Muslims 'outraged' by billboard that insults prophet Mohammed PBUH

[Bilal7]

Except they are being targeted and our very own interior minister has claimed hatred spreading sectarian groups are not terrorists.

Welcome to reality.

Funny how people like you and the guy above create strawmen when your arguments relevant to the discussion are trashed. No one is denying that Shias, Ahmadis and Yazidis are mistreated in Pakistan. However, I am talking about an individual who was stupid enough to post derogatory comments abouta religious figure and his family in a country with blasphemy laws. What he did was extremely silly and was not a mere "discussion" like you are making it out to be.

 

[Black Zero]

I would like to make couple of comments.
While, Aisha's age has been discussed here in length, I was wondering about the other allegations?
1/ Is it true that he beheaded 600+ jews in a day (or beheaded them at all?)
2/ Did the prophet have 11 + wives ?
3/ Did the prophet have concubines?

As per Ayesha's age, my two cent
Yes she was young when she got married, my grandmother got married at the age of 15. I do not think that is a concern for its time. However if Islam claims to be for all times and all ages than I would state that this cannot be true since such an age is unacceptable as per majority view in this age and time.

I gave the wiki link on page 1 for various raised points.

Minimum number recorded 600 jewish men and boys
Maximum number recorded 900.

These people were arrested, tied and then killed one after another and dumped in to a mass grave.

Their homes were raided and stuff taken. Their women and girls were taken as slaves, some were sold.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Qurayza

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayhana_bint_Zayd

This tribes provided muslims tools and other stuff to dig the trenches and Muslims rewarded them with false accusations and eventually killing them.

Apologist, as usual, put blame on the victims and try to justify this massacre.

 

[Heisenberg]

Funny how people like you and the guy above create strawmen when your arguments relevant to the discussion are trashed. No one is denying that Shias, Ahmadis and Yazidis are mistreated in Pakistan. However, I am talking about an individual who was stupid enough to post derogatory comments abouta religious figure and his family in a country with blasphemy laws. What he did was extremely silly and was not a mere "discussion" like you are making it out to be.

Tell us then. What did he say?

And yazidis? Have you ever been to Pakistan?

 

[Bilal7]

Tell us then. What did he say?

And yazidis? Have you ever been to Pakistan?

"Posted derogatory comments on Facebook". What his specific words were is not clear. Do I need to do all your research for you?

 

[Heisenberg]

"Posted derogatory comments on Facebook". What his specific words were is not clear. Do I need to do all your research for you?

Clearly you need to do your research. Derogatory is too ambiguous. Simply stating some Shia beliefs would be comsifered derogatory by Sunnis.

And you also need to do your research regarding Yazidis.

 

[Bilal7]

Clearly you need to do your research. Derogatory is too ambiguous. Simply stating some Shia beliefs would be comsifered derogatory by Sunnis.

And you also need to do your research regarding Yazidis.

You're the one claiming there was a "discussion" taking place so you're the one laden with the burden of proof. I have done my research which is why I know that Yazidi slaves are being smuggled into Pakistan by those despicable Daesh "soldiers".

 

[Heisenberg]

You're the one claiming there was a "discussion" taking place so you're the one laden with the burden of proof. I have done my research which is why I know that Yazidi slaves are being smuggled into Pakistan by those despicable Daesh "soldiers".

Raza’s brother, Waseem Abbas, said the family was “poor but literate”, and belonged to Pakistan’s minority Shia Muslim community. “My brother indulged in a sectarian debate on Facebook with a person, who we later come to know, was a [counter-terrorism department] official with the name of Muhammad Usman,” he said.

Raza’s defence attorney said his client had been charged with two unrelated sections of the law to ensure the maximum penalty. “Initially, it was a case of insulting remarks on sectarian grounds and the offence was 298A, which punishes for derogatory remarks about other religious personalities for up to two years,” said Fida Hussain Rana, the defence counsel. Raza was later charged unde section 295C of the penal code, related to “derogatory acts against prophet Muhammad”, Rana said.

 

[tonmoy]

Exageratted Number. Only those were executed who committed treason plus were mass murderers. They were enemy of the State like Taliban, ISIS etc



No. This is not the right number.



No. Islam has come to end slavery. In Islam you can only have physical relations with your wife or husband. All other are deemed as unlawful illegitimate relations and counted as Adultery. Prophet Pbuh married one of the POW with her Consent.



If you really want to learn and know and allegations/point scoring/ridiculing is not your agenda than read the relevent pages of


1. Life of Muhammad by Bashiruddin Mahmood Ahmad

2. Muhammad Seal of the Prophets by Zafrullah Khan



Free Pdf versions available online.



All Divine figures in the History of Mankind were mocked, ridiculed and false dirty filthy allegations were made about them. For Example Hindu Divine personalities who were pious righteous figures were alleged to be womanisets with having multiple girlfriends without any marriage Pact. So in the realms of religion this is nothing new.

I got different answers of the same question from yourself/black-zero and bilal.
The point being, that people are scared to ask these questions openly because of the repercussion which may be death in some Muslim countries and being called a red-neck , uneducated or an islamophobe in the west.

Fact is that these incidents are recorded history and if there exist any doubt than it must be properly discussed.

I would be called various names if I just state that "I will not consider a person to have ideal personality if he beheaded hundreds of people". I can assure you that is true not only for me but for a lot of the people.

