Why are you rehashing the same crap that you spewed before FD?

Are you incapable of addressing this very simple question?

When did Muhammad's successors invoke the example of the Qurayza when "slaughtering" POWs? Specific examples, please - not irrelevant quotes by jurists.

Quote:


I copied and pasted it because you missed it the first time, and I wanted to let you know about the other threads I started. You made a lot of interesting remarks that I am keen to hear you elaborate on.

Quote:


During the 8th and early 9th centuries, apparently. I am not going to bother finding more examples for you. I think the example of Muhammed himself is the more interesting one, and your are still denying that it is an example of slaughtering POWs, despite it being a clear example of slaughtering POWs.

Are we discussing the banu qurayza massacre?

The whole incident is very suspect, in that Islamic sources contradict itself as to the whole 'who betrayed whom'.

It is stated by propaganda by many Muslims that Banu qurayza betrayed the Muslims, as justification for Muhammad slaughtering them and enslaving their children.

And yet Islamic texts also tell us...

Narrated Huthayfa bin Al-Yaman:

He [Mohammad] said to me,

"O Huthayfa, go and infiltrate the people [the armies against the Muslims] and see what they're up to, and don't say a word until you return."

So I went and infiltrated the people while the winds and the soldiers of Allah [referring to the Angels that fought off the armies] were doing what they were doing - not leaving them [the armies] any cauldron or fire or structure. So Abu Sufyan bin Harb [the leader of the Pagan Quraysh] stood up.

So Abu Sufyan said, "O ye people of Quraysh, by Allah your [current] dwelling isn't a place to be dwelled in [meaning that their current situation is bad]; the horses [and camels, mules, etc..] have died, Bani Quraytha has turned us down - we received from them what we don't like [meaning they refused to let them in through their fortresses], and this wind is giving us what you see [a hard time].
-Musnad Ahmad 22823


Muslim hadith tells us that Muhammad sent a spy to the enemy army, and the leader stated the banu qurayza refused to let their army in their fortress, as per the agreement between banu qurayza and Muhammad not to support either side in the conflict.

Muslims should seriously study their own history, please read Al Tabari, as he is an early Muslim (predating even Hadith) who wrote a very detailed summary of Islamic history (from the perspective of Islam).

According to Islam itself, the first organized attack came from Muhammad

According to ‘Ali b. Nasr b. ‘Ali and ‘Abd al-Warith b. ‘Abd al-Samad b. ‘Abd al-Warith- ‘Abd al-Samad b. ‘Abd al-Warith- his father- Aban al-‘Attar- Hisham b. ‘Urwah: ‘Urwah wrote to ‘Abd al-Malik b. Marwan as follows:

You have written to me asking about Abu Sufyan and the circumstances of his expedition. Abu Sufyan b. Harb came from Syria at the head of nearly seventy horsemen from all the clans of Quraysh. They had been trading in Syria and they all came together with their money and their merchandise. The Messenger of God and his companions were informed about them. This was after fighting had broken out between them and people had been killed, including Ibn al-Hadrami at Nakhlah, and some of Quraysh had been taken captive, including one of the sons of al-Mughirah and their mawla, Ibn Kaysan. Those responsible [for the fighting] were ‘Abd Allah b. Jash and Waqid, the confederate of the Banu ‘Adi b. Ka‘b, together with other companions of the Messenger of God whom he had sent out with ‘Abd Allah b. Jash. This incident had provoked (a state of) war between the Messenger of God and Quraysh and was the beginning of the fighting in which they inflicted casualties upon one another; it took place before Abu Sufyan and his companions had set out for Syria.

Subsequently Abu Sufyan and the horsemen of Quraysh who were with him returned from Syria, following the coastal road. When the Messenger of God heard about them he called together his companions and told them of the wealth they had with them and the fewness of their numbers. The Muslims set out with no other object than Abu Sufyan and the horsemen with him. They did not think that these were anything but (easy) booty and did not suppose that there would be a great battle when they met them. It is concerning this that God revealed, "And ye longed that other than the armed one might be yours."

When Abu Sufyan heard that the companions of the messenger of God were on their way to intercept him, he sent to Quraysh (saying), "Muhammad and his companions are going to intercept your caravan, so protect your merchandise …"
-The History of Al-Tabari: The Foundation of the Community

This is an extremely well known islamic fact to any Islamic scholar, when Muhammad was exiled for starting to preach that the other religious communities were evil, he and his muslims raided their caravans, slaughtering and looting.
This is 'Ghazwa' very well known.

This is considered the first official armed attack between the pagans and the Muslims, it was initiated by Muhammad.

I am beginning to see a trend of a lack of research by the same people such as Gandalf.

freediver wrote on Feb 16^th, 2014 at 9:36am:


So you can demonstrate that you were not speaking through your arse.

freediver wrote on Feb 16^th, 2014 at 9:36am:


Because you were the one who mentioned it perhaps?

freediver wrote on Feb 16^th, 2014 at 7:54pm:


The Banu Nadir were banished into the desert, being allowed only what they could carry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Nadir#Expulsion_from_Medina

Narrated Ibn Muhairiz: I saw Abu Said and asked him about coitus interruptus. Abu Said said, "We went with Allah's Apostle, in the Ghazwa of Barli

Al-Mustaliq

and we captured some of the 'Arabs as captives, and the long separation from our wives was pressing us hard and we wanted to practice coitus interruptus. We asked Allah's Apostle (whether it was permissible). He said, "It is better for you not to do so. No soul, (that which Allah has) destined to exist, up to the Day of Resurrection, but will definitely come, into existence."  (Book #46, Hadith #718)

(3) Narrated Ibn Muhairiz: I entered the Mosque and saw Abu Said Al-Khudri and sat beside him and asked him about Al-Azl (i.e. coitus interruptus). Abu Said said, "We went out with Allah's Apostle for the Ghazwa of [b]Banu

Al-Mustaliq

and we received captives[/b] from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus. So when we intended to do coitus interrupt us, we said, 'How can we do coitus interruptus before asking Allah's Apostle who is present among us?" We asked (him) about it and he said, 'It is better for you not to do so, for if any soul (till the Day of Resurrection) is predestined to exist, it will exist."  (Book #59, Hadith #459)

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: That during the battle with Bani

Al-Mustaliq

they (Muslims) captured some females and intended to have sexual relation with them without impregnating them. So they asked the Prophet about coitus interrupt us. The Prophet said, "It is better that you should not do it, for Allah has written whom He is going to create till the Day of Resurrection." Qaza'a said, "I heard Abu Sa'id saying that the Prophet said, 'No soul is ordained to be created but Allah will create it."  (Book #93, Hadith #506)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Mustaliq

Forced conversions rather than slaughter. Some fates are worse than death.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Mustaliq

Rev 9:2 And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit. 3 And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power.
http://www.christianeschatology.com/historicism.htm#reformers_on_islam

Of Revelation chapter 9:  John Foxe who authored Foxe’s Book of Martyrs wrote that it is “clearer than light itself” as being a prophecy of the Muslim conquests.

Albert Barnes: “With surprising unanimity, commentators have agreed in regarding this to the empire of the Saracens (Muslims), or to the rise and the progress of the religion and the empire set up by Muhammed.”

W.B. Godbey: “This chapter is a thrilling description of the rise and progress of the Mohammedan wars.”

Of the locusts of Revelation 9:  Adam Clarke: “certainly agrees better with the Saracens than with any other people or nation” and “agrees very well with the troops of Mohammed.”

Matthew Henry: “the armies of the Mohamedan empire.”

John Wesley: “All this agrees with the slaughter which the Saracens made for a long time after Mahomet’s death.”

Because there would be no point if you will simply deny that it is what it is.

vanatos wrote on Feb 16^th, 2014 at 1:44am:


Now there's a massive understatement. The fact of the matter is that Mecca never existed prior to the 4th century AD. Thus the whole basis of Islam and their adopted, adapted and thinly veneered Quraish pagan moon, sun, star and jinn-devil worship rituals, are provably built upon nothing more than pure poppycock that was all created and put to the pen in the 7th to 10th centuries AD.
Gand is dumbstruck and unable to reply to such subjects, except to agree that Islamic so-called "tradition" is a lie, because the truth is so apparent.
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1388067196/20#20
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1388067196/43#43
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1388067196/46#46

No Mecca prior to the 4th century AD, no Islam. Period.
http://www.historyofmecca.com/