE be so brutal? And yet, this ONE VERSE completely exposes you brainless hypocrites for the scumbags that you are!
Here is another example. Christians routinely harp about so-called “honor killings” among Muslims. Yet, there is nothing in Islam that allows such behavior. But what about the Bible? As it turns out, it’s the Bible that allowed honor killings! Case in point:
“If a priest’s daughter defiles herself by becoming a prostitute, she disgraces her father; she must be burned in the fire.” (Leviticus 21:9).
WOW!!
Speaking of memes. Here is a good one, don’t you think Cerbie?
“Deep down I think you all know how truly evil muhammad was but it is incredibly difficult to break free from the Islamic community, so I understand why you pretend to defend it”
No we don’t. We think this about your barbaric pagan god. Don’t even entertain yourself with the idea that we think Muhammad was not the greatest man ever lived you cross worshiping lil shit.
No go justify your mangod ordering genocides of babies and animals you sick fuck.
LOL, bro I think Cerbie has pretensions of being a psychologist. Or maybe his lying…I mean holy…spirit gives him some psychological insight? We may never know for sure.
So true brother. And this lowlife idiot along with his lowlife idiot brothers in stupidity try to be smart by quoting instances where the Prophet for example ordered the cutting of trees. If we say that there was a Quranic passage that allowed this for this particular instance then they’ll still whine about it. But they are perfectly ok with Solomon having 700 wives in the OT while it is stated:
“When you have come into the land that the Lord your God is giving you, and have taken possession of it and settled in it, and you say, “I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are around me,” you may indeed set over you a king whom the Lord your God will choose. One of your own community you may set as king over you; you are not permitted to put a foreigner over you, who is not of your own community. Even so, he must not acquire many horses for himself, or return the people to Egypt in order to acquire more horses, since the Lord has said to you, “You must never return that way again.” And he must NOT ACQUIRE MANY WIVES FOR HIMSELF, or else his heart will turn away; also silver and gold he must not acquire in great quantity for himself.”
Here we see that an exception was made for Solomon. He was allowed to have 700 wives.
If this paulus idiot tries to argue that many wives doesn’t actually mean that 700 is many then I truly hope the loser will get blocked cus then he’s just trolling.
Some even try and say that Solomon was in error. But the OT doesn’t say that.
Matthew 12:3-4 gives an exception to David.
Jesus healed a person on the Sabbath. But this is justified by Jesus himself.
Etc etc
Porky, I think you need a chat with your fellow muhammadan here because he is quite upset at the idea that muhammad isn’t a great moral example. But it’s obvious that deep down you guys are ashamed of muhammad. No one in their right mind defends a 54 yr old man raping a 9yr old girl. Your Islamic community doesn’t allow you freedom. We know it. You know it. And one day you’ll leave it.
Ezekiel 9- i always find it ironic that you compare God to muhammad? You will commit shirk just to save face? Shame on you. How many times do you need to shame your Islamic community like this.
“Porky, I think you need a chat with your fellow muhammadan here because he is quite upset at the idea that muhammad isn’t a great moral example. But it’s obvious that deep down you guys are ashamed of muhammad. No one in their right mind defends a 54 yr old man raping a 9yr old girl. Your Islamic community doesn’t allow you freedom. We know it. You know it. And one day you’ll leave it.”
“But it’s obvious that deep down you guys are ashamed of muhammad.”
LOL ok! If telling yourself that makes you happy then by all means go ahead. I mean you idiots have already convinced yourselves that you don’t worship three gods and that your comicbook known as the bible is the so called word of god.
“No one in their right mind defends a 54 yr old man raping a 9yr old girl.”
1) Raping means to have sex by force.
2) No one thought that having the marriage consumated with Aisha at age 9 was wrong. But the usual bullshit of ‘Well if it’s wrong now then it’s always been wrong’ card will be played. As if the bible can survive a single bitchslap like that. Your comicbook is filled with stuff that no one would accept today and yet you make excuses for them by saying ‘that doesn’t apply today’.
I don’t really care about a pagan’s thought in the 21st century.
“And one day you’ll leave it.”
And you know the future too he? Wow! I guess only your pagan mangod knew the future. Actually never mind. He said that the world would end 2000 years ago so I guess he doesn’t know shit.
I’ll remain with the true Faith of God Almighty which is Islam.
You go worship your mangod who came out of a vagina and ordered the genocides of babies and animals all contained in your pornbook the holey bible:
“How beautiful your sandaled feet, O prince’s daughter! Your graceful legs are like jewels, the work of a craftsman’s hands. Your navel is a rounded goblet that never lacks blended wine. Your waist is a mound of wheat encircled by lilies. Your breasts are like two fawns, twins of a gazelle. Your neck is like an ivory tower. Your eyes are the pools of Heshbon by the gate of Bath Rabbi”
Ezekiel 23:20 “There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.”
Song of Songs 4:5 “Your two breasts are like two fawns, like twin fawns of a gazelle that browse among the lilies.”
Song of Songs 1:13 “My lover is to me a sachet of myrrh resting between my breasts.”
O yes tell me more baby tell me mooooore!!!!
The bible got banned from certain countries because it was pornographic. Buahahahahahaha!
Word of God they say. What a joke.
Yes bible, take us Muslims to heaven with your godly porn verses.
Don’t read those to many times he Paulus or you’ll get a wet dream.
Now I’ll give you the extreme satisfaction of having the last word.
“Where are you Christians getting the idea the jewish tribes didn’t attack the Muslims?”
You haven’t provided any example of an attack. On the other hand two jewish tribes had already been deported and a number of jews assassinated before the battle of the trench.
Who gave the command to “kill any Jew that falls in to your power”?
Perfectly sufficient grounds for the remaining tribe to dissolve the treaty and seek protection from the Meccans as a desperate last ditch attempt to save their lives and property.
“Ignoramus, you don’t know your Bible, or you are just lying. Read Ezekiel 9, idiot.”
“Hmm, here is a clear-cut command from your god yet again to kill almost every living thing, whether the elderly, women and children!”
It is not law. In the vision no real person is being commanded to kill anyone.
Just another example of your pathetic refusal to interpret the text in it’s context.
Wahahahahahaha.
You got bitchslapped and you know it!
First you lied and said:
“As long as the Jews do not attack Mohammed, which they did not, no human being has the right to attack and kill them.”
Then I give you the CLEAR CUT evidence that they did.
Then you jump to:
“You haven’t provided ANY EXAMPLE of an attack.”
Now I’ll give you a piece of the same text that I gave you earlier and let’s see how you’ll tap dance around it and come up with other nonsense.
“… launch WAR operations against the Muslims especially the secluded garrisons that housed the WOMEN AND CHILDREN of the Muslims.” Is that EXAMPLE enough for you?
You see the jews knew to attack women and children cus their/your god ordered them to do it against the Amelakites.
“On the other hand two jewish tribes had already been deported ”
Yes for breaking the treaty! The Bani Nadir are also mentioned in the hadith! Just read it. How can they be deported if BANI NADIR incited Banu Quraiza to break the pact with the Messenger???
Why lie through your teeth? Dear Lord. How can deceptive can you be?
Then you lie again buy linking a hadith with Banu Quraiza and Bani Nadir and trying to argue that that somehow justifies what they have done (like you know attacking women and children). I know exactly what happened. You saw the evidence I provided you and then you just thought:
‘O crap this looks really bad for me. I better do something to save face. Let’s go to google and find some random nonsense without actually looking into it. O here we go I found something! Let’s put this on the blog and hope that guy will leave me alone. This hopefully will do the trick even though their is ZERO EVIDENCE that the tribes broke the treaty based on Muhammad’s saying “kill any Jew that falls in to your power”. But whatever I’ll just go for it.’
Now allow me to show you how twisted your mind is!
1) ZERO evidence linking the saying “kill any Jew that falls in to your power” with the tribes breaking the treaty. No where is it mentioned that their intentions were based on that saying (because the prophet never said).
2) (because)This hadith is completely unreliable and rejected by Muslim scholars. The isnad is really weak. It contains a narrator which is unreliable (Muhammad Ibn Ibi Muhammad) and an unknown narrator (daughter of Muhayyisah). This kinda thing is not problematic for Christians as the accept every single word in the gospels without a single reliable source (of narrators, even the authors are unknown!). This is not how Muslims do history. We clearly see the hadith is Da’if (weak!) and reject it. And this is how we do it for all hadith whether they contain the most beautiful sayings. So the saying “kill any Jew that falls in to your power” has zero authenticity.
Did you care to check? Of course not. You wanted to save face and you just googled something really quickly and posted it here without actually checking it.
3) Your own argument refutes itself.
If the jews were to be all killed then why not kill of all of Bani Nadir? Why expel them? Why expel the first tribe as well? Why leave Banu Quraiza alone after they betrayed the treaty the first time:
“Narrated Ibn `Umar:
Bani An-Nadir and Bani Quraiza fought (against the Prophet (ﷺ) violating their peace treaty), so the Prophet exiled Bani An-Nadir and allowed Bani Quraiza to remain at their places (in Medina) TAKING NOTHING FROM THEM till they fought against the Prophet (ﷺ) AGAIN. Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith 4028”
This btw is one of the most important arguments that scholars use to disprove that the prophet actually said this. And you just took what obviously goes against your argument and tried to make it work in your favor without even realizing it refutes you. Wow! Just wow!
Is this what worshiping three gods does to a mind?
Lord have mercy!
4) Aren’t Christians always complaining about Q 9:29. Jews are people of the Book so if they are to be all killed then why is Jiziya applied to them under Islamic rule (when they are ‘fallen in to the power of the Muslims’)?
5) Muslims are allowed to marry Jewish women. Kind of hard to do if their all to be killed.
Etc etc etc.
Read this again and stop lying! Have at least an ounce of decency.
“The chief criminal of BANI NADIR, Huyai, headed for the habitations of Banu Quraiza to incite their chief Ka’b bin Asad Al-Qurazi, who had drawn a PACT with the Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] to run to his aid in times of war. Ka’b, in the beginning resisted all Huyai’s temptation, but Huyai was clever enough to manipulate him, speaking of Quraish and their notables in Al-Asyal, as well as Ghatfan and their chieftains entrenched in Uhud, all in one mind, determined to exterminate Muhammad [pbuh] and his followers. He, moreover, promised to stay in Ka’b’s fort exposing himself to any potential danger in case Quraish and Ghatfan recanted. The wicked man went on in this manner until he later managed to win Ka’b to his side and persuade him to BREAK his COVENANT with the Muslims. [Ibn Hisham 3/337] Banu Quraiza then started to launch WAR operations against the Muslims especially the secluded garrisons that housed the women and children of the Muslims. On the authority of Ibn Ishaq, Safiyah [R], daughter of ‘Abdul Muttalib happened to be in a garrison with Hassan bin Thabit as well as some women and children. Safiyah said: “A Jew was spotted lurking around our site, which was vulnerable to any enemy attacks because there were no men to defend it. I informed Hassan that I was suspicious of that man’s presence near us. He might take us by surprise now that the Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] and the Muslims are too busy to come to our aid, why don’t you get down and kill him? Hassan answered that he would not do it, so I took a bar of wood, went down and struck the Jew to death. I returned and asked Hassan to loot him but again Hassan refused to do that.[ibid 2/228] This event had a far reaching effect and discouraged the Jews from conducting further attacks thinking that those sites were fortified and protected by Muslim fighters. They, however, went on PROVIDING THE IDOLATERS WITH SUPPLIES in token of their support against the Muslims.
On hearing this bad news, the Messenger [pbuh] despatched four Muslim prominent leaders Sa’d bin Mu’adh, Sa’d bin ‘Ubada, ‘Abdullah bin Rawaha and Khawat bin Jubair for investigation but warning against any sort of spreading panic amongst the Muslims and advising that they should declare in public that the rumors are groundless if they happen to be so. Unfortunately the four men discovered that the news was true and that the Jews announced openly that NO PACT OF ALLIANCE EXISTED ANY LONGER with Muhammad [pbuh]. (Saifur Rahman al-Mubarakpuri, Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum (THE SEALED NECTAR), Chapter: Al-Ahzab (the Confederates) Invasion, Source)”
“Now I’ll give you a piece of the same text that I gave you earlier and let’s see how you’ll tap dance around it and come up with other nonsense.
“… launch WAR operations against the Muslims especially the secluded garrisons that housed the WOMEN AND CHILDREN of the Muslims.” Is that EXAMPLE enough for you?
You see the jews knew to attack women and children cus their/your god ordered them to do it against the Amelakites.”
No details of the alleged war operations. What a joke to cite this as evidence. Just evidence of a dubious non-historical source. Just a frame-up of the Jews. What else do we expect from islamic sources?
“Yes for breaking the treaty! The Bani Nadir are also mentioned in the hadith! Just read it. How can they be deported if BANI NADIR incited Banu Quraiza to break the pact with the Messenger???
Why lie through your teeth? Dear Lord. How can deceptive can you be?”
How did they break the treaty? They never attacked Mohammed but Mohammed attacked them, robbed them and sent them in to the desert defenceless, including their women and children, with nothing but what they could carry.
