The fall of Tripoli in the Islamist imagination
Issandr El AmraniReza Pankhurst, of New Civilisation, an interesting UK-based Islamist website (apparently close to Hizb ut-Tahrir), on the parallels between the conquests of Mecca and Tripoli:
The fall of much of Tripoli on Sunday was greeted with joy by many, especially the crowds of thousands who were gathered in Liberation Square in Benghazi. The chants in unison were the calls “There is no God except Allah” and “We hear and Obey O Allah”. The revolutionary commander in Tripoli linked the event to the victory of the Prophet Mohammad over his tribe that had rejected his message and fought against him more than 14 centuries earlier which is known literally as the opening or conquest of Mecca. The parallels mentioned were numerous, from the timing (both the opening of Mecca and that of Tripoli occurred during the last ten nights of the holy month of Ramadan, just one day separating the two), the nature of the vanquished (the Prophet Mohammad and his companions faced oppression, torture, and death at the hands of those they came to conquer, and the abuses of the Gaddafi regime are open knowledge in Libya where thousands of mostly Islamic opposition have been tortured and killed while in captivity over the years), and the morality of the victors (in line with the Prophet’s general amnesty, the Libyan rebel official position is that those of the former regime who do not resist will not be killed).
That's probably what at least some Libyan Islamists are thinking, and no doubt they will be building a narrative around these lines.
Reader Comments (22)
Hmm, I saw the link from the Guardian so thought I would post here. I have a couple of issues with this blogpost.
1) I'm a British muslim, i pray 5 times a day, I fast etc. I am a normal practicing muslim. if i have never heard of this blog, and i've never ever heard it discussed by my religious friends, what relevance does 'newcivilization' have at all on the Libyan situation?
2) Yes lots of muslims (Libya is a muslim country lest you forget) were killed by Gaddhafi. His downfall is a great blessing for all muslims. It doesn't make me an 'islamist' with all the connotations that has to think that. It just makes me and others, "ordinary muslims" for thinking that.
3) What's this talk of 'imagination' and 'building narratives'? A dictator was overthrown by muslims? One doesn't need to build a narrative in some dark shady room with a wifi router and a password to access some al-qaeda website. Everyone can see it for what it is.
Let us rejoice us in Gaddafi's downfall. Let the Libyans define their revolution, not you, or I, or some dodgy website which none of us have ever heard of.
actually the post is narrating what one of the libyan commanders was saying on TV - so it is coming from a revolutionary defining his revolution. I also heard something like it on arab tv channels that night and not just from one person but many interviewed in libya that night on aljazeera, and across arab media the same comparison has been mentioned several times.
What is disturbing the most is how muslims think a mass murdering pedophile is the greatest person to have ever lived. Their so called "prophet" muhammad was human garbage that raped, murdered, , pillaged and enslaved. Muslims hold up a man who had sex with a 9 year old girl (Aisha) as a model for other muslims to follow. Islam is nothing more than an evil, twisted fantasy of a 7th century barbarian.
Here The true story of the Rebells Military chief Abdelhakim Belhadj whos is fighting in Tripoli. I can tell you that what is happening now in Libya is Djihad against Kadhafi nothing more and have nothing to do with revolution. The West is wrong . The future will tell us more...
http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=34322
@ AnInfide...your comments are reflective of your profound ignorance and malice. Where is the historical evidence that the Prophet "was a "mass murdering pedophile?"
As for your accusation about Aisha, it is nothing new. Bigots like you have been spewing such rhetoric for decades. I wonder then what you think of "God" then according to Christian teachings, reveal that Mary was only 11 years old when she conceived Jesus after God supposedly had sex with her (this is in the Bible!). And of 90-year-old Joseph when he married Mary shortly after Jesus' birth.
The reality is that these types of marriages were perfectly normal right up until the early 20th century. Even according to Jewish tradition at the time of Jesus, which was at least 600 years prior to Muhammad, it was normal for Jewish girls to be 'betrothed' by age 11 and married by no later than 14. There was no restrictions placed on the ages of their spouses.
Of course though, your vitriol is only focused on Islam, which reveals your own prejudice. Here is a sampling of what the educated intellectuals have found after studying the Prophet's life:
"If a man like Muhammed were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world, he would succeed in solving its problems that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness." (George Bernard Shaw)
"I have studied him - the wonderful man - and in my opinion far from being an anti-Christ he must be called the saviour of humanity. " (George Bernard Shaw in "The Genuine Islam")
"History makes it clear however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever repeated." (De Lacy O'Leary in "Islam at the Crossroads")
“The lies which well-meaning zeal has heaped round this man (Muhammad) are disgraceful to ourselves only.” (Thomas Carlyle in ‘Heroes and Hero Worship and the Heroic in History’)
Saracen,
The evidence for muhammad's foulness is here in your own islamic texts-
The slaughter and enslavement of the Banu Qurayza.
Book 38, Number 4390:
Sunan Abu-Dawud
Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi:
I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair.
Hadith Bukhari
Volume 5, Book 58, Number 148:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
Some people (i.e. the Jews of Bani bin Quraiza) agreed to accept the verdict of Sad bin Muadh so the Prophet sent for him (i.e. Sad bin Muadh). He came riding a donkey, and when he approached the Mosque, the Prophet said, "Get up for the best amongst you." or said, "Get up for your chief." Then the Prophet said, "O Sad! These people have agreed to accept your verdict." Sad said, "I judge that their warriors should be killed and their children and women should be taken as captives." The Prophet said, "You have given a judgment similar to Allah's Judgment (or the King's judgment)."
Qur’an 33:26
And He drove down those of the followers of the Book who backed them from their fortresses and He cast awe into their hearts; some you killed and you took captive another part.
Evil muhammad's pedophilia-
Hadith Bukhari, volume 5, #234
"Narrated Aisha: The prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six. We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Harith Kharzraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became all right, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, "Best wishes and Allah's blessing and a good luck." Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah's messenger came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age."
Bukhari vol. 7, #65:
"Narrated Aisha that the prophet wrote the marriage contract with her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: "I have been informed that Aisha remained with the prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death).""
Hadith Muslim, volume 2, #3309
Aisha reported: Allah’s Messenger married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house at the age of nine….
Hadith Sunan of Abu Dawud, volume 2, #2116
"Aisha said, "The Apostle of Allah married me when I was seven years old." (The narrator Sulaiman said: "Or six years."). "He had intercourse with me when I was 9 years old."
Wow, nasty little perverted bugger that muhammad...
I could care less what these idiots you quote above say about islam. Its evil barbarism speaks for itself. I am atheist and could care less about Mary however, that's a new one with you putting her at 11. You muslim liars usually make her 12 to 14 years of age.
By the way, why don't you tell everyone what the punishment is for leaving islam for another religion?
Looks like you are the ignorant one Saracen.
Saracen,
Please don't spread lies about Christianity and the Bible. God did not "have sex" with the Virgin Mary. By saying that you are insulting even your own religion. And nowhere in the Bible does it say that Mary was 14 when Jesus was conceived, nor Joseph 90 when she was betrothed.
Luke 1:35 "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."
The above passages have been interpreted to mean exactly what I mentioned.
Durham, I never said the Bible said Mary was 14 when Jesus was conceived, nor Joseph was 90 when she was betrothed. Do you comprehend the English language? Read again what I wrote, which was that "according to CHRISTIAN TEACHINGS, reveal that Mary was only 11 years old when she conceived Jesus...and of 90-year-old Joseph when he married Mary shortly after Jesus' birth.
The above is not in the Bible, but it IS found in the Catholic Encyclopedia and numerous other Christian texts. It's easy to reference even on the internet, where it iis found on numerous site. Here's just one example:(http://christianity.about.com/od/newtestamentpeople/p/marymotherjesus.htm) ...I'm sure you could look it up as well.
As for AnInfidel....you too clearly never read what I wrote, which is that these types of marriages were perfectly normal right up until the early 20th century. If Muhammad's marriage to Ayesha was so outrageous, why was it NEVER used against him by either his pagan enemies, nor by the Jews and Christians who attacked him for everything else?? Even the Bible is rife with examples of marriages and even rapes of young girls by older men (Judges 21:10-24 NLT, Numbers 31:7-18, Deuteronomy 20:10-14, 2 Samuel 12:11-14, Deuteronomy 21:10-14, Judges 5:30, Exodus 21:7-11, Zechariah 14:1-2...).
The punishment for leaving Islam in the early days was death, as it was tantamount to treason given that the pagans were bent on destroying Islam. Muslims convert to other faiths quite frequently, as do others to Islam. Only in extremely rare cases does it result in death, and when it does, there are tribal and cultural factors to take into account...not simply just blame a religion that you clearly don't like.
As for the story of the Banu Quraiza, Islamophobes love to bring up this incident to "prove" their view that Islam is intolerant, but of course without any context and circumstances as to what exactly took place. The Banu Quraiza was a tribe that had entered into a treaty with the Muslims, but then broke their pact and betrayed them at the Battle of the Trench in 627CE, resulting in the death of many Muslims. The members of the tribe who surrendered were spared and the rest were killed.
Even putting aside the veracity of this incident, which some scholars and historians argue that it was exaggerated or invented, if true, it happened during a war, and those who committed treason were tried, convicted and put to death. No innocent people were killed. This is exactly what EVERY other army - regardless of race or religion - engaged in at the time, and which carries on to the present day.
Compare this one incident to what is found in the Bible....
Kill People Who Don't Listen to Priests: Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT
Kill Witches: Exodus 22:17 NAB
Kill Fortunetellers: Leviticus 20:27 NAB
Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death: Exodus 21:15 NAB
All who curse their father or mother must be put to death: Leviticus 20:9 NLT
Death for Fornication: Leviticus 21:9 NAB
Death to Followers of Other Religions: Exodus 22:19 NAB
Kill Nonbelievers: 2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB
Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God: Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT
Kill Women Who Are Not Virgins On Their Wedding Night: Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB
Kill Followers of Other Religions (stone them to death): Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB, Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT
Death for Blasphemy: Leviticus 24:10-16 NLT
Kill Anyone who Approaches the Tabernacle: Numbers 1:48-51 NLT
Kill People for Working on the Sabbath: Exodus 31:12-15 NLT
Kill the Sons of Sinners: Isaiah 14:21 NAB
God Will Kill Children: Hosea 9:11-16 NLT
Kill Men, Women, and Children: Ezekiel 9:5-7 NLT
Banu Qurayza – Massacre or Myth
By Hamza Hashem
Who Were Banu Qurayza?
Before the Prophet of Islam arrived in Medina there were primarily two groups in Medina, the Jews and Pagans. The Jews were subdivided into three clans, the Banu Qainuqa, Banu Nazir and Banu Quraiza. The other inhabitants of the town were the Aws and Khazraj. Of the two chief clans of the Jews, the Quraiza were the allies of the Aws, while Banu Nazir joined the Khazraj. Fighting frequently broke out between the Aws and the Khazraj , and their Jewish allies however once the Muhammad (SAW) arrived in Medina the Aws and Kharzaj both converted to Islam.
In an effort to unite the city in peace, the Prophet Muhammad drafted the Covenant of Medina (mithaq-i-Medina) in 622 CE, whose general terms were - Muslims and Jews shall live as one people, each one of the parties shall keep to its own faith, and neither shall interfere with that of the other. In the event of a war with a third party, each was bound to come to the assistance of the other, provided the latter were the aggrieved and not the aggressors. In the event of an attack on Medina, both shall join hands to defend it and peace, when desirable, shall be made after consultation with each other.
Battle of the Trench (Ghazwah al-Khandaq)
In 627, the Quraish (the chief aggressors towards Muhammad) decided to go against the Prophet Muhammad once again, after failing at the battles of Badr and Uhud. The level of duplicity in which Banu Qurayza dealt with these circumstances varies with reports, but whether or not it was responsible for instigating the confrontation between the Quraish and Muhammad or merely betrayed the Prophet they did openly align themselves with the Quraishi campaign . This act of treason was designed to encompass the Muslims in battles on all sides, one that would eventually fail them.
After the siege ended, the Quraish defeated again, Banu Qurayza were left alone to face the Muslims they betrayed (going against virtually every principle outlined within the Covenant of Medina). Forced to surrender, the leader of Banu Qurayza was asked “Will you be satisfied, o Aus, if one of your own number pronounces judgement on them? When they agreed he said that Sa'd b. Mu'adh was the man...Sa'd said, Then I give judgement that the men should be killed, the property divide, and the women and children taken as captives.”
This incident if often recounted as the mass slaughter of between 800-1000 ‘innocent’ Jews, and is given credence as being documented by a Muslim historian. The events are often twisted and manipulated, however, when one looks deeper it becomes clear that there were extenuating circumstances.
Documentation – Questionable Methodology
This incident is primarily noted, or cited as recorded in Sirah Rasul Allah (Sīrat Nabawiyya) by Ibn Isḥaq (Muḥammad ibn Isḥaq ibn Yasār, 704-767 CE). While this work has been lost it has been recounted, at least in recensions, by that of Ibn Isḥaq’s student Ziyad al-Bakka’i (which has also been lost) and that of Ibn Hisham (Abu Muhammad 'Abd al-Malik bin Hisham) whose work had been based upon the work of Ziyad al-Bakka’i; Ibn Hisham’s recounting is the only version to have survived and subsequently has become the basis for any editions of Sīrat Nabawiyya by Ibn Ishaq.
Before we enter into discussion regarding the events surrounding Banu Qurayza we must approach this from the view of Islamic sciences. In the Islamic sciences (such as Hadith collection) there are very clearly defined and stringent rules regarding authenticity, and the validity of the isnad (chain of narration) was based upon these rules. While these rules were meticulously followed by some (most famously by the likes of Al-Bukhari and Muslim) it was not followed by all, which is why there are varying classifications of hadith based on their isnad.
"A Sahih hadith is the one which has a continuous isnad, made up of reporters of trustworthy memory from similar authorities, and which is found to be free from any irregularities (i.e. in the text) or defects (i.e. in the isnad)." As defined by Ibn al-Salah
Since the writing of Sirah (history) did not have to meet the same standards that hadith or fiq (jurisprudence), the collection of its sources did not require the same standards of verification and consequently the Sirah itself could not be classified as sahih as hadith are. While the intentions of Ibn Ishaq may have been good, the veracity of his work can be called into question, in particular his use of questionable sources. This use of questionable sources was openly condemned by one of the most well known mujtahid (authoritive Jurist), and author of al-Muwatta, Imam Malik ibn Anas who called him unequivocally a liar and an impostor . Later scholars such as Ibn Hajar and Ibn Taymiyyah also spoke out against the work of Ibn Ishaq due to his use of questionable or spurious narrators. The validity of many of the hadith and stories relayed by Ibn Ishaq have been called into question due to lack of source material or chain of narration. Further complicating the issue is that Ibn Hisham’s work is based upon that of al-Bakka’i who had been viewed as an unreliable or weak narrator by Abu-Hatim, Al-Nasa’i, and even Ibn-Madini (the teacher of al-Bukhari).
There are other issues which arise upon closer inspection of ibn Ishaq’s sira and the subsequent retelling of it, most notably “There never existed a unified text for the traditions of ibn Ishaq to which the transmitters and later authors could have referred” because ibn Ishaq often delivered them orally according to Sadun Mahmud al-Samuk. This led to different people taking different aspects of his work and creating their own; notably, besides al-Bakka’i’s recension used by ibn Hisham, there was that of Salama al-Fadl al-Razi used by Tabari. Having noted the potential for errors, we cannot however overlook the fact that Ibn Ishaq was known to have relied primarily on the descendants of Banu Qurayza for details of the prophets campaign against them as handed down by their forefathers, causing Ibn Hajar to then reject the stories in question in the strongest terms: "such odd tales as the story of Qurayza and al-Nadir"
In a more generally historical perspective one can look at the allegations made regarding this incident and wonder why an incident of this caliber was not preserved. The significance of such an act, and its implications would be indelibly inscribed in the works of Muslim and Jewish historians alike; instead it was preserved primarily in the questionable integrity of one persons work. Having firmly established the qualifications of the very foundation of which the story of Banu Qurayza has been built, let us now turn our attention to the actual events in terms of Islamic precedence.
The Islamic Perspective of Banu Qurayza
From the Islamic point of view, the issue of Banu Qurayza was addressed only 3 times, which we will examine now:
Noble Quran Surah Al-Ahzab (33:25-26)
And Allah turned back the unbelievers for all their fury: no advantage did they gain; and enough is Allah for the believers in their fight. And Allah is full of strength, able to enforce his will. And those of the people of Al-Kitab who aided them Allah did take them down from their strongholds and cast terror into their hearts, so that some you slew, and some you made prisoners.
Sahih Al-Bukhari (Volume 5, Book 59, Number 443)
Narrated 'Aisha: When the Prophet returned from Al-Khandaq (i.e. Trench) and laid down his arms and took a bath, Gabriel came and said (to the Prophet ), You have laid down your arms? By Allah, we angels have not laid them down yet. So set out for them." The Prophet said, "Where to go?" Gabriel said, "Towards this side," pointing towards Banu Quraiza. So the Prophet went out towards them.
Sahih Muslim (Book 019, Number 4370)
It has been narrated on the authority of A'isha who said: Sa'd was wounded on the day of the Battle of the Ditch. A man from the Quraish called Ibn al-Ariqah shot at him an arrow which pierced the artery in the middle of his forearm. The Messenger of Allah (may peacce be upon him) pitched a tent for him in the mosque and would inquire after him being in close proximity. When he returned from the Ditch and laid down his arms and took a bath, the angel Gabriel appeared to him and he was removing dust from his hair (as if he had just returned from the battle). The latter said: You have laid down arms. By God, we haven't (yet) laid them down. So march against them. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) asked: Where? He pointed to Banu Quraiza. So the Messenger of Allah (may peace he upon him) fought against them. They surrendered at the command of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him), but he referred the decision about them to Sa'd who said: I decide about them that those of them who can fight be killed, their women and children taken prisoners and their properties distributed (among the Muslims).
From the Quran we have only a very brief mentioning of the subject, and in it we learn nothing of slaughtering the masses, on the contrary, we actually see the word of Allah stipulate only “so that some you slew, and some you made prisoners.” which can in no way be seen as an endorsement for mass slaughter.
Once the view is shifted towards the hadith one will notice that of the only two hadith available referencing of Banu Qurayza incident, one mentions nothing of killing leaving just one reference towards the punishment faced by the tribe. This hadith as related in Sahih Muslim refers to the punishment as “that those of them who can fight be killed, their women and children taken prisoners and their properties distributed (among the Muslims)”
The punishment at first glance seems brutal, and would tend to lead credence to the stories of a wholesale slaughter, however there is more to this below the surface. When the enemy had surrendered, the Prophet of Alah did not immediately saly them all. Instead it was asked of the Jewish leader, “Will you be satisfied, o Aus, if one of your own number pronounces judgement on them? When they agreed he said that Sa'd b. Mu'adh was the man” The significance behind this was simple, Sa’ad b. Mu’adh was a Jewish convert to Islam. As a former Jew, Sa’ad knew the Jewish law and according to al mithaq-i-Medina Jewish law dictated the Jewish community, which meant handing down a sentence in accordance with Jewish law:
Deuteronomy 20: 12-14
“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”
If in fact this event happened as described, perhaps the fact that this was a application of Jewish law on a Jewish community for the crimes of treason, may well explain why this incident was not recorded or preserved by other contemporary scholars, nor does it offer precedence in Islamic jurisprudence. An incident of this magnitude, had it been truly the deaths of nearly a thousand people, surely would have either had precedence or set it however the contrary is actually presented by Islam:
Noble Quran Surah Al’An’am (6:164)
“Say: "Shall I seek a lord other than Allâh, while He is the Lord of all things? No person earns any (sin) except against himself (only), and no bearer of burdens shall bear the burden of another. Then unto your Lord is your return, so He will tell you that wherein you have been differing."
Amongst the reasons that this account of Banu Qurayza can clearly be refuted are:
1.) As stated above, the authority of Islam, al Quran clearly states the rule in Islam is to punish only those who were responsible for the sedition.
2.) Qur'anic refence to this event is minimal. An event of magnitude would have surely been expounded upon for matter of jurisprudence.
3.) Had this slaughter actually happened, jurists would have adopted it as a precedent. In fact exactly the opposite has been the case. The attitude of jurists, and their rulings, have been more according to the Qur'anic rule in the verse, "No soul shall bear another's burden."
4.) In the story of Qurayza specific people were named as having been put to death, thus it is a reasonable conclusion that those were the ones who led the sedition and who were consequently punished - not the whole tribe.
5.) The veracity of the work must come under scrutiny after the authenticity of such events, and the integrity of the authors or their work has so clearly been shown to have substandard quality.
While there are numerous other reasons to refute this account of the Banu Qurayza, I will simply leave off with the fact that nowhere before, or after has such an event happened. The very idea of such an event is diametrically opposed to the principles of Islamic justice. In the end there will be those who continue to perpetuate a story of hate and violence, to further their own virulent ideologies and promote hate and fear, and there will be those who fight such malicious intent. I hope this information will rest in the latter category.
@Durham:
From the Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm)
"When she "(Mary) was fourteen, the high priest wished to send her home for marriage."
"Jewish maidens were considered marriageable at the age of twelve years and six months, though the actual age of the bride varied with circumstances. The marriage was preceded by the betrothal, after which the bride legally belonged to the bridegroom, though she did not live with him till about a year later, when the marriage used to be celebrated. "
@Durham:
From the Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm)
"When she "(Mary) was fourteen, the high priest wished to send her home for marriage."
"Jewish maidens were considered marriageable at the age of twelve years and six months, though the actual age of the bride varied with circumstances. The marriage was preceded by the betrothal, after which the bride legally belonged to the bridegroom, though she did not live with him till about a year later, when the marriage used to be celebrated. "
Interesting how you keep deflecting from islam and pointing fingers at Christianity. I have already told you I do not have any gods and your constant Christian Bible quoting is meaningless. I suppose it might mean a little something if Christians and Jews actually used their holy texts for terror and mayhem as muslims ARE actually instructed to do by theirs.
The marriage and sexual penatration of prepubescent children with 50+ year old men has never been "perfectly normal" as you say. It is disturbing how so many muslims justify muhammad's pedophilia.
You attempt to shrug off the slaughter and enslavement of the Banu Qurayza and suggest it never happened. I suppose you are saying your own accepted islamic texts are all lies? Did you miss the part where ALL of the men and even boys that had begun to grow hair were executed? How about the part where all the rest of the women and children were sold into slavery? You are simply an apologist for evil.
More of muhammad's love of the Jews-
On page 369 (554 in the Arabic) of the earliest Muslim biography of Muhammad, Muhammad says "kill any Jew who falls into your power"
Sahih Muslim
Book 041, Number 6985:
Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.
Book 041, Number 6981:
Ibn 'Umar reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: You will fight against the Jews and you will kill them until even a stone would say: Come here, Muslim, there is a Jew (hiding himself behind me) ; kill him.
And, don't forget Sahih Muslim, 41:6982, Sahih Muslim, 41:6983, Sahih Muslim, 41:6984
Sahih al-Bukhari,
Volume 4, Book 56, Number 791:
Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar:
I heard Allah's Apostle saying, "The Jews will fight with you, and you will be given victory over them so that a stone will say, 'O Muslim! There is a Jew behind me; kill him!' "
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."
Muhammad was a despicable, murderous barbarian. I will work tirelessly to expose islam for the evil it represents. The evidence is in your unholy islamic texts and the actions of muslims worldwide.
I'm not deflecting anything. If you can actually comprehend anything you read, I'm proving to you that your accusations against Islam are baseless and without merit. Clearly your blind hate and bigotry blinds you to the truth, as you conveniently choose to ignore historical facts and the evidences found in the practices of other faiths, since you are trying so hard to single out but one faith to demonize.
History makes it clear - if indeed you were looking for facts (which you evidently are not) - that marriages similar to Muhammad's to Ayesha indeed have been common place throughout human civilization. Anyone can easily look this up to confirm it. I even proved it to you by quoting from older Jewish and Christian traditions and scriptures (that you chose to ignore), and by providing anecdotal evidence from the time of Muhammad (which again you ignored),
With regards to the Banu Quraiza, I''ve showed you that there exists conflicting scholarly opinions on the issue, and that the story behind it is not as conclusive or black & white as you would like to suggest...which again you ignore, because it certainly doesn't fit with your vile agenda.
The Prophet even stated the following in a document presented to the leaders in Yathrib:
"The God-fearing believers shall be against the rebellious or him who seeks to spread injustice, or sin or enmity, or corruption between believers; the hand of every man shall be against him even if he be a son of one of them. A believer shall not slay a believer for the sake of an unbeliever, nor shall he ain an unbeliever against a believer. God's protection is one, the least of them may give protection to a stranger on their behalf. Believers are friends one to the other to exclusion of outsiders. To the Jew who does not war against us belong help and equality. He shall not be wronged nor shall his enemies be aided against them. The peace of the believers is indivisible."
Your quotes are also taken completely out of context, which seems to be standard operating procedure for you (and is hardly surprising given your bias). You pick and choose what's convenient for you and what you can twist to fit with your agenda, and you conveniently ignore what would work against your arguments. It's actually quite an old, amateurish tactic really.
The hadiths you speak of talks about an apocalyptic battle that will take place in the last days. It is by no means a general invocation for Muslims to persecute Jews...and Muslims have clearly understood this throughout history, given that they protected and tolerated Jews for the most part over the past 1400 years. I'm sure it doesn't interest you that the Golden Age of Judaism took place under Islamic (Moorish) rule in Spain. This will not matter to you because you have already decided that it's more convenient to malign and demonize an entire faith without bothering with context, historical or otherwise. Everything's simply black and white for you, but only when it's to do with Islam.
And far from being an apologist for evil, I am advocating FACTS and TRUTH, whereas you are clearly a bigot with an axe to grind. Your comments make this abundantly evident. It's always interesting how your kind always resort to name calling and insults when you cannot dispute facts or debate intellectually.
People like you have been trying unsuccessfully for 1400 years to destroy Islam by spreading lies and propaganda, and you will never succeed. Rather, the faith is growing faster than any other tradition and will continue to grow and get stronger. Muslims have survived the Crusades, the Romans, the Persians, the Mongols, the Russians, the Serbs, the list goes on. The Byzantines, Romans and the Crusaders all crumbled at the hands of Islam despite their military might.
Today, there are hatemongers even more intelligent than you who are busy with their attempts to spread disinformation and false innuendo...yet despite this, more and more people continue to convert to Islam.
So, you can knock yourself out in your attempts to demonize Islam and continue braying into the wind. You are not the first of the hate-filled bigots, as people like you have existed throughout the centuries, and you certainly won't be the last. However, the truth always wins out in the end, so your efforts will prove futile.
Debating with you is like debating with the wall, as you have no interest in truth or fact, so I will leave you with three final quotes:
“It is He (God) who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth, and it is destined to become dominant over all other traditions, regardless of how much the unbelievers may hate it.” (Qur'an 9: 33)
"We hurl the Truth against falsehood, and it knocks out its brain" (Qur'an, 21:18)
"When the victory of God has come through the conquest,
And you see the people entering into the religion of God in multitudes,
Then exalt [Him] with praise of your Lord and ask forgiveness of Him. Indeed, He is ever accepting of repentance." (Qur'an 110)
Keep the above in mind as you watch the multitudes convert to Islam as is happening today...despite your hate-filled rhetoric! :)
As Thomas Carlyle wisely stated, “The lies which well-meaning zeal has heaped round this man (Muhammad) are disgraceful to ourselves only.”
You are the only one spreading misinformation Saracen(which means Arab/muslim). All my quotes come from you vile quran and hadith. You constantly try to deflect by slandering Christianity which has NOTHING to do with this discussion.
But after all, it is perfectly acceptable to lie to the infidels. It's called kitman and taqiyya. Islam is being exposed for the evil and barbarism it embodies and there is nothing that will stop that.
Amazing how some of the respondents above quote the relative scriptures as though they were detailed facts. Get over it. Both the Muslim, Christian and other scriptures are a collection of myths and half truths assembled by people in power at the time to achieve their political or religious objectives. Taking them literally is Naive and misleading.
But then suprise, suprise. The respondents are also pushing their slanted view of the world.
People, this is the year 2011 not 1011. get out of the dark ages. religion has gotten you nowhere, give science a go, you might just find enlightenment and peace.
AnInfidel - the only thing being "exposed" is your own hatred and bias, which gets confirmed with every stroke of your keyboard. Saracen just schooled you!
