The truth about Muhammad "Feedback appreciated"

[Magenta]

Wow! Surely, the Biden administration has labeled this information as "hate speech" by now, yes?

In some countries, telling the truth about Muhammed will get you imprisoned.

Some years ago, Tom Wallace, who teaches others what Islam teaches for the purpose of education
as part of his evangelism ministry, had his materials seized at the Canada/US border as hate speech.

 

[Magenta]

Interview - Geert Wilders, leader of the Freedom Party in the Netherlands

 

[TheLearner]

This is simply schizophrenia. They can accept western culture. If they are afraid that their own daughter will contact other cultures and beliefs, why do they go to such a place? This is simply a different weight and a distorted understanding of doctrines.
odd

https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur'an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Honor_Killing
https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur'an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:The_Islamic_Tradition_Itself
https://islamqa.info/en/answers/101972/ruling-on-honour-killings
Honor killing is not in the Quran or in the Prophetic traditions (hadith), nor is it sanctioned by Islamic religion and law.
http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/book/acprof-9780199794133/acprof-9780199794133-div1-98
Best Articles:
https://www.answering-islam.org/authors/roark/honor_killings.html
https://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Menj/asma_afak2.htm
https://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/free_speech.htm

 

[Egyw0lf]

Muhammad had a marriage to Aisha when she was six years old, which according to most estimates was consummated when she was nine.

Let it be clear that Muslims are not ashamed of the fact that their prophet was a pedophile. They themselves have practiced this heinous act for over a thousand year and many of them are still doing it. They are only embarrassed that the world is questioning them for it. But the proof is overwhelming.

 

[Egyw0lf]

However, after the 25 days siege, the situation of the Banu Qurayza was now hopeless and the next morning the they officially surrendered.

In the morning they submitted to the apostle's judgement and al-Aus leapt up and said, 'O Apostle, they are our allies, not allies of Khazraj, and you know how you recently treated the allies of our brethren.' Now the apostle had besieged B. Qaynuqa` who were allies of al-Khazraj and when they submitted to his judgement `Abdullah b. Ubayy b. Salul had asked him for them and he gave them to him; so when al-Aus spoke thus the apostle said: 'Will you be satisfied, O Aus, if one of your own number pronounces judgement on them ?' When they agreed he said that Sa`d b. Mu`adh was the man. [Sirat, p. 463]​

Let us summarize the observations so far.

1. Remember the phrase from the beginning? It said "and when they felt sure that the apostle would not leave them until he had made an end of them". This indicates the B. Qurayza knew what Muhammad was up to.

2. When Abu Lubaba a Muslim who fought on Muhammad's side was asked by them what will happen and what they should do, he indicates slaughter. This is not a prejudiced fear of the enemy (we might often exaggerate what the enemies might do to us and have an image of them worse than their actual nature), this now is the expectation or knowledge of a Muslim about his own prophet.

3. When they surrender to Muhammad, the immediate reaction of the al-Aus is to intercede for them. Why would they remind the Prophet of what he had done earlier? Does that look like they expected him to be naturally merciful? If they expected him to be merciful why did they not rest in assurance that Muhammad would act with more mercy than any of them would have? This kind of immediate reaction shows they feared for their friends now that they have surrendered, and they bring the best argument they have to sway Muhammad from his plan. They appeal to his justice regarding how he treats his friends and since he did hear the intercession of the other tribe earlier he shouldn't be seen playing favorites with them and also acknowledge their earlier alliance with the Banu Qurayza. They do not appeal to his nature of mercy towards the Jews, but to his nature as statesman who needs to be impartial with all his companions. This reaction certainly shows that the al-Aus feared for their friends and did not have the impression Muhammad had mercy on his mind.

The people from al-Aus reminded Muhammad of his earlier decision in regard to the other Jewish tribe of the Banu Qaynuqa`. In order to understand this reference, let me quote what this is all about.

`Asim b. `Umar b. Qatada said that the B. Qaynuqa` were the first of the Jews to break their agreement with the apostle and to go to war, between Badr and Uhud, and the apostle besieged them until they surrendered unconditionally. `Abdullah b. Ubayy b. Salul went to him when God had put them in his power and said, 'O Muhammad, deal kindly with my clients' (now they were allies of Khazraj), but the apostle put him off. He repeated the words, and the apostle turned away from him, whereupon he thrust his hand into the collar of the apostle's robe; the apostle was so angry that his face became almost black. He said, 'Confound you, let me go.' He answered, 'No, by God, I will not let you go until you deal kindly with my clients. Four hundred men without mail and three hundred mailed protected me from all mine enemies; would you cut them down in one morning? By God, I am a man who fears that circumstances may change.' The apostle said, 'You can have them.' [Sirat, p. 363]​

What impression do we get of Muhammad's intention? How easily was he convinced to be merciful to them?

When `Abdullah interceded for them and insisted on it, Muhammad became extremely angry and it took great courage on the part of `Abdullah to stick to his request and even use physical force against Muhammad to hold him back from massacering all of the tribe. This confirms that Muhammad had the intention of killing the Banu Qaynuqa` from the very beginning and only was hindered by others from doing so. Muhammad was not easily swayed in his intention, but it took considerable effort hindering him.

There was another tribe of Jews in Medina. the Banu al-Nadir. They are not refered to in our story, but they also contribute something to our understanding.

Concerning B. al-Nadir the Sura of Exile came down in which is recorded how God wreaked His vengeance on them and gave His apostle power over them and how He dealt with them. God said: 'He it is who turned out those who disbelieved of the scripture people from their homes to the first exile. ... 'So consider this, you who have understanding. Had not God prescribed deportation against them,' which was vengeance from God, 'He would have punished them in this world,' i.e. with the sword, 'and in the next world there would be the punishment of hell' as well. [Sirat, p. 438]​

It seems not clear what but "something" happened to make Muhammad change his mind and which then is justified with this sura. (Sorry, but it was not God, not even in this good thing of sparing their life. God doesn't give revelations to people who are out to murder). But even in this event, the Sirat testifies that Muhammad originally intended to kill them all.

Therefore, the historical records regarding the two "spared" tribes actually confirm that Muhammad was planning to kill all of the Qurayza just as he intended to deal with the tribes of the Banu Qaynuqa` and Banu al-Nadir. For some reason he was prevented in the first two cases. Forcibly in respect to the Banu Qainuqa, and we don't really know why in regard to the Banu al-Nadir. But: Deeds are judged by intention.

The impression becomes strong that with the third tribe Muhammad now wants to make sure that he won't be losing out on his plans again. To me, the way he asks the al-Aus and then chooses Sa`d b. Mu`adh afterwards, seems planned to prevent another tribe from escaping, and his intentions be thwarted again.

Let us have a second look at the paragraph already quoted in the above.

In the morning they submitted to the apostle's judgement and al-Aus leapt up and said, 'O Apostle, they are our allies, not allies of Khazraj, and you know how you recently treated the allies of our brethren.' Now the apostle had besieged B. Qaynuqa` who were allies of al-Khazraj and when they submitted to his judgement `Abdullah b. Ubayy b. Salul had asked him for them and he gave them to him; so when al-Aus spoke thus the apostle said: 'Will you be satisfied, O Aus, if one of your own number pronounces judgement on them ?' When they agreed he said that Sa`d b. Mu`adh was the man. [Sirat, p. 463]​

The next crucial player in the tragedy enters the scene. Who is Sa`d b. Mu`adh? Why is he chosen by Muhammad? Since there is a wealth of material available in the Sirat and Hadith about this man we can answer this question with high confidence.



Part 2: Who is Sa`d bin Mu`adh?

https://www.answering-islam.org/Muhammad/Jews/BQurayza/banu1.html

The way their men were killed, if we imagined it, was terrifying, and indicates a very brutal barbarism by digging trenches and striking the neck of every Jew while their women were crying while they were captives and screaming asking Muhammad to pardon their men. (Imagine the scene) After they finished killing them, they buried them, and it became a mass grave! The biography books say their number is 700, and some Muslim historians said from 800 to 900 men, so that not all members of the Banu Qurayza tribe were involved in treason, and the Islamic books did not mention, as far as I know, that Muhammad kept them. They embraced Islam, "and of course it is impossible for them to catch up with the killer of their men and those who captivated their women and enslaved them, but were forced to follow them."

 

[TheLearner]

good discussion all

 

[Magenta]

Ha Ha Islamophobia

 

[TheLearner]

gee someone tries to kill people, we all should be alert and concerned for our fellow people

 

[apwall21]

I'm waiting for the thread that tells me the truth about the Talmud.

 

[TheLearner]

I'm waiting for the thread that tells me the truth about the Talmud.

I will start one

 

[apwall21]

I will start [a thread on the Talmud[

If you'd like to do a study, see if you can chop the Talmud by year, and expose what the Talmud taught at the time Mohammad was claiming revelation. From what is shown there now, I think I understand why Mohammad insulted the "Jews" of the time as not following their own codes.
More importantly, I think I see why Mohammad claimed to be following their codes better than them.

 

[Runningman]

If you'd like to do a study, see if you can chop the Talmud by year, and expose what the Talmud taught at the time Mohammad was claiming revelation. From what is shown there now, I think I understand why Mohammad insulted the "Jews" of the time as not following their own codes.
More importantly, I think I see why Mohammad claimed to be following their codes better than them.

I’m interested in that, but based off of what I can find the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmud were completed before Islam started. The Babylonian Talmud was edited here and there for 200 years or so, but I don’t think any new additions were made; just grammatical errors were edited… allegedly.

However, there are many commentaries on the Talmud dating back to when the Talmud was written up until the present. There’s just a mountain of pages to sort though, but there’s bound to be something in there.

 

[TheLearner]

I will start one

https://christianchat.com/miscellaneous/talmud-primary-sources-to-check-quotes.206328/

 

[TheLearner]

I’m interested in that, but based off of what I can find the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmud were completed before Islam started. The Babylonian Talmud was edited here and there for 200 years or so, but I don’t think any new additions were made; just grammatical errors were edited… allegedly.

However, there are many commentaries on the Talmud dating back to when the Talmud was written up until the present. There’s just a mountain of pages to sort though, but there’s bound to be something in there.

"The Jerusalem or Palestinian Talmud was completed c. 350, and the Babylonian Talmud (the more complete and authoritative) was written down c. 500 "
from google search

 

[Egyw0lf]

I'm waiting for the thread that tells me the truth about the Talmud.

I know Hebrew language, so I can understand what you wanna know .

 

[Bluesproverb]

If you look into the history of Muhammad, an illiterate merchant and pedophile, you'll find he blended Judaism and Christianity in cobbling his doctrine into Islam and his Hadith.

He first tried to bring his doctrine to the Jews in Medina, if I'm not mistaken on the city name. They rejected him. Of course.

Then he went to the Arabs.

In Islam they do believe in Jesus , called Isa. But he's seen only as a other prophet, not a savior. And certainly not as the son of Allah. Because the Koran tells the Muslim Allah has no son.

The violent laws of Islam are Sharia law. There are Sharia banks too.

However, their violence is no different in scope or authority, God's, Allah's, than what was prosecuted under divine authority in Judaism and the old testament laws of Jehovah.

It's just that Islam prosecutes Sharia as society evolves. They still stone women to death for their sins. Shariah courts garnet a woman half credit for credibility compared to a man's full credit when testifying in court.

And rather than lead a primitive weapons Fatwah of old, today they incorporate C-4 and ballbearings sewn into suicide vests.

Unlike monotheistic Christianity, there is no salvation in Islam. No guarantee of heaven for the saved.

In Islam entry into paradise is at Allah's discretion. No guarantees unless a Muslim dies as a martyr.

Explains why women would make themselves a walking bomb and then carry their babies toward an American checkpoint in Iraq.

Paradise! Guaranteed.
In Mecca the shrine to Allah has a box imbedded in the altar. Inside is a black stone, a meteorite. Some day that's Allah.

A space rock.
Babies blown to bits in defense of a rock.

Humans are gullible. We need to believe something outside ourselves cares about us because we can't care for ourselves.

Look at this world.

 

[Bluesproverb]

"The Jerusalem or Palestinian Talmud was completed c. 350, and the Babylonian Talmud (the more complete and authoritative) was written down c. 500 "
from google search

The Babylonian Talmud states a man, Yeshu, son of a Roman soldier, and Yeshu's fellows were hanged on the eve of Passover by Roman edict, under the charge of teaching against the state.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...ion-of-jesus/388B24580C8815C013F8C2E2D96196DE

 

[TheLearner]

The Talmud thread is also here:
https://christianchat.com/miscellaneous/talmud-primary-sources-to-check-quotes.206328/

 

[true_believer]

Muhammad had a marriage to Aisha when she was six years old, which according to most estimates was consummated when she was nine.

It depends on which scholar you ask. Some say she was 12.
But there are so many other character flaws that cannot be ignored.

 

[Katia]

While it is less so today, this was likely the cultural norm for the time and location. In colonial America, girls as young as 12 were married to pay off debts. It saddens me that some comment on this and other situations without full knowledge.