Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You have a bible good sir. Go have a gander yourself.
So Muhammad approved it anyway.
1.) They broke the covenant. Then they held out for a few weeks before they surrendered. They never sought the Prophet's forgiveness for betraying the Muslims. They allied with tribes that had also broken the treaty and were exiled (not executed). It seems that exiling was not effective in those cases since they attacked the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). So perhaps a more drastic punishment was needed.They didn't attack anyone, they surrendered, it is still called unrepentant.
All males definitely were not killed since boys under the age of puberty were not among those executed. According to various ahadeeth Sa'ad, when giving the judgement, said to "kill their warriors/fighters" so this gives the indication that only those who fought were executed.According to wiki all male are killed, but of course sources differ.
....Yes. Mobilizing doesn't mean that they're active at all times and are doing nothing else besides preparing for war. They were heedless because it was an ambush/a surprise attack.They are mobilizing against the Muslims yet they are heedless.
The Prophet and the four rightly guided caliphs, may Allaah be pleased with them, seem to have a different understanding than what you appear to have. The Prophet had treaties with non-Muslims until his death as did the four caliphs after him. They conquered land after the Prophet's death and did not force the indigenous populations to convert to Islaam (nor did they fight them ceaselessly).Let's assume they did that, how about the following passage?
Sahih Muslim 5917:
Allah's Messenger called Ali: "Proceed on and do not look about until Allah grants you victory," and Ali went a bit and then halted and did not look about and then said in a loud voice: "Allah's Messenger, on what issue should I fight with the people?” Thereupon he said: ”Fight with them until they bear testimony to the fact that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger…"
There is no issue to fight the people other than to bear testimony. That is in violation of the Quran verse about "to you your religion and to me mine".
This covnenantle parable in the Christian NT concerning the Jews, it shows a man in "hades" tormented by a flame . Every read it?I don't think it is vital to understand the very nature of the idea of 'perishing'...suffice it to say the language and information of the Bible make it clear that our objective should be to avoid it at all costs.
The Tenakh touches upon a place for the departed souls that sounds like a dreary shadowy half existence..but the impression is of a holding place for the dead and is generally referred to as Sheol.
The New Covenant writings give a more explicit explanation of the possible and final destinies of every individual because they go beyond 'Sheol' and talk about final judgment that sorts out where people go and why. There isn't really any conflict between the two, just a fuller understanding of the why's and wherefore's.
*sigh* Addressed the same exact points here and here.
Part of what I said:
Try reading other things that al-Hafidh ibn Katheer wrote in his tafseer (of 2:190):
(...those who fight you) applies only to fighting the enemies who are engaged in fighting Islam and its people. So the Ayah means, `Fight those who fight you'....
Ibn Katheer is the most trusted scholar
lol.and I in disagreeing with you could be considered fighting you.
This covnenantle parable in the Christian NT concerning the Jews, it shows a man in "hades" tormented by a flame . Every read it?
Lazarus and the Rich Man - Here a little, there a little - Commentary
ABRAHAM'S BOSOM
LUKE 16:
22 "So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died and was buried."
23 "And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom."
In contrast to Lazarus, the rich man was buried in Hades. An understanding of the original meaning of the Greek word hades is necessary to grasp the message of the parable. Regarding the possible etymology of this word, the The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology states that hades ". . . comes from idein (to see) with the negative prefix, a-, and so would mean the invisible . . . In the LXX hades occurs more than 100 times, in the majority of instances to translate Heb. she'ol, the underworld which receives all the dead. It is the land of darkness . . ." (p. 206, vol. 2).
Most likely, hades originally meant "unseen." Later, it came to refer to the hidden state of those buried in the earth. Symbolically, this parable shows that a point would come when the House of Judah would become "unseen" by God, out of favor because of their unbelief. There would come a time when the Jews as a whole would no longer be God's favored nation. God would harden their hearts, leading them to reject their Messiah (John 1:11).
I obviously don't believe Islam is correct, but the story described isn't that different from numerous ones in the Torah. I mean, the only standing order to kill in the Torah is the Amalekites who attacked the weakest of the Israelites when they were fleeing Egypt. So, behaving cowardly and betraying others was met with severe consequences in the Torah.
Do you think Moses would have dealt nicely with people who broke a treaty with Israel?
Also, aren't these the same people who are said to claim Ezra is the Son of G-d? They would hardly be practicing Judaism at that point.
Ibn Katheer is the most trusted scholar and I in disagreeing with you could be considered fighting you.
The Prophet and the four rightly guided caliphs, may Allaah be pleased with them, seem to have a different understanding than what you appear to have.
The Prophet had treaties with non-Muslims until his death as did the four caliphs after him. They conquered land after the Prophet's death and did not force the indigenous populations to convert to Islaam (nor did they fight them ceaselessly).
If Muhammad is a Jew than that point holds. However unlike Judaism Islam also believe Yeshua as the Messiah, and Muhammad said he is here to confirm the Torah and Gospel. As we all know Gospel's direction is much different, no more violence for the people. With this Muhammad's actions are no longer in according to God (yes Christians does not follow Gospel fully either, but things should be different for God's messenger).
So you agree that "To You Your Religion and To Me Mine" doesn't guaranty no forced conversions/attacks?
Think about it, Isa (Jesus or Yeshua) come and summarized OT/NT as "Love your neighbor as yourself", "Love your enemy", and yet Muhammad come and claim he is here to complete (or got something better, or judge), and give a book that is suitable for warfare, isn't that strange?
While Kathir is a highly respected Scholar, he is not considered any more trustworthy than other Scholars. We alone carry the responsibility of verifying the truth of what any Scholar says,
They broke the treaty between the tribe and the Prophet & committed high treason. That's why their warriors (the adult men and one woman) were executed.
The Expulsion of Banu al-Qurayzah
Or this?
"However, if it does not make peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it. "When the LORD your God gives it into your hand, you shall strike all the men in it with the edge of the sword. "Only the women and the children and the animals and all that is in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourself; and you shall use the spoil of your enemies which the LORD your God has given you. (Deuteronomy 20:12-14)
All things have to be read in order to understand the Message. You would not be able to teach Christianity with the OT alone.
Same with Islam. One needs to read all of the Qur'an and at least some of the Ahadith in order to comprehend the Sunnah.
Parts of the Ahadith many non-Muslims refuse to see
40 Hadith Qudsi
ISIS claims to be doing that.
Are they correct in their statements on the Qur'an?
They don't get much public push back from Muslims outraged at their doctrine. What we see more "in public" is Muslims world wide trying to join ISIS.
in Christ,
Bob
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?