““A Jew was spotted lurking around our site, which was vulnerable to any enemy attacks because there were no men to defend it. I informed Hassan that I was suspicious of that man’s presence near us. He might take us by surprise now that the Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] and the Muslims are too busy to come to our aid, why don’t you get down and kill him?”
The whole thing is nonsense. “He might take US by surprise”. He has already been spotted by at least two men.
Apparently the sources show that the Muslims projected an extermination conspiracy theory on to the Jews to cover up for their own dubious motives.
“This event had a far reaching effect and discouraged the Jews from conducting further attacks thinking that those sites were fortified and protected by Muslim fighters. They, however, went on PROVIDING THE IDOLATERS WITH SUPPLIES in token of their support against the Muslims.”
“Unfortunately the four men discovered that the news was true and that the Jews announced openly that NO PACT OF ALLIANCE EXISTED ANY LONGER with Muhammad [pbuh].”
Of course the Jews had a right to defend themselves and declare the pact invalid, given Mohammed’s track record of proven aggression and unjustified attacks against them.
“2) (because)This hadith is completely unreliable and rejected by Muslim scholars. The isnad is really weak. It contains a narrator which is unreliable (Muhammad Ibn Ibi Muhammad) and an unknown narrator (daughter of Muhayyisah).”
Or more likely it wasn’t politically incorrect at the time of it’s writing but now it is.
Blogging Theology 
Also add to that what ‘Umar said: “Fear God concerning farmers so long as they don’t wage war on you” (authentic, al-Bayhaqi, Sunan, 9/155) This refutes the nonsense that Sam Shannon, Richard Spencer, Sam Harris and other Islamophobes portray that “yes, children and women aren’t to be killed in war but there’s nothing about non-combating males!”.
I also think many people are forgetting this VERY IMPORTANT principle that absolutely refutes the idea that terrorism is somewhat justifiable by “extremists” within Islam:
Ibn Qudamah wrote about Muslims entering dar al-harb with a pledge of security, saying: ‘As for behaving treacherously towards them, this is expressly forbidden. For they only granted him security on condition that he not betray them and that they be safe from his harm: if this is not stipulated explicitly, it is implicitly set forth … This being so, it is unlawful for us to be treacherous to them: for this is betrayal and our religion has no place for betrayal. The Prophet ﷺ said: “Muslims fulfil their contracts (al-muslimun ‘inda shrutihim).”‘ (from https://thehumblei.com/2013/05/23/terrorism-is-to-jihad-as-adultery-is-to-marriage/ ) And he’s talking about dar al-harb, i.e. a land with which there’s no treaty and a state of war (harb) is assumed, then what about a land in which Muslims have a treaty with?????? (all those ‘?’ are for you Richard Spencer) If this is the case for those entering the country, it’s even more so the case for those who are born or reside here!!
LikeLiked by 2 people
All good points that bear constant repeating!!
LikeLike
It is amazing that these Islamic laws of warfare were laid out approx. 1370 years before the Geneva Convention was held in the west.
LikeLiked by 3 people
“Only in 1938 did French women attain full capacity before the law, managing to acquire rights that the architects of the Shariah had granted women as early as the seventh century.” from Misquoting Muhammad, p.11
LikeLike
1. Don’t cut down trees..
Sahih Muslim Book 19 Verse 4324
2. Don’t kill a child
Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 256
Also..
Sahih Muslim 19 verse 4457
3. Don’t kill old people..
Tabari Vol.8: Page.96
Corroborated here..
Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 980
Also …
Bukhari Volume 2, Book 19, Number 173
4. Don’t destroy a temple or church…
5. Don’t destroy a building….whoopee doo!
6. Don’t kill those who surrendered..
Dawud Book 14, Hadith 2680 Chapter: To Kill A Captive While Imprisioned
7. Don’t kill who runs away….from your attempts to kill them? LOL!!
8. Don’t kill a woman..LOL!!
Dawud 14 Verse 2678
9. Don’t kill a sick person…anyone who accepts the true lord does not need to be told this.
10. Don’t kill a monk or priest….why kill people at all?
11. Don’t disfigure the dead…why kill people at all?
12. Don’t kill an animal except for eating…
Bukhari : Vol. 4, Book 54, Hadith 540
Sahih mUslim : Book 10, Hadith 3810
Joel
Said;
9. Don’t kill a sick person…anyone who accepts the true lord does not need to be told this.
10. Don’t kill a monk or priest….why kill people at all?
11. Don’t disfigure the dead…why kill people at all?
12. Don’t kill an animal except for eating…
I say;
Joel asked, why kill people at all?
Ask Jesus Christ who says kill people.
Proof:
Luke 19:27
New International Version
But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them–bring them here and kill them in front of me.'”
And Christians claim they accept the true lord but they kill. Crusaders, kkk, Christians killing Jews and Catholics, Mormons and black slaves in the USA.
-Christians killing everyone in Europe until war that kill almost have the population of Germany to stop the Christian killings.
-John Calvin, Martin Luther, Thomas Aquinas etc. kill and/or inspire killings, hatred and anti semetism. These are Holy Christian figures. According to you they do not accept true lord.
You are so stupid not to know some of the killings is in war for self defense and also for criminals so that there will be peace, equal rights and justice.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Your dishonesty is beyond imagination, just take the “2. Don’t kill a child” example, do you realize that Muslim – the guy who put that hadith in there – put it under the chapter of “Chapter: Permissibility of killing women and children in night battles, so long as it is not done deliberately”, i.e. this is only permissible when it’s impossible to distinguish between combatants and civilians with them? Moreover night battles were later on prohibited: as Anas b. Malik relates: “the Messenger of God went out to Khaybar, he arrived there at night, and when he came upon a people by night, he did not attack until morning.”
“12. Don’t kill an animal except for eating…” The other exception being animals from which some harm is feared such as the very hadith you mentioned that enumarates “the snake, the scorpion, the rat”;
“13. Be good to prisoners and feed them” The example you give doesn’t contradict that, all combatants from Banu Qurayza agreed to accept Sa’d verdict.
“14. Don’t enforce islam..” This only shows your petty or non-existent knowledge of Arabic, the verb used in the hadith is uqātil and not aqtul and there’s a big distinction between them as al-Buti explains on an occasion after citing Ibn Hajar exegesis of that hadith,
“The verse commands qitāl (قتال) and not qatl (قتل), and it is known that there is a big distinction between these two words … For you say ‘qataltu (قتلت) so-and-so’ if you initiated the fighting, while you say ‘qātaltu (قاتلت) him’ if you resisted his effort to fight you by a reciprocal fight, or if you forestalled him in that so that he would not get at you unawares.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Intellect
Jesus does not command us to kill. I think you know this.
You are being dishonest.
Why don’t you address my points?
Clearly, the example of your prophet refutes the taquiya lies of the article – if you do not view these actions of mohammed as great examples, then you are an apostate and blasphemer.
LikeLike
Joel
Do you know how to read at all?
Proof:
Luke 19:27
New International Version
But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them–bring them here and kill them in front of me.’”
Jesus as God also command the killings of babies and livestock. Jesus became angry(sinfulness in Jesus) because according to Ken Temple anger is sinfulness. then Jesus destroyed tables. Just imagine if he was a ruler but not under the Romans what he would have done to the Pharisees. He would have killed them as he said above.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Brother Intellect,
That verse from the “Gospel” of “Luke” you quoted is a bit out of context. What’s being said there is by a character in a narrative allegedly being told by Jesus `alayhi salām.
Just so we’re all on the same page. Okay, maybe not all… Joel always seems to be on his own page 😂
LikeLike
Intellect
I read quite well – you don’t though. Go back and read the passage again – don’t lie, either to yourself or everyone else.
If you were honest and decent, you would acknowledge your misrepresentation.
Now address the points I raised – why doesn’t the article agree that mohammed’s examples were good for all time?
LikeLike
Joel wrote: ‘Jesus does not command us to kill.’
True. He was a pacifist in the gospels. Are you a pacifist? Very, very few Christians follow Jesus at this point. Most probably find it unrealistic.
But in your theology Jesus commanded the Jews to kill women, children, babies and animals in the Jewish Bible: see 1 Samuel 15.
Furthermore, according to the last book in the NT he will no longer be the pacifist of the gospels but will be back to the wholesale slaughtering of his enemies again. See Revelation 19:11-21.
So my question to you: do you support & follow the pacifist Jesus or the genocidal Jesus?
Islam chooses the middle path between unworldly pacifism (Christianity) and genocidal violence (Jewish Bible).
LikeLiked by 2 people
Joel, i would love to address your points but i’m in class right now😅… I will respond to them just in case no one does….
LikeLike
Paul
Why have you changed the subject? Your post has been refuted.
As for jesus commanding divine punishment – it is his prerogative, he is god, god issues divine punishment.
Still, what do you think about most of those points in your post being refuted by your own scriptures? Mohammed killed women, kids, old people, dogs, animals, captives, and destroyed churches and temples by converting them to mosques.
“Islam chooses the middle path between unworldly pacifism (Christianity) and genocidal violence (Jewish Bible).”
We are on earth for a fleeting moment – jesus prepares you for eternal bliss, mohammed teaches management of people’s actions for what they already are by nature: greedy, vicious, violent, covetous, xenophobic, intolerant and aggressive.
Christ is about transcending human failures, mohammed is about nursing human bestiality.
LikeLike
Shaad
Thanks! I look forward to your reply.
LikeLike
Joel, yeah…👍
LikeLike
Joel, i’m gonna put my response tomorrow bro, i’m literally too exhausted to type it right now…wait for me and good night…if God wills of course…
LikeLike
LOL, yet another cut and paste job by a moronic Google scholar!
There were general rules of war. It doesn’t mean they were non-negotiable. For example, cutting down the palm trees was meant as a way to punish those waging war against Muslims.
The other ahadith you mentioned are either quoted out of context or are not authentic. What a shock, given that we are dealing with Coco the dancing monkey!
Hey Coco, what did you find out about menstruation? 😉
LikeLike
qb
LOL!! Poor tampax boy can’t follow a simple line of reasoning. You just can’t get any more dumb, you imbecile.
Paul’s article claims that mohammed did not cut nor permit the cutting of trees – yet your own scriptures show that this is not the case. That’s why you have to move the goalposts, you moron.
“The other ahadith you mentioned are either quoted out of context or are not authentic.”
You lying imbecile.
“Hey Coco, what did you find out about menstruation?”
I found out that mohammed permitted oral sex on women when they are menstruating, and that he disrespected the word of your goat so much that he recited it inches away from menstrual blood.
LOL!! Poor qb is about to get butt-hurt and angry from getting owned so many times.
Imbecile.
LikeLike
Joel, sorry fo the late reply brother, i was tired yesterday, exams are near on top of that lecturers are being hard nowadays….i’ll be putting the hadith number and book instead of quoting them…
Bukhari volume 4, Book 52 number 256:
Imam Ibn Hajar Al Asaqalani says in Fath Al- Baari that the point is not to target the women and children intentionally but if there is absolutely no other way to kill the enemy than by injuring the women and children because they are mixed with the men then there is no other choice.
Imam Nawawi says in his tafseer of Saheeh Muslim that women and children are only killed only if they cannot be distinguished. But because it was so dark and they could not be distinguished, the Muslims had not choice.
As far as i know, even Israel use this kind of explanation everytime…
Sahih Muslim 19 verse 4457:
It is talking about the knowledge Khadir possessed, no human can have this knowledge…it is said that khadir was an angel according to commentaries…
Tabari vol 8: page 96
This is talking about Umm Qirfa, she was the Queen of Xenomorphs in simple words the leader of the tribe of Fazara, she did some pretty nasty things if you’d ask me…here’s a summary i found on a website…
1- Zaid bin Harith (RA) went on a trading journey to Syria and with him was the merchandise for Companions of the Prophet (PBUH). While he was near Wadi’l Qura’ he encountered people from the Tribe of Badr of Fazara, whose leader was Umm Qirfa. They attacked him and his companions and snatched all they had of merchandise.
2- Some of his fellows were killed and he himself was carried wounded from the field. Zaid vowed that he would not wash his head for ritual purity (i.e. he vowed to abstain from sexual intercourse) until he fought the people of Fazara.
3- When he recovered from his wounds the Holy Prophet (PBUH) sent him to punish the treacherous people and ordered them to move by the night and rest by the day as a stratagem.
4)Zaid went and fought the Fazara in Wadi’l Qura, killed some of them. Qais bin Musahhar killed Mas’ada bin Hakama. Umm Qirfa, her daughter and Abdullah bin Mas’ada were taken as prisoners. Zaid ordered Qais bin Musahhar to kill Umm Qirfa and Qais killed her by putting a rope in her two legs, tying it to two camels and driving them in opposite directions until she was killed, ripped apart.
(Tabaqaat Ibn Sa’d 2/90 & Sirat Ibn Hisham 2/617)
5- Further we learn that Umm Qirfa in her capacity of being the tribal leader plotted to harm the Holy Prophet (PBUH) in person (Ar-Raheeq al-Makhtum p.457). In Sirat Halabiyya it is stated that;
“Zaid bin Harith ordered the killing of Umm Qirfa for she used to revile the Prophet, on whom be peace and blessings of Allah, and because she had prepared thirty riders from amongst he children and grand children and had asked them to attack Medina and kill Muhammad (PBUH).” (Sirat Halabaiyya 3/251)
Bukhari volume 2 Book 19 number 173:
This man was killed in the battle of Badr, he was among those who engaged the Muslims, his name is Umaia bin Khalaf…
Abu Dawud book 14, hadith 2680 chapter: ( ͡° ◡ ͡°) who wrote that bro?
