Was Muhammad a good man?

[FearGod]

When God says that the slave may have sex with her without a marriage contract ----This means that Islam does not prohibit slavery ---It is encouraged slavery ---
Because a Muslim if he wants to have sex and has 4 women ----
What will he do ---
**** slave

Do you think it is awful if someone make sex with his maid without marriage contract or with his girlfriend or with a prostitute.

Why do you think it is awful, while it is done everywhere ?
Are you against sex freedom if both agree to do it or we should make a contract for every and each ****.

 

[Moishe3rd]

Yeah, some people keep using the excuse of Taliban's and 9/11's, and some others, to bash Islam and Muslims all the time, as if they don't know that Muslims around the world are 2nd biggest religious group that a thing or two or even a hundred, don't stand for or define Islam and Muslims!

I'm from Hijaz. I wonder how many of those people know Hijaz!

So, Hijaz man, how do you feel about al Saud/ al Wahhab sacking and looting Mecca and Medina; invading and conquering; and driving your people from your land?
Are you arranging the resistance against these foreign invaders who are occupying your two holiest sites in Islam and who have divided the Hijaz with their illegal settlements? Are you refusing to recognize this apartheid State of Saudi Arabia and are you pledged to destroy them while trying to get the UN to recognize your people as the indigenous people of Hijaz who should have their own State?
Just curious.

 

[FearGod]

So, Hijaz man, how do you feel about al Saud/ al Wahhab sacking and looting Mecca and Medina; invading and conquering; and driving your people from your land?
Are you arranging the resistance against these foreign invaders who are occupying your two holiest sites in Islam and who have divided the Hijaz with their illegal settlements? Are you refusing to recognize this apartheid State of Saudi Arabia and are you pledged to destroy them while trying to get the UN to recognize your people as the indigenous people of Hijaz who should have their own State?
Just curious.

What are your evidences for those accusations against the Saudi king for sacking and looting.

 

[Moishe3rd]

What are your evidences for those accusations against the Saudi king for sacking and looting.

Oy.
Mecca was actually sacked and looted twice by al Saud/ al Wahhab.
First in 1803 and then again in 1926? 1927?
The conquest of the Arabian peninsula by the Saudis spreading the new heretic religion of Wahhabism, which required that Muslims either convert to Wahhabism; die; or be driven out of "sacred" lands, is history.
When the Wahhabists conquered Mecca, they destroyed anything they thought was not allowed - which included all tombs; grave markers; shrines and other over thousand year old Muslim holy religious sites. This included anything Except the Kaaba in Mecca. They also stole anything valuable as gold and the like were all "polytheistic" idol worshiping and needed to be removed from such "sacred ground."
In the 1920's, the insanely fanatical Saudi Ikwhan shock troops that burned and murdered and destroyed their way through the Arabian peninsula as the Saudis conquered, had to themselves be destroyed when they refused to give up Mecca to the not sufficiently "pure" Saudis....
This is history.

 

[1robin]

Wrong

Well I am glad the omnipotent One-answer set Islamic scholars straight. The actual case is the following:

Battle or raidname, The order orReason, Source
1. Al Cravan raid,To get money, Ibn Ishaq: Sirat Rasul Allah
2. Batn Rabigh caravan raid,To get money, Bukkari: Ibn sa'd
3. Kharar caravan raid,????, Ibn sa'd
4. Invasion of Waddan,Attack a Quraysh caravan which included camels, Hisham: Ishaq
5. Battle of Badr, Raid a Quraysh caravan carrying 50,000 gold Dinars guarded by 40 men, and to further Muslim political andeconomic and military position, Bukhari: Dawud.
6. Invasion of Buwat,Raid a Quraysh caravan which included 200 camels, Sahih Muslim: Hisham and Ishaq
7. Invasion of Dul Asher,Attack a Quraysh caravan, Hisham and Ishaq
8. Invasion of Safwan,To pursue Kurz bin Jabir Al-Fihri who led a small group that looted Muhammad's animals, Hisham and Ishaq
9. Assasination of Asma Bint Marwan,Kill 'Asma' bint Marwan for opposing Muhammad with poetry and for provoking others to attack him, Sa'd: Hisham and Ishaq
10. Assasination of Abu Afak,Kill Abu Afak for opposing Muhammad through poetry, Sa'd: Hisham and Ishaq
11. Assasination of Ka'b Ibn Al-Ashraf,According to Ibn Ishaq Muhammad ordered his followers to kill Ka'b because he "had gone to Mecca after Badr and inveighed against Muhammad. He also composed verses in which he bewailed the victims of Quraysh who had been killed at Badr. Shortly afterwards he returned to Medina and composed amatory verses of an insulting nature about the Muslim women, al-BuKhari and Sahi Muslim
12. Assasination of 'Abdullah Ibn Atik,Kill Abu Rafi' ibn Abi Al-Huqaiq for mocking Muhammad with his poetry and for helping the troops of the Confederates by providing them with money and supplies, al-Bukhari: Tabri


There was supposed to be a battle before no 1 above. When Muhammad realized he was outnumbered he did not rely on Allah but sent a man to call it off. which it was. The point here is Muhammad either was ordered to attack by Muhammad but didn't, or he never was in the first place.