I am from Bangladesh and there was a recent attack in one of the cafe (july 2016), where a bunch of lunatic came into a cafe and killed 15+ foreigners and 5+ Bangladeshis. And they were executed using sword . It is not hard to understand the inspiration behind it.

 

[Musakhel]

I got different answers of the same question from yourself/black-zero and bilal.
The point being, that people are scared to ask these questions openly because of the repercussion which may be death in some Muslim countries and being called a red-neck , uneducated or an islamophobe in the west.

Fact is that these incidents are recorded history and if there exist any doubt than it must be properly discussed.

I would be called various names if I just state that "I will not consider a person to have ideal personality if he beheaded hundreds of people". I can assure you that is true not only for me but for a lot of the people.

I am from Bangladesh and there was a recent attack in one of the cafe (july 2016), where a bunch of lunatic came into a cafe and killed 15+ foreigners and 5+ Bangladeshis. And they were executed using sword . It is not hard to understand the inspiration behind it.

Muslim historians/scholars have never hidden this only modern 'reformist' and other so called liberal muslims indulge in these mental gymnastics because they are scared of what others think about them.

 

[Justcrazy]

I gave the wiki link on page 1 for various raised points.

Minimum number recorded 600 jewish men and boys
Maximum number recorded 900.

These people were arrested, tied and then killed one after another and dumped in to a mass grave.

Their homes were raided and stuff taken. Their women and girls were taken as slaves, some were sold.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Qurayza

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayhana_bint_Zayd

This tribes provided muslims tools and other stuff to dig the trenches and Muslims rewarded them with false accusations and eventually killing them.

Apologist, as usual, put blame on the victims and try to justify this massacre.

Was that the reason for them being killed ?

 

[Black Zero]

Was that the reason for them being killed ?

I did not mention any reason as there was absolutely no reason to kill all the tribe and commit massacre. There could never be a reason for massacre!

Muslim appologist try to justify this massacre by accusing the tribes of various treacherous acts, like helping meccans. (Just like so many nasbis try to justify the killings of innocent shias by accusing them of various acts)

Actually that tribe was giving verbal help to meccans but material help to muslims and trench was actually dig by tribe's owned spades and other various tools.
Infact, meccan asked specific help from this tribe, but this tribe did not trust meccans and refused to help them (prophet of islam knew as he had a new-Muslim spy, who was closed to all three parties, told him). At this refusal, meccan got disappointed and this was one of the major reason that meccan left the siege of muslims.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I got different answers of the same question from yourself/black-zero and bilal.
The point being, that people are scared to ask these questions openly because of the repercussion which may be death in some Muslim countries and being called a red-neck , uneducated or an islamophobe in the west.

Fact is that these incidents are recorded history and if there exist any doubt than it must be properly discussed.

I would be called various names if I just state that "I will not consider a person to have ideal personality if he beheaded hundreds of people". I can assure you that is true not only for me but for a lot of the people.

I am from Bangladesh and there was a recent attack in one of the cafe (july 2016), where a bunch of lunatic came into a cafe and killed 15+ foreigners and 5+ Bangladeshis. And they were executed using sword . It is not hard to understand the inspiration behind it.

During the Gujarat riots in 2002 India, a Muslim MP was hacked to death with a sword by Hindu fanatics. I think these sort of instruments are just tools of those still living in medieval culture which is probably the case in large swathes of the sub-continent.

 

[tonmoy]

Muslim historians/scholars have never hidden this only modern 'reformist' and other so called liberal muslims indulge in these mental gymnastics because they are scared of what others think about them.

For any religion it is important for people to understand what they follow.

I do not accept the notion that the greatest example of a person one can follow is known to have beheaded hundreds of people. I do not call that merciful and neither will I ever will endorse such form of punishment on anyone.

Personally I believe outrage is acceptable if the facts are wrong. I can understand outrage of some here in case of Ayesha's age because facts might be distorted. However I do not see any reason to be outraged concerning his number of wives or his treatment of the jewish tribes.

 

[Musakhel]

For any religion it is important for people to understand what they follow.

I do not accept the notion that the greatest example of a person one can follow is known to have beheaded hundreds of people. I do not call that merciful and neither will I ever will endorse such form of punishment on anyone.

Personally I believe outrage is acceptable if the facts are wrong. I can understand outrage of some here in case of Ayesha's age because facts might be distorted. However I do not see any reason to be outraged concerning his number of wives or his treatment of the jewish tribes.

That's cool I have no problem with it, after all faith is a personal thing you can't force people to belive something, I personally Am not outraged by any of the criticism that is labelled against the Prophet SAW, I just understand the events differently.

 

[tonmoy]

That's cool I have no problem with it, after all faith is a personal thing you can't force people to belive something, I personally Am not outraged by any of the criticism that is labelled against the Prophet SAW, I just understand the events differently.

I am not sure in what version of the event in mass beheading acceptable. I always wondered how people can be so cruel and how could they provide justification to such cruel acts that are taking place every week in this world. When I see posts like yours, I realize that no one needs any other justification for cruelty because it comes with the hope of a fascinating after life.

