• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Where in the Qur'an does it say to hurt/kill nonMuslims?

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
Ryan2065 said:
What assertion that they expire? I am getting annoyed with your twisting of my words and misquotes... I have stated enough times that I have not asserted that they expire, only offered that as something that could happen, seeing as he did not say either way.
You say number of terrorist attacks and then you go by number of fatalities... Again, if someone got ahold of an atom bomb and set it off, does that mean whatever religion that person was is more curel just because of that one person? Are you asserting that the number of fatalities is the one we should be looking at or the number of people in each organization compared to the number of peopel in the religion to get a good view of what most of the people of that religion believe?

They are allowed to protect themselves... if they do not want the US in their lands then they more than likely would support any action against the US...
The firszt thing to consider about Iraq is that right now today, we do not have an occupation and restitution opoeration on our hands, we have a civil war. Al Qaeda has come to Iraq to influence that civil war. Its not an anti-terrorism operation, its a civil war. Many nations, whether Islamic or not, have gone through civil wars and there are many parallels to draw. To treat it otherwise is to bury one's head in the sand and hope it will go away. It won't.

Regards,
Scott
 

JerryL

Well-Known Member
What assertion that they expire? I am getting annoyed with your twisting of my words and misquotes... I have stated enough times that I have not asserted that they expire, only offered that as something that could happen, seeing as he did not say either way.
You brought up exparation in the first place. You infered it than used that inference as a justificaion for the passage. This is despite the fact that justification had not been brought up. You've been tilting at straw-men since you started posting on this thred.

You've been trying to apologize away Sura 9.

You say number of terrorist attacks and then you go by number of fatalities... Again, if someone got ahold of an atom bomb and set it off, does that mean whatever religion that person was is more curel just because of that one person?
Fair enough, here it is by number of incidents (2000-present):
Hamas - 500
al-Qaeda Organization in the Land of the Two Rivers - 179
Taliban - 162
Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) - 88
Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG) - 41

The top 5. Does that make you feel better?

1980-2000:
Hezbollah - 174
Armed Islamic Group - 62
Hamas - 43
al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya (GAI) - 36

The top 4

Are you asserting that the number of fatalities is the one we should be looking at or the number of people in each organization compared to the number of peopel in the religion to get a good view of what most of the people of that religion believe?[/qutoe] Actually, I think popular support would be a good one; as would the number of incidents (which is tied to the number of willing terrorists). Muslims are at the top of the heap in both.

They are allowed to protect themselves... if they do not want the US in their lands then they more than likely would support any action against the US...
Ahh, so it's OK because they are "protecting themselves"? I do love watching you eat crow:

Viloence against civilians is often or sometimes justified (2002 poll):
Lebanon 73%
Pakistan 33%
Indonesia 27%
Turkey 13%
Jordan 43%

And, of course, specific support for Bin Lauden (who was attacking civilian targets long before we took over Iraq)... 2005 numbers:
Jordan 60%
Pakistan 51%
Indonesia 35%
Morocco 26%
 

Ryan2065

Well-Known Member
JerryL said:
Fair enough, here it is by number of incidents (2000-present):
Hamas - 500
al-Qaeda Organization in the Land of the Two Rivers - 179
Taliban - 162
Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) - 88
Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG) - 41

The top 5. Does that make you feel better?
Really? What about...
Basque Fatherland and Freedom 169
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia 374
National Liberation Army (Colombia) 123
Communist Party of Nepal-Maoists (CPN-M) 297

Apparently you left a few terrorist organizations out... Or did you mean to say those are the top five religious terrorism organizations?
JerryL said:
And my results for those years are...
Basque Fatherland and Freedom 236
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia 151
Shining Path 132
Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement 105
National Liberation Army (Colombia) 211

And those are only the ones I saw that were over 100 in the Communist/Socialist. If you want to compare terrorist groups, then compare terrorist groups... If you want to narrow it down to only religious terrost groups (which account for less than 40% of the incidents listed on this site) then go ahead.

JerryL said:
Ahh, so it's OK because they are "protecting themselves"? I do love watching you eat crow:

Viloence against civilians is often or sometimes justified (2002 poll):
Lebanon 73%
Pakistan 33%
Indonesia 27%
Turkey 13%
Jordan 43%

And, of course, specific support for Bin Lauden (who was attacking civilian targets long before we took over Iraq)... 2005 numbers:
Jordan 60%
Pakistan 51%
Indonesia 35%
Morocco 26%
Would you please post the link to these stats... Your stats earlier were wrong, so it would be nice to look at these (namely what questions were asked as well...)
 