As far as the battle of Badr on this list. Islamic source at the time recorded Muhammad was asked whether the raid was Allah's or his idea. Muhammad responded the latter. I have given contemporary Islamic sources and modern Islamic scholarship on these the above issues several times in this thread. Look it up.

Wrong

There are at least ten very early records of assassinations of poets and writers Muhammad had killed for writing negatively about him in early Islamic literature. See this site for many more and with mostly Islamic sources
List of Killings Ordered or Supported by Muhammad - WikiIslam

Wrong

The Banu Qurayza (Arabic: بني قريظة; بنو قريظة‎ alternate spellings include Quraiza, Qurayzah, Quraytha, and the archaic Koreiza) were a Jewish tribe which lived in northern Arabia, at the oasis of Yathrib (presently known as Medina), until the 7th century. In February/March of 627 AD, their conflict with Muhammad led to a 25-day siege of Banu Qurayza ending in the tribe's surrender.[1] There is much debate about the number executed with some estimating that between 400-900 males were beheaded.
Banu Qurayza - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is just one of many examples. He did this because they broke a treaty he made them sign or die for not doing so.

Wrong



Wrong


Regarding the rest of your reply. WRONG

Have a nice day

I know why your title is one-word. You bury your head in the sand and think of only one word. I am not wasting time providing history to someone who will not hear it. Selah. Let the revisionist history fest begin.

 

[Sabour]

I know why your title is one-word. You bury your head in the sand and think of only one word. I am not wasting time providing history to someone who will not hear it. Selah. Let the revisionist history fest begin.

Well my nickname is 0ne-answer, and not one word. 0ne-answer means that unlike many people, when I am asked a question I provide an answer. When asked about proof, I give proof. When asked a question, I answer it covering all its concepts.

It is not one word. It can be 180899089397804 words, but the answer is one in sense that it is all coherent and clear. When my answers say "R" "E" "D" than I mean it is red. I don't mean it is "B" "L" "U" "E" because that would be simply wriiten this way: blue.

See what I am hinting at? RED is red and BLUE is blue. I don't say well yeah it is written RED but if you read it spiritually it is blue.

Now since we are talking about wasting time, I don't plan to waste my time either when some one is putting claims with no supporting evidence.

I felt the word "Wrong" answers your claims. It is like I am saying you are a murder. You would simply say no I am not.

 

[YmirGF]

When my answers say "R" "E" "D" than I mean it is read. I don't mean it is "B" "L" "U" "E" because that would be simply wriiten this way: blue.

See what I am hinting at? RED is red and BLUE is blue. I don't say well yeah it is written RED but if you read it spiritually it is blue.

And unintended hilarity ensues.... oh, the irony...

 

[Sabour]

And unintended hilarity ensues.... oh, the irony...

Thx for notifying me

 

[YmirGF]

Thx for notifying me

So, you are "coherent and clear" except when you have to go back a fix your mistakes. Got it.

 

[1robin]

Well my nickname is 0ne-answer, and not one word. 0ne-answer means that unlike many people, when I am asked a question I provide an answer. When asked about proof, I give proof. When asked a question, I answer it covering all its concepts.

It is not one word. It can be 180899089397804 words, but the answer is one in sense that it is all coherent and clear. When my answers say "R" "E" "D" than I mean it is red. I don't mean it is "B" "L" "U" "E" because that would be simply wriiten this way: blue.

See what I am hinting at? RED is red and BLUE is blue. I don't say well yeah it is written RED but if you read it spiritually it is blue.

Now since we are talking about wasting time, I don't plan to waste my time either when some one is putting claims with no supporting evidence.

I felt the word "Wrong" answers your claims. It is like I am saying you are a murder. You would simply say no I am not.

Yelling wrong is not an answer, an explanation, a debate, or a defense of your faith. I am provided by scripture to always provide the reasons for the faith within me. That reason is never "wrong". I have seen thousands of hours of professional formal debates and read many transcripts. Not one single time was the response simply "wrong".

I do not know what all the R E D and blue stuff was. You can either defend the response of "wrong" and should have at that time, or not.

 

[Sabour]

So, you are "coherent and clear" except when you have to go back a fix your mistakes. Got it.

That is because when I do a mistake I correct it. I am not perfect as you know

 

[Sabour]

Yelling wrong is not an answer, an explanation, a debate, or a defense of your faith. I am provided by scripture to always provide the reasons for the faith within me. That reason is never "wrong". I have seen thousands of hours of professional formal debates and read many transcripts. Not one single time was the response simply "wrong".

I do not know what all the R E D and blue stuff was. You can either defend the response of "wrong" and should have at that time, or not.

Before you ask me to defend, provide me with a proof for what you are saying. When I say proof, this doesn't mean I am asking for explanation of how things went.