Btw, I am Jewish and can confirm that Saracen is right about the Golden Age of Judaism taking place under Moorish rule in Islamic Spain. As one who majored in Middle East history and minored in Monotheistic Religions, I feel I can look at Islam more objectively.
I know that the the Banu Qurayza story has been the subject of much debate among scholars and historians. Also, the concepts of 'kitman' and 'taqiyya' are found only in the doctrine of the minority Shia sect, and it is not a concept that is accepted in the teachings of the majority Sunnis. But in any case, far from being "perfectly acceptable to lie to the infidels" as you stated, my understanding is that Shia teachings allow only them to invoke kitman or taqiyya, which is to hide one's religion as a means of preserving life, while under severe persecution and if one's life is threatened. I don't see how your point is relevant in your debate with Saracen since he (she?) didn't appear to be hiding anything. You seem to be selectively cutting and pasting quotes willy-nilly then simply inserting your own interpretations and explanations to them. The problem is that your biased slant and apparently nefarious agenda shows right through, so your explanations are simply not credible.
RonC911 - are you saying that if everyone of faith in religion stopped worshipping god and relied instead on science, there would be world piece? And whose the naive one here?
Whatever you say SammyB. If you are a Jew you are a self hating one, but I doubt you are. You absolutely ignore what islamic doctrine says about Jews as I referenced above. You ignore that ever last Jew was purged from the Arabian Peninsula.
Taqiyya and kitman are not just a Shi'a concept. They are also part of sunni islam as shown by muhammad's example:
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 67, Number 427:
“By Allah, and Allah willing, if I take an oath and later find something else better than that. Then I do what is better and expiate my oath.' "
In other words, a muslim's word is worth nothing. You can lie to unbelievers because:
Muslims are harsh against the unbelievers, merciful to one another. – (quran 48:25)
Muhammad is Allah's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another.
Through them, Allah seeks to enrage the unbelievers*. – (quran 48:29)
My only "agenda" is to expose islam for evil it is. The only thing "nefarious" is people who condone and promote the twisted lies of a 7th century pedophile warlord.
@ AnInfidel
Your determination to overlook the agreeable aspects of Islam and focus on the contentious and negative gives away your agenda. You can spin and twist any phrase or saying you pick from their texts to suit your disposition, but it doesn’t stand against the fact that most Muslims don’t view their religion the way you desperately try to portray, and never will. There’s a reason why Islam is so widespread and followed and why it is still so potently alive to this day – if you’re a serious scholar of Islam you will find a multitude of religious thesis that provide positive counter arguments, examples and solid facts which both explain and contradict every point you’ve made here (which you’ve most likely just copied and pasted from the sea of gibberish on Islam available on-line).
The truth is you think that all Muslims are evil and vile because you are a miserable racist, and your arrogance makes you believe that your cherry picking of selected hadiths and verses surpasses 1400 years of religious scholarly debate and redefinition. Obviously, your superior intellect has grasped what 1.2 billion Muslims around the world have missed.
Pathetic.
Haitham,
Last time I checked muslim was not a race so, exposing islam doesn't make me a racist. Here's the definition of racism for you-
racism
[rey-siz-uhm]
noun
1.
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2.
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3.
hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
Do I need to define "race" for you or can you look that up yourself?
I never said I think all muslims are evil. I married one in fact. We learned together the evil underpinnings of islam. She is no longer muslim. I hope you discover the truth about islam and vile muhammad before it is to late for you.
@aninfidel Mohammed was a warrior and he married a young women, which while not good in our eyes, was not so unusual at that time. You are very offensive in your posting. I hope this isn't characteristic of your other interactions with people.
@saracen Nowhere is it even suggested in Christianity that God had sex with Mary. This is very offensive and could be considered blasphemous. Christians believe in one God who appeared on earth as a man, sharing every experience with us, even birth and death. This should be perfectly acceptable to a muslim, since you also believe that God is one and can do anything. He established the kingdom of God, not as a physical government, but as a spiritual rebirth that extends into eternity. Sadly, not all who call themselves Christians have experienced it, or they have not let it change their lives and attitudes.
Andrew,
Muhammad didn't marry a young woman, he married and sexually penetrated a 9 year old girl. Muslims use muhammad's example to model their behavior today and islamic law is based on his example. That is what makes islam so very dangerous.