Trusting Mohammed

[Snowbunny]

I can't believe you believe in all this BS, with half quote of source.

...if you click the link to liberates source it takes you to an islamic webpage showing muslims that insulting mohammed results in death... if you click on the little numbers after each quote it takes you to the source... everything appears legitimate...

 

[Snowbunny]

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.

i dont want to talk about this if it is all the same to you guys... i dont like where this conversation is heading...

 

[peaceful soul]

Yet another excellent point. Is there a pattern emerging?

I don't know, but I do really hate it when Muslims come to the defense of Mohammad when it can easily be seen that things he did were not kosher. We all are guilty of wrongs, but it should never be covered up as righteous like I see too many Muslims do.

The story is always the same: we have taken his actions out of context; we have not read the entire Qu'ran to know what real Islam is about; these accounts can not be trusted because they are not authentic; or the Bible is even worse.

They very seldom want to come to reality as they ewxpect us to when trying to tell us about the Bible. Their eyes are closed to truth and understanding, IMO, when the act like that. It would do them a world of good to start dealing with reality and confess that Mohammad had faults just like we all do and that he did not set a perfect example for all time. He had flaws and no amount of explanations can correct his immorality - not even moral or cultural relativism. Do you think they will?

 

[MrGoodBytes]

i dont want to talk about this if it is all the same to you guys... i dont like where this conversation is heading...

Fair enough. The conversation likes where you are heading, though.

I don't know, but I do really hate it when Muslims come to the defense of Mohammad when it can easily be seen that things he did were not kosher. We all are guilty of wrongs, but it should never be covered up as righteous like I see too many Muslims do.

The story is always the same: we have taken his actions out of context; we have not read the entire Qu'ran to know what real Islam is about; these accounts can not be trusted because they are not authentic; or the Bible is even worse.

Having read both, and from my relatively objective stance as an atheist, I know that the Quran is ten times worse.

They very seldom want to come to reality as they ewxpect us to when trying to tell us about the Bible. Their eyes are closed to truth and understanding, IMO, when the act like that. It would do them a world of good to start dealing with reality and confess that Mohammad had faults just like we all do and that he did not set a perfect example for all time. He had flaws and no amount of explanations can correct his immorality - not even moral or cultural relativism. Do you think they will?

Not really. If there is a significant liberal movement within Islam, I haven't heard of it yet. Then, again, in a Muslim country, I would keep very quiet too.

 

[peaceful soul]

i dont want to talk about this if it is all the same to you guys... i dont like where this conversation is heading...

The conversation does look like it may get quite heated (duck).

The point is for you to not be overly accomodating to their presentations without understanding that there is another side that they will not expose to you. They are, by the teachings of their cultures and religion, suppressors of negative aspects of their religion. This is a fact that anyone who studies their religion and history can come to see. If there are any flaws in their religion, it is due to others and not directly due to the Qu'ran and the hadiths.

I never said they are all the same, but they are following an example that has been set for them per Qu'ran. They are in some ways programmed by their religious environment to believe the way they do and respond the way they do because they are encouraged to see things this way due to what they are fed by their very well respected leaders (scholars, imams, apologist). Maybe the only way that you can come to understand what I am saying is to study more. I am not telling you anything that I can not testify to myself repeatedly.

Anyways, I am going to leave this aspect of discussion alone. I was just trying to help you to see both sides of the picture and be as fair and objective as you can without distorting things. If you rely upon Muslims, unfortunately, you will get a distortion of their prophet. And, that is not an opinion.

 

[Dad00dles]

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.

Yep,

This ******** forum isn't for me.

 

[kynzaro]

I don't know, but I do really hate it when Muslims come to the defense of Mohammad when it can easily be seen that things he did were not kosher. We all are guilty of wrongs, but it should never be covered up as righteous like I see too many Muslims do.

The story is always the same: we have taken his actions out of context; we have not read the entire Qu'ran to know what real Islam is about; these accounts can not be trusted because they are not authentic; or the Bible is even worse.

They very seldom want to come to reality as they ewxpect us to when trying to tell us about the Bible. Their eyes are closed to truth and understanding, IMO, when the act like that. It would do them a world of good to start dealing with reality and confess that Mohammad had faults just like we all do and that he did not set a perfect example for all time. He had flaws and no amount of explanations can correct his immorality - not even moral or cultural relativism. Do you think they will?

You're using "they", the "muslims": you're wrong from the moment you start generalising. Muslims are in no way a homogeneous unit.

You show no respect for Mohammed as a Prophet, while muslims show, and love to show, respect for all Prophets and Messengers.

While personal views are common in forums, providing evidence and using common sense are a must to support your allegations.

 

[DigenisAkritas]

You're using "they", the "muslims": you're wrong from the moment you start generalising. Muslims are in no way a homogeneous unit.

You show no respect for Mohammed as a Prophet, while muslims show, and love to show, respect for all Prophets and Messengers.

While personal views are common in forums, providing evidence and using common sense are a must to support your allegations.

Muslims show respect for what they believe to be the Prophet Jesus in the Quran, who is vastly different from the biblical Jesus who told his followers to 'turn the other cheek'.

 

[peaceful soul]

You're using "they", the "muslims": you're wrong from the moment you start generalising. Muslims are in no way a homogeneous unit.

I have to use "they" because it is they who are guilty as a group - not as individuals. If only one Muslim was guilty, I would be wrong to say they, but since there are very large groups that do as I say, then I am entitled to use "they". I didn't say "every". That makes a big difference.

You show no respect for Mohammed as a Prophet, while muslims show, and love to show, respect for all Prophets and Messengers.