 

[miandadrules]

I am not sure in what version of the event in mass beheading acceptable. I always wondered how people can be so cruel and how could they provide justification to such cruel acts that are taking place every week in this world. When I see posts like yours, I realize that no one needs any other justification for cruelty because it comes with the hope of a fascinating after life.

Good people do good things.

Bad people do bad things.

In order for good people to do bad things, you need religion.

 

[tonmoy]

Good people do good things.

Bad people do bad things.

In order for good people to do bad things, you need religion.

That is soo true... best quote I have read in a long time.

 

[miandadrules]

That is soo true... best quote I have read in a long time.

It's plagiarised

My addendum is you need ideology. Religion being the most extreme ideology.

 

[TalentSpotterPk]

I got different answers of the same question from yourself/black-zero and bilal.
The point being, that people are scared to ask these questions openly because of the repercussion which may be death in some Muslim countries and being called a red-neck , uneducated or an islamophobe in the west.

Fact is that these incidents are recorded history and if there exist any doubt than it must be properly discussed.

I would be called various names if I just state that "I will not consider a person to have ideal personality if he beheaded hundreds of people". I can assure you that is true not only for me but for a lot of the people.

I am from Bangladesh and there was a recent attack in one of the cafe (july 2016), where a bunch of lunatic came into a cafe and killed 15+ foreigners and 5+ Bangladeshis. And they were executed using sword . It is not hard to understand the inspiration behind it.

Muslim historians/scholars have never hidden this only modern 'reformist' and other so called liberal muslims indulge in these mental gymnastics because they are scared of what others think about them.

Was that the reason for them being killed ?

I am not sure in what version of the event in mass beheading acceptable. I always wondered how people can be so cruel and how could they provide justification to such cruel acts that are taking place every week in this world. When I see posts like yours, I realize that no one needs any other justification for cruelty because it comes with the hope of a fascinating after life.

MYTH

Myth #1: Prophet Muhammad murdered 700 innocent Jews

Did Prophet Muhammad kill 700 Jews?


This is perhaps one of the most common contemporary allegations levied against Prophet Muhammad [1]. It is also one of the most spurious.

This event occurred after the largest battle ever held on Arabian soil in Medina during Prophet Muhammad’s life. The Confederate Army comprised of no less than 12,000 soldiers while the Muslims barricaded themselves in Medina, along with their sworn allies—per the Charter of Medina—numbering roughly a tenth the size. While the Muslims were victorious, they came within moments of annihilation due to the Banu Quraizah tribe’s treason.

Critics baselessly claim that Prophet Muhammad blindly executed the entire tribe. This too is baseless. Prophet Muhammad and the Jews were allies, as enshrined in the Charter of Medina Article 49, which states, “The parties to this Pact are bound to help each other in the event of an attack on Yathrib.” The Banu Quraizah Tribe was an equal and willing party to this pact. Yet, in the heat of battle, the Banu Quraizah sided with the enemy against the state of Medina despite their prior signed agreement. Fortunately, the remaining allied Medina army was able to withstand this treasonous act and win the battle against incredible odds. The question remained, however, how to address the Banu Quraizah’s treason. Adding to the dilemma was the fact that the Banu Quraizah had committed this act once before, upon which Prophet Muhammad merely exiled them. When they later asked his forgiveness, he granted it, which is why they had since re-entered Medina. The 19th century historian Stanley Lane-Poole accurately describes the events that followed the Battle of the Ditch:

Of the sentences on the three clans, that of exile, passed upon two of them, was clement enough. They were a turbulent set, always setting the people of Medina by the ears; and finally, a brawl followed by an insurrection resulted in the expulsion of one tribe; and insubordination, alliance with enemies and a suspicion of conspiracy against the Prophet’s life, ended similarly for the second. Both tribes had violated the original treaty, and had endeavored in every way to bring Muhammad and his religion to ridicule and destruction. The only question is whether their punishment was not too light. Of the third clan a fearful example was made, not by Muhammad, but by an arbiter appointed by themselves. When Quraish and their allies were besieging Medina and had well-nigh stormed the defences, this Jewish tribe [the Banu Quraizah]entered into negotiations with the enemy, which were only circumvented by the diplomacy of the Prophet. When the besiegers had retired, Muhammad naturally demanded an explanation of the Jews. They resisted in their dogged way and were themselves besieged and compelled to surrender at discretion. Muhammad, however, consented to the appointing of a chief of a tribe allied to the Jews as the judge who should pronounce sentence upon them. This chief gave sentence that the men, in numbers some 600, should be killed, and the women and children enslaved; and the sentence was carried out. It was a harsh, bloody sentence; but it must be remembered that the crime of these men was high treason against the State, during a time of siege; and one need not be surprised at the summary execution of a traitorous clan.” [2]

Thus, Prophet Muhammad did not order any execution, nor did he participate in the execution. On the contrary, Prophet Muhammad graciously agreed to let the Banu Quraizah’s own ally, Sa‘d bin Mu‘adh of Aus, deliver the verdict. Why blame Prophet Muhammad for a decision he did not make and for a crime he did not commit? Adding to the injustice in blaming Prophet Muhammad is the fact that Sa‘d bin Mu‘adh did not deliver his decision based on the Qur’an. Rather, he delivered the judgment for the Banu Quraizah based on the punishment for treason that their book, the Torah, prescribes:

“When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it: And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee. Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee: That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the Lord your God.” [3]

Thus, the Banu Quraizah sealed their own fate, with their own actions, according to their own Book. Prophet Muhammad had nothing to do with it—other than agreeing to let an ally to the Banu Quraizah arbitrate between them, and to bind himself to that arbiter’s decision.

Moreover, no Jewish tribes, Jewish historians, or Jewish scholars record this event. This is shocking because the Jewish people have recorded their history better than perhaps any people in history. Yet, in regards to such a massive execution, every Jewish historian, scholar, and tribe is silent.

Dr. Barakat Ahmad, author of “Muhammad and the Jews,” argues, based on authentic sources from time periods well before Ibn Ishaq, that it is highly probable that no execution took place at all. We gladly invite Wilders, or anyone for that matter, to respond to Dr. Ahmad’s book.


As of now, however, it is clear that Prophet Muhammad committed no wrong against the Banu Quraizah. History records that the Banu Quraizah agreed to a constitution, the Charter of Medina, and that constitution explicitly required loyalty to the state of Medina, particularly in case of attack from an external army. After committing to Medina, the Banu Quraizah violated that loyalty with a treasonous act in the heat of battle. The claimed execution that followed, if it happened, was the result of their choice to commit treason, per the judgment of a judge they demanded, according to the law elucidated in their book. Prophet Muhammad, far from being responsible for any deaths, interceded and even forgave those Jews who asked his forgiveness. To place even the slightest responsibility on anyone but the Banu Quraizah is nothing less than ridiculous.



[1] Geert Wilders, Marked for Death: Islam’s War Against the West and Me, 39 (2012).
[2] Stanley Lane-Poole, Studies in a Mosque, 68 (1883) (emphasis added).
[3] Deuteronomy 20: 10-18.




http://www.muhammadfactcheck.org/?muhammad=prophet-muhammad-sa-murdered-700-innocent-jews

 

[troodon]

^ So Prophet Mohammed did not kill Jews. He merely presided over the killings.

He could have stopped the bloody executions and selling of women into slavery. He did not. Instead it looks like he viewed everything and left. He is a Prophet for God's sake. Not an ordinary Joe to be just a bystander.

Thanks.

 

[Black Zero]

Not only Prophet of Islam killed 600-900 Jews adult men and boys, he also wanted:

- to kill prisoners of Badr (Abu Bakr saved them)
- to kill jewish tribe Banu Qaynuqa but Abd-Allah ibn Ubayy (muslims call this great man as munafiq) saved this tribe from getting killed as he hold the shoulders of prophet of Islam and "forced" him to spare the lives of tribe. At that time, muslims were not that strong so Abd Allah could save the innocents from massacre. anyway, this tribe was expelled.

of course muslims apologists, as usual, blame the victims, but no one takes these apologist serious.

 

[Black Zero]

^ So Prophet Mohammed did not kill Jews. He merely presided over the killings.

He could have stopped the bloody executions and selling of women into slavery. He did not. Instead it looks like he viewed everything and left. He is a Prophet for God's sake. Not an ordinary Joe to be just a bystander.

Thanks.

- Jibrail (an angelas per jewish/islamic theology) ordered prophet of Islam to encircle the jewish tribe. (make whatever you want to make of this)
- Muslim took seige of that tribe for 25 days before Jewish tribe surrendered.
- Prophet of Islam approved the verdict of another Muslim and said it's similar to the verdict of God
- All men, boys and one woman was beheaded.

 

[TalentSpotterPk]

^ So Prophet Mohammed did not kill Jews. He merely presided over the killings.

He could have stopped the bloody executions and selling of women into slavery. He did not. Instead it looks like he viewed everything and left. He is a Prophet for God's sake. Not an ordinary Joe to be just a bystander.

Thanks.

Moreover, no Jewish tribes, Jewish historians, or Jewish scholars record this event. This is shocking because the Jewish people have recorded their history better than perhaps any people in history. Yet, in regards to such a massive execution, every Jewish historian, scholar, and tribe is silent. Dr. Barakat Ahmad, author of “Muhammad and the Jews,” argues, based on authentic sources from time periods well before Ibn Ishaq, that it is highly probable that no execution took place at all. We gladly invite Wilders, or anyone for that matter, to respond to Dr. Ahmad’s book


You should challenge Dr Barakat Ahmed, Jewish tribes, Jewish historians, Jewish scholars and present your facts. A book will be much appreciated to open up the eyes of Millions brainwashed alologists, living in darkness. Thank Ibn e Ishaq for his Jews hate. All these narrations are post Ibn e Ishaq with nothing recorded by Jews. Those who suffered should have known it more and they would have presented it to the world as jewish persecution and great sacrifice for their religion but they did not. It is all Post Ibn e Ishaq narrations and all others borrowed it from Ibn e Ishaq.

Anyhow you should come up with a book challenging Dr Barkat Ahmad and it will be great service to brainwashed appologists living in darkness. Enlighten them.

 

[Heisenberg]

MYTH

Myth #1: Prophet Muhammad murdered 700 innocent Jews

Did Prophet Muhammad kill 700 Jews?


This is perhaps one of the most common contemporary allegations levied against Prophet Muhammad [1]. It is also one of the most spurious.