Anyway this one is talking about Uqba, a Quraysh leader he was a nasty douchebag if you’d ask me….he threw really dirty wastes on the Prophet when he was praying(i really mean dirty), he also spat on his face, he tried to kill the Prophet by squeezing his neck….according to Safi-Ur-Rahman al-Mubarakpuri, Uqba used to persecute muslims….i mean muslims were in trouble against the Quraysh during those days…
Abu Dawud book 14 number 2678:
I guess it’s talking about Fartana and her friend. They used to mock the prophet in their songs and trigger revolts against muslims…anyway this hadith is weak…visit this link…
https://discover-the-truth.com/2015/03/24/story-of-fartana-the-poet/
Bukhari vol 4 book 54 number 540
Those dogs had disease…
https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/12/06/muhammed-a-mercy-analysing-dogs-killed-in-madinah/amp/
Dawud book 10 , hadith 1844
They were harmful to pilgrims…
Dawud book 39 hadith 4390
They broke the pact and they were judged according to their own holy book…
Muslim book 19 number 4294
The website does not quote the full hadith, the missing text clearly says not to kill any kid and stuff….most websites have already explained it anyway…
Muslim book 1 number 33
https://www.google.com/amp/s/discover-the-truth.com/2017/01/09/revisiting-i-have-been-commanded-to-fight-hadith/amp/
LikeLiked by 2 people
Joel I am still waiting for any answer to my question to you:
do you support & follow the pacifist Jesus or the genocidal Jesus?
LikeLike
Great response Joel.
I’d love to see a psychological analysis from an expert after examining why Muslims like Paul have to create an entirely fabricated version of Islam.
Most Muslims simply don’t have a clue what is in the Hadith. Fair enough too- it’s a huge corpus to try and base a religion on. The result is that people like Paul become pawns of his ulemas. They have no option but to believe what their leaders tell them.
Hopefully one day their indignant rejection of their own sources will click and they will adandon the sinking ship
LikeLike
??? I case if anyone didn’t notice i already put my response to it…
LikeLike
*in
LikeLike
Shaad, your response still contradicts the OP. Im not sure what you acheived
LikeLike
Paulus, how exactly? you guys are judging a simple illustration which contains no details about context…if you have any disagreements about my points then you can simply put it here so we can discuss about it….
one question for you, if i tell you that the U.S Army killed Bin Laden, so the U.S army is Bad…would you agree with me? of course not, because we have to look at the background right?
LikeLike
Paulus, “Im not sure what you achieved”
The websites that brother Joel used didn’t take context into consideration at all, they just wanted to Portray the Prophet in a negative way, so i just explained the context one by one to fix the situation…Joel is not to be blamed for that, the websites are…
LikeLike
Muslims can’t go around talking about how great Muhammad’s war strategy was like in the OP if it clearly contradicts Islamic sources.
I have no problem with you giving context to why muhammad cut down trees or on occasion killed elderly people, but since you admit these things happened, how can you justify your fellow
Muslim posting the meme? It’s completey false and deliberately meant to mislead non Muslims. Your admittance of these events falsifies the claim that muhammad never did them.
LikeLike
Paulus, if you’ve properly read my response you would have understood that there are exceptions that are made for examples Umm Qirfa and Uqba who both did some pretty nasty stuff…the illustration is simply pointing out the general rules…i thought it was not hard for you to understand Paulus….
LikeLike
Paulus, it doesn’t contradict the Islamic sources, those who seriously deserve punishment such as Uqba they will will get it otherwise muslims will have to follow the general rules instead of going out on the street and shooting like hell…”completely false” & “mislead” are not the proper words i guess…
LikeLike
Shaad,
Who determines what is and what isn’t a “general” rule?
The meme didn’t attempt to make a distinction. It’s typical of western Muslims to favour those that suit there already western moralism. Then to publicise only half the data is indeed deceptive.
LikeLike
Paulus, “who determines what is and what isn’t a “general rule?”
The real question should be “how it is determined?” it’s done by studying the the Quran and the Hadith…
“The data is indeed deceptive”
Nope, it’s showing the general rules we have to follow…
LikeLike
Paulus, if it was an article i would have completely agreed with you and i would have been on your side but it is just a simple illustration…
LikeLike
“Just imagine if he was a ruler but not under the Romans what he would have done to the Pharisees. He would have killed them as he said above.”
He was under the law of Moses which said “thou shalt not kill”.
He had to keep it to be our mediator.
LikeLike
In contrast to Islam there is only one rule of war in the OT: Thou shalt not kill
i.e do not start a war or use violence in any conflict.
LikeLike
“In contrast to Islam” wrong,
وَالَّذِينَ لَا يَدْعُونَ مَعَ اللَّهِ إِلَٰهًا آخَرَ وَلَا يَقْتُلُونَ النَّفْسَ الَّتِي حَرَّمَ اللَّهُ إِلَّا بِالْحَقِّ
The believers are those who do not call upon another god alongside Allah or kill the soul which Allah has made sacred except by right of justice.
Surat al-Furqan 25:68
see https://abuaminaelias.com/the-ten-commandments-in-islam/
LikeLike
Erasmus have you even read the OT? God commands Israel to use the most brutal violence imaginable. God even commands the killing of women, children, babies and animals for crimes they didn’t commit.
1 Samuel 15
Saul Defeats the Amalekites but Spares Their King
15 Samuel said to Saul, ‘The Lord sent me to anoint you king over his people Israel; now therefore listen to the words of the Lord. 2 Thus says the Lord of hosts, “I will punish the Amalekites for what they did in opposing the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt. 3 Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.”’
LikeLiked by 2 people
“In contrast to Islam there is only one rule of war in the OT: Thou shalt not kill”
LOL, except when you are told to actually kill (e.g. kill the Amalekites and their babies). The lies of Christianity…(smacks forehead)
LikeLike
QB,
Let me see if I can nip this Amalikite(Also Noah’s flood, Sodom & Gomorrah, etc) issue in the bud.
Have a butchers at this short video which sheds light on the background of the story, the context, and God’s justice. If you’re a sincere person looking for an explanation then hopefully this video can provide it and you come to a firmer understanding of the situation.
LikeLike
qb’
Where does the NT command christians to kill amalakites?
You are an imbecile. Don’t get mad, we can’t help it that your religion is so stupid that you embarrass yourself everytime you try to defend it.LOL!!
LikeLike
I love it when Christians try to justify genocide, but criticise Islam. Such inconsistent hypocrites.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Did you watch the video I cited, Paul?
You Muslims seem to have this preconceived notion that the Amalikites were these harmless sweet and innocent tribe of people who kept themselves to themselves and God unfairly picked on them and decided one day to wipe them out for his own self gratification.
These people were sacrificing their own children and terrorising the Israelites without provocation. God gave them 400 years to repent of their crimes. They didn’t repent and God dished out justice.
LikeLike
“Where does the NT command christians to kill amalakites?
You are an imbecile. Don’t get mad, we can’t help it that your religion is so stupid that you embarrass yourself everytime you try to defend it.LOL!!”
LOL!! Coco, you imbecile! I was referring to Erasmus’ idiotic comment that in the OT, the command was “thou shalt not kill”. I pointed out that this was not always upheld. Your god changed his mind on numerous occasions.
Don’t get mad Coco. I know you have been embarrassed too many times to count. But I can’t help it that your religion is so stupid that you embarrass yourself every time you try to defend it. LOL!!
So Coco, what about that menstruation thing? Your embarrassment never ends, it seems!
LikeLike
“Let me see if I can nip this Amalikite(Also Noah’s flood, Sodom & Gomorrah, etc) issue in the bud.
Have a butchers at this short video which sheds light on the background of the story, the context, and God’s justice. If you’re a sincere person looking for an explanation then hopefully this video can provide it and you come to a firmer understanding of the situation.”
LOL, bad samaritan thinks that he can “nip” the Amalekite issue, as if killing babies is something that can be excused! What is with you idiots and defending infanticide? You guys really need psychiatric help!
What is really hilarious is how this moron says “if you’re a sincere person…” ROTFL!! This is coming from a douche who excuses Biblical genocide but then complains about the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) killing his enemies! Oh yeah, you’re real sincere!
It seems Christianity is a religion for morons. No wonder millions leave it every year. They realize they are not morons, but will be if they remain Christians.
LikeLike
More Islamic facts
1) Muhammad did sanction the killing of the children of Banu Qurayza.
2) Muhammad had sex with a child.
3) Muhammad sanctioned the execution of old people.
4) Muhammad and his minions did convert the Ka’aba into a mosque.
5) Muhammad did kill those who surrendered. Notably the Banu Qurayza.
6) Muhammad didn’t kill women during war, he and his companions used them as spoils of war and sex slaves instead.
LikeLike
More proof that Bad Samaritan is a moron.
1. Only the combatants were killed, not children.
2. No one, including Christians, accused Muhammad of having sex with a child until the 20th century. And the mother of Ignoramus’ savior was probably in her early teens when she married Joseph.
3. Old people who fought with the enemy were killed. It’s not like they were decrepit. Otherwise, they would not be fighting in battle.
4. The Kaaba was a mosque. The pagans had converted it into a repository for their idols.
5. Bani Qurayza had already been given leniency before. They continued to break their obligations with Muhammad (pbuh).
6. LOL, just like the Israelites did with God’s approval in Deut. 21. In contrast, Muhammad (pbuh) urged the kind treatment of prisoners of war. Many were actually freed.
LikeLike
Samaritan, did Jesus teach you the lawfulness of lying? So why are you forging stuff here?
> Muhammad did sanction the killing of the children of Banu Qurayza.
Their childs weren’t killed.
_______________
> Muhammad had sex with a child.
Aisha reached puberty at age 9 as stated by al-Tabari. Jonathan A.C. Brown, Muhammad: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press. p. 78. Quote: “Muhammad’s decision to consummate his marriage to a ten-year-old would have been based on the same criteria as most pre-modern societies: Aisha’s sexual maturity and readiness to bear a child. Consummation of the marriage would have occured when she had menstruated and started puberty. As the great Muslim historial al-Tabari (d. 923) reported, ‘At the time of her marriage contract Aisha was young and not capable of intercourse.’ Three or four years later, however, she was able. Aisha herself would later remark that a girl can menstruate as young as nine and thus ‘become a woman’.”
_______________
> Muhammad sanctioned the execution of old people.
Wrong, Imam Abū Dāwūd narrates on the authority of Anas b. Mālik that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Do not kill any feeble old man, or any infant or young child or woman’.¹ Imam Ibn Abī Shayba narrates on the authority of al-Ḍaḥḥāk who said, ‘The Prophet ﷺ used to forbid the killing of women and feeble old men’.² Imam Ibn Abī Shayba also narrates on the authority of Rāshid b. Saʿd who said, ‘The Messenger of God ﷺ forbade the killing of women, children and the infirm’.³ Imam al-Bayhaqī narrated a hadith from ʿAlī , that when the Prophet ﷺ would dispatch an army, he would advise them, ‘Do not kill a young boy, a woman or an old man. Do not cause fountains to dry up and do not destroy any trees, except those which cause hindrance during war. Mutilate neither a human nor an animal, and do not break a promise or breach a trust’.⁴
¹ : Narrated by Abū Dāwūd in al-Sunan: Kitāb al-jihād [The Book of Martial Jihad], 3:37 §2614; Ibn Abī Shayba in al-Muṣannaf, 6:483 §33118; and al-Bayhaqī in al-Sunan al-kubrā, 9:90 §17932.
² : Narrated by Ibn Abī Shayba in al-Muṣannaf, 6:484 §33133.
³ : Narrated by Ibn Abī Shayba in al-Muṣannaf, 6:484 §33135.
⁴ : Narrated by al-Bayhaqī in al-Sunan al-Kubrā, 9:90 §17934.
____________
> Muhammad did kill those who surrendered. Notably the Banu Qurayza.
As Ibn Umar states: The Jews of Banu Nadeer and Banu Quraiza waged war against the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, so he expelled Banu Nadeer but he allowed Banu Quraiza to stay and he granted them favor until they also waged war after that. (Sahih Muslim, 1766)
All their combatants agreed to the verdict of Sa’d ibn Mu’adh, regardless of what it would be. In the end Sa’d made the judgement upon the fighting men according to the law of the Torah. More importantly, all those who didn’t commit treachery during the Battle of the Trench were left to leave during the entire period of the besiege.
Even the Western scholars of the Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān like Dr. Marco Schöller don’t dismiss that fact:
> The Muslim attack and siege of the Qurayẓa was a response to their open, probably active support of the Meccan pagans and their allies during the battle (of the trench).
Sa’d judged only that “their fighting men” (muqatilatahum) should be executed as an act of self-defense for the Muslim community. The women and children were taken into custody due to the fact that they would have no one to care for them; to abandon them would have itself been a death sentence.
LikeLike
Good refutation there Joel.
Sometimes I think Paul Williams is just trolling with some of these ridiculous memes he posts. He clearly doesn’t seem to put much thought into it beforehand.
LikeLiked by 1 person
LOL, brainwashed Christian zombies copy and paste from Google and then pat each other on the back , only to get refuted and then run away with their tails between their legs.
Sammy, why do you worship an old man from Canaan?
LikeLike
Seems Mo was of the ‘do as I say, not as I do’ school of preaching.
LikeLike
QB,
“1. Only the combatants were killed, not children.”
Show me where it says the pubescent boys killed were combatants.
“2. No one, including Christians, accused Muhammad of having sex with a child until the 20th century”
There was a lot of shit done in the past which was considered acceptable. But that does not make them any more moral or right. Besides your prophet is supposed to be a perfect example for all times.
Aisha was a 9 year old child who was still playing with dolls, QB. Stop defending blatant child molestation you degenerate.
“3. Old people who fought with the enemy were killed. It’s not like they were decrepit. Otherwise, they would not be fighting in battle.”
I was referring to Mo’s orders of the murdering of Abu Afak who was an elderly poet.
“4. The Kaaba was a mosque. The pagans had converted it into a repository for their idols.”
LOL! Taqiyya…
“5. Bani Qurayza had already been given leniency before. They continued to break their obligations with Muhammad ”
Beside the point. Muhammad contradicted his own commands. One minute he’s outlawing the killing of those who surrender. The next he’s genociding the Banu Quaryza after their surrender.
LikeLike
Muhammad did not order the killing of the men of the Banu Quaryza. You are quite mistaken.
Here is a good account of the circumstances that lead up to their execution:
The circumstances of the Qurayza’s demise have been related by Ibn Ishaq and other Muslim historians who relied upon his account. According to Watt, Peters and Stillman, the Qurayza surrendered to Muhammad’s judgement[40][48][49][50] – a move Watt classifies as unconditional.[40] The Aws, who wanted to honor their old alliance with the Qurayza, asked Muhammad to treat the Qurayza leniently as he had previously treated the Qaynuqa for the sake of Ibn Ubayy. (Arab custom required support of an ally, independent of the ally’s conduct to a third party.) Muhammad then suggested to bring the case before an arbitrator chosen from the Aws, to which both the Aws and the Qurayza agreed to. Muhammad then appointed Sa’d ibn Mua’dh to decide the fate of the Jewish tribe.
According to Hashmi, Buchanan and Moore, the tribe agreed to surrender on the condition of a Muslim arbitrator of their choosing.[56] According to Khadduri (also cited by Abu-Nimer), “both parties agreed to submit their dispute to a person chosen by them”[57][58] in accordance with the Arabian tradition of arbitration.[58] Muir holds that the Qurayza surrendered on the condition that “their fate was decided by their allies, the Bani Aws”.[53][59]
In all accounts, the appointed arbitrator was Sa’d ibn Mua’dh, a leading man among the Aws. During the Battle of the Trench, he had been one of Muhammad’s emissaries to the Qurayza (see above)[53] and now was dying from a wound he had received later in the battle.[48][49][50][55] When Sa’d arrived, his fellow Aws pleaded for leniency towards the Qurayza and on his request pledged that they would abide by his decision.[9] He then decreed that “the men should be killed, the property divided, and the women and children taken as captives”. Muhammad approved of the ruling, calling it similar to God’s judgment.[48][49][50][55] Chiragh Ali argued that this statement may have referred to “king” or “ruler” rather than God.[60]
Sa’d dismissed the pleas of the Aws, according to Watt because being close to death and concerned with his afterlife, he put what he considered “his duty to God and the Muslim community” before tribal allegiance.[40] Tariq Ramadan argues that Muhammad deviated from his earlier, more lenient treatment of prisoners as this was seen “as sign of weakness if not madness”,[54] Peterson concurs that the Muslims wanted to deter future treachery by setting an example with severe punishment.[9] Lings reports that Sa’ad feared that if expelled, the Qurayza would join the Nadir in the fight against the Muslims.[13]
According to Stillman, Muhammad chose Sa’d so as not to pronounce the judgment himself, after the precedents he had set with the Banu Qaynuqa and the Banu Nadir: “Sa`d took the hint and condemned the adult males to death and the hapless women and children to slavery.” Furthermore, Stillman infers from Abu Lubaba’s gesture that Muhammad had decided the fate of the Qurayza even before their surrender.
source
LikeLike
Paul;
“Muhammad did not order the killing of the men of the Banu Quaryza. You are quite mistaken.”
True, Sa’d ordered the killing, this was mohammed’s reaction….
ACCORDING TO MOHAMMED IT WAS ALLAH’S WILL THAT MUSLIMS COMMIT GENOCIDE ON THE JEWS AND TAKE WOMEN AND CHILDREN AS SLAVES. ARE YOU ARGUING THAT ALLAH DISOBEYED THE WILL ALLAH BY CONDEMNING THE DECISION TO MASSACRE THE JEWS?
LikeLike
Joel, when did the prophet condemn it? Infact the jews were judged according to their own book
LikeLike
More proof that bad samaritan is a moron…
“Show me where it says the pubescent boys killed were combatants.”
Brother Paul already refuted you on this point.
“There was a lot of shit done in the past which was considered acceptable. But that does not make them any more moral or right. Besides your prophet is supposed to be a perfect example for all times.
Aisha was a 9 year old child who was still playing with dolls, QB. Stop defending blatant child molestation you degenerate.”
LOL, so when your god chose a young Mary to be his mother and said nothing about her marriage to Joseph, it was not “moral or right”? Why did your god allow this “blatant child molestation” you moronic degenerate?
“I was referring to Mo’s orders of the murdering of Abu Afak who was an elderly poet.”
Oh yes, that story that has been shown to be based on spurious reports and which no scholar takes seriously. Thank you once again proving what an idiot you are!
“LOL! Taqiyya…”
LOL! No Response…
“Beside the point. Muhammad contradicted his own commands. One minute he’s outlawing the killing of those who surrender. The next he’s genociding the Banu Quaryza after their surrender.”
LOL, Muhammad (pbuh) had no reason to not allow exceptions to the rules. He was at war, fighting for the lives of his followers and himself. Sometimes, exceptions were needed especially when dealing with treacherous thugs like the Bani Qurayza.
LikeLike
QB,
“Brother Paul already refuted you on this point.”
He’s done nothing of the sort. But your shift in responsibility is telling. Evasion noted.
“LOL, so when your god chose a young Mary to be his mother and said nothing about her marriage to Joseph, it was not “moral or right”? Why did your god allow this “blatant child molestation” you moronic degenerate?”
There’s a reason false equivalence is considered a logical fallacy, dummy.
1) Mary was not a child
2) Mary gave her consent
3) There was no sexual intercouse invilved.
How desperate can you Muhammadans be to even attempt to compare the two to justify your dodgy prophet?
“Oh yes, that story that has been shown to be based on spurious reports and which no scholar takes seriously”
It’s recorded in your earliest sources and going by everything else we know about Mo, this incident seems very much in keeping with his character and what he was capable of. Just like the satanic verses it’s far more likely that this account was an accurate historical event.
“LOL! No Response…”
Sometimes no response is necessary. You’re statement was demonstrably false bs. You’re a true taqiyya artist, QB, Mo would be proud of you.
“LOL, Muhammad (pbuh) had no reason to not allow exceptions to the rules. He was at war, fighting for the lives of his followers and himself. Sometimes, exceptions were needed especially when dealing with treacherous thugs like the Bani Qurayza.”
Translation: Muslims are mindless morons who have to simply have to accept and not question Mohammad even when he’s blatantly making shit up as he goes along, contradicting himself and breaking his own rules and regulations. LOL
LikeLike
“1) Mary was not a child
2) Mary gave her consent
3) There was no sexual intercouse invilved.”
1) Yes she was. She was 12.
2) So are you implying that Aisha didn’t give her consent?
3) No but that’s not the point. If one is to young to have sex then that one is MOST DEFINITELY TOO YOUNG to have a child.
“How desperate can you Muhammadans be to even attempt to compare the two to justify your dodgy prophet?”
How desperate can you crosstians be to try and justify atrocious genocides of babies ffs ordered by your pagan god who came out of a vagina?
“It’s recorded in your earliest sources and going by everything else we know about Mo, this incident seems very much in keeping with his character and what he was capable of. Just like the satanic verses it’s far more likely that this account was an accurate historical event.”
Being early means in no way that a story is reliable. This is what you idiots don’ want to understand. I don’t care if that story was written 200 years later or 20 years later or even 20 minutes later neither do scholards. If you don’t have reliable testimony then that doesn’t mean anything. The same goes for the satanic verses bullshit. It doesn’t even have ONE reliable account. This is EXACTLY why your bible scholars are ripping apart the NT as we speak and it’s glorious to watch!!!
We try and figure out what happened instead of just taking everything as authentic like brainwashed fundamentalist crosstians do with the bible and who are having the hardest time putting two brain cells to use.
“Sometimes no response is necessary. You’re statement was demonstrably false bs. You’re a true taqiyya artist, QB, Mo would be proud of you.”
And of course the taqiyya card is being presented as if that refutes anything. When crossworshipers can’t refute something, just do what any 21st century politician does: abuse a hijacked word (which doesn’t even apply to sunnis).
I said it many times and I’ll say it again: if there is a religion that has taqiyya in it then it’s the pagan cult which we now as crosstianity.
1 Corinthians 9:20-22
“To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some.”
Nice chameleon!
“Translation: Muslims are mindless morons who have to simply have to accept and not question Mohammad even when he’s blatantly making shit up as he goes along, contradicting himself and breaking his own rules and regulations. LOL”
The idiot calls others ‘mindless morons’ while he can’t even put it in a proper sentence.
And your comment actually goes against the bible god more than anyone else. He says ‘thou shall not kill’ but then thinks ‘Nahhhhh screw it, hey Israelites wth are you standing there go kill some babies and animals’.
The idiot sama will start bitching in 3, 2, 1 …
LikeLike
AP,
“1) Yes she was. She was 12.”
As much as you’re desperate for that to be the case, but, NO, pedephile apologist, she wasn’t. Sorry to disappoint you.
“2) So are you implying that Aisha didn’t give her consent?”
I know you’re as daft as a brush, but I honestly gave you more credit than to be stupid enough to believe a 6-9 year old is mentally and physically mature enough to consent to something like that. What kind of vile piece of shit are you, Partridge?
“3) No but that’s not the point. If one is to young to have sex then that one is MOST DEFINITELY TOO YOUNG to have a child.”
Then you agree 9 year old Aisha was far too young for your despicable false prophet to be consummating a marriage with. You’re finally starting to see sense.
Now all you have to do is stop being a disingenuous little creep regarding Mary’s age.
“abuse a hijacked word (which doesn’t even apply to sunnis).”
Yeah you sunnis keep insisting this. No ones buying. We see through it for what it is, just more taqiyya!!!
From my experience of interracting with sunnis and Shias down the years. I found sunnis to be more dishonest people, especially in regards to their silly cult.
LikeLike
Even more proof that bad samaritan is a moron:
“He’s done nothing of the sort. But your shift in responsibility is telling. Evasion noted.”
LOL, sure if you say so, it must be true. Sigh…some people just love to be humiliated. Masochism seems to be a common theme in Christianity. I mean your god deliberately allowed himself to be beaten and humiliated! Here you moron:
” Narrated Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri:
The people of (Banu) Quraiza agreed to accept the verdict of Sa`d bin Mu`adh. So the Prophet (ﷺ) sent for Sa`d, and the latter came (riding) a donkey and when he approached the Mosque, the Prophet (ﷺ) said to the Ansar, “Get up for your chief or for the best among you.” Then the Prophet (ﷺ) said (to Sa`d).” These (i.e. Banu Quraiza) have agreed to accept your verdict.” Sa`d said, “Kill their (men) warriors and take their offspring as captives, “On that the Prophet (ﷺ) said, “You have judged according to Allah’s Judgment,” or said, “according to the King’s judgment.”” (Bukhari)
Face it sammy. You truly are a moron!
“There’s a reason false equivalence is considered a logical fallacy, dummy.
1) Mary was not a child
2) Mary gave her consent
3) There was no sexual intercouse invilved. ”
1. LOL!! Mary (as) was not a child? How so? In those times, girls were married shortly after puberty. By today’s standards, she WAS a child. Nice try, though.
2. So you’re suggesting that Aisha (ra) did not give her consent? LOL!!
And even if Mary gave her consent, it’s all irrelevant because by today’s standards, she would still be considered a minor and thus her “consent” is not valid.
3. ROTFL! Yet your god still impregnated her, right? Imagine a 12 year old getting pregnant in modern times! Oh the scandal that would start!
She also eventually had children with Joseph, didn’t she stupid? How much younger were they than your savior?
“It’s recorded in your earliest sources and going by everything else we know about Mo, this incident seems very much in keeping with his character and what he was capable of. Just like the satanic verses it’s far more likely that this account was an accurate historical event. ”
LOL, what a typical Google scholar type argument!
No sammy, there is no historical evidence that these incidents actually happened. Even western scholars reject the historicity of the so-called “Satanic verses”. Get your head out of your rear-end. You’re embarrassing yourself.
