I see this claim made by Muslims on a regular basis:


freediver wrote on Feb 16^th, 2014 at 9:15am:

True Colours wrote on Feb 15th, 2014 at 10:40pm: freediver wrote on Feb 15th, 2014 at 5:14pm: It was not "war compensation" because it happened before the war. The war was a response by the Meccans to Muhammed robbing their caravans. Muhammed had a long career as a highway robber before he moved up to rape and pillage. Before the incident you speak of, the pagans of Mecca killed, tortured, raped, stole property and promised to kill every Muslim in Medina. Perhaps you think that was some kind of state of peace, most people would not. freediver wrote on Feb 15th, 2014 at 5:14pm: Muhammed stoned rapists, but was himself a rapist. He executed thieves, but was himself a thief. The difference being of course, that Muhammed permitted himself to rape and pillage. Big claims -  for which you have no evidence. And why did they do this? I have seen evidence of Muhammed himself engaging in torture (to force a Jew to give up his Jew gold). But I have not seen evidence of Muslims being tortured. Last time I asked the closest I got was being spat on and bitten by a dog.

The only evidence I have found is that Muhammed himself was the torturer:

Kinana b. al-Rabi`, who had the custody of the treasure of B. al-Nadir, was brought to the apostle who asked him about it. He denied that he knew where it was. A Jew came (T. was brought) to the apostle and said that he had seen Kinana going round a certain ruin every morning early. When the apostle said to Kinana, "Do you know that if we find you have it I shall kill you?" he said Yes. The apostle gave orders that the ruin was to be excavated and some of the treasure was found. When he asked him about the rest he refused to produce it, so the apostle gave orders to al-Zubayr b. al-`Awwam, "Torture him until you extract what he has," so he kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead. Then the apostle delivered him to Muhammad b. Maslama and he struck off his head, in revenge for his brother Mahmud. (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, translated as, The Life of Muhammad, (tr. A. Guillaume), Karachi: Oxford University Press, 1998, p. 515.)

(That night, Muhammed and the man's widow fell madly in love and spent the night together in Muhammed's tent)

In response to Muhammed's favourite child bride being accused of adultery:

Ishaq:496      "Ask the slave girl; she will tell you the truth.' So the Apostle called Burayra to ask her. Ali got up and gave her a violent beating first, saying, 'Tell the Apostle the truth.'"

Sahih Muslim Book 016, Hadith Number 4131.
Anas reported: Eight men of the tribe of 'Ukl came to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and swore allegiance to him on Islam, but found the climate of that land uncongenial to their health and thus they became sick, and they made complaint of that to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: Why don't you go to (the fold) of our camels along with our shepherd, and make use of their milk and urine. They said: Yes. They set out and drank their (camels') milk and urine and regained their health. They killed the shepherd and drove away the camels. This (news) reached Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and he sent them on their track and they were caught and brought to him (the Holy Prophet). He commanded about them, and (thus) their hands and feet were cut off and their eyes were gouged and then they were thrown in the sun, until they died.
This hadith has been narrated on the authority of Ibn al-Sabbah with a slight variation of words.

Quran 5:33
The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, 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.

Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 436
“…they brought them along and questioned them while the apostle was standing praying… The people were dismayed at their report…and so they beat them. When they were beaten soundly..."

Abu Dawud 38:4474
Narrated AbdurRahman ibn Azhar:
I saw the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) on the morning of the conquest of Mecca when I was a young boy. He was walking among the people, seeking the camp of Khalid ibn al-Walid. A man who had drunk wine was brought (before him) and he ordered them (to beat him). So they beat him with what they had in their hands. Some struck him with whips, some with sticks and some with sandals. The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) threw some dust on his face.
When a man who had drunk wine was brought before AbuBakr, he asked them (i.e. the people) about the number of beatings which they gave him. They numbered it forty. So AbuBakr gave him forty lashes.

freediver wrote on Feb 16^th, 2014 at 11:35am:

