Are Muslims okay with Muhammed actions?

[elwill]

Thanks elwill. Yet this fellow Agabriel would consider that foul man Musailamah as a hero. How bad of Agabriel to bring forward some false reports from false caches. That was done to disprove the honor of our beloved Prophet Muhammad. It is the height of hatred of Catholics for Islam.

hi planten , let us suppose that Agabriel is honest in his discussion and in his study for islam
from the first glance about his post , you can say that he cite true story , but unfortunataly it lack very important details which someone can’t ignore

anyway , i waiting his comment

 

[Hadi]

Nice lecture … your patience with Planten is admirable…

 

[planten]

Without the hadith and sira, the Quran makes little to no sense. And no, it is not as peaceful as the koranist is making it out to be.

It defines kufir, it calls people pigs and apes so as to dehumanize them, it says that Muslims who don’t fight for Allah’s cause are hypocrits and therefore should meet the same fate as the unbelievers, it divides people up into believers and unbelievers (kufir), it calls for Muslims to fight for Allah and therefore calls that ‘good works’ and that they are the good Muslims, etc.

Agabriel, please look at your bibleNT too. Jesus in that bible calls the evil generation as vipers and sons of vipers and so many other bad things. I do not mind that you refer to objectionable points in the Quran. But try not to object to something which is found bad in your own book.

And as usual what do we get? The abrogated, or weaker, surahs to prove a point. I wonder why so many who proclaim to be peaceful do nothing to stop the ones who they tell us are twisting the Quran? In a religion that says one thing and also the other, one has to look at the behaviors. And the Muslim countries have the worst human rights records, are in over 30 hot spots (battles against non-Muslims) around the world, give no freedoms/rights to non-Muslims who live in their lands, etc.

**There are no abrogated Surah in the Quran. Rather you people have abrogated the entire bibleOT and forgotten all the commands found in your earlier book OT. You have abrogated the bibleOT even though Jesus had told you to follow that. That was bad, the way you said good-bye to the Old testament.

Quran is a new testament or we may call it the latest (Last) testament i.e. LT. That is also from same God who gave the OT and NT. But you deny that. So we cannot help you out of your disbeliefs.
**

 

[ZAKI]

God made that lawful for him.

Is the creation yours? or God’s?

Some sources said that he had 1000 wives, yet there are some who said he had 10000 wives.

They just want us to be against him, yet we are loyal to God’s messenger.

Peace be upon prophet Mohammad and his family.

hmmm and christians are perfectly fine with many of their prophet’s in the bible having many wives and sleeping with prostitutes and family.

Genesis 38:15-18
Judah sleeping with his daughter-in-law mistaking her for a prostitute.
Genesis 19:30-36
Lot sleeping with his daughters.
And many more!

The reason why Aisha was married to prophet Muhammed (pbuh) was because her being a young girl and able to ask the great prophet questions without being shy (because older women were shy of asking too many questions) and thus this was a benefit for the ummah with Aisha (ra) being able to relay many things that she heard the prophet Muhammed (pbuh) to the sahabah.
Also ask yourself, if Muhammed (pbuh) was truly pedophilic-why didn’t he have sex with her when he first married her? Why did he wait 4 years before going inside her? Why did he wait till after she had hit puberty?

Also, the starter of this thread needs to do some more research on the jews under Muhammed (pbuh). They were constantly traitorous to him after swearing allegiance to him. An example of this would be in the battle of the trench-when the jews joined up with the pagans to fight against him after promising to support and aid Muhammed (pbuh) and the sahabah. Many times he forgave them and they continued to betray him.

wasalam

 

[GraceDK]

ZAKI;
"hmmm and christians are perfectly fine with many of their prophet’s in the bible having many wives and sleeping with prostitutes and family.
Genesis 38:15-18
Judah sleeping with his daughter-in-law mistaking her for a prostitute.
Genesis 19:30-36
Lot sleeping with his daughters.
And many more! "

Here you shoot your self in the foot ZAKI. We as Christians have no problem saying that both kings and prophets in the Old Testament were sinners that did stupid and immoral things.
The only sinless man according to Christianity is CHRIST. Therefore He is the only one worthy as an example in all things.

"The reason why Aisha was married to prophet Muhammed (pbuh) was because her being a young girl and able to ask the great prophet questions without being shy ( …)
Also ask yourself, if Muhammed (pbuh) was truly pedophilic-why didn’t he have sex with her when he first married her? Why did he wait 4 years before going inside her? Why did he wait till after she had hit puberty?"

He waited from she was 6 till she was 9… Puperty? at 9? YOU REPULSE ME… The girl was 9 Hello? Is anyone home in the conscience and rational mind that the true God created in you???
Again and again I must confess that Wafa Sultan was right when she said that no one can study the biography of Muhammad, believe and accept it as religious authority, and be a mentally healthy person.

"Also, the starter of this thread needs to do some more research on the jews under Muhammed (pbuh). They were constantly traitorous to him after swearing allegiance to him. An example of this would be in the battle of the trench-when the jews joined up with the pagans to fight against him after promising to support and aid Muhammed (pbuh) and the sahabah. Many times he forgave them and they continued to betray him."

So… because the Jews were bad… Muhammad made a contest with them to see if he could outwin them in cruelty… so he killed all the men and boys and raped the Jewish woman… HURRAY for a prophet… what a catch for you.
My gosh… I cant believe you… the reasoning for you Muslims is like this: They say something bad about our prophet so we say something bad about theirs… so we still believe in our phedofile murderer because we think everyone else follows bad people too…

"wasalam."

I don’t wish for a the concept of a peace that applauds a 50 year olf man’s “going inside” a 9 year old child. :banghead:
"Until the day you call evil evil, you will be under the slavery of evil…
Muhammad was a PERVERT. Unworthy even of an animal to imitate him. Deal with it.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

hmmm and christians are perfectly fine with many of their prophet’s in the bible having many wives and sleeping with prostitutes and family.

Genesis 38:15-18
Judah sleeping with his daughter-in-law mistaking her for a prostitute.
Genesis 19:30-36
Lot sleeping with his daughters.
And many more!

Here’s a problem with those examples: none of those men were prophets, and none of those sexual acts were sanctified by God. Lot slept with his daughters through his daughters’ own sensual wishes, not God’s, and Judah slept with his daughter-in-law through his own sensual desires. Neither Lot nor Judah went to their future sexual partners and said, “I had a dream that we’re to have sex, so it must be OK with God.” You can’t even begin to compare this.

 

[jakasaki]

Musailamah theLiar was from Al Yamaamah. he is impostor incited people against the believers in their tribes who responded to what Allah ordained and who believed in His Prophet. he also goaded them against the Prophet’s messengers whom he sent to their lands. Moreover, they even went so far as to ignite suspicion against prophethood itself and committed hideous mischief in the land, causing corruption and disbelief.

~ snip ~

.

Thanks elwill - outside of islamic sites, I could not find any information on him. If someone has historical links, NOT islamic ones on this person, could you post them please. Thanks!

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

There are no abrogated Surah in the Quran.

Again, Ibn Mas’ud, the Shi’a Muslims, and many others would disagree with you

Rather you people have abrogated the entire bibleOT and forgotten all the commands found in your earlier book OT. You have abrogated the bibleOT even though Jesus had told you to follow that. That was bad, the way you said good-bye to the Old testament.

No one said “goodbye” to the OT, especially since it remains in our bibles. The understanding is the difference between covenants - which, incidentally, Christ also speaks of, and God prophecies through the prophet Jeremiah.

Quran is a new testament or we may call it the latest (Last) testament i.e. LT. That is also from same God who gave the OT and NT. But you deny that. So we cannot help you out of your disbeliefs.

I’ll ask what I’ve asked before and have yet to receive an answer:

The New Testament was confirmed by the Old Testament - the NT uses OT prophecies to verify itself. The Koran does not do this - instead, Muslims have to look back on the NT and OT and only accept what the Koran says. Why did God change His way of revelation? Furthermore, is God such a victim of fatalism that He has to try three times to preserve a holy book? Is God truly that weak?

Incidentally, the word “testament” means “covenant,” specifically one between mankind and God. If the Koran is the last “covenant” between mankind and God, please refer to me where the covenant-making action was in Muslim history. In the OT it was when Moses sprinkled blood across the Jewish people, whereas in the NT it’s when Christ dies on the cross. Where is it in Muslim history?

 

[jakasaki]

Thanks elwill. Yet this fellow Agabriel would consider that foul man Musailamah as a hero. How bad of Agabriel to bring forward some false reports from false caches. That was done to disprove the honor of our beloved Prophet Muhammad. It is the height of hatred of Catholics for Islam.

Planten, you need to get off your soap box and come down to earth.

It wasn’t AGabriel who asked about Musailamah, but it was I instead.

The original inquiry I posted was notes I had from an islamic site. I didn’t make it up dude!

I even provided the link to the islamic site, but alas, yes we know, you don’t “click” on links for verification - but you are quick to complain about false reports against your so called prophet mohamad.

Like I said, it was an honest and humble inquiry against this “other” prophet of islam.

Releax!

 

[lid2]

**Holly Quran

[3/79] It is not (possible) that a man, to whom is given the Book, and Wisdom, and the Prophetic office, should say to people: “Be ye my worshippers rather than Allah’s”: on the contrary (he would say): “Be ye worshippers of Him Who is truly the Cherisher of all: for ye have taught the Book and ye have studied it earnestly.”**

The Qur’an is the last Book revealed to the last of the Messenges… The wisdom necessitates preserving it. Had the Qur’an been affected by any change, mankind would have been left without a chaste Book as a reference. The infinite wisdom of Allah and His mercy necessitate that Allah would not neglect His creatures, or leave them to their own whimsical opinions staggering in the darkness of ignorance, and deviation.

Back in the 7th century, Muhammed [sm] marraige to a 9 year old girl was accepted by all religions and laws of that age.
The Jewish religion even says that a man can have intercourse with a girl that is 3 years and one day old [muslims dont beleive that, and the Jews probably dont implement this now.

Even up untill a hundred years ago, the offical age of consent for a girl was as young as the age of 10 in the USA. It was reported in the British Media a few years ago, that a girl aged 9 became pregnant after having sex with a 10 year old girl, And many girls are being married around the age of 10 in many African countires [muslim and non muslim countries] . This proves that a girl can concieve at that age. And if a girl is brought up according to Gods religion, then she is much more mature [mentaly and attitude wise] then a girl of the modern secualr era.

Also we have to take peoples life expectancy into consideration back in the 7th century, the life expectancy back then was a lot shorter then it is now thus it was natural for girls to be married as early as the age of nine.

So there is no reason why we should think that Muhammed [sm] marraige to a nine year old girl, back in the 7th century, was in contradiction to Gods religion.

The Qur’an is the only religious book, on the face of this earth, that contains the phrase ‘marry only one’. There is no other religious book that instructs men to have only one wife. According to the different scriptures one can marry as many as one wishes. In earlier times, Christian men were permitted as many wives as they wished, since the Bible puts no restriction on the number of wives, It was only later, that the Hindu priests and the Christian Church restricted the number of wives to one.

Polygyny is permitted in Judaism. According to Talmudic law, Abraham had three wives, and Solomon had hundreds of wives. The practice of polygyny continued till Rabbi Gershom ben Yehudah (95% C.E to 1030 C.E) issued an edict against it. The Jewish Sephardic communities living in Muslim countries continued the practice till as late as 1950, until an Act of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel extended the ban on marrying more than one wife.The following verse from Surah Nisa of the Glorious Qur’an:

“Marry women of your choice, two, or three, or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one.” [Al-Qur’an 4:3] Islam put an upper limit of four wives. Islam gives a man permission to marry two, three or four women, only on the condition that he deals justly with them. In the same chapter i.e. Surah Nisa verse 129 says:

“Ye are never able to be fair and just as between women…” [Al-Qur’an 4:129]
Therefore polygyny is not a rule but an exception. Many people are under the misconception that it is compulsory for a Muslim man to have more than one wife. It cannot be said that a Muslim who has two, three or four wives is a better Muslim as compared to a Muslim who has only one wife.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

The Qur’an is the last Book revealed to the last of the Messenges… The wisdom necessitates preserving it. Had the Qur’an been affected by any change, mankind would have been left without a chaste Book as a reference. The infinite wisdom of Allah and His mercy necessitate that Allah would not neglect His creatures, or leave them to their own whimsical opinions staggering in the darkness of ignorance, and deviation.

Yet was God incapable of doing it the first two times? Because it seems if we are to follow the logic that the Torat and Injil were corrupted, then God failed in his task and allowed “His creatures” to be left “to their own whimsical opinions staggering in the darkness of ignorance, and deviation.” (see my post above)

The Qur’an is the only religious book, on the face of this earth, that contains the phrase ‘marry only one’. There is no other religious book that instructs men to have only one wife…In earlier times, Christian men were permitted as many wives as they wished

You forgot certain parts of Christian scripture

Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband. [Eph 5:33; notice the singular]

A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach [1 Tim 3:2]

Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. [1 Tim 3:12]

For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you - if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination. [Titus 1:5-6]

Contrary to your presentation, if Mohammad had wanted to join the Church and be a church leader, he wouldn’t have been able to because of his polygamous relationships.

EDIT: An additional thought.

“Marry women of your choice, two, or three, or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one.” [Al-Qur’an 4:3] Islam put an upper limit of four wives. Islam gives a man permission to marry two, three or four women…

In that case, Mohammad, given the number of wives he had, broke a command from God.

 

[planten]

Planten, you need to get off your soap box and come down to earth.

It wasn’t AGabriel who asked about Musailamah, but it was I instead.

The original inquiry I posted was notes I had from an islamic site. I didn’t make it up dude!

I even provided the link to the islamic site, but alas, yes we know, you don’t “click” on links for verification - but you are quick to complain about false reports against your so called prophet mohamad.

Like I said, it was an honest and humble inquiry against this “other” prophet of islam.

Releax!

**Thanks jakasaki for correcting me. Nevermind who it was. Some one was eulogising Musailamah (The LIAR). Even you have disowned that matter because you took it from some unknown site.

I do not normally click on any link because there is never any need to do so. I have nothing against you or Algabriel.**

 

[jakasaki]

**Thanks jakasaki for correcting me. Nevermind who it was. Some one was eulogising Musailamah (The LIAR). Even you have disowned that matter because you took it from some unknown site.

I do not normally click on any link because there is never any need to do so. I have nothing against you or Algabriel.**

I’m posting this for the last time to you -** I’ve asked you many times to please USE DARK colored fonts. **

My vision is distorted by trying to read these crazy light colored fonts, but you still continue. Seems like you have stock in Crayola…

I will **no **longer respond to your posts.

 

[planten]

Again, Ibn Mas’ud, the Shi’a Muslims, and many others would disagree with you

** You are right. many Muslims did believe in abrogation. But that was all wrong. It had been proved wrong. Some one (A christian monk) may have tried to mislead the scholars, like many other misleading stories. e.g. It was being circulated by some Muslims that it was not Jesus on teh cross but some one else was given the shape of Jesus and that changed peron was put on the cross. Such stories are now a thing of the past.

Just because there was a verse about abrogation in the Quran, if the scholars could not reconcile two verses, they felt that one verse had abrogated the other verse. That was a foolish idea. Just remember that no verse is abrogated.

The proof of that matter is that nobody can now present any abrogated verse.**

No one said “goodbye” to the OT, especially since it remains in our bibles. The understanding is the difference between covenants - which, incidentally, Christ also speaks of, and God prophecies through the prophet Jeremiah

.

Yes, Sir, church has said good-bye to all the commands in the OT. The OT (old winesack) is only tied up with the new wine (NT) for the purpose of using some prophesies to help Jesus. That is not fair.

I’ll ask what I’ve asked before and have yet to receive an answer:

The New Testament was confirmed by the Old Testament - the NT uses OT prophecies to verify itself. The Koran does not do this - instead, Muslims have to look back on the NT and OT and only accept what the Koran says. Why did God change His way of revelation? Furthermore, is God such a victim of fatalism that He has to try three times to preserve a holy book? Is God truly that weak?

Incidentally, the word “testament” means “covenant,” specifically one between mankind and God. If the Koran is the last “covenant” between mankind and God, please refer to me where the covenant-making action was in Muslim history. In the OT it was when Moses sprinkled blood across the Jewish people, whereas in the NT it’s when Christ dies on the cross. Where is it in Muslim history?

You have asked and some one will reply. We know that a covenant was made with Abraham forever. That all his children will circumcise teh foreskin. That covenant was forever. Do you remember?? What has happened to that by the church deviation? jews do not dny that. But Christians do deny that.

I do not believe any new covenant was made with Jesus on the cross. There was no time for a covenant while Jesus was on the cross. he did not give any new message after his arrest.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Some one (A christian monk) may have tried to mislead the scholars, like many other misleading stories.

I’m now telling you this out of respect: do not present conspiracy theories unless you can give evidence to them. Furthermore, do not present that as proof of abrogation in the Koran, or why Ibn Mas’ud or others were wrong, when there is no evidence of it. Quote the hadith or quote scripture, but please quote something. Word of mouth is not going to work.

Yes, Sir, church has said good-bye to all the commands in the OT. The OT (old winesack) is only tied up with the new wine (NT) for the purpose of using some prophesies to help Jesus. That is not fair.

No sir. What’s not fair is responding to an argument with a statement that amounts to, “Nuh uh I’m right you’re wrong.” I also find it very ironic that you just quoted Jesus (Matt 9:17; Mark 2:22; Luke 5:37-38), and then claimed the source was the Church talking about Jesus.

You have asked and some one will reply. We know that a covenant was made with Abraham forever. That all his children will circumcise teh foreskin. That covenant was forever. Do you remember?? What has happened to that by the church deviation? jews do not dny that. But Christians do deny that.

That was the covenant made with Abraham, but not with the Jewish people, which was made in the desert after the escape from Egypt. It was there that the Law was passed down and the Jews were told to obey it. Gradually they chose not to, and broke their covenant with God. Thus the Lord prepared for a new covenant:

“Behold, days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the LORD. “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. “They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the LORD, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.” [Jeremiah 31:31-34; emphasis mine]

Christ was the Mediator of that new covenant through His sacrifice on the cross.

Then He said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." [Luke 24:46-47]

And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. [Heb 9:15]

I do not believe any new covenant was made with Jesus on the cross. There was no time for a covenant while Jesus was on the cross. he did not give any new message after his arrest.

You just presented a major theological problem with Islam - an incoherent understanding of what a covenant is. When you say “he did not give any new message after his arrest,” it’s because in Islam a covenant is nothing more than a good argument. This, however, is not the biblical basis for a covenant. If you study Jewish Law, you’ll find that every year, under the old covenant with God, a goat was sacrificed for the sins of the people.

This shall be a statute forever for you: In the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall afflict your souls, and do no work at all, whether a native of your own country or a stranger who dwells among you. For on that day the priest shall make atonement for you, to cleanse you, that you may be clean from all your sins before the LORD. It is a sabbath of solemn rest for you, and you shall afflict your souls. It is a statute forever. And the priest, who is anointed and consecrated to minister as priest in his father’s place, shall make atonement, and put on the linen clothes, the holy garments; then he shall make atonement for the Holy Sanctuary, and he shall make atonement for the tabernacle of meeting and for the altar, and he shall make atonement for the priests and for all the people of the assembly. This shall be an everlasting statute for you, to make atonement for the children of Israel, for all their sins, once a year. [Leviticus 16:29-34]

Christ was the new sacrifice on the cross for the atonement of sins through the new covenant - but this would be the only sacrifice needed. No more would the yearly sacrifices of the Temple be necessary.

But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God [Hebrews 10:12]

EDIT: Another thing - you did not answer my questions about the differences between revelation methods in the NT and Koran, and also ignored my inquiry about whether or not claiming God could not preserve the Torat or Injil made him a victim of fatalism. Instead you went on a tangent about Abraham.

 

[ZAKI]

ZAKI;
"hmmm and christians are perfectly fine with many of their prophet’s in the bible having many wives and sleeping with prostitutes and family.
Genesis 38:15-18
Judah sleeping with his daughter-in-law mistaking her for a prostitute.
Genesis 19:30-36
Lot sleeping with his daughters.
And many more! "

Here you shoot your self in the foot ZAKI. We as Christians have no problem saying that both kings and prophets in the Old Testament were sinners that did stupid and immoral things.
The only sinless man according to Christianity is CHRIST. Therefore He is the only one worthy as an example in all things.

"The reason why Aisha was married to prophet Muhammed (pbuh) was because her being a young girl and able to ask the great prophet questions without being shy ( …)
Also ask yourself, if Muhammed (pbuh) was truly pedophilic-why didn’t he have sex with her when he first married her? Why did he wait 4 years before going inside her? Why did he wait till after she had hit puberty?"

He waited from she was 6 till she was 9… Puperty? at 9? YOU REPULSE ME… The girl was 9 Hello? Is anyone home in the conscience and rational mind that the true God created in you???
Again and again I must confess that Wafa Sultan was right when she said that no one can study the biography of Muhammad, believe and accept it as religious authority, and be a mentally healthy person.

"Also, the starter of this thread needs to do some more research on the jews under Muhammed (pbuh). They were constantly traitorous to him after swearing allegiance to him. An example of this would be in the battle of the trench-when the jews joined up with the pagans to fight against him after promising to support and aid Muhammed (pbuh) and the sahabah. Many times he forgave them and they continued to betray him."

So… because the Jews were bad… Muhammad made a contest with them to see if he could outwin them in cruelty… so he killed all the men and boys and raped the Jewish woman… HURRAY for a prophet… what a catch for you.
My gosh… I cant believe you… the reasoning for you Muslims is like this: They say something bad about our prophet so we say something bad about theirs… so we still believe in our phedofile murderer because we think everyone else follows bad people too…

"wasalam."

I don’t wish for a the concept of a peace that applauds a 50 year olf man’s “going inside” a 9 year old child. :banghead:
"Until the day you call evil evil, you will be under the slavery of evil…
Muhammad was a PERVERT. Unworthy even of an animal to imitate him. Deal with it.

Assalam,

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_100
^Here is someone that did and is a mentally healthy christian/jew. they had a set list of things that the person had to accomplish and Muhammed (pbuh) had everything ticked alhamdullilah.
Also Muhammed (pbuh) did NOT rape the women and kill the boys-he killed the men…and not all of them either. Finally, will you explain to me why he didn’t have sex with Aisha when he first married her? Your final comment is just an insult. How would you feel if I was to insult St. Paul or some christian that you held in high-esteem and respected? Although I wouldn’t do that because I know that you have feelings as well.

wasalam

 

[GraceDK]

Assalam,

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_100
^Here is someone that did and is a mentally healthy christian/jew. they had a set list of things that the person had to accomplish and Muhammed (pbuh) had everything ticked alhamdullilah.
Also Muhammed (pbuh) did NOT rape the women and kill the boys-he killed the men…and not all of them either. Finally, will you explain to me why he didn’t have sex with Aisha when he first married her? Your final comment is just an insult. How would you feel if I was to insult St. Paul or some christian that you held in high-esteem and respected? Although I wouldn’t do that because I know that you have feelings as well.

wasalam

The first sentence makes no sense to me.
it says in the hadith that Muhammad had everyone massacred that had grown pubescent hair. That means they were probably from 12 and up… These are boys. At any rate the situation described in Hadith manifests a massacre… not a war situation: Alleged to have aided the forces of Muhammad’s enemies in violation of a prior pact, the Qurayzah were subsequently isolated and besieged. Twice the Qurayzah made offers to surrender and depart from their stronghold, leaving behind their land and property. Initially they asked to take one camel load of possessions per person, but when Muhammad refused this request, the Qurayzah asked to be allowed to depart without any property, taking with them only their families. However, Muhammad insisted that the Qurayzah surrender unconditionally and subject themselves to his judgment. Compelled to surrender, the Qurayzah were led to Medina. The men, with their hands pinioned behind their backs, were put in a court, while the women and children were said to have been put into a separate court. A third (and final) appeal for leniency for the Qurayzah was made to Muhammad by their tribal allies the Aus. Muhammad again declined, and instead he appointed as arbiter Sa’d Mu’adh from the Aus, who soon rendered his concise verdict: The men were to be put to death, the women and children sold into slavery, the spoils to be divided among the Muslims.

Muhammad ratified the judgment stating that Sa’d’s decree was a decree of God pronounced from above the Seven Heavens. Thus some six hundred to nine hundred men from the Qurayzah were led on Muhammad’s order to the Market of Medina. Trenches were dug, and the men were beheaded; their decapitated corpses were buried in the trenches while Muhammad watched. Male youths who had not reached puberty were spared. Women and children were sold into slavery, a number of them being distributed as gifts among Muhammad’s companions. According to Muhammad’s biographer Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad chose one of the Qurayzah women (Rayhana) for himself. The Qurahzah’s property and other possessions (including weapons) were also divided up as additional ‘booty’ among the Muslims. The following details have been chronicled consistently by Muslim sources: The arbiter (Sa’d Mu’adh) was appointed by Muhammad himself; Muhammad observed in person the horrific executions; Muhammad claimed as a wife a woman (Rayhana) previously married to one of the slaughtered Qurayzah tribesmen; the substantial material benefits (i.e. property, receipts from the sale of the enslaved) that accrued to the Muslims as a result of the massacre; the extinction of the Qurayzah.

As for Aisha, Muhammad had sex with her at 9. Thats sheer perversion. Call it what you will. hide you head in the sand, but such a sinner will not enter heaven unless he repents with a contrite and broken heart infront of the TRUE GOD.

As for my insult. You say Christ is not God… should I take that as an insult? Learn to see your self and Islam as two seperate enteties. I do not insult you. neither do I actuallý insult Muhammad… He was a pervert. Thats a fact, ZAKI. What do you call a pervert, if not his behaviour??? What qualifies to you?
Because he called himself a prophet you are insulted. But test his prophethood… by his fruits you shall know him. he made only death and backwardness and supression, raids, wives, more wives… violence…

The truth of a prophet should be measured by his compassion, love and truth. Jesus qualifies… but you have sold him out.
Light and darkness, Jesus and Muhammad, have nothing in common.

By the way… if you have anything factual against the behaviour of Jesus… if you want to point out some time where you find Him incompassioate then show it to me… i will not be offended. because He is good…

 

[GraceDK]

Assalam,

Your final comment is just an insult. How would you feel if I was to insult St. Paul or some christian that you held in high-esteem and respected? Although I wouldn’t do that because I know that you have feelings as well.

wasalam

Zaki. Believe it or not I am not out to offend you. However, I do get frustrated when men, for any reason whatsoever, defends sexual assault of children. Thats something I cant stand. Drives me mad.

Jesus called the pharisees “graves”. He said the truth about them. They looked pious but they were evil and dirty in the hidden.
Jesus is about truth. He tells the sinners about their sins… thats why people are contrite and repentant when they meet Him, because He is LIGHT and HOLY and PURITY.
But when they meet Muhammad they run in fear and he is not acting worthy of a prophet… I am sorry. Sometimes the truth hurts. But why be angry at me… is it because its too dangerous for your peace of mind to get angry at Muhammad for all the cruel things he did? Think about it.
My motive is to bring you to honest reflection… I am not doing any good at it… I see that. However.
Truly, you are called to be a son. not a slave…
Peace

 

[jakasaki]

Mohamad claims to follow in the footsteps of the prophets

Mohamad is even told to follow the previous guidance and to confirm his message with the previous Scriptures

This means that his message must be consistent with the prophets that went before him.

The Holy Bible says that Jesus is the seal of revelation, and that all prophets that come after him must speak in his name or authority and preach the eternal Gospel of Christ

Since Mohamad contradicted the message of Christ, denying his divine sonship, his message is therefore not from the true God

 

[jakasaki]

Didn’t mohamd do the same to some “thieves” who took camels from mohamad… He cut off their hands and feet and tore their eyes out and left them in the hot sand to rot and die…

Somali Islamists order teenagers’ hands, legs amputated

reuters.com/article/homepageCrisis/idUSLM261120.CH.2400
**

• Double amputations ordered by Islamist insurgents**

**MOGADISHU, June 22 (Reuters) - Somali’s al Shabaab insurgents sentenced four teenagers on Monday to each have a hand and a leg amputated as punishment for robbery in a show of power by the hardline Islamists in a Mogadishu stronghold.

It would be the first such double amputation carried out by the rebels, who follow strict sharia law in the parts of south Somalia that they control.**

Al Shabaab – whose ranks are swelled by foreign jihadists and is seen by Western security services as a proxy for al Qaeda in Somalia – has carried out executions, floggings and single-limb amputations before, mainly in south Kismayu port.

It is battling the government of President Sheikh Sharif Ahmed for control of Mogadishu, and is also fighting a government-allied moderate Islamist militia in the provinces.

"Today, the Islamic court sentences these four men who carried out robberies to have their opposite hand and leg amputated," said Sheikh Abdul Haq, judge of the sharia court in the al Shabaab-held Suqa Holaha area of the Somali capital.

“They robbed mobile phones and people’s belongings.”

The judge did not say when the sentence would be carried out at the hearing, attended by hundreds of residents. Shackled and silent, the teenagers were led away into custody.

Al Shabaab’s strict practices have shocked many Somalis, who are traditionally moderate Muslims, though residents give the insurgents credit for restoring order to regions they control.