“Sometimes no response is necessary. You’re statement was demonstrably false bs. You’re a true taqiyya artist, QB, Mo would be proud of you. ”
Bwhahaha, you keep proving over and over again how much of an idiot you really are, and the type of “research” you do. It all proves that you are not a very sincere person who is genuinely interested in the truth. You just want to justify your own idiotic beliefs by demonizing islam.
When you use words like “taqiyya”, it just proves that you are a loser who is not interested in learning about Islam like a sincere person.
“Translation: Muslims are mindless morons who have to simply have to accept and not question Mohammad even when he’s blatantly making shit up as he goes along, contradicting himself and breaking his own rules and regulations. LOL”
Translation: I don’t have any response to this, so I’ll just just pretend that I know more than Muslims. LOL!!
Let’s go over this again slowly, moron. Rules are supposed to be of a general nature. It does not mean that they cannot be modified based on the situation. Thus, while cutting down trees is GENERALLY not allowed, it could be done when facing a powerful enemy as a stratagem of war. No military analyst would disagree with this.
Of course, some rules are more strict than others and cannot be easily broken. Thus, the rule prohibiting the killing of children is set in stone. It is not allowed to deliberately kill children or put them in harm’s way when it can be avoided.
In contrast, your old man from Canaan said “thou shalt not kill” but then changed his mind and said “kill all the Amalekites”. He even mercilessly commanded the killing of old people, men, women and children as a way to punish the Israelites for their sins (Ezekiel 9). So, who are you to complain, stupid? You do realize that you come off as a hypocrite, right? And it shows people that this is the fruit of Christianity? It’s no wonder your religion is dying a slow death.
LikeLike
“”Sa`d said, “Kill their (men) warriors and take their offspring as captives””
So young pubescent boys who had not even fought any Muslims least of all done any harm to them were warriors who deserved to be executed huh?! This is why your arguments are a joke and no one outside of your silly cult buys your bs.
LikeLike
LOL, what a pathetic response! Bad samaritan can hardly offer a whimper after his humiliation, when before he was barking like a mad dog!
Now that you have been refuted, in a fashion typical of moron Christian trolls, you change gears and harp about “young pubescent boys”!
The irony is that one of the source which you idiots use so often to malign Islam, Ibn Ishaq’s Sira (one of the “earliest sources”) says clearly that only those who participated in the treachery were killed. In other words, those who were adults and participated in the plot against Muhammad (pbuh) were killed:
“The Apostle had ordered that every adult (who participated in treachery) of theirs should be killed. Shu’ba b. al-Hajjaj told me from Abdu’l-Malik b. Umayr from Atiya al-Qurzai: The Apostle had ordered that every adult of B. Qurayza should be killed. I was a lad and they found that I was NOT AN ADULT and so they let me go.”
See more here: https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/01/01/re-examining-banu-qurayzah-incident/
LikeLike
The hypocrisy of Christianity knows no bounds. Look at how these imbeciles foam at the mouth about the Bani Qurayza incident, when their Bible has this brutality:
“As I listened, he said to the others, “Follow him through the city and kill, without showing pity or compassion. 6 Slaughter the old men, the young men and women, the mothers and children, but do not touch anyone who has the mark. Begin at my sanctuary.” So they began with the old men who were in front of the temple.”
You can’t make this stuff up. Christians have their heads so far up their rear-ends that they make excuses for Biblical barbarism but foam at the mouth like rabid dogs over far less in Islam.
LikeLiked by 3 people
So you believe the boys were ‘warriors’ even though the Banu Quaryza never actually even fought any battles against the Muslims? LOL
You are beyond dumb, QB.
Musrat, how exactly did the boys of the Banu Quaryza participate in the alleged treachery. Explain
LikeLike
“AP,
“1) Yes she was. She was 12.”
As much as you’re desperate for that to be the case, but, NO, pedephile apologist, she wasn’t. Sorry to disappoint you.
“2) So are you implying that Aisha didn’t give her consent?”
I know you’re as daft as a brush, but I honestly gave you more credit than to be stupid enough to believe a 6-9 year old is mentally and physically mature enough to consent to something like that. What kind of vile piece of shit are you, Partridge?
“3) No but that’s not the point. If one is to young to have sex then that one is MOST DEFINITELY TOO YOUNG to have a child.”
Then you agree 9 year old Aisha was far too young for your despicable false prophet to be consummating a marriage with. You’re finally starting to see sense.
Now all you have to do is stop being a disingenuous little creep regarding Mary’s age.
“abuse a hijacked word (which doesn’t even apply to sunnis).”
Yeah you sunnis keep insisting this. No ones buying. We see through it for what it is, just more taqiyya!!!
From my experience of interracting with sunnis and Shias down the years. I found sunnis to be more dishonest people, especially in regards to their silly cult.”
““1) Yes she was. She was 12.”
As much as you’re desperate for that to be the case, but, NO, pedephile apologist, she wasn’t. Sorry to disappoint you.”
Just denial. SO common among cross worshipers.
Give us a SINGLE quote from ANYONE before the 20th century that criticized the Prophet for marrying Aisha at a young age (**). You don’t have anything. So you use the current view to try and vilify the Prophet.
But sorry my dear piece of shit you fail one again. No one here cares for your emotional bullshit. Give us at least ONE quote of anyone criticizing the prophet before the 20th century regarding Aisha’s marriage, if you can’t do that then go read your porn book know as the bible.
“I know you’re as daft as a brush, but I honestly gave you more credit than to be stupid enough to believe a 6-9 year old is mentally and physically mature enough to consent to something like that. What kind of vile piece of shit are you, Partridge?”
Wahahahaha. O the emotional card is being played again. Just like with zero evidence for (**) here you have NO evidence at all. Give us evidence or just go masturbate reading porn verses from the bible. Here I’ll help you out:
“How beautiful your sandaled feet, O prince’s daughter! Your graceful legs are like jewels, the work of a craftsman’s hands. Your navel is a rounded goblet that never lacks blended wine. Your waist is a mound of wheat encircled by lilies. Your breasts are like two fawns, twins of a gazelle. Your neck is like an ivory tower. Your eyes are the pools of Heshbon by the gate of Bath Rabbi”
Ezekiel 23:20 “There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.”
Song of Songs 4:5 “Your two breasts are like two fawns, like twin fawns of a gazelle that browse among the lilies.”
Song of Songs 1:13 “My lover is to me a sachet of myrrh resting between my breasts.”
Now don’t these verses just make you feel horny? I want to throw up after reading this disgusting porn bullshit but you surely love reading these over and over again.
“Then you agree 9 year old Aisha was far too young for your despicable false prophet to be consummating a marriage with. You’re finally starting to see sense.”
Where did I say that? Nowhere. You see this is one of the major problems with crosstians: you are stupid.
You can’t read a sentence without even understanding basic logic used in it.
“If one is to young to have sex then that one is MOST DEFINITELY TOO YOUNG to have a child.”
A 12 year old is too young to have a child.
“Yeah you sunnis keep insisting this. No ones buying. We see through it for what it is, just more taqiyya!!!
”
Yea but we don’t care what ‘you’ see. You can’t even see that your pagan mangod being in a womb for 9 months and then in a vagina is filthy and sick. What kind of vile piece of shit are you, Samaritan?
Do you then really think we care about your worthless crosstian opinion? You’re even more moronic then I thought. And since you are a crosstian, that’s saying something.
“I found sunnis to be more dishonest people”
Coming from a loser who believes in the potato of tarsus who lied trough his teeth to convert people to his wicked filthy bullshit called xtianity. And missionaries copy his behavior.
LikeLike
“So you believe the boys were ‘warriors’ even though the Banu Quaryza never actually even fought any battles against the Muslims?”
“Narrated Ibn `Umar:
Bani An-Nadir and Bani Quraiza fought (against the Prophet (ﷺ) violating their peace treaty), so the Prophet exiled Bani An-Nadir and allowed Bani Quraiza to remain at their places (in Medina) taking nothing from them till they fought against the Prophet (ﷺ) AGAIN. Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith 4028”
The Banu Quraiza fought twice.
LikeLike
“LOL, except when you are told to actually kill (e.g. kill the Amalekites and their babies). The lies of Christianity…(smacks forehead)”
Yes, exactly. When God tells someone audibly to kill this overrides the law. I don’t think anyone has heard his voice since the time that Saul or Samuel killed the Amalekites.
” “both parties agreed to submit their dispute to a person chosen by them”[57][58] in accordance with the Arabian tradition of arbitration.[58] Muir holds that the Qurayza surrendered on the condition that “their fate was decided by their allies, the Bani Aws”.[53][59]”
As long as the Jews do not attack Mohammed, which they did not, no human being has the right to attack and kill them.
So in point of fact they kept their biblical obligation to Mohammed. In return Mohammed broke this obligation by attacking and killing them.
Genesis 9 v 5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man’s brother will I require the life of man.
6 Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.
LikeLike
“As long as the Jews do not attack Mohammed, which they did not, no human being has the right to attack and kill them.”
“The chief criminal of Bani Nadir, Huyai, headed for the habitations of Banu Quraiza to incite their chief Ka’b bin Asad Al-Qurazi, who had drawn a PACT with the Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] to run to his aid in times of war. Ka’b, in the beginning resisted all Huyai’s temptation, but Huyai was clever enough to manipulate him, speaking of Quraish and their notables in Al-Asyal, as well as Ghatfan and their chieftains entrenched in Uhud, all in one mind, determined to exterminate Muhammad [pbuh] and his followers. He, moreover, promised to stay in Ka’b’s fort exposing himself to any potential danger in case Quraish and Ghatfan recanted. The wicked man went on in this manner until he later managed to win Ka’b to his side and persuade him to BREAK his COVENANT with the Muslims. [Ibn Hisham 3/337] Banu Quraiza then started to launch WAR operations against the Muslims especially the secluded garrisons that housed the women and children of the Muslims. On the authority of Ibn Ishaq, Safiyah [R], daughter of ‘Abdul Muttalib happened to be in a garrison with Hassan bin Thabit as well as some women and children. Safiyah said: “A Jew was spotted lurking around our site, which was vulnerable to any enemy attacks because there were no men to defend it. I informed Hassan that I was suspicious of that man’s presence near us. He might take us by surprise now that the Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] and the Muslims are too busy to come to our aid, why don’t you get down and kill him? Hassan answered that he would not do it, so I took a bar of wood, went down and struck the Jew to death. I returned and asked Hassan to loot him but again Hassan refused to do that.[ibid 2/228] This event had a far reaching effect and discouraged the Jews from conducting further attacks thinking that those sites were fortified and protected by Muslim fighters. They, however, went on PROVIDING THE IDOLATERS WITH SUPPLIES in token of their support against the Muslims.
On hearing this bad news, the Messenger [pbuh] despatched four Muslim prominent leaders Sa’d bin Mu’adh, Sa’d bin ‘Ubada, ‘Abdullah bin Rawaha and Khawat bin Jubair for investigation but warning against any sort of spreading panic amongst the Muslims and advising that they should declare in public that the rumours are groundless if they happen to be so. Unfortunately the four men discovered that the news was true and that the Jews announced openly that NO PACT OF ALLIANCE EXISTED ANY LONGER with Muhammad [pbuh]. (Saifur Rahman al-Mubarakpuri, Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum (THE SEALED NECTAR), Chapter: Al-Ahzab (the Confederates) Invasion, Source)”
And you know what’s funny? The Quraiza tribe even after that were allowed to stay and were left alone and for that they even attacked a SECOND time. They were treacherous TWICE.
“Narrated Ibn `Umar:
Bani An-Nadir and Bani Quraiza fought (against the Prophet (ﷺ) violating their peace treaty), so the Prophet exiled Bani An-Nadir and allowed Bani Quraiza to remain at their places (in Medina) taking nothing from them till they fought against the Prophet (ﷺ) AGAIN. Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith 4028”
Where are you Christians getting the idea the jewish tribes didn’t attack the Muslims?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Yes, exactly. When God tells someone audibly to kill this overrides the law. I don’t think anyone has heard his voice since the time that Saul or Samuel killed the Amalekites.”
Ignoramus, you don’t know your Bible, or you are just lying. Read Ezekiel 9, idiot.
“Now the glory of the God of Israel went up from above the cherubim, where it had been, and moved to the threshold of the temple. Then the Lord called to the man clothed in linen who had the writing kit at his side 4 and said to him, “Go throughout the city of Jerusalem and put a mark on the foreheads of those who grieve and lament over all the detestable things that are done in it.”
5 As I listened, he said to the others, “Follow him through the city and kill, without showing pity or compassion. 6 Slaughter the old men, the young men and women, the mothers and children, but do not touch anyone who has the mark. Begin at my sanctuary.” So they began with the old men who were in front of the temple.”
Hmm, here is a clear-cut command from your god yet again to kill almost every living thing, whether the elderly, women and children!
LikeLike
Since there are clearly some uninformed people here–mainly Christians rehashing the same debunked nonsense–let me educate you a bit:
______________
## The Unlawfulness of Killing Non-Muslim Women
Many people are killed in non-Muslim countries, in addition to Muslim countries, in the unending wave of terrorism. The terrorists invoke the anti-Islamic actions of non-Muslim countries to justify their terrorism, and contend that since these governments play a role in either killing Muslims or getting them killed through different means, they are justified in killing their citizens in retaliation. This argument is contrary to the fundamental teachings of Islam and contravenes the character of Islam. Islam does not allow the killing of peaceful non-Muslims in times of war–much less in times of peace. Islam’s jurisprudential tradition has articulated what is called in the West, the Just War Theory, and has detailed regulations that guide the conduct of its soldiers during war. Thus, the killing of women during war is prohibited.
ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar said,
‘A woman was found slain in one of the expeditions. Upon this the Messenger of God ﷺ forbade the killing of women and children’.¹
Ibn Baṭṭāl and Imam al-Nawawī have both supported this standpoint in Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (5:186) and Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim (12:37), respectively, and declared that killing women is in direct contravention to Islamic teachings. There is also a hadith narrated by ʿAbd al-Razzāq in his Muṣannaf, al-Shāfiʿī in his al-Musnad, al-Ṭaḥāwī in Sharḥ maʿānī al-āthār and al-Bayhaqī in al-Sunan al-kubrā from the son of Kaʿb b. Mālik who mentioned that when the Prophet ﷺ dispatched an army to Ibn Abī Ḥaqīq, he forbade the killing of women and children.² Abū Thaʿlaba said,
‘The Messenger of God ﷺ prohibited the murder of women and children’.³
¹ : Narrated by al-Bukhārī in al-Ṣaḥīḥ: Kitāb al-jihād wa al-siyar [The Book of Martial Jihad and Battles], chapter: ‘Killing Women in War’, 3:1098 §2852; Muslim in al-Saḥīḥ: Kitāb al-jihād wa al-siyar [The Book of Martial Jihad and Battles], chapter: ‘The Unlawfulness of Killing Women and Children during War’, 3:1364 §1744; al-Tirmidhī in al-Sunan: Kitāb al-siyar [The Book of Military Expeditions], chapter: ‘What Has Come to Us About the Killing of Women and Children’, 4:136 §1569; Ibn Mājah in al-Sunan: Kitāb al-jihād [The Book of Martial Jihad], 2:947 §2841; and Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal in al-Musnad, 2:22 §4739.
² : Narrated by ʿAbd al-Razzāq in al-Muṣannaf, 5:202 §9385; al-Shāfiʿī in al-Musnad, p. 238; cited by al-Ṭaḥāwī in Sharḥ maʿānī al-āthār, 3:221; and by al-Bayhaqī in al-Sunan al-kubrā, 9:77 §17865.
³ : Narrated by al-Ṭabarānī in al-Muʿjam al-awsaṭ, 7:113 §7011.
______________
## The Unlawfulness of Killing the Children of Non-Muslims
The strict and total prohibition prescribed against killing peaceful non-Muslim children is another humane principle of Islam. Compare and contrast the actions of the self-proclaimed defenders of Islam with those of the Prophet ﷺ; the reality will be laid bare for everyone to see and the intentions of these terrorist elements will become clear. Would that they had held the prophetic traditions in due esteem and felt shame while shaping their destructive designs!
Quoting a letter of Ibn ʿAbbās , Imam Muslim wrote in his collection:
‘Indeed, the Messenger of God ﷺ did not kill children; so you must not kill them either’.¹
In another hadith, the Prophet ﷺ forbade the Companions– with very harsh words–from killing the children of non-Muslims, and repeated his prohibition for effect. Aswad b. Sarīʿ said,
‘We were once in a battle and gained the upper hand and killed many of the pagans, including some children. News of this reached the Messenger of God ﷺ and he said, “What is wrong with some people that they went so far as to kill children? Beware! Do not kill children at all! Beware! Do not kill children at all!” Someone asked, “Why, O Messenger of God? Are they not the children of the pagans?” He ﷺ replied, “Are the best amongst you not from the children of pagans?”’²
In another narration it reads: ‘A man said, “O Messenger of God! They are only the children of the pagans!” He ﷺ replied,
“The best of you are children of pagans. Beware! Children must not be killed”.’³
Regarding the prohibition of killing non-Muslim women, children and elderly folk during war, the respected Ḥanafī jurist, Imam al-Sarakhsī, wrote in his magnum opus, al-Mabsūṭ:
The Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Do not kill children [walīd]’. In the [Arabic] language, the word walīd means one who is born [mawlūd]; and every human being [ādamī] is born; however, customarily this word is only used for young children. Therefore, in it is proof that it is impermissible to kill the young children amongst them [the non-Muslims], as long as they are not fighting. It is mentioned in a hadith that the Prophet ﷺ forbade the killing of women and children, and said, ‘Kill the [warring] elders of the pagans [during the state of war] and keep alive their subordinates’. What is meant by ‘elders’ are the adults amongst them, and what is meant by ‘subordinates’ are their followers amongst the young and the womenfolk. To ‘keep alive’ here means to take them as captives. God says, ‘And they kept their women alive’.⁴ 1 And it is mentioned in Abū Bakr’s g dictated commands to Yazīd b. Abī Sufyān: ‘Kill neither a feeble old man nor a fragile young child’; in other words, an elderly man and young child do not fight.⁵
¹ : Narrated by Muslim in al-Ṣaḥīḥ: Kitāb al-jihād wa al-siyar [The Book of Martial Jihad and Battles], 3:1444 §1812.
² : Narrated by al-Nasāʾī in al-Sunan al-kubrā: Kitāb al-siyar [The Book of Military Expeditions], chapter: ‘The Prohibition of Killing the Children of the Pagans’, 5:184 §8616; al-Dārimī in al-Sunan, 2:294 §2463; al-Ḥākim in al-Mustadrak, 2:133–134 §§2566–2567; and al-Ṭabarānī in al-Muʿjam al-kabīr, 1:284.
³ : Narrated by Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal in al-Musnad, 3:435 §§1562615627; and al-Bayhaqī in al-Sunan al-kubrā, 9:77 §17868.
⁴ : Qurʾān 40:25.
⁵ : Al-Sarakhsī, al-Mabsūṭ, 10:5–6.
______________
## The Unlawfulness of Killing Elderly Non-Muslims
Islam has strictly and unequivocally forbidden the killing of the elderly during war. This principle is illustrated in many prophetic traditions.
Imam Abū Dāwūd narrates on the authority of Anas b. Mālik that the Prophet ﷺ said,
‘Do not kill any feeble old man, or any infant or young child or woman’.¹
Imam Ibn Abī Shayba narrates on the authority of al-Ḍaḥḥāk who said,
‘The Prophet ﷺ used to forbid the killing of women and feeble old men’.²
Imam Ibn Abī Shayba also narrates on the authority of Rāshid b. Saʿd who said,
‘The Messenger of God ﷺ forbade the killing of women, children and the infirm’.³
Imam al-Bayhaqī narrated a hadith from ʿAlī , that when the Prophet ﷺ would dispatch an army, he would advise them,
‘Do not kill a young boy, a woman or an old man. Do not cause fountains to dry up and do not destroy any trees, except those which cause hindrance during war. Mutilate neither a human nor an animal, and do not break a promise or breach a trust’.⁴
Jubayr b. Nufayl said,
‘A man passed by Thawbān , so he [Thawbān] asked him, “Where do you intend to go?” The man said, “I want to wage battle in the path of God”. Thawbān then said to him, “If war booty comes your way, do not steal from it, and do not kill an old man or a young boy”. Upon hearing this, the man asked him, “From whom did you hear this?” Thawbān replied, “From the Messenger of God ﷺ”.’⁴
¹ : Narrated by Abū Dāwūd in al-Sunan: Kitāb al-jihād [The Book of Martial Jihad], 3:37 §2614; Ibn Abī Shayba in al-Muṣannaf, 6:483 §33118; and al-Bayhaqī in al-Sunan al-kubrā, 9:90 §17932.
² : Narrated by Ibn Abī Shayba in al-Muṣannaf, 6:484 §33133.
³ : Narrated by Ibn Abī Shayba in al-Muṣannaf, 6:484 §33135.
⁴ : Narrated by al-Bayhaqī in al-Sunan al-Kubrā, 9:90 §17934.
⁵ : Narrated by Ibn ʿAsākir in Tārīkh Dimashq al-kabīr, 27:404.
______________
## The Unlawfulness of Killing the Religious Leaders of Non-Muslims
Islam has forbidden its adherents from killing the religious leaders of non-Muslims during the course of war and after the battles have ceased. There is no justification for fighting against non-Muslim religious leaders and children if they do not engage in war. The perpetrators are putting to shame the great values of Islam and its culture of toleration. Imam Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal quoted Ibn ʿAbbās who said that the Prophet ﷺ would issue clear instructions when dispatching an army to go into battle. He ﷺ would say,
‘Break no promise, steal not from the spoils of war and do not mutilate bodies or slay children or monks’.¹
Imam Ibn Abī Shayba mentions another hadith from Ibn ʿAbbās in which the Prophet ﷺ said as he dispatched an army,
‘Do not kill those who tend to the monasteries’.²
Imam Ibn Abī Shayba also quotes Thābit b. Ḥajjāj al-Kilābī, who reported that Abū Bakr stood up, praised God and said to people,
‘Beware, no [non-combatant] priest tending to his monastery should be killed’.³
Imam al-Bayhaqī narrates that Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab reported that Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq would always say to the Islamic army as he dispatched it for legitimate warfare,
‘Do not drown or burn date-palm trees. Do not kill any animal. Do not cut down a fruit-bearing tree. Do not demolish a church. And do not kill any children or old people or women. Soon you shall you come upon people who have secluded themselves in cloisters; you must leave them to engage in that for whose sake they have secluded themselves’.⁴
Likewise, another tradition reported by Ṣāliḥ b. Kaysān and narrated by Imam al-Bayhaqī mentions that Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq said as he was dispatching the Islamic army towards Syria,
‘You shall soon come upon people who have secluded themselves in monasteries; you must leave them to engage in that for whose sake they have secluded themselves. Do not kill an old, feeble man or a woman or a child. Do not damage any populated area. Do not cut down trees needlessly. Do not kill animals unless it is for a benefit [to feed others]. Do not burn down date-palm trees or drown them. Do not commit any treachery. Do not mutilate (anyone). Do not behave cowardly. And do not take anything without right when distributing the spoils of war’.⁵
In the light of these clear injunctions that prohibit killing the religious leaders of non-Muslims, what interpretation can one give to the self-styled and the misplaced religious concepts of those who murder Islamic religious scholars, destroy the mosques of those who adhere to other schools of thought and burn down the shrines of the Sufis? Not only do these people consider these actions justified, but they also invoke religion by claiming to take guidance from the Qurʾān and the Sunna!
¹ : Narrated by Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal in al-Musnad, 5:358 §2728.
² : Narrated by Ibn Abī Shayba in al-Muṣannaf, 6:484 §33132; Abū Yaʿlā in al-Musnad, 5:59 §2650; al-Ṭaḥāwī in Sharḥ maʿānī al-āthār, 3:225; and al-Daylamī in Musnad al-firdaws, 5:45 §7410.
³ : Narrated by Ibn Abī Shayba in al-Muṣannaf, 6:483 §33127.
⁴ : Narrated by al-Bayhaqī in al-Sunan al-kubrā, 9:85 §17904.
⁵ : Narrated by al-Bayhaqī in al-Sunan al-kubrā, 9:90 §17929.
______________
## The Unlawfulness of Killing Non-Muslim Traders and Farmers
Islam has given complete protection to farmers, traders and businessmen, and forbade killing them, because they are associated with the economy and financial survival of humanity. There are several prophetic narrations that speak of this. Imam Ibn Abī Shayba and Imam al-Bayhaqī narrated on the authority of Jābir b. ʿAbd Allāh who said,
‘They [the Muslim soldiers] did not kill the merchants amongst the pagans’.¹
Imam Ibn Abī Shayba also narrated on the authority of Zayd b. Wahb that ʿUmar sent him a letter in which he said,
‘Do not take anything without right when distributing the spoils of war, and do not commit any treachery or kill children. And fear God regarding farmers’.²
Imam al-Bayhaqī’s version of this report reads,
‘Fear God regarding the farmers and do not kill them’.³
Ibn al-Qayyim said,
‘Indeed, when the Companions of the Prophet ﷺ opened (fataḥū) the various lands, they did not kill them [farmers and merchants] because the latter did not fight [against them], and so in that sense they [the civilians] resembled the elderly and the religious leaders’.⁴
Imam al-Awzāʿī took a similar view and said,
‘Farmers are not to be killed [during war] if it is known that they are not from the combatants’.⁵
And Ibn Qudāma al-Maqdisī stated,
‘As for the farmer who is a non-combatant, he should not be killed, because it was narrated from ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb that he said, “Fear God regarding the farmers who do not wage war against you”.’⁶
¹ : Narrated by Ibn Abī Shayba in al-Muṣannaf, 6:484 §33129; al-Bayhaqī in al-Sunan al-kubrā, 9:91 §17939; and cited by Ibn Ādam al-Qurashī in al-Kharāj, 1:52 §133.
² : Narrated by Ibn Abī Shayba in al-Muṣannaf, 6:483 §33120; and cited by Ibn Ādam al-Qurashī in Kitāb al-Kharāj, 1:52 §132.
³ : Narrated by al-Bayhaqī in al-Sunan al-kubrā, 9:91 §17938.
⁴ : Ibn al-Qayyim, Aḥkām ahl al-dhimma, 1:165.