This event occurred after the largest battle ever held on Arabian soil in Medina during Prophet Muhammad’s life. The Confederate Army comprised of no less than 12,000 soldiers while the Muslims barricaded themselves in Medina, along with their sworn allies—per the Charter of Medina—numbering roughly a tenth the size. While the Muslims were victorious, they came within moments of annihilation due to the Banu Quraizah tribe’s treason.

Critics baselessly claim that Prophet Muhammad blindly executed the entire tribe. This too is baseless. Prophet Muhammad and the Jews were allies, as enshrined in the Charter of Medina Article 49, which states, “The parties to this Pact are bound to help each other in the event of an attack on Yathrib.” The Banu Quraizah Tribe was an equal and willing party to this pact. Yet, in the heat of battle, the Banu Quraizah sided with the enemy against the state of Medina despite their prior signed agreement. Fortunately, the remaining allied Medina army was able to withstand this treasonous act and win the battle against incredible odds. The question remained, however, how to address the Banu Quraizah’s treason. Adding to the dilemma was the fact that the Banu Quraizah had committed this act once before, upon which Prophet Muhammad merely exiled them. When they later asked his forgiveness, he granted it, which is why they had since re-entered Medina. The 19th century historian Stanley Lane-Poole accurately describes the events that followed the Battle of the Ditch:

Of the sentences on the three clans, that of exile, passed upon two of them, was clement enough. They were a turbulent set, always setting the people of Medina by the ears; and finally, a brawl followed by an insurrection resulted in the expulsion of one tribe; and insubordination, alliance with enemies and a suspicion of conspiracy against the Prophet’s life, ended similarly for the second. Both tribes had violated the original treaty, and had endeavored in every way to bring Muhammad and his religion to ridicule and destruction. The only question is whether their punishment was not too light. Of the third clan a fearful example was made, not by Muhammad, but by an arbiter appointed by themselves. When Quraish and their allies were besieging Medina and had well-nigh stormed the defences, this Jewish tribe [the Banu Quraizah]entered into negotiations with the enemy, which were only circumvented by the diplomacy of the Prophet. When the besiegers had retired, Muhammad naturally demanded an explanation of the Jews. They resisted in their dogged way and were themselves besieged and compelled to surrender at discretion. Muhammad, however, consented to the appointing of a chief of a tribe allied to the Jews as the judge who should pronounce sentence upon them. This chief gave sentence that the men, in numbers some 600, should be killed, and the women and children enslaved; and the sentence was carried out. It was a harsh, bloody sentence; but it must be remembered that the crime of these men was high treason against the State, during a time of siege; and one need not be surprised at the summary execution of a traitorous clan.” [2]

Thus, Prophet Muhammad did not order any execution, nor did he participate in the execution. On the contrary, Prophet Muhammad graciously agreed to let the Banu Quraizah’s own ally, Sa‘d bin Mu‘adh of Aus, deliver the verdict. Why blame Prophet Muhammad for a decision he did not make and for a crime he did not commit? Adding to the injustice in blaming Prophet Muhammad is the fact that Sa‘d bin Mu‘adh did not deliver his decision based on the Qur’an. Rather, he delivered the judgment for the Banu Quraizah based on the punishment for treason that their book, the Torah, prescribes:

“When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it: And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee. Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee: That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the Lord your God.” [3]

Thus, the Banu Quraizah sealed their own fate, with their own actions, according to their own Book. Prophet Muhammad had nothing to do with it—other than agreeing to let an ally to the Banu Quraizah arbitrate between them, and to bind himself to that arbiter’s decision.

Moreover, no Jewish tribes, Jewish historians, or Jewish scholars record this event. This is shocking because the Jewish people have recorded their history better than perhaps any people in history. Yet, in regards to such a massive execution, every Jewish historian, scholar, and tribe is silent.

Dr. Barakat Ahmad, author of “Muhammad and the Jews,” argues, based on authentic sources from time periods well before Ibn Ishaq, that it is highly probable that no execution took place at all. We gladly invite Wilders, or anyone for that matter, to respond to Dr. Ahmad’s book.


As of now, however, it is clear that Prophet Muhammad committed no wrong against the Banu Quraizah. History records that the Banu Quraizah agreed to a constitution, the Charter of Medina, and that constitution explicitly required loyalty to the state of Medina, particularly in case of attack from an external army. After committing to Medina, the Banu Quraizah violated that loyalty with a treasonous act in the heat of battle. The claimed execution that followed, if it happened, was the result of their choice to commit treason, per the judgment of a judge they demanded, according to the law elucidated in their book. Prophet Muhammad, far from being responsible for any deaths, interceded and even forgave those Jews who asked his forgiveness. To place even the slightest responsibility on anyone but the Banu Quraizah is nothing less than ridiculous.



[1] Geert Wilders, Marked for Death: Islam’s War Against the West and Me, 39 (2012).
[2] Stanley Lane-Poole, Studies in a Mosque, 68 (1883) (emphasis added).
[3] Deuteronomy 20: 10-18.




http://www.muhammadfactcheck.org/?muhammad=prophet-muhammad-sa-murdered-700-innocent-jews

With all due respect bhai, I don't think you should be quoting that site as they use misrepresentation of facts and even blatant lies to support their views eg only one narrator for the age hadith.

 

[troodon]

- Jibrail (an angelas per jewish/islamic theology) ordered prophet of Islam to encircle the jewish tribe. (make whatever you want to make of this)
- Muslim took seige of that tribe for 25 days before Jewish tribe surrendered.
- Prophet of Islam approved the verdict of another Muslim and said it's similar to the verdict of God
- All men, boys and one woman was beheaded.

[MENTION=138980]TalentSpotterPk[/MENTION], what's your take on my post and [MENTION=42489]Black Zero[/MENTION] posts?

 

[Heisenberg]

Moreover, no Jewish tribes, Jewish historians, or Jewish scholars record this event. This is shocking because the Jewish people have recorded their history better than perhaps any people in history. Yet, in regards to such a massive execution, every Jewish historian, scholar, and tribe is silent. Dr. Barakat Ahmad, author of “Muhammad and the Jews,” argues, based on authentic sources from time periods well before Ibn Ishaq, that it is highly probable that no execution took place at all. We gladly invite Wilders, or anyone for that matter, to respond to Dr. Ahmad’s book


You should challenge Dr Barakat Ahmed, Jewish tribes, Jewish historians, Jewish scholars and present your facts. A book will be much appreciated to open up the eyes of Millions brainwashed alologists, living in darkness. Thank Ibn e Ishaq for his Jews hate. All these narrations are post Ibn e Ishaq with nothing recorded by Jews. Those who suffered should have known it more and they would have presented it to the world as jewish persecution and great sacrifice for their religion but they did not. It is all Post Ibn e Ishaq narrations and all others borrowed it from Ibn e Ishaq.

Anyhow you should come up with a book challenging Dr Barkat Ahmad and it will be great service to brainwashed appologists living in darkness. Enlighten them.

There's a famous saying: history is written by the victors.

 

[TalentSpotterPk]

[MENTION=138952]tonmoy[/MENTION]


There is no space and place for any physical relation between Men and Women in Islam except Marriage Pact Nikah.



There are many verses in the Quran that state that Muslims were supposed to marry their slave-girls or prisoners of war before indulging in sexual relations with them. This was one way of emancipating slaves and integrating prisoners of war in society. For example, the Quran states:



1)And marry widows from among you, and your male slaves and female slaves who are fit for marriage. (24:33)


And again:



2) And whoso of you cannot afford to marry free, believing women, let him marry what your right hands possess, namely, your believing handmaids. And Allah knows your faith best; you are all one from another; so marry them with the leave of their masters and give them their dowries according to what is fair, they being chaste, not committing fornication, nor taking secret paramours. (4:26)




At the time of the advent of Islam, slavery was the norm in Arabia. Anyone who could afford to buy a slave, kept one. Unfortunately, these slaves especially girls had no dignified status in society. They were bought and sold like property. They were forced, overworked and abused.




Prophet Muhammad (Pbuh) was deeply troubled by this. He wanted to emancipate these slaves, but not by letting them leave, have to fend for themselves homeless, but by integrating them into society and making them useful contributors to the growing Muslim community. Towards this end, he forbade buying of slaves, encouraged freeing the male slaves who were able to work, and encouraged marrying the female ones. Prophet Muhammad (Pbuh) commanded:



He who has a slave-girl and he educates and treats her nicely and then manumits and marries her, will get a double reward.


As evident again, marriage was the stated condition for indulging in sexual relations with a slave-girl. Islam prohibits fornication and adultery and speaks of it as a punishable social ill. This is also very clear by the use of the words being chaste in the verse quoted above. If sexual relations were allowed before marriage, how would these women be chaste ? The same verse also prohibits having sexual affairs with slave-girls and condemns fornication.




Predictably again, Islamophobes & Mullahs would regurgitate same rubbish again and again.




Here is another verse of the Quran that emphasizes that slave-girls had to be married, and were no exception to the recognized and permissible way of having sexual relations.



3) And do not marry polytheistic women until they believe. And a believing slave woman is better than a polytheist, even though she might please you. And do not marry polytheistic men [to your women] until they believe. And a believing slave is better than a polytheist, even though he might please you. (2:222)


And:



4) O ye who believe! it is not lawful for you to inherit women against their will; nor should you detain them wrongfully that you may take away part of that which you have given them, except that they be guilty of a flagrant evil; and consort with them in kindness; and if you dislike them, it may be that you dislike a thing wherein Allah has placed much good. (4:19)




This verse made it clear that women were not inheritable equity. Islam completely forbade this primitive custom. Women were, as Prophet Muhammad (Pbuh) described elsewhere tender and fragile, and needed to be consorted to with great love, care and affection. There consent was made equally important in all matters. They were to be treated in the best manner, he said. This was unprecedented in contemporary Arabia. The Prophet Muhammad (Pbuh) gave rights to all segments of society, uplifting the ones that were most disadvantaged. He Pbuh said:



An orphan girl should be consulted with regard to marriage, If she refuses then she is not to be forced.



No Arab noble would have ever conceived of marrying a slave or an orphan. But with Islam, the Arabs realized that all men are created equal. Prophet Muhammad Pbuh inspired a new way of thinking in Arab society and redefined the relationship between master and servant, so much so that he himself also married a former slave.


Prophet Muhammad Pbuh said:



Let none of you call out to his slave saying, My slave boy! or My slave girl! nor let a slave call out to his master saying, My Lord! but let the master call out to the slave saying, My young man! or My young woman! and let the slave call out to the master as My chief! for, verily, ye are all slaves, and your Lord is Allah, the Almighty.



It is also note-worthy here that Islam's early history was full of wars forced on the Muslims. Prophet Muhammad (Pbuh) did not allow Muslims to have sexual relations, let alone rape or torture the women who were taken prisoners during these battles. He preached compassion and peace. He allowed the Muslims to marry those female captives who were so willing, and integrate them and make them part of the fabric of society. He led by his own example, once again, by marrying two such women captives and elevating them to the status of the mothers of the faithful a title of great honor and esteem for Muslims world over.



Coming back to Islamophobes & Mullahs assertion, there is ample evidence that Islam makes freedom of conscience and mutual consent in the pre-requisites for marriage, in turn, the pre-requisite for any and all sexual relations, including those with slave-girls and captives in seventh century Arabia.



Article by Dr.Kashif Chaudhry

 

[TalentSpotterPk]

With all due respect bhai, I don't think you should be quoting that site as they use misrepresentation of facts and even blatant lies to support their views eg only one narrator for the age hadith.

No. Its just that you are adamant to say that my Master Pbuh married a 6 years old girl. That's your issue actually. Those narrations have been burried by many other narrations but you won't compromise an inch on what suits you. You did ignore my post where i quoted a hadith where Hazrat Ayesha RA quoted that She RA still remembers a Surah when it was revealed on He Pbuh. That Surah was revealed 9 years before Hijrah and He Pbuh married her 2 years after Hijra so if She RA married him at age 6 than how She remembered a Surah revelation on He Pbuh 5 years before even her Birth ? Do you remember what was happening on Earth 5 years before your birth ?

I mean it is ridiculous to ignore all other narrations. Bachabaaz and Islamophobes are the ones who will ignore all other narrations to die for those 6 years ones just to feed their Ego and throw dirt at the Best of the Best Pbuh.


Than you also completely ignored the Hadith which states that Hazrat Asma RA was 10 years elder than Ayesha RA and she died in 75 A.H at 100 years age where it signifies that at her Sister Ayesha's marriage she was 28 and Ayesha RA was 18. But No why ? Because you are willing to die for 6 years old narration.

 

[TalentSpotterPk]

[MENTION=138980]TalentSpotterPk[/MENTION], what's your take on my post and [MENTION=42489]Black Zero[/MENTION] posts?

My dear friend Black Zero is a former Muslim.

If I become former Muslim in future than what would I endorse ?


He would endorse anything which ridicules Mohammad Pbuh and Islam. Certainly He has Mohammad Pbuh image of a Cruel, Barbarian, womanizer who kept slaves & concubines and whose life was all materialistic, power hungry with loads of worldly Lust. Afterall this is why He is former Muslim. If He had good image of Islam & Mohammad Pbuh would he have left Islam ?


Blasphemy punishment narrations, Apostasy punishment narrations, Jews massacre narrations are all Post Ibn e Ishaq. When was Ibn e Ishaq born ?


God forbid if today in India 600 Hindus are massacred by Muslims than the Hindus scholars, historians won't record this for 300 years ? 300 years later Muslims will tell Hindus that 600 himdus were massacred 300 years earlier ?


What is inspiration behind ISIS today ? Distorted history and distorted ideologies & beliefs.

 

[Black Zero]

[MENTION=138980]TalentSpotterPk[/MENTION], what's your take on my post and [MENTION=42489]Black Zero[/MENTION] posts?

troodon, TSP, is member of reformist sect and just like any other reformist group of any ideology they:

- want to put stress on good teachings of ideology.
- deny/justify/confuse the bad teachings of ideology so to discourage people for following bad teachings.

so you can see that both of above goals are admirable and with the passage of time, ideologies refine themselves and due to the efforts of past reformists, most Muslims are peace loving human beings.

however if you are looking for historical facts then unfortunately reformists are of no use.
its their primary job to deny/justify/confuse wrongdoings of past.

 

[Heisenberg]

No. Its just that you are adamant to say that my Master Pbuh married a 6 years old girl. That's your issue actually. Those narrations have been burried by many other narrations but you won't compromise an inch on what suits you. You did ignore my post where i quoted a hadith where Hazrat Ayesha RA quoted that She RA still remembers a Surah when it was revealed on He Pbuh. That Surah was revealed 9 years before Hijrah and He Pbuh married her 2 years after Hijra so if She RA married him at age 6 than how She remembered a Surah revelation on He Pbuh 5 years before even her Birth ? Do you remember what was happening on Earth 5 years before your birth ?

I mean it is ridiculous to ignore all other narrations. Bachabaaz and Islamophobes are the ones who will ignore all other narrations to die for those 6 years ones just to feed their Ego and throw dirt at the Best of the Best Pbuh.


Than you also completely ignored the Hadith which states that Hazrat Asma RA was 10 years elder than Ayesha RA and she died in 75 A.H at 100 years age where it signifies that at her Sister Ayesha's marriage she was 28 and Ayesha RA was 18. But No why ? Because you are willing to die for 6 years old narration.

Because these are all weak narrations/misrepresented. I will try to answer in more detail if you insist. Probably tomorrow.

Didn't know Muslims themselves are Islamophobes who reject these other narrations. I have sent you a link to an Islamic website which completely blows these arguments out of the water. You are arbitrarily picking what suits you. It makes sense that you pick the strongest evidence and no I don't care about Hadith written down 5 million years later. This is what we have and you can't cherry pick what fits your own idea and agenda.

Also I have spoken to you with respect and would like to keep it that way so will ignore you assuming I'm willing to die for anything and bachabaaz etc. Please keep it civil as you are otherwise a very good and respectful poster.

 

[troodon]

troodon, TSP, is member of reformist sect and just like any other reformist group of any ideology they:

- want to put stress on good teachings of ideology.
- deny/justify/confuse the bad teachings of ideology so to discourage people for following bad teachings.

so you can see that both of above goals are admirable and with the passage of time, ideologies refine themselves and due to the efforts of past reformists, most Muslims are peace loving human beings.

however if you are looking for historical facts then unfortunately reformists are of no use.
its their primary job to deny/justify/confuse wrongdoings of past.

I think [MENTION=138980]TalentSpotterPk[/MENTION] is genuinely a nice guy. I have been following his posts. His faith is admirable. He is defending his beliefs.

 

[Heisenberg]

troodon, TSP, is member of reformist sect and just like any other reformist group of any ideology they:

- want to put stress on good teachings of ideology.
- deny/justify/confuse the bad teachings of ideology so to discourage people for following bad teachings.

so you can see that both of above goals are admirable and with the passage of time, ideologies refine themselves and due to the efforts of past reformists, most Muslims are peace loving human beings.

however if you are looking for historical facts then unfortunately reformists are of no use.
its their primary job to deny/justify/confuse wrongdoings of past.

Pretty much nail on the head. The world would be a better place if his kind had more power. No doubt in my mind.

 

[Heisenberg]

Also you forgot to mention that this sect is killed for being part of this sect and can't call themselves Muslims/aren't considered part of Islam according to Pakistani laws/constitution.

 

[TalentSpotterPk]

Because these are all weak narrations/misrepresented. I will try to answer in more detail if you insist. Probably tomorrow.

Didn't know Muslims themselves are Islamophobes who reject these other narrations. I have sent you a link to an Islamic website which completely blows these arguments out of the water. You are arbitrarily picking what suits you. It makes sense that you pick the strongest evidence and no I don't care about Hadith written down 5 million years later. This is what we have and you can't cherry pick what fits your own idea and agenda.

Also I have spoken to you with respect and would like to keep it that way so will ignore you assuming I'm willing to die for anything and bachabaaz etc. Please keep it civil as you are otherwise a very good and respectful poster.

No.


What suits you is strong. And what doesn't suit you is weak.

My friend you keep believing that Mohammad Pbuh married a 6 years old girl. I won't be charged any money for it so it doesn't affect me.


And as far as that other point is concerned it was not aimed at you. It was aimed at scholars who endorse these 6 years narrations.

Furthermore those who associate concubines with He Pbuh are who ? The Ones who want a Islam Hindu physical war and want to make innocent Hindu girls and women sex slaves. Since they are favourite scholars of many here so I will not name and shame them.

Definitely when Mohammad Pbuh did not keep concubines than how come they make hindu girls concubines ? So better associate stuff with Mohammad Pbuh for things for which islam came to end.


So it was not aimed at you Heisenberg.

 

[Black Zero]

I think [MENTION=138980]TalentSpotterPk[/MENTION] is genuinely a nice guy. I have been following his posts. His faith is admirable. He is defending his beliefs.

Not only TSP, most muslims, are nice people.
But that for almost any religion.

 

[Heisenberg]

No.


What suits you is strong. And what doesn't suit you is weak.

My friend you keep believing that Mohammad Pbuh married a 6 years old girl. I won't be charged any money for it so it doesn't affect me.


And as far as that other point is concerned it was not aimed at you. It was aimed at scholars who endorse these 6 years narrations.

Furthermore those who associate concubines with He Pbuh are who ? The Ones who want a Islam Hindu physical war and want to make innocent Hindu girls and women sex slaves. Since they are favourite scholars of many here so I will not name and shame them.

Definitely when Mohammad Pbuh did not keep concubines than how come they make hindu girls concubines ? So better associate stuff with Mohammad Pbuh for things for which islam came to end.


So it was not aimed at you Heisenberg.

Thank you for clarifying brother.

 

[TalentSpotterPk]

I think [MENTION=138980]TalentSpotterPk[/MENTION] is genuinely a nice guy. I have been following his posts. His faith is admirable. He is defending his beliefs.

We admonish Isis or any group wrt their Sex slaves or concubines stuff. If the person I follow Mohammad Pbuh did it Naoozbillah than I would have endorsed those slaves and glorified them.


There are two sides of these stories. It's upto you to believe on the stories infront of you. Neither you nor me can go 1500 years back to witness what Mohammad Pbuh was all about or what was Muslims conduct so to know the person you need to read Multiple Biographies of the Man written by Muslims as well as Non Muslims and than make up your opinion about the Man.

 

[Black Zero]

Also you forgot to mention that this sect is killed for being part of this sect and can't call themselves Muslims/aren't considered part of Islam according to Pakistani laws/constitution.

I do not consider themselves non muslim that's why I always "forget" to mention this.
For me if someone says that he is a Muslim (be it suffi, shia, Wahab, isis or ahamdi), that's good enough for me.