R
- Status
M
MugenOne
Guest
Mohammed is anti-Christ. Anti-Christ acts like Christ. He has power to forgive, but also power to kill. Mo’s good deeds were just an illustration of the power that he had over his subjects-putting fear into his subjects, friends, and enemies.
Here are some of the evil committed by big Mo.
A group of eight men from the tribe of 'Ukil came to the Prophet and then they found the climate of Medina unsuitable for them. So, they said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Provide us with some milk.” Allah’s Apostle said, “I recommend that you should join the herd of camels.” So they went and drank the urine and the milk of the camels (as a medicine) till they became healthy and fat. Then they killed the shepherd and drove away the camels, and they became unbelievers after they were Muslims. When the Prophet was informed by a shouter for help, he sent some men in their pursuit, and before the sun rose high, they were brought, and he had their hands and feet cut off. Then he ordered for nails which were heated and passed over their eyes, and they were left in the Harra (i.e. rocky land in Medina). They asked for water, and nobody provided them with water till they died (Abu Qilaba, a sub-narrator said, “They committed murder and theft and fought against Allah and His Apostle, and spread evil in the land.”) (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 261)
At the raid on the Bani Nadir, however, in A.H. 4, Mohammed “had the date-palms of the Nadirites” — their pride, glory, and chief means of sustenance — “burned or cut down.” The narrative is from Ibn Ishaq, the oldest biographer of Mohammad5, who continues: "Then they cried, O Mohammed, have you not punished forbidden acts of destructiveness, and censured whoever commits such? How then can you have these date-palms cut down and burnt?"6 No answer was reported! What answer could there have been — except “military necessity”!7
So much for the violation of conventions deemed sacred by the conscience of that time. But there were also violations of laws of humanity itself. We have heard with shuddering of the wholesale rapes during the present campaign: what will the public think, and what will Woking say, when it is known that troops composed of the first Mohammedan saints and martyrs and commanded by Mohammed in person, committed rape on the field on at least one occasion and under peculiarly shocking circumstances? The occassion was after the overthrow of the Bani Mustaliq at the wells of Marasi’, when many of the two hundred captured women of the tribe (expressly said to be free women and not slaves, kara’im al 'Arab Halabi ii 296) were raped by Mohammed’s men with his full consent10! There can be no doubt about the facts; they are narrated by all the most reputed of the Traditionalists, and by at least two of the historians11: so much so that a certain point in the Shari’a itself is settled by reference to the incident12. The violated wives had actually still to be bought back by their husbands. We refrain from translating the passage in full, for the simple reason that it is really unprintable. The prejudiced Muir and other Christian historians (until “Caetini”!) have… kept silent on the incident! Let not their generosity however be now represented as a silent verdict on their part that the incident is spurious. The authority is far too strong, as we saw. And who would have invented such things? And even supposing the incident is spurious, it was and is accepted by Islam as absolute truth, — except of course when Christians are in the neighborhood.
Is this in the least true? The biographers30 make it perfectly clear that the earliest object of the very first warlike raids planned by Mohammed was to cut off and capture Makkan caravans[Appendix]. There is not the least hint in these accounts of anything else, nor of the existence of any necessity for instituting defensive operations. Ibn Sa’d, for instance, leads off his account of the Wars of the Prophet (al maghazi) with the words kharaga Hamza ya’iarid li’ir quraish, “Hamza went out to intercept the caravan of the Quraish which had come from Syria making for Makka.31” Ibn Ishaq is equally explicit. According to him32 the first expedition was so militarily and strategically planned that it had in view not merely the Quraish but the perfectly neutral Bani Damra, the position of whose territory vis-a-vis of Makka was strategically important. The document promulgated by Mohammed shortly after his arrival in Madina makes clear in its 20th article that he regarded himself and all his people as in a state of de facto hostility with the Quraish of Makka.33 The sending of cutting-out expeditions followed as a matter of course; and the swords of cutting-out expeditions do not usually abide in their sheaths. And so blood inevitably flowed. Later on, as success grew, the object of the Holy War became the right to worship at the Ka’ba in the way of Islam. And finally, or course, it became the conquest of Arabia (and later the whole world) for Islam. There is not the smallest piece of concrete evidence that the Makkans meditated hostilities on the Moslems after having once relieved Makka of their uncongenial presence. With the fullest knowledge of all the Arabic sources34 Caetani in a note on this subject (vol. i. p. 423) is crushingly conclusive: “Qui (i.e. in the first expedition) abbiamo vera e propria aggressione meditata: nessuna attenuante per necessità di difese: i Qurays non si davano alcun pensiero di molestare il Profeta in Medina.” [Here we have true and properly meditated aggression: no attenuating for the need of defense: the Quraish did not give any thought to annoy the Prophet in Medina.]
Here are some of the evil committed by big Mo.
A group of eight men from the tribe of 'Ukil came to the Prophet and then they found the climate of Medina unsuitable for them. So, they said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Provide us with some milk.” Allah’s Apostle said, “I recommend that you should join the herd of camels.” So they went and drank the urine and the milk of the camels (as a medicine) till they became healthy and fat. Then they killed the shepherd and drove away the camels, and they became unbelievers after they were Muslims. When the Prophet was informed by a shouter for help, he sent some men in their pursuit, and before the sun rose high, they were brought, and he had their hands and feet cut off. Then he ordered for nails which were heated and passed over their eyes, and they were left in the Harra (i.e. rocky land in Medina). They asked for water, and nobody provided them with water till they died (Abu Qilaba, a sub-narrator said, “They committed murder and theft and fought against Allah and His Apostle, and spread evil in the land.”) (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 261)
At the raid on the Bani Nadir, however, in A.H. 4, Mohammed “had the date-palms of the Nadirites” — their pride, glory, and chief means of sustenance — “burned or cut down.” The narrative is from Ibn Ishaq, the oldest biographer of Mohammad5, who continues: "Then they cried, O Mohammed, have you not punished forbidden acts of destructiveness, and censured whoever commits such? How then can you have these date-palms cut down and burnt?"6 No answer was reported! What answer could there have been — except “military necessity”!7
So much for the violation of conventions deemed sacred by the conscience of that time. But there were also violations of laws of humanity itself. We have heard with shuddering of the wholesale rapes during the present campaign: what will the public think, and what will Woking say, when it is known that troops composed of the first Mohammedan saints and martyrs and commanded by Mohammed in person, committed rape on the field on at least one occasion and under peculiarly shocking circumstances? The occassion was after the overthrow of the Bani Mustaliq at the wells of Marasi’, when many of the two hundred captured women of the tribe (expressly said to be free women and not slaves, kara’im al 'Arab Halabi ii 296) were raped by Mohammed’s men with his full consent10! There can be no doubt about the facts; they are narrated by all the most reputed of the Traditionalists, and by at least two of the historians11: so much so that a certain point in the Shari’a itself is settled by reference to the incident12. The violated wives had actually still to be bought back by their husbands. We refrain from translating the passage in full, for the simple reason that it is really unprintable. The prejudiced Muir and other Christian historians (until “Caetini”!) have… kept silent on the incident! Let not their generosity however be now represented as a silent verdict on their part that the incident is spurious. The authority is far too strong, as we saw. And who would have invented such things? And even supposing the incident is spurious, it was and is accepted by Islam as absolute truth, — except of course when Christians are in the neighborhood.
Is this in the least true? The biographers30 make it perfectly clear that the earliest object of the very first warlike raids planned by Mohammed was to cut off and capture Makkan caravans[Appendix]. There is not the least hint in these accounts of anything else, nor of the existence of any necessity for instituting defensive operations. Ibn Sa’d, for instance, leads off his account of the Wars of the Prophet (al maghazi) with the words kharaga Hamza ya’iarid li’ir quraish, “Hamza went out to intercept the caravan of the Quraish which had come from Syria making for Makka.31” Ibn Ishaq is equally explicit. According to him32 the first expedition was so militarily and strategically planned that it had in view not merely the Quraish but the perfectly neutral Bani Damra, the position of whose territory vis-a-vis of Makka was strategically important. The document promulgated by Mohammed shortly after his arrival in Madina makes clear in its 20th article that he regarded himself and all his people as in a state of de facto hostility with the Quraish of Makka.33 The sending of cutting-out expeditions followed as a matter of course; and the swords of cutting-out expeditions do not usually abide in their sheaths. And so blood inevitably flowed. Later on, as success grew, the object of the Holy War became the right to worship at the Ka’ba in the way of Islam. And finally, or course, it became the conquest of Arabia (and later the whole world) for Islam. There is not the smallest piece of concrete evidence that the Makkans meditated hostilities on the Moslems after having once relieved Makka of their uncongenial presence. With the fullest knowledge of all the Arabic sources34 Caetani in a note on this subject (vol. i. p. 423) is crushingly conclusive: “Qui (i.e. in the first expedition) abbiamo vera e propria aggressione meditata: nessuna attenuante per necessità di difese: i Qurays non si davano alcun pensiero di molestare il Profeta in Medina.” [Here we have true and properly meditated aggression: no attenuating for the need of defense: the Quraish did not give any thought to annoy the Prophet in Medina.]
M
MugenOne
Guest
If admirers of Mohammed are content to regard him historically as a great Arabian, who had a real and strange sense of prophetical call, and through this and his immense natural genius, singular gifts, and many virtues, accomplished a stupendous life-work, then we join with the admirers. Who with a grain of historic sense and appreciation would not? The worst enemies of Mohammed are not his opponents, but his friends, who will have it that the character of this Arabian giant is the very type of perfected humanity; that all his actions apart from trifles were perfect; that no great wrong can be attributed to him; that his moral splendor throws that of Jesus completely in shade; and that his example and precept make the best foundation not only for codes of conduct but for national and international law! Worst offenders of all are the Neo-Moslems who have assumed the task of dishing up the Biography to suit the taste of the Christian West; omitting here, explaining away there; challenging this (against the sources) and glossing that. It is not our business to estimate the sincerity of these men, nor of their Christian supporters. Some of these latter have been inspired to their self-appointed task through the indignation of an honest reaction against former exaggerations, or misrepresentation, or under-estimations; and some are merely officious and mealy mouthed. We have nothing to do with that. All we know is that these men one and all, are doing a disservice both to truth and to their idol. For they as little give the world the whole truth as did the old-time wholesale ventriloquist; and they simply force those who see in these assertions a gross offense against the fact, and a definite attack on the perfection and universality of the Man Christ Jesus, to rise up and show from the sources that the real Mohammed, the Mohammed of the sources and of the Agreement of Islam, the only Mohammed who counts, because the Mohammed of thirteen dead centuries and three hundred million living Moslems, will not fit the role in virtue of which the human race in invited to travel from Bethlehem to Mekka, from the Mount of the Beatitudes to the Mount of 'Arafat.
P
pismopal
Guest
R-not
Stay with it. You can do nothing for the muslims here, that is a losing battle…sadly but there are many other readers who are on the bubble and can be informed.
Stay with it. You can do nothing for the muslims here, that is a losing battle…sadly but there are many other readers who are on the bubble and can be informed.
J
JLSamuel818
Guest
Yahweh, God of our Fathers. Show mercy on them for they not know what they do.
-.-;
-.-;
L
Lapell
Guest
Hum! It has not quite improved since the last post I sent here.
On either side, I mean! It seems quite evident that the Muslims posting on CAF are eager to tell the people about Islam, and some seem as eager to show Catholics why our religion is wrong (unless they simply seem to do so in reply to some of us who are eager to show them why their religion is wrong…)
I am sorry, but whether what is said about Islam here is true or wrong, I don’t see much of the charitable spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ in the way it is done. Whether we are Catholics, non-Catholic Christians, Jews, Muslims, of another religion or sect or of none, we all long for true, lasting love. Since we differ greatly on the tenets or teachings of each of our religions, it certainly follows that we can’t reach one another through doctrine!
In inter-religious dialogue, I’m afraid it would lead all of us nowhere.
Remember that when saint Francis of Assisi and the sultan (of Constantinople or of Alexandria? I am not sure) spoke together, saint Francis did not convince the sultan that he should embrace the Christian faith, although he probably tried… but he did convince him that he was a man of peace, and the sultan respected greatly because of that precisely. We should try to be more like saint Francis here, shouldn’t we?
On either side, I mean! It seems quite evident that the Muslims posting on CAF are eager to tell the people about Islam, and some seem as eager to show Catholics why our religion is wrong (unless they simply seem to do so in reply to some of us who are eager to show them why their religion is wrong…)
I am sorry, but whether what is said about Islam here is true or wrong, I don’t see much of the charitable spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ in the way it is done. Whether we are Catholics, non-Catholic Christians, Jews, Muslims, of another religion or sect or of none, we all long for true, lasting love. Since we differ greatly on the tenets or teachings of each of our religions, it certainly follows that we can’t reach one another through doctrine!
In inter-religious dialogue, I’m afraid it would lead all of us nowhere.
Remember that when saint Francis of Assisi and the sultan (of Constantinople or of Alexandria? I am not sure) spoke together, saint Francis did not convince the sultan that he should embrace the Christian faith, although he probably tried… but he did convince him that he was a man of peace, and the sultan respected greatly because of that precisely. We should try to be more like saint Francis here, shouldn’t we?
L
Lapell
Guest
Even denouncing injustices can be done in a peaceful and charitable way, I am quite sure.
L
Lapell
Guest
As for planten, I hope he knows better than to believe we Catholics are all exactly what he seems interested to make us believe he believes! I am not interested in proving Muslims wrong absolutely, nor am I interested in having the Muslims prove us we Catholics are absolutely wrong.
And I wish from both sides the questions wouldn’t seek to set traps to the other side, but to shed light on obscure things. God made the mockingbirds, for sure, but we were not made mockingbirds, were we?
Or else, I don’t see how threads like this one would lead us anywhere…
Now, may the One True God bless you, everyone, and may He have mercy on us all! We all need it…
And I wish from both sides the questions wouldn’t seek to set traps to the other side, but to shed light on obscure things. God made the mockingbirds, for sure, but we were not made mockingbirds, were we?
Or else, I don’t see how threads like this one would lead us anywhere…
Now, may the One True God bless you, everyone, and may He have mercy on us all! We all need it…
R
R_not
Guest
To allow the spread of wrong facts is also wrong and that is how the muslims have successfully gotten many to convert to islam. When those who are ignorant do not know islam they might actually believe in the facade, and false info., that the likes of sister amy and muslim woman post.
I personally don’t know how to write it differently. If you take umbrage then so be it.
When deception is one of their mainstays of spreading their ‘religion’ then there is also a big problem with that! How can you trust anyone when they are not only allowed to deceive, but encouraged to do so by their own texts? Their ‘prophet’ not only did it, but he told his followers to do it too.
And sin in islam. We all think that by the words of the muslims on these threads that it is the same as what we consider sin to be. It is not. It is what mohammed said to do (halal) and said not to do (haram) and to not do shirk. And that is why deception, killing, stealing from/looting, torturing, kidnapping/enslaving/forcing conversions, etc are all ok when done to non-muslims. How do you think a man such as mohammed could be sinless, or perfect, or whatever adjective they place on him other than despicable could be believable to them? When mohammed redefined sin - he made it so he fit it perfectly!
Here are some examples of what they never bring to light on these threads of the type of person mohammed was:
1, mohammad allows women and children of polytheists to be killed:
“It is reported on the authority of Sa’b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said: They are from them…”
( Sahih Muslim, Book 019, No. 4321 )
- mohammad ordered the stoning death of a woman for being pregnant out of wedlock - but allowed her to first give birth to the child:
(Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 38, No. 4426)
- When mohammad heard that some of his followers insulted another muslim, mohammad ordered them to eat the corpse of a dead donkey:
“He (mohammad) asked: Where are so and so? They said: Here we are, apostle of allah ! He said: Go down and eat some of this ***'s corpse. They replied: apostle of allah! Who can eat any of this? He said: The dishonour you have just shown to your brother is more serious than eating some of it. By Him in Whose hand my soul is, he is now among the rivers of Paradise and plunging into them.”
(Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 38, No. 4414) - mohammad ordered that anyone caught drinking wine should be punished and if caught a fourth time should be killed:
“ If he drinks wine, flog him if he does it so again, a fourth time, kill him.” ( Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 38, No.4469) - mohammed’s assasinations - old man and woman still suckling her baby
J
JLSamuel818
Guest
Well, even online as real life, there is a religious war.
I assume maybe, not because we want to be right, but because we want to know which one is right. I presume, an intelligent [to an extent] conversation is similar to that of real life, except us Christians will not die in the process of defending our faith, lol.
There are questions, and there are answers. Our answers to their questions clash with their faith. And their beliefs are so blasphemous to me, that it is hard for one to keep their mouth shut.
Indeed, I wish there is peace amongst Christians and Muslims. His Holiness went to make peace with them, even when Muslims threatened to end his life. Peace was obviously by the majority… neglected. His Holiness John Paul II [Peace be upon him], has made peace with the Jewish Community, has even asked for forgiveness for the past collisions with us and them. As far as I know, because of him, there is a great peace between the Jewish and Catholic community.
But the majority of Muslims are stubborn, refusing PEACE!
I too, wish peace. So there are no traps within our questions, Lapell. But unfortunately… I doubt there shall be anytime soon.
R
R_not
Guest
J
JLSamuel818
Guest
It’s true, I love the Jewish Community. They are our elder brothers. But Muslims… they just don’t want peace.thanks, I think your response was better than mine.
S
swariffin
Guest
That is the problem. There is no unity among the muslims themselves. They can even disagree widely on the same Quranic verses interpretation, such as the Jihadist verses. A Muslim like Planten may interpret that only a person conducting life threatening acts against a muslim can be considered Kafir, while others may say anybody disagree with them are Kafir.
P
planten
Guest
** The posts of R-Not about Islam had all been abuse and a bundle of lies. The rest of christians friends are quiet on this issue and allowing that abuse. they are equally guilty. I never started any abuse. The christians take wrong advantage of the good teachings of the Muslims, as Muslim Woman had pointed out that Muslims never would try to abuse Jesus or his mother. So the christians are at liberty not only to denounce Islam but to abuse Muhammad as much as they like. They will get no where. The world is not blind to the truth. People have come to know the bogus slogan of “Love thy enemy”.
Where there are bad persons like R-Not, there are good persons too. We Muslims at least believe in the bible as the revealed book. But the christians fully deny the Quran. So who is more lenient and justified? Every time the christian friends complain about the bad deeds of the present day muslims, i.e. killing, bombing etc. We do not support those bad deeds and we are sure that is all extra to real Islam. It is no where in Islam. If the so called Muslims are doing it, that is wrong. So in return we tell the christians about the bad deeds that are going on in the streets of Paris and excessive extra marital sex, they say those people are not christians. Is that not a double standard?
There is much double standard in christianity. Everything good for Jesus. Love for Jesus. Everything bad for muhammad. hatred for muhammad. Only Jesus is sinless. No one else, not even other prophets (Abraham, Jacob and Moses) are sinless. These are problems with church teachings. they have a strange balance which is un-naturally originally tilted in their favor. We do not mind that any one teach us the good points of christianity. But abuse of others is non-sense or non-sensical. I feel that some Protestants have entered this forum in guise of Catholicism.**
R
Reuben_J
Guest
It is true, extra marital sex is sin in Chrisianity. So if a Christian indulges in it, he is committing sin.
We do not say everything bad is done by Mohammad for the sake of saying it. But it undeniable that Mohammad committed what was sins according to our criteria from the Bible.
Beside, those Muslims who commit atrocities today described themselves as good Muslims. So it is no double standard.
For example Ben Laden, he models his life on Mohammad.
**Bin Laden is said to have “consciously modeled himself” since childhood “on certain features of the Prophet’s life”, using “the fingers of his right hand,” rather than a spoon when eating, believing it to be Sunna "the way the Prophet did it, … choosing to fast on the days that Prophet fasted, to wear clothes similar to those the Prophet may have worn, even to sit and to eat in the same postures that tradition ascribes to him.
…
Bin Laden’s vision of a political system - the restoration of Sharia law that will set things right in the Muslim world - or as he put it,
" …hope that the revelation unto Mohammed, peace be upon him, will be resorted to for ruling. When we used to follow Mohammed’s revelation, peace be upon him, we were in great happiness and in great dignity, to God belongs the credit and praise".**
answers.com/topic/osama-bin-laden
Jesus is sinless. If you can find any sin that he committed, may be you would like to show us.
Other prophets such as Abraham, Jacob and Moses, that you mentioned, had committed sins in their lives and we can show them to you from the Bible.
So it is about writing the truth. We cannot say that they did not sin if apparently they had done so.
S
swariffin
Guest
Why don’t you give an example of the bad thing that Jesus did, or the bad teaching Jesus brought. So, we can discuss that in detail. You can say anything bad about Jesus. Don’t worry, you can still keep your head. The Pope will not sentenced you to death.
Muhammad has done good things too, I personally admit that. But, Muhammad also has done bad things too, as described in many verses of your own Quran and Hadiths, as shown in many threads about Islam. If you disagree about the wrong doing of Muhammad, then you are welcome to present your analysis why do you think that Muhammad was right. I am more than willing to listen to you.
P
paarsurrey
Guest
Hi dear swariffin
Kindly quote such verse from Quran with five preceding and five following verses for the context.
I don’t think there is any such verse Quran. Muhammad only dictated Quran. He never dictated Hadith.
I love Jesus and Mary as I do love Buddha and Krishna
Thanks
R
R_not
Guest
No, I was called a kafir by planten - just showing them the texts of islam that they don’t want us to know or to let others know, will get you the label of kafir from planten.
And now I am, according to planten, eligible to be killed by muslims.
P
paarsurrey
Guest
MugenOne; 4496656:
I will just rephrase admirers/followers in the above post.
I just put a simple question to my friends here.
The followers of a person named A; if they the followers of A with omission or commission, being sinful human beings as they are, make mistakes without any express authority from A; to how much extent A would be responsible for the wrongs of his followers? A had died/passed away centuries ago.
If A is a Catholic
If A is a non-Catholic
This is just a simple question to frame a principle.
My answer is: A is absolutely not responsible for the sins of the followers. A could be a Catholic, a Protestant, a JW, a Hindu, a Wicca, a Buddhist or a Muslim and followers could be of any faith.
One may insert instead of the Catholic in the suppositions the world Muslim, yet the answer won’t change.
What is your reply?
Thanks
Hi
I will just rephrase admirers/followers in the above post.
I just put a simple question to my friends here.
The followers of a person named A; if they the followers of A with omission or commission, being sinful human beings as they are, make mistakes without any express authority from A; to how much extent A would be responsible for the wrongs of his followers? A had died/passed away centuries ago.
If A is a Catholic
If A is a non-Catholic
This is just a simple question to frame a principle.
My answer is: A is absolutely not responsible for the sins of the followers. A could be a Catholic, a Protestant, a JW, a Hindu, a Wicca, a Buddhist or a Muslim and followers could be of any faith.
One may insert instead of the Catholic in the suppositions the world Muslim, yet the answer won’t change.
What is your reply?
Thanks
R
R_not
Guest
well, I haven’t found too many good teachings of mohammed and you just get upset because I show you what mohammed really preached, and what sort of a man he was. And you don’t like it. You don’t even know your own texts. I cannot help that.
If you want to go on believing in a man who was an Adulterer, Bandit, Immoral, Inhuman, Looter, Lecher, Misogynist, Murderer, Materialistic, assasin,
Narcissist, Pedophile, Raider, Rapist, Slavetrader, Sexmaniac, Terrorist, Torturer, Unfair, Vengeful Warlord I am not saying you cannot do so. Just don’t tell us that we cannot post what he was and what he taught.
That is your ‘religion’, I cannot help that. I wish it were different as I suppose that millions wished it were different who were put in their graves, enslaved, or subjugated because of islam.
The facade that you think that everyone wants to see and hear is fine - but don’t think that there won’t be those who know better. Life is tough and I suppose that this is the first time in islamic history that muslims are having to deal with others knowing the true islam - and it ain’t pretty!
- Status