Tell my why I should respect Mohammad and his actions? If we don't agree with someone, are we disrespecting that individual?

While personal views are common in forums, providing evidence and using common sense are a must to support your allegations.

And what common sense am I not using that you are? Is it not common sense to realize that Mohammad had faults just like any other human, rather than watch Muslims repeatedly, glorify him? You do not know the depth of my studies on Islam. I am not fooled by all of the glorious things that Muslims say about their prophet. If you just listen to them, you would think that Mohammad was perfect. I don't buy there claims because I have read, listen to many Muslims personally, and see that their critique of Mohammad and Islam is not well balanced. It is skewed heavily and they are not admitting it or seeing it that way because they have been lead to believe that Islam is perfect, Mohammad is perfect. That, alone, leads them to error in analysis.

I believe in giving fair analysis to all things, but don't expect me to sit silent and ignore the gross errors Muslims make every time they glorify their religion and prophet while not recognizing not only their shortcomings, but their prophet's too.

 

[Skillganon]

]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)

At the beginning of his stay in Madinah, the Prophet had concluded an agreement with the Jews of the city which said in part:

"The Jews who attach themselves to our commonwealth shall be protected from all insults and harassment. They shall have equal rights as our own people to our assistance...They shall join the Muslims in defending Madinah against all enemies...They shall not declare war nor enter in treaty or agreement against the Muslims."

Jewish leaders had violated this agreement by encouraging the Quraysh and tribes around Madinah in their designs against the state. They were also bent on creating discord among the people of Madinah in order to weaken the influence of Islam.

After the resounding victory of the Muslims over the Quraysh at the Battle of Badr, one of the three main Jewish groups in Madinah, the Banu Qaynuqa was especially furious and issued a petulant challenge to the Prophet. They said:

"O Muhammad! You really think that we are like your people (the Quraysh)? Don't be deceived. You confronted a people who have no knowledge of war and you took the chance to rout them. If you were to fight against us you would indeed know that we arc men."

They thus spurned their agreement with the Prophet and issued an open challenge to fight. The Qaynuqa however were goldsmiths who dominated the market in Madinah. They were depending on their allies, the Khazraj, to help them in their declared war. The Khazraj refused. The Prophet placed the Banu Qaynuqa's quarters under a siege which lasted for fifteen nights. The fainthearted Qaynuqa finally decided to surrender and ask the Prophet for a free passage out of Madinah.

The Prophet allowed them to leave and the tribe - men, women and children - left unharmed. They had to leave behind them their arms and their goldsmith's equipment. They settled down at Adhraat in Syria.

The departure of the Qaynuqa did not end Jewish feelings of animosity towards the Prophet although the nonaggression agreement was still in force. One of those who was consumed with hatred against the Prophet and the Muslims and who openly gave vent to his rage was Kab ibn al-Ashraf.

Kab's father was in fact an Arab who had fled to Madinah after committing a crime. He became an ally of the Banu Nadir, another important Jewish group, and married a Jewish lady name Aqilah bint Abu-l Haqiq. She was Kab's mother.

Kab was a tall and impressive looking person. He was a well-known poet and was one of the richest men among the Jews. He lived in a castle on the outskirts of Madinah where he had extensive palm groves. He was regarded as a Jewish leader of importance throughout the Hijaz. He provided means of support and sponsorship to many Jewish rabbis.

Kab was openly hostile to Islam. He lampooned the Prophet, besmirched in verse the reputation of Muslim women, and incited the tribes in and around Madinah against the Prophet and Islam. He was particularly distressed when he heard the news of the Muslim victory at Badr. When he saw the returning army with the Quraysh prisoners of war, he was bitter and furious. He took it upon himself then to make the long journey to Makkah to express his grief and to incite the Quraysh to take further revenge. He also went to other areas, from tribe to tribe, urging people to take up arms against the Prophet. News of his activities reached the Prophet, peace be on him, who prayed: "O Lord, rid me of the son of Ashfar, however You wish."

Kab had become a real danger to the state of peace and mutual trust which the Prophet was struggling to achieve in Madinah.

Kab returned to Madinah and continued his verbal attacks on the Prophet and his abuse of Muslim women. He refused, after warnings from the Prophet, to stop his dirty campaign and sinister intrigues. He was bent on fomenting a revolt against the Prophet and the Muslims in Madinah. By all these actions, Kab had openly declared war against the Prophet. He was dangerous and a public enemy to the nascent Muslim state. The Prophet was quite exasperated with him and said to the Muslims: "Who will deal with Kab ibn al-Ashraf? He has offended God and His Apostle."

"I shall deal with him for you, O Messenger of God," volunteered Muhammad ibn Maslamah.

This, however, was no easy undertaking. Muhammad ibn Maslamah, according to one report, went home and stayed for three days without either eating or drinking, just thinking about what he had to do. The Prophet heard of this, called him and asked him why he had not been eating or drinking. He replied: "O Messenger of God, I gave an undertaking to you but I do not know whether I can accomplish it or not." "Your duty is only to try your utmost," replied the Prophet.

Muhammad ibn Maslamah then went to some other companions of the Prophet and told them what he had undertaken to do. They included Abu Nailah, a foster brother of Kab ibn al-Ahsraf. They agreed to help him and he devised a plan to accomplish the mission. They went back to the Prophet to seek his approval since the plan involved enticing Kab from his fortress residence through some deception. The Prophet gave his consent on the principle that war involved deceit.

Both Muhammad ibn Maslamah who was in fact a nephew of Kab by fosterage and Abu Nailah then went to Kab's residence. Muhammad ibn Maslamah was the first to speak: "This man (meaning the Prophet, peace be on him) has asked us for sadaqah (charitable tax) and we cannot even find food to eat. He is oppressing us with his laws and prohibitions and I thought I could come to you to ask for a loan."

"By God, I am much more dissatisfied with him," confessed Kab. "We have followed him but we do not want to leave him until we see how this whole business will end. We would like you to lend us a wasaq or two of gold," continued Muhammad ibn Maslamah.

"Isn't it about time that you realize what falsehood you are tolerating from him? asked Kab as he promised to give them the loan. "However," he said, "you must provide security (for the loan)."

"What security do you want?" they asked. "Give me your wives as security," he suggested. "How can we give you our wives as security ," they protested, "when you are the most handsome of Arabs?"

"Then give me your children as security," Kab suggested. "How can we give you our children as security when any one of them would thereafter be ridiculed by being called a hostage for one or two wasaqs of gold. This would be a disgrace to us. But we could give you our (means of) protection (meaning weapons) since you know that we need them."

Kab agreed to this suggestion which they had made to disabuse his mind of any notion that they had come armed. They promised to come back to him again to bring the weapons.

Meanwhile, Abu Nailah also came up to Kab and said: "Woe to you, Ibn Ashraf. I have come to you intending to mention something to you and you do not encourage me." Kab asked him to go on and Abu Nailah said: "The coming of this man to us has been a source of affliction to our Arab customs. With one shot he has severed our ways and left families hungry and in difficulties. We and our families are struggling." Kab replied: "I, Ibn al-Ashraf, by God, I had told you, son of Salamah, that the matter would end up as I predicted." Abu Nailah replied: "I wish you could sell us some food and we would give you whatever form of security and trust required. Be good to us. I have friends who share my views on this and I want to bring them to you so that you could sell them some food and deal well towards them. We will come to you and pledge our shields and weapons to you as security." "There is loyalty and good faith in weapons," agreed Kab.

With this they left promising to return and bring the required security for the loan. They went back to the Prophet and reported to him what had happened. That night, Muhammad ibn Maslamah, Abu Nailah, Abbad ibn Bisnr, Al-Harith ibn Aws and Abu Abasah ibn Jabr all set off for Kabs house. The Prophet went with them for a short distance and parted with the words:

"Go forth in the name of God." And he prayed: "O Lord, help them." The Prophet returned home. It was a moonlit night in the month of Rabi al-Awwal in the third year of the hijrah.

Muhammad ibn Maslamah and the four with him reached Kab's house. They called out to him. As he got out of bed, his wife held him and warned: "You are a man at war. People at war do not go down at such an hour." "It is only my nephew Muhammad ibn Maslamah and my foster brother, Abu Nailah..." Kab came down with his sword drawn. He was heavily scented with the perfume of musk.

"I have not smelt such a pleasant scent as today," greeted Muhammad ibn Maslamah. "Let me smell your head." Kab agreed and as Muhammad bent over, he grasped Kab's head firmly and called on the others to strike down the enemy of God.

(Details of this incident vary somewhat. Some reports state that it was Abu Nailah who gave the command to strike down Kab and this was done after Kab had emerged from his house and walked with them for some time. )

The elimination of Kab ibn al-Ashraf struck terror into the hearts of those, and there were many of them in Madinah, who plotted and intrigued against the Prophet. Such open hostility as Kab's diminished for a time but certainly did not cease.

ref:
http://www.islamicboard.com/biographies-islamic-figures/358-muhammad-ibn-maslamah.html

 

[Skillganon]

This article show's how "poor evidence" missionary polemist provide as evidence (if it can be called evidence), which does not fall under any seriouse scrutiny.

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)

PART 1

True Stories or Forgeries?The Killing of Abu 'Afakand Asma' bint Marwan?​

Hesham Azmy




(The reason why I copied this article from Hesham Azmy to my section is to permanently preserve it from ever being lost)
​

Introduction

The vulgar Christian missionary, Silas, has accused Prophet Muhammad(P) of being responsible for the killing Abu 'Afak and 'Asma bint Marwan. The implications of these charges are that he(P)"stiffles" criticism by murdering his opponents. In this paper, insha'allâh, we are going to refute these false charges against the Holy Prophet(P), wa Allah-ul-Must’aan.

Islamic Methodology of Reports' Evaluation

We must explain the methodology of Muslim scholars before we comment on any Islamic report. Take for example the news reported on Presidents today! If the Vice-President gives a certain statement concerning the opinion of the President in a certain matter, then this statement is transmitted by a member of the secretary to a journalists who published it in the newspaper, what is the value of this report?

Our answer is that it could be right or wrong and we cannot be sure unless we know the reliability of the source.

If we find that the report is indeed transmitted by the secretary member on authority of the Vice-President and that each of them is well known for accuracy in transmission and truthfulness in speech, how can we evaluate this report?

Our answer is that we tend to believe it.

This is exactly what Muslim scholars require in any report to be valid and its attribution to God's Messenger(P) can be accepted. They actually add two more things; they must make sure that the report itself is not contradictory to other more authentic reports otherwise it will be considered eccentric! Also, they must exclude any hidden flaws in the text of the report, these flaws are detailed in specialized volumes of Hadîth.

Can we then accept the report as valid?

Not yet. After we had verified that the chain of transmitters is intact without interruption and that all reporters are honest, sane individuals, we must make sure that each reporter has received the report directly from the preceding one and that the report itself is in agreement with other authentic reports without flaws. The eminent hafiz Ibn Kathîr states that

Authentic Hadith is the transmitted hadîth whose chain is continuous through transmission of an accurate sane memorizer on authority of an accurate sane memorizer till its termination without being eccentric or flawed.[1]

Is there a method more precise and meticulous than this?

There is no nation in the entire history that took care of reporting events and their verification as the Muslims have done. The Western Orientalist Bernard Lewis notes that

From an early date Muslim scholars recognized the danger of false testimony and hence false doctrine, and developed an elaborate science for criticizing tradition. "Traditional science", as it was called, differed in many respects from modern historical source criticism, and modern scholarship has always disagreed with evaluations of traditional scientists about the authenticity and accuracy of ancient narratives. But their careful scrutiny of the chains of transmission and their meticulous collection and preservation of variants in the transmitted narratives give to medieval Arabic historiography a professionalism and sophistication without precedent in antiquity and without parallel in the contemporary medieval West. By comparison, the historiography of Latin Christendom seems poor and meagre, and even the more advanced and complex historiography of Greek Christendom still falls short of the historical literature of Islam in volume, variety and analytical depth.[2]

Then we talk about historical references written by Muslim authors. First of all, these books are not trustworthy references due to the fact that they do not follow proper methodology of transmission.

Imâm Ahmad ibn Hanbal sums up the Muslim point of view as regards the trustworthiness of the biographical reports when he declares that the biographies

...are not based on any principle.

The early Muslim scholars who compiled books of hadîth and scrutinized this particular field undertook thorough and painstaking investigations to determine the authenticity of the reports from the Holy Prophet's time by tracing them back to eye-witnesses of the time, through unbroken lines of reliable narrators. As a result, they never held a high opinion of the biographies whose authors had simply copied masses of reports without check or criticism. One such scholar of hadîth, Hafiz Zayn-ûd-Dîn of Irâq, says about the biographies as follows:

The student should know that the biographies contain all kinds of reports, both true and false.

We believe that this should make us depend only upon reliable sources that have been properly authenticated by Muslim specialists in the Hadith sciences.



The Killing of Abu 'Afak: Where is The Isnâd?

According to Ibn Sa'd and Ibn Ishâq, Abu 'Afak was a 120 years old Jewish man who had abused the Prophet(P) verbally, so the latter launched a raid under the command of Salîm Ibn 'Umaîr to kill him. We do know that Ibn Ishâq lived in the 2nd half of the 2nd century after Hijra, as well as Al-Waqîdî from whom Ibn Sa'd (died 230 A.H.) copied the story of Abu 'Afak.

As explained above, the chain of reporters of the story from eye-witnesses of the event till Ibn Ishâq or Al-Waqîdî must be examined and verified. So, our legitimate question is: where is the isnâd(i.e., chain of reporters)?

Unfortunately, references of the Sîrah do not provide such information. Actually, we are told that this story has no isnâd at all; neither Ibn Ishâq (or his disciple Ibn Hîsham) nor Al-Waqîdî (or his disciple Ibn Sa'd) had provided such a thing! In this case, the story is rated by hadîth scholars as "...of no basis", indicating that it has reached the lowest degree of criticism regarding its isnâd. This is in fact a proper scientific position because we cannot accept such a problematic story without evidence.

In brief, we have no commitment to accept such a baseless story - according to scientific criteria of hadîth criticism - which strangely had appeared in the 2nd half of the 2nd century after Hijra. We are therefore obliged to reject the story of the killing of Abu 'Afak by Salîm Ibn 'Umaîr at the Prophet’s command.



The Killing of Asma': True Story or Forgery?

Basically the charge is that the Prophet(P) had ordered the killing of Asma' when she insulted him with her poetry. As it is usually the case where the history of Islam and the character of the Prophet(P) is concerned, it is left to the Muslims to throw some light on authenticity of the story in which this incident is reported by the sources and educate the missionaries in matters which they have no clue about.

The story of the killing of Asma' bint Marwan is mentioned by Ibn Sa'd in Kitab At-Tabaqat Al-Kabir[3]and by the author of Kinz-ul-'Ummal under number 44131 who attributes it to Ibn Sa'd, Ibn 'Adiyy and Ibn 'Asaker. What is interesting is that Ibn 'Adiyy mentions it in his book Al-Kamel on the authority of Ja'far Ibn Ahmad Ibn Muhammad Ibn As-Sabah on authority of Muhammad Ibn Ibrahim Ash-Shami on authority of Muhammad Ibn Al-Hajjaj Al-Lakhmi on authority of Mujalid on authority of Ash-Shu'abi on authority of Ibn 'Abbas, and added that

...this isnâd (chain of reporters) is not narrated on authority of Mujalid but by Muhammad Ibn Al-Hajjaj and they all (other reporters in the chain) accuse Muhammad Ibn Al-Hajjaj of forging it.[4]

It is also reported by Ibn al-Gawzi in Al-'Ilal[5] and is listed among other flawed reports.

So according to its isnâd, the report is forged - because one of its reporters is notorious for fabricating hadîth. Hence, such a story is rejected and is better off being put into the trash can.

 

[Skillganon]

Part 2.
Prophetic Attitude Toward Women and Old Men in War

Here we are going to discuss the authentic Sunnah of the Holy Prophet(P) regarding women and old men in war. No baseless or forged reports are allowed here; we will only display authentic reports.

In brief, the authentic Sunnah of the Prophet(P) prohibits the killing of women in war.

Narrated Anas bin Malik: A Jewish woman brought a poisoned (cooked) sheep for the Prophet who ate from it. She was brought to the Prophet and he was asked, "Shall we kill her?" He said, "No." I continued to see the effect of the poison on the palate of the mouth of God’s Apostle.[6]

The Prophet(P) refused to kill a woman who did intentionally try to poison him, but the Christian missionaries, by using a fabricated story, wants us to believe that he ordered the killing of a woman who only abused him verbally. (note: in Islam a women can only be put to death if she commited murder as crime, for murder is (both for men and women) death punishment in islam),


Narrated Ibn 'Umar: Messenger of God (peace be upon him) saw the corpse of a woman who had been slain in one of the raids, and he disapproved of it and forbade the killing of women and children.[7]

Due to this prohibition, scholars of Abu Hanîfah’s madhâb (school of thought) have stated that apostate women are not to be killed because the Prophet(P) forbade the killing of women, and since the prohibition is general it includes apostate women.[8]

Even after the Prophet's demise, his Sunnah remain preserved by the Muslims:

Abu Bakr advised Yazid: "I advise you ten things: Do not kill women or children or an aged, infirm person. Do not cut down fruit-bearing trees. Do not destroy an inhabited place. Do not slaughter sheep or camel except for food. Do not burn bees and do not scatter them. Do not steal from the booty, and do not be cowardly."[9]

Conclusion

The Western Orientalist Bernard Lewis notes that

From an early date Muslim scholars recognized the danger of false testimony and hence false doctrine, and developed an elaborate science for criticizing tradition.[10]

We have utilized their scientific methodology to expose the false narratives attributed to the Prophet(P) about the alleged killing of Abu 'Afak and Asma' bint Marwan. Examination of the isnâd (i.e., chain of reports) has revealed the unreliability of both stories. Also, an examination of the matn (i.e., text) has revealed their inevitable contradiction with vigorously authentic traditions and established Islamic principles.
[1] Ibn Kathîr, Al-Ba'ith Al-Hadîth (Maktabat-us-Sunnah, Cairo, Egypt), p. 28

[2] Bernard Lewis, Islam In History (Open Court Publishing, 1993), pp.104-105

[3] Ibn Sa'd, Kitab At-Tabaqat Al-Kabir, Vol. 1, pp. 27-28

[4] Ibn 'Adiyy, Al-Kamel, Vol. 6, p. 145

[5] Ibn al-Gawzi, Al-'Ilal, Vol. 1, p. 279

[6]Sahih al-Bukhârî, Vol. 3, Bk. 47, No. 786

[7]Ibid., Vol. 4, Bk. 52, No. 257 & 258. Also see Mutta Malik, Book 21, Section 3, Number 9

[8] Al-Hasafky, Sharh Ad-Durr-el-Mukhtar, Volume 1, p. 483

[9]Mutta Malik, Book 21, Section 3, Number 10

[10] Bernard Lewis, Op. Cit., pp.104-105

 

[Skillganon]

"Then I give judgment that the men should be killed, the property divided, and the women and children taken as captives." Ibn Ishaq,

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.

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. .

I will provide short Extracts. These polemic has been debunked so many time.


A. Commenting upon the imperative need of a deterrent punishment to the traitors on this occasion, R.V.C. Bodley writes in "The Messenger - The life of Muhammad", thus:

"Muhammad stood alone in Arabia, a country equivalent in area to one-third of the United States, populated by about five million people. His own dominion was not much larger than Central Park; his means of enforcing his wishes, three thousand badly armed soldiers. Had he been weak, had he allowed treachery to go unpunished, Islam would never have survived. This killing of the Hebrews was drastic but not original in religious history. From a Moslem point of view, it was justified, from now on, the Arab tribes, as well as the Jewish, thought twice about defying this man who evidently intended to have his own way." (Ibn Hisham, Vol. III, p. 217)

"Another advantage gained by the destruction of this last but influential foxhole of treachery was that the bastion of hypocrisy built by 'Abdullah b. Ubayy automatically became weak and impotent. The indifferent among the Muslims, were shocked and dejected and were ultimately driven to despair. With the Jewish stalking-horse destroyed before their very eyes, they gave up the habit of entertaining affliction against the Muslims. A Jewish scholar, Dr. Wellphenson has also reached this very conclusion that the punishment dealt out to Banu Qurayza helped to frighten and discourage the hypocrites. He had said: "In so far as the hypocrites were concerned, their clamors declined after the expedition against Banu Qurayza; thereafter they said or did nothing against the decision of the Prophet and his companions, as it was expected earlier." (Al-Yahud fi Balad al-'Arab, p. 155). "
Linke: http://www.islamvision.org/BanuQuraizah.asp

B. Myths & Facts About the Banu Qurayza
http://forum.bismikaallahuma.org/viewtopic.php?t=956

c. The Expulsion of Banu al-Qurayzah [extract below]
http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2005/the-expulsion-of-banu-al-qurayzah/

"When the siege intensified and became unbearable for Banu Qurayzah, they wanted to surrender and accept whatever judgment the Prophet passed on them. They consulted Abu Lubabah ibn Abd al Mundhir, one of the companions of the Prophet who was also their ally, and he indicated that if they surrendered, they would be killed. Abu Lubabah later regretted saying this, and tied himself to one of the pillars in the Prophet’s Mosque until his repentance was accepted.[22] Banu Qurayzah agreed to accept the judgment of Sa’d ibn Mu’adh; they thought that he would show mercy to them, because of the alliance between them and his people, al Aws.

Sa’d was carried to them, because he had been wounded in the hand by an arrow at the Battle of the Ditch, and was ill. He judged that the warriors should be killed, and their wealth shared. The Messenger confirmed this and said: "You have judged according to God’s judgment."[23] By doing this, Sad ibn Mu’adh disowned his alliance with Banu Qurayzah. This did not disturb the Aws at all, despite their alliance with Banu Qurayzah and the fact that they had only recently entered Islam. Their acceptance of this was facilitated by the fact that their leader Sa’d passed judgment on Banu Qurayzah. The number of warriors who were executed was 400.[24] Three of Banu Qurayzah were spared because they entered Islam[25] and they kept their wealth; three others may have been spared because they were protected by some of the companions because of their loyalty to the treaty during the siege. There are many reports dealing with this, but they cannot be taken as valid evidence. The prisoners were detained in the house of Bint al Harith.[26]"

D.The Battle Of Al-Ahzab
http://www.hizb-ut-tahrir.org/english/books/state/chapter_21.html

E. The condition for Surrender put forward by Bani-Kureizha
http://www.faithfreedom.com/ali_sina_exposed/truth_about_jews.htm

"The Jews made only one condition, that their punishment should be left to the judgment of the Ausite (Of the tribe of Aus) chief, Sa'd Ibn Muaz. This man, a fierce soldier who had been wounded in the attack, and indeed died from his wounds the next day, infuriated by their treacherous conduct, gave the sentence that the "fighting men" should be put to death, and that the women and children should become the slaves of the Muslims ; and this sentence was carried into execution."

F. The Three Jewish Tribes of Madinah (Jealousy, Treachery, Tragedy)
http://www.ispi-usa.org/muhammad/muhammad11.html

"The Muslims had been extremely patient with the Jews. Their retaliation was proportionate, limited and just. With each breach of the treaty the penalty was increased. Even though the other two tribes had been expelled, the Banu Qurayzah had been given the benefit of the doubt. Nevertheless they reneged on the treaty, again with potentially extremely dangerous consequences to the Muslims. After the battle of the trench was won, the fortress in which the Banu Qurayzah lived was besieged and they surrendered after a short while. As was Muhammad's (S) custom, they were judged by the rules of their own scripture, the Tawrah (Torah) and traditions (Talmud), and were asked to select an individual (Sa'd bin Mu'adh), from their allies, the tribe of Aws, who they could trust as their judge."

 

[peaceful soul]

True to form, nothing that Mohammad did or allowed is wrong. Someday, the truth will come forth. It is so easy to claim that anything that does not conform to the Qu'ran is false or that any story that shows immorality or moral concerns are dismissed as inauthentic. Wow! Is this really happening?

Exactly what did Mohammad do that was not perfect or correct?

 

[Skillganon]

True to form, nothing that Mohammad did or allowed is wrong. Someday, the truth will come forth. It is so easy to claim that anything that does not conform to the Qu'ran is false or that any story that shows immorality or moral concerns are dismissed as inauthentic. Wow! Is this really happening?

Exactly what did Mohammad do that was not perfect or correct?

The Western Orientalist Bernard Lewis notes that

From an early date Muslim scholars recognized the danger of false testimony and hence false doctrine, and developed an elaborate science for criticizing tradition.[10]

 

[kynzaro]

I have to use "they" because it is they who are guilty as a group - not as individuals. If only one Muslim was guilty, I would be wrong to say they, but since there are very large groups that do as I say, then I am entitled to use "they". I didn't say "every". That makes a big difference.

how would you feel if I told you:
- all christians go to church
- protestants, catholics, orthodox, arab christians,.. what difference? They're all christians!
- all christians read the bible
- christians vote for conservatives
- christians do good deeds. They don't do evil
- the english have conquered egypt and iraq, the italians libya, the french algeria, morocco and tunisia, the french and the spanish morocco, ... they were bad guys. But they were also christians; so, christians are bad.
- etc

sounds for the least.. ridiculous, doesn't it ??


Tell my why I should respect Mohammad and his actions?

the same way as you would like that jews respect Jesus and Mary, peace be upon them, regardless of what the jews think Jesus and Mary were.


And what common sense am I not using that you are? Is it not common sense to realize that Mohammad had faults just like any other human

it's just too simplistic to accuse others with a few words soaked in emotions. that's the idea. If you believe he was bad, that's your business; but if you make public allegations, it's for the least disrespectful for the alleged person and for human intelligence not to back your claims

rather than watch Muslims repeatedly, glorify him

that's their business.. why do you care?

You do not know the depth of my studies on Islam.

I'd be glad to know their extent

I am not fooled by all of the glorious things that Muslims say about their prophet.

they're not fooling you. Hundreds of millions of them don't even know that you exist. They love him, that's just that. They're not thinking about you or whatever when they're evoking him..:o

If you just listen to them, you would think that Mohammad was perfect.

Don't Christians believe Jesus was perfect? Don't you personally think he was?

I don't buy their claims because I have read, listened to many Muslims personally, and seen that their critique of Mohammad and Islam is not well balanced. It is skewed heavily and they are not admitting it or seeing it that way because they have been lead to believe that Islam is perfect, Mohammad is perfect. That, alone, leads them to error in analysis.

"many muslims".. How many? I suppose you didin't discuss with the one billion and a half billion muslims living in this world..

I believe in giving fair analysis to all things, but don't expect me to sit silent and ignore the gross errors Muslims make every time they glorify their religion and prophet while not recognizing not only their shortcomings, but their prophet's too.

It's a vital thing to have a critical mind.. not to swallow whatever you're told. I agree with you.

But I guess you mean the gross errors that "the muslims you talked to; the muslims you discussed with" make, and not the gross errors that "muslims" make..

 

[NASAg03]

seriously, can't yall take this crap to another thread? every thread turns into this. i'm not really suprised, but all yall are doing is quoting from websites that neither group is bothering to even read.

not like it matters. most of the "civilized" discussion was going in circles anyway.

do yall really expect Muslims to accept that Mohammed was imperfect? they follow a book from Mohammed that changed all accounts of past prophets of the OT from flawed sinners to near-perfect messengers of God.

yes we think Christ was perfect - BECAUSE WE THINK HE IS GOD!

can you Muslims not think logically and remember the one main thing Christians believe???

also, don't give me this crap about treating all prophets the same. there a numerous TV shows, comics, political cartoons, etc that show pictures of Christ, and this has been going on for the past 30 years.

the moment someone posts a comic of Mohammed, Muslims commit global acts of terror. quit fooling youself and taking us for fools along with you. you hold Mohammed higher than Jesus, and you lie to cover that up and claim all prophets are viewed equally.

was there rioting when the movie Ten Commandments came out??? Nope, and that was about Moses. But if they made a movie about Mohammed, I can promise you many people would end up dying because of islamoterrorism.

You put Mohammed and the Quran on a pedistal, and they are your gods. You worship the trinity of Allah, Mohammed, and the Quran, all labeled under the godhead of Islam.

 

[Skillganon]

do yall really expect Muslims to accept that Mohammed was imperfect? they follow a book from Mohammed that changed all accounts of past prophets of the OT from flawed sinners to near-perfect messengers of God.

We do not believe any messengers of God sinned, hence we reject any notion of messenger sinning even if it says it in the other scriptures.

yes we think Christ was perfect - BECAUSE WE THINK HE IS GOD!

You know our position on Christ.

can you Muslims not think logically and remember the one main thing Christians believe???

WE know what christian believe, but we don't believe it.

also, don't give me this crap about treating all prophets the same. there a numerous TV shows, comics, political cartoons, etc that show pictures of Christ, and this has been going on for the past 30 years.

I do rather think that muslims should take a stance with christian.

the moment someone posts a comic of Mohammed, Muslims commit global acts of terror. quit fooling youself and taking us for fools along with you. you hold Mohammed higher than Jesus, and you lie to cover that up and claim all prophets are viewed equally.

What ever muslim claim who is superior or not, this is not according to the Quran.

[Say (O Muslims): We believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto Us and that which was revealed unto Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the tribes, and that which Moses and Jesus received, and that which the Prophets received from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and unto Him we have surrendered.] (Al-Baqarah 2: 136)

[The messenger believeth in that which hath been revealed unto him from his Lord and (so do) the believers. Each one believeth in Allah and His angels and His scriptures and His messengers We make no distinction between any of His messengers and they say: We hear, and we obey. (Grant us) Thy forgiveness, our Lord. Unto Thee is the journeying.] (Al-Baqarah 2: 285)

was there rioting when the movie Ten Commandments came out??? Nope, and that was about Moses. But if they made a movie about Mohammed, I can promise you many people would end up dying because of islamoterrorism.

Well, peacefull demonstration is the way to go. This topic has been adress aready numerousely.

You put Mohammed and the Quran on a pedistal, and they are your gods. You worship the trinity of Allah, Mohammed, and the Quran, all labeled under the godhead of Islam.

God forbid.


1. Say: He is Allah, the One and Only;
2. Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
3. He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; 4. And there is none like unto Him

 

[NASAg03]

We do not believe any messengers of God sinned, hence we reject any notion of messenger sinning even if it says it in the other scriptures.

So is man born free of sin?
Is sin inherited from the parents?
Do prophets need to beforgiven if they haven't sinned?
Did Mohammed sin before becoming a prophet, or did he never sin?
If prophets are capable of living a sin-free life, does this mean I can live a sin-free life?
If all humans sin, then are messenger of Allah really human, or are they angels?

By saying man can live a sin-free life, you are saying we don't need God's forgiviness.

You do think Adam sinned?
Was Adam a messenger of God?
Did Moses sin when he struck the rock and extra time against God's will and was forbidden from entering the Promised Land?

You know our position on Christ.
WE know what christian believe, but we don't believe it.

The maybe you should start remembering what we believe and stop comparing the Christ we believe in to Mohammed. We believe Christ lived a sin-free life because He is God, and only God is capable of NOT sinning. You then state "well, if Jesus can live a sin-free life, then it's not crazy to think Mohammed could live a sin-free life".

Mohammed was a man --> therefore we believe he sinned.

Christ = God. Mohammed = Man. You seen to forget this every time you compare our belief in Christ to your belief in Mohammed.

What ever muslim claim who is superior or not, this is not according to the Quran.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. You know the truth of the matter, and you attempt to hide it by suddenly forgetting how to write English sentences.

Maybe you're trying to say that all Muslims regard all prophets equally. I call that a lie, straight up. I learned this bit of wisdom in, oh, 4th grade I think it was.

"Actions speak louder than words".

You can say it until you're blue in the face, but the actions of Muslims, and your reverenace for Mohammed and the Quran is much greater than other scriptural writings and the prophets associated with those writings, speak much louder.

Well, peacefull demonstration is the way to go. This topic has been adress aready numerousely.

I guess peaceful demonstrations didn't work out for you since many Muslims have resorted back to roadside bombings, mosque bombings, suicide bombings, and running planes into buildings to "demonstrate" your reverance for Mohammed.

1. Say: He is Allah, the One and Only;
2. Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
3. He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; 4. And there is none like unto Him

Your actions and what you worship states much more about your "god" than a few words. You can quote the Quran all you like, but your life and what you represent speaks something much different.

Global killings occur when people draw cartoons of Mohammed, or flush the Quran down the toilet.

If Muslims really worship the same God as the Jews and Christians, why don't Muslims get offended and commit global murder when our God is insulted?

You actions prove you hold Mohammed and the Quran to the same level as Allah. I don't care how many scriptures you quote.

Your religion was founded on inconsistency on contradition, and it continues to this day in the actions of Muslims around the world.

 

[peaceful soul]

originally posted by kynzaro

I have to use "they" because it is they who are guilty as a group - not as individuals. If only one Muslim was guilty, I would be wrong to say they, but since there are very large groups that do as I say, then I am entitled to use "they". I didn't say "every". That makes a big difference.

how would you feel if I told you:
- all christians go to church
- protestants, catholics, orthodox, arab christians,.. what difference? They're all christians!
- all christians read the bible
- christians vote for conservatives
- christians do good deeds. They don't do evil
- the english have conquered egypt and iraq, the italians libya, the french algeria, morocco and tunisia, the french and the spanish morocco, ... they were bad guys. But they were also christians; so, christians are bad.
- etc

sounds for the least.. ridiculous, doesn't it ??

Did any of what I said actually register in your head? They is plural and was used correctly. I will repeat that I did not say “all”. You are claiming the opposite of what I am saying.

Tell my why I should respect Mohammad and his actions?

the same way as you would like that jews respect Jesus and Mary, peace be upon them, regardless of what the jews think Jesus and Mary were.

You still are not even understanding to what I typed earlier. I do not have to respect anyone's wrong actions or the person's desire to do them. Criticizing someone is not the same as disrespecting them. Get it in your head!

And what common sense am I not using that you are? Is it not common sense to realize that Mohammad had faults just like any other human

it's just too simplistic to accuse others with a few words soaked in emotions. that's the idea. If you believe he was bad, that's your business; but if you make public allegations, it's for the least disrespectful for the alleged person and for human intelligence not to back your claims

There is no emotion here. Basically, you are saying that I should not state that Mohammad had faults on a forum because it is disrespectful to do this in public? How can I then make the statement and have someone respond to it? There is nothing wrong to make a statement without displaying proof to you. If there is a question of what I am saying, then I can be called to provide proof. If I say that you are honest, do I really need to provide proof of that if I already accept it as true? You would be guilty of thinking that others have not also came to the same conclusion and understand my POV.

rather than watch Muslims repeatedly, glorify him

that's their business.. why do you care?

When you broke up this sentence, you lost the meaning. I don’t not care about glorification, rather the fact that they don’t consider and address the alternate, which is to equally address the negatives and shortcomings of their religion and prophet without the overly used one-sided apologetics. That has been my theme throughout.

You do not know the depth of my studies on Islam.

I'd be glad to know their extent

I am not fooled by all of the glorious things that Muslims say about their prophet.

they're not fooling you. Hundreds of millions of them don't even know that you exist. They love him, that's just that. They're not thinking about you or whatever when they're evoking him..:o

You are totally disconnected from what I am saying. Can you understand that I am seeing through their one-sided disclosures of their religion and prophet? A prime example is what has been posted by a Muslim after you and I engaged. Every account of Mohammad’s shortcomings will be either explained to justify his actions; as a falsified account; as out of context; or as a relative issue to others who also have performed said actions which then minimizes or trivializes his wrongs (relativism). It almost never fails. It is hard to believe that everything can fit into these three categories while not being subject for scrutiny. If I told you that everything I did was good, wouldn’t you start to question my integrity? Reality is that it is not possible for me to not fail. If you saw some flaws and all I did was justify them as righteous, wouldn’t you say that I am not seeing reality? I would have a warped perception of myself. This is not different than what I see with Muslims in Islam when they do what I have explained.

If you just listen to them, you would think that Mohammad was perfect.

Don't Christians believe Jesus was perfect? Don't you personally think he was?

You have ignored the nature of Jesus. Jesus is perfect because He is God. His manners, teachings, conduct, morality, and character all spoke of divinity. Jesus never acted as if He wasn’t truthful and integral in His person. Mohammad did not make any claims of being God; so, that makes your comparison nil. Furthermore, no Christian in their right mind will uphold any human as sinless and righteous in his every action. We realize that everyone has shortcomings and treat Biblical characters in flesh and blood (fallible humans). We don’t go around trying to claim that Moses wrongfully did X, Y, and Z because he was caught in circumstances that required him to violate A, B, and C; so the circumstances made it righteous to do it and no sin or no lack of morals can be claimed.

I don't buy their claims because I have read, listened to many Muslims personally, and seen that their critique of Mohammad and Islam is not well balanced. It is skewed heavily and they are not admitting it or seeing it that way because they have been lead to believe that Islam is perfect, Mohammad is perfect. That, alone, leads them to error in analysis.

Excuse me, whom did you talk to? the one billion and a half billion muslims living in this world?

Are you suggesting that I can’t make comments until I track down every Muslim and ask them directly? You are arguing that I can not be informed unless that condition is met?

I believe in giving fair analysis to all things, but don't expect me to sit silent and ignore the gross errors Muslims make every time they glorify their religion and prophet while not recognizing not only their shortcomings, but their prophet's too.

It's a vital thing to have a critical mind.. not to swallow whatever you're told. I agree with you.

Thanks.

But I guess you mean the gross errors that "the muslims you talked to; the muslims you discussed with" make, and not the gross errors that "muslims" make..

It would be wrong to not include that possibility as well, but you would still have to ignore what I have studied from both Islamic and non-Islamic sources or call it inaccurate.

Anyways, please do not take my views out of context and try to create something that doesn’t exist. I make statements based upon personal studies into Islam with an attempt to subjectively come to conclusions. If you look around this forum, I almost always engage into the subject of Islam from a Christian defensive stance; so, I study Islam to better understand it and understand how to engage with Muslims. It is not as if I am just throwing around words loosely. I would not make a statement if I did not at least have done some groundwork to substantiate it.