Nosebleed Sunset

New Member
Steve said:
Your fogetting somthing very important, Islam is not a nation, it is a religion - one that many claim is peaceful and tolerant etc.
All you have to do is look at its history especially towards its beginnings and you will get an idea of what it really is.
For eg the crusades were a reaction to the Islamic Jihad..

The crusaders were reacting to over four centuries of relentless Islamic Jihad, which had wiped out over 50% of all the Christians in the world and conquered over 60% of all the Christian lands on earth – before the crusades even began..... Far from the crusaders being the aggressors, it was the Muslim armies which had spread Islam from Saudi Arabia across the whole of Christian North Africa into Spain and even France within the first century after the death of Muhammad..... These Muslim invaders destroyed over 3,200 Christian churches just in the first 100 years of Islam.
rest of article at - http://www.frontline.org.za/article...s_all_about.htm


But the intolerance didnt end there consider the following -
THE FORGOTTEN HOLOCAUSTS
Slavery, Terrorism and Islam documents hundreds of massacres of Christian populations by Muslim rulers. For example: In 1860 over 12,000 Christians were slaughtered in Lebanon. In 1876 14,700 Bulgarians were murdered by the Turks. 200,000 Armenian Christians were slaughtered by the Turks in Bayazid in 1877. And in 1915 the Turks massacred over 1.5 million Armenian Christians. As recently as September 1922 the Turkish army destroyed the ancient city of Smyrna with its 300,000 Christian population.

INTOLERANT AND INCONSISTENT
Despite Islam proclaiming itself as a religion of tolerance, no Muslim countries allow freedom of religion. Despite the Saudi Arabian government funding the building of thousands of mosques in Christian lands, no church or synagogue is tolerated in Saudi Arabia. Nor can any Saudi Arabian citizen be a Christian. Despite Muhammad being called a “prophet of peace”, he engaged in 47 battles and raids on caravans in his lifetime. It is inconsistent of Islam to insist on the cutting off of the hand of a thief when Muhammad and his successors, the Caliphas, engaged in wholesale theft, raiding caravans, kidnapping hostages for ransom and looting homes.


INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY
The persecution of Christians by Muslims has become a taboo subject in Western circles. Over thirteen centuries of religious discrimination and persecution, causing the suffering, oppression, murder and enslavement of countless millions has been buried under a thick whitewash of myths of “Islamic tolerance”. The deceit, cowardice and silence of all too many Western journalists and academics continues to facilitate the religious discrimination and persecutions of radical Muslims to this day.


The intellectual dishonesty of those Westerners who engage in academic gymnastics to justify the invasion of other people's lands; the looting, pillaging, raping, murdering and enslaving of whole peoples, needs to be exposed. The hypocrisy of those who justify the military aggression of Muslims, but condemn those who inflicted defeats upon these Muslim invaders needs to be challenged. The fiction that “Jihad has never been an aggressive, but only a defensive concept”, should be dismissed with the contempt that such deception deserves. What were Saudi Arabians defending in Spain?
rest found at http://www.frontline.org.za/news/end_of_islam.htm

You simply must be ignorant of history to claim that Jihad is defensive and that muhummed and his followers proclaimed peace and tolerance.. Perhaps willfully ignorant to maintain the whole "lets be tolerant of everything" attitude that has sweep over our cultures.
The subject that is being debated over is whether or not the Q'uran states that the killing of non-Muslims is justified. What you posted are various examples of Muslim extremists and dictators, not examples of quotes from the Q'uran. While the people you have mentioned certainly commited atrocious crimes against non-muslims, they are not to represent all Muslims. If Ryan and Jamaesi are in fact right, these dictators and extremists are not taking the Q'uran into serious consideration. If JerryL is right, then these dictators are only following what the Q'uran says. What you're trying to debate is whether or not Islam and Islamic nations are peaceful.
 

JerryL

Well-Known Member
Really? What about...
Basque Fatherland and Freedom 169
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia 374
National Liberation Army (Colombia) 123
Communist Party of Nepal-Maoists (CPN-M) 297

Apparently you left a few terrorist organizations out... Or did you mean to say those are the top five religious terrorism organizations?
The one's I posted were pulled from the religious list.

And those are only the ones I saw that were over 100 in the Communist/Socialist. If you want to compare terrorist groups, then compare terrorist groups... If you want to narrow it down to only religious terrost groups (which account for less than 40% of the incidents listed on this site) then go ahead.
The religious one seems most appropriate, since we are comparing muslims to other religions. (a rebel group with no specific religious tie could be of any religion).