⁵ : Ibn al-Qayyim, Aḥkām ahl al-dhimma, 1:165.
⁶ : Ibn Qudāma al-Maqdisī, al-Mughnī, 9:251.
______________
## The Unlawfulness of Killing Non-Muslim Service Personnel
Islamic laws are to regulate the conduct of the Muslim soldiers during the course of war and restrain them from killing non-Muslim professionals and those tasked with the delivery of services. Rabāḥ b. Rabīḥ said,
‘We were with the Messenger of God ﷺ in one of the battle expeditions, when he saw some people gathered around something. He sent a man out, saying, “Go and see what they are gathering around”. The man returned and informed him, saying, “They are gathering around a slain woman”. The Prophet ﷺ said, “She was not amongst those who fight!” At the head of the group was Khālid b. Walīd, so the Prophet sent a man to go and inform Khālid: “Neither an [idolatrous] woman nor a hired servant should be killed”.’ [In one report:] ‘Do not kill children or hired servants’.¹
In fact, non-Muslim employees working in the households of non-Muslim employers in the conquered areas are not to be killed and no kind of tax can be imposed upon them. Ibn al-Qayyim stated the same thing, quoting ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar :
‘The blood of a servant is inviolable, and is thereby similar to that of women and children’.²
Likewise, Ibn al-Mundhir cited a consensus amongst the scholars that, like the unemployed, the old, the sick, the destitute and women and children of non-Muslims–no tax can be levelled on the servants under their responsibility and care.³
¹ : Narrated by Abū Dāwūd in al-Sunan: Kitāb al-jihād [The Book of Martial Jihad], chapter: ‘The Killing of Women’, 3:53 §2669; Ibn Mājah in al-Sunan: Kitāb al-jihād [The Book of Martial Jihad], 2:948 §2842; Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal in al-Musnad, 3:488 §16035; al-Nasāʾī in al-Sunan al-kubrā, 5:186–187 §§8625, 8627; and al-Ḥākim in al-Mustadrak, 2:133 §2565.
² : Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, Aḥkām ahl al-dhimma, 1:172.
³ : Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, Aḥkām ahl al-dhimma, 1:172.
______________
## The Unlawfulness of Killing Non-Muslims Who are Non-Combatants
Islam holds that the sanctity of life is superior to the sanctity of the Kaʿba. That is why shedding blood unjustly has been condemned in the harshest possible terms. The only enemies who are allowed to be killed are those who actively take part in combat. A large part of population, which is non-combatant, including children, women, the old, the sick and the disabled, have been excluded from this. On the day of the conquest of Mecca, the Prophet ﷺ ordered that those who were not fighting should run away to save their lives, and shut their doors, and he ordered that those who were injured should not be attacked.
Imam Muslim narrated on the authority of Abū Hurayra that the Messenger of God ﷺ said on the day of the conquest of Mecca,
‘Whoever enters Abū Sufyān’s house is safe, and whoever lays down his weapon is safe and whoever shuts his door is safe’.¹
All of these steps convey the message of peace and protection.
It is reported in ʿAbd al-Razzāq’s Muṣannaf that ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib said,
‘The injured person or prisoner should not be killed, and the one who flees should not be pursued’.²
According to another narration recorded by ʿAbd al-Razzāq, Juwaybir reported that a woman from the tribe of Banū Asad told him that she heard ʿAmmār declare after ʿAlī had finished the Battle of the Camel,
‘Do not kill an injured person and do not enter the house of someone who has laid down his arms, for he is considered safe. Similarly, the one who shuts his door is considered safe’.³
¹ : Narrated by Muslim in al-Ṣaḥīḥ: Kitāb al-jihād wa al-siyar [The Book of Martial Jihad and Military Expeditions], chapter: ‘The Conquest of Mecca’, 3:1407 §1780; Abū Dāwūd in al-Sunan: Kitāb al-kharāj wa al-imāra wa al-fayʾ [The Book of Land Tax, Leadership and the Spoils Acquired without Fighting], 3:162 §3021; and al-Bazzār in al-Musnad, 4:122 §1292.
² : Narrated by ʿAbd al-Razzāq in al-Muṣannaf, 10:123 §18590.
³ : Narrated by ʿAbd al-Razzāq in al-Muṣannaf, 10:124 §18591.
______________
## The Unlawfulness of Waging Night Offensives against Non-Muslims
The military code of conduct enshrined in the Shariah holds that enemies should not be attacked at night. Military forces should wait until dawn when launching their offensives so that non-combatants, such as women, children, the old and the sick, do not become frightened and have their sleep disturbed.
Imam al-Bukhārī and Imam Muslim narrated on the authority of Anas b. Mālik who said,
‘The Messenger of God ﷺ came to Khaybar at night, and when he came to a people [a force] at night, he would not attack them until daybreak’.¹
Contrast the prophetic laws concerning war with the methods of the modern-day terrorists who bomb populated areas without any care for peaceful life.
¹ : Narrated by al-Bukhārī in al-Ṣaḥīḥ: Kitāb al-maghāzī [The Book of Military Expeditions], chapter: ‘The Campaign of Khaybar’, 4:1538 §3961; Muslim in al-Ṣaḥīḥ: Kitāb al-jihād wa al-siyar [The Book of Martial Jihad and Expeditions], chapter: ‘The Campaign of Khaybar’, 3:1427 §1365; and al-Tirmidhī in al-Sunan: Kitāb al-siyar [The Book of Military Expeditions], 4:121 §1550.
______________
## The Unlawfulness of Burning Non-Muslims
In the pre-Islamic days of ignorance, a man would go to such extremes in revenge and enmity against his opponents during war that he would burn them alive. The Prophet ﷺ forbade Muslims from resorting to this barbaric tactic.
ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAbd Allāh quoted his father as saying that once they were on a journey and the Prophet ﷺ went to relieve himself. After he left, the Companions saw a sparrow with two of her young hatchlings. When they took the hatchlings, the sparrow, greatly upset, came and began to spread out her wings. When the Prophet ﷺ returned he said,
‘Who has tormented this bird by taking her young ones? Give them back to her’.¹
In another report the Prophet ﷺ saw an anthill that was burned and declared,
‘It is not fitting that anyone but the Lord of the fire should punish with the fire’.²
If Islam has forbidden the burning of ants, how can it allow the burning of human beings? Likewise, when the Prophet ﷺ sent his Companions for war, he ordered them to avoid burning their enemies.³ But in the wake of the recent bomb blasts and suicide attacks that burn the harmless people and tear them to pieces, the so-called Muslim terrorist groups that accept responsibility for these attacks convey to the world that the Muslims’ concept of jihad is barbaric and oppressive. The opposite, however, is true and Islam has nothing to do with any of this.
¹ : Narrated by Abū Dāwūd in al-Sunan: Kitāb al-jihād [The Book of Martial Jihad], chapter: ‘The Abhorrence of Burning the Enemy’, 3:55 §2675.
² : Narrated by Abū Dāwūd in al-Sunan: Kitāb al-jihād [The Book of Martial Jihad], chapter: ‘The Abhorrence of Burning the Enemy’, 3:55 §2675.
³ : Narrated by al-Bukhārī in al-Ṣaḥīḥ: Kitāb al-jihād wa al-siyar [The Book of Martial Jihad and Expeditions], chapter: ‘May He Not Suffer the Chastisement of God’, 3:1098 §2853; al-Tirmidhī in al-Sunan: Kitāb al-siyar [The Book of Military expeditions], chapter 20, 4:137 §1571; Abū Dāwūd in al-Sunan: Kitāb al-jihād [The Book of Martial Jihad], chapter: ‘The Abhorrence of Burning the Enemy’, 3:54 §2674.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Coco the dancing monkey said:
“I found out that mohammed permitted oral sex on women when they are menstruating, and that he disrespected the word of your goat so much that he recited it inches away from menstrual blood.”
ROTFL!!! What a complete imbecile! Are you still clinging to this? I refuted you on this and you ran away like a wounded simian. Poor, poor Coco. Still licking your wounds?
Still not answering the question, I see! Are Christians permitted to have intercourse during menstruation? Your first two attempts to answer this were just too pathetic. You were humiliated so much that you ran away…twice! So come on, little Coco. Try again!
Imbecile.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes Paulus, we are people from this age and we have been indoctrinated by the secular values of this age. This indoctrination does affect what one may feel.
But in contrast to you we are able to get away from this indoctrination. So even if there is some weird emotion about the Prophet’s marriage about Aisha it is the rational thinking that should overcome it.
Rationally you and we know that there is nothing in the Old Testament that speaks against this marriage. So for us everything in this issues is cleared.
LikeLike
Muhammad truly is a despicable example. Why Muslims venerate such a godless person is quite sad
LikeLike
Paulus, on the bright side, you’re feeling sad for us….well…
LikeLike
Amazing this coming from a crosstian who tries to justify genocides of babies ordered by a pagan god who (in all his so called glory) went through a vagina to be further spit upon. Sick people!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Porky has a theme. He pretends to be an expert on every topic via google and then projects that onto Christians. He then claims to refute everything despite providing some of the most clear cut examples of illogical reasoning seen on this blog. Then he says people run away not realising that the Muslim administrators continually block and moderate Christian comments.
He then repeats this ad nauseum. I think it’s time someone makes a meme about this swine
LikeLike
Yes, it is horribly sad. To see people here trying to justify what he did as the greatest example to humanity only demonstrates how very little Muslims have progressed. I can only attempt to appreciate and understand the immense pressure put on Muslims by the Islamic community to adhere to its practices and doctrines. I’m not even convinced that the majority of commentators here actually believe what they defend. Deep down I think you all know how truly evil muhammad was but it is incredibly difficult to break free from the Islamic community, so I understand why you pretend to defend it
LikeLike
LOL, you sound mad Cerbie. I can understand. You have been neutered multiple times on this blog.
It’s hilarious how you whine about the moderators. Didn’t I invite you to my blog and promised that I wouldn’t block your posts, as long as you didn’t use foul language? You ignored my invitation. Running is what you do idiots do. You cut and paste nonsense from the Internet, get refuted, then go back to Google to do more cut and paste, run away again, then complain about the moderators! LOL!!
Don’t get mad, Cerbie. Foaming at the mouth will not solve your problems. It will only expose you further as the neutered dog of hell that you are. 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Yes, it is horribly sad. To see people here trying to justify what he did as the greatest example to humanity only demonstrates how very little Muslims have progressed. I can only attempt to appreciate and understand the immense pressure put on Muslims by the Islamic community to adhere to its practices and doctrines. I’m not even convinced that the majority of commentators here actually believe what they defend. Deep down I think you all know how truly evil muhammad was but it is incredibly difficult to break free from the Islamic community, so I understand why you pretend to defend it”
LOL, we’re not the ones who make excuses for your Canaanite god’s genocidal commands. Most of the things that you morons complain about are actually in your Bible. Let me give you an example.
Whereas the laws of Islam prohibit killing civilians and non-combatants (with some exceptions as we have seen already), your god commanded the exact opposite. Ezekiel once again demolishes your hypocrisy. But I know your tactic. You will say that Ezekiel was not a role model for Christians or that those commands were for that time. But role model or not and for that time or not, the fact still remains that you idiots WILL make excuses for that behavior and then simultaneously criticize Muhammad (pbuh) for doing far less!
Let’s go to Ezekiel 9. I showed this to your brother in stupidity Ignoramus:
“As I listened, he said to the others, “Follow him through the city and kill, without showing pity or compassion. 6 Slaughter the old men, the young men and women, the mothers and children, but do not touch anyone who has the mark. Begin at my sanctuary.” So they began with the old men who were in front of the temple.”
WOW!! The brutality of your god is beyond measure! How can ONE VERSE be so brutal? And yet, this ONE VERSE completely exposes you brainless hypocrites for the scumbags that you are!
Here is another example. Christians routinely harp about so-called “honor killings” among Muslims. Yet, there is nothing in Islam that allows such behavior. But what about the Bible? As it turns out, it’s the Bible that allowed honor killings! Case in point:
“If a priest’s daughter defiles herself by becoming a prostitute, she disgraces her father; she must be burned in the fire.” (Leviticus 21:9).
WOW!!
Speaking of memes. Here is a good one, don’t you think Cerbie?
LikeLike
“Deep down I think you all know how truly evil muhammad was but it is incredibly difficult to break free from the Islamic community, so I understand why you pretend to defend it”
No we don’t. We think this about your barbaric pagan god. Don’t even entertain yourself with the idea that we think Muhammad was not the greatest man ever lived you cross worshiping lil shit.
No go justify your mangod ordering genocides of babies and animals you sick fuck.
LikeLiked by 1 person
LOL, bro I think Cerbie has pretensions of being a psychologist. Or maybe his lying…I mean holy…spirit gives him some psychological insight? We may never know for sure.
LikeLike
So true brother. And this lowlife idiot along with his lowlife idiot brothers in stupidity try to be smart by quoting instances where the Prophet for example ordered the cutting of trees. If we say that there was a Quranic passage that allowed this for this particular instance then they’ll still whine about it. But they are perfectly ok with Solomon having 700 wives in the OT while it is stated:
“When you have come into the land that the Lord your God is giving you, and have taken possession of it and settled in it, and you say, “I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are around me,” you may indeed set over you a king whom the Lord your God will choose. One of your own community you may set as king over you; you are not permitted to put a foreigner over you, who is not of your own community. Even so, he must not acquire many horses for himself, or return the people to Egypt in order to acquire more horses, since the Lord has said to you, “You must never return that way again.” And he must NOT ACQUIRE MANY WIVES FOR HIMSELF, or else his heart will turn away; also silver and gold he must not acquire in great quantity for himself.”
Here we see that an exception was made for Solomon. He was allowed to have 700 wives.
If this paulus idiot tries to argue that many wives doesn’t actually mean that 700 is many then I truly hope the loser will get blocked cus then he’s just trolling.
Some even try and say that Solomon was in error. But the OT doesn’t say that.
Matthew 12:3-4 gives an exception to David.
Jesus healed a person on the Sabbath. But this is justified by Jesus himself.
Etc etc
But we can’t do that for Muhammad.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Porky, I think you need a chat with your fellow muhammadan here because he is quite upset at the idea that muhammad isn’t a great moral example. But it’s obvious that deep down you guys are ashamed of muhammad. No one in their right mind defends a 54 yr old man raping a 9yr old girl. Your Islamic community doesn’t allow you freedom. We know it. You know it. And one day you’ll leave it.
Ezekiel 9- i always find it ironic that you compare God to muhammad? You will commit shirk just to save face? Shame on you. How many times do you need to shame your Islamic community like this.
LikeLike
“Porky, I think you need a chat with your fellow muhammadan here because he is quite upset at the idea that muhammad isn’t a great moral example. But it’s obvious that deep down you guys are ashamed of muhammad. No one in their right mind defends a 54 yr old man raping a 9yr old girl. Your Islamic community doesn’t allow you freedom. We know it. You know it. And one day you’ll leave it.”
“But it’s obvious that deep down you guys are ashamed of muhammad.”
LOL ok! If telling yourself that makes you happy then by all means go ahead. I mean you idiots have already convinced yourselves that you don’t worship three gods and that your comicbook known as the bible is the so called word of god.
“No one in their right mind defends a 54 yr old man raping a 9yr old girl.”
1) Raping means to have sex by force.
2) No one thought that having the marriage consumated with Aisha at age 9 was wrong. But the usual bullshit of ‘Well if it’s wrong now then it’s always been wrong’ card will be played. As if the bible can survive a single bitchslap like that. Your comicbook is filled with stuff that no one would accept today and yet you make excuses for them by saying ‘that doesn’t apply today’.
I don’t really care about a pagan’s thought in the 21st century.
“And one day you’ll leave it.”
And you know the future too he? Wow! I guess only your pagan mangod knew the future. Actually never mind. He said that the world would end 2000 years ago so I guess he doesn’t know shit.
I’ll remain with the true Faith of God Almighty which is Islam.
You go worship your mangod who came out of a vagina and ordered the genocides of babies and animals all contained in your pornbook the holey bible:
“How beautiful your sandaled feet, O prince’s daughter! Your graceful legs are like jewels, the work of a craftsman’s hands. Your navel is a rounded goblet that never lacks blended wine. Your waist is a mound of wheat encircled by lilies. Your breasts are like two fawns, twins of a gazelle. Your neck is like an ivory tower. Your eyes are the pools of Heshbon by the gate of Bath Rabbi”
Ezekiel 23:20 “There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.”
Song of Songs 4:5 “Your two breasts are like two fawns, like twin fawns of a gazelle that browse among the lilies.”
Song of Songs 1:13 “My lover is to me a sachet of myrrh resting between my breasts.”
O yes tell me more baby tell me mooooore!!!!
The bible got banned from certain countries because it was pornographic. Buahahahahahaha!
Word of God they say. What a joke.
Yes bible, take us Muslims to heaven with your godly porn verses.
Don’t read those to many times he Paulus or you’ll get a wet dream.
Now I’ll give you the extreme satisfaction of having the last word.
LikeLike
“Where are you Christians getting the idea the jewish tribes didn’t attack the Muslims?”
You haven’t provided any example of an attack. On the other hand two jewish tribes had already been deported and a number of jews assassinated before the battle of the trench.
Who gave the command to “kill any Jew that falls in to your power”?
Perfectly sufficient grounds for the remaining tribe to dissolve the treaty and seek protection from the Meccans as a desperate last ditch attempt to save their lives and property.
“Ignoramus, you don’t know your Bible, or you are just lying. Read Ezekiel 9, idiot.”
“Hmm, here is a clear-cut command from your god yet again to kill almost every living thing, whether the elderly, women and children!”
It is not law. In the vision no real person is being commanded to kill anyone.
Just another example of your pathetic refusal to interpret the text in it’s context.
LikeLike
Erasmus, which Jewish tribe are you talking about bro?
“Kill all jews that falls in to your power”
As far as i know this is a weak hadith from Abu Dawood due to the Isnaad
LikeLike
Wahahahahahaha.
You got bitchslapped and you know it!
First you lied and said:
“As long as the Jews do not attack Mohammed, which they did not, no human being has the right to attack and kill them.”
Then I give you the CLEAR CUT evidence that they did.
Then you jump to:
“You haven’t provided ANY EXAMPLE of an attack.”
Now I’ll give you a piece of the same text that I gave you earlier and let’s see how you’ll tap dance around it and come up with other nonsense.
“… launch WAR operations against the Muslims especially the secluded garrisons that housed the WOMEN AND CHILDREN of the Muslims.” Is that EXAMPLE enough for you?
You see the jews knew to attack women and children cus their/your god ordered them to do it against the Amelakites.
“On the other hand two jewish tribes had already been deported ”
Yes for breaking the treaty! The Bani Nadir are also mentioned in the hadith! Just read it. How can they be deported if BANI NADIR incited Banu Quraiza to break the pact with the Messenger???
Why lie through your teeth? Dear Lord. How can deceptive can you be?
Then you lie again buy linking a hadith with Banu Quraiza and Bani Nadir and trying to argue that that somehow justifies what they have done (like you know attacking women and children). I know exactly what happened. You saw the evidence I provided you and then you just thought:
‘O crap this looks really bad for me. I better do something to save face. Let’s go to google and find some random nonsense without actually looking into it. O here we go I found something! Let’s put this on the blog and hope that guy will leave me alone. This hopefully will do the trick even though their is ZERO EVIDENCE that the tribes broke the treaty based on Muhammad’s saying “kill any Jew that falls in to your power”. But whatever I’ll just go for it.’
Now allow me to show you how twisted your mind is!
1) ZERO evidence linking the saying “kill any Jew that falls in to your power” with the tribes breaking the treaty. No where is it mentioned that their intentions were based on that saying (because the prophet never said).
2) (because)This hadith is completely unreliable and rejected by Muslim scholars. The isnad is really weak. It contains a narrator which is unreliable (Muhammad Ibn Ibi Muhammad) and an unknown narrator (daughter of Muhayyisah). This kinda thing is not problematic for Christians as the accept every single word in the gospels without a single reliable source (of narrators, even the authors are unknown!). This is not how Muslims do history. We clearly see the hadith is Da’if (weak!) and reject it. And this is how we do it for all hadith whether they contain the most beautiful sayings. So the saying “kill any Jew that falls in to your power” has zero authenticity.
Did you care to check? Of course not. You wanted to save face and you just googled something really quickly and posted it here without actually checking it.
3) Your own argument refutes itself.
If the jews were to be all killed then why not kill of all of Bani Nadir? Why expel them? Why expel the first tribe as well? Why leave Banu Quraiza alone after they betrayed the treaty the first time:
“Narrated Ibn `Umar:
Bani An-Nadir and Bani Quraiza fought (against the Prophet (ﷺ) violating their peace treaty), so the Prophet exiled Bani An-Nadir and allowed Bani Quraiza to remain at their places (in Medina) TAKING NOTHING FROM THEM till they fought against the Prophet (ﷺ) AGAIN. Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith 4028”
This btw is one of the most important arguments that scholars use to disprove that the prophet actually said this. And you just took what obviously goes against your argument and tried to make it work in your favor without even realizing it refutes you. Wow! Just wow!
Is this what worshiping three gods does to a mind?
Lord have mercy!
4) Aren’t Christians always complaining about Q 9:29. Jews are people of the Book so if they are to be all killed then why is Jiziya applied to them under Islamic rule (when they are ‘fallen in to the power of the Muslims’)?
5) Muslims are allowed to marry Jewish women. Kind of hard to do if their all to be killed.
Etc etc etc.
Read this again and stop lying! Have at least an ounce of decency.
“The chief criminal of BANI NADIR, Huyai, headed for the habitations of Banu Quraiza to incite their chief Ka’b bin Asad Al-Qurazi, who had drawn a PACT with the Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] to run to his aid in times of war. Ka’b, in the beginning resisted all Huyai’s temptation, but Huyai was clever enough to manipulate him, speaking of Quraish and their notables in Al-Asyal, as well as Ghatfan and their chieftains entrenched in Uhud, all in one mind, determined to exterminate Muhammad [pbuh] and his followers. He, moreover, promised to stay in Ka’b’s fort exposing himself to any potential danger in case Quraish and Ghatfan recanted. The wicked man went on in this manner until he later managed to win Ka’b to his side and persuade him to BREAK his COVENANT with the Muslims. [Ibn Hisham 3/337] Banu Quraiza then started to launch WAR operations against the Muslims especially the secluded garrisons that housed the women and children of the Muslims. On the authority of Ibn Ishaq, Safiyah [R], daughter of ‘Abdul Muttalib happened to be in a garrison with Hassan bin Thabit as well as some women and children. Safiyah said: “A Jew was spotted lurking around our site, which was vulnerable to any enemy attacks because there were no men to defend it. I informed Hassan that I was suspicious of that man’s presence near us. He might take us by surprise now that the Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] and the Muslims are too busy to come to our aid, why don’t you get down and kill him? Hassan answered that he would not do it, so I took a bar of wood, went down and struck the Jew to death. I returned and asked Hassan to loot him but again Hassan refused to do that.[ibid 2/228] This event had a far reaching effect and discouraged the Jews from conducting further attacks thinking that those sites were fortified and protected by Muslim fighters. They, however, went on PROVIDING THE IDOLATERS WITH SUPPLIES in token of their support against the Muslims.
On hearing this bad news, the Messenger [pbuh] despatched four Muslim prominent leaders Sa’d bin Mu’adh, Sa’d bin ‘Ubada, ‘Abdullah bin Rawaha and Khawat bin Jubair for investigation but warning against any sort of spreading panic amongst the Muslims and advising that they should declare in public that the rumors are groundless if they happen to be so. Unfortunately the four men discovered that the news was true and that the Jews announced openly that NO PACT OF ALLIANCE EXISTED ANY LONGER with Muhammad [pbuh]. (Saifur Rahman al-Mubarakpuri, Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum (THE SEALED NECTAR), Chapter: Al-Ahzab (the Confederates) Invasion, Source)”
LikeLike
“Now I’ll give you a piece of the same text that I gave you earlier and let’s see how you’ll tap dance around it and come up with other nonsense.
“… launch WAR operations against the Muslims especially the secluded garrisons that housed the WOMEN AND CHILDREN of the Muslims.” Is that EXAMPLE enough for you?
You see the jews knew to attack women and children cus their/your god ordered them to do it against the Amelakites.”
No details of the alleged war operations. What a joke to cite this as evidence. Just evidence of a dubious non-historical source. Just a frame-up of the Jews. What else do we expect from islamic sources?
“Yes for breaking the treaty! The Bani Nadir are also mentioned in the hadith! Just read it. How can they be deported if BANI NADIR incited Banu Quraiza to break the pact with the Messenger???
Why lie through your teeth? Dear Lord. How can deceptive can you be?”
How did they break the treaty? They never attacked Mohammed but Mohammed attacked them, robbed them and sent them in to the desert defenceless, including their women and children, with nothing but what they could carry.
““A Jew was spotted lurking around our site, which was vulnerable to any enemy attacks because there were no men to defend it. I informed Hassan that I was suspicious of that man’s presence near us. He might take us by surprise now that the Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] and the Muslims are too busy to come to our aid, why don’t you get down and kill him?”
The whole thing is nonsense. “He might take US by surprise”. He has already been spotted by at least two men.
Apparently the sources show that the Muslims projected an extermination conspiracy theory on to the Jews to cover up for their own dubious motives.
“This event had a far reaching effect and discouraged the Jews from conducting further attacks thinking that those sites were fortified and protected by Muslim fighters. They, however, went on PROVIDING THE IDOLATERS WITH SUPPLIES in token of their support against the Muslims.”
“Unfortunately the four men discovered that the news was true and that the Jews announced openly that NO PACT OF ALLIANCE EXISTED ANY LONGER with Muhammad [pbuh].”
Of course the Jews had a right to defend themselves and declare the pact invalid, given Mohammed’s track record of proven aggression and unjustified attacks against them.
LikeLike
“2) (because)This hadith is completely unreliable and rejected by Muslim scholars. The isnad is really weak. It contains a narrator which is unreliable (Muhammad Ibn Ibi Muhammad) and an unknown narrator (daughter of Muhayyisah).”
Or more likely it wasn’t politically incorrect at the time of it’s writing but now it is.
LikeLike