so this is the big issue in the world right? dogs and alcohol in cabs? hehe...well yea...why dont u ban norwegien muslims from norway...ban their norwegien citisenship and throw them out...mybe in the ocean cause they dont have any ther country since their norweigen...do u ppl even know what the diference between religion and nationality is?? cause obviously u dont...so why the wacked out commands based on lach of knowledge? first learn then think, then think and maybe...just maybe speak :)
Why don't you just convert to islam. You don't seem to get the point here.
The KORAN commands illegal acts and atrocities. You are a dupe. You don't even remember that the Federal govt took the peyote and mescaline away from the Native American religion. Also you do NOT understand what DRY county is either. You CAN have alcohol in a dry county, you just can BUY it in a dry county You are too ignorant to even be allowed to post videos 41
i must say that a cross is 100 percent christian while a headscarf could be muslim christian jewish or even simply secular or hiding baldness from chemotherapy or...?
I think you are wrong but I really want to know where did you pick up that "non muslims are not allowed in mecca". Because I'm a Muslim and it does not make sense to me at all.
@ottawadeals : Here is the Qur'anic verse regarding non Muslims in Makka:
O ye who believe! Truly the pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-knowing, All-wise. (9:28)
@ottawadeals it is true that non muslims are not allowed in mecca but this law is created by the saudi arabian government and has no Islamic basis at all like much of their rule it is only about oppression of humans
in my country norway almost all cab drivers are muslims...how the hell could blind people with dogs get around if they were entitled to refuse dogs in their cabs?? FUCK OFF idiots!
Interesting that he thinks it's ok for cab drivers to refuse to carry alcohol, dogs, women, gays, blacks, breeds, North American Indians, Hispanics, women who are pregnant outside marriage, and whatever foible you care to mention. Guess he'd be just fine with a white cab with a prominent No Gipsies, Niggers, or Muslims sign, hey you lose the revenue right?
"Want to wear headscarves", of course there's no compulsion in Islam is there?
Well I'd be pretty suspicious of any Muslim I met, just like I'd be suspicious of any National Socialist, or Communist. By proclaiming yourself a Muslim, you are proclaiming to the world you believe in the teachings of the murdering, raping pedophile Mohammad and that he was a representative of God on Earth, and that you believe you are at eternal war with the just about everyone.
I wouldn't take my word for it though, being a dirty kaffir and all.
I'm a muslim and I don't believe in things you described above. In my opinion what you are saying is not true but you are allowed to say whatever makes you happy.
Peace makes me happy and If you are in front of me right now I will hug you and wish you a happy life.
stomp on my head and eat my brain........................... VERY MUSLIM OF YOU! Thank you for proving a point. I sent the the story where this happened, you did not like it even tho it happened. Now threats, typical muslim, the religion of "peace"
The point dagonlord32002 is trying to point out is that such incidences do happen in life frequently and every community has its' black sheep but once it is any mistake committed by any muslim, the news agency will underline and try to make it prominant that it was done by a muslim.
then the rest of the nonmuslim community picks up the job of harrassing common simple muslims , who have nothing to do with such incidence and try to irritate them so as to make them respond badly
Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "A man saw a dog eating mud from (the severity of) thirst. So, that man took a shoe (and filled it) with water and kept on pouring the water for the dog till it quenched its thirst. So Allah approved of his deed and made him to enter Paradise."
Whats the point of mentioning this that a "MUSLIM" did that. we all know u can find cases like that for every f ucking group of people and that guy is definetly not a Muslim for kicking a blind guy. Thats just stupid and ur fucking stupid for using this as to make a cheap racist point.
U al so mention his own country. Wtf does it have to do with his own country? How many countries have UK colonized and it would make it okay if it happened to the same guy in another country?
Incidents like these happen all the time. British (and I don't say Christians) tourists involved in an accident in Morocco and a helicopter came and took the British tourists while the injured Moroccans are left there waiting for an ambulance. Is that fair for you? in their own country?
OMG you are so incredibly dumb. LOL!!! The father and 3rd brother of Waleed and Wail have been interviewed and stated Waleed and Wail were brainwashed. Waleed's video tapped last testament before 9/11 was released by As-Sahaab Foundation for Islamic Media. Hahaha, you are a paranoid schizophrenic. LMFAO!!!
BTW Dameen now you are really stupid and I am seriously LMFAO @ u. Did you bother to click on the link at the bottom of the news article you posted to the update to the story? BBC admits they screwed up and their news article was used for conspiracy claims. A picture of another Waleed Al-Shehri was posted as a hijacker. Someone with the same name. It was a case of mistaken identity. This is old news and you are to ignorant to read the entire article and click on the update to it.
Dameen you are insane. I have watched and posted on Clevon's vids in the past. If anything I could say you are following me around. No 1/3 of Americans do not say what you say. I leave in this country. You misunderstand the report and what Americans mean when they say the government covered up or lied about 9/11. They believe the government had some knowledge about potential terrorist threats and did not act appropriately. You are reading between the lines and trying to add your own meaning.
Dameen you are very ignorant and uneducated person. Get off of your truther and propaganda sites. "Loose Change" claims that the hijackers are still alive has been totally debunked. If you had half a brain you would realize if they were, many of your Islamic Media sites would be posting interviews with them and they would of made public announcements they are still a live as well as their families. This is the dumbest thing I have seen someone post. It was debunked years ago.
If Banu Quraiza were deceitful and joined the Meccan army to fight Muslims, less than a few hours would have been sufficient for the huge Meccan army to intrude and end the business of Muslims once and forever. That did not happen, and we know the only chance of Meccans to do so was through Banu Quraiza route. Still what makes Banu Quraiza guilty?
If you really want to understand, I think you should not listen to me or to what anybody else say on a youtube. You should go to University and take Religion and History studies and find your answers. It's very simple.
@ottawadeals : I don't listen to you or anyone else on YT. I have studied Islamic theology. The only thing that is "very simple" is the fact that you cannot refute me.
Peace? The concept of Peace within Islam is reserved only for the believers. It does not extend to the Ummat al-kuffar.
If Banu Quraiza were treacherous, Muhammad is the top authority to attest it. But can you or any Muslim bring out any instance from your own source that is indicative of Muhammad ever accusing Banu Quraiza of being treacherous to besiege and massacre them?
Still nothing happened as Meccans waited and waited for a green signal from Jewish side which never happened. Muslim apologists like yourself weave your conspiracy theories speculating as Banu Quraiza broke the treaty and allied with Meccans to conspire against Muslims. The question you need to answer is: If what you say is true, why didn't it happen?
Still nothing happened as Meccans waited and waited for a green signal from Jewish side which never happened. Muslim apologists like yourself weave your conspiracy theories speculating as Banu Quraiza broke the treaty and allied with Meccans to conspire against Muslims. The question you want to answer is: If what you say is true, why didn't it happen?
I do not refuse the Muslim version of events that occurred within Banu Quraiza during the siege. They were under intense pressure to open the gates of their forts for the confederate army to get through so showed little bit of weakness by admitting one of their brethren who came along with Meccan army. Ibn Ishaq narrates this incident descriptively as the chief of Quraiza tribe refusing to admit Huayy Bin Aktab(a single person) making the latter put his knees down to get in.
It is amazing that Muslims think Jews were bound to help Muhammad wage religious war against the Meccans, despite the fact that he had banished one of their tribes and had assassinated their chief and two poets. The war between the Quraish had nothing to do with the Jews, and by assassinating their people and banishing the Banu Qainuqa' , Muhammad had already broken any agreement he may have had with them.
If they had accepted the deal and gone through with it they would have allowed access into Medina via their fort and you would not be a Muslim today. But they didn't. That is why the Meccans withdrew without fighting and went home because they did not receive support from The Banu Quraiza. Read the sira you idiot.
they did help, the Banu Quraiza loaned their weapons as well as their shovels and picks to Muslims so they could dig the trench & defend themselves. They also didn't allow the Quraish to enter Medina which is why they gave up and went home.
Muslims will never be grateful to those who help them. They will take your help & stab you in the back the moment they no longer need you.
The plot didn't succeed because the B. Qurayza didn't go through with it. The war between the Quraish had nothing to do with the Jews, anyway by assassinating their chief and two poets and banishing the Banu Qainuqa' , Muhammad had already broken any agreement he may have had with them. Typical Muhammadan hypocrite you are dameen. just like your fake prophet was.
How did the B. Qurayza aid them exactly, by lending their weapons as well as their shovels and picks to Muslims so they could dig the trench & defend themselves?
what you neglect to mention is that the Banu Quraiza loaned their weapons as well as their shovels and picks to Muslims so they could dig the trench & defend themselves. Muslims will never be grateful to those who help them. They will take your help & stab you in the back the moment they no longer need you.