That said, I only just found the "Incidence by group" list which does without classification. You have certainly inspired me to but "marxist seperatists" on my "do bad stuff" list.

Would you please post the link to these stats...
The same site as the previous set.

Your stats earlier were wrong, so it would be nice to look at these (namely what questions were asked as well...)
Support your claim.
 
Steve said:
I know the point you are trying to make but i disagree, A follower of Christ is no longer a follower of Christ if they are not constrained to his teachings, also a muslim also is constrained by muhummed as it was muhummed who defined islam. If we cease to follow their teachings we no longer follow that religion and instead follow a new one.
This is my point about the muslim extreamists calling all "luke warm" muslims back to the original faith as defined by muhummeds teachings and examples.
You can't attack people for what you think they *ought* to believe. You can call modern Islam a different religion from what Muhammad followed if you like. Modern Christianity is quite different from what Jesus followed. What's important is not the semantics but the facts. The fact is that many people who follow a religion where Muhammad is the central figure do not believe that they should raid trading caravans or slaughter pagans, just as many people who follow a religion where Moses is the (a) central figure do not believe they should stone adulterers. Times change, beliefs change. All I'm saying is that people should be judged based on what *they* believe, not on what Muhammad or anyone else may have believed. You may well be right that it's inconsistent, but if being against stoning people is inconsistent, I don't want [edit: them] to be consistent. ;)

Steve said:
So is this your idea of tolerance and peace? domination/conquest which you admit was the goal from early on. Submit to islamic rule or be killed? Dosnt sound like the most tolerant, peaceful religion - yet people simply claim it is and people just accept their claim hook, line and sinker.
No, it is not my idea of tolerance and peace. I agree that conquest and domination is a bad thing. All I was saying was that trying to dominate people is a bit different from simply trying to kill for the sake of killing.

Steve said:
So is the real meaning of Peace and tolerance submit or be killed!?
Not at all. I never said it was.
 

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
Mr. Spinkles,

I agree with your rationality of judgement.

I would submit that the teachings of a Prophet cannot be judged good or bad by what people have done CLAIMING to be followers. Jesus had much to say about those who say one thing with their mouths and another with their deeds.

When someone distorts, misrepresents the teachings of a faith to manipulate others into following their personal ambitions for power and influence that manipulator has committed an awful sin before God and man. That includes the leadership of all Terrorist groups that use religion to dupe followers into sin and crime.

Regards,
Scott
 

Steve

Active Member
Steve said:
Your fogetting somthing very important, Islam is not a nation, it is a religion - one that many claim is peaceful and tolerant etc.
All you have to do is look at its history especially towards its beginnings and you will get an idea of what it really is.
For eg the crusades were a reaction to the Islamic Jihad..

The crusaders were reacting to over four centuries of relentless Islamic Jihad, which had wiped out over 50% of all the Christians in the world and conquered over 60% of all the Christian lands on earth – before the crusades even began..... Far from the crusaders being the aggressors, it was the Muslim armies which had spread Islam from Saudi Arabia across the whole of Christian North Africa into Spain and even France within the first century after the death of Muhammad..... These Muslim invaders destroyed over 3,200 Christian churches just in the first 100 years of Islam.
rest of article at - http://www.frontline.org.za/article...s_all_about.htm


But the intolerance didnt end there consider the following -
THE FORGOTTEN HOLOCAUSTS
Slavery, Terrorism and Islam documents hundreds of massacres of Christian populations by Muslim rulers. For example: In 1860 over 12,000 Christians were slaughtered in Lebanon. In 1876 14,700 Bulgarians were murdered by the Turks. 200,000 Armenian Christians were slaughtered by the Turks in Bayazid in 1877. And in 1915 the Turks massacred over 1.5 million Armenian Christians. As recently as September 1922 the Turkish army destroyed the ancient city of Smyrna with its 300,000 Christian population.

INTOLERANT AND INCONSISTENT
Despite Islam proclaiming itself as a religion of tolerance, no Muslim countries allow freedom of religion. Despite the Saudi Arabian government funding the building of thousands of mosques in Christian lands, no church or synagogue is tolerated in Saudi Arabia. Nor can any Saudi Arabian citizen be a Christian. Despite Muhammad being called a “prophet of peace”, he engaged in 47 battles and raids on caravans in his lifetime. It is inconsistent of Islam to insist on the cutting off of the hand of a thief when Muhammad and his successors, the Caliphas, engaged in wholesale theft, raiding caravans, kidnapping hostages for ransom and looting homes.


INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY
The persecution of Christians by Muslims has become a taboo subject in Western circles. Over thirteen centuries of religious discrimination and persecution, causing the suffering, oppression, murder and enslavement of countless millions has been buried under a thick whitewash of myths of “Islamic tolerance”. The deceit, cowardice and silence of all too many Western journalists and academics continues to facilitate the religious discrimination and persecutions of radical Muslims to this day.


The intellectual dishonesty of those Westerners who engage in academic gymnastics to justify the invasion of other people's lands; the looting, pillaging, raping, murdering and enslaving of whole peoples, needs to be exposed. The hypocrisy of those who justify the military aggression of Muslims, but condemn those who inflicted defeats upon these Muslim invaders needs to be challenged. The fiction that “Jihad has never been an aggressive, but only a defensive concept”, should be dismissed with the contempt that such deception deserves. What were Saudi Arabians defending in Spain?
rest found at http://www.frontline.org.za/news/end_of_islam.htm

You simply must be ignorant of history to claim that Jihad is defensive and that muhummed and his followers proclaimed peace and tolerance.. Perhaps willfully ignorant to maintain the whole "lets be tolerant of everything" attitude that has sweep over our cultures.

Nosebleed Sunset said:
The subject that is being debated over is whether or not the Q'uran states that the killing of non-Muslims is justified. What you posted are various examples of Muslim extremists and dictators, not examples of quotes from the Q'uran. While the people you have mentioned certainly commited atrocious crimes against non-muslims, they are not to represent all Muslims. If Ryan and Jamaesi are in fact right, these dictators and extremists are not taking the Q'uran into serious consideration. If JerryL is right, then these dictators are only following what the Q'uran says. What you're trying to debate is whether or not Islam and Islamic nations are peaceful.
I posted it because it shows Islam has been untolerant/unpeaceful from the start. The people i mentioned included muhummed, the initiator of this religion, and the succesors of him, thats why i mentioned the first 100 years of the religion and its results. My point is if you want to know what the quran says have a look at the beginnings of the religion, what muhummed said and did, and what those succeeded him shortly after his death did, surly then the passages that seem so obvious that JerryL has been trying to get people to look at objectivly will become even clearer.
Like i said in an ealier post "Look at the results of this faith as muhummed taught and practised back when the religion started. Thats why i posted some of the history of the religion that dates back to its beginnings, surly muhummeds life and the lifes of those that immediatly followed his teachings can shed some light in what his religion really was."
 

Steve

Active Member
Steve said:
That verse has nothing to do with Christ being crucified to make atonement for our sin.
Dying and going to heaven is alot different then being the lamb of God who took upon the sin of the world, justifying those who would repent and put their faith in Christ and the atonement he made for them.
I have discussed this very point with many muslims, all i have spoken with deny christ was even Crucified.
Popeyesays said:
This is authoritative from the Qur'an. Jesus, as an infant, is speaking from the arms of His mother.
"He said, 'Verily, I am a servant of God; He has brought me the Book, and He has made me a prophet, and He has made me blessed wherever I be; and He has required of me prayer and almsgiving so long as I live, and piety towards my mother, and has not made me a miserable tyrant; and peace upon me the day I was born, and the day I die, and the day I shall be raised up alive.'
(The Qur'an (E.H. Palmer tr), Sura 19 - Mary)

That some Muslims deny the crucifixion is based on misinterpretation of Muhammed's words. Here's the verse that confuses them and you as well:

"But for that they broke their compact, and for their misbelief in God's signs, and for their killing the prophets undeservedly, and for their saying, 'Our hearts are uncircumcised,'- nay, God hath stamped on them their misbelief, so that they cannot believe except a few,- and for their misbelief, and for their saying about Mary a mighty calumny, and for their saying, 'Verily, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, the apostle of God,'...but they did not kill him, and they did not crucify him, but a similitude was made for them. And verily, those who differ about him are in doubt concerning him; they have no knowledge concerning him, but only follow an opinion. They did not kill him, for sure! nay, God raised him up unto Himself; for God is mighty and wise!
And there shall not be one of the people of the Book but shall believe in him before his death; and on the day of judgment he shall be a witness against them.
(The Qur'an (E.H. Palmer tr), Sura 4 - Women)

In my opinion as a Baha`i they did NOT kill Jesus on the Cross. Only His body died, not His Spirit (which was taken up by God). Even Jesus says at the very end he commended Himself to God. God replied - even though the body died, the Spirit did not. And the physical death was conquered in two ways, and the second is actually more important than the first:
1 - Jesus Spirit was resurrected so the Apostles could SEE Him.
2 - the Message and Cause of Christ was resurrected within the hearts of His followers. For a few days, those followers were confused and lost, and the cause of God would have been lost as well had they not found the fire in their hearts to continue to spread the "good word" as God and Jesus INTENDED they should. Thus the second resurrection in the hearts of His followers is even more important to the Cause of God than the physical resurrection of Christ.

