51 replies

  1. Why should Jesus have opposed Rome, in the way that you seem to suggest without being specific as to what form this opposition should take?

    The Jews were a semi-autonomous nation, with their own king, by all accounts which is way more freedom and independence than any islamic government would allow them.

    Like

    • Holmes: The Jews were a semi-autonomous nation, with their own king, by all accounts which is way more freedom and independence than any islamic government would allow them.

      Can you name ONE historian that says the Jews had more freedom under Romans than they did under Muslims?

      Like

  2. Try the book “The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism, from Sacred Texts to Solemn History” edited by Andrew G. Bostom, Foreword by Ibn Warraq, for a more balanced view without rose-coloured glasses.

    Like

    • You do realize Andrew Bostom is a Professor of Medicine and not a historian, right? You also realize that both Bostom and Warraq are polemicists whose books are only published by conservative presses?

      Liked by 1 person

  3. He compiled the material from historical sources. He doesn’t have to be an historian to do that. The sources themselves were written by historians including Muslims.

    Like

    • So what makes a historian a historian if all one needs to do is simply compile materials from historical sources? Let me ask you another question. What do you make of the fact that none of Bostom’s work on Islam is peer-reviewed?

      Liked by 1 person

  4. @ Harris

    See your BS source and raise you an actual historian. See Dr. Sallabi’s Ali bio vol 2 he says directly that minorities such as Jews rule themselves independently. Also please see QBs 4 part series refuting your fellow missionary Temple when he made ther same erroneous claims:

    https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2019/06/24/the-temple-of-ignorance-a-response-to-ken-temple-on-dhimmis-jizyah-and-islam-part-i/

    Like

  5. He cites, for example Maimonides “The Epistle to the Jews of Yemen” where Maimonides calls Mohammed ha-meshugga, the madman.

    What is your take on that?

    Or the following short extract:

    (This essay is based upon materials from my forthcoming, “The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism”, 2008, on Prometheus Books.)

    December 13th marked the 804th anniversary of the death of Maimonides (d. 1203, in Cairo), renowned Talmudist, philosopher, astronomer, and physician. The biography of this “second Moses,” is often cited by those who would extol the purported Muslim ecumenism of the high Middle Ages—particularly in “Andalusia,” or Muslim Spain, invariably accompanied by a denunciation of the fanatical intolerance of Christian Western Europe, during the same era.

    A particularly egregious example of this genre of loaded comparisons was made by Amartya Sen, the Nobel laureate economist, in his recent book Identity and Violence. Sen has the temerity to proclaim, “…the Jewish Philosopher Maimonides was forced to emigrate from an intolerant Europe in the twelfth century, he found a tolerant refuge in the Arab world.”

    Sen’s ahistorical drivel aside, Maimonides (b. 1135, in Cordova) was but thirteen years old (in 1148) when Muslim Cordova fell into the hands of the particularly fanatical Berber Muslim Almohads, who invaded the Iberian peninsula from North Africa. Maimonides and all the dhimmi Jews in Cordova were compelled to choose between Islam and exile. Choosing the latter course, Maimonides and his family for twelve years subsequently led a nomadic life, wandering across Spain. By 1160 they crossed the Mediterranean, and settled at Fez, Morocco (also under Almohad control) where, unknown to the authorities, they hoped to pass as Muslims, while living as crypto-Jews. Maimonides’ dual life, however, became increasingly dangerous as his reputation was steadily growing, and the authorities began to inquire into the religious disposition of this highly gifted young man. He was even charged by an informer with the crime of having relapsed (apostasized) from Islam, and, but for the intercession of the poet and theologian Abu al-‘Arab al Mu’ishah, a Muslim friend, he would have suffered the fate of his colleague Judah ibn Shoshan, who had shortly before been executed on a similar charge. Given these precarious circumstances, Maimonides’ family left Fez, embarking in 1165 to Acre, then to Jerusalem, and on to Fostat (Cairo), where they settled, living once again as dhimmis, albeit under more tolerant Fatimid rule.

    The jihad depredations of the Almohads (1130-1232) wreaked enormous destruction on both the Jewish and Christian populations in Spain and North Africa. A contemporary Judeo-Arabic account by Solomon Cohen (which comports with Arab historian Ibn Baydhaq’s sequence of events), from January 1148 C.E, described the Muslim Almohad conquests in North Africa, and Spain, as follows:

    Abd al-Mumin…the leader of the Almohads after the death of Muhammad Ibn Tumart the Mahdi …captured Tlemcen [in the Maghreb] and killed all those who were in it, including the Jews, except those who embraced Islam…[In Sijilmasa] One hundred and fifty persons were killed for clinging to their [Jewish] faith…All the cities in the Almoravid [dynastic rulers of North Africa and Spain prior to the Almohads] state were conquered by the Almohads. One hundred thousand persons were killed in Fez on that occasion, and 120,000 in Marrakesh.

    The Jews in all [Maghreb] localities [conquered]…groaned under the heavy yoke of the Almohads; many had been killed, many others converted; none were able to appear in public as Jews…Large areas between Seville and Tortosa [in Spain] had likewise fallen into Almohad hands.

    Like

    • Almohads persecuted Jews. Therefore, Jews were better off under Romans than under Muslims. Great Logic! Here’s Bernard Lewis’s take on Maimonides. Unlike Bostom, Lewis was actually a recognized historian:

      There is a striking contrast between Maimonides’ letter to his Hebrew translator in Europe in which he speaks of the richness of the Arabic language and the superiority of the Arab sciences, and his
      letter to the persecuted Jews of the Yemen, in which he complains bitterly of the wretched state of the Jews under Muslim rule…These strictures, no doubt written under the impact of his own memories of Spain and Morocco revived by the recent news from southern Arabia, CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS AN ACCURATE GENERAL PICTURE. Maimonides’ own position, his pride and his success as a court physician and communal leader in Cairo, attest the contrary.

      During the centuries when both Muslim and Christian
      states existed in the Iberian peninsula, there were times and places, as in Maimonides’ own birthplace, when it was the Muslims who persecuted and the Christians who offered refuge. In North Africa on the one hand and in Iran and Central Asia on the other, the pattern of Jewish life from the later Middle Ages was one of increasing poverty, misery, and degradation. Only in the central lands of the Middle East, under the rule of Mamluk sultans and far more under the rule of the Ottoman Empire, were Jews able to preserve some status and dignity, and even to enter on a new age of efflorescence. (The Jews of Islam)

      Like

  6. This devastation—massacre, captivity, and forced conversion—was described by the Jewish chronicler Abraham Ibn Daud, and the poet Abraham Ibn Ezra. Suspicious of the sincerity of the Jewish converts to Islam, Muslim “inquisitors”, i.e., antedating their Christian Spanish counterparts by three centuries, removed the children from such families, placing them in the care of Muslim educators. When Sijilmasa [an oasis town southwest of Fez] was conquered by the Almohads in 1146, the Jews were given the option of conversion or death. While 150 Jews chose martyrdom, others converted to Islam, including the dayyan [rabbi, or assistant rabbi] Joseph b. Amram (who later reverted to Judaism). The town of Dar’a suffered a similar fate. Abraham Ibn Ezra’s moving elegy Ahah Yarad Al Sefarad describes the Almohad destruction of both Spanish (Seville, Cordova, Jaen, Almeria) and North African Jewish communities, including Sijilmasa and Dar’a (along with others in Marrakesh, Fez, Tlemcen, Ceuta, and Meknes).
    Ibn Aqnin (d. 1220), a renowned philosopher and commentator, who was born in Barcelona in 1150, fled the Almohad persecutions with his family, also escaping to Fez. Living there as a crypto-Jew, he met Maimonides and recorded his own poignant writings about the sufferings of the Jews under Almohad rule. Ibn Aqnin wrote during the reign of Abu Yusuf al-Mansur (r. 1184-1199), four decades after the onset of the Almohad persecutions in 1140. Thus the Jews forcibly converted to Islam were already third generation Muslims. Despite this, al-Mansur continued to impose restrictions upon them, which Ibn Aqnin chronicles. From his Tibb al-nufus (Therapy of the Soul), Ibn Aqnin, laments:
    Our hearts are disquieted and our souls are affrighted at every moment that passes, for we have no security or stability…Past persecutions and former decrees were directed against those who remained faithful to the Law of Israel and kept them tenaciously so that they would even die for the sake of Heaven. In the event that they submitted to their demands, [our enemies] would extol and honor them. . . But in the present persecutions, on the contrary, however much we appear to obey their instructions to embrace their religion and forsake our own, they burden our yoke and render our travail more arduous. . . .Behold the hardships of the apostates of our land who completely abandoned the faith and changed their attire on account of these persecutions. But their conversion has been of no avail to them whatsoever, for they are subjected to the same vexations as those who have remained faithful to their creed. Indeed, even the conversion of their fathers or grandfathers…has been of no advantage to them.
    If we were to consider the persecutions that have befallen us in recent years, we would not find anything comparable recorded by our ancestors in their annals. We are made the object of inquisitions; great and small testify against us and judgments are pronounced, the least of which render lawful the spilling of our blood, the confiscation of our property, and the dishonor of our wives.
    … the [Muslim] custodians are able to dispose of our young children and their belongings as they see fit. If they were given to an individual who feared Allah, then he would endeavor to educate the children in his religion, for one of their principles is that all children are originally born as Muslims and only their parents bring them up as Jews, Christians, or Magians. Thus, if this individual educates them in [what they state is] their original religion [i.e., Islam] and does not leave the children with those [i.e., the Jews] that will abduct them therefrom, he will obtain a considerable reward from Allah…
    … We were prohibited to practice commerce, which is our livelihood, for there is no life without the food to sustain our bodies and clothes to protect them from the heat and cold. The latter can only be obtained through trade for this is their source and cause, without which its effect, namely our existence, would disappear. In so doing their design was to weaken our strong and annihilate our weak…
    … Then they imposed upon us distinctive garments…As for the decree enforcing the wearing of long sleeves, its purpose was to make us resemble the inferior state of women, who are without strength. They were intended by their length to make us unsightly, whereas their color was to make us loathsome… The purpose of these distinctive garments is to differentiate us from among them so that we should be recognized in our dealings with them without any doubt, in order that they might treat us with disparagement and humiliation. . . Moreover it allows our blood to be spilled with impunity. For whenever we travel on the wayside from town to town, we are waylaid by robbers and brigands and are murdered secretly at night or killed in broad daylight…
    Now, the purpose of the persecution of Ishmael, whether they require us to renounce our religion in public or in private is only to annihilate the faith of Israel and consequently one is bound to accept death rather than commit the slightest sin . . . as did the martyrs of Fez, Sijilmasa, and Dar’a.

