More terrorism uncovered!

[smaneck]

What Muhammad ascribed to Allah and what Muhammad did were not necessarily the same. You quoting a passage from the Koran does not refute history.

There is no reliable history outside the Qur'an. Accounts of Muhammad's life weren't written down until centuries later.

Muhammad did begin hostilities in order to spread his religion and gain power – repeatedly and often.

Evidence contemporary to the event, please.

Your statement... "Muhammad authorized war against those who persecuted and exiled Muslims" is misinformed or misleading.

That is precisely what the passage I quoted did.

Your response failed to address “warriors who survived battle benefited from the loot, women, and slaves they captured” which was the important part in response to your “He prohibited the targeting of non-combatants including women children and the elderly”.

By targeting non-combatants I meant killing them. In any case, your statement was referring to the Caliphate, which I did not consider relevant to the Prophet.

That distinction isn't really important to those who die.

When non-combatants aren't targeted, far fewer die.

In any case, leaders of wars know there will be “collateral damage”, so in a sense they are targeted.

Uh, no.

Yeah. I've heard that copout from people defending OT atrocities too.

• Oh my, those poor women will die of starvation. What shall we do?
• Kill the older women. Kill the boys. Rape and enslave the young girls.

And apparently that is what you are confusing Muhammad and the Qur'an with the Bible. Slavery might well be an alternative to starvation, but unlike the Tanakh, the Shariah prohibits killing the elderly, whether male or female. Nor can you kill boys that have not yet reached puberty. Yes, sexual relations with slave are legitimate in Islam, but that makes her children also legitimate. And no, you can't just rape women willy-nilly.

 

[ecco]

"Authoritative" to whom? That work isn't accepted as a source for the determination of doctrine. It's on par with a book a Christian historian wrote 100 years after the life of Christ. You could accept or reject the accounts found therein and still be Christian. Same thing with Muslims and that history book.

While I would disagree with the actions (if they did in fact occur) it still wouldn't be a call for terorism either. It would be an example of executing people who turned traitor and switched sides in battle.

Are you questioning the original writings or the translation?

I wasn't suggesting that it was or was not a call to terrorism. I was refuting the claim the Muhammad never beheaded anyone.

 

[ecco]

http://www.1god1man1enemy.com/#!end-terrorism/vshhp

here is the one and only way to end terrorism for good.

It doesn't say anything about Christians who murder people at abortion clinics. So, no, it doesn't show how to end terrorism.

 

[ecco]

Evidence contemporary to the event, please.

Contemporary Evidence?

http://www.bahai.org/

Throughout history, God has sent to humanity a series of divine Educators—known as Manifestations of God—whose teachings have provided the basis for the advancement of civilization. These Manifestations have included Abraham, Krishna, Zoroaster, Moses, Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad. Bahá’u’lláh, the latest of these Messengers, explained that the religions of the world come from the same Source and are in essence successive chapters of one religion from God.​

http://www.bahai.org/bahaullah/

In the middle of the 19th century, God summoned Bahá’u’lláh—meaning the “Glory of God”—to deliver a new Revelation to humanity. For four decades thousands of verses, letters and books flowed from His pen. In His Writings, He outlined a framework for the development of a global civilization which takes into account both the spiritual and material dimensions of human life.​

Do you have contemporary evidence to show that "God summoned Bahá’u’lláh to deliver a new Revelation to humanity?

 

[ecco]

There is no reliable history outside the Qur'an. Accounts of Muhammad's life weren't written down until centuries later.

So none of the stories of Muhammad and Medina and Mecca are not based on reliable history.
So none of the stories of how Muhammad spread his religion are not based on reliable history.


So then there is nothing to support the concept that Muhammad is a "messenger of god" outside what he himself wrote.

 

[Hank77]

Where did you copy and paste that quote from the history of Muhammad from?

I have looked but I cannot find where I have quoted anything. ???

"HANK77: "Your response failed to address “warriorswho survived battle benefited from the loot, women, and slaves they captured” which was the important part in response to your “He prohibited the targeting of non-combatants including women children and the elderly”."
​

He may have allowed that. Standard practice for conquering armies at the time. I dont expect someone from a medieval tribal warrior society to practice standards of war that have only recently been implemented in some modern societies. This event doesn't mean that Muslims are supposed to kill non combatants in war nor does it mean they are supposed to start aggressive wars.

That post, the quote about the warriors, was not mine. I didn't comment on it either.

 

[Hank77]

There is no reliable history outside the Qur'an. Accounts of Muhammad's life weren't written down until centuries later.

That is what you believe but that is not helpful seeing there are thousands and thousands of Muslims who do believe other writings such as the volumes of the hadith, especially the Sunni, if I remember correctly.

 

[ecco]

And apparently that is what you are confusing Muhammad and the Qur'an with the Bible.

Nope.

Slavery might well be an alternative to starvation, but unlike the Tanakh, the Shariah prohibits killing the elderly, whether male or female. Nor can you kill boys that have not yet reached puberty. Yes, sexual relations with slave are legitimate in Islam, but that makes her children also legitimate. And no, you can't just rape women willy-nilly.

Who wrote the Sharia?

God?
God as interpreted by Muhammad?
God as interpreted by Muhammad as interpreted by his various followers?
​

I have no idea why you inject a term like willy-nilly into a discussion about rape.

But, yes, apparently you can rape captive women.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Muhammad/myths-mu-rape.htm

This hadith provides the context for the Qur’anic verse (4:24):



The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives.

Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse: (Sura 4:24) "And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess." (Abu Dawud 2150, also Muslim 3433)



Actually, as the hadith indicates, it wasn't Muhammad, but "Allah the Exalted" who told the men to rape the women in front of their husbands -



004.024

YUSUFALI: Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath Allah ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property,- desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.
​

 

[smaneck]

Do you have contemporary evidence to show that "God summoned Bahá’u’lláh to deliver a new Revelation to humanity?

LOL. Claims to revelation can never be proved historically, because God and revelation are not subject to historical verification. But that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about your assertion that "Muhammad did begin hostilities in order to spread his religion and gain power – repeatedly and often." Theoretically that would be verifiable, except the Qur'an is the only contemporary source we have to the life of Muhammad.

 

[smaneck]

That is what you believe but that is not helpful seeing there are thousands and thousands of Muslims who do believe other writings such as the volumes of the hadith, especially the Sunni, if I remember correctly.

Yes, there is a method by which Muslims claim to be able to determine the likely authenticity of ahadith. However, Salafis which includes most jihadist groups hold that a weak hadith is preferable to the strongest reason.

 

[smaneck]

Who wrote the Sharia?

God?
God as interpreted by Muhammad?
God as interpreted by Muhammad as interpreted by his various followers?​

The 'ulama interpret the shariah. If they are Sunni they determine the shariah using four sources:

1. The Qur'an
2. Hadith
3. Analogical reason
4. The consensus of the community of scholars.

Shi'ites would deny the validity of the fourth source and they would not agree with Sunnis as to which ahadith to accept.
​

But, yes, apparently you can rape captive women.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Muhammad/myths-mu-rape.htm

This hadith provides the context for the Qur’anic verse (4:24):



The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives.

Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse: (Sura 4:24) "And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess." (Abu Dawud 2150, also Muslim 3433)



Actually, as the hadith indicates, it wasn't Muhammad, but "Allah the Exalted" who told the men to rape the women in front of their husbands -​

That does not sound at all like a valid hadith. Allah doesn't talk directly to people and the verse in question while allowing for sexual relations with slaves does not say anything about raping them in front of their husbands. Even ISIS doesn't do that. While infamous for enslaving women and selling them as concubines, in the case of married women they always wait four months. I would not accept anything from that hate blog you are using.

​

 

[smaneck]

So none of the stories of Muhammad and Medina and Mecca are not based on reliable history.
So none of the stories of how Muhammad spread his religion are not based on reliable history.

Sure. The ones based on the Qur'an are reliable.

So then there is nothing to support the concept that Muhammad is a "messenger of god" outside what he himself wrote.

Muhammad was illiterate.

 

[Hank77]

Muhammad was illiterate.

Does the Quran say that he was illiterate?

 

[AionPhanes]

I have looked but I cannot find where I have quoted anything. ???

That post, the quote about the warriors, was not mine. I didn't comment on it either.

I see. I apologize for mixing up posts.

 

[Hank77]

I see. I apologize for mixing up posts.

Thank you, but there is no need to apologize, I've gotten confused before too.

 

[smaneck]

Does the Quran say that he was illiterate?

Not directly. It is true that ahadith often provide context to the Qur'an. The first surah that was revealed is the Surah of 'Alaq which begins with the word "Read!" and Muhammad answers "I don't know how to read." But since the Qur'an does not include Muhammad's words the "I don't know how to read" is not found there.

 

[Hank77]

Not directly. It is true that ahadith often provide context to the Qur'an. The first surah that was revealed is the Surah of 'Alaq which begins with the word "Read!" and Muhammad answers "I don't know how to read." But since the Qur'an does not include Muhammad's words the "I don't know how to read" is not found there.

But the hadith cannot be trusted? Or it can be trusted for things one wants to trust it for but not what they don't like?
Hmm...puzzling, no wonder there is so much confusion.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

But the hadith cannot be trusted? Or it can be trusted for things one wants to trust it for but not what they don't like?
Hmm...puzzling, no wonder there is so much confusion.

There was a trend which developed from the nineteenth century German scholarship which read all the Hadith's as unreliable but contemporary historians of religion would tend to see them as general sources of history. Historical sources don't get trusted or ignored because of whether or not the historian "likes" the stories in question, historical sources get "used" in order for the historian to provide a clear, convincing and reasonable interpretation of the historical data. This means method, method and even more method.

 

[Hank77]

There was a trend which developed from the nineteenth century German scholarship which read all the Hadith's as unreliable but contemporary historians of religion would tend to see them as general sources of history. Historical sources don't get trusted or ignored because of whether or not the historian "likes" the stories in question, historical sources get "used" in order for the historian to provide a clear, convincing and reasonable interpretation of the historical data. This means method, method and even more method.

Not referring to historians but to the Muslims who use the hadith.

 

[smaneck]

But the hadith cannot be trusted? Or it can be trusted for things one wants to trust it for but not what they don't like?
Hmm...puzzling, no wonder there is so much confusion.

Muslims mostly judge the reliability of a hadith by reputation of those who transmitted the story (isnad.) A hadith is deemed only as reliable as its weakest link. But have you ever played telephone? Whatever ends up at the other end is never the same as what you started with. On the other hand, ahadith are our only source which gives context to the Qur'an so we can't do without in completely. I would like to see a new science of hadith evolve, not such much for legal reasons but rather as part of the search for the historical Muhammad. We know slightly more about Him than we do Jesus historically speaking, but not that much more. However, better methodologies have evolved for biblical studies and I'd like to see higher criticism applied to ahadith as well.