|
|
Covenant of Prophet Muhammad(saw) with Christians
[Copy link]
|
|
|
Sephiroth posted on 11-6-2014 01:38 PM 
by Sam1528
No, Muhammad did not know the future. He simply DID NOT care about anything else but himself. He made sure no blame comes to him directly and step aside so others could shield him and take the blunt effect from non-Muslims.
It wasn't even the first time he used this method. While he was in Mecca, this evil Arabic man used his own uncle to shield him from the Quraisy who demanded him to stop spreading Islam, while his followers were tortured and killed all around him. That is the sort of evil man Muhammad was.
If you agree that Prophet Muhammad(saw) did not know the future , why are you arguing that Prophet Muhammad(saw) purposely signed the Hudaibiyah Treaty so that a third party could be created creating problems for the Quraish (Meccans) like Abu Basir , your post#13? You are lacking in intelligence and now you have contradicted yourself.
The evil one here is the people who torture and kill the muslims just because they professed to be muslims. Like you , who advocate to kill muslims just because they are muslims. Therefore the evil one is you. However you are chicken hearted. You shout for a Hindu Holy War but now you are sooooo quiet. Hmm , the JAIS raid should be an excuse for a Hindu Holy War per what you have shouting all these years. So what has happened? Got cold feet? Ha ha
I'm not Islamicphobia, I'm Islam disgusted
Then you are a disgusting Islamophobe with no knowledge whatsoever in history. Ha ha , since when did Banu Bakr and the Quraish fought each other. There were allies lah meenachi.
Wrong - Islam has no rights in the Philiphines or any other nations in Asia. ONLY place Muslims should talk about Islamic rights is in Saudi Arabia. Therefore, it falls onto shoulders' of every non-Muslims to fight Muslims and Islam here.
Why is it that they have no rights? The constitutions of these countries provide them their rights. You are again farting thru your mouth. This again demonstrate that you are a fraud. You shout for no rights for muslims but on the other hand demand for your Hindu rights in a country of muslim majority. In other words , you are mentally sick. No wonder you shout for a Hindu Holy War but now chicken out and not a peep from you with the recent Jais raid. Ha ha , I am mocking you at will and you have been neutered to a point that you cannot even respond in kind. Do check up the meaning of being neutered , one of it is :
2. A castrated animal.
Last edited by sam1528 on 11-6-2014 03:30 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Sam1528
Prophet Muhammad(saw) fulfilled his obligation of returning any Quraish (Meccan) who came to him.
You are refusing to answer the basic question. You agree that Abu Basir was a Muslim. Is he not Muhammad's responsibility as the leader of the Muslim community? And yet, you kept washing your hands by stating Muhammad did all that required of him. This is wrong. Muhammad did not do ANYTHING as a leader. He did not stop Abu Basir in anyway. He did not help Abu Basir in anyway. And only time he did send a letter inviting Abu Basir was when Meccans asked him to call Abu Basir back.
Therefore, either Muhammad was in control of Abu Basir and his pirate activities (that he could call Abu Basir at any moment) or Muhammad simply didn't care about any Muslims other than himself. And that is the fact.
There was no war between Banu Bakr and Quraish.
Wrong, there is always war between Arabic tribes. Banu Bakr and Quraisy are just two tribes competing for resources in the desert. Muhammad had no place poking his nose into the matter as it is tribal matters.
Why are you insisting that Prophet Muhammad(saw) should now go beyond the agreement by trying to stop Abu Basir?
Because Abu Basir was a Muslim and Muhammad was (self-proclaimed) Muslim leader.
The moment the Quraish (Meccans) acted to kill Prophet Muhammad(saw) which prompted the hijra (migration) , it was already a declaration of war.
So you are saying that Muhammad did not had any intention to make peace with the Quraisy as their attempt to kill him earlier could be considered as an act of war. Very good, thank you.
How do you justify that Prophet Muhammad(saw) was a warmonger as he was the one targetted to be killed by the Quraish?
Because the Quraisy have taken steps to make peace. Muhammad did not. Muhammad's intention was to conquer Mecca and put those who harmed (or attended to harm) him to the sword. Another word - everything Muhammad did was for selfish reasons. Muhammad was NO prophet, just a warmongering and power-hungry Arab. There is no God in Islam.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Sam1528
why are you arguing that Prophet Muhammad(saw) purposely signed the Hudaibiyah Treaty so that a third party could be created creating problems for the Quraish (Meccans) like Abu Basir
Because that was his purpose. He knows the mentality of the Arabs. They are divided by tribes and have fought each other for generations. They have bad blood among them which cannot be erased easily. All Muhammad did was to use that condition for himself.
He brought a group of people on Pilgrim to Mecca knowing well that Meccans are strong at that time and could not allow a large group to enter. That was the first stone to be casted - Muslims sees the Meccans as enemies who refused to allow them to pray (in Kaabah) and to see their loved ones.
Then he agreed to a one-sided treaty in name of peace. Many of the Muslims with him did not agree with his decision. That was his second stone - to humiliate his own men so they could remember the Meccans as their enemy.
And lastly the conditions of allowing Muslims who ran from Mecca to be returned to Quraisy (and possibility of torture, cruelty and death) shows that he did not care about any Muslims and viewed them as pawns. As more and more Muslims punished and killed by the Quraisy for accepting Islam, the more bad blood could be filled between Quraisy and Meccans to the point that Meccans will forget that the true enemy is Muhammad.
The purpose - in order to attack Mecca, the Muslims MUST forget their family and friends who oppose them (the Quraisy). When war starts, Muslims must be hardened in mind and heart that they could kill their own brothers and that was the purpose of Muhammad, the Evil one. Muhammad did not had to see the future, he only had to know how to move his pawns properly. ONLY change in the situation here is - Meccans surrendered rather peacefully when Muhammad came to attack.
The constitutions of these countries provide them their rights.
Yes, it is secular Constitution which allows Muslims to exist in this country - NOT YOUR ALLAH OR ISLAM. Unless you get that through those thick Muslim heads, you will always be terrorists and traitors to your own country. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sephiroth posted on 12-6-2014 11:19 AM
by Sam1528
You are refusing to answer the basic question. You agree that Abu Basir was a Muslim. Is he not Muhammad's responsibility as the leader of the Muslim community? And yet, you kept washing your hands by stating Muhammad did all that required of him. This is wrong. Muhammad did not do ANYTHING as a leader. He did not stop Abu Basir in anyway. He did not help Abu Basir in anyway. And only time he did send a letter inviting Abu Basir was when Meccans asked him to call Abu Basir back.
Therefore, either Muhammad was in control of Abu Basir and his pirate activities (that he could call Abu Basir at any moment) or Muhammad simply didn't care about any Muslims other than himself. And that is the fact.
What question did I not answer? I stated that Abu Basir was a muslim. Prophet Muhammad(saw) responsibility was being a leader of the muslim community in Madinah not Mecca nor elsewhere. Abu Basir was camped at the seashore outside of Madinah. Moreover the Treaty of Hudaibiyah stipulates that he belong to the Meccans. Can you argue based on factual information like the Treaty of Hudaibiyah and / or historical facts instead of your unlearned opinions. I have yet to see you referencing any factual information.
This is the point that you have been avoiding. Can you show me where in the said Treaty that affirm Prophet Muhammad(saw) to be the leader of the muslims outside Madinah? Being a leader and Prophet are 2 different things. One can be a leader of a tribe but following a Prophet. A Prophet is usually a leader of the community he is in. You again argue based on ignorance of not knowing the difference between Prophet and leader.
The Meccan appealed for Prophet Muhammad(saw) assistance because they know he did not break the Treaty. They appealed to him in good faith to ask Abu Basir to cede his caravan attack on the basis of Prophet Muhammad(saw) being a Prophet not a leader for Abu Basir. Ha ha , 1400 years later comes the ignorant meenachi in 'Sepiroth' claiming Prophet Muhammad(saw) broke the Hudaibiyah Treaty because initially he did nothing to stop Abu Basir whereas the Quraish (Meccans) at that time were intelligent enough to recognize that Abu Basir was their problem. If you are ignorant , why advertise it?
If Prophet Muhammad(saw) did not care of other muslims , why did he requested them to migrate to Madinah to escape the oppression in Mecca? Ha ha , again I caught you not using your brains.
Can you now give me the definition of 'piracy' and 'commerce raiding'? Lets see if you are brave enough.
Wrong, there is always war between Arabic tribes. Banu Bakr and Quraisy are just two tribes competing for resources in the desert. Muhammad had no place poking his nose into the matter as it is tribal matters.
You are running from my question. You mention that the Quraish was at war with Banu Bakr however historical evidence points to the fact that they were allies. This is the problem with you. Most of your arguments stem from your inability to comprehend historical facts. However being the motor mouth you are , you still persist in arguing. This is child like , arguing for the sake of arguing. Banu Khuz'aa had a treaty with the muslims of Madinah which makes them allies. Refer to point #4 of the Hudaibiyah Treaty.
Because Abu Basir was a Muslim and Muhammad was (self-proclaimed) Muslim leader.
A leader of the muslims in Madinah. Abu Basir was outside Madinah and according to the Hudaibiyah Treaty he belong to the Meccans. Appears that Hindus like you do not know how to honor any agreement / treaty. Issit because of your upbringing of not willing to honor any agreement or the Hindu culture of not honoring any agreement or you have a problem understanding what you read or a combination of all 3?
So you are saying that Muhammad did not had any intention to make peace with the Quraisy as their attempt to kill him earlier could be considered as an act of war. Very good, thank you.
If he did not have any intention of making peace , why did he sign the Hudaibiyah Treaty? Can you once in a while use your brains to think? I know thinking is laborious for a person like you. That is the only way you can at least demonstrate that you are not of lesser intelligence.
Because the Quraisy have taken steps to make peace. Muhammad did not. Muhammad's intention was to conquer Mecca and put those who harmed (or attended to harm) him to the sword. Another word - everything Muhammad did was for selfish reasons. Muhammad was NO prophet, just a warmongering and power-hungry Arab. There is no God in Islam.
The Quraish tried to make peace? Then why did the Quraish tried to kill Prophet Muhammad(saw) in the first place? Why did the Quraish unilaterally abrogated the Treaty of Hudaibiyah after partaking with Banu Bakr in the killings of Banu Khuz'aa? Ha ha , you are again farting thru your mouth. No facts whatsoever in your argument.
Ok then , who were put to the sword when Prophet Muhammad(saw) entered Mecca? The whole of Meccan warriors in one way or another tried to harm Prophet Muhammad(saw) from the Meccan to the Madinian period. Tell me , were all the warriors of Mecca put to the sword per your argument? Provide your evidence. Ha ha , I am very sure you will not answer. As far as historical facts are concerned , the entering of Mecca was a peaceful one. Prophet Muhammad(saw) was in a position of power then but forgave the Meccans. A person who forgives while in the position of power is a real leader and a man worthy to be followed.
Yeah , there is Allah not God in Islam. God is a pagan concept like in Hinduism where there are God , Godess , Children of Gods (like the God Ram) etc etc. However in Allah , there is no gender connotation nor the imaginative concept of a God being born.
So how? How is your Hindu Holy War getting along? When are you going to summon enough courage to declare it after the JAIS raid? Tak big some more lah. Kan dah malu .... ha ha he he ho ho .....
Last edited by sam1528 on 12-6-2014 01:37 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sephiroth posted on 12-6-2014 11:33 AM
by Sam1528
Because that was his purpose. He knows the mentality of the Arabs. They are divided by tribes and have fought each other for generations. They have bad blood among them which cannot be erased easily. All Muhammad did was to use that condition for himself.
He brought a group of people on Pilgrim to Mecca knowing well that Meccans are strong at that time and could not allow a large group to enter. That was the first stone to be casted - Muslims sees the Meccans as enemies who refused to allow them to pray (in Kaabah) and to see their loved ones.
Then he agreed to a one-sided treaty in name of peace. Many of the Muslims with him did not agree with his decision. That was his second stone - to humiliate his own men so they could remember the Meccans as their enemy.
And lastly the conditions of allowing Muslims who ran from Mecca to be returned to Quraisy (and possibility of torture, cruelty and death) shows that he did not care about any Muslims and viewed them as pawns. As more and more Muslims punished and killed by the Quraisy for accepting Islam, the more bad blood could be filled between Quraisy and Meccans to the point that Meccans will forget that the true enemy is Muhammad.
The purpose - in order to attack Mecca, the Muslims MUST forget their family and friends who oppose them (the Quraisy). When war starts, Muslims must be hardened in mind and heart that they could kill their own brothers and that was the purpose of Muhammad, the Evil one. Muhammad did not had to see the future, he only had to know how to move his pawns properly. ONLY change in the situation here is - Meccans surrendered rather peacefully when Muhammad came to attack.
So now you are saying that Prophet Muhammad(saw) signed the Hudaibiyah Treaty knowing in future Abu Basir would set up camp by the seashore and attack the Meccan caravans. However before this you stated that there is no way Prophet Muhammad(saw) know how the future would pan out. You don't seem to know anything but shifting your position to and fro. This is what we call 'flight of ideas'. Only people who are factually ignorant but still want to argue does such.
Prophet Muhammad(saw) tried to do the Umrah WITHOUT weapons and in the pilgrimage months where fighting was prohibited. The Quraish should know better , anyone who goes to Mecca in such period should be allowed in. That is the time honored understanding. But no , they had to stop Prophet Muhammad(saw). Therefore they were the ones who broke the unspoken time honored tradition.
Prophet Muhammad(saw) agreed on the one sided agreement because of his desire for peace. In this case , how can Prophet Muhammad(saw) be a warmonger per your claim because he even accede to a one sided agreement. A warmonger would never do such thing. If the so called muslims remember the Meccans being their enemy , how many hundreds or thousands of Meccans were put to the sword when the muslims entered Mecca being the victors? The Meccans were the very people who tortured and killed the early muslims. Historical facts are again on my side that Prophet Muhammad(saw) was a person worthy of prophethood.
Ha ha , you just trapped yourself. I cite your very words :
And lastly the conditions of allowing Muslims who ran from Mecca to be returned to Quraisy (and possibility of torture, cruelty and death) shows that he did not care about any Muslims and viewed them as pawns. As more and more Muslims punished and killed by the Quraisy for accepting Islam, the more bad blood could be filled between Quraisy and Meccans to the point that Meccans will forget that the true enemy is Muhammad
TQ , you have just explained and acknowledge the reason why Abu Basir did not want to go back to Mecca and him attacking the Meccan caravans. So now , who was the agressor? From your argument , it is clear the Quraish were the agressors. It shows the desire for peace from the standpoint of Prophet Muhammad(saw) and the agressive nature of the Quraish in them forcing a one sided agreement. These muslims were tortured and at times killed by the Quraish but upon the fall of Mecca , according to history , none of these Quraish were put to the sword. History demonstrate the peaceful nature of Prophet Muhammad(saw).
Ha ha , this is a downright dumb argument from you (see underlined). The majority of the Meccans were the Quraish. Are you now telling me that the Quraish or Meccans were fighting with the Quraish or Meccans to a point that the Quraish or Meccans forget that the true enemy is Prophet Muhammad(saw)? This is like you cutting off you lips because when you spit upwards , your spit then land on your face.
Ok , for the first time you acknowledge historical facts that Mecca surrendered peacefully. How many hundreds or thousands of Meccans were put to the sword by the , as you put it : '...Muslims must be hardened in mind and heart that they could kill their own brothers and that was the purpose of Muhammad, the Evil one...'? Surely the muslims with hardened minds and hearts would have killed hundreds and thousands. Can you answer me or are you going to run avoiding this question?
Yes, it is secular Constitution which allows Muslims to exist in this country - NOT YOUR ALLAH OR ISLAM. Unless you get that through those thick Muslim heads, you will always be terrorists and traitors to your own country.
Nobody would understand your warped logic. What has secular constitution got to do with Allah or Islam? I do know that in Malaysia Constitution article 3 state that Islam is the religion of the Federation. Can you explain what it means? As far as I can see , a Hindu like you can be termed a terrorist and a traitor to Malaysia. Yeah lor , you are the one who want to be a terrorist with teh intention to declare a Hindu Holy War but seem to aquire a yellow streak after the JAIS raid. You are the one who is more concerned about the Hindus and everything in India but you are a Malaysian who has never set foot in India and probably too cheap to spend $ to go there.
In other words you are just an empty vessel making unintelligent noise.
Last edited by sam1528 on 12-6-2014 01:32 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Sam1528
I stated that Abu Basir was a muslim. Prophet Muhammad(saw) responsibility was being a leader of the muslim community in Madinah not Mecca nor elsewhere.
So you are saying that Muhammad doesn't need to bother about his own flock outside the walls of Madinah? That they can be tortured and killed and he doesn't have to do anything about it? That men like Abu Basir - the first Muslim terrorist - can commit piracy and risk spending eternity in hell for it and Muhammad doesn't required to care because he is outside Madinah? And you call this crappy old Arab a prophet? You are proving statement after statement that Muhammad was nothing more than a power-hungry madman every day.
The Meccan appealed for Prophet Muhammad(saw) assistance because they know he did not break the Treaty.
No, they appealed to Muhammad thinking he was a human being and not Syaitan in human clothing. They were wrong. 
If Prophet Muhammad(saw) did not care of other muslims , why did he requested them to migrate to Madinah to escape the oppression in Mecca?
Because Muhammad needed Muslims as pawns and because he can grow in Madinah better than he could in Mecca. Christians and Jews were tricked by him into supporting Islam and that could mean that Muslims have access to wealth and power which they cannot have in Mecca under the Quraisy.
You mention that the Quraish was at war with Banu Bakr however historical evidence points to the fact that they were allies.
What historical evidence? Show me.
A leader of the muslims in Madinah. Abu Basir was outside Madinah and according to the Hudaibiyah Treaty he belong to the Meccans.
Abu Basir attacks NON-Muslim caravan, therefore he was a Muslim who was a terrorist. IF Muhammad wanted to safeguard Islam as a peaceful religion (as many Muslims claim) he could have stopped Abu Basir. Therefore, it means he promoted terrorism as long as the act of terrorism doesn't link to the mainstream Muslims as it is happening today. That fact is open for all to see.
If he did not have any intention of making peace , why did he sign the Hudaibiyah Treaty?
I have already given you three reasons why. I will summarize :
1. To showcase Meccans (and non-Muslims) as enemy.
2. To humiliate their own Muslim men so they could be willing to fight Quraisy (who were their family years back).
3. To allow certain Muslims to be tortured and killed, all in attempt to make a group who could devote themselves to terror acts like Abu Basir.
Then why did the Quraish tried to kill Prophet Muhammad(saw) in the first place?
Because Muhammad was a crazy old man, hell-bent into conquering them - spiritually, mentally and physically. You kept barking that Quraisy tried to kill him and yet you seems to forget that they also tried to speak to him (through his maternal uncle) for years, so he could give up his foolish belief. They even offered him the role of leadership in the tribe but Muhammad wanted to become a King of Arabs.
Quraisy's mistakes - they waited too long, listened too long to Abu Mutalib and expect him to control Muhammad and took too long before taking action. If they were to kill Muhammad when he started Islam, this problem will not occur.
Ok then , who were put to the sword when Prophet Muhammad(saw) entered Mecca?
No, they choose to convert to Islam to avoid persecution. Those who did not convert were kicked out of Mecca and till today, non-Muslims are not allowed to go into Mecca because of this.
Yeah , there is Allah not God in Islam
Yes, thank you. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sephiroth posted on 12-6-2014 01:58 PM
by Sam1528
So you are saying that Muhammad doesn't need to bother about his own flock outside the walls of Madinah? That they can be tortured and killed and he doesn't have to do anything about it? That men like Abu Basir - the first Muslim terrorist - can commit piracy and risk spending eternity in hell for it and Muhammad doesn't required to care because he is outside Madinah? And you call this crappy old Arab a prophet? You are proving statement after statement that Muhammad was nothing more than a power-hungry madman every day.
Prophet Muhammad(saw) was agreement bound to honor the Hudaibiyah Treaty even though its one sided. Appears that Hindus like you do not honor agreement. How can Abu Basir be a terrorist because you admitted he was tortured and nearly got killed just because he became a muslim and the Meccans were at a state of war with the muslims. Can you explain your warped logic?
I again pose the question that you have been avoiding : For the 2nd time ; Can you now give me the definition of 'piracy' and 'commerce raiding'? Lets see if you are brave enough. Ha ha , Islamophobes like you have this fear of answering questions , wonder why.
Ha ha , you argue without any evidence. If Prophet Muhammad(saw) was a power hungry madman as you put it , why would he seek to sign the Treaty of Hudaibiyah , something you cannot answer till now. Your reference to Sahih Bukhari 50:891 clearly stated it was Prophet Muhammad(saw) initiative to sign a treaty of peace.
No, they appealed to Muhammad thinking he was a human being and not Syaitan in human clothing. They were wrong.
Ha ha , did Prophet Muhammad(saw) addressed their appeal? Yes he did , which means by your argument he was a human being. So they were wrong in thinking he was syaitan in human clothing. Yes? Can you at least think logically and clearly before you argue? You now seem to be all over the place in your scattered thinking.
Because Muhammad needed Muslims as pawns and because he can grow in Madinah better than he could in Mecca. Christians and Jews were tricked by him into supporting Islam and that could mean that Muslims have access to wealth and power which they cannot have in Mecca under the Quraisy.
So now you are arguing that Prophet Muhammad(saw) requested for the migration because he wanted the muslims as pawns? However in your earlier statement you attested that the Quraish were torturing and killing the muslims. Meaning to escape the torture and killing one has to migrate. You are going off tangent - 'flight of ideas' again. You seem to be all over the place with your silly arguments without any shred of evidence. All history point out that when Prophet Muhammad(saw) passed away , all he had was a piece of land in Taif. Where were all his wealth and power? He did not stay in a palace like your Hindu Rajahs. You cannot answer , can you?
What historical evidence? Show me.
Ha ha , now you are displaying short term memory loss. This is what happen to haters like you. It is very exhausting to be a hater like you. Go back to my post#11. You are not senile .... are you?
Abu Basir attacks NON-Muslim caravan, therefore he was a Muslim who was a terrorist. IF Muhammad wanted to safeguard Islam as a peaceful religion (as many Muslims claim) he could have stopped Abu Basir. Therefore, it means he promoted terrorism as long as the act of terrorism doesn't link to the mainstream Muslims as it is happening today. That fact is open for all to see.
Ha ha , you are clutching at straws to stay afloat. First it was piracy. Suddenly it is now terrorism. Which one issit? Piracy or terrorism? In any case can you give the definition of
(1) piracy
(2) terrorism
(3) commerce raiding
Bear in mind , it was already a state of war between the Meccans and the muslims. Let see how brave you are. You will not answer because you are afraid that the facts will contradict you.
Until now you have not given a logical reason why Prophet Muhammad(saw) should stop Abu Basir , a condition not stipulated in the Hudaibiyah Treaty in which the Meccans admitted to. You cannot use the argument that he was a prophet to Abu Basir because in the Hudaibiyah Treaty , the Meccans objected to having the word 'prophet' in it. Therefore the Hudaibiyah Treaty was between Muhammad son of Abdullah and the Meccans which technically make him the leader of the muslims in Madinah only. The people back then were intelligent enough to understand but this Hindu meenachi in 'Sepiroth' have problems in understanding thus making you (Sepiroth) of lesser intelligence
I have already given you three reasons why. I will summarize :
1. To showcase Meccans (and non-Muslims) as enemy.
2. To humiliate their own Muslim men so they could be willing to fight Quraisy (who were their family years back).
3. To allow certain Muslims to be tortured and killed, all in attempt to make a group who could devote themselves to terror acts like Abu Basir.
(1) Every muslim at that time know that the Meccans were the enemies. What more was there to showcase?
(2) Ha ha , can you demonstrate how is it humiliating for them so that they would fight knowing well the Hudaibiyah Treaty was to strive for peace for the next 10 years. There is no logic in your thinking.
(3) Ha ha , all historical fact confirm that Prophet Muhammad(saw) held his end of the Treaty by returning the Meccans. He even extended his help in asking Abu Basir to cease attacking the caravans upon an appeal by the Meccans. Logically why should he stop something that you claim he wanted to set up? You make no sense ...... as usual
Because Muhammad was a crazy old man, hell-bent into conquering them - spiritually, mentally and physically. You kept barking that Quraisy tried to kill him and yet you seems to forget that they also tried to speak to him (through his maternal uncle) for years, so he could give up his foolish belief. They even offered him the role of leadership in the tribe but Muhammad wanted to become a King of Arabs.
Quraisy's mistakes - they waited too long, listened too long to Abu Mutalib and expect him to control Muhammad and took too long before taking action. If they were to kill Muhammad when he started Islam, this problem will not occur.
TQ , you now admit that it was the Meccans who were the aggressors and they were the cause of the war. The question here why the evil of wanting to kill someone just because they became muslims? You in support for them , makes you equally evil. Ha ha , you have now contradicted yourself. You stated the following :
.....You are proving statement after statement that Muhammad was nothing more than a power-hungry madman every day.
If Prophet Muhammad(saw) was power hungry he could just agree to be the King of Arabs (see underlined) because the Qursiah tried to bribe him to be the King of Arabs thru Utba ibn Rabi'aNow we have come to make a proposition to you, and I ask you to think well before you reject it."
"I am listening to you, 0 father of Walid," said the Prophet.
"0 son of my brother, if by this affair you intend to acquire riches, honors, and dignity, we are willing to collect for you a fortune larger than is possessed by any one of us; we shall make you our chief and will do nothing without you. If you desire dominion, we shall make you our king; and if the demon which possesses you cannot be subdued, we will bring you doctors and give them riches until they cure you."
He remained steadfast and endure years of hardship. Facts contradict you again and again
So now you agree for the Quraish to kill Prophet Muhammad(saw)? That makes you an evil person who only want to kill others who do not agree with your world view. People like you belong in the jungle. Too bad , you have been neutered. Anyways , Hindus like you are have this typical violent mentality .... don't agree - advocate to kill but when the real situation arise , suddenly you become all quiet. Wink wink .... the JAIS raid ... ha ha
No, they choose to convert to Islam to avoid persecution. Those who did not convert were kicked out of Mecca and till today, non-Muslims are not allowed to go into Mecca because of this.
The Meccans could have been killed before they convert because the reversion to Islam did not occur instantly. Your own words , your post #22 :
Muhammad's intention was to conquer Mecca and put those who harmed (or attended to harm) him to the sword.
Looks like you contradicted yourself once again. This means that you do not have any facts to argue as you keep on contradicting yourself. Why do you want to go to Mecca? There is no Hindu Temple there. Your God Ram wasn't born there. I don't understand your warped logic.
You are welcome. We muslims are not idol worshipers having God , Godess , God being born (remember Ram) etc etc
Ha ha , in the end meenachi , you are just going round and round in circles chasing your backside and contradicting yourself in the process. This firm up my suspision that you are just an empty vessel lacking in intelligence but making the most noise. Ha ha , see lah , talk big about Hindu Holy War but now sooooo quiet after the JAIS raid. Lost your way or what ...... ha ha
Last edited by sam1528 on 12-6-2014 03:12 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Sam1528
If Prophet Muhammad(saw) was a power hungry madman as you put it , why would he seek to sign the Treaty of Hudaibiyah , something you cannot answer till now.
I already put THREE reasons WHY Muhammad did it (agree to the Treaty). There are :
1. To showcase Meccans (and non-Muslims) as enemy.
2. To humiliate their own Muslim men so they could be willing to fight Quraisy (who were their family years back).
3. To allow certain Muslims to be tortured and killed, all in attempt to make a group who could devote themselves to terror acts like Abu Basir.
did Prophet Muhammad(saw) addressed their appeal?
Actually there was no evidence of him doing that. It only said that Muhammad accepted their plea and send a letter to the dying Abu Basir.
Meaning to escape the torture and killing one has to migrate.
No, Muhammad migrated finally because of ONE reason - Quraisy finally got fed up with Muhammad's attitude problem, decided to override Abu Talib and kill him. That is why he made Ali stay in his house while he ran toward Madinah. He didn't care about Muslims - he only cared about himself. Every action he did was with his own purpose in mind.
I will make note that you did not show any historical evidence here. Thank you.
First it was piracy. Suddenly it is now terrorism.
No, this is a clear case of terrorism. Abu Basir did not attack Muslim caravans, therefore he was a terrorist. End of story.
You cannot use the argument that he was a prophet to Abu Basir because in the Hudaibiyah Treaty ...
No, he called himself Prophet to Muslims and therefore have morale and ethical obligations to control his flock - wherever they go. The fact he did nothing shows that Muhammad didn't care about Muslims.
Therefore the Hudaibiyah Treaty was between Muhammad son of Abdullah and the Meccans which technically make him the leader of the muslims in Madinah only.
So you are saying that it was the Treaty that made Muhammad a prophet and not your Allah? This means that your Muhammad was not a prophet but a political figure. Thank you.
(1) Every muslim at that time know that the Meccans were the enemies. What more was there to showcase?
(2) Ha ha , can you demonstrate how is it humiliating for them so that they would fight knowing well the Hudaibiyah Treaty was to strive for peace for the next 10 years.
(3) Ha ha , all historical fact confirm that Prophet Muhammad(saw) held his end of the Treaty by returning the Meccans. He even extended his help in asking Abu Basir to cease attacking the caravans upon an appeal by the Meccans.
1. Yes, every Muslims at that time knew Quraisy was the enemy but there also family members and friends in there. Muhammad's actions were to instill fear and hatred that could override their feelings for their friends and family. He succeed.
2. There was no intention for peace in Muhammad. As you may know, Muhammad made peace with Quraisy on temporary basis but at the same time, launched military campaign to other tribes. Therefore, there was no peace for Muslims at that time.
3. Terrorism in form of Abu Basir DID exist. That is the fact.
The question here why the evil of wanting to kill someone just because they became muslims?
The same reason why it is evil for Muslims to kill non-Muslims for not converting to Islam. Muhammad only cared about himself and making others bow down and worship his alter ego (Allah). And he did that through Islam.
The Meccans could have been killed before they convert because the reversion to Islam did not occur instantly.
Could or should doesn't apply here. Fact is - Meccans managed to safe themselves by converting to Islam. That is all.
Why do you want to go to Mecca?
Why should I go to that Evil place?  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sephiroth posted on 13-6-2014 09:41 AM
by Sam1528
I already put THREE reasons WHY Muhammad did it (agree to the Treaty). There are :
1. To showcase Meccans (and non-Muslims) as enemy.
2. To humiliate their own Muslim men so they could be willing to fight Quraisy (who were their family years back).
3. To allow certain Muslims to be tortured and killed, all in attempt to make a group who could devote themselves to terror acts like Abu Basir.
I have already given you the 3 reasons why your reasoning is faulty
(1) The muslims back then knew the Quraish were the enemy. What more to showcase?
(2) The Treaty of Hudaibiyah was to humiliate the muslims so that they would fight the Quraish is utter BS as the said treaty was a peace accord. In the end Mecca was vanquished peacefuly. So , where is the fighting? In your wet dreams?
(3) Ha ha , so now you are arguing for Prophet Muhammad(saw) should break the Hudaibiyah Treaty to prevent torture onto Abu Basir? However in the first place you were whining about him breaking of the Treaty and not honouring it. You kepala pusing ka? Which one issit? To break the Treaty or to honor it? You are utterly confused
Actually there was no evidence of him doing that. It only said that Muhammad accepted their plea and send a letter to the dying Abu Basir.
First you say there was no evidence of Prophet Muhammad(saw) addressing the appeal of the Quraish but then you stated he sent a letter to Abu Basir as he accepted the appeal by the Quraish. You have contradicted yourself in a single sentence. You don't seem to be able to think coherently. Ha ha , you are desperate ...... aren't you?
No, Muhammad migrated finally because of ONE reason - Quraisy finally got fed up with Muhammad's attitude problem, decided to override Abu Talib and kill him. That is why he made Ali stay in his house while he ran toward Madinah. He didn't care about Muslims - he only cared about himself. Every action he did was with his own purpose in mind.
I will make note that you did not show any historical evidence here. Thank you.
Now you agree that the Quraish were the aggressors in them wanting to kill Prophet Muhammad(saw). The issue that you have been avoiding is that why kill another just because they have a different religion and viewpoint? You have not address the fact that if Prophet Muhammad(saw) did not care about the muslims he would have taken up their offer for riches , to be a tribal leader and / or to be a king. Why would he asked the muslims to migrate first and second to Abyssina and the third to Yathrib?
What historical evidence do you want. Be specific. If you talk about the Hijra , it is in most of the Islamic text.
No, this is a clear case of terrorism. Abu Basir did not attack Muslim caravans, therefore he was a terrorist. End of story.
Now you admit you made a blunder in your earlier piracy argument. Ok then , can you now provide the definition of
(1) terrorist
(2) commerce raiding
bearing in mind a state of war already existed between the muslims and the Meccans. Why are you so scared to answer my question. Simple , you know you would be refuted with your answer. In that case , you are just a fraud.
No, he called himself Prophet to Muslims and therefore have morale and ethical obligations to control his flock - wherever they go. The fact he did nothing shows that Muhammad didn't care about Muslims.
What matters here is the Treaty of Hudaibiyah. Can you focus on this because you were the one who brought this up. The Meccans objected to Prophet Muhammad(saw) being addressed 'prophet' in the Treaty. Technically according to the treaty no one can argue that Prophet Muhammad(saw) need to take up the mantle of prophethood. In turn , he should be viewed being the leader of the muslims in Madinah only. Abu Basir and their community being outside of Madinah is considered another community.
Why are you braying about not caring about other muslims? Do you know how to honor any agreement. If you argue about taking control of his flock , Abu Basir was not in Madinah , the said Treaty did not cover this situation. Your argument is an argument of the lesser intelligent. Even the Quraish back then knew of this fact that Abu Basir was their problem.
So you are saying that it was the Treaty that made Muhammad a prophet and not your Allah? This means that your Muhammad was not a prophet but a political figure. Thank you.
What ever you have been smoking , it must be really strong. Treaties don't make anyone. It is the content of the treaty we are talking about. What BS are you blabbering that its the treaty that made him a prophet instead of Allah? Have you been hitting the toddy bottle this early Friday morning? Why shouldn't a messenger (prophet inclusive) be a political figure? A prophet is already a leader. A leader is a political figure in any sense of the word.
1. Yes, every Muslims at that time knew Quraisy was the enemy but there also family members and friends in there. Muhammad's actions were to instill fear and hatred that could override their feelings for their friends and family. He succeed.
2. There was no intention for peace in Muhammad. As you may know, Muhammad made peace with Quraisy on temporary basis but at the same time, launched military campaign to other tribes. Therefore, there was no peace for Muslims at that time.
3. Terrorism in form of Abu Basir DID exist. That is the fact.
(1) It was the same family and friends that tortured and killed the muslims in Mecca in which you attested to. What is there to showcase or try to instill hatred? In fact it was the opposite , everyone in Mecca were forgiven when Mecca fall to muslims
(2) If there was no intention for peace , why his initiative for the Treaty of Hudaibiyah? You again have contradicted yourself. Which other tribe in accordance with the Treaty of Hudaibiyah did Prophet Muhammad(saw) launch a military campiagn? Another 'pull from the ass fact' again?
(3) Define 'terrorism' and 'commerce raiding' in relation to the state of war that already exist. Why so scared? Issit you don't know what you are talking about?
The same reason why it is evil for Muslims to kill non-Muslims for not converting to Islam. Muhammad only cared about himself and making others bow down and worship his alter ego (Allah). And he did that through Islam.
Give me a historical evidence that Prophet Muhammad(saw) killed a non muslim that did not want to convert to Islam. Another fart from your mouth? Ha ha , now you claim Prophet Muhammad(saw) was being worshiped? You are ranting like a lunatic. Pssst .... are you actually a lunatic? Not a shred of evidence from you in any of your argument.
Could or should doesn't apply here. Fact is - Meccans managed to safe themselves by converting to Islam. That is all.
This is revisionist or non history from you. What Prophet Muhammad(saw) actually stated is as follows :
On request by ‘Abbas, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), in the context of the general amnesty he proclaimed, gave Abu Sufyan, who had a liking for bragging, a special privilege, saying: "He who takes refuge in Abu Sufyan’s house is safe; whosoever confines himself to his house, the inmates thereof shall be in safety, and he who enters the Sacred Mosque is safe."
Nothing about conversion to Islam. The fact of history have soundly refuted you. Why don't you read and understand history first before engaging in any argument. I have been making you appear stupid again and again. You don't seem to learn.
Why should I go to that Evil place?
Then why you initially complain , per your post #26?
.... and till today, non-Muslims are not allowed to go into Mecca because of this.
You are nuts.
Ha ha , meenachi!! Why so scared to respond about you in chickening for Hindu Holy War following the JAIS raid? Why you talk so big wan but then you chicken out? Is this the culture of Hinduism - talk big then chicken out? Issit just you , your character of talking big but a big chicken heart in you .... ha ha
Last edited by sam1528 on 13-6-2014 01:02 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Sam1528
I have already given you the 3 reasons why your reasoning is faulty
The reasons are not faulty simply because you refused to accept them.
First you say there was no evidence of Prophet Muhammad(saw) addressing the appeal of the Quraish but then you stated he sent a letter to Abu Basir as he accepted the appeal by the Quraish.
No I said Muhammad did nothing and has no evidence showing he did anything as claim by Muslims. Can you show me the letter which he had sent? You cannot.
Now you agree that the Quraish were the aggressors in them wanting to kill Prophet Muhammad(saw). The issue that you have been avoiding is that why kill another just because they have a different religion and viewpoint?
Answer :- Because Muhammad was Evil and Corrupted man who have been using his maternal uncle to hide behind while spreading the poison called Islam. Hitler was marked for death by Allied forces for his belief in Nazism which was racist. In the same way, so was Muhammad targeted for death for his belief.
Are you saying you (Muslims) could allow a person like me who could openly speak against Islam as a religion and not an ideology politic? In real world, I could have been charged with ISA and thrown into prison for decades. In some Muslim countries, I could have been killed for my view. So why is it OK for Muslims to behave like Quraisy now but not OK for Quraisy to behave like Muslims (now) 1,400 years ago?
What matters here is the Treaty of Hudaibiyah.
No, what matters here is Muhammad's behavior and action as a prophet and leader of Muslim community. HE HAD FAILED in those responsibility because (as you stated) he is considered a prophet only because of the treaty. In another word, you have just denied Muhammad as a prophet of Allah.
Even the Quraish back then knew of this fact that Abu Basir was their problem.
If that is so, then why did they come to Muhammad and ask him to take Abu Basir to Madinah? This shows that Quraisy had honor the treaty on how to treat Muslims as the treaty was signed, including leaving Muslims and their matters to their leaders. In this case, it was Muhammad's tasks to do something to Abu Basir and not the Meccans.
(1) It was the same family and friends that tortured and killed the muslims in Mecca in which you attested to. What is there to showcase or try to instill hatred? In fact it was the opposite , everyone in Mecca were forgiven when Mecca fall to muslims
Yes, many were tortured in attempted to stop them from following a madman named Muhammad. Many slaves were killed as well. Muhammad couldn't have known that he could capture Mecca without bloodshed (he didn't know the future) but he knows that there could be war to fight eventually and that cannot be done if Muslims have love for their enemies.
(2) If there was no intention for peace , why his initiative for the Treaty of Hudaibiyah?
Answer :- To build Muslims as a military power. Muhammad cannot do that with Meccans constantly fighting them.
Give me a historical evidence that Prophet Muhammad(saw) killed a non muslim that did not want to convert to Islam.
There are many in the history books. Find it yourself.
Nothing about conversion to Islam. The fact of history have soundly refuted you.
Why Abu Sufiyan's house? Because he was a leader among Quraisy and Muhammad want to win his heart by alleviating his position among men of Mecca. It is common fact that Abu Sufiyan had become one of his military generals later, something that is not possible of he were to kill Abu Sufiyan or men of influence in Mecca. LIke I said before, Muhammad was a very clever fellow who good at using others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sephiroth posted on 13-6-2014 01:59 PM
by Sam1528
The reasons are not faulty simply because you refused to accept them.
Your reasons are faulty because it contradict historical facts. I've challenged you and now you are trying to run.
No I said Muhammad did nothing and has no evidence showing he did anything as claim by Muslims. Can you show me the letter which he had sent? You cannot.
First you claim he did nothing but then you accept the fact that he acted upon appeal of the Meccans. You are going in circles chasing your own backside. Ha ha , now you are asking me for the letter? Ok then can you now show me the grave of Abu Basir , I will dig up the letter for you. You are going from bad to worse which is an indication that you are desperate.
Answer :- Because Muhammad was Evil and Corrupted man who have been using his maternal uncle to hide behind while spreading the poison called Islam. Hitler was marked for death by Allied forces for his belief in Nazism which was racist. In the same way, so was Muhammad targeted for death for his belief.
Are you saying you (Muslims) could allow a person like me who could openly speak against Islam as a religion and not an ideology politic? In real world, I could have been charged with ISA and thrown into prison for decades. In some Muslim countries, I could have been killed for my view. So why is it OK for Muslims to behave like Quraisy now but not OK for Quraisy to behave like Muslims (now) 1,400 years ago?
Ha ha , look slike you are the champion of making outlandish claim without evidence. Ok , evidence that Prophet Muhammad(saw) was an evil and corrupted person? Another 'pull from the ass fact'? Hitler was targetted to be killed because he started the war that caused millions to die , not for racism. You don't seem to get anything right. This shows that you have zero knowledge in anything you argue. Only evil people like you argue for the death of people for their religious beliefs. Oops , you are also a nutcase ..... my bad.
Ha ha , you want to make a fool of yourself speaking about Islam the way you do .... go ahead be my guest. I am ok , as every argument you make , I can easily refute you making you appear extremely stupid and unlearned. You get killed for your view? Most likely you get ridiculed for it as what I am doing to you. However you would get into trouble because
(1) You advocate to kill muslims because of our beliefs
(2) You advocate a Hindu Holy War for the sake of wanting to kill muslims. You got your excuse with the JAIS raid but you chickened out
As I know only Hindus like you behave like the Quraish of 1400 years ago -
the recently leaked confession of a repentant Hindu priest, Swami Aseemanand, confirms what India's security establishment should have uncovered: a series of blasts between 2006 and 2008 were carried out by Hindu outfits. The attacks targeted a predominantly Muslim town and places of Muslim worship elsewhere. Their victims were primarily Muslim. Yet the reflexive reaction of the police was to round up young Muslim men, torture them, extract confessions and declare the cases solved.
....when self-pitying Hindus massacre minorities and detonate bombs in the midst of Muslim crowds, we are expected to be polite. No, let us call it what it actually is: Hindu terrorism. No, what matters here is Muhammad's behavior and action as a prophet and leader of Muslim community. HE HAD FAILED in those responsibility because (as you stated) he is considered a prophet only because of the treaty. In another word, you have just denied Muhammad as a prophet of Allah.
So now you have given up on the Treaty of Hudaibiyah knowing that your arguments were rubbish all along. Ok then , appears that you are looking for an exit path to run. The point here is which muslim community? The other point is that why should Prophet Muhammad(saw) be bothered with the problem of the Quraish? They were the ones who demanded Abu Basir back but when they couldn't control him , why you expect Prophet Muhammad(saw) to do so? Then the Hudaibiyah Treaty should be amended first before expecting Prophet Muhammad(saw) to act on Abu Basir. Ha ha , now it another 'wet dream' argument that I just denied Prophet Muhammad(saw) being a prophet. Some how or rather there is something not right with you - your mental state. I stated that the Meccans rejected for the word 'prophet' to be in the Hudaibiyah Treaty , per your cited reference of Sahih Bukhari 50:819. Now you are contradicting your own cited reference. This is what happen with a person like you who argue with 'auta'. You contradict yourself to no end
If that is so, then why did they come to Muhammad and ask him to take Abu Basir to Madinah? This shows that Quraisy had honor the treaty on how to treat Muslims as the treaty was signed, including leaving Muslims and their matters to their leaders. In this case, it was Muhammad's tasks to do something to Abu Basir and not the Meccans.
They did not ask Prophet Muhammad(saw) to take Abu Basir back to Madinah. They appealed for Prophet Muhammad(saw) to tell Abu Basir to cede attacking the caravans. Such a simple fact , yet you got it horribly wrong and worse you argue on it. Truly you are an ignoramus par excellence. What the Quraish asked was outside the scope of the treaty. Prophet Muhammad(saw) thru his goodwill helped out. Another example of Prophet Muhammad(saw) magnanimous character. A trait you should start acquiring ..... knowing you being a hater I am not holding my breadth.
I have been asking you for the definition of terrorism and commerce raiding bearing in mind the state of war between the muslims and Meccans. Why the uncontrollabe fear in you?
Yes, many were tortured in attempted to stop them from following a madman named Muhammad. Many slaves were killed as well. Muhammad couldn't have known that he could capture Mecca without bloodshed (he didn't know the future) but he knows that there could be war to fight eventually and that cannot be done if Muslims have love for their enemies.
Now you agree the muslims were tortured and killed. What was there to showcase? The evil of the Quraish (and you) is there for all to see. Now its madman pulak? If Prophet Muhammad(saw) was a madman he couldn't lay a strategy of how to enter Mecca without bloodshed. I really hope you are not drunk nor high on illegal pharmaceuticals. The question now - was there war and bloodshedding when Mecca fall to the muslims? You will avoid answering.
Answer :- To build Muslims as a military power. Muhammad cannot do that with Meccans constantly fighting them.
The question is whether the Hudaibiyah Treaty was for peace or not? You are not answering the question. If the Quraish was all powerful , there was nothing to stop them from eliminating the muslims. The truth of it is that at the time of the Hudaibiyah Treaty , the might of Mecca was declining. Your own cited reference of Sahih Bukhari 50:891 makes reference to such
..... No doubt, the war has weakened Quraish and they have suffered great losses, so if they wish, I will conclude a truce with them, during which they should refrain from interfering between me and the people (i.e. the 'Arab infidels other than Quraish), and if I have victory over those infidels, Quraish will have the option to embrace Islam as the other people do, if they wish; they will at least get strong enough to fight. But if they do not accept the truce, by Allah in Whose Hands my life is, I will fight with them defending my Cause till I get killed, but (I am sure) Allah will definitely make His Cause victorious .....
Thus the confirmation , even at that time , both the Quraish and Prophet Muhammad(saw) knew that the Meccans were staring at the face of defeat but Prophet Muhammad(saw) still extended his hand in peace.
There are many in the history books. Find it yourself.
Translation : I have been farting from my mouth. I don't have any facts.
Why Abu Sufiyan's house? Because he was a leader among Quraisy and Muhammad want to win his heart by alleviating his position among men of Mecca. It is common fact that Abu Sufiyan had become one of his military generals later, something that is not possible of he were to kill Abu Sufiyan or men of influence in Mecca. LIke I said before, Muhammad was a very clever fellow who good at using others
Abu Sufian pleaded for his life and then embraced Islam. His house is because he was a leader of the Quraish and Prophet Muhammad(saw) preserved his status being a leader. Now you admit that Prophet Muhammad(saw) was a very clever person. Then he cannot be a madman as what you claimed earlier. You keep on contradicting yourself. This shows that you argue without facts.
So when are you going to declare a Hindu Holy War? Ha ha , it appears that you are now scared because you could be charged with sedition. This is so funny. Initially you talk big but now you scared. Padan muka ..... you deserve to be in fear. Pasal mulut badan binasa .... ha ha
Last edited by sam1528 on 13-6-2014 03:24 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Sam1528
Your reasons are faulty because it contradict historical facts.
There is no historical facts here, only Muslim fact. And Muslim facts always speak highly of Muhammad the warmonger as if he is a saint.
First you claim he did nothing but then you accept the fact that he acted upon appeal of the Meccans.
No you are the one who claim Muhammad was the leader of Muslims in Madinah and that he didn't had to act toward Abu Basir. Then you claim that Muhammad did something for Abu Basir later in his life. I merely asked the evidence of what he did.
Hitler was targetted to be killed because he started the war that caused millions to die , not for racism.
Wrong. Nazism is a racist belief where only those who are 6 feet tall, has blue eyes and fit and healthy are considered worth to live. All others - including Jews, Blacks and other non-Germany people are considered "inferior" to German people and therefore allowed ("dihalalkan") to be executed. In this context, Islam equals to Nazism where Muslims are thought to be the chosen people of (some) god named Allah and anyone who is not Muslims are labelled second/third rate citizen with no rights (like in many Islamic countries World Wide).
IF Nazism is evil, then so is Islam. Unless you going to say Nazism is not evil, of course.
If Prophet Muhammad(saw) was a madman he couldn't lay a strategy of how to enter Mecca without bloodshed.
Muhammad cannot see the future, therefore he couldn't have know that he could enter Mecca without bloodshed. But the Treaty was designed to instill fear and hatred toward Meccans.
... Prophet Muhammad(saw) still extended his hand in peace.
Then why did Muhammad ran to a mosque and refused to see Abu Mutalib when he came to negotiate peace with him?
His house is because he was a leader of the Quraish and Prophet Muhammad(saw) preserved his status being a leader.
Yes, that is what I said. Muhammad wanted Abu Sufiyan as a pawn and the best way to get a powerful pawn like Abu Sufiyan was through ensuring that he was defeated and bow to submission.
Now you admit that Prophet Muhammad(saw) was a very clever person. Then he cannot be a madman as what you claimed earlier.
The trully madman are those who able to use their intelligence (and any means available like trickery and violence) to subdue a group of people. We have seen many examples of such in the World like Mussoline, Stalin, Hitler and Mao Ze Cheng. What makes you think Muhammad is not as mad as they were? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sephiroth posted on 13-6-2014 04:13 PM
by Sam1528
There is no historical facts here, only Muslim fact. And Muslim facts always speak highly of Muhammad the warmonger as if he is a saint.
The seerah and hadith are historical facts. Again you don't even know what you are talking about. For your case is worse. You just provide your own unlearned opinion without any historical facts. You still have not respond to the fact that if Prophet Muhammad(saw) was a war monger , he would not have seek peace via the Hudaibiyah Treaty. Your unlearned opinion have been refuted by historical evidence. Prophet Muhammad(saw) was a messenger of Allah not a saint.
Can you now give me the definition of
- terrorism
- commerce raiding
bearing in mind the state of war already exist between the muslims and the Meccans.
You are scared to be publically made a fool of with your own provided definition , yes? I suspected so ....
No you are the one who claim Muhammad was the leader of Muslims in Madinah and that he didn't had to act toward Abu Basir. Then you claim that Muhammad did something for Abu Basir later in his life. I merely asked the evidence of what he did.
The problem is why should Prophet Muhammad(saw) towards Abu Basir? The Treaty of Madinah did not stipulate for such. However Prophet Muhammad(saw) thru his goodwill acted after the Meccan appealed for his help. I have provided the reference to this in my post#11. You missed it because you did not read my response. Therefore your argument is an argument of a 'syok sendiri' person ..... worthless
Wrong. Nazism is a racist belief where only those who are 6 feet tall, has blue eyes and fit and healthy are considered worth to live. All others - including Jews, Blacks and other non-Germany people are considered "inferior" to German people and therefore allowed ("dihalalkan") to be executed. In this context, Islam equals to Nazism where Muslims are thought to be the chosen people of (some) god named Allah and anyone who is not Muslims are labelled second/third rate citizen with no rights (like in many Islamic countries World Wide).
IF Nazism is evil, then so is Islam. Unless you going to say Nazism is not evil, of course.
Your initial contention was that Hitler was targetted to be killed because of nazism , your post#30. This is historically wrong. He was targetted to be killed because he started the war in Europe. The Nazis were already ruling Germany before the war.
Again you are wrong. In the Quran , the people once favored by Allah were the Israelites (Quran2:122 , 45:17 , 5:20). Of course Allah favored the muslims because Islam is from Allah. However the same is for the teaching and the followers of the 24 messengers before Prophet Muhammad(saw) and for the people who did not receive the message. That means that Islam is a racial inclusive religion , unlike Hinduism. Can you now give me an Islamic country where the non muslims have no rights? You are no longer farting thru your mouth but purging thru your mouth. Can you at least do a bit of research before arguing. You are one emotional meenachi. Being emotional for the wrong reasons.
I say Hinduism is evil like Nazism. It has been proven that the caste system is hereditary. Look at how hindus treat the lowest caste people - like animals. You point 1 finger at Islam but your 4 fingers pointing back to you.
Muhammad cannot see the future, therefore he couldn't have know that he could enter Mecca without bloodshed. But the Treaty was designed to instill fear and hatred toward Meccans.
Prophet Muhammad(saw) entered Mecca without bloodshed because he designed it. That was why he instructed the Quraish to take shelter in the places he mentioned. If his people had fear and hatred , there would have been bloodshed. It did not happen because Prophet Muhammad(saw) forbade such and he forgave the people of Mecca. Forgiving when a person was in the position of power tells us the impeccable character of Prophet Muhammad(saw).
Then why did Muhammad ran to a mosque and refused to see Abu Mutalib when he came to negotiate peace with him?
Abu Mutalib? Who is Abu Mutalib? This again show that you are extremely loose with facts. Yet you want to argue. I feel sorry for you. I have covered this issue in my post #11 which you then ran away from responding. Go back and respond to the post.
Yes, that is what I said. Muhammad wanted Abu Sufiyan as a pawn and the best way to get a powerful pawn like Abu Sufiyan was through ensuring that he was defeated and bow to submission.
So you advocate to kill Abu Sufian? Then you are no better than the blood thirsty parasite in Abu Jahl. Abu Sufian lost the war , he need to submit to a new authority in the form of Prophet Muhammad(saw). Such is the way of the world. Abu Sufian was lucky he had Prophet Muhammad(saw) being his adversary. He might not be so lucky if he was going against Emperor Heraclius of the Byzantine Empire.
The trully madman are those who able to use their intelligence (and any means available like trickery and violence) to subdue a group of people. We have seen many examples of such in the World like Mussoline, Stalin, Hitler and Mao Ze Cheng. What makes you think Muhammad is not as mad as they were?
Is because Prophet Muhammad(saw) did not commit mass murders like the above and Prophet Muhammad(saw) did not install any class system like the caste system in Hinduism. He reformed the whole society in ancient Arabia. He can be considered being the early 'wall street occupiers' demanding for social justice. Else Harvard Law School would not be displaying Quran4:135 at its faculty library entrance.
So now you are scared to be hauled up for sedition because of your claim for a Hindu Holy War? Ha ha , you deserve to be scared. You have been blabbering such nonsense for years and now you have been brought down to earth. Your knees shaking? Ha ha ...
Last edited by sam1528 on 13-6-2014 07:15 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Sam1528
The seerah and hadith are historical facts.
Historical facts means everyone (regardless of belief) agrees to a fact that have been produced. In that context Hadith doesn't count as historical facts, just Arabic fictions. Hell, even among Muslims themselves, they are many who do not accept Hadith as facts. Two such person here could be Adriff82 and Kid.
The problem is why should Prophet Muhammad(saw) towards Abu Basir? The Treaty of Madinah did not stipulate for such.
Yes, you are right. Muhammad wasn't a prophet of God. He was man-made prophet and therefore, he was only empowered by the treaty to behave accordingly. A prophet of God could be responsible for his flock in any way possible. Your Muhammad was clearly irresponsible toward a member of his own flock (Abu Basir and his men). This is proof that Muhammad was a false prophet.
Again you are wrong. In the Quran , the people once favored by Allah were the Israelites (Quran2:122 , 45:17 , 5:20). Of course Allah favored the muslims because Islam is from Allah.
Are you saying that Judaism and Christianity is not from Allah?
Can you now give me an Islamic country where the non muslims have no rights?
Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Brunei and few more which follows Hudud Laws. Even in Malaysia where Muslims daydream of establishing Hudud Laws, you can already see Muslims trampling on the rights of non-Muslims.
It has been proven that the caste system is hereditary.
Your daydream, not mine. I do not need to entertain a Muslim daydream.
Prophet Muhammad(saw) entered Mecca without bloodshed because he designed it.
Are you claiming that Muhammad can foresee the future?
Wrong. Blood was still shed that day.
Source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquest_of_Mecca
Ten people were ordered to be killed:[13] Ikrimah ibn Abi-Jahl, Abdullah ibn Saad ibn Abi Sarh, Habbar bin Aswad, Miqyas Subabah Laythi, Huwairath bin Nuqayd, Abdullah Hilal and four women who had been guilty of murder or criticising Mohammed or had sparked off the war and disrupted the peace.[13]
However, they were not all killed; Ikrimah lived to adopt Islam and fight in future battles among Muslim ranks. Of the two singing girls who were outlawed by Mohammad, one was slain but the other spared because she converted to Islam.[14] Ibn Abi Sarh had been granted protection under Uthman ibn Affan and when he initially refused to take the mandatory oath of allegiance to Muhammad, the bystanders still did not kill him, much to the regret of Muhammad.[15]
It is possible that Muhammad didn't have full control over Meccans at that time, and any attempt to kill Meccans will create a civil war and breaking among his followers, which he avoided.
So you advocate to kill Abu Sufian?
What are you talking about? The man have died 1,400 years ago. How can I advocate to kill a dead man? BODOH. 
Is because Prophet Muhammad(saw) did not commit mass murders like the above and Prophet Muhammad(saw) did not install any class system like the caste system in Hinduism.
No, because he created a system which will be followed by all the other evil men throughout the history later - Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin etc. That is what makes Muhammad an evil person. He did not promote anything good but brought suffering to countless people through his Arabic political system disguise as religion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sephiroth posted on 16-6-2014 01:27 PM
by Sam1528
Historical facts means everyone (regardless of belief) agrees to a fact that have been produced. In that context Hadith doesn't count as historical facts, just Arabic fictions. Hell, even among Muslims themselves, they are many who do not accept Hadith as facts. Two such person here could be Adriff82 and Kid.
The Orientalists refer to the Seerah / Hadith in their historical analysis. You refer to the Hadith , post#6 in your argument. Your argument about the Treaty Of Hudaibiyah is a reference to the Seerah. This is evidence that you indirectly attested to the historical fact of the Hadith and Seerah. Else you are telling me you don't know what you are talking about. A 'mutawattir' Hadith is a multiple attested historical statement which is as close to the truth. Compere such to the Bagavad Gita , the Gita is just a collection of fairy tales. We don't know who is the author.
Yes, you are right. Muhammad wasn't a prophet of God. He was man-made prophet and therefore, he was only empowered by the treaty to behave accordingly. A prophet of God could be responsible for his flock in any way possible. Your Muhammad was clearly irresponsible toward a member of his own flock (Abu Basir and his men). This is proof that Muhammad was a false prophet.
However the Treaty of Hudaibiyah did not addressed him being a Prophet. Therefore according to the Treaty , the Meccans must be responsible for Abu Basir. A prophet of God uphold his word. He had agreed to return Abu Basir to the Meccan and he did just that. Are you now advocating for Prophet Muhammad(saw) to break the treaty and not return Abu Basir? Hindus like you have no regards for any agreement , if that is the case. You are just chasing your backside lah meenachi.
Are you saying that Judaism and Christianity is not from Allah?
In Islam we regard the Isrealites and Christians who follow the message of their messenger were / are muslims. Aiyoyo meenachi , I thought such is obvious.
Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Brunei and few more which follows Hudud Laws. Even in Malaysia where Muslims daydream of establishing Hudud Laws, you can already see Muslims trampling on the rights of non-Muslims.
As far as I know apart from Saudi Arabia (where there are no non muslims) , the rest of the countries , the rights of the non muslims are enshrined in their respective constitutions. What nonsense are you blabbering? What is wrong with Hudud Laws? You do the crime you face the punishment. You mean non muslims cannot be punished even if they commit a crime? This is silliness to the max.
Your daydream, not mine. I do not need to entertain a Muslim daydream.
I did provide a scholarship reference that the caste system is hereditary. So far you have not provided anything but shouting. Therefore In this case you have lost and lost big time. Appears that you are ignorant of your own religious doctrine.
Are you claiming that Muhammad can foresee the future?
Wrong. Blood was still shed that day.
Source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquest_of_Mecca
Ten people were ordered to be killed:[13] Ikrimah ibn Abi-Jahl, Abdullah ibn Saad ibn Abi Sarh, Habbar bin Aswad, Miqyas Subabah Laythi, Huwairath bin Nuqayd, Abdullah Hilal and four women who had been guilty of murder or criticising Mohammed or had sparked off the war and disrupted the peace.[13]
However, they were not all killed; Ikrimah lived to adopt Islam and fight in future battles among Muslim ranks. Of the two singing girls who were outlawed by Mohammad, one was slain but the other spared because she converted to Islam.[14] Ibn Abi Sarh had been granted protection under Uthman ibn Affan and when he initially refused to take the mandatory oath of allegiance to Muhammad, the bystanders still did not kill him, much to the regret of Muhammad.[15]
It is possible that Muhammad didn't have full control over Meccans at that time, and any attempt to kill Meccans will create a civil war and breaking among his followers, which he avoided.
When one design something , it means the planning is executed so that the desired outcome is guaranteed. It does not mean being able to see the future. Wow , you are already middle age yet you do not know what 'designing of something' means. I pity your employers. They have employed a dud in you. How did you manage to land your day job? Working for family issit?
According to your reference , how many died out of the 10? I read only 1. Where were the hundreds and hundreds who were supposed to be killed because Prophet Muhammad(saw) instilled humiliation and fear in the muslims so that they would kill the Meccans - according to you? This is again evidence that you are arguing with 'pull from the ass' facts.
Civil war? The Meccans already surrendered and they were in fear that they would have been put to the sword. What civil war? Possible this and that type of arguments are just blind speculation. Only the lesser intelligent ones uses such arguments.
What are you talking about? The man have died 1,400 years ago. How can I advocate to kill a dead man? BODOH.
You are trying to run from the argument. You argued that Abu Sufian was a pawn in Prophet Muhammad(saw) game. I am asking whether you advocate for him to be killded? Why are you trying to misunderstand on purpose? Issit because you have been hit so hard that you are looking for any excuse to push back? Issit because you really have comprehension problems?
BTW who is this Abu Mutalib? Another figment of your imagination?
No, because he created a system which will be followed by all the other evil men throughout the history later - Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin etc. That is what makes Muhammad an evil person. He did not promote anything good but brought suffering to countless people through his Arabic political system disguise as religion.
Don't think so. The very least there is no caste system in Islam (you know the hereditary caste system). So what is the system Prophet Muhammad(saw) created that others followed throughout history? You mean being mean and awful towards the dalits ..... 'facepalm' , that is Hinduism .... my bad. If he did not promote anything good , Harvard University Library wall would not have a Quranic verse about Justice. Ha ha , you are refuting yourself again and again. Can you try to argue from facts rather than your wet dreams?
So how? How is your so called Hindu Holy War getting along. Are you an army of 1? Oops , I forgot , you chicken out .... ha ha
Last edited by sam1528 on 16-6-2014 05:00 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sephiroth posted on 17-6-2014 10:47 AM
by Sam1528
I really don't give $hit. Hadith is NOT historical facts, period.
You don't give a shit doesn't mean you are right. Can you define what is historical evidence? Oops , you don't know. You are again glorifying your ignorance. How do you get on with your daily life as you are one ignorant person. I suspect that you suffer from inferiority complex as you have again and again demonstrate ignorance but try to shout yourself out of any argument.
Prophet of God must take care his own flock. Muhammad did not do it and therefore he was prophet of politics.
Of course , in addition to holding his end of any agreement. Politics is part of governance. I don't see what is the issue. Abu Basir had no problems about Prophet Muhammad(saw) obligation to the Treaty of Madinah. You seem to have a problem but no solution as you advocate for Prophet Muhammad(saw) to break the said Treaty by not returning Abu Basir. In short you expose yourself of being self serving and not respecting your pledge to others. Is this typical Hinduism?
And yet, the same "god" went and give the message to Muhammad which then made war against Christians and Jews. How is that the same god who favored Christians and Jews?
In all historcal facts , the so called 'war' was retailatory justice. Why make war on Prophet Muhammad(saw) and the muslims in the first place? Why the whining when the muslims took action after the so called Jews struck first? Was there war with the Christians during the time of Prophet Muhammad(saw)? Again - 'pull from the ass' facts from you.
Hudud Laws is not laws which will prevent crime. It is a system which empowers Muslims over non-Muslims. Muslims will claim that they are preventing crime but what they do is limit the movement and freedom of non-Muslims to the extend that we (non-Muslims) will have to live under their rules indirectly. We will not stand for it.
Ha ha , your ignorance again? Laws do not prevent crime but ensure justice. Gee whizz , you even got this wrong. I think you need at least 4 lifetimes to unlearn what you have learned so far in your life. How is it that Hudud empowers a muslim over a non muslim? For argument sake , both are subjected to the same law and punishment. Are you now saying that non muslims can break the law but refuse punishment? This probably can happen in Hinduism but not for the rest of the world. Can you now explain what is it in Hudud that restricts the movement and freedom of non muslims? Try your best to be logical. I know its hard for you but you need to learn sometime in life.
All you have is your daydream.
Oh .... I see , in your version of Hinduism , scholarship is daydreaming but shouting at the top of your lungs is top notch scholarship? Wow , no wonder Hinduism is losing adherence to other religions and atheism at a shockingly accelerated rate.
So are you saying that when Muhammad signed the treaty. he already planned to conquer Mecca (as desired outcome)? Is that what you are saying?
Huh? Why are trying your best to be ignorant? I did not say such. I stated that Prophet Muhammad(saw) designed the conquest of Mecca after the Quraish broke the Hudaibiyah Treaty so as to minimize bloodshed. There is something very wrong with you. You have this gift of being naturally ignorant. Your parents must be ruing the day you were born. You don't seem to get anything right.
You read only 1 out of four. Fate of six more is unknown. The one killed was one of the singing girls (of two). Two people have saved themselves by converting by another Ibn Abi Sarh was given protection but did not choose Islam (as was not killed by the public). The other six most likely have killed.
I read 1 out of 10 from your reference (who was executed when Mecca fall). Its your cited reference. 'Most likely' is just speculation. Deal with facts. My question again : where were the hundreds or perhaps thousands that were killed because Prophet Muhammad(saw) instilled humiliation and fear in the muslims per your claim? You are trying to run away from your own argument now. It is so easy to make you appear silly. I don't need to do much. I just prod you along (like prodding cattle) and you would do the rest.
Thing with my God, He always gives what you Muslim deserve. Muhammad thought he had outsmarted God by capturing Mecca with minimum casualties, thus preventing a civil war between Mecca and Madinah but what is destined will come to past. Muslims MEANT to have a civil war and it started as Syiah-Sunni war which last 1,400 years. That is MY GOD
Your God? You mean your Gods? Which God is it? You have lots of Gods and until now your Gods cannot even prevent the upper caste oppressing the lower caste Hindus. The Syiah - Sunni war is because of political ambitions. Nothing to do with religion. Ha ha , even though the muslim world has its internal problem , it is still a lot better than Hinduism. You oppress the lower caste but when they leave Hinduism for other religions which grant them equality , extremist Hindus like you advocate to kill them. The best part is that we have Hindus like you earning a living in the muslim world. You must be burning in your inside to face such humiliation.
How can I advocate Abu Sufiyan to be killed? He is already DEAD.
Wow , why are you trying to run from your own argument? Your post #32 alleged that Prophet Muhammad(saw) used Abu Sufian as a pawn in his game. So do you advocate for Prophet Muhammad(saw) to kill abu Sufian being the alternative? Ha ha , playing dumb or are you really dumb. This is your argument that you are running from.
The British created the Apatheid System which enslaved the black people of Africa for over 100 years. I really don't think they are qualified to to showcase what is morale or ethical or good in the World.
Errr , Harvard University is in the US not in Great Britain. You even got this wrong. Ok - ok , do you know what is a university? Have you ever heard of Harvard University? Oh I see , the British created Apartheid in the last 100 years. However Hinduism institutionalized Apartheid for thousands of years in the caste system. What is there to showcase for Hinduism?
How is your Hindu Holy War getting along? Manage to recruit anyone else apart from yourself being a replacement as you have chickened out. Ha ha .... you must be so embarrassed with me digging you on your so called Hindu Holy War. This is so funny.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Sam1528
You don't give a shit doesn't mean you are right.
Hadith is not historical facts. It is fictional writing written by Muhammad's followers. That is FACT.
Of course , in addition to holding his end of any agreement. Politics is part of governance.
Muhammad is not a prophet of god but a prophet of politics. That is FACT.
In all historcal facts , the so called 'war' was retailatory justice.
There is no Justice in Islam. Islam is a political system in disguise as a religion. The Arabs were followed by Muhammad to fight and expand his sphere of influence and he did not care how many lived or died.
The Christians and Jews whom supported Muhammad at the beginning had realized this too late and pull away their support, which Muhammad took as sign that they were turning against him. It is that action that promoted him to hate the Christians and Jews and wage war against him. Therefore the war against Christians and Jews are nothing more than political-based warfare.
For argument sake , both are subjected to the same law and punishment.
For argument's sake, answer this - WHY must we (non-Muslims) be subjected to your (Arabic) laws? To satisfy your Egos?
We have Secular Laws which we can revise, update and implement according to the changes to the society. This secular laws will fit all level of society - from God fearing people to atheists. So WHY do we need your Hudud? WHY should we allow you (Muslims) to implement this barbaric 7th Century laws which could affect our lives as well?
Oh .... I see , in your version of Hinduism , scholarship is daydreaming but shouting at the top of your lungs is top notch scholarship?
Scholarship? I thought you were talking about hereditary caste system.
I read 1 out of 10 from your reference (who was executed when Mecca fall).
Ten were sentenced to death (for various reasons including insulting Muhammad) - fate of four are known. Six more was not mentioned (can assumed that they had been killed).
The Syiah - Sunni war is because of political ambitions. Nothing to do with religion.
Wrong - EVERYTHING that happening in Muslims society for the past 1,400 years WAS DUE TO POLITICS. Because Islam is political system.
So do you advocate for Prophet Muhammad(saw) to kill abu Sufian being the alternative?
Muhammad only had two choice - kill Abu Sufiyan or have him embrace Islam and join him. I doubt Muhammad could want to allow Abu Sufiyan - a powerful Meccan leader to go scout-free, only to have him start a rebellion against Muslims later. And Abu Sufiyan most likely know that only way he could escape death was by embracing Islam (like others had done) and he did embrace Islam. So it has NOTHING to do with what I want or not. This is not a Soap Opera.
Harvard University is in the US not in Great Britain.
My mistake. I was thinking of Oxford University.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sephiroth posted on 17-6-2014 03:48 PM
by Sam1528
Hadith is not historical facts. It is fictional writing written by Muhammad's followers. That is FACT
How can it be fictional writing if it is of multiple attested? Can you give me what is historical evidence? Why the fear? The same fear in you of providing the definition of 'terrorism' and 'commerce raiding' in a stage of war.
Muhammad is not a prophet of god but a prophet of politics. That is FACT.
Your assertion again. The historical evidence is there for all to see. In reality Prophet Muhammad(saw) was a messenger of Allah not prophet as a messenger has a higher status than a prophet. One of the qualities of a messenger of Allah is the ability to perform miracles as permitted by Allah. One of the miracles is making appearance of the moon to have been split. A Hindu King Reverted to Islam as he witnessed the 'splitting of the moon'. His action has been recorded and is in archive. The name of the king is Chakrawati Farmas :
The incident relating to King Chakrawati Farmas is documented in an old manuscript in the India Office Library, London, which has reference number: Arabic, 2807, 152-173. It is quoted in the book “Muhammad Rasulullah,” by M. Hamidullah:
“There is a very old tradition in Malabar, South-West Coast of India, that Chakrawati Farmas, one of their kings, had observed the splitting of the moon, the celebrated miracle of the Holy Prophet (pbuh) at Mecca, and learning on inquiry that there was a prediction of the coming of a Messenger of God from Arabia, he appointed his son as regent and set out to meet him. He embraced Islam at the hand of the Prophet, and when returning home, at the direction of the Prophet, died at the port of Zafar, Yemen, where the tomb of the “Indian king” was piously visited for many centuries.”
This I did a personal check to verify the documents ~ 4 years ago. I contacted Dr Colin Baker and the following was his response :
Sorry for the delay in answering your enquiry, but it is partly due to
the fact that your source “Muhammad Rasulullah,” by M. Hamidullah” gave
only a partially correct reference.
I have located the manuscript you are interested in. The shelf mark is
IO ISLAMIC 2807 and the section you want is on pages 81 verso – 104
verso (inclusive). It is entitled “Qissat Shakruti Firmad” which,
according to the catalogue (Loth 1044), is “A fabulous account of the
first settlement of the Muhammadans in Malabar, under King Shakruti
(Cranganore), a contemporary of Muhammad, who was converted to Islam by
the miracle of the division of the the moon.”
Should you wish to order a microfilm or paper copy see
http://www.bl.uk/services/copy/reproduction.html for prices and method
of ordering and payment.
For further enquiries on photography you should contact
[email protected], quoting in all correspondence the
shelfmark IO ISLAMIC 2807, pages 81 verso- 104 verso and your full
postal address.
Sincerely
Colin Baker
Dr Colin F Baker
Head of Near and Middle Eastern Collections
The British Library
Asia, Pacific and Africa Collections
96 Euston Road
London NW1 2DB
T +44 (0)20 7412 7645
F +44 (0)20 7412 7858
[email protected]
http://www.bl.uk
I provided his contact. You can verify it yourself. You can even order the photocopied manuscript that attested to the fact that the King reverted due to sighting of the 'splitting of the moon'.
We muslims have historical documents from persons as far away being in India witnessing the miracle and recording this event. I have historical documents that Prophet Muhammad(saw) was a true messenger of Allah. You have nothing .... too bad so sad
There is no Justice in Islam. Islam is a political system in disguise as a religion. The Arabs were followed by Muhammad to fight and expand his sphere of influence and he did not care how many lived or died.
The Christians and Jews whom supported Muhammad at the beginning had realized this too late and pull away their support, which Muhammad took as sign that they were turning against him. It is that action that promoted him to hate the Christians and Jews and wage war against him. Therefore the war against Christians and Jews are nothing more than political-based warfare.
Islam is a way of life in which laws were revealed together with spirituality. Therefore with laws , there was / is a justice system. Politics is part of a way of life. This comes back to the very point of this thread. The research by Dr Morrow confirms that Prophet Muhammad(saw) had a treaty with the christians of St Cathrine that they would be forever in the protection of muslims. The original document is still intact. I have in writing an original covenant by Prophet Muhammad(saw) for peace with the Christians. You have nothing except blind speculation and shouting at top of your lungs. Again I win you lose ..... as usual
For argument's sake, answer this - WHY must we (non-Muslims) be subjected to your (Arabic) laws? To satisfy your Egos?
We have Secular Laws which we can revise, update and implement according to the changes to the society. This secular laws will fit all level of society - from God fearing people to atheists. So WHY do we need your Hudud? WHY should we allow you (Muslims) to implement this barbaric 7th Century laws which could affect our lives as well?
Laws are laws. You submit to the white man's laws? Issit because you feel a white man is superior due to the colour of their skin in comparison to yours? Well for your info the arabs are of white skin. So what is the issue with you?
Lets compare the Hadd pescription with secular laws. A person have been convicted of rape , it is off with his head whereas in secular law you go to jail and probably come out earlier due to good behavior. We also have reports of rapists who again rape after they come out of jail. Compare the rape statistics between Saudi and India. It appears that the Hindus are having a good time raping women in India. Hudud is much more effective. It only affect the people who do the crime. How does it affect the non muslims? You have yet to answer. In fact , you would have no answers.
Scholarship? I thought you were talking about hereditary caste system
Wow , you are one truly ignorant person. Do you know what is the definition of scholarship? If its a noun :
serious formal study or research of a subject
Therefore when we say its scholarship it means the research and study of the caste system - it being hereditary. Wow , you do have serious knowledge deficiency.
Ten were sentenced to death (for various reasons including insulting Muhammad) - fate of four are known. Six more was not mentioned (can assumed that they had been killed).
The question is how many were executed? From the reference you cited - only 1. Why are you assuming? Assumptions is the mother of all screw ups. You are embarassed to admit that you don't know. Until you have the information , its only 1 person executed. However you are running away from the issue. Where were the hundreds or perhaps thousands that were killed because Prophet Muhammad(saw) instilled humiliation and fear in the muslims per your claim? Now you cannot prove your claim. Its just another 'pull from the ass fact' from you ..... as usual.
Wrong - EVERYTHING that happening in Muslims society for the past 1,400 years WAS DUE TO POLITICS. Because Islam is political system.
Ha ha , you mean praying to Allah is politics. You mean giving zakat is politics. You mean waking up in the morning is politics. You are a nutcase whom have been proven of not having any evidence to back any of your claims. Can you now explain why you claim Islam is a political system? I am very sure you will run away.
Muhammad only had two choice - kill Abu Sufiyan or have him embrace Islam and join him. I doubt Muhammad could want to allow Abu Sufiyan - a powerful Meccan leader to go scout-free, only to have him start a rebellion against Muslims later. And Abu Sufiyan most likely know that only way he could escape death was by embracing Islam (like others had done) and he did embrace Islam. So it has NOTHING to do with what I want or not. This is not a Soap Opera.
You seem to have advocated the choice for Prophet Muhammad(saw) to kill Abu Sufian. Like I stated you are no better than the parasite in Abu Jahl. It could also be that Prophet Muhammad(saw) forgave Abu Sufian because the Quran stated that forgiveness is divine ,
Indeed, when the early Muslims triumphed over and conquered Mecca, Muhammad issued a blanket pardon to everyone, aside from four “arch-criminals”. [10] Muhammad could have taken vengeance against all those who had persecuted him and his people for so many years, but instead he forgave them all, reciting the following verse of the Quran:
There is no censure on you on this day. May God forgive you, for He is the Most Merciful of the merciful. (Quran, 12:92) [11]
Muhammad would even forgive those who killed and mutilated his uncle, praying: “[M]ay God forgive them, for God is Forgiving, Merciful.” [12] He also forgave those who had tried to kill him.
..... What is even more telling is the fact that once Muhammad and the early Muslims conquered Mecca, Muhammad granted the Meccans pardon and mercy. If the critics of Islam attribute Muhammad’s peaceful attitude during the early Meccan Period to his lack of power to do otherwise, then what of Muhammad’s triumphal return to Mecca whereupon he had all the power in the world to take limitless vengeance upon them? Muhammad’s tolerant nature towards his Quraysh enemies cannot be explained by the meekness of his position, because he maintained that attitude when he had the power to crush them as they had tried to do to him aforetime.
[10] Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum, p.254
[11] Al-Tabaqat Al-Kubra, Vol.2, p.142
[12] Al-Sira Al-Nabawiyya, p.432
Historical evidence is again in support of me that Prophet Muhammad(saw) forgiving his enemies - the very people who tried to kill him. I have historical scholarship (I hope you now know what is scholarship) whereas you only have auta.
So how is your Hindu Holy War going along? You know lah , you being the army of 1. You are a Hindu version of Rambo , a Hindu Ramboress (because you are a female). How many muslims have you killed so far because of the JAIS raid? Ha ha .....
Last edited by sam1528 on 17-6-2014 07:20 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Sam1528
How can it be fictional writing if it is of multiple attested?
Quantity of people stating the same thing doesn't mean that they are saying are true. Especially Muslims - they have no proof but believe whatever written in Al Quran and Al-Hadith simply because they believe it is "holy" book.
One of the miracles is making appearance of the moon to have been split.
You still believes in that fairy tale? 
Source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_of_the_moon
Early traditions supporting a literal interpretation are transmitted on the authority of companions of Muhammad such as Ibn Abbas, Anas bin Malik, Abdullah bin Masud and others.[2][3] According to the Indian Muslim scholar Abdullah Yusuf Ali, the moon will split again when the day of judgment approaches. He says that the verse may also have an allegorical meaning, i.e. the matter has become clear as the moon.[4][5] The Qur'anic verse 54:1-2 was part of the debate between medieval Muslim theologians and Muslim philosophers over the issue of the inviolability of heavenly bodies. Philosophers held that the heavenly bodies could not be pierced because, unlike terrestrial matter, they were not composed of the four fundamental elements of earth, air, fire, and water.[5] Some rationalistic Muslim thinkers argued that only an appearance of the split of the moon had happened.[4]
The narrative was used by some later Muslims to convince others of the prophethood of Muhammad.[4] It has also inspired many Muslim poets, especially in India.[6]
So which one is it? Moon will split in Judgement Day? Moon cannot be pierced? Or it is merely an illusion? Even your own members of Muslim societies seems unable to make up their mind.
And Yes, this bull$hit had been used in India before - to convert gullible Indians into believing in an Arabic guy named Muhammad. I just wasn't expecting you could try something this gullible on me.
I contacted Dr Colin Baker ...
Sorry, I don't know you nor do I have any reasons to accept what you said as truth. As far as I know, ALL Muslims are very good liars when debating with Non-Muslims. Muhammad taught them well.
Islam is a way of life in which laws were revealed together with spirituality.
Really? Show me examples of Muslim countries (other than in Middle East) which actually progressed forward - in education, health system, welfare system and such by following Islam.
You submit to the white man's laws? Issit because you feel a white man is superior due to the colour of their skin in comparison to yours? Well for your info the arabs are of white skin. So what is the issue with you?
ONLY a stupid ba$tard like you can link the color of the skin to implementation of a Judicial System. 
We (non-Muslims) follows (NOT SUBMIT OURSELVES) the Common Laws because it can be debated, implemented, revised and removed completely with the changes of Time and Society. The Laws are made by us, implement by us, revised by us and if necessary new laws can be created or old ones can be destroyed. We cannot do that with Hudud because ONLY MUSLIMS will be able to revise it and even that is done by follow an out-dated 7th Century fictional book named Al Quran.
Compare the rape statistics between Saudi and India.
Where are the statistics which you want me to compare? Show it here.
The question is how many were executed?
1 is killed, six presumed to be death (if you say otherwise, proof it), two escaped by converting to Islam and one run away (not want to convert). These are the numbers. You say anything different, you have to prove it yourself.
you mean praying to Allah is politics. You mean giving zakat is politics. You mean waking up in the morning is politics.
Waking up and praying to some Arabic god is "business" - you merely trading your time and effect for a daydream of heaven. Paying Zakat is politics - to ensure that the wealthy doesn't ignore the poor because if they did, then the poor become restless and riots could happen. So Muhammad ensure something goes from someone's pocket to the poor's pocket so the poor could remain quiet toward Muslim rule.
Can you now explain why you claim Islam is a political system?
Can you explain why you could you think that Islam is a religious system?
You seem to have advocated the choice for Prophet Muhammad(saw) to kill Abu Sufian.
I merely stated the choice Abu Sufiyan and Muhammad had in this matter. Muhammad "forgave" Abu Sufiyan simply because Abu Sufiyan have become a powerful warrior and leader of Meccans. To kill Abu Sufiyan could lead to an open revolt or possible splinter group which could target Muslims and Islam from within. No, Muhammad kept his enemy closer, sending him off to battlefields so he could get killed. It is also something Napoleon and Hitler did their enemies as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Author
Post time 12-6-2014 11:19 AM
![Menjengah kehidupan baru Shuhada di OZ [siri pembongkaran acik forum kembali bersiaran]](https://uf.cari.com.my/forumx/mforum/block/cd/cdf437227debf09d1330d6c56eeeda98.jpg)
![[KUIZ PERUBATAN MINGGUAN VOL. 7]: Mudah aje, ilmu harian! VOL.7](https://uf.cari.com.my/forumx/mforum/block/ca/cafa22106bf87ee6a0ff6b0584fea8d8.jpg)
