What do Muslims think about Jesus?

[Quath]

You are right, Gary. That is not as good as the Golden Rule in the NT due to its restrictions.

Quath

 

[Muhsen]

How Islam treats others....

Gary:

(1) Why is there is no "Golden Rule" in Islam? "Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." (Matthew 7:12 NKJV)

(2) Why don't Muslims follow Jesus' teaching to "love your enemies"? (Matthew 5:43-47)

Muhammad taught the totally opposite message to these two commandments from Jesus.

Everybody know how Islam is dealing with others. Kindly and magnanimity

Gary: Actually, we are getting to know, more and more, that Islam does not treat others kindly. You have given no Quran surah/verses so I will help you.

Sura 5:54 "O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors. They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust."

Sura 5:36-38 "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Apostle, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the hereafter, except for those who repent before they fall into your power. In that case, know that Allah is oft-forgiving, most merciful. O ye who believe! Do your duty to Allah. Seek the means of approach unto Him, and strive with might and main in His cause, that ye may prosper."

Sura 9:123 "O ye who believe! Fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you, and know that Allah is with those who fear Him."

Sura 9:111 "Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods. For theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise). They fight in His cause, and slay and are slain."

Sura 9:52,73 "Say, ‘Can you expect for us (any fate) other than one of two glorious things - (martyrdom or victory)? But we can expect for you either that Allah will send His punishment from Himself, or by our hands. So wait (expectant). We too will wait with you.’ ... O Prophet! Strive [Jihad] hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is hell - an evil refuge indeed."

Sura 9:38,39,41 "O ye who believe! What is the matter with you, that when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place ... Go ye forth, (whether equipped) lightly or heavily, and strive [Jihad] and struggle with your goods and your persons, in the cause of Allah. That is best for you, if ye (but) knew."

Sura 9:29-31 "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the last day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, (even if they are) of the people of the Book, until they pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. The Jews call Uzair [Ezra] a son of God, and the Christians call Christ the Son of God ... Allah's curse be on them; how they are deluded away from the truth! They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of Allah, and (they take as their Lord) Christ the son of Mary. Yet they are commanded to worship but One God ..."

Do you call that "kind"?

No thank you gary I don’t need help, I know every verse in the glorious quran

The verses you have mentioned is talking about the people who fought God and The prophets and who killed Muslims and drive Muslims out of their homes …….


But the non-Muslims who have not did that, Islam is dealing with them kindly
This is the proof:

60:8. Allâh does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who fought not against you on account of religion and did not drive you out of your homes. Verily, Allâh loves those who deal with equity.

60:9. It is only as regards those who fought against you on account of religion, and have driven you out of your homes, and helped to drive you out, that Allâh forbids you to befriend them. And whosoever will befriend them, then such are the Zâlimûn (wrong-doers those who disobey Allâh).

AN EXAMPLE FROM HISTORY: Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) had said for commanders of an enemies when he opened Mecca ‎: ‎ ‎"‎ go away then you are the frees "‎ and they are who killed his families and his companions ‎.

And Salaheddin let the crusaders inside of Jerusalem after her openings are without killing them as what they killed his families and his brothers. ‎‎. ‎




(2) Why don't Muslims follow Jesus' teaching to "love your enemies"? (Matthew 5:43-47)

Just forgive to my ignorance, where "love your enemies" and who represent it?!
The people who represent it now is killing Muslims everywhere, Palestine’s and Iraqi’s children
Are you following Jesus? Did Jesus tell you to kill the children and women?

 

[Gary]

Muhammad the role-model?

... The verses you have mentioned is talking about the people who fought God and The prophets and who killed Muslims and drive Muslims out of their homes …….

But the non-Muslims who have not did that, Islam is dealing with them kindly
This is the proof:
60:8. Allâh does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who fought not against you on account of religion and did not drive you out of your homes. Verily, Allâh loves those who deal with equity.
60:9. It is only as regards those who fought against you on account of religion, and have driven you out of your homes, and helped to drive you out, that Allâh forbids you to befriend them. And whosoever will befriend them, then such are the Zâlimûn (wrong-doers those who disobey Allâh).

AN EXAMPLE FROM HISTORY: Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) had said for commanders of an enemies when he opened Mecca ‎: ‎ ‎"‎ go away then you are the frees "‎ and they are who killed his families and his companions‎.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gary: More examples from history and Muhammad's own actions..

