Are Muslims okay with Muhammed actions?

[planten]

Sura (9:30) - “And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!”

Sura (2:191-193) - “And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]…and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah.”

Sura (2:244) - “Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things.”

Sura (4:74) - “Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward.”

Sura (8:12) - “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them”

Sura (8:57) - “If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember.”

Sura (9:14) - “Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace…”

All of the above verses have been badly translated. Islam does not allow any one to fight who is not fighting. It allows Muslims to fight only those who fight against the Muslims. Islam tells the Muslism not to overdo any fight. it tells to end hostilities as soon as the opponents show signs of peace.
It allows Muslims to fight the Kafirs who are an utter enemy of the truth, enemies of all the good religions.
Kafirs are those who fought Moses a.s. and Jesus and Muhammad. Try to understand Islam. You are wandering in wrong fields.

 

[Benjamin8o8]

All of the above verses have been badly translated. Islam does not allow any one to fight who is not fighting. It allows Muslims to fight only those who fight against the Muslims. Islam tells the Muslism not to overdo any fight. it tells to end hostilities as soon as the opponents show signs of peace.
It allows Muslims to fight the Kafirs who are an utter enemy of the truth, enemies of all the good religions.
Kafirs are those who fought Moses a.s. and Jesus and Muhammad. Try to understand Islam. You are wandering in wrong fields.

sorry but the mainstram Muslims don´t agree with you. Its good that you have gentle heart though and dont follow what real Muslims do.

 

[Benjamin8o8]

Hi Benjamin, here are some sources for you:





Vickie

Thanks Vickie, I will look them up!

btw, Where is Muslim Woman, Sister Amy, and other Muslim users defending Mohammed? Or do they really believe it was okay for Mohammed to slaughter the Jewish people?

 

[planten]

Thanks Vickie, I will look them up!

btw, Where is Muslim Woman, Sister Amy, and other Muslim users defending Mohammed? Or do they really believe it was okay for Mohammed to slaughter the Jewish people?

**Benjamin, Muhammad did not kill even one person. The Jews of Madinah had broken a pact of mutual co-operation. They had decieved the believers many times, they had assisted the pagans of Makkah against the citizens of Madinah.

Specially did the Jews stab the Muslims of Madinah in the back when the hordes of pagans attacked Madina city. A trench had to be dug 20 feet deep to protect the city. The city was surrounded by the Pagans for a few months. At that time also the Jews sided with pagans (Kafirs) against Muslims. So do you feel that they should not give an account of what they did?

An account was taken from them and an arbitrator was appointed and they agreed to the appointment of the judge of their choice. After all the hearing, that judge ordered what he ordered. Muhammad did not do any thing.

Did you know why the Jews were in Madinah. Their leaders had told them that The Prophet** (Deut 20:18) will appear in Arabia near Madinah. So they had settled there in large numbers. But when the prophet Muhammad arrived, they did not recognise him. Rather they rejected him like they had rejected Jesus 600 year ago.

Can any christain or Jew tell me why those Jews were there in Arabia? They had no right to be there. There great grand mother Sarai had ordered that Ishamel will not inherit with her son Issac. So all the blessing and the land of Kana’an was given to Issac and his children. That was okay. So the children of Issac had no right to enter Arabia. that was not their promised land. When children of Ishmael could not live and inherit the land of Kana’an then the Jews should also not live in Arabia. Simple as that. it is according to the wishes of Sarai, the great grand mother of all Jews.

 

[Booklover]

Thanks Vickie, I will look them up!

btw, Where is Muslim Woman, Sister Amy, and other Muslim users defending Mohammed? Or do they really believe it was okay for Mohammed to slaughter the Jewish people?

Well, Hamba very emphatically endorsed everything Muhammad did! I’m sure they’ll find ways of justifying his actions. They always do. Here are more sources regarding the “”.
Vickie

 

[Booklover]

Benjamin, Muhammad did not kill even one person. The Jews of Madinah had broken a pact of mutual co-operation. They had decieved the believers many times, they had assisted the pagans of Makkah against the citizens of Madinah.

Specially did the Jews stab the Muslims of Madinah in the back when the hordes of pagans attacked Madina city. A trench had to be dug 20 feet deep to protect the city. The city was surrounded by the Pagans for a few months. At that time also the Jews sided with pagans (Kafirs) against Muslims. So do you feel that they should not give an account of what they did?

An account was taken from them and an arbitrator was appointed and they agreed to the appointment of the judge of their choice. After all the hearing, that judge ordered what he ordered. Muhammad did not do any thing.

Did you know why the Jews were in Madinah. Their leaders had told them that The Prophet (Deut 20:18) will appear in Arabia near Madinah. So they had settled there in large numbers. But when the prophet Muhammad arrived, they did not recognise him. Rather they rejected him like they had rejected Jesus 600 year ago.

Can any christain or Jew tell me why those Jews were there in Arabia? They had no right to be there. There great grand mother Sarai had ordered that Ishamel will not inherit with her son Issac. So all the blessing and the land of Kana’an was given to Issac and his children. That was okay. So the children of Issac had no right to enter Arabia. that was not their promised land. When children of Ishmael could not live and inherit the land of Kana’an then the Jews should also not live in Arabia. Simple as that. it is according to the wishes of Sarai, the great grand mother of all Jews.

As usual what you’re stating about the Jews is pure fiction!

"When Muhammad relocated to Medina, there were three Jewish tribes living there already whose good graces he needed to stay in initially, since he and his small band of Muslim immigrants were in a position of relative weakness. He tried to convince the Jews that he was the last in the succession of their own prophets and even changed the Qibla (direction of prayer) toward Jerusalem, the center of the Jewish world.

The Jews at Medina were not impressed with Muhammad’s esoteric claims, particularly since there were obvious discrepancies between their Torah and his version of the same stories. In the Qur’an, history from the Bible is presented immaturely and sounds more like a series of fairy tales with the same redundant moral – believe in Muhammad’s claims about himself or face earthly destruction and eternal torment.

When asked why he didn’t provide proof of his prophethood by performing some sort of miracle as the prophets of the past had done, Muhammad came up with a clever excuse by saying that there was not point in doing so since the Jews had rejected those past prophets anyway (Quran 3:183-184). Thus, Muhammad had nothing to offer but his own testimony."

thereligionofpeace.com/Muhammad/myths-mu-qaynuqa.htm

Vickie

 

[Agabriel]

Why is the book “The 100 Greatest Men in the World” a legitimate reference all of the sudden? If the person in the #1 position had been Jesus Christ or (Allah forbid!) if Muhammad had not made the list at all, you would not be in favor of it at all, Planten.

I’m sure I could find lists that place Muhammad as #1 most evil man in history (heck, I would only have to do a 0.5 second search on “R_Not”'s posts, I’m sure! ), but that just shows you how little personal opinion matters to anyone who does not already agree with it.

What he doesn’t realize is that book mentions ‘influential’ men. He probably doesn’t realize that the influence could mean ‘bad’ influence too. In the case of a book such as that though, with political correctness the order of the day - I don’t put any creedence in it at all when they talk of someone such as Muhammed who proved himself to be a most disagreeable fellow.

 

[jakasaki]

**

~ ***snip *****~

Did you know why the Jews were in Madinah. Their leaders had told them that The Prophet (Deut 20:18) will appear in Arabia near Madinah. So they had settled there in large numbers. But when the prophet Muhammad arrived, they did not recognise him. Rather they rejected him like they had rejected Jesus 600 year ago.

Can any christain or Jew tell me why those Jews were there in Arabia? They had no right to be there. There great grand mother Sarai had ordered that Ishamel will not inherit with her son Issac. So all the blessing and the land of Kana’an was given to Issac and his children. That was okay. So the children of Issac had no right to enter Arabia. that was not their promised land. When children of Ishmael could not live and inherit the land of Kana’an then the Jews should also not live in Arabia. Simple as that. it is according to the wishes of Sarai, the great grand mother of all Jews.

Planten, I don’t know what country you were educated in about global history regarding all sorts of nations, people(s) countries, but you need to brush on it.

And once you study, you will know why the Jews were not just in Arabia but everywhere.

There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance. ~Socrates~

 

[Agabriel]

Well, Hamba very emphatically endorsed everything Muhammad did! I’m sure they’ll find ways of justifying his actions. They always do. Here are more sources regarding the “”.
Vickie

the first paragraph of your article hits on the truth!

I quote from the article below, and it reminds me of what we keep saying to these Muslims that we use THEIR texts, THEIR historians, etc. And when they don’t want to read/hear something they tell us that they are not good sources. If they cannot tell the truth about their own Prophet, how can we believe them in any other area?

Muslims often complain of the “misconceptions” about their religion in the West, yet very few seem to know all that much about the true history of Islam and its founder, Muhammad. As a result, the biggest misconceptions about Islam are often those originating from (and sincerely believed by) Muslims themselves.

As a service to Muslims and non-Muslims alike, we hope to refute the contemporary mythology of Muhammad (popular in the West) by referring to the earliest and most reliable Muslim historians, who based their writings on the narrations of those who actually knew him. The historical compilations of Ibn Ishaq, al-Tabari, Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are greatly respected in the Muslim academic community as a priceless source of biographical information and the details of Islam’s origin and rise to power. These writings also provide the context for the Qur’an.

Basically we are told by Muslims that this is not true, but we know that they are never told the truth by their own teachers, clerics, etc. Now, why they can’t read this from their own texts - I don’t know. Unless they are too lazy to do so.

 

[tomarin]

the first paragraph of your article hits on the truth!

I quote from the article below, and it reminds me of what we keep saying to these Muslims that we use THEIR texts, THEIR historians, etc.

I’m not sure that alone is proof of anything. You could quote their texts out of context for example; or you could quote their texts and ascribe a meaning to the text that is not compatible with what Muslims understand it to mean. What that would prove is only that you don’t understand, or don’t want to understand, what their religion means to them.

Atheists do this to Christians all the time. I remember one telling me the whole story of Abraham’s near-sacrifice of Isaac as proof that the god Christians worshipped was, if he existed, not good at all. Following your logic, that “proved” that Christianity was false because he was using our texts!

And when they don’t want to read/hear something they tell us that they are not good sources. If they cannot tell the truth about their own Prophet, how can we believe them in any other area?

I think they’re telling the truth as they understand it to be. If they didn’t believe their religion was true, then why would they follow it? Or rather, why would so many of them be so zealous about it, compared to contemporary Christians? (I’m talking here about people who go to church twice a year, obviously NOT most of the people on this forum.)

Basically we are told by Muslims that this is not true, but we know that they are never told the truth by their own teachers, clerics, etc.

This sounds like a conspiracy theory. What is it that the clerics know that the lay Muslims don’t know, and why would they keep it a secret? If this is secret knowledge, how did you come to know about it?

Now, why they can’t read this from their own texts - I don’t know. Unless they are too lazy to do so.

Gratuitous insult.

 

[qui_est_ce]

qui est ce, thanks for permitting the catholics for divorce. At you have given permission for divorce. That is a great leap forward. Forget remarriage. Thanks for agreeing to me that divorce is necessary and allowed.

It is not my words, but those of Jesus. He is very specific about the grounds for divorce: unlawful marriage, such as a person already married (bigamy). See below:
"Planten:

.The church had taken an extreme stand on teh opposite side of the Jews stand in favor of divorce. The church made the divorce illegal. That was not the right thing to do.

The Church agrees with Jesus - no remarriage after divorce, she never declared divorce illegal.
Matthew 5:32
But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

planten:

Of course if there is divorce, there will be remarriages. If there is divorce there have to be remarriage.it is a must. You cannot have divorced men and women walking the streets in large numbers. Please, know that we muslims agree to the wise and good teachings of Jesus. We understand and agree. The teachings of Muhammad are the same those of Jesus in this regard. Only a slight difference may be noted. No great difference at all.

If you’ll read the entire verse, you’ll see DIVORCE is not forbidden, it is REMARRIAGE after divorce that is forbidden.

 

[GraceDK]

tomarin;
I’m not sure that alone is proof of anything. You could quote their texts out of context for example; or you could quote their texts and ascribe a meaning to the text that is not compatible with what Muslims understand it to mean. What that would prove is only that you don’t understand, or don’t want to understand, what their religion means to them.

How about giving your Christian brothers the benefit of the doubt? I wonder where all this political correctness comes from in you. You remind me of a very politically correct interview I heard on the radio today. A young Danish man was in Yemen. Without emotion he said that western tourists were being blown up by terrorists in Yemen and that pictures of Sadam Hussein and Bin Laden were hanging in the steets. He said nothing bad about that… the only thing he expresses ill feeling towards was the Mohammad Cartoons. It’s like… let people believe whatever they want to believe no matter how attrocious… how about we just dig our own graves?Sometimes I feel that would satisfy people like you.

Atheists do this to Christians all the time. I remember one telling me the whole story of Abraham’s near-sacrifice of Isaac as proof that the god Christians worshipped was, if he existed, not good at all. Following your logic, that “proved” that Christianity was false because he was using our texts!

Then why dont you start to contructively take part in our discussions sir? All you do is critisize those of us who actually struggle with the texts of Koran and Hadith and actually read the sources . Why dont you CHECK out our references and quotes and tell us on that basis if we have misquoted…

I think they’re telling the truth as they understand it to be. If they didn’t believe their religion was true, then why would they follow it? Or rather, why would so many of them be so zealous about it, compared to contemporary Christians? (I’m talking here about people who go to church twice a year, obviously NOT most of the people on this forum.)

I have only ever met Muslims who were ignorant about Christianity… covenant history, mosaic law and the concepts of sacrifice in the different covenants, atonement and salvation, the expectation of Messias and the concept of this…etc. It has also been my experience that many Muslims use either silence, untrue stories or emotional arguments for their position. I know you now say I am biased and prejudiced. Its okay, its all been said before.
Where where you when Hadi admitted she had made up her own news story and attributed it to Reuters just in order to prove her point? I heard no protests from you then or at any other time. What does this mean?

That sounds like a gratuitous insult.

Does it also sound like an insult to you when allah says Jesus is not son of God, that Christians are cursed and that Muslims should wage war against Jews and Christians? Read the Koran for your self… before I quote I see the context. Try it.

 

[Agabriel]

I’m not sure that alone is proof of anything. You could quote their texts out of context for example; or you could quote their texts and ascribe a meaning to the text that is not compatible with what Muslims understand it to mean. What that would prove is only that you don’t understand, or don’t want to understand, what their religion means to them.

Atheists do this to Christians all the time. I remember one telling me the whole story of Abraham’s near-sacrifice of Isaac as proof that the god Christians worshipped was, if he existed, not good at all. Following your logic, that “proved” that Christianity was false because he was using our texts!

I think they’re telling the truth as they understand it to be. If they didn’t believe their religion was true, then why would they follow it? Or rather, why would so many of them be so zealous about it, compared to contemporary Christians? (I’m talking here about people who go to church twice a year, obviously NOT most of the people on this forum.)

This sounds like a conspiracy theory. What is it that the clerics know that the lay Muslims don’t know, and why would they keep it a secret? If this is secret knowledge, how did you come to know about it?

Gratuitous insult.

You did not read the article then. It even says - ‘As a result, the biggest misconceptions about Islam are often those originating from (and sincerely believed by) Muslims themselves.’

It is pretty clear what it means to them. What they have tried to do all the time (at least since I have joined) is to continue to mislead us as to what Muhammed is even though we have pointed out that their texts say otherwise. Who is being truthful? Their texts or them?

I get sick of the ‘conspiracy theory’ stuff. I get turned off by it when it is mentioned. As for what their clerics do and don’t do - well, read the posts by Muslims and you can read the ignorance that is portrayed by them. And it is stuff that is in THEIR texts.

If we are taking it all out of context then you are saying the Quran is not for all people of all times. It was just for Muhammed to deal with people of his time then. And he didn’t deal with things very well as we read from the Quran, and other texts of Islam.

As for the insult - why don’t they read their texts?!?!?!?!? It is all in there what we are posting!

 

[qui_est_ce]

I’m not sure that alone is proof of anything. You could quote their texts out of context for example; or you could quote their texts and ascribe a meaning to the text that is not compatible with what Muslims understand it to mean. What that would prove is only that you don’t understand, or don’t want to understand, what their religion means to them.

Well, she was putting the Koran in context with the Hadith and historians.

Atheists do this to Christians all the time. I remember one telling me the whole story of Abraham’s near-sacrifice of Isaac as proof that the god Christians worshipped was, if he existed, not good at all. Following your logic, that “proved” that Christianity was false because he was using our texts!

Tom, I agree. Just want to point out you are saying Christianity is false because of OT sins. Christianity arose from Jesus. Mohammed came after Jesus, so if he is a true prophet, he should follow Jesus.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I think they’re telling the truth as they understand it to be. If they didn’t believe their religion was true, then why would they follow it? Or rather, why would so many of them be so zealous about it, compared to contemporary Christians? (I’m talking here about people who go to church twice a year, obviously NOT most of the people on this forum.)

. Tom, don’t you think a lot of bad people (in the 20th century alone) sincerely believed what they were doing was right?

This sounds like a conspiracy theory. What is it that the clerics know that the lay Muslims don’t know, and why would they keep it a secret? If this is secret knowledge, how did you come to know about it?

Tom, I think you are reaching here. Just this thread alone should convince you that Planten and others don’t know their holy book. They resort to “bad translation” but can’t give us a correct one.

 

[GraceDK]

Well, she was putting the Koran in context with the Hadith and historians.

Tom, I agree. Just want to point out you are saying Christianity is false because of OT sins. Christianity arose from Jesus. Mohammed came after Jesus, so if he is a true prophet, he should follow Jesus.

Actually qui est ce… the story about Abraham and Gods test of Him cannot be said to be immoral. God did test the faith of Abraham and in doing this He made a whole prophesy pointing to Jesus, The Son who in total unity with the Father gives Himself over in the hands of men to die for the sins of mankind.
Abraham was willing to sacrifice Isaac but God did NOT want him to. The ram was sacrificed instead. So the atheist who spoke to Tomarin had ono case…

 

[tomarin]

You did not read the article then. It even says - ‘As a result, the biggest misconceptions about Islam are often those originating from (and sincerely believed by) Muslims themselves.’

There’s something a bit ridiculous about that statement. I know it’s not yours, but that’s what I think. If they sincerely believe the “misconception” then isn’t it part of their belief? How did the author of the article become a better expert on Islam than the people who practice the religion?

It is pretty clear what it means to them. What they have tried to do all the time (at least since I have joined) is to continue to mislead us as to what Muhammed is even though we have pointed out that their texts say otherwise. Who is being truthful? Their texts or them?

The only possiblitly then is that they interpret the texts differently than you do. Haven’t you noticed that Protestants and Catholics can interpret Bible passages in radically different ways? Isn’t it possible that’s true of other scriptures as well?

I get sick of the ‘conspiracy theory’ stuff. I get turned off by it when it is mentioned. As for what their clerics do and don’t do - well, read the posts by Muslims and you can read the ignorance that is portrayed by them. And it is stuff that is in THEIR texts.

Okay, I’ll have a look.

If we are taking it all out of context then you are saying the Quran is not for all people of all times. It was just for Muhammed to deal with people of his time then. And he didn’t deal with things very well as we read from the Quran, and other texts of Islam.

You won’t catch me saying it’s a book for all people of all times. I don’t believe it is, and as a Christian, why would I believe such a thing? I can think of at least one thing – child marriage – which Muhammad espoused (though I don’t know if it’s in the Qu’ran) which is not for all peoples of all times.

As for the insult - why don’t they read their texts?!?!?!?!? It is all in there what we are posting!

I do think they read them. Not only that, but they memorize them and recite them as part of their liturgy. They also have public recitations of the Qur’an by professional cantors as a form of entertainment and edification. If Arabic is their native language, I think they know the Qu’ran quite well, since their whole civilization is built around it.

 

[tomarin]

Abraham was willing to sacrifice Isaac but God did NOT want him to. The ram was sacrificed instead. So the atheist who spoke to Tomarin had ono case…

Right, precisely my point. The atheist had no case even though he was quoting Holy Scipture. He was quoting but he was misunderstanding it, or trying to make it mean something that Christians do not believe it to mean.

If he really wanted to understand the meaning of Christianity to Christians he should have paid closer attention to how we understand the story. But he was satisfied just to score cheap points against Christianity – or so he thought.

 

[GraceDK]

Right, precisely my point. The atheist had no case even though he was quoting Holy Scipture. He was quoting but he was misunderstanding it, or trying to make it mean something that Christians do not believe it to mean.

If he really wanted to understand the meaning of Christianity to Christians he should have paid closer attention to how we understand the story. But he was satisfied just to score cheap points against Christianity – or so he thought.

I hope you read my other post to you.

 

[tomarin]

. Tom, don’t you think a lot of bad people (in the 20th century alone) sincerely believed what they were doing was right?

Sure, of course. That’s the definition of a fanatic.

Tom, I think you are reaching here. Just this thread alone should convince you that Planten and others don’t know their holy book. They resort to “bad translation” but can’t give us a correct one.

Maybe you’re right but I would have to become much more familiar with the Qu’ran before I would feel comfortable saying that to anyone who posts here. And as far as I know there are at least a few Muslim posters who know the Qu’ran very well, or at least read it daily, and read commentaries about it.

Added: Planten, by the way, is an Ahmadi so it stands to reason he will interpret the Qu’ran differently from mainstream Muslims.