Islam Who Killed Mohammed video

dzheremi

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
Aug 27, 2014
13,578
13,753
✟431,746.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Isn't concubine a slave. What's the difference. Islam is far better than the Christian version. We can have another discussion on that.

As distasteful as this topic is either way, it bears repeating that concubinage in Ancient Israel was not sex slavery. The concubine had some legal rights that a slave did not. You should read this article on the topic at the Jewish Virtual Library before making any more statements.

And it especially bears repeating, since you conflate Ancient Judaism with Christianity for the supposed benefit of Islam when there is none to be had, that there is no "Christian" version of this. Christ, rather, teaches us in the NT that whoever so much as looks at a woman with lust has committed adultery with her in his heart (Matthew 5:27-28), and elsewhere in the NT we are taught that we are to only have one spouse (1 Corinthians 7:1-2). Unlike in Ancient Israel, where having concubines was taken to be the right of a leader, in the Christian Church, "being the husband of one wife" was one of the requirements to be appointed as an overseer of a congregation (1 Timothy 3; Titus 1:5-9).
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Pavel Mosko
Upvote 0

Pavel Mosko

Arch-Dude of the Apostolic
Site Supporter
Oct 4, 2016
7,236
7,313
56
Boyertown, PA.
✟768,605.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
there is no "Christian" version of this

America and Europe did have black slaves for a few centuries, that I believe were some kind of by product started by the Saracens.
 
Upvote 0

dzheremi

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
Aug 27, 2014
13,578
13,753
✟431,746.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
America and Europe did have black slaves for a few centuries, that I believe were some kind of by product started by the Saracens.

I was referring specifically to sex slavery, since that's what had been asked about. Black slaves in the Americas (I don't know about Europe) were often raped by slave owners, but there was not 'sex slavery', as such. Such rape was the rape of field and/or house slaves bought for labor.

Also, that still doesn't make this a "Christian version" of either the Jewish or Islamic versions of the same, as while Christianity did not abolish slavery, it likewise did not set up a 'Christianized' version of concubinage. We have documentary evidence dating back to the era of Emperor Zara Yaqob of Ethiopia (15th century) if not earlier of the Church specifically going into the countryside, where polygamy was still practiced among Christians as a holdover from preexisting Jewish and pagan traditions in which having many wives was a mark of distinction, and ordering the dissolution of all marriages but the primary one, following Christ's teaching in John 4 (to the woman who had several husbands). We wouldn't have done that in a society where it was so prevalent among the Christians if it were not truly against our religion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pavel Mosko
Upvote 0

Godistruth1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 9, 2018
1,781
183
32
Somewhere
✟97,167.00
Country
India
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Single
They had basic rights, could not be treated cruelly
Reminder
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.(Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

Plus you completely ignored the rest of the questions Please answer them
 
Upvote 0

Godistruth1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 9, 2018
1,781
183
32
Somewhere
✟97,167.00
Country
India
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Single
I was referring specifically to sex slavery, since that's what had been asked about. Black slaves in the Americas (I don't know about Europe) were often raped by slave owners, but there was not 'sex slavery', as such. Such rape was the rape of field and/or house slaves bought for labor.

Also, that still doesn't make this a "Christian version" of either the Jewish or Islamic versions of the same, as while Christianity did not abolish slavery, it likewise did not set up a 'Christianized' version of concubinage. We have documentary evidence dating back to the era of Emperor Zara Yaqob of Ethiopia (15th century) if not earlier of the Church specifically going into the countryside, where polygamy was still practiced among Christians as a holdover from preexisting Jewish and pagan traditions in which having many wives was a mark of distinction, and ordering the dissolution of all marriages but the primary one, following Christ's teaching in John 4 (to the woman who had several husbands). We wouldn't have done that in a society where it was so prevalent among the Christians if it were not truly against our religion.
Hey you missed answering my questions. Are u giving up so easily
 
Upvote 0

Pavel Mosko

Arch-Dude of the Apostolic
Site Supporter
Oct 4, 2016
7,236
7,313
56
Boyertown, PA.
✟768,605.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Reminder
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.(Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

Plus you completely ignored the rest of the questions Please answer them


Yes there are more limitations to being a slave than I remember congratulations! As my friend pointed out previously, this is a moot point seeing how this sort of indentured servitude has passed away for many, many centuries in the Western world.

