Comments on Khalil Fariel vs Truthsayer

[Cassie]

Truthsayer: we've been through this. Muhammad was not persecuted because he was allowed to live. According to Islamic law, Muhammad deserved death. His followers, such as Abu Bakr, Umar, Ali etc. all deserved to die.

Because Cutthroat No. 1 said, "Whoever changes his religion, kill him."

You can't persecute someone when you treat them better than they treat you or themselves.

[Greenhouse28]

stupid girl watch your stupid mouth before you take the name of the Holy Prophet from your dirty mouth

get lost

[expozIslam]

stupid girl watch your stupid mouth before you take the name of the Holy Prophet from your dirty mouth

get lost

Hey, did it hurt? Well it is easy to stop this crap from these infidels. Just prove Ali Sina wrong and this site is gone. Are you game for it?

[skynightblaze]

@TRUTHSAYER

Its Muhhamad who started all this sh!t. You didnt quote the quotes that tell us why the conflict began. The pagans were a tolerant bunch but they became hostile and aggressive against Muhhamad only when the situation was intolerable i.e Muhhamad didnt stop abusing their GODS.

Ibn Humayd- Salamah- Ibn Ishaq:
The Messenger of God proclaimed God’s message openly and declared Islam publicly to his tribesmen. When he did so, they did not withdraw from him or reject him in anyway, as far as I had heard, UNTIL he spoke of their gods and denounced them. When he did this, they took exception to it and united in opposition and hostility to him, except for those of them whom God had protected from error by means of Islam. The latter were few in number and practiced their faith in secret. His uncle Abu Talib was friendly to him, however, and protected him and shielded him from them. The Messenger of God continued to do God’s work and to proclaim his message, undeterred by anything. When Quraysh saw that he would not give them any satisfaction, they objected to his departing from their ways and denouncing their gods, and seeing that Abu Talib protected him, shielded him from harm, and would not hand him over to them, a number of the nobles of Quraysh, consisting of such men as ‘Utbah b. Rabi‘ah, Shaybah b. Rabi‘ah, Abu al-Bakhtari b. Hisham, al-Aswad b. al-Muttalib, al-Walid b. al-Mughirah, Abu Jahl b. Hisham, al-‘As b. Wa’il and Nubayh and Munabbih, the sons of al-Hajjaj, went to Abu Talib and said, "Abu Talib, your nephew has reviled our gods, denounced our religion, derided our traditional values and told us that our forefathers were misguided. Either curb his attacks on us or give us a free hand to deal with him, for you are just as opposed to him as we are, and we will deal with him for you." Abu Talib gave them a mild answer and declined courteously, and they left him. The Messenger of God continued as before, proclaiming the faith of God and summoning people to it.




After this, Muhammad was estranged from the Quraysh, and they withdrew from him and harbored a secret hatred for him. They talked about him frequently amongst themselves and urged one another against him. Eventually they went to Abu Talib once again. "Abu Talib," they said, "we hold you in respect among us on account of your age, your nobility and your standing. We asked you to forbid your nephew TO ATTACK US, but you did not do so. By God, we can no longer endure this vilification of our forefathers, this derision of our traditional values and this abuse of our gods. Either you restrain him or we shall fight both of you over this until one side or the other is destroyed," or words to that effect. Then they left. This breach and enmity with his tribe weighed heavily on Abu Talib, but he could not reconcile himself to surrendering the Messenger of God to them or deserting him.

Muhammad b. al-Husayn- Ahmad b. al-Mufaddal- Asbat- al-Suddi: A number of men of the Quraysh gathered together with a number of other shaykhs of the Quraysh, and said to one another, "Let us go to Abu Talib and speak to him about Muhammad, so that he will give us justice against him and order him to desist from reviling our gods and we will leave him to the god whom he worships for we fear that this old man may die and we may do something which the Arabs will reproach us for and say, ‘They let him alone until his uncle died, and then they laid hands on him.’"

They sent one of their number, whose name was al-Muttalib, to Abu Talib to ask permission for them to enter. He said, "Here are the shaykhs and nobles of your tribe asking permission to visit you." He told him to ask them to come in, and when they had done so they said, "Abu Talib, you are our elder and our chief, so give us justice against your nephew and order him to desist from reviling our gods, and we will leave him to his god."

Abu Talib sent for the Messenger of God, and when he came in he said, "Nephew, here are the shaykhs and nobles of your tribe. They have asked for justice against you, that you should desist from reviling their gods and they will leave you to your god." "Uncle," he said, "shall I not summon them to something which is better for them than their gods?" "What do you summon them to?" he asked. He replied, "I summon them to utter a saying through which the Arabs will submit to them and they will rule over the non-Arabs." Abu Jahl said from among the gathering, "What is it, by your father? We would give you it and ten like it." He answered, "That you should say, ‘There is no deity but God.’" They took fright at that and said, "Ask for anything rather than that!" But he said, "If you were to bring me the sun and put it into my hand, I would not ask you for anything other than this."

They rose up to leave in anger and said, "By God, we shall revile you and your god who commands you to do this!" "The chiefs among them hurried about, exhorting; Go and be staunch to your gods! This is a thing designed…" to the words "naught but an invention.

[skynightblaze]

continued

When the apostle openly displayed Islam as Allah ordered him, his people did not withdraw or turn against him, so far as I have heard, until he spoke disparagingly of their gods. When he did that, they took great offence and resolved unanimously to treat him as an enemy.

[The Meccans] said they had never known anything like the trouble they had endured from this fellow. He had declared their mode of life foolish, insulted their forefathers, reviled their religion, divided the community and cursed their gods

6:108
And do not abuse those whom they call upon besides Allah, lest exceeding the limits they should abuse Allah out of ignorance. Thus have We made fair seeming to every people their deeds; then to their Lord shall be their return, so He will inform them of what they did.

Allah prohibits His Messenger and the believers from insulting the false deities of the idolators, although there is a clear benefit in doing so. Insulting their deities will lead to a bigger evil than its benefit, for the idolators might retaliate by insulting the God of the believers, Allah, none has the right to be worshipped but He. `Ali bin Abi Talhah said that Ibn `Abbas commented on this Ayah [6:108]; "They (disbelievers) said, `O Muhammad! You will stop insulting our gods, or we will insult your Lord.' Thereafter, Allah prohibited the believers from insulting the disbelievers' idols

<lest they insult Allah wrongfully without knowledge.>" `Abdur-Razzaq narrated that Ma`mar said that Qatadah said, "Muslims used to insult the idols of the disbelievers and the disbelievers would retaliate by insulting Allah wrongfully without knowledge "

[Truthsayer]

Truthsayer: we've been through this. Muhammad was not persecuted because he was allowed to live.

You shamelessly ignore the 3 or 4 attempts made on his life. I really don't understand how you can keep saying it, especially when you don't have any logically argument. The Quraysh even bragged that they persecuted him.

We shall not cease to persecute you until we destroy you or you destroy us. (Ishaq)

Because Cutthroat No. 1 said, "Whoever changes his religion, kill him."

Tu quoque.

You can't persecute someone when you treat them better than they treat you or themselves.

The worst the muslims did was some mild critisism of their religion. Does that in your world of twisted morals justify discrimination, theft, violence, exile, torture and murder against muslims? I wouldn't be surprised if it did.

Its Muhhamad who started all this sh!t. You didnt quote the quotes that tell us why the conflict began. The pagans were a tolerant bunch but they became hostile and aggressive against Muhhamad only when the situation was intolerable i.e Muhhamad didnt stop abusing their GODS.

Actually I did. I mentioned that the real persecution first began after they complained to Abu Talib that he was critisizing their religion. But I also showed that there was enmity towards him already when he made his very first public call, such as Abu Lahab saying "Destruction to you" and throwing rocks at him.

[skynightblaze]

Actually I did. I mentioned that the real persecution first began after they complained to Abu Talib that he was critisizing their religion. But I also showed that there was enmity towards him already when he made his very first public call, such as Abu Lahab saying "Destruction to you" and throwing rocks at him.

What do you expect pagans to do when this prophet started abusing their GODS? I aint supporting those pagans who tried to attack Muhhamad physically but yes Muhhamad deserved ridicule and I dont think pagans did anything wrong by ridiculing him. They ridiculed him because he abused their GODS and not just because he called them to monotheism.You cant blame the entire pagan tribe for the actions of 1-2 . Also though they tried to beat him or strangle him to death but again if it was pre planned murder they could have had him killed easily using swords or any other equipment.Khalil has rightly pointed this out. Other pagans could have prevented Abu Bakr from interrupting while one of them was killing Muhhamad.

Btw If pagans wanted to kill Muhhamad they could have easily done that. They had all the time in the world and also Muhhamad wasnt powerful when he was in mecca so the excuse that pagans wanted to kill him is ludicrous. Also when Muhhamad left Mecca his family and some muslims still stayed in mecca. How come they werent tortured or killed?

Further people of different faiths lived quite tolerantly inspite of the differences in their religion. How come they lived peacefully inspite of practicing monotheism and polytheism? IT was only Muhhamad who was targeted because he was the culprit.

Btw you have a problem when 1-2 meccans tried to strangle him or beat him up but you have no problem with Muhhamad did with them. Killing them is OK If muhhamad does it but its unethical if the pagans just tried to do that. Thats hypocrisy! In the battle of Badr all the pagans were killed by Muhhamad. The battle of Badr was no way defensive. It was all Muhhamad's fault. see this"

Then the apostle heard that Abu Sufyan was coming from Syria with a large caravan of Qurish, containing their money and merchandise, accompanied by some thirty or forty men… When the Apostle heard about Abu Sufyan coming from Syria, he summoned the Muslims and said, “This is the Quraish caravan containing their property. Go out to attack it, perhaps Allah will give it as a prey.”

So we see your prophet first abuses their GODs . Pagans want an agreement from Muhhamad to stop abusing their GODs and they too would stop ridiculing him but he denies . PAgans retaliate and yes 1-2 pagans became extreme but you shift the blame on all the pagans for that. Thats unfair! . Also they didnt murder him even when they could have done that easily !

Further Muhhamad tries to rob their caravans and it leads to war and muhhamad kills the pagans who ridiculed or tried to strangle him. YOu have no problem with Muhhamad when he kills them.

Also look what an insane person was Muhhamad whom you literally worship:

Volume 5, Book 59, Number 314:

Narrated Abu Talha:

On the day of Badr, the Prophet ordered that the corpses of twenty four leaders of Quraish should be thrown into one of the dirty dry wells of Badr. (It was a habit of the Prophet that whenever he conquered some people, he used to stay at the battle-field for three nights. So, on the third day of the battle of Badr, he ordered that his she-camel be saddled, then he set out, and his companions followed him saying among themselves." "Definitely he (i.e. the Prophet) is proceeding for some great purpose." When he halted at the edge of the well, he addressed the corpses of the Quraish infidels by their names and their fathers' names, "O so-and-so, son of so-and-so and O so-and-so, son of so-and-so! Would it have pleased you if you had obeyed Allah and His Apostle? We have found true what our Lord promised us. Have you too found true what your Lord promised you? "'Umar said, "O Allah's Apostle! You are speaking to bodies that have no souls!" Allah's Apostle said, "By Him in Whose Hand Muhammad's soul is, you do not hear, what I say better than they do." (Qatada said, "Allah brought them to life (again) to let them hear him, to reprimand them and slight them and take revenge over them and caused them to feel remorseful and regretful.")


What sort of mad man is this? What would you call me If I speak with dead corpses whom I have killed? Just look at the hate this mad man had for them!Even his followers found it odd.Also notice what muhhamad says to the corpses.

"Would it have pleased you if you had obeyed Allah and His Apostle? "

See what it means? It means that if quraish had obeyed Muhhamad and his Allah they would not have been dead today! So who is the culprit here?

[charleslemartel]

Because Cutthroat No. 1 said, "Whoever changes his religion, kill him."

Tu quoque.

Forgive me for this laughter, but when Muslims try to point out fallacies to us, it sounds so funny

Please explain how Cassie's comment is a Tu Quoque.

[Cassie]

Truthsayer: we've been through this. Muhammad was not persecuted because he was allowed to live.

You shamelessly ignore the 3 or 4 attempts made on his life. I really don't understand how you can keep saying it, especially when you don't have any logically argument. The Quraysh even bragged that they persecuted him.

We shall not cease to persecute you until we destroy you or you destroy us. (Ishaq)

So? He deserved death by his own rules: "Whoever changes his religion, kill him."

Because Cutthroat No. 1 said, "Whoever changes his religion, kill him."

Tu quoque.

How can it be tu quoque when Cutthroat No. 1 deserved to die by HIS OWN RULES?
It also shows Muhammad was a savage beast, doesn't it?

You can't persecute someone when you treat them better than they treat you or themselves.

The worst the muslims did was some mild critisism of their religion. Does that in your world of twisted morals justify discrimination, theft, violence, exile, torture and murder against muslims? I wouldn't be surprised if it did.

Huh? You can't even change religions in Islam. Ali, Umar, Abu Bakr etc. all changed religion from paganism and hence deserved to die. The fact that the pagans let them live shows that they were better people than you.

The fact that they let Muhammad live for many years in Mecca proves that they were better people than you.
See how Muhammad ATTACKED the pagan religion without provocation. Try that in Mecca today and see what happens. Can a Christian go to the ka'aba and preach Christianity and denounce Islam? No.

[Cassie]

stupid girl watch your stupid mouth before you take the name of the Holy Prophet from your dirty mouth

get lost

LOL! Your prophet was a murderous thin-skinned sex-slaving bandit who deserved to die for insulting the pagan gods and converting pagans to Islam. The fact that the pagans let the Muslim (converts from paganism) live proves that they were SUPERIOR people than you. Can a pagan go to the Ka'aba, insult Allah and preach paganism to the Muslims? No. He'd be stoned to death or beheaded faster than you can say, "Whoever changes his religion, kill him."

You people are all hypocrites.

[Greenhouse28]

infact it is you who is the hypocrite your foul mouth is out of control infact you should be in a burqa

[Cassie]

infact it is you who is the hypocrite your foul mouth is out of control infact you should be in a burqa

LOL! People like you are seventh century barbarians.

[crazymonkie_]

.... This guy's just too good. We sure we're not dealing with a Poe? I mean, I've never heard of a *Muslim* Poe, but it's probably only a matter of time.

[SAM]

infact it is you who is the hypocrite your foul mouth is out of control infact you should be in a burqa

Cassie.... burqa.

[SAM]

See what it means? It means that if quraish had obeyed Muhhamad and his Allah they would not have been dead today! So who is the culprit here?

Your Hindu Godess ....

[expozIslam]

Whether MOhammad was persecuted or not should not even be a question for debate because if he was the messenger of God, then he should have had the power of persuasion to turn enemies into friends which he clearly did not have or use.

[SAM]

Whether MOhammad was persecuted or not should not even be a question for debate because if he was the messenger of God, then he should have had the power of persuasion to turn enemies into friends which he clearly did not have or use.

expozIslam wrote: Actually, I lied.....

[SAM]

.... This guy's just too good. We sure we're not dealing with a Poe? I mean, I've never heard of a *Muslim* Poe, but it's probably only a matter of time.

crazymonkie_ said,

Oh true, true. I actually only did it AFTER I became an atheist.

[expozIslam]

Whether MOhammad was persecuted or not should not even be a question for debate because if he was the messenger of God, then he should have had the power of persuasion to turn enemies into friends which he clearly did not have or use.

expozIslam wrote: Actually, I lied.....

You don't have to prove everytime that you have an IQ of 10.

[skynightblaze]

Spoiler! :

I just noticed some interessting reports in Ibn Ishaq that are relevant to this discussion. I encourage people to read ALL of Ibn Ishaq, rather then just the tidbits presented to you by various distorters.

Abu Jahl at last exclaimed, ‘By Allah I I have a plan which none of you has yet thought of’, and they asked, ‘What is it, o father of wisdom?’ He said, ‘I propose that from every tribe we should take one young, powerful, well‑born man. To each of these, we should give a good sword with which to strike Muham­mad. So we shall be delivered of him, his blood will be divided among all the tribes, and his followers will not have the strength to make war on so many.’ The sheikh said, ‘I see no other plan and the people adopted the proposal and then dispersed.

So there was a representative from every tribe who tried to murder him when he agreed to come to Medinah. And by "the father of wisdom's" own admission, the muslims were in their good right to wage war against every single tribe and every single pagan (but they didn't) He just hoped they were to weak to seek justice. And you cry because the muslims raided a caravan...

And this completely conclusive assesement from Ibn Ishaq, which really should stop any debate about this subject:

Allah had not then given His apostle permission to fight. He had given permission neither to wage war nor to shed blood, but only to call men to Allah, to endure insults patiently, and to pardon the ignorant. Some of the followers of the apostle had therefore been forced to flee from persecution into the countryside, some to Abyssinia, others to Medina and elsewhere. When the Quraysh rejected the mercy of Allah and spurned His prophet, they tormented or drove away men who proclaimed the One‑ness of Allah, believed in His prophet, and adhered to His religion.

From my point of view, you have 2 choices; reject Ibn Ishaq (which also means rejecting the bits you like) or agree muslims were persecuted because of their beliefs which were spreading to a somewhat large number of former pagans.

You havent answered me. AS far as this quote goes again it sounds that Abu Jahl was preparing for war . Your assumption here is Abu Jahl did this planning before Muhhamad raided the pagan caravans and hence Muhhamad raiding their caravans is OK .If this planning was done before Muhhamad raided the caravans then you could have a point otherwise Abu jahl is right in his position. Also Why would a person from every single tribe fight Muhhamad unless there was some serious problem with Muhhamad? This only shows that Muhhamad was the culprit and not the others.