They thought they would be treated leniently. btw how did they commit high treason exactly?
Sa`d says: do not let me die until I have seen my desire upon B. Qurayza."' [Sirat, page 459]
When Sa`d is mortally wounded, his last wish is to see his desire upon the Banu Qurayza. He does not spell it out explicitly, but is there any doubt as to what this desire might be? Muhammad knew this which is why he chose him.
That's like asking Hamas to pronounce punishment on an Israeli! LMFAO!
It is unfortunate that you seem incapable of grasping basic logic, reason and principles of justice.
You have completely ignored all of the relevant points in everything that I have written, despite me repeating them to you several times.
You have also avoided confronting the disparity in the claims of islam and the actions of muhammad, as well as being unable to take a neutral or unbiased look at the episode.
Got to go - this is just going round and round in circles because your brain will not let you understand that muhammad was not a man of peace, he was just another murdering, lying, deceitful desert bandit.
They agreed to accept the verdict of: "ONE OF THEIR OWN" - which was a trick as Sa'd was NO LONGER ONE OF THEIR OWN.
Are you really trying to tell me that a whole tribe said "Yes OK" when Muhammad and Sa'd said we are going to butcher every single one of you and enslave your women???
LMAO!! You are a fool if you truly believe people would agree to that.
"While we were in the Mosque, the Prophet came out and said, "Let us go to the Jews" We went out till we reached Bait-ul-Midras. He said to them, "If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to expel you from this land. So, if anyone amongst you owns some property, he is permitted to sell it, otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle." (Bukhari 53:392)
So, by your logic, after the next terrorist attack, people would be justified in killing all Muslims - because their "tribe" is the Ummah - all Muslims are brothers, as we are so often told.
They did NOT agree to the verdict - THEY AGREED TO BE JUDGED BY "ONE OF THEIR OWN" - a trick played on them as Sa'd was NO LONGER one of their own.
Yet the merciful, tolerant and peaceful prophet did NOTHING to intervene and stop the slaughter.
Wouldnt a true man of peace have simply sought dialogue with them to try and determine their grievance, find common ground and then resolve the matter with dignity to both parties?
a) The words of Ibn Ishaq and others, collected from stories and oral traditions, over 100 years after the events took place.
b) Highly unlikely that a Ka'b would have put his trust in Muhammad after seeing they way he broke previous treaties and how he treated the other tribes.
So if we take Muhammad's example, if ONE muslim promises that islam is a religion of peace and another muslim is violent, we should slaughter the entire tribe of muslims.
The person guilty of high treason was muhammad for his treaty breaking attack on the Banu Qaynuqa.
AS I have told you 3 times - the hadith dealing with the attack on the Banu Qaynuqa illustrates perfectly that it was muhammd who broke the treaty long before the Banu Quraish.
Indeed it was a former Jew who judged them - Muhammad appeared to trick the Qurayza into agreeing with whatever decision on their fate might be, if it was rendered by one of their own.
Which was a lie, as Sad bin Muadh was no longer "one of their own".
Unbeknownst to the Qurayza, Sad bin Muadh had also been one of the few Muslims injured in the battle (Ishaq 689) According to the Hadith, he was quite eager to continue slaying "unbelievers" even as he lay dying in his tent (Bukhari 59:448).
"While we were in the Mosque, the Prophet came out and said, "Let us go to the Jews" We went out till we reached Bait-ul-Midras. He said to them, "If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to expel you from this land. So, if anyone amongst you owns some property, he is permitted to sell it, otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle." (Bukhari 53:392)
So, to summarize, we can see from Muhammad's biographers and from other historical data available, that Muhammad and the Muslims actually broke the treaty themselves, long before the Banu Quraish were put in their untenable situation, by attacking the and expelling the other two tribes involved in the treaty.
Yet even if they had been guilty, the beheading of every male member with pubic hair (and one woman who was hysterical at the slaughter of her family) of a tribe who had SURRENDERED PEACEFULLY, was an act of utter barbarism that shows that muhammad was neither merciful or forgiving and that he did not encourage peace.
Since signing the constitution, several prominent Jewish leaders and poets had been assassinated on Muhammads order. At least one innocent merchant was slain by his Muslim business partner following Muhammads order in 624 for his men to kill any Jew who falls into your power (al-Tabari 7:97).
Neither had the "constitution of Medina" stopped the Muslims from attacking the other two Jewish tribes parties to the same agreement looting their property and then evicting them from their land.
So as we can see - the constitution was meaningless as Muhammad and the Muslims did not keep to it themselves - long before the accusations made against the Banu Quraish.
Shortly after arriving in Medina in 622, Muhammad began raiding the merchant caravans traveling to and from neighboring Mecca. He would steal their property and kill anyone who defended it (Ishaq 424-425). The Jews of Qurayza had nothing to do with this. Like the Meccans, the Jews were traders as well and appreciated the value of security in doing business. They neither encouraged Muhammads raids, nor shared in his ill-gotten gain.
After a few years of this, the Meccans eventually realized that they would have to try and capture Medina, since it was being used as a base of operations by Muhammad and his pirates. In 627, they sent an army to the outskirts of the city and appeared poised to take it in what has been called the Battle of the Trench (Muhammad dug a trench around the exposed northern and western parts of the city to stop the Meccan military advance).
The Qurayza, who lived to the east of Medina, were thus caught in a bad situation. Not responsible for Muhammads war, they were nonetheless drawn into it, particularly when they were approached by a Meccan leader and asked not to assist Muhammad in his defense against the siege (to that point, the Qurayza had contributed digging tools to the Muslims, but not fighters).
The chief of the Qurayza did not wish to even entertain the Meccan envoy, but was tricked into allowing him into his home (Ishaq 674). Once there, the Meccan began making his case that the battle was going against Muhammad and that his fall was imminent. The anguish of the Qurayza chief over the trying circumstances of the position that he felt forced into is noted even by Muslim historians (continued):
When Ka'b heard of Huyayy's coming he shut the door of his fort in his face, and when he asked permission to enter he refused to see him, saying that he was a man of ill omen... Then Huyayy accused him of [being inhospitable]... This so enraged Ka'b that he threw open his door. [Huyayy] said to him, "Good heavens, Ka'b, I have brought you immortal fame and a great army....... (continued...)
They have made a firm agreement and promised me that they will not depart until we have made an end of Muhammad and his men. "Ka'b said, "By God, you have brought me immortal shame and an empty cloud while it thunders and lightenings with nothing in it. Woe to you Huyayy, leave me as I am." (Ishaq 674)
After much wheedling by the Meccans, however, the Qurayza leader finally gave in and agreed to stay neutral in the conflict. He would neither contribute troops to the citys defense nor to its impending capture at the hands of an army with superior numbers. The Muslims would be left on their own to finish what they started with Meccans.
Muhammad claimed that this was a breach of the original constitution of Medina, which he had drawn up for the tribes five years earlier. Since its signing, however, a lot of water had gone under the bridge.
For one thing, several prominent Jewish leaders and poets had been assassinated on Muhammads order. At least one innocent merchant was slain by his Muslim business partner following Muhammads order in 624 for his men to kill any Jew who falls into your power (al-Tabari 7:97). Neither had the "constitution of Medina" stopped the Muslims from attacking the other two Jewish tribes parties to the same agreement looting their property and then evicting them from their land.
There is little doubt that the troubles brought on Medina by Muhammad, through his mistreatment of the Jews and his relentless pursuit of hostilities against the Meccans, influenced the Qurayza to consider how much better life had been for them prior to his arrival. From their perspective, it would just be a matter of time before Muhammad found an excuse to attack them as well.
Contrary to popular misconceptions, the Qurayza did not attack the Muslims. Had they attacked, then it surely would have been the end of Muhammad and his band of pirates, since the southern end of the city was completely exposed to the Qurayza. In a terrible irony, it was the decision not to engage in violence that later sealed the fate of the Jews, who were only the first in a very long line of victims, all off whom horribly overestimated the value that Islam places on the lives of unbelievers.
Muhammad arrived in Medina in 622 with a band of immigrants, completely dependent on the hospitality of the three Jewish tribes that lived there alongside the Arabs. Within less than two years, two of the tribes that had welcomed him, the Banu Qaynuqa and the Banu Nadir would be evicted, losing their land and their wealth to the Muslims as soon as their guests gained the power to confiscate and conquer. Muhammad accomplished this by deftly using a strategy of divide and conquer.