I see this claim made by Muslims on a regular basis: freediver wrote on Feb 16th, 2014 at 9:15am: True Colours wrote on Feb 15th, 2014 at 10:40pm: freediver wrote on Feb 15th, 2014 at 5:14pm: It was not "war compensation" because it happened before the war. The war was a response by the Meccans to Muhammed robbing their caravans. Muhammed had a long career as a highway robber before he moved up to rape and pillage. Before the incident you speak of, the pagans of Mecca killed, tortured, raped, stole property and promised to kill every Muslim in Medina. Perhaps you think that was some kind of state of peace, most people would not. freediver wrote on Feb 15th, 2014 at 5:14pm: Muhammed stoned rapists, but was himself a rapist. He executed thieves, but was himself a thief. The difference being of course, that Muhammed permitted himself to rape and pillage. Big claims -  for which you have no evidence. And why did they do this? I have seen evidence of Muhammed himself engaging in torture (to force a Jew to give up his Jew gold). But I have not seen evidence of Muslims being tortured. Last time I asked the closest I got was being spat on and bitten by a dog. The only evidence I have found is that Muhammed himself was the torturer: Kinana b. al-Rabi`, who had the custody of the treasure of B. al-Nadir, was brought to the apostle who asked him about it. He denied that he knew where it was. A Jew came (T. was brought) to the apostle and said that he had seen Kinana going round a certain ruin every morning early. When the apostle said to Kinana, "Do you know that if we find you have it I shall kill you?" he said Yes. The apostle gave orders that the ruin was to be excavated and some of the treasure was found. When he asked him about the rest he refused to produce it, so the apostle gave orders to al-Zubayr b. al-`Awwam, "Torture him until you extract what he has," so he kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead. Then the apostle delivered him to Muhammad b. Maslama and he struck off his head, in revenge for his brother Mahmud. (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, translated as, The Life of Muhammad, (tr. A. Guillaume), Karachi: Oxford University Press, 1998, p. 515.) (That night, Muhammed and the man's widow fell madly in love and spent the night together in Muhammed's tent)

A passion that lingered on, from the heat of the moment ?

http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/jesus_or_muhammad.htm

Jesus healed the lame so they could walk:

Matthew 21:14 And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple; and he healed them.

Muhammad brought lameness to the walking:

Bukhari V4 B52 #261 "...they were brought, and he had their hands and feet cut off."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fbXvq_ZIbw

Jesus brought sight to the blind:

Matthew 15:30 And great multitudes came unto him, having with them [those that were] lame, blind, dumb, maimed, and many others, and cast them down at Jesus' feet; and he healed them:

Muhammad brought blindness to the seeing:

Bukhari V4 B52 #261 "Then he ordered for nails which were heated and passed over their eyes, and they were left in the Harra (i.e. rocky land in Medina)."

Jesus was crucified:

Matthew 27:35 And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.
http://www.islamandthetruth.com/psalms_22.htm

Muhammad crucified:

Quran 7:124 "Surely I shall have your hands and feet cut off upon alternate sides. Then I shall crucify you every one."

Jesus brought the dead back to life:

John 12:17 The people therefore that was with him when he called Lazarus out of his grave, and raised him from the dead, bare record.

Mohammed mass murdered the living:

Qur'an Surah 33:26 Allah took down the People of the Scripture Book. He cast terror into their hearts. Some you slew, and some you made prisoners. And He made you heirs of their lands, their houses, and their goods, giving you a land which you had not traversed before. And Allah has power over all things.
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/jihad_islamic_terrorism.htm

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2014 at 8:12am:

freediver wrote on Mar 1st, 2014 at 10:34pm: Would that by any chance be the Jew he tortured by lighting a fire on his stomach to get at his Jew gold? ::) even non-muslims with half a brain know that story is fake.

Why would they even know about it?

And how do you know it is fake?

freediver wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2014 at 10:50am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 2nd, 2014 at 8:12am: freediver wrote on Mar 1st, 2014 at 10:34pm: Would that by any chance be the Jew he tortured by lighting a fire on his stomach to get at his Jew gold? ::) even non-muslims with half a brain know that story is fake. Why would they even know about it? And how do you know it is fake?

FD keeps worrying about 800 jews, but turns a blind eye to the thousands of muslims killed, tortured and beaten by the jews and Christians in Arabia because they weren't like them.

Muslims weren't even safe in a mosque, the non muslims would come from behind them and stab them as they were praying.

And lets not forget the sanctions and economic boycott the jews and christinas put on the muslims in arabia, leaving there fellow humans there to die of hunger and starvation.

Quote:

FD keeps worrying about 800 jews, but turns a blind eye to the thousands of muslims killed, tortured and beaten by the jews and Christians in Arabia because they weren't like them.