    Can you disprove the truthfulness of this alternative narrative?

    Like

    • @ Holmes

      Yes very easily. To begin this is why one uses actual historians instead of people with obvious agendas as one can’t help but laugh at the bias and misinformation. For one, he glosses over a keyword when discussing the Iberian peninsula that “the fanatical Berbers” invaded (Emphasis mine):

      “when MUSLIM Cordova fell into the hands of the particularly fanatical Berber Muslim Almohads…”

      Meaning the Jews were already under MUSLIM rule (the Almoravids) before the Almohads got there, and their community was flourishing there before this new dynasty came in and oppressed them. Again this event works against him not for lol. Also hilarious is he says:

      “The jihad depredations of the Almohads…”

      Sooo…two kingdoms going to war that are both Muslim is “Jihad” now, very interesting….

      Also lol look how deceptive he is:

      “All the cities in the Almoravid [dynastic rulers of North Africa and Spain prior to the Almohads] state were conquered by the Almohads.”

      See how he keeps skipping the fact that the Almoravid were Muslims? This isn’t a coincidence or a slip of the brain. The Almohads were wrong (and an exception not a rule) This book is absolute garbage that is twisting events as it uses fear fallacies. Yes there were periods of oppression in Islamic history (even then we don’t take rulings from these people) but OVERALL we were tolerant. This also works against him in regards to people of the Scripture being protected peoples. The Almohads essentially removed the option of Jizya (which they had no right to as it is clearly mentioned in the Quran) and did forced conversions (which is also condemned in the Quran) So basically these poorly researched authors did was use an exceptional event and made it seem like the norm. This is the height of intellectual dishonesty and demonstrates why real scholarship is used as opposed to people with no credentials with an obvious bias.

      Liked by 2 people

      • “The Almohads were wrong (and an exception not a rule)”

        Were they wrong? What law did they break? Isn’t it the aim of Sharia to humiliate non-Muslims? Oppression of the non-Muslim is automatic. That is the rule to which there may have been a few exceptions here and there.

        Like

      • @ Holmes

        To begin from a practical standpoint empires are not forged by pissing off your subjects. Next no the job is not to humilate. Umar (ra) the second leader of the Muslims and a disciple of Prophet Muhammad(saw) said as he was dying:

        Umar (after he was stabbed), instructed (his would-be-successor) saying, “I urge him (i.e. the new Caliph) to take care of those non-Muslims who are under the protection of Allah and His Apostle in that he should observe the convention agreed upon with them, and fight on their behalf (to secure their safety) and he should not over-tax them beyond their capability.”

        https://sunnah.com/bukhari/56/258

        Regarding the Almohads I listed two but since you want more detail (I guess because you think you’ve somehow “trapped” me)

        1. Convert or die

        Yeah…never in Islamic history has this been debated especially in regards to Jews and Christians (literally this is the first time I’ve ever heard of this happening) The Qur’an is quite clear on this as well as hadith:

        There is no forcing in religion. The straight path has become clear from the crooked one. Whoever rejects all that calls to rebellion and believes in God, has grabbed onto a handle that can never be broken because God is always Listening and Knows everything. (2:256)

        From ibn Kathir:
        “Do not force anyone to become Muslim, for Islam is plain and clear, and its proofs and evidence are plain and clear. Therefore, there is no need to force anyone to embrace Islam. Rather, whoever Allah directs to Islam, opens his heart for it and enlightens his mind, will embrace Islam with certainty. Whoever Allah blinds his heart and seals his hearing and sight, then he will not benefit from being forced to embrace Islam.””

        http://www.alim.org/library/quran/AlQuran-tafsir/TIK/2/256

        This verse above was revealed SPECIFICALLY for this during the life of Muhammad(saw) when some people tried to force their children into becoming Muslims:

        “…this was revealed concerning the Ansār [of Medina] who tried to compel their sons to enter into Islam…”

        https://www.altafsir.com/Books/Al_Jalalain_Eng.pdf

        So even in this case none of these people would even count as Muslims because it was though coercion.

        2. Abolishment of Jizya

        Again a clear command. People can remain their faith as long as they pay their taxes. So they basically abolished an entire Quranic injunction. If these people were willing to pay their taxes to them they had no right to touch them.

        3. The use of torture on the Jews

        One cannot torture people (especially protected people)

        ‘Urwa bin Al Zubair said’ Hisham bin Halim bin Hizam found a man who was the governor of Hims making some Copts stand in the sun for the payment of jizyah. He said “What is this?” I heard the Apostle (ﷺ) as saying “Allaah Most High will punish those who punish the people in this world.”

        https://sunnah.com/abudawud/20/118

        Hisham reported on the authority of his father that Hisham b. Hakim b. Hizam happened to pass by people, the farmers of Syria, who had been made to stand in the sun. He said:

        What is the matter with them? They said: They have been detained for Jizya. Thereupon Hisham said: I bear testimony to the fact that I heard Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) as saying: Allah would torment those who torment people in the world.
        https://sunnah.com/muslim/45/155

        So yeah as I was saying if the situation is as is described (I have to take it all with a grain of salt as I don’t trust the author) the Almohads were wrong.

        Liked by 1 person

  7. If there is no forcing in religion why was Islam spread by military conquest and still relying on this method in many places? All in accordance with many commands in the koran to fight the kuffar.

    When did the islamic prophets or messengers go away if the people they went to did not want to accept Islam as their religion? Please give me an example.

    Those taken in conquest by Muslims have no rights or property, even their families do not belong to them any more. They can be sold or killed or simply banished as the caliph wishes.

    Like

    • Holmes: If there is no forcing in religion why was Islam spread by military conquest and still relying on this method in many places?

      Not according to historians.

      Liked by 1 person

    • @ Holmes

      To begin you’re moving the discussion from the Almohads to an entirely different area. As has been clearly demonstrated one cannot torture people into becoming Muslims as it is clearly stated in the Qur’an. These people have an agenda so they spread propaganda and misinformation. Now onto your new set of questions:

      1. Military conquest
      Just because an area was opened to Islamic rule doesn’t mean people are tortured into becoming Muslims. Even if you look at our major conquest (which was really the first 100 years with most of that in the first 30) Administration really didn’t change generally speaking everyone kept their positions and just payed taxes now to the Caliphate (until the Ummayyads). They still sold things that would be forbidden to us to one another (like pork or alcohol) and lived their lives normal.

      2. Prophets and Messengers
      Different ballgame, you know this, I know this. To begin a prophet who did what your saying was Joseph(as). But generally speaking if one is sent that society will be changing as hey are not allowed to leave unless given permission (an example of one trying to do so is Jonah (as)) Even then a prophet does not kill the entire society for rejection or force them to accept (an example being Moses(as) and Aaron(as) with Egypt). Depends in a variety of parameters.

      3. No rights
      This is incorrect and I just gave you an example of a Caliph (who we actually get rulings from) saying:

      Umar (after he was stabbed), instructed (his would-be-successor) saying, “I urge him (i.e. the new Caliph) to take care of those non-Muslims who are under the protection of Allah and His Apostle in that he should observe the convention agreed upon with them, and fight on their behalf (to secure their safety) and he should not over-tax them beyond their capability.”

      https://sunnah.com/bukhari/56/258

      Again looking ay QBs refutation of Temple you can see where Coptic Christians during Amr bin Al As liked his rule.

