MoHAMMED THE RAPIST AND BANDIT--PART I [AT BANU QURAYZA]

Posted in the Islam Forum

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Anti Satan

Carshalton, UK

#2 Apr 8, 2008
Muslims do not want to know. They are in denial
islam

Malaysia

#3 Apr 9, 2008
The Tribe of Qurayza broke the Medina Charter and tried to ally themselves to the pagans of Mecca. The judgement was not of Muhammad's, but of a man from the tribe of Aus which was agreed by the tribe of Qurayza. The punsihment was in line with the laws of the Jews.
The Truth

Fort Worth, TX

#4 Apr 9, 2008
islam wrote:
The Tribe of Qurayza broke the Medina Charter and tried to ally themselves to the pagans of Mecca. The judgement was not of Muhammad's, but of a man from the tribe of Aus which was agreed by the tribe of Qurayza. The punsihment was in line with the laws of the Jews.
And you defend a man who witnessed and blessed such savage acts, regardless, and call him a prophet?!!!!!

Do you really believe God blesses such barbaric actions???!!!

Do you really believe that God believes in cultures???!!!!

WHAT IS WRONG IN THE EYES OF GOD THEN IS STILL WRONG TODAY AND THE PROPHET SHOULD KNOW THAT.

The world improves by prophets. Prophets d not come to apply barbarism and bless it in the name of God .... only fake ones do and Muhammad was no doubt a fake prophet and only ignorant people do not see that.

All those who follow Muhammad will in doubt perish in hell.

moaner

Malaysia

#6 Apr 10, 2008
KAFIR KING wrote:
You mean they agreed to be beheaded in advance. In case the Qurayza's wanted to beheaded, what was the need of the judgment? They did not expect that. Secondly, the Muslim thug who gave the judgment must have consulted Mohammed-rascal. Thirdly, Mohammed-rascal was the chief bandit, if he wanted he could easily over rule that judgment and could make it softer punishment.
In fact Mohammed saw the wealth of Qurayza and wanted to loot that.
Quraiza did not support Mohammed and they remained neutral. If they wanted pagans to enter Medina, they would have allowed them from their fortresses, because they were the only defense on that side.
Mohammed was a real traitor!!!
I did not say that the Qurayza agreed to be beheaded, I said that they broke the agreement in the Medina Charter, and they agreed that the man from the tribe of Aus to be the judge. You have no proof that the man consulted Muhmaad. If Muhammad over-ruled the punishment, that would mean he would go against his words for letting the man form Aus to be the judge.

It was customary, and still is, to take the booty of war. Muhammad never did anything for wealth. He lived a life of a poor man, and gave whatever he had for the poor.
Bugmenot_666

UK

#8 Apr 10, 2008
Try copying annd the first and second line to your url bar. The link isn't working properly.

“A Good Usama”

Since: Dec 06

Webster Groves, MO

#9 Apr 10, 2008
This is a stupid discussion full of lies and exxaggarations.

Treason in war, ecspecially before there were prisons, had always been met with harsh punishment. The punishment of the Jewish tribe was based on their own Talmudic law and not even Islam!!!!!
Kaffir king ignored that the tribal leaders chose their own Talmudic law for judgement, they chose their judge, and they refused to seek mercy for their women and children. But Kaffir king would have people support and ally with the Jewish tribal leaders!!!!
Kaffir king omitted that Madinah had been assaulted by a massive military alliance which surrounded the city/state in order to destroy it.

Bani Qurayza had signed a pact which stated that the Jewish tribe would not ally with others to fight the Muslims and would join the Muslims to defend Madinah if it was attacked.

But Bani Qurzayza not only refused to join with the Muslims to defend Madinah, they actively conspired with the Quraish alliance. The Prophet Muhammad (saaw) had many confirmatons of the treachery of the tribe from people who left Bani Qurayza and joined the Muslims, those who met with their leaders, and those who secretly gathered info on their efforts.

In fact there were many opportunities for the tribe and the tribe's members to repent, to separate from the tribe's leaders, and to return to the pact. In fact, the tribal leaders even refused to allow Muhammad (saaw) to be the judge over their case. Instead, the tribe selected their own judge, a Muslim and former ally from Aws.

Tribal leaders of Bani Qurayza were stubborn, arrogant, treacherous, liars. They betrayed their own people, their relations, their oaths, and God. And their act of arrogance which they refused to accept Muhammad as their judge eventhough they knew him to be merciful and forgiving.

Yes, the women and children were sent into slavery which in that era was a legal status with limited but established rights. And adult men who sided with the tribal leaders were executed. The fortress of Bani Qurayza was besieged for 40-45 days and only a few people sought refuge with the Muslims. The tribal leaders did not attempt to negotiate for the release of their women and children or give the option for adults to leave. They sealed the fate of their people.

Its ironic that the same people who hate Muslims also fantasize that Muslims within America are a 5th column waging war against America. They also propose killing Muslims who have commit no crimes by the millions, as in bombing their cities, and imprisoning 1000s of innocent Muslims.

In reality, the fate of Bani Qurayza was of their own making based on their own Jewish law.

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#10 Apr 10, 2008
What really happened with the Banu Qurayza?
http://www.answering-islam.org/Muhammad/Jews/...
popsicles

Broxburn, UK

#11 Apr 10, 2008
Usama wrote:
This is a stupid discussion full of lies and exxaggarations.
Treason in war, ecspecially before there were prisons, had always been met with harsh punishment. The punishment of the Jewish tribe was based on their own Talmudic law and not even Islam!!!!!
Kaffir king ignored that the tribal leaders chose their own Talmudic law for judgement, they chose their judge, and they refused to seek mercy for their women and children. But Kaffir king would have people support and ally with the Jewish tribal leaders!!!!
Kaffir king omitted that Madinah had been assaulted by a massive military alliance which surrounded the city/state in order to destroy it.
Bani Qurayza had signed a pact which stated that the Jewish tribe would not ally with others to fight the Muslims and would join the Muslims to defend Madinah if it was attacked.
But Bani Qurzayza not only refused to join with the Muslims to defend Madinah, they actively conspired with the Quraish alliance. The Prophet Muhammad (saaw) had many confirmatons of the treachery of the tribe from people who left Bani Qurayza and joined the Muslims, those who met with their leaders, and those who secretly gathered info on their efforts.
In fact there were many opportunities for the tribe and the tribe's members to repent, to separate from the tribe's leaders, and to return to the pact. In fact, the tribal leaders even refused to allow Muhammad (saaw) to be the judge over their case. Instead, the tribe selected their own judge, a Muslim and former ally from Aws.
Tribal leaders of Bani Qurayza were stubborn, arrogant, treacherous, liars. They betrayed their own people, their relations, their oaths, and God. And their act of arrogance which they refused to accept Muhammad as their judge eventhough they knew him to be merciful and forgiving.
Yes, the women and children were sent into slavery which in that era was a legal status with limited but established rights. And adult men who sided with the tribal leaders were executed. The fortress of Bani Qurayza was besieged for 40-45 days and only a few people sought refuge with the Muslims. The tribal leaders did not attempt to negotiate for the release of their women and children or give the option for adults to leave. They sealed the fate of their people.
Its ironic that the same people who hate Muslims also fantasize that Muslims within America are a 5th column waging war against America. They also propose killing Muslims who have commit no crimes by the millions, as in bombing their cities, and imprisoning 1000s of innocent Muslims.
In reality, the fate of Bani Qurayza was of their own making based on their own Jewish law.
mong
The Truth

Fort Worth, TX

#12 Apr 10, 2008
moaner wrote:
<quoted text>
I did not say that the Qurayza agreed to be beheaded, I said that they broke the agreement in the Medina Charter, and they agreed that the man from the tribe of Aus to be the judge. You have no proof that the man consulted Muhmaad. If Muhammad over-ruled the punishment, that would mean he would go against his words for letting the man form Aus to be the judge.
It was customary, and still is, to take the booty of war. Muhammad never did anything for wealth. He lived a life of a poor man, and gave whatever he had for the poor.
Think about this for a minute:

Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 138:

Narrated Aisha: That her father (Abu Bakr) never broke his oath till Allah revealed the order of the legal expiation for oath. Abu Bakr said, "If I ever take an oath (to do something) and later find that to do something else is better, then I accept Allah's permission and do that which is better,(and do the legal expiation for my oath ) ".

Which is better or easier to break an oath or doing something humane by going against someone else's horrific judgment and same lives?

If you Muslims have not seen by now how fake and how big of a killer Muhammad was .. you will never do. READ YOUR BOOKS and follow the logic within them ... no one is asking you to become Christian or Jew ... be an atheist and save your soul rather than defend a killer.

“No paseran!”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#13 Apr 10, 2008
Usama wrote:
This is a stupid discussion full of lies and exxaggarations.
Treason in war, ecspecially before there were prisons, had always been met with harsh punishment. The punishment of the Jewish tribe was based on their own Talmudic law and not even Islam!!!!!
Kaffir king ignored that the tribal leaders chose their own Talmudic law for judgement, they chose their judge, and they refused to seek mercy for their women and children. But Kaffir king would have people support and ally with the Jewish tribal leaders!!!!
Kaffir king omitted that Madinah had been assaulted by a massive military alliance which surrounded the city/state in order to destroy it.
Bani Qurayza had signed a pact which stated that the Jewish tribe would not ally with others to fight the Muslims and would join the Muslims to defend Madinah if it was attacked.
But Bani Qurzayza not only refused to join with the Muslims to defend Madinah, they actively conspired with the Quraish alliance. The Prophet Muhammad (saaw) had many confirmatons of the treachery of the tribe from people who left Bani Qurayza and joined the Muslims, those who met with their leaders, and those who secretly gathered info on their efforts.
In fact there were many opportunities for the tribe and the tribe's members to repent, to separate from the tribe's leaders, and to return to the pact. In fact, the tribal leaders even refused to allow Muhammad (saaw) to be the judge over their case. Instead, the tribe selected their own judge, a Muslim and former ally from Aws.
Tribal leaders of Bani Qurayza were stubborn, arrogant, treacherous, liars. They betrayed their own people, their relations, their oaths, and God. And their act of arrogance which they refused to accept Muhammad as their judge eventhough they knew him to be merciful and forgiving.
Yes, the women and children were sent into slavery which in that era was a legal status with limited but established rights. And adult men who sided with the tribal leaders were executed. The fortress of Bani Qurayza was besieged for 40-45 days and only a few people sought refuge with the Muslims. The tribal leaders did not attempt to negotiate for the release of their women and children or give the option for adults to leave. They sealed the fate of their people.
Its ironic that the same people who hate Muslims also fantasize that Muslims within America are a 5th column waging war against America. They also propose killing Muslims who have commit no crimes by the millions, as in bombing their cities, and imprisoning 1000s of innocent Muslims.
In reality, the fate of Bani Qurayza was of their own making based on their own Jewish law.
The Bani Qurayza refused to participate in the battle but did not ally themselves with the Quraish or join them in a military operation. It looks like the accusation that they were 'conspiring' against Muhammad was a good excuse to attack them and enslave all their women and children.

And we know the interest that Muhammad had in new slaves particularly if there were beautiful women.

http://enoughfornow.tripod.com/rapist.html

ahmed

Malaysia

#14 Apr 10, 2008
The Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
Think about this for a minute:
Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 138:
Narrated Aisha: That her father (Abu Bakr) never broke his oath till Allah revealed the order of the legal expiation for oath. Abu Bakr said, "If I ever take an oath (to do something) and later find that to do something else is better, then I accept Allah's permission and do that which is better,(and do the legal expiation for my oath ) ".
Which is better or easier to break an oath or doing something humane by going against someone else's horrific judgment and same lives?
If you Muslims have not seen by now how fake and how big of a killer Muhammad was .. you will never do. READ YOUR BOOKS and follow the logic within them ... no one is asking you to become Christian or Jew ... be an atheist and save your soul rather than defend a killer.
The Qurayza were a threat to the security of the Muslims, they allied themselves to the Pagans who wish to kill the Muslims, they are nothing but hypocrites for not holding to the oath, they are backstabbers, a danger to the very livelihood of Muslims, they were judged by a man the agreed to, and the judgement was in line with their own laws.

And I was in his position, I would kill hundreds to save thousands of Muslims more.

And would defend Muhammad, because he was a great man, Abu Fuqara wal Masakin, the defender of the poor and oppressed.
Usama

Deland, FL

#15 Apr 11, 2008
That is right, I and 100s of millions will never accept that Muhammad was a killer or unjust. His actions were only those of a ruler and head of state following specific Rule of Law. And the Prophet (saaw) did not disobey or violate the Law and the matter of oaths pertains to superrogatory voluntary matters, not obligatory matters such as treaties or obedience to law. The Prophet (saaw) always followed the Law of God. in fact, he said if his own beloved daughter Fatimah (raa) stoled, he would cut her hand- showing no prejudice or injustice even for his own family (that's in Bukhari collection too).
In battle of Badr, he even successfully advocated for taking enemy prisoners(who happened to be polytheists) when God called for all enemies to be killed as He did for the prophets of Israel. And God allowed this. In fact there are many incidences when the Prophet (saw) chose mercy rather than destruction for his adversaries, as in Taif, liberation of Makka, and more.

The fallacies are unsubstantiated and are lies. And who is slinging them?

the Jewish tribe refused to accept the Prophet Muhammad (saaw)'s judgement, resorting to Talmudic law instead. That was their choice. They did not ask for mercy, nor excuse themselves, nor even make up false excuses as many did who failed to join the expedition of Tabuk AND of which the Prophet (saw) accepted.

Blame the leaders of Bani Qurayza. And God certainly will sort out the innocent from the guilty on the Day of Judgement.

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#17 Apr 11, 2008
After Muhammad arrived in Medina he was safe from attack, yet after about a year he sent his followers to raid Mecca's caravans.
The battle of Badr was such a raid which the Meccan's had sent out an army to prevent.

So please show me a peace agreement signed by the tribes of Medina which allowed Muhammad to wage such raids and drag Medina into war with Mecca.

Medina had no quarrel with Mecca, so by launching such raids Muhammad himself was breaking his own peace treaties with the tribes of Medina.

As such the people of Banu-Qurayza were under no obligation to defend a man who had brought war to their city.

They made only one basic mistake. They failed to choose sides.
Staying Neutral was never a valid option.

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#18 Apr 11, 2008
Usama wrote:
In battle of Badr, he even successfully advocated for taking enemy prisoners(who happened to be polytheists) when God called for all enemies to be killed as He did for the prophets of Israel. And God allowed this. In fact there are many incidences when the Prophet (saw) chose mercy rather than destruction for his adversaries, as in Taif, liberation of Makka, and more.
Get real!

Taking prisioners and exchanging them for profit was always the most likely outcome of any battle, and always had been.

As the Meccan army was there to protect a caravan which the Muslim army wanted to raid, just who are the good guys?
The Truth

Fort Worth, TX

#19 Apr 11, 2008
ahmed wrote:
<quoted text>
The Qurayza were a threat to the security of the Muslims, they allied themselves to the Pagans who wish to kill the Muslims, they are nothing but hypocrites for not holding to the oath, they are backstabbers, a danger to the very livelihood of Muslims, they were judged by a man the agreed to, and the judgement was in line with their own laws.
And I was in his position, I would kill hundreds to save thousands of Muslims more.
And would defend Muhammad, because he was a great man, Abu Fuqara wal Masakin, the defender of the poor and oppressed.
Unfortunately, Muslims love to always blame the Jews for every trouble and point fingers.

YA SURE .. your prophet could not have proved his (so called holiness) by preventing atrocities of beheading innocents and raping slaves. He only had to live by the law of savages, the law of the desert, the law of the animal kingdom, which is kill kill kill those who do not believe in Allah and his prophet.
Usama

Deland, FL

#20 Apr 12, 2008
lol
Go ahead and side with the Makkans!!!!
Thats where your moral fiber leads you.
The Makkans were frauds. They concocted idols and taxed pilgrims for their new concoctins each year. Their trade rates were inflated with false 'pilgrim charges', and other fabricated justifications. They drained pilgrims of as much wealth as possible.
They killed female babies because they were not males. They prostituted their own wives to be impregnated by wealthy, rich, intelligent men so they could have 'improved' offspring. Women were inherited and could not consent to marry. Women could also be forced into prostitution.

There are hosts of things which the Makkans did. Most importantly, they attempted to assasinate the Prophet Muhammad (saw) and took the wealth of many of his companions, denying them the right to remove it from Makka.
Attempting to assasinate the Prophet (saaw) was an act of war, period. There is no normalizing trade after that. Makkan trade routes were going around Madinah.
Why should Muhammad allow for his mortal enemies to transport goods raised through fraudulent means through his lands?

Of course you would find offence that Muhammad (saw) dare stand against them because you associate and love the Makkans.
As I said, to you be your way, ato us be ours.
Usama

Deland, FL

#21 Apr 12, 2008
Need I point out the similiarities between Makkan society and secularized societies of today with their sperm banks, sex slave trade, concocted religious holidays which bring in billions for businesses, infanticide and abortion of females by the 10s of 1000s annually, fraudulent global trade favoring the rich so that 100s of millions are now rioting in the streets for food?
Usama

Deland, FL

#22 Apr 12, 2008
Igor, you don't understand nor do I expect you to see your prejudice.

As if the entire world is inferior to your way of life, yes? And your forefathers are the best of mankind simply because they were, yes?
Bugmenot_666

Germany

#23 Apr 12, 2008
Usama wrote:
Need I point out the similiarities between Makkan society and secularized societies of today with their sperm banks, sex slave trade, concocted religious holidays which bring in billions for businesses, infanticide and abortion of females by the 10s of 1000s annually, fraudulent global trade favoring the rich so that 100s of millions are now rioting in the streets for food?
You mean like the pagan Hajj which mohammed stole from the original inhabitants? The same Hajj that islam uses every year to steal the wealth of poor muslims who will do anything to perform it including selling everything they own?

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#24 Apr 12, 2008
Usama wrote:
lol
Go ahead and side with the Makkans!!!!
Thats where your moral fiber leads you.
The Makkans were frauds. They concocted idols and taxed pilgrims for their new concoctins each year. Their trade rates were inflated with false 'pilgrim charges', and other fabricated justifications. They drained pilgrims of as much wealth as possible.
They killed female babies because they were not males. They prostituted their own wives to be impregnated by wealthy, rich, intelligent men so they could have 'improved' offspring. Women were inherited and could not consent to marry. Women could also be forced into prostitution.
There are hosts of things which the Makkans did. Most importantly, they attempted to assasinate the Prophet Muhammad (saw) and took the wealth of many of his companions, denying them the right to remove it from Makka.
Attempting to assasinate the Prophet (saaw) was an act of war, period. There is no normalizing trade after that. Makkan trade routes were going around Madinah.
Why should Muhammad allow for his mortal enemies to transport goods raised through fraudulent means through his lands?
Of course you would find offence that Muhammad (saw) dare stand against them because you associate and love the Makkans.
As I said, to you be your way, ato us be ours.
The Makkans where just trying to make a living just like everyone else.
Every religious site I have ever been too has tried to make money from me.

Trade has nothing to do with pilgrimage. You're mixing up to different sources of income.
Muhammad was a trader.

If women couldn't consent to marry then how come Muhammad's wife Khadijah proposed to him?
She also ran a successful business.

As for trying to kill Muhammad, he survived for 13 years during which he attacked the Meccan gods and told everyone they would burn in hell.
This tends to annoy people.

This is what happen to Christians who preached in Islamic Spain;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyrs_of_C órdoba
"In the city of Córdoba, Spain, between the years 850 AD and 859 AD, forty-eight Christians (mostly Christian monks) were decapitated for religious offenses against Islam. What made this unusual, beyond the number of executions, were the circumstances under which the executions took place. In particular, it is known that the majority of the victims deliberately courted martyrdom by making declarations of Christian religious belief that are considered blasphemy by Islam (for example, that Jesus is the divine Son of God). Most of the executions occurred as a result of Christian priests standing outside of Churches or going to Islamic courts and making statements of Christian belief opposed to those of Islam, actions inevitably leading to arrest and execution by the Islamic authorities. There were also several executions for apostasy from Islam, involving both Christian priests and laypeople. Those who were executed during this historical drama became known as the Martyrs of Córdoba."

These Christians were doing exactly the same thing as Muhammad, publicly declaring their beliefs.
They died, Muhammad didn't.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Islam Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Jihadi John is a beautiful young man 3 min RedSnapper 8
Islam Will Conquer Italy and the Entire West (Sep '10) 5 min Le Quenellier 412,156
Cant wait til they get to the Louvre 12 min Goddess Gaia 20
Let us ban Pornography in America 17 min Baron44 23
IS Militants Smash Ancient Iraqi Artifacts To D... 26 min Yahudi 14
DY: Poster ISLAM FORBIDS destroyed! 42 min Old Pom 14
Religion of peace in Japan 47 min Old Pom 1
Who Is Allah? (Aug '07) 1 hr Optimus Secundus 211,898
America must understand 1 hr Goddess Gaia 88
Who is who here? 4 hr Abu bin PuPu 124
Why you better buy a burqa. 6 hr Thinking 74
More from around the web