Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Off in my history? I already specifically mentioned the slaughter of the Banu Qurayza prior to rosie even posting and called it a crime against humanity. Try again.
considering that which muhummad had to work with----himself and his band of merry men-----it was a MASSIVE GENOCIDE-------he did not have a NUKE
lol a massive genocide? You mean one which was arbitrated by a third party and carried out in accordance to the ruling which was conducted under Judaic law and not Islamic law? If that's the best that you can do then that's pretty weak supporting evidence on your part.
yeah right-----it was the PHARISEE approach------study a bit more
It was arbitrated based on the Torah. I have studied far more than you.
wrong---Muhummad insisted on his OWN version of torah. Study more ----he rejected rabbinic law and actually MOCKED IT as-------WUSSY. Recently the Iranians using muhummad's concept of TORAH-----popped an eyeball out of a
human--------jewish jurisprudence rejected mutilation more than 1000 years before the rapist pig was born
your point? the mongols used the principles set forth by MUHUMMAD as the paragon of "virtue" Muhummad did not have the means to murder millions----
he did the best he could and set the STANDARDS----the ethos that led to the genocides of hundreds of millions
1.) the Mongols slaughtered Muslims by the thousands.
2.) Muhammad broke every pre-Islamic tradition in Arabia by specifically not allowing his men to put the Quraysh and Mecca to the sword. So your assertion that the only thing preventing him from greater violence was simply that he wasn't in a position to carry it out isn't historically accurate.
Didn't you leave something out? Like how Muhammad did not keep his end of the agreement? The peace treaties? Does that ring a bell for you?
The second most authoritative hadith collection, The Sahih of Muslim, has a chapter entitled, The permissibility of killing women and children in the night raids, provided its' not deliberate.
In another collection the Sunan Abu Dawud has a chapter entitled, Excellence of killing an infidel, with Mohammad stating that the infidel and one who kills him will never be brought together in hell.
In yet another chapter of the same collection there is one entitled "Punishment of a man who abuses the Prophet - the author recounts the story of a Muslim who killed his slave and concubine who had two children by him, because she "disparaged" the Prophet.
Muhammad upon hearing it said Oh, be witness, no retaliation payable for her blood. A Jewess was accused of abusing Mohammad and she was strangled to death - once again Mohammad declared that no recompense was payable for her blood.
So spare me your excuses,Osimir, because Mohammad had his followers slaughtering men, women and children night and day with exemptions for the night raids as I just quoted to you.
Then support your assertions with historical evidence. The simple fct is, knowing the history of Muhammad, you can't support the original statement that Muhammad carried out violence on par with the Mongols during his expansion in the Arabian empire, and can't support the claim that he routinely slaughtered thousands. That's simply not how combat on the Arabian peninsula occurred at that time.
he did not have the means or CIRCUMSTANCES to slaughter thousands at a time-----nor did the SIOUX Indians of the central planes. Muhummad was small potatoes compared to GENGHIS KHAN
He certainly had the means to kill far more than he did (just look at the Quraysh) but he didn't. So the realities of history don't really support your hypothesis.
1.) the Mongols slaughtered Muslims by the thousands.
2.) Muhammad broke every pre-Islamic tradition in Arabia by specifically not allowing his men to put the Quraysh and Mecca to the sword. So your assertion that the only thing preventing him from greater violence was simply that he wasn't in a position to carry it out isn't historically accurate.
Didn't you leave something out? Like how Muhammad did not keep his end of the agreement? The peace treaties? Does that ring a bell for you?
The second most authoritative hadith collection, The Sahih of Muslim, has a chapter entitled, The permissibility of killing women and children in the night raids, provided its' not deliberate.
In another collection the Sunan Abu Dawud has a chapter entitled, Excellence of killing an infidel, with Mohammad stating that the infidel and one who kills him will never be brought together in hell.
In yet another chapter of the same collection there is one entitled "Punishment of a man who abuses the Prophet - the author recounts the story of a Muslim who killed his slave and concubine who had two children by him, because she "disparaged" the Prophet.
Muhammad upon hearing it said Oh, be witness, no retaliation payable for her blood. A Jewess was accused of abusing Mohammad and she was strangled to death - once again Mohammad declared that no recompense was payable for her blood.
So spare me your excuses,Osimir, because Mohammad had his followers slaughtering men, women and children night and day with exemptions for the night raids as I just quoted to you.