No-one is saying that is a noble deed and an excellent example for people to follow - which is how Gandalf has described Muhammed slaughtering 800 Jewish POWs and taking the women as sex slaves.

Nor do I ignore it. I ask you for evidence that it actually happened. You never provide such evidence. On the other hand, Islam itself provides the evidence that Muhammed used torture whenever it suited him.


Quote:

And lets not forget the sanctions and economic boycott

;D

freediver wrote on Apr 6^th, 2014 at 9:56am:

TC, were those quotes from The Sealed Nectar? Please include a link when you quote from other articles. This looks like the most extreme example given: Quote: The uncle of ‘Uthman bin ‘Affan used to wrap ‘Uthman in a mat of palm leaves, and set fire under him. When Umm Mus‘ab bin ‘Umair heard of her son’s conversion, she put him to starvation and then expelled him from her house. He used to enjoy full luxurious easy life, but in the aftermath of the tortures he sustained, his skin got wizened, and he assumed a horrible physical appearance. [Rahmat-ul-lil'alameen 1/57; Talqeeh Ahl-al-Athar p.60] I tried googling those sources and could not find them for some reason. For one of them, this forum even came up on the first page of google results.

freediver wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2014 at 10:50am:

And how do you know it is fake?

Because I did some research on it. Radical concept I know.

It is a story without any source:
http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/rebuttal_to_silas_s_article__muhammad_and_the_death_of_kinana_

FD are you in the habit of blindly accepting the authority of whatever story suits your agenda without doing the most elementary verification of the facts? 

Oh sorry, silly question  :D

No source at all?

Kinana b. al-Rabi`, who had the custody of the treasure of B. al-Nadir, was brought to the apostle who asked him about it. He denied that he knew where it was. A Jew came (T. was brought) to the apostle and said that he had seen Kinana going round a certain ruin every morning early. When the apostle said to Kinana, "Do you know that if we find you have it I shall kill you?" he said Yes. The apostle gave orders that the ruin was to be excavated and some of the treasure was found. When he asked him about the rest he refused to produce it, so the apostle gave orders to al-Zubayr b. al-`Awwam, "Torture him until you extract what he has," so he kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead. Then the apostle delivered him to Muhammad b. Maslama and he struck off his head, in revenge for his brother Mahmud. (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, translated as, The Life of Muhammad, (tr. A. Guillaume), Karachi: Oxford University Press, 1998, p. 515.)

From your link:

    Having left Medina and settled at Khaibar, the Banu Nadir started hatching a wide-spread conspiracy against Islam. Their leaders, Sallam Ibn Abi-al Huqauaiq, Huyayy Ibn Akhtab, Kinana al-Rabi and others came to Mecca, met the Quraish and told them that Islam could be destroyed." (Allama Shibli Nu'Mani, Sirat-Un-Nabi, volume II, p 106)

     This goes to show that Kinana was a war criminal. Let's read on...

I barely got into it, and already I was offered the standard spiel of the scheming Jews hatching a conspiracy against peace-loving Muhammed and that this constitutes war crimes (and therefor he presumably deserved what he got).

Don't you think it is a bit hypocritical to defend Muhammed's slaughter of 800 Jewish POWs in one day, but then use accusations against Jews of conspiracy as the basis of the charge of war crimes? Or does it all make sense because the scheming Jews all got what they deserved?

freediver wrote on Apr 6^th, 2014 at 7:29pm:

No source at all?

Correct. Ibn Ishaq (who is a questionable authority at the best of times) provided no primary source for his account. It is the only account by anyone on this episode, and no other account of anything related to the use of torture by Muhammad exists.


freediver wrote on Apr 6^th, 2014 at 7:29pm:

I barely got into it

For once I believe you FD.

So you go with the more "authoritative" expert - a website that explains that the guy Muhammed didn't torture is a war criminal and a scheming Jew from a tribe of scheming Jews, and who admits that Muhammed ordered his death, merely for different reasons?

And the coup de grâce:

As Ibn Ishaq does not mention the name of any narrator whatsoever in this case, there is every likelihood of the story of having been passed on by the Jews.

Some other funny bits from your article:

Indeed Islam teaches us that treatment of the prisoners of war is a must.

Did he deliberately leave something out here?

That a man should be tortured with burns on his chest by the sparks of a flint is too heinous a deed for a Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) who had earned for himself the title of Rahma'lil Alamin (Mercy for all the worlds).

Too heinous for a man who executed 800 Jewish POWs in one day? Sound logic there...

As counter evidence, your article includes this passage of Muhammed killing another Jew for hiding Jew gold:

Narrated Abdullah Ibn Umar:

The Prophet fought with the people of Khaybar, and captured their palm-trees and land, and forced them to remain confined to their fortresses. So they concluded a treaty of peace providing that gold, silver and weapons would go to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him), and whatever they took away on their camels would belong to them, on condition that they would not hide and carry away anything. If they did (so), there would be no protection for them and no treaty (with Muslims).

They carried away a purse of Huyayy ibn Akhtab who was killed before (the battle of) Khaybar. He took away the ornaments of Banu an-Nadir when they were expelled.

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) asked Sa'yah: Where is the purse of Huyayy ibn Akhtab?

He replied: The contents of this purse were spent on battles and other expenses. (Later on) they found the purse. So he killed Ibn AbulHuqayq, captured their women and children, and intended to deport them. They said: Muhammad, leave us to work on this land; we shall have half (of the produce) as you wish, and you will have half. The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) used to make a contribution of eighty wasqs of dates and twenty wasqs of wheat to each of his wives. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 19, Number 3000)

and on it goes:

So the main reason for the killing of Kinana (putting aside the fact that he was already guilty of murder) was not merely over money. Rather, it was due to him becoming a war combatant after breaking a peace treaty. His concealment of the money violated the peace treaty, which then led to his death. It's not like the Muslims just went around confiscating people's money for no reason. Shamoun is making it out to be that Muslims were just greedy for money and would kill anyone that stood in their way, while that is not the case at all.

This one is interesting:

Furthermore, in Islam we wouldn't reject Jewish testimony just for the mere fact that they are Jewish. Two examples would suffice to prove this point:

According to Abu, Islam does exactly that - it discounts the testimony of non-Muslims on the grounds that they are inherently untrustworthy, because they are not Muslims.

freediver wrote on Apr 6^th, 2014 at 9:20pm:

So you go with...

Mainly I go with the fact that the episode is not mentioned by any other account, and is not sourced by the sole secondary account we have - by an author that is already widely considered as untrustworthy by islamic scholars. Nor is there any other account of Muhammad conducting torture.   


freediver wrote on Apr 6^th, 2014 at 9:20pm:

According to Abu...

...Muhammad conducted torture, and it was a really awesome thing for him to do?

Thats what you meant to say right? Because you haven't yet come up with a claim about islamic history that doesn't come back to Abu or Falah as the main source.

Quote:

Mainly I go with the fact that the episode is not mentioned by any other account, and is not sourced by the sole secondary account we have - by an author that is already widely considered as untrustworthy by islamic scholars.

Do you mean Muslim scholars?


Quote:

Nor is there any other account of Muhammad conducting torture.

   

All the other ones in the opening post seem pretty rough, but I suppose you could argue that it was not torture in the sense that it was not methodical and goal oriented.


Quote:

Thats what you meant to say right?

This is what I meant to say: According to Abu, Islam does exactly that - it discounts the testimony of non-Muslims on the grounds that they are inherently untrustworthy, because they are not Muslims.


Quote:

Because you haven't yet come up with a claim about islamic history that doesn't come back to Abu or Falah as the main source.

Does the first one in the OP of this thread count?

freediver wrote on Apr 6^th, 2014 at 9:39pm:

This is what I meant to say: According to Abu, Islam does exactly that

Ah  ;D

freediver wrote on Apr 6^th, 2014 at 9:39pm:

Do you mean Muslim scholars?

The two terms will remain oxymoronic, or mutually exclusive, until such time as "Islamic scholars" can present historical and archaeological evidence that demonstrates that Mecca existed before the 4th century AD, in support of Islamic so-called "tradition" that was all created and put to the pen in the 7th - 10th centuries AD.
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1388067196

freediver wrote on Feb 16^th, 2014 at 11:35am:

I see this claim made by Muslims on a regular basis: freediver wrote on Feb 16th, 2014 at 9:15am: True Colours wrote on Feb 15th, 2014 at 10:40pm: freediver wrote on Feb 15th, 2014 at 5:14pm: It was not "war compensation" because it happened before the war. The war was a response by the Meccans to Muhammed robbing their caravans. Muhammed had a long career as a highway robber before he moved up to rape and pillage. Before the incident you speak of, the pagans of Mecca killed, tortured, raped, stole property and promised to kill every Muslim in Medina. Perhaps you think that was some kind of state of peace, most people would not. freediver wrote on Feb 15th, 2014 at 5:14pm: Muhammed stoned rapists, but was himself a rapist. He executed thieves, but was himself a thief. The difference being of course, that Muhammed permitted himself to rape and pillage. Big claims -  for which you have no evidence. And why did they do this? I have seen evidence of Muhammed himself engaging in torture (to force a Jew to give up his Jew gold). But I have not seen evidence of Muslims being tortured. Last time I asked the closest I got was being spat on and bitten by a dog. The only evidence I have found is that Muhammed himself was the torturer: Kinana b. al-Rabi`, who had the custody of the treasure of B. al-Nadir, was brought to the apostle who asked him about it. He denied that he knew where it was. A Jew came (T. was brought) to the apostle and said that he had seen Kinana going round a certain ruin every morning early. When the apostle said to Kinana, "Do you know that if we find you have it I shall kill you?" he said Yes. The apostle gave orders that the ruin was to be excavated and some of the treasure was found. When he asked him about the rest he refused to produce it, so the apostle gave orders to al-Zubayr b. al-`Awwam, "Torture him until you extract what he has," so he kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead. Then the apostle delivered him to Muhammad b. Maslama and he struck off his head, in revenge for his brother Mahmud. (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, translated as, The Life of Muhammad, (tr. A. Guillaume), Karachi: Oxford University Press, 1998, p. 515.) (That night, Muhammed and the man's widow fell madly in love and spent the night together in Muhammed's tent) In response to Muhammed's favourite child bride being accused of adultery: Ishaq:496      "Ask the slave girl; she will tell you the truth.' So the Apostle called Burayra to ask her. Ali got up and gave her a violent beating first, saying, 'Tell the Apostle the truth.'" Sahih Muslim Book 016, Hadith Number 4131. Anas reported: Eight men of the tribe of 'Ukl came to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and swore allegiance to him on Islam, but found the climate of that land uncongenial to their health and thus they became sick, and they made complaint of that to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: Why don't you go to (the fold) of our camels along with our shepherd, and make use of their milk and urine. They said: Yes. They set out and drank their (camels') milk and urine and regained their health. They killed the shepherd and drove away the camels. This (news) reached Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and he sent them on their track and they were caught and brought to him (the Holy Prophet). He commanded about them, and (thus) their hands and feet were cut off and their eyes were gouged and then they were thrown in the sun, until they died. This hadith has been narrated on the authority of Ibn al-Sabbah with a slight variation of words. Quran 5:33 The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, 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. Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 436 “…they brought them along and questioned them while the apostle was standing praying… The people were dismayed at their report…and so they beat them. When they were beaten soundly..." Abu Dawud 38:4474 Narrated AbdurRahman ibn Azhar: I saw the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) on the morning of the conquest of Mecca when I was a young boy. He was walking among the people, seeking the camp of Khalid ibn al-Walid. A man who had drunk wine was brought (before him) and he ordered them (to beat him). So they beat him with what they had in their hands. Some struck him with whips, some with sticks and some with sandals. The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) threw some dust on his face. When a man who had drunk wine was brought before AbuBakr, he asked them (i.e. the people) about the number of beatings which they gave him. They numbered it forty. So AbuBakr gave him forty lashes.

I think that most of us would agree that there is a stark difference between a person being punished for a crime and being punished for their religious beliefs.

The stories that you have posted are about criminals being punished and some of them are fabrications.

Prophet Muhammed and his followers were tortured by pagans for being monotheists, not for being criminals - a subtle difference that perhaps you are unable to grasp.

Quote:

Prophet Muhammed and his followers were tortured by pagans for being monotheists, not for being criminals - a subtle difference that perhaps you are unable to grasp.

So you keep saying. So why are your references so hard to chase up?

Muhammed used the torture claims etc as an excuse for his campaign over several years of robbing Meccan caravans, so don't try to legal moral high ground BS. Muhammed's laws did not apply to himself. The defence of Islam is an endless exercise in justifying Muhammed's hypocrisy and dreaming up ever more convoluted excuses for why Muhammed's victims deserved the evil things that Muhammed did to them.

freediver wrote on Apr 8^th, 2014 at 7:08pm:

Quote: Prophet Muhammed and his followers were tortured by pagans for being monotheists, not for being criminals - a subtle difference that perhaps you are unable to grasp. Muhammed used the torture claims etc as an excuse for his campaign over several years of robbing Meccan caravans

Another Freediver lie.

The truth is that the Meccan pagans had declared war on the Muslims prior to any Muslim attacks on their caravans. If the pagans had pursued peace, then their caravans would not have been targeted.

freediver wrote on Apr 8^th, 2014 at 7:08pm:

Quote: Prophet Muhammed and his followers were tortured by pagans for being monotheists... So you keep saying. So why are your references so hard to chase up?

Ok here is a quote from the most reliable book of hadeeth.


In a long hadeeth from Bukhari mentioning the signing of a peace treaty between the Muslims of Madinah and the pagans of Mecca, the torture of a refugee from Mecca is mentioned when it the pagans wished to stipulate that all Meccan refugees should not be granted asylum:


Quote:

...Then Suhail [a Meccan pagan] said, "We also stipulate that you should return to us whoever comes to you from us, even if he embraced your religion." The Muslims said, "Glory be to God! How will such a person be returned to the pagans after he has become a Muslim? While they were in this state Abu Jandal son of Suhail bin 'Amr came from the valley of Mecca staggering with his fetters and fell down amongst the Muslims. Suhail said, "O Muhammad! This is the very first term with which we make peace with you, [i.e. you shall return Abu Jandal to me]." The Prophet said, "The peace treaty has not been written yet." Suhail said, "I will never allow you to keep him." The Prophet said, "Yes, do." He said, "I won't do.: Mikraz said, "We allow you (to keep him)." Abu Jandal said, "O Muslims! Will I be returned to the pagans though I have come as a Muslim? Don't you see how much I have suffered?" Abu Jandal had been tortured severely for the [monotheistic] Cause of God... -Bukhari

Here is another hadeeth also from Bukhari:



Quote:

..." Ibn 'Umar said, "...during the lifetime of God's Prophet (Muhammed) when Islam had only a few followers; A man would be put to trial because of his religion; he would either be killed or tortured. But when the Muslims increased, there was no more afflictions or oppressions."... - Bukhari

Oh and I nearly forgot there is even a Quran verse that revealed when the early Muslims were being tortured by the pagans of Mecca. I tells them that would be forgiven if the pagans forced them to recant monotheism through torture - as long as they really held to monotheism in their hearts:



Quote:

Whoever disbelieves in God after his belief - except for one who is forced [to renounce his religion] while his heart is secure in faith - but rather, those who willingly open their hearts to disbelief, upon them is God's wrath, and for them is a great punishment [Hell] - an-Nahl, v.106

TC can you please include a link when you copy and paste?


Quote:

The truth is that the Meccan pagans had declared war on the Muslims prior to any Muslim attacks on their caravans.

So you keep saying. Can you give me more information on this declaration of war?


Quote:

If the pagans had pursued peace, then their caravans would not have been targeted.

History tells a very different story. Muhammed robbed their caravans for years before they turned to war. Why are Muslims so comfortable pushing a version of history that does not even make sense? Would you declare war on someone, then wait several years while they robbed you at every opportunity and grew richer and stronger? Is this like Abu's claim that Muslims are only permitted to lie in the context of war, and the west has been at war with the Muslim world for over a century?


Quote:

In a long hadeeth from Bukhari mentioning the signing of a peace treaty between the Muslims of Madinah and the pagans of Mecca, the torture of a refugee from Mecca is mentioned when it the pagans wished to stipulate that all Meccan refugees should not be granted asylum:

Is that the only original reference to it?

What is the relevance of the hadith mentioning the treaty?


Quote:

Here is another hadeeth also from Bukhari:

According to google, that verse only exists here on this website.


Quote:

Oh and I nearly forgot there is even a Quran verse that revealed when the early Muslims were being tortured by the pagans of Mecca. I tells them that would be forgiven if the pagans forced them to recant monotheism through torture

It is impressive how it does this without using the word torture.

.

freediver wrote on Apr 8^th, 2014 at 8:46pm:

History tells a very different story. Muhammed robbed their caravans for years before they turned to war. Why are Muslims so comfortable pushing a version of history that does not even make sense?

What doesn't make sense is to claim the muslims had no casus beli against the Meccans after being systematically persecuted by them, and driven out of their homes.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 9^th, 2014 at 8:14am:

freediver wrote on Apr 8th, 2014 at 8:46pm: History tells a very different story. Muhammed robbed their caravans for years before they turned to war. Why are Muslims so comfortable pushing a version of history that does not even make sense? What doesn't make sense is to claim the muslims had no casus beli against the Meccans after being systematically persecuted by them, and driven out of their homes.

Don't forget the Meccans declarations that they would kill all the Muslims in Madina - a declaration of war if there ever was one.

Don't forget that the caravans in question were in Madinan territory, and belonged to a hostile state that had basically declared war on Madina.

True Colours wrote on Apr 9^th, 2014 at 10:33am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 9th, 2014 at 8:14am: freediver wrote on Apr 8th, 2014 at 8:46pm: History tells a very different story. Muhammed robbed their caravans for years before they turned to war. Why are Muslims so comfortable pushing a version of history that does not even make sense? What doesn't make sense is to claim the muslims had no casus beli against the Meccans after being systematically persecuted by them, and driven out of their homes. Don't forget the Meccans declarations that they would kill all the Muslims in Madina - a declaration of war if there ever was one. Don't forget that the caravans in question were in Madinan territory, and belonged to a hostile state that had basically declared war on Madina.

Yes, better not forget that. Or you could back up these claims about torture. So far the only original reference I have seen is a single brief, vague sentence.

I have 93 books of Bukhari in pdf form. So far I am unable to find any reference to the stuff T.C posted. Can anyone give some details as to exactly where it is in Bukhari?

The only apparently legit (ie original) reference I have found is this one:

http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/050-sbt.php

Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Book 50:
Volume 3, Book 50, Number 891:

Abu Jandal had been tortured severely for the Cause of Allah.

I think that's it. All the others look like embellishments on this. No wonder TC always leaves out the sources.

On the other hand the Koran and Hadith are full of references to torture by Muhammed:

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Muhammad_and_Torture

freediver wrote on Apr 10^th, 2014 at 8:41pm:

I think that's it. All the others look like embellishments on this.

TC gave two references to torture ahadeeth. The first on Abu Jandal you found yourself. The second I verified very easily after maybe 30 seconds of googling:

Sahih Bukhari Volume 006, Book 060, Hadith Number 040


Quote:

Ibn 'Umar said, "We did it, during the lifetime of Allah's Apostle when Islam had only a few followers. A man would be put to trial because of his religion; he would either be killed or tortured. But when the Muslims increased, there was no more afflictions or oppressions."

http://www.hadithcollection.com/sahihbukhari/93-sahih-bukhari-book-60-prophetic-commentary-on-the-quran-tafseer-of-the-prophet-pbuh/6723-sahih-bukhari-volume-006-book-060-hadith-number-040.html

What exactly are you accusing TC of again?

freediver wrote on Apr 8^th, 2014 at 8:46pm:

According to google, that verse only exists here on this website.

;D ;D ;D

It took me less than 30 seconds to find it FD.

freediver wrote on Apr 10^th, 2014 at 8:41pm:

On the other hand the Koran and Hadith are full of references to torture by Muhammed: http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Muhammad_and_Torture

Talk about dumb!

I checked the website, it has two Quran quotes -one reference to the punishments of people who rob using weapons. There is another reference to something that angels did - not Prophet Muhammed.

Then I looked at the hadeeths; 17 of them describe the same single incident of murderous robbers being punished. Another hadeeth describes something that the Prophet was considering, but did not actually do. Another hadeeth describes something that somebody else did, which the Prophet had said not to do. Yet another hadeeth simply saying that Hell will be hot.


The rest are of the stories are unverifiable because they are not Quran verses or hadeeth.

You've got to hand it to FD for trying. As Y likes to say, who is the kuffar?

You, Mr Moslem, you are the kuffar!

Quote:

The rest are of the stories are unverifiable because they are not Quran verses or hadeeth.

So only the official Islamic version of history counts? Is this like Gandalf's dodgy website that insisted the account of Muhammed torturing a Jew to get his Jew gold cannot be trusted because it must have been recorded by Jews, even though the "alternative" story it offered is very similar?


Quote:

The second I verified very easily after maybe 30 seconds of googling:

Great. Now there are two vague references to torture with no details at all. Obviously Muslims didn't make up those stories and the endless victimhood posturing and Jew/Pagan slaughtering is entirely justified.