The qur'an

[SLAMH]

You don't think there's any connection between Islam and Muslims? R U serious?

Ok, Muslims hang out with girl friends, drinking alcohol and doing what is supposed to be prohibited in their religion.

Do you still think there is a connection ?

 

[SLAMH]

Lawful enslavement was restricted to two instances: capture in war (on the condition that the prisoner is not a Muslim), or

Hence, my point stand.

birth in slavery.

I checked this part and the reason for this that the owner will still have to support his slave with his family for he is being responsible of them, if he couldn't fund them, then he will have to freed them.

 

[SLAMH]

And they're also free to do so. Do you disagree?

Yes, tell how they are free and how do you define being free ?

Qur'an (5:51) - "O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people."


So when it says not to take Christians for friends, it doesn't mean that you shouldn't take Christians for friends?

The translation is inaccurate, friends wasn't used in the original text. The verse here refers to standing with them against Islam. But if they don't oppose Islam and not fight against Muslims, then there is nothing wrong with them being friends of me.

 

[Autodidact]

may kill their opponents or enslave them,

at their option. They usually chose to kill the men and enslave the women.

[FONT="]The prophet had their warriors killed, their offspring and woman taken as captives....[/FONT][FONT=&quot]In the Sirat Rasulallah, Muhammad massacred 800 males and took their women and children as slaves[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
Muslims are supposed to emulate Muhammad. Therefore, Muslims may kill warriors and take women as captives. It's really not that complicated.
Or are you looking for a source for my statement that was the common practice? I will be happy to provide it, if you like.
[/FONT]

If a person who is already a slave converts to Islam, this does not emancipate them.

the jurists clarify that if a non-Muslim converts to Islam after enslavement, he or she remains a slave and may be lawfully purchased and sold like any other slave.

Do you see how this is exactly what I said, or do I need to make it more clear?

Can you talk about the reason of this Gazwa ? or do you want some one to tell you.

Oh, please. I love it when religionists argue in favor of bloody slaughter, murder, genocide and slavery. It reveals their true morals so clearly. As an atheist, I am never forced to defend raiding, theft, and stealing little babies to make slaves out of them. I can't wait for you to explain exactly how and why this is justified for Muslims.

While you're at it, can you talk about the morality of capturing women and keeping them as your concubines, that is, your sex slaves? We're all very interested in that approach to ethics, as set forth in the divine, the perfect qur'an.



[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

 

[Autodidact]

Yes, tell how they are free and how do you define being free ?

"Free" meaning allowed. Muslims are allowed to capture, buy and sell slaves. That is my point. Do you disagree?

Qur'an (5:51)

- "O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people."


So when it says not to take Christians for friends, it doesn't mean that you shouldn't take Christians for friends?

The translation is inaccurate, friends wasn't used in the original text. The verse here refers to standing with them against Islam. But if they don't oppose Islam and not fight against Muslims, then there is nothing wrong with them being friends of me.

Pickthall: O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends.
Shakir: O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends;
Yusuf Ali: O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors:
Daryabadi: O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Nazarenes as friends: friends they are to each other:
Aisha Bewley: You who have iman! do not take the Jews and Christians as your friends; they are the friends of one another
Hamid Aziz: O you who believe! Take not the Jews and Christians for your friends (or patrons): they are friends (or patrons) to each other.
Muhammad Taqi Usmani

O you who believe, do not take the Jews and the Christians for intimate friends. They are friends to each other.

So all these learned people who have devoted their lives to studying Classical Arabic and the qur'an are wrong, and you, SLAMH are right. We should disregard all of their years of learning and just listen to you.

Or, alternatively, the perfect book of God's final revelation is such gibberish that even the most learned and devout have no idea what it says?

 

[ppɐʇɹnɯ]

Muslims are allowed to capture, buy and sell slaves. That is my point. Do you disagree?

It's even written in Bukhari that if one's own son leaves Islam there are only two possible options: either kill him or enslave him. This shows that Islam didn't view non-Muslims as human beings.

Also, it was reported by Ali bin Fakri al-Yaqub in Bukhari who was an early companion of the prophet that said that "It is in the path of Allah to enslave the disbeliever as they may yet be saved from Hellfire."

In Sahih Muslim it says that Mohammed told his followers after the battle of Battle of Khaybar: "Do as Allah has revealed to me in a dream: Verily, you are required to do three things: Thou shalt kill the [Jewish] infidels over 40, make their children your slaves, and take their property and wives as your own. But leave for the Ummah 1/3 of the spoils at the Masjid, that Allah will see your piety and reward you"

Or, alternatively, the perfect book of God's final revelation is such gibberish that even the most learned and devout have no idea what it says?

The Quran has so many gramatical errors that one can't even take it seriously if you know Arabic.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

You are obviously grasping at straws. Autodidact has repeatedly proven you wrong on every single point. The quran is crap and so is Islam. Face it.

Oh and for today's dose of Free Speech:

Stop flaming.

 

[SLAMH]

at their option. They usually chose to kill the men and enslave the women. [FONT=&quot]

I don't understand what do you mean by at their option.

Muslims are supposed to emulate Muhammad. Therefore, Muslims may kill warriors and take women as captives.

Your knowledge of the Islamic history is really poor.

It's really not that complicated.
Or are you looking for a source for my statement that was the common practice? I will be happy to provide it, if you like.

I don't know what source you are referring to, anyway just provide it, if think it may help you.

the jurists clarify that if a non-Muslim converts to Islam after enslavement, he or she remains a slave and may be lawfully purchased and sold like any other slave.

AHA, and also they can purchase their liberation .

Do you see how this is exactly what I said, or do I need to make it more clear?

You need to learn how to stick to your point.

Oh, please. I love it when religionists argue in favor of bloody slaughter, murder, genocide and slavery. It reveals their true morals so clearly.

When infidels attacked al-Madina in Gazwa Al-Hazab, Banu Qurayza before agreed with the prophet Mohamed that they will not support any attack on Al-Madina, nor they will fight against Muslims. However, in this war infidels came with 10000 worriers, this number is approximately more than number of Muslims who lived in Al-Madina during that time even if you include children and women. Banu Qurayza thought that there was no way for Mohamed to win this battle and this would be the end of Islam, they interfered in the war and attacked and fought against Muslims even though that they promised not to do so. Muslims were blocked for more than month and a half, however infidels couldn't enter Al-Madina and couldn't continue blocking Al-Madina and had to withdraw their troops. Muslims won the battle and they had to deal with Banu Qurayza so they attacked them, they killed whoever interfered in the attack on Al-Madina. There was one man who didn't fight against Muslims during the war, so he wasn't killed.

As an atheist, I am never forced to defend raiding, theft, and stealing little babies to make slaves out of them. I can't wait for you to explain exactly how and why this is justified for Muslims.

I think you would need to justify what is even worse, don't ya think ?

While you're at it, can you talk about the morality of capturing women and keeping them as your concubines, that is, your sex slaves?
[FONT=&quot][/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

I will respond to this later, I just need to read a bit about it.

 

[SLAMH]

"Free" meaning allowed. Muslims are allowed to capture, buy and sell slaves. That is my point. Do you disagree?

It is restricted to the war.

Pickthall: O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends.
Shakir: O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends;
Yusuf Ali: O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors:
Daryabadi: O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Nazarenes as friends: friends they are to each other:
Aisha Bewley: You who have iman! do not take the Jews and Christians as your friends; they are the friends of one another
Hamid Aziz: O you who believe! Take not the Jews and Christians for your friends (or patrons): they are friends (or patrons) to each other.
Muhammad Taqi Usmani

O you who believe, do not take the Jews and the Christians for intimate friends. They are friends to each other.

Another translation.

So all these learned people who have devoted their lives to studying Classical Arabic and the qur'an are wrong, and you, SLAMH are right. We should disregard all of their years of learning and just listen to you.

I don't think you understand what I'm talking about.

Or, alternatively, the perfect book of God's final revelation is such gibberish that even the most learned and devout have no idea what it says?

No comments.

 

[SLAMH]

It's even written in Bukhari that if one's own son leaves Islam there are only two possible options: either kill him or enslave him. This shows that Islam didn't view non-Muslims as human beings.

Are you talking about apostasy ?

Also, it was reported by Ali bin Fakri al-Yaqub in Bukhari who was an early companion of the prophet that said that "It is in the path of Allah to enslave the disbeliever as they may yet be saved from Hellfire."

I need to read a bit about this one.

In Sahih Muslim it says that Mohammed told his followers after the battle of Battle of Khaybar: "Do as Allah has revealed to me in a dream: Verily, you are required to do three things: Thou shalt kill the [Jewish] infidels over 40, make their children your slaves, and take their property and wives as your own. But leave for the Ummah 1/3 of the spoils at the Masjid, that Allah will see your piety and reward you"

You forgot to talk about the reason of this Gazwa.

The Quran has so many gramatical errors that one can't even take it seriously if you know Arabic.

I doubt that you really know Arabic.

 

[TJ73]

In the verse you quoted, the word "Awliya" is used. It is a plural and its singular is "wali". The correct translation of the word ""wali"" is not "friend" but it is someone who is very close and intimate. It is also used to mean "guardian, protector, patron, lord and master".

In the Qur'an this word is used for God, such as [Allah is the Protector (or Lord and Master) of those who believe. He takes them out from the depths of darkness to light…] (Al- Baqarah 2: 257)

There are many other references in the Qur'an that give this meaning. The same word is also sometimes used in the Qur'an for human beings, such as [And whosoever is killed unjustly, We have granted his next kin "wali" the authority (to seek judgement or punishment in this case)…] (Al-‘Isra' 17 :33)

The correct translation of the verse in Surat Al-Ma’idah is: [O you who believe! Do not take Jews and Christians as your patrons. They are patrons of their own people. He among you who will turn to them for patronage is one of them. Verily Allah guides not a people unjust.] (Al-Ma'dah 5: 51)

It is obvious that Jews patronize the Jews and Christians patronize the Christians, so why not Muslims patronize Muslims and support their own people. This verse is not telling us to be against Jews or Christians, but it is telling us that we should take care of our own people and we must support each other.

In his Tafsir, (Qur’an exegesis) Imam Ibn Kathir has mentioned that some scholars say that this verse (i.e. the one you referred to) was revealed after the Battle of Uhud when Muslims had a set back. At that time, a Muslim from Madinah said, "I am going to live with Jews so I shall be safe in case another attack comes on Madinah." And another person said, "I am going to live with Christians so I shall be safe in case another attack comes on Madinah." So Allah revealed this verse reminding the believers that they should not seek the protection from others, but should protect each other. (See Ibn Kathir, Al-Tafsir, vol. 2, p. 68)

Muslims are allowed to have non-Muslims as friends as long as they keep their own faith and commitment to Islam pure and strong. You are correct in pointing out that a Muslim man is also allowed to marry a Jewish or Christian woman. It is obvious that one marries someone for love and friendship. If friendship between Muslims and Jews or Christians was forbidden, then why would Islam allow a Muslim man to marry a Jew or Christian woman? It is the duty of Muslims to patronize Muslims. They should not patronize any one who is against their faith or who fights their faith, even if they were their fathers and brothers. Allah says: [O you who believe! Take not for protectors (awliya') your fathers and your brothers if they love unbelief above faith. If any of you do so, they are indeed wrong-doers.] (Al-Tawbah 9: 23)

In a similar way, the Qur'an also tells Muslims that they should never patronize the non-Muslims against other Muslims. However, if some Muslims do wrong to some non-Muslims, it is Muslims' duty to help the non-Muslims and save them from oppression. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said that he himself will defend a Dhimmi living among Muslims to whom injustice is done by Muslims. But Islam also teaches that Muslims should not seek the patronage of non-Muslims against other Muslims. They should try to solve their problems among themselves. Allah Almighty says, [Let not the Believers take the unbelievers as their patrons over against the Believers…] (Aal-'Imran 3: 28)

He Almighty also says: [O you who believe! Take not for patrons unbelievers rather than Believers. Do you wish to offer Allah an open proof against yourselves?] (An-Nisaa’ 4:144)

Read more: Does Islam Forbid Befriending Non-Muslims? - IslamonLine.net - Ask The Scholar
​

 

[Mr Spinkles]

TJ73 and SLAMH,

Did you see my questions addressed to you in posts #286 and 290, respectively?

 

[croak]

Yes it does, in Muslim and non-Muslim countries. Nevertheless, outlawing slavery does help, and is a good thing. Do you agree?

