sublime morality of genocide and enslavement

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

The sublime morality of genocide and enslavement.

I’d to discuss the sublime morality of genocide and enslavement.

Let’s take this hypothetical situation:
Two groups of people war for some reason. One group accuses the other of ‘treachery’ and no doubt this will be the excuse trotted out by its supporters. However, this charge is disputable and can be seen to be spurious. But be that as it may, let us assume for argument’s sake that this charge is proven.

Now, one group is defeated and is completely at the mercy of the other. An arbitration is set up where the final word is given to a sworn enemy of the defeated people. How this came about can be seen to be disreputable, but be that as it may, let us assume that the arbitration took place.

The sworn enemy pronounces death to all the adult males so the leader of the winning side gives his permission for all adult males and all boys with pubic hair to be beheaded.

Not only that but all the women and children of the defeated side were sold into slavery.

Thus, the entire defeated people were either killed or enslaved and they vanished from history.

Now, is this behavior perfect? Is the morality sublime?

Chau,
Rodrigo

 

[Cyber_Knight]

Are we talking about Muhammad?

 

[Justice2006]

Rodrigo Bivar:

The sublime morality of genocide and enslavement.

I’d to discuss the sublime morality of genocide and enslavement.

Let’s take this hypothetical situation:

Mr. Bivar,

You are not just wasting server-space of this website but aslo forcing other people.

The Jewish Law is not just the Old Testament. According to the reported words of Jesus (in the so-called canonical gospels), he did not come to abolish *the Law and the Prophets * (the Old Testament and other info. Jews had) but to fulfill. Now consider the following:

In the Moses’ Book of Numbers, chapter 31, we are told that:

When Moses and the priest Eleazar, with all the princes of the community, went outside the camp to meet them, Moses became angry with the officers of the army, the clan and company commanders, who were returning from combat. “So you have spared all the women!” he exclaimed. "Why, they are the very ones who on Balaam’s advice prompted the unfaithfulness of the Israelites toward the LORD in the Peor affair, which began the slaughter of the LORD’S community…then verse 17 says:

Numbers 31:17-19
The New American Bible

17 ** Slay, therefore, every male child and every woman who has had intercourse with a man. **

18 But you may spare and keep for yourselves all girls who had no intercourse with a man.

19 **"Moreover, you shall stay outside the camp for seven days, and those of you who have slain anyone or touched anyone slain in battle shall purify yourselves on the third and on the seventh day. This applies both to you and to your captives. **

[usccb.org/nab/bible/numbers/numbers31.htm]](http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/numbers/numbers31.htm])

Now compare these 3 verses with Douay Rheims Bible:

17 Therefore kill all that are of the male sex, even of the children: and put to death the women, that have carnally known men.

18 ** But the girls, and all the women that are virgins save for yourselves:**

19 And stay without the camp seven days. He that hath killed a man, or touched one that is killed, shall be purified the third day and the seventh day.
[Douay-Rheims Bible, Numbers Chapter 31]](Douay-Rheims Bible, Numbers Chapter 31])

From these verses, people do understand very clear that Judeo-Christian God of Love is telling all Jews/Christians to kill all that are of the male sex, even of the children: and put to death the women, that have carnally known men
but the girls, and all the women that are virgins save for yourselves:

But the question is how would you know which girl is a virgin and which one is not before killing her?

Did Judeo-Christian God of Love, tell a Prophet other than Prophet Moses or revealed through inspiration to any Catholic Pope in last 2000 years about it?​

.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Dear Mr Justice2006,
You do know that tu quoque is a logical fallacy?

So are you saying that because the ancient Jews killed the Midianites and enslaved their women and children, that makes it okay for Muhammad to do the same for the Banu Qurayza?

Please don’t commit tu quoque in my presence, dear Mr Justice2006. It doesn’t wash with me.

Hasta luego,
Cid

 

[Cyber_Knight]

Rodrigo Bivar:

Dear Mr Justice2006,
You do know that tu quoque is a logical fallacy?

So are you saying that because the ancient Jews killed the Midianites and enslaved their women and children, that makes it okay for Muhammad to do the same for the Banu Qurayza?

Please don’t commit tu quoque in my presence, dear Mr Justice2006. It doesn’t wash with me.

Hasta luego,
Cid

He knows but nothing he can do. Islami sources couldnt back up his claim.

 

[Justice2006]

Rodrigo Bivar:

Dear Mr Justice2006,
You do know that tu quoque is a logical fallacy?

So are you saying that because the ancient Jews killed the Midianites and enslaved their women and children, that makes it okay for Muhammad to do the same for the Banu Qurayza?

Mr. Bivar,
No, it is not a tu quoque.

The reason I qouted Bible, to make you realise that there are other issues that are legitimate and need your more attention than the ones you are trying very hard to raise but all they have no base at all.
No sincere truth seeking researcher will buy your tabloid bogus “research”. So why waste your time and make a fool out of yourself. Just google little bit more and you will find the answers but this time not the anti-Islam deceptive missionary sites.

.

 

[Justice2006]

Mr. Cyber Knight,

Are you a disciple of Mr. Bivar or you and him same person with two different IDs?

.

 

[Cyber_Knight]

Justice2006:

Mr. Cyber Knight,

Are you a disciple of Mr. Bivar or you and him same person with two different IDs?

.

Is that a problem? not admit tu quoque and now asking my presence here? you got problem with that? I’m Bivar’s wife, so what?

 

[Cyber_Knight]

Justice2006:

Mr. Bivar,
No, it is not a tu quoque.

It is.

The reason I qouted Bible, to make you realise that there are other issues that are legitimate and need your more attention than the ones you are trying very hard to raise but all they have no base at all.

that is exactly tuqueque. You do not understand what it means Justice?

No sincere truth seeking researcher will buy your tabloid bogus “research”. So why waste your time and make a fool out of yourself. Just google little bit more and you will find the answers but this time not the anti-Islam deceptive missionary sites.

hahahaha anti islam deceptive missionary?

.

 

[pro_universal]

Rodrigo,

Practices that are extreme by standards of modern european warfare were the norm in the past. If this leads you to condemn Islam, you must also condemn christianity, at least based on this account of the capture of Jerusalem in 1099:

fordham.edu/halsall/source/fulk2.html

Then a council was held, and it was ordered that siege machines should be constructed by the artisans, so that by moving them close to the wall we might accomplish our purpose, with the aid of God. This was done…

And what happened after they took the city?

. A great fight took place in the court and porch of the temples, where they were unable to escape from our gladiators. Many fled to the roof of the temple of Solomon, and were shot with arrows, so that they fell to the ground dead. In this temple almost ten thousand were killed. Indeed, if you had been there you would have seen our feet colored to our ankles with the blood of the slain. But what more shall I relate? None of them were left alive; neither women nor children were spared.

Quoting the killing of adult (and thus service age) males from medieval times after a war in which treaties were plainly violated in order to condemn a religion/people is asinine. I won’t support it against Islam especially because I’m tired of atheists claiming that the religious intolerance and genocide committed in the past by christians somehow proves that Jesus taught violence.

If you don’t want people bashing our Church based on the past, don’t let them do it to others

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Pro_universal,

As a Christian, haha, do you think Jesus told his followers to kill and enslave, or did he tell you to ‘turn the other cheek’?

Or didn’t Jesus pre-date Muhammad?

And please also forget about tu quoque. You Muslims, I mean not you as you’re not a Christian, cannot argue without tu quoque. Tell me which PROPHET OF GOD was responsible for the capture of Jerusalem of 1099?

Do you think Prophets of God should have better morals or lesser morals? Do you hold Prophets of God to higher or lower standards?

Or do you think Prophets of God should have the same ‘sublime morals’ of bloodthirsty medieval warriors?

You’re just telling us with your tu quoque that Muhammad was no better than the average 7th century savage.

Nice one, Muslim, I mean Christian.

Chau,
Cid

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Justice2006:

Mr. Bivar,
No, it is not a tu quoque.

Hmmm… Not according to the usual definitions, dear Mr Justice2006.

Justice2006:

The reason I qouted Bible, to make you realise that there are other issues that are legitimate and need your more attention than the ones you are trying very hard to raise but all they have no base at all.

What other issues are those? That the Jews killed and enslaved the Midianites?

I’m also not trying very hard to raise Muhammad’s sublime morality in killing and enslaving the B. Qurayza. The story is readily available from the hadiths and sira.

Justice2006:

No sincere truth seeking researcher will buy your tabloid bogus “research”. So why waste your time and make a fool out of yourself. Just google little bit more and you will find the answers but this time not the anti-Islam deceptive missionary sites.

Did I mention any supposed ‘anti-Islam deceptive missionary sites’ in this thread? I think no.

You’re merely adding the logical fallacy of ad hominem to your tu quoque.

Chau,
Rodrigo

 

[pro_universal]

As a Christian, haha, do you think Jesus told his followers to kill and enslave, or did he tell you to ‘turn the other cheek’?

Or didn’t Jesus pre-date Muhammad?

Of course he didn’t. But neither did he forbid obedience and payment to the most brutal army of the time, and some of his first followers were Centurions. I doubt they stopped doing their jobs, all of them, in answering the call.

Tell me which PROPHET OF GOD was responsible for the capture of Jerusalem of 1099?

According to the Christians who attacked it, God himself was responsible.

Do you think Prophets of God should have better morals or lesser morals? Do you hold Prophets of God to higher or lower standards?

A prophet is a man. Plain and simple. God chose a viscious Roman citizen named Saul for his message in the New Testament. Does this mean that either Paul was lying, or that the Christian God is corrupt? That’s a ridiculous argument.

You’re just telling us with your tu quoque that Muhammad was no better than the average 7th century savage.

No. What I’m arguing is that different circumstances clearly call for different answers. Laws of warfare that applied to an age of swords and horses do not have to be the same as laws that apply to an age of communications, bombs, and aircraft. Specific rules of conduct to suit the times are not the same as general rules of religious truth, as the continuing and constant work of the Church will show any Catholic.

Face it Rodrigo. The only point of your threads here is to say “Rodrigo doesn’t like Muslims.” There’s no coherent argument you’re making that wouldn’t also condemn all religion on the planet, and that might be why you claim not to be Christian at all. But if that’s the case, you can’t blame me for standing with people who acknowledge God against those who would have us all believe that atheist “rationality” is the answer.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

pro_universal:

Rodrigo:

As a Christian, haha, do you think Jesus told his followers to kill and enslave, or did he tell you to ‘turn the other cheek’?

Or didn’t Jesus pre-date Muhammad?

Of course he didn’t. But neither did he forbid obedience and payment to the most brutal army of the time, and some of his first followers were Centurions. I doubt they stopped doing their jobs, all of them, in answering the call.

So you’re saying civil passive disobedience is on the same ‘sublime morality’ scale as genocide and enslavement?

As for the Centurions – how many of them were PROPHETS OF GOD?

None? I thought not. So why do you compare ordinary humans with Prophets?

pro_universal:

Rodrigo:

Tell me which PROPHET OF GOD was responsible for the capture of Jerusalem of 1099?

According to the Christians who attacked it, God himself was responsible.

So which of these Christians was the prophet who made this claim? You believe any Christian who tells you what God will is, do you?

pro_universal:

Rodrigo:

Do you think Prophets of God should have better morals or lesser morals? Do you hold Prophets of God to higher or lower standards?

A prophet is a man. Plain and simple. God chose a viscious Roman citizen named Saul for his message in the New Testament. Does this mean that either Paul was lying, or that the Christian God is corrupt? That’s a ridiculous argument.

I think your arguments are very weak for the reason that you don’t even attempt to answer the question.

BTW: Was Saul a prophet of God?

And: what do you mean Saul was vicious? Do you mean he killed and enslaved people?

pro_universal:

Rodrigo:

You’re just telling us with your tu quoque that Muhammad was no better than the average 7th century savage.

No. What I’m arguing is that different circumstances clearly call for different answers. Laws of warfare that applied to an age of swords and horses do not have to be the same as laws that apply to an age of communications, bombs, and aircraft. Specific rules of conduct to suit the times are not the same as general rules of religious truth, as the continuing and constant work of the Church will show any Catholic.

Yeah and those ‘different answers’ include killing and enslavement. Righto, Muslim, I mean Christian. We can see just how ‘sublime’ your prophet’s morals were.

pro_universal:

Face it Rodrigo. The only point of your threads here is to say “Rodrigo doesn’t like Muslims.”

It’s not that Rodrigo dislikes Muslims – he dislikes Islam, and of course MuhamMAD. Why should I like anyone who killed and enslaved?

Apparently you do.

pro_universal:

There’s no coherent argument you’re making that wouldn’t also condemn all religion on the planet, and that might be why you claim not to be Christian at all.

I suppose Buddha and Jesus also killed and enslaved.

pro_universal:

But if that’s the case, you can’t blame me for standing with people who acknowledge God against those who would have us all believe that atheist “rationality” is the answer.

How can a true Christian even side with someone who committed genocide and enslaved people?

Exactly what sort of Christian are you?

Chau,
Cid

 

[pro_universal]

None? I thought not. So why do you compare ordinary humans with Prophets?

Prophets are human, get that straight. A prophet is 100 percent human. What makes a prophet special is that he for some reason is given messages by God. That’s it, so I don’t know where you’re getting this idea that Prophet is somehow different from a man. A prophet is a man.

As for the violence of past Prophets proper, Justice posted one…Moses and other Prophets whom Jesus respected commanded similar things. So you argument against muslims, if true, must also be a condemnation of christianity.

BTW: Was Saul a prophet of God?

And: what do you mean Saul was vicious? Do you mean he killed and enslaved people?

He certainly was inspired by God. And yes, he did kill and enslave people. That was the whole of his job before God appeared to him.

Yeah and those ‘different answers’ include killing and enslavement. Righto, Muslim, I mean Christian. We can see just how ‘sublime’ your prophet’s morals were.

Yes, they did. Slavery and warfare were both parts of life that were acknowledged and accepted at the time. That’s why Centurions could be christians without losing their jobs, and that’s why there are questions and rules about slavery in the New Testament.

Which leads to…

I suppose Buddha and Jesus also killed and enslaved.

This is a nonissue. Neither lived in a time when it was feasible for either to have an army or political post. It’s like saying “Moses never dropped a bomb” to argue that he’s more moral than the generals of world war II. Again, comparing apples and oranges in terms of situation here…now if you want to look at what followers of Jesus and Buddha did immediately upon gaining political power of their own, then you have precious little to argue in condemning muslims that wouldn’t also condemn christianity.

How can a true Christian even side with someone who committed genocide and enslaved people?

Exactly what sort of Christian are you?

See above. Using inflammatory labels is about the best argument you have in this debate. I side with people who acknowledge God because they are truth seekers, just like me. That makes me Catholic.

And that’s why I’m interested in learning and in not being a hypocrite…while on the one hand, you name yourself alternatively as “muslim killer” or “el cid”, embrace a history of genocidal violence and religious intolerance, all the while condemning muslims for practices that were clearly more limited than your heroes’.

Answer this: How can you embrace 16th century Spain’s policies of genocide and religious intolerance, and at the same time call this killing of the men in the Qurayza tribe evil? Do you not see the hypocrisy there?

Or does the fact that they’re muslim and El Cid was not constitute the crucial factor for you?

If your whole reason for hating what one person does is “he calls himself by a different name than my people do”, you have clearly strayed far from the message of God.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

If Mohammed is so far below Catholic saints - whose religion, if Muslim apologists are correct, is a complete travesty of the intentions of Jesus - that he indulges in massacre (quite unlike St.Philip Benizi, for instance, who forgave his brother’s murderer); then his claims to be even more final than Jesus don’t stand up. Someone whose morals are below those of a mere Catholic saint is no prophet or man of God, whatever he may claim he is.​

As for St. Paul, he tells that he was excellent as a Pharisee - IOW, before his conversion. Mohammed’s massacres took place after his conversion (or whatever it is to be called). So the analogy between the unpleasantness of Mohammed and that of the *real *apostle of Jesus, collapses.

Islam, like Catholicism, needs to be tried by the claims that it makes for itself - and not by any lower standard. 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. 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. ##

 

[pro_universal]

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

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.

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!”

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.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

pro_universal:

Rodrigo:

None? I thought not. So why do you compare ordinary humans with Prophets?

Prophets are human, get that straight. A prophet is 100 percent human. What makes a prophet special is that he for some reason is given messages by God. That’s it, so I don’t know where you’re getting this idea that Prophet is somehow different from a man. A prophet is a man.

This is a rather silly claim. I have read the Quran and never did I see any message from Allah to Muhammad telling him to kill and enslave the B., Qurzayza.

Perhaps I missed it. Care to show me which verse?

I know Muhammad was a man. He was a man who committed genocide and enslavement.

pro_universal:

As for the violence of past Prophets proper, Justice posted one…Moses and other Prophets whom Jesus respected commanded similar things. So you argument against muslims, if true, must also be a condemnation of christianity.

Your Muslim mentality is showing again, pro. Tu quoque, especially against Christians and Jews, is a favorite tactic of Muslims. They can’t argue without tu quoque. Positively can’t.

pro_universal:

Rodrigo:

BTW: Was Saul a prophet of God?

And: what do you mean Saul was vicious? Do you mean he killed and enslaved people?

He certainly was inspired by God. And yes, he did kill and enslave people. That was the whole of his job before God appeared to him.

Firstly, you have admitted comparing a prophet with a mere apostle.

Secondly, you also admitted Saul’s VICIOUSNESS in killing and enslaving people. Which means Muhammad was similarly VICIOUS.

Thirdly, you admitted that Saul’s viciousness was before he saw the light. So, when did Muhammad commit this VICIOUS act? Before or after he claimed prophethood?

pro_universal:

Rodrigo:

Yeah and those ‘different answers’ include killing and enslavement. Righto, Muslim, I mean Christian. We can see just how ‘sublime’ your prophet’s morals were.

Yes, they did. Slavery and warfare were both parts of life that were acknowledged and accepted at the time. That’s why Centurions could be christians without losing their jobs, and that’s why there are questions and rules about slavery in the New Testament.

So that was why Jesus also killed and enslaved?

Centurions are normal human beings with human failings, bud. Muhammad should have known better if he was a true prophet.

You’re just letting everyone know you’re not a Christian with such unchristian beliefs.

pro_universal:

Which leads to…

Rodrigo:

I suppose Buddha and Jesus also killed and enslaved.

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

So… Buddha didn’t kill and enslave because neither had an army or political post? I suggest you look up the history of Buddha before you utter such nonsense.

pro_universal:

It’s like saying “Moses never dropped a bomb” to argue that he’s more moral than the generals of world war II.

You talk about irrelevancy? Did I make any claims about Moses? This is a disguised tu quoque. Nothing more.

pro_universal:

Again, comparing apples and oranges in terms of situation here…now if you want to look at what followers of Jesus and Buddha did immediately upon gaining political power of their own, then you have precious little to argue in condemning muslims that wouldn’t also condemn christianity.

I’m not aware the followers of Jesus and Buddha were prophets of God.

You’re just going around biting your own ankles, bud. Prophets of God should have higher, not lower, standards than ordinary people. It is you who evidently compare apples with oranges. You keep comparing Muhammad to non-prophets. How’s that for comparing apples and oranges?

Muhammad himself claimed his morals were ‘sublime’. If he was merely a common thug, why was his morals ‘sublime’? Or don’t you believe in ayat 68:4.

Or him saying he is a good example to follow (33:21).

Or a mercy to all mankind (21:107).

The next thing you’ll tell us that he was being merciful to the B. Qurayza by killing and enslaving them.

pro_universal:

Rodrigo:

How can a true Christian even side with someone who committed genocide and enslaved people?

Exactly what sort of Christian are you?

See above. Using inflammatory labels is about the best argument you have in this debate.

No. I present the evidence of Muhammad’s ‘sublime morals’.

pro_universal:

I side with people who acknowledge God because they are truth seekers, just like me. That makes me Catholic.

If you say so.

cont

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

pro_universal:

And that’s why I’m interested in learning and in not being a hypocrite…while on the one hand, you name yourself alternatively as “muslim killer” or “el cid”, embrace a history of genocidal violence and religious intolerance, all the while condemning muslims for practices that were clearly more limited than your heroes’.

Moral equivalence again?

I may call myself after a Christian soldier, but you’re defending a man who committed genocide and enslavement. Last time I looked at Cid’s biography, he did neither of these VICIOUS behavior.

You yourself admitted genocide and enslavement were VICIOUS. Well, if they were vicious for Saul, they were similarly vicious for Muhammad.

pro_universal:

Answer this: How can you embrace 16th century Spain’s policies of genocide and religious intolerance, and at the same time call this killing of the men in the Qurayza tribe evil? Do you not see the hypocrisy there?

No hypocrisy. The Spaniards were merely reclaiming their land and they were not prophets. Admittedly they were not ‘Charitable’ but they were still not prophets.

The killing of the Qurayza was especially evil because they were defenseless and it was genocide. Cid never committed genocide nor did he enslave women and children.

pro_universal:

Or does the fact that they’re muslim and El Cid was not constitute the crucial factor for you?

If you cannot see the difference, then it is clear you’re no Catholic. Do I take El Cid as a moral exemplar? No. Do I follow his teachings? No. I merely used his moniker in my ‘fight’ against injustice and evil. Hating hatred is not evil. I fight Islam not by the sword but with words. I merely show the ‘sublime morality’ of a man who committed genocide and enslavement.

Chau,
Cid

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

These excuses by pro_universal that Muhammad’s genocide was on account of him being the head of an earthly state, and that the times were barbaric, can be seen to be rather false:

When Nadr ibn Harith, Muhammad’s own cousin who in Mecca had derided him was captured in the battle of Badr, he besought Musab, the person who was carrying him handcuffed to Muhammad to intercede for him. Musab reminded him that he had denied faith and insulted the Prophet. “Ah” said Nadr, “had the Quraish made you a prisoner, they would never have put you to death!” “Even where it so”, Musab scornfully replied, “I am not as you are; Islam has rent all bonds asunder”. “Idrab anqihu” (strike his neck) shouted Muhammad with blood in his eyes upon seeing Nadr and the poor man was beheaded at once. His corpse was thrown in the well along with other victims.

Another prisoner in that battle was Oqba. When he was brought for execution, he ventured to expostulate, and demand why he should be treated more vigorously than the other captives. “Because of your enmity to God and to his Prophet,” replied Muhammad. “And my little girl!” cried Oqba, in the bitterness of his soul, “who will take care of her? " - “Hell-fire!” exclaimed the heartless conqueror; and on the instant his victim was hewn to the ground and blood gushed from his slit gullet. Then Muhammad praised his Allah “I give thanks unto Allah that hath slain thee, and comforted mine eyes thereby.” [Waqidi, p108]

Muhammad’s greatest enemies, the Quraish, never killed their prisoners. Does that mean the Quraish lack the ‘sublime morals’ of the Prophet for sparing their enemies?

And are these the words of a ‘head of an earthly state’ or a ‘prophet of God’?

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.”

In truth, the Jews of Medina rejected Muhammad as their prophet and he killed or exiled or enslaved the major tribes (and asked his successors to complete the task for the remnants). That is why, even today, you won’t find a single Jew in Arabia.

Is that the behavior of a head of an earthly state or a prophet of God?

The next thing pro will tell us is that ethnic-cleansing is a mercy to all mankind.

Hasta luego,
Rodrigo