 

[FearGod]

Oy.
Mecca was actually sacked and looted twice by al Saud/ al Wahhab.
First in 1803 and then again in 1926? 1927?
The conquest of the Arabian peninsula by the Saudis spreading the new heretic religion of Wahhabism, which required that Muslims either convert to Wahhabism; die; or be driven out of "sacred" lands, is history.
When the Wahhabists conquered Mecca, they destroyed anything they thought was not allowed - which included all tombs; grave markers; shrines and other over thousand year old Muslim holy religious sites. This included anything Except the Kaaba in Mecca. They also stole anything valuable as gold and the like were all "polytheistic" idol worshiping and needed to be removed from such "sacred ground."
In the 1920's, the insanely fanatical Saudi Ikwhan shock troops that burned and murdered and destroyed their way through the Arabian peninsula as the Saudis conquered, had to themselves be destroyed when they refused to give up Mecca to the not sufficiently "pure" Saudis....
This is history.

Do you call this story an evidence ?

What your opinion about the Jews stealing the Palestinian lands ?
Do you think that Palestinians are justified to kill the Jews for this ?

 

[Smart_Guy]

So, Hijaz man, how do you feel about al Saud/ al Wahhab sacking and looting Mecca and Medina; invading and conquering; and driving your people from your land?
Are you arranging the resistance against these foreign invaders who are occupying your two holiest sites in Islam and who have divided the Hijaz with their illegal settlements? Are you refusing to recognize this apartheid State of Saudi Arabia and are you pledged to destroy them while trying to get the UN to recognize your people as the indigenous people of Hijaz who should have their own State?
Just curious.

I feel really bad. However, that was in the past and now things here in Hijaz are relatively safe and sound and by all means acceptable. Any firing back could bring bloodshed and misfortune to all people of both sides. There is a little oppression indeed, like the strict hijab and no women driving rules and the fact that some of them did steal some of our properties, but these took place in just a short period of time and stopped and are nothing compared to the hell that will break loos if we start a fight. What matters in my beliefs is peace, at least since they never actually tried to drive us away from our homes!

This is kinda like the Israeli/Palestinian case!

 

[Moishe3rd]

I feel really bad. However, that was in the past and now things here in Hijaz are relatively safe and sound and by all means acceptable. Any firing back could bring bloodshed and misfortune to all people of both sides. There is a little oppression indeed, like the strict hijab and no women driving rules and the fact that some of them did steal some of our properties, but these took place in just a short period of time and stopped and are nothing compared to the hell that will break loos if we start a fight. What matters in my beliefs is peace, at least since they never actually tried to drive us away from our homes!

This is kinda like the Israeli/Palestinian case!

Yes.
I was being sardonic, comparing the Saudis to the Israelis and you to the Arabs called Palestinians.
However, I would suggest that you brush up on your history of the Saudi conquest of the Hijaz.
Hundreds of thousands of Arabs were massacred or driven from their homes, never to return.

 

[Moishe3rd]

Do you call this story an evidence ?

No.
As noted, it's called history.
If perhaps, you had access to history books or a computer, you could look it up.

What your opinion about the Jews stealing the Palestinian lands ?

As land is immovable property, it is rather difficult to steal. So, you would have to phrase your question a bit differently in order for me to answer.

Do you think that Palestinians are justified to kill the Jews for this ?

No. But then again, I am still not sure what "this" is.
Perhaps you could explain yourself.

 

[kashmir]

I think this gif is very appropriate.

 

[FearGod]

No.
As noted, it's called history.
If perhaps, you had access to history books or a computer, you could look it up.

And the world leaders representing their people supporting Al-Saud, cheap world

As land is immovable property, it is rather difficult to steal. So, you would have to phrase your question a bit differently in order for me to answer.

Really, only you can understand that al saud steal the lands of Hijaz

[youtube]szp7hXBuTCw[/youtube]
Clear Proof - Israel Stealing Palestinian Land - YouTube

No. But then again, I am still not sure what "this" is.
Perhaps you could explain yourself.

My question is very simple

Do you think Palestinian are justified to kill the Jews because they stole their lands ?

You refuse to reply,you only see with one eye.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Yes.
I was being sardonic, comparing the Saudis to the Israelis and you to the Arabs called Palestinians.
However, I would suggest that you brush up on your history of the Saudi conquest of the Hijaz.
Hundreds of thousands of Arabs were massacred or driven from their homes, never to return.

You're promoting hatred and violence like that, tho maybe without you knowing. What is, or supposedly is, in the past is done by people that already died and gone, and the present and the future are what matter!

No more unnecessary bloodshed!

 

[kashmir]

You're promoting hatred and violence like that, tho maybe without you knowing. What is, or supposedly is, in the past is done by people that already died and gone, and the present and the future are what matter!

No more unnecessary bloodshed!

Just wondering, when is bloodshed actually necessary?

Yes, now is what matters and from my perspective, now is no more better than the past.

Millions of innocent people are still dying, being forced into slavery,women are treated like animals and raped, children murdered, children starving...
When will it ever end?