Some very simple questions about Islam

• 1) Did Muhammad ever murder anyone or conspire to murder?
  2) Did Muhammad ever torture or have someone tortured?
  3) Did Muhammad have sex with his slaves?
  4) Did Muhammad allow his men to have sex with newly-captured women?
  5) Did Muhammad have sex with his 9-year old CHILD bride?
  6) Did Muhammad and his wife ever believe that Muhammad was bewitched?
  7) Did Muhammad ever curse Jews and Christians?
  8) What were Muhammad's last instructions about Jews and Christians?
  9) What did Muhammad say in his Quran about befriending Jews or Christians?

Answers to some of these questions:
http://www.geocities.com/gary_bee_za/muhammad/

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Muhammad the murderer

Gary: Muhammad made this claim in his Quran: "Ye have indeed in the Apostle of Allah (Muhammad) a beautiful pattern of (conduct) for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day." (Sura 33:21).

Muhammad murdered people who opposed him and spoke out about him:

• (1) Muhammad and the murder of Asma bint Marwan (a woman) -- CLICK HERE --
  
  (2) Muhammad and the torture and murder of Kinana -- CLICK HERE --
  
  (3) Muhammad and the murder of Abu Afak (120 years old!) -- CLICK HERE --
  
  (4) Muhammad and his deceit to arrange the murder of Kab bin Al-Ashraf -- CLICK HERE --
  
  (5) Was Muhammad a role model? -- CLICK HERE --

Why follow a man like this? Why use his example as a "beautiful pattern of conduct" when you have the perfect, sinless role model of our Lord Jesus Christ?

Jesus said: "I am the WAY, the TRUTH and the LIFE. No one comes to the Father except through Me."

 

[Muhsen]

Read the reality of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).

http://www.muhammad.net/

 

[Gary]

Thanks Muhsen.... it is interesting that the website you referenced does NOT show the murders I described. Could you explain that?

 

[Gary]

Muhsen, the website you recommended also makes no reference to this incident....

• FROM THE HADITH OF THE SUNAN OF ABU DAWUD, VOLUME 2, # 2150:
  
  Abu Said al-Khudri said: "The apostle of Allah sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the apostle of Allah were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Quranic verse, "And all married women (are forbidden) unto your save those (captives) whom your right hand possesses". That is to say, they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period."" [The Quran verse is 4:24].

Could you explain this Hadith?

There are several more like this.
I have documented them here: -- CLICK HERE --

Any ideas?

:o

 

[Muhsen]

Thanks Muhsen.... it is interesting that the website you referenced does NOT show the murders I described. Could you explain that?

Because it's lies(murders)

 

[Muhsen]

Muhsen, the website you recommended also makes no reference to this incident....

• FROM THE HADITH OF THE SUNAN OF ABU DAWUD, VOLUME 2, # 2150:
  
  Abu Said al-Khudri said: "The apostle of Allah sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the apostle of Allah were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Quranic verse, "And all married women (are forbidden) unto your save those (captives) whom your right hand possesses". That is to say, they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period."" [The Quran verse is 4:24].

Could you explain this Hadith?


:o

Well these women considered from (what your right hands possess)

"wama malakat aymanakom" (what your right hands possess).

Well,
Islam forbade slavery for it is the religion that gives rights of individuals, males or females. It made this as clear as daylight, many centuries ago, before the slogan of “human rights†came to be known to the Westerners.

Slavery was not initiated by Islam, it had been in practice long before the advent of Islam. As we know, it’s the custom of war to have captives and those captives or prisoners used to be turned into slaves and concubines by their masters. This was not the case only in the pre-Islamic Arab regions, but it was there every other place. It was even worse in some societies, especially with women. She was subject to all kinds of injustice, oppression and barbarian treatment. This went as far as that Greeks used to consider her a mere commodity, to be bought and sold. As for Romans, she was a slave already by nature, even without being captured at war!

In short, Islam is not the religion that jeopardizes the rights of woman, as Western scholars would have us believe, concocting any ideas to distort the image of Islam. Was it Islam that considered woman as being responsible for the banishing of man from Paradise? Was it Islam that took women as being the cause of all evils or regarded her as serpents? Was it in Islam that a meeting was held to debate whether woman could be regarded as a human being or not? No! This took place in France in 587 C.E. Actually all this was the norm of the day in the past Western civilizations. Yes, it was also the habit in the pre-Islamic Arab, when female babies used to be buried alive.

When Islam came, it tried to put an end to all such inhumane practices. It left no stone unturned in its quest to let women have their rights and dignity restored. This is clearly manifest in the way Islam handled the issue of slavery. Right from the start, Islam set a goal to eradicate this barbaric system. Yet, it needed to be done gradually, as the case with all bad habits that have gained ground. People never give up easily!

So, first of all it confined the issue of taking captives to the period of warfare. This is just as a situation necessitated by hostility between warring states. Then it allowed the female captives to be married by their captors. But why? Does this mean giving men a golden chance to unleash their sexual desires or to sexually brutalize those captives? No, not at all!

Here lies certain wisdom that completely escapes the mind of those Western scholars, who take this issue to launch attacks against Islam.

As we know, after the end of hostility, it’s the norm that prisoners of war be freed and exchanged through mutual agreement between the parties. Islam has made this clear in its divine texts that the captives must be freed through ransom or without ransom. Also, it’s socially understood that marrying freed female captives, would normally secure their rights, more than would be the case if they were set free without any guarantee for survival or for preserving their dignity.

Thus, Islam gave them hope of survival, trying to prevent their becoming prostitutes. In fact, they would have definitely found it hard to find suitors, even from among their free male counterparts, who’d suspect them of being ravished by their captors. Though glimmer it may be in the beginning, this hope soon turned glittering by securing them a marital home, whereby their rights and dignity would be secured.

Here comes the issue of “ma malakat aimanukum†(what your right hands possess). This is mentioned in many verses in the Qur’an, like the following:
If any of you have not the means wherewith to wed free believing women, they may wed believing girls from among those whom your right hands possess: And God hath full knowledge about your faith. Ye are one from another: Wed them with the leave of their owners, and give them their dowers, according to what is reasonable: ...
Surah 4 Verse 25
This verse confirms what I have just said; opening the door for female slaves or captives to be married by destitute Muslims who cannot afford the dowry of free women. Notice here that the Qur’an uses the expression “what your right hands.†What is the significance of this expression?

The word “right hands†here refers to women taken as prisoners of war. It is by no means an implication of concubinage, for this is totally prohibited in Islam. Nor does it refer to purchasing female slaves from market to be used to satisfy sexual urge. It’s during warfare that the right hand actually takes possession of captives, and this is what the Qur’an means. That’s point number one.

Point number two is that, the word “right hands possess†also has another significance that clearly reflects the great concern Islam has for preserving the rights of those captives. As we know, the right hand has its special merit and privileged functions that man instinctively reserve for it. Imam Kurtubi, in his commentary on this verse, says: “Allah Almighty uses the word ‘right hand’ here for it denotes great honor and respect. It suffices that it’s the one used when referring to spending, as mentioned in the hadith ‘… he who provides charity (seeking only Allah’s reward) in a way that his left hand does not know what his right hand spends …’ And it is the very hand used in making pledge of allegiance … etc.â€Â

All this indicates that the word “what your right hand possess†has a special and glorified meaning in Islamic usage. In fact, it signifies the great care and good treatment that captives or prisoners of wars should be accorded. This is how Islam dealt with the issue from the earliest stages.

All this did not materialize all of a sudden, for slavery was a social ailment that needed to be addressed. So it was a gradual strategy laid down by Islam, not only to eradicate slavery, but also to give the freed slaves a complete social rehabilitation. First of all, Islam stipulated that all masters should take care of their captives; they should not be overburdened with tasks, nor should they be deprived of their human rights. The Prophet (pbuh) made this clear in his hadith that masters should treat their slaves as their brothers and female captives as their sisters, if not in faith, at least in humanity. He said:

“Your servants are thy brethren. Allah has put them under your control. He could, if He willed, make you under their control. Thus, whoever has his brother under his control, let him feed him of his same food and dress him of his same dress. Never saddle them with work that goes beyond their capability. If the work happens to be somehow difficult, lend them a helping hand.â€Â

As for female captives, Imam Bukhari quotes the Prophet, as saying:

“If any of you have a slave girl, whom he gives good education and excellent training, and then he emancipates her and marries her, he shall have a two-fold reward.â€Â

You see; that’s how Islam set the course of emancipating slaves. They should definitely be well treated. Also, educating female captives and marrying them, after emancipation is considered an act of charity, which would earn one great reward. Not only that. Islam further put an end to the habit of using derogative names of “slaves†or “servantsâ€Â. For in Islam, man must not show servitude to anyone besides Allah the Almighty. So it was stipulated that the captives should be addressed by “fatah†(boy) or “fatat†(girl). Besides, the act of emancipating slaves used to be a competitive work among the Prophet’s Companions, for it was highly recommended by Islam and was considered an act of worship.

What’s more, Islam has also made use of what was an international custom during that era; i.e. the custom of having intercourse with female captives. Here Islam stipulated that if through sexual intercourse, the female slave got pregnant from her master, she would automatically gain her freedom. So would her child, for he’d be born free then. What a wise approach to eliminate a bad habit! So it was not a means of unleashing sexual desires. Otherwise, it would have been something permanent, being pregnant would have availed the slave woman nothing, for she’d remain the property of her master no matter how. No, Islam was not after such a sensual and voluptuous goal.

But tell me why the bible said not only marry but also kill all women except the virgins.

 

[Gary]

hmmmm.... my links that I gave are not even working. So you can determine lies without even going to the website?

:-? :-?

 

[DivineNames]

Because it's lies

If Islamic sources are lies then why trust Islam?

 

[Gary]

Rape while the women's husbands still alive!

Thanks for the reply Muhsen.... what still worries me about the Hadith is that these women were to be raped and that the women's husbands were still there!!! Do you honestly think that the women wanted sex with their captives?

Some of the Companions of the apostle of Allah were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers.

You have not explained this part of it at all.

 

[Gary]

Did Muhammad murder these people?
Was this a "beautiful pattern of conduct"?

Thanks Muhsen.... it is interesting that the website you referenced does NOT show the murders I described. Could you explain that?

Because it's lies

Gary: Mushan, do you agree that IF Muhammad DID take part in these murders that it negate Muhammad's claim that "Ye have indeed in the Apostle of Allah (Muhammad) a beautiful pattern of (conduct) for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day." (Sura 33:21).

Muhammad murdered people who opposed him and spoke out about him:

• (1) Muhammad and the murder of Asma bint Marwan (a woman) -- CLICK HERE --
  
  (2) Muhammad and the torture and murder of Kinana -- CLICK HERE --
  
  (3) Muhammad and the murder of Abu Afak (120 years old!) -- CLICK HERE --
  
  (4) Muhammad and his deceit to arrange the murder of Kab bin Al-Ashraf -- CLICK HERE --
  
  (5) Was Muhammad a role model? -- CLICK HERE --

You claim that these are lies. We have used Islamic sources to document these murders. What part of these are lies? How do you know that they are lies? Do Muslims lie about Muhammad's actions?

:o

 

[Muhsen]

~ :-D

 

[Muhsen]

Because it's lies

If Islamic sources are lies then why trust Islam?

Are you claims that I said Islamic sources are lies?
I talk about Mr.Gary's claims is lies.



Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was never dealt with others unjustly.

The people who had been killed have big crimes with Muslims, and often Muhammad (pbuh) forgiven them.


Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) had said for commanders of an enemies when he opened Mecca " go away then you are the frees " and they are who killed his families and his companions .

 

[Gary]

Muhammad has his men MURDER Abu Afak
Islamic references: -- CLICK HERE --

The people who had been killed have big crimes with Muslims.....

Gary: After Muhammad arrived in Medina around 622 AD, a number of local people began to dislike him. Many of them were Jews, some were Pagan Arabs. One by one, Muhammad's critics were silenced; some became Muslims, some were murdered, others were driven out of Medina. This article deals with Muhammad's request to have his men murder a Jewish man named Abu Afak. Abu Afak was 120 years old. What was Afak's crime? He had urged his fellow Medinans to doubt Muhammad!!!

Why is that a BIG crime worthy of murder?

Read more: -- CLICK HERE --

 

[Muhsen]

The Killing of Abu ‘Afak
and
‘Asma’ bint Marwan
by Hesham Azmy
Published in Oct., 29th, 2003


The Christian missionary, Silas, has accused Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) of killing Abu 'Afak and 'Asma' bint Marwan. In this paper, insha’Allah, we are going to refute these false charges against the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him), wa Allah-ul-Must’an.

Islamic Methodology of Reports’ Evaluation.
The Killing of Abu ‘Afak: Where is The Isnad?
The Killing of ‘Asma’: True Story? or Forgery?
Prophetic Attitude Toward Women and Old Men in War.
Conclusion.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Islamic Methodology of Reports’ Evaluation
We must explain the methodology of Muslim scholars before we comment on any Islamic report. Take for example the news reported on presidents today! If the vice president gives a certain statement concerning the opinion of the president in a certain matter, then this statement is transmitted by a member of the secretary to a journalists who published it in the newspaper, what is the value of this report?

I answer that it could be right or wrong and we cannot be sure unless we know the reliability of the source.

If we find that the report is indeed transmitted by the secretary member on authority of the vice president and that each of them is well known for accuracy in transmission and truthfulness in speech, how can we evaluate this report?

I answer that I tend to believe it.

This is exactly what Muslim scholars require in any report to be valid and its attribution to God's Messenger (peace be upon him) can be accepted. They actually add two more things; they must make sure that the report itself is not contradictory to other more authentic reports otherwise it will be considered eccentric! Also, they must exclude any hidden flaws in the text of the report, these flaws are detailed in specialized volumes of Hadith.

Can we then accept the report as valid?

Not yet, after we verify that the chain of transmitters is intact without interruption and that all reporters are honest sane individuals, we must make sure that each reporter has received the report directly from the preceding one and that the report itself is in agreement with other authentic reports without flaws. The eminent Hafiz Ibn Kathir states,

Authentic Hadith is the Musnad hadith whose chain is continuous through transmission of an accurate sane memorizer on authority of an accurate sane memorizer till its termination without being eccentric or flawed.
(Ibn Kathir, Al-Ba'eth Al-Hathith, page 28. Published by Maktabat-us-Sunnah, Cairo, Egypt)
Is there a method more precise and meticulous than this?!
There is no nation in the entire history that took care of reporting events and their verification as Muslims did, the Western Orientalist Bernard Lewis notes,

From an early date Muslim scholars recognized the danger of false testimony and hence false doctrine, and developed an elaborate science for criticizing tradition. "Traditional science", as it was called, differed in many respects from modern historical source criticism, and modern scholarship has always disagreed with evaluations of traditional scientists about the authenticity and accuracy of ancient narratives. But their careful scrutiny of the chains of transmission and their meticulous collection and preservation of variants in the transmitted narratives give to medieval Arabic historiography a professionalism and sophistication without precedent in antiquity and without parallel in the contemporary medieval West. By comparison, the historiography of Latin Christendom seems poor and meagre, and even the more advanced and complex historiography of Greek Christendom still falls short of the historical literature of Islam in volume, variety and analytical depth.
(Bernard Lewis, Islam In History, 1993, Open Court Publishing, pp.104-105)
Then, we talk about historical references written by Muslim authors. First of all, these books are not trustworthy references due to the fact that they do not follow proper methodology of transmission.
Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal sums up the Muslim point of view as regards the trustworthiness of the biographical reports when he declares that the biographies …

…. are not based on any principle.
The early Muslim scholars who compiled books of Hadith and scrutinized this particular field undertook thorough and painstaking investigations to determine the authenticity of the reports from the Holy Prophet's time by tracing them back to eye-witnesses of the time, through unbroken lines of reliable narrators. As a result, they never held a high opinion of the biographies whose authors had simply copied masses of reports without check or criticism. One such scholar of Hadith, Hafiz Zain-ud-Din of Iraq, says about the biographies,
The student should know that the biographies contain all kinds of reports, both true and false.
I believe this should make us depend only upon reliable sources authenticated by Muslim specialists in Hadith.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Killing of Abu ‘Afak
Where is The Isnad?
According to Ibn Sa’d and Ibn Ishaq, Abu ‘Afak was a 120 years old Jewish man who abused the Prophet (peace be upon him) verbally, so the latter launched a raid under the command of Salem Ibn ‘Umair to kill him. Well, we know that Ibn Ishaq lived in the 2nd half of the 2nd century after Higra, as well as Al-Waqidi from whom Ibn Sa’d (died 230 A.H.) copied the story of Abu ‘Afak.

As explained above, the chain of reporters of the story from eye-witnesses of the event till Ibn Ishaq or Al-Waqidi must be examined and verified. So, our legitimate question is: where is the isnad (i.e., chain of reporters)?

Unfortunately, references of Seera do not provide such information. Actually, we are told that this story has no isnad at all; neither Ibn Ishaq (or his disciple Ibn Hesham) nor Al-Waqidi (or his disciple Ibn Sa’d) provide such thing!!

In this case, the story is rated by Hadith scholars as “of no basis†indicating that it has reached the lowest degree of criticism regarding its isnad. This is in fact a proper scientific position because we cannot accept such a problematic story without evidence.We are obliged to reject the story of the killing of Abu ‘Afak by Salem Ibn ‘Umair at the Prophet’s command.

In brief, we have no commitment to accept such a baseless story - according to scientific criteria of reeports’ criticism - which strangely appeared in the 2nd half of the 2nd century after Higra.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Killing of ‘Asma’
True Story? or Forgery?
The charge is that the Prophet (peace be upon him) had ordered the killing of 'Asma' when she insulted him with her poetry, and the implications are that he (peace be upon him) "stiffles" criticism by murdering his opponents. As it is usually the case where the history of Islam and the character of the Prophet (peace be upon him) is concerned, it is left to the Muslims to throw some light on authenticity of the story in which this incident is reported by the sources and educate the missionaries in matters which they have no clue about.

The story of the killing of 'Asma' bint Marwan is mentioned by Ibn Sa'd in "Kitab At-Tabaqat Al-Kabir"[1] and by the author of "Kinz-ul-'Ummal" under number 44131 who attributes it to Ibn Sa'd, Ibn 'Adiyy and Ibn 'Asaker. What is interesting is that Ibn 'Adiyy mentions it in his book "Al-Kamel" on the authority of Ja'far Ibn Ahmad Ibn Muhammad Ibn As-Sabah on authority of Muhammad Ibn Ibrahim Ash-Shami on authority of Muhammad Ibn Al-Hajjaj Al-Lakhmi on authority of Mujalid on authority of Ash-Shu'abi on authority of Ibn 'Abbas, and added that

...this isnad (chain of reporters) is not narrated on authority of Mujalid but by Muhammad Ibn Al-Hajjaj and they all (other reporters in the chain) accuse Muhammad Ibn Al-Hajjaj of forging it.[2]
It is also reported by Ibn al-Gawzi in "Al-'Ilal"[3] and is listed among other flawed reports.
So according to its isnad, the report is forged - because one of its reporters is accused of fabricating hadith. Hence, such a story is better put in trash can.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prophetic Attitude Toward Women and Old Men in War
I’m going to display here the *authentic* Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) regarding women and old men in war. No baseless or forged reports are allowed here; we will only display authentic reports.

Well, in brief, authentic Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him) prohibits the killing of women in war.

Narrated Anas bin Malik: A Jewish woman brought a poisoned (cooked) sheep for the Prophet who ate from it. She was brought to the Prophet and he was asked, "Shall we kill her?" He said, "No." I continued to see the effect of the poison on the palate of the mouth of God’s Apostle.
(Sahih al-Bukhârî, Volume 3, Book 47, Number 786)
The Prophet (peace be upon him) refused to kill a woman who did intentionally try to poison him, but the Christian missionaries, using a fabricated story, wants us to believe that he ordered the killing of a woman who only abused him verbally.
Narrated Ibn 'Umar: Messenger of God (peace be upon him) saw the corpse of a woman who had been slain in one of the raids, and he disapproved of it and forbade the killing of women and children.
(Sahih-ul-Bukhârî, Volume 4, Book 52, Numbers 257 & 258. Also see Mutta Malik, Book 21, Section 3, Number 9)
Due to this prohibition, scholars of Abu Hanifah’s School of Thought state that apostate women are not to be killed because the Prophet (peace be upon him) forbade killing women and since the prohibition is general, then it includes apostate women.[4]
Even after the Prophet's demise, his Sunnah was preserved by the Muslims ...

Abu Bakr advised Yazid: "I advise you ten things: Do not kill women or children or an aged, infirm person. Do not cut down fruit-bearing trees. Do not destroy an inhabited place. Do not slaughter sheep or camel except for food. Do not burn bees and do not scatter them. Do not steal from the booty, and do not be cowardly."
(Mutta Malik, Book 21, Section 3, Number 10)
Safi-ur-Rahman Al-Mabarakfuri sums it up in "Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtoum",
The Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] had issued honourable strict rules about war and bade his soldiers and leaders to comply with them. They were forbidden to break those rules under any circumstances. In reference to Sulaiman bin Buraidah’s version, who said that his father had told him that whenever the Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] appointed a leader on an army or on a battalion, he used to recommend him to fear Allâh, the Great and All-Mighty, when dealing with those who were closest to him and to be good with all Muslims. Then the Prophet [pbuh] would say to him:
"Let your invasion be in the Name of Allâh and for His sake. Fight those who disbelieve in Allâh. Invade but do not exaggerate nor commit treachery. Never deform the corpse of a dead person or kill an infant child."
The Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] asked people to facilitate but he forbade them to bear down hard on others or constrain. "Pacify", he said, "and do not disincline". [Sahih Muslim 2/82,83] When it happened that he arrived at the battlefield by night, he would never invade the enemy till it was morning. He utterly forbade burning (i.e. torturing people) in fire, killing children and women or even beating them. He also forbade theft and robbery and proceeded so far as to say gains acquired through plundering are not less forbidden than the flesh of a corpse. Corruption of tillage and race and cutting down of trees were all forbidden unless they were badly needed and there was no other substitute:
"Do not kill a wounded person nor run after a fleeing one or kill a captive."
He decreed that envoys cannot be killed. He also stressed on not killing those who made covenants. He even said:
"He whoever kills one who is under pledge to a covenant shall not smell Paradise, though its smell could be experienced at a forty-year distance from it."
There were some other noble rules which purified wars from their Al-Jahiliyah (pre-Islamic) filthiness and turned them into sacred wars. [Za'd Al-Ma'ad 2/64-68; and for details Jihad in Islam p.216-262]
I believe this should clarify any acquired misconception readers hold toward our beloved Noble Prophet (peace be upon him). And to God is the judgement in all affairs.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conclusion
The Western Orientalist Bernard Lewis notes,

From an early date Muslim scholars recognized the danger of false testimony and hence false doctrine, and developed an elaborate science for criticizing tradition.
(Bernard Lewis, Islam In History, 1993, Open Court Publishing, pp.104-105)
We have utilized their scientific methodology to expose the false narratives attributed to the Prophet (peace be upon him) about the alleged killing of Abu ‘Afak and ‘Asma’ bint Marwan. Examination of isnad (i.e., chain of reporters) has revealed the unreliability of both stories. Also, examination of matn (i.e., text) has revealed their inevitable contradiction with vigorously authentic traditions and established Islamic principles. 'Abdûr-Rahmân I. Doi had stated that
As far as the Matn is concerned, the following principles of criticism of the Hadith are laid down:
(1) The Hadith should not be contrary to the text or the teaching of the Qur'an or the accepted basic principles of Islam.
(2) The Hadith should not be against the dictates of reason or laws of nature and common experience.
(3) The Hadith should not be contrary to the Traditions which have already been accepted by authorities as reliable and authentic by applying all principles.
(4) The Hadith which sings the praises and excellence of any tribe, place or persons should be generally rejected
(5) The Hadith that contains the dates and minute details of the future events should be rejected.
(6) The Hadith that contains some remarks of the Prophet which are not in keeping with the Islamic belief of Prophethood and the position of the Holy Prophet or such expressions as may not be suitable to him, should be rejected.[5]
But critics may have an objection; if these stories are untrue, then why they are mentioned in Islamic references in the first place? In response, we have shown the position of learned Muslim scholars toward references of biographies whose authors used to copy masses of reports without check or criticism. These particular stories even prove their unscientific methodology because they are reported without isnad at all. This is extremely unusual of any respectable scholar. Ibn Jarir At-Tabari (224-310 A.H.) in his encyclopedic book of history “Tarik Al-Umam wa Al-Mulouk†did not give mention of these stories at all despite the fact that he mentions far less significant reports in his book.
Hence, based on the empirical evidence, we can therefore conclude that the so-called "killing" of Abu ‘Afak and ‘Asma' bint Marwan is inherently false and had never happened. This certainly throws the spanner into the works of the missionary's "only" conclusion, which is based upon nothing but hatred, paranoia and xenophobia towards the elect Apostle of God, Muhammad (peace be upon him).

And Allah knows best.

 

[Gary]

Muhammad and his DECEIT so that he can MURDER Kab b. al-Ashraf

While Muhammad lived in Medina he grew in power. There were a number of Jews that opposed him. Muhammad asked several of his followers to murder a number of these Jews. One of these Jews was Kab b. al-Ashraf. This article deals with Kab's murder.

Introduction

In Medina Muhammad began to experience opposition by the Jewish tribes living nearby. For the most part they rejected his message and Islam. The Jews had a weak informal treaty with Muhammad but they were not on good terms. One of the Jews, Kab b. al-Ashraf, vocally supported Muhammad's enemies, the Meccans, against Muhammad. He let it be known that he believed that Muhammad was a phoney - not a prophet at all.

I provide a lot of detail in this article; I want to quote the references in full to provide the proper context. I also quote the sources as they are written in English. Some of the words are arcane, but I want to present the words as they have been translated into English.

Kab was a Jew. He hated Muhammad. Kab never lifted a weapon against Muhammad or any Muslim, he only voiced his opinion against Muhammad, and made up some unsavory poems about Muslim women. Muhammad saw him as a threat, and therefore had him murdered in the night.

The Jews around Medina were not under Muhammad's rule; they had only entered into a general agreement with the Muslims, but this agreement was not a formal, established treaty. Muhammad did not have legal right to murder Kab, rather he took it upon himself to get rid of a man who hated him.

Read more... --CLICK HERE --

:o :o

 

[DivineNames]

Because it's lies

If Islamic sources are lies then why trust Islam?

Are you claims that I said Islamic sources are lies?
I talk about Mr.Gary's claims is lies.

Really? because it does seem like you are trying to deny embarrassing Islamic sources.

I have seen Muslims do this numerous times...



If Islamic sources are lies, then why trust Islam?

 

[DivineNames]

(6) The Hadith that contains some remarks of the Prophet which are not in keeping with the Islamic belief of Prophethood and the position of the Holy Prophet or such expressions as may not be suitable to him, should be rejected.[5]

This would be blatant question-begging against the non-Muslim. The author doesn't seem interested in finding criteria that would be acceptable to an impartial third party. This rather suggests that the author is not interested in genuinely critical study of Islamic sources, but instead interested in B.S. propaganda.

This wouldn't be much of a surprise of course, because Muslims are seemingly fond of B.S. propaganda.

 

[Heidi]

What do Muslims think about Jesus?


Muslims love and respect Jesus. They consider him one of the greatest of God's prophets and messengers to humankind. A Muslim never refers to him simply as "Jesus," but always adds the phrase "may the peace and blessing of God be upon him." The Qur'an confirms his virgin birth, and a special chapter of the Qur'an is entitled "Mary." The Qur'an describes the Annunciation as follows:

"The Angels said, 'O Mary! God has chosen you, and purified you, and chosen you above all the women of all nations…'

'O Mary, God gives you good news of a word from Him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, honored in this world and in the Hereafter, and one of those brought near to God. He shall speak to the people in infancy and in old age, and shall be of the righteous.'

She said: ' O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man has touched me?' He said: 'Even so; God creates what he wills. When He decrees a thing, he says to it, "Be!" and it is."' (Qur'an 3:42, 45-7)

Just as God created Adam without a mother or a father, He caused Jesus to be conceived without a father:

"Truly the example of Jesus in relation to God is as the example of Adam. He created him from dust and then said to him, "Be!" and he was." (Qur'an 3:59)

During his prophetic mission, Jesus performed many miracles. The Qur'an tells us that he said: "I have come to you with a sign from your Lord: I make for you out of clay, as it were, a figure of a bird, and breathe into it and it becomes a bird by God's leave. And I heal the blind, and the lepers, and I raise the dead by God's leave." (Qur'an 3:49)

Jesus, like Muhammad, came to confirm and renew the basic doctrine of the belief in One God brought by earlier prophets. In the Qur'an, Jesus is reported as saying that he came: "To attest the Torah that was before me. And to make lawful to you part of what was forbidden to you; I have come to you with a sign from your Lord; so be conscious of God and obey me." (Qur'an 3:50)

The Prophet Muhammad said: "Whoever believes that there is no deity except God, alone without partner, that Muhammad is his messenger, that Jesus is the servant and messenger of God; His word which he bestowed on Mary and a spirit proceeding from Him, and that Paradise and Hell are true, shall be received by God into Heaven."

But the Muslims apparently feel that Mohammed who killed and lusted after women knows better who God is than Jesus was never found guilty of one sin. Is that correct? If so, they Muslims can put theire lives in the hands of a murderer rather than one who gave up his life for them, if they like, but they then deserve their fate. Jesus has proven his love for me by sacrificing his life for me. I'll believe someone like that any day over one who would kill me if he didn't like me!