Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 51

Thread: Medina, Islam's second holiest city, was originally Jewish

  1. #1
    abu afak
    Guest

    Medina, Islam's Second Holiest city, was Originally Jewish

    Medina, Islam's second holiest city, was originally a Jewish
    "settlement"

    Although the fact is little publicized, more than one historian has affirmed at the Arab world's second holiest city, Medina, was one of the allegedly "purely Arab" cities that actually was first settled by Jewish tribes.1
    And like the 16th Century English Protestants who financed their endeavors through the plunder of Catholic monasteries in England, the roots of Islamic anti-Semitism might be found in the initial plunder of Jewish settlements, and the imposition of a "poll tax" to fund Arab campaigns.

    Bernard Lewis writes:

    """"""The city of Medina, some 280 miles north of Mecca, had originally been settled by Jewish tribes from the north, especially the Banu Nadir and Banu Quraiza. The comparative richness of the town attracted an infiltration of pagan Arabs who came at first as clients of the Jews and ultimately succeeded in dominating them. Medina, or, as it was known before Islam, Yathrib, had no form of stable government at all. The town was tom by the feuds of the rival Arab tribes of Aus and Khazraj, with the Jews maintaining an uneasy balance of power. The latter, engaged mainly in agriculture and handicrafts, were economically and culturally superior to the Arabs, and were consequently disliked.... as soon as the Arabs had attained unity through the agency of Muhammad they attacked and ultimately eliminated the Jews.2"""""

    In the last half of the fifth century, many Persian Jews fled from persecution to Arabia, swelling the Jewish population there.3 But around the sixth century, Christian writers reported of the continuing importance of the Jewish community that remained in the Holy Land. For the dispersed Arabian Jewish settlers, Tiberias in Judea was central. In the Kingdom of Himyar on the Red Sea's east coast in Arabia, "conversion to Judaism of influential circles" was popular, and the Kingdom's rule stretched across "considerable portions of South Arabia."
    The commoners as well as the royal family adopted Judaism, and one writer ports that "Jewish priests (presumably rabbis) from Tiberias ... formed part the suite of King Du Noas and served as his envoys in negotiations with Christian cities."4

    According to Guillaume,

    At the dawn of Islam the Jews dominated the economic life of the Hijaz [Arabia]. They held all the best land ... ; at Medina they must have formed at least half of the population. There was also a Jewish settlement to the north of the Gulf of Aqaba.... What is important is to note that the Jews of the Hijaz made many proselytes [or converts] among the Arab tribesmen.5

    The first "Palestinian" or Judean refugees -- the Jews -- had resettled to become prosperous, influential Arabian settlers.

    The prosperity of the Jews was due to their superior knowledge of agriculture and irrigation and their energy and industry. Homeless [Jewish] refugees in the course of a few generations became large landowners in the country, [the refugees who had come to the Hijaz when the Romans conquered Palestine] controllers of its finance and trade.... Thus it can readily be seen that Jewish prosperity was a challenge to the Arabs, particularly the Quraysh at Mecca and ... [other Arab tribes] at Medina.

    The Prophet Muhammad himself was a member of the Quraysh tribe, which coveted the Jews' bounty, and

    when the Muslims took up arms they treated the Jews with much greater severity than the Christians, who, until the end of the purely Arab Caliphate, were not badly treated.6

    One of the reasons for "this discrimination" against the Jews is what Guillaurne called "the Quran's scornful words" regarding the Jews7 The Jews' development of land and culture was a prime source of booty in the Arabian desert peninsula. Beginning at the time of the Prophet Muhammad and Islam8 from the expulsions, depredations, extortion, forced conversions or murder of Jewish Arabians settled in Medina to the mass slaughter of Jews at Khaibar -- the precedent was established among Arab-Muslims to expropriate that which belonged to the Jews. Relations between the Prophet Muhammad and the Jews were "never ... easy":

    They had irritated him by their refusal to recognize him as a prophet, by ridicule and by argument; and of course their economic supremacy ... was a standing irritant.9

    It appears that the first "instigation" by the Prophet Muhammad himself against the Jews was an incident in which he had "one or two Jews ... murdered and no blood money was paid to their next of kin."

    ... Their leaders opposed his claim to be an apostle sent by God, and though they doubtless drew some satisfaction from his acceptance of the divine mission of Abraham, Moses, and the prophets, they could hardly be expected to welcome the inclusion of Jesus and Ishmael among his chosen messengers.10

    ... the existence of pockets of disaffected Jews in and around his base was a cause of uneasiness and they had to be eliminated if he [Muhammad] was to wage war without anxiety.11..


    Because the Jews preferred to retain their own beliefs,

    a tribe of Jews in the neighborhood of Medina, fell under suspicion of treachery and were forced to lay down their arms and evacuate their settlements. Valuable land and much booty fell into the hands of the Muslims. The neighboring tribe of Qurayza, who were soon to suffer annihilation, made no move to help their co-religionists, and their allies, the Aus, were afraid to give them active support. 12

    The Prophet Muhammad's pronouncement: "Two religions may not dwell together on the Arabian Peninsula."13 This edict was carried out by Abu Bakr and Omar 1, the Prophet Muhammad's successors; the entire community of Jewish settlements throughout northern Arabia was systematically slaughtered. According to Bernard Lewis, "the extermination of the Jewish tribe of Quraiza was followed by "an attack on the Jewish oasis of Khaibar."14
    Messengers of Muhammad were sent to the Jews who had escaped to the safety and comfort of Khaibar, "inviting" Usayr, the Jewish "war chief," to visit Medina for mediations.

    Usayr set off with thirty companions and a Muslim escort. Suspecting no foul play, the Jews went unarmed. On the way, the Muslims turned upon the defenseless delegation, killing all but one who managed to escape. "War is deception," 15 according to an oft-quoted saying of the Prophet.16


    The late Israeli historian and former President, Itzhak Ben-Zvi, judged the "inhuman atrocities" of the Arabian communities as unparalleled since then:

    ... the complete extermination of the two Arabian-Jewish tribes, the Nadhir and Kainuka' by the mass massacre of their men, women and children, was a tragedy for which no parallel can be found in Jewish history until our own day .... 17

    The slaughter of Arabian Jews and the expropriation of their property became Allah's will. According to the Koran,

    ... some you slew and others you took captive. He (Allah] made you masters of their [the Jews'] land, their houses and their goods, and of yet another land [Khaibar] on which you had never set foot before. Truly, Allah has power over all things.18

    Guillaume reports that the anti-Jewish attack at Khaibar was fiercely fought off, but "though the inhabitants fought more bravely here than elsewhere, outnumbered and caught off their guard, they were defeated."19 Those who somehow survived constituted the formula for Islam's future successes. Some of the Jews, "non-Muslims" or infidels, "retained their land," at least until Muslims could be recruited in sufficient numbers to replace the Jews. Meanwhile, the Arabian Jews paid a fifty-percent "tribute," or tax, for the "protection" of the new plunderers. As Professor Lewis writes, "The Muslim victory in Khaibar marked the first contact between the Muslim state and a conquered non-Muslim people and formed the basis for later dealings of the same type."20
    Thus the Jewish dhimmi evolved [the protected ones] -- the robbery of freedom and political independence compounding the extortion and eventual expropriation of property. "Tolerated" between onslaughts, expulsions, and pillages from the Arab Muslim conquest onward, the non-Muslim dhimmi-predominantly Jewish but Christian too -- provided the important source of religious revenue through the "infidel's" head tax. He became very quickly a convenient political scapegoat and whipping boy as well.

    Notes at: http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~peters/medina.html
    Last edited by abu afak; 04-13-2003 at 06:00 PM.

  2. #2
    andak01
    Guest
    Actually Muhammad (SAW) and the Muslims represented a double threat to the economy and power of both the Meccan polytheists and the Medinan Jews. But he did have both high hopes and some success in the early days in Medina. A pact was drawn up that set the Muslims and Jews as allies.

    Here are some of the provisions of the pact (Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum [the Sealed Nectar] by Sari-ur-Rahman al-Mubarakpuri page 197):

    1. The Jews of Bani 'Awf are one community with the believers. The Jews will profess their religion, and the Muslims theirs.

    2. The Jews shall be responsible for their expenditure, and the Muslims for theirs.

    3. If attacked by a third party, each shall come to the assistance of the other.

    4. Each party shall hold counsel with the other. Mutual relation shall be founded on righteousness; sin is totally excluded.

    5. Neither shall commit sins to the prejudice of the other.

    6. The wronged party shall be aided.

    7. The Jews shall contribute to the cost of war so long as they are fighting alongside the Muslims.

    8. Medinah shall remain sacred and inviolable for all that join this treaty.


    It was at the battle of Uhud that around a third of the troops assembled not only balked but set up a situation of confusion for the others. But in fact there was at least one Jew who both fought and died at Uhud. His name was Mukhaireeq.

    The situation continued to deteriorate until, by the Battle of the Trench, the Banu Quraiza were actually fighting against the Muslims.

    There is no question at this point that any Jew will agree with any Muslim about what happened at that time. What I can say for my part is that my own interpretation of events is that it is past. The Jews referred to are not representative of all Jews. Those Muslims who wish to prejudice themselves in this way are like Christians that look to the Bible for excuses to hate blacks or Jews. They would always find what they are looking for, whether it exists there or not.

  3. #3
    humus_sapiens
    Guest
    Originally posted by andak01
    The situation continued to deteriorate until, by the Battle of the Trench, the Banu Quraiza were actually fighting against the Muslims.
    The question is, when are we going to start the peace process on Medina and get our so long and so brutally occupied territories back? Add to this compensations to the refugees in the n-th generation and proceeds from the oil sales.

  4. #4
    andak01
    Guest
    The question is, when are we going to start the peace process on Medina and get our so long and so brutally occupied territories back? Add to this compensations to the refugees in the n-th generation and proceeds from the oil sales.
    The same day that the Indians in America get their land back and the Palestinians get their land back and the whites are ousted from South Africa. Of course the ancestors of the Hittites and the Amorites could claim Israel and the Italians could claim most of Europe. Exactly what period are we rolling back to? The most convenient one?

    Seriously, I will say this. Even you would agree that Prophet Muhammad (SAW) did not kill all of the Jews on the Arabian penninsula during his lifetime, not even those living in Mecca. He certainly had the power to do so. But his example shows that he gave them amnesty and allowed them to live in peace there.

    ... the complete extermination of the two Arabian-Jewish tribes, the Nadhir and Kainuka' by the mass massacre of their men, women and children, was a tragedy for which no parallel can be found in Jewish history until our own day ....
    With the possible exception of the Spanish Inquisition, the Reconquista and the slaughter of 75,000 Jews and Muslims in less than a week when the Crusaders took Jerusalem. Did I forget the Russian pograms? In each of these cases the number killed was far in excess of ten times the total number of Nadhir and Kainuka. So even if you accept the worst possible interpretation of events, which I do not, the above statement is false.

    "Two religions may not dwell together on the Arabian Peninsula."
    I would really like a source for this quote. It is very unusual for quotes to be ascribed to Muhammad (SAW) without a source included. Actually, let me save you the trouble. This link, which I found after some searching, ascribes it to Muwatta, in Al-Zurkani's commentary IV, p. 71. Then we find:

    http://www.chuckmorse.com/first_holocaust.html
    Theft and land expropriation became official policy as did mass expulsions, extortion, forced conversion, the murder of Jews in Medina and elsewhere and a mass slaughter of the Jews of Khaibar. Guilliame writes:

    Funny coincidence, no? Spelling notwithstanding, this author would be Alfred Guillaume.

    (from Abu's post)
    According to Guillaume,

    At the dawn of Islam the Jews dominated the economic life of the Hijaz [Arabia]. They held all the best land ... ; at Medina they must have formed at least half of the population. There was also a Jewish settlement to the north of the Gulf of Aqaba.... What is important is to note that the Jews of the Hijaz made many proselytes [or converts] among the Arab tribesmen.5
    Here's a quote from Guillaume I find a little more admirable.

    http://www.renaissance.com.pk/junbore20.htm
    Nothing can be more misleading than a number of general statements based on imperfect and incomplete knowledge, and no man living has a thorough acquaintance with the millions of Muslims in Asia and Africa, to say nothing of scattered communities elsewhere, so that he can make authoritative pronouncements on Islam as a whole. (Islam, Alfred Guillaume, 1st ed., [Edinburgh: Penguin Books Ltd), p. 153]
    Last edited by andak01; 04-14-2003 at 03:41 AM.

  5. #5
    abu afak
    Guest

    Re: Medina, Islam's Second Holiest city, was Originally Jewish

    I'm glad you find the second Guillame quote "More Admirable", But, as usual, you post it as if it rebutts mine about the Jews being the original settlers of Medina, which it does not.
    Is that the usual andak disingenuous deflection or just plain non-logical intentional dishonesty? (take your pick)


    "Two religions may not dwell together on the Arabian Peninsula." (from my article)

    You say you would really like a source for this quote and then say "Let me save you the trouble" (as If you found it and it wasn't provided!).. But the fact is the Source IS annotated in the Notes(13) provided in the Link I gave.

    (and BTW Detroit/Dearborn... this is a cautionary tale... I bet you didn't know Pontiac was actually a Muslim)

  6. #6
    andak01
    Guest
    Well I don't think there is much argument that Jews were living in Medina when Muhammad (SAW) arrived there. What we may dispute is the actions and motivations of those Jews. Guillaume's source for his biography was Ibn Ishaq. And I seriously doubt that Ishaq paints the Prophet as a land hungry tyrant. I don't believe that he was. But I can understand how the Meccans and the Medinans perceived him as a threat both economically and politically. As soon as people stop worshipping the almighty dollar and start to look at the fragile power structure, they become a danger to the status quo. This was the case in his time and it is still the case today.

    But the life of Muhammad, like the life of Abraham to the Jews and the life of Jesus to the Christians is more than just history. We use it as a constructive example. If I conceived of the Prophet as you conceive of him, I could never build a constructive life. My interpretation of events guides me in my decisions. In this case, I specify very carefully THOSE Jews of Medina. That way, I am free to interpret the verses in the Qur'an relating to THOSE Jews independantly of any other Jews. According to that reading, the revelations that came were instructive and protective of the then struggling Muslim ummah.

    But that reading is justified when we come to the example of the Jews of Mecca. They are treated altogether differently from the Jews of Medina. I'm sure that you have some explanation for the amnesty of the Jews of Mecca. I'd be interested to know what it is. The Qur'an demands that Muslims stop fighting at the point when their enemies stop fighting them. And the Jews of Mecca did not fight the Muslims and were given amnesty.

  7. #7
    Agnosthiest
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by andak01 View Post
    The same day that the Indians in America get their land back and the Palestinians get their land back and the whites are ousted from South Africa. Of course the ancestors of the Hittites and the Amorites could claim Israel and the Italians could claim most of Europe. Exactly what period are we rolling back to? The most convenient one?
    Indians got some of their land back. So did the Palestinians. So when are Jews going to get some of their land back from the Arabian peninsula?

    Quote Originally Posted by andak01 View Post
    With the possible exception of the Spanish Inquisition, the Reconquista and the slaughter of 75,000 Jews and Muslims in less than a week when the Crusaders took Jerusalem. Did I forget the Russian pograms? In each of these cases the number killed was far in excess of ten times the total number of Nadhir and Kainuka. So even if you accept the worst possible interpretation of events, which I do not, the above statement is false.
    how do you know how many jews died in each of those cases? Like your 75,000 figure consists both of jews & muslims.

  8. #8
    scattergood
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by andak01 View Post
    The same day that the Indians in America get their land back and the Palestinians get their land back and the whites are ousted from South Africa. Of course the ancestors of the Hittites and the Amorites could claim Israel and the Italians could claim most of Europe. Exactly what period are we rolling back to? The most convenient one?

    Seriously, I will say this. Even you would agree that Prophet Muhammad (SAW) did not kill all of the Jews on the Arabian penninsula during his lifetime, not even those living in Mecca. He certainly had the power to do so. But his example shows that he gave them amnesty and allowed them to live in peace there.
    So you and other Muslims are willing to drop the idea that the Pal Arabs can come flooding back into present day Israel.

    Until you do, you will be rightly seen as the intellectual frauds that you are.

    And the fact that there are no Jews in the Arabian Peninula today says how much peace and amnesty the Jews there have endured.



    Quote Originally Posted by Andak01
    With the possible exception of the Spanish Inquisition, the Reconquista and the slaughter of 75,000 Jews and Muslims in less than a week when the Crusaders took Jerusalem. Did I forget the Russian pograms? In each of these cases the number killed was far in excess of ten times the total number of Nadhir and Kainuka. So even if you accept the worst possible interpretation of events, which I do not, the above statement is false.
    Irrelavant. Claims against Russia have no bearing upon the claims against Arabs. This is constantly what the West is being told about Muslim claims against Jews and the Christian counter claims of subjugation and ethnic cleansing in Egypt, the Horn of Africa, present day Turkey.

    The problem is that Muslim logic works like this: Is it good for the Ummah? Then it must be good. It doesn't work like it does in the rest of the world where people say is it good? Then in must be good for me.



    Quote Originally Posted by andak01
    I would really like a source for this quote. It is very unusual for quotes to be ascribed to Muhammad (SAW) without a source included. Actually, let me save you the trouble. This link, which I found after some searching, ascribes it to Muwatta, in Al-Zurkani's commentary IV, p. 71. Then we find:

    http://www.chuckmorse.com/first_holocaust.html
    Theft and land expropriation became official policy as did mass expulsions, extortion, forced conversion, the murder of Jews in Medina and elsewhere and a mass slaughter of the Jews of Khaibar. Guilliame writes:

    Funny coincidence, no? Spelling notwithstanding, this author would be Alfred Guillaume.

    (from Abu's post)
    According to Guillaume,



    Here's a quote from Guillaume I find a little more admirable.

    http://www.renaissance.com.pk/junbore20.htm
    Nothing can be more misleading than a number of general statements based on imperfect and incomplete knowledge, and no man living has a thorough acquaintance with the millions of Muslims in Asia and Africa, to say nothing of scattered communities elsewhere, so that he can make authoritative pronouncements on Islam as a whole. (Islam, Alfred Guillaume, 1st ed., [Edinburgh: Penguin Books Ltd), p. 153]
    What is so sad about your points is that they are so easily refuted by sources you use as sources. This can be found at the USC-MSA Conpendium of Muslim Texts:

    Book 019, Number 4366:
    It has been narrated by 'Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim.

    http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamen...m/019.smt.html
    This quote can also be found at:
    http://www.cs.odu.edu/~lee_m/lib/muslim/019.smt.html
    http://www.islam.us/hadith/muslim/019.smt.html
    http://www.quraan.com/index.aspx?tab...4&bid=1&cid=20

    No it doesn't say "Two religions may not dwell together on the Arabian Peninsula" but it does quote Mohammed as explicitly stating that only one religion, Islam, can remain. If that ain't specific and directed ethnic cleansing that nothing is.

  9. #9
    andak01
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by scattergood View Post
    So you and other Muslims are willing to drop the idea that the Pal Arabs can come flooding back into present day Israel.

    Until you do, you will be rightly seen as the intellectual frauds that you are.
    Gosh, let me get together with all the Pals and we'll form a quorum! Do you have any other rules that I must conform to in order not to be an intellectual fraud?

    That's my own opinion. Getting land isn't the only way to resolve this. Right of return is one possibility of many and if it's not leading anywhere, it should be dropped. I don't have any control over what Palestinians think, nor; it would appear, does the Quran. Terrorism is, and this opinion is shared by a multitude of Sharia scholars who have issued fatwas against it both in America, in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere, contrary to Islam.

    And the fact that there are no Jews in the Arabian Peninula today says how much peace and amnesty the Jews there have endured.
    If you bothered to read my posts, you'd know that numerous times I've suggested that, since there were Jews living in Arabia at the time of the Prophet's death, there can be no Sunna to forbid them from being there. If anyone had power to wipe them out, he did. They were in fact, still there for decades and possibly centuries after his death.

    The problem is that Muslim logic works like this: Is it good for the Ummah? Then it must be good. It doesn't work like it does in the rest of the world where people say is it good? Then in must be good for me.
    And how does it work with lovers of Israel or for that matter lovers of France? Diplomacy was created for the very reason that the peoples of the world are a set of intersecting, self-interested groups. The trick is to cause us to interact in ways that are mutually beneficial instead of destructive.

    What is so sad about your points is that they are so easily refuted by sources you use as sources. This can be found at the USC-MSA Conpendium of Muslim Texts:
    What's so sad about you is you want any proof of Islamic militancy to be true so badly you can taste it. There's no room or use in your worldview for a moderate interpretation of Islam any more than in Bin Laden's.

    No it doesn't say "Two religions may not dwell together on the Arabian Peninsula" but it does quote Mohammed as explicitly stating that only one religion, Islam, can remain. If that ain't specific and directed ethnic cleansing that nothing is.
    That's also what Christianity says. On the Day of Christian Judgement, according to them, you are going to get your marching orders from Jesus. You'll be bowing and scraping to him. Don't take it from me. There's a couple of thousand years of Jews being forced to convert or expelled from their land by Christians. Have you considered when you are going to reclaim Prague or Vienna? What about all the Jewish property that was seized during the middle ages in Britain?

  10. #10
    Agnosthiest
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by scattergood View Post
    Book 019, Number 4366:
    It has been narrated by 'Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim.

    http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamen...m/019.smt.html
    No it doesn't say "Two religions may not dwell together on the Arabian Peninsula" but it does quote Mohammed as explicitly stating that only one religion, Islam, can remain. If that ain't specific and directed ethnic cleansing that nothing is.
    Wow, that is brutal. Whatever happened to "no compulsion in religion"? I told you, Andak, Mohammad was a hypocrite. How can you believe this guy's empty promises? He was a charlatan, man.


    Quote Originally Posted by andak01 View Post
    That's also what Christianity says. On the Day of Christian Judgement, according to them, you are going to get your marching orders from Jesus. You'll be bowing and scraping to him. Don't take it from me. There's a couple of thousand years of Jews being forced to convert or expelled from their land by Christians. Have you considered when you are going to reclaim Prague or Vienna? What about all the Jewish property that was seized during the middle ages in Britain?
    Aw your comparison just sucks. Cant you see the difference? In christianity they leave the ethnic cleansing to God. So this is practically meaningless and harmless if you are not a christian.

    In Islam however it was your bogus Prophet and his Caliphs who did the horrendous deeds. And non-muslims get to suffer for it.

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    anywhere
    Posts
    2,902
    Quote Originally Posted by Agnosthiest View Post
    Wow, that is brutal. Whatever happened to "no compulsion in religion"? I told you, Andak, Mohammad was a hypocrite. How can you believe this guy's empty promises? He was a charlatan, man.
    Aw your comparison just sucks. Cant you see the difference? In christianity they leave the ethnic cleansing to God. So this is practically meaningless and harmless if you are not a christian.
    In Islam however it was your bogus Prophet and his Caliphs who did the horrendous deeds. And non-muslims get to suffer for it.
    man i think this is too much
    Arabs or sunnis, Shiites believe in different way.

  12. #12
    andak01
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Agnosthiest View Post
    Wow, that is brutal. Whatever happened to "no compulsion in religion"? I told you, Andak, Mohammad was a hypocrite. How can you believe this guy's empty promises? He was a charlatan, man.
    No compulsion in religion comes from the Quran. That is, in our belief the words of God. The fact that there were Jews living in Jerusalem when the Crusaders invaded is proof of that. You are a historic revisionist, trying to make the most radical elements of Islam seem as though they were the norm of Muslim relations throughout history and trying to wash away intolerant acts by Christians as though they never happened.

    Aw your comparison just sucks. Cant you see the difference? In christianity they leave the ethnic cleansing to God. So this is practically meaningless and harmless if you are not a christian.
    With the exception of the Spanish Reconquista, the entire colonial history of South America and three quarters of the history of North America, Lutherans and Catholics who felt it was a religious duty to assist the Nazis, Popes who kidnapped Jewish children to convert them, etc. With the exception to this day of Christians that blow up abortion clinics or shoot people for wearing turbans.

  13. #13
    Agnosthiest
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by andak01 View Post
    No compulsion in religion comes from the Quran. That is, in our belief the words of God.
    are you trying to say that Mohammad did not follow his own Quran?

    Quote Originally Posted by andak01 View Post
    The fact that there were Jews living in Jerusalem when the Crusaders invaded is proof of that.
    Jerusalem isnt part of the Arabian Peninsula.

    Quote Originally Posted by andak01 View Post
    You are a historic revisionist, trying to make the most radical elements of Islam seem as though they were the norm of Muslim relations throughout history and trying to wash away intolerant acts by Christians as though they never happened.
    Isnt this radical to you???...

    "I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim" - Mohammad



    Quote Originally Posted by andak01 View Post
    With the exception of the Spanish Reconquista, the entire colonial history of South America and three quarters of the history of North America, Lutherans and Catholics who felt it was a religious duty to assist the Nazis, Popes who kidnapped Jewish children to convert them, etc. With the exception to this day of Christians that blow up abortion clinics or shoot people for wearing turbans.
    Your comparison still sucks. We are talking about Mohammad. Keep comparing him to another religious founder. You just cant do it with Jesus. I doubt can too with Joseph Smith. Not even with L Ron Hubbard.

  14. #14
    andak01
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Agnosthiest View Post
    are you trying to say that Mohammad did not follow his own Quran?
    Hadith study is not about cherry picking a hadith, leaving behind its context and then making general assumptions from there. Before we even get to how well translated it was or not, we'd need to know who related it, what context it was related under and how other scholars have interpreted it.

    Jerusalem isnt part of the Arabian Peninsula.
    No. But Jews were living in Mecca until the death of Prophet Muhammad. Do you dispute that??? He had the force to drive them out or kill every last one of them if that was his intention. It wasn't and he didn't.


    Isnt this radical to you???...

    "I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim" - Mohammad
    Religiously it has no meaning to me at all. It's translated, unattributed and taken out of all context. I don't even know if Muhammad said it, much less what he would have meant by such a statement. If that was his intention, he wasn't very effective. There were Jews living in Mecca until after he died.

    Your comparison still sucks. We are talking about Mohammad. Keep comparing him to another religious founder. You just cant do it with Jesus. I doubt can too with Joseph Smith. Not even with L Ron Hubbard.
    If the only attribute that counts with founders is whether they are peaceful or not, I can't do it with Moses or Henry VIII (founder of the Church of England). Besides, come back in 14 centuries and let's count the number of Scientologists. Back to Moses, I suppose you would prefer that the Pharoah captured the Jews at the Red Sea? Some Prophets were peaceful, some weren't. Where would the Jews be if it weren't for David. He was supposed to shake hands with Goliath?

  15. #15
    Agnosthiest
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by andak01 View Post
    Hadith study is not about cherry picking a hadith, leaving behind its context and then making general assumptions from there. Before we even get to how well translated it was or not, we'd need to know who related it, what context it was related under and how other scholars have interpreted it.
    by all means, show us a context that gives a mighty good excuse for that statement. good luck. until then, tough luck.

    Quote Originally Posted by andak01 View Post
    No. But Jews were living in Mecca until the death of Prophet Muhammad. Do you dispute that??? He had the force to drive them out or kill every last one of them if that was his intention. It wasn't and he didn't.
    No I dont dispute that. But Mohammad died prematurely, do you dispute that?

    Nor do you dispute the fact that Mohammad expelled many jews from Medina?

    Quote Originally Posted by andak01 View Post
    Religiously it has no meaning to me at all. It's translated, unattributed and taken out of all context. I don't even know if Muhammad said it, much less what he would have meant by such a statement. If that was his intention, he wasn't very effective. There were Jews living in Mecca until after he died.
    man, o man o man. think of the Nazis, dude. with all their war machines were they able to exterminate the jews right away? oh no oh no. they had to play them first, for many years. they were not on the immediate priority but they were on the 'to-do' list.

    Quote Originally Posted by andak01 View Post
    If the only attribute that counts with founders is whether they are peaceful or not, I can't do it with Moses or Henry VIII (founder of the Church of England).
    How about 'hypocrite or not'?

    Quote Originally Posted by andak01 View Post
    Back to Moses, I suppose you would prefer that the Pharoah captured the Jews at the Red Sea?
    honestly i never thought of it that way. now that you mentioned it i dont really care. i dont even believe that story happened that way. man, theres not even the mention of jews in egyptian hieroglyphics. must be one of those overblown legends that turned into religion.

    Quote Originally Posted by andak01 View Post
    Some Prophets were peaceful, some weren't. Where would the Jews be if it weren't for David. He was supposed to shake hands with Goliath?
    No but neither did he commit ethnic cleansing. and his son Solomon wisely promoted religious liberty.

    edit: oh yeah i remember it was david who exterminated the Amalekites.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 101
    Last Post: 07-31-2012, 01:32 PM
  2. 28% of Israel Not Jewish (Jerusalem Post)
    By cerulean in forum Israeli Politics
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 08-15-2006, 06:14 PM
  3. Jerusalem - International City ???
    By Peace_At_Port41 in forum Peace Think Tank
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-16-2002, 06:49 PM
  4. Legitimate title to the land ?
    By droberts1958 in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 05-18-2002, 09:38 AM
  5. victot's 2nd wacky israel plan: jewish breeding
    By victot in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-31-2002, 07:35 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •