63 replies

  1. What about the poets, singing girls and Uqba?

    Did the venerable scholar have a blackout I wonder?

    Like

    • What about them dummy? Are you ready for some more humiliation? Don’t you get tired of getting torn apart and then retreating to your cave to lick your wounds?

      Liked by 1 person

      • Why should the Meccans have been killed en masse by Mohammed? For what crime?

        The law of Moses says life for life. Not life for insult. How many Muslims did the Meccans kill?

        Or maybe they thought negative thoughts of Mohammed so they should all have been put to death. I do the same so maybe I should be put to death according to Islam?

        “What about them dummy? Are you ready for some more humiliation?”

        Yeah. Humiliate me and tell me why they should have been put to death.

        Like

      • You really are a deceptive sack of crap, aren’t you?

        What did the Meccans do? Persecution? Murder? Torture? Yeah, only those things.

        The law of Moses says life for life? Are you really this stupid? So killing Amalekite babies was “life for life”? What is with you crosstians and your twisted sense of justice? Your pagan cult has truly destroyed any remnants of reason in that deranged brain of yours.

        Bring your evidence moron. Don’t make vague statements. Go on. Show the narrations. Then your humiliation can begin.

        Liked by 2 people

      • @ Watson

        First off they weren’t killed “en masse” (you must be confusing us with the Bible) at most they lost less than 200-300 casualties (I actually purposely overshot) in a 10-year war. They were really defeated after the first pitch battle of Badr (which was the largest force they had ever assembled in their entire history) that’s why they had to bring in allies.

        Next, the caravan raids were smart as the Propet(saw) essentially crippled their economy because even though only a few were hit they couldn’t move effectively (also semi symbolic seeing as his great, great, great grandfather set the whole thing up, yet they drove him out)

        Finally, regarding the poet (that would be Kab ibn Ashraf), the singing girls and Uqbah what about em? The first 2 were major propaganda centers (with one supplying logistical support) and Uqbah was a persecutor. These also were smart and quite frankly, screw em and may their punishments double in the Fire. Nobodies crying over their graves.

        Would you prefer this instead:

        Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” (1 Samuel 15:3)

        but you shall devote them to complete destruction, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, as the Lord your God has commanded, (Deuteronomy 20:17)

        Now those people were killed en masse.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Whatever the truth, I think Watson’s skepticism regarding the good doctor’s statement is warranted, despite the phraeseology.

      The statement is obviously not the descriptive language of an analytical historian, scrutinizing the available sources. So sure, one may speculate about it. But then again, it is hard to asses as no context for the statement is provided.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Follow the oil money.

    Like

  3. Mohammed had already raided the Meccan caravans and started a war. Wasn’t that “revenge” enough according to the venerable Dr?

    Like

    • Dummy, the Meccans had started the fight. The Muslims had to leave Mecca to avoid persecution. When they left, their properties were illegally seized. The persecution was already an act of war. The caravans were thus legitimate targets. But the Muslims weren’t savages like your pagan god’s hoardes.

      Liked by 1 person

      • “When they left, their properties were illegally seized. The persecution was already an act of war. ”

        You make it sound melodramatic equating persecution to war. Usually Muslims are dishing it out when it comes to persecution. Their Koran commands them to harm and humiliate the kuffar.

        How many Muslims died as a result of this “persecution”?

        Like

      • And there we go. Iggy exposes yet again his moronic opinions. So persecution is not a valid excuse to fight someone? But let me guess. Having no excuse at all to exterminate people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time, as your pagan god commanded his hoardes, was perfectly alright?

        The Quran tells Muslims to harm and humiliate the kuffar that have fought against us and expelled us from our homes. No one in their right mind, which excludes a braying donkey such as yourself, would find that offensive.

        Why do you keep making a fool of yourself you mindless troglodyte? 😂

        Like

      • Quote from Mohammed Unsheathed by Tara McArthur:

        The Quraysh redoubled their harassments of the Muslims, but they could not restrain Mohammed because of his protector Mutim. The Muslims complained to Mohammed, and he told them: “Allah has told me that you can emigrate to Medina. Anyone who likes may go there”.

        Over that summer, family by family, they liquidated their assets and set out in groups. Umar was the first to go.

        Like

      • @ Watson

        Whoa, Tara McArthur!!! Why didn’t you say so earlier! Man, what are her qualifications to speak on the subject?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Her qualifications are that she believes the earth was created in 4004 BCE at 6pm while Yahweh was partying with his roommate Jeff.

        Liked by 1 person

    • The venerable Dr. is an educated man, not some jackass who believes the earth was created at 6pm in the year 4004 BCE. How’s Jeff doing?

      Liked by 2 people

  4. Watson , do us all a favor and take your shoes and stick it up your a$$

    Liked by 2 people

  5. ken temple, watson and christians are GOING TO HELL

    QUOTE:

    Righteousness is the sole criterion and the righteousness that is beyond what is required of a Jew by the Torah. Matthew’s Jesus repeatedly stipulates this.

    For example, committing adultery, and perhaps all “sexual immorality” (5:27-32). Matthew’s Jesus does not do away with the Old Testament punishment for adultery, which is death; rather he redefines what adultery is—lusting with the eye! The goal for Matthew’s community, as legitimated through the mouthpiece of Jesus, is to be more righteous than Torah-followers! In all of Jesus’ “you have heard it said” sayings the Torah commandment and punishment is not done away with— “not one ‘i’ or one stroke of a letter will pass away” (5:18); rather what the crime is becomes more extreme! It is now the thought of said sin that becomes the sin, not its doing! The punishment, as far as this text is concerned, remains the same, and is now therefore extended to the thinking of the sin, and not just the doing of it! This is in fact more harsh than any Torah stipulation! In the language of Matthew’s Jesus, it demands more righteousness!

    It is also possible to list the examples used by Matthew’s Jesus of individuals who will not be saved, because the text itself is defining what exactly this righteousness above and beyond the Torah is:

    Any individual who does not forgive the sins/trespasses of others, their own sins/trespasses will not be forgiven by God! (6:14, 18:35)

    Every one who does not bear good fruit, that is do good (7:19). Presumably, we are to understand this as an ethical obligation to fellow humans.

    Those who do not do “the will of the Father” (7:21-23). This deserves a whole other enter because “will of the Father” as defined by Jesus himself in this gospel is in complete and utter contradiction of doing, say for example, the will of Yahweh as defined by Leviticus. But in the context of Matthew’s Jesus it means abandoning wealth, possessions, and giving all to the poor. Again, “unless your righteousness exceeds”

    It is implied that whoever hears Jesus’ teachings and does not do them will also be unforgiven, not saved (7:26-27; cf. Rom 2:13). Of course this contradicts John’s Jesus, who—I would argue “John” consciously created to speak against Matthew’s Jesus—merely states that hearing and believing is the criteria by which one is saved, nothing is ever said about doing them (Jn 5:24; cf. 3:16).

    Whoever denies Jesus, that is Matthew’s Jesus (10:33)! This seems to included: those who love father and mother, son and daughter more than Jesus, and those who do not pick up there own cross, i.e., become martyrs.

    Whoever blasphemes against the Spirit (of God) (12:31). Certainly the individuals in the 2 entries above would qualify.

    Causing a child who believes in Jesus to sin (18:6).

    Those whose hand or foot has caused them to sin, and they have not cut it off! (18:8).

    Those who have committed adultery with their eye and have not plucked it out!! (18:9). Yes, we are to read these literally—if your righteousness does not exceed that of the Torah, you will not be saved is the message here! What do you hold more valuable: your eye or your (eternal) life?

    Those who do not forgive a fellow man’s debt (18:35). I sure hope my creditors are reading this!

    Apparently all who are not watchful and ready (25:1-13).

    And finally, those who do not feed the hungry, give drink to the poor, take in the homeless, clothe the naked, and minister to the sick and imprisoned (25:31-46).

    The argument is clear from the text: unless your righteousness excels beyond that stipulated in the Torah!

    Thus, accordingly, it looks like no one is getting saved according to the sayings of Matthew’s Jesus. Or in Matthew’s Jesus’ own words: “Difficult is the way which leads to life and there are few who find it” (7:14). In point of fact, Matthew’s Jesus’ criterion for salvation is worse than the Old Testament! So unlike the Pauline literature, and the Gospel of John, Matthew’s Jesus does not postulate belief as an all encompassing blanket-criterion for being forgiven or saved.

    Indeed, it is not belief, nor Paul’s sacrificial atonement theology, but righteousness that is the sole criterion for Jesus’ Matthew, and that righteousness is defined in ultra-human ethical terms. The message is clear: Anyone whose righteousness does not exceed the righteousness stipulated in the Torah will not be saved!

    ////////////////

    ken, lol

    Like

  6. “These also were smart and quite frankly, screw em and may their punishments double in the Fire. Nobodies crying over their graves.”

    Their “crime” was to mock Mohammed. Judging from your response I guess you also relished the fate of Charlie Hebdo and his associates?

    Like

  7. “How many Muslims died as a result of this “persecution”?”

    Or were seriously injured?

    If war is the correct response it must have been death and injury on a large scale?

    Like

  8. Quote: “The Hadith also confirms that Muhammad was not physically harmed by the Meccans:

    Allah’s Apostle said, “Doesn’t it astonish you how Allah protects me from the Quraish’s abusing and cursing? They abuse Mudhammam and curse Mudhammam while I am Muhammad (and not Mudhamma)” (Bukhari 56:733)

    Quote: “As mentioned in several places, the worst indignity that Muhammad endured was an episode in which Abu Jahl and others mocked him while he was praying by putting the intestines of an animal on his back (Bukhari 4:241). The men who did this were later killed by the Muslims.”

    Like

    • Iggy can only make cut and paste comments. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was under his uncle’s protection. That is how Arab society worked in those days. But Muslims from weaker tribes or those who were slaves could be killed without any threat of retaliation.

      Nevertheless, there were instances where Muhammad (pbuh) was physically attacked, as Stew already mentioned.

      Liked by 1 person

      • There are plenty of killing commands in the Koran where there is no retaliation. There just needs to be good intent for the advantage of Islam for the Muslim. As long as the one killed is not paying his protection money to Allah.

        Like

      • Your troglodytic opinions don’t matter. Sorry Iggy, but there is just no reason to take anything you say seriously. 😉

        Like

  9. “The Quran tells Muslims to harm and humiliate the kuffar that have fought against us and expelled us from our homes. ”

    What weapons did they use then in this conflict, apart from words, or dust or animal entrails, or the occasional fisticuff?

    Any examples? Or are you just twisting words as usual to give them an islamic meaning?

    Like

    • Dumbass, they used spears (Sumayah was killed this way), heavy stones (Bilal was tortured this way) and other weapons.

      Liked by 3 people

      • There was usually a claim for blood money after such killings. That was the way things were settled. Or was Mohammed not interested in a peaceful solution?.

        Like

      • @ Watson

        There’s no blood money for slaves dumb@$$. Also, notice how you have to try and downplay murder but will defend an alleged genocide but Joshua(as). You are truly one of the worst of creation and I really pray you repent before you die because as of now Hell is your home.

        Liked by 1 person

  10. We know that Mohammed was actually plotting a real war against the Meccans not just your phoney war of “persecution” that you are dreaming up.

    Like

  11. Quote: “The Muslims were actually the first to resort to physical violence when Sa’d bin Abu Waqqas picked up a camel’s jawbone and struck a local polytheist who was “rudely interrupting” his group of praying Muslims. “This was the first blood to be shed in Islam” (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 166).

