This debate was to examine Shuja’ah statement: "The Jews were driven out of Medina for attacking and killing Muslims". But Shuja’ah now says that Muhammad attacked and evicted the Jews of Medina, because they had "battle on their mind, threatening war", not because they were attacking and slaughtering Muslims...
Continued from Part 2
As some readers has suggested from Shuja’ah’s response to my part of this debate, I also agree that I am dealing with a truly 17-year-old kid (which he claims), duly considered underage in civilized societies, or that he is an imbecile. I didn’t take note that he was a teenager; else, I would not have gotten into this debate. For this reason, I will stop this debate, although I could address his every point. Before closing, I will address a couple of claims/points he has made, which are intimately related to this topic of discussion.
Concerning my assertion that Muhammad mission in Mecca had failed, Mr. Shuja’ah writes:
Muhammad (saw), the greatest man to ever grace this earth did not relocate to Medina on the ground his mission had failed, in fact M.A. Khan acknowledges this fact, “Muhammad continued his preaching unimpeded and the polytheists converted to Islam at a high frequency.”
How could his mission fail and in sometime become a success again?...
I don’t know about M.A. Khan and his definition of failure, but I guess he hasn’t looked at modern day Arabia, or Makkah, it’s Muslim, I doubt that’s what a failure would look like.
I have explained that Muhammad preached in Mecca for 13 years and mastered just 100–150 converts. Particularly during the last 4–5 years, he mad rarely any coverts in Mecca. And we knew that Muhammad gained power in Medina and needed another 9 years to bringing the Meccans to complete submission by giving them a choice between conversion to Islam and death, by revealing verse 9:5 during the Hajj pilgrimage of 631 CE.
For Mr. Shuja'ah, just because Muhammad’s mission was successful in Medina, so his mission cannot be a failure elsewhere, obviously not in Mecca. They submitted to Islam anyway at least by the barbarous force of the sword.
Then, ‘How can his mission be a failure in Mecca’, ask Shuja’ah?
That’s exactly what we are saying here: when people did not accept his mumbo-jumbo revelations, barbarism became the tool to make them submit. Muhammad’s tool of persuasion, lasting 13 years, was a failure in Mecca, but barbarism of the sword of later period helped him succeed in making the Meccans submit to Islam. There’s no dispute about that.
I asserted that Allah 'gave Moses a status even higher than his own', citing a cluster of hadiths (Bukhari 4:610-612) that talks about Moses. But Mr. Shuja’ah sees no such thing in them. Bukhari 4:610 says, The Prophet said, ‘People will be struck unconscious on the Day of Resurrection and I will be the first to regain consciousness, and behold! There I will see Moses holding one of the pillars of Allah's Throne. I will wonder whether he has become conscious before me of he has been exempted, because of his unconsciousness at the Tur (mountain) which he received (on the earth).’
This hadith clearly says that on the day of resurrection, Allah will strike human beings, including Muhammad, such that they will fall unconscious. But Moses would not struck by it, he will remain conscious and standing, because Allah may have exempted him, but not Muhammad.
Let me now turn to the event, which initiated Muhammad’s attack on the Jews:
Meanwhile there was the affair of the B. Qaynuqa. The apostle assembled them in their market and addressed them as follows: ‘O Jews, beware lest God bring upon you the vengeance that He brought upon Quraysh and become Muslims. You know that I am a prophet who has been sent—you will find that in your scriptures and God's covenant with you.’ They replied, ‘O Muhammad, you seem to think that we are your people. Do not deceive yourself because you encountered a people (i.e. the Quraysh) with no knowledge of war and got the better of them; for by God if we fight you, you will find that we are real men!’ [Ibn Ishaq]
While I claimed that Muhammad threatened the Jews to “become Muslims” or face violence, Mr. Shuja'ah, on the strength of the last line in this quote, says that it was the Jews, not Muhammad, who threatened violence.
But see clearly that before the Jews talked, Muhammad said: ‘O Jews, beware lest God bring upon you the vengeance that He brought upon Quraysh and become Muslims’.
This sentence need no interpretation, as it is self-evident that Muhammad threatening the Jews to ‘become Muslims’ or the same thing, that happened to the Quraysh at Badr, will be inflicted upon them by Allah, which would, of course, come through the swords of Muhammad and his followers, like at Badr. After this threat only the Jews talked, expressing defiance that if Muhammad attacked them, they would hit back in a manner the Quraysh were not capable of. I don’t know, how can one reach the conclusion from this quote that it was the Jews, not Muhammad, who threatened violence? Obviously, Muhammad threatened to attack the Jews, if they did not ‘become Muslims’, and the Jews promised to hit back if Muhammad would put his threat into action by attacking them.
Nonetheless, following is what Abu Shuja’ah means. Suppose Shuja’ah’s community wants to attack my community. How does he do?
It is I, who go his village (not he comes to my village), gather all his people, and tell them to do this or that. If they did not follow my instruction, they will be maimed and slaughtered by Allah, through my hands, as Allah inflicted the same, through my hands, upon the ‘X community’ a few days earlier.
Have I threatened Shuja’ah here? Not at all, absolutely not!
In fact, after I said the above words, Shuja’ah responded: if I attack Shuja’ah community, his people will hit back in a way, the ‘X community’ could not, thereby, teaching me a lesson.
See who actually threatened violence here? It’s Shuja’ah, not me.
We are, here, dealing with an imbecile of this kind. Is it possible to have a rational debate here? I agree with a few other folks who commented. No, it’s impossible!
Now let me cite another sahih hadith, which describes Muhammad’s threat against the Jews most clearly [Bukhari 9:85:77]:
Narrated Abu Huraira: While we were in the mosque, Allah's Apostle (Muhammad) came out to us and said, "Let us proceed to the Jews." So we went along with him till we reached Bait-al-Midras (a place where the Torah used to be recited and all the Jews of the town used to gather). The Prophet stood up and addressed them, "O Assembly of Jews! Embrace Islam and you will be safe!" The Jews replied, "O Muhammad! You have conveyed Allah's message to us." The Prophet said, "That is what I want (from you)." He repeated his first statement for the second time, and they said, "You have conveyed Allah's message, O Muhammad." Then he said it for the third time and added, "You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to exile you from this land, so whoever among you owns some property, can sell it, otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle."
Here, Muhammad told the Jews that the earth and everything in it belonged to Allah; and if they did not embrace Islam, Muhammad will reclaim Allah’s land, i.e. the abode of the Jews, from their illegitimate occupation by exiling them.
So, who threatened war and violence here?
It’s the Jews, not Muhammad—as Shuja’ah would have it.
So, does this debate need to proceed any further when the case has been proven beyond dispute?
Only if I were an imbecile!
Let me conclude emphasizing that this debate started to examine Shuja’ah statement: “The Jews were driven out of Medina for attacking and killing Muslims”.
But he shows no proof that the Jews attacked and killed Muslims, which forced Muhammad to act in defence. Instead, he concludes:
In fact, what was the reason in the FIRST place for the Jews to be attacked? If we recall as stated above:
Meanwhile there was the affair of the B. Qaynuqa. The apostle assembled them in their market and addressed them as follows: ‘O Jews, beware lest God bring upon you the vengeance that He brought upon Quraysh and become Muslims. You know that I am a prophet who has been sent—you will find that in your scriptures and God's covenant with you.’ They replied, ‘O Muhammad, you seem to think that we are your people. Do not deceive yourself because you encountered a people (i.e. the Quraysh) with no knowledge of war and got the better of them; for by God if we fight you, you will find that we are real men!’…
So here we have the Jews with that battle on their mind, threatening war. What started the fight against the Medinan Jews?
So, Shuja’ah now says that Muhammad attacked and evicted the Jews of Medina, because they had "battle on their mind, threatening war", not because they were attacking and slaughtering Muslims, which was his claim this debate set out to examine.
And this change of heart of Shuja'ah agrees with Allah's command to attack the Jews, not because they had attacked the Jews, but if Muhammad had any fear that the Jews might break a treaty in the future [Al-Tabari, Vol. VII, p. 86]:
'And if thou fearest treachery from any folk, then throw back to them their treaty fairly' [Q 8:58]. Whereupon, Muhammad said, ‘‘I fear Banu Qaynuqa’’ and ‘the Messenger of God advanced upon them.’
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Abu Shuja\'ah , July 11, 2009
I have explained that Muhammad preached in Mecca for 13 years and mastered just 100–150 converts. Particularly during the last 4–5 years, he mad rarely any coverts in Mecca. And we knew that Muhammad gained power in Medina and needed another 9 years to bringing the Meccans to complete submission by giving them a choice between conversion to Islam and death, by revealing verse 9:5 during the Hajj pilgrimage of 631 CE.
For Mr. Shuja'ah, just because Muhammad’s mission was successful in Medina, so his mission cannot be a failure elsewhere, obviously not in Mecca. They submitted to Islam anyway at least by the barbarous force of the sword.
Then, ‘How can his mission be a failure in Mecca’, ask Shuja’ah?
That’s exactly what we are saying here: when people did not accept his mumbo-jumbo revelations, barbarism became the tool to make them submit. Muhammad’s tool of persuasion, lasting 13 years, was a failure in Mecca, but barbarism of the sword of later period helped him succeed in making the Meccans submit to Islam. There’s no dispute about that.
Let's look at your post. The Quraysh is Makkah, feared him. He was stopping their business of polytheism, he preahced ONE GOD. Just to show you how powerful his message was, he preached to the ignorant in Makkah and the people of another city (Yathrib/ Madina) reverted by great numbers. What you fail to realise is, while we do not know the exact amount of persons who had reverted in Makkah, you must understand, Islam spread like wildfire unto the slaves and poor.
Both of which Makkah had in the hundreds, perhaps thousands (minimum). Many had to sneak in the night to hear and listen to Muhammad(saw), otherwise they ere tortured and killed. His mission never failed! For if he had failed Islam would not been here. So for it to be here and growing so rapidly, you have been proven wrong.
written by Abu Shuja\'ah , July 11, 2009
I asserted that Allah 'gave Moses a status even higher than his own', citing a cluster of hadiths (Bukhari 4:610-612) that talks about Moses. But Mr. Shuja’ah sees no such thing in them. Bukhari 4:610 says, The Prophet said, ‘People will be struck unconscious on the Day of Resurrection and I will be the first to regain consciousness, and behold! There I will see Moses holding one of the pillars of Allah's Throne. I will wonder whether he has become conscious before me of he has been exempted, because of his unconsciousness at the Tur (mountain) which he received (on the earth).’
This hadith clearly says that on the day of resurrection, Allah will strike human beings, including Muhammad, such that they will fall unconscious. But Moses would not struck by it, he will remain conscious and standing, because Allah may have exempted him, but not Muhammad.
Again he "supposes", "suggests" he does not say Moses (as) will be exempted or before me. Rather he "supposes". If I "suppose" that you are a cross dresser, is that a fact?
Exactly my point.
written by Hussain , July 11, 2009
You demonstrated your points clearly and precisely. Your arguments are well presented but I do not think you should waste your time with those pagans, cow worshipers and idolaters. This site is made available to those people who want to share their hate for Islam and get their frustration out. They want to accuse Prophet Muhammad may peace and blessing be on him of things they do best. Robberies, rape and molestation flourishes in the non Muslim world.
I wonder if you are only 17 years old and you were able to put their noses in the sand like this, what an Islamic scholar would do to Mr. MA Kan and his cronies. This is another reason those rats like Khan and Ali Sina prefer to work behind websites.
Thanks my brother again for your work.
written by Abu Shuja\'ah , July 11, 2009
While I claimed that Muhammad threatened the Jews to “become Muslims” or face violence, Mr. Shuja'ah, on the strength of the last line in this quote, says that it was the Jews, not Muhammad, who threatened violence.
But see clearly that before the Jews talked, Muhammad said: ‘O Jews, beware lest God bring upon you the vengeance that He brought upon Quraysh and become Muslims’.
This sentence need no interpretation, as it is self-evident that Muhammad threatening the Jews to ‘become Muslims’ or the same thing, that happened to the Quraysh at Badr, will be inflicted upon them by Allah, which would, of course, come through the swords of Muhammad and his followers, like at Badr. After this threat only the Jews talked, expressing defiance that if Muhammad attacked them, they would hit back in a manner the Quraysh were not capable of. I don’t know, how can one reach the conclusion from this quote that it was the Jews, not Muhammad, who threatened violence? Obviously, Muhammad threatened to attack the Jews, if they did not ‘become Muslims’, and the Jews promised to hit back if Muhammad would put his threat into action by attacking them.
It's very simple. Muhammad(saw) is saying look what happened to the Quraysh, look at what God promised us and look what happened to the Quraysh, for all that they did us LOOK, it's a MIRACLE, RIGHT BEFORE YOUR EYES.
The Jews responds that it was no miracle and the Quraysh couldn't fight well and if they Muslims ever fought them, they would crush the Muslims, and indeed they did initiate a fight:
QUOTE FROM THE SIRAT RASULALLAH
"Is this true? Did Muhammad actually kill these whom these two men mention? These are the nobles of the Arabs and kingly men; by God, if Muhammad has slain these people it were better to be dead than alive." When the enemy of god became certain that the news was true he left the town and went to Mecca to stay with al-Muttalib who was married to Atika. She took him in and entertained him hospitably. He began to inveigh against the apostle and to recite verses in which he bewailed the Quraysh who were thrown into the pit after having been slain at Badr."
So again, this quote proves you wrong, Muhammad(saw) never provoked the Jews. They brought and aliied his enemies to kill innocent people. He had every right under the moon and sun to fight them if they attacked.
written by Abu Shuja\'ah , July 11, 2009
Nonetheless, following is what Abu Shuja’ah means. Suppose Shuja’ah’s community wants to attack my community. How does he do?
It is I, who go his village (not he comes to my village), gather all his people, and tell them to do this or that. If they did not follow my instruction, they will be maimed and slaughtered by Allah, through my hands, as Allah inflicted the same, through my hands, upon the ‘X community’ a few days earlier.
Have I threatened Shuja’ah here? Not at all, absolutely not!
In fact, after I said the above words, Shuja’ah responded: if I attack Shuja’ah community, his people will hit back in a way, the ‘X community’ could not, thereby, teaching me a lesson.
See who actually threatened violence here? It’s Shuja’ah, not me.
We are, here, dealing with an imbecile of this kind. Is it possible to have a rational debate here? I agree with a few other folks who commented. No, it’s impossible!
1) First off, he had been in Yathrib for a lengthy period of time preaching.
2) After the battle of the Badr, Muhammad(saw) spoke about the miracle, a tny fighting force destroyed a great army of the Quraysh.
3) He never said he would fight them, the Jews initiated it, you keep forgetting this important quote which I placed in the last debate:
QUOTE FROM THE SIRAT RASULALLAH
"Is this true? Did Muhammad actually kill these whom these two men mention? These are the nobles of the Arabs and kingly men; by God, if Muhammad has slain these people it were better to be dead than alive." When the enemy of god became certain that the news was true he left the town and went to Mecca to stay with al-Muttalib who was married to Atika. She took him in and entertained him hospitably. He began to inveigh against the apostle and to recite verses in which he bewailed the Quraysh who were thrown into the pit after having been slain at Badr."
He spoke about the miracles of God, he preached for many years in Yathrib and he was doing his normal preaching, saying to them look at the miracle of what happened.
They replied with joining and making alliances witht the enemy.
You sir are the imbecile who posted an entire page and a half about a treaty (which was referring to the covenant between God and the Children of Israel) about the non-existent treaty between Muhammad(saw) and the Jews.
You lack knowledge in all departments that is why you are ashamed to debate a 17 year old who can take on your lies.
written by Abu Shuja\'ah , July 11, 2009
Now let me cite another sahih hadith, which describes Muhammad’s threat against the Jews most clearly [Bukhari 9:85:77]:
Narrated Abu Huraira: While we were in the mosque, Allah's Apostle (Muhammad) came out to us and said, "Let us proceed to the Jews." So we went along with him till we reached Bait-al-Midras (a place where the Torah used to be recited and all the Jews of the town used to gather). The Prophet stood up and addressed them, "O Assembly of Jews! Embrace Islam and you will be safe!" The Jews replied, "O Muhammad! You have conveyed Allah's message to us." The Prophet said, "That is what I want (from you)." He repeated his first statement for the second time, and they said, "You have conveyed Allah's message, O Muhammad." Then he said it for the third time and added, "You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to exile you from this land, so whoever among you owns some property, can sell it, otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle."
Here, Muhammad told the Jews that the earth and everything in it belonged to Allah; and if they did not embrace Islam, Muhammad will reclaim Allah’s land, i.e. the abode of the Jews, from their illegitimate occupation by exiling them.
So, who threatened war and violence here?
It’s the Jews, not Muhammad—as Shuja’ah would have it.
You sir, are a great deceiver. This hadith comes after the Islamic Empire had been formed throughout Arabia. Due to the Jews and their treason, poisoning of Muhammad(saw) and killing one Sahabah(ra) with that same poison.
They were expelled from Muslim lands as the battle of Khaybar is another example after Makkah had been re-taken and Islamic empire formed the Jews were amassing forces to kill all Muslims (again).
He expels them. If you're living in my city and each day I preach you go out and amass a gang of people to kill everyone who lives Islam, it is my right to drive you out as Quran 2:190-194 states. Do not oppress me and you could have stayed but due to your hate of oppression of me and my people, it had to be done.
This is also similar to the Torah story of Moses(as) wandering in the desert for 40 years with the traitors (cow worshippers) with him. They'd been exiled to and I don't see you complaining about that.
written by Abu Shuja\'ah , July 11, 2009
Let me conclude emphasizing that this debate started to examine Shuja’ah statement: “The Jews were driven out of Medina for attacking and killing Muslims”.
But he shows no proof that the Jews attacked and killed Muslims, which forced Muhammad to act in defence. Instead, he concludes:
In fact, what was the reason in the FIRST place for the Jews to be attacked? If we recall as stated above:
Meanwhile there was the affair of the B. Qaynuqa. The apostle assembled them in their market and addressed them as follows: ‘O Jews, beware lest God bring upon you the vengeance that He brought upon Quraysh and become Muslims. You know that I am a prophet who has been sent—you will find that in your scriptures and God's covenant with you.’ They replied, ‘O Muhammad, you seem to think that we are your people. Do not deceive yourself because you encountered a people (i.e. the Quraysh) with no knowledge of war and got the better of them; for by God if we fight you, you will find that we are real men!’…
So here we have the Jews with that battle on their mind, threatening war. What started the fight against the Medinan Jews?
So, Shuja’ah now says that Muhammad attacked and evicted the Jews of Medina, because they had "battle on their mind, threatening war", not because they were attacking and slaughtering Muslims, which was his claim this debate set out to examine.
And this change of heart of Shuja'ah agrees with Allah's command to attack the Jews, not because they had attacked the Jews, but if Muhammad had any fear that the Jews might break a treaty in the future [Al-Tabari, Vol. VII, p. 86]:
Wrong again. I did have proof, why do lie so much? Come on, please say why!
QUOTE FROM THE SIRAT RASULALLAH
"Is this true? Did Muhammad actually kill these whom these two men mention? These are the nobles of the Arabs and kingly men; by God, if Muhammad has slain these people it were better to be dead than alive." When the enemy of god became certain that the news was true he left the town and went to Mecca to stay with al-Muttalib who was married to Atika. She took him in and entertained him hospitably. He began to inveigh against the apostle and to recite verses in which he bewailed the Quraysh who were thrown into the pit after having been slain at Badr."
The Jews were amassing forces and the Muslims learned of it. It's not hard to read! Throughout your entire whining above, you did not mention this quote at all.
You ended this debate because a 17 year old is smarter, quicker and more intelligent than you are. I've emailed our rebuttal to MANY people Jews, Christians and Muslims alike and they all agreed on one thing. You used deception, you ignored a many facts and you're pretty much a waste of my time.
Not only do you endorse and incite hate against Muslims and lie against us, for which these emails will be sent to the ALCU and CAIR for further legal inspection, I will also do a WHOIS search and contact your host and perhaps lawyers to see how much further I am willing to take this.
Obiously I am underage, but I have support of the older ones, so we'll see how this pans out.
PS: When you actually learn about Islam, and can debate, let me know.
Until such time:
Lakum Deenukum Waaliyah Deen.
written by duh_swami , July 11, 2009
written by geoff dickson , July 11, 2009
Sahih Bukhari (2/911), records Muhammad saying, “Revelations [i.e., the Koran] never come to me when I’m dressed in women’s clothing—except when I’m dressed in Aisha’s,” implying that it was something of a habit for the prophet to dress in female clothing.
Doesn't that make Mohammed a cross dresser?
And this:-
A hadith relayed by Abu Hurreira (deemed an extremely reliable narrator)
Muhammad sucked on the tongues of his cousin (and future caliph) Ali’s two boys, Hassan and Hussein—they of revered Shia memory. Another hadith has “Muhammad sucking on the tongue of his own daughter, Fatima”.
And what about molesting young girls, apart from marrying Aisha when she was 6yo.
Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 17:
Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah: When I got married, Allah's Apostle said to me, "What type of lady have you married?" I replied, "I have married a matron' He said, "Why, don't you have a liking for the virgins and for fondling them?" Jabir also said: Allah's Apostle said, "Why didn't you marry a young girl so that you might play with her and she with you?'
Ayatu Allah Al Khumaini's book, "Tahrir Al wasila," p. 241, issue number 12, it says:
"It is not illegal for an adult male to 'thigh' or enjoy a young girl who is still in the age of weaning; meaning to place his male member between her thighs, and to kiss her."
So it is legal to play with young baby girls!
So Abu Shuja'ah and Hussain, you folllow a prophet who molested girls, dressed up in their clothes and sucked the tongues of both boys and girls.
Do you still call Mohammed the greatest man who ever lived?
written by M.A. Khan , July 11, 2009
I will wonder whether he has become conscious before me of he has been exempted...
Muhammad himself is not sure, why Moses was not stricken.
It also proves conclusively that Moses would be able to withstand something that Muhammad cannot. Who is higher?
written by M.A. Khan , July 11, 2009
You sir, are a great deceiver. This hadith comes after the Islamic Empire had been formed throughout Arabia. Due to the Jews and their treason, poisoning of Muhammad(saw) and killing one Sahabah(ra) with that same poison.
Abu Shuja'ah, whether it's you deception or ignorance---it just knows no bounds. Still, you accuse others of the same.
Muhammad gave order to deport the Jews and Christians from Arabia on his death-bed:
...two religions should not be allowed to remain in the Peninsula of the Arabs. [Ibn Ishaq, p. 523]
But, this hadith is talking about Muhammad taking his disciples from the mosque and going to a nearby Jewish community to order them to embrace Islam; if not, he threatens to exile them.
When the Islamic empire was established after taking Mecca in 630, there was no Jews living around Medina. The few Jews that still lived in Arabia, were far far away from Medina: in Khaybar, Fadak & so on. Their expulsion was order when Muhammad lay in bed, about to die.
written by Highlander , July 12, 2009
I will give you an example. Muslims never tire to quote the first line from a supposedly peaceful Meccan verse as follows,
– Allah says in sura 2:256, “There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejected false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break.”
[Muslims always use only the first sentence of this sura to cheat non-Muslims. But never mention the rest of the sura. {Perhaps, you would have heard Muslims boasting about the first sentence only to mislead non-Muslims. the next time you hear this, tell them not to lie and to narrate the whole sura} This is actually a conditional sura as shown above. What this sura actually says, is that, if a person rejects false deities {everything false to Islam} and believes in Allah only; then and only then, there is no compulsion in religion {Islam}. Source- Ahmad Simons article `True Islam.
written by ABu Shuja\'ah , July 12, 2009
Mr. Shuja'ah, the problem is not that I "suppose" or "suggest". Problem is with Muhammad, who says:I will wonder whether he has become conscious before me of he has been exempted...
Muhammad himself is not sure, why Moses was not stricken.
It also proves conclusively that Moses would be able to withstand something that Muhammad cannot. Who is higher?
Again this is deceitful of you, Muhammad(saw) wonders, suggests, supposes. He says that himself, you on the other hand says he said it as a fact.
written by ABu Shuja\'ah , July 12, 2009
You sir, are a great deceiver. This hadith comes after the Islamic Empire had been formed throughout Arabia. Due to the Jews and their treason, poisoning of Muhammad(saw) and killing one Sahabah(ra) with that same poison.
Abu Shuja'ah, whether it's you deception or ignorance---it just knows no bounds. Still, you accuse others of the same.
Muhammad gave order to deport the Jews and Christians from Arabia on his death-bed:...two religions should not be allowed to remain in the Peninsula of the Arabs. [Ibn Ishaq, p. 523]
But, this hadith is talking about Muhammad taking his disciples from the mosque and going to a nearby Jewish community to order them to embrace Islam; if not, he threatens to exile them.
When the Islamic empire was established after taking Mecca in 630, there was no Jews living around Medina. The few Jews that still lived in Arabia, were far far away from Medina: in Khaybar, Fadak & so on. Their expulsion was order when Muhammad lay in bed, about to die.
Few Jews that lived? Khaybar was no accident. The kept assembling armies. All you do is say "they were few", "he drove them out", when in reality, as proven with the Sirat, not only did they conspire with his enemies, they continued to do so in and around Arabia until they were driven out.
Even their own scripture says it, an eye for an eye.
So unless you can get that into your head, they were still attacking Muslims even after the Quraysh of Makkah and thair allies had been defeated by an underestimated army of believers.
written by ABu Shuja\'ah , July 12, 2009
Abu Shuja'ah, talking of cross dressing, look at your prophet:
Sahih Bukhari (2/911), records Muhammad saying, “Revelations [i.e., the Koran] never come to me when I’m dressed in women’s clothing—except when I’m dressed in Aisha’s,”
Doesn't that make Mohammed a cross dresser?
Aisha (ra) was his wife, although I didn't find this hadeeth in my search, what if she was the one who made his clothing? Then that would be understandable since Islam has dress codes for both men and women!
And if you didn't know, women long ago made men's clothing, called seamstresses etc....
You seem to take things out of context to suit yourself.
And this:-
A hadith relayed by Abu Hurreira (deemed an extremely reliable narrator)
Muhammad sucked on the tongues of his cousin (and future caliph) Ali’s two boys, Hassan and Hussein—they of revered Shia memory. Another hadith has “Muhammad sucking on the tongue of his own daughter, Fatima”.
No references given for either of these, so either you're being very deceitful or you're plain lying.
And what about molesting young girls, apart from marrying Aisha when she was 6yo.
Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 17:
Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah: When I got married, Allah's Apostle said to me, "What type of lady have you married?" I replied, "I have married a matron' He said, "Why, don't you have a liking for the virgins and for fondling them?" Jabir also said: Allah's Apostle said, "Why didn't you marry a young girl so that you might play with her and she with you?'
A Matron:- 1. A married woman or a widow, especially a mother of dignity, mature age, and established social position.
So she was a widow and therefore he was asked if he did not like virgins or for fondling them (as is a normal practice for a lot of young couples, maybe you wouldn't know that ;-) )
So he was asked why marry an old widow (non-virgin) when you would have married a younger girl and she play with you (sexually) and vice-versa. Being old this women was in or past her time of menstruation, so there would be little to no "excitement."
Ayatu Allah Al Khumaini's book, "Tahrir Al wasila," p. 241, issue number 12, it says:
"It is not illegal for an adult male to 'thigh' or enjoy a young girl who is still in the age of weaning; meaning to place his male member between her thighs, and to kiss her."