(The slavery of Africans was something different entirely).
 
Upvote 0

Godistruth1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 9, 2018
1,781
183
32
Somewhere
✟97,167.00
Country
India
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Single
Yes there are more limitations to being a slave than I remember congratulations! As my friend pointed out previously, this is a moot point seeing how this sort of indentured servitude has passed away for many, many centuries in the Western world.

(The slavery of Africans was something different entirely).
No problem. We can move on. I was hoping you could reply my other questions regarding human sacrifice, unjust killing, dashing babies against the wall.
 
Upvote 0

Pavel Mosko

Arch-Dude of the Apostolic
Site Supporter
Oct 4, 2016
7,236
7,313
56
Boyertown, PA.
✟768,605.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Also you missed to comment on being blessed by dashing babies against wall(Psalms 137:9) ,

I'll have to read up on that passage, but I think some of the answer is in preceding verse.

"Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction,
happy is the one who repays you
according to what you have done to us."

Assyria and Babyon were enemies of Israel in ancient times, as well as symbols of evil in Eschatology.

Well found this commentary.

"...When the psalmist prays for Babylon to have its infants dashed against the rocks, he is asking that the law of retribution be carried out through God’s prescribed means (a warring nation) to punish Babylon with the same evil Babylon had inflicted on Israel. He is invoking God for the judicial punishment of the wicked."

Psalm 137: Difficult Words, But True | Bible.org



unjust punishment of people, women, babies and even livestock. (1 Samuel 15:3) what did

I blogged about this not long ago.
The Lord Rejects Saul as King
15 Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the Lord sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the Lord. 2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”

In the Bible, God also has a habit of ordering extreme actions for the purpose of teaching us His ways and values (A bit like a parent). Sometimes these things are not practical in the sense of time and the use of material resources (from a human standpoint) but they can be powerful object lessons concerning Holiness, Zeal for the Lord, Obedience etc. The above is a good example of that, and likewise I see God's prescription against the Canaanites as being that as well.

the donkey and the sheep do? and Exodus 22:29-30
You don't understand about Sin offerings and other offering in the OT? Well you should read up!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Godistruth1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 9, 2018
1,781
183
32
Somewhere
✟97,167.00
Country
India
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Single
I'll have to read up on that passage, but I think some of the answer is in preceding verse.

"Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction,
happy is the one who repays you
according to what you have done to us."
That's fine u can read more but if ur answer is the Verse u gave it doesn't justify what's being done to innocent babies
"...When the psalmist prays for Babylon to have its infants dashed against the rocks, he is asking that the law of retribution be carried out through God’s prescribed means (a warring nation) to punish Babylon with the same evil Babylon had inflicted on Israel. He is invoking God for the judicial punishment of the wicked.
So if someone kills ones babies it's ok in God's eyes if he kills the killers babies?
In the Bible, God also has a habit of ordering extreme actions for the purpose of teaching us His ways and values (A bit like a parent). Sometimes these things are not practical in the sense of time and the use of material resources (from a human standpoint) but they can be powerful object lessons concerning Holiness, Zeal for the Lord, Obedience etc. The above is a good example of that, and likewise I see God's prescription against the Canaanites as being that as well.

the donkey and the sheep do? and Exodus 22:29-30
You don't understand about Sin offerings and other offering in the OT? Well you should read up!
If you justify the act of killing innocent people, women, children and livestock as God's lesson then it's never possible I could believe in such God as it's injustice as well as not merciful. U can stick to ur position.

Im not sure if uve commented on the human sacrifice verse.
 