Muhammed testifies to this in the verses above. That you cannot see it is because you have blinded yourself with prejudice, and followed the lead of the "leaders" of Christianity, abrogating yhour own obligation to find the truth for yourself. That some Muslims have done the same speaks no worse for Islam than your actions speak for Christianity.
Again not one verse teaching that Christ was crucified to make atonment for sin. Instead you provided a verse that explicitly states Christ was not even crucified ...but they did not kill him, and they did not crucify him ... Again its real simple, Christ was Crucified for our sin, islam denies this. They are not compatible. From all muslims ive spoken to all believe that you can get to heaven if your good deeds outway your bad, salvation to them has nothing to do with Christs atonment on the cross. For a Christian the atonment is the only way!


Also about all the other verses you posted not one talks about the atonemtent, the sacrifice Jesus made, bearing our sin on the cross so we can enter heaven. They are not compatible religions, they do not preach the same message. Just because the koran has some verses that say Messiah or Marys Son does not mean it is preaching the same message as the NT.
 

Steve

Active Member
Mr Spinkles said:
Times change, beliefs change. All I'm saying is that people should be judged based on what *they* believe, not on what Muhammad or anyone else may have believed.
Ah but your missing somthing - If we are here discussing what the average person now believes about Islam then the thread title needs to be changed. We are discussing instead what the koran teaches, and this is best understood if you have some idea of the person behind it and his followers at the time of the religions beginings. What muhummad and the rest of his gang believed and practised makes all the difference to this thread and how we should understand his teachings.

Mr Spinkles said:
You may well be right that it's inconsistent, but if being against stoning people is inconsistent, I don't want [edit: them] to be consistent. ;)
I agree :)
I dont want them to be consistant either with what muhummad really taught and practised. But this is exactly what the extreamists are calling for, a return to the true islam which is extream.
 

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
Steve said:
I posted it because it shows Islam has been untolerant/unpeaceful from the start. The people i mentioned included muhummed, the initiator of this religion, and the succesors of him, thats why i mentioned the first 100 years of the religion and its results. My point is if you want to know what the quran says have a look at the beginnings of the religion, what muhummed said and did, and what those succeeded him shortly after his death did, surly then the passages that seem so obvious that JerryL has been trying to get people to look at objectivly will become even clearer.
Like i said in an ealier post "Look at the results of this faith as muhummed taught and practised back when the religion started. Thats why i posted some of the history of the religion that dates back to its beginnings, surly muhummeds life and the lifes of those that immediatly followed his teachings can shed some light in what his religion really was."

"224 And make not Allah, by your oaths, a hindrance to your being righteous and observing your duty unto Him and making peace among mankind. Allah is Hearer, Knower."
(The Qur'an (Pickthall tr), Sura 2 - The Cow)


Scott
 

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
The Investment of Medina Pt 1

"The investment of Medina, which took place in April 627, towards the end of the fifth year of the Hijrah, marked the last effort of the Meccans to break the power of Muhammad. The previous year they had failed to meet the Prophet at Badr, but now they were goaded into action by the dislodged Jewish leaders of the Banu'n-Nadir and others of their co-religionists, who feared that the remnants of their colonies in Arabia might soon be overwhelmed; particularly active among them were Huyy Ibn Akhtab, Kinanah Ibn ar-Rabi' and Sallam Ibn Abi'l-Huqayq. Some twenty of these Jewish leaders travelled to Mecca and foregathered with a number of prominent Quray****es in the House of Ka'bah, where they made a pact to fight Muhammad to the bitter end. Next they visited the intractable Ghatafan and promised them a good share of the date crop of Khaybar, should they join an expedition against Muhammad. The Ghatafan readily agreed to fall in with their plans. Further alliances were sought and made with the Banu-Asad, the Banu-Murrah, the Banu-Ashja', the Banu-Aslam and the Banu-Sulaym.
Abu-Sufyan came out of Mecca with four thousand men, and as he led the Meccans towards Medina contingents from various tribes came to join his army, until together they numbered ten thousand. The strength of the confederates was staggering. Had Muhammad marched out of Medina to engage them in battle, it is likely the confederates would have won the day. As it was, time was too short for the Prophet to seek aid from friendly clans and He had to rely entirely on the resources of His own city. He took counsel with His followers. 'Abdu'llah Ibn Ubayy, who was 94 present, gave the same advice he had given before the battle of Uhud, and this time Muhammad complied with it. He decided not to leave Medina, but to stay within and fortify the city against attack. Next, Salman the Persian presented a scheme for defence. Persians, he said, dig moats or trenches around their towns to check the advance of an enemy. For the Arabs this was a novel idea, but they speedily got down to the task. Muhammad Himself worked along with His followers. Implements were borrowed from the Banu-Qurayzah. That side of Medina which was flanked by this Jewish settlement was left unguarded, because Muhammad counted on the Jews to observe strict neutrality.
It was the month of Ramadan and, although it was springtime, under the circumstances of hard physical labour fasting was onerous. One day the Prophet, enfeebled and exhausted, was lying prone in the mosque, when He was informed by Salman that in a part of the trench they had come upon a stone which resisted all their efforts. Bara' Ibn 'Azib of the Ansar, who at the time was no more than fifteen years old, has related that the Prophet came, took a pickaxe and, with three strokes, demolished the stone. According to Ibn-Hisham, Muhammad told Salman that, at the first stroke, He was given dominion over Yemen; at the second, Syria and the lands beyond in the West were opened up to Him; and at the third, He reached out to the kingdoms of the East. His followers, He promised, would achieve these wonders after Him, and would conquer these realms. Dissemblers, hearing that, chuckled and said: 'Listen to this man I He is cornered in Yathrib, is digging a ditch to take refuge behind, but boasts of mastery over Yemen and the dominions of Kisra (Chosroes) and Qaysar (Caesar).'
Even as the Dissemblers scoffed and sneered at the Prophet, in this period of rising doubt and uncertainty, He was revealing the following: 'Say, "O God, the Lord of the Kingdom! Thou givest the Kingdom to whomsoever Thou willest, and Thou takest away the Kingdom from whomsoever Thou willest; and Thou exaltest whomsoever Thou willest, and Thou abasest whomsoever Thou willest. In Thy hands Thou holdest that which is good. Verily, Thou holdest dominion over all things."' (Surah iii, 26: Al-'Imran -- 'The House of 'Imran'.)
(H.M. Balyuzi, Muhammad and the Course of Islam, p. 93)"
 

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
The Investment of Medina, Pt 2

"One incident, which occurred in the very early days of digging the moat, was indicative of the revived hopes of those within 95 Medina who yearned for the Prophet's downfall. He had placed the women and children in a quarter of the city which was well fortified and protected. As soon as He went with His army of three thousand men to take positions under Mount Sal', a man named Najdan ran into the quarter of the Banu-Harithah, where these women and children had been lodged, and ordered them out at sword-point. It was an ugly situation as a motley crowd was gathering, but the intervention of a certain Zafir Ibn Rafi' saved the day. The intruder was cut down.
There is a story told by Jabir of those days of trench-digging that echoes the story of Jesus and the loaves. Many traditions are traced back to Jabir of the Ansar, whose father, 'Abdu'llah Ibn 'Amr, died at Uhud. One day, he related, he saw such clear signs of hunger on Muhammad's face that he hurried home, killed a goat which he had, and told his wife to cook it and to bake some bread; he was going to ask the Prophet to have His evening meal with them. At the close of the day, when the work was over and the men were dispersing, Jabir approached the Prophet to invite Him to his home, together with a few others. But Muhammad called out to the thousand men who had been engaged in digging and told them that Jabir had prepared a feast for them. All went, they were all fed, and still some food remained, which the Prophet said should be taken to the people who had not been there.
(H.M. Balyuzi, Muhammad and the Course of Islam, p. 94)

"The task of digging the moat was completed before the confederates arrived at Medina on March 31st. They must have been amazed by what they saw -- something no Arab had hitherto experienced; a deep moat barred their way and, on the other side of it, archers prepared to shoot whoever dared to jump into the trench, where trespassers would be at total disadvantage and helpless. Abu-Sufyan's thousand camels and three hundred horses were now of no use to his four thousand men. Indeed, they were encumbrances. The idolaters had no choice but to set up camp and lay siege to Medina. But that proved their undoing. It is one thing to keep a large body of men and beasts constantly on the move, only halting for a foray; but quite another to hold them in one place, over a period of time, with insufficient provisions and no way of obtaining food and fodder in adequate quantities. They settled down facing Muhammad and his men, not knowing what next to do. The easy task of overrunning Medina was now a dream."
(H.M. Balyuzi, Muhammad and the Course of Islam, p. 95)
 

Steve

Active Member
Popeyesays said:
"224 And make not Allah, by your oaths, a hindrance to your being righteous and observing your duty unto Him and making peace among mankind. Allah is Hearer, Knower."
(The Qur'an (Pickthall tr), Sura 2 - The Cow)
Whats your point? Such a verse just shows he was a hypocrite. Going back on what he had previously stated and acting contrary to what he had previously preached.
Have you ever heard of what the islamic idea of abrogation? that is that allah can change his mind about what he has already stated in the koran and overide them with new revelations.

For example the following article http://www.secularislam.org/articles/armageddon.htm makes the following comment after listing many of the verses that have been quoted in this thread.

Unfortunately, according to the traditional muslim chronology of revelation, early texts are abrogated by apparently contradictory later texts, and all the above texts are late or 'Medinan', while most of the 'compassionate' texts are early or 'Meccan'. It has been said that the text at K.9:5, 'Slay the idolaters wherever you find them', cancels 124 verses advocating mercy and toleration.
 

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
The Investment of Medina Pt 3

"In the meantime, Huyy Ibn Akhtab, the Jewish leader before 96 mentioned, presented himself at the gate of the stronghold of the Banu-Qurayzah. Ka'b Ibn Asad, the chief of that settlement, shouted at him to take himself off, for he was a man of ill omen who had already led the Banu'n-Nadir into disaster. Furthermore, Ka'b reminded him, the Banu-Qurayzah had a pact with Muhammad, had no quarrel with Him, and had always found Him just, truthful and loyal. But Huyy would not go away. He had come, he declared, with great tidings -- a large army of confederates had arrived who had it in their power to overthrow Muhammad and efface all traces of His work. Such an opportunity should not be missed. Still Ka'b would have no truck with him until Huyy resorted to ridicule, attributing his reluctance to open the gate to the thought of having another mouth to feed. Thus chided and riled, Ka'b let the son of Akhtab enter the settlement and, by so doing, sealed the fate of his own people, which was to be grim indeed.
It was this Huyy who had gone to Mecca with a number of like-minded Jews to scheme the destruction of Muhammad. When the idolaters of Mecca had asked whether their religion was superior to Muhammad's, the Jews, although monotheists, had replied that it was. Their abominable statement receives severe condemnation in the fourth surah of the Qur'án -- an-Nisa' ('Women'): 'Hast thou not observed those to whom a Book was allotted, expressing belief in Jibt and Taghut, telling the infidels they are better guided in the path than those who are believers. These are accursed by God, and for whomsoever God hath cursed, there shall be no helper.' (vv. 54-5)
Despite vigorous protests by such men as Zuhayr Ibn Bata and Yasin Ibn Qays, leading figures among the Jews of the Banu-Qurayzah, Ka'b Ibn Asad yielded to the blandishments of Huyy, decided to repudiate his pact with Muhammad, and threw in his lot with the idolaters. When Muhammad was apprised of Huyy's visit to the stronghold of the Banu-Qurayzah, He sent the two Sa'ds, one the son of Mu'adh, the head of the Aws, and the other the son of 'Ubadah, the head of the Khazraj, to warn Ka'b and counsel him not to break his word. They were accompanied by three other prominent men of the Ansar, but returned to say that the Banu-Qurayzah had gone the way of the 'Adal and the Qarih. Those clans, it will be recalled, betrayed the Muslims at ar-Raji'. The defection of the Banu-Qurayzah was not a light 97 matter. Relying on their loyalty, Muhammad had left that side of the city totally undefended. He had to find a way -- some way -- to counter whatever evil designs their chief had in mind. Would Ka'b give the besiegers a passage into Medina through his settlement? Would he mount an attack on the Muslims? These were imponderables, but for the time being it seemed that Ka'b was doing no more than seeing to his own defences.
A man of the Ghatafan, named Nu'aym Ibn Mas'ud, had been converted to Islam only a few days before the arrival of the confederate army outside Medina. Neither the Jews nor the idolaters knew this, and the Prophet accepted Nu'aym's offer to make use of this fact to cause a rift between them. Nu'aym went first to the Banu-Qurayzah; winning their confidence, he suggested that to obtain continued support from the idolaters, particularly the Meccans, and to ensure their own safety, they should ask for hostages from the Quraysh, who would not then abandon them to their fate. Then Nu'aym went to the confederate camp and warned them to be on guard against the trickery of the Jews. They would ask the Quraysh for hostages, he said, but would hand them over to Muhammad in order to ingratiate themselves with Him and avert His vengeance. In due course the Banu-Qurayzah were told to attack the Muslims on the south side of the oasis; they asked first for hostages and their demand was rejected. Mutual suspicion, engendered by Nu'aym, kept the Quraysh and the Banu-Qurayzah apart and the latter out of the war.
The Prophet offered the Ghatafan one-third of the date product of Medina should they break away from the Quraysh and return home. Their leaders asked for half the harvest. At this point Sa'd Ibn Mu'adh intervened to enquire whether this was a command from God or the Prophet's own idea to buy off the Ghatafan. On learning that it was Muhammad's own, Sa'd said that when they were idolaters, the Ghatafan paid for their requirements; they would not now receive them free."
(H.M. Balyuzi, Muhammad and the Course of Islam, p. 95)
 

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
The Investment of Medina Pt 4

"The whole episode of the investment of Medina -- the Ghazwah of the Trench (Khandaq), or the Ghazwah of the Confederates (al-Ahzab), as Muslim historians have it -- lasted only twenty- five days, but they were laborious days because nothing conclusive seemed to happen. Almost no casualties resulted from the activities of the archers, and the circumstances of the siege and the inability of either side to bring the other to its knees were frustrating. 98 The Muslims had to be constantly on the defence, poised for action to repel attacks. The confederates could not sustain a general assault, continuous enough to be effective, nor could they find any way to penetrate into Medina.
One day 'Amr Ibn 'Abduwud, a giant of a man, accompanied by four other prominent warriors of the Quraysh, managed to make their horses jump the trench at a narrow section. There was much tumult and great consternation. 'Ali induced the son of 'Abduwud to dismount and fight him in single combat. 'Amr was worsted and his companions fled, one of whom was Hubay-rah, the husband of Umm-Hani, 'Ali's sister. Nawfal Ibn 'Abdi'llah could not make a getaway, was pelted with stones by the Muslims, and begged to be put out of his misery. 'Ali gave him the coup de grace. 'Ikrimah, the son of Abu-Jahl, made good his escape. It was on this occasion that Sa'd Ibn Mu'adh, the chief of the Aws, was wounded in the arm by an arrow; it was a wound which eventually caused his death. Like his namesake, the chief of the Khazraj, Sa'd was a pillar of society in Medina and his death was to be a severe blow to the Muslim community.
The total casualties of the Ghazwah of the Trench were only nine: six of the Ansar and three of the Quraysh.
It was the inclemency of the weather which finally shattered the great confederacy against Muhammad. Already unseasonably cold, one night a tempest raged and played havoc in their camp. Without hope of action on the part of the Banu-Qurayzah, and having no way to replenish their dwindling food stocks, the Ghatafan gave up. Despite opposition by such leaders as 'Ikrimah, Abu-Sufyan raised the siege and led his men back to Mecca. The last attempt of the Quraysh to destroy Muhammad had failed."
(H.M. Balyuzi, Muhammad and the Course of Islam, p. 97)

So in what ways were the battles around Medina improperly handled by Muhammed? How does this show any bloodthistryness on Muhammed's part?


Regards,
Scott
 

The Black Whirlwind

Well-Known Member
Mr Spinkles said:
Dude, you are like the most non-Jedi person I have ever encountered.

Sorry, but somebody had to say it.
whatever, you're entitled to whatever belief you have. But you don't know me, so try not to speak out of ignorance again. And I'm a grey jedi by the way, there are many differences between greys and the plebes. ;)
 

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
Fat Kat Matt said:
whatever, you're entitled to whatever belief you have. But you don't know me, so try not to speak out of ignorance again. And I'm a grey jedi by the way, there are many differences between greys and the plebes. ;)

Okay, I hope I ruffle no feathers; but I have to say it.

You believe Islam is a false religion and Prophet, yet you make up a religion based around a Hollywood producer's image of a future society built around the concept that people might have a higher concentration than normal of some strange mitochondria-like substance in their cells that allows them exercise powers of the universe that imitate psychokinesis, telepathy, telempathy, and spirtualism-like trances of mediums to speak with the dead and hold that above a religion founded in the revelation of Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammed? And then attempt to justify it by comparing your "color" to JRR Tolkien's equally fictitious wizard and we're all supposed to do what . . . . . .?

Regards,
Scott
 
Top