Trusting Mohammed

[Amoz]

...so if revelations dont last for all times why do muslims believe mohammed is the last prophet?

It says so in the Quran:

[033:040] Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Apostle of God, and the Seal of the Prophets: and God has full knowledge of all things.

Revelations don’t stand for all times except the Quran as it is the last, none will come to correct it if it is corrupted and thus it must stay intact.

If God knows everything... and again and again people kept screwing up, why not just send one revelation in the beginning that could never be corrupted?

I don’t have an answer to this question, I don’t think anyone does. Only God knows. If I had to give an opinion, I’d say to let human beings know their limitations, that they are not capable of carrying this burden. To let them know they cannot even protect words in a book except by his will (as per verse 15:09).

Jeremiah 8 is talking about the isrealites screwing up and ignoring God's laws... so he is going to punish him. The correct renduring of Jeremiah 8:8 is "How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain."

I read Jeremiah 8 in several bibles including the Arabic one and they do not give the rendering you gave, however others did. But we’ll leave that one for another day.

Peace

 

[Snowbunny]

Gracias

 

[NASAg03]

Because times change and rules change accordingly. One scripture may have not been appropriate for all places and times until the time of the revelation of the Quran. Until then, scriptures where for specific people at specific times.

Wrong. You're not holding the same set of standards to the Bible as the Quran. In one instance you state that God gave us the Quran because times & rules change accordingly and the Bible was outdated. Then you say that the Quran is God's final revelation and nothing will come after it because it is His perfect word.

You are completely contradicting yourself, along with God.

Why would God give us one book that needs revision and changes, and then give us one what never needs revisions and changes? I would argue that humans need the same set of rules today as they did 6000 years ago. I also believe God has the same set of standards and is unchanging, and therefor His words will never change or need updating.

The scriptures were NOT for specific people at specific times. They were for God's chosen people, for ALL times. Christ then came and made God's promise available to all people of the world, not just Jews.

Three is not the magic number. God gave us many opportunities to correct our ways, he sent messengers to correct existing scriptures, In Jeremiah 8:8, it is clear that corruption to the scriptures has taken place and consequently it should have been corrected by later prophets (I assume)

He didn't send prophets to correct or update the Law. God never said that in the OT. God sent is prophets to re-establish and uphold the Law. He sent prophets to remind His people what the Law states, and that His people should be following the Law.

God also sent Jesus with new laws/scriptures to update the existing scriptures. If one scripture was good enough then Jesus would have been unnecessary.

Peace

Did Jesus ever write a Book of Law & Scriptures?

He didn't come to update any Laws or Scriptures. He FULFILLED the existing Law and Prophecies as only God could, and He established a New Covenant between us and God.

 

[Islam_mulia]

Start with #1.

How does the Bible prove that God must send a prophet (Mohammed), who says that God's word has been corrupted because of man and is now delivering the TRUE word of God?

It seems Mohammed has discounted the very thing that proves his authenticity. I started this thread because I mentioned this very thing in another thread, and suddenly it died off.

Most Muslims state that God used Mohammed deliver a true, perfect, uncorrupted book as God's Word. He did this because God's previous words had been corrupted by man.

If that is the case, then all the past words and prophesies in the OT & Bible have also been corruptedand cannot be trusted, including those that prophesy about Mohammed.

You can't discredit part of scripture as corrupt because it's authored by man, and then use other scripture that supports your prophet.

If God cannot ensure the truth of His word, then all recorded prophesies and laws are worthless.

I believe you dont undertsand what Muslims meant by 'corruption' of your Book.

If you had the original book (Injeel) and add and delete words to the original book, then you could say the original book was 'corrupted'.

But that is not what Muslims had in mind. Whwn we mentioned 'corruption' of your book, we are referring to things written by scribes who put in the messages (not the exact words, not the ayats) of the Injeel and the life and actions of Jesus (as he heard or remembered from those before him) into a Book or books. The scribes call this book the Gospels.

The difference here is that the Gospels are not based on the original book, the Injeel (the bible does not state that the Gospel of Christ was written during his lifetime). It is thus not a 'corruption' of the Injeel, the Gospels you have is just another book (which contains the messages of the Injeel plus others).

As to your concern that the 'words of God can be changed', nope the words of God do not change. The Injeel is still the Injeel.

Hope the above clarifies

 

[DigenisAkritas]

Why should I believe Mohammed is a prophet of God and that he brought forth the true word of God?

I mean, what basis do I have to believe that this man is really a prophet of God, and that the book he wrote is from an angle of God and not from him, his scribe, or Satan?

Well, he certainly assasinated quite a lot of people who dared to oppose him.....

 

[Snowbunny]

oh dear... this is not going to do...

maybe we shouldnt respond to mr akritas until he controls himself better...

 

[Amoz]

Wrong. You're not holding the same set of standards to the Bible as the Quran. In one instance you state that God gave us the Quran because times & rules change accordingly and the Bible was outdated. Then you say that the Quran is God's final revelation and nothing will come after it because it is His perfect word.

You are completely contradicting yourself, along with God.

There is no contradiction here. I never said that the same rules apply to the Quran as other scriptures. The last revelation has to have a special status (i.e. incorruptible & permanent) as it will last until the end of time. The same is not true of previous scriptures.

Why would God give us one book that needs revision and changes, and then give us one what never needs revisions and changes?

Because it is the last one, it is the last revision and change if you like.

I would argue that humans need the same set of rules today as they did 6000 years ago. I also believe God has the same set of standards and is unchanging, and therefor His words will never change or need updating.

What about times and places where a certain set of rules was needed and then later on they were not. Doesn’t your bible say that God made some things unlawful to Jews because they transgressed? Did not Christianity make things lawful that were not lawful before according to the law of God. I agree that there is a set of rules that is unchangeable but others are according to the time and place.

The scriptures were NOT for specific people at specific times. They were for God's chosen people, for ALL times. Christ then came and made God's promise available to all people of the world, not just Jews.

I don’t believe that this was the case, but we’ll leave this one for another day.

Did Jesus ever write a Book of Law & Scriptures?

I don’t know about writing them, but he delivered a new message without a doubt, not very different from the existing one but not the same nevertheless. New message = new laws and/or rules (Christians and Jews do not follow the same rules after all, do they?).

Peace

 

[NASAg03]

I believe you dont undertsand what Muslims meant by 'corruption' of your Book.

If you had the original book (Injeel) and add and delete words to the original book, then you could say the original book was 'corrupted'.

But that is not what Muslims had in mind. Whwn we mentioned 'corruption' of your book, we are referring to things written by scribes who put in the messages (not the exact words, not the ayats) of the Injeel and the life and actions of Jesus (as he heard or remembered from those before him) into a Book or books. The scribes call this book the Gospels.

The difference here is that the Gospels are not based on the original book, the Injeel (the bible does not state that the Gospel of Christ was written during his lifetime). It is thus not a 'corruption' of the Injeel, the Gospels you have is just another book (which contains the messages of the Injeel plus others).

As to your concern that the 'words of God can be changed', nope the words of God do not change. The Injeel is still the Injeel.

Hope the above clarifies

Where is this Injeel? Is the Injeel contained within the Quran?

If only the account of Christ was corrupted, then only the Quran should have only been written to correct the NT. However, the Quran also contains an update to the OT and changes to the OT.

This means that the OT was also corrupt, or outdated. If the OT has been corrupted, then so have the prophesies contained within. If they prophesies cannot be trusted, then the alleged prophesies about Mohammed cannot be trusted, and Mohammed cannot be trusted.

As I've already stated, because the Quran contradicts the "corrupt book of the people", the prophesies contained with the Book cannot be used to support Mohammed and prove he is a Prophet of God.

End of story.

You don't discredit the very evidence, and only evidence, that proves they are sent by God.

 

[NASAg03]

What about times and places where a certain set of rules was needed and then later on they were not. Doesn’t your bible say that God made some things unlawful to Jews because they transgressed? Did not Christianity make things lawful that were not lawful before according to the law of God. I agree that there is a set of rules that is unchangeable but others are according to the time and place.

I wouldn't say thing we do now are lawful, but rather permissable. Although things may be permissable for me, they are not profitable.

I believe God set out many of the rules for His people, and there are reasons for those rules, to promote health and wellness of His people (no pork, rest on the 7th day, etc).

I don’t know about writing them, but he delivered a new message without a doubt, not very different from the existing one but not the same nevertheless. New message = new laws and/or rules (Christians and Jews do not follow the same rules after all, do they?).

Peace

I agree, Christ did provide us with a New Covenant, but that convenant was built upon the previous Law and Prophesies.

Christ's great commandment was to love the Lord our God with all our mind, spirit, and strength; and love our neighbor as our self. All the teachings Law and Prophets
are built on this commandment.

 

[Liberate]

oh dear... this is not going to do...

maybe we shouldnt respond to mr akritas until he controls himself better...

I do not see Akritas crime that is so bad, what he has said is vouched by islam,
these are some of the people killed/ordered to be killed by Mohammed, some for mocking him, some
little children:

The proof of the necessity of killing anyone who
curses the Prophet or finds fault with him
The Qur'an says that Allah curses the one who harms the Prophet in this world
and He connected harm of Himself to harm of the Prophet. There is no dispute
that anyone who curses Allah is killed and that his curse demands that he be
categorised as an unbeliever. The judgement of the unbeliever is that he is
killed.
Allah says, "Those who harm Allah and His Messenger, Allah has cursed them in
this world and in the Next, and has prepared for them a humiliating punishment."
(33:57). He said something similar about those who kill the believers. Part of
the curse on them in this world is that they are killed. Allah says, "Cursed
they will be. Wherever they are found, they are seized and all slain." (33: 61)
He mentions the punishment of those who fight, "That is humiliation in this
world for them." (5:45) "Killing" (qatl) can have the meaning of "curse".[6]
Allah says, "May the conjecturers be killed!" (51:11) and "May Allah fight them!
How they are perverted!" (9:30) i.e. may Allah curse them.
This is because there is a difference between their harming Allah and His
Messenger and harming the believers. Injuring the believers, short of murder,
incurs beating and exemplary punishment. The judgement against those who harm
Allah and His Prophet is more severe - the death penalty.
Allah says, "No, by your Lord, they will not believe until they have you judge
between them in what they disagree about." (4:65) He removes the badge of belief
from those who find an impediment in themselves against accepting the Prophet’s
judgement and do not submit to him. Anyone who disparages him is opposing his
judgement.
Allah says, "O you who believe, do not raise your voices above the voice of the
Prophet and be not loud in your speech to him as you are loud to one another
lest your actions fail." (49:3). Such an action only comes about through
disbelief and the unbeliever is killed.
Allah says, "When they come to you, they greet you with a greeting which Allah
never greeted you with." Then He says, "Jahannam is enough for them, an evil
homecoming." (58:9)
Allah says, "Among them are those who harm the Prophet and say that he is all
ear," (9:61) and, "Those who harm the Messenger of Allah have a painful
punishment." (9:63)
Allah says, "If you ask them, they will say, 'We were only plunging and
playing.' Say, 'What, were you then mocking Allah, His signs and His Messenger?
Make no excuses. You have disbelieved after your belief."' (9:67-68) The
commentators say, "You have disbelieved" refers to what they have said about the
Messenger of Allah.

We have already mentioned the consensus. As for the traditions, al-Husayn ibn
'Ali related from his father that the Messenger of Allah said in respect of this
matter, "Whoever curses a Prophet, kill him. Whoever curses my Companions, beat
him."[7]
In a sound hadith the Prophet commanded that Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf be killed. He
asked, "Who will deal with Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf? He has harmed Allah and His
Messenger." He sent someone to assassinate him without calling him to Islam, in
distinction to other idol-worshippers. The cause of that lay in his causing harm
to the Prophet. That indicates that the Prophet had him killed for something
other than idol-worship. It was for causing harm. Abu Rafi,' who used to harm
the Messenger of Allah and work against him, was also killed.
Similarly on the Day of the Conquest, he ordered the killing of Ibn Khatal and
his two slavegirls who used to sing his curses on the Prophet.
In another hadith about a man who used to curse the Prophet, the Prophet said,
"Who will save me from my enemy?" Khalid said, "I will," so the Prophet sent him
out and he killed him.
Similarly the Prophet commanded that a group of unbelievers who used to injure
and curse him, like an-Nadr ibn al-Harith and 'Uqba ibn Abi Mu'ayt, be killed.
He promised that a group of them would be killed before and after the conquest.
They were all killed except for those who hurried to become Muslim before they
were overpowered. Al-Bazzar related from Ibn 'Abbas that 'Uqba ibn Abi Mu'ayt
cried out, "O company of Quraysh, why is it that I alone among you am to be
killed without war?" The Prophet said, "For your disbelief and your forging lies
against the Messenger of Allah."
'Abdu'r-Razzaq mentioned that a man cursed the Prophet, causing the Prophet to
say, "Who will save me from my enemy?" Az-Zubayr said, "I will." He sent
az-Zubayr and he killed him.
It is related that a woman used to curse the Prophet and he said, "Who will save
me from my enemy?" Khalid ibn al-Walid went out and killed her.
It is related that a man forged lies against the Prophet and he sent 'Ali and
az-Zubayr to kill him.
Ibn Qani' related that a man came to the Prophet and said, "Messenger of Allah,
I heard my father say something ugly about you, so I killed him," and that did
not distress the Prophet.
Al-Mujahir ibn Abi Umayya, the Amir of Yemen, reported to Abu Bakr that a woman
there in the time of the Ridda[8]chanted curses against the Prophet, so he cut
off her hand and pulled out her front teeth. When Abu Bakr heard that, he said
to him, "If you had not done what you already did, I would have commanded you to
kill her because the hadd regarding the Prophet is not like the hadd regarding
others."
Ibn 'Abbas said that a woman from Khatma[9] satirised the Prophet and the
Prophet said, "Who will deal with her for me?" A man from her people said, "I
will, Messenger of Allah." The man got up and went and killed her. He told the
Prophet who said, "Two goats will not lock horns over her."[10]
Ibn 'Abbas said that a blind man had an umm walad who used to curse the Prophet.
He scolded her and restrained her, but she would not be restrained. That night
she began to attack and revile the Prophet, so he killed her. He told the
Prophet about that and he said he had shed her blood with impunity.[11]
......
... Anyone who curses or disparages the Prophet has shown clear symptoms of the
sickness of his heart and proof of his real convictions and belief ...

http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/alshifa/pt4ch1sec2.htm

This is a fatwa to understand the mindset that makes a muslim so volatile they would cause riots over cartoons of Mohammed, bear in mind to a muslim the mere
fact of questioning islam, Mohammed or any facet of islam is grounds for conflict.

question
Yesterday when I was with some people, I heard them saying that there is a
Hadeeth that says (If a person insults the Prophet, sallallaahu
alayhi wa sallam, "Waliyazu Billah" the Hokum should be Yostatab and when he
does he also should be killed) even after Tawba. Is that Hadeeth
exist and is there any Fatwa or explanation?
answer




All perfect praise be to Allaah, The Lord of the Worlds. I testify that there is
none worthy of worship except Allaah, and that Muhammad is His slave and
Messenger, may Allaah exalt his mention as well as that of his family and all
his companions.


No doubt that insulting the Prophet, sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam, or
degrading
him is disbelief that takes the Muslim out of the fold Islam. Allaah Says
(which means): {And if you ask them, they will surely say, “We were only
conversing and playing.” Say, “Is it Allaah and His verses and His Messenger
that you were mocking?” Make no excuse; you have disbelieved [i.e. rejected
faith] after your belief.}[Quran 9:65-66]. This is sound evidence that
insulting or mocking Allaah, His verses or the Prophet, sallallaahu alayhi wa
sallam, is disbelief. There are many other proofs to this ruling.
Muhammad Ibn Sahnoon, may Allaah have mercy on him, said: 'All
the scholars of
Islam agreed that the person who insults the Prophet, sallallaahu alayhi wa
sallam, or belittles him is a disbeliever.' Al-Qaadhi Iyaadh, may
Allaah have
mercy on him, said in this respect: 'Know that anyone who insults
the Prophet,
sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam, or demeans him or accuses him of any shortcomings
in his own self, or his lineage, or his religion, or any of his characteristics,
or makes innuendoes about him, or compares him to anything in a negative way
that implies mockery or insulting or degrading his status or disparaging him or
insulting him will have the ruling of the person who mocks the Prophet,
sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam, (stated above) applicable to him.
This is the
consensus of the companions of the Prophet, sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam, and
all the scholars the era of the companions onwards.'
As for what you mentioned as a Hadeeth we do not know it as such. In fact, the
scholars of Islam although unanimously agree that the person who mocks the
Prophet, sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam, is a disbeliever, yet they
disagree on
whether he should be asked to repent from this obnoxious sin during three days
and killed after this period, or whether he should be killed without being given
any time for repentance. They also disagree on whether he should be forgiven if
he repents or should be killed anyway.
Imaam Maalik is of the opinion that 'The person who mocks the
Prophet,
sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam, should be killed without any period for repentance
be that person a Muslim or a disbeliever.' Imaam Al-Awzaa'ee and
Imaam Layth,
may Allaah have mercy on them, are of the opinion that 'He should
be given a
three-day period for repentance, but should be killed without delay if he/she is
non-Muslim.'
On the other hand, some scholars think that the Muslim who mocks the Prophet,
sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam, apostates and should be treated accordingly.
So
if he repents his repentance is accepted and should not be killed.
Other
scholars think that his repentance is not accepted and should be killed even
after repenting. A third group of scholars differentiate between
slander and
mere insulting and think that the slanderer should be killed while the insulter
is not to be killed if he repents. There is a long debate over this issue in
the Books of Fiqh.
Allaah Knows best.

http://islamweb.net/ver2/Istisharat/ShowFatwa.php?lang=E&Id=9154&Option=FatwaId

So the options are to be killed or given a few days grace to change your mind, and then be killed, or be killed anyway. Do bear in mind my reasons for posting the above, is not for anyone to hate muslims, it would be unchristianlike for any christian to hate muslims, we are to hate the sin and not the sinner, I simply want muslims to apply the same amount of scrutiny to their own religion as they do others, we should not hide the truth.

 

[Snowbunny]

...i wasnt aware of any of this

 

[Islam_mulia]

Where is this Injeel? Is the Injeel contained within the Quran?

If only the account of Christ was corrupted, then only the Quran should have only been written to correct the NT. However, the Quran also contains an update to the OT and changes to the OT.

This means that the OT was also corrupt, or outdated. If the OT has been corrupted, then so have the prophesies contained within. If they prophesies cannot be trusted, then the alleged prophesies about Mohammed cannot be trusted, and Mohammed cannot be trusted.

As I've already stated, because the Quran contradicts the "corrupt book of the people", the prophesies contained with the Book cannot be used to support Mohammed and prove he is a Prophet of God.

End of story.

You don't discredit the very evidence, and only evidence, that proves they are sent by God.

The messages of both the Taurat and the Injeel can still be found in your book. In between your book, you will find the prophecies of Muhammad (pbuh).

The Quran has superceded both the Taurat and the Injeel in bringing forth a message for all mankind (not just for a particular people).

The replacement and refinement of the old teachings and scriptures with something new are also taught in the bible itself. The Sermon of the Mount, for example, shows that Jesus made changes to the Torah, such as "you have heard..." with "But I say to you....".

 

[DigenisAkritas]

Give some references or shut yur gob

Mohammed, Assassinations, and Beheadings


By Randall A. Terry

These are excerpts of a larger work that compares the lives, teachings, and early disciples of Christ and Mohammed. This section deals primarily with Mohammed.

...the vast majority of Americans have little or no knowledge of the Mohammed. The central themes of his teachings are a mystery to us, and his life is even more alien to our experience. If a clever trendsetter tried to create a bracelet that said, "What would Mohammed do?” it would at best be seen as a prank—perhaps a kind of political comic relief. In reality, most Americans wouldn't have a clue what Mohamed would do.
Mohammed's vision of the Almighty and His specific directives are central to our entire discussion. As Christ is the central figure, hero, and example of the Christian faith, Mohammed is the central figure, hero, and example of the Islamic faith. Doing the will of Allah as revealed to Mohammed is the duty of all Muslims; exploring that will is the duty of all those who want to understand Islam; finding Mohammed’s life and voice will give clarity to the events of the Islamic world.
In that light, it must be asked and answered in deadly earnest: What would Mohammed do? To know what he would do, we must study what he did…Let us now view some of those emissaries who took Mohammed's mission to new depths of violence….
Ibn Ishaq recounts the killing of "the enemy of God" named Ka'b son of al-Ashraf. (See page 365 ff) After Badr, Ka'b "began to inveigh against the apostle…" He wrote and declared verses of poetry that were insulting to Mohammed and Islamic women. Mohammed said, "Who will rid me of the son of Ashraf?" Muhammad son of Maslama said, 'I will deal with them for you, O apostle of God, I will kill him.' He said, 'Do so if you can.'" Mohammed then gave the assassin permission to lie and deceive the target of his wrath. Amazingly, the killer recruited the victim's foster brother, who had become a Muslim. Together, with the foster brother having the victim's confidence, they led him on a midnight stroll pretending to visit and conduct business with him. On signal, they lunged on him. The assassin reported: "I thrust [my dagger] into the lower part of his body, then I bore down upon it until I reached his genitals, and the enemy of God fell to the ground... Our attack upon God's enemy cast terror among the Jews, and there was no Jew in Medina who did not fear for his life" (368, Ibn Ishaq)
It appears that in addition to Mohammed’s violence against the polytheists of Mecca, a sudden anti-Semitic rage emerged from his heart. For example, Ibn Ishaq records the following: "The apostle said, 'Kill any Jew that falls into your power.' Thereupon Muhayyisa son of Mas'ud leapt upon Ibn Sunayna, a Jewish merchant with whom he had social and business relations, and killed him."
The assassin's older brother's name was Huwayyisa; he was outraged that his younger brother had murdered his business and social associate. Ishaq says, "When Muhayyisa killed him Huwayyisa [the older brother] began to beat him, saying, 'You enemy of God, did you kill him when much of the fat on your belly comes from his wealth?'" His brother answered, ‘Had the one who ordered me to kill him ordered me to kill you I would have cut your head off...’” The older brother replied, "'By God, if Mohammed had ordered you to kill me would you have killed me?' He said, 'Yes, by God, had he ordered me to cut off your head I would have done so.' He exclaimed, 'By God, a religion which can bring you to this is marvelous!' and he became a Muslim."
This chilling account shows a direct connection between the assassination of an innocent man and the "conversion" of an unbeliever. It was not the content of Mohammed's message that convinced this man, but it was the passionate obedience of his younger brother that shocked him into the Islamic faith. He knew that if this faith could cause his younger brother to murder him, then Islam was something to be dreaded and obeyed. We see the direct connection between the emissary, his sword, someone’s death, and someone else’s conversion.
This pattern is again displayed in the following two assassinations. A man named Abu 'Afak was upset when Mohammed killed a man ‘Afak respected, so he (Abu 'Afak) spoke out against Mohammed with verses of poetry. Mohammed said the oft repeated words, "Who will deal with this rascal for me?" whereupon one of his associates went and murdered the man. (Ibn Ishaq, 675)
Tragically, we shall now see that women are not exempt from this type treatment. When Abu 'Afak was assassinated for publicly speaking against Mohammed's killing of another man, Asma daughter of Marwan spoke out against Abu 'Afak's murder. Ishaq records: "When the apostle heard what she had said he said, 'who will rid me of Marwan's daughter?' Umayr... who was with him heard him, and that very night he went to her house and killed her. In the morning he came to the apostle and told him what he had done and he said, 'You have helped God and his apostle, O Umayr!' When he asked if he would have to bear any evil consequences the apostle said, 'Two goats won't but their heads about her...'" (Ibn Ishaq, 675)
Her murder caused a great commotion amongst her friends and family and the people of her Tribe, the Khatma. As is the pattern and intent, Ibn Ishaq says that her murder led to the conversion of many unbelievers. He states, "She had five sons, and when Umayr went to them from the apostle he said, 'I have killed the daughter of Marwan, O sons of Khatma. Withstand me if you can; don't keep me waiting.' That was the first day that Islam became powerful among the tribe of Khatma... the day after the daughter of Marwan was killed the men of Khatma became Muslims because they saw the power of Islam." (Ibn Ishaq, 676)
…And lest anyone think that Mohammed did not sully his own hands with the blood of his enemies, Ibn Ishaq lets us know that Mohammed possessed prisoners after the battle of Uhud that he "killed with his own hand." (Ibn Ishaq, 403) The histories I have read give little detail about the event, but they record it, as well as Mohammed’s pride when he told his daughter that his sword “served him well” that day. This is a key incident (as is the one that follows) because it shows Mohammed himself, not merely killing in battle, but then killing prisoners and hostages.
…The last illustration I will relay is the tragic story of the Jewish tribe of the Qurayza. These Jewish families lived in the Medina area, and had coexisted with Mohammed for a few short years in relative peace. Their leader secretly joined a Confederacy against Mohammed which ended up amounting to nothing. None of the Jews in question bore arms against Mohammed in battle.
The Jews surrendered, and agreed to allow Mohammed to appointment of a referee to negotiate a settlement between them and the Muslims. (Mohammed had offered them the chance to them to become Muslims and thereby avoid all ramifications, but they refused the offer.) The Jews anticipated that they would lose their property, and be allowed to emigrate from Medina into Syria or perhaps another neighboring country. This was the fate that other Jews had suffered--they lost their lands, but kept their lives.
The Muslim referee specifically obtained a promise from Mohammed that Mohammed himself would honor his decision concerning the Jews of Qurayza. Once Mohammed agreed, the referee pronounced his verdict: "Then I give judgment that the men should be killed, the property divided, and the women and children taken as captives." Ibn Ishaq, 464) Mohammed's response was again pivotal in the theology, history, and the spread of Islam for centuries to come. He stated in the presence of all who had gathered: "You have given the judgment of Allah above the seven heavens." (Ibn Ishaq, 464)
The narration continues: “Then the apostle went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought up to him in batches. Among them was the enemy of Allah Huyayy son of Akhtab and Ka'b son of Asad their chief. There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900. As they were being taken out in batches to the apostle they asked Ka'b what he thought would be done with them. He replied, 'Will you never understand? Don't you see that the summoner never stops and those who are taken away do not return? By Allah it is death!' This went on until the apostle made an end of them." (Ibn Ishaq, 464)
Such an event must either be heralded or hidden, respected or rejected. But it cannot be ignored or glossed over. Every ancient Islamic historian embraces this atrocity as a great victory for Islam. The Quran itself-- the book which Mohammed declared and Muslims believe possesses the very words of God--heralds this massacre as a glorious testament to the expansion of Islam. The Quran states: "And he caused those people of the book (the Jews), who aided the Confederates, to come down out of their fortresses, and cast dismay into their hearts: some ye slew, others ye took prisoners. And he gave you their land, and their dwellings, and their wealth, for an heritage--even a land on which ye had never set foot: for the might of God is equal to all things." (Sura 33: 26,27)
The sight and the stench of their blood would have been overwhelming; the picture of hundreds of lifeless old men, handsome young teenagers, strong fathers and husbands—decapitated—with their lifeless bodies being pushed into a ditch—this is reminiscent of scenes from the WWII holocaust.
Forgive the gruesome nature of this picture, but in order to accurately assess the horrific nature of the slaughter just repeated to you, (and extolled in the Quran,) one must picture the magnitude of what took place. Mohammed is squarely at the center of the event. The passage quoted from Ibn Ishaq says the apostle dug the ditch and struck off their heads; the apostle made an end of them. Mohammed was not a bystander, helplessly watching an angry mob gone out of control; he was an active participant in this massacre—for the glory of Allah.
Children became orphans and they were sold as slaves. Women became widows, and were robbed of their husbands, their children, and their homes in a single moment of time. They too became slaves and chattel property. And in keeping with his pattern, Mohammed took one of the widows as his sex slave.
Whereas the respected Islamic historians and theologians of centuries past (al-Tabiri, Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Kathir) warmly embrace and extol this event as a great victory for Islam, many current writers ignore it. One current Islamic historian called it an “unfortunate event;” another said Mohammed “…taught them a lesson.”
It is doubtful this is because they believe that this slaughter was an atrocious act worthy of condemnation—otherwise they would forsake or denounce Islam; more likely it is because they know that the average human mind in today's world--whether Islamic or not--simply cannot accept that this was a righteous act, “The Judgment of Allah from the seventh heaven…” as Mohammed called it as he proceeded to carry out the executions. It would not make a very good evangelistic tract, nor would it make a great “Bible Story.” “Allah loves you, and has a really great plan for your demise if you do not follow the prophet…” In truth, the horrifyingly brutal manner in which Mohammed dealt with these noncombatants is something that could cause nominal Muslims to reconsider or reject their faith.
And for the sake of clarity and emphasis, we must understand that the Quran glorifies this event as something that Allah did for the Muslim community. Read the passage again: "And he [Allah] caused those people of the book (the Jews), who aided the Confederates, to come down out of their fortresses, and cast dismay into their hearts: some ye slew, others ye took prisoners. And he gave you their land, and their dwellings, and their wealth, for an heritage--even a land on which ye had never set foot: for the might of God is equal to all things." (Sura 33: 26,27)
This event is central to Muslim doctrine, and hence the theocentric [God-centered]—Mohammed textured—Muslim mind. This “unfortunate event;” this “lesson” that Mohammed “taught the Jews” could have been ignored by the Quran. Indeed, not every slaughter and battle and assassination in which Mohammed took part or authorized has a Quranic revelation associated with it. But the fact is clear; the Holy Book of Islam—the word of Allah—flawless in its’ revelation according to the Islamic faith, glorifies this event as the fruit of the might of Allah. And the slaughter of Jewish men, the spoiling of their goods, the enslaving of their children and wives by the Muslims was a righteous act before God.

The implications of this for us are nearly endless. If one wants to truly believe in Islam, one must accept this slaughter as a part of the very fiber of Islam. This is a building block, part of the Quranic and historic foundation of how the faith was established; how it conquered the other faiths in Arabia in the lifetime of Mohammed.
This event serves as a lesson and a warning. We see an offer to believe in and accept Mohammed as the messenger of God, (which the Jews rejected), followed by the slaughter of innocent non-combatants (which we have recently seen is completely acceptable to the devout Muslim mind), the theft of their property and the enslavement of their families (which is happening today in Sudan and the Pacific rim where Christians are attacked by Muslims.)

 

[DigenisAkritas]

Continued.......

On my recent trip to the Middle East I was dumbfounded to find out that not a single Muslim I spoke with knew about this event; neither did they know about the large number of assassinations Mohammed's authorized. It is important at this point to point out that the vast majority of Muslims probably do not know of this behavior of Mohammed. It is perhaps more critical to assert that most Muslims would likely reject this type of behavior, and would not participate in it under any circumstance.
That being said, there are others in the Islamic world--undoubtedly a minority, but a very powerful and influential minority--that are immersed in Islamic history, Quranic law, and the life and sayings of Mohammed. They know of the assassinations he authorized; they know he ordered hostages to be taken and killed; they know he killed some of them with his own hand; and they believe all of these deeds and words are a righteous display of service to Allah.
In that light, and with their Allah based theocentric mind, they are prepared to wage war and commit assassinations like the founder of their religion. They are well equipped with Quranic passages and detailed stories from the life of Mohammed to invite and incite other young men to follow his teachings and his leadership to the path of martyrdom.
We need to remember that just before the young American Nicholas Berg was decapitated by his Islamic captor, his murderer stated: "Allah has left us an example in the blessed Prophet with the slow cutting of the prisoners’ necks, and the cutting off of their heads." He was a man who knew his Islamic heritage as he answered the question: “What would Mohammed do?”

Sources:

The Life of the Prophet Muhammad. Ibn Kathir. Volume II, Translated by Professor Trevor LeGassick. Garnet publishing.

The Koran. Translated from the Aribic by J.M. Rodwell

The Life of Muhammad. A translation of Ishaq’s Sirat Rasol Allah. Oxford University Press.

Al-Tabari, Volume VIII, New York University Press.

A Short History of Islam, S.F. Mahmud, Oxford University Press.

 

[Snowbunny]

i cant believe somebody would follow a man like this...

 

[DigenisAkritas]

i cant believe somebody would follow a man like this...

You have to remember not all Muslims are like this, only a minority are, it is the good muslims you have to look out for, because they follow the Quran, the vast majority of Muslims are thankfully bad muslims who through their own ignorance of Islam want to live in peace with other people. Here is what Ali Sina says on the matter:

As narcissists, Muslims are paranoid, have victim mentalities, feel humiliated, have explosive personalities, are vengeful, lack empathy, are oblivious of the pain that they cause to others, lack conscience, consider themselves superior to others, demand preferential treatments while they deny the basic human rights of others, are scornful and abusive of others but expect respect and undeserving recognition. They lack self- esteem but are most concerned about their image. It is not that they love themselves, in fact they don't, they are ashamed of themselves but they are in love with their own reflections. What matters to them most is not how they are and how they feel inside but how others see them. The image is more important than true self. Their world is in shambles but they are most concerned to protect the image of Islam. It's all about keeping the appearances.

A few years ago, when criticism of Islam was still a novelty and Muslims had the Internet all to themselves, a Muslim wrote to me and complained that I should not have revealed the fact that Muhammad had slept with a 9-year-old child and ended his email saying ruefully, "the damage is already done". What surprised me was that this Muslim was not bothered by the fact that Muhammad had sex with a 9-year-old child but was disturbed that this news had leaked out to the Internet. For narcissists truth is irrelevant, it is the image that must be preserved.

When their faith is defied and the asininity of their belief becomes manifest; Muslims display supercilious imperturbability and nonchalantly claim, “their faith is strengthened”. Although deeply hurt, they remain unimpressed and cold. This is a typical narcissistic response. Narcissists try to hide their vulnerability and their anger by feigning insouciance, aloofness and remain disimpassioned when criticized and humiliated and when an outburst of violence is not an option. I have receive countless emails from Muslims who "thank me for making their faith in Islam grow".

Muslims do not value personal integrity and do not respect the rights of other people. None of the so-called "Islamic human rights" organizations are concerned about the abysmal rights of non-Muslims in Islamic countries and not even about the human rights abuses of nominal Muslims in Islamic countries. They pop up only in non-Muslim democracies and their sole mission is to wreak havoc when someone criticizes Islam, demand apologies and resignations and make sure that Muslims are treated preferentially.

Muslims have a grandiose sense of self-importance and expect to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements. They are envious of others and believe that others are envious of them. They are arrogant and show haughty behaviors and attitudes. They suffer from a chronic lack of confidence and are fundamentally dissatisfied, but mask this with violence and a ruthless explosive personality, victimizing often those who are most vulnerable and can't retaliate. These were traditionally their wives and children, but now with terrorism, they can victimize everyone and enjoy the sensation of power that this gives them. They seek respect and importance by instilling fear. Their brazen and reckless behavior covers up for a depressive, anxious interior. Their souls are barren landscapes of misery and fears. You may find individual Muslims who do not fall into this mold. But we are talking about general traits and not exceptions.

Muslims are walking scar tissues. They collectively suffer from narcissistic personality disorder because they have entered into Muhammad's psychotic bubble universe, think like him and behave like him. The more they emulate their role model and are influenced by his psychotic mind, the more pathological they become. Living with one narcissist is like living in hell. Imagine having to share this planet with a billion of them. However, since the narcissistic personality disorder of Muslims is a reflection of Muhammad's psychosis, once they leave Islam and are no more influenced by its nefarious effect, they can recover, albeit it requires effort and self-awareness. Likewise, those who convert to Islam, and to the extent that they follow Muhammad, acquire his disorder, become narcissists and even dangerous.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

You have to remember not all Muslims are like this, only a minority are, it is the good muslims you have to look out for, because they follow the Quran, the vast majority of Muslims are thankfully bad muslims who through their own ignorance of Islam want to live in peace with other people.

I will be the first to admit, Digenis, that your ramblings about modern art appear to me deeply unpleasant and frankly appalling, but I have to give credit where credit is due: this is an excellent point.

 

[DigenisAkritas]

I will be the first to admit, Digenis, that your ramblings about modern art appear to me deeply unpleasant and frankly appalling, but I have to give credit where credit is due: this is an excellent point.

Thank you MrGoodBytes.

 

[peaceful soul]

i cant believe somebody would follow a man like this...

Hopefully some of your naive outlooks can be put into proper perspective now. If you simply listen to Muslims and accept all of their explanations of the Qu'ran and hadiths, you will get the impression that Mohammad did no wrong and was perfect - even in his weakest moment.

AnnetteHamilton, wise up a bit. I am not trying to encourage you to think that all Muslims are bad or that you should create any kind of bad view of Muslims. What I am trying to do is to prevent you from looking at only one side of an issue which needs to be seen from both sides. Like I have mentioned to you before, this is the only way that you can honestly and properly conclude about both Mohammad and Islam. It is just as disingenuous to glorify or embellish a personality or ideology than it is to under-report or overly criticze it. Please weigh both sides.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Hopefully some of your naive outlooks can be put into proper perspective now. If you simply listen to Muslims and accept all of their explanations of the Qu'ran and hadiths, you will get the impression that Mohammad did no wrong and was perfect - even in his weakest moment.

AnnetteHamilton, wise up a bit. I am not trying to encourage you to think that all Muslims are bad or that you should create any kind of bad view of Muslims. What I am trying to do is to prevent you from looking at only one side of an issue which needs to be seen from both sides. Like I have mentioned to you before, this is the only way that you can honestly and properly conclude about both Mohammad and Islam. It is just as disingenuous to glorify or embellish a personality or ideology than it is to under-report or overly criticze it. Please weigh both sides.

Yet another excellent point. Is there a pattern emerging?