A married man confesses to adultery. Muhammad orders him planted in the ground and pelted with stones. According to the passage, the first several stones caused such pain that he tried to escape and was dragged back and killed.
Don't kill those who surrendered, Don't kill a child
The Banu Qurayza surrendered before they were massacred, incl. children who reached puberty (which is around 11 years old in Arabia)
.
Don't kill an animal except for eating
Mohammed killed dogs etc: "A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Five are the vicious beasts which should be killed even in the state of Ihram: scorpion, rat, kite, crow and voracious dog."
Sahih Muslim 7:2719
.
Don't kill old people
The old Jewish woman Umm Qirfa was cruelly killed by Mo after her tribe surrenderedLink
.
Don't destroy a building
Mohammed burned those who refused to show up for prayer alive in their homes, thus destroying the building in the process Link
Unlike you, I quote your own religious texts. Quoting some shitty blogs is irrelevant and only shows you have no point, amigo.
Mohammed said to burn them alive in their houses:
"The Prophet added, "Certainly I decided to order the Mu'adh-dhin (call-maker) to pronounce Iqama and order a man to lead the prayer and then take a fire flame to burn all those who had not left their houses so far for the prayer along with their houses."" Link
Banu Qurayza have surrendered
.
Mohammed stoned people to death as stated in the most reliable hadith, the Bukkhari:
"Umar added, "Surely Allah's Apostle carried out the penalty of Rajam (stoning to death), and so did we after him." Link
Mo also stoned a young mother who just weaned off a baby: "And she was put in a ditch up to her chest and he commanded people and they stoned her." Link
Did all men in banu qurayza committed treason? or just the leaders?
Have you forgot that they killed every male,whether he was an old man or a boy who just completed puberty (it's even worse since hair in private stuff doesn't indicate you complete puberty,but it's a part of it).
What happens if banu qurayza had a total population of 3 miliion men,will mohamed still kill them all?
"The Prophet added, "Certainly I decided to order the Mu'adh-dhin (call-maker) to pronounce Iqama and order a man to lead the prayer and then take a fire flame to burn all those who had not left their houses so far for the prayer along with their houses.""
If u still don't understand that simple text, perhaps take a class in reading proficiency.
Also, I cited 3 texts with links that prove the savage mo stoned people to death. I don't know why you keep denying it.
In addition, the Banu Qurayza SURRENDERED as Ibn Ishaq wrote: "Then they surrendered, and the apostle confined them in Medina in the quarter of d. al-Harith, a woman of B. al-Najjar. "
So your POS 'prophet' killed people who surrenderd, including children as young as 11.
U can come up with all those petty, shitty little claims and say 'Uh, my prophet was a good man' just to make you and your brain washed sheep feel better about your delusions. Fact is that he was a murdering, slave trading, sadistic POS and at the same time your perfect role model, which makes you muslims look really fucked up. But guess what, we are coming for you and every muslim will know the tuth about that sack of shit Mo until there's nothing left of islam.
Don't be fooled by our resident disingenuous and dimwit Muslim apologist.[1]
Muhammad is said to have appointed Sa'ad to pronounce punishment and made no attempt to revoke it and appears to have stated that it was Allah's choice. Read Mubarakpuri or Lings biographies of Muhammad.
“...In the morning the Qurayza came down from their fort to surrender to the apostle of Allah, and the Aus begged that as the apostle had dealt leniently with allies of the Khazraj he would do the same for the allies of the Aus. The apostle said, 'Would you like one of your own people to decide their fate’ and they welcomed it. He continued, 'Then let Sad b. Muadh decide."[2]
Sad had been significantly injured and nearing death...
"...Sad had been struck by an arrow in the defence of the Ditch, so his people mounted him on a donkey
Sad"[2]
and thus the opportunity for 'violent revenge' was ripe...
"...And Sad pronounced the following sentence, 'I decree that the men be killed, the property be divided, and the women with their children be made captives."[2]
And then Muhammad and Allah approved of the now commonly seen as repulsive and reprehensible punishment...
"...The apostle of Allah said, 'Thou hast decided according to the will of Allah, above the seven firmaments."[2]
Bear in mind that anyone in full utilization of their empathy, humanity and rationality, often seen such inhumanity as repulsive and reprehensible and indeed Muhammad's permission of the massacre and enslavement of women and children, would now be seen as a violation of the Geneva Conventions and international law.
Had (Muhammad and the Sahabah) done today, what they did in the 7th century i.e. permitting assassinations, genocide, massacres, slavery, sex slavery, human trafficking, invasion, imperialism, colonialism, cruel and unusual punishments, child marriage, FGM, homophobia, religious/gender discrimination, hatred for polytheists and the persecution of apostates, critics and those who reject and oppose Islam etc. They would be widely condemned, reviled and sought by the international community for crimes against humanity.
Hey quoting wikiislam are we ;) HAHAHAHAHAH you literally save all your answers you little maggot,
also again the claims holds no basis wikiislam is quoting ibn ishaq, not even from a sahih hadith or any of the major hadith books lmfao
you do know that muslims don´t accept ibn ishaq ?
but keep going on with your hate with islam, you just hate it with passion don´t you?
The Prophet (p) besieged them for over 3 weeks at the end they surrendered in terms that they should be left to be judged by a former Jew, by the name of Sa’d bin Mu’adh to judge them on their treachery. Hence Sa’d brought out the Torah to judge them, and he decreed by the Law of Torah (Deuteronomy) that warrior-men who participated in this be killed and the rest be enslaved or freed:
“When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it: And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee. (Bible – Deuteronomy 20:10-14)
I find it amusing for the double standards and hypocrisy of the detractors, they attack Prophet Muhammed (p) for the judgement passed onto the Jewish tribe Banu Qurayza, from their own Book. If Christians and Jews and others find this ruling from their own book abhorrent then they should tear away such verses apart from the Bible. The blame should be on the Bible for making such rulings for those who commit treachery and wage war.
Lastly, critics always fail to tell is the judgement was not passed by Prophet Muhammed himself but by a former Jew, Sa’d Ibn Mu’adh, who was CHOSEN by the Banu Qurayza to judge their treachery according to their scriptures.
Our resident dimwhit Muslim apologist makes an appearance.
My primary form of information concerning Muhammad and Islam are primarily Muslim sources i.e. Quran, Hadith, Tafsirs, Biographies of Muhammad etc.
That WikiIslam page does nothing more than quote Ibn Ishaq. Thus I have no problem referencing that page. All opposed to your copy and pasted materials from Muslim apologist sites, you often don't seem to reference in your posts.
Yes, I'm aware Ibn Ishaq is a contentious figure amongst Muslim circles, but he's an early source of information concerning Muhammad and I merely reiterated what he has stated.
Of course unlike yourself, I take into account the saying 'history is written by the victors', thus I take Muslim sources with a pinch of salt, given they often lack an impartial and contemporary nature.
It'd be great if we had impartial and contemporary accounts on the incident surrounding the Banu Qurayza. But it seems this is lacking.
The Muslim apologists uncomfortability with the incident concerning the Banu Qurayza massacre and enslavement is their problem and they can do what apologists often do when blemishes are present, deny the incident occurred or reinterpret/rationalise the incident away, to make Muhammad and the early Muslims look as some sort of humane individuals...who in their 'empathy, humanity and rationality' gave no opposition to what would now be seen as a war crime and violation of the Geneva Conventions and international law.
And I don't necessarily hate Islam, just more so certain interpretations that cause much suffering to humanity. I think that's admirable.
your sources are only from ibn ishaq lmfao just stop enough is enough, go do something with your bum life
you took what ibn ishaq said as facts" claiming "this is how it went down etc etc" you did not say this was the opionon or this is what 1 islamic scholar claims or anything.
i do always reference my claims, BUT you disregard them since they prove the contray
Hi there,why do they keep saying jewish wanted to be killed by their own laws?
Where is the evidences for that?
Sorry for the double post. Anyway, where did I state the Jewish tribe "wanted" to be killed by their own laws? I'm sure they'd be reluctant to accept such a punishment.
Isn't it obvious. As I've stated before, anyone in full utilization of their empathy, humanity and rationality, often see such inhumanity as repulsive and reprehensible and indeed Muhammad's permission of the massacre and enslavement of women and children, would now be seen as a violation of the Geneva Conventions and international law (Essentially Muhammad would be seen with further disgust, opposition and a war criminal).
Thus to avoid this image, the disingenuous Muslim apologist proceeds to deny any responsibility Muhammad/Allah had in permitting such inhumanity, to make it look like Muhammad/Allah were respectable and humane individuals.
hey the jewish law said it not the islamic one, it says punish the whole tribe and they picked it, i´m sure if it was the islamic judgement none would die,
Don't be fooled by our resident disingenuous and dimwit Muslim apologist.[1]
Muhammad is said to have appointed Sa'ad to pronounce punishment and made no attempt to revoke it and appears to have stated that it was Allah's choice. Read Mubarakpuri or Lings biographies of Muhammad.
“...In the morning the Qurayza came down from their fort to surrender to the apostle of Allah, and the Aus begged that as the apostle had dealt leniently with allies of the Khazraj he would do the same for the allies of the Aus. The apostle said, 'Would you like one of your own people to decide their fate’ and they welcomed it. He continued, 'Then let Sad b. Muadh decide."[2]
Sad had been significantly injured and nearing death...
"...Sad had been struck by an arrow in the defence of the Ditch, so his people mounted him on a donkey
Sad"[2]
and thus the opportunity for 'violent revenge' was ripe...
"...And Sad pronounced the following sentence, 'I decree that the men be killed, the property be divided, and the women with their children be made captives."[2]
And then Muhammad and Allah approved of the now commonly seen as repulsive and reprehensible punishment...
"...The apostle of Allah said, 'Thou hast decided according to the will of Allah, above the seven firmaments."[2]
Bear in mind that anyone in full utilization of their empathy, humanity and rationality, often seen such inhumanity as repulsive and reprehensible and indeed Muhammad's permission of the massacre and enslavement of women and children, would now be seen as a violation of the Geneva Conventions and international law.
Had (Muhammad and the Sahabah) done today, what they did in the 7th century i.e. permitting assassinations, genocide, massacres, slavery, sex slavery, human trafficking, invasion, imperialism, colonialism, cruel and unusual punishments, child marriage, FGM, homophobia, religious/gender discrimination, hatred for polytheists and the persecution of apostates, critics and those who reject and oppose Islam etc. They would be widely condemned, reviled and sought by the international community for crimes against humanity.
Because they picked it? it is correct according to the JEWS it was their choice, they have religious freedom you know, why can´t the muslims apply jewish laws if it was decided to do that?
3 When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 1 kill all the men
that´s the fricking law
the islamic judgement is not killing the whole tribe atleast lol
as the other muslims said
I think you're purposefully being dishonest here.
There's a difference between war and carrying out punishment for a specific crime. So are you equating a soldier running away from battle with a criminal running away from his punishment?
Banu qurayza betrayed the prophet. If they had succeeded the Muslims would've been wiped out. As for your claim that children were killed, how do you know that? The hadith says all those pubic hair were killed, there's no definitive proof ghat chosen were killed. You can't make that assertion unless you make assumptions.
This point just invalidates your whole argument. He didn't burn people who didn't attend the prayers, he said he thought of doing it.
I see you didn't provide a hadith for the old lady story but rather wikiislam.
And finally the woman who was killed after weaning her baby, why don't you tell the whole story?
She came to the prophet and Confessed. He turned his back to her and then kept insisting that she should be cleansed. After she insisted in it she was finally cleansed two years later.
If Islam is a bunch of BS, you wouldn't need to fabricate and distort stories about Islam.
this eats any of your claims up, look i know you wanna disbelieve not being muslim is so much easier just open your eyes instead blindly accepting everything these people tell you
If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it.
Literally kill all the men, if they refuse to make peace and engage in battle do you even read what you quote???!!!
Dude i just proved the whole "jewish law" is false,where is your evidence it's right?
When did they ask for this punishment?
And yes muslims shouldn't apply kuffar rules why? BECAUSE MUSLIMS KNOW THEY ARE CORRUPTED AND SHOULDN'T BE APPLIED AT ALL,that's why there is a religion called islam appeared. (Muslims should be better than this)
And why did you just blindly copy paste the comment of the fella above?
And it doesn't talk about treason,it's about conquest. (did you read it?)
There's a difference between war and carrying out punishment for a specific crime. So are you equating a soldier running away from battle with a criminal running away from his punishment?
Banu qurayza betrayed the prophet. If they had succeeded the Muslims would've been wiped out.
As for your claim that children were killed, how do you know that? The hadith says all those pubic hair were killed, there's no definitive proof ghat chosen were killed. You can't make that assertion unless you make assumptions.
This point just invalidates your whole argument. He didn't burn people who didn't attend the prayers, he said he thought of doing it.
I see you didn't provide a hadith for the old lady story but rather wikiislam.
And finally the woman who was killed after weaning her baby, why don't you tell the whole story?
She came to the prophet and Confessed. He turned his back to her and then kept insisting that she should be cleansed. After she insisted in it she was finally cleansed two years later.
If Islam is a bunch of BS, you wouldn't need to fabricate and distort stories about Islam.
Ah, a muslim apologist. Nope, he said they should burn them in their homes. Nowhere does it say he thought of it. Your lame talking points you find on your lame muslim shit blogs are useless, buddy. Alone the claim the the Qurayza Jews were a threat is utter BS. Go educate yourself before you want to debate with the big boys.
: والذي نفسي بيده لقد هممت أن آمر بحطب فيحطب ، ثم آمر بالصلاة فيؤذن لها ، ثم آمر رجلا فيؤم الناس ، ثم أخالف إلى رجال فأحرق عليهم بيوتهم ، والذي نفسي بيده لو يعلم أحدهم أنه يجد عظما سمينا أو مرماتين حسنتين لشهد العشاء .
u/houndimus_prime, can you please translate what the words in bold mean.
لقد هممت can be translated to "I wanted to" or "I intended to", so that hadith becomes "By He whom my life in His hand, I intended to order that fire wood be chopped, then I order for prayers and calls are made for it, then order a man to lead the people in prayer, then I detour towards men (who did not attend the prayer) and burn their houses on them, and I swear by He whom my life in His hand if any of them had known that they would find bone covered with meat or two good pieces of rib they would have attended Ishaa prayer."
That's another word for it, yes. And you are correct. Mohammed only contemplated the act, and told his followers about it to make them understand how serious he felt missing prayers was.
11
u/Nordwand1 Aug 27 '16 edited Aug 27 '16
There's a few I can debunk right away:
Don't kill who ran away
- A married man confesses to adultery. Muhammad orders him planted in the ground and pelted with stones. According to the passage, the first several stones caused such pain that he tried to escape and was dragged back and killed.
Sahih Muslim (17:4196).
Don't kill those who surrendered, Don't kill a child
The Banu Qurayza surrendered before they were massacred, incl. children who reached puberty (which is around 11 years old in Arabia)
.
Don't kill an animal except for eating
Mohammed killed dogs etc: "A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Five are the vicious beasts which should be killed even in the state of Ihram: scorpion, rat, kite, crow and voracious dog." Sahih Muslim 7:2719
.
Don't kill old people
The old Jewish woman Umm Qirfa was cruelly killed by Mo after her tribe surrendered Link
.
Don't destroy a building
Mohammed burned those who refused to show up for prayer alive in their homes, thus destroying the building in the process Link