Then support your assertions with historical evidence. The simple fct is, knowing the history of Muhammad, you can't support the original statement that Muhammad carried out violence on par with the Mongols during his expansion in the Arabian empire, and can't support the claim that he routinely slaughtered thousands. That's simply not how combat on the Arabian peninsula occurred at that time.
he did not have the means or CIRCUMSTANCES to slaughter thousands at a time-----nor did the SIOUX Indians of the central planes. Muhummad was small potatoes compared to GENGHIS KHAN
He certainly had the means to kill far more than he did (just look at the Quraysh) but he didn't. So the realities of history don't really support your hypothesis.
wrong-----I did not suggest that he KILLED AS MUCH AS HE COULD----I specifically said he was an EMPIRE BUILDER and did that which he judged
would ADD TO HIS POWER and his ultimate goal of a 100% ISLAMIC Arabia
(and beyond) -----the rest being enslaved to ISLAMIC RULE. Early on he was willing to tolerate non muslim tributaries -------but later recanted for Arabia. Those who followed adhered to the same idea in conquered lands-----
considering that which muhummad had to work with----himself and his band of merry men-----it was a MASSIVE GENOCIDE-------he did not have a NUKE
lol a massive genocide? You mean one which was arbitrated by a third party and carried out in accordance to the ruling which was conducted under Judaic law and not Islamic law? If that's the best that you can do then that's pretty weak supporting evidence on your part.
yeah right-----it was the PHARISEE approach------study a bit more
It was arbitrated based on the Torah. I have studied far more than you.
wrong---Muhummad insisted on his OWN version of torah. Study more ----he rejected rabbinic law and actually MOCKED IT as-------WUSSY. Recently the Iranians using muhummad's concept of TORAH-----popped an eyeball out of a
human--------jewish jurisprudence rejected mutilation more than 1000 years before the rapist pig was born
Muhammad wasn't the one handing down the sentence. The arbitrator was and he based it on the book of Deuteronomy and it was agreed to by the Banu Qurayza. so once again, the judgement was passed based on Jewish law stemming from the Torah. And once again, if that is the best you can do (and it is) then that is pretty weak.
Osimir is off in his history, Rosie. Muhammad had 900 Jews beheaded in a single day for refusing to receive him as a true prophet. Many more were killed, raped, looted, enslaved during his lifetime in the name of Islam.
Off in my history? I already specifically mentioned the slaughter of the Banu Qurayza prior to rosie even posting and called it a crime against humanity. Try again.
considering that which muhummad had to work with----himself and his band of merry men-----it was a MASSIVE GENOCIDE-------he did not have a NUKE
lol a massive genocide? You mean one which was arbitrated by a third party and carried out in accordance to the ruling which was conducted under Judaic law and not Islamic law? If that's the best that you can do then that's pretty weak supporting evidence on your part.
yeah right-----it was the PHARISEE approach------study a bit more
It was arbitrated based on the Torah. I have studied far more than you.
Didn't you leave something out? Like how Muhammad did not keep his end of the agreement? The peace treaties? Does that ring a bell for you?
The second most authoritative hadith collection, The Sahih of Muslim, has a chapter entitled, The permissibility of killing women and children in the night raids, provided its' not deliberate.
In another collection the Sunan Abu Dawud has a chapter entitled, Excellence of killing an infidel, with Mohammad stating that the infidel and one who kills him will never be brought together in hell.
In yet another chapter of the same collection there is one entitled "Punishment of a man who abuses the Prophet - the author recounts the story of a Muslim who killed his slave and concubine who had two children by him, because she "disparaged" the Prophet.
Muhammad upon hearing it said Oh, be witness, no retaliation payable for her blood. A Jewess was accused of abusing Mohammad and she was strangled to death - once again Mohammad declared that no recompense was payable for her blood.
So spare me your excuses,Osimir, because Mohammad had his followers slaughtering men, women and children night and day with exemptions for the night raids as I just quoted to you.
Then support your assertions with historical evidence. The simple fct is, knowing the history of Muhammad, you can't support the original statement that Muhammad carried out violence on par with the Mongols during his expansion in the Arabian empire, and can't support the claim that he routinely slaughtered thousands. That's simply not how combat on the Arabian peninsula occurred at that time.
he did not have the means or CIRCUMSTANCES to slaughter thousands at a time-----nor did the SIOUX Indians of the central planes. Muhummad was small potatoes compared to GENGHIS KHAN
He certainly had the means to kill far more than he did (just look at the Quraysh) but he didn't. So the realities of history don't really support your hypothesis.
wrong-----I did not suggest that he KILLED AS MUCH AS HE COULD----I specifically said he was an EMPIRE BUILDER and did that which he judged
would ADD TO HIS POWER and his ultimate goal of a 100% ISLAMIC Arabia
(and beyond) -----the rest being enslaved to ISLAMIC RULE. Early on he was willing to tolerate non muslim tributaries -------but later recanted for Arabia. Those who followed adhered to the same idea in conquered lands-----
Slaughtering the Quraysh wouldn't have impeded his ability to rule Arabia. The simple historical fact is that Muhammad showed mercy when he didn't need to and did so despite the traditional standards of the Arabian peninsula at the time.
1) Why do you believe in a god that cannot what his creations can?
You say He cannot rest. Why not? He can do whatever He wants. And if He wants a day off He is more than entitled to it.
If He wants to have a Son, why can't He?
your point? the mongols used the principles set forth by MUHUMMAD as the paragon of "virtue" Muhummad did not have the means to murder millions----
he did the best he could and set the STANDARDS----the ethos that led to the genocides of hundreds of millions
1.) the Mongols slaughtered Muslims by the thousands.
2.) Muhammad broke every pre-Islamic tradition in Arabia by specifically not allowing his men to put the Quraysh and Mecca to the sword. So your assertion that the only thing preventing him from greater violence was simply that he wasn't in a position to carry it out isn't historically accurate.
he acted according to his AGENDA which was empire----his EMPIRE being all of
Arabia------not piles of dead people. He specifically states (according to the Koran) that ALL OF THE PEOPLE OF ARABIA must be subjected to HIS religion. Pre Islamic Arabia was more into "attack and raid" than Empire----
Pre Islamic Arabia was more like a Viking society than an empire---to some extent similar to some native American societies
1.) Show where in the Quran it says that everyone in the Arabian peninsula must be Islamic
2.) Muhammad held close alliances with non-Muslim groups on the peninsula right up to his death.
There are 109 murder verses in the Qur'an. Take your pick. Have you read the Qu'ran or haven't you? Surah 9:5 ....fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every strategem of war...
So in other words you can't point to one that states that all of Arabia has to be Muslim.
Osimir is off in his history, Rosie. Muhammad had 900 Jews beheaded in a single day for refusing to receive him as a true prophet. Many more were killed, raped, looted, enslaved during his lifetime in the name of Islam.
Off in my history? I already specifically mentioned the slaughter of the Banu Qurayza prior to rosie even posting and called it a crime against humanity. Try again.
considering that which muhummad had to work with----himself and his band of merry men-----it was a MASSIVE GENOCIDE-------he did not have a NUKE
lol a massive genocide? You mean one which was arbitrated by a third party and carried out in accordance to the ruling which was conducted under Judaic law and not Islamic law? If that's the best that you can do then that's pretty weak supporting evidence on your part.
yeah right-----it was the PHARISEE approach------study a bit more
It was arbitrated based on the Torah. I have studied far more than you.
Off in my history? I already specifically mentioned the slaughter of the Banu Qurayza prior to rosie even posting and called it a crime against humanity. Try again.
considering that which muhummad had to work with----himself and his band of merry men-----it was a MASSIVE GENOCIDE-------he did not have a NUKE
lol a massive genocide? You mean one which was arbitrated by a third party and carried out in accordance to the ruling which was conducted under Judaic law and not Islamic law? If that's the best that you can do then that's pretty weak supporting evidence on your part.
yeah right-----it was the PHARISEE approach------study a bit more
It was arbitrated based on the Torah. I have studied far more than you.
Oy vey. Rosie? Let's find another thread!
That is not a scripture.Let me ask it this way: how can you consider your faith strong when you aren't willing to learn about other faiths because you're afraid?
Perfect faith casts out fear
The bible states this scripture:
There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.
______________
This is why people in the occult and false religions live in fear and torment.
1.) Show where in the Quran it says that everyone in the Arabian peninsula must be Islamic
they don't have the same evidence for moses as they do for muhammad?
1.) Show where in the Quran it says that everyone in the Arabian peninsula must be Islamic
2.) Muhammad held close alliances with non-Muslim groups on the peninsula right up to his death.
Then support your assertions with historical evidence. The simple fct is, knowing the history of Muhammad, you can't support the original statement that Muhammad carried out violence on par with the Mongols during his expansion in the Arabian empire, and can't support the claim that he routinely slaughtered thousands. That's simply not how combat on the Arabian peninsula occurred at that time.
1.) Show where in the Quran it says that everyone in the Arabian peninsula must be Islamic
I remember reading a verse which said something of the kind, but I cannot find it.
Then support your assertions with historical evidence. The simple fct is, knowing the history of Muhammad, you can't support the original statement that Muhammad carried out violence on par with the Mongols during his expansion in the Arabian empire, and can't support the claim that he routinely slaughtered thousands. That's simply not how combat on the Arabian peninsula occurred at that time.
Using historical evidence, you cannot DENY that Muhammad was a brutal warlord who murdered, raped, and pillaged across the Arabian peninsula. It is simply fact that the Muslim hoards ravaged the lands under the megalomaniac in his lust for power and wealth.