The prophet of Islam chose the order of tribes carefully, knowing that the other two tribes would not come to the assistance of the first, since they had been aligned against one another in a recent war, nor that the third would assist the second - due to a dispute over "blood money."
The 3rd and last tribe was the Banu Qurayza. Like the others, they were a peaceful community of farmers and tradesmen who eventually surrendered to Muhammad without a fight. Although the prophet of Islam had been wise enough not to order the wholesale slaughter of the first two tribes following their defeat (which certainly would have stiffened the resistance of the Qurayza), there was no practical reason for Muhammad to repress his genocidal urges once the last tribe had surrendered to him.
Over 800 men and boys (and at least one woman) from the Qurayza tribe were beheaded by the prophet of Islam in a bloodbath of epic proportions. It is an episode that is not only completely at odds with the idea that Islam is a peaceful religion, but also the claim that it is the heir to Christianity, since even that religions most dedicated critics could hardly imagine Jesus doing such a thing.
if the treaty was broken and Banu Quraiza were acting deceitfully, Meccans should not have had to wait at trenches for such a long time and DEPART without fighting.
Not true - because, if the treaty was broken and Banu Quraiza were acting deceitfully, Meccans should not have had to wait at trenches for such a long time and DEPART without fighting. Banu Quraiza could have easily let Meccans intrude through their route and helped in annihilating Muslims. That did not happen.
If you keep repeating yourself then im sure in your own mind of imprisoned islamic thought you will feel villified in your accusations. HOWEVER if anyone here bothers reading the "debate" iv been having with you will CLEARLY see that you have AVOIIDED my questions. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to work out WHY that is.
For those who REALLY want to know i suggest you click on "View all 272 comments" at the bottom of this page.
It would seem that i need to play a broken record to even stand a chance to get through your bigoted and narrow mindset so i wont keep wasting my breath saying.....
I WILL answer ANY of your points i dont FEAR your questions.
Out of courtesy can you answer MY questions first?
If not you only expose your agenda of circular arguementation AGAIN for all to see here.
Im just re-iterating what a muslim ulema stated in the 15th century if my memory serves me correctly (and usually it does) where they stated "The gates of IJTIHAD are closed"
In other words DONT question your faith, DONT think independently with reason or logic or objectivity just FEAR allah and do as you are told! Im sure iv got that one nailed eh?
Furthermore can you find me a single school of islamic jurispudence that promotes IJTIHAD to the muslim masses?
You are not using independent, reasoned thought (IJTIHAD) becasue you AVOID legitimate probing questions that would HAVE to make you question your faith and the "logic" (if you can call it such) behind muhammads and allahs reasoning.
Judging by this statement "Pathetic. I gave you facts and you call it itjihad how stupid!!"
It would seem you dont even know what ijtihad is my friend :)
I really dont see the need to PARROT questions that are plainly there for you to address! I have said innumerable amount of times that i am HAPPY to address ALL of your points and counter them i have absolutely NO PROBLEM doing so.
So are you going to address the remaining questions? Theres another 3 or 4 you have AVOIDED thus far!
Youtube wont let me post the other questions asked earlier but im sure you know what they are, PLEASE have the intellectual integrity to answer the remaining questions. Thank you
Please stop being so "selective" with your sources and open your mind.
Your apologetics wreak of fallacy and avoidance but i do UNDERSTAND why that is because the banu quraiza incident is a serious blot on muhammads and islams "pious" history.
And you have NOT answered my hard hitting LEGITIMATE QUESTIONS!
I now feel the need to repost them for EVERYONES attention. I wouldnt want you to think you got away with AVOIDANCE.
AVOIDANCE doesnt lead to the truth of a matter my friend!
Please your DESPERATION is astounding really it is! This is not about being macho its about banu quraiza its about the ISLAMIC SOURCES regarding this VILE historical incident wher muhammad had INNOCENT men and boys murdered then enslaved their womenfolk please try and avoid detracting from the points at hand here.
You made your point i have made mine HOWEVER the topic is not finished (i know you would like it to be) there are MORE islamic sources to examine on this!
Those EXACT sources that i have just mentioned you NEED to refer to as you OBVIOUSLY have little knowledge of the quran (a book i have CLEARLY read and studied more than you).
The IRONY here is that PRIDE caused the fall of iblis.
That is why i have quoted you this particular ayat, very fitting dont you think?
Now please stop posting verses and narrations you have limited knowledge about.
Now all that said and done are you now going to ANSWER my questions?
I am posting verses(al-isra v 80) that i know contain a spiritual meaning. You are quite correct in posting the tafsir of ibn kathir for clarification but there are MORE interpretations to that verse in question. I have a quran translated by abdullah yusuf ali.
If you go to page no 672 you will find that what i have posted is in fact TRUE.
Furthermore you should go to page no's 696 and 697 where you will find footnotes for the verse in question (2279 and 2280 respectively).....
It is important to note that Muhammad himself was the source of bitterness against the early Muslims, yet he was protected from personal consequence by his powerful uncle, Abu Talib. Muhammads biographer recorded many instances in which the leading men of Mecca beseeched Muhammad (either directly or through his uncle) to stop mocking the religion of their ancestors:
Abu Sufyan, with other sundry notables, went to Abu Talib and said: "You know the trouble that exists between us and your nephew, so call him and let us make an agreement that he will leave us alone and we will leave him alone; let him have his religion and we will have ours." (Ibn Ishaq 278)
The Muslims would later be the first to declare war at Mecca, as well as later, when Muhammad ordered deadly aids against Meccan caravans from his new home in Medina.
When the apostle openly displayed Islam as Allah ordered him, his people did not withdraw or turn against him, so far as I have heard, until he spoke disparagingly of their gods. When he did that, they took great offence and resolved unanimously to treat him as an enemy. (Ibn Ishaq 167)
Although asked to stop, Muhammad continued to stir up trouble by condemning the local religion, causing the Meccans great anxiety: [The Meccans] said they had never known anything like the trouble they had endured from this fellow. He had declared their mode of life foolish, insulted their forefathers, reviled their religion, divided the community and cursed their gods (Ibn Ishaq 183).
Qur'an (4:34) - "Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and BEAT THEM; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great."
seriously flawed logic - it is MUSLIM majority states that rank the lowest - the places that are ruled by sharia'h are the worst - the places that say they have not abandoned islam
That is probably why islamic nations rank among the lowest in education, freedom, creativity, productivity, peace and tolerance - the restrictions placed on learning and the prevention of "mixing" potentially valid ideas.
once again - google - Abu Hatim al-Razi
muslimphilosophy. com has a good article
so where is your proof that the qu'rap is the word of god?
17:80 وقل رب ادخلني مدخل صدق واخرجني مخرج صدق واجعل لي من لدنك سلطانا نصيرا "O my Lord! Let my entry be by the Gate of Truth and Honour, and likewise my exit by the Gate of Truth and Honour; and grant me from Thy Presence an authority to aid (me)."
It would seem that i am that authority my friend :)
The issue is VERY CLEAR and no amount of apologetic diatribe will confuse it my friend!
Muhammad KILLED all the men and boys (apart from those who hadnt started puberty) of Banu Qurayza. Not ALL of the men and boys were guilty of "high treason" as you put it.
Muhammad MURDERED innocent people!
If muhammad was applying mosaic law then why did he spare the Banu Qaynuqa tribe under similar circumstances?
You wreak of hypocricy and contradiction, no amount of contortion will twist your way out.
Once you have found the moral and intellectual integrity to answer some hard hitting questions then i will be HAPPY to expand on your points and refute them as well. The choice is yours.
Islam is a self contradicting failiure and you being a good muslim are living up to that failiure.
You fail miserably with your apologetics. May i THANK YOU for giving me the chance to PROVE how barbaric and decieving muhammad was and that by muhammads OWN WORDS the punishment given by Sa`d bin Mu`adh was in fact a decision of ALLAH!
"You have given the judgement of Allah above the seven heavens."
Muhammad said to Sa`d, 'You have given the judgement of Allah above the seven heavens.
Then the apostle divided the property, wives and children of B. Qurayza among the Muslims, and he made known on that day the shares of horse and men, and took out the fifth.1/5 of all booty in all conflict was the personal property of Muhammad.
Then the apostle sent Sa`d b. Zayd al-Ansari brother of b. Abdu'l-Ashhal with some of the captive women of B. Qurayza to Najd and he sold them for horses and weapons
Sa`d said 'Then I give judgement that the men should be killed, the property divided, and the women and children taken as captives.'
So muhammad didnt ask the Banu Qurayza themselves even though they surrendered to muhammad unconditionally, he mediated with their bretheren tribe of al-Aus who he TRICKED by giving the decision of punishment to a tribal traitor of theirs and MUHAMMADS FRIEND Sa`d bin Mu`adh!