      Like

  8. Islamic law forbids the construction of new churches. Christians are “forbidden to ring church bells or display crosses, recite the Torah or Evangel aloud, or make public display of their funerals and feastdays, and are forbidden to build new churches” – Reliance of the Traveller o.11.5 (6,7)

    No compulsion in religion? Who’s buying this?

    Like

    • @ Holmes
      If you read QB’s article this has already been addressed. As you copy and pasted this quote simple question what is “Reliance of the Traveller”?

      Like

  9. “Holmes: If there is no forcing in religion why was Islam spread by military conquest and still relying on this method in many places?

    Not according to historians.”

    [25.36] Then We said: Go you both to the people who rejected Our communications; so We destroyed them with utter destruction.
    [25.37] And the people of Nuh, when they rejected the apostles, We drowned them, and made them a sign for men, and We have prepared a painful punishment for the unjust;
    [25.38] And Ad and Samood and the dwellers of the Rass and many generations between them.
    [25.39] And to every one We gave examples and every one did We destroy with utter destruction.

    But according to the Koran it was by force.

    Like

    • What does God destroying nations in the past have to do with military conquest?
      The ‘We’ in those verses is refering to God. The fact that He is the one’s talking + We starts with a capital letter should have given that away.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Why did Mohammed warn pagans and the Jews in this way if he was not going to be the instrument of Allah’s wrath?

        What is the relevance otherwise?

        Like

      • Lol you obviously got busted and now you’re arguing just for the sake of avoiding the reality of you getting busted.
        You said those verses involve military conquest which you were proven WRONG.
        So now you switch to this?
        Verses talking about God destroying nation are about just that: HIM destroting nations.
        If He wanted to warn them buy saying that if they don’t accept Islam they will be destroyed by military conquest then the verses you brought up would have been about, guess what: military conquest.
        Now you’re just being pathetic.

        Try again.

        Liked by 2 people

      • @ Holmes

        Soooo…using this same logic Paul was threatening people?

        “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.” (Romans 1:18 )

        Are you even thinking now that most of your main evidence has gone up in smoke (with a verse going completely in the opposite direction being quoted directly from the text?)

        Liked by 1 person

  10. “Not according to historians.”

    So all the battles were in actual reality hugging festivals where nobody got killed.?

    Like

  11. “Verses talking about God destroying nation are about just that: HIM destroting nations.”

    Is God still doing this after Mohammed came to the world? If so can you give any examples? Or has Allah retired from this line of business? If not why did Mohammed need to fight any battles with anyone?

    Like

    • Wth does any of this have to do with what you brought up first???

      You claimed that the verses you quoted talk about MILITARY conquest which you were shown to be false. You are so stupid you didn’t even know the ‘We’ is refering to God.

      Whether God destroys or doesn’t is once again a tangent which you desperately want to use to weasel your way out.
      Stop talking already, the more you talk the more you show the giant busted ass you just have.

      Liked by 1 person

    • The first kind of war does not concern the sharī‘ah (Divine law); instead, it relates to the Divine principle of conclusive argument from God, which principle manifests itself in this world on the basis of God’s direct decree and through those personalities whom He grants the status of risālat.1 In human history, this status was given for the last time to the Prophet Muḥammad (peace and blessings be upon him). The battles that the Prophet and his companions fought under this principle against the defiance of Islam were not just battles; instead, they were Divine punishment which, exactly in accordance with God’s ways and His Judgement, visited first the polytheists of Arabia and the Israelites and the Nazarenes there and then, after them, some peoples outside the Arabian Peninsula. The Divine scheme of sending prophets and messengers ended with Prophet Muḥammad (peace and blessings be upon him). Therefore, with the passing away of the Prophet and his companions, that Divine process has ended in which a certain people could be declared as infidels, battles and wars could be done against them, and the vanquished in such fighting could be killed or subjugated and made subservient through jizyah (a tribute). No one until the Judgement Day has any right now to wage a war against any nation for this purpose or to subjugate a vanquished people by making them subservient through jizyah.

      The second form of war, however, does relate to the sharī‘ah. Therefore, the only possibility for Muslims to wage a war as jihād is in a fight against oppression and injustice. In the sharī‘ah, this is the only reason for an armed jihād. This jihād is not done for self-interest, wealth, conquest, rule, fame, honour, affiliation, partisanship, or animosity. It is God’s war that His servants fight in His way on His command and in accordance with His directives. They are only His instruments in this war. They have no personal objective; just the objectives of God, which they intend to achieve. Therefore, they are not supposed to deviate from this position to the slightest extent.

      Important sections of the law given by the Qur’ān for this form of war are summarized below:

      http://www.monthly-renaissance.com/issue/content.aspx?id=1193

      my question:

      why did joshua raise an offensive jihad on non-jews through blessing of yhwhjesus?

      Like

  12. “[9.70] Has not the news of those before them come to them; of the people of Nuh and Ad and Samood, and the people of Ibrahim and the dwellers of Madyan and the overthrown cities; their apostles came to them with clear arguments; so it was not Allah Who should do them injustice, but they were unjust to themselves.”

    Your own koran makes the connection between peoples snubbing the prophets and their subsequent destruction. So Mohammed clearly identified himself with this role and inflicted it upon all the non-Muslims that came across his path. The Meccans and the Jews were the first victims, the Byzantines followed.

    Like

    • Lol this clown just clearly couldn’t care less what the Qur’an says. Look at what he is doing.

      What does the annihilation of nations before them BY GOD (NOT military conquest by men) through natural disasters have to do with your pathetic objection about military conquest????
      Yes nations that reject God, Who created them and gave them life, are doomed. What else do you expect? Flowers?
      Btw the Jews and Meccans were making WAR against the prophet. They didn’t merely reject him.

      You’ll side with anyone as long as you can talk trash about Islam, no matter what they would have done to you if you were living in 7th century Arabia. That’s why people like you are called the worst of creation.

      Liked by 1 person

      • @ Atlas

        Agreed.

        @ Holmes

        Oh forgot this is for you:

        Liked by 1 person

      • [25.36] Then We said: Go you both to the people who rejected Our communications; so We destroyed them with utter destruction.”

        This threat in the Koran is perpetuated against all non muslims of all time. Why is Mohammed reminding the Jews and Meccans of this otherwise?

        “Btw the Jews and Meccans were making WAR against the prophet. They didn’t merely reject him.”

        It began with rejection. It wasn’t war from the get go was it? Once Mohammed was rejected by the Meccans and the Jews according to Islam itself Allah had declared war on the Jews and the Meccans and they had no protector. The treaty of protection was absolved by Allah himself. It did not need the compliance of the Jews or the Meccans to reject any treaties on their part. So they had every right to seek allies for protection against Allah and his prophet. It was their right and duty of self preservation.

        Liked by 1 person

      • “This threat in the Koran is perpetuated against all non muslims of all time. Why is Mohammed reminding the Jews and Meccans of this otherwise?”

        He is reminding (everyone) cus the Qur’an is called the Reminder and that’s it’s job.
        You can twist and lie through your teeth all you like but no one here is gonna fall for it.

        “It began with rejection. It wasn’t war from the get go was it?”
        No it wasn’t. The Meccans rejected him and then began to persecute the Muslims.
        Surah 25 is a Meccan surah and has nothing to do with the Jews in Medinah historically speaking since it’s years before the migration to Medinah so ty once again for showing you’re an idiot.

        The job of a prophet (any prophet) is to warn people of God’s judgment and punishment of they reject Him and his messenger(s). How is it possible that you are so braindead that you don’t get this? It’s his job to warn them. He uses past examples to showcase this.
        The Meccans killed Muslims because they didn’t like what he preached. There was no mention of military conquest in Mecca. They weren’t even able to rise up and defend themselves and this also shows the moron that you are.
        Show me where the prophet broke the treaty? They had a treaty between the prophet and the jews? Did the prophet brake it? If so where is your proof?
        No the jews broke it:

        “”On hearing this bad news, the Messenger [pbuh] despatched four Muslim prominent leaders Sa’d bin Mu’adh, Sa’d bin ‘Ubada, ‘Abdullah bin Rawaha and Khawat bin Jubair for investigation but warning against any sort of spreading panic amongst the Muslims and advising that they should declare in public that the rumours are groundless if they happen to be so. Unfortunately the four men discovered that the news was true and that the Jews announced openly that no pact of alliance existed any longer with Muhammad [pbuh]. (Saifur Rahman al-Mubarakpuri, Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum (THE SEALED NECTAR), Chapter: Al-Ahzab (the Confederates) Invasion, Source)””

        Bukhari
        “Bani An-Nadir and Bani Quraiza fought (against the Prophet violating their peace treaty), so the Prophet exiled Bani An-Nadir and allowed Bani Quraiza to remain at their places (in Medina) taking nothing from them till they fought against the Prophet again)…”

        The third tribe even broke the treaty twice.

        I mean if you’re truly arguing that if someone brings up past stories about God destroying a people for their disbelief means that he is going to kill them then you are more retarded than I thought.

        Funny how we went from the verses in surah 5 having nothing to do with military conquest to you jumping all over the place to save face. This happens all the time with you kafirs.

        Liked by 1 person

      • @ Atlas

        Oh for further giggles 9:70 is not about military conquest either:

        9:67. The hypocritical men and women are all the same. They encourage what’s known to be wrong and stop others from what they know they should be doing; grabbing at their hands. They have forgotten God, so He has forgotten them because the hypocrites are truly disobedient and corrupt.
        9:68. God has promised the hypocrites whether male or female, and the disbelievers the Fire of Hell where they will remain. This is enough for them but God has added a curse on them as well and a punishment awaits them that is there to stay.
        9:69. You are just like those who came before you, except that they were even stronger than you, with more money and children. They enjoyed the set portion of creation that was meant for them just as you have enjoyed yours; and also like them, you talked the same trash. Their deeds have already been seized in the worldly life along with the Next; and they are the greatest failures.
        9:70. Have they never heard the stories about those who came before them from the nations of Noah, Aad, Thamud, Abraham, Midian and the Overturned Cities? Their Messengers came to them with clear evidence of the Truth, because it’s not becoming of God to do them injustice; it was they who were unjust to themselves.

        If you don’t listen, you get punished. Not that hard to understand.

        Like

      • @ Holmes

        I’m starting to get concerned about your reading comprehension that verse is talking about Moses(as) and Aaron(as) going to Pharaoh:

        25:35. I gave Moses the Scripture before and appointed his brother Aaron to back him up and act as a helper.
        25:36. I said to them: “Both of you go to the nation who have rejected My signs and revelations.” And later I destroyed that nation utterly.

        I’m sorry did this not happen in the Bible lol? This is just getting embarrassing…

        Like

  13. “The Divine scheme of sending prophets and messengers ended with Prophet Muḥammad (peace and blessings be upon him). Therefore, with the passing away of the Prophet and his companions, that Divine process has ended in which a certain people could be declared as infidels, battles and wars could be done against them, and the vanquished in such fighting could be killed or subjugated and made subservient through jizyah (a tribute). ”

    Who says this has ended, you? And who are you to do away with the commands of the Koran? Are you a wannabe imam or something? There are no more messengers but that doesn’t mean no one else can take their place. Why should Allah stop in his tracks? It was a prosperous enterprise was it not?

    Like

    • Swinebob, does the prophet muhammad exist today? does noah, moses, lot…exist today? show me where the quran says that another can take the place of the messengers and say “i bring divine judgement because God is speaking to me right now ” ?

      Like

    • “There are no more messengers but that doesn’t mean no one else can take their place. ”

      Other than fighting against oppression and injustice, where does the Quran say that a muslim today can bring “divine judgement” on disbelievers in the sense of wiping them off , killing their women and children, taking their land and declaring joshua style offensive jihad?

      Like

      • Offensive violent Jihad is a form of divine judgement against the unbelief of the kuffar. Don’t pretend to be so naive man.

        Like

      • “Offensive violent Jihad is a form of divine judgement against the unbelief of the kuffar. Don’t pretend to be so naive man.”

        without a messenger in our midst, and other than war against oppression and injustice, where are muslims told to force islam on disbelievers?

        Like

  14. “Why is Mohammed reminding the Jews and Meccans of this otherwise?”

    because he is identified as a messenger of God in the quran ? and what are the qualities of a messenger in the quran? He is reminding them about Gods judgement on past people?

    Like

  15. Just a small selection of kumbaya sayings from the merciful prophet:

    Abu Dawud (14:2527) – The Prophet said: Striving in the path of Allah (jihad) is incumbent on you along with every ruler, whether he is pious or impious

    Muslim (1:33) – the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah

    Bukhari (8:387) – Allah’s Apostle said, “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah

    Muslim (1:149) – “Abu Dharr reported: I said: Messenger of Allah, which of the deeds is the best? He (the Holy Prophet) replied: Belief in Allah and Jihad in His cause…”

    Like

    • Just a small selection of kumbaya sayings from the merciful prophet:

      Abu Dawud (14:2527) – The Prophet said: Striving in the path of Allah (jihad) is incumbent on you along with every ruler, whether he is pious or impious

      Muslim (1:33) – the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah

      Bukhari (8:387) – Allah’s Apostle said, “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah

      Muslim (1:149) – “Abu Dharr reported: I said: Messenger of Allah, which of the deeds is the best? He (the Holy Prophet) replied: Belief in Allah and Jihad in His cause…”

      ////

      i’ll slap you with this :

      Answer:
      Each Qur’ānic verse has a perspective and a context and must be understood accordingly. The verse referred to and other verses of similar meaning are directed at the immediate addressees of a Prophet (Rasūl) and have no bearing on us. According to the Qur’ān, the people towards whom a Prophet is assigned are dealt with by the Almighty by a special law. This needs some elaboration:

      A prophet is the final authority on this earth about matters which pertain to faith. No other person can illustrate and explicate the essentials of faith in a better manner. He uses his extraordinary powers of intellect and reasoning to deliver and disseminate the truth revealed to him. He exposes the truth in its ultimate form after which a person can have no excuse but stubbornness and enmity to deny it. According to the Qur’ān, God’s purpose in endowing life to people is to test whether they accept and uphold the truth when it comes to them. In these special circumstances, the truth is unveiled to them in its purest form by no other a personality than a prophet. If they then deny it, there is no possibility whatsoever that a further extension in life can induce them to accept it. It is at this juncture that the Divine law sanctions the death sentence for them.

      The sentence is enforced upon them in one of the two ways depending upon the situation which arises. In the first case, after itmām i hujjah (ie unveiling the truth to the extent that no one has an excuse to deny it), a prophet and his companions not being able to achieve political ascendancy in some other territory migrate from their people. In this case, Divine punishment descends upon them in the form of raging storms, cyclones or other calamities which completely destroy them. Historically speaking, the tribes of `Aād and Thamūd and the people of Noah and Lot besides many other nations met with this dreadful fate, as has been mentioned in the Qur’ān. In the second case, a prophet and his companions are able to acquire political ascendancy in a land where after itmām i hujjah upon their people, they migrate. In this case, a prophet subdues his people by force, and executes them if they do not accept faith. It was this situation which had arisen in the case of the Prophet (sws). On account of this, the Almighty bade him to declare that the people among the ummiyyīn who do not accept faith until the day of Hajj-i-Akbar (9th Hijrah) will be given a final extension by a proclamation made in the field of Arafāt on that day. According to the proclamation, this final extension would end with the last day of the month of Muharram, during which they must accept faith, or face execution at the end of this period. The Qur’ān says:

      When the forbidden months are over, slay the idolators wherever you find them. Seize them, surround them and every where lie in ambush for them. But if they repent and establish regular prayers and pay zakāt, then spare their lives. God is oft-forgiving and ever merciful. (9:5)

      A hadīth illustrates this law in the following manner:

      I have been ordained to fight against these people until they testify to the oneness of God and assent to my prophethood, establish regular prayers and pay zakāt. If they accept these terms, their lives will be spared except if they commit some other violation that demands their execution by Islamic law. (Bukhārī, Kitābu’l-Imān)

      This law, as stated before, is specifically meant for the people towards whom the Prophet (sws) had been directly assigned. Apart from them, it has no bearing upon any other person or nation.

      Today, an Islamic state can launch jihad only against injustice and oppression – where they may be. Except on these accounts, Islam has not given an Islamic state the permission to take up arms against any country.

      ///

      how did the slap feel?

      Like

      • hey erASSmus, your thoughts most welcomed on the response by monthly Renaissance

        if u want, i can invite ghamidis followers to further baptise you on this topic that you will return after a year, what do u think?

        Like

    • @ Holmes

      Oh getting ready for a jump in topics again? What happened with the crap about the Almohads you seem to have abandoned that….

      Liked by 1 person

    • Lol what a loser. You got your @$$ handed to you and now like ALL kafirs you jump like a rabbit to something else to save face.

      Liked by 1 person

  16. “and other than war against oppression and injustice,”

    How did the Jews oppress Mohammed? By exposing him as a fake?

    Like

    • @ Holmes

      Naw, violating treaties, plotting with his enemies, trying to assassinate him, and trying to kill women and children.

      Like

    • whats your re

      Like

      • Islamic “treaties” are not worth the paper they are written on. They are only to buy time because there is not enough force to attack. The Jews apparently knew this and did the best they could to defend themselves in Medina. The only way they could have done this realistically speaking would have been to unite and attack Mohammed first. They knew that for them to remain Jews would have been too much of a loss of face for Mohammed to accept after he has told everybody he is the biggest and the best.

        As for trying to assassinate him it seems to me that this was a ploy on Mohammed’s part. The Jews invited him around, Mohammed sat next to the roof and all of a sudden the next you hear is a plot to kill him. Not a very grateful response to someone’s hospitality is it?

        As for trying to kill women and children that is just another muslim slander against the Jews. No shortage of that is there? Any objective evidence?

        Like

  17. hey erASSmus, your thoughts most welcomed on the response by monthly Renaissance

    Like

Leave a Reply to mr.heathcliff Cancel 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: