Was Muhammad A War Lord Who Used Violence To Convert People?

[Christie Brinkley]

I have often thought that to be true-

What was the most violent thing Jesus did? Oh yes throw over a table
http://biblehub.com/matthew/21-12.htm

Jesus says not to stone and Muhammad said yes to stoning?


List of battles

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_expeditions_of_Muhammad

[gabosaurus]

Didn't God flood the earth once? That was not exactly a peaceful solution to things.

Jesus lived a peaceful life, but he had his aggressive moments. Like Luke 12:49-52

49 “I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! 50 But I have a baptism to undergo, and what constraint I am under until it is completed! 51 Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52 From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three.

[jimnyc]

Didn't God flood the earth once? That was not exactly a peaceful solution to things.

Jesus lived a peaceful life, but he had his aggressive moments. Like Luke 12:49-52

49 “I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! 50 But I have a baptism to undergo, and what constraint I am under until it is completed! 51 Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52 From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three.

WTF does this have to do with the subject? Perhaps you can start a new thread about war/violence within christianity? All you ever do is instantly condemn something else if you read something you don't like. Try sticking on topic and maybe refute the things you don't like. Your shtick doing this crap is tiresome.

[gabosaurus]

The original poster brought up the comparison of Muhammed to Jesus and a comparison of religion. I was responding to his comparison of religions.

[LongTermGuy]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ARpQpXSepBw/Tdp768HixjI/AAAAAAAAAzo/VWM8Mwz4g6w/s1600/Anti+Muslim+banneri.jpg
http://www.barenakedislam.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/00_622383700_5858036_7196379_n-vi.jpg
https://iamiranaware.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/mohammed-tp3.jpg
http://iranpoliticsclub.net/cartoons/muhammad-aisha/images/Prophet%20Muhammad%20&%20Aisha%20pedophile%20marriage%20baby%20stroller% 20cartoon.jpg

[jimnyc]

The original poster brought up the comparison of Muhammed to Jesus and a comparison of religion. I was responding to his comparison of religions.

Well my bad then if that's the angle Christie was looking for, but I 'assumed' it was about Muhammed based on the thread title and link.

[jimnyc]

http://iranpoliticsclub.net/cartoons/muhammad-aisha/images/Prophet%20Muhammad%20&%20Aisha%20pedophile%20marriage%20baby%20stroller% 20cartoon.jpg

Muhammed and Aisha. I don't care about cultural or time differences and I couldn't care less about tons of excuses. He should have been stoned to death for sexual assault and/or rape of a minor.

[LongTermGuy]

Muhammed and Aisha. I don't care about cultural or time differences and I couldn't care less about tons of excuses. He should have been stoned to death for sexual assault and/or rape of a minor.





"Was Muhammad A War Lord Who Used Violence To Convert People?" (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?52379-Was-Muhammad-A-War-Lord-Who-Used-Violence-To-Convert-People&p=775516#post775516)

"


The culture is the same...Nothing has changed....Kill infidels (If they don't Convert) remains the same also..abuse women and children...remains the same...Mohammad's book of peace remains the same...and the violence then...continues today... and remains the same...

[Christie Brinkley]

Typical response from the left... deflect deflect deflect and never talk about the matter.

[jimnyc]

Typical response from the left... deflect deflect deflect and never talk about the matter.

Well, whatever you do, and regardless of your stance - don't attempt discussions about Iraq or Afghanistan with any relation to Obama. He has nothing to do with either you will find out, it's solely a Bush thing. For that fact, pretty much anything shitty about Obama is GWB's fault.

[Christie Brinkley]

Well, whatever you do, and regardless of your stance - don't attempt discussions about Iraq or Afghanistan with any relation to Obama. He has nothing to do with either you will find out, it's solely a Bush thing. For that fact, pretty much anything shitty about Obama is GWB's fault.
I thought we were talking about religion?

[jimnyc]

I thought we were talking about religion?

My point being, if you wish the engage discussion with Gabby, be forewarned that she will do just that, change the subject. If you have a thread about Islam, she'll come back and change the subject somehow to Christianity. If you have a thread about Obama, expect it to be blamed on Bush.

[gabosaurus]

To address the proper question of whether Muhammad was a war lord, I decided to my neighbor. Since she has read the Quran in Arabic.

Like Jesus, Muhammad was the leader of a people who were often persecuted for their beliefs. In this case the Meccans.
As in the case with Jesus and Christians, Muhammad did not lead his people into battle. He was more of a spiritual leader. The Meccans fought several battles with Muslims. Muhammad was never in control of an army. Muslims often took his spiritual guidance into battle.

[Christie Brinkley]

To address the proper question of whether Muhammad was a war lord, I decided to my neighbor. Since she has read the Quran in Arabic.

Like Jesus, Muhammad was the leader of a people who were often persecuted for their beliefs. In this case the Meccans.
As in the case with Jesus and Christians, Muhammad did not lead his people into battle. He was more of a spiritual leader. The Meccans fought several battles with Muslims. Muhammad was never in control of an army. Muslims often took his spiritual guidance into battle.
So Muhammad was never involved in any battles? Did you read the link or what?

[gabosaurus]

I did read the link. I do not consider Wikopedia is a valid source of information, since anyone can post and/or edit an entry.

[Christie Brinkley]

I did read the link. I do not consider Wikopedia is a valid source of information, since anyone can post and/or edit an entry.
When it links to the holy texts...

Just deny it then.

[jimnyc]

When it links to the holy texts...

Just deny it then.

That's hilarious! It's right within their own holy texts, from Bukhari, AND right from the Quran itself!! One can deny wikipedia, but that's funny when all they did was quote from the religious texts. LOL :lol:

[Perianne]

To address the proper question of whether Muhammad was a war lord, I decided to my neighbor. Since she has read the Quran in Arabic.

Like Jesus, Muhammad was the leader of a people who were often persecuted for their beliefs. In this case the Meccans.
As in the case with Jesus and Christians, Muhammad did not lead his people into battle. He was more of a spiritual leader. The Meccans fought several battles with Muslims. Muhammad was never in control of an army. Muslims often took his spiritual guidance into battle.

We need to play cowboys and Muslims.

[jimnyc]

Gabby came and read this thread and then bailed. I wonder why she can't acknowledge what she wrote? First she states that:


To address the proper question of whether Muhammad was a war lord, I decided to my neighbor. Since she has read the Quran in Arabic.

Like Jesus, Muhammad was the leader of a people who were often persecuted for their beliefs. In this case the Meccans.
As in the case with Jesus and Christians, Muhammad did not lead his people into battle. He was more of a spiritual leader. The Meccans fought several battles with Muslims. Muhammad was never in control of an army. Muslims often took his spiritual guidance into battle.

And then Christie asks her if she read the links that were posted. Gabby states that they were wikipedia, she doesn't consider them a valid source. The Wiki articles all source religious texts DIRECTLY. You know, as in a book some of you may have heard of - the Quran. So the Quran itself states these things, but Gabby says they are invalid, and her neighbor of course says it's wrong too.

Folks, you just can't make this shit up.

[gabosaurus]

The wikopedia article lists a large list of battles. It does not state that Muhammad participated or otherwise was involved in them.

From the wikopedia page:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b4/Ambox_important.svg/40px-Ambox_important.svg.png

<tbody>
[hide (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_expeditions_of_Muhammad#)]This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_expeditions_of_Muhammad&action=edit) or discuss these issues on the talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_expeditions_of_Muhammad).



‹ The template (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Template) below (Primary sources (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Primary_sources)) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_November_5#Template:Primary_sources) to help reach a consensus.›

<tbody>
This article relies too much on references (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability) to primary sources (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondar y_and_tertiary_sources). <small>(April 2015)</small>

</tbody>

<tbody>
This article needs additional citations for verification (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability). <small>(April 2015)</small>

</tbody>

<tbody>
Some or all of this article's listed sources (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources) may not be reliable (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources). <small>(April 2015)</small>

</tbody>


</tbody>

[LongTermGuy]

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/images/Myths-Muhammad.jpg

The Myth:
Muhammad only Waged War in Self-Defense
The Truth:
The myth that warfare is only justified in Islam under the condition of self-defense is disproved by the <nobr>account (http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Muhammad/myths-mu-self-defense.htm#)</nobr> of the Battle of Badr (http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Muhammad/myths-mu-badr.htm), in which Muhammad sent his men out to raid caravans, then deliberately provoked a battle with the Meccan army sent out to defend them. The case for aggressive warfare is also supported by the fate of the three Jewish tribes of Medina, who were cleansed because they had rejected Muhammad’s claims of prophethood (and because the Muslims wanted their possessions).
Consider the fate of the Banu Mustaliq, an Arab tribe:

"The Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives" (Bukhari 46:717 (http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/046-sbt.php#003.046.717))
Although there are many reliable accounts from the Hadith and Sira that mention the Mustaliq grazing cattle, not one mentions Muhammad making any effort at peacemaking. In this case, Muhammad's men raped the women (with his approval) after slaughtering the men (Sahih Muslim 3371 (http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/muslim/008-smt.php#008.3371)). What does raping a female captive have to do with self-defense?

In many situations, Muhammad waged war for the purpose of revenge, such as the attack on the Lihyan, in which the people were clearly not prepared for war and saved themselves only by fleeing into the hills (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 718). Muhammad also attacked the people of Taif as soon as he had the opportunity to avenge their rejection of him (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 280 & 872).
Also disproving the myth that Muhammad only fought in self-defense is the account of his first attack on the Christians. There was no compelling reason for him to send an army to Muta (in Syria, where they met with disaster at the hands of the Byzantines). Had this been a matter of self-defense, then the enemy would surely have followed the routed army back to Arabia, but this was not the case (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 791).
Near the end of his life, the prophet of Islam directed military campaigns for the mere purpose of spreading Islamic rule. He knew that some cities would resist and others would not. He left <nobr>instructions (http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Muhammad/myths-mu-self-defense.htm#)</nobr>to his people for dealing with each case:

The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: If you come to a township (which has surrendered without a formal war) and stay therein, you have a share (that will be in the form of an award) in (the properties obtained from) it. If a township disobeys Allah and His Messenger (and actually fights against the Muslims) one-fifth of the booty seized therefrom is for Allah and His Apostle and the rest is for you. (Sahih Muslim 4346 (http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/muslim/019-smt.php#019.4346))As can be seen, those who were not at war with the Muslims are to be subjugated anyway, and their property seized. The only distinguishing factor is the extent of Muslim entitlement following the victory.
Military campaigns to extend Islamic domination include the raid on Tabuk, which was a second incursion into the Christian territory of Syria, in which Muhammad forced the local populace to pay him tribute after ambushing and killing local civilians to assert his authority (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 903). Another example would be the “convert or die” mandate given to an Arab tribe, the Banu al-Harith:

Then the apostle sent Khalid bin Walid… to the Banu al-Harith and ordered him to invite them to Islam three days before he attacked them. If they <nobr>accepted (http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Muhammad/myths-mu-self-defense.htm#)</nobr> then he was to accept it from them, and if they declined he was to fight them. So Khalid set out and came to them, and sent out riders in all <nobr>directions (http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Muhammad/myths-mu-self-defense.htm#)</nobr> inviting the people to Islam, saying, “If you accept Islam you will be safe.” So the men accepted Islam as they were invited. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 959)Obviously self-defense was not a factor in any of these cases (even though some Muslims are prone to embellish the record with imaginary details not found therein). As with the capture of Mecca in 630, these early Muslims had clear military superiority and the target of their aggression was in no position to defend itself.
In fact, the first part of the 9th Sura, the most bellicose chapter of the Qur’an, was revealed shortly after the Muslims had established military dominance in Mecca. Consider one of the more violent verses:

But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them(9:5 (http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/009-qmt.php#009.005))
The words, “when the forbidden months are past,” precludes the possibility that this was a matter of self-defense. The Muslims had already been given the divine right to fight during the sacred months, and it is simply implausible that they would have suffered attacks over a four month period without defending themselves. That they were not under attack is consistent with the historical context, in which theHaj period was a traditional time of peace and tolerance throughout Arabia.Although not under attack from the pagans, Muhammad ordered his men to chase and kill the unbelievers following the Haj. The pagans who agreed to become Muslim (ie. practice the pillars of Islam, zakatand salat) would be allowed to live following their conversion. Verse9:29 (http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/009-qmt.php#009.029) offers a separate rule for Jews and Christians, allowing them to keep their religion as long as they pay protection money to Muslims and <nobr>acknowledge (http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Muhammad/myths-mu-self-defense.htm#)</nobr> the inferiority of their faith. Should they resist, then they should be killed.
One of the best documented <nobr>examples (http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Muhammad/myths-mu-self-defense.htm#)</nobr> of Muslim aggression during the lifetime of Muhammad is the attack on the peaceful community of Khaybar. This followed the treaty of Hudaibiya between the Muslims and Meccans, which called for a period of peace between the two groups. The treaty was controversial with Muslims, not only because it contradicted Allah’s prior mandate to “drive out” the Meccans with violent force (2:191 (http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/002-qmt.php#002.191)), but also because Muhammad agreed not to be recognized as a prophet in the document (Muslim 4401 (http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/muslim/019-smt.php#019.4401)).

Muhammad decided that it was prudent to attack the Jews at Khaybar in order to regain the respect of his people and placate their grumbling with military victory and (especially) the stolen wealth that followed. This is embarrassing to modern-day Muslim apologists, who try to justify the siege by imagining that the sleepy farming community, located about 100 miles outside of Medina, posed some sort of necessary threat.
Unfortunately for contemporary apologists, not only is there nosupporting evidence that the Muslims were under attack by the Khaybar, there are at least three historical references that flatly contradict any notion of self-defense on the part of Muhammad. The first is a description of the initial attack by Ibn Ishaq/Hisham:

We met the workers of Khaybar coming out in the morning with their spades and baskets. When they saw the apostle and the army they cried, “Muhammad with his force,” and turned tail and fled… The apostle seized the property piece by piece… (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 757)The people of Khaybar were not attacking Muhammad. They were farming their land with shovels and buckets, not even knowing that they were supposed to be at war. This is further confirmed in the same text:

When the apostle raided a people he waited until the morning. If he heard a call to prayer he held back; if he did not hear it he attacked. We came to Khaybar by night, and the apostle passed the night there; and when morning came he did not hear the call to prayer, so he rode and we rode with him. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 757)Muhammad attacked only after waiting to see if the people of Khaybar issued a morning call to prayer. This would have no possible relevance had they already been at war with him.
Perhaps the best proof that Muhammad was not acting in self-defense is the fact that his own people did not understand why they were marching to war. His son-in-law, who was in charge of the military expedition, had to ask for justification:

Allah's Messenger called Ali [and said]: “Proceed on and do not look about until Allah grants you victory,” and Ali went a bit and then halted and did not look about and then said in a loud voice: “Allah's Messenger, on what issue should I fight with the people?” Thereupon he (the Prophet) said: ”Fight with them until they bear testimony to the fact that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger…” (Sahih Muslim 5917 (http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/muslim/031-smt.php#031.5917))The question Ali posed would have been unnecessary had the Muslims been under attack by the Khaybar or if the answer to the question were obvious. As it is, Muhammad’s reply underscores the ostensible purpose of the campaign, which was to force the Jews into acknowledging the superiority of Islam.
Muhammad’s men easily captured Khaybar and divided up the loot. The prophet of Islam tortured the community’s treasurer to extract information, then had him killed (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 764). Muhammad then took the man’s widow, Saffiya, as his wife after trading two other captured women to one of his lieutenants (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 758). The surviving Jews were allowed to stay on their land provided that they gave their Muslim masters an ample share of their crops.
Therefore, the rule of aggression in Islam, from the example set by Muhammad, is that it is proportional to the power held by Muslims, and not the persecution that they are under. The rare verses of peace in the Qur'an were "revealed" in Mecca, when true oppression existed (in some cases (http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Muhammad/myths-mu-meccan-persecution.htm)). The verses of violence that are revealed later correspond to Muslim military might even as any persecution of Muslims had largely dried up.

The Myths of Muhammad Index (http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Muhammad/myths-mu-home.htm)
TheReligionofPeace.com Home Page (http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/)

[jimnyc]

Damn, look at the title of the article, the URL of the page. It's from the Quran, Bukhari and other religious texts. You are so desperate that you will do anything to make yourself look right, but you're wrong, that simple. You may not want to call him a "war lord", but their own texts cover the wars he was involved in. And it's not one little blurb, these are things covered in the Quran, Hadiths, Bukhari. But isn't the Quran enough for you? Just admit you were wrong and move along.

Read about some more here - http://www.al-islam.org/restatement-history-islam-and-muslims-sayyid-ali-ashgar-razwy/battles-islam

Or maybe do a search on Google for "Wars in Islam with Muhammad" or similar searches. But to say he was only a spiritua leader, and didn't go into battle - shows that your neighbor is 300% full of shit, and more likely that you made it up and claimed your neighbor told you that.

----

Also:

Muhammad only Waged War in Self-Defense
The Truth:

The myth that warfare is only justified in Islam under the condition of self-defense is disproved by the account of the Battle of Badr, in which Muhammad sent his men out to raid caravans, then deliberately provoked a battle with the Meccan army sent out to defend them. The case for aggressive warfare is also supported by the fate of the three Jewish tribes of Medina, who were cleansed because they had rejected Muhammad’s claims of prophethood (and because the Muslims wanted their possessions).

Consider the fate of the Banu Mustaliq, an Arab tribe:

"The Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives" (Bukhari 46:717)

Although there are many reliable accounts from the Hadith and Sira that mention the Mustaliq grazing cattle, not one mentions Muhammad making any effort at peacemaking. In this case, Muhammad's men raped the women (with his approval) after slaughtering the men (Sahih Muslim 3371). What does raping a female captive have to do with self-defense?

In many situations, Muhammad waged war for the purpose of revenge, such as the attack on the Lihyan, in which the people were clearly not prepared for war and saved themselves only by fleeing into the hills (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 718). Muhammad also attacked the people of Taif as soon as he had the opportunity to avenge their rejection of him (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 280 & 872).

Also disproving the myth that Muhammad only fought in self-defense is the account of his first attack on the Christians. There was no compelling reason for him to send an army to Muta (in Syria, where they met with disaster at the hands of the Byzantines). Had this been a matter of self-defense, then the enemy would surely have followed the routed army back to Arabia, but this was not the case (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 791).

Near the end of his life, the prophet of Islam directed military campaigns for the mere purpose of spreading Islamic rule. He knew that some cities would resist and others would not. He left instructions to his people for dealing with each case:

The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: If you come to a township (which has surrendered without a formal war) and stay therein, you have a share (that will be in the form of an award) in (the properties obtained from) it. If a township disobeys Allah and His Messenger (and actually fights against the Muslims) one-fifth of the booty seized therefrom is for Allah and His Apostle and the rest is for you. (Sahih Muslim 4346)

As can be seen, those who were not at war with the Muslims are to be subjugated anyway, and their property seized. The only distinguishing factor is the extent of Muslim entitlement following the victory.

Military campaigns to extend Islamic domination include the raid on Tabuk, which was a second incursion into the Christian territory of Syria, in which Muhammad forced the local populace to pay him tribute after ambushing and killing local civilians to assert his authority (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 903). Another example would be the “convert or die” mandate given to an Arab tribe, the Banu al-Harith:

Then the apostle sent Khalid bin Walid… to the Banu al-Harith and ordered him to invite them to Islam three days before he attacked them. If they accepted then he was to accept it from them, and if they declined he was to fight them. So Khalid set out and came to them, and sent out riders in all directions inviting the people to Islam, saying, “If you accept Islam you will be safe.” So the men accepted Islam as they were invited. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 959)

Obviously self-defense was not a factor in any of these cases (even though some Muslims are prone to embellish the record with imaginary details not found therein). As with the capture of Mecca in 630, these early Muslims had clear military superiority and the target of their aggression was in no position to defend itself.

In fact, the first part of the 9th Sura, the most bellicose chapter of the Qur’an, was revealed shortly after the Muslims had established military dominance in Mecca. Consider one of the more violent verses:

But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them (9:5)

The words, “when the forbidden months are past,” precludes the possibility that this was a matter of self-defense. The Muslims had already been given the divine right to fight during the sacred months, and it is simply implausible that they would have suffered attacks over a four month period without defending themselves. That they were not under attack is consistent with the historical context, in which the Haj period was a traditional time of peace and tolerance throughout Arabia.

Although not under attack from the pagans, Muhammad ordered his men to chase and kill the unbelievers following the Haj. The pagans who agreed to become Muslim (ie. practice the pillars of Islam, zakat and salat) would be allowed to live following their conversion. Verse 9:29 offers a separate rule for Jews and Christians, allowing them to keep their religion as long as they pay protection money to Muslims and acknowledge the inferiority of their faith. Should they resist, then they should be killed.

One of the best documented examples of Muslim aggression during the lifetime of Muhammad is the attack on the peaceful community of Khaybar. This followed the treaty of Hudaibiya between the Muslims and Meccans, which called for a period of peace between the two groups. The treaty was controversial with Muslims, not only because it contradicted Allah’s prior mandate to “drive out” the Meccans with violent force (2:191), but also because Muhammad agreed not to be recognized as a prophet in the document (Muslim 4401).

Muhammad decided that it was prudent to attack the Jews at Khaybar in order to regain the respect of his people and placate their grumbling with military victory and (especially) the stolen wealth that followed. This is embarrassing to modern-day Muslim apologists, who try to justify the siege by imagining that the sleepy farming community, located about 100 miles outside of Medina, posed some sort of necessary threat.

Unfortunately for contemporary apologists, not only is there no supporting evidence that the Muslims were under attack by the Khaybar, there are at least three historical references that flatly contradict any notion of self-defense on the part of Muhammad. The first is a description of the initial attack by Ibn Ishaq/Hisham:

We met the workers of Khaybar coming out in the morning with their spades and baskets. When they saw the apostle and the army they cried, “Muhammad with his force,” and turned tail and fled… The apostle seized the property piece by piece… (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 757)

The people of Khaybar were not attacking Muhammad. They were farming their land with shovels and buckets, not even knowing that they were supposed to be at war. This is further confirmed in the same text:

When the apostle raided a people he waited until the morning. If he heard a call to prayer he held back; if he did not hear it he attacked. We came to Khaybar by night, and the apostle passed the night there; and when morning came he did not hear the call to prayer, so he rode and we rode with him. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 757)

Muhammad attacked only after waiting to see if the people of Khaybar issued a morning call to prayer. This would have no possible relevance had they already been at war with him.

Perhaps the best proof that Muhammad was not acting in self-defense is the fact that his own people did not understand why they were marching to war. His son-in-law, who was in charge of the military expedition, had to ask for justification:

Allah's Messenger called Ali [and said]: “Proceed on and do not look about until Allah grants you victory,” and Ali went a bit and then halted and did not look about and then said in a loud voice: “Allah's Messenger, on what issue should I fight with the people?” Thereupon he (the Prophet) said: ”Fight with them until they bear testimony to the fact that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger…” (Sahih Muslim 5917)

The question Ali posed would have been unnecessary had the Muslims been under attack by the Khaybar or if the answer to the question were obvious. As it is, Muhammad’s reply underscores the ostensible purpose of the campaign, which was to force the Jews into acknowledging the superiority of Islam.

Muhammad’s men easily captured Khaybar and divided up the loot. The prophet of Islam tortured the community’s treasurer to extract information, then had him killed (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 764). Muhammad then took the man’s widow, Saffiya, as his wife after trading two other captured women to one of his lieutenants (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 758). The surviving Jews were allowed to stay on their land provided that they gave their Muslim masters an ample share of their crops.

Therefore, the rule of aggression in Islam, from the example set by Muhammad, is that it is proportional to the power held by Muslims, and not the persecution that they are under. The rare verses of peace in the Qur'an were "revealed" in Mecca, when true oppression existed (in some cases). The verses of violence that are revealed later correspond to Muslim military might even as any persecution of Muslims had largely dried up.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Muhammad/myths-mu-self-defense.htm

[jimnyc]

LTG, posted at the same time as me!!! But I have like 9 other bookmarks lined up this far, all history in nature... I want her to bury herself some more and stick to her guns that Muhammad wasn't in wars and only some sort of spiritual leader!! LOL

Hey gabs, how about asking your neighbor about a different kind of war - as in violence - as in why Muhammad thought it ok to hit his wife, and why it's also in the Hadith's an such to allow for that? Please stick a recorder in your hidden pocket so that we can hear the BS you get told.

[LongTermGuy]

LTG, posted at the same time as me!!! But I have like 9 other bookmarks lined up this far, all history in nature... I want her to bury herself some more and stick to her guns that Muhammad wasn't in wars and only some sort of spiritual leader!! LOL

Hey gabs, how about asking your neighbor about a different kind of war - as in violence - as in why Muhammad thought it ok to hit his wife, and why it's also in the Hadith's an such to allow for that? Please stick a recorder in your hidden pocket so that we can hear the BS you get told.

Man...That is weird...:laugh:

[jimnyc]

Man...That is weird...:laugh:

All stuff ONLY about them smoking some peyote and sharing peaceful stories, and how Muhammad kept them away fro war, as he was only a spiritual leader!

Muhammad: The Warrior Prophet (http://www.historynet.com/muhammad-the-warrior-prophet.htm)
http://www.historynet.com/muhammad-the-warrior-prophet.htm

[jimnyc]

Muhammad died from poisoning. The weird part? It happened right after he attacked a jewish settlement. (yes, I know, not much has changed). Perhaps if he really was in fact only a spiritual leader he wouldn't have been poisoned.

[jimnyc]

This warlor.... aka nice spiritual leader, also thought it was cool to beat up on women. Such a spiritual kinda guy!!!

---

Question:

Does Islam permit a man to hit his wife?


Summary Answer:

Yes, but only if she doesn't do as he asks. The beating must cease if the woman complies with her husband's demands. Beating is also intended to be the last resort of coercing submission, behind verbal abuse and abandonment.

According her testimony in the Hadith, Muhammad, physically struck his favorite wife for leaving the house without his permission. It is not known how he treated his less-favored wives.


The Qur'an:

Qur'an (4:34) - "Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great." Contemporary translations sometimes water down this word, but it is the same one used in verse 8:12 and clearly means 'to strike'.

Qur'an (38:44) - "And take in your hand a green branch and beat her with it, and do not break your oath..." Allah telling Job to beat his wife (Tafsir).

From the Hadith:



Bukhari (72:715) - A woman came to Muhammad and begged her to stop her husband from beating her. Her skin was bruised so badly that she it is described as being "greener" than the green veil she was wearing. Muhammad did not admonish her husband, but instead ordered her to return to him and submit to his sexual desires.



Bukhari (72:715) - "Aisha said, 'I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women'" This is Muhammad's own wife complaining of the abuse that the women of her religions suffer relative to other women.



Muslim (4:2127) - Muhammad struck his favorite wife, Aisha, in the chest one evening when she left the house without his permission. Aisha narrates, "He struck me on the chest which caused me pain."



Muslim (9:3506) - Muhammad's father-in-laws (Abu Bakr and Umar) amused him by slapping his wives (Aisha and Hafsa) for annoying him. According to the Hadith, the prophet of Islam laughed upon hearing this.



Abu Dawud (2141) - "Iyas bin ‘Abd Allah bin Abi Dhubab reported the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) as saying: Do not beat Allah’s handmaidens, but when ‘Umar came to the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) and said: Women have become emboldened towards their husbands, he (the Prophet) gave permission to beat them." At first, Muhammad forbade men from beating their wives, but he rescinded this once it was reported that women were becoming emboldened toward their husbands. Beatings are sometimes necessary to keep women in their place.



Abu Dawud (2142) - "The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife."



Abu Dawud (2126) - "A man from the Ansar called Basrah said: 'I married a virgin woman in her veil. When I entered upon her, I found her pregnant. (I mentioned this to the Prophet).' The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: 'She will get the dower, for you made her vagina lawful for you. The child will be your slave. When she has begotten (a child), flog her'" A Muslim man thinks his is getting a virgin, then finds out she is pregnant. Muhammad tells him to treat the woman as a sex slave and then flog her after she has delivered the child.



Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 969 - Requires that a married woman be "put in a separate room and beaten lightly" if she "act in a sexual manner toward others." According to the Hadith, this can be for an offense as petty as merely being alone with a man to whom she is not related.



Kash-shaf (the revealer) of al-Zamkhshari (Vol. 1, p. 525) - [Muhammad said] "Hang up your scourge where your wife can see it"

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/003-wife-beating.htm

[jimnyc]

Someone please help, I'm being eaten alive by crickets in here!!

[Christie Brinkley]

The wikopedia article lists a large list of battles. It does not state that Muhammad participated or otherwise was involved in them.

From the wikopedia page:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b4/Ambox_important.svg/40px-Ambox_important.svg.png

<tbody>
[hide (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_expeditions_of_Muhammad#)]This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_expeditions_of_Muhammad&action=edit) or discuss these issues on the talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_expeditions_of_Muhammad).



‹ The template (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Template) below (Primary sources (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Primary_sources)) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_November_5#Template:Primary_sources) to help reach a consensus.›

<tbody>
This article relies too much on references (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability) to primary sources (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondar y_and_tertiary_sources). <small>(April 2015)</small>

</tbody>

<tbody>
This article needs additional citations for verification (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability). <small>(April 2015)</small>

</tbody>

<tbody>
Some or all of this article's listed sources (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources) may not be reliable (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources). <small>(April 2015)</small>

</tbody>


</tbody>

Can one not read?

<dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22.4px;"><dt style="font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Key/Legend</dt></dl> Sariyyah (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sariyyah&action=edit&redlink=1) (expeditions which he ordered but did not take part (73)) Ghazwah (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghazwah) (expeditions which he ordered and took part (27))


Stop defending a war criminal.

[Black Diamond]

Someone please help, I'm being eaten alive by crickets in here!!

Sounds like a good sentence for someone I know.

[glockmail]

Does Gab's neighbor wear a burka?

[PixieStix]

I thought we were talking about religion?

For some people, Obama is a religion, erg.... I mean cult. :D

[Christie Brinkley]

Does Gab's neighbor wear a burka?
Of course not:laugh: Anyway Gab should go to Saudi Arabia and get married to those nice muslim men;) Sure she would be happy to be banned from driving!

[LongTermGuy]

Of course not:laugh: Anyway Gab should go to Saudi Arabia and get married to those nice muslim men;) Sure she would be happy to be banned from driving!


http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/73/734830835b02cb1492f70060ffe3295df7377a95779370b4b6 cc8164778d135a.jpg
http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/images/print-edition/20140517_MAD001_0.jpg