Im blaming the muslims because they killed INNOCENT PEOPLE can you accept that there were men and boys who were killed who were NOT involved in "high treason" as you put it?
The Banu Qurayza did accept muhammads punishment HOWEVER that was ONLY because of the mediation of the tribe of al-Aus who knew that muhammad wanted to slaughter them due to the fact that they were his greatest obstacle in his mission to be a prophetic leader. So upon hearing the calls from the tribe of al-Aus........
by the way i ment comments
khalilrabee 1 year ago
so this is the big issue in the world right? dogs and alcohol in cabs? hehe...well yea...why dont u ban norwegien muslims from norway...ban their norwegien citisenship and throw them out...mybe in the ocean cause they dont have any ther country since their norweigen...do u ppl even know what the diference between religion and nationality is?? cause obviously u dont...so why the wacked out commands based on lach of knowledge? first learn then think, then think and maybe...just maybe speak :)
khalilrabee 1 year ago
Why don't you just convert to islam. You don't seem to get the point here.
The KORAN commands illegal acts and atrocities. You are a dupe. You don't even remember that the Federal govt took the peyote and mescaline away from the Native American religion. Also you do NOT understand what DRY county is either. You CAN have alcohol in a dry county, you just can BUY it in a dry county You are too ignorant to even be allowed to post videos 41
RushmoreGerleve 1 year ago
Um the punjab guy is actually called a Sikh man that wears a turban !
DazzelPebbels 1 year ago
@DazzelPebbels
punjabs are sikhs?
clevonamerica 1 year ago
@clevonamerica Yes they are..I have a friend that is Sikh from punjab and her brother wears a turban ....
DazzelPebbels 1 year ago
How about this: In England, nurses cannot wear crucifixes, yet Muslims get to wear headscarves.
StoogeWatcher 1 year ago
@StoogeWatcher
i must say that a cross is 100 percent christian while a headscarf could be muslim christian jewish or even simply secular or hiding baldness from chemotherapy or...?
big difference i think
bret
;)
clevonamerica 1 year ago
@StoogeWatcher C'mon! It's BS and you know it.
ManRealThe 1 year ago
@ManRealThe What's BS about the truth? Muslims DO get special treatment in schools and workplaces.
StoogeWatcher 1 year ago
@AlexiusComnenos
I think you are wrong but I really want to know where did you pick up that "non muslims are not allowed in mecca". Because I'm a Muslim and it does not make sense to me at all.
Please provide a versus in Koran or Hadith.
ottawadeals 2 years ago
@ottawadeals : Here is the Qur'anic verse regarding non Muslims in Makka:
O ye who believe! Truly the pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-knowing, All-wise. (9:28)
Please provide evidence of non-Muslims in Makka?
peterpedant 2 years ago
@ottawadeals it is true that non muslims are not allowed in mecca but this law is created by the saudi arabian government and has no Islamic basis at all like much of their rule it is only about oppression of humans
ahmad3652 1 year ago
in my country norway almost all cab drivers are muslims...how the hell could blind people with dogs get around if they were entitled to refuse dogs in their cabs?? FUCK OFF idiots!
Outlaw muslims in our countries , how about that?
kjempegeir 2 years ago
kjempegeir
turning away a blind man because of his dog is completely unacceptable if you ask me
you didnt need to get all fukyuuee
bret
clevonamerica 2 years ago
@kjempegeir
I'm a Muslim and I would understand your message perfectly without the last 3 words.
Did somebody refuse a blind person from taking a cab with his dog? I really want to know.
And if that happens, does that qualifies anybody to threat all muslims to be the same? I really want to know.
Peace! but I think you need to free your mind, your brain's energy is lost in a bad battle.
ottawadeals 2 years ago
Interesting that he thinks it's ok for cab drivers to refuse to carry alcohol, dogs, women, gays, blacks, breeds, North American Indians, Hispanics, women who are pregnant outside marriage, and whatever foible you care to mention. Guess he'd be just fine with a white cab with a prominent No Gipsies, Niggers, or Muslims sign, hey you lose the revenue right?
"Want to wear headscarves", of course there's no compulsion in Islam is there?
Really really silly examples.
canisfamilliaris 2 years ago
can
i think cab drivers should pick up fares and do thier job as long as their clients are respectful.i also dont accept bigotry.
you should meet more muslims than the narrow field you judge
bret
bret
clevonamerica 2 years ago
Well I'd be pretty suspicious of any Muslim I met, just like I'd be suspicious of any National Socialist, or Communist. By proclaiming yourself a Muslim, you are proclaiming to the world you believe in the teachings of the murdering, raping pedophile Mohammad and that he was a representative of God on Earth, and that you believe you are at eternal war with the just about everyone.
I wouldn't take my word for it though, being a dirty kaffir and all.
canisfamilliaris 2 years ago
@canisfamilliaris
I'm a muslim and I don't believe in things you described above. In my opinion what you are saying is not true but you are allowed to say whatever makes you happy.
Peace makes me happy and If you are in front of me right now I will hug you and wish you a happy life.
Please free your mind.
ottawadeals 2 years ago
what a fuckin wanker,its people like you that scare the shit out of me
englishandangry 2 years ago
stomp on my head and eat my brain........................... VERY MUSLIM OF YOU! Thank you for proving a point. I sent the the story where this happened, you did not like it even tho it happened. Now threats, typical muslim, the religion of "peace"
pogueuk 2 years ago
pogueuk
The point dagonlord32002 is trying to point out is that such incidences do happen in life frequently and every community has its' black sheep but once it is any mistake committed by any muslim, the news agency will underline and try to make it prominant that it was done by a muslim.
then the rest of the nonmuslim community picks up the job of harrassing common simple muslims , who have nothing to do with such incidence and try to irritate them so as to make them respond badly
farzanatasneem 2 years ago
A blind man in the UK got kicked of a bus by a muslim for having a guide dog, very nice in his own country!
pogueuk 2 years ago
A sane person whether a muslim or nonmuslim will not act that way and a dog is allowed if used as a watch dog in Islam.
I have commented on this video about a hadith related to dog . Seems I must repost it
smajmal62 2 years ago
Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "A man saw a dog eating mud from (the severity of) thirst. So, that man took a shoe (and filled it) with water and kept on pouring the water for the dog till it quenched its thirst. So Allah approved of his deed and made him to enter Paradise."
Sahih Al Bukhari:1.174
smajmal62 2 years ago
thats the funniest lie i have ever heard.
dagonlord32002 2 years ago
I have just PM you the link to the "lie" so you know it is not a lie and not funny
pogueuk 2 years ago
Whats the point of mentioning this that a "MUSLIM" did that. we all know u can find cases like that for every f ucking group of people and that guy is definetly not a Muslim for kicking a blind guy. Thats just stupid and ur fucking stupid for using this as to make a cheap racist point.
dagonlord32002 2 years ago
i just feel like stomping on ur fucking head and eat ur brain in front of ur family just to prove how fucking stupid u are.
dagonlord32002 2 years ago
U al so mention his own country. Wtf does it have to do with his own country? How many countries have UK colonized and it would make it okay if it happened to the same guy in another country?
dagonlord32002 2 years ago
@pogueuk
Why always put religion in there?
Incidents like these happen all the time. British (and I don't say Christians) tourists involved in an accident in Morocco and a helicopter came and took the British tourists while the injured Moroccans are left there waiting for an ambulance. Is that fair for you? in their own country?
ottawadeals 2 years ago
OMG you are so incredibly dumb. LOL!!! The father and 3rd brother of Waleed and Wail have been interviewed and stated Waleed and Wail were brainwashed. Waleed's video tapped last testament before 9/11 was released by As-Sahaab Foundation for Islamic Media. Hahaha, you are a paranoid schizophrenic. LMFAO!!!
FuryOfMsMarvel 2 years ago
BTW Dameen now you are really stupid and I am seriously LMFAO @ u. Did you bother to click on the link at the bottom of the news article you posted to the update to the story? BBC admits they screwed up and their news article was used for conspiracy claims. A picture of another Waleed Al-Shehri was posted as a hijacker. Someone with the same name. It was a case of mistaken identity. This is old news and you are to ignorant to read the entire article and click on the update to it.
FuryOfMsMarvel 2 years ago
Dameen you are insane. I have watched and posted on Clevon's vids in the past. If anything I could say you are following me around. No 1/3 of Americans do not say what you say. I leave in this country. You misunderstand the report and what Americans mean when they say the government covered up or lied about 9/11. They believe the government had some knowledge about potential terrorist threats and did not act appropriately. You are reading between the lines and trying to add your own meaning.
FuryOfMsMarvel 2 years ago
Dameen you are very ignorant and uneducated person. Get off of your truther and propaganda sites. "Loose Change" claims that the hijackers are still alive has been totally debunked. If you had half a brain you would realize if they were, many of your Islamic Media sites would be posting interviews with them and they would of made public announcements they are still a live as well as their families. This is the dumbest thing I have seen someone post. It was debunked years ago.
FuryOfMsMarvel 2 years ago
If Banu Quraiza were deceitful and joined the Meccan army to fight Muslims, less than a few hours would have been sufficient for the huge Meccan army to intrude and end the business of Muslims once and forever. That did not happen, and we know the only chance of Meccans to do so was through Banu Quraiza route. Still what makes Banu Quraiza guilty?
peterpedant 2 years ago
I've read all the posts you've made on this subject and they have not resolved my questions?
peterpedant 2 years ago
@peterpedant
If you really want to understand, I think you should not listen to me or to what anybody else say on a youtube. You should go to University and take Religion and History studies and find your answers. It's very simple.
Peace!
ottawadeals 2 years ago
@ottawadeals : I don't listen to you or anyone else on YT. I have studied Islamic theology. The only thing that is "very simple" is the fact that you cannot refute me.
Peace? The concept of Peace within Islam is reserved only for the believers. It does not extend to the Ummat al-kuffar.
peterpedant 2 years ago
If Banu Quraiza were treacherous, Muhammad is the top authority to attest it. But can you or any Muslim bring out any instance from your own source that is indicative of Muhammad ever accusing Banu Quraiza of being treacherous to besiege and massacre them?
peterpedant 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Still nothing happened as Meccans waited and waited for a green signal from Jewish side which never happened. Muslim apologists like yourself weave your conspiracy theories speculating as Banu Quraiza broke the treaty and allied with Meccans to conspire against Muslims. The question you need to answer is: If what you say is true, why didn't it happen?
peterpedant 2 years ago
Still nothing happened as Meccans waited and waited for a green signal from Jewish side which never happened. Muslim apologists like yourself weave your conspiracy theories speculating as Banu Quraiza broke the treaty and allied with Meccans to conspire against Muslims. The question you want to answer is: If what you say is true, why didn't it happen?
peterpedant 2 years ago
Comment removed
peterpedant 2 years ago
I do not refuse the Muslim version of events that occurred within Banu Quraiza during the siege. They were under intense pressure to open the gates of their forts for the confederate army to get through so showed little bit of weakness by admitting one of their brethren who came along with Meccan army. Ibn Ishaq narrates this incident descriptively as the chief of Quraiza tribe refusing to admit Huayy Bin Aktab(a single person) making the latter put his knees down to get in.
peterpedant 2 years ago
"they cannot fight their own battles EVEN today."
they did a pretty good job of kicking Muslim arse in 1948 and '67 LMFAO!
peterpedant 2 years ago
It is amazing that Muslims think Jews were bound to help Muhammad wage religious war against the Meccans, despite the fact that he had banished one of their tribes and had assassinated their chief and two poets. The war between the Quraish had nothing to do with the Jews, and by assassinating their people and banishing the Banu Qainuqa' , Muhammad had already broken any agreement he may have had with them.
peterpedant 2 years ago
If they had accepted the deal and gone through with it they would have allowed access into Medina via their fort and you would not be a Muslim today. But they didn't. That is why the Meccans withdrew without fighting and went home because they did not receive support from The Banu Quraiza. Read the sira you idiot.
peterpedant 2 years ago
they did help, the Banu Quraiza loaned their weapons as well as their shovels and picks to Muslims so they could dig the trench & defend themselves. They also didn't allow the Quraish to enter Medina which is why they gave up and went home.
Muslims will never be grateful to those who help them. They will take your help & stab you in the back the moment they no longer need you.
peterpedant 2 years ago
The plot didn't succeed because the B. Qurayza didn't go through with it. The war between the Quraish had nothing to do with the Jews, anyway by assassinating their chief and two poets and banishing the Banu Qainuqa' , Muhammad had already broken any agreement he may have had with them. Typical Muhammadan hypocrite you are dameen. just like your fake prophet was.
peterpedant 2 years ago
How did the B. Qurayza aid them exactly, by lending their weapons as well as their shovels and picks to Muslims so they could dig the trench & defend themselves?
peterpedant 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
considered and actually are two different things Muhammadan. Did the B. Qurayza allow the Ghatafan entry into medina Yes or No?
peterpedant 2 years ago
You still haven't told us how they broke the treaty ?
peterpedant 2 years ago
Comment removed
peterpedant 2 years ago
what you neglect to mention is that the Banu Quraiza loaned their weapons as well as their shovels and picks to Muslims so they could dig the trench & defend themselves. Muslims will never be grateful to those who help them. They will take your help & stab you in the back the moment they no longer need you.
peterpedant 2 years ago
how did they help the enemy? How was it treasonous?
peterpedant 2 years ago
They thought they would be treated leniently. btw how did they commit high treason exactly?
Sa`d says: do not let me die until I have seen my desire upon B. Qurayza."' [Sirat, page 459]
When Sa`d is mortally wounded, his last wish is to see his desire upon the Banu Qurayza. He does not spell it out explicitly, but is there any doubt as to what this desire might be? Muhammad knew this which is why he chose him.
That's like asking Hamas to pronounce punishment on an Israeli! LMFAO!
peterpedant 2 years ago
You have completely ignored all of the relevant points in everything that I have written, despite me repeating them to you several times.
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago
It is unfortunate that you seem incapable of grasping basic logic, reason and principles of justice.
You have completely ignored all of the relevant points in everything that I have written, despite me repeating them to you several times.
You have also avoided confronting the disparity in the claims of islam and the actions of muhammad, as well as being unable to take a neutral or unbiased look at the episode.
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago
Got to go - this is just going round and round in circles because your brain will not let you understand that muhammad was not a man of peace, he was just another murdering, lying, deceitful desert bandit.
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago
---"THEY THEMSELVES AGREED TO THIS VERDICT!!"---
Are you retarded?
They agreed to accept the verdict of: "ONE OF THEIR OWN" - which was a trick as Sa'd was NO LONGER ONE OF THEIR OWN.
Are you really trying to tell me that a whole tribe said "Yes OK" when Muhammad and Sa'd said we are going to butcher every single one of you and enslave your women???
LMAO!! You are a fool if you truly believe people would agree to that.
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago
this is getting really boring - i think that you must be too stupid to take in the facts or you gave the memory of a fish!
I will repeat the injunction that cancelled the treaty of Medina....
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago
"While we were in the Mosque, the Prophet came out and said, "Let us go to the Jews" We went out till we reached Bait-ul-Midras. He said to them, "If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to expel you from this land. So, if anyone amongst you owns some property, he is permitted to sell it, otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle." (Bukhari 53:392)
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago
Why wasn't Muhammad punished for breaking treaties?
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago
So, by your logic, after the next terrorist attack, people would be justified in killing all Muslims - because their "tribe" is the Ummah - all Muslims are brothers, as we are so often told.
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago
You idiot!
Do you bother to read?
They did NOT agree to the verdict - THEY AGREED TO BE JUDGED BY "ONE OF THEIR OWN" - a trick played on them as Sa'd was NO LONGER one of their own.
Yet the merciful, tolerant and peaceful prophet did NOTHING to intervene and stop the slaughter.
Wouldnt a true man of peace have simply sought dialogue with them to try and determine their grievance, find common ground and then resolve the matter with dignity to both parties?
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago
It does not constitute proof as it is:
a) The words of Ibn Ishaq and others, collected from stories and oral traditions, over 100 years after the events took place.
b) Highly unlikely that a Ka'b would have put his trust in Muhammad after seeing they way he broke previous treaties and how he treated the other tribes.
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago
So if we take Muhammad's example, if ONE muslim promises that islam is a religion of peace and another muslim is violent, we should slaughter the entire tribe of muslims.
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago 2
ZIONIST, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH..
MUHAMMAD BROKE TREATIES - YET WASN'T PUNISHED
One man ALLEGEDLY made a treaty (we only have the word of muhammad's men for this) and muhammad slaughters a whole tribe.
Peace tolerance and justice from the "prophet" LMAO!
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago
Ka'b made the treaty, Huyayy disagreed as he had seen how Muhammad had treated others.
And also seeing that Muhammad had broken treaties himself.
Yet this is still no excuse to butcher a whole tribe who had surrendered
WHERE IS THE TOLERANCE, PEACE AND MERCY IN BUTCHERY AND SLAUGHTER OF A PEOPLE WHO SURRENDERED?
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago
Akhtab al-Nadri is Huyayy's birth name,
That rest of your comment doesn't even make sense
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago
You are referring to the incident in which a Muslim was killed by an angry Jewish mob.
You are forgetting that the mob was angry because the Muslim in question had just MURDERED a Jewish merchant over a woman's honor.
Muhammad chose to lay siege to the Qaynuqa stronghold rather than mediate a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
Using Muhammad's logic, we would kill every Muslim because of one terrorist.
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago
LOL!!!
The constitution of Medina mentions nothing about tying women in market places,!!
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago
High treason?
The person guilty of high treason was muhammad for his treaty breaking attack on the Banu Qaynuqa.
AS I have told you 3 times - the hadith dealing with the attack on the Banu Qaynuqa illustrates perfectly that it was muhammd who broke the treaty long before the Banu Quraish.
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago
I have already explained that muhammad broke the treaty by attacking, threatening and banishing the Banu Qaynuqa.
It only takes one person to break a treaty - this person was muhammad.
Do you really believe that the Banu Quraish should keep their side of the treaty when muhammad had already broken his side???
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago
Indeed it was a former Jew who judged them - Muhammad appeared to trick the Qurayza into agreeing with whatever decision on their fate might be, if it was rendered by one of their own.
Which was a lie, as Sad bin Muadh was no longer "one of their own".
Unbeknownst to the Qurayza, Sad bin Muadh had also been one of the few Muslims injured in the battle (Ishaq 689) According to the Hadith, he was quite eager to continue slaying "unbelievers" even as he lay dying in his tent (Bukhari 59:448).
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago
Read the statements properly and TRY to use your minute brain to comprehend the facts presented to you.
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago
it says insulting language, it does not say they were asking for a fight
he deserved to be insulted as he was threatening them and ahd already broken the treaty!
what kind of tolerant, peaceful, merciful prophet, butchers over 600 people because of insulting language??? LMAO!
what a nice understanding murderer he was..
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago
You really do have a lot of problems understanding don't you.
Muhammad NULLIFIED the whole treaty by attack and banishing the Banu Qaynuqa.
Why would anyone else stick to the treaty if Muhammad wasn't??
THE TREATY WAS CANCELED BY MUHAMMAD'S ACTIONS AGAINST THE BANU QAYNUGA - GOT IT?
MOHAMMAD DIDN"T KEEP THE TREATY HIMSELF, LONG BEFORE HE BUTCHERED THE BANU QURAISH
SO ACCUSING THE BANU QURAISH OF BREAKING A TREATY ALREADY BROKEN BY MUHAMMAD WAS JUST AN EXCUSE TO MURDER
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago
The injunction that canceled the treaty:
"While we were in the Mosque, the Prophet came out and said, "Let us go to the Jews" We went out till we reached Bait-ul-Midras. He said to them, "If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to expel you from this land. So, if anyone amongst you owns some property, he is permitted to sell it, otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle." (Bukhari 53:392)
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago 2
So, to summarize, we can see from Muhammad's biographers and from other historical data available, that Muhammad and the Muslims actually broke the treaty themselves, long before the Banu Quraish were put in their untenable situation, by attacking the and expelling the other two tribes involved in the treaty.
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago
Yet even if they had been guilty, the beheading of every male member with pubic hair (and one woman who was hysterical at the slaughter of her family) of a tribe who had SURRENDERED PEACEFULLY, was an act of utter barbarism that shows that muhammad was neither merciful or forgiving and that he did not encourage peace.
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago 3
*by the attacking and expelling of the other two tribes involved in the treaty*
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago
Since signing the constitution, several prominent Jewish leaders and poets had been assassinated on Muhammads order. At least one innocent merchant was slain by his Muslim business partner following Muhammads order in 624 for his men to kill any Jew who falls into your power (al-Tabari 7:97).
Neither had the "constitution of Medina" stopped the Muslims from attacking the other two Jewish tribes parties to the same agreement looting their property and then evicting them from their land.
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago 2
So as we can see - the constitution was meaningless as Muhammad and the Muslims did not keep to it themselves - long before the accusations made against the Banu Quraish.
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago 2
-----"I googled your comments. Copying and pasting from anti islamic websites won't change the issue"-----
And I googled your comments. Copying and pasting from hate mongering myths and superstitions won't change the issue.
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago
---"Banu quraza said:
"We have no agreement or undertaking with Muhammad. " (Ibid,. p 453)"---
LOL!, So again, they had no treaty, so they could not break it!
Thank you for emphasizing my point
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago
----"the constitution said
"Quraysh and their helpers shall not be given protection"----
So the Quraish were already victimised by the constitution and you say that THEY broke the terms? LMAO!
If they were victims of it - they were under NO obligation to keep the terms.
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago
I see - so you ask me for the full story and when I give it to you, I get accused of spamming!
And by your ignorant comments, I can see that you completely failed to read and understand the information I gave you.
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago
Shortly after arriving in Medina in 622, Muhammad began raiding the merchant caravans traveling to and from neighboring Mecca. He would steal their property and kill anyone who defended it (Ishaq 424-425). The Jews of Qurayza had nothing to do with this. Like the Meccans, the Jews were traders as well and appreciated the value of security in doing business. They neither encouraged Muhammads raids, nor shared in his ill-gotten gain.
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago
After a few years of this, the Meccans eventually realized that they would have to try and capture Medina, since it was being used as a base of operations by Muhammad and his pirates. In 627, they sent an army to the outskirts of the city and appeared poised to take it in what has been called the Battle of the Trench (Muhammad dug a trench around the exposed northern and western parts of the city to stop the Meccan military advance).
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago
The Qurayza, who lived to the east of Medina, were thus caught in a bad situation. Not responsible for Muhammads war, they were nonetheless drawn into it, particularly when they were approached by a Meccan leader and asked not to assist Muhammad in his defense against the siege (to that point, the Qurayza had contributed digging tools to the Muslims, but not fighters).
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago
The chief of the Qurayza did not wish to even entertain the Meccan envoy, but was tricked into allowing him into his home (Ishaq 674). Once there, the Meccan began making his case that the battle was going against Muhammad and that his fall was imminent. The anguish of the Qurayza chief over the trying circumstances of the position that he felt forced into is noted even by Muslim historians (continued):
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago
When Ka'b heard of Huyayy's coming he shut the door of his fort in his face, and when he asked permission to enter he refused to see him, saying that he was a man of ill omen... Then Huyayy accused him of [being inhospitable]... This so enraged Ka'b that he threw open his door. [Huyayy] said to him, "Good heavens, Ka'b, I have brought you immortal fame and a great army....... (continued...)
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago
They have made a firm agreement and promised me that they will not depart until we have made an end of Muhammad and his men. "Ka'b said, "By God, you have brought me immortal shame and an empty cloud while it thunders and lightenings with nothing in it. Woe to you Huyayy, leave me as I am." (Ishaq 674)
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago
After much wheedling by the Meccans, however, the Qurayza leader finally gave in and agreed to stay neutral in the conflict. He would neither contribute troops to the citys defense nor to its impending capture at the hands of an army with superior numbers. The Muslims would be left on their own to finish what they started with Meccans.
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago
Muhammad claimed that this was a breach of the original constitution of Medina, which he had drawn up for the tribes five years earlier. Since its signing, however, a lot of water had gone under the bridge.
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago
For one thing, several prominent Jewish leaders and poets had been assassinated on Muhammads order. At least one innocent merchant was slain by his Muslim business partner following Muhammads order in 624 for his men to kill any Jew who falls into your power (al-Tabari 7:97). Neither had the "constitution of Medina" stopped the Muslims from attacking the other two Jewish tribes parties to the same agreement looting their property and then evicting them from their land.
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago
There is little doubt that the troubles brought on Medina by Muhammad, through his mistreatment of the Jews and his relentless pursuit of hostilities against the Meccans, influenced the Qurayza to consider how much better life had been for them prior to his arrival. From their perspective, it would just be a matter of time before Muhammad found an excuse to attack them as well.
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago
Contrary to popular misconceptions, the Qurayza did not attack the Muslims. Had they attacked, then it surely would have been the end of Muhammad and his band of pirates, since the southern end of the city was completely exposed to the Qurayza. In a terrible irony, it was the decision not to engage in violence that later sealed the fate of the Jews, who were only the first in a very long line of victims, all off whom horribly overestimated the value that Islam places on the lives of unbelievers.
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago
Muhammad arrived in Medina in 622 with a band of immigrants, completely dependent on the hospitality of the three Jewish tribes that lived there alongside the Arabs. Within less than two years, two of the tribes that had welcomed him, the Banu Qaynuqa and the Banu Nadir would be evicted, losing their land and their wealth to the Muslims as soon as their guests gained the power to confiscate and conquer. Muhammad accomplished this by deftly using a strategy of divide and conquer.
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago
The prophet of Islam chose the order of tribes carefully, knowing that the other two tribes would not come to the assistance of the first, since they had been aligned against one another in a recent war, nor that the third would assist the second - due to a dispute over "blood money."
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago
The 3rd and last tribe was the Banu Qurayza. Like the others, they were a peaceful community of farmers and tradesmen who eventually surrendered to Muhammad without a fight. Although the prophet of Islam had been wise enough not to order the wholesale slaughter of the first two tribes following their defeat (which certainly would have stiffened the resistance of the Qurayza), there was no practical reason for Muhammad to repress his genocidal urges once the last tribe had surrendered to him.
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago
Over 800 men and boys (and at least one woman) from the Qurayza tribe were beheaded by the prophet of Islam in a bloodbath of epic proportions. It is an episode that is not only completely at odds with the idea that Islam is a peaceful religion, but also the claim that it is the heir to Christianity, since even that religions most dedicated critics could hardly imagine Jesus doing such a thing.
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago
You did, pigwit!
you asked why I was criticizing muhammad because I said that a true religion of god would be open to all ideas.
Read your own damn comments before asking your stupid questions.
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago
If you are going to be insulting, then I will return the favor.
You make accusations of lies, but completely fail to show what is a lie and how it is a lie.
If you are unable to refute my statements with independent sources, that makes YOU the liar.
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago
Pathetic indeed!
Why should I NOT criticize muhammad, just because islam claims to be the true religion of god or that the true religion would be open to all ideas
Your statement does not even make sense
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago
Banu Quraiza could have easily let Meccans intrude through their route and helped in annihilating Muslims
That did not happen.
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago
if the treaty was broken and Banu Quraiza were acting deceitfully, Meccans should not have had to wait at trenches for such a long time and DEPART without fighting.
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago
banu quraiza broke the treaty?? LOL!!
Not true - because, if the treaty was broken and Banu Quraiza were acting deceitfully, Meccans should not have had to wait at trenches for such a long time and DEPART without fighting. Banu Quraiza could have easily let Meccans intrude through their route and helped in annihilating Muslims. That did not happen.
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago
@ 2:56 how many lives has food destroyed? Bulimia, Anorexia nervosa, Obesity... Is food a loser too?
I drink, and my life is not destroyed? Silly argument.
peterpedant 2 years ago 2
dameen78
If you keep repeating yourself then im sure in your own mind of imprisoned islamic thought you will feel villified in your accusations. HOWEVER if anyone here bothers reading the "debate" iv been having with you will CLEARLY see that you have AVOIIDED my questions. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to work out WHY that is.
For those who REALLY want to know i suggest you click on "View all 272 comments" at the bottom of this page.
Many thanks
nemisis123456 2 years ago
It would seem that i need to play a broken record to even stand a chance to get through your bigoted and narrow mindset so i wont keep wasting my breath saying.....
I WILL answer ANY of your points i dont FEAR your questions.
Out of courtesy can you answer MY questions first?
If not you only expose your agenda of circular arguementation AGAIN for all to see here.
Many thanks
nemisis123456 2 years ago 2
Im just re-iterating what a muslim ulema stated in the 15th century if my memory serves me correctly (and usually it does) where they stated "The gates of IJTIHAD are closed"
In other words DONT question your faith, DONT think independently with reason or logic or objectivity just FEAR allah and do as you are told! Im sure iv got that one nailed eh?
Furthermore can you find me a single school of islamic jurispudence that promotes IJTIHAD to the muslim masses?
Immams rule your mind OBVIOUSLY!
nemisis123456 2 years ago 2
dameen78
You are not using independent, reasoned thought (IJTIHAD) becasue you AVOID legitimate probing questions that would HAVE to make you question your faith and the "logic" (if you can call it such) behind muhammads and allahs reasoning.
Judging by this statement "Pathetic. I gave you facts and you call it itjihad how stupid!!"
It would seem you dont even know what ijtihad is my friend :)
nemisis123456 2 years ago 3
You just said that not ALL of the men and boys were guilty?
YOUR WORDS dameen78 not mine!
EPIC FAIL! Selective and circular arguementation is a pre-requisite of a muslim who HAS to defend his faith.
Questions that challenge your faith result in unsubstantiated claims that are baseless.
The gates of IJTIHAD are closed!
I pity you and your lack of intellectual integrity!
nemisis123456 2 years ago 2
dameen78
I really dont see the need to PARROT questions that are plainly there for you to address! I have said innumerable amount of times that i am HAPPY to address ALL of your points and counter them i have absolutely NO PROBLEM doing so.
So are you going to address the remaining questions? Theres another 3 or 4 you have AVOIDED thus far!
Many thanks
nemisis123456 2 years ago
dameen78
Youtube wont let me post the other questions asked earlier but im sure you know what they are, PLEASE have the intellectual integrity to answer the remaining questions. Thank you
nemisis123456 2 years ago
NO dameen78 you have FAILED MISERABLY to answer ANY of my questions i will list them here AGAIN for your attention......
1) Were ALL those men and boys in Bani Quraiza tribe guilty?
2) So muhammad was happy to use mosaic law was he? Why is that then?
CONTINUED.....
nemisis123456 2 years ago
dameen78
Please stop being so "selective" with your sources and open your mind.
Your apologetics wreak of fallacy and avoidance but i do UNDERSTAND why that is because the banu quraiza incident is a serious blot on muhammads and islams "pious" history.
And you have NOT answered my hard hitting LEGITIMATE QUESTIONS!
I now feel the need to repost them for EVERYONES attention. I wouldnt want you to think you got away with AVOIDANCE.
AVOIDANCE doesnt lead to the truth of a matter my friend!
nemisis123456 2 years ago
dameen78
Please your DESPERATION is astounding really it is! This is not about being macho its about banu quraiza its about the ISLAMIC SOURCES regarding this VILE historical incident wher muhammad had INNOCENT men and boys murdered then enslaved their womenfolk please try and avoid detracting from the points at hand here.
You made your point i have made mine HOWEVER the topic is not finished (i know you would like it to be) there are MORE islamic sources to examine on this!
nemisis123456 2 years ago
The Academy Of Scholarly Kuffar and TheInfidelMosque WELCOMES any debate on matters relating to islam!
Many thanks and peace to one and all :)
TheInfidelMosque 2 years ago
dameen78
Those EXACT sources that i have just mentioned you NEED to refer to as you OBVIOUSLY have little knowledge of the quran (a book i have CLEARLY read and studied more than you).
The IRONY here is that PRIDE caused the fall of iblis.
That is why i have quoted you this particular ayat, very fitting dont you think?
Now please stop posting verses and narrations you have limited knowledge about.
Now all that said and done are you now going to ANSWER my questions?
YES or NO?
nemisis123456 2 years ago 5
damen78
I am posting verses(al-isra v 80) that i know contain a spiritual meaning. You are quite correct in posting the tafsir of ibn kathir for clarification but there are MORE interpretations to that verse in question. I have a quran translated by abdullah yusuf ali.
If you go to page no 672 you will find that what i have posted is in fact TRUE.
Furthermore you should go to page no's 696 and 697 where you will find footnotes for the verse in question (2279 and 2280 respectively).....
nemisis123456 2 years ago 7
It is important to note that Muhammad himself was the source of bitterness against the early Muslims, yet he was protected from personal consequence by his powerful uncle, Abu Talib. Muhammads biographer recorded many instances in which the leading men of Mecca beseeched Muhammad (either directly or through his uncle) to stop mocking the religion of their ancestors:
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago 5
Abu Sufyan, with other sundry notables, went to Abu Talib and said: "You know the trouble that exists between us and your nephew, so call him and let us make an agreement that he will leave us alone and we will leave him alone; let him have his religion and we will have ours." (Ibn Ishaq 278)
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago 6
The Muslims would later be the first to declare war at Mecca, as well as later, when Muhammad ordered deadly aids against Meccan caravans from his new home in Medina.
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago 5
When the apostle openly displayed Islam as Allah ordered him, his people did not withdraw or turn against him, so far as I have heard, until he spoke disparagingly of their gods. When he did that, they took great offence and resolved unanimously to treat him as an enemy. (Ibn Ishaq 167)
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago 6
Although asked to stop, Muhammad continued to stir up trouble by condemning the local religion, causing the Meccans great anxiety: [The Meccans] said they had never known anything like the trouble they had endured from this fellow. He had declared their mode of life foolish, insulted their forefathers, reviled their religion, divided the community and cursed their gods (Ibn Ishaq 183).
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago 5
prove that god knows how many atoms I believe are responsible for creating us
I have not told you that "unconscious inanimate objects have the power to create on their own"
what are you babbling about?
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago 6
one man conspires by conspiring with others - are you really too stupid to understand those basics of language?
obviously!
you fail to address all of the rebuttals of your ridiculous claims.
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago 5
quit telling me what I have to tell you and answer all the questions put to you and the proof of the existence of god.
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago 5
--"My point here is to show to you that theses people were nothing all the honour they got was thanks to Islam."--
that makes no sense - you have shown nothing.
islam got most of its "advancements" from those lands and people it conquered.
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago 5
being pagan doe NOT mean you are intolerant
muhammad conspired against the meccans while he was still living there - that is why they finally got tired of him and his troublemaking
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago 3
got to go
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago
yes i am being serious - if religion needs protection, then it is not perfect
if it was perfect it would not need protection as it would show itself to be true and false ideas would show themselves as false
perfection has no fear
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago 4
where is your proof?
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago 4
before islam, arabs had more honour - the meccans were a kind tolerant people who allowed all religions
the "golden age" is what islam took from other cultures
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago 3
i was talking to someone else but:
Qur'an (4:34) - "Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and BEAT THEM; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great."
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago
why would god be afraid of other ideas?
he is all powerful, all seeing - he created the universe
why does his perfect religion need to protect itself?
it is not perfect if it needs protection
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago
Prove that the qu'ran is the word of god - you will be the first person in the history of islam to give credible evidence if you can prove it.
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago
seriously flawed logic - it is MUSLIM majority states that rank the lowest - the places that are ruled by sharia'h are the worst - the places that say they have not abandoned islam
what honour?
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago
religion only needs to protect itself if it is imperfect.
"god's" perfection would need no protection, if it does, then it is not perfect.
the true religion of god would be open to all ideas - why would god be afraid of other ideas?
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago
That is probably why islamic nations rank among the lowest in education, freedom, creativity, productivity, peace and tolerance - the restrictions placed on learning and the prevention of "mixing" potentially valid ideas.
once again - google - Abu Hatim al-Razi
muslimphilosophy. com has a good article
so where is your proof that the qu'rap is the word of god?
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago 4
who are you to judge whether it is acceptable to mix philosophy and religion?
how do you think religions started?
how do you think islam entered into its "golden age"?
By mixing knowledge from many varied philosophies and schools of thought.
Not by being ignorant and refusing to accept the knowledge of others.
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago 3
google it
the very fact that you need to ask indicates your inability to employ independent thought
also try:
A. R. Nykl. "Ibn Ḥazm's Treatise on Ethics
Ibn Hazm. The Ring of the Dove
In Pursit of Virture: Al-Akhlâq wal-Siyar
The Reconstruction of Religious
Thought in Islam by Dr. Muhammad Iqbal
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago 3
Prove that allah said it.
AlexiusComnenos 2 years ago 4
The verse was revealed to help explain the fall of iblis and that Adam was created above other creations.
And that mankind will be judged by their deeds!
That is why i posted that verse for you my friend.
nemisis123456 2 years ago 4
Ill tell you what i believe in when you have the courtesy to answer my questions.
Until then the ball is in your court :)
nemisis123456 2 years ago 4
WEAK ARGUEMENTATION!
But im not surprised your AVOIDANCE speaks volumes!
So you dont want to answer my questions and continue with this debate then?
What a shame!
nemisis123456 2 years ago 4
al-Isra' 017:080
17:80 وقل رب ادخلني مدخل صدق واخرجني مخرج صدق واجعل لي من لدنك سلطانا نصيرا "O my Lord! Let my entry be by the Gate of Truth and Honour, and likewise my exit by the Gate of Truth and Honour; and grant me from Thy Presence an authority to aid (me)."
It would seem that i am that authority my friend :)
nemisis123456 2 years ago 4
No my friend it is YOU who distorts and LIES.
I have stated REPEATEDLY that i will address the points you make HOWEVER that was on the condition that you actually answer the questions put forward.
You have CONSISTANTLY failed to do so!
That is a reflection of YOUR debatinbg skills NOT MINE!
The offer still stands but i doubt you will take me up on the offfer being as you are obviously scared to answer them.
nemisis123456 2 years ago 4
You havnt corrected ANYTHING my friend. All you have done is spew apologetic diatribe and REFUSED to answer LEGITIMATE questions.
You sir are an EPIC FAIL. Muhammad would be turning in his grave right now if this is the best defence you have of your religion.
Islam will crumble and turn to dust with defenders like you.
nemisis123456 2 years ago 4
Ibn ishaq would dissagree with you and he lived closer to the time of muhammad than you and i do thats for sure.
We seem to be going round in circles here. Its just more circular muslim arguementation because you know you will fall on your own sword.
I REPEAT......
Answer the questions i put to you earlier and then we can continue.
Is islam strong enough to defend itself?
Apparently not. Islam is weak and cant answer legitimate questions just like you!
nemisis123456 2 years ago 3
The issue is VERY CLEAR and no amount of apologetic diatribe will confuse it my friend!
Muhammad KILLED all the men and boys (apart from those who hadnt started puberty) of Banu Qurayza. Not ALL of the men and boys were guilty of "high treason" as you put it.
Muhammad MURDERED innocent people!
If muhammad was applying mosaic law then why did he spare the Banu Qaynuqa tribe under similar circumstances?
You wreak of hypocricy and contradiction, no amount of contortion will twist your way out.
nemisis123456 2 years ago
I care not who revealed what scripture its ALL fallable islam is no exception!
Now are you going to answer some self contradictory points that YOU have raised in order to substantiate your "APOLOGETIC" stance?
If you keep running then thats only a reflection of your lack of understanding and intellect.
Many thanks
nemisis123456 2 years ago
dameen78
Once you have found the moral and intellectual integrity to answer some hard hitting questions then i will be HAPPY to expand on your points and refute them as well. The choice is yours.
Islam is a self contradicting failiure and you being a good muslim are living up to that failiure.
Many thanks
nemisis123456 2 years ago
dameen78
You fail miserably with your apologetics. May i THANK YOU for giving me the chance to PROVE how barbaric and decieving muhammad was and that by muhammads OWN WORDS the punishment given by Sa`d bin Mu`adh was in fact a decision of ALLAH!
"You have given the judgement of Allah above the seven heavens."
nemisis123456 2 years ago
Muhammad said to Sa`d, 'You have given the judgement of Allah above the seven heavens.
Then the apostle divided the property, wives and children of B. Qurayza among the Muslims, and he made known on that day the shares of horse and men, and took out the fifth.1/5 of all booty in all conflict was the personal property of Muhammad.
Then the apostle sent Sa`d b. Zayd al-Ansari brother of b. Abdu'l-Ashhal with some of the captive women of B. Qurayza to Najd and he sold them for horses and weapons
nemisis123456 2 years ago
The answer was YES!
Sa`d said 'Then I give judgement that the men should be killed, the property divided, and the women and children taken as captives.'
So muhammad didnt ask the Banu Qurayza themselves even though they surrendered to muhammad unconditionally, he mediated with their bretheren tribe of al-Aus who he TRICKED by giving the decision of punishment to a tribal traitor of theirs and MUHAMMADS FRIEND Sa`d bin Mu`adh!
nemisis123456 2 years ago
Muhammad said......
'Will you be satisfied, O Aus, if one of your own number pronounces judgement on them ?'
Of course they said YES!
So who did muhammad ask have to pronounce their punishment? It was Sa`d bin Mu`adh of course!
Muhammads mortally wonded FRIEND!
Sa`d said to muhammad "do you covenant by Allah that you accept the judgement I pronounce on them?"
nemisis123456 2 years ago
Im blaming the muslims because they killed INNOCENT PEOPLE can you accept that there were men and boys who were killed who were NOT involved in "high treason" as you put it?
The Banu Qurayza did accept muhammads punishment HOWEVER that was ONLY because of the mediation of the tribe of al-Aus who knew that muhammad wanted to slaughter them due to the fact that they were his greatest obstacle in his mission to be a prophetic leader. So upon hearing the calls from the tribe of al-Aus........
nemisis123456 2 years ago