Upvote 0

Pavel Mosko

Arch-Dude of the Apostolic
Site Supporter
Oct 4, 2016
7,236
7,313
56
Boyertown, PA.
✟768,605.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Im not sure if uve commented on the human sacrifice verse.

You never named the verse that I recall, but I'm guessing you are referencing that Old Testament Judge who sacrificed his daughter since there is only 1 place in the Bible other than the Crucifixtion where that sort of thing takes place (Abraham and Isaac doesn't count since their was a last minute save).

That came from him making a hasty vow, something God never asked him to make. Frankly I'm surprised he did that! If I would have been in his shoes, I would have asked permission to give the next thing my eyes say, Which what his vow was about if I recall. Because I don't believe God desires that sort of sacrifice, but he allowed it as a lesson on being rash with your vows. One of the many reasons Christians are urged not to vow only to honor their words. Matthew 5:37
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Pavel Mosko

Arch-Dude of the Apostolic
Site Supporter
Oct 4, 2016
7,236
7,313
56
Boyertown, PA.
✟768,605.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
I could believe in such God as it's injustice as well as not merciful. U can stick to ur position.


How about Medina?

The next morning, the Banu Qurayza surrendered and the Muslims seized their stronghold and their stores.[40][52]The men - Ibn Ishaq numbers between 400 and 900[26][48] - were bound and placed under the custody of one Muhammad ibn Maslamah, who had killed Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf, while the women and children - numbering about 1,000[26] - w
 
Upvote 0

Godistruth1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 9, 2018
1,781
183
32
Somewhere
✟97,167.00
Country
India
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Single
You never named the verse that I recall, but I'm guessing you are referencing that Old Testament Judge who sacrificed his daughter since there is only 1 place in the Bible other than the Crucifixtion where that sort of thing takes place (Abraham and Isaac doesn't count since their was a last minute save).

That came from him making a hasty vow, something God never asked him to make. Frankly I'm surprised he did that! If I would have been in his shoes, I would have asked permission to give the next thing my eyes say, Which what his vow was about if I recall. Because I don't believe God desires that sort of sacrifice, but he allowed it as a lesson on being rash with your vows. One of the many reasons Christians are urged not to vow only to honor their words. Matthew 5:37
I'm talking about Exodus 22:29-30
You must give me the firstborn of your sons. Do the same with your cattle and your sheep. Let them stay with their mothers for seven days, but give them to me on the eighth day.

There are many other verses but this would do for now.
 
Upvote 0

Godistruth1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 9, 2018
1,781
183
32
Somewhere
✟97,167.00
Country
India
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Single
Upvote 0

Pavel Mosko

Arch-Dude of the Apostolic
Site Supporter
Oct 4, 2016
7,236
7,313
56
Boyertown, PA.
✟768,605.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Ah, not a sacrifice. A plague on Egypt for not letting Israel go. Which is something you Moslems should heed when persecuting Israel today. I don't believe the fact Israel has kicked your butt the in all the Arab Israeli Wars is just an accident, nor is it simply a result of getting good US weapons tech.
 
Upvote 0

Pavel Mosko

Arch-Dude of the Apostolic
Site Supporter
Oct 4, 2016
7,236
7,313
56
Boyertown, PA.
✟768,605.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Please elaborate on the situation on why they were killed


The Genocide of Banu Qurayza
From WikiIslam, the online resource on Islam


Detail from miniature painting: The Prophet, Ali, and the Companions at the Massacre of the Prisoners of the Jewish Tribe of Beni Qurayzah, illustration of a 19th century text by Muhammad Rafi Bazil.
This article discusses the genocide of the Jewish Banu Qurayza Tribe in 627 Introduction
In Hijra year 5 (627 AD), on the orders of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad, almost nine hundred Jews of a Medinan tribe named Banu Qurayza were massacred by Muslims. The killing began early in the day, ending in torchlight. Those who escaped death were taken captive and sold at slave markets.

Qur'anic Account
The Qur'an refers to this incident in Surah 33:

And He brought those of the People of the Scripture who supported them down from their strongholds, and cast panic into their hearts. Some ye slew and ye made captive some. And He caused you to inherit their land and their houses and their wealth, and land ye have not trodden. Allah is Able to do all things
Quran 33:26-27
Analysis of Qur'anic Account
The people of the scripture being referred to in the above verse, are the Jews of the Banu Qurayza tribe. The reason given for slaying them is their alleged support of the Meccans who came to fight the Muslims of Medina. A close look at the Qur'anic verses above confirms the Qur'an is mentioning this incident after its occurrence. And it is Allah accusing people of the scripture of supporting Meccans. Muslims usually justify the Banu Qurayza massacre based on these verses as they imply the tribe broke their treaty and joined the Meccans against Muslims. They argue that since breaking a treaty and fighting along with the Meccans was a treacherous act, the Jews of Banu Qurayza deserved total annihilation.

This allegation is totally baseless, and there were no treacherous acts on Banu Qurayza's part that could possibly justify the total annihilation of their tribe. They were being victimized for the incentives of Muhammad. This much will be made clear as we move along with the holy texts of Islam. And for this purpose it is necessary to start from where the Qur'an first mentions the battle of Khandaq (trench). The genocide in question occurred after this battle.

"O ye who believe Remember Allah's favor unto you when there came against you hosts, and we sent against them a great wind and hosts ye could not see. And Allah is ever Seer of what ye do"
Quran 33:9
Allah is reminding the believers of the favors he bestowed upon them. "When there came a lot to attack them, he sent a wind to turn the foes away, thus saving the believers from destruction". The above verse implies that the enemies of Muhammad are being turned away by Allah. Doubt still remains whether the enemies were turned away before or after fighting a war. If we move with the Qur'an:

"When they came upon you from above you and from below you, and when eyes grew wild and hearts reached to the throats, and ye were imagining vain thoughts concerning Allah”
Quran 33:10
Here, Allah reveals the state of Muslims, when they had to face a huge Meccan army. They (Muslims) started to have doubts, believing a clash with such a vast army would certainly be devastating to them. Ibn Kathir clarifies in his Tafsir:

Ibn Jarir said: "Some of those who were with the Messenger of Allah , had doubts and thought that the outcome would be against the believers, and that Allah would allow that to happen."
Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Quran 33:10) - The Campaign of the Confederates (Al-Ahzab)
The Qur'anic verses in conjunction with the above interpretation reveal the fact that Muhammad and his army were not at all in any position to fight a war at Khandaq (Trench). Muhammad had heard of the strength of the Meccan army much earlier, so acting upon the advice of one of his companions, Salman the Persian, there were trenches dug all around them to prevent hostile Meccans from entering Muslim territory. The battle gained the name "the war of trench" due to this tactic employed by Muhammad. The Meccans were a huge army consisting of two tribes, namely the Quraish and Ghatafans. The very fact that Muhammad adopted such an extremely defensive stance in this fight proves the weakness of the Muslim army at the time, and the strength of their foes.

It is clear, the "war of Khandaq" was in fact a war that was never fought. Though they were huge in numbers and could have annihilated the entire population of Muslims at that time, the Meccan army had to halt at the trenches, being unable to find an entry route to the Muslim territory. Their only chance of reaching the Muslims was through the route of Banu Qurayza where Muhammad did not dig trenches, but ultimately, those who came to fight and win a war had to regress and return without success. Allah testifies in the Qur'an, he inflicted terror on the opposition by sending winds and shaking their settlements, so that they had to withdraw. Thus the Qur'an confirms the battle did not occur at all.

Analysis of the Accounts in Hadiths
After establishing through Qur'anic text that the war of Khandaq was never fought, it is necessary to investigate other authentic sources of Islam to discover what prompted Muhammad and his army (who had just salvaged their lives and pride without fighting a war) to turn their attentions towards the Banu Qurayza. We saw Allah himself attest to the fact he was the one who drove away the Meccans and helped Muslims escape an otherwise inevitable extermination. Let's now turn to Ibn Kathir to find out what happened next:

...the Messenger of Allah returned to Al-Madinah in triumph and the people put down their weapons. While the Messenger of Allah was washing off the dust of battle in the house of Umm Salamah, may Allah be pleased with her, Jibril, upon him be peace, came to him wearing a turban of brocade, riding on a mule on which was a cloth of silk brocade. He said, "Have you put down your weapons, O Messenger of Allah" He said, "Yes" He said, "But the angels have not put down their weapons. I have just now come back from pursuing the people." Then he said: "Allah, may He be blessed and exalted, commands you to get up and go to Banu Quraiza. According to another report, "What a fighter you are! Have you put down your weapons" He said, "Yes". He said, "But we have not put down our weapons yet, get up and go to these people." He said: "Where?" He said, "Banu Quraiza, for Allah has commanded me to shake them." So the Messenger of Allah got up immediately, and commanded the people to march towards Banu Quraiza, who were a few miles from Al-Madinah. This was after Salat Az-Zuhr. He said, No one among you should pray `Asr except at Banu Quraiza.
Tafsir Ibn Kathir - The Campaign against Banu Qurayzah
This account of Ibn Kathir is supported by sahih (authentic) hadiths:

Narrated 'Aisha: When Allah's Apostle returned on the day (of the battle) of Al-Khandaq (i.e. Trench), he put down his arms and took a bath. Then Gabriel whose head was covered with dust, came to him saying, "You have put down your arms! By Allah, I have not put down my arms yet." Allah's Apostle said, "Where (to go now)?" Gabriel said, "This way," pointing towards the tribe of Banu Qurayza. So Allah's Apostle went out towards them.
Sahih Bukhari 4:52:68
It is evident from this account, that Muhammad and his followers were relaxed and reclining after the withdrawal of Meccan troops. The campaign against the Banu Qurayza was not on their agenda until the angel Jibreel (Gabriel) appeared with Allah's orders. It also reveal the fact that the tribe of Banu Qurayza did not do anything atrocious to Muslims during the siege at Khandaq while the Meccan army were stranded at the trenches. Sources say the siege lasted for almost a month, but ultimately the Meccans departed without a fight. It was not possible for them to engage in battle, as the trenches were a new tactic that they had never expected from Muhammad's side. Still they waited for a green light from the Banu Qurayza stronghold, as that was the only route to enter in which they could reach the Muslims, a green light which never appeared. Eventually losing all hope of crossing and engaging in a full-scale war which would have resulted in wiping all Muslims from the face of the earth, the Meccans retreated.

Once the enemy had left, it was time for the Muslims to lay down their arms and relax, but not so for Muhammad. He felt it inadequate to regress without any gains. Whenever he fought a war prior to it, he and his followers emerged victorious and victory brought them booties in means of materials and human beings. Uhud was the only exception. This time, though they had survived, there was something still lacking; booty. The Meccan's resignation left them without any.

It was time for Jibreel to show up. Muhammad needed war booty to satisfy himself and his followers. A small fraction stationed in a castle nearby would make an easy target to acquire these means of satisfaction. So Jibreel appears with orders from Allah. "No Muhammad, you laid arms without meeting the objective." And the prime objective here is slaughter, then the acquisition of booty through this means.

If Banu Quraiza were in fact treacherous, Muhammad and the religion of Islam would have been buried in those trenches they had dug. That did not happen and Muhammad's fellow warriors did not feel any need to carry on. They were not aware of any alleged treachery, for this reason they reclined once the Meccans had left. All that changed, once Muhammad intervened with the aid of Jibreel and Allah. This proves the alleged treason is nothing but a made up excuse or a pretext Muslims use in our period to justify genocide.

Later, the warriors of Islam besieged a weak tribe for almost a month until they surrendered; Not fighting, but enduring. The siege ended with the unconditional surrender of Jews. Now the fate of the surrendered tribe lay in the hands of Muhammad.

To recount what happened to the then subjugated tribe who were on their knees to Muhammad and his fellow warriors, let us see the details as provided in Muhammad Husayn Haykal's The life of Muhammad:

Banu Qurayzah sent word to Muhammad proposing to evacuate their territory and remove themselves to Adhri'at, but Muhammad rejected their proposal and insisted on their abiding by his judgment. They sent to al-Aws pleading that they should help them as al-Khazraj had helped their client Jews before them. A group of al-Aws tribesmen sought Muhammad and pleaded with him to accept from their allies a similar arrangement to that which he accepted from the allies of al-Khazraj. Muhammad asked, "O men of al-Aws, would you be happy if we allowed one of your men to arbitrate the case?" When they agreed, he asked them to nominate whomsoever they wished. This was communicated to the Jews, and the latter, unmindful of the fate that was lying in store for them, nominated Sa'd ibn Mu'adh. Sa'd was a reputable man of al-Aws tribe, respected for his sound judgment. Previously, Sa'd was the first one to approach the Jews, to warn them adequately, even to predict to them that they might have to face Muhammad one day. He had witnessed the Jews cursing Muhammad and the Muslims. After his nomination and acceptance as arbitrator, Sa'd sought guarantees from the two parties that they would abide by his judgment. After these guarantees were secured, he commanded that Banu Qurayzah come out of their fortress and surrender their armour. Sa'd then pronounced his verdict that the fighting men be put to the sword, that their wealth be confiscated as war booty, and that the women and the children be taken as captives. When Muhammad heard the verdict, he said: "By Him Who dominates my soul, God is pleased with your judgment, 0 Sa'd; and so are the believers. You have surely done your duty." He then proceeded to Madinah where he commanded a large grave to be dug for the Jewish fighters brought in to be killed and buried.[1]
Muhammad Husayn Haykal - The Life of Muhammad. (p. 337)
Ibn Ishaq describes the killing of the Banu Qurayza men as follows:

Then they surrendered, and the apostle confined them in Medina in the quarter of d. al-Harith, a woman of B. al-Najjar. 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 out to him in batches. Among them was the enemy of Allah Huyayy b. Akhtab and Ka`b b. 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. Huyayy was brought out wearing a flowered robe in which he had made holes about the size of the finger-tips in every part so that it should not be taken from him as spoil, with his hands bound to his neck by a rope. When he saw the apostle he said, 'By God, I do not blame myself for opposing you, but he who forsakes God will be forsaken.' Then he went to the men and said, 'God's command is right. A book and a decree, and massacre have been written against the Sons of Israel.' Then he sat down and his head was struck off.[2][3][4]
Ibn Ishaq
According to Ibn Kathir:

Then the Messenger of Allah commanded that ditches should be dug, so they were dug in the earth, and they were brought tied by their shoulders, and were beheaded. There were between seven hundred and eight hundred of them. The children who had not yet reached adolescence and the women were taken prisoner, and their wealth was seized.
Tafsir Ibn Kathir - The Campaign against Banu Qurayzah
It is worth mentioning here, not all were lucky enough to be beheaded among Banu Quraiza. Those whose lives were spared had a worse fate awaiting them. Again from Haykal:

The Prophet divided the properties, women, and children of Banu Quraiza among the Muslims after he had separated one-fifth for public purposes. Each man of the cavalry received two shares, one for himself and one for his horse. On that day, the Muslim force included thirty-six cavalrymen. Sa'd ibn Zayd al Ansari sent a number of Banu Qurayza captives to Najd where he exchanged them for horses and armour in order to increase Muslim military power.[5]
Muhammad Husayn Haykal - The Life of Muhammad. (p. 338)
These captives who were sold for horses were the women of the Banu Qurayza tribe. Ibn Ishaq confirms this:

Then the apostle sent for Sa'd bin Zayd al-Ansari brother of bin Abdul-Ashhal with some of the captive women of Banu Qurayza to Najd and he sold them for horses and weapons.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Barney2.0
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Godistruth1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 9, 2018
1,781
183
32
Somewhere
✟97,167.00
Country
India
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Single
Ah, not a sacrifice. A plague on Egypt for not letting Israel go. Which is something you Moslems should heed when persecuting Israel today. I don't believe the fact Israel has kicked your butt the in all the Arab Israeli Wars is just an accident, nor is it simply a result of getting good US weapons tech.
Leave this to us on how we deal with it. Jews have been kicking ur Butt for thousands of years. Don't forget that. Their time will come. Don't worry. Just stick to the topic
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Lost4words
Upvote 0

Godistruth1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 9, 2018
1,781
183
32
Somewhere
✟97,167.00
Country
India
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Single
This allegation is totally baseless, and there were no treacherous acts on Banu Qurayza's part that could possibly justify the total annihilation of their tribe. They were being victimized for the incentives of Muhammad. This much will be made clear as we move along with the holy texts of Islam. And for this purpose it is necessary to start from where the Qur'an first mentions the battle of Khandaq (trench). The genocide in question occurred after this battle.
Hahaha. The only source on this is the Muslim source. They did betray and paid the price. Just because you copy the stuff from anti Islam website and just because it says there is no evidence does not make it so. They betrayed and paid the price. Simple. In ur case in bible there is proof that God killed innocent people even babies and women and not to mention livestock. If u stick to quran and bible that would be great because then only Wed be having real discussion.
 
Upvote 0

Barney2.0

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Dec 1, 2017
6,003
2,336
Los Angeles
✟451,221.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The hadith that Umer clearly said that he only kisses the stone because he saw the prophet kiss it and said it can neither benefit him nor harm him is evidence there is no exaggerated importance given to the stone. While compared to Christianity there is enough similarities between early paganism and even lot of similarities between Jesus and other pagan figures like mithras
By the way if you did your reading you’d know that some sources do actually have an extension to that very Hadith in which Ali actually comes up to Umar and says the Black Stone does benefit and harm people, one can only imagine why it doesn’t show up in later sources:

The benefits of kissing the black stone (al-Hajar al-Aswad)

It’s also a fact that in Islam touching the black stone removes sin which is a lot of talk for a stone that got broken into pieces so many times and a stone that got stolen by a Muslim heretical sect the Qarmatians. Did you forget the discussion we had on Mithras and Horus before in which you failed to back up your assertions that Christianity is based in paganism, but as always you repeat the same old arguments when you run out of new ones.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Pavel Mosko
Upvote 0

Barney2.0

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Dec 1, 2017
6,003
2,336
Los Angeles
✟451,221.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Also note that the person you are quoting is a joker and has no scholarly material
Taking a video out of context is Muslim polemics for you, anyone who actually watched the full debate will know Shabir Ally definitely didn’t win:

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Pavel Mosko
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Barney2.0

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Dec 1, 2017
6,003
2,336
Los Angeles
✟451,221.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Hahaha. The only source on this is the Muslim source. They did betray and paid the price. Just because you copy the stuff from anti Islam website and just because it says there is no evidence does not make it so. They betrayed and paid the price. Simple. In ur case in bible there is proof that God killed innocent people even babies and women and not to mention livestock. If u stick to quran and bible that would be great because then only Wed be having real discussion.
To be honest if you actually read the Hadith or Sirah it doesn’t even explain how Banu Qurazya betrayed the Muslims if anything they supported them because they refused to back the Quraish during the siege of Medina (stupid of them) instead they honored the treaty with Mohammed. Suddenly according to your sources “Gabriel” swooshes in as he always does in Islam (though only Mohammed gets to see or speak with him for some odd reason) and says God commands them to march on the Banu Qurayza an annihilate them. What a coincidence that this timely revelation just came after the battle of Al Khandaq when he needed to raise the spirits of his men after the long siege and what better way to do so then with the treasure that the Jews of Banu Qurayza had stored up over the years. When talking about the Quran talk about the Bible, been there done that, atleast Moses and David never killed people they had a treaty with in cold blood like someone we know.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0