Shia are known for lying and no Islamic school of law and scholarship accepts them as Muslims, well atleast this guy (quoted above), they have some beliefs far from Islam.
So it is legal to play with young baby girls!
Only in Judaism and Christianity and Shi'ism.
So Abu Shuja'ah and Hussain, you folllow a prophet who molested girls, dressed up in their clothes and sucked the tongues of both boys and girls.
No references for sucking on tongue, so no.
He wore clothing made by women, of which he favored those tailored by his beloved wife, Aisha (ra).
He never molested anyone, try the Church.
Do you still call Mohammed the greatest man who ever lived?
I always will.
written by M A Khan , July 12, 2009
See this response to my above post. I simply pointed out that hadith Bukhari 9:85:77, in which Muhammad threatened exoulsion of the Jews, was not revealed after establishment of the Islamic empire, which Shuja'ah claims. It was revealed when Jewish tribes were still living in Medina. Islamic state was established after Mecca was captured in 630. But the Jews were annihilated from Medina in 627.
And you guys look at his reply. With no defence to his lies, he is going nuts, turning to an Islamic psycho.
written by rationalist , July 13, 2009
written by leigh , July 13, 2009
it says Mo dressed in womens clothing NOT that he dressed in (mens) clothing made by a women (Aisha his wife).
You create an argument that has no relevance to the meaning of the hadith cited by Geoff.
written by M A Khan , July 13, 2009
You must have seen I have posted a couple of comments. And see how he is replying: he either does not understand English (unlikely) or he's a demented psycho.
Is it possible to silence someone like him?
written by rationalist , July 13, 2009
written by lw1 , July 14, 2009
written by IK , July 15, 2009
Great pieces of something from your ideas.
Those Islmophobes are not easy buddy. I am sending Mr. Khan my article "Islamophobia analyzed" to show them what the great Islam is all about. Please read it and enjoy
IK
written by Hidhlander , July 16, 2009
The profit with the little help from Gabriel and Allah worked out his plan. The Muslims surrounded the homes of the jews and deprived them of water and food for days. The jews surrendered. Their lives were saved due the intervention of Abd Allah.
Tabari VII:87 .The Prophet said, 'Let them go; may Allah curse them, and may he curse Abd Allah with them.'
So the Muslims let them go. Then Muhammad gave orders to expel the Jews. But they had to leave alltheir valuables and houses behind as they were banished into the desert. Many of them would have die on the way. Now look what Allah has to say-Qur'an 59:2 "It was Allah who drove the (Jewish) People from their homes and into exile. They refused to believe. You did not think that they would go away. And they imagined that their strongholds would protect them against Allah. But Allahâs Torment came at them from where they did not suspect. He terrorized them. Their homes were destroyed. So learn a lesson, men who have eyes. This is My warning. Had I not decreed the expulsion of the Jews, banishing them into the desert, I would have punished them in this world, and in the next they shall taste the punishment of Hell Fire."
The moral of this incident is that if you live as a non muslim in a muslim land you do so at your own peril and at the mercy of Allah.
written by Nomore?slam , July 27, 2009
Every body imagines mohammed as good person, mercyfull,faithfull etc...
After haybar war 800 jew was slaughtered and their wiwes slaved their riches raided...
Safiya... she was a jewish women mohammed slept with her one day later.Safiya's relatives killed in that massacre.
And islam ise religion of peace yea yea...
Elhamdulillah I am not a muslim now :=)
written by M. A. Khan , July 27, 2009
And yes, few Muslims around the world have ever hard the name Banu Quraiza. If they would know the story of Muhammad's grusome barbarism upon Banu Quraiza and other atrocities, a large number of them would immediately leave Islam, like you and me...
Mr.Shuja'ah belongs to the first category. He has got indoctrinated and thinks that is the end of knowledge.
He does not know that knowledge is an endless ocean and nobody could study and comprehend all the knowledge in one's life. It is impossible to confine this ocean of knowledge in one book called Qur'an. Unfortunately die hard muslims do not want to understand this truth. For them FROGS their well is the
world and their water is all the knowledge. Fools shun them.