In some places, it's as good as prohibiting the drug trade. Would it be a good thing if slavery was outlawed? Sure. Is it legal in any country? Not that I know of. Has that stopped the slave trade? Of course not.

Actually, that would be your job.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery#cite_note-1

The number of slaves today remains as high as 12 million[3] to 27 million,[4][5][6] though this is probably the smallest proportion of the world's population in history.[7] Most are debt slaves, largely in South Asia, who are under debt bondage incurred by lenders, sometimes even for generations.[8] Human trafficking is primarily for prostituting women and children into sex industries.[9] It is the fastest growing criminal industry and is predicted to eventually outgrow drug trafficking.[9][10]

Slavery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That was actually pretty easy, you know. If it wasn't accepted, except by Muslims, why does the trade continue all over the world?

Sudan is the only place where chattel slavery is not just surviving but experiencing a great revival. This renascence of the slave trade began in the mid-1980s and resulted directly from an upsurge of Islamism in Sudan at that time, and especially from the Islamist emphasis on the renewal of jihad. After gaining the upper-hand in Khartoum by about 1983, the Islamists' immediate goal was to transform the multi-ethnic, multi-religious population of Sudan into an Arab-dominated Muslim state, and to do so through jihad. Under Turabi's powerful influence, the ruler of the time, Ja‘far an-Numayri, declared himself to be (sounding like a caliph of old), the "rightly guided" leader of an Islamic state.
My Career Redeeming Slaves

by John Eibner
Middle East Quarterly
December 1999, pp. 3-16

In terms of Mauritania:

Although the Africans in Mauritania converted to Islam more than 100 years ago, and the Qur’an forbids the enslavement of fellow Muslims, in Mauritania race seems to outrank religious doctrine.

Mauritania is going against the Qur'an. Need I say more?

In terms of Sudan:

Anti-Slavery researchers describe a revival of a racially-based slave trade where armed northern militias raid the southern civilian villages for slaves. Reports to the UN Commission on Human Rights have underscored the racial aspect of such practices as victims are exclusively persons belonging to the indigenous tribes of the Nuba Mountains (darker-skinned Africans). Government-armed Arab militias are known to kill the men and enslave the women and children as personal property or to march them north to be auctioned off and sold.

It seems militias take it upon themselves to raid civilians. If the slave trade was widespread amongst civilians, you might have a point, but I don't take militant groups like the Taliban, for instance, to represent the ideals of the Qur'an or all Muslims.

Source: Chattel Slavery

Muslim countries have lagged behind non-Muslim countries in ending slavery.

In ending it in word but not in deed? Sure.

I didn't make a claim; you did. I know very little about it. And that makes the qur'an great how?

You claimed it was propoganda. If you don't know much about it, you aren't in the position to make that claim. And how does that not make it great?

And yet it does. Islam fails again.

I wonder, why do you expect people to follow Islam's finer points in lieu of seeking power for themselves or following their own traditions? Muslims are not magical creatures that always follow the Qur'an. They're human. Atrocities are commited by humans, regardless of race or creed.

Anything can be argued. The question is, is the argument correct? In any case, it doesn't speak very well for the perfection, the glory, the actual word of God, does it?

Because it would be better to completely outlaw slavery, expect people to free the slaves key to their businesses and livelihoods, and join Islam in waves? Odds are they'd stick with their faiths, since those faiths don't seem too bothered. And those Muslims threatening my livelihood? They're threatening our way of life! They want us to starve and be conquered! Let's get rid of them!

It would help.

Many did, but not every single person.

Especially if there isn't the slightest pronouncement against it or effort to do so.

Prohibiting slavery in the context of seventh-century Arabia apparently would have been as useful as prohibiting poverty; it would have reflected a noble ideal but would have been unworkable on an immediate basis without establishing an entirely new socioeconomic system.
Jacob Neusner, Tamara Sonn, Comparing Religions through Law: Judaism and Islam, 1999

Islamic law clearly recognises that slaves are human beings, but it frequently treats slaves as if they are property, laying down regulations covering the buying and selling of slaves.


It encourages the freeing of slaves, which has the good effect of diminishing the slave population of a culture and, paradoxically, the bad effect of encouraging those whose livelihood depends on slave labour to find new ways of acquiring slaves.

BBC - Religions - Islam: Slavery in Islam
​

Freeing slaves was encouraged. How is that not an effort?

And he'd be wrong, as history as shown. Certainly, had slavery not been ended in the U.S., we would not have a Black President today.

If not for the Civil War, he might have been right. I'm also quite sure that man would not have advocated rights for blacks, and would probably have spoken out against those who did. He might even have been one of those fellas who helped hang blacks on trumped-up or nonexistant charges. Had he lived in a tribal society where warfare was the norm, you can be darn well sure he may have considered going to war against people who threatened to free his slaves.

Yes, and the first step was ending slavery. Islam never took that first step.

No, the first step was considering the amazing notion that blacks were human beings. Islam had taken that first step.

I did. The context was, Muhammad expected the Jews to welcome him as a latter-day prophet. When they failed to do so, he declared war on them and conquered them.

No, Muhammad expected the Jews (and everyone else) not to try to kill him, or at the very least hoped so. When they did, he declared war.

Are you deliberately missing my point, or did it really escape you?

Yes, women are treated worse in Saudi Arabia. Would you like to live in parts of northern India where, while they might not be Muslim, they might treat women even worse than in Saudi Arabia?

If you want to equate Islam with the guarantee that women will be oppressed, I can't agree.

Nope. Not to mention he was the aggressor and raider.

So he couldn't have fought a single battle in self-defence? The Jews were never ever the aggressors? Other tribes never raided the Muslims?

Not from the qur'an I don't think.

Really, so people can be total nutjobs without reading the Qur'an? Wow.

If a nutjob converts to Islam, he won't cease being a nutjob; he'll just find new rationalizations. If that nutjob becomes atheist, you can be darn sure he'll find rationalizations then as well.

But should their holy books encourage and provide them, or guide them away from such evil thinking? Does God want us to hate Jews? Or love all people?

Have a look at the quotes I posted earlier in the day.

 

[croak]

You're taking the said verses out of context. Take the first one.

“Help ye one another unto righteousness and pious duty.”

According to Tasfir, "helping" only applies to other Muslims. In fact Muslims are not allowed to have non-Muslim friends. There are even hadiths that Mohammed would wash himself if he made bodily contact with a Jew.

You mean tafsir? What is this magical concept?

Tafsir (Arabic: تفسير‎, tafsīr, "interpretation") is the Arabic word for exegesis or commentary, usually of the Qur'an. Ta'wīl is a subset of tafsir and refers to esoteric or mystical interpretation. An author of tafsīr is a mufassir (Arabic: 'مُفسر‎, mufassir, plural: Arabic: مفسرون‎, mufassirūn).

Tafsir - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ah, commentary on the Qur'an. Yes, of course every Muslim on the face of the Earth agrees on only one interpretation of Islam; how could I be so blind?

You are obviously grasping at straws. Autodidact has repeatedly proven you wrong on every single point. The quran is crap and so is Islam. Face it.

Every single point? Really? Have you actually read her replies? She hasn't disagreed with every single thing I've written.

Your delightful comments are sadly not worth listening to. Shame.

Oh and for today's dose of Free Speech:

Is that free speech? It looks like a picture. Speech is the spoken word, isn't it?

I don't agree with you — now that's freedom of speech.

 

[TJ73]

Well this is actually a very interesting point, TJ73. But does the Qur'an really describe a God who is more merciful and forgiving than you, in every respect?

Consider what the Qur'an says about unbelievers / disbelievers. I don't have time at the moment but I'm sure you can read for yourself many verses which talk about how if a person dies as a disbeliever, he/she will be punished in Hell with "fire" and "shackles" and so forth, and they will not receive forgiveness. Hell is also the punishment for a person who believes in Islam, but then no longer believes due to an opening of their "heart" to disbelief. The Qur'an also says that God causes some people to question the Qur'an, and those people will be put on trial for the crime of questioning in the next life.

If it was your decision, would you really put me in shackles and send me to fire, and not forgive me even if I asked for forgiveness, for eternity, because I do not believe in the Qur'an? I am sure that you have shortcomings as a human being, but I think you are probably much more merciful, more forgiving -- indeed, more reasonable -- than that.

Sorry I didn't notice before....Would I really [put you in shackles....?
I can not answer with the same complete knowledge of Allah. I know, relatively speaking, love, forgiveness and mercy . But if I think about my own children that does not mean I'll stand for just everything without punishment. I will never know the secrets of any ones heart, nor what they assert before they die, nor what they have done.
If you asked for forgiveness I would forgive you and Allah has stated the same. I would even argue that since He is the one and Only God/ Creator and Sustainer, the only one that can grant forgiveness, it would not necessarily be essential that you ask by calling the specific name Allah, if a different name is the same Creator, God, etc.. than perhaps that will be good.
Now as to someone entering eternity in disbelief, well what were they looking to attain anyway? They never wanted God's forgiveness or love or mercy or reward.They claim He is non-existent.
Would I like the idea of them burning and tormented , no. but I can't claim to know how or why that would be the outcome, I can only speculate how it would feel to have your sovereignty as God challenged

 

[Autodidact]

croak if you don't want people intellectual annhilating your pathetic excuse for a worldview why don't you just crawl back into whatever cave you came from. after all Mohammed never used a computer and you're supposed to imitate him right?

Please don't let the conversation descend into mere name-calling, not welcome from any side.

 

[Autodidact]

Ok, Muslims hang out with girl friends, drinking alcohol and doing what is supposed to be prohibited in their religion.

Do you still think there is a connection ?

Do I think there's a connection between Islam and Muslims? Uh, yeah.

A Muslim (مسل&#1605, , is an adherent of the religion of Islam

[wiki]

 

[Autodidact]

Hence, my point stand.




I checked this part and the reason for this that the owner will still have to support his slave with his family for he is being responsible of them, if he couldn't fund them, then he will have to freed them.

O.K., so we're clear now. In Islam, and according to the qur'an, slaves may be captured in war or born to people captured in war. Once captured, they may be bought and sold, and so may their descendants. Are we in agreement on that?

O.K. now, in your view, is that right or wrong? Is it right or wrong to capture someone in war, enslave them and their descendants, buy and sell them like property?

 

[Autodidact]

I don't understand what do you mean by at their option.

Muslims attack neighboring non-Muslim countries or tribes, in an effort to conquer their land and bring it under Muslim dominion. When doing so, they may kill their opponents, or capture them into slavery, as they prefer. They usually preferred to kill all or most of the men, and take the women captive as slaves and concubines. What is confusing about any of this?

Your knowledge of the Islamic history is really poor.

You keep making ad hominem pronouncements like this. It is incumbent on you to actually demonstrate this, by showing how I am wrong, and providing sources to support your claims. Y'know, like I do. It takes time and effort, but otherwise you just have a swearing match of no interest to anyone.

AHA, and also they can purchase their liberation .

Yes, slaves who somehow manage to scrape enough money together are allowed to buy their own freedom. In your view, is this a moral system?

You need to learn how to stick to your point.

When infidels attacked al-Madina in Gazwa Al-Hazab, Banu Qurayza before agreed with the prophet Mohamed that they will not support any attack on Al-Madina, nor they will fight against Muslims. However, in this war infidels came with 10000 worriers, this number is approximately more than number of Muslims who lived in Al-Madina during that time even if you include children and women. Banu Qurayza thought that there was no way for Mohamed to win this battle and this would be the end of Islam, they interfered in the war and attacked and fought against Muslims even though that they promised not to do so. Muslims were blocked for more than month and a half, however infidels couldn't enter Al-Madina and couldn't continue blocking Al-Madina and had to withdraw their troops. Muslims won the battle and they had to deal with Banu Qurayza so they attacked them, they killed whoever interfered in the attack on Al-Madina. There was one man who didn't fight against Muslims during the war, so he wasn't killed.

where did you learn you Muslim history, Saudi Arabia? Did you forget what came before that? Muhammad expelled from Medina the Banu Qaynuqa, one of three main Jewish tribes. So when Muhammad attacks you and throws you out of your home, you should not fight back? And if you do, your children should be enslaved? That's Muslim morality?

I think you would need to justify what is even worse, don't ya think ?

No, I don't have to justify anything immoral, because I am not stuck with a barbaric, primitive holy text.

 

[Autodidact]

It is restricted to the war.

It is restricted to non-Muslim people captured in war and their descendants. That is the primitive, barbaric, ancient moral system enshrined in the quran.

Another translation.

SLAMH's translation?