    The new converts were quite aggressive, particularly when they could get away with it, which was the misfortune of others. An example is when one of the strongest Muslims, Hamza, struck a Meccan leader by the name of Abu Jahl ‘violently” with his bow for speaking in an insulting way to Muhammad:

    When he got to the mosque [Hamza] saw [Abu Jahl] sitting among the people, and went up to him until he stood over him, when he lifted up his bow and struck him a violent blow with it, saying, ‘Will you insult him when I follow his religion, and say what he says? Hit me back if you can!’ (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 185).

    End Quote.

    Like

    • …The new converts were quite aggressive…when one of the strongest Muslims, Hamza, struck a Meccan leader by the name of Abu Jahl ‘violently” with his bow for speaking in an insulting way to Muhammad…

      Oh, are you talking about his uncle who wasn’t Muslim yet dumb@$$?

      Like

    • “The Muslims were actually the first to resort to physical violence when Sa’d bin Abu Waqqas picked up a camel’s jawbone and struck a local polytheist who was “rudely interrupting”

      yaa f-king baastard
      …..u have a problem with this when krist told hebrews to go to pregnant women and slaughter the unborn? I would really like that children are protected from you diseased bastards

      Like

  12. Why didn’t Mohammed leave Mecca to the Meccans? He must have calculated that the conflict would escalate in to a civil war because of the fiery temperaments of the Arabs. Why was a piece of ground worth a war and all the bloodshed associated with it?

    There is no question that he was deliberately provoking the Meccans in to a bloody conflict.

    Like

    • @ Watson

      Why did God promise land already occupied by the Amakelites, Edom (who didn’t exist yet) Midian etc. Why didn’t he give them a place where no one was living?

      Like

    • “Why didn’t Mohammed leave Mecca to the Meccans?”

      so you like living under a pagan government if you were meccan?

      Like

      • “The caravans were thus legitimate targets. But the Muslims weren’t savages like your pagan god’s hoardes.”

        Of course not. Just robbing pregnant women and children of their homes and sending them in to the desert in the scorching sun. Tearing old women apart with camels. Beheading 800 in one day. LIghting fires on a man’s chest to get the booty etc etc. Attacking civilians in their sleep, catapulting civilians with stones, fire, dead bodies etc etc.

        Like

      • @ Watson

        Lol, I think you meant to say:

        letting civilians go after being defeated who had nothing to do with the fight

        not doing barbaric acts such as this as Umm Qirfa is not a reliable narration by any scholarly opinion:
        https://www.islamweb.net/en/fatwa/192983/weakness-of-narration-about-the-way-umm-qirfah-was-killed

        Executing enemy combatants who tried to kill women and children

        not doing torture for money as this story is untrue by consensus
        https://discover-the-truth.com/2015/04/04/baseless-story-of-kinana-ibn-al-rabi-treasure/

        and doing the norms art of siege warfare and first giving the option of abandoning the city.

        Don’t worry slips of the tongues happen all the time. Now that we explained that can you explain this to us as you appear to be ashamed and have been avoiding this topic like the plague:

        Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” (1 Samuel 15:3)

        but you shall devote them to complete destruction, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, as the Lord your God has commanded, (Deuteronomy 20:17)

        Like

  13. The hypocrite Faiz: “When they left, their properties were illegally seized. ”

    In Medina the properties of the Jews were illegally seized before they were forced to leave!!

    Like

    • @ Watson

      Which one was illegal?

      Qanaiqa- Who broke their treaty, gave logistical and intel support to a known enemy, forged an alliance with said enemy and who ended up disrespecting a Muslim woman.

      Nadir- Who broke their treaty, violated the mutual defense clause, refused to pay blood money and attempted an assassination.

      Quraytha- Who broke their treaty, violated the mutual defense clause, refused to pay blood money, acted treacherously (even after being offered to leave the treaty 3 times), tried to kill unarmed women and children

      ALL these people by all definitions of warfare are enemy combatants. Also, 2 of 3 groups were allowed to take their property that they could carry with them (excluding weapons)

      Like

  14. @ Watson

    Ahhh what the heck I got some down time to show your retardation. Let’s pull up the charter, article 29,38 and 49 ahem:

    “29. The Jews will contribute towards the war when fighting alongside the Believers

    38. If anyone attacks anyone who is a party to this Pact the other must come to his help.

    49. The parties to this Pact are bound to help each other in the event of an attack on Yathrib.”

    Quick question, they are exempt from Badr as that is offensive but did they participate in Ubud which is when these conditions take place? What about Khandaq did they participate then?

    No.

    As of now at Uhud (2 years in) they have all violated the agreement and are thus enemy combatants.

    Qanaiqa and Quraytha have EXPLICITLY violated article 48 which reads:

    48.Quraysh and their allies will not be given protection.

    Just to save you the lame excuse that they weren’t aware the Muslims were at war. Now I have another question how does it feel to get embarrassed online a least once a week?

    Liked by 3 people

  15. The treaty itself is probably fabricated as part of Islam’s overall conspiracy against the Jews. If it did exist it was at a time when the Jews probably knew little or nothing about Mohammed and were willing to to give the benefit of the doubt and their goodwill.

    The Jews can’t just give Mohammed an open check for his religious wars. The laws of the OT can only justify defensive wars and none of Mohammed’s wars were defensive although some individual battles could be said to be so. Some of the claims you make are far-fetched to say the least. Military intel, assassination attempts, attacks on women and children.

    The Jews knew that they were living on borrowed time after they rejected Mohammed’s claim to be a prophet. They were justified from that point on to take any lawful steps necessary to protect themselves from his aggression.

    Various other claims you make are part of the overall fictitious crafting of the islamic conspiracy to make Jews the bogeyman of Islam.

    It was never possible for Judaism to co-exist as a vibrant sovereign independent entity alongside Islam because that itself would be a negation of the fundamental claims of Islam, i.e that unrepentant civilisations that have rejected Mohammed can thrive and flourish. Also Islam needs the “wicked” Jews to prop up it’s replacement theology, i.e. that Allah had to reject the Jews and replace them with Arab Muslims, swapping one people for another.

    So the Jews, along with all civilisations that reject the messenger, had to be squashed and splattered to prove that Mohammed and Islam are the true religion of God. But the Jews have a special role to play as inciting Allah to reject them and thus open the way for the founding of the new religion Islam.

    Like

    • @ Watson

      1. Very few scholars and orientalists doubt its authenticity. Plus didn’t you try to use it against me earlier this year? It must really suck to have the document in play huh?
      2. Didn’t know Caanintite wars of Joshua (as) in your text were defensive
      3. Ken tried that claim earlier simple rebuttal look at Solomon’s domain it’s farther than the prescribed boundaries. Furthermore, Jews don’t believe this and quite frankly neither do you as you believe Jesus(as) will force every nation under his authority (robe dipped in blood and all that) I don’t expect anything less because you guys add new fanfiction to your text every couple of years.
      4. Not my claims unlike you I don’t pull things out my butt and can reference anything I’ve said. You simply are just going by your personal feelings like anybody cares.
      5. Yes, when you supply water and rest to an enemy on the way to attack somebody you are giving them logistical support. Also, as proven from your text you agree that one can kill surrendering women and children remember the whole defense you did try to defend it?
      6. Using your poor logic the Jews were right in stopping a mad man defiling the Holy Temple and rejected his claims as he failed to do even ONE Messianic prophecy. Later on, his heretical followers started worshipping him and misquoting text to “prove” him. Later they adopted pagan values and turned around and created the doctrine of “perpetual servitude”. See how easy this is to do?
      7. Truth and lies don’t mix sorry. Just because God blessed and favored us is no reason to be jealous you’re free to join up.

      Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: