sublime morality of genocide and enslavement

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Someone whose morals are below those of a mere Catholic saint is no prophet or man of God, whatever he may claim he is.

pro_universal:

You are failing to grasp a very basic concept here. What is moral and responsible for a head of an earthly state (Muhammad was, Jesus was not) is not the same as what is moral for a religious leader with absolutely no political or military authority.

That does not deal with my point. Jesus said “Turn the other cheek”. He did. So did St.Philip Benizi - as have many Christians. This prophet who is greater than Jesus - does he ? No, he does not. He massacres people instead.​

St.Philip was co-founder of the Servites - after the action mentioned, true; but it is (to say the least) unlikely that his moral conduct was inferior later on in comparison with that act of forgiveness. That, is Christ-like. I see no such Christlikeness in the supposedly greater Mohammed . The Christian saint is still far more admirable than the ex-camel-driver - and the comparison is all the more damning in view of the supposed distortion of what Jesus intended. If Catholicism is, as implied, a distortion of the words of Jesus, then an undistorted following of Jesus should produce, not mere Catholic saints, but men far more holy than they. Which would show all the more damningly how low the moral standards of Mohammed are. For he was active when there was, supposedly, already a corrupted Bible - yet also plenty of Christian holiness even so. ##
Gottle of Geer:

So the analogy between the unpleasantness of Mohammed and that of the real apostle of Jesus, collapses.

if your argument is that only people who do things you agree with are “real” apostles of Jesus, then you should plainly see how muslims may argue anything they wish. “Well, only the Koran is a REAL REVELATION, therefore, it doesn’t matter what any person did in Islam or in history…just the Koran matters, so you can’t criticize us at all!”

No, that was not my point. Cid saw it, and has made it already. TY, Cid ​

Quote:
In reality, the morality of Jesus is corrected by that of Mohammed to make possible the very state of marriage which Jesus criticised - it is a moral regression, not an improvement. If polygamy is the very best that the Final Prophet has to offer to married people, I’ll stick with the supposedly inferior Jesus

See above. The fact that you’re moving on to polygamy now I think demonstrates pretty clearly that you have seen my point and are only trying to cloud the issue

You’ve misunderstood my point - which is, that if the claims made for Mohammed were true, his morality should be conspicuously better than that of Jesus. The supposedly inferior Jesus does not condone the evil of polygamy - He says very clearly that it is not the Creator’s original intention, but something allowed because of people’s “hardness of heart”.​

Mohammed restores the marital condition of polygamy which Jesus had corrected.

Either Jesus was wrong - so is not that great a prophet; if a prophet at all. In which case, second only to Mohammed is far too high a position for him. Or Mohammed is. Or both are. And a genuine prophet should not make a mess of a massively important issue such as marriage. Which ever alternative one chooses, the Muslim claims about Jesus fail.

That is why I called Mohammed’s position a “regression”. For that is exactly what it is. I notice that you did not contest my point - thank you I shall take that as agreement with it. ##

 

[pro_universal]

Rodrigo,

Most of your argument is a repeat of above. Reread my posts is my answer. If these arguments suffice against Islam, they suffice against Christianity too. It’s like a European saying that Chinese culture is defective only because it engages in colonial expansion. Hypocritical and self-defeating.

As for this, the site you cribbed your last post from needs to do some more learning:

That is why, even today, you won’t find a single Jew in Arabia.

There were hundreds of thousands of Jews living in Arabia, and living quite well, before the 1948 war in which Israel expelled hundreds of thousands of arabs from Palestine. It’s asinine to claim that there were no Jews in Arabia in the past, and the only possible ways to come up with that conclusion are:

1. Having done zero research at all on the subject. or…
2. Knowingly lying about what information one did see.

It’s that and the continued adoration for mass-murderers (like the 16th century spanish…calling them “defenders” is like saying Hitler, except for his fault of the holocaust, was a “defender” of the German people) that makes your points so bereft of credibility. This is another example:

The Spaniards were merely reclaiming their land and they were not prophets. Admittedly they were not ‘Charitable’ but they were still not prophets.

When you cast the history this way, you demonstrate your real colors. This is about the fact that they are muslim, not about the historical truth of what happened in that part of world. You are calling a war in which almost every single jew in Spain was killed by “christians” a “mere reclaimation.” There is no explanation besides bigotry that would explain how you can minimize a war that killed every religious minority in spain, yet cite one incident with one tribe in Arabia as an example of how evil Islam is.

Please leave us Catholics to help ourselves, Rodrigo. We don’t need your kind to ruin our reputation for tolerance and learning.

 

[Cyber_Knight]

pro_universal:

Please leave us Catholics to help ourselves, Rodrigo. We don’t need your kind to ruin our reputation for tolerance and learning.

WHAT??? I dont see any catholics mind of Rodrigo’s presence here. Its only you, pro, why? Why do you hate Rodrigo so much? Because he tells people the truth here? Because we know that you are a muslim and not catholic?

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

pro_universal:

Rodrigo,

Most of your argument is a repeat of above. Reread my posts is my answer. If these arguments suffice against Islam, they suffice against Christianity too. It’s like a European saying that Chinese culture is defective only because it engages in colonial expansion. Hypocritical and self-defeating.

And your arguments are merely repeats of Muslim tu quoques. So what? If you repeat your arguments why can’t I show each of your repeats to be logical fallacies?

As far as I can tell, you only have a few arguments:

1. The Jews also did it, so why do you pick on poor little Muhammad who’s merely a prophet of God who claimed to possess ‘sublime morality’?
2. Jesus would have done similar if he had the chance.
3. I don’t know so I’ll make up some rubbish about Buddha.
4. Ordinary human beings are capable of evil, so why do you pick on poor little Muhammad who’s merely a prophet of God who claimed to possess ‘sublime morality’?

Have I left any of your arguments out?

pro_universal:

As for this, the site you cribbed your last post from needs to do some more learning:

Rodrigo:

That is why, even today, you won’t find a single Jew in Arabia.

There were hundreds of thousands of Jews living in Arabia, and living quite well, before the 1948 war in which Israel expelled hundreds of thousands of arabs from Palestine. It’s asinine to claim that there were no Jews in Arabia in the past, and the only possible ways to come up with that conclusion are:

1. Having done zero research at all on the subject. or…
2. Knowingly lying about what information one did see.

Palestine is not Arabia. You better get your facts right.

pro_universal:

It’s that and the continued adoration for mass-murderers (like the 16th century spanish…calling them “defenders” is like saying Hitler, except for his fault of the holocaust, was a “defender” of the German people) that makes your points so bereft of credibility.

So Hitler was a good man, was he?

pro_universal:

Please leave us Catholics to help ourselves, Rodrigo. We don’t need your kind to ruin our reputation for tolerance and learning.

I don’t think you’re a Catholic, Muslim. And I am here to stay. Get used to it, bud.

I also see you tolerate intolerance. How quaint. And you learn to love Muhammad the genocidal slaver. How very “Catholic” of you?

Chau,
Mata Moro

 

[pro_universal]

Have I left any of your arguments out?

You didn’t get a single one. Reread my posts. Your continued implication that the Buddha was a political leader is wrong, as is…

Palestine is not Arabia. You better get your facts right.

I meant Arabia, as in where the gulf states now sit. There were hundreds of thousands of Jews there before the 1948 war, in which a retaliatory expulsion occurred. Before 48, Jews lived in those parts of the world in large numbers (In Arabia proper, not just the Arab province of Palestine) continuously. The history your source claimed is quite simply wrong.

So Hitler was a good man, was he?

No, he wasn’t, and neither was El Cid. Now you have the point. I believe your new name should be “generalisimo.” More appropriate to the modern era, don’t you think? There was another one of those “defenders of christian identity”.

I don’t think you’re a Catholic, Muslim. And I am here to stay. Get used to it, bud.

Well, that seems to be about the strongest argument you have so far. I’m happy with that. As long as you post inaccurate remarks designed to increase resentment of muslims, I will do my Christian duty to stop people from believing you.

I also see you tolerate intolerance. How quaint. And you learn to love Muhammad the genocidal slaver. How very “Catholic” of you?

If I tolerated intolerance, I wouldn’t be exposing your posts for what they are.

Adios,
AmordeDios.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

pro_universal:

Rodrigo:

Have I left any of your arguments out?

You didn’t get a single one.

Yup. I got them all.

pro_universal:

Reread my posts.

No.

pro_universal:

Your continued implication that the Buddha was a political leader is wrong, as is…

So Buddha being an Indian prince and heir to the throne of Kapila was not a political leader? Or didn’t you know that?

pro_universal:

Rodrigo:

Palestine is not Arabia. You better get your facts right.

I could be uncharitable and accuse you of telling porkies. You did mention Palestine, didn’t you?

Since I’m a charitable person I will only claim you have stuffed up by being equivocal.

pro_universal:

I meant Arabia, as in where the gulf states now sit. There were hundreds of thousands of Jews there before the 1948 war, in which a retaliatory expulsion occurred.Before 48, Jews lived in those parts of the world in large numbers (In Arabia proper, not just the Arab province of Palestine) continuously. The history your source claimed is quite simply wrong.

I meant the Arabia of Muhammad’s time - what is now known as Saudi Arabia.

Palestine is not an Arab province. It was conquered by the Arabs in 632AD from the Byzantines. Arabs haven’t ruled Palestine since the Seljuk Turks conquered the land from the Fatimids around 1070AD.

pro_universal:

Rodrigo:

So Hitler was a good man, was he?

No, he wasn’t, and neither was El Cid. Now you have the point. I believe your new name should be “generalisimo.” More appropriate to the modern era, don’t you think? There was another one of those “defenders of christian identity”.
So why wasn’t Hitler a good man? Let me guess… could it be because he committed the ‘sublime morality’ of genocide?

pro_universal:

Rodrigo:

I don’t think you’re a Catholic, Muslim. And I am here to stay. Get used to it, bud.

Well, that seems to be about the strongest argument you have so far. I’m happy with that. As long as you post inaccurate remarks designed to increase resentment of muslims, I will do my Christian duty to stop people from believing you.
Do your best. Do your worse. Who cares? I’m merely here to show the ‘sublime morality’ of your prophet.

pro_universal:

Rodrigo:

I also see you tolerate intolerance. How quaint. And you learn to love Muhammad the genocidal slaver. How very “Catholic” of you?

If I tolerated intolerance, I wouldn’t be exposing your posts for what they are.
You mean the truth?

pro_universal:

Adios,
AmordeDios./quote
Adios amigo.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

pro_universal:

Rodrigo:

Have I left any of your arguments out?

You didn’t get a single one.

Yup. I got them all.

pro_universal:

Reread my posts.

No.

pro_universal:

Your continued implication that the Buddha was a political leader is wrong, as is…

So Buddha being an Indian prince and heir to the throne of Kapila was not a political leader? Or didn’t you know that?

pro_universal:

Rodrigo:

Palestine is not Arabia. You better get your facts right.

I meant Arabia, as in where the gulf states now sit. There were hundreds of thousands of Jews there before the 1948 war, in which a retaliatory expulsion occurred.Before 48, Jews lived in those parts of the world in large numbers (In Arabia proper, not just the Arab province of Palestine) continuously. The history your source claimed is quite simply wrong.

I could be uncharitable and accuse you of telling porkies. You did mention Palestine, didn’t you? Since I’m a charitable person I will only claim you have stuffed up by being equivocal.

I meant the Arabia of Muhammad’s time - what is now known as Saudi Arabia.

Palestine is not an Arab province. It was conquered by the Arabs in 632AD from the Byzantines. Arabs haven’t ruled Palestine since the Seljuk Turks conquered the land from the Fatimids around 1070AD.

pro_universal:

Rodrigo:

So Hitler was a good man, was he?

No, he wasn’t, and neither was El Cid. Now you have the point. I believe your new name should be “generalisimo.” More appropriate to the modern era, don’t you think? There was another one of those “defenders of christian identity”.

So why wasn’t Hitler a good man? Let me guess… could it be because he committed the ‘sublime morality’ of genocide?

pro_universal:

Rodrigo:

I don’t think you’re a Catholic, Muslim. And I am here to stay. Get used to it, bud.

Well, that seems to be about the strongest argument you have so far. I’m happy with that. As long as you post inaccurate remarks designed to increase resentment of muslims, I will do my Christian duty to stop people from believing you.

Do your best. Do your worse. Who cares? I’m merely here to show the ‘sublime morality’ of your prophet.

pro_universal:

Rodrigo:

I also see you tolerate intolerance. How quaint. And you learn to love Muhammad the genocidal slaver. How very “Catholic” of you?

If I tolerated intolerance, I wouldn’t be exposing your posts for what they are.

I tell the truth about Muhammad’s ‘sublime morality’. The fact that you’re ashamed of your prophet’s sublime morality is not my problem. As a Muslim you should not be so ashamed of him. You should be telling us, yes he did commit genocide and enslavement, and that is the proof of his ‘sublime morality’.

Not everyone can commit genocide and enslavement, you know. Only certain people can do that. And we call them the Messenger of Allah, because that is his message to us humans: genocide and enslavement are morally sublime.

pro_universal:

Adios,
AmordeDios.

Adios amigo.

 

[Justice2006]

Gottle of Geer:

If Mohammed is really in succession to Jesus, why is he not far more holy than Jesus (Who is, after all, a mere man by the Muslim reckoning) ? If he is final, he should be far holier than Jesus ever was. It would fit into the Biblical pattern, within the prophetic movement, of the lesser being succeeded by the greater, the inferior being followed and corrected by the better.

Mr. Geer,

It is simply because you have no proper knowledge of Islam/Muslim history, in the first place.

Had you studied Islam from the basics/fundamentals from Islamic perspective, you would not have asked this baseless question.

You have to come out of this strategy: “He that is not with me must be against me”

Now, consider this:

Qoute:
"I’ll bet, if parrots couldn’t talk, we would think of them as normal birds. And the moment we find out that a parrot spoke, we would think it is some kind of amazing thing. Go ask a person “did you know that parrots can mimic the human voice?” Then someone educated, would say: “big deal, where have you been?!!”
Gottle of Geer:

In reality, the morality of Jesus is corrected by that of Mohammed to make possible the very state of marriage which Jesus criticised - it is a moral regression, not an improvement. If polygamy is the very best that the Final Prophet has to offer to married people, I’ll stick with the supposedly inferior Jesus. ##

As to the marriage issue; first, you don’t have the full accounts of Jesus in any version of the Bible. [Check the *Red-Letter Bible and figure out the percentage of *Red part * in relation to the Black part.]
Second, what you have is books mostly written by unknown authors (of your New testament). So you **cannot ** claim for sure that this is what precisely Jesus preached and this what exactly Jesus did.
Third, if we assume that Jesus was not married (for the sake of argument), and you like to follow him and his holy “teachings”, then are you saying that all Christians should not get married but stay unmarried/practice celebacy? If you say yes, then guess what will happen? If you say no, then you are not actually following the holiness of him…you are going againts his holy way.

.

 

[Justice2006]

Gottle of Geer:

Mohammed restores the marital condition of polygamy which Jesus had corrected.

BTW: In Islam it is not Polygamy that is allowed. Only po·lyg·y·ny is allowed in Islam.

Polygyny: n. The condition or practice of having more than one wife at one time.

Polygamy: n. The condition or practice of having more than one spouse at one time. Also called plural marriage.
[answers.com/polygyny]](http://www.answers.com/polygyny])
[answers.com/polygamy]](http://www.answers.com/polygamy])

.

 

[Cyber_Knight]

Justice2006:

BTW: In Islam it is not Polygamy that is allowed. Only po·lyg·y·ny is allowed in Islam.

Polygyny: n. The condition or practice of having more than one wife at one time.

Polygamy: n. The condition or practice of having more than one spouse at one time. Also called plural marriage.
[answers.com/polygyny]](http://www.answers.com/polygyny])
[answers.com/polygamy]](http://www.answers.com/polygamy])

.

LOL… whats the different when the factual action, you are still allowed to have more than 1 wife/spouse. are you going to quote me about the meaning of WIFE and SPOUSE?

 

[pro_universal]

So Buddha being an Indian prince and heir to the throne of Kapila was not a political leader? Or didn’t you know that?

No, he wasn’t. Not every prince is a political leader. You know that. Many, like the buddha, live lives of luxury and are do-nothings because of their birth status.

I meant the Arabia of Muhammad’s time - what is now known as Saudi Arabia.

Yes, there were Jews there. And your source said “that is why there are now no Jews in Arabia.” There were Jews in Arabia in the thousands up to the Israeli rebellion. So Muhammad’s actions had absolutely zero to do with why Jews are not welcomed in Arabia today.

Palestine is not an Arab province. It was conquered by the Arabs in 632AD from the Byzantines.

That is about as ridiculous as saying that New Hampshire is not an American province, because it was stolen from the native americans. Everyone there speaks Arabic, and it was thoroughly integrated into the Arab culture. It’s an Arab province.

Arabs haven’t ruled Palestine since the Seljuk Turks conquered the land from the Fatimids around 1070AD.

The Turks were an empire. Arabs ran the show in Palestine as vassals of the Turks, just like the Irish did under the English. Any reasoning to the contrary would require that we call India (as a commonwealth state) an “english province.”

So why wasn’t Hitler a good man? Let me guess… could it be because he committed the ‘sublime morality’ of genocide?

Yes. Exactly. Something the Arabs did not do…there were Jews from day one of the Arabian expansion, and there continued to be Jews living in their world all the way up to 1948. There was no “wipe out the Jews!” plan ever enacted in the Arab world.

In contrast, El Cid made war on behalf of a political machine that killed virtually every last Jew in Spain. That is genocide, when you decide that because of who their parents were, a certain people must be eradicated no matter if they convert, were part of a peaceful tribe, or anything else. The muslims made war on one specific group of Jews over a treaty violation; within a decade they had other Jews under their control and those Jews kept their religion, lives, and property. That’s more than we can say for any European state of the time.

You should be telling us, yes he did commit genocide and enslavement, and that is the proof of his ‘sublime morality’.

I’m not a Muslim nor am I a hypocrite. This is why I don’t do what you want me to.

No.

Well, if that’s your answer on rereading the points you clearly missed there’s nowhere we can get on the debate. Your information is incorrect, and presented in a way that is designed specifically to incite people to hate muslims.

I’ll keep praying for you as long as you’re typing. That’s clearly what you need, and I hope that Jesus will show you the error of your discriminatory and angry ways.

 

[LilyM]

Cyber Knight:

LOL… whats the different when the factual action, you are still allowed to have more than 1 wife/spouse. are you going to quote me about the meaning of WIFE and SPOUSE?

I bet he’s going to tell us what an example of Mohammed’s ‘sublime morality’ it is that Muslim men don’t have to limit themselves even to three women whereas Muslim women have to be content with a fraction of a man

 

[Justice2006]

Cyber Knight:

LOL… whats the different when the factual action, you are still allowed to have more than 1 wife/spouse. are you going to quote me about the meaning of WIFE and SPOUSE?

Let me be specific:

Polygyny: n. The condition or practice of having more than one wife at one time. ----Only this is allowed in Islam

Polyandry: n The condition or practice of having more than one husband at one time. ----This is not allowed in Islam

Polygamy: n. The condition or practice of having more than one spouse at one time. Also called plural marriage. ----*This word is used for both --i.e.Ploygyny and Polyandry– meaningwise…thus it is *not proper ** to say that Polygamy is allowed in Islam, because in Islam women are not allowed to have more than one husband at one time.

[answers.com/polygyny]](http://www.answers.com/polygyny])
[answers.com/polygamy]](http://www.answers.com/polygamy])
[answers.com/polygyny]](http://www.answers.com/polygyny])
answers.com/polyandry

 

[MugenOne]

After Muhammad’s efforts to convert the Jews of Yathrib failed, the "prophet said “Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures. Those who have faith and do righteous deeds,- they are the best of creatures.” If you can’t convert people into your religion, you can’t result to name callings. That’s childish.

Around 1000 CE the clinically insane Fatimid Caliph al-Hakim in Egypt ordered the killing of many Jews. Soon after its foundation by Yusuf ibn Tashfin, the Almoravid dynasty attempted to expel all Jews from Morocco in 1107; this effort soon petered out, and in fact one of their own military leaders was Jewish. However, its successor and overthrower the Almohad dynasty, founded by Ibn Tumart, was notoriously intolerant of all other religions, and indeed all other sects of Islam. In 1148, they offered Christians and Jews the choice of conversion or expulsion; in 1165, one of their rulers ordered that all Jews in the country convert on pain of death (forcing Maimonides to flee the country.)

Al-Jahiz (d. 869), a ninth century Islamic zoologist and belles-lettriste who authored The Book of Animals, writes that the mouse, cheetah, eel, white ant (termite), and lizard were originally sinful Jews. (See Al-Jahiz, Omar bin Bahar, Kitab Al-Hayawan. Cairo: Mustafa Al-Bai Al-Halabi and sons (1943), Col. I, p. 309.)

‘You will find that the most brazen among mankind, with hatred towards the believers, are the Jews and the Idolaters.’ [Koran, 81,5]…

In the Islamic Aghlabid dynasty (9th through 11th century, North Africa) Jews were forced to wear a patch that had an image of a monkey, and were also forced to affix said image to their homes. (For Christians, the image was of a pig.) (F. Viré, “Kird,” Encyclopedia of Islam, Second Edition.)

Qur’an 7:163 says that God told a group of Sabbath-breakers living by the sea “Be ye apes, despised and rejected” to punish them for breaking the Sabbath.

If people are taught with that kind of hatres, off course, genocide is legitimate and religiously sanctioned. Look at Iran or current world events.

MugenOne

 

[Cyber_Knight]

LilyM:

I bet he’s going to tell us what an example of Mohammed’s ‘sublime morality’ it is that Muslim men don’t have to limit themselves even to three women whereas Muslim women have to be content with a fraction of a man

huahahaha… well Lily as I can predict… he quoted about Polygamy and Polygyny… the point is MUSLIMS ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE WIFE OR SPOUSE MORE THAN ONE!! MUSLIMS, DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY WIVES MUHAMMAD HAD? AND PLUS THE CONCUBINES? GEEZ… concubines are not married… they were muhammad’s spouses… the means… either it is spouse or wife…the fact is you are allowed to have them more than one!

 

[pro_universal]

Mugen,

It’s not proper to copy almost an entire page without citing the source.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Semitism_in_Islam

You should also note that all the people who persecuted Jews in your sources also persecuted Muslims. (Druze are descendants of al-Hakim, a heretic to most muslims.) Given the scope of the muslim empires, I’d say that’s a pretty good track record all together.

That’s especially a pretty mild history if you look at the anti-semitism in Europe:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Semitism#Europe

If people are taught with that kind of hatres, off course, genocide is legitimate and religiously sanctioned. Look at Iran or current world events.

There are more Jews in Iran today than in any other middle eastern State. Freedom of religion for Jews is in article 13 of Iran’s constitution. I refer you to:csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/durableRedirect.pl?/durable/1998/02/03/intl/intl.3.html

It’s historical fraud to claim that the problems between Jews and Muslims today are from some source other than Israel and Palestine. It is a fundamentally political conflict which religious groups on both sides have hijacked, but on the muslim side, even hamas argues that Jews should have religious freedom…but under a muslim state, of course. (See Hamas charter, article 32 iirc).

Edit, I was wrong and I have the citation. It’s article 31 of the Hamas Charter:

The Islamic Resistance Movement is a humanistic movement. It takes care of human rights and is guided by Islamic tolerance when dealing with the followers of other religions. It does not antagonize anyone of them except if it is antagonized by it or stands in its way to hamper its moves and waste its efforts.

Under the wing of Islam, it is possible for the followers of the three religions - Islam, Christianity and Judaism - to coexist in peace and quiet with each other. Peace and quiet would not be possible except under the wing of Islam. Past and present history are the best witness to that.

 

[LilyM]

Cyber Knight:

huahahaha… well Lily as I can predict… he quoted about Polygamy and Polygyny… the point is MUSLIMS ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE WIFE OR SPOUSE MORE THAN ONE!! MUSLIMS, DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY WIVES MUHAMMAD HAD? AND PLUS THE CONCUBINES? GEEZ… concubines are not married… they were muhammad’s spouses… the means… either it is spouse or wife…the fact is you are allowed to have them more than one!

And didn’t Mohammed get special privileges with women because he was the Prophet or something? Sheesh! nice job if you can get it!

 

[Cyber_Knight]

LilyM:

And didn’t Mohammed get special privileges with women because he was the Prophet or something? Sheesh! nice job if you can get it!

Sahih Bukhari Wedlock, Marriage (Nikaah)
Volume 7, Book 62, Number 144:
Narrated 'Aisha:

" Allah’s Apostle, used to ask his wives, “Where shall I stay tomorrow? Where shall I stay tomorrow?” He was looking forward to Aisha’s turn. "

Lily, you see when you have more than one wives… you will be confused. Like prophet confused where he should spend the night (he himself cannot be just and fair to his wives), and hoping to spend the night with Aisha…

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

pro_universal:

Rodrigo:

So Buddha being an Indian prince and heir to the throne of Kapila was not a political leader? Or didn’t you know that?

No, he wasn’t. Not every prince is a political leader. You know that. Many, like the buddha, live lives of luxury and are do-nothings because of their birth status.

Just shows how little you know about Indian royalty.

Be that as it may, let’s return to your original point:

“This is a nonissue. Neither lived in a time when it was feasible for either to have an army or political post.”

So it was not feasible for Buddha being an Indian prince to have an army or political post?

Do you think Kapila lacked an army? How about Buddha renouncing his right to the throne? He was the heir after all, so the King of Kapila didn’t have a political post?

It is clear Buddha could have had either but he renounced it all for a non-violent life. Shame Muhammad didn’t follow his example. Or for that matter, the example of Jesus Christ.

pro_universal:

Rodrigo:

I meant the Arabia of Muhammad’s time - what is now known as Saudi Arabia.

Yes, there were Jews there. And your source said “that is why there are now no Jews in Arabia.”

And what source would that be?

There were Jews in Arabia in the thousands up to the Israeli rebellion.

In the Hijaz?

Israeli rebellion? Pray tell what Israeli rebellion would that be?

pro_universal:

So Muhammad’s actions had absolutely zero to do with why Jews are not welcomed in Arabia today.

You sure? How about this hadith?

Saheeh Muslim - 1765
Narrated Abi Hurayrah:
While we were at the Mosque, the Messenger of Allah (SAW) came to us and said,
“Go to the Jews.” So we went out with him until we arrived. So the Messenger of Allah (SAW) stood up and called on them, “O ye Jewish people, become Muslims and you will be safe.” They replied, “You have delivered [your message] O Aba Al-Qasim [Mohammad’s Kunyah (title)].” So he said to them, “That [delivering the message] is what I want. Become Muslims and you will be safe.” They replied, “You have delivered [your message] O Aba Al-Qasim [Mohammad’s Kunyah (title)].” So he repeated what he said for the third time and said, “Know that the land is for Allah and his Messenger, and I want to exile you from this land. So let him he who finds something valuable in his possession sell it; or know that the land is for Allah and his Messenger.”

Saheeh Muslim - 1767
Narrated Omar bin Al-Khattab:
He [Omar] heard the Messenger of Allah (SAW) saying, “O I indeed will exile the Jews and the Christians from the Arabian Peninsula until I leave no one but a Muslim.”

Muslim Book 019, Number 4366:
It has been narrated by 'Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim.

Muslim Book 13, Number 4014:
Sa’id b. Jubair reported that Ibn 'Abbas said: Thursday, (and then said): What is this Thursday? He then wept so much that his tears moistened the pebbles. I said: Ibn 'Abbas, what is (significant) about Thursday? He (Ibn 'Abbas) said: The illness of Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) took a serious turn (on this day), and he said: Come to me, so that I should write for you a document that you may not go astray after me. They (the Companions around him) disputed, and it is not meet to dispute in the presence of the Apostle. They said: How is lie (Allah’s Apostle) ? Has he lost his consciousness? Try to learn from him (this point). He (the Holy Prophet) said: Leave me. I am better in the state (than the one in which you are engaged). I make a will about three things: Turn out the polytheists from the territory of Arabia; show hospitality to the (foreign) delegations as I used to show them hospitality. He (the narrator) said: He (Ibn Abbas) kept silent on the third point, or he (the narrator) said: But I forgot that.

Sunan Abi Dawood - 3003
Narrated Abi Hurayrah:
While we were at the Mosque, the Messenger of Allah (SAW) came to us and said,
“Go to the Jews.” So we went out with him until we arrived. So the Messenger of Allah (SAW) stood up and called on them, “O ye Jewish people, become Muslims and you will be safe.” They replied, “You have delivered [your message] O Aba Al-Qasim [Mohammad’s Kunyah (title)].” So he said to them, “That [delivering the message] is what I want. Become Muslims and you will be safe.” They replied, “You have delivered [your message] O Aba Al-Qasim [Mohammad’s Kunyah (title)].” So he repeated what he said for the third time and said, “Know that the land is for Allah and his Messenger, and I want to exile you from this land. So let him he who finds something valuable in his possession sell it; or know that the land is for Allah and his Messenger.”

cont

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

What about these?

Malik’s Muwatta 45.5.18:
Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, “Two deens shall not co-exist in the Arabian Peninsula.”

Malik said that Ibn Shihab said, ''Umar ibn al-Khattab searched for information about that until he was absolutely convinced that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, had said, ‘Two deens shall not co-exist in the Arabian Peninsula,’ and he therefore expelled the jews from Khaybar."

Tabari VIII:130 “The Messenger said during his final illness, ‘Two religions cannot coexist in the Arabian Peninsula.’ Umar investigated the matter, then sent to the Jews, saying: ‘Allah has given permission for you to be expelled; for I have received word that the Prophet said that two religions cannot coexist in Arabia.”

What does. ‘Two deens shall not co-exist in the Arabian Peninsula,’ mean?

pro_universal:

Rodrigo:

Palestine is not an Arab province. It was conquered by the Arabs in 632AD from the Byzantines.

That is about as ridiculous as saying that New Hampshire is not an American province, because it was stolen from the native americans.

New Hampshire still IS part of America. Palestine has ceased to be part of any Arab empire for 1,000 years.

pro_universal:

Everyone there speaks Arabic, and it was thoroughly integrated into the Arab culture. It’s an Arab province.

Statehood is defined by language and culture, is it? I thought it was sovereignty that matters.

The Arabs stole it from the Byzantines 1400 year ago and lost it to the Seljuks 1,000 years ago. Bad luck.

pro_universal:

Rodrigo:

Arabs haven’t ruled Palestine since the Seljuk Turks conquered the land from the Fatimids around 1070AD.

The Turks were an empire. Arabs ran the show in Palestine as vassals of the Turks, just like the Irish did under the English. Any reasoning to the contrary would require that we call India (as a commonwealth state) an “english province.”

But India WAS an English possession, but not any more. The same reason that Palestine WAS an Arab province, but not any more.

pro_universal:

Rodrigo:

So why wasn’t Hitler a good man? Let me guess… could it be because he committed the ‘sublime morality’ of genocide?

Yes. Exactly. Something the Arabs did not do…there were Jews from day one of the Arabian expansion, and there continued to be Jews living in their world all the way up to 1948. There was no “wipe out the Jews!” plan ever enacted in the Arab world.

So what happened to the B. Qurayza?

See these:

Narrated Ibn ‘Umar:
Umar expelled the Jews and the Christians from Hijaz. When Allah’s Apostle had conquered Khaibar, he wanted to expel the Jews from it as its land became the property of Allah, His Apostle, and the Muslims. Allah’s Apostle intended to expel the Jews but they requested him to let them stay there on the condition that they would do the labor and get half of the fruits. Allah’s Apostle told them, “We will let you stay on thus condition, as long as we wish.” So, they (i.e. Jews) kept on living there until ‘Umar forced them to go towards Taima’ and Ariha’. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 39, Number 531 – see also Volume 4, Book 53, Number 380).

Tabari VIII:130 “The Messenger said during his final illness, ‘Two religions cannot coexist in the Arabian Peninsula.’ Umar investigated the matter, then sent to the Jews, saying: ‘Allah has given permission for you to be expelled; for I have received word that the Prophet said that two religions cannot